Research Article

Energy Exploration & Exploitation

2020, Vol. 38(4) 841–866
Evaluation method for ! The Author(s) 2020
DOI: 10.1177/0144598720903394
resource potential of shale journals.sagepub.com/home/eea

oil in the Triassic Yanchang

Formation of the Ordos
Basin, China

Qiulin Guo, Xiaoming Chen ,

Xiaoxue Liuzhuang, Zhi Yang, Man Zheng,
Ningsheng Chen and Jingkui Mi

Abstract
The widely distributed, thick Chang 7 Shale is the richest shale oil formation in China. A calcu-
lation method for the evaporative hydrocarbon recovery coefficient based on formation volume
factor is proposed considering the correction of heterogeneity-based total organic carbon
differences to improve the adsorbed oil calculation method, and light hydrocarbon evaporative
sampling losses, which can make mobile and total oil calculations more accurate. The adsorbed
oil, S1 evaporative loss, total oil yield, and movable oil yield of 200 shale samples from the
Chang 7 Member were calculated using the new methods. Results show that S1 evaporative
loss accounts for 29% of S1, total oil yield is 3.5 times S1, and movable oil yield accounts for 37%
of total oil yield. Based on the calculated total oil yield and movable oil yield results, the relation-
ships among total oil yield, movable oil yield, and total organic carbon of the Chang 7 were
established yielding total oil yield and movable oil yield estimates of 11.12
109 t and 4.01
109 t,
respectively, revealing its tremendous shale exploration potential.

Keywords
Shale oil, total oil yield, movable oil yield, resource potential, Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin

1
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina, Beijing, China
Corresponding author:
Xiaoming Chen, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina, 20th Xueyuan Road, Beijing,
100083, China.
Email: chximi@petrochina.com.cn

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and
distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and
Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
842 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

Introduction
In the past decade, as the exploration and development of conventional oil and gas has
become increasingly difficult, the focus of oil and gas exploration has gradually turned to
shale oil. Shale oil exploration has made major progress in the Permian Basin, Williston
Basin, Western Gulf, Appalachian Basin, and Western Canada Sedimentary Basin in North
America (Abouelresh and Slatt, 2012; Attar and Pranter, 2016; Bernard and Horsfield, 2014;
Browning et al., 2013; Chen and Jiang, 2016; EIA, 2015, 2016, 2017; Hackley and Cardott,
2016; Han et al., 2019; Kuske et al., 2019; Lewan and Pawlewicz, 2017; Marra, 2018).
Breakthroughs in shale oil have also been made in the Ordos Basin, Bohai Bay Basin,
Songliao Basin, and Junggar Basin in China (Liang et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019; Zhang
et al., 2018; Zou et al., 2019a). Shale oil, with great resource potential, will be the main
target for oil and gas exploration and development in the future. With wide distribution and
large thickness, the Chang 7 Shale in the Upper Triassic in the Ordos Basin has the most
abundant shale oil in China (Guo et al., 2019; Zou et al., 2019b).
Shale oil is self-generated and self-retained in fine-grained organic-rich source rocks,
where additional storage space for hydrocarbon is provided by pores and microfractures
created by conversion and shrinkage of kerogen associated with hydrocarbon generation
(Chen and Jiang, 2016; Chen et al., 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d; Li et al., 2018, 2019; Loucks
and Reed, 2014; Modica and Lapierre, 2012). In this paper, shale oil is liquid hydrocarbons,
mainly occurring in mature shale reservoirs with a large portion of the oil yield in sorption
sorped or partially soluble states.
The evaluation method of shale oil resource potential mainly adopts volumetric methods
and includes the volumetric method based on porosity (Chen and Jiang, 2016; Modica and
Lapierre, 2012) and based on pyrolytic S1 yield (Jiang et al., 2016a, 2016b; Li et al., 2019;
Michael et al., 2013).
Modica and Lapierre (2012) proposed the PhiK approach for calculating the organic
matter porosity of shale. In this approach, the kerogen pore system is considered as an oil-
wet pore system without water; thus, relative water saturation is not accounted for.
Modica’s method assumed “matrix” or “mineral” porosity that is dominated by bound
water and that may be largely irrelevant to hydrocarbon storage capacity. The oil in-
place (OIP) of the Mowry Shale was estimated by both PhiK and volumetric methods,
and the results show that the OIPs calculated with the two methods are close at low shale
maturity (Ro <0.75%), but when Ro is more than 0.75%, the OIP calculated by PhiK is
over twice that calculated by the S1 yield method (Ro >0.75%). Chen and Jiang (2016)
proposed a revised method for organic porosity estimation and suggested that a significant
amount of hydrocarbon might be stored in the organic nano-pores in the Duvernay
Formation in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin.
This paper mainly focuses on the volumetric method based on pyrolytic S1 yield. The
core problem of this method is how to effectively correct S1 yield, which includes the cal-
culation of evaporative loss of S1, the absorbed oil, and their impact on the total oil yield
(TOY) estimation as well as shale oil mobility evaluation. Many authors (Abrams et al.,
2017; Burnham et al., 2018; Chen et al., 2018; Jarvie, 2012, 2018; Jiang et al., 2016a, 2016b;
Li et al., 2019; Michael et al., 2013; Romero-Sarmiento, 2019) have discussed these
questions.
At present, the main method to study adsorbed oil and total oil content is pyrolysis based
on the “two sample procedure,” in which one whole rock sample and one post-solvent
Guo et al. 843

extracted sample are evaluated. This method assumes that the two samples are homoge-
neous, and the total organic carbon (TOC) content is the same. However, most rocks are
heterogeneous, and the two samples once divided are more or less different. The main
concern is the difference in TOC content, which has a direct effect on S1 and S2.
This paper proposes an evaluation method of the heterogeneity of the shale sample to
correct the TOC difference and improve the adsorbed oil calculation method, which can
make the calculation results of adsorbed oil and total oil more accurate. Meanwhile, the loss
of evaporative hydrocarbon and movable oil calculation methods are also discussed. These
methods are used to evaluate the resource potential of the Chang 7 Shale oil.

Geological setting
The Ordos Basin spans five provinces: Shaanxi, Gansu, Ningxia, Mongolia, and Shanxi in
China. The northern part of the basin is the Ordos Plateau at an elevation of 1200 m–
1500 m, and southern part is the Loess Plateau at an elevation of 800 m–1600 m. It forms
part of the North China Platform and is a cratonic basin, with stable settlement and depres-
sion migration, covering an area of 250
103 km2 (Figure 1).
The Triassic Yanchang Formation in the Ordos Basin is a set of continental clastic
sedimentary strata more than 1000 m thick and is thick in the south and thin in the
north. It is divided into 10 reservoir members, Chang 1 to Chang 10 from top to bottom,
with the tight oil and shale oil mainly occurring in the seventh member (Chang 7 for short).
Chang 7 is further subdivided into three sub-members: Chang 71, Chang 72, and Chang 73
from top to bottom (Figure 2).
Chang 7 covers an area of approximately 100
103 km2, with burial depth range from
600 m to 2900 m and thickness range from 70 to 130 m. It is a set of deep, semi-deep lacus-
trine, shallow lacustrine, and delta front deposits and is one of the most important shale oil
formations in China. Chang 71 and Chang 72 are the main tight oil plays and are composed
of thick fine sandstone, thin siltstone, and argillaceous siltstone. Continuous sand bodies
extend up to 150 km long and 25–80 km wide, and the area with sand-to-formation ratio
greater than 30% exceeds 8000 km2. The sandstone layers are 2–25 m thick each and 5–50 m
thick combined, with 4–14% in porosity and less than 1 mD air permeability (Guo et al.,
2017). Chang 73 is largely composed of thick black shale and dark gray mudstone and is
deemed the main target for shale oil exploration.

Estimation methods of in-place and movable resources of shale oil

An evaluation method of the heterogeneity of the shale sample to correct the TOC
difference
Commonly, samples are divided into two pieces: A and B, which are, respectively, used for
whole-rock pyrolysis before and after extraction. We use TOCA and TOCB to represent the
TOC content’s each sample. If these two pieces of TOC contents are inconsistent, they differ
by DTOC as follows

TOCA ¼ TOCB þ DTOC (1)

844 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

Figure 1. Schematic geologic map and favorable area distribution of the Chang 7 tight oil in the Ordos
Basin.

For Piece A (TOCA), part of S1 þ S2 after pyrolysis is from DTOC, and the remaining
quantity from TOCB is
ðS1 þ S2Þ
TOCB =TOCA (2)

For Piece B (TOCB), TOCB becomes TOCEX after extraction, and the pyrolysis result is
S1EX þ S2EX.
According to the principle of conservation of matter


TOCB ¼ TOCEX þ ðS1 þ S2Þ
TOCB =TOCA –ðS1EX þ S2EX Þ
100=d (3)

where TOCA, TOCB, and TOCEX are in %; S1, S2, S1EX, and S2EX are in milligram per
gram; 100 is used for TOC percentage conversion; and d is the carbon–hydrocarbon con-
version coefficient, taken as 1200.
When DTOC is small or TOCB/TOCA approaches 1 (such as 1.0  0.1)


TOCB  TOCEX þ ðS1 þ S2Þ–ðS1EX þ S2EX Þ
100=d (5)

TOCB  TOCEX þ 100 ðDS1 þ DS2Þ=d (6)

where DS1 ¼ S1 – S1EX and DS2 ¼ S2 – S2EX.

Guo et al. 845

Figure 2. Lithological columnar section of Chang 7 in the Ordos Basin.

We approximate the value of equivalent TOC correction coefficient (kap)

kap ¼ TOCA =TOCB (7)
 
kap  TOCA = TOCEX þ 100ðDS1 þ DS2Þ=d (8)

and assume that S2EX is proportional to TOC, then

DS2eq ¼ S2–S2EX
kap (9)

When DTOC is large

TOCB ¼ TOCEX þ ½ðS1 þ S2Þ
TOCB =TOCA  ðS1EX þ S2EX Þ
100=d (10)
846 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

TOCB ¼ TOCEX þ 100ðS1 þ S2Þ=d
TOCB =TOCA  100ðS1EX þ S2EX Þ=d (11)


TOCB 1–100ðS1 þ S2Þ=ðd
TOCA Þ ¼ TOCEX  100ðS1EX þ S2EX Þ=d (12)


TOCB ¼ ½TOCEX  100ðS1EX þ S2EX Þ=d= 1–100ðS1 þ S2Þ=ðd
TOCA Þ (13)

The exact value of the equivalent TOC correction coefficient (kex) is

kex ¼ TOCA =TOCB (14)

kex ¼ TOCA =f½TOCEX  100ðS1EX þ S2EX Þ=d= 1–100ðS1 þ S2Þ=ðd
TOCA Þg (15)


kex ¼ TOCA
½1–100ðS1 þ S2Þ=ðd
TOCA Þ= TOCEX  100ðS1EX þ S2EX Þ=d (16)

Assume that S2EX is proportional to TOC, then

DS2eq ¼ S2–S2EX
kex (17)

To verify the feasibility of the method, equivalent TOC calculations were performed on
the sample test data (Tables 1 and 2) of the Qianjiang Formation Shale in Jianghan Basin,
China (Chen et al., 2018) and the Shahejie Formation Shale in Bohai Bay Basin, China
(Li et al., 2019). The calculation results are shown in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 3 and 4.
For the Qianjiang Formation Shale, the maximum kex value is 1.48, the minimum kex
value is 0.65, and the average value is 1.07. DTOC has a maximum value (in absolute value)
of 0.72% and an average value of 0.16%, and DS2eq–DS2 has a maximum value (in absolute
value) of 3.56 mg/g and an average value of 0.85 mg/g.
For the Shahejie Formation Shale, the maximum kex value is 1.55, the minimum kex value
is 0.77, and the average value is 1.10. DTOC has a maximum value (in absolute value) of
0.74% and an average value of 0.34%, and DS2eq – DS2 has a maximum value (in absolute
value) of 4.68 mg/g and an average value of 0.84 mg/g.
The data above show that the equivalent TOC correction is quite necessary for these
samples.

An improved method for estimating TOY

TOY (milligram per gram rock) is the quantity of petroleum already present in the sample
prior to pyrolysis and can be detected by flame ionization detection during pyrolysis experi-
ments (Jarvie, 2012; Li et al., 2019). To obtain a reliable TOY from a rock sample
by programmed pyrolysis, Jarvie (2012) suggested two separate pyrolysis experiments
for the same sample: a whole rock (unextracted) and a post-solvent extracted sample rep-
licate. The TOY can then be estimated from the two pyrolysis results by the following
relationship

TOY ¼ ðS1  S1EX Þ þ ðS2  S2EX Þ (18)

Table 1. Rock–Eval pyrolysis results, DS1, DS2, DS2eq, kap, kex, and TOCB of the Qianjiang Formation Shale in Jianghan Basin, China (Rock–Eval data from
Chen et al., 2018).

Post-solvent extracted
Guo et al.

Sample Whole rock sample samples Uncorrected results Corrected results

|TOC A- |DS2eq-
Depth S1 S2 TOC A S1EX S2EX TOCEX S1-S1EX S2-S2EX DS2eq kap kex TOCB TOCB| DS2|
NO Well (m) (mg/g) (mg/g) (%) (mg/g) (mg/g) (%) (mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (dim.) (dim.) (%) (%) (mg/g)

1 Wangyun-11 1746.1 2.99 14.48 2.59 0.04 11.3 2.03 2.95 3.18 2.67 1.02 1.05 2.48 0.11 0.51
2 Wangyun-11 1747 4.6 25.6 4.48 0.06 22.62 3.8 4.54 2.98 2.35 1.01 1.03 4.43 0.05 0.63
3 Wangyun-11 1749.3 20.86 17.14 4.48 0.06 3.59 1.44 20.8 13.55 12.99 1.04 1.16 4.30 0.18 0.56
4 Wangyun-11 1714.3 3.05 2.1 0.94 0.01 0.69 0.65 3.04 1.41 1.50 0.92 0.86 1.02 0.08 0.09
5 Wangyun-11 1710.6 9.09 9.78 3.68 0.03 4.77 2.33 9.06 5.01 4.57 1.05 1.09 3.50 0.18 0.44
6 Wangyun-11 1707.3 10.97 7.61 2.98 0.01 1.95 1.25 10.96 5.66 5.04 1.13 1.32 2.64 0.35 0.62
7 Wangyun-11 1705.9 9.92 8.17 3.4 0.03 2.8 2.01 9.89 5.37 5.18 1.04 1.07 3.28 0.12 0.19
8 Wangyun-11 1704.7 2.02 1.47 0.62 0.01 0.44 0.26 2.01 1.03 0.82 1.21 1.48 0.51 0.11 0.21
9 Wangyun-11 1649.2 4.5 55.96 8.54 0.15 50.82 7.52 4.35 5.14 1.58 1.03 1.07 8.31 0.23 3.56
10 Wangyun-11 1646.5 17.09 16.7 4.63 0.04 3.99 1.93 17.05 12.71 12.16 1.05 1.14 4.41 0.22 0.55
11 Wangyun-11 1645.1 8.81 12.61 3.02 0.03 5.72 1.48 8.78 6.89 5.55 1.08 1.23 2.79 0.23 1.34
12 Wangyun-11 1633 4.65 31.39 5.33 0.1 26.13 4.48 4.55 5.26 4.89 1.01 1.01 5.30 0.03 0.37
13 Wangyun-11 1632.3 8.82 57.62 9.71 0.26 49.11 8.14 8.56 8.51 6.71 1.02 1.04 9.56 0.15 1.80
14 Wangyun-11 1309.3 5.57 46.03 6.03 0.28 36.94 4.92 5.29 9.09 10.88 0.99 0.95 6.12 0.09 1.79
15 Qianyeping-2 1451.6 0.73 3.8 0.98 0.04 2.98 0.9 0.69 0.82 1.03 0.96 0.93 1.03 0.05 0.21
16 Qianyeping-2 1463.5 3.67 33.15 5.58 0.21 27.54 4.75 3.46 5.61 4.77 1.01 1.03 5.51 0.07 0.84
17 Qianyeping-2 1467.8 3.49 17.57 4.35 0.11 13.3 3.57 3.38 4.27 3.50 1.03 1.06 4.21 0.14 0.77
18 Qianyeping-2 1471.1 1.53 10.98 2.72 0.1 8.17 2.19 1.43 2.81 1.85 1.07 1.12 2.54 0.18 0.96
19 Qianyeping-2 1476.5 3.01 31.11 5 0.15 24.76 4.21 2.86 6.35 6.09 1.00 1.01 4.98 0.02 0.26
20 Qianyeping-2 1481.9 0.8 6.5 1.47 0.07 4.61 1.2 0.73 1.89 1.60 1.04 1.06 1.42 0.05 0.29
21 Qianyeping-2 1485.7 1.68 7.58 2.11 0.12 4.86 1.72 1.56 2.72 2.60 1.02 1.03 2.08 0.03 0.12
22 Qianyeping-2 1492.2 3.76 24.63 3.89 0.17 21.87 3.29 3.59 2.76 1.69 1.02 1.05 3.82 0.07 1.07
23 Qianyeping-2 1500.3 1.82 23.9 4.34 0.15 21.73 3.99 1.67 2.17 1.87 1.01 1.01 4.31 0.03 0.30
24 Qianyeping-2 1507.1 0.35 2.37 0.9 0.03 1.65 0.88 0.32 0.72 0.87 0.93 0.91 0.97 0.07 0.15
25 Qianyeping-2 1513.2 3.25 12.56 3.45 0.07 4.08 1.94 3.18 8.48 7.10 1.18 1.34 2.91 0.54 1.38
(continued)
847
 848

Table 1. Continued.
Post-solvent extracted
Sample Whole rock sample samples Uncorrected results Corrected results

|TOC A- |DS2eq-
Depth S1 S2 TOC A S1EX S2EX TOCEX S1-S1EX S2-S2EX DS2eq kap kex TOCB TOCB| DS2|
NO Well (m) (mg/g) (mg/g) (%) (mg/g) (mg/g) (%) (mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (dim.) (dim.) (%) (%) (mg/g)

26 Qianyeping-2 1518.8 1.91 6.89 2.6 0.05 3.49 2.05 1.86 3.4 3.18 1.04 1.06 2.49 0.11 0.22
27 Qianyeping-2 1528.7 4.67 10.2 2.86 0.08 4.33 1.7 4.59 5.87 4.93 1.11 1.22 2.57 0.29 0.94
28 Qianyeping-2 1535.2 10.95 34.75 6.85 0.2 23.45 4.85 10.75 11.3 9.98 1.02 1.06 6.69 0.16 1.32
29 Qianyeping-2 1537.2 8.07 17.72 3.51 0.12 9.1 2.85 7.95 8.62 11.77 0.83 0.65 4.23 0.72 3.15
Average value 3.83 5.3 4.82 1.03 1.07 3.74 0.16 0.85
Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)
Table 2. Rock–Eval pyrolysis results, DS1, DS2, DS2eq, kap, kex, and TOCB of the Shahejie Formation Shale in Bohai Basin, China (Rock–Eval data from
Li et al., 2019).

Post-solvent extracted
Guo et al.

Sample Whole rock sample samples Uncorrected results Corrected results

|TOC A- |DS2eq-
Depth S1 S2 TOC A S1EX S2EX TOCEX S1-S1EX S2-S2EX DS2eq kap kex TOCB TOCB| DS2|
NO Well (m) (mg/g) (mg/g) (%) (mg/g) (mg/g) (%) (mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (dim.) (dim.) (%) (%) (mg/g)

1 LY1–18 3580.17 5.34 11.86 3.58 1.31 8.9 2.83 4.03 2.96 2.21 1.05 1.08 3.30 0.28 0.75
2 LY1–17 3587.18 4.47 7.54 2.43 1.49 6.15 1.87 2.98 1.39 0.41 1.09 1.16 2.10 0.33 0.98
3 LY1–16 3600.1 11.9 18.44 4.97 0.5 8.64 3.13 11.4 9.8 9.53 1.01 1.03 4.82 0.15 0.27
4 LY1–15 3613.38 9.23 12.88 3.63 1.84 7.78 2.53 7.39 5.1 4.83 1.02 1.03 3.51 0.12 0.27
5 LY1–14 3624.31 5.46 8.52 2.7 1.1 5.29 1.91 4.36 3.23 2.63 1.06 1.11 2.42 0.28 0.60
6 LY1–13 3635.56 6.05 12.6 3.93 0.29 6.52 2.54 5.76 6.08 4.75 1.11 1.20 3.26 0.67 1.33
7 LY1–12 3644.95 9.35 18.13 5.15 0.62 10.9 4.01 8.73 7.23 7.91 0.96 0.94 5.49 0.34 0.68
8 LY1–11-a 3659.12 13.76 24.96 6.93 1.6 15.09 4.96 12.16 9.87 9.30 1.02 1.04 6.68 0.25 0.57
9 LY1–10 3671.64 10.01 18.93 5.97 0.66 13.01 4.9 9.35 5.92 6.62 0.97 0.95 6.31 0.34 0.70
10 LY1–9 3690.2 2.64 4.85 1.73 1.15 3.47 1.43 1.49 1.38 1.18 1.04 1.06 1.63 0.10 0.20
11 LY1–8 3748.1 3.42 5.48 2.22 0.5 2.93 1.47 2.92 2.55 1.82 1.15 1.25 1.78 0.44 0.73
12 LY1–7 3757.16 3.02 4.8 1.94 0.38 2.14 1.44 2.64 2.66 2.56 1.03 1.05 1.85 0.09 0.10
13 LY1–5 3786.35 8.43 8.87 3.26 0.41 3.33 1.93 8.02 5.54 5.13 1.07 1.12 2.90 0.36 0.41
14 LY1–4 3797.74 7.29 7.99 3.25 3.41 6.58 2.9 3.88 1.41 1.70 0.97 0.96 3.40 0.15 0.29
15 LY1–3 3812.73 6.35 7.72 2.97 3.85 6.23 2.54 2.5 1.49 1.13 1.03 1.06 2.81 0.16 0.36
16 LY1–2 3817.87 11.52 14.87 5.58 0.71 5.89 3.77 10.81 8.98 8.69 1.03 1.05 5.31 0.27 0.29
17 LY1–1 3822.75 5.27 6.81 2.43 0.23 2.23 1.43 5.04 4.58 4.22 1.09 1.16 2.09 0.34 0.36
18 NY1–22 3307.06 1.98 13.87 2.6 0.69 13.31 2.57 1.29 0.56 1.74 0.95 0.91 2.85 0.25 1.18
19 NY1–21 3314.1 4.95 26.87 4.45 0.67 21.72 3.55 4.28 5.15 3.68 1.03 1.07 4.17 0.28 1.47
20 NY1–20 3351.47 2.58 9.69 2.14 0.29 8.11 1.9 2.29 1.58 2.14 0.96 0.93 2.30 0.16 0.56
21 NY1–19 3360.55 2.35 9.96 2.11 0.23 9.62 1.94 2.12 0.34 0.64 0.98 0.97 2.18 0.07 0.30
22 NY1–18 3374.19 6.04 26.98 4.64 0.48 23.73 4.37 5.56 3.25 7.93 0.91 0.80 5.78 1.14 4.68
23 NY1–17 3380.6 2.25 8.37 1.75 0.25 5.1 1.09 2 3.27 1.52 1.14 1.34 1.30 0.45 1.75
24 NY1–16 3398.85 7.48 31.52 4.94 0.39 21.52 3.57 7.09 10 10.67 0.99 0.97 5.10 0.16 0.67
25 NY1–15 3401.63 3.5 9.71 1.89 0.26 9.29 1.82 3.24 0.42 2.55 0.89 0.77 2.45 0.56 2.13
(continued)
849
 850

Table 2. Continued.
Post-solvent extracted
Sample Whole rock sample samples Uncorrected results Corrected results

|TOC A- |DS2eq-
Depth S1 S2 TOC A S1EX S2EX TOCEX S1-S1EX S2-S2EX DS2eq kap kex TOCB TOCB| DS2|
NO Well (m) (mg/g) (mg/g) (%) (mg/g) (mg/g) (%) (mg/g) (mg/g) (mg/g) (dim.) (dim.) (%) (%) (mg/g)

26 NY1–14 3404.99 3.47 9.24 1.85 0.75 6.04 1.33 2.72 3.2 2.99 1.01 1.03 1.79 0.06 0.21
27 NY1–11 3434.83 6.31 16.54 5.37 0.53 13.94 5.04 5.78 2.6 3.94 0.94 0.90 5.94 0.57 1.34
28 NY1–10 3439.13 8.31 11.06 2.38 0.37 4.4 0.92 7.94 6.66 4.61 1.11 1.47 1.62 0.76 2.05
29 NY1–9 3468.65 4.49 12.55 3.73 0.35 6.37 2.59 4.14 6.18 5.30 1.08 1.14 3.28 0.45 0.88
30 NY1–8 3471.24 0.2 0.27 0.25 0.01 0.05 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.20 1.36 1.45 0.17 0.08 0.02
31 NY1–6 3478.13 1.58 0.91 1.1 0.03 0.16 0.59 1.55 0.75 0.66 1.41 1.55 0.71 0.39 0.09
32 NY1–5 3483.03 4.19 3.94 2.1 0.22 0.97 1.02 3.97 2.97 2.44 1.31 1.54 1.36 0.74 0.53
Average value 3.25 3.98 3.93 1.06 1.1 3.15 0.34 0.84
Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)
Guo et al. 851

1.60
Approximate value
1.40 Exact value
kap & kex (dimensionless)
1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Sample Number

Figure 3. kap and kex curves of the Qianjiang Formation shale in Jianghan Basin, China.

1.60
Approximate value
1.40 Exact value
kap & kex (dimensionless)

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Sample Number

Figure 4. kap and kex curves of the Shahejie Formation shale in Bohai Basin, China: (a) the Eocene Qianjiang
Formation, Jianghan Basin, China (Rock-Eval data from Chen et al., 2018); (b) the Eocene–Oligocene
Shahejie Formation, Jiyang Depression, and Bohai Bay Basin (Rock–Eval data from Li et al., 2019).

where S1 and S2 (mg HC/g rock) are free hydrocarbons and remaining generation potential
in a whole rock sample, respectively, and S1EX and S2EX (mg HC/g rock) are free hydro-
carbons and remaining generation potential in the post-solvent-extracted sample,
respectively.
Abrams et al. (2017) added a term (S1LOSS) for the evaporative loss in equation (18) to
emphasize the importance of correcting the loss in resource evaluation

TOY ¼ ðS1  S1EX Þ þ ðS2  S2EX Þ þ S1LOSS (19)

Li et al. (2018) proposed a numerical method for calculating TOY using a single-routine
Rock–Eval program. There is also a method for calculating TOY using a single-routine
852 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

Rock–Eval program based on the production index (S1 þ S2) (Li et al., 2019). Li et al.
(2019) observed S1EX peaks from solvent-extracted samples of Well FY1 and attributed
the S1EX to physically isolated or unreached residue of heavy oil and bitumen in the solvent-
extracted samples. Thus, equation (19) has the following expression

TOY ¼ S1 þ S1EX þ ðS2  S2EX Þ þ S1LOSS (20)

Due to the strong shale heterogeneity, even if two samples are small, the divided shale
samples could have unequal TOC contents. Therefore, the two tests, before and after extrac-
tion, are actually tests on these two small samples. Considering the possibility of unequal
TOC contents, TOC equivalence correction is required to guarantee the comparability of
these two test results. In addition, since S1EX is smaller and unclear in source, it will not be
accounted for in this paper. Additionally, under the same conditions, S2 is proportional to
TOC, and the relation is almost linear. Therefore, equation (20) can be rewritten as

TOY ¼ S1 þ DS2eq þ S1LOSS
(21)
DS2eq ¼ S2  S2EX
keqTOC

where TOY is total oil yield in milligram per gram rock, S1 is pyrolytic S1 yield in milligram
per gram rock, S1LOSS is the evaporative loss of S1 in milligram per gram rock, DS2eq is
adsorbed oil in milligram per gram rock, S2 is the pyrolytic hydrocarbon measured prior to
solvent extraction in milligram per gram rock, S2EX is the pyrolytic hydrocarbon measured
after solvent extraction in milligram per gram rock, keqTOC is the kex or kap, TOC is total
organic carbon content before solvent extraction in %, TOCEX is total organic carbon
content after solvent extraction in %, and d is carbon-hydrocarbon conversion coefficient,
taken as 1200 in this paper.
Table 3 gives an example of calculating DS2eq of the Chang 7 Shale in the Ordos Basin,
which shows some differences between DS2 before correction and DS2eq after correction.
The average difference is 2.82 mg/g rock. Figure 5(a) and (b) shows the comparison between
DS2 and DS2eq in the Qianjiang Formation Shale and Shahejie Formation Shale, respec-
tively. The average difference between DS2 and DS2eq of 29 shale samples from the
Qianjiang Formation is 0.85 mg/g rock and that of 32 shale samples from the Shahejie
Formation is 0.84 mg/g rock. These results suggest that the equivalence correction of
TOC is necessary.
Because of the limitations of test cost, test period, and other factors, the majority of
samples are tested only prior to solvent extraction. Without tests after solvent extraction,
absorbed oil cannot be calculated by equation (21). To solve this problem, a fitting method is
proposed to calculate the absorbed oil, and the details are given as follows. Based on the data
in Table 3, the relationship between S1 and DS2eq (equation (22)) is obtained by plotting S1 as
a variable (x-axis) and DS2eq of absorbed oil as the dependent variable (Figure 6)

DS2eq ¼ a
S1 þ b (22)

where a and b are regression coefficients, 2.4685 and –0.4958, respectively, in this example.
S1 is the measured soluble hydrocarbon before solvent extraction in milligram per
gram rock.
Guo et al. 853

Table 3. Rock–Eval data before and after solvent extraction and DS2eq of Chang 7 Shale samples from the
Yanchang Formation in the Ordos Basin.

Extraction Post-solvent extracted Difference of DS2

Whole rock sample yields samples and DS2eq

Sample |DS2-
no. S1 S2 TOC AEX S1EX S2EX TOCEX DS2 DS2eq DS2eq|

1 1.56 1.58 0.85 3.78 0.02 0.59 0.62 0.99 0.39 0.60
2 1.75 8.07 5.89 3.43 0.08 2.41 2.06 5.66 5.45 0.21
3 2.02 12.77 8.73 3.44 0.13 9.61 7.03 3.16 8.53 5.37
4 3.62 6.91 3.56 8.94 0.07 3.16 3.12 3.75 3.25 0.50
5 2.70 7.43 4.82 6.02 0.08 4.17 4.23 3.26 4.60 1.34
6 2.26 7.36 5.77 4.74 0.11 6.60 6.36 0.76 5.63 4.87
7 2.28 8.45 5.86 4.79 0.09 4.80 4.20 3.65 5.62 1.97
8 2.20 7.72 5.33 4.68 0.07 3.96 3.48 3.76 5.07 1.31
9 3.23 38.61 10.9 6.90 0.21 33.08 10.22 5.53 10.51 4.98
10 1.17 2.32 1.44 2.00 0.03 0.91 1.27 1.41 1.20 0.21
11 0.81 1.76 1.42 1.34 0.02 0.80 1.31 0.96 1.25 0.29
12 6.77 64.81 14.17 7.56 0.08 54.81 13.54 10.00 13.50 3.50
13 5.48 44.66 15.30 5.55 0.06 37.46 14.84 7.20 14.94 7.74
14 8.14 80.50 21.72 9.28 0.12 69.00 20.95 11.50 21.23 9.73
15 1.07 8.44 3.86 2.02 0.03 6.95 3.69 1.49 3.61 2.12
16 1.22 5.31 1.92 3.39 0.04 3.38 1.64 1.93 1.52 0.41
Average 2.89 19.17 6.98 4.87 0.08 15.11 6.16 4.06 6.64 2.82
value
Note: DS2 ¼ S2 – S2EX.
Units: S1 ¼ S2 ¼ AEX ¼ S1EX ¼ S2EX ¼ DS2 ¼ DS2eq ¼ mg/g rock; TOC ¼ TOCEX ¼ %.

Method estimating movable oil yield

Li et al. (2019) defined the movable oil yield (MOY, mg/g rock) as the portion of free
hydrocarbon in S1 (after correcting for evaporative loss) that exceeded its sample TOC
value and provided examples of calculating movable oil porosity. Jarvie (2012) proposed
that S1/TOC > 100 mg/g is the criteria for shale oil “sweet spots.” Based on numerous other
comparative Rock–Eval data from LRS that exhibit similar behavior as observed, Michael
et al. (2013) proposed that almost all the S1 peaks in Rock–Eval pyrolysis can be considered
as mobile oil. Improved Rock–Eval pyrolysis results show that S1 released before 300 C and
movable hydrocarbons released before 200 C (Jiang et al., 2016; Li et al., 2020; Romero-
Sarmiento, 2019).
No clear standard has been decided for the evaluation of shale oil resource potential, and
“S1/TOC > 100 mg/g” may be the standard for industrial oil flow. The movable oil in this
paper refers to the maximum movable oil content. Limited by experimental means and
existing data, this paper adopts Michael’s point of view, taking S1 (after correcting for
evaporative loss) as the MOY

MOY ¼ S1 þ S1loss (23)

854 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

(a) 16
Uncorrecting
14
Correcting
12
S2-S2EX (mg/g rock)

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sample Number
(b) 12
Uncorrecting
10 Correcting
S2-S2EX (mg/g rock)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sample Number

Figure 5. Comparison of DS2 and DS2eq.

The S1loss is a well-known problem in data analysis. Jiang et al. (2016) recorded up to a
38% decline in the Rock–Eval S1 value from fresh samples analyzed immediately after
preparation. The oil lost during core recovery is mostly low-boiling-point hydrocarbons
in the diesel and gasoline range. The S1LOSS can be estimated by knowing the density of
the hydrocarbon fluid in-place, which can be estimated from the whole oil extract gas
chromatogram or estimated from relationships based on biomarker compounds (Michael
et al., 2013). A factor of an average medium crude oil of 15% is used for correcting the S1 of
all samples (Michael et al., 2013). The phase behavior and PVT analysis were introduced in
the calculation to make a full correction for evaporative loss (Li et al., 2020).
Since volatile light hydrocarbons in shale would be lost during coring and Rock–Eval sample
preparation, evaporative hydrocarbon compensation is required. A method for calculating the
evaporative hydrocarbon recovery coefficient based on material balance is proposed.
The original quantity of underground shale oil is calculated by

Qor ¼ Vsub
qsub (24)

Guo et al. 855

25
y = 2.4685x - 0.4958
R² = 0.8304
20

ΔS2eq (mg/g rock)

15

10

S1 (mg/g rock)

Figure 6. Relationship between adsorbed oil and soluble hydrocarbons in Chang 7 Shale of the Yanchang
Formation, Ordos Basin.

Table 4. Main properties of the Chang 7 Shale oil.

Formation oil Surface oil

Gas-oil Viscosity Initial Freezing

qsub Viscosity ratio qpd (50 C) boiling point
(g/cm3) (mPa s) (m3/t) Bo (g/cm3) (mPa s) point( C) ( C)

0.748 1.48 68.83 1.222 0.839 6.64 74.99 23.17

The current quantity of surface shale oil is calculated by

Qpd ¼ Vpd
qpd (25)

The evaporative hydrocarbon recovery coefficient, the ratio of loss quantity to current
quantity, is calculated by

Qor  Qpd Vsub qsub q

kS1 ¼ ¼
 1 ¼ Bo
sub  1 (26)
Qpd Vpd qpd qpd

where kS1 is the dimensionless evaporative hydrocarbon recovery coefficient, Qor is the
original quantity of underground shale oil in tonnes, Qpd is the quantity of surface shale
oil in tonnes, Vsub is volume of underground shale oil in cubic meter, Vpd is the volume of
surface shale oil in cubic meter, Bo is the dimensionless crude oil volume factor, qsub is the
density of formation oil in tonnes per cubic meter, and qpd is the density of surface oil in
tonnes per cubic meter.
The density and volume coefficient of crude oil from the Chang 7 Shale are shown in
Table 4. According to equation (26), the evaporative hydrocarbon recovery coefficient is 0.09.
856 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

Table 5. Geologic features of the Chang 7 Shale.

Distributed horizons Chang 73 in dominance
Area (
104 km2) >3.28
Thickness (m) 0–35.9, 18.5 on average
TOC (%) 6–19, 13.8 on average
Kerogen type I, IIa
Pyrolytic S1 (mg/g) 0.5–16, 2.4 on average
Pyrolytic S2 (mg/g) 0.5–222.8, 37.1 on average
Hydrogen index, HI (mg/g) 37.9–814.3, 336.8 on average
Content of chloroform asphalt “A” (%) 0.406–1.505, 0.781 on average
Buried depth (m) 600–2900
Ro (%) 0.5–1.3
Porosity (%) Helium porosity: 0.87–2.85, 1.35 on average
NMR porosity: 1.25
TRA porosity: 4.11
Pore radius (nm) 20–160, 88 on average
Throat radius (nm) 20–170, 60 on average
Oil saturation (%) 66–82, 78 on average
Movable fluid saturation (%) 20–40
Daily oil production (t/d) 4.5–21.6 (Well Mu 78, Mu 81, Luo 190)
Crude oil density (g/cm3) 0.8–0.86, 0.84 on average
Brittle mineral content (%) 40–87, 71 on average

According to equation (26), the formula for calculating evaporative hydrocarbon loss is
as given below
 
q
S1LOSS ¼ ðS1 þ DS2eq Þ
Bo
sub  1 (27)
qpd

The formula for calculating movable oil is as given below

 
q
MOY ¼ S1 þ S1LOSS ¼ S1 þ ðS1 þ DS2eq Þ
Bo
sub  1 (28)
qpd

where MOY is movable oil yield in milligram per gram rock.

Method of shale oil resource evaluation based on TOY and MOY

Considering the heterogeneity of shale, it is necessary to subdivide the evaluation area into
several small evaluation units and evaluate them separately. The formulas for calculating
in-place and movable shale oil are as given below
8
>
> X
n
>
> QTOY ¼ 105
ðAi
hi
qrock
TOYi Þ
<
i¼1
X (29)
>
>
n
>
> Q MOY ¼ 105

ðAi
hi
qrock
MOYi Þ
:
i¼1
Guo et al. 857

Figure 7. Thickness contour map of Chang 7 Shale (Unit: m).

where QTOY is the total quantity of oil in-place in the evaluation area in 108 t, QMOY is total
quantity of movable oil in the evaluation area in 108 t, n is the number of evaluation units in
the evaluation area, Ai is area of the ith estimation unit in kilometer square, hi is thickness of
the ith evaluation unit in meter, TOYi is the total oil yield of the ith evaluation unit in
milligram per gram rock, MOYi is the movable oil yield of the ith evaluation unit in mil-
ligram per gram rock, and qrock is density of shale in tonnes per cubic meter.

Chang 7 Shale oil resource potential

Basic geologic features of Chang 7 Shale
Chang 7 source rocks include black shale and dark gray mudstone, with mainly type I and
type II organic matter, and are at the stage of massive oil generation with great
hydrocarbon-generation potential. The shale is a high-quality source rock (Table 5).
858 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

Distribution of Chang 7 Shale. The Chang 7 Shale is distributed widely, and shale with thickness
over 5 m covers an area of 3.28
104 km2. The Chang 7 Shale is 18.5 m thick on average and
35.9 m thick at its maximum. In Jiyuan–Maling–Huachi, it is over 25 m thick, and in
Taerwan—Zhengning, it is over 20 m thick (Figure 7). The shale has a maximum TOC
content of 19% and has higher TOC in Taerwan–Huachi–Maling–Qingyang of over 15%
on average (Figure 8).

Organic geochemical features. The shale burial depth (base of the Chang 7) ranges between 600
and 2900 m, with the maximum depth in Jiyuan—Huanxian at more than 2500 m, but
smaller at less than 1400 m in the southeastern basin, the east of Zhengning. The Ro of
the shale (base of the Chang 7) ranges from 0.5% to 1.3%, reaching the largest value of over
1.2% in the west of Jiyuan in the northwest Ordos Basin and dropping to less than 0.7%
near Zhengning in the southeast (Figure 9).
Among 395 samples, 299 samples have the maximum S1 content of 16 mg HC/g rock and
an average S1 content of 2.4 mg HC/g rock. Only 96 samples have S1 values below 0.5 mg

Figure 8. TOC contour map of Chang 7 Shale (Unit: %).

Guo et al. 859

Figure 9. Ro contour map of Chang 7 Shale base (Unit: %).

10
9 y = 0.1779x + 0.3924
8 R² = 0.7162
7
S1 (mg/g rock)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
TOC (%)

Figure 10. Relationship between S1 and TOC of Chang 7 Shale.

860 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

HC/g rock. The S1 and TOC show good positive correlation, with a multiple correlation
coefficient of 0.64 (Figure 10).

Estimating TOY and MOY of the Chang 7 Shale

Table 6 shows part of the Rock-Eval data of 200 shale samples from the Chang 7. The S1
values range from 0.30 to 6.81 mg/g rock and average 1.99 mg/g (Table 6).
The estimated results using the method in this paper (a ¼ 2.4685, b ¼ –0.4958, ks1 ¼ 0.09)
are listed below. The DS2eq values range from 0.24 to 16.13 mg/g rock, with an average of
4.42 mg/g rock (Table 6), and S1LOSS values range from 0.05 to 2.08 mg/g rock, with an
average of 0.58 mg/g rock (Table 6). TOY values range from 0.59 to 25.21 mg/g rock, with
an average of 6.98 mg/g rock (Table 6). MOY values range from 0.35 to 8.89 mg/g rock, with
an average of 2.57 mg/g rock (Table 6).
Based on the above data, the following conclusions are reached. The average S1LOSS/the
average S1 ¼ 0.58/1.99 ¼ 29.15%, indicating that the evaporative hydrocarbon loss accounts
for approximately 29% of S1. The average of MOY/the average of TOY ¼ 2.57/
6.98 ¼ 36.82%, indicating that the MOY accounts for approximately 37% of TOY. The
average TOY/average S1 ¼ 6.98/1.99 ¼ 3.51, indicating that the TOY is approximately 3.5
times larger than S1.
Data fitting shows that there are linear relationships between TOY, MOY, and TOC
(Figure 11(a) and (b)) as below
TOY ¼ 0:676
TOC (30)

Table 6. Rock–Eval data, DS2eq, S1LOSS, TOY, and MOY of the Chang 7 Shale.

S1 S2 DS2eq S1LOSS TOY MOY

Segment TOC Tmax (mg/g (mg/g (mg/g (mg/g (mg/g (mg/g
NO Sample No. Well No. No. (%) ( C) rock) rock) rock) rock) rock) rock)

1 2010-5827 ZK808 H1 11.30 438 2.64 62.63 6.02 0.78 9.44 3.42
3 2010-5829 ZK808 H1 4.90 440 1.25 21.13 2.59 0.35 4.19 1.60
4 2010-5830 ZK808 H2 4.46 448 1.12 20.47 2.27 0.31 3.69 1.43
5 2010-5831 ZK808 H2 3.75 441 1.67 16.41 3.63 0.48 5.77 2.15
6 2010-5832 ZK808 H2 10.20 442 1.62 50.10 3.50 0.46 5.58 2.08
8 2010-5834 ZK808 H3 3.91 448 1.06 18.62 2.12 0.29 3.47 1.35
9 2010-5835 ZK808 H3 3.40 447 1.02 13.85 2.02 0.27 3.32 1.29
10 2010-5836 ZK808 H3 4.39 447 1.21 20.31 2.49 0.33 4.03 1.54
11 2010-5837 ZK808 H3 5.64 447 1.32 30.95 2.76 0.37 4.45 1.69
12 2010-5838 ZK808 H3 6.23 448 1.42 36.29 3.01 0.40 4.83 1.82
13 2010-5839 ZK808 H6 16.30 440 2.98 77.20 6.86 0.89 10.73 3.87
14 2010-5840 ZK808 H7 6.81 442 1.34 34.27 2.81 0.37 4.53 1.71
15 2010-5841 ZK808 H7 0.70 441 0.35 1.45 0.37 0.06 0.78 0.41
16 2010-5842 ZK808 H7 10.90 443 1.00 59.89 1.97 0.27 3.24 1.27
17 2010-5843 ZK808 H7 11.40 442 1.17 66.71 2.39 0.32 3.88 1.49
18 2010-5844 ZK808 H7 14.50 441 1.80 81.82 3.95 0.52 6.26 2.32
19 2010-5845 ZK808 H8 9.72 442 1.11 53.53 2.24 0.30 3.66 1.41
20 2010-5846 ZK808 H8 0.55 441 0.34 1.34 0.34 0.06 0.75 0.40
21 2010-5827 ZK808 H1 11.30 438 2.64 62.63 6.02 0.78 9.44 3.42
Guo et al. 861

MOY ¼ 0:2437
TOC (31)

Resource potential of the Chang 7 Shale oil

For our estimations, we assume that shale thickness is greater than 5 m, and TOC is greater
than 3%. According to the above two assumptions, the evaluation area has an effective area
of 32789 km2 and average shale thickness of 18.45 m. The evaluation area was divided into
13,280 evaluation units (divided automatically by computer). Combined with the TOC
content distribution map (Figure 8), the TOY and MOY of each evaluation unit and its
corresponding resource abundance were calculated by equations (30) and (31) (Figure 12(a)
and (b)).
According to the statistics, the total shale oil in place was 11.12
109 t, with an
average resource abundance of 339
103 t/km2 and maximum resource abundance of

(a) 35

30
y = 0.676x
25 R² = 0.7557
TOY (mg/g rock)

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TOC (%)
(b) 12

10 y = 0.2437x
R² = 0.7512

8
MOY (mg/g rock)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TOC (%)

Figure 11. Relationships between TOY, MOY, and TOC of the Chang 7 Shale: (a) total oil; (b) movable oil.
862 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

Figure 12. Resource abundance of shale oil in-place in Chang 7 (Unit: 103 t/km2).
Guo et al. 863

930
103 t/km2 (Figure 12(a)). The movable oil was 4.01
109 t, with an average resource
abundance of 122
103 t/km2 and maximum resource abundance of 337
103 t/km2
(Figure 12(b)). Taking the movable oil resource abundance of greater than 200
103 t/km2
as the boundary of core area, the core area predicted was 5535 km2, with movable oil of
1.31
109 t, and was mainly distributed in Well Luo254—Well and Mu78 well—Huachi–
Taerwan–Zhengning (Figure 12(b)).

Conclusions
1. The paper has proposed an evaluation method for heterogeneous shale samples to correct
the TOC difference and improve the adsorbed oil calculation method, which can make
the calculation results of mobile oil and total oil more accurate. Evaluation of shale
samples from 29 Qianjiang Formation and 32 Shahejie Formation samples reveals that
the mean values of DTOC are 0.16 and 0.34%, and DS2eq–DS2 have average values of
0.85 and 0.84 mg/g, respectively. This demonstrates that the equivalent TOC correction is
very necessary.
2. A calculation method of evaporative hydrocarbon recovery coefficient based on the for-
mation volume factor has been proposed. The calculated S1LOSS of 200 shale samples
from the Chang 7 by the above method indicates that the evaporative hydrocarbon loss
accounts for 29% of S1.
3. The estimated results of the Chang 7 Shale using the method in this paper show: (a) DS2eq
average of 4.42 mg/g rock, S1LOSS average of 0.58 mg/g rock, TOY average of 6.98 mg/g
rock, MOY average of 2.57 mg/g rock; (b) MOY accounts for 37% of TOY, and TOY is
approximately 3.5 times of S1; (c) total oil in-place and the maximum movable oil
in-place were 11.12
109 t and 4.01
109 t, respectively, revealing its tremendous explo-
ration potential.

Acknowledgements
Careful reviews and constructive suggestions of the manuscript by anonymous reviewers are also
greatly appreciated.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: This work is supported by the National Science & Technology Major
Project “Distribution Law & Resource Evaluation of Deep Oil & Gas in Petroleum-bearing Basins
in China” (2017ZX05008-006); PetroChina Key Scientific & Technological Project of “Study on
Mechanism, Distribution & Resource Potential of Continental Shale Oil Reservoirs in China”
(2019E-2601) and “Enrichment rules & key technologies of large and medium-sized litho-stratigraphic
reservoirs” (2019B-0301).

ORCID iD
Xiaoming Chen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3885-9078
864 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

References
Abouelresh MO and Slatt RM (2012) Lithofacies and sequence stratigraphy of the Barnett Shale in
east-central Fort Worth Basin, Texas. AAPG Bulletin 96(1): 1–22.
Abrams MA, Gong CR, Garnier C, et al. (2017) A new thermal extraction protocol to evaluate liquid
rich unconventional oil in place and in-situ fluid chemistry. Marine and Petroleum Geology 88:
659–675.
Attar AE and Pranter MJ (2016) Regional stratigraphy, elemental chemostratigraphy, and organic
richness of the Niobrara Member of the Mancos Shale, Piceance Basin, Colorado. AAPG Bulletin
100(3): 345–377.
Bernard S and Horsfield B (2014) Reply to comment on “Formation of nanoporous pyrobitumen
residues during maturation of the Barnett Shale (Fort Worth Basin).” International Journal of Coal
Geology 127: 114–115.
Browning J, Tinker SW, Ikonnikova S, et al. (2013) Barnett Shale model-1: Study develops
decline analysis, geologic parameters for reserves, production forecast. Oil & Gas Journal 111(8):
63–71.
Burnham AK, Pomerantz AE and Gelin F (2018) Oil, Bitumen, and other confusing concepts: What
do lab experiments really tell us? AAPG Bulletin 102(4): 653–669.
Chen ZH and Jiang CQ (2015) A data driven model for studying kerogen kinetics with unconventional
shale application examples from Canadian sedimentary basins. Marine and Petroleum Geology 67:
795–803.
Chen ZH and Jiang CQ (2016) A revised method for organic porosity estimation using Rock-Eval
pyrolysis data, example from Duvernay Shale in the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin. AAPG
Bulletin 100(3): 405–422.
Chen ZH, Lavoie D, Malo M, et al. (2017a) A dual porosity model for evaluating petroleum resource
potential in unconventional tight shale plays with application to Utica Shale, Quebec (Canada).
Marine and Petroleum Geology 80: 333–348.
Chen ZH, Liu XJ and Jiang CQ (2017b) Quick evaluation of source rock kerogen kinetics using
hydrocarbon pyrograms from regular Rock-Eval analysis. Energy & Fuels 31(2): 1832–1841.
Chen ZH, Liu XJ, Guo QL, et.al. (2017c) Inversion of source rock hydrocarbon generation kinetics
from conventional Rock-Eval data. Fuel 194: 91–101.
Chen ZH, Li MW, Cao TT, et al. (2017d) Hydrocarbon generation kinetics of a heterogeneous source
rock system: Example from the Lacsutrine Eocene-Oligocene Shahejie Formation, Bohai Bay
Basin, China. Energy & Fuels 31(12): 13291–13304.
Chen ZH, Li MW, Ma XX, et al. (2018) Generation kinetics based method for correcting effects of
migrated oil on Rock-Eval data – An example from the Eocene Qianjiang Formation, Jianghan
Basin, China. International Journal of Coal Geology 195: 84–101.
Delveaux D, Martin H, Leplat P, et al. (1990)Comparitive Rock-Eval pyrolysis as an improved tool
for sedimentary organic matter analysis. Organic Geochemistry 16(4-6): 1221–1229.
EIA (2015) Tight oil production trends in a low price environment. Report, Energy Information
Administration, USA.
EIA (2016) Trends in U.S. oil and natural gas upstream costs. Report, Energy Information
Administration, USA.
EIA (2017) Drilling Productivity Report for key tight oil and shale regions. Report, Energy
Information Administration, USA.
Guo QL, Wu N, Chen NS, et al. (2017) An assessment of tight oil resource in 7th oil reservoirs of
Yangchang Formation, Ordos Basin. Acta Petrolei Sinica 38(6): 0658–0665.
Guo QL, Wang SJ and Chen XM (2019) Assessment on tight oil resources in major basins in China.
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 178: 52–63.
Hackley PC and Cardott BJ (2016) Application of organic petrography in North American shale
petroleum systems: A review. International Journal of Coal Geology 163: 8–51.
Guo et al. 865

Han Y, Horsfield B, Mahlstedt N, et al. (2019) Factors controlling source and reservoir characteristics
in the Niobrara shale oil system, Denver Basin. AAPG Bulletin 103(9): 2045–2072.
Jarvie DM (2012) Shale resource systems for oil and gas, part 2: Shale-oil resource systems. In: Breyer
JA (ed) Shale reservoirs – Giant resources for the 21st century. AAPG Memoir. vol.97, pp. 89–119.
Jarvie DM (2018) Petroleum systems in the Permian Basin: Targeting optimum oil production. TCU
Energy Institute Presentation. Available at: www.Hgs.org/sites/default/files/Jarvie%20Permian%
20basin%2C%20HGS% 2024%20January%202018%20wo%20background.pdf.
Jiang CQ, Chen ZH, Mort A, et al. (2016a) Hydrocarbon evaporative loss from shale core samples as
revealed by Rock-Eval and thermal desorption-gas chromatography analysis: Its geochemical and
geological implications. Marine and Petroleum Geology 70: 294–303.
Jiang QG, Li MW, Qian MH, et al. (2016b) Quantitative characterization of shale oil in different
occurrence state and its application. Petroleum Geology & Experiment 38(6): 843–848.
Kuske S, Horsfield B, Jweda J, et al. (2019) Geochemical factors controlling the phase behavior of
Eagle Ford Shale petroleum fluids. AAPG Bulletin 103(4): 835–870.
Lewan MD and Pawlewicz MJ (2017) Reevaluation of thermal maturity and states of petroleum
formation of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Fort Worth Basin, Texas. AAPG Bulletin 101(12):
1945–1970.
Li JB, Wang M, Chen ZH, et al. (2019a) Evaluating the total oil yield using a single routine Rock-Eval
experiment on as-received shales. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 144: 104707.
Li MW, Chen ZH, Ma XX, et al. (2018) A numerical method for calculating total oil yield using a
single routine Rock-Eval program: A case study of the Eocene Shahejie Formation in Dongying
Depression, Bohai Bay Basin, China. International Journal of Coal Geology 191: 49–65.
Li MW, Chen ZH, Ma XX, et al. (2019b) Shale oil resource potential and oil mobility characteristics of
the Eocene-Oligocene Shahejie Formation, Jiyang Super-Depression, Bohai Bay Basin of China.
International Journal of Coal Geology 204: 130–143.
Li MW, Chen ZH, Qian MH, et al. (2020) What are in pyrolysis S1 peak and what are missed?
Petroleum compositional characteristics revealed from programed pyrolysis and implications for
shale oil mobility and resource potential. International Journal of Coal Geology 103321.
DOI:10.1016/j.coal.2019.103321.
Liang C, Cao YC, Jiang ZX, et al. (2017) Shale oil potential of lacustrine black shale in the Eocene
Dongying depression: Implications for geochemistry and reservoir characteristics. AAPG Bulletin
101(11): 1835–1858.
Liu B, Wang HL, Fu XF, et al. (2019) Lithofacies and depositional setting of a highly prospective
lacustrine shale oil succession from the Upper Cretaceous Qingshankou Formation in the Gulong
sag, northern Songliao Basin, northeast China. AAPG Bulletin 103(2): 405–432.
Loucks RG and Reed RM (2014) Scanning-electron-microscope petrographic evidence for distinguish-
ing organic-matter pores associated with depositional organic matter versus migrated organic
matter in mudrocks. Gulf Coast Association of Geological Society Transactions 3: 51–60.
Marra KR (2018) 2015 US Geological Survey assessment of undiscovered shale-gas and shale-oil
resources of the Mississippian Barnett Shale, Bend arch–Fort Worth Basin, Texas. AAPG
Bulletin 102(7): 1299–1321.
Michael GE, Packwood J and Holba A (2013) Determination of in-situ hydrocarbon volumes in liquid
rich shale plays. In: Unconventional resources technology conference, Denver, Colorado, USA,
August. Available at: www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2014/80365michael/ndx_
michael.pdf.html.
Modica CJ and Lapierre SG (2012) Estimation of kerogen porosity in source rocks as a function of
thermal transformation: example from the Mowry Shale in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.
AAPG Bulletin 96: 87–108.
Romero-Sarmiento M (2019) A quick analytical approach to estimate both free versus sorbed hydro-
carbon contents in liquid-rich source rocks. AAPG Bulletin 103(9): 2031–2043.
866 Energy Exploration & Exploitation 38(4)

Zhang LY, Chen ZH, Li Z, et al. (2018) Structural features and genesis of microscopic pores in
lacustrine shale in an oil window: A case study of the Dongying Depression. AAPG Bulletin
103(8): 1889–1924.
Zou CN, Pan SQ, Horsfield B, et al. (2019a) Oil retention and intrasource migration in the organic-
rich lacustrine Chang 7 shale of the Upper Triassic Yanchang Formation, Ordos Basin, Central
China. AAPG Bulletin 2019; 103(11): 2627–2663.
Zou CN, Guo Q, Yang Z, et al. (2019b) Resource potential and core area prediction of lacustrine tight
oil: The Triassic Yanchang Formation in Ordos Basin, China. AAPG Bulletin 103(6): 1493–1523.