Post on 30-Sep-2020
Thermal Analysis for the characterization of drill cuttings
Tiago Miguel dos Santos Pedrosa Caracol
Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in
Chemical Engineering
Supervisors: Prof. Maria Amélia Nortadas Duarte de Almeida Lemos (IST)
Bruno Alexandre de Oliveira e Melo (Geolog)
Examination Committee
Chairperson: Prof. Carlos Manuel Faria de Barros Henriques
Supervisor: Eng. Bruno Alexandre de Oliveira e Melo
Members of the Committee: Amílcar de Oliveira Soares
June 2018
i
“It always seems impossible until it´s done” Nelson Mandela
ii
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to acknowledge Professor Francisco Lemos and Maria Amélia Lemos for
giving me the opportunity to participate in this research work. I want to acknowledge the support they
gave me, back in February 2017. I also want to give a word of recognition to all the time they spent with
me, all the meetings, all the e-mails, for all the improvements suggested, not only for the work but also
for myself, since they convinced me to write the thesis in English, arguing that it would be so rewarding
as it turned out to be.
Likewise, I also have to acknowledge my Co-supervisor, Bruno Melo, for the indispensable guidance
he gave me throughout this work.
To Professor Ângela Pereira I have to thank not only for providing the rock, essential to develop this
work but also for her friendly wishing for a good work.
I want to thank my father and my brother because without them reaching this stage would be
impossible. To my mother, who has been the most supportive person to me, helping me through the
most difficult parts and always having a kind word to give me, my special thanks. Special thanks to my
brother by the incentive and friendship.
To Everton Santos I would like to acknowledge his availability to help me, all the scientific talks we
shared, and all the advice, but above all, I would like to thank him for his friendship. I also want to thank
Hugo Pinto for assisting me in the experimental part and the initial part of data treatment.
For all these years, for being the friend that he is, for all the “all night long” moments that we shared,
which help me to complete this stage of my path, and for the well-spent afternoons in Arco do Cego, I
want to thank Ruben Santos.
For being such good companions from the day one, I have to thank Pedro Gomes, Eduardo Ferreira,
and Marcelo Ameixa.
A word of recognition to Mónica Catarino for the all the help she gave me and for the friendship.
Last but not least, I want to thank the friends that Tecnico brought to my life as Sofia Capelo, João
Pedro Silva, Miguel Marques, who have always been there for me.
iii
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
iv
Resumo
O objetivo deste trabalho foi criar um modelo matemático que permita caracterizar e quantificar as
diferentes moléculas de hidrocarbonetos presentes no petróleo que está no interior de uma rocha. A
calibração do modelo foi realizada utilizando carbonato impregnado com diferentes fluidos sintéticos.
O trabalho inicial consistiu no desenvolvimento de uma descrição para a evaporação, em condições
de análise térmica similares ao processo utilizado no Rock-Eval de componentes puros e de misturas
binárias impregnadas nas rochas, obtendo parâmetros cinéticos para cada um dos componentes.
Partindo de uma lei do tipo Arrhenius de primeira ordem, obteve-se uma descrição aceitáveis com
valores de coeficiente de correlação r-quadrado acima 0,99 para um hidrocarboneto impregnado e
acima de 0,95 para uma mistura de dois hidrocarbonetos impregnados.
O modelo geral foi então testado na estimativa da composição de misturas com três, quatro e cinco
hidrocarbonetos diferentes. Verificou-se um ajuste de muito boa qualidade para misturas com três e
quatro componentes. Para a mistura com cinco componentes, em que o quinto componente era o
esqualano, os ajustes não foram de tão boa qualidade, mas ainda assim aceitáveis. No geral os erros
obtidos foram inferiores a 10% para a composição de cada um dos componentes.
Em conclusão, o modelo matemático utilizado é fiável para o cálculo de percentagens para misturas
de hidrocarbonetos lineares insaturados tendo em conta os resultados obtidos.
Palavras chave: Rock-Eval, Petróleo, Analise térmica, Rocha
v
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
vi
Abstract
The objective of this work was to create a mathematical model that allows the identification and
quantifification of the different hydrocarbon molecules present in the oil within drill cuttings. The
calibration of the model was performed using a carbonate rock impregnated with different synthetic
fluids.
The initial work consisted of the development of a description for the evaporation, under conditions
of thermal analysis similar to the process used in Rock-Eval, of pure components and binary mixes
impregnated in the rocks, getting kinetic parameters for each of the components. Using a first order
Arrhenius type kinetic law, an acceptable description was obtained with r-square correlation coefficient
values above 0.99 for an impregnated hydrocarbon and above 0.95 for a mixture of two impregnated
hydrocarbons.
The model was then tested in the estimation of the composition of mixtures with three, four and five
different hydrocarbons. There was very good quality description for mixtures with three and four
components. For the mixture of five components, in which the fifth component was Squalane, the
description was not of such good quality, but still acceptable and the differences observed were mainly
due to the high boiling-point of Squalane. In general, the errors obtained were less than 10% for the
composition of each of the components tested.
In conclusion, work can be seen as a proof of concept for this mathematical model to be used as a
reliable way for the estimation of composition for oils in the rocks, in particular of mixtures of linear
unsaturated hydrocarbons.
Keywords: Rock-Eval, Petroleum, Thermal analysis, Drill cuttings.
vii
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
viii
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ ii
Resumo ............................................................................................................................................. iv
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................x
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ xiv
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Scope of thesis .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Structure of thesis ................................................................................................................ 3
2. State of art ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Chemical composition of biomass ....................................................................................... 5
2.1.1. Aquatic biomass ......................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2. Land biomass ............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.3. The chemical composition of aquatic biomass and land biomass ............................. 6
2.2. Kerogen and van Klevelen diagram .................................................................................... 8
2.3. Diagenesis, Catagenesis and metanogenesis .................................................................. 10
2.3.1. Diagenesis ................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.2. Catagenesis ............................................................................................................... 11
2.3.3. Methanogenesis ........................................................................................................ 14
2.3.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 14
2.4. Biomarkers ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.5. Rock-Eval .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.5.1. Pyrolysis .................................................................................................................... 16
2.5.2. Evolution of Rock-Eval .............................................................................................. 16
2.5.3. Rock-Eval 6 ............................................................................................................... 17
2.5.3.1. Description of Rock-Eval 6 ................................................................................... 17
2.5.3.2. Rock-Eval 6 Apparatus ......................................................................................... 21
2.5.3.3. New Applications of Rock-Eval 6 ......................................................................... 22
ix
2.5.4. Objective of this work ................................................................................................ 22
3. Experimental part .................................................................................................................. 23
3.1. Hydrocarbons .................................................................................................................... 23
3.2. Rock ................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1. Saturation of Limestone with synthetic oils ............................................................... 24
3.3.2. Thermogravimetric analysis ....................................................................................... 25
3.3.3. Gas chromatography ................................................................................................. 27
4. Data treatment and discussion .............................................................................................. 29
4.1. Rock characterization ........................................................................................................ 29
4.2. Hydrocarbon impregnated in rock ..................................................................................... 30
4.2.1. Results of the thermogravimetric analysis ................................................................. 30
4.2.2. Mathematical model for the evaporation of one hydrocarbon ................................... 32
4.3. Mixtures of two hydrocarbons impregnated in rock ........................................................... 35
4.3.1. Thermogravimetric analysis for two hydrocarbons impregnated in rock ................... 35
4.3.2. Mathematical model for a mixture of two hydrocarbons ............................................ 36
4.4. Estimation of percentages for a mixture of three Hydrocarbon ......................................... 39
4.5. Estimation of percentages for a mixture of four Hydrocarbons ......................................... 41
4.6. Estimation of percentages for a mixture of five Hydrocarbon ........................................... 43
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 45
6. Future Work ........................................................................................................................... 47
7. References ............................................................................................................................ 49
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................ a
Formulas of calculated parameters of Rock-Eval 6 ....................................................................... a
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................ b
Specifications of hydrocarbons ...................................................................................................... b
Appendix C .........................................................................................................................................c
Chromatogram of mixture Decane. Dodecane. Hexadecane and Eicosane ..................................c
Report of the chromatographic analysis of the mixture Decane, Dodecane, Hexadecane and
Eicosane. ............................................................................................................................................. d
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 - World energy demand, in Mtoe, by fuel and scenario and fossil-fuel share for each
scenario. New Policies Scenario (NPS), Current Policies Scenario (CPS) and Sustainable Development
Scenario [1]. ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2 – The biological pump [14]. ................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3 – Peptide Bond in amino acids [11]. ................................................................................... 7
Figure 4 - Molecule of Aspartic acid wherein the carboxylic acid group is with a black circle and
amine group with a red circle [11]. .......................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5 - Molecule of cellulose [11]. ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 6 - Molecule of Palmitic Acid which is a fatty acid [11]. ......................................................... 7
Figure 7 – Part of lignin molecule [11]. .............................................................................................. 8
Figure 8 - Van Klevelen diagram [20]. ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 9 – Oil and gas window. Oil window starts at 170ºC until 220ºC and gas window stars at
170ºC and finishes at 225ºC [2]. ........................................................................................................... 12
Figure 10 - Formation of the two sets of products, Hydrogen-rich (methane) and carbon-rich
(graphite) [7]. ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 11 – Scheme of cracking of Kerogen [2]. ............................................................................. 13
Figure 12 – Oil and Gas window, and hydrocarbons formed for a function of depth [2]. ................ 14
Figure 13 – Van Klevelen diagram with the stages of thermal maturation [22]. ............................. 15
Figure 14 – β-carotene (biomolecule), a carotenoid pigment present in carrots and β-carotane
(biomarker) after diagenesis [24]. .......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 15 - Schematic cross section of the first commercial Rock-Eval [25] [26]. .......................... 16
Figure 16 - A General diagram showing the different fractions of the total organic matter of analysed
rocks, the corresponding parameters and their recordings [28]. ........................................................... 18
Figure 17 – Kerogen Quality as a function of the percentage of TOC [29]. .................................... 19
Figure 18 - Influence of depth on the value of tmax [2]. .................................................................... 20
Figure 19 -Production index as a function of burial in the Early Cretaceous sediments of the Camanu-
Almada basin, Brazil [2]. ........................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 20 - Tmax versus PI to characterize the samples [31]. ........................................................ 21
Figure 21 - Different Rock-Eval 6 versions commercialized by Vinci Technologies® [27]. ............. 21
Figure 22 - Comparison of reservoir rock types around the world in 1956 [34]. ............................. 23
Figure 23 - Carbonate sample......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 24 - Carbonate after being crushed ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 25 - Experimental installation for saturation. 1- Schlenk vessel, 2- Suba, 3- filter (glass tube),
4- Vacuum pump ................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 26 – Temperature program for an inert atmosphere. ........................................................... 26
Figure 27 – Temperature program for oxidative atmosphere. ........................................................ 26
Figure 28 - Simultaneous Thermal Analyzer STA 6000 during the experiment. ............................. 27
xi
Figure 29 – Percentage of the initial mass as a function of the temperature of rock used in
experimental part in an inert atmosphere. ............................................................................................. 29
Figure 30 - Percentage of the initial mass as a function of the temperature of rock used in
experimental part at oxidative atmosphere. .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 31 – mg HC in rock/mg rock as a function of temperature for assay 1 of each hydrocarbon
............................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 32 - mg HC in rock/mg rock as a function of time for assay 1 of each hydrocarbon ........... 31
Figure 33 - mg HC in rock/mg rock as a function of temperature for assay 2 of each hydrocarbon
............................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 34 - mg HC in rock/mg rock as a function of time for assay 1 of each hydrocarbon ........... 32
Figure 35 – Normalized mass (in relation to the hydrocarbon) as a function of temperature for two
assays of Decane. ................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 36 - Experimental mass loss and model mass loss to assay 1 of hexadecane................... 34
Figure 37 - Thermogravimetric analysis of mixture Decane + Dodecane, Dodecane + Hexadecane
and Decane + Hexadecane wherein percentage of initial mass as a function of Temperature. All the
mixtures are 50:50. ................................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 38 - Thermogravimetric analysis for Decane, Dodecane and mixture of Decane + Dodecane.
............................................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 39 - Experimental mass loss and model mass loss to assay 1 of a mixture of Decane +
Dodecane. ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 40 - Energy activation as a function logarithmic of a kinetic constant to show the correlation
between these two parameters for the different components under study. .......................................... 39
Figure 41 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 1 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane
+ Hexadecane. ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 42 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 2 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane
+ Hexadecane. ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 43 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 1 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane
+ Hexadecane + Eicosane. ................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 44 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 2 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane
+ Hexadecane + Eicosane. ................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 45 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 1 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane
+ Hexadecane + Eicosane + Squalane. ................................................................................................ 43
Figure 46 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 2 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane
+ Hexadecane + Eicosane + Squalane. ................................................................................................ 43
Figure 47 - Chromatogram of mixture Decane. Dodecane. Hexadecane and Eicosane ...................c
xii
List of Tables
Table 1 – Summary Table with preservation ability and in what element is rich/poor [2]. ................ 8
Table 2 -Acquisition parameters of Rock-Eval 6 [27]. ..................................................................... 18
Table 3 - Calculated parameters from the acquisition parameters [27]. ......................................... 19
Table 4 - Kinetic constant and the activation energy hydrocarbon impregnated in rock. ............... 35
Table 5 - Enthalpy of vaporization for each compound [36]. ........................................................... 35
Table 6 - Kinetic constant and the activation energy for each hydrocarbon that forming mixtures
studied. .................................................................................................................................................. 38
Table 7 – Real composition, the estimated composition of the model and relative error of each
hydrocarbon for each assay. ................................................................................................................. 41
Table 8 - Real composition, the estimated composition of the model and relative error of each
hydrocarbon for each assay. ................................................................................................................. 42
Table 9 – Formulas of calculated parameters of Rock-Eval 6 .......................................................... a
Table 10 - specifications of the Hydrocarbons .................................................................................. b
Table 11 – Peak of Chromatographic analysis of the mixture Decane, Dodecane, Hexadecane and
Eicosane. ................................................................................................................................................. d
xiii
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
xiv
List of Abbreviations
IEA- International Energy Agency
Mtoe - Million Tonnes of Oil Equivalent
TGA- Thermogravimetric Analyzer
TOC - Total organic carbon
Tmax - Value of tmax of peak S2
PI - Production Index
FID - Flame ionization detector
TG - Thermogravimetric
CO - Carbon monoxide
CO2 - Carbon dioxide
HC - Hydrocarbon
kTref- Kinetic constant for the reference temperature
xv
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope of thesis
Energy is something indispensable for human life that can be used for power, industry, transport
and buildings. Its increase in demand is related to the increase of the world population, the improvement
in the quality of living conditions and the emergence of new economies, mainly India, China, and
Southeast Asia and on a smaller scale the Middle East, Latin America, and some parts of Africa [1]
According to the latest world energy Outlook of IEA, fossil fuels will continue to be the most used
energy source in the next two decades, with a share of 75-80%. Gas will overtake coal, and this is due
to the objective of reducing emissions of CO2 and the growing need for energy cannot be satisfied just
with renewable energy/non-fossil fuels whereby oil will continue to be one of the main primary energy
sources for the next two decades, always having a share of around 30% for any scenario [1].
These conclusions are clearly depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - World energy demand, in Mtoe, by fuel and scenario and fossil-fuel share for each scenario. New Policies Scenario (NPS), Current Policies Scenario (CPS) and Sustainable Development Scenario [1].
In nature, oil is found in the lithosphere, in particular in reservoir rock rocks that have the ability to
store fluids (water, oil, gas) inside their pores, possessing good porosity and permeability to allow the
accumulation and draining of the oil in economical amounts [2] [3].
In the exploration of oil, the exploring companies (drilling/services companies) continuously invest
the improvement of methods (geological, geophysical and geochemical) ) that aid the exploration and
provide an analysis, as detailed as possible, of the hydrocarbons that are in the reservoir [4].
The geochemical methods performed at the reservoir and source rock are aimed at characterizing
the organic matter present in the rocks and to analyse the petroleum potential, maturity and origin [5].
60,00%
65,00%
70,00%
75,00%
80,00%
85,00%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2016 2025 NPC 2040 NPC 2025 CRC 2040 CRC 2025 SDC 2040 SDCP
erce
nt
of
foss
il-fu
el s
har
e
Per
cen
t o
f fu
el
Year
Coal Oil Gas Nuclear
Hydro Bionergy* Other renewables Fossil-fuel share
13760 15182 17584 15690 19299 13921 1408410035
Mtoe
2
In the petroleum industry, Geolog provides the GeoSource service where it provides data on TOC and
Pyrolysis in near real-time which allows for faster drilling planning so there are no unnecessary delays
and thus save costs [5] [6].
The most widely used pyrolysis process is Rock-Eval; it simulates in a short time the geological
process that organic matter is subjected to when it is buried. The Increasing depth causes an increase
of the temperature and pressure and will result the thermal cracking, this process takes thousands of
years. In the Rock-Eval, the sample only suffer an increase of temperature and this process takes one
hour .Although the differences in time and in conditions of pressure and temperature, pyrolysis can be
used because the cracking reactions are similar [2] [7].
The Thermogravimetric Analyzer (TGA) is an essential laboratory tool used for material
characterization. The areas where it is most used are environmental, food, pharmaceutical and
petrochemical. Thermogravimetric analysis is a technique in which the mass of a sample is monitored
as a function of the temperature or the time of analysis, as the temperature is subject to a pre-determined
programme. The thermogravimetric analysis is carried or pan out in a crucible that is place in a precision
balance. This crucible during the thermogravimetric analysis is in a furnace in which the sample is
heated or cooled during the experiment and the mass of the crucible and sample is monitored.
The environment is controlled by the purge gas and an inert gas, or a reactive gas flow may be used
[8].
Another relevant parameter when drilling is the characterization of the hydrocarbons present in
drill cutting. In the oil industry the technique used is thermal extraction gas chromatography, specifically
the company Geolog Surface Logging with service G9+, and thus it is possible to have a characterization
of the C9 until C27. The characterization of hydrocarbons is applied to detect and characterize oil and, in
the source, rocks to define source type and properties. Cuttings newly acquired in the well can be
analysed avoiding the evaporation of the lighter hydrocarbons and thus reducing the error of the analysis
due to the short analysis time about 40 minutes [9] [10].
1.2. Objectives
The scope of this project is to use the thermo gravimetric analysis (TGA) to identify and quantify the
different hydrocarbon molecules present in the oil within the drill cuttings.
One of the main concerns when creating a new model is the underlying calibration. The calibration will
be performed using carbonate impregnated with different synthetic fluids.
The objective is to recognize consistency/correlations, and measure the data uncertainty in the analysis,
in order to validate the model.
This project aims to give a positive input to the formation evaluation field in the oil and gas industry.
The main workflow branch will be related to calibration and quality control of the data, as well as, to data
treatment and uncertainty evaluation. The sample is subjected to a programmed temperature program
previously set in a controlled atmosphere (usually nitrogen atmosphere).
3
1.3. Structure of thesis
The thesis is composed of six chapters. The introduction is the first chapter where the scope of the
thesis (World energetic overview of the next two decades and some methods used in oil exploration)
and the objectives of the thesis are approached. The second chapter covers the state of art review in
the petroleum geochemistry, covering chemical composition of biomass and kerogen and the Van
Klevelen diagram, oil and gas formation (diagenesis, catagenesis and methanogenesis) and
biomarkers. In the second chapter is also described the Rock-Eval technique is also described as well
as the evolution of the apparatus. The third chapter cover the experimental details; it describes the
hydrocarbons and rock used in this study, the rock saturation procedure, the temperature program used
in the thermogravimetric analysis as well as the TGA and chromatography apparatus used in this work.
In the fourth chapter are presented the results obtained as well as the data processing used and the
corresponding discussion, based on the results obtained. In this chapter the general aspects of the
model are also described with an emphasis on how the calibration is done. The fifth chapter presents
the conclusion, where the main considerations drawn from the work are described. The sixth chapter is
focused on the future development work. Lastly, the seventh chapter consists of the references used in
this thesis.
4
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
5
2. State of art
2.1. Chemical composition of biomass
Organic matter is constituted by organic molecules that are composed mainly of carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur. The organic matter that will undergo degradation and subsequent
sedimentation derives from living organism, and the products of their metabolism and an example of a
metabolism reaction is the reaction of photosynthesis, Equation 1, that occurs in organisms with
chloroplasts. The process of photosynthesis converts the energy from light (ℎ. 𝜐) into chemical energy
by synthesising hydrocarbons out of carbon dioxide and water. The mechanism involves basically a
transfer of hydrogen from water to carbon dioxide to form glucose (organic matter) [11] [12].
6 CO2 + 6 H2Oh. υ⇄
674kcalC6H12O6 + 6 O2 (Eq. 1)
The autotrophic organisms (synthesize the organic matter) from the glucose (𝐶6𝐻12𝑂6) will be able to
metabolize polysaccharides and other constituents necessary for their subsistence [11].
2.1.1. Aquatic biomass
The main source of aquatic organic matter is phytoplankton and is constituted by microalgae and
these are similar to terrestrial plants because they contain chlorophyll (present in chloroplasts) and
require sunlight to live and grow. The majority of the phytoplankton is in the upper layer of the oceans
and seas (euphotic zone) where the penetration of carbon dioxide and sunlight occurs (first step of
biological pump) and it is in this layer that the phytoplankton perform the photosynthesis as can be seen
in Figure 2 [11] [12] [13] [14].
Figure 2 – The biological pump [14].
6
Phytoplankton also needs inorganic nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates (in the form of dissolved
salts) for their growth, these are converted into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. In the euphotic zone,
there is also zooplankton that feeds on phytoplankton and this is a set of organisms of very small size
[2] [11] [12].
There are two main types of environments with different aquatic biomass, lacustrine and marine
environment. Most of the biomass of the lacustrine environment is phytoplankton. As this is a very
sensitive system to the seasonal changes and if there is an increase in the supply of nutrients it is
promoted the growth of primitive photosynthetic bacteria (e.g., Cyanobacteria), these organisms are
devoid of the cellulosic cell wall and thus when in abundance promote a change in the chemical
composition of the biomass, because they have a different constitution of phytoplankton [2].
The microorganisms in marine environment biomass is essentially constituted by phytoplankton and
zooplankton [2] [11] [12].
2.1.2. Land biomass
The land biomass is of plant origin and is stored in soils with high moisture content. The majority of
dead organic matter is degraded or recycled, and little will suffer in situ fossilization. The precursors of
this type of biomass have in common with the phytoplankton that they carry-out photosynthesis [2].
High rainfall and high temperatures during the growth period promote high primary production and
thus increasing the matter that can give rise to organic matter [2].
2.1.3. The chemical composition of aquatic biomass and land biomass
As previously described the constitution of aquatic biomass (marine and lacustrine) and land
biomass are different so the sedimentary organic matter that they will give rise to will also have a different
chemical composition. The aquatic biomass is composed chemically by proteins, lipids and,
carbohydrates while the land biomass is composed mainly by cellulose (carbohydrate polymers), lignin,
proteins, lipids [11] [12].
As it has been said in previous subchapters the lacustrine and marine environment biomass is mainly
phytoplankton and less quantity zooplankton while the land biomass is essentially of plant origin and the
overall chemical composition of these two different types of biomass can be described as follows [12].
Plankton organic matter Vegetal organic matter
• Proteins – 30% • Cellulose – 45%
• Lipids – 50% • Lignin – 30%
•Carbohydrates – 20% • Proteins/ lipids – 5%
• Carbohydrates – 20%
The values presented are average because there is a lot of diversity and the environment also plays a
7
fundamental role. For example, the lipid content of the planktonic species tends to increase from the
equatorial regions to the more temperate and cold regions [11] [12].
Proteins are polymers which are composed by amino acids (monomers) which are bound by peptide
bonds [11].
Figure 3 – Peptide Bond in amino acids [11].
Amino acids are composed by functional groups such as amine and carboxylic acid.
Figure 4 - Molecule of Aspartic acid wherein the carboxylic acid group is with a black circle and amine group with a red circle [11].
Carbohydrate is the name given to simple sugars and their polymers and has this name because of
its empirical chemical formula Cn(H2O)n which alludes to the fact that carbon is hydrated. In the group
of carbohydrates, we have molecules like cellulose. Cellulose is one of nature's most abundant
polysaccharides since 40-60% of the wood's constitution is cellulose, thus cellulose is the probably the
most important molecule for the chemical composition of land biomass [11].
Figure 5 - Molecule of cellulose [11].
The term lipids was proposed by Bergmann in 1963 who defined them as insoluble substances in
water but extractable with fatty solvents [15].
Lipids are biomolecules that encompass various types of molecules such as fatty acid, waxes, sterols
and, fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, and E) and are found in cell membranes, protective tissues and organic-
walled phytoplankton. Fatty acids are carboxylic acids with long chains that can be saturated or
unsaturated [11] [12].
Figure 6 - Molecule of Palmitic Acid which is a fatty acid [11].
8
Lignin is characterized by having an aromatic (phenolic) structures. Aromatic compounds are not
synthesized by animals but are very common in the tissues of plant organisms. Lignin is a complex
polymer and is found in the cell walls of plant organisms and some algae, and its function is to grant
mechanical force to the cell walls and to aid in the transport of the sap [2] [11] [12].
Figure 7 – Part of lignin molecule [11].
Finally, with the description made throughout this chapter of the main molecules present in biomass,
it is possible to construct a summary table (see Table 1) where information about its preservation and
which chemical elements are more relevant has also been added [2].
Table 1 – Summary Table with preservation ability and in what element is rich/poor [2].
Type of compound Preservation ability Element
Proteins Very low -
Carbohydrate Very low -
Cellulose High Rich in oxygen
Lipids Very high Rich in Hydrogen
Lignin Very high Poor in Hydrogen
In Table 1 there is no information regarding Cyanobacteria’s but with it was said in subchapter 2.1.1. its
abundance will imply changes in the chemical composition of the biomass of the lacustrine environment,
thus increasing the H/C ratio and decreasing the O/C ratio [2].
2.2. Kerogen and van Klevelen diagram
The term kerogen was designated for the first time by Crum Brown in 1912 as the insoluble organic
matter found in oil shale [16].
In 1961 Breger defined kerogen as the organic constituent of sedimentary rocks that is not solvable in
aqueous alkaline solvents nor in common organic solvents [17].
Later Vanderbroucke defined kerogen as organic matter that has resisted the decomposition process
and can generate oil and gas, which is the most commonly used definition today [18].
9
The kerogen originates from the land and aquatic biomass that sedimented and underwent chemical
transformations and is probably the most abundant form of organic matter on earth; it is believed to also
1000 times more abundant than all coal and petroleum reservoirs [11] [18].
In a sedimentary rock, the percentage of organic matter varies, between 1 and 2% is classified as being
of good quality if it presents values higher than 4% it is classified as excellent quality and in this organic
matter about 90% is kerogen and 10% is bitumen [7].
By the end of taphonomy stage (the process of burial, decay and preservation of organic matter
and became fossilized) the kerogen has characteristics that determine its potential for generating oil and
gas and reactivity to further thermal transformation [2].
The characteristics of kerogen depend on organic matter from which come, the chemical processes and
biochemical processes that occurred during the taphonomy stage [2] [11].
Kerogen is a complex and heterogeneous mixture that contains the organic matter that remains at the
end of the taphonomy stage, mainly the tissues of greater resistance and amorphous organic
substances that derive from the condensation and polymerization of functionalized or unsaturated
organics moieties (functionals groups) [2]. Consequently, the kerogen will have a chemical composition
similar to the composition of the biomass that was at its origin. Table 1 indicates how, depending on the
constituents of organic matter, the ratios of H/C and O/C will be different.
Since the atomic composition of the three main elements (carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) varies
depending on the origin of the biomass D.W. van Klevelen propose a diagram, which is known as the
van Klevelen diagram, wherein represents the organic matter composition depending on their H/C and
O/C ratios and that can be used to represent the different types of kerogen [19].
Figure 8 - Van Klevelen diagram [20].
Van Klevelen divided the diagram into four types of kerogen, type I, II, III and IV, the latter is not
represented in Figure 8.
10
This classification of kerogen into types provides information on the potential for generating oil and
gas [2].
Type I ≈ 60-70%
Type II ≈ 40-60%
Type III ≈ 15-30%
Type I kerogen has a high H/C ratio (1.5 or more). This type of kerogen has a lot of lipid material
mainly aliphatic chains. It has a small amount of oxygen (ratio usually less than 0.1) which comes mainly
from ester bonds. The large amount of lipids is due to the accumulation of algae of a lacustrine
environment. As it was said in subchapter 2.1.1 large amounts of cyanobacteria increases the ratio of
H/C. This type of kerogen is from lacustrine provenance [2] [11]. This type of kerogen generates large
amounts of oil and gas. [2] [11].
Type II kerogen is very common in rocks that generate oil and gas. It presents a H/C ratio smaller
than type I (1.2 <H/C <1.6), although still high, and also a higher O/C ratio (0.1 <O/C <0.2). This type of
kerogen presents an O/C ratio because of the existence of more ester bonds and the presence of more
ketones and carboxylic acids. It is a material that contains abundant aliphatic chains and some
naphthenic rings. This kerogen is associated with the marine organic matter that is deposited in reducing
environments, when there is little or no oxygen. The presence of sulphate in these media can incorporate
sulphur into the organic matter [2] [11].
Type III kerogen is the kerogen with lower H/C ratio, of the three represented in Figure 8 (H / C <1.2)
and higher O/C ratio (O/C> 0.2). This kerogen doesn´t have many ester bonds but features the highest
amount of ketones and carboxylic acids and contains few amounts of aliphatic groups. It is the least
favourable kerogen for the generation of oil and gas. It derives from land-based organic matter which is
mostly composed of cellulose and lignin, which are deficient in hydrogen [2] [11].
Kerogen type IV (which is not shown in Figure 8) is an immature kerogen, this is due to the
occurrence of a carbonization (combustion) of the organic matter before the deposition and thus this
kerogen is very poor in hydrogen [11].
2.3. Diagenesis, Catagenesis and metanogenesis
The organic matter undergoes physicochemical transformations since it is on the surface until it
turns into kerogen inside sedimentary rocks. Since the initial burial, the organic matter begins to undergo
compositional changes, first because of biological activity and as it is goes to greater depth the actions
of pressure and temperature are felt with more intensity. These processes are known as thermal
maturation and are divided into 3 stages: diagenesis, catagenesis and, methanogenesis. Each is
characterized by different types of chemical processes [2] [11].
2.3.1. Diagenesis
Diagenesis is defined as the set of physicochemical and microbiological changes that act during
deposition and down to a few meters of depth and at relatively low temperatures (<65ºC) and low applied
11
pressures. Diagenesis is the initial stage changes/degradation of organic matter through biochemical
processes at low temperature [11] [12].
Diagenesis is a process in which the system tends to approach equilibrium under conditions of
shallow burial and where the sediment becomes consolidated. The depth interval where diagenesis
occurs is in the range of a few meters up to a few hundred meters where the increase in pressure and
temperature are considered mild. The biopolymers (proteins and carbohydrates) are degraded by
microbial activity during sedimentation and diagenesis and its constituents form new polycondensed
structures (geopolymers) which are the precursors of kerogen [11].
At the end of diagenesis, the organic matter is mainly kerogen, in terms of oil exploration these rocky
matrices containing organic matter are considered immature [11].
Since there is a lot of microbial activity under anaerobic conditions, the most important hydrocarbon
formed at this stage is methane, which is called biogenic methane because it is formed due to
biochemical decomposition performed in this state of maturation [2] [11].
The formation of kerogen represents a "halfway point" between the original organic matter and
fossils fuels [2].
Due to the transformations/degradations that occurred at the end of this stage, an equilibrium is
obtained [11].
Besides the kerogen, there are also hydrocarbons that are synthesized by the living organisms in
the rocks that can be used as biomarkers, or chemical fossils, that provide relevant information such as
the environment in which sediment deposition occurred [11] [12].
2.3.2. Catagenesis
The continuous deposition of sediments results in the continued burial of the previously mentioned
beds that can go down to a few kilometres from the subsidence of the basin. This means a considerable
increase in temperature and pressure and tectonics may also contribute to this increase [11].
The temperature attained by the rocks can vary between 50°C and 150°C and the geostatic pressure
between 300bar and 1500bar. These are the reaction conditions that will drive the thermal maturation
of the kerogen and the reaction time of catagenesis varies between a few thousands to millions of years
[7] [11].
These changes in temperature and pressure cause the system to become out-of-balance and therefore
will result in further changes [11]. When this happens, the stage of catagenesis is entered, and this term
was used the first time by Vassoevich. The stage of catagenesis is defined as transformations that occur
due to the thermal process in which kerogen is converted into hydrocarbons [11] [21].
The main inorganic modification that occurs is the rock compaction and the water contained in the
rock is expelled since its porosity and permeability decrease considerably. At the organic level, the
kerogen will undergo thermal pyrolysis which produces first oil (oil window) and later on (at higher
temperature and deeper burial) gas (gas window). This a continuous process in which, after the
maximum production of oil occurs, the rock starts to produce wet gas and, as the depth and temperature
increase, the production of gas increases and oil decreases until only gas is produced (gas window).
12
This process is due to the thermal cracking that happens around 60-120ºC and this is the process
responsible for forming oil and gas in the rock source [2] [7] [11].
Figure 9 – Oil and gas window. Oil window starts at 170ºC until 220ºC and gas window stars at 170ºC and finishes at 225ºC [2].
The transformation of kerogen into fossil fuels is induced primarily by temperature, there is a
temperature rise, depending on the location the temperature will increase by 10-30ºC / km. This increase
in temperature is mainly due to the heat released from the radioactive decay of the elements like 40K,
232Th, 235U and, 238U, although, as previously said, tectonics may also influence this process. During
catagenesis, internal hydrogen transfer reactions occur, which occurs manly by a radical mechanism
and tend to produce products with a higher H / C ratio along with more carbonaceous residues, see
Equation 2 and 3 [7].
C6H5CH3 → 2 CH4 + 5 C (Eq. 2)
C7H16 → 4 CH4 + 3 C (Eq. 3)
As a consequence, with the production of High H/C ratio products, also produces graphite-like
residue, a product composed almost solely of carbon atoms. The production of compounds with a higher
H/C ratio other compounds will have to supply hydrogen, as depicted in Figure 10 [7].
13
Figure 10 - Formation of the two sets of products, Hydrogen-rich (methane) and carbon-rich (graphite) [7].
The internal hydrogen transfer reaction happens before the thermal cracking. Thermal cracking
occurs mainly in molecules with more than sixteen carbon atoms and in branched linear chains or cyclic
and it is a radical mechanism [7].
The thermal cracking has two stages, primary cracking and secondary cracking. Primary cracking
is the kerogen cracking that forms oil and secondary cracking is the cracking of the primary cracking
products into products with less carbon atoms and can occur in source rock itself (in-situ) or in the
reservoir rock, in case the compounds were expelled from the source rock and passed through the
carrier system into a trap where it was housed [7].
Figure 11 – Scheme of cracking of Kerogen [2].
In conclusion, at the beginning of the catagenesis there is kerogen in the rock and, with increasing
depth, due to thermal cracking the kerogen will form oil and with increased depth originates oil and wet
gas. Oil production essentially ends at the end of the catagenesis stage as depicted in Figure 12 [2].
14
Figure 12 – Oil and Gas window, and hydrocarbons formed for a function of depth [2].
2.3.3. Methanogenesis
The final stage of thermal maturation is methanogenesis it occurs at temperatures above 225°C, at
greater depths. The organic matter present in the rock at this stage is constituted by compounds with a
high carbon content. In methanogenesis, the hydrocarbons that is formed is called dry gas that contains
essentially methane, ethane, propane, and butane, and finally methane alone. There may still be some
cracking of kerogen or previously formed liquid hydrocarbons that are converted into methane. If the
conditions are met, methane, carbon dioxide and graphite may be formed, and this occurrence is called
metamorphism. At this stage, the rocky matrix is considered super mature [7] [11] [12].
2.3.4. Conclusion
In conclusion, the processes of thermal maturation are diagenesis, catagenesis and
methanogenesis. In diagenesis, the organic matter is converted into kerogen (geopolymer). In the
catagenesis, due to the increase of temperature and pressure, thermal cracking occurs and sequentially
oil is formed, followed by wet gas and, at the end of the stage only wet gas. Finally, in the
methanogenesis, there is formation of methane and thus the thermal maturation is terminated. These
stages of thermal maturation can be repreented in a van Klevelen diagram as it can be seen in Figure
13 [22].
15
Figure 13 – Van Klevelen diagram with the stages of thermal maturation [22].
2.4. Biomarkers
The term "biomarkers" is the widely used today and was introduced by Seifert & Moldowan in 1986
although throughout the 20th century there were several definitions of chemical fossils, Egliton & Calvin
in 1967 where the first, to describe organic compounds in the geosphere that the carbon skeleton
suggested a direct link to a known natural product (see Figure 14). The first clear association of a
biomarker with a precursor that was described was a porphyrin that had chlorophyll as its precursor [11]
[12].
Usually, lipids, pigments and biomembranes have a greater resistance to degradation and, thus,
they have a better capacity to be preserved in longer geological times. Biomarkers cannot be
synthesized by abiological processes and each precursor generally is altered by diagenetic and
catagenetic processes to a sequential series of derivative products [23].
Biomarkers can be used to determine the origin of organic components, to determine
paleoenvironments of deposition and the maturity of organic matter [11] [12].
Figure 14 – β-carotene (biomolecule), a carotenoid pigment present in carrots and β-carotane (biomarker) after diagenesis [24].
16
2.5. Rock-Eval
2.5.1. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is a widely used degradation technique that allows cracking of complex compounds by
heating under an inert gas (nitrogen or helium) and cracking products are easily analysed and quantified.
Pyrolysis can be applied for geochemical analysis, to simulate kerogen cracking. In nature, this process
takes long time intervals since it occurs at relatively low temperatures. At the laboratory level, high
temperatures are used, and the cracking duration is much shorter. Although there are large differences
between what happens in nature and at the laboratory level, pyrolysis can be used to characterize the
organic material present in rocks because the cracking reactions are similar [25].
2.5.2. Evolution of Rock-Eval
Rock-Eval is one of the most commonly used techniques for the evaluation of hydrocarbons in
source and reservoir rocks.
Rock-Eval 1 was the first Rock-Eval apparatus and was marketed for the first time in 1977 and had
only one pyrolysis oven. After preliminary heating at 300°C at 3 minutes, the analysis begins increasing
the temperature up to 600°C. With this temperature program, it was possible to characterize the thermal
maturity of the kerogen and oil potential of the sediment. To detect the hydrocarbons that were
generated during the pyrolysis procedure an FID is required at the exit of the pyrolysis furnace as is can
see in Figure 15. The limitation of the analysis to a maximum temperature of 600ºC, was a problem
because, in order to have a complete analysis of type III kerogen, it was necessary to analyse at higher
temperatures. Helium was used as the inert gas used in this equipment [25] [26]. As only pyrolysis was
carried-out there was no possibility to analyse the presence of fixed carbon.
Figure 15 - Schematic cross section of the first commercial Rock-Eval [25] [26].
17
Rock-Eval 2 was commercialized in 1979, having already two different ovens one oven for oxidation
and another for pyrolysis. This equipment could also have an organic carbon analysis module which is
used to determine the total organic carbon (TOC), anteriorly to calculate TOC was used the LECO
method [26].
The Rock-Eval 3 Oil Show Analyzer OSA is an improved version of Rock-Eval version 2 which was
easier to use and can be used on-site at drilling sites. In this version, the pyrolysis temperature begun
at 180ºC and ended at 600ºC. The lower starting temperature used with this version, made it already
possible to quantify some free hydrocarbons present in the samples. This version was further automated
in relation to the previous version, with a microprocessor and an apparatus which transfers the analysed
sample from pyrolysis oven to the oxidation oven [26].
The latest version of Rock-Eval, Rock-Eval 6, was launched on the market in 1996 by Vinci
Technologies. The temperature program of this version starts at 100°C and goes up to 850°C (100°C <
Pyrolysis Temperature<650°C and 100°C < Oxidation Temperature <850°C). With this temperature
program the analysis of light hydrocarbons was possible, along with heavy oils and complete analysis
of type III kerogen as well as mineral carbon [27].
2.5.3. Rock-Eval 6
2.5.3.1. Description of Rock-Eval 6
The characterization of the organic matter present in the sedimentary rocks is one of the main
objectives of the use of Rock-Eval for geochemistry analysis and, in the present days, it is a critical step
for evaluating the potential of a prospection. In the last 50 years, several authors/researchers (e.g.,
Barker, 1974; Claypool and Reed, 1976; Espitalié et al., 1977 and 1984; Clementz et al., 1979; Larter
and Douglas, 1980; Horsfield, 1985; Peters and Simoneit,1982; Peters, 1986) have used pyrolysis
methods to obtain data on the petroleum potential, thermal maturity, type of the source rocks in different
sedimentary basins. Among the techniques used by the various authors mentioned previously, Rock-
Eval was the most widely used, becoming a standard method in the industry of oil exploration. As
described in section 2.5.2. the Rock-Eval Technique has undergone several changes over the years in
order to improve the technique and allow it to obtain more parameters with its analysis, in order to have
a more complete report and thus better assist in drilling planning [28].
The Rock-Eval technique is based on using a programmed temperature heating of a rock sample
(about 100 milligrams) under an inert atmosphere (helium or nitrogen) to determine the amount of
hydrocarbons, present in the sample that were generated by natural processes, thermo-vaporization
(peak S1), generated by thermal cracking of the kerogen present in the sample (peak S2) and CO2
released due to thermal cracking of kerogen containing oxygen atoms (peak S3) [28].
18
Table 2 -Acquisition parameters of Rock-Eval 6 [27].
Acquisition parameters Unit Name
S1 mg HC/g rock Free Hydrocarbons
S2 mg HC/g rock Oil potential
TpS2 °C Temperature of peak S2 maximum
S3 mg CO2/g rock CO2 mineral source
S3` mg CO2/g rock CO2 organic source
TpS3` °C Temperature of peak S3` maximum
S3CO mg CO/g rock CO2 organic source
TpS3CO °C Temperature of peak S3CO maximum
S3`CO mg CO/g rock CO organic and mineral source
S4CO2 mg CO2/g rock CO2 organic source
S5 mg CO2/g rock CO2 mineral source
TpS5 °C Temperature of peak S5 maximum
S4CO mg CO/g rock CO organic source
The organic matter detected during the pyrolysis process is divided into free hydrocarbons and
kerogen. When the thermo-vaporization of hydrocarbons in the rock occurs, peak S1(oil and gas) is
obtained. Subsequently, with the increase of temperature, thermal cracking of kerogen occurs (peak
S2); in the case of kerogen containing oxygen a CO or CO2 peak is also detected (peak S3) besides
the peaks that were mentioned before. From the results it is also possible to determine the TOC of the
rock using the pyrolysis oven in combination with a second oven, in this case, for oxidation. The oxidation
oven will allow the determination of the residual organic carbon left by the pyrolysis (peak S4) [7], see
Figure 16 [28] .
Figure 16 - A General diagram showing the different fractions of the total organic matter of analysed rocks, the corresponding parameters and their recordings [28].
With the parameters acquired with Rock-Eval, peaks and the measurement of Tmax (TpS2 in Table
2), the temperature for the maximum rate of thermal decomposition of kerogen (corresponding to S2),
several other parameters of extreme importance can be obtained for a more detailed analysis (see Table
3) [27]. The formulas to calculate the parameters presented in table 3 can be consulted in appendix A
19
Table 3 - Calculated parameters from the acquisition parameters [27].
Calculated parameters Unit Name
Tmax °C Tmax
PI
Production index
PC Wt% Pyrolysable org. carbon
RC CO Wt% Residual org. carbon (CO)
RC CO2 Wt% Residual org. carbon (CO2)
RC Wt% Residual org. carbon
TOC Wt% Total organic carbon
S1/TOC mg HC/g TOC -
HI mg HC/g TOC Hydrogen index
OI mg CO2/g TOC Oxygen index
OI CO mg CO2/g TOC Oxygen index (CO)
PyroMinC Wt% Pyrolysis mineral carbon
OxiMinC Wt% Oxidation mineral carbon
MinC Wt% Mineral Carbon
From the parameters presented in Table 2 and 3 Tmax(TpS2), PI (Production index) and TOC (Total
organic carbon) stand out.
The TOC calculation provides the information on the quality of the organic matter in the source rock
and is represented by weight percent and the TOC is the sum of pyrolysable organic carbon and residual
organic carbon. The pyrolysable organic carbon is the carbon released at peak S1, 83% of the contents
of the peak S2 and CO and CO2 released in peak S3. These peaks are obtained in an inert atmosphere.
The residual carbon is the carbon leaving in the form of CO and CO2 in the S4 peak, this peak is in the
oxidative atmosphere [28] [29].
Figure 17 – Kerogen Quality as a function of the percentage of TOC [29].
Tmax is the temperature at which the maximum rate of hydrocarbon generation occurs in
a kerogen sample during pyrolysis analysis. The peak S2 represents the rate of hydrocarbon generation
of the kerogen undergoing a thermal cracking [2] [30].
20
The value of Tmax can be used as a measurement of the thermal maturity of organic matter inside
the rock. The higher the value of Tmax the higher the degree of thermal maturity. With the increase of
the depth the rocks pass from the immature to the oil window and then to the gas window and with this
increase of depth Tmax and the area of the peak S1 increase while that of the peak S2 decreases, this
is due to the advancement in the stage of thermal maturation and thus the rock having more and more
free hydrocarbons and less pyrolysable kerogen as schematized in Figure 18 [2].
Figure 18 - Influence of depth on the value of tmax [2].
The production index (PI) represents the amount of hydrocarbons that have been produced from
the original organic matter and can be calculated through 𝑆1
𝑆1+𝑆2 for a closed system in other words if
there is no expulsion of hydrocarbons from the rock, with subsequent migration. The sum of 𝑆1 + 𝑆2
represents theoretical total petroleum potential. PI will be higher the larger the area of the S1 peak. This
parameter is highly correlated with Tmax because the higher Tmax correspond to higher maturity of the
rock, indicating that more hydrocarbons have been generated by pyrolysis and, thus, the larger would
be the area of the S1 peak and the larger the value of PI. Thus, PI increases with increasing depth as it
is possible to observe in Figure 19 [2].
Figure 19 -Production index as a function of burial in the Early Cretaceous sediments of the Camanu-Almada basin, Brazil [2].
21
The combination of Tmax and PI provide a very good overall analysis of thermal maturity as can be
seen in Figure 20 [31]. Note, however, that PI is not always easy to determine as the source rock
systems cannot usually be considered as closed systems [31].
Figure 20 - Tmax versus PI to characterize the samples [31].
The Rock-Eval version 6 can also determine the mineral carbon content of drill cutting (sample).
The amount of mineral carbon is calculated by combination of the CO2 released during pyrolysis above
400°C and the CO2 from carbonate decomposition during the oxidation phase from 650°C to 850°C.
Magnesite, bicarbonate and siderite begin to decompose when the pyrolysis temperature approaches
400ºC and dolomite and calcite (the most important minerals in carbonate sequences) decompose
during oxidation [28]. During pyrolysis, the siderite can undergo two reactions, the first produces CO2
and FeO and the second departs from the products of the first reaction to produce CO and Fe3O4 see
Equation 4 and 5.
FeCO3 → FeO + CO2 (Eq. 4)
3 FeO + CO2 → Fe3O4 + CO (Eq. 5)
2.5.3.2. Rock-Eval 6 Apparatus
There are three versions of the Rock-Eval apparatus device marketed by Vinci technologies® [27].
Figure 21 - Different Rock-Eval 6 versions commercialized by Vinci Technologies® [27].
22
The simplest version, Classic Rock-Eval 6, has just a pyrolysis oven which that when heating the
sample will release hydrocarbons, free hydrocarbons and cracking of kerogen (S1 and S2 peaks), and
this release will be monitored by an FID (Flame ionization detector). the CO and CO2 released during
pyrolysis will be monitored by an infrared cell [27].
There are two more complete versions, standard Rock-Eval (serial process) and turbo Rock-Eval
(Parallel process). These two versions have the same constituents as the classic version, but they have
one more oxidation oven, to account for the CO and CO2 released during the oxidation with an infrared
cell measurement. The major difference between the versions it's the time of analysis, the parallel
process is faster than the serial process because the pyrolysis and oxidation are done simultaneously
while in the serial process the same infrared cell is used to account for the CO and CO2 released in the
pyrolysis and oxidation using switching valve to select the oven outlet [27].
2.5.3.3. New Applications of Rock-Eval 6
The Rock-Eval apparatus, with the technological advances that were added along time, started to
have new applications, namely reservoir geochemistry and soils contamination studies.
Geochemistry of reservoirs is an area of growing interest with remarkable economic importance
because it can be used to evaluate reservoir continuity during field appraisal, to identify non-productive
reservoir zones, and to analyse commingled oils for production allocation calculations [32]. The Rock-
Eval method has been used successfully in reservoir geochemistry for predicting the oil API( American
Petroleum Institute gravity) and for detecting tar-mats [28].
For the study of Soils contamination, the Rock-Eval player is called Pollut-Eval. For these types of
studies, the apparatus is equipped with a cooled autosampler that reduces the loss of light compounds.
The analysis performed provides parameters necessary to characterize a contaminated site: what are
the pollutants, how much and where. Additionally it provides a short analysis time, about 30 minutes
and so the time to assess the extent of a contaminated site is drastically reduced when compared with
the other techniques used, because the other types of analyses, chromatography, infrared spectroscopy
or chromatography-mass spectrometry, require that the pollutant is extracted [28] [33].
2.5.4. Objective of this work
The objective of the current thesis is to provide a computational way to analyse data from the S1
peak from Rock-Eval so as to allow the estimation of the hydrocarbons present without adding additional
time to the analysis time.
In fact, the S1 peak corresponds to the hydrocarbons that have already been generated in source
rocks or, more directly, to the oil present in a reservoir rock. Although it provides quantification of these
hydrocarbons it does not provide information on it these hydrocarbons themselves, something that
requires additional analysis after extraction of these hydrocarbons. In this work the aim is to provide a
fast, on-line estimation of some of the properties of these hydrocarbons.
23
3. Experimental part
This chapter describes the hydrocarbons and rock used as well as the methodology used in this
thesis work
3.1. Hydrocarbons
The hydrocarbons used in this thesis work were Decane(C10H22), Dodecane (C12H26), Hexadecane
(C16H34), Eicosano (C20H42) e Squalane (C30H62).
The hydrocarbons used are paraffins which are saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons with straight or
branched chain. Squalane has a particularity of being a biomarker or molecular fossils, as previously
described in subchapter 2.4. The specifications of the hydrocarbons used are present in appendix B
3.2. Rock
As it is desired to simulate a sample taken from a reservoir it is necessary to choose a type of rock
that has representativeness as a reservoir rock. As depicted in Figure 22, reservoirs are made up mainly
by sandstone and carbonate. For this work a carbonate was chosen.
Figure 22 - Comparison of reservoir rock types around the world in 1956 [34].
The carbonate sample used in this work is shown in Figure 23, then crushed, Figure 24, to be
saturated
Figure 23 - Carbonate sample
24
Figure 24 - Carbonate after being crushed
The sample was collected from the quarry of Pedramoca located in Serra de Aire e Candeeiros
ownership of Mocapor. The sample is an oolitic limestone (oolitic is the designation given to round sand-
sized grains, 0.25 to 2mm, formed by inorganic chemical precipitation of calcium carbonate in agitated
waters and with little deposition of clastic material), that belongs to the formation of Santo António which
dates from the Middle Jurassic [35].
3.3. Methodology
The methodology used in the experimental part of this work consists in three steps, saturation of the
Limestone with synthetic oils, thermogravimetry analysis and subsequent data processing. Additionally,
gas chromatographic analysis was also used to check the composition of the hydrocarbon mixtures that
were used.
3.3.1. Saturation of Limestone with synthetic oils
The limestone used was clean and did not possess any hydrocarbons to start with. To carry out the
study the limestones were saturated with oils of know composition. The saturation of limestone with
synthetic oils is done to simulate one drill cutting in this limestone case, which contain hydrocarbons
inside.
The saturation was carried-out by puttin 300-400mg of limestone inside a Schlenk vessel sealed
with a Suba and degassing it thoroughly by creating vacuum inside the Schlenk using a controlled
atmosphere apparatus with a vacuum pump. A filter was used to prevent that when evacuating the
Schlenk, lighter sample pieces of carbonate would go into the vacuum pump; this filter also increase the
pressure loss and thus the vacuum is introduced into the Schlenk in a more gradual manner. All the
connection between pieces is made with special hoses to be able to produce vacuum as shown in Figure
25.
25
Figure 25 - Experimental installation for saturation. 1- Schlenk vessel, 2- Suba, 3- filter (glass tube), 4- Vacuum pump
3.3.2. Thermogravimetric analysis
As the purpose of this thesis is to add a complement to Rock-Eval method the same temperature
program of the method was used, either for the inert atmosphere part or for the oxidative atmosphere
part. The temperature program with an inert atmosphere starts at 30°C and increases at 25°C/min up
to 300°C, reproduce peak S1, as there is no kerogen in samples only hydrocarbons, this will be the only
peak characterized in this thesis. After this first ramp there is an isothermal section at 300°C during 10
minutes. The second heating ramp starts at 300°C and ends at 650ºC; this is the ramp that, in Rock-
Eval, is used to characterize the S2 and S3 but as the samples used do not have any kerogen there is
no data to be treated. When reaching the 650ºC another isothermal ramp to stabilize the temperature.
At the end proceeds to a cooling of 650°C until 30°C at a 25°C/min rate.
The oxidation program begins at 30°C and ends at 850°C and has a heating rate of 25°C/min at the
end there is an isothermal ramp at 850ºC and at the end, the sample is cooled.
The description of the temperature programs above can be seen in Figures 26 and 27.
.
26
Figure 26 – Temperature program for an inert atmosphere.
Figure 27 – Temperature program for oxidative atmosphere.
The apparatus used to perform Thermogravimetric analysis was Simultaneous Thermal Analyzer
STA 6000 of brand PerkinElmer® and the software used to control de apparatus and collect the data
was the Pyris software.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pro
gram
Tem
per
atu
re (°C
)
Time (min)Hold for 10 min at 30°C Heat from 30°C to 300°C at 25°C/min
Hold for 10 min at 300°C Heat from 300°C to 650°C at 25°C/min
Hold for 10 min at 650°C Cold from 650°C to 30°C at 25°C/min
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pro
gram
Tem
per
atu
re (°C
)
Time (min)
Hold for 10 min at 30ºC Heat from 30ºC to 850ºC at 25ºC/min
Hold for 10 min at 850ºC Cold from 850ºC to 30ºC at 25ºC/min
27
Figure 28 - Simultaneous Thermal Analyzer STA 6000 during the experiment.
3.3.3. Gas chromatography
In order to know the exact compositions of the oil mixtures that were saturated into the rocks, gas
chromatography was used. The apparatus used was a Clarus®680 Gas Chromatograph of brand
PerkinElmer® that has a BP1 column (in which the stationary phase is 100% dimethylpolysiloxane that
is non-polar and is recommended for hydrocarbons) in whose dimensions are 30m * 250μm working at
a pressure of 2bar with the following temperature program: hold for 2min at 60ºC, heat from 60ºC to
190ºC at 10ºC/min, hold for 5 min at 190ºC and heat from 190ºC to 200ºC at 10ºC/min ; the injector
used is of split-type with a split ratio of 1:50 and the injection temperature was 250°C, and the sample
volume is 0.1μL. The carrier gases are Nitrogen and helium.
28
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
29
4. Data treatment and discussion
In this chapter is presented all the analyzes that were carried-out, thermogravimetric analysis to
saturated samples and gas chromatography to the hydrocarbon mixtures.
4.1. Rock characterization
First, some analysis were carried-out on the rock used in this work, to identify the minerals present
in the rock and see if their mass losses during the thermochemical process they were being subjected
to could affect the interpretation of results after the samples were saturated with hydrocarbons. The first
experiments were carried-out in an inert atmosphere and the results of the thermogravimetric analysis
are shown in Figure 29.
Figure 29 – Percentage of the initial mass as a function of the temperature of rock used in experimental part in an inert atmosphere.
As it can be observed, in the inert atmosphere, the mass loss up to 650ºC is insignificant, less than
1%. Based on the reference [28] it can be suggested that the sample has siderite.
Next the thermal analysis was carried-out under an oxidative atmosphere (air) and
thermogravimetric analysis is shown in Figure 30.
99
99,1
99,2
99,3
99,4
99,5
99,6
99,7
99,8
99,9
100
100,1
130 180 230 280 330 380 430 480 530 580 630 680
Per
cen
tage
of
the
init
ial m
ass
Temperature (°C)
Assay 1
Assay 2
30
Figure 30 - Percentage of the initial mass as a function of the temperature of rock used in experimental part at oxidative atmosphere.
In the oxidative atmosphere, the results of the mass loss are similar to that under nitrogen up to
650ºC. However, in this case, the temperature was raised up to 850ºC and a total mass loss is about
45% of initial mass. The mass loss starts at around 700ºC and based on the reference [28] can be
suggested that this mass loss corresponds to calcite present on a rock. Through of Thermogravimetric
analysis, it may be suggested that the stone used in this work had calcite and siderite in its composition.
The first mass loss happens at approximately 400°C, there will be no problem because there are only
hydrocarbons in the rock after saturation and these evaporate before 400°C
4.2. Hydrocarbon impregnated in rock
4.2.1. Results of the thermogravimetric analysis
The objective of this work is to analyse the thermogravimetric behavior of the rock containing
complex mixtures of hydrocarbons. The work proceeded in a stepwise fashion, starting with rocks
saturated with a pure component before moving to the analysis of the behavior of samples saturated
with mixtures of increasing complexity.
Consequently, after the rock characterization the work proceeded with the analysis of samples
saturated with a single hydrocarbon. The hydrocarbons used were Decane, Dodecane, Hexadecane,
Eicosane and Squalane.
The results of thermogravimetric analysis realized to the samples (rock saturated with one
hydrocarbon) are shown in Figures 31 and 32(assay 1 to each hydrocarbon) and 33 and 34 (assay 2 to
each hydrocarbon), the results are represented as mg Hydrocarbon/mg rock as a function of
temperature and time.
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Per
cen
tage
of
inic
ial m
ass
Temperature (°C)
Assay 1
Assay 2
31
Figure 31 – mg HC in rock/mg rock as a function of temperature for assay 1 of each hydrocarbon
Figure 32 - mg HC in rock/mg rock as a function of time for assay 1 of each hydrocarbon
Figure 33 - mg HC in rock/mg rock as a function of temperature for assay 2 of each hydrocarbon
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
30 80 130 180 230 280 330 380
mg
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Temperature (°C)
Decane
Dodecane
Hexadecane
Eicosane
Squalane
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mg
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Decane
Dodecane
Hexadecane
Eicosane
Squalane
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
30 80 130 180 230 280 330 380
mg
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Temperature (°C)
Decano
Dodecano
Hexadecano
Eicosane
Squalane
32
Figure 34 - mg HC in rock/mg rock as a function of time for assay 1 of each hydrocarbon
From the observation of Figures 31 to 34 it is possible to conclude that for longer carbon chains
more time is needed to finish the thermal vaporization. The Squalane curve has a different behaviour
because in the Rock-Eval temperature program there is an isothermal section at 300ºC, and at this
temperature, Squalane is still in the process of evaporating from the rock. There is only a small difference
of the weight of HC in rock/mg rock for the same set (hydrocarbon + rock) which can be due to the
variability of the rock samples themselves. Nevertheless, although the samples have slightly different
hydrocarbon content their behaviour is the same as it is possible to see in Figure 35, for the case of
Decane.
Figure 35 – Normalized mass (in relation to the hydrocarbon) as a function of temperature for two assays of Decane.
4.2.2. Mathematical model for the evaporation of one hydrocarbon
The objective is to be able to describe the evaporation kinetics of the hydrocarbons. To do this we
will assume that the evaporation can be described by an Arrhenius-type law with a first order kinetics
and we will use the experimental data to determine the activation energy and kinetic constant for each
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0,35
0,4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mg
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Decane
Dodecane
Hexadecane
Eicosane
Squalane
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
mas
s n
orm
aliz
ed
Temperature (°C)
Assay 1
Assay 2
33
hydrocarbon. To reduce the correlation in the estimation of the two kinetic parameters that are required
in Arrhenius law, this will be written in terms of a reference temperature, using Equations 6 and 7.
k(T) = k0e(− EaRT
) (Eq. 6)
kTref= k0e
(− Ea
RTref) (Eq. 7)
Where k(T) Kinetic constant for temperature T
k0 Pre-exponential factor
Ea Activation energy
R Universal gas constant
T Temperature of samples in the absolute temperature
kTref Kinetic constant for the reference temperature
Tref Reference temperature in absolute temperature
Dividing Equation 6 by Equation 7 obtains the Equation 8 can be written as Equation 9.
kT
kTref
= e− Ea
R(
1T
−1
Tref) (Eq. 8)
k(T) = kTrefe
− EaR
(1T
−1
Tref) (Eq. 9)
In the following the reference temperature chosen was 298.15 K.
Equation 10 is of the massa balance describing the mass loss of the hydrocarbon from the sample
and, insertin Equation 9 in Equation 10, it is possible to arrive at Equation 11.
−dw𝐻𝐶(𝑡)
dt= k(T) ∗ wHC(𝑡) (𝐸𝑞. 10)
Where dw𝐻𝐶(𝑡)
dt Derived of the mass loss of the hydrocarbon at time
k(T) Kinetic constant for temperature T
wHC(𝑡) Mass of hydrocarbon at time t
−dwHc(t)
dt= kTref
e− Ea
R(
1T
−1
Tref)
∗ wHC(t) (Eq. 11)
To calculate the hydrocarbon mass at each instant Equation 12 was used.
.
34
wHc(t) = wHc(tt−1) +dwHc(tt−1)
dt∗ (tt−tt−1) (Eq. 12)
Where wHc(t) Mass of hydrocarbon at time t
wHc(𝑡𝑡−1) Mass of hydrocarbon at time t-1
dwHc(𝑡𝑡−1)
dt Derived of the mass loss of the hydrocarbon at time t-1 in order of time
tt Time t
tt−1 Time t-1
Note that, in order to improve the accuracy of the calculations, the actual temperature profile was
used in the calculation and the time step used was the one corresponding to the data sampling rate.
Finally, to calculate the activation energy and the kinetic constant these values were estimated by a
least-squares approach, aiming at obtaining the smallest sum of the squares of the residuals possible.
In Figure 36 it is possible to see the comparison between the mass loss computed by the model for the
first assay of hexadecane in comparison with the experimental mass loss.
Figure 36 - Experimental mass loss and model mass loss to assay 1 of hexadecane
In Figure 36 is possible observed that model mass loss (first-order of Arrhenius law) represents with
a good degree of approximation to the experimental mass loss. The results for the calculated parameters
for the different hydrocarbons are present in Table 4.
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
mg
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Experimental mass loss
Model mass loss
35
Table 4 - Kinetic constant and the activation energy hydrocarbon impregnated in rock.
Assay 𝑘𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 (s-1) Ea (J/mol)
Decane 1 3.5E-03 51769.7
2 3.8E-03 51164.5
Dodecane 1 2.4E-04 63253.5
2 2.7E-04 60703.2
Hexadecane 1 1.6E-06 81743.9
2 1.6E-06 81658.6
Eicosane 1 5.2E-10 117349.3
2 5.8E-10 117549.3
Squalane 1 8.7E-15 160899.8
2 8.7E-15 160912.5
Analysing the data of Table 4 and observing the Figures 31,32,33, and 34 one can conclude that
the longer the chain of carbon atoms or molecular weight, the higher the activation energy. This would
be expected because the larger the carbon chain length the heavier are the molecules to evaporate and
more energy will be required per molecule, see Table 5.
Table 5 - Enthalpy of vaporization for each compound [36].
Compound Enthalpy of vaporization (KJ/mol)
Decane (C10H22) 38.0
Dodecane (C12H26) 43.4
Hexadecane (C16H34) 50.5
Eicosane (C20H42) 56.4
Squalane (C30H62) 65.8
4.3. Mixtures of two hydrocarbons impregnated in rock
After in the previous subchapter in which the kinetic parameters for the evaporation of a single
hydrocarbon impregnated in rock were estimated, the next step was to use mixtures of two
hydrocarbons.
4.3.1. Thermogravimetric analysis for two hydrocarbons impregnated in rock
After the impregnation with a known mixture of two hydrocarbons in the rock the samples were,
again subjected to the thermogravimetric analysis. The results for mixtures of Decane + Dodecane,
Dodecane + Hexadecane and Decane + Hexadecane are present in Figure 37.
36
Figure 37 - Thermogravimetric analysis of mixture Decane + Dodecane, Dodecane + Hexadecane and Decane + Hexadecane wherein percentage of initial mass as a function of Temperature. All the mixtures are 50:50.
Through the observation of Figure 37, it is concluded that the end of the mass loss depends on the
hydrocarbon with the highest molecular weight in a given mixture. Thus, the mixtures Decane +
Hexadecane and dodecane + hexadecane end up at almost the same temperature. Remind the
difference of mg of HC in rock/mg rock is related to the sample analysed contains more or fewer
hydrocarbons.
4.3.2. Mathematical model for a mixture of two hydrocarbons
Figure 38 compares the mass loss for the mixture of Decane + Dodecane with the corresponding
mass losses for the pure components. It shows a very important aspect for mixtures of two
hydrocarbons: the mass loss of the mixture occurs at temperatures that lie between the those for the
mass loss of its pure constituents.
Figure 38 - Thermogravimetric analysis for Decane, Dodecane and mixture of Decane + Dodecane.
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Temperature (°C)
Decane + Dodecane
Dodecane + Hexadecane
Decane + Hexadecane
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Temperature (°C)
Decane
Dodecane
Decane + Dodecane
37
The explanation for the behaviour of the mass loss curves of Figure 37 is because as it is a mixture,
and each hydrocarbon has it own partial pressure, depending on the temperature, there will be
evaporation of the two components simultaneously, but with different rates, depending on the
composition of the liquid in the rock and the volatility of the pure components. To describe this effect,
the rate law for evaporation has not only to take into account the amount of the component under
consideration but also the composition of the mixture at any given time. To account for this fact the
change of vapour pressure as a function of the composition, as described Raoult’s law was added to
the mathematical model. Therefore, its necessary to add one term to the equation 11, whose term is the
introduction of Raoult´s law, thus the equation of the derivative for mass loss of a hydrocarbon can be
written as:
−dwHCa
(t)
dt= kTref
e− Ea
R(
1T
−1
Tref)
∗ wHCa(t) ×
wHCa(t)
wHC(t) (Eq. 13)
Where dw𝐻𝐶𝑎(𝑡)
dt Derived of mass loss of the hydrocarbon a at time t
kTref Kinetic constant for the reference temperature
Ea Activation energy
R Universal gas constant
T Temperature of samples in absolute temperature
Tref Reference temperature in absolute temperature
w𝐻𝐶𝑎(𝑡) Weight of hydrocarbon a at time t
𝑤𝐻𝐶(𝑡) Total weight of hydrocarbons at time t
Equation 13 was used, in a way similar to the one that was used for pure component, to estimate
the activation energy and kinetic constant for each hydrocarbon now in the mixtures under study. Again
the Euler method was used to integrate the relevant differential equations corresponding to the material
balances of the different compounds present and the result was fitted to the experimental data varying
the kinetic parameters and the estimated composition. In Figure 39 it is possible to see that the mass
loss computed by the model for the first assay of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane describes very well
the experimental mass loss.
38
Figure 39 - Experimental mass loss and model mass loss to assay 1 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane.
Table 6 shows the values of the activation energies and kinetic constants estimated for the mixtures
used.
Table 6 - Kinetic constant and the activation energy for each hydrocarbon that forming mixtures studied.
Mixture Assay 1 Assay 2
kTref(s-1) Ea (J/mol) kTref
(s-1) Ea (J/mol)
Decane 1.1E-02 55466.2 7.3E-03 57047.9
Dodecane 9.3E-07 116450.0 4.8E-07 120803.8
Decane 7.7E-03 51500.4 3.6E-03 48300.0
Hexadecane 4.6E-06 81701.3 2.4E-06 85322.1
Decane 5.5E-03 35787.7 3.6E-03 40356.4
Eicosane 5.2E-13 162441.2 1.9E-13 163484.0
Decane 5.9E-03 40428.1 3.6E-03 44298.8
Squalane 7.6E-15 167904.9 8.7E-15 166532.0
Dodecane 9.2E-04 58051.7 7.1E-04 61145.8
Hexadecane 2.6E-08 119499.0 3.6E-09 130619.3
Hexadecane 3.0E-06 77100.0 3.0E-06 78903.8
Squalane 8.1E-15 167624.9 9.0E-15 166818.0
Hexadecane 3.1E-06 88957.4 1.1E-06 94848.1
Eicosane 8.9E-14 171833.0 7.3E-14 170622.0
Figure 40 represents the activation energies obtained for all the compounds that were teste in the
mixtures vs. the corresponding values of ktref. As it can be seen there is good correlation between the
two parameters. Note that in Figure 40 the values obtained for the pure components were also plotted.
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Experimental mass loss
Model mass loss
39
Figure 40 - Energy activation as a function logarithmic of a kinetic constant to show the correlation between these two parameters for the different components under study.
This relationship will be the basis for the mathematical model that will be used for the estimation the
composition of the oil in the rock for a more complex mixture.
4.4. Estimation of percentages for a mixture of three Hydrocarbon
The objective in this subchapter is to estimate the fractions of each hydrocarbon in a mixture of three
hydrocarbons that was impregnated into the rock. After the mixture is prepared, an analysis by gas
chromatography was carried-out to check the actual composition of the sample so as to allow the
comparison of the know composition with the results obtained with the estimation using the
mathematical model. The obtained by the gas chromatography analysis were 32.19wt.% for Decane,
34.87wt.% for Dodecane and 32.94wt.% for Hexadecane. For the estimation of the composition by the
thermal analysis results, using mass loss model described, values for the kinetic parameters of each of
the components were obtained using the data in Table 6. The base values that were chosen were:
kTref=1.12E-2s-1 and Ea=55466J/mol for Decane (assay 1 of mixture Decane + Dodecane), kTref
=9.33E-
7s-1 and Ea=116450J/mol for Dodecane (assay 1 of mixture Decane + Dodecane) finally for Hexadecane
was chosen kTref=2.59E-9s-1 and Ea=119499J/mol (assay 1 of mixture Dodecane + Hexadecane). In
Figures 41 and 42 are presented the curves of experimental and model mass loss, for the model mass
loss was used the percentages calculated by gas chromatography analysis.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
E a(J
/mo
l)
ln (kTref)
Hydrocarbon + rock
Assay 1 of mixtures
Assay 2 of mixtures
40
Figure 41 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 1 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane + Hexadecane.
Figure 42 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 2 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane + Hexadecane.
In Figures 41 and 42 is possible observed that the curve of model mass loss describes perfectly to
the curve of experimental mass loss, that is to say, that the model can explain what happens
experimentally. Lastly, the objective is to calculate with the mathematical model the proportions of each
hydrocarbon in the mixture. The percentages calculated are in Table 7 as well as the relative error for
each hydrocarbon in each assay.
Through equation 16 the relative error is calculated.
Relative error =Real% − Model%
Real% (Eq. 14)
Where 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙% Value obtained by the analysis of gas chromatography
𝑀𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙% Value obtained by the mathematical model
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Experimental mass loss
Model mass loss
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Experimental mass loss
Model mass loss
41
Table 7 – Real composition, the estimated composition of the model and relative error of each hydrocarbon for each assay.
Decane Dodecane Hexadecane
Assay 1
Real composition 0.322 0.349 0.329
Estimated composition 0.334 0.350 0.316
Relative error 3.70% 0.48% 4.13%
Assay 2
Real composition 0.322 0.349 0.329
Estimated composition 0.318 0.370 0.312
Relative error 1.30% 6.18% 5.27%
The average relative error of each assay is 2.77% for assay 1 and 4.25% for assay 2. Analysing the
calculated values for the composition determined by the mathematical model and for the relative error
concluded that the model determines the percentages of each hydrocarbon with a low relative error, so
this model gives consistent results. Therefore, this mathematical model to determine this type of values
for a mixture of three hydrocarbons is good enough.
4.5. Estimation of percentages for a mixture of four Hydrocarbons
The objective in this subchapter is to predict the fractions of each hydrocarbon in a mixture of four
hydrocarbons. The procedure was the same as in subchapter 4.4. and in this case, the gas
chromatography results were 20,29wt.% for Decane, 25.50wt.% for Dodecane, 31,94wt.% for
Hexadecane and 22,27wt.% for Eicosane. Appendix C contains the chromatogram and the gas
chromatography analysis report for this mixture. For the forecast (curve of model mass loss) the values
used were kTref=7.69E-3s-1 and Ea=51500.42J/mol for Decane, kTref
=7.07E-4s-1 and Ea=61145.83J/mol
for Dodecane, kTref=2.59E-8s-1 and Ea=119498.95J/mol for Hexadecane finally for Hexadecane was
chosen kTref=5.24E-13s-1 and Ea=162441.2J/mol. In Figures 43 and 44 are presented the curves of
experimental and model mass loss, for the model mass loss was used the percentages calculated by
gas chromatography analysis.
Figure 43 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 1 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane + Hexadecane + Eicosane.
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0,3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Experimental mass loss
Model mass loss
42
Figure 44 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 2 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane + Hexadecane + Eicosane.
Observing the Figures 43 and 44 conclude that the curve of model mass loss describes perfectly to
the curve of experimental mass loss for assay 1, while that for assay 2 the curve of model mass loss
don´t fit perfectly in certain regions, more properly in the domain of Eicosane mass loss, but anyway is
a good representation of mass loss in experience. Lastly, it was calculated the proportions of each
hydrocarbon present in the mixture, analogously as in sub-chapter 4.4., and relative error in relation to
of proportions calculated by analysis of gas chromatography, the values are in Table 8.
Table 8 - Real composition, the estimated composition of the model and relative error of each hydrocarbon for each assay.
Decane Dodecane Hexadecane Eicosane
Assay 1
Real composition 0.2029 0.2550 0.3194 0.2227
Estimated composition 0.2235 0.2210 0.3288 0.2266
Relative error 10.17% 13.33% 2.960% 1.760%
Assay 2
Real composition 0.2029 0.2550 0.3194 0.2227
Estimated composition 0.2489 0.2110 0.3390 0.2010
Relative error 22.72% 17.25% 6.140% 9.740%
The average relative error of each assay is 7.05% for assay 1 and 13.96% for assay 2. the
percentages calculated by the mathematical model are not very different from the percentages obtained
by gas chromatography analysis although in some cases the relative error is large, for example, 22.72%
for Decane in assay 2. Although there are high relative errors, the relative errors of the tests are
satisfactory for the hydrocarbons in question, the mathematical model continues to provide quite
satisfactory results given that each analysis has an associated error.
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Experimental mass loss
Model mass loss
43
4.6. Estimation of percentages for a mixture of five Hydrocarbon
The objective in this subchapter is to predict the fractions of each hydrocarbon in a mixture of five
hydrocarbons. The procedure was the same as in subchapter 4.4. and in this case, the gas
chromatography results were 21.27wt.% for Decane, 21.44wt.% for Dodecane, 29.06wt.% for
Hexadecane, 16.32wt.% for Eicosane and 11.91wt.% for Squalane. For this mixture, the values utilized
to make the curve of model mass loss were kTref=7.69E-3s-1 and Ea=51500.42J/mol for Decane,
kTref=9.15E-4s-1 and Ea=58051.66J/mol for Dodecane, kTref
=2.59E-9s-1 and Ea=119498.99J/mol for
Hexadecane, kTref=8.85E-14s-1 and Ea=171833J/mol for Eicosane and kTref
=7.58E-15s-1 and
Ea=197904.93J/mol for Squalane. In Figures 45 and 46 are presented the curves of experimental and
model mass loss, for the model mass loss.
Figure 45 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 1 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane + Hexadecane + Eicosane + Squalane.
Figure 46 - Experimental and model mass loss and to assay 2 of a mixture of Decane + Dodecane + Hexadecane + Eicosane + Squalane.
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Experimental mass loss
Model mass loss
0
0,05
0,1
0,15
0,2
0,25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mg
of
HC
in r
ock
/mg
rock
Time (min)
Experimental mass loss
Model mass loss
44
Observing the Figures 45 and 46 it was concluded that the mathematical model cannot fully describe
the loss of mass for this mixture. The model describes well the loss of mass corresponding in most of
the mass loss of Decane, Dodecane, Hexadecane and almost all of Eicosane, but when it cannot
accurately describe the mass loss of Squalane.
45
5. Conclusion
The rocky matrix used in this work was a carbonate and through thermogravimetric analysis the
mass losses suggest, taking into account the temperature interval at which they occur, that it
corresponds to Siderite and Calcite.
In the experiments carried-out with one single hydrocarbon impregnated in the rock, it was observed
that the higher the molecular weight the temperature for the mass loss to occur; this is due to the fact
that the prevailing process is evaporation and that the higher the molecular weight the higher the boiling
point due to the increase in molecular forces, in this case, London forces. Kinetic parameters to describe
the evaporation of each of the components studied were obtain (the kinetic rate constant at a reference
temperature of 298K - kTref - and the activation energy) and, as expected, it was observed that the
higher molecular weight the lower the value of kTref and the higher that of the activation energy. The
decrease in the value of kTrefis due the fact that higher molecular weights led to lower evaporation rates
at lower temperature. The process associated with mass loss is the thermo-vaporization and activation
energy is defined as the amount of energy required for process to occur. The difference in the values
for the activation energy and kTref is also related to molecular weight: the higher is the molecular weight
the higher is the value of activation energy and the lower is the value of kTref.
In the experiments carried-out with mixtures of two hydrocarbons impregnated in the rock, Raoult's
law was introduced in the mathematical model to allow for the changes in vapour pressure due to
dilution, and these tests were used to verify the values calculated of kTref and for the activation energy,
as well as if the process could be adequately described by a first-order Arrhenius law. The results
obtained indicated that the model used was able to describe the evaporation of the binary mixtures.
In the experiments carried-out with mixtures of three different hydrocarbons impregnated in the rock
the objective was to determine if the composition of the mixture in the rock, containing Decane,
Dodecane and Hexadecane could be estimated using the values of kTref and the activation energy
calculated previously for the mixtures of two hydrocarbon. Again the results were positive and the model
was able to adequately describe the evaporation process.
The same procedure was applied to mixtures with four different hydrocarbons impregnated in the
rock, and with the same objective. Again it was concluded that the mathematical model was able to
obtain very good estimates. Thus it was concluded that the mathematical model provides a good method
to the composition of the mixtures with four hydrocarbons.
In the lastly set of tests five hydrocarbons were simultaneously impregnated in the rock, the last
hydrocarbon being squalene. The results obtained were not as good probably due to the fact that
squalene is a very heavy component that is evaporated right at the end of the heating ramp for the
desorption of the hydrocarbons. This is consistent with the observation that when mixtures of two
hydrocarbons including Squalane and another hydrocarbon, the end of Squalane mass loss is very close
46
to 300°C and at this temperature, not only occurs thermo-vaporization also occurring thermal
degradation, due to the boiling point equal to 500.3ºC.
In this work it is demonstrated that the concept of deconvolution applied to the data obtained in the
evaporation of hydrocarbons from a rock can be a useful tool to estimate the composition of the oil
present in the rock. This deconvolution requires a numerical model to be used and adequate calibration.
Furthermore, this methodology can be added in an almost seamless way to the Rock-Eval technique,
adding value to the analysis.
47
6. Future Work
With the work done in this thesis, it was concluded that the mathematical model can estimate the
composition of oil mixtures that are evaporated from the rocks during the Rock-Eval process The
concept was well demonstrated for unsaturated straight chain hydrocarbons although the quality of the
description was not was good for the only ramified hydrocarbon that was used (squalene) a problem
that might be associated with the high boiling point of the latter. Future work to be considered could
consist of the inclusion of a larger range of hydrocarbons, with carbon chains between 10 and 30 carbon
atoms and consequently, more complex mixtures, incorporating also hydrocarbons of different nature,
like aromatics, in order to make the model more robust.
Additionally the model can be applied to already existing data from real source or reservoir rocks for
which Rock-Eval and composition data is available to allow the correct calibration of the methodology
under real-world conditions. Other future work can be the change of rocky matrix for example for the
sandstone because as it was written sandstone represent half of the reservoir rocks in the world.
48
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
49
7. References
[1] I. E. Agency, “World Energy Outlook,” 2017.
[2] A.-Y. Huc, Geochemistry of fossil fuels - From Conventional to Unconventional
Hydrocarbon Systems, Paris: Editions TECHNIP, 2013.
[3] “Reservoir,” AAPG, 7 07 2016. [Online]. Available: http://wiki.aapg.org/Reservoir.
[Accessed 27 04 2018].
[4] A. G. Collins, Geochemistry of oilfield waters - Developments in Petroleum Science 1, New
York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1975.
[5] Geolog Surface Logging, “Geosource - Real-time Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and
Pyrolysis in the field”.
[6] Geolog Surface Logging, “Reservoir and Source Rock Evaluation Services,” [Online].
Available: http://www.geolog.com/our-services/91/geosource. [Accessed 28 4 2018].
[7] H. H. Schobert, Chemistry of Fossil Fuels and Biofuels, New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2013.
[8] Perkin Elmer, “The beginners Guide of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA),” Waltham.
[9] Geolog Surface Logging, “Reservoir and Source Rock Evaluation Services,” [Online].
Available: http://www.geolog.com/our-services/151/g9. [Accessed 2 05 2018].
[10] Geolog Surface Logging, “G9+ Thermal Extraction of hydrocarbons from reservoir and
source rock samples”.
[11] B. Tissot and D.H.welte, Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, New York: Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg GmbH, 1984.
[12] J. G. M. Filho, “Geoquímica do Petróleo,” Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de
Janeiro.
[13] G. J. Herndl and T. Reinthaler, “Microbial control of the dark end of the biological pump,”
Nature of geoscience, 29 August 2013.
[14] “What are phytoplankton?,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, [Online].
Available: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/phyto.html. [Accessed 3 May 2018].
[15] W. Bergmann, Geochemistry of lipids International series of monograph on Earth science,
Oxford-London-New York- Paris: Pergamon Press, 1963.
[16] A. C. Brown, The oil-Shales of the Lothians, London: H.M Stationery office, 1912.
[17] I. Breger, Kerogen McGraw Hill encyclopedia of science and technology, McGraw: New
York, 1961.
[18] M. Vandenbroucke and C. Largeau, “Kerogen origin, evolution and structure,” Elvesier,
2007.
50
[19] D. v. Klevelen, “Graphical-Statistical method for the study of structure and reaction process
of coal,” Fuel, 1950.
[20] Society of Petroleum Engineers, “Source rock and kerogen,” [Online]. Available: http://spe-
sc.ft.ugm.ac.id/w/source-rock-and-kerogen/. [Accessed 8 May 2018].
[21] N. Vassoevich, Terminology used for designating stages and steps of lithogenesis,
Lenigrad: Gostoptekhizdat, 1957.
[22] P. K. Singh, “Peat swamps at Giral lignite field of Barmer basin, Rajasthan, Western India:
understanding the evolution through petrological modelling,” 22 July 2016.
[23] B. R. T. Simoneit, “Biomarkers (molecular fossils) as geochemical indicators of life,”
Elsevier, 23 April 2003.
[24] C. P. Marshall and A. O. Marshall, “The potential of Raman spectroscopy for the analysis
of diagenetically transformed carotenoids,” Philosophical transactions of Royal Society, 2010.
[25] M. Vandenbroucke, “Kerogen: from types to models of chemical structure,” in Oil & gas
science and technology, Rueil-Malmaison, Éditions Technip, 2003.
[26] J. E. e. al., “Méthode rapide de caractérisation des roches mères, de leur potentiel pétrolier
et de leur degré d’évolution,” Oil & Gas Science of Technology, 1977.
[27] F. Behar, V.Beaumont and H. d. B. Penteado, “Rock-Eval 6 Technology: Performances
and Developments,” in Oil & Gas Science and Technology , Rueil-Malmaison , Éditions
Technip, 2001.
[28] E. Lafargue, F. Marquis and D. Pillot, “Rock-Eval 6 Applications in Hydrocabon exploration,
Production and soil contamination studies,” in Revue de l´Institut Français du Pétrole, Rueil-
Malmaison, 1998.
[29] “Oilfield Glossary,” Schlumberger, [Online]. Available:
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/t/toc.aspx. [Accessed 12 May 2018].
[30] “Tmax,” AAPG Wiki, [Online]. Available: http://wiki.aapg.org/Tmax. [Accessed 15 May
2018].
[31] M. M. E. Nady and M. M. Hammad, “Organic richness, kerogen types and maturity in the
shales of the Dakhla and Duwi formations in Abu Tartur area, Western Desert, Egypt:
Implication of Rock–Eval pyrolysis,” in Egyptian Journal of Petroleum, Cairo, Elvesier, 2014.
[32] K. R, A. A. and E. R.J., “Gas chromatography as a development and production tool for
fingerprints in oils from individual reservoirs: Application in the Gulf of Mexico,” in GC-SSEPM
Foundation Ninth Annual Research conference proceedings, 1990.
[33] J. Ducreux, F. M. D. P. E. Lafargue and C.Bocard, “) Use of Rock-Eval method for the
evaluation of soils,” Analysis, 1997.
[34] A. WIKI, “Reservoir,” AAPG, 7 July 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://wiki.aapg.org/Reservoir. [Accessed 15 May 2018].
[35] R. Atkinson and F. Atkinson, Rocks and Minerals, Claremont books, 1992.
51
[36] Royal Society of Chemistry, “ChemSpider,” 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.chemspider.com. [Accessed 29 May 2018].
52
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
a
Appendix A
Formulas of calculated parameters of Rock-Eval 6
Table 9 – Formulas of calculated parameters of Rock-Eval 6
Calculated parameters Formula
Tmax TpS2 − ΔTmax
PI 𝑆1
𝑆1 + 𝑆2
PC [(S1 + S2) × 0.83] + [S3 ×
1244
] + [(S3CO +S3`CO
2) ∗
1228
]
10
RC CO S4CO ×
1228
10
RC CO2 S4CO2 ×
1244
10
RC RC CO + RC CO2
TOC PC + RC
S1/TOC S1 × 100
TOC
HI S2 × 100
TOC
OI S3 × 100
TOC
OI CO S3CO × 100
TOC
PyroMinC [S3` ×
1244
] + [(S3`CO
2) ×
1228
]
10
OxiMinC S5 ×
1244
10
MinC PyroMinC + OxiMinC
b
Appendix B
Specifications of hydrocarbons
Table 10 - specifications of the Hydrocarbons
Compound name
Molecular form
boiling point (°C)
Molecular weight
Density (g/mL)
% Purity Brand
n-Decane C10H22 174.1 142.28 0.73 ≥94 Merck KGaA
Dodecane C16H26 216.2 170.34 0.75 ≥99 VWR Chemicals
Hexadecane C12H34 286.8 226.44 0.77 ≥99 CARLO ERBA
Icosane C20H42 342.7 282.55 0.79 ≥99 Sigma Aldrich
Squalane C30H62 500.3 422.81 0.81 ≥99 Merck KGaA
c
Appendix C
Chromatogram of mixture Decane. Dodecane. Hexadecane and Eicosane
Figure 47 - Chromatogram of mixture Decane. Dodecane. Hexadecane and Eicosane
d
Report of the chromatographic analysis of the mixture Decane,
Dodecane, Hexadecane and Eicosane.
Table 11 – Peak of Chromatographic analysis of the mixture Decane, Dodecane, Hexadecane and Eicosane.
Peak Time (min) Area (μV.s) Height (μV) Area (%) Norm. Area (%) BL Area/Height (s)
1 7.047 1468848 431695.49 20.29 20.3 BE 3.4025
2 10.215 1846114 486729.37 25.50 25.5 BB 3.7929
3 15.476 2311812 443183.89 31.94 31.9 VV 5.2164
4 24.045 1612436 132627.78 22.27 20.3 BB 12.1576