<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">SE</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Solid Earth</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">SE</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Solid Earth</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1869-9529</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/se-7-1145-2016</article-id><title-group><article-title>Porosity and permeability determination of organic-rich Posidonia shales based on 3-D analyses by FIB-SEM microscopy</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Porosity and permeability determination of organic-rich Posidonia shales}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{G.~H.~Grathoff et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Grathoff</surname><given-names>Georg H.</given-names></name>
          <email>grathoff@uni-greifswald.de</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Peltz</surname><given-names>Markus</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Enzmann</surname><given-names>Frieder</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0506-3636</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Kaufhold</surname><given-names>Stephan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Geography and Geology, EMA University of Greifswald,
Greifswald, 17489, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Institute for Geosciences, J. Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz,
55128, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover,
30655, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Georg H. Grathoff (grathoff@uni-greifswald.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>22</day><month>July</month><year>2016</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>7</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>1145</fpage><lpage>1156</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>26</day><month>February</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>16</day><month>March</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>17</day><month>June</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>June</month><year>2016</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016.html">This article is available from https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>The goal of this study is to better understand the
porosity and permeability in shales to improve modelling fluid and gas flow
related to shale diagenesis. Two samples (WIC and HAD) were investigated,
both mid-Jurassic organic-rich Posidonia shales from Hils area, central
Germany of different maturity (WIC <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.53 % and HAD <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
1.45 %). The method for image collection was focused ion beam (FIB)
microscopy coupled with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For image and
data analysis Avizo and GeoDict was used. Porosity was calculated from
segmented 3-D FIB based images and permeability was simulated by a Navier
Stokes–Brinkman solver in the segmented images.</p>
    <p>Results show that the quantity and distribution of pore clusters and pores
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 nm) are similar. The largest pores are located
within carbonates and clay minerals, whereas the smallest pores are within
the matured organic matter. Orientation of the pores calculated as pore
paths showed minor directional differences between the samples. Both samples
have no continuous connectivity of pore clusters along the axes in the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction on the scale of 10 to 20 of micrometer, but do show
connectivity on the micrometer scale. The volume of organic matter in the
studied volume is representative of the total organic carbon (TOC) in the samples. Organic matter
does show axis connectivity in the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> directions. With increasing
maturity the porosity in organic matter increases from close to 0 to more
than 5 %. These pores are small and in the large organic particles have
little connection to the mineral matrix. Continuous pore size distributions
are compared with mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) data. Differences
between both methods are caused by resolution limits of the FIB-SEM and by
the development of small pores during the maturation of the organic matter.
Calculations show no permeability when only considering visible pores due to
the lack of axis connectivity. Adding the organic matter with a background
permeability of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> to the calculations, the total permeability
increased by up to 1 order of magnitude for the low mature and decreases
slightly for the overmature sample from the gas window. Anisotropy of
permeability was observed. Permeability coefficients increase by 1 order
of magnitude if simulations are performed parallel to the bedding. Our
results compare well with experimental data from the literature suggesting
that upscaling may be possible in the future as soon as maturity dependent
organic matter permeability coefficients can be determined.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Compilation of porosity, permeability and TOC data from recent
Posidonia shale studies.  <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Since the bedding plane was tilted,
calculations were not performed strictly parallel or perpendicular to the
bedding plane. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> TOC contents in wt % were estimated by assuming a density of
1.25 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>⊥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> – permeability measured perpendicular to
the bedding; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> – permeability determined parallel to the bedding;
TOC – total organic carbon.)</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.95}[.95]?><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Author</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sample</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col3" nameend="col4" colsep="1">Porosity </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col6" colsep="1">Permeability (m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">TOC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">TOC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(wt %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">(vol %)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Total porosity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Microscopy (FIB,</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>⊥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(He) (%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">BIB, SEM) (%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry namest="col5" nameend="col6" colsep="1">  </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Gasparik et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13–17</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">11.7–14.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HAD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14.5–16</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.7–10.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Rexer et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12.5–13.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HAD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">11.4–13.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ghanizadeh et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">16.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HAD1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9.9–14.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.3–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.2–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>6.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.7–7.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mohnhof et al. (2015)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">17.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>6.03</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">13.02</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HAD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3.54</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.44</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mathia et al. (2016)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9.8–13.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.2–14.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HAD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9.3–13.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.0–7.41</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Klaver et al. (2012, 2016)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">9.0–14.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HAD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.84–2.59</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Kaufhold et al. (2016)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.5–2.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HAD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.2–3.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">This study</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.47</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.2–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>11.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">11.4<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">21.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">HAD</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.61</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.99–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">6.1<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">14.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>The investigated organic-rich Posidonia shales are mid-Jurassic in age from
the Hils Syncline of northwestern Germany. The investigated samples come
from a larger sample set studied at the BGR as part of their NIKO project
(Kaufhold et al., 2016). Kaufhold et al. (2016) compared the direct porosity
measurements of focused ion beam – scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM)
and micro computer tomography (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CT</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with the indirect methods of
mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) and gas adsorption (N<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and found that 80 % of the porosity were pores with radii below
30 nm, which can be barely detected by FIB-SEM and was not recognizable by
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CT</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For our study we took a more detailed look at two of the samples:
(1) Wickensen (WIC) with the lowest vitrinite reflectance (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.53 %
representing the start of oil generation and (2) Haddessen (HAD) with a
vitrinite reflectance of 1.45 % representing the gas window. For further
details about the samples and the geology see Schlosser et al. (2016) and
references therein. Investigations in this study were performed on
unpreserved shale samples. Therefore, degassing of the organic matter,
dehydration of swelling clay minerals as well as changed stress conditions
may have altered the microstructure and pore space of the shale. As
mineralogical investigations and quantifications by Kaufhold et al. (2016)
have shown that both samples are predominantly composed of calcite (WIC: 58 %,
HAD: 39 %), quartz (WIC: 10 %, HAD: 16 %) and clay minerals (WIC:
21 %, HAD: 35 %). The only swelling clay mineral in both samples is an
illite/smectite mixed layer mineral (WIC: 12 %, HAD: 21 %) that, according to Srodon (1984), contains only up to 20 % of swelling smectite layers.
Therefore, the impact of dehydration on the pore space topology is
considered minimal. Samples were collected from depths less than 60 m below
the surface; therefore unloading should not have altered the pore systems
significantly.</p>
      <p>The porosity and permeability of organic-rich shales have become of
increased interest due to the growing exploitation of unconventional
hydrocarbons. Recent data on the porosity, permeability and total organic
carbon determination of Posidonia shale samples are compiled in
Table 1. The total porosities are reported by
Gasparik et al. (2014), Rexer et al. (2014), Ghanizadeh et al. (2014),
Mohnhoff et al. (2015), Kaufhold et al. (2016), Klaver et al. (2012, 2016)
and Mathia et al. (2016) vary between 9.8–17.8 % for WIC and 9.3–16 %
for HAD. All studies reported consistently that the total porosity
decreases from a maximum in the early mature sample WIC to a minimum in oil
mature material to than rise again to an intermediate level in overmature
gas window samples (HAD). However, values vary significantly between the
studies, reflecting the inhomogeneous nature of shales. Total organic carbon
(TOC) contents behave similarly. With increasing maturity TOC contents
decrease from 7.2–14.8 % (WIC) to 5.0–10.5 % (HAD). The porosity
trends cannot be confirmed by direct observations performed with micro
computed tomography (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-CT) or scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in
combination with focused- or broad-ion-beam polishing (FIB or BIB) as
demonstrated by Klaver et al. (2012, 2016), Kaufhold et al. (2016) and
Mathia et al. (2016). Observed image porosities (0.2–3.0 %) were
significantly lower due to a lack of resolution. Helium flow-through
experiments were conducted by Ghanizadeh et al. (2014) and Mohnhoff et al. (2015)
to determine permeability coefficients in the range of 0.3–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>26</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for WIC and HAD.</p>
      <p>Goal of this study is to better understand the porosity, permeability and
pore network development in shales using FIB-SEM. In an attempt to calculate
permeability coefficients based on 3-D microscopic data we try to improve our
understanding of fluid and gas flow related to shale diagenetic history. The
mineral fabrics with its associated porosity typically reflect depositional
and diagenetic processes that the shale has undergone. These processes
include sediment transport, deposition, compaction, cementation and
dissolution, mainly of carbonates and silicates, organic maturation and clay
mineral diagenesis (e.g., Loucks et al., 2012). All these processes effect
both the porosity, permeability, and the pore network. Therefore it is
important to separate different types of pores due to their different origin
and their different behavior after deposition.</p>
      <p>Pores are three-dimensional objects that can be characterized by their size,
location, and network (e.g., Schieber, 2011 and Loucks et al., 2012). The
pore sizes are often classified according to the classification of
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) as developed by
Rouquerol et al. (1994). They divide the pores into micropores
(&lt; 2 nm pore width), mesopores (2–50 nm pore width), and macropores
(&gt; 50 nm pore width). Recently Chalmers et al. (2012) suggested
to use the IUPAC pore size definition to divide the pore sizes in shales.
The other option of determining the actual size of each connected pore
system (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> pore clusters) is to measure the physical area (for 2-D) or
volume (3-D) of the photomicrograph. The total pore space is the same from
both methods. The difference is that individual pore clusters are
significantly larger than the individual pores in the continuous pore size
distribution.</p>
      <p>Pores of the same size can occur in various locations: inside different
minerals (e.g., phyllosilicates and other silicates, carbonates, sulfides)
and organics as well as between mineral grains. Based on petrological
observations Schieber (2011) divides pores up into Framework Pores, which
are pores that primary between individual grains (i.e., phyllosilicates,
carbonates), Intrapores, which are pores within grains, Solvopores, which
are secondary pores formed from dissolution, Macerapores, which are pores
associated with organic matter and its ripening, and Desipores, which are
artifacts due to the shrinking, desiccation caused by drying of clay
minerals and organics. He also reported that the detrital clay minerals
appear to have larger pores on the order of 50 to 1000 nm (Macropores),
whereas pores that originated in diagenetic clay minerals were typically
smaller than 50 nm, therefore falling in the Mesopore range. Loucks et al. (2012) simplify the pore types by focusing only on the matrix pores,
dividing them up into interparticle (interP), intraparticle (intraP) and
intraparticle organic matter pores (OM). Intraparticle pores consist only of
the pores that occur within single particles. Interparticle pores consist of
pores between particles. In general the intraP pores are larger than interP
pores. The organic matter pores (OM) consist within the organic matter and
in part reflect the maturity state of the organic matter. In this study we
were able to separate the pores in the organic matter, from the other pores.
The other pores consist of mainly matrix pores and fracture or desipores,
which we separate by size. The smallest pores with a radius of less than 100 nm
are consisting as mainly interP pores, while the larger pores are
dominated by intraP pores.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Image of filtered SE image on the left and enlarged orange box on
the right. Black colors represent the pore space, dark gray organic matter
and small pores. Both regions can be separated by thresholding gray scale
values as shown by the histogram in the top left corner. On the right
enlarged red box, the pore space is black (pixel size in this image is 40 nm).
In 2-D the pores are not connected but in 3-D some of the pores are
connected, grouped into clusters.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p>Pores in shales are very difficult to model because of their large size
range distribution, as mentioned above. The smallest pores are in nm range,
especially in clay minerals and organic matter and the largest pores in the
mm range that is 6 orders of magnitude. For FIB-SEM the pores that can in
general be visualized in our study starting at 25 nm and end in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
range, representing almost 2 orders of magnitude. A frequently asked
question is how representative are FIB-SEM measurements regarding the
properties of the whole material, since only a very small volume is
investigated. Several studies made an attempt to determine the size of
representative volume elements (RVEs). Based on the statistical approach of
Kanit et al. (2003) the cube lengths of RVEs were determined for Opalinus
clay (Keller et al., 2013) and for Boom Clay (Hemes et al., 2015). Keller et
al. (2013) have shown that the relative error for porosity is about 40–50 %
if only one FIB volume of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is investigated. Extrapolations of RVE lengths suggest
that the relative error will decrease to &lt; 10 % if the cube
length of the investigated volume is in the hundreds of microns or if the
number of realizations is increased. Hemes et al. (2015) agree with Keller
et al.'s (2013) findings and further conclude that FIB analyses alone are
not capable of covering spatial inhomogeneities and that a combination of
methods (FIB, BIB, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CT</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) should be favored to characterize 3-D
porosities as suggested by Kaufhold et al. (2016). However, the approach of
Kanit et al. (2003) is typically used to downscale a given volume rather
than to upscale from a smaller one. The biggest problem with upscaling is
that the porosity is strongly dependant on mineralogy as suggested by
Schieber (2011). FIB volumes often do not cover the whole mineralogy or over
represent single phases based on their large grain sizes. One could imagine
a <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sized pyrite framboid, a very common trace component of shales
that lies within a typical 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
FIB volume. It would not only overestimate the pyrite content but also the
porosity because it has a high internal porosity as shown by Schieber (2011).
Quantifying the mineralogy in SE and BSE image volumes is challenging since
grey scale values for silicates are often very similar. Nonetheless, results
could be used in an “elementary building blocks” model as proposed by
Desbois et al. (2016). A first step towards this idea was made in this
study where we differentiated between pore space and organics and where we
used this data to predict permeabilities and flow velocities.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods/Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Image acquisition and processing</title>
      <p>The FIB-SEM analyses were performed on a Zeiss Auriga with EDX and
FE-Cathode. The tilt-corrected BSE and SE images were collected with a
current of 1.5 kV to reduce charging and improve resolution. For slicing 500 pA
has been used, resulting in 25 nm-thick slices. Voxel size is dependent
on the slice thicknesses as well as magnification. The resulting voxel size
was <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>40</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>40</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm for HAD and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>56</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>56</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm for WIC. In the following, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>- and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> directions are referred to as the horizontal and vertical image
directions. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is equal to the direction of the slicing. Before the slice and
view, we sputtered the sample with Pd to minimize charging and improve the
imaging of the slices. The result of the slice and view were 400 SE and BSE
images for each sample. After the image collection the image stacks were
aligned and filtered. Porespace and organic matter were binarized and
qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed, for which the Avizo-Fire 9.0 and
GeoDict software was used. Images were filtered in Avizo by applying a
shading correction filter, a FFT filter to remove vertical stripes and a
Non-Local Means filter in 2-D mode to remove noise. 2-D was chosen over 3-D
because the generated FIB volume is a stack of 2-D images rather than real 3-D
data. The Non-Local Means was preferred because it removes noise without
blurring the contrasts between the organic matter and pore space and without
decreasing the resolution of the pores and the organics. Therefore it is
possible to clearly distinguish between these phases and the matrix
(Fig. 1). At times it is difficult to
differentiate between pore and organic based on grey scale values especially
for small objects within the mineral matrix as can be seen in Fig. 1.
Effects of these difficulties in distinguishing between these two phases are
being discussed later.</p>
      <p>After the binarization we resampled the pore space creating cubic voxels (25 nm),
essential when determining orientations of the pores. The resulting
volume was slightly cropped to meet GeoDict modelling requirements. The pore
space was separated into individual pore clusters with quite extensive pore
networks of up to 6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in length (Figs. 2 and 3). For this study we considered a cluster
if the labeled object is connected by voxels which share a face, edge or
vertex. Vertex connection was allowed since GeoDict can model transport
along these links. The separated objects were tested for axis connectivity,
a test that shows if clusters exist that connect the faces of the
investigated volume for every spatial direction. The porosity is described
by its individual volume, open and closed porosity (Table 2), continuous
pore size distribution (Fig. 5) and pore path orientation (Fig. 7). Open
porosity describes the fraction of the total porosity that has a connection
to the borders of the volume. Pore clusters that are not in contact with the
borders belong the closed porosity. High values of closed porosities reflect
a poorly connected pore space. If the open porosity is similar to the total
porosity, then the connectivity of pores is high.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The 10 biggest pore clusters of sample WIC and HAD. No big differences
were observed in size, pore size distribution and connectivity for the two
samples. The yellow pore cluster in HAD was the only pore cluster which
could be interpreted as a drying crack. All other pore clusters were
interpreted as drying cracks.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Orange pore cluster from sample WIC (see
Fig. 2 for location). <bold>(a)</bold> skeleton transformation
of the cluster. Colors represent relative thickness of the pore at that
position (blue – thin; red – thick). <bold>(b)</bold> Velocity field of the GeoDict
calculations in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction for air as flowing phase. It is shown that only
little of the total pore cluster participates in phase flow. Velocities
increase in regions that form thin throats.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><caption><p>Results of GeoDict permeability simulations and porosity analyses.
Note that open and closed porosity calculations were performed on the
binarized volumes including cluster sizes smaller than 10 voxels so
summarized porosities may differ. (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> – permeability in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> –
velocities for air and water flow in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.97}[.97]?><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">WIC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">HAD</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>11.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.99</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><italic>k</italic><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi><mml:mtext>-</mml:mtext><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3.39</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2.81</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi><mml:mtext>-</mml:mtext><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3.29</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2.90</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">air</mml:mi><mml:mtext>-</mml:mtext><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>7.76</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.04</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">water</mml:mi><mml:mtext>-</mml:mtext><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>6.22</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>5.16</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">water</mml:mi><mml:mtext>-</mml:mtext><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>6.03</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>5.32</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">water</mml:mi><mml:mtext>-</mml:mtext><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.42</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.90</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total porosity (vol %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.47</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.61</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Open porosity (vol %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.23</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.58</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Closed porosity (vol %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.23</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.77</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total organic content (vol %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">21.92</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14.71</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Open organic content (vol %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">21.64</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">13.94</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Closed organic content (vol %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.28</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.77</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>A detailed description of the geometrical concept of the continuous pore
size distribution is given in Münch and Holzer (2008).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Porosity and pore size distribution</title>
      <p>After processing, the pore space was visually analyzed. In
Fig. 2 the 10 largest pore clusters of the two
samples reveal strong similarities. In both samples the pore clusters run
mainly through the mineral matrix but are in places in contact with the
smaller organic matter particles. All of these clusters are made up of a
complex pore network as shown in Fig. 3 with flow being the fastest in the
pore necks. Only one of the pore clusters shows signs of orientation which
could be attributed to drying, all the other pore clusters show no signs of
being drying cracks.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>The analysis of the biggest organic cluster of sample HAD revealed
that organics contain small unconnected pores. A total porosity of 5.5 %
was observed within the cluster. These pores are formed during the thermal
maturation of the shale.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The porosity obtained from FIB-SEM is very low compared to the total
porosity as shown in Table 1. For sample WIC we
found a FIB-SEM porosity of 1.5 % and for HAD of 2.4 % similar to the
SEM analyses by Klaver et al. (2012, 2016) and Mathia et al. (2016). If we
compare these values to the total porosity determined by Kaufhold et al. (2016)
who worked on exactly the same samples we find that only 10 % for
WIC (or 24 % for HAD respectively) of the total porosity can be resolved
using FIB-SEM. These differences are also similar to the results of Klaver
et al. (2012, 2016) and Mathia et al. (2016). However, no trends towards
higher porosities in one or the other sample were observed, likely due to
spatial inhomogeneity. Similar results were reported by Keller et al. (2011)
for Opalinus clay who obtained a FIB-SEM porosity of 1–2 % compared to a
total porosity of 10–12 %.</p>
      <p>The test for axis connectivity showed that no connection of pores exists
between the different axes. Open and closed porosity analysis (Table 1)
revealed that for HAD only 1/3 of the total pore space has a connection to
the borders of the volume (1/6 for WIC). This shows that most of the pore
clusters, even the largest ones, lie isolated within the matrix or the
organics.</p>
      <p>Münch and Holzer (2008) showed that the continuous pore size
distribution determined from FIB-SEM can be compared with other analytical
methods quantifying the pore size distribution (MIP, N<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). However, the
absolute porosity cannot be determined by FIB-SEM due to the limitations of
resolution and investigated volume. Nonetheless, results show good agreement
of FIB-SEM continuous pore size distributions of this study and MIP
performed on the same samples by Kaufhold et al. (2016) when only the range
of the overlapping pore radii of both methods is compared
(Fig. 5). Comparing MIP data with the FIB-SEM
results shows that the FIB-SEM of the WIC sample under estimates pore radii
larger than 150 nm by about 0.2 % total porosity compared to MIP. Sample
HAD on the other hand over estimates the pore radii smaller than 150 nm
compared to MIP measurements. As shown in Fig. 1
the 0.9 % more porosity of sample HAD is mainly composed of pore throat
radii smaller than 100 nm, indicating an increase in small pore throat sizes
with higher thermal maturity. Visually these &lt; 100 nm pores can be
seen in Fig. 1 within the organic matter.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Organic matter</title>
      <p>It is not always easy to distinguish in SEM images the organics from the
pore space. We used the SE images to separate the two based on the gray
scale. Figure 1 shows that the gray values of organic matter and pore space
are close to each other, but can be separated by thresholding. The histogram
in Fig. 1 points out that two distinct peaks
exist after filtering that can be assigned to the pore space and to organic
matter including small and thin pores. The organic matter for both samples
show connectivity between the different axes. The total volume of the
organic matter in the WIC sample is 21.8 vol % and in the HAD sample is
12.3 vol %. Using a density of 1.25 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> the TOC in wt % was
calculated. This resulted in 11.8 wt % TOC in WIC and 6.1 % in HAD. This
compares fairly well with the TOC results from Kaufhold et al. (2016) (WIC
8.5 wt % TOC and HAD 5.2 wt %). The decrease in TOC is also confirmed
by Gasparik et al. (2014), Ghanizadeh et al. (2014), Mohnhoff et al. (2015)
and Mathia et al. (2016).</p>
      <p>Visually it can be seen that with increasing maturity the pores (&lt; 100 nm)
in the organic matter increase (Fig. 6).
The OM in WIC has very few pores, while the HAD kerogens are filled with
pores. We binarized the largest organic particles together with its pore
space in HAD (Fig. 4). The results were that the
organic particle contained an internal pore space of 5.5 %. The binarized
pores contain only a small pore networks and are not interconnected with the
surrounding mineral matrix.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p>Plot of continuous pore size distribution (FIB), compared to
mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) data from Kaufhold et al. (2016).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Binarized pore volume. It was observed that small pores were
mainly formed within organics and the clay mineral matrix. <bold>(b)</bold> Pressure
fields in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction resulting from GeoDict calculations. Jumps within the
field were observed when throats become very thin or when a physical
connectivity of the pores was not given. Regions where organics dominate
show a continuous gradient. <bold>(c)</bold> Velocity field in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction. Flow only
takes place in regions that are dominated by pores. For a closeup of the flow
field in a single pore cluster see Fig. 3.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p>Pore path orientation of sample WIC and HAD using 1 % net area
contouring with an interval of 1 %. WIC shows a strong preferred
orientation and a dip of 45<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which indicates a deviation between
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> plane and bedding plane. Pore paths of HAD show a homogeneous
distribution along the bedding plane.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://se.copernicus.org/articles/7/1145/2016/se-7-1145-2016-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Permeability calculations</title>
      <p>The pores for both samples do not show any connectivity (permeability <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0)
between the different sides. The next assumption we made was that, the
organics had an extremely low permeability of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> itself (similar
to Monteiro et al., 2012) and corresponding to a diameter of 3.2 nm after
cubic law flow (Taylor et al., 1999). We assigned this number to the
organic phase in the binarized domain to apply a coupled free air and porous
media flow. Doing this, a connected porous media was built up and the
organics with the small pores below the FIB detection resolution limit
contributed to the pressure drop and flux. This allowed us to perform
permeability calculations using GeoDict. The permeability tensors for both
pores and organics were calculated from binarized images (resolution 25 nm
per voxel, dimension of computational domain is <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>768</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>768</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>384</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> respectively
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>768</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>512</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>384</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> voxels) with as special Navier–Stokes–Brinkman–LIR solver for
coupled free and porous media flow and implemented in the GeoDict software
(Iliev and Laptev, 2004; Wiegmann, 2007). To determine a tensor of
permeability, it is necessary to apply each side of the domain in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction with an pressure gradient separately and simulate the flux through
the sample. As permeating medium we use air with a temperature of 293.15 K,
a density of 1.204 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a dynamic viscosity of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.834</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The boundary conditions were a constant pressure
gradient in flow directions and all domain sides were defined as symmetric
(mirrored over sides) with periodic boundaries which means that inflow and
outflow boundaries see the same structure (Khan et al., 2012). These setups
give numerically stable and accurate flow simulations in low and
heterogeneous porous media. Simulations will stop if the system reaches
steady state and the flux will become constant over time meaning that a
numerical accuracy of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> residual change of permeability is reached. An
alternative setup would have been to assign flat inflow and outflow planes
as boundary conditions, which have a lot of numerical problems in numerical
convergence of the system. Therefore, it was not utilized.</p>
      <p>Figure 6b shows the resulting pressure field for
one side case after numerical convergence. The resulting pressure and
velocity fields are shown in Figs. 3 and 6.
If we assume this organic permeability, the total permeability increases by
a factor of up to 12 in sample WIC and decreases by up to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
for HAD if compared to the permeability of organic matter
(Table 1).</p>
      <p>These calculated values are in a range of experimental determined
permeabilities for Posidonia shale samples (Ghanizadeh et al., 2014 and
Mohnhoff et al., 2015) that were measured perpendicular to the bedding. Both
studies have shown a decrease in permeability with increasing maturity (for
comparison see Table 2). However, Ghanizadeh et al. (2014) determined that
the permeability measured parallel to the bedding is up to 3 orders of
magnitude higher. This indicates that the main transport along this plane
may not occur within a clay lamina but rather elsewhere, probably along
cracks or naturally occurring weak spots, e.g., between clay laminae.
Therefore, our calculations may only consider intra-laminae transport.</p>
      <p>Nonetheless, spatial anisotropy was observed even for intra-laminae
calculated permeabilities. For the HAD sample, the lowest permeability was
observed in the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> vs. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.99</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is the
direction running perpendicular to the bedding. WIC showed lowest
permeability in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1.4</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).
For WIC the highest permeability was observed in
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>11.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Since the bedding, as discussed in
Sect. 2.5, is not parallel to the b <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> plane, no connection between
anisotropic permeability coefficients and bedding can be drawn.</p>
      <p>The resulting average velocities for air flow at 100 000 Pa show the same
anisotropy. Lowest velocities are observed in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for HAD (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for WIC (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>3.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Velocities for the water flow are
2 orders of magnitude lower than for air simulations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Pore path orientation</title>
      <p>The spatial distribution of the pore paths was evaluated by analyzing
stereographic projections. A skeleton of the binarized pore space was
generated by using the Centerline Tree module of Avizo 9.0
(Tube parameter: slope <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <italic>zeroV al</italic> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4).
It is based on the TEASAR algorithm (Sato et al., 2000) which generates
tree-like vector-based skeletons that do not allow circles. Dip and plunge
of each vector were plotted using Stereonet software of Cardozo and Allmendinger
(2013). Orientation of a vector represents the orientation of the pore path.
It does not take into account how long or skewed the path itself is. Only
pores larger than 200 voxels were analyzed in order to obtain reliable
orientations. Equal area projections in combination with 1 % net area
contouring (interval: 1 %) were used for a better visualization.</p>
      <p>Results are shown in Fig. 7. It becomes
apparent that pore paths in sample HAD are oriented homogenously along the
bedding plane which is equal to the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> plane. In contrast sample WIC shows
a strong preferred orientation that differs from the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> plane, which
indicates that the slicing with the FIB was not performed perpendicular to
the bedding plane</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Porosity</title>
      <p>Porosity using FIB-SEM can be described either as pore clusters or through
continuous pore size distribution (PSD). PSD describes best the pore
geometry and therefore hydrodynamic properties in shales. The thin throats
within the pore clusters are what control its hydrodynamic properties
(Fig. 3). The typical range of pore radii
detectable in our study are between 25 and 300 nm. Even though investigated
volumes are small and rather not representative the PSD trends of HAD and
WIC are almost identical between 300 and 100 nm, while for the mature sample
HAD pores with radii &lt; 100 nm increase by 0.9 % compared to WIC.
This supports the argument that small pores formed during maturation. What
complicates this issue is that most pores are not detectable at the given
resolution. As reported by others, summarized in Table 1, the majority of
pores in the Posidonia shale are within the micro- and smaller mesopore
range.</p>
      <p>A fraction of small pores within the mineral matrix is misinterpreted as
organic matter (Fig. 1). Therefore, the increase in volume generated by
radii &lt; 100 nm in the PSD should be bigger. This would result in
higher total porosity values as well. As shown in
Fig. 5 pores with radii &lt; 100 nm
contribute to the 0.9 % higher porosity of HAD. This is because small
pores within organic matter are easier to identify as pores than those
within mineral matrix. Figure 1 shows that HAD
contains small pores within OM at the resolution used, which is not the
case for WIC. Therefore, at the used scale the increase in thermal maturity
only leads to an increase in porosity but not in connectivity, because the
new formed pores seem to be isolated, closed pores within the organic
matter. This would correspond well to the determined MIP values of Kaufhold
et al. (2016) which decreased with increasing maturity (WIC: 11.9 %, HAD:
8.0 %). Therefore, FIB-SEM porosity increases while MIP decreases.
However, SEM images of Mathia et al. (2016) have shown the diverse nature of
organic matter-hosted porosity at the nanometer scale. For HAD they observed
spherical organic matter pores which did not show connectivity as well as
sponge-like pore systems which clearly exhibit potential pathways. Because
of this the contradictory trends of FIB-SEM and MIP porosities cannot be
related to isolated pores alone.</p>
      <p>Although we were able to show that the pores align along the bedding plane,
no connectivity between the axes was observed in both samples. Similar
results have been reported by Keller et al. (2013) who found that the
connectivity of shales is highest along the bedding plane and decreases with
increasing sample length. Further they conclude that the connectivity
depends on the porosity of the investigated volume and that a local porosity
between at least 6 and 10 % is needed to realize percolation paths along
the bedding plane. These findings are supported by Hemes et al. (2015) who
found that at a total porosity of about 18 % almost 87 % the pore
space contribute to the axis connectivity. In our work we observed that at
porosities of about 2 % connected pore clusters only exist at the scale
of a few <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>When considering the misinterpretation of pores as organics we can assume
that the real connectivity of pores is higher. Improvements in image
resolution could offer valuable clues to solve this problem. However, Kuila
et al. (2014) state that in organic-rich shales 10–70 % of the total
porosity might not even be detectable with methods like field emission
scanning electron microscopy, due to overly small pore sizes (&lt; 5 nm)
within organic matter and clays. Additionally, the type of organic matter
controls its porosity with increasing maturity (e.g., Klaver et al., 2016).
Although we did not classify the type of organic matter it is very likely
that the observed matrix-filling OM in both samples is solid bitumen which
becomes mesoporous by gasification processes at gas-window maturities
(Mathia et al., 2016).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Permeability</title>
      <p>As shown in Fig. 6 the pressure field develops
continuously when the size of pores and organic matter is rather large.
Jumps appear when the connectivity is limited by thin throats or is not
given at all (Fig. 5b, WIC bottom right). After analyzing the pressure field
for all directions it becomes obvious that the pathways through the material
are restricted by those throats throughout the material. The velocity fields
illustrate this as well. Flow of air and water only appears within parts of
the pore. Figure 3 shows a close-up of the skeleton
of single pore cluster in combination with the velocity field. By comparing
both we found that the highest velocities are reached within throats between
areas where the pore is rather wide and where velocities are comparatively
low. Dead ends depend on the direction of pressure and on the chaining to
the organic matter system.</p>
      <p>Calculated permeability coefficients depend strongly on the assumed
permeability of the organic matter (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Calculated
values scatter around it since the segmented solid bitumen is clearly the
main permeable medium. It was shown that permeability for WIC decreases
relative to the OM permeability by 1 order of magnitude. For HAD
calculated values along the bedding were close to the assumed OM
permeability. Perpendicular to bedding the permeability decreased relative
to the OM.</p>
      <p>Anisotropy of permeability and average velocity calculations for HAD
correspond well to the analysis of the pore path orientation which showed
horizontal bedding parallel to the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> plane (Fig. 7). Permeability is highest along the bedding which is in good agreement
with the results of Ghanizadeh et al. (2014) and others (see Table 1)
although they demonstrated that the parallel permeability is 3 orders of
magnitude higher. Bhandari et al. (2015) on the other hand find only 1 order
of magnitude difference. Their observations on the Barnett Shale – a shale
similar to the mineralogical composition and TOC content of the Posidonia
shale – indicate directional differences of only 1 order of magnitude
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>⊥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∥</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>9.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). This is in the range of our calculated anisotropy.</p>
      <p>Permeability coefficients of WIC are up to 17 times higher than those
calculated for HAD. This is likely caused by the higher OM and lower clay
mineral content in the early mature sample (WIC 21.9 % OM &amp; 21 %
clay minerals vs. HAD 14.7 % OM &amp; 35 % clay minerals). The decrease
in OM leads to a less homogenous distribution of permeable media in sample
HAD. This is shown in Fig. 6a and b. While the
porosity distribution is more homogenous in sample HAD (almost no larger
regions with no pores), the pressure field exhibits several voids (upper
left, lower left and right). These regions are clearly porous but not
connected due to the lack of OM. This indicates that decreasing OM contents
lead to more tortuous and less abundant pathways. Although higher porosities
should enhance flow properties the opposite is the case since the increase
in porosity (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.9 %) cannot compensate for the decrease in OM content
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7.2 %). As a result the permeability decreases with increasing
maturity. The same trends were observed by Ghanizadeh et al. (2014) and
Mohnhoff et al. (2015).</p>
      <p>The approach to include the OM into the simulations with a permeability of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resulted in permeability values that show good
agreement with experimental data of other researchers (see Table 1). A
series of permeability measurements on 152 samples of 9 potential shale gas
formations performed by Javadpour et al. (2007) resulted in an average
permeability of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>5.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, it is very likely that
the assumed OM permeability changes with increasing maturity. OM in the gas
window is likely to be more permeable than OM in lower mature shales. In
order to be able to relate changes in the calculated permeability values to
changes in porosity and organic matter content, we used a static OM
permeability. A next step is to perform ultra-high resolution FIB-SEM
analyses on selected solid bitumen particles in order to model permeability
of OM for specific maturities. Therefore, calculated permeability
coefficients represent the current state of research and shall not be taken
as true material properties.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p><list list-type="order">
          <list-item>
            <p>The pore space increases inside in the organic matter during maturation.
The volume of pores (5.5 %) in the OM that have been developed compare
well with the 2-D observations made by Curtis et al. (2012), who quantified the
pore space with increasing maturity and found for the most part that the
pore space increased within the organics during maturation. This suggests
that hydrocarbons are likely to still be in place and in the case of gas may
be activated.</p>
          </list-item>
          <list-item>
            <p>The continuous pore size distribution (both FIB-SEM and MIP) of the total
studied volume shows that the mature sample contains a larger amount of
smaller pores than the lower mature sample indicating that new mesopores
were developed during the maturation.</p>
          </list-item>
          <list-item>
            <p>The largest pore clusters have not changed significantly during
maturation, suggesting the OM has changed but the pores within the mineral
matrix have not. The total FIB-SEM porosity of up to 2.6 % is too low to
have developed a continuous connectivity along the axes. Therefore, the pore
space in the OM and clay minerals, that cannot be seen with FIB-SEM, provide
the pathways for the migrating matter. The clay mineralogy, especially the
illite/smectite mixed layer mineral did not significantly change during the
maturation, suggesting little diagenetic alteration of the clay related pore
clusters.</p>
          </list-item>
          <list-item>
            <p>The modeled total anisotropy of permeability, assuming a permeability of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the organic matter, compare well to values reported in
literature. Further, the decrease in OM content with higher thermal maturity
effects the flow properties more than the increase in porosity.</p>
          </list-item>
        </list></p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We would like to thank Anonymous Reviewer #1 and Lionel Esteban for their
detailed and constructive reviews that significantly improved the
manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude to Manfred Zander for his
help with the FIB-SEM sampling and imaging. We also want to thank the
GeoDICT programing team of M2M for the constructive cooperation and
continuous improvement of the numerical solvers.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: M. Halisch<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: L. Esteban and one anonymous referee</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Bhandari, A. R., Flemings, P. B., Polito, P. J., Cronin, M. B., and Bryant, S. L.:
Anisotropy and stress dependence of permeability in the
Barnett Shale, Transp. Porous Med, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11242-015-0482-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11242-015-0482-0</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Cardozo, N. and Allmendinger, R. W.: Spherical projections with OSXSteronet,
Comput. Geosci., 51, 193–205, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.021</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Chalmers, G. R., Bustin, R. M., and Power, I. M.: Characterization of gas
shale pore systems by porosimetry, porosimetry, surface area and field
emission scanning electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy image
analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus and
Doig units, APPG Bulletin, 96, 1099–1119, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10171111052" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1306/10171111052</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Curtis, M. E., Cardott, B. J., Sondergeld, C. H., and Rai, C. S.:
Development of organic porosity in the Woodford Shale with increasing
thermal maturity, Int. J. Coal Geol., 103, 26–31, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.08.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coal.2012.08.004</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Desbois, G., Urai, J. L., Hemes, S., Schröppel, B.,
Schwarz, J.-O., Mac, M., and Weiel, D.: Multi-scale analysis of porosity
in diagenetically altered reservoir sandstone from the Permian Rotliegend
(Germany), J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.019</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Gasparik, M., Bertier, P., Gensterblum, Y., Ghanizadeh, A.,
Krooss, B. M., and Littke, R.: Geological controls on the methane storage
capacity in organic-rich shales, Int. J. Coal Geol., 123, 34–51,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.010</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Ghanizadeh, A., Amann-Hildenbrand, A., Gasparik, M.,
Gensterblum, Y., Krooss, B. M., and Littke, R.: Experimental study of
fluid transport processes in the matrix system of European organic-rich
shales: II. Posidonia Shale (Lower Toarcian, northern Germany)., Int. J.
Coal Geol., 123, 20–33, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.009</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Hemes, S., Desbois, G., Urai, J. L., Schröppel, B., and Schwarz,
J.-O.: Mutli-scale characterization of porosity in Boom Clay (HADES-level,
Mol, Belgium) using a combination of X-ray <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-CT, 2D BIB-SEM and
FIB-SEM tomography, Micropor. Mesopor. Mat., 208, 1–20,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.01.022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.01.022</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Iliev, O. and Laptev, V.: On numerical simulation of flow through oil
filters, Comput. Visual Sci., 6, 139–146, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00791-003-0118-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00791-003-0118-8</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., and Unsworth, M.: Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale
Gas Sediments, J. Can. Petrol. Technol., 46, 55–61,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/07-10-06" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2118/07-10-06</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Kanit, T., Forest, S., Galliet, I., Mounoury, V., and Jeulin,
D.: Determination of the size of the representative volume element for
random composites: statistical and numerical approach, Int. J. Solids Struct.,
40, 3647–3679, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(03)00143-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0020-7683(03)00143-4</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Kaufhold, S., Grathoff, G. H., Halisch, M., Plötze, M.,
Kus, J., Ufer, K., Dohrmann, R., Ladage, S., and
Ostertag-Henning, C.: Comparison of methods for the determination of the
pore system of a potential German gas shale, Clay. Clay Miner., <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1346/CMS-WLS-21.13" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1346/CMS-WLS-21.13</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Keller, L. M., Holzer, L., Wepf, R., and Gasser, P.: 3D geometry and
topology of pore pathways in Opalinus clay: Implications for mass transport,
Appl. Clay Sci., 52, 85–95, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2011.02.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.clay.2011.02.003</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Keller, L. M., Holzer, L., Schuetz, P., and Gasser, P.: Pore space
relevant for gas permeability in Opalinus clay: Statistical analysis of
homogeneity, percolation, and representative volume element, J.
Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 118, 2799–2812, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50228" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrb.50228</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Khan, F., Enzmann, F., Kersten, M., Wiegmann, A., and Steiner, K.: 3D
simulation of the permeability tensor in a soil aggregate on basis of
nanotomographic imaging and LBE solver, J. Soils Sediments, 12, 86–96,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11368-011-0435-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11368-011-0435-3</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Klaver, J., Desbois, G., Urai, J. L., and Littke, R.: BIB-SEM study
of pore space morphology in early mature Posidonia Shale from the Hils area,
Germany, Int. J. Coal Geol., 103, 12–25, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.06.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coal.2012.06.012</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Klaver, J., Desbois, G., Littke, R., and Urai, J. L.: BIB-SEM pore
characterization of mature and post mature Posidonia Shale samples from Hils
area, Germany, Int. J. Coal Geol., 158, 78–89,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2016.03.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coal.2016.03.003</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Kuila, U., McCarty, D. K., Derkowski, A., Fischer, T. B., Topór, T., and Prasad, M.:
Nano-scale texture and porosity of organic matter and clay minerals in organic-rich mudrocks,
Fuel, 135, 359–373, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.06.036" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.fuel.2014.06.036</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Loucks, R. G., Reed, R. M., Ruppel, S. C., and Hammes, U.: Spectrum of
pore types and networks in mudrocks and a descriptive classification for
matrix-related mudrock pores, APPG Bulletin, 96, 1071–1098,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08171111061" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1306/08171111061</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Mathia, E. J., Bowen, L., Thomas, K. M., and Aplin, A. C.: Evolution of
porosity and pore types in organic-rich, calcareous, Lower Toarcian
Posidonia Shale, Mar. Petrol. Geol., 75, 117–139,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.04.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.04.009</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Mohnhoff, D., Littke, R., Krooss, B. M., and Weniger, P.:
Flow-through extraction of oil and gas shales under controlled stress using
organic solvents: Implications for organic matter-related porosity and
permeability changes with thermal maturity, Int. J. Coal Geol., 157, 84–99,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2015.09.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coal.2015.09.010</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Monteiro, P. J. M., Rycroft, C. H., and Barrenblatt, G. I.: A mathematical
model of fluid and gas flow in nanoporous media, P, Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 20309–20313,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219009109" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1219009109</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Münch, B. and Holzer, L.: Contradicting geometrical concepts in pore size
analysis attained with electron microscopy and mercury intrusion, Journal of the Amercian Ceramic Society, 91, 4059–4067,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02736.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02736.x</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Rexer, T. F., Mathia, E. J., Aplin, A. C., and Thomas, K. M.:
High-Pressure Methane Adsorption and Charecterization of Pores in Posidonia
Shales and Isolated Kerogens, Energy Fuels, 28, 2886–2901,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef402466m" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/ef402466m</ext-link>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Rouquerol, J., Avnir, D., Fairbridge, C. W., Everett, D. H.,
Haynes, J. M., Pernicone, J. M., Ramsay, J. D. F., Sing, W., and
Unger, K. K.: Recommendations for the characterization of porous solids, Pure
Appl. Chem., 66, 1739–1758, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1351/pac199466081739" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1351/pac199466081739</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Sato, M., Bitter, I., Bender, M., Kaufman, A. E., and Nakajima,
M.: TEASAR: Tree-Structure Extraction Algorithm for Accurate and Robust
Skeletons, Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, 8,
281–449, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PCCGA.2000.883951" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/PCCGA.2000.883951</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Schieber, J.: Shale microfabrics and pore development – an overview with
emphasis on the importance of depositional processes, Gas Shale of the Horn
River Basin, edited by: Leckie, D. A. and Barclay, J. E., 115–119, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Schlosser, J., Grathoff, G. H., Ostertag-Henning, C., Kaufhold,
S., and Warr, L. N.: Mineralogical changes in organic-rich Posidonia Shales
during burial and experimental maturation, Int. J. Coal Geol., 157, 74–83,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2015.07.008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.coal.2015.07.008</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Srodon, J.: X-ray powder diffraction identification of illitic materials,
Clay. Clay Miner., 32, 337–349, 1984.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Taylor, W. L., Pollard, D. D., and Aydin, A.: Fluid flow in discrete
joint sets: field observations and numerical simulations, J.
Geophys. Res., 104, 28983–29006, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/1999JB900179" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999JB900179</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Wiegmann, A.: Computation of the permeability of porous material from their
microstructure by FFF-Stokes, Berichte des Fraunhofer ITWM 129, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Porosity and permeability determination of organic-rich Posidonia shales based on 3-D analyses by FIB-SEM microscopy</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">The goal of this study is to better understand the
porosity and permeability in shales to improve modelling fluid and gas flow
related to shale diagenesis. Two samples (WIC and HAD) were investigated,
both mid-Jurassic organic-rich Posidonia shales from Hils area, central
Germany of different maturity (WIC <i>R</i><sub>0</sub> 0.53 % and HAD <i>R</i><sub>0</sub>
1.45 %). The method for image collection was focused ion beam (FIB)
microscopy coupled with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For image and
data analysis Avizo and GeoDict was used. Porosity was calculated from
segmented 3-D FIB based images and permeability was simulated by a Navier
Stokes–Brinkman solver in the segmented images.</p><p class="p">Results show that the quantity and distribution of pore clusters and pores
( ≥  40 nm) are similar. The largest pores are located
within carbonates and clay minerals, whereas the smallest pores are within
the matured organic matter. Orientation of the pores calculated as pore
paths showed minor directional differences between the samples. Both samples
have no continuous connectivity of pore clusters along the axes in the <i>x</i>, <i>y</i>,
and <i>z</i> direction on the scale of 10 to 20 of micrometer, but do show
connectivity on the micrometer scale. The volume of organic matter in the
studied volume is representative of the total organic carbon (TOC) in the samples. Organic matter
does show axis connectivity in the <i>x</i>, <i>y</i>, and <i>z</i> directions. With increasing
maturity the porosity in organic matter increases from close to 0 to more
than 5 %. These pores are small and in the large organic particles have
little connection to the mineral matrix. Continuous pore size distributions
are compared with mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) data. Differences
between both methods are caused by resolution limits of the FIB-SEM and by
the development of small pores during the maturation of the organic matter.
Calculations show no permeability when only considering visible pores due to
the lack of axis connectivity. Adding the organic matter with a background
permeability of 1 × 10<sup>−21</sup> m<sup>2</sup> to the calculations, the total permeability
increased by up to 1 order of magnitude for the low mature and decreases
slightly for the overmature sample from the gas window. Anisotropy of
permeability was observed. Permeability coefficients increase by 1 order
of magnitude if simulations are performed parallel to the bedding. Our
results compare well with experimental data from the literature suggesting
that upscaling may be possible in the future as soon as maturity dependent
organic matter permeability coefficients can be determined.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Bhandari, A. R., Flemings, P. B., Polito, P. J., Cronin, M. B., and Bryant, S. L.:
Anisotropy and stress dependence of permeability in the
Barnett Shale, Transp. Porous Med, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11242-015-0482-0" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s11242-015-0482-0</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Cardozo, N. and Allmendinger, R. W.: Spherical projections with OSXSteronet,
Comput. Geosci., 51, 193–205, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.021" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.07.021</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Chalmers, G. R., Bustin, R. M., and Power, I. M.: Characterization of gas
shale pore systems by porosimetry, porosimetry, surface area and field
emission scanning electron microscopy/transmission electron microscopy image
analyses: Examples from the Barnett, Woodford, Haynesville, Marcellus and
Doig units, APPG Bulletin, 96, 1099–1119, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/10171111052" target="_blank">doi:10.1306/10171111052</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Curtis, M. E., Cardott, B. J., Sondergeld, C. H., and Rai, C. S.:
Development of organic porosity in the Woodford Shale with increasing
thermal maturity, Int. J. Coal Geol., 103, 26–31, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.08.004" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.coal.2012.08.004</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Desbois, G., Urai, J. L., Hemes, S., Schröppel, B.,
Schwarz, J.-O., Mac, M., and Weiel, D.: Multi-scale analysis of porosity
in diagenetically altered reservoir sandstone from the Permian Rotliegend
(Germany), J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.019" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2016.01.019</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Gasparik, M., Bertier, P., Gensterblum, Y., Ghanizadeh, A.,
Krooss, B. M., and Littke, R.: Geological controls on the methane storage
capacity in organic-rich shales, Int. J. Coal Geol., 123, 34–51,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.010" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.010</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Ghanizadeh, A., Amann-Hildenbrand, A., Gasparik, M.,
Gensterblum, Y., Krooss, B. M., and Littke, R.: Experimental study of
fluid transport processes in the matrix system of European organic-rich
shales: II. Posidonia Shale (Lower Toarcian, northern Germany)., Int. J.
Coal Geol., 123, 20–33, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.009" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.coal.2013.06.009</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Hemes, S., Desbois, G., Urai, J. L., Schröppel, B., and Schwarz,
J.-O.: Mutli-scale characterization of porosity in Boom Clay (HADES-level,
Mol, Belgium) using a combination of X-ray µ-CT, 2D BIB-SEM and
FIB-SEM tomography, Micropor. Mesopor. Mat., 208, 1–20,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.01.022" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.micromeso.2015.01.022</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Iliev, O. and Laptev, V.: On numerical simulation of flow through oil
filters, Comput. Visual Sci., 6, 139–146, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00791-003-0118-8" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s00791-003-0118-8</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Javadpour, F., Fisher, D., and Unsworth, M.: Nanoscale Gas Flow in Shale
Gas Sediments, J. Can. Petrol. Technol., 46, 55–61,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/07-10-06" target="_blank">doi:10.2118/07-10-06</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Kanit, T., Forest, S., Galliet, I., Mounoury, V., and Jeulin,
D.: Determination of the size of the representative volume element for
random composites: statistical and numerical approach, Int. J. Solids Struct.,
40, 3647–3679, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(03)00143-4" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/S0020-7683(03)00143-4</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Kaufhold, S., Grathoff, G. H., Halisch, M., Plötze, M.,
Kus, J., Ufer, K., Dohrmann, R., Ladage, S., and
Ostertag-Henning, C.: Comparison of methods for the determination of the
pore system of a potential German gas shale, Clay. Clay Miner., <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1346/CMS-WLS-21.13" target="_blank">doi:10.1346/CMS-WLS-21.13</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Keller, L. M., Holzer, L., Wepf, R., and Gasser, P.: 3D geometry and
topology of pore pathways in Opalinus clay: Implications for mass transport,
Appl. Clay Sci., 52, 85–95, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2011.02.003" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.clay.2011.02.003</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Keller, L. M., Holzer, L., Schuetz, P., and Gasser, P.: Pore space
relevant for gas permeability in Opalinus clay: Statistical analysis of
homogeneity, percolation, and representative volume element, J.
Geophys. Res.-Sol. Ea., 118, 2799–2812, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrb.50228" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/jgrb.50228</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Khan, F., Enzmann, F., Kersten, M., Wiegmann, A., and Steiner, K.: 3D
simulation of the permeability tensor in a soil aggregate on basis of
nanotomographic imaging and LBE solver, J. Soils Sediments, 12, 86–96,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11368-011-0435-3" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s11368-011-0435-3</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Klaver, J., Desbois, G., Urai, J. L., and Littke, R.: BIB-SEM study
of pore space morphology in early mature Posidonia Shale from the Hils area,
Germany, Int. J. Coal Geol., 103, 12–25, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2012.06.012" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.coal.2012.06.012</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Klaver, J., Desbois, G., Littke, R., and Urai, J. L.: BIB-SEM pore
characterization of mature and post mature Posidonia Shale samples from Hils
area, Germany, Int. J. Coal Geol., 158, 78–89,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2016.03.003" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.coal.2016.03.003</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Kuila, U., McCarty, D. K., Derkowski, A., Fischer, T. B., Topór, T., and Prasad, M.:
Nano-scale texture and porosity of organic matter and clay minerals in organic-rich mudrocks,
Fuel, 135, 359–373, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.06.036" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2014.06.036</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Loucks, R. G., Reed, R. M., Ruppel, S. C., and Hammes, U.: Spectrum of
pore types and networks in mudrocks and a descriptive classification for
matrix-related mudrock pores, APPG Bulletin, 96, 1071–1098,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/08171111061" target="_blank">doi:10.1306/08171111061</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Mathia, E. J., Bowen, L., Thomas, K. M., and Aplin, A. C.: Evolution of
porosity and pore types in organic-rich, calcareous, Lower Toarcian
Posidonia Shale, Mar. Petrol. Geol., 75, 117–139,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.04.009" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2016.04.009</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Mohnhoff, D., Littke, R., Krooss, B. M., and Weniger, P.:
Flow-through extraction of oil and gas shales under controlled stress using
organic solvents: Implications for organic matter-related porosity and
permeability changes with thermal maturity, Int. J. Coal Geol., 157, 84–99,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2015.09.010" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.coal.2015.09.010</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Monteiro, P. J. M., Rycroft, C. H., and Barrenblatt, G. I.: A mathematical
model of fluid and gas flow in nanoporous media, P, Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 109, 20309–20313,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219009109" target="_blank">doi:10.1073/pnas.1219009109</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Münch, B. and Holzer, L.: Contradicting geometrical concepts in pore size
analysis attained with electron microscopy and mercury intrusion, Journal of the Amercian Ceramic Society, 91, 4059–4067,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02736.x" target="_blank">doi:10.1111/j.1551-2916.2008.02736.x</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Rexer, T. F., Mathia, E. J., Aplin, A. C., and Thomas, K. M.:
High-Pressure Methane Adsorption and Charecterization of Pores in Posidonia
Shales and Isolated Kerogens, Energy Fuels, 28, 2886–2901,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef402466m" target="_blank">doi:10.1021/ef402466m</a>, 2014.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Rouquerol, J., Avnir, D., Fairbridge, C. W., Everett, D. H.,
Haynes, J. M., Pernicone, J. M., Ramsay, J. D. F., Sing, W., and
Unger, K. K.: Recommendations for the characterization of porous solids, Pure
Appl. Chem., 66, 1739–1758, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1351/pac199466081739" target="_blank">doi:10.1351/pac199466081739</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Sato, M., Bitter, I., Bender, M., Kaufman, A. E., and Nakajima,
M.: TEASAR: Tree-Structure Extraction Algorithm for Accurate and Robust
Skeletons, Pacific Conference on Computer Graphics and Applications, 8,
281–449, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PCCGA.2000.883951" target="_blank">doi:10.1109/PCCGA.2000.883951</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Schieber, J.: Shale microfabrics and pore development – an overview with
emphasis on the importance of depositional processes, Gas Shale of the Horn
River Basin, edited by: Leckie, D. A. and Barclay, J. E., 115–119, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Schlosser, J., Grathoff, G. H., Ostertag-Henning, C., Kaufhold,
S., and Warr, L. N.: Mineralogical changes in organic-rich Posidonia Shales
during burial and experimental maturation, Int. J. Coal Geol., 157, 74–83,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2015.07.008" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.coal.2015.07.008</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Srodon, J.: X-ray powder diffraction identification of illitic materials,
Clay. Clay Miner., 32, 337–349, 1984.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Taylor, W. L., Pollard, D. D., and Aydin, A.: Fluid flow in discrete
joint sets: field observations and numerical simulations, J.
Geophys. Res., 104, 28983–29006, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/1999JB900179" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/1999JB900179</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Wiegmann, A.: Computation of the permeability of porous material from their
microstructure by FFF-Stokes, Berichte des Fraunhofer ITWM 129, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
