Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,126

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Specific surface area and pore‐size distribution in clays and shales

Kuila, Utpalendu, Prasad, Manika·2013·Geophysical Prospecting

Abstract

One of the biggest challenges in estimating the elastic, transport and storage properties of shales has been a lack of understanding of their complete pore structure. The shale matrix is predominantly composed of micropores (pores less than 2 nm diameter) and mesopores (pores with 2–50 nm diameter). These small pores in the shale matrix are mainly associated with clay minerals and organic matter and comprehending the controls of these clays and organic matter on the pore‐size distribution is critical to understand the shale pore network. Historically, mercury intrusion techniques are used for pore‐size analysis of conventional reservoirs. However, for unconventional shale reservoirs, very high pressures (> 414 MPa (60 000 psi)) would be required for mercury to access the full pore structure, which has potential pitfalls. Current instrumental limitations do not allow reliable measurement of significant portions of the total pore volume in shales. Nitrogen gas‐adsorption techniques can be used to characterize materials dominated by micro‐ and mesopores (2–50 nm). A limitation of this technique is that it fails to measure large pores (diameter >200 nm). We use a nitrogen gas‐adsorption technique to study the micro‐ and mesopores in shales and clays and compare the results from conventional mercury porosimetry techniques. Our results on pure clay minerals and natural shales show that (i) they have a multiscale pore structure at different dimensions (ii) fine mesopores, with a characteristic 3 nm pore size obtained with N 2 gas‐adsorption are associated with an illite‐smectite group of clays but not with kaolinite; (iii) compaction results in a decrease of pore volume and a reduction of pore size in the ‘inter‐aggregate’ macropores of the illite‐smectite clays while the fine ‘intra‐tachoid’ mesopores are shielded from compaction; (iv) for natural shales, mineralogy controls the pore‐size distributions for shales and the presence of micropores and fine mesopores in natural shales can be correlated with the dominance of the illite‐smectite type of clays in the rock. Our assessment of incompressible 3 nm sized pores associated with illite‐smectite clays provides an important building block for their mineral modulus.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1365-2478.12028

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,126

Metadata

Authors
Kuila, U., & Prasad, M.
Venue
Geophysical Prospecting
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01-29
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
341-362
ISSN
  • 0016-8025 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2478
OpenAlex
W2104076412
Cited by
1,126
References
2
FWCI
49.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Specific surface area and pore‐size distribution in clays and shales. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1365-2478.12028
The paper
Kuila, U., & Prasad, M. (2013). Specific surface area and pore‐size distribution in clays and shales. Geophysical Prospecting. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2478.12028

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.