METHOD FOR QUANTIFYING THE PYRITIC SULFUR AND THE ORGANIC SULFUR OF A ROCK SAMPLE

Abstract

Method for distinctly characterizing and quantifying the pyritic sulfur and the organic sulfur of a sedimentary rock sample.

A rock sample is subjected to a heating sequence in an inert atmosphere, the effluents resulting from this heating in an inert atmosphere are continuously oxidized, the SO.sub.2 released is continuously measured, and a pyrolysis sulfur content and a pyrolysis pyritic sulfur content are deduced therefrom. The residue from heating in an inert atmosphere is then heated in an oxidizing atmosphere, the SO.sub.2 released is continuously measured and at least an oxidation sulfur content is deduced therefrom. The pyritic sulfur content is determined from the pyrolysis pyritic sulfur content and from a weighting function taking account of a first parameter representing a pyrite thermal degradation rate, a second parameter representing the impact of the mineral matrix and a third parameter representing the impact of the organic matrix. The organic sulfur content can further be determined from at least the oxidation sulfur content, the pyrolysis sulfur content and the pyritic sulfur content.

Application: notably petroleum exploration and exploitation.

Claims

1-17: (canceled)

18. A method for quantifying pyritic sulfur in a sedimentary rock sample, comprising: A. heating the sample in an inert atmosphere, between a first temperature ranging between 100 C. and 320 C. and a second temperature ranging between 600 C. and 700 C., to produce effluents by following a first temperature gradient ranging between 1 C./min and 30 C./min; B. continuously oxidizing at least part of the effluents obtained from heating the sample in an inert atmosphere and continuously measuring a first amount of SO.sub.2 released as a function of the time of the heating in an inert atmosphere, and determining at least a pyrolysis sulfur content and a pyrolysis pyritic sulfur content from the first amount of SO.sub.2; C. heating in an oxidizing atmosphere a residue of the sample resulting from the heating in the inert atmosphere between a third temperature ranging between 280 C. and 320 C. and a fourth temperature at least equal to 800 C., by following a second temperature gradient ranging between 1 C./min and 30 C./min; D. continuously measuring a second amount of SO.sub.2 released as a function of time of the heating in the oxidizing atmosphere and determining at least an oxidation sulfur content from the second amount of SO.sub.2 and determining at least a total sulfur content by a sum of the pyrolysis sulfur content and the oxidation sulfur content, and wherein at least the pyritic sulfur content of the sample is determined from a formula:
S.sup.Pyrit=p(,,).Math.S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit, where p(,,) is a weighting function depending on a parameter representing a proportion of the pyrolysis pyritic sulfur relative to the total sulfur, a parameter representing an effect of a mineral matrix on the proportion, a parameter representing an effect of organic matrix on the proportion with values of the parameters being predetermined.

19. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the weighting function p(,,) is written as: $p\left(,,\right)=\frac{\left(1++\right)}{}$

20. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the sample is reservoir rock and the first temperature ranges between 100 C. and 200 C.

21. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the sample is mother rock and the first temperature ranges between 280 C. and 320 C.

22. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein parameter ranges between 0.40 and 0.46.

23. A method as claimed in claim 22 wherein is 0.43.

24. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the rock sample is clay and parameter ranges between 0.04 and 0.7.

25. A method as claimed in claim 24 wherein is 0.38.

26. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the rock sample is marl and parameter ranges between 0.7 and 0.9.

27. A method as claimed in claim 26 wherein is 0.78.

28. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the rock sample is limestone and parameter ranges between 0.85 and 0.97.

29. A method as claimed in claim 28 wherein is 0.9.

30. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the rock sample contains an organic matter of at least one of lacustrine and marine origin, and a value of parameter is 0.

31. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the rock sample contains an organic matter of terrestrial origin and parameter ranges between 0.23 and 0.29.

32. A method as claimed in claim 31 wherein is 0.26.

33. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the fourth temperature ranges between 800 C. and 900 C., and an organic sulfur content S.sup.Org is determined according to a formula as follows:
S.sup.Org=S.sub.TotalS.sup.Pyrit.

34. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the fourth temperature is greater than 1150 C. and less than 1250 C., and a sulfate sulfur content S.sub.Oxy.sup.Sulfa is additionally determined from the second amount of SO.sub.2, and organic sulfur content is determined with a formula: S.sup.Org=S.sub.TotalS.sup.PyritS.sub.Oxy.sup.Sulfa, wherein. S.sup.Pyrit is pyritic sulfur content and S.sub.Total is a total amount of sulfur that is present.

35. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein at least one of the pyrolysis sulfur content and the pyrolysis pyritic sulfur content is determined from the first amount of SO.sub.2 and from a pyrolysis sulfur calibration coefficient established on a reference sample whose sulfur content is known.

36. A method as claimed in claim 35, wherein the reference sample is native sulfur.

37. A method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the oxidation sulfur content is determined from the second amount of SO.sub.2 and from an oxidation sulfur calibration coefficient established from a reference sample whose sulfur content is known.

38. A method as claimed in claim 37, wherein the reference sample is coal.

39. A method as claimed in claim 18, comprising: measuring amounts of hydrocarbon products of CO and CO.sub.2 contained in the effluents that result from the heating of the sample in an inert atmosphere; and measuring amounts of CO and CO.sub.2 contained in the effluents resulting from the heating in an oxidizing atmosphere.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

[0061] Other features and advantages of the method according to the invention will be clear from reading the description hereafter of embodiments given by way of non limitative example, with reference to the accompanying figures wherein:

[0062] FIG. 1a shows an example of a measurement performed with a SO.sub.2 detector during a heating sequence in an inert atmosphere to which a rock sample is subjected,

[0063] FIG. 1b shows an example of a measurement performed with a SO.sub.2 detector during a heating sequence in an oxidizing atmosphere to which a rock sample is subjected,

[0064] FIG. 2 shows curves representative of the amount of SO.sub.2 released by four pure igneous pyrite samples of distinct masses during a heating sequence in an inert atmosphere,

[0065] FIG. 3a shows a histogram representative of the effect of the mineral matrix as a function of the mineral mixture class considered,

[0066] FIG. 3b shows a histogram representative of the average effect of clays, carbonates and intermediate formations on the proportion of sulfur in the pyrite released during pyrolysis as a function of the mineral mixture class considered.

[0067] FIG. 3c shows the evolution of the effect of the mineral matrix as a function of the mineral carbon,

[0068] FIG. 4a shows an estimation of the effect of the organic matrix on the amount of sulfur released by the pyrite during the pyrolysis phase as a function of a first series of pyrite-organic matter mixture classes,

[0069] FIG. 4b shows an estimation of the effect of the organic matrix on the amount of sulfur released by the pyrite during the pyrolysis phase as a function of a second series of pyrite-organic matter mixture classes,

[0070] FIGS. 5a, 5b and 5c respectively show the evolution of the total sulfur, pyritic sulfur and organic sulfur content for various rock samples obtained with the method according to the invention as a function of the total sulfur content obtained for these samples with a method according to the prior art.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0071] In general terms, one object of the invention is a method for distinctly quantifying the pyritic sulfur and the organic sulfur present in a rock sample.

[0072] The present invention may apply to any type of sedimentary rocks such as, for example, a mother rock, a reservoir rock or an unconventional mother rock. In particular, the present invention is suited for rock samples from marine mother rocks.

[0073] In general, the rock sample may have been taken for example by coring within an underground formation of interest or it may result from drill cuttings. Advantageously, the sample as taken is prepared (by washing, screening, sorting, etc.) so as to remove impurities (drilling mud for example, pollutants, etc.), then it is hand ground or mechanically crushed.

[0074] The method according to the invention is based on the measurement of the sulfur dioxide (SO.sub.2) released by a rock sample first subjected to pyrolysis (i.e. heating in an inert atmosphere), then to oxidation (i.e. heating in an oxidizing atmosphere).

[0075] The method according to the invention can be advantageously, but not limitatively, implemented using the ROCK-EVAL device (IFP Energies nouvelles, France), as described in patent EP-2,342,557 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,796,035).

[0076] The method according to the invention comprises at least the following steps: [0077] 1. Heating sequence in an inert atmosphere (pyrolysis) [0078] 2. Heating sequence in an oxidizing atmosphere (oxidation) [0079] 3. Pyritic sulfur quantification.

[0080] 1. Heating Sequence in an Inert Atmosphere (Pyrolysis)

[0081] In this step, the sample considered is heated in an inert atmosphere (such as, for example, in a stream of nitrogen, helium) according to a predetermined time-varying temperature programme.

[0082] According to an implementation of the invention, this step is carried out using a pyrolysis oven, the sample of interest placed in the oven being swept by a non-oxidizing gas stream.

[0083] According to the invention, the sample is heated by pyrolysis between a temperature T1 ranging between 100 C. and 320 C., and a temperature T2 ranging between 600 C. and 700 C., preferably 650 C., the temperature rise following a temperature gradient (or heating rate) ranging between 1 C./min and 30 C./min, preferably between 20 C./min and 30 C./min, and it is more preferably 25 C./min. According to an implementation of the invention where the analysed sample is a reservoir rock, temperature T1 ranges between 100 C. and 200 C., and it is preferably 180 C. According to an implementation of the invention where the analysed sample is a mother rock, temperature T1 ranges between 280 C. and 320 C., and it is preferably 300 C.

[0084] According to the invention, at least part of the pyrolysis effluents is oxidized as they are released. The sulfur gases present in the pyrolysis effluents are thus oxidized to SO.sub.2. According to an implementation of the invention, this oxidation of the pyrolysis effluents is performed using a combustion chamber, such as an oxidation oven, in the presence of an oxygen-containing gas and optionally of a catalyst.

[0085] According to the invention, the SO.sub.2 thus generated is continuously measured as the pyrolysis progresses, using a SO.sub.2 detector such as an ultraviolet (UV) or infrared (IR) spectrophotometer. A measurement of the SO.sub.2 released during pyrolysis as a function of the pyrolysis time and/or temperature is thus obtained.

[0086] 2. Healing Sequence in an Oxidizing Atmosphere (Oxidation)

[0087] In this second step, the solid sample residue obtained after the pyrolysis sequence as described in step 1 above is subjected to oxidation according to a predetermined time-varying temperature programme.

[0088] According to the invention, the sample is heated in an oxidizing atmosphere between a temperature T3 ranging between 280 C. and 320 C., preferably 300 C., and a temperature T4 greater than or equal to 800 C., the temperature rise following a temperature gradient (or heating rate) ranging between 1 C./min and 30 C./min, preferably between 20 C./min and 30 C./min, and it is more preferably 20 C./min.

[0089] According to an implementation of the invention, this step is carried out using an oxidation oven, the pyrolysis residue being swept by an air stream.

[0090] According to the invention, the SO.sub.2 generated by the oxidation of the pyrolysis residue and contained in the oxidation effluents is continuously measured, i.e. during the heating sequence in an oxidizing atmosphere. The SO.sub.2 measurement is for example performed using a UV or IR spectrophotometer. A measurement of the SO.sub.2 released during oxidation, for example as a function of the oxidation time and/or temperature, is thus obtained.

[0091] 3. Pyritic Sulfur Quantification

[0092] After carrying out the previous two steps, we have two curves representative of the SO.sub.2 measurements performed in steps 1 and 2 described above.

[0093] FIG. 1a illustrates an example of a curve (C1) showing the measured amount of SO.sub.2 (more precisely amplitude A measured by a SO.sub.2 detector such as an ultraviolet spectrophotometer) as a function of the pyrolysis time (denoted by t), and it also shows the evolution of the pyrolysis temperature (denoted by T) as a function of the pyrolysis time. FIG. 1b illustrates an example of a curve (C2) showing the measured amount of SO.sub.2 (more precisely amplitude A measured by a SO.sub.2 detector such as an ultraviolet spectrophotometer) as a function of the oxidation time (denoted by t), and it also shows the evolution of the oxidation temperature (denoted by T) as a function of the oxidation time. For this example, and by way of illustration, temperature T1 was selected equal to 300 C., temperature T2 was selected equal to 650 C., temperature T3 was selected equal to 300 C. and temperature T4 was selected equal to 1200 C.

[0094] It is observed that each one of these curves comprises several peaks and is identifiable by the number of these peaks, their peak apex temperature, their shape and their area. Peak C corresponding to the release, during pyrolysis, of part of the sulfur contained in the pyrite (referred to as pyrolysis pyritic sulfur hereafter and denoted by S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit) can notably be observed in curve C1. Peak F corresponding to the release of the sulfur contained in the sulfates (referred to as sulfate sulfur hereafter and denoted by S.sub.Oxy.sup.Sulfa) during oxidation can be observed in curve C2. Furthermore, the first two peaks A and B of curve C1 correspond to the sulfur contained in the thermally labile organic compounds, which are vaporizable and thermally crackable respectively. Also, it is observed that curve C2 has two nearly-merging first peaks D and E respectively corresponding to organic sulfur contained in organic compounds, which are thermally refractory or were generated during the pyrolysis phase, and to pyritic sulfur. It can thus be noted that recording the SO.sub.2 released during the oxidation step does not allow to distinguish between these two peaks and therefore between the organic sulfur and the pyritic sulfur.

[0095] In this step, according to the invention, the proportion of pyrolysis sulfur S.sub.Pyrol released during pyrolysis, the proportion of oxidation sulfur S.sub.Oxy released during oxidation of the pyrolysis residue and the proportion of pyrolysis pyritic sulfur S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit released during pyrolysis are quantified from the measurements performed during the heating sequence in an inert atmosphere and the heating sequence in an oxidizing atmosphere.

[0096] According to an implementation of the invention, the proportion of pyrolysis sulfur S.sub.Pyrol (respectively the proportion of oxidation sulfur S.sub.Oxy) in the analyzed sample can be determined from the area under the measured SO.sub.2 curve recorded during the pyrolysis heating sequence (respectively during the oxidizing heating sequence), divided by the mass of the analyzed sample, weighted by a pyrolysis sulfur calibration coefficient (respectively an oxidation sulfur calibration coefficient). These proportions are expressed in mass percent, i.e. in mass of pyrolysis sulfur (respectively of oxidation sulfur), divided by the mass of the sample and multiplied by 100.

[0097] According to an implementation of the invention, the proportion of pyrolysis pyritic sulfur S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit can be determined from the area under the peak representative of the pyrolysis pyritic sulfur on the measured SO.sub.2 curve recorded during the pyrolysis phase (see peak C in FIG. 1a), divided by the mass of the analyzed sample and weighted by a pyrolysis sulfur calibration coefficient. The proportion of pyrolysis pyritic sulfur is expressed in mass percent, i.e. in mass of pyrolysis pyritic sulfur, divided by the mass of the sample and multiplied by 100.

[0098] According to an implementation of the invention, a pyrolysis sulfur calibration coefficient (respectively an oxidation sulfur calibration coefficient) can be determined from at least one reference sample whose sulfur content is known, the sample being subjected to a pyrolysis heating sequence (respectively an oxidizing heating sequence). Thereafter, the pyrolysis sulfur calibration coefficient is determined from the area under the measured curve of the SO.sub.2 released by this reference sample during a pyrolysis heating sequence (respectively during an oxidizing heating sequence), itself divided by the mass of the reference sample. According to an implementation of the invention, the reference sample can be native sulfur for determining the pyrolysis sulfur calibration coefficient. According to an implementation of the invention, the reference sample can be coal for determining the oxidation sulfur calibration coefficient.

[0099] According to the invention, the total sulfur content S.sub.Total is further determined as the sum of the two contents S.sub.Pyrol and S.sub.Oxy, i.e.:

S.sub.Total=S.sub.Pyrol+S.sub.Oxy,

expressed in mass percent (wt. %), i.e. in mass of total sulfur divided by the mass of the sample and multiplied by 100.

[0100] According to the invention, the pyritic sulfur content S.sup.Pyrit is determined with a formula of the type:

S.sup.Pyrit=p(,,).Math.S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit

expressed in mass percent, i.e. in mass of pyritic sulfur divided by the mass of the sample and multiplied by 100, p(,,) being a weighting function depending on parameters , and , and these parameters have been previously determined, with:

[0101] parameter , which represents the proportion of pyritic sulfur released during the pyrolysis phase in relation to the total sulfur thereof, and can be seen as a rate of thermal degradation of the pyrite. According to an implementation of the invention, parameter ranges between 0.40 and 0.46, and its value preferably is 0.43:

[0102] parameter , which represents the impact of the mineral matrix on the proportion of pyritic sulfur released during the pyrolysis phase. Indeed, the mineral matrix reduces the amount of sulfur of the pyrite released during the pyrolysis phase. According to an aspect of the invention, parameter can range between 0.04 and 0.97, depending on the type of rock the sample studied has been taken from. According to an implementation of the invention where the rock sample studied is of clay type, parameter can range between 0.04 and 0.7, and its value preferably is 0.38. According to an implementation of the invention where the rock sample studied is of marl type, parameter can range between 0.7 and 0.9, and its value preferably is 0.78. According to an implementation of the invention where the rock sample studied is of limestone type, parameter can range between 0.85 and 0.97, and its value preferably is 0.90;

[0103] parameter , which represents the impact of the organic matrix on the proportion of pyritic sulfur released during the pyrolysis phase. According to an implementation of the invention, parameter can range between 0 and 0.29, depending on the type of organic matter. According to an implementation of the invention where the organic matter present in the rock sample studied is of marine or lacustrine type, the value of parameter is 0 (no significant effect on the degradation of the pyrite during the pyrolysis phase). According to an implementation of the invention where the organic matter present in the rock sample studied is of terrestrial type, parameter can range between 0.23 and 0.29, and its value preferably is 0.26.

[0104] According to an implementation of the invention, weighting function p(,,) can be written in the form as follows:

[00002]$p\left(,,\right)=\frac{\left(1++\right)}{}.$

[0105] 4. Organic Sulfur Quantification

[0106] In this step, which is optional, the proportion of organic sulfur S.sup.Org contained in the rock sample considered can be determined from at least the difference between the total sulfur content S.sub.Total and the pyritic sulfur content S.sup.Pyrit.

[0107] According to a first variant of the invention where the end oxidation temperature T4 ranges between 800 C. and 900 C., the proportion of organic sulfur S.sub.Org contained in said sample can be determined with a formula of the type:

S.sup.Org=S.sub.TotalS.sup.Pyrit

[0108] According to a second variant of the invention where end oxidation temperature T4 ranges between 1150 C. and 1250 C., preferably 1200 C., the proportion of organic sulfur S.sup.Org contained in the sample can be determined as follows:

[0109] quantifying a proportion of sulfate sulfurs S.sub.Oxy.sup.Sulfa from the area under the peak representative of the sulfate sulfur of the measured SO.sub.2 curve recorded during the oxidation step, divided by the mass of the analyzed sample and weighted by an oxidation sulfur calibration coefficient (see step 3 above for determination of this calibration coefficient);

[0110] determining the proportion of organic sulfur S.sup.Org with a formula of the type:

S.sup.Org=S.sub.TotalS.sup.PyritS.sub.Oxy.sup.Sulfa.

[0111] Indeed, for this variant embodiment, we can distinguish peak S.sub.Oxy.sup.Sulfa (see peak F in FIG. 1a) which corresponds to the release, during oxidation, of the sulfur contained in the sulfates, occurring at high temperatures. Determination of the organic sulfur content is more precise according to this second embodiment of the invention.

[0112] 5. Calibration of Parameters , and

[0113] According to an embodiment of the invention, parameters and/or and/or as defined above can be calibrated prior to implementing the method according to the invention, or while implementing the method according to the invention, for example prior to stage 1, stage 2 or stage 3 described above.

[0114] Calibration of Parameter

[0115] According to an implementation of the invention, parameter can be calibrated by estimating the proportion of pyritic sulfur released during the pyrolysis phase in relation to the total sulfur from at least one pure igneous pyrite sample. According to an implementation of the invention, a so-called pure pyrite can be obtained by cleaning a natural pyrite of these impurities by chemical attacks.

[0116] An example of calibration of parameter is described hereafter. Four samples from a single pure igneous pyrite sample (respectively denoted by E1, E2 E3, E4) of different masses (respectively 2 mg, 3 mg, 4 mg and 8 mg) are each subjected to pyrolysis by means of the ROCK-EVAL device (IFP Energies nouvelles, France). Notably for this example of calibration of parameter , each sample was placed in the pyrolysis oven of the ROCK-EVAL device and heating of the sample was carried out between 300 C. and 650 C., with a temperature ramp of 25 C./min and in a 150 ml/min nitrogen stream. Thereafter, the sulfur effluents released by each pure igneous pyrite sample considered were carried by the nitrogen stream into the combustion chamber (oxidation oven) of the ROCK-EVAL device, where they were converted to SO.sub.2 in a continuous stream, then the SO.sub.2 was carried to a SO.sub.2 detector where it was continuously quantified by means of the SO.sub.2 detector of the ROCK-EVAL device. The solid residue of each igneous pyrite sample obtained after the pyrolysis sequence was then placed in the oxidation oven of the ROCK-EVAL device and heating of the sample was carried out between 300 C. and 850 C., with a temperature ramp of 20 C./min and in a 100 ml/min air stream. The released SO.sub.2 effluents were carried to a SO.sub.2 detector where they were continuously quantified by means of the SO.sub.2 detector of the ROCK-EVAL device.

[0117] FIG. 2 shows the recording over time t of the amount of SO.sub.2 (more precisely the amplitude) released by samples E1, E2, E3 and E4 during the pyrolysis phase as described above. Curve T also shown in this FIG. 2 corresponds to the evolution of the temperature to which each sample considered is subjected during this pyrolysis phase. This figure notably shows the presence of peaks representative of the thermal degradation of the pyrite at the different masses analysed during the pyrolysis phase. The pyrolysis sulfur content of the igneous pyrite sample (proportion of pyrolysis pyritic sulfur) was calculated by multiplying by the sulfur content of the reference sample the area under each curve E1, E2, E3 and E4, divided by the mass of the sample, and related to the area under the measured curve of the SO.sub.2 released by a reference sample (such as native sulfur) during the pyrolysis heating sequence, itself divided by the mass of the reference sample. The ratio between this pyrolysis pyritic sulfur content and the total sulfur content of the pyrite (described in step 3 above) is calculated. The results show that, whatever the mass analysed, the mass proportion of the pyritic sulfur that is released during pyrolysis is 0.430.03 wt %. The remaining proportion of pyritic sulfur at the end of the pyrolysis sequence (0.570.03 wt %) is subsequently released during the oxidation step (step 2 described above).

[0118] Thus, the calibration as described above allows to determine that parameter ranges between 0.40 and 0.46, and its value is 0.43 on average.

[0119] Calibration of Parameter

[0120] According to an implementation of the invention, we calibrate parameter , which represents the impact of the mineral matrix on the amount of sulfur of the pyrite released during the pyrolysis phase from at least a mixture of pyrite and of at least one mineral type, this mixture being representative of the rock sample to be studied by the method according to the invention.

[0121] An example of calibration of parameter for various mineral types is described below. For this example of calibration of parameter , we made mixtures from the following two major mineral groups: [0122] clay/silicate minerals, such as: [0123] silica (Fontainebleau sand, France), the mixture made with silica is the reference mixture because silica is known to be non-reactive; [0124] kaolinite (reference: CMS Kga 1b); [0125] smectite (reference: Mx80); [0126] illite (Velay clay, France): this sample naturally containing carbonates, it was decarbonated with hydrochloric acid; [0127] carbonate minerals, such as: [0128] calcite (France); [0129] dolomite (Euguy, Spain); [0130] siderite (Peru).

[0131] The following mixtures are then made: [0132] 2 mg pyrite+98 mg of each clay/silicate mineral; [0133] 2 mg pyrite+58 mg of each carbonate mineral; [0134] 2 mg pyrite+98 mg clays (all the day/silicate minerals in equal parts ; ; ; ); [0135] 2 mg pyrite+58 mg carbonates (all the carbonate minerals in equal ports ; ; ); [0136] 2 mg pyrite+58 mg clays and carbonates with different proportions. i.e.: [0137] 93% clays and 7% carbonates; [0138] 69% clays and 31% carbonates; [0139] 51% clays and 49% carbonates; [0140] 26% clays and 74% carbonates.

[0141] These various samples are then subjected to steps 1 and 2 as described above using the ROCK-EVAL device (IFP Energies nouvelles, France). More precisely, each sample is placed in the pyrolysis oven of the ROCK-EVAL device, then heating of the sample is carried out between 300 C. and 650 C., with a temperature ramp of 25 C./min and in a 150 ml/min nitrogen stream. According to an implementation of the invention, the sulfur effluents released by each sample are carried by a nitrogen stream to the combustion chamber (oxidation oven) of the ROCK-EVAL device, where they are converted to SO.sub.2 in a continuous stream, then the SO.sub.2 is carried to the SO.sub.2 detector of the ROCK-EVAL device where it s continuously quantified. The solid residue of each sample obtained after the pyrolysis sequence is then placed in the oxidation oven of the ROCK-EVAL device and heating of the sample is carried out between 300 C. and 850 C., with a temperature ramp of 20 C./min and in a 100 ml/min air stream. The released SO.sub.2 effluents are carried to a SO.sub.2 detector where they are continuously quantified by means of the SO.sub.2 detector of the ROCK-EVAL device.

[0142] What is referred to as mineral matrix effect hereafter is the quantity expressed with a formula of the type:

[00003]$E_{\mathrm{Min}}=\frac{S_{\mathrm{Pyrol}}^{\mathrm{Pyrit},\mathrm{ref}}-S_{\mathrm{Pyrol}}^{\mathrm{Pyrit},\mathrm{Matrix}}}{S_{\mathrm{Pyrol}}^{\mathrm{Pyrit},\mathrm{ref}}}*100,$

where S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit,ref is the pyrolysis pyritic sulfur released by a reference sample (consisting of pure igneous pyrite and silica) and S.sub.pyrol.sup.Pyrit,Matrix is the pyrolysis pyrtic sulfur released by a considered mixture (pure igneous pyrite plus a mineral or a mineral mixture). To evaluate this quantity, the proportion of pyrolysis pyritic sulfur is determined as described in step 3 above, for a reference sample and for a considered mixture S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit,Matrix.

[0143] FIG. 3a shows a histogram representative of the effect E.sub.Min of the mineral matrix as a function of the class of mixtures considered in the case of clay/silicate and carbonate minerals, more precisely for the following mixture classes: [0144] M1: mixtures consisting of pyrite and quartz (reference sample); [0145] M2: mixtures consisting of pyrite and kaolinite; [0146] M3: mixtures consisting of pyrite and illite; [0147] M4: mixtures consisting of pyrite and smectite; [0148] M5: mixtures consisting of pyrite and calcite; [0149] M6: mixtures consisting of pyrite and dolomite; [0150] M7: mixtures consisting of pyrite and siderite.

[0151] FIG. 3b shows a histogram representative of the average effect E.sub.Min of the clays, the carbonates and the intermediate formations on the proportion of sulfur in the pyrite released during pyrolysis for the following mixtures: [0152] M8: mixtures consisting of 100% clays; [0153] M9: mixtures consisting of 93% clays and 7% carbonates; [0154] M10: mixtures consisting of 69% clays and 31% carbonates; [0155] M11: mixtures consisting of 51% clays and 49% carbonates; [0156] M12: mixtures consisting of 26% days and 74% carbonates; [0157] M13: mixtures consisting of 100% carbonates.

[0158] FIGS. 3a and 3b also show the error bars for each histogram bar. These error bars were obtained by estimating a standard deviation established from repeated analyses as described above.

[0159] Thus, the results obtained by implementing the method for calibrating parameter as described above for the various mixtures described highlight that the mineral matrix can reduce the proportion of sulfur in the pyrite released during the pyrolysis phase. However, this effect is very variable depending on the type of mineral present. The relative reduction of the proportion of sulfur released by the pyrite during pyrolysis ranges between 0% and 40% in the presence of clay/silicate minerals and between 60% and 98% in the presence of carbonate minerals (see FIG. 3a). The average effect of the clays is 6%, whereas that of the carbonates reaches 93% (see FIG. 3b). An increasing evolution of the effect E.sub.Min of the matrix as a function of the proportion of clays and of carbonates in the mixture is observed between these two extremes (see FIG. 3b).

[0160] FIG. 3c shows the evolution of effect E.sub.Min of the mineral matrix as a function of the mineral carbon (denoted by MinC hereafter), a parameter that can be measured for example with the ROCK-EVAL device (IFP Energies nouvelles, France), and which is an indicator of the carbonate content of the mixtures. It can be observed in this figure that the MinC varies in a range between 0 wt % and 12 wt % which corresponds to a calcite equivalent between 0 wt % and 100 wt %. This parameter enables to define three types of lithology: clays, marls and limestones. Area (A) in FIG. 3c represents the area of clays with calcite equivalent carbonate contents ranging between 0 wt % and 30 wt % (0MinC clays<3.6 wt %). In this clay formation area, the effect of the matrix on the amount of sulfur of the pyrite released during the pyrolysis phase ranges between 6% and 70%, with an average of 38%. Area (B) in FIG. 3c represents the zone of marls, which have calcite equivalent carbonate contents ranging between 30% and 70% (3.6MinC marls<8.4 wt %). In this marl formation area, the average value of the matrix effect on the amount of sulfur of the pyrite released during the pyrolysis phase ranges between 70% and 87%, with an average of 78%. Area (C) in FIG. 3c represents the area of limestones with calcite equivalent carbonate contents ranging between 70 wt % and 100 wt % (8.4MinC limestones12 wt %). In this limestone formation area, the average value of the matrix effect on the amount of sulfur of the pyrite released during the pyrolysis phase ranges between 87% and 94%, with an average of 90%.

[0161] Thus, parameter ranges between 0.06 and 0.94 depending on the type of sedimentary formation, and more precisely, in the case of: [0162] Clays: the value of parameter is 0.38 on average; [0163] Marls: the value of parameter is 0.78 on average; [0164] Limestones: the value of parameter is 0.90 on average.

[0165] Calibration of Parameter

[0166] According to an implementation of the invention, we calibrate parameter , which represents the impact of the organic matrix on the amount of sulfur released by the pyrite during the pyrolysis phase from at least a mixture consisting of pyrite and of organic matter representative of that present in the rock sample to be studied. In natural rock samples, notably in mother rocks and in reservoir rocks, the pyrite is found in the presence of organic matter.

[0167] An example of calibration of parameter is described hereafter.

[0168] According to an implementation of the invention comprising a step of calibrating parameter for various types of organic matter, we make mixtures consisting of pyrite and different types of organic matter conventionally denoted by: [0169] type I: lacustrine organic matter, such as the Green River shales (Eocene, USA); [0170] type II: marine organic matter, such as the paper shales of the Paris Basin (Toarcian, France); [0171] type IIS: organic sulfur-rich marine organic matter, such as the Phosphoria Formation (Permian, USA); [0172] type III: terrestrial organic matter, such as the Calvert Bluff Formation (Paleocene, USA).

[0173] According to an implementation of the invention, mixtures such as the following can be made: [0174] mixture of type A: 2 mg pyrite+2 mg organic matter; [0175] mixture of type B: 2 mg pyrite+4 mg organic matter.

[0176] These mixtures are representative of a typical composition of the kerogens of sedimentary formations.

[0177] What is referred to as organic matrix effect hereafter is the quantity expressed with the formula as follows:

[00004]$E_{\mathrm{Org}}=\frac{S_{\mathrm{Pyrol}}^{\mathrm{Pyrit}+\mathrm{MO}.Math..Math.\mathrm{obtenu}}-S_{\mathrm{Pyrol}}^{\mathrm{Pyrit}+\mathrm{MO}.Math..Math.\mathrm{attendu}}}{S_{\mathrm{Pyrol}}^{\mathrm{Pyrit}+\mathrm{MO}.Math..Math.\mathrm{attendu}}}100$

where S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit+MO obtsnu is the pyrolysis pyritic sulfur obtained after analysis of the mixture consisting of pyrite and organic matter (as described in step 3) and S.sub.Pyrol.sup.Pyrit+MO attendu is the expected pyrolysis pyritic sulfur value of the mixture. This theoretical reference value is calculated as follows:

[0178] analysing each organic matter sample alone, using the ROCK-EVAL device (IFP Energies nouvelles, France), so as to quantify its pyrolysis pyritic sulfur content (as described in step 3);

[0179] analysing the pyrite alone, using the ROCK-EVAL device (IFP Energies nouvelles, France), so as to quantify its pyrolysis pyritic sulfur content (as described in step 3);

[0180] proportionally adding, as a function of the pyrite/organic matter ratio, the pyrolysis pyritic sulfur of the pyrite and the pyrolysis pyritic sulfur of the organic matter.

[0181] FIG. 4a shows the effect E.sub.Org of the organic matrix on the amount of sulfur released by the pyrite during the pyrolysis phase for the mixtures of type A, with: [0182] MA1: mixture consisting of 100% pyrite; [0183] MA2: mixture consisting of 50% pyrite and 50% organic matter of type I; [0184] MA3: mixture consisting of 50% pyrite and 50% organic matter of type II; [0185] MA4: mixture consisting of 50% pyrite and 50% organic matter of type IIS; [0186] MA5: mixture consisting of 50% pyrite and 50% organic matter of type III.

[0187] FIG. 4b shows the effect E.sub.Org of the organic matrix on the amount of sulfur released by the pyrite during the pyrolysis phase for the mixtures of type B, with: [0188] MB1: mixture consisting of 100% pyrite; [0189] MB2: mixture consisting of 30% pyrite and 70% organic matter of type I; [0190] MB3: mixture consisting of 30% pyrite and 70% organic matter of type II; [0191] MB4: mixture consisting of 30% pyrite and 70% organic matter of type IIS; [0192] MB5: mixture consisting of 30% pyrite and 70% organic matter of type III.

[0193] The results obtained by implementing the method of calibrating parameter as described above for the various mixtures described above show that there is nearly no organic matter effect concerning types I, II and IIS. Indeed, the organic matter effect is below 6% for this mixture type (see FIGS. 4a and 4b). However, the organic matter of type III seems to have a significant effect on the amount of sulfur of the pyrite released during the pyrolysis phase (see FIGS. 4a and 4b). Indeed, the effect of the organic matter of type III is 17% on average in mixture MA5 and 26% in mixture MB5, a mixture whose proportion between pyrite and organic matter is the most representative of that of kerogens in the majority of the sedimentary formations (see FIGS. 4a and 4b).

[0194] Thus, parameter ranges between 0 and 0.29 depending on the type of organic matter present, and more precisely, in the case of an organic matter: [0195] of type I, II or IIS, the value of is 0 (FIGS. 4a and 4b); [0196] of type III, ranges between 0.23 and 0.29, and its value is 0.26 on average (FIG. 4b).

[0197] According to an implementation of the invention, steps 1 and 2 described above can be implemented by means of the ROCK-EVAL device (IFP Energies nouvelles, France) developed by the applicant and described notably in patent EP-2,342,557 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,796,035). Indeed the ROCK-EVAL device comprises at least: [0198] a pyrolysis oven in a non-oxidizing atmosphere, [0199] means for oxidizing the pyrolysis sulfur effluents, [0200] means for continuous measurement of the amount of SO.sub.2 contained in said effluents after oxidation, [0201] means for transferring the pyrolysis residues to an oxidation oven, [0202] an oxidation oven in an oxidizing atmosphere, [0203] means for continuous measurement of the amount of SO.sub.2 contained in said part after oxidation.

[0204] Furthermore, this device can also comprise means for measuring the hydrocarbon compounds released during pyrolysis, as well as a means of detecting carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2).

[0205] The method can also be implemented using a single pyrolysis oven that can operate in a non-oxidizing atmosphere and in an oxidizing atmosphere, cooperating with a device for detecting and measuring the amount of sulfur dioxide (SO.sub.2).

Application Examples

[0206] The method according to the invention is applied, in a first application example, to a series of thirteen samples from a rock known as Grey Shale Member, located in the Toarcian of the Whitby Mudstone Formation of the Cleveland Basin, UK. The Grey Shale Member is on interval of marine shales deposited in an oxygen-containing environment, intercalated by three sulfur-rich sedimentary layers referred to as sulfur bands. These three layers sedimented in an anoxic (oxygen-free) to euxinic (deeper, oxygen-free and beneath a sulfide-rich water layer) environment.

[0207] The method according to the invention is also applied, in a second application example, to a sample from a rock known as Black Band, which is also a shale interval of the Toarcian of the Whitby Mudstone Formation.

[0208] The method according to the invention is applied, in a third application example, to a series of eight samples from a rock known as Kimmeridge Clay Formation of the Wessex-Channel Basin in Dorset, UK. The interval studied, of the Kimmeridgian-Tithonian age, consists of an alternation of clays, marls and limestones.

[0209] The pyritic sulfur and the organic sulfur present in these samples are determined according to the method described above, by means of the ROCK-EVAL device (IFP Energies nouvelles, France). More precisely, each sample is placed in the pyrolysis oven of the ROCK-EVAL device, then heating of the sample is performed between 300 C. and 650 C., with a temperature ramp of 25 C./min and in a 150 ml/min nitrogen stream. According to an implementation of the invention, the sulfur effluents released by each sample are carried by a nitrogen stream into a combustion chamber (also referred to as oxidation oven) of the ROCK-EVAL device, where they are converted to SO.sub.2 in a continuous stream, then the SO.sub.2 is carried to the SO.sub.2 detector of the ROCK-EVAL device where they are continuously quantified. After pyrolysis, each sample residue is transferred from the pyrolysis oven to the oxidation oven of the ROCK-EVAL device and heating of the sample is carried out between 300 C. and 850 C. or 1200 C. depending on the implementation, with a temperature romp of 20 C./min and in a 100 ml/min air stream. The SO.sub.2 effluents released by this oxidation are carried to the SO.sub.2 detector of the ROCK-EVAL device where they are continuously quantified. The pyritic sulfur content and the organic sulfur content of each rock sample analysed are deduced by implementing the method according to the invention. Thereafter, they are compared with those obtained with the kerogen elemental analysis method described above (by ICP-AES for iron and by infrared for sulfur), referred to as method according to the prior art hereafter.

[0210] FIGS. 5a, 5b and 5c respectively show the evolution of the proportion of total sulfur, pyritic sulfur and organic sulfur in each sample of the first application example EX1 (i.e. the 13 Grey Shale Member samples), for the sample of the second application example EX2 (i.e. the Black Band sample) and for each sample of the third application sample EX3 (i.e. the 8 Kimmeridge Clay Formation samples) obtained with the method according to the invention INV, as a function of the total sulfur content obtained for the same samples with the method according to the prior art AA.

[0211] FIG. 5a shows a very strong correlation between the total sulfur contents determined with the method according to the invention and with the method according to the prior art (correlation with a slope close to 1), confirming the validity of the total sulfur content determination for a sample with the method according to the invention.

[0212] Similarly, FIG. 5b shows a very strong correlation between the pyritic sulfur contents determined with the method according to the invention and with the method according to the prior art (correlation with a slope close to 1), confirming the validity of the pyritic sulfur content determination with the method according to the invention.

[0213] FIG. 5c shows a not so good correlation line concerning the organic sulfur content determined with the method according to the invention and with the method according to the prior art. Now, in the method according to the invention, the organic sulfur content is entirely deduced from the total and pyritic sulfur contents determined with the method of the invention (see step 3 above), whose values are valid (see the discussion relative to FIGS. 5a and 5b above). This lack of correlation can be due to the fact that the majority of the samples selected have a low organic sulfur content. Indeed, the organic sulfur content of the samples selected predominantly ranges between 0 wt % and 1 wt % (prior art values) or between 0 wt % and 3 wt % (values obtained with the method according to the invention) (FIG. 5c). Thus, it is possible that the organic sulfur contents obtained here are of the order of magnitude of the measurement error of each method. Indeed, repetition of the analyses performed using the method according to the invention for various samples shows that the standard deviation on the measurement is on average 0.1 wt % for the total sulfur and 0.2 wt % for the pyritic and organic sulfur. Besides, repetition of the analyses performed using the method according to the prior art shows that the standard deviation on the measurement is on average 0.1 wt % for the total sulfur, 0.5 wt % for the pyritic sulfur and 0.6 wt % for the organic sulfur. It is therefore noted that the method according to the prior art seems to be less precise than the method according to the invention. This may be explained by the fact that the prior art combines two different techniques (ICP-AES and infrared) and therefore two possible error sources, and by the fact that this prior art is based on the assumption that all of the iron contained in the organic matter is pyritic. Now, if the iron contained in the organic matter also comes in other forms, such as oxides or other sulfides than pyrite, the pyritic sulfur content is overestimated and the organic sulfur content is underestimated. On the other hand, the method according to the invention uses only one type of measurement (measurement of the SO.sub.2 released by a sample) and it is based on a perfect distinction between the pyritic sulfur and the organic sulfur during the pyrolysis phase. Thus, the method according to the invention is less uncertain than the prior art.

[0214] Furthermore, the method of the invention is faster since the implementation of the method according to the invention for the 13 Grey Shale Member samples, an application example described above, was conducted in about 15 hours for the 13 samples, whereas the implementation of the method according to the prior art with the same application example was conducted in about 7 days.