Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65325-1, published online 29 May 2020


This Article contains an error in the order of the Figures. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are published as Figures 9, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively. The correct Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 appear below. The Figure legends are correct.

Figure 1
figure 1

Location of 4 wells in the study area.

Figure 2
figure 2

Qualitative evaluation of the relative gas content of mudstone in Shanxi formation of well A4.

Figure 3
figure 3

Logging evaluation of total gas content of mudstone in Shanxi formation of four wells.

Figure 4
figure 4

Average values of various characteristics of gas bearing mudstones in Shanxi formation of four wells. Response characteristics from logging data (a). Mineral characteristics (b), geophysical and geochemical characteristics (c) from core measurements. Where GR is the natural gamma ray, RT is the deep lateral resistivity, AC is the acoustic transit time, DEN is the density, CNL is the neutron, K is the potassium, TH is the thorium, U is the uranium, H is the thickness, TOC is the total organic carbon content, and Ro is the vitrinite reflectance.

Figure 6
figure 6

SEM images of intergranular pore (a,b), intragranular pore (c) and microcrack (d) in the gas−bearing mudstone reservoir of well A2.

Figure 7
figure 7

Well logging response of the Shanxi formation in the well A2.

Figure 8
figure 8

Logging response statistics of mudstone with different total gas content.

Figure 9
figure 9

Natural gamma spectroscopy logging interpretation charts for wells A1, A2, and A4. where TH is thorium, K is potassium, U is uranium.