Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has become a common way to estimate porosity and organic matter (OM) content within shale resource rocks. Since quantitative SEM analysis has emerged as a means for assessing the porosity of shale, a common goal has been to image polished samples at the highest possible resolutions. Because nanopores are visible at pixel resolutions ranging from 5 to 10 nm, it is natural to consider the possibility of a pore regime below 5 nm that could contribute a significant amount to the total porosity of the system. When considering that a molecule of methane gas is on the order of 0.4 nm diameter, pores smaller than 5 nm could contribute significant storage volume and transport pathways in a reservoir. These nanopores may be a significant source of porosity within certain OM bodies, where total detectable pores using SEM (i.e., ~10 nm pore body diameter and up) have been observed to be volumetrically equivalent to the OM body volumes themselves. With the potential to examine the population of pores below ~10 nm in diameter using the helium ion microscope (HIM), it is possible to construct a rock model that is more representative of the varied pore size regimes present. The primary goal of this study was to quantify the amount of organic-associated pores below the resolution of conventional field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). In this study, 51 individual imaging locations from 12 organic shale samples were selected for systematic imaging using a HIM. These samples and locations were selected because of the presence of porous OM identified from previously completed SEM imaging. After methodical HIM imaging and digital segmentation, it was concluded that most samples had no significant incremental, resolvable, organic pore fraction below the detection threshold of conventional FESEM imaging. The advanced resolution of the helium ion beam provides sharper definition of pore boundaries, but the total porosity fraction of these <10 nm diameter pores within the OM in most samples was negligible. We also notice that FESEM and HIM can be considered complementary techniques, as each provides beneficial information that cannot be obtained from using only one method.