Advertisement

Transport in Porous Media

, Volume 118, Issue 3, pp 393–416 | Cite as

Coal Permeability Evolution and Gas Migration Under Non-equilibrium State

  • Ting LiuEmail author
  • Baiquan Lin
  • Wei Yang
  • Cheng Zhai
  • Tong Liu
Article

Abstract

Laboratory test of coal permeability is generally conducted under the condition of gas adsorption equilibrium, and the results contribute to an understanding of gas migration in the original coal seams. However, gas flow under the state of non-equilibrium, accompanied by gas adsorption and desorption, is more common in coalbed methane (CBM) recovery and \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) geological sequestration sites. Therefore, research on gas migration under the non-equilibrium state has a greater significance with regard to CBM recovery and \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) geological sequestration. However, most permeability models, in which only one gas pressure has been considered, cannot be used to study gas flow under the non-equilibrium state. In this study, a new mathematical model, which includes both fracture gas pressure and matrix gas pressure, and couples the gas flow with the coal deformation, has been developed and verified. With the developed model, the spatial and temporal evolution of gas flow field during gas adsorption and desorption phases has been explored. The results show that the gas pressures present nonlinear distributions in the coal core, and the matrix gas pressure is generally lower than the fracture gas pressure during adsorption, but higher than the fracture gas pressure during desorption. For gas flow during adsorption, the main factor controlling permeability varies at different points. At the initial time, the permeability is dominated by the effective stress, and at the later time, the permeability in the part close to the gas inlet is mainly controlled by the matrix swelling, whereas that in the part close to the gas outlet is still dominated by the effective stress. For gas flow during desorption, from the gas inlet to the gas outlet, the permeability deceases at the initial time, and when the time is greater than 10,000 s, it shows a decreasing and then an increasing trend. The reason is that at the initial time, the permeability is dominated by the increased effective stress caused by the sharp decrease of the fracture gas pressure. Later, desorption of the adsorbed gas results in matrix shrinkage, which further leads to an increase of the permeability.

Keywords

Coalbed methane Coal permeability Coal–gas interaction Non-equilibrium state 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the State Key Research Development Program of China (2016YFC0801402) and the Graduate Students Innovation Engineering Foundation of Jiangsu Province (KYZZ16_0227). The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their comments that help improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Akkutlu, I.Y., Efendiev, Y., Vasilyeva, M.: Multiscale model reduction for shale gas transport in fractured media. Comput. Geosci. 20, 953–973 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. Anggara, F., Sasaki, K., Sugai, Y.: The correlation between coal swelling and permeability during \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) sequestration: A case study using Kushiro low rank coals. Int. J. Coal Geol. 166(1), 62–70 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Busch, A., Gensterblum, Y.: CBM and \(\text{ CO }_{2}\)-ECBM related sorption processes in coal: A review. Int. J. Coal Geol. 87(2), 49–71 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Z.W., Liu, J.S., Pan, Z.J.: Influence of the effective stress coefficient and sorption-induced strain on the evolution of coal permeability: Model development and analysis. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 8, 101–110 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Connell, L.D.: A new interpretation of the response of coal permeability to changes in pore pressure, stress and matrix shrinkage. Int. J. Coal Geol. 162, 169–182 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cui, X.J., Bustin, R.M.: Volumetric strain associated with methane desorption and its impact on coalbed gas production from deep coal seams. AAPG Bull. 89(9), 1181–1202 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Detournay, E., Cheng, AHD.: Fundamentals of poroelasticity. In: Fairhurst, C. (ed.) Comprehensive Rock Engineering. vol. 2, pp. 13–71 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. Godec, M., Koperna, G., Gale, J.: \(\text{ CO }_{2}\)-ECBM: a review of its status and global potential. Energ. Proced. 63, 5858–5869 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gray, I.: Reservoir engineering in coal seams: part 1-the physical process of gas storage and movement in coal seams. SPE Reserv. Eng. 2(1), 28–34 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li, Z.Q., Liu, Y., Xu, Y.P., et al.: Gas diffusion mechanism in multi-scale pores of coal particles and new diffusion model of dynamic diffusion coefficient. J. China Coal Soc. 41, 633–643 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. Liu, Q.Q., Cheng, Y.P., Wang, H.F., et al.: Numerical assessment of the effect of equilibration time on coal permeability evolution characteristics. Fuel 140, 81–89 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu, J.S., Chen, Z.W., Elsworth, D., et al.: Interactions of multiple processes during CBM extraction: a critical review. Int. J. Coal Geol. 87, 175–189 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu, S.M., Wang, Y., Harpalani, S.: Anisotropy characteristics of coal shrinkage/swelling and its impact on coal permeability evolution with \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) injection. Greenh. Gases-Sci. Technol. 6(5), 615–632 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu, H.H., Rutqvist, J.: A new coal-permeability model: internal swelling stress and fracture-matrix interaction. Transp. Porous Media 82, 157–171 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu, Q.Q., Cheng, Y.P., Zhou, H.X.: A mathematical model of coupled gas flow and coal deformation with gas diffusion and Klinkenberg effects. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 48, 1163–1180 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin, H.F., Huang, M., Li, S.G., et al.: Numerical simulation of influence of Langmuir adsorption constant on gas drainage radius of drilling in coal seam. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 26, 377–382 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McKee, C.R., Bumb, A.C., Koenig, R.A.: Stress-dependent permeability and porosity of coal and other geologic formations. SPE Form. Eval. 3(1), 81–91 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mora, C.A., Wattenbarger, R.A.: Analysis and verification of dual porosity and CBM shape factors. J. Can. Petrol. Technol. 48, 17–21 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Palmer, I.: Permeability changes in coal: analytical modelling. Int. J. Coal Geol. 77, 119–126 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Palmer, I.D., Cameron, J.C., Moschovidis, Z.A.: Looking for permeability loss or gain during coalbed methane production. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama (2005)Google Scholar
  21. Palmer, I.D., Cameron, J.C., Moschovidis, Z.A.: Permeability changes affect CBM production predictions. Oil Gas J. 104(28), 43–50 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. Palmer, I., Mansoori, J.: How permeability depends on stress and pore pressure in coalbeds: a new model. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 1, 539–544 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pillalamarry, M., Harpalani, S., Liu, S.M.: Gas diffusion behavior of coal and its impact on production from coalbed methane reservoirs. Int. J. Coal Geol. 86(4), 342–348 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pini, R., Storti, G., Mazzotti, M.: A model for enhanced coal bed methane recovery aimed at carbon dioxide storage. Adsorption 17, 889–900 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reiss, L.H.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Fractured Formations. Gulf Publishing Co., Houston (1980)Google Scholar
  26. Shi, J.Q., Durucan, S.: Drawdown induced changes in permeability of coalbeds: a new interpretation of the reservoir response to primary recovery. Transp. Porous Media 56(1), 1–16 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shi, J.Q., Durucan, S.: A model for changes in coalbed permeability during primary and enhanced methane recovery. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng. 8, 291–299 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Valliappan, S., Zhang, W.: Numerical modeling of methane gas migration in dry coal seams. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 20, 571–593 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wei, J.P., Li, B., Wang, K., et al.: 3D numerical simulation of boreholes for gas drainage based on the pore-fracture dual media. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 26, 739–744 (2016a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wei, J.P., Wang, H.L., Wang, D.K., Yao, B.H.: An improved model of gas flow in coal based on the effect of penetration and diffusion. J. China Univ. Min. Technol. 45(5), 873–878 (2016b)Google Scholar
  31. Wu, Y., Liu, J.S., Elsworth, D., et al.: Dual poroelastic response of a coal seam to CO2 injection. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 4, 668–678 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu, Y., Liu, J.S., Elsworth, D.: Evolution of coal permeability: contribution of heterogenous swelling processes. Int. J. Coal Geol. 88, 152–162 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wierzbicki, M., Konecny, P., Kozusnikova, A.: Permeability changes of coal core sand briquettes under tri-axial stress conditions. Arch. Min. Sci. 59(4), 1131–1140 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. Xia, T.Q., Zhou, F.B., Liu, J.S., et al.: Evaluation of pre-drained coal seam gas quality. Fuel 130, 296–305 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xia, T.Q., Zhou, F.B., Liu, J.S., et al.: A fully coupled coal deformation and compositional flow model for the control of the pre-mining coal seam gas extraction. Int. J. Rock Mech.Min. Sci. 72, 138–148 (2014)Google Scholar
  36. Xu, X.M., Sarmadivaleh, M., Li, C.W., et al.: Experimental study on physical structure properties and anisotropic cleat permeability estimation on coal cores from China. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 35, 131–143 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yan, P., Liu, J.S., Wei, M.Y.: Why coal permeability changes under free swellings: new insights. Int. J. Coal Geol. 133, 35–46 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yin, G.Z., Jiang, C.B., Xu, J., et al.: An experimental study on the effects of water content on coalbed gas permeability in ground stress fields. Transp. Porous Media 94(1), 87–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhao, Y.X., Sun, Y.F., Liu, S.M.: Pore structure characterization of coal by NMR cryoporometry. Fuel 190, 359–369 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zheng, C.S., Chen, Z.W., Kizil, M., Aminossadati, S., Zou, Q.L., Gao, P.P.: Characterisation of mechanics and flow fields around in-seam methane gas drainage borehole for preventing ventilation air leakage: A case study. Int. J. Coal Geol. 162, 123–138 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhi, S., Elsworth, D.: The role of gas desorption on gas outbursts in underground mining of coal. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-Energ Geo-Resour. 2, 151–171 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhou, F.B., Sun, Y.N., Li, H.J., Yu, G.F.: Research on the theoretical model and engineering technology of the coal seam gas drainage hole sealing. J. China Univ. Min. Technol. 45(3), 433–439 (2016)Google Scholar
  43. Zhu, J.F., Liu, J.Z., Yang, Y.M.: Fractal characteristics of pore structures in 13 coal specimens: relationship among fractal dimension, pore structure parameter, and slurry ability of coal. Fuel Process. Technol. 149, 259–267 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ting Liu
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Baiquan Lin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wei Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cheng Zhai
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tong Liu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Coal Methane and Fire Control, Ministry of EducationChina University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of Safety EngineeringChina University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations