Advertisement

Measurement of parameters impacting methane recovery from coal seams

  • S. Harpalani
  • A. Schraufnagel
Papers

Summary

This paper describes the behaviour of coalbeds as gas reservoirs and discusses the results of a study carried out to establish the effect of release of methane on gas flow behaviour of coal. Experimental work consisted of microscopy, establishing adsorption/desorption isotherms, and monitoring changes in the volume of coal matrix with increasing and decreasing gas pressure. Micrographs obtained using small pieces of coal indicated that coal is made up of blocks, containing matrix and pores, separated by microfractures. This confirms the dual porosity model of coal structure with a primary porosity, and a fracture/cleat porosity-physical model used in coalbed methane simulators developed recently. Isotherms suggested that for the samples tested, a major part of the gas is released only after pressure falls below 600 psi, and this is primarily due to desorbing gas. Results of the volumetric strain experiments indicated that there is an increase in matrix volume with increase in gas pressure, in spite of matrix compressibility. Adsorption, therefore, induces swelling of the matrix. With decrease in gas pressure from 1000 psi to atmospheric, the matrix volume shrunk by 0.5%. These experimental results were inputted in a reservoir model and simulation runs made to determine the effect of pore volume and matrix shrinkage compressibilities on gas production. Over a five year period 60% more gas was produced when matrix shrinkage was used as an input parameter.

Keywords

Coal Seam Volumetric Strain Reservoir Model Coalbed Methane Matrix Volume 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cervik, J. (1967) The behavior of coal-gas reservoirs. Paper presented at the SPE-AIME Eastern Regional Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA (SPE 1973).Google Scholar
  2. Dabbous, M.K.et al. (1974) The permeability of coal to gas and water.SPE Journal, 563–72.Google Scholar
  3. Gregg, S.J. (1961)The Surface Chemistry of Solids, Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York, pp. 42–3.Google Scholar
  4. Harpalani, S. (1989) Permeability changes resulting from gas desorption,Final report submitted to Gas Research Institute, Contract No. 5088-215-1666.Google Scholar
  5. Harpalani, S. and McPherson, M.J. (1985) Effect of stress on permeability of coal,Quarterly Review of Methane from Coal Seams Technology,3, 23–8.Google Scholar
  6. Harpalani, S. and McPherson, M.J. (1986) Retention and release of methane in underground coal workings,International Journal of Mining and Geological Engineering,4, 217–33.Google Scholar
  7. Jones, A.H. and Bell G.J. (1987) The influence of coal fines on the behavior of hydraulic fracture stimulation treatments, inProceedings of the Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, pp. 93–102.Google Scholar
  8. Kamal, M.M. and Six, J.L. (1989) Pressure transient testing of methane producing coalbeds, presented at the 64th Annual Technical Conference of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, TX (SPE 19789).Google Scholar
  9. King, G.R. (1985) Numerical simultation of the simultaneous flow of methane and water through dual porosity coal seams during the degasification process, Ph.D. thesis, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  10. Koenig, R.A.et al. (1989) Application of hydrology to evaluation of coalbed methane reservoirs,Final report submitted to Gas Research Institute, Contract No. 5087-214-1489.Google Scholar
  11. Reznik, A.A.et al. (1974) Air-water relative permeability studies of Pittsburgh and Pocahontas coals,SPE Journal, 566–72.Google Scholar
  12. Sawyer, W.K.et al. (1987). Using reservoir simulation and field data to define mechanisms controlling coalbed methane production.Proceedings of the Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, 295–307.Google Scholar
  13. Sawyer, W.K.et al. (1990) Development and application of a 3D coalbed simulator, presented at CIM/SPE 12th Technical Meeting, Calgary (CIM/SPE 90–119).Google Scholar
  14. Schraufnagel, R.A.et al. (1990), Coalbed methane development faces technology gaps,Oil and Gas Journal, February 5, 48–54.Google Scholar
  15. Somerton, W.H.et al. (1975), Effect of stress on permeability of coal,Int. J. of Rock Mech. Min. Sci. and Geo. Abstr. 12, 129–45.Google Scholar
  16. Taber, J.J.et al. (1974) Development of techniques and the measurement of relative permeability and capillary pressure relationships in coal,Final Report prepared for US Bureau of Mines, Contract No. G0122006 (NTIS No. PB-232244).Google Scholar
  17. Zuber, M.D.et al. (1987). The use of simulation and history matching to determine critical coalbed methane reservoir properties, presented at the Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver (SPE/DOE 16420).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall Ltd 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Harpalani
    • 1
  • A. Schraufnagel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mining and Geological EngineeringThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Gas Research InstituteChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations