Natural Resources Research

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 55–66 | Cite as

Wellsite, Laboratory, and Mathematical Techniques for Determining Sorbed Gas Content of Coals and Gas Shales Utilizing Well Cuttings


Drill cuttings can be used for desorption analyses but with more uncertainty than desorption analyses done with cores. Drill cuttings are not recommended to take the place of core, but in some circumstances, desorption work with cuttings can provide a timely and economic supplement to that of cores. The mixed lithologic nature of drill cuttings is primarily the source of uncertainty in their analysis for gas content, for it is unclear how to apportion the gas generated from both the coal and the dark-colored shale that is mixed in usually with the coal. In the Western Interior Basin Coal Basin in eastern Kansas (Pennsylvanian-age coals), dark-colored shales with normal (∼100 API units) gamma-ray levels seem to give off minimal amounts of gas on the order of less than five standard cubic feet per ton (scf/ton). In some cuttings analyses this rule of thumb for gas content of the shale is adequate for inferring the gas content of coals, but shales with high-gamma-ray values (>150 API units) may yield several times this amount of gas. The uncertainty in desorption analysis of drill cuttings can be depicted graphically on a diagram identified as a “lithologic component sensitivity analysis diagram.” Comparison of cuttings desorption results from nearby wells on this diagram, can sometimes yield an unique solution for the gas content of both a dark shale and coal mixed in a cuttings sample. A mathematical solution, based on equating the dry, ash-free gas-contents of the admixed coal and dark-colored shale, also yields results that are correlative to data from nearby cores.


Coalbed gas shale gas Western Interior Coal Basin Pennsylvanian 


  1. ASTM, 2005, Petroleum products, lubricants, and fossil fuels, in Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Sec. 5, v. 05.01–05.04: American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PAGoogle Scholar
  2. Brady, L. L., 1997, Kansas coal resources and their potential for Kansas coalbed methane: Trans. 1997 Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mid-Continent Sec. Meeting, Oklahoma City, OK, p. 150–163Google Scholar
  3. Dake L. P. 1978 Fundamentals of reservoir engineering. Elsevier Scientific Publ., New York, NY, 443 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Doveton J. H., Merriam D. F. 2004 Borehole petrophysical chemostratigraphy of Pennsylvanian black shales in the Kansas subsurface: Chem. Geol. 206(3–4), 249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heckel P. H. 1977 Origin of phosphatic black shale facies in Pennsylvanian cyclothems of Midcontinent North America: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull. 61(7), 1045–1068Google Scholar
  6. Johnson, T. A., 2004, Core description of the Marmaton and Cherokee Groups – Osborn LLC – Layne Energy Rose Hill #1–6 Well (sec. 6-T.16S.–R.24E.), Miami County, KS: Kansas Geol. Survey Open-File Rept. 2004–24, 4 p., with appendices. Online at: Scholar
  7. Kissel, F. N., McCulloch, C. M., and Elder, C. H., 1973, The direct method of determining methane content of coals for ventilation design: U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., Report of Investigations 7767, 17 pGoogle Scholar
  8. Mavor, M., and Nelson, C. R., 1997, Coalbed reservoir gas-in-place analysis: Gas Research Inst., Chicago, IL, Reference No. GRI-97/0263, 134 pGoogle Scholar
  9. McLennan, J. D., Schafer, P. S., and Pratt, T. J., 1995, A guide to determining coalbed gas content: Gas Research Inst., Chicago, IL, Reference No. GRI-94/0396, 180 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Stoeckinger, W. T., 1991, Methods to measure directly the gas content of coals: Trans. 1991 Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mid-Continent Sec. Meeting, Wichita, KS, p. 109–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kansas Geological SurveyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations