Journal of Geophysics and Engineering

J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59–69 doi:10.1088/1742-2132/13/1/59

Quantitatively evaluating the CBM reservoir

using logging data
Zhidi Liu and Jingzhou Zhao
School of Earth Sciences and Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, People’s Republic of China

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020

E-mail: liuzhidi@xsyu.edu.cn

Received 9 July 2015, revised 20 November 2015

Accepted for publication 11 December 2015
Published 29 January 2016

Abstract
In order to evaluate coal bed methane (CBM) reservoirs, this paper select five parameters:
porosity, permeability, CBM content, the coal structure index and effective thickness of
the coal seam. Making full use of logging and the laboratory analysis data of a coal core,
the logging evaluation methods of the five parameters were discussed in detail, and the
comprehensive evaluation model of the CBM reservoir was established. The #5 coal seam
of the Hancheng mine on the eastern edge of the Ordos Basin in China was quantitatively
evaluated using this method. The results show that the CBM reservoir in the study area is
better than in the central and northern regions. The actual development of CBM shows that the
region with a good reservoir has high gas production—indicating that the method introduced
in this paper can evaluate the CBM reservoir more effectively.

Keywords: CBM, reservoir, logging, quantitative evaluation

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

Nomenclature mining area has favorable geologic conditions for coal bed
methane (CBM) development (Liu et al 2013). The CBM
GR natural gamma ray log reservoir is one of the most important factors that determine
SP spontaneous potential log the CBM degree of enrichment, preservation conditions, and
CAL caliper log effective development (Peters 2000, Vishal et al 2015). The
RLLD deep dual laterolog enrichment and high production of CBM are mainly related to
RLLS shallow dual laterolog the reservoir, which is influenced by many underground geo-
RMSFL microspheres focused log logic factors (Wang 2012, Yao et al 2013, Vishal et al 2013).
AC compensated acoustic log For example, a CBM reservoir with high gas content may be
DEN compensation density log difficult to develop because of a thin coal seam and low per-
CNL compensated neutron log meability, whereas a CBM reservoir with low gas content is
PORM matrix porosity easy to develop because of its thick coal seam and high perme-
PORC core analysis porosity ability. Thus, multiple parameters are needed to comprehen-
PORF calculated fracture porosity using logging data sively evaluate CBM reservoirs.
PORFI calculated fracture porosity using FMI data Determining the internal relationship between the CBM
PERM total permeability reserves and productivity is the key to evaluating CBM res-
VGC calculated value of CBM content ervoirs. The concept is used to estimate its contribution value
VGL laboratory analysis of CBM content and classify the reservoirs by their grade. Thus, in a compre-
hensive evaluation, we should use sufficient information, such
1. Introduction as logging, geologic and dynamic drainage data, and consider
as many factors that influence reservoir as possible, such as
Coal seams on the eastern edge of the Ordos basin are thick coal seam physical properties, coal structure and effective
and have high gas content and permeability. Therefore, this thickness. In view of this, we used the #5 main CBM reservoir

1742-2132/16/010059+11$33.00 59 © 2016 Sinopec Geophysical Research Institute  Printed in the UK

J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59 Z Liu and J Zhao

content, integrated coal structure and thick coal seams (Meng

et al 2010).

3.1.  Physical properties of coal seams

Coal seams have a typical double pore structure, which

includes the matrix pore and fracture pore. The matrix pore
influences the storage ability of CBM and the fracture pore
influences CBM seepage (Ni et al 2010). We performed an
evaluation of the physical properties of the CBM reservoir,
which mainly included matrix porosity, fracture porosity, and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020

permeability.

3.1.1.  Matrix porosity.  Previous studies have shown that den-

sity and neutron logging, which has little impact from aniso­
tropy in the coal seam, is the ideal method for gas logging
evaluation (Hou 2000, Whetton et al 2012). Based on the vol-
ume physical model of coal rock industrial components, the
physics balance equation of a coal seam can be presented as
the following formula:
Vc + Vw + Va = 100
(1)

ρ = Vc ⋅ ρc + Vw ⋅ ρw + Va ⋅ ρa
(2)
In the formula, Vc is carbon content, %; Vw is water content,
%; and Va is ash content, %; ρ is the volume density of coal
seam, g cm−3.
Figure 1.  Well locations of the study area.
The water content in a coal seam is the sum of free water
in the fractures and bound water in the matrix pores. Matrix
of the Hancheng mine on the eastern edge of the Ordos basin porosity has the bound water and the free CBM. Thus, the
as a study site, and constructed the method of quantitatively matrix porosity is not equal to water content.
evaluating the CBM reservoir using logging data. The equation calculates the matrix porosity using density
logging, as follows (Liu et al 2014).
ρ −ρ
2.  Geologic aspects of study area (3) φ D = ma
ρma − ρw
The study area is located in the Hancheng mine on the eastern Based on the above equations, the logging response equa-
edge of the Ordos Basin, China (figure 1). The main coal seam tion  of density and neutron porosity in a coal seam can be
in the study area is the #5 seam of the Taiyuan formation. represented as follows:
Because the coal has high rank, high carbon and stable thick-
ness, it has become one of the most important coal regions. ⎛ ρa − ρc ⎞ ⎛ ρ − ρw ⎞ ρma − ρa
φ D = Vc⎜
(4) ⎟ + Vw⎜ a ⎟+
Years of production and recent research have shown that the ⎝ ρma − ρw ⎠ ⎝ ρma − ρw ⎠ ρma − ρw
CBM resources in the study area are also very rich.
⎛ Hc − Ha ⎞ ⎛ Hw − Ha ⎞ Ha − Hma
The strata in the study area from the bottom to the top are
N = Vc⎜ ⎟ + Vw⎜ ⎟+
the Carboniferous Benxi group, the Taiyuan group and the φ
⎝ Hw − Hma ⎠ ⎝ Hw − Hma ⎠ Hw − Hma
(5)
Shanxi group of the lower Permian. The Benxi group is gen-
erally excluded, as the Taiyuan and Shanxi groups are consid- where φ D is density porosity, %; ρc, ρw, ρa, ρma is the volume
ered as the main coal-bearing strata in this area. The Taiyuan density of carbon, water, ash and skeleton, respectively,
group is both a land and sea deposit, and the Shanxi was g cm−3; φ N is neutron porosity, %; and Hc, Hw, Ha, Hma is the
formed by continental deposition. The number of coal seams hydrogen index of carbon, water, ash and skeleton, respec-
in the study area is up to 13 floors, and the #5 coal seam is the tively, dimensionless.
main CBM reservoir. The main components of the coal seam is the carbon content,
water content is very low, and the ash content of a high-quality
3.  The optimization of the CBM reservoir logging coal seam is relatively low (Ni et al 2010). Consequently, the
comprehensive evaluation index carbon content in coal seams determines the logging response
characteristics of density and neutron porosity (Hou 2000).
High quality CBM reservoirs should have favorable geo- In general, the density porosity of a coal seam is close to the
logic conditions, such as good physical properties, high gas neutron porosity, φ D  ≈  φ N (Whetton 2012).

60
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59
Figure 2.  Logging response characteristics of coal seam fracture in well HS13.
CBM can cause a decrease in the neutron porosity, and
the degree of this decrease is mainly determined by the gas
content of the coal seam; CBM can also cause an increase in
density porosity, and the degree of this increase also mainly
depends on the gas content of the coal seam. According to
this, the research takes the average value of neutron and den-
sity shown in the formula below to calculate the CBM reser-
voir porosity.
φD2 + φN2
(6)
φ=
2 composed of three components: carbon, ash and water. Ash
where φ is the matrix porosity of coal seam, %.
3.1.2.  Fracture porosity.  The coal fracture-pore system is the
necessary channel for CBM seepage, and the degree of devel-
opment of the fracture pores will influence the ability of CBM
seepage (Gao 2015).
If high angle fractures develop in a coal seam, then the dual
laterolog curves exhibit a positive difference, namely the deep
lateral resistivity will be found to be greater than the shallow
lateral resistivity. The difference in size is determined by the
degree of fracture development, as well as mud drilling fil-
trate resistivity and water formation resistivity. Microsphere-
focused resistivity is relatively low in fracture formation
development (figure 2). Vertical fractures on the imaging
figure are shown as irregular dark lines, striped images par-
allel to the hole axis. If there is no other mineral filler, the
vertical fracture openings are usually larger and the fracture
plane is irregular. The high angle seam presents low resist­
ance dark stripes on the imaging map, forming high amplitude
sinusoidal curves throughout the entire hole. The low angle
seam presents low resistance dark stripes on the imaging map,
61
Z Liu and J Zhao
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020
forming low amplitude sinusoidal curves throughout the entire
hole. The net seam is formed by a number of intersecting
cracks, which are shown as multiple intersecting wires or fila-
ments on the image logs. Net fractures often appear within
coal rocks in caves with relatively strong walls; such a forma-
tion usually has good permeability in the drilling process.
The components of coal are complicated. If the comp­
onents whose relative volumes are less than 1% in this study
area are ignored, such as SiO2, nitrate, siderite, sulfur and
some rare elements, the coal seam can be regarded as being
includes shale and mineral impurities, carbon includes fixed
carbon and volatiles, and water includes internal and external
water. Assuming that the water content is approximately equal
to the sum of matrix porosity and fracture porosity, the coal
seam can be seen as made up of four components: carbon,
ash, matrix pores and fracture pores. From the coal volume
model of resistivity logging, the measured resistivity can be
seen as the result of four parts resistivity, which are carbon,
ash, matrix pores, and fracture pores. It can be presented as
follows:
1 V V V V
= c + a + b + f
(7)
R Rc Ra Rb Rf
where R is coal seam resistivity, Ω⋅m; Rc is carbon resistivity,
Ω⋅m; Ra is ash resistivity, Ω·m; Rb is matrix pore resistivity,
Ω⋅m; Rf is fracture pore resistivity, Ω⋅m.
If the dual laterolog data are used, we obtain the two
equations below:
1 V V V V
= c + a + b + f
(8)
Rt Rc Ra Rb Rf
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59 Z Liu and J Zhao

1 V V V V The estimated formula of fracture space is shown as

= c + a + b + f
(9) follows:
Rs Rc Ra Rb Rf
In the equation, Rt, Rs are the values of deep and shallow h m = h f /φ f
(15)
lateral resistivity, respectively, Ω⋅m. The formula to calculate the fracture permeability is shown
Coal in the primary state generally has low gas saturation, as follows:
and coal in the adsorption state has a larger degree of pores
filled with water. Assuming the water saturation is approxi- K = (R ⋅ F ) ⋅ 8.33 ⋅ 106 ⋅ h f /h m = (R ⋅ F ) ⋅ 8.33 ⋅ 106 ⋅ φf
mately 100%, due to the deep laterolog, detection is mainly (16)
formation resistivity, so the fracture resistivity is equivalent where R and F are the scale factors that can be obtained by the
to the formation water resistivity. Because the fractures in the statistical data of different areas, and can also be measured by
invaded zone are almost all filled with mud filtrate, the frac-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020

experimental methods. Through the permeability experiment
ture resistivity should be equivalent to the resistivity of mud data of coal core in the study area, R ⋅ F value is 0.338  ×  10−6.
filtrate. The matrix porosity does not generally contain mov- Based on the above calculation method of coal seam
able water, so it is unlikely to be affected by mud invasion. porosity and permeability, we perform logging calculations
Based on the Archie formula, the above two equations can be and interpretations for the porosity and permeability of dif-
transformed into the following equations: ferent wells in the study area. Figure  3 shows the logging
interpretation of physical property parameters in well HS10.
1 V V V φ mf
= c + a + b + f
(10) This figure  demonstrates that the correlation between the
Rt Rc Ra Rb Rw porosity and permeability of the coal seam section is better,
as well as the porosity increase, along with the decrease of
1 V V V φ mf the compensated density and the increase of the compensated
= c + a + b + f
(11)
Rs Rc Ra Rb Rmf neutron. Compared with the core data, it shows that the matrix
porosity can be calculated with high precision, but that the
where φf is the fracture porosity, %; mf is cementation index
permeability can only be calculated with low precision. The
of fracture pore, dimensionless. The mf value in the study area
predicted fracture porosity has been validated by FMI data
changes within the scope of 1.15–1.35 through the imaging
and is consistent with the calculated fracture porosity using
logging calibration.
FMI data.
By simplifying the above equations, we can obtain the fol-
lowing equation.
3.2.  CBM content
1 1 φ mf φ mf
−
(12) = f − f The gas in coal seams mainly occurs in coal micropore sur-
Rt Rs Rw Rmf
faces in the absorbed state. Thus, gas content is the basic
This equation can be rewritten as the following: condition for the reservoir and the basic index for evaluating
CBM reservoirs. It is also one key factor for the exploration
⎛ 1/Rt − 1/Rs ⎞ mf
1

φf = ⎜
(13) ⎟ and development of CBM (Bhanja et al 2008).
⎝ 1/Rw − 1/Rmf ⎠
where Rw and Rmf is the resistivity of formation water and mud
filtrate, respectively, Ω⋅m.
3.1.3. Permeability.  The level of the coal seam permeability
depends on the development degree of its total porosity, which
is determined by cleats, exogenous pores, and micropores
(Meng et al 2010, Liu et al 2013). The matrix porosity of coal
seams mainly reserve CBM, and coal seam cleats act as the
flow channel of CBM. Fracture has great influence on the res-
ervoir permeability. If the large fracture is relatively poor, then
it cannot communicate between the fracture and pores, even if
the micro fracture is well developed.
Fractures in coal seams include bedding plane fracture and
interbedded fracture, and the calculation method for an inter-
bedded fracture was researched in depth by Faivre and Sibbit
(Sibbit 1985). They used a method to calculate the vertical
fracture of a parallel borehole using the formula below.
h f = ∆ C /(4 ⋅ C m )
(14)
where ∆C = 1/Rs − 1/Rt, Cm is mud resistivity.
The coal seam gas composition in the study area is pri-
marily composed of methane (85% of total gas volume), small
amounts of oxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The CBM
content is the sum of lost gas, desorption gas and remaining
gas content. Laboratory measurement is mainly adsorbed
gas content, so CBM content calculated by logging refers to
desorption gas. Research has shown that the coal quality and
CBM content have a relatively close relationship. With the use
of coal rock industrial components and the analysis of CBM
content data, the gas calculation equations  of different coal
qualities are obtained (figure 4). Obviously, carbon content is
closely related to CBM content.
Recent studies have shown that DEN can reflect the gas
content of coal seams (Hou 2000, Bhanja et al 2008). This
study conducts correlation analysis for the gas content of coal
seam and corresponding logging curve, which include RLLD,
AC, CNL, DEN, and GR (table 1). It is clear that the gas con-
tent also has relatively strong correlation with AC and CNL.
According to this, based on the laboratory analysis data of
CBM content, we use multiple regressions to construct a log-
ging prediction model of CBM content, which is shown as
formula (17):

62
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59 Z Liu and J Zhao

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020

Figure 3.  Logging interpretation of physical property parameters in WELL HS10.

20 20

y = 0.1712x - 2.1885 y = -0.1607x + 12.686

2 2
R = 0.6572 R = 0.4284
16 16
CBM content(m3/t)
CBM content(m3/t)

12 12

8 8

4 4

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Carbon content(%) Ash content(%)

Figure 4.  The relationship between coal property and CBM content.

Table 1.  Correlation between CBM content and logging Vg = −6.40 1⋅ ρ b + 0.10 8⋅ ∆t + 0.232 ⋅ φ N − 4.844  ⋅ R = 0.868
parameters.
(17)
Correlation
Fitting equation coefficient where Vg is CBM content, m3 T−1; ρ b is DEN, g cm−3; ∆t is
Vg  =  −17.63  ×  DEN  +  34.35 R  =  0.821
AC, µs m−1.
Vg  =  0.4079  ×  CNL-6.6395 R  =  0.835
Matrix porosity and CBM content show a significant posi-
tive correlation (figure 5). Due to large matrix porosity and
Vg  =  0.1722  ×  AC-64.511 R  =  0.784
pore surface area, the adsorption gas content adsorbed on coal
Vg  =  −0.1065  ×  GR  +  14.692 R  =  0.730
pore surfaces will increase. So the CBM content increases as
Vg  =  0.5108  ×  RLLD0.381 R  =  0.697
the matrix porosity increases. The fracture porosity of the coal
Vg  =  0.0091  ×  Depth  +  1.3775 R  =  0.687
seam and CBM content show a negative correlation (figure 5).

63
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59 Z Liu and J Zhao

20 20
y = 1.6419x + 0.1676 y = -15.006x + 14.37
2
R = 0.6049 2
R = 0.4558
16 16
CBM content(m /t)

CBM content(m /t)

3

3
12 12

8 8

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020

4 4

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Matrix porosity(%) Fracture porosity(%)

Figure 5.  The relationship between coal porosity and CBM content.

Figure 6.  Well logging interpretation of the CBM content in well HS3.

Due to the water in the fracture, the increase of water content
results in decreased coal seam adsorption gas content, which
leads to a negative correlation.
Based on the logging prediction model of CBM content
shown in formula (17), we conducted logging prediction
research for the CBM content of every well in the study area.
The logging interpretation graph of CBM content for well
HS3 is shown in figure 6. From the figure, we interpret a high
accuracy from the logging prediction model of CBM content,
which is similar to the measured gas content.
3.3.  Coal structure
The coal structure mainly depends on the physical–mechanical
characteristics of the coal itself and the structure destruction
degree of the coal seam (Ni et al 2010). Because tectonic coal

64
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59
10000
1000
RLLD(Ω•.m)
100
Undeformed coal
10
Fragmented coal
Granulated coal
Mylonitized coal
1 300
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
DEN(g/cm )
3 CAL(cm)
Figure 7.  The relationship diagram between logging parameter and coal structure.
occurs in powder form and has a mylonitic texture, and the
only particle pore is filled with coal powder that is smaller,
this leads to the very low coal seam porosity. Compared with
the above, fractures in cataclastic coal structures are relatively
developed, so the permeability of coal with a cataclastic struc-
ture is normally high. Although the fractures in coal with a
primary structure are less developed than those coals with
cataclastic structures, it is easy to implement production mea-
sures such as fracturing in coal with a primary structure.
Using coal core description data and conventional well log-
ging data, the relationship diagram between logging para­meters
and coal structure is constructed (figure 7). This figure  has
shown that the coal with a primary structure has a middle-
high resistivity value, a high density value, a low acoustic
time value and small borehole enlargement. The tectonic coal
shows a middle-low resistivity value, a low density value, a
high acoustic time value and larger borehole enlargement.
Through the systematical analysis of the logging response
characteristics for the undeformed coal, the fragmented coal,
the granulated coal and the mylonitized coal, the density and
resistivity values show a decreasing trend with the coal struc-
ture transitioning from undeformed structure coal to myloni-
tized coal, while the acoustic time and the borehole diameter
increase.
If the index reflecting the characteristics of coal structure
is given, the greater the index value is, the more complete the
coal structure is; on the contrary, the smaller the index value
is, the more broken the coal structure is. Thus, the index value
is proportional to the density and resistivity, and inversely
proportional to the acoustic time and caliper. Considering
the resistivity value of the coal seam for different coal struc-
tures, the higher the resistivity, the lower the density. In order
to avoid big data distortions and disappearance of small data,
exponential processing is done while constructing the coal
structure index. According to this understanding, we can
define the coal structure index shown in (18).
⎛ RLLD ⎞
ICS = DEN ⋅ log⎜ ⎟
⎝ AC ⋅ CAL ⎠
(18)
where ICS is coal structure index, dimensionless.
Z Liu and J Zhao
500
460
420
AC(µs/m)
380
Undeformed coal
340 Fragmented coal
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020
Granulated coal
Mylonitized coal
2 10 20 30 40 50 60
The ICS is larger as the coal rock approaches fragmented
coal and undeformed coal; the ICS is smaller as the coal rock
approaches granulated coal and mylonitized coal.
With the consideration of the variation range of the ICS
values, we used normalization processing for the ICS value.
Based on the ICS value after normalization, combining the
calibration of the ICS value with core coal structure descrip-
tions, we obtained a standard for the ICS values of different
coal structures. The standard is as follows: the coal whose ICS
value is above 0.7 is undeformed coal, between 0.7 and 0.4 is
fragmented coal, between 0.4 and 0.2 is granulated coal, and
below 0.2 is mylonitized coal. Based on this standard, we can
determine the coal structure quantitatively using logging data.
Based on the above method, we identified the coal structure
of every well in the study area. The recognition result graph
of coal structure for well HS12 is shown in figure 8. The main
CBM seam of the well is 573.5–577.4 m, with a thickness of
3.9 m, and there are no obvious partings in layers. From the
seventh column of this graph, it is clear that the 573.5–574.7 m
section  in the CBM reservoir is granulated coal, the
574.7–575.9 m section, 576.8–577.4 m section  are frag-
mented coal, and the 575.9–576.8 m section  is undeformed
coal. Compared with the coal structure identification result
and observations of the coal core in the eighth column, it is
clear that the coal structure identified in this study is identical
to those described in coal core observations.
3.4.  Effective thickness of coal seams
The effective thickness of a coal seam is used to deduce the
partings (Meng et al 2010). Using logging data, we can divide
the depth, thickness, and structure of coal seams accurately.
According to this, the partings in the coal seam can be divided
to obtain their effective thickness. In practical work, the initial
thickness of partings is 0.1 m, and the lower limit value of coal
seam effective thickness is 0.5 m.
The partings in the coal seam not only raise the ash content
and lower the quality of the coal but also increase the com-
plexity of the coal seam structure, which will directly affect its
exploitation value and present some obstacles to exploitation
65
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59 Z Liu and J Zhao

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020

Figure 8.  The recognition graph of coal structure for well HS12.

Figure 9.  Logging response characteristics of partings in Well HS19.

(Borsaru et al 2001). The existence of partings in the coal
seams, namely, coal gangue, will affect the vertical perme-
ability of the coal seam and the production of CBM (Yan
et al 2003).
The static image of a coal seam is yellow or bright yellow.
However, it will be white under conditions of heavy cal-
cium cementation and will be yellow or brown-yellow with
high mud content. The dynamic image is shown in brown-
yellow, while the static image is shown from brown-yellow to
bright-white (figure 9). The partings presented in the imaging
figure are dark stripes that are clear and complete. The partings
in the coal seam can be divided into a centimeter-scale thick-
ness. The partings on the spectral curve show that its density
value is higher than that of a pure coal seam and the resistivity
is lower than that of a pure coal seam. The main component
of gangue is rock with high clay content; therefore, the curves
of GR and DEN, which play a key role in the identification of
partings, appear as obvious abnormal peaks. The section  of
partings has no obvious hole enlargement; it is shown as a
negative anomaly on the AC curve and a negative anomaly
peak on the resistivity curve. The size of the anomaly ampl­
itude of the curves is related to the gangue thickness and rock

66
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59
composition (Fu et al 2009). The partings are widespread in
the layered coal seam structure. There are no obvious partings
in the block coal seam structure. As a result, the partings have
a great influence on the homogeneity, permeability, and frac-
turing discovery of the coal seams. Gangue cannot be ignored
in the development of CBM in tectonic coal. It is proper to
determine the gangue lithology and thickness distribution
characteristics through geophysical logging and other means,
which can provide basic data for development and discussion.
4.  Comprehensive evaluation of CBM reservoir
using logging data
4.1.  Quantitative evaluation model for CBM reservoir
The quality evaluation of CBM reservoirs starts from different
reservoir parameters, by determining the internal relationships
between these parameters and the degree of CBM enrich-
ment, and dividing the reservoir type by reservoir parameters
(Morad 2012). The CBM reservoirs of high quality generally
have a relatively good physical comprehensive index, high
gas content, and thick coal seams. Recent research has shown
that undeformed coal has moderate permeability and poor
fracturing, fragmented coal has the highest permeability and
relatively strong fracturing, granulated coal has moderate per-
meability and relatively poor fracturing, and mylonitized coal
has the lowest permeability and fracturing (Meng et al 2010,
Ni et al 2010). Thus, the influence of coal structure should be
considered to evaluate CBM reservoir.
Fully considering those CBM reservoir parameters, we
construct a comprehensive evaluation model of CBM reser-
voir as below.
K #5 coal seam indicate that the daily gas production can reach
IR = Wc ⋅ Vg ⋅ H ⋅
(19)
φt
where IR is CBM reservoir index, dimensionless; Wc is the
contribution coefficient of coal structure to CBM reservoir,
dimensionless; H is the effective thickness of coal seam
deducting partings, m; and φt is the total porosity of coal
seam, φt = φ + φf , %.
We define the contribution coefficient of coal structure on
CBM reservoir as 0.7, 1.0, 0.4, and 0.1 for undeformed, frag-
mented, granulated, and mylonitized coal, respectively.
4.2.  Single-well evaluation
Because the variation interval of the IR value calculated by above
method is larger, we conduct normalization processing for IR in
order to divide the type of CBM reservoir. After the processing,
the maximum value of IR is 1, and the minimum value of IR is 0.
The larger the IR value, the better the CBM reservoir is. Based
on CBM reservoir IR after normalization, we divided three types
reservoir in the study area: the reservoir is good (type I) when
the IR value is above 0.7 means; the reservoir is poor when the IR
value is below 0.4 (type III); the reservoir is moderate when the
IR value is between 0.4 and 0.7 (type II).
Figure 10 shows the reservoir results of well HS11 using
the above method. The thickness of 711.5–713.6 m and
67
Z Liu and J Zhao
714.4–717.8 m coal seams are 2.1 m and 3.4 m, respectively.
The calculated IR value is between 0.4 and 0.7 for the two coal
seams of this well, it indicate type II. The 718.3–719.2 m sec-
tion of the CBM reservoir is thinner, the calculated IR value is
less than 0.4, and it indicates type III. Laboratory analysis in
the 714.4–717.8 m coal seam shows a coalbed gas content of
7.85–9.64 m3 t−1, with an average of 8.94 m3 t−1. More than
20 d after the fracturing and drainage of the coal seam, the
gas production is 1010 m3 every day. The evaluated results
are consistent with the indoor test analysis and the fracture
mining.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020
4.3.  Planar distribution characteristics
Based on a single well logging interpretation of CBM res-
ervoir, we researched the planar distribution characteristics
of a CBM reservoir in the study area. The comprehensive
evaluation planar graph of #5 CBM reservoir is shown in
figure 11. From figure 11, we can determine that the quality
of the #5 CBM reservoir in the study area is good overall
and is mainly composed of type I and II reservoirs. In addi-
tion, we also can draw a conclusion that the CBM reservoir
in the middle and the HS4 well district in the west are rela-
tively good, followed by the northeast and south, and the
southwest and southeast are relatively poor. The main reason
is that the gas content and physical properties of the middle
and HS4 wellblock in the west show positive trends, and
their coal seams are relatively thick and dominated by unde-
formed and fragmented coal.
The HS4 well located in the western wellblock has a good
reservoir, and the measured coalbed gas content of the #5 coal
seam in the HS4 well is between 12.71–15.47 m3 t−1, with an
average value of 13.21 m3 t−1; the fracturing and drainage of
1825 m3 after fracturing and drainage. It fully shows that the
wellblock with a good CBM reservoir has a high coalbed gas
content and high capacity. This further demonstrates that the
evaluation results of CBM reservoir are similar with practical
geologic characteristics.
In general, the comprehensive evaluation of a CBM reser-
voir refers to the parameters that reflect CBM storage ability
and productive competence. It also should include the coal
structure characteristics that influence the storage and pro-
duction of CBM. However, it is impossible to perform deep
analysis for all CBM reservoir evaluation factors; the lim-
ited application effect can only be obtained using logging
technology.
5. Conclusions
(1) The comprehensive evaluation of CBM reservoir not only
refers to the parameters that reflect CBM storage ability,
such as porosity and gas content, but also includes the
parameters that reflect CBM productive competence,
such as permeability and effective thickness. However,
the coal structure is the most important factor when
evaluating CBM reservoirs.
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59 Z Liu and J Zhao

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020

Figure 10.  The comprehensive evaluation graph of the CBM reservoir for Well HS11.

(2) The CBM reservoir determines the degree of CBM

enrichment. The #5 reservoir in the study area is mainly
composed of type I and II reservoirs, suggesting overall
high quality. The reservoirs in the southwest and south-
east are type III, suggesting relatively poor reservoir.
(3) This study performs a comprehensive evaluation for CBM
reservoir to provide reliable logging technical support for
the exploration and development of CBM in this area.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the reviewers and the

editor for their many helpful comments and suggestions, which
significantly improved the manuscript. Thanks are also given
to the Key Laboratory of Science Research Project in Shaanxi
Province Department Of Education (grant no: 14JS082;
14JS084) and the Foundation Research Project of Natural Sci-
ence in Shaanxi Province (Grant NO: 2013JQ5008) for their
support during the completion of this paper.

References

Bhanja A and Srivastava O 2008 A New approach to estimate CBM

gas content from well logs SPE (Perth) pp 810–15
Borsaru M et al 2001 The application of prompt-gamma neutron
Figure 11.  The comprehensive evaluation plan of the #5 coal activation discussion to borehole logging for coal Appl. Radiat.
seam. Isot. 54 335–43

68
J. Geophys. Eng. 13 (2016) 59
Fu X et al 2009 Evaluation of coal structure and permeability with
the aid of geophysical logging technology Fuel 88 2278–85
Gao B et al 2015 Effect of fracturing fluids on the seepage
properties of coalbed gas reservoirs Nat. Gas Ind. 35 64–9
Hou J 2000 Coalbed Gas Reservoir Well Logging Evaluation
Method and Its Application (Beijing: Metallurgical Industry
Publish House) p 134 (in Chinese)
Liu Z et al 2014 Comprehensive Log Evaluation for Coalbed
Methane Reservoir (Xi’an: Shaanxi Science and Technology
Publish House) pp 45–6 (in Chinese)
Liu Z, Yang X and Chen C 2013 Comprehensive log evaluation for
coalbed methane reservoir in eastern block of Ordos basin Well
Logging Technol. 37 289–93
Meng Z, Tian Y and Li G 2010 Theory and Method of Coalbed
Methane Development Geology (Beijing: Science Publish
House) p 235 (in Chinese)
Morad K 2012 Selected topics in coalbed methane reservoirs J. Nat.
Gas Sci. Eng. 8 99–105
Ni X, Su X and Zhang X 2010 Coalbed Methane Development
Geology (Beijing: Chemical Industry Publish House)
pp 31–51 (in Chinese)
Peters J 2000 Evaluation of coalbed methane potential of Jharia
basin, India SPE (Brisbane) pp 819–32
69
Z Liu and J Zhao
Sibbit A and Faivre O 1985 The dual laterolog response in fractured
rocks SPWLA (Dallas) pp 17–20
Vishal V et al 2013 Numerical modeling of Gondwana coal seams
in India as coalbed methane reservoirs substituted for carbon
dioxide sequestration Energy 49 384–94
Vishal V, Ranjith P and Singh T 2013 CO2 permeability of Indian
bituminous coals: implications for carbon sequestration Int. J.
Coal Geol. 105 36–47
Vishal V, Ranjith P and Singh T 2015 An experimental investigation
on behaviour of coal under fluid saturation using acoustic
emission J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 22 428–36
Wang Y 2012 Reservoir characterization based on seismic spectral
variations Geophysics 77 89–95
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jge/article-abstract/13/1/59/5113043 by Reliance Industries Ltd. user on 20 April 2020
Whetton J and Elkington P 2012 Processing and interpretation of
density and neutron logs for the evaluation of coal bed methane
reservoirs SPE (Vienna) pp 138–48
Yao Y, Liu D and Qiu Y 2013 Variable gas content, saturation, and
accumulation characteristics of Weibei coalbed methane pilot-
production field in the southeastern Ordos Basin, China AAPG
Bull. 97 1371–93
Yan J and Wang D 2003 The theory and practice of identifying
tectonic coal using well logging data in Qigong mine J. Min.
Saf. Environ. Protect. 30 37–46