Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of CBM Potential
Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of CBM Potential
ISSN 2363-8419
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature Switzerland AG. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
1 23
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-019-00114-3
(0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
(Jing et al. 2015). The establishment of the successful adsorption of carbon dioxide with methane was noted
extraction well depends upon the permeability of the as 10:1 for low-rank coal and less than 2:1 for medium
coal seam reservoir (Moore 2012). The coal seam volatile bituminous coals (Prusty 2008). The experi-
permeability is a significant parameter for successful mentally determined adsorption/desorption capacity
gas production well design (Vishal et al. 2013, 2015; of the coal seam, as well as the Langmuir pressure and
Yumin et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2017; Yan et al. 2017). volume, is essential data for the reservoir simulations
The volume and rate of methane from the CBM (Prusty 2008; Yang and Zoback 2011; Song et al.
reservoir depends upon the gas content as well as the 2015; Wang et al. 2017). Therefore the detailed
adsorption/desorption capacity of coal. Adsorption investigation of adsorption/desorption capacity, as
isotherm of coal seam predicts the saturation level of well as gas content, is essential for the prediction of
the reservoir and the critical desorption pressure methane throughout the production wells.
before the establishment of the extraction well (Zhu This paper deals with the characterization of coal
et al. 2013). The related porosity, permeability as well from a different depth (400–580 m) of Jharia coal
as adsorption/desorption capacity of the coal seam for basin (Moonidih Area) India. The proximate and
the design and establishment of the production as well ultimate analysis, as well as petrographic analysis, was
as injection well are established elsewhere (Holloway carried out to determine the prospects of the methane
1997; White 2005; Perera and Ranjith 2012; Lee and in the coal basin. The gas content was carried out to
Kwon 2016). There exist permeability anisotropies determine the actual gas content of the coal seam. The
with 2:1 contrast in the face and butt cleats and 100:1 adsorption/desorption capacity of coal seam was
contrast between face cleat and vertical permeability carried out to determine the optimum gas holding
(Gash et al. 1993; Mavor and Robinson 1993; Zheng and gas retention capacity of coal. The coefficient of
et al. 2012). That implies the higher face and vertical gas permeability of coal was evaluated to determine
permeability in the coal seam, the variation of the ease of flow of gas and prediction of the rate of gas
permeability is from micro and nanodarcies in the production. The numerical reservoir simulation was
coal matrix and that from 0.1 to 1000 mD in the cleats carried out using GEM reservoir simulation software
(Bell and Rakop 1986). Reduced permeability with code 2015 to determine the rate of gas production as
confining pressure was observed in the coal seam well as cumulative gas volume over twenty-five years
(Siriwardane et al. 2009). The reduction in permeabil- of the life of production well. The mutual correlations
ity followed an exponential correlation with confining of different parameters were established using statis-
pressure (Chatterjee et al. 2010). These observations tical methods.
reflects the permeability of the matrix, as well as
cleats, govern the flow of gas from the coal matrix to
the production well or from the production well to the 2 Geological setting of Jharia coalbed basin
coal matrix.
The determination of the methane quantity of the The coal samples were collected from the Jharia coal
coal seam is possible with the investigation of the bed basin located in Dhanbad, India. It lies between
adsorption/desorption capacity of the coal. The latitude 23370 N and 23520 N and longitude 86050 E
adsorption isotherm indicates the initial reservoir and 86300 E (Fig. 1a). It covers an area of 465 km2
conditions of any coal seam and predicts the critical extending along the east–west direction (Saikia and
desorption pressure, which is helpful in the design of Sarkar 2007). The thick sedimentary sequence began
the production well for extraction of methane. The with the glaciogenic sediments of the Talchir Forma-
desorption capacity of the coal is essential for the tion and extended up to Raniganj formations (Fig. 1b)
prediction of methane desorption in the coal seam. The (Ghosh et al. 2014; BCCL 2015). The formation
investigation was undertaken to determine the excess comprises 18 standard coal horizons (numbered I to
adsorption/desorption capacity of the coal seam for XVIII) with a thickness of each horizon ranging from
application in CBM production (Yang and Zoback 1.2 to 29.29 m. Raniganj Formation covers south-
2011; Song et al. 2015). The CO2 adsorption capacity western part of the coalfield with 12 standard coal
was observed higher than that of the CH4 (Shi and horizons. This formation comprises altogether 13
Durucan 2005; Wang et al. 2017). The ratio of seam zones with thickness varying from 2.0 to 4.2 m.
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
The coal samples rectangular blocks of 0.5 m3 size Coal samples for proximate and ultimate analyses
operating were collected from the freshly exposed area were prepared as per guideline [IS: 436 (Part l/Sec-
in the coalmines of Jharia coalfield (Moonidih area) at tion 1)—1964 (1965)]. The Sample for petrographic
the depth varying between 400 and 580 m. The analysis was prepared as per IS: 9127 (part II), 1979.
collected coal blocks were wrapped in multi-cover Core samples obtained from the drilling were analyzed
plastic bags to prevent oxidation as well as atmo- for the determination of the gas content. Samples for
spheric influences. The packed samples were kept in a adsorption/desorption test were prepared as per stan-
wooden box filled with a cushion to avoid any dard ASTM: D2013-86, (1994).
transportation jerk. Finally, collected and covered
blocks were carried to the laboratory for testing
purpose. Coal specimen was prepared selectively from
those bags before any specialize test.
Fig. 1 a Geological map b lithology of the coalfield (after Ghosh et al. 2014)
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Fig. 1 continued
5 Apparatus and procedure macerals content were determined as per IS: 9127
(Part 3)—2002; ISO 7404-3: 1994. The modified
The proximate and ultimate analysis was carried out as USBM direct method was used to determine the actual
per guideline IS 436 (Part l/Section 1)—1964 (1965) in situ gas content in the coal seam. More than 100 coal
and IS 1350 (Part IV/Sec 2)—1975. The percentage of samples were tested for determination of gas content
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Fig. 5 Gas permeability Test a parts of the Permeability set up b sample placed in Hoek cell for application of axial as well as lateral
pressure c sealing of Hoek cell with upper and lower platens d perforated piston to pass gas during application of load on the specimen
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
from 3.45 to 0.69 MPa and from 1 to 12 MPa with a Table 2 Results of ultimate analysis and vitrinite reflectance
decrement of 0.69 ± 0.1 MPa and 1 ± 0.5 MPa of coal
respectively. The equilibrium pressure of inlet and
Depth
outlet was recorded at each step of pressure variation.
Parameters (%) 580 m 520 m 500 m 450 m 400 m
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Fig. 6 Determination of coal rank based on proximate analysis results (Averitt and Berryhill 1950)
Table 3 Results of Depth (m) Vitrinite (%) Inertinite (%) Liptinite (%) R0 (%)
petrographic study
580 58.94 33.99 2.45 1.51
520 46.72 48.21 4.78 1.24
500 47.12 45.54 2.85 1.10
450 46.77 43.65 9.34 1.03
400 46.58 44.24 6.54 0.92
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Depth = 500 m
18 Depth = 450 m elsewhere (Reiss 1980; Chatterjee et al. 2010; Vishal
Depth = 400 m
15 et al. 2013).
The average reduction in permeability was more
(cc/g)
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
5.9
2.9
2.5 4.9
2.1 3.9
1.7
2.9
1.3
1.9
0.9
0.5 0.9
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
Permeability (mD)
Table 7 The average reduction in permeability with values from 0.95 to 0.98 (Table 8). This observation
confinement follows similar behavior reported elsewhere (Vishal
Depth (m) Average reduction in Perm. (%) et al. 2013, 2015).
580 84.01
520 83.96 7 Reservoir simulation
500 83.44
450 78.26 Coalbed reservoir exhibits dual porosity due to its
400 82.12 stress dependency of permeability and porosity, as
well as desorption of gas from the matrix and flow
through the natural fracture (cleat structure) (Wu et al.
2011; Okeke 2005; Keim 2011). Parameters as two-
under triaxial conditions, and as a result, the perme- phase flows through the fracture system and diffusion
ation of gas reduces. The confining pressure showed from the matrix to fractures control the flow physics
an exponential correlation with gas permeability at R2 during CBM production practice and are highly
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
variable during the gas extraction process (Wang et al. multilayered or ‘‘slab’’ model j = 1. For the slab
2017). In this investigation both experimental data, as model with L = thickness of an individual matrix
well as field parameters were used to simulate (Code block, k becomes:
CMG 2015) reservoir behaviour as predicted else-
km
where (Okeke 2005; Keim 2011). The code is capable k ¼ 12rw2 ð6Þ
kf h2m
of simulating the coal bed reservoir under dual
porosity conditions; two-phase flow through the The storativity ratio, x, is given by:
fracture system and diffusion from the matrix to
ð/Vct Þf ð/Vct Þf
fractures. The simulation in the code is based on the x ¼ ¼ ð7Þ
Warren and Root dual-porosity model to evaluate the ð/Vct Þf þm ð/Vct Þf þð/Vct Þm
physical calculations involved in coalbed methane
where V is the ratio of the total volume of one medium
extraction. The dual porosity allows each reservoir
to the bulk volume of the total system, and / is the
grid block to have up to two porosity systems; one for
ratio of the pore volume of one medium to the total
the matrix and the other for the fracture. The adsorbed
volume of that medium. Subscripts f and f ? m refer
gas concentration on the surface of the coal is assumed
to the fracture and the total system (fractures plus
to be a function of pressure only (Langmuir isotherm).
matrix), respectively.
The code follows Fick’s law (Keim 2011) for the
The steady-state laminar two- phase flow in a single
diffusive flow of gas from the coal matrix as per Eq. 3.
horizontal fracture without gravity segregation in
The mathematical relationship involved in the calcu-
volumetric form is given by (Chen et al. 2004):
lation of the dual porosity system is (Warren and Root
1963): kAkrw ðpi p0 Þw
qw ¼ ð8Þ
lw L
m ¼ DrC ð3Þ
km kAkrg p2i p20
k ¼ arw2 ð4Þ qg ¼ ð9Þ
kf 2lg Lp0
where k is the inter-porosity flow coefficient (m3/s), where subscripts (w) and (g) stand for water and gas, pi
km is the permeability of the matrix (mD), kf is the and po are the pressures at the inlet and the outlet of the
permeability of the natural fractures (mD), and a is the fracture (MPa) respectively, q is the volumetric flow
parameter characteristic of the system geometry, and rate (m3/s) l is the dynamic viscosity (Pa.s), L is the
rw is the wellbore radius (m). fracture length (m), k and A are the absolute perme-
ability (mD) and cross-sectional area (m2) of the
4jðj þ 2Þ fracture, krw and krg are the relative permeability of the
a ¼ ð5Þ
L2 water and the gas (mD).
where L is a characteristic dimension of a matrix block Coal porosity depends on fracture density (Wang
(m), and j is the number of normal sets of planes et al. 2017). The coal samples obtained from the study
limiting the less-permeable medium (j = 1, 2, 3). i.e., area were evaluated in the lab for fracture porosity.
j = 3 for the idealized reservoir cube model and for the Gilman-Kazemi shape factor represents the fracture
porosity in the reservoir area (Keim 2011). The same
was considered for Gilman-Kazemi Shape factor for
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
the spatial area in the GEM code (Kazemi 1976). The even compaction of reservoirs (Alama et al. 2010).
shape factor typically used by commercial reservoir Therefore, a better understanding of the behavior of
simulators for dual porosity and CBM models is: high-porosity rock like coal seam under altering
! effective stress state is required to calculate recover-
1 1 1 able reserves. The pressure counteracts Biot’s coeffi-
r ¼ 4 2þ 2þ 2 ð10Þ
Lx Ly Lz cient that typically reflects the elastic behaviour of
porous rock like a coal. It defines the effective stress,
where r is shape factor, L is spacing between fractures
r0 (MPa), as the difference between the total stress r
The coal cleat diffusive flow depends on the gas
(MPa) and a fraction called Biot’s coefficient b of the
concentration gradients in the coal seam. The diffusive
pore pressure Pf (MPa) as (Biot 1941):
flow and concentration of gas are based on the
Langmuir adsorption isotherm (Song et al. 2015; r0 ¼ r bpf ð14Þ
Wang et al. 2017). The experimentally developed
b value is taken as (1) at differential pressure (total
adsorption isotherm for the study area was considered
stress—pore pressure) is equal to the effective stress.
for calculation of diffusive flow and gas concentration
In this investigation, the bulk modulus value of the
gradients in the reservoir and gives as (Okeke 2005;
coal matrix was much larger as compared to that of the
Keim 2011):
coal mass, therefore, b value was considered one. The
qðLang; kÞ ¼ Vol ½Shape DiffusðkÞ F Sg similar value was used for the gas rate prediction in
ðLangðk; mÞ Langðk; f ÞÞ reservoir simulation elsewhere (Gray 1987; Cui and
ð11Þ Bustin 2005; Liu and Rutqvist 2010; Connell et al.
2010).
X 1 The gas content determined was very high at
Shape ¼ 4 ð12Þ
Frac Spacing2 12.13 cc/g (Mukherjee et al. 1999). So it is considered
that the reservoir is saturated with methane. The
RateBlock ¼ Vol Shape DiffusðkÞ SAmod
g capillary, as well as gravity force during the gas flow
ðCðk; gas; mÞ C ðk; gas; f ÞÞ in the well, was equilibrated by considering water–gas
ð13Þ system (Okeke 2005).
where Lang (k, m) = Extended Langmuir isotherm for 7.1 Data acquisition
the coal, multiplied by coal density (kg/m3), evaluated
at matrix composition and pressure (MPa), Lang (k, A wide range of reservoir characteristics was utilized
f) = Extended Langmuir isotherm for the coal evalu- to construct a CBM base model. Data acquisition
ated at fracture composition and pressure (MPa), comprises field study, sample collection from different
Vol. = Block volume (m3), Shape = Shape factor points of coal seams at a depth of 580 m, measurement
(matrix-fracture interface area per unit volume), of coalfield area, lithology of the coalfield, etc. The
Diffus (k) = Diffusion value (COAL-DIF-COMP) laboratory experimentations comprise determination
(cm2/s), Sg = Gas saturation, Rate Block = Flow rate of gas content, construction of CH4 adsorption
(m3/d), SAmod
g = Gas saturation in the matrix (de- isotherm (Langmuir isotherm), cleat dimensions (cleat
fault = 1), C (k, gas, m) = Concentration of compo- spacing and width), gas permeability, porosity, etc. of
nent ‘k’ in gas phase of matrix cell ‘‘m’’ (gmole/kg of coal sample. The minimum and maximum value with
coal), C (k, gas, f) = Concentration of component ‘k’ the average data has been considered for reservoir
in gas phase of fracture cell ‘‘f’’ (gmole/kg of coal), C simulation (Tables 9, 10 and 11).
(k, gas, f) in Eq. 13 represents the surface gas
concentration which is a function of the fracture 7.2 Model building
pressure given by the Langmuir isotherm.
The decrease in pore pressure as a consequence of The modeling and simulation were carried out using
oil and gas production increases the effective stress on Generalized Equation-of-State Model (GEM) simula-
the reservoir rock and causes elastic deformation or tor (make: CMG, Canada Version 2015.10). The
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
simulator incorporates sorption and diffusion pro- was created on both sides of the production well. GEM
cesses, coal shrinkage, compaction effects, and under- code used Langmuir isotherm as a function of
saturated coals to its dual porosity models (Okeke adsorbed concentration as a coal interface and is a
2005; Sinayuc 2007; Mora 2007; Khan et al. 2015; Liu widely used (Alama et al. 2010). The reservoir base
et al. 2016). In this investigation, multiple simulations models developed have five wells, with 20 hydraulic
were carried out to visualize, analyze, and evaluate the fractures spaced at 29 m apart. The distance between
influence of input parameters on the performance of each well is 87.5 m. The horizontal well lengths are
CBM production well. 578 m (Fig. 11). All dimensions were determined
based on reservoir model descriptions for CBM
7.3 Wells and boundary condition production (Makinde and Lee 2016). Overall dimen-
sions of the reservoir model are 700 m long and 700 m
Five production wells of diameter 139.7 mm (CMPDI wide (CMPDI, 2015) with 6 m thick coal seam at
2015) were considered throughout the seam for 580 m depth (Fig. 12). The simulation was carried out
prediction of gas production rate as well as cumulative under the dual porosity system. The fractures are all
gas volume over twenty-five years of the life of infinitely conductive. A fracture spacing of 14.9 mm
production wells. CBM Production was simulated at obtained from coal block of the study area was used for
constant dewatering rate that varied from 10 to the simulation.
100 m3/day with minimum bottom hole pressure
200 kPa was considered. Each well influences a 7.4 Grid formulation
cross-sectional area of 578 m 9 87.5 m (Fig. 12).
Each well experienced the same reservoir pressure in The homogeneous cartesian grid system was applied
spatial location. Gas permeation was blocked at the to develop a hypothetical reservoir model as followed
boundary of the coal seam to focus more on the input elsewhere (Jun and Guang 2012). The Cartesian grid
parameters of the investigations. Horizontal fracturing geometry was considered to model linear flow
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Grids size I 23–35 29 Bhavsar (2005), Aminian (2009), Jun and Guang (2012)
Grids size J 24–35 30
Grids size K 6 6
I-direction – 23 9 700
I-direction – 24 9 700
Fracture spacing I (mm) 10.19–18.19 14.19 CMPDI (2015)
Fracture spacing J (mm) 10.19–18.19 14.19
Fracture spacing K (mm) 10.19–18.19 14.19
Grid top (layer 1) (m) 560–600 580 Site data
Permeability I (mD) 0.317–0.437 0.377 Lab measurement
Permeability J (mD) 0.317–0.437 0.377
Permeability K (mD) 0.317–0.437 0.377
Fracture permeability I (D) 0.31–1.62 0.965 CMPDI (2015)
Fracture permeability J (D) 0.31–1.62 0.965
Fracture permeability K (D) 0.31–1.62 0.965
Porosity 0.036–0.082 0.059 Lab measurement
Fracture porosity 0.043–0.115 0.079 Calculated
Gas adsorption (CO2) (cc/g) 18.22–22.82 20.52 Lab measurement
Gas adsorption(CH4) (cc/g) 12.14–14.44 13.29 Lab measurement
Initial gas content(CH4) (cc/g) 11.07–13.19 12.13 Lab measurement
CH4 desorption time (Days) 90–110 100 Okeke (2005)
Cleat compressibility (1/kPa) 0.00246–0.00306 0.00276 Lab measurement
Coal density (kg/m3) 1181–1191 1186 Lab measurement
Diffusion coefficient (cm2/s) – 1.7 9 10-9 Wierzbicki (2013)
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
saturation and relative permeability before the extrac- value of 0.31, 0.62 and 1.62 mD respectively and
tion of CBM. Gas and water relative permeability and corresponding cumulative gas volume were
gas saturation is correlated with: (Seidle 2011) 6.35 9 107, 6.53 9 107 and 6.58 9 107 m3 respec-
n0 h 2þk i tively. The rate of gas production and cumulative
krg ¼ kgr 1 Sw 1 Sw k ð16Þ volume of gas obtained from the reservoir simulation
was also compared with different coal basin world-
2þ3k wide (Table 12). The maximum rate of production of
krw ¼ Sw k ð17Þ
gas in the study area compares favorably to those of
Sw Siw the studies carried out worldwide (Okeke 2005; Wei
Sw ¼ ð18Þ et al. 2007; Keim 2011).
1 Siw
where skrg = gas relative permeability, kgr = gas rel- 7.7 Effect of rate of dewatering
ative permeability at irreducible water saturation,
krw = water relative permeability, k = empirical coef- Sensitivity analysis was carried out to examine the
ficient, n0 = empirical coefficient, Sw = water satura- effect of different input parameters on CBM produc-
tion, and Siw = irreducible water saturation. tion. The initial set of runs examined the gas flow rate
It is observed that the gas is immobile until its as well as the accumulated volume of gas over twenty-
saturation is about 60%, indicating that the extraction five years. The results of the simulation were analyzed
of CBM will not be started until it reached to 60% of to determine the primary performance of the produc-
saturation level (Fig. 15). This observation confirms tion well at varying dewatering rate. A total of 10 rates
favorably as reported elsewhere (Vishal et al. 2015). of dewatering at different fracture permeability were
investigated for prediction of CBM extraction. The
7.6 Production rate and cumulative volume rate of CBM extraction varied from 365 to 10,358,
from 376.82 to 11,372 and from 381.7 to
Simulation was carried out to predict the gas flow rate 11,722 m3/day at permeability of 0.31, 0.62 and 1.62
as well as cumulative gas volume over a period of mD respectively (Figs. 20, 21 and 22). The corre-
twenty-five years. A 2-D reservoir model with five sponding cumulative volume over 25 years varied
productions wells is represented in Fig. 16. The from 1.03 9 106 to 6.35 9 107, from 1.17 9 106 to
contour shows the reduction in gas concentration 6.53 9 107 and from 1.24 9 106 to 6.58 9 107 m3
around the well with spent time. An increase in gas (Figs. 23, 24 and 25). The results show an increase in
rate as well as cumulative gas volume was observed production as well as cumulative gas volume with an
for the first 18 years that remain constant afterward, increase in the rate of dewatering. The increase in the
indicating saturation of coal bed reservoir (Figs. 17, gas rate is due to a higher reduction in reservoir
18 and 19). The maximum gas rate observed were pressure at a higher rate of dewatering. A pressure
10,358, 11,372 and 11,722 m3/day at permeability difference created between the inner and outer surface
of coal matrix due to reduction in reservoir pressure
1 krg krw influences fast rate of gas desorption as it starts
flowing through the micro and macro channels of the
0.8 coal block. This behaviour follows the similar trend
reported elsewhere (Wang et al. 2012, 2017; Fahad
Relative Permeability
0.6
2013; Yumin et al. 2016).
0.4
7.8 Effect of permeability on well performance
0.2
Sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the
0 effect of permeability on well performance. Gas rate,
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
as well as cumulative gas volume, varied from 327.47
Gas Saturation
to 346.52 m3/day and from 1.03 9 106 to 1.24 9 106
Fig. 15 Relative permeability and gas saturation behaviour m3 at varying permeability from 0.31 to 1.62 mD
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
(Figs. 26 and 27). An average increment of the gas rate well as cumulative volume recovery, is due to the ease
at 6.43% was observed. The increase in gas rate, as of flow of gas at higher permeability. The saturation of
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
gas increases in the coal bed with dewatering but due 7.9 Effect of depth of coal seam on gas rate
to less permeation and absence of fractures hinders the
mobility of gas. The similar trend was observed in The correlation was established between the burial
reservoir simulations reported elsewhere (Fahad 2013; depth and gas rate to determine the effect of burial
Maffucci et al. 2015; Yumin et al. 2016; Wang et al. depth on well performance. An average increment in
2017) (Fig. 28). the gas rate at 4.30% was observed at depth from 560
to 600 m respectively (Fig. 29). Which is due to the
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Table 12 Comparison of rate of gas production in the study area vis a vis at other side
Author Location Depth Coalbed Coal Gas content Porosity Permeability Gas rate
thickness rank (m3/t) (%) (mD) (m3/d)
(m) (Avg.)
Gentzis et al. Mannville coals in 700–1300 [ 4 HVB 8.5–14.0 5–6 1–4 20,000
(2008) Alberta, Canada
Keim (2011) Qinshui Hancheng 190–640 [6 LVB 9.9–38.2 1.1–7.6 0.1–6.7 18,536
Basin, Area
China Ningwu 190–640 [6 LVB 9.9–38.2 1.1–7.6 0.1–6.7 23,531
Area
Jincheng 190–640 [6 LVB 9.9–38.2 1.1–7.6 0.1–6.7 21,560
Area
Dacheng 190–640 [6 LVB 9.9–38.2 1.1–7.6 0.1–6.7 19,821
Area
Yan et al. Ordos Basin, China 463–1103 [ 8 LVB 0.2–20.4 2.6–8.4 0.016–5.52 15,804
(2015), Xiao to
et al. (2005) HVB
Zhao et al. Qinshui Basin, China 513–1336 [ 8 LVB 20.3–31.5 3.0–8.0 0.017–0.47 16,903
(2016) to
HVB
Study area Jharia Basin, Moonidih 560–600 6.1 LVB 11.07–13.19 3.6–8.2 0.317–1.62 11,722
Area, India to
HVB
Dewatering 60 m3/day
Dewatering 70 m3/day Dewatering 70 m3/day
8000
Gas Rate (m3/day)
2000
2000
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Year) Time (Year)
Fig. 20 Variation in CBM production with dewatering Fig. 21 Variation in CBM production with dewatering
increase in gas content. High gas content is equivalent 7.10 Effect of fracture spacing on gas rate
to a high gas saturation in the same tectonic setting of
high gas saturation, decrease the energy of coal The gas rate was evaluated at varying cleat spacing
reservoir that needs when the gas leaves the coal from 10.19 to 18.19 mm. A linear correlation was
matrix and changes to a free state from an adsorption observed between gas rate and fracture spacing with
state (Meng and Li 2013). The decrease in the energy very less difference in gas rate. An average increment
leads to the faster desorption of gas from the coal of the gas rate was observed at 0.04% (Fig. 30). The
matrix and therefore gas rate increases. gas rate with fracture spacing indicates negligible
influence of the fracture spacing on CBM production.
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
6000 3.00E+07
2.00E+07
4000
1.00E+07
2000
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0
Time (Year)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Year)
Fig. 25 Variation in cumulative gas volume with permeability
Fig. 22 Variation in CBM production with dewatering and dewatering
3.00E+07 150
2.00E+07
75
1.00E+07
0
0.00E+00 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Year)
Time (Year)
Fig. 26 The rate of production with variation in permeability
Fig. 23 Variation in cumulative gas volume with permeability
and dewatering
1.20E+06
7.00E+07 Dewatering 10 m3/day
Dewatering 20 m3/day K = 0.62 mD
Dewatering 30 m3/day
6.00E+07 Dewatering 40 m3/day K = 1.62 mD
Gas Rate (m3/day)
9.00E+05
Cumulative Gas (m3)
1.00E+07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Time (Year)
Time (Year)
Fig. 27 Cumulative productions with variation in permeability
Fig. 24 Variation in cumulative gas volume with permeability
and dewatering
number of wells in a given area. Increase in grid
7.11 Effect of grid blocks on gas rate blocks increases the effective drained area more areas
exhibiting higher recoveries. The observation con-
The histogram was created to display the modelled firms to that obtained in reservoir simulation mod-
grid blocks for each well layout with gas rate after elling (Okeke 2005; Keim 2011).
twenty-five years of production (Fig. 31). An average
increase in the gas rate of 1.55% was observed in
hydraulically fractured well with a variety of grid
blocks. The increase in gas rate is due to decrease in
drainage areas and subsequently increasing the
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
8 Conclusions
References
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
in the matrix system of the European organic-rich shales: I. Alberta, Canada: a comparison of two areas. Int J Coal
Scandinavian Alum Shale. J Mar Pet Geol 51:79–99 Geol 74:237–249
Aminian K (2009) Type curves for coalbed methane production Ghosh S, Jha P, Vidyarthi AS (2014) Unraveling the microbial
prediction. SPE 91482 presented at the SPE eastern interactions in organic coal fermentation for generation of
regional meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, 15–17 methane—A classical to metagenomic approach. Int J Coal
September Geol 125:36–44
ASTM Standard Method of Preparing Coal Samples for Anal- Gray I (1987) Reservoir engineering in coal seams part 1: the
ysis (1994) ASTM D2013 - 86 physical process of gas storage and movement in coal
Averitt P, Berryhill LR (1950) Coal resources of the United seams. Soc Pet Eng 2:28–35
States. A Progress Report. United States Department of the Guo P, Cheng Y (2013) Permeability prediction in deep coal
Interior, Geological Survey seam: a case study on the No. 3 coal seam of the Southern
Bell GJ, Rakop KC (1986) Hysteresis of methane/coal sorption Qinshui Basin in China. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.
isotherms. In: 61st annual technical conference and exhi- 1155/2013/161457
bition of the society of petroleum engineers, New Orleans Holloway S (1997) An overview of the underground disposal of
Berrezueta E, Domı́nguez-Cuesta MJ, Ordóñez-Casado B, carbon dioxide. Energy Convers Manag 38:193–198
Medina C, Molinero R (2017) Pore space quantification of Indian Standard methods for sampling of coal and coke (1965)
sedimentary rocks before-after supercritical CO2 interac- IS: 436 (Part l/Set 1) – 1964
tion by optical image analysis. Energy Proc Izadi G, Wang S, Elsworth D, Liu J, Wu Y, Pone D (2011)
114:4382–4393 Permeability evolution of fluid-infiltrated coal containing
Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) (2015) Feasibility Report discrete fractures. Int J Coal Geol 85:202–211
on Moonidih Coal Bed Methane Project. Part of Cluster XI, Jing X, Gao M, Yu B, Zhang R, Jin W (2015) Coal permeability
CMPDI, Regional Institute-II Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad model on the effect of gas extraction within effective
Bhavsar AB (2005) Prediction of coalbed methane reservoir influence zone. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Re-
performance with type curves. Thesis submitted to the sour 1:15–27
college of engineering and mineral resources, petroleum Jun LJ, Guang L (2012) Numerical simulation of CO2 flooding
and natural gas engineering, West Virginia University coal bed methane considered mixture shrinkage effect.
Biot MA (1941) Biot General theory of three-dimensional EJGE 17:3797–3802
consolidation. J Appl Phys 12:155–164 Kazemi H (1976) Numerical simulation of water-oil flow in
Bo L, Jianping W, Kai W, Peng L (2014) Wang, ‘‘A method of naturally fractured reservoirs. Soc Pet Eng J 16:317–326
determining the permeability coefficient of coal seam Keim SA (2011) Optimization of coalbed methane completion
based on the permeability of loaded coal. Int J Min Sci strategies, selection criteria and production prediction: a
Technol 24:637–641 case study in China’s Qinshui Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation
Chandra K (1997) Alternative hydrocarbon resources in the next submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
millennium. Geohorizons 2(2):443 tute and State University
Chatterjee R, Paul S, Pal PK, Srivastava VK (2010) Formation Khan C, Ge L, Rudolph V (2015) Reservoir simulation study for
evaluation and characterization of CBM reservoir rocks CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers. Int J Appl Sci Technol
from well logs of Jharia Coalfield, India. Petrotech, New 5:30–45
Delhi Koenig RA, Stubbs PB (1986) Interference testing of a coalbed
Chen Jane, Shi Su, Pohl John H (2004) Use of maceral content to methane reservoir. Presented at the SPE Unconventional
characterize Steam coal performance. Fuel Chem Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, Kentucky
49:923–924 Lama RD, Bartosiewicz H (1984) Determination of gas content
Cheng Y, Jiang H, Zhang X, Cui J, Song C, Li X (2017) Effects of coal seams. Seam gas drainage with particular reference
of coal rank on physicochemical properties of coal and on to the working seam. University of Wollongong, Wollon-
methane adsorption. Int J Coal Sci Technol 4:129–146 gong, pp 36–52
Connell LD, Lu M, Pan Z (2010) An analytical coal perme- Lee GJ, Kwon TH (2016) Effect of swelling of coal-induced by
ability model for tri-axial strain and stress conditions. Int J carbon dioxide adsorption on permeability and P-wave
Coal Geol 84:103–114 velocity. In: World congress on ACEM, Jeju Island, Korea
Cui X, Bustin RM (2005) Volumetric strain associated with Li S, Zhang B (2016) Research of coalbed methane develop-
methane desorption and its impact on coalbed gas pro- ment well-type optimization method based on unit tech-
duction from deep coal seams. AAPG Bull 89:1181–1202 nical cost. Sustainability 8:843
Fahad M (2013) Simulation of Fluid Flow and Estimation of Li M, Cao J, Li W (2016) Stress and damage induced gas flow
Production from Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Ph.D. pattern and permeability variation of coal from Songzao
thesis submitted in department of Petroleum Engineering, Coalfield in Southwest China. Energies 9:2–16
University of New South Wales Liang W, Shimin L, Yuanping C, Guangzhi Y, Dongming Z,
Gash BW, Volz RF, Potter G, Corgan JM (1993) The effects of Pinkun G (2017) Reservoir reconstruction technologies for
cleat orientation and confining pressure on cleat porosity, coalbed methane recovery in deep and multiple seams. Int J
permeability and relative permeability in coal. In: Pro- Min Sci Technol 27:277–284
ceedings of the international coalbed methane symposium, Liu S, Harpalani S (2012) Gas production induced stress and
Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama permeability variations in coalbed methane reservoirs.
Gentzis T, Goodarzi F, Cheung FK, Laggoun-Défarge F (2008) American Rock Mechanics Association, 46th US rock
Coalbed methane producibility from the Mannville coals in mechanics/geomechanics symposium, Chicago, IL, USA
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Liu HH, Rutqvist J (2010) A new coal-permeability model: Reiss LH (1980) The reservoir engineering aspects of fractured
internal swelling stress and fracture-matrix interaction. reservoirs. Gulf Publishing Company, Paris
Transp Porous Media 82:157–171 Rice DD (1993) Composition and origins of coalbed gas. Am
Liu J, Li G, Zhang Y (2016) Numerical simulation of CO2 Assoc Pet Geol Stud Geol 38:159–184
flooding of coalbed methane considering the fluid-solid Saikia K, Sarkar BC (2007) EXGID – A prototype exploration
coupling effect. PLoS ONE 11:1–16 geological information system for Jharia coalfield, India.
Maffucci R, Bigi S, Corrado S, Chiodi A, Paolo LD, Giordano G J Sci Ind Res 66:513–516
(2015) Quality assessment of reservoirs using outcrop data Seidle J (2011) Fundamental of coal bed methane reservoir
and ‘‘discrete fracture network’’ models: the case history of engineering. Penn Well Corporation, Oklahoma
Rosario de La Frontera (NW Argentina) geothermal sys- Shi JQ, Durucan S (2005) CO2 storage in deep un-minable coal
tem. Tectonophysics 647:112–131 seams. Oil Gas Sci Technol 60:547–558
Makinde I, Lee WJ (2016) Reservoir simulation models—im- Sinayuc C (2007) Modeling of Enhanced Coalbed Methane
pact on production forecasts and performance of shale Recovery Technology. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Petroleum
volatile oil reservoirs. J Gen Eng 16:53–69 and Natural Gas Engineering, METU
Mavor MJ, Robinson JR (1993) Analysis of coal gas reservoir Siriwardane HJ, Gondle RK, Smith DH (2009) Shrinkage and
interference and cavity well tests. Paper SPE 25860. Pre- swelling of coal-induced by desorption and sorption of
sented at the joint rocky mountain regional and low per- fluids: theoretical model and interpretation of a field pro-
meability reservoirs symposium, Denver, Colorado ject. Int J Coal Geol 77:188–202
Mazumder S, Wolf KAA (2004) An overview of the potentials Song Y, Xing W, Zhang Y, Jian W, Liu Z, Liu S (2015)
and prospects of coalbed Methane exploration and Adsorption isotherms and kinetics of carbon dioxide on
exploitation In the permo-carboniferous coal measures Of Chinese dry coal over a wide pressure range. Int J Adsorpt
the barakar formation, jharia basin, india. Geol Belg 21:53–65
7:147–156 Speight JG (2005) Handbook of coal analysis – a series of
Meng ZP, Li GQ (2013) Experimental research on permeability Monographs on analytical chemistry and its applications,
of high-rank coal under a varying stress and its influencing vol 166, pp 238
factors. Eng Geol 162:108–117 Taheri A, Sereshki F, Ardejani FD, Mirzaghorbanali A (2016)
Mohalik NK (2017) Development of a petrographic technique to Numerical modeling of gas flow in coal pores for methane
assess the spontaneous combustion susceptibility of Indian drainage. J Sustain Min 15:95–99
coals. Int J Coal Prep Util. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Vishal V, Ranjith PG, Singh TN (2013) CO2 permeability of
19392699.2017.1360874 Indian bituminous coals: implications for carbon seques-
MoM Alama MK, Borrea IL Fabricius, Hedegaard K, Rogena B, tration. Int J Coal Geol 105:36–47
Hossain Z, Krogsboll AS (2010) Biot’s coefficient as an Vishal V, Ranjith P, Singh T (2015) An experimental investi-
indicator of strength and porosity reduction: calcareous gation on behaviour of coal under fluid saturation, using
sediments from Kerguelen Plateau. J Pet Sci Eng acoustic emission. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 22:428–436
70:282–297 Wang S, Elsworth D, Liu J (2012) A mechanistic model for
Moore TA (2012) Coalbed methane: a review. Int J Coal Geol permeability evolution in fractured sorbing media. J Geo-
101:36–81 phys Res Solid Earth 117:B06205. https://doi.org/10.1029/
Mora CA (2007) Comparison of computation methods For CBM 2011jb008855
production performance. Thesis on Master of Science, Wang Z, Li Y, Liu H, Zeng F, Guo P, Jiang W (2017) Study on
Texas A and M University, Petroleum Engineering the adsorption, diffusion and permeation selectivity of
Mukherjee PK, Sinha DP, Rawat DS (1999) Coal Bed Methane: shale gas in organics. Energies 10:142
How India fits as a potential candidate in CBM prospect Warren JE, Root PJ (1963) The behavior of naturally fractured
and potentiality, vol 5. SAAEG, pp 79–87 reservoirs. SPE J 3:245–255
Okeke AN (2005) Sensitivity analysis of modeling parameters Wei XR, Wang GX, Massarotto P, Golding SD, Rudolph V
that affect the dual peaking behavior in coalbed methane (2007) A review on recent advances in the numerical
reservoirs. Thesis on Master of Science, Texas A and M simulation for coal bed-methane-recovery process. SPE
University, Petroleum Engineering, pp 30 Reserve Eval Eng 10:657–666
Pan Z, Connell DL, Camilleri M, Connelly L (2010) Effects of White CM (2005) Sequestration of carbon dioxide in coal with
matrix moisture on gas diffusion and flow in coal. Fuels enhanced coalbed methane recovery—A review. Energy
89:3207–3217 Fuels 19:659–724
Perera MSA, Ranjith PG (2012) Carbon dioxide sequestration Wierzbicki M (2013) Changes in the sorption/diffusion kinetics
effects on coal’s hydro-mechanical properties: a review. Int of a coal-methane system caused by different temperatures
J Energy Res 36:1015–1031 and pressures. Instytut Mechaniki Gorotworu PAN, Kra-
Prusty BK (2008) Sorption of methane and CO2 for enhanced kow, p 159
coalbed methane recovery and carbon dioxide sequestra- Wu Y, Liu J, Chen Z, Elsworth D, Pone D (2011) A dual
tion. J Nat Gas Chem 17:29–38 poroelastic model for CO2-enhanced coalbed methane
Ranathunga AS, Perera MSA, Ranjith PG, De Silva GPD (2017) recovery. Int J Coal Geol 86:177–189
A macro-scale view of the influence of effective stress on Xiao XM, Zhao BQ, Thu ZL, Song ZG, Wilkins RWT (2005)
carbon dioxide flow behaviour in coal: an experimental Upper paleozoic petroleum system, Ordos Basin, China.
study. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Resour Mar Pet Geol 22:945–963
3:13–28
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Yan S, Liu S, Zhang Q, Tao M, Zhao M, Feng H (2012) Coalbed Yumin L, Zhiping L, Dazhen T, Xu H, Chen X (2016) Perme-
methane genesis, occurrence and accumulation in China. ability variation models for unsaturated coalbed methane
Pet Sci 9:269–280 reservoirs. J Oil Gas Sci Technol 71:2–14
Yan T, Yao Y, Liu D (2015) Critical tectonic events and their Zhao X, Yang Y, Sun F, Wang B, Zuo Y, Li M, Shen J, Mu F
geological controls on gas generation, migration, and (2016) Enrichment mechanism and exploration and
accumulation in the weibei coalbed methane field, South- development technologies of high coal rank coalbed
east Ordos Basin. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 27:1367–1380 methane in South Qinshui Basin, Shanxi Province. Pet
Yan C, Cheng Y, Deng F, Tian J (2017) Permeability change Explore Dev 43:332–339
caused by stress damage of gas shale. Energies 10:1350 Zheng G, Pan Z, Chen Z, Tang S, Connell LD, Zhang S, Wang B
Yang Y, Zoback MD (2011) The effects of gas adsorption on (2012) Laboratory study of gas permeability and cleat
swelling, visco-plastic creep and permeability of sub-bi- compressibility for CBM/ECBM in Chinese coals. Energy
tuminous coal. American Rock Mechanics Association, Explorat Exploit 30:451–476
San Francisco Zhu WC, Wei CH, Liu J, Xu T, Elsworth D (2013) Impact of gas
Ye Z, Zhang L, Hao D, Zhang C, Wang C (2017) Experimental adsorption induced coal matrix damage on the evolution of
study on the response characteristics of coal permeability coal permeability. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:1353–1366
to pore pressure under loading and unloading conditions.
J Geophys Eng 14:115–124
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
Young GBC, McElhiney JE, Dhir R, Mavor MJ, Anbouba IKA
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
(1991) Coal bed methane production potential of the rock
institutional affiliations.
springs formation, Great Divide Basin, Sweetwater
County, Wyoming. Presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Houston, Texas
123