A Model for Changes in Coalbed Permeability During Primary and Enhanced Methane Recovery
- Ji-Quan Shi (Imperial College of Science) | S. Durucan (Imperial College)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
- Publication Date
- August 2005
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 291 - 299
- 2005. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 4.3.4 Scale, 5.4 Enhanced Recovery, 5.8.6 Naturally Fractured Reservoir, 5.5.8 History Matching, 4.6 Natural Gas, 1.2.3 Rock properties, 5.5 Reservoir Simulation, 5.4.2 Gas Injection Methods, 5.8.3 Coal Seam Gas, 5.1.5 Geologic Modeling, 4.1.5 Processing Equipment, 1.2.2 Geomechanics, 5.10.1 CO2 Capture and Sequestration
- 7 in the last 30 days
- 2,106 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 12.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
The natural fracture network of a dual-porosity coalbed reservoir is made upof two sets of orthogonal, and usually subvertically oriented, cleats. Coalbedpermeability has been shown to vary exponentially with changes in the effectivehorizontal stress acting across the cleats through the cleat-volumecompressibility, which is analogous to pore compressibility in porous rocks. Aformulation for changes in the effective horizontal stress of coalbeds duringprimary methane recovery, which includes a Langmuir type curve shrinkage term,has been proposed previously. This paper presents a new version of the stressformulation by making a direct link between the volumetric matrix strain andthe amount of gas desorbed. The resulting permeability model can be extendedreadily to account for adsorption-induced matrix swelling as well as matrixshrinkage during enhanced methane recovery involving the injection of an inertgas or gas mixture into the seams. The permeability model is validated againsta recently published pressure-dependent permeability multiplier curverepresentative of the San Juan basin coalbeds at post-dewatering productionstages. The extended permeability model is then applied successfully to historymatching a micropilot test involving the injection of flue gas (consistingmainly of CO2 and N2) at the Fenn Big Valley, Alberta, Canada.
Over the past 2 decades, coalbed methane (CBM) has become an importantsource of the (unconventional) natural gas supply in the U.S. On the basis ofthis experience, CBM has attracted worldwide attention in recent years as apotential clean energy source. Current commercial CBM production occurs almostexclusively through reservoir-pressure depletion, which is simple butconsidered to be rather inefficient, with an estimated total recovery ofgenerally around 50% (this figure appears to be pessimistic; mature coal playsin the U.S. have now seen recovery of 60 to 80%) of the gas in place. In recentyears, enhanced CBM (ECBM) recovery techniques have been proposed as a moreefficient means for the recovery of a larger fraction of methane inplace.
There are two principal variants of ECBM recovery, namely N2 and CO2injection, which use two distinct mechanisms to enhance methane desorption andproduction. Unlike the primary recovery method, ECBM allows the maintenance ofreservoir pressure. The mechanism used in N2 injection is somewhat similar toinert gas stripping because nitrogen is less adsorbing than methane. Injectionof nitrogen reduces the partial pressure of methane in the reservoir, thuspromoting methane desorption without lowering the total reservoir pressure. Onthe other hand, CO2 injection works on a different mechanism because it is moreadsorbing on coal compared with methane. Carbon dioxide ECBM recovery thus hasan added benefit that a potentially large volume of greenhouse gas can besequestrated in deep coal seams globally.
|File Size||545 KB||Number of Pages||9|
1. Reeves, S.R.: "GeologicalSequestration of CO2 in Deep, Unmineable Coalbeds: An Integrated Research andCommercial-Scale Field Demonstration Project," paper SPE 71749 presented atthe 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30September-3 October.
2. Reeves, S. et al.: "The Allison Unit CO2-ECBM Pilot: A Reservoir ModelingStudy", Topical Report, U.S. Dept. of Energy, DE-FC26-0NT40924 (February2003).
3. McGovern, M.: "Allison Unit CO2 Flood," presented at the 2004 SPE AppliedTechnology Workshop on Enhanced CBM Recovery and CO2 Sequestration, Denver,28-29 October.
4. Mavor, M.J., Gunter, W.D., and Robinson, J.R.: "Alberta Multiwell Micro-Pilot Testingfor CBM Properties, Enhanced Recovery and CO2 Storage Potential," paper SPE90256 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,Houston, 26-29 September.
5. Somerton, W.H., Soylemezoglu, I.M., and Dudley, R.C.: "Effect of Stresson Permeability of Coal to Gas and Water," Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &Geomech. Absr. (1975) 12, 129.
6. Durucan, S. and Edwards, J.S.: "The Effects of Stress and Fracturing onPermeability of Coal," Mining Science and Technology (1986) 3, 205.
7. Mckee, C.R., Bumb, A.C., and Koenig, R.A.: "Stress-Dependent Permeabilityand Porosity of Coal," Proc., Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama(16-19 November 1987) 183.
8. Seidle, J.P., Jeansonne, M.W., and Erickson, D.J.: "Application of Matchstick Geometry toStress Dependent Permeability in Coals," paper SPE 24361 presented at the1992 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, 18-21 May.
9. Gray, I.: "ReservoirEngineering in Coal Seams: Part 1—The Physical Process of Gas Storage andMovement in Coal Seams," SPERE (February 1987) 28.
10. Pekot, L.J. and Reeves, S.R.: "Modeling the Effects of Matrix Shrinkageand Differential Swelling on Coalbed Methane Recovery and CarbonSequestration," paper 0328 presented at the 2003 Intl. Coalbed MethaneSymposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama (5-9 May).
11. Palmer, I. and Mansoori, J.: "How Permeability Depends on Stressand Pore Pressure in Coalbeds: A New Model," SPEREE (December 1998)539.
12. Mavor, M.J. and Vaughn, J.E.: "Increasing Coal Absolute Permeabilityin the San Juan Basin Fruitland Formation," SPEREE (June 1998) 201.
13. Harpalani, S. and Chen, G.: "Estimation of Changes in Fracture Porosityof Coal with Gas Emission," Fuel (1995) 74, No. 10, 1491.
14. Seidle, J.P. and Huitt, L.G.: "Experimental Measurement of CoalMatrix Shrinkage Due to Gas Desorption and Implications for Cleat PermeabilityIncreases," paper SPE 30010 presented at the 1995 SPE International Meetingon Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, 14-17 November.
15. Levine, J.R.: "Model Study of the Influence of Matrix Shrinkage onAbsolute Permeability Coal Bed Reservoirs," Coalbed Methane and Coal Geology,R. Gayer and I. Harris (eds.), Geological Soc. Special Publication No. 109,London (1996) 197.
16. Mavor, M.J. and Gunter, W.D.: "Secondary Porosity and Permeabilityof Coal vs. Gas Composition and Pressure," paper SPE 90255 presented at the2004 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 26-29September.
17. Shi, J.-Q. and Durucan, S.: "Drawdown Induced Changes in Permeability ofCoalbeds: A New Interpretation of the Reservoir Response to Primary Recovery,Transport in Porous Media (2004) 56, 1.
18. Puri, R. and Seidle, J.: "Measurement of Stress Dependent Permeabilityin Coals and Its Influence on Coalbed Methane Production," paper presented atthe 1991 Intl. Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama (13-16 May)415.
19. Palmer, I.: "Geomechanics and Permeability Changes," presented at the2004 SPE Applied Technology Workshop on Enhanced CBM Recovery and CO2Sequestration, Denver, 28-29 October.
20. Cui, X.: "Sequestration by Sorption on Organic Matter," paper presentedat the third Intl. Forum on Geologic Sequestration of CO2 in Deep, UnminableCoalseams (Coal-Seq III), Baltimore, Maryland (25-26 March 2004);http://www.coal-seq.com/Forum_III.htm.
21. Law, D.H.-S., van der Meer, L.H.G., and Gunter, W.D.: "Comparison ofNumerical Simulators for Greenhouse Gas Storage in Coalbeds, Part II: Flue GasInjection," Proc., GHGT6, Kyoto, Japan (1-4 October 2002).
22. Law, D.H.-S., van der Meer, L.H.G., and Gunter, W.D.: "Comparison ofNumerical Simulators for Greenhouse Gas Storage in Coalbeds, Part IV: HistoryMatching of Field Micro-Pilot Test Data," Proc., 7th Intl. Conference onGreenhouse Gas Control Technologies, E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith, and C.F. Gilboy(eds.), IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme, Cheltenham, U.K. (2004).
23. Shi, J.Q. and Durucan, S.: "A Numerical Simulation Study of the AllisonUnit CO2-ECBM Pilot: The Impact of Matrix Shrinkage and Swelling on ECBMProduction and CO2 Injectivity," Proc., 7th Intl. Conference on Greenhouse GasControl Technologies; Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations,E.S. Rubin, D.W. Keith, and C.F. Gilboy (eds.), IEA Greenhouse Gas Programme,Cheltenham, U.K. (2004).