Simulation of Deep-Coalbed-Methane Permeability and Production Assuming Variable Pore-Volume Compressibility
- Robert R. Tonnsen (QEP Resources) | Jennifer Miskimins (Colorado School of Mines)
- Document ID
- Society of Petroleum Engineers
- Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
- Publication Date
- May 2011
- Document Type
- Journal Paper
- 23 - 31
- 2011. Society of Petroleum Engineers
- 5.8.3 Coal Seam Gas
- coalbed methane (CBM), pore volume compressibility
- 1 in the last 30 days
- 981 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
|SPE Member Price:||USD 5.00|
|SPE Non-Member Price:||USD 35.00|
One of the horizons of interest for future unconventional-resource development is deep- (> 5,000 ft) coalbed-methane (CBM) production. Unfortunately, coal permeability is highly sensitive to changes in stress, leading to the belief of limited permeability in deep coals. However, this conclusion is generally based on the assumption of constant pore-volume (PV) compressibility of a coal's porosity/cleat system during changing stress conditions.
Modelling the evolution of permeability within potential deep coal reservoirs is highly dependent on this assumption of constant or variable PV compressibility. This paper shows how this assumption affects modelled permeability changes and that permeability in deep coals may maintain much higher values during production than previously suggested. Using prior work and data, ideas are reorganized into an alternative view of deep-CBM permeability.
The modelled compressibility and permeability results are then applied to the simulation of deep-CBM reservoirs to discover the practical difference of the compressibility assumption on a coal's simulated production. Simulations show significant difference in production based on the two assumptions. Application of the simulation results may provide a justification for exploration into deeper CBM reservoirs.
|File Size||941 KB||Number of Pages||9|
Cui, X. and Bustin, R.M. 2005. Volumetric strain associated with methanedesorption and its impact on coalbed gas production from deep coal seams.AAPG Bulletin 89 (9): 1181-1202. doi:10.1306/05110504114.
Gilman, A. and Beckie, R. 2000. Flow of Coalbed Methane to a Gallery.Transport in Porous Media 41 (1): 1-16. doi:10.1023/A:1006754108197.
Gray, I. 1987. Reservoir Engineering in Coal Seams: Part 1--The PhysicalProcess of Gas Storage and Movement in Coal Seams. SPE Res Eng 2 (1): 28-34. SPE-12514-PA. doi: 10.2118/12514-PA.
Harpalani, S. and Schraufnagel, R.A. 1990. Influence of Matrix Shrinkage andCompressibility on Gas Production From Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. Paper SPE20729 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, NewOrleans, 23-26 September. doi:10.2118/20729-MS.
Jones, F.O. Jr. 1975. A Laboratory Study of the Effects of ConfiningPressure on Fracture Flow and Storage Capacity in Carbonate Rocks. J PetTechnol 27 (1): 21-27. SPE-4569-PA. doi: 10.2118/4569-PA.
Kuuskraa, V.A. and Wyman, R.E. 1993. Deep Coal Seams: An Overlooked Sourcefor Long-Term Natural Gas Supplies. Paper SPE 26196 presented at the SPE GasTechnology Symposium, Calgary, 28-30 June. doi: 10.2118/26196-MS.
Laubach, S.E., Marret, R.A., Olson, J.E., and Scott, A.R. 1998.Characteristics and origins of coal cleat: A review. International Journalof Coal Geology 35 (1-4): 175-207. doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00012-8.
Mavor, M.J. and Gunter, W.D. 2006. Secondary Porosity and Permeability ofCoal vs. Gas Composition and Pressure. SPE Res Eval & Eng 9 (2): 114-125. SPE-90255-PA. doi: 10.2118/90255-PA.
McKee, C.R., Bumb, A.C., and Koenig, R.A. 1988. Stress-DependentPermeability and Porosity of Coal and Other Geologic Formations. SPE FormEval 3 (1): 81-91. SPE-12858-PA. doi: 10.2118/12858-PA.
Nelson, C.R. 2003. Deep Coalbed Gas Plays in the U.S. Rocky Mountain Region.Presented at the AAPG Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 11-14 May.
Norwest Corporation. 2005. Coalbed Methane Reservoir Analysis. TechnicalReport, Norwest Questa Engineering, Golden, Colorado (14 April 2005).
Norwest Corporation. 2006. CBM Reservoir Simulation. Short Course, NorwestQuesta Engineering, Golden, Colorado (May 2006).
Olson, T.M. 2003. White River Dome Field: Gas Production from Deep Coals andSandstones of the Cretaceous Williams Fork Formation. In Piceance Basin 2003Guidebook, ed. K.M. Peterson, T.M. Olson, and D.S. Anderson, Chap. 9, 155-169.Denver, Colorado: RMAG.
Palmer, I. and Mansoori, J. 1998. How Permeability Depends on Stress andPore Pressure in Coalbeds: A New Model. SPE Res Eval & Eng 1 (6): 539-544. SPE-52607-PA. doi: 10.2118/52607-PA.
Robertson, E.P. 2005. Measurement and modeling of sorption-induced strainand permeability changes in coal. PhD dissertation, Colorado School of Mines,Golden, Colorado.
Rose, R.E. and Foh, S.E. 1984 Liquid Permeability of Coal as a Function ofNet Stress. Paper SPE 12856 presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas RecoverySymposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 13-15 May. doi: 10.2118/12856-MS.
Seidle, J.P., Jeansonne, D.J., and Erickson, D.J. 1992. Application ofMatchstick Geometry To Stress Dependent Permeability in Coals. Paper SPE 24361presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, USA,18-21 May. doi:10.2118/24361-MS.
Shi, J.Q. and Durucan, S. 2004. Drawdown Induced Changes in Permeability ofCoalbeds: A New Interpretation of the Reservoir Response to Primary Recovery.Transport in Porous Media 56 (1): 1-16. doi:10.1023/B:TIPM.0000018398.19928.5a.
Shi, J.-Q. and Durucan, S. 2005. A Model for Changes in Coalbed Permeabilityduring Primary and Enhanced Methane Recovery. SPE Res Eval & Eng 8 (4). SPE-87230-PA. doi: 10.2118/87230-PA.
Somerton, W.H., Soylemezoglu, I.M., and Dudley, R.C. 1975. Effect of Stresson the Permeability of Coal. Intl. J. Rock Mechanics Mineral Science andGeomechanics Abstracts 12 (5-6): 129-45. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(75)91244-9.
Tonnsen, R.R. 2006. A Study of the Relationships Between Permeability,Stress, and Pore Volume Compressibility in Deep Coalbed Methane Environments.MS thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.