A Coalbed Methane Simulator Designed for the Independent Producers

Jalal Jalali



Thesis submitted to the
College of Engineering and Mineral Resources
at West Virginia University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of



Master of Science
in
Petroleum & Natural Gas Engineering



Shahab D. Mohaghegh, Ph.D., Chair
James Ammer
Sam Ameri

Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering



Morgantown, West Virginia
2004









Keywords: Reservoir Simulation, Coalbed Methane, Desorption, Jacobian Matrix
UMI Number: 1423995
1423995
2005
UMI Microform
Copyright
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
ABSTRACT

A Coalbed Methane Simulator Designed for the
Independent Producers

Jalal Jalali


The purpose of this study is to build a PC-Windows based model for two-phase one-
dimension water & gas system based on the formulation of the model developed by King
and Ertekin in 1985. This model is written in Visual Basic 6.0. The advantage of this
model over the King and Ertekins model is the ability of running the model on personal
computers, graphical abilities for input and output, and solving the matrices using an
internal solver instead of using a commercial solver. The advantage of this model over
other existing models is its ease of to use and being inexpensive that makes this model
attractive especially to the independent producers. Fully implicit, generalized Newton-
Raphson procedure was used to solve the nonlinear equations and Gaussian elimination
was used to solve the Jacobian matrix.

iii
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my advisor and committee chairman, Dr.
Shahab D. Mohaghegh, for his guidance and patience throughout my study that without
his help, this study could not have been done. I would also like to thank him for giving
me the opportunity to come to West Virginia University and study under his supervision.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my committee members Sam Ameri and
James Ammer for their guidance and patience throughout my study.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Razi Gaskari for his guidance and
patience throughout my study in West Virginia University.
Finally, I would like to thank my family who has always supported me and provided
me the situation to come to West Virginia University.

iv
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ......................................................................... i
Table of Contents .......................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................. vi
List of Figures............................................................................... vii
Chapter I Introduction.................................................................. 1
I-1 Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................... 3
Chapter II Literature Review....................................................... 4
II-1 Coal Gas................................................................................................................... 6
II-1-1 Coal Seams as Natural Gas Reservoirs............................................................. 6
II-2 Review of Mathematical Models......................................... 14
II-2-1 Empirical Sorption Models................................................................................. 15
II-2-1-1 Aireys First Model ..................................................................................... 15
II-2-1-2 Decline Curves ............................................................................................ 16
II-2-1-3 Lindine et al. Model .................................................................................... 17
II-2-1-4 McFall et al. Model ..................................................................................... 18
II-2-2 Equilibrium Sorption Models ............................................................................. 20
II-2-2-1 Aireys Second Model and Kissells Model ............................................... 20
II-2-2-2 Bumbs Model, McKee and Bumbs Model, and Bumb and McKees Model
................................................................................................................................... 21
II-2-2-3 Gorbachev et al.s Model, Karagodin and Krigmans Model, and
Vorozhtsov et al.s Model......................................................................................... 26
II-2-3 Non-Equilibrium Sorption Models................................................................. 28
II-2-4 Unsteady State Models ................................................................................... 31
Chapter III Methodology............................................................ 33
III-1 Macropore Transport Equations in Radial Coordinate System............................ 34
III-1-1 Single-Phase Gas Equation ........................................................................... 35
III-1-2 Single-Phase Conventional Gas Equation..................................................... 40
III-1-3 Two-Phase Gas Equation .............................................................................. 40
III-1-4 Two-Phase Water Production........................................................................ 41
III-1-5 Auxiliary Macropore Equations .................................................................... 43
III-1-6 Diffusion/Sorption Model ............................................................................. 44
III-1-7 Initial and Boundary Conditions ................................................................... 52
III-1-8 Single-Phase Gas Model ............................................................................... 52
III-1-9 Two-Phase Water and Gas Model................................................................. 53
III-2 Macropore Transport Equations in Elliptical Coordinate System........................ 55
III-2-1 Single-Phase Gas Equation ........................................................................... 55
III-2-2 Single-Phase Conventional Gas Equation..................................................... 55
III-2-3 Two-Phase Gas Equation .............................................................................. 56
III-2-4 Two-Phase Water Equation........................................................................... 56
III-3 Finite-Difference Calculus ................................................................................... 57
III-3-1 Finite-Difference Operators .......................................................................... 57

v
III-3-2 Backward-Difference Operator ..................................................................... 57
III-3-3 Central-Difference Operator ......................................................................... 58
III-4 Explicit and Implicit ............................................................................................. 59
III-5 Grid Systems......................................................................................................... 60
III-5-1 Cylindrical Grid Systems .............................................................................. 60
III-5-2 Elliptical Grid Systems.................................................................................. 62
III-6 Finite Difference Approximation ......................................................................... 64
III-6-1 Macropore Transport Equations.................................................................... 64
III-6-2 Micropore Transport Equation...................................................................... 72
III-6-3 Initial and Boundary Conditions ................................................................... 75
III-6-3-1 Initial Conditions ....................................................................................... 75
III-6-3-2 External Boundary Conditions................................................................... 75
III-6-3-3 Internal Boundary Conditions.................................................................... 75
III-7 Solution Procedure ............................................................................................... 76
III-7-1 Newton-Raphson Procedure.......................................................................... 76
Chapter IV Results & Discussion............................................... 82
IV-1 Enhancements of CBM-SWRM to King & Ertekins Model............................... 82
IV-2 Comparison of the Results with Published Data and Commercial Simulators .... 98
IV-2-1 Comparison with Published Data.................................................................. 98
IV-2-2 Comparison with Commercial Models ....................................................... 112
IV-3 Sensitivity Analysis.117
IV-3-1 Macropore Porosity..................................................................................... 118
IV-3-2 Rock Permeability....................................................................................... 120
IV-3-3 Gas Content................................................................................................. 122
IV-3-4 Sorption Time ............................................................................................. 124
IV-3-5 Drainage Area ............................................................................................. 129
Chapter V Conclusion ............................................................... 131


vi
List of Tables


TABLE II-1 COMPOSITION OF GAS FROM SEVERAL DOMESTIC SEAMS, MOL% (COMPILED
BY JONES ET AL.) 6
TABLE II-1 COMPOSITION OF GAS FROM SEVERAL DOMESTIC SEAMS, MOL% (COMPILED
BY JONES ET AL.) 6
TABLE III-1. MICROPORE MATRIX GEOMETRIES, PREFACTORS, AND SHAPE FACTORS
(AFTER BOYER ET AL.) 49
TABLE III-2 VALUE OF BULK VOLUME AND GEOMETRIC PREFACTORS USED IN THE
CYLINDRICAL FINITE DIFFERENCE EQUATIONS. 69
TABLE III-3 VALUE OF BULK VOLUME AND GEOMETRIC PREFACTORS USED IN THE
ELLIPTICAL FINITE DIFFERENCE EQUATIONS. 69
TABLE IV-1 INPUT DATA FOR CBM-SWRM 99
TABLE IV-2 INPUT DATA FOR CBM-SWRM FOR HISTORY MATCH 109
TABLE IV-3 INPUT DATA USED IN CBM-SWRM AND CMG 113
TABLE IV-4 ADDITIONAL INPUT DATA USED IN CMG 116
TABLE IV-5 INPUT DATA USED IN CBM-SWRM 117
TABLE IV-6 INPUT DATA FOR CBM-SWRM 125


vii
List of Figures


FIGURE II-1 PLAN VIEW OF THE DUAL POROSITY NATURE OF COAL 7
FIGURE II-2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RANK, DEPTH, AND SORPTIVE CAPACITY (AFTER
KIM) 9
FIGURE II-3 THREE STAGE GAS TRANSPORT IN COALBED METHANE 10
FIGURE II-4 RESIDUAL GAS CONTENT AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH (AFTER HINSLEY ET AL.)
18
FIGURE II-5 GAS CONTENT VERSUS DEPTH AND RANK FOR PICEANCE BASIN COALS
(AFTER MCFALL ET AL.) 19
FIGURE III-1. RESERVOIR MODEL FOR COAL SEAMS 33
FIGURE III-2. SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE DUAL MECHANISM APPROACH TO
SLIP FLOW 37
FIGURE II-3. TYPICAL LANGMUIR SORPTION ISOTHERM 46
FIGURE II-4. COMPARISON OF THE PSEUDOSTEADY STATE DIFFUSION/SORPTION AND THE
UNSTEADY STATE DIFFUSION/SORPTION MODEL FOR SLAB MATRIX SUBELEMENTS
50
FIGURE II-5. COMPARISON OF THE PSEUDOSTEADY STATE DIFFUSION/SORPTION AND THE
UNSTEADY STATE DIFFUSION/SORPTION MODEL FOR SPHERE MATRIX
SUBELEMENTS 51
FIGURE III-6 TYPICAL GRID SYSTEM FOR AN UNSTIMULATED, DRAINAGE WELL MODELED
IN CYLINDRICAL COORDINATES 61
FIGURE III-7 TYPICAL GRID SYSTEM FOR STIMULATED, VERTICAL DRAINAGE WELL
MODELED IN ELLIPTICAL COORDINATES 62
FIGURE III-8 BAND STRUCTURE OF JACOBIAN MATRIX 80
FIGURE IV-1 INTERFACE OF CBM-SWRM 84
FIGURE IV-2 MENU OF THE CBM-SWRM 85
FIGURE IV-3 CBM-SWRM INTERFACE. TWO TABS FOR ENTERING RESERVOIR PROPERTIES
86
FIGURE IV-4 GAS PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION SHOWN IN CBM-SWRM DURING SIMULATION
PROCESS 87
FIGURE IV-5 GAS PRODUCTION, GAS DESORPTION, AND WATER PRODUCTION SHOWN
GRAPHICALLY IN CBM-SWRM 88
FIGURE IV-6 CUMULATIVE GAS AND WATER PRODUCTION SHOWN IN CBM-SWRM 89
FIGURE IV-6 CUMULATIVE GAS AND WATER PRODUCTION SHOWN IN CBM-SWRM 89
FIGURE IV-7 PERCENTAGE OF CUMULATIVE GAS PRODUCED VS. OGIP SHOWN IN CBM-
SWRM 90
FIGURE IV-8 RESERVE ESTIMATION IN CBM-SWRM 91
FIGURE IV-9 BUILDING BATCH FILE IN CBM-SWRM 92
FIGURE IV-10 SHAPE OF UNIFORM PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION 93
FIGURE IV-11 SHAPE OF UNIFORM PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION 93
FIGURE IV-12 SHAPE OF TRIANGULAR PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION 94
FIGURE IV-13 SHAPE OF UNIFORM PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION 94
FIGURE IV-14 SHAPE OF UNIFORM PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION 94
FIGURE IV-15 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE WINDOW FOR SCHEDULING THE PRODUCTION OF
THE WELL 95
FIGURE IV-16 GAS PRODUCTION OF A WELL WHEN IT HAS BEEN SHUT-IN FOUR TIMES AND
WHEN IT PRODUCES CONTINUOUSLY 96
FIGURE IV-17 GAS PRODUCTION OF THE WELL WHICH HAS STARTED PRODUCING AFTER
IT HAS BEEN SHUT-IN FOR A FEW DAYS 97
FIGURE IV-18 RESULTS FROM KING AND ERTEKINS MODEL 100
FIGURE IV-19 RESULTS FROM CBM-SWRM 100
FIGURE IV-20 RESULTS FROM KING AND ERTEKINS MODEL, GRAPHS 1 & 7 102

viii
FIGURE IV-21 RESULTS FROM CBM-SWRM FOR 75-FT FRACTURE WITH INFINITE-
CONDUCTIVITY 102
FIGURE IV-22 RESULTS FROM KING AND ERTEKINS MODEL 103
FIGURE IV-23 RESULTS FROM CBM-SWRM FOR 75-FRACTURE WITH INFINITE-
CONDUCTIVITY 104
FIGURE IV-24 COMPARISON OF THE RECTANGULAR, ELLIPTICAL/CYLINDRICAL MODELS
FOR INFINITE-CONDUCTIVITY FRACTURE 105
FIGURE IV-25 RESULTS FROM CBM-SWRM FOR 200-FT FRACTURE WITH INFINITE-
CONDUCTIVITY 106
FIGURE IV-26 RESULTS FROM CBM-SWRM FOR 200-FT FRACTURE WITH INFINITE-
CONDUCTIVITY 106
FIGURE IV-27 RESULTS FROM KING AND ERTEKINS MODEL FOR 200-FT FRACTURE WITH
INFINITE-CONDUCTIVITY 107
FIGURE IV-28 GAS PRODUCTION USING CBM-SWRM 110
FIGURE IV-29 WATER PRODUCTION USING CBM-SWRM 110
FIGURE IV-30 WATER AND GAS PRODUCTION FROM MARY LEE COAL GROUP AND KING
AND ERTEKINS MODEL 111
FIGURE IV-31 GAS FLOW RATE PREDICTED WITH CMG AND CBM-SWRM 114
FIGURE IV-32 WATER FLOW RATE PREDICTED WITH CMG AND CBM-SWRM 115
FIGURE IV-33 GAS FLOW RATE PLOTS FOR DIFFERENT POROSITIES 118
FIGURE IV-34 WATER FLOW RATE PLOTS FOR DIFFERENT POROSITIES 119
FIGURE IV-35 GAS FLOW RATE PLOTS FOR PERMEABILITIES 10, 25, AND 40 MD 120
FIGURE IV-36 WATER FLOW RATE PLOTS FOR PERMEABILITIES 10, 25, AND 40 MD 121
FIGURE IV-37 EFFECT OF COAL GAS CONTENT ON GAS FLOW RATE 122
FIGURE IV-38 EFFECT OF COAL GAS CONTENT ON GAS PRODUCTION 123
FIGURE IV-39 EFFECT OF SORPTION TIME ON GAS PRODUCTION 126
FIGURE IV-40 EFFECT OF SORPTION TIME ON WATER PRODUCTION 127
FIGURE IV-41 EFFECT OF DRAINAGE AREA ON THE GAS FLOW RATE 129
FIGURE IV-42 EFFECT OF DRAINAGE AREA ON WATER FLOW RATE 130



1
Chapter I Introduction

Coalbed Methane (CBM) is becoming a significant portion of the US gas resource
and is gaining importance in Australia, China, Indonesia and Europe. CBM reserves in
the United States are estimated at some 450 Tscf. In Australia, CBM resources exceed
300 Tscf, while China has a resource potential greater than the United States and
Australia combined. Recent advances in well design and production technology offer
scope to significantly increase the proportion of gas contained in coal that can be
commercialized. However, a different mindset to that applied to conventional gas
development is necessary for both producers and customers if the full potential of this
vast resource is to be realized.
1

Until few years ago, coal-mining practice was to vent the methane associated with
coal into the atmosphere. Obviously, this was a waste of a valuable natural resource. So it
was important to find ways to produce this gas. Due to complexity of the coal as a
reservoir and different mechanism of gas storage in coal, conventional methods are not
applicable to coalbed methane reservoirs. This makes production prediction from CBM
reservoir quite challenging. Type curve analysis can be applied to CBM production after
the reservoir Pseudo-Steady State. Simulation can also be performed for CBM reservoirs,
but the conventional simulators do not apply for CBM due to dual-porosity system of
coal. Gas is stored in CBM reservoirs due adsorption, therefore the storage mechanism
should be modified in conventional models to account for gas storage in CBM reservoirs.
The software presented in this study has the ability of modeling a CBM reservoir, with a
dual-porosity method in a radial coordinate system.
The purpose of building this software is to build an easy to use and inexpensive
simulator for Coalbed Methane reservoir modeling.
The formulation of this model is based on King and Ertekin model developed in
1985. The advantage of this model over King and Ertekin model is the ability of using
this model on personal computers. Also, the interface and graphical representation of
results makes it easier to build a model and observe the results interactively. Being an

2
easy to use and inexpensive model, is another advantage of this model over the existing
models especially for independent operators.
The models described in this study are single well models in both cylindrical and
elliptical coordinate systems. The fully implicit, generalized Newton-Raphson procedure
was used to solve the nonlinear equations generated by the model. Gaussian elimination
was used to solve the Jacobian matrix generated by the model.
Unlike King & Ertekins model that had used a commercial mathematical library to
solve the resulting matrices, a new code was written, tested and verified that would solve
the matrices internally without the need for a commercial solver.

3
I-1 Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this project was to develop a PC-Windows-Based Model (Single-
Well-Radial-Model) for two-phase water and gas in conventional and unconventional
Reservoirs. The formulation of this simulator is based on the model developed by
Gregory King and Turgay Ertekin in 1985. Conventional and unconventional reservoirs
can be modeled using this simulator.

4
Chapter II Literature Review

For many years, CBM was a mining safety problem, and many people were trying to
find ways to vent methane from the mine before mining. Over the last decade, there have
been studies on CBM as an unconventional resource. In addition, decreasing the venting
of CBM to the atmosphere from coal mines may help to reduce global warming.
2

The presence of explosive gases, especially methane, in coal seams has motivated
research in the U.S. in the past decade. Chamberlain and Darton conducted early research
for the United States Department of the Interior, beginning in 1907, which outlines the
basic mechanisms of methane entrapment and migration. With the inception of the
United States Bureau of Mines in 1910, a government body with the sole concern of
promoting safe and efficient recovery of underground resources was created. Many
studies were conducted on the control of methane emissions under this bureau.
3
In 1928, Rice suggested the use of vertical drainage boreholes to vent methane from
coal seams prior to mining operations. For the next 40 years, expensive ventilation
systems and reduced mining rates were standard methods of controlling methane
emissions.

In 1964, the Bureau of Mines began an extensive investigation of the coal seam
degasification process. This investigation was prompted by the increased mining activity
in deeper, gassier coal seams. Three major advantages of the degasification process were
increases in mining safety, increases in mining rate, and decreases of mining costs.

Another advantage of the degasification process was realized in the early 1970s,
which was the production of a valuable natural resource-methane. With the addition of
section 107 of the 1978 Natural Gas Policy Act, where unconventional gas producers
receive tax credit to produce natural gas, other factors will enhance future gas production
from coal seams. These are:

1. There are many producible coal seams in the eastern United States close to
pipelines and markets.
2. Most major U.S. coal deposits are thought to have been discovered prior to or
during the industrial revolution. These seams are well characterized and
exploration costs, therefore, would be minimal.

5
3. Many major domestic coal seams are shallow (depths 1000 ft), therefore,
drilling costs would be minimal.
4. Drilling, completion, and stimulation technology are already well developed.
5. Coal seam methane is generally sweet, requiring only dewatering, metering, and
compressing facilities at the surface.
Over the past decade, in the United States, coalbed methane (CBM) has become an
increasingly important unconventional resource, which also includes gas shales and tight
gas sands.
Because of different storage and fluid flow mechanisms in coalbed methane
reservoirs from other conventional reservoirs and because of different structural
characteristics of coal from other reservoir rocks, past methods used to forecast the
production of a conventional reservoir cannot be applied to coalbed methane reservoirs.
Therefore, new methods should be built to enable the prediction of gas production from
coalbed methane.




6
II-1 Coal Gas


Coal gas is a by-product of the physical and chemical reactions associated with
the coaliffication process (the process by which vegetable matter is converted to coal).
Consequently, this makes coal seam reservoirs different than conventional gas reservoirs,
in that the coal seam is both the source rock and the reservoir rock for the gas. As much
as 46 MSCF of gas can be liberated during the formation of one ton of coal.

Coal gas is primarily composed of methane with small amounts of some other
gases. The compositions of gases from several coal seams are presented in Table II-1.
Samples of gas from virgin coal seams yield calorific values ranging from 900 to 1075
B.T.U./SCF, making them of commercial quality with little processing.


II-1-1 Coal Seams as Natural Gas Reservoirs

II-1-1-1 Pore Structures

Coal seams are generally characterized by a dual porosity nature, in which they
contain both a micropore (primary porosity) and a macropore (fracture porosity) system.
The micropores have a diameter ranging from five to ten angstroms (1 A = 10
-10
m)

and
exist in the coal matrix between the seams cleat (uniformly spaced natural fractures).
Due to the dimensions of the pores, the micropore system is inaccessible to water.

Table II-1 Composition of gas from several domestic seams, mol% (compiled by Jones et al.)
3












7
The macropore system is made up of the volume occupied by the cleat. The cleat spacing
is very uniform, ranging from a fraction of an inch to several inches. Two types of cleats
are present in coal: the face cleat and the butt cleat. The face cleat is continuous
throughout the seam, while the butt cleat in many cases is discontinuous, ending at an
intersection with the face cleat. Generally, the face and butt cleat intersect at right angles.
The width of the macropores varies on the order of angstroms to microns (1 m = 10
-6

m). There does not appear to be any transitory pores between the two systems. The total
effective porosity to water is usually less than two percent, while the effective porosity to
free gas in the same coal may be as high as ten percent. This discrepancy is due to the
inaccessibility of the macropore system to water. Figure 2 is a schematic representation
of the pore structures in coal.

Figure II-1 Plan view of the dual porosity nature of coal
4







8
II-1-1-2 Gas Storage

Because of the small micropore dimensions, the coal matrix will have a large
internal surface area. Two storage mechanisms are possible for methane storage in the
internal surface of the matrix. The first mechanism of entrapment occurs when the gas
molecule penetrates the surface and resides within the molecular lattice of the coal. This
is an absorption process. The second mechanism occurs when the gas molecule adheres
to the surface. This is an adsorption process. Both storage mechanisms are theorized to
occur in coal.
The adsorption process can be classified by the forces, which cause the gas
molecule to adhere to the surface. If these forces are chemical in nature, such as strong
chemical bonding, then the process is a chemisorption process. If, however, the forces are
physical, such as electrostatic forces or Van der Waals forces, the process is a physical
adsorption process. The major portion of the gas stored in coal exists as a physically
adsorbed, molecular monolayer.

Theoretically, the physical adsorption process is reversible. In coal, however, a
small degree of adsorption and chemisorption occurs along with the physical adsorption.
Consequently, a hysteresis effect is often observed between experimentally determined
adsorption and desorption isotherms.
Although no general correlation exists, it has been observed that the sorptive
capacity of coal tends to increase with increasing rank (a measure of the coals chemical
structure) and increasing depth. Figure 3 shows the relationship between rank, depth, and
sorptive capacity. Also, the sorptive capacity tends to decrease with increasing water
content.
Along with the adsorbed gas, free gas exists in both the micropores and
macropores of the coal seam. The relative contribution of the free and adsorbed gas to the
overall storage is dependent on the seam.


9





























Figure II-2 Relationship between rank, depth, and sorptive capacity (after Kim)
3




10
II-1-1-3 Gas Transport

The transport of methane through coal matrix is considered a three stage process.
With water production and corresponding pressure decline, gas is being produced from
the fractures due to pressure gradient. With producing the gas from the fractures, gas
starts desorbing from the matrix walls into the fractures. With desorbing the gas from the
matrix into the fracture, there will be a concentration gradient inside the matrix which
causes the gas diffuse from inside the matrix to the matrix walls. This process is governed
by concentration gradient. In the last stage, gas moves through the cleat system to the
drainage wells. This process is governed by the pressure gradient. Thus, the cleat acts
both as a sink to the micropore system and as a conduit to the wells. Figure below shows
the three-stage process.

Figure II-3 Three stage Gas Transport in Coalbed Methane
5

Based on Scott and Dullien review on the mechanisms of gas transport in porous
media, if a pore channel has a diameter which is much greater than the mean free path of
the gas molecules, then the gas will flow by Poiseuille flow (forced flow) if it is subjected
to a total pressure gradient, by bulk diffusion if it is subjected to a partial pressure
(concentration) gradient, or by two dimensional surface diffusion if an adsorbed layer is
present.
If the diameter of the pore channel is small compared to the mean free path, then
the gas will flow by Knudsen diffusion (molecular streaming) if it is subjected to either a
total or partial pressure gradient.

11
The critical value of pore diameter of the medium in order to have forced flow
(due to pressure gradient) is four times larger than the diameter of the micropores in coal.
It has been concluded that the first stage of gas transport in coalbed methane, through the
micropores is a diffusion process. The diffusion of gas through the micropores can be the
result of three distinct mechanisms which may act individually or simultaneously. These
mechanisms are:
1. Bulk diffusion, where molecule-molecule interactions dominate;
2. Knudsen diffusion, where molecule-surface interactions dominate; and
3. Two-dimensional surface diffusion of the adsorbed gas layer.
The following rules can be used to determine which mechanism dominates in a
particular coal. If the diffusion coefficient is experimentally determined to be inversely
proportional to the flowing pressure, then gas transport through the micropores is
dominated by bulk diffusion. If the diffusion coefficient is determined to be constant with
pressure, then Knudsen diffusion is the dominant mode of transport. Finally, if the mass
flux ratio satisfies the following condition:

( )
( )
free
ads
ads
free
MW
MW
Q
Q
< II-1
where MW is Molecular Weight and Q is Mass Flow Rate, then surface diffusion
dominates.
Regardless of the flow mechanism which dominates, the micropore
transport of gas obeys Ficks Law of diffusion:
( )
mi
g
mi
g
r
C
D MW
A
Q

= II-2
The micropore diffusion coefficient,
mi
D , has been experimentally
determined to be between 10
-8
and 10
-13
cm/sec for most coals.
If the micropore diffusion coefficient is not known experimentally, it can
be approximated by the following formula:


mi
mi
F D
D

1
= II-3
where, D = the self-diffusion coefficient of the gas
F = the electrical resistivity of the coal saturated with gas

12

mi
= the micropore porosity
The self-diffusion coefficient for pure methane is 0.214 cm/sec.

The last stage of the transport of gas through coal, flow through the macropore, is
generally considered to be a laminar process. As such, it obeys Darcys Law for laminar
flow through porous media:

r
P
k
A
q
v
g
g
ma
g
g

= =

II-4
Unstimulated, homogeneous coal is relatively impermeable to gas and water. The in-situ
permeability of large coal masses is predominantly due to the cleat. The dependence of
coals permeability on the cleat has two important consequences. The first is that the
presence of both face and butt cleat system leads to the permeability anisotropy observed
on most coals, with the direction of greatest permeability oriented parallel to the
continuous face cleat.
The second major consequence is the permeabilitys dependence on confining
stress.
24
Increasing the confining stress (or equivalently, reducing the pore pressure)
causes fracture closure, which in turn reduces the absolute permeability of the coal.
Reznik et al. investigated the relative permeability characteristics of coal. The
typical behavior was reported. With an increase in water phase saturation, the relative
permeability to water increased, while the relative permeability to gas decreased.
As water and gas are produced, the coal reservoir pressure is decreasing. Some
publications, have reported that as gas is desorbed from the coal matrix during the
decreasing of pressure, the coal matrix shrinks.
Harpalani et al
6
presented that shrinkage of the coal matrix can cause the cleat
permeability to increase especially when pressure drops below the desorption pressure.
According to Harpalanis work, at pressures higher than the desorption pressure the cleat
permeability is influenced by the pore volume compressibility and tends to reduce the
permeability. However, after the pressure drops below the desorption pressure, the
shrinkage effect becomes dominant, resulting in increasing permeability. They also
developed an empirical equation to calculate the changing of permeability with pressure.

2
0260 . 0 76 . 0
3 . 3
p
p
k + + = II-5

13
Seidle and Huitt measured the shrinkage of coal matrix due to gas desorption and
concluded that matrix shrinkage depends on coal rank and adsorbed gas composition.

They reported that the shrinkage of coal matrix increases the cleat width and
subsequently increases the permeability. The equations for calculating the changing of
porosity and permeability by Seidle and Huitt are written below.
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + =

bp
bp
bp
bp
V c
i
i
m m
fi fi
f
1 1
10
2
1 1
6

II-6
where c
m
is the matrix shrinkage coefficient in s-ton/scf that can be obtained by either
measurement or calculation. The equation for c
m
is described as the following.

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
=
bp
bp
V
p c
c
m
p
m
1
exp

II-7
The relationship between cleat permeability and porosity is described by;

3
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
fi
f
fi
f
k
k

II-8


14
II-2 Review of Mathematical Models

Based on the King and Ertekin survey, between 1958 and 1994, over 52
mathematical models describing methane production from coal seams have been
developed. These models differ in physical scale and formulation. Their physical scale
range from core samples to single-well, and finally, full field models. Their formulation
is either empirically or analytically and they are solved using either analytical or
numerical techniques.
The models differ in their formulation and solution methods. The empirical
models are limited by the assumptions and observations used in their development. The
analytical models are limited by the available solution techniques, and numerical methods
are limited by their assumptions, coding and machine constraints.
All of these models could be categorized by the way they treat the gas sorption
process. The gas sorption models include empirically based models, equilibrium
(pressure dependent) sorption models, and non-equilibrium (pressure and time
dependent) sorption models.
The empirically based models are the simplest models. They are based on simple
mathematical descriptions of observable physical phenomena. Aireys first model,
decline curves, Lindines model, and the model of McFall et al. are some examples of
empirically based models.
Empirical models are relatively simple, requiring a few input parameters, but they
have theoretical difficulties for detailed predictions. Equilibrium (pressure dependent)
sorption models are the models which take the adsorption/desorption process into
account. In this approach, the gas adsorbed onto the micropore walls is assumed to be in a
continuous state of equilibrium with the free gas pressure in the macropores. In other
words, the desorption/diffusion process is sufficiently rapid that the kinetics of the
process can be neglected. The validity of the assumption of sufficiently rapid can be
determined by comparing the rate of diffusion to the rate of laminar (Darcy) flow. If gas
flow is limited by the laminar process, and the diffusion process is significantly faster
than the laminar process, then the equilibrium situation can be assumed. Equilibrium
models are single-porosity, and partial differential equation models that are modified for
coal seams. They can be modified in two ways: 1) including a pressure dependent source

15
term, or 2) the modification of the storage term.
7
These models can be formulated and
solved analytically. The examples for equilibrium models are Aireys second model.
They can also be formulated and solved numerically. The examples for them are
INTERCOMPs first model.
The results of equilibrium sorption models are generally optimistic. They give
high production rates when the bottom-hole pressure is specified or high average
reservoir pressure when production rates are specified. The reason for this is, because of
pressure decline, desorbed gas is assumed to enter the macropore system instantaneously.
This approach does not take time dependency during transport through the micropore
system into account. Non-equilibrium (pressure and time dependent) models take time
dependency into consideration.
Non-equilibrium sorption models are modified conventional dual-porosity
models. These modifications are necessary because in coal seams 1) methane (reservoir
fluid) is highly compressible, 2) gas stored in the primary porosity exists in an adsorbed
state, and 3) gas transport through the micropore system is a diffusion process.
Two approaches have been used to formulate the conventional dual porosity
models for coal seams. Pseudosteady state formulations use a discretized form of Ficks
First Law to describe gas transport through the micropore system, and unsteady state
formulations use Ficks Second Law. Some of the models for each category will be
explained here.


II-2-1 Empirical Sorption Models

II-2-1-1 Aireys First Model

Airey proposed an empirical model for core scale samples. The following
assumptions were used:

1. The initial rate of methane desorption is very large for all coal sizes:

=
t
G
q
d
d
; 0 t II-9

16
2. The volume of desorbed gas approaches a constant for large times:

d
G constant ; t II-10
3. The relative volume of desorbed methane is greater for smaller coal samples.
4. The volume of desorbed methane increases with time, while the desorption rate
decreases with time.
Aireys model has the form:


(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
N
A
o
c
d
t G
G

exp 1
1000
II-11
The time constant,
A
, in the equation is dependent on the size of the coal sample, and to
a lesser extent, on the initial gas pressure and water content. The initial gas content,
o
c
G ,
is dependent on the same properties and can be calculated using the correlation of
Ettenger et al.

( )
c
d
c
c
W
G
G
31 . 0 1+
= II-12
Aireys model was developed using samples from the Sherwood Colliery and was
validated by comparing predicted versus experimental results.

II-2-1-2 Decline Curves

Decline curves have been used for several decades to predict production rate
versus time on a single-well or field scale. Decline curves also have been used for
economic analysis of vertical coal seam degasification wells. This approach is based on
the observation that after a certain time, the production rate of a single production well or
an entire field often declines either exponentially, hyperbolically, or harmonically.
There is a unique behavior in methane production from coal seams. This behavior
is the negative decline period. During this period, gas production rate is increasing with
time. This phenomenon is attributed to the desorption of methane increasing the relative
permeability to gas. Both field studies and numerical studies have shown this behavior.

17
Gilles et al. assumed exponential decline and used data from Pocahontas and
Mary Lee coal seams to perform an economic analysis of the degasification process. The
equation used to predict the production rate was:
7
( )
DC
o
gSC gSC
t q q / exp = II-13
where
DC
/ 1 is the decline constant (a property of the coal seam) and
o
gSC
q is the initial
gas production rate.
An equation for total gas production during the positive decline period can be
obtained by integrating equation (II-13) with respect to time:
( ) [ ]
DC
o
gSC DC p
t q G / exp 1 = II-14a
or
( )
gSC
o
gSC DC p
q q G = II-14b
For drainage area (well spacing), an equation can be defined:

c c
p
G h
G
A

= II-15
The value of Gp used in equation (II-15) must be corrected by adding the volume
of gas produced during the negative decline period.
Chase also suggested the use of decline curves on the core scale to determine the
amount of desorbable methane from samples of broken coal.
Two areas should be studied before using decline curves with confidence for coal
seams. The first area is to determine which decline model exponential, hyperbolic, or
harmonic best fits coal seam degasification wells. The second area is determining the
correct time to evaluate
o
gSC
q .

II-2-1-3 Lindine et al. Model

Another empirical based model was proposed by Lindine et al. on the observation
that both the initial gas content and residual gas content are nonlinear functions of depth.
Kim presented a relationship between initial gas content and depth while Hinsley et al.


18
presented a relationship between residual gas content and depth. These relationships are
shown in the figures II.2 and II.4.


Figure II-4 Residual gas content as a function of depth (after Hinsley et al.)
7

The equation Lindine et al. used to predict methane emission into a working mine (this
equation also can be used for single-well and full field scales) was:

( )

=
=
NK
k
r
c c c k p
k k k
G G h
A
G
1
1000

II-16
Gp is total volume of recoverable methane with no time or economic constraints.

II-2-1-4 McFall et al. Model

McFall et al. used a model similar to Lindine et al. with a different observation.
This model was based on the observation that the initial gas content of coal seam is
dependent on the basin, depth, and rank of the coal. McFall et al. used this model to

19
estimate the methane resource of the Piceance basin. This relationship is shown in the
figure below for the Piceance basin.

Figure II-5 Gas content versus depth and rank for Piceance basin coals (after McFall et al.)
7

The equations used by McFall et al. were:

c
c
hA
G
G
1000
= II-17
where the initial gas content can be estimated by a curve fit of figure :
( )
M c
d m G + = ln II-18
in this equation, m is a scaling coefficient and
M
is the y-intercept in figure . these
parameters are the properties of the basin and the rank of the coal. Kelso et al. used this
model to estimate the methane resource of the San Juan Basin.


20
II-2-2 Equilibrium Sorption Models

The equilibrium sorption models are partial differential equation models. They are
developed from theoretical considerations. This is the opposite of empirical
considerations. The assumption in these models is that gas desorption from coal surfaces
and diffusion through the micropore (primary porosity) system is sufficiently rapid, so
the equilibrium with the gas phase pressure is continuously maintained. Consequently,
these models are single-porosity reservoir models.

II-2-2-1 Aireys Second Model and Kissells Model

Airey and Kissell independently formulated the following partial differential
equation for gas emission into a stationary mine face (for field scale simulations):
7

D
D
D
D
t
p
x
p

2
2 2
2 2
II-19
The dimensionless variables are defined as:

o
g
g
D
p
p
p = II-20

max
x
x
x
D
= , where
max max
x x x II-21

2
max
x H
t p k
t
g
o
g ma
D

= II-22
The dimensionless initial and boundary conditions are:
( ) 1 , =
D D D
t x p ; 1 1
D
x , 0 =
D
t II-23
( ) 0 , =
D D D
t x p ; 1 =
D
x , 0 >
D
t II-24
( ) 0 , =
D D D
t x p ; 1 =
D
x , 0 >
D
t II-25
The definition of dimensionless time is similar to the definition used in well testing of
conventional gas reservoirs, with a Henrys Law Coefficient, H, replacing the
g ma
c product.

21
In the derivations of the equations, some assumptions have been made by Airey
that are listed below:
1. The adsorbed gas obeys Henrys Law over the entire pressure range of interest.
( )
g g E
Hp p V = II-26
2. The free gas obeys Boyles Law over the entire pressure range of interest (i.e.,
ideal gas behavior).
D
o
g
g
o
g
g
p
p
p
= =

II-27
3. The macropore (secondary porosity) permeability and gas viscosity are constant
over the entire pressure range of interest. This assumption states that stress
dependent permeability and the Klinkenberg effect are negligible.
Airey provided the solution to
D
p , subject to initial and boundary conditions mentioned:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) [ ] { }

=

+ + + =
0
2 2 1 1 2
2 / 1 exp . 2 / 1 cos 2 / 1 1
2
,
N
D D
N
D D D
t N x N N t x p

II-28
Although this model was derived by assuming Darcy flow through the macropore
system, Airey suggested using Ficks Law for seams under low hydrostatic pressure.

II-2-2-2 Bumbs Model, McKee and Bumbs Model, and Bumb and McKees
Model

Bumb, McKee and Bumb, and Bumb and McKee developed two equilibrium
desorption models, one for single-phase gas flow and one for multiphase gas-water flow,
for well test analysis of coalbed degasification wells and Devonian shale wells.

For single-phase gas flow, the following partial differential equation has been
developed which describes gas transport to a single drainage well:
( )
E gSC g ma
g
g
g
ma
V
t r
p
k
r r

=
|
|
.
|

\
|

1
II-29

22
where the storage term (partial derivative with respect to time) has been altered to include
both free gas (
g ma
) and adsorbed gas (
E gSC
V ).
E
V in the equation is an equilibrium
isotherm and was considered to be governed by a Langmuir isotherm of the form:
( )
g L
g L
g E
p p
p V
p V
+
= II-30
In this equation,
L
V and
L
P are the Langmuir volume constant and Langmuir pressure
constant, respectively, and are the properties of the coal seam.
The partial differential equation for this model was derived and solved using these
assumptions:
1. The reservoir is horizontal, uniformly thick, and of infinite radial extent.
2. Rock properties are homogeneous and isotropic.
3. Gas transport through the macropore system is single-phase, isothermal, and
obeys Darcys Law.
4. The macropore permeability is constant for the entire pressure range.
5. Free gas obeys the real gas law.
6. Adsorbed gas behavior can be modeled within Langmuir isotherm.
7. Gas desorption and diffusion is sufficiently rapid, so that adsorbed gas remains in
equilibrium with the macropore pressure (i.e., dual-porosity effects are ignored).
The initial and boundary conditions considered in this model were:
( )
o
g g
p t r p = , ; < r 0 , 0 = t II-31
( )
o
g g
p t r p , ; r , 0 > t II-32

t
p
Z
p
RT
M
hr k
Q
g g g
g
ma
g

2
;
w
r r = ; 0 > t II-33
Condition II-33 is a mass sink, which for a constant producing pressure and
temperature is equivalent to constant volumetric production.
Applying the real gas law to equation II-29 and expanding the time derivative
yields:
=
|
|
.
|

\
|

r
p
z
p
r
r r
g
g
g

1


23

( ) t
p
p P
P
c
c
k
g
g L g ma
L gSC
ma
r
g
ma
ma

(
(

+
+ +
2

II-34a
or

t
p
c
k r
p
z
p
r
r r
g
T
ma
ma
g
g
g

=
|
|
.
|

\
|

1
II-34b
Where
T
c is the total system compressibility which is highly pressure dependent. The
definition for compressibility becomes:

( )
2
g L g ma
L gSC
ma
r
g T
p P
P
c
c c
+
+ + =

II-35
Equation II-34b can be put into the standard well test form by applying the real gas
pseudo-pressure:
( )
}
=
g
SC
p
p
g
g
g
g
p d
Z
p
p m

II-36
Applying conditions II-31 through II-33, equation II-34b can be solved in terms
of the real gas pseudo-pressure:
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
T
ma
g ma
i
g ma
g
g
c
t k
r
E
M
RT
h k
Q
P m

4 2
2
II-37
Equation II-37 is the line source solution commonly used in pressure transient
analysis. Bumb and Bumb and McKee suggested the following iterative method to handle
the nonlinear terms
g
and
T
c .
These properties are evaluated at the weighted average pressure defined by:

g
o
g g
p p p 1 . 0 9 . 0 = II-38
Equation (II-37) is then solved for
p
m , converted to
g
p and
g
p is reevaluated. This
process is continued until successive
g
p s converge whiting an acceptable tolerance.
Bumb and McKee and Bumb validated this model by comparing the results with those of
a numerical model.
For two-phase water and gas, Bumb and McKee and Bumb derived the following
set of coupled partial differential equations:

24

t
p
dp
dS
p S S c
dp
dS
t
p
dp
dS
p S S c
dp
dS
c S
r
p k k
r
r r
g
cgw
w
cgw w w r
cgw
w
ma
w
cgw
w
c w w r
cgw
w
ma w w ma
w
w
rw ma

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
=
|
|
.
|

\
|

1
1

II-39
and
( )
( )
t
p
dp
dS
p S c c S
dp
dS
t
V
t
p
dp
dS
p S S c
dp
dS
r
p k k
r
r r
g
cgw
w
cgw w r g ma w
cgw
ma g
E
gSC
w
cgw
w
cgw w w r
cgw
ma g
g
g
rg ma

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + +

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ +
=
|
|
.
|

\
|

1 1
1
1

II-40

These equations were derived using the same assumptions as in the single-phase model
(except for the single-phase assumption).
The multiphase flow of water and gas can be divided into three steps: saturated
water flow ( 1 =
w
S , 0 =
g
S ), unsaturated water flow ( 1 <
w
S ,
gc g
S S ), and two-phase
flow ( 1 <
g
S ,
gc g
S S > ). Additional assumptions were applied in each regime to further
simplify the model equations.

Step I: Saturated Water Flow ( 1 =
w
S and 0 =
g
S )
In this step, equation II-40 is not required and equation II-39 reduces to the
slightly compressible liquid equation.

Step II: Unsaturated Water Flow ( 1 <
w
S and
gc g
S S )
In this step, following assumptions were made:
1. The capillary pressure obeys the Fermi distribution:

25
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =

F
cgw cgw
wir
wir w
p p
S
S S

2 / 1
exp 1
1
II-41
2. The relative permeability to water obeys a power law relationship (no
assumptions concerning gas phase relative permeability are needed since gas is
immobile in this step):
N
wir
wir w
rw
S
S S
k
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
1
II-42
3. Gas phase pressure is constant.
The solution for step II, with the same initial and boundary conditions as single-
phase model is:
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
T
o
rw ma
ma w
i
o
rw ma
w w w
cgw
c
t k k
r
E
h k k
B q
p

4 4
615 . 5
2
II-43
where the definition of pseudo-pressure becomes:
( )
}

=
c
p
cgw
wir
wir w
cgw
p d
S
S S
p
1
II-44
and the definition of total compressibility becomes:

( )
( )
(
(
(
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

+
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
F
wir w
wir
wir w
cgw w
N
wir
wir w
ma
w r
wir
wir w
F
wir w
wir
wir w
N
wir
wir w
w w
T
S S
S
S S
p S
S
S S
S c
S
S S
S S
S
S S
S
S S
c S
c

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II-45

The weighted average
c
p used in the linearization of this model was suggested as:

cgw
o
cgw cgw
p p p 3 . 0 7 . 0 + = II-46
w
S is evaluated at
cgw
p . This model was validated by comparing the results to
those of a numerical model and by field testing the model against data from the
Glovier well no. 1 in Archuleta county, Colorado.

26


Step III: Two-Phase Flow ( 1 <
w
S and
gc g
S S )
In this step, water saturation was assumed to be constant and, consequently, the
capillary and relative permeabilities were assumed constant. The assumed value of water
saturation was discussed; however, a value of
gc w
S S =1 seems to be appropriate. These
assumptions made the equations II-39 and II-40 decoupled and linearized. This model
was validated by comparing results against those of a numerical model and to actual field
data.

II-2-2-3 Gorbachev et al.s Model, Karagodin and Krigmans Model, and
Vorozhtsov et al.s Model

Researchers from the Soviet Union used the following model to simulate the
single-phase flow of gas through coal:

( )
(
(

+
+

=
|
|
.
|

\
|

g L
g L
g ma g g
h
ma
p P
RTp C
p
t
p p
k

II-47
Equation II-47 was derived by assuming:
1. The reservoir is horizontal, anisotropic, and uniformly thick.
2. Gas transport through the macropore system is single-phase, isothermal, and
obeys Darcys Law.
3. Free gas obeys the ideal gas law.
4. Adsorbed gas behavior can be modeled with a Langmuir isotherm.
5. Dual-porosity effects are ignored
Expansion of the storage term results in:

( ) t
p
p P
RT P C
p p
k
g
g L
L L
ma g g
g
ma

(
(

+
+ =
|
|
.
|

\
|

2

II-48
Applying the following definition of pseudo-pressure:

27

( )
g
p
p g
g ma
g
p d
p k
p m
g
SC

}
=

II-49
results in:
( )
( )
( ) [ ]
g
o
g
o
ma
g L
L L
ma g
p m
dt
d k
p P
RT P C
p m
1
2
2

|
|
.
|

\
|
(
(

+
+ =

II-50

Equation II-50 was discretized using finite differences and solved with the fully-
implicit, generalized Newton-Raphson technique. The coordinate system and boundary
conditions used in the solution of equation II-50 was dependent on the problem to be
solved. For example, Gorbachev et al. solved this equation in three-dimensional
rectangular coordinates to simulate gas emission from a coal pillar. The initial and
boundary conditions for this full-field problem were:

o
g g
p p = ;
max
0 x x ,
max
0 y y ,
max
0 z z , 0 = t II-51

M g
p p = ;
max
, 0 x x = ,
max
, 0 y y = ,
max
0 z z , 0 > t II-52
0 =

z
p
g
;
max
0 x x ,
max
0 y y ,
max
, 0 z z = , 0 > t II-53

The constant in condition II-52,
M
p , was the mine pressure, which was
approximately one atmosphere. Condition II-53 implies an impermeable roof and floor
exist in the seam. Gorbachev et al.s model allowed for horizontal boreholes.
Karagodin and Krigman solved equation II-50 in one-dimensional rectangular
coordinates to simulate gas emission into a stationary mine working. The initial and
boundary conditions for this full-field problem were:

o
g g
p p = ; x 0 ; 0 = t II-54
0 =
g
p ; 0 = x ; 0 > t II-55

o
g g
p p = ; x ; 0 > t II-56

Karagodin and Krigman used this model to history match gas emission into the
Komsomolets Colliery to determine in situ coal permeability.

28
Vorozhtsov et al. solved equation II-50 in one-dimensional, cylindrical
coordinates to simulate the performance of a single vertical degasification well. The
initial and boundary conditions for this problem were:

o
g g
p p = ;
e w
r r r , 0 = t II-57

wf g
p p = ;
w
r r = , 0 > t II-58
0 =

r
p
g
;
e
r r = , 0 > t II-59
Other models discussed in King and Ertekins survey are: Model of Nguyen, Model of
Kamal and Six, the model of Ediz and Ediz and Edwards, Modified black oil models,
modified p/Z analysis, and the deliverability model of Seidle.


II-2-3 Non-Equilibrium Sorption Models

Some of the non-equilibrium sorption models are discussed here.

II-2-3-1 Pseudo-Steady State Models

Pseudo-steady state, non-equilibrium sorption models are similar to the Warren
and Root model for conventional dual-porosity reservoirs. The coupled equations used to
describe gas transport are:
8

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
S p
t
q
T
T p
q
T
T p
Z
p
g g ma
d
SC
SC
gSC
SC
SC
g
g g

1000
II-60
( )
dt
dV
PF q
mi
mi d
= II-61
( ) [ ]
mi g E mi
mi
V p V a D
dt
dV
= II-62a
or
( ) [ ]
mi g E
p
mi
V p V
dt
dV
=

1
II-62b


29
In addition, a water phase material balance equation is included in two-phase
models.

II-2-3-2 Fedorov et al. Model

Fedorov et al. formulated a single-phase model for gas production into a single
degasification well (Fedorov et al. state that this model is for flow to a borehole.)
In the derivation of their equations, they assumed that 1) gas transport is single-phase,
and 2) free gas obeys the ideal gas law.

II-2-3-3 U.S. Steel Models

Pavone and Schwerer used the pseudo-steady state, non-equilibrium sorption
formulation to derive a set of equations to describe flow of water and gas through dual
porosity coal seams.

II-2-3-4 Penn State Models

Ertekin et al., King et al., and King developed a single-well model. Their model
was similar to the U.S. steel model. The major difference was in the numerical solution of
the system of differential equations. In these models, an algebraic approximation to
equation II-62b was implemented.

II-2-3-5 COMET Model

The COMET (Coalbed Methane Technology) model is a two-phase, two-
dimensional software package for personal computers which was adapted from the
SUGARWAT model (a Devonian shale simulator which will be discussed in the section
on unsteady state models). This model is similar to U.S steel model (ARRAYS) and Penn

30
State Model (PSU) model. The most significant contributions of the COMET model are
the user friendly features. These include:
1. PC compatible
2. Automatic PVT generation options
3. Automatic gridding options
4. Interactive graphics
5. Restart capabilities
6. Unconditionally stable, fully-implicit solution technique
Other models discussed in King and Ertekins survey are: COALGAS Model, modified
material balance model of King, the type-curve model of Mohaghegh and Ertekin, and
the model of Durucan et al.



31
II-2-4 Unsteady State Models

Unsteady state, non-equilibrium sorption models are similar to the De Swaan
model for conventional dual-porosity reservoirs. The coupled equations used to
describe gas transport are:

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
S p
t
q
T
T p
q
T
T p
Z
p
g g ma
d
SC
SC
gSC
SC
SC
g
g g

1000
II-63

mi mi
R r
mi
mi
bmi
mi mi
d
r
V
V
D A
q
=

= II-64

t
V
r
V
r
r r
D
mi
mi
mi I
mi
mi
I
mi
mi

=
|
|
.
|

\
|

II-65
where I in equation II-65 is a coordinate index equal to zero for slabs, one for cylinders,
and two for spheres.


II-2-4-1 Kovaley and Kuznetsov Model

Kovaley and Kuznetsov formulated a moving boundary value problem to
calculate the rate of methane emission into an advancing longwall face.

II-2-4-2 Kuchuk and Sawyer Model and Serra et al. Model

Kuchuk and Sawyer and Serra et al. developed similar models for testing
Devonian shale wells.

II-2-4-3 Smith and Williams Model

A model for broken coal suggested by Smith and Williams used an unsteady state
non-equilibrium sorption formulation. In this model, the coal sample was assumed to

32
have a spherical macropore geometry, and the micropore matrix sub-elements were also
assumed to be spherical.

Other models that are discussed in King and Ertekins survey are: INTERCOMPs
Second model, Chase Model, SUGAR, SUGARMD, and SUGARWAT Models, Chen
Model, Ertekin and Sung Model, Model of Saghafi and Saghafi et al., Model of Carlson
and Mercer, and Models of Anbarci and Ertekin.





33

Chapter III Methodology

To formulate the equations for water and methane transport through coal seams,
we need to give the reservoir an ideal structure. Figure III-1 is a suitable model for most
coal seam reservoirs.












Figure III-1. Reservoir Model for Coal Seams
5


In this figure, the cubes represent the matrix subelements, which contain the micropores,
while spaces between these blocks represent the cleat system. The blocks can be other
shapes (slabs, cylinders, or spheres).
The transport equations are derived by assigning effective permeability and
porosity values to the cleat system. The fracture system can be treated as a porous
medium, with the transport equations developed accordingly.
Once solved, the macropore transport equations give the pressure distribution, as
a function of time, throughout the coal seam. We can use this distribution to obtain the
external boundary condition for the problem of gas diffusion through the micropore
matrix subelements. Since the macropore pressure varies with both time and space, the
boundary condition for an individual subelement depends on both time and that
subelements location in the coal seam.


34
The solution of the diffusion problem within each subelement yields a source term
to the gas transport equation. This source term, in turn, affects the macropore pressure
distribution. Obviously, the system of equations describing this process is a complex set
of highly nonlinear, coupled equations.
When the equations for water and methane transport are obtained, they should be
simplified in order to be able to solve them. In this study, a radial coordinate system has
been used for unstimulated wells, and Elliptical coordinate system for stimulated wells.
The formulations in both coordinate systems are described here.


III-1 Macropore Transport Equations in Radial Coordinate System

Performing a mass balance on an elemental volume of the reservoir can derive the
equations governing the unsteady state flow of water and gas through the macropore
system of a coal seam. The general form of the continuity equation (differential mass
balance equation), written for phase p in a porous medium, is:

( ) ( )
p p ma
bma
p
p p
S
t V
Q
v r
r r

= +

1
III-1
In order to develop the equations for water and gas, two assumptions should be
made: The choice of an appropriate equation of state, and a transport law. Once chosen,
these equations are substituted into equation III-1 to obtain the flow equation for each
individual phase.



35

III-1-1 Single-Phase Gas Equation

In this study, the free gas in the macropore system is assumed to behave like a
real gas. The real gas law can be rearranged to obtain the following equation for gas
density:

( )
ZRT
P MW
g
g
= III-2
Substituting equation III-2 into equation III-1:


( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
P
t V
Q
MW
RT
V
Q
MW
RT
v
Z
P
r
r r
g ma
bma
t
bma
g
g
g

) (
1
III-3

The source/sink term has been separated into an external term, Q
g
, and an internal term,
Q
t
. The internal source term represents the matrix/fissure methane transfer. After
substitution of equation III-2 into equation III-1, temperature T, and the molecular weight
(MW), were removed from the derivative operators. We can do this if we make some
assumptions first. Temperature can be removed if we assume that the reservoir
temperature remains constant and doesnt change. For molecular weight, in order to
remove it from the derivative operators, if we assume that, desorption or adsorption is not
selective in the micropores. With these assumptions we can remove these two variables
from the derivative operators.
In the storage term (partial derivative with respect to time), the group
Z
P
g ma

represents only free gas storage. It has been assumed that the amount of gas adsorbed
onto the walls of the cleats is negligible compared to the amount of the free gas in the
cleats. Finally, the gas saturation for single-phase system is equal to unity.
The real gas law can be rearranged to obtain more convenient expressions for the
source/sink terms in equation III-3:

gSC
SC
SC
g
g
g
q
T
T P
q
Z
P
Q
MW
RT 1000
1000
) (
= = III-4

36
t
SC
SC
t
q
T
T P
Q
MW
RT
and
=
) (
III-5

Where the term 1000 is a unit conversion constant. Substituting into equation III-3:

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
v
Z
P
r
r r
g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g
g

1000 1
III-6
Coal seams usually have low pressures with relatively low absolute
permeabilities. For these reasons, the gas transport equation must allow for the gas
slippage phenomenon. The correction for gas slippage is usually made by applying the
Klinkenberg equation to obtain an effective permeability to gas. This correction has the
form:

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =

g
P
b
k k 1 III-7
In this study, an approach to gas slippage has been used. In this approach, the slip
velocity is superimposed onto the Darcy velocity and is substituted directly into the
transport equation. Then it is modeled with Ficks law of diffusion. The advantage of this
procedure is that the gas, which is slipping, can be treated as a real gas. In deriving
equation III-7, ideal gas behavior has been assumed.
Figure III-2a shows the flow of an incompressible liquid across the cross-section
A-A. The circles represent fluid molecules. The large arrow represents the laminar,
Darcy flow while the smaller arrows indicate random molecular flow. Since the densities
on both sides are equal, so the molar concentrations are equal, thus the random molecular
motion has a zero net effect.
Figure III-2b shows the flow of a compressible gas across the same cross-section.
Since the gas is less dense on the left side of the cross-section, the random molecular
motion has a positive net effect in the direction of flow.

37





















Figure III-2. Schematic Representation of the Dual Mechanism Approach to Slip Flow 4


The equation describing this flow process can be derived by defining the total
velocity as the sum of the Darcy and slip components:

S
g
D
g g
v v v

+ = III-8

Substituting Darcys law:

g
g
D
g
P
r
k
v

III-9

into equation III-8 yields:
S
g
g
g
v P
r
k
v

+

III-10

The slip velocity is a Knudsen flow process and can be modeled with Ficks law of
diffusion.


38


Substituting of Ficks law:

g ma
g
S
g
C
r
D
MW
v

) (
III-11
into equation III-10 yields:

g ma
g
g
g
g
C
r
D
MW
P
r
k
v

=


) (
III-12
Substituting the definition of gas density (equation III-2) into equation III-12
results in:

g ma
g
g
g
g
C
r
D
P
ZRT
P
r
k
v

III-13
C
g
the molar concentration can be obtained from the real gas law:

ZRT
P
C
g
g
= III-14
Substituting equation III-14 into equation III-13 yields:

|
|
.
|

\
|

=

Z
P
r
D
P
Z
P
r
k
v
g
ma
g
g
g
g

III-15
Expanding the term,
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
P
r
g
, in equation III-15 leads to:

g ma g g
g
g
P
r
D c P
r
k
v

III-16
or:
g ma g
g
g
P
r
D c
k
v

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =

III-17
Factoring
g
k

out of the parenthesis yields:

g
g ma g
g
g
P
r k
D c
k
v

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =

III-18


39
Multiplying the second term in the parenthesis by
g
g
P
P
yields:

g
g
g
g
g
P
r
P
P b
k
v

(
(

+
=

) (
1

III-19
where

=
k
D P c
P b
ma g g g
g

) ( III-20
Substituting equation III-19 into equation III-6 gives the final form of the single-phase,
gas transport equation:
|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +

(
(

Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
P
r Z
P P
P b
k
r
r r
g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g
g
g
g
g

1000
) (
1
1
III-21
In the derivation of equation III-7, Klinkenberg assumed ideal gas behavior. In
this study, if this assumption is made, then c
g
.P
g
is equal to unity and the gas viscosity
g

is constant. In the other words, if ideal gas behavior is assumed, then b(P
g
) is constant.
Although Klinkenbergs theory predicted a constant slippage factor, his experimental
results indicated that this factor increased slightly with increasing pressure.


40
III-1-2 Single-Phase Conventional Gas Equation

In this study, single-phase conventional gas can be modeled. Using equation III-2
and substituting into equation III-1:

( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

= +
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
P
t V
Q
MW
RT
v
Z
P
r
r r
g ma
bma
g
g
g

1
III-22

Using Darcys law:

g
g
D
g
P
r
k
v

Substituting Darcys law into equation above and using equation III-4, leads to:

|
|
.
|

\
|

= +
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
r
P
Z
P
k r
r r
g ma
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g g
g

1000 1
III-23


III-1-3 Two-Phase Gas Equation

The two-phase gas transport equation can be developed by substituting the
equation for gas density III-2 into the general continuity equation (equation III-1). This
substitution leads to:

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
S P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
v
Z
P
r
r r
g g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g
g

1000 1
III-24

The substitution of the two-phase forms of Darcys law and Ficks law into equation
III-8 yields:

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
Z
S P
r
D
P
Z
P
r
v
g g
ma
g
g g g

III-25
The term,
|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
S P
r
g g
, cannot be expanded into a convenient form, therefore, equation
III-25 is the final form of the two-phase gas flux. Substituting this equation into equation
III-24 gives the final form of the two-phase gas transport equation:

41

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
S P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
Z
S P
r
rD P
r Z
P
r
r r
g g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g g
ma g
g g

1000 1

III-26
In the derivation of equation III-26, it is assumed that the amount of gas dissolved in
water is negligible compared to the amount of free gas.


III-1-4 Two-Phase Water Production

In this study, water is treated as a slightly compressible fluid, and its transport is
assumed to obey Darcys law for laminar flow through porous media. The equation for
slightly compressible fluid can be derived from the definition of compressibility under
isothermal conditions:

T
w
w
w
w
dP
dV
V
c
1
= III-27
Definition of water density:

w
w
w
V
M
= III-28

considering a given mass of water, the following relationship is obtained:

w
w
w
w
dV
V
M
d
2
= III-29
Substituting equations III-28 and III-29 into equation III-27 yields,

w
w
w
w
dP
d
c

1
= III-30
If we separate the variables and integrate the both sides, we obtain:
} }
=
w
wSC
w
SC
w
w
P
P
w w
d P d c

III-31

42

To simplify the problem to solve, we can consider c
w
to be constant. Integrating the
equation above yields:

( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
wSC
w
SC w w
P P c

ln III-32
If we rearrange equation III-32, we get:
( ) [ ]
SC w w
w
wSC
w w
P P c P B = = exp ) (

III-33
B
w
is the definition of the formation volume factor for a fluid of constant compressibility.
If we solve this equation for
w
, we get:

w
wSC
w
B

= III-34
Equation III-34 is the final form of the equation of state for a slightly
compressible fluid. Although this equation was derived by assuming constant
compressibility, it is also valid for any B
w
.
Substituting equation III-34 into equation III-1 results:

|
|
.
|

\
|

= +
|
|
.
|

\
|

w
w ma
wSC bma
w
w
w
B
S
t V
Q
v
B
r
r r

1 1
III-35
Mass rate and standard density terms can be replaced by the volumetric rate at standard
conditions, q
STB
. Substitution yields:

|
|
.
|

\
|

= +
|
|
.
|

\
|

w
w ma
bma
STB
w
w
B
S
t V
q
v
B
r
r r
615 . 5 1 1
III-36
Term 5.615 is the unit conversion constant.
It was assumed earlier that water transport obeys Darcys law. If we make another
assumption that the coordinate axes of the model coincide with the principle permeability
axes of the coal seam, then the component of the water velocity in the
direction i becomes:

r P
k S k
v
w
w w
mai w rw
wi

) (
) (
III-37

43
where: d P
w
w w
144

= III-38
is a unit conversion constant.
We can define the two-phase water mobility in the direction i as:

) (
) (
) , (
w w
mai w rw
w w wi
P
k S k
S P

= III-39
Using equations III-37 through III-39, the water velocity becomes:
|
.
|

\
|

=
r
d
r
P
v
w w
w w
144

III-40
Substituting equation III-40 into equation III-37 gives the final form of the water
transport equation:

|
|
.
|

\
|

= +
(

|
.
|

\
|

w
w ma
bma
STB w w
w
w
B
S
t V
q
r
d
r
P
B
r
r r
615 . 5
144
1
III-41


III-1-5 Auxiliary Macropore Equations

For multiphase flow problems, the transport equations do not constitute a properly
posed system. In two-phase systems, there are two nonlinear, partial differential
equations in five dependent variables: P
w
, P
g
, S
w
, S
g
, and V
mi
. Three additional equations
are required to solve these equations. Two of these are obtained from the physics of the
macropore flow, and the third one is obtained from the micropore gas transport. The
equations which are obtained from the physics of the macropore flow are:
1. The summation of water and gas saturation is equal to unity:
S
g
+ S
w
= 1.0 III-42
2. The difference between water and gas pressures is strictly dependent on
the gas phase saturation:
P
cgw
(S
g
) = P
g
- P
w
III-43
In order to solve the model, the macropore equations (III-41 and III-26, III-42 and III-43)
should be reduced to a system of two equations. In the auxiliary equations, if we solve
those problems for S
w
and P
w
and substitute those into equations III-41 and III-26, we can

44
reduce the number of unknowns to three. The final form of the macropore equations is
then written in terms of the dependent variables P
g
, S
g
, and V
mi
. Using this procedure, the
reduced system of macropore equations becomes:

( )
(

= +
(

|
.
|

\
|

w
g ma
bma
STB w
cgw g
w
w
B
S
t V
q
d
r
P
r
P
r B
r
r r
1
615 . 5
144
1


III-44

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

Z
S P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
Z
S P
r
rD P
r Z
P
r
r r
g g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g g
ma g
g g

1000 1

III-45


III-1-6 Diffusion/Sorption Model

The macropore transport equations, III-44 and III-45 are two nonlinear, partial
differential equations with three unknowns. To obtain a properly defined system, a third
equation is needed. This equation is obtained from the micropore gas transport.
The major portion of gas stored in coal exists as a physically adsorbed, liquid-like
molecular monolayer on the walls of the micropores. These pores are located in the
interior of the regular geometric subelements of the idealized reservoir. With decreasing
pressure in the cleats due to production, gas begins to desorb from the surface of the
subelements. This creates a concentration gradient in the interior of the subelements,
which is the cause of diffusion. If it is assumed that desorption rate at these surfaces is
sufficiently rapid (so that equilibrium is maintained between the free gas and adsorbed
gas phases), then the methane concentration on the subelements surface is governed
solely by the equilibrium sorption isotherm. For most coals, isotherms based on
Langmuirs theory for simple, single-layer sorption adequately describe the processes
occurring at these surfaces.
Langmuirs theory is based on the premise that molecule-molecule collisions are
inelastic (that is, gas molecules behave like hard spheres), while molecule-surface

45
collisions are elastic. Thus, if a free gas molecule traveling towards a coal surface strikes
an adsorbed gas molecule, it will immediately ricochet away from the surface. If,
however, it strikes the surface, the elastic nature of the collision causes the molecule to
stick to the surface for a certain time period. In this theory, it is the residence time
which is the principle cause of adsorption. The following derivation of Langmuirs
equation follows that of Guwaga.
The rate at which gas molecules strike a coal surface is proportional to the free
gas pressure, P
g
, and the fraction of the surface that is not already covered by gas
molecules, (1 - ) (Kinetic theory). The rate of adsorption, therefore, can be written as:
( ) = 1
1 g
P K q III-46
The rate of gas desorption is proportional to the fraction of the surface covered
with molecules:
=
2
K q III-47
The constants K
1
and K
2
, in equations III-46 and III-47 are proportionality constants with
the units of SCF/ft/day/psi and SCF/ft/day, respectively.
At equilibrium, the rate of adsorption and desorption must be equal, so:
( ) =
2 1
1 K P K
g
III-48
or:

g
g
P K K
P K
1 2
1
+
= III-49
The fraction of the surface covered by molecules at any time is equal to the
adsorbed methane concentration divided by the total sorptive capacity of the surface
(concentration at infinite pressure). Since equation III-49 is written for equilibrium
conditions, the adsorbed methane concentration is the equilibrium concentration, that is:

L
g E
V
P V ) (
= III-50
Equating the two definitions of (equations III-49 and III-50) and rearranging yields:

g L
g L
g E
P P
P V
P V
+
= ) ( III-51
where:

46

1
2
) (
K
K
psia P
L
= III-52
In equation III-49, the constant, V
L
, is the Langmuir volume constant and is a
measure of the total sorptive capacity of the surface. The constant, P
L
, is the Langmuir
pressure constant and is a measure of the residence time, during which an average gas
molecule adheres to the surface. Typical Langmuir isotherm is presented in figure III-3.















Figure II-3. Typical Langmuir Sorption Isotherm
5




In cases that the Langmuir pressure is much greater than initial reservoir pressure
(P
L
>>P
g
o
):

L g L
P P P + III-53
Substituting equation III-53 into equation III-51 yields:

g
L
L
g E
P
P
V
P V ) ( III-54

g g E
HP P V = ) ( III-55
which is Henrys law.


47
To determine the methane concentration on the surface of the regular geometric
subelements of the idealized model, we can use equations III-51 and III-55, which are the
equilibrium sorption isotherms.
The equations used in the pseudosteady state formulation are derived by
considering a discretised form of Ficks law and have the form:
[ ]
mi g E mi
mi
V P V a D
dt
dV
= ) ( III-56
and:
( )
dt
dV
PF
V
q
mi
mi
bma
t
= III-57
along with the initial condition:
) (
o
g E
o
mi mi
P V V V = = ; t = 0 III-58
Equation III-56 is a first order, ordinary differential equation and has the analytic
solution:
[ ] ( ) [ ]
}
+ =
t
mi mi g E mi
o
mi mi
t d t t a D V P V a D V V
0
exp ) (

III-59
Substituting into equation III-56 yields:
[ ] [ ] ( ) [ ]
)
`

+ =
}
t
mi mi g E mi
o
mi g E mi
mi
t d t t a D V P V a D V P V a D
dt
dV
0
exp ) ( ) (

III-60
Substituting equation III-60 into equation III-57 results in:
( ) [ ] [ ] ( ) [ ]
)
`

+ =
}
t
mi mi g E mi mi g E mi mi
bma
t
t d t t a D V P V a D V P V a D PF
V
q
0
exp ) ( ) (

..
III-61
Equation III-61 defines, on a unit volume basis, the pseudosteady state source to
the macropore gas transport equation.
The equations used in the unsteady state formulation have the form:

t
V
r
V
r
r r
D
mi
mi
mi I
mi
mi
I
mi
mi

=
|
|
.
|

\
|

III-62
and:

48

mi mi
R r
mi
mi
bmi
mi smi
bma
t
r
V
V
D A
V
q
=

=
III-63
along with the initial and boundary conditions:
) ( ) , (
o
g E
o
mi mi mi
P V V t r V = = ;
mi mi
R r 0 , t = 0 III-64a
) ( ) , (
g E mi mi
P V t r V = ;
mi mi
R r = , t > 0 III-64b
) , ( t r V
mi mi
is finite ; 0 =
mi
r , t > 0 III-64c

In equation III-62, the coordinate index, I, is equal to zero for slabs, one for
cylinders, and two for spheres. If the regular geometric subelements are taken to be
spheres (I = 2), then equation III-62, subject to conditions III-64a through III-64c, has the
formal solution:

( ) ( )

=

)

|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
0
0
2
2 2
exp ) ( sin 1
2
) , (
n
t
mi
mi
g E
mi
mi
n
mi mi
mi o
mi mi mi
t d t t
R
n D
P V
R
r n
n
R r
D
V t r V


III-65

Substituting into equation III-63 yields:

[ ] [ ] ( )

=

)

=
1
0
2
2 2
0
2
2 2
0
2
exp ) ( ) (
6
n
t
mi
mi
mi g E
mi
mi
mi g E
mi
mi
bma
t
t d t t
R
n D
V P V
R
n D
V P V
R
D
V
q
..
III-66
Equation III-66 gives the unsteady state source, on a unit volume basis, to the
macropore gas transport equation. This equation can be used to obtain expressions for the
shape factor, a , and geometric prefactor, (PF)
mi
, in equation III-61.
Consider the first term approximation to equation III-66:
[ ] [ ] ( )

}
t
mi
mi
mi g E
mi
mi
mi g E
mi
mi
bma
t
t d t t
R
D
V P V
R
D
V P V
R
D
V
q
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
exp ) ( ) (
6

III-67

49
Inspection of equation III-61 reveals that it is identical to equation III-67 if the shape
factor, a, is chosen to be:

2
2
mi
R
a

= III-68
and the geometric prefactor, (PF)
mi
, is chosen to be:
(PF)
mi
= 6 III-69
Similar developments can be done for slabs and cylinder micropore matrix
sub-elements. The results are shown in Table below.

Table III-1. Micropore matrix geometries, prefactors, and shape factors (After Boyer et al.)
Micropore Matrix
Geometry
Characteristic
Dimension
Geometric Prefactor
(PF)
mi

Shape Factor a
Slabs Half Thickness, h
mi
2
2
2
2
4674 . 2
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
mi mi
h h

Cylinders Radius, R
mi
4
2
2
4082 . 2 7832 . 5
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
mi mi
R R

Spheres Radius, R
mi
6
2
2
8696 . 9
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
mi mi
R R

Comparisons of the pseudosteady state matrix/fissure transfer (equation III-56)
and the unsteady state matrix/fissure transfer (equation III-66), for different subelements
geometries and simple boundary conditions, are presented in figures III-4 and III-5. As
its shown in the figures, they are in agreement.


50























Figure II-4. Comparison of the Pseudosteady State diffusion/sorption and the
unsteady state diffusion/sorption model for slab matrix subelements
4




51
























Figure II-5. Comparison of the Pseudosteady State diffusion/sorption and the
unsteady state diffusion/sorption model for sphere matrix subelements
4


The analytic solution of equation III-62 requires the evaluation of an infinite series. For
small times, this series tends to converge rather slowly. On the other hand, to solve this
equation numerically requires solving NR*NI equations (for three dimension is
NR*NI*NJ*NK equations), in addition to the 2*NI macropore (for three dimension is
2*NI*NJ*NK equations). For this reason, and because of the good agreement between
two approaches shown in figures III-4 and III-5, the Pseudosteady state approach has
been used in the model formulation.


52
III-1-7 Initial and Boundary Conditions

Initial and Boundary conditions must be assigned to the differential equations in
order to be able to solve them and complete the model. The choice of the initial and
boundary conditions depends on the problem to be solved. For the single-well models
considered in this study, the internal boundaries were the wellbore, the hydraulically
induced fracture, or a combination of the wellbore and fracture. The external boundary
depends on the macropore coordinate geometry and is assumed to be either cylindrical, or
elliptical in shape. The model does not allow for unbounded reservoirs. We can simulate
coal seams of this type by considering sufficiently large, closed drainage areas.
Sufficiently large areas can be defined as areas in which the pressure transient by the
well or fracture does not come into contact with the external boundary during the life of
the simulation.


III-1-8 Single-Phase Gas Model

In the equations describing single-phase gas transport, the time derivatives are first
order, and space derivatives are second order. To obtain a unique solution for the
equations, one initial condition for the gas pressure, P
g
, and micropore gas concentration,
V
mi
, are required. Two boundary conditions are needed for gas pressure. The initial
condition for the gas pressure can be obtained from the local pressure gradient and depth
of the coal seam. Mathematically, this can be stated as:

k
wSC
SC g g
d P P P
144
0

+ = = ; over the reservoir volume, t = 0 III-70
where d
k
is the depth of the k
th
zone. The use of
144
wSC

as the local gradient implies that

the water in the overburden is incompressible. Equation III-70 is a default.
To obtain the initial condition for the gas content, V
mi
, it is assumed that over
geologic time, the adsorbed gas in the micropores has obtained equilibrium with the free
gas in the macropores. This can be written as:

53
) (
0 0
g E mi mi
P V V V = = ; over the reservoir time, t = 0 III-71
At the wellbore (internal boundary) one production scheme was considered. That is:
Constant terminal pressure (Dirichlet boundary, t > 0):
P
g
= P
wf
(t) ; on the internal boundary, t > 0 III-72
At the external boundary, closed (no flow) boundary was considered:
0 =

g
P
r
; on the external boundary, t > 0 III-73


III-1-9 Two-Phase Water and Gas Model

In the equations describing two-phase flow, first order derivatives of the gas
saturation, S
g
, with respect to time and second order derivatives of gas saturation with
respect to the spatial variables are present. These derivatives occur along with the
derivatives of pressure and concentration. Thus, to obtain a unique solution for these
equations, additional initial and boundary conditions are required for gas saturation.
Along with the initial conditions stated earlier (equations III-70 and III-71), the following
condition for gas saturation can be used:

0
g g
S S = t = 0 III-74
The initial boundary condition for the gas saturation can be obtained from the
capillary pressure relationship. If the capillary pressure end effects are ignored, then the
pressure gradients of the water and gas phases are assumed to be approximately equal on
the internal boundary. Mathematically, this can be stated as:

g w
P
r
P
r

; on the internal boundary, t > 0 III-75

Equation III-75, as written, is in a form that is not suitable for use with equations
III-44 and III-45. To obtain the applicable boundary condition, consider the capillary
pressure relationship:

w g g cgw
P P S P = ) ( III-76
Equation III-76 implies that:

54

w g g cgw
P
r
P
r
S P
r

) ( III-77
or:

w g g
g
cgw
P
r
P
r
S
r dS
dP

III-78
The substitution of equation III-75 into equation III-78 yields:
0 =

g
g
cgw
S
r dS
dP
; on the external boundary, t > 0 III-79
In general, the slope of the capillary pressure curve is nonzero, which implies that:
0 =

g
S
r
; on the internal boundary, t > 0 III-80
The other internal boundary conditions for two-phase flow are:
) (t P P
wf g
= ; on the internal boundary, t > 0 III-81
The external boundary conditions are:
0 =

g
S
r
; on the external boundary, t > 0 III-82
0 =

g
P
r
; on the external boundary, t > 0 III-83



55
III-2 Macropore Transport Equations in Elliptical Coordinate System

In this study, to model a stimulated reservoir, an elliptical coordinate system has
been used to build the grid. The final forms of the equations are presented in the elliptical
coordinate system.

III-2-1 Single-Phase Gas Equation

Final form of the single-phase gas equation in elliptical coordinates has the form:

( ) ( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
(
(
(
(
(

(
(

Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
P
Z
P
P
P b
k
L
L
g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g g
g
g
g
f
f

1000
}
) (
1
2
{
2 cos 2 cosh
1
III-84

III-2-2 Single-Phase Conventional Gas Equation

Final form for single-phase conventional gas equation in the elliptical coordinate
system:

( ) ( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +
(
(
(
(
(

(
(

Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
P
Z
P
P
P b
k
L
L
g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g g
g
g
g
f
f

1000
}
) (
1
2
{
2 cos 2 cosh
1
III-85


56
III-2-3 Two-Phase Gas Equation

Final form for two-phase gas equation in the elliptical coordinate system:

( ) ( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

= +
+

|
|
.
|

\
|

+
(
(

Z
S P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
Z
S P
L
D
P
L Z
P
L
g g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g g
f
ma
g
f
g g
f

1000
2 2
2 cos 2 cosh
1
III-86

III-2-4 Two-Phase Water Equation

Final form for two-phase water equation in the elliptical coordinate system:

( ) ( )
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+

w
g ma
bma
STB
w
cgw g
f
w
f
B
S
t V
P
d
P P
L Z
L
1
615 . 5
144
2
2 cos 2 cosh
1

III-87





57
III-3 Finite-Difference Calculus

In petroleum reservoir applications, a situation often arises where functional values
are known only at discrete points. For example, these discrete points can occur during
field measurements where such values as pressure and production rates are measured at
fixed time intervals. The values of the measured properties are known only at the instant
when they are measured.
For discrete points, mathematical techniques are also available to approximate
values of functions and their derivatives at points where they are not known. Finite-
Difference calculus is such a technique. Finite-difference calculus is the branch of
mathematics that uses basic arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication,
and division) to approximate derivatives, differential equations, and other analytical
operations performed on continuous functions.
9

III-3-1 Finite-Difference Operators

The basis of finite-difference calculus is a group of operators that acts on discrete
points. An operator is a sequence of mathematical operations performed in a fixed order
that acts on any number of the discrete points and results in a final number. The operators
used in finite-difference calculus include the forward-difference operator, ; the
backward-difference operator, ; the central-difference operator, ; the shift (translation)
operator, E; and the average operator, A. Backward-Difference and Central-Difference
Operators will be explained here.

III-3-2 Backward-Difference Operator

The backward-difference operator, , operating on a function, f(x
i
),is defined as
( ) ( ) ( )
1
=
i i i
x f x f x f
In the equation above, x
i
and x
i-1
= the discrete points and f(x
i
) and f(x
i-1
) = the functional
values at these discrete points.

58
Similarly, the second-order backward-difference operator is defined as

( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) ( )
2 1 2 1 1
1 1
2
2


+ = =
= = =
i i i i i i i
i i i i i i
x f f x f x f x f x f x f
x f x f x f x f x f x f

In general, the k
th
-order forward-difference operator is defined as
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

=
+ (

=
k
j
j k i
j k
i
k
x f
j
k
x f
0
1 1
where
(

j
k
= the binominal coefficient defined as

( )! !
!
j k j
k
j
k

=
(

Forward-difference operator is similar to backward-difference, but its applied on
point x
i+1
and x
i
.

III-3-3 Central-Difference Operator

The central-difference operator, , operating on f(x
i
) is defined as
( ) ( ) ( )
2 / 1 2 / 1 +
=
i i i
x f x f x f
An alternative definition of the central-difference operator is
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 +
=
i i i
x f x f x f
Similarly, the second-order central-difference operator is defined as

( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1 1
2 / 1 2 / 1 2 / 1 2 / 1
2
2
+ +
+ +
+ = =
= = =
i i i i i i i
i i i i i i
x f f x f x f x f x f x f
x f x f x f x f x f x f



59
III-4 Explicit and Implicit

The problem to be solved in reservoir engineering is to advance the simulation
from the initial conditions to future times. This is accomplished by stepping through the
simulation with discrete time intervals called timesteps. Although forward-difference and
backward-difference equations have similar forms, there is a fundamental difference
between the two formulations. Because of the time levels assigned to the pressures on the
left sides of the equations, the forward-difference equation results in an explicit
calculation for the new-time-level pressures while the backward-difference equation
results in an implicit calculation for the new-time-level pressures. For example, the
backward-difference approximation to the slightly compressible flow equation results in
an implicit calculation procedure for the new-time level pressures. Rearranging the
equation yields:

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

+ =
+
(
(

+ +
|
|
.
|

\
|

+ +
+
+ +
n
i
i
l c
l b
lSC
n
i
n
lx
n
i
n
lx
n
lx
i
l c
l b n
i
n
lx
p
t B
c V
q p
T p T T
t B
c V
p T
i
i i i i
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
2 / 1 2 / 1 2 / 1 2 / 1

where the quantities
1 1
1
,
+ +
+
n
i
n
i
p p , and
1
1
+

n
i
p are all unknowns. Unlike the explicit
formulation, the equation above cannot be solved explicitly for
1 + n
i
p because both
1
1
+
+
n
i
p
and
1
1
+

n
i
p are also unknown. Consequently, we must solve the equation above written for
all grid blocks and unknowns simultaneously.
9


60
III-5 Grid Systems

The grid systems used in this study are point-distributed systems. Mesh points are
placed on the boundaries of the reservoir, and additional points are placed in the interior
of the reservoir at regularly spaced intervals. The spacing of the interior mesh points
depends on the coordinate geometry used in the simulation.

III-5-1 Cylindrical Grid Systems

For a single, unstimulated drainage well modeled in cylindrical coordinates, a grid
system similar to that shown in Figure below is used. The radii of the concentric circles
representing the radial mesh points are spaced logarithmically between the well radius,
r
w
, and the external radius, r
e
. Logarithmic spacing is used because of the high gradients
in the vicinity of the wellbore. The equation used to generate the radial spacing is:

( ) 1
1

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
NI
i
w
e
w i
r
r
r r NI i ,..., 2 , 1 =

The internodal boundaries are obtained by the exact-flux method of Settari and Aziz.
These boundaries are defined by:

( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+
+
+
i
i
i i
i
r
r
r r
r
1
1
2 / 1
ln
1 ,..., 2 , 1 = NI i


( )
|
|
.
|

\
|

1
1
2 / 1
ln
i
i
i i
i
r
r
r r
r NI i ,..., 3 , 2 =





61



















Figure III-6 Typical Grid System for an unstimulated, drainage well modeled in
cylindrical coordinates

62
III-5-2 Elliptical Grid Systems


For simulating drainage wells intercepted by infinite conductivity fractures,
elliptical coordinates can be used. Figure below shows a typical elliptical grid used in the
model. In this study, the elliptical mesh points are spaced logarithmically between the
internal ellipse,
f
, and the external ellipse,
e
.
















Figure III-7 Typical Grid System for stimulated, vertical drainage well modeled
in elliptical coordinates

The equation used to generate the elliptical spacing is:

1
1

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
NI
i
f
e
f i

NI i ,..., 2 , 1 =
An expression for the internal ellipse,
f
, can be developed by considering the
transformation from elliptical coordinates to rectangular coordinates:
( ) ( ) cos cosh
f
L x =
( ) ( ) sin sinh
f
L y =
The substitution of the fracture properties x
f
and w
f
into equations above yields:
( )
f f f
L x cosh =


63
( )
f f
f
L
w
sinh
24
=
solving these equations for the unknowns,
f
and L
f
, leads to:

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

f
f
f
x
w
24
tanh
1

( )
f f f
x L cosh / =
The equations above define the internal ellipse and focal length of the elliptical grid
system.
The external ellipse,
e
, appearing in equation above can be calculated by
considering an equivalent circular drainage area of radial extent r
e
. Equating the volumes
of the elliptical and radial reservoirs results in:
( )
(
(

+ =

f
f
e
e
L
r
2 sinh
2
sinh
2
1
2
2
1

The internodal boundaries of the elliptical grid are spaced arithmetically between
mesh points. The equation used to define the mesh volume is:


( )
2
1
2 / 1

+
=

i
i
NI i ,..., 2 , 1 =


64
III-6 Finite Difference Approximation

III-6-1 Macropore Transport Equations

Once an appropriate grid is chosen, we should transform the continuous differential
equations into discrete form. In this study, the method used to obtain the discretised
equations was the integral method.
To use the integral method, the transport equations are integrated over the
discretised mesh volume. The divergence theorem is then applied to convert the volume
integrals into surface integrals. For the simple geometries considered, these surface
integrals can be evaluated to obtain the discretised from of the transport equations. An
example of the use of the integral method, as applied to the single-phase, cylindrical flow
of gas, is presented here.
The final form of the continuous, single-phase gas equation was:

|
|
.
|

\
|

= +
+

(
(

Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
P
r Z
P
P
P b
k
r
r r
g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
gSC
SC
SC
g
g
g
g
g

1000
) (
1
1
III-88
Integrating the equation above over the discretised volume leads to:

}
} }
}
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+ +

(
(

bma
bma bma
bma
V
g ma
V
bma
t
SC
SC
V
bma
SC
SC
SC
V
g
g
g
g
g
dV
Z
P
t
dV
V
q
T
T P
dV
V
q
T
T P
dV P
r Z
P
P
P b
k
r
r r

1000
) (
1
1
III-89
The volumetric weighted average is defined as:

65
[ ]
}
=
bma
V
bma
k j i
qdV
V
q
1
, ,
III-90
The substitution of equation III-90 for the source terms in equation III-89 yields:
[ ] [ ]
}
}
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+ +

(
(

bma
bma
V
g ma
k j i t
SC
SC
k j i
gSC
SC
SC
V
g
g
g
g
g
dV
Z
P
t
q
T
T P
q
T
T P
dV P
r Z
P
P
P b
k
r
r r

, ,
, ,
1000
) (
1
1
III-91
If we divide the equation III-91 by the discretised bulk volume, we get:

[ ]
[ ]
}
}
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+ +

(
(

bma
bma
V
g ma
bma
bma
k j i t
SC
SC
bma
k j i
gSC
SC
SC
V
g
g
g
g
g
bma
dV
Z
P
t V
V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
dV P
r Z
P
P
P b
k
r
r r V

1
1000
) (
1
1 1
, , , ,
III-92

Rearranging the sequence of operations on the right side of the equation III-92 yields:

[ ]
[ ]
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+ +

(
(

}
}

bma
bma
V
g ma
bma
bma
k j i t
SC
SC
bma
k j i
gSC
SC
SC
V
g
g
g
g
g
bma
dV
Z
P
V t
V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
dV P
r Z
P
P
P b
k
r
r r V

1
1000
) (
1
1 1
, , , ,
III-93


66
The right hand side of the equation III-93 represents the rate of change of the
volumetric weighted average of
|
|
.
|

\
|
Z
P
g ma

. Therefore, equation III-93 becomes:

[ ]
[ ]
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+ +

(
(

}

k j i
g ma
bma
k j i t
SC
SC
bma
k j i
gSC
SC
SC
V
g
g
g
g
g
bma
Z
P
t
V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
dV P
r Z
P
P
P b
k
r
r r V
bma
, ,
, , , ,
1000
) (
1
1 1

III-94
Then the equation III-94 becomes:

( )
[ ]
[ ]
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +

(
(

} } }
+

+

i
g ma
bma
i t
SC
SC
bma
i
gSC
SC
SC
h i
r
g g
g
g
g
i i
Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
dz d rdr
r
P
Z
P
P
P b
k
r
r r r r h
i

1000
) (
1
1
2
2
0
2
0
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
III-95

Evaluating the integrals in Equation III-95 yields:

( )
[ ]
[ ]
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+ +

(
(

+
i
g ma
bma
i t
SC
SC
bma
i
gSC
SC
SC
r
r
g g
g
g
g
i i
Z
P
t
V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
r
P
Z
P
P
P b
k
r
r r
i
i

1000
) (
1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
III-96

or

67


( )
( )
[ ]
[ ]
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

=
+ +

(
(

(
(

+
+

+
+
i
g ma
bma
i t
SC
SC
bma
i
gSC
SC
SC
r
g
r
g
g
g
g
i i
i
r
g
r
g
g
g
g
i i
i
Z
P
t
V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
r
P
Z
P
P
P b
k
r r
r
r
P
Z
P
P
P b
k
r r
r
i
i
i
i

1000
) (
1
2
) (
1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
2 / 1
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
III-97

Using central difference approximations to evaluate the spatial derivatives, equation
III-97 becomes:

( )( )
( )
( )( )
( )
[ ]
[ ]
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +

(
(

(
(

+
+

+ +
+
i
g ma
bma
i t
SC
SC
bma
i
gSC
SC
SC
g g
r
g
g
g
g
i i i i
i
g g
r
g
g
g
g
i i i i
i
Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
P P
Z
P
P
P b
k
r r r r
r
P P
Z
P
P
P b
k
r r r r
r
i i
i
i i
i

1000
) (
1
2
) (
1
2
1
2 / 1
1
2 / 1
1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
III-98

68

The central difference approximations used in equation III-98 are second order
approximations to the continuous derivatives and are a direct result of Taylor series
expansions of the gas pressure about the internodal boundaries.
We can generalize equation III-98 for any coordinate system. Replacing the first
group in the divergence terms by a geometry dependent prefactor, (PF)
ma
, we can write
equation III-98 as:

( )
( )
[ ]
[ ]
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
= + +

(
(

(
(

+
i
g ma
bma
t
SC
SC
bma
i
gSC
SC
SC
g g
i
g
g
g
g
i
ma
g g
i
g
g
g
g
i
ma
Z
P
dt
d
V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
P P
Z
P
P
P b
k
PF
P P
Z
P
P
P b
k
PF
i i
i i

1000
) (
1
) (
) (
1
) (
1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
2 / 1
2 / 1
III-99

where the prefactor has units of reciprocal feet squared (ft
-2
).
The definitions of geometric prefactors for the cylindrical and elliptical coordinate
system are shown in the Table below.









69
Table III-2 Value of Bulk volume and geometric prefactors used in the cylindrical finite
difference equations.
Quality Units Definition
Bulk Volume, V
bma
Ft
( )
2
2
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
h r r
i i

+


2 / 1
) (
+ i
ma
PF
Ft
-2

( )( )
i i i i
i
r r r r
r

+ +
+
1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
2

2 / 1
) (
i
ma
PF
Ft
-2

( )( )
1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
2
+

i i i i
i
r r r r
r



Table III-3 Value of Bulk Volume and geometric prefactors used in the Elliptical finite difference
equations.
Quality Units Definition
Bulk Volume, V
bma
Ft
( ) ( ) [ ]h L
i i f 2 / 1 2 / 1
2
2 sinh 2 sinh
+

2 / 1
) (
+ i
ma
PF
Ft
-2

( ) ( ) [ ]( )
i i i i f
L
+ + 1 2 / 1 2 / 1
2
2 sinh 2 sinh
4

2 / 1
) (
i
ma
PF
Ft
-2

( ) ( ) [ ]( )
1 2 / 1 2 / 1
2
2 sinh 2 sinh
4
+

i i i i f
L


At the boundaries, the treatment of mesh points is a little different, due to the use of
point-distributed grids. For example, a mesh point on the external boundary (r
NI
=r
e
) does
not have a mesh volume defined by r
i+1/2
. For boundary points, the limits of integration in
equation III-95 must be altered to accommodate the boundary. For the external boundary,
the prefactor in cylindrical coordinates becomes:

( )( )
1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
2
) (

=
i i i e
i
i
ma
r r r r
r
PF III-100a
or:

( )( )
1
2
2 / 1
2
2 / 1
2 / 1
2
) (

=
NI NI NI NI
NI
NI
ma
r r r r
r
PF III-100b

70
and similarly for all boundaries in the reservoir. This treatment of boundary points is
equivalent to the method of images.
Equation III-99 represents a system of coupled, nonlinear, ordinary differential
equations, with the continuous independent variable, which is time. We also can
discretise the time, so the equation III-99 can be approximated by the following backward
difference formulation:

( )
( )
[ ]
[ ]
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

= + +

(
(

(
(

+
+
+
+
+ +
+

+ +
+
+

+
N
i
g ma
N
i
g ma
bma
N
i t
SC
SC
bma
N
i
gSC
SC
SC
N
g
N
g
N
i
g
g
g
g
i
ma
N
g
N
g
N
i
g
g
g
g
i
ma
Z
P
Z
P
t V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
P P
Z
P
P
P b
k
PF
P P
Z
P
P
P b
k
PF
i i
i i

1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1000
) (
1
) (
) (
1
) (
1
1

III-101

In equation III-101, the superscript N+1 and N refer to the new and old time
steps, respectively.
Equation III-101 is the final form of the finite difference approximation of single-
phase gas transport equation. We can use the same method, for the two-phase transport
equations:

71

( ) [ ] { }
( ) [ ] { }
[ ] ( ) ( )

= +

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
+ + + +
+

+ + + +
+
+
+

+
N
i
w
g ma
N
i
w
g ma
bma
N
i STB
N
g cgw
N
g cgw
N
g
N
g
N
i
w
ma
i
ma
N
g cgw
N
g cgw
N
g
N
g
N
i
w
w
i
ma
B
S
B
S
t V
q
S P S P P P
B
PF
S P S P P P
B
PF
i i i i
i i i i
1 1
1 615 . 5
) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
1
2 / 1
1 1 1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1 1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1
1

III-102
for the water, and the equation for the gas is:

( )
( )
[ ]
[ ]

=
+ +

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
+
+

+
+ +
+

+ +
+
+ +
+
+
+

+
N
i
g g ma
N
i
g g ma
bma
N
i t
SC
SC
bma
N
i
gSC
SC
SC
N
i
g g
N
i
g g
ma
N
g
N
g
N
i
g g
i
ma
N
i
g g
N
i
g g
ma
N
g
N
g
N
i
g g
i
ma
Z
P S
Z
P S
t
V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
Z
S P
Z
S P
D P P
Z
P
PF
Z
S P
Z
S P
D P P
Z
P
PF
i i
i i

1
2 / 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1
1000
) (
) (
1
1
III-103

The unknowns in these equations are the gas pressure,
1 + N
g
P , the gas saturation,
1 + N
g
S ,
and the methane concentration,
1 + N
mi
V , at each mesh point. The coefficients in the
equations are functions of both the dependent and independent variables. In this study, a
fully implicit formulation is used to solve these systems of equations. The nonlinear
coefficients (denoted by the superscript N+1) are evaluated using the most current
values of the unknowns. The space dependent coefficients (denoted by the subscripts
2 / 1 i are evaluated at the internodal boundaries. The values of pressure and
saturation are known only at the mesh points, and because of that the values of the
nonlinear coefficients are also known only at these locations. To obtain the values of
these coefficients at the internodal boundaries, the following averaging schemes are used.


72
The pressure dependent functions;
1 + N
g
P ,
g
,
w
, Z, B
w
, and
w
; are arithmetically
averaged. Therefore, the value of property f at the internodal boundary is approximated
by:
( )
( ) ( )
2
1 1
2 / 1
1 1
+ +
+
+
+

+
N
g
N
g
i
N
g
i i
P f P f
P f III-104
The saturation dependent functions, k
rw
and k
rg
are evaluated with a single-point,
upstream weighting method. The following equation is used to determine the relative
permeability to phase p at the boundary between two adjacent mesh points:


) (
1
1
+
+
N
g rp
i
S k if
1 1
1
+ +
+
<
N
g
N
g
i i
P P

+
+
2 / 1
1
) (
i
N
g rp
S k
) (
1 + N
g rp
i
S k if
1 1
1
+ +
+

N
g
N
g
i i
P P III-105


III-6-2 Micropore Transport Equation

In order to be able to solve the transport equations for water and gas, we need to
have another equation, which is the micropore transport equation of gas. The micropore
transport equation results in a source term to the gas transport equation. As such, it must
be averaged over the time interval, t, as well as the discretised mesh volume.
Starting with the conditions form of the micropore equation:
[ ]
mi g E mi
mi
V P V a D
dt
dV
= ) ( III-106
Assuming that the equilibrium concentration is a constant, equal to the arithmetic
average during the time step, equation III-106 can be written as:

(
(

+
=
+
mi
N
g E
N
g E
mi
mi
V
P V P V
a D
dt
dV
2
) ( ) (
1
III-107

73
Separating variables in equation III-107 and integrating over the time interval
yields:

[ ]
} }
+ +
=

+

+
1 1
1
1
2
) ( ) (
N
mi
N
mi
N
N
V
V
t
t
mi mi mi
N
g E
N
g E
t d a D V d V
P V P V


III-108
or:

[ ]
[ ]
t a D
V
P V P V
V
P V P V
mi
N
mi
N
g E
N
g E
N
mi
N
g E
N
g E
=

+
+
+
+
2
) ( ) (
2
) ( ) (
ln
1
1
1
III-109
rearranging equation III-109 leads to:

( )
( ) [ ]
[ ]
2
) ( ) (
exp 1
exp
1
1
N
g E
N
g E
mi
N
mi mi
N
mi
P V P V
t a D
V t a D V
+
+
=
+
+
III-110
Equation III-110 is the general form of the discretised equation for the methane
concentration. Evaluated at mesh point i , this equation becomes:

( )
( ) [ ]
[ ]
2
) ( ) (
exp 1
exp
1
1
N
g E
N
g E
mi
N
i
mi mi
N
i
mi
i i
P V P V
t a D
V t a D V
+
+
=
+
+
III-111
The matrix/fissure source term,
bma
t
V
q
, is defined by:

dt
dV
PF
V
q
mi
mi
bma
t
) ( = III-112
Discretising equation III-112 results in:

( )
t
V V
PF
V
q
N
mi
N
mi
mi
bma
N
t

=
+ + 1 2 / 1
) ( III-113
at mesh point i , equation III-113 becomes:

( )
t
V V
PF
V
q
N
i
mi
N
i
mi
mi
bma
N
i
t

=
+ + 1 2 / 1
) ( III-114
The substitution of equation III-111 into equation III-114 yields:

74

( )
( ) [ ]
( ) [ ]
[ ]
}
2
) ( ) (
exp 1
1 exp {
1
2 / 1
N
g E
N
g E
mi
N
i
mi mi
mi
bma
N
i
t
i i
P V P V
t a D
V t a D
t
PF
V
q
+
+

=
+
+
III-115
Equation III-115 defines the average diffusion/sorption rate at mesh point i during
the time interval, t. Averaging over the mesh volume is performed implicitly, since
1 + N
g
i
P represents an average mesh pressure.


75
III-6-3 Initial and Boundary Conditions

III-6-3-1 Initial Conditions

In the finite difference, the expressions
N
g
N
g
i i
S P , and
N
mi
i
V , which represent the values
of the dependent variables at the old time level, appear in the macropore transport
equations and in the diffusion/sorption rate equation. For the first time step, N = 0, these
quantities take on the values of the initial conditions. This can be written as:


0
g
N
g
P P
i
= NI i ,..., 2 , 1 = III-116
0
g
N
g
S S
i
= NI i ,..., 2 , 1 = III-117
) (
0
i
g E
N
i
mi
P V V = NI i ,..., 2 , 1 = III-118


III-6-3-2 External Boundary Conditions

For no-flow boundaries at the external limit of the reservoir, or at any place of
symmetry, a treatment which is equivalent to the method of images is used.

III-6-3-3 Internal Boundary Conditions

For constant bottom-hole pressure, the appropriate mesh points are assigned the
value of the flowing, bottom-hole pressure, and the flux out of these specific nodes is
calculated from the pressure and saturation distribution. So for modeling an unstimulated,
vertical well (in cylindrical coordinates) which is producing at a specified bottom-hole
pressure, the following condition applies:

k
wf g
P P =
1
III-119

76
III-7 Solution Procedure

III-7-1 Newton-Raphson Procedure

The finite-difference approximations to the two-phase flow equations generate a
system of coupled, highly nonlinear, algebraic equations. We need to linearize them to be
able to solve them. The linearization technique used in this study was the generalized
Newton-Raphson procedure.
The following discussion is for two-phase flow in a single dimension, but the
formulations can be extended to multidimensional flow.
Define the residuals of equations III-102 and III-103 as:

( ) [ ] { }
( ) [ ] { }
[ ]
( ) ( )
0
1 1
1
615 . 5
) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
) , , , , , (
1
2 / 1
1 1 1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1 1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
=

+

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
+
+
+ + + +
+

+ + + +
+
+
+
+ + + + + +

+ +
+ +
N
i
w
g ma
N
i
w
g ma
bma
N
i STB
N
g cgw
N
g cgw
N
g
N
g
N
i
w
w
i
ma
N
g cgw
N
g cgw
N
g
N
g
N
i
w
w
i
ma
N
g
N
g
N
g
N
g
N
g
N
g w
B
S
B
S
t V
q
S P S P P P
B
PF
S P S P P P
B
PF
S S S P P P R
i i i i
i i i i
i i i i i i

III-120
And:


77
( )
( )
[ ]
[ ]
0
1
1000
) (
) (
) , , , , , (
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
2 / 1
2 / 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1
=
(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

+ +

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
+
+
+
+

+
+ +
+

+ +
+
+ +
+
+
+
+ + + + + +

+
+ +
N
i
g g ma
N
i
g g ma
bma
N
i t
SC
SC
bma
N
i
gSC
SC
SC
N
i
g g
N
i
g g
ma
N
g
N
g
N
i
g g
i
ma
N
i
g g
N
i
g g
ma
N
g
N
g
N
i
g g
i
ma
N
g
N
g
N
g
N
g
N
g
N
g g
Z
P S
Z
P S
t
V
q
T
T P
V
q
T
T P
Z
S P
Z
S P
D P P
Z
P
PF
Z
S P
Z
S P
D P P
Z
P
PF
S S S P P P R
i i
i i
i i i i i i

III-121
Expanding the residuals by Taylor series results in:

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+

+ =
k
g
k
N
g
w k
g
k
N
g
w
k
g
k
N
g
w k
g
k
N
g
w
k
g
k
N
g
w k
g
k
N
g
w k
w w
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
S
S
R
S
S
R
S
S
R
P
P
R
P
P
R
P
P
R
R R

+ higher order terms = 0 III-122

and:

78

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+

+ =
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g g
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
S
S
R
S
S
R
S
S
R
P
P
R
P
P
R
P
P
R
R R

+ higher order terms = 0 III-123

Truncating the higher order terms and rearranging leads to:

k
w
k
g
k
N
g
w k
g
k
N
g
w
k
g
k
N
g
w k
g
k
N
g
w
k
g
k
N
g
w k
g
k
N
g
w
i i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
R S
S
R
S
S
R
S
S
R
P
P
R
P
P
R
P
P
R
=

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
III-124
and:

k
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
k
g
k
N
g
g
i i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
R S
S
R
S
S
R
S
S
R
P
P
R
P
P
R
P
P
R
=

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
III-125


79
In equations III-124 and III-125, the unknowns are the changes in pressure and
saturation from one iteration to the next. The coefficients in these equations are the
partial derivatives of the residuals with respect to each unknown. The definitions of these
coefficients are presented in Appendix A. These coefficients are independent of the
unknowns, so that equations III-124 and III-125 represent a system of linear equations.
This linear system can be written in matrix form as:

k k k
r u J

=
+1
III-126
where the superscripts k and k+1 refer to iteration levels.
For natural ordering of the unknowns, the Jacobian matrix, J, is a block (2x2),
banded matrix. The number of bands is dependent on the number of flow dimensions.
The band structure for the most general matrix (three dimensional flow) is presented in
figure below. In this figure, the matrix elements are (2x2) submatrices and have the form:

1 1
1 1
+ +
+ +

=
N
g
g
N
g
g
N
g
w
N
g
w
i
i i
i i
S
R
P
R
S
R
P
R
A
III-127a


1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
+ +
+ +

=
N
g
g
N
g
g
N
g
w
N
g
w
i
i i
i i
S
R
P
R
S
R
P
R
B
III-127b

1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
+ +
+ +
+ +
+ +

=
N
g
g
N
g
g
N
g
w
N
g
w
i
i i
i i
S
R
P
R
S
R
P
R
C
III-127c


80


C






A





B



Figure III-8 Band Structure of Jacobian Matrix



The Jacobian matrix in this study is evaluated analytically in accordance with the
definitions presented in Appendix A.
In equation III-126, the entries of the unknown vector, u

, and the residual vector,

r

, are column vectors of the form:

i
i
g
g
i
S
P
u

III-128
and:

i
i
g
w
i
R
R
r

III-129

The method used to advance from time level N to time level N+1 now
becomes a simple iterative procedure. The values of the dependent variables,
1 1
,
+ + N
g
N
g
i i
S P ,
and
1 + N
mi
i
V , are initially approximated by the values at the old time level (time level N).
These approximate values are used to evaluate the Jacobian matrix and residual vector.

81
Equation III-126 is then solved, using a linear solution technique, to obtain the changes in
pressure and saturation during that iteration. The approximate values of the dependent
variables are then improved by the addition of these changes to the initial approximation.
The Jacobian matrix and residual vector are reevaluated, using the improved
approximations, and equation III-126 is solved to obtain the changes for the subsequent
iteration. This procedure is repeated until the model converges. The criteria for
convergence are:
1.
1
1
<
+ k
g
i
P
NI i ,..., 2 , 1 = III-130
2.
2
1
<
+ k
g
i
S
NI i ,..., 2 , 1 = III-131
3.
3
<
k
w
i
R
NI i ,..., 2 , 1 = III-132
4.
3
<
k
g
i
R
NI i ,..., 2 , 1 = III-133
5.
( )
4
1
2 / 1
1
2 / 1 1
<

=
+
=
+ +
NI
i
i
N
gSC
NI
i
i
N
gSC
N
i
N
i
t q
t q G G
III-134
6.
( )
4
1
2 / 1
1
2 / 1 1
<

=
+
=
+ +
NI
i
i
N
STB
NI
i
i
N
STB
N
i
N
i
t q
t q W W
III-135

For one-dimensional flow problems the Jacobian matrix has a tridiagonal band
structure. For these problems, the method used to solve equation III-38 was Gaussian
Elimination procedure. Gaussian Elimination is one of the oldest and most popular direct-
solution methods and forms the basis of several other direct-solution techniques. The
Gaussian Elimination procedure involves two distinct stages. In the first stage, the
elimination stage, unknowns are systematically removed from the rows of the matrix
equation. The result of this stage is an upper triangular matrix. In the second stage, the
backsubstitution stage, the unknowns are determined by substituting known quantities
into the triangularized matrix equation.

82
Chapter IV Results & Discussion

IV-1 Enhancements of CBM-SWRM to King & Ertekins Model

This program is a modification of the King & Ertekins Model that was written
for a Main Frame version of FORTRAN compiler. The original program developed by
King & Ertekin cannot be effectively used in its current form. This is due to the fact that
the FORTRAN compiler that was used for the original code is no longer supported and
main frame computers are a thing of the past.
One of the major contributions of this new model is making an important model
workable again for Windows based PCs. Furthermore, several new enhancements to the
legacy code were implemented that are going to be covered in this section.
CBM is becoming a very important source of natural gas in the United States.
Until a few years ago, methane from coal seams was vented into the air in order to be
able to extract the coal from the reservoir. In those days, the importance of the natural gas
in the coal wasnt fully appreciated. In the past decade, industry has paid much attention
to this natural resource. More and more independent producers are getting into CBM
operations. Many CBM simulators have been made, however most of them are
expensive, complex, and time consuming. Many of the independent companies do not
have the resources to invest in these expensive computer models. Therefore, there is a
definite need for an accessible and easy to use computer model, which is also accurate for
this segment of the industry.
Besides being inexpensive and easy to use, this program has additional
advantages to the prior model. These advantages are:
Internal Matrix Solver. Unlike King & Ertekins model that a commercial
mathematical library was used to solve the resulting matrices, a new code was
written, tested and verified that would solve the matrices internally without the
need for a commercial solver. The method of solving the matrices was Gaussian
Elimination. Gaussian elimination is one of the oldest and most popular direct-
solution methods. The Gaussian elimination procedure involves two steps. The
first step is removing the unknowns from the equations in the matrix. In this step,

83
the first equation is divided by the coefficient of the first unknown (assuming that
the coefficient is not zero), then the first unknown can be calculated from the first
equation based on the other unknowns. This unknown can be removed from the
succeeding equations. Then the second equation is divided by the new coefficient
of the second unknown. Then this unknown can be removed from the succeeding
equations. This procedure will continue for n times (for a system of n
equations). The second step is back-substitution which the last unknown which is
known now, is substituted in the previous equation to solve the previous
unknown. This procedure will continue until all of the unknowns are calculated.

84

Graphical Interface. The program is windows-based and can be run on any PC.
Its menu driven results can be shown in a spreadsheet, and the user has access to
readily available graphs. Figures IV-1 through IV-3 show three screen shots of the
model CBM-SWRM. Figure IV-1 shows the interface of the model that is
presented to the user by running the program.


Figure IV-1 Interface of CBM-SWRM

85
Figure IV-2 is a screen shot of the process oriented console. With this console, user
can open projects, go other modules in order to calculate the reserve, make a production
schedule, build a batch file, run or terminate the simulation, and also view the results.
Pressure and saturation distributions in the reservoir can be viewed throughout the
simulation process. The buttons on this console will be disabled or enabled based on the
status of the program. This console makes working with this program much easier than
having the user to use the menu.


Figure IV-2 Menu of the CBM-SWRM


86
Figure IV-3 is a screen shot of the main input module. There are two tabs on this module
which the first tab is the General Information and Initial Conditions. This general
information is the formation properties, fluid properties, initial, and boundary conditions.
As its shown in these figures, working with this program is easy. These data can be
entered in the program and can be saved as a project to be able to use in future.


Figure IV-3 CBM-SWRM interface. Two tabs for entering reservoir properties


Pressure and Saturation Distribution Plots. Pressure and saturation distribution
plots for gas and water can be seen during the run time. The colors will change for
each node with changes in pressure, and the color bar for the respective pressure
range is shown beside the plot. This is a good tool to track the change of pressure
during production.

87

Figure IV-4 Gas Pressure Distribution shown in CBM-SWRM during simulation process

Figure IV-4 is an example of pressure distribution window. Gas pressure and
saturation, and water pressure and saturation distributions can be seen during the
simulation. Figure IV-4 shows the reservoir gas distribution in day 3276. The range
of gas pressure of each block can be found by looking at the color pallet

88

Gas and Water Production Plots. After the simulation is finished, results can be
shown graphically. Gas production, gas desorption, and water flow rates can be
plotted on the graph. Also, cumulative gas and water production, and percentage
of gas produced from the Original-Gas-In-Place (OGIP) can be plotted. Results
can also be saved to a spreadsheet and can be directly exported to Excel. Figure
IV-5 shows an example of the results of a simulation. In this module, user can
select each one of the flow rates (gas, gas desorption, and water) to view. Also gas
and water production can be selected to view. Percentage of gas produced from
OGIP can be viewed. User can change the ranges of the axes, change the color
and type of the lines, and also add marker to the lines. Labels of the graph and
axes can also be changed.


Figure IV-5 Gas production, gas desorption, and water production shown graphically in CBM-
SWRM

89

Figure IV-6 cumulative gas and water production shown in CBM-SWRM

Figure IV-6 is an example of the water production resulted from the simulation. In a case
that gas production exceeds 1,000,000 scf, the results of gas production will be shown in
MMCF. The reason of this is the problem that the Chart control has in Visual Basic.
This chart control cannot plot the values more than 1000000 (1 million). Therefore, the
program will check the values of gas production. If there is any value in gas production
that is more than 1 million SCF, it automatically changes the values to MMCF.

90

Figure IV-7 percentage of cumulative gas produced vs. OGIP shown in CBM-SWRM

Figure IV-7 is an example of gas production percentage from OGIP. This graph could be
useful when the user wants to know what percentage of gas can be produced after a
certain time. It is obvious that in this case, the production axis (y axis) should have a
minimum of 0 and a maximum of 100.

91

Reserve Estimation. This program is capable of estimating volumetric reserve.
By entering the reservoir characteristics, OGIP and Original-Water-In-Place
(OWIP) can be estimated. After entering the data, by clicking on Calculate
Reserve, the calculated reserve will be shown in Reserve window. After
running the simulation, some information about the gas peak will be provided to
the user which tells the user the maximum gas flow rate, the time that the
reservoir each the gas peak rate, and percentage of water produced from the
OWIP.


Figure IV-8 Reserve estimation in CBM-SWRM

Batch Analysis. Batch processing is an important capability that any reservoir
simulator should have. Sensitivity analysis, parametric study, or any other kinds
of research need to run several runs. Ability of a simulator for batch processing
saves a considerable amount of time for the user, which the only work that the
user should do is to provide the models to the simulator and ask the simulator to
run all of the models one after another. Batch processing is available in this
software. Several variables can be chosen to be changed in the batch processing,
which different distribution types can be applied to each one of the variables. The

92
simulator will run for all the models built and saves the results of each run in a
different output file. The batch file could be built in Build Batch File control.

The variables that can be selected in the batch file are:
o Formation Thickness
o Formation Depth
o Langmuir Pressure Constant
o Langmuir Volume Constant
o Sorption Time
o Coal Porosity
o Coal Permeability
o Initial Gas Pressure
o Initial Gas Saturation,
o Bottom hole Pressure


Figure IV-9 Building Batch File in CBM-SWRM

Figure IV-9 shows the interface for setting up a batch file process. Several parameters
can be chosen from a drop down list. As a parameter is selected, user can identify the
probability distribution function for that parameter. Min, max, and most likely as well as
other necessary values can be entered as a function of the type of the distribution that is
selected. Furthermore, user can identify the number of values (randomly selected) that

93
should be selected (generated) for the identified probability distribution function.
Examples of probability density functions available in the CBM-SWRM batch module
are shown in figures IV-10 through 14.
There are different distribution types that can be applied to calculate each variable.
These are:






o Uniform

Figure IV-10 shape of Uniform probability density function

o Gaussian

Figure IV-11 shape of Gaussian probability density function


value
probability
min max
probability
value

94
o Triangular

Figure IV-12 shape of Triangular probability density function



o Discrete

Figure IV-13 shape of Discrete probability density function

o Histogram

Figure IV-14 shape of Histogram probability density function

value
probability
value
probability
value
probability
min max
Most likely

95
Every value for each parameter is selected during a process. After the parameter is
selected and a distribution function has been chosen for it and the minimum, maximum,
most likely, or other necessary values are entered, a random variable is selected between
the specified range. Based on the distribution type, this random variable is entered in the
corresponding formula and a value will be calculated for that property. This process will
be done for all the properties and the number of values for each property is equal to the
number of runs that user wants to make. All of these values will be saved as a batch file
and will be sent to the simulator and simulation will be run for each model and an output
file will be generated.

Production Schedule. This program has the ability of production scheduling.
Production of the well can be stopped for a number of days and then start
producing again, which at this point only two options are available; production
and no-production.

Figure IV-15 Production schedule window for scheduling the production of the well

96
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D
Not-Scheduled
Scheduled

Figure IV-16 Gas production of a well when it has been shut-in four times and when it produces
continuously

Figure IV-16 shows the gas production of a well in two conditions; when its been
producing continuously and when its been shut-in four times during the production life.
Each time that the well has started producing after it has been shut-in for a few days, the
gas production has started at a higher rate. A close-up of one of the shut-in times is
shown in figure IV-17.

97
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1250 1300 1350
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D
Not-Scheduled
Scheduled

Figure IV-17 Gas Production of the well which has started producing after it has been shut-in for
a few days


As its shown in figure IV-17, few days after it has started producing again, the well will
continue the normal production.

98
IV-2 Comparison of the Results with Published Data and Commercial
Simulators

Any new model that is developed must go through a verification process in order to
demonstrate its applicability. Furthermore the verification process may result in
identifying any run-time bugs that might still exist in the code. The exercise of verifying
the developed code can serve as an important and vital process of completing the
application. The CBM model developed during this study is no exception. To
demonstrate the validity of the developed model, several verification procedures were
designed and implemented. These steps included:
A. Verification of the developed model against published data, and
B. Verification of the developed model against a commercial simulator.
This section will cover these verification processes in detail.


IV-2-1 Comparison with Published Data

As an important step to verify the developed model, its performance was
compared to published data. The published data selected for this purpose were the data
used by King and Ertekin for their simulator and also from Blue Creek coal seam (Mary
Lee coal group) in the Warrior Basin presented in their paper.
29

Data that King and Ertekin have used in their model is shown in table IV-1

99

Table IV-1 Input data for CBM-SWRM
Input Data Used in CBM-SWRM
Variable Numerical Value
Well Radius, r
w
0.5 ft
External Radius (closed), r
e
500 ft
Seam Thickness, h 6 ft
Initial Seam Pressure, psia 500 psia
Seam Temperature, T 70 F
Macropore permeability, k

3 md
Macropore porosity,
a
1 %
Macropore Diffusion Constant, D
ma
0.177 cm/sec
Time Constant 231 days
Langmuir Volume constant,V
L
310 scf/ton
Langmuir pressure constant, P
L
167.5 psia

Results from King and Ertekins model and CBM-SWRM are shown figures
IV-10 and IV-11, which shows that two results are in a good agreement.

100













Figure IV-18 Results from King and Ertekins Model
4






















Figure IV-19 Results from CBM-SWRM




101
The results presented are not typical for a producing well at a constant pressure. The gas
rate is observed to increase with time, reach a maximum (around 1200 days), and then
declining which for a typical behavior would be declining with time for both gas and
water. For this simulation, the gas desorption rate is greater than gas flow rate for the first
1000 days because the gas desorption occurs as a result of pressure drops which is a
result of water and gas production. When gas desorption rate is equal to gas rate, the
production rate reaches the maximum.
Kissell and Edwards
6
point out that this is strictly a two-phase phenomenon. In
single-phase flow, gas production rate is always greater than gas desorption rate for a
constant terminal boundary condition, otherwise the reservoir pressure will increase with
time. However, such a condition can be forced to a well, so the gas desorption rate is
greater than gas flow rate by reducing the gas flow rate at the well. A single-phase
pressure buildup could be an example for this condition.

Hydraulically Stimulated Degasification Wells
To check the elliptical fracture formulation, a series of two-phase model for
infinite-conductivity fractures was conducted. The data used for this model were the
same as the first model to compare the results with King and Ertekins model which are
shown in table IV-1. The drainage well was stimulated with a 75-ft hydraulically induced
fracture with a 0.05-in width. The results from King and Ertekins model and CBM-
SWRM are shown in figures IV-12 through IV-15.

102






















Figure IV-20 Results from King and Ertekins Model, Graphs 1 & 7
























Figure IV-21 Results from CBM-SWRM for 75-ft fracture with infinite-conductivity
0
5
10
15
20
0 300 600 900 1200
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D
Fractured
Not Fractured



103























Figure IV-22 Results from King and Ertekins Model



104
0
9
18
27
36
45
0 300 600 900 1200
Time, Days
W
a
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

b
b
l
s
/
D
Fractured
Not Fractured

Figure IV-23 Results from CBM-SWRM for 75-fracture with infinite-conductivity


There is a small difference between results obtained by CBM-SWRM and ones from
King and Ertekins model. The reason for this difference is, King and Ertekin have used
rectangular coordinate system for their model while elliptical coordinate system has been
used to simulate a fractured degasification well. They have shown that there will be a
difference for gas and water flow rates for different coordinate systems. Generally they
have shown that rectangular, cylindrical, and elliptical coordinate systems are in a good
agreement. Figure IV-16 shows the differences between the three coordinate systems
results from King and Ertekin model.

105




















Figure IV-24 Comparison of the rectangular, elliptical/cylindrical models for infinite-
conductivity fracture



Also, another model was run for a larger fracture length. As its shown, gas production
increases with increasing the fracture length.


106
Gas Flow Rate vs. Time
0
6
12
18
24
30
0 300 600 900 1200
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D

Figure IV-25 Results from CBM-SWRM for 200-ft fracture with infinite-conductivity

Water Flow Rate
0
25
50
75
100
0 300 600 900 1200
Time, Days
W
a
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D

Figure IV-26 Results from CBM-SWRM for 200-ft fracture with infinite-conductivity

107

Figure IV-27 Results from King and Ertekins model for 200-ft fracture with infinite-
conductivity


108
Field Applications

The model has been tested with field data and compared with actual performance
of unstimulated degasification wells. The prediction of the model was not compared with
an actual stimulated well. The reason was the model built in King and Ertekin study was
a two-dimension model and the permeabilities for directions i and j directions were
different, but in CBM-SWRM single-dimension models can be built and permeability can
be applied for only one direction.

As mentioned before, the field data were from Blue Creek (May Lee coal group)
in the Warrior Basin that are presented in Ref. 3. The input data required for the model
and the matches are shown in table IV-2.

109
Table IV-2 Input data for CBM-SWRM for history match
Description of Variable Variable Name Un-stimulated Well
Well radius, rw RW 2.0 ft
External radius, re RE 500.0 ft
Seam Thickness DZ 5.0 ft
Well Pressure, Pwf PWELL 20.0 psia
Initial Seam Pressure, Pgi PGO(I) 450.0 psia
Initial Gas Saturation, Sgi SGO(I) 5 %
Macropore Permeability AKI 3.40 md
Macropore Porosity PORO(I) 3.5 %
Macropore Diffusion
Coefficient, Da
DFCNT 0.192 sq ft/ D
Relative permeability to water at
critical gas saturation, Krw(Sgc)
RKWSGC 82.4 %
Time constant,
s i
F D / 1 =
TDIF 208.3 days
Langmuir volume constant, VL VLANG 34.3 SCF/ft
Langmuir pressure constant, PL PLANG 111.7 psia
Number of blocks, Ni NI 20

The results from the comparison of King and Ertekins model with the field data and
results from CBM-SWRM are shown in figures IV-20 through IV-22, which satisfactory
agreement was achieved.

110

Gas Production
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time, Days
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

G
a
s
,

M
C
F

Figure IV-28 Gas Production using CBM-SWRM


Water Production
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time, Days
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

W
a
t
e
r
,

B
B
L

Figure IV-29 Water Production using CBM-SWRM

111

Figure IV-30 Water and Gas Production from Mary Lee coal group and King and
Ertekins model



112
IV-2-2 Comparison with Commercial Models

As another important step in order to validate a model, the predictions of the
model were compared with a commercial model. The commercial model used for
comparison was GEM simulator developed by Computer Modeling Group (CMG). CMG
software has three different simulators, IMEX (a three-phase black-oil simulator with
gravity and capillary terms), GEM (an efficient, multi-dimensional, equation-of-state
(EOS) compositional simulator), and STARS (a three-phase multi-component thermal
and steam additive simulator). GEM is an efficient, multi-dimensional, equation-of-state
(EOS) compositional simulator which we can use GEM to simulate a coalbed methane
reservoir. A model was built in CMG similar to a model built in CBM-SWRM to
compare the results. Radial-cylindrical coordinate system was used for both simulators
with the same number of blocks (20 blocks). Input data used in both simulators is shown
in table IV-3.

113

Table IV-3 Input data used in CBM-SWRM
Input Data for CBM-SWRM
Description of Variable Numerical Value
Formation Compressibility 0 1/psia
Formation Thickness 6 ft
Formation Depth 1000 ft
Formation Temperature 75 F
Langmuir Pressure Constant 167.5 psia
Langmuir Volume Constant 310 scf/ton
Sorption Time 231 days
Critical Pressure 667.1961 psia
Critical Temperature 343.08 R
Molecular Weight 16.043
Water Compressibility 0 1/psia
Well Radius 0.5 ft
External Radius 660 ft
Critical Gas Saturation 0 %
Critical Water Saturation 1 %
Relative Permeability to Water @
Critical Gas Saturation
100 %
Relative Permeability to Gas @
Critical Water Saturation
100 %
Fracture Porosity 2 %
Fracture Permeability 20 md
Initial Gas Pressure 450 psia
Initial Gas Saturation 0 %
Bottom hole Pressure 14.7 psia
Number of Blocks 20




114
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D
SWRM
CMG

Figure IV-31 Gas Flow Rate Predicted with CMG and CBM-SWRM


115
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Time, Days
W
a
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

B
B
L
/
D
SWRM
CMG

Figure IV-32 Water Flow Rate Predicted with CMG and CBM-SWRM


116
Additional to input data shown in table IV-3, other data were used in CMG, which are
shown in table below.

Table IV-4 Additional input data used in CMG
Input Data Used in CMG
Description of Variable Numerical Value
Matrix Porosity 0.01 %
Matrix Permeability, i direction 0.0001 md
Matrix Permeability, j direction 0.0001 md
Matrix Permeability, k direction 0 md
Fracture Permeability, i direction 20 md
Fracture Permeability, j direction 20 md
Fracture Permeability, k direction 0 md
Fracture Spacing, i direction 0.05 ft
Fracture Spacing, j direction 0.05 ft
Fracture Spacing, k direction 0 ft
Fracture Pressure 450 psia
Fracture Compressibility 0 1/psia
Global Composition (CH4) 1 (fraction)


The amount of time which was spent to build the model in CMG was much more
compared to the time spent in CBM-SWRM. The results achieve a satisfactory
agreement. One of the important issues in simulators is that they are complex and its
difficult to build a model. People should be trained to be able to use the simulators. One
of the enhancements of CBM-SWRM to other simulators is its simplicity. Training is
needed in order to be able to use CMG, which many small companies could not afford
spending money and time to train some special people. There is a small difference
between the two predictions. This difference increases slightly with increasing the
drainage area. The largest difference is in the peak gas rate which for the worst case
would be around 10 MCF.

117
IV-3 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis is to test the model for its behavior to these changes of
variables which should be done for every new model. Sensitivity analysis should be
applied for several reservoir properties. Each property will be given values and the results
of the simulator will be compared to each other which we should be able to explain the
results.
In this section, sensitivity analysis has been applied on this model. The basic input
data are shown in table IV-4. Based on for which reservoir parameter the analysis has
been applied, that particular parameter will have different values.
Table IV-5 Input data used in CBM-SWRM
Input Data for CBM-SWRM
Description of Variable Numerical Value
Well Radius, RW 0.5 ft
Drainage Area, A 40 acres
Seam Thickness, DZ 6 ft
Initial Seam Pressure, PGO(I), Psia 1000 Psia
Initial Gas Saturation, SGO(I), % 0
Seam Temperature, Temp 70 F
Macropore permeability, k

10 md
Macropore porosity,
a
1 %
Macropore Diffusion Constant, Da 0.177 cm/sec
Time Constant, 231 days
Langmuir Volume constant,V
L
310 scf/ton
Langmuir pressure constant, P
L
167.5 Psia
Bottomhole Pressure, PWELL 14.7 Psia
Critical Gas Saturation, SGC, % 0
Critical Water Saturation, SWC % 25
Relative Permeability to Gas at Critical Water Saturation, % 100
Relative Permeability to Water at Critical Gas Saturation, % 100

118
IV-3-1 Macropore Porosity

Analysis was done for macropore porosity which is one of the formation
properties. Gas and water productions as results of the simulation runs for different
values of porosity were compared to each other. The results are shown in figure IV-25
and IV-26.



















Figure IV-33 Gas Flow Rate Plots for Different Porosities


Water depletion of the reservoir with larger porosity will take longer than the one with
smaller porosity. The reason is in the reservoir with larger porosity there is more water
inside the macropores and because of large amount of porosity there will not remain
much space in the reservoir for the micropore resulting less amount of gas stored in the
micropores (the gas content was assumed to be the same for all three models). As we see
in the results, gas production for the reservoir with larger porosity will be less than the
one for smaller porosity.

Gas Flow Rate vs. Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D
Poro. 1%
Poro. 4%
Poro. 8%


119





















Figure IV-34 Water Flow Rate Plots for Different Porosities


The water production rate shows a continuous decline curve, while the gas production
rate shows a negative decline curve at the beginning and reaches a peak point and then
starts declining. The negative decline curve is typical for CBM reservoirs with a dual
porosity system. The negative decline in gas flow rate is due to desorption of gas from
the matrix that is caused by a decrease in reservoir pressure. When the reservoir pressure
decreases, gas inside the matrix starts desorbing into the cleat system. Because of
desorption, the gas flow rate increases until it reaches the maximum rate. At this point,
the reservoir is dewatered, and it acts like a conventional reservoir and we observe the
gas flow rate declining.
Water Flow Rate vs. Time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Time, Days
W
a
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

B
B
L
/
D
Poro. 1%
Poro. 4%
Poro. 8%


120
IV-3-2 Rock Permeability

Rock permeability was another parameter that was selected for sensitivity
analysis. Rock permeability is one of the most important parameters for the reservoir
which has a large impact on the reservoir performance which also is hard to estimate.





















Figure IV-35 Gas Flow Rate Plots for Permeabilities 10, 25, and 40 md

Gas Flow Rate vs. Time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Ti me, Days
Per m. 10 md
Per m. 25 md
Per m. 40 md


121



















Figure IV-36 Water Flow Rate Plots for Permeabilities 10, 25, and 40 md


The simulator was used to predict gas and water flow rates for 10 years using default data
and Permeabilities 10, 25, and 40 md. As its shown in figures IV-27 and IV-28, water
and gas flow rates increase with increasing permeability. Rock permeability shows the
ability of the rock to let fluid go through. The higher the rock permeability is, the easier
for the fluids to move through the rock. So with higher rock permeability, we should
expect the production to increase. Results of the simulator show the perfect agreement
with what we expected. Because of the higher permeability, reservoir dewatering happens
in a shorter time. Due to fast dewatering of the reservoir, pressure drops is faster, which
the causes the gas to desorb faster from the matrix into the fracture.
Water Flow Rate vs. Time
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Time, Days
W
a
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

B
B
L
/
D
Perm. 10 md
Perm. 25 md
Perm. 40 md


122
IV-3-3 Gas Content

Another important parameter is the gas content. Gas content is the amount of gas
that that the coal is capable to store.
The model was run for different values of gas content to compare the results.





















Figure IV-37 Effect of Coal Gas Content on Gas Flow Rate


Gas Flow Rate
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D
171.23 scf/ton
265.41 scf/ton
428.08 scf/ton
599.32 scf/ton

123


















Figure IV-38 Effect of Coal Gas Content on Gas Production


As the results from the model show, gas production of the reservoir increases with
increasing gas content. Gas content of the coal depends on the rank and depth of the coal.
Anthracite and high-volatile Bituminous have the highest and the lowest gas content
respectively. Although Anthracite has the highest gas content, it is not the best coal for
gas production. The reason is the ability of the coal to release the gas which is the lowest
for anthracite. The best coal rank for gas production is Low-Volatile Bituminous that has
a high gas content and relatively high permeability to produce most of the gas.
Gas Production For Different Gas Contents
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190 2555 2920 3285 3650
Time, Days
G
a
s

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

M
C
F
171.23 scf/ton
265.41 scf/ton
428.08 scf/ton
599.32 scf/ton

124
IV-3-4 Sorption Time

Effect of Sorption time on gas production has also been studied in sensitivity
analysis. Sorption time is the time which is spent by a molecule to desorb from the matrix
into the fracture. In order to apply the sensitivity analysis on sorption time, different
values for sorption time were selected from 1 day to 300 days to observe different
productions. The input data used for these series of models were chosen differently which
are shown below. The reason that different data were used was, for small values of
sorption time when the initial gas saturation was 0%, the model didnt converge. To let
the model converge, the initial gas saturation was chosen to be 5%. The rest of the input
data are shown in table IV-5.

125
Table IV-6 Input Data for CBM-SWRM
Input Data for CBM-SWRM
Description of Variable Numerical Value
Well radius, RW 0.5 ft
External radius, RE 500.0 ft
Seam Thickness, DZ 6 ft
Initial Seam Pressure, PGO(I), Psia 500 Psia
Initial Gas Saturation, SGO(I), % 5
Seam Temperature, Temp 70 F
Macropore permeability, k

3 md
Macropore porosity,
a
1 %
Macropore Diffusion Constant, Da 0.177 cm/sec
Langmuir Volume constant,V
L
310 scf/ton
Langmuir pressure constant, P
L
167.5 Psia
Bottomhole Pressure, PWELL 50 Psia
Critical Gas Saturation, SGC, % 0
Critical Water Saturation, SWC % 25
Relative Permeability to Gas at Critical Water Saturation, % 100
Relative Permeability to Water at Critical Gas Saturation, % 100


126
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 600 1200 1800 2400
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D
1 day
10 days
50 days
100 days

Figure IV-39 Effect of Sorption Time on Gas Production



127
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 600 1200 1800 2400
Time, Days
W
a
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

B
B
L
/
D
1 day
10 days
50 days
100 days

Figure IV-40 Effect of Sorption Time on Water Production


Sorption time is a function of cleat spacing and micropore diffusion coefficient:

mi
f
D
S

8
2
=
Where S
f
is the cleat spacing and D
mi
is the micropore diffusion coefficient. Cleat spacing
could be different for different coals but it could have a magnitude of a fraction of an
inch to a few inches. Micropore has been experimentally estimated to be between 10
-8

and 10
-13
cm/sec
3
for most of the coals.
As its shown in the gas productions, for small desorption times, there is a rapid gas
production in the early time and the decreasing in the gas production. Gas production
increases again after about 200 days until the gas production reaches its maximum and
then starts declining. For larger sorption times, this effect is smaller and for very large
sorption times, this behavior is not observed. This happens because in reservoirs with
small sorption time, the gas around the wellbore will be produced so fast but there is still
a large amount of water remained to should be produced to cause the pressure drop so the

128
gas can be desorbed. As a result of lacking of gas around the wellbore, the gas production
will decrease and this gas production decline will continue until the water from the area
farther than the wellbore is produced resulting of pressure drops, then the gas can start
desorbing from the matrix. At this time gas production starts increasing again until it
reaches its maximum which at this point gas desorption is equal to gas production. After
this point, gas production starts declining with time. This behavior will not be observed
for reservoirs with large sorption time. In these reservoirs the sorption time is slow
enough that the reservoir gets dewatered in a large area, so the gas desorption can happen
in that area which causes the increase in gas production. Also, for small sorption times,
the reservoir reaches its maximum gas production in a shorter time and by that time more
gas will be produced.


129
IV-3-5 Drainage Area

Sensitivity analysis was applied to drainage area. The simulator was run for
reservoir with drainage areas of 40, 80, 120, and 320 Acres. The results are shown below.























Figure IV-41 Effect of Drainage Area on the Gas Flow Rate


Gas Flow Rate vs. Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time, Days
G
a
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

M
C
F
/
D
40 acres
80 acres
120 acres
320 acres

130





















Figure IV-42 Effect of Drainage Area on Water Flow Rate



As the results show in figure IV-34, for larger drainage areas, it takes a longer time to
dewater the reservoir. This is true, because it takes a long time for the water far from the
wellbore to move to the wellbore and be produced. Therefore in order to pressure to drop
and resulting in reaching the maximum flow rate, the reservoir should produce water for
a longer time.

As a conclusion for this chapter, its shown that this simulator is in a good
agreement with published data, commercial simulators, and has a good response to the
sensitivity analysis.


Water Flow Rate vs. Time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time, Days
W
a
t
e
r

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

B
B
L
/
D
40 acres
80 acres
120 acres
320 acres


131
Chapter V Conclusion


1. A PC-Based single-well model for Coalbed Methane reservoir was built
2. The model simulates a two-phase water and gas reservoir in a dual-porosity
system in single-dimension.
3. This model simulates a non-fractured CBM reservoir in a radial coordinate system
and a fractured CBM reservoir in elliptical coordinate system
4. The simulator achieves a good agreement with published data (data used to
validate King and Ertekins model and Mary Lee coal group in Warrior Basin)
and CMG (GEM simulator from Computer Modeling Group)
5. Unlike King and Ertekins model that had used a commercial mathematical
library to solve the resulting matrices, a new code was written, tested, and verified
that would solve the matrices internally without the need for a commercial solver
6. This model is an easy to use and inexpensive model for CBM reservoir simulation
which is for individual companies in order to use a simulator for their fields while
they dont have to spend a huge amount of money to purchase a simulator license
and hire an engineer to work with the simulator
7. Ability of graphical presentation of results either on charts of on a spreadsheet.
User can view gas and water flow rates and production
8. Ability of batch processing. User can give ranges to some reservoir parameters,
select the distribution types of the variables, select a number of runs, and run the
simulator and simulator will generate the results.
9. Ability of applying production schedule for a CBM model



132
Reference:

1. Society of Petroleum Engineers Website:
www.spe.org/spe/jsp/meeting/0,2460,1104_1535_1339535,00.html
2. Coalbed Methane Potential in the Appalachian states of Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee An overview, Paul
C. Lyons, Open-File Report 96-735, USGS
3. Numerical Simulation of the Simultaneous Flow of Methane and Water Through
Dual Porosity Coal Seams During the Degasification Process, PhD Thesis, Gregory
R. King, the Pennsylvania State University, May 1985
4. Numerical Simulation of the Transient Behavior of Coal-Seam Degasification
Wells, Gregory R. King, Turgay Ertekin, Fred C. Schwerer, SPE 12258, April 1986
5. A Guide to Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering, GRI, 1996
6. Harpalani, S. and Schraufnagel, A.R.: Influence of Matrix Shrinkage and
Compressibility on Gas Production From Coalbed Methane Reservoirs, paper SPE
20729 prepared for presentation at 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of SPE, New Orleans, LA, September 23-26, 1990
7. A Survey of Mathematical Models Related to Methane Production From Coal
Seams, Part I: Empirical and Equilibrium Sorption Models, Proceedings of the 1989
Coalbed Methane Symposium, the University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, April 1989
8. A Survey of Mathematical Models Related to Methane Production From Coal
Seams, Part I: Non-Equilibrium Sorption Models, Proceedings of the 1989 Coalbed
Methane Symposium, the University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, April 1989
9. Basic Application Reservoir Simulation, Turgay Ertekin, Jamal H. Abou-Kassem,
Gregory R. King, SPE Textbook series Vol. 7, 2001