Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery

presented by:

Scott Reeves
Advanced Resources International
Houston, TX

SPE Distinguished Lecture Series

2002/2003 Season

1
Advanced Resources International
 Outline
Introduction

ECBM Process

Pilot Projects

Economics

Closing Remarks
2
 Introduction
Enhanced coalbed methane recovery (ECBM)
involves gas injection into coal to improve methane
recovery, analogous to EOR.
Typical injection gases include nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
Relatively new technology - limited field data to gauge
effectiveness.
Growing interest in carbon sequestration spurring
considerable R&D into integrated ECBM
recovery/carbon sequestration projects.

3
Integrated Power Generation, CO2
Sequestration & ECBM Vision

Power
Plant

CO2/N2 CH4

CH4 CO2/N2

CH4
CH4 Deep, Unmineable
Coal
CH4
CH4 CH4
CH4
CO2/N2 CH4

4
U.S. CO2-ECBM/Sequestration Potential
CO2 Sequestration Potential (Gt) ECBM Potential (Tcf)

Replace- Injection Injection for Incremental

ment for CO2 Incremental Recovery
of Primary ECBM in Sequestra-tion Recovery in
Recovery Com- in Non- % in Non- %
Volume mercial Commer-cial Total of Commer- Commercial Total of
Basin Area Area (Gt) Total cial Area Area (Tcf) Total

N. Appalachia 0.8 0.3 2.3 3.4 4% 1.7 13.0 14.7 10%

C. Appalachia 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0% 0.5 0.0 0.5 0%
Black Warrior 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.8 1% 1.0 2.2 3.1 2%
Illinois 0.1 0.0 1.2 1.4 2% 0.2 3.8 4.0 3%
Cherokee/ Forest City
0.4 0.1 0.3 0.9 1% 0.5 0.9 1.4 1%

Arkoma 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0% 0.4 0.1 0.5 0%

Gulf Coast 0.7 0.4 0.9 1.9 2% 0.7 1.7 2.4 2%
San Juan 7.0 2.3 1.1 10.4 12% 11.4 4.3 15.7 10%
Raton 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 1% 1.4 0.1 1.5 1%
Piceance 0.5 0.3 1.5 2.4 3% 3.6 10.5 14.0 9%
Uinta 1.6 0.3 0.0 1.9 2% 0.1 0.2 0.3 0%
Greater Green River 3.0 1.3 3.5 7.9 9% 3.5 15.0 18.5 12%
Hanna-Carbon 1.4 0.6 1.0 3.0 3% 1.5 2.4 3.9 3%
Wind River 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.4 2% 0.8 0.6 1.5 1%
Powder River 3.3 1.8 8.5 13.6 15% 3.4 16.2 19.6 13%
Western Washington 0.7 0.3 1.3 2.3 3% 0.7 2.9 3.6 2%
Alaska 18.0 8.1 11.7 37.7 42% 19.2 27.8 47.0 31%
TOTALS 39.3 16.3 34.0 89.8 100% 50.6 101.7 152.2 100%

5
 Outline
Introduction

ECBM Process

Pilot Projects

Economics

Closing Remarks
6
 Gas Storage in Coal
(CBM 101)
Dual-porosity system (matrix and cleats)
Gas stored by adsorption on coal surfaces within
matrix (mono-layer of gas molecules, density
approaches that of liquid)
1 lb coal (15 in3) contains 100,000 1,000,000 ft2
of surface area
Pore throats of 20 500 angstrom
Production by desorption, diffusion and Darcy
flow (3 Ds of CBM production)

7
 Example Coal Sorption Isotherms
700.0

CO2/CH4 ratio = 2:1 San Juan Basin coal

600.0
Carbon Dioxide
N2/CH4 ratio = 0.5/1
Absolute Adsorption (SCF/ton)

CO2/N2 ratio = 4:1

500.0

400.0
Methane
300.0

200.0
Nitrogen
100.0

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Pressure (psia)

8
 Variability of CO2/CH4 Ratio

CO2/CH4 Sorption Ratio vs Coal Rank

Sub HV HVA MV LV
14
100 psi
12
1000 psi
CO2/CH4 Ratio

-1.5649
10 y = 2.5738x 3000 psi
8 R 2 = 0.9766

6
4
2
0
0.36 0.56 0.76 0.96 1.16 1.36 1.56 1.76 1.96
Coal Rank, Vro (%)

9
 N2-ECBM Recovery Mechanism
Inject N2 into cleats.
Due to lower adsorptivity, high percentage of N2
remains free in cleats:
Lowers CH4 partial pressure
Creates compositional disequilibrium between sorbed/free gas
phases
Methane stripped from coal matrix into cleat
system.
Methane/nitrogen produced at production well.
Rapid N2 breakthrough expected.

10
CO2-ECBM Recovery Mechanism

Inject CO2 into cleats.

Due to high adsorptivity, CO2 preferentially
adsorbed into coal matrix.
Methane displaced from sorption sites.
Methane produced at production well.
Efficient displacement process slow CO2
breakthrough.

11
 Modeling Sensitivity Study
1 2
San Juan Basin setting
(3000 ft, 40 ft coal, 10 md).
Inject C02 and N2 at rates
3 of 10 Mcfd/ft, 25 Mcfd/ft
and 50 Mcfd/ft.
15 year period.

4 5
Quarter 5-Spot Well Pattern

12
Gas Production Response N2 Injection
10000 70

60

50

Nitrogen Content, %
Gas Rate, Mscfd

Incremental Recoveries:
40
10 Mcfd/ft 0.6 Bcf (21%)
1000
25 Mcfd/ft 1.1 Bcf (39%)
30
50 Mcfd/ft 1.6 Bcf (57%)

20

10

100 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Days

Base Case Injection @ 25 Mcfd/ft

Injection @ 10 Mcfd/ft 50 Mcfd/ft
Injection @ 50Mcfd/ft
13
Gas Production Response CO2 Injection
10000
Gas Rate, Mscfd

Incremental Recoveries:
1000
10 Mcfd/ft 0.1 Bcf (4%)
25 Mcfd/ft 0.4 Bcf (14%)
50 Mcfd/ft 0.8 Bcf (29%)

No CO2 breakthrough
CO2/CH4 ratio is 2:1 whereas N2/CH4 ratio is 0.5/1

100
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Days

Base Case Injection @ 25 Mcfd/ft

Injection @ 10 Mcfd/ft Injection @ 50Mcfd/ft
50 Mcfd/ft
14
 Outline
Introduction

ECBM Process

Pilot Projects

Economics

Closing Remarks
15
 Only Two Large-Scale Field
Tests Exists Worldwide
San Juan Basin, Upper Cretaceous Fruitland Coal
Allison Unit
Burlington Resources
Carbon dioxide injection
16 producers
4 injectors
1 pressure observation well
Tiffany Unit
BP
Nitrogen injection
34 producers
12 injectors
16
 Field Sites, San Juan Basin

LA PLATA CO. ARCHULETA

Durango Pagosa
Springs
Florida River
Plant

N2
Pi
Tiffany Unit San Juan

pe
Basin Outline

lin
e
F
COLORADO A
I
NEW MEXICO R
W
A Dulce
Y
Allison Unit

Aztec

Farmington
Bloomfield

17
Allison Unit Base Map
61

104
111

12M 106 112 101

114
130
142

115
POW#2

131 141
108 113 140

102
143 120
132

121 119

62

18
Well Configurations
Producer
Injector

19
 Allison Production History

2,000,000 4,000
16 producers, 4 injectors, 1 POW Peak @ +/- 57 MMcfd
1,800,000
3,500
Line pressures reduced, wells recavitated, wells
1,600,000 reconfigured, onsite compression installed
3,000

Individual Well Gas Rate, Mcf/d

1,400,000 Injectivity reduction

2,500
1,200,000
Rates, Mcf/mo

1,000,000 2,000

800,000
1,500

600,000 Gas Rate, Mcf/mo

CO2 Injection Rate, Mcf/mo 1,000
400,000 Well Gas Rate, Mcf/d

500
200,000 +/- 3 1/2 Mcfd

0 0
Jan-89
Jul-89
Jan-90
Jul-90
Jan-91
Jul-91
Jan-92
Jul-92
Jan-93
Jul-93
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jan-95
Jul-95
Jan-96
Jul-96
Jan-97
Jul-97
Jan-98
Jul-98
Jan-99
Jul-99
Jan-00
Jul-00
Jan-01
Jul-01
Date

20
 Site Description
Property Value

Average Depth to Top Coal 3100 feet

No. Coal Intervals 3 (Yellow, Blue, Purple)

Average Total Net Thickness 43 feet

Yellow 22 ft
Blue 10 ft
Purple 11 ft
Permeability 100 md

Initial Pressure 1650 psi

Temperature 120F

21
Progression of CO2 Displacement
(@ mid-2002)
Butt
Cleat

Face
Cleat

22
 Incremental Recovery
Incremental Total CO2 CO2
Total Methane Recovery Injection Production CO2/CH4
Case Recovery (Bcf) (Bcf) (Bcf) (Bcf) Ratio
W/o CO2
injection 100.5* n/a n/a n/a n/a

W/CO2
injection 102.1 1.6 6.4** 1.2 3.2

*6.3 Bcf/well Small incremental recovery due to limited injection volumes.

** 20 Mcfd/ft INJECTIVITY IS CRITICAL!

Note: OGIP for model = 152 Bcf.

23
Tiffany Unit Base Map
Previous Study Area

Producer-to-Injector
Conversions

24
 Well Configurations
Producer Well

Multiple Injector Wells

25
 Tiffany Production History

Peak @ 26 MMcfd
1,000,000
34 producers, 12 injectors

+/- 5MMcfd

100,000
Gas Rates, Mcf/mo

10,000

Injection initiated

1,000

Gas Rate, Mcf/mo

Suspension periods
N2 Injection Rate, Max Inj Rate = 26 MMcfd
Mcf/mo
100
83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02
p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-

p-
Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se

Se
Date

26
 Site Description
Property Value

Average Depth to Top Coal (A) 2970 feet

No. Coal Intervals 7 total (A, A2, B, C, D, E, F)

4 main (B, C, D, E)

Average Net Thickness 47 feet

B 13 ft
C 11 ft
D 9 ft
E 14 ft
Permeability <5 md

Initial Pressure 1600 psi

Temperature 120F

27
 Progression of N2 Displacement
(@ mid-2002)
Butt
Cleat
Face
Cleat

28
 Current Field Results
(through mid-2002)

Incremental Total N2 N2
Total Methane Recovery Injection Production N2/CH4
Case Recovery (Bcf) (Bcf) (Bcf) (Bcf) Ratio
W/o N2
injection *35.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a

W/N2
injection 45.8 10.5 14.0** 1.3 1.2

*1.0 Bcf/well At N2/CH4 ratio of 0.75:1 and reproduced volume

** 46 Mcfd/ft of 25%, ultimate incremental recovery estimated
to be +/- 14 Bcf or 40% improvement over primary.

Note: OGIP for model = 438 Bcf.

29
 Summary of Field Results
Field results are in general agreement with theoretical
understanding; reservoir models can reasonably
replicate/predict field behavior.
Low-incremental recovery with CO2 injection at
Allison due to low injection volumes.
CO2 injectivity key success driver; strong evidence that
coal permeability (and injectivity) reduced with CO2
injection.
Incremental recoveries with N2 injection at Tiffany
currently; estimated to provide 40% improvement over
primary.
30
 Outline
Introduction

ECBM Process

Pilot Projects

Economics

Closing Remarks
31
 Hypothetical Field Setting
(US onshore)
Well Injection Pattern
Example CBM Basin (4 Sections)

Sec. 6 Sec. 5

Sec.7 Sec. 8

Conventional Recovery 48 Bcf

(2.5 Bcf/well)
Incremental Recovery 16 Bcf
(1 Bcf/well)

32
 Economics of CO2 ECBM

US $/Mcf
Hub Gas Price $3.00
Less: Basin Differential ($0.30)
BTU Adjustment (@ 5%) ($0.15)
Wellhead Netback $2.55
Less: Royalty/Prod. Taxes (20%) ($0.51)
O&M/Gas Processing ($0.50)
Gross Margin $1.54
Capital Costs(1) ($0.25)
CO2 Costs (@ ratio of 3.0 to 1)(2) ($0.90)

Net Margin $0.39

(1) Capital Costs = $500,000 *4 (inj wells) = $2,000,000/16 Bcfg

= $0.13/Mcfg * 2 = $0.25/Mcfg
(2) CO2 Costs = $0.30/Mcf * 3.0 = $0.90/Mcf (CO2)
33
 Economics of N2 ECBM

US $/Mcf
Hub Gas Price $3.00
Less: Basin Differential ($0.30)
BTU Adjustment (@5%) ($0.15)
Wellhead Netback $2.55
Less: Royalty/Prod. Taxes (20%) ($0.51)
O&M/Gas Processing ($1.00) (double over CO2
case)
Gross Margin $1.04
Capital Costs(1) ($0.25)
N2 Costs (@ ratio of 0.5 to 1)(2) ($0.30)
Net Margin $0.49
(1) Capital Costs = $500,000 * 4 (inj. wells) = $2,000,000/16 Bcfg
= $0.13/Mcfg * 2 = $0.25/Mcfg
(2) N2 Costs = $0.60/Mcf * 0.5 = $0.30/Mcf (N2)

34
 ECBM Economic Considerations

N2 ECBM appears favorable, but early

breakthrough requires costly post-production gas
processing.
CO2 - ECBM also appears favorable, but
maintaining injectivity a key success driver.
More experience required to validate & optimize
economic performance.
CO2/N2 mixture may be optimum.
High N2 concentrations early for rapid methane recovery
Increasing CO2 concentrations later for efficient methane
displacement.

35
 Outline
Introduction

ECBM Process

Pilot Projects

Economics

Closing Remarks
36
 Closing Remarks
ECBM recovery appears to hold considerable
promise; on the verge of commerciality with a bright
future.
CO2 sequestration economic drivers (carbon credits)
will substantially improve financial performance and
accelerate commercial adoption.
In U.S., CO2-ECBM/sequestration potential is
substantial; recently assessed at 90 Gt CO2 and 150
Tcf of incremental gas recovery.

37
 Closing Remarks
More work is needed to economically optimize the process.
N2/CO2 mixtures
CO2 injectivity
Spacing, patterns, rates, etc.
Reservoir settings (coal rank)
Reservoir response is generally consistent with theoretical
understanding of CO2/N2 processes.
Reasonable predictions of reservoir response possible.
Informed investment decisions.
Acknowledgements:
U.S. Department of Energy
Burlington Resources
BP America
For more information:
www.coal-seq.com
38
Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery
presented by:

Scott Reeves
Advanced Resources International
Houston, TX

SPE Distinguished Lecture Series

2002/2003 Season

39
Advanced Resources International
 Well #132 Performance
CH4 Recovery w/o CO2 injection = 6.1 Bcf
4000
CH4 Recovery w/ CO2 injection = 6.9 Bcf
CH4 Incremental Recovery = 0.8 Bcf
3500

3000
CH4 Rate, Mscf

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Days

CO2 Injection No CO2 Injection

40
Nitrogen Content of Produced Gas
14
Average = 12.3 %
12

10

8
No. Wells

0
<1 1 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 > 50
Last N2 Concentration (%)

41
 Matrix Shrinkage/Swelling

Source: An Investigation of the Effect of Gas Desorption on Coal Permeability, paper 8923, 1989 Coalbed Methane Symposium.

42
 Relevant Formulas*

Pressure-Dependence Shrinkage/Swelling

= i + i Cp (P-Pi) + (1 - i) Cm dPi (C-Ci)

dCi
n
n = +/- 3
k=
i
*Used in COMET2. Alternative formulation presented by Palmer & Mansoori; SPE 36737, 1996.
43
 Permeability Changes with Net Stress, Gas
Concentration, and Sorptive Capacity

Matrix Shrinkage Pressure Dependence

250

200 Methane
Permeability, md

150

100

Sorption Capacity Carbon Dioxide

50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Pressure, psi

44
 Rate

0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Jan-89
Jul-89
Jan-90
Jul-90
Jan-91
Jul-91
Jan-92

BHP, psi
Jul-92

CO2, Mcf/mo
Jan-93
Jul-93
Jan-94
Jul-94

45
Jan-95

Date
Jul-95
Jan-96
Jul-96
Well #143

Jan-97
Jul-97
Jan-98
Allison Unit

Jul-98
Jan-99
Jul-99
Jan-00
Jul-00
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
Typical Injection Profile,

Pressure
Permeability History for Injector

250
Start

200
Permeability, md

Depletion
150

100
Continued
Displace w/ CO2
Injection
50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Pressure, psi

46
 CO2 Sorption Behavior
(Pc=1073psi, Tc=88F)

Source: SPE 29194: Adsorption of Pure Methane, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide and their Binary Mixtures on Wet Fruitland Coal, 1994.

47
 Pure Gas Gibbs Adsorption on
Tiffany Coals at 130 F
600.0
N2 on Mixed Coal
Nabs = NGibbs
CH4 on Well #1
1- gas
CH4 on Well #10
500.0 ads
CH4 on Mixed Coal
CO2 on Mixed Coal
Gibbs Adsorption (SCF/ton)

400.0

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Pressure (psia)
48
 CO2 Absolute Adsorption on Tiffany
Mixed Coal Sample Using Different
Adsorbed-Phase Densities
700

600
Aboslute Adsorption (SCF/ton)

500

400

Adsorbed Phase Density(g/cc)

300 1.18 Saturated liquid density at triple point
1.25 ZGR estimate
1.40 Graphical estimate
200

100

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Pressure (psia)
49
 Multi-Component Sorption
Behavior
Extended Langmuir Theory

VLi pi
Ci(pi) = , i = 1, 2, 3,, n.

pLi 1 +
n p
j=1 pL
Other Langmuir Models: Loading Ratio Correlation (LRC), Real Adsorbed Solution (RAS),
Ideal Adsorbed Solution (IAS)
Equations of State: Van der Walls (VDW), Eyring, Zhou-Gasem-Robinson (EOS-S, PGR)
Simplified Local Density Models: Flat Surface (PR-SLD), Slit (PR-SLD)
50
 Accuracy of Model Predictions for
Pure Gas Adsorption
Quality of Fit, % AAD, for Specified Model

Component Langmuir LRC ZGR-EOS Experimental

(n = 0.9) Error
Methane 2.6 2.3 3.0 3.0

Nitrogen 3.5 2.3 2.3 6.0

Carbon 2.0 1.8 2.1 7.0

Dioxide

51
 Accuracy of Model Predictions for
Binary/Ternary Gas Adsorption
(based on pure-gas adsorption data)

LRC
Mixture, Langmuir (n=0.9) ZGR-EOS Experimental Error
(Feed Mole %) % AAD % AAD % AAD % AAD
CH4 N2:
CH4 (50%) 15.8 12.0 11.9 7.0
N2 (50%) 6.2 9.3 10.0 17.0
Total 12.2 8.2 11.5 7.0
CH4 CO2:
CH4 (40%) 25.9 21.0 27.0 7.0
CO2 (60%) 9.0 10.5 10.4 6.0
Total 1.2 2.2 1.4 4.0

N2 CO2:
N2 (20%) 44.9 37.3 48.7 29.0
CO2 (80%) 5.2 5.7 4.9 6.0
Total 3.5 3.8 3.5 5.0
N2 CH4 - CO2:
N2 (10%) 47.8 44.5 55.9 14.0
CH4 (40%) 20.7 5.2 21.6 27.0
CO2 (50%) 13.2 15.8 17.6 5.0
Total 2.9 5.4 4.3 5.0

52