Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
Kaveh Karimi
Supervisor
Prof. W. V. Pinczewski
June, 2005
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to perform simulation studies for a specific coal bed
methane reservoir. First, the theory and reservoir engineering aspects of coal
transportation in CBM reservoir have been discussed. Next, simulation results for
the CBM reservoir presented. Simulation studies were carried out by using the
CBM reservoir simulator, SIMED II. Injection/fall-off test pressure data were
the reservoir altered zone. Also available production histories were used to
simulate the reservoir production behavior. Then the production model was used
to predict the reservoir future production and to carry out sensitivity analysis on
reservoir performance.
zone with higher permeability. This increases methane production rate during
early time of reservoir life. Reservoir matrix porosity has a significant effect on
the reservoir performance. Higher production peak rate and also higher methane
recovery was obtained for the reservoir with lower porosity values. Any increase
II
Therefore, methane recovery decreased as the reservoir compressibility
reservoir size. The production peak rate was significantly postponed and lowered
as reservoir size was increased. The effect of reservoir initial pressure was
investigated and the results show that higher initial reservoir pressure leads to
higher production rate during early years of production. However, for the later
years of reservoir life, the production profile is almost identical for different
initial pressures. Coal desorption time constant affects the methane production
by its own scale. In this study, the range of desorption time did not exceed
longer than three days and therefore the difference in production rate was
III
List of Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................... 1
43
V
3.7.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting .........................................101
References ................................................................................132
VI
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 - Comparison of CBM and typical gas reservoir producing by pressure
Figure 2.4 – Schematic illustration of adsorbed gas on coal surface (Ma 2004) 21
Figure 2.7 – Gas movement in coal bed reservoirs (Reeves and Pekot 2001) ... 27
Figure 2.8 – Desorption includes both physical and chemical adsorbed gas
Figure 2.10 – Production regime in coal bed reservoirs (Pinzon and Patterson
2004) .................................................................................. 34
Figure 2.11 – Adsorption isotherms may be used to model desorption process (Ma
2004) .................................................................................. 36
VII
Figure 2.12 – Bidisperse model scheme including micro spheres inside the macro
Figure 2.13 – Spherical matrix elements in coal bed reservoirs (Kolesar and
Figure 3.2 - Pressure history match for IFO test on Object 4 in well D .......... 52
Figure 3.4 - IFO test pressure history match for object 3, well D ................ 59
Figure 3.5 - Reported changes in the injection rate of IFO test on well D, Object
3........................................................................................ 59
Figure 3.18 - History match for fall-off pressure data of object 1, well C ..... 90
VIII
Figure 3.19 - Adsorption/desorption behavior of coal seam in different pressures
......................................................................................... 94
Figure 3.35 - Three sets of kr curves (permeable to gas, base case and permeable
to water).............................................................................116
IX
Figure 3.40 - Production profiles with different cf values ........................121
Figure 3.46 - Early time production rates with different desorption time constant
........................................................................................128
X
List of Tables
Table 3.26 - Object 1 (well D) simulation input data for production history
matching ................................................................................ 93
Table 3.33 - Summery of permeability values for coal seams in well D .......... 129
XII
1 Introduction
Coal bed methane is an important part of the world’s natural gas resource. The
them (Pinzon and Patterson 2004). Coal deposits act as self-sourced natural gas
reservoirs wherein the three crucial elements of petroleum system, which are
source rock, reservoir and trap, are located together in a single geological unit.
Thus, coal deposits represent a relatively simple, low risk exploration target with
respect to locating natural gas accumulations. The major risk in most coal bed
methane developments is generally not the drilling of a dry hole; rather it is not
being able to produce commercial amount of natural gas from the reservoir
(Nelson 2000). Although up to 1400 m3 of gas may be generated per ton of coal,
only a small fraction of this amount can be produced which is typically not more
In conventional gas reservoirs, gas is stored as free gas in the pore spaces of the
reservoir rock. While in coal bed reservoirs the gas may be stored as a free gas in
adsorption.
1
The adsorbed gas is generated as a by product during coalification process. It
To produce gas from a coal bed reservoir, gas must be desorbed from the coal.
This is achieved by depressurizing the coal seam. Since most coal bed reservoirs
are 100 percent water saturated in the natural fracture network, it is necessary
to produce this water to depressurize the coal and create the necessary pressure
gradient for the gas desorption process. As gas desorbs from the coal, changes in
network. This leads to a unique feature observed during coal bed methane
production, an initial negative gas decline rate. The gas production rate initially
increases to a peak production rate, as the seam dewaters and the relative
percent of original gas-in-place is produced from the coal bed, while at the same
2
CBM Reservoir
100
% Gas in Place
17% of Gas
Produced
80
Reservoir Pressure 44% of
Depleted by 50% Gas
60 Produced
20
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
Figure 1.1 - Comparison of CBM and typical gas reservoir producing by pressure
depletion, CBM reservoir (Ma 2004)
depletion is needed to produce the same amount of gas from the well. This
indicates that to recover a substantial fraction of the original gas in place in coal
bed reservoirs, a low bottom-hole pressure is required for the producing wells.
3
1.2 Scope of Present Study
The purpose of this study was to perform reservoir simulation studies for a
Chapter 2 reviews the theory and reservoir engineering aspects of coal bed
Chapter 3 presents simulation results for the case study, including the
matching. The recorded well pressures are matched by the simulator and the
Properties at this scale can be used to predict future reservoir production rates.
desorption time and well drainage area. This analysis shows potential impact on
inherent.
4
2 Theory and Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Coal
Bed Reservoirs
and almost uniformly distributed network of natural fractures (cleats), and a coal
5
Cleats account for less than 2 percent of the seam bulk volume. Therefore,
storage of free gas in the pore spaces of coal cleats represents a minor part of
the total gas-in-place. However, the cleat porosity system is very important in
coal bed reservoirs because nearly all the reservoir permeability comes from
The coal matrix contains very fine pore spaces. These pores are referred to as
micro pores. It has been reported that coal micro pores can be as small as a few
nanometers in diameter (Shi and Durucan 2003). Micro pores do not contribute
significantly to permeability, but they are excellent sites for gas storage in
adsorbed form. Because of coal micro pores, it is estimated that a gram of coal
may contain up to 200 square meters of internal surface for methane adsorption
Micro pores are commonly referred to as the coal primary porosity system
Naturally occurring micro fractures, for instance cleats, provide the permeability
essential for bulk fluid flow in coal bed reservoirs. The bulk fluid flow is
6
interconnected and continuously distributed throughout the reservoir, the
Natural fractures in rocks have various origins and are formed when the applied
stress exceeds the yield stress of the bulk rock matrix material. The applied
stress may be the result of either a physical or chemical process and it may
formation in coal bed reservoir results from stresses generated by such varied
Five types of natural fractures are distinguishable in coal bed reservoirs. The two
commonly observed types of natural fractures are face and butt cleats. Face and
bedding plane. The face cleats are long, linear micro fractures continuously
distributed throughout the seam whereas the butt cleats are short and terminate
against face cleats. This is interpreted as indicating that butt cleats were formed
later in geological time. Hence, the face and butt cleats are referred to as
Coal cleats are extension (opening-mode) fractures that form as a result of the
Three other fracture system that may be observed in coal beds, referred to as
tertiary cleats, joints and faults. Tertiary cleats are micro fractures whose
orientations are different than those of either the face and butt cleats. The
7
tertiary cleats terminate against either face or butt cleats. This indicates that
Joints and faults are larger-scale fractures that typically cut across the coal bed
Butt Cleats
Face Cleats
8
2.3 Pressure-dependent rock properties
During primary methane production, two distinct phenomena are associated with
(Shi and Durucan 2003). The effective stress is equal to the in-situ overburden
stress minus the reservoir pore pressure. As reservoir pore pressure decreases
due to water and gas production, the effective stress applied to the coal seam
increases while the overburden stress remains constant. This causes a reduction
stresses, because the cleat system is oriented normal to the bedding plane. As a
The second phenomenon is methane desorption from the coal matrix (Shi and
Durucan 2003). When reservoir pore pressure falls below the desorption pressure,
methane begins to desorb from the coal matrix, resulting in coal matrix
shrinkage. As the coal matrix shrinks, the effective horizontal stresses are
permeability and porosity dependence on pressure which includes both stress and
ε r = φε p + (1 − φ )ε g
where
ε r is rock volume strain, ε p is pore volume strain, ε g is grain volume strain and
Since the rock body consists of grain particles as well as pore spaces among the
grains, the total rock strain includes two strain components: the strain in pore
volume, φε p (reduction in pore spaces between the grains) and also strain in
grains volume, (1 − φ )ε g .
φε p = ε r − (1 − φ )ε g
φdε p = dε r + (1 − φ )dε g
or
dε r ⎛1− φ ⎞
dε p = − ⎜⎜ ⎟dε g (2 – 1)
φ ⎝ φ ⎟⎠
where
φ is coal porosity
10
The incremental pore volume strain dε p is a result of a simple volumetric
balance. The incremental rock strain causes incremental strain in pore volume
and therefore a reduction in the pore volume, whereas incremental grain volume
⎡1 ⎤ ⎡K ⎤ ⎡K ⎤
− dφ = ⎢ − (1 − φ ) fc g ⎥ (dS − dP) + ⎢ − (1 − φ )⎥ c g dP − ⎢ − (1 − φ )⎥αdT (2 – 2)
⎣M ⎦ ⎣M ⎦ ⎣M ⎦
Where
c g : Grain compressibility
f : A fraction 0 → 1
dT : Changes in temperature
11
M 1 −ν
= (2 – 3)
E (1 + ν )(1 − 2ν )
K 1 ⎛ 1 +ν ⎞
= ⎜ ⎟ (2 – 4)
M 3 ⎝ 1 −ν ⎠
For porosity, φ <<1, as is the case in coal beds for constant overburden stress
( dS = 0 ), we have:
1 ⎡K ⎤ ⎡K ⎤
− dφ = − dP + ⎢ + f − 1⎥ c g dP − ⎢ − 1⎥αdT (2 – 5)
M ⎣M ⎦ ⎣M ⎦
drops, the matrix fabric shrinks and the cleat width increases).
This is directly analogous to matrix shrinkage where cleat width increase as gas
On the other hand, according to laboratory evidence the lab measured matrix
shrinkage strains may be fitted to a Langmuir type curves with ease and accuracy
d ⎛ εlP ⎞
αdT ≡ ⎜ ⎟dP (2 – 6)
dP ⎜⎝ Pε + P ⎟⎠
dP ⎡ K ⎤ ⎡K ⎤ d ⎛ εl P ⎞
− dφ = − + ⎢ + f − 1⎥ c g dP − ⎢ − 1⎥ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟dP (2 – 7)
M ⎣M ⎦ ⎣M ⎦ dP ⎝ Pε + P ⎠
12
⎡K ⎤ d ⎛⎜ P ⎞⎟
dφ = c m dP + ε l ⎢ − 1⎥ ⎜ ⎟dP (2 – 8)
⎣M ⎦ dP ⎝ Pε + P ⎠
Where
1 ⎡K ⎤
cm = − ⎢ + f − 1⎥ c g (2 – 9)
M ⎣M ⎦
⎛K ⎞⎡ P P0 ⎤
φ − φ 0 = c m (P − P0 ) + ε l ⎜ − 1⎟ ⎢ − ⎥ (2 – 10)
⎝M ⎠ ⎣ Pε + P Pε + P0 ⎦
P : Reservoir pressure
φ c ε ⎛K ⎞⎡ P P0 ⎤
= 1 + m (P − P0 ) + l ⎜ − 1⎟ ⎢ − ⎥ (2 – 11)
φ0 φ0 φ0 ⎝M ⎠ ⎣ Pε − P Pε − P0 ⎦
1996)
3
k ⎛φ ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ (2 – 12)
k 0 ⎜⎝ φ 0 ⎟⎠
drawdown.
Palmer and Mansoori (Palmer and Mansoori 1996) suggested the following
equation (Equation 2 -13) for the pressure at which permeability will rebound:
13
This rebound pressure as presented is independent of reservoir initial pressure,
P0 .
At early production time when matrix shrinkage can be neglected and if grain
compressibility is also very small, then porosity and permeability function may be
written as:
φ P − P0
= 1+ (2 – 14)
φ0 φ0 M
3
k ⎛ P − P0 ⎞
= ⎜1 + ⎟ (2 – 15)
k 0 ⎜⎝ φ 0 M ⎟⎠
production characteristics. Gas and water flow in cleats are mainly controlled by
In the unsteady state technique the core is saturated with brine which is
fluids and the differential pressure or total flow rates are monitored and
14
recorded as a function of time. A mathematical model, such as that of
the mathematical models which include the assumption that the core
1991).
Figure 2.3a shows some coal relative permeability curves obtained in the
carbonate samples as well as coal. In the steady state process, fluids are
15
Steady state data typically cover a broader range of saturation than
The main disadvantage of the steady state process is the time required
the in-situ relative permeability characteristics. The period over which typical
test in coal seams are performed is on the order of hours. During such a short
time, fluid saturation and capillary pressure remains fairly constant. Therefore,
saturation. A similar test after some time, on the order of month, when gas and
water ratio has changed, will provide gas and water permeability at a different
permeability data is from history matching fluid production rates and bottom-
hole pressure data with a reservoir simulator. The initial predictions are based on
an assumed or measured relative permeability curves. The curves are varied until
This method is often limited by the assumption that all the other reservoir
and well skin factor, are known and sufficiently accurate (Conway, Mavor et al.
16
1994). Some coal relative permeability curves derived from field history
17
Figure 2.3b – Coal relative permeability curves obtained by history matching (Meaney
and Paterson 1996)
excess of 80%.
for the difference between lab and field relative permeability curves (Meaney
which are obtained from small core plugs can not be representative of reservoir
with water and as the reservoir pressure is reduced, gases desorb from the coal
surface, diffuse through the matrix and flow to the well bore via the fracture
system (cleats) (Roadifer, Moore et al. 2003). The adsorbed gas displaces water
from the fractures. This leads to viscous fingering in the fracture system. Viscous
fingering occurs during fluid flow in a porous medium where a less viscous fluid
like gas displaces a more viscous fluid like water. In this case, the displacement
front forms as an uneven fingered front with the viscous fingers propagating
Viscous fingering is associated with large-scale by-passing of water and this is the
likely explanation for the high residual water saturation associated with coal bed
gas production.
Finally, gravity forces can also affect coal bed reservoir relative permeability
behavior. For instance, if gas displaces water vertically downwards the density
differences can make the fluids partitioned and delay breakthrough of methane.
On the other hand, in horizontal flow gravity override can have a similar effect
1996).
19
2.5 Methane storage in coal
fractures in the coal matrix (Figure 2.4). The adsorbed methane in coal bed
reservoirs accounts for more than 90 % of total gas-in-place. Methane can be also
present in the form of free gas in natural fracture system and it has been
reported that in high volatile sub-bituminous coals free gas can comprises up to
70 % of the total storage capacity (Roadifer, Moore et al. 2003; Shi and Durucan
2003).
The adsorption process occurs between the gaseous methane phase and the coal
as the solid phase in two types of physical and chemical adsorption. However, it
van der Waals forces, between methane molecules and the coal molecules while
2004).
established.
20
• It is not limited to a monolayer but a series of layers may pile up.
Figure 2.4 – Schematic illustration of adsorbed gas on coal surface (Ma 2004)
21
Figure 2.5 – Chemical adsorption in which there is a chemical bond between
methane and coal molecules (Ma 2004)
curve which relates the coal adsorption capasity to pressure at the coal seams
temperature (Figure 2.6). One of most commonly used models is Langmuir model
• Adsorbed molecules occupy only one adsorption site at ant one time.
22
The adsorption rate is assumed to be proportional to the number of free
adsorption sites and to the rate of connection between free gas molecules and
the surface. The latter is directly proportional to the bulk pressure. The overall
⎛ n ⎞
Rate of adsorption = c a P⎜⎜1 − a ⎟⎟ (2 – 16)
⎝ nm ⎠
Where P is the pressure, na is the number of occupied adsorption sites (per unit
Desorption occurs when the molecular vibration in the normal direction to the
vibration increases due to the thermal energy, the probability for the molecules
to move away from the surface increases. The probability of this occurring within
any given time period is predicted by a statistical time constant that depends on
⎛ ε ⎞
⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟
⎝ k BT ⎠
na
Rate of desorption = c d e (2 – 17)
nm
23
desorption), k B is the Boltzmann constant described bellow and c d is the
R J
kB = = 1.38066 × 10 − 23 o (2 – 18)
NA K
where
J
R is Universal gas constant = 8.3145 and
molK o
⎛ ε ⎞
⎛ n ⎞ ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟
n
c a P⎜⎜1 − a ⎟⎟ = c d e ⎝ k BT ⎠ a (2 – 19)
⎝ nm ⎠ nm
⎛ ε ⎞ ⎛ ε ⎞
c a ⎜⎜⎝ k BT ⎟⎟⎠ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
b(ε , T ) = e = b0 e ⎝ k BT ⎠
(2 – 20)
cd
allows above equation to be written in the more recognized form of the Langmuir
24
na bP
= (2 – 21)
n m 1 + bP
1000
800
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Pressure
na V V
= ads = ads (2 – 22)
nm VadsMAX VL
25
1
PL = (2 – 23)
b
The parameters, V L and PL are called Langmuir parameters and the form of
P
Vads = VL (2 – 24)
P + PL
Where
V L is The Langmuir volume or the maximum amount of gas that can be adsorbed
PL is The Langmuir pressure or the pressure at which the volume of adsorbed gas
is half of V L ( VadsMAX )
Gas movement through coal takes place in three stages: (i) gas desorbs off the
internal coal surfaces (ii) gas diffusion (mainly Knudsen diffusion) through the
gradient by Fick’s law and finally (iii) freed gas flow (Darcy flow) in sufficiently
large pores and cleats out of the coal matrix in response to pressure gradients
26
Figure 2.7 – Gas movement in coal bed reservoirs (Reeves and Pekot 2001)
Desorption process along with diffusion refers to: the detachment of gas
molecules from the coal micro pore surfaces (Figure 2.8), migration of this
desorbed gas though the coal matrix to the cleat as a result of concentration
gradients in the matrix and flow to well through the cleat system. The diffuson
of gas through the coal matrix is described mathematically by Fick’s first law:
27
q des =
Vm
τ
(C − C ( p )) (2 – 25)
1
τ= (2 – 26)
Dσ
where D is the diffusion coefficient of gas in the coal matrix and σ is a shape
= − (C − C E )
dC 1
(2 – 27)
dt τ
where C E is the gas concentration at the boundary between the matrix and cleat
system.
C = C i at t = 0
is
⎛ t⎞
⎜− ⎟
C (t ) = C E + (C i − C E )e ⎝ τ⎠
(2 – 28)
28
C i − C (τ ) 1
= 1 − = 0.63 (2 – 29)
Ci − C E e
– 29), the desorption time may be defined as the time at which approximately
63% of the gas contained between C i in the matrix and C E at the boundary has
Figure 2.8 – Desorption includes both physical and chemical adsorbed gas molecules
(Ma 2004)
The definition of desorption time is the basic concept for its measurement in the
laboratory. The method is to plot a graph of desorbed gas volume against elapsed
time. The desorption time can be obtained by reading the time corresponding to
29
the desorbed gas volume equal to 63% of total gas content. This method may be
Another method was introduced by Mavor and Pratt (Mavor, Pratt et al. 1994)
2003):
D
Q(t ) = CQt t − Ql
r2
Where Q(t ) represents the desorbed gas volume at time t , C is unit conversion
Mavor and Pratt (Mavor, Pratt et al. 1994) suggest that if the desorbed gas
volume, Q(t ) , is plotted against the root of time, t , the slope of straight line
D
fitted to the early time data may be used to determine :
r2
D
m = CQt
r2
2
D ⎛ m ⎞
=⎜ ⎟
r 2 ⎜⎝ CQt ⎟⎠
Since
⎛ 1 ⎞ 8
τ =⎜ ⎟ and σ = 2 for cylindrical core sample then:
⎝ σD ⎠ r
1⎛ r2 ⎞
2
1 ⎛ CQt ⎞
τ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = ⎜ ⎟
8⎝ D ⎠ 8⎝ m ⎠
30
and desorption time constant can be calculated. Figure 2.9 shows an example of
desorbed gas volume plotted against t as well as an straight line fitted to early
Three mechanisms have been identified for diffusion of an adsorbing gas in the
matrix larger pores (macro pores). They are molecular diffusion (molecule-
The effective macro pores diffusivity is thus a complex quantity which often
diffusion prevails when the pore diameter is greater than ten times the mean
free path; Knudsen diffusion may be assumed when the mean free path is greater
31
than ten times the pore diameter. In the intermediate regime both wall collision
and inter molecular collision contribute to the diffusion resistance and the
Due to dependence of gas molecule mean free path on pressure, there will be a
pressures. It has been estimated that the mean free path of the methane
0.1 MPa) is about 50 nm. In deep coal seems, the reservoir pressure will be much
higher (> 5MPa) and thus the mean free path would be much lower than 50 nm.
This implies that molecular and transition (surface) diffusion, rather than
Knudsen diffusion, would control the diffusion process in the macro pores of
deep coal seams. In micro pores (<2nm) because of extremely small pore sizes,
pores (<1nm), the diffusing molecules never escape the potential site instead
their transport occurs by jumps between adsorption sites. Therefore, the process
through which diffusing molecules migrate is not a two dimensional surface but
Coal bed wells exhibit three distinct stages in methane production (Pinzon and
32
characterized by “negative decline” in the gas production rate as well as a
significant decline in the water production rate and finally Phase III which begins
when well has reached its peak in gas rate and gas production is characterized by
a more typical positive decline trend (Figure 2.10) (Pinzon and Patterson 2004).
Since cleat system are fully water saturated at initial conditions. Water must be
displaced from the cleats before gas can effectively flow to the well. This
continues in Phase II. As water is displaced from the cleat system, reservoir
pressure decreases. When the reservoir pressure falls down to gas desorption
pressure, the gas desorbs from the coal and flows through the cleats. This
increases the gas saturation in the cleats. Therefore the cleats relative
permeability to gas increases. This is known as the primary explanation for the
production is low and/or negligible and gas and water saturation remains with
very little changes) and pseudo-steady state flow exists for the rest of reservoir
33
Figure 2.10 – Production regime in coal bed reservoirs (Pinzon and Patterson 2004)
Coal bed reservoir gas transport has been described by three types of
Empirical models are mainly used to predict methane release according to simple
Gas transport in the coal micro pores in generally modeled with equilibrium and
difference between the gas concentration at the external matrix surface and the
the external surface of the coal matrix (Kolesar and Ertekin 1986; Guo, Du et al.
2003).
35
Adsorption Isotherm Curve
1200
Adsorption (scf/ton)
1000
800
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Pressure
Figure 2.11 – Adsorption isotherms may be used to model desorption process (Ma
2004)
The pore structure of coal is highly heterogeneous, with the pore size varying
may be divided into macro pores (>50 nm), transient or mesopores (between 2
and 50nm) and micro pores (<2 nm). It has been reported that coals mainly
greater than 30 nm and less than 1.2 nm (Shi and Durucan 2003).
comprised of micro spheres (Figure 2.12 and 2.13). Two phases of gas movement
36
are described: firstly by movement of the gas to the outside of the micro sphere
and secondly by gas movement in the spaces between the micro spheres until the
gas reaches the outside of the macro sphere. These two phases simulate
desorption and diffusion of gas in coal bed matrix blocks (stage (ii) and (iii) in
section 2.6) (Crosdale, Beamish et al. 1998; Shi and Durucan 2003).
= − [U − U E ( p )]
dU 1
(2 - 30)
dt τ
U L bp
U E ( p) = (2 - 32)
1 + bp
The mass transfer rate between the matrix blocks and cleats is given by
dU
q des = − s (2 - 33)
dt
dU 1
= − dt (2 - 34)
U − U E ( p) τ
37
1
n+ ⎛ ∆t ⎞
U n +1 − U E 2 ⎜− ⎟
⎝ τ ⎠
1
=e (2 – 35)
n+
U n −UE 2
by rearranging,
⎛ ∆t ⎞ ⎛ ∆t ⎞ n +1
UE +UE
n
⎜− ⎟ ⎜− ⎟
n +1 ⎝ τ ⎠ ⎝ τ ⎠
U =e U + (1 − e
n
) (2 – 36)
2
n+
1 U n +1 − U n
q des 2 = −s (2 – 37)
∆t
s ⎡ ⎤⎛ U n + U n +1
⎛ ∆t ⎞
1 ⎜− ⎟ ⎞
⎥⎜⎜ E − U n ⎟⎟
n+
q des 2 = − ⎢1 − e ⎝ τ ⎠ E
(2 – 38) In
∆t ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦⎝ 2 ⎠
the bidisperse model, molar concentrations of free gas in the cleats and macro
pores and the adsorbed phase in the micro pores are used as the dependent
variables. The mass balance equations may be expressed in terms of the volume
averaged variables over an entire porous particle. The resulting equations are,
∂V (R ) 15Dm
∂t
=
rc
2
[
VE (C p ) − V (R ) ] (2 – 39)
where
V is the volume of adsorbed gas per unit of coal matrix block in bidisperse
model, VE is the volume of adsorbed gas in equilibrium with free gas phase, V is
38
the volume-average of V over an entire micro porous particle, rc is the radius of
micro porous particles in the matrix, C p is the gas concentration in the macro
pores between the micro porous particles, Dm is the micro pores diffusion
coefficient.
and
φp
dt dt
− (
d C p d V 15 D p
+ 2
)
C −Cp = 0 (2 – 40)
Rp
where
of C p over an entire matrix block, φ p is the macro pores porosity and D p is the
39
Figure 2.12 – Bidisperse model scheme including micro spheres inside the macro
spheres (Shi and Durucan 2003)
Figure 2.13 – Spherical matrix elements in coal bed reservoirs (Kolesar and Ertekin
1986)
40
Using the equation of state for a real gas, the equilibrium gas concentration is
related to the macro pore gas concentration by Langmuir equation (Shi and
Durucan 2003)
V E (C p ) =
V L bC p z p R g T
(2 – 41)
1 + bC p z p R g T
where R g is the universal gas constant, T is coal bed reservoir temperature and
Similar to the unipore quasi-steady state adsorption model the following diffusion
time constant can be defined for the macro pores and micro pores respectively:
2
Rp
τp = (2 – 42)
15D p
2
r
τm = c (2 – 43)
15Dm
The micro pore mass balance Equation (2 – 39) may be further integrated over a
dV
=
1
dt τ m
V E −V [ ] (2 – 44)
where
VE (C p )R 2 dR
3 Rp
VE =
Rp
3 ∫
R =0
(2 – 45)
If the incremental changes in the concentration profile within the particle over a
(
bz p R g T C p − C p << 1 , ) 0 ≤ R ≤ Rp
41
1 + bz p R g TC p ≈ 1 + bz p R g T C p , 0 ≤ R ≤ Rp (2 – 46)
VE ≈
3
∫
Rp VL bC p z p R g T
R 2 dR = VE C p ( ) (2 – 47)
1 + bC p z p R g T
3 R =0
Rp
approximated by
dV
≈
1
dt τ m
VE C p − V [ ( ) ] (2 – 48)
Given the similarity between Equations (2 – 30) and (2 – 48) the micro pore mass
V
n +1
=e
⎛ ∆t
⎜−
⎜ τ
⎝ m
⎞
⎟
⎟
⎠
n
V + (1 − e
⎛ ∆t
⎜−
⎜ τ
⎝ m
⎞
⎟
⎟
⎠ V C p + VE
) E
n
( ) n +1
(C )
p
(2 – 49)
2
The macro pore mass balance equation is discretised using the standard finite
difference method:
n +1 n
( )
n +1
−Cp V −V
n
Cp 1 n +1 n +1
φp + − C −Cp =0 (2 – 50)
∆t ∆t τp
Since
1
(C )
1
n+ n +1 n +1
q des 2 = −Cp (2 – 51)
τp
The average mass transfer rate (per unit volume of coal bed reservoir) between
the cleats and macro pores over time step ∆t is given by: (Shi and Durucan 2003)
n +1 n
n +1
−Cp V −V
n
n+
1 Cp
q des 2 = φp + (2 – 52)
∆t ∆t
n +1
where V can be obtained from Equation (2 – 49).
42
3 The Application of Simulation Studies in Coal Bed
Reservoir Characterization
testing is that the well test provides information on the scale of the test radius
centimeter scale and well logs which provide data on the tens of centimeter
reservoir are diffusive in nature and therefore relatively insensitive to the finer
or detail in reservoir description which can be resolved with well pressure testing
and most well tests provide estimates of bulk or average reservoir properties.
The injection fall-off tests conducted here consist of the following steps:
perforations.
43
3. A reservoir simulator is used to analyze and interpret the measured
The interpretation refers to an attempt to match the well actual response with
the one predicted by the reservoir model. The predicted pressure response is
available laboratory data and field observations. When the model output
matches the well actual test response, the model input parameters are
process:
production wells.
model may produce a response which is very close to the actual response even
though the model parameters are very different from the actual reservoir. In the
other words, there may be more than one set of model parameters which
44
The problem of non-uniqueness may be reduced by careful design and
implementation of the well test and by firmly anchoring the reservoir model to
A well which is static, stable and shut-in is subjected to the injection of a fluid,
which is in this case water, at a constant rate for a specific period of time, and
then the well is shut-in and the pressure decline due to fluid discharge into the
reservoir is monitored.
The best time to test coal seams is prior to production when the reservoir is 100
percent water saturated. Interpretation of tests run on coal wells after pressure
drawdown, when two phase flow conditions are established in the reservoir is
difficult. The injection fall off test determines the coal seam properties that are
estimated parameters are formation flow capacity of the seam (kh), reservoir
From a practical viewpoint, the injection phase of the test can be performed at
to maintain a constant injection rate. The radius of investigation for the test
must be greater than the extent of formation damage caused by the drilling and
completion fluids and near well bore gas desorption. The maximum test pressure
45
formation. (Hopkins C.W. et al. (1998), Badri M. et al. (1996) and Zuber M.D. et
al. (1990))
SIMED II is a coal seam reservoir simulator that models the gas and water flow in
coal seams. SIMED II is a two phase (gas and water), three dimensional, multi
The pressure fall-off tests conducted in this study are for the wells in a coal bed
The coal seams are labeled in Latin numbers from coal seam number (I), the
deepest, to coal seam number (XVIII), the shallowest. The depth of coal seams
Four production wells were drilled in the first stage of this project, well A, B, C
and D. The first producing well, well D, started methane production in August
Production data were available for a coal seam in well D and well A. The
following chapter describes the history matching process for the injection fall-off
The injection fall-off tests were for well B, C and D. Since the wells intersect
coal seams in different depths, several intervals were used for testing. In some
cases more than one interval was used to run the test on an individual seam. The
coal seam or part of a coal seam on which an IFO test was run is called an
object. For example, the first IFO test in well D was done on coal seam number
(V), but because it was the first interval tested in this well, the interval was
called: interval number 1 and the corresponding part of the seam was called
The following table shows the coal seam intersections with well D as well as all
47
Table 3.1 - The depth of different coal seams in well D
Perforation
Seam No. Object No.
Interval (m)
1156 – 1159
V+VI I 1147 – 1150
1141 – 1144
1050.5 – 1053.5
1056.5 – 1060.5
VIII II
1065.5 – 1067.5
1079 – 1081
IX III 982 – 984
X IV 852 – 855
XIVa VII 663 – 666
XV VIIIa 614 – 617
XV VIIIb 602 – 605.5
XVII IX 316 – 319
This IFO test was conducted on coal seam number X. The object number is 4 in
well D. Coal seam corresponding depth and thickness are 2778 and 26.2 feet,
homogeneous.
The coal seam was subjected to water injection for 12:40 hours (12 hours and 40
minutes). The average injection rate was 56.4 liter/hour (or 8.5 BBL/day), then
the well was shut for 29:45 hours to let the pressure fall-off establish. The
48
bottom-hole pressure was monitored and the reported pressures are corrected
system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 1.75 feet for the
area around the well bore to 22 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well.
The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium in the simulation
reservoir performance.
The input data are also shown in Tables 3.2 to 3.4 as well as Figure 3.1. These
49
Table 3.2 - Object 4 simulation input data
50
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Simulation studies for this test indicate to the existence of a fractured zone
around the well bore. The fractured zone connects the well-bore to the reservoir
by its higher permeability so that pressure gradient in the well bore can be felt
determined in the way that the pressure history (pressure data) can be
51
Seam permeability: 0.12 md
The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method
using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the well-
bore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 230
feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 12 feet, the value of permeability
Figure 3.2 shows the recorded pressure as well as the simulated match.
1600
1500
1400
Bottom-hole pressure (psia)
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
Time (days)
700
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Figure 3.2 - Pressure history match for IFO test on Object 4 in well D
52
Since the coal seam is fractured through well bore stimulation, a negative skin
factor is expected. The skin factor can be calculated from the fractured zone
⎛k ⎞⎛ ⎛ r frac ⎞⎞
s = ⎜ res − 1⎟⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎟
⎜k ⎟
⎝ farc ⎠⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠⎠
(3 - 1)
where
s is well bore skin factor, k res is reservoir permeability, k frac and r frac are the
fractured zone permeability and radius respectively and rw is the well bore
radius which is 0.328 feet in this case. The well bore skin factor is -2.9 which is
The reservoir permeability value estimated by the simulation studies is 0.12 md.
The log interpretation method shows that the seam permeability value varies
Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1187 psia
for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however,
53
3.5.2 IFO test in well D, object 3
This test was done in well D, seam number (IX), object 3. The coal seam is
located at the depth of 3218 feet and its net thickness is 11.5 feet. However, the
coal seam was perforated at the depth of 3321-3228 feet. Since no information
was available regarding the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam,
Water injection was carried out for 19:25 hours at the average rate of 140.4
lit/hr (21.2 bbl/day). The well afterward was shut for 32:55 hours. The bottom-
hole pressure was monitored and the reported pressures were corrected for
system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 10.0 feet for the
area around the well bore to 20 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well.
The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir
compressibility.
54
3.5.2.4 Simulation Input Parameters
The tables 3.5 to 3.7 as well as Figure 3.3 represent the simulation input data for
this test.
55
Table 3.5 - Object 3 simulation input data
56
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with
Figure 3.4 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for
the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to
57
According to provided operational details for this particular test (IFO test field
report for Well D – Object 3), the test was not conducted at a constant injection
rate. The simulation was carried out with a constant (average) injection rate.
pressures early in the flow period. However, simulation with a variable rate
The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method
using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the well-
bore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 285
feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 65 feet, the value of permeability
In the same way, well bore skin factor was calculated from Equation 3.1, the
⎛k ⎞⎛ ⎛ r frac ⎞⎞
s = ⎜ res − 1⎟⎜⎜ ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎟
⎜k ⎟
⎝ farc ⎠⎝ ⎝ rw ⎠⎠
(3 - 1)
where
s is well bore skin factor, k res is reservoir permeability, k frac and r frac are the
fractured zone permeability and radius respectively and rw is the well bore
58
1800
1600
Bottom-hole pressure (psia)
1500
1400
1200
1100
1000
900
Time (days)
800
0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4
Figure 3.4 - IFO test pressure history match for object 3, well D
4
Injection Rate (lit/min)
Time (day)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Figure 3.5 - Reported changes in the injection rate of IFO test on well D, Object 3
59
3.5.2.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies
No reservoir characterization study was conducted for this particular seam (seam
number IX). However, the seam permeability, 0.55 md, is of similar order to that
determined for the previous test (0.12 md for object 4 in well D).
Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1300 psia
for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however,
This IFO test was conducted on coal seam number XV. The object number is
called 8b in well D. The coal seam depth is 1973 feet and its thickness is 13 feet.
(Tran 2005). They are shown in Figure 3.6. The nearest fault to well D is located
Since these faults are located sufficiently far from the well-bore (well D)
comparing to the test radius of investigation, the seam may also be considered to
60
Well D
2621117
2620917
2620717
Well B
Well C
2620517
Well A
2620317
2620117
433221 433321 433421 433521 433621 433721 433821 433921 434021 434121
The coal seam was subjected to water injection for 15:30 hours. The average
injection rate was 44.9 liter/hour (or 5.9 BBL/day), the well was then shut for
32:30 hours to let the pressure fall-off establish. The bottom-hole pressure was
monitored and the reported pressures were corrected for depth to mid-point of
the perforations.
system) by one block in z direction. The size of grid blocks was 8.0 feet for all
the blocks in the grid system. The well was placed in the center grid block.
61
The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir
production.
The tables 3.8 to 3.10 as well as Figure 3.7 represent the simulation input data
62
Table 3.8 - Object 8b rock/fluid properties
63
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with
Figure 3.8 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for
the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to
reason for the poor match during the injection period. However, it is considered
64
to be a consequence of possibly more tortuous (initially non radial) injection flow
Since the test investigated a distance of only 50 feet from the well-bore, it is not
formation or an altered zone about the well-bore. However, comparing with the
permeability values of the other test in this series, the value of the permeability
1400
Simulated Trace
1200
Bottom-hole pressure (psia)
1000
Recorded Trace
800
600
400
200
Time (days)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
studies in this case, because the injection/fall-off test results represent only a
65
single permeability value and it is not possible to be conclusive whether the
Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 845 psia for
this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however,
The injection/fall-off test was conducted on coal seam number XV in well D. The
coal seam depth is 2011 feet and the net thickness measured 15 feet at the
were recognized in this seam as they were shown in Figure 3.6. The nearest fault
Since these faults are located sufficiently far from the well (well D) comparing to
homogeneous.
Water was injected for 19:08 hours at the average rate of 45.7 litter/hour (6.9
bbl/day). The well bore was shut for 49:45 hours and bottom-hole pressure was
66
3.5.4.3 Simulation Model of the Test
system) by one block in z direction. The size of grid blocks was 7.5 feet for all of
the blocks in the grid system. The well was placed in the center grid.
The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir
production.
The tables 3.11 to 3.13 as well as Figure 3.9 represent the simulation input data
67
Table 3.11 - Object 8a rock/fluid properties
68
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with
Figure 3.10 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for
the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to
There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed rate
data and it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match
69
Since the test investigated a distance of only 75 feet from the well-bore, it is not
formation or an altered zone about the well-bore. However, comparing with the
permeability values of the other test in this series, the value of the permeability
1200
Simulated Trace
1100
1000
Bottom-hole pressure (psia)
900
Recorded Trace
800
700
600
500
Time (days)
400
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
studies in this case, because the injection/fall-off test results represent only a
70
Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 824 psia for
this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however,
This IFO test was conducted on coal seam number XIVa. The object number is 7
in well D. Coal seam corresponding depth and thickness is 2165 and 26.2 feet,
homogeneous.
The coal seam was subjected to water injection for 20:07 hours. The average
injection rate was 48.6 liter/hour (or 7.3 BBL/day), then well was shut-in for
`47:10 hours to let the pressure fall-off establish. The bottom-hole pressure was
monitored and the reported pressures were corrected for depth to mid-point of
the perforations.
system) by one block in z direction. The size of grid blocks was set to 16 feet
throughout the grid system. The well was placed in the center grid block.
71
The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir
production.
The tables 3.14 to 3.16 as well as Figure 3.11 represent the simulation input data
72
Table 3.14 - Object 7 rock/fluid properties
73
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with
Figure 3.12 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for
the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to
There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed rate
data and it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match
74
Since the test investigated a distance of only 155 feet from the well-bore, it is
formation or an altered zone about the well-bore. However, comparing with the
permeability values of the other test in this series, the value of the permeability
1200
Simulated Trace
1100
Bottom-hole pressure (psia)
1000
Recorded Trace
900
800
700
Time (days)
600
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
studies in this case, because the injection/fall-off test results represent only a
75
Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 942 psia for
this seam. The same value of initial reservoir pressure was used in the test
simulation.
The injection/fall-off test was conducted on coal seam number VIII in well D. The
coal seam depth is 3485 feet and the net thickness measured 34 feet at the
existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, therefore the reservoir was
considered to be homogeneous.
Water was injected for 14:00 hours at the average rate of 64.0 litter/hour (9.7
bbl/day). The well bore was shut for 29:00 hours and bottom-hole pressure was
system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 1.7 feet for the
area around the well bore to 18 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well.
The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir
76
compressibility due to the effect of compaction phenomena on reservoir
production.
The tables 3.17 to 3.19 as well as Figure 3.13 represent the simulation input data
77
Table 3.17 - Object 2 rock/fluid properties
78
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
A good match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with
The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method
using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the well-
bore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 190
feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 10 feet, the value of permeability
79
for the unaltered zone is considered to be representative of the permeability
Well bore skin factor was calculated -3.0 using Equation (3 – 1). The skin factor
has a negative value which is because of the existence of fractured zone around
the well-bore.
2000
Simulated Trace
1900
1800
Bottom-hole pressure (psia)
1700
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
Time (days)
1000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
The reservoir permeability value estimated by the simulation studies is 0.06 md.
interpretation. The log interpretation method shows that the seam permeability
80
Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1440 psia
for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however,
This IFO test was conducted on coal seam number (V+VI). The object number is 1
in well D. The coal seam corresponding depth and thickness are 3742 and 30.0
homogeneous.
The coal seam was subjected to water injection for 12:00 hours. The average
injection rate was 148 liter/hour (or 22.3 BBL/day), then well was shut for 24:52
hours to let the pressure fall-off establish. The bottom-hole pressure was
monitored and the reported pressures were corrected for depth to mid-point of
the perforations.
system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 2.0 feet for the
area around the well bore to 8.0 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well.
81
The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir
production.
The tables 3.20 to 3.22 as well as Figure 3.15 represent the simulation input data
82
Table 3.20 - Object 1 rock/fluid properties
83
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with
Figure 3.16 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for
the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to
84
There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed rate
data and it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match
The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method
using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the well-
bore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 100
feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 10 feet, the value of permeability
Well bore skin factor was calculated -3.4 in this case. The results were based on
history matching of fall-off pressure data. Figure 3.16 shows the simulated
2400
Recorded Trace
2200
Bottom-hole pressure (psia)
1800
1600
1400
Time (days)
1200
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
85
3.5.7.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies
The reservoir permeability value estimated by simulation studies is 0.08 md. This
permeability value varies between zero and 0.022 md (Wang June 2005).
Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1715 psia
for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however,
The injection/fall-off test was conducted on coal seam number (V+VI) in well C.
The coal seam depth is 3343 feet and the net thickness measured 29.5 feet at
existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, the reservoir was considered
to be homogeneous.
Water was injected for 10:40 hours at the average rate of 146.0 litter/hour (22.0
bbl/day). The well bore was shut for 23:30 hours and bottom-hole pressure was
86
3.5.8.3 Simulation Model of the Test
system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 1.7 feet for the
area around the well bore to 5.0 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well
The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and the
compressibility.
The input data are also shown in tables 3.23 to 3.25 as well as Figure 3.17.
87
Table 3.23 - Object 1, well C simulation input data
88
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with
Figure 3.5 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for
the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to
89
There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed rate
data and it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match
The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method
using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the well-
feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 10 feet, the value of permeability
Figure 3.3 shows the recorded pressure as well as the simulated match.
2200
Recorded Trace
2000
1800
Bottom-hole pressure (psia)
1400
1200
1000
800
Time (days)
600
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
Figure 3.18 - History match for fall-off pressure data of object 1, well C
90
3.5.8.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies
permeability value varies between zero and 0.015 md (Wang June 2005).
Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1395 psia
for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation was also
Coal seam number (V+VI) refers to a single coal seam in well D. Coal seam
number V+VI was put on production individually while the other coal seams in the
well were presumably packed. The coal seam depth is 3742 feet and its thickness
homogeneous.
Production history is available over nearly three months for this seam. Based on
match for the history and predict the gas production and recovery for the rest of
reservoir life.
91
The simulation was set up with a 39 by 39 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian
system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 2.8 feet for the
area around the well bore to 23 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well.
was used for the reservoir. In this model, permeability changes were defined as a
reservoir pressure by coal seam compressibility factor. This leads to take into
account the early time formation compaction which occurs due to pressure
According to corresponding IFO test results the reservoir pressure was set at 1700
psia for this depth. The well was producing at bottom-hole pressure of 50.0 psia
throughout the history time and the same value was used for the well
Tables 3.26 to 3.28 as well as Figures 3.19 and 3.20 represent the reservoir
92
Table 3.26 - Object 1 (well D) simulation input data for production history matching
93
600
Adsorbed Gas
Volume (SCF/UST)
500
400
300
200
100
Reservoir initial pressure
Pressure (psia)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
94
1.00
krg
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
A good match between recorded production data and simulation is obtained with
A drainage area of 10 acre provided a good match for the production history
The well bore skin factor was calculated -3.0 from Equation (3 - 1).
Figure 3.21 shows the actual production profile as well as simulated one.
95
2600
2400
Simulated Production Rates
2200
2000
1800
Gas production (m /day)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Time (Days)
0
23 33 43 53 63 73 83 93 103
the injection/fall-off test and log interpretation results. The seam permeability
interpretation method shows that the seam permeability value varies between
The production rates were predicted over next 25 years of reservoir life. This
prediction was based on the reservoir model obtained during the production
96
history matching. Because the model satisfied and fit the production history, it is
in future too. Figure 3.22 and 3.23 present production rate forecast and
A peak was forecasted by simulation to occur at the end of year three and
continue during year four. The peak rate is nearly as high as 90 MSCF/D in year
four entirely.
The production declines rapidly after year 4 and decreases during the rest of
reservoir life. However, decline rate is more gradual in later years. The
predicted production rate in year 25 is 15 MSCF/D or 425 cubic meters per day.
97
Table 3.29 - Object 1, well D, average yearly production data
98
100
90
80
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Time (Years)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1.00E+06
Gas Cumulative
Production (MSCF)
1.00E+05
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
Time (Years)
1.00E+02
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
99
The cumulative gas production at the end of the history was 3.8 MMSCF or 107287
cubic meters. This amount was about 360 MMSCF at the end of year 25.
The original gas in place was calculated by the simulator as 655 MMSCF with 10
acres reservoir limits. By the end of production history, just 0.58 percent of this
volume was produced, while the methane recovery was estimated to be nearly
55 percent of original gas in place after 25 years. Figure 3.24 shows predicted
100
Methane Recovery
(%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Years
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
100
3.7 Production History Match for Object 2 in Well A
The coal seam number XV was put to production through the interval (object) 2
in well A. Presumably the other coal seams were packed during the production
from this seam. The interval (object) depth is 1610 feet and the seam thickness
homogeneous.
Seam number (XV) was put to production in January 2001. The well initially
produced at the rate of 200-300 m3/Day. The production peak occurred in August
2001 and the peak rate was 4800 m3/day. The production thereafter declined
The historical data are available for two years of production upon which the
simulation studies were done. Production history match was obtained and based
on the obtained model, reservoir production was forecasted and gas recovery
directions and one block in z direction. The blocks size was chosen smaller for
the area around the well bore, 15 feet, and considered larger in corner areas, 41
Tables 3.30 and 3.31 and Figures 3.25 and 3.26 show all the simulation input data
as reservoir parameters:
102
700
Adsorbed Gas
Volume (SCF/UST)
600
500
400
Reservoir gas content at in-situ conditions
300
200
Pressure (psia)
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
1.00
0.90
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60 krg
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
103
To obtain a good match for the production history, the provided relative
A good match between recorded production data and simulation is obtained with
The Figure 3.27 represents the production history match for this well:
5000
Gas production
(m3/day)
4500
4000
3500
2500
2000
1500
500
Time (Days)
0
150 240 330 420 510 600 690 780 870 960 1050
104
The well stimulation process has improved effectively the reservoir permeability
in the area around the well bore to 1 md which represents a great difference
permeability values for seams XV2 and XV3. The average permeability values of
these seams are 0.0059 and 0.0093 md respectively. However, the average
reservoir permeability was evaluated 0.19 md in seam XV1 (Wang June 2005).
Because of reservoir tightness, the production rates declined rapidly after almost
one year of reservoir life from a high peak rate to low rates for the rest of
reservoir life. Figure 3.28 shows well production forecast for next 25 years.
105
180
Gas Production
Rates (MSCF/D)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Time (years)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Also, reservoir low permeability has strongly affected the reservoir methane
recovery from this well as methane recovery factor is less than 5 percent of
These results show that how important is the reservoir permeability role in gas
production and recovery and also this fact that induced fractures can greatly
Figure 3.29 and 3.30 represent the cumulative gas production and gas recovery
106
100
90
80
Cumulative Gas Production (MMSCF)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Time (years)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
10
Gas Recovery (%)
Time (years)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
107
According to simulation results by having 40 acres as reservoir drainage area, the
original gas in place is 1966 MMSCF (almost 2 BCF) from which only 97 MMSCF will
108
3.8 Sensitivity Analysis
investigated for case study 1. These properties include reservoir and fractured
reservoir limit or drainage area, reservoir initial pressure and finally desorption
time constant.
reported in previous studies (Roadifer, Farnan et al. 2003; Roadifer, Moore et al.
The obtained results in long term production profile from the single well
concerned with pressure depletion (Remner, Ertekin et al. 1986; Stevenson 1997;
109
Methane recoveries after 25 years are 64% (high permeability), 55% (base case
permeability), and 42% (low permeability). The higher recoveries are associated
with higher production rates of methane. For natural pressure depletion, the
reservoir production is primarily controlled by the total kh-product for the coal
bed.
The peak production rates are 150 MSCF/D, 91 MSCF/D and 82 MSCF/D for the k1
For 0.28 md case, the production rate decreases rapidly after the peak is
reached. The decline in production rate is considerably slower for the 0.14 md
case. For the 0.07 md case, the peak in production is not reached until 6 years
after the start of production and the subsequent decline in production is gradual
(Figure 3.31).
After nearly 15 years of production, methane production rate for 0.07 md case is
predicted to be slightly greater than that for the higher permeability cases. This
is simply because the reservoir is depleted of methane at this time for the higher
permeability cases.
110
160
140
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D) kres = 0.28 md
120
kres = 0.14 md
100
80
kres = 0.07 md
60
40
20
Time (Years)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
100
90
80
70 kres = 0.07 md
Methane Recovery (%)
kres = 0.14 md
60
kres = 0.28 md
50
40
30
20
10
Years
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
111
3.8.2 Effect of fractured zone permeability
examined by selecting three levels of kfrac = 0.5 md (low permeability), kfrac = 1.5
md (base case) and kfrac = 3.0 md (high permeability). The selected range of
Figure 3.33 shows the production profile after 25 years for these three cases.
Changes in kfrac have similar effect as that for reservoir permeability itself.
However, the difference in kfrac makes slight changes in the production rate.
Production peak was 110 MSCF/D for the case of kfrac = 3.0 md, 104 MSCF/D and
The higher production rates for the case of greater kfrac is simply because the
producing well and the coal seam. Gas desorption occurs faster in a highly
fractured zone and desorbed gas flows more efficiently to the producing well
In long term production the desorbed gas is provided from a much larger area
Methane recoveries were 60%, 58% and 53% where fractured zone permeability
was 3.0, 1.5 and 0.5 md, respectively. The difference only comes from the first
years greater production rates for the case of higher permeability (Figure 3.34).
112
160
140
kfrac = 3.0 md
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)
120
kfrac = 1.5 md
100
kfrac = 0.5 md
80
60
40
20
Time (Years)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
100
90
80
70
Methane Recovery (%)
kfrac = 3.0 md
60 kfrac = 1.5 md
kfrac = 0.5 md
50
40
30
20
10
Years
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
113
3.8.3 Effect of relative permeability
Three sets of relative permeability curves were used in this study, which are
The important differences between the data sets include the mobile water
saturation and the gas phase relative permeability levels. The mobile water
saturation for rock curves is 56% while for the pseudo-curves are 15% and 80%.
The first pseudo kr curves with 15% mobile water saturation represents highly
permeable to gas whereas the second pseudo-curves with 85% mobile water
saturation implies to a mainly water permeable reservoir which has lower gas
relative permeability level. In this way, the reservoir sensitivity to the coal seam
Figure 3.36 shows simulated methane production rates for the single well
development with the base case data (rock curve) and pseudo-curves. There is a
results in lower methane production rates comparing to the other case with less
increased in first years to a peak rate of 134 MSCF/D in year 2. While using
pseudo relative permeability curves with lower immobile water saturation lead
to lower methane production rate during first years as the peak rate was 60
MSCF/D. These results are explained by the fact that the reservoir permeability
to gas increases much faster when the pseudo-curve with higher immobile water
114
saturation is used in the model. Therefore, the reservoir absolute permeability is
totally assigned to gas flow in a shorter time. This improves the gas flow
efficiency in the reservoir and causes higher gas production rate. However, the
gas production is predicted to be less for the cases with higher level of gas
methane depletion during first years of production for the cases with improved
Figure 3.37 shows that different kr curves also have significant effects on
methane recovery. Methane recoveries are 48%, 55% and 63% for water-
permeable, base case and gas-permeable cases. The difference between the
final gas recovery values comes from the higher production rate in first years of
115
1.00
0.90
krg
krw
0.80
0.70
Relative Permeability
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Water Saturation (%)
0.00
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Figure 3.35 - Three sets of kr curves (permeable to gas, base case and permeable to
water)
116
160
140
Permeable to gas
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)
120
100
Original curves
80
Permeable to water
60
40
20
Time (Years)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
100
90
80
Permeable to gas
70
Methane Recovery (%)
Original curves
60
50 Permeable to water
40
30
20
10
Years
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
117
3.8.4 Effect of porosity
three levels of porosity: = 0.025 (low porosity), = 0.055 (base value) and =
0.085 (high porosity). This range covers the range of porosity values presented in
field lab measurements (Field report, October 2003). Figure 3.38 shows
simulated gas production rates for the case of a single well on a 10 acre drainage
area.
It was observed that matrix porosity has some effect on reservoir performance.
The peak production rate is reduced from 148 MSCF/D to 66 MSCF/D and delayed
approximately 3.5 years when the porosity was increased from 2.5% to 8.5%.
Methane recovery after 25 years, in the other hand, was increased from 50% for
the case of 8.5% to 55% and 61% for the cases of 5.5% (base case) and 2.5%,
Matrix porosity used in the simulator is the ratio of pore volume to the overall
bulk volume of the coal. Reduction in reservoir porosity, in fact, decreases the
pore volume in the coal seam and therefore the coal-in-place volume is
increased. This increases the coal matrix proportion to pore volume in the seam
The corresponding gas-in-place values for = 2.5%, 5.5% and 8.5% are 676
MMSCF, 655 MMSCF and 634 MMSCF, respectively, which verify greater gas-in-
118
160
140 Φ = 2.5 %
120
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)
100
Φ = 5.5 %
80
60
Φ = 8.5 %
40
20
Time (Years)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
100
90
80
70
Methane Recovery(%)
Φ = 2.5 %
60 Φ = 5.5 %
Φ = 8.5 %
50
40
30
20
10
Years
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
119
3.8.5 Effect of formation compressibility (cf)
= 3.5 × 10-5 psi-1 (medium compressibility) and cf = 5.0 × 10-5 psi-1 (more
decreases. The reasons for effective gas permeability decrease are: first,
decrease. This reduces relative permeability to gas in the seam and prevents the
For example in this study, for the case of cf = 5.0 × 10-5 psi-1 (the highest
0.1313 md while in the case of the lowest formation compressibility (2.0 × 10-5
psi-1) the value was calculated 0.1371 md. The absolute value of permeability
120
Figure 3.41 shows the effect of compressibility on the performance of the single
well development. Increasing the value of cf from 2.0 × 10-5 psi-1 to 5.0 × 10-5 psi-
1
results in a decrease in methane recovery at 25 years from 55% to 53%. The long
term methane production does not appear to be sensitive to changes in cf with all
these simulations predicting similar production rate after year 8 for the rest of
reservoir life. The difference in the early time performance, however, results in
higher final recoveries at 25 years for the lower cf cases (Figure 3.40).
160
140
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)
cf = 3.5e-5 psi-1
100
cf = 5.0e-5 psi-1
80
60
40
20
Time (Years)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
121
100
90
80
70
Methane Recovery (%)
-1
60 cf = 5.0e-5 psi
50 cf = 3.5e-5 psi-1
40 cf = 2.0e-6 psi-1
30
20
10
Years
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
examined by performing simulations for 10, 20, 40 and 80 acre spacing in single
well development. Figure 3.42 shows production rates for 40 years of reservoir
as by increasing the reservoir size, the peak production rate decreased from 91
MSCF/D for the case of 10 acre to 65 MSCD/D for the case of 80 acre. Also the
peak was considerably delayed over reservoir life, for instance, in the case of 40
acre spacing the peak was predicted to occur nearly in year 17 and for the case
of 20 acre spacing the peak is in year 8, while for the base case the peak rate is
expected in year 4. For the case of 80 acre spacing no strong peak was observed,
122
while production reaches to its highest level after year 35 and continue
constantly till year 40. This is related to the rate of gas desorption throughout
the seam. In reservoir pressure depletion mechanism, the reservoir fluids are
produced due to pressure gradient between the well-bore and the reservoir.
area. In this case, the pressure drawdown from the initial pressure occurs more
because the production decline due to gas depletion in the area near to the well-
bore is offset by desorbed gas coming from the further areas in the reservoir. As
a result, the general production decline rate is more gradual for larger drainage
areas so that no decline in production was observed for the case of 80 acre
Methane recovery is very sensitive to the size of drainage area too. While
methane recovery at 40 years is 64% with 10 acre spacing, that is only 11% with
80 acre drainage area (Figure 3.43). This is mainly because the amount of
original gas-in-place increases with the same proportion of that reservoir size
fraction of the initial gas-in-place at any specific time for larger drainage areas.
The corresponding OGIP calculated for 10, 20, 40, 80 acre spacing are 655
123
160
140
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)
120
AD = 10 acres
100 AD = 20 acres
AD = 40 acres
80 AD = 80 acres
60
40
20
Time (Years)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
100
90
80
70
Methane Recovery (%)
AD = 10 acres
60
50 AD = 20 acres
40
AD = 40 acres
30
20
AD = 80 acres
10
Years
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
124
3.8.7 Effect of reservoir initial pressure
by performing simulations using the base value Pi = 1700 psia, Pi = 1900 psia and
1500 psia. Production rates were predicted greater for the case of Pi = 1900 psia
with the peak rate of 100 MSCF/D. the peak rate were 90 MSCF/D and 80 MSCF/D
for cases of 1700 and 1500 psia, respectively. When all the other reservoir
parameters are kept constant, the higher initial reservoir pressure creates a
greater pressure gradient between the well-bore and the reservoir. This leads to
the same for all the case, the amount of gas desorbed is associated with a
The long term production was observed not sensitive to changes in reservoir
initial pressure (Figure 3.44). During later years, since a main part of gas has
been desorbed from the coal and pressure has fallen down to lower values, the
however in slight and caused by higher production rates during early years of
125
160
140
Pi = 1900 psia
Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)
120
Pi = 1700 psia
100
Pi = 1500 psia
80
60
40
20
Time (Years)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
100
90
80
70
Methane Recovery (%)
Pi = 1900 psia
60 Pi = 1700 psia
50 Pi = 1500 psia
40
30
20
10
Years
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
126
3.8.8 Effect of desorption time constant
three levels of 1 day (shorter time, faster desorption), 2 days (base case) and 3
field reports as well as the modified value used in production history matching.
production rate during very first days of production. Figure 3.46 show greater
shorter. Although, the three production profiles come together almost after 10
days and the primary difference disappears for the rest of reservoir life.
When desorption time constant is smaller, the diffusion process occurs faster and
therefore the gas transport between coal matrix surfaces and cleats takes place
in a shorter time. This causes an earlier peak in production and a higher peak
rate. However, for the case of long term production, the reservoir performance
is mainly affected by Darcy flow regime (gas transportation in the cleat system)
and Darcy parameters, for example cleats permeability, control the reservoir
performance.
127
160
120
Tdes = 2 days
80
60
40
20
Time (days)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Figure 3.46 - Early time production rates with different desorption time constant
128
3.9 Conclusions
obtain the permeability of coal seams in these wells. The following table
increased.
between the well bore and the reservoir. However, the reservoir
assigned to gas flow for the water saturation values less than
shorter time.
values. The final methane recovery was also higher when the
final recovery predicted till year 40 was less for the case of larger
reservoir size.
rate during early years of production. However, for the later years
130
of reservoir life, the production profile is almost identical for
own scale. For instance, in this case the range of desorption time
did not exceed longer than 3 days and therefore the difference in
days).
131
References
Ahmed, U., D. Johnston, et al. (1991). "An Advanced and Integrated Approach to
Aminian, K., S. Ameri, et al. (2004). "Type Curves for Coalbed Methane
Clarkson, C. R. and R. M. Bustin (1999). "The effect of pore structure and gas
pressure upon the transport properties of coal: a laboratory and modeling study.
132
Derickson, J. P., J. S. Horne, et al. (1998). "Huaibei Coalbed Methane Project,
Guo, X., Z. Du, et al. (2003). "Computer Modeling and Simulation of Coalbed
133
Ma, T. (2004). An Introduction to Coalbed Methane. 2004 Canadian International
Total Gas Content, Task I Desorption Data Summary." Gas Research Institute
Ohen, H. A., J. O. Amaefule, et al. (1991). "A Systems Response Model for
Palmer, I. and J. Mansoori (1996). "How Permeability Depends on stress and Pore
134
Pinzon, C. L. and J. Patterson (2004). "Production Analysis of Coalbed Wells Using
Remner, D. J., T. Ertekin, et al. (1986). "A Parametric Study of the Effects of
135
Shi, J.-Q. and S. Durucan (2003). "A Bidisperse Pore Diffusion Model for Methane
Shi, J.-Q. and S. Durucan (2003). "Gas Storage and Flow in Coalbed Reservoirs:
Implementation of a Bidisperse Pore Model for Gas Diffusion in Coal Matrix." SPE
84342.
Field."
Reservoirs." SPE00426.
136
Zuber, M. D., D. P. Sparks, et al. (1990). "Design and Interpretation of
137