[Society of Petroleum Enfrheera I
SPE 36986
Relative Permeability in Coal
Kevin Meaney, SPE, and Lincoln Paterson, SPE, CSIRO Petroleum
Ccpynght 19SS, Scaety cd Pafro!eum Engme-scs, Inc
TM papa was prepared fcf prescmtakm at the 1996 SPE ASWIPacfiIc 011 .S Gas Confererca
he!d m Addade, Australm 2&31 Octcbar 1996
TM. pspar was selacfad for presanlatlon by an SPE Program Commmea folbwmg revmw of
mfofmatlon contamad m an abstract submttd by the author(s) Contents of the pape$, as
preserded, have not bean revmwad by tb SOOety of Petro!aum Englneam ard are subjscf to
carrocf!on by the author(s) The matanal, as presented, dam not necassardy refled any
positicn of tfm %cmly of Pefroleum Engmeors, its oli%xrs, or membsrs Papars presantsd al
SPE meetmgs am subpct to pubbcatton revmw by Edkmal Commdtees of the Souety cd
Petroleum Engmaers Parmissmn 10 copy IS restrcted to an abslrad of not more than 300
words Illus! rationo may not be copied The abslract should contain conspicuous
acknmadedgment of where and by vdmm the paper was pfeaanted Write Lbranan, SPE, P O
Box 833836, Rtiardson, TX 7Y3f33-3826 U.S A, fax Ot-214-9S2-9435
Abstract
Relative permeability is a primary parameter for determining
the reservoir behaviour of coal seams. We present numerous
relative permeability curves measured in the laboratory as well
as curves from numerically matching field performance.
Viscous fingering provides an explanation for the high values
of residual water saturation.
Introduction
Relative permeability is a primary parameter in determining
the response of coal-seam reservoirs. Despite the importance
of relative permeability, measurements are infrequent and very
few recorded examples appear in the literature. The main
reason for this is that the properties of coal make the
measurements difficult.
In the published literature, discrepancies exist between
relative permeability curves from the laboratory and the field.
High values of residual water saturation, often in excess of
80’XO, are observed.
In this paper we present numerous relative permeability
curves measured in the laboratory as well as curves from
numerically matching field performance. Some of the
discrepancies in the results are postulated to be a result of the
unfavorable mobility ratios that exist when gas displaces
water. This leads to viscous fingering. Evidence to support this
conclusion is provided in X-ray CT images of core
displacements.
Viscous fingering behaviour is very dependent on
heterogeneity. The extremely heterogeneous nature of coal is
interpreted to be primarily responsible for the variability in
relative permeability curves. We provide examples of how this
is manifested in practice. Viscous fingering provides an
explanation for the high values of residual water saturation.
Conclusions from this paper are important for scaling
231
results ffom laboratory tests to field applications. Applications
occur in coalbed methane and gas drainage from coal seams
for mine safety. 1This work is also relevant to multiphase flow
in other types of fractured rock.
Reservoir Properties of Coal
Coal is generally treated as a dual porosity rock containing
micropores and a network of natural fractures. The fractures
are known from mining as cleats. Some basic reservoir
engineering aspects of coal have been described by Gray.2’3
Coal is arguably the most difficult reservoir rock to work
with for the reasons listed below.
1. Coal tends to be friable and very heterogeneous, so
sample selection is a major issue. Procedures for sample
select ion have been recommended by Hyman et al.4’s
2. The connected fracture network of coal has low porosity.
Laboratory testing therefore requires accurate measurements
of very small amounts of fluid.
3. Very pronounced stress-dependent permeability is
observed in coal.z Furthermore, as the stress load is cycled,
permeability tends not to return to the original value. The
reason for this has not been clearly identified, but may include
fines migration.
4. Many gases strongly adsorb on coal, including methane,
carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
Previous Measurements
Recorded measurements of relative permeability in coal are
sparse. It has only been in the last few years that direct
measurements of water relative permeability during gas
injection have been reported. We reproduce below some of the
previously published curves. To assist visual comparison, they
have been replotted with the same aspect ratio and with water
saturation on the abscissa axis.
In the early 1970s Rezrrik et al.6 reported on measurements
of relative permeabilities under steady-state conditions, with
water saturation both increasing and decreasing. With
decreasing water saturation they were unable to measure water
relative permeabilities, and instead computed values from the
corresponding gas permeabilities by Corey’s method. They
acknowledged that the applicability of this approach to coal is
tenuous. Relative permeability curves for decreasing water
saturation are shown in Fig. 1a. The relative permeability to
water is shown as a broken line because it was not directly
measured Different samples were used to compile the water
2 KEVIN MEANEY
and gas relative penneabilities.
Jones, Bell and Schraufnage17 have presented a relative
permeability curve for Fruitland coal (Fig. lb). Relative
permeability to gas was determined by the stationary-fluid
technique. Relative permeability to water was not directly
measured, but was deduced from the capillary pressure curve.
Based on this, it was noted that the gas relative permeability
would never exceed 0.1 at any stage during the producing life
of the reservoir.
Hyman et al. 5 have plotted gas and water relative
permeabilities of Fruitland coal determined fi’om steady-state
tests (Fig. lc). They also present results from unsteady-state
tests and modified porous plate tests.
Puri, Evanoff and Brugler8 tabulate and plot some relative
permeability measurements as a function of mobile water
saturation. Values from tables in their paper are plotted in
Figs. Id and le as a fimction of total water saturation, in the
conventional sense. Here, total water saturation was calculated
by adding irreducible water saturation to the mobile water in
the cleats.
Young’”” reports where the relative permeability curves
derived from a history match do not resemble laboratory
measured curves (Fig. 2). Young states that this is because
laboratory measured relative permeability obtained from small
conventional core plugs do not adequately reflect the presence
of natural fractures. In addition, there may have been gas-
water gravity segregation.
Experience from the reported work has shown that testing
of small core plugs (say 25 mm diameter or less) usually gives
unsatisfactory results, When extracting cores for testing, cores
often disintegrate. This means that strong less fractured cores
are more likely to reach the testing laborato~. This problem is
accentuated for smaller cores.
Laboratory Measurements
Laboratory measurements of relative permeability in
Australian coal have been conducted in our laboratory. Details
of the laboratory equipment have been reported elsewhere. ”
We used transient tests with gas displacing water to
measure relative ~ermeability, and analysed the results using
the JBN method.’ ‘“ The JBN method does not allow the full
curves to be determined, because the Welge truncation means
that high water saturations are omitted. When relative
permeability to water becomes small, water production from
low-porosity coal becomes slow and difficult to accurately
measure, truncating the high gas saturation end of the curves.
We used core samples 50 mm in diameter and at least 120 mm
long. Most of the samples displayed mineralisation in the
fractures.
Relative perrneabili~ curves from laboratory testing of
Australian coal are shown in Fig. 3: (a), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i)
and (j) are fkom the Bowen Basin; (b), (t) and (g) are from the
northern Sydney Basin. Variability in the results can be seen,
which we attribute to variable heterogeneity in the samples. Of
the results in Fig. 3, only the curves in (h) were from a core
with horizontal orientation, all the others were vertical cores
that crossed the bedding planes. Samples (f), (g), (h), and (i)
all had obvious fractures parallel to the flow direction.
and LINCOLN PATERSON SPE 36986
Samples (h) and (i) had a particularly significant fracture
parallel to the flow. Sample (a) was extensively fractured,
sample (b) had many mineralised fractures, sample (c) had a
well developed fracture network, and sample (e) had no visible
fractures.
Field History Matching
History matching normally involves using a finite difference
reservoir simulator to reproduce gas and water production
data. Simulators have been developed specifically to account
for the complex characteristics of coal. For the work presented
here we used the code SIMED II. ““’s
We determined relative permeability in the Bowen and
Sydney basins by history matching field production data. All
history matches shown here were conducted vertical wells,
although we have obtained consistent results from horizontal
boreholes drilled from mines.
Relative permeability curves from history matching of field
production are shown in Fig. 4: (a) and (b) are tlom the Bowen
Basin; (c), (d), (e) and (f) are from the Sydney Basin. The
curves in Fig. 4a are from the DR4 well, and also appear in
Ref. 16. The curves in Fig. 4d are from the same hole as Fig.
3g. The curves in Fig. 4b are from the same seam as Figs, 3d
and 3e, namely the German Creek seam,
Comparison over the range of results shows that the field
and laboratory measurements are consistent within the sample
to sample variation. We conclude that matching heterogeneity
may be important if laboratory measurements are to be
representative of field values.
Viscous Fingering
At discovery, it is generally assumed that the entire fracture
network in coal is saturated with water and there is no free
gas.’ As the reservoir pressure is reduced, methane and
possible other gases desorb from the coal surface, diffuse
through the micropores, and flow to the wellbore via the
fracture network. At this last stage, gas is displacing water
from the fractures.
Viscous fingering occurs during flow in a porous medium
when a more viscous fluid is displaced by a less viscous one,
such as when high viscosity water displaces low viscosity gas,
Instead of a stable, planar displacement front, an uneven,
fingered front occurs.’7 These viscous fingers propagate
rapidly, causing early breakthrough and poor displacement
eftlciency. Injection of gas into the narrow space between two
parallel glass plates is shown in Fig. 5. The growing interface
is not circular, but fingers of injected gas can be seen to be
extending from the central injection point. The parallel plate
apparatus serves as a simple model for a fracture, such as the
fractures found in coal. In homogeneous rocks, the severity of
the fingering is determined by the viscosity (or mobility) ratio
of the fluids.
The presence of heterogeneities dominates the growth and
development of viscous fingers,’8”g In reported studies of
heterogeneous models, flow was largely determined by the
patterns of heterogeneity. Consider, for example, a porous
232
SPE 36986 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY IN COAL
medium with uniform permeability except for a high
permeability layer. Even if the fluids have the same viscosity,
there will be preferential flow in the high permeability layer,
and the heterogeneity will cause early breakthrough and
reduced displacement efficiency. If the injected fluid has lower
viscosity than the displaced fluid, preferential flow in the high
permeability layer will be enhanced.
An X-ray CT slice through a 50 mm diameter coal core
saturated with a sodium iodide solution is shown in Fig. 6. The
sodium iodide solution, appearing dark, highlights the fracture
structure. The same coal sample is shown in Fig. 7 after gas
injection, Gas appears white, and has occupied portions of the
larger fractures, The inefficient displacement efficiency is
reminiscent of the viscous fingers observed in the parallel plate
model (Fig. 5), and is consistent with gas displacing water.
The gas quickly occupies portions of the larger fractures,
bypassing large regions of water. This water becomes
effectively trapped, providing a plausible explanation for the
high observed values of residual water saturation.
Gravity can stabilise viscous fingers. If gas displaces water
vertically downwards, the density difference can keep the
fluids partitioned, providing the displacement is slow enough.
Similarly, in horizontal flow, gravity override can have a
similar effect to viscous tingering, resulting in bypassed fluid.
The full implications of viscous and gravity instabilities need
further consideration, and may be related to the efficiency of
gas production.
Conclusions
[. Numerous relative permeability curves for Australian
coal measured in the laboratory as well as curves from
numerically matching field performance have been recorded.
2. The field and laboratory measurements are consistent
within the range of sample to sample variation. The sample
variation is attributed to the heterogeneous nature of coal.
3. Matching laboratory to field heterogeneity may be
important if laboratory measurements are to be representative
of field values.
4. Water bypassing by viscous fingering provides an
explanation for the high values of residual water saturation
observed.
5. The suppression of viscous fingering by gravity
stabilisation may be of significance in field applications.
References
1. Paterson, L.: “A Model for Outbursts in Coal. ” Int. J. Reek. Meclr
Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr. ( 1986) 23,327-332.
2, Grav. I.: “Reservoir En~ineerin~ in Coal Seams: Part l-The
Phy;ical Process of Gas ;torage a;d Movement in Coal Seams,”
SPEfW (Feb. 1987) 28-34.
3. Gray, [.: “Reservoir Engineering in Coal Seams: Part 2-
Observations of Gas Movement in Coal Seams,” SPERE (Feb.
1987) 35-40.
4. Hyman, LA. et al.: “Simultaneous Determination of Capillary
Pressure and Relative Permeability in Coalbed methane
Reservoirs,” paper presented at the 1991 Coalbed Methane
Symposium, Tuscaloosa, May 13-16.
233
3
5. Hyman, LA. er al.: “Advances in Laboratory Measurement
Techniques of Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure for
Coal Seams,” Quarterly Review o~ Methane from Coal Seams
Technology (Jan. 1992) 9-16.
6. Reznik, A.A et a/.: “Air-Water Relative Permeability Studies of
Pittsburgh and Pocohontas Coals,” SPtiY (Dec. 1974) 556-562.
7. Jones, AH,, Bell, G.J. and Schraufnagel, R.A.: “A Review of the
Physical and Mechanical Properties of Coal with Implications for
Coal-Bed Methane Well Completion and Production,” 1988 Coal-
Bed Methane, San Juan Basin, Rocky Mountain Association o!
Ceo/ogis/s, 169-182.
8 Puri, R., Evanoff, J.C., and Brugler, ML.: “Measurement of Coal
Cleat Porosity and Relative Permeability Characteristics,” paper
SPE 21491 presented at the 1991 SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Houston. Jan, 23-25.
9. Young, G. B.C.: “Coal Reservoir Characteristics from Simulation
of the Cedar Hill Field. San Juan Basin.” Ouar!erlv Review of
Methane from Coal Searns Technology (July T992) 6-~0. “
10. Young, G. B.C., Paul, G. W. and McBane, R.A,: “Cedar Hill and
Tiffany: Case Studies in Coalbed Methane Reservoir Simulation,”
paper presented at the 1992 Symposium on Coalbed Methane
Research and Development in Australia, Townsville, Nov. 19-21.
1I. Paterson, L., Meaney, K. and Smyth, M.: “Measurements of
Relative Permeability, Absolute Permeability and Fracture
Geometry in Coal,”’ paper presented at the 1992 Symposium on
Coalbed Methane Research and Development in Australia,
Townsville, Nov. 19-21,
12. Johnson, E.F., Bossier, D.P. and Naumann, V.O.: “Calculations of
Relative Permeability from Displacement Experiments,” Trarrs,
AfME ( 1959) 216,370-372.
13. Tao, T.M. and Watson, A.T.: “Accuracy of JBN Estimates of
Relative Permeability: Part l–Error Analysis,” SPEU (Apr, 1984)
209-214.
14. Stevenson, M. D., Pinczewski, WV., Meaney, K. and Paterson, L.:
“Coal Seam Reservoir Simulation, “ The Australian Petroleum
Exploration Journa[ ( 1994) 34, I I4-120.
15. Mcaney, K,, Paterson, L., Stevenson, M.D. and Pinczewski, W. V.:
“Advances in Coal Seam Reservoir Simulation for Mine Gas
Drainage,” F’roc., Int. Symposium cum Workshop on
Management & Control of High Gas Emissions & Outbursts,
Wollongong ( 1995) 277-282.
16. Weld, M.B. et al,: “Cavity Completion for Coalbed Methane
Stimulation - An Integrated Investigation and Trial in the Bowen
Basin, Queensland,” paper SPE 30733 presented at the 1995 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 22-25.
17. Paterson, L.: “Radial Fingering in a Hele Shaw Cell, “ J, Fluid
~eCh. (1981) 113, 513-529.
18. Araktingi, U.G. and Orr, F. M,: “Viscous Fingering in
Heterogeneous Porous Media,” SPEAT(Apr. 1993)71.
19. Brock, DC. and Orr, F. M,: “Flow Visualization of Viscous
Fingering in Heterogeneous Porous Media,” paper SPE 22614
presented at the 199 I SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Oct. 6-9.
4 KEVIN MEANEY and LINCOLN PATERSON SPE 36986

1 1

~1
0,8 i 0.8
i
i
~“~ (a) i ;’: (b) i
i
0.2 /“ 0,2
~~ /’
/, )’
o 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

L
0.81 I 0.8
- — -. Field History Match

I----2d
— Laboratory
;’; (c) ;’; (d) 0.8

0,2 0.2

0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

1
0.8

~“~ (e)

0.2
E0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Water saturation Water saturation

Figure 1, Previous curves for relative permeability In coal. (a) Figure 2. Relative permeability in coal, redrawn from Ref 9.
redrawn from Ref. 6; (b) redrawn from Ref. 7; (c) redrawn from Ref.
s (d) drawn from data in Table 1 of Ref. 8; (e) drawn from Table 2
of Ref. 8.

234
SPE 36986 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY IN COAL 5

1 1

u
0.8 0.8

:“;(b) :“; (c)

M
~~ (a) ;“: (d)

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

n0 0 0 1 m
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
.2

::;
=
n
cd
1
‘~ k——————
a) 0.8 0.8 0.8

A
E

L k
~ 0.6
Q. ;’ (f) (h)
al 0.4 ‘e)
>
“% 0.2 0.2 0.2
6 1
Co E 0L 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

o.:r____l 0.8

I---__J
~“~
0.2

0
(i)

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

:’:

0.2
Eo
0)

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

L
1

Water saturation

Figure 3. Relative permeability In coal from transient laboratorytesting

1 1 1
0.8 0.8 0.8

0“6 (a) :’: (b) :“; (c)

@ 0.4
=
~ 0.2 0.2 0.2
b! Ill
0 n0
ED
h 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
n
1 1 1
0.8 0,8 0.8

:“; (d) ~~ (e) :“: (f)

0.2 0.2 0.2

D0 0D n0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Water saturation

Figure 4. Relative permeability in coal from history matching of field production.

235
6 KEVIN MEANEY and LINCOLN PATERSON SPE 36986

am?.

Figure 5. Viscous fingering. Gas displacing liquid in the narrow

space between two parallel glass plates, from Ref. 17.

Figure 6. X-Ray CT slice through a 50mm diameter coal core Figure 7. Similar to Figure 10, except after gas injection. Gas
saturated with a sodium iodide solution, highlighting the fracture appeamwhite, and hasoccupied potiions of the larger fractures.
structure.

236