SPE 20730 SPE ‘Society of Petroleum Engnoers Material Balance Techniques for Coal Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs GAR. King, Chevron E&P Services Co. ‘SPE Member now wih Grevon U.K Ltd. x ‘enon 190, Seiy of Povleum Enger ie. ‘he oer as propareator presentation ath Gen Anna! Tectia Confrence an Exon Sct Petsnun Engineers han New reas LA September 2-28, 1080. ‘sue wa sono rere yn SE Prog Car ge main ein a att mri by aot, es Soon lie Sane Foseom tngons ote 9 me ata enn eS ena te pe ulin ve earl Cnn ol Sc ‘ranore sna oy hom he Papers prcanng. We Puentone Manager SPE. P.O Sox ames, Pchudaon, Tx Taea weer Tax Tawa SPEDAL ABSTRACT ‘This paper presents the development of two material balance methods for unconventional gas reservoirs. One method is appropriate for estimating gas-in-place w! the second is appropriate for making future reservoi predictions. These techniques differ from the material balance methods for conventional gas reservoirs, in that, the effects of adsorbed gas are included. Both methods are developed using the assumptions traditionally associated with the material balance approach. For estimating original gas-in-place, the additional assumption ‘of equilibrium between the free and adsorbed gas phases is required (je., gas desorption is assumed to be strictly pressure dependent). Simplified forms of this generalized equation corresponding to special cases (volumetric reservoirs, etc.) are also presented. No additional simplifying assumptions are required for making future reservoir predictions. ‘The results of both methods are compared to those of a rigorous finite-difference simulator _ developed specifically for unconventional gas reservoirs. These comparisons are made to determine the effects of all assumptions and the magnitude of these effects. Due to the assumption of equilibrium, the frst approach is appropriate for shut-in wells or flowing wells in reservoirs undergoing rapid desorption. The assumption of rapid desorption corresponds to reservoirs with a hi natural fracture density (small primary-porosity matrix blocks) or with a high diffusion coefficient. ‘References and ilustrations at end of paper, Its believed that the techniques presented in this paper provide basic tools currently unavailable to engineers ‘working with unconventional gas reservoirs. INTRODUCTION ‘The material balance equation is one of the fundamental tools used to determine the original gas-in-place and production performance of conventional gas reservoirs For conventional gas reservoirs, the material balance equation has the form’ G (B,- B,) + 5.615(W, - W,B,) 5 Equation (1) or, in terms of p/Z: ZTec {PV pat | PlVsxh, - $.615(W, Zz W,B.)] Equation (2) These equations are derived with the following assumptions: + The gas and reservoir rock are non-reactive. ‘= The reservoir acts as a constant-volume tank (ie. changes in porosity with pressure decline are’ negligible). 81Material Balance Techniques for Coal Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs + The reservoir pressure can be modeled with an average pressure (ie, pressure gradients can be ignored) and average saturation. + Reliable production and pressure data are available, + Reliable PVT data are available (and these data are applicable at the average reservoir pressure). + Reservoir water is incompressible. The assumption of non-reactive rock makes the use of Equation (1) and Equation (2) inappropriate for coal seam and Devonian Shale reservoirs. Due to the large internal surface area contained within the coal seam and shale matrix, many potential sorption sites exist, in which, large quantities of gas may be adsorbed (as will be discussed in a later section of this paper). The release fof this gas is a two stage process which is typically ‘modeled as dual-porosity reservoir behavior. For this reason, Equation (1) and Equation (2), as written, have ‘only limited applications for unconventional gas reservoirs. ‘A. recent survey of mathematical models for ‘unconventional gas reservoirs, revealed that material balance techniques developed specifically for coal seams and Devonian Shales do not currently exist. This, observation | has also been made by other investigators.‘ The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide these base tools to engineers working with unconventional gas reservoirs. COAL SEAM _AND DEVONIAN SHALE RESERVOIRS Coal seam and Devonian Shale reservoirs are characterized by a dual-porosity nature, in which, both a primary-porosity and secondary-porosity exist. ‘The primary-porosty system in these reservoirs is composed of very fine pores. The dimensions of these pores have two important consequences. The first consequence is that a large internal surface area exists in the primary- porosity matrix. This surface area contains many Potential adsorption sites on which large quantities of gas are stored. In general, adsorption is the principal mechanism of gas storage in coal seams and Devonian Shales. The Second consequence of the small pore dimensions is that the permeability of the primary- porosity system is extremely low (in effect, the primary- porosity system is impermeable to gas and water). Gas transport through the primary-porosity system, therefore, is-a diffusion process. Gas stored by adsorption is typically modeled with an adsorption isotherm (the amount of gas in equilibrium with the rock surface as a function pressure at a fixed temperature). Three functional forms of the adsorption isotherm can be used to describe the gas storage. ‘These are: + Henry's Law type isotherm Ve = Vue Equation (3a) + Langmuir Isotherm vp. Ve Equation (3b) PtP + Freundlich Isotherm Ve = Ve p* Equation (3) In these equations, Ve (SCE/f) is the adsorption ‘Sotherm. ‘The adsorption isotherm can also be writen in terms of Cy (o-moles/fe) where: Pse = ZgcRT se Ve Equation (4) If the reservoir is undersaturated (ie., S, = 0 and all gas is in the adsorbed state) then the adsorption isotherm has to be held constant at the desorption pressured py (Ps < p). The desorption pressure is the pressure at which gas will begin to desorbed. ‘The adsorption isotherm for an undersaturated reservoir is presented in Figure (1). As disused earlier, the tranport of gas through the primary-porosity system is a diffusion process. ‘Three Giffusion mechanisms can occur in coal seams and Devonian Shales’. These are: + Bulk-diffusion where molecule-molecule interactions dominate, + Knudsen diffusion where molecule-surface interactions dominate. + Surface diffusion of the adsorbed gas layer. Depending on the gas and rock properties, these mechanisms may act individually or simultaneously. Various researchers have investigated the relative contribution of each mechanism’. Regardless of the mechanism which dominates, gas transport through the primary-porosity matrix obeys Fick’s First Law: = DA ZRTye dC Pc x % = Equation (5) The secondary-porosity system of coal seams and Devonian Shales consists of the natural fracture system inherent to these reservoirs. The production of gas from coal seams and Devonian Shales is a two step process. With pressure decline, gas is released from the surface of the primary-porosity and diffuses through the matrix 2 SPE 20730SPE 20730 Gregory R. King to the fractures, ‘The gas is then transported by Darcy flow through the natural fractures to production wells. Thus, the fracture system acts both as a sink to the primary-porosity system and as a conduit to production Wells, ‘This process is shown schematically in Figure (2). MATERIAL BALANCE EQUATIONS ‘A material balance equation over the entire primary- porosity / secondary-porosity system can be obtained by combining Equation (2) and Equation (4). This equation thas the form: VeabiZecTsc | {(L- Swe RTCa | PscT q % (= PIC = Sam RTCe Zz % ]| caso Slt + CP: - p)] + Son (1 - e4(P, - PI Equation (7) Equation (6) was derived assuming equilibrium between the free and adsorbed gas phases. This assumption makes Equation (6) appropriate for drainage volumes which have been shut-in after a finite production period or for reservoirs undergoing rapid desorption/diffusion. The first term in the inner brackets accounts for free gas while the second term accounts for adsorbed gas. The treatment of the water term is also slightly different from that in the conventional equations. This is due to the dewatering phase required by unconventional gas reservoirs. While the formation compressibility can be neglected” for conventional gas reservoirs, during the dewatering phase formation compaction can significantly affect water production, The formal derivation of Equation (6). is presented in Appendix A while specialized forms ofthe equation ar Usted in Appendix In all cases, these equations can be put into the familiar ViabZscTsc [ Pi. Pc wow Equation (8) Where in the general case (see Appendix B): Zz ZRTC, [1 = (0, PII - Svng) * Equation (9) A less restrictive form of the material balance equation for coal seams and Devonian Shale reservoirs can be obtained by adding a gas desorption term, Gy, 10 Equation (1). ‘This equation has the form: VeabiZscTsc - = SP pat |Z a. PIL (t= Swe) + G, Equation (10) Zz and, Equation (11a) = Da(t-#) Vada J, Gi-Ve Equation (11b) Equation (10) is a gas phase material balance over the natural fracture system, while Equation (11) is a gas ‘phase material balance equation over the primary-porosity matrix, Equation (11b) assumes pseudo-steady state flow in the primary-porosity matrix. These equations, coupled with Equation (7) (a water phase material balance over the natural fracture system), do not require the assumption of equilibrium between the free and adsorbed 4gas phases and, therefore, are appropriate for flowing conditions. The formal derivation of these equations is presented in Appendix C. ‘The average water saturation, has been left ‘explicitly in Equation (6) and Equation (10), so that, it ‘can be incorporated directly if measurements from well Togs are available (for example, from observation wells). ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE To illustrate the use of Equation (6) through Equation (11), a single-well problem (in two parts) was designed. ‘The first part of the problem was to determine the original gas-in-place for a production well using Equation (1) through Equation (9). ‘The second part of the 188Material Balance Techniques for Coal Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs SPE 20730 problem was to prediet gas and water production rates (and, consequent, recoverable gas) using Equation (7) Equation (10), and Equation (11). To ensure the results could be validated, all comparisons were made based on finte-ifference generated data (as opposed to actual field data). All petroptysical properties, sorption properties, and well parameters are listed in Table 1 through Table 3, respectively. In this example, a 6 ft coal seam was produced for a total of ten years. The first three years were considered an historical period (le, all data used to evaluate the well were collected during this period), while the final seven years were to be predicted. The initial reservoir pressure was 479.7 psia at 1000 ft TVD ss (a hydrostatic ‘gradient of 0.465 psi/ft). Initially, the seam was 100 percent saturated with water, AA fractured production well (x, = 125 ft) was used to Grain the reservoir. During the historical period, the ‘well was subject to a five-day test program at the end of each year. These tests consisted of three 24-hour flow periods at increasingly reduced rates (the production rate at the beginning of the test, one-third of the first rate, and two-thirds of the first rate), followed by a 48-hour shut-in period. Due to the high initial water saturation, three months of dewatering were required. During this period, water was produced at an off-ake rate of 50 STBD. During the remainder of the historical period, the well was produced at a bottom-hole pressure of 185 psia. At year three, the bottom-hole pressure was reduced to 125 psia. ‘The finite-difference generated production profile is presented in Figure (3). ‘The following sections of this paper describe the analysis ‘methods used to evaluate the well. Although this example was designed for coal seams, the methods of analysis are equally applicable for Devonian Shale gas reservoirs. Estimation of Original Gas-In-Place ‘The results of the three tests are shown in Figure (4) through Figure (6). The pressures reported in these figures are the flowing pressures, py At the end of the first 48-hour shutin’ period, an “approximate 6 psia pressure difference (across the 1050 ft drainage radius) ‘was observed. This indicates that the reservoir is not truly stabilized after 48-hours. Therefore, in this example the use of Equation (8) must be considered an approximation. It will be demonstrated that this approximation is reasonably accurate (within six percent). In all subsequent gas-in-place calculations, the pressure at the wellbore was used. Although the finite-difference simulator prints the pore-volume weighted average reservoir pressure, it was not used. This was done because: + Thi field, information would not be known in the + The use of this pressure would artificially give more accurate estimates of gas-in-place. ‘The method for estimating the original gas-in-place was developed using Equation (7) through Equation (9). As in traditional material balance methods, Equation (8) is aa straight line in p/Z.. The analysis method is, however, slightly more complicated because the unknown (in this ‘ease Vj.) appears in both the material balance equation and in'the definition of Z°. A graphical solution to the ‘material balance problem can be obtained by the following procedure: 1. Assume several values of Vyq which span the anticipated range of the drainage area. 2. For each value of Vy calculate the average water saturation (using Equation (7)) at each Pressure. 3. For each value of Vy calculate Z° (using Equation (9)) at each pressure. 4. For each value of Vy, plot p/Z" versus G,. 5. For each value of Vig determine the slope, m, of the p/Z" plot. 6. From the slope of the p/Z" plot, calculate the bulk-volume, Vyq, from the equation: om pocT b2scTsc 7. Plot the calculated bulk-volume versus the assumed bulk-volume. Vee Equation (12) 8, The point of intersection of the calculated bulk- volume and a line of unit slope through the origin is the actual bulk-volume. 9. Calculate the original gas-in-place using the bulk-volume, initial gas saturation, initial reservoir pressure, and initial adsorbed gas content. In this procedure, the slope of the p/Z" plot is used (in Step (6) and Step (7)) to determine the bulk-volume rather than the traditional use of the intercept at p/Z" 0. This is because the use of the slope involves purely historical data and no extrapolations are required. If an estimate of the water production at abandonment can be ‘made, then the plot of p/Z’ can be used to estimate recoverable gas. rrSPE 20730 Gregory R. King ‘The plot of calculated bulk-volume versus assumed bulk- volume for the example problem is presented in Figure (7). The nearly horizontal slope of the calculated bulk volume suggests that the graphical solution can be replaced by a rapidly convergent iteration procedure: 1. Assume a value of Vy. 2 Calculate the average water saturation (using Equation (7). 3. Caleulate Z” (using Equation (9)). 4, Plot p/Z’ versus G, 5. Determine the slope of the p/Z" plot. 6. From the slope of the p/Z" plot, caleulate the bulk-volume (using Equation (13)). 7. Go to step 2 and continue until convergence ‘The p/Z' plot for the converged solution is presented in Figure (8). The drainage radius of 1007 ft was obtained. This is four percent less than the finite- difference simulator value of 1050 ft.. This corresponds to an original gas-in-place of 356 MMSCF which is six percent less than the finite-difference simulator value of 387 MMSCF. These values were obtained after three iterations of the aforementioned algorithm. It should be emphasized that the straight line was obtained and gas- incplace estimate was made after the water saturation went through @ change of over 35 saturation units. It should be noted that, as in conventional techniques, the methods presented in this paper require estimates of the water encroachment, Wp, Although developed for conventional reservoirs, any of the standard water influx models may be used for coal seam and Devonian Shales. Estimation of Reservoir Performance Equation (7), Equation (10), and Equation (11b) were used to estimate the production profile of the well. A computer program was written 10 simultaneously solve these three equations. All input data used in the finite- iference simulator were assigned inthe material balance simulator. ‘The production uring the historical period was matched using the well skin factor as the matching parameter for the following reasons: + The fundamental difference that exists between finite-dfference simulator well PY’s and field scale well PI's. + ‘The skin factor due to rapid gas desorption in the near wellbore vicinity" cannot be properly ‘modeled in a material balance simulator. + The skin factor due to the hydraulic fracture is handled implicitly in the finite-difference simulator (in this study, the finite-difference simulator uses an elliptical coordinate formulation"**). This skin factor must be explicitly input in the material balance simulator. ‘The skin factor used in the material balance simulator was -4.25. This is 23 percent greater than the theoretical value of -5.52 obtained from the equation: s= o() Te All other input data were identical between the two Simulator. Equation (13) The match between the finite-difference simulator and the material balance simulator is shown in Figure (9) and Figure (10). ‘The average pressure reported for the finite-difference simulator in Figure (10) is the pore- volume weighted average pressure. It should be emphasized that both simulators were run from time zero, Thus, the material balance approach can be used to predict the “negative decline" period observed in ‘unconventional gas reservoirs. DESCRIPTION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS: The fnite-difference simulator used in this study is a modified. version of the GRUSSP (PSU-I ve Simulato?™""®, updated to run on a personal computer. ‘The GRUSSP simulator was wten specifically for unconventional gas reservoirs and does nov have any of the limitations typically associated with material balance techniques. Both algorithms used for the determination of original gas-in-place were written using standard spreadsheet software, These algorithms are currently being translated into VS-FORTRAN. No manual intervention was required to estimate gas-in-place except for the initial assumption of bulk-volume in Step 1 of the second algorithm. ‘The program used for predicting future reservoir performance from coal seams and Devonian Shale reservoirs (Equation (7), Equation (10), and Equation (11b)) was written in VS-FORTRAN. The convolution integral in Equation (11) was evaluated numerically using Cubie Spline Integration coupled with Fast Convolution Techniques". The final solution was obtained using a Newton-Raphson Iteration. 185Material Balance Techniques for Coal Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs SPE 20730 ‘The speed-up factor for the material balance simulator over the finite-difference simulator was approximately 44. Although it may seem inappropriate to compare the timings of the two different approaches, in a personal computing environment this translates to an entire history ‘match and several sensitive cases (a total of 44 cases) using the material balance approach in the same real time it takes to make one history match run with the finite-difference simulator. ‘The material balance approach presented in this paper is not intended to be a substitute for finite-difference simulators, but simply another tool for engineers working with unconventional gas reservoirs. For the simple problem discussed in this paper, it was demonstrated that, these methods were appropriate tools. For field cases ‘where the study objectives may include analyzing pressure transient tests, optimizing well spacing, optimizing completion intervals ete., or for complex stratigraphy, such as multiple reservoirs or sand/shale coal sequences, the finite-difference method would be preferred. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Material balance techniques were presented for estimating the original gas-in-place and future well performance of coal seam and Devonian Shale gas reservoirs. For estimating the original gas-in-place, a generalized equation was developed which assumes equilibrium between the free and adsorbed gas phases. For convenience, the generalized equation was linearized using p/Z. Two algorithms, one graphical and one iterative, were developed for the solution of the generalized material balance equation. The methods used to estimate the gas-in-place were successfully validated against a finite-fference simulator. For estimating future reservoir performance, a material balance method was developed which assumes pseudo- steady state desorption/diffusion. For the single-well problem investigated, it was demonstrated that adequate matches could be obtained during history matching and accurate predictions (compared against a finite-difference simulator) could be made for future reservoir performance. From the work presented in this paper, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Material balance techniques can be used for ‘unconventional gas reservoirs. 2. A p/Z’ analysis method was developed to analyze the non-volumetric behavior of coal seams and Devonian Shale gas reservoirs. This ‘method can be applied to any non-volumetric ‘gas reservoir. 3. For the example problem, the 48-hour shut-in periods were sufficient to estimate the original igas-in-place to within six percent. 4. For flowing wells, the material balance approach can be used to predict the "negative decline" observed in unconventional gas reservoirs, 'S. For flowing wells, predictions from the material balance approach and a finite-difference simulator were in agreement. Only minor adjustment to the theoretical skin factor was required to obtain a match. 6. The material balance methods presented in this, paper provide an independent source of validation for finite-difference models. To the author's knowledge, the solution to the flowing. well problem discussed in this paper represents the first analytical work which includes the effects of both tworphase flow and Area, ff Shape Factor, ft? Gas Formation Volume Factor, f?/SCF. Water Formation Volume Factor, bbi/STB Molar Concentration, Ib-mole/ft” Equilibrium Isotherm, Ib-moles/ft? Water Compressibility, psi? Porosity Compress, pl iffusion Coefficient, f’/Day riginal Gas-In-Place, SCF Desorbed Gas, SCF Produced Gas, SCF Gas in Primary porosity, SCF Slope of p/Z” plot, SCF/psi Exponent in Freundlich Isotherm, dimensionless Moles of Desorbed Gas, Ib-moles Moles of Produced Gas, Ib-moles Moles in Primary Porosity, Ib-moles Moles in Secondary Porosity, Ib-moles Pressure, psia Initial Reservoir Pressure, psia Langmuir Pressure Constant, psia Standard Pressure, psia Gas Rate, SCFD = Universal’ Gag Constant (10.73 psia f° /(Vb-moles°R)) Skin Factor, dimensionless ‘Average Water Saturation, fraction intial Water Saturation, fraction Reservoir Temperature, *R. Standard Temperature, °R Time, Days Volumetric Concentration, SCF/ft? Bulk Volume, ft Bulk Volume’ of the Secondary Porosity System, f° Volumetric Adsorption Isotherm, SCF/ft Volume Constant for Freundlich Isotherm, psi” Le sa oppacs FOR PEPE 1106SPE 20730 Gregory R. King L Volume Constant, for Henry's Law Type Isotherm, SCF/ét° Volume Constant for Langmuir Isotherm, SCF/fe Encroached Water, bbl Produced Water, STB Gas Super-compressiblity Factor, dimensionless Gas Factor for Unconventional Gas Reservoir, dimensionless Porosity, fraction Initial Porosity, fraction )WLEDGE? ‘The author would like to thank the management of Chevron Exploration and Production Services Company and Chevron U. K. Limited for their permission to present this work. The author would also like to thank Ms, R. Fink of Chevron U.S.A. for her encouragement to publish this material and to Mrs. L. Cross and Mrs. ‘A. Provias of Chevron U. K. Limited for their review ‘and critique of this manuscript. REEERENCES Natural Gas Reservoir Engineering, Tkoku, C. U, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York (1984) ps. King, G. R. and Ertekin Ty: *A Survey of Mathematical Models Related to Methane Production from Coal Seams: Part I, Empirical and Equilibrium Sorption Models,” paper 8951, Presented at the 1989 Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL (April 1989) pp. 125-138. King, G. R. and Ertekin T,: A Survey of Mathematical Models Related to Methane Production from Coal Seams: Part Il, Non- Equilibrium Sorption Models,” paper 8951, presented at the 1989 Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL (April 1989) pp. 139-156. Zuber, M. D. and Kuuskraa V. A: 'A Reser- voir Simulator-Based Methodology for Caleulat- ing Reserves of Coalbed Methane Wells, paper 8952, presented at the 1989 Coalbed Methane ‘Symposium, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, ‘AL (April 1989) pp. 157-166. Kuuskraa, V. A. and MeBane, R. A. 'Coalbed Methane, Part 7: Steps to Assess Resource Economics Covered, Qil_and_Gas Journal, (December 25, 1989) pp. 121-135. "Forum Series’, Journal of Petroleum Technol- ‘ogy, (February 1990) pp. 158. 10. 1. 2, 2B. 14 15. 16. 17, Smith, D. M, and Williams. F. L: ‘itfusional Effects in the Recovery of Methane from Coalbeds’ Sos. Pet. Eng. J, (October 1984) pp. 529-838. Sevenster, P. Gz ‘Diffusion of Gas through Coal,’ Fuel (1959) 38, pp. 403-415. Thimons, E. P. and Kissell, F. N.: ‘Diffusion of Methane through Coal,’ Fuel (1973) 82, pp. 274-280, Peaceman, D, W.: ‘Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation,’ Sos Pet, Eng. J., (June 1978) pp. 183-194. Peaceman, D. W.: Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation with Non-Square Grid Blocks and Anisotropic lity,’ Soc, Pet. Eng. J, June 1983) pp. Peaceman, D. W.: “interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical Reservoir Simulation - Part 3: Some Additional Well Geometries’ paper SPE 16976 presented at the 62% Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX (September 27-30, 1987). Remner, D. J, Ertekin, T, Sung, W., and King, G. R: A Parametric Stidy of the Effects of Coal ‘Seam Properties on Gas Drainage Ef | ficiency,’ SPE Reservoir Engineering, (Nov- ember 1986) pp. 633-646. King, G. R. and Ertekin T: “A Comparative Evaluation of Vertical Wells and Horizontal Wells for the Degasification of Coal Seams; SEE Rescruaie Enutzcsring (Mey 1988) pp. ‘Though Dual Porosity Coal Seams During the Degasifcation Process, PhD. Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University (May 1985). King G. R, Ertekin, T., and Schwerer, F.C: "Numerical” Simulation “of the Transient Be- havior of Coal Seam Degasification Wells; ‘SPE Formation Evaluation, (April 1986) pp.165- 183. Leung, W.:'A New Pseudo-Steady-State Aquifer Model: Part 1 - Single Porosity Formations paper SPE 12276 presented at the Seventh SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, San Francisco, CA (November 16-18, 1983). weMaterial Balance Techniques for Coal Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs SPE 20730 APPENDIX A ‘A material balance over the primary-porosity/natural fracture system results in: = my + my - (my + 4) sows Equation (A-1) ‘The real gas law can be used to define the volume of free gas: G, pc Va i 1-5 Zee R Tse ZRT * a 6 (L= Sod? ny w~ Equation (A-2) ZRT At equilibrium conditions, the gas stored in the primary- porosity matrix can be calculated using the equilibrium isotherm: G Via (1-80) P rhc Me SOR yo ZRTe, ZRT [Yao es et P+ Via Cp)» Equation (A-3) lL zRT 3 Solving for Gz 1-8) RTC) Z ad ‘ante Equation (A-4) Substituting the definition of compressibility yields: RT Cy] Vor Zse Tse [1-80 Loz Psc T [US = BIG - Sang) BRT Ce l Zz ‘Equation (A-5) APPENDIX B “The generalized equation for estimating gas-in place can be put into the form of p/Z’. Starting with ration (AS): " Fans RTC.) Zz 4 og, = YotZactic [A= S00, "pet | [L-eg(P. - PIC - Spay)? 4, RTCe] z @ | Where: 5.6150, - BLW,) Swll + oP, Vo py) + Sos (1-6 (P.- PI) Volumetric Reservoirs This equation can be simplified for special reservoir conditions. For volumetric reservoirs (Sw = Swie We = W, = 0c) = ¢ = 0), Equation (6) becomes: VusbacTsc ]{(1- Sw RTCa | weil + : Pact Zz 4 1 R [ Sop, SM Equation (8-1) Zz a | or, after some manipulation: VusbZaclac [Pi P .- Equation (B-2) where: Zz Zz ‘Equation (B-3) ZR as)SPE 20730 Gregory R. King Water Saturated Reservoirs For water saturated reservoirs, Equation (A-S) can again be written as: VerbZscTsc | Pi P PscT ZZ where: Zz Ze (1 = & (y ~ PIC ~ Seg) + ZRTC, P Equation (B4) ‘The pressure in the second term of the denominator in Equation (B-3) and Equation (B-4) will cancel with a pressure term in Ce if one of the three standard defin- Itions of the adsorption isotherm, Equation (3), is used. APPENDIX C Equation (A-S) is valid only at equilibrium conditions. For flowing conditions, a material balance equation can be obtained by considering the fracture system: [a= ny-m, + my vw» Equation (C-1) Where n, is the gas desorbed into the fracture system. Substituting the real gas law into Equation (C-1): G, sc _ Via $i (I~ Sy) B Zac R Tue ZRT Vea # (1 = Seg) Gi Pe SP SP uation (C2) ZRT Zee R Tse Where G, is in SCF. Solving for G,: Vea Zee Tec | (= SW) Ps Zz a. 20 Sw lg, Equation (C3) az Substituting the definition of compressibility: Ver Zsc Tsc | (1 - Sw) Pi Psc T Hi (1-c6(P, - PIC - Seng) P Zz + G, .. Equation (C-4) ‘The term G, can be obtained by assuming pseudo-steady state flow, ‘This is accomplished by using a discretized form of Fick’s first law: 4G, at Da(G,- Ve num Equation (CS) ‘Where a is the shape factor. Equation (C-6) is subject to the initial condition: G, = Velo) st = 0 Equation (C6) For a time varying function, Vg, this initial value prob- lem has the formal solution: * -Da(t - 1) G, 6,-Dal, (Gy - Ve) € a .. Equation (C-7) ‘The volume of desorbed gas is then: Gy = Veo (Gu - Gi) Equation (C-8a) f -Da(t - #) Gy=VaDa Jy Gi- Ve a . Equation (C-7) It should be noted that in all formulations, Vz and G, were considered to be based on the bulk-volume of the total fracture /matrix system.semana rey nud Me satin ta eae) t 2 vf seem She ES er Sane & ' Siete FE aR ‘oo sto aco 700” 800900000 cutee ane ese (os) aks f Td 5 as Fig Alt Hates Tp Une! Ga Ree ER e ed 3 QAI esonrnon stom —oERUSHONTRQUGN oan FLQW TO Sales ade etd eset Sorina Popes Use Test Prim (A) opey Sete la vane 6 seer Denupion ete ope (ime Comet) . aia Da (49 ane ene ee pte 2 Sout Reet he Tung of Gir sep Cl See Ee Drops Gn nnn et King sein a rae SeewrF ch open ose ni Fre Ha eeu mo 2x9 (oso) 1 Ros ewsero J su) s ot inet Production Rate (WSCFO) Reser Pasar (80). (9 gh rt ae Sot © ee tim = gudm og > gas ¢ S ees $00 10001500 2000 280030005500, “S fscrp Time (Dov)Fret (osin)_ os Rote (user) J gq Puen Rte (WSF) Presste (po) [nes thgo770 fate (user0) Presue(o8) 180 ' rine oom) time oom) -Fgwe 4 Simlaed Resin of Fint Ths: Period (¢ 360 shrough 365 Pay) Fog 2. mead Rann a Sosad Tot Fed 1 = 705 ecugh 720 Da, rerio) — sno ot J rotuctan fe OT Tava sue Gt) rm ay) Fo Sue eT Tere = 8 en 9) SS cota Brite a rotund Gos user) 8 ‘ 2 100 * 20] Assumed Suk-Volume (cut) F/t (Inourand) ese ot nf Hie Pe re ga at— © $09. 1020 1800 2000 280030003500 time (097) Figue # Copan ft Fata Sn and Mui Sse GGL fe any We Tor ote Oi! Rae Re woe Time 0245) Fore 6 Gurion of te Fate iter fon al Ma re