See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249649571

Scaleup of laboratory measured coal permeability.

Conference Paper · September 2008

CITATION READS

1 368

5 authors, including:

P. Massarotto V. Rudolph
The University of Queensland The University of Queensland
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,106 CITATIONS    350 PUBLICATIONS   8,347 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Suzanne D Golding F. Y. Wang

The University of Queensland The University of Queensland
297 PUBLICATIONS   6,313 CITATIONS    109 PUBLICATIONS   1,800 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geochemical and Geomechanical Testing of Near Wellbore CO2 Injectivity View project

coal bed methane View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Suzanne D Golding on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SCALE-UP OF LABORATORY MEASURED COAL PERMEABILITY
1
P. Massarotto, 1V. Rudolph, 2S. D. Golding , 1F. Y. Wang and 1R. Iyer
1
Division of Chemical Engineering; 2Division of Earth Sciences
The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia
Email: uqpmassa@uq.edu.au

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to derive potentially useful scale-up factors/correlations that could be used to derive average in-situ
reservoir permeabilities from lab-measured permeabilities. The literature contains many references to very low permeabilities
(less than 1 mD, often less than 0.1mD) having been measured in laboratory core tests. Many of these tests used small cores
of 20-25mm and up to 40mm in diameter, thereby excluding representative cleat density for the coal rank.

This paper presents three approaches to developing scale-up factors, from lab-measured permeability to field-scale in-situ
permeability: first, a theoretical 1-D model, tied to average cleat spacing for the given rank of coal. Second, we have done
size comparisons of lab-derived permeabilities measured on Permian-age black coal samples sourced from large mother
blocks, then cut to 40mm, 80mm and 200mm to-a-side cubes. In a size-comparison experiment, an 80mm mother cube was
permeability tested, and then cut into 8 daughter cubes of 40mm to a side, each tested for permeability. Considerable
variation exists between the permeability of daughter samples reflecting coals heterogeneity and none had higher
permeability than the mother sample. Third, we compare field-derived permeabilities to lab-measured permeabilities for coal
sourced from the same coal measures and basins. Our lab-derived permeabilities were measured on a True Triaxial Stress
Coal Permeameter, at isotropic and constant net stress conditions, and are face cleat permeabilities unless stated otherwise.
These experiments confirm the need for a minimum size of sample for obtaining representative in-situ reservoir
permeabilities and for a minimum number of samples to derive meaningful averages, due to the inherent heterogeneity of
coal.

In the lab to field-derived comparison, an initial attempt is made to assess and derive average scale-up factors for the Bowen
and Sydney basins in Australia, the Sunan basin in China and the San Juan basin in the USA. The paper comments on the
difficulty of accurate comparison between lab and field-derived permeability due to several factors, including lack of a
suitable number of samples. It is recommended that further scale-up research work be pursued to add to the database of our
initial correlations and therefore contribute to sounder reservoir engineering prediction work on CBM projects. The paper
also presents a start to a permeability classification and lexicon, as much inconsistency exists in the literature.

Keywords: permeability; coal; laboratory; scale-up; true triaxial stress; isotropic; field tests; 1-D model.

1 INTRODUCTION

Coalbed methane (CBM) is an increasing source of clean energy in several countries. In the USA, CBM attained a significant
10% share of natural gas sales, with over 1700 BCF produced in 2007 (Harpalani, 2008). A fast growing CBM industry is
now operating in Australia, with year-end 2005 production rates of 220 MMCF/D and with 3P reserves of over 43 TCF
(Massarotto, 2006). In Canada, significant CBM production has been established in the Horseshoe Canyon play. In China,
two CBM projects are now considered commercial, with some 600 producing wells, while the estimated resource in place of
over 1000TCF will eventually lead to hundreds of commercial projects (Qin 2008). In order to aid and confirm the
development economics of commercial projects, accurate forecasting of CBM production rates and estimating reserves is
required. This forecasting, often done with numerical reservoir simulators, requires a solid understanding of the petrophysical
character of coal, particularly its permeability to various fluids under heterogeneous, anisotropic and dynamic conditions.
This understanding is also required for safety in coal mines and to maximize coalmine methane (CMM) capture. A full
understanding of coal permeability is also required for properly engineering the design of CO2-Enhanced Coalbed Methane
(ECBM) projects.

Industry is interested in the scale-up issue surrounding laboratory-derived coal permeability mainly because field-derived
permeability via injection/fall-off tests (IFOT) and production/build-up tests (PBUT) can be very expensive: from several
hundred thousand to several million dollars (the latter including the cost of producible wells). As well, there are several
factors that field testing does not take into account, while test conditions of near-zero wellbore stresses also will give
misleading results. Solid scale-up correlations would thus lead to confidence in using laboratory-measured permeability for
CBM exploration and engineering support to field development.
2 BACKGROUND

2.1 HISTORICAL MEASUREMENTS

Laboratory measurement of coal permeability, as an indicator of average in-situ bulk coal permeability, received a bad
reputation in the past due to a variety of issues (Massarotto, 2002):

• overly-small samples were used (18mm, 25mm and 37mm diameter plugs), thereby relegating the measurement to
mainly permeability of the matrix (usually in µD) rather than of bulk coal with cleats (usually in mD);
• only a small number of samples were tested, limiting estimates of the average “rock mass” bulk permeability for this
very heterogeneous reservoir rock;
• little attention was paid to the direction of mounting cores, thus measurements were essentially along the core axis, and
thus vertical dimension in the seam, whereas most water and gas flow is horizontal along the coal seam, through face and
butt cleats;
• use of simplistic hydrostatic stress devices (imparting a single average isotropic stress) or triaxial rigs (with an isotropic
average radial stress), thus ignoring the reality and effect of 3 separate and mutually-perpendicular directional stress
vectors (lithostatic, principal horizontal tectonic and minimum horizontal tectonic) acting on in-situ coal in anisotropic
ways; and
• lack of understanding of the dynamic nature of coal permeability, which changes with the type of fluid flowing and the
degree of adsorption or desorption of the in-situ fluid over time, both of which change the stress fields acting on in-situ
coal permeability.

2.2 CURRENT APPROACH

Our approach has addressed these weaknesses in measurement by designing and building the world’s first True Triaxial
Stress Coal Permeameter (TTSCP). It incorporates special features such as: independently-set stresses in each of the three
mutually-orthogonal directions; accommodation for cubical and prismatic samples and use of special test cells to adsorb
directional/deviatoric stresses and the corresponding anisotropic permeability response; and various-size test cells that
accommodate samples ranging from 40mm to-a-side cubes to as large as 200mm cubes. The different sized test cells are
useful to investigate scale-up correlations or factors. A schematic flow diagram of the TTSCP is shown in Figure 1. Other
features of this apparatus have been described previously (Massarotto 2002, Massarotto et al 2003).

Figure 1. Schematic flow diagram of the True Triaxial Stress Coal Permeameter

In order to understand the scale-up issues involved in going from laboratory-measured values to in-situ bulk coal
permeability, the difference between matrix and bulk coal (cleat) permeability has to be recognised and an appreciation had
of the many facets of coal permeability, including classification nomenclature.
2.3 MATRIX VS BULK PERMEABILITY

Matrix permeability has been commonly measured in the 1-100 µD range (Enever & Hennig, 1997; Gash et al, 1987; St
George, 1993). Though it represents the average over a wide range of pore sizes in coal: micropores of less than 2 ηm;
mesopores of between 2 and 50ηm; and macropores larger than 50ηm , it has generally excluded the effect of cleats, and
under varying net stress conditions. In contrast, in-situ bulk permeability includes the effect of the cleat system. (refer to
Figure 2). Bulk permeability is about 1000 times greater than matrix permeability; bulk permeability has frequently been
measured in the 1-100 mD range, including both recent laboratory measurements

and especially during well field tests: injection/fall-off tests (IFOT) or production/build-up tests (PBUT) (Puri et al, 1991;
Spencer et al 1987; Enever, 1997; Massarotto, 2003; Mavor & Gunter 2006). It is the bulk or cleat permeability that is of
most interest in calculating the flow rates from CBM reservoirs. We will refer to in-situ bulk coal permeability as simply coal
permeability in this paper.

Figure 2. Bulk coal permeability and the cleat system

Early laboratory work used small coal plugs or cylinders of 18mm, 25mm and 37mm in diameter to measure permeability.
Due to their small size, these specimens in all likelihood did not contain any cleats or at most one, as cleat spacing for High
Volatile Bituminous (HVB) coals, the main target for CBM production, is in the range of 10 to 25mm, according to Law’s
cleat spacing-rank correlation (Law 1993). This is reproduced here as Figure 3, for face cleat spacing; the correlation for butt
cleat spacing is about the same.
 Figure 3. Law’s correlation of cleat spacing to coal rank

Furthermore, our lab experience indicates that during preparation of cores for core flood testing, cleats will spall off if the
outside cut is closer than about 10mm to 15mm from a cleat. Thus, one would need a minimum of between 20mm and 30mm
diameter sample to contain even one cleat at ideal conditions for the high end of HVB coal; at the low rank/high spacing end
(20-30mm), samples would need to be at least 40mm wide to contain one cleat.

3 COAL PERMEABILITY CLASSIFICATION

The language around coal permeability can be/has been confusing. Thus this section is an attempt to standardize the
nomenclature and conditions that prevail during permeability measurements. First it has to be recognized that coal
permeability is very dynamic, i.e. changing with time, resulting from the complex interplay of three principal factors:

• the type of fluid(s) flowing in the pores (and thus sorption and saturation levels);
• the spatial orientation or flow direction of the fluid; and
• the stress state of the coal, including net/effective stresses.

Each in turn can be further sub-divided into three groups and related measurements, as summarised in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Classification of bulk coal permeability

Controlling Factor Permeability groups

Type of flowing fluid Absolute (Helium) Effective-static or dynamic Relative

Spatial orientation Horizontal maximum Horizontal minimum Vertical
Stress state Unstressed Stressed- hydrostatic, triaxial Net stress
or true triaxial In-situ pressure and stresses
3.1 ABSOLUTE, STATIC AND DYNAMIC PERMEABILITY

The use of mainly non-adsorbing helium as the test fluid in laboratory characterization yields what we term the absolute
permeability of the coal. Our experience is that all other fluids exhibit lower and different permeabilities, i.e. their own
effective permeability e.g. water, methane, nitrogen or carbon dioxide. Effective perm is further classified as either static or
dynamic, respectively for pre-adsorption values and adsorbed state values. The third group relating to fluid type is relative
permeability for multi-component/multi-phase flow (Gash, 1987); this has the same definition as in conventional petroleum
engineering.

We define static permeability as the permeability to a fluid before any significant adsorption of that fluid has taken place unto
coal’s microporous surface areas, and thus before any measureable swelling strains have developed. In conventional clastic
rocks, permeability tests were eventually performed with only air as the test fluid, as it was quickly observed that the use of
water often resulted in swelling of cores (due to the presence of swelling clays), yielding erroneously low permeability. A
similar problem applies to measuring coal permeability: coal adsorbs almost every contacting fluid with various energy levels
(even helium, to a very small extent). The adsorption swells the coal, creating internal closure of the cleat aperture in
constrained stressed core and thus lowers cal permeability. The reverse of this, i.e. enhanced permeability due to matrix
shrinkage from methane desorption, was first postulated by Gray (1987) and has been confirmed with laboratory experiments
by Harpalani & Chen (1997), Barakat (1999), and Massarotto (2002). Desorption causes shrinkage strain of the matrix,
decreasing the net stress state in the coal. The decreased stresses allow the cleat aperture to increase, thus increasing
permeability. This phenomenon works much more strongly in constant-volume reservoirs, rather than constant-stress
reservoirs, and especially in the later stages of depletion.

The increasing internal net stress field during gas depressurization (in a constant-stress assumption), is offset by a decreasing
net stress field during desorption, and gives rise to a very dynamic character to coal permeability, i.e. the permeability
constantly changes across the reservoir (from wellbore to far-field reservoir) and over the full time of depletion.

3.2 DIRECTIONAL PERMEABILITY

The spatial orientation of the core during measurement is also important, as found previously from field and laboratory
observations including our own5,6,9: horizontal maximum or face cleat permeability is on the average about four times higher
than butt cleat or horizontal minimum permeability; vertical permeability can be slightly higher than face cleat permeability
due to both sets of cleats contributing to flow, or much lower, when intervening tight horizontal layers (either clay or
mineralized ply or tight sandstone lenses) interfere with bulk vertical flow. This directional character of coal permeability
give rise to permeability anisotropy ratios, the most common being face cleat to butt cleat. This anisotropy is the basis for a 3-
D characterization of coal permeability.

3.3 STRESS STATE

The third major defining factor is the stress state of the coal: it has been shown by many researchers that coal permeability
has an exponentially inverse relationship to external stresses (Gash et al 1987; Enever & Hennig 1997; Palmer and Mansoori,
1998), arising mainly out of the high compressibility/low strength of coal. When there is internal pore pressure in coal, this
can usually offset external stresses, giving rise to the concept of effective or net stress. However, the direction and relative
magnitude of stresses can have a material effect on the directional permeability of coal (Massarotto et al, 2003). Stress
application can be isotropic, yielding a directionally-uniform stress field (historically done with hydrostatic rigs); or partly
anisotropic with an essentially 2-D stress field (separate radial and axial stresses, delivered with “triaxial” type Hoek cells); or
fully anisotropic, via a 3-D stress field, delivered with “true triaxial” stress rigs. Proper lab measurement of coal permeability
for a particular seam should always be done with the actual reservoir pressure and in-situ stress vectors (size and direction) of
the seam, and maintaining the correspondence of in-situ cleats and stress vector orientations (Massarotto et al, 2003)

4 LAB-MEASURED PERMEABILITY SCALE-UP FACTORS

Scale-up of laboratory measurements to in-situ reservoir conditions can be estimated from a theoretical perspective, from
experiments with various sizes of cores and from comparing lab results with field-determined values. Each approach has its
merits and is based on certain observations about the in-situ character of coal. The following sections deal with each of these.

4.1 THEORETICAL SCALE-UP

A key challenge in measuring coal permeability is to ensure the specimen is large enough to include a sufficient number of
cleats (cleat density and its equivalent inverse, cleat spacing) to represent the average in-situ condition. One must recognize,
of course, that coal is quite heterogeneous and therefore many specimens would be required to yield representative averages.
Yet, even if hundreds of specimens were tested, if the specimen size is such that there is an inherent bias, then an adjustment
factor would be appropriate.

Depending on the rank of the coal, Law’s correlation indicates that the cleat spacing for CBM reservoirs (vitrinite reflectance
in oil, VRo, between ~0.5 and 1.1% for HVB coals) will be between 10 and 25mm. This requires that the test sample be a
minimum of 30mm to 55mm wide in order to have one to two cleats across the coal rank of interest and avoid the spalling (at
10mm boundary buffer) previously discussed.

A simple theoretical estimate of the scale-up factor considers a 1-D geometric model, based solely on the proportion of
sample cleat density to average in-situ cleat density. We have calculated these scale-up factors for a coal with cleat spacing of
20mm, with a minimum 10mm boundary buffer; these are presented in Table 2 and in Figure 4.

TABLE 2. Theoretical scale-up with 1-D model

Proportion of average
Sample size (mm) Scale-up factor (Lab to In-situ)
In-situ cleat density, %

18 diam. core <1 >>1000*

25 diam. core 20 5
37 diam. core 40 2.2
40 cube 50 2
61 diam. core 67.2 1.49
80 cube 75 1.33
89 diam. core 77.5 1.29
200 cube 90 1.1

* approx ratio of cleat to matrix perm

Figure 4. Average cleat density and scale-up factors, 1D model

The model takes into account the inherently discrete distribution of cleats and a weighted average distribution if the samples
were prepared randomly. For example, average results from random testing of 61mm cores would yield only 67.2% of the
average in-situ cleat density, necessitating a scale-up factor of 1.49 to be applied to lab-derived measurements of coal
permeability to represent in-situ values. Similar tables and curves can be derived for other cleat spacings/rank of coal and for
different assumptions on boundary buffer conditions.

This highly simplified 1-D model excludes other variables such as effective cleat run length, cleat aperture under stress,
tortuosity and connectivity, and truncation. However, it shows the importance of testing with sufficiently-large samples. It
also emphasizes the need to achieve sample alignment when cutting specimens, ensuring cleats are in the center of sample
and the face cleat parallel to the flow axis.
4.2 SCALE-UP BETWEEN SAMPLE SIZES

With the TTSCP features, we can test coal specimens of various sizes, including “mother-daughter” size comparisons, and
between sister samples from the same mother sample. We used sample sizes of 40mm to-a-side cubes, 80mm cubes and
200mm cubes. Due to coal’s inherent heterogeneity, a larger number of small samples is required: we used eleven 40mm
cubes, three 80mm cubes and one 200mm cube.

4.2.1 Sample preparations and descriptions

The main coal measure tested is the seam from the Newlands Coal underground mine, in the northeastern Bowen Basin of
Queensland. Three large coal blocks were obtained from approximately 300m depth: Blocks A & B were approximately
600x500x180mm and 700x400x340mm, respectively, while Block C was about half the size of B. The coal is a High Volatile
Bituminous A rank, with a VRo range of 0.9-1.0%. The large coal master samples were quite blocky and mainly composed of
the maceral inertodetrinite with a high liptinite content and with infrequent vitrinite bands, particularly in block B
(Massarotto 2003).

The master blocks were rough cut with diamond-tipped rock-cutting bronze-rim blades in a cooling and lubricating water
stream and finished to specimen size with a fine 10mm diamond-tipped dry milling blade driven by a precision lathe. Two
40mm cubes and one 80mm cube sister samples were cut from Block A from the more vitrinite-prone section (by visual
inspection). From the B block master sample, which was much duller all around, one cube at each size was cut. In block C, an
80 mm cube was initially cut and tested, then it was cut down to eight daughter samples of 40 mm cubes.

All permeability tests were done in the face cleat direction, with helium as the flowing fluid and with 3.5MPa net stresses on
the samples; the 3-D stresses were set in the isotropic mode in all cases. Measurements were made of the cleat spacing and
cleat run length for both face and butt cleats of the first three 40 mm cubes: details are shown in Table 3. The average
measured face cleat spacing was 17.1 mm, while for butt cleats, the average was 13.2 mm. This compares reasonably with
Law’s correlation of about 15mm for 1.0%VRo coal rank (13 to 16 mm range).

TABLE 3. Cleat spacings and run length- Newlands coal

Sample Face cleat average (mm) Butt cleat average (mm)

Spacing Run Spacing Run
length length
NA1-1a 18.6 22.5 13.8 19.5
NA1-2a 18.4 30 14.9 24.5
NB2-3 14.4 27 10.9 23.5
Average 17.1 26.4 13.2 22.5

The average face cleat run length was determined at 26.6 mm, and the butt cleat length at 22.5 mm. This confirms the longer
run length of face cleats by definition, albeit by a smaller margin that normally expected. However, for small samples, the
closeness of these two averages is expected, and constitutes an inherent bias.

It is observed that the lowest permeability specimen, NB2-3, had the lowest face cleat spacing (14.4 mm) and lowest butt
cleat spacing (10.9 mm). This is an apparent contradiction to the premise that permeability is proportional to the inverse of
cleat spacing, and requires follow-up work.
4.2.2 Results

Table 4 presents the measured permeability and sample size scale-up factors for lab-derived coal permeability. The latter are
under three headings: 40 to 80 mm3, 40 to 200 mm3 and 80 to 200mm3. We have derived scale-up factors for samples from
the same master block, and then for all the Newlands samples together.

TABLE 4. Sample size scale-up factors for lab-derived coal permeability

Absolute He Permeability, mD scale-up factors

Face cleat at 3.5 MPa net stress (size to size)
Block Sample 40mm cube 80mm cube 200mm 40 to 80 40 to 200 80 to 200
cube
A NA1-1a 3.21
A NA1-2a 6.54
A NA1-1 19.5
A Avg. 4.9 19.5 4:1
B NB2-3 0.5
B NB2-1 0.23 0.46:1 20.9:1
B NB-3 4.8 9.6:1
C NC1-1 5.3
C NC1-1a 1.0
C NC1-1b 0.8
C NC1-1c 0.5
C NC1-1d 5.0
C NC1-1e 2.6
C NC1-1f 0.6
C NC1-1g 0.4
C NC1-1h 1.0
C Avg. 1.49 5.3 3.6:1
A, B &C Avg. 1.7 8.31 4.8 4.9:1 2.8:1 0.6:1

Permeability and scale-up factors for three

coal blocks
20

Small sample perm

permeability (mD) &

16
scale-up factors

Large sample perm

12 Scale-up factor

0
A40 B40+ C40 A&C
Coal blocks sm all sam ples

Figure 5. Empirical scale-up factors for lab sample sizes

For the block A samples with higher vitrinite content, the average helium permeability for the two 40mm cube cores was 4.9
mD, whereas that for the 80mm cube was 19.5 mD, yielding a scale-up factor (A40 to A80) of 4:1. Figure 5 shows the
comparison of scale-up-up factors starting with the 40 mm cubes. For the duller Block B samples, we obtained generally
lower permeabilities, especially for the 80mm cube, and three different factors: from 40mm to 80mm, an unusual factor of
0.46:1, stemming from the very low permeability of 0.23 mD for the 80mm cube; from 40mm to 200mm, a factor of 9.6:1;
and from 80mm to 200mm, a very high factor of 20.9:1. For block C experiments, we first obtained data on the 80mm cube,
then cut this up to 8 daughter samples and tested each one. NC1-1 had a measured permeability of 5.3 mD, while the simple
average of the eight daughter samples was 1.49 mD; this results in a scale-up factor of 3.56:1. When all eleven 40mm
samples are averaged, the face cleat He permeability is calculated at 1.7mD; when all three 80mm cube samples are averaged,
the permeability is 8.3mD, leading to an overall Newlands scale-up factor of 4.9:1 for 40:80 scale-up.

Interestingly, for the NC1 samples, both mother and daughter samples had butt cleat direction permeabilities measured. The
butt cleat perm for the mother sample was 2.1 mD and the average for the 8 daughter samples was 0.38 mD. The scale-up
factor using butt cleat perm, from 400 mm cubes to 80 mm cubes, calculates to 5.5:1 (vs 3.56:1 for face cleat measurements).
The permeability measurements of the mother and daughter samples are shown in the schematic of Figure 5.

Figure 6. Face and butt cleat permeabilities of mother and daughter samples

In the dull coal sets of NB samples, the scale-up factors of 9.6:1 and 20.9:1 are not considered relevant as there were
insufficient small samples to arrive at a meaningful average.

It can be seen that the character of dull and semi-bright coal is quite different. Any attempt to derive a meaningful average
permeability for a coal mine or CBM reservoir has to recognize the inherent heterogeneity of coal: a good start is to ascertain
the relative abundance of dull versus bright coal in place and collect a reasonable number of samples from each type or
texture of coal.

4.3 SCALE-UP OF LAB TO FIELD

We have assembled data from reported field tests and laboratory measured permeability for several coal basins and coal
formations around the world, in an attempt to derive scale-up factors for lab data to field averages. Such a comparison is
fraught with uncertainty, mainly due to coal’s extensive heterogeneity: many more lab samples would be required to yield a
good proxy for averages for these seams, even if corrections could then be made for a scale-up factor. Similarly, there is
considerable areal variation of in-situ permeability in field settings, given the variability of CBM production rates in any
field. For example, we are aware that the Fairview field in Queensland has well groupings of low production rates/low perm,
well groupings of medium rates/medium perm and well groupings of very high rates/very high perms. Nevertheless,
gathering data on such scale-up factors would be very useful to industry and hopefully this first attempt at development will
be followed by other such studies, especially after CBM fields have been on production for a few years and hoping that
companies report their data. The data reviewed here includes our own lab-derived permeability for several Bowen Basin
(Queensland) samples and for a Sunan Basin coal sample from China.
Some further qualifications to note:

1. Field data from single well tests inherently reports only the average non-directional horizontal permeability, which
will be off by an average factor of 1.6 compared to the maximum horizontal permeability, when the permeability
anisotropy ratio is 4:1 (a world-wide average; see Massarotto et al 2003);
2. Most field permeability is measured with water as the flowing fluid, yielding effective water permeability, which is
different to effective permeability to methane and other gases;
3. During field tests, though care is taken to limit rates (whether injection or production) to very low levels so as to
minimize changes to pressure and thus the in-situ net stress field, there are dynamic effects for which adjustments
are not done to the authors’ knowledge;
4. During DST’s, IFOT’s or PBUT’s, a common risk is slippage of packers, and/or the contribution to flow of zones
above or below the packers setting depths a few feet away from the wellbore.
5. The greatest criticism for field test data is that is derives from near-wellbore measurements, which area has been de-
stressed due to the drilling process; this would result in a higher measured permeability than exists in the far-field
reservoir.

The gathered and analyzed data and an estimate of the resulting apparent scale-up factors are shown in Table 5. In this
tabulation, Kmean under lab data refers to the average of Kmax and Kmin (face and butt cleat perm, respectively). In field data, it
is the average radial permeability, which by its nature is an average of the maximum and minimum horizontal permeability.
Where no measurement was available for Kmin, the Kmax number was divided by the general permeability anisotropy ratio of
4:1. We use the descriptor apparent scale-up factor, as further adjustments would be required if the data were available, such
as water effective permeability in our lab measurements, a closer match to reservoir net stresses and gas permeability
measurements in field tests.

TABLE 5. Comparison of lab and field-derived coal permeability and apparent scale-up factors

Lab-derived data Field-derived data Apparent

Sample/Field Lab, rig & Sample Net stress Kmax Kmean Type Fluid Kmean Scale-up
location Stress type size & fluid MPa mD mD test tested factor
Bowen Basin, UQld TTSCP 40-200 mm 3.5 4.8- 3.1- NA
Newlands mine He 19.5 12.2
Bowen Basin (G); UQld TTSCP 40-N2 3.5 2.3 2 SWI H2O 2 1:1
Dawson River IT Model H2O 7.8 3.9:1
Bowen Basin (K); UQld TTSCP 40-N2 3.5 1.75 1.3 DST H2O +600 Nm
Fairview IWP H2O/ 10+ 7:1
CH4
BB average 6.4 4.3 6.6 1.53:1
Sunan Basin, UQld TTSCP 40-80 mm 3.5- 1.15- 0.51- DST CH4 1.85
Taoyuan mine He & N2 4.6 78 17.9 IWT H2O 9
& pilot
Sunan average 20.5 5.2 5.4 1.04:1
Sydney Basin UNSW 25-41 2 0.1 IT Model H2O 0.15 1.5:1
Dartbrook mine Hydro. & N2
triaxial
San Juan Basin GRI 89 ~4.2 3.1 DST H2O 35.8 11.5:1
Fruitland coals Hydrostatic N2 & H2O (Kv)
San Juan Basin Amoco 89mm core 1.6 3.8 H2O & 30 7.9:1
La Plata coals Hydrostatic H2O 5.4 0.86 gas
SJB average 2.59 32.9 12.7
All basins average 3.89 12.1 3.1:1

A summary graphic of these factors is shown in Figure 7.

 Scale-up factors for lab-to-field permeability
14
12
Scal-up factor 10
8
6
4
2
0

JB
yB

B
B
BB

SB

SJ
Sy

+S
+S

yB
B
+S

+S
BB

B
+S
BB
Basin, field and lab samples

Figure 7. Empirical scale-up factors for lab-to-field permeability

The range of scale-up factors varies widely, from 1.04:1 to 11.5:1, with an overall average of 3.1:1; the latter number highly
influenced by the high scale-up factors for the San Juan Basin data. It is more relevant to look at these on a basin by basin
basis, averaging the numerous lab data where available. In the Bowen Basin, the average lab-derived Kmean is 4.3mD and the
referenced field tests yielded an average of 6.6mD, resulting in a calculated scale-up factor of 1.53:1. In the Sunan Basin, the
lab-derived data is strongly influenced by the high vitrinite/high mean permeability (17.9mD) of the 80mm prismatic sample;
the average apparent scale-up factor for Sunan is 1.04:1. In the Sydney Basin, both lab (0.1mD) and field perms (0.15mD)
were quite low, indicative more of matrix permeability or a very dull coal: the corresponding apparent scale-up factor works
out to 1.5:1. The average across these three basins is also 1.5:1.

Deviating strongly from these fairly consistent factors is the set derived from the San Juan Basin data. Only two data points
are available on field data, with relatively high perms of 35.8 and 30mD; this may be indicative of the “fairway” area of the
basin, containing larger fracture sets that cannot be captured in cores of 89mm diameter. Also, we do not consider DST data
(GRI on Fruitland coal) very reliable for static or even dynamic permeability. We also note that this core was tested for
vertical permeability (Kv= 3.1mD); this can be significantly lower than horizontal permeability in some situations. This
combination of low lab and high field permeability results in very high apparent scale-up factors, averaging 9.5:1 for the San
Juan Basin. We are inclined to exclude the San Juan derivations, until more field and lab data is reported, to the equivalent
density of the Bowen Basin data.

5 DISCUSSION

The low permeabilities measured for the small cores derived from the large block B are indicative of its duller nature, as well
as the limited cleat run length and limited connectivity as seen from the cleat sketches. The scale-up factors derived from the
above experiments are appreciably higher than those derived from the simplified 1-D geometric model: for example, for 40 to
80, a ratio of 4:1, whereas the 1-D model would suggest a ratio of 2 to 1.33, or 1.5:1. Similarly, the 40 to 200 scale-up yielded
a 9.6:1 ratio, versus a 1.8:1 ratio. Clearly, the other factors ignored in the 1-D model, namely tortuosity, cleat connectivity
and cleat run length seemingly have a strong effect.

The experiments with the mother sample and the 8 daughter samples reveals some of the reasons for having to scale-up
results when small samples are used. A visual record and 3D interpretation of the face and butt cleats of the daughter samples
is shown in Figures 8a and 8b. They reveal the amount of truncation that occurs, as most of the cleats are not linear or parallel
to the sample sides as depicted in many idealized schematics, including ours at the beginning of the paper. There is also the
evidence that cross-connectivity between face and butt cleats is broken at small scales, whereas more of this is maintained at
large scales.
 F1: 1.0 mD F2: 5.0 mD

Ellipse:
Damaged
surface
F3: 2.6 mD F4: 0.4 mD filled by
silica

Figure 7 a: Front four elements in the 80 mm coal cube

R1: 0.8 mD R2: 0.5 mD

R3: 0.6 mD R4: 1.0 mD

Figure 7b: Rear four elements in the 80 mm coal cube

6 CONCLUSIONS

Experimental investigations of coal permeability in the laboratory are usually focused on particular aims of a research project,
for example determining the effect of the principal horizontal stress being perpendicular to the face cleat direction. Research
work seldom has enough samples to derive significant averages of permeability to represent average reservoir conditions.
Nevertheless, the studies and data summarized herein lead us to the following conclusions.

1. We have derived theoretical scale-up factors based on a simple 1D geometric model and cleat spacing, ranging from 2:1
to 1.1:1 for large specimens.
2. The scale-up factors for lab-to-field ranged between 1.04:1 to 1.53:1 for three coal basins with a number of both lab
samples and field tests.
3. The theoretical scale-up factor of 80 mm cubes to reservoir average, being 1.33:1, falls within the range for lab-to-field
scale-up; thus it seems that working with 80 mm to-a-side cubes gives a reasonable result and can be relied for
meaningful results for research objectives.
4. Determination of bulk coal permeability requires minimum coal sample sizes to contain a representative density of
cleats. This will vary with coal rank.
5. Determination of an average permeability using smaller samples (40 mm cubes and possibly 61 mm HQ cores) would
seem to require a minimum of 8 samples, and possibly as high as 10 or 12.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by a number of companies, particularly Texaco Inc (E&P)/Texaco China BV, Oil Company of
Australia/Origin Energy, Devon Energy, Newlands Coal Mine Ltd, Kestrel Coal Ltd and by a grant from the Australian Coal
Association Research Program. Major equipment grants provided by The University of Queensland and Queensland Rail
made it possible to develop the world’s first True Triaxial Stress Coal Permeameter. The authors wish to thank these parties
for their generous research support.

REFERENCES

Barakat, M. A., 1999. Effect of gas desorption on permeability of coal. MS Thesis, U. Auckland, New Zealand.

Enever, J. and Hennig, A., 1997. The Relationship between Permeability and Effective Stress for Australian Coals and its
Implication with respect to Coalbed Methane Exploration and Reservoir Modeling. Proceedings from the International
Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, USA.

Gash, B. W., Volz, R. S., Potter, G. and Corgan, J. M., 1987. The effects of cleat orientation and confining pressure on cleat
porosity, permeability and relative permeability in coal. Proceedings from International Coalbed Methane Symposium,
University of Alabama.

Gray, I., 1987. Reservoir engineering in coal seams: part 1 – The physical process of gas storage and movement in coal
seams. SPE-RE Journal (1987), 28.

Harpalani, S. and Chen, G., 1997. Influence of gas production induced volumetric strain on permeability of coal.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (1997) 15, 303.

Harpalani, S., 2008. CBM: 21st Century Clean Fuel. Panel presentation, Proceedings of the Asia Pacific CBM Symposium,
The university of Queensland, Australia.

Law, E., 1993. The Relationship between Coal Rank and Cleat Spacing: Implications for the Prediction of Permeability in
Coal. Proceedings from International Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, USA.

Mavor, M. J., and Gunter, W. D., 2006. Secondary Porosity and Permeability of Coal vs. Gas Composition and Pressure. SPE
Paper no 90255, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering Journal, April 2006, pp114-125.

Massarotto, P., 2002. 4-D Coal Permeability Under True Triaxial Stresses and Constant Volume Conditions. PhD
Dissertation, The University of Queensland, Australia.

Massarotto, P., Rudolph, V. and Golding, S. D., 2003. The Effect of Directional Net Stresses on the Directional Permeability
of Coal. Proceedings from. International Coalbed Methane Symposium, The University of Alabama, Birmingham, USA
Massarotto, P., Rudolph, V. and Golding, S. D., 2003. Anisotropic Permeability Characterisation of Permian Coals.
Proceedings from International Coalbed Methane Symposium, University of Alabama, USA.

Massarotto, P., 2006. Report on Australian Industry CBM Reserves and Resources, Technical Parameters and CO2 Storage
Potential. Industry Report, Australia.

Moffat, D. H. and Weale, K. E. 1955. Sorption of methane by coal at high pressures. Fuel (1955) 34, 449.

Palmer, I., and Mansoori, J.,1998. How Permeability Depends on Stress and Pore Pressure in Coalbeds: A New Model. SPE-
REE Journal 1(6):539-544.

Puri, R., Evanoff, J. C. and Brugler, M. L., 1991. Measurement of coal cleat porosity and relative permeability characteristics.
SPE Paper No 21491 presented at the 1991 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Houston, USA.

Qing, Y. 2008. CBM Reserves and Exploitation and Utilization. Proceedings from the Asia Pacific CBM Symposium, The
University of Queensland, Australia.

Reucroft, P. J. and Patel, H., 1986. Gas-induced swelling in coal. Fuel (1986) 65, 816.

Spencer, S. J., Somers, M. L., Pinczewski, W. V. and Doig, I. D., 1987. Numerical simulation of gas drainage from coal
seams. SPE Paper no 16857, 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 27-30.

St. George, J. D., 1993. The effect of stress on the permeability of New Zealand coal. Proceedings of 5th New Zealand Coal
Conference, Wellington, New Zealand Coal Research Ltd.

Whitney, E. M., Deo, M. D. and Bodily, D. M., 1993. Multicomponent effects in coalbed gas drainage. Proceedings from. US
Mine Ventilation Symposium., Salt Lake City, Utah. SME 117.

View publication stats