Experimental and numerical evaluation of

CBM potential in Jharia Coalfield India

Harinandan Kumar, M. K. Mishra &

S. Mishra

Geomechanics and Geophysics for

Geo-Energy and Geo-Resources

ISSN 2363-8419

Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-

resour.
DOI 10.1007/s40948-019-00114-3

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature Switzerland AG. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40948-019-00114-3
(0123456789().,-volV)
( 01234567
89().,-volV)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Experimental and numerical evaluation of CBM potential

in Jharia Coalfield India
Harinandan Kumar . M. K. Mishra . S. Mishra

Received: 28 September 2018 / Accepted: 27 May 2019

 Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract Geophysico-mechanical characterization grain, coal deformation and narrowing of fractures as

of coal data are important in the economic success
of CH4 extraction as well as a CO2 injection in deep
coal seam reservoir. The heterogeneous nature of coal
makes the CH4 removal quite challenging because of
the complex behaviour of the seam at in situ as well as
applied stress level. Coal matrix behaviour depends on
several parameters as permeability, porosity, pore
pressure, gas content, structural features, etc. plays a
leading role in methane extraction. Therefore, exten-
sive laboratory investigation is handiest approached to
anticipate the behavior of coal effectively. This paper
presents the results of coal characterization, gas
permeability, adsorption/desorption capacity of coal
as well as the performance of CBM production well in
the replicated model of JH-MD-XVI-T coal seam at a
depth of 580 m. The coal characterization was deter-
mined to evaluate the prospects of methane in the
study area. The gas permeability was determined in a
triaxial experimental set up using Darcy’s approach to
in situ conditions. The decrease in permeability with
an increase in confining as well as gas pressure was
observed in all coal samples due to the crushing of
H. Kumar (&)  M. K. Mishra
Department of Mining Engineering, NIT Rourkela,
Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India
e-mail: harinandankumar88@gmail.com
S. Mishra
Department of Chemical Engineering, NIT Rourkela,
Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India
well as cleats leading to hinder the flow of fluid
through it. The well performance was evaluated to
determine the gas rate as well as cumulative gas
volume over twenty-five years of well life. Mutual
relation between permeability, in situ confining pres-
sure as well as gas pressure, has been established
statistically.
Keywords Coal bed methane  Proximate and
ultimate analysis  Permeability  Reservoir
simulation  Statistical analysis
1 Introduction
The growing need of industrialization reduces the
supply–demand gap of energy all over the globe
specially in India. Unconventional energy resources
like coal-bed methane (CBM) an alternate energy
sources have received greater importance because of
its abundant occurrence, less polluting and environ-
mentally friendly attributes (Koenig and Stubbs 1986;
Yan et al. 2012, 2017). The CBM occurs in the coal
matrix by adsorption process and acts as a source as
well as a reservoir (Li and Zhang 2016). The
extraction of CBM starts with depletion of the
reservoir pressure due to continuous dewatering
process (Young et al. 1991). Porosity and permeability
attributes coal matrix influence to the extraction well

123
 Author's personal copy
(Jing et al. 2015). The establishment of the successful
extraction well depends upon the permeability of the
coal seam reservoir (Moore 2012). The coal seam
permeability is a significant parameter for successful
gas production well design (Vishal et al. 2013, 2015;
Yumin et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2017; Yan et al. 2017).
The volume and rate of methane from the CBM
reservoir depends upon the gas content as well as the
adsorption/desorption capacity of coal. Adsorption
isotherm of coal seam predicts the saturation level of
the reservoir and the critical desorption pressure
before the establishment of the extraction well (Zhu
et al. 2013). The related porosity, permeability as well
as adsorption/desorption capacity of the coal seam for
the design and establishment of the production as well
as injection well are established elsewhere (Holloway
1997; White 2005; Perera and Ranjith 2012; Lee and
Kwon 2016). There exist permeability anisotropies
with 2:1 contrast in the face and butt cleats and 100:1
contrast between face cleat and vertical permeability
(Gash et al. 1993; Mavor and Robinson 1993; Zheng
et al. 2012). That implies the higher face and vertical
permeability in the coal seam, the variation of
permeability is from micro and nanodarcies in the
coal matrix and that from 0.1 to 1000 mD in the cleats
(Bell and Rakop 1986). Reduced permeability with
confining pressure was observed in the coal seam
(Siriwardane et al. 2009). The reduction in permeabil-
ity followed an exponential correlation with confining
pressure (Chatterjee et al. 2010). These observations
reflects the permeability of the matrix, as well as
cleats, govern the flow of gas from the coal matrix to
the production well or from the production well to the
coal matrix.
The determination of the methane quantity of the
coal seam is possible with the investigation of the
adsorption/desorption capacity of the coal. The
adsorption isotherm indicates the initial reservoir
conditions of any coal seam and predicts the critical
desorption pressure, which is helpful in the design of
the production well for extraction of methane. The
desorption capacity of the coal is essential for the
prediction of methane desorption in the coal seam. The
investigation was undertaken to determine the excess
adsorption/desorption capacity of the coal seam for
application in CBM production (Yang and Zoback
2011; Song et al. 2015). The CO2 adsorption capacity
was observed higher than that of the CH4 (Shi and
Durucan 2005; Wang et al. 2017). The ratio of
123
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
adsorption of carbon dioxide with methane was noted
as 10:1 for low-rank coal and less than 2:1 for medium
volatile bituminous coals (Prusty 2008). The experi-
mentally determined adsorption/desorption capacity
of the coal seam, as well as the Langmuir pressure and
volume, is essential data for the reservoir simulations
(Prusty 2008; Yang and Zoback 2011; Song et al.
2015; Wang et al. 2017). Therefore the detailed
investigation of adsorption/desorption capacity, as
well as gas content, is essential for the prediction of
methane throughout the production wells.
This paper deals with the characterization of coal
from a different depth (400–580 m) of Jharia coal
basin (Moonidih Area) India. The proximate and
ultimate analysis, as well as petrographic analysis, was
carried out to determine the prospects of the methane
in the coal basin. The gas content was carried out to
determine the actual gas content of the coal seam. The
adsorption/desorption capacity of coal seam was
carried out to determine the optimum gas holding
and gas retention capacity of coal. The coefficient of
gas permeability of coal was evaluated to determine
the ease of flow of gas and prediction of the rate of gas
production. The numerical reservoir simulation was
carried out using GEM reservoir simulation software
code 2015 to determine the rate of gas production as
well as cumulative gas volume over twenty-five years
of the life of production well. The mutual correlations
of different parameters were established using statis-
tical methods.
2 Geological setting of Jharia coalbed basin
The coal samples were collected from the Jharia coal
bed basin located in Dhanbad, India. It lies between
latitude 23370 N and 23520 N and longitude 86050 E
and 86300 E (Fig. 1a). It covers an area of 465 km2
extending along the east–west direction (Saikia and
Sarkar 2007). The thick sedimentary sequence began
with the glaciogenic sediments of the Talchir Forma-
tion and extended up to Raniganj formations (Fig. 1b)
(Ghosh et al. 2014; BCCL 2015). The formation
comprises 18 standard coal horizons (numbered I to
XVIII) with a thickness of each horizon ranging from
1.2 to 29.29 m. Raniganj Formation covers south-
western part of the coalfield with 12 standard coal
horizons. This formation comprises altogether 13
seam zones with thickness varying from 2.0 to 4.2 m.
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

3 Sample collection 4 Sample preparation

The coal samples rectangular blocks of 0.5 m3 size
operating were collected from the freshly exposed area
in the coalmines of Jharia coalfield (Moonidih area) at
the depth varying between 400 and 580 m. The
collected coal blocks were wrapped in multi-cover
plastic bags to prevent oxidation as well as atmo-
spheric influences. The packed samples were kept in a
wooden box filled with a cushion to avoid any
transportation jerk. Finally, collected and covered
blocks were carried to the laboratory for testing
purpose. Coal specimen was prepared selectively from
those bags before any specialize test.
Coal samples for proximate and ultimate analyses
were prepared as per guideline [IS: 436 (Part l/Sec-
tion 1)—1964 (1965)]. The Sample for petrographic
analysis was prepared as per IS: 9127 (part II), 1979.
Core samples obtained from the drilling were analyzed
for the determination of the gas content. Samples for
adsorption/desorption test were prepared as per stan-
dard ASTM: D2013-86, (1994).

Fig. 1 a Geological map b lithology of the coalfield (after Ghosh et al. 2014)

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Fig. 1 continued

5 Apparatus and procedure
The proximate and ultimate analysis was carried out as
per guideline IS 436 (Part l/Section 1)—1964 (1965)
and IS 1350 (Part IV/Sec 2)—1975. The percentage of
macerals content were determined as per IS: 9127
(Part 3)—2002; ISO 7404-3: 1994. The modified
USBM direct method was used to determine the actual
in situ gas content in the coal seam. More than 100 coal
samples were tested for determination of gas content

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Fig. 2 Desorption canister for gas content test
Fig. 3 Adsorption/desorption setup
using desorption canister (make: Gon Engineering,
Jharkhand) (Fig. 2). The adsorption/desorption capac-
ity of the coal was determined using mass balance
principle, which uses the precise measurement of
volume, pressure, and temperature in volumetric
apparatus (Song et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2017)
(Fig. 3).
The gas permeability was determined at triaxial
stress conditions. The experimental set up of the gas
permeability is shown in Fig. 4. The vertical com-
pressive stress was applied using a compression
testing machine (Make: Aimil Ltd.) while horizontal
stress/confining pressure was applied using a constant
pressure system (Make: Aimil Ltd.) (Fig. 4). The core
holder (Make: ELE International, UK) of internal
diameter 54 mm was used for holding a core sample of
diameter 54 mm with L/D ratio 2 (Fig. 5). The upper
and lower platen were fabricated in such a way that the
gas can pass through the piston during the application
of vertical load. The core specimen in the sample
holder was sealed to prevent any leakage from the
sidewall. Gas was passed through the sealed core using
upper perforated platen and collected through the
lower perforated platen. The pressure difference
between the inlet and outlet of the gas line was
recorded using pressure transducer (make: Swagelok,
USA) and flow was measured using digital flowmeter
(make: PCI analytic Pvt. Ltd., India). The test
sequence was followed in steps of varying vertical
stress from 1 to 12 MPa. For each selected vertical
loading, confining gas pressures varied from 1 to
6 MPa and gas pressure varied from 0.69 to 3.45 MPa.
5.1 Calculation of gas permeability in coal
Gas Permeability was estimated by measuring pres-
sure difference at the inlet as well as outlet opening
and flow rate using Darcy’s equation as (Gray 1987):
2Q0 lLp0
K¼  2  ð1Þ
A P1  P22
where K = coefficient of gas permeability (m2);
Q0 = gas flow rate (m3/s); l = Gas viscosity (Pa.s);
L = length of sample; p0 = reference pressure
(p0 = P2); A = cross sectional area (m2); P1 and
P2 = upstream and downstream gas pressure respec-
tively (Pa).
The coal of the study area was well cleated and
properly channeled; therefore, laminar fluid flow in
prismatic or streamlined path was used for the
laboratory simulation (Amin et al. 2014). As the
macro cleats are continuous and almost straight, the
steady-state laminar flow is most suitable to describe
the flow mechanism (Guo and Cheng 2013; Taheri
et al. 2016; Li et al. 2016; Ye et al. 2017), that follows
Darcy’s approach. Therefore, Darcy’s flow equation
(Eq. 1) was used for determination of the spatial
variation of permeability at in situ conditions. The
applications of Darcy’s equation for the flow of gas in
wellbore was reported elsewhere (Lama and Bar-
tosiewicz 1984; Pan et al. 2010; Izadi et al. 2011; Liu
and Harpalani 2012; Taheri et al. 2016; Li et al. 2016;
Ye et al. 2017). Gas pressure and vertical stress varied
123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Fig. 4 Actual experimental set up for gas permeability in coal

Fig. 5 Gas permeability Test a parts of the Permeability set up b sample placed in Hoek cell for application of axial as well as lateral
pressure c sealing of Hoek cell with upper and lower platens d perforated piston to pass gas during application of load on the specimen

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Table 1 Results of Sample Id.

proximate analysis of coal
Parameters JH-MD-S1 JH-MD- S2 JH-MD- S3 JH-MD- S4 JH-MD- S5

Depth (m) 580 520 500 450 400

M (wt%) 0.93 1.19 1.27 1.28 1.40
A (wt%) 9.01 13.46 15.38 18.49 20.64
VM (wt%) 18.93 22.53 24.81 25.28 26.88
FC (wt%) 71.13 62.82 58.54 54.95 51.08
VM (daf) (wt%) 21.02 26.40 29.77 31.51 34.48
FC (daf) (wt%) 78.98 73.60 70.23 68.49 65.52

from 3.45 to 0.69 MPa and from 1 to 12 MPa with a Table 2 Results of ultimate analysis and vitrinite reflectance
decrement of 0.69 ± 0.1 MPa and 1 ± 0.5 MPa of coal
respectively. The equilibrium pressure of inlet and
Depth
outlet was recorded at each step of pressure variation.
Parameters (%) 580 m 520 m 500 m 450 m 400 m

C 84.88 75.45 72.47 70.17 66.74

6 Results and discussion H 3.77 5.02 5.22 5.23 6.23
N 2.42 2.30 2.13 2.10 1.60
The primary CBM production mechanism starts with S 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.10
the recovery of methane gas from the reservoir. Coal
characterization not only gives information about the
rank and maturity but also the prospects of the
methane in the study area. Coal seams are highly
reflects the reduction in pore volume and reduced gas
heterogeneous. The effective stress imposed on it
adsorption in coal. Higher FC and lower moisture
easily deforms the coal structure. The time-dependent
content with depth exhibited more methane content
deformation of the porous coal structure changes the
and increased adsorption capacity of coal (Lee and
behavior of the essential properties of the coal, as gas
Kwon 2016; Cheng et al. 2017).
permeability, which in turn vary the production
The depth and maturity of coal lead to the
performance of the well. The aim of the investigation
transformation of plant debris into organic carbon
was to evaluate the CBM potential of a coal deposit. It
and increases the specific surface area as well as the
was achieved by characterizing the coal, by determin-
pore volume of the coal matrix. Reducing the
ing its proximate and ultimate analysis parameters as
percentage of VM with depth leads to the formation
well as gas permeability of coal. The results of the
of pores in the coal matrix and increases the porosity of
experimental investigation are discussed in the fol-
the coal. The methane adsorption increases with
lowing sections.
porosity. Higher methane content, as well as porosity
of the coal, was observed at 580 m depth. The
6.1 Coal characterization
moisture and ash content varies from 0.93 to 1.40
wt% and 9.01 to 20.64 wt% exhibits medium volatile
Coal characterization was carried out to determine the
bituminous coal rank (Fig. 6). The reduced moisture
prospects of methane in coal seam of the study area.
content with depth of occurrence indicates higher
The results of the proximate and ultimate analysis are
porosity of the coal. The reduction in moisture content
shown in Tables 1 and 2. VM (daf basis) varies from
not only develops the pores in the coal matrix but also
21.02 to 34.48 wt% while FC (daf) varies between
increases the methane adsorption and gas content of
65.52 and 78.98 wt% indicating medium volatile
the coal. This observation compare favorably reported
bituminous coal (Fig. 6). The decrease in VM with
elsewhere (Speight 2005; Cheng et al. 2017;
depth suggests an enrichment of liptinite macerals and
Ranathunga et al. 2017). The presence of silica, iron,
hydrocarbons in the coal seam. High volatile matter

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Fig. 6 Determination of coal rank based on proximate analysis results (Averitt and Berryhill 1950)

Table 3 Results of Depth (m) Vitrinite (%) Inertinite (%) Liptinite (%) R0 (%)
petrographic study
580 58.94 33.99 2.45 1.51
520 46.72 48.21 4.78 1.24
500 47.12 45.54 2.85 1.10
450 46.77 43.65 9.34 1.03
400 46.58 44.24 6.54 0.92

calcium, magnesium especially the presence of metal

elements result in the basal cementation tendency of
coal, and the increasing content blocks the coal pore
and fissure, reduces the porosity of coal, resulting in a
decrease of adsorption capacity of methane in coal
(Cheng et al. 2017).
The petrographic study was carried out using the
point counting method (Berrezueta et al. 2017). It
consists of scanned microscopic images with hundred
uniformly distributed points over the polished granular
coal palate. The microscopic images with evenly
distributed points were further scanned at 512 9 512
points. Each of the point in the images was assessed
with grey level with an accuracy of ± 10%. Respected
Fig. 7 Representation of three macerals in the coal sample
similar observation has been reported on coal sample
of the Jharia coalfield (JCF), India elsewhere (Mohalik
Vitrinite, inertinite and liptinite macerals were
2017). The results of the petrographic study of coal
observed from 46.58 to 58.94%, from 33.99% to
samples at a varying depth are given in Table 3. Three
48.21% and from 2.45 to 9.34% respectively. The
major macerals group (Vitrinite, Inertinite, and Lip-
results of macerals at varying depth of occurrence
tinite macerals) were identified (Fig. 7). Percentage of
indicate significant amount of vitrinite and inertinite in

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Table 4 The gas content of coal samples

Depth (m) Lost gas (cc/g) Desorbed gas (cc/g) Residual gas (cc/g) Total gas content (cc/g)

580 0.33 11.77 0.02 12.13

520 0.2 9.91 0.01 10.12
500 0.22 9.14 0.02 9.38
450 0.2 7.87 0.017 8.09
400 0.2 8.27 0.024 8.49

coal seams of the study area. The higher percentage of

Table 5 The adsorption capacity of coal
vitrinite present in coal seam reveals thermally
matured and the potential source of methane gas in Excess adsorption amount (cc/g)
coal seams. Depth (m) CO2 CH4
The value of vitrinite reflectance was calculated
580 20.52 13.29
using established relation (Rice 1993).
  520 16.54 12.29
R0 ð%Þ ¼ 2:712  log VMdaf þ 5:092 ð2Þ 500 14.26 11.23
450 10.02 9.99
where R0 = Vitrinite reflectance (%), VM(daf) = Vo-
400 11.11 9.49
latile matter (dry ash free basis) (%)
The calculated vitrinite reflectance (R0) percentage
varied from 0.92 to 1.51% at 400–580 m depth
respectively (Table 3). Increase in R0 was observed Depth = 580 m
21 Depth = 520 m
with the depth of occurrence. The values of R0 lies Depth = 500 m
Excess Adsorption Amount

between 0.7 and 2.0% indicating commercial CBM 18 Depth = 450 m

Depth = 400 m
prospects as elsewhere (Chandra 1997). The observed 15
percentage of R0 confirms the possibility of establish- 12
(cc/g)

ing the production well in the study area on a 9

commercial scale.
6.2 Gas content
More than sixty coal core samples so collected were
evaluated for in situ gas content by using desorption
canister (Fig. 2). Desorption process was carried out at
temperature 50–60 C till cumulative desorbed gas
volume (CDGV) exhibited constant value. In-situ gas
content varied from 8.09 to 12.13 cc/g with an average
of 9.64 cc/g (Table 4).
6.3 Adsorption capacity of coal seam
Gas sorption study was carried out on crushed coal
samples. Volumetric adsorption setup was used to
estimate the sorption capacity of gas on coal. The
volume of excess adsorption was determined at
constant temperatures as a function of pressure at
6
3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Pressure (MPa)
Fig. 8 CO2 excess adsorption at varying depth
equilibrium (Table 5). The adsorption capacity of CO2
and CH4 in coal was studied, and Langmuir adsorption
isotherm plotted (Figs. 8 and 9). Sorption capacity was
measured at the highest pressure 7.5 MPa for methane
and 5.5 MPa for CO2 at 27 C. CO2 and CH4
adsorption capacity varied from 11.11 to 20.52 and
9.49 to 13.29 cc/g respectively (Table 5). Increase in
sorption capacity was observed with increase in depth
is due to increase in carbon content as well as porosity
of coal and a reduction in moisture content as well.
Thus, sorption capacity rises with growth in rank and

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Depth = 580 m permeability obtained was 0.95 mD at a depth of

21 Depth = 520 m
400 m. This trend confirms favorably to that reported
Excess Adsorption Amount

Depth = 500 m
18 Depth = 450 m elsewhere (Reiss 1980; Chatterjee et al. 2010; Vishal
Depth = 400 m
15 et al. 2013).
The average reduction in permeability was more
(cc/g)

12 than 84.01% for all coal samples at a gas pressure

9 varying from 1 to 3.5 MPa. Permeability reduced
6 rapidly from 1.7 to 2.5 MPa for specimen at depth
580–520 m. The corresponding values of permeability
3 decreases at 1.31 MPa pressure for a specimen at
0 500 m. The reduction in permeability was slower in
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 the sample at 400–450 m depth respectively (Fig. 10).
Pressure (MPa) The loss in permeability is due to decrease in porosity
Fig. 9 CH4 excess adsorption at varying depth
by continuous adsorption of gas at a higher pressure
that results in coal swelling and internal deformation.
The matrix deformation does not produce new pore
Table 6 Methane permeability on coal samples at varying but, only inward expansion and narrowing of fissures,
depth thereby reducing the permeability (Vishal et al.
Depth (m) Methane Permeability (mD) 2013, 2015). The results indicated higher matrix
deformation in the coal sample at 580 m depth. These
580 0.377 observations compares favorably with similar results
520 0.3172 reported elsewhere (Vishal et al. 2013; Bo et al. 2014).
500 0.6193 It was observed that the gas permeability decreased
450 0.7273 with increase in lateral pressure (Fig. 10). The
400 0.9516 permeability of coal samples reduced from 78.26 to
84.01% at the pressure from 1 to 6 MPa indicating
strong sensitivity of stress on gas permeability
(Table 7). Rapid reduction in permeability from 0.26
maturity of coal. Excess adsorption of CO2 was higher to 0.16 mD and 0.23 to 0.15 mD was observed at the
than that of CH4 is due to the higher density and confining pressure of 2.94–3.92 MPa for coal sample
smaller molecular diameter of CO2 (0.33 nm) than varying from 580 to 520 m depth. Smooth reduction in
that with CH4 (0.38 nm). permeability noted in the specimen at 400–500 m
depth. The rate of decline in permeability was very
6.4 Permeability analysis of coal low with confining pressure from 4 to 6 MPa for all
coal samples. However, insignificant from 0.33 to 0.29
Methane gas (99.99% pure) was used for determina- mD for coal sample at a depth of 450 m (Fig. 10). It is
tion of permeability. The coal samples were gas observed that with increasing confinement, the rate of
saturated at 3.5 MPa that took 10–12 days as sug- decrease in permeability exhibit from drastic reduc-
gested elsewhere (Jing et al. 2015; Yumin et al. 2016; tion to moderate. It is due to fracture closing quickly in
Wang et al. 2017). Horizontal pressure up to 6 MPa the initial compression period when the confining
with an increment of 0.5–1 MPa at each step was pressure exceeds 3 MPa, rate of fracture closer
applied on the specimen. Vertical load up to 10 MPa becomes slower, and hence the permeability value is
was involved with an increment of 1–1.5 MPa at each far less than the initial permeability. The decrease in
level. Gas pressure increased slowly at the rate of permeability with confining pressure is due to the
0.5–3.5 MPa from the top of the sample and measured crushing of grains, coal deformation and narrowing of
at the bottom. Variation in permeability from 0.31 to fractures and cleats. The reduction in pore throats area
0.95 mD was observed at depth from 580 to 400 m with confining pressure hinders the flow of gas in the
respectively (Table 6). The highest value of coal matrix. The open channel and internal pores of the
coal block become narrow due to confining stress

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Fig. 10 Variation of Gas Pressure b Gas Pressure

permeability with gas and a Confining Pressure Confining Pressure
At 580 m 5.9 3.5 At 520 m 5.9

Confining Pressure (MPa)

confining pressure for 3.1

Confining Pressure (MPa)

Gas Pressure (MPa)
different depth 4.9

Gas Pressure (MPa)

4.9 3.1
2.7
3.9 2.7 3.9
2.3 2.9
2.9 2.3
1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

1.5 0.9 1.5 0.9

0.05 0.13 0.21 0.29 0.37 0.03 0.09 0.15 0.21 0.27 0.33
Permeability (mD) Permeability (mD)

Gas Pressure Gas Pressure

c Confining Pressure d Confining Pressure
3.5 At 500 m 5.9 At 450 m 5.9
3

Confining Pressure (MPa)

Confining Pressure (MPa)
3.1
Gas Pressure (MPa)

4.9 2.6 4.9

Gas Pressure (MPa)

2.7
3.9 2.2 3.9
2.3
2.9 1.8 2.9
1.9
1.5 1.9 1.4 1.9

1.1 0.9 1 0.9

0.05 0.25 0.45 0.65 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7
Permeability (mD) Permeability (mD)
Gas Pressure
e At 400 m
Confining Pressure

5.9
2.9

Confining Pressure (MPa)

Gas Pressure (MPa)

2.5 4.9

2.1 3.9
1.7
2.9
1.3
1.9
0.9

0.5 0.9
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
Permeability (mD)

Table 7 The average reduction in permeability with values from 0.95 to 0.98 (Table 8). This observation
confinement follows similar behavior reported elsewhere (Vishal
Depth (m) Average reduction in Perm. (%) et al. 2013, 2015).

580 84.01
520 83.96 7 Reservoir simulation
500 83.44
450 78.26 Coalbed reservoir exhibits dual porosity due to its
400 82.12 stress dependency of permeability and porosity, as
well as desorption of gas from the matrix and flow
through the natural fracture (cleat structure) (Wu et al.
2011; Okeke 2005; Keim 2011). Parameters as two-
under triaxial conditions, and as a result, the perme- phase flows through the fracture system and diffusion
ation of gas reduces. The confining pressure showed from the matrix to fractures control the flow physics
an exponential correlation with gas permeability at R2 during CBM production practice and are highly

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Table 8 Statistical Correlations Equation R2

correlations of methane
permeability
Permeability versus confining pressure at 580 m Depth y = 0.5367e-0.297x 0.9648
Permeability versus confining pressure at 520 m Depth y = 0.4782e-0.297x 0.9627
Permeability versus confining pressure at 500 m Depth y = 1.0091e-0.355x 0.9547
Permeability versus confining pressure at 450 m Depth y = 1.0657e-0.304x 0.9500
Permeability versus confining pressure at 400 m Depth y = 1.3295e-0.312x 0.9895

variable during the gas extraction process (Wang et al. multilayered or ‘‘slab’’ model j = 1. For the slab
2017). In this investigation both experimental data, as model with L = thickness of an individual matrix
well as field parameters were used to simulate (Code block, k becomes:
CMG 2015) reservoir behaviour as predicted else-
km
where (Okeke 2005; Keim 2011). The code is capable k ¼ 12rw2 ð6Þ
kf h2m
of simulating the coal bed reservoir under dual
porosity conditions; two-phase flow through the The storativity ratio, x, is given by:
fracture system and diffusion from the matrix to
ð/Vct Þf ð/Vct Þf
fractures. The simulation in the code is based on the x ¼ ¼ ð7Þ
Warren and Root dual-porosity model to evaluate the ð/Vct Þf þm ð/Vct Þf þð/Vct Þm
physical calculations involved in coalbed methane
where V is the ratio of the total volume of one medium
extraction. The dual porosity allows each reservoir
to the bulk volume of the total system, and / is the
grid block to have up to two porosity systems; one for
ratio of the pore volume of one medium to the total
the matrix and the other for the fracture. The adsorbed
volume of that medium. Subscripts f and f ? m refer
gas concentration on the surface of the coal is assumed
to the fracture and the total system (fractures plus
to be a function of pressure only (Langmuir isotherm).
matrix), respectively.
The code follows Fick’s law (Keim 2011) for the
The steady-state laminar two- phase flow in a single
diffusive flow of gas from the coal matrix as per Eq. 3.
horizontal fracture without gravity segregation in
The mathematical relationship involved in the calcu-
volumetric form is given by (Chen et al. 2004):
lation of the dual porosity system is (Warren and Root
1963): kAkrw ðpi  p0 Þw
qw ¼ ð8Þ
lw L
m ¼ DrC ð3Þ
 
km kAkrg p2i  p20
k ¼ arw2 ð4Þ qg ¼ ð9Þ
kf 2lg Lp0

where k is the inter-porosity flow coefficient (m3/s),
km is the permeability of the matrix (mD), kf is the
permeability of the natural fractures (mD), and a is the
parameter characteristic of the system geometry, and
rw is the wellbore radius (m).
4jðj þ 2Þ
a ¼ ð5Þ
L2
where L is a characteristic dimension of a matrix block
(m), and j is the number of normal sets of planes
limiting the less-permeable medium (j = 1, 2, 3). i.e.,
j = 3 for the idealized reservoir cube model and for the
where subscripts (w) and (g) stand for water and gas, pi
and po are the pressures at the inlet and the outlet of the
fracture (MPa) respectively, q is the volumetric flow
rate (m3/s) l is the dynamic viscosity (Pa.s), L is the
fracture length (m), k and A are the absolute perme-
ability (mD) and cross-sectional area (m2) of the
fracture, krw and krg are the relative permeability of the
water and the gas (mD).
Coal porosity depends on fracture density (Wang
et al. 2017). The coal samples obtained from the study
area were evaluated in the lab for fracture porosity.
Gilman-Kazemi shape factor represents the fracture
porosity in the reservoir area (Keim 2011). The same
was considered for Gilman-Kazemi Shape factor for

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
the spatial area in the GEM code (Kazemi 1976). The
shape factor typically used by commercial reservoir
simulators for dual porosity and CBM models is:
! effective stress state is required to calculate recover-
1 1 1 able reserves. The pressure counteracts Biot’s coeffi-
r ¼ 4 2þ 2þ 2 ð10Þ
Lx Ly Lz
where r is shape factor, L is spacing between fractures
The coal cleat diffusive flow depends on the gas
concentration gradients in the coal seam. The diffusive
flow and concentration of gas are based on the
Langmuir adsorption isotherm (Song et al. 2015;
Wang et al. 2017). The experimentally developed
adsorption isotherm for the study area was considered
for calculation of diffusive flow and gas concentration
gradients in the reservoir and gives as (Okeke 2005;
Keim 2011):
 
qðLang; kÞ ¼ Vol  ½Shape  DiffusðkÞ  F Sg
 ðLangðk; mÞ  Langðk; f ÞÞ
ð11Þ
X 1
Shape ¼ 4  ð12Þ
Frac Spacing2
RateBlock ¼ Vol  Shape  DiffusðkÞ  SAmod
g capillary, as well as gravity force during the gas flow
 ðCðk; gas; mÞ  C ðk; gas; f ÞÞ
ð13Þ
where Lang (k, m) = Extended Langmuir isotherm for
the coal, multiplied by coal density (kg/m3), evaluated
at matrix composition and pressure (MPa), Lang (k,
f) = Extended Langmuir isotherm for the coal evalu-
ated at fracture composition and pressure (MPa),
Vol. = Block volume (m3), Shape = Shape factor
(matrix-fracture interface area per unit volume),
Diffus (k) = Diffusion value (COAL-DIF-COMP)
(cm2/s), Sg = Gas saturation, Rate Block = Flow rate
(m3/d), SAmod
g = Gas saturation in the matrix (de-
fault = 1), C (k, gas, m) = Concentration of compo-
nent ‘k’ in gas phase of matrix cell ‘‘m’’ (gmole/kg of
coal), C (k, gas, f) = Concentration of component ‘k’
in gas phase of fracture cell ‘‘f’’ (gmole/kg of coal), C
(k, gas, f) in Eq. 13 represents the surface gas
concentration which is a function of the fracture
pressure given by the Langmuir isotherm.
The decrease in pore pressure as a consequence of
oil and gas production increases the effective stress on
the reservoir rock and causes elastic deformation or
even compaction of reservoirs (Alama et al. 2010).
Therefore, a better understanding of the behavior of
high-porosity rock like coal seam under altering
cient that typically reflects the elastic behaviour of
porous rock like a coal. It defines the effective stress,
r0 (MPa), as the difference between the total stress r
(MPa) and a fraction called Biot’s coefficient b of the
pore pressure Pf (MPa) as (Biot 1941):
r0 ¼ r  bpf ð14Þ
b value is taken as (1) at differential pressure (total
stress—pore pressure) is equal to the effective stress.
In this investigation, the bulk modulus value of the
coal matrix was much larger as compared to that of the
coal mass, therefore, b value was considered one. The
similar value was used for the gas rate prediction in
reservoir simulation elsewhere (Gray 1987; Cui and
Bustin 2005; Liu and Rutqvist 2010; Connell et al.
2010).
The gas content determined was very high at
12.13 cc/g (Mukherjee et al. 1999). So it is considered
that the reservoir is saturated with methane. The
in the well, was equilibrated by considering water–gas
system (Okeke 2005).
7.1 Data acquisition
A wide range of reservoir characteristics was utilized
to construct a CBM base model. Data acquisition
comprises field study, sample collection from different
points of coal seams at a depth of 580 m, measurement
of coalfield area, lithology of the coalfield, etc. The
laboratory experimentations comprise determination
of gas content, construction of CH4 adsorption
isotherm (Langmuir isotherm), cleat dimensions (cleat
spacing and width), gas permeability, porosity, etc. of
coal sample. The minimum and maximum value with
the average data has been considered for reservoir
simulation (Tables 9, 10 and 11).
7.2 Model building
The modeling and simulation were carried out using
Generalized Equation-of-State Model (GEM) simula-
tor (make: CMG, Canada Version 2015.10). The
123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Table 9 Reservoir characteristics in Jharia coal field (Moonidih area)

Reservoir characteristics Values Source

Name of coal seam JH-MD-XVI-T Site data

Gas content (cc/g) 12.13 Lab measurement
Permeability (mD) 0.377 Lab measurement
Desorption time (days) 100 Okeke (2005)
Diffusion coefficient (cm2/s) 1.7 9 10-9 Wierzbicki (2013)
Coal rank Bituminous coal Lab measurement
Stratigraphic position Overlying barakar formation (lower permian) Ghosh et al. (2014)
Target depth (m) 580 Site data

Table 10 Coal seam Coal properties Values Source

properties
-1
Initial fracture compressibility (Cf) (kPa ) 0.00276 Lab measurement
Poisson’s ratio 0.36 Lab measurement
Young’s modulus (GPa) 0.424 Lab measurement
Langmuir pressure (CH4) (kPa) 5322.75 Lab measurement
Langmuir volume (CH4) (cc/g) 13.297 Lab measurement
Langmuir pressure (CO2) (kPa) 2895.8 Lab measurement
Langmuir volume (CO2) (cc/g) 20.53 Lab measurement

simulator incorporates sorption and diffusion pro-
cesses, coal shrinkage, compaction effects, and under-
saturated coals to its dual porosity models (Okeke
2005; Sinayuc 2007; Mora 2007; Khan et al. 2015; Liu
et al. 2016). In this investigation, multiple simulations
were carried out to visualize, analyze, and evaluate the
influence of input parameters on the performance of
CBM production well.
7.3 Wells and boundary condition
Five production wells of diameter 139.7 mm (CMPDI
2015) were considered throughout the seam for
prediction of gas production rate as well as cumulative
gas volume over twenty-five years of the life of
production wells. CBM Production was simulated at
constant dewatering rate that varied from 10 to
100 m3/day with minimum bottom hole pressure
200 kPa was considered. Each well influences a
cross-sectional area of 578 m 9 87.5 m (Fig. 12).
Each well experienced the same reservoir pressure in
spatial location. Gas permeation was blocked at the
boundary of the coal seam to focus more on the input
parameters of the investigations. Horizontal fracturing
was created on both sides of the production well. GEM
code used Langmuir isotherm as a function of
adsorbed concentration as a coal interface and is a
widely used (Alama et al. 2010). The reservoir base
models developed have five wells, with 20 hydraulic
fractures spaced at 29 m apart. The distance between
each well is 87.5 m. The horizontal well lengths are
578 m (Fig. 11). All dimensions were determined
based on reservoir model descriptions for CBM
production (Makinde and Lee 2016). Overall dimen-
sions of the reservoir model are 700 m long and 700 m
wide (CMPDI, 2015) with 6 m thick coal seam at
580 m depth (Fig. 12). The simulation was carried out
under the dual porosity system. The fractures are all
infinitely conductive. A fracture spacing of 14.9 mm
obtained from coal block of the study area was used for
the simulation.
7.4 Grid formulation
The homogeneous cartesian grid system was applied
to develop a hypothetical reservoir model as followed
elsewhere (Jun and Guang 2012). The Cartesian grid
geometry was considered to model linear flow

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Table 11 Initial parameter settings in base model

Input parameters Min. and Max. values Avg. values Source

Grids size I 23–35 29 Bhavsar (2005), Aminian (2009), Jun and Guang (2012)
Grids size J 24–35 30
Grids size K 6 6
I-direction – 23 9 700
I-direction – 24 9 700
Fracture spacing I (mm) 10.19–18.19 14.19 CMPDI (2015)
Fracture spacing J (mm) 10.19–18.19 14.19
Fracture spacing K (mm) 10.19–18.19 14.19
Grid top (layer 1) (m) 560–600 580 Site data
Permeability I (mD) 0.317–0.437 0.377 Lab measurement
Permeability J (mD) 0.317–0.437 0.377
Permeability K (mD) 0.317–0.437 0.377
Fracture permeability I (D) 0.31–1.62 0.965 CMPDI (2015)
Fracture permeability J (D) 0.31–1.62 0.965
Fracture permeability K (D) 0.31–1.62 0.965
Porosity 0.036–0.082 0.059 Lab measurement
Fracture porosity 0.043–0.115 0.079 Calculated
Gas adsorption (CO2) (cc/g) 18.22–22.82 20.52 Lab measurement
Gas adsorption(CH4) (cc/g) 12.14–14.44 13.29 Lab measurement
Initial gas content(CH4) (cc/g) 11.07–13.19 12.13 Lab measurement
CH4 desorption time (Days) 90–110 100 Okeke (2005)
Cleat compressibility (1/kPa) 0.00246–0.00306 0.00276 Lab measurement
Coal density (kg/m3) 1181–1191 1186 Lab measurement
Diffusion coefficient (cm2/s) – 1.7 9 10-9 Wierzbicki (2013)

Fig. 11 Gridding system

with fracturing in plain view

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Fig. 12 Display of seam location and production well in-depth view

geometry and any permeability anisotropy associated

with the natural fracture or cleat system in coals
(Bhavsar 2005; Aminian 2009; Jun and Guang 2012).
The instant coalbed reservoir is assumed to be highly
fractured and with well-developed cleat network with
face cleat and butt cleat (CMPDI 2015). The virgin
seams of the Moonidih area lying in an area of about
13 km2 have been considered as target seams for CBM
development (CMPDI 2015). The total prospective
area for gas extraction was selected as 700 9 700 m2,
with grid size varying from 23 to 35 in i and 24–35 in j
and that divided the area from 400 to 887.47 m2. The Fig. 13 Reservoir model with five well
simulation was carried out using Generalized Equa-
tion-of-State Model (GEM) simulator which identifies 7.5 Gas permeation in CBM reservoirs
the 3D spatial coordinates on I, j and k (Fig. 13) that
represent the common X, Y and Z axes respectively. There are mainly three distinct phases in coal bed
The code has also extensively used for the Cartesian methane production. The first phase (Phase I) is
grid system and reported elsewhere (Bhavsar 2005; characterized by dewatering to achieve critical des-
Aminian 2009; Jun and Guang 2012). 23 grids in orption pressure. In phase II negative decline in gas
X-axis and 24 grids in Y-axis were distributed and rate of desorption occurs, and finally, in phase III,
between 700 9 700 m distances, respectively. Six the gas rate reaches to the peak of the well and thereby
grids were distributed in Z-axis over 6 m distance production starts (Liang et al. 2017). Displacement of
representing the seam thickness of JH-MD-XVI-T water from the reservoir leads to the reduction in
coal seam at 580 m depth of occurrence (site data) reservoir pressure with flow of gas from the coal seam
(Fig. 13). The overburden pressure value of to cleats and fractures. As the concentration of gas
15.66 MPa at 580 m depth was considered as initial increases in cleats, the relative permeability of gas also
vertical pressure. increases. The successes of CBM production depends

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

heavily on the dewatering process that needs the Gi  Ga

RF ¼ ð15Þ
prediction of critical desorption pressure. Langmuir Gi
adsorption isotherm helps in such a prediction (Liang
where RF = gas recovery factor, Gi = initial gas
et al. 2017). In this investigation, the Langmuir
content, and Ga = abandoned gas content
adsorption isotherm of coal at 580 m depth was
The abandoned gas content (Ga) is typically
developed between gas storage capacity and pressure
determined at 100 psi (0.68 MPa) from the Langmuir
to determine the saturation level as well as critical
adsorption isotherm (Mazumder and Wolf 2004).
desorption pressure. The pressure at which desorption
Thus the Ga value was found to be 1.213 cc/g. A
of gas from coal matrix starts depends on its critical
recovery factor of 0.90 was obtained from initial gas
desorption pressure and gas content at in situ condi-
content and abandoned gas content at an abandoned
tions. It is observed that at 15.66 MPa vertical load
pressure at 0.68 MPa.
with 12.13 cc/g gas content, the reservoir represent
Recovery of the gas in CBM practice depends on
unsaturated condition (Fig. 14). The dewatering to
the relative permeability of gas and water. In CBM
reduce the pressure up to the critical desorption
extraction the relative permeability of gas typically
pressure at about 8 Mpa is required for successful
increases with a decrease in the permeability of water.
methane production (Fig. 14).
The increase in relative permeability increases the
The gas recovery factor in the given conditions was
saturation of a gas in the coal matrix. Therefore it
determined by using the following relationship: (Sei-
needs the development of the relationship between gas
dle 2011)

Fig. 14 Critical desorption pressure model

123

saturation and relative permeability before the extrac-
tion of CBM. Gas and water relative permeability and
gas saturation is correlated with: (Seidle 2011)
 n0 h  2þk i
krg ¼ kgr 1  Sw 1  Sw k ð16Þ
 2þ3k
krw ¼ Sw k
Sw  Siw
Sw ¼
1  Siw
where skrg = gas relative permeability, kgr = gas rel-
ative permeability at irreducible water saturation,
krw = water relative permeability, k = empirical coef-
ficient, n0 = empirical coefficient, Sw = water satura-
tion, and Siw = irreducible water saturation.
It is observed that the gas is immobile until its
saturation is about 60%, indicating that the extraction
of CBM will not be started until it reached to 60% of
saturation level (Fig. 15). This observation confirms
favorably as reported elsewhere (Vishal et al. 2015).
7.6 Production rate and cumulative volume
Simulation was carried out to predict the gas flow rate
as well as cumulative gas volume over a period of
twenty-five years. A 2-D reservoir model with five
productions wells is represented in Fig. 16. The
contour shows the reduction in gas concentration
around the well with spent time. An increase in gas
rate as well as cumulative gas volume was observed
for the first 18 years that remain constant afterward,
indicating saturation of coal bed reservoir (Figs. 17,
18 and 19). The maximum gas rate observed were
10,358, 11,372 and 11,722 m3/day at permeability
1 krg
0.8
Relative Permeability
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 effect of permeability on well performance. Gas rate,
0 0.2 0.4
Gas Saturation
Fig. 15 Relative permeability and gas saturation behaviour
123
Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
value of 0.31, 0.62 and 1.62 mD respectively and
corresponding cumulative gas volume were
6.35 9 107, 6.53 9 107 and 6.58 9 107 m3 respec-
tively. The rate of gas production and cumulative
volume of gas obtained from the reservoir simulation
was also compared with different coal basin world-
wide (Table 12). The maximum rate of production of
ð17Þ
gas in the study area compares favorably to those of
the studies carried out worldwide (Okeke 2005; Wei
ð18Þ et al. 2007; Keim 2011).
7.7 Effect of rate of dewatering
Sensitivity analysis was carried out to examine the
effect of different input parameters on CBM produc-
tion. The initial set of runs examined the gas flow rate
as well as the accumulated volume of gas over twenty-
five years. The results of the simulation were analyzed
to determine the primary performance of the produc-
tion well at varying dewatering rate. A total of 10 rates
of dewatering at different fracture permeability were
investigated for prediction of CBM extraction. The
rate of CBM extraction varied from 365 to 10,358,
from 376.82 to 11,372 and from 381.7 to
11,722 m3/day at permeability of 0.31, 0.62 and 1.62
mD respectively (Figs. 20, 21 and 22). The corre-
sponding cumulative volume over 25 years varied
from 1.03 9 106 to 6.35 9 107, from 1.17 9 106 to
6.53 9 107 and from 1.24 9 106 to 6.58 9 107 m3
(Figs. 23, 24 and 25). The results show an increase in
production as well as cumulative gas volume with an
increase in the rate of dewatering. The increase in the
gas rate is due to a higher reduction in reservoir
pressure at a higher rate of dewatering. A pressure
difference created between the inner and outer surface
of coal matrix due to reduction in reservoir pressure
krw influences fast rate of gas desorption as it starts
flowing through the micro and macro channels of the
coal block. This behaviour follows the similar trend
reported elsewhere (Wang et al. 2012, 2017; Fahad
2013; Yumin et al. 2016).
7.8 Effect of permeability on well performance
Sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the
0.6 0.8 1
as well as cumulative gas volume, varied from 327.47
to 346.52 m3/day and from 1.03 9 106 to 1.24 9 106
m3 at varying permeability from 0.31 to 1.62 mD
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Fig. 16 CBM productions contour at 580 m

Fig. 17 CBM production in

580 m depth at 0.31 mD

(Figs. 26 and 27). An average increment of the gas rate well as cumulative volume recovery, is due to the ease
at 6.43% was observed. The increase in gas rate, as of flow of gas at higher permeability. The saturation of

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Fig. 18 CBM production in

580 m depth at 0.62 mD

Fig. 19 CBM production in

580 m depth at 1.62 mD

gas increases in the coal bed with dewatering but due
to less permeation and absence of fractures hinders the
mobility of gas. The similar trend was observed in
reservoir simulations reported elsewhere (Fahad 2013;
Maffucci et al. 2015; Yumin et al. 2016; Wang et al.
2017) (Fig. 28).
7.9 Effect of depth of coal seam on gas rate
The correlation was established between the burial
depth and gas rate to determine the effect of burial
depth on well performance. An average increment in
the gas rate at 4.30% was observed at depth from 560
to 600 m respectively (Fig. 29). Which is due to the

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Table 12 Comparison of rate of gas production in the study area vis a vis at other side
Author Location Depth Coalbed Coal Gas content Porosity Permeability Gas rate
thickness rank (m3/t) (%) (mD) (m3/d)
(m) (Avg.)

Gentzis et al. Mannville coals in 700–1300 [ 4 HVB 8.5–14.0 5–6 1–4 20,000
(2008) Alberta, Canada
Keim (2011) Qinshui Hancheng 190–640 [6 LVB 9.9–38.2 1.1–7.6 0.1–6.7 18,536
Basin, Area
China Ningwu 190–640 [6 LVB 9.9–38.2 1.1–7.6 0.1–6.7 23,531
Area
Jincheng 190–640 [6 LVB 9.9–38.2 1.1–7.6 0.1–6.7 21,560
Area
Dacheng 190–640 [6 LVB 9.9–38.2 1.1–7.6 0.1–6.7 19,821
Area
Yan et al. Ordos Basin, China 463–1103 [ 8 LVB 0.2–20.4 2.6–8.4 0.016–5.52 15,804
(2015), Xiao to
et al. (2005) HVB
Zhao et al. Qinshui Basin, China 513–1336 [ 8 LVB 20.3–31.5 3.0–8.0 0.017–0.47 16,903
(2016) to
HVB
Study area Jharia Basin, Moonidih 560–600 6.1 LVB 11.07–13.19 3.6–8.2 0.317–1.62 11,722
Area, India to
HVB

Dewatering 10 m3/day Dewatering 10 m3/day

K = 0.31 mD Dewatering 20 m3/day 12000 K = 0.62 mD
Dewatering 20 m3/day
Dewatering 30 m3/day Dewatering 30 m3/day
10000 Dewatering 40 m3/day Dewatering 40 m3/day
Dewatering 50 m3/day Dewatering 50 m3/day
10000 Dewatering 60 m3/day
Gas Rate (m3/day)

Dewatering 60 m3/day
Dewatering 70 m3/day Dewatering 70 m3/day
8000
Gas Rate (m3/day)

Dewatering 80 m3/day Dewatering 80 m3/day

Dewatering 90 m3/day 8000 Dewatering 90 m3/day
Dewatering 100 m3/day
Dewatering 100 m3/day
6000
6000
4000
4000

2000
2000

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Year) Time (Year)

Fig. 20 Variation in CBM production with dewatering Fig. 21 Variation in CBM production with dewatering

increase in gas content. High gas content is equivalent 7.10 Effect of fracture spacing on gas rate
to a high gas saturation in the same tectonic setting of
high gas saturation, decrease the energy of coal The gas rate was evaluated at varying cleat spacing
reservoir that needs when the gas leaves the coal from 10.19 to 18.19 mm. A linear correlation was
matrix and changes to a free state from an adsorption observed between gas rate and fracture spacing with
state (Meng and Li 2013). The decrease in the energy very less difference in gas rate. An average increment
leads to the faster desorption of gas from the coal of the gas rate was observed at 0.04% (Fig. 30). The
matrix and therefore gas rate increases. gas rate with fracture spacing indicates negligible
influence of the fracture spacing on CBM production.

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.

Dewatering 10 m3/day Dewatering 10 m3/day

K = 1.62 mD 7.00E+07 K = 1.62 mD
12000 Dewatering 20 m3/day Dewatering 20 m3/day
Dewatering 30 m3/day
Dewatering 30 m3/day
Dewatering 40 m3/day
Dewatering 40 m3/day 6.00E+07 Dewatering 50 m3/day
Dewatering 50 m3/day

Cumulative Gas (m3)

Dewatering 60 m3/day
10000
Gas Rate (m3/day)

Dewatering 60 m3/day Dewatering 70 m3/day

Dewatering 70 m3/day 5.00E+07 Dewatering 80 m3/day
Dewatering 80 m3/day Dewatering 90 m3/day
Dewatering 100 m3/day
8000 Dewatering 90 m3/day 4.00E+07
Dewatering 100 m3/day

6000 3.00E+07

2.00E+07
4000
1.00E+07
2000
0.00E+00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0
Time (Year)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Year)
Fig. 25 Variation in cumulative gas volume with permeability
Fig. 22 Variation in CBM production with dewatering and dewatering

7.00E+07 Dewatering 10 m3/day

K = 0.31 mD 375
Dewatering 20 m3/day
Dewatering 30 m3/day
6.00E+07 Dewatering 40 m3/day
Dewatering 50 m3/day 300
Dewatering 60 m3/day

Gas Rate (m3/day)

5.00E+07 Dewatering 70 m3/day K = 1.62 mD
Cumulative Gas (m3)

Dewatering 80 m3/day K = 0.62 mD

Dewatering 90 m3/day 225 K = 0.31 mD
4.00E+07 Dewatering 100 m3/day

3.00E+07 150

2.00E+07
75
1.00E+07
0
0.00E+00 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (Year)
Time (Year)
Fig. 26 The rate of production with variation in permeability
Fig. 23 Variation in cumulative gas volume with permeability
and dewatering

1.20E+06
7.00E+07 Dewatering 10 m3/day
Dewatering 20 m3/day K = 0.62 mD
Dewatering 30 m3/day
6.00E+07 Dewatering 40 m3/day K = 1.62 mD
Gas Rate (m3/day)

9.00E+05
Cumulative Gas (m3)

Dewatering 50 m3/day K = 0.62 mD

5.00E+07 Dewatering 60 m3/day
K = 0.31 mD
Dewatering 70 m3/day
Dewatering 80 m3/day
4.00E+07 Dewatering 90 m3/day 6.00E+05
Dewatering 100 m3/day
3.00E+07
2.00E+07 3.00E+05

1.00E+07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 0 5 10 15 20 25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Time (Year)
Time (Year)
Fig. 27 Cumulative productions with variation in permeability
Fig. 24 Variation in cumulative gas volume with permeability
and dewatering
number of wells in a given area. Increase in grid
7.11 Effect of grid blocks on gas rate blocks increases the effective drained area more areas
exhibiting higher recoveries. The observation con-
The histogram was created to display the modelled firms to that obtained in reservoir simulation mod-
grid blocks for each well layout with gas rate after elling (Okeke 2005; Keim 2011).
twenty-five years of production (Fig. 31). An average
increase in the gas rate of 1.55% was observed in
hydraulically fractured well with a variety of grid
blocks. The increase in gas rate is due to decrease in
drainage areas and subsequently increasing the

123
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Fig. 28 Variation of the gas rate with permeability
Fig. 29 Variation of the gas rate with the depth of occurrence
Fig. 30 Variation of the gas rate with fracture spacing
Fig. 31 Variation of the gas rate with grid blocks
8 Conclusions
The investigation was to determine the CBM potential
of an Indian coal seams. The objectives were achieved
by a experimentally determining the influencing
parameters as porosity, permeability, gas content,
pore pressure, adsorption/desorption behaviour, pet-
rographic investigation as well as simulating the seam
behaviour through numerical modeling. The following
conclusions are as discussed below.
• The variation of vitrinite macerals and percentage
of vitrinite reflectance as well as proximate,
ultimate and petrographic parameters confirms
the commercial prospect of CBM in the study area.
• The methane content from 8.09 to 12.13 cc/g at the
depth 400–580 m exceed the threshold value
8.5 cc indicating the potential of methane in the
study area.
• Maximum adsorption capacity obtained was 13.29
for CH4 at 580 m.
• Methane permeability varies from 0.31 to 0.95 mD
for 400–580 m respectively.
• Permeability reduced up to 84% at the confining
pressure 1–6 Mpa.
• Increased methane production was observed from
360 m3/day to 390 m3/day at varying permeability
from 0.31 to 1.62 mD and the dewatering of
10 m3/day over twenty-five years of well life.
• An average increment in the gas flow rate at 4.30%
was observed between 560 and 600 m respectively
reflecting higher quantity.
• An average increase in the gas rate of 1.55% was
observed in hydraulically fractured reflecting high
permeability.
Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge the financial
assistance provided by SERB, DST, vide approval No: SB/S4/
ES-697/2013.
References
Alama MM, Borrea MK, Fabricius IL, Hedegaard K, Rogena B,
Hossain Z, Krogsboll AS (2010) Biot’s coefficient as an
indicator of strength and porosity reduction: calcareous
sediments from Kerguelen Plateau. J Pet Sci Eng
70:282–297
Amin G, Gasparik M, Alexandra AH, Gensterblum Y, Krooss
BM (2014) Experimental study of fluid transport processes
123
 Author's personal copy
in the matrix system of the European organic-rich shales: I.
Scandinavian Alum Shale. J Mar Pet Geol 51:79–99
Aminian K (2009) Type curves for coalbed methane production
prediction. SPE 91482 presented at the SPE eastern
regional meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, 15–17
September
ASTM Standard Method of Preparing Coal Samples for Anal-
ysis (1994) ASTM D2013 - 86
Averitt P, Berryhill LR (1950) Coal resources of the United
States. A Progress Report. United States Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey
Bell GJ, Rakop KC (1986) Hysteresis of methane/coal sorption
isotherms. In: 61st annual technical conference and exhi-
bition of the society of petroleum engineers, New Orleans
Berrezueta E, Domı́nguez-Cuesta MJ, Ordóñez-Casado B,
Medina C, Molinero R (2017) Pore space quantification of
sedimentary rocks before-after supercritical CO2 interac-
tion by optical image analysis. Energy Proc
114:4382–4393
Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) (2015) Feasibility Report
on Moonidih Coal Bed Methane Project. Part of Cluster XI,
CMPDI, Regional Institute-II Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad
Bhavsar AB (2005) Prediction of coalbed methane reservoir
performance with type curves. Thesis submitted to the
college of engineering and mineral resources, petroleum
and natural gas engineering, West Virginia University
Biot MA (1941) Biot General theory of three-dimensional
consolidation. J Appl Phys 12:155–164
Bo L, Jianping W, Kai W, Peng L (2014) Wang, ‘‘A method of
determining the permeability coefficient of coal seam
based on the permeability of loaded coal. Int J Min Sci
Technol 24:637–641
Chandra K (1997) Alternative hydrocarbon resources in the next
millennium. Geohorizons 2(2):443
Chatterjee R, Paul S, Pal PK, Srivastava VK (2010) Formation
evaluation and characterization of CBM reservoir rocks
from well logs of Jharia Coalfield, India. Petrotech, New
Delhi
Chen Jane, Shi Su, Pohl John H (2004) Use of maceral content to
characterize Steam coal performance. Fuel Chem
49:923–924
Cheng Y, Jiang H, Zhang X, Cui J, Song C, Li X (2017) Effects
of coal rank on physicochemical properties of coal and on
methane adsorption. Int J Coal Sci Technol 4:129–146
Connell LD, Lu M, Pan Z (2010) An analytical coal perme-
ability model for tri-axial strain and stress conditions. Int J
Coal Geol 84:103–114
Cui X, Bustin RM (2005) Volumetric strain associated with
methane desorption and its impact on coalbed gas pro-
duction from deep coal seams. AAPG Bull 89:1181–1202
Fahad M (2013) Simulation of Fluid Flow and Estimation of
Production from Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. Ph.D.
thesis submitted in department of Petroleum Engineering,
University of New South Wales
Gash BW, Volz RF, Potter G, Corgan JM (1993) The effects of
cleat orientation and confining pressure on cleat porosity,
permeability and relative permeability in coal. In: Pro-
ceedings of the international coalbed methane symposium,
Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama
Gentzis T, Goodarzi F, Cheung FK, Laggoun-Défarge F (2008)
Coalbed methane producibility from the Mannville coals in
123
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Alberta, Canada: a comparison of two areas. Int J Coal
Geol 74:237–249
Ghosh S, Jha P, Vidyarthi AS (2014) Unraveling the microbial
interactions in organic coal fermentation for generation of
methane—A classical to metagenomic approach. Int J Coal
Geol 125:36–44
Gray I (1987) Reservoir engineering in coal seams part 1: the
physical process of gas storage and movement in coal
seams. Soc Pet Eng 2:28–35
Guo P, Cheng Y (2013) Permeability prediction in deep coal
seam: a case study on the No. 3 coal seam of the Southern
Qinshui Basin in China. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.
1155/2013/161457
Holloway S (1997) An overview of the underground disposal of
carbon dioxide. Energy Convers Manag 38:193–198
Indian Standard methods for sampling of coal and coke (1965)
IS: 436 (Part l/Set 1) – 1964
Izadi G, Wang S, Elsworth D, Liu J, Wu Y, Pone D (2011)
Permeability evolution of fluid-infiltrated coal containing
discrete fractures. Int J Coal Geol 85:202–211
Jing X, Gao M, Yu B, Zhang R, Jin W (2015) Coal permeability
model on the effect of gas extraction within effective
influence zone. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Re-
sour 1:15–27
Jun LJ, Guang L (2012) Numerical simulation of CO2 flooding
coal bed methane considered mixture shrinkage effect.
EJGE 17:3797–3802
Kazemi H (1976) Numerical simulation of water-oil flow in
naturally fractured reservoirs. Soc Pet Eng J 16:317–326
Keim SA (2011) Optimization of coalbed methane completion
strategies, selection criteria and production prediction: a
case study in China’s Qinshui Basin. Ph.D. Dissertation
submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
tute and State University
Khan C, Ge L, Rudolph V (2015) Reservoir simulation study for
CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers. Int J Appl Sci Technol
5:30–45
Koenig RA, Stubbs PB (1986) Interference testing of a coalbed
methane reservoir. Presented at the SPE Unconventional
Gas Technology Symposium, Louisville, Kentucky
Lama RD, Bartosiewicz H (1984) Determination of gas content
of coal seams. Seam gas drainage with particular reference
to the working seam. University of Wollongong, Wollon-
gong, pp 36–52
Lee GJ, Kwon TH (2016) Effect of swelling of coal-induced by
carbon dioxide adsorption on permeability and P-wave
velocity. In: World congress on ACEM, Jeju Island, Korea
Li S, Zhang B (2016) Research of coalbed methane develop-
ment well-type optimization method based on unit tech-
nical cost. Sustainability 8:843
Li M, Cao J, Li W (2016) Stress and damage induced gas flow
pattern and permeability variation of coal from Songzao
Coalfield in Southwest China. Energies 9:2–16
Liang W, Shimin L, Yuanping C, Guangzhi Y, Dongming Z,
Pinkun G (2017) Reservoir reconstruction technologies for
coalbed methane recovery in deep and multiple seams. Int J
Min Sci Technol 27:277–284
Liu S, Harpalani S (2012) Gas production induced stress and
permeability variations in coalbed methane reservoirs.
American Rock Mechanics Association, 46th US rock
mechanics/geomechanics symposium, Chicago, IL, USA
 Author's personal copy
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Liu HH, Rutqvist J (2010) A new coal-permeability model:
internal swelling stress and fracture-matrix interaction.
Transp Porous Media 82:157–171
Liu J, Li G, Zhang Y (2016) Numerical simulation of CO2
flooding of coalbed methane considering the fluid-solid
coupling effect. PLoS ONE 11:1–16
Maffucci R, Bigi S, Corrado S, Chiodi A, Paolo LD, Giordano G
(2015) Quality assessment of reservoirs using outcrop data
and ‘‘discrete fracture network’’ models: the case history of
Rosario de La Frontera (NW Argentina) geothermal sys-
tem. Tectonophysics 647:112–131
Makinde I, Lee WJ (2016) Reservoir simulation models—im-
pact on production forecasts and performance of shale
volatile oil reservoirs. J Gen Eng 16:53–69
Mavor MJ, Robinson JR (1993) Analysis of coal gas reservoir
interference and cavity well tests. Paper SPE 25860. Pre-
sented at the joint rocky mountain regional and low per-
meability reservoirs symposium, Denver, Colorado
Mazumder S, Wolf KAA (2004) An overview of the potentials
and prospects of coalbed Methane exploration and
exploitation In the permo-carboniferous coal measures Of
the barakar formation, jharia basin, india. Geol Belg
7:147–156
Meng ZP, Li GQ (2013) Experimental research on permeability
of high-rank coal under a varying stress and its influencing
factors. Eng Geol 162:108–117
Mohalik NK (2017) Development of a petrographic technique to
assess the spontaneous combustion susceptibility of Indian
coals. Int J Coal Prep Util. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19392699.2017.1360874
MoM Alama MK, Borrea IL Fabricius, Hedegaard K, Rogena B,
Hossain Z, Krogsboll AS (2010) Biot’s coefficient as an
indicator of strength and porosity reduction: calcareous
sediments from Kerguelen Plateau. J Pet Sci Eng
70:282–297
Moore TA (2012) Coalbed methane: a review. Int J Coal Geol
101:36–81
Mora CA (2007) Comparison of computation methods For CBM
production performance. Thesis on Master of Science,
Texas A and M University, Petroleum Engineering
Mukherjee PK, Sinha DP, Rawat DS (1999) Coal Bed Methane:
How India fits as a potential candidate in CBM prospect
and potentiality, vol 5. SAAEG, pp 79–87
Okeke AN (2005) Sensitivity analysis of modeling parameters
that affect the dual peaking behavior in coalbed methane
reservoirs. Thesis on Master of Science, Texas A and M
University, Petroleum Engineering, pp 30
Pan Z, Connell DL, Camilleri M, Connelly L (2010) Effects of
matrix moisture on gas diffusion and flow in coal. Fuels
89:3207–3217
Perera MSA, Ranjith PG (2012) Carbon dioxide sequestration
effects on coal’s hydro-mechanical properties: a review. Int
J Energy Res 36:1015–1031
Prusty BK (2008) Sorption of methane and CO2 for enhanced
coalbed methane recovery and carbon dioxide sequestra-
tion. J Nat Gas Chem 17:29–38
Ranathunga AS, Perera MSA, Ranjith PG, De Silva GPD (2017)
A macro-scale view of the influence of effective stress on
carbon dioxide flow behaviour in coal: an experimental
study. Geomech Geophys Geo-Energy Geo-Resour
3:13–28
Reiss LH (1980) The reservoir engineering aspects of fractured
reservoirs. Gulf Publishing Company, Paris
Rice DD (1993) Composition and origins of coalbed gas. Am
Assoc Pet Geol Stud Geol 38:159–184
Saikia K, Sarkar BC (2007) EXGID – A prototype exploration
geological information system for Jharia coalfield, India.
J Sci Ind Res 66:513–516
Seidle J (2011) Fundamental of coal bed methane reservoir
engineering. Penn Well Corporation, Oklahoma
Shi JQ, Durucan S (2005) CO2 storage in deep un-minable coal
seams. Oil Gas Sci Technol 60:547–558
Sinayuc C (2007) Modeling of Enhanced Coalbed Methane
Recovery Technology. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Petroleum
and Natural Gas Engineering, METU
Siriwardane HJ, Gondle RK, Smith DH (2009) Shrinkage and
swelling of coal-induced by desorption and sorption of
fluids: theoretical model and interpretation of a field pro-
ject. Int J Coal Geol 77:188–202
Song Y, Xing W, Zhang Y, Jian W, Liu Z, Liu S (2015)
Adsorption isotherms and kinetics of carbon dioxide on
Chinese dry coal over a wide pressure range. Int J Adsorpt
21:53–65
Speight JG (2005) Handbook of coal analysis – a series of
Monographs on analytical chemistry and its applications,
vol 166, pp 238
Taheri A, Sereshki F, Ardejani FD, Mirzaghorbanali A (2016)
Numerical modeling of gas flow in coal pores for methane
drainage. J Sustain Min 15:95–99
Vishal V, Ranjith PG, Singh TN (2013) CO2 permeability of
Indian bituminous coals: implications for carbon seques-
tration. Int J Coal Geol 105:36–47
Vishal V, Ranjith P, Singh T (2015) An experimental investi-
gation on behaviour of coal under fluid saturation, using
acoustic emission. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 22:428–436
Wang S, Elsworth D, Liu J (2012) A mechanistic model for
permeability evolution in fractured sorbing media. J Geo-
phys Res Solid Earth 117:B06205. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2011jb008855
Wang Z, Li Y, Liu H, Zeng F, Guo P, Jiang W (2017) Study on
the adsorption, diffusion and permeation selectivity of
shale gas in organics. Energies 10:142
Warren JE, Root PJ (1963) The behavior of naturally fractured
reservoirs. SPE J 3:245–255
Wei XR, Wang GX, Massarotto P, Golding SD, Rudolph V
(2007) A review on recent advances in the numerical
simulation for coal bed-methane-recovery process. SPE
Reserve Eval Eng 10:657–666
White CM (2005) Sequestration of carbon dioxide in coal with
enhanced coalbed methane recovery—A review. Energy
Fuels 19:659–724
Wierzbicki M (2013) Changes in the sorption/diffusion kinetics
of a coal-methane system caused by different temperatures
and pressures. Instytut Mechaniki Gorotworu PAN, Kra-
kow, p 159
Wu Y, Liu J, Chen Z, Elsworth D, Pone D (2011) A dual
poroelastic model for CO2-enhanced coalbed methane
recovery. Int J Coal Geol 86:177–189
Xiao XM, Zhao BQ, Thu ZL, Song ZG, Wilkins RWT (2005)
Upper paleozoic petroleum system, Ordos Basin, China.
Mar Pet Geol 22:945–963
123
 Author's personal copy
Yan S, Liu S, Zhang Q, Tao M, Zhao M, Feng H (2012) Coalbed
methane genesis, occurrence and accumulation in China.
Pet Sci 9:269–280
Yan T, Yao Y, Liu D (2015) Critical tectonic events and their
geological controls on gas generation, migration, and
accumulation in the weibei coalbed methane field, South-
east Ordos Basin. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 27:1367–1380
Yan C, Cheng Y, Deng F, Tian J (2017) Permeability change
caused by stress damage of gas shale. Energies 10:1350
Yang Y, Zoback MD (2011) The effects of gas adsorption on
swelling, visco-plastic creep and permeability of sub-bi-
tuminous coal. American Rock Mechanics Association,
San Francisco
Ye Z, Zhang L, Hao D, Zhang C, Wang C (2017) Experimental
study on the response characteristics of coal permeability
to pore pressure under loading and unloading conditions.
J Geophys Eng 14:115–124
Young GBC, McElhiney JE, Dhir R, Mavor MJ, Anbouba IKA
(1991) Coal bed methane production potential of the rock
springs formation, Great Divide Basin, Sweetwater
County, Wyoming. Presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Houston, Texas
123
Geomech. Geophys. Geo-energ. Geo-resour.
Yumin L, Zhiping L, Dazhen T, Xu H, Chen X (2016) Perme-
ability variation models for unsaturated coalbed methane
reservoirs. J Oil Gas Sci Technol 71:2–14
Zhao X, Yang Y, Sun F, Wang B, Zuo Y, Li M, Shen J, Mu F
(2016) Enrichment mechanism and exploration and
development technologies of high coal rank coalbed
methane in South Qinshui Basin, Shanxi Province. Pet
Explore Dev 43:332–339
Zheng G, Pan Z, Chen Z, Tang S, Connell LD, Zhang S, Wang B
(2012) Laboratory study of gas permeability and cleat
compressibility for CBM/ECBM in Chinese coals. Energy
Explorat Exploit 30:451–476
Zhu WC, Wei CH, Liu J, Xu T, Elsworth D (2013) Impact of gas
adsorption induced coal matrix damage on the evolution of
coal permeability. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:1353–1366
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.