M Fraillon

TH
HEE NU
UM ER
ME CA
RIIC L MO
AL OD EL
DE NG
LIIN OF
GO F FL
LUUIID
D
FLLO
OW N CO
W IIN OA LA
AL A PO
ASS A OR OU
RO USS ME
EDDIIA
A
M
MEEDDRRIICCAA F
FRRAAIILLLLO
ONN
B
BAACCH
HEEL
LOOR
ROOFF E
ENNG
GIIN
NEEE
ERRIIN
NGG ((C
CHHE
EMMIIC
CA L))
AL
D
DEEPPAARRTTM
MEEN
NT OFF C
TO CHHE
EMMIIC
CA LE
AL ENNG
GIIN
NEEE
ERRIIN
NGG
T
TH EU
HE OFF Q
UNNIIVVEERRSSIITTYY O QUUEEEENNSSLLAANNDD
O
OCCTTO
OBBE
ERR 22000000
The Numerical Modeling of Fluid Flow in Coal as a Porous Media
Medrica Fraillon
4/74 Sir Fred Schonell Dr
St. Lucia QLD 4067
27 October 2000
The Executive Dean

Faculty of Engineering, Physical Sciences and Architecture
The University of Queensland
St.Lucia QLD 4067
Dear Sir,
As partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of

Engineering (Chemical), I submit for your consideration this thesis entitled:
“The Numerical Modeling of Fluid Flow in Coal as a Porous Media”
I declare that the works presented in this thesis are, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, original except as acknowledged in the text. The material has not
been submitted, either in part or in whole, for a degree at this or any other
university.
Yours faithfully
Medrica Fraillon
Page ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Assoc.Prof. Jim Litster for his direction
and insight.
Thank you to Mr. Paul Massarotto for suggesting I take on this thesis and for his
guidance throughout the semester.
I would like to express my deepest thanks to my parents, who have provided

continued support throughout this course and my life.
Page iii
ABSTRACT
The primary objective of this project is to develop a model capable of predicting

the single-phase flow of methane, through coal as a porous media. The effect of
the tortuous nature of the fracture network in coal was included. The
mathematical model was successfully developed, however implementation of
the solution procedure was not achieved.
Since a solution was not obtained predictions were made on the sensitivity of
the model to varying parameters such as permeability, depth of coal seam and
effective stress. It was predicted that an increase in permeability and cleat
aperture led to an increase in flowrate of methane through coal. However an
increase in effective stress, depth and tortuosity would result in a decrease in
flowrate.
Permeability and porosity are two characteristics of coal that influence fluid
flow through its pores. These characteristics are inturn related to the tortuous
nature of cleat fractures, and hence tortuosity of the coal body will also effect
methane flow.
Various reservoir simulators were reviewed and their main features noted. It
was apparent that these simulators lacked a model that included the effects of
tortuosity. Incorporating the influence of tortuosity into the model was
facilitated by the derivation of an equation for tortuosity based on the cleat
structure of coal.
Potential for further development of the model was discussed and the possible
system applications were identified. These applications were primarily
concerned with assisting in the extraction of methane from the strata of coal.
Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW 2
2.1 GLOBAL COALBED METHANE INDUSTRY......................................................................... 2

2.2 COAL STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................. 2
2.3 METHANE RETENTION IN COAL ....................................................................................... 3
2.4 METHANE FLOW IN COAL ................................................................................................. 4
2.4.1 DIFFUSIVE FLOW .............................................................................................................. 4
2.4.2 LAMINAR FLOW ................................................................................................................ 4
2.5 PERMEABILITY ................................................................................................................... 4
2.5.1 PERMEABILITY DEFINED .................................................................................................. 5
2.5.2 PERMEABILITY DATA ....................................................................................................... 5
2.6 POROSITY............................................................................................................................ 6
2.6.1 POROSITY DEFINED .......................................................................................................... 6
2.6.2 POROSITY DATA ............................................................................................................... 7
2.7 TORTUOSITY ....................................................................................................................... 8
2.7.1 TORTUOSITY DEFINED ...................................................................................................... 8
2.7.2 TORTUOSITY DATA ........................................................................................................... 8
2.8 RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE .................................................................... 9
2.9 RESERVOIR SIMULATION................................................................................................... 9
2.9.1 FLUID FLOW MODELS ..................................................................................................... 10
2.9.2 REVIEW OF RESERVOIR SIMULATORS ............................................................................ 11
2.10 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 3 – MODEL DEVELOPMENT 15
3.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION ..................................................................................................... 15
Page v
3.2 DATA FOR MODEL ............................................................................................................ 15

3.2.1 PERMEABILITY AND POROSITY DATA ............................................................................. 15
3.2.2 FLUID PVT DATA ............................................................................................................ 15
3.2.3 INITIAL GAS CONTENT.................................................................................................... 16
2.3.4 CLEAT CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................. 16
3.3 ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 MASS BALANCE ................................................................................................................ 17
3.5 FLOW OF GASES ............................................................................................................... 18
3.6 COAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................ 19
3.6.1 TORTUOSITY ................................................................................................................... 19
3.6.2 SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA................................................................................................ 21
3.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 21
3.8 INITIAL CONDITIONS........................................................................................................ 22
3.9 DEGREE OF FREEDOM ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 22
3.10 SOLUTION PROCEDURE.................................................................................................. 24
3.10.1 FINITE DIFFERENCES .................................................................................................... 24
3.10.2 ORDINARY DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION .......................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 4 – DISCUSSION 26
4.1 PREDICTED RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 26

4.2 POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 26
4.3 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION 28
REFERENCES 29
Page vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Cleating Structure of Coal.................................................................... 3

Figure 2 – Laboratory Measured Permeability vs Effective Stress of the
San Juan Basin ............................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 – Path Lengths of Tortuosity ................................................................... 8
Figure 4 – Mass Balance Over Box...................................................................... 17
Figure 5 – Derivation of Tortuous Flow Path Terms.......................................... 20
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Length of Cleat Spacing and Aperture in Coal ............................3

Table 2 – Permeability of Coal of the San Juan Basin ................................5
Table 3 – Porosity (%) Measurements using Different Methods .................7
Table 4 – Features of General Reservoir Simulators .................................13
Table 5 – Features of General Reservoir Simulators .................................14
Table 6 – Methane PVT data .......................................................................16
Table 7 – Cleat Characteristics....................................................................16
Table 8 – Variables Defined to Satisfy DOF...............................................23
Page vii
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Large amounts of methane gas can be stored naturally in a coal reservoir under low
pressures. If the coal body is disturbed by a borehole or mining activity, a gas
pressure gradient will be created, which will allow methane to flow through fractures
in the coal. The primary reason for removing methane from mines is to reduce
methane emissions, which are the main cause of mine explosions. Another incentive
for the extraction of methane is its use as a clean fuel source. Methane extraction may
now be undertaken for this purpose in areas where there is no intention of mining.
The need for reservoir models that can be used to predict and evaluate production of
coal gas is apparent. There are many types of reservoir simulators available and some
have been tailored to model coalbed methane reservoirs. Wide spread utilization of
coalbed methane models has established these tools for analysing and estimating
production from coalbed methane wells. However, current models do not account for
the influence on flow of the tortuosity characteristics of coal.
It is the aim of this thesis to predict the single-phase flow of methane through coal as
a porous media. Since coal bodies are relatively thin in comparison to their length
and width the geometry can be assumed to be two-dimensional. The flow of methane
from its original position is retarded by narrow and tortuous interconnections between
fractures, which will be incorporated in the model. The desired outcome is that this
model will aid in the extraction of methane from the strata of coal reservoirs.
Page 1
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review discusses all relevant aspects of fluid flow through coal,
reservoir simulation and reviews literature concerning these topics. Through review
of the theory of fluid flow through a porous media and its simulation, the modeling of
methane flow through coal can be attempted. This model will include the effect of
tortuous interconnections between fractures.
2.1 Global Coalbed Methane Industry
Coalbed methane recovery in conjunction with coal mining operations is practiced at

some level in most, if not all, of the worlds coal producing countries (CIAB & IEA,
1994).
Under the ideal conditions of longwall mining of deep gassy seams where up to date
technology is available, as much as 60 to 70% of coalbed methane emissions can be
recovered and utilized. Of the 25 million tonnes of methane emitted by the coal
mining industry world wide, only about 7% is recovered and used. Although a higher
percentage is recovered, use is not always possible (CIAB & IEA, 1994).
In Australia the coalbed methane industry has substantial potential. The methane
resources of the Australian coalfields have been estimated to be of the order 10 to 11
trillion m3 (Brown, 1996). In the U.S the industry continues to expand as deeper and
gassier coal seams are being mined. Coal production in Germany and the U.K. has
stabilized and with it the recovery of coalbed methane. The development of the
industry in China is rapid, although limited by the level of technology and knowledge
gained from countries where coalbed methane recovery is more established (CIAB &
IEA, 1994).
2.2 Coal Structure

There are two types of fractures that occur in coal, these are termed face cleats and
butt cleats. Face cleats develop first and tend to be more continuous than butt cleats.
Butt cleats usually form at right angles to face cleats and are discontinuous, resulting
Page 2
in a lower permeability. The general structure of coal in relation to cleating is shown

in figure 1 (Scott 1999). The approximate width of aperture and length of face and
butt cleat spacing in coal is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Length of Cleat Spacing and Aperture in Coal (Massarotto et al. 2000)
Face cleat spacing 10 – 25 mm
Butt cleat spacing 10 – 22 mm
Aperture 0.1 – 2 mm
Figure 1 – Cleating Structure of Coal
2.3 Methane Retention in Coal
In a coal reservoir methane exists in two distinct forms, either as an adsorbed gas or a
free gas whose molecules are able to move within the pores and fracture network. In
a stable state, equilibrium exists between adsorbed and free gas. If the coal seam is
disturbed by a borehole or mining, a pressure gradient is created, which induces flow
of methane through coal fractures. As the pressure drops the rate of desorption
increases and more methane exists as free gas (McPherson 1993).
It is hard to quantify the actual methane content of coal since diffusion of gas into
neighboring seams and rock can occur over time. Skotchinskij and Chodot (1958)
suggested that the primary methane capacity of 100 to 200 m3/ton formed by
bituminous coals was reduced to an actual 50 to 60 m3/ton due to the diffusion
degassing into overlying rocks (Medek et al. 1999).
Page 3
2.4 Methane Flow in Coal

Two types of flow take place through a porous media; they are diffusive flow which
occurs in micropore structure; and laminar flow which occurs in fractures. Laminar
flow governs the rate in high permeability coals, while diffusive flow is the dominant
effect in coals with low permeability (McPherson 1993).
2.4.1 Diffusive Flow

Diffusive flow is described by Fick’s law:
∂C
ux = − D (m / s) (2.1)
∂x
where ux = velocity of diffusion in the x direction (m/s), D = coefficient of diffusion
(m2/s) and C = concentration of the specific gas (m3/m3 of coal). The most common
type of diffusion is bulk diffusion which is gas to gas diffusion caused by a
concentration gradient. Two other types of diffusion arise due to the confines of a
micropore structure. Surface diffusion evolves from lateral movements of the
adsorbed layer of gas on the coal surfaces, while Knudson diffusion occurs from
transient molecular interactions between the gas and the solid (McPherson, 1993).
2.4.2 Laminar Flow

Darcy’s law describes laminar flow for an incompressible fluid:
k ∂P
V= (m / s) (2.2)
µ ∂x
where V = gas velocity (m/s), k = permeability (m2), µ = dynamic viscosity (Ns/m2)
and ∂P/∂x = pressure gradient (Pa/m). Darcy’s law is empirical and assumes that the
gas velocity at the surface is zero. Surface diffusion may become significant for
narrow passages and can be accounted for by adjusting the value of permeability
(McPherson 1993).
2.5 Permeability
The permeability of coal greatly effects economical coalbed methane production. In

some applications it may be allowable to simplify permeability and assume it is
constant. Unfortunately this assumption can not be applied to coal (McPherson
Page 4
1993). The anisotropy of the material causes the permeability to vary with direction.
The permeability also varies with respect to mechanical stress and gas pressure.
2.5.1 Permeability Defined

Permeability is defined as the fluid conductivity of a porous material. It can be
described by re-expressing Darcy’s law:
∂x
k = − Vµ ( µm 2 ) (2.3)
∂P
Assumptions for this correlation are:

• Horizontal linear flow.
• Incompressible fluid.
• Flow induced by pressure gradient.
If it is assumed that permeability is independent of the particular homogeneous
incompressible fluid, then it is a fixed property of the porous media (Ford 1971).
2.5.2 Permeability Data

Information on coal permeability has been difficult to obtain, since permeability tests
have either not been conducted or, if they have, the results remain proprietary. In
1988 McKee et al. derived a fundamental relationship for permeability as a function
of effective stress. Information in the form of specific capacity data, which relate well
flow rate to drawdown permeability and other available information was used to
estimate permeability. The values obtained for coal from the San Juan basin will be
used since they were taken at a constant fluid pressure with varying effective stress.
These values are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 – Permeability of Coal of the San Juan Basin (McKee et al 1988)

Effective Pressure 1.72 MPa
Fluid Pressure 2.14 MPa
Permeability 3.53 x 10-11 m2
The relationship between permeability and effective stress for this basin is shown in
figure 2. It should be noted that compressibility was assumed to be constant, since the
material is relatively consolidated.
Page 5
Figure 2 – Laboratory Measured Permeability vs Effective Stress of the San

Juan Basin (McKee et al 1988)
Permeability can also be found by using the equation of Lucia (1983) (Scott 1999):
w3
kS = (2.4)
Z
where kS = permeability (darcy), w = cleat aperture (cm) and Z = cleat spacing (cm).
This equation relates permeability to aperture size and number of fractures.
2.6 Porosity
The transport of fluids through a fractured rock mass such as coal is closely related to
the geometry of the fracture network. Therefore the porosity of coal is an important
characteristic when modeling methane flow.
2.6.1 Porosity Defined

The porosity of a porous material is defined to be the ratio of void space in the
material to the bulk volume of the material (Ford 1971).
volume of void space

Φ= (2.5)
bulk volume
There are two types of porosity: effective porosity and absolute porosity. Absolute
porosity is defined in the above equation. Effective porosity is defined to exclude
Page 6
pores, which are completely unconnected to the main system of pores. Therefore
absolute porosity is greater than effective porosity. Effective porosity is often given
as a function of pressure or position (Ford 1971).
2.6.2 Porosity Data

McKee et al. (1988) found the porosity of the San Juan basin was approximately 4%.
Montemagno and Pyrak-Nolte obtained more recent data for porosity in 1995. They
measured the bulk porosity of the fracture network of two coal types using two
techniques: a helium-water drive method and a metal injection method. The results
are shown in Table 3. The porosity obtained from the metal injection method is less
than the porosity given by the helium-water drive. Due to the high surface tension of
the metal, the helium is able to access smaller pores.
Table 3 – Porosity (%) Measurements using Different Methods (Montemagno &

Pyrak-Nolte 1995)
Measurement Method Coal A Coal B
Helium-Water Drive 0.22 0.11
Metal Injection 0.082 0.094
The values of porosity given by McKee et al. are much larger than those determined
by Montemagno and Pyrak-Nolte. One should not expect these values to agree since
the coal samples studied are from different locations.
Porosity can be related to permeability by the theory of Wyllie and Rose, who
modified the Kozeny equation for consolidated media (Carman 1956):
Φr 2
k= 2 (2.6)
k0 τ
where r = mean hydraulic radius (m), k0 = Kozeny constant (2.5 for all pores in all
media) and τ = tortuosity. The mean hydraulic radius is defined as:
r = Φ(1 − Φ ) SO (2.7)

where So = specific surface area (cm2/cm3) = total surface / total volume.
Page 7
2.7 Tortuosity
The tortuous nature of fractures in coal can be described in terms of tortuosity τ.
Tortuosity is one of the main physical parameters that influence the flow of fluid
through porous media. An increase in magnitude of this parameter results in the fluid
travelling a longer and more complicated path. It also indicates a decrease in porosity
and permeability (Salem 2000).
2.7.1 Tortuosity Defined

When describing tortuosity many definitions can be used. For the purpose of this
enquiry the path length definition of tortuosity will be applied (Clennel 1997). This
defines tortuosity as the ratio of the length of the tortuous flow path le, to the straight-
line length l in the direction of flow, see figure 3. That is:
le
τ= (2.8)
l
Figure 3 – Path Lengths of Tortuosity
le
2.7.2 Tortuosity Data

There have been many studies conducted on the tortuosity of unconsolidated porous
media. However, fewer studies have been conducted in relation to consolidated
media such as coal. Salem and Chilingarian found that consolidated media attain a
greater value of tortuosity than that of unconsolidated media (Salem 2000). They also
derived a mathematical definition of tortuosity as follows,
τ = (F Φ )
1 /2
(2.9)
where F = dimensionless formation resistivity factor. This correlation can be applied

to unconsolidated and consolidated porous media.
Page 8
Tortuosity can be determined experimentally by using many techniques including

conductivity and diffusion techniques. Information on the tortuosity of coal is
lacking, however studies into similar consolidated media have been undertaken.
Wyllie and Rose experimented with uniform pore sandstone and produced tortuosity
values ranging from 1.64 to 3.54 (Carman 1956). More recent studies by Salem
conducted on shaly and silty sandstone obtained a wide range of tortuosity from 1.5 to
11, with an average value of 3.3 (Salem 2000). Wide ranges of tortuosity indicate
highly complicated porous media.
2.8 Reservoir Temperature and Pressure
The temperature and pressure of a reservoir generally increase with increasing depth.
A correlation has been made relating temperature and pressure to depth, even though
this may be effected by factors such as surface temperature and lithology. In oil
producing areas the temperature gradient is generally within the range of 1.6°C to
3.3°C for each 100m of depth (Frick 1962). The temperature gradient begins at a
mean surface temperature, which has been approximated at 23°C (Frick 1962). There
are two sources of pressure in a reservoir they are: hydrostatic pressure, which is due
to water head, and effective stress, which is caused by the pressure of overburden.
The hydrostatic pressure generally increases 9.8kPa every meter of depth while the
effective stress increases 22kPa per meter (Frick 1962).
According to Gaschnitz et al. (1997) reservoir pressure and temperature is close to 25

MPa and 175°C. These extremely high values were obviously estimated at great
depths since the rate of temperature increase is greater at depths below 3000 meters
(Frick 1962).
2.9 Reservoir Simulation

Reservoir simulation is the process of predicting the behavior of a real reservoir from
the performance of a model of that reservoir. The combination of geological,
geophysical and geochemical models is used to simulate the formation, accumulation
and migration of hydrocarbons in a reservoir (Mastalerz et al, 1999). These models
usually incorporate more specific models such as backstripping and geodynamics,
Page 9
thermal, maturation and fluid flow models (Mastalerz et al, 1999). Backstripping
models simulate the initial conditions of the rock strata by defining the decompaction
of sediments. Geodynamic models are used to reconstruct the heat flow history of the
basins. Thermal models describe the evolution of the temperature field within the
basin. Maturation models simulate the generation of hydrocarbons present in the
reservoir. This review will focus on fluid flow models.
2.9.1 Fluid Flow Models

There are three levels of models involved in developing a program to simulate the
fluid flow in a reservoir (Aziz and Settari, 1979).
• The mathematical model results in a set of non-linear partial differential equations
with initial and boundary conditions.
• The numerical model uses numerical methods to solve the differential equations
developed in the mathematical model.
• The computer model is used to solve the equations of the numerical model.
The mathematical models of reservoir simulators can be classified in many ways

according to their features (Aziz and Setari, 1979).
Treatment of flow in porous media
• Conventional (Darcy’s Law)
• Extended Darcy’s Law to account for turbulent effects
• Fractured porous media
PVT treatment
• Black oil models (oil, water and gas phase)
• Compositional models
• Single phase models
Mass and heat transfer
• Miscible flow models
• Immiscible flow models
• Thermal models
• Isothermal models
Page 10
Geometry
• One-dimensional models
• Two-dimensional models
• Three-dimensional models
Co-ordinate system
• Cartesian
• Cylindrical
• Spherical
• General curvilinear
Some simulation programs have the ability to cater for more than one option in a
class. For example, the user may choose to run a simulation as either two or three-
dimensional.
2.9.2 Review of Reservoir Simulators

Table 4 summarises some of the main features of reservoir simulators currently in use.
These simulators can be used to model fluid flow, both oil and gas, in various
applications. Table 5 summarises a few of the main features of reservoir simulators
specifically developed to model the flow of methane through coal.
2.10 Summary of Literature Review

Advances in knowledge and technology, in relation to coalbed methane recovery,
have lead to an increase of its practice globally. However, world wide only 7% of the
25 million tonnes of methane emitted by the coal mining industry is recovered and
used. Since methane is valued as a clean fuel source, it can be predicted that the level
of knowledge and technology will increase further until a greater recovery is
achieved.
In a coal reservoir methane exists either as an adsorbed gas or a free gas. If a pressure
gradient is created it will drive the gas to leave its adsorbed state and flow through the
pore structure of coal. Two types of flow occur depending on the nature of the pores.
Diffusive flow occurs in the micropore structure while laminar flow occurs in the
fractures and is the mechanism governing this model.
Page 11
Permeability and porosity are two characteristic of coal that effect the flow of
methane, and consequently its economical recovery. These characteristics are
dependent on the tortuous nature of the face and butt cleat fractures, and hence the
tortuosity of the coal body will also impact on methane flow.
Several reservoir simulators were reviewed and even though they consisted of many
different types of models, one that accounted for the tortuous nature of coal fractures
was lacking.
Page 12
Table 4 – Features of General Reservoir Simulators

Treatment PVT Mass and Heat Geometry Coordinate
of Flow Treatment Transfer System
Reservoir Added Features
1-Dimensional
2-Dimensional
3-Dimensional
Compositional
Miscible flow
Porous media
Conventional
Darcy’s Law
Single Phase
Curvilinear
Cylindrical
Immiscible
Simulator
Isothermal
Fractured
Cartesian
Spherical
Extended
Black-oil
Thermal
flow
ECLIPSE 100
(Coster 1999)
ECLIPSE 200 Polymer displacement model.
(Coster 1999) Reservoir coupling model to
connect programs.
ECLIPSE 300 Uses cubic equation of state.
(Coster 1999) Uses pressure dependent
permeability measurement.
GCOMP Treatment of phase behavior is
(PHH PC robust.
Aug 2000)
ATHOS Can model single or dual
(Falcon porosity and/or permeability.
Aug 2000)
FALCON Accounts for chemical
Falcon components.
Aug 2000) Performs hypothetical senarios
Page 13
Table 5 – Features of General Reservoir Simulators

Treatment PVT Mass and Heat Geometry Coordinate
of Flow Treatment Transfer System
Reservoir Added Features
1-Dimensional
2-Dimensional
3-Dimensional
Compositional
Miscible flow
Porous media
Conventional
Darcy’s Law
Single Phase
Curvilinear
Cylindrical
Immiscible
Simulator
Isothermal
Fractured
Cartesian
Spherical
Extended
Black-oil
Thermal
flow
COALGAS
(Zuber 1995)
GASMOD Can model multi-zones, dual
(PHH PC porosity.
Aug 2000)
COMET Accommodates more than one
(Res Modeling well.
Oct 2000) Models dual porosity.
COMET-3D Models dual porosity.
(Res Modeling Calibrated by comparing with
Oct 2000) production & pressure history.
COMETPC Can only model a single well.
(Res Modeling
Oct 2000)
HYDROMAT Geodynamic model.
(Lopez et al Chemical kinetic model.
1999)
Page 14
CHAPTER 3 – MODEL DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Problem Definition
The system to be modeled is a coal body with continuous methane flow out across its
boundary. The modeling goal is to predict the single-phase flow of methane through
the coal body as a porous media. In doing so, the effect of tortuosity on fluid flow
will be included. The range of system variables will be between a lower value xL and
an upper value xU. It is desired that the accuracy of the predictions should be ±10% of
the real process.
3.2 Data for Model
Models of real systems are both mechanistic and empirical; i.e. knowledge of the
system is available through the underlying mechanisms and measured data. Data
requirements for modeling the flow of coal bed methane include the following:
• Cleat permeability and porosity data.
• Fluid PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) data such as viscosity.
• Initial gas content.
• Cleat characteristics.
3.2.1 Permeability and Porosity data

It would be ideal to take values of permeability from the study conducted in 1988 by
McKee et al., in which permeability is related to effective stress as well as gas
pressure. Porosity will in turn be related to permeability by equation 2.8, the modified
Kozeny equation.
3.2.2 Fluid PVT data

Fluid PVT data for methane is shown in Table 6. The initial temperature and pressure
will be estimated using the correlation mentioned in section 2.8, which relates these
parameters to depth. Most underground coal mines are taken to a depth of 300
meters, which will be the depth used to solve this model. The viscosity of coalbed
methane is calculated from the following equation that relates viscosity to temperature
(McPherson 1993).
Page 15
µ = (10.26 + 0.0305t ) ×10 −6 (3.1)
Table 6 – Methane PVT data

Depth 300m
Pressure 6.6 MPa
Temperature 33 °C
Specific volume 0.0234 m3/kg
Viscosity 11.26 x 10-6
3.2.3 Initial Gas Content

The initial gas content will be approximated by the findings of Medek et al., who
suggested an actual content for bituminous coals of 50 to 60 m3/ton. The volume of
gas can then be approximated for a coal reserve of 15 mega tonnes, which is the
smallest viable quantity for mining operations.
2.3.4 Cleat Characteristics

Cleat characteristics of length and aperture of face and butt cleats will be taken as an
average of lengths suggested by Massarotto et al. (2000). It is assumed that both cleat
types will have the same aperture. These characteristics are shown in table 7.
Table 7 – Cleat Characteristics

Face cleat spacing 18 mm
Butt cleat spacing 16 mm
Aperture 1 mm
3.3 Assumptions
The following assumptions were formed in the development of this model.

A1: Coal bodies are relatively thin in comparison to their geometry, therefore a
two-dimensional geometry will be assumed.
A2: The coal body is a rectangular prism.
A3: Gravitational effects are negligible.
A4: Dominant mechanism is laminar flow through fractures.
A5: Fluid is a compressible gas.
Page 16
A6: Fluid is present as a single-phase, which is gas.

A7: Flow is isothermal.
A8: The fluid is an ideal gas.
A9: The system is a virgin reservoir.
3.4 Mass Balance
The mass balance is conducted over the box shown in figure 4, which represents a
coal body.
Figure 4 – Mass Balance Over Box
Vy
Vx
y (x,y+∆y)
x (x,y) (x+∆x,y)
When applying two-dimensional geometry the variation of thickness of the coal body
must be incorporated (Peaceman 1977). The height is represented as H(x,y), which is
the height of a two-dimensional reservoir at position (x,y). Since mass must be
conserved, the general equation is:
[Rate of mass in] – [Rate of mass out] + [Rate injected] = [Rate of accumulation ]
The rate at which fluid enters the left face is:
ρ(x, y' ) ⋅ VX (x,y' ) ⋅ H(x, y' ) ⋅ ∆ y = ∆y(HρVX )x ,y' (3.2)
The rate at which fluid enters the right face is:
∆y (HρVX )x + ∆x ,y ' (3.3)
The rate at which fluid enters the front is:
ρ(x' ,y) ⋅ VY (x' , y) ⋅ H(x' , y) ⋅ ∆x = ∆x (H ρVY ) x' ,y

(3.4)
Page 17
The rate at which fluid exits rear is:

∆x (H ρVY ) x' , y +∆ y (3.5)

The rate at which fluid is injected into cube is:
q H ∆x ∆y . (3.6)
The rate of mass accumulation is:
∂ (Φ ρ)
H ∆x∆y (3.7)
∂t
Substituting these terms into mass balance equation 3.2 gives:
[∆y (HρV ) X x, y' ] [

+ ∆y (H ρVX ) x' , y − ∆x (H ρVy)x + ∆x ,y ' + ∆x (H ρVY ) x' , y + ∆y ]
∂ (Φ ρ)
+ [q H ∆x∆y ]= H ∆x∆y (3.8)
∂t
By rearranging, dividing by ∆x∆y, we obtain:
− (H ρVX )   − (H ρVY ) 
x + ∆x ,y' + ( ρ X )x , y' x ' , y +∆ y + ( ρ Y )x' ,y
H V H V
 + 
 ∆x   ∆y 
∂ (Φρ)
+ qH = H . (3.9)
∂t
By taking limits as ∆x→0 and ∆y→0 it can be written as:
 + q H = ( ) H . (3.10)
 ∂ (H ρV )  ∂ (H ρV ) ∂ Φρ
− X
− Y
 ∂x   ∂y  ∂t

where the bar denotes a mean value, q = mass rate of injection (kg/m3s), P = pressure
(Pa), t = time (s) and Φ = porosity.
3.5 Flow of Gases
Darcy’s Law as in equation 2.2 can be used to describe the flow of fluid. However
this applies to incompressible fluids. In the case of gases, the rate of flow changes as
the pressure decreases, but the mass flowrate must remain constant. Darcy’s law can
be altered to give (Carman 1956):
k ρ ∂P
G = ρV = (3.11)
µ ∂x
Page 18
where V = gas velocity (m/s), k = permeability (m2), µ = dynamic viscosity (Ns/m2),

ρ = gas density (kg/m3) and ∂P/∂x = pressure gradient (Pa/m). Assuming isothermal
flow where Vx1 is gas velocity at pressure Px1 gives:
kP ∂P
Px 1Vx 1 = PV = − .. (3.12)
µ ∂t
Integrating over the length of the coal body gives:

k (Px1 − Px 2 )
2 2
Px 1Vx 1 = (3.13)

µ 2∆x
k P ∆P
or Vx1 = (3.14)
µ Px 1 ∆x
Px1 + Px 2
where P = mean pressure =
2
This can be written similarly for flow in the y-direction.
The gas is assumed to be ideal and will be governed by the following equation of
state.
Mwt
ρ= P (3.15)
RT
where Mwt = molecular weight of gas (mol/kg) and R = gas constant (J/mol °K).
3.6 Coal Characteristics
Certain coal characteristics such as porosity, permeability and tortuosity will need to
be defined by equations, in order to produce a model that is well defined. As
mentioned in section 3.2.1, permeability will be taken from values of permeability
obtained in the study conducted in 1988 by McKee et al and porosity by equation 2.8.
3.6.1 Tortuosity
An equation for tortuosity in relation to the fracture structure of coal was derived as
follows:
lemax + lemin
τ= (3.16)
2l
This relation was based on the definition for tortuosity given in equation 2.9. The
length of the tortuous flow path (le) is the average of a minimum and maximum
length. The minimum and maximum tortuous flow paths depend on whether fluid
Page 19
flow is predominantly along face cleats or butt cleats. Therefore an average of lemin
and lemax was taken between flow along face cleats and butt cleats. The derivation of
these terms is demonstrated in figure 5.
Figure 5 – Derivation of Tortuous Flow Path Terms
P low
P high
P low
lemin = (m+1)b + a
lemin = (n+1)a + n(b/2)
P high
P low
P high
P low
lemax = (m+1)b + ma
lemax = (n+1)a + (m-1)b
P high
Predominant flow along face cleats
Predominant flow along butt cleats
The equations defining minimum and maximum tortuous flow path and straight-line
length (l) are given below.
lemin =
{[(n + 1)a]+ [n(b 2)]}+ {[(m + 1)b ]+ a} (3.17)
2
lemax =
{[(n + 1)a] + [(m − 1)b ]}+ {[(m + 1)b]+ ma} .. (3.18)
2
l=
[(n + 1)a]+ [(m + 1)b ] .. (3.19)
2
Page 20
where n = number of face cleats, m = number of butt cleats on one face, a = face cleat
spacing and b = butt cleat spacing.
3.6.2 Specific Surface Area

The specific surface area is defined as the surface of wall per unit volume of coal
body. This term is needed to solve the mean hydraulic radius in the modified Kozeny
equation for determining porosity. Its derivation was based on the structure of
cleating in coal and is given as:
2H [(∆x n) + (∆y m)]

SO = (3.20)
H∆x∆y
where ∆x is the length of the coal body perpendicular to the butt cleats and ∆y is the
length perpendicular to the face cleats.
3.7 Boundary Conditions
A common boundary condition used in reservoir simulation lies within some closed
curve C across which there is no flow and fluid flow takes place at wells which can be
represented as point sources (Peaceman 1977). In this application the curved
boundary will represent the coal body surrounded by a rectangle which represents
area outside the coal body. The coal characteristics such as permeability and porosity
will be defined inside the curve, whereas outside the curve these terms will be zero.
Numerically it is difficult to represent a true point source, where the mass flow rate is
infinite at the well and zero everywhere else (Peaceman 1977). Therefore the
boundaries will be approximated by block boundaries which are parallel to one of the
coordinates.
Hence for all boundaries normal to the x-direction:
k P ∆P
VX = 0 ⇒ = 0 (3.21)
µ PX ∆x
And similarly, for all boundaries normal to the y-direction:
k P ∆P
VY = 0 ⇒ = 0 (3.22)
µ PY ∆y
Page 21
3.8 Initial Conditions
Before selecting initial conditions it will be assumed that the system is a virgin
reservoir. The following initial conditions will be set:
• The initial pressure is due to effective stress of the overburden.
P(0) = depth below surface × 22 kPa / m (3.23)
• Initial velocity of fluid is zero.
V(0) = 0 (3.24)

3.9 Degree of Freedom Analysis
A degree of freedom analysis will be carried out to ensure the model is properly posed
and solvable. The model equations are outlined below.
Mass Balance Equation:
 + q H = ( ) H . (1)
 ∂ (H ρV )  ∂ (H ρV ) ∂ Φρ
− X
− Y
 ∂x   ∂y  ∂t

Constitutive Equations:
k P ∆P
Vx = (2)
µ Px ∆x
k P ∆P
Vy = (3)
µ Py ∆y
Px1 + Px 2
P= . (4)
2
Mwt
ρ= P .. (5)
RT
lemax + lemin
τ= .. (6)
2l
Page 22
lemin =
{[(n + 1)a]+ [n(b 2)]}+ {[(m + 1)b ]+ a} (7)
2
lemax =
{[(n + 1)a] + [(m − 1)b ]}+ {[(m + 1)b]+ ma} .. (8)
2
l=
[(n + 1)a]+ [(m + 1)b ] .. (9)
2
Φr 2
k= 2
.. (10)
k0 τ
r = Φ(1 − Φ ) SO (11)

2H [(∆x n) + (∆y m)]

SO = . (12)
H∆x∆y
µ = (10.26 + 0.0305t ) × 10 −6 (13)
The independent variables are:

Vy, Vx, q, P1, P2, T, H, k, Φ, µ, ρ, τ, ∆x, ∆y, m, n, a, b, So
The constants and parameters are:
Mwt, ko, R
The degrees of freedom is:
DOF = number of independent variables – number of equations
= 19 – 13
=6
This implies that the problem is under specified and a solution is only possible if six
variables are defined. Variables to be defined and their value are shown in table 8.
Table 8 – Variables Defined to Satisfy DOF

P1 – Initial pressure 6.6 MPa
T - temperature 33 °C
H – average heiht 2m
a – length of face cleat spacing 18 mm
b – length of butt cleat spacing 16 mm
k – permeability 2.2 x 10-9 m2
Page 23
3.10 Solution Procedure
Having set up the mathematical model the numerical methods, which can be used to
obtain a solution, will be reviewed. The complexity of this model lies in the mass
balance, which is a partial differential equation. In order to solve the model a
numerical analysis program will be needed. MATLAB is such a program, which
offers engineers and scientists an intuitive language for expressing problems and their
solutions mathematically and graphically. Two strategies of solving this model will
be suggested.
3.10.1 Finite Differences
Partial differential equations involve more than one independent variable so a three-
dimensional grid will need to be established. Numerical solutions of partial
differential equations by finite differences refers to the process of replacing the partial
derivatives by finite difference quotients, and then obtaining a solution of the resulting
system of algebraic equations. By applying central difference approximations the
following estimate can be made for time, and similarly x and y.
H
[Φ ρ](t + ∆t ) − [Φρ](t ) = q (t,x, y) (3.25)
∆t
The resulting system of algebraic equations can be solved using the MATLAB
function fsolve.
3.10.2 Ordinary Differential Equation

To simplify the problem the change in time can be taken as an ordinary differential
term, and the change in x and y direction are partial differential terms defined at
certain grid points.
d (Φρ )  ∂u   ∂u 
H x =i , y = j = −  x =i , y = j −   x =i , y = j +q H (3.26)
dt  ∂x   ∂y 
where u = term denoting HρV in the x or y direction. The boundary conditions set in
the previous section will define the conditions at x = 0 and y = 0. The set of
differential equations can be solved using the MATLAB functions ODE15s or
ODE45.
Page 24
Once the model has been establish in MATLAB or a similar numerical analysis tool,
parameters such as permeability, depth and cleat characteristic can be varied to test
the sensitivity of the model.
Page 25
CHAPTER 4 – DISCUSSION
4.1 Predicted Results
A number of predictions can be made concerning the sensitivity of the model. If

parameters such as permeability, effective stress, depth and cleat characteristics are
varied this will impact on the flowrate of methane through coal. Permeability has
been defined as the conductivity of a given porous medium to a fluid, so it is obvious
that an increase in permeability will result in an increase of flowrate. By assessing
how other parameters effect permeability we can see how they influence fluid flow.
The relationship between laboratory measured permeability and effective stress,

shown in Figure 2, indicates that an increase in effective stress results in a decrease of
permeability and hence flowrate. This is clear if we visualize the pores being
compressed due to an increase in overburden weight, promoting adsorption of gas
molecules. An increase in overburden weight can also indicate that the coal body is
located deeper underground. Therefore we can also predict that the flowrate will
decrease with increasing depth.
Cleat characteristics such as aperture and tortuosity will greatly influence

permeability. Equation 2.4, which was derived by Lucia (1983), shows that
permeability varies with the square of fracture aperture. Therefore as wider natural
fractures are encountered the permeability will increase along with flowrate. An
increase in tortuosity results in the gas traveling a longer more complicated path,
which results in a decrease of overall flowrate.
4.2 Potential Applications
It is envisaged that this model will be used for aiding the extraction of methane for
economical recovery and use, as well as underground mine degassing for safety
reasons. The model can be integrated into an existing reservoir simulator, which will
be used to predict how variability in reservoir properties and operating practices affect
performance under real conditions. Although there are many reservoir simulators
available, they do not include the effect of tortuosity of coal fractures. Also they rely
Page 26
on laboratory measurements of porosity, which is difficult to measure at reservoir

conditions, whereas this model relates porosity to tortuosity and permeability.
Studies conducted into the tortuosity of consolidated media are lacking. Therefore a
correlation relating tortuosity to the fracture structure of coal was derived. This
derivation can be applied to other consolidated media with similar fracture patterns
such as calcite. The model can be extended to describe the flow of gases through
similar media.
4.3 Future Considerations
The author acknowledges that the work conducted in this thesis is merely an early
step in an evolutionary process, towards providing a simulation package that can
accurately model fluid flow in coal, and incorporate the influence of tortuosity.
The most immediate step to be taken in the development of this model is to implement
a solution procedure. This can be achieved by using the numerical analysis tool
MATLAB. Once a solution has been obtained it must be verified to determine
whether the model is giving reasonable results. The model must then be validated by
checking the quality of the resultant model against independent observations. This
can be done by the following methods:
• Compare the model behavior with the process behavior.
• Comparison with other models using a common problem.
• Compare the model directly with process data such as production logs.
Another consideration is to develop the model further by including multiphase flow

and thermal effects. Otherwise the model can be incorporated into an existing
reservoir simulator, that already includes these complexities.
The effect of friction factor of the pore surface on fluid flow is an area that requires
investigation, since it is rarely discussed in the literature. It is assumed that friction
factor will effect fluid flow by influencing the rate of desorption of gas molecules.
Page 27
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSION
As defined in the introduction the main objective of this thesis was to develop a model
to predict the single-phase flow of methane, through coal as a porous media. And in
doing so, incorporate the effect of tortuous interconnections between fractures. While
the mathematical model was successfully developed a solution was not achieved.
Since a solution was not obtained predictions were made on the sensitivity of the
model to varying parameters such as permeability, depth of coal seam and effective
stress. It was noted that an increase in permeability would result in an increase in
flowrate. This lead to further predictions that an increase in effective stress, depth and
tortuosity would cause a decrease in flowrate. It was also predicted that an increase in
aperture of the cleats would allow a greater flowrate.
Consideration was given to the potential application of this model in aiding the
recovery of methane from underground coal mines. It was noted that this model could
also be applied to describing the flow of gases through similar consolidated media.
Consideration was also given to the future development of the model, with emphasis
on obtaining a solution by using the numerical analysis program MATLAB. Other
areas of development mentioned were investigating the effect of friction factor and
extending the models capabilities, by including multiphase flow and thermal effects.
This thesis has shown that tortuosity can be related to porosity by correlation based on
cleat structure. This has allowed the effect of tortuosity to be incorporated in the
modeling of fluid flow in coal.
Page 28
REFERENCES
Athos / SimView, [Homepage of Beicip-Franlab] [Online] Available:

http://www.geomath.com (16th June 2000).
Aziz, K. and Settari, A., 1979, Petroleum Reservoir Simulation, Applied Science
Publishers Ltd, Essex.
Brown, K. et al, 1996, New South Wales Coal Seam Methane Potential Department of
Mineral Resources, Australia.
Carman, P.C., 1956, Flow of Gases Through Porous Media, Butterworth Scientific
Publications, London.
CIAD (Coal Industry Advisory Board) & IEA (International Energy Agency), 1994,
Global Methane and the Coal Industry, OECD, France.
Clennell, M.B., 1997, “Tortuosity: a guide through the maze”, Geological Scoiety
Special Publication No. 122, pp 229-344.
Coster, P., 1999, Products – ECLIPSE [Homepage of SGI] [Online] Available:

http://www.sgi.com. (update not specified)
Falcon: Breakthrough Sofware for Simulation Oil Reservoirs, 1997 [Homepage of

Los Almos National Laboratory News Release Public Information Group]
[Online] Available: http://www.lanl.gov/external/news/releases/ (17th August
2000).
Ford, W.T., 1971, Elements of Simulation of Fluid Flow in Porous Media, Dept of
Mathematics Texas Tech University, USA.
Frick, T.C., 1962, Petroleum Production Hanbook: Vol II, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Texas.
Lopez, D.L. et al., 1999, “Modeling the Hydrothermal Generation of Coals and Coal-
seam gas”, Coalbed Methane: Scientific, Environmental and Economic
Evaluation, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Page 29
Massarotto, P., Rudolph, V., Golding, S., 2000, “ New 3-D Permeability Equipment”,
Second Int’l Methane Mitigation Conference.
Mastalerz, M., Glikson, M. and Golding S., 1999, Coalbed Methane: Scientific,
Environmental and Economic Evaluation, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
McKee, C.R, Bumb, A.C. and Koenlg, R.A., 1988, “Stress-Dependent Permeability
and Porosity of Coal and Other Geological Formations”, SPE Formation
Evaluation, March, pp81-89.
McPherson M.J., 1993, Subsurface Ventilation and Environmental Engineering,

Chapman & Hall, London U.K.
Medek, J. and Weishauptovâ, Z., 1999, “Desorption as a Criterion for the Estimation
of Methane Content in a Coal Seam”, Coalbed Methane: Scientific,
Environmental and Economic Evaluation, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Montemagno, C.D. and Pyrak-Nolte, L.J., 1995, “Porosity of Natural Fracture

Networks”, Geophysical Research Letters, vol 22, no. 11, pp1397-1400.
Peaceman, D., 1977, Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir Simulations, Elsevier

Scientific Publishing Company, USA.
PHH PC Developed Software [Homepage of PHH Petroleum Consultants Ltd]

[Online] Available: http://phhpc.com/software.html (August 2000).
Reservoir Characterisation and Reservoir Simulation [Homepage of IFP - The Institut

Francais duPetrole)] [Online] Available: http://www.ifp.fr (27th September
2000)
Reservoir Modelling, 1990 [Homepage of Grinet – Gas Research Institute] [Online]

Available: http://www.gri.org/ (7th October 2000).
Reservoir Simulation [Homepage of the Scotia Group, Inc] [Online] Available:

http://www.scotia-group.com (August 2000).
Salem, H.S. and Chilingarian, G.V., 2000, “Influence of Porosity and Direction of
Flow on Tortuosity in Unconsolidated Porous Media”, Energy Sources,
November 22:207-213, 2000.
Page 30
Scott, A.R., 1999, “Improving Coal Gas Recovery with Microbially Enhanced
Coalbed Methane”, Coalbed Methane: Scientific, Environmental and
Economic Evaluation, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Zuber, M.D. and Semmelbeck, M., 1995 “The Use of Coalbed Methane Simulators
for Coal Mining-Related Applications”, Intergas ’95 International
Unconventional Gas Symposium May, pp14-20, 1995.
Page 31

M Fraillon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M Fraillon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TH

The Executive Dean

As partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of

“The Numerical Modeling of Fluid Flow in Coal as a Porous Media”

I would like to express my deepest thanks to my parents, who have provided

The primary objective of this project is to develop a model capable of predicting

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW 2

2.1 GLOBAL COALBED METHANE INDUSTRY......................................................................... 2

CHAPTER 3 – MODEL DEVELOPMENT 15

3.1 PROBLEM DEFINITION ..................................................................................................... 15

3.2 DATA FOR MODEL ............................................................................................................ 15

4.1 PREDICTED RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 26

Figure 1 – Cleating Structure of Coal.................................................................... 3

Table 1 – Length of Cleat Spacing and Aperture in Coal ............................3

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Global Coalbed Methane Industry

Coalbed methane recovery in conjunction with coal mining operations is practiced at

2.2 Coal Structure

in a lower permeability. The general structure of coal in relation to cleating is shown

Figure 1 – Cleating Structure of Coal

2.3 Methane Retention in Coal

2.4 Methane Flow in Coal

2.4.1 Diffusive Flow

2.4.2 Laminar Flow

The permeability of coal greatly effects economical coalbed methane production. In

2.5.1 Permeability Defined

Assumptions for this correlation are:

2.5.2 Permeability Data

Table 2 – Permeability of Coal of the San Juan Basin (McKee et al 1988)

Fluid Pressure 2.14 MPa

Permeability 3.53 x 10-11 m2

Figure 2 – Laboratory Measured Permeability vs Effective Stress of the San

2.6.1 Porosity Defined

volume of void space

2.6.2 Porosity Data

Table 3 – Porosity (%) Measurements using Different Methods (Montemagno &

r = Φ(1 − Φ ) SO  (2.7)

where So = specific surface area (cm2/cm3) = total surface / total volume.

2.7.1 Tortuosity Defined

Figure 3 – Path Lengths of Tortuosity

2.7.2 Tortuosity Data

where F = dimensionless formation resistivity factor. This correlation can be applied

Tortuosity can be determined experimentally by using many techniques including

2.8 Reservoir Temperature and Pressure

According to Gaschnitz et al. (1997) reservoir pressure and temperature is close to 25

2.9 Reservoir Simulation

2.9.1 Fluid Flow Models

The mathematical models of reservoir simulators can be classified in many ways

2.9.2 Review of Reservoir Simulators

2.10 Summary of Literature Review

Table 4 – Features of General Reservoir Simulators

Table 5 – Features of General Reservoir Simulators

CHAPTER 3 – MODEL DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Problem Definition

3.2 Data for Model

3.2.1 Permeability and Porosity data

3.2.2 Fluid PVT data

µ = (10.26 + 0.0305t ) ×10 −6  (3.1)

Table 6 – Methane PVT data

3.2.3 Initial Gas Content

2.3.4 Cleat Characteristics

Table 7 – Cleat Characteristics

The following assumptions were formed in the development of this model.

A6: Fluid is present as a single-phase, which is gas.

r = Φ(1 − Φ ) SO (2.7)

µ = (10.26 + 0.0305t ) ×10 −6 (3.1)

Px 1Vx 1 = (3.13)

P(0) = depth below surface × 22 kPa / m (3.23)

V(0) = 0 (3.24)

r = Φ(1 − Φ ) SO (11)

µ = (10.26 + 0.0305t ) × 10 −6 (13)