PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 40, Issue 5, October 2013

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2013, 40(5): 599–605. RESEARCH PAPER

Log interpretation for coal petrologic parameters: A case

study of Hancheng mining area, Central China
SHAO Xianjie1,*, SUN Yubo1, SUN Jingmin2, TANG Dazhen3, XU Hao1, DONG Xinxiu1, LÜ Yumin3
1. Department of Petroleum Engineering, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, China;
2. PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, Beijing 100083, China;
3. China University of Geosciences (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China

Abstract: Aiming at a serious obstacle for building a log interpretation model to accurately interpret density and sonic speed value of
each coal component which cannot be measured directly in lab scale, a log interpretation method of coal reservoir parameters was studied
using the Hancheng mining area as an example. The enumeration method was used to calculate density and sonic speed value of fixed
carbon, ash, and volatile according to experimental determination of industrial components, pore, gas content, density and sonic speed
value of many coal samples in the Hancheng mining area. On the basis of the relationships of each coal component and its density and
sonic speed value, logging response relationships between each component and its compensated density and acoustic travel-time differ-
ences were studied using numerical fitting. As fitted carbon content increases and ash content decreases, density decrease and sonic speed
difference increase. By combining statistical analysis method and theory model calculation method, interpretation models of industrial
components, gas content and pore for coal reservoirs were built and a logging integrated interpretation software was programmed, which
have got good effect in actual application.

Key words: coal reservoir; log interpretation; fixed carbon content; ash content; gas content; coalbed methane; Hancheng mining area

Introduction mining area. It is one of the areas with large-scale, long-time

With the advancement of coalfield digital logging technol-
ogy and the improvement of geologic logging and interpreta-
tion technique in the 1980s, the evaluation of coal seam
thickness and coal quality has been improved, which can ba-
sically meet the demand of coal mining. But with the devel-
opment of coalbed methane at home and abroad in the last ten
years, the requirement on accuracy of coal reservoir well log
interpretation is becoming increasingly higher, and the indi-
cators are becoming more and more. So the original coal
mining well log interpretation system and methods cannot
meet the needs of the development of coalbed methane [1].
The Carboniferous - Permian coal beds are well developed
in Hancheng mining area, where the number of 3#, 5# and
11# are the main coal seams, which have the buried depth
from 400 m to 1 000 m, single layer thickness of 1.5 m to 10
m, formation pressure coefficient from 0.6 to 0.8, porosity of
1.5%−8.0% and permeability of 0.01×10−3−2.50×10−3 μm2,
gas content of 3.51−14.13 m3/t. With characteristics of low
pressure, low permeability and high gas content, most of coal
seams are lean coal, and some coking coal. By the end of
2011, there were thousands of production wells in Hancheng
and rich information of coalbed methane development in
China[2], which laid a solid foundation for the comprehensive
study on coal bed reservoirs.
1 Principle of coal parameter log interpretation
Currently, log interpretation method applied to coal at
home and abroad basically follows the sandstone reservoir
well log interpretation method, in which coal reservoirs are
thought to be composed of fixed carbon and volatile compo-
nents, ash content (including clay and other minerals) and
water (pore water). Response equation which is used to cal-
culate the parameters of coal reservoir is set up according to
the contribution of various components to the well logging of
compensated density, compensated neutron and sonic veloc-
ity[3]. Then CBM gas content is calculated by the relationship
between the coal and rock parameters and gas content, with
neural network method or other methods[4]. Since the physical
parameters of volatile components are difficult to come by, so
volatile components and fixed carbon are taken as one. How-
ever, the log response to physical parameters of fixed carbon
and volatile components are very different, leading to big
errors in calculated coal components. Meanwhile, it is diffi-

Received date: 24 Nov. 2012; Revised date: 28 Jul. 2013.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: shaoxianjie6@qq.com
Foundation item: Supported by the National Science and Technology Major Project (2011ZX05038-001); National Key Basic Research and Development Program
(973 Program), China (2009CB219604).
Copyright © 2013, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, PetroChina. Published by Elsevier BV. All rights reserved.
 SHAO Xianjie et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(5): 599–605

cult to determine the physical parameters of fixed carbon and
ash, and the estimated values of them are used; and the com-
ponent model ignores methane. Because of the above reasons,
the error of calculated coalbed methane gas content is very
large. Enumeration method is used to calculate density and
sonic speed value of fixed carbon, ash and volatile compo-
nents according to experimental measurement of density and
sonic speed value of many coal samples in Hancheng mining
area. We built the interpretation models for industrial compo-
nents, porosity and gas content of coal reservoirs by studying
the relationship between the coal industrial components and
well logging response of compensated density and acoustic
time difference. We also programmed log interpretation soft-
ware, and tested it with actual production data.
2 Experiments on coal and physical parameters
calibration of industrial components
The author measured industrial components of coal, gas
content, density, porosity and acoustic velocity in Hancheng
mining area according to Proximate Analysis of Coal[5],
Measuring Method for Physical and Mechanical Properties of
Coal [6] and Measurment of Rock Acoustic Properties in
Laboratory[7]. Because of brittleness, coal sample preparation
is difficult, so out of 165 samples taken for this experiment,
only 90 of them were successful, with a success rate of 54.5%.
There are 28 samples with all parameters among them (Table
1). Test results show that: the coal seams have an ash content
of 5.91%−75.25%, on average 21.87%; fixed carbon content
of 14.44%−81.45%, averaging 64.57%; volatile component
content of 8.75%−20.27%, on average 12.98%; the total gas
content of dry basis of 1.12−16.91 m3/t, on average 8.34 m3/t;
density of 1.40−1.80 g/cm3, on average 1.54 g/cm3; and sonic
speed value of 2 182.94−2 759.35 m/s, on average 2 367.67
m/s (measured in saturated water conditions).
In the “rock volume model” commonly used in logging,
according to the composition of rock and the differences in
physical properties, the unit volume of rock is divided into
several parts[8−9] . The contribution of each part to the macro
rock response is worked out and the macroscopic physical
response of the rock is taken as the sum total of the contribu-
tion of each part [10−11].
The volatile components in coal industrial components re-
fer to those volatilize when the sealed coal sample is heated to
900±10 °C. The density and sonic speed of volatile compo-
nents cannot be directly measured by experiment method. It is
also difficult to measure sonic speed of ash content and fixed
carbon, because their structure will be changed if the ash con-
tent and fixed carbon are made into samples [12].
Although physical parameters of industrial components of
coal cannot be directly measured[13], we can get them by enu-
meration method. Practice shows that the result can meet the
accuracy requirement of coal reservoir parameter interpretation.
Assumes that the density of dry coal samples is the sum to-
tal contribution of ash content, fixed carbon, volatile compo-
nents and moisture (inherent water):
ρ = ρ ad Sad + ρ fcd Sfcd + ρ vdaf S vdaf + ρ mad Smad (1)
Densities of ash, fixed carbon and volatile components are
2.47 g/cm3, 1.39 g/cm3 and 1.05 g/cm3 according to enumera-
tion method in Table 1. The average relative error is 2.0% of
all the samples, indicating high accuracy.

Table 1 Coal reservoir experimental data in Hancheng mining area

Total gas content of Moisture Ash con- Fixed carbon Volatile component Porosity/ Density/ Sonic veloc-
Well Layer
dry basis/(m3·t−1) content/% tent/% content/% content/% % (g·cm−3) ity/(m·s−1)
HW02 3# 1.02 39.79 48.56 10.63
HW02 3# 16.91 1.08 8.57 80.53 9.82
HW02 3# 15.66 1.13 9.34 79.38 10.15
HW02 3# 14.00 1.10 10.31 78.77 9.82
HW02 5# 13.22 1.13 11.25 77.70 9.92
HW02 5# 1.26 42.45 46.43 9.86
HW02 5# 0.89 44.8 44.53 9.78
HW02 11# 0.90 24.79 64.75 9.56
HW02 11# 1.09 18.06 71.37 9.48
HW02 11# 0.93 20.03 68.91 10.13
HW02 11# 0.96 19.65 68.97 10.42
HW02 11# 0.94 37.66 51.17 10.23
HW02 11# 3.62 0.92 59.01 28.15 11.92
HHS13 5# 9.22 0.22 18.22 69.36 12.20 1.32 1.52 2 487.94
HHS13 5# 7.10 0.21 18.12 68.93 12.74
HHS13 5# 0.18 15.70 71.07 13.05
HHS13 5# 5.12 0.27 29.9 57.19 12.64 13.77 1.67 2 482.98
HHS13 5# 0.16 10.64 75.84 13.36
HHS13 5# 4.94 0.25 24.24 64.13 11.38 1.23 1.62 2 537.15
HHS13 11# 0.21 12.28 74.33 13.18
HHS7 4# 0.36 28.22 57.13 14.29 3.14 1.59 2 502.98
HHS7 5# 0.23 11.77 72.75 15.25
HHS7 5# 3.39 0.36 36.65 49.33 13.66 1.18 1.70 2 650.41
HHS7 10# 0.41 27.14 59.14 13.31 1.58
− 600 −
 SHAO Xianjie et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(5): 599–605

Continued Table 1
Total gas content of Moisture con- Ash con- Fixed carbon Volatile component Porosity/ Density/ Sonic veloc-
Well Layer
dry basis/(m3·t−1) tent/% tent/% content/% content/% % (g·cm−3) ity/(m·s−1)
HHS6 5# 6.37 0.84 15.39 73.66 10.11
HHS6 5# 9.10 0.63 8.49 81.40 9.48
HHS6 5# 8.48 0.75 9.41 79.32 10.52 1.44
HHS6 5# 1.12 0.85 75.25 14.44 9.46
HHS6 5# 8.63 0.16 18.23 71.6 10.01 10.84 1.66 2 271.74
HHS6 5# 5.51 0.45 20.33 69.66 9.56
HHS6 5# 7.43 0.43 15.35 75.47 8.75 7.79 1.54 2 277.85
HHS6 5# 7.29 0.43 9.88 79.83 9.86
HHS4 4# 9.01 0.07 11.70 71.60 16.63 3.57 1.40 2 204.33
HHS4 5# 11.01 0.11 8.34 76.35 15.2 5.71 1.40 2 355.16
HHS4 5# 10.17 0.13 8.74 76.25 14.88 0.71 1.40 2 407.54
HHS14 5# 10.14 0.42 10.64 76.78 12.16 4.08 1.47 2 186.75
HHS12 3# 2.29 0.22 60.68 29.51 9.59
HHS12 3# 5.63 0.38 43.60 45.44 10.58 1.80 2 759.35
HHS12 3# 2.87 0.33 62.24 28.10 9.33
HHS12 5# 9.10 0.14 11.03 78.03 10.80 3.31 1.51 2 351.20
HHS12 5# 6.24 0.11 32.59 55.93 11.37
HHS12 5# 7.14 0.30 29.31 59.09 11.30 17.37 1.67 2 391.23
HHS12 5# 3.34 0.26 43.50 45.23 11.01
HHS12 5# 5.71 0.17 20.02 69.59 10.22 1.57
HHS12 11# 9.35 0.14 15.11 74.87 9.88
HHS12 11# 7.90 0.30 18.15 71.67 9.88 1.26 1.59 2 271.56
HHS11 5# 1.05 14.18 73.72 11.05 10.74 1.49 2 440.70
HHS11 5# 1.34 7.85 80.76 10.05 11.11 1.44 2 254.63
HHS11 11# 11.43 1.03 11.29 76.06 11.62 9.59 1.46 2 192.79
HHS7 4# 7.90 0.81 13.26 74.08 11.85 3.38 1.48 2 384.24
HHS7 4# 9.25 0.72 11.86 75.56 11.86
HHS7 4# 11.40 0.87 7.40 79.72 12.01 5.63 1.42 2 306.68
HHS7 5# 0.65 38.52 49.65 11.18
HHS7 5# 10.26 0.42 13.17 73.52 12.89 3.36 1.49 2 335.04
HHS7 5# 9.20 0.52 6.16 81.45 11.87
HHS7 11# 11.10 0.70 11.11 76.33 11.86 1.48
HHS7 11# 10.13 0.58 16.57 70.86 11.99 1.97 1.52 2 441.28
HHS6 4# 9.83 0.52 9.32 76.67 13.49 2.08 1.44 2 182.95
HHS6 4# 9.32 0.58 6.70 79.42 13.30
HHS6 4# 9.14 0.43 10.72 75.78 13.07 6.94 1.44 2 250.96
HHS6 4# 9.89 0.48 5.91 80.69 12.92
HHS6 5# 12.19 0.54 14.69 73.45 11.32 2.33 1.50 2 395.52
HHS6 5# 11.92 0.58 16.6 71.10 11.72
HHS6 5# 12.73 0.68 6.13 80.31 12.88 4.23 1.42 2 347.41
HHS6 5# 11.28 0.56 8.33 78.52 12.59
HHS6 5# 10.53 0.70 12.2 74.75 12.35 5.37 1.49 2 416.11
HHS3 5# 10.96 0.94 7.47 80.28 11.31 5.52 1.45 2 249.94
HHS3 5# 8.93 0.84 13.61 68.92 16.63 10.50 1.58 2 295.96
HHS3 5# 7.08 0.48 29.77 54.52 15.23 4.79 1.67 2 397.50
HHS3 5# 12.97 0.58 13.25 73.71 12.46
HW1 3# 8.92 1.08 17.62 66.55 14.74
HW1 3# 9.29 0.71 16.11 67.62 15.56 4.46 1.57 2 352.40
HW1 3# 7.62 0.79 33.08 47.65 18.48
HW1 5# 11.71 1.01 7.21 78.78 13.00
HW1 5# 3.58 0.85 38.03 41.57 19.55
HW1 5# 2.72 0.81 36.07 44.56 18.57 6.29 1.75 2 820.87
HW1 5# 11.70 0.80 7.45 78.22 13.54 5.63 1.42 2 247.19
HW1 11# 0.55 10.03 76.66 12.76 6.25 1.60 2 306.81
HW1 11# 5.97 0.29 34.89 46.15 18.67
HW1 11# 8.32 0.66 25.77 55.07 18.50
HW1 11# 5.12 0.52 35.86 44.52 19.11
HW1 11# 3.15 0.39 35.17 46.70 17.74
HW1 11# 7.04 0.27 30.38 52.46 16.88
HW1 11# 0.35 19.14 61.71 18.81 5.81 1.72 2 352.40
HW1 11# 0.43 31.24 48.53 19.81
HW1 11# 4.94 0.44 35.88 44.79 18.88
HW1 11# 0.43 30.24 49.45 19.88
HW1 11# 5.98 0.29 35.52 44.58 19.60
HW1 11# 0.39 26.51 52.84 20.27
HW1 11# 6.83 0.53 29.29 50.98 19.20
− 601 −
 SHAO Xianjie et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(5): 599–605

Similarly, assumes that the sonic velocity of dry coal sam-

ples is of the sum contribution of ash content, fixed carbon,
volatile components, moisture (inherent water) and pore water
(pore is water-saturated in sonic velocity experiment):
v = vad Sad + vfcd Sfcd + vvdaf S vdaf + vmad S mad + vw S w (2)
According to the data in Table 1, sonic velocity of ash,
fixed carbon and volatile are 3 480 m/s, 2 310 m/s and 1 770
m/s with enumeration method. The average relative error is
3.9% of all the samples. So acoustic travel-time differences
are 287.36 μs/m, 432.90 μs/m and 564.97 μs/m respectively.
According to experiment results of Table 1, the relationship Fig. 3 Relationship between sonic velocity and fixed carbon
between coal density and fixed carbon and ash content were content of core coal
fitted, the results show (Fig.1, Fig.2) coal density is positively
correlated with ash content, and negatively correlated with
fixed carbon content. Fixed carbon is porous and low in den-
sity, so sonic velocity is negatively correlated to carbon con-
tent (Fig.3), and positively correlated to ash content (Fig.4).

3 Logging response of coal industrial

components
Density, compensated sonic, compensated neutron, lateral
depth, natural potential, natural gamma and caliper logging
etc. have been carried out in Hancheng mining area so far.
These logging series can reflect lithology, rock properties,
porosity and gas content to some extent, and be used to esti-
mate permeability indirectly[14].
Fig. 1 Relationship between coal density and ash content
Fig. 2 Relationship between coal density and fixed carbon con-
tent
− 602 −
Fig. 4 Relationship between sonic velocity and ash content of coal
In contrast to surrounding rocks, the logging responses of
coal seams are quite different, featuring low density, low
natural gamma ray, negative anomaly of spontaneous poten-
tial, high acoustic time difference, high compensated neutron
porosity and high resistivity. Combining with the characteris-
tics of high hole enlargement rate of coal seam, we can iden-
tify coal seams by manual interpretation or use pattern recog-
nition to automatically identify coal seam and lithology.
Based on core homing of 90 samples in12 wells, we
counted the compensated density, compensated sonic time
difference of each sample. In consideration of the possible
error during core homing, we took the average value of
neighbouring samples as logging response value for large leap
interval in logging curve.
Density logging can interpret density of different strata
quantitatively. Because of differences in components, coal
seams are different in density, which in turn results in their
differences in response on density log curve. Based on the
coring well data, the relationship of ash content, fixed carbon
content and compensated density logging was figured out.
The result shows that with the increase of ash content, de-
crease of fixed carbon content, compensated density log value
increases (Fig.5, Fig.6). At the same time, industrial compo-
nents and acoustic log values also follow certain relation: with
the decrease of ash content, and increase of fixed carbon con-
tent, compensated sonic log value increases (Fig.7, Fig.8).
Well relations between industrial components and logging
response of coal reservoirs can help to establish log interpre-
tation model.
 SHAO Xianjie et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(5): 599–605
Fig. 5 Relationship between compensated density log and ash
content of coal
Fig. 6 Relationship between compensated density log and fixed
carbon content of coal
Fig. 7 Relationship between compensated acoustic travel-time
differences log and ash content of coal
Fig. 8 Relationship between compensated acoustic travel-time
differences log and fixed carbon content of coal
4 Log interpretation model of coal reservoir
industrial components, porosity and gas content
As mentioned above, with the increase of ash content,
− 603 −
compensated density logging value increases and compen-
sated sonic difference value decreases; on the contrary, with
the increase of fixed carbon content, compensated density
logging value decreases and compensated sonic difference
value increases. There is good correlation between the rela-
tionships above, so the log interpretation models of ash and
fixed carbon content were established respectively according
to multivariate regression analysis, based on the relation be-
tween two relative logging curves and its responsive experi-
mental value.
Multiple regression model of ash content: Sad=−6.480 3−
0.099 9 Δt+45.396 7ρDEN, R=0.924 3; fixed carbon content mul-
tivariate regression model is: lnSfcd=−31.245 0＋11.204 7 lnΔt+
1.846 1 lnρDEN−0.886 8(lnΔt)2−3.425(lnρDEN)2, R=0.954 2.
The coal reservoir can be regarded as combination of fixed
carbon, ash, volatile components, inherent water, pore water
and adsorptive methane according to the commonly used
volume model[15] in well logging. The following equation set
can be acquired according to compensated density log and
sonic difference log:
⎧ ρ DEN = Sfcd ρ fcd + Sad ρ ad + S vdaf ρ vdaf +
⎪
⎪ S mad ρ mad + S w ρ w + Sg ρ g
⎪
⎨ Δt = Sfcd Δtfcd + Sad Δtad + S vdaf Δtvdaf + (3)
⎪ S mad Δtmad + S w Δt w + Sg Δtg
⎪
⎪1 = Sfcd + Sad + S vdaf + S mad + S w + Sg
⎩
Given Sfcd, Sad, negligible Smad(normally less than 1%, and
0.65% averagely in Hancheng area), ρg(0.375 g/cm3), Δtg(757
μs/m), ρfcd=1.39 g/cm3, Δtfcd=432.90 μs/m, ρad=2.47 g/cm3,
Δtad=287.36 μs/m, ρvdaf=1.05 g/cm3, Δtvdaf=564.97 μs/m,
ρmad=ρw=1.0 g/cm3(inherent and pore water density) and
Δtmad=Δtw=666.67 μs/m, by solving the above equations we
can get the 3 unknown parameters, Svdaf, Sw and Sg. The sum
of Sw and Sg equals porosity; Sg is underground adsorptive gas
content per volume coal. Given the adsorptive gas density at
the underground and standard condition are 0.375 g/cm3 and
6.756×10−4 g/cm3 respectively[16−17], by conversion we can
acquire Sg′, the gas content per ton coal at standard condition
is:
0.375Sg
S g′ = (4)
6.756 × 10−4 ρ
Using the above method we can get the fixed carbon, ash
and volatile content and their proportions in the whole coal
reservoir, which is also the proportions of each in all six
components and a conversion can be made to calculate their
proportions in the dry coal samples.
5 Case study
A set of coalbed methane well log interpretation software
was programmed according to the above results. When using
it to interpret some coal cores of the target area, we can find
that the average relative error between log interpretation and
experimental results of ash, fixed carbon, volatile, gas and
porosity are respectively 3.38%, 2.33%, 7.64%, 3.68% and
 SHAO Xianjie et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(5): 599–605

Table 2 Comparison between log interpretation and experimental results of well HHS2
Ash content/% Fixed carbon content/% Volatile component content/% Gas content Porosity/%
Experi- Well
Layer Experi- Well Relative Experi- Well Relative Experi- Well Experi- Well
Relative mental logging Relative Relative
mental logging mental logging mental logging mental logging
error error error value/ value/ error/% error
value value value value value value value value
(m3·t−1) (m3·t−1)
3# 55.51 52.69 5.35 34.35 35.98 4.75 9.83 11.33 15.26 5.63 5.26 6.57 3.95 4.28 8.35
5# 27.29 27.97 2.43 61.57 60.63 1.53 10.94 11.40 4.20 7.05 7.16 1.56 5.36 5.16 3.73
11# 16.63 17.03 2.35 73.27 72.75 0.71 9.88 10.22 3.44 8.63 8.88 2.90 6.94 7.21 3.89

Fig. 9 Coal reservoir parameter interpretation results of well HHS2

5.55% (Table 2, Fig.9), which can meet the needs of actual
production with high log interpretation accuracy.
6 Conclusions
The gas content, density and interval transit time of coal are
significantly affected by its industrial components. The log-
ging density decreases and the interval transit time increases
as the fixed carbon content increases and ash content de-
creases. Enumeration method is used to calculate density and
sonic speed value of industrial components according to ex-
perimental test, pore, gas content, density and sonic speed
value of many coal samples. The method supported by ade-
quate theoretical basis, is highly practical and accurate in ac-
tual application, which solved the problem that physical pa-
rameters of each coal component can’t be measured directly in
lab, and laid a solid foundation for building accurate log in-
terpretation model. Industrial components, gas content and
pore interpretation models of coal reservoir were built and
comprehensive log interpretation software was made, which
has got good effect in actual application by combining statis-
tical analysis method and theory model calculation method,
based on experimental data of target area and abundant theory
evidence.
Nomenclature
ρ —coal density, g/cm3;
ρad —ash density, g/cm3;

− 604 −
 SHAO Xianjie et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2013, 40(5): 599–605

Sad —ash relative content, %; tion, 1997, 26(2): 58–60.

ρfcd —fixed carbon density, g/cm3; [4] Gao Xuchen. The responses of density and neutron loggings
Sfcd —fixed carbon relative content, %; on the coalbed methane content and the logging interpretation.
ρvdaf —volatile density, g/cm3; Coal Geology & Exploration, 1997, 26 (2): 58–60.
Svdaf —volatile relative content, %; [5] China National Coal Association. GB/T 212-2008 Proximate
ρmad —inherent water density (1.0 g/cm3), g/cm3; analysis of coal. Beijing: China Standard Press, 2009.
Smad —inherentl water relative content, %; [6] China National Coal Association. GB/T 23561-2009 Deter-
v—coal acoustic velocity, m/s; mination method for the of the physical and mechanical prop-
vad —ash acoustic velocity, m/s; erties of coal and rock. Beijing: China Standard Press, 2009.
vfcd —fixed carbon acoustic velocity, m/s; [7] CNPC. SY/T 6351-1998 Experimental determination of rock
vvdaf —volatile acoustic velocity, m/s; acoustic properties in laboratory. Beijing: Petroleum Industry
vmad —inherent water acoustic velocity (1 500 m/s), m/s; Press, 1998.
vw —pore water acoustic velocity, m/s; [8] Wu Qinghong, Li Xiaobo, Liu Honglin, et a1. Log interpreta-
Sw —pore water relative content, %; tions and the application of core testing technology in the
ρw —pore water density, g/cm3; shale-gas: Taking the shale-gas exploration and development
Sg —adsorptive methane relative content, %; of the Sichuan Basin as an example. Acta Petrolei Sinica,
3
ρg —adsorptive methane density, g/cm ; 2011, 32(3): 484–488.
Δt—coal sonic difference, μs/m; [9] Yang Xiaoping, Zhao Wenzhi, Zou Caineng, et al. Genetic
Δtfcd —fixed carbon sonic difference, μs/m; mechanism of low-permeability reservoir and the formation
Δtad —ash sonic difference, μs/m; and distribution of high-quality reservoir. Acta Petrolei Sinica,
Δtvdaf —volatile sonic difference, μs/m; 2007, 28(4): 57–61.
Δtmad —inherent water sonic difference, μs/m; [10] Guo Dong, Yin Xingyao, Wu Guochen. Computational ap-
Δtw —pore water sonic difference, μs/m; proach of S-wave velocity and application. Oil Geophysical
Δtg —adsorptive methane sonic difference, μs/m; Prospecting, 2006, 42(5): 535–538.
3
Sg′—gas content per ton coal at standard condition, m /t; [11] Waxsman M H, Smits L J M. Electrical conductivity in
GR—natural gamma, API; oil-bearing shaly sands. Society of Petroleum Engineers Jour-
SP—spontaneous potential, mV; nal, 1968, 12(6): 107–122.
ρDEN—compensated density, g/cm3; [12] Deng Jixin, Shi Ge, Liu Ruixun, et al. Analysis of the velocity
φCNL—compensated neutron porosity, %; anisotropy in shale and and its affecting factors. Chinese
RLLD—deep lateral resistivity, Ω·m; Journal of Geophysics, 2004, 47(5): 862–868.
RLLS—shallow lateral resistivity, Ω·m. [13] Dong Shouhua. Test on elastic anisotropic coefficients of gas
R—multiple correlation coefficient coal. Chinese Journal of Geophysics, 2008, 51(3): 947–952.
[14] Zhang Longhai, Zhou Cancan, Liu Guoqiang, et al. Influence
References of pore structures on electric properties and well logging
evaluation in low porosity and permeability reservoirs. Petro-
[1] Zhang Qun, Feng Sanli, Yang Xilu. Discussion on the basic leum Exploration and Development, 2006, 33(6): 671–676.
reservoir characteristics and development strategy of coalbed [15] Qin Xuying. Study on Using logging data to predict produc-
methane resource in China. Journal of China Coal Society, tion capacity in natural gas reservoir. Oil Geophysical Pros-
2001, 26(3): 34–39. pecting, 2007, 42(3): 318–321.
[2] Kang Yuanyuan, Shao Xianjie, Wang Caifeng. Production [16] Li Xiangfang, Shi Juntai, Du Xiyao, et al. Transport mecha-
characteristics and affecting factors of high-mid rank coalbed nism of desorbed gas in coalbed methane reservoirs. Petro-
methane wells: Taking Fanzhuang and Hancheng mining areas leum Exploration and Development, 2012, 39(2): 203–213.
as examples. Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2012, [17] Huang Zhongwei, Li Gensheng, Yan Xiangzhen, et al. Com-
39(6): 728–732. parison experiments on steel and non-steel slotted screen pipes
[3] Pan Heping, Huang Zhihui. Discussion on the log interpreta- used in coalbed methane wells. Petroleum Exploration and
tion method of coalbed gas content. Coal Geology & Explora- Development, 2012, 39(4): 489–493.

− 605 −