PETROLEUM EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Volume 45, Issue 2, April 2018

Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: PETROL. EXPLOR. DEVELOP., 2018, 45(2): 312–320. RESEARCH PAPER

Optimization methods of production layer combination for

coalbed methane development in multi-coal seams
YANG Zhaobiao1, 2, *, ZHANG Zhengguang1, 2, QIN Yong1, 2, WU Congcong1, 2, YI Tongsheng3,
LI Yangyang1, 2, TANG Jun1, 2, CHEN Jie3
1. School of Resources and Geosciences, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China;
2. Key Laboratory of CBM Resources and Dynamic Accumulation Process, Ministry of Education of China, Xuzhou 221008, China;
3. Guizhou Research Center of Shale Gas and CBM Engineering Technology, Guiyang 550009, China

Abstract: Based on the productivity equation of coalbed methane (CBM) wells, three indexes, main production layer optimization in-
dex, main production layer expansion index and capacity contribution index are proposed, with which the three - step optimization meth-
od of production-layer combination is established. In selecting main production layer, the coal seam thickness, CBM content, coal seam
permeability, coal seam reservoir pressure and coal structure are considered comprehensively to evaluate the potential of the production
layer. In selecting expansion of the main production layer combination, on the premise of ensuring full and slow desorption of the main
production layer and non-exposure of the main production layer out of liquid surface, the degree of mutual interference between the main
and non-main production layers is comprehensively evaluated by coupling the critical desorption pressure, layer spacing and reservoir
pressure gradient difference. In optimizing production layer combination, the main concern is the economic efficiency of the combined
layers. Only when the contribution coefficient of the main production layer is greater than 30% and the contribution index of the other
production layers is more than 10%, the economic benefit of a CBM well after being put into production can be ensured. Based on the
comparative analysis of the development effect of the development test wells in Songhe of Guizhou province, it is proved that the
“three-step method” for the optimization of production-layer combination is scientific and practical, and can be used to design the mul-
ti-layer commingling scheme of coalbed methane.

Key words: CBM; multi-layer commingled production; selection of main production layer; combination optimization; production con-
tribution

Introduction low-pressure production layer[47]. Permeability differences

Western Guizhou Province is an important coal and coalbed
methane (CBM) resource area in southern China, where the
CBM geological resources of the Upper Permian account for
approximately 10% of the entire country’s resources[1]. The
coal reservoirs here feature numerous thin layers, high stress,
weak water, and complex coal structures[23]. Thus, it has been
observed that some wells experienced drop of production with
the increase of opened layers or the increase of span of pro-
duction layers during the exploration and development proc-
ess. This phenomenon is mainly due to the poor compatibility
between reservoirs and fluids of different properties, and se-
vere inter-layer interference[4]. The difference in fluid pressure
is likely to cause the high-pressure production layer fluid
passing through wellbore to prevent produced fluid of a
can result in differences in liquid supply capacity of coal
seams, and the fluid in high-permeability reservoir cracks
flows much faster than that in a low-permeability reservoir
during the production process, so velocity sensitivity is prone
to occur in high-permeability coal seams[5]; the difference in
critical desorption pressure decides whether multiple produc-
tion layers can produce gas commingled and continu-
ously[5,810]. Span differences of production layers to a certain
extent affect the difference between reservoir physical proper-
ties and fluid properties[910], and coal structure quality deter-
mines the stimulation of the reservoir, and layers of poor coal
structure often affect gas production of the entire combined
production layers[11].
Current researches on production layer combination focus
mostly on mathematical statistical analysis[5,1213], numerical

Received date: 23 May 2017; Revised date: 05 Mar. 2018.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: zhaobiaoyang@163.com
Foundation item: Supported by the China National Science and Technology Major Project (2016ZX05044-002); the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(41772155); the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (No. 2015XKZD07).
Copyright © 2018, Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration & Development, PetroChina. Publishing Services provided by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Com-
munications Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 YANG Zhaobiao et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(2): 312–320
simulation[10] and physical modeling[14] and so on under the
conditions of reservoir physical property differences and fluid
property differences in order to work out semiquantitative
compatibility indexes of production layers to guide practical
exploration and development of CBM. Because of the com-
plexity of geological conditions and interlayer interference,
limited statistical data, idealism of numerical simulation, and
limitation of physics simulation, a compatible identification
index system of production layers has not been established to
date, not mention guidance for the exploration and develop-
ment of CBM. Therefore, on the basis of current CBM devel-
opment technologies and coal seam groups in western
Guizhou, the urgent technical issue now is to optimize
combination production layers, reduce interlayer interference
as much as possible, balance the use of each production
layer’s resources and maximize the release of CBM resources
according to the physical properties and fluid characteristics
of each layer.
In the Songhe block in western Guizhou, the coal seams are
well-developed and stable, staged fracturing and commingled
drainage model has been adopted in the CBM test well groups
here, rich test and engineering data have been collected, and
single wells have peak production more than industry gas
flow standard. At present, the district is in a stable production
period, but the effect is not so ideal, primarily because com-
bination layers in single wells have failed to reach the maxi-
mum productivity. Therefore, based upon the principle of
efficient and economic development of each production layer
and the productivity equation of CBM well, the combined
optimization method of production layers has been explored
for typical development test wells in the Songhe block in
western Guizhou.
1. The coalbed methane field
In Block Songhe, the coal-bearing strata are 341 m thick on
average, thin- and medium-thickness seam groups are rich,
there are 50 coal-bearing layers on average, with the total
thickness of 41 m on average. There are 18 minable coal
seams, mainly NO.1+3, NO.4, NO.9, NO.12, NO.15, NO.16,
and NO.17, with a total thickness of the workable seams of
11.68 m. The main part of the coal seams is coking coal, with
high gas contents between 6.46 m3/t and 20.99 m3/t, and gas
saturation of greater than 70%. The coal seams have pressure
coefficients from 1.08 to 1.4, indicating abnormal high pres-
sure characteristic.
There are nine wells in the Songhe development test well
group. These wells have 3 to 4 fracturing stages of about 20 m
per stage, and production layer span of approximately 200 m,
including three main coal seams. These layers have been
drained and produced commingled by lowering liquid level
uniformly.
2. Combination method of production layers
The CBM exploration and development practice of multi-
 313 
coal seams has demonstrated that not the more production
layers, the better it is. It is often counterproductive to seek
more layers deliberately and pursue profit blindly. In low-per-
meability conditions, the interlayer interference is quite seri-
ous due to the differences in reservoir physical properties and
fluid properties. It is critical to optimize the combination pro-
duction layers reasonably in order to maximize the production
potential of CBM wells and improve the development effi-
ciency of CBM fields.
In view of this, a three-step method of optimizing combina-
tion production layers has been advanced, in which a main
production layer in multi-coal seams is picked out first, then
under the condition of ensuring that the gas production main
position of the main production layer, and other production
layers are added into the combination by considering the pro-
ductivity equilibrium and economic benefit.
2.1. Optimization of the main production layers
According to the productivity equation of CBM wells by
Lou Jianqing[15], Shenjian[16] and Mengzhaoping[17], the pro-
ductivity equation of gas well can be extended as follows:
Q  BHVK  p 2  p02  (1)
From Eq. (1), the original physical parameters that affect
the productivity of CBM wells are primarily coal seam thick-
ness, permeability, gas content and reservoir pressure, which
are consistent with the key parameters determined by the op-
timization of a CBM favorable area, the optimization of a
favorable production area and well pattern optimization [18-20].
CBM development practice has confirmed that under the cur-
rent development techniques, when the coal structure is my-
lonitic and particle coal, the development effect is not good.
The No.17 coal was preferred during the early exploration
stage of the western Guizhou, but the gas production result
was very poor because of its broken coal structure. Therefore,
the quality of coal structure is very important; if the develop-
ing coal seam is particle coal or mylonitic coal under a
multi-seam condition, it is recommended to be shelved. Based
on Eq. (1), the optimum index δ of the main producing layer
of multi-coal seam is advanced and specifically defined as
follows:
  HVKpS (2)
According to the above equation, the production layer with
larger optimum index value and greater potential productivity
is the preferred main production layer.
2.2. Expansion of the main production layer
The precondition for combination production layers is that
these production layers have similar physical properties and
fluid properties. In low-permeability and multi-coal seam
conditions, the reservoirs often have similar physical proper-
ties, but big differences in pressure and critical desorption
pressure. During the later commingled drainage control, to
ensure that the production layers produce gas continuously
and don’t interfere with each other, the critical desorption
 YANG Zhaobiao et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(2): 312–320
pressure, interlayer space and reservoir pressure gradient be-
come the decisive and key factors.
Considering the aforementioned factors comprehensively,
we have set up principles of expanding the main production
layer: (1) Guarantee the dominant status of the main produc-
tion layer, the production layer extending downward is the
best, and under special circumstances the production layer
could extend upward. When production layers in a combina-
tion begin to produce gas in turn, the main production layer
shouldn’t expose above the liquid level, prevent damage to the
main production layer. The particle coal or mylonitic coal
does not participate in the combination, lest spitting powder
impact the late engineering of the entire combination. (2) The
combination production layers are basically in one fluid pres-
sure system as far as possible. The reservoir pressure gradient
difference between the expansion production layer and the
main production layer should be less than 0.1 MPa/100 m[5]. If
the reservoir pressure gradient is too large, and the fluid from
high-pressure layer will inhibit the output of low-pressure
layer fluid through the wellbore and even flow back toward
the low-pressure layer under a large pressure difference. On
one hand, this causes the low-pressure layer unable to drain
and depressurize effectively, and have smaller effective de-
sorption area. On the other hand, the high pressure layer could
spit sand and powder[5], blocking its seepage channels, and
reducing CBM desorption and seepage capacity.
Based on these principles, a combined index of production
layer expansion for commingled production of multiple coal
seams is proposed as follows:
  106 dpc /  gh (3)
When the extended combination coefficient value of pro-
duction layer is greater than 1, it is suitable to expand the
combination; when it is less than 1, it is not appropriate to
expand the combination. The main factors affecting the pro-
duction layer expansion are interlayer spacing, critical desorp-
tion pressure and reservoir pressure gradient. If the production
layers expand upward, it is necessary to ensure that the upper
layers not be exposed above the liquid level early and there is
no interference between the production layers when the main
production layer begins to produce gas. Generally, the upper
expansion production layers do not come into the next phase
of the optimized combination of production layers, because
during the continuous production process of the main produc-
tion layer, the upper layers would inevitably be exposed above
the liquid surface prematurely, resulting in reservoir damage.
The combination mode of production layers is shown in Fig.
1. The first layer is the primary production layer. The pressure
drop funnel of the main production layer has been formed
when the liquid level falls to the upper part of the main pro-
duction layer and has formed an ideal desorption funnel.
Meanwhile, the second and third production layers have be-
gun to desorb, but the fourth production layer has not started
to desorb due to the low gas saturation and small critical de-
sorption pressure. Because of the low reservoir pressure, the
 314 
Fig. 1. Combination model of CBM production layers under
multi-coal seams conditions.
fifth production layer belongs to different fluid pressure sys-
tem, and the pressure drop funnel has not been developed yet.
Therefore, to ensure smooth gas production of the main pro-
duction layer and concentrated and intensive gas production
of the combined production layers, reduce the mutual inter-
ference of the layers, and achieve commingled drainage and
production, the combination should be the first, second, and
third production layers, and the fourth and fifth layers should
not be added to this combination.
2.3. Optimized combination of production layers
After the first and second steps of expansion combination
of production layers are completed, considering the efficiency
and economy of the development project, there may not be a
need to fully open all combined production layers. Thus, ac-
cording to the economic evaluation and productivity contribu-
tion of production layers, there is a need to further optimize
the production layer combination.
Take the CBM development of western Guizhou as an ex-
ample. Under the current market and technical conditions, the
fracturing cost for 2 to 3 layers is approximately 3 million
yuan for a CBM development well of no more than 1 000 m
in this area, and the cost will increase approximately 0.4 mil-
lion yuan when adding one fracturing layer. After drainage,
the maintenance cost of a well is approximately 250 thousand
yuan per year in the late stage. In the thirteenth five-year plan,
the CBM price is 1.8 yuan/m3, and the central finance subsidy
is 0.3 yuan/m3 for CBM. The payback period starts counting
from the construction year in general. Referring to general oil
and gas exploitation projects, the payback period of the
benchmark investment is 8 years, of which the construction
period is 1 year[21]. The 8-year cash outflow includes two parts,
the prophase project cost and the later maintenance cost,
which is approximately 5 million yuan in total.
From economic evaluation results of individual CBM wells
(Table 1), when the average daily gas production over the 8
years is stable at approximately 1 000 m3, the payback period
profit of the benchmark investment is 4851 thousand yuan,
which is close to 5 million yuan. Therefore, the average daily
gas production rate of 1 000 m3 is the starting standard for
commercial air flow in this area, which is consistent with the
initial standard of a CBM production limit calculated from the
 YANG Zhaobiao et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(2): 312–320

Table 1. Economic evaluation of CBM well. The productivity contribution index η can be defined as
Daily gas Annual earnings/ Benchmark investment payback follows:
n
production/m3 Ten thousand yuan period profit/ Ten thousand yuan
50 3.47 24.26
  Qi Q  100%
i 1
i (5)

100 6.93 48.51
300 20.79 145.53
500 34.65 242.55
700 48.51 339.57
1 000 69.30 485.10
1 200 83.16 582.12
reserves at this depth[22]. Therefore, the average daily yield of
a production layer combination should be at least 1 000 m3/d.
Within one production layer combination, the costs for adding
production layers are mainly costs of perforating, fracturing
operation and material for fracturing, and are approximately
0.4 million yuan. According to the 8-year benchmark invest-
ing payback period, the average daily gas production should
be 100 m3/d, which is 10% of the starting standard of com-
mercial gas flow in this area. The payback period profit of the
benchmark investment is 485.1 thousand yuan, approximately
the expense of single layer fracturing and part of the shared
maintenance. Considering the complexity of geologic condi-
tion in western Guizhou, the lower yield of current develop-
ment wells with only a few wells exceeding the production
rate of 1 000 m3/d, it is determined the expansion production
layer should have productivity contribution rate of greater
than 10%.
For the main production layer, during the stable production
stage, when the liquid level falls to the roof of the main pro-
duction layer, and the casing pressure is 0.05 MPa, the main
production layer gas production contribution rate should be
greater than 30%, while the gas production contribution rate
of the other layers should be greater than 10% at best. Based
on Eq. (1), the production potential of each layer is as follows:
Qi  Bi H iVi K i  pi2  p02i  (4)
where p0i   gh  pt
To simplify the calculation and increase operability, the in-
fluence coefficient B of engineering is not taken into account
in Eq. (4), that is making Bi=1.0×1015 t/(dm3MPa2).
The productivity contribution index η of the other produc-
tion layers should be greater than 10% except the main pro-
duction layer, and it is not recommended to combine the pro-
duction layers with less than 10% of contribution index.
2.4. Optimized combination process of production layers
The complete optimized combination process of multiple
coal seams is shown in Fig. 2. During the process, in addition
to meeting the three-step method requirements, also it should
be noted that if the main production is located at the top, dur-
ing the process of continuous drainage, the main production
layer should not be exposed above the liquid level too early. If
it is located at the bottom, after upward expansion, it is nec-
essary to ensure that the upper secondary main production
layer is not exposed above the liquid level too early. When the
main production layer is located in the middle, one should
follow the upward and downward expansion combination
principles, respectively.
3. Examples of production layer combinations
and comparison of their optimization effects
3.1. Basic data of example wells
Well GP and GP-X are two wells in the Songhe develop-
ment test well group with target points 180 m from each other,
and are both developed by small-layer perforation, staged
fracturing and commingled drainage. The wells were put into
operation in January 2014, and their basic data are shown in
Table 2. In the table, the depth, thickness, reservoir pressure,
permeability, gas content and coal structure of the coal seam
were derived from logging interpretation. The critical desorption
pressure of the production layers were calculated from the
measured isothermal adsorption data, and several coal seams
did not have isothermal adsorption data, so their critical de-
sorption pressures were obtained from the average Lambertian
volume and Lambertian pressure of other production layers.
Under an air-drying condition, the Lambertian volume and Lam-
bertian pressure were 22.82 m3/t and 2.13 MPa, respectively.

Fig. 2. Three-step method of optimizing combination of CBM production layers.

 315 
 YANG Zhaobiao et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(2): 312–320

Table 2. Coal seam basic data of Well GP-X and GP.

Coal Gas content/ Permeability/ Reservoir Critical desorption
Vertical depth/m Thickness/m Coal structure
seam (m3·t1) 103 μm2 pressure/MPa pressure/MPa
No. GP-X GP GP-X GP GP-X GP GP-X GP GP-X GP GP-X GP GP-X GP
1+3 467.56 510.66 2.71 2.54 10.71 10.73 0.023 0.033 4.88 5.45 1.88 1.89 Primary structure Primary structure
4 474.18 519.13 1.33 1.15 10.20 9.15 0.014 0.010 4.96 5.47 1.72 1.43 Primary structure Primary structure
5 478.81 523.13 0.74 0.87 7.25 8.81 0.006 0.008 5.00 5.55 0.99 1.34 Primary structure Primary structure
Fragmentation
6-1 497.51 536.80 1.27 2.68 7.58 12.66 0.004 0.016 5.26 5.88 1.06 2.65 Primary structure
-shredding
6-2 503.81 549.98 1.92 1.69 8.95 11.82 0.019 0.011 5.37 5.96 1.37 2.29 Fragmentation-shredding Primary structure
9 515.26 563.36 1.65 1.39 10.88 9.96 0.029 0.042 5.53 6.29 1.94 1.65 Primary structure Primary structure
10 530.33 1.09 8.02 0.018 5.69 1.15 Primary structure
11 534.99 0.99 7.70 0.005 5.66 1.08 Primary structure
12 544.06 598.81 1.28 2.22 9.51 9.59 0.017 0.061 5.81 6.60 1.52 1.54 Primary structure Primary structure
13 561.84 614.77 1.02 0.89 6.64 7.93 0.006 0.042 6.01 6.81 0.87 1.13 Primary structure Primary structure
15 567.55 617.88 2.34 1.79 10.73 11.97 0.023 0.010 6.15 6.97 1.89 2.35 Fragmentation-shredding Primary structure
16 573.22 624.96 2.07 2.09 9.83 12.21 0.028 0.016 6.08 6.99 1.61 2.45 Primary structure Primary structure
Fragmentation
17 582.39 637.81 2.28 4.46 11.99 10.69 0.023 0.025 6.30 7.28 2.36 1.88 Fragmentation-shredding
-shredding
21 633.60 694.09 0.98 1.48 9.33 7.00 0.016 0.022 6.93 8.02 1.47 0.94 Primary structure Primary structure
24-1 671.55 733.10 1.01 1.48 11.00 7.23 0.035 0.017 7.41 8.73 1.98 0.99 Primary structure Primary structure
27-1 693.40 760.12 1.68 1.86 7.10 10.03 0.011 0.010 7.86 9.31 0.96 1.67 Primary structure Primary structure
29-1 707.27 778.86 1.94 1.63 9.50 8.90 0.020 0.019 7.96 9.45 1.52 1.36 Primary structure Primary structure
29-2 710.29 781.63 1.25 0.83 8.92 9.38 0.007 0.006 7.98 9.71 1.37 1.49 Primary structure Primary structure
29-3 717.36 790.79 2.56 2.30 11.51 10.64 0.026 0.023 8.21 10.11 2.17 1.86 Primary structure Primary structure

3.2. Optimized combination of production layers of

example wells

According to the three-step method of the aforementioned

optimized combination of production layers, the main produc-
tion layer optimization, main production layer expansion and
optimized production layer combination have been analyzed
for Well GP-X and GP, respectively, and several production
layer combinations have been worked out for the example
wells.
3.2.1. Selection of main production layer

Well GP-X: although 2.34 m thick, No. 15 coal with broken

seam structure is ruled out according to the principle of selec-
tion. The No. 6-2 and 17 coals, broken in structure, are elimi-
nated too. Finally, three main production layers, No. 1+3, 16
and 29-3 coal seams (Fig. 3a) are selected, of which No. 29-3
coal has the highest optimization index.
Well GP: similarly, No. 6-1 and 17 coal seams, broken in
structure, are eliminated, and ultimately, the No. 1+3, 12, and
29-3 coal seams are selected as the main production layers
(Fig. 3b), of which No. 12 coal seam is the most preferred
coal seam.
3.2.2. Expansion of the main production layer
There are four extended combinations for Well GP-X (Fig.
4a): (1) The downward expansion combination of No. 1+3
 316 
Fig. 3. Selection results of main production layers of example
wells.
coal is No. 1+3, 4, 5, 6-1, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16 coal with a
production layer span of 105.66 m; (2) The upward expansion
combination of No. 16 coal is No. 1+3, 4, 5, 6-1, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13 and 16 coal with a production layer span of 105.66 m; (3)
The downward expansion combination of No. 16 coal is No.
16, 21, 24-1, 29-1 and 29-3 coal with a production layer span
of 144.14 m; and (4) The upward expansion combination of
No. 29-3 coal is No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 24-1, 29-1, 29-2
and 29-3 with a production layer span of 202.1 m.
 YANG Zhaobiao et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(2): 312–320
Fig. 4. Extension of main production layers of example wells.
There are also four extended combinations of Well GP (Fig.
4b): (1) The downward expansion combination of No. 1+3
coal is No. 1+3, 4, 5, 6-2, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 coal with a
production layer span of 114.3 m; (2) The upward expansion
combination of No. 12 coal is No. 1+3, 4, 5, 6-2, 9 and 12
coal with a production layer span of 88.15 m; (3) The down-
ward expansion combination of No. 12 coal is No. 12, 13, 15
and 16 coal with a production layer span of 26.51 m; (4) The
upward expansion combination of No. 29-3 coal is No. 24-1,
27-1, 29-1, 29-2 and 29-3 with a production layer span of
57.69 m.
3.2.3. Optimized combinations of production layers
We have worked out 3 production layer combinations for
Well GP-X (Fig. 5a): (1) The optimization result of the No.
1+3 coal extended combination is No. 1+3, 4, 9 and 16 coal,
with a span of 105.66 m. (2) The comprehensive optimization
result of the two groups of No. 16 coal expansion combina-
tions is No. 16, 24-1 and 29-3 coal, with a span of 144.14 m.
(3) The optimization result of the No. 29-3 coal extended
combination is No. 24-1, 29-1 and 29-3 coal, with a span of
45.81 m. The three combinations have a maximum span of
144.14 m, minimum span of 45.81 m, average span of 98.54
m.
For Well GP-X, the third combination with No. 29-3 coal as
the main production layer has the highest preferred index and
the highest gas production potential. Since the larger the span
of the development layers, the severer the interlayer interfer-
ence and the more complex the later development project will
be, this combination could be the first choice for develop-
ment.
We have also selected 3 production layer combinations for
Well GP (Fig. 5b): (1) The optimization result of the No. 1+3
coal extended combination is No. 1+3, 6-2, 9, 12 and 16 coal,
with a span of 114.30 m. (2) The comprehensive optimization
result of the two groups of No. 12 coal expansion combina-
tions is No. 12, 15 and 16 coal, with a span of 26.15 m. (3)
 317 
Fig. 5. Optimization of production layer combinations of exam-
ple wells.
The optimization result of the No. 29-3 coal extended combi-
nation is No. 27-1, 29-1 and 29-3 coal, with a span of 30.68 m.
The three combinations have a maximum span of 114.3 m, a
minimum span of 26.15 m, and average span of 57.04 m.
Similarly, the second combination is the first choice for Well
GP.
It can be seen from the final results of optimized combina-
tions, although the two wells are only 180 m from each other
in target point, the optimized results of the production layer
combinations are quite different, influenced by coal seam
structure and reservoir characteristic parameters. Their first
and third combinations are similar, but the second combina-
tions differ widely. Therefore, it is the foundation of efficient
development to optimize the production layer combination of
single well in multi-coal seam commingled production.
3.3. Comparison of actual development effect of example
wells
3.3.1. Comparison of actual production effect
The actual development layers in Well GP-X are No.1+3, 5,
9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16, with a cumulative coal seam thick-
ness of 11.6 m and a span of 138.5 m. The production layer
combination is approximately similar to the No.1+3 coal ex-
pansion combination in the first set. The actual development
layers in Well GP are No.5, 6-1, 6-2, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 29-1,
29-2, and 29-3, with a cumulative coal seam thickness of
18.38 m, and a span of 267.66 m, which completely covers
the second and third sets of the main production layer expan-
sion combinations.
The two wells were drilled and fractured successively with
similar processes, and have been put to drainage and produc-
tion with the similar working regime at the same time. But
comparing the highest daily gas production, Well GP-X is
1 802 m3 (Fig. 6), and Well GP is 1 200 m3 (Fig. 7); the for-
mer is 50.17% higher than the latter. During the later stage,
 YANG Zhaobiao et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(2): 312–320
Fig. 6. Actual drainage curve of Well GP-X.
Fig. 7. Actual drainage curve of Well GP.
the two wells were put to second time pressure holding (Figs.
6 and 7), resulting in partial exposure of the upper coal seam,
causing damage to production layers and a decline in produc-
tion. However, Well GP-X has maintained a yield of approxi-
mately 500 m3/d, while Well GP has kept at only approxi-
mately 400 m3/d during the later stage.
From the viewpoint of gas contribution of unit coal seam
thickness, Well GP-X is 43.1 m3/(dm) and Well GP is 21.8
m3/(dm). The former is 1.98 times that of the latter, that is,
with less development layers, better development result has
achieved. This finding shows that the blind pursuit of more
production layers is not scientific, if the increased capital in-
vestment of adding the development layers is counted, the
benefits are even worse.
For the Zhijin block in the western Guizhou province and
adjacent blocks of the Zhujiang syncline developed by Sino-
pec, a production layer combination generally contains 4 lay-
ers, with the span of approximately 70 m, and the yield is
 318 
stable at greater than 1 000 m3/d. The parameter well Yangmei
1 in the Yangmeishu syncline, adjacent to the northern Tu-
cheng syncline, put into development by the Chinese Geo-
logical Survey Administration in 2016, has only three devel-
opment production layers of about 6.42 m each, and a span of
63 m. The well had a peak production rate of 5 011 m3/d from
the three densely distributed layers, and had a stable produc-
tion of greater than 4 000 m3/d for 51 d continuously. This set
the highest production and the most stable daily output of
CBM well in southwestern China. These good results have
been achieved after properly reducing the number and span of
the production layers, drawing lessons from previous unideal
development effect with large span and excessive production
layers in the early stage.
3.3.2. Reason analysis of the poor development effect of
Well GP
In the actual development layers of Well GP, the No. 6-1
coal seam with broken structure should be ruled out from the
combination, meanwhile, the production layer combination
contains too much layers, resulting in the weakening of gas
production capacity of the main production layer, strong in-
terlayer interference, and poor overall production effect.
Taking the main production layer, No. 29-3 coal, as an ex-
ample, when this layer begins to produce gas, the layers below
No. 15 coal can be ensured below the liquid level, but the
layers above No.15 coal can’t be guaranteed under liquid level.
The actual development results showed that when No. 29-3
coal entered into gas production stage, No. 5, 6-1, 6-2, 9, 12
and 13 coal seams were all exposed above the liquid level.
Moreover, the pressure gradient differences between No. 29-3
coal and coal seams above No. 21 are all greater than 0.1
MPa/100 m, indicating they are not in the same fluid pressure
system and have strong interlayer interference; thus, they
can’t be produced commingled within a short time.
When the liquid level height corresponding to the critical
desorption pressure is equal to or greater than the liquid level
converted from the bottom flow pressure, it can be considered
gas production begins, so the gas production sequence of the
layers in the well can be predicted accordingly (Fig. 8, the
height of the moving liquid level in the figure is based on the
No. 29-2 coal floor). During the drainage process of approxi-
mately 200 d, the liquid level remained at approximately 250
m, near the No. 6-2 coal roof (Fig. 7). The prediction results
of gas production contribution layers and sequence are as
follows: No. 6-1, 6-2, 15, 16, 5, 9, 12 and 13. Because the
liquid level and flow pressure dropped too quickly, multiple
production layers started to produce gas successively at the
same time, giving rise to a transient peak of gas production,
with the highest yield of approximately 1200 m3/d, and the
water yield of approximately 5 m3/d (Fig. 7), but No. 29-1,
29-2 and 29-3 coal didn’t produce gas.
In the later stage, the second pressure holding was imple-
mented out of production needs (Fig. 7), resulting in rapid
drop of liquid level of approximately 200 m. After production
 YANG Zhaobiao et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(2): 312–320
Fig. 8. Predicted sequence of gas production layers.
for approximately 300 d, No. 29-1, 29-2, and 29-3 coal started
to produce gas, but at this time, the No. 16 coal and produc-
tion layers above it were completely exposed above the liquid
surface (Fig. 7), resulting in pressure sensitivity damage and
gas locking effect in a short time, which was very unfavorable
to the expansion of the pressure drop funnel. After the pres-
sure holding, the gas production of the well recovered to ap-
proximately 1 000 m3/d, mainly from the production layers
No. 29-1, 29-2, and 29-3. But because the flow pressure
dropped too quickly, it was difficult to maintain the peak yield,
and the stable yield of the late stage was approximately 400
m3/d, failing to reach the desired development effect.
In conclusion, the unideal development effect of Well GP is
caused by excessive production layers in the combination,
interlayer interference, and premature exposure of the main
production layer above the liquid level. In contrast, after re-
ducing the number of production layers, Well GP-X achieved
better development effect than Well GP, with a combination
similar to a set of extended combination according to the
three-step method. This finding indicates that the scientific
and rational combination and partition of production layers is
the strong guarantee for efficient and economic CBM devel-
opment in multi-coal seam conditions.
4. Conclusions
Based on the productivity equation of the CBM well, the
three indexes of main production layer optimization, main
production layer expansion and productivity contribution have
been proposed, and the three-step method of optimizing com-
bination of production layers has been established.
When selecting main production layer, the combination
seam thickness, gas content, permeability, and reservoir pres-
sure of the coal seam and coal structure should be considered
comprehensively to evaluate the potential productivity. The
greater the index δ, the greater the potential productivity is.
When making main production layer expansion combination,
under the prerequisite of ensuring full and slow desorption
and non-exposure above the liquid surface of the main pro-
duction layer, the critical desorption pressure, interlayer spac-
ing and reservoir pressure gradient difference are coupled to
 319 
comprehensively evaluate the degree of interlayer interference
between the main and other production layers. If the combina-
tion index Ω is greater than 1, the combination is feasible. The
optimization of production layer combination mainly consid-
ers the economy of the production layer combination. Only
when the productivity contribution index of the main produc-
tion layer is greater than 30%, and those of other production
layers are greater than 10%, can the economic benefit of CBM
wells after put into production be ensured.
According to comparative analysis of the Songhe develop-
ment test wells, the three-step method for optimizing combi-
nation of production layers has been proved scientific and
practical, and can be applied to the scheme design of CBM
multi-layer commingled production.
Nomenclature
B—the comprehensive influence coefficient of gas well engineer-
ing, 1015 t/(d·m3·MPa2);
d—coefficient, when the reservoir pressure gradient difference
between extended production layers and the main production layer is
less than 0.1 MPa/100 m, the value is 1, and if more than 0.1
MPa/100 m, the value is 0;
g—the acceleration of gravity, 9.81 m/s2;
h—the vertical spacing between the other extended production
layer and the main production layer, m;
H—the thickness of coal seam, m;
i—the production layer number;
K—the coal seam permeability, 103 μm2;
n—the total number of production layers;
p—reservoir pressure, MPa, select the value of the critical desorp-
tion pressure pc;
p0—the bottom pressure of the well, MPa;
pc—the critical desorption pressure, MPa;
pt—casing pressure, MPa, 0.05 MPa;
Q—CBM well productivity, m3/d;
S—the coal structure coefficient, when the coal structure is the
primary structure coal or fragmentation structure coal, the value is 1,
when the coal seam is particle coal or mylonitic coal, the value is 0;
V—the CBM gas content, m3/t;
Ω—the combined index of production layer expansion, dimen-
sionless;
δ—the optimum index of main production layer, 1015 m6·MPa/t;
η—the productivity contribution index, %;
ρ—the density of produced water, 103 kg/m3.
References
[1] Strategic Research Center of Oil and Gas Resources, MLR.
Assessment of coalbed. Beijing: China Land Press, 2006.
[2] GAO Di, QIN Yong, YI Tongsheng. Geological condition,
exploration and exploitation strategy of coal-bed methane re-
sources in Guizhou, China. Coal Geology of China, 2009,
21(3): 20–23.
 YANG Zhaobiao et al. / Petroleum Exploration and Development, 2018, 45(2): 312–320
[3] QIN Yong, SHEN Jian, SHEN Yuling. Joint mining compati-
bility of superposed gas bearing systems: A general geological
problem for extraction of three natural gases and deep CBM in
coal series. Journal of China Coal Society, 2016, 41(1): 14–23.
[4] NI Xiaoming, SU Xianbo, LI Guangsheng. Feasibility of
multi-layer drainage for No.3 and No.15 coal seams in the
Fanzhuang area. Natural Gas Geoscience, 2010, 21(1):
144–149.
[5] ZHANG Zheng, QIN Yong, FU Xuehai. The favorable devel-
oping geological conditions for CBM multi-layer drainage in
southern Qinshui Basin. Journal of China University of Min-
ing and Technology, 2014, 43(6): 1019–1024.
[6] GUO Chen, QIN Yong, YI Tongsheng, et al. Groundwater
dynamic conditions and orderly coalbed methane development
of Feitian Block in Western Guizhou, South China. Journal of
China Coal Society, 2014, 39(1): 115–123.
[7] YI Tongsheng, ZHOU Xiaozhi, JIN Jun. Reservoir formation
characteristics and co-exploration and concurrent production
technology of Longtan coal measure coalbed methane and
tight gas in Songhe field Western Guizhou. Journal of China
Coal Society, 2016, 41(1): 212–220.
[8] HUANG Huazhou, SANG Shuxun, MIAO Yao, et al. Drain-
age control of single vertical well with multi-hydraulic frac-
turing layers for coalbed methane development. Journal of
China Coal Society, 2014, 39(Supp.2): 422–431.
[9] PENG Xingping, XIE Xianping, LIU Xiao, et al. Study on
combined coalbed methane drainage system of multi-seams in
Zhijin Block, Guizhou. Coal Science and Technology, 2016,
44(2): 39–43.
[10] WANG Qiao. Numerical simulation of jamming mechanism
for multi-hydraulic fracturing layers coalbed methane extrac-
tion of multi-coalbed field in western Guizhou. Xuzhou:
China University of Mining and Technology, 2014.
[11] WANG Baoyu. Coal body structures and its impact on pro-
duction capacity of coalbed methane wells in Jincheng. Bei-
jing: China University of Geosciences (Beijing), 2013.
[12] GUO Chen, QIN Yong, XIA Yucheng, et al. Source discrimi-
nation of produced water from CBM commingling wells based
 320 
on the hydrogen and oxygen isotopes: A case study of the Up-
per Permian, Bide-Santang Basin, western Guizhou area. Acta
Petrolei Sinica, 2017, 38(5): 493–501.
[13] CHAO Haiyan, WANG Yanbin, GE Tengze, et al. Difference
in liquid supply capacity of coal seams and its influence on
multi-layer drainage of coalbed methane: Taking the west limb
of Guyi anticline in Daning-Jixian region as an example.
Journal of China University of Mining & Technology, 2017,
46(3): 606–612.
[14] ZHU Huayin, HU Yong, LI Jiangtao, et al. Physical simulation
of commingled production for multilayer gas reservoir in Se-
bei Gas field, Qaidam Basin. Acta Petrolei Sinica, 2013,
34(Supp.1): 136–142.
[15] LOU Jianqing. Analysis of factors affecting coalbed methane
production. Natural Gas Industry, 2004, 24(4): 62–64.
[16] SHEN Jian. On CBM-reservoiring effect in deep strata. Xu-
zhou: China University of Mining & Technology, 2011.
[17] MENG Zhaoping, ZHANG Jixing, LIU He, et al. Productivity
model of CBM wells considering the stress sensitivity and its
application analysis. Journal of China Coal Society, 2014,
39(4): 593–599.
[18] TIM A M. Coalbed methane: A review. Int. J. Coal Geol,
2012, 101(6): 36–81.
[19] ZHAO Xianzheng, YANG Yanhui, SUN Fenjing, et al. En-
richment mechanism and exploration and development tech-
nologies of high rank coalbed methane in South Qinshui Ba-
sin, Shanxi Province. Petroleum Exploration and Develop-
ment, 2016, 43(2): 303–309.
[20] ZHAO Xin, JIANG Bo, XU Qiang, et al. Well pattern design
and deployment for coalbed methane development. Petroleum
Exploration and Development, 2016, 43(1): 84–90.
[21] WANG Yutao, LIU Ru, XIONG Weili, et al. CBM economic
evaluation and establishment of criteria for individual well
commercial gas flow rates in the Junggar Basin. Natural Gas
Industry, 2017, 37(3): 127–131.
[22] The Ministry of Land and Resources of China. Specifications
for coalbed methane resources/reserves: DZ/T 0216-2010.
Beijing: China Standard Press, 2011.