44 T.A.
Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 13. Timing of gas type generation in relation to temperature for humic type organic
matter. Also showing approximate H/C ratios with burial stages. Modified from Hunt
(1979) and Zhang et al. (2008).
things go wrongly, through use of bacterially contaminated drilling
or fracturing fluids introduced into the reservoir; in the latter case,
cleaning up the reservoir can be time consuming and expensive.
In general, the gases found within a CBM reservoir are greatly
influenced by rank (see Section 4.1). Because of the nature of biogenic
processes, low-rank coals contain mostly CH4 and usually only small
quantities of CO2. However, in some plays there may be spatial variation
in CH4 and CO2 because of the kinetics of differential gas transport. This
variation can have economic ramifications over the production life of a
basin (Cui et al., 2004).
Some CBM plays may have a multitude of gases present whose
relative concentrations vary greatly laterally and vertically within the
basin. For example, in the Sydney basin CO2 concentrations increase
Fig. 14. Changes in relative volumes of generated gases to vitrinite reflectance; from
experimental pyrolysis data. Modified from Zhang et al. (2008).
upwards through multiple seams (Faiz et al., 2007a). Furthermore, in
the Bulli seam within the same basin, ethane proportions vary signifi-
cantly in relation to the depth of the coal seam (Faiz et al., 2003).
Creedy and Pritchard (1983) and Rice (1993) also found a relationship
between depth and gas quality, though this doesn't appear to be univer-
sal across basins. An interesting association in the San Juan Basin exists
where coals seams below the topographically higher recharge areas
have the highest CH4 concentrations (and importantly low CO2; Scott
et al., 1994). This has been postulated to be a result of water differentially
flushing the more mobile CO2 down dip, effectively concentrating the
CH4 (Cui et al., 2004). Some production companies do note that CO2
will increase at the expense of CH4 with continued degassing of the
seam; in part this might be the result of different desorption kinetics
between CO2 and CH4 (Cui et al., 2004).
Care does have to be taken when analysing for gas quality as some
gases may be introduced or created during the sampling process or
even be altered from the containment vessel itself (van Holst et al.,
2010). For example, if canisters are not constructed out of material
which are inert and non reactive, it has been shown that significant
H2 may be produced (Faraj and Hatch, 2004). Nitrogen can also be
an introduced contaminant (as part of atmospheric air) during gas
quality analysis (Kim 1973). There is no doubt that N2 exists naturally
within some higher rank coals (Creedy and Pritchard, 1983; Hunt,
1979) but in some cases O2 may react with the coal itself and be pref-
erentially adsorbed, with the effect of leaving excess N2 in the gas
mixture (Creedy and Pritchard, 1983; Havton, 2003; Jin et al., 2010).
It is important that this relic N2 is not mistaken as being inherent
within the seam.
3.4. Desorption
The amount of actual gas (also referred to as ‘gas charge’) in a coal
bed can be estimated through taking a sample of fresh coal and
desorbing gas from it over a period of time. When a sample of coal is
brought to the surface and placed in a canister some of the gas will be
released from the coal. At depth, reservoir pressure, which is mainly
from hydrostatic head, keeps gas molecules physically adsorbed onto
the surface of the coal micropores (see also Section 5.2 and Busch and
Gensterblum, 2011 for more detail on sorption properties). The zero
hydrostatic pressure at the Earth's surface allows the gas to desorb out
of the coal and thus be measured. This process is called desorption.
Some procedures dictate that desorption should take place at the equiv-
alent reservoir temperature that the sample came from (e.g. American
Standard Testing Material [ASTM] D7965-10, 2010) whilst other proce-
dures place less emphasis on that requirement, relying more on math-
ematical corrections to simulate reservoir temperature (e.g. AS 3980–
1999, Anonymous, 1999; Saghafi et al., 1995; Williams, 1996).
Some service companies are now offering in situ gas measurements
that determine the critical desorption pressure (CDP) without the need
for core. As this technology is just being commercially trialled, the reader
is directed to www.welldog.com and www.weatherfords.com for addi-
tional information on these procedures. See also Lamarre and Pope
(2007) and Carlson et al. (2008) for a discussion. It is also possible to
use well cuttings for desorption (ASTM, 2010; Newell, 2007), though
these will yield less certain results.
Some of the earliest modern desorption procedures were developed
by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in the 1970s and early 1980s (e.g. Diamond,
1978; Diamond and Levine, 1981; Kim, 1973, 1977; Kim and Douglas,
1973; McCulloch et al., 1975). The basic concept is that coal samples
are brought quickly to surface (preferably using a wire-line coring
system), placed in a leak proof canister of roughly the same size as the
sample, and over a period of time the gas that is evolved is measured.
Since those early studies, there have been improvements (e.g. Barker
et al., 2002, Crosdale et al., 2005; McLennan et al., 1995; Moore and
Butland, 2005; Stricker et al., 2006; Yee et al., 1993; also see Diamond
and Schatzel, 1998 for an earlier review), but the essential steps have