Coal Bed Methane Reservoir Simulation Studies

By

Kaveh Karimi
Supervisor

Prof. W. V. Pinczewski
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the

Degree of Master of Engineering

School of Petroleum Engineering

The University of New South Wales June, 2005

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to perform simulation studies for a specific coal bed methane reservoir. First, the theory and reservoir engineering aspects of coal bed methane reservoirs, such as dual porosity concept, permeability

characteristics of CBM reservoirs and mechanism of gas storage and gas transportation in CBM reservoir have been discussed. Next, simulation results for the CBM reservoir presented. Simulation studies were carried out by using the CBM reservoir simulator, SIMED II. Injection/fall-off test pressure data were interpreted based on the pressure history matching method. The interpretation results include the determination of reservoir permeability and identification of the reservoir altered zone. Also available production histories were used to simulate the reservoir production behavior. Then the production model was used to predict the reservoir future production and to carry out sensitivity analysis on reservoir performance. For natural pressure depletion, methane recovery was increased significantly as reservoir permeability was increased. Well-bore fracturing creates a fractured zone with higher permeability. This increases methane production rate during early time of reservoir life. Reservoir matrix porosity has a significant effect on the reservoir performance. Higher production peak rate and also higher methane recovery was obtained for the reservoir with lower porosity values. Any increase in the reservoir compressibility causes greater reduction in reservoir absolute permeability as well as relative permeability to gas throughout the reservoir. II

Therefore, methane recovery decreased as the reservoir compressibility increased. The reservoir production behavior was strongly affected by changes in reservoir size. The production peak rate was significantly postponed and lowered as reservoir size was increased. The effect of reservoir initial pressure was investigated and the results show that higher initial reservoir pressure leads to higher production rate during early years of production. However, for the later years of reservoir life, the production profile is almost identical for different initial pressures. Coal desorption time constant affects the methane production by its own scale. In this study, the range of desorption time did not exceed longer than three days and therefore the difference in production rate was observed only in the first few days of production.

III

List of Contents
List of Contents ............................................................................. I List of Figures .............................................................................VII List of Tables ...............................................................................XI 1 Introduction ........................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2 2 Coal Bed Methane Production................................................. 1 Scope of Present Study ........................................................ 4

Theory and Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Coal Bed Reservoirs........... 5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Coal Porosity System ........................................................... 5 Permeability in coal bed methane reservoirs .............................. 6 Pressure-dependent rock properties......................................... 9 Relative Permeability in coal bed reservoir ............................... 14 Methane storage in coal ...................................................... 20 Methane adsorption ...................................................... 20 Langmuir adsorption model............................................. 22

2.5.1 2.5.2 2.6

Gas Transport in Coal ......................................................... 26 Gas Desorption............................................................ 27 Gas Diffusion in Coal ..................................................... 31 Gas Permeation in CBM Reservoirs .................................... 32

2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7

Gas Transport Modeling in CBM reservoirs ................................. 34 Gas Desorption Modeling ................................................ 35 Gas Diffusion modeling .................................................. 36 IV

2.7.1 2.7.2

The Application of Simulation Studies in Coal Bed Reservoir Characterization 43 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Well Testing .................................................................... 43 Injection fall-off test.......................................................... 45 SIMED II, the simulation tool ................................................. 46 Case Study ...................................................................... 46 Injection fall off (IFO) test analysis......................................... 47 IFO test in well D Object 4:........................................... 48 IFO test in well D, object 3 ............................................. 54 IFO test well D, Object 8b .............................................. 60 IFO test in well D, object 8a ........................................... 66 IFO test in well D - object 7 ............................................ 71 IFO test in well D, object 2 ............................................. 76 IFO test in well D, object 1 ............................................. 81 IFO test in well C, object 1: ............................................ 86

3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.5.7 3.5.8 3.6

Production History Match for Object 1 in Well D ......................... 91 Coal Seam Geological Setting .......................................... 91 Simulation Model of Well D ............................................. 91 Simulation Input Parameters ........................................... 92 Production History Matching Results .................................. 95 Comparison with characterization studies ........................... 96 Production Prediction of the Well D................................... 96

3.6.1 3.6.2 3.6.3 3.6.4 3.6.5 3.6.6 3.7

Production History Match for Object 2 in Well A ........................101 V

3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4 3.7.5 3.7.6 3.8

Coal Seam Geological Setting .........................................101 Simulation Model of Well A ............................................101 Simulation Input Parameters ..........................................102 Production History Matching Results .................................104 Comparison with characterization studies ..........................105 Production Prediction of Well A ......................................105

Sensitivity Analysis ...........................................................109 Effect of reservoir permeability ......................................109 Effect of fractured zone permeability ...............................112 Effect of relative permeability........................................114 Effect of porosity........................................................118 Effect of formation compressibility (cf) .............................120 Effect of drainage area.................................................122 Effect of reservoir initial pressure....................................125 Effect of desorption time constant...................................127

3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.8.4 3.8.5 3.8.6 3.8.7 3.8.8 3.9

Conclusions ....................................................................129

References ................................................................................132

VI

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 - Comparison of CBM and typical gas reservoir producing by pressure depletion, CBM reservoir (Ma 2004) ............................................... 3 Figure 2.1 Fracture System in coal (Shi and Durucan 2003)....................... 5 Figure 2.2 Face and butt cleats in coal (Ma 2004).................................. 8 Figure 2.3a - Relative permeability in coal from laboratory testing ............. 17 Figure 2.3b Coal relative permeability curves obtained by history matching (Meaney and Paterson 1996)....................................................... 18 Figure 2.4 Schematic illustration of adsorbed gas on coal surface (Ma 2004) 21 Figure 2.5 Chemical adsorption in which there is a chemical bond between methane and coal molecules (Ma 2004) ......................................... 22 Figure 2.6 Adsorption isotherms (Ma 2004) ......................................... 25 Figure 2.7 Gas movement in coal bed reservoirs (Reeves and Pekot 2001) ... 27 Figure 2.8 Desorption includes both physical and chemical adsorbed gas molecules (Ma 2004) ................................................................ 29 Figure 2.9 - Determination of desorption time constant by straight line method (Mavor, Owen et al. 1990) ......................................................... 31 Figure 2.10 Production regime in coal bed reservoirs (Pinzon and Patterson 2004) .................................................................................. 34 Figure 2.11 Adsorption isotherms may be used to model desorption process (Ma 2004) .................................................................................. 36

VII

Figure 2.12 Bidisperse model scheme including micro spheres inside the macro spheres (Shi and Durucan 2003)................................................... 40 Figure 2.13 Spherical matrix elements in coal bed reservoirs (Kolesar and Ertekin 1986) ......................................................................... 40 Figure 3.1 - Field kr curves .............................................................. 51 Figure 3.2 - Pressure history match for IFO test on Object 4 in well D .......... 52 Figure 3.3 - Field kr curves .............................................................. 57 Figure 3.4 - IFO test pressure history match for object 3, well D ................ 59 Figure 3.5 - Reported changes in the injection rate of IFO test on well D, Object 3........................................................................................ 59 Figure 3. 6 Faults map in coal seam number XV (Tran 2005) .................... 61 Figure 3.7 - Field relative permeability curves ...................................... 64 Figure 3.8 - Object 8b pressure profile match ....................................... 65 Figure 3.9 - Field relative permeability curves ...................................... 69 Figure 3.10 - Object 8a pressure profile match...................................... 70 Figure 3.11 - Field relative permeability curves..................................... 74 Figure 3.12 - Object 7 pressure profile match ....................................... 75 Figure 3.13 - Field relative permeability curves..................................... 79 Figure 3.14 - Object 2 pressure profile match ....................................... 80 Figure 3.15 - Field relative permeability curves..................................... 84 Figure 3.16 - Object 1 pressure profile match ....................................... 85 Figure 3.17 - Field kr curves............................................................. 89 Figure 3.18 - History match for fall-off pressure data of object 1, well C ..... 90 VIII

Figure 3.19 - Adsorption/desorption behavior of coal seam in different pressures ......................................................................................... 94 Figure 3.20 - Field kr curves............................................................. 95 Figure 3.21 - Production history match for object 1, well D ...................... 96 Figure 3.22 - Object 1 predicted production profile over 25 years............... 99 Figure 3.23 - Predicted cumulative production of object 1 in well D ............ 99 Figure 3.24 - Object 1 methane recovery after 25 years..........................100 Figure 3.25 - Coal adsorption behavior against pressure changes ...............103 Figure 3.26 - Modified field kr curves.................................................103 Figure 3.27 - Object 2, well A, production history match ........................104 Figure 3.28 - Object 2, well A, predicted production profile ....................106 Figure 3.29 - Object 2 cumulative production profile .............................107 Figure 3.30 - Methane recovery from object 2 in well A ..........................107 Figure 3.31 - The effect of kres changes on production rate ......................111 Figure 3.32 - The effect of kres on methane recovery .............................111 Figure 3.33 - Reservoir sensitivity investigation to kfrac ...........................113 Figure 3.34 - Methane recoveries associated with different kfrac ................113 Figure 3.35 - Three sets of kr curves (permeable to gas, base case and permeable to water).............................................................................116 Figure 3.36 - The effect of different kr behavior on reservoir performance ...117 Figure 3.37 - Methane recoveries obtained by using different kr curves .......117 Figure 3.38 - The effect of porosity changes on production rate ................119 Figure 3.39 - Methane recoveries sensitivity investigation to porosity changes119 IX

Figure 3.40 - Production profiles with different cf values ........................121 Figure 3.41 - The effect of cf changes on methane recovery.....................122 Figure 3.42 - The effect of drainage area size on reservoir performance......124 Figure 3.43 - Methane recovery sensitivity to variations in drainage area .....124 Figure 3.44 - Reservoir performance sensitivity to Pi ..............................126 Figure 3.45 - The effect of different Pi on methane recovery ...................126 Figure 3.46 - Early time production rates with different desorption time constant ........................................................................................128

List of Tables
Table 3.1 - The depth of different coal seams in well D ............................. 48 Table 3.2 - Object 4 simulation input data............................................. 50 Table 3.3 - Adsorption characteristics of coal seam in well D ...................... 50 Table 3.4 - Field scale relative permeability data .................................... 50 Table 3.5 - Object 3 simulation input data............................................. 56 Table 3.6 - Adsorption characteristics of coal seam in well D ...................... 56 Table 3.7 - Field scale relative permeability data .................................... 56 Table 3.8 - Object 8b rock/fluid properties............................................ 63 Table 3.9 - Adsorption Isotherm Data ................................................... 63 Table 3.10 - Field relative permeability data .......................................... 63 Table 3.11 - Object 8a rock/fluid properties .......................................... 68 Table 3.12 - Adsorption Isotherm Data.................................................. 68 Table 3.13 - Field relative permeability data .......................................... 68 Table 3.14 - Object 7 rock/fluid properties ............................................ 73 Table 3.15 - Adsorption Isotherm Data.................................................. 73 Table 3.16 - Field relative permeability data .......................................... 73 Table 3.17 - Object 2 rock/fluid properties ............................................ 78 Table 3.18 - Adsorption Isotherm Data.................................................. 78 Table 3.19 - Field relative permeability data .......................................... 78 Table 3.20 - Object 1 rock/fluid properties ............................................ 83 Table 3.21 - Adsorption Isotherm Data.................................................. 83 XI

Table 3.22- Field relative permeability data........................................... 83 Table 3.23 - Object 1, well C simulation input data .................................. 88 Table 3.24 - Adsorption characteristics of coal seam in well D ..................... 88 Table 3.25 - Field scale relative permeability data ................................... 88 Table 3.26 - Object 1 (well D) simulation input data for production history matching ................................................................................ 93 Table 3.27 - Adsorption characteristics of coal seam in well D ..................... 93 Table 3.28 - Field scale relative permeability data ................................... 94 Table 3.29 - Object 1, well D, average yearly production data..................... 98 Table 3.30 - Object 2, well A simulation input data ................................. 102 Table 3.31 - Coal adsorption characteristics in object 2, well A .................. 102 Table 3.32 - Object 2 average yearly production data .............................. 108 Table 3.33 - Summery of permeability values for coal seams in well D .......... 129

XII

1 Introduction
1.1 Coal Bed Methane Production
Coal bed methane is an important part of the worlds natural gas resource. The energy industry classifies coal beds as unconventional gas reservoirs and continuously looks for methods to economically develop gas production from them (Pinzon and Patterson 2004). Coal deposits act as self-sourced natural gas reservoirs wherein the three crucial elements of petroleum system, which are source rock, reservoir and trap, are located together in a single geological unit. Thus, coal deposits represent a relatively simple, low risk exploration target with respect to locating natural gas accumulations. The major risk in most coal bed methane developments is generally not the drilling of a dry hole; rather it is not being able to produce commercial amount of natural gas from the reservoir (Nelson 2000). Although up to 1400 m3 of gas may be generated per ton of coal, only a small fraction of this amount can be produced which is typically not more than 20 m3/ton (Stevenson 1997). In conventional gas reservoirs, gas is stored as free gas in the pore spaces of the reservoir rock. While in coal bed reservoirs the gas may be stored as a free gas in the secondary porosity system, natural fracture network, it is also stored at almost liquid densities on the internal surfaces of coal matrix by physical adsorption.

The adsorbed gas is generated as a by product during coalification process. It usually accounts for as much as 99 percent of the gas-in-place in coal bed reservoir (Roadifer, Moore et al. 2003). To produce gas from a coal bed reservoir, gas must be desorbed from the coal. This is achieved by depressurizing the coal seam. Since most coal bed reservoirs are 100 percent water saturated in the natural fracture network, it is necessary to produce this water to depressurize the coal and create the necessary pressure gradient for the gas desorption process. As gas desorbs from the coal, changes in gas/water saturation in fractures result in fluid mobility changes in the fracture network. This leads to a unique feature observed during coal bed methane production, an initial negative gas decline rate. The gas production rate initially increases to a peak production rate, as the seam dewaters and the relative permeability to gas increases. This is followed by a normal decline in production rate as reservoir pressure decreases with continued production (Roadifer, Moore et al. 2003; Pinzon and Patterson 2004). Figures 1.1 shows a comparison between the production characteristics of a coal bed reservoir and a conventional gas reservoir producing by pressure depletion (Ma 2004; Pinzon and Patterson 2004). As shown in Figure 1.1, at 50 percent reservoir pressure depletion only 17 percent of original gas-in-place is produced from the coal bed, while at the same pressure depletion 44 percent of the original gas-in-place is produced in the case of a conventional gas reservoir.

CBM Reservoir

% Gas in Place

100 80 60
Conventional Gas Reservoir 17% of Gas Produced Reservoir Pressure Depleted by 50% 44% of Gas Produced

40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Reservoir Pressure (psi)

Figure 1.1 - Comparison of CBM and typical gas reservoir producing by pressure depletion, CBM reservoir (Ma 2004)

Figure 1.1 also shows that to recover 50 percent of original gas-in-place, reservoir pressure must be depleted up to 56 percent for the case of a conventional gas reservoir, while in a coal bed reservoir, 78 percent pressure depletion is needed to produce the same amount of gas from the well. This indicates that to recover a substantial fraction of the original gas in place in coal bed reservoirs, a low bottom-hole pressure is required for the producing wells.

1.2 Scope of Present Study

The purpose of this study was to perform reservoir simulation studies for a specific case study. As a simulation tool, SIMED II, an implicit, three-dimensional, dual porosity, multi-component, finite difference reservoir simulator

incorporating gas adsorption models was used. Chapter 2 reviews the theory and reservoir engineering aspects of coal bed methane reservoirs, such as the dual porosity concept, permeability

characteristics of CBM reservoirs, adsorption mechanism of gas storage, multi mechanism gas transport and CBM well production behavior. Chapter 3 presents simulation results for the case study, including the interpretation of injection/fall-off tests through simulation and pressure history matching. The recorded well pressures are matched by the simulator and the model parameters are considered to be indicative of actual reservoir characteristics. This method produces formation properties on reservoir scale. Properties at this scale can be used to predict future reservoir production rates. Sensitivity analysis was performed on reservoir parameters such as reservoir absolute and relative permeability, porosity, compressibility, initial pressure, desorption time and well drainage area. This analysis shows potential impact on predicted reservoir performance, when uncertainties in reservoir parameters are inherent.

2 Theory and Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Coal Bed Reservoirs

2.1 Coal Porosity System
Coal seams are characterized by two distinctive porosity systems: a well-defined and almost uniformly distributed network of natural fractures (cleats), and a coal matrix containing a highly heterogeneous porous structure between the cleats (Shi and Durucan 2003). (Figure 2 1)

Figure 2.1 Fracture System in coal (Shi and Durucan 2003)

Cleats account for less than 2 percent of the seam bulk volume. Therefore, storage of free gas in the pore spaces of coal cleats represents a minor part of the total gas-in-place. However, the cleat porosity system is very important in coal bed reservoirs because nearly all the reservoir permeability comes from presence of cleats network in the coal seams. The coal matrix contains very fine pore spaces. These pores are referred to as micro pores. It has been reported that coal micro pores can be as small as a few nanometers in diameter (Shi and Durucan 2003). Micro pores do not contribute significantly to permeability, but they are excellent sites for gas storage in adsorbed form. Because of coal micro pores, it is estimated that a gram of coal may contain up to 200 square meters of internal surface for methane adsorption (Reeves and Pekot 2001; Shi and Durucan 2003). Micro pores are commonly referred to as the coal primary porosity system whereas cleats are referred to as coal secondary porosity system caused by geological processes such as structural deformation, differential compaction and volume contraction. The following section provides more detailed description of secondary porosity generation in coal seams (Nelson 2000).

2.2 Permeability in coal bed methane reservoirs

Naturally occurring micro fractures, for instance cleats, provide the permeability essential for bulk fluid flow in coal bed reservoirs. The bulk fluid flow is controlled by the fractures physical properties, specifically their orientation, spacing, compressibility and effective porosity. If the fractures are 6

interconnected and continuously distributed throughout the reservoir, the effective permeability is high (Nelson 2000). Natural fractures in rocks have various origins and are formed when the applied stress exceeds the yield stress of the bulk rock matrix material. The applied stress may be the result of either a physical or chemical process and it may originate either externally or internally to the rock body. Natural fracture formation in coal bed reservoir results from stresses generated by such varied geological processes as structural deformation, differential compaction and volume contraction (Nelson 2000). Five types of natural fractures are distinguishable in coal bed reservoirs. The two commonly observed types of natural fractures are face and butt cleats. Face and butt cleats are orthogonal sets of fractures oriented perpendicular to the bedding plane. The face cleats are long, linear micro fractures continuously distributed throughout the seam whereas the butt cleats are short and terminate against face cleats. This is interpreted as indicating that butt cleats were formed later in geological time. Hence, the face and butt cleats are referred to as primary and secondary cleats, respectively. Coal cleats are extension (opening-mode) fractures that form as a result of the stress generated by the volume contraction or shrinkage of coal matrix as a result of desiccation during thermal maturation (Nelson 2000). Three other fracture system that may be observed in coal beds, referred to as tertiary cleats, joints and faults. Tertiary cleats are micro fractures whose orientations are different than those of either the face and butt cleats. The 7

tertiary cleats terminate against either face or butt cleats. This indicates that they were formed later in geologic time. Joints and faults are larger-scale fractures that typically cut across the coal bed and the other formations (Nelson 2000). Figure 2 2 shows a set of fractures in a coal seam.

Butt Cleats

Face Cleats

Figure 2.2 Face and butt cleats in coal (Ma 2004)

2.3 Pressure-dependent rock properties

During primary methane production, two distinct phenomena are associated with reservoir pressure depletion, which have an opposing effect on coal

permeability. The first is an increase in the effective stress during production (Shi and Durucan 2003). The effective stress is equal to the in-situ overburden stress minus the reservoir pore pressure. As reservoir pore pressure decreases due to water and gas production, the effective stress applied to the coal seam increases while the overburden stress remains constant. This causes a reduction in permeability under uniaxial strain. The opening and closing of cleats is particularly sensitive to effective horizontal stresses, because the cleat system is oriented normal to the bedding plane. As a result, the cleat system permeability is primarily controlled by changes in effective horizontal stresses. The second phenomenon is methane desorption from the coal matrix (Shi and Durucan 2003). When reservoir pore pressure falls below the desorption pressure, methane begins to desorb from the coal matrix, resulting in coal matrix shrinkage. As the coal matrix shrinks, the effective horizontal stresses are partially relaxed. This results in a reduction in the reservoir effective horizontal stresses causing cleat reopening and an overall increase in permeability. The purpose of this section is to present a theoretical formulation for permeability and porosity dependence on pressure which includes both stress and matrix shrinkage effect in a single equation. The equation is derived under uniaxial condition (Palmer and Mansoori 1996). 9

The derivation starts from the following equation of linear elasticity for strain changes in porous rock:

r = p + (1 ) g
where

r is rock volume strain, p is pore volume strain, g is grain volume strain and

is porosity value of the rock (coal).

Since the rock body consists of grain particles as well as pore spaces among the grains, the total rock strain includes two strain components: the strain in pore volume, p (reduction in pore spaces between the grains) and also strain in grains volume, (1 ) g . The pore volume strain may be written as:

p = r (1 ) g
The incremental form of the equation is

d p = d r + (1 )d g
or d p = where d r 1 d g (2 1)

d p is incremental pore volume strain

d r is incremental rock volume strain

d g is incremental grain volume strain

is coal porosity
10

The incremental pore volume strain d p is a result of a simple volumetric balance. The incremental rock strain causes incremental strain in pore volume and therefore a reduction in the pore volume, whereas incremental grain volume strain increases the pore volume. In this equation, it is assumed that changes in porosity are small (linear elasticity). The change in pore volume strain d p leads to a change in porosity as follows: (Palmer and Mansoori 1996)

1 K K d = (1 ) fc g (dS dP) + (1 ) c g dP (1 )dT M M M

Where

(2 2)

c g : Grain compressibility

: Grain thermal expansibility

f : A fraction 0 1
dS : Changes in overburden stress dP : Changes in pore pressure

dT : Changes in temperature

M (constrained axial modulus) and K (buck modulus) are related to Youngs

modulus, E and Poissons ratio, , via isotropic elasticity theory.

11

M 1 = E (1 + )(1 2 )
K 1 1 + = M 3 1

(2 3)

(2 4)

For porosity, <<1, as is the case in coal beds for constant overburden stress ( dS = 0 ), we have:

d =

1 K K dP + + f 1 c g dP 1dT M M M

(2 5)

The term dT is a temperature expansion/constriction term (if the temperature drops, the matrix fabric shrinks and the cleat width increases). This is directly analogous to matrix shrinkage where cleat width increase as gas desorbs during pressure drawdown (Palmer and Mansoori 1996). On the other hand, according to laboratory evidence the lab measured matrix shrinkage strains may be fitted to a Langmuir type curves with ease and accuracy (Harpalani and Schraufnagel 1990; Palmer and Mansoori 1996). Therefore:

dT

d lP dP + dP P P

(2 6)

l and P are parameter of Langmuir curve match to volumetric strain change

due to matrix shrinkage.
d = dP K K d l P + + f 1 c g dP 1 dP M M M dP P + P

(2 7)

The module M and K are independent of pressure. This leads to:

12

P K d d = c m dP + l 1 dP M dP P + P

(2 8)

Where

cm =

1 K + f 1 c g M M

(2 9)

By integrating and dividing to 0 we have:

0 = c m (P P0 ) + l
P : Reservoir pressure

P0 K P 1 M P + P P + P0

(2 10)

P0 : Initial reservoir pressure

c = 1 + m (P P0 ) + l 0 0 0 P0 K P 1 M P P P P0

(2 11)

Assuming permeability varies with porosity as follows: (Palmer and Mansoori 1996)

k = k0 0

(2 12)

now the permeability and porosity changes can be expressed as functions of elastic modules, initial porosity, shrinkage characteristics and reservoir pressure drawdown. Palmer and Mansoori (Palmer and Mansoori 1996) suggested the following equation (Equation 2 -13) for the pressure at which permeability will rebound:
Pc = (0.48 l EP )
0.5

(2 13)

where Pc is the rebound pressure 13

This rebound pressure as presented is independent of reservoir initial pressure,

P0 .
At early production time when matrix shrinkage can be neglected and if grain compressibility is also very small, then porosity and permeability function may be written as:
P P0 = 1+ 0 0 M

(2 14)
3

k P P0 = 1 + 0 M k0

(2 15)

2.4 Relative Permeability in coal bed reservoir

Relative permeability is a primary parameter in determining coal bed reservoir production characteristics. Gas and water flow in cleats are mainly controlled by relative permeability. Therefore, an appropriate estimation of relative

permeability characteristics of the coal seam is needed to understand the reservoir performance properly. Relative permeability data can be obtained by the following methods: Laboratory based relative permeability investigation: there are two standards methods for gas/water relative permeability measurements, unsteady state and steady state methods. In the unsteady state technique the core is saturated with brine which is subsequently displaced by gas injection. The production volumes of both fluids and the differential pressure or total flow rates are monitored and 14

recorded as a function of time. A mathematical model, such as that of Jonhson, Bossler and Naumann (Johnson, Bossler et al. 1959) is used to derive a set of relative permeability characteristics from the production data. The derived relative permeability values are determined as a function of the mobile water saturation at the end-face. The unsteady state technique is limited by the simplifying assumptions of the mathematical models which include the assumption that the core samples should be isotropic and homogeneous (Ohen, Amaefule et al. 1991). The most attractive feature of the unsteady state technique is the reduced testing time as compared to the steady state. Figure 2.3a shows some coal relative permeability curves obtained in the lab using unsteady state methods (Meaney and Paterson 1996). The steady state technique is preferred for heterogeneous sandstone and carbonate samples as well as coal. In the steady state process, fluids are injected simultaneously at fixed flowing ratios. Saturation distributions are monitored until equilibrium is established. This is evidenced by the constancy in differential pressure. Once equilibrium is achieved, fluid saturations are directly measured by one of the following independent techniques: gravimetric or volumetric material balance, X-ray or gamma scanning or CT scanning. The relative permeability values are determined by the application of Darcys law.

15

Steady state data typically cover a broader range of saturation than unsteady state data. The main disadvantage of the steady state process is the time required to achieve the saturation equilibrium, which can be substantial, especially for low permeability samples (Ohen, Amaefule et al. 1991). Well transient pressure testing: Transient pressure testing is used to calculate the in-situ relative permeability characteristics. The period over which typical test in coal seams are performed is on the order of hours. During such a short time, fluid saturation and capillary pressure remains fairly constant. Therefore, effective gas and water permeability can be determined at a particular fluid saturation. A similar test after some time, on the order of month, when gas and water ratio has changed, will provide gas and water permeability at a different fluid saturation. By performing more similar tests, field-representative relative permeability curves can be generated (Ahmed, Johnston et al. 1991). Simulation based relative permeability curves: Another source of relative permeability data is from history matching fluid production rates and bottomhole pressure data with a reservoir simulator. The initial predictions are based on an assumed or measured relative permeability curves. The curves are varied until a match between observed and computed production and pressure is obtained. This method is often limited by the assumption that all the other reservoir parameters, including the absolute permeability values, porosity, drainage area and well skin factor, are known and sufficiently accurate (Conway, Mavor et al.

16

1994). Some coal relative permeability curves derived from field history matching are shown in Figure 2.3b.

Figure 2.3a - Relative permeability in coal from laboratory testing

17

Figure 2.3b Coal relative permeability curves obtained by history matching (Meaney and Paterson 1996)

According to the published literature (Meaney and Paterson 1996), substantial differences exist between relative permeability curves measured in the laboratory and field relative permeability curves obtained by history matching reservoir performance. Filed relative permeability curves are generally characterized by high values of residual water saturation, which often are in excess of 80%. The extremely heterogeneous nature of coal is known to be primarily responsible for the difference between lab and field relative permeability curves (Meaney and Paterson 1996). Obviously, laboratory measured relative permeability curves which are obtained from small core plugs can not be representative of reservoir heterogeneity spanning several length scales. 18

There are other reasons for such differences which originate from the nature of fluid flow in coal bed reservoirs. As mentioned before, it is generally assumed that cleats are initially saturated with water and as the reservoir pressure is reduced, gases desorb from the coal surface, diffuse through the matrix and flow to the well bore via the fracture system (cleats) (Roadifer, Moore et al. 2003). The adsorbed gas displaces water from the fractures. This leads to viscous fingering in the fracture system. Viscous fingering occurs during fluid flow in a porous medium where a less viscous fluid like gas displaces a more viscous fluid like water. In this case, the displacement front forms as an uneven fingered front with the viscous fingers propagating rapidly and causing early breakthrough and poor displacement efficiency. Viscous fingering is associated with large-scale by-passing of water and this is the likely explanation for the high residual water saturation associated with coal bed gas production. Finally, gravity forces can also affect coal bed reservoir relative permeability behavior. For instance, if gas displaces water vertically downwards the density differences can make the fluids partitioned and delay breakthrough of methane. On the other hand, in horizontal flow gravity override can have a similar effect to viscous fingering resulting in early gas breakthrough (Meaney and Paterson 1996).

19

2.5 Methane storage in coal

Methane is mainly stored in coal as adsorbed gas on the surfaces of micro fractures in the coal matrix (Figure 2.4). The adsorbed methane in coal bed reservoirs accounts for more than 90 % of total gas-in-place. Methane can be also present in the form of free gas in natural fracture system and it has been reported that in high volatile sub-bituminous coals free gas can comprises up to 70 % of the total storage capacity (Roadifer, Moore et al. 2003; Shi and Durucan 2003).

2.5.1 Methane adsorption

The adsorption process occurs between the gaseous methane phase and the coal as the solid phase in two types of physical and chemical adsorption. However, it is believed that the physical adsorption is the prevailing mechanism in coals. In physical adsorption methane is adsorbed as a result of intermolecular forces, van der Waals forces, between methane molecules and the coal molecules while chemical adsorption involves sharing or transfer of an electron (Figure 2.5) (Ma 2004). Physical adsorption characteristics are described as follows: (Ma 2004)

Physical adsorption is nearly instantaneous and equilibrium in quickly established.

It is usually reversible due to low energy requirements (activation energy is usually very low)

The degree of physical adsorption decreases with increasing temperature. 20

It is not limited to a monolayer but a series of layers may pile up.

Figure 2.4 Schematic illustration of adsorbed gas on coal surface (Ma 2004)

21

Figure 2.5 Chemical adsorption in which there is a chemical bond between methane and coal molecules (Ma 2004)

2.5.2 Langmuir adsorption model

The adsorption model in coal bed methane reservoir engineering is a parametric curve which relates the coal adsorption capasity to pressure at the coal seams temperature (Figure 2.6). One of most commonly used models is Langmuir model which is based on the following assumptions: (Stevenson 1997)

Gas-gas interactions in the adsorbed phase are negligible. Adsorbed molecules occupy only one adsorption site at ant one time. Adsorption molecules form only a monolayer. All the surfaces have the same energy for adsorption. Surface forces do not overlap or interfere.

22

The adsorption rate is assumed to be proportional to the number of free adsorption sites and to the rate of connection between free gas molecules and the surface. The latter is directly proportional to the bulk pressure. The overall rate of adsorption is given bellow: (Stevenson 1997)
na Rate of adsorption = c a P 1 n m

(2 16)

Where P is the pressure, na is the number of occupied adsorption sites (per unit weight of adsorbent), nm is the total number of adsorption sites and c a is the proportionality constant for adsorption. Desorption occurs when the molecular vibration in the normal direction to the surface is sufficient to overcome the adsorption potential i.e. when molecule vibration increases due to the thermal energy, the probability for the molecules to move away from the surface increases. The probability of this occurring within any given time period is predicted by a statistical time constant that depends on temperature and the characteristic adsorption energy of the site. The overall rate of desorption is assumed to be proportional to the probability of normal vibration and to the number of occupied sites: (Stevenson 1997)
k T B

Rate of desorption = c d e

na nm

(2 17)

Where T is the absolute temperature, is the characteristic adsorption energy of the site or activation energy (an increase in decreases the rate of

23

desorption), k B is the Boltzmann constant described bellow and c d is the statistical time constant of desorption.

kB =

R J = 1.38066 10 23 o NA K

(2 18)

where

R is Universal gas constant = 8.3145

J and molK o

N A is Avogadros number = 6.0221 10 23

Equating the rates of adsorption and desorption at a given pressure, P gives:

na c a P 1 n m

k T n a B c e = d nm

(2 19)

Defining b( , T ) and b0 as
k T k T ca B = b0 e B b( , T ) = e cd

(2 20)

allows above equation to be written in the more recognized form of the Langmuir equation: (Stevenson 1997)

24

na bP = n m 1 + bP

(2 21)

Adsorption Isotherm Curve

1200

Adsorption (scf/ton)

1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

An adsorption Isotherm curve defines the holding capacity of gas as a function of pressure.

Pressure

Figure 2.6 Adsorption isotherms (Ma 2004)

The proportion of occupied adsorption sites to the total number of adsorption site may be substituted by the proportion of adsorbed gas volume at a given pressure to the adsorbent total adsorption capacity:

na V V = ads = ads nm VadsMAX VL

also if we define a new parameter as:

(2 22)

25

PL =

1 b

(2 23)

The parameters, V L and PL are called Langmuir parameters and the form of Langmuir equation is:

Vads = VL
Where

P P + PL

(2 24)

V L is The Langmuir volume or the maximum amount of gas that can be adsorbed

on coal surface as monolayer at a given temperature.

PL is The Langmuir pressure or the pressure at which the volume of adsorbed gas

is half of V L ( VadsMAX )

2.6 Gas Transport in Coal

Gas movement through coal takes place in three stages: (i) gas desorbs off the internal coal surfaces (ii) gas diffusion (mainly Knudsen diffusion) through the micro pore structure towards the larger pores in response to a concentration gradient by Ficks law and finally (iii) freed gas flow (Darcy flow) in sufficiently large pores and cleats out of the coal matrix in response to pressure gradients (Crosdale, Beamish et al. 1998) (Figure 2.7).

26

Figure 2.7 Gas movement in coal bed reservoirs (Reeves and Pekot 2001)

2.6.1 Gas Desorption

Desorption process along with diffusion refers to: the detachment of gas molecules from the coal micro pore surfaces (Figure 2.8), migration of this desorbed gas though the coal matrix to the cleat as a result of concentration gradients in the matrix and flow to well through the cleat system. The diffuson of gas through the coal matrix is described mathematically by Ficks first law: (Sawyer, Paul et al. 1990)

27

q des =

Vm

(C C ( p ))

(2 25)

where C , is the average matrix gas concentration, Vm is the bulk volume of a matrix block and is the desorption time constant defined by

1 D

(2 26)

where D is the diffusion coefficient of gas in the coal matrix and is a shape factor discussed by Warren and Root (Warren and Root 1963). To understand the physical meaning of desorption time, Ficks equation can be rewritten in derivative form as

dC 1 = (C C E ) dt

(2 27)

where C E is the gas concentration at the boundary between the matrix and cleat system. The solution to Equation (2 27) with initial and boundary conditions as

C = C i at t = 0
C = C E for t 0 at the boundary

is

C (t ) = C E + (C i C E )e

(2 28)

at the time t = Equation (2 - 28) may be rearranged as

28

C i C ( ) 1 = 1 = 0.63 Ci C E e

(2 29)

and because concentration is proportional to mass, then according to equation (2 29), the desorption time may be defined as the time at which approximately 63% of the gas contained between C i in the matrix and C E at the boundary has diffused to the boundary.

Figure 2.8 Desorption includes both physical and chemical adsorbed gas molecules (Ma 2004)

The definition of desorption time is the basic concept for its measurement in the laboratory. The method is to plot a graph of desorbed gas volume against elapsed time. The desorption time can be obtained by reading the time corresponding to

29

the desorbed gas volume equal to 63% of total gas content. This method may be used in any circumstance, regardless of coal metrix geometry (Xingjin 2003). Another method was introduced by Mavor and Pratt (Mavor, Pratt et al. 1994) based on a simplification to the solution of partial diffusion equation (Xingjin 2003):
Q(t ) = CQt D t Ql r2

Where Q(t ) represents the desorbed gas volume at time t , C is unit conversion factor, D the diffusion coefficient of gas in coal matrix, r is the sample characteristic diffusion distance and for the geometry of a cylindrical core sample, it is equal to the radius of cylinder. Ql is the lost gas volume. Mavor and Pratt (Mavor, Pratt et al. 1994) suggest that if the desorbed gas volume, Q(t ) , is plotted against the root of time,

t , the slope of straight line D : r2

fitted to the early time data may be used to determine

D r2
2

m = CQt

D m = r2 CQt
Since

8 1 and = 2 for cylindrical core sample then: r D 1 CQt 8 m

2

1 r2 = = 8 D

30

and desorption time constant can be calculated. Figure 2.9 shows an example of desorbed gas volume plotted against time data (Mavor, Owen et al. 1990)

t as well as an straight line fitted to early

Figure 2.9 - Determination of desorption time constant by straight line method (Mavor, Owen et al. 1990)

2.6.2 Gas Diffusion in Coal

Three mechanisms have been identified for diffusion of an adsorbing gas in the matrix larger pores (macro pores). They are molecular diffusion (moleculemolecule collisions dominate), Knudsen diffusion (molecule-wall collision dominate) and surface diffusion (transport through physically adsorbed layer). The effective macro pores diffusivity is thus a complex quantity which often includes contribution of more than one mechanism among which molecular diffusion prevails when the pore diameter is greater than ten times the mean free path; Knudsen diffusion may be assumed when the mean free path is greater 31

than ten times the pore diameter. In the intermediate regime both wall collision and inter molecular collision contribute to the diffusion resistance and the effective diffusivity depends on both the Knudsen and molecular diffusivities. Due to dependence of gas molecule mean free path on pressure, there will be a transition from Knudsen flow at low pressures to molecular diffusion at high pressures. It has been estimated that the mean free path of the methane molecule at standard conditions (room temperature and atmospheric pressure 0.1 MPa) is about 50 nm. In deep coal seems, the reservoir pressure will be much higher (> 5MPa) and thus the mean free path would be much lower than 50 nm. This implies that molecular and transition (surface) diffusion, rather than Knudsen diffusion, would control the diffusion process in the macro pores of deep coal seams. In micro pores (<2nm) because of extremely small pore sizes, gas diffusion is controlled by a distinctively different mechanism. In fine micro pores (<1nm), the diffusing molecules never escape the potential site instead their transport occurs by jumps between adsorption sites. Therefore, the process is considered to be more similar to surface diffusion, however the domain through which diffusing molecules migrate is not a two dimensional surface but rather a three dimensional space (Shi and Durucan 2003).

2.6.3 Gas Permeation in CBM Reservoirs

Coal bed wells exhibit three distinct stages in methane production (Pinzon and Patterson 2004). The first stage, Phase I, is characterized by a constant water production rate and declining flowing bottom-hole pressure. Phase II is 32

characterized by negative decline in the gas production rate as well as a significant decline in the water production rate and finally Phase III which begins when well has reached its peak in gas rate and gas production is characterized by a more typical positive decline trend (Figure 2.10) (Pinzon and Patterson 2004). Since cleat system are fully water saturated at initial conditions. Water must be displaced from the cleats before gas can effectively flow to the well. This process is called dewatering. Dewatering occurs mainly during phase I and continues in Phase II. As water is displaced from the cleat system, reservoir pressure decreases. When the reservoir pressure falls down to gas desorption pressure, the gas desorbs from the coal and flows through the cleats. This increases the gas saturation in the cleats. Therefore the cleats relative permeability to gas increases. This is known as the primary explanation for the increasing gas production rate during phase I and II. The well is considered to be dewatered at the beginning of phase III (water production is low and/or negligible and gas and water saturation remains with very little changes) and pseudo-steady state flow exists for the rest of reservoir life (Pinzon and Patterson 2004).

33

Figure 2.10 Production regime in coal bed reservoirs (Pinzon and Patterson 2004)

2.7 Gas Transport Modeling in CBM reservoirs

Coal bed reservoir gas transport has been described by three types of mathematical models. They are empirical models, equilibrium adsorption models and non- equilibrium adsorption models (Guo, Du et al. 2003). Empirical models are mainly used to predict methane release according to simple mathematical descriptions for the physical phenomena of gas transport. Gas transport in the coal micro pores in generally modeled with equilibrium and non-equilibrium adsorption formulations. Gas adsorption/desorption in

equilibrium adsorption models is assumed to be strictly pressure dependent while gas adsorption/desorption in non-equilibrium models is assumed to be a function 34

of pressure and time. Non-equilibrium adsorption models are further classified as unsteady state and quasi-steady state models. In a quasi-steady state model the desorption rate is proportional to the difference between the gas concentration at the external matrix surface and the average concentration contained within the matrix, whereas in unsteady state adsorption models, desorption rate is related to the concentration gradient at the external surface of the coal matrix (Kolesar and Ertekin 1986; Guo, Du et al. 2003).

2.7.1 Gas Desorption Modeling

Desorption is modeled using desorption isotherms. Laboratory measurements show that there is no significant hysteresis in desorption isotherm campaing to adsorption isotherm (Clarkson and Bustin 1999; Ma 2004). Therefore Langmuirs equation may be used to model desorption process as pressure changes in the system (Figure 2.11).

35

Adsorption Isotherm Curve

1200

Adsorption (scf/ton)

1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

The desorption of the methane gas generally follow down the adsorption isotherm curve.

Pressure

Figure 2.11 Adsorption isotherms may be used to model desorption process (Ma 2004)

2.7.2 Gas Diffusion modeling

The pore structure of coal is highly heterogeneous, with the pore size varying from a few Angstroms to frequently over a micrometer in size. According to International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) classification pores may be divided into macro pores (>50 nm), transient or mesopores (between 2 and 50nm) and micro pores (<2 nm). It has been reported that coals mainly exhibit a bidisperse structure, with significant fractions of the pores in size greater than 30 nm and less than 1.2 nm (Shi and Durucan 2003). In the bidisperse model, the sorption behavior is modeled by a macro sphere comprised of micro spheres (Figure 2.12 and 2.13). Two phases of gas movement 36

are described: firstly by movement of the gas to the outside of the micro sphere and secondly by gas movement in the spaces between the micro spheres until the gas reaches the outside of the macro sphere. These two phases simulate desorption and diffusion of gas in coal bed matrix blocks (stage (ii) and (iii) in section 2.6) (Crosdale, Beamish et al. 1998; Shi and Durucan 2003). The mathematical approach is a combination of bidisperse mass balance equations and following quasi-steady state equation describing gas diffusion in coal matrix: (Shi and Durucan 2003)

dU 1 = [U U E ( p )] dt

(2 - 30)

The equilibrium gas concentration U E is related to the cleat gas pressure by Langmuir isotherm: (Shi and Durucan 2003)

U E ( p) =

U L bp 1 + bp

(2 - 32)

The mass transfer rate between the matrix blocks and cleats is given by

q des = s

dU dt

(2 - 33)

where s is a scaling factor. Rearranging Equation (2 30) in order to separate the differential variables, gives: (Shi and Durucan 2003)

dU 1 = dt U U E ( p)
Integrating over a time step t leads to

(2 - 34)

37

U n +1 U E U n UE

n+

1 2

n+

1 2

=e

(2 35)

by rearranging,
n +1

=e

U + (1 e
n

UE +UE 2
n

n +1

(2 36)

where subscript n represents time step. The average desorption rate over time step t is given by:

q des

n+

1 2

= s

U n +1 U n t

(2 37)

or in terms of the equilibrium gas concentration in Equation (2 36):

n+ 1 2 s = 1 e t t

q des

U n + U n +1 n E E U 2

(2 38) In

the bidisperse model, molar concentrations of free gas in the cleats and macro pores and the adsorbed phase in the micro pores are used as the dependent variables. The mass balance equations may be expressed in terms of the volume averaged variables over an entire porous particle. The resulting equations are, (Shi and Durucan 2003) For the micro pores:

V (R ) 15Dm = VE (C p ) V (R ) 2 t rc

(2 39)

where
V is the volume of adsorbed gas per unit of coal matrix block in bidisperse

model, VE is the volume of adsorbed gas in equilibrium with free gas phase, V is 38

the volume-average of V over an entire micro porous particle, rc is the radius of micro porous particles in the matrix, C p is the gas concentration in the macro pores between the micro porous particles, Dm is the micro pores diffusion coefficient. and

d C p d V 15 D p + C Cp = 0 2 dt dt Rp

(2 40)

for the macro pores. where

V is the volume-average of V over an entire matrix block, R p is the radius of

matrix block, C is the gas concentration in the cleat, C p is the volume-average of C p over an entire matrix block, p is the macro pores porosity and D p is the macro pores diffusion coefficient.

39

Figure 2.12 Bidisperse model scheme including micro spheres inside the macro spheres (Shi and Durucan 2003)

Figure 2.13 Spherical matrix elements in coal bed reservoirs (Kolesar and Ertekin 1986)

40

Using the equation of state for a real gas, the equilibrium gas concentration is related to the macro pore gas concentration by Langmuir equation (Shi and Durucan 2003)

V E (C p ) =

V L bC p z p R g T 1 + bC p z p R g T

(2 41)

where R g is the universal gas constant, T is coal bed reservoir temperature and

z p is the compressibility factor for free gas in the macro pores.

Similar to the unipore quasi-steady state adsorption model the following diffusion time constant can be defined for the macro pores and micro pores respectively:

p =

Rp

15D p
2

(2 42)

r m = c 15Dm

(2 43)

The micro pore mass balance Equation (2 39) may be further integrated over a matrix block to yield:

dV 1 = V E V dt m
where

(2 44)

VE =

3 Rp
3

Rp

R =0

VE (C p )R 2 dR

(2 45)

If the incremental changes in the concentration profile within the particle over a time step, t , is sufficiently small then

bz p R g T C p C p << 1 ,

0 R Rp
41

1 + bz p R g TC p 1 + bz p R g T C p ,
VE 3 Rp
3

0 R Rp

(2 46) (2 47)

Rp

VL bC p z p R g T 1 + bC p z p R g T

R =0

R 2 dR = VE C p

( )

Therefore, for a sufficiently small time step t , Equation (2 44) may be approximated by

dV 1 VE C p V dt m

( )

(2 48)

Given the similarity between Equations (2 30) and (2 48) the micro pore mass balance equation may be integrated over a time step ( t = t n +1 t n ) to yield
n +1

=e

t m

V + (1 e

t m

V C p + VE ) E 2
n

( )

n +1

(C )
p

(2 49)

The macro pore mass balance equation is discretised using the standard finite difference method:

Cp

n +1

V V 1 n +1 Cp n +1 + C Cp =0 t t p
n

n +1

(2 50)

Since
q des
n+ 1 2

(C

n +1

Cp

n +1

(2 51)

The average mass transfer rate (per unit volume of coal bed reservoir) between the cleats and macro pores over time step t is given by: (Shi and Durucan 2003)
n+ 1 2

q des

= p

Cp

n +1

Cp V V + t t
n

n +1

(2 52)

where V

n +1

can be obtained from Equation (2 49). 42

3 The Application of Simulation Studies in Coal Bed Reservoir Characterization

3.1 Well Testing
The interpretation of well pressure test data is a key element in formation evaluation and reservoir characterization. The main advantage of well pressure testing is that the well test provides information on the scale of the test radius of investigation as compared to core data which provides information on the centimeter scale and well logs which provide data on the tens of centimeter scale. The main disadvantage, however, is that the pressure changes in a reservoir are diffusive in nature and therefore relatively insensitive to the finer details of reservoir heterogeneity. There is a limit to the scale of heterogeneity or detail in reservoir description which can be resolved with well pressure testing and most well tests provide estimates of bulk or average reservoir properties. The injection fall-off tests conducted here consist of the following steps: 1. A pressure change is created in the reservoir by injecting a fluid into the formation followed by a shut-in period to depressurize the well called pressure fall-off period. 2. The pressure response at the well is monitored as a function of time by a sensitive pressure gauge suspended on a wire line close to the perforations. 43

3. A reservoir simulator is used to analyze and interpret the measured pressure response. We use the SIMED simulator. Details of the simulator model are the same as those given in the previous chapter. The interpretation refers to an attempt to match the well actual response with the one predicted by the reservoir model. The predicted pressure response is produced with best estimates of reservoir parameters obtained on the basis of available laboratory data and field observations. When the model output matches the well actual test response, the model input parameters are considered to be representative of the reservoir characteristics. The following reservoir parameters are usually determined by the matching process:

Well deliverability or permeability-thickness product, kh and well bore skin factor, s or formation damage.

Initial reservoir pressure, Pi and average reservoir pressure, P for production wells.

Identification of reservoir limits or boundaries, AD .

A serious difficulty with the history matching process is non-uniqueness. The model may produce a response which is very close to the actual response even though the model parameters are very different from the actual reservoir. In the other words, there may be more than one set of model parameters which produce a satisfactory match to the test data.

44

The problem of non-uniqueness may be reduced by careful design and implementation of the well test and by firmly anchoring the reservoir model to geological description and core and log data.

3.2 Injection fall-off test

A well which is static, stable and shut-in is subjected to the injection of a fluid, which is in this case water, at a constant rate for a specific period of time, and then the well is shut-in and the pressure decline due to fluid discharge into the reservoir is monitored. The best time to test coal seams is prior to production when the reservoir is 100 percent water saturated. Interpretation of tests run on coal wells after pressure drawdown, when two phase flow conditions are established in the reservoir is difficult. The injection fall off test determines the coal seam properties that are important to both reservoir characterization and methane production. The estimated parameters are formation flow capacity of the seam (kh), reservoir pressure and well bore skin factor. From a practical viewpoint, the injection phase of the test can be performed at either constant injection rate or constant injection pressure. Common practice is to maintain a constant injection rate. The radius of investigation for the test must be greater than the extent of formation damage caused by the drilling and completion fluids and near well bore gas desorption. The maximum test pressure is usually 60 percent of the fracture gradient to prevent fracturing the

45

formation. (Hopkins C.W. et al. (1998), Badri M. et al. (1996) and Zuber M.D. et al. (1990))

3.3 SIMED II, the simulation tool

SIMED II is a coal seam reservoir simulator that models the gas and water flow in coal seams. SIMED II is a two phase (gas and water), three dimensional, multi component (more than one gas), single or dual porosity simulator. To model coal bed methane reservoir behavior, a number of parameters describing the reservoir must be measured or estimated. These include gas content, permeability, porosity, seam thickness, Langmuir isotherm data, desorption time constant, relative permeability and reservoir pressure. The characteristics of these parameters were discussed in the previous chapter.

3.4 Case Study

The pressure fall-off tests conducted in this study are for the wells in a coal bed methane field. The coal formation consists of several coal seams. The coal seams are labeled in Latin numbers from coal seam number (I), the deepest, to coal seam number (XVIII), the shallowest. The depth of coal seams varies from about 1100 meters to nearly 500 meters. Four production wells were drilled in the first stage of this project, well A, B, C and D. The first producing well, well D, started methane production in August 2000. Well B was put on production in November 2000. Well A commenced production in January 2001. 46

Before production started, several injection fall-off tests were conducted in wells B, C and D to investigate reservoir characteristics. Production data were available for a coal seam in well D and well A. The following chapter describes the history matching process for the injection fall-off tests and the production data for these wells.

3.5 Injection fall off (IFO) test analysis

The injection fall-off tests were for well B, C and D. Since the wells intersect coal seams in different depths, several intervals were used for testing. In some cases more than one interval was used to run the test on an individual seam. The coal seam or part of a coal seam on which an IFO test was run is called an object. For example, the first IFO test in well D was done on coal seam number (V), but because it was the first interval tested in this well, the interval was called: interval number 1 and the corresponding part of the seam was called object number 1 in well D. The following table shows the coal seam intersections with well D as well as all the intervals (objects) tested in this well.

47

Table 3.1 - The depth of different coal seams in well D

Seam No. V+VI

Object No. I

VIII IX X XIVa XV XV XVII

II III IV VII VIIIa VIIIb IX

Perforation Interval (m) 1156 1159 1147 1150 1141 1144 1050.5 1053.5 1056.5 1060.5 1065.5 1067.5 1079 1081 982 984 852 855 663 666 614 617 602 605.5 316 319

3.5.1 IFO test in well D Object 4:

3.5.1.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting This IFO test was conducted on coal seam number X. The object number is 4 in well D. Coal seam corresponding depth and thickness are 2778 and 26.2 feet, respectively. Since no information was available regarding the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, the reservoir was considered to be homogeneous. 3.5.1.2 Test Description The coal seam was subjected to water injection for 12:40 hours (12 hours and 40 minutes). The average injection rate was 56.4 liter/hour (or 8.5 BBL/day), then the well was shut for 29:45 hours to let the pressure fall-off establish. The

48

bottom-hole pressure was monitored and the reported pressures are corrected for depth to mid-point of the perforations. 3.5.1.3 Simulation Model of the Test The simulation was set up with a 33 by 33 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 1.75 feet for the area around the well bore to 22 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well. The well was placed in the center grid. The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium in the simulation model to incorporate the impact of this mechanism in CBM reservoirs performance as discussed in the previous chapter. Reservoir permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation compressibility due to the effect of compaction phenomena on reservoir performance. 3.5.1.4 Simulation Input Parameters The input data are also shown in Tables 3.2 to 3.4 as well as Figure 3.1. These data were presented in the field reports provided by field authorities.

49

Table 3.2 - Object 4 simulation input data

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 6.2% Fractured zone: 5.0e-5 Intact zone: 5.0e-5

Table 3.3 - Adsorption characteristics of coal seam in well D

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 2.9 days 1130 psia

Table 3.4 - Field scale relative permeability data Sw

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

50

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.1 - Field kr curves

3.5.1.5 Test interpretation results The unknown reservoir parameters are initial reservoir pressure, reservoir permeability and well bore skin factor. Simulation studies for this test indicate to the existence of a fractured zone around the well bore. The fractured zone connects the well-bore to the reservoir by its higher permeability so that pressure gradient in the well bore can be felt more efficiently by the reservoir. According to pressure history matching method, reservoir parameters are determined in the way that the pressure history (pressure data) can be reproduced by the simulator (SIMED II). A good match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with the following parameters: 51

Seam permeability: 0.12 md Fractured zone permeability: 0.70 md Extent of fractured zone: 12 feet Initial pressure was set to 1130 psia. The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the wellbore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 230 feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 12 feet, the value of permeability for the unaltered zone is considered to be representative of the permeability which may be expected in the drainage area for the well. Figure 3.2 shows the recorded pressure as well as the simulated match.
1600 1500 1400 Bottom-hole pressure (psia) 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Time (days)
1.8 2

Figure 3.2 - Pressure history match for IFO test on Object 4 in well D

52

Since the coal seam is fractured through well bore stimulation, a negative skin factor is expected. The skin factor can be calculated from the fractured zone characteristics by using the following equation:

k r frac s = res 1 ln k r farc w

(3 - 1) where

s is well bore skin factor, k res is reservoir permeability, k frac and r frac are the

fractured zone permeability and radius respectively and rw is the well bore radius which is 0.328 feet in this case. The well bore skin factor is -2.9 which is consistent with a stimulated well. 3.5.1.6 Comparison with characterization studies The reservoir permeability value estimated by the simulation studies is 0.12 md. This value is within the range of permeabilities determined by log interpretation. The log interpretation method shows that the seam permeability value varies between zero and 0.25 md (Wang June 2005). Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1187 psia for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however, was set to 1130 psia to obtain a good match.

53

3.5.2 IFO test in well D, object 3

3.5.2.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting This test was done in well D, seam number (IX), object 3. The coal seam is located at the depth of 3218 feet and its net thickness is 11.5 feet. However, the coal seam was perforated at the depth of 3321-3228 feet. Since no information was available regarding the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, the reservoir was considered to be homogeneous. 3.5.2.2 Test Description Water injection was carried out for 19:25 hours at the average rate of 140.4 lit/hr (21.2 bbl/day). The well afterward was shut for 32:55 hours. The bottomhole pressure was monitored and the reported pressures were corrected for depth to mid-point of the perforations. 3.5.2.3 Simulation Model of the test The simulation was set up with a 33 by 33 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 10.0 feet for the area around the well bore to 20 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well. The well was placed in the center grid. The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation compressibility.

54

3.5.2.4 Simulation Input Parameters The tables 3.5 to 3.7 as well as Figure 3.3 represent the simulation input data for this test.

55

Table 3.5 - Object 3 simulation input data

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 5.7% Fractured zone: 4.0e-5 Intact zone: 4.0e-5

Table 3.6 - Adsorption characteristics of coal seam in well D

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 2.9 days 1277 psia

Table 3.7 - Field scale relative permeability data Sw

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

56

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.3 - Field kr curves

3.5.2.5 Test Interpretation Results The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with the following parameters: Seam permeability: 0.55 md Fractured zone permeability: 2.4 md Extent of fractured zone: 65 feet Initial pressure was set to 1278 psia. Figure 3.4 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to simultaneously match both the injection and fall-off periods.

57

According to provided operational details for this particular test (IFO test field report for Well D Object 3), the test was not conducted at a constant injection rate. The simulation was carried out with a constant (average) injection rate. The increasing actual rate is consistent with an overestimation of injection pressures early in the flow period. However, simulation with a variable rate failed to produce a significantly better match. The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the wellbore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 285 feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 65 feet, the value of permeability for the unaltered zone is considered to be representative of the permeability which may be expected in the drainage area for the well. In the same way, well bore skin factor was calculated from Equation 3.1, the well bore skin factor was -4.0.

k r frac s = res 1 ln k r farc w

(3 - 1) where

s is well bore skin factor, k res is reservoir permeability, k frac and r frac are the

fractured zone permeability and radius respectively and rw is the well bore radius which is 0.328 feet in this case.

58

1800 1700 1600 Bottom-hole pressure (psia) 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 Time (days) 800 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 Recorded Trace Simulated Trace

Figure 3.4 - IFO test pressure history match for object 3, well D

Injection Rate (lit/min)

Time (day) 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Figure 3.5 - Reported changes in the injection rate of IFO test on well D, Object 3

59

3.5.2.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies No reservoir characterization study was conducted for this particular seam (seam number IX). However, the seam permeability, 0.55 md, is of similar order to that determined for the previous test (0.12 md for object 4 in well D). Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1300 psia for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however, was set to 1278 psia to obtain a good match.

3.5.3 IFO test well D, Object 8b

3.5.3.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting This IFO test was conducted on coal seam number XV. The object number is called 8b in well D. The coal seam depth is 1973 feet and its thickness is 13 feet. Reservoir characterization studies have identified a number of faults in this seam (Tran 2005). They are shown in Figure 3.6. The nearest fault to well D is located approximately 400 feet far from the well. Since these faults are located sufficiently far from the well-bore (well D) comparing to the test radius of investigation, the seam may also be considered to be homogeneous for this test.

60

Well D 2621117

2620917

2620717 Well B Well C

2620517

2620317

Well A

2620117 433221

433321

433421

433521

433621

433721

433821

433921

434021

434121

Figure 3. 6 Faults map in coal seam number XV (Tran 2005)

3.5.3.2 Test Description The coal seam was subjected to water injection for 15:30 hours. The average injection rate was 44.9 liter/hour (or 5.9 BBL/day), the well was then shut for 32:30 hours to let the pressure fall-off establish. The bottom-hole pressure was monitored and the reported pressures were corrected for depth to mid-point of the perforations. 3.5.3.3 Simulation Model of the Test The simulation was set up with a 33 by 33 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The size of grid blocks was 8.0 feet for all the blocks in the grid system. The well was placed in the center grid block.

61

The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation compressibility due to the effect of compaction phenomena on reservoir production. 3.5.3.4 Simulation Input Parameters The tables 3.8 to 3.10 as well as Figure 3.7 represent the simulation input data for this test.

62

Table 3.8 - Object 8b rock/fluid properties

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Reservoir initial pressure Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 5.7% 824 psia Fractured zone: 5.0e-5 Intact zone: 5.0e-5

Table 3.9 - Adsorption Isotherm Data

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 1.9 days 824 psia

Table 3.10 - Field relative permeability data

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00

Sw

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

63

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.7 - Field relative permeability curves

3.5.3.5 Test Interpretation Results The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with single permeability of 0.285 md and a reservoir radius of 50 feet. Initial pressure was set to 824 psia. Figure 3.8 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to simultaneously match both the injection and fall-off periods. There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed injection rate data and therefore it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match during the injection period. However, it is considered

64

to be a consequence of possibly more tortuous (initially non radial) injection flow paths in the near borehole region as a result of formation damage. Since the test investigated a distance of only 50 feet from the well-bore, it is not possible to conclude that the permeability of 0.285 md is indicative of the formation or an altered zone about the well-bore. However, comparing with the permeability values of the other test in this series, the value of the permeability is consistent with the permeability for a fractured zone.
1400 Simulated Trace

1200

Bottom-hole pressure (psia)

1000 Recorded Trace

800

600

400

200 Time (days) 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Figure 3.8 - Object 8b pressure profile match

3.5.3.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies The well testing interpretation results are independent to the characterization studies in this case, because the injection/fall-off test results represent only a

65

single permeability value and it is not possible to be conclusive whether the permeability is the formation permeability or any altered zone permeability. Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 845 psia for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however, was set to 824 psia to obtain a good match.

3.5.4 IFO test in well D, object 8a

3.5.4.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting The injection/fall-off test was conducted on coal seam number XV in well D. The coal seam depth is 2011 feet and the net thickness measured 15 feet at the well/seam intersection. According to characterization studies some major faults were recognized in this seam as they were shown in Figure 3.6. The nearest fault to well D is located approximately 400 feet far from the well. Since these faults are located sufficiently far from the well (well D) comparing to the test radius of investigation, the seam may also be considered to be homogeneous. 3.5.4.2 Test Description Water was injected for 19:08 hours at the average rate of 45.7 litter/hour (6.9 bbl/day). The well bore was shut for 49:45 hours and bottom-hole pressure was recorded and corrected for depth to mid-point of the perforations.

66

3.5.4.3 Simulation Model of the Test The simulation was set up with a 33 by 33 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The size of grid blocks was 7.5 feet for all of the blocks in the grid system. The well was placed in the center grid. The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation compressibility due to the effect of compaction phenomena on reservoir production. 3.5.4.4 Simulation Input Data The tables 3.11 to 3.13 as well as Figure 3.9 represent the simulation input data for this test.

67

Table 3.11 - Object 8a rock/fluid properties

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Reservoir initial pressure Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 5.7% 845 psia Fractured zone: 5.0e-5 Intact zone: 5.0e-5

Table 3.12 - Adsorption Isotherm Data

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 1.9 days 845 psia

Table 3.13 - Field relative permeability data

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00

Sw

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

68

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.9 - Field relative permeability curves

3.5.4.5 Test Interpretation Results The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with single permeability of 0.65 md and reservoir radius of 75 feet. Initial pressure was set to 845 psia. Figure 3.10 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to simultaneously match both the injection and fall-off periods. There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed rate data and it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match during the injection period.

69

Since the test investigated a distance of only 75 feet from the well-bore, it is not possible to conclude that the permeability of 0.65 md is indicative of the formation or an altered zone about the well-bore. However, comparing with the permeability values of the other test in this series, the value of the permeability is consistent with the permeability for a fractured zone.
1200 Simulated Trace 1100

Bottom-hole pressure (psia)

1000

900 Recorded Trace 800

700

600

500 Time (days) 400 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

Figure 3.10 - Object 8a pressure profile match

3.5.4.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies The well testing interpretation results are independent to the characterization studies in this case, because the injection/fall-off test results represent only a single permeability value and it is not possible to be conclusive whether the permeability is the formation permeability or any altered zone permeability.

70

Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 824 psia for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however, was set to 845 psia to obtain a good match.

3.5.5 IFO test in well D - object 7

3.5.5.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting This IFO test was conducted on coal seam number XIVa. The object number is 7 in well D. Coal seam corresponding depth and thickness is 2165 and 26.2 feet, respectively. Since no information was available regarding the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, the reservoir was considered to be homogeneous. 3.5.5.2 Test Description The coal seam was subjected to water injection for 20:07 hours. The average injection rate was 48.6 liter/hour (or 7.3 BBL/day), then well was shut-in for `47:10 hours to let the pressure fall-off establish. The bottom-hole pressure was monitored and the reported pressures were corrected for depth to mid-point of the perforations. 3.5.5.3 Simulation Model of the Test The simulation was set up with a 33 by 33 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The size of grid blocks was set to 16 feet throughout the grid system. The well was placed in the center grid block.

71

The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation compressibility due to the effect of compaction phenomena on reservoir production. 3.5.5.4 Simulation Input Parameters The tables 3.14 to 3.16 as well as Figure 3.11 represent the simulation input data for this test.

72

Table 3.14 - Object 7 rock/fluid properties

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Reservoir initial pressure Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 5.8% 942 psia Fractured zone: 5.0e-5 Intact zone: 5.0e-5

Table 3.15 - Adsorption Isotherm Data

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 1.9 days 942 psia

Table 3.16 - Field relative permeability data

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00

Sw

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

73

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.11 - Field relative permeability curves

3.5.5.5 Test Interpretation Results The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with the following parameters: Single permeability of 0.55 md and reservoir radius of 155 feet Initial pressure was set to 942 psia. Figure 3.12 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to simultaneously match both the injection and fall-off periods. There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed rate data and it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match during the injection period. 74

Since the test investigated a distance of only 155 feet from the well-bore, it is not possible to conclude that the permeability of 0.55 md is indicative of the formation or an altered zone about the well-bore. However, comparing with the permeability values of the other test in this series, the value of the permeability is consistent with the permeability for a fractured zone.
1200 Simulated Trace 1100 Bottom-hole pressure (psia)

1000

900

Recorded Trace

800

700

Time (days) 600 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3

Figure 3.12 - Object 7 pressure profile match

3.5.5.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies The well testing interpretation results are independent to the characterization studies in this case, because the injection/fall-off test results represent only a single permeability value and it is not possible to be conclusive whether the permeability is the formation permeability or any altered zone permeability.

75

Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 942 psia for this seam. The same value of initial reservoir pressure was used in the test simulation.

3.5.6 IFO test in well D, object 2

3.5.6.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting The injection/fall-off test was conducted on coal seam number VIII in well D. The coal seam depth is 3485 feet and the net thickness measured 34 feet at the well/seam intersection. Since no information was available regarding the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, therefore the reservoir was considered to be homogeneous. 3.5.6.2 Test description Water was injected for 14:00 hours at the average rate of 64.0 litter/hour (9.7 bbl/day). The well bore was shut for 29:00 hours and bottom-hole pressure was recorded and corrected for depth to mid-point of the perforations. 3.5.6.3 Simulation Model of the Test The simulation was set up with a 33 by 33 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 1.7 feet for the area around the well bore to 18 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well. The well was placed in the center grid. The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation 76

compressibility due to the effect of compaction phenomena on reservoir production. 3.5.6.4 Simulation Input Data The tables 3.17 to 3.19 as well as Figure 3.13 represent the simulation input data for this test.

77

Table 3.17 - Object 2 rock/fluid properties

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Reservoir initial pressure Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 5.7% 1390 psia Fractured zone: 3.0e-5 Intact zone: 3.0e-5

Table 3.18 - Adsorption Isotherm Data

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 1.9 days 1390 psia

Table 3.19 - Field relative permeability data

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00

Sw

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

78

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.13 - Field relative permeability curves

3.5.6.5 Test Interpretation Results A good match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with the following parameters: Seam permeability: 0.06 md Fractured zone permeability: 0.40 md Extent of fractured zone: 10 feet Initial pressure was set to 1390 psia. The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the wellbore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 190 feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 10 feet, the value of permeability 79

for the unaltered zone is considered to be representative of the permeability which may be expected in the drainage area for the well. Well bore skin factor was calculated -3.0 using Equation (3 1). The skin factor has a negative value which is because of the existence of fractured zone around the well-bore.
2000 Simulated Trace 1900 1800 Bottom-hole pressure (psia) 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 Time (days) 1000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Recorded Trace

Figure 3.14 - Object 2 pressure profile match

3.5.6.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies The reservoir permeability value estimated by the simulation studies is 0.06 md. This value is within the range of permeabilities determined by the log interpretation. The log interpretation method shows that the seam permeability value varies between zero and 0.2 md (Wang June 2005).

80

Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1440 psia for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however, was set to 1390 psia to obtain a good match.

3.5.7 IFO test in well D, object 1

3.5.7.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting This IFO test was conducted on coal seam number (V+VI). The object number is 1 in well D. The coal seam corresponding depth and thickness are 3742 and 30.0 feet, respectively. Since no information was available regarding to the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, the reservoir was considered to be homogeneous. 3.5.7.2 Test Description The coal seam was subjected to water injection for 12:00 hours. The average injection rate was 148 liter/hour (or 22.3 BBL/day), then well was shut for 24:52 hours to let the pressure fall-off establish. The bottom-hole pressure was monitored and the reported pressures were corrected for depth to mid-point of the perforations. 3.5.7.3 Simulation Model of the Test The simulation was set up with a 33 by 33 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 2.0 feet for the area around the well bore to 8.0 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well. The well was placed in the center grid. 81

The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and reservoir permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation compressibility due to the effect of compaction phenomena on reservoir production. 3.5.7.4 Simulation Input Parameters The tables 3.20 to 3.22 as well as Figure 3.15 represent the simulation input data for this test.

82

Table 3.20 - Object 1 rock/fluid properties

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Reservoir initial pressure Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 5.7% 1710 psia Fractured zone: 2.5e-5 Intact zone: 2.5e-5

Table 3.21 - Adsorption Isotherm Data

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 1.9 days 1710 psia

Table 3.22- Field relative permeability data

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00

Sw

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

83

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.15 - Field relative permeability curves

3.5.7.5 Test Interpretation Results The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with the following parameters: Seam permeability: 0.08 md Fractured zone permeability: 2.7 md Extent of fractured zone: 10 feet Initial pressure was set to 1710 psia. Figure 3.16 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to simultaneously match both the injection and fall-off periods.

84

There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed rate data and it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match during the injection period. The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the wellbore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 100 feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 10 feet, the value of permeability for the unaltered zone is considered to be representative of the permeability which may be expected in the drainage area for the well. Well bore skin factor was calculated -3.4 in this case. The results were based on history matching of fall-off pressure data. Figure 3.16 shows the simulated pressure profile as well as the recorded one.
2400 Recorded Trace

2200 Bottom-hole pressure (psia)

2000

Simulated Trace

1800

1600

1400

Time (days) 1200 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Figure 3.16 - Object 1 pressure profile match

85

3.5.7.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies The reservoir permeability value estimated by simulation studies is 0.08 md. This indicates to a greater reservoir permeability value comparing to the log interpretation results. Log interpretation method shows that the seam permeability value varies between zero and 0.022 md (Wang June 2005). Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1715 psia for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation, however, was set to 1710 psia to obtain a good match.

3.5.8 IFO test in well C, object 1:

3.5.8.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting The injection/fall-off test was conducted on coal seam number (V+VI) in well C. The coal seam depth is 3343 feet and the net thickness measured 29.5 feet at the well/seam intersection. Since no information was available regarding the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, the reservoir was considered to be homogeneous. 3.5.8.2 Test Description Water was injected for 10:40 hours at the average rate of 146.0 litter/hour (22.0 bbl/day). The well bore was shut for 23:30 hours and bottom-hole pressure was recorded and corrected for depth to mid-point of the perforations.

86

3.5.8.3 Simulation Model of the Test The simulation was set up with a 33 by 33 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 1.7 feet for the area around the well bore to 5.0 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well bore. The well was placed in the center grid. The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium and the permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation compressibility. 3.5.8.4 Simulation Input Parameters The input data are also shown in tables 3.23 to 3.25 as well as Figure 3.17.

87

Table 3.23 - Object 1, well C simulation input data

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 4.7% Fractured zone: 5.0e-5 Intact zone: 2.6e-5

Table 3.24 - Adsorption characteristics of coal seam in well D

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 2.9 days 1395 psia

Table 3.25 - Field scale relative permeability data

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00

Sw

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

88

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.17 - Field kr curves

3.5.8.5 Test Interpretation Results The best match between measured pressure data and simulation is obtained with the following parameters: Seam permeability: 0.045 md Fractured zone permeability: 3.0 md Extent of fractured zone: 10 feet Initial pressure was set to 1395 psia. The skin factor was calculated -3.5. Figure 3.5 shows that the match for the fall-off period is very good but that for the injection period was not so well matched. It was not possible to simultaneously match both the injection and fall-off periods. 89

There is no record of any operational problem during the test or detailed rate data and it is not possible to be conclusive as to the reason for the poor match during the injection period. The radius of investigation for the test was determined by trial and error method using successive simulations to determine the maximum distance from the wellbore affected by the pressure treatment transient. This was approximately 60 feet. Since the radius of the altered zone was 10 feet, the value of permeability for the unaltered zone is considered to be representative of the permeability which may be expected in the drainage area for the well. Figure 3.3 shows the recorded pressure as well as the simulated match.
2200 Recorded Trace 2000

Bottom-hole pressure (psia)

1800 Simulated Trace

1600

1400

1200

1000

800 Time (days) 600 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

Figure 3.18 - History match for fall-off pressure data of object 1, well C

90

3.5.8.6 Results Comparison with the Characterization Studies The reservoir permeability value estimated by simulation studies is 0.045 md. This indicates to a greater reservoir permeability value comparing to the log interpretation results. Log interpretation method shows that the seam permeability value varies between zero and 0.015 md (Wang June 2005). Also, pre-fracturing well tests indicate an initial reservoir pressure of 1395 psia for this seam. The initial reservoir pressure used in the test simulation was also set to 1395 psia.

3.6 Production History Match for Object 1 in Well D

3.6.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting
Coal seam number (V+VI) refers to a single coal seam in well D. Coal seam number V+VI was put on production individually while the other coal seams in the well were presumably packed. The coal seam depth is 3742 feet and its thickness is 79 feet. Since no information was available regarding the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, the reservoir was considered to be homogeneous.

3.6.2 Simulation Model of Well D

Production history is available over nearly three months for this seam. Based on the production history, a three dimensional simulation was performed to obtain a match for the history and predict the gas production and recovery for the rest of reservoir life. 91

The simulation was set up with a 39 by 39 blocks in x-y directions (Cartesian system) by one block in z direction. The block size varied from 2.8 feet for the area around the well bore to 23 feet for the furthest grid blocks from the well. The well was placed in the center grid. Also, to obtain more realistic simulation response, a dynamic permeability model was used for the reservoir. In this model, permeability changes were defined as a function of reservoir pressure. Reservoir permeability was related to the reservoir pressure by coal seam compressibility factor. This leads to take into account the early time formation compaction which occurs due to pressure depletion and reduces permeability. However, permeability may increase later on because of coal shrinkage phenomena (reversible compaction).

3.6.3 Simulation Input Parameters

According to corresponding IFO test results the reservoir pressure was set at 1700 psia for this depth. The well was producing at bottom-hole pressure of 50.0 psia throughout the history time and the same value was used for the well performance in the rest of reservoir life. Tables 3.26 to 3.28 as well as Figures 3.19 and 3.20 represent the reservoir properties used in the simulation:

92

Table 3.26 - Object 1 (well D) simulation input data for production history matching

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Reservoir initial pressure Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 5.5% 1700.0 psia Fractured zone: 2.5e-5 Intact zone: 2.5e-5

Table 3.27 - Adsorption characteristics of coal seam in well D

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 2.9 days 1650 psia

93

600

Adsorbed Gas Volume (SCF/UST)

500

400

Reservoir gas content at in-situ conditions

300

200

100

Reservoir initial pressure

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Pressure (psia)
10000 11000 12000

Figure 3.19 - Adsorption/desorption behavior of coal seam in different pressures

Table 3.28 - Field scale relative permeability data

0.00 0.44 0.50 0.57 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00

Sw

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.145 0.36 0.53 0.61 0.74 0.86 1.00

krw

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.36 0.13 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00

krg

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

pcgw

94

1.00

krg
0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00

Water Saturation (%)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.20 - Field kr curves

3.6.4 Production History Matching Results

A good match between recorded production data and simulation is obtained with the following parameters: Seam permeability: 0.14 md Fractured zone permeability: 0.7 md Extent of fractured zone: 15 feet A drainage area of 10 acre provided a good match for the production history along with the above parameters. The well bore skin factor was calculated -3.0 from Equation (3 - 1). Figure 3.21 shows the actual production profile as well as simulated one.

95

2600 2400 Simulated Production Rates 2200 2000 Gas production (m /day) 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 23 33 43 53 63 73 83 Time (Days) 93 103 Recorded Production Rates

Figure 3.21 - Production history match for object 1, well D

3.6.5 Comparison with characterization studies

The reservoir permeability value estimated by production history matching is 0.14 md. This indicates to a greater reservoir permeability value comparing to the injection/fall-off test and log interpretation results. The seam permeability was obtained 0.08 md from injection/fall-off test simulation. Also, log interpretation method shows that the seam permeability value varies between zero and 0.022 md (Wang June 2005).

3.6.6 Production Prediction of the Well D

The production rates were predicted over next 25 years of reservoir life. This prediction was based on the reservoir model obtained during the production 96

history matching. Because the model satisfied and fit the production history, it is accepted as a reservoir model which can represent properly reservoir conditions in future too. Figure 3.22 and 3.23 present production rate forecast and cumulative production estimation in 25 years of reservoir life. A peak was forecasted by simulation to occur at the end of year three and continue during year four. The peak rate is nearly as high as 90 MSCF/D in year four entirely. The production declines rapidly after year 4 and decreases during the rest of reservoir life. However, decline rate is more gradual in later years. The predicted production rate in year 25 is 15 MSCF/D or 425 cubic meters per day. Average yearly production data are provided in Table 3.29.

97

Table 3.29 - Object 1, well D, average yearly production data

Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cumulative Production (MMSCF) 12.5 27.8 54.6 87.4 118.0 145.1 168.6 189.2 207.6 223.9 239.1 252.5 264.6 276.2 286.7 295.9 304.9 313.5 321.7 329.0 335.9 342.3 348.5 354.3 359.8

Yearly Production (MMSCF) 12.5 15.3 26.8 32.8 30.6 27.1 23.5 20.5 18.4 16.3 15.2 13.4 12.1 11.6 10.5 9.2 8.9 8.6 8.2 7.3 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.8 5.5

Average Production Rate (MSCF/D) 34.3 41.9 73.4 89.8 84.0 74.2 64.5 56.3 50.5 44.6 41.8 36.6 33.1 31.9 28.8 25.2 24.5 23.7 22.5 19.9 18.8 17.7 16.8 15.9 15.1

98

100 90 80 Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Time (Years) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.22 - Object 1 predicted production profile over 25 years

1.00E+06

Gas Cumulative Production (MSCF)

1.00E+05

1.00E+04

1.00E+03

Time (Years) 1.00E+02 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.23 - Predicted cumulative production of object 1 in well D

99

The cumulative gas production at the end of the history was 3.8 MMSCF or 107287 cubic meters. This amount was about 360 MMSCF at the end of year 25. The original gas in place was calculated by the simulator as 655 MMSCF with 10 acres reservoir limits. By the end of production history, just 0.58 percent of this volume was produced, while the methane recovery was estimated to be nearly 55 percent of original gas in place after 25 years. Figure 3.24 shows predicted methane recovery during 25 years.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Years 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Methane Recovery (%)

Figure 3.24 - Object 1 methane recovery after 25 years

100

3.7 Production History Match for Object 2 in Well A

3.7.1 Coal Seam Geological Setting
The coal seam number XV was put to production through the interval (object) 2 in well A. Presumably the other coal seams were packed during the production from this seam. The interval (object) depth is 1610 feet and the seam thickness is 56 feet. Since no information was available regarding the existence of any major heterogeneity in this seam, the reservoir was considered to be homogeneous.

3.7.2 Simulation Model of Well A

Seam number (XV) was put to production in January 2001. The well initially produced at the rate of 200-300 m3/Day. The production peak occurred in August 2001 and the peak rate was 4800 m3/day. The production thereafter declined significantly to 1000 m3/day by January 2002 and continuously reduced to 500 m3/day in August 2003. The historical data are available for two years of production upon which the simulation studies were done. Production history match was obtained and based on the obtained model, reservoir production was forecasted and gas recovery was calculated over a 25 years time period. Alike previous case, the simulation model consists of 39 by 39 blocks in x-y directions and one block in z direction. The blocks size was chosen smaller for the area around the well bore, 15 feet, and considered larger in corner areas, 41 feet. The grid system sizing gives a total area of 40 acres. 101

The porous medium was considered as a dual porosity medium. Also, similar to previous cases reservoir permeability was defined as a function of reservoir pressure and formation compressibility due to the effect of compaction/ shrinkage phenomena on reservoir production.

3.7.3 Simulation Input Parameters

Tables 3.30 and 3.31 and Figures 3.25 and 3.26 show all the simulation input data as reservoir parameters:

Table 3.30 - Object 2, well A simulation input data

Reservoir Properties Reservoir fluid components Initial water saturation Water viscosity Water formation volume factor Water compressibility Reservoir Temperature Porosity system Permeability/porosity model Compaction reversibility Reservoir porosity Reservoir initial pressure Formation compressibility

Descriptions Water & Methane 100% 0.446 cp 1.019 2.93e-9 50 C Dual Porosity Compressibility/reservoir pressure based analytical model Reversible compaction 5.5% 1700.0 psia Fractured zone: 2.5e-5 Intact zone: 2.5e-5

Table 3.31 - Coal adsorption characteristics in object 2, well A

Model Specifications Adsorption Model Coal Density Langmuir Pressure Langmuir Adsorption Volume Desorption Time Reservoir Desorption Pressure

Descriptions Extended Langmuir Model 89.27 lb/ft3 455.4 psia 554.1 SCF/UST 2.9 days 1650 psia 102

700

Adsorbed Gas Volume (SCF/UST)

600

500

400

Reservoir gas content at in-situ conditions

300

200

100

Reservoir initial pressure

0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Pressure (psia)
10000 11000 12000

Figure 3.25 - Coal adsorption behavior against pressure changes

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70

krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

krg

Water Saturation (%)

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Figure 3.26 - Modified field kr curves

103

To obtain a good match for the production history, the provided relative permeability curves were modified to the one presented in Figure 3.26.

3.7.4 Production History Matching Results

A good match between recorded production data and simulation is obtained with the following parameters: Seam permeability: 0.008 md Fractured zone permeability: 1.0 md Extent of fractured zone: 80 feet The calculated well skin factor was -5.5. The Figure 3.27 represents the production history match for this well:
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 150 Time (Days) 240 330 420 510 600 690 780 870 960 1050 Simulated Production Rates Recorded Production Rates Gas production (m3/day)

Figure 3.27 - Object 2, well A, production history match

104

The well stimulation process has improved effectively the reservoir permeability in the area around the well bore to 1 md which represents a great difference comparing to the reservoir permeability in the intact areas.

3.7.5 Comparison with characterization studies

The reservoir permeability value estimated by production history matching method is 0.008 md. The log interpretation results indicate to similar permeability values for seams XV2 and XV3. The average permeability values of these seams are 0.0059 and 0.0093 md respectively. However, the average reservoir permeability was evaluated 0.19 md in seam XV1 (Wang June 2005).

3.7.6 Production Prediction of Well A

Because of reservoir tightness, the production rates declined rapidly after almost one year of reservoir life from a high peak rate to low rates for the rest of reservoir life. Figure 3.28 shows well production forecast for next 25 years.

105

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Time (years) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gas Production Rates (MSCF/D)

Figure 3.28 - Object 2, well A, predicted production profile

Also, reservoir low permeability has strongly affected the reservoir methane recovery from this well as methane recovery factor is less than 5 percent of original gas-in-place after 25 years of production which is a very low percentage for gas recovery even from a CBM reservoir. These results show that how important is the reservoir permeability role in gas production and recovery and also this fact that induced fractures can greatly enhance gas production and therefore the final recovery. Figure 3.29 and 3.30 represent the cumulative gas production and gas recovery predicted by the simulation model over next 25 years in reservoir life.

106

100 90 80 Cumulative Gas Production (MMSCF) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Time (years) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.29 - Object 2 cumulative production profile

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1

Gas Recovery (%)

Time (years) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.30 - Methane recovery from object 2 in well A

107

According to simulation results by having 40 acres as reservoir drainage area, the original gas in place is 1966 MMSCF (almost 2 BCF) from which only 97 MMSCF will be produced over 25 years. Predicted average yearly production rates are presented in Table 3.32.

Table 3.32 - Object 2 average yearly production data

Years 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cumulative Production (MMSCF) 14.6 25.0 31.2 36.1 40.1 43.8 47.1 50.2 53.1 55.9 58.5 61.0 63.5 65.9 68.2 70.4 72.5 74.7 76.8 78.9 80.9 82.8 84.7 86.6 88.5

Yearly Production (MMSCF) 14.6 10.4 6.2 4.9 4.1 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

Average Production Rate (MSCF/D) 40.0 28.5 17.1 13.3 11.1 9.9 9.1 8.5 8.1 7.5 7.1 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.2 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2

108

3.8 Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity of production profile to variations in reservoir properties was investigated for case study 1. These properties include reservoir and fractured zone permeability, relative permeability, porosity, formation compressibility, reservoir limit or drainage area, reservoir initial pressure and finally desorption time constant. The range of the reservoir parameters investigated is similar to the range reported in previous studies (Roadifer, Farnan et al. 2003; Roadifer, Moore et al. 2003; Aminian, Ameri et al. 2004). The obtained results in long term production profile from the single well development are qualitatively similar to that reported in previous studies concerned with pressure depletion (Remner, Ertekin et al. 1986; Stevenson 1997; Derickson, Horne et al. 1998; Roadifer, Moore et al. 2003).

3.8.1 Effect of reservoir permeability

The effect of initial reservoir permeability on reservoir performance was examined by performing simulations for three levels of permeability k1 = 0.07 md (low permeability), k2 = 0.14 md (base case) and k3 = 0.28 md (high permeability). The selected range of permeability represents the range of seam permeability values obtained from injection/fall-off test results. The other reservoir properties were held constant at the base case values.

109

Methane recoveries after 25 years are 64% (high permeability), 55% (base case permeability), and 42% (low permeability). The higher recoveries are associated with higher production rates of methane. For natural pressure depletion, the reservoir production is primarily controlled by the total kh-product for the coal bed. The peak production rates are 150 MSCF/D, 91 MSCF/D and 82 MSCF/D for the k1 = 0.28 md, 0.14 md and 0.07 md cases, respectively (Figure 3.32). For 0.28 md case, the production rate decreases rapidly after the peak is reached. The decline in production rate is considerably slower for the 0.14 md case. For the 0.07 md case, the peak in production is not reached until 6 years after the start of production and the subsequent decline in production is gradual (Figure 3.31). After nearly 15 years of production, methane production rate for 0.07 md case is predicted to be slightly greater than that for the higher permeability cases. This is simply because the reservoir is depleted of methane at this time for the higher permeability cases.

110

160

140

kres = 0.28 md

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)

120 kres = 0.14 md

100

80 kres = 0.07 md 60

40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time (Years)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.31 - The effect of kres changes on production rate

100 90 80 70 kres = 0.14 md 60 kres = 0.28 md 50 40 30 20 10 Years 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 kres = 0.07 md

Methane Recovery (%)

Figure 3.32 - The effect of kres on methane recovery

111

3.8.2 Effect of fractured zone permeability

The effect of fractured zone permeability on reservoir performance was examined by selecting three levels of kfrac = 0.5 md (low permeability), kfrac = 1.5 md (base case) and kfrac = 3.0 md (high permeability). The selected range of permeability represents the range of fractured (altered) zone permeability values obtained from injection/fall-off test results. Figure 3.33 shows the production profile after 25 years for these three cases. Changes in kfrac have similar effect as that for reservoir permeability itself. However, the difference in kfrac makes slight changes in the production rate. Production peak was 110 MSCF/D for the case of kfrac = 3.0 md, 104 MSCF/D and 84 MSCF/D for kfrac = 1.5 md and 0.5 md, respectively. The higher production rates for the case of greater kfrac is simply because the more permeable fractured zone provides a better connectivity between the producing well and the coal seam. Gas desorption occurs faster in a highly fractured zone and desorbed gas flows more efficiently to the producing well through such a zone. In long term production the desorbed gas is provided from a much larger area comparing to extend of a fractured zone. Therefore, long term production profile is not very sensitive to changes in fractured zone permeability as it is nearly identical after 8 years of production for all cases. Methane recoveries were 60%, 58% and 53% where fractured zone permeability was 3.0, 1.5 and 0.5 md, respectively. The difference only comes from the first years greater production rates for the case of higher permeability (Figure 3.34). 112

160

140

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)

120

kfrac = 3.0 md kfrac = 1.5 md

100

kfrac = 0.5 md

80

60

40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time (Years)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.33 - Reservoir sensitivity investigation to kfrac

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Methane Recovery (%)

kfrac = 3.0 md kfrac = 0.5 md kfrac = 1.5 md

Years
0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 3.34 - Methane recoveries associated with different kfrac

113

3.8.3 Effect of relative permeability

Three sets of relative permeability curves were used in this study, which are shown in figure 3.35. The important differences between the data sets include the mobile water saturation and the gas phase relative permeability levels. The mobile water saturation for rock curves is 56% while for the pseudo-curves are 15% and 80%. The first pseudo kr curves with 15% mobile water saturation represents highly permeable to gas whereas the second pseudo-curves with 85% mobile water saturation implies to a mainly water permeable reservoir which has lower gas relative permeability level. In this way, the reservoir sensitivity to the coal seam gas/water relative permeability behavior is investigated. This method was used in the previous sensitivity studies (references). Figure 3.36 shows simulated methane production rates for the single well development with the base case data (rock curve) and pseudo-curves. There is a considerable difference between the results. Use of water permeable curves results in lower methane production rates comparing to the other case with less mobile water saturations. By using pseudo-curve mainly permeable to gas (with higher immobile water saturation), methane production rate significant increased in first years to a peak rate of 134 MSCF/D in year 2. While using pseudo relative permeability curves with lower immobile water saturation lead to lower methane production rate during first years as the peak rate was 60 MSCF/D. These results are explained by the fact that the reservoir permeability to gas increases much faster when the pseudo-curve with higher immobile water 114

saturation is used in the model. Therefore, the reservoir absolute permeability is totally assigned to gas flow in a shorter time. This improves the gas flow efficiency in the reservoir and causes higher gas production rate. However, the gas production is predicted to be less for the cases with higher level of gas relative permeability during the last years of reservoir life. It is because of methane depletion during first years of production for the cases with improved relative gas permeability curves. Figure 3.37 shows that different kr curves also have significant effects on methane recovery. Methane recoveries are 48%, 55% and 63% for waterpermeable, base case and gas-permeable cases. The difference between the final gas recovery values comes from the higher production rate in first years of reservoir life for gas-permeable cases.

115

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70

krg krw

Relative Permeability

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10

Water Saturation (%)

0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Figure 3.35 - Three sets of kr curves (permeable to gas, base case and permeable to water)

116

160

140

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)

Permeable to gas 120

100 Original curves 80 Permeable to water

60

40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time (Years)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.36 - The effect of different kr behavior on reservoir performance

100 90 80 Permeable to gas Methane Recovery (%) 70 Original curves 60 50 40 30 20 10 Years 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Permeable to water

Figure 3.37 - Methane recoveries obtained by using different kr curves

117

3.8.4 Effect of porosity

The effect of initial matrix porosity on reservoir performance was examined at three levels of porosity: = 0.025 (low porosity), = 0.055 (base value) and =

0.085 (high porosity). This range covers the range of porosity values presented in field lab measurements (Field report, October 2003). Figure 3.38 shows simulated gas production rates for the case of a single well on a 10 acre drainage area. It was observed that matrix porosity has some effect on reservoir performance. The peak production rate is reduced from 148 MSCF/D to 66 MSCF/D and delayed approximately 3.5 years when the porosity was increased from 2.5% to 8.5%. Methane recovery after 25 years, in the other hand, was increased from 50% for the case of 8.5% to 55% and 61% for the cases of 5.5% (base case) and 2.5%, respectively (Figure 3.39). Matrix porosity used in the simulator is the ratio of pore volume to the overall bulk volume of the coal. Reduction in reservoir porosity, in fact, decreases the pore volume in the coal seam and therefore the coal-in-place volume is increased. This increases the coal matrix proportion to pore volume in the seam and provides a larger adsorption site for methane. The corresponding gas-in-place values for = 2.5%, 5.5% and 8.5% are 676

MMSCF, 655 MMSCF and 634 MMSCF, respectively, which verify greater gas-inplace for the cases of lower porosity.

118

160

140

= 2.5 %

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)

120

100 = 5.5 % 80

60

= 8.5 %

40

20 Time (Years) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.38 - The effect of matrix porosity changes on production rate

100 90 80 70 60
= 8.5 % = 5.5 %

Methane Recovery(%)

= 2.5 %

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 Years 25

Figure 3.39 - Methane recoveries sensitivity investigation to matrix porosity changes

119

3.8.5 Effect of formation compressibility (cf)

The effect of formation compressibility on reservoir performance was assessed again at three levels of compressibility: cf = 2.0 10-5 psi-1 (less compressible), cf = 3.5 10-5 psi-1 (medium compressibility) and cf = 5.0 10-5 psi-1 (more compressible). The selected range of formation compressibility represents the range of cf values obtained from injection/fall-off test results. The porosity and permeability changes due to compaction are assumed to be fully reversible for all simulation performances. The greater values of cf lead to reduction in methane recovery, because as formation compressibility increases, the reservoir effective permeability to gas decreases. The reasons for effective gas permeability decrease are: first, reduction in the reservoir absolute permeability value. The higher coal compressibility, the greater permeability decrease is per unit of pressure reduction. Second reason is when the compressibility is high, the reduction in water saturation due to seam dewatering is compensated by pore volume decrease. This reduces relative permeability to gas in the seam and prevents the gas to flow effectively while water saturation remains high. For example in this study, for the case of cf = 5.0 10-5 psi-1 (the highest formation compressibility) minimum effective permeability to gas was calculated 0.1313 md while in the case of the lowest formation compressibility (2.0 10-5 psi-1) the value was calculated 0.1371 md. The absolute value of permeability was initially 0.14 md.

120

Figure 3.41 shows the effect of compressibility on the performance of the single well development. Increasing the value of cf from 2.0 10-5 psi-1 to 5.0 10-5 psi1

results in a decrease in methane recovery at 25 years from 55% to 53%. The long

term methane production does not appear to be sensitive to changes in cf with all these simulations predicting similar production rate after year 8 for the rest of reservoir life. The difference in the early time performance, however, results in higher final recoveries at 25 years for the lower cf cases (Figure 3.40).
160

140

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)

120

cf = 2.0e-5 psi-1 cf = 3.5e-5 psi-1 cf = 5.0e-5 psi-1

100

80

60

40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time (Years)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.40 - Production profiles with different cf values

121

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Years 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 cf = 2.0e-6 psi-1 cf = 3.5e-5 psi-1 cf = 5.0e-5 psi

-1

Methane Recovery (%)

Figure 3.41 - The effect of cf changes on methane recovery

3.8.6 Effect of drainage area

The effect of variation in drainage area size on reservoir performance was examined by performing simulations for 10, 20, 40 and 80 acre spacing in single well development. Figure 3.42 shows production rates for 40 years of reservoir life. Changes in drainage area have significant effects on reservoir performance as by increasing the reservoir size, the peak production rate decreased from 91 MSCF/D for the case of 10 acre to 65 MSCD/D for the case of 80 acre. Also the peak was considerably delayed over reservoir life, for instance, in the case of 40 acre spacing the peak was predicted to occur nearly in year 17 and for the case of 20 acre spacing the peak is in year 8, while for the base case the peak rate is expected in year 4. For the case of 80 acre spacing no strong peak was observed, 122

while production reaches to its highest level after year 35 and continue constantly till year 40. This is related to the rate of gas desorption throughout the seam. In reservoir pressure depletion mechanism, the reservoir fluids are produced due to pressure gradient between the well-bore and the reservoir. When reservoir size is larger, the pressure gradient is distributed to a larger area. In this case, the pressure drawdown from the initial pressure occurs more slowly and therefore time-to-peak is delayed. Production decline rate reduces significantly as drainage area increases. It is because the production decline due to gas depletion in the area near to the wellbore is offset by desorbed gas coming from the further areas in the reservoir. As a result, the general production decline rate is more gradual for larger drainage areas so that no decline in production was observed for the case of 80 acre during 40 years of production. Methane recovery is very sensitive to the size of drainage area too. While methane recovery at 40 years is 64% with 10 acre spacing, that is only 11% with 80 acre drainage area (Figure 3.43). This is mainly because the amount of original gas-in-place increases with the same proportion of that reservoir size does. Despite such an increase in OGIP, no change happens in reservoir production mechanism and hence in the amount of methane production when only the reservoir size is expanded. Therefore, methane production is smaller fraction of the initial gas-in-place at any specific time for larger drainage areas. The corresponding OGIP calculated for 10, 20, 40, 80 acre spacing are 655 MMSCF, 1250 MMSCF, 2500 MMSCF and 5000 MMSCF, respectively. 123

160

140

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)

120

AD = 10 acres AD = 20 acres AD = 40 acres

100

80

AD = 80 acres

60

40

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Time (Years)
34 36 38 40

Figure 3.42 - The effect of drainage area size on reservoir performance

100 90 80 70
AD = 10 acres

Methane Recovery (%)

60 50 40 30 20
AD = 80 acres AD = 40 acres AD = 20 acres

10 Years 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Figure 3.43 - Methane recovery sensitivity to variations in drainage area

124

3.8.7 Effect of reservoir initial pressure

The effect of reservoir initial pressure on reservoir performance was examined by performing simulations using the base value Pi = 1700 psia, Pi = 1900 psia and 1500 psia. Production rates were predicted greater for the case of Pi = 1900 psia with the peak rate of 100 MSCF/D. the peak rate were 90 MSCF/D and 80 MSCF/D for cases of 1700 and 1500 psia, respectively. When all the other reservoir parameters are kept constant, the higher initial reservoir pressure creates a greater pressure gradient between the well-bore and the reservoir. This leads to a greater desorption capacity. Since the well bottom-hole pressure is assumed the same for all the case, the amount of gas desorbed is associated with a greater pressure range on the coal desorption isotherm curves. The long term production was observed not sensitive to changes in reservoir initial pressure (Figure 3.44). During later years, since a main part of gas has been desorbed from the coal and pressure has fallen down to lower values, the effect of higher initial pressure fades out in the reservoir performance. Methane recovery increased by increase of initial pressure. The difference however in slight and caused by higher production rates during early years of reservoir life (Figure 3.45).

125

160

140

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)

Pi = 1900 psia 120 Pi = 1700 psia 100 Pi = 1500 psia 80

60

40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time (Years)
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figure 3.44 - Reservoir performance sensitivity to Pi

100 90 80 70 Pi = 1900 psia 60 50 40 30 20 10 Years 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Pi = 1500 psia Pi = 1700 psia

Methane Recovery (%)

Figure 3.45 - The effect of different Pi on methane recovery

126

3.8.8 Effect of desorption time constant

The effect of desorption time constant on reservoir performance was assessed at three levels of 1 day (shorter time, faster desorption), 2 days (base case) and 3 (longer time, slower desorption). The selected range of desorption time represents the minimum and maximum values of desorption time provided in field reports as well as the modified value used in production history matching. No significant changes were observed for reservoir performance as long term production profile and methane recovery are identical where different desorption time constant were used. However, there is a considerable change in production rate during very first days of production. Figure 3.46 show greater production rate during first 10 days of production when desorption time is shorter. Although, the three production profiles come together almost after 10 days and the primary difference disappears for the rest of reservoir life. When desorption time constant is smaller, the diffusion process occurs faster and therefore the gas transport between coal matrix surfaces and cleats takes place in a shorter time. This causes an earlier peak in production and a higher peak rate. However, for the case of long term production, the reservoir performance is mainly affected by Darcy flow regime (gas transportation in the cleat system) and Darcy parameters, for example cleats permeability, control the reservoir performance.

127

160

140

Tdes = 1 day

Gas Production Rate (MSCF/D)

120

Tdes = 2 days Tdes = 3 days

100

80

60

40

20

0 0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (days)
30 35

Figure 3.46 - Early time production rates with different desorption time constant

128

3.9 Conclusions
1. The injection/fall-off tests conducted on well D and C were simulated to obtain the permeability of coal seams in these wells. The following table represents the summery of permeability values for different coal seams tested in well D and C:

Table 3.33 - Summery of permeability values for coal seams in well D Seam Number Object No. Seam Permeability (md)

XV XV XIVa X IX VIII V+VI

8b 8a 7 4 3 2 1

0.285 0.65 0.55 0.12 0.55 0.06 0.08

2. The sensitivity of reservoir production to various reservoir parameters was studied. The results are presented in following sections: a. For natural pressure depletion, the reservoir production is primarily controlled by the total kh-product for the coal bed. Methane recovery was increased significantly as reservoir permeability was increased. b. Methane production rate increases during early time of production when a fractured zone with higher permeability is created in the reservoir. The fractured zone provides a more efficient connectivity between the well bore and the reservoir. However, the reservoir production is insensitive to fractured zone characteristics during later years of production. 129

c. Reservoir gas production is increased when the coal seam relative permeability curves present higher immobile water saturation values. The reason is the reservoir absolute permeability is totally assigned to gas flow for the water saturation values less than immobile water saturation, therefore the reservoir gas relative permeability increases faster and reaches to 100 percent in a shorter time. d. Reservoir matrix porosity has some effect on reservoir performance. A higher production peak rate was obtained with lower porosity values. The final methane recovery was also higher when the reservoir porosity was lower. e. Any increase in the reservoir compressibility causes greater reduction in reservoir absolute permeability as well as relative permeability to gas throughout the reservoir. Therefore, methane recovery decreased as the reservoir compressibility increased. f. The reservoir production behavior was strongly affected by changes in reservoir size. The production peak rate was significantly postponed and lowered as reservoir size was increased. Also the final recovery predicted till year 40 was less for the case of larger reservoir size. g. The effect of reservoir initial pressure was investigated and the results show that higher initial reservoir pressure leads to higher rate during early years of production. However, for the later years 130

of reservoir life, the production profile is almost identical for different initial pressures. h. Coal desorption time constant affects the methane production in its own scale. For instance, in this case the range of desorption time did not exceed longer than 3 days and therefore the difference in production rate was observed only in first days of production (first 5 days).

131

References
Ahmed, U., D. Johnston, et al. (1991). "An Advanced and Integrated Approach to Coal Formation Evaluation." SPE 22736.

Aminian, K., S. Ameri, et al. (2004). "Type Curves for Coalbed Methane Production Prediction." SPE 91482.

Badri, M. and R. Clare (1996). "New Development in Testing Procedures for coalbed Methane Wells in Australia." SPE 36983.

Clarkson, C. R. and R. M. Bustin (1999). "The effect of pore structure and gas pressure upon the transport properties of coal: a laboratory and modeling study. 1. Isotherms and pore volume distributions." Fuel 78: 1333-1344.

Conway, M. W., M. J. Mavor, et al. (1994). "Multi-Phase Flow Properties for Coalbed Methane Wells: A Laboratory and Field Study." SPE 29576.

Cooper, J. E. (2002). "Simplified Prediction of Reservoir Pressure in Coalbed Methane Wells." SPE 78693.

Crosdale, P. J., B. B. Beamish, et al. (1998). "Coalbed Methane Sorption Related to Coal Composition." International Journal of Coal Geology 35: 147-158.

132

Derickson, J. P., J. S. Horne, et al. (1998). "Huaibei Coalbed Methane Project, Anhui Province, People's Republic of China." SPE 48886.

Field Compiled Data on CBM Wells (October 2003).

Gash, B. W. (1991). "Measurement of "Rock Properties" in Coal for Coalbed Methane Production." SPE 22909.

Guo, X., Z. Du, et al. (2003). "Computer Modeling and Simulation of Coalbed Methane Reservoir." SPE 84815.

Harpalani, S. and R. A. Schraufnagel (1990). "Influence of Matrix Shrinkage and Compressibility on Gas Production From Coalbed Methane Reservoirs." SPE 20729.

Hopkins, C. W., J. H. Frantz, et al. (1998). "Pitfalls of Injection/Falloff Testing in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs." SPE 39772.

Johnson, E. F., D. P. Bossler, et al. (1959). "Calculation of Relative Permeability from Displacement Experiments." AIME 216: 370 - 372.

Kolesar, J. E. and T. Ertekin (1986). "The Unsteady-State Nature of Sorption and Diffusion Phenomena in the Micropore Structure of Coal." SPE 15233.

133

Ma, T. (2004). An Introduction to Coalbed Methane. 2004 Canadian International Petroleum Conference, Hycal Energy Research Laboratories.

Mavor, M. J., L. B. Owen, et al. (1990). "Measurement and Evaluation of Coal Sorption Isotherm Data." SPE 20728.

Mavor, M. J., T. J. Pratt, et al. (1994). "Improved Methodology for Determining Total Gas Content, Task I Desorption Data Summary." Gas Research Institute Topical Report No. GRI - 93/0410.

Meaney, K. and L. Paterson (1996). "Relative Permeability in Coal." SPE 36986.

Nelson, C. R. (2000). "Effects of Geologic Variables on Cleat Porosity Trends in Coalbed Gas Reservoirs." SPE 59787.

Ohen, H. A., J. O. Amaefule, et al. (1991). "A Systems Response Model for Simultaneous Determination of Capillary Pressure and Relative Permeability Characteristics of Coalbed Methane." SPE 22912.

Palmer, I. and J. Mansoori (1996). "How Permeability Depends on stress and Pore Pressure in Coalbeds: A New Model." SPE 36737.

Pinczewski, V. W. (2004). Well Pressure Test Analysis.

134

Pinzon, C. L. and J. Patterson (2004). "Production Analysis of Coalbed Wells Using Analytical Transient Solutions." SPE 91447.

Reeves, S. and L. Pekot (2001). "Advanced Reservoir Modeling in DesorptionControlled Reservoirs." SPE 71090.

Remner, D. J., T. Ertekin, et al. (1986). "A Parametric Study of the Effects of Coal Seam Properties on Gas Drainge Efficiency." SPE 13366.

Roadifer, R. D., R. A. Farnan, et al. (2003). History Matching (Reservoir Parameter Estimation) for Coalbed Methane Reservoirs via Monte Carlo Simulation. International Coalbed Methane Symposium.

Roadifer, R. D., T. R. Moore, et al. (2003). "Coalbed Methane Parametric Study: What's Really Important to Production and When?" SPE 84425.

Sawyer, W. K., G. W. Paul, et al. (1990). "Development and Application of a 3D Coalbed Simulator." Petroleum Society of CIM

Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Seidle, J. P. and J. F. McAnear (1995). "Pressure Falloff Testing of Enchanced Coalbed Methane Pilot Injection Wells." SPE 30731.

135

Shi, J.-Q. and S. Durucan (2003). "A Bidisperse Pore Diffusion Model for Methane Displacement Desorption in Coal by CO2 Injection." Fuel 82: 1219-1229.

Shi, J.-Q. and S. Durucan (2003). "Gas Storage and Flow in Coalbed Reservoirs: Implementation of a Bidisperse Pore Model for Gas Diffusion in Coal Matrix." SPE 84342.

Stevenson, M. D. (1997). Multicomponent Gas Adsorption on Coal at In-Situ Conditions. School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW. Ph.D.

Stevenson, M. D. and V. W. Pinczewski (2003). SIMED II - Multicomponent Coalbed Gas Simulator (User's Manual).

Tran, N. (2005). "Characterisation and Modelling of Natural Fractures and Cleats."

Wang, L. (June 2005). "Preliminary 3D reservoir Characterization of the Coal Field."

Warren, J. E. and P. J. Root (1963). "The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs." SPE00426.

Xingjin, W. (2003). The Effect of Desorption Time Constant on Well Test Interpretation. School of Petroleum Engineering, UNSW. Master of Engeering.

136

Zuber, M. D., D. P. Sparks, et al. (1990). "Design and Interpretation of Injection/Falloff Tests for Coalbed Methane Wells." SPE 20569.

137