GRI - CBM Gas in Placasdfe Analysis

Coalbed Reservoir
Gas-In-Place
Analysis
Coalbed Reservoir
Gas-in-Place Analysis
A Short Course Published by Gas Research Institute
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Printed in the U.S.A.
Prepared by
Matt Mavor
Tesseract Corporation
Park City, Utah
Charles R. Nelson
Gas Research Institute
Chicago, Illinois
GRI Reference No. GRI-97/0263
Basic Research Group
October 1997
Coal Reservoir Gas-in-Place Analysis
Copyright 1997 by Gas Research Institute

All Rights Reserved.
This work is the property of Gas Research Institute. No part of this work may be used or reproduced
without prior written permission from Gas Research Institute, and no part of this work may be transmitted
to any other party in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including without limitation,
photocopy, record or input into any information storage or retrieval system without prior written
permission from Gas Research Institute.
Requests for permission to reproduce any part of the work should be mailed to
Contract and License Management Group
Gas Research Institute
8600 West Bryn Mawr Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60631
LEGAL NOTICE
This publication was prepared as an account of work sponsored by Gas Research Institute (GRI) and other
organizations. Neither GRI, members of GRI, nor any person or organization acting on behalf of either;
A.
MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH

RESPECT TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR USEFULNESS OF THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PUBLICATION, THAT THE USE OF ANY
INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS
PUBLICATION MAY NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, OR
B.
ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF, OR DAMAGES

RESULTING FROM THE USE OF, ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, OR
PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS PUBLICATION.
ii
About This Book

This book is a technical reference of procedures used for determining the gas-in-place volume of
coalbed reservoirs. Gas-in-place is the volume of gas stored within a specific bulk reservoir rock volume.
Accurate gas-in-place analysis is crucial to reliably evaluating coalbed gas exploration prospects,
forecasting the gas production rates of coalbed reservoirs, and evaluating the potential severity of natural
gas emissions during coal mining operations.
Coalbed reservoir gas-in-place analysis is a very complex process. Four physical reservoir parameters
are needed to calculate the gas-in-place volume: reservoir or well drainage area; gross reservoir rock
thickness (consisting of both coal and other organic-bearing rock types); average reservoir rock density;
and average in-situ gas content. Accurately determining these four reservoir parameters presents
numerous data collection and analysis challenges. Most of the methods commonly used for determining
these reservoir parameters have inherent shortcomings that significantly affect the accuracy and
comparability of gas-in-place analysis results. Three major sources of gas-in-place error are
underestimation of the gross reservoir thickness, average reservoir rock density, and average in-situ gas
content.
The emphasis in this book is on providing practical information, guidelines, and procedures for
analyzing coalbed reservoir data. We have included insights into sources of error and the comparative
accuracy of commonly used analysis procedures rather than lengthy technical explanations of the theories
behind these procedures. Example problems and exercises are given throughout the text to promote
understanding of the analysis procedures and to facilitate independent, self-paced training by practicing
petroleum geologists and reservoir engineers. The text in each chapter is supplemented by references
identifying literature sources containing additional information. Specifically, this book will help you to:

Approach your specific analysis problems more systematically and effectively.

Improve your ability to account for variations in sample composition and gas content.
Understand the major sources of errors in gas-in-place estimates.
Understand the comparative accuracy of commonly used analysis procedures.
Understand the value added by using best practice analysis procedures.
The information in this book represents the accumulated knowledge and expertise of specialists from
many disciplines. Most of this information is the product of more than a decade of basic coal science and
field-based coalbed reservoir engineering research sponsored by the Gas Research Institute. The new
data, technical insights, guidelines, and procedures that resulted from this research can help you to more
reliably evaluate the development potential of coalbed gas reservoir prospects and to optimize the
recovery and economics of existing coalbed gas production operations. Several coalbed gas producers and
service laboratories have independently evaluated and documented the applicability and practical value of
these guidelines in basins throughout the United States and other countries throughout the world. In short,
the information in this book can help you make better informed decisions about developing this important
natural gas resource.
iii
Coalbed Reservoir Gas-in-Place Analysis
Acknowledgments
Mr. Matt Mavor of Tesseract Corporation and Dr. Charles R. Nelson of Gas Research Institute (GRI)
prepared this book under funding provided by the Basic Research Group of GRI. The methodology and
material are the results of efforts of many persons. In particular, Mr. Timothy J. Pratt of TICORA
Geosciences, Inc. and Dr. Jay C. Close of Burlington Resources, Inc., were instrumental in the
development, implementation, and improvement of the technology. EnerVest San Juan Operating LLC
allowed us to include data collected from their properties that was not part of GRI efforts.
The following reviewers helped in the development of this book and the course materials.
Ms. Tom Ann Casey
Dr. Jay C. Close
Mr. Timothy J. Pratt
Mr. John R. Robinson
EnerVest San Juan Operating LLC

Burlington Resources, Inc.
TICORA Geosciences Inc.
Tesseract Corporation
About the Authors

Matt Mavor is a petroleum reservoir engineer with twenty-three years of educational, engineering, field
operations, and research experience in the oil and natural gas production industry. Matt received B.S. and
M.S. degrees in Petroleum Engineering from Stanford University in 1977 and 1978. Since November of
1988, Matt managed or participated in coalbed reservoir research projects funded by the Gas Research
Institute. These projects were designed to quantify the properties of coalbed reservoir reservoirs, to
predict fluid production rates from and through these reservoirs, to design and optimize well drilling and
completion procedures, and to transfer the technology to the natural gas industry. He has extensive
publications in the technology of extracting gas from coal seams. He is currently located in Park City,
Utah.
Charles R. Nelson, Ph.D. is the manager of the Basic Coal Sciences Program at the Gas Research
Institute (GRI). Since joining GRI in 1981 he has directed a broad range of research studies involving
coalbed reservoir geochemistry, porosity, permeability, gas content, and gas-in-place analysis, and has
authored numerous technical reports, papers, and presentations dealing with this research. He has served
on several government advisory committees concerned with fossil energy research, the Society of
Petroleum Engineers Emerging and Peripheral Technology Committee (1991-1994), and the 1997
International Coalbed Methane Symposium Executive Committee. He developed and was the editor of the
book Chemistry of Coal Weathering published by Elsevier Science Publishers in 1989 and was a co-editor
of the book A Guide to Determining Coalbed Gas Content published by GRI in 1995. He is a member of
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Society of Petroleum Engineers, and American
Chemical Society. Dr. Nelson received his B.S. degree in 1970 from North Carolina State University and
earned post-graduate degrees in organic chemistry from the University of Montana (M.S.) in 1973 and
North Carolina State University (Ph.D.) in 1976. Prior to joining GRI, Dr. Nelson worked as a research
chemist at STFI in Stockholm, Sweden and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he
conducted environmental geochemistry research.
iv
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Gas-in-Place Analysis Overview .......................................................................................... 1-1
Reservoir Types......................................................................................................................................1-1
Conventional Gas Reservoirs............................................................................................................1-1
Gas Condensate Reservoirs................................................................................................................1-2
Unconventional Gas Reservoirs .........................................................................................................1-2
Coalbed Gas Reservoirs .....................................................................................................................1-2
Gas-Bearing Shale Reservoirs............................................................................................................1-3
Coalbed Gas Recovery ...........................................................................................................................1-4
Coalbed Gas Content Analysis...............................................................................................................1-4
Pressure Coring ..................................................................................................................................1-5
Direct Method Analysis .....................................................................................................................1-5
Indirect Method Analysis ...................................................................................................................1-6
Gas Resource Assessment ......................................................................................................................1-8
Additional Analysis Challenges .............................................................................................................1-8
Accuracy Benchmarking ........................................................................................................................1-9
Chapter 1 References .............................................................................................................................1-9
Chapter 2
Gas-in-Place Methodology and Error Summary.................................................................. 2-1
Gas-in-Place Relationship ......................................................................................................................2-1
Gas-in-Place Estimate Errors .................................................................................................................2-3
Drainage Area Errors .........................................................................................................................2-3
Gross Coal Thickness Errors..............................................................................................................2-3
Average In-Situ Density Errors..........................................................................................................2-4
Gas Content Errors.............................................................................................................................2-4
Eight Step Evaluation Procedure............................................................................................................2-8
Summary ................................................................................................................................................2-8
Additional Reading ................................................................................................................................2-9
Chapter 3
Coal Sample Gas Content Evaluation.................................................................................. 3-1
Desorption Measurement Procedure ......................................................................................................3-1
Residual Gas Content .............................................................................................................................3-3
Gas Composition Measurements............................................................................................................3-4
Sample Composition ..............................................................................................................................3-4
Proximate Analysis ............................................................................................................................3-6
Ultimate Analysis...............................................................................................................................3-7
Desorption Data Requirements ..............................................................................................................3-7
Desorption Data Correction ...................................................................................................................3-8
Direct Method ......................................................................................................................................3-11
Interpretation Equations ...................................................................................................................3-12
Diffusivity ........................................................................................................................................3-13
Saturated Reservoir Time Zero ........................................................................................................3-14
Undersaturated Reservoir Time Zero...............................................................................................3-16
Desorption Time Correction ............................................................................................................3-16
Temperature Recovery Time............................................................................................................3-17

Ambient Temperature Direct Method ..............................................................................................3-18
Direct Method Calculations .............................................................................................................3-19
Smith & Williams Method ...................................................................................................................3-20
Amoco Method.....................................................................................................................................3-20
Summary ..............................................................................................................................................3-20
Additional Reading ..............................................................................................................................3-20
Chapter 3 References ...........................................................................................................................3-21
Chapter 4
Multiple Sample Analysis ..................................................................................................... 4-1
Composition and Density Relationship..................................................................................................4-3
Equilibrium Moisture Content ...............................................................................................................4-8
Number of Sample Required..................................................................................................................4-9
Drill Cutting Gas Content vs. Inorganic Content Correlations ............................................................4-11
Summary ..............................................................................................................................................4-13
Additional Reading ..............................................................................................................................4-13
Chapter 5
Thickness, Density, and Gas-in-Place Estimates................................................................ 5-1
Gross Thickness and Average Density Estimates ..................................................................................5-1
Individual Reservoir Identification ........................................................................................................5-2
In-Situ Ash Content................................................................................................................................5-3
In-Situ Gas Content................................................................................................................................5-4
In-Situ Density and Gas Content Distributions ......................................................................................5-5
Gas-in-Place Estimates...........................................................................................................................5-6
Summary ................................................................................................................................................5-7
Chapter 6
Coal Gas Sorption & Storage Capacity................................................................................ 6-1
Sorption at the Molecular Level.............................................................................................................6-1
The Langmuir Isotherm..........................................................................................................................6-2
Isotherms for Multiple Gas Components ...............................................................................................6-4
Free Gas-in-Place Volume .....................................................................................................................6-6
Solution Gas-in-Place Volume...............................................................................................................6-7
Use of Isotherm Data for Saturated Reservoirs......................................................................................6-8
Summary ................................................................................................................................................6-9
Chapter 7
Additional Problems ............................................................................................................. 7-1
Problem 7-1. Valencia Canyon 32-1 Gas-in-Place.................................................................................7-1
Problem 7-1. Solution ............................................................................................................................7-2
Problem 7-2. Desorption Volume Correction and Gas Content.............................................................7-3
Problem 7-3. Time Zero and Direct Method Horizontal Axis Value.....................................................7-7
Problem 7-4. Recognition of Desorption Measurement Conditions ....................................................7-11
vi
Table of Contents
Problem 7-4. Solution ..........................................................................................................................7-12
Problem 7-5. Direct Method Analysis..................................................................................................7-13
Problem 7-5 Solution ...........................................................................................................................7-16
Problem 7-6. Reservoir Temperature Direct Method Analysis............................................................7-18
Problem 7-7. Multiple Sample Analysis...............................................................................................7-21
Problem 7-8. Density-Ash Content Relationship.................................................................................7-24
Problem 7-9. Core Density Evalution...................................................................................................7-27
Problem 7-10. Number of Valencia Canyon Core Samples.................................................................7-30
Problem 7-10. Solution ........................................................................................................................7-32
Problem 7-11. Interval Thickness and Density....................................................................................7-33
Problem 7-12. Valencia Canyon 32-1 Ash and Gas Content...............................................................7-35
Problem 7-13. Maximum Possible Gas Recovery................................................................................7-37
Problem 7-14. Extension of Valencia Canyon 32-1 Gas Content Data...............................................7-39
Problem 7-15. Gas-In-Place for the Southern Ute 5-7.........................................................................7-43
Nomenclature Summary.......................................................................................................8-1
Glossary................................................................................................................................9-1
List of Tables
Table 1-1.
Table 1-2.
Fruitland Formation Coalbed Reservoir Property Data ................................................... 1-7

Fruitland Formation Gas-in-Place Estimates.................................................................... 1-8
Table 2-1.
Table 2-2.
Agreement between Direct Method and Benchmark Gas Contents.................................... 2-5

Summary of Common Gas Content Mass Bases................................................................. 2-7
Table 3-1.
Table 3-2.
Table 3-3.
Summary of the Core Desorption Procedure. .................................................................... 3-1

Example Core Desorption Data Sheet ............................................................................... 3-9
Sorption Time Shape Factors. .......................................................................................... 3-14
Table 4-1.
Table 4-2.
Table 4-3.
Table 4-4.
Summary of Published Maceral Density Ranges. .............................................................. 4-6

Fruitland Formation Organic Fraction Density Estimates................................................ 4-6
Summary of Equation 4-5 Organic Density Estimates ....................................................... 4-7
Hypothetical Example of Drill Cutting Gas Content vs. Ash Content.............................. 4-12
Table 5-1.
GRI #2 Upper Reservoir Gas-in-Place Summary. ............................................................. 5-6
Table 7-1.
Table 7-2.
Table 7-3.
Table 7-4.
Table 7-5.
Table 7-6.
Problem 7-1 Parameters. ................................................................................................... 7-1

Problem 7-1 Solution.......................................................................................................... 7-2
Problem 7-2 Core Desorption Data Sheet. ........................................................................ 7-5
Completed Problem 7-3 Desorption Data Sheet. ............................................................. 7-10
Valencia Canyon 32-1 Gas Desorption Summary............................................................ 7-18
Problem 7-7 Ash Content Values. .................................................................................... 7-21
vii

Table 7-7.
Table 7-8.
Table 7-9.
Table 7-10.
Table 7-11.
Table 7-12.
Table 7-13.
Table 7-14.
Table 7-15.
Table 7-16.
Table 7-17.
Table 7-18.
Problem 7-7 Solution........................................................................................................ 7-22

Valencia Canyon 32-1 Core Density vs. Ash and Inorganic Content. ............................. 7-24
Problem 7-10 Solution...................................................................................................... 7-31
Problem 7-12 Input Data.................................................................................................. 7-34
Problem 7-12 Solution...................................................................................................... 7-35
Valencia Canyon 32-1 Reservoir Properties.................................................................... 7-37
Valencia Canyon 32-3 Coal Gas Reservoir Property Estimates...................................... 7-39
Southern Ute 5-7 Reservoir Temperature Core Desorption Data.................................... 7-40
Southern Ute 5-7 Gas Content Inorganic Content Relationship. .................................. 7-45
Southern Ute 5-7 Upper Coal Interval Log Analysis Summary. ...................................... 7-46
Southern Ute 5-7 Lower Coal Interval Log Analysis Summary. ...................................... 7-47
Southern Ute 5-7 Gas-in-Place Summary. ....................................................................... 7-47
List of Figures
Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-2.
Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-4.
Fruitland Coal and Conventional Gas Reservoir Storage Capacity Comparison ............. 1-3
U.S. Lower-48 Coalbed Gas Resources ............................................................................. 1-4
Comparison of Saturated and Undersaturated Production Behavior................................ 1-6
Fruitland Gas Content and Vitrinite Reflectance Relationship.......................................... 1-7
Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-2.
Coal Gas Reservoir Geometry............................................................................................ 2-3

Comparison Between Direct and Other Total Gas Content Estimates. ............................. 2-5
Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-6.
Desorption Canister Schematic.......................................................................................... 3-2

Gas Volume Measurement Apparatus. ............................................................................... 3-3
Size Scale Dependent Heterogeneity of Coal Seams .......................................................... 3-5
Example Direct Method Graph. ....................................................................................... 3-12
Sample Internal Temperature Changes............................................................................ 3-17
Comparison of Ambient & Reservoir Temperature Desorption Data.............................. 3-19
Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-6.
Figure 4-7.
GRI #2, Air-Dry Gas Content vs. Inorganic Content. ........................................................ 4-1
GRI #1 Air-Dry Gas Content vs. Inorganic Content. ......................................................... 4-2
Relationship between Sample Density and Ash Content. ................................................... 4-5
Valencia Canyon 32-1 Equilibrium Moisture Content vs. Temperature............................ 4-8
Operating Characteristic Curves ....................................................................................... 4-9
Southern Ute 5-7 Air-Dry Gas Content vs. Inorganic Content. ....................................... 4-11
Hypothetical Example of Drill Cutting Gas Content vs. Ash Content.............................. 4-13
Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-2.
Figure 5-3.
Figure 5-4.
Figure 5-5.
GRI #2 Coal Log ................................................................................................................ 5-1

San Juan 30-5 Density and Production Log Data ............................................................. 5-2
Comparison of S. U. 36-1 Ash Content from Logs and Core Data .................................... 5-3
Comparison of S. U. 36-1 Gas Content from Logs and Core Data.................................... 5-4
GRI #2 Upper Reservoir Gas-In-Place Distribution.......................................................... 5-6
Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-2.
Example Langmuir Isotherm Relationship. ........................................................................ 6-3

COAL Site Multicomponent Isotherm Relationships.......................................................... 6-6
Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-2.
Figure 7-3
Example Direct Method Graphs....................................................................................... 7-11

Problem 7-5 Direct Method Graph .................................................................................. 7-15
viii
Table of Contents
Figure 7-4.
Figure 7-5.
Figure 7-6.
Figure 7-7.
Figure 7-8.
Figure 7-9.
Figure 7-10.
Figure 7-11.
Figure 7-12.
Figure 7-13.
Figure 7-14.
Figure 7-15.
Figure 7-16.
Figure 7-17.
Problem 7-5 Direct Method Graph Solution.................................................................... 7-16

Problem 7-6 Gas vs. Inorganic Content Graph ............................................................... 7-19
Problem 7-6 Gas vs. Inorganic Content Graph Solution ................................................. 7-20
Problem 7-7 Density vs. Inorganic Content. .................................................................... 7-23
Problem 7-8 Core Density Analysis Graph...................................................................... 7-25
Problem 7-8 Core Density Analysis Graph Solution........................................................ 7-26
Operating Characteristic Curves for Problem 7-9........................................................... 7-27
Valencia Canyon Intermediate Coal Interval Log. .......................................................... 7-30
Valencia Canyon Section 32 Basal Coal Interval Structure Map. ................................... 7-36
Final Problem Gas Content vs. Inorganic Content Graph .............................................. 7-41
Southern Ute 5-7 Upper Coal Interval Log...................................................................... 7-42
Southern Ute 5-7 Lower Coal Interval Log...................................................................... 7-43
Southern Ute 5-7 Gas Content Inorganic Content Relationship. .................................. 7-45
List of Examples
Example 2-1. Gas-In-Place at the COAL Site. ......................................................................................... 2-2
Example 3-1.
Example 3-2.
Example 3-3.
Example 3-4.
Example 3-5.
Correction of Desorption Data. ....................................................................................... 3-11

Calculate Time Zero for Desorption. ............................................................................... 3-15
Compute the Direct Method Horizontal Axis. .................................................................. 3-17
Estimate the Temperature Recovery Time........................................................................ 3-18
Direct Method Gas Content, Diffusivity, and Sorption Time. .......................................... 3-19
Example 4-1. Average Dry, Ash-Free Gas Content Estimates for Low Confidence Data Sets. ............... 4-2
Example 4-2. Relationship between Density & Inorganic Content. ......................................................... 4-3
Example 4-3. Number of COAL Site Core Samples Required ................................................................ 4-10
Example 5-1. In-Situ Ash & Gas Content Calculations............................................................................ 5-5
Example 5-2. GRI #2 Average Density, Thickness, and Gas Content. ..................................................... 5-8
Example 6-1.
Example 6-2.
Example 6-3.
Example 6-4.
Estimate Important Reservoir Conditions. ......................................................................... 6-4

COAL Site Multicomponent Storage Capacity................................................................... 6-5
Maximum Gas-In-Place in the COAL Site Natural Fracture System................................. 6-7
COAL Site Isotherm-Based Gas Content Estimate............................................................. 6-9
ix
1
Chapter
Gas-In-Place Analysis
Overview
as-in-place is the volume of gas stored within

a specific bulk reservoir rock volume. A gas-in-place
analysis is generally performed for a specific purpose
such as gas resource assessment, reservoir production
modeling, or geologic hazard evaluation. Gas resource
assessments play an important role in the evaluation
of new reservoir exploration prospects. Accurate production modeling is critical to achieving optimal development decisions and reliable production potential
forecasts for natural gas reservoirs. Gas-in-place analysis is also used in the mining industry to determine if
natural gas emissions will be a hazard during tunnel
construction or during the mining of coal, oil shale,
trona, and potash.
Gas-in-place analysis is a very complex process
that involves numerous data collection and analysis
challenges. The complexity is due, in part, to the fact
that most reservoir parameters used for calculating the
gas-in-place cannot be measured directly but must
instead be indirectly estimated using data obtained by
analysis of various rock properties. Four reservoir
parameters are needed to calculate the gas-in-place for
conventional gas reservoirs: reservoir or well drainage
area; reservoir thickness; reservoir rock porosity; and
the vapor phase saturation within the porosity. The
equivalent four properties for coal gas reservoirs are
the area, thickness, reservoir rock density, and in-situ
gas content. The reservoir or well drainage area and the
reservoir thickness are usually determined through
analysis of geophysical well logs, seismic data, and
structure maps. The reservoir rock porosity, vapor
phase saturation, density, and gas content are usually
determined using data obtained from well logs or
laboratory analysis of drill cuttings and core samples.1

The methodology used for determining the insitu gas content varies considerably depending upon
such factors as the analysis type, purpose, and, most
important, the reservoir type. The analysis type
refers to the basic geologic unit being assessed such
as a basin, region, or reservoir. The analysis purpose
refers to whether the objective is gas resource appraisal, reservoir production modeling, or geologic
hazard evaluation. The reservoir type refers to the
physical reservoir environment and gas storage mechanism. There are four principal gas storage mechanisms
within reservoir rocks.
Compression of gas molecules within rock

pores.
Absorption of gas molecules by crude oil or
brine.
Inclusion of gas molecules within solid, crys
talline water molecule lattices.
Adsorption of gas molecules within
micropores.
Another cause of gas-in-place analysis complexity

is the fact that reservoir rock compositional properties
and gas content are not uniform throughout a given
formation but vary both vertically and laterally as a
function of numerous geologic variables. Thus, geologic descriptions and physical property data derived
from drill cuttings, cores, and well logs are only single
sampling point measurements and may not be representative of the average in-situ rock properties throughout a reservoir. The greater the reservoir heterogeneity,
1.1
Chapter
Gas-In-Place Analysis Overview
the greater the number of samples and sampling sites

needed for adequate characterization of the average insitu rock properties.
the reservoir gas is not a constant composition fluid but

separates into vapors and liquids upon pressure reduction.2
Reservoir Types
Unconventional Gas Reservoirs.

When rock pores contain liquid phase fluids such
as brine or crude oil, some natural gas can be stored as
an absorbed phase. The solubility of natural gas in brine
and crude oil varies as a function of the reservoir
temperature and pressure, the molecular properties of
the liquid phase fluid, and the molecular properties of
the gas constituents.5,6
If natural gas and water occur together within the
pores of rocks in permafrost zones or outer continental
shelf margin regions, the gas is stored by inclusion
within solid, crystalline compounds called gas hydrates.7,8 The gas content of the hydrate phase varies as
a function of the reservoir temperature and pressure,
hydrate crystal structure, and the molecular properties
of the gas constituents. A single cubic foot of methane
hydrate can store as much as 164 standard cubic feet of
methane gas.8 The in-place gas hydrate resources worldwide are estimated to total 6.6x105 Tscf.8
Worldwide, significant amounts of natural gas are
stored by absorption in crude oil reservoirs (called
dissolved or solution gas), in aquifer reservoirs (called
brine gas), and in geopressured reservoirs (called
geopressured gas). Brine gas is commercially produced in small quantities in several areas of the U.S.,
Japan, China, and elsewhere throughout the world.9
Technology has not yet been developed for economically recovering natural gas from geopressured and gas
hydrate reservoirs, and these types of gas reservoirs are
generally regarded as potential gas kick or blowout
hazards if encountered during well drilling operations.7
There is a variety of reservoir types with substantial differences due to the gas storage mechanism.
These include conventional gas reservoirs, gas condensate reservoirs, unconventional gas reservoirs, coalbed
gas reservoirs, and gas-bearing shale reservoirs.
Conventional Gas Reservoirs
In conventional natural gas reservoirs the gas molecules
are stored by compression within rock pores. The gasin-place analysis is a straightforward volumetric calculation since the total gas volume within the reservoir is solely a function of the total pore space volume
containing gas and the in-situ gas content within a unit
volume of pore space.1 In general, there is no significant gas molecule-reservoir rock interaction, and the
reservoir functions as a constant-volume tank, i.e., the
rock porosity does not vary significantly as a function
of pressure change. When natural gas is a constant composition fluid, i.e., does not undergo phase change upon
reduction in reservoir pressure, the amount of natural
gas stored by compression within a specified rock pore
volume can be calculated using temperature, pressure
and volume relationships derived from fundamental gas
laws. Thus, the in-situ gas content is a direct function
of the effective rock porosity, reservoir temperature and
pressure, and gas composition.1,2 Because the pores of
conventional reservoir rocks contain formation water,
the water saturation must be estimated to determine
the volume of gas within the porosity.
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
At reservoir temperatures and pressures greater
than 200 F and 2,000 psia, respectively, natural gas
can dissolve significant amounts of non-volatile hydrocarbons.3 If the non-volatile hydrocarbon concentration is greater than about 0.7 mole percent, the reservoir
is referred to as a gas-condensate reservoir.4 Gas-inplace analysis is not straightforward for gas-condensate reservoirs and special engineering and operating
methods are needed for maximizing gas recovery since
1.2
Coalbed Gas Reservoirs

In coalbed reservoirs the natural gas is predominantly stored (~98%) as a molecularly adsorbed phase
within micropores. A small amount of natural gas
(~2%) is stored by a combination of compression
within natural fractures and absorption in formation
water. Very little natural gas can be stored by compression in coalbed reservoirs because the fracture porosity
generally ranges from less than 1% to 5% and is
typically more than 90% water saturated at initial

reservoir conditions.9 Coalbed gas reservoirs result
from a unique set of geologic processes wherein the
coal performs the dual roles of organic source and
reservoir for hydrocarbon gases formed as co-genetic
products of the natural coalification process.10,11
The gas storage capacity of a coalbed reservoir varies as a function of the reservoir temperature
and pressure, the coal compositional properties, the
micropore structure and its surface properties, and the
molecular properties of the adsorbed gas constituents.10,11 However, the actual in-situ adsorbed phase
gas content is also a complex function of geologic factors which affected the retention of adsorbed phase gas
within the reservoir. Thus, an accurate in-situ gas content value cannot be calculated solely from knowledge
of physical coal properties but instead must be directly
determined through measurements performed on
freshly-cut reservoir coal samples. The primary characteristic of coalbed reservoirs which makes them commercially attractive as sources of natural gas is their
ability to store extraordinarily high gas-in-place volumes at relatively shallow depths. The high gas storage capacity is due to the adsorbed phase
natural gas having a liquid-like density.13
For example, Figure 1-1 illustrates a comparison of the gas-in-place per unit reservoir volume for a typical coalbed gas reservoir in the San Juan Basin, Fruitland
Formation compared to that of a conventional sandstone reservoir of 25% porosity and 70% gas saturation. A greater volume of gas is stored in the coal at pressures less than 2,250 psia. This pressure
equates to a depth of roughly 5,000 feet.
Gas-Bearing Shale Reservoirs
In gas-bearing shale reservoirs the
gas molecules are stored by a combination of compression within matrix and
fracture porosity, absorption by bitumen,
and adsorption by organic carbon and clay
minerals.14 The gas storage capacity of
shale reservoirs varies as a function of the reservoir

temperature and pressure, porosity, total organic carbon content, clay mineral content, and the molecular
properties of adsorbed gas constituents. Adsorption
generally accounts for over 50% of the total stored gas
volume in gas-bearing shale reservoirs.15
In 1994, gas-bearing shale reservoirs provided
nearly 1.5% (259 Bscf) of the total natural gas production in the United States.16 Currently, the most active
plays for gas-bearing shales in the United States are the
Antrium shale in the Michigan Basin, the Devonian
shales in the Appalachian Basin, the Barnett shale in the
Fort Worth Basin, the Niobrara shale in the Denver
Basin, and the New Albany shale in the Illinois Basin.
A recently published assessment for the Upper Cretaceous Lewis Formation shale in the San Juan Basin of
Colorado and New Mexico indicates that this shale
formation contains in-place natural gas resources estimated to total 96 Tscf.17
Coalbed Gas Recovery

The earliest record of gas recovery from coalbed
reservoirs was in China in 900 A.D. where natural gas
Figure 1-1.
Fruitland Coal and Conventional Gas Reservoir
Storage Capacity Comparison.
1.3
Chapter
issuing from coalbeds was transported in bamboo pipes

and used as fuel to generate heat for manufacturing salt
by brine evaporation.18 In the United States, the earliest
record of gas recovery from coalbed reservoirs was in
the early 1900s when a water well drilled into a coal
seam in the Powder River Basin was capped and the
produced natural gas used as a heating fuel.10 However,
prior to the 1950s the petroleum industry regarded
coalbeds only as sources of gas-kicks and blowout
hazards during well drill operations. The first deliberate attempts to target coalbed reservoirs in the United
States as gas well completion objectives was in the
early 1950s in the San Juan Basin.19 Significant commercial coalbed gas production did not begin in the
United States until the early 1980s.10 Today, technology for economically producing natural gas from
coalbed reservoirs has reached a state of demonstrated
maturity and these reservoirs are important natural gas
exploration targets.20
In 1995, coalbed reservoirs accounted for 5% (956
Bscf) of the total natural gas production and 6% of the
total natural gas reserves in the United States.21 It is
estimated that coalbed reservoirs hold 14% (147 Tscf)
of the total recoverable natural gas resources in the
United States.22 The in-place coalbed gas resources in
the U.S. lower-48 states are estimated to total over 675
Tscf.23 Figure 1-2 shows the geographic
distribution of the U.S. lower-48 coalbed
gas resources. Information about these
coalbed gas resources can be found in
References 16, 21, and 24 . Alaska also
has huge coal deposits which contain inplace coalbed gas resources estimated to
total 1,000 Tscf.25 The success of coalbed
gas production in the United States has
sparked intense interest worldwide in this
new gas resource, particularly in coalrich nations in Eastern Europe and Asia.
data since this parameter is the basis for forecasts of the

gas production rates and cumulative gas production
volumes from these reservoirs. The in-situ gas content
is a crucial parameter in the formula used to calculate
the gas-in-place volume, but the accurate determination of in-situ gas content is neither simple nor straightforward. It is not currently possible to use geophysical
logging technology to accurately determine the volume
of gas stored in-situ by molecular adsorption. This
limitation occurs since the presence of adsorbed phase
natural gas has little effect upon the physical properties
of the bulk reservoir rock. For example, an in-situ
adsorbed phase methane content of 400 scf/ton would
increase the density of a 100% organic content sample
having a density of 1.295 g/cm3 by only 0.010 g/cm3, or
0.8%.26
Three methods are commonly used for determining in-situ gas content values: pressure coring; direct
methods; and indirect methods.27 Each of these methods has inherent shortcomings which can significantly
affect the accuracy and comparability of gas content
analysis results.
Pressure Coring
The pressure coring method involves trapping a
cored rock sample downhole within a sealed barrel
Coalbed Gas Content Analysis

The growing importance of commercial coalbed gas production has dictated
the critical need for accurate gas-in-place
Figure 1-2.
U.S. Lower-48 Coalbed Gas Resources.
1.4
thereby preventing any loss of gas by

desorption while the sample is being
retrieved to the surface. The in-situ
gas content is then determined by
measuring the total volume of gas that
desorbs from the sample. The primary
advantage of pressure coring is that it
is the only method capable of directly
measuring the total in-situ gas content
of the cored rock sample. However,
this method requires specialized equipment that is difficult to successfully
operate on a routine basis in the field.
Pressure coring is also about five times
as expensive as conventional coring
methods and its use has generally been
restricted to research studies.28
Figure 1-3.
Comparison of Saturated and
Undersaturated Production Behavior.
Direct Method Analysis

The direct method analysis procedure was originally developed by the coal mining industry to evaluate
the potential severity of natural gas emissions during
underground mining operations.27,29,30,31,32 This mining industry method involves sealing freshly cut drill
cuttings or conventional core samples in an airtight
desorption canister and then measuring the volume of
gas that desorbs as a function of time at ambient
temperature and pressure conditions. The measured
desorbed gas volume is not equal to the total in-situ gas
content since some gas desorbs and is lost during the
sample collection process and some gas is usually
retained by the coal at ambient temperature and pressure desorption conditions. The lost gas volume is
commonly estimated by graphical analysis of the measured gas desorption data. The residual gas volume is
determined by measuring the volume of gas released
when the coal sample is crushed and heated at the
conclusion of the desorption measurements. The total
gas volume of the coal is equal to the sum of the
estimated lost gas volume, the measured desorbed gas
volume, and the measured residual gas volume.
The chief limitation of the direct method analysis
procedure is that it yields widely different in-situ gas
content estimates depending upon the coal sample type
and collection methodology, analysis conditions, and
data analysis methods.26,28,33,34,35,36 This method-dependent gas content analysis result variation warrants
careful consideration when planning or conducting a
coalbed reservoir gas-in-place analysis since it indicates that some sample types, analysis conditions, and
data analysis methods have inherent shortcomings which
bias the gas content analysis result accuracy. For example, the in-situ gas content estimates obtained by
analysis of drill cuttings and conventional core gas
desorption data commonly differ by 25% or more.26,28,34
Gas content errors of this magnitude cause very large
errors in the gas production rates and cumulative recovery estimated using reservoir simulation techniques.
Figure 1-3 illustrates the differences in predicted gas
production rate and cumulative recovery that results
from a 30% gas content under-prediction for a typical
high productivity San Juan Basin coalbed gas well. The
maximum gas production rate was under-predicted by
82%, and the ultimate recovery (gas reserves) was
underestimated by 63%.28
It is not uncommon for the cumulative gas volumes obtained from coalbed reservoir and gas-bearing
shale wells with long production histories to be substantially less than or even greatly exceed the initial,
producible reserve estimates.19,36 As an example, the 10
year cumulative gas production for 23 coalbed gas
1.5
Chapter
wells at the Oak Grove field in the Black

Warrior Basin of Alabama was 3.2 Bscf,
but only 1.55 Bscf of initial gas-in-place
was originally calculated to be contained
within the coal comprising the reservoirs.37 The discrepancy was believed to
be due to low reservoir volume estimates
and low initial gas content estimates.
Variances between initial gas-in-place
and cumulative gas production volumes
of this magnitude warrant careful scrutiny since they indicate a significant potential for reserve growth in existing fields
and for expanding the recoverable gas
resource base by exploiting coalbed gas
and gas-bearing shale resources that are
currently viewed as uneconomic.
Figure 1-4.
Fruitland Gas Content and Vitrinite
Reflectance Relationship.
very unreliable since coalbed reservoir gas content

variation trends can be very erratic throughout a basin.
Indirect Method Analysis
For example, Table 1-1 shows reservoir property data
The indirect method is used when reservoir coal
collected during Gas Research Institute cooperative
samples are not available and basically involves evaluresearch projects at five Upper Cretaceous Fruitland
ating the in-situ gas content using empirical correlations which relate known variations in gas content or Formation coalbed gas wells34in the San Juan Basin of
Colorado and New Mexico. For the entire data set
storage capacity against variations in easily measured
there is no significant linear relationship between diindependent geologic variables such as coal rank or
rect method in-situ gas content values and other easily
reservoir depth.27,38,39 Plots of measured in-situ gas
measured geologic variables such as vitrinite refleccontent values against vitrinite reflectance or reservoir
tance, depth, and reservoir pressure.
depth often exhibit apparent linear trends. However,
Figure 1-4 is a graph of the variation of direct
the empirical correlations derived from such data trends
method in-situ gas content as a function of vitrinite
generally have very little predictive utility since there
reflectance for the data given in Table 1-1. In this graph,
is no fundamental relationship between the dependent
four wells exhibit an apparent linear trend of increasing
and independent variables. Thus, the coefficients in the
in-situ gas content with increasing vitrinite reflectance.
empirical correlations are highly sample set specific
However, the empirical correlation derived from this
which biases their predictive accuracy.
Indirect method in-situ gas content values can be apparent gas content-vitrinite reflectance relationship
would have significantly over estimated the pressure
core-deWell
Vitrinite
Direct Method
Depth
Pressure
rived in-situ
Reflectance
Dry, Ash-Free
gas content
Gas Content
value for the
% Ro
scf/ton
feet
psia
Southern
FC Federal #12
0.59
225
2,235
890
Ute Mobil
36-1 well.
Valencia Canyon 32-1
0.76
623
1,910
913
Southern Ute 5-7
0.80
503
1,460
620
GRI COAL Site
0.90
913
3,180
1,550
Southern Ute Mobil 36-1
1.34
601
2,440
1,366
Table 1-1.
1.6
Fruitland Formation Coalbed Reservoir

Property Data.
Analysis Type
Basin
Basin
COAL Site Reservoir
COAL Site Reservoir
Analysis Method
Indirect Method
Indirect Method
Indirect Method
Direct Method
Gas-In-Place
31 Tscf
50 Tscf
26.9 Bscf per Square Mile
60.3 Bscf per Square Mile
Reference
41
42
42
34
Table 1-2
Fruitland Formation Gas-In-Place Estimates
Coalbed reservoir gas content values can also vary

dramatically among wells in close proximity to one
another. For example, the Pottsville Formation, Mary
Lee - Blue Creek Group coal recovered from corehole
M-612 at the Gas Research Institutes Big Indian Creek
research site in the Black Warrior Basin, Alabama had
an in-situ gas content of 431 cubic feet per ton in-place
coal. However, the in-situ gas content of the reservoir
coal samples collected at two adjacent coreholes were
3 to 17 times lower.40 Subsequent geologic analyses
attributed the lower gas content values to a combination of paleotopography and paleoclimate factors which
reduced the hydrostatic pressure within a localized area
of this coalbed reservoir thereby allowing natural
degasification of the coal to occur.40
Gas Resource Assessments

In-place coalbed gas resource assessments are commonly based upon indirect method gas content values.
Table 1-2 compares published in-place gas resource
estimates for the Fruitland Formation coal in the San
Juan Basin of Colorado and New Mexico.41,42 The
indirect method in-place gas resource estimates differ
by nearly a factor of two. The lower resource estimate
(31 Tscf) was obtained using drill cuttings-derived gas
content-depth correlations while the higher resource
estimate (50 Tscf) was obtained using conventional
core-derived gas content-depth correlations. By contrast, the direct method in-situ gas content of San Juan
Basin Fruitland Formation coal recovered from a well
at the Gas Research Institutes COAL Site research
location was 512.4 scf/ton or 110% greater than the 244
scf/ton value predicted by the indirect method gas
content-depth correlation.34 A gas content error of this
magnitude causes a very large error in the gas-in-place
estimate which for the COAL site reservoir increases
from 26.9 to 60.3 Bscf per square mile, a gain of 124%.
These comparisons demonstrate that empirical gas

content-depth correlations used for conducting in-place
gas resource assessments are not adequate for conducting reservoir gas-in-place analysis.
Additional Gas-InPlace Anaysis

Other common sources of error in gas-in-place
analysis are underestimation of the gross reservoir
thickness and average reservoir rock density.36 Coal
compositional properties and gas content are not uniform throughout the bulk rock comprising a coalbed
reservoir but vary both vertically and laterally as a function of such geologic variables as coal rank, depth, ash
content, and maceral composition. Analysis data from
samples having a broad range of compositional values
are needed for reliable determination of the gross reservoir thickness, average reservoir rock density and
average in-situ gas content.26,36 Coal samples must also
be carefully handled at the well site and during transport, storage and testing in order to preserve their original in-situ compositional properties.26,27,34 Air exposure,
for example, results in time-dependent alteration of
coals gas emission and compositional properties due
to a progressive degradation phenomenon known as
weathering.43 If freshly cut reservoir coal samples are
sealed in desorption canisters with a large headspace
air volume the subsequent chemical reaction between
the oxygen in the air and the coal can cause a significant underestimation error in the desorbed gas volume.44
Clearly, obtaining accurate gas-in-place values for
coalbed reservoirs involves numerous data collection
and analysis challenges. The key requirement for obtaining accurate values for average in-situ gas content,
gross reservoir thickness, and average reservoir rock
density is the use of proper sampling, testing, and data
analysis methods.26,27,28,34,35,36 The following chapters
1.7
Chapter
in this book provide a state-of-the-art technical reference of the procedures used for determining the gas-inplace volume of coalbed reservoirs. The emphasis is on
providing practical information, guidelines, and procedures for analyzing coalbed reservoir property data.
We have included insights into sources of error and the
comparative accuracy of commonly used analysis
methods rather than lengthy technical explanations of
the theories behind these methods. Example problems
and exercises are given throughout the text to promote
practical understanding of the analysis methods and to
facilitate independent, self-paced training by practicing petroleum geologists and reservoir engineers. The
text in each chapter is supplemented by references
identifying literature sources containing additional information.
Accuracy Benchmarking
This book evolved from notes and data sets developed and used by the authors for reports, lectures,
workshops, and Gas Research Institute sponsored training courses on the general topics of coalbed reservoir
gas content and gas-in-place analysis. Most of the
information and data in this book are the products of
over a decade of basic coal science and field-based
coalbed reservoir engineering research sponsored by
the Gas Research Institute. We used this research
information and data to systematically evaluate the
accuracy and identify the major sources of errors associated with gas content and gas-in-place volume estimates. These evaluations differ from previous studies
in three important ways. First, we rigorously established benchmark or ground truth values for the insitu gas content value of each reservoir. These benchmark values were determined using either pressure
core-derived gas content data or adsorption isotherm
data measured in pressure cells under in-situ reservoir
conditions.26,28,34,35 Second, we used these benchmark
gas content values as the reference basis for establishing the absolute accuracy and comparing the relative
accuracy of different analysis methods.26,28,34,35,36 The
full details of these analyses as well as the complete
data sets used for these analyses have been published
by the Gas Research Institute and are publicly accessible for examination and use by others. 26,28,34,35,36,45
1.8
Finally, the quantitative results and error source insights obtained from these evaluations formed the basis
for the analysis procedure guidelines and recommendations given throughout the text of this book.
Several coalbed gas producers and service laboratories have independently evaluated and documented
the applicability and practical value of these analysis
procedure guidelines and recommendations in basins
throughout the United States and other countries
throughout the world. The information in this book
represents the current state of knowledge regarding
what is clearly a very complex technical subject. It is
anticipated that as additional research is conducted and
new data become available, that further refinements
and improvements in the methods used for coalbed
reservoir gas-in-place analysis will occur. We anticipate that some of the readers of this book will contribute
to making these refinements and improvements possible.
Chapter 1 References
1.
Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A., Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.:
Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York (1959) pp. 456-462.
2.
Ikoku, C.U.: Natural Gas Reservoir Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New York (1984) 503 p.
3.
Price, L.C., Wenger, L.M., Ging, T., and Blount, C.W.: Solubility of Crude Oil in Methane as a Function
of Pressure and Temperature, Organic Geochemistry, Vol. 4 (1983) pp. 201-221.
4.
McCain, W.D.: Heavy Components Control Reservoir Fluid Behavior, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 46 (September 1994) pp. 746-750.
5.
Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A., Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.:
Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York (1959) pp. 204-207.
6.
Price, L.C.: Aqueous Solubility of Methane at Elevated Pressures and Temperatures, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, Vol. 63 (1979) pp. 1527-1533.
7.
Cox, J.L. (editor): Natural Gas Hydrates: Properties, Occurrence and Recovery, Butterworth, Boston, MA
(1983) 125 p.
8.
Kvenvolden, K.A.: A Primer on Gas Hydrates, in Howell, D.G., et al. (editors), The Future of Energy
Gases, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1570, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. (1993) pp. 279-291.
9.
Marsden, S.: A Survey of Natural Gas Dissolved in Brine, in Howell, D.G., et al. (editors), The Future of
Energy Gases, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1570, United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. (1993) pp. 383-387.
10. Rightmire, C.T.: Coalbed Methane Resource, in Rightmire, C.T., Eddy, G.E., and Kirr, J.N., (editors),
Coalbed Methane Resources of the United States, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa,
Oklahoma (1984) pp. 1-13.
11. Tissot, B.P. and Welte D.H.: Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1984) 699 p.
12. Jones, A.H., Bell, G.J., and Schraufnagel, R.A.: A Review of the Physical and Mechanical Properties of
Coal with Implications for Coal-Bed Methane Well Completion and Production, in Fassett, J.E. (editor)
Geology and Coal-Bed Methane Resources of the Northern San Juan Basin, Colorado and New Mexico,
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado (1988) pp. 169-181.
13. Van der Sommen, J., Zwietering, P., Eillebrecht, J.M., and van Krevelen, D.W.: Chemical Structure and
Properties of Coal, XII - Sorption Capacity For Methane, Fuel, Vol. 34 (1955) pp. 444-448.
14. Decker, A.D., Wicks, D.E., and Coates, J-M.: Gas Content Measurements and Log Based Correlations in
the Antrim Shale, Gas Research Institute Topical Report No. GRI-93/0293, Chicago, Illinois (July 1993) 81
p.
15. Lu, X-C., Li, F-C., and Watson, A.T.: Adsorption Measurements in Devonian Shales, Fuel, Vol. 74
(1995) pp. 599-603.
16. Kelso, B.S., Lombardi, T.E., and Kuuskraa, J.A.: Drilling and Production Statistics for Major U.S. Coalbed
Methane and Gas Shale Reservoirs: Gas Research Institute Topical Report No. GRI-96/0052, Chicago,
Illinois (December 1995) 50 p.
1.9
Chapter
17. Jennings, G.L., Greaves, K.H. and Bereskin, S.R.: Natural Gas Resource Potential of the Lewis Shale,
San Juan Basin, New Mexico and Colorado, Paper 9766, Proceedings of the 1997 International Coalbed
Methane Symposium, The University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Alabama (May 12-17, 1997) pp. 557-565.
18. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A., Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.:
Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York (1959) p. 298.
19. Dugan, T.A. and Williams, B.L.: History of Gas Produced from Coal Seams in the San Juan Basin, in
Fassett, J.E. (editor): Geology and Coal-Bed Methane Resources of the Northern San Juan Basin, Colorado and New Mexico, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado (1988) pp. 1-9.
20. Schraufnagel, R.A., Hill, D.G., and McBane, R.A.: Coalbed Methane - A Decade of Success, Paper SPE
28581, 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, New
Orleans, Louisiana (September 25-28, 1994).
21. Schwochow, S. (editor): The International Coal Seam Gas Report, Cairn Point Publishing, Inc., Denver,
Colorado (1997) p. 9.
22. Curtis, J.B.: How Well Do We Know the Size of the U.S. Natural Gas Resource Base, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 48 (1996) pp. 75-81.
23. Tyler, R., Kaiser, W.R., Scott, A.R., and Hamilton, D.S.: Coalbed Gas Potential of the Greater Green
River Basin, Southwest Wyoming and Northwest Colorado, Paper 9502, Proceedings INTERGAS 95,
The University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Alabama (May 14-20, 1995) p. 23-38.
24. Rightmire, C.T., Eddy, G.E., and Kirr, J.N. (editors): Coalbed Methane Resources of the United States,
AAPG Studies in Geology Series #17, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma
(1984) 375 p.
25. Smith, T.N.: Coalbed Methane Potential for Alaska and Drilling Results for the Upper Cook Inlet Basin,
Paper 9501, Proceedings INTERGAS 95, The University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Alabama (May 14-20,
1995) p. 1-21.
26. Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T.J., and Nelson, C.R.: Quantitative Evaluation of Coal Seam Gas Content Estimate
Accuracy, Paper SPE 29577, 1995 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional / Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado (March 20-22, 1995).
27. McLennan, J.D., Schafer, P.S., and Pratt, T.J.: A Guide to Determining Coalbed Gas Content, Gas Research Institute Report No. GRI-94/0396, Chicago, Illinois (1995) 182 p.
28. Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T.J., and Nelson, C.R.: Quantify the Accuracy of Coal Seam Gas Content, Petroleum
Engineer International, Vol. 68 (October 1995) pp. 37-42.
29. Bertard, C., Bruyet, B., and Gunther, J.: Determination of Desorbable Gas Concentration of Coal (Direct
Method), International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, Vol. 7 (1970) pp. 43-65.
30. Kissell, F.N., McCulloch, C.M., and Elder, C.H.: The Direct Method of Determining Methane Content of
Coalbeds for Ventilation Design, Report of Investigations 7767, United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. (1973) 17 p.
31. McCulloch, C.M., Levine, J.R., Kissell, F.N., and Deul, M.: Measuring the Methane Content of Bituminous Coalbeds, Report of Investigations 8043, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Washington, D.C. (1975) 22 p.
1.10
32. Diamond, W.P. and Levine, J.R.: Direct Method Determination of the Gas Content of Coal: Procedures
and Results, Report of Investigations 8515, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
Washington, D.C. (1981) 36 p.
33. Close, J.C. and Erwin, T.M.: Significance and Determination of Gas Content Data as Related to Coalbed
Methane Reservoir Evaluation and Production Implications, Paper 8922, Proceedings of the 1989 Coalbed
Methane Symposium, The University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Alabama (April 17-20, 1989) pp. 37-55.
34. Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T.J., and Britton, R.N.: Improved Methodology for Determining Total Gas Content,
Volume I. Canister Gas Desorption Data Summary, Gas Research Institute Topical Report No. GRI-93/
0410, Chicago, Illinois (May 1994) 230 p.
35. Mavor, M.J. and Pratt, T.J.: Improved Methodology for Determining Total Gas Content, Volume II. Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Gas-In-Place Estimates and Review of Lost Gas Models, Gas
Research Institute Topical Report No. GRI-94/0429, Chicago, Illinois (March 1996) 167 p.
36. Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T.J., Nelson, C.R., and Casey, T.A.: Improved Gas-In-Place Determination for Coal
Gas Reservoirs, Paper SPE 35623, Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (April 28 May 1, 1996).
37. Diamond, W.P., Bodden, W.R., III, Zuber, M.D., and Schraufnagel, R.A.: Measuring the Extent of Coalbed
Gas Drainage After 10 Years of Production at the Oak Grove Pattern, Alabama, Paper 8961, Proceedings
of the 1989 Coalbed Methane Symposium, The University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Alabama (April 17-20,
1989) pp. 185-193.
38. Kim, A.G.: Estimating Methane Content of Bituminous Coalbeds From Adsorption Data, Report of Investigations 8245, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. (1977) 22 p.
39. Hawkins, J.M., Schraufnagel, R.A., and Olszewski, A.J.: Estimating Coalbed Gas Content and Sorption
Isotherm Using Well Log Data, Paper SPE 24905, 67th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Washington, D.C. (October 4-7, 1992).
40. Malone, P.G., Briscoe, F.H., Camp, B.S., and Boyer, C.M., II: Discovery and Explanation of Low Gas
Contents Encountered in Coalbeds at the GRI/USSC Big Indian Creek Site, Warrior Basin, Alabama,
Paper 8715, Proceedings of the 1987 Coalbed Methane Symposium, The University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa,
Alabama (November 16-19, 1987) pp. 185-193.
41. Choate, R., Lent, J., and Rightmire, C.T.: Upper Cretaceous Geology, Coal, and the Potential for Methane
Recovery from Coalbeds in San Juan Basin - Colorado and New Mexico, in Rightmire, C.T., Eddy, G.E.,
and Kirr, J.N. (editors), Coalbed Methane Resources of the United States, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1984) pp. 185-222.
42. Kelso, B.S., Wicks, D.E., and Kuuskraa, V.A.: A Geologic Assessment of Natural Gas From Coal Seams in
the Fruitland Formation, San Juan Basin, Gas Research Institute Topical Report No. GRI-87/0341, Chicago, Illinois (March 1988) 56 p.
43. Nelson, C.R. (editor), Chemistry of Coal Weathering, Elsevier Science Publishers, New York (1989) 230 p.
44. Ulery, J.P. and Hyman, D.M.: The Modified Direct Method of Gas Content Determination: Applications
and Results, Paper 9163, Proceedings of the 1991 International Coalbed Methane Symposium, The University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Alabama (May 13-16, 1991) pp. 489-500.
45. Mavor, M.J. and Pratt, T.J.: COREGAS Database, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois (May 1994).
1.11
Chapter
1.12
2
Chapter
Gas-In-Place Methodology
and Error Summary
ou can make gas-in-place estimates with a

simple equation with parameters including the drainage area, thickness, density, and gas content of a reservoir. Difficulties in application are due to errors in the
parameters, not in the equation. We found that three
essential items are required for accurate estimates, a
geologic-engineering evaluation, measurement of core
data, and measurement of open-hole density log data.
Although you may need to adjust the methodology
described in this book, we believe that you will still
require these three essential items.
Our gas-in-place methodology combines coal thickness and in-situ density data from well logs with
multiple sample gas content estimates from core sample
desorption measurements. Core measurements are required since currently available logging technology
cannot quantify the volume of gas contained within the
reservoirs. In this section, you will get an overview of
the eight-step methodology developed by GRI. You
will be acquainted with the details and examples of the
eight steps later.
Gas-In-Place Relationship
We define gas content for coalbed gas reservoirs as
the in-situ gas volume per unit weight of rock. The unit
weight of rock contains both organic and inorganic
components within coal and other organic-bearing
rock types. The gas volume is reported at standard
pressure and temperature conditions. These vary but
are often 60 oF and 14.696 psia. The gas-in-place
estimate is dependent upon the bulk volume (areagross thickness product), the average in-situ density,
and the average in-situ sorbed gas content in the reser-
voirs. Commercial gas production requires that sufficient gas-in-place is contained within minute pore
spaces, and that natural fractures connect the gas-inplace to production wells. Discussion of natural fractures and flow to wells is outside the scope of this book.
Refer to Reference 1 if you wish more information on
these subjects.
The gas-in-place equation is:
(2-1)
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc
Where:
G
A
h
=
=
=
=
G
c
gas-in-place volume, scf

reservoir area, acres
reservoir thickness, feet
average in-situ rock density at the average
insitu rock composition, g/cm3
= average gas content at the average in-situ rock
composition, scf/ton
Example 2-1 illustrates application of Equation 21. You will usually apply this equation to individual
reservoirs or coal seams in close vertical proximity that
have similar characteristics. Sometimes, we will group
reservoirs when they are of similar coal rank, sorptive
capacity, and pressure. When you are interested in
multiple reservoirs or groups, you sum the results of
Equation 2-1 for each reservoir to obtain the total gasin-place volume.
2.1
Chapter
Gas-In-Place Methodology and Error Summary
Example 2-1. Gas-In-Place at the COAL Site

READ ME
At the GRI COAL Site research location in the San Juan Basin, the Fruitland Formation coal gas
reservoirs are contained in two primary intervals referred to as the basal and upper. Each of these
intervals had multiple coal seams that we grouped together since the coal rank, gas storage capacity,
and reservoir pressure were similar in each interval. The following table lists properties required for
the gas-in-place estimates for each interval. The area that we were interested in was the square mile
section in which the research site was located.
Property
Units
Drainage area
Thickness
Average in-situ density
Average gas content at the average rock composition
Initial gas-in-place per square mile
acres
feet
g/cm 3
scf/ton
Bscf
Upper Coal
Interval
Value
640
28.3
1.833
343.2
15.49
Basal Coal
Interval
Value
640
61.7
1.628
512.4
44.79
The total initial gas-in-place volume for both intervals was 60.28(109) scf or 60.28 Bscf (billion
standard cubic feet) per square mile. The calculation is straight forward as performed below for the
basal coal interval.
G = 1,359.7 (640 )(61.7 )(1.628 )(512.4 ) = 4.479 10 10 scf or 44.79 Bscf
The combination of the drainage area and the

thickness in Equation 2-1 is the bulk volume of the
reservoir. The bulk volume usually contains coal (rock
with an organic content greater than 70% by volume
and greater than 50% by weight1 ), carbonaceous shale
(containing organic material in which gas is sorbed)
and rocks devoid of organic material. You will generally ignore the inorganic rock for gas-in-place estimates unless it contains producible gas.
An analysts selection of the drainage area is often
based on surface surveys, ownership limits, or the well
spacing used to develop the reservoirs. More properly
though, the area should be determined by a combination of geological, geophysical, and engineering methods. A discussion of these methods is outside the scope
of this book. Examples of coal gas reservoir geologic
evaluations are included in Reference 3 and 4. Reference 5 presents an example of the use of geophysical
and reservoir simulation methods. GRI presented a
summary of coal gas reservoir engineering and simulation technology that you can use.1
We will cover the methods we used to estimate the
thickness from density logs. You may also need to
estimate thickness from a combination of other wireline
2.2
and mud logs when a density log is not available.

We need the in-situ density estimate to convert gas
content on a volume per weight basis to a volume per
volume basis. We will determine the in-situ density
from open-hole density log data. We will use the
density data to determine the depths of organic-bearing
rocks from open-hole density data.
Most gas content estimate methods involve placing
freshly cut coal samples in airtight gas desorption
canisters. The total gas content is the sum of three
components,
1. the gas content lost prior to sealing the canister,
2. the measured gas content, and
3. the residual gas content remaining in the samples
at the end of the measurements.
The most common units for gas content are scf
(standard cubic feet) per ton (2,000 lbm [pounds mass])
or g/cm3 (grams per cubic centimeter). One scf/ton is
equal to 32.0368 g/cm3.
We will estimate the total gas content by analysis
of the gas volume released vs. time from core samples
reheated to reservoir temperature. These data are ana-
Well
Well
Well
lyzed to determine the lost gas volPermeability
A
B
C
ume. The samples are crushed at
Facies Change
the completion of desorption to
determine the residual gas content.
The gas content estimates from
Channel
multiple samples should be correSandstone Belt
lated to the inorganic content of the
samples to allow estimates of the
Coal
Pinch
in-situ gas content. This procedure
Out
is superior to averaging the estimates from multiple samples.
Fault
Core data should be measured
Offset
to determine the density of the organic and inorganic portions of the
samples. These data allow the gas
content to be correlated with density. We have used the density correlations to show that the density
Figure 2-1.
range from which gas can be desCoal Gas Recovery Geometry.
orbed includes both coal and carbonaceous shale. The gas-in-place
in the carbonaceous shale intervals must be included gas reservoir geometry.
The uncertainty or error in producible gas-in-place
for accurate gas-in-place estimates.
Once the gas content data is correlated to inorganic estimates caused by natural geologic variability can
content and hence density, it is possible to estimate the be very significant. You should include a geologic
in-situ gas content from the open-hole density data. The evaluation of the structural and stratigraphic changes
in-situ gas content estimate is made at the average in- in reservoirs to obtain accurate estimates of the gassitu inorganic content to provide a single in-situ gas in-place and the gas that may be recovered by
existing or infill wells. Unfortunately, the presence
content estimate for use in the gas-in-place equation.
of the discontinuities is often not apparent in the
Gas-In-Place Estimate Errors
geologic evaluation. The locations of discontinuities
often cannot be determined until you identify
Uncertainties or errors in each parameter included
unusual patterns in gas and/or water production
in Equation 2-1 limit the accuracy of coal gas-in-place
behavior.
volume estimates. These parameters are the drainage
Three-dimensional seismic technology has been
area, the thickness, the average in-situ density, and the
used to improve estimates of drainage region extent in
average in-situ gas content.
coal gas reservoirs. In the San Juan Basin, estimates of
Drainage Area Errors
locations of rock discontinuities determined from seisGeologists and engineers usually estimate the res- mic interpretation were consistent with the locations of
ervoir drainage area from ground level areas such as flow barriers required in reservoir simulation models.5
survey limits, ownership boundaries, or well spacing. This combination of reservoir simulation and seismic
However, geologic structural and stratigraphic varia- technology may someday, routinely improve the identions disrupt the lateral continuity of coalbeds. These tification of discontinuities beyond that possible with
disruptions complicate determination of the reservoir traditional geologic or production interpretation methdrainage area. Figure 2-1 illustrates a schematic of coal ods.
2.3
Chapter
Gross Coal Thickness Errors

The primary data source for determining the thickness of coalbeds is geophysical logs. Interpretation of
open-hole density logs results in the most accurate
estimates. Recognizing coal is often easy since the
density of organic material is low compared to that of
inorganic rocks.1 You will calculate the total reservoir
thickness by summing the thickness of rocks whose
density values are less than a maximum density limit.
The most commonly used maximum density limit
for coal is 1.75 g/cm3. This limit may have come from
the geologic definition of coal2 that states that coal
contains more that 70% by volume and 50% by weight
carbonaceous material. This limit corresponds to densities less than or equal to 1.75 g/cm3. However, 1.75 g/
cm3 excludes the gas contained in carbonaceous shale
intervals and may result in low estimates of the gross
reservoir thickness and high estimates of the average
in-situ gas content. A more correct upper density limit
for Fruitland Formation coal gas reservoirs is 2.1 to 2.5
g/cm3. Use of the lower rule of thumb value results in
gas-in-place estimates that are low by up to 22%.
Average In-Situ Density Errors
Many analysts assume that the product of 1,359.7
and the average density in Equation 2-1 is equal to a
value of 1,800 or 1,850 tons per acre-foot based upon
information contained in Reference 7. The average
density corresponding to these values is 1.324 to 1.361
g/cm3. The correct in-situ density should be estimated
from open-hole density log data. The average in-situ
density of San Juan Basin, Fruitland Formation coal
gas reservoirs is often 1.5 to 1.85 g/cm3. Use of the
correct average density value results in gas-in-place
estimates that are 10 to 13% greater than obtained with
the rule-of-thumb value.
Gas Content Errors
One of the key components of the gas-in-place
estimate is the gas content of the reservoirs. Errors in
gas content estimates are the greatest source of error in
gas-in-place estimates. The errors usually cause the
gas-in-place estimates to be low. We quantified the
errors with benchmark gas content values. By comparing gas content estimates obtained by different meth-
2.4
ods to the benchmark values, we determined that gas

content estimates are accurate if our methodology is
followed.
We obtained the benchmark gas content values
from pressure core samples and sorption isotherm data.
Pressure coring equipment seals core samples downhole allowing all of the gas content to be trapped
without loss before retrieving the samples to surface.
We used sorption isotherm data for benchmarks in
reservoirs that we knew had in-situ gas contents that
were equal to the in-situ gas storage capacity.
We measured all of the gas content data that we
used to design the gas-in-place methodology during the
Western Cretaceous Coal Seam Project of GRI.3 References 9 ,10 , and 11 document the details of the
benchmarking and error analysis that we performed.
Table 2-1 presents the comparison between the benchmark standards and gas content values.
We had two sets of pressure core samples available; one from San Juan Basin, Fruitland Formation,
reservoirs and one from Piceance Basin, Mesa Verde
Group, reservoirs. The pressure core and Direct Method
conventional core gas content estimates were within
7.2% for the Slant Hole Completion Test #1 well and
5.8% for the Southern Ute - Mobil 36-1 well. The
agreement for both wells was important because gas is
lost from conventional core samples while the samples
are retrieved to surface. Pressure core samples do not
suffer this limitation. The agreement for the Slant Hole
Completion Test #1 was especially significant since the
conventional and pressure core samples were retrieved
from reservoirs at a true vertical depth of 7,000 feet.
The agreement between the pressure and conventional
core estimates supported that our methods of estimating the lost gas volume are correct. In addition, expensive pressure coring technology is not required for
accurate gas-in-place estimates if core data are properly measured and interpreted.
Pressure core data were not available from other
wells. We turned to sorption isotherm data to provide
additional benchmarks. We computed benchmarks for
five wells with extended Langmuir isotherm theory
that accounted for the sorbed gas composition that
included methane and carbon dioxide. Five Direct
Method core gas content estimates were within 1 to
Well
Benchmark Type
Gas Content
% of Benchmark Value
Slant Hole Completion Test #1 Pressure Core
92.8
Southern Ute Mobil 36-1
Pressure Core
105.8
GRI Observation Well #1
Methane-Carbon Dioxide Isotherm Data
99.7
99.6
Southern Ute 5-7
103.1
109.0
FC Federal #12
Methane Isotherm Data
119.7
South Shale Ridge #11-15
Methane Isotherm Data
120.3
Table 2-1. Agreement Between Direct Method and Benchmark Gas Content.
10% of the isotherm benchmark values. We felt that

this agreement provided additional support for the
accuracy of our lost and total gas content analysis
methods.
The two wells with the greatest apparent error in
the gas content estimates were the South Shale Ridge
#11-15 and FC Federal #12 wells. Both gas content
estimates appeared to be about 20% high. This may
have been due to errors in the benchmark values rather
than the gas content values. The benchmarks for both
these wells were methane isotherms since the sorbed
carbon dioxide content was believed low. However,
had the carbon dioxide content been as small as 5%, the
gas content and benchmark values would have been
equal.
We used the benchmark data to evaluate the accuracy of the methods used to estimate the lost gas
content. We evaluated three commonly used methods.
These are:
Direct (U.S. Bureau of Mines) Method,12 ,13,14 ,15
Smith & Williams Method,16 ,17 and
Amoco Method.18 ,19
We found that the Direct Method was the most accurate when used to evaluate core desorption data from
samples reheated to reservoir temperature. The estimates based upon the Smith & Williams Method tended
to be low while those obtained with the Amoco Method
were usually high. Figure 2-2 illustrates a comparison
of the estimates obtained with the three methods for
the eight wells listed in Table 2-1.
The common industry practice is to measure gas
desorption data from canisters stored at ambient tem-
perature. Lower ambient temperatures than reservoir

temperatures caused large errors. Two temperature related factors affected the accuracy of lost and total gas
content estimates. First, gas desorption rates varied
exponentially with temperature which greatly affected
the volume of gas desorbed during the portion of the
measurements used to estimate the lost gas content.
Second, the coal gas sorptive capacity was inversely
proportional to temperature which increased the residual gas volume and reduced the measured gas volume.
Desorption of San Juan Basin samples at ambient
temperature conditions caused errors of -30 to -33% in
the total gas content estimates and -60% to -70% errors
in lost gas content estimates. San Juan Basin Fruitland
Formation temperatures range from 100 oF to 125 oF.
Ambient temperature conditions vary depending upon
the time of year and can range from -15 oF to 100 oF.
Many researchers ignored temperature effects when
they desorbed samples from reservoirs at lower temperatures than those of the San Juan Basin. However,
since temperature effects are exponential in nature,
errors may be significant for lower reservoir temperatures as well. Reheating samples to reservoir temperature reduces errors in almost all cases.
The type of sample also has a large effect upon gas
content estimates. Conventional or wireline coring
methods are the preferred method for sample collection. Less gas is lost from cores than from more
commonly used drill cutting samples.
The accuracy of gas content estimates from drill
cuttings suffers from two limitations. The primary
2.5
Chapter
Percentage of Direct Method Estimate
200
180
S&W Method Estimates
160
Amoco Method Estimates

Direct Method: 100%
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Southern Ute
Mobil 36-1
Slant Hole
Completion Test
#1
FC Federal #12
Valencia Canyon
32-1
GRI Obs. Well #1
GRI Obs. Well #2
South Shale Ridge

#11-15
Southern Ute 5-7
Figure 2-2.
Comparison Between Direct and
Other Total Gas Content Estimates
shortcoming is that the samples are crushed downhole,
resulting in high gas desorption rates and loss of a large
fraction of the original gas content during sample
recovery. Total gas content estimates from Fruitland
Formation coal drill cuttings samples were 25% less
than those obtained from conventional core samples
when desorption was performed at similar temperatures. The common practices of drill cutting sample
desorption at ambient temperature results in gas content estimates that are 50% low based upon our results.
The second problem with drill-cutting samples is
that rock debris from outside coal gas reservoirs often
contaminates the samples. Differences in the density
between the debris and reservoir rocks increased the
inaccuracy in estimating the organic fraction and insitu gas content.
We expected gas content estimates from drilled
sidewall cores to be accurate due to short retrieval time.
However, we found that the estimates were as inaccurate
as those obtained from cuttings for our limited data set.
2.6
Another source of error in in-situ gas-in-place

estimates results from basing the gas content on an
incorrect mass. The variety of masses used to compute
the sorbed gas content value confuses many people.
Table 2-2 summarizes the most common bases.
We are interested in three of these bases. We will
begin by using the air-dry gas content basis to interpret
data from multiple samples. We will extrapolate the
air-dry data to an organic fraction basis. We will use the
organic fraction basis gas content to estimate the in-situ
basis gas content. The most important is the in-situ
basis. This is the correct gas content basis to use for
estimates of gas-in-place or other reservoir engineering calculations. The air-dry and organic fraction bases
are intermediate values that we require in the analysis.
People often ask why cant we use the air-dry basis
values. This is because desorption samples do not have
the same average inorganic content as the reservoir due
to natural variation and contamination by water and
extraneous material.
Basis Name
Gross Basis
Raw Basis
1.75 g/cm3
Float Basis
Air-Dry Basis
As-Received Basis
Dry, Ash-Free Basis
Dry, Mineral-Matter
-Free Basis
Moist, MineralMatter-Free Basis
Organic Fraction
Basis
In-Situ Basis
Mass Description
Desorption sample mass based upon the difference between the filled and empty
canister mass.
Desorption sample mass measured after removal from the canister including water a
inorganic components. Extraneous water and material might be removed from the
original sample before mass measurement.
The mass of the portion of a crushed desorption sample that floats in a 1.75 g/cm3
density fluid. This mass basis incorrectly assumes that all gas originates from the 1.75
g/cm3 and less sample density range.
Desorption sample mass after drying for 24 to 48 hours at laboratory conditions.
Extraneous water and material are often removed from the original sample before mass
measurement.
Sample mass at the moisture content present when received by a laboratory.
Air-dry or as-received sample mass corrected to 100% organic content with proximate
analysis derived ash and moisture content.
Air-dry or as-received sample mass corrected to 100% organic content with long
proximate analysis derived ash, moisture, and sulfur content.
Air-dry or as-received sample mass with the inorganic rock component removed to
estimate coal rank using ASTM procedures based upon energy content data.
Gas content estimate corrected to 100% organic content based upon statistical analysis
of multiple coal samples.
Organic fraction basis gas content estimate corrected to average in-situ ash content and
moisture content conditions.
Table 2-2.
Summary of Common Gas Content Mass Bases
The dry, ash-free basis or the mineral-mineralmatter-free bases are useful for comparing gas content
or storage capacity estimates obtained from samples of
differing composition. We do not use these bases to
estimate gas-in-place volumes.
A mineral-matter-free basis can be used when the
sulfur content of coal is significant. When sulfur is
present, the proximate analysis underestimates the
mineral-matter content. A 1928 publication by Parr1
recommends a correction that has become known as the
Parr Formula. In the nomenclature used in this book,
the conversion to a dry, mineral-matter-free basis mass
can be performed with Equation 2-2.
m = m [1- (1.08w +0.55w )]
mf
ad
as
(2-2)
Where:
mmmf
mad
was
ws
= mineral-matter-free mass, g
= air-dry mass, g
= moist-basis ash content adjusted for sul
fur content, weight fraction
= sulfur trioxide content, weight fraction
There are two problems in the use of the Parr

Formula. The first is that the correlation was developed
in 1928 on a limited set of coal samples. The correction
may not be applicable to the coals that you are evaluating. Secondly, the measurements required by the Parr
Formula are not commonly performed and the data is
often unavailable for the correction. The use of ash
2.7
Chapter
content rather than the mineral-matter content results

in the same estimate of the in-situ gas content and gasin-place volume unless sample sulfur content varies
dramatically. We based the methods in this book on the
ash content. Keep in mind that error may be introduced
in high sulfur content coal when the sulfur content
varies.
Eight-Step Evaluation Procedure

We found that the methodology described in this
book results in higher accuracy gas-in-place estimates
that possible with other currently available methods.
The gain in accuracy during GRI research efforts
resulted from improved accuracy of four items. These
were:
improved gas content estimates from core samples,
excellent agreement between ash content estimates
from core and open-hole density log data,21
high correlation between gas content estimates and
inorganic content of multiple samples, and
including gas contained within both coal and carbonaceous shale in the gas-in-place estimates.
The gas-in-place methodology relies upon four
critical components. These are:
performing desorption measurements on multiple
core samples at reservoir temperature,
relating sample gas content to sample composition and density,
estimating the in-situ composition and density from
density log data, and
converting measured gas content estimates to insitu conditions.
We recommend that you include these four components even if you wish to use a variation of the procedure recommended in this book. We found that an eightstep process minimized the errors in the gas-in-place
estimates. If not properly followed, serious errors can
result in gas-in-place estimates. These errors usually
cause the estimates to be too low. Our eight-step procedure is as follows.
2.8
1. Perform gas desorption measurements at reservoir

temperature on conventional or wireline-retrieved
core samples.
2. Estimate the total gas content of each sample using the Direct Method lost gas content procedure.
3. Relate the total gas content of multiple samples to
sample composition.
4. Relate the sample composition to density.
5. Determine the in-situ moisture content from lab
moisture measurements.
6. Estimate the gross thickness and average in-situ
density from open-hole density log data.
7. Compute the in-situ gas content at the average reservoir density and moisture content.
8. Compute the gas-in-place volume with Equation
2-1.
Summary
Gas-in-place can be estimated from a simple equation based upon the drainage area, thickness, in-situ
density, and in-situ gas content. Most of the gas-inplace is stored by sorption within micropores of the
organic material. Direct measurements of the volume
of gas released from coal samples is required to determine the gas-in-place as sorbed gas has almost no affect
upon wireline log measurements. However, log data
are still required.
Significant errors are introduced in the gas-inplace estimate due to errors in each of the four components of the gas-in-place equation. Estimates of the
drainage area require evaluation by geologists and
engineers. The thickness is best estimated from openhole density log data. The selection of gas-bearing
intervals must be based upon a density range that
includes both coal and carbonaceous shales in which
gas is stored. The in-situ density should be estimated
from density log data. The greatest errors are usually in
the gas content estimates that tend to be low. The
selections of sample type, measurement conditions,
and analysis procedures all affect the gas content estimate. The most accurate estimates are obtained from
core samples that are reheated to reservoir temperature
and evaluated with the Direct Method lost gas procedure. The accuracy of the gas content methodology was
determined by comparison of gas content estimates to
benchmark values.
The most accurate gas-in-place estimates are obtained
by following an eight step procedure that includes
measurement and interpretation of both core and log
data. While your application of the procedure may
differ from that presented in this book, you should
include three essential items: 1) a geologic and engineering evaluation, 2) measurement of core data, and 3)
measurement of open-hole density log data.
Additional Reading
GRI publications9,10 and SPE papers11,22 present the
details of much of the material discussed in this section.
GRI summarized details on gas content measurements
and measurement procedures in Reference 23.
2.9
Chapter
1. Saulsberry, J.L., Schafer, P.S., and Schraufnagel, R.A. (Editors): A Guide to Coalbed Methane Reservoir
Engineering, Gas Research Institute Report GRI-94/0397, Chicago, Illinois (March 1996) 346 p.
2. Bates, J.L. and Jackson, J.A.: Glossary of Geology, 2nd Edition, American Geological Institute, Falls Church,
Virginia (1980) p. 120.
3. Ambrose, W.A. and Ayers, W.B., Jr.: Geologic Controls on Coalbed Methane Occurrence and Producibility
in the Fruitland Formation, Cedar Hill Field and COAL Site, San Juan Basin, Colorado and New Mexico,
in Schwochow, S.D., Murray, D.K., and Fahy, M.F. (editors), Coalbed Methane of Western North America,
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, Denver, Colorado (1991) pp. 227-240.
4. Tyler, R., Scott, A.R., Kaiser, W.R., Nance, H.S., McMurry, R.G., Tremain, C.M., and Mavor, M.J.: Geologic and Hydrologic Controls Critical to Coalbed Methane Producibility and Resource Assessment: Williams Fork Formation, Piceance Basin, Northwest Colorado, GRI Report GRI-95/0532, Chicago, Illinois
(February 1996) 398 p.
5. Heim, R.M. and van Kirk, C.W.: Integration Resolves Faulting Effects, The American Oil & Gas Reporter
(September 1996) pp. 121-127.
6. Mavor, M.J.: Coalbed Methane Reservoir Properties in A Guide to Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering, Saulsberry, J.L., Schafer, P.S., and Schraufnagel, R.A. (Editors), Gas Research Institute Report GRI-94/
0397, Chicago, Illinois (1996) pp. 4-20 to 4-26.
7. Averitt, P.: Coal Resources of the United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin No. 1412 (1975)
131 p.
8. Logan, T.L. and Mavor, M.J.: Western Cretaceous Coal Seam Project, Gas Research Institute Final Report
No. GRI-94/0089, Chicago, Illinois (March 1995) 155 p.
Volume I. Canister Gas Desorption Data Summary, Gas Research Institute Report No. GRI-93/0410, Chicago, Illinois (May 1994) 230 p.
10. Mavor, M.J., and Pratt, T.J.: Improved Methodology for Determining Total Gas Content, Volume II. Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Gas-In-Place Estimates and Review of Lost Gas Models, Gas Research Institute Report No. GRI-94/0429, Chicago, Illinois (March 1996) 167 p.
11. Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T.J., and Nelson, C.R.: Quantitative Evaluation of Coal Seam Gas Content Estimate
Accuracy, Paper SPE 29577, 1995 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional / Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, Colorado, March 20-22, 1995.
13. Diamond, W.P. and Levine, J.R.: Direct Method Determination of the Gas Content of Coal: Procedures and
Results, Report of Investigations 8515, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. (1981) 36 p.
2.10
15. Ulery, J.P. and Hyman, D.M.: The Modified Direct Method of Gas Content Determination: Applications
and Results, Paper 9163, Proceedings of the 1991 International Coalbed Methane Symposium, The University of Alabama / Tuscaloosa, Alabama (May 13-17, 1991) pp. 489-500.
16. Smith, D.M., and Williams, F.L.: A New Technique for Determining the Methane Content of Coal, Proceedings of the 16th Intersociety Energy Conservation Engineering Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, (1981)
pp. 1,167-1,272.
17. Smith, D.M., Methane Diffusion and Desorption in Coal, Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Chemical Engineering, The University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico (May 1982) 172 p.
18. Metcalfe, R.S., Yee, D., Seidle, J., and Puri, R.: Review of Research Efforts in Coalbed Methane Recovery, Paper SPE 23025, SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Perth, Western Australia (November 4-7, 1991).
19. Yee, D., Seidle, J.P., and Hanson, W.B.: Gas Sorption on Coal and Measurement of Gas Content, in Law,
B.E. and Rice, D.D. (editors): Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Studies in Geology #38, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1993) pp. 203-218.
20. Parr, S.W.: The Classification of Coal, Bulletin No. 180, Engineering Experiment Station, University of
Illinois (1928). Also in 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 5, Volume 05.05 Gaseous Fuels;
Coal and Coke, American Society for Testing and Materials Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1994) p. 171.
21. Mavor, M.J., Close, J.C., and McBane, R.A.: Formation Evaluation of Exploration Coalbed Methane Wells,
Coalbed Methane, SPE Reprint Series No. 35, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas (1992).
pp. 27-45. also in SPE Formation Evaluation (December 1994) pp. 285-294.
22. Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T.J. Nelson, C.R., and Casey, T.A.: Improved Gas-In-Place Estimates for Coal Gas
Reservoirs, SPE 35623, Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (April 28-May 1, 1996).
23. McLennan, J.D., Schafer, P.S., and Pratt, T.J.: A Guide to Determining Coalbed Gas Content, Gas
Research Institute Report No. GRI-94/0396, Chicago, Illinois (1995) 182 p.
2.11
3
Chapter
Coal Sample Gas Content

Evaluation
as-in-place estimates for conventional reservoirs are usually based upon estimates of the rock porosity and the gas saturation within the porosity. Evaluation of open-hole porosity and resistivity log data provides these estimates. Coal gas reservoir gas-in-place
cannot be determined from open-hole log data alone.
The sorbed gas has little affect upon log measurements.
For example, an in-situ methane content of 400 scf/
ton increases the density of organic matter with a density of 1.295 g/cm3 by 0.010 g/cm3 or 0.8%. You must
base gas-in-place estimates upon core measurements
combined with log interpretation. Once core data are
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
available, you can reduce the need for core measurements by developing correlations between core and log
measurements.
In this chapter, you will be introduced to the
procedures for gas desorption measurements and the
methods for interpreting the data. We will cover the
first two steps of the gas-in-place estimate procedure in
detail. These steps are:
temperature on conventional core samples.
2. Estimate the total gas content of each sample using
the Direct Method lost gas content procedure.
Description
Cut coal core samples into one-foot lengths.
Insert the sample into a plastic sleeve.
Place the sleeved sample into a desorption canister of known weight.
Weigh the filled canister.
Place the filled canister in a water bath maintained at reservoir temperature.
Periodically measure and record the desorbed gas volume as a function of time.
Measure and record the ambient temperature, ambient pressure, and canister or water bath
temperature at the time of the volume measurement.
Stop the measurements when desorbed gas volumes are less than 10 cm 3 per day for five
consecutive days.
Remove the sample from the canister and the plastic sleeve.
Separate extraneous material from the sample.
Dry the sample at room conditions for 24 to 48 hours.
Reweigh the sample.
Obtain a representative sample split and perform proximate analysis.
Table 3-1.
Summary of the Core Desorption Procedure
3.1
Chapter
Coal Sample Gas Content Evaluation
Desorption Measurement Procedure

There are a great many details for the acquisition of
coal samples from wells and in performing the desorption experiments. Refer to Reference 1 for the details
of the methods that we found to be accurate. Table 3-1
includes a summary of the measurement procedures for
core samples. The procedure for drill cutting and
sidewall core samples is similar with the exception that
Step 1 is unnecessary.
We cored reservoirs with conventional PVC or
fiberglass-lined core barrels. We removed the inner
core barrel from the coring equipment as soon as
possible after reaching the surface. We then laid the
inner core barrel on the catwalk below the drill floor
and removed, inspected, and measured the entire core.
Once we completed measurements, we cut the core
samples with rock saws. We cut the samples into onefoot lengths to develop relationships between gas content and inorganic content, to minimize the effects of
canister failures, and to increase the statistical reliability of the experimental results. We then slid the samples
into plastic sleeves and sealed the samples in desorption canisters of known weight. We moved the canisters as fast as possible to an on-site laboratory. In the
on-site laboratory, we weighed the filled canisters and
then placed them in water baths regulated at reservoir
temperature.
We placed core samples in plastic sleeves for four
reasons. First, the sleeves preserved the core integrity.
Laboratory flow experiments and other whole core
analyses required competent samples. Second, the sleeve
reduced chemical reactions between the sample and the
canister. Third, we could handle the samples easier.
Fourth, we preserved the properties of the sample
(weight, moisture, and ash content) by heat sealing the
plastic sleeve when we pulled the samples from the
canisters.
We constructed desorption canisters from aluminum. Some service companies use PVC pipe that is
prone to leakage. Figure 3-1 illustrates a schematic of
one of the desorption canisters we used for core and
cutting samples. You seal the canister by moving the
cam lock arms upward.
We measured the gas volume by displacing water
from graduated burettes. The burettes were at ambient
3.2
Hose Barb
Canister Exhaust Valve
(Needle Valve)
0-30 psig Gauge
Lid Locking
Assembly
O-Ring
(inside canister lid)
Cam Lock Assembly
Top Flange
(continuous weld)
Handle/Stabilizer
14 inches
Bottom Flange
(continuous weld)
4 inches
Canister Outer
Diameter
Figure 3-1.
Desorption Canister Schematic
pressure and temperature conditions. Figure 3-2 illustrates the device that we used during the GRI Western
Cretaceous Coal Seam Project. Experienced personnel use this equipment quickly and accurately.
We began gas desorption measurements as soon
as we placed the canisters in a water bath. The delivery tube of one of the burettes was connected to the
hose barb on the top of the canister. The gas escaped
from the canister and displaced water from one of the
burettes. We adjusted the height of the fluid reservoir
so that the water level in the burette and the fluid reservoir were equal, eliminating the hydrostatic head of
the displaced water. We then read and recorded the gas
volume in the burette.
residual gas content was negligible for reservoir temperature desorption measurements. This may not be
true for coal samples from other reservoirs.
Were commend that you select at least three samples
of widely differing inorganic content for the residual
gas measurements. You must estimate the inorganic
content visually since the proximate analysis data will
not be available when you select the samples. We
commonly selected samples that were partially rubblized
to ease crushing.
We split competent
samples in half longitudinally. One half was
saved for other purposes.
We placed the other half
Barometer
in a mill containing steel
balls and crushed it by
spinning the mill on rollFunnel
ers. Complete crushing
took from minutes to
hours. We reheated the
Fluid Reservoir
mill to the same temperature at which the desorption measurements
250 cm3 Burette
were performed before
(graduation: 1 cm3)
releasing the residual
gas. The volume was
corrected in the same
manner as for the des1000 cm3 Burette
orption measurements.
3
(graduation: 5 cm )
The residual gas content
was based upon the corrected volume divided
Vacuum Pump
by the air-dried mass of
the crushed sample. Gas
composition samples
should be collected and
analyzed as for desorption canisters. Once desorption is complete, a
proximate analysis
Protective
Carrying Case
should be performed on
a representative sample
split. Reference 1 provides additional details
Figure 3-2.
for these procedures.
Gas Volume Measurement Apparatus
Residual Gas Content

The residual gas content is determined by crushing
all or a portion of the sample at the end of the desorption
measurements. Generally, it is not necessary to crush
all samples.
We found that residual gas content can be a significant portion (12.6% to 15.8%) of the total gas content
for some ambient temperature desorption measurements.2 In the San Juan (Fruitland Formation) and
Piceance Basins (Mesaverde Group), we found that
Delivery Tube
(sidewall core)
Meniscus Sighting
Tube
50cm3 Burette
(graduation: 0.1 cm3)
Thermometer
Delivery Tube
(conventional core)
Stopcock
3.3
Chapter
Gas Composition Measurements

Gas produced from coal seams often contains significant volumes of components other than methane.
These components affect the value of the resource and
the storage capacity. You should determine the composition of the desorbed gas to estimate the in-situ composition. Gas samples should be collected from two or
more desorption canisters with samples from each
reservoir interval. At least four gas samples from each
canister are required throughout the desorption history.
Reference 1 provides additional details for gas sampling.
Sample Composition
When we discuss the composition of a sample, it is
important to keep in mind the heterogeneity of coal
seams. We will find significant variations within coal
seams regardless of the scale. For example, Figure 3-3
illustrates coal at four different scales, an open-hole log
scale (tens of feet), an outcrop scale (eight feet), a
desorption sample size scale (seven inches), and a
microscopic scale (700 microns).
A high degree of interbedding within the Fruitland
Formation coal gas reservoirs results in gas production
from coal, coaly shale, and carbonaceous shale. The
presence of multiple rock types increases the rock
thickness contributing to production. Proper evaluation of the gas-in-place that will ultimately contribute
to production must include the gas contained within all
rock types.
Interbedding is visible from all size scales.
Interbedding places low and high permeability rocks of
varying gas and organic content in close vertical proximity. Gas contained within the organic material need
travel only short distances to natural fractures. The gas
then travels through fractures to reach wells. The natural fractures will serve as pathways as long as they are
open and unplugged. The entire gross thickness that
contains organic matter is capable of gas production as
long as organic intervals are not isolated from intervals
connected to wells. We supported this conclusion during GRI research efforts with production log data.3
Desorption samples are also interbedded. Even one
sample has a significant variation in organic content
and gas content. The organic content determined by
3.4
proximate analysis of a representative split is an average value. For example, a one-foot sample containing
80% inorganic material often contains thin gas-rich
organic layers interbedded with inorganic rock of negligible gas content. It is unusual to observe a one-foot
thick, low organic content Fruitland Formation sample
that has a uniform organic distribution.
As an example, Figure 3-3c is an x-ray radiograph
of a 0.5-inch thick, 7-inch high polished Fruitland
Formation core slice. The Gray Level Density Profile is a relative density indicator. Vertical heterogeneity is apparent both visually and in the density image.
Natural fractures are evident in the radiograph due to
carbonate mineralization. Also apparent is the transition from an organic-rich matrix to carbonaceous shale
that contains detrital fragments of coal. The variation
observed in the density profile closely resembles the
variation observed on a much larger scale in open-hole
density logs (Figure 3-3a).
Flow toward wells begins at the microscopic scale
(Figure 3-3d) by diffusion through microfractures and
micropores into the natural fractures that you can see in
the desorption sample (Figure 3-3c). Concentration
gradients drive diffusion. Flow through the natural
fractures occurs within the fractured, organic rich layers of Figures 3-3 a, b, and c to wells. Pressure gradients
drive flow through natural fractures.
Proximate Analysis
We will use a proximate analysis to obtain one
number that is representative of the average composition of a desorption sample. Proximate analysis is a
coal analysis technique with procedures specified in
detail by the ASTM Standards.1 The proximate analysis consists of three separate laboratory procedures
designed to separately determine the moisture, volatile
matter, and ash fractions in the sample. The remaining
fraction is assumed to be fixed carbon so that the total
of the four components sums to one. Samples are dried
and crushed during preparation.
The sample preparation procedure is as follows. A
mass of partially crushed coal much larger than the
experimental sample mass is spread in pans and allowed to dry in a drying oven maintained at atmospheric pressure and a temperature that is 18 to 27 oF
Depth
Density
g/cm3
feet
1.0
2.0
3.0
1,300
1,310
Coal
Shale
Coal
Tonstein
Coal
1,320
1,330
1,340
1,350
1,360
1,370
b.
Outcrop Photograph
Coal Intervals
Indicated by Shading
a.
Open-Hole Density Log
Tonstein
Bright Clarain
Vitrain
lens
Fracture
Mineralization
(Calcite)
Carbonaceous
Shale
Vitrain lenses
Coaly Shale
X-Ray Radiograph
c.
X-Ray
Radiograph
Gray Level
Density Profile
d.
Photomicrograph
Figure 3-3.
Size Scale Dependent Heterogeneity of Coal Seams
3.5
Chapter
above room temperature. If a drying oven is not available, the sample is dried at laboratory conditions.
Drying continues until the reduction in weight due to
moisture evaporation is less than 0.1% per hour. The
gross sample or a portion thereof is crushed to pass
through a No. 8 (2.36 mm opening size) screen. A
portion of the crushed sample is selected and crushed
further so that it will pass through a No. 60 (250 m
opening size) screen.
The moisture content analysis procedure is as follows. A covered porcelain capsule (22 mm in depth by
44 mm in diameter) is weighed after one gram of an airdried, crushed sample is placed in the capsule. Weight
measurements are to the nearest 0.1 mg. The cover is
removed and the capsule containing the sample is
placed in a preheated (104 to 110o C.) oven. The sample
remains in the oven for one hour. Pre-dried air is
circulated through the oven at a rate that is 2 to 4 times
the oven volume per minute. The capsule is removed
from the oven and allowed to cool in a desiccator over
a desiccant. The capsule and sample are weighed to the
nearest 0.1 mg. Moisture content is determined as the
percentage loss in weight during the experiment.
The sample used to determine the moisture content
is then used to determine the ash content. Ash is the
residue remaining after burning coal and coke. Ash
differs in composition from the inorganic constituents
present in the original coal sample. Incineration causes
an expulsion of all water, the loss of carbon dioxide
from carbonates, the conversion of iron pyrites into
ferric oxide, as well as other chemical reactions.
The ash content measurement procedure is as follows. The capsule and the sample contained therein are
placed in a cold muffle furnace and heated gradually at
a rate such that the furnace reaches 450 to 500o C. in one
hour. Heating is continued so that a temperature of 700
to 750o C. is reached at the end of the second hour. The
temperature is maintained between 700 and 750o C.
until the sample is completely ashed. The capsule and
sample are removed from the oven and allowed to cool
in a desiccator over a desiccant. The capsule and
sample are weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg. Ash content
(dry basis) is determined as the percentage of the
remaining weight relative to the dried weight.
3.6
The volatile matter is determined from the loss in

weight resulting from heating a coal sample under
rigidly controlled conditions. The value is used to
establish the rank of coal, to indicate coke yield during
carbonization processes, to provide a basis for purchasing or selling coal, or to establish coal burning characteristics. The sample is selected from the same sample
from which the moisture and ash content samples was
selected.
The volatile matter measurement procedure is as
follows. A one gram sample contained within a sealed
platinum crucible is placed in a vertical electric tube
furnace that is precisely maintained at 950o C.
The crucible and sample are heated for exactly 7 minutes. The crucible and sample are removed from the
oven and allowed to cool in a desiccator over a desiccant. The crucible and sample are weighed to the nearest 0.1 mg. The loss of weight divided by the sample
mass minus the moisture content equals the volatile
matter content.
Core sample air-dry gas content estimates can be
correlated to the results of these three measurements as
we will discuss in Chapter 4.
Ultimate Analysis
An ultimate analysis5 is used to determine the
composition of the organic fraction of a sample. This
analysis results in estimates of the carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen content. The total is assumed to be one. The content of the first four elements
are measured. Oxygen is determined by difference. We
will use these data to estimate organic fraction density
from a correlation discussed in Chapter 4.
The sample for the ultimate analysis is selected
from the same air-dried sample as used for the proximate analysis. An ultimate analysis consists of three
separate experiments. The first experiment determines
the carbon and hydrogen content, the second determines the sulfur content, and the third determines the
nitrogen content.
The carbon and hydrogen content apparatus consists of a combustion tube that is connected to an
absorption train both of which are placed in a furnace
heated to between 850 and 900 oC. A sample is placed
in the furnace for 20 minutes. The sample is vaporized

and the carbon and hydrogen contents are computed
from the increase in weight of carbon and hydrogen
adsorbers.
The sulfur content is determined by one of two
methods. Both sulfur determination methods are based
upon combustion of a weighed sample. During the first
method, combustion is performed at 800o C in a muffle
furnace for one hour or over a flame for 30 minutes. The
sulfur is removed from the residual material by dissolution in water followed by precipitation. The second
method precipitates sulfur from residual oxygen-bomb
calorimeter material. The weight of sulfur relative to
the original weight is equal to the fraction of sulfur
contained in the original sample.
Nitrogen content is determined by one of two
procedures. In both procedures, a one gram sample is
digested with a hot catalyzed mixture of concentrated
sulfuric acid and potassium sulfate that converts nitrogenous compounds to ammonium salts. The salts are
then decomposed in a hot alkaline solution, releasing
the ammonia, which is then distilled into a sulfuric or
boric acid solution. The nitrogen concentration is determined by alkalimetric or acidimetric titration. The
fraction of nitrogen present in the original sample is
computed from the concentration.
Desorption Data Requirements

The following information is recorded at each
point in time during the desorption measurements.
Raw desorbed gas volume

Water bath temperature or internal canister
temperature
Atmospheric temperature
Atmospheric pressure
Table 3-2 illustrates a typical data record. The data

items with a white background are recorded data.
Those with a shaded background are computed.
The raw desorbed gas volume is equal to the
volume of water displaced from the burette by the gas.
This volume requires corrections that we will discuss
shortly. We usually included one canister in each fivecanister water bath that was equipped with an internal
temperature probe to monitor the internal canister

temperature. The internal canister temperature was
assumed to be the same for each canister in the same
bath. We found that the internal canister temperature
was roughly equal to the water bath temperature when
we used aluminum canisters. Therefore, when temperature probe data were unavailable, we recorded the
water bath temperature. We measured the atmospheric
pressure and temperature as these affect the measured
desorption volume.
We required supplementary information to properly evaluate the desorption data. The well information
section identified the well location. The core run information summarizes the cored formation, the core run
number, the depth of the sample, and the density of the
coring fluid. The reservoir information summarizes the
name of the reservoir as well as the reservoir pressure
and temperature conditions. We recorded the pressure
gradient rather than the pressure so that we could
quickly calculate the reservoir pressure at the sample
depth.
The canister information identified the canister
and its empty volume and weight. The filled canister
was weighed after sealing and before placing it in a
water bath. The apparent sample weight was the difference between the filled and empty canister weight. The
apparent weight was always greater than the air-dry
weight due to water evaporation and removal of extraneous material from the sample.
The headspace volume was the void volume inside
the canister. This volume was determined at the conclusion of the desorption measurements. We measured the
headspace volume by expansion of an inert gas (such as
argon) from a cylinder of known volume into the
canister containing the sample. We computed the
headspace volume with the ideal gas law based upon
the initial and final pressures in the empty cylinder.
You should assign a unique identification number
to each sample. This number is different from the
canister ID since the canisters are used on more than
one well.
The sample data are measured at the conclusion of
the desorption measurements. The sample was removed from the canister and allowed to dry at atmo-
3.7
Chapter
spheric pressure and temperature for 24 to 48 hours.

Extraneous materials such as drilling mud, lost-circulation material, or free water were often brushed from
the sample. The sample was then weighed to determine
the air-dry mass. The sample volume was the difference between the empty canister volume and the
headspace volume.
The most difficult step in the evaluation was to
obtain a representative sample split for the ash and
moisture content analyses. ASTM presents a strict
methodology for sampling6 . We typically split the core
along the longitudinal axis. One half of the core was
crushed and sampled. We sealed the samples in plastic
bags and shipped them to a coal analysis laboratory.
The laboratory performed the analysis and provided us
with the ash and moisture content values. We asked the
laboratory to follow ASTM standards as closely as
possible.
A proximate analysis includes ash, moisture, and
volatile matter measurements. We did not need volatile
matter data for each sample since they were not required to determine the in-situ gas content. However,
we had volatile matter measured for sorption isotherm
samples or when we required coal rank and organic
composition data as a function of depth.
The recovery time section was required to evaluate
the data for lost gas content estimates. We will explain
how to use this information shortly. We recorded the
time when the bit penetrated the depth of the core
sample, since this was when the sample was exposed to
the coring fluid pressure and temperature. Gas desorption may have begun at this time if the hydrostatic head
of the coring fluid was less than the reservoir pressure.
Usually, the hydrostatic head of the coring fluid
was greater than the reservoir pressure. We recorded
the time at which the driller began pulling the drill
string and core barrel out of the well. Gas desorption
began when the sample reached a depth at which the
hydrostatic head was equal to the critical desorption
pressure at the sample temperature. The sample temperature was often lower than the reservoir temperature
at this time.
We recorded the time at which the core barrel
reached surface. The pressure surrounding the sample
after this time was equal to the atmospheric pressure.
3.8
We also recorded the time at which we sealed the

sample in a canister. Gas was no longer lost from the
sample once sealed.
Desorption Data Correction

The raw gas desorption volume data require correction for two effects. The first effect is expansion or
contraction of the gas within the canister void volume.
This correction is important when the temperature or
pressure of the canister is changed. The correction is
greatest for the first point because of heating the canister from ambient to reservoir temperature conditions.
The second correction adjusts the gas volume from
ambient temperature and pressure conditions to standard conditions at which gas volumes are reported.
The two corrections are calculated with Equation 3-1 for a measured point at time i, the time of
interest.
(3-1)
v = C (v - v )
sci
sci
hi
Where:
vsci standard condition desorption volume at time i,
cm3
Csci standard condition correction factor at time i,
dimensionless
vi measured desorption volume at time i, cm3
vhi headspace correction at time i, cm3
The standard condition correction factor at time i is
defined by Equation 3-2.
(3-2)
p (T + 459.69 )
C sci = ai sc
p sc (Tai + 459.69 )
Where:
Tsc
pai
Tai
psc
temperature at standard conditions, oF.

atmospheric pressure at time i, inches Hg
ambient temperature at time i, oF.
pressure at standard conditions, inches Hg
The headspace correction factor includes two

components. The first component corrects the canister
gas volume for changes from the preceding internal
canister conditions (time i-1) to the current canister
conditions (time i). The second component corrects the
gas expansion volume to the measurement conditions.
Canister Data
Well Identification
Well Name
Canister No.
14-29
Operator
Amoco Production Co. Empty Weight
g
4,135
County
La Plata County
Filled Weight
g
5,915
State
Colorado
Empty Volume
cc
3,035
Section
S. 17, T32N, R11W
cc
1,143
Headspace Volume
Field
Sample Data
Ignacio Blanco
36-7
Core Run Identification
Sample ID No.
Formation
Fruitland Air-Dry Weight
g
1,698
Coal Interval
Basal Sample Volume
cc
1,892
Core Run #
1 Ash Content
fraction
0.2481
Sample Top Depth
feet
3,163.0 Moisture Content
fraction
0.1141
Sample Bottom Depth
feet
3,164.0 Residual Gas Content
scf/ton
0.00
Coring Fluid Density
ppg
10.5
Misc. Information
Pressure at standard conditions: 30.01 in Hg
Reservoir Data
Temperature
Deg. F
120 Temperature at standard conditions: 60 Deg. F.
Pressure Gradient
psi/ft
0.479
Interpretation Parameters
Reservoir Pressure
psia
1,526.87
Recovery Times
01/17/91 04:10:00
Time when the top of the sample was cored
Fluid Hydrostatic Pressure
psia
1,738.83
01/17/91 07:10:00
Time when the core barrel started out of the well
Temp. Recovery Time
hours
2.583
01/17/91 09:25:00
Des. Time Correction
Time when the core barrel reached surface
hours
0.467
01/17/91 09:45:00
End of Temp. Recovery
Time when the sample canister was sealed
hours*0.5
2.103
01/17/91 07:26:34
Start of Regression
Time at time zero
hours*0.5
2.200
Time at measurement start
End of Regression
hours*0.5
2.400
01/17/91 10:13:00
Time
Uncorrected Data
Measurement Conditions
Corrected Data
Date & Time
Desorption Square Root Incremental Desorbed
Canister
Ambient
Ambient Cumulative Cumulative
Time
of
Desorbed
Volume Temperature Temperature Pressure
Desorbed Desorbed
Desorption
Volume
Volume Gas Content
Time
mm/dd/yy hh:mm:ss
hours
hours*0.5
cc
cc
Deg. F
Deg. F
Inches Hg cc @ STP
scf/ton
01/17/91 09:45:00
1.841
1.357
0
0
40
40
23.59
0
0
01/17/91 10:13:00
2.307
1.519
760
760
120
75
23.59
452
8.52
01/17/91 10:24:00
2.491
1.578
395
1,155
120
75
23.59
753
14.22
01/17/91 10:29:00
2.574
1.604
220
1,375
120
75
23.59
922
17.39
01/17/91 10:37:00
2.707
1.645
310
1,685
120
75
23.59
1,158
21.86
01/17/91 10:45:00
2.841
1.685
310
1,995
120
75
23.59
1,395
26.32
01/17/91 10:58:00
3.057
1.748
520
2,515
120
75
23.59
1,793
33.82
01/17/91 11:32:00
3.624
1.904
1,545
4,060
120
75
23.55
2,970
56.03
01/17/91 11:52:00
3.957
1.989
825
4,885
122
75
23.53
3,595
67.83
01/17/91 12:37:00
4.707
2.170
1,825
6,710
122
75
23.53
4,986
94.07
01/17/91 12:55:00
5.007
2.238
730
7,440
122
75
23.51
5,541
104.54
01/17/91 13:18:00
5.391
2.322
925
8,365
122
75
23.51
6,245
117.83
01/17/91 13:56:00
6.024
2.454
1,120
9,485
122
75
23.51
7,098
133.92
01/17/91 14:25:00
6.507
2.551
780
10,265
122
75
23.48
7,690
145.09
01/17/91 14:55:00
7.007
2.647
715
10,980
122
75
23.48
8,234
155.35
04/09/91 07:37:00
04/10/91 07:37:00
04/11/91 07:44:00
04/12/91 07:43:00
04/15/91 07:34:00
04/16/91 07:36:00
1,967.707
1,991.707
2,015.824
2,039.807
2,111.657
2,135.691
44.359
44.629
44.898
45.164
45.953
46.214
60
25
0
0
20
158
22,882
22,907
22,907
22,907
22,927
23,085
122
128
125
124
120
121
75
75
75
75
75
75
25.26
24.85
24.81
24.93
24.84
24.82
17,477
17,474
17,477
17,483
17,502
17,627
329.74
329.70
329.75
329.86
330.21
332.57
Table 3-2.
Example Core Desorption Data Sheet
READ ME
3.9
Chapter
This is required so that the measured and headspace

correction volumes are at the same temperature and
pressure. Equation 3-3 lists the relationship.
The cumulative measured desorption volume at

time i is the sum of all the desorption volumes up to time
i. Mathematically, the sum is as follows.
p - (T + 459.69 ) Tai + 459.69 (3-3)

v hi = v v a (i 1) ci
- 1
pai Tc (i -1) + 459.69

Tci + 459.69
Vsci =
(3-4)
scj
j =1
Where:
vv
pa(i-1)
Tci
Tc(i-1)
canister internal void (headspace) volume, cm3

atmospheric pressure at time i-1, inches Hg
canister temperature at time i, oF.
canister temperature at time i-1, oF.
Where:
Vsci cumulative measured desorption volume at time i
corrected to standard conditions, cm3
j
summation index
Example 3-1. Correction of Desorption Data.

Correct the first measured desorption volume for headspace expansion and non-standard measurement
conditions. The data and the required parameters are listed in Table 3-2. Start with Equation 3-3 to determine
the headspace correction. The point that we are interested in was measured 1/17/91 at 10:13 AM.
pa (i -1 ) (Tci + 459.69 ) Tai + 459.69

23.59 (120 + 459.69 ) 75 + 459.69
v hi = v v
= 1143
- 1
- 1
120 + 459.69
23.59(40 + 459.69 )
pai Tc (i -1 ) + 459.69
Tci + 459.69
v hi = 1143(0.1601)(0.9224 ) = 169 cm 3
This volume is at ambient temperature and pressure conditions. Now subtract the headspace correction from
the measured volume and convert to standard conditions. First, compute the standard condition correction
factor with Equation 3-2.
C sci =
pai (Tsc + 459.69 ) 23.59(60 + 459.69 )

=
= 0.764
p sc (Tai + 459.69 ) 30.01(75 + 459.69 )
Now use Equation 3-1 to determine the corrected volume.
v sci = C sci (vi - v hi ) = 0.764(760 - 169 ) = 452 cm 3

Since this is the first point, the cumulative volume, Vsci, is equal to the incremental volume. Table 3-2 lists the
cumulative desorption volume for each time. Now compute the air-dry gas content for this point using Equation 3-5.
V
452
DGcadi = 32.0368 sci = 32.0368
= 8.53 scf/ton
mad
1698
3.10
The volumes are converted to the air-dry gas content by dividing by the air-dry mass.
DGcadi = 32.0368
Where:
Vsci
mad
(3-5)
Gcadi measured gas content at time i, air-dry basis,

mad
scf/ton
air dry mass, g
The temperature at standard conditions is commonly 60 oF. Note that gas volume corrections require
absolute temperature. In customary units, absolute
temperature is in degrees Rankin. Convert degrees
Fahrenheit to Rankin by adding 459.69. If you prefer SI
units, add 273.15 to degrees Celsius to convert to
Kelvin.7 Standard pressure conditions vary.
In this book, we use 14.696 psia or 30.01
inches Hg.
We usually followed the Bureau of
Mines criterion8 that collection of desorption data was terminated when the desorbed gas volume is less than 10 cm3/day
for five consecutive days. We often had to
desorb San Juan Basin Fruitland Formation samples for 60 to 90 days, or even
greater times to meet this criterion.
We are ready to compute the lost gas
content once the corrections have been
applied and the measured desorption volume is computed.
is based upon constant temperature diffusion from a

sphere originally at constant, uniform concentration.
At time zero, the concentration at the boundary of the
sphere is instantaneously changed and held constant.
Changing the pressure is equivalent to changing the
concentration. The diffusion coefficient of the sphere
is also constant. The constant temperature and constant boundary concentration assumptions cause most
of the errors in application of this theory.
You might question the spherical geometry assumption. It isnt very important. The geometry of the
desorption sample has little effect upon predicted gas
rates as long as you assume the geometry of the natural
fracture system to be the same as the sample geometry.
The theory predicts that the rate of gas desorption is
proportional to the square root of desorption time when
Direct Method
We found that the Direct Method resulted in the most accurate lost gas volume
estimates. We will concentrate on this
method. For completeness, we will discuss
two other methods developed by Smith &
Williams and Amoco later in this book.
The Direct Method8,9,10,11 was developed to estimate the gas content of coals
to be mined. The theory behind the method
Figure 3-4.
Example direct Method Graph
3.11
Chapter
the gas content is greater than half the original gas

content. This relationship allows us to determine the
lost gas content from a graph of the cumulative desorbed air-dry gas content vs. the square root of the
desorption time. Figure 3-4 illustrates an example of
such a graph.
Interpretation Equations
The relationship of the data on the straight-line
portion of the graph is as follows.
D
DG cad = 203.1G cad 2
r
(3-6)
Dt - G cLad
Where:
Gcad cumulative desorbed gas content, air-dry

Gcad
GcLad
t
D/r2
D
r
basis, scf/ton
total gas content, air-dry basis, scf/ton
lost gas content, air-dry basis, scf/ton
desorption time, hours
diffusivity, sec-1
diffusion coefficient, cm2/sec
average diffusion distance, cm
The total air-dry gas content is the sum of the lost,

measured, and residual gas contents as in Equation 37.
G cad = G cLad + DG cad + G crad
(3-7)
Where:
Gcrad residual gas content, air dry basis, scf/ton
A graph of DGcad vs. Dt has an intercept equal to GcLad and a slope related to the diffusivity. Our estimate of the lost gas content will be the absolute value
of the intercept. We will estimate the diffusivity from
the slope with Equation 3-8.
Where:
m =
3.12
D
m
=
2
r
203.1Gcad
(3-8)
slope of the desorbed gas content vs. square

root time graph, scf/ton-hour0.5
Diffusivity
The diffusivity of the coal microporous region
controls the rate of desorption of the gas into the natural
fracture system. The absolute permeability of the natural fracture system controls the rate of gas production
from wells. Gas production rates are greater for reservoirs of greater diffusivity and greater absolute permeability. The two properties are interrelated. The absolute permeability depends upon the number and aperture of natural fractures. As the number of fractures
increases, the distance that gas must diffuse through the
microporous region decreases. High permeability reservoirs will usually have high diffusivity.
The diffusivity is the diffusion coefficient of the
coal microporous region, D, divided by the square of an
average diffusion distance, r. In practice, we do not
know the diffusion distance so we do not attempt to
separate the two terms.
Reservoir simulation models require an estimate of
the diffusivity to calculate the desorption rate from the
coal microporous region. Most models request a value
of the sorption time. Sorption time and diffusivity are
interrelated. The sorption time depends upon the
diffusivity and the shape of the coal microporous
region between natural fractures. Shapes are commonly assumed spherical, cylindrical, or cubic. The
assumed shape has little effect upon the desorption rate
calculations as long as the same shape assumed for
estimating the diffusivity is used in the simulation
model.
You can estimate the sorption time from the
diffusivity with the following relationship.
t=
(3-9)
D
3600a 2
r
sorption time, hours

shape factor, dimensionless
The shape factor depends upon the geometry assumed for the sample. Values for the shape factor are
listed in Table 3-3.
Geometry
Cube
Cylinder
Sphere
Shape Factor
60
8
15
Table 3-3. Sorption Time Shape Factors
One of the advantages of reservoir temperature

desorption measurements is that the diffusivity is estimated at reservoir temperature. Diffusivity is very
sensitive to temperature. The ratio of the diffusivity at
one temperature to another is related to the cube of the
absolute temperature ratio.
If temperature is constant, sorption time is equal to
the time required to desorb 63% of the lost and measured gas content. Since temperature is rarely constant,
estimates of the diffusivity from the Direct Method
applied to heated samples are superior.
Saturated Reservoir Time Zero
Before we can prepare a Direct Method graph, we
must determine when desorption begins so that we can
calculate the elapsed time as a precursor to the desorption time. Desorption will begin when the pressure
surrounding the sample is equal to the critical desorption pressure at the temperature of the sample. The
critical desorption pressure is the pressure at which the
gas content and storage capacity are equal.
The method used to estimate time zero differs for
reservoirs that are saturated or undersaturated. It is
more difficult to estimate time zero for undersaturated
reservoirs since it is related to the total and lost gas
content estimates. An iterative technique is required in
this situation. We will discuss the method later in this
chapter.
For saturated reservoirs, the critical desorption
pressure is equal to the reservoir pressure if the coring
fluid temperature is equal to the reservoir temperature.
These two temperatures usually differ.
The storage capacity depends on temperature. As
the cooler coring fluid decreases the sample temperature, the storage capacity increases. This cooling effect
causes the critical desorption pressure to decrease,
which delays the start of desorption. In practice, we
cannot account for this effect for the simple reason that
we usually do not have the data required to do so.
Consequently, we will ignore the effect of temperature
upon the estimate of time zero.
If we assume that the core barrel is extracted at a
constant rate, we can calculate the time at which the
wellbore pressure is equal to the initial reservoir pressure. This assumption causes some error when both
drill collars and drill pipe are included in the drill string.
Drill pipe located above drill collars is removed much
more quickly than collars. The retrieval rate decreases
dramatically once the collars reach surface. The Direct
Method ignores the changes in the retrieval rate. You
should request that the desorption company personnel
record the time when the top of the drill collars reach
surface. This data would improve your estimate of time
zero.
If the reservoir pressure is greater than the hydrostatic head of the coring fluid, time zero is equal to the
time when the sample is cored. Calculate the pressure
due to the hydrostatic head of the coring fluid with
Equation 3-10.
p m = p a + 0.052 r m d R
(3-10)
Where:
pm
pa
m
dR
mud (coring fluid) hydrostatic pressure, psia

ambient (atmospheric) pressure, psia
mud (coring fluid) density, pounds per gallon
sample subsurface (reservoir) depth, feet
All pressures in this book are absolute rather than

gauge. Gauge pressure is less than absolute pressure by
the atmospheric pressure. You must compute gas properties with absolute pressure. People often confuse
these two pressures and ignore the difference.
The reservoir pressure is a function of depth as is
the coring fluid hydrostatic pressure. We specify the
reservoir pressure gradient on the desorption data sheets
so that it is easy to calculate the reservoir pressure using
the following relationship.
p R = p a + p R d R
(3-11)
Where:
pR
pR
reservoir pressure, psia

reservoir pressure gradient, psi/ft
3.13
Chapter
You calculate these two pressures to determine if

the coring fluid pressure is greater than the reservoir
pressure.
Equations 3-10 and 3-11 require ambient pressure
in psia. This pressure is often reported in units of inches
of mercury. Multiply inches of mercury by 0.4898 to
convert to psia. Weather reports convert atmospheric
pressure to sea level regardless of the elevation. Do not
use weather information. You must measure the atmospheric pressure at the measurement elevation unless
you are at sea level.
We calculate the time when the sample leaves its
original depth and begins to desorb by interpolation of
pressure as a function of time. We know when the
sample reached surface where the pressure was atmospheric. We know when the sample left its original
depth where the pressure was the coring fluid hydrostatic pressure. We want to know when the hydrostatic
pressure is equal to the reservoir pressure.
Compute the elapsed time between when the sample
leaves its original depth to time zero with Equation 312.
p - pR
Dt R0 = Dt Rs m
pm - pa
(3-12)
Where:
tR0
tRs
elapsed time between time raised above the

original depth and time zero, hours
elapsed time between time raised above the
original depth and time when at surface,
hours
Elapsed times for desorption data analyses are

computed from time zero, which is the time that the
sample is raised above its original depth plus tR0.
Example 3-2 shows how to compute time zero.
Undersaturated Reservoir Time Zero
When reservoirs are undersaturated, it is more
difficult to determine when the samples begin to desorb
gas since the critical desorption pressure estimate
depends upon the total (lost, measured, and residual)
gas content estimate. The critical desorption pressure
is at some unknown level below the reservoir pressure.
The best way to determine the critical desorption
pressure is by measuring the bottom-hole pressure
during the early production life of the reservoir or
during initial drill stem tests. When gas production
Example 3-2. Calculate Time Zero for Desorption

Calculate time zero and the elapsed time between time zero and sealing the sample in a canister for the Table
3-2 data. Start by computing the mud hydrostatic and reservoir pressure with Equations 3-10 and 3-11. Then
compute tR0 with Equation 3-12. Note that the atmospheric pressure was 23.59 inches Hg or 11.55 psia
when the sample was sealed in the canister.
p m = 11.55 + 0.052(10.5 )(3163 ) = 1739 psia
p R = 11.55 + (0.479 )(3163 ) = 1527 psia
The reservoir pressure is less than the mud pressure. Desorption did not begin until the sample was lifted
above the original depth. The elapsed time between lifting and when the sample reached surface was 2 hours
15 minutes or 2.25 hours.
1739 - 1527
= 0.276 hours
Dt R0 = 2.25
1739 - 11.55
The time between the sample leaving it original depth and being sealed was 2.583 hours. Therefore, time
zero occurred 2.583 - 0.276 = 2.307 hours before sealing, or at 7:27 AM.
3.14
begins, the time and critical pressure is usually apparent in the pressure data and perhaps in the gas production rates. The critical desorption pressure is then used
in Equation 3-12 rather than the reservoir pressure to
determine the time at which desorption began.
Be careful when you conclude that a reservoir is
undersaturated. Errors in gas content and storage capacity data can cause the appearance of undersaturation.
The iterative procedure begins with an estimate of
a total gas content that is less than the storage capacity.
Then follow these steps.
1. Estimate the critical desorption pressure using the isotherm relationship and Equation 62 of Chapter 6.
2. Use the critical desorption pressure in place of
reservoir pressure and compute tR0 with Equation 3-12.
3. Compute time zero and the desorption time.
4. Redo the regression of the same Direct Method
data points used for the original estimate to
compute the lost gas content.
5. Repeat steps 1 through 4 until the change in the
estimated gas content is small, i.e., 1 to 5 scf/
ton.
You may require three to four iterations to reach
convergence. Iteration is best performed with a computer since either the Direct Method graph must be
redrawn or a linear regression of the points recalculated
during each iteration.
Desorption Time Correction
There is usually a delay between when a canister is
sealed and the first desorption point is measured. The
technician usually takes the canister from the catwalk
to an on-site measurement location where the canister
is weighed and placed in a water bath. During this time,
gas is not lost from the sample since the canister is

sealed. We subtracted the time between sealing and the
first measurement point from the elapsed time to correct for the delay. We referred to this time as the
desorption time correction and symbolized as tdc.
Compute the horizontal axis of the Direct Method
graph with Equation 3-13.
t DM =
(ti - t0 ) - t dc
(3-13)
Where:
tDM Direct Method horizontal axis value (square root
of desorption time), hours
ti
measured time i, hours
to time zero, hours
tdc desorption time correction
Example 3-3 shows you how to make the correction and compute the horizontal axis for the Direct
Method graph.
Temperature Recovery Time
Once the estimate of time zero is available, you
prepare a graph of the cumulative desorbed gas content
vs. the Direct Method axis value, tDM. Figure 3-4
illustrates a graph of the data in Table 3-2.
When the desorption samples are reheated to reservoir temperature, the graph is S shaped. The lower
end of the S is caused by the increase in the desorption
rate as the temperature is increased. The upper end of
the S results from a reduction of the desorption rate due
to depletion of the sample gas content. The middle
portion of the S is the data that we use to determine the
lost gas content and diffusivity.
We simulated the temperature changes that a sample
went through at the COAL Site as illustrated in Figure
3-5. Coal drill cuttings were tightly packed into a can-
Example 3-3. Compute the Direct Method Horizontal Axis

Compute the value of the Direct Method horizontal axis which is equal to the square root of the desorption
time for the first measured data point in Table 3-2 at 1/17/91 10:13 AM.
Time zero was at 7:27 AM based upon Example 3-2. The elapsed time between the first measured point and
time zero is therefore 2.767 hours. The desorption time correction is the elapsed time between the time of
sealing the canister (9:45 AM) and the first measurement point. The correction is 0.467 hours. Use Equation 3-13 to calculate tDM.
1
t DM = (ti - t0 ) - t dc = (10.217 - 7.450 ) - 0.467 = 1.517 hours 2
3.15
Chapter
ter 3.2 hours. The time required for the

temperature to return to the reservoir
temperature was roughly equal to the
time required to retrieve the sample and
to place the canister into the water bath.
We refer to this time as the temperature
recovery time. We observed similar results for core samples from this and other
wells and confirmed the observations
with heat transfer theory.
For the GRI Observation Well #2
data listed in Table 3-2, the temperature
recovery time was 2 hours 35 minutes,
equal to the time between raising the
sample above its original depth and placing the canister in a water bath. Refer to
Example 3-4 for the details of the temperature recovery calculation.
Figure 3-5.
The elapsed time corresponding to
Sample Internal Temperature Changes
the end of the temperature recovery time
was 4.89 hours that corresponds to 2.1
ister and a temperature probe was inserted into the cen- hours on the Direct Method horizontal axis. This
ter of the cuttings. The instrumented canister, origi- value (2.1 hours) is approximately the start of the
nally at 120 oF, was placed in a water bath maintained straight-line portion of the data illustrated in Figure 3at 85 oF for 3.2 hours, removed, and placed in a tem- 4. The range of the data selected for the Direct Method
perature bath maintained at the reservoir temperature lost gas estimates begins immediately after the end of
of 120 oF. The temperatures were based upon the res- the temperature recovery time. The end of the selected
ervoir and mud circulating temperatures of 120 oF and data range is based upon deviation from the straight
85 oF. The time in the 85 oF bath was based upon the line. As you can see in Figure 3-4, four points in the
circle lie on the straight line. The later points begin to
core retrieval time of 3.2 hours.
The internal temperature of the cuttings dropped deviate below the line.
The greatest slope (and greatest desorption rate)
27 oF to 93 oF which was 8 oF greater than the simuoccurs
immediately after the temperature recovery
lated mud circulating temperature. The temperature
o
returned to within 2 F of the original temperature af- time. The greatest slope results in the greatest estimates
Example 3-4. Estimate the Temperature Recovery Time
Estimate the start and end of the temperature recovery time for the data listed in Table 3-2.
The canister was placed in a water bath immediately after sealing. The elapsed time between the time when
the core barrel started out of the well and the time to sealing was 2 hours 35 minutes. Therefore, the
temperature recovery time was 2.5833 hours. The end of the temperature recovery time is 2.5833 hours
after the canister was sealed. Example 3-2 estimated that time zero was 2.307 hours before sealing. The end
of the temperature recovery time is at 2.307+2.5833=4.8903 hours. The value of the Direct Method horizontal axis based upon Equation 3-13 is
1
4.8903 0.467 = 2.10 hours 2
3.16
Reservoir Temperature
Desorption Data
80
Temp.
Recovery
Time
60
40
0
-20
-40
51.5
scf/ton
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
hours, respectively. Theses values

correspond to diffusivity estimates
of 7.2(10-7) and 2.5(10-7) sec-1 for the
reservoir and ambient data. The ambient temperature sorption time estimate is in error by 188%.
The presence of a straight line
section does not mean that the lost
gas analysis is valid. There is no
indication from ambient data alone
that the apparent straight line results
in such large errors.
Ambient Temperature
Desorbtion Data
20
Sample Temperature, Deg. F.
Cumulative Desorbed
Dry, Ash-Free,
Gas Content, scf/ton
Lost
Dry, Ash-Free,
Gas Content, scf/ton
100
123.5
scf/ton
130
Temp.
Recovery Time
110
90
70
Wellbore & Surface
Temp.
50
Reservoir Temp.
Bath
30
1
2
3
Elapsed Time, hours
Direct Method Calculations

Once the Direct Method graph
has been properly prepared, you can
Figure 3-6.
select the proper data range to deterComparison of Ambient & Reservoir
mine the slope and intercept of the
Temperature Desorption Data
correct straight line. You then compute the lost gas content, total gas
of the lost gas content. Also in this time region, desorpcontent,
diffusivity,
and sorption time estimates. Extion is controlled by the same diffusivity as in the
ample
3-5
shows
you
how to make the calculations for
reservoir. Estimates of the diffusivity from this portion
the
data
listed
in
Table
3-2 and illustrated in Figure 3of the data are equal to those that will control in-situ
4.
diffusion.
Square Root of Desorbtion Time, hours1/2
Smith & Williams Method
Ambient Temperature Direct Method

The S shape is not present when desorption measurements are performed at ambient temperature. The
line selected for the Direct Method usually starts after
the first data point. The end of the line occurs when
deviation below the line is noticeable. Figure 3-6 illustrates a Direct Method graph for two Fruitland Formation samples obtained from the Southern Ute 5-7 well
for measurements performed at reservoir and ambient
temperatures.
The ambient temperature data appears to have a
straight-line section immediately after the start of the
measurements. Extrapolation of the line to time zero
results in a lost gas estimate of 51.5 scf/ton. This
estimate is 58% lower than the correct (reservoir temperature) lost gas content estimate. The diffusivity and
sorption time estimates from the ambient temperature
data are in even greater error. The sorption time estimates for the reservoir and ambient data were 25 and 72
Smith and Williams12 ,13 developed a lost gas analysis method that accounts for the pressure changes that
samples undergo before sealing in desorption canisters.
The theoretical basis is the same as for the Direct
Method and includes the same assumptions with the
exception of the pressure conditions. The lost gas
estimate methodology is based upon a graph that relates
a volume correction factor to a lost time ratio and a
surface time ratio. The measured desorbed gas volume
is multiplied by the correction factor to determine the
total gas content.
We found that the Smith & Williams method
usually results in lower lost and total gas content
estimates than the Direct Method. For GRI cooperative
research wells, the Smith & Williams total gas content
estimates averaged 27.3% less than the Direct Method
results.14 The Direct Method results were more accurate based upon comparison to benchmark gas content
data. Our results contradict assertions made by Smith &
3.17
Chapter
Example 3-5. DirectMethod Gas Content, Diffusivity, and Sorption Time

Estimate the lost gas content, total gas content, diffusivity, and sorption time for the data illustrated in
Figure 3-4 and tabulated in Table 3-2. The residual gas content was zero for this sample.
The intercept at time zero in Figure 3-4 is -250 scf/ton. The lost gas content is equal to the absolute value
of the intercept. The last point in Table 3-2 is 333 scf/ton. This is the measured gas content. The total gas
content is the sum of the lost, measured, and residual gas contents: 250+333+0=583 scf/ton. This is on an
air-dry mass basis since the measured data are on an air-dry basis.
Estimate the diffusivity using the slope and Equation 3-8. The slope is 147 scf/ton-hour in Figure 3-4.
2
D
m
147
=
= 1.54 10 -6 sec -1
=
2
(
)
203
.
1
G
203
.
1
583
r
cad
If we assume that the diffusion geometry is spherical, the sorption time follows from Equation 3-9.
t=
1
= 12 hours
3600 (15 )(1.54 ) 10 -6
Williams12 that the Direct Method should result in a

19% over-prediction of the gas content due to retardation of desorption by the slowly decreasing pressure
history of the sample.
Amoco Method
Amoco15 ,16 developed a lost gas volume estimate
methodology based upon the same theory as the Direct
Method. The Amoco Method fits a simplified form of
the Direct Method equation to all of the measured
desorption data by non-linear regression. The results of
the non-linear regression are three parameters, the lost
gas content, the total gas content, and the diffusivity. A
computer program is required to apply the Amoco
Method. Reference 14 provides details concerning
Amoco Method mathematics.
For GRI cooperative research wells, we found that
the Amoco Method total gas content estimates averaged 21% greater than the Direct Method.14 The primary cause of error was that the Direct Method mathematical model only describes desorption behavior
when the desorbed gas content is less than half the total
gas content. However, Amoco chose to fit all of the data
with the model. We may have found that the Amoco
Method was more accurate had we limited the application to the first half of the data. Amoco may limit the
data range in practice.
3.18
Amocos idea of fitting a mathematical model to

all of the data is excellent. However, a more theoretically sound desorption model is required.
Summary
In this section, we introduced you to the procedures
for desorption measurements and the methods for interpreting the data. We covered the first two steps of the
gas-in-place estimate procedure in detail. These steps
were:
temperature on conventional core samples.
2. Estimate the total gas content of each sample using the Direct Method lost gas content procedure.
You will perform this analysis on multiple samples
and then interpret the data from multiple samples as we
will discuss in Chapter 4.
Additional Reading
There has been much published on performing
desorption measurements and on interpreting the
data. If you wish more details, refer to Reference 1.
References 14 and 17 document the GRI research.
Amoco personnel published an excellent paper on
the subject in Reference 15.
1. McLennan, J.D., Schafer, P.S., and Pratt, T.J.: A Guide to Determining Coalbed Gas Content, Gas Research
Institute Report No. GRI-94/0396, Chicago, Illinois (1995) 182 p.
2. Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T.J., Crandlemire, A., and Ellerbrok, G.: Assessment of Coalbed Methane Resources at
the Donkin Mine Site, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Canada, Paper 9368, Proceedings of the 1993 International Coalbed Methane Symposium, The University of Alabama / Tuscaloosa, Alabama (May 1993) pp.
471-481.
3. Mavor, M.J., Logan, T.L., and Robinson, J.R.: Cooperative Evaluation of San Juan Basin, Phillips Petroleum Company, Openhole Well Recompletion Efforts, Gas Research Institute Topical Report No. GRI-93/
0466, Chicago, Illinois (July 1995) 105 p.
4. 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 5, Volume 05.05 Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke,
D 172-89, American Society for Testing and Materials Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1994) p. 292.
D 176-89, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1994) pp. 302.
D 197-87, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1994) p. 152.
7. The SI Metric System of Units and SPE METRIC STANDARD, Second Printing, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas (1984) 39 p.
10. Diamond, W.P. and Levine, J.R.: Direct Method Determination of the Gas Content of Coal: Procedures and
Results, Report of Investigations 8515, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. (1981) 36 p.
11. Ulery, J.P., Hyman, D.M.: The Modified Direct Method of Gas Content Determination: Applications and
Results, Paper 9163, Proceedings of the 1993 International Coalbed Methane Symposium, The University
of Alabama / Tuscaloosa, Alabama (May 1993) pp. 489-500.
12. Smith, D.M. and Williams, F.L.: A New Technique for Determining the Methane Content of Coal, Proceedings of the 16th Intersociety Energy Conservation Engineering Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, (1981)
pp. 1,167-1,272.
13. Smith, D.M., Methane Diffusion and Desorption in Coal, Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Chemical Engineering, The University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico (May 1982) 172 p.
3.19
Chapter
16. Metcalfe, R.S., Yee, D., Seidle, J., and Puri, R.: Review of Research Efforts in Coalbed Methane Recovery, Paper SPE 23025, SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Perth, Western Australia (November 4-7, 1991).
17. Mavor, M.J., and Pratt, T.J.: Improved Methodology for Determining Total Gas Content, Volume II.
Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Gas-In-Place Estimates and Review of Lost Gas Models,
Gas Research Institute Report No. GRI-94/0429, Chicago, Illinois (March
3.20
Multiple Sample Analysis
Chapter
n-situ gas content estimates are not

accurate if you base them upon a single
sample. You must desorb and interpret the
data from multiple samples. Gas content
estimates from different samples differ due
to differing sample composition and errors.
We have found that the most accurate way
of minimizing errors is to relate the gas
content from multiple samples to the
sample composition. Errors will be minimized as long as the variation in the sample
composition is greater than the standard
deviation of the reservoir composition
variation.
In this chapter, we will cover Steps 3
through 5 of the gas-in-place estimate procedure. These steps are:
Figure 4-1.
GRI #2 Air-Dry Gas Content vs. Inorganic Content
Where:
3. Relate the total gas content of multiple samples to

sample composition.
4. Relate the sample composition to density.
5. Determine the in-situ moisture content from equilibrium moisture content measurements.
Gcad
Gco
wa
ww
The interpretation of multiple desorption samples

is illustrated by Figure 4-1 for data from GRI Well #2
at the COAL Site. The relationship between total gas
content and inorganic content is determined by linear
regression of Equation 4-1.
The vertical axis in Figure 4-1 is the air-dry gas

content estimate obtained from each sample. The horizontal axis is the inorganic content (ash + moisture
content) of each sample determined by proximate analysis. The intercept at an ash plus moisture content of zero
is equal to the organic fraction gas content estimate for
G cad = G co + b (wa + ww )
(4-1)
air-dry gas content, scf/ton

organic fraction gas content, scf/ton
slope, scf/ton
ash content, weight fraction
moisture content, weight fraction
4.1
Chapter
the reservoir(s) of interest. We will

use this value to compute the in-situ
gas content once we determine the
average in-situ inorganic content.
The relationship for the seven
samples from GRI Observation Well
#2 resulted in an intercept of 908.8
199.4 scf/ton. We estimated the range
in the intercept from the confidence
intervals. The 95% statistical confidence interval estimates (represented
by the dashed lines in Figure 4-1)
indicates the fit accuracy. The distance between the two 95% confidence interval is less when the variation in the sample inorganic content
Figure 4-2.
is greater and more samples are availGRI #1 Air-Dry Gas Content vs. Inorganic Content
able. Had there been more samples
with greater inorganic content variation from this well, the variation in the intercept would of the reservoir as shown by Example 4-1. The problem
have been less.
is that the average of a few samples is not an accurate
In all GRI western basin research efforts, the cor- predictor of the average reservoir condition. The Exrelation of total gas content to the inorganic content has ample 4-1 estimate of the gas-in-place volume would
resulted in an estimate of zero gas content at an ash plus have been low by 28.7% if based upon the average of
moisture content less than one. Generally, the zero gas the samples. Based upon Example 2-1, the correct gascontent point was within statistical significance levels in-place volume was 60.28 Bscf per square mile. The
of one. For example, the slope of the line illustrated in error is equivalent to 17.3 Bscf per square mile.
A later section of this chapter will show you how to
Figure 4-1 is equal to -1,037.5 379.2 scf/ton and
intersects the zero gas content abscissa at 0.876. The estimate the number of samples required to obtain
range between the intersection of the confidence inter- statistically significant results. One important point to
remember is that the range of the inorganic content of
vals with the horizontal axis includes one.
The extrapolation to a organic fraction gas content the samples must exceed the standard deviation of the
may not be statistically valid in the event that few data inorganic content of the reservoir for accurate estipoints are available or if the samples have a narrow mates.
range of ash and moisture contents. Such a situation is
illustrated by Figure 4-2 for data collected from GRI Composition and Density Relationship
Well #1 at the COAL Site. The intercept and slope for
The composition of coal gas reservoirs can be
these six points was 910.7 902.0 scf/ton and -1,264.9 estimated from open-hole density log data and core
3,644.6 scf/ton, respectively. Surprisingly, the inter- data. We must relate the inorganic content to density to
cept was very close to the result obtained from the GRI use the relationship between gas content and inorganic
#2 samples but the confidence in the intercept and slope content.
The sample or reservoir density is related to the
was much lower.
density
of the ash, moisture, and organic fractions by
Averaging the individual sample data does not
Equation
4-2.
result in an accurate estimate of the average gas content
-1
wa 1 - (wa + ww ) ww
r =
+
+
ro
r w
ra
4.2
Where:
a
o
w
density, g/cm3
ash density, g/cm3
organic fraction density, g/cm3
sorbed water density, g/cm3
If we know the sample ash and equilibrium moisture contents, we can estimate the density. Therefore,
we can convert the horizontal axis of Figure 4-1 or 42 to density. Example 4-2 shows you how to apply
Equation 4-2.
The density of the ash and organic portions of
reservoirs can differ. Sample density can be measured
and related to the ash, organic, and moisture contents.
We found that accurate density measurements require
helium pycnometry. A helium pycnometer measures
the volume of the sample by helium expansion. Helium

is used since it enters coal micropores without adsorption and does not add moisture to the sample. The test
is not destructive and accurate results are obtained on
samples as small as three grams. Sample density is
determined in this manner during sorption isotherm
measurements. Instruct the laboratory staff to report
the sample density when measuring storage capacity
data.
An interpretation method to determine ash and
organic fraction density is based upon a rearranged
version of Equation 4-2 listed in Equation 4-3.
wa -1
r -1 - ww r w-1
r a - r o-1
= r o-1 +
1 - ww
1
w
w
(4-3)
Example 4-1. Average Dry, Ash-Free Gas Content Estimates for Low Confidence Data Sets
The relationship illustrated in Figure 4-2 between air-dry gas content and inorganic content is statistically
insignificant. Insignificance can be caused by two few points, a narrow variation in the sample inorganic
content, or by improper sample split selection for inorganic content measurements. One approach to estimating the organic fraction gas content is to average the dry, ash-free gas content estimates from each
sample. These are summarized below for the six samples in Figure 4-2.
Sample
ID No.
Ash
Content
fraction
35-1
35-3
35-4
35-6
35-7
35-8
Average
0.418
0.349
0.404
0.426
0.350
0.388
0.389
Moisture
Content
fraction
0.026
0.045
0.044
0.033
0.049
0.041
0.040
Air-Dry
Gas Content
scf/ton
386.2
450.0
308.8
346.8
372.2
372.0
372.6
Dry, Ash-Free
Gas Content
scf/ton
694.1
741.7
559.2
641.2
620.0
650.7
651.2
The average dry, ash-free gas content estimate severely underestimates the organic fraction gas content
estimate. The benchmark for these data is 913 scf/ton. Why is the average dry, ash-free gas content so much
lower? There are two reasons. The first is that there are insufficient samples for errors to be normally
distributed and cancel opposite errors. Secondly, there are insufficient samples to obtain a statistically
significant estimate of the average dry, ash-free gas content of the reservoir. If you are reduced to analyzing
gas content data in this manner, keep in mind that your estimates of the gas-in-place volume may be quite
low. In this case, the gas-in-place estimate would have been low by 28.7%.
4.3
Chapter
Example 4-2. Relationship between Density & Inorganic Content

Use estimates of the ash density (2.497 g/cm3) and the organic density (1.295 g/cm3) to estimate the density
at an ash content of 0.30 and 0.55. Use an equilibrium moisture content of 0.0089 to approximate the in-situ
moisture content. Use Equation 4-2 for the calculation.
wa = 0.30;
w
1 - (wa + ww ) ww
r = a +
+
ro
r w
ra
-1
0.30 1 - (0.30 + 0.0089 ) 0.0089

=
+
+
1.295
1
2.497
-1
0.55 1 - (0.55 + 0.0089 ) 0.0089

=
+
+
1.295
1
2.497
-1
= 1.51 g/cm 3
wa = 0.55;
w
1 - (wa + ww ) ww
r = a +
+
ro
r w
ra
-1
Prepare a graph, such as in Figure 4-3, of the left-hand

side of Equation 4-3, [the reciprocal of the dry density], versus wa/(1-ww) [the dry ash content] to interpret density proximate data. We assume that the
sorbed water density is one g/cm3. The graph results in
a vertical axis intercept at zero equal to the reciprocal
of the organic fraction density. The vertical axis intercept at one is equal to the reciprocal of the ash density.
The analysis results in estimates of the coal density
equal to 1.276 0.023 g/cm3 and the ash density equal
to 2.497 0.310 g/cm3. The densities of the organic
and ash fractions are functions of the compositions of
each.
The organic composition is quantified by
the maceral composition.1 ,2 The three primary maceral groups are vitrinite, exinite
(liptinite) and inertinite. Each of these groups
includes sub-groups that have similar properties. Vitrinite is the most common maceral
group in Upper Cretaceous Western Interior
bituminous humic coal seams of the U.S.
With maceral density data, you can compute the expected organic fraction density
based upon the volumetric average density of
each of three components; vitrinite, inertinite,
and exinite. Equation 4-4 lists the relationship. The maceral density data is rarely measured. However, published data are available.
= 1.76 g/cm 3
r o = r vVv + r iVi + r eVe
(4-4)
Where:
o
i
Vv
Ve

vitrinite maceral density, g/cm3
inertinite maceral density, g/cm3
exinite maceral density, g/cm3
vitrinite content, volume fraction
inertinite content, volume fraction
exinite content, volume fraction
v
e
Vi
Figure 4-3.
Relationship between Sample Density and Ash Content
READ ME
4.4
Primary
Maceral Group
Vitrinite
Inertinite
Exinite
Vitrinite
Inertinite
Exinite
Vitrinite
Inertinite
Exinite
Vitrinite
Inertinite
Exinite
Vitrinite
Inertinite
Exinite
Study
Dyrkacz & Horwitz1
Minimum
Density
g/cm3
1.21
1.25
1.08
1.22
Mode
Density
g/cm3
1.28
1.35
1.20
1.30
Maximum
Density
g/cm3
1.36
1.46
1.25
Crelling2
1.06
1.27
1.22
1.30
1.39
1.21
1.29
University of Utah3
1.14
Australian4
Average
1.18
1.28
1.34
1.12
1.29
1.35
1.18
Table 4-1
Summary of Published Maceral Density Ranges
Well
Sample

Southern Ute 5-7
Southern Ute 5-7
Southern Ute 5-7
Southern Ute 5-7
Southern Ute 5-7
COAL Site
Overall Average
Intermediate Fruitland Test 1

Intermediate Fruitland Composite
Basal Fruitland Test 2
Basal Fruitland Composite
Average
Intermediate Fruitland Composite
Intermediate Fruitland Test 1
Basal Fruitland Composite
Basal Fruitland Test 3
Average
GRI #1
Vitrinite
Content
Inertinite Exinite
Content Content
Volume
Fraction
0.830
0.905
0.892
0.758
0.846
0.852
0.821
0.798
0.830
0.825
0.916
0.845
Volume
Fraction
0.135
0.063
0.095
0.198
0.123
0.125
0.155
0.159
0.140
0.145
0.083
0.128
Volume
Fraction
0.035
0.032
0.013
0.044
0.031
0.023
0.024
0.043
0.030
0.030
0.001
0.027
Organic
Fraction
Density
g/cm3
1.294
1.290
1.294
1.297
1.294
1.295
1.297
1.295
1.295
1.295
1.295
1.295
Table 4-2
Fruitland Formation Organic Fraction Density Estimates
4.5
Chapter
Table 4-1 summarizes published density data for

the three coal maceral types. Based upon Table 4-1, the
average density values for vitrinite, inertinite, and
exinite are 1.29, 1.35, and 1.18 g/cm3. These values
were used to compute the possible range in Fruitland
Formation coal density for nine samples obtained from
the Valencia Canyon 32-1, Southern Ute 5-7, and
COAL Site locations.1 The composition and density
estimates for the samples are summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 shows that the average value of 1.295 g/
3
cm for the organic fraction density was remarkably
similar to the value for all of the samples.
There is an alternative method of estimating organic density from ultimate analysis data based upon a
correlation. Ultimate analyses were discussed in Chapter 3. Coal composition data from a set of 66 coal
samples ranging in rank from lignite to low-volatile
bituminous were correlated as a function of ultimate
analysis data.1
A correlation for the organic fraction density based
upon an ultimate analysis is listed in Equation 4-5.
Sample
GRI #1 Test 1
GRI #2
S. Ute Tribal I PLA 9 #2
SSR #11-15 Test 2
SU 5-7 Intermediate Composite
SU 5-7 Intermediate Tests 1 2 3 4 5
SU 5-7 Basal Composite
SU 5-7 Basal Test 3
VC 32-1 Intermediate Test 1
VC 32-1 Intermediate Composite
VC 32-1 Basal Test 2
VC 32-1 Basal Composite
Average
r o = 1.534 - 5.196 w H + 0.7375 wO - 2.472 w N + 0.3853 wS
(4-5)
where:
r o estimated organic fraction density, g/cm3
wH hydrogen content, weight fraction
wO oxygen content, weight fraction
wN nitrogen content, weight fraction
wS sulfur content, weight fraction
Equation 4-5 results in estimates of the organic
fraction density similar to those derived from laboratory measurements as summarized in Table 4-3. The
average of 1.296 g/cm3 is very similar to the estimate
obtained by density measurements. We recommend
that you perform ultimate analyses and use Equation 45 when density data are unavailable.
Fruitland coal was deposited in an environment
that included a variety of rock types including sandstone, shale, and volcanic ash deposits. The ash contained within the coal contains a high proportion of
kaolinite (density 2.42 g/cm3) with quartz (density:
Hydrogen Carbon
Content, Content,
Dry Ash- Dry AshFree
Free
weight
weight
fraction fraction
0.0470
0.8330
0.0492
0.8014
0.0519
0.8453
0.0549
0.8545
0.0583
0.7946
0.0546
0.8287
0.0571
0.8134
0.0538
0.8289
0.0557
0.8285
0.0597
0.8326
0.0593
0.8427
0.0600
0.8338
0.0551
0.8281
Nitrogen
Content,
Dry AshFree
weight
fraction
0.0143
0.0296
0.0140
0.0127
0.0007
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0107
0.0156
0.0144
0.0153
0.0108
Sulfur
Content,
Dry AshFree
weight
fraction
0.0174
0.0134
0.0086
0.0104
0.0095
0.0080
0.0183
0.0094
0.0063
0.0076
0.0078
0.0073
0.0103
Oxygen
Content,
Dry AshFree
weight
fraction
0.0883
0.1064
0.0802
0.0675
0.1369
0.1081
0.1106
0.1073
0.0988
0.0845
0.0758
0.0836
0.0957
Table 4-3
Summary of Equation 4-5 Organic Fraction Density Estimates
4.6
Equation
4-5
Organic
Density
g/cm3
1.326
1.289
1.292
1.271
1.334
1.332
1.324
1.336
1.293
1.250
1.249
1.249
1.296
2.65 g/cm3) and feldspar (density range:

2.55 to 2.76 g/cm3) components in lesser
amounts.1 This composition suggests
that the density of kaolinite would be a
minimum estimate of the density of the
ash. The estimated ash density of 2.497
g/cm3 shown in Figure 4-3 is in line
with the kaolinite density. Example 42 shows you how to use these values to
compute the relationship between density and inorganic composition.
With estimates of the density of the
ash and organic fractions, it is possible
to compute the ash content from the
density. We will do this in Chapter 5 to
evaluate open-hole density log data for
estimates of the in-situ ash content.
Equation 4-6 lists the relationship for
ash content from density data.
Figure 4-4
Valencia Canyon 32-1 Equilibrium
Moisture Content vs. Temperature
(4-6)
1
1 1
1
- + wwe
ro r
r w r o
wa =
1
1
ro ra
Where:
wwe equilibrium moisture content, weight fraction
The moisture content is determined independently
by equilibrium moisture content measurements on coal
samples.
Equilibrium Moisture Content

You should base estimates of the in-situ gas content and density upon the in-situ moisture content. The
moisture content obtained from the proximate analyses
performed on air-dried samples is not equal to the insitu moisture content. The sample moisture content can
be greater or less than the in-situ moisture content
depending upon the sample type, coal rank, handling,
and drying procedures. Presently, we recommend that
ASTM equilibrium moisture content data (measured

with ASTM D14121 ) be used to approximate the insitu moisture content.
The equilibrium moisture content measurement
involves placing a weighed, pre-wetted coal sample
contained in an uncovered bottle into a vacuum desiccator. The desiccator includes a dish containing a
saturated solution of K2SO4 that maintains the relative
humidity at 96% to 97%. The desiccator is evacuated to
a pressure of 30-mm Hg and placed in an 86 oF convection oven. The sample remains in the oven for 48 hours
or until a constant weight is achieved. The sample is
removed and reweighed. The sample is then dried for
1.5 hours at 105 oC and the final dry weight measured.
equilibrated coal weight.
One of the limitations of this method is that the
equilibrium moisture content is not measured at reservoir temperature. The results vary with temperature.
Figure 4-4 illustrates the moisture dependence upon
temperature for two Valencia Canyon 32-1 reservoirs.
The reservoir temperature at this location is 100 oF
Increasing the temperature from 86 to 100 oF decreases
the equilibrium moisture content by 10% to 12% of the
86 oF value. This change is insignificant for gas-in-
4.7
Chapter
place estimates but can affect sorption

isotherm measurements.1
We recommend that you select at least
three samples per reservoir for the moisture measurements to determine consistency. The equilibrium moisture content is
often available from samples selected for
sorption isotherm measurements.
Number of Samples Required

One of the questions that arises concerns the number of samples that are required to accurately determine the gas content. You can answer this question by statistical analysis based upon operating characteristic curves such as illustrated in Figure 4-5.12
The statistical problem involves selecting a subset
of the reservoir such that the subset has the same
average properties as the reservoir. You must specify
two significance levels. The first level is the probability
that the analysis concludes that the average property of
the sample set is equal to the average property of the
reservoir when they are equal. We chose 95% for this
level. The second level is the risk that the analysis
concludes that the average property of the sample set is
equal to the average property of the reservoir when the
sample set average is different by a significant amount.
We use a risk of 10% to 20% for the second level.
In Figure 4-5, the horizontal axis value is the
difference between the sample set average property, ,
and the reservoir average property, 0, divided by the
standard deviation, , of the reservoir property. The
horizontal axis value is zero when the sample set
average and reservoir property average are the same.
For a given error, the value of the horizontal axis
increases as the standard deviation of the reservoir
property decreases. The vertical axis is value of the first
or second significance level and is a function of the
number of samples, n. For the first level, the vertical
axis is the value of the probability that the sample set
property average is equal to the reservoir property
average. Since we chose a level of 95%, the intercept at
4.8
Figure 4-5
Operating Charateristic Curves
zero (when the averages are equal) is 0.95.
The standard deviation must be estimated to determine
the number of samples required, n. We are most interested in the density distribution in the samples and in
the reservoir when we adjust open-hole log analyses
to agree with core analyses. Therefore, we will use
open-hole density logs in the statistical analysis. Before drilling, you can use open-hole density data from
offset or analogous wells to determine the number of
samples required. After logging, you should verify the
statistical analysis with logs from the cored well.
How do we use Figure 4-5? Suppose that the value
of the horizontal axis is 2 as would be the case for a
reservoir with a narrow density standard deviation. If
only two samples are available, there is a 20% chance
that the sample set average differs more than 10% from
the in-situ average. Consider the case when the standard deviation of the in-situ density is twice as wide
resulting in a horizontal axis value of one. Now eight
samples are required to have no more than a 20%
chance of the sample set average density differing from
the in-situ average density by more than 10%. If only
two samples are available for the wider standard deviation, the risk that the average is incorrect increases to
over 0.7.
Example 4-3. Number of COAL Site Core Samples Required

Determine the number of samples required to achieve 95% statistical certainty that the COAL Site sample
density is within 10% of the correct value. Assume that there is no more than a 20% chance of concluding
that the average density of the samples is the same as that of the reservoir when in fact it is not. Within the
density range of 1.295 g/cm3 (100% organic) to 2.4 g/cm3 (96% inorganic), the average value and standard deviation of open-hole density log data is 1.659 and 0.286 g/cm3, respectively.
The value for the horizontal axis of Figure 4-5 is calculated from the 10% density difference criterion
and the standard deviation. We select the value of m to be 10% greater than the in-situ value to match our
10% error criterion. This value is 1.1 times 1.659.
m - m0 1.10 (1.659 ) - 1.659

=
= 0.58
s
0.286
We then notice that a vertical line from this value intersects a horizontal line at 0.2 on the vertical axis at
roughly 21 samples. The range in density of the samples must be lower than the average minus the
standard deviation (1.659-0.286=1.373 g/cm3) and greater than the average plus the standard deviation
(1.659+0.286=1.945). The density range corresponds to an ash content range of 0.12 to 0.70.
However, for GRI #1, only six samples were available. As a result, there is a 64% chance that the sample
set average differs more than 10% from the in-situ average.
In practical terms, if the in-situ density does not

vary much, the standard deviation is small and we do
not need many samples to determine the average in-situ
density. As the in-situ density variation increases, more
samples are required to accurately determine the average.
Example 4-3 shows you how to apply the statistical
analysis to determine the number of samples required
for GRI Well #1 at the COAL Site. This example shows
that at least 21 samples are required due to the wide
variation in in-situ density in the San Juan Basin
Fruitland Formation.
We cut core samples into one-foot lengths for the
desorption measurements. For 95% statistical certainty,
21 feet of the 90 feet (or 23%) of the reservoir must be
sampled to obtain a sample average density that is
within 10% of the average reservoir density. In addition, the standard deviation of the inorganic fraction of
the samples must be equal to or greater than the standard deviation of the reservoir density values. For this
reason, a wide range in the sample inorganic fractions
must be selected for desorption experiments As an
example of a properly sized sample set, Figure 4-6
illustrates the gas vs. inorganic content correlation for

the Southern Ute 5-7 well. We desorbed 26 samples
with a range in inorganic content from 0.185 to 0.749.
There was a much tighter correlation (i.e., the difference between the 95% confidence intervals was reduced) when the data encompassed the entire density
range. The intercept of the zero air-dry gas content
point was also much closer to one. For these data, the
intercept was at 0.961.
To improve accuracy, do not attempt to high-grade
samples by selecting only the lowest density samples
for desorption. If you do, you will have difficulties
correlating gas content to density. This was the case for
the six GRI Observation Well #1 samples (see Figure
4-2) that had a narrow range in inorganic content (0.394
to 0.459) when the range should have including inorganic contents from 0.12 to 0.70. GRI Observation
Well #2 (see Figure 4-1) had a much greater range of
sample inorganic contents (0.328 to 0.689) and had a
much better correlation between gas and inorganic
content. We obtained the best correlation from the
Southern Ute 5-7 data with an inorganic content range
of 0.185 to 0.749.
4.9
Chapter
Drill Cutting Gas Content vs.

Inorganic Content Correlations
During GRI research, we found
that gas content estimates from drill
cutting samples were 25% lower
than from core sample based estimates. The principal causes of the
errors associated with drill cutting
samples are due to a reduction in the
average diffusion distance and mixing with rock extraneous to the reservoir.
The drill bit crushes coal drill
cuttings. The largest cutting sizes
Figure 4-6
are commonly about 0.25 inch in
Southern Ute 5-7 Air-Dry
diameter while the smallest are powGas Content vs. Inorganic Content
dered. Reduction of the cutting size
below the characteristic reservoir diffusion distance collected in a strainer and washed with water to remove
increases the diffusivity of the sample by the ratio of the drilling mud. The washing contributed to greater moisparticle size squared. Consequently, the samples tend ture content.
We created a hypothetical example to investigate
to lose gas much more rapidly than would be the case
the
effect
of contamination upon gas content vs. inorif crushing had not occurred. The lost gas content tends
ganic content correlations. Table 4-4 lists hypothetical
to be underestimated.
Usually, the correlation between gas content and data where coal samples from a coal seam with a range
inorganic content is poor for drill cutting samples. In of ash contents were mixed with differing proportions
our studies, contamination was the another cause of of extraneous rock. This example was computed aslack of statistical significance in drill cutting gas con- suming that the coal, ash, and extraneous rock density
tent vs. inorganic content relationships. Mixing con- was 1.25, 2.2, and 2.6 g/cm3, respectively. The organic
taminated the samples with rock and extraneous material from outside the reservoirs. Extraneous material
Coal Ash
Other Rock MixtureAsh Mixture
includes drilling mud additives such as lost circulation Content by Volumetric
Content
Gas
material and barite. Since the extraneous material was
Weight
Fraction
Content
fraction
fraction
fraction
scf/ton
generally of different density than the ash fraction, and
0
0.5
0.675
194.8
since the extraneous rock and material fractions were
0.2
0.2
0.458
391.1
unknown, it was not possible to improve the correla0.5
0.3
0.706
299.6
tions. The extraneous rock was often in the density
0.4
0.7
0.880
106.8
range of 2.6 to 2.8 g/cm3. The density of lost circulation
0.6
0.1
0.658
409.4
material is similar to that of the organic material while
the density of barite is approximately 4 g/cm3.
0.8
0.5
0.915
175.0
Another source of extraneous material is water.
Table 4-4
Drill cutting moisture content was generally greater
Hypothetical Example of Drill Cutting Gas
than that of core samples from the same reservoirs.
Content vs. Ash Content
During the GRI research efforts, drill cuttings were
4.10
fraction gas content was assumed to be 600

scf/ton. There was perfect correlation between
the coal gas content and coal ash content for
this example because the gas content was
computed from the coal ash content. The
addition of other rock degraded the correlation.
Figure 4-7 illustrates these data. The appearance of this figure is similar to a typical
drill cutting gas content vs. inorganic content
relationship. Regression of these data resulted
in an estimate of the organic fraction gas
content equal to 688.5 565.3 scf/ton which
was in error by +14.8% 94.2%. The correlation coefficient was relatively low at 0.644.
The scatter in the data and the relatively few
data points decreased the predicted organic
fraction gas content estimate accuracy.
Figure 4-7
Hypothetical Example of Drill Cutting Gas
Content vs. Ash Content
Summary
In this chapter, we covered steps 3 through 5 of the
gas-in-place estimate procedure in detail. These steps
are:
3.
4.
5.
Relate the total gas content of multiple samples

to sample composition.
Relate the sample composition to density.
Determine the in-situ moisture content from equi
librium moisture content measurements.
We covered the correlation of multiple sample gas

content estimates to inorganic content. One important
aspect that we pointed out is how an insufficient range
in the sample composition increases the inaccuracy of
the correlation. We demonstrated the method required
to relate the sample composition to density and vice
versa. In Chapter 5, we will show you how to convert
the organic fraction gas content to an in-situ value with
open-hole density log data.
Additional Reading
The subject of coal composition is a complex one.
References 1 and 2 are considered the classics on this
subject. The ASTM Standards13 provide much information on methods used to estimate the organic and
inorganic compositions.
4.11
Chapter
1. Spackman, W.: The Maceral Concept and the Study of Modern Environments as a Means of Understanding
the Nature of Coal, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 5, (1958) pp. 411-423.
2. Stach, E., Mackowsky, M-Th., Teichmller, M., Taylor, G.H., Chandra, D. and Teichmller, R.: Stachs
Textbook of Coal Petrology, 3rd Edition, Gebruder Borntraeger, Berlin, Germany (1982) 535 p.
4. Dyrkacz, G.R. and Horwitz, E.P.: Separation of Coal Macerals, Fuel, Vol. 61 (1982) pp. 4-12.
5. Crelling, J.C.: Separation, Identification, and Characterizations of Single Coal Maceral Types, in Moulijn,
J.A., et al. (editors) 1987 International Conference on Coal Science, Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V.,
Amsterdam (1987) pp. 119-122.
6. Karas, J., Pugmire, R.J., Woolfenden, W., Grant, D.M., and Blair, S.: Comparison of Physical and Chemical Properties of Maceral Groups Separated by Density Gradient Centrifugation, International Journal of
Coal Geology, Volume 5 (1985) pp. 315-338.
7. Pandolfo, A.G., Johns, R.B., Dyrkacz, G.R., and Buchanan, A.S.: Separation and Preliminary Characterization of High-Purity Maceral Group Fractions from an Australian Bituminous Coal, Energy & Fuels, Vol.
2 (1988) p. 657.
8. Neavel, R.C., Smith, S.E., Hippo, E.J., and Miller, R.N.: Interrelationships Between Coal Compositional
Parameters, Fuel, Vol. 65 (1986) pp. 312-320.
9. Bohor, B.F. and Triplehorn, D.M.: Tonsteins: Altered Volcanic-Ash Layers in Coal-Bearing Sequences, Special Paper 286, The Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado (1993).
10. 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 5, Volume 05.05 Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke, American
Society for Testing and Materials Philadelphia, PA (1994) p. 192.
11. Mavor, M.J.: Coalbed Methane Reservoir Properties, in Saulsberry, J.L., Schafer, P.S., and Schraufnagel,
R.A. (editors) A Guide to Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering, Gas Research Institute Report GRI-94/
0397, Chicago, Illinois (March 1996) p 4.3.
12. Bowker, A.H. and Lieberman, G.L.: Engineering Statistics, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey (1972) pp. 183-189.
13. 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 5, Volume 05.05 Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke, American Society for Testing and Materials Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1994).
4.12
Thickness, Density, and

Gas-In-Place Estimates
ow that we have evaluated the desorption and

density data, we are ready to complete the analysis by
estimating the reservoir thickness, average density and
in-situ gas content. This chapter discusses the final three
steps of the gas-in-place procedure. These steps are:
6. Estimate the gross thickness and average in-situ
7. Compute the in-situ gas content at the average
reservoir density and moisture content.
8. Compute the gas-in-place volume with
Equation 2-1.
We will convert the organic fraction gas content
estimated from the multiple sample analysis such as
illustrated in Figure 4-1 to an in-situ value. We will also
use the estimates of the organic and inorganic densities
from Chapter 4 to evaluate open-hole density log data.
We will use the average in-situ density obtained from
the log data to compute the in-situ gas content based
upon the organic fraction gas content. Finally, we will
use Equation 2-1 to compute the gas-in-place volume
within a specified drainage area.
Gross Thickness and Average

Density Estimates
Three estimates are required from open-hole density log data: the gross thickness of coal and carbonaceous shale that contains producible gas, the average
in-situ density, and the average in-situ ash content. In
the previous chapter, we showed that when sufficient
samples are available for statistical analysis, that the
density range of
Fruitland Formation rocks containing gas ranges
from the organic
density, 1.295 g/
cm3, to just under
the inorganic density, 2.497 g/cm3.
Remember
that the estimated
inorganic fraction
of the samples is a
simple average
and not an indication of the heterogeneity of the
samples. For instance, a sample
that has an inorganic content of
0.749 (density 2.0
g/cm 3 ) is not a
uniform piece of
rock. There are
high organic content intervals
interbedded with
inorganic rock.
While the average
Volume Analysis
0
fraction
Porosity
Density
1
g/cc
Gas Content
3.0
scf/ton
1000
Net Pay Interval
Shale
Sand
Coal
Ash
3050
3100
3150
3200
3250
Figure 5-1.
GRI #2 Coal Log
5.1
Chapter
Thickness, Density, and Gas-In-Place Estimates
Density
Depth
feet
1.0
g/cm3
3.0
2,960
Total Fluid
Production
Fraction
Fluid
Rates
Upper
Interval
Absolute
Permeability
6%
Gas: 2 MSCF/D
Water: 6 STB/D
0.9 md
32%
Gas: 21 MSCF/D
Water: 18 STB/D
6.0 md
3,000
Middle
Interval
13%
49%
Gas:
Water:
Gas:
Water:
10 MSCF/D
4 STB/D
46 MSCF/D
3 STB/D
1.3 md
1.4 md
3,050
3,100
Lower
Interval
0%
0 md
3,130
Figure 5-2.
San Juan 30-5 Density
and Production Log Data
inorganic content is high, the inorganic content of the
low-density beds is low.
The in-situ density distribution is evaluated from
open-hole density log data. Figure 5-1 illustrates a
processed log including the density data from GRI
Well #2 at the COAL Site. The log data are a running
average of the rock properties above and below the
measurement point. The vertical resolution of a highresolution density log is 0.5 feet. This means that the
rock 0.25 feet above and 0.25 feet below the measurement point influenced the density estimate. The vertical resolution of a conventional density log is 2 feet,
one foot above and one foot below the measurement
5.2
point. When the log records a high-density value such

as 2.0 g/cm3, it is likely that low-density organic beds
and high-density inorganic rocks are contained within
the vertical resolution.
One advantage of using 12-inch core desorption
samples is that the vertical dimension of the core
samples is similar to the vertical resolution of the
density logs. It would be better to cut core samples into
foot lengths when using high-resolution density logs.
However, gas desorption volumes are smaller and
headspace effects greater for these smaller samples,
increasing measurement difficulties.
The gross thickness is determined by summing the
thickness of intervals of density less than the density at
an inorganic content (ash + moisture content) of one. In
the past, many operators have used an upper density
limit of 1.75 g/cm3 that is consistent with the geologic
definition of coal (70% by volume and 50% by weight
of organic material). This limit underestimated the gasin-place volume by eliminating higher density intervals that contained low-density organic beds containing gas that contribute to the productive reservoir
thickness.
One must be careful when applying an upper density limit equal to the maximum inorganic density. The
estimated thickness can include intervals with thin
organic beds that are not located within reservoir intervals. These isolated beds should be eliminated from the
estimates of the net thickness unless there is reason to
believe that the gas can be produced.
Individual Reservoir Identification

Coal gas deposits often have multiple reservoirs
located in close vertical proximity. We usually estimate gas-in-place volumes for individual reservoirs if
possible. However, it is very difficult to determine
which coal reservoirs are isolated from other coal
reservoirs. For instance, you will find it easy to identify
the two separate intervals in Figure 5-1 since there is 49
feet of shale between the two major coal intervals.
However, multiple coal seams are contained within
each major interval. Are these coal seams individual
reservoirs?
Generally, we consider an individual reservoir to

be isolated from other reservoirs. If a reservoir is
isolated, production from the reservoir does not affect
the behavior of other reservoirs except, perhaps, through
wells.
One way to identify if reservoirs are separate is
through production logging. Because of the great density difference between gas and water, we expect gas to
flow through the upper portions of a reservoir while
water flows through the lower portions.
An example of potentially isolated reservoirs within
a single coal interval was observed in the San Juan 305 well.1 During GRI research, we conducted well tests
and measured production logs in this well. From these
data, it was possible to estimate the absolute permeability and the production rates from individual coal seams
as illustrated in Figure 5-2. The greatest gas production
rate and the highest gas-water rate ratio was from the
deepest coal seam within the middle interval. The
highest water rate was produced from the shallowest
coal seam in the middle interval. These results indicate
that there is no vertical connection between the three
coal groups in the middle interval. If they were connected, the highest gas rates should be from the shallowest coal seams and the highest water rates should be
from the deepest coal seams.
For the purpose of gas-in-place estimates, we find
it convenient to consider the middle interval as one
interval that may contain multiple reservoirs. Keep in
mind that the close vertical proximity does not mean
that reservoirs are connected.
In-Situ Ash Content

We estimate the in-situ ash content from open-hole
density data with Equation 4-6. We will use the organic
and ash density values that we determined in the
previous chapter. These were 2.497 and 1.295 g/cm3,
for the ash and organic fraction density, respectively.
An estimate of the in-situ moisture content can be
obtained from equilibrium moisture content data. We
will use the equilibrium moisture content determined
in the lab on GRI #1 samples that we selected for
sorption isotherm estimates. This value is 0.0089.
Example 5-1 shows you how to make the ash content
estimates.
During earlier research, we documented that ash
content estimates obtained from open-hole density data
agreed closely with the proximate analysis results from
core samples. Figure 5-3 illustrates a comparison of the
ash content estimates from both data sources for the
Southern Ute 36-1 well in the San Juan Basin.1
In-Situ Gas Content

We compute the in-situ gas content from the in-situ
ash and moisture content based upon the relationship
between the air-dry gas content and the inorganic
content. Use Equation 5-1 for this estimate.
G c = G co [1 - (wa + wwe )]
(5-1)
Where:
Gc
Figure 5-3.
Comparison of S. U. 36-1 Ash Content
from Logs and Core Data
in-situ gas content, scf/ton

Gco
organic fraction gas content,
scf/ton
wa
wwe
equilibrium moisture content,
weight fraction
This relationship assumes that the
intercept of the relationship at gas content of zero intersects the horizontal axis
at an inorganic content of 1.0. The GRI
#2 data did not intersect at this point due
to insufficient density distribution in the
desorption samples. However, we know
from data sets that are more complete
5.3
Chapter
that the intersection would have been

at one if more data were available.
Example 5-1 shows you how to make
the calculation.
During earlier research, we documented that in-situ gas content estimates computed in this manner can
agree well with those obtained from
canister desorption measurements.
Figure 5-4 illustrates the comparison
between gas content estimates obtained from log and core desorption
data for the Southern Ute 36-1 well.
In-Situ Density and Gas

Figure 5-4.
Content Distributions
Comparison of S. U. 36-1 Gas Content
One of the difficulties in estimatfrom Logs and Core Data
ing the gas-in-place volume is the
method used to average density log data. Interpretation corded every 0.5 feet.
At least two major reservoir intervals are present in
of the digital density log data results in the most
thorough evaluation. You can also visually average Figure 5-1, the GRI #2 open-hole log data. Potentially,
density data by selecting limited vertical intervals from there are separate reservoirs within the major intervals.
the recorded open-hole density log data. Example 5-2 Table 5-1 summarizes the density distribution of the
at the end of this chapter shows you how to perform this shallower interval between depths of 3,067.9 and 3,098.8
feet. We computed estimates of the in-situ ash and gas
analysis.
Most logging companies can provide you with a content (See Example 5-1) for each depth at which
digital file containing density vs. depth data. High- density data were available. We then constructed a
resolution data are usually recorded every 0.1 or 0.25 histogram of the data by separating the interval into ten
feet depending upon the logging companys software. density sub-intervals. The reservoir density range is
Conventional-resolution density data are usually re- between 1.295 g/cm3 (the organic fraction density) and
Example 5-1. In-Situ Ash & Gas Content Calculations
Calculate the in-situ ash and gas content at one depth in the GRI #2 well. At 3,209 feet, the recorded density
value was 1.389 g/cm3. Compute the in-situ ash content with an ash density of 2.497 g/cm3 and an organic
density of 1.295 g/cm3. Use an equilibrium moisture content value of 0.0089. The gas content of the organic
fraction is 913 scf/ton.
Use Equation 4-6 to calculate the in-situ ash content.
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1

- + ww
+ 0.0089
r
r
r
r
1.295 1.389
o
1 1.295 = 0.146
w
wa = o
=
1
1
1
1
1.295 2.497
ro ra
Compute the in-situ gas content with Equation 5-1
G c = G co [1 - (wa + wwe )] = 913[1 - (0.1460 + 0.0089 )] = 771.6 scf/ton
5.4
Minimum Maximum
Density
Density
g/cm3
g/cm3
0.000
1.295
1.412
1.529
1.646
1.763
1.880
1.996
2.113
2.230
2.347
2.464
1.295
1.295
1.412
1.529
1.646
1.763
1.880
1.996
2.113
2.230
2.347
2.464
9.990
2.464
Proportion
Average
of Density Average
Ash
Data
Density Content
%
g/cm3
%
0.00
11.29
11.94
11.61
13.23
7.74
4.84
3.87
5.16
6.77
14.84
8.71
100.00
Average
Gas
Thickness Cumulative
Content
Thickness
scf/ton
feet
feet
1.346
1.464
1.575
1.705
1.815
1.935
2.049
2.188
2.297
2.401
8.44
24.56
37.47
50.47
60.03
69.28
76.99
85.35
91.16
96.25
827.8
680.6
562.8
444.0
356.8
272.4
201.9
125.7
72.6
26.1
1.833
61.52
343.2
0
3.5
3.7
3.6
4.1
2.4
1.5
1.2
1.6
2.1
4.6
2.7
28.3
0
3.5
7.2
10.8
14.9
17.3
18.8
20.0
21.6
23.7
28.3
28.3
Gas-in-Place
per acre
MMscf/acre
Proportion Cumulative
of Gas in- Proportion of
Place
of Gas-in-Place
%
%
0.000
5.303
5.014
4.339
4.220
2.113
1.075
0.675
0.598
0.476
0.392
0.000
24.206
0.00
21.91
20.71
17.92
17.43
8.73
4.44
2.79
2.47
1.97
1.62
0.00
100.00
0.00
21.91
42.62
60.55
77.98
86.71
91.15
93.94
96.41
98.38
100.00
100.00
100.00
Table 5-1
GRI #2 Upper Reservoir Gas-In-Place Summary
6
Gas-in-Place Volume per Acre, MMscf/acre
0
1.295
1.412
1.529
1.646
1.763
1.880
1.996
2.113
2.230
2.347
2.464
Density Intervals. g/cm3
Figure 5-5
GRI #2 Upper Reservoir Gas-In-Place Distribution
5.5
Chapter
2.464 g/cm3 (the density at an ash plus moisture content

of one). Table 5-1 summarizes the density and gas
distribution estimates. Figure 5-5 illustrates the gas-inplace histogram vs. density.
The majority of the gas-in-place volume (78%) is
contained within the sub-intervals with densities below
1.763 g/cm3. The proportion of the gas-in-place contribution from the greater density sub-intervals becomes
progressively less as the density increases. However, if
the gas contained in the higher density sub-intervals is
not included, the gas-in-place volume is underestimated by 22% for this interval.
It is possible to determine the effect of differing
upper density limits upon the thickness and gas-inplace estimates with Table 5-1. For instance, at an
upper limit of 1.763 g/cm3, the thickness is 14.9 feet and
the gas-in-place volume is 0.7798 x 24.206 or 18.88
MMscf per acre. Increasing the density limit to the
maximum inorganic fraction density increases the thickness estimate by 89.9% to 28.3 feet. The gas-in-place
estimate increases by 28.2% to 24.206 MMscf/acre
from the lower density range value.
Increasing the upper density limit increases the
average density and decreases average gas content
estimates. For instance, the average density of the
density range less than or equal to 1.763 g/cm3 is 1.529
g/cm3. The average of the maximum density range is
19.9% greater. The average gas content of the density
interval less than or equal to 1.763 g/cm3 is 622.4 scf/
ton. The maximum density limit average gas content is
44.9% less.
Gas-in-Place Estimates
The values contained in Table 5-1 can be used to
calculate the gas-in-place volume within a specified
drainage area. You can either use Equation 2-1 or
multiply the gas-in-place per acre by the area. For
instance, from Table 5-1, the gas-in-place in the upper
coal gas reservoir is 24.206 MMscf/acre. In a square
mile area (640 acres), the upper reservoir gas-in-place
is 24.206(640)=15,492 MMscf or 15.5 Bscf. In the
basal reservoir, the volume of gas-in-place per square
mile is 69.957(640) = 44,772 MMscf or 44.8 Bscf. The
total in both reservoirs is 60.3 Bscf in a square mile area.
5.6
You may not have access to the digital density log

data to perform numerical processing. In this situation,
we typically average the density log data over two foot
increments on the graphical log display. Example 5-2
shows you how to perform such an estimate. This
example also shows you how to make the gas-in-place
estimate with Equation 2-1. The estimate obtained
from the hand calculations of 15.1 Bscf for a 640acre area of the upper interval is similar to the digital
15.5 Bscf result.
Summary
This chapter summarized the final three steps of the
gas-in-place procedure. These steps are:
6.
7.
8.
Estimate the gross thickness and average in-situ

Compute the in-situ gas content at the average
reservoir density and moisture content.
Compute the gas-in-place volume with Equation
2-1.
The important points that you should remember

besides these three steps are:
log-derived estimates of gas and inorganic content
are running averages over a 0.5 to 2 foot vertical
interval,
you cannot determine whether groups of coal seams
are individual reservoirs by close vertical proximity or from density log data, and
most of the gas-in-place is stored in coal (density
less than or equal to 1.75 g/cm3) but a significant
volume (10 to 20%) is stored in carbonaceous
shale.
Additional Reading
Reference 2 summarizes the usefulness of log and
core data for coal gas reservoirs and outlines a procedure to evaluate newly discovered reservoirs. Reference 3 provides additional information on log analysis
in coal.
Example 5-2. GRI #2 Average Density, Thickness and Gas Content.

READ ME
Determine the average density distribution in two-foot increments, and use these data to estimate the
average in-situ density, thickness, and gas content. Then compute the gas-in-place volume in 640
acres. The following table summarizes the 2-foot density values.
Top
Depth
Bottom
Depth
Thickness
Average
Density
feet
3,068.0
3,070.0
3,072.0
3,074.0
3,076.0
3,078.0
3,080.0
3,082.0
3,084.0
feet
3,070.0
3,072.0
3,074.0
3,076.0
3,078.0
3,080.0
3,082.0
3,084.0
3,085.0
feet
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
g/cm3
2.30
1.68
1.59
1.51
1.73
1.49
1.92
2.39
2.41
3,087.8
3,090.0
3,092.0
3,094.0
3,096.0
3,098.0
Total
3,090.0
3,092.0
3,094.0
3,096.0
3,098.0
3,099.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
28.2
2.00
1.33
2.02
1.64
1.71
2.39
Thickness Density
Product
g-ft/cm3
4.60
3.36
3.18
3.02
3.46
2.98
3.84
4.78
2.41
4.40
2.66
4.04
3.28
3.42
2.39
51.82
Determine the average density with a thickness-weighted average by multiplying the average density
in each depth range by the thickness. The average in-situ density is the sum of the thickness-density
product values divided by the thickness. In this case, 51.82/28.2=1.84 g/cm3. Compute the average ash
content from the average density value as per Example 5-1. A density of 1.84 g/cm3 corresponds to an
ash content of 0.62. Since the organic fraction gas content is 903 scf/ton, the in-situ average gas
content is 903[1-(0.62+0.0089)]=335 scf/ton. Compute the gas-in-place in a square mile area with
Equation 2-1.
G = 1359.7 Ahr c G c = 1359.7 (640 )(28.2 )(1.84 )(335 ) = 1.51 10 10 scf or 15.1 Bscf
5.7
Chapter
1. Mavor, M.J., Logan, T.L., and Robinson, J.R.: Cooperative Evaluation of San Juan Basin, Phillips Petroleum Company, Openhole Well Recompletion Efforts, Gas Research Institute Topical Report No. GRI-93/
0466, Chicago, Illinois (July 1995) 105 p.
2. Mavor, M.J., Close, J.C., and McBane, R.A.: Formation Evaluation of Exploration Coalbed Methane Wells,
Coalbed Methane, SPE Reprint Series No. 35, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas (1992).
pp. 27-45. also in SPE Formation Evaluation (December 1994) pp. 285-294.
3. Scholes, P.L. and Johnston, D.: Coalbed Methane Applications of Wireline Logs, in Law, B.E. and Rice,
D.D. (editors): Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Studies in Geology #38, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma (1993) pp. 287-302.
5.8
6
Chapter
Coal Gas Sorption &

Storage Capacity
as-in-place in coal seams is stored by sorption as opposed to compression as in conventional gas

reservoirs. You must understand the sorption phenomena to predict the gas recovery. Once you complete the
gas content and gas-in-place estimates, you will find
that sorption isotherm data, that relate storage capacity to pressure, can be very useful. This is especially
true when the in-situ storage capacity is equal to the
gas content, i.e., when the reservoirs are saturated.
When saturated, you can use the storage capacity information to adjust gas content data for differences in
depth and reservoir pressure.
Undersaturation (i.e., initial gas content less than
storage capacity) reduces the gas-in-place volume but
even more dramatically reduces gas production rates
and recovery. Because of the dependence of productivity and recovery upon the degree of saturation, it is very
important that accurate gas content and storage capacity estimates be available to forecast future gas production rates.
An alternative method of estimating gas content is
to assume that the gas content of the reservoirs is equal
to the maximum value possible, i.e., the gas storage
capacity This assumption is very dangerous. Gas-inplace estimates should be based upon measured core
desorption data as discussed in the previous chapters.
Gas content can be significantly less than the gas
storage capacity. However, sorption data are still important. They serve as check on the gas content data
(i.e., gas content estimates should be less than or equal
to storage capacity). More importantly, they are required to predict the recovery of the gas-in-place when
production reduces the average reservoir pressure.
Sorption at the Molecular Level

Solid surfaces attract gas molecules in close proximity to the solid surfaces. This is the phenomenon
known as sorption. The attraction causes the molecules
to pack closer together than if the surface is not present.
Since the molecules are closer together, the gas density
is greater near the surface that it is away from the
surface. In a microporous material such as coal, the
molecules in the pores become closely packed. The
packing causes the effective density of the sorbed gas
to approach the density of the molecules when in a
liquid state at atmospheric pressure.
The high effective sorbed gas density explains why
much greater volumes of gas can be stored in coal
seams than in conventional gas reservoirs at shallow
depths (i.e., at depths less than 7,000 feet or so). For
instance, the sorbed density for methane,1 is 0.421 g/
cm3. In contrast, the density of methane in the vapor
state at 1,600 psia and 125o F. is 0.0747 g/cm3 or 5.6
times less than the sorbed methane density. This pressure and temperature condition was common in the San
Juan Basin Fruitland Formation commercial coal reservoirs in 1980.
Coal matrix pore spaces are separated into two size
ranges, micropores with a characteristic width of less
than 2 nm, (A nanometer, nm, equals 10-9 meters.) and
mesopores having widths between 2 and 50 nm. The
equivalent molecular diameter of methane is roughly
0.4 nm. The smallest pores are only 5 times larger than
methane molecules.
The small pore sizes cause a very large surface area
to volume ratio. The larger this ratio, the greater the
surface area causing attraction between gas molecules
6.1
Chapter
Coal Gas Sorption & Storage Capacity
and rock. For instance, the internal matrix porosity of

high volatile A bituminous coal is between four and
eight percent of the bulk volume. Five- percent porosity
corresponds to a pore volume of roughly 0.01 ft3 per
pound of coal. The internal surface area of a pound of
coal is in the range of 1,000,000 square feet. The ratio
of the surface area to the pore volume is about 108 ft2/
ft3.
The volume of gas stored in coal can be very large.
As an example, a San Juan Basin Fruitland Formation
coal sample from the GRI COAL Site research location
can sorb 913 scf of gas per cubic foot of organic
material. The commercial coal gas reservoirs at this
location contain 43% inorganic material also. At in-situ
conditions, with the dilution due to inorganic material,
the sorbed gas content is 512 scf/ton.
Part of the reason for the high gas-in-place volume at this location is that the sorbed gas also contains
carbon dioxide. In this coal, the storage capacity of
carbon dioxide is 2.8 times greater than that of methane. The term coalbed methane is misleading. Coal
seam gas often contains substantial quantities of gases
besides methane. You must often account for the composition of the coal gas to estimate the economic value
of the gas-in-place.
Gas storage capacity is a function of coal properties
and reservoir conditions. The coal properties include
maceral composition, rank, matrix porosity,
organic content, and moisture content. Storage capacity varies with pressure and temperature. As pressure increases, the gas storage capacity increases. As temperature increases, the gas storage capacity decreases.
ture (hence the name) that usually is equal to the

reservoir temperature. The Langmuir isotherm relationship follows.
G s = G sL [1 - (wa + wwe )]
p
p + pL
Where:
Gs
GsL
wa
wwe
p
pL
gas storage capacity, scf/ton

dry, ash-free Langmuir storage capacity, scf/ton
equilibrium moisture content, weight fraction
pressure, psia
Langmuir pressure, psia
The ash plus moisture content is the inorganic

content of the coal sample. The inorganic content of
sorption samples is determined by a proximate analysis.
The Langmuir model assumes that molecules compete for storage sites in a layer that is one molecule
thick on the solid organic surface area. Competitive
molecules include hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbons
such as water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Eventually, at high pressures, all of the storage sites become
occupied if sufficient molecules are available. At this
point, the storage capacity will reach a constant value
The Langmuir Isotherm

The most common model used to relate
storage capacity to organic content, moisture
content, and pressure is the Langmuir isotherm.2 This model relates the equilibrium
sorbed gas capacity to the pressure of the gas
outside of the coal matrix. Laboratories measure the isotherm data at a constant temperaFigure 6-1
Example Langmuir Isotherm Relationship
6.2
(6-1)
equal to the Langmuir storage capacity. The Langmuir

pressure is equal to the pressure at which the storage
capacity is equal to half the Langmuir storage capacity.
The isotherm relationship is very important in coal
gas reservoir engineering as it is used to estimate three
essential items illustrated in Figure 6-1. These are:
can compute the gas recovery factor as a function of the

average pressure using Equation 6-3. Example 6-1
shows you how to apply Equations 6-2 and 6-3.
1. the pressure at which gas release (desorption)

begins,
2. the amount of gas released as pressure is reduced,
and
3. the gas remaining in the reservoir at abandonment.
Where:
fg = fractional gas recovery, demensionless
p = average reservoir pressure, psia
The gas storage capacity at the initial reservoir

pressure is the maximum amount of gas that may be
sorbed in a reservoir. The gas content is the actual gas
sorbed within the rock. This distinction is important,
since gas content can be substantially less than gas
storage capacity. You must determine the correct insitu gas content by desorption measurements.
The critical desorption pressure is the pressure in
the coal natural fracture system at which gas desorption
from the rock matrix begins. This pressure is equal to
the pressure at which the gas content and storage
capacity are equal. The critical desorption pressure can
be substantially less than the initial reservoir pressure
since the isotherm relationship is relatively flat in the
higher pressure range. You can compute the critical
desorption pressure with Equation 6-2.
p L Gci
pc =
GsL [1 - (wa + wwe )] - Gci
(6-2)
Where:
pc critical desorption pressure, psia
Gci initial gas content, (in-situ basis) scf/ton
Once the pressure drops below the critical desorption pressure, the isotherm relates the gas storage
capacity (which is now equal to the gas content) to
pressure. You can compute the remaining gas content
as a function of pressure with the Langmuir relationship, Equation 6-1.
The gas recovery factor is one minus the ratio of the
remaining gas content to the initial gas content. You
fg = 1 -
G sL [1 - (wa + wwe )] p (6-1)

Gci ( p + p L )
The abandonment reservoir pressure can be difficult to determine as it is affected by a combination of

reservoir properties and economics. The abandonment
pressure is the average pressure of each reservoir when
the operator shuts in wells due to gas rates less than
minimum economic rates. The average pressure is
equal to the pressure at which the reservoir would eventually stabilize and is greater than the pressure in the
wells when production ceases. The stabilization pressure is a function of location, permeability, and depth.
You can estimate the abandonment pressure using a
reservoir simulation model that incorporates structural
geometry and the variation in permeability throughout
the reservoirs.
As for all core analysis data, sorption isotherm data
are subject to errors. Reference 3 discusses an evaluation of these errors.
Isotherms for Multiple Gas Components

The gas recovered from coal seams often contains
significant amounts of molecules other than methane
including carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, and heavier
molecular weight hydrocarbons. You must use sorption isotherm relationships for a gas mixture if the
reservoir that you are evaluating has multiple components.
You can compute multicomponent isotherm relationships from single component data by extended
Langmuir isotherm theory. The extended Langmuir
isotherm relationship is listed in Equation 6-4.1
G si = G sLi [1 - (wa + wwe )]
py i
p Li
1+ p
nc
(6-4)
yj
p
j =1
Lj
6.3
Chapter
Where:
= multicomponent storage capacity of
component i, in-situ basis, scf/ton
GsLi
= single component Langmuir storage
capacity of component i, dry, ash-free
basis, scf/ton
pLi or pLj = single component Langmuir pressure of
component i or j, psia
yi or yj = mole fraction of component i or j in the
free gas (vapor) phase, dimensionless
nc
= number of components
p
= pressure of the free gas phase, psia
Gsi
Carbon dioxide has a significant influence upon the storage capacity estimated for
some San Juan Basin Fruitland Formation coals
as illustrated by Figure 6-2. The COAL Site that
has been the subject of the examples in this book
has an in-situ storage capacity of 513 scf/ton.
Twenty-one percent of the storage capacity is
due to the presence of carbon dioxide in the
sorbed gas although the produced gas composition contained only 13% carbon dioxide. Example 6-2 shows you how to apply Equation 64.
Figure 6-2 illustrates three COAL Site isotherms for methane, carbon dioxide, and a binary isotherm. The binary isotherm was com-
puted with extended Langmuir theory as a function of

pressure in the same manner as Example 6-2 with
pressure ranging from zero to 2,000 psia.
We know that the coal gas reservoirs at the COAL
Site were saturated since gas was produced during drill
stem tests conducted while drilling. Only a few wells
had been on production for a few months in the nearby
area. If the reservoirs had been undersaturated, gas
would not have been produced during the drill stem
tests. Gas content estimates were also in agreement
with the storage capacity estimates. Two wells at the
COAL Site were cored and samples were placed in
desorption canisters. The gas storage capacity on a dry,
Figure 6-2
COAL Site Multicomponent Isotherm Relationships
Example 6-1. Estimate Important Reservoir Conditions

READ ME
The basis of the isotherm relationship in Figure 6-1 was a Langmuir volume of 786.8 scf/ton and a
Langmuir pressure of 334.3 psia. Calculate the critical desorption pressure if the gas content is 355 scf/ton.
The ash content is 0.30 (30%) and the moisture content is 0.01 (1%). Use Equation 6-2.
pc =
(334.3)355
= 632 psia
786.8[1 - (0.30 + 0.01)] - 355
Calculate the gas recovery factor at an abandonment pressure of 100 psia using Equation 6-3.
fg = 1 -
6.4
786.8 [1 - (0.30 + 0.01)]100

= 0.648
355(100 + 334.3 )
Example 6-2. COAL Site Multicomponent Storage Capacity

READ ME
The GRI COAL Site research location has a vapor phase gas composition that is 87% methane and 13%
carbon dioxide. Compute the binary storage capacity based upon the isotherm data listed below for the basal
coal interval. Also, estimate the fraction of carbon dioxide in the sorbed state.
The average in-situ ash content and moisture content are 43% and 0.89%, respectively. The reservoir pressure is 1,550 psia.
Component
Number
1
2
Component
Dry, Ash Free

Langmuir Volume
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
Langmuir
Pressure
scf/ton
1,116
3,124
psia
606
964
Based upon Equation 6-4, the methane storage capacity at reservoir conditions is:
1,550(0.87 )
606
G S 1 = 1,116 [1 - (0.43 + 0.0089 )]
= 406 scf/ton
0.87 0.13
1 + 1,550
+
606 964
Also based upon Equation 6-4, the carbon dioxide storage capacity at reservoir conditions is:
1,550(0.13)
964
= 107 scf/ton
G S 2 = 3,124[1 - (0.430 + 0.0089 )]
0.87 0.13
1 + 1,550
+
606 964
The total storage capacity is the sum of the storage capacity of each component or 513 scf/ton. The fraction
of carbon dioxide in the sorbed state is 107/513=0.209.
ash-free basis was 913 scf/ton. The gas content estimates obtained from samples from two wells were 909
and 911 scf/ton.
Produced gas composition will change over time in
reservoirs with multiple sorbed gas components. At the
COAL Site, the carbon dioxide content of the produced
gas is expected to increase as the reservoir is depleted.
Prediction of changes in produced gas composition has
been discussed by a number of authors. Refer to Reference 1 for more information.
equation for the gas-in-place within the coal natural

fracture system is as follows.
Free Gas-in-Place Volume

Coal gas reservoirs also contain gas stored by
compression in the natural fracture system. This volume is usually small in comparison to the volume
stored by sorption in the coal matrix porosity. The
Sg
Where:
Gf
A
h
ff
Bg
Gf =
43560 Ahf f S g
(6-5)
Bg
= gas volume in the coal natural fracture sys

tem, scf
= drainage area, acres
= reservoir thickness, feet
= natural fracture porosity, fraction of bulk
volume
= gas saturation in the natural fracture poros
ity, fraction of natural fracture porosity
= gas formation volume factor, reservoir volume
/ surface volume
6.5
Chapter
Estimates of the gas saturation are possible from production data if relative permeability data are available
using methods developed for well test analysis.4 The
gas formation volume factor is defined as follows.
Bg =
p sc
z (T + 459.69 )
z sc (Tsc + 459.69 )
p
(6-6)
Where:
psc
zsc
Tsc
z
T
p
= pressure at standard conditions, psia

= real gas deviation factor at standard conditions, dimensionless
= temperature at standard conditions, oF
= real gas deviation factor at reservoir conditions, dimensionless
= temperature at reservoir conditions. oF
= pressure at reservoir conditions, psia
The real gas deviation factor estimates are obtained

from correlations as a function of gas composition,
temperature, and pressure.5
The volume of gas contained within the coal natural fracture system at the time of first production is
small for two reasons. First, the coal natural fracture
system is typically less than 2% of the reservoir bulk
volume. Second, in many reservoirs, (but not in all), the
natural fractures are initially full of water. Example 63 illustrates the application of Equations 6-5 and 6-6 to
prediction of the gas volume contained within the coal
natural fracture system at the COAL Site.
Solution Gas-in-Place Volume

Gas is also dissolved in the water contained within
the natural fracture system. This volume is small relative to the volume of gas stored by sorption within the
reservoir. Equation 6-7 presents a relationship for this
volume.
Example 6-3. Maximum Gas-In-Place in the COAL Site Natural Fracture System
At the GRI COAL Site, we wished a rough estimate of the maximum gas volume that was in the coal natural
fracture system at the time of initial production. We did not have accurate estimates of the natural fracture
porosity but knew that it must be less than 2% of the bulk volume. We estimated the gas saturation in the natural
fracture system from production data and relative permeability data. We computed the formation volume
factor with Equation 6-6 for a gas composed of 87% methane and 13% carbon dioxide at reservoir conditions
of 120 oF and 1,550 psia. Standard conditions were 60o F. and 14.696 psia. We computed the maximum gasin-place volume using Equation 6-5 and the information summarized in the following table.
Property
Drainage area
Thickness
Maximum natural fracture porosity
Average gas saturation
Gas formation volume factor
Initial gas-in-place per square mile
Units
acres
feet
fraction
fraction
reservoir volume /
surface volume
Bscf
Upper Coal
Interval
Value
640
28.3
0.02
0.192
9.15(10-3)
0.33
Basal Coal
Interval
Value
640
61.7
0.02
0.192
9.15(10-3)
0.72
The initial gas-in-place volume in the natural fracture system for both intervals was 1.05(109) scf or 1.05 Bscf
(billion standard cubic feet). This volume is 1.7% of the sorbed gas-in-place volume of 60.28 Bscf (See
Example 2-1). Because of the high porosity estimate, we expect this natural fracture initial gas-in-place
estimate to be a maximum limit.
6.6
Bw
(6-7)
Where:
GD
Sw
Rsw
Bw
=
=
=
=
dissolved gas volume, scf

water saturation, volume fraction
solution gas-water ratio, scf/STB
water formation volume factor, reservoir volume / surface volume
The dissolved water volume is typically small

since the natural fracture porosity is low and the solution gas-water ratio is relatively low. The solution gas
water ratio ranges between 4 and 12 scf/STB for the
pressure and temperature conditions generally found in
commercial coal seam gas reservoirs.6 At the COAL
Site, the solution gas-water ratio was roughly 11 scf/
STB. The maximum volume of gas dissolved in the
water was 0.14 and 0.30 Bscf for the upper and basal
intervals, respectively. The dissolved gas volume was
less than half the maximum volume of gas stored by
compression in the natural fractures and roughly 0.7%
of the volume stored by sorption within the coal matrix.
Use of Isotherm Data for

Saturated Reservoirs
Once you know that gas content and storage capacity are equal, sorption isotherm data become very
useful. You can use the isotherm relationship to esti-
mate reserves and to adjust gas content data for differences in reservoir pressure. When you perform these
estimates for wells without gas content data you must
be careful that the coal rank and organic composition
do not vary from those penetrated by the cored wells.
You can adjust the organic fraction gas content
estimate for pressure and inorganic content as a function of depth by combining the isotherm relationship
with the in-situ gas content relationship. estimated
(saturated) in-situ gas content, scf/ton
)
Gc = G sL [1 - (wa + wwe )]
( pa + p R d R )
( pa + p R d R ) + p L
(6-8)
Where:
)
G c = estimated (saturated) in-situ gas content, scf/
ton
GsL = organic fraction Langmuir storage capacity,
scf/ton
wa = ash content, weight fraction
wwe = equilibrium moisture content, weight fraction
pa = atmospheric pressure psia
pR = reservoir pressure gradient, psi/ft
dR = reservoir depth, feet
pL = Langmuir pressure, psia
GD =
43560 Ahf f S w Rsw
You can apply Equation 6-8 to each measured

point of open-hole density log data to compute the gas
content as a function of pressure and inorganic content.
Example 6-4. COAL Site Isotherm-Based Gas Content Estimate.

Use Equation 6-8 to estimate the gas content at a depth of 3,209 feet in the GRI #2 well. The density at this
depth is 1.389 g/cm3. Example 5-1 showed you how to estimate an ash content of 0.146 corresponding to
this density value. The equilibrium moisture content is 0.0089. The reservoir pressure gradient is 0.481 psi/
ft. The two component Langmuir parameters based upon the single component isotherm parameters summarized in Example 6-2 are GsL = 1,288.4 scf/ton and pL = 636.7 psia.
The in-situ storage capacity and thus an estimate of the in-situ gas content is computed as follows.
)
G c = 1288.4 [1 - (0.146 + 0.0089 )]
(12.5 + (0.481)3209 ) = 773 scf/ton

(12.5 + (0.481)3209 ) + 636.7
This is similar to the estimate of 771.6 scf/ton obtained in Example 5-1.
6.7
Chapter
Compute the in-situ ash content prior to the gas content

with Equation 4-6. Then compute the gas content with
Equation 6-8. You can complete the log analysis by
determining the gas-in-place in the manner illustrated
by Example 5-1 with digital log data and computer
software or Example 5-2 for calculator-based methods.
See Example 6-4 for an example of application of
Equation 6-8.
Summary
The sorption phenomenon dominates gas storage
in coal seams. Sorption is caused by micro- and mesoporosity that have a very large surface area to volume
ratio, resulting in attractive forces between the gas
molecules and the solid surface. The attraction causes
the sorbed gas density to approach liquid density.
Sorption isotherm data are required to predict the
volume of gas released from the coal as the pressure in
the coal natural fracture system is reduced. These data
allow you to predict the fraction of the gas that can be
extracted from the resource. These data also provide an
upper bound for the maximum gas content that can be
stored in the coal seams. You should not assume that
the gas content is equal to the storage capacity. You
should estimate the gas content by desorption of multiple coal samples reheated to reservoir temperature.
Coal seam gas often contains significant quantities
of components other than methane. When this is the
case, multicomponent isotherms should be computed
from single component data to estimate the in-situ
storage capacity.
When reservoirs are saturated, you can combine
sorption isotherm relationships with log data and reservoir pressure data to estimate gas content and thus gasin-place for each measured log data point.
Additional Reading
There has been a great mass of literature published
on the sorption phenomena. An excellent review of this
information for coal gas reservoirs is included in Reference 7 . Additional applications of sorption theory
are discussed in Reference 8.
6.8
1. Arri, L.E., Yee, D., Morgan, W.D., and Jeansonne, M.W.: Modeling Coalbed Methane Production with
Binary Gas Sorption, Paper SPE 24363, SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting held in Casper, Wyoming, May 18-21, 1992.
2. Langmuir, I.: The Adsorption of Gases on Plane Surfaces of Glass, Mica, and Platinum, Journal of the
American Chemical Society, Vol 40 (1918) pp. 1,361-1,403.
Volume I. Desorption Data Summary, Gas Research Institute Report No. GRI-93/0410, Chicago, Illinois
(May 1994) pp. 16-19.
4. Mavor, M.J. and Robinson, J.R.: Analysis of Coal Gas Reservoir Interference and Cavity Well Tests,
Paper SPE 25860 presented at the 1993 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional and Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium held in Denver, Colorado, April 26-28, 1993.
5. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, Reinhold Publishing
Corp., New York (1952) 122 p.
6. Dodson, C.R. and Standing, M.B.: Pressure-Volume-Temperature and Solubility Relations for Natural
Gas-Water Mixtures, Drilling and Production Practice, American Petroleum Institute (1944) pp. 173-179.
8. Mavor, M.J.: Coalbed Methane Reservoir Properties in Saulsberry, J.L., Schafer, P.S., and Schraufnagel,
R.A. (Editors): A Guide to Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering, Gas Research Institute Report GRI-94/
0397, Chicago, Illinois (March 1996) pp. 4.2-4.9.
6.9
Chapter
6.10
Additional Problems
Chapter
The additional problems included in this chapter are examples of the material presented earlier in this book.
Problem 7-1. Valencia Canyon 32-1 Gas-in-Place

Compute the gas-in place in a 320-acre area for each interval based upon the following parameters.
Parameter
Units
Drainage area
Thickness
Average gas content
Gas-in-place Bscf
acres
feet
g/cm3
scf/ton
Upper Coal
Interval
Value
320
20
1.71
323
Intermediate
Coal Interval
Value
320
43
1.56
425
Basal Coal
Interval
Value
320
31
1.52
460
Table 7-1.Problem 7-1 Parameters.

Use Equation 2-1.
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc
(2-1)
Where:
G
A
h
r
Gc
=
=
=
=
=

average in-situ rock density at the average in-situ rock composition, g/cm3
average gas content at the average in-situ rock composition, scf/ton
7.1
Chapter
Additional Problems
Problem 7-1. Solution

The solution to this problem is listed in the following table.
Parameter
Drainage area
Thickness
Average gas content
Gas-in-place
Units
acres
feet
g/cm3
scf/ton
Bscf
Upper Coal
Interval
Value
320
20
1.71
323
4.81
Intermediate
Coal Interval
Value
320
43
1.56
425
12.40
Basal Coal
Interval
Value
320
31
1.52
460
9.43
Table 7-2. Problem 7-1 Solution.

The total gas-in-place in the 320-acre area is 26.64 Bscf. The calculations for each interval are as follows.
Upper Interval
( )
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc = 1359.7 (320)(20 )(1.71)(323) = 4.806 10 9 scf or 4.81 Bscf

Intermediate Interval
( )
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc = 1359.7 (320)(43)(1.56 )(425) = 1.240 1010 scf or 12.40 Bscf
Basal Interval
( )
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc = 1359.7 (320)(31)(1.52)(460) = 9.431 10 9 scf or 9.43 Bscf
7.2
Problem 7-2. Desorption Volume Correction and Gas Content

Correct the incremental desorption volume for the first measured point from sample 34-1 from the Valencia
Canyon 32-1 well for headspace expansion and measurement conditions. Table 7-3 lists all required data. The
procedure for this problem is as follows.
1.
Compute the standard condition correction factor with Equation 3-2.
C sci =
p ai (Tsc + 459.69 )
p sc (Tai + 459.69 )
(3-2)
Where:
Csci
Tsc
pai
Tai
psc
=
=
=
=
=
standard condition correction factor at time i, dimensionless

temperature at standard conditions, oF.
atmospheric pressure at time i, inches Hg
ambient temperature at time i, oF.
pressure at standard conditions, inches Hg
2.
Compute the headspace-corrected volume with Equation 3-3.
pa (i -1 ) (Tci + 459.69 ) Tai + 459.69

v hi = v v
- 1
pai (Tc (i -1) + 459.69 ) Tci + 459.69
Where:
(3-3)
headspace correction at time i, cm3

canister internal void (headspace) volume, cm3
atmospheric pressure at time i-1, inches Hg
canister temperature at time i, oF.
canister temperature at time i-1, oF.
vhi
vv
pa(i-1)
Tci
Tc(i-1)
=
=
=
=
=
3.
Compute the corrected incremental desorption volume with Equation 3-1.

v sci = C sci (vi - v hi )
(3-1)
Where:
vsci
vi
= standard condition desorption volume at time i, cm 3

= measured desorption volume at time i, cm3
4.
Compute the cumulative corrected desorption volume with Equation 3-4.
Vsci =
Where:
Vsci
j
scj
(3-4)
j =1
= cumulative measured desorption volume at time i corrected to standard conditions, cm3

= summation index
7.3
Chapter
5.
Additional Problems
Compute the cumulative desorbed gas content with Equation 3-5.
DGcadi = 32.0368
Vsci
mad
Where:
DGcadi =
=
mad
measured gas content at time i, air-dry basis, scf/ton

air-dry mass, g
Example 3-1 of this book shows you how to perform these calculations.
7.4
Well Identification
Canister Data
Canister No.
12-44
g
4,140
Bowen & Edwards
Empty Weight
g
6,349
La Plata County
Filled Weight
cc
2,403
Empty Volume
Colorado
Sec. 32 T33N R11W
cc
889
Headspace Volume
Sample Data
Valencia Canyon
34-1
Sample ID No.
Formation
g
2,127
Coal Interval
Intermediate Sample Volume
cc
1,514
Core Run #
2 Ash Content
fraction
0.4845
Sample Top Depth
feet
fraction
0.0696
Sample Bottom Depth
feet
scf/ton
0.00
ppg
10.2
Misc. Information
Reservoir Data
Temperature
Deg. F
Pressure Gradient
psi/ft
0.526
Reservoir Pressure
psia
Recovery Times
11/23/90 13:47:00
psia
11/23/90 14:44:00
Temp. Recovery Time
hours
11/23/90 16:45:00
hours
End of Temp. Recovery
11/23/90 17:01:08
hours*0.5
Time at time zero
Start of Regression
hours*0.5
End of Regression
hours*0.5
Corrected Data
Time
Uncorrected Data
Canister
Ambient
Date & Time
Desorption Square Root Incremental Desorbed
Volume Temperature Temperature Pressure
Desorbed Desorbed
Desorbed
Time
of
Volume Gas Content
Volume
Desorption
Time
mm/dd/yy hh:mm:ss
hours
hours*0.5
cc
cc
Deg. F
Deg. F
Inches Hg cc @ STP
scf/ton
11/23/90 17:01:08
0
0
25
25
23.93
11/23/90 17:11:00
340
340
91
75
23.93
11/23/90 17:16:00
130
470
91
75
23.93
11/23/90 17:24:00
185
655
91
75
23.93
11/23/90 17:30:00
115
770
91
75
23.93
11/23/90 17:36:00
115
885
91
75
23.93
11/23/90 17:42:00
120
1,005
91
75
23.93
11/23/90 17:48:00
110
1,115
91
75
23.93
11/23/90 17:58:00
160
1,275
88
75
23.93
11/23/90 18:08:00
180
1,455
88
75
23.93
11/23/90 18:18:00
165
1,620
88
75
23.93
11/23/90 18:32:00
200
1,820
88
75
23.93
11/23/90 18:47:00
220
2,040
88
75
23.93
11/23/90 19:04:00
230
2,270
88
75
23.93
11/23/90 19:22:00
255
2,525
90
75
23.93
11/23/90 19:46:00
295
2,820
90
75
23.93
11/23/90 20:17:00
370
3,190
90
75
23.93
11/23/90 20:42:00
290
3,480
90
75
23.93
11/23/90 21:02:00
220
3,700
89
75
23.93
11/23/90 21:50:00
430
4,130
89
75
23.93
11/23/90 22:15:00
240
4,370
88
75
23.93
Well Name
Operator
County
State
Section
Field
Table 7-3. Problem 7-2 Core Desorbtion Data Sheet
7.5
Chapter
Additional Problems

The solution to this problem for the first measured point at 11/23/90 17:11 is as follows.
Standard Condition Correction Factor
C sci =
p ai (Tsc + 459.69 ) 23.93(60 + 459.69 )

=
= 0.775
p sc (Tai + 459.69 ) 30.01(75 + 459.69 )
Headspace Correction
pa (i -1 ) (Tci + 459.69) Tai + 459.69

23.93(91 + 459.69) 75 + 459.69
= 889
- 1
v hi = v v
- 1
23.93(25 + 459.69 ) 91 + 459.69

pai (Tc (i -1) + 459.69 ) Tci + 459.69
v hi = 889(0.1362)(0.971) = 117.63 cm 3
Corrected Incremental Desorption Volume
v sci = C sci (vi - v hi ) = 0.7750(340 - 117.6 ) = 172.4 cm 3

Cumulative Corrected Desorption Volume
Since this is the first point, i =1
i
Vsci =
scj
= v sc1 = 172.4 cm 3
j =1
Cumulative Desorbed Gas Content
DGcadi = 32.0368
7.6
Vsci
172.4
= 32.0368
= 2.6 scf/ton
mad
2127
Problem 7-3. Time Zero and Direct Method Horizontal Axis Value
Estimate time zero for the Direct Method graph for sample 34-1 collected from the Valencia Canyon 32-1
well. Also, compute the Direct Method horizontal axis value for the first measured point. All necessary
information is contained in Table 7-3. Assume that the reservoir is saturated.
The time zero estimate procedure is as follows. Examples 3-2 and 3-3 of this book show you how to perform
the calculations.
1.
2.
Calculate the sample depth by averaging the top and bottom sample depths.
Compute the reservoir pressure with Equation 3-11.
p R = p a + p R d R
(3-11)
Where:
=
=
=
pR
pR
dR

sample subsurface (reservoir) depth, feet
Convert pa in inches of mercury to psia by multiplying by 0.4898.

3.
Where:
Compute the coring fluid hydrostatic pressure with Equation 3-10.

p m = p a + 0.052 r m d R
(3-10)
pm
pa
rm
= mud (coring fluid) hydrostatic pressure, psia

= ambient (atmospheric) pressure, psia
= mud (coring fluid) density, pounds per gallon
4.
If the hydrostatic pressure is less than or equal to the reservoir pressure, time zero occurs when the sample
is cored. If the hydrostatic pressure is greater than the reservoir pressure, estimate time zero by
interpolation between the time that the sample leaves bottom and reaches surface with Equation 3-12.
Where:
tR0
tRs
p - pR
Dt R0 = Dt Rs m
pm - pa
(3-12)
= elapsed time between time raised above the original depth and time zero, hours
= elapsed time between time raised above the original depth and time when at surface, hours
You will have to convert military time in hh:mm:ss format to decimal hours. Do the conversion with the
following relationship.
min utes sec onds

t = hours +
+
60 3600
5.
Add tR0 to the time that the core barrel started out of the well to estimate time zero.
7.7
Chapter
Additional Problems
The Direct Method horizontal axis calculation procedure is as follows. Example 3-3 of this book shows you
how to perform the calculations.
The definition of the Direct Method horizontal axis was given by Equation 3-13.
t DM =
(ti - t0 ) - t dc
(3-13)
Where:
Direct Method horizontal axis value (square root of desorption time), hours
measured desorption time i, hours
time zero, hours
desorption time correction
tDM
ti
to
tdc
=
=
=
=
1.
Compute the elapsed time from time zero for the first measured point.
2.
Subtract the desorption time correction from the elapsed time. The desorption time correction is the
elapsed time (decimal hours) between the first measured point and the time when the canister was sealed.
The first measured point is the second point in Table 7-3.
3.
Take the square root of the difference.
7.8

The solution to this problem is as follows.
Sample Average Depth
This is the arithmetic average of the sample top and bottom depths.
d R = 0.5 (1774.0 + 1774.8 ) = 1774.4 ft
Reservoir Pressure
p R = p a + p R d R = [0.4898 (23.93 )] + 0.526 (1774.4 ) = 945.1 psia
Coring Fluid Hydrostatic Pressure

p m = p a + 0.052 r m d R = [0.4898 (23.93 )] + [0.052(10.2 )(1774.4 )] = 952.9 psia
The hydrostatic is slightly greater than the reservoir pressure. Therefore, desorption did not begin until after
coring ended and the core barrel was lifted off bottom. Compute time zero by interpolating between the times that
the core barrel started out of the well and reached surface with Equation 3-12.
Time Zero
The time that the core barrel started out of the well was 11/23/90 14:44 hours or 14.7333 hours. The pressure
at this time was equal to the coring fluid hydrostatic pressure of 952.9 psia. The time that the core barrel reached
surface was 11/23/90 16:45 hours or 16.75 hours. The pressure at this time was equal to the atmospheric pressure
of 0.4898(23.93)=11.7 psia.
p - pR
952.9 - 945.1
= 0.0167 hours = 1 minute
= (16.75 - 14.73)
Dt R 0 = Dt Rs m
952.9 - 11.7
pm - pa
Time zero occurred 1 minute after the core barrel was lifted of bottom. Time zero occurred at 14:45.
Elapsed Time from Time Zero
The first measured point occurred at 11/23/90 17:11 hours or 17.183 hours. Time zero was at 14.750 hours.
Therefore, the elapsed time for the first measured point was 17.183-14.750=2.433 hours
Desorption Time Correction
The canister was sealed at 17:01:08 or 17.0189 hours. The first measurement point was at 17.183 hours.
Therefore, the desorption time correction was 17.183-17.019=0.164 hours. This time is the same for all
measurement points.
Horizontal Axis Value
By repeating this procedure for each measured point, you will end up with Table 7-4.
t DM =
(ti - t0 ) - tdc
= 2.433 - 0.164 = 1.507 hours 0.5
7.9
Chapter
Well Name
Operator
County
State
Section
Field
Additional Problems
Well Identification
Bowen & Edwards
La Plata County
Colorado
Sec. 32 T33N R11W
Canister Data
Canister No.
Empty Weight
Filled Weight
Empty Volume
Headspace Volume
g
g
cc
cc
12-44
4,140
6,349
2,403
889
Valencia Canyon
Sample Data
34-1
Sample ID No.
Formation
g
2,127
Coal Interval
Intermediate Sample Volume
cc
1,514
Core Run #
2 Ash Content
fraction
0.4845
Sample Top Depth
feet
fraction
0.0696
feet
scf/ton
0.00
Sample Bottom Depth
ppg
10.2
Misc. Information
Reservoir Data
Temperature
Deg. F
Pressure Gradient
psi/ft
0.526
Reservoir Pressure
psia
945.59
Recovery Times
psia
952.86
11/23/90 13:47:00
11/23/90 14:44:00
Temp. Recovery Time
hours
2.286
11/23/90 16:45:00
hours
0.164
2.095
11/23/90 17:01:08
End of Temp. Recovery hours*0.5
11/23/90 14:44:56
Time at time zero
Start of Regression
hours*0.5
End of Regression
hours*0.5
11/23/90 17:11:00
Corrected Data
Time
Uncorrected Data
Canister
Ambient
Date & Time
Desorption Square Incremental Desorbed
Desorbed
Volume Temperature Temperature Pressure Desorbed Desorbed
Time
Root of
Volume
Gas
Desorption Volume
Content
Time
mm/dd/yy hh:mm:ss hours
hours*0.5
cc
cc
Deg. F
Deg. F
Inches Hg cc @ STP
scf/ton
11/23/90 17:01:08
2.106
1.451
0
0
25
25
23.93
0
0
11/23/90 17:11:00
2.270
1.507
340
340
91
75
23.93
172
2.60
11/23/90 17:16:00
2.353
1.534
130
470
91
75
23.93
273
4.11
11/23/90 17:24:00
2.487
1.577
185
655
91
75
23.93
417
6.27
11/23/90 17:30:00
2.587
1.608
115
770
91
75
23.93
506
7.62
11/23/90 17:36:00
2.687
1.639
115
885
91
75
23.93
595
8.96
11/23/90 17:42:00
2.787
1.669
120
1,005
91
75
23.93
688
10.36
11/23/90 17:48:00
2.887
1.699
110
1,115
91
75
23.93
773
11.64
11/23/90 17:58:00
3.053
1.747
160
1,275
88
75
23.93
901
13.57
11/23/90 18:08:00
3.220
1.794
180
1,455
88
75
23.93
1,040
15.67
11/23/90 18:18:00
3.387
1.840
165
1,620
88
75
23.93
1,168
17.59
11/23/90 18:32:00
3.620
1.903
200
1,820
88
75
23.93
1,323
19.93
11/23/90 18:47:00
3.870
1.967
220
2,040
88
75
23.93
1,494
22.50
11/23/90 19:04:00
4.153
2.038
230
2,270
88
75
23.93
1,672
25.18
11/23/90 19:22:00
4.453
2.110
255
2,525
90
75
23.93
1,867
28.12
11/23/90 19:46:00
4.853
2.203
295
2,820
90
75
23.93
2,096
31.57
11/23/90 20:17:00
5.370
2.317
370
3,190
90
75
23.93
2,382
35.88
11/23/90 20:42:00
5.787
2.406
290
3,480
90
75
23.93
2,607
39.27
11/23/90 21:02:00
6.120
2.474
220
3,700
89
75
23.93
2,779
41.86
11/23/90 21:50:00
6.920
2.631
430
4,130
89
75
23.93
3,112
46.88
11/23/90 22:15:00
7.337
2.709
240
4,370
88
75
23.93
3,299
49.70
01/09/91 08:18:00
1,121.387
33.487
13,297
99
75
25.03
Table 7-4. Completed Problem 7-3 Desorption Data Sheet
7.10
10,147
152.83
Problem 7-4.Recognition of Desorption Measurement Conditions.

Was the measurement temperature at ambient or at reservoir conditions for the following six Direct Method
graphs?
Figure 7-1. Example Direct Method Graphs.
7.11
Chapter
Additional Problems
Problem 7-4 Solution.
Figure 7-2. Problem 7-4 Solution.
7.12
Problem 7-5. Direct Method Analysis

Evaluate the desorption data contained in Table 7-4 with the Direct Method. The procedure for this problem
is as follows. Example 3-5 shows you how to perform the calculations.
1.
Prepare a graph of the cumulative desorbed gas content in the right-most column vs. the square root of
the desorption time.
This graph has been prepared for you in Figure 7-3.
2.
Fit a straight line to the proper portion of the data required for the lost gas estimate.
This line should start near the end of the temperature recovery time for reservoir temperature measurements. The line will start on the first or second point for ambient temperature measurements.
3.
Compute the lost gas content from the absolute value of the y-axis intercept.
4.
Compute the total gas content by summing the lost gas content, the last measured point in Table 7-4, and
the residual gas content.
5.
Compute the diffusivity from the slope using Equation 3-8.
D
m
=
2
r
203.1Gcad
(3-8)
Where:
D/r2
m
Gcad
6.
=
=
=
diffusivity, sec-1
slope of the desorbed gas content vs. square root time graph, scf/ton-hour0.5
total gas content, scf/ton
Compute the sorption time from the diffusivity for a spherical fracture geometry with Equation
3-9. The value of the shape factor is 15 for a sphere.
t=
Where:
=
=
1
D
3600a 2
r
(3-9)

7.13
Chapter
Additional Problems
Cumulative Desorbed Air-Dry Gas Content, scf/ton
100
50
-50
-100
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Square Root of Desorption Time, hours*0.5
Figure 7-3.Problem 7-5 Direct Method Graph.
7.14
3.0
3.5
4.0

Sample 34-1
100
Regression Line
Measured Data
Measured Air-Dry Gas Content, scf/ton
50
-50
-100
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Square Root of Desorption Time, hours*0.5
Figure 7-4. Problem 7-5 Direct Method Graph Solution.

Fit a Straight Line to the Proper Data Interval
The Direct Method graph for sample 34-1 has the appearance of ambient temperature desorption data since
the S-shape characteristic of heated canisters is not present. However, the temperature data in the desorption data
sheet indicate that the sample has been reheated to 91o F. Reservoir temperature was reported to be 100o F. In spite
of this, the data flattens almost immediately, before the end of the temperature recovery time is reached. We must
treat the sample as unheated and fit a straight line to the first few data points.
The reason that the data were not S-shaped was that the canister was not placed into a water bath. Instead,
reheating was performed by raising the air temperature inside an on-site desorption lab to 91o. Reheating samples
in this manner is not as effective as water baths. It is likely that the internal sample temperature was much less
than 91o. The estimated lost and total gas contents for this sample are probably lower than the true values.
The proper range for the Direct Method line for ambient temperature data begins immediately after the first
point. The end of the range is when the data begins to deviate below the straight line. For these data, a straight line
was fit to the range 1.5 to 1.6 on the horizontal axis. The intercept and slope are 76.0 scf/ton and 52.2 scf/tonhour, respectively.
7.15
Chapter
Additional Problems
Lost and Total Gas Content Estimates

The lost gas content is the absolute value of the intercept, 76.0 scf/ton. The measured gas content is the last
data point in the right hand column of Table 7-4, 152.8 scf/ton. Residual gas content was reported to be zero. The
total gas content is the sum of the lost, measured, and residual gas contents, i.e., 76.0+152.8+0.0=228.8 scf/ton.
Diffusivity Estimate
The diffusivity is computed from the slope with Equation 3-8.
D
m
=
2
r
203.1Gcad
52.2
=
= 0.001123 2 = 1.26 10 -6 sec -1
(
)
203
.
1
228
.
8
Sorption Time Estimate

The sorption time is computed from the diffusivity.
t=
1
D
3600a 2
r
1
= 14.7 hours
3600(15 )(1.26 ) 10 -6
Problem 7-6. Reservoir Temperature Direct Method Analysis

Evaluate the data in the Direct Methodgraph illustrated in Figure 7-5. These data were measured on a GRI
#2 sample 35-1 that was heated to reservoir temperature. The measured and residual gas contents for this sample
were 180.4 and 0 scf/ton, respectively. The time that the core barrel started out of the well was 12/2/90 19:30:00.
The sample was placed into a heated water bath at 12/2/90 22:17:00 at the same time that the canister was sealed.
The first measured point was at 22:37.
The procedure for this problem is as follows. Example 3-5 shows you how to perform the calculations.
1.
Prepare a graph of the cumulative desorbed gas content in the right-most column vs. the square root of
the desorption time.
2.
Estimate the temperature recovery time.

This is the elapsed time between the time that the core barrel is lifted off bottom until the canister is
placed in a water bath. (22:17)
3.
Estimate the end of the temperature recovery time by adding the temperature recovery time to the time
that the canister is sealed. The canister was sealed at 12/2/90 22:17:00.
4.
Calculate the Direct Method horizontal axis value at the end of the temperature recovery time. The
first measured point was at 22:37.
7.16
t DM =
(ti - t0 ) - t dc
Where:
Direct Method horizontal axis value (square root of desorption time), hours
measured desorption time i, hours
time zero, hours
tDM
ti
to
tdc
5.
Fit a straight line to the proper portion of the data required for the lost gas estimate.
This line should start near the end of the temperature recovery time for reservoir temperature measurements.
6.
Compute the lost gas content from the absolute value of the y-axis intercept.
7.
Compute the total gas content by summing the lost gas content, the measured gas content (180.4 scf/ton).
8.
Compute the diffusivity from the slope using Equation 3-8.
D
m
=
2
r
203.1Gcad
Where:
D/r2
m
Gcad
9.
=
=
=
(3-8)
diffusivity, sec-1
slope of the desorbed gas content vs. square root time graph, scf/ton-hour0.5
total gas content, scf/ton
Compute the sorption time from the diffusivity for a spherical fracture geometry with Equation 3-9.
The value of the shape factor is 15 for a sphere.
t=
Where:
=
=
1
3600a
D
r2
(3-9)

7.17
Chapter
Additional Problems
Figure 7-5. Problem 7-6 Direct Method Graph.
7.18
Figure 7-6. Problem 7-6 Direct Method Graph Solution.
Temperature Recovery Time

The temperature recovery time is the elapsed time from the time that the sample leaves bottom until the
canister is placed in a water bath. The sample started out of the well at 12/2/90 19:30 (19.500 hours). The canister
was sealed at 22:17 (22.283 hours). The temperature recovery time is the time difference of 2.783 hours. The end
of the temperature recovery time occurred 2.783 hours after sealing or at 22.283+2.783=25.066 hours. This is on
the following day (12/30/90) at 1:03:58 A.M. Time zero was at 19:39:08 (19.652 hours). The elapsed time at the
end of the temperature recovery time from time zero was 25.066-19.652=5.414 hours. The first measured point
was 20 minutes (0.333 hours) after the time of sealing; therefore the desorption time correction is 0.333. The Direct
Method horizontal axis value at the end of the temperature recovery time is as follows.
Fit a Straight Line to the Proper Data Interval

The Direct Method graph for sample 35-1 has the appearance of reservoir temperature desorption data since
the S-shape characteristic of heated canisters is present. We expect the start of the correct straight line to be near
2.25 hours 1/2 on this graph. Therefore, select the points between 2.25 and 2.5 that appear on a straight line. The
intercept and slope for this line are -208 scf/ton and 115 scf/ton-hour 1/2, respectively.
7.19
Chapter
Additional Problems
Lost and Total Gas Contents Estimates

The lost gas content is the absolute value of the intercept, 208.0 scf/ton. The measured gas content is 180.4
scf/ton. Residual gas content was reported to be zero. The total gas content is the sum of the lost, measured, and
residual gas contents, i.e., 208.0+180.4+0.0=388.4 scf/ton.
Diffusivity Estimate
The diffusivity is computed from the slope with Equation 3-8.
Sorption Time Estimate
7.20
Problem 7-7. Multiple Sample Analysis

Evaluate the data in Table 7-5 to determine the organic fraction gas content estimate for the Valencia Canyon
32-1 well.
Sample
Number
Ash
Content
Moisture
Content
Inorganic
Content
34-1
34-2
34-3
34-4
34-5
Average
fraction
0.4845
0.3948
0.1098
0.2846
0.2047
0.2957
fraction
0.0696
0.1308
0.0958
0.1190
0.0823
0.0995
fraction
0.5541
0.5256
0.2056
0.4036
0.2870
0.3952
Total Air- Total Dry,

Dry Gas Ash-Free
Content
Gas
Content
scf/ton
scf/ton
228.8
513.1
267.3
563.4
529.3
666.2
339.4
569.2
443.2
621.6
361.6
586.7
Lost Gas
Content
scf/ton
76.0
45.5
92.9
75.9
72.5
72.5
Measured
Gas
Content
scf/ton
152.8
221.7
436.4
263.6
370.7
289.1
Residual
Gas
Content
Diffusivity
scf/ton
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1/sec
1.26E-06
2.81E-07
2.70E-07
5.79E-07
3.13E-07
5.41E-07
Sorption
Time
hours
14.7
65.8
68.5
32.0
59.1
48.0
Table 7-5. Valencia Canyon 32-1 Gas Desorption Summary.

The procedure for this problem is as follows. Figure 4-1 of this book illustrates a typical analysis graph.
1.
Construct a graph of the total air-dry gas content vs. the inorganic content for each sample.
2.
Fit a line to the data and extrapolate the line to a zero inorganic content value.
The value of the intercept is the organic fraction gas content.
7.21
Chapter
Additional Problems
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Ash + Moisture Content, fraction
Figure 7-7. Problem 7-7 Gas vs. Inorganic Content Graph.
7.22
0.8
0.9
1.0

Figure 7-8 illustrates the analysis graph for the five Valencia Canyon 32-1 desorption samples.
1,000
Regression Line
900
Upper 95% Confidence Interval

Lower 95% Confidence Interval
800
Individual Sample Data
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 7-8. Problem 7-8 Gas vs. Inorganic Content Solution Graph.
The intercept and slope of the solid line are 687.5 scf/ton and -824/9 scf/ton, respectively. The organic fraction
gas content is equal to the intercept value.
7.23
Chapter
Additional Problems
Problem 7-8. Density-Ash Content Relationship

Compute the density corresponding to the inorganic contents listed in the following table. Assume that the
equilibrium moisture content is equal to 1.74%. Use ash and organic fraction densities of 2.497 and 1.295 g/cm3,
respectively.
Ash Content Density
fraction
g/cm3
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Table 7-6. Problem 7-7 Ash Content Values.

Solve this problem by computing the density with Equation 4-2.
w
1 - (wa + ww ) ww
r= a +
+
ro
r w
ra
Where:
a
o
w
wa
=
=
=
=
=
density, g/cm3
ash density, g/cm3
ww
7.24
-1
(4-2)

At an ash content of 0.5, the solution is as follows.
w
1 - (wa + ww ) ww
r= a +
+
ro
rw
ra
-1
1 - (0.5 + 0.0174 ) 0.0174

0.5
=
+
+
1.295
1
2.497
-1
r = [0.2002 + 0.3727 + 0.0174 ] 1 = 1.694 g/cm 3

-
The results for all of the data are listed in Table 7-7.
Ash Content
fraction
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Density
g/cm3
1.288
1.353
1.425
1.505
1.594
1.694
1.808
1.938
2.089
2.264
2.473

Note that the relationship between density and ash content is a hyperbola as illustrated by Figure 7-9.
7.25
Chapter
Additional Problems
2.5
Density, g/cc
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Inorganic Content, fraction
Figure 7-9. Problem 7-7 Density vs. Inorganic Content.
7.26
0.8
0.9
1.0
Problem 7-9. Core Density Evaluation

Evaluate the Valencia Canyon 32-1 water displacement core density data to estimate the organic and ash
fraction densities. The data are summarized in the following table.
Moisture
Content
Ash
Content
wa
1 - ww
fraction
0.0120
0.0184
0.0140
0.0229
0.0073
0.0075
0.0069
0.0134
0.0262
fraction
0.0780
0.0818
0.1054
0.1151
0.1771
0.2437
0.4876
0.6485
0.7493
fraction
0.0789
0.0833
0.1069
0.1178
0.1784
0.2455
0.4910
0.6573
0.7695
Core
r -1 - ww r w-1
Density
1 - ww
cm3/g
0.7108
0.7898
0.7972
0.8019
0.9084
0.7796
0.5785
0.5495
0.5373
g/cm3
1.40
1.26
1.25
1.24
1.10
1.28
1.72
1.80
1.82
Table 7-8. Valencia Canyon 32-1 Core Density vs. Ash and Inorganic Content.
The analysis is based upon Equation 4-3 of this book.
Where:
a
o
w
=
=
=
=
wa =
ww =
wa -1
r -1 - ww r w-1
r a - r o-1
= r o-1 +
1 - ww
1 - ww
(4-3)
density, g/cm3
ash density, g/cm3
The procedure is as follows.

1. Calculate the dry ash content.
wa
1 - ww
2. Compute the reciprocal dry density.
r -1 - ww r w-1
1 - ww
3. Prepare a graph of the reciprocal dry density vs. the dry ash content.
The first three steps have been performed for you. See Figure 7-10
4. Fit a straight line to the data.
5. Estimate the organic fraction density from the intercept at a dry density of zero.
6. Estimate the ash fraction density from the intercept at a dry density of one.
7.27
Chapter
Additional Problems
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Dry Ash Content, fraction
Figure 7-10. Problem 7-8 Core Density Analysis Graph.
7.28
0.8
0.9
1.0

The results of Steps 1 and 2 were listed in the data sheet. Figure 7-11 illustrates the analysis graph.
1.0
Measured Data
0.9
Regression Line
0.8
0.7
0.6
Apparent Organic Density
0.5
1.181 g/cc
0.4
0.3
Apparent Ash Density

0.2
2.384 g/cc
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Dry Ash Content, fraction
Figure 7-11. Problem 7-8 Core Density Analysis Graph Solution.

The intercept of the solid line at zero is equal to 0.8464 cm3/g. The apparent organic density is equal to the
reciprocal value or 1.181 g/cm3. The intercept at one is equal to 0.4195 cm3/g. The apparent ash density is equal
to the reciprocal value or 2.384 g/cm3.
The apparent ash and organic density values are less than the values of 2.497 g/cm3 for the ash density and
1.295 g/cm3 for the organic density that were estimated in Chapter 4 of this book. We believe that the cause of
the low values was due to the water displacement procedure used to obtain the density estimates. The volume of
the sample was measured by the volume of water displaced by the sample. The sample was weighed after
immersion. The apparent density was equal to the mass divided by the volume. We have found that this procedure
usually results in low density estimates. As a result, both the organic and ash densities are underestimated from
these data.
Helium pycnometry determines the sample volume by expansion of helium. These data when analyzed in the
same manner as this problem, result in more accurate organic and ash density estimates.
7.29
Chapter
Additional Problems
Problem 7-10. Number of Valencia Canyon Core Samples.

Determine the number of samples required to achieve 95% statistical certainty that the Valencia Canyon 321 intermediate interval sample density is within 10% of the correct value. Assume that there is no more than a 20%
chance of concluding that the average density of the samples is the same as that of the reservoir when if fact it
is not.
Within the density range of 1.295 g/cm3 (organic) to 2.4 g/cm3 (96% inorganic), the average value and
standard deviation of open-hole density log data is 1.585 and 0.214 g/cm3, respectively, in the intermediate
interval. Use the operating characteristic curves illustrated in Figure 7-12.
Figure 7-12. Operating Characteristic Curves for Problem 7-9.

Where:
= sample average density value, g/cm3

0 = average in-situ density value, g/cm3
= in-situ density standard deviation, g/cm3
The procedure for this problem is as follows. Example 4-3 of this book shows you how to perform the steps.
1.
2.
3.
Compute the value of the x axis for the desired accuracy (10% for this problem).
Determine the number of samples by the n line closest to the x axis value that intersects the y axis at the
desired probability (20% for this problem).
Determine the range in sample density and ash content that is required.
Use an equilibrium moisture content of 0.0174 and ash and organic densities of 2.497 and 1.295 g/cm3,
respectively to compute the ash content range. Use equation 4-6 to convert density to ash content.
7.30
Where:
wa
a
o
w
wwe
=
=
=
=
=
=
1
1 1
1
- + wwe
ro r
r w r o
wa =
1
1
ro r a
density, g/cm3
ash density, g/cm3
(4-6)
7.31
Chapter
Additional Problems

For this problem, we specified an accuracy of 10%. Therefore the sample average value, , must be within 10%
of the average in-situ value, 0. The average in-situ value is 1.585 g/cm3. Therefore, the sample average value must
be 1.1(1.585)=1.788 g/cm3. The x axis value becomes as follows.
m - m0 1.10 (1.585 ) - 1.585

=
= 0.74
s
0.214
1 .0
n=
0 .6
2
3
0 .4
4
P ro b a b ility
0 .8
5 6
7 8
10 15
20 30
40 50
75
100
0 .2
0 .0
0
1
0.74
m-m 0
s
Figure 7-13. Problem 7-9 Solution.
In Figure 7-13, the intersection of a vertical line of horizontal value 0.74 with the horizontal line intersecting
the vertical axis at 0.2 is at about n=15. Fifteen samples are required for this well to obtain a sample density value
that is within 10% of the in-situ density.
The range in density required is from below 1.585 - 0.214 = 1.371 g/cm3 to above 1.585 + 0.214 = 1.799 g/
3
cm . The density range corresponds to an ash content range as follows.
Minimum:
Maximum:
7.32
1
1
1
1
+ 0.0174
1.295 1.371
1 1.295
= 0.126
wa =
1
1
1.295 2.497
1
1
1
1
+ 0.0174 1.295 1.799

1 1.295
wa =
= 0.593
1
1
1.295 2.497
Problem 7-11. Interval Thickness and Density

Determine the gross thickness and average density of the Valencia Canyon 32-1 intermediate interval
illustrated in Figure 7-14. Use a maximum density limit of 2.46 to assist in identifying the organic bearing
intervals. Use the gamma ray log in conjunction with the density data to assist you. The average density should
be computed as a thickness weighted average as in Example 5-2.
Figure 7-14. Valencia Canyon Intermediate Coal Interval Log.
7.33
Chapter
Additional Problems

The following table summarizes the thickness and average density estimates for each one- or two-foot interval.
The average density of the gross thickness interval is the sum of the thickness-density product values divided by
the gross thickness.
Top
Depth
Bottom Average
Depth Density
feet
feet
g/cm3
1,776
1,778
1.45
1,778
1,780
1.39
1,780
1,782
1.47
1,782
1,784
1.42
1,784
1,786
1.47
1,786
1,788
1.46
1,788
1,790
1.66
1,790
1,792
1.62
1,794
1,796
1.88
1,796
1,798
1.66
1,798
1,800
1.44
1,800
1,802
1.50
1,804
1,806
1.49
1,806
1,808
1.52
1,808
1,810
1.62
1,810
1,812
1.44
1,812
1,814
1.31
1,814
1,816
1.60
1,816
1,817
1.88
1,822
1,824
1.85
1,824
1,826
1.35
1,826
1,828
2.01
Gross Thickness-Density Product
Total Thickness
Gross Thickness
Average Density
Cumulative
Thickness
feet
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
37
39
41
43
ft-g/cm3
feet
feet
g/cm3
ThicknessDensity
Product
feet-g/cm3
2.896
2.773
2.939
2.845
2.947
2.925
3.318
3.243
3.760
3.328
2.875
2.997
2.982
3.049
3.241
2.886
2.613
3.191
1.877
3.693
2.698
4.014
67.090
52.0
43.0
1.560

r=
7.34
43.0
= 1.560 g/cm 3
67.09
Problem 7-12. Valencia Canyon 32-1 Ash and Gas Content

Continue Problem 7-11 and compute the average ash content, gas content, and gas-in-place within a 320 acre
drainage area.
The procedure for this problem is as follows.
1. Compute the ash content at the average density with Equation 4-6. Use ash and organic densities of 2.497 and
1.295 g/cm3, respectively. The equilibrium moisture content is 0.0174 based upon measurements performed
on Valencia Canyon 32-1 isotherm samples.
1
1 1
1
- + wwe
ro r
r w r o
wa =
1
1
ro r a
(4-6)
Where:
wa =
=
a =
o =
wwe =
w =

density, g/cm3
ash density, g/cm3
2. Compute the gas content at the average ash content with Equation 5-1. Use the value of the organic
fraction gas content determined in Problem 7-7 (687.5 scf/ton).
G
= G
co
[1
- ( w a + w we
)]
(5-1)
Where:
Gc = in-situ gas content, scf/ton
Gco = organic fraction gas content, scf/ton
3. Compute the gas-in-place with Equation 2-1.
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc
(2-1)
Where:
G
A
h
r
Gc
=
=
=
=
=

average gas content at the average in-situ rock composition, scf/ton.
7.35
Chapter
Additional Problems

The average density was determined to be 1.560 g/cm3 in Problem 7-11. The average ash content is computed
as follows.
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1

- + wwe
+ 0.0174
r
r
r
r
1.295 1.560
o
1 1.295 = 0.1312 + 0.0174(0.2278 ) = 0.3685
w
=
wa = o
1
1
1
1
0.7722 - 0.4055
1.295 2.497
ro r a
The in-situ gas content is computed as follows.
G c = G co [1 - (wa + w we )] = 687.5[1 - (0.3685 + 0.0174 )] = 422.2 scf/ton
The gas-in-place in 320 acres is computed as follows.
( )
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc = 1359.7 (320 )(43)(1.560 )(422.2 ) = 1.232 10 10 scf = 12.32 Bscf
7.36
Problem 7-13. Maximum Possible Gas Recovery

Estimate the maximum possible gas recovery from the three reservoir intervals in the Valencia Canyon 321 well. Assume that the average reservoir pressure can be reduced to 50 psia. This assumption requires that
producing bottom-hole pressures be maintained below this pressure late in the life of the well.
Use the recovery factor relationship listed in Equation 6-3.
fg = 1 Where:
fg
GsL
wa
wwe
p
pL
=
=
=
=
=
=
GsL [1 - (wa + wwe )]p

Gci ( p + p L )
(6-3)
fractional gas recovery, dimensionless

equilibrium moisture content, weight fractions
average reservoir pressure, psia
Langmuir pressure, psia.
The Langmuir parameters measured on Valencia Canyon 32-1 samples are as GsL, 946.9 scf/ton, and pL, 368.5
psia. The individual reservoir parameters are summarized in the following table.
Parameter
Units
Initial gas-in-place
Average ash content
Equilibrium moisture content
Initial gas content
Bscf
fraction
fraction
scf/ton
Upper
Interval
4.81
0.496
0.0174
323
Intermediate
Interval
Basal
Interval
12.40
0.343
0.0174
425
9.43
0.288
0.0174
460
Table 7-10. Problem 7-12 Input Data.
7.37
Chapter
Additional Problems

The solution to this problem for the intermediate interval is as follows.
fg = 1 -
GsL 1 - (wa + weq ) p

Gci ( p + p L )
=1-
946.9[1 - (0.343 + 0.0174 )]50

= 1 - 0.170 = 0.830
425(50 + 368.5 )
The maximum gas recovery is therefore 12.40(0.83)=10.29 Bscf from this reservoir. The individual reservoir
parameters and results for each interval are summarized in the following table.
Parameter
Units
Initial gas-in-place
Average ash content
Initial gas content
Fractional gas recovery
Gas recovery
Bscf
fraction
fraction
scf/ton
fraction
Bscf
Upper
Interval
4.81
0.496
0.0174
323
0.830
4.01
Intermediate Basal
Interval
Interval
12.40
9.43
0.343
0.288
0.0174
0.0174
425
460
0.830
0.830
10.29
7.83

Therefore, the potential gas recovery from this well, if draining a 320-acre drainage area, is 22.13 Bscf.
7.38
Problem 7-13. Extension of Valencia Canyon 32-1 Gas Content Data

The Valencia Canyon 32-3 well is to be drilled after the VC 32-1. The operator wishes to know what the gasin-place may be surrounding the VC 32-3 location. The VC 32-3 is located in the same section as the VC 32-1
well but at a shallower depth. Figure 7-15 illustrates the structure map of the Basal coal interval across the section.
Section 32 T 33 N R 11 W Structure Map

Height Above Sea Level, feet
Figure 7-15. Valencia Canyon Section 32 Basal Coal Interval Structure Map.
Make an estimate of the of the gas content and gas-in-place at the VC 32-3 location. Assume that the thickness
of each coal interval is the same at both wells. Adjust the pressure between wells by the depth difference assuming
that a normal hydrostatic pressure gradient exists between the two wells.
A key assumption is that the coal gas reservoirs are saturated at both locations and that the coal rank and organic
composition do not vary. This assumption allows us to use the VC 32-1 isotherm data to adjust gas content
estimates.
The procedure for this problem is as follows.
1.
Where:
pR
pR
pa
Estimate the pressures at the midpoint of each coal interval in the VC 32-1 well based upon the pressure
gradients determined from drill stem tests. Use Equation 3-11 for this estimate.
(3-11)
p R = p a + p R d R
=
=
=

atmospheric pressure, psia
7.39
Chapter
Additional Problems
The atmospheric pressure at this location is 23.98 in Hg (11.8 psia) based upon the desorption data.
1. Estimate the coal depths at the VC 32-3 well location based upon the differences in elevation on the structure
map.
2. Compute the pressure in each coal interval at the location of the VC 32-3 well.
The pressure gradient through the reservoir will be due to the hydrostatic head of water, 0.43 psi/ft.
3. Compute the gas content at the midpoint of each VC 32-3 coal interval based upon the ash, moisture, and
isotherm parameters for the VC 32-1 well.
The Langmuir parameters measured on Valencia Canyon 32-1 samples are GsL, 946.9 scf/ton, and pL, 368.5
psia. The Langmuir isotherm relationship is as follows.
G s = GsL [1 - (wa + wwe )]
Where:
Gs
GsL
wa
wwe
p
=
=
=
=
=
p
+
p pL
(6-1)
gas storage capacity, scf/ton

pressure, psia
4. Compute the gas-in-place in a 160-acre area surrounding the VC 32-3 using Equation 2-1.
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc
(2-1)
Where:
G
A
h
r
Gc
=
=
=
=
=

average gas content at the average in-situ rock composition, scf/ton
The Valencia Canyon 32-1 reservoir properties are summarized in Table 7-12.
Parameter
Units
Midpoint Depth
Initial Pressure Gradient
Thickness
Average density
Average ash content
Initial gas content
feet
psi/ft
feet
g/cm3
fraction
fraction
scf/ton
Upper
Interval
1,715
0.526
20
1.71
0.496
0.0174
323
Intermediate
Interval
1,802
0.526
43
1.56
0.343
0.0174
425
Basal
Interval
1,928
0.471
31
1.52
0.288
0.0174
460
Table 7-12. Valencia Canyon 32-1 Reservoir Properties.
7.40

VC 32-1 Reservoir Pressures
Upper Interval Pressure
p R = p a + p R d R = 11.8 + 0.526 (1715 ) = 914 psia
Intermediate Interval Pressure

p R = p a + p R d R = 11.8 + 0.526 (1802 ) = 960 psia
Basal Interval Pressure

p R = p a + p R d R = 11.8 + 0.471(1928 ) = 920 psia
VC 32-3 Coal Depths and Pressures

Based upon the structure map, the base of the Basal interval in the VC 32-1 well is at 4,380 feet above sea
level. The base of the Basal interval at the VC 32-3 well location is 4,840 feet above sea level or 460 feet shallower
than at the VC 32-1 location.
The hydrostatic head of water between the two locations is equal to 0.433 psi/ft times 460 feet which is equal
to 199 psi. Therefore, the pressure in each reservoir interval at the VC 32-3 location is 199 psi less than at the VC
32-1 location.
VC 32-3 Gas Contents
Now that pressure estimates are available, we can calculate the gas content at the VC 32-3 location if we assume
that it is equal to the storage capacity. For example, for the Intermediate interval, the calculation is as follows.
G s = G sL [1 - (wa + wwe )]
p
761
= 946.9[1 - (0.343 + 0.0174 )]
= 408 scf/ton
p + pL
761 + 368.5
VC 32-3 Gas-in-Place
Once the gas content estimates are available, we can compute the gas-in-place volume. The calculation is as
follows for the Intermediate interval.
( )
G = 1359.7 Ahr Gc = 1359.7 (160 )(43 )(1.56 )(408 ) = 5.95 10 9 scf or 5.95 Bscf
The following table summarizes the estimates for each of the three intervals.
7.41
Chapter
Additional Problems
Parameter
Units
Midpoint Depth
Pressure
Thickness
Average density
Average ash content
Gas content
Gas-in-place
feet
psia
feet
g/cm3
fraction
fraction
scf/ton
Bscf
Upper
Intermediate
Interval
Interval
1,255
1,342
715
761
20
43
1.71
1.56
0.496
0.343
0.0174
0.0174
304
408
2.26
5.95
Basal
Interval
1,468
721
31
1.52
0.288
0.0174
435
4.46
Table 7-13. Valencia Canyon 32-3 Coal Gas Reservoir Property Estimates.
The total gas-in-place in a 160-acre area surrounding the Valencia Canyon 32-3 well is roughly 12.67 Bscf.
Note that this estimate assumed that the reservoirs are horizontal. In reality, to perform the computation correctly,
you should include the dip in the calculations.
Reservoir simulators take the dip into account by breaking the area into small parallelepipeds and assigning constant properties such as structural elevation and pressure in each. You can do the same by hand if
necessary.
7.42
Problem. 7-15. Gas-in-Place for the Southern Ute 5-7

READ ME
The Southern Ute 5-7 well intersected two coal gas reservoir intervals through which core was taken. A
total of 26 samples were desorbed for gas content estimates. The data from these measurements is summarized in the following table. Combine this information with the logs included in this section to determine the
gas-in-place in a 320-acre area surrounding the SU 5-7.
Sample
Number
49-24
49-1
49-10
49-11
49-15
49-16
49-17A
49-18
49-19
49-2
49-22A
49-23
49-26
49-27
49-28
49-29
49-3
49-30
49-31
49-32
49-33
49-34
49-5
49-8
49-9
49-25
Average
Ash
Content
fraction
0.4727
0.5443
0.3068
0.5991
0.3188
0.4331
0.5728
0.4042
0.7405
0.5421
0.2705
0.1573
0.1998
0.1912
0.2209
0.1765
0.2465
0.1707
0.1653
0.2681
0.1455
0.4778
0.2673
0.2858
0.2465
0.2834
0.3349
Moisture
Content
fraction
0.0150
0.0160
0.0093
0.0108
0.0108
0.0180
0.0252
0.0103
0.0080
0.0181
0.0123
0.0158
0.0105
0.0110
0.0139
0.0126
0.0105
0.0143
0.0113
0.0125
0.0105
0.0133
0.0140
0.0149
0.0099
0.0115
0.0131
Inorganic
Content
fraction
0.4877
0.5603
0.3161
0.6099
0.3296
0.4511
0.5980
0.4145
0.7485
0.5602
0.2828
0.1731
0.2103
0.2022
0.2348
0.1891
0.2570
0.1850
0.1766
0.2806
0.1560
0.4911
0.2813
0.3007
0.2564
0.2949
0.3480
Total AirDry Gas

Content
scf/ton
239.5
214.9
412.9
184.2
313.3
252.5
209.1
271.6
123.1
233.4
314.8
409.7
459.2
418.3
409.3
437.7
409.6
432.3
407.6
381.6
425.7
242.3
429.8
368.7
402.0
345.4
336.5
Total Dry
Ash-Free
Content
scf/ton
467.4
488.7
603.7
472.3
467.4
460.1
520.1
463.9
489.5
530.7
439.0
495.5
581.5
524.3
534.8
539.7
551.2
530.5
495.1
530.4
504.4
476.1
598.1
527.2
540.6
489.9
512.4
Lost Gas Lost Gas

Fraction Content
scf/ton
19.9%
47.7
26.4%
56.7
23.4%
96.6
22.6%
41.6
13.6%
42.6
13.8%
34.9
33.3%
69.5
16.7%
45.3
14.0%
17.2
30.4%
70.9
33.9%
106.8
14.9%
60.9
15.2%
69.8
18.3%
76.6
17.9%
73.3
17.1%
74.7
24.7%
101.0
16.4%
70.7
16.5%
67.2
19.6%
74.8
17.1%
72.9
20.2%
48.9
26.8%
115.0
27.5%
101.6
26.6%
106.9
13.7%
47.5
20.8%
68.9
Measured
Gas
Content
scf/ton
191.8
158.2
316.3
142.6
270.8
217.6
139.6
226.3
105.9
162.5
208.0
348.9
389.4
341.7
336.0
363.0
308.5
361.6
340.4
306.8
72.9
193.4
314.8
267.1
295.1
298.0
256.8
Residual
Gas
Content
scf/ton
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Diffusivity
1/sec
6.88E-07
8.84E-07
5.53E-07
6.23E-07
3.91E-07
4.42E-07
1.90E-06
4.55E-07
3.88E-07
9.86E-07
1.80E-06
4.85E-07
5.09E-07
5.83E-07
5.92E-07
5.86E-07
6.83E-07
5.47E-07
5.79E-07
6.15E-07
6.61E-07
1.01E-06
8.33E-07
7.01E-07
6.46E-07
4.36E-07
7.14E-07
Sorption
Time
hours
26.9
21.0
33.5
29.7
47.3
41.9
9.7
40.7
47.7
18.8
10.3
38.2
36.4
31.7
31.3
31.6
27.1
33.8
32.0
30.1
28.0
18.3
22.2
26.4
28.7
42.5
30.2
Table 7-14. Southern Ute 5-7 Reservoir Temperature Core Desorption Data.
The equilibrium moisture content determined on sorption isotherm samples is 1.93%. A graph of the Table
7-14 data is included in Figure 7-16. Figures 7-17 and 7-18 illustrate the open-hole log data.
7.43
Chapter
Additional Problems
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 7-16. Final Problem Gas Content vs. Inorganic Content Graph.
7.44
0.9
1.0
Southern Ute 5-7 Upper Coal Interval
READ ME
Figure 7-17. Southern Ute 5-7 Upper Coal Interval Log.
7.45
Chapter
Additional Problems
Southern Ute 5-7 Lower Coal Interval
Figure 7-18. Southern Ute 5-7 Lower Coal Interval Log.
7.46
The steps in this problem are as follows.

1. Evaluate the gas content vs. inorganic content data to determine estimates of the organic fraction gas
content.
2. Evaluate the open-hole density log data to determine the coal thickness and average density in two-foot
intervals.
3. Calculate the average ash and gas content in each coal interval.
4. Calculate the gas-in-place in each coal interval
7.47
Chapter
Additional Problems
Problem 7-15 Solution

Gas Content Inorganic Content Relationship
The relationship between the air-dry gas content and the inorganic content is illustrated in Figure 7-19.
600
Regression Line
500

Individual Sample Data
400
300
200
100
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Figure 7-19. Southern Ute 5-7 Gas Content Inorganic Content Relationship.
Linear regression of these data results in the following estimates.
Property
Organic Fraction Gas Content
Slope
X-Axis Intercept
Regression Coefficient
Significance Level
Number of Points
Intercept Variation
Slope Variation
Units
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
Value
532.64
-563.68
0.945
0.9590
0.95
26
28.51
75.04
Table 7-15. Southern Ute 5-7 Gas Content Inorganic Content Relationship
7.48
Open-Hole Log Evaluation

A summary of the open-hole log analysis for each of the two intervals is listed in Tables 7-16 and 7-17.
Top
Depth
Bottom
Depth
Average
Density
feet
feet
g/cm3
1,321
1,322
1.54
1,322
1,324
1.34
1,324
1,326
1.41
1,326
1,328
1.35
1,328
1,330
1.34
1,330
1,332
1.46
1,332
1,334
1.47
1,334
1,336
1.57
1,336
1,338
1.63
1,338
1,339
1.97
1,341
1,342
1.74
1,342
1,344
1.63
1,344
1,346
1.48
1,346
1,347
1.58
1,349
1,350
1.55
1,350
1,352
1.44
1,352
1,354
1.55
1,354
1,356
1.45
1,356
1,358
1.30
1,358
1,360
1.34
1,360
1,362
1.67
Gross Thickness-Ash Content Product
Total Thickness
Gross Thickness
Average Density
Average Ash Content
Average Gas Content
Gas-in-Place per acre
Cumulative ThicknessThickness
Density
Product
feet
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
18
19
21
23
24
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
feet-g/cm3
1.541
2.683
2.828
2.695
2.685
2.917
2.948
3.139
3.256
1.974
1.740
3.268
2.957
1.576
1.549
2.887
3.093
2.901
2.600
2.686
3.341
ft-g/cm3
feet
feet
feet
g/cm3
fraction
scf/ton
MMscf/acre
Ash
Content
fraction
0.342
0.082
0.186
0.092
0.084
0.244
0.263
0.374
0.436
0.725
0.542
0.442
0.269
0.381
0.352
0.225
0.348
0.233
0.019
0.085
0.477
55.265
10.058
41.0
37.0
1.494
0.272
369.5
27.77
ThicknessAsh
Content
Product
feet
0.342
0.165
0.371
0.184
0.168
0.487
0.526
0.748
0.872
0.725
0.542
0.884
0.537
0.381
0.352
0.449
0.697
0.466
0.037
0.169
0.955
Gas
Content
Gas-In-Place
per Acre
scf/ton
340.1
478.5
423.5
473.4
477.6
392.7
382.2
323.2
290.2
136.1
233.7
287.0
379.3
319.3
335.1
402.7
336.8
398.2
512.4
477.3
268.0
MMscf/acre
0.713
1.745
1.629
1.735
1.743
1.557
1.532
1.379
1.285
0.365
0.553
1.275
1.525
0.684
0.706
1.581
1.416
1.570
1.812
1.743
1.217
Table 7-16. Southern Ute 5-7 Upper Coal Interval Log Analysis Summary.
7.49
Chapter
Top
Depth
Additional Problems
Bottom
Depth
Average
Density
feet
feet
g/cm3
1,451
1,452
1.63
1,452
1,454
1.44
1,454
1,456
1.57
1,456
1,458
1.73
1,458
1,460
1.31
1,460
1,462
1.47
1,462
1,464
1.38
1,464
1,466
1.30
1,466
1,468
1.29
1,468
1,470
1.35
1,470
1,472
1.30
1,472
1,473
1.85
Gross Thickness-Ash Content Product
Total Thickness
Gross Thickness
Average Density
Average Ash Content
Average Gas Content
Gas-in-Place per acre
Cumulative
Thickness
feet
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
22
ThicknessDensity
Product
Ash
Content
feet-g/cm3
1.633
2.885
3.131
3.465
2.625
2.933
2.767
2.600
2.590
2.702
2.600
1.847
ft-g/cm3
feet
feet
feet
g/cm3
fraction
scf/ton
MMscf/acre
fraction
0.440
0.223
0.369
0.535
0.038
0.253
0.144
0.019
0.011
0.097
0.019
0.632
31.777
4.488
22.0
22.0
1.444
0.204
402.2
17.38
ThicknessAsh
Content
Product
feet
0.440
0.447
0.739
1.070
0.077
0.507
0.287
0.037
0.021
0.194
0.037
0.632
Gas
Content
Gas-In-Place
per Acre
scf/ton
287.9
403.4
325.6
237.4
502.0
387.4
445.9
512.4
516.7
470.7
512.4
186.0
MMscf/acre
0.639
1.583
1.386
1.118
1.792
1.545
1.678
1.812
1.820
1.729
1.812
0.467
Table 7-17. Southern Ute 5-7 Lower Coal Interval Log Analysis Summary.
Gas-in-Place
The final estimates of the gas-in-place for the Southern Ute 5-7 well are summarized in Table 7-18.
Parameter
Units
Drainage area
Thickness
Average gas content
Gas-in-place
acres
feet
g/cm3
scf/ton
Bscf
UpperCoal
Interval
Value
320
37
1.494
369.5
8.89
Lower Coal
Interval
Value
320
22
1.444
402.2
5.56
Table 7-18. Southern Ute 5-7 Gas-in-Place Summary.

The total gas-in-place in a 320 acre drainage area is 14.45 Bscf.
7.50
Nomeclature Summary
Chapter
Symbol
A
Bg
Bw
Csci
D
dR
fg
G
Gc
)
Gc
Gcad
Gco
GD
Gf
GcLad
Gsi
Gci
Gcrad
Gs
GsL
GsLi
h
m
mad
mmmf
n
nc
p
p
Definition
reservoir drainage area
gas formation volume factor
water formation volume factor
standard condition correction factor at time i
diffusion coefficient
sample subsurface (reservoir) depth
fractional gas recovery
gas-in-place volume
average gas content at the average in-situ composition
estimated (saturated) in-situ gas content
total gas content, air-dry basis
organic fraction gas content
dissolved gas volume
gas volume in the coal natural fracture system
lost gas content, air-dry basis
multicomponent storage capacity of component i, in-situ basis
initial gas content, (in-situ basis)
residual gas content, air-dry basis
gas storage capacity
dry, ash-free Langmuir storage capacity
Langmuir storage capacity of component i, dry, ash-free basis
reservoir thickness
slope of the Direct Method straight line
air-dry mass
mineral-matter-free mass
number of samples
number of components
total pressure of the free gas phase
pressure
Units
acres
dimensionless
dimensionless
dimensionless
cm2/sec
feet
dimensionless
scf
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf
scf
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
feet
scf/ton-hour
g
g
psia
psia
8.1
Chapter
p
pa
pai
pa(i-1)
pc
pL
pLi or pLj
pm
pR
psc
r
Rsw
Sg
Sw
Tai
Tci
Tc(i-1)
tdc
tDM
ti
Tsc
t0
Ve
Vi
vi
vhi
vsci
Vsci
Vv
vv
wa
wad
was
wH
wN
wO
wS
ws
ww
wwe
8.2
Nomenclature Summary
average reservoir pressure

ambient (atmospheric) pressure
atmospheric pressure at time i
atmospheric pressure at time i-1
critical desorption pressure
Langmuir pressure
Langmuir pressure of component i or j
mud (coring fluid) hydrostatic pressure
reservoir pressure
pressure at standard conditions
average diffusion distance
solution gas-water ratio
gas saturation
water saturation
ambient temperature at time i
canister temperature at time i
canister temperature at time i-1
Direct Method horizontal axis value
time at time i
temperature at standard conditions
time zero
exinite maceral volume fraction

inertinite maceral volume fraction
measured desorption volume at time i
head space correction at time i
standard condition desorption volume at time i
cumulative standard condition desorption volume at time i
vitrinite maceral volume fraction
canister internal void (head space) volume
ash content
dry ash content
moist-basis ash content adjusted for sulfur content
hydrogen content
nitrogen content
oxygen content
sulfur content
sulfur trioxide content
moisture content
equilibrium moisture content
psia
psia
inches Hg
inches Hg
psia
psia
psia
psia
psia
psia
cm
scf/STB
volume fraction
volume fraction
Degrees Fahrenheit
Degrees Fahrenheit
Degrees Fahrenheit
hours
hours
hours
Degrees Fahrenheit
hours
dimensionless
dimensionless
cm3
cm3
cm3
cm3
dimensionless
cm3
weight fraction
weight fraction
weight fraction
weight fraction
weight fraction
weight fraction
weight fraction
weight fraction
weight fraction
weight fraction
yi or yj
z
zsc
Gcadi
Gcad
t
tRs
tR0
f
e
i
m
o
v
w
pR
mole fraction of component i or j in the free gas (vapor) phase

real gas deviation factor
real gas deviation factor at standard conditions
shape factor
slope of the gas content vs. inorganic content straight line
measured gas content at time i, air-dry basis
cumulative desorbed gas content, air-dry basis
desorption time
elapsed time between time raised off bottom and time at surface
elapsed time between time raised of bottom and time zero
natural fracture porosity
sample set average property
reservoir average property
density
ash density
average in-situ rock density at the in-situ composition
exinite maceral density
inertinite maceral density
mud (coring fluid) density
organic fraction density
vitrinite maceral density
water density
standard deviation of the reservoir property
sorption time
reservoir pressure gradient
dimensionless
dimensionless
dimensionless
dimensionless
scf/ton
scf/ton
scf/ton
hours
hours
hours
volume fraction
various
various
g/cm3
g/cm3
g/cm3
g/cm3
g/cm3
pounds per gallon
g/cm3
g/cm3
g/cm3
various
hours
psi/ft
8.3
Glossary
Chapter
Abandonment Pressure
The average pressure of a reservoir when abandoned due to lack of com

mercial gas productivity.
Absorbed Gas
Gas which is molecularly dissolved within a liquid phase or which has

penetrated into the lattice structure of a solid.
Absorption
The process of molecular assimilation or incorporation within a liquid

phase or into the lattice structure of a solid.
Adsorbed Gas
Gas which is sequestered, through physical or chemical bonding, at an

interfacial surface in a metastable equilibrium state, the stability of which is
strongly affected by changes in temperature or pressure.
Adsorbent
A microporous material having the capacity to attract and retain on its

surface through physical or chemical-bonding a layer of molecules of
another substance, usually a gas or liquid, with which it is in contact.
Adsorption
The attachment, through physical or chemical bonding, of fluid phase

molecules to an interfacial surface. The adsorbed phase molecules are
sequestered at the interfacial surface in a metastable equilibrium state, the
stability of which is strongly affected by changes in temperature or pres
sure.
Adsorption Isotherm
The quantitative relationship, at constant temperature, describing how the

concentration of adsorbed phase molecules at an interfacial surface varies
as a function of increasing system pressure.
Air-Dry Basis
Measured data normalized with respect to a base where the moisture

content of the sample is in equilibrium with the atmospheric conditions to
which it is exposed.
Air-Dry Gas Content
Gas content based upon a desorption sample mass after drying for 24 to 48
hours at laboratory conditions. Extraneous water and material might be
removed from the original sample before mass measurement.
Ambient Pressure
The static pressure due to the surrounding atmosphere (e.g., atmospheric

pressure).
Ambient Temperature
The static temperature due to the surrounding atmosphere (e.g., atmospheric

temperature).
9.1
Chapter
Glossary
Amoco Method
Lost and total gas content estimate procedure developed by Amoco Produc
tion Company
Ash Content
Fraction by weight of the inorganic residue remaining after ignition of

combustible substances, determined by definite prescribed methods. (For
coal, see methods prescribed in ASTM D 3174-89.) Ash may not be identical in composition or quantity with the inorganic substances present in the
material before ignition.
ASTM
American Society for Testing and Materials: A scientific and technical organization formed for the development of standards on characteristics and performance of materials, products, systems, and services; and the promotion of
related knowledge.
Basis
A standard for normalizing test data.
Bitumen
Naturally occurring, inflammable substances composed primarily of hydrocarbons.
Brine
Saline fluid containing dissolved Cl, Na, Ca, and K ions found within the
pores of sedimentary rocks.
Brine Gas
Natural gas dissolved in aquifers under normal hydrostatic pressure (see Absorption).
Bscf
Billion standard cubic feet
Bulk Density
The mass of a unit volume of material including any void space.
Calorific Value
The heat of combustion of a unit quantity of a substance.
Canister
see Desorption Canister
Cleat
A naturally occurring fracture within a coal seam.
Coal Natural Gas
Gas produced naturally by coalification and found within coal natural gas
reservoirs consisting predominately of methane with smaller amounts of hydrocarbons, water vapor, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide, or other non-hydrocarbons. The majority of the gas is usually physically sorbed within the
microporosity and mesoporosity within the organic matrix.
Coal Natural Gas Reservoir
Natural gas reservoir that contains natural gas in the free and sorbed states in
coal and interbedded coaly shale, carbonaceous shale, and inorganic rocks
Coal Seam
A stratum or bed of coal
Coalbed
A coal seam
Coalbed Gas
see Coal Natural Gas
Coalification
The overall processes of diagenesis and metamorphism by which organic

materials derived from plant components are converted into coal.
Conventional Core
A large diameter core (8.9 cm or larger), where the core barrel is recovered
to the surface by pulling the drill string out of a well.
9.2
Core Barrel
Two nested tubes above the bit of a core drill, the outer tube rotating with the
bit, the inner receiving and preserving a continuous section of core
Core Sample
A cylindrical sample of rock, usually 5 to 10 cm in diameter and up to several

meters in length, cut with a hollow, cylindrical bit
Critical Desorption Pressure The pressure at which a sample begins to release adsorbed phase gas molecules.
Crude Oil
Petroleum in its natural state after recovery from a reservoir but prior to refining or distillation.
Density Log
Wireline log that measures rock density as a function of depth surrounding a

wellbore
Desorption
The detachment of adsorbed molecules from an interfacial surface (see Adsorption) causing the molecules to move from the sorbed to the free gas state.
Desorption Canister
An airtight container used to hold samples and trap gas during desorption
measurements (described in Chapter 3).
Desorption Isotherm
The relationship, at constant temperature, which describes the sorbed gas storage capacity as a function of decreasing system pressure.
Desorption Rate
The volumetric rate at which gas desorbs from a sample.
Diffusion
The process of mass transfer whereby molecules in either the gaseous or liquid state move from a region of higher to lower concentration.
Diffusivity
The ratio of the diffusion coefficient to the square of an average diffusion

distance.
Direct Method
A procedure used for estimating the volume of gas lost by desorption during
recovery of freshly cut reservoir coal core or cuttings samples based upon the
volume of gas desorbed vs. the square root of desorption time.
Dissolved Gas
Natural gas dissolved in crude oil (see Absorption).
Drainage Area
The reservoir area which supplies fluid to a wellbore.
Drill Collars
Heavy, thick-walled drill pipe used above a drill bit or core barrel in a rotary
drill string to increase the weight on the bit and stabilize the drill string
Drill Cuttings
Rock chips cut by a bit in the process of well drilling and removed from the
hole by drilling mud while rotary drilling or a bailer while cable tool drilling
Drill Pipe
Heavy pipe used to turn the bit in rotary drilled wells
Drill String
The assemblage of drill pipe, drill collars, core barrel, and drill bit used during rotary drilling
Dry, Ash-Free Basis (daf)
Test data normalized with respect to a theoretical base of no moisture or ash

associated with the sample. For coal, this theoretical base is the volatile matter and fixed carbon portions of the sample determined by a proximate analysis.
9.3
Chapter
Glossary
Dry, Mineral-Matter-Free
Basis (dmmf)
Test data normalized with respect to a theoretical base of no moisture, ash and
other select components (e.g., sulfur) associated with the sample. For coal,
refer to ASTM D 1757-86 and ASTM D 3177-89.
Effective Porosity
The interconnected pore space available to hold fluids from which fluids can
be produced.
Effective Thickness
The portion of the gross thickness of a reservoir that contains producible gas.
Equilibrium Moisture
Content
The amount of moisture physically retained by a sample at equilibrium with

its surrounding environment. For coal, this value is determined at 96 percent
to 97 percent relative humidity and 30 C (see ASTM D 1412-85) and is
sometimes referred to as inherent or bed moisture.
Exinite
A group of microscopically distinguishable coal macerals derived from plant

spores, cuticular matter, resins, and waxes (see ASTM D 2796). Exinite exhibits a yellow appearance in thin section, transmitted light microscopy and a
dark gray appearance in reflected light microscopy.
Extended Langmuir
Isotherm
A Langmuir isotherm extended to account for gases consisting of multiple

components
Extraneous (Free)
Moisture
The moisture that is not physically or chemically bound to the sample and
which can be removed by draining or straining. For coal, this value is determined as the difference between the total moisture measured by ASTM D
3302 and the equilibrium moisture measured by ASTM D 1412-85 and is
sometimes referred to as surface or adherent moisture.
Fixed Carbon
The solid residue other than ash obtained by destructive distillation (see ASTM
D 3172-89). It is the resultant of the summation of the percentage moisture,
ash and volatile matter (all on the same basis) subtracted from 100 percent.
Fracture Porosity
The porosity attributed to fracture void volume.
Free Gas Phase
Gas in the free (vapor) state within the pores and natural fractures.
Free Moisture Content
That portion of the total moisture in coal that is in excess of the inherent
moisture.
Fusinite
A microscopically distinguishable coal maceral belonging to the inertinite

maceral group (see ASTM D 2796). Fusinite exhibits an opaque appearance
in thin section, transmitted light microscopy and a white, yellowish or light
gray appearance in reflected light microscopy.
Gas Content
The total volume of gas (corrected to standard conditions) divided by the

weight of the rock in which it is stored.
Gas Desorption
see Desorption.
Gas Formation Volume

Factor
The ratio of the gas volume in the free state at reservoir pressure and temperature conditions to the gas volume at standard temperature and pressure conditions.
9.4
Gas Hydrates
Crystalline molecular compounds (clathrates) composed of solid three-dimensional hydrogen-bonded lattices of water molecules (host species) having in
terstitial cavities occupied by low molecular weight hydrocarbon and other
types of gases (guest species).
Gas Kick
A situation in which gas flows uncontrolled into a wellbore. A major gas kick
can cause a blowout.
Gas Recovery Factor
The fraction of the gas-in-place that can be economically recovered using

presently available technology.
Gas Reserves
The gas-in-place volume that can be economically recovered using presently

available technology.
Gas Resource
The total gas-in-place volume whether or not it can be economically recovered using presently available technology.
Gas Saturated
A situation where the total volume of gas stored by a sample is equal to the
samples gas storage capacity.
Gas Storage Capacity
The maximum volume of gas that can be stored by adsorption at a given set of
temperature and pressure conditions by a specific mass or volume of adsorbent material. Gas storage capacity is affected by the type and composition of
gas being adsorbed and the physical properties of the adsorbent. The gas storage capacity of coal is affected by its rank, organic content, maceral composi
tion, and moisture content.
Gas-Bearing Shale
A kerogen-bearing, finely-laminated sedimentary rock that contains natural

gas in the free (vapor) state within the matrix and fracture porosity, absorbed
within bitumen, and adsorbed on organic carbon and clay minerals.
Gas-In-Place (GIP)
The volume of gas stored within a specified volume of reservoir rock. For
coal seam reservoirs, the reservoir rock includes both coal and interbedded
carbonaceous shale. The GIP volume is the product of four reservoir parameters: drainage area, thickness, average in-situ bulk density, and average insitu gas content.
Geopressured Gas
Natural gas dissolved in brine at abnormally high pressures, i.e., pressures

exceeding the normal hydrostatic pressure gradient of 0.43 pounds per square
inch per foot of depth.
Gross Thickness
The total thickness of a coal gas reservoir containing coal and interbedded
organic bearing, and inorganic rocks.
Headspace Volume
The void volume within a sealed container (e.g., a desorption canister).
Hydrostatic Pressure
The pressure exerted by the weight of water at higher levels in the zone of
saturation.
Inertinite
A group of microscopically distinguishable coal macerals derived from oxidized woody tissue precursors (see ASTM D 2796). Inertinite exhibits an
opaque appearance in thin section, transmitted light microscopy and a white,
yellowish or light gray appearance in reflected light microscopy.
9.5
Chapter
Glossary
Inherent Moisture
Moisture that exists as an integral part of the coal seam in its natural state
including water in pores but not that present in macroscopically visible frac
tures (see ASTM D 121-85).
In-Situ Basis
Test data normalized with respect to a base defined by the samples natural
state or original location. For coal, the natural state or original location refers
to the subsurface seam or reservoir location.
In-Situ Gas Content
Gas content data normalized with respect a base defined by the reservoir coals
average ash content and equilibrium moisture content conditions.
Isotherm (Sorption Isotherm) The relationship, at constant temperature, which describes sorbed gas storage
capacity as a function of system pressure.
Kerogen
Fossilized insoluble organic material found in sedimentary rocks which can

be converted by distillation to hydrocarbon liquids and gases.
Kick
A situation in which formation fluids flow uncontrolled into a wellbore (see

Gas Kick).
Langmuir Isotherm
The quantitative relationship, at constant temperature, which describes how a

monolayer concentration (i.e., sorbed storage capacity) of adsorbed phase
molecules at a homogeneous interfacial surface varies as a function of increasing system pressure.
Langmuir Pressure
The pressure at which the storage capacity of a sample is equal to half the
Langmuir storage capacity.
Langmuir Storage Capacity
The maximum volume per sample weight of adsorbed phase gas corresponding to monolayer surface coverage.
Liptinite (Exinite)
A group of microscopically distinguishable coal macerals derived from hydrogen-rich precursors such as spores, cuticular matter, resins, and waxes (see
ASTM D 2796). Liptinite exhibits a yellow appearance in thin section, transmitted light microscopy and a dark gray appearance in reflected light micros
copy.
Lost Gas Content
The gas volume (normalized to standard conditions) lost by desorption from a

coal sample prior to the time that it is sealed in a desorption canister divided
by the sample mass.
Lost Gas Time
The elapsed time from the start of desorption to the time that a canister is
sealed during which gas is lost from a sample.
Maceral
An organic component of coal, distinguishable with an optical microscope,

including mineral matter not discernible with optical microscopy.
Matrix
The solid portion of a rock.
Matrix Porosity
The void space of the matrix material (see Porosity).
9.6
Maturity
The degree to which the original organic material has been altered by physical
and chemical changes during coalification. The changes most commonly taken
as indicators of the maturity of the organic material include calorific value,
moisture content, percent of volatile matter, vitrinite reflectance, and fixed
carbon content.
Measured Gas Content
The gas volume (normalized to standard conditions) released from a coal

sample during desorption measurements divided by the coal mass.
Mesopore
Pores with a width of between two and fifty nanometers.
Micropore
Pores with a width of less than two nanometers.
MMscf
Million standard cubic feet.
Moist, Mineral-MatterFree Basis
Test data normalized with respect to a theoretical weight base containing

moisture but having no ash or other select components (e.g., sulfur) associated with the sample. For coal, refer to ASTM D 1757-86 and ASTM D 317789.
Moisture Content
The amount of moisture in a sample determined under prescribed testing conditions and expressed as a percentage of the original sample mass, i.e., the dry
substance mass plus the moisture mass.
Mscf
Thousand standard cubic feet.
Mud Logs
A continuous analysis for entrained oil or gas in the drilling mud and well
cuttings while rotary drilling. Drilling conditions and sample lithology may
also be reported.
Multicomponent Storage
Capacity
Gas storage capacity in a rock for a gas containing more than one component.
Nanometer
10-9 meters.
Natural Fractures
A general term for natural breaks in a rock resulting from mechanical failure
caused by stress including cleats, cracks, joints, and faults.
Oil Shale
A kerogen-bearing, fine-grained sedimentary rock that upon distillation yields

liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon products.
Organic Fraction Gas

Content
The total volume of gas stored by a sample, normalized with respect to a

100% organic fraction base.
Petroleum Reservoir
A subsurface layer of porous, hydrocarbon containing rocks that covers a

large areal extent from which crude oil or natural gas can be economically
extracted.
Porosity
The fraction of the bulk volume of a material occupied by voids (i.e., the ratio
of void space to total bulk volume).
Potash
Potassium carbonate, K2CO3.
Pressure Coring
A coring procedure that involves trapping a cored rock sample downhole within
a sealed preventing loss of fluids while retrieving the sample to surface.
9.7
Chapter
Glossary
Proximate Analysis
The fraction of the individual compounds contained in a mixture or sample.

For coal, this analysis (refer to the methods and procedures given in ASTM D
3172-73) involves the determination of moisture, volatile matter, ash, and
fixed carbon (by difference).
Rank
A term used for classifying coals into a natural series based upon their degree
of metamorphism or thermal maturity. This classification scheme is based
upon the coals fixed carbon content, gross calorific value, and agglomerating
characteristics (refer to ASTM D 388).
Raw Basis
The actual sample weight including moisture and any other components not
normally associated with the sample.
Residual Gas Content
The volume of gas remaining in a sample at the conclusion of canister desorption measurements divided by the sample mass.
Residual Moisture
The weight fraction of moisture remaining in a sample after air drying.
Saturated Reservoir
A reservoir with an in-situ gas content equal to the in-situ storage capacity.
Saturation
The ratio of the fluid volume contained within rock divided by the internal
void volume of the rock.
Scf
A volume of gas in cubic feet reported at standard temperature and pressure.
Shale
A fine-grained sedimentary rock, formed by the consolidation of clay, silt, or

mud.
Sidewall Core
Rotary drilled (or explosively shot) small diameter (typically 1.9 cm diameter) cores drilled perpendicular to a wellbore axis and recovered to the surface by wireline.
Smith & Williams Method
Lost and total gas content estimate procedure developed by Smith & Williams
Solution Gas
see Dissolved Gas.
Sorbed Gas Phase
see Adsorbed Gas.
Sorption
see Adsorption.
Sorption Isotherm
The relationship, at constant temperature, which describes sorbed gas storage

capacity as a function of system pressure.
Sorption Time
A characteristic diffusion time related to the inverse of a rock samples

diffusivity often defined as the time required to desorb 63% of the original
gas content.
Storage Capacity
The total volume of gas that can be contained within a unit volume of reservoir rock by sorption.
Surface (Free) Moisture

Content
The amount of moisture that adheres to the surface of a sample and which is
removed by air-drying. For coal, this is sometimes referred to as extraneous
or adherent moisture.
9.8
Temperature Recovery Time The time required to return a rock sample to its original reservoir temperature
during desorption measurements.
Thermal Maturity
The degree to which the original organic material has been altered by physical
and chemical changes during coalification. The changes most commonly used
as indicators of organic matter thermal maturity include calorific value, moisture content, volatile matter content, fixed carbon content, and vitrinite reflectance.
Time Zero
The time at which a rock sample begins to desorb gas.
Total Gas Content
The sum of the lost, measured, and residual gas content originally contained
within a rock sample.
Total Moisture Content
The amount of moisture determined as the loss in sample weight by heating in

an air atmosphere under rigidly controlled conditions of temperature, time,
and air flow. For coals, this value is determined using the procedure given in
ASTM D 3302-89a.
A white or yellow-white monoclinic mineral: Na3(CO3)(HCO3)2H2O.
Trona
Ultimate Analysis
The fraction of the elements comprising a compound. For coal, this analysis
normally includes the determination of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, sulfur,
ash, and oxygen (by difference).
Undersaturated Reservoir
A reservoir with an in-situ gas content less than the in-situ storage capacity.
Vitrinite
A microscopically distinguishable coal maceral derived from the cell wall

components of woody plants (see ASTM D 2796). Typically the most abundant maceral in humic coals. Vitrinite exhibits an orange to red appearance in
thin section, transmitted light microscopy and a light to medium gray appearance in reflected light microscopy.
Vitrinite Reflectance
The percentage of light reflectance, measured microscopically in immersion

oil, from the polished surface of a vitrinite maceral when illuminated with
plane-polarized (white) light (refer to the methods and procedures given in
ASTM D 2798). In coal, vitrinite reflectance values vary systematically with
fixed carbon content and are widely used as a thermal maturity indicator.
Volatile Matter
The term applied to the total amount of gaseous or vapor materials, other than
moisture, that is liberated from a sample upon its being heated under rigidly
controlled conditions. Since this is a destructive analysis procedure, the liber
ated volatile matter is not an inherent sample component. For coal, volatile
matter is defined as the material, other than moisture, liberated under the stan
dardized test conditions given in ASTM D 3175-89a.
Volumetric Displacement
Apparatus
A device, maintained at ambient conditions, for measuring the amount of gas

desorbed from a sample into a desorption canister (described in Chapter 3).
Water Saturation
The fraction of the pore space that is filled with formation water or brine.
9.9
Chapter
Glossary
Weathering
Progressive, naturally occurring degradation processes involving chemical or

microbial reactions, in some instances accompanied by physical changes, between a material and elements of its local environment such as the oxygen in
air, moisture, and ultraviolet light.
Well Logs
A graphical record of the measured or computed physical properties of the

rock section encountered in a well, plotted as a continuous function of depth.
Wireline Core
A core sample retrieved to the surface by means of a steel line or cable while
the drill bit and drill string remain in place within the wellbore.
9.10

GRI - CBM Gas in Placasdfe Analysis

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GRI - CBM Gas in Placasdfe Analysis

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Coalbed Reservoir

GRI Reference No. GRI-97/0263

Basic Research Group

Coal Reservoir Gas-in-Place Analysis

Copyright 1997 by Gas Research Institute

MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WITH

ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF, OR DAMAGES

About This Book

Approach your specific analysis problems more systematically and effectively.

Coalbed Reservoir Gas-in-Place Analysis

EnerVest San Juan Operating LLC

About the Authors

Coalbed Reservoir Gas-in-Place Analysis

Fruitland Formation Coalbed Reservoir Property Data ................................................... 1-7

Agreement between Direct Method and Benchmark Gas Contents.................................... 2-5

Summary of the Core Desorption Procedure. .................................................................... 3-1

Summary of Published Maceral Density Ranges. .............................................................. 4-6

GRI #2 Upper Reservoir Gas-in-Place Summary. ............................................................. 5-6

Problem 7-1 Parameters. ................................................................................................... 7-1

Coalbed Reservoir Gas-in-Place Analysis

Problem 7-7 Solution........................................................................................................ 7-22

Coal Gas Reservoir Geometry............................................................................................ 2-3

Desorption Canister Schematic.......................................................................................... 3-2

GRI #2 Coal Log ................................................................................................................ 5-1

Example Langmuir Isotherm Relationship. ........................................................................ 6-3

Example Direct Method Graphs....................................................................................... 7-11

Problem 7-5 Direct Method Graph Solution.................................................................... 7-16

Correction of Desorption Data. ....................................................................................... 3-11

Estimate Important Reservoir Conditions. ......................................................................... 6-4

as-in-place is the volume of gas stored within

laboratory analysis of drill cuttings and core samples.1

Compression of gas molecules within rock

Another cause of gas-in-place analysis complexity

Gas-In-Place Analysis Overview

the greater the number of samples and sampling sites

the reservoir gas is not a constant composition fluid but

Unconventional Gas Reservoirs.

Coalbed Gas Reservoirs

typically more than 90% water saturated at initial

shale reservoirs varies as a function of the reservoir

Coalbed Gas Recovery

Gas-In-Place Analysis Overview

issuing from coalbeds was transported in bamboo pipes

data since this parameter is the basis for forecasts of the

Coalbed Gas Content Analysis

thereby preventing any loss of gas by

Direct Method Analysis

Gas-In-Place Analysis Overview

wells at the Oak Grove field in the Black

very unreliable since coalbed reservoir gas content

Fruitland Formation Coalbed Reservoir

Coalbed reservoir gas content values can also vary

Gas Resource Assessments

These comparisons demonstrate that empirical gas

Additional Gas-InPlace Anaysis

Gas-In-Place Analysis Overview

Gas-In-Place Analysis Overview

Gas-In-Place Analysis Overview

ou can make gas-in-place estimates with a

gas-in-place volume, scf

Gas-In-Place Methodology and Error Summary

Example 2-1. Gas-In-Place at the COAL Site

The combination of the drainage area and the

and mud logs when a density log is not available.