Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Chemical Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-0179

ISSN 2095-0187(Online)

CN 11-5981/TQ

Postal Subscription Code 80-969

2018 Impact Factor: 2.809

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front Chem Sci Eng    2011, Vol. 5 Issue (2) : 139-161    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11705-010-0527-4
REVIEW ARTICLE
A review on transport of coal seam gas and its impact on coalbed methane recovery
Geoff G.X. WANG1,3,4(), Xiaodong ZHANG1,2, Xiaorong WEI1, Xuehai FU3,4, Bo JIANG3,4, Yong QIN3,4
1. School of Chemical Engineering, the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia; 2. School of Resources & Environment, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000, China; 3. School of Resource and Geosciences, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221008, China; 4. Key Laboratory of CBM Resources and Dynamic Accumulation Process, Ministry of Education of China, Xuzhou 221008, China
 Download: PDF(566 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

This paper presents a summary review on mass transport of coal seam gas (CSG) in coal associated with the coalbed methane (CBM) and CO2 geo-sequestration enhanced CBM (CO2-ECBM) recovery and current research advances in order to provide general knowledge and fundamental understanding of the CBM/ECBM processes for improved CBM recovery. It will discuss the major aspects of theory and technology for evaluation and development of CBM resources, including the gas storage and flow mechanism in CBM reservoirs in terms of their differences with conventional natural gas reservoirs, and their impact on CBM production behavior. The paper summarizes the evaluation procedure and methodologies used for CBM exploration and exploitation with some recommendations.
Keywords mass transport      coal seam gas (CSG)      coalbed methane (CBM)      coal      CBM recovery      carbon dioxide storage     
Corresponding Author(s): WANG Geoff G.X.,Email:gxwang@uq.edu.au   
Issue Date: 05 June 2011
 Cite this article:   
Geoff G.X. WANG,Xiaodong ZHANG,Xiaorong WEI, et al. A review on transport of coal seam gas and its impact on coalbed methane recovery[J]. Front Chem Sci Eng, 2011, 5(2): 139-161.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/10.1007/s11705-010-0527-4
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fcse/EN/Y2011/V5/I2/139
characteristicNGCSG
generationgenerated in the source rock and then migrates into the reservoirs from external sources (source rock).generated in situ by microbial activity and/or thermogenic processes and trapped within the coal.
compositioncommonly composed of methane plus lesser amounts of higher molecular weight hydrocarbons including hydrocarbon liquids.mostly methane (up to 95% - 98%) and very few carbon dioxide and other components.
reservoir structurerandomly-spaced fracturesnetworking-spaced cleats
storage mechanismcompressed and trapped in the interstitial pore spaces (porosity) between sand (or other clastic) grains.adsorbed and trapped by molecular bonding (adsorption) on the internal surfaces of micropores within the coal.
transport mechanismpressure gradient (Darcy’s Law)concentration gradient (Fick’s Law) and pressure gradient (Darcy’s Law)
production performanceassociated with water production only in the latter field (Fig. 1(a)). As result, gas rate starts high then decline. Gas-Water-Ratio decreases with time.usually preceded by water production (Fig. 1(b)), so gas rate increases with time then declines. Initially the production is mainly water. Gas-Water-Ratio increases with time.
mechanical propertiesYoung modules 4 × 104 - 4.5 × 104 MPapore compressibility ~10-5 Mpa-1Young modules 1 × 103 - 3 × 103 MPapore compressibility ~10-3 MPa-1
Tab.1  Summary of differences between CSG and conventional natural gas (NG) productions
Fig.1  Gas and water productions during a) natural gas production and b) CBM production
Fig.2  Typical coal structure (a) coal sample with cleat marks and (b) physical representative []
Fig.3  Multi-scale gas transport in coalbed (after Law et al. with modification)
processparameterrole
desorptionLangmuir pressure, PL (MPa)Langmuir volume, VL (cm3/g)determination of gas content or adsorption/desorption capacity of CBM reservoir
diffusionsorption time, τ (day)diffusivity, D (cm2/s)micro-permeability, k (md)controlling microspore transport, i.e. migration of gas molecules in microspores of coal
darcy flowpermeability, k (md) dominating gas transport in cleats/features of coal
Tab.2  Transport properties of coal and their roles in CBM recovery
Fig.4  Coupling processes during gas transport in coalbed
Fig.5  A typical framework of diffusion models for CBM recovery []
assumptions and modeling methodsRuckenstein et al. [61]Clarkson , Bustin [10]Shi, Durucan [62]Cui et al. [65]Mazumder et al. [60]Siemons et al. (2003) [63]
sorption equilibrium
　adsorption occurring only in micropores√√√√√
　linear isotherm√√
　nonlinear isotherm (Langmuir isotherm)√√√
　extended Langmuir isotherm√
sorption kinetics
　a step change in external concentration√√
　time-varying boundary pressure√√√√
　first-step diffusion (micropores)surface diffusion and Knudsen diffusionsurface diffusionsurface diffusion and Knudsen diffusionsurface diffusionsurface diffusion
　second-step diffusion (macropores)molecule diffusionmolecule/transition diffusion and/or Knudsen diffusionmolecule diffusionmolecule/transition diffusion and/or Knudsen diffusion
　pseudo-steady-state (Warren, Root)√
　unsteady-state equation√√√√
　multicomponent gas diffusion(Fick law)√√
　constant diffusivity√√√√
　concentration-dependent diffusivity√
　pressure-dependent diffusivity√
assumption of pore structure
　the adsorbent particle contains uniform radius microporous microspheres with the space between microspheres making up the macroporosity√√√√√a little different
water effects on gas diffusivity√
inversion of gas diffusivities
　two fitting parameters√√√
　one parameter (micropore diffusivity)√
Tab.3  Various bidisperse diffusion models for CBM recovery
Fig.6  Combined effects of mechanical deformation and sorption-induced swelling/shrinkage on Permeability change during CBM recovery (after Robertson with modification)
Fig.7  An advanced strain gauge method for measurement of sorption-induced strain in coal (after Massarotto [] with modification)
Fig.8  A typical optical method for measurement of sorption-induced strain in coal (After Day et al. [])
coalsorbed gassorption-induced strainpressure a)reference
typevalue /%
variousCH4volumetric0.2 - 1.6~15.2 MPaMoffat, Weale [73]
kentucky coalsCO2volumetric1.3120 psiReucroft, Patel [74]
unclearCH4longitudinal0.06800 psiGray [25]
CO2longitudinal1.0800 psi
unclearCH4volumetric0.61000 psiHarpalani, Schraufnagel [23]
bituminousCO2volumetric0.36-1.310.41 MPaHarpalani, Chen

Harpalani S, Chen G. Effect of gas production on porosity and permeability of coal. In: Symposium on Coalbed Methane, Townsville, Australia. 1992, 67-68

unclearCH4longitudinal0.11000 psiSeidle, Hutti [31]
CO2longitudinal0.8800 psi
high-volatile bituminousCH4longitudinal0.21000 psiLevine [30]
CO2longitudinal0.5750 psi
sub-bituminousCO2longitudinal0.00182/MPaSt. George, Barakat [36]
unclearCH4volumetric0.51000 psiZutshi, Harpalani

Zutshi A, Harpalani S. Matrix swelling with CO2 injection in CBM Reservoirs and its impact on permeability of coal. In: Proceedings of the 2004 International Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 2004, Paper 0425

CO2volumetric1.1750 psi
unclearCH4volumetric0.491000 psiChikatamarla, Bustin [69]
CO2volumetric2.41800 psi
bituminoussub-bituminousCO2longitudinal0.2-0.3101.325kPaFry etc. [72]
volumetric0.3-5.0
bituminousCH4volumetric0.65~8.1MPaVan Bergen etc. [71]
CO20.37 - 0.92
Ar0.63
sub-bituminousCO2volumetric1.05 - 1.49~8.1MPaVan Bergen etc. [71]
Tab.4  Sorption induced strain data of some coals as reported in literature
Fig.9  Determination of gas content using direct method at a well test in Qinshui basin, China: a) Measurement of desorbed gas content; b) Graphic analysis for lost gas content; and c) Measurement of residual gas content
authorsmodelsnotes
Gray [25]σ-σ0=-ν1-ν(p-p0)+E3(1-ν)Δ?sΔpsΔpsk=1.013×10-3e-0.714σ (μm2)Δps: change in equivalent sorption pressureΔ?sΔps: strain caused by a unit change in equivalent sorption pressurematrix shrinkage proportional to reduction in equivalent sorption pressure
Harpalani, Zhao [93]k=Ap+B+Cp; A, B and C are constantspurely empirical
Sawyer et al. [77]?=?0[1+cp(p-p0)]-cm(1-?0)(ΔpΔC0)(C-C0)kk0=(??0)3based on pressure data for active (sorptive) gas; introduced into COMET model in 2002
Seidle, Huitt [31]??0=1+(1+2?0)?l(bp01+bp0-bp1+bp); kk0=(??0)3matrix shrinkage effect only
Palmer, Mansoori [75]?-?0=1M(p-p0)-(1-KM)?l(pp+p?-p0p0+p?)kk0=(??0)3 with fractions: M=E(1-ν)(1+ν)(1-2ν); K=E3(1-2ν)based on rock physical properties; Permeability can rebound at lower drawdown pressures if the matrix shrinkage is strong enough
Gilman, Beckie [92]k=k0exp?(3ν1-νp-p0Ef)exp?(3αE1-νΔSEf)α: volumetric swelling coefficient ; ΔS: change of the adsorbate mass?Ef: some analog of Young’s modulus for a fracturethe parameter Ef is not specified
Shi, Durucan [94]σ-σ0=-ν1-ν(p-p0)+E3(1-ν)∑j=1nαsj(Cμj-Cμj0)Cμj=VLjpyjbj1+p∑j=1nyjbj; kk0=(?c?c0)3=e-3cf(σ-σ0)integrated into Imperial model
Wang et al. [80]kj=kj0∑i=xz[ζi(1-?i+)n(1-δij)] (j=x,y,z)?i+=σi-σi0Ei-∑j=xz[(1-δij)νji(σj-σj0)Ej]+λ?s++αΔT (i=x,y,z)coal structure based; deformation and direction dependent; Not fully validated yet
Tab.5  Comparison of coal permeability models
Fig.10  Typical logging curves of a) strains and b) permeability resulted from TTSCP apparatus for CO flush tests in coal []
Fig.11  Pressure transient method for measurement of coal permeability (modified after Siriwardane et al. [])
1 DPMC. Assuring Australia's Energy Future—Energy White Paper. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), Australia , 2004
2 Gunter W D, Gentzis T, Rottenfusser B A, Richardson R J H. Deep coalbed methane in Alberta, Canada: A fuel resource with the potential of zero greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Conversion and Management , 1997, 38: S217–S222
doi: 10.1016/S0196-8904(96)00272-5
3 Price H S, Ancell K L. Methane Gas from Coalbeds—Development, Production and Utilization: United States Department of Energy, 1978, 37–73
4 Li J M, Chao H Y, Li X J, Liu H L. Characteristics of coalbed methane resource and the development strategies. Natural Gas Industry , 2009, 29(4): 9–13 (in Chinese)
5 Settari A, Price H S. Simulation of hydraulic fracturing in low permeability reservoirs. SPE Journal , 1984, 27: 141–152
6 van Bergen F, Gale J, Damen K J, Wildenborg A F B. Worldwide selection of early opportunities for CO2-enhanced oil recovery and CO2-enhanced coal bed methane production. Energy , 2004, 29(9-10): 1611–1621
doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2004.03.063
7 White C M, Smith D H, Jones K L, Goodman A L, Jikich S A, Lacount R B, Dubose S B, Ozdemir E, Morsi B I, Schroeder K T. Sequestration of carbon dioxide in coal with enhanced coalbed methane recovery—A review. Energy & Fuels , 2005, 19(3): 659–724
doi: 10.1021/ef040047w
8 Clayton J L. Geochemistry of coalbed gas—A review. International Journal of Coal Geology , 1998, 35(1-4): 159–173
doi: 10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00017-7
9 Diamond W P, Schatzel S J. Measuring the gas content of coal: a review. International Journal of Coal Geology , 1998, 35(1-4): 311–331
doi: 10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00040-2
10 Clarkson C R, Bustin R M. The effect of pore structure and gas pressure upon the transport properties of coal: a laboratory and modeling study. 2. Adsorption rate modeling. Fuel , 1999, 78(11): 1345–1362
doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(99)00056-3
11 Clarkson C R, Bustin R M. The effect of pore structure and gas pressure upon the transport properties of coal: a laboratory and modeling study. 1. Isotherms and pore volume distributions. Fuel , 1999, 78(11): 1333–1344
doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(99)00055-1
12 Thimons E D, Kissell F N. Diffusion of methane through coal. Fuel , 1973, 52(4): 274–280
doi: 10.1016/0016-2361(73)90057-4
13 Olague N E, Smith D M. Diffusion of gases in American coals. Fuel , 1989, 68(11): 1381–1387
doi: 10.1016/0016-2361(89)90034-3
14 Gamson P D, Beamish B B, Johnson D P. Coal microstructure and micropermeability and their effects on natural gas recovery. Fuel , 1993, 72(1): 87–99
doi: 10.1016/0016-2361(93)90381-B
15 Puri R, Yee D. Enhanced coalbed methane recovery. In: The 65th SPE Annual Technology Confonference, New Orleans, LA , 1990. SPE Paper 20732: 293–202
16 Reznik A A, Singh P K, Foley W L. An analysis of the effect of CO2 injection on the recovery of in-situ methane from bituminous coal: an experimental simulation. SPE Journal , 1984, 24: 521–528
17 Gale J, Freund P. Coal-bed methane enhancement with CO2 sequestration potential. Environmental Geosciences (DEG) , 2001, 8(1): 210–217
doi: 10.1046/j.1526-0984.2001.008003210.x
18 Hall F E, Zhou C H. Adsorption of pure methane, nitrogen and carbon dioxide and their binary mixtures on wet Fruitland coal. In: The 1994 SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition, Charleston, WV , 1994. SPE Paper 29194: 329–344
19 Pini R, Ottiger S, Storti G, Mazzotti M. Pure and competitive adsorption of CO2, CH4 and N2 on coal for ECBM. Energy Procedia , 2009, 1(1): 1705–1710
doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.223
20 Stevenson M D, Pinczewski W V, Somers M L, Bagio S E. Adsorption/desorption of multicomponent gas mixture at in-situ conditions. In: The SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Perth, Western, Australia , 1991. SPE Paper 23026: 741–755
21 Day S, Fry R, Sakurovs R. Swelling of Australian coals in supercritical CO2. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2008, 74(1): 41–52
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2007.09.006
22 Palmer I. Permeability changes in coal: analytical modelling. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2009, 77(1-2): 119–126
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2008.09.006
23 Harpalani S, Schraufnagel R. Shrinkage of coal matrix with release of gas and its impact on permeability of coal. Fuel , 1990, 69(5): 551–556
doi: 10.1016/0016-2361(90)90137-F
24 Wang G X, Wei X R, Wang K, Massarotto P, Rudolph V. Sorption-induced swelling/shrinkage and permeability of coal under stressed adsorption/desorption conditions. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2010, 83(1): 46–54
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2010.03.001
25 Gray I. Reservoir engineering in coal seams. Part 1: the physical process of gas storage and movement in coal seams. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal , 1987, 2(1): 28–34
26 Weishauptová Z, Medek J. Bound forms of methane in the porous system of coal. Fuel , 1998, 77(1-2): 71–76
doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(97)00178-6
27 Rouquerol J, Avnir D, Fairbridge C W, Everett D H, Haynes J M, Pernicone N, Ramsay J D F, Sing K S W, Unger K K, 0. Recommendations for the characterization of porous solids (Technical Report). Pure and Applied Chemistry , 1994, 66(8): 1739–1758
doi: 10.1351/pac199466081739
28 Wei X R, Wang G X, Massarotto P, Golding S D, Rudolph V. Modelling gas displacement kinetics in coal with Maxwell-Stefan diffusion theory. AIChE Journal. American Institute of Chemical Engineers , 2007, 53(12): 3241–3252
doi: 10.1002/aic.11314
29 Wei X R, Wang G X, Massarotto P, Golding S D, Rudolph V. Numerical simulation of multicomponent gas diffusion and flow in coals for CO2 enhanced coalbed methane recovery. Chemical Engineering Science , 2007, 62(16): 4193–4203
doi: 10.1016/j.ces.2007.04.032
30 Levine J R. Model study of the influence of matrix shrinkage on absolute permeability of coalbed reservoirs. In: Gayer R and Harris I, eds. Coalbed Methane and Coal Geology, Geologic Society Special Publication SP109. London: The Geologic Society, 1996, 197–212
31 Seidle J P, Huitt L G. Experimental measurement of coal matrix shrinkage due to gas desorption and implications for cleat permeability increases. In: Proceedings of the International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China , 1995. SPE Paper 30010: 975
32 Siriwardane H, Haljasmaa I, McLendon R, Irdi G, Soong Y, Bromhal G. Influence of carbon dioxide on coal permeability determined by pressure transient methods. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2009, 77(1-2): 109–118
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2008.08.006
33 Mavor M J, Gunter W D, Robinson R L Jr. Alberta multiwell micro-polit testing for CBM properties, enhanced methane recovery and CO2 storage potential. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX , 2004. SPE Paper 90256: 1–15
34 Pone J D N, Hile M, Halleck P M, Mathews J P. Three-dimension carbon dioxide-induced strain distribution within a confined bituminous coal. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2009, 77(1-2): 103–108
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2008.08.003
35 Harpalani S, Schraufnagel R A. Influence of matrix shrinkage and compressibility on gas production from coalbed methane reservoirs. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA , 1990. SPE Paper 20729: 171–179
36 St George J D, Barakat M A. The change in effective stress with shrinkage from gas desorption in coal. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2001, 45(2-3): 105–113
doi: 10.1016/S0166-5162(00)00026-4
37 Stevenson M D, Pinczewski W V, Somers M L, Bagio S E. Adsorption/desorption of multicomponent gas mixture at in-situ conditions. In: The SPE Asia-Pacific Conference, Perth, Western, Australia , 1991. SPE Paper 23026: 741–755
38 Greaves K H, Owen L B, McLenman J D. Multi-component gas adsorption-desorption behaviour of coal. In: International Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL , 1993. SPE Paper 9353: 197–205
39 Arri L E, Yee D, Morgan W D, Jeansonmne M W. Modeling coalbed methane production with binary gas sorption. In: SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, WY , 1992. SPE Paper 24363: 450–472
40 Puri R, Evanoff J C, Brugler M L. Measurement of coal cleat porosity and relative permeability characteristics. In: SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Richardson, TX , 1991. SPE Paper 21491: 93–104
41 Clarkson C R. Application of a new multicomponent gas adsorption model to coal gas adsorption systems. SPE Journal , 2003, 8(3): 236–250
doi: 10.2118/78146-PA
42 Manik J, Ertekin T, Kohler T E. Development and validation of a compositional coalbed simulator. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology , 2002, 41(4): 39–45
doi: 10.2118/02-04-03
43 Fitzgerald J E, Sudibandriyo M, Pan Z, Robinson R L Jr, Gasem K A M. Modeling the adsorption of pure gases on coals with the SLD model. Carbon , 2003, 41(12): 2203–2216
doi: 10.1016/S0008-6223(03)00202-1
44 Wei X R. Numerical Simulation of Gas Diffusion and Flow in Coalbeds for Enhanced Methane Recovery. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree. Queensland: The University of Queensland, 2008, 9–29
45 Reeves S, Pekot L. Advanced reservoir modeling in desorption-controlled reservoirs. In: SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, AL , 2001. SPE Paper 71090: 1–14
46 Gan H, Nandi S P, Walker P L Jr. Nature of the porosity in American coals. Fuel , 1972, 51(4): 272–277
doi: 10.1016/0016-2361(72)90003-8
47 Joubert J I, Grein C T, Bienstock D. Sorption of methane on the moist coal. Fuel , 1973, 52(3): 181–185
doi: 10.1016/0016-2361(73)90076-8
48 Joubert J I, Grein C T, Bienstock D. Effect of moisture on the methane capacity of American coals. Fuel , 1974, 53(3): 186–191
doi: 10.1016/0016-2361(74)90009-X
49 Levy J H, Day S J, Killingley J S. Methane capacities of Bowen basin coals related to coal properties. Fuel , 1997, 76(9): 813–819
doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(97)00078-1
50 Ettinger I, Lidin I L, Dmitriev A M, Shaupakhina E S. US bureau of mines translation No. 1505/national coal board translation A1606SEH. 1958
51 Clarkson C R, Bustin R M. Binary gas adsorption/desorption isotherms: effect of moisture and coal composition upon carbon dioxide selectivity over methane. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2000, 42(4): 241–271
doi: 10.1016/S0166-5162(99)00032-4
52 Day S, Sakurovs R, Weir S. Supercritical gas sorption on moist coals. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2008, 74(3-4): 203–214
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2008.01.003
53 Fitzgerald J E, Pan Z, Sudibandriyo M, Robinson J R L Jr, Gasem K A M, Reeves S. Adsorption of methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and their mixtures on wet Tiffany coal. Fuel , 2005, 84(18): 2351–2363
doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2005.05.002
54 Krooss B M, Bergen F V, Gensterblum Y, Siemons N, Pagenier H J M, David P. High-pressure methane and carbon dioxide adsorption on dry and moisture-equilibrated Pennsylvanian coals. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2002, 51(2): 69–92
doi: 10.1016/S0166-5162(02)00078-2
55 Pan Z, Connell L D, Camilleri M, Connelly L. Effects of matrix moisture on gas diffusion and flow in coal. Fuel , 2010, 89(11): 3207–3217
doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.05.038
56 Krishna R, Wesselingh J A. The Maxwell-Stefan approach to mass transfer. Chemical Engineering Science , 1997, 52(6): 861–911
doi: 10.1016/S0009-2509(96)00458-7
57 Sevenster P G. Diffusion of gas through coal. Fuel , 1959, 38: 403–415
58 Smith D M, Williams F L. Diffusional effects in the recovery of methane from coalbeds. SPE Journal , 1984, 24(5): 529–535
59 King G R, Ertekin T, Schwerer F C.Numerical simulation of the transient behavior of coal-seam degasification wells. SPE Formation Evaluation (SPE12258) , 1986: 165–183
60 Mazumder S, Hemert P V, Bruining J, Wolf K H A A. A preliminary numerical model of CO2 sequestration in coal for improved coalbed methane production. In: International Coalbed Methane Symposium 2003, Tuscaloosa, AL , 2003. Paper 0331: 1–10
61 Ruckenstein E, Vaidyanathan A S, Youngquist G R. Sorption by solid with bidisperse pore structures. Chemical Engineering Science , 1971, 26(9): 1305–1318
doi: 10.1016/0009-2509(71)80051-9
62 Shi J Q, Durucan S. A bidisperse pore diffusion model for methane displacement desorption in coal by CO2 injection. Fuel , 2003, 82(10): 1219–1229
doi: 10.1016/S0016-2361(03)00010-3
63 Siemons N, Busch A, Bruining H, Krooss B. Assessing the kinetics and capacity of gas adsorption in coals by a combined adsorption/diffusion method. In: The SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver , 2003. SPE Paper 84340: 1–8
64 Wei X R, Wang G X, Massarotto P, Golding S D, Rudolph V. A review on recent advances in the numerical simulation for coalbed methane recovery process. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering , 2007, 10(6): 657–666
doi: 10.2118/93101-PA
65 Cui X, Bustin R M, Dipple G. Selective transport of CO2, CH4, and N2 in coals: insights from modeling of experimental gas adsorption data. Fuel , 2004, 83(3): 293–303
doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2003.09.001
66 Mazumder S, Plug W J, Bruining H. Capillary pressure and wettability behavior of coal-water-carbon dioxide system. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 2003. SPE Paper 84339: 1–10
67 Massarotto P. 4-D Coal Permeability under True Triaxial Stress and Constant Volume Conditions. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree. Queensland: The University of Queensland, 2002, 60–120
68 Jichun Z, Jessen K, Anthony R K, Franklin M O J. Recovery of coalbed methane by gas injection. In: the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, 2002. SPE Paper 75255: 1–15
69 Bustin M R, Cui X, Chikatamarla L. Impacts of volumetric strain on CO2 sequestration in coals and enhanced CH4 recovery. AAPG Bulletin , 2008, 92(1): 15–29
doi: 10.1306/08220706113
70 Robertson E P, Christiansen R L. Modeling laboratory permeability in coal using sorption-induced-strain data. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering , 2007, 6: 260–269
71 van Bergen F, Spiers C, Floor G, Bots P. Strain development in unconfined coals exposed to CO2, CH4 and Ar: effect of moisture. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2009, 77(1-2): 43–53
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2008.10.003
72 Fry R, Day S, Sakurovs R. Moisture-induced swelling of coal. International Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization , 2009, 29(6): 298–316
doi: 10.1080/19392690903584575
73 Moffat D H, Weale K E. Sorption by coal of methane at high pressures. Fuel , 1955, 34: 449–462
74 Reucroft P J, Patel H. Gas-induced swelling in coal. Fuel , 1986, 65(6): 816–820
doi: 10.1016/0016-2361(86)90075-X
75 Palmer I, Mansoori J. How permeability depends on stress and pore pressure in coalbeds: a new model. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 1998, 1(6): 539–544
76 Pekot L J, Reeves S R. Modeling the Effects of Matrix Shrinkage and Differential Swelling on Coalbed Methane Recovery and Carbon Sequestration. US Department of Energy, 2000: DE-FC26–00NT40924
77 Sawyer W K, Paul G W, Schraufnagel R A. Development and application of a 3D coalbed simulator. In: Proceedings of the Petroleum Society CIM, Calgary, Canada. 1990. SPE Paper 90-119: 1–9
78 Shi J Q, Durucan S. A model for changes in coalbed permeability during primary and enhanced methane recovery. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering , 2005, 8(4): 291–299
doi: 10.2118/87230-PA
79 Yang R T. Gas separation by adsorption processes.London: Imperial College Press, 1997, 51
80 Wang G X, Massarotto P, Rudolph V. An improved permeability model of coal for coalbed methane recovery and CO2 geosequestration. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2009, 77(1-2): 127–136
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2008.10.007
81 Fu X H, Qin Y, Wang G X, Rudolph V. Evaluation of gas content of coalbed methane reservoirs with the aid of geophysical logging technology. Fuel , 2009, 88(11): 2269–2277
doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2009.06.003
82 Kotarba M J. Composition and origin of coalbed gases in the Upper Silesian and Lublin basins, Poland. Organic Geochemistry , 2001, 32(1): 163–180
doi: 10.1016/S0146-6380(00)00134-0
83 Bertard C, Bruyet B, Gunther J. Determination of desorbable gas concentration of coal (direct method). International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences , 1970, 7(1): 43–65
doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(70)90027-6
84 Kissell F N, McCulloch C M, Elder C H. The direct method of determining methane content of coalbeds for ventilation design. US Bur Mines. Rep Invest , 1973, 7767: 1–17
85 Chase R W. A comparison of methods used for determining the natural gas content of coalbeds from exploratory cores. US Dept of Energy, METC/CR-79/18 , 1979, 1–25
86 Airey E M. Gas emission from broken coal; an experimental and theoretical investigation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences , 1968, 5(6): 475–494
doi: 10.1016/0148-9062(68)90036-3
87 Meisner R F. Cretaceous and Lower tertiary coal as sources for gas accumulations in rocky mountain area, in Source rocks of rocky mountain region. In: Woodward J, Meisner F F, Clayton J L, eds. RMAG Guide Book. Denver: Rocky Mountain Association Geologists (RMAG),1984: 401–431
88 Kim G A. Estimating methane content of bituminous coal beds from adsorption data. US Bureau of Mines. Rep Invest , 1977, 8245: 1–22
89 Saulsberry J L, Schafer P S, Schraufnagel R A. A guide to coalbed methane reservoir engineering (GRI-94/0397). Chicago: Gas Research Institute,1996, ILL: 1–324
90 China National Administration of Coal Industry (CNACI). Determine Methods of Coalbed Gas Content (MT-77–84).Beijing: Coal Industry Press, 1984, 1–8 (in Chinese)
91 Diamond W P, LaScola J C, Hyman D M. Results of direct-method determination of the gas content of US coalbeds. US Bur Mines Info Cir , 1986, 9067: 1–95
92 Gilman A, Beckie R. Flow of coal-bed methane to a gallery. Transport in Porous Media , 2000, 41(1): 1–16
doi: 10.1023/A:1006754108197
93 Harpalani S, Zhao X. Changes in flow behavior of coal with gas desorption. Soc Pet Eng AIME, Richardson, TX. SPE Paper , 1989, 19450: 1–23
94 Shi J Q, Durucan S. Drawdown induced changes in permeability of coalbeds: a new interpretation of the reservoir response to primary recovery. Transport in Porous Media , 2004, 56(1): 1–16
doi: 10.1023/B:TIPM.0000018398.19928.5a
95 Su X, Lin X. Coalbed methane geology.Beijing: Coal Industry Press, 2007, 45–51 (In Chinese)
96 Venter B J, Jermy C A. The measurement of gas permeability in sediments of the Vryheid formation. The Joumal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 1994: 295–301
97 Pan Z, Connell L D, Camilleri M. Laboratory characterisation of coal reservoir permeability for primary and enhanced coalbed methane recovery. International Journal of Coal Geology , 2010, 82(3-4): 252–261
doi: 10.1016/j.coal.2009.10.019
98 Li H, Shimada S, Zhang M. Anisotropy of gas permeability associated with cleat pattern in a coal seam of the Kushiro coalfield in Japan. Environmental Geology , 2004, 47(1): 45–50
doi: 10.1007/s00254-004-1125-x
99 Brace W F, Walsh J B, Frangos W T. Permeability of granite under high pressure. Journal of Geophysical Research , 1968, 73(6): 2225–2236
doi: 10.1029/JB073i006p02225
100 Bredehoeft J D, Papadopoulas S S. A method for determining the hydraulic properties of tight formations. Water Resources Research , 1980, 16(1): 233–238
doi: 10.1029/WR016i001p00233
101 Evans B, Wong T F. Fault Mechanics and Transport Properties of Rocks.New York: Academic Press, 1992, 147–213
102 Chen S, Li G, Peres A M, Reynolds A C. A well test for in-situ determination of relative permeability curves. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering , 2008, 11(1): 95–107
doi: 10.2118/96414-PA
103 Mullen M J. Geology and coalbed methane resources of the northern San Juan basin, Colorado and New Mexico. Log Evaluation in Wells Drilled for Coalbed Methane. Denver: Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 1988, 113–124
104 Liang Y, Chen J. Digital log data predicting CBM permeability and reservoir pressure. Coal Geology & Exploration , 2000, 28(6): 30–31 (in Chinese)
105 Hawkins J M, Schraufnagel R A, Olszewski A J. Estimating coalbed gas content and sorption isotherm using well log data. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 1992. SPE Paper 24905: 1–10
106 Fu X H, Qin Y, Wang G X, Rudolph V. Evaluation of coal structure and permeability with the aid of geophysical logging technology. Fuel , 2009, 88(11): 2278–2285
doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2009.05.018
107 Xu X, Wang F, Liang Y. Logging interpretation of coal bed methane index. Coal Science and Technology , 2001, 29(7): 19–20 (in Chinese)
[1] Xiangchun Liu, Ping Cui, Qiang Ling, Zhigang Zhao, Ruilun Xie. A review on co-pyrolysis of coal and oil shale to produce coke[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 504-512.
[2] Yimeng Song, Fusheng Pan, Ying Li, Kaidong Quan, Zhongyi Jiang. Mass transport mechanisms within pervaporation membranes[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 458-474.
[3] Xuantao Wu, Jie Wang. Intrinsic kinetics and external diffusion of catalytic steam gasification of fine coal char particles under pressurized and fluidized conditions[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2019, 13(2): 415-426.
[4] Xue Zou,Jin Li. On the fouling mechanism of polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane in the treatment of coal gasification wastewater[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 490-498.
[5] Xiaoxue SUN,Yuzhu SUN,Jianguo YU. Leaching of aluminum from coal spoil by mechanothermal activation[J]. Front. Chem. Sci. Eng., 2015, 9(2): 216-223.
[6] Zhejun PAN. Modeling of coal swelling induced by water vapor adsorption[J]. Front Chem Sci Eng, 2012, 6(1): 94-103.
[7] Tiefeng WANG. Simulation of bubble column reactors using CFD coupled with a population balance model[J]. Front Chem Sci Eng, 2011, 5(2): 162-172.
[8] Jianglong YU, Liping CHANG, Fan LI, Kechang XIE. A review on research and development of iron-based sorbents for removal of hydrogen sulfide from hot coal gases[J]. Front Chem Eng Chin, 2010, 4(4): 529-535.
[9] Guoqiang ZHANG, Lin GAO, Hongguang JIN, Rumou LIN, Sheng LI. Sensitivity analysis of a methanol and power polygeneration system fueled with coke oven gas and coal gas[J]. Front Chem Eng Chin, 2010, 4(4): 491-497.
[10] Xiurong REN, Weiren BAO, Fan LI, Liping CHANG, Kechang XIE. Desulfurization performance of iron-manganese-based sorbent for hot coal gas[J]. Front Chem Eng Chin, 2010, 4(4): 429-434.
[11] Ruizhuang ZHAO, Ju SHANGGUAN, Yanru LOU, Jin SONG, Jie MI, Huiling FAN. Regeneration of Fe2O3-based high-temperature coal gas desulfurization sorbent in atmosphere with sulfur dioxide[J]. Front Chem Eng Chin, 2010, 4(4): 423-428.
[12] Chunyu LI, Jiantao ZHAO, Yitian FANG, Yang WANG. Effect of pressure on gasification reactivity of three Chinese coals with different ranks[J]. Front Chem Eng Chin, 2010, 4(4): 385-393.
[13] G. X. WANG, X. R. WEI, V. RUDOLPH, C. T. WEI, Y. QIN. A multi-scale model for CO2 sequestration enhanced coalbed methane recovery[J]. Front Chem Eng Chin, 2009, 3(1): 20-25.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed