Abstract
Coal reservoir productions depend entirely on cleat permeability and porosity values. The models used to date to calculate cleat parameters are either stress-dependent or strain-dependent. A study is carried to analyze the individual effects of stress and strain on the reservoir and fluid properties. A one-dimensional cleat for an under saturated low permeable coal bed methane reservoir is semi-analytically solved. Standard stress models, Shi-Durucan and Cui-Bustin, predict a range within which field values lie. A comparative study between strain and stress model behavior is carried out. The strain model considers matrix swell and shrink but ignores stress effects due to them, while a stress model considers them all. The stress-model is dependent on effective horizontal stresses in the reservoir. Stress models are preferred to strain model. Stress-dependent permeability being closer to actual values captures the field in a better manner. Though standard stress models are more accurate than the strain model, yet they cannot determine a specific permeability value at any given point in time. Emphasis is, therefore, laid on developing a new stress-dependent model. An iterative combination study of the standard models provides the new model. An empirical equation to calculate cleat properties, approximate to the field, is developed from the research. The new permeability model is substituted in the fluid production equation to obtain cumulative gas/water produced at any time interval. The results lie in the range predicted by the standard stress models and match the field observations, thus more reliable. The stress model is simple to use and is mathematically easy to formulate. It is flexible and can accommodate reservoir temperature and sorption strain changes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The data and material are provided with manuscript.
Code availability
Code is not made available.
References
Carlos AM (2007) Comparison of computation methods for cbm production performance. Texas A&M University, Texas
Chatterjee R, Pal PK, Nandi U and Paul S (2010) Prediction of CBM Reservoir Parameters, Jharia CoalField, India (Paper Id: P-108)
Clarkson CR, Qanbari F (2016) A semi-analytical method for forecasting wells completed in low permeability, undersaturated CBM reservoirs. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 30:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.01.040
Durucan S, Edwards JS (1986) The effects of stress and fracturing on permeability of coal. Min Sci Technol 3(3):205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9031(86)90357-9
Harpalani S, Schraufnagel RA (1990) Shrinkage of coal matrix with release of gas and its impact on permeability of coal. Fuel 69(5):551–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-2361(90)90137-F
Jia Q, Liu D, Cai Y (2020) Petrophysics characteristics of coalbed methane reservoir: a comprehensive review. Front Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-020-0833-1
Kumar H, Mishra MK, Susmita M (2018) Effect of permeability and geomechanical properties on coal matrix during cbm production–an overview. J Eng Sci Technol Rev 11:160–173. https://doi.org/10.25103/jestr.112.22
Lai F, Li Z, Fu Y, Yang Z (2013) A drainage data-based calculation method for coalbed permeability. J Geophys Eng 10:5005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/10/6/065005
Li Z, Hu X (2021) Measurement of gas diffusion coefficient and analysis of influencing factors for Shaanxi Debao coalbed methane reservoir in China. J Petrol Explor Prod Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-020-01058-1
Li C, Wang Z, Shi L, Feng R (2017) Analysis of analytical models developed under the uniaxial strain condition for predicting coal permeability during primary depletion. Energies 10(11):1849. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10111849
Li M, Yi X, Li C (2021) Seepage model for multiple-fractured horizontal wells in coal bed methane reservoirs. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Utili Environ Effects 43(4):506–515
Liu Z, Zhao J (2016) Quantitatively evaluating the CBM reservoir using logging data. J Geophys Eng 13:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/13/1/59
Ma T, Xu H, Guo C, Fu X, Liu W, Yang R (2020) A discrete fracture modeling approach for analysis of coal bed methane and water flow in a fractured coal reservoir. Geofluids. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8845348
Mattar L (2008) Production analysis and forecasting of shale gas reservoirs: case history-based approach. Soc Petrol Eng. https://doi.org/10.2118/119897-MS
Mingjun L, Xiangyi Y, Chengyong L (2021) Seepage model for multiple-fractured horizontal wells in coal bed methane reservoirs. Energy Sour, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, Environ Effects 43(4):506–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2019.1630033
Pal P, Paul S, Chatterjee R (2015) Estimation of in-situ stress and coal bed methane potential of coal seams from analysis of well logs, ground mapping and laboratory data in central part of jharia coalfield—an overview. Petrol Geosci Indian Context. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03119-4_6
Rahmad B (2018) Coal porosity and coal microscopic characteristic for coalbed methane (CBM) analysis of the Warukin Formation in Barito Basin, Idamanggala, Hulu Sungai Selatan, South Kalimantan. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 212:012030
Shi JT, Wu JY, Sun Z (2020) Methods for simultaneously evaluating reserve and permeability of undersaturated coalbed methane reservoirs using production data during the dewatering stage. Pet Sci 17:1067–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12182-019-00410-3
Sitaresmi R, Abdassah D, Irawan D (2015) Production performance prediction in coalbed methane reservoir. Int J Eng Tech Res. https://doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV4IS030031
Xia T, Gao F, Kang J (2015) A fully coupling coal–gas model associated with inertia and slip effects for CBM migration. Environ Earth Sci 75:582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5378-y
Xue L (2012) Numerical Well Testing of Coal Bed Methane Reservoir, PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University
Yang Y, Peng X, Liu X (2012) The stress sensitivity of coal bed methane wells and impact on production. Procedia Eng 31:571–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.01.1069
Yang S, Cai Y, Wei R, Zhou Y (2018) A new fracture permeability model of CBM reservoir with high-dip angle in the southern Junggar Basin. NW China Energy Explor Exploit 37:014459871880755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598718807552
Zhang H, Liu J, Elsworth D (2008) How sorption-induced matrix deformation affects gas flow in coal seams: a new FE model. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:1226–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.11.007
Zhang X, Wu C, Wang Z, Xu D (2019) Post fracturing permeability prediction for CBM well with the analysis of fracturing pressure decline. Energy Sci Eng 7:3111–3123. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.483
Zimmerman RW, Bodvarsson GS (1996) Hydraulic conductivity of rock fractures. J Transp Porous Med 23:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00145263
Funding
No funding was received for this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SN: conceptualization, methodology, writing code, investigation, verification and validation, writing the original manuscript, visualization, editing the draft based on reviews. SKG: supervision and review of work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
No conflict of interest exists. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nainar, S., Govindarajan, S.K. Semi-analytic analysis and optimization of stress-dependent permeability model for the coal bed methane gas reservoir. Environ Earth Sci 80, 272 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09500-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-09500-1