Effects of non-Darcy flow on the performance of coal seam gas wells

Although it has been reported that the gas flow in the cleat system may be of the non-Darcy nature, little has been known on how this non-Darcy flow affects the coal seam gas (CSG) extraction. One of the major reasons is that prior studies on this subject have not included the impact of gas sorption-induced coal deformation (swelling or shrinking) and the nature of two extremely different time scales between processes in the coal matrix and ones in the cleat system. In this study, a fully coupled finite element (FE) model of coal deformation (gas sorption induced swelling or shrinking), non-Darcy flow in fractures and gas diffusion in coal matrix is developed to quantify these non-Darcy flow effects. The fully coupled model can include EDM (Equilibrium Desorption Model) or DDM (Dynamic Desorption Model). In EDM, the gas sorption in the matrix system is a function of gas pressure only, i.e., the sorption process completes instantly when the cleat pressure changes. In DDM, the gas sorption in the matrix system is a function of both gas pressure in the cleat and the diffusion time in the matrix, i.e., a time lag between the cleat flow and diffusion process in the matrix exists. When only Darcy flow is assumed, this model was verified against both the model results of a vertical gas well performance by using ECLIPSE and field data from the Horseshoe Canyon coalbed gas well. Both EDM and DDM are applied to quantify the relationship among non-Darcy effect, production parameters, diffusion times, and coal seam compaction. Model results indicate that the non-Darcy effect is significant for high pressure drops and exists only within a small region near wellbore and that different diffusion times may produce two peaks of production rate, one is due to gas flow in the cleat system at the early stage and the other is due to gas diffusion at the late stage. The coal seam compaction can reduce the production rate much more than the non-Darcy flow effect at the early stage but has slightly impact at the late stage.

[1]  Ian D. Palmer,et al.  How Permeability Depends on Stress and Pore Pressure in Coalbeds: A New Model , 1998 .

[2]  Yaodong Jiang,et al.  Impact of transition from local swelling to macro swelling on the evolution of coal permeability , 2011 .

[3]  R. Marc Bustin,et al.  Volumetric strain associated with methane desorption and its impact on coalbed gas production from deep coal seams , 2005 .

[4]  Robert A. Wattenbarger,et al.  Comparison of Computation Methods for CBM Performance , 2007 .

[5]  Christopher R. Clarkson,et al.  Coalbed Methane: Current Field-Based Evaluation Methods , 2011 .

[6]  Hassan Golghanddashti.  A new analytically derived shape factor for gas–oil gravity drainage mechanism , 2011 .

[7]  A. Busch,et al.  Methane and carbon dioxide adsorption–diffusion experiments on coal: upscaling and modeling , 2004 .

[8]  Yu Wu,et al.  Dual poroelastic response of a coal seam to CO2 injection , 2010 .

[9]  John R. Seidle,et al.  Experimental Measurement of Coal Matrix Shrinkage Due to Gas Desorption and Implications for Cleat Permeability Increases , 1995 .

[10]  Christopher R. Clarkson,et al.  Investigating the effect of sorption time on coalbed methane recovery through numerical simulation , 2011 .

[11]  Guoliang Chen,et al.  Estimation of changes in fracture porosity of coal with gas emission , 1995 .

[12]  Luke D. Connell,et al.  Effects of matrix moisture on gas diffusion and flow in coal , 2010 .

[13]  Meng Lu,et al.  A Statistical Representation of the Matrix–Fracture Transfer Function for Porous Media , 2011 .

[14]  R. E. Rogers,et al.  Coalbed Methane: Principles and Practice , 1994 .

[15]  Sevket Durucan,et al.  Drawdown Induced Changes in Permeability of Coalbeds: A New Interpretation of the Reservoir Response to Primary Recovery , 2004 .

[16]  T. D. van Golf-Racht,et al.  Fundamentals of fractured reservoir engineering , 1982 .

[17]  Thomas W. Engler.  A new approach to gas material balance in tight gas reservoirs , 2000 .

[18]  Sevket Durucan,et al.  A bidisperse pore diffusion model for methane displacement desorption in coal by CO2 injection , 2003 .

[19]  Martin J. Blunt,et al.  Simulation of multiphase flow in fractured reservoirs using a fracture-only model with transfer functions , 2010 .

[20]  Derek Elsworth,et al.  How sorption-induced matrix deformation affects gas flow in coal seams: A new FE model , 2008 .

[21]  Sally M. Benson,et al.  An Experimental Study on the Influence of Sub-Core Scale Heterogeneities on CO2 Distribution in Reservoir Rocks , 2010 .

[22]  B. H. Brady,et al.  Linking stress-dependent effective porosity and hydraulic conductivity fields to RMR , 1999 .

[23]  R. Grigg,et al.  Experimental Study of Overburden and Stress Influence on Non-Darcy Gas Flow in , 2003 .

[24]  Christopher R. Clarkson,et al.  The effect of pore structure and gas pressure upon the transport properties of coal: a laboratory and modeling study. 2. Adsorption rate modeling , 1999 .

[25]  J. Bruining,et al.  Interpretation of carbon dioxide diffusion behavior in coals , 2007 .

[26]  A. Saghafi,et al.  CO2 storage and gas diffusivity properties of coals from Sydney Basin, Australia , 2007 .

[27]  Derek Elsworth,et al.  FLOW-DEFORMATION RESPONSE OF DUAL-POROSITY MEDIA , 1992 .

[28]  Gas well production analysis with non-Darcy flow and real-gas PVT behavior , 2007 .

[29]  G. Bodvarsson,et al.  Effective block size for imbibition or absorption in dual‐porosity media , 1995 .

[30]  R. Bustin,et al.  Geological controls on coalbed methane reservoir capacity and gas content , 1998 .

[31]  G. R. King,et al.  Numerical simulation of the transient behavior of coal-seam degasification wells , 1986 .

[32]  Ghazal Izadi,et al.  Permeability evolution of fluid-infiltrated coal containing discrete fractures , 2011 .

[33]  Hassan Hassanzadeh,et al.  Matrix-fracture transfer shape factor for modeling flow of a compressible fluid in dual-porosity media , 2011 .

[34]  A. T. Watson,et al.  Determining Spatial Distributions of Permeability , 2011 .

[35]  R. Marc Bustin,et al.  Selective transport of CO2, CH4, and N2 in coals: insights from modeling of experimental gas adsorption data , 2004 .

[36]  T. Cheema,et al.  A new dual-porosity/dual permeability model with non-Darcian flow through fractures , 1997 .

[37]  Satya Harpalani,et al.  Gas diffusion behavior of coal and its impact on production from coalbed methane reservoirs , 2011 .

[38]  J. E. Warren,et al.  The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs , 1963 .

[39]  D. Charrière,et al.  Effect of pressure and temperature on diffusion of CO2 and CH4 into coal from the Lorraine basin (France) , 2010 .

[40]  Jonny Rutqvist,et al.  A New Coal-Permeability Model: Internal Swelling Stress and Fracture–Matrix Interaction , 2010 .

[41]  Fanhua Zeng,et al.  The optimal hydraulic fracture geometry under non-Darcy flow effects , 2010 .

[42]  Sam Ameri,et al.  Predicting production performance of CBM reservoirs , 2009 .

[43]  D. Elsworth,et al.  Multiporosity/multipermeability approach to the simulation of naturally fractured reservoirs , 1993 .

[44]  I. Gray,et al.  Reservoir Engineering in Coal Seams: Part 1-The Physical Process of Gas Storage and Movement in Coal Seams , 1987 .

[45]  Satya Harpalani,et al.  A simplified permeability model for coalbed methane reservoirs based on matchstick strain and constant volume theory , 2011 .

[46]  Xiexing Miao,et al.  Development of anisotropic permeability during coalbed methane production , 2010 .

[47]  Guoliang Chen,et al.  Influence of gas production induced volumetric strain on permeability of coal , 1997 .

[48]  Zhimin Du,et al.  Coupled Flow Simulation in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs , 2004 .

[49]  R. Chalaturnyk,et al.  Permeability and porosity models considering anisotropy and discontinuity of coalbeds and application in coupled simulation , 2010 .

[50]  Christopher R. Clarkson,et al.  Production-Data Analysis of Single-Phase (Gas) Coalbed-Methane Wells , 2007 .