Matrix shrinkage and swelling can cause profound changes in porosity and permeability of coalbed methane reservoirs during depletion or when under CO{sub 2} injection processes, with significant implication for primary or enhanced methane recovery. Two models that are used to describe these effects are discussed. The first was developed by Advanced Resources International (ARI) and published in 1990 by Sawyer, et al. The second model was published by Palmer and Mansoori in 1996. This paper shows that the two provide equivalent results for most applications. However, their differences in formulation cause each to have relative advantages and disadvantages under certain circumstances. Specifically, the former appears superior for undersaturated coalbed methane reservoirs while the latter would be better if a case is found where matrix swelling is strongly disproportional to gas concentration. Since its presentation in 1996, the Palmer and Mansoori model has justifiably received much critical praise. However, the model developed by ARI for the COMET reservoir simulation program has been in use since 1990, and has significant advantages in certain settings. A review of data published by Levine in 1996 reveals that carbon dioxide causes a greater degree of coal matrix swelling compared to methane, even when measured onmore » a unit of concentration basis. This effect is described in this report as differential swelling. Differential swelling may have important consequences for enhanced coalbed methane and carbon sequestration projects. To handle the effects of differential swelling, an extension to the matrix shrinkage and swelling model used by the COMET simulator is presented and shown to replicate the data of Levine. Preliminary field results from a carbon dioxide injection project are also presented in support of the extended model. The field evidence supports that considerable changes to coal permeability occur with CO{sub 2} injection, with significant implication for the design, implementation and performance of enhanced coalbed methane recovery and CO{sub 2} sequestration projects.« less
[1]
M. Mavor,et al.
Increasing Coal Absolute Permeability in the San Juan Basin Fruitland Formation
,
1998
.
[2]
M. A. Barakat,et al.
The change in effective stress associated with shrinkage from gas desorption in coal
,
2001
.
[3]
R. A. Schraufnagel,et al.
Influence of Matrix Shrinkage and Compressibility on Gas Production From Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
,
1990
.
[4]
Jeffrey R. Levine,et al.
Model study of the influence of matrix shrinkage on absolute permeability of coal bed reservoirs
,
1996,
Geological Society, London, Special Publications.
[5]
I. Gray,et al.
Reservoir engineering in coal seams
,
1983
.
[6]
Ian D. Palmer,et al.
How Permeability Depends on Stress and Pore Pressure in Coalbeds: A New Model
,
1998
.
[7]
R. A. Schraufnagel,et al.
Development And Application Of A 3-D Coalbed Simulator
,
1990
.
[8]
K. Ikemura.
Development and application
,
1971
.
[9]
John R. Seidle,et al.
Experimental Measurement of Coal Matrix Shrinkage Due to Gas Desorption and Implications for Cleat Permeability Increases
,
1995
.