Professional Documents
Culture Documents
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 31 December 2014
Accepted 2 April 2015
Available online 20 April 2015
Coal porosity and permeability are key factors inuencing coal-bed methane well production. In order to
investigate the permeability behavior during anthracite coal seam methane production, the porosity and
permeability of anthracite coal sample from No. 3 coal seam in Southern Qinshui Basin of China in net
conning stress were measured in laboratory. The correlations between porosity, permeability and
effective stress were analyzed. Permeability damage rate, stress sensitivity coefcient and pore
compressibility factor were proposed to evaluate the effective stress-dependent sensitivity characteristics of anthracite coal. It turns out that, both porosity and permeability of coal sample decrease
exponentially with the increase of effective stress. If the effective stress is less than 5 MPa or 6 MPa,
stress sensitivity coefcient of coal reservoir changed greatly, and the stress sensitivity coefcient
decreases rapidly with effective stress increased. The permeability damage rate increases rapidly with
increasing effective stress, the stress sensitivity of coal reservoir enhanced; while in the effective stress is
greater than 5 MPa or 6 MPa, the stress sensitivity coefcient of the coal reservoir decreases as effective
stress increases slowly, and there is uctuation, the stress sensitivity of coal reservoir is reduced; while
permeability damage rate with the increase of effective stress increased more slowly. With the increase
of moisture content and temperature, the permeability damage rate of coal reservoir and stress sensitive
coefcient increase, and the stress sensitivity of coal reservoir enhanced.
& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Key words:
effective stress
anthracite coal
porosity
permeability
stress sensitivity
1. Introduction
Both porosity and permeability are key factors affecting the coalbed methane production. Porosity of coal usually refers to the sum of
matrix porosity and ssure porosity. The dual pore system of coal
regulates gas storage capacity, occurrence and transport of methane
through coal. Numerous researches on the relationship between
porosity and permeability of conventional oil and gas reservoirs have
been reported (Louis, 1969; Zimmerman and Bodvarsson, 1996;
Zimmerman, 2000). Pore compressibility factor and reservoir stress
sensitivity factor were dened to assess the stress-dependent permeability of conventional reservoirs (Lubinski, 1954; Biot, 1956; Louis,
1969; Wu et al., 1995; Jia et al., 1995; Jose, 1997; Min et al., 2004; Wang
et al., 2009). Jose (1997) pointed out that permeability loss of the tight
sandstone gas reservoir under conning pressure can reach as high as
90% of the initial permeability. As a typical unconventional gas
reservoir, coal is a type of low porosity and low permeability porous
n
Corresponding author at: School of Energy Resources, China University of
Geosciences (Beijing), No. 29 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100083,
PR China. Tel.: 86 10 13521520515.
E-mail address: mengya629@163.com (Y. Meng).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2015.04.012
0920-4105/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
media and is highly sensitive to effective stress. And coal has a high
afnity to gases, i.e. nitrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide. Therefore
permeability behavior of coal is more complex than that of conventional oil and gas reservoir. During gas production, coal permeability
decreases with the increase of effective stress at early water pumping
stage and then increases with the increasing shrinkage effect in later
gas extraction stage. A few permeability models were proposed and
widely used to describe the stress-dependent effect and matrix
shrinkage/expansion effect whereas these models did not take into
account the varying cleat compressibility (Shi and Durucan, 2004,
2010; Pan and Connell (2012); Palmer, 2009; Connell, 2009). Experimental studies showed that overall bituminous coal permeability
declines exponentially with the increase of effective stress (Enever
and Henning, 1997; McKee et al., 1988). Enever and Henning (1997)
found the exponential relationship between the permeability of coal
seam and the stress. Based on the study of coal seam permeability and
its relation to the buried depth in Piceance, San Juan and Black Warrior
basins in the United States, McKee et al. (1988) found that the
permeability reduces in the law of negative exponential function as
the buried depth of coal seam and the effective stress increase and the
aperture of coal seam cleat decreases. In order to investigate the
permeability behavior of high rank coal during early depletion of CBM
Y. Meng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 133 (2015) 810817
2. Experimental method
2.1. Experiment samples
The Southern Qinshui Basin, located in Shanxi Province of the
Central China, is the most important production base for high
quality anthracite in China. The Southern Qinshui Basin measures
approximately 120 km from north to south and 80 km from east to
west, with an area of about 7000 km2. Coal seams, generated in
Carboniferous and Permian periods, contain abundant methane.
Permeability in the coal-bed reservoir is relatively high compared
to other coal-bed methane reservoirs in China. The exploration
and production tests in this eld have been conducted since 1990s.
The results show that the Qinshui Basin is a very promising coalbed methane reservoir with the most exploration wells, the best
development prospect, and a higher commercialized production in
the China's coal-bed methane reservoirs (Meng et al., 2011).
The coal samples were collected from the No. 3 coal seam in
Permian at Sihe coalmine in Southern Qinshui Basin. The burial depth
of the coal seam is from 350 m to 1200 m. According to approximate
analysis results on air dry basis, the moisture content is 1.36%, volatile
yield 8.12% and ash yield 22.63%. The maximum vitrinite reectance
Ro,Max is 3.12% and No. 3 coal seam is semi-bright coal in macrolithotype and is banded or homogeneous in coal texture. Cylindrical
coal samples were carefully drilled in the direction parallel to the
bedding plane. The diameter of coal samples is from 2.51 cm to
2.52 cm and the length from 4.75 cm to 5.11 cm. Dry coal samples
were prepared by drying the raw coal samples in the dryer for 48 h.
The basic data of the coal samples are shown in Table 1.
2.2. Experiment apparatus and procedure
We used an automatic porosity and permeability instrument
(AP 608) to test the porosity and permeability of coal under net
811
Table 1
Basic data of the coal samples.
ID
Experimental
temperature
( 1C)
Description
1#
2#
3#
4#
5#
6#
7#
8#
9#
10#
11#
2.51
2.52
2.52
2.51
2.51
2.52
2.50
2.47
2.50
2.50
2.50
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
60
Fractured
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
Intact
4.75
5.09
5.11
4.99
5.08
4.96
2.72
3.44
2.60
5.00
5.00
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
30.42%
66.8%
100%
Dry
Dry
3. Experiment results
3.1. Relationships between coal porosity, permeability and effective
stress
3.1.1. The relationship between permeability of coal and the effective
stress
The relationship between permeability of coal and the effective
stress is shown in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2, we can see that the relationship
between the gas permeability of coal and effective stress obeys the
negative exponential function as follows:
K i K 0 e ap
812
Y. Meng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 133 (2015) 810817
1.2
Porosity
y = 3.4933e
3.5
3.0
-0.0491x
R = 0.9711
0.8
2.5
0.003
y = 0.0267e
10
12
0.002
0.000
1.5
14
2.0
-0.0957x
y = 2.8397e
1.5
0.040
2.5
-0.3628x
2.0
Permeability/10-3 m2
3.0
Porosity
R = 0.9819
Porosity
3.0
0.006
2
R = 0.9144
y = 0.039e
10
12
0.000
1.5
14
y = 6.4715e
0.030
-0.0382x
5.0
R = 0.9496
y = 0.1121e
Porosity/%
Permeability/10-3 m2
5.5
0.040
0.020
-0.2615x
4.5
12
Permeability
-0.0548x
y = 4.8654e
0.030
R = 0.9871
4.0
0.020
3.5
3.0
-0.2919x
0.010
y = 0.067e
2
10
12
0.000
4.0
4.5
Porosity
2.5
R = 0.9877
1.0
14
5.0
R = 0.9811
10
0.040
Permeability/10-3 m2
Permeability
Porosity
0.050
Effective stress/MPa
6.0
1.5
0.060
0.000
2.0
-0.4306x
0.002
Effective stress/MPa
0.010
2.5
-0.1325x
y = 5.8803e
0.004
R = 0.9395
3.5
Permeability
R = 0.9797
1.0
14
12
4.0
0.008
-0.0483x
Porosity/%
Permeability/10-3 m2
Permeability
y = 3.4842e
10
0.010
3.5
0.060
Effective stress/MPa
0.080
0.000
2.5
R = 0.5481
y = 0.1901e
-0.5387x
R = 0.9868
Effective stress/MPa
0.020
3.0
Porosity
Porosity/%
0.0
0.004
0.001
2.0
R = 0.9902
3.5
Permeability
Porosity/%
y = 4.2562e
0.4
-0.3086x
Permeability/10-3 m2
Permeability
1.6
0.005
Porosity/%
4.0
Porosity/%
Permeability/10-3 m2
2.0
10
12
2.0
14
Effective stress/MPa
Effective stress/MPa
Fig. 2. Relationship between porosity and permeability of coal and the effective stress.
i 0 e cp
Y. Meng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 133 (2015) 810817
813
Table 2
Relationship between porosity and permeability of coal and the effective stress.
Porosity
1#
2#
3#
4#
5#
6#
Average
Max. value
Minimum value
Permeability
Regression coefcient
c
Correlation coefcient
R2
Regression coefcient
a
K0
Correlation coefcient
R2
0.0491
0.0957
0.0483
0.1325
0.0382
0.0548
0.0698
0.1325
0.0382
3.4933
2.8397
3.4842
5.8803
6.4715
4.8654
4.5057
6.4715
2.8397
0.9711
0.5481
0.9819
0.9144
0.9496
0.9871
0.8920
0.9871
0.5481
0.3086
0.5387
0.3628
0.4306
0.2615
0.2919
0.3657
0.5387
0.2615
4.2562
0.0267
0.1901
0.0390
0.1121
0.0670
0.7819
4.2562
0.0267
0.9902
0.9868
0.9797
0.9395
0.9811
0.9877
0.9775
0.9902
0.9395
r 2
8 2
0.8
1#
2#
3#
4#
5#
6#
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
porosity/%
Fig. 3. Relationship between the porosity of coal and its permeability under the
effective stress.
1.0
Dimensionless permeability
(K i/K0)
ID
Table 3
Relationship between coal porosity and permeability.
ID
Coefcient
m
Coefcient
b
Correlation coefcient
R2
1#
2#
3#
4#
5#
6#
Average
Max. value
Minimum value
0.0008
0.1736
0.0002
0.0027
0.0005
0.0018
0.0299
0.1736
0.0002
2.4090
0.6110
2.9236
1.7568
1.2988
1.5529
1.7587
2.9236
0.6110
0.9842
0.6620
0.9859
0.9875
0.9844
0.9737
0.9296
0.9875
0.6620
f b2
12
Y. Meng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 133 (2015) 810817
K 1 K 0min
Dk2
100%
K1
K
1 K
U
K 0 p
0.30
100
1#PDR
2#PDR
3#PDR
4#PDR
5#PDR
6#PDR
1#SSC
2#SSC
3#SSC
4#SSC
5#SSC
6#SSC
80
60
40
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
20
0.05
814
0.00
0
10
12
Fig. 4. Relationship between permeability damage rates, stress sensitivity coefcient and the effective stress.
Y. Meng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 133 (2015) 810817
815
Table 4
Evaluation parameters of stress sensitivity for coal reservoir.
Permeability damage rate
(%)
1#
2#
3#
4#
5#
6#
Average
Max. value
Minimum value
86.8
97.2
90.5
93.4
82.7
85.2
89.3
97.2
82.7
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Minimum
0.058
0.026
0.054
0.035
0.073
0.062
0.051
0.073
0.026
0.178
0.075
0.158
0.103
0.250
0.179
0.157
0.250
0.075
0.012
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.018
0.015
0.010
0.018
0.003
0.039
0.064
0.039
0.054
0.038
0.039
0.046
0.064
0.038
0.084
0.251
0.090
0.090
0.104
0.070
0.115
0.251
0.070
0.007
0.003
0.013
0.019
0.006
0.020
0.011
0.020
0.003
0.30
0.25
0.20
1#
2#
3#
4#
5#
6#
Table 5
Evaluation parameters of stress sensitivity for coal reservoir under different water
saturations.
ID
0.15
0.10
10
Permeability damage
rate
(%)
(%)
Average Max.
value
Minimum
value
96.8
95.9
98.6
0.075
0.085
0.111
0.008
0.011
0.005
1
Sw=30.42%
Sw=66.80%
100
0.8
0.279
0.250
0.330
12
Effective stress/MPa
Dimensionless permeability
(Ki/K0)
Water
saturation
7# 30.42
8# 66.8
9# 100
0.05
0.00
0.40
80
60
7#PDR
8#PDR
9#PDR
7#SSC
8#SSC
9#SSC
0.30
0.20
40
0.10
20
Sw=100%
0.6
0.00
0.4
10
12
Effective stress/MPa
PDR-Permeability damage rate;SSC-stress sensitivity coefficient
0.2
0
ID
Fig. 7. Relationship between permeability damage rate, stress sensitivity coefcient and the effective stress.
10
Effective stress/MPa
Fig. 6. Relationship between dimensionless permeability and effective stress under
different water saturations.
3.5. Temperature
In order to investigate the inuence of temperature on coal
reservoir permeability, we chose two coal samples (10# and 11#)
and carried out stress sensitivity experiments at 30 1C and 60 1C
respectively.
816
Y. Meng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 133 (2015) 810817
Dimensionless permeability
(Ki/K0)
Table 6
Evaluation parameters of stress sensitivity for coal reservoir under different
temperatures.
0.8
T=30
ID
T=60
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
(1C)
(%)
Average Max.
value
Minimum
value
81.3
96.0
0.067
0.070
0.015
0.010
10# 30
11# 60
0
10
80
0.30
10#PDR
11#PDR
0.20
10#SSC
40
11#SSC
0.10
20
0.00
0
0
10
0.40
100
60
0.222
0.333
12
Effective stress/MPa
12
Effective stress/MPa
PDR-Permeability damage rate;SSC-stress sensitivity coefficient
Fig. 9. Relationship between the permeability damage rate/stress sensitivity
coefcient and effective stress.
The relationship between dimensionless permeability and effective stress for the two coal samples under different temperatures are
shown in Fig. 8. At the same temperature, with the increase of
effective stress, permeability of coal sample reduces in the negative
exponential function law, and with the rise of temperature, stress
sensitivity increases. With the increase of the effective stress,
permeability drops more quickly for 11# coal sample of higher
temperature than 10# of lower. The higher the temperature is, more
obvious the stress sensitivity is, that is, the permeability damage rate
is bigger (Figs. 8 and 9). Under the effective stress of 10 MPa,
permeability damage rate is 81.3% for 10# and 96.0% for 11#. Average
stress sensitive coefcient is 0.067 MPa 1 for 10# and 0.070 MPa 1
for 11# (Table 6).
Coal reservoir permeability decreases with the increase of temperature, showing a temperature sensitivity. In general, the effect of
temperature rise on coal reservoir permeability can be divided into
two stages. At the low temperature stage, thermal expansion with
the rise of temperature causes a slight decline of permeability; at the
high temperature stage, coal cracking induced by thermal stress
above critical temperature will sharply increase coal reservoir
permeability. The experiments in this study aim to simulate the
permeability behavior of coal seam with a burial depth of less than
1000 m, so experimental temperatures are set as 30 1C and 60 1C
respectively, thermal cracking in this temperature range will not
occur. Therefore, in our experimental process, with the rise of
temperature, fracture aperture decreases due to thermal expansion
and thereby coal sample permeability decreases.
4. Discussion
Coal is a dual porosity medium, which contains matrix pore
system and fracture system. The fracture system contributes in a
major way to the permeability of the coal seam. So the permeability depends strongly on the aperture of the fractures in coal.
Increasing normal stress will narrow the fractures and then lower
the permeability of the coal.
Experimental results show that coal reservoir permeability
varies exponentially with the increase of effective stress, that is
K i K 0 e ap . In the drainage process of CBM wells, the water
pumping lowers the coal reservoir pressure, which leads to the
increase of effective stress and induces the decline of permeability.
This process is just the dynamic changing of the coal reservoir
permeability. Therefore, the relationship between the coal reservoir permeability and effective stress (k e ) reects the relationship between the coal reservoir permeability and producing
pressure drop in the drainage process (k P).
The No. 3 coal seam in Shanxi Formation Permian System in the
southern Qinshui basin is up to 1200 m deep, its reservoir pressure
is below 10 MPa and the reservoir pressure gradient averages
0.71 MPa/100 m. According to the CBM production experience
from US, reservoir pressure can drop to abandonment pressure
of about 0.7 MPa. That is, coal reservoir pressure varies from
10 MPa to 0.7 MPa, which corresponds to the effective stress
variation in the actual CBM well drainage.
From permeabilitystress curves (Figs. 2, 6 and 8), with the
increase of effective stress, coal reservoir permeability reduces,
which obeys the law of negative exponential function.
When the effective stress is below 5 MPa or 6 MPa, the corresponding drop of gas well uid level is from 0 m to 500 m or 600 m,
with the increase of effective stress, the coal reservoir permeability
drops rapidly, showing a high stress sensitivity. When the effective
stress is over 5 MPa or 6 MPa, the corresponding drop of gas well
uid level is above 500 m or 600 m, with the increase of effective
stress, the coal reservoir permeability decreases much more slowly,
showing a weak stress sensitivity.
Coal seam is in a certain in situ stress environment and the
stress of coal seam varies spatially. Under low in-situ stress regime
in shallow coal seam, with the increase of effective stress, plastic
deformation of coal reservoir due to compaction under stress
results in a signicant reduction in permeability; under high insitu stress regime in the deep, coal reservoir stress sensitivity will
abate due to very small initial aperture and minor compaction.
In the early drainage of a CBM well, coal seam is usually water
saturated, water pressure drops due to pumping and correspondingly
the effective stress increases and coal permeability declines quickly,
thereby the drainage in this stage should be sustained, stable and
slow. When the water pressure drops to the critical desorption
pressure (Pc), water saturation of coal reservoir decreases as the
increasing gas desorption, and gas saturation increases, the stress
sensitivity of coal seam diminishes, gas well uid level in this stage
should keep stable. In the middle and later stage of drainage,
continuous gas desorption will lead to signicant coal matrix
shrinkage and an increasingly rise in permeability and thereby gas
production goes up. In short, the change of permeability by above
two aspects will impact on the gas production. On the one hand, the
permeability variation induced by in-situ stress is a static effect; on
Y. Meng et al. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 133 (2015) 810817
817
are compressed and closed, signicant elasticplastic deformation occurs in coal, so the coal reservoir permeability
decreases obviously.
(5) The variation of permeability induced by in-situ stress is
greater than that by dynamic changes of the reservoir pressure
in the gas production process.
Acknowledgment
Fig. 10. Relationship between permeability and effective stress, reservoir pressure
(Luo, 2006).