Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Quantitative evaluation of CBM reservoir fracturing quality using logging data

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2017 J. Geophys. Eng. 14 226

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-2140/14/2/226)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 130.133.8.114
This content was downloaded on 27/01/2017 at 10:37

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

You may also be interested in:

Quantitatively evaluating the CBM reservoir using logging data

Zhidi Liu and Jingzhou Zhao

Integrated petrophysical log evaluation for coalbed methane in the Hancheng area, China
Shaogui Deng, Yunyun Hu, Dong Chen et al.

Analytical modeling of mercury injection in high-rank coalbed methane reservoirs based on pores and
microfractures: a case study of the upper carboniferous Taiyuan Formation in the Heshun block of
the Qinshui Basin, central China
Yang Gu, Wenlong Ding, Shuai Yin et al.

Log evaluation of a coalbed methane (CBM) reservoir: a case study in the southern Qinshui basin,
China
Hou Jie, Zou Changchun, Huang Zhaohui et al.

Investigation on log responses of bulk density and thermal neutrons in coalbed with different ranks
Peiqiang Zhao, Zhiqiang Mao, Ding Jin et al.

A methodology for determining the evolution law of gob permeability and its distributions in
longwall coal mines
Cun Zhang, Shihao Tu, Lei Zhang et al.

Analytical modeling of pressure transient behavior for coalbed methane transport in anisotropic
media
Lei Wang and Xiaodong Wang

Experimental and numerical study of radial lateral fracturing for coalbed methane
Xuan Fu, Gensheng Li, Zhongwei Huang et al.
 Journal of Geophysics and Engineering

J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226–237 (12pp) doi:10.1088/1742-2140/14/2/226

Quantitative evaluation of CBM reservoir

fracturing quality using logging data
Xiaoyan Tang
College of Geology and Environment, Xi’an University of Science and Technology, 710054, People’s
Republic of China

E-mail: tangxiaoyanlmj@sina.com

Received 25 March 2016, revised 21 October 2016

Accepted for publication 14 November 2016
Published 20 January 2017

Abstract
This paper presents a method for the quantitative evaluation of fracturing quality of coalbed
methane (CBM) reservoirs using logging data, which will help optimize the reservoir fracturing
layer. First, to make full use of logging and laboratory analysis data of coal cores, a method to
determine the brittleness index of CBM reservoirs is deduced using coal industrial components.
Second, this paper briefly introduces methodology to compute the horizontal principal stress
difference coefficient of coal seams and the minimum horizontal principal stress difference of
coal seams and roof and floor. Third, an evaluation model for the coal structure index is
established using logging data, which fully considers the fracturing quality of CBM reservoirs
affected by the coal structure. Fourth, the development degree of the coal reservoir is evaluated.
The evaluation standard for fracturing quality of CBM reservoirs based on these five evaluation
parameters is used for quantitative evaluation. The results show that the combination of methods
proposed in this paper are effective. The results are consistent with the fracturing dynamic
drainage. The coal seam with large brittleness index, large stress difference between the coal
seam and roof and floor, small stress difference coefficient and high coal structure index has a
strong fracturing quality.

Keywords: coalbed methane, reservoir, fracturing quality, evaluation, logging data

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

Nomenclature 1. Introduction
GR Natural gamma ray log
Coalbed methane (CBM) development often uses fracturing
SP Spontaneous potential log drainage to achieve industrial gas flow (Ferdian et al 2014).
CAL Caliper log Therefore, it is important to evaluate the coal seam fracturing
RLLD Deep dual laterolog quality to optimize the favorable CBM reservoir and develop
RLLS Shallow dual laterolog a fracturing scheme. In conventional oil and gas fields, the
petroleum engineer often evaluates the fracturing quality of
RMSFL Microspheres focused log
the reservoir using logging technology, i.e., the brittleness
AC Compensated acoustic log index and stress characteristics (Kidambi and Kumar 2016).
DEN Compensation density log However, the existing calculations of the brittleness
CNL Compensated neutron log index are mainly aimed at sandstone, carbonate rock and
IBL Lab analysis value of brittleness index volcanic rock reservoirs (Saeidi et al 2013). The feasibility for
CBM reservoirs and application for fracture quality evalua-
IB Calculated value of brittleness index
tion are unknown. Furthermore, whether an effective fracture
ICS Coal structure index system can be formed in CBM reservoirs during fracturing is

1742-2132/17/020226+12$33.00 226 © 2017 Sinopec Geophysical Research Institute Printed in the UK

J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226 X Tang

closely related to the difference coefficient of horizontal stress

of CBM reservoirs (Basarir et al 2015). The stress difference
between the coal seam and roof and floor must be considered
during fracturing design to prevent direct penetration of the
sandstone or limestone aquifer. Studies have found that the
coal structure has a great influence on the fracturing effect.
Undeformed and fragmented coal form fractures easily, and
granulated coal and mylonitic coal easily block the fractures
during fracturing (Liu et al 2014). The existing quantitative
fracturing quality evaluation technique based on logging data
is rarely used, which is inconvenient for fracturing zone
optimization of CBM reservoirs.
To improve the accuracy of logging quantitative eva-
luation for the fracturing quality of CBM reservoirs and to
provide technical support for the fracturing zone optimization,
the brittleness index of coal rock, the difference coefficient of
horizontal principal stress of coal seam, the minimum dif-
ference of horizontal principal stress between coal seam and
roof and floor, and the coal structure index using logging data
are calculated in this study. In addition, the influence of
fracture development on fracturing is taken into account. The
Figure 1. The relationship between density and ash.
evaluation standard based on these five characteristics allows
for the evaluation of the fracturing quality of CBM reservoirs.

2. Calculation of coal rock brittleness index

The brittleness index of rock is an important characteristic for

the evaluation of reservoir fracturing. Brittleness index gen-
erally refers to the ratio of tensile strength to compressive
strength of rock. A higher brittleness index indicates easier
reservoir fracturing and reticular fracture formation. A lower
brittleness index implies stronger reservoir plasticity and
easier wing fracture formation (Rodríguez-Pradilla 2015).
The most commonly used brittleness index calculation
method is based on laboratory analysis test values of rock
mechanics parameters such as the brittleness index of rock
according to Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, which are
calculated from logging data. Another common method is
based on the concentration of brittle minerals (quartz and
calcite), which is calculated from logging data (Fan
et al 2015). However, because the brittle characteristics of
fixed carbon and ash of coal rock are unknown, the brittleness Figure 2. The relationship between ash and fixed carbon.
index of coal rock cannot be determined using the brittle
mineral content. Therefore, we determined the brittle char-
brittleness of coal is very small. Therefore, the brittleness of
acteristics of fixed carbon and ash based on analyzing the
coal rock has a greater impact on the ash and fixed carbon.
intrinsic relationship between fixed carbon, ash and Young’s
Based on the test data of coal core and logging data, the
modulus and Poisson’s ratio and established a calculation
sensitivity parameters of the ash and fixed carbon content are
model for the brittleness index of coal rock.
analyzed, and it is known that there is a good correlation
between density and ash, ash and fixed carbon correlated with
2.1. Determination of industrial components of coal rock the amount of the best. So, figures 1 and 2 are constructed by
the regression fitting method, and the calculation equation of
Ignoring components with a relative volume of less than 1%, ash and fixed carbon in coal rock can be obtained. The con-
such as silica, nitrate, siderite, and sulfur, the coal rock is tent of ash and fixed carbon can be calculated from
composed of four parts, which are fixed carbon, ash, volatiles equations (1) and (2).
and moisture (Sliwa et al 2006). As volatiles and moisture are
not solid, and their content is less, the impact on the Va = 7.2501 ⋅ rb - 0.5603 (1 )

227
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226 X Tang

Figure 3. The relationship between dynamic and static Poisson’s

ratio. Figure 4. The relationship between dynamic and static Young’s
modulus.

Vf = - 6.6035 ⋅ Va + 144.72 (2 )

where Va , Vf are the volume percentages of ash and fixed

carbon (%),rb is the density of coal rock (g cm−3).

2.2. Determination of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of

coal rock

Poisson’s ratio is the ratio of longitudinal strain to transverse

strain of rocks (Lührs et al 2016). Young’s modulus describes
the tension elasticity of rocks and is the ratio of uniaxial stress
to normal strain (Fereshtenejad and Song 2016). Research
shows that dynamic mechanical parameters of rocks can be
calculated using logging data (Jarzyna et al 2010). The
models of dynamic Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus
calculations using logging data are as follows,

Dts2 - 2Dt 2
m= (3 )
2 (Dts2 - Dt 2)

9.290 304 ´ 10 3 ⋅ rb ⋅ (1 + m)(1-2m) Figure 5. The relationship between fixed carbon and Young’s
E= (4 ) modulus.
(1 - m) Dt 2

where μ is the dynamic Poisson’s ratio of coal rock, Δt, Δts

are the compressional wave slowness and shear-wave slow-
ness of coal rock (μs/ft), and E is the dynamic Young’s
modulus of coal rock (MPa).
The existing research has shown that the dynamic and
static mechanical parameters within one coal core sample are
similar; thus, they can transform one another. Based on the
results of triaxial mechanical experiments and the mechanical
parameters calculated from logging data, this paper constructs
the transformation chart of dynamic and static mechanical
parameters as shown in figures 3 and 4.
From the figures 3 and 4, it shows that the conversion
between dynamic, static Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
in the study area of coal rock are as follows.
E = 0.794Es + 453.550 (5 )
ms = 0.512md + 0.069 (6 )
where Es is the static Young’s modulus (MPa), ms is the static
Poisson’s ratio of coal rock.
2.3. Analyzing the correlation between industrial components
and brittleness index in coal rock
To determine the intrinsic relationship between fixed carbon,
ash and Poisson’s ratio and Young’s modulus, the industrial
components in coal rock, Poisson’s ratio and Young’s

228
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226
Figure 6. The relationship between fixed carbon and Poisson’s ratio.
Figure 7. The relationship between ash and Young’s modulus.
modulus are calculated using the aforementioned methods.
The graphs plotting fixed carbon and ash vs. Poisson’s ratio
and Young’s modulus are shown in figures 5–8. The fixed
carbon content of coal rock is negatively correlated with
Young’s modulus but positively correlated with Poisson’s
ratio. The ash content correlates positively with Young’s
modulus but negatively with Poisson’s ratio.
2.4. Calculation of the brittleness index of coal rock
Research has shown that rock mechanics parameters have a
great influence on reservoir fracturing. Poisson’s ratio reflects
the fracture strength of rock under stress, while the elastic
modulus reflects the support capacity of rock after failure. The
higher the elastic modulus is, the lower Poisson’s ratio is and
229
X Tang
Figure 8. The relationship between ash and Poisson’s ratio.
the stronger the brittleness of rock, i.e., the brittleness of coal
seams is directly proportional to Young’s modulus but
inversely proportional to Poisson’s ratio. Our results show
that the fixed carbon of coal rock is negatively related to
Young’s modulus but positively related to Poisson’s ratio,
and the ash correlates positively with Young’s modulus but
negatively with Poisson’s ratio. It can be inferred that the
fixed carbon content of coal rock is negatively related to the
brittleness index, and the ash is positively related to the
brittleness index. Poisson’s ratio, Young’s modulus of ash
content and fixed carbon are different, therefore, Poisson’s
ratio and Young’s modulus act as the weight coefficient of
ash and fixed carbon. Based on this conclusion, equations (7)
and (8) are established, and a model for calculating the brittle
index of coal rock is presented, as shown in equation (9).
Va
ma
IB1 = ´ 100 (7 )
Va V
+ f
ma mf
Va
Ea
IB2 = ´ 100 (8 )
Va V
+ f
Ea Ef
IB1 + IB2
IB = . (9 )
2
IB1 is the brittleness index of coal rock calculated by Pois-
son’s ratio, ash and fixed carbon (%), IB2 is the brittleness
index of coal rock calculated by Young’s modulus, ash and
fixed carbon (%), IB is the final brittleness index of coal rock
(%), ma and mf are respectively the Poisson ratio of ash and
fixed carbon (dimensionless), Ea and Ef are respectively
Young’s modulus of ash and fixed carbon (MPa). Poisson’s
ratio and Young’s modulus of ash and fixed carbon can be
determined according to the fitting equation of figures 5 to 8.
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226
Figure 9. Calculation of brittleness index of industrial components in the coal seam of well H3-5-96.
The values of fixed carbon and ash calculated by logging
are substituted into equation (9) and the brittleness index of
coal rock can be determined.
Figure 9 shows the results of the brittleness index calc-
ulation for coal rock of well H3-5-96. The thickness of the
669.0–675.1 m coal seam is 5.1 m. The calculated profile
reveals a brittleness index between 14.1 and 51.2 for the coal
seam of this well and a dominant frequency change from
14.1–32.5 with an average value of 21.2. Lab analysis in the
669.0–675.1 m coal seam shows a brittleness index of
12.6–27.6 with an average value of 19.8. The 5th track in the
figure implies that the evaluation results are consistent with
indoor test analysis. Thus, the accuracy fully meets the
requirements of fracturing design in CBM reservoirs.
3. Difference coefficient of horizontal principal
stress in the coal seam
With a decreasing difference coefficient of horizontal princi-
pal stress of the coal seam, reticular fracture formation
230
X Tang
increases, i.e., fracturing improves. The fracturing fluid flows
into the cleat and the microfracture during the process of
fracturing in the CBM reservoir and the new fracture will be
formed. If the horizontal stress difference is small, the fracture
will extend in multiple directions (Keshavarz et al 2014).
The coexistence of three factors of natural fractures and
bedding, brittleness of coal rock, and smaller horizontal
principal stress difference, is an internally necessary geolo-
gical factor that helps CBM reservoirs with extremely dense
permeability to achieve higher productivity (Rodríguez-Pra-
dilla 2015). Therefore, the maximum and minimum of hor-
izontal principal stress difference of CBM reservoirs are the
decisive factors for successful realization of volume fractur-
ing. The index for describing the horizontal principal stress
difference is the difference coefficient of horizontal principal
stress. Usually, the difference coefficient of horizontal prin-
cipal stress is calculated using equation (10)
s1 - s2
Kh = . (10)
s2
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226
In the equation,
m
s1 = (sv - aPp) + b1 (sv - aPp) + aPp
1-m
m between the coal seam and roof and floor can be obtained
s2 = (sv - aPp) + b 2 (sv - aPp) + aPp
1-m
⎛ H ⎞ Ds = ss - sc.
sv = 0.009 806 65 ´ ⎜ro ´ Ho +
⎝ ò
H0
rb dH ⎟
⎠
1 In the equation,
⎛ 1 1 ⎞B
⎜ - ⎟ m
Dt Dt ⎟
Pp = sv - 145.31 ´ ⎜ ma
⎜⎜ A ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
where Kh is the dimensionless difference coefficient of hor-
izontal principal stress, s1 is the maximum horizontal princi-
pal stress (MPa), s2 is the minimum horizontal principal stress
(MPa), sv is the vertical stress (MPa), a is the dimensionless
Biot coefficient, Pp is the formation porosity pressure (MPa),
b1 is the dimensionless tectonic stress coefficient in the
direction of the maximum horizontal stress, b 2 is the
dimensionless tectonic stress coefficient in direction of the
minimum horizontal stress, ro is the average density of for-
mation in the well section with no logging density (g cm-3 ),
Ho is the initial depth of density logging (m), H is the depth of
calculation point (m), Dtma is the acoustic time of coal
(ms/ft ), and A and B are dimensionless regional coefficients.
A small difference coefficient of horizontal principal
stress indicates that the fractures produced by fracturing
expand easily along the natural fracture, i.e., a greater fracture
volume zone is formed. A large difference coefficient of
horizontal principal stress indicates that the fractures pro-
duced by fracturing expand easily along the direction
perpendicular to the minimum principal stress.
4. Minimum horizontal principal stress difference
between the coal seam and roof and floor
There are notable differences of mechanical properties
between coal seam rock and roof and floor, which cause the
appearance of a geostress field dominating the coal seam with
vertical principal stress. The magnitude of the difference of
elastic modulus between layers increases with increasing
difference of minimum horizontal principal stress between
layers. The more significant this trend is, the easier the arti-
ficial fractures are controlled in the coal seam (Zou
et al 2014).
Stress and stress direction of roof and floor not only
control the initiation direction of fracture but also play an
important role in fracture extension. Given the fact that there
is a large difference in the elastic modulus between the coal
seam and the roof and floor in a certain stress field, a greater
difference in spreading pressure between layers can be pro-
duced, which prevents the fracture from extending to the roof
and floor. This shows that the stress difference between the
coal seam and roof and floor has an important influence on the
231
X Tang
extension of the fracture produced by fracturing (Lu
et al 2015).
Based on the calculated stress of coal seam and roof and
floor, the minimum difference of horizontal principal stress
using logging data.
(11)
ss, sc = (sv - aPp) + b1 (sv - aPp) + aPp
1-m
where Ds is the minimum difference of horizontal principal
stress between the coal seam and roof and floor in MPa, ss is
the minimum horizontal principal stress of roof and floor in
MPa, and sc is the minimum horizontal principal stress of coal
seam in MPa.
5. Coal structure identification
The coal structure has an important influence on the fracturing
effect. The mechanical strength of tectonic coal is low and the
coal structure is loose. Therefore, brittle fracture is impossible
and fracture formation is difficult (Gyulai et al 2013). Frac-
turing forms the seam wall. At the same time, a large amount
of pulverized coal, which calves and peels from the coal
seam, blocks the fracture channel so that the permeability of
coal seam cannot be improved. Studies have shown that
logging information can more effectively reflect the coal
structure (Fu et al 2009, Chen et al 2013). Therefore, it is
necessary to reasonably determine the coal structure of the
coal seam by making full use of high-resolution geophysical
logging data. This is undoubtedly necessary for fracture zone
optimization.
In this study, the crossplot for coal structure identification
was constructed using resistivity, density, acoustic time and
caliper (figures 10 and 11). Figure 10 plots caliper vs. resis-
tivity. The graph shows a resistivity of middle-high amplitude
for undeformed coal, but a low caliper. However, the caliper
of tectonic coal increases and the resistivity shows medium-
low values. Figure 11 plots density vs. acoustic time. The
density of tectonic coal decreases with increasing acoustic
time. However, the acoustic time of undeformed coal has a
low value at high density.
This research shows that the resistivity of undeformed
coal generally has high amplitude, high density, low acoustic
time, and the borehole enlargement is not significant. How-
ever, the density of tectonic coal is low, the acoustic time is
low, the resistivity shows a low-middle value, and the bore-
hole enlargement reaches very significant to extreme magni-
tudes. Systematic analysis of logging response characteristics
of undeformed, fragmented and mylonitic coal in study area
reveals that the density logging values and the resistivity
values decrease, but acoustic time and caliper increase with
coal structure transition from undeformed coal to mylonitic
coal. Density, resistivity and acoustic time logging data are
affected by caliper, so it is not to introduce the parameter of
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226
Figure 10. The crossplot of caliper and resistivity for coal structure
identification.
Figure 11. The crossplot of density and acoustic time for coal
structure identification.
caliper when constructing the log evaluation model of the coal
structure index. As such, the coal structure index is defined by
equation (12),
DEN
ICS = 100 ⋅ ⋅ log (RT)
Dt
where ICS is the dimensionless coal structure index, RT is the
resistivity (W ⋅ m).
A large coal structure index (ICS) indicates a coal rock
closer to undeformed coal and strong fracturing. A small coal
structure index (ICS) reflects a coal rock closer to granulated
and mylonitic coal, and weak fracturing.
Based on the method above, the coal structure index (ICS)
can be calculated after substituting density, acoustic time and
X Tang
Table 1. Classification standard of coal structure.
Coal structure Coal index (ICS)
Undeformed …0.7
Fragmented 0.4„ICS<0.7
Granulated 0.2<„ICS<0.4
Mylonitic <0.2
resistivity into equation (12). The ICS value is normalized in
this paper, due to the fact that the variation range of coal
structure index (ICS) calculated by this method is large. ICS
values of different coal structures are divided into the standard
ranges shown in table 1.
We identified the coal structure of every well in the study
area based on the method above. The coal structure graph for
well HS10 is shown in figure 12. The main CBM seam of the
well is 744.1–747.6 m with a thickness of 3.5 m, and there are
no notable partings of layers. The seventh column of this
graph shows that the 744.6–746.4 m section in the CBM
reservoir is granulated coal, and the 744.1–744.6 m and
746.4–747.6 m sections are fragmented coal. Comparison of
the 7th and 8th track of the figure reveals that the coal
structure identified by the method described in this study is
identical to the coal structure according to coal core obser-
vation and description.
6. Fracture identification
Fractures improve the seepage characteristic of coal reser-
voirs. An opening microfracture may greatly improve the
permeability of a coal reservoir and provide a better seepage
channel for it. Should natural fractures of the target stratum be
relatively developed, and there will be different natural frac-
ture systems, which may be directional subject to the control
of regional geostress, which may have a great influence on
fracturing construction (Deng et al 2015).
Natural fractures and bedding facilitate the injection of
fracturing fluid at a high rate (Ge et al 2014). The more
developed natural fractures and face cleats are, the better the
fracability of the coal reservoir will be. Studies have shown
that when the injection pressure is far lower than the vertical
overburden pressure, the horizontal face cleats will open and
form horizontal fractures (Ghanizadeh et al 2015). Several
horizontal face cleats provide conditions for development of
vertical shear fractures.
The coal seam will burst if the local stress is greater than
(12) the compressive strength. The fracture surface of the core will
extend along the direction of maximum stress. Thus, hor-
izontal cracks will always occur as the horizontal stress plays
a leading role and the overlying formation pressure is small in
the shallower portions of the strata; some high angle and
vertical fractures will occur if the overlying strata pressure is
large in the deeper portions of the strata. The instrument plate
of resistivity image logging, which clings to the wall for
measurements, has high vertical resolution and can identify
the formation of cracks and fractures (Deng et al 2013). The
232
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226 X Tang

Figure 12. Coal structure identification results for well HS10.

Figure 13. Logging response characteristics of coal seam fracture in Well HS18.

plate presents the bending of sine or cosine black stripes on
the resistivity image logging expansion (figure 13). The
greater the amplitude of the black stripe, the higher the crack
angle. Vertical fractures on the imaging figure present irre-
gular dark lines stripe images paralleling the hole axis. If there
is no other mineral filler, the vertical fracture openings are
usually larger and the fracture plane is irregular. The high
angle seam presents low resistance dark stripes on the ima-
ging map, forming high amplitude sine or cosine waves
throughout the entire hole. The low angle seam presents low
resistance dark stripes on the imaging map, forming low
amplitude sine or cosine waves throughout the entire hole.

233
 J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226
Table 2. Classification criteria for fracturing quality evaluation of CBM reservoirs.

Fracturing qual- Difference coefficient of horizontal prin- Stress difference between the coal Coal structure Development of microfracture
ity type Brittleness index (IB) cipal stress of coal seam(KH) seam and its roof and floor (Ds ) index (ICS) in the coal reservoir
Type I >40 <0.25 >3 >0.7 Developed
25<IB<40 0.25<Kh<0.35 0.4<ICS<0.7
234

Type II 2<Δσ<3 Relatively developed

Type III <25 >0.35 <2 <0.4 Not developed

X Tang
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226
The net seam is formed by a number of intersecting cracks,
which show as multiple cross wiring or filaments on the
image logs. Net fractures often appear within relatively strong
wall coal caving rock in the drilling process, and such a
formation usually has good permeability.
Cleat and natural fracture networks that exist in the coal
have a great influence on the mechanical properties and per-
meability of a coal seam. Usually, the coal seam contains the
following natural fractures: face cleat, end cleat, and joint.
Face cleat and end cleat are the basic forms of fractures in a
coal seam and determine the permeability of the seam. Joints
may cut through the coal seam, inorganic sandwich and
surrounding rock interface; therefore, the existence of joints
can improve the vertical permeability, which is very impor-
tant for high productivity wells.
In this diagram, the segment of the coal seam
713.5~721.6 m of Well HS18 is broken, the fracture is
developed, and the crack angle is between 50°and 60°. The
overall resistivity is low, which indicates that the structural
fractures are developed and that hydrodynamic processes are
active. The existence of natural structural fractures is easy to
cause the rupture of coal seam in the process of fracturing.
Furthermore, the fractures in the study area may improve the
mechanics of coal rock and reduce the fracturing pressure at
the time of fracturing. It will be easier for fracturing fluid to
flow along the natural fractures and further develop larger
induced fractures.
7. Fracturing quality evaluation criteria for CBM
reservoirs
Based on the analysis above, the higher the brittle index is,
the better the fracturing quality of the CBM reservoir. When
the difference coefficient of horizontal principal stress is
small, the complex fracture formation in the coal seam is
enhanced. When the minimum difference of horizontal prin-
cipal stress is large between the coal seam and roof and floor,
the fracturing can be controlled easily in the coal seam and
will not penetrate the coal seam. Studies have shown that
whether a microfracture develops in a coal reservoir relates to
hydrocarbon accumulation. It also contributes to fracturing
and coalbed methane seepage. The brittle index of coal seam,
difference coefficient of horizontal principal stress of coal
seam, stress difference between the coal seam and roof and
floor were determined in this study using logging data. On the
basis of calculations and systematic comparison between
actual fracture effect monitoring and dynamic drainage data,
the classification criteria for fracturing quality evaluation of
CBM reservoirs are presented in table 2.
Table 2 shows that the fracture quality of the coal seam is
divided into three types. Type I implies that the quality is
good and that the fracturing is strong. Type II indicates a
medium quality and intermediate fracturing. Type III reflects
that the quality is poor and successful fracturing is difficult.
235
X Tang
8. Application example analysis
The fracturing quality of the main CBM reservoir of each well
in the study area has been calculated and evaluated using
logging data and evaluation index models.
Figure 14 shows the evaluation results for fracturing
quality of the CBM reservoir for well HS12. The thickness of
the 573.5–577.4 m section of the coal seam is 3.9 m and there
is no notable gangue in layers. The well log curves of the
573.5–576.0 m section in the upper part of the CBM reservoir
reflect a good coal quality. The GR change value of 35.0–60.0
API, the density change value of 1.37–1.66 g cm−3, and the
dual caliper represent micro-expansion. The fixed carbon
content is approximately 85% based on logging data and low
ash is present. The gas content changes from 8.9–19.4 m3 t−1.
The porosity calculated from logging data varies between
6.2%–8.9% and the permeability varies between
0.53–0.91×10−3 μm2. This shows that the reservoir quality
of the coal seam is good. This is the enrichment well area of
CBM. However, the brittle index of the coal seam section is
30, the minimum difference of horizontal principal stress
between the coal seam and roof and floor is 2.3, the difference
coefficient of horizontal stress of coal seam is 0.5 and the coal
structure index is 0.33. Although the fracture of the coal seam
is relatively developed, the fracturing quality is comprehen-
sively evaluated as type III based on the other four para-
meters, which indicates that the fracturing quality is poor. The
optimization of fracturing layers mainly considered the
quality of CBM reservoirs in the past, and the coal seam was
fractured. Yet, although the coal seam drained more than
three months after fracturing, it is still unable to produce gas.
Monitoring of fracturing effect and dynamic drainage showed
that a large amount of pulverized coal, which calved and
peeled from coal rock, blocked the fracture channel due to the
poor fracturing quality of the coal seam.
The 576.0–577.4 m section in the lower part of the CBM
reservoir has low fixed carbon and high ash content. Logging
calculation results show that the gas content varies between
6.3–10.2 m3 t−1, the porosity varies between 5.4%–7.6% and
the permeability varies between 0.48–0.79×10−3 μm2. The
fracturing quality of the CBM reservoir is evaluated as type
III. However, the brittle index of the coal seam is 45, the
minimum difference of horizontal principal stress between the
coal seam and roof and floor is 2.2, the difference coefficient
of horizontal stress of coal seam is 0.15 and the coal structure
index is 0.62, and the fracture of the coal seam is very
developed. The fracturing quality is comprehensively eval-
uated as type II, which indicates that the fracturing quality is
strong. The lower part of the coal seam has been re-fractured
after fracturing failure in the upper part of the coal seam.
Draining more than 20 days after fracturing, the daily gas
production is 873 m3. This shows that the fracturing quality
evaluated in this study coincides better with the actual frac-
turing drainage. At the same time, it also shows that the
accuracy of fracturing quality evaluation plays a key role in
the optimization of the fracturing layer in the CBM reservoir.
It is worth mentioning that because CBM logging is
seriously affected by environmental factors, it is necessary to
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226
Figure 14. Evaluation results for fracturing quality of well HS12 in the CBM reservoir.
correct the environmental effect on logging data to ensure the
effective feasibility of our method. The evaluation of CBM
reservoir fracturing quality has high accuracy only if the five
evaluation criteria, which are brittleness index of coal rock,
difference coefficient of horizontal stress of the coal seam,
minimum difference of horizontal principal stress between the
coal seam and roof and floor, coal structure index, and frac-
ture development, are accurately calculated using logging
data. In addition, when selecting the fracturing layer, it is
necessary to combine evaluation results and optimization of
the CBM reservoir with high CBM content, thick coal seam
and good physical property.
9. Conclusions
(1) Based on the intrinsic relationship between fixed
carbon, ash, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, the
brittle characteristics of fixed carbon and ash were
determined in this paper. A model for brittleness index
calculation was introduced based on fixed carbon and
ash contents. The accuracy of brittleness index calcul-
ation for coal rock could be improved using this
method.
(2) Systematic analysis of logging response characteristics
of undeformed, fragmented, granulated and mylonitic
coal showed that density logging and resistivity logging
values decrease, but acoustic time difference increase
with coal structure transition from undeformed to
mylonitic coal. A large index of coal structure reflects
that the coal rock is closer to undeformed coal and the
fracturing is strong. A small index of coal structure
indicates a coal rock closer to granulated and mylonitic
coal and weak fracturing.
236
X Tang
(3) With the increase of brittleness index, stress difference
between the coal seam and roof and floor, coal structure
index, and the development of fracture, the fracture
quality of the CBM reservoir improves. However, the
fracture quality of the CBM reservoir decreases with the
increase of difference coefficient of horizontal stress of
the coal seam. A good fracturing quality determines not
only that the CBM reservoir can be successfully
fractured but also that it is directly related to the
drainage gas recovery capacity after fracturing.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the reviewers and the
editor for their many helpful comments and suggestions,
which significantly improved the manuscript. The Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant NO: 41502159) is
thanked for support during the completion of this paper.
References
Basarir H, Ferid O and Aydin O 2015 Prediction of the stresses
around main and tail gates during top coal caving by 3D
numerical analysis Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. 76 88–97
Chen Q et al 2013 Coalbody structure classification method based
on dual-lateral and RXO crossplot analysis J. Coal Sci. Eng. 19
522–9 (in Chinese)
Deng S et al 2013 Integrated petrophysical log characterization for
tight carbonate reservoir effectiveness: a case study from the
Longgang area, Sichuan Basin, China Petroleum Sci. 7 336–46
Deng S et al 2015 Numerical simulation of high-resolution
azimuthal resistivity laterolog response in fractured reservoirs
Petroleum Sci. 7 252–63
J. Geophys. Eng. 14 (2017) 226
Fan Z et al 2015 Logging optimization modeling on brittleness index
of tight formation rocks Acta Petrolei Sinica 36 1411–20 (in
Chinese)
Ferdian F, Ilyas A and Mediyanti V 2014 CBM development
scenario optimization for production sharing contract, case
study: Sumbagsel field, Indonesia SPE/EAGE European
Unconventional Resources Conf. and Exhibition (Vienna,
25–27 February 2014) 35–40
Fereshtenejad S and Song J 2016 Fundamental study on applicability
of powder-based 3D printer for physical modeling in rock
mechanics Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 6 1–10
Fu X et al 2009 Evaluation of coal structure and permeability with
the aid of geophysical logging technology Fuel. 88 2278–85
Ge X et al 2014 A method to differentiate degree of volcanic
reservoir fracture development using conventional well
logging data—an application of kernel principal component
analysis (KPCA) and multifractal detrended fluctuation
analysis (MFDFA) IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote
Sens. 7 4972–8
Ghanizadeh A et al 2015 Petrophysical and geomechanical
characteristics of canadian tight oil and liquid rich gas
reservoirs: II. Geomechanical property estimation Fuel 53
682–91
Gyulai Á et al 2013 In-mine geoelectric investigations for detecting
tectonic disturbances in coal seam structures Acta Geophysica
61 1184–95
Jarzyna J, Bala M and Cichy A 2010 Elastic parameters of rocks
from well logging in neat surface sediments Acta Geophys. Sin.
58 34–48
237
X Tang
Keshavarz A et al 2014 Enhancement of CBM well fracturing
through stimulation of cleat permeability by ultra-fine particle
injection APPEA J. 54 155–65
Kidambi T and Kumar G 2016 Mechanical earth modeling for a
vertical well drilled in a naturally fractured tight carbonate gas
reservoir in the Persian Gulf J. Petroleum Sci. Eng. 141 38–51
Liu S et al 2014 Structure and production fluid flow pattern of post-
fracturing high-rank CBM reservoir in Southern Qinshui Basin
J. Central South University 21 3970–82 (in Chinese)
Lu Y et al 2015 Problems and methods for optimization of hydraulic
fracturing of deep coal beds in China Chem. Technol. Fuels
Oils 51 41–8
Lührs L et al 2016 Elastic and plastic Poisson’s ratios of nanoporous
gold Scr. Mater. 110 65–9
Rodríguez-Pradilla G 2015 Microseismic monitoring of a hydraulic-
fracturing operation in a CBM reservoir: case study in the
Cerrejón Formation, Cesar-Ranchería Basin, Colombia
Leading Edge 34 896–902
Saeidi O et al 2013 Prediction of rock fracture toughness modes I
and II utilising brittleness indexes Int. J. Min. Mineral Eng. 4
163–73
Sliwa R, Hatherly P, Medhurst T and Turner R 2006 Quantitative
geophysical log interpretation for geotechnical and geological
assessment of coal measure rocks 6th International Mining
Geology Conference (Xuzhou, China, 18–20 October 2009)
117–25
Zou Y, Zhang S and Zhang J 2014 Experimental method to simulate
coal fines migration and coal fines aggregation prevention in
the hydraulic fracture Transp. Porous Media 101 17–34