Environment PPT Template 003

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Fakultas Teknik UNLAM
“Inovasi dan Aplikasi Teknologi Pertambangan untuk Negeri”

Banjarbaru, 30 Juli 2011
REVIEW OF GAS DIFFUSIVITY IN COAL: PART 1,

PRELIMINARY CHARACTERISATION AND NOVEL HIGH
PRESSURE MULTI-COMPONENT DIFFUSION CELL
M. Elma1, P. Massarotto1, dan V. Rudolph1
1
School of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
Brisbane, QLD 4072 Australia
penulis1@universitas.ac.id
ABSTRACT
A special high pressure multi-component diffusion cell (HPMCDC) apparatus
has been designed and built to measure single and binary gas diffusion, including
co-current and counter-diffusion, from low to high pressures. The apparatus
incorporates capability to investigate scale effects in solid coal specimens, up to 25
mm in diameter and 25 mm in thickness. This paper presents preliminary results of
coal sample characterization prior to the diffusivity measurements. Future
experiments will be conducted to also assess the effect of the counter-diffusion of two
different gases, namely CH4 and CO2, of various temperatures, pressures and for
three distinct ranks of coal.
In developing optimal sample preparation procedures and to minimise any
measurement errors, several literature-sourced techniques have been reviewed and
the best selected. The pore volume shrinkage, moisture content and porosity have
been measured, as they are important properties affecting the ability of gases to
diffuse in coal. It was found that a large portion of pore volume shrinkage occurs
between 20oC and ~50oC, and falls asymptotically with temperature. Heat treatment
reduces density by up to 5%. The diffusivity experiments will also address the
frequent and controversial literature conclusions that the apparent-diffusion of CO2
in coal is larger by an order of magnitude than the apparent-diffusion of CH4.
Key word: diffusion, measure, moisture content, porosity
75
1. INTRODUCTION
Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing significantly, leading to much debate

about what to do about climate change. There are many alternatives being researched
to reduce the increasing of emissions, one being geosequestration of the CO2 in
underground deep porous rocks, like sandstones, carbonates, and coal seams. Coal
seams have been shown to be capable of holding large amounts of carbon dioxide in
comparison to the amounts of naturally-occurring methane gas (Burruss, 2003,
Siriwardane et al., 2007).
In recent decades, coal seam gas or coal bed methane (CBM) has become an
important source of energy in some countries in the world. Production of coal seam
gas is complex and difficult to predict and analyse, especially at the early stages of
recovery. Gas production from reservoirs of coal bed methane is governed by the
complex interaction of single phase gas diffusion through the micropore system,
called the matrix, and two phase gas and water flow through the macropore system,
i.e. in the natural fractures called cleats. The gas is desorbed from the micropores
(matrix) and then then diffuses through the micropores and mesopores, finally
entering the macropore (cleat) system (Aminian, 2003).
This paper is concerned with the coal’s mass and volume losses during the
course of gas production as these affect the ability of the gasses to diffuse in different
coals. These factors may be particularly strong in the case of rank variation of coals,
since coals shrink and swell significantly in response to moisture loss and gain,
respectively. Some literature states that coal has a colloidal gel-like structure that can
shrink and swell in response to moisture variation, as water can be held by polar
groups within the structure of coal (Suuberg et al., 1993b, Suuberg et al., 1991).
Determination of the shrinkage factor, moisture content and the location of the
moisture within the pore structure are essential to understanding the behaviour of gas
diffusion in coal.
76
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Coal Diffusion
There is an on-going need to improve the understanding of methane gas

diffusion throughout the large variation in pore sizes present in coal bed methane
reservoirs. Since 1950, CH4 diffusion in coal has been studied by doing desorption
of CH4 during extraction of coal samples from the sub-surface (Nandi and Walker
Jr, 1970, Nandi and Walker Jr, 1975), but it is still poorly understood.
In order to produce gas from CBM reservoirs, there are four steps needed to be
controlled, (1) the dewatering process, (2) the desorption of gas from coal surface,
(3) diffusion of gas to the fracture systems, and (4) flow of the gas through the
fractures to the wellbores (Ahmed and Mckinney, 2004, Gerami et al., 2007). The
measured values of gas desorption rate are generally controlled by two processes: (1)
the sorption process (sorption characteristic of the coal) and (2) the diffusion process
(diffusion of gas through the coal matrix). These two processes are usually lumped
together and described by the parameter of sorption time in numerical models (Wei,
2008) and this is the primary characteristic used by some practitioners for evaluation
and predictive modelling of coal reservoirs (Saghafi et al., 2007, Pone et al., 2009).
A sorption isotherm relates the gas storage capacity of a coal to pressure and
depends on the rank, temperature, and the moisture content of the coal. A common
assumption is that the relationship between gas storage capacity and pressure can be
described by a Langmuir-type equation:
(1)
Where :
Gs : Gas storage capacity, SCF/ton
P : Pressure, psia
VL : Langmuir volume constant, SCF/ton
PL : Langmuir pressure constant, psia
77
The above equation assumes pure coal, and for application in the field, the
equation is modified to account for ash and moisture contents of the coal:
(2)
Where :
fa : Ash content, fraction
fm : Moisture content, fraction
Fig. 1 shows the incremental amount of gas sorbed per unit increase in pressure
decreases with increasing sorption pressure; the sorbed gas eventually reaches a
maximum value which is represented by Langmuir volume constant (VL). Langmuir
pressure constant (PL) represents the pressure at which gas storage capacity equals
one half of the maximum storage capacity (VL).
Fig. 1: A typical Langmuir Isotherm (Aminian, 2003)
Gas desorption from the matrix surface in turn leads to molecular diffusion
occurring within the coal matrix. Diffusion through the coal matrix is controlled by
the concentration gradient and can be described by Fick’s law:
̅̅̅ (3)
Where :
qgm : gas production (diffusion) rate, MCF/day
78
σ : matrix shape factor, dimensionless

D : matrix diffusivity constant, s-1
Vc : matrix volume, ft3
ρc : matrix density, g/cm3
Gc : average matrix gas content, SCF/ton
Diffusivity and shape factor are usually combined into one parameter, referred
to as sorption time, as follows:
(4)
Sorption time (τ) is the time required to desorb 63.2 precent of the initial gas
volume. The sorption time characterizes the diffusion effects and generally is
determined from desorption test results (Aminian, 2003).
2.2. Coal Porosity
In simplified models, coal seams are characterized by a dual porosity system,

consisting of micropore and macropores. The micro-pores are contained in the coal
matrix, which is highly heterogeneous. The majority of CBM is present in the sorbed
state in these micropores, particularly at low reservoir pressures. The macropore
system is established by the natural fracture network known as the cleat system
(Karacan and Mitchell, 2003).
There are two main transport mechanisms which control gas flow in coal:
viscous laminar flow through the cleats, which follows Darcy’s law; and diffusion
through the coal matrix bounded by the cleats, which follows Fick’s law (King et al.,
1986). Cleats consist of the more continuous face cleats and less continuous butt
cleats. Usually, the cleat system is the primary water and gas pathway during
production. On the other hand, other fracture systems often occur at a micrometre
scale to form micro cleats in the coal matrix, although its size, shape and continuity
are also affected by coal lithotypes (Gamson et al., 1993, Clarkson and Bustin,
1997). Based on the literature, pore structure in coal matrix is highly heterogeneous.
It is commonly divided into three size categories: micropores (<2 nm in diameter),
79
mesopores (>2 and <50 nm) and macropores (>50 nm), (Harpalani and Chen, 1997,
Massarotto, 2002). More than 95% of the coal matrix pores across these pore sizes
act as an adsorption surface in coal (Gray, 1987).
The different coal porosities make a large contribution to the swelling and
shrinkage of coal during adsorption and desorption processes (Harpalani and Chen,
1997, Rodrigues and Lemos de Sousa, 2002).
I II III
Typical pore volume
CO2 isotherm at 273 K N2 isotherm at 77 K
Mercury Porosimetry
Vmicro Vmeso Vmacro
2 50
Pore size (nm)
Note
I : CO2 at 273 K covers pores less than 0.9 nm at 1atm and requires measurement at higher
pressure to cover entire the micropore range.
II : As N2 at 77 K has a diffusional limitation into micropores, covering some mesopores and
macropores, the pore volume obtained from N2 at 77 K is not representing the real pore structure.
III : Macropore volume can be measured by mercury porosimetry.
Fig. 2: Typical pore volume vspore size measurements from adsorption isotherms
(CO2 at 273 K and N2 at 77 K) on coals and mercury porosimetry results
(Bae, J.S)
In subbituminous coal samples, micropores could contribute 50 to 60% of the

total matrix porosity of 13 to 25% (Mares et al., 2009, Bergen et al.). Significantly,
Levine in 1993 mentioned that the dimensions of the micropores and fine mesopores
found in the coal matrix material imply that the porosity is intermolecular, as
opposed to interparticulate, and is determined by molecular interactions (Bergen et
al.). These molecular interactions imply the accessibility of the pore system will
depend on the fluid used for its determination (such as; He versus N2 versus CO2)
and therefore that the porosity of coal is not a fixed value, but is a function of the
fluid used to measure porosity. Fig. 2 shows the typical pore volume as a function of
a pore size produced in experimental data, using different fluids (Bae et al 2010).
80
2.3. Coal Shrinkage & Swelling
One of the potential problems during carbon dioxide sequestration is shrinkage

and swelling that occurs in coal (Siriwardane et al., 2007, Reeves and Oudinot, 2005,
Smith et al., 2005, Kelemen et al., 2006, Mazumder et al., 2006a, Mazumder et al.,
2006b, Pan and Connell, 2005).
Shrinkage and swelling of coal the matrix is a function of pressure, type of gas
adsorbed and the coal rank (Balan and Gumrah, 2009). The components of
dependency of swelling are shown in the experimental study done by Cui et al.
(2007)(Cui et al., 2007). The swelling effect of CO2 is greater than those of CH4 and
N2 at the same pressure. Then, when the pressure of each gas component increases,
the swelling effect also increases. Therefore, injection of CO2 at high pressures is
expected to lead to increased swelling and decreased injection capacity.
Coal shrinkage can have a significant impact on increased cleat permeability in
CBM production. Though there are now quite a number of laboratory studies
confirming this behaviour, the literature reports only limited field examples of this
(San Juan basin, USA, and Scotia field, Australia). The molecular and micro-
structure lattice effects are still poorly understood. It is important for enhanced
coalbed methane (ECBM) production that via geologic sequestration of carbon
dioxide (CO2), that multi-component diffusion be lab-evaluated, prior to undertaking
large scale sequestration projects. Anderson (1965) and Walker (1956) noted that the
micropore system in coal is not readily accessible to the N2 molecule at 77 K
because of an activated diffusion process and/or shrinkage of pores. Bybee (2007)(
summarized that the influence of swelling and shrinkage in coal needs to be
investigated and may cause significant changes in permeability that result in
significant reservoir pressure effects. The swelling and shrinkage will depend on gas
type as well as the state of adsorption and desorption.
2.4. Moisture Content
In his paper Gauger (1932) ( concluded that the water content in coals
originates from the following sources: (1) decomposition of organic molecules
81
(called combined water), (2) surface-adsorbed water, (3) capillary-condensed water,

(4) dissolved water, and (5) water of hydration of inorganic constituent of the coal.
Brown (1953) ( also mentioned that the moisture content in coal is divided into
constituent categories: (1) free or adherent moisture (essentially surface adsorbed)
possessing the physical properties of ordinary water; (2) physically bound or inherent
moisture with vapour pressure lowered by the small diameter of the pores of the coal
structure in which it is absorbed; and (3) chemically bound water of hydration or
combined water.
Since the moisture content in the matrix occupies pore volume and part of the
moisture adsorbs on the pore surface, it definitely has an impact on the mechanisms
in gas diffusion behaviour (Pan et al., 2010).
3. AIM AND METHODOLOGY
The aim of this study was to get some preliminary results for moisture content,
porosity and mass and pore volume losses of reference coal samples before starting
the diffusivity measurements. These parameters are important in their own right as
part of coal characterisation and will also be needed for the interpretation of our
diffusion work in further studies.
A further motivation for this study was to investigate the various experimental
methodologies used in the literature to measure coal diffusion. This study reviews
and comments on their advantages and disadvantages, providing guidance for the
design of improved measurement techniques. We note the surprising conclusion
regarding the greater relative diffusivity of CO2 compared to CH4 in coal seams
reported in the literature (Marecka, 2007, Saghafi et al., 2007, Han et al., 2010, Pan
et al., 2010, Charrière et al., 2010). For these reasons, it is important to understand
the nature of diffusion in microporous solids, to differentiate between diffusion and
other transport phenomena and develop more accurate model.
82
4. EXPERIMENTAL
4.1. New Design of Diffusivity Apparatus
In order to address the above issues, we have developed an advanced design of

a high pressure diffusion cell, capable of measuring diffusion in solid coal samples at
varying temperatures and pressures and with a counter-diffusion capability. This
High Pressure Multi-Component Diffusion Cell (HPMCDC) is shown in Fig. 3. The
pressure can be set between 1 and 10 MPa. It is designed to be used in single gas
diffusion or in counter or co-current diffusion of a binary gas mixture. The
cylindrical coal samples can be up to 25 mm thick and are generally 25 mm in
diameter. The CH4 and CO2 are introduced into the cell, and the temperature as well
as pressure can be varied. A computerised data recording system will capture
experimental data, including time. Each experiment is influenced by the variation of
each parameter. The composition of gas (es) diffusing through the coal sample can
be measured by collecting the gas and passing it into a Gas Chromatograph.
Fig. 3: Schematic of High Pressure Multi-Component Diffusivity Cell (HPMCDC)
83
4.2. Gaps in Knowledge
In order to have practical limits on the many permutations of experiments that

could be conducted using the HPMCDC, several gaps in knowledge have been
identified as focus areas for investigation. They are: (1) Develop methods to examine
diffusivity in coal in both counter and co-current configurations; (2) Review
literature arguments and conclusions on the relative diffusivities between CH4 and
CO2 in coal; (3) Examine the effect of the size of the coal matrix by using different
thickness the coal samples ; (4) Measure relative diffusivity based on varying
moisture contents in the coal matrix; (5) Examine the effect of swelling and
shrinkage in coal on diffusivity; and (6) Perform other supportive measurements,
such as: petrography of coal, proximate and ultimate analysis, coal rank, chemical
and physical analysis; and pore size distribution studies with various test fluids and
apparatus.
5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
5.1. Preliminary Characterisation of Coal
The preliminary experiments were conducted on high volatile bituminous coals

of similar rank but of different type/texture. Three kinds of Australian coal from the
Bowen Basin have been analysed, with different petrography, proximate and ultimate
analyses. Maceral and vitrinite reflectance analyses were undertaken using accredited
petrographers, according to Australian Standards. These samples were prepared from
off-cuts of large coal blocks sourced from the Northern Bowen Basin in Queensland
from underground and surface coal mines. The coal samples were cut into small
10mm-to-a-side cubes for the total porosity, moisture content and volume/mass loss
experiments.
5.2. Total Porosity

To determine the porosity of coal, a Micromeritics AccuPyc 1330 Pycnometer
and an Autopor Mercury Porosimeter have been used.
84
True density is the weight of a unit volume of the pore free solid coal (White et
al., 2005). Helium is the smallest molecule available and has the greatest access to all
the pore volume in a coal sample; thus He can measure the true density of coal
(Kelemen et al., 2006).
Mercury porosimetry gives the apparent and bulk density. Mercury does not
access all the pores at a given pressure range. When done at very high pressure, then
it is possible that there could be fractures in the pores and damaging the pores in the
sample The literature (White et al., 2005, Iyer et al., 2008, Massarotto et al., 2010)
has proposed that the total open pore volume (Vp) and total porosity () of a solid
coal system can be based on density measurements by Helium pycnometry and
Mercury porosimetry, utilising the results as shown in equations 5 and 6:
(5)
 ( ) (6)
5.3. Moisture Content
Determination of coal moisture content was based on the ASTM

D3302/D3302M-09. The major problem faced in determining moisture content is the
multiplicity of conditions under which water exists in coals and the problem involved
in obtaining sharp separation and distinction among these conditions.
5.4. Volume And Mass Loss
To determine the pore volume and mass loss in coal, a drying oven has been
used. The dimension change has been measured for coal samples by using a
Microscope SZH10. After the original coal sample has been sized and weighed, it is
dried in the oven at intermittent temperatures (20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150 &
2000C). Samples were re-measured and re-weighed after each 2 h interval between
time steps.
Petrographic, proximate and ultimate analyses of the three reference samples
have been done by an accredited lab and are shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3:
85
Table 1: Petrographic Analysis
Sample Maceral Vol %, mmf
Vitrinite 73.4
Liptinite 0.4
A Inertinite 26.3
Mean maximum 0.69
reflectance
Vitrinite 16.3
Liptinite 4.9
B Inertinite 78.9
Mean maximum 0.90
reflectance
Vitrinite 53.3
Liptinite 3.2
C Inertinite 43.5
Mean maximum 0.65
reflectance
Table 2 Proximate Analysis

Proximate Analysis Sample
(a.d.)*
(%) A B C
Moisture Content 3.00 9.50 5.7
Ash Content 8.70 2.90 3.3
Volatile Matter 33.30 27.10 32.3
Fixed Carbon 55.00 60.50 58.7
Table 3 Ultimate Analysis

Ultimate Analysis Sample
(d.a.f.)*
(%) A B C
Carbon 82.50 73.90 81.50
Hydrogen 5.36 4.43 5.19
Nitrogen 1.89 1.53 2.04
Sulphur 0.70 0.20 0.30
Oxygen 9.50 19.94 11.00
*a.d : air dried
*d.a.f : dry ash free
86
5.5. Coal Density
After a coal sample is dried at each temperature, Helium pycnometry has been
used for measuring the true density of each sample. Figure 4 shows coal density of
samples as a function of temperature. In all three samples, the density decreases
when the samples are dried, i.e. they are losing more mass than bulk volume.
Fig. 4: Coal Density of sample A, B and C
The measurement of total porosities of each sample also has been done by
using He-pycnometry and Hg porosimetry. The total porosities of coal the samples
varied between 12.40 – 12.14%.
5.6. Drying Coal
The mass and pore volume of coal samples changed when the coal samples
were dried. The mass will slowly decrease when the samples started to be dried from
room temperature to higher temperatures. On the other hand, the pore volume of
samples will decrease sharply when they are dried for the first time from room
temperature to 400C, and then it continued to decrease slowly until heated up to
1000C; at temperatures above 1000C, the volume is almost constant but decreases
87
very slightly. The loss in pore volume and loss in mass is shown in Figure 6. These
losses and their total effect on shrinkage will be subject to further study. According
to some researchers, the highest increase in the shrinkage effect is found for under-
saturated wet coals (Balan and Gumrah, 2009).
There are some concerns about affecting the elemental ratios in the case of
drying coal at higher temperatures, where it could destroy the chemical composition
and micro-structure. Additionally, though water can act as a transport agent for gas.
This effect seems to be unimportant at very high temperatures, in which the
thermally induced relaxation of coal micro-structure is undoubtedly more important.
Temperature Vs Volume
2.20
Volume (cm3) A
2.10
Volume (cm3) B
2.00
1.90 Volume (cm3) C
1.80
Volume (cm3)
1.70
1.60
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Temp (0 C)
Fig. 6: Volume and mass change during drying coals
88
Suuberg et al. (1993) concluded that shrinkage upon drying is correlated to

volumetric shrinkage (%). Shrinkage of this magnitude suggests that measurements
of the surface area of dried coals will provide an erroneous estimate of true
accessibility of coal structure. Suuberg stated that the process of drying or heat
treatment of coal at temperatures above 1000C can significantly affect both the
cross-link density of coal and the rate of subsequent solvent uptake by coal.
Suuberg found that the volumetric shrinkage of the samples was excellently
correlated with their moisture loss.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The experimental results of this preliminary study may be summarized as

follows:
1. The mass losses from the three high volatile bituminous rank coals appear to
correlate linearly with treatment temperature, up to 200oC.
2. The pore volume losses appear to correlate asymptotically with treatment
temperatures, with the largest drop shown between 20oC and some 50oC.
3. Drying coal in air gave major impacts on pore volume shrinkage.
4. When the coal is heated, the porosity and thus accessible surface area will be
changed.
5. Further studies are much recommended to start the experiments of gas
diffusivities in coal, to address the controversial conclusions from many
historical experiments, whereby the apparent-diffusion of CO2 in coal is larger
by an order of magnitude than the apparent diffusion of CH4.
6. The new HPMCDC is adequately designed to investigate leading-edge effects
of solid coal sample size, diffusion, binary co-diffusion and binary counter-
diffusion, as well as temperature and pressure effects, in the range required by
the CBM & ECBM industry.
89
7. NOMENCLATURE
Qgm : gas production (diffusion) rate, MCF/day

: matrix shape factor, dimensionless
D : matrix diffusivity constant, sec-1
Vc : matrix volume, ft3
c : matrix densirt, g/cm3
̅̅̅ : average matrix gas content, SCF/ton
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We acknowledge the help of Dr D. Biddle in the design and fabrication of the

novel HPMCDC, Mr. D. Page for laboratory assistance, and Dr R.S. Iyer and Dr J. S.
Bae for data support. For project funding, we would like to acknowledge the
Australian Research Council Industry Linkage scheme and the supporting
companies, Origin Energy Ltd, Stanwell Corporation, Santos Ltd and RWTH Aachen
University.
9. REFERENCES
AHMED, T. & MCKINNEY, P. 2004. Advanced Reservoir Engineering, Gulf

Publishing Company.
AMINIAN, K. 2003. Coalbed Methane-Fundamental Concepts.
BALAN, H. O. & GUMRAH, F. 2009. Assessment of srhinkage-swelling influences

in coal seams using rank-dependent physical coal properties. Coal Geology, 77,
203-213.
BERGEN, F. V., WEHRENS, P. & SPIERS, C. Diffusive properties of coal matrix

fragments determined from swelling kinetics. PhD.
BROWN, G. M. 1953. The determination of moisture in coals. National gas buletin,

Australia, 17, 14-21.
BURRUSS, R. C. 2003. CO2 adsorption in coal seams as a function of rank and

composition: a new task in USGS Research on gelologic sequestration of CO2.
Coal-Seq II [Online].
90
BYBEE, K. 2007. Influence of coal shrinkage and swelling on coalbed methane

production and CO2 sequestration. Society of petroleum Engineers San
Antonio, Texas.
CLARKSON, C. R. & BUSTIN, R. M. 1997. Variation in permeability with

lithotype and maceral composition of Cretaceous coals of the Canadian
Cordillera. International Journal of Coal Geology, 33, 135-151.
CUI, X., BUSTIN, R. M. & CHIKATAMARLA, L. 2007. Adsorption-induced coal

swelling and stress: Implications for methane production and acid gas
sequestration into coal seams. Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth,
112.
GAMSON, P. D., BEAMISH, B. B. & JOHNSON, D. P. 1993. Coal microstructure

and micropermeability and their effects on natural gas recovery. Fuel, 72, 87-
99.
GAUGER, A. W. 1932. Condition of water in coals of various ranks. Transactions of

the TAIMA, 101, 148-164.
GERAMI, S., DARVISH, M. P., MORAD, K. & MATTAR, L. 2007. Type curves
for dry CBM reservoirs with equilibrium desorption.
GRAY, I. 1987. Reservoir Engineering in Coal Seams: part 1-The Physical Process
of the Gas Storage and Movement in Coal Seams. SPE Reservoir Engineering
(Society of Petroleum Engineers), 2 Number 1, 28-34.
HARPALANI, S. & CHEN, G. 1997. Influence of gas production induced

volumetric strain on permeability of coal. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 15, 303-325.
IYER, R. S., MASSAROTTO, P. & BAE, J. S. Year. Porosity and compressibility

determination of core coal samples using Helium and Mercury Densities. In:
Asia Pasific Coalbed Methane Symposium, 2008 Brisbane, Australia.
KARACAN, C. Ö. & MITCHELL, G. D. 2003. Behavior and effect of different coal

microlithotypes during gas transport for carbon dioxide sequestration into coal
seams. International Journal of Coal Geology, 53, 201-217.
KELEMEN, S. R., JKWIATEK, L. M. & LEE, A. G. K. Year. Swelling and sorption

response of selected argonne premium bituminous coals to CO2, CH4 and N2.
In: International Coalbed Methane Symposium, 2006 Tuscaloosa, AL.
KING, R, G., ERTEKIN, TURGAY, SCHWERER & C, F. 1986. Numerical

Simulation of the Transient Behavior of Coal-Seam Degasification Wells SPE
Formation Evaluation, 1, 165-183.
91
MARES, T. E., RADLINSKI, A. P., MOORE, T. A., COOKSON, D.,

THIYAGARAJAN, P., ILAVSKY, J. & KLEPP, J. 2009. Assessing the
potential for CO2 adsorption in a subbituminous coal, Huntly Coalfield, New
Zealand, using small angle scattering techniques. International Journal of Coal
Geology, 77, 54-68.
MASSAROTTO, P. 2002. 4-D Coal Permeability Under True Triaxial Stress and
Constant Volume Condition. PhD Thesis, Queensland.
MASSAROTTO, P., GOLDING, S. D., BAE, J. S., IYER, R. & RUDOLPH, V.

2010. Changes in reservoir properties from injection of supercritical CO2 into
coal seams -- A laboratory study. International Journal of Coal Geology, 82,
269-279.
MAZUMDER, S., BRUINING, J. & WOLF, K. H. Year. Swelling and Anomalous

Diffusion Mechanisms of CO2 in Coal. In: International Coalbed Methane
Symposium, 2006a Tuscaloosa, AL.
MAZUMDER, S., SIEMONS, N. & WOLF, K. H. Year. Differential Swelling and

Permeability Changes of Coal in Response to CO2 Injection for Enhanced
Coalbed Methane. In: International Coalbed Methane Symposium, 2006b
Tuscaloosa, AL.
NANDI, S. P. & WALKER JR, P. L. 1970. Activated diffusion of methane in coal.

Fuel, 49, 309-323.
NANDI, S. P. & WALKER JR, P. L. 1975. Activated diffusion of methane from

coals at elevated pressures. Fuel, 54, 81-86.
PAN, Z. & CONNELL, L. D. Year. Measurement and Modelling of Gas Adsorption-

Induced Coal Swelling. In: International Coalbed Methane Symposium, 2005
Tuscaloosa, AL.
PAN, Z., CONNELL, L. D., CAMILLERI, M. & CONNELLY, L. 2010. Effects of

matrix moisture on gas diffusion and flow in coal. Fuel, 89, 3207-3217.
PONE, J. D. N., HALLECK, P. M. & MATHEWS, J. P. 2009. Sorption Capacity

and Sorption Kinetic Measurements of CO2 and CH4 in Confined and
Unconfined Bituminous Coal. Energy & Fuels, 23, 4688-4695.
REEVES, S. & OUDINOT, A. Year. The allison CO2-ECBM Pilot, a reservoir and
economic analysis coal. In: Coalbed Methane Symposium, 2005 Tuscaloosa,
AL.
RODRIGUES, C. F. & LEMOS DE SOUSA, M. J. 2002. The measurement of coal

porosity with different gases. International Journal of Coal Geology, 48, 245-
251.
92
SAGHAFI, A., FAIZ, M. & ROBERTS, D. 2007. CO2 storage and gas diffusivity
properties of coals from Sydney Basin, Australia. International Journal of Coal
Geology, 70, 240-254.
SIRIWARDANE, H. J., GONDLE, R. & SMITH, D. H. Year. Influence of

Shrinkage and Swelling Properties of Coal on Geologic Sequestration of
Carbon Dioxide. In: International Coalbed Methane Symposium, May 21-25,
2007 2007 Tuscaloosa, AL.
SMITH, D. H., SAMS, W. N., BROMHAL, G., JIKICH, S. A. & ERTEKIN, T.

2005. Simulating carbon dioxide sequestration/ECBM production in coal
seams of permeability anisotropies and the diffusion-time constant. SPE
Reservoir Evaluation Engineering, 8, 156-163.
SUUBERG, E. M., OTAKE, Y., YUN, Y. & DEEVI, S. C. 1993. Role of moisture in
coal structure and the effect of drying uopm the accessibility of coal structure.
Energy & Fuels, 7, 384-392.
WEI, X. 2008. Numerical Simulation of Gas Diffusion and Flow in Coalbeds for
Enhanced Methane Recovery. Doctor of Philosophy, The University of
Queensland.
WHITE, C. M., SMITH, D. H., JONES, K. L., GOODMAN, A. L., JIKICH, S. A.,
LACOUNT, R. B., DUBOSE, S. B., OZDEMIR, E., MORSI, B. I. &
SCHROEDER, K. T. 2005. Sequestration of carbon dioxide in coal with
enhanced coalbed methane recovery - A review. Energy and Fuels, 19, 659-
724.
10. BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF PRESENTER
Muthia Elma is a PhD student in the School of Chemical Engineering at the

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Previously she spent almost two years
to receive her Masters Degree in Energy and Environment at Ecole des Mines de
Nantes, France and then worked at the University of LambungMangkurat, Indonesia
93

Environment PPT Template 003

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Environment PPT Template 003

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Fakultas Teknik UNLAM

“Inovasi dan Aplikasi Teknologi Pertambangan untuk Negeri”

REVIEW OF GAS DIFFUSIVITY IN COAL: PART 1,

M. Elma1, P. Massarotto1, dan V. Rudolph1

Key word: diffusion, measure, moisture content, porosity

Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing significantly, leading to much debate

2.1. Coal Diffusion

There is an on-going need to improve the understanding of methane gas

Fig. 1: A typical Langmuir Isotherm (Aminian, 2003)

σ : matrix shape factor, dimensionless

Gc : average matrix gas content, SCF/ton

2.2. Coal Porosity

In simplified models, coal seams are characterized by a dual porosity system,

CO2 isotherm at 273 K N2 isotherm at 77 K

Vmicro Vmeso Vmacro

In subbituminous coal samples, micropores could contribute 50 to 60% of the

2.3. Coal Shrinkage & Swelling

One of the potential problems during carbon dioxide sequestration is shrinkage

2.4. Moisture Content

(called combined water), (2) surface-adsorbed water, (3) capillary-condensed water,

3. AIM AND METHODOLOGY

4.1. New Design of Diffusivity Apparatus

In order to address the above issues, we have developed an advanced design of

Fig. 3: Schematic of High Pressure Multi-Component Diffusivity Cell (HPMCDC)

4.2. Gaps in Knowledge

In order to have practical limits on the many permutations of experiments that

5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

5.1. Preliminary Characterisation of Coal

The preliminary experiments were conducted on high volatile bituminous coals

5.2. Total Porosity

5.3. Moisture Content

Determination of coal moisture content was based on the ASTM

5.4. Volume And Mass Loss

Table 1: Petrographic Analysis

Sample Maceral Vol %, mmf

Table 2 Proximate Analysis

Table 3 Ultimate Analysis

5.5. Coal Density

Fig. 4: Coal Density of sample A, B and C

5.6. Drying Coal

Fig. 6: Volume and mass change during drying coals

Suuberg et al. (1993) concluded that shrinkage upon drying is correlated to

The experimental results of this preliminary study may be summarized as

Qgm : gas production (diffusion) rate, MCF/day

We acknowledge the help of Dr D. Biddle in the design and fabrication of the

AHMED, T. & MCKINNEY, P. 2004. Advanced Reservoir Engineering, Gulf

AMINIAN, K. 2003. Coalbed Methane-Fundamental Concepts.

BALAN, H. O. & GUMRAH, F. 2009. Assessment of srhinkage-swelling influences

BERGEN, F. V., WEHRENS, P. & SPIERS, C. Diffusive properties of coal matrix

BROWN, G. M. 1953. The determination of moisture in coals. National gas buletin,

BURRUSS, R. C. 2003. CO2 adsorption in coal seams as a function of rank and

BYBEE, K. 2007. Influence of coal shrinkage and swelling on coalbed methane

CLARKSON, C. R. & BUSTIN, R. M. 1997. Variation in permeability with

CUI, X., BUSTIN, R. M. & CHIKATAMARLA, L. 2007. Adsorption-induced coal

GAMSON, P. D., BEAMISH, B. B. & JOHNSON, D. P. 1993. Coal microstructure

GAUGER, A. W. 1932. Condition of water in coals of various ranks. Transactions of

HARPALANI, S. & CHEN, G. 1997. Influence of gas production induced

IYER, R. S., MASSAROTTO, P. & BAE, J. S. Year. Porosity and compressibility

KARACAN, C. Ö. & MITCHELL, G. D. 2003. Behavior and effect of different coal

KELEMEN, S. R., JKWIATEK, L. M. & LEE, A. G. K. Year. Swelling and sorption

KING, R, G., ERTEKIN, TURGAY, SCHWERER & C, F. 1986. Numerical

MARES, T. E., RADLINSKI, A. P., MOORE, T. A., COOKSON, D.,

MASSAROTTO, P., GOLDING, S. D., BAE, J. S., IYER, R. & RUDOLPH, V.