Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Back to Menu IPA10-E-112

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION


Thirty-Fourth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2010

PREDICTING THE PRODUCTION PROFILE OF GAS AND WATER OF COAL BED METHANE
(CBM) FIELD USING MATERIAL BALANCE OF MODIFIED G.R. KING'S ITERATION
PROCEDURE

Richard Tymotheus Purba*


Doddy Abdassah*
Dedi Irawan*

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

Methane gas is a promising potential source for the Coal Bed Methane (CBM) is characterized by a
future energy needs of humanity. The author will dual porosity system, which consists of micro pores
describe the analytical method of predicting the (matrix), and macro pores (cleats). Micro pores
production profile of gas and water of a Coal Bed describe the part of the coal bed where the methane
Methane (CBM) field, using the material balance of gas adsorbs during the process of coalification. The
a modified G.R. King iteration procedure. The gas molecule which has been formed adsorbs to the
author has concluded that some of the steps within surface of the coal bed methane because of the
the iteration procedure of G.R. King are not electrostatic (or Van Der Waals) force, and perhaps
suitable, and has thus applied a mathematical because of the chemical bond as well. Macro pores
analysis to correct G.R. King's iteration procedure, refer to the volume, as the part of the coal bed that
to allow the prediction of a production profile in a provides space for the fluid as storage media (water
CBM field. and a minimal amount of methane gas) and as a
space for fluids to flow (during the recovery
With the newly-modified iteration procedure, the process). Generally, the coal bed methane reservoir
author applied the material balance technique with consists of water and gas; where gas adsorbed on
data given by G.R. King (SPE 20730) and working the surface of the coal bed or in the cleat and water
from other references was able to generate a is stored in the cleat (King et al, 1985) (Figure 1).
production profile for a CBM field. The author also The adsorbed gas is studied through the adsorption
applied the Corey Correlation for gas and water to theory developed by Langmuir: his relationship
ascertain whether it is suitable or not to generate the profile clarifies the correlation of adsorbed volume
production profile of a CBM field. to pressure changes. In addition, Langmuir explains
the nature of the saturated and under-saturated
The author concluded that the modified G.R. King CBM reservoir. Moreover, through this explanation,
iteration procedure is analytically suitable for the the pressure of the reservoir needs to be reduced to
production profile of a CBM field. However, the that obtained by producing water at the beginning of
Corey Correlation has never been found suitable to the whole CBM field recovery processes.
precisely describe the characterization of a CBM
production profile. Moreover, the author tried to Figure 2 illustrates the process of desorption
analyze many different values within Corey (extraction of gas from the surface of micro pores),
parameters, and in this paper posits that the most where the curved line describes where desorption
suitable parameter to be changed is the Corey begins to occur. This act is similar to what happens
exponent. The larger the value of the water in the conventional oil process, where the curved
saturation exponent, the longer the time consumed line relates the same way as bubble line pressure in
for water recovery. The larger the value of the gas conventional oil processes.
saturation exponent, the longer the time consumed
for gas recovery; this creates a different production The recovery process begins, and the pressure will
profile for as CBM field. decline; once all the water is produced, gas emitted
from the de-adsorption process will diffuse and all
the fluids contained in macro pores (gas or water)
* Institute of Technology Bandung will flow according to Darcy’s Law. The other
Back to Menu

parameters influencing the flow of the fluids are ………………………….(1)


irreducible water saturation (Swirr), porosity, and the
relative permeability of the macro pores.
and the gas contained in the cleat:
The purpose of this research has been to analyze the
iteration procedure of G.R. King's material balance ………………………...……(2)
technique and prove whether such an iteration could
obtain the Original Gas In Place reasonably. The Water saturation in the cleat and the cleat volume
authors, using the modified iteration procedure, will change as the pressure decreases, influencing
attempt to carry out an analytic comparison between water influx or efflux. According to King water
relative permeability from the CBM field and the saturation is the result of any of three mechanisms
correlation developed by Corey. For relative (King 1993), which are:
permeability, the author made use of data taken
from the Basin Warrior, on the Jagger coal bed.
• Water expansion resulting from water
compressibility
Material Balance
• Water influx and water efflux
• Change of the pore volume resulting from
The material balance technique plays a major role in
rock compressibility
determining Original Gas In Place (OGIP), which
could calculate the remaining reserves and
production performance. A material balance Based on the mechanism, King defined the ,
equation is generally based on the following where:
assumption (King, 1993):
…...........................................................(3)
• Free gas and adsorbed gas are in a state of
equilibrium. In other words, this statement ….............................. (3a)
assumes that coal bed methane is in a saturated
state and follows the Langmuir Isotherm curve
….........................................(3b)
• Data is calculated and obtained accurately
• Adsorption is in a pseudo-steady state process
….....................................(3b)
One of the most important things in describing the
material balance in coal bed methane is the storage In addition, the author did not discover where
media of gas. The storage media, as we mentioned exactly (or mathematically) that G. R. King derived
above, consists of the matrix and the cleat. the definition of . The author assumed that the
above equations are obtained from the condition
representing water saturation and the changes taking
G.R. King, in his paper (SPE 20730), attempted to place during the recovery process. For the time
derive the equation in consideration of the quantity range of production,
of coal bed methane gas (King, 1993). He worked
from the following assumptions: …(4)

• Gas is adsorbed in the coal matrix


• Gas is contained in the cleat
• Reservoir water is compressible ……..........................(5)
• Water production is available
• Reservoir Rock is compressible ……......................................... (5a)

There are two kinds of equations whereby King ……................................ (5b)


derived these equations to approach the material
balance concept. The first one King generated was
the equation based on gas quantity in each storage ……...............................................(5c)
media, which is:
Gas adsorbed in the matrix: ……................................................(5d)
Back to Menu

Through another material balance equation, King ……….……(13a)


tried to derive the equation according to the mole
concept.
Equation (13a) is appropriate for the unit of VL of
…(6) SCF/ton.

Recalling: ...............(13b)

………………………………….………(7)
Equation (13b) is appropriate for the unit of VL of
Substitute (7) to (6) SCF/ft3 and rearranged Bg.

King defined the volume obtained when the


……………………..…….(8)
pressure decreases as the volume of the reservoir
itself.
Vi is the initial reservoir volume and the unit of this
term is ft3. To convert the condition of the initial Recall:
reservoir volume at the surface we have to add a
divisor, Bgi (initial formation volume factor).
…………………….(14)
Recalling:

If ; then To determine the value of the original gas in place


(OGIP), King defined:

….….................................(9) …….............................(15)

Thus Equation (9) becomes rearranged into the Divide and rearrange Equation (14) with equation
following. (15),

……………………….….(10) .......................................(15a)

Recalling: The plot of with Gp will result in plots with the


intercept the Gp axis which is the Original Gas In
……………………….….….(11) Place.

The Iteration Procedure


If we plot versus Gp (according to Equation 11)
we will obtain a straight line with the slope of In his paper SPE 20730, King created an iteration
procedure to estimate the value of Original Gas In
and the interception of the straight line
Place. The iteration procedure is based on the
with the Gp axis will show Initial Gas In Place material balance equations, which are already
(IGIP). developed.

If we take a look at the Equation (10), with a little If we recall the Equation (14), we may then redefine
rearrangement we will then see that Equation (10) is Vb2 as bulk volume including secondary porosity
similar to the equation that King obtained. from the coal bed methane field. Thereafter, the
Equation (14) can be re-arranged.
………………..………(12)
Rearrange:
King defines that Z in the coal bed methane is
different compared to conventional gas. He defined Moreover:
the new state of Z and replaces the symbol with Z*.
Back to Menu

……...............................(16) in Table 1. The gas composition, obtained from a


different field because of the lack of data in King’s
paper, is available in Table 2. Figure 3 describes the
Equation (3), Equation (13) and Equation (16) profile production that King developed. This figure
become three equations with no solution, because is a reference to the author to regenerate the
the value of Vb2 is unknown. Therefore, an iteration production profile and perform analyses. The
procedure is needed in order to converge the value production profile shows the time of total
of Vb2. The following is the iteration procedure production as 10 years. King classified the first
generated by G.R. King (King, 1993). three years as a production history and the next
seven years as a reference for prediction.
1. Assume a value of Vb2.
2. Calculate the average water saturation ( , The relative permeability data of water and gas is
using Equation (3), at each pressure. shown in Figure 4. It is the relative permeability
3. Calculate Z*, using Equation (13), at each profile of the Jagger Coal Seam. For most of the
pressure. engineering studies and modeling of coal bed
4. Plot p/Z* versus Gp. methane fields, the permeability data is obtained
5. Determine the slope of m, of the plot p/Z* from a history matching technique (Wicks, 1989).
versus Gp.
6. From the slope of plot p/Z*, calculate the bulk- This research was conducted with a Corey
volume , Vbc, from the equation: correlation for gas and water to generate the water
……………...……...….(17) relative permeability-versus-water saturation
profile, and the relative gas permeability-versus-gas
7. Go to step 2 and continue until convergence.
saturation profile.
From the iteration procedure there are a few things Ng
k rg ⎛ S g − S gc ⎞
that need to be modified. This is because the p/Z* =⎜ ⎟ …………………..(19)
plot does not describe the Equation (16) well. If we k rg* ⎜1− S − S ⎟
⎝ wc gc ⎠
analyze the Equation (16) much further, this
equation becomes suitable for the linear equation of Nw
k rw ⎛ S w − S wc ⎞
Y = mX + C; where Y represents p/Z*, m represents = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ……...…………….....(20)
⎝ 1 − S wc
*
and C represents . Therefore, the k rw ⎠
author proposes the modified iteration procedure. METHODOLOGY

1. Assume a value of Vb2. The author used a simple mathematical equation to


2. Calculate using Equation (3). analyze the iteration procedure, to determine
3. Determine the value Z* using Equation (13). whether it is correct or not. Using a linear equation
4. Plot Gp at the Y (ordinate) axis and p/Z* in the analysis, the author corrected the p/Z* plot and
X (abscissa) axis. suggested a new plot. Moreover, because of this
5. From the plot p/Z*, determine the slope (m). new plot, the author analyzed the unit of the slope
6. Determine the value of Vb2 with the following from the plot. It was found that to be able to match
equation the dimensional analysis, the ‘m’ term in Equation
(17) needed to be changed.
…………………(18)
7. Go to step two and continue until convergence. CKB Dempsey for real gas pseudo-pressure
correlation was used to generate the pressure-
To justify the result we will (using the dimensional versus- pseudo-pressure plot. With this plot, we
analysis) obtain the unit of Vb2 (in the Equation could convert the value of each Pwf that we have
(18) is correct (which is in ft3). into the ψwf (pseudo-pressure). In this plot, we will
need the value of Z for each pressure we measure.
Data and Correlation The author used a Beggs and Brill correlation to
approach the value of Z for each pressure of the
The author used the data from King’s paper (SPE plot.
20730). King has analyzed the data of one field
including petrophysic data, adsorption properties For the Z (gas deviation factor) of the coal bed
and well parameters of a 6 ft coal bed, which has methane gas, the author approximated the value
been producing for 10 years. The data are available with a Dranchuk-Purvis-Robinson correlation.
Back to Menu

The author used Microsoft Excel to run the iteration In order to generate a production profile, the author
procedure, as described in Figure 5. The author ran experienced a problem, where the calculation of the
the iteration procedure and found many values of average water saturation that applied the value of
new Vb2 but only one value that will resolve the converged Vb2, resulted in a negative value of
convergence solution. Once the iteration logically (physically impossible). The author concluded that
converges into one solution of Vb2, we can then it is impossible to approximate the possible value of
substitute the value of the data into Equation (15). with changes of production data or changes of
water encroachment. The author changed the value
For the gas relative permeability data, the author of Vb2 several times to yield a logical value of
approximated the characterization of a Jagger Seam which will generate the production profile shown in
using the following equations that were obtained Figure 6.
from using DigXY software to rebuild the data from
Figure 4 and create the equation: The first result of the production profile was not
satisfactory for the author. Nor was it suitable for
......(21a) the common production profile of coal bed
......(21b) methane. Generally speaking, for the first few
months or years, the production profile of the coal
bed methane field will generate much water and a
For the relative water permeability data, the author
very small volume of gas (even zero). This does not
found that the data formed a unit slope, which
happen in the profile production that the author
means the value of Sw is the same for Krw.
achieved. According to King's paper, for the first 90
days water emerged. We posit a state whereby there
After we obtained all needed data, the author made
must be a constant of water for the first 90 days and
an analytical calculation (with appropriate
the first production of gas (in significant volumes)
equations) to obtain the production profile using the
will commence after the first 90 days. However, the
following equation of motion:
author realizes that he has assumed water
production will flow constantly for the first 3 years
…......…………(22)
of production, at a value is 50 STBD. This is, of
course, because King's paper did not publish any
water production data. These conditions result in an
………..............……(22a) unsatisfactory production profile. If the author
cannot find any water production data for a period
longer than 90 days, then according to Equation (3),
the value of will never be found to be an
……………………………………(22b) appropriate value to generate the desired production
profile (where the value of was obtained at
approximately 1, a logically impossible situation –
........................................(23) because water will always be produced!).
The Corey Correlation to model the relative
permeability profile for gas and water systems will
...................................(23a)
never match the relative permeability profile of the
..........................................................(23b) Jagger Seam from the Warrior Basin. Figures 7 to
13 will illustrate the sensitivity of the changes of the
parameter in the Corey Correlation. The most
RESULTS probable values for Corey's parameters are the
following. For Ng, the range of the value is from 1
Table 3 shows the data from King's paper which to 2.4. For Nw, the range of the value is from 0.1 to
will be calculated according to a modified iteration 2. Following several estimates, the author
procedure. The author has conducted the iteration concluded that the most possible values of Nw and
about 2 to 3 times, and the value converges to the Ng are 0.1 and 1.7, respectively. Even with these
value of 11525147.9289 ft3 or 11.525 MM ft3. values of Corey parameters, the end time of the
Using the Equation (15), the author obtained the production profile did not match. The conclusion
value of OGIP of 158.881 MMSCF. The values of was that the Corey correlation for gas-water
Z were obtained by the author, varying for different systems cannot possibly approximate the Jagger
pressure values. Coal Seam reservoir character.
Back to Menu

The author attempted to generate the most possible generate any logical production profile. The author
relative permeability data to approximate the Jagger refers the reader to Figure 17 and Figure 18. The
Coal Seam reservoir character and to generate the author assumed the value of Swc and Sgc for this
best production profile for the CBM field. Using correlation as 0 and for the value of gas end-point
Equation (21a) and Equation (21b) the author saturation as 0.68. However, the author experienced
discovered that these equations cannot approximate a problem when applying 0.68 into the gas end-
Equation (19) and Equation (20) to generate a point saturation. It was found that the production
relative permeability profile. The trial result of the profile was not a reasonable one. The Corey
production profile can be seen in Figure 14. From correlation resulted in different values for the
the figure, it can be seen that the end of the time of relative permeability profile graph compared to the
the production profile doesn't reveal any addition of values of the gas end-point saturation
synchronization. The time of the gas production term in the Corey correlation. When the author
profile is longer than that for the water production added the value of 0.68 for the gas end-point
profile. So in order to correct the production profile, saturation into the correlation, the relative
the author proposed synthetic relative permeability permeability profile resulted in the gas end-point
data generated through trial and error, to yield the saturation showing a value of 0.318.
best production profile. This can be seen in Figure
15. Moreover, the final production profile is shown Figure 14 does not show any synchronization in the
in Figure 16. This figure shows the best and most production profile. The author analyzed this erratic
suitable production profile of the general coal bed condition, concluding it is caused by the value of
methane. - that was not good. This was caused by the
that resulted from Pr = 170 psia. The author states
DISCUSSION that the only way to synchronize the end time of a
production profile is to change the lowest value of
The Data as given in King's paper were neither , obtained from Pr = 170 psia. When an
detailed nor complete. This inspired the author to alternative value of was attempted, then the best
look manually in Figure 3. For water production, and most reasonable production profile would be
the data was not given in detail, but it is stated that obtained. However, this effort was realized by the
the rate of water production is 50 STBD, so the author as an attempt to manipulate the integration of
author assumed that the water production was real field data. This is why the author proposed the
constant. Moreover, the paper never stated anything synthetic relative permeability (Figure 15) in order
about water encroachment. to achieve a better production profile, using the
most integrative data.
The author realized that this research failed to make
use of integrated data from the same field. A The author believes that the erratic condition of the
different field's origin of relative permeability data production profile is caused fundamentally by the
and gas composition was used in the calculation due . Unexpected variation of will generate
to the lack of data in King's paper. illogical profile production. If we carefully exercise
The pressure term in Equation (22) was attentively on the iteration procedure using the
approximate with ψ2 (pseudo-pressure). CKB given data, we will conclude that in order to obtain
Dempsey correlation, conducted on so many of the reasonable value of , the converge value of
constants, was used. This correlation generated the Vb2 could not be applied. The author assumes that
graph of a relationship between pressure and this is caused by the entire data that was not taken
pseudo-pressure. With the help of this graph, the from the same field (especially the gas composition
pressure from the data will be converted into and relative permeability). Unavailable water
pseudo-pressure. production data, in G.R. King's paper, could cause
the unreasonable production profile too.
The Corey correlation parameter has been exploited
to generate the largest possible number of CONCLUSION
combinations. If we look at Figure 4, we can see
that the relative water permeability data generates The modified iteration procedure is able to estimate
one unit slope. This slope will perfectly match if the the value of Original Gas In Place – not only the
parameter Nw in the Corey correlation is equal to 1. value, but also the step of the procedure which
However, after the author applied the value of Nw could predict the value of OGIP. Each step uses the
being equal to 1, the author found that the most reasonable equation based on the material
production profile was never found to perfectly balance formula and dimensional analysis.
Back to Menu

The Corey correlation of gas-water system is not PL = Langmuir constant pressure, psia
able to represent the relative permeability of the Pwf = Flowing pressure, psia
given CBM field, which eventually will cause a qg = Gas rate, Mscf/day
different production profile. Moreover, the field qw = Water rate, scf/day [bbl/day]
data, (which has not been taken from just a single re = Drainage radius, ft
field) will not be able to depict the coal bed rw = Wellbore radius, ft
methane characterization. In addition, with the lack S = Skin, dimensionless
of the data that was taken only from one field, the S = Matrix dimension, cm
author could not conclude the general Sgc = Critical gas saturation, fraction
characterization of coal bed methane. Moreover, Sw = Water saturation, fraction
because of that, the Corey correlation cannot be Swc = Connate water saturation, fraction
concluded, exactly, as not representative for the Swi = Initial water saturation, fraction
coal bed methane's relative permeability profile. T = Temperature coal, °R
Tsc = Standard condition temperature, °R
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Vadsorbed = Adsorbed gas in matrix, ft3
Vcleat = Gas contained in cleat, ft3
The author would like to thank BPMIGAS for Vb2 = Macro pore volume, ft3
permission to publish this work. The author also VE = Volumetric concentration at equilibrium
acknowledges his special gratitude to Prof. Doddy condition, scf/ft3
Abdassah and Ir. Dedi Irawan for their invaluable Ve = Volumetric volume at 1 atm, scf/cuft
time and guidance in making this research and the Vi = Micro pore volumetric concentration, scf/ft3
entire resources of Petroleum Engineering ITB to VL = Langmuir constant volumetric
support the author's endeavor. concentration, scf/cuft
Vt = Volumetric concentration at certain time,
NOMENCLATURE scf/cuft
We = Water Influx, scf [bbl]
A = Drainage area, ft2 [acre] Wp = Cumulative water production, scf [bbl]
Bg = Gas formation volume factor, ft3/scf Z = gas deviation factor, dimensionless
Bgi = Initial gas formation volume factor, ft3/scf Zsc = Gas deviation factor at standard condition,
Bw = Water formation volume factor, res dimensionless
bbl/STB µg = Gas viscosity, centipoise
cf = Rock compressibility, psia-1 µw = Water viscosity, centipoise
cw = Water compressibility, psia-1 ρB = Coal Density, gr/cc
Di = Diffusion coefficient, ft2/hr τ = Sorption Isotherm or time constants, days
Gp = Cumulative gas production, scf [MMscf] ψ = pseudo-pressure, psia2/cp
h = Thickness, ft Φ = Porosity, fraction
K1 = Adsorption constant, dimensionless Φi = Initial porosity, fraction
K2 = Desorption constant, dimensionless Ω = Coal surface fraction covered with gas
ka = Absolute permeability, mD molecules, dimensionless
kg = effective permeability, mD
kr = Relative permeability, fraction REFERENCES
krg = Gas relative permeability, fraction
krg* = Gas relative permeability at end point, Abdassah, Doddy., 1998, Teknik Gas Bumi: Institut
fraction Teknologi Bandung, p 1-25.
krw = Water relative permeability, fraction
krw* = Water relative permeability at end point, Ertekin, T., Reservoir Engineering of Coalbed
fraction Methane Reservoir: A Presentation of CBM in
kw = Water effective permeability, mD Jakarta. Session 4.
Ng = Gas saturation exponent, dimensionless
Nw = Water saturation exponent, dimensionless King, G.R et al, 1985, Numerical Simulation of the
n = Mole, dimensionless Transient Behavior of Coal-Seam Degasification
OGIP = Original Gas In Place, SCF Wells: SPE 12258, p 166-167.
P = Reservoir pressure, psia
Psc = Standard condition pressure, psia King, G.R, 1990, Material Balance Techniques for
Pg = Gas phase pressure, psia Coal Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs:
Pi = Initial reservoir pressure, psia SPE 20730, p 181-186.
Back to Menu

Mazumder, Saikat el. At., 2004, An Overview of Rogers, R.E, 1994, Coalbed Methane Principles and
The Potentials and Prospects Coalbed Methane Practice: Mississippi State University, p 111-120;
Exploration and Exploitation in The Permo- p148-182.
Carboniferous Coal Measures of The Barrakar
Formation, Jahria Basin, India: Delft University, Tiab, D., 2000, Gas Reservoir Engineering: The
Netherland. University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, p II.37-II.39;
II.55-II.62.
McCain, W., 1990, The Properties of Petroleum
Fluids: PennWell Books, p 167-170.

Puri, R, 1991, Measurement of Coal Cleat Porosity


and Relative Permeability Characteristics: SPE
21491, p 103
Back to Menu

TABLE 1 - PROPERTY AND PRODUCTION DATA

Property Value Unit


Depth 1000 Ft (TVD)

Production Data
Initial Porosity, φi 0.01 Fraction Time, Days Qg(MSCFD)/Qw Pressure (psia)
(STBd)
Permeability, k 26 md 0 50 STBD

Thickness, h 6 ft 90 185

Rock 7.5x10-6 Psi-1 360 65 MSCFD


Compressibility
(cԄ)
Water 3.2x10-6 Psi-1 361 43.3 MSCFD
Compressibility
(cw)
Standard Pressure, 14.7 Psia 362 21.7 MSCFD
Psc

Standard 520 0 363 0 MSCFD


R
Temperature, Tsc

Initial pressure, Pi 479.7 Psia 365 185

Initial Saturation, 1 Fraction 725 51 MSCFD


Swi
Water 0 bbl 726 34 MSCFD
Encroachment, We

727 17 MSCFD
Adsorption Property 728 0 MSCFD
Langmuir Constant 18.6 3 730 185
SCF/Ft
Volume, VL

Langmuir Constant 167.5 psia 1090 29.5 MSCFD


Pressure, PL

Desorption 479.7 psia 1091 19.7 MSCFD


Pressure, Pd

Diffusion Constant, 0.0432 -1 1092 9.8 MSCFD


Days
Da
Time Constant 231.4 Days 1093 0 MSCFD
1095 125 MSCFD

TABLE 2 – GAS COMPOSITION

Mol Percentage, % (Yi)


CH4 99.01
C2H6 0.18
C3H8 0.03
N2 0.48
CO2 0.3
Back to Menu

TABLE 3 – DATA FOR ITERATION PROCEDURE

Time, Days 90 365 730 1095

Pr (psia) 460 325 250 170

qw (stb/D) 50 50 50 50

Wp (STB) 4500 18250 36500 54750

We (bbl) 0 0 0 0

Gp (SCF) 0 17615000 36026000 46675500


Z 0.981947 0.987229 0.99017 0.993311
Back to Menu

Figure 1 – Coal Bed Methane porosity systems (After King, G. R. et al SPE 12258)

Figure 2 – Langmuir Isorption term for coal, the curve explains the concept desorption and recovery process
(After Mazumder, Saikat)

Figure 3 – Production Profile in G. R. King’s study (After King, G. R.)


Back to Menu

Figure 4 – Relative permeability data from lab measured data of Warrior Basin Sample-Jagger Coal Seam.
(After Puri, Raj et al.)

Figure 5 – Iteration procedure runs in Microsoft Excel


Back to Menu

Figure 6 – Production profile of coal bed methane

Figure 7 – Corey correlation to model Jagger Coal Seam relative permeability data. Nw = 1 and Ng = 1

Figure 8 – Corey correlation to model Jagger Coal Seam relative permeability data. Nw = 2 and Ng = 1
Back to Menu

Figure 9 – Corey correlation to model Jagger Coal Seam relative permeability data. Nw = 0.1 and Ng =1

Figure 10 – Corey correlation to model Jagger Coal Seam relative permeability data. Nw = 1 and Ng = 2

Figure 11 – Corey correlation to model Jagger Coal Seam relative permeability data. Nw = 1 and Ng = 5
Back to Menu

Figure 12 – Corey correlation to model Jagger Coal Seam relative permeability data. Nw = 1 and Ng = 0.1

Figure 13 – Corey correlation to model Jagger Coal Seam relative permeability data. Nw = 1 and Ng = 3

Figure 14 – Production profile of CBM, using Equation (21)


Back to Menu

Figure 15 - Synthetic relative permeability data to approximate the best production profile

Figure 16 – The best production profile data using the synthetic relative permeability data
Back to Menu

Figure 17 – The production profile with the application of Corey correlation (Nw = 1 and Ng = 4)

Figure 18 – The production profile with the application of Corey correlation (Nw = 1 and Ng = 1.7)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen