You are on page 1of 52

Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery

presented by:

Scott Reeves
Advanced Resources International
Houston, TX
SPE Distinguished Lecture Series
2002/2003 Season

Advanced Resources International

Outline
Introduction
ECBM Process
Pilot Projects
Economics
Closing Remarks
2

Introduction

Enhanced coalbed methane recovery (ECBM)


involves gas injection into coal to improve methane
recovery, analogous to EOR.

Typical injection gases include nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

Relatively new technology - limited field data to gauge


effectiveness.

Growing interest in carbon sequestration spurring


considerable R&D into integrated ECBM
recovery/carbon sequestration projects.

Integrated Power Generation, CO2


Sequestration & ECBM Vision
Power
Plant

CO2/N2

CH4

CO2/N2

CH4

CH4
CH4
CH4
CH4

CO2/N2

CH4
CH4

CH4

Deep, Unmineable
Coal

U.S. CO2-ECBM/Sequestration Potential


CO2 Sequestration Potential (Gt)
Replacement
of Primary
Recovery
Volume

Injection
for
ECBM in
Commercial
Area

Injection for
CO2
Sequestra-tion
in NonCommer-cial
Area

Total
(Gt)

N. Appalachia

0.8

0.3

2.3

C. Appalachia

0.1

0.0

0.0

Black Warrior

0.4

0.1

Illinois

0.1

ECBM Potential (Tcf)

%
of
Total

Incremental
Recovery
in
Commercial Area

Incremental
Recovery
in
NonCommercial
Area

Total
(Tcf)

%
of
Total

3.4

4%

1.7

13.0

14.7

10%

0.1

0%

0.5

0.0

0.5

0%

0.4

0.8

1%

1.0

2.2

3.1

2%

0.0

1.2

1.4

2%

0.2

3.8

4.0

3%

0.4

0.1

0.3

0.9

1%

0.5

0.9

1.4

1%

Arkoma

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0%

0.4

0.1

0.5

0%

Gulf Coast

0.7

0.4

0.9

1.9

2%

0.7

1.7

2.4

2%

San Juan

7.0

2.3

1.1

10.4

12%

11.4

4.3

15.7

10%

Raton

0.4

0.1

0.0

0.6

1%

1.4

0.1

1.5

1%

Piceance

0.5

0.3

1.5

2.4

3%

3.6

10.5

14.0

9%

Uinta

1.6

0.3

0.0

1.9

2%

0.1

0.2

0.3

0%

Greater Green River

3.0

1.3

3.5

7.9

9%

3.5

15.0

18.5

12%

Hanna-Carbon

1.4

0.6

1.0

3.0

3%

1.5

2.4

3.9

3%

Wind River

0.8

0.3

0.3

1.4

2%

0.8

0.6

1.5

1%

Powder River

3.3

1.8

8.5

13.6

15%

3.4

16.2

19.6

13%

Western Washington

0.7

0.3

1.3

2.3

3%

0.7

2.9

3.6

2%

Alaska

18.0

8.1

11.7

37.7

42%

19.2

27.8

47.0

31%

TOTALS

39.3

16.3

34.0

89.8

100%

50.6

101.7

152.2

100%

Basin

Cherokee/ Forest City

Outline
Introduction
ECBM Process
Pilot Projects
Economics
Closing Remarks
6

Gas Storage in Coal


(CBM 101)
Dual-porosity system (matrix and cleats)
Gas stored by adsorption on coal surfaces within
matrix (mono-layer of gas molecules, density
approaches that of liquid)
1 lb coal (15 in3) contains 100,000 1,000,000 ft2
of surface area
Pore throats of 20 500 angstrom
Production by desorption, diffusion and Darcy
flow (3 Ds of CBM production)
7

Example Coal Sorption Isotherms


700.0

San Juan Basin coal

CO2/CH4 ratio = 2:1


Absolute Adsorption (SCF/ton)

600.0

N2/CH4 ratio = 0.5/1

Carbon Dioxide

CO2/N2 ratio = 4:1

500.0

400.0

Methane
300.0

200.0

Nitrogen

100.0

0.0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Pressure (psia)

1400

1600

1800

2000

Variability of CO2/CH4 Ratio


CO2/CH4 Sorption Ratio vs Coal Rank
14

Sub

HV

HVA

MV

LV

100 psi

CO2/CH4 Ratio

12

1000 psi

-1.5649

y = 2.5738x
R 2 = 0.9766

10
8

3000 psi

6
4
2
0
0.36

0.56

0.76

0.96

1.16

1.36

Coal Rank, Vro (%)

1.56

1.76

1.96

N2-ECBM Recovery Mechanism


Inject N2 into cleats.
Due to lower adsorptivity, high percentage of N2
remains free in cleats:
Lowers CH4 partial pressure
Creates compositional disequilibrium between sorbed/free gas
phases

Methane stripped from coal matrix into cleat


system.
Methane/nitrogen produced at production well.
Rapid N2 breakthrough expected.
10

CO2-ECBM Recovery Mechanism


Inject CO2 into cleats.
Due to high adsorptivity, CO2 preferentially
adsorbed into coal matrix.
Methane displaced from sorption sites.

Methane produced at production well.


Efficient displacement process slow CO2
breakthrough.

11

Modeling Sensitivity Study


2

San Juan Basin setting


(3000 ft, 40 ft coal, 10 md).

Inject C02 and N2 at rates


of 10 Mcfd/ft, 25 Mcfd/ft
and 50 Mcfd/ft.

15 year period.

5
Quarter 5-Spot Well Pattern

12

Gas Production Response N2 Injection


10000

70

Gas Rate, Mscfd

50
Incremental Recoveries:

40

10 Mcfd/ft 0.6 Bcf (21%)

1000

25 Mcfd/ft 1.1 Bcf (39%)

30

50 Mcfd/ft 1.6 Bcf (57%)

20
10
100

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Days

Base Case

Injection @ 25 Mcfd/ft

Injection @ 10 Mcfd/ft

50 Mcfd/ft
Injection @ 50Mcfd/ft
13

Nitrogen Content, %

60

Gas Production Response CO2 Injection

Gas Rate, Mscfd

10000

Incremental Recoveries:

1000

10 Mcfd/ft 0.1 Bcf (4%)


25 Mcfd/ft 0.4 Bcf (14%)
50 Mcfd/ft 0.8 Bcf (29%)

No CO2 breakthrough
CO2/CH4 ratio is 2:1 whereas N2/CH4 ratio is 0.5/1
100
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Days

Base Case

Injection @ 25 Mcfd/ft

Injection @ 10 Mcfd/ft

50 Mcfd/ft
Injection @ 50Mcfd/ft
14

5000

Outline
Introduction
ECBM Process
Pilot Projects
Economics
Closing Remarks
15

Only Two Large-Scale Field


Tests Exists Worldwide
San Juan Basin, Upper Cretaceous Fruitland Coal
Allison Unit

Burlington Resources
Carbon dioxide injection
16 producers
4 injectors
1 pressure observation well

Tiffany Unit

BP
Nitrogen injection
34 producers
12 injectors
16

Field Sites, San Juan Basin


LA PLATA CO. ARCHULETA
Durango

Pagosa
Springs

Florida River
Plant
N2
e
lin
pe
Pi

COLORADO
NEW MEXICO

Tiffany Unit

San Juan
Basin Outline

Dulce

Allison Unit

Aztec

Farmington
Bloomfield
R

17

Allison Unit Base Map


61

104
111
12M

101

112

106

114
130

142
POW#2

108

131

141

113

140

143

132

102

120

121

119

62

18

115

Well Configurations
Producer
Injector

19

Allison Production History


4,000

2,000,000
Peak @ +/- 57 MMcfd

16 producers, 4 injectors, 1 POW


1,800,000

3,500

Line pressures reduced, wells recavitated, wells


reconfigured, onsite compression installed

1,600,000
Injectivity reduction

2,500

1,200,000
1,000,000

2,000

800,000

1,500
Gas Rate, Mcf/mo

600,000

CO2 Injection Rate, Mcf/mo

1,000

Well Gas Rate, Mcf/d

400,000
200,000

500

+/- 3 1/2 Mcfd

Date
20

Jul-01

Jan-01

Jul-00

Jan-00

Jul-99

Jan-99

Jul-98

Jan-98

Jul-97

Jan-97

Jul-96

Jan-96

Jul-95

Jan-95

Jul-94

Jan-94

Jul-93

Jan-93

Jul-92

Jan-92

Jul-91

Jan-91

Jul-90

Jan-90

0
Jul-89

0
Jan-89

Rates, Mcf/mo

1,400,000

Individual Well Gas Rate, Mcf/d

3,000

Site Description
Property

Value

Average Depth to Top Coal

3100 feet

No. Coal Intervals

3 (Yellow, Blue, Purple)

Average Total Net Thickness

43 feet
Yellow 22 ft
Blue 10 ft
Purple 11 ft

Permeability

100 md

Initial Pressure

1650 psi

Temperature

120F

21

Progression of CO2 Displacement


(@ mid-2002)

Butt
Cleat
Face
Cleat

22

Incremental Recovery
Total Methane
Recovery (Bcf)

Incremental
Recovery
(Bcf)

Total CO2
Injection
(Bcf)

CO2
Production
(Bcf)

CO2/CH4
Ratio

W/o CO2
injection

100.5*

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

W/CO2
injection

102.1

1.6

6.4**

1.2

3.2

Case

*6.3 Bcf/well
** 20 Mcfd/ft

Small incremental recovery due to limited injection volumes.


INJECTIVITY IS CRITICAL!

Note: OGIP for model = 152 Bcf.


23

Tiffany Unit Base Map


Previous Study Area

Producer-to-Injector
Conversions

24

Well Configurations
Producer Well

Multiple Injector Wells

25

Tiffany Production History


Peak @ 26 MMcfd

1,000,000

34 producers, 12 injectors
+/- 5MMcfd

10,000

Injection initiated
1,000
Gas Rate, Mcf/mo

Suspension periods

N2 Injection Rate,
Mcf/mo

Max Inj Rate = 26 MMcfd

100
Se
p83
Se
p84
Se
p85
Se
p86
Se
p87
Se
p88
Se
p89
Se
p90
Se
p91
Se
p92
Se
p93
Se
p94
Se
p95
Se
p96
Se
p97
Se
p98
Se
p99
Se
p00
Se
p01
Se
p02

Gas Rates, Mcf/mo

100,000

Date

26

Site Description
Property

Value

Average Depth to Top Coal (A)

2970 feet

No. Coal Intervals

7 total (A, A2, B, C, D, E, F)


4 main (B, C, D, E)

Average Net Thickness

47 feet
B 13 ft
C 11 ft
D 9 ft
E 14 ft

Permeability

<5 md

Initial Pressure

1600 psi

Temperature

120F

27

Progression of N2 Displacement
(@ mid-2002)

Butt
Cleat
Face
Cleat

28

Current Field Results


(through mid-2002)

Total Methane
Recovery (Bcf)

Incremental
Recovery
(Bcf)

Total N2
Injection
(Bcf)

N2
Production
(Bcf)

N2/CH4
Ratio

W/o N2
injection

*35.3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

W/N2
injection

45.8

10.5

14.0**

1.3

1.2

Case

*1.0 Bcf/well
** 46 Mcfd/ft

At N2/CH4 ratio of 0.75:1 and reproduced volume


of 25%, ultimate incremental recovery estimated
to be +/- 14 Bcf or 40% improvement over primary.

Note: OGIP for model = 438 Bcf.


29

Summary of Field Results


Field results are in general agreement with theoretical
understanding; reservoir models can reasonably
replicate/predict field behavior.
Low-incremental recovery with CO2 injection at
Allison due to low injection volumes.
CO2 injectivity key success driver; strong evidence that
coal permeability (and injectivity) reduced with CO2
injection.
Incremental recoveries with N2 injection at Tiffany
currently; estimated to provide 40% improvement over
primary.
30

Outline
Introduction
ECBM Process
Pilot Projects
Economics
Closing Remarks
31

Hypothetical Field Setting


(US onshore)
Well Injection Pattern

Example CBM Basin

(4 Sections)
Sec. 6

Sec. 5

Sec.7

Sec. 8

Conventional Recovery 48 Bcf


(2.5 Bcf/well)
Incremental Recovery 16 Bcf
(1 Bcf/well)

32

Economics of CO2 ECBM


US $/Mcf
Hub Gas Price
Less: Basin Differential
BTU Adjustment (@ 5%)
Wellhead Netback
Less: Royalty/Prod. Taxes (20%)
O&M/Gas Processing
Gross Margin
Capital Costs(1)
CO2 Costs (@ ratio of 3.0 to 1)(2)
Net Margin

$3.00
($0.30)
($0.15)
$2.55
($0.51)
($0.50)
$1.54
($0.25)
($0.90)
$0.39

(1) Capital Costs = $500,000 *4 (inj wells)

= $2,000,000/16 Bcfg
= $0.13/Mcfg * 2 = $0.25/Mcfg
(2) CO2 Costs = $0.30/Mcf * 3.0 = $0.90/Mcf (CO2)
33

Economics of N2 ECBM
US $/Mcf
Hub Gas Price
Less: Basin Differential
BTU Adjustment (@5%)
Wellhead Netback
Less: Royalty/Prod. Taxes (20%)
O&M/Gas Processing

$3.00

Gross Margin
Capital Costs(1)
N2 Costs (@ ratio of 0.5 to 1)(2)
Net Margin

$1.04

($0.30)
($0.15)
$2.55
($0.51)
($1.00) (double over CO2
case)

($0.25)
($0.30)
$0.49

(1) Capital Costs = $500,000 * 4 (inj. wells)

= $2,000,000/16 Bcfg
= $0.13/Mcfg * 2 = $0.25/Mcfg
(2) N2 Costs = $0.60/Mcf * 0.5 = $0.30/Mcf (N2)

34

ECBM Economic Considerations


N2 ECBM appears favorable, but early
breakthrough requires costly post-production gas
processing.
CO2 - ECBM also appears favorable, but
maintaining injectivity a key success driver.
More experience required to validate & optimize
economic performance.
CO2/N2 mixture may be optimum.

High N2 concentrations early for rapid methane recovery


Increasing CO2 concentrations later for efficient methane
displacement.
35

Outline
Introduction
ECBM Process
Pilot Projects
Economics
Closing Remarks
36

Closing Remarks
ECBM recovery appears to hold considerable
promise; on the verge of commerciality with a bright
future.
CO2 sequestration economic drivers (carbon credits)
will substantially improve financial performance and
accelerate commercial adoption.
In U.S., CO2-ECBM/sequestration potential is
substantial; recently assessed at 90 Gt CO2 and 150
Tcf of incremental gas recovery.

37

Closing Remarks
More work is needed to economically optimize the process.
N2/CO2 mixtures
CO2 injectivity
Spacing, patterns, rates, etc.
Reservoir settings (coal rank)

Reservoir response is generally consistent with theoretical


understanding of CO2/N2 processes.
Reasonable predictions of reservoir response possible.
Informed investment decisions.

Acknowledgements:
U.S. Department of Energy
Burlington Resources
BP America

For more information:

www.coal-seq.com
38

Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery


presented by:

Scott Reeves
Advanced Resources International
Houston, TX
SPE Distinguished Lecture Series
2002/2003 Season

39

Advanced Resources International

Well #132 Performance


CH4 Recovery w/o CO2 injection = 6.1 Bcf
CH4 Recovery w/ CO2 injection = 6.9 Bcf
CH4 Incremental Recovery = 0.8 Bcf

4000
3500

CH4 Rate, Mscf

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Days
CO2 Injection

40

No CO2 Injection

7000

8000

9000

Nitrogen Content of Produced Gas


14

Average = 12.3 %
12

No. Wells

10
8
6
4
2
0
<1

1 - 10

10 - 20

20 - 30

30 - 40

Last N2 Concentration (%)


41

40 - 50

> 50

Matrix Shrinkage/Swelling

Source: An Investigation of the Effect of Gas Desorption on Coal Permeability, paper 8923, 1989 Coalbed Methane Symposium.
42

Relevant Formulas*
Shrinkage/Swelling

Pressure-Dependence

= i + i Cp (P-Pi) + (1 - i) Cm dPi (C-Ci)


dCi

k=
i

n = +/- 3

*Used in COMET2. Alternative formulation presented by Palmer & Mansoori; SPE 36737, 1996.
43

Permeability Changes with Net Stress, Gas


Concentration, and Sorptive Capacity

Matrix Shrinkage

Pressure Dependence

Permeability, md

250
200

Methane

150
100
Carbon Dioxide

Sorption Capacity

50
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Pressure, psi

44

2500

3000

3500

Date

45
Jul-00

Jan-00

Jul-99

Jan-99

Jul-98

Jan-98

Jul-97

Jan-97

Jul-96

Jan-96

Jul-95

Jan-95

Jul-94

Jan-94

Jul-93

Jan-93

Jul-92

Jan-92

30000

Jul-91

Jan-91

Jul-90

Jan-90

Jul-89

Jan-89

60000

50000

40000
1700

CO2, Mcf/mo
1500

BHP, psi
1300

20000
1100

10000
900

700

0
500

Pressure

Rate

Typical Injection Profile,


Allison Unit
Well #143

2500

2300

2100

1900

Permeability History for Injector

Permeability, md

250

Start

200
Depletion

150
100
Continued
Injection

50

Displace w/ CO2

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

Pressure, psi

46

2500

3000

3500

CO2 Sorption Behavior


(Pc=1073psi, Tc=88F)

Source: SPE 29194: Adsorption of Pure Methane, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide and their Binary Mixtures on Wet Fruitland Coal, 1994.
47

Pure Gas Gibbs Adsorption on


Tiffany Coals at 130 F
600.0

500.0

Gibbs Adsorption (SCF/ton)

N2 on Mixed Coal
CH4 on Well #1
CH4 on Well #10
CH4 on Mixed Coal
CO2 on Mixed Coal

Nabs = NGibbs
1- gas
ads

400.0

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pressure (psia)
48

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

CO2 Absolute Adsorption on Tiffany


Mixed Coal Sample Using Different
Adsorbed-Phase Densities
700

Aboslute Adsorption (SCF/ton)

600

500

400

Adsorbed Phase Density(g/cc)


300

1.18
1.25
1.40

200

Saturated liquid density at triple point


ZGR estimate
Graphical estimate

100

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Pressure (psia)
49

1400

1600

1800

2000

Multi-Component Sorption
Behavior
Extended Langmuir Theory
Ci(pi) =

Other Langmuir Models:

VLi pi
n

j=1

pL

pLi 1 +

, i = 1, 2, 3,, n.

Loading Ratio Correlation (LRC), Real Adsorbed Solution (RAS),


Ideal Adsorbed Solution (IAS)

Equations of State:

Van der Walls (VDW), Eyring, Zhou-Gasem-Robinson (EOS-S, PGR)

Simplified Local Density Models:

Flat Surface (PR-SLD), Slit (PR-SLD)


50

Accuracy of Model Predictions for


Pure Gas Adsorption
Quality of Fit, % AAD, for Specified Model
Component

Langmuir

LRC
(n = 0.9)

ZGR-EOS

Experimental
Error

Methane

2.6

2.3

3.0

3.0

Nitrogen

3.5

2.3

2.3

6.0

Carbon
Dioxide

2.0

1.8

2.1

7.0

51

Accuracy of Model Predictions for


Binary/Ternary Gas Adsorption
(based on pure-gas adsorption data)

Langmuir
% AAD

LRC
(n=0.9)
% AAD

ZGR-EOS
% AAD

Experimental Error
% AAD

CH4 N2:
CH4 (50%)
N2 (50%)
Total

15.8
6.2
12.2

12.0
9.3
8.2

11.9
10.0
11.5

7.0
17.0
7.0

CH4 CO2:
CH4 (40%)
CO2 (60%)
Total

25.9
9.0
1.2

21.0
10.5
2.2

27.0
10.4
1.4

7.0
6.0
4.0

N2 CO2:
N2 (20%)
CO2 (80%)
Total

44.9
5.2
3.5

37.3
5.7
3.8

48.7
4.9
3.5

29.0
6.0
5.0

N2 CH4 - CO2:
N2 (10%)
CH4 (40%)
CO2 (50%)
Total

47.8
20.7
13.2
2.9

44.5
5.2
15.8
5.4

55.9
21.6
17.6
4.3

14.0
27.0
5.0
5.0

Mixture,
(Feed Mole %)

52