Per Era 2015

Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery: Using
Injection of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide Mixture

M. S. A. Perera and P. G. Ranjith
Deep Earth Energy Lab, Civil Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
1 INTRODUCTION that the development of new fossil-fuel resources to replace

dependency on coal has the ability to reduce the world’s CO2
Scientific research in the past few decades has consistently emissions in the short term. This ongoing shift toward natural
shown rapid global warming related to anthropogenic green- gas from coal and other conventional types of fossil fuels to
house gas emissions. The threat to humanity posed by this power the world economy has been driven by targeted devel-
global warming is now widely accepted and urgent action to opment and exploitation of unconventional gas resources.
mitigate climate change has become a global requirement. This approach also offers a clear path to greater energy
In 2009, at the 15th United Nations Framework Convention security, as conventional fossil fuels such as oil and coal
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), many countries in the world are rapidly depleting, while meeting the obligations to the
set absolute greenhouse emission reduction targets (e.g., UNFCCC. Moreover, development of new unconventional
5–25% of 2000 levels by 2020 in Australia). As a result, gas resources can be coupled with inexpensive methods
the signatories have committed to action on anthropogenic for CO2 sequestration (e.g., enhanced coal bed methane,
global warming, involving a significant reduction in rates of ECBM) to help advance the economic and environmental
greenhouse gas emissions (Buckman and Diesendorf, 2010). competitiveness of the world’s future energy landscape.
However, it is a great challenge to find a responsible means
of achieving these greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
within the short time frame. Currently, burning of fossil 2 DEEP UNMINEABLE COAL SEAMS AS
fuels, such as coal and oil, is the main method of energy NEW UNCONVENTIONAL GAS
production in the world, and is known to be releasing huge
RESOURCES
amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, the search
for new green energy sources is the most promising solution Coal mass is a mixture of inorganic minerals and organic
to mitigate the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, and material in a complex, three-dimensional network, which has
natural gas is one of the potential solutions. Between 2005 been formed through the biodegradation of plant materials
and 2010, the United States was able to increase its overall
over millions of years and the imposition of various amounts
power generation by 1.7% (EIA, 2012) while reducing the
of heat and pressure. This progressive transformation of coal
CO2 emissions from power generation by 6.1% (EIA, 2012).
is referred to as coalification. According to the degree of
The United States could achieve this emission reduction
coalification that has been undergone, coal is classified into
through rapid change in the fossil-fuel energy mix, and
different ranks, which can be generally identified using its
power generation from natural gas increased by 5.1% and
carbon content, where the rank increases with the increasing
that from coal decreased by 4.8% (EIA, 2012). This shows
carbon content. Coal is basically of two types according to
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. the rank: low and high, and low rank coal is subdivided
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. into lignite (brown coal) and sub-bituminous coal and high
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems
in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
rank coal is subdivided into bituminous coal and anthracite
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218 (Figure 1) (Perera et al., 2011a).
2 Efficiency Improvements and Waste Management
Burial pressure, heat, and time
Peat Lignite Sub bituminous Bituminous Anthracite

(brown coal)
Low rank coal High rank coal
Figure 1. Formation of different ranked coal.
Table 1. Variation of coal composition with rank. contribute more to the overall coal mass permeability as they
Coal Brown Sub-Bituminous Bituminous Anthracite are continuous, and form pathways of higher permeability
Property Coal Coal Coal than the discontinuous butt cleats (Figure 2). Because of
Moisture content 50–70 25–30 5–10 2–5 the well-developed cleat system in and the dual porosity of
(db %) coal seams, they act as naturally fractured reservoirs for gas
Carbon (db %) 60–75 75–80 80–90 90–95 movement. The movement of gases through the coal seams
Volatile matter 45–55 40–45 20–40 5–7 depends on the permeability of the coal seam cleat system,
(db %)
which is governed by Darcian law and also the intrinsic
Source: Created by the author using data from Durie, 1991. permeability of the coal matrix, which is governed by Fickain
diffusion (Curtis, 2006). The dominant transport mechanism
Coal’s composition, including its content of water, carbon, in the coal mass is decided by its physical properties, such as
ash, and volatile matter, varies with its rank (Table 1), and rank, depth, fracture density, moisture content, in situ pres-
therefore coal mass physical properties, such as strength, sure, and temperature.
permeability, and porosity are also related to the rank. For Every coal seam contains different amounts of naturally
instance, high rank coals have high strength, low perme- formed gases formed during the coalification process. These
ability, high adsorption capacity, and low porosity. Perme- gases include 90% methane and only small amounts of wet
ability measures the ability of fluid to flow through the coal compounds such as ethane and butane. The application of
seam and basically depends on the degree of pore space avail- continuously increasing pressure in the coalification process
able for fluid movement. causes this naturally formed methane to be trapped in the
Coal seams are different from other conventional reser- coal seam and it eventually absorbs into the micro pores in
voirs for several reasons: (i) for conventional reservoirs, the surface of the coal seam natural fracture system, called
the relative permeability is not an important factor for gas cleats (Figure 2). The pressure applied by the surrounding
production as only a small amount of mobile water is avail- saturated rock layers (hydrostatic pressure) also contributes
able and permeability remains almost constant with pressure to holding this methane inside the coal seam (Vishal et al.,
reduction. However, for coals, as there is a significant amount 2013; Vishal, Ranjith, and Singh, 2013). This coal bed
of mobile water available, permeability varies widely with methane (CBM) is exceptionally pure compared to conven-
pressure reduction, and the maximum production point is tional petroleum gas, and therefore can be used for commer-
available at a very low pressure condition, which can be cial purposes with little or no treatment (Levine, 1993; Rice,
achieved by dewatering; (ii) a dual porosity system can be Law, and Clayton, 1993). According to the Sydney Catch-
found in coal bed reservoirs, which consists of micro pores ment Authority (2012), a coal seam suitable for CBM devel-
and macro pores; (iii) as the micro pores are quite small, it is opment should contain high gas content, preferably between
hard for water molecules to enter this particular type of pore, 15 and 30 m3 /t of methane (Scott, 2002), have good perme-
and therefore micro pores in coal mass behave as a store- ability usually greater than 1 mD (Brown et al., 1996), have
house for gases, resulting in up to around seven times more sufficient thickness and lateral continuity for easy movement
gas storage capacity in coal seams compared to conventional of gas into wells, and be located between 250 and 1000 m
reservoirs (Harpalani and Schraufnagel, 1990); and (iv) coal below the surface. As CBM has been formed during the coal-
has a well-developed natural cleat system of face cleats and ification process, the amount of gas that exists in any coal
butt cleats, which are orthogonal to each other. Face cleats seam largely depends on its rank, and low rank coal such as
Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, Online © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article was published in the Handbook of Clean Energy Systems in 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery: Using Injection of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide Mixture 3
Darcy flow in cleats Cleats

Gas
adsorption
along cleat’s
Butt walls
cleats
Coal
Face matrix
cleats
Gas diffusion in coal
Micro matrix
pores
Figure 2. Gas transport process through coal.
lignite has only a small amount of CBM and highest rank Figure 3. The produced gas is collected at the surface and
coal such as anthracite has the greatest amount. However, separated and harvested as a fuel source (Metcalfe et al.,
anthracite is quite a hard coal (Figure 1) with extremely low 1991).
desorption ability, and it is therefore quite difficult to produce According to Rice and Nuccio (2000), each CBM well
CBM from it. Therefore, medium rank coals such as bitu- goes through three main stages in its production history
minous coals are used to extract CBM (Levine, 1993; Rice, (Figure 4). During the first dewatering stage, a large quantity
Law, and Clayton, 1993). The depth requirement is related to of water is pumped out (around 10–30 million L in a year
the fact that for seams located above 250 m, it is necessary to from a production well) to reduce the reservoir pore pressure,
develop the hydrostatic pressure to keep gas in the adsorbed and the initial water production is generally much higher
phase in the coal seam, and therefore produce gas at lower than the methane production. However, this water production
overburden pressure. This results in a considerable amount decreases with time with increasing methane production. In
of gas being lost (Brown et al., 1996). On the other hand, for the second stage of stable production, methane production
seams located at more than 1000 m, the overburden pressure becomes maximum and almost stable, and water produc-
is generally too high to allow gas flow, even after the seam is tion continuously declines. In the final stage, water produc-
completely dewatered. tion becomes a minimum negligible amount and methane
Originally, CBM production was performed as a safety production also decreases until it becomes uneconomical to
measure in the coal mining industry, because explosion of produce. The total time is called the economic lifetime of a
gases in coal seams caused many accidents in the early days coal seam for methane production (White et al., 2005). For
(Nasvi et al., 2013b). However, CBM recovery began to be example, according to BP (2009), many coal seams in the
used as a method of commercial gas production by 1990 world have around 100 years of economic lifetime at current
because of the encouragement given by governments all over rates of production.
the world for this nonconventional gas production by the Although the conventional CBM production technique
reduction of taxes and other means (Nasvi et al., 2014). appears simple, it involves many environmental hazards,
and the main issue relates to the production of water.
Deep coal seams are generally in saturated condition, and
3 CBM PRODUCTION PROCESS therefore it is necessary to pump out thousands of gallons
of contaminated water from a single well each day to
As mentioned earlier, at higher pore fluid pressures, a greater deplete the pressure inside the coal seam to achieve the
amount of methane (CH4 ) can be stored in coal seams methane desorption pressure (Buccino and Steve, 2004).
through the process of adsorption. Therefore, a reduction of For example, according to Thomas and Beatie (2001), the
the pore pressure should cause this CH4 to desorb, and the average water production from a CBM production well
methane can subsequently be produced (Gray, 1987). This in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin in the United States
pore pressure reduction can be achieved by the pumping was around 17,000–22,000 gallons/day during the initial
out of naturally existing pore fluid (water) through a well years of production. The removal of such a large amount
drilled into and then along coal seams (a combination of of water from underground causes numerous environmental
vertical wells and horizontal bore holes). This well system issues, one of the main concerns being depletion of the
will initially release water and then start to desorb and release water table, which reduces the agricultural productivity of
gas (mainly methane) through the well, as illustrated in the land, and therefore has a direct influence on farmers.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
Pump Water CH4

CH4 to pipe line
Water to disposal
Separator Compressor
Vertical well
Impermeable rock
Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas

Coal seam
Water Gas Water Water Gas Water Gas
Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas

Coal seam
Horizontal
bore hole Impermeable rock
Submergible pump
Figure 3. Coal seam gas production process.
Dewatering Stable Production

(production production declining
initiating)
CBM production rate
Methane
Water
Time
Figure 4. Production stages in a typical CBM recovery process. Source: Created by the author using data from Rice and Nuccio, 2000.
According to the predictions of the Santos GLNG Project, normal TDS concentration in good-quality drinking water
four bore wells situated in and around the field will cause should be less than 500 mg/L and the TDS of sea water
up to around 7–25 m groundwater level drawdown by the is between 33,000 and 38,000 mg/L (TDS level is used to
end of 2028 in the Arcadia Valley CBM field in the Bowen measure the salinity). This clearly shows the salinity of water
Basin, Queensland (Smith and Senjen, 2011). Furthermore, produced from coal mines. The Queensland Gas Company
the release of this water onto the ground causes scouring (QGC), which is working on CBM production in New South
of stream channels, which creates significant erosion and
Wales has spent $350 million to treat around 100 ML of
sedimentation, which are harmful to aquatic habitats. In
water produced from the Chinchilla gas processing plant,
addition, CBM water is highly saline and mixing this saline
one of the largest coal seam gas (CSG) plants in Australia
water with the groundwater may cause the groundwater in
that area to be polluted, affecting drinking water and water (Smith and Immig, 2011). However, the QGC could not do
usage for other activities such as farming (Pasternak, 2001). anything about the 200 tons of salt produced per day with
According to Ross (2012) and Moran and Vink (2010), the disposal water from that plant.
the total dissolved solid (TDS) concentrations in the water The production of huge amounts of water is not the only
released by the CBM explorations in New South Wales, issue with conventional CSG recovery and the extensive time
Australia range from 1100 to 12,500 mg/L, whereas the needed for the process also critical, as it may take several
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
months for the initial production of methane through the

wells because of the requirement to release thousands of Solid
Liquid Super critical CO2
gallons of pore water. In addition, CBM production affects
Pressure (MPa)
the shrinking, strengthening, and hardening of the coal struc-
7.38
ture, which in turn influence its permeability and causes less
harvesting of the gas with time. This is because the effect 0.52
of external lithostatic pressure acting on the coal seam from
0.01 Gas
the surrounding rock masses increases with the reduction
of pore pressure inside the coal mass with the reduction
of the seam’s pore pressure, which reduces the coal seam’s
porosity (Thomas and Beatie, 2001). Therefore, the conven- 56.8 0 31.8
tional pressure depletion technique used in CBM recovery Temperature (°C)
is inefficient for the production of a commercially viable
amounts of methane, even using many wells. For example, Figure 5. Phase diagram for CO2 .
according to Gale and Freund (2001), the conventional pres-
sure depletion technique cannot recover even 50% of the
gas-in-place, as it involves large pressure depletion (around coal matrix by the more reactive adsorbing CO2 . According
70–80%), which is generally not practical or economical, to Katyal, Valix, and Thambimuthu (2007), CO2 is preferred
resulting in a considerable amount of CH4 remaining in the over CH4 in coal mass on the basis that approximately
seam following current operating techniques. 2–3 mol of CO2 are retained on the surface of the coal
In the light of all these facts, it has become essential to per each mole of CH4 released from it, and the ratio is
search for new advanced technologies for CBM production much higher for the supercritical state of CO2 . Therefore, the
to reduce the drawbacks of the reservoir pressure depletion preferable coal seams for the CO2 -ECBM process are located
method and recover CBM in a safer and more econom- deep underground (800–1000 m below the surface) to effec-
ical way. tively trap the injected CO2 in the seam, avoiding any CO2
leakage into groundwater resources and the atmosphere. In
such deep locations, the pressure and temperature are gener-
4 CBM PRODUCTION ENHANCEMENT ally greater than the critical values of CO2 (7.38 MPa and
TECHNIQUES 31.8◦ C), and therefore the CO2 exists in its high chemically
potential and adsorptive super-critical states (Figure 5).
The process of injecting a gas or a mixture of gases into a According to Curtis (2006), in supercritical condition,
coal seam with the purpose of enhancing methane produc- CO2 behaves much similar to water as it has high viscosity
tion from it is called ECBM recovery, and to date two main and density close to water, and CH4 behaves similar to
recovery techniques have been tested in the field: CO2 - the ideal gas with a density close to zero. Therefore, the
ECBM and N2 -ECBM. These techniques are discussed in highly viscose nature of CO2 contributes to the release of
detail in the following sections. the CBM from the matrix. Therefore, it is clear that the
injection of CO2 , especially in its super-critical state, has
4.1 CO2 -ECBM process greater ability to enhance methane production from coal
seams and if performed appropriately, it will also result in
The release of adsorbed methane from coal seams can be long-term sequestration of CO2 . However, existing research
assisted by the introduction of a more reactive (adsorptive) shows that absorption of any kind of gas into the coal mass
gas. Preferential adsorption of the more reactive gas into the induces a strain between the adsorbing coal layer and the
coal matrix will eventually cause the existing methane gas gas molecules, which is commonly known as coal matrix
to be desorbed. This phenomenon is used in the CO2 -ECBM swelling, and causes the coal mass pore space and eventu-
production process, where CBM desorption is assisted by the ally, its flow ability for gas movement to be reduced (Perera
injection of CO2 into the seam. According to Ranjith et al. et al., 2011b,c). CO2 has a significantly higher potential to
(2012), the sorbed phase equilibrium ratio of CH4 : CO2 is absorb into the coal mass compared to other gases such
1 : 1 and the gaseous state equilibrium ratio is 3 : 1. There- as CH4 and N2 and it also creates a higher swelling effect
fore, injection of CO2 into the coal seam does not force in coal, especially under supercritical conditions (Aziz and
the sorbed CH4 into the gaseous state and the only possible Ming-Li, 1999; Gürdal and YalçIn, 2001; Perera, Ranjith,
methane production enhancement technique in the CO2 - and Viete, 2013b). According to Perera et al. (2011c), the
ECBM process is replacement of the adsorbed CH4 in the swelling process in coal starts as quickly as within 1 h of CO2
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
0.005 0.01
Super-critical CO adsorption
Sub-critical CO2 adsorption
Permeability (md)
0.004
0.001
Radial strain
0.003
0.0001 Sub-critical CO2
Super-
0.002 critical CO2
1E-05
0.001 0 5 10
Downstream pressure (MPa)
0
0 4 9 14 Figure 7. CO2 phase effect on coal permeability at 25 MPa confine-
Time (h) ment. Source: Created by the author using data from Perera et al.,
2011a.
Figure 6. CO2 phase effect on coal swelling. Source: Created by
the author using data from Perera et al., 2011b. The industry’s first significant opportunity to check the
CO2 -ECBM process can be found in the Allison CO2 -ECBM
injection and causes the seam’s permeability to be signifi- pilot project in the San Juan Basin (Reeves and Oudinot,
cantly reduced. The coal matrix swelling observed by Perera 2005a; Reeves, 2003). The initial observed permeability in
et al. (2011c) was clearly dependent on the phase condi- the coal seam was around 100 mD and CO2 injection was
tion of the CO2 , and supercritical-CO2 -adsorption-induced performed while maintaining a constant bottom hole pres-
swelling is up to about two times higher than subcritical- sure condition (≈2450 psi) to avoid any fracture formation by
CO2 -adsorption-induced swelling (Figure 6). exceeding the formation fracturing pressure by the injecting
This higher degree of swelling created by supercritical CO2 pressure, and the researchers used injection rate as the
CO2 adsorption reduces the flow ability through coal mass to controllable factor to achieve this. In this project, although
a great extent by closing the pore space, which consequently the CO2 injection caused the CBM production to be signif-
increases the tortuosity for CO2 movement by reducing icantly accelerated, there was up to around 50% reduction
the coal mass permeability. This has been clearly shown in injectivity during in the first two years of CO2 injec-
in Perera et al.’s (2011b) study, in which the researchers tion, mainly because of the porosity reduction associated
conducted triaxial undrained tests for a range of injection with coal swelling upon CO2 injection (Larsen, 2004). This
pressures for fractured coal. The downstream pressure devel- was particularly evident near the well, where the CO2 pres-
opments were measured to check the phase condition of CO2 sure is high. However, with time gradual increments in CO2 ,
inside the coal mass and plotted against sample permeability injectivity and CBM productivity were observed and the
to check the phase effect on coal permeability (Figure 7). As researchers conducted a number of studies to understand this
illustrated in the figure, there was a significant drawdown in unexpected behavior. According to their analyses, this was
the coal mass permeability for supercritical CO2 movement because of the fact that as the produced CBM volume was
compared to subcritical CO2 , which is probably related to the far greater than the CO2 injection volumes, overall reservoir
previously described higher swelling effect created by super- pore pressure continued to reduce even during the injection,
critical CO2 . which caused the adsorbed CO2 near the injection wells to
Therefore, the injection of CO2 into the coal seam, be desorbed and migrate away from the well. This reversed
specially under the supercritical conditions that exist below the swelling areas near the injection well to some extent
certain depth, causes the coal seam’s flow ability to largely and enhanced the permeability for CO2 injection, which is
reduce, which crucially affects the CO2 injection and clearly favourable for the CO2 -ECBM process. However,
methane production processes in the coal seam and eventu- there was an unexpected rapid CO2 breakthrough in one
ally causes a significant decline in the methane production production well. Although a sudden rise in the CO2 concen-
rate after some period of CO2 injection (Perera et al., 2011b; tration after the breakthrough was expected, it took around
Viete and Ranjith, 2006). According to existing safety rules, 17 months after the initial breakthrough before a second
the maximum percentage of CO2 in coal mines should be CO2 breakthrough was observed, and the concentration only
around 3% of the mine air volume. Therefore, there is a rose from its preinjection level of 5% to about 9.5% during
concern that the injection of CO2 into coal seams during the 3.5 years. This particular behavior is difficult to explain using
CO2 -ECBM processes creates a safety threat, causing coal the existing theories and probably relates to reservoir hetero-
seams to be unmineable forever (Sarmah, 2011). geneity, as there may be several coal layers and only one layer
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
caused the initial CO2 breakthrough. This is not the only time implies that coals tend to replace up to 50% of their methane
that unexpected behaviors have occurred in the CO2 -ECBM storage capacity with nitrogen (EPA, 2002). For example,
process, as the RECOPOL CO2 -sequestration field project N2 injection caused the methane production rate to increase
in Poland also produced similar observations (Pagnier, van from 100 to 200 Mcfd to 1000 Mcfd in the AMOCO pilot
Bergen, and Krzystolik, 2006). The coal seam had extremely project in the San Juan Basin (Tiffany Project) (EPA, 2002).
low (around 1 mD) permeability and very low injectivities However, the N2 -ECBM technique also involves quicker N2
at the beginning (≈200–800 m3 /day). Therefore, hydraulic breakthroughs in the produced gas due to its freely existing
fractures were created to enhance the initial permeability and nature inside the seam, which causes the benefits offered
then CO2 was injected to enhance productivity. Although by the process to be largely reduced when the higher gas
there was a considerable increment in productivity, an unex- treatment costs are taken into account (Reeves, 2001).
pected quick breakthrough of CO2 through a production well The only current long-term N2 -ECBM field project is in
was observed, possibly because of the existence of a high the Tiffany unit in the San Juan Basin (Reeves and Oudinot,
conductivity pathway, which caused CO2 to quickly move 2005b). In this project, the initial permeability of the coal
toward the production well. Such pathways may be natural seam was quite low at around 1 mD and injection of N2
fractures or permeability heterogeneity and/or anisotropy at into the seam caused the CBM production to be significantly
a high permeability coal layer and/or its alignment. enhanced, with injectivity improving considerably over time.
Such observations clearly illustrate the need for more However, as expected, there was a rapid N2 breakthrough
comprehensive knowledge on the subject as current under- in the production well, probably because of the fact that
standing of reservoir mechanics during the CO2 -ECBM injected N2 exists as free gas in the reservoir pore space.
process is incomplete, making the process still “unconven- Interestingly, although the spacing between the injectors and
tional.” producers was the same as that of the Allison unit, the initial
gas injection rate was more than ten times higher in the
Tiffany unit (3000–3300 Mcfd at around 1600 psi average
4.2 N2 -ECBM technique bottomhole pressure). This superior injectivity of N2 relates
to the lower viscosity of N2 , which causes a higher rate of
The relatively inert nature of N2 compared to other CSGs gas penetration through the pore space, and partly to the slip
such as CO2 and CH4, has been widely recognized in flow that occurs because of the Klinkernburg effect (Jasinge
the field (Perera and Ranjith, 2012). N2 is a relatively et al., 2012; Perera and Ranjith, 2012; Perera et al., 2011b,
nonadsorptive gas and it remains as free gas in the fracture 2012). However, this may also cause rapid N2 breakthrough.
pore space in the coal mass upon injection. According to In addition to the Tiffany unit project, there is a short-term
Ranjith et al. (2012), the adsorbed phase equilibrium ratio N2 -ECBM project in the Fenn Big Valley basin in Alberta,
of CH4 : N2 is around 2 : 1 and the gaseous state ratio is Canada (Gunter, 2009). This project has also experienced this
around 1 : 3. Therefore, when N2 is injected into a coal seam, quick N2 breakthrough in a production well.
it replaces all the gaseous state CH4 from the coal mass, According to current research, the N2 -ECBM technique
which creates a zero methane partial pressure in the gaseous can be considered “conventional” because of the simplicity
phase without changing the total pressure, depending on of N2 injection compared to CO2 injection into deep coal
the water production, resulting in disequilibrium in the seams.
system. This disequilibrium causes the adsorbed phase CH4
to be extracted from the coal mass in the gaseous phase to
achieve partial-pressure equilibrium and this enhances the 5 COMPARISON OF CO2 -ECBM AND
CBM production (Reeves, 2003). Theoretically, nitrogen N2 -ECBM TECHNIQUES
injection accelerates CBM production by the concept of
inert gas stripping. The N2 required for the N2 -ECBM In order to find the optimum technique for the ECBM
technique is usually obtained from manufactured gas plants. process, the merits and demerits of the two processes need to
Interestingly, as N2 has less adsorptive capacity than the be compared in three main aspects: (i) productivity, (ii) risk
existing CH4 in the coal matrix, desorption of that CH4 with and environmental impact, and (iii) economical. Each aspect
the injecting N2 causes the CH4 -adsorption-induced swelled is discussed in the following sections.
areas in the coal matrix to shrink, which also contributes
to ECBM production through the increased permeability 5.1 Productivity
in the seam (Giasuddin, Sanjayan, and Ranjith, 2013).
According to existing studies, for each volume of injected Although the N2 -ECBM process creates quicker and higher
nitrogen, two volumes of methane can be produced, which CBM production enhancement than the CO2 -ECBM process,
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
it also causes quicker N2 breakthroughs, which pollute pressures for N2 than CO2 (at 50 Mcfd/ft injection rate, N2
the CH4 produced, and therefore creates higher gas treat- has the ability to enhance CSG production by 57% compared
ment cost. This is basically because the high pressure gap to only 29% productivity increment by CO2 ). Therefore,
generated between the injection point and the rest of the coal N2 injection at high injection pressures appears to be the
mass during the N2 injection process causes the N2 , which optimum technique for CBM productivity. However, this
exists as a free gas in the fracture system, to be flushed out needs to be cross-checked with CO2 and N2 breakthroughs
of the coal mass, and eventually mix with the CH4 produced in the gas produced, as purity is an important factor for
(Giasuddin, Sanjayan, and Ranjith, 2013). On the other hand, CBM production, when the high cost involved in the gas
if CO2 injection is considered, although it involves compar- treatment is taken into consideration. Figure 9 compares the
atively slower and smaller CBM production enhancement, CO2 and N2 breakthroughs observed in the production of
there are larger delays in CO2 breakthroughs in producing CSG in the Reeves (2003) study.
CBM compared to the N2 -ECBM process. This is because According to Figure 9, during the 15 years of injection,
injected CO2 molecules are in the stable adsorbed phase no noticeable CO2 breakthroughs were observed in the gas
in the coal matrix, and therefore have less chance of being produced. In contrast, N2 injection clearly created quick
released from the coal mass compared to N2 . Apart from N2 breakthroughs in the gas produced, which significantly
this, enhancement of CBM recovery through the CO2 -ECBM increased with increasing N2 injection rates. This is not a
process also contributes to the reduction of CO2 emission favorable effect in terms of the large post-treatment cost
into the atmosphere to a great extent (Perera et al., 2011a, required to separate N2 from the methane. Therefore, in
2012; Perera and Ranjith, 2012). However, as mentioned order to obtain optimum productivity while delaying break-
earlier, adsorption of injected CO2 into the coal matrix causes throughs, the performance of the two ECBM techniques
it to swell by shrinking the fracture network available for gas needs to be combined and a mixture of N2 + CO2 needs to
movement, which greatly declines coal seam permeability be injected (Figure 10).
and eventually, CBM production. Reeves (2003) compared
CBM production enhancement by the CO2 -ECBM and N2 - 5.2 Risk and environmental impact
ECBM processes using a numerical model developed for a
typical coal seam and produced the critical observation illus- The performance of any enhancement technique should
trated in Figure 8. involve minimum environmental impact. With the CO2 -
According to Figure 8, N2 injection clearly creates ECBM process, the main associated risk is the leakage of
significantly higher CSG production over 15 years compared CO2 from the coal seam, which can be divided into two broad
to CO2 injection, as the injection of N2 at 10 Mcfd/ft causes categories: global and local (Metz et al., 2005). In the global
CSG productivity to increase by around 21% compared to risk, the CO2 released from the coal seam migrates toward
a 4% increment due to the injection of CO2 at 10 Mcfd/ft. the atmosphere and eventually contributes to critical climate
The other interesting observation is the greater sensitivity change. In addition, CO2 leakage may also have negative
of injection rate variation to N2 compared to CO2 , as CSG effects on humans, ecosystems, and groundwater, and such
productivity is considerably higher for higher injection hazards are called local risks. According to existing research,
10,000 10,000
CSG production rate (Mscf/day)
CSG production rate (Mscf/day)
1000 1000
Base case Base case
10 Mcfd/ft N2 injection rate 10 Mcfd/ft CO2 injection rate
100 100
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (years) Time (years)
Figure 8. Comparison of performances of CO2 -ECBM and N2 -ECBM processes. Source: Created by the author using data from Reeves,
2003.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
70 70
10 Mcfd/ft CO2 injection rate 10 Mcfd/ft N2 injection rate
60 25 Mcfd/ft CO2 injection rate 60 25 Mcfd/ft N2 injection rate
50 50 Mcfd/ft CO2 injection rate 50 Mcfd/ft N2 injection rate
CO2 content (%)
50
N2 content (%)
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (years) Time (years)
Figure 9. Comparison of CO2 and N2 breakthroughs. Source: Created by the author using data from Reeves, 2003.
Breakthrough in crop growth and soil ecosystems. In addition, if the CO2 leaks
N2-ECBM into the atmosphere by any means, it may cause dangerous
Breakthrough in
N2 + CO2-ECBM
CBM production
hazards for human life, especially if the leakage occurs in

N2-ECBM Breakthrough in
lowland areas with slight wind as there is more chance of the
CO2-ECBM leaking CO2 accumulating.
N2 is a comparatively inert gas and not as hazardous
N2 + CO2-ECBM CO2-ECBM as CO2 and therefore, the leakage of some amount of N2
into the atmosphere through any of the described methods
would not create such critical damage to the environment
Time
as CO2, as almost 80% of the atmosphere is N2 . There-
fore, there is almost zero global risk associated with the
Figure 10. Optimization of ECBM recovery through combination N2 -ECBM process. Furthermore, mixing N2 into the soil or
of CO2 -ECBM and N2 -ECBM processes. atmosphere does not create any noticeable hazard, as under
normal conditions nitrogen molecules are held together by
predictive models, field observations, and analysis of current strong triple bonds and it is difficult to make nitrate or any
CO2 storage sites, a well-maintained coal seam securely other hazardous form of nitrogen (Smil, 2004). However,
retains more than 99% of injected CO2 underground for over although the solubility of N2 in water is negligible, high
1000 years. This period is expected to be much longer, as pressure and temperature conditions and biological reac-
the risk of leakage likely decreases with time because of tions deep underground may cause some amount of N2 to
trapping mechanisms being activated in CO2 over time. If be converted into its harmful form, nitrate (NO3 − ), which
a CO2 leakage occurs because of failure of an injection well, is easily soluble in water. According to Berner and Berner
it creates a rapid release (releases may take hours to days) (1987), mixing of nitrate in groundwater causes contami-
of CO2 , causing a dangerous hazard for workers and other nation of drinking water because of its harmful biological
people close to the site (up to 10% of CO2 in air may cause effects, and high concentrations of nitrate in drinking water
death). Nowadays, detecting devices are installed in wells as may result in gastric and colon cancers. Therefore, although
well as away from the wells to quickly identify such kind there is a risk associated with the leakage of N2 underground
of leakage and avoid the hazard and regular checking is also during the N2 -ECBM process, the risk is quite low compared
conducted to minimize the possibility of leaks. However, if to CO2 as N2 solubility in water is quite low. When all the
there is slow and gradual leakage of CO2 through undetected facts are considered, it is clear that there is less environmental
fractures/faults or a leaking well, such leakage may severely risk associated with the N2 -ECBM process than the CO2 -
affect the drinking-water aquifers and ecosystems, as there ECBM process.
is sufficient time for CO2 to accumulate in the subsurface On the other hand, although the CO2 -ECBM process
before detection. In addition, the leakage of CO2 into the soil involves a higher environmental risk, this process also
may cause the soil to become acidic and its oxygen to be assists in protecting the environment by contributing to
replaced, both of which create unsuitable environments for the mitigation of atmospheric CO2 level by the geological
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
sequestration of considerable amounts of CO2 deep under- Table 2. Global CO2 sequestration and ECBM potentials in deep
ground. According to Katyal, Valix, and Thambimuthu coal seams.
(2007), CO2 is preferred over CH4 in coal on the basis that Country ECBM CO2 Sequestration
approximately 2–3 mol of CO2 are retained on the surface (Trillion m3 ) (Billion Metric Tons)
of the coal per mole of desorbing CH4 . Therefore, ECBM USA 9.3 35
can be used to enhance methane production and it will also Australia 7.8 30
result in long-term sequestration of CO2 , which contributes Indonesia 6.3 24
Russia 5 19
to the mitigation of climate change. Following an exhaustive China 3.3 13
review of the available scientific and technical information, Canada 3.1 12
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Zimbabwe 1.4 5.1
India 1.4 5
Change has labeled evidence for the recent global warming
France and Germany 0.5 1.9
trend “unequivocal” and stated that the majority of global South Africa 0.5 1.7
warming “is very likely because of the observed increase Poland and Czech Republic 0.4 1.6
in anthropogenic (greenhouse gas) concentrations.” The
threat posed by anthropogenic global warming is almost
universally accepted and is now recognized as humanity’s
The development of the CO2 -ECBM process would create
most serious challenge (De Silva and Ranjith, 2013; Dileeka, a substantial market for CO2 released by power plants and
Ranjith, and Choi, 2010; Nasvi et al., 2013b, 2014; Shukla other industrial sources, which is another means of protecting
et al., 2013). Urgent action against climate change is environment in an economical way. However, detailed anal-
therefore a global imperative. At the 15th UNFCCC, held ysis is required if the economics of the CO2 -ECBM or N2 -
in Copenhagen in 2009, many developed countries set ECBM processes are to be understood.
absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. CO2
sequestration in coal beds is an attractive means of reducing
5.3 Economic aspect
greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere and the
CO2 -ECBM process offers an economical method. Stevens
The development of any ECBM process is largely dependent
(1998) quantified the global CO2 sequestration and ECBM
on the economics, as this is the attractant for investors. In
potential in coal seams located around the world (Table 2)
general, the profit from the ECBM process depends on the
and found that a total of around 39 trillion m3 of CO2 could
value of the gas produced, the cost of production, the cost of
be produced in 27 main coal basins in 14 major countries
transporting the gas and the cost of taxes or CO2 credits. Of
while sequestrating around 148.3 billion metric tons of
these, the cost of production is the main expenditure. Produc-
CO2 . This is clearly a huge CO2 storage potential. However, tion costs depend on the total spend required to produce
there is some uncertainty, as the sequestration of CO2 in the gas, including the cost and availability of CO2 /N2 , the
underground coal seams clearly limits the future mining of implementation cost including for drilling and maintaining
these coal seams. According to the US Geological Survey’s the wells and horizontal bore holes, and water disposal, and
criteria for assessing coal mining resources (Reeves, 2009), processing costs, including gas purification and water treat-
when considering the cost and effectiveness, any high rank ment. The largest cost is related to the injection of CO2 /N2
coal seam (anthracite or bituminous) lying at less than (Duane, Walter, and Jerry, 2006). According to the Alberta
1830 m depth and thickness higher than 36 cm and any Research Council, a minimum gas price of $2 of per 1000 ft3
low rank coal seam (lignite and sub-bituminous) lying at of methane needs to be allocated for CO2 if CO2 is available
less than 1830 m depth and thickness higher than 76 cm at $1 per 1000 ft3 in the CO2 -ECBM process, as at least 2 ft3
is considered as a coal mining resource. Therefore, much of CO2 is required to displace each cubic feet of methane
deeper seams can be used for the CO2 -ECBM process from the coal seam (Duane, Walter, and Jerry, 2006). There-
(Reeves, 2009). This CO2 sequestration potential is a unique fore, the CO2 -ECBM process is an excellent means of energy
advantage of the CO2 -ECBM process over the N2 -ECBM production, only if the seam is located near local power plants
process. Therefore, the CO2 -ECBM process has a higher to enable the supply of sufficient CO2 efficiently and at a
environmental pollution risk through leakage but in other low price for the production (abundant CO2 available in the
ways would assist in protecting the environment by storing power plants for lower cost) and capture (reduced transport
a considerable amount of CO2 . In contrast, the N2 -ECBM costs) processes. The N2 -ECBM process appears to be more
process has lower environmental pollution risk through economically viable because of the quantity required for the
leakage, but provides no assistance with environmental process, which is around 0.5 ft3 of N2 to displace each cubic
protection or CO2 sequestration. feet of methane from the coal seam (Reeves, 2003). Reeves
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
Table 3. Comparison of the economics of CO2 and N2 -ECBM compared to the pure CO2 -ECBM process. Furthermore, it
processes. would contribute more to the reduction of the atmospheric
Component CO2 -ECBM N2 -ECBM CO2 levels than the N2 -ECBM process.
Gas price $3.00 $3.00
Basin differential $0.30 $0.30
BTU adjustment (5%)
Production taxes (20%)
$0.15
$0.51
$0.15
$0.51
6 CO2 +N2 -ECBM TECHNIQUE
Gas processinga $0.50 $1.00
Capital costsb $0.25 $0.25 Currently mixed N2 + CO2 injection has become more
Gas costs (CO2 : CH4 ratio $0.90 $0.30 popular as it is believed to create better production mech-
3 : 1; N2 : CH4 ratio 1 : 2)c anisms. According to Reeves and Schoeling (2000), the
Net profit $0.39 $0.49
N2 + CO2 -ECBM process offers a higher production rate
a
Gas processing cost for N2 is double that of CO2 because of early break- with earlier response compared to the CO2 -ECBM process,
throughs. and it has the ability to sequestrate almost similar amounts
b
Capital costs = $500,000 × 4 (inj wells) = $0.25/Mcf.
c Gas costs. of CO2 to the CO2 -ECBM process while achieving a
CO2 = $0.30/Mcf × 3.0 = $0.90/Mcf. higher injection rate. This is because the addition of N2
N2 = $0.60/Mcf × 0.5 = $0.30/Mcf. into the injecting CO2 causes the gas injectivity to be
greatly enhanced compared to CO2 injection and much
higher injection rates can be achieved. In addition, many
(2003) compared the economics of the CO2 and N2 -ECBM current studies show the potential of N2 to recover the CO2
processes by roughly calculating the net profit that can be injection-induced swelled areas to some extent (Jasinge
earned by producing 1 Mft3 of gas from a typical coal seam et al., 2012; Perera et al., 2011b, c; Vishal et al., 2013;
using four injection wells, assuming the same amount of gas Vishal, Ranjith, and Singh, 2013) and this may also influence
is produced by both processes (see Table 3). the higher injection ability of N2 /CO2 mixture compared to
Table 3 clearly shows the greater profits associated with pure CO2 (Figure 11). This is important for the N2 + CO2 -
the N2 -ECBM process compared to CO2 -ECBM, mainly ECBM process, as this phenomenon should cause additional
because of the amount of gas (CO2 /N2 ) required to recover CBM recovery enhancement with the reduced swelling
methane from the coal seam. For this reason, although N2 effect caused by the CO2 in the injecting gas. However,
injection has a higher processing cost, the N2 -ECBM process the swelling recovery rate may vary with various effective
is more profitable as it needs a much smaller amount of N2 factors such as injection gas properties such as composition
to produce gas from the seam. On the other hand, existing
and pressure and seam properties such as depth, rank, and
studies (Perera et al., 2011b) clearly show the higher produc-
moisture content (Perera et al., 2011b).
tion potential of N2 compared to CO2 (Figure 8), and there-
Parakh (2007) conducted an experimental study to
fore the profit for N2 -ECBM should be much higher than the
examine the N2 + CO2 -ECBM technique using a 45%
values shown in the table, based on the assumption that both
N2 + 55% CO2 gas mixture. According to his observations,
processes produce the same amount of CBM.
the N2 + CO2 -ECBM process follows three major stages of
However, as mentioned earlier, the CO2 -ECBM process
makes a considerable contribution to the mitigation of
atmospheric CO2 levels by CO2 sequestration, and this
0.01
needs to be considered from the environmental protection
prospective. Flue gas (87% N2 + 13% CO2 ) injection offers
Permeability (md)
a more commercially feasible CBM recovery method 0.001

because of its availability compared to pure CO2 or N2
and its ability to create a higher degree of acceleration
in the CBM recovery compared to CO2 -ECBM process 0.0001
Initial
while sequestrating the same amount of CO2 . Therefore, the After swelling
use of flue gas appears to be an ideal means of harvesting After nitrogen flooding
commercially viable amounts of CBM in an environmentally 0.00001
12 14 16 18 20
friendly way. Although the injection of a CO2 /N2 mixture Injection pressure (MPa)
at a predetermined ratio may involve additional preparation
cost, the production cost is expected to be much lower Figure 11. Effect of N2 flood on CO2 permeability for 25 MPa
than for the injection of pure CO2 as it greatly reduces confining pressure condition. Source: Created by the author using
the quantity of CO2 required for the enhancement process data from Perera et al., 2011a.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
1 1
Production mole fraction

0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
CH4 CH4
0.4 0.4
CH2 N2
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
(a) Time (PVI) (b) Time (PVI)
1
1
0.8
Methane fraction in
the producing gas
0.8
CH4
0.6 0.6
CH2
N2
0.4 0.4 N2
0.2 0.2 N2 + CO2

CO2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
(c) Time (PVI) (d) Time (PVI)
Figure 12. Breakthrough of gases under (a) pure CO2 injection, (b) pure N2 injection, (c) N2 + CO2 injection, and (d) methane production
under the three ECBM techniques. Source: Created by the author using data from Parakh, 2007.
production. There is a high rate of production at the initial production was recorded using a production well. Shut-in
stage controlled by N2 , then a slower rate of production periods of 30–60 days were also imposed between the injec-
controlled by CO2 and finally the third stage production is tion and production to minimize the gas pressure devel-
purely due to convection, and the rate of production equals opment effect near the injection well and injectivity was
the injection rate. According to this study, increasing the maintained at an adequate rate (15 × 103 m3 /day). First the
CO2 concentration in the injecting gas causes the production CO2 -ECBM technique (0% N2 ) was used to enhance CBM
rate to decrease because of its more adsorptive nature. production, and a reduction in productivity owing to coal
Figure 12 shows the better performance in methane recovery matrix swelling was observed, mainly in shut-in operation
of gas mixture injection compared to pure CO2 or N2 periods. Therefore, a mixture of 87% N2 and 13% CO2 (a
injection. As the figure shows, the addition of CO2 causes synthetic flue gas) was injected into the coal seam using the
the quick N2 breakthrough observed in the pure N2 -ECBM same well and a significant improvement in CBM produc-
process to be delayed from around 0.7 PVI (Figure 12b) to tion was observed. In the second pilot project, the N2 -ECBM
1 PVI (Figure 12c), which is a favourable effect for the gas technique (100% N2 ) was used and an early N2 break-
production process in terms of reduced purification cost. On through was observed. Therefore, a mixture of 53% N2
the other hand, it clearly causes enhanced methane produc- and 47% CO2 (flue gas) was injected into the seam after
tion compared to the pure CO2 -ECBM process (Figure 12d). 1 month using the same well and delay in breakthrough
Therefore, this study confirms the unique advantages offered was observed. This project illustrates that the injection of
by the N2 + CO2 -ECBM technique compared to pure gas a mixture of N2 + CO2 may help lessen the problems asso-
injection techniques. ciated with CO2 injection-induced coal swelling and early
This better performance of the N2 + CO2 -ECBM tech- breakthrough with N2 injection, and is therefore a better tech-
nique has been also experienced in CBM recovery fieldwork nique to enhance CBM production. On the other hand, the
in the Fenn Big Valley basin in Alberta, Canada (Gunter, injection of flue gas (the mixture of CO2 and N2 ) elimi-
2009; Wong et al., 2000). This project injected different nates the high cost associated with the pure N2 /CO2 capture
proportions of N2 /CO2 (0% N2 , 53% N2 , 87% N2 , and process, and therefore increases the profit of the project.
100% N2 ) into the 1–4 mD low permeable Mannville reser- However, there may be a better CO2 /N2 composition with
voir using two injection wells and the corresponding CBM optimum economic, productivity, and safety advantages.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
This is currently the subject of worldwide research into the CO2 sequestration effect is ignored, the best combina-
ECBM recovery. tion of N2 /CO2 is around 50% : 50% for any coal rank as
that combination harvests the maximum amount of CBM
(Schepers, Oudinot, and Ripepi, 2011). This study confirms
the suitability of medium rank coal for the ECBM process
7 THE OPTIMUM CO2 TO N2 RATIO FOR compared to high or low rank coals (Figure 14), and the
THE ECBM TECHNIQUE injecting gas composition (N2 /CO2 ) is more sensitive to
medium rank coal than other types of coals.
Schepers, Oudinot, and Ripepi (2011) examined the perfor- However, it should be noted that the preparation of any
mance of the N2 + CO2 -ECBM process for various injecting of these gas mixtures involves an additional preparation step
gas compositions (0–100% N2 ) using a numerical modeling compared to flue gas or pure CO2 or N2 injection, and
study, and the optimum N2 /CO2 mixture was examined therefore may incur additional preparation cost. Therefore,
considering both ECBM and CO2 sequestration potential. in field conditions, flue gas is preferred for the N2 + CO2 -
According to this study, 20% N2 + 80% CO2 is the best gas ECBM process (Gunter, 2009; Wong et al., 2000). However,
mixture for low rank coal as it increases CBM recovery by according to Schepers, Oudinot, and Ripepi (2011), the injec-
around 69% compared to pure CO2 injection with the loss tion of flue gas (13% CO2 + 87% N2 ) is not a very good
of 27% of sequestration capacity compared with pure CO2 option to enhance CBM recovery as it is associated with
injection (Figure 13). minimum CBM production enhancement (Figure 13).
Moreover, this study found the critical influence of coal’s CBM offers remarkable promise as a new, large-scale
rank on the optimum gas mixture for CBM recovery, because source of affordable and clean fossil fuel power. This is
coal mass flow properties such as absorption potential, particularly so when one considers the potential for CO2
permeability, and porosity vary greatly with its rank. For sequestration with ECBM. However, despite recent growth
example, the best mixture observed was 30% N2 : 70% CO2 in popularity in Australia, the United States, and Canada, the
for medium rank coals as the injection of that mixture caused technology remains in its infancy because of various barriers
the ECBM to be increased by 95% (over 100% CO2 injec- in implementation of the process.
tion) with a minimum 20% sequestration capacity loss. The
best mixture observed for high rank coal was 45% N2 : 55%
CO2 as this caused the ECBM to be increased by 93% (over 8 BARRIERS IN IMPLEMENTING THE
100% CO2 injection) with a minimum 20% loss of seques- ECBM TECHNIQUE
tration capacity. This implies that the percentage of N2 that
needs to be added to the injecting gas mixture to recover the There are three main barriers to the implementation of the
maximum amount of CBM while sequestrating the optimum ECBM technique: geological, economic, and policy. The
amount of CO2 increases with increasing rank. However, if main geological factors that need to be considered for an
effective ECBM process are ninefolds: homogeneity, simple
structure, sufficient permeability (>1 mD), effective depth
800 59
Increment in ECBM recovery (MMCf)
(300–1500 m), concentrated coal geometry and sufficient

CO2 sequestrated amount (MMCf)
700 58 production rates, project development timing, water disposal

600 57 facilities, and the amount of available gas. In general, an
56 ECBM project would not be economical if there is not a
500
55 commercially sufficient amount of gas in the coal seam
400 or the available gas is difficult to harvest because of the
54
300 geological condition of the reservoir. ECBM recovery is
53
200
location-specific and the preparation of a potential ECBM
52
CO2 sequestration site requires great effort (Brinckerhoff, 2011).
100 51
ECBM increment However, advanced new technologies have been inves-
0 50 tigated to overcome most of the geological barriers. For
0 20 40 60 80 100
CO2 content in the injecting gas (%)
example, in low permeable reservoirs, an enhancement tech-
nique such as hydrofracturing can be used to connect the
Figure 13. The best gas composition to recover an optimum
production well to the coalbed fracture system (Jasinge
amount of CBM with minimal reduction in carbon dioxide seques- et al., 2009, 2012). In this technique, a high pressure fluid
tration. Source: Created by the author using data from Schepers containing propants is injected into the coalbed through a
et al., 2011. production well to keep the fracture open (Jasinge, Ranjith,
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
2500 Medium rank coal

High rank coal
Low rank coal
Cumulative CBM production (MMCf)
2000 CO2-ECBM
N2-ECBM 5000
Incremental CBM recovery (MMCf)

1500 4500
4000
3500
3000 Low rank
1000 N2-ECBM
2500 Medium rank
2000 High rank
CO2-ECBM
1500
500
1000
N2-ECBM CO2-ECBM 500
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
(a) Time (days) (b) N2 Percentage in the injecting gas (%)
Figure 14. Variation of the ECBM potential with coal rank. Source: Created by the author using data from Schepers et al., 2011.
and Choi, 2011; Nasvi, Ranjith, and Sanjayan, 2013a). The capture and transportation costs are the major costing factors
creation of hydrofractures causes the coal bed’s permeability in the ECBM process, and the transportation cost mainly
to be greatly increased, which accelerates the water pumping depends on how many sources (power plants and industrial
rate, the CO2 and N2 injection rates, and eventually the CO2 sources) could share a pipeline over a given distance. If
methane production rate. However, some geological barriers, there are sufficient power plants or other sources available,
such as the absence of sufficient amounts of gas and coal it is more economical to use longer pipelines that offer more
seams with highly heterogeneous structures, cannot be over- opportunities to share the pipelines among the sources, which
come by any simple means and therefore, such types of reser- reduces the maintenance and service costs associated with
voirs should not be considered for the ECBM process. transportation. On the other hand, the ECBM process will
In relation to economic barriers, ECBM recovery has not be economical if there are not enough sources nearby
many associated economic risks. Drilling exploration bore- to share the transportation cost and long-range transporta-
holes to deep seams (i.e., in excess of 1000 m) is a very tion of gases appears an unlikely option given its high cost.
costly exercise, and production and field-scale testing are The location of coal seams far away from the sources of the
also quite expensive. Private companies and public insti- gases influences the cost of CO2 and N2 and their availability,
tutions are reluctant to invest in ventures in which there and is therefore not favorable for the ECBM process. The
are significant risks of limited return on investment. Of the limited understanding of fundamental issues related to the
factors that influence a project’s cost, the expenses associated ECBM process has also critically influenced the economy
with injecting CO2 and N2, their availability, the processing of the ECBM process as it results in inadequate technolog-
and implementation costs, transportation expenses, and the ical and scientific approaches to the process (Reeves, 2003).
value of methane are the most important. Generally, the Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a broader range of scien-
ECBM process is considered to be economical if the value of tific research studies to overcome this issue (Pini et al., 2006).
the produced gas exceeds the cost of producing the gas, and The third kind of barrier associated with the implemen-
the cost of transporting the gas, or the cost of taxes or CO2 tation of the ECBM process is related to government policy
credits (Reeves, 2003). ECBM recovery projects use existing or legislation and is mainly twofold: tax or CO2 credits,
facilities to be more economical, by converting produc- and mine safety. The current lack of penalties for CO2
tion wells for injection and using time-tested technological emissions has critically influenced the implementation of
approaches such as the organization of injection wells and the ECBM process (Sarmah, 2011). For instance, increasing
production wells in five-spot patterns. As mentioned earlier, CO2 credits would create more commercially viable ECBM
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
projects. Carbon credit can be defined as a certificate compared to other gases such as CH4 and N2 will trigger
showing that a government or company has paid to remove additional changes to the coal’s mechanical and flow proper-
a certain amount of carbon dioxide from the environment. ties during the CO2 -ECBM or N2 + CO2 -ECBM processes.
This system has been introduced to assign a value to a Perera et al. (2013a) used COMSOL Multiphysics numerical
reduction or offset of greenhouse gas emissions, where modeling codes to simulate CO2 injection into coal seam and
one credit is equivalent to 1 ton of CO2 (Locatelli and checked the CO2 pressure distribution and the corresponding
Pedroni, 2004). Increasing carbon credit would encourage deformation along the coal seam during injection (6 months)
industrialists to turn to greener energy sources such as and after injection (6 months to 10 years).
CBM, which would cause the ECBM process to develop. As illustrated in Figure 15, CO2 injection pressurizes the
If the effect of mining safety regulations on the ECBM coal seam and the coal seam deforms. However, even after
process is considered, according to Sarmah (2011), the the injection, there is a significant amount of deformation
CO2 -ECBM process represents a safety hazard in coal in the coal seam, which is mainly because of the coal
mining as it may cause the mining environment to be matrix swelling; this has a significant influence on coal
polluted by the injecting CO2 . Mines are generally required seam strength. This was found by Perera, Ranjith, and Peter
to have a limit of 3% CO2 by volume in the mine air (2011d) by listening to the acoustic emission (AE) waves
(Sarmah, 2011) and the injection of CO2 into coal seams released during the load application on CO2 and non-CO2
would cause those seams to be unsafe to mine in the future. saturated coal samples. According to the Acoustic Emission
Potential leakage from deep ECBM recovery may also affect (AE) counts, CO2 saturation causes early crack initiation
surface mining. One potential method for reducing CO2 compared to non-CO2 saturated samples because of the
levels in the mine air is to employ the N2 + CO2 -ECBM CO2 adsorption-induced swelled layer and early crack
process. damaging and failure points because of lower surface energy
The ECBM technique is still in its infancy because of the and strength. This strength reduction is not a favorable
lack of knowledge of the subject because of the complex effect for the long-term safety of the ECBM process, as
hydrochemical–mechanical behavior of coal during the injected CO2 or CBM may freely back-migrate into the
process (White et al., 2005). This is discussed in detail in atmosphere sometime after injection because of reservoir
the following section. failure. Therefore, the possible strength reduction needs to
be accurately quantified before initiating any fieldwork to
check the suitability and safety of seams for the ECBM
9 COMPLEXITY OF THE PROCESS process. However, the CO2 adsorption-induced strength
reduction process in coal is quite complicated, because
Detailed knowledge of the type and quantity of the gas phases although it is significantly influenced by CO2 pressure and
that move in and are adsorbed into the coal pores and cleat phase, it does not exhibit a direct relationship with either
walls is important in the ECBM process as they affect the of these or even with their combined effect. This can be
surface energy of the coal mass, which governs its physical clearly identified by examining Figure 16, which shows
behavior (Gilman and Beckie, 2000; Perera et al., 2011a, b, the failure pattern of black coal at different CO2 pressures
c; Perera and Ranjith, 2012; Viete and Ranjith, 2006, 2007). and phase conditions. The addition of N2 into the injecting
The greater potential of CO2 to absorb into the coal mass CO2 causes this complexity to be further increased, and
16 5
Vertical deformation of the
01 month 02 months
cap rock boundary (mm)
01 month 02 months
15 03 months 04 months
03 months 04 months 4
Pressure (MPa)
05 months 06 months
14 05 months 06 months
3 01 year 02 years
01 year 02 years
13 03 years 04 years
03 years 04 years
05 years 10 years
2 05 years 10 years
12
11 1
10 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
(a) Horizontal distance along the boundary (m) (b) Horizontal distance along the boundary (m)
Figure 15. (a) Pressure and (b) deformation along the coal seam throughout the 10 years. Source: Created by the author using data from
Perera et al., 2013a.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Figure 16. Appearance of the (a) natural coal sample, and (b) failure pattern of the natural coal sample (shear failure), (c) coal sample
saturated with subcritical CO2 at 6 MPa (failed along the major cleats), (d) coal sample saturated with supercritical CO2 at 8 MPa (failed
along the minor and major cleats), and (e) coal sample saturated with supercritical CO2 at 16 MPa (failed along the major cleats). Source:
Created by the author using data from Perera et al., 2013b.
the effect of N2 and CO2 partial pressures needs to be • CBM is conventionally produced by pumping out the
considered. naturally existing pore fluid (water), which takes exten-
Adsorption of CO2 causes the coal matrix to swell; in sive time, cannot produce commercially viable amounts
contrast, the coal structure shrinks when the adsorbed gases of CBM, and is associated with many environmental
are desorbed from the matrix, which happens in CBM hazards. The release of thousands of gallons of salty
production (Harpalani and Chen, 1995). Therefore, the water from coal seams causes the water table to be
strength reduction caused by CO2 adsorption should be depleted, the groundwater in the area to be polluted, and
proportionally recovered during the CH4 desorption process. stream channels to be scoured.
However, the proportion is still undiscovered because of • It is essential to find advanced novel technologies to
the complex heterogeneous nature of coal, which creates
recover CSG in safer and more economical ways. Such
different seam properties from location to location (Perera
advanced technologies are currently developing in the
and Ranjith, 2012), and therefore increases the complexity
Deep Earth Energy Lab of the Monash University.
of the ECBM process. According to Jasinge et al. (2009),
• The process of injecting a gas or a mixture of gases into
two coal specimens taken from the same sample block
may have greatly varying intrinsic properties because of a coal seam with the purpose of enhancing the methane
the heterogeneous nature of the coal, which includes its recovery rate from it is called ECBM recovery; CO2 -
heterogeneous fracture network and the presence of foreign ECBM and N2 -ECBM are the main ECBM techniques.
objects such as wood in the coal matrix. Therefore, it is clear • The CO2 -ECBM process desorbs methane form the
that the complex and heterogeneous behavior of coal is the seam by injecting more reactive CO2 into the coal seam;
main challenge in understanding the ECBM process, and CO2 is preferred over CH4 in coal on the basis that
therefore is a source of delays in the implementation of the approximately 2–3 mol of CO2 are adsorbed per mole
process. of CH4 produced, and the ratio will be much higher for
supercritical CO2 deep underground.
• The CO2 -ECBM process will also result in long-term
10 CONCLUSIONS sequestration of CO2 .
• CO2 adsorption causes the coal matrix to swell, which
Every coal seam contains different amounts of naturally
reduces the flowability through the coal seam and even-
formed gases formed during the coalification process, 90%
tually causes a significant decline in the methane produc-
of which is CBM, which is trapped inside the coal mass
tion rate sometime after the CO2 injection (see the
by the application of continuously increasing pressure in
Allison unit in the San Juan Basin and the RECOPOL
the coalification process and the pressure applied by the
surrounding saturated rock layers (hydrostatic pressure). project).
• The N2 -ECBM process first replaces all the gaseous state
• Reduction of the pore pressure causes this CBM to CH4 from the coal mass and creates disequilibrium in the
be released, which can be used for energy production system, which desorbs adsorbed phase CH4 .
because of its purity, and medium rank coal seams lying • The large gas treatment costs associated with quick N2
between 250 and 1000 m underground are the most breakthroughs is a common problem in the process (cf.
preferable seams for CBM production. theTiffany unit in the San Juan Basin).
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
• The merits and demerits of the two processes need to RELATED ARTICLES
be compared for their productivity, risks, environmental
impact, and economical aspects to find the optimum Properties of CO2 Mixtures and Impacts on Carbon Capture
technique for the ECBM process. and Storage
• Although the N2 -ECBM process creates quicker and CO2 Storage Capacity
greater enhancement of CBM recovery, it causes much CO2 Geological Storage
quicker breakthroughs than the CO2 -ECBM process. The Potential for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Subsur-
There are obviously larger local and global risks face Geological Formations
associated with the CO2 -ECBM process, which are Physical Modeling and Numerical Simulation of CO2
minimal with the N2 -ECBM process because of the Storage Security
inert nature of N2 . However, the CO2 -ECBM process NOx Emission and Mitigation Technologies
also assists in protecting the environment through CO2
sequestration, which does not happen in the N2 -ECBM
process. Although the N2 -ECBM process requires
higher processing costs, it appears more economically
REFERENCES
viable because of the quantity required for the process, Aziz, N.I. and Ming-Li, W. (1999) The effect of sorbed gas on
which is around 0.5 ft3 of N2 to displace each cubic feet the strength of coal—an experimental study. Geotechnical and
of methane from the coal seam compared to the 2–3 ft3 Geological Engineering, 17, 387–402.
of CO2 required in the CO2 -ECBM process. Berner, E. and Berner, R. (1987) The Global Water Cycle, Prentice
• Injection of a mixture of CO2 and N2 is believed to create Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
a collaborative production mechanism, which offers a BP (2009) Statistical Review of World Energy, BP, London.
higher production rate with early response compared Brinckerhoff, P. (2011) Accelerating the Uptake of CCS: Industrial
to the CO2 -ECBM process. It also has the ability to Use of Captured Carbon Dioxide, Global CCS Institute, Sydney.
sequestrate similar amounts of CO2 to the CO2 -ECBM Brown, K., Casey, D.A., Enever, J.R., et al. (1996) New South Wales
process while achieving a higher injection rate (cf. the Coal Seam Methane Potential, New South Wales Department of
Mineral Resources, Sydney (Petroleum Bulletin).
Fenn Big Valley basin in Alberta, Canada).
• It is necessary to find the optimum N2 + CO2 gas mixture Buccino, S. and Steve, J. (2004) Controlling Water Pollution from
Coalbed Methane Drilling: An Analysis of Discharge Permit
to recover the maximum amount of methane from the Requirements. Coal Bed Methane Symposium, University of
coal seam while sequestrating the optimum amount of Wyoming, Wyoming, USA, pp. 559–583.
CO2 , which depends on coal rank. Such kind of work is Buckman, G. and Diesendorf, M. (2010) Design limitations in
currently performing at the Deep Earth Energy Lab of Australian renewable electricity policies. Energy Policy, 38,
the Monash University. 3365–3376.
• Geological, economic, and policy barriers currently Curtis, O. (2006) Geologic carbon sequestration: CO2 transport in
prevent implementation of ECBM recovery. depleted gas reservoirs, in Gas Transport in Porous Media (eds
C.K. Ho and S.W. Webb), Springer, Dordrecht, Chapter 26, pp.
• No ECBM project will be economically justified if there
419–425.
is not a commercially sufficient amount of gas in the
De Silva, P.N.K. and Ranjith, P.G. (2013) Understanding the signifi-
coal seam or the available gas is difficult to harvest cance of in situ coal properties for CO2 sequestration: an exper-
because of the geological condition of the reservoir. The imental and numerical study. International Journal of Energy
former issue can be largely overcome using advanced Research, 38 (1), 60–69.
recovery techniques. Generally, the ECBM process is Dileeka, J., Ranjith, P.G., and Choi, S.K. (2010) Effects of effective
considered to be economically justified if the value of stress changes on permeability of Latrobe Valley brown coal. Fuel,
the gas produced exceeds the cost of production, and 90, 1292–1300.
the cost of transporting the gas, or the cost of taxes Duane, A.M., Walter, B.A., and Jerry, L.J. (2006) CO2 Sequestration
Potential of Texas Low-Rank Coals: Quarterly Technical Progress
or CO2 credits. The large costs associated with drilling
Report, Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Texas.
boreholes and production and field-scale testing, and
Durie, R.A. (1991) The Science of Victorian Brown Coal: Struc-
the risk of limited returns has caused less investment. ture, Properties and Consequences from Utilization, Butterworth-
The current lack of penalties for CO2 emissions and Heinemann, Oxford.
the strict rules governing coal mining affect the imple- EIA (2012) http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/tablees1.pdf.
mentation of the ECBM process. However, the complex EPA (2002) Coal Bed Methane Outreach Program, Enhanced
hydrochemical–mechanical behavior of coal during the CBM/CMM Recovery, Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
process is currently the main drawback. ington, DC.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
Gale, J. and Freund, P. (2001) Coal-bed methane enhancement Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., and Sanjayan, J. (2013a) The perme-
with CO2 sequestration worldwide potential. Environmental ability of geopolymer at down-hole stress conditions: applica-
Geosciences, 8, 210–217. tion for carbon dioxide sequestration wells. Applied Energy, 102,
Giasuddin, H.M., Sanjayan, J.G., and Ranjith, P.G. (2013) Strength 1391–1398.
of geopolymer cured in saline water in ambient conditions. Fuel, Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., and Haque, A. (2013b)
107, 34–39. Sub- and super-critical carbon dioxide permeability of wellbore
materials under geological sequestration conditions: an experi-
Gilman, A. and Beckie, R. (2000) Flow of coal-bed methane to a
mental study. Energy, 54, 231–239.
gallery. Transport in Porous Media, 41, 1–16.
Nasvi, M.C.M., Ranjith, P.G., Sanjayan, J., and Bui, H. (2014) Effect
Gray, I. (1987) Reservoir engineering in coal seams, part 1—the of temperature on permeability of geopolymer: a primary well
physical process of gas storage and movement in coal seams. SPE sealant for carbon capture and storage wells. Fuel, 117 (Part A),
Reservoir Engineering (SPE 12514), 2, 28–34. 354–363.
Gunter, W.D. (2009) Coal bed methane, a fossil fuel resource with the Pagnier, H., van Bergen, F., and Krzystolik, P. (2006) Reduction of
potential for zero greenhouse gas emissions—the Alberta, Canada CO2 Emission by Means of CO2 Storage in Coal Seams in the
program 1996–2009: a summary, Alberta CO2 —ECBM research Silesian Coal Basin of Poland, TNO, Delft.
and field pilots summary, Alberta Research Council. Parakh, S. (2007) Experimental investigation of enhanced coal bed
Gürdal, G. and YalçIn, M.N. (2001) Pore volume and surface area of methane recovery. MSc thesis. Petroleum Engineering. Stanford
the Carboniferous coals from the Zonguldak basin (NW Turkey) University, CA.
and their variations with rank and maceral composition. Interna- Pasternak, J. (2001) Coal-Bed Methane Puts Basic Needs of Water,
tional Journal of Coal Geology, 48, 133–144. Energy at Odds. Los Angeles Times (March 27).
Harpalani, S. and Chen, G. (1995) Estimation of changes in fracture Perera, M.S.A. and Ranjith, P.G. (2012) Carbon dioxide sequestration
porosity of coal with gas emission. Fuel, 74, 1491–1498. effects on coal’s hydro-mechanical properties: a review. Interna-
Harpalani, S. and Schraufnagel, A. (1990) Measurement of param- tional Journal of Energy Research, 36, 1015–1031.
eters impacting methane recovery from coal seams. Geotechnical Perera, M.S.A., Ranjith, P., Choi, S.K., et al. (2011a) A review of
and Geological Engineering, 8, 369–384. coal properties pertinent to carbon dioxide sequestration in coal
Jasinge, D., Ranjith, P., Choi, S., et al. (2009) Mechanical properties seams: with special reference to Victorian brown coals. Journal of
of reconstituted Australian black coal. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Earth Sciences, 64 (1), 223–235.
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135, 980–985. Perera, M.S.A., Ranjith, P.G., Airey, D., and Choi, S.K. (2011b)
Sub- and super-critical carbon dioxide flow behavior in naturally
Jasinge, D., Ranjith, P.G., and Choi, S.K. (2011) Development of
fractured black coal: an experimental study. Fuel, 90, 3390–3397.
a reconstituted brown coal material using cement as a binder.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 64, 631–641. Perera, M.S.A., Ranjith, P.G., Choi, S.K., and Airey, D. (2011c) The
effects of sub-critical and super-critical carbon dioxide adsorption-
Jasinge, D., Ranjith, P.G., Choi, X., and Fernando, J. (2012) Inves- induced coal matrix swelling on the permeability of naturally-
tigation of the influence of coal swelling on permeability char- fractured black coal. Energy, 36, 6442–6450.
acteristics using natural brown coal and reconstituted brown coal
Perera, M.S.A., Ranjith, P.G., and Peter, M. (2011d) Effects of satu-
specimens. Energy, 39, 303–309.
ration medium and pressure on strength parameters of Latrobe
Katyal, S., Valix, M., and Thambimuthu, K. (2007) Study of param- Valley brown coal: carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen saturations.
eters affecting enhanced coal bed methane recovery. Energy Energy, 36, 6941–6947.
Sources, 29, 193–205. Perera, M.S.A., Ranjith, P.G., Viete, D.R., and Choi, S.K. (2012)
Larsen, J.W. (2004) The effects of dissolved CO2 on coal structure Parameters influencing the flow performance of natural cleat
and properties. International Journal of Coal Geology, 57, 63–70. systems in deep coal seams experiencing carbon dioxide injection
Levine, J.R. (1993) Coalification; the evolution of coal as source rock and sequestration. Coal geology, 104, 96–106.
and reservoir rock for oil and gas. AAPG Studies in Geology, 38, Perera, M.S.A., Ranjith, P.G., Choi, S.K., and Bouazza, A. (2013a) A
39–77. parametric study of coal mass and cap rock behaviour and carbon
dioxide flow during and after carbon dioxide injection. Fuel, 106,
Locatelli, B. and Pedroni, L. (2004) Accounting methods for carbon
129–138.
credits: impacts on the minimum area of forestry projects under the
Clean Development Mechanism. Climate Policy, 4, 193–204. Perera, M.S.A., Ranjith, P.G., and Viete, D.R. (2013b) Effects
of gaseous and super-critical carbon dioxide saturation on the
Metcalfe, R.S., Yee, D., Seidle, J.P., and Puri, R. (1991) Review mechanical properties of bituminous coal from the Southern
of Research Efforts in Coalbed Methane Recovery. Asia-Pacific Sydney Basin. Applied Energy, 110, 73–81.
Conference, Perth, Australia.
Pini, R., Ottiger, S., Burlini, L., et al. (2006) Experimental study
Metz, B., Davidson, O., de Coninck, H., et al. (2005) Carbon Dioxide of CO2 adsorption on coal and other adsorbents aimed at ECBM
Capture and Storage, IPCC, Cambridge, pp. 431. recovery. Paper presented at 4-PBAST, 22–26 May, 2006, Tianjin,
Moran, C. and Vink, S. (2010) Assessment of Impacts of the Proposed China.
Coal Seam Gas Operations on Surface and Groundwater Systems Ranjith, P.G., Shao, S.S., Viete, D.R., and Jaysinge, D. (2012) Carbon
in the Murray-Darling Basin, Centre for Water in the Minerals dioxide storage in coal: reconstituted coal as a structurally homo-
Industry, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queens- geneous substitute for coal. International Journal of Coal Prepa-
land, Brisbane. ration and Utilization, 32, 265–275.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218
Reeves, S. (2001) Geological Sequestration of CO2 in Deep, Un- Shukla, R., Ranjith, P.G., Choi, S.K., et al. (2013) Mechanical
mineable Coal Beds: An Integrated Research and Commercial- behaviour of reservoir rock under brine saturation. Rock Mechanics
Scale Field Demonstration Project. Annual Technical Conference and Rock Engineering, 46, 83–93.
and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers New Orleans, LA. Smil, V. (2004) Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the
Reeves, S. (2003) Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery, SPE Distin- Transformation of World Food Production, MIT Press, Cambridge.
guished Lecture Series: 2002/2003 Season. Advanced Resources Smith, M.L. and Immig, J. (2011) NSW inquiry into coal seam gas.
International, Houston, TX. Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee, No.5.
Reeves, S.R. (2009) An overview of CO2 -ECBM and sequestration in National Toxics Network Inc., Bangalow.
coal seams, in Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geological Media- Smith, M.L. and Senjen, R. (2011) Hydraulic Fracturing in Coal
State of the Science (eds M. Grobe, J.C. Pashin, and R.L. Dodge), Seam Gas Mining: The Risks to Our Health, Communities, Envi-
AAPG, Tulsa, pp. 17–32. ronment and Climate, National Toxics Network Inc., Bangalow.
Reeves, S.R. and Oudinot, A. (2005a) The Allison Unit CO2 -ECBM Stevens, S.H. (1998) Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery with CO2
Pilot—A Reservoir and Economic Analysis. International Coalbed Sequestration. International Energy Agency Greenhouse gas R
Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. & D Programme, Report No. PH3/3.
Reeves, S.R. and Oudinot, A. (2005b) The Tiffany Unit N2 -ECBM Sydney Catchment Authority (2012) Literature Review: Coal Seam
Pilot—A Reservoir and Economic Analysis. International Coalbed Gas Impacts on Water Resources, Sydney Catchment Authority,
Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Sydney.
Reeves, S. and Schoeling, L. (2000) Geological Sequestration of CO2 Thomas, F.D. and Beatie, A.M. (2001) Debunking the natural gas
in Coal Seams: Reservoir Mechanisms, Field Performance, and “clean energy” myth: coalbed methane in Wyoming’s powder river
Economics. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on basin. The Environmental Law Reporter, 31, 566–575.
Green House Gas Control Technologies, Cairns, USA (eds D.J.
Viete, D.R. and Ranjith, P.G. (2006) The effect of CO2 on the geome-
William, R.A. Durie, P. McMulfan, et al.), CSIRO Publishing,
chanical and permeability behaviour of brown coal: implications
Collingwood, pp. 593–598.
for coal seam CO2 sequestration. International Journal of Coal
Rice, C.A. and Nuccio, V. (2000) Water produced with coal-bed Geology, 66, 204–216.
methane. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet, FS-156-00, Wash-
Viete, D.R. and Ranjith, P.G. (2007) The mechanical behaviour of
ington, DC.
coal with respect to CO2 sequestration in deep coal seams. Fuel,
Rice, D.D., Law, B.E., and Clayton, J.L., (1993) Coal bed gas—an 86, 2667–2671.
undeveloped resource, in Future of energy gases: U.S. Geological
Vishal, V., Singh, L., Pradhan, S.P., et al. (2013) Numerical modeling
Survey Professional Paper 1570, (ed. D.G. Howell), USA Govern-
of Gondwana coal seams in India as coalbed methane reservoirs
ment Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 389–404.
substituted for carbon dioxide sequestration. Energy, 49, 384–394.
Ross, J. (2012) Coal seam gas—the real water management issues
Vishal, V., Ranjith, P.G., and Singh, T.N. (2013) CO2 permeability
here in NSW. NSW IAH branch meeting, Sydney, Australia.
of Indian bituminous coals: implications for carbon sequestration.
Sarmah, R. (2011) Coal Bed Methane: A Strategic Overview, Ranko International Journal of Coal Geology, 105, 36–47.
Energy Projects, Mumbai.
White, C.M., Smith, D.H., Jones, K.L., et al. (2005) Sequestration of
Schepers, K., Oudinot, A., and Ripepi, N. (2011) Enhanced gas carbon dioxide in coal with enhanced coalbed methane recovery:
recovery and CO2 storage in coal bed methane reservoirs: opti- a review. Energy & Fuels, 19, 659–724.
mized injected gas composition for mature basins of various coal
rank. AAPG Eastern Section meeting, Washington, DC. Wong, S., Gunter, W.D., Law, D., and Mavor, M.J. (2000) Economics
of Flue Gas Injection and CO2 Sequestration in Coalbed Methane
Scott, A.R. (2002) Hydrogeologic factors affecting gas content distri- Reservoirs. International Conference on GHG Control Technolo-
bution in coal beds. International Journal of Coal Geology, 50, gies, Cairns, Australia.
363–387.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118991978.hces218

Per Era 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Per Era 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery: Using

Injection of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide Mixture

1 INTRODUCTION that the development of new fossil-fuel resources to replace

Burial pressure, heat, and time

Peat Lignite Sub bituminous Bituminous Anthracite

Low rank coal High rank coal

Figure 1. Formation of different ranked coal.

Darcy flow in cleats Cleats

Figure 2. Gas transport process through coal.

Pump Water CH4

Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas

Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas Gas

Figure 3. Coal seam gas production process.

Dewatering Stable Production

months for the initial production of methane through the

CSG production rate (Mscf/day)

hazards for human life, especially if the leakage occurs in

a more commercially feasible CBM recovery method 0.001

Production mole fraction

0.2 0.2 N2 + CO2

(300–1500 m), concentrated coal geometry and sufficient

700 58 production rates, project development timing, water disposal

2500 Medium rank coal

Incremental CBM recovery (MMCf)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

You might also like