V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01)

A GENERALIZED MBE FOR CBM RESERVOIRS

Tarek Ahmed Anadarko; Aydin Centilmen Landmark Graphics Corporation

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to present the mathematical development of three material-balance based
methods for unconventional gas reservoirs. These three methods are:

Method 1: A generalized MBE that accounts for and incorporates the Langmuir isotherm, initial free gas,
water expansion, and formation compaction. This particular form of the material balance can be used to
estimate the original gas-in-place and, unlike other methods, does not require an iterative process to
solve the equation.

Method 2: Prudent Coal Bed Methane CBM reservoir management and optimization requires
knowledge of reservoir pressure. An iterative method has been developed to predict reservoir pressure
throughout the producing life of the reservoir using only initial reservoir pressure, Langmuir isotherm, and
cumulative gas production. Use of the proposed method has the potential to significantly reduce operating
costs by minimizing the number of pressure surveys.

Method 3: The second approach is designed to provide an efficient iterative scheme that incorporates the
gas-water relative permeability data to predict future performance of the CBM reservoir.

This paper documents the verification of the proposed methods and their practical applicability in several
field examples and results of numerical simulation.

Introduction
The term coal refers to sedimentary rocks that contain more than 50% by weight and more than 70% by
volume of organic materials consists mainly of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in addition to inherent
moisture. Coals generate an extensive suite of hydrocarbons and non-hydrocarbon components.
Although the term methane is used frequently in the industry, in reality the produced gas is typically a
mixture of C1, C2, traces of C3 and heavier, N2 and CO2. Methane, as one such hydrocarbon constituent
of coal, is of special interest for two reasons:

Methane is usually present in high concentration, in coal, depending on composition, temperature,

pressure, and other factors
Of the many molecular species entrapped within coal, methane can be easily liberated by simply
reducing the pressure in the bed. Other hydrocarbon components are tightly held and generally can
be liberated only through different extraction methods.

Estimation of hydrocarbon-in-place and reserves for oil and gas reservoirs is needed from the time when
such reservoirs are first discovered to future times when they are being developed by drilling step out
wells or infill wells. These estimates are essential for determining the economic viability of the project
development as well as to book reserves required by regulatory agencies. The Material Balance
Equation MBE, in a variety of forms, is a fundamental tool for estimating reserves and predicting the
recovery performances of conventional reserves and predicting the recovery performances of
conventional gas reservoirs. The great utility of the p/Z plots and the ease of their constructions for
conventional gas reservoirs have led to many efforts to extend this technology to unconventional gas
reservoirs. CBM, in particular, is considered one of the most appealing sources of energy for several
reasons that include:

Relatively low capital investment

Low operating and exploration costs
Gas drained from coal seams are high quality natural gas
Unmapped beds can readily be located because of their distinctive response to gamma ray

However, determining gas reserves and predicting the recovery performance of such reservoirs has
proven to be challenging primarily due to the complex unconventional nature of gas storage and flow.
Coal has a unique and complicated reservoir characteristic. It is a heterogeneous and anisotropic porous
medium which is characterized by two (dual) distinct porosity systems, micropores and macropores,
these are:
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 2
Primary Porosity System: The matrix primary porosity system in these reservoirs is composed of very
fine pores micropores with extremely low permeability. These micropores contain a large internal
surface area on which substantial quantities of gas may be adsorbed. With such low permeability, the
primary porosity is both impermeable to gas and inaccessible to water. However, the desorbed gas can
flow (transport) through the primary-porosity system by the diffusion process. These micropores are
essentially responsible for most of the porosity in coal.

Secondary Porosity System: The secondary-porosity system (macropores) of coal seams consists of
the natural-fracture network of cracks and fissures inherent in all coals. The macropores, known as cleat,
act as a sink to the primary-porosity system that provide the permeability for fluid flow. They act as
conduits to the production wells as shown in Figure 1. The cleats are mainly composed of the following
two major components:

a) The Face Cleat: The face cleat, as shown conceptually in Figure 1 is continuous throughout the
reservoir and is capable of draining large areas.
b) The Butt Cleat: Butt cleats contact a much smaller area of the reservoir and thus are limited in their
drainage capacities.

Fig. 1-Schematic of the transport of gas through coal-seam and

Devonian shale gas reservoirs (after Reference 1).

The bulk of the methane, i.e. gas-in-place, is stored in an adsorbed state on internal coal surfaces and is
considered a near liquid-like state as opposed to a free gas phase. The coal cleats are considered
initially saturated with water and must be removed (produced) from the natural fractures, i.e. cleats, to
lower the reservoir pressure. When the pressure is reduced, the gas is released (desorbed) from the coal
matrix into the fractures. The gas production is then controlled by a four-step process that includes:

Step 1: Removal of water from the coal cleats and lowering the reservoir pressure to that of the gas
desorption pressure. This process is called dewatering the reservoir.
Step 2: Desorption of gas from the coal internal surface area
Step 3: Diffusion of the desorbed gas to the coal cleat system
Step 4: Flow of the gas through fractures to the wellbore.

An important laboratory measurement is known as sorption isotherm is required to relate the gas
storage capacity of a coal sample to pressure and to predict the volume of gas that will be released from
the coal as the reservoir pressure declines.

The Generalized MBE for CBM

The Material-Balance Equation MBE is a fundamental tool for estimating the original gas-in-place G
and predicting the recovery performance of conventional gas reservoirs. For conventional gas reservoirs,
the MBE is expressed by the following linear equation:
p p p T
= i sc G p
Z Z i Tsc V
The great utility of the p/Z plots and the ease of their constructions for conventional gas reservoirs have
led to many efforts, in particular the work of King (1993) and Seidle (1999), to extent this approach to
unconventional gas resources such as coalbed methane.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 3
The material balance equation for CBM can be expressed in the following generalized form:

Gp = G + GF GA GR (1)

Where GP = cumulative gas produced, scf

G = Gas Originally Adsorbed, scf
GF = Original Free Gas, scf
GA = Gas currently adsorbed at this pressure, scf
GR = Remaining Free, scf

For a saturated reservoir (i.e. initial reservoir pressure pi= desorption pressure pd) with no water influx,
the four main components of the right hand-side of the above equality can be determined individually as
follows:
i) Gas Originally Adsorbed G: In terms of the coal density B and the initial gas content Gc, the
Gas-in-place G is given be:
G = 1359.7 A h B Gc
Where:
B = Bulk density of coal, gm/cm3
Gc = Gas content, scf/ton
A = Drainage area, acres
h = Average thickness, ft

ii) Original Free Gas GF: The initial free gas that occupies the coal cleats and natural fracture
system is expressed by:
GF = 7758 Ah (1 Swi) Egi (2)
Where:
GF = Original free gas in place, scf
Swi = Initial water saturation
= Porosity, fraction
Egi = gas expansion factor at pi in scf/bbl and given by:

5.615 Z sc Tsc pi p
E gi = = 198.6 i , scf / bbl
p sc i T Zi T Zi

iii) Gas Currently Adsorbed GA: The gas stored by adsorption at any pressure p is typically
expressed with the adsorption isotherm or mathematically by Langmuirs equation as:

bp
V =V m
1+ b p
Where:
V = Volume of gas currently adsorbed at p, scf/ton
Vm = Langmuir isotherm constant, scf/ton
p = current pressure, psi
b = Langmuir pressure constant, psi-1

The volume of the adsorbed gas V as expressed in scf/ton at reservoir pressure p can be
converted into scf by the following relationship:
GA = 1359.7 A h B V (3)
Where:
GA = adsorbed gas at p, scf
V = adsorbed gas at p, scf/ton

iv) Remaining Free Gas GR: During the dewatering phase of the reservoir, formation compaction
(matrix shrinkage) and water expansion will significantly effect water production. Some of the
desorbed gas remains in the coal-cleat system and occupies a pore volume that will be available
with water production. King (1993) derived the following expression for calculating the average
water saturation remaining in the coal cleats during the dewatering phase:
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 4

Bw WP
S wi [1 + c w ( pi p ) ]
7758 Ah
Sw = (4)
1 ( pi p) c f
Where:
pi = initial pressure, psi
WP = cumulative water produced, STB
Bw = water formation volume factor, bbl/STB
A = drainage area, acres
cw = isothermal compressibility of the water, psi-1
cf = isothermal compressibility of the formation, psi-1
Swi = initial water saturation, fraction

Using the above estimated average water saturation, the following relationship for the remaining gas in
cleats is developed:

Bw WP
7758 Ah + (1 S wi ) ( pi p) (c f + c w S wi )
G R = 7758 Ah Eg (5)
1 ( pi p ) c f


Where GR is the remaining gas at pressure p, in scf, and the gas expansion factor as given by:
p
E g = 198.6 scf / bbl
TZ
Substituting Equations 2 through 5 into Equation (1) and rearranging, gives:

Bw W P E g V b p 7758 [ P (c f + S wi c wi ) (1 S wi ) ] E g
GP + = A h 1359.7 B (Gc m )+ +
1 (c f P ) 1+ b p 1 ( c f P )
7758 Ah (1 S wi ) E gi ( 6)

In terms of the volume of gas adsorbed V, the above equation can be written as:

Bw W P E g 7758 [ P (c f + S wi c wi ) (1 S wi ) ] E g
GP + = A h 1359.7 B (Gc V ) + +
1 (c f P ) 1 ( c f P )
7758 Ah ((1 S wi ) E gi (7)

Equations 6 and 7 are two forms the MBE that can be each expressed conveniently as an equation of a
straight-line, i.e..

y=mx+a
with:
Bw W P E g
y = GP +
1 ( c f P )
and
V b p 7758 [ P (c f + S wi c wi ) (1 S wi ) ] E g
x = 1359.7 B (Gc m )+
1+ b p 1 (c f P)
When using Equation 7, the x variable is given by:
7758 [P (c f + S wi c wi ) (1 S wi ) ] E g
x = 1359.7 B (Gc V ) +
1 (c f P )
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 5
Using the historical production data, a plot of the variables y vs. x would produce a straight line with a
slope of m and an intercept of c that are defined by:

m= A h
a = 7758 Ah (1 S wi ) E g i
The drainage area A can then be calculated from m and a:
m
A=
h
a
A=
7758 h (1 S wi ) E gi
For scattered points, the correct straight line must yield the same value of A as calculated from the
above two equations.

Neglecting the rock and fluid compressibility, Equation (6) is reduced to:
bp
G P + B w W P E g = A h 1359.7 B (Gc Vm ) 7758 (1 S wi ) E g +
1+ b p
7758 A h (1 S wi ) E gi (8)

The above expression is again an equation of straight line, i.e. y = m x+ a, where:

y = G P + Bw W P E g
bp
x = 1359.7 B (Gc Vm ) 7758 ( 1 S wi ) E g
1+ b p
slope : m = Ah
intercept : a = 7758 A h ( 1 S wi ) E gi

In terms of the adsorbed gas volume V, Equation (8) is expressed as:

[ ]
G P + B w W P E g = A h 1359.7 B (Gc V ) 7758 ( 1 S wi ) E g +
7758 A h ( 1 S wi ) E gi (9)

With the calculation of the bulk volume Ah, the original gas in place G can then be calculated from:
G = 1359.7 (Ah) B Gc

The validity of the proposed of the MBE and its two derivatives, i.e. average reservoir pressure and future
production, was tested against historical production data from several coalbed methane fields. Results
show an excellent agreement with reported data. To illustrate the use of generalized MBE, the simulation
data as presented by King (1993) and Seidle (1999) were adopted in this study to confirm the reported
initial-gas-in-place and other production data. King and Seidle used a 2-D areal model with a single coal
well draining a homogenous, flat, single layer of 320 acre coal deposit that contains an estimated initial
water saturation of 95%. The reported initial gas-in-place is 12.763 Bscf at an initial reservoir of 1500
psia. The pertinent coal seam properties are listed in the following table:
 V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 6

Langmuirs Pressure Constant b = 0.00276 psi-1

Langmuirs Volume Constant Vm = 428.5 scf/ton
Average Bulk Density B = 1.70 gm/cm3
Average Thickness h = 50 ft
Initial Water Saturation Swi = 0.95
Drainage Area A = 320 acres
Initial Pressure pi = 1500 psia
Critical (desorption) Pressure pd = 1500 psia
Temperature T = 105oF
Initial Gas Content Gc = 345.1 scf/ton
Formation Volume Factor Bw = 1.00 bbl/STB
Porosity = 0.01
Water compressibility cw = 3 x 10-6 psi-1
Formation compressibility cf = 6 x 10-6 psi-1

The actual well cumulative gas and water production and average reservoir pressure at selected times are
shown below:

1.18266 p
Time Gp Wp p p/Z Eg V =
Days MMscf MSTB psia psia scf/bbl 1 + 0.00276 p
0 0 0 1500 1704.5 599.21728 345.0968
730 265.086 157.490 1315 1498.7 526.86825 335.903
1460 968.41 290.238 1021 1135.1 399.04461 316.233
2190 1704.033 368.292 814.4 887.8 312.10625 296.5301
2920 2423.4 425.473 664.9 714.1 251.04198 277.3301
3650 2992.901 464.361 571.1 607.5 213.56673 262.1436

To test the sensitivity of estimating the original gas in place to the water and formation compressibilities,
the calculations were made by neglecting cw and cf and repeating the calculations by including
compressibilities. Neglecting cw and cf and substituting the available reservoir data into Equation (9) to
construct the following table:

p V GP WP Eg, y= GP +WP Eg x=2322.66 (345.1 - V)- 3.879 Eg

psia scf/ton MMscf MMSTB scf/bbl MMscf
1500 345.097 0 0 599.21 0 0
1315 335.90 265.086 0.15749 526.87 348.06 19310
1021 316.23 968.41 0.290238 399.04 1084.23 65494
814.4 296.53 1704.033 0.368292 312.11 1818.98 111593
664.9 277.33 2423.4 0.425473 251.04 2530.21 156425
571.1 262.14 2992.901 0.464361 213.57 3092.07 191844

A plot [GP + Bw WP Eg] vs. [2322.66 (345.1 V) - 3.879 Eg] on a Cartesian scale, as shown in Figure 2,
produces a straight-line with a slope of 15,900 acre-ft that gives an predicted drainage area of 318 acres
as compared with an actual drainage area of 320 acres. The estimated original gas in place is then:

G = 1359.7 A h B Gc
= 1359.7 (318) (50) (1.7) (345.1) = 12.68 bscf
G F = 77.58 Ah (1 S wi ) E gi
= 7758 (318) (50) (0.01) (0.05) (599.2) = 0.0369 bscf
Total gas-in-place = G + GF = 12.68 + 0.0369 = 12.72 bscf
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 7

3500

3000

Slope = 15,900
Area= 15,900/50 = 318 acres
2500
(Gp + Wp Eg)/1.E6

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00E+00 2.00E+04 4.00E+04 6.00E+04 8.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.20E+05 1.40E+05 1.60E+05 1.80E+05 2.00E+05 2.20E+05 2.40E+05
2322.66 (345.1 - V ) - 3.879 Eg
Figure2 . MBE as an equation of straight line

Including cw and cf and expressing Equation (7) in the straight line form, gives

WP E g
y = GP +
1 [ 6.(10 6 ) (1500 p )]

7758 (0.01) { (1500 p ) [6(10 6 ) + 0.95 (3(10 6 ))] (1 0.95) } E g

x = 1359.7 (1.7) (345.1 V ) +
1 [ 6(10 6 ) (1500 p)]

With the following tabulated values:

p, V x y
psi Scf/ton

1315 335.903 1.90E+04 3.48E+08

1021 316.233 6.48E+04 1.08E+09
814.4 296.5301 1.11E+05 1.82E+09
664.9 277.3301 1.50E+05 2.53E+09
571.1 262.1436 1.91E+05 3.09E+09

Figure 3 shows the straight line relationship (with a slope of 15,957 acre-ft) resulting from plotting the
variables x and y values on a Cartesian scale to give a drainage area of:

15,957
A= = 319 acres
50
And an original gas in place of 12.72+0.037 =12.76 bscf as compared with a reported value of
12.763 bscf.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 8

3.50000E+09

3.00000E+09

Slope = 15,957 acre-ft

2.50000E+09 Drainage Area = 15,957/50 = 319 acres
Gp+Wp*Eg/(1-cfdp)

2.00000E+09

1.50000E+09

1.00000E+09

5.00000E+08

0.00000E+00
0.00000E+00 5.00000E+04 1.00000E+05 1.50000E+05 2.00000E+05 2.50000E+05
X
Figure 3. MBE as an equation of straight line

It should be pointed out that at pressures below the critical desorption pressure, the fractional gas
recovery could be roughly estimated from the following relationship:

a
V b p
RF = 1 m
Gc 1 + b p
where:
RF = gas recovery factor
p = reservoir pressure, psi
a = recovery exponent

The recovery exponent a is included to account for the deliverability, heterogeneity, well spacing, among
other factors that affect the gas recovery. The recovery exponent is usually ranging between 0.7 and 1.0
and can be estimated from the recorded field recovery factor at pressure p.

Average Reservoir Pressure:

Under the conditions imposed on Equation (8) and assuming 100% initial water saturation, the usefulness
of the Equation can be extended to estimate the average reservoir pressure p from the historical
production data, i.e. GP and WP. Equation (8) is given as:

bp
G P + W P E g = (1359.7 B A h ) (Gc Vm )
1+ b p
Or in terms of G :
bp
G P + W P E g = G (1359.7 B A h ) Vm (10)
1+ b p

At the initial reservoir pressure pi, initial gas in place G is given by:

G = [1359.7 B A h ] Gc
b pi
= [1359.7 B A h ] Vm (11)
1 + b pi
Combining the Equation (11) with (10) and rearranging, gives:
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 9

p 1 + b pi 1
( ) ( ) + [ (G P + B w W P E g ) ] 1 = 0
ip 1 + b p G
or :
p 1 + b pi 1 p
( ) ( ) + (G P + 198.6 Bw WP ) 1 = 0 (12)
i
p 1 + b p G Z T

Where:
WP = Cumulative water produced, STB
Eg = Gas formation volume factor, scf/bbl
pi = Initial pressure
T = Temperature, oR
Z = Z-factor at pressure p

Notice that Equation (12) is an equation of straight line with a slope of -1/G and intercept of 1.0. In a
more convenient form, Equation (12) is written as:

y =1 + m x
Where :
p 1 + b pi
y = ( ) ( ) (13)
pi 1 + b p
p
x = G P + 198.6 Bw WP (14)
ZT
1
m=
G

Equation 12 can be solved iteratively for the average reservoir pressure by using the Newton-Raphson
method. The method is based on assuming (guessing) the average reservoir pressure, denoted as pold,
and calculating a new pressure, denoted as pnew, by employing the following mathematical expression:
f ( pold )
p new = pold
f \ ( pold )
Where:

p 1 + b pi 1 p
f ( p old ) = ( old ) ( ) + (G P + 198.6 old Bw W P ) 1
pi 1 + b p old G ZT

1 1 + b pi b p old (1 + b pi ) 198.6 Bw WP
f \ ( p old ) = ( ) ( ) +
pi 1 + b p old pi (1 + b pold ) 2 ZTG

The two values are compared for convergence and the solution is considered achieved when
p old p new 10 6 otherwise, pold is set equal to pnew and the iterative process is repeated.

The proposed pressure expression assumes single layer reservoir system and requires:
a knowledge of the initial reservoir pressure
Langmuir relationship
initial gas in place

Figure 4 shows an excellent pressure match when compared with the simulation case presented by King
(1993) and Seidle (1999).
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 10

1600

1400

1200

1000

Pressure
predicted
800
Actual Pressure

600

400

200

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time, days

Figure 4. Pressure Match

Prediction of CBM Reservoir Production Performance

The material balance equation as given by its various mathematical forms, i.e. Equations (6) through (9),
can be used to predict future performance of CBM reservoirs as a function of reservoir pressure.
Assuming, for simplicity, that the water and formation compressibility coefficients are negligible, Equation
(6) can be expressed as:
p
G P + BwWP E g = G (1359.7 A h B Vm b) 7758 A h (1 S wi ) E g + 7758 Ah ((1 S wi ) E gi
1+ b p

In a more convenient form, the above expression is written as:

a1 p
G P + Bw W P E g = G + a 2 ( E gi E g ) (15)
1 + bp
where the coefficients a1 and a2 are given by:

a1 = 1359.7 Ah B b Vm
a 2 = 7758 A h (1 Swi )

Differentiating with respect pressure, gives:

(G P + Bw WP E g ) a1 E g
= a2
p (1 + bp) 2
p
Expressing the above derivative in the finite difference form, gives:

a1 ( p n p n +1 )
G Pn +1 + Bwn +1 W Pn +1 E gn +1 = G Pn + Bwn WPn E gn + n +1 2
+ a 2 ( E gn E gn +1 ) (16)
(1 + b p )
Where the superscripts n and n+1 indicate the current and future time levels
respectively, and

p n , p n +1 = current and future reservoir pressures, psia

G pn , G pn +1 = current and future cumulative gas production, scf
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 11

W pn , W pn +1 = current and future cumulative water production, STB

E gn , E gn +1 = current and future gas expansion factor, scf/bbl

n +1 n +1
Equation (16) contains two unknowns, G p and W p , and requires two additional relations:
Producing gas-water ratio GWR equation, and
Gas saturation equation
The gas-water ratio relationship is given by:

Qg k rg w Bw
= GWR = (17)
Qw k rw g B g
Where:
GWR = gas-water ratio, scf/STB
krg = relative permeability to gas
krw = relative permeability to water
w = water viscosity, cp
g = gas viscosity, cp
Bw = water formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Bg = gas formation volume factor, bbl/STB
The cumulative gas produced GP is related to the gas-water ratio by the following expression:
Wp
GP = 0
(GWR) dW p (18)
n n +1
The incremental cumulative gas produced Gp between W p and W p is given by:

WPn+1
n +1 n
G P G P = G P = ( GWR ) dW P (19)
WPn
The above expression can be approximated by using the trapezoidal rule, to give:

(GWR) n+1 + (GWR) n

G Pn+1 G Pn = G P = n +1 n
(W P W P ) (20)
2
or:
G Pn+1 = G Pn + [ ( GWR ) avg W P ] (21)
The other auxiliary mathematical expression needed to predict the recovery performance of a
coalbed gas reservoir is the gas saturation equation. Neglecting the water and formation
compressibilities, the gas saturation is given by:

Bwn +1 W pn +1
(1 S wi ) ( pi p n +1 ) ( c f + c w S wi ) +
7758 A h
S gn +1 = (22)
n +1
1 [( pi p ) cf ]

The required computations are performed in a series of pressure drops that proceed from a known
reservoir condition at pressure pn to the new lower pressure pn+1. It is accordingly assumed that the
n n n +1 n +1
cumulative gas and water production has increased from G p and W p to G p and W p , while flow
n n n +1 n +1
rates have changed from Q and g Q to Q
w g and Q w . The proposed methodology of predicting the
reservoir production performance consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Select a future reservoir pressure pn+1 below the current reservoir pressure pn. If the current
reservoir pressure pn is the initial reservoir pressure, set W p and G p equal to zero.
n n

n +1 n +1 n +1
Step 2: Calculate Bw , E g , and B g at the selected pressure pn+1.
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 12
n +1 n +1
Step 3: Estimate or guess the cumulative water production W p and solve Equation (16) for G p , to
give:
a1 ( p n p n +1 )
G Pn +1 = G Pn + ( Bwn W Pn E gn Bwn +1 WPn +1 E gn +1 ) + n +1 2
+ a 2 ( E gn E gn +1 )
(1 + b p )
n +1 n +1
Step 4: Calculate the gas saturation at p and W p by applying Equation (22):

n +1
Bwn +1 W pn +1
(1 S wi ) ( pi p ) ( c f + c w S wi ) +
n +1 7758 A h
S = n +1
1 [( pi p
g
) cf ]
n +1
Step 5: Determine the relative permeability ratio krg / krw at S g and estimate gas-water ratio from
Equation from:

n +1
k rg w Bw
(GWR) n +1
=
k rw g B g
n +1
Step 6: Re-calculate the cumulative gas production G p by applying equation (20).

(GWR) n +1 + (GWR) n
G pn +1 = G pn + (W pn +1 W pn )
2
n +1
Step 7: The total gas produced G p as calculated from the MBE in Step 3 and that of the gas-water
ratio in Step 6 provides two independent methods for determining the cumulative gas
n +1 n +1
production. If the two values agree, the assumed value of W p and the calculated G p are
n +1
correct. Otherwise, assume a new value for W p and repeat Steps 3 through 7. In order to
n +1
simplify this iterative process, three values of W p can be assumed which yield three different
n +1
solutions of G p for each of the equations (i.e. MBE and GWR equations). When the
n +1 n +1
computed values of G p are plotted versus the assumed values of W p , the resulting two
curves (one representing results of Step 3 and the one from Step 8, will intersect. The
n +1 n +1
coordinate of the intersection gives the correct G p and W p .
Step 8: Calculate the incremental cumulative gas production Gp from:

Gp = G pn +1 G pn
Step 9: Calculate the gas and water flow rates from:

n +1
0.703 h k (k rg ) n +1 ( p n +1 p wf )
Q g =
r
T ( g Z ) avg [ ln ( e ) 0.75 + s ]
rw

n +1 n +1
k g Bg
Q n +1
= rw Q gn +1
k
w Bw
w
rg
n n +1
Step 11: Calculate the average gas flow rate as the reservoir pressure declines from p to p , as:
Q gn + Q gn +1
(Q g ) avg =
2
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 13

Step 12: Calculate the incremental time t required fro the incremental gas production G P during the
n n +1
pressure drop from p to p , as:

G P G pn +1 G pn
t = =
(Q g ) avg (Q g ) avg

where:
t = incremental time, days
Step 13: calculate the total time t
t= t
Step 14: set:
W pn = W pn +1
G pn = G pn +1
Q gn = Q gn +1
Qwn = Qwn +1

and repeat steps 1-14

It should be pointed out that the accuracy of the methodology can be substantially increased be selecting
a small pressure.

The validity of the proposed methodology was tested against the cumulative gas and water production
and average reservoir pressure at five selected times as reported by King and Seidle data. The gas-water
relative permeabilities were taken from Gash (1991). Figure 5 shows the excellent match with the
production data when a small reservoir pressure drop is selected.

Total production vs. pressure

4.00E+09

Calculated w/ 20 psi timesteps

Calculated from Real Data
Calculated w/ Real Pres Tsteps
3.50E+09

3.00E+09

2.50E+09
Total Production, scf

2.00E+09

1.50E+09

1.00E+09

5.00E+08

0.00E+00
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
Pressure
Figure 5- Predicted total production versus reservoir pressure
V INGEPET 2005 (EXPL-4-TA-01) 14
Summary and Conclusions
A generalized material balance equation for coalbed reservoirs is presented for estimating the original
gas in place. The usefulness of the MBE was extended to predict average reservoir pressure and future
reservoir performance is documented. The three components of the material balance were successfully
validated against published reservoir data. From the work presented in this study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. The proposed MBE can provide an independent source of validation for numerical simulators
2. The proposed method eliminates the iterative solution of Kings method
3. The method is applicable to any coal which behaves according to the Langmuir isotherm equation.

References
1. King, G.R., Ertekin, T., and Schwerer, F.C.: Numerical Simulation of the Transient Behavior of Coal
Seam Degasification Wells, SPEFE (April 1986) 165-183
2. King, G.R.: Material-Balance Techniques for Coal-Seam and Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs With
Limited Water Influx, SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1993.
3. Seidle, J: A Modified p/Z Method for Coal Wells, SPE Paper 55605

Nomenclature
Qg = gas flow rate, scf/day
Qw = water flow rate, STB/day
k = absolute permeability, md
T = temperature, oR
re = drainage radius, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
s = skin factor
Vm,, b = Langmuirs constants
V = gas content at pressure p, scf/ton
Gc = gas content at critical desorption pressure, scf/ton

Acknowledgments
We thank Chief Engineer Julie Struble and the management of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation for
permission to publish this study.