International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 307–314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Sorption behavior of coal for implication in coal bed methane an

overview
Manasi Manjari Mohanty a,⇑, Bhatu Kumar Pal b
a
N.I.T., Rourkela 769008, Odisha, India
b
Mining Engineering Department N.I.T., Rourkela 769008, Odisha, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: CBM has been recognized as a significant natural gas resource for a long time. Recently, CO2 sequestration
Received 24 May 2015 in coalbeds for ECBM has been attracting growing attention because of greater concerns about the effects
Received in revised form 27 August 2015 of greenhouse gases and the emerging commercial significance of CBM. Reservoir-simulation technology,
Accepted 12 October 2015
as a useful tool of reservoir development, has the capability to provide us with an economic means to
Available online 22 February 2017
solve complex reservoir-engineering problems with efficiency. The pore structure of coal is highly hetero-
geneous, and the heterogeneity of the pores depends on the coal type and rank.
Keywords:
Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
ECBM
Greenhouse gases
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Sequestration
Adsorption and desorption
Porosity and permeability

1. Introduction Our proposal is applying CO2 sequestration combined with

enhanced production methods to enhance coal bed methane pro-
The effect of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) con- duction. In order to find out the best techniques for CH4 production
centration on global warming is now recognized as one of the most and CO2 sequestration, simulation works turn out to be a good can-
important environmental issues facing society. The connection didate for analyzing and estimation. Thus, the literature review
between anthropogenic emissions of CO2 with increasing atmo- focuses on the theories and strategies of CO2 sequestration, pro-
spheric CO2 levels and temperatures has been well-established duction enhancement and simulation works for coal bed methane
and well-accepted. To stabilize atmospheric levels of greenhouse reservoirs.
gases (GHGs) while minimizing the world economic impact, four
options are being explored, which project the use of (1) less carbon
intensive fuels, (2) more-energy-efficient methods, (3) carbon
2. CO2 sequestration
sequestration, and (4) increased conservation. A successful stabi-
lization program for atmospheric GHGs will, most likely, involve
CO2 sequestration is responsible for declining global warming.
all four options. To counteract the effect of increasing GHGs in
CO2 as a major component of greenhouse gas is the biggest contrib-
the atmosphere during the 21st century, the U.S. Department of
utor to global warming. Thus, in order to control the climate
Energy (DOE) has established energy research and development
change due to excessive CO2 venting, several countries have signed
programs in carbon sequestration science. This direction comple-
an agreement to reduce CO2 emission. One of the potential tech-
ments two long-standing program options directed toward gener-
niques to control excessive CO2 emission is the CO2 sequestration.
ating energy in the future using (1) less carbon-intensive fuels and
CO2 sequestration is a technique which permanently stores CO2 in
(2) more-energy-efficient methods to develop a ‘‘pathway to stabi-
deep geological formations without emitting out to atmosphere. In
lization” of carbon emissions. A U.S. DOE office of fossil energy
practical, CO2 sequestration can be categorized into three groups
report 1 (and the wealth of international references within) pro-
[1]. First, a sequestration depends on environmental conditions
vides an overview of the potential methods that have been sug-
called biosphere sequestration. For example, soil, forest and ocean
gested as routes to carbon sequestration.
ecosystem are members of it. Second, a sequestration consists of
natural reservoirs named geosphere sequestration. Coalbeds,
⇑ Corresponding author. depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep aquifers and reservoirs fit
E-mail address: manasi9705@yahoo.co.in (M.M. Mohanty). for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) belong to this group. Third, a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2017.01.014
2095-2686/Ó 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
308 M.M. Mohanty, B.K. Pal / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 307–314
sequestration is defined as material sequestration which is storing
CO2 into artificial pools.
Among these techniques, CO2 sequestration into coalbed is
regard as a promising possibility to safely store CO2 at relatively
low costs. Injecting CO2 into coalbed brings about two benefits.
One benefit is that coalbed is a good medium for CO2 sequestration.
Due to gas storage mechanism of coal dominated by adsorption,
coalbed has a stronger affinity to CO2 than CH4 [2]. Thus, CO2 will
be adsorbed in coal matrix without emitting out. The other benefit
is injecting CO2 into coalbed can be considered as a kind of gas
flooding. Therefore, it would enhance coalbed methane production
by displacing the desorbed CH4 to production well. Then, the extra
production of CH4 offsets the costs of CO2 sequestration.
According to Sing et al. [3], there are three types of pores in the
coal mass: micro pores (<2 nm), mesopores (2–50 nm) and macro
pores (>50 nm). The combination of micro pores (small intra-
aggregate pores, which are controlled by deposition and lithifica-
tion) and macro pores (inter-aggregate pores, which are controlled
by fracture, fissures, and jointing) is called the dual porosity sys-
tem of coal mass. Normally, micro pores occupy 95% of the coal
mass porosity and control the gas sorption capacity in the coal
mass. On the other hand, macro pores control the permeability of
coal mass. Although carbon dioxide sequestration process in coal
is greatly affected by coal gas permeability, the effect of CO2 on
coal mass permeability has not yet been confirmed. Especially for
low rank coals, only few studies can be found [4–7]. In case of Vic-
torian brown coal, although many studies have been conducted for
water permeability [8], very few studies can be found related to the
effects of CO2 on permeability variation. One recent study related
to the effect of CO2 on coal permeability for Victorian brown coal
has been carried out by Viete and Ranjith [5], who explained the
simple expected behavior of coal gas permeability with axial load.
According to them, coal gas permeability for CO2 movement first
decreases with applied load due to pores coming closer to each
other and then with fracturing this permeability starts to increase
rapidly with applied load and then coal gas permeability starts to
decrease with the applied load due to cracks coming closer to each
other. Although many studies can be found related to permeability
with CO2 injection for coal [9,10], there has been no good experi-
mental study related to the effect of supercritical CO2 injection
on it. A number of factors affect coal gas permeability such as
gas type, matrix shrinkage, pore volume compressibility, effective
stress, and coal mass properties.
3. Structure of coal
The origin, formation, and structure of coal have been studied
and an enormous amount of literature is available [11]. Coal is
an extremely heterogeneous material consisting of organic matter,
mineral matter, moisture, and a complex pore network. It is gener-
ally accepted that the organic portion of coal was formed from con-
centrated deposits of swampy organic matter originally derived
from terrestrial plants. (60) Plant structures (leaf, stem) were con-
verted into coal through complex biological, chemical, and geo-
chemical processes driven initially by selective microbial action
and later by the temperature and pressure generated by overlaying
sediments over several hundred millions of years. The organic sed-
imentary rock is composed of these fossilized plant remains called
macerals and mineral inclusions. The macerals are the microscop-
ically distinct areas in coal and are mainly classified as vitrinite,
liptinite, and inertinite [12]. Vitrinite is derived from woody plant
material and is the most common maceral. Liptinite is formed from
lipids and waxy plant substances whereas the inertinite probably
originates from char formed by prehistoric pyrolysis processes,
such as forest fires. The process of conversion of the plant matter
into lignite, bituminous coal, and anthracite is called ‘‘coalifica-
tion”. During the coalification process, large volumes of volatiles
principally CH4, CO2, and water were liberated [13]. Although
CO2 is more strongly adsorbed to the coal matrix than the other
volatiles, it is more easily dissipated because of its solubility in
the water present throughout the coalification [14]. Therefore,
CH4 is the dominant gas in coal beds (about 95%) [15].
Higher rank coals typically contain more CH4 [16] and the var-
ious coal ranks in increasing order are: lignite, subbituminous, high
volatile bituminous, medium volatile bituminous, low volatile
bituminous, semi-anthracite and anthracite [17]. Because large
quantities of water are released during the maturation process,
coals are typically water saturated. In addition, fractures, known
as cleats, form perpendicular to bedding during the coalification
process and these are the primary permeability mechanism within
coal [16]. The more continuous, primary cleats are called face
cleats and the secondary cleats, orientated orthogonal to the face
cleats, are called butt cleats.
Through-going cleats formed first and are referred to as face
cleats; cleats that end at intersections with through-going cleats
formed later and are called butt cleats [18,19]. Although fractures
in coal are relatively unimportant in strip mining, their significance
in efficient design and safety of underground coal mines has con-
tinued to command the attention of the mining industry [20–22].
Cleats are sub vertical in flat-lying beds and are typically ori-
ented at right angles to stratification even where beds are folded.
In many cases cleats are confined to individual coal beds, or to lay-
ers composed of a particular maceral type. Commonly they are uni-
form in strike within an outcrop or core and arranged in sub
parallel sets that have uniform regional trends [23]. Yet they
locally show abrupt lateral and vertical shifts in strike [24]. Coals
containing closely spaced faults rather than opening-mode frac-
tures are apparently rare. This reflects either proximity to large
faults, reactivation by slip on pre-existing cleats. Coalbeds are
characterized by their dual porosity: they contain both primary
(micro pore and mesopore) and secondary (macro pore and natural
fracture) porosity systems. The primary porosity system contains
the vast majority of the gas-in-place, while the secondary porosity
system provides the conduit for mass transfer to the wellbore. Pri-
mary porosity gas storage is dominated by adsorption. The primary
porosity is relatively impermeable due to small pore size. Mass
transfer for each gas molecular species is dominated by diffusion
that is driven by the concentration gradient. Flow through the sec-
ondary porosity system is dominated by Darcy’s flow that relates
flow rate to permeability and pressure gradient.
4. Coal characteristics under CBM and ECBM conditions
4.1. Adsorption isotherms
CO2 sequestration rate in coal depends to a great extent on its
adsorption and desorption processes. The methods, which can be
used to determine amount of gas adsorbed into coal mass, can be
divided into two categories: direct and indirect methods. (1) In
the direct method, the volume of gas released from the coal seam
into a sealed desorption canister is measured. (2) In the indirect
method, adsorption isotherms are used and gravimetric, manomet-
ric and chromatograph methods are used to find the adsorption
isotherms, which are the plots between the adsorbed amount
and pressure at a particular temperature. Up to date, most of the
studies related to gas sorption in coal have been done basically
for high rank coals and very few studies can be found for low rank
coal. Among these studies, some studies have been done for Victo-
rian brown coal. Berkowitz and Schein [25] obtained methanol
adsorption isotherms using coal samples taken from the Bacchus
 M.M. Mohanty, B.K. Pal / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 307–314 309

Marsh and Yallourn basins and obtained the surface areas of the
adsorbent. Marsh [26] and Marsh and Siemieniewska [27] obtained
CO2 isotherms for brown coal and determined the surface areas of
the adsorbent. However, Robert and Brusset [28] explained the dif-
ficulty of sensible evaluation of surface areas of the adsorbent,
because the adsorption of polar vapors strongly depends on the
polar group of the coal molecules in brown coal. Factors affecting
gas sorption in the coal mass. There are several factors, which
affect the gas sorption in coal mass such as gas type, coal mass
properties, pressure and temperature.
The adsorption isotherms for CO2 and CH4 on coal are generally
interpreted as type I isotherms, referred to as the Langmuir-type
isotherm [29]. This type of isotherm is produced when a monolayer
of adsorbing molecules is adsorbed onto a non-porous solid, or
when micro pore filling is the dominant adsorption process [29].
The adsorption capacity of coal for CH4 and CO2 is a function of
both temperature and pressure. Increased temperatures will
decrease the coal’s storage capacity, while increased pressure will
result in increased storage [30,31]. However, with increasing pres-
sure CO2 undergoes a phase change to a liquid or supercritical fluid,
as shown on the CO2 phase diagram (depending on the reservoir
temperature) (Fig. 1). With time it is possible that the pressure in
the coals will increase and this could lead to a CO2 conversion from
the gas state to a liquid or supercritical liquid, which may have
adverse effects on sequestration. In our simulations we are inject-
ing pure CO2 gas, as the reservoir pressure and temperature of the
Big George coal are 23 atm ( 2300 kPa) and 22 °C respectively
(Fig. 1).
Yang and Saunders [32] reported the adsorption isotherms of
methane on coals in a temperature range of 22–300 °C and a pres-
sure range of 0–6.9 MPa. Their data were well fitted with the Lang-
muir equation. Patching and Mikhail [33] presented their methane
isotherms of Canadian coals. They pointed out that gas adsorption
isotherms were dependent on temperature, moisture content, the
gas type involved and the type of coal, and could be expressed
approximately with the Langmuir or the Freumdlich equations.
Mavor et al. [34] studied the adsorption isotherms of methane to
a variety of American coals. Their study showed that the Langmuir
equation was applicable to all the adsorption isotherm data they
collected.
However, some early adsorption isotherms indicated that the
adsorption capacity of coal to methane was not proportional to
the ambient pressure applied thus the Langmuir equation was
incapable to describe them. For example, Moffat and Weale [35]
studied the adsorption of methane on a number of British coals
under 25 °C and high pressures (up to 1000 atm). Their results
showed that the adsorption isotherms usually rose to the maxima
in a pressure range of 100–200 atm and decreased at higher pres-
sures, but apparently to limiting values.
The amount of gas adsorbed by a solid sample is a function of
the mass of the sample, the temperature and pressure, and the nat-
ure of both the solid and the gas [12]. The adsorption of a given gas
on a particular solid can be represented by an adsorption isotherm,
which is a plot of the amount adsorbed as a function of pressure at
constant temperature. The shape of adsorption isotherms can pro-
vide information about the adsorption process, and the porosity as
well as the surface area of the adsorbent. According to the IUPAC
classification 1972 there are six significantly different adsorption
isotherms describing the physical adsorption as shown in Fig. 2
[12]. A Type I isotherm generally occurs when a monolayer of
adsorbate molecules is adsorbed on a non-porous solid or when
adsorption is dominated by a micro pore filling process. This type
of isotherm is often called a Langmuir type isotherm. Type II is dis-
played by a nonporous or macro porous adsorbent. This isotherm is
characterized by an inflection point, which represents the comple-
tion of the monolayer and the beginning of the formation of mul-
tilayers. Type III adsorption isotherm is typical for a non-porous
or macro porous adsorbent and is observed for weak adsorbent-
adsorbate interactions. Types IV isotherm, which is similar to the
Type II, is typical for a microporous adsorbent. It displays a hys-
teresis loop due to capillary condensation. Type V is typical for
non-porous or macro porous adsorbents and is observed for weak
adsorbent-adsorbate interactions. Type VI isotherms or stepped
isotherms are included in the classification although they are rare
[12].
Because coal is a microporous solid, the adsorption isotherms of
gases, including N2, CH4, and CO2, would be expected to follow a
Type I isotherm. However, various isotherms have been reported
in the literature for CO2 [14,15].
4.2. Desorption
For primary production, gas desorption is caused by dewater-
ing. Once the pressure in cleat system decreases to critical desorp-
tion pressure, gas desorption from matrix to cleats begins. This
process is illustrated in Fig. 3.
4.3. Diffusion
Gas transfer in primary storage system is dominated by diffu-
sion. Diffusion phenomenon in coal matrix driven by gas concen-
tration gradient is demonstrated in Fig. 4.
I II
B
III IV
Amount of gas adsorbed

10000
uid
+Liq
1000 Solid
CO2 solid
CO2 liquid B
100 Sublimation
point -78.5 ć
Pressure (atm)

10 at 1 atm as
id+G
Liqu Critical point
V VI
1
Triple point
0.1 -56.6 ć at 5.11 atm
as
+G
lid

0.01 CO2 gas

So

0.001
-140 -100 -60 -20 20 60 100
Temperature (ć) Relative pressure

Fig. 1. CO2 phase diagram. Fig. 2. Types of adsorption isotherms [12].

310 M.M. Mohanty, B.K. Pal / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 307–314
450
400
Gas storage capacity (scf/ton)
Initial condition
350
Water production
300
250
200
150
Critical desorption
100 pressure
50
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Pressure (psi)
Fig. 3. Langmuir sorption isotherm.
High methane
concentration
Methane
molecules in
micropores of
coal matrix
Matrix centerline
Fig. 4. Gas diffusion phenomenon in coal [36].
4.4. Matrix shrinkage and swelling
There are a few of studies on the swelling/shrinkage of coal due
to the adsorption/desorption of gas under constraint conditions.
Czaplinski and Gustkiewicz [37] studied the changes of stresses
and strains under constraint conditions using coal from the
‘Brzeszcze’ mine in Poland. In the test an initial longitudinal (axial)
stress was applied on a cylindrical sample or a cuboid sample with
a square base and the changes of longitudinal stress and the
changes of longitudinal and transversal strains were measured
during the adsorption and desorption of CO2. They got the longitu-
dinal stress and longitudinal and transversal strains all increased
during adsorption. For example, under an initial longitudinal stress
of 9.8 MPa and a gas pressure of 2 MPa, the longitudinal stress
increased by 4 MPa and the changes of strain were 0.125% in lon-
gitudinal direction and 0.39% in transversal direction due to
adsorption of CO2. Using coal from the ‘Brzeszcze’ mine in Poland,
Czaplinski and Gustkiewicz [38], and Gustkiewicz and Orengo [39]
presented similar study results of stress changes induced by the
adsorption of CO2. They found positive swelling stresses and
strains due to adsorption. For instance, they obtained the longitu-
dinal stress increased by 11.5 MPa under an initial longitudinal
stress of 4.8 MPa and a gas pressure of 3.0 MPa due to the adsorp-
tion of CO2.
Harpalani and Schraufnagel [40] showed that coal will shrink on
desorption of gas and expand on sorption, and that matrix shrink-
age leads to an increase in permeability. Palmer and Vaziri [41]
note significant increases in absolute permeability with CBM
depletion in coals from the San Juan basin (10–100 times). Harpa-
lani and Chen [42] found that the increase in permeability due to
matrix shrinkage is a linear function of the amount of desorbing
gas. In contrast, Harpalani [43] observed that for Illinois coals per-
meability actually decreased with desorption of CH4, from approx-
imately 25 mD to 5 mD. This decrease in permeability is attributed
to stress-dependent permeability which leads to a permeability
decrease as cleats and fractures close because of an increase in
the effective horizontal stress through desorption of the gas [43].
Adsorption of CO2 also potentially results in a reduction in per-
meability. Harpalani [43] conducted experiments on cores from
Illinois coals and found that at pressures of 745 psi the coal volume
increased by 0.65% with CH4 adsorption and 1.2% for CO2. During
the adsorption of CH4, Harpalani observed a linear relationship
between the amount of adsorbed methane and the induced volu-
metric strain. This linear relationship was not observed for CO2,
where the volumetric strain was much higher during initial
adsorption, but flattened as the pressure increased. Field evidence
from the Allison ECBM pilot in the San Juan basin shows that
before injection of CO2 the coal permeability close to the injection
Low methane wells was between 100 and 130 mD. However, after injecting CO2
concentration for just over a year the permeability dropped to less than 1 mD and
this reduction in permeability is attributed to matrix swelling from
the adsorption of CO2 [44].
Coalbeds have a large internal surface area and serve as favor-
able sites for adsorption of gases, particularly CH4 and CO2. In
CBM reservoirs, most of the gas is present in an adsorbed state at
liquid-like density [45]. The CBM recovery process involves des-
orption of CH4 gas from the coal matrix. The desorption phe-
nomenon is promoted by reduction in partial pressure of CBM in
free gas.
Primary recovery using depressurization induces desorption by
lowering the overall pressure of the reservoir. The depressurization
Face cleat is achieved by dewatering the reservoir. Unfortunately, such pri-
mary methods typically recover less than half of the CH4 in a
coalbed [46].
According to Palmer and Mansoori [47] and Pekot and Reeves
[44], the most specific feature of coal bed reservoirs compared to
normal rock reservoirs is ‘‘negative decline’’ in gas production rate
during production. Because, with the adsorption of CO2 gas into
coal mass, the available CH4 in the coal mass starts to desorb,
which causes coal mass to shrink (increasing fracture width),
resulting in increase of the coal mass permeability. This increase
in coal permeability due to matrix shrinkage is especially impor-
tant for the production rate of the coal bed reservoir [48]. For
instance, in the primary production of the coal bed, at first the per-
meability reduces with decreasing pressure and once the pressure
decreases beyond the CH4 desorption point, the permeability starts
to increase. The variation of coal gas permeability with pore pres-
sure in lab experiment for both low and high rank coals has been
done by Robertson [49].
4.5. Porosity and permeability
Porosity is referred as the portion of the total coal volume that
can be occupied by water, helium, or a similar molecule [50]. Coal
pores are classified by size in macro pores (>500 Å), mesopores
(20–500 Å) and micro pores (8–20 Å). Macro porosity includes
cracks, cleats, fissures, voids in fusinite, etc. Pore volume and pore
size both decrease with rank through low-volatile bituminous
coals. The macro pore spaces (fractures) in the coal are occupied
mostly by water and some ‘‘free gas”. Also, some gas can be solved
in the water moving within the porosity of the coal. The micro pore
structure usually has a very low flow capacity with less permeabil-
ity (in micro Darcy range), whereas coal cleats have a much greater
flow capacity with higher permeability (millidarcy range). There-
fore, coals are considered as materials with dual porosity system.
According to structure of coal, it is characterized by dual poros-
ity system. Coal contains primary porosity system and secondary
porosity system. The primary porosity system consists of micro
poresand mesopores. The secondary porosity system is made up
 M.M. Mohanty, B.K. Pal / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 307–314
of macro poresand natural fractures. The dual porosity model con-
structed by Warren and Root in 1963 is given as Fig. 5 [51]. In this
model, coal is composed of matrix and cleats. The primary porosity
system is for matrix and the secondary porosity system is for
cleats. Therefore, pores for matrix are micro pores and mesopores,
which indicate considerably low porosity. But, pores for cleats are-
macro poresand natural fractures, which mean high porosity.
Permeability is known as the ability of a material (generally an
earth material) to transmit fluids through a porous medium when
subjected to pressure. It represents one of the most important and
crucial properties to produce gas at an economical rate. In US abso-
lute permeabilities can range from 0.1 to 250 millidarcies. In
coalbed methane, there are two major fluids flowing in the inter-
connected cleat network which result in a two phase flow regimen.
In this case, effective and absolute permeability take place in order
to differentiate two fluid flows in the porous media. The effective
permeability is referred to each individual fluid. The effective per-
meability of individual flowing phase is always less than the abso-
lute permeability of the porous media, and the sum of the effective
permeabilities of all flowing phases is less than or equal to the
absolute permeability [50]. Relative permeability is defined as
the ratio between effective and absolute permeability. After gas
production starts, (long-time production of CBM) a two-phase con-
dition is initiated. At that point relative permeability controls the
behavior of the reservoir. Permeability is affected by several
parameters such as time-depth burial, fracture spacing, cleat sys-
tem, effective stress in coals and, coal shrinkage. The fluids in the
coals (water and gases) flow through the coal cleat system and
other fractures. The cleat is referred to as the natural system of ver-
tical fractures that were formed during the coalification process.
Their orientation is controlled by tectonic stresses at the time of
fracture formation. The cleat system typically is formed for two
or more sets of sub-parallel fractures oriented nearly perpendicular
to the bedding [50]. The face cleat is related to the dominant set of
fractures. The orientation of the face cleats is a result of the tec-
tonic forces. They are formed parallel to the maximum compres-
sive stress. Butt cleats are more discontinuous and non-planar
than face cleats. Butt cleats are usually perpendicular to the face
cleats. The cleat system usually creates permeability anisotropic
with greater permeability, which often is in the face cleat direction.
In coals, permeability is very pronounced and stress-dependent.
Horizontal stress perpendicular to the face cleat can close the face
cleat openings and cause low permeability. When the stress condi-
tions are low, natural fractures can be opened and provide perme-
ability for flow through rock strata. Folding and faulting cam
enhance coal permeability through formation of natural fractures.
The tensional forces often cause fractures more intense along the
axis a fold which produces fractures and keeps them open. In this
way, the identification of faulting previous to drilling the coal will
contribute to recognize those areas with lower stress near a fault or
in a fault block. These areas represent possible locations of
increased permeability. Lower permeability occurs at greater
depth of burial and the higher values are found near geologic
structures.
Coal
matrix
Cleat
Fig. 5. Dual porosity system of coal [36].
311
Cleat spacing also influences coalbed permeability greatly. The
spacing of face cleat fractures may range from one tenth of an inch
to several inches. It is influenced by coal rank, petrographic compo-
sition, mineral matter content, bed thickness, and tectonic history.
Permeability can be higher in Medium-Volatile Bituminous than in
semi anthracite. In anthracite and semi-anthracite coals the per-
meability can be low to nonexistent because of the destruction of
the cleat [50].
Furthermore, mineral fillings in cleat may also affect the perme-
ability in the coals. Common minerals like calcite, pyrite, gypsum,
kaolinite, and illite can fill the cleats, thus lowering the permeabil-
ity values of the coals. If a large proportion of the cleats are filled,
absolute permeability may be extremely low. Therefore, knowing
the major properties and its effects in coalbed methane reservoirs
is an important procedure in describing how the methane is stored
in the coal, released and the flowing characteristics. Basically there
are two basic concepts in the understanding of CBM; these are the
methane storage and the methane flow.
Permeability is a key parameter to judge fluids flow efficiency in
coal. For coal, the matrix can be regarded as relatively imperme-
able. Most gas and water flows through the coal cleat system. Cleat
is formed during coalification process. Typically, there are two
types of cleats. One is face cleat and the other one is butt cleat
shown in Fig. 6. Face cleat and butt cleat are perpendicular to each
other and vertical to coal bedding. Face cleat is laterally extensive
and continuous. Its orientation is related to tectonic forces and is
believed to form parallel to the maximum compressive stress.
But, butt cleat is discontinuous and commonly terminates at inter-
section with face cleat.
4.6. Enhanced coalbed methane
In ECBM recovery, coal preferentially adsorbs CO2 over CH4, dis-
placing the CH4 from the coal matrix into the cleat system. In lab-
oratory studies of the adsorption behavior of coals it has been
shown that high rank coals will adsorb two moles of CO2 for every
one of CH4, whereas low rank coals, such as sub-bituminous and
lignite, can adsorb six to eighteen times more CO2 than CH4 [52].
ECBM utilizes coal’s affinity for CO2, and CH4 is produced by ‘‘dis-
placement desorption” [16]. Initially production of CH4 will be
slow as adsorption of CO2 only occurs close to the injection well.
With time CO2 will be adsorbed further away from the well, dis-
placing more and more CH4 until enough free gas is present in
the cleats for mass flow toward the production well, increasing
CH4 productivity [16].
4.7. Production enhancement
Typically, compared with ordinary gas reservoir, the porosity
and permeability of unconventional reservoirs are relatively low.
When it comes to coalbed methane reservoir, commercial produc-
Butt cleat
Face cleat
Matrix blocks containing pores
Fig. 6. Cleats for dual porosity system of coal.
312 M.M. Mohanty, B.K. Pal / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 307–314
tion is dominated by well-developed natural fractures which is
called cleat system. But, only depending on natural fractures is
not enough to obtain a high level of CH4 recovery. Therefore, some
enhanced production techniques are necessary. With no doubt,
hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well are two best alternatives
for stimulating production wells.
For ECBM recovery, in the regions where injection gases have
not reached the mechanism of methane recovery is the same as
the above mentioned pressure depletion method of coalbed
methane recovery and pressure differences provide the drive
energy for fluid movements from coalbeds towards production
wellbores. However, in the regions where injection gases have
reached, the production mechanism depends on the type of injec-
tion gas. For simplicity, the following discussions are restrained to
the situations of pure N2 or pure CO2 as injection gases.
When CO2 is used in ECBM, compared to methane it preferen-
tially adsorbs onto coal such that injected CO2 is quickly adsorbed
into coal matrix to achieve sorbed equilibrium, displacing sorbed
CH4 [11]. Methane is ‘‘pushed” from coal matrix by highly adsorp-
tive CO2. These different mechanisms result in different responses
in field ECBM pilots of N2 and CO2 injection. Field and simulation
results suggest that methane production rates increase faster and
injected gas breakthroughs occur more rapidly for N2 injection
than for CO2 injection [11,53].
Once the gas content of a coal seam is deemed significant in a
coalbed methane project, coalbed permeability likely remains the
most important factor impacting the success of the project. Since
intact coal has extremely low permeability, cleats are the main
pathways for the flow of methane from a coal seam to wellbores.
During the production life of a coalbed, its permeability does not
keep constant. It changes as methane production progresses, or
moreprecisely, it changes with the variations of in situ stresses,
fluid pressures and gas content, etc. The change of coalbed perme-
ability mainly results from: (a) the deformation of coal rock due to
the effective stress changes caused by pore pressure variations; (b)
the shrinkage and swelling of coal matrix due to the desorption/
absorption of gases; and (c) the opening and closing of cleats. In
the following sections we will discuss how these factors influence
the changes of coalbed permeability.
4.8. Gas transport in coal
Coalbeds presents a highly heterogeneous pore structure with a
wide varying scale of pore sizes. It is generally assumed that the
flow of gas (and water) through the cleats is laminar and obeys
Darcy’s law. On the other hand, gas transport through the porous
coal matrix is controlled by diffusion, see Fig. 7. Three mechanisms
have been identified for diffusion of an adsorbing gas in the matrix.
They are molecular/bulk diffusion (molecule-molecule collisions
dominate), Knudsen diffusion (molecule-wall collisions dominate)
and surface diffusion (transport through physically adsorbed layer)
Adsorption on internal
coal surfaces
Increasing size
Fig. 7. Schematic of CH4 flow dynamics in coal seams (CH4 desorbs from the internal coal surface, diffuses through the bulk matrix, and flows into and through the cleats. The
pathway for CO2 and/or N2 is reversed).
[36]. Gas diffusion in coals is significantly influenced by coal rank
and lithotype, microstructure and secondary mineralization [53–
56]. As a result, the net effective diffusivity often includes contri-
butions from more than one mechanism.
The gas transport within large scale fractures and cleats is dri-
ven by pressure gradients and described using Darcy’s law; while
within small scale pore structures in matrix blocks, transport is dif-
fusion dominated. Several kinds of diffusion mechanisms may be
present, subject to in-situ pressure conditions and pore sizes
[36]. For these diffusion processes, the concentration gradient is
the primary driving force [57]. To deal with the transport problem
of two greatly different spatial scales, dual-porosity models have
been developed following the concept proposed by Barenblatt
et al. [58] and Warren and Root [59]. The Warren-Root model
[59] is a popular approach and most commonly used in a wide
variety of commercial reservoir simulation codes. Also in case of
coal, there is a strong interplay between adsorption and diffusion.
The adsorption processes play a major role since CH4 is primarily
present in an adsorbed phase within coal matrix.
Gas adsorption takes place primarily in the micro pores of the
coal matrix. Thus, a detailed modelling of gas transport in the
matrix blocks is important for accurate prediction of ECBM recov-
ery. Keeping this fact in mind, in the ensuing modelling task a sig-
nificant amount of work has been invested to model the
complicated gas transport occurring in the pores within the matrix
blocks. Once the gas transport within the matrix pores is modelled
and verified, we go ahead and model the matrix fracture transfer
functions. The matrix-fracture transfer functions couple the diffu-
sive gas transport within the matrix blocks with the bulk flow in
cleats and fractures.
The transport of gases through coal seams is generally a two-
stage process. With water production (primary CBM recovery) or
with gas injection (ECBM recovery), CH4 is desorbed from the
matrix blocks and migrates through the interconnected micro
pores to the cleats and fractures. Then the gas is transported along
with brine through the cleats to drainage wells.
The coal mass can be considered as a naturally fractured reser-
voir (or dual porosity medium) for gas movement. The movement
of gases through this highly complex coal mass structure depends
on the permeability of the secondary porosity system which con-
sists of cleat and other natural fractures, which can be described
by Darcy’s law and also the intrinsic permeability of the coal
matrix, which is governed by Fickain diffusion. There are three
types of diffusion mechanisms, which can occur in the coal matrix
as follows: (1) bulk flow, with dominant molecule-molecule inter-
action; (2) Knudsen flow, with dominant molecule–surface inter-
action; and (3) two-dimensional surface diffusion of the
adsorbed gas layer [60]. The dominant transport mechanism in
the coal mass is decided by factors such as rank, depth, fracture
density, maceral content, moisture content, in situ pressure and
temperature. Therefore, in order to obtain a clear understanding
Diffusion through the Bulk flow in the
matrix and micropores fracture network
Increasing size
 M.M. Mohanty, B.K. Pal / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 307–314
of the gas transport process in the coal mass, it is necessary to
study the effects of these factors on the transport properties of
the coal mass.
5. Conclusions
The motivation for addressing this topic has been the high
potential of ECBM recovery by injection of CO2 to recover addi-
tional natural gas resources (CH4) while at the same time seques-
tering CO2 in the subsurface. Conventional numerical simulators,
however, have limited predictive capabilities for the design and
development of ECBM field projects because they neglect certain
physical mechanisms intrinsic to the technique and its application
in coalbeds. The Warren-Root approach is the industry standard
procedure to explaining gas migration in dual-porosity media,
implemented in many CBM simulators. Two flow behaviors have
been identified, that can be seen as the two limiting cases of the
real flow pattern. Both mechanisms have been studied indepen-
dently with the help of one dimensional model in order to identify
and quantify their time-scale. Even if the presented models assume
a strong simplification of the real geological situation, they allow
us to bring important conceptual insights concerning the leakage
process from the reservoir. Focused on coal seams, and in
particular on the interpretation of the gas-in-place. The transport
mechanism is primarily molecular/bulk diffusion in the matrix.
From our calculation of the mean free path of gas molecules and
from literature survey.
References
[1] Wong S, Gunter W, Mavor M. Economics of CO2 sequestration in coalbed
methane reservoirs. In: SPE/CERI gas technology symposium.
[2] Law D, Van der Meer L. Numerical simulator comparison study for enhanced
coalbed methane recovery processes, part I: pure carbon dioxide injection. In:
SPE gas technology symposium.
[3] Sing KSW, Everett DH, Haul RW, Moscou L, Pierotti RA, Rouquerol J,
Siemieniewska T. Reporting physisorption data for gas/solid systems with
special reference to the determination of surface area and porosity. Pure Appl
Chem 1985;57:603.
[4] Gibson P, Catherine M, Svendsen L, Underschultz J, Watson MN, Ennis KJ, et al.
Gippsland basin geo-sequestration: a potential solution for the Latrobe Valley
brown coal CO2 emissions. APPEA J 2006;46(1):413–33.
[5] Viete DR, Ranjith PG. The effect of CO2 on the geo-mechanical and permeability
behaviour of brown coal: implications for coal seam CO2 sequestration. Int J
Coal Geol 2006;66(3):204–16.
[6] Reznik AA, Fulton PF, Lien CL. Measurement of the flow properties of coals for
in situ gasification (As a function of water saturation and orientation). Progress
Report COO-4639-3. USA: Pittsburgh University; 1978.
[7] Petukhov I, Akin’shin B, Mol’skii E. Physical nature of the burst proneness of
brown coal seams. J Min Sci 1972;8(3):246–9.
[8] Trollope DH, Rosengren KJ, Brown ET. The mechanics of brown coal. Geo-
Technique 1965;15:363–86.
[9] Skawinski R. Considerations referring to coal swelling accompanying the
sorption of gases and water. Arch Min Sci 1999;44:425–34.
[10] Pekot LJ, Reeves SR. Modeling coal shrinkage and differential swelling with CO2
injection for enhanced coal bed methane recovery and carbon sequestration
application. Tropical Report: Advanced Resources International; 2002.
[11] Mavor MJ, Gunter WD, Robinson JR, Law DHS, Gale J. Testing for CO2
sequestration and enhanced methane production from coal. In: Spe Gas
Technol Symp.
[12] Gregg SJ, Sing KSW. Adsorption surface area and porosity. USA: Academic
Press; 1982.
[13] International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). Manuals of
symbols and terminology for physico chemical quantities and units.
Butterworth; 1972.
[14] Milewska-Duda J, Duda J, Nodzenski A, Lakatos J. Absorption and adsorption of
methane and carbon dioxide in hard coal and active carbon. Langmuir 2000;16
(12):5458–66.
[15] Takanohashi T, Terao Y, Yoshida T, Iino M. Adsorption and diffusion of alcohol
vapors by Argonne Premium coals. Energy Fuels 2000;14(4):2.
[16] Gale J, Freund P. Coal-bed methane enhancement with CO2 sequestration
worldwide potential. Environ Geosci 2001;8:210–7.
[17] Jones AH, Bell GJ, Schraufngel RA. A review of the physical and mechanical
properties of coal with implications for coalbed methane well completion and
production: Coalbed Methane, San Juan Basin. Rocky Mountain Association of
Geologists; 1988. p. 169–81.
313
[18] Laubach SE, Tremain CM. Regional coal fracture patterns and coalbed methane
development. In: Roegiers J-C, editor. Proc 32nd US Symp Rock Mech Balkema
Rotterdam. p. 851–9.
[19] Kulander BR, Dean SL. Coal-cleat domains and domain boundaries in the
Allegheny Plateau of West Virginia. AAPG Bull 1993;77:1374–88.
[20] Hanes J, Shepherd J. Mining induced cleavage, cleats and instantaneous
outbursts in the Gemini seam at Leichhardt Colliery, Blackwater, Queensland.
Proc Aust Inst Min Metall 1981;277:17–26.
[21] Esterhuizen GS. Rock engineering evaluation of jointing in South African coal
seams and its potential effect on coal pillar strength. In: Rossmanith,
Mechanics of Faulted and Jointed Rock, Rotterdam; 1995. p. 807–12.
[22] Molinda GM, Mark C. Rating the strength of coal mine roof rocks. In: Proc 2nd
North Am Rock Mech Symp Balkema, Rotterdam. p. 413–22.
[23] Kendall PF, Briggs H. The formation of rock joints and the cleat of coal. Proc R
Soc Edinburgh 1933;53:164–87.
[24] Dron RW. Notes on cleat in the Scottish coalfield. Trans Inst Min Eng
1925;70:115–7.
[25] Berkowitz N, Schein HG. Some aspects of the ultrafine structure of lignites.
Fuel 1952;31:19–32.
[26] Marsh H. The determination of surface areas of coals-some physico-chemical
consideration. Fuel 1965;44:253–68.
[27] Marsh H, Siemieniewska T. The surface areas of coals as evaluated from the
adsorption isotherms of carbon dioxide using the Dubinin-Polayni equation.
Fuel 1965;44:355–67.
[28] Robert L, Brusset H. Heat of immersion of carbon products. Fuel
1965;44:309–16.
[29] White CM, Smith DH, Jones KL, Goodman AL, Jikich SA, LaCount RB, et al.
Sequestration of carbon dioxide in coal with enhanced coalbed methane
recovery-a review. Energy Fuels 2005;19(3):659–724.
[30] Meissner, Clayton JL. Hydrocarbon source rocks of the greater Rocky Mountain
Region. Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists; 1984. p. 401–31.
[31] Wyman RE. Gas resources in elm worth coal seams. AAPG Memoir
1984;38:173–87.
[32] Yang RT, Saunders JT. Adsorption of gasses on coals and heat treated coals at
elevated temperature and pressure: adsorption from hydrogen and methane
as single gases. Fuel 1985;64:616–20.
[33] Patching TH, Mikhail MW. Studies of gas sorption and emission on Canadian
coals. CIM Bull 1986;79(887):104–9.
[34] Mavor MJ, Owen LB, Pratt TJ. Measurement and evaluation of coal isotherm
data. In: The 65th annual technical conference and exhibition. Richardson,
Texas, USA: The Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1990. p. 20728.
[35] Moffat DH, Weale KE. Sorption by coal of methane at high pressure. Fuel
1955;34:449–62.
[36] Saulsberry JL, Schafer PS, Schraufnagel RA. A guide to coalbed methane
reservoir engineering. Chicago: Gas Research Institute; 1996.
[37] Czaplinski A, Gustkiewicz J, Holda S. An apparatus for investigation of changes
of stresses and strains of rock samples under sorption. Archiwum Gornictwa,
Archiv Mining Sci 1986;31(4):703–16.
[38] Czaplinski A, Gustkiewicz J. Sorption stresses and deformations in coal. Strata
Multiphase Medium 1990;2:455–68.
[39] Gustkiewicz J, Orengo Y. Behavior of coal caused by water or carbon dioxide.
In: Adv Rock Mech. World Scientific Publishing Co Singapore; 1998. p. 18–27.
[40] Harpalani S, Schraufnagel RA. Shrinkage of coal matrix with release of gas and
its impact on permeability of coal. Fuel 1990;69:551–6.
[41] Palmer ID, Vaziri H. Permeability changes in CBM reservoir during
production: An update and implications for CO2 injection. In: The 2004
international coalbed methane symposium technical sessions, Tuscaloosa;
2004. p. 3–7.
[42] Harpalani S, Chen G. Influence of gas production induced volumetric strain on
permeability of coal. Geotech Geol Eng 1997;15:303–25.
[43] Harpalani S. Gas flow characterization of Illinois coal. Final Technical Report;
2005.
[44] Pekot LJ, Reeves SR. Modeling coal matrix shrinkage and differential swelling
with CO2 injection for enhanced coalbed methane recovery and carbon
sequestration applications. U.S. Department of Energy; 2002.
[45] Palmer ID, Vaziri H. Permeability changes in CBM reservoir during production:
An update and implications for CO2 injection. In: The 2004 international
coalbed methane symposium technical sessions, Tuscaloosa. p. 3–7.
[46] Stevens SH, Spector D, Reimer P. Enhanced coalbed methane recovery using
CO2 injection. In: 1998 SPE international conference and exhibition, Beijing,
China.
[47] Palmer L, Mansoori J. How permeability depends on stress and pore pressure
in coalbeds: a new model. In: SPE annual technical conference and exhibition,
Denver. p. 539–44.
[48] Jeffrey RG, Enever JR, Wood JH, Connors JP, Choi SK, Meaney KTA, et al. A
stimulation and production experiment in a vertical coal seam gas drainage
well. In: Proceedings of SPE Asia.
[49] Robertson EP. Measurement and modeling of sorption-induced strain and
permeability changes in coal. Idaho National Laboratory; 2005.
[50] Gas Research Institute. A guide to coalbed methane reservoir engineering.
Chicago; 1996.
[51] Warren JE, Root PJ. The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. SPE J
1963;3:235–55.
[52] Gluskoter HJ, Stanton RW, Flores RM, Warwick PD. Adsorption of carbon
dioxide and methane in low-rank coals and the potential for sequestration of
carbon dioxide. Environ Geosci 2002;9:160–1.
314 M.M. Mohanty, B.K. Pal / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 27 (2017) 307–314
[53] Reeves SR. Geological sequestration of CO2 in deep, unmineable coalbeds: an
integrated research and commercial-scale field demonstration project. In: The
2001 SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. Richardson, Texas: The
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2001. p. 71749.
[54] Gamson PD, Beamish BB, Johnson DP. Coal microstructure and micro
permeability and their effects on natural gas recovery. Fuel 1993;72:87–99.
[55] Gamson PD, Beamish BB, Johnson DP. Coal microstructure and secondary
mineralization: their effect on methane recovery. Geol Soc London 1996;109
(1):165–79.
[56] Crosdale PJ, Basil Beamish B, Valix M. Coalbed methane sorption related to coal
composition. Int J Coal Geol 1998;35(1–4):147–58.
[57] Lu M, Connell LD. A multi-component dual-porosity model for gas reservoir
flow with adsorption behavior. In: 2006 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference
and Exhibition, Adelaide, Australia; 2005.
[58] Barenblatt GE, Zheltov IP, Kochina IN. Basic concepts in the theory of
homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks. J Appl Math Mech 1960;24:1286–303.
[59] Warren JE, Root PJ. The behavior of naturally fractured reservoirs. SPE J
1963;3:235–55.
[60] Curtis O. Geologic carbon sequestration: CO2 transport in depleted gas
reservoirs. In: Gas Transp Porous Media. Netherlands: Springer; 2006.