SPE 75669

Numerical Simulator Comparison Study for Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery

Processes, Part I: Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection
David H.-S. Law, SPE, Alberta Research Council (ARC) Inc., L.G.H. (Bert) van der Meer, SPE, TNO-NITG and W.D. (Bill)
Gunter, SPE, Alberta Research Council (ARC) Inc.
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April2 May 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) in deep, unmineable
coalbeds can enhance the recovery of coalbed methane (CBM)
and at the same time it is a very attractive option for geologic
CO2 storage as CO2 is strongly adsorbed onto the coal.
Existing CBM numerical simulators which are developed
for the primary CBM recovery process, have many important
features such as: (1) a dual porosity system; (2) Darcy flow in
the natural fracture system; (3) pure gas diffusion and
adsorption in the primary porosity system; and (4) coal
shrinkage due to gas desorption; taken into consideration.
However, process mechanisms become more complex with
CO2 injection. Additional features such as: (1) coal swelling
due to CO2 adsorption on coal; (2) mixed gas adsorption; (3)
mixed gas diffusion; and (4) non-isothermal effect for gas
injection; have to be considered.
This paper describes the first part of a comparison study
between numerical simulators for enhanced coalbed methane
(ECBM) recovery with pure CO2 injection. The problems
selected for comparison are intended to exercise many of the
features of CBM simulators that are of practical and
theoretical interest and to identify areas of improvement for
modeling of the ECBM process. The first problem set deals
with a single well test with CO2 injection and the second
problem set deals with ECBM recovery process with CO2
injection in an inverted five-spot pattern.
Introduction
The injection of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas

(GHG), in coalbeds is probably one of the more attractive

options of all underground CO2 storage possibilities: the CO2
is stored and at the same time the recovery of coalbed methane
(CBM) is enhanced.1 The revenue of methane (CH4)
production can offset the expenditures of the storage
operation.2,3
Coalbeds are characterized by their dual porosity: they
contain both primary (micropore and mesopore) and
secondary (macropore and natural fracture) porosity systems.
The primary porosity system contains the vast majority of the
gas-in-place volume while the secondary porosity system
provides the conduit for mass transfer to the wellbore. Primary
porosity gas storage is dominated by adsorption. The primary
porosity system is relatively impermeable due to the small
pore size. Mass transfer for each gas molecular species is
dominated by diffusion that is driven by the concentration
gradient. Flow through the secondary porosity system is
dominated by Darcy flow that relates flow rate to permeability
and pressure gradient.
The conventional primary CBM recovery process begins
with a production well that is often stimulated by hydraulic
fracturing to connect the wellbore to the coal natural fracture
system via an induced fracture. When the pressure in the well
is reduced by opening the well on the surface or by pumping
water from the well, the pressure in the induced fracture is
reduced which in turn reduces the pressure in the coal natural
fracture system. Gas and water begin moving through the
natural and induced fractures in the direction of decreasing
pressure. When the natural fracture system pressure drops, gas
molecules desorb from the primary-secondary porosity
interface and are released into the secondary porosity system.
As a result, the adsorbed gas concentration in the primary
porosity system near the natural fractures is reduced. This
reduction creates a concentration gradient that results in mass
transfer by diffusion through the micro and mesoporosity.
Adsorbed gas continues to be released as the pressure is
reduced.
When CO2 (which is more strongly adsorbable than CH4)
is injected into the coal natural fracture system during the

David H.-S., L.G.H. (Bert) van der Meer and W.D. (Bill) Gunter

ECBM recovery process, it is preferentially adsorbed into the

primary porosity system. Upon adsorption, the CO2 drives
CH4 from the primary porosity into the secondary porosity
system. The secondary porosity pressure is increased due to
CO2 injection and the CH4 flows to production wells. The CO2
is stored in-situ and is not produced unless the injected gas
front reaches the production wells. The process, in general, is
terminated at CO2 breakthrough. A full understanding of all
the complex mechanisms involved in the enhanced coalbed
methane recovery process with CO2 injection (CO2-ECBM) is
essential to have more confidence in the numerical modeling
of the process.
The objective of this study of comparison of numerical
simulators is to provide the incentive to improve existing
CBM simulators for capability and performance assessment of
the CO2-ECBM recovery process.
Decription of CBM Simulators
Existing commercial and research CBM simulators are
developed, in general, to model primary CBM recovery
process taken into account of many important features such as:
dual porosity nature of coalbed;
Darcy flow of gas and water (i.e., multiphase flow) in the
natural fracture system in coal;
diffusion of a single gas component (i.e., pure gas) from
the coal matrix to the natural fracture system;
adsorption/desorption of a single gas component (i.e.,
pure gas) at the coal surface; and
coal matrix shrinkage due to gas desorption.
However, Law et al.4,5 have suggested that in order for a
CBM simulator to correctly model the more complicated
mechanisms involved in the CO2-ECBM recovery process, it
has to be improved, taking into account many additional
features such as:
coal matrix swelling due to CO2 adsorption on the coal
surface;
compaction/dilation of the natural fracture system due to
stresses;
diffusion of multiple gas components (i.e., mixed gas)
between the coal matrix and the natural fracture system;
adsorption/desorption of multiple gas components (i.e.,
mixed gas) at the coal surface;
non-isothermal adsorption due to difference in
temperatures between the coalbed and the injected CO2;
and
water movement between the coal matrix and the natural
fracture system.
Five CBM simulators have participated in the comparison
study: (1) GEM, Computer Modelling Group (CMG) Ltd.,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada; (2) ECLIPSE, Schlumberger
GeoQuest, Abingdon, Oxon, United Kingdom; (3) COMET 2,
Advanced Resources International (ARI), Arlington, Virginia,
U.S.A.; (4) SIMED II, Commonwealth Scientific and

SPE 75669

Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Kinnoull Grove,

Syndal, Victoria, Australia and the Netherlands Institute of
Applied Geoscience TNO, Utrecht, The Netherlands; and (5)
GCOMP, BP, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.. These simulators
except GCOMP are all commercial in nature.
The numerical simulators, GEM and SIMED II, are
compositional simulators with additional features for CBM
modeling. Due to nature of these simulators, GEM and
SIMED II are capable to handle multiple (i.e., 3 or more) gas
components. On the other hand, the numerical simulators,
ECLIPSE (CBM model) and COMET 2, are black oil
simulators with additional features for CBM modeling and
only capable to handle two gas components (e.g., CH4 and
CO2 only). The newly developed COMET 3 by ARI can
handle three gas components. This feature is essential in
modeling ECBM recovery processes with flue gas (i.e., a
mixture of CO2 and nitrogen (N2)) injection.
The numerical simulator, GCOMP, is a compositional
simulator converted to model the CBM recovery process
based on the approach suggested by Seidle and Arri.6 With the
assumption that the diffusion of gases from the primary
porosity system into the natural fracture system of the coal is
instantaneous, a single porosity approach can be used instead
of the dual porosity approach. This approach allows many
conventional oil and gas compositional simulators to model
CBM recovery processes.
A summary of the CBM features, which some have been
in existence for several years and others are recently
developed, in the five aforementioned simulators is given in
Table 1. Although dual porosity approach can be used in
GCOMP, single porosity approach is recommended by BP for
CBM modeling. Therefore, GCOMP is incapable to handle
mixed gas diffusion in this case. On the other hand, ECLIPSE
does not incorpate the extended Langmuir isotherm theory7,8
in the CBM model. However, it has a feature (i.e., relative
adsorption for each gas component) to allow the simulator to
take into account the non-ideal adsorption behaviour of a
two-gas mixture.
Approach
The approach used in this comparison study, in general,
follows those used by a series of SPE comparison studies.9-18
The authors organize and manage the simulator comparison
study; facilitate the development and selection of appropriate
test problems; distribute them to identified software
developers with commercial CBM simulators and other
interested groups of scientists and engineers who want to
participate in this exercise; and solicit, collect, reconcile, and
document solutions.
Development and selection of sample test problems is
made on the basis of major mechanisms expected to occur in
the CO2-ECBM recovery process, taking into account the
existing simulation capabilities and future needs. The test

SPE 75669

Numerical Simulator Comparison Study for Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery Processes, Part I: Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection

problems do not necessary represent real field situations. The

initial two sets of test problems emphasize the comparison of
the performance of CBM simulators, which may only have the
features to model the primary CBM recovery process. At a
later stage, two more sets of test problems will be developed
that address more complicated process mechanisms. At this
stage, improvement on some of the existing CBM simulators
by incorporating the additional features for CO2-ECBM
recovery process is necessary. Finally, performance of CBM
simulators will be compared for their capability to history
match field test data collected by the ARC through performing
micro-pilot tests19 by CO2 injection into coal seams in
Alberta, Canada.20
The first two sets of test problems have been assembled,
which are intended to initiate the study. ARC and TNO have
been working very closely with various software developers to
compare their CBM simulators and identify/recommend areas
of improvement. In fact, most of the numerical runs using
GEM, ECLIPSE, SIMED II and GCOMP in this comparison
study are conducted in ARC and TNO with the help of the
software developers to ensure that the final results are the best
representatives of their simulators. Alternatively, participants
such as ARI chose to model and study the test problems using
their own CBM simulator, COMET 2, with frequent
communication with ARC.
Descriptions of Test Problem Sets
The first problem set deals with a single well test (i.e., micropilot test) with pure CO2 injection (see Figure 1) and the
second problem set deals with CO2-ECBM recovery process
in an inverted five-spot pattern (see Figure 2). These two
problem sets compare the basic features of the CBM
simulators, which allow most simulators to participate in this
stage of the study.
Darcy flow of gas and water in the natural fracture system
in coal;
adsorption/desorption of two different gas components
(i.e., CH4 + CO2) at the coal surface;
instantaneously gas flow (i.e., diffusion) between the coal
matrix and the natural fracture system;
no coal matrix shrinkage/swelling due to gas
desorption/adsorption;
no compaction/dilation of natural fracture system due to
stresses; and
no non-isothermal adsorption due to difference in
temperatures between the coalbed and the injected CO2.
A complete description of the two problem sets as offered
to the participants is given in Appendixes A, B and C. The
coalbed characteristics are the same for both problem sets.
Results
All participants are asked to provide the initial gas-in-place
(IGIP) (i.e., the adsorbed and the free gas amounts of CH4 in
the coalbed) in their simulation as the first screen of errors in

input entry. A list of the initial gas-in-place for both problem

sets 1 and 2 for the five CBM simulators is given in Table 2.
Since the coalbeds considered in the simulation for problem
sets 1 and 2 are 160 acres and of 2.5 acres, respectively, the
IGIP for problem set 1 is 256 times that for problem set 2. It is
found that there is good agreement within a few percent error
between different simulators. All participants are also asked to
ensure their simulations mimick instantaneously gas diffusion
between the coal matrix and the natural fracture system for the
test problems in this study. Furthermore, five-point diffenering
scheme is recommended for the 5-spot pattern simulation in
problem set 2, mainly because the more complex nine-point
differencing scheme cannot be handled by the dual porosity
approach used in some CBM simulators.
Problem Set 1. Figure 3 shows a comparison of well bottomhole pressure as a function of time indicating the four
operating stages of the single well test: (1) CO2 injection
stage; (2) pressure falloff stage; (3) gas production stage; and
(4) pressure buildup stage. Figures 4 and 5 show comparisons
of CH4/CO2 production rates and production gas compositions
for CH4/CO2 as functions of time, respectively. During the gas
production stage, the injected CO2 near the well is produced
first with high rate. But CO2 production rate declines rapidly
as CO2 around the well is depleted which corresponds to the
decline of the production CO2 composition. On the other hand,
CH4 production rate remains rather constant throughout the
gas production stage.
Problem Set 2. Figure 6 shows comparisons of CH4
production rates for the primary CBM and CO2-ECBM
recovery processes as functions of time indicating the
enhancement of CH4 production due to CO2 injection. In
general, the enhancement of CH4 production remains until
CO2 breakthough occurs at the producer after approximately
60 days. It is appropriate to mention that due to the presence
of an initial gas saturation of 0.408, the typical negative
decline in CH4 production rate in primary CBM recovery
process due to pumped-off of water is not observed in this
case.
Figures 7 and 8 show comparisons of injection bottomhole pressure and CO2/total gas production rates as functions
of time, respectively. It is found that all simulators predict an
initial decline of total gas production rate (i.e., mainly CH4
production rate) at the beginning of CO2 injection. This period
of declined gas production rate is short (i.e., 2 to 3 days) and
mainly due to relative permeability effects. Shortly after CO2
injection, mobile water in the coalbed is displaced towards the
producer that redcues the gas relative permeability around the
producer. After majority of the mobile water is produced, the
gas relative permeability around the producer increases which
corresponds to the increase in CH4 production rate. The CH4
production rate reaches a maximum value after approximately
8 days. Under the condition of constant CO2 injection rate,
injection bottom-hole pressure declines initially as mobile
water is being displaced around the injector and gas injectivity

David H.-S., L.G.H. (Bert) van der Meer and W.D. (Bill) Gunter

increases. After the decline, the injection bottom-hole remains

rather constant until CO2 breaks through at the producer after
approximately 60 days, then the injection pressure gradually
increases. It is because after CO2 breakthrough, the injected
CO2 channels through towards the producer with only very
little being adsorbed at the coal surface (i.e., acting as a
weakly adsorbable gas). In general, under the condition of
constant injection rate, injection pressure for a weakly
adsorbable gas (e.g., N2) is higher than that for a strongly
adsorbable gas (e.g., CO2).
Figure 9 shows a comparison of production gas
compositions for CH4/CO2 as a function of time. After CO2
breakthrough occurs at the producer after approximately 60
days production, CH4 composition decreases sharply as the
production rate of CO2 increases. This indicates great sweep
efficiency in the 5-spot pattern for CO2 injection, as there is
little CH4 left to produce.
Figure 10 shows a comparison of CO2 distribution as the
CO2 mole fraction in the gas phase in the natural fracture
system after 30, 60 and 90 days. This information is not
provided by GCOMP. The contour plots represent a of the
5-spot pattern with injector located at the upper left-hand
corner and the producer located at the lower right-hand corner.
The CO2 distribution confirms the good sweep efficiency with
CO2 injection.
All well data presented are on a full-well basis and pattern
results are for the full 5-spot pattern consisting of four onequarter producers and one full injector (see Figure 2).
Discussions
In general, there is very good agreement between the results
from the different CBM simulators. The differences between
the predictions from different simulators may result for a
variety of reasons:
possible different initialization procedure (e.g, initial gasin-place);
possible different dual porosity approach in the
simulators;
handling of wells (e.g., well in 5-spot pattern);
tolerance on the convergence of iterations; and
selection of numerical control parameters.
One may anticipate good agreement between the results
from different simulators due to the simplicity of the two
problem sets. While good agreement does not ensure validity
of any of the results, however, a lack of agreement does give
cause for some concern for the capability of the simulators to
handle not only the primary CBM recovery process but also
the more complex ECBM recovery processes. Based on the
results of this comparison study, the authors believe that
confidence has been established for all participated simulators.
The first two simple problem sets can serve as baseline for
different CBM simulators when they participate in the

SPE 75669

comparison of more complex test problems in the later stage

of this study.
Proposed Test Problem Sets
Comparison study on more complex test problems is ongoing.
Problem Set 3. Problem set 3 is an enhancement of problem
set 2 by taking into account the effect of gas desorption time
(or gas diffusion rate) between the coal matrix and the natural
fracture system. In order to participate, it is necessary for the
CBM simulator to have the additional features of: (1) dual
porosity approach; and (2) mixed gas diffusion.
Problem Set 4. Problem set 4 is an enhancement of problem
set 2 by taking into account the effect of permeability and
porosity changes under stress according to the Palmer and
Mansoori theory.21 In order to participate, it is necessary for
the CBM simulator to have the additional features of: (1)
stress dependent permeability and porosity; and (2) coal
shrinkage.
Problem Set 5. Problem set 5 is history matching of field test
data provided by the ARC. The authors believed that in order
to successfully history match the field data, it is necessary for
the CBM simulator to have the additional features of: (1) dual
porosity approach; (2) mixed gas diffusion; (3) stress
dependent permeability and porosity; and (4) coal
shrinkage/swelling. It will be a good opportunity to identify
the areas needing improvement and validate the CBM
simulator.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the University of California
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL) under the Contract LBNL No. 6502754 as part of the
GEO-SEQ Project funded by the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
The authors would like to thank the following people for
their helpful discussions and/or participation in this study:
GEM
Peter Sammon, Computer Modelling Group (CMG) Ltd.,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Long Nghiem, Computer Modelling Group (CMG) Ltd.,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Mohamed Hassam, Computer Modelling Group (CMG) Ltd.,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
ECLIPSE
Jim Bennett, Schlumber GeoQuest, Abingdon, Oxon, U.K.
Sridhar Srinivassen, Schlumber GeoQuest, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada
Tim Hower, Malkewicz Hueni Associates, Denver, Colorado,
U.S.A.
COMET 2
Larry Pekot, Advanced Resources International (ARI),
Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A.

SPE 75669

Numerical Simulator Comparison Study for Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery Processes, Part I: Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection

Scott Reeves, Advanced Resources International (ARI),

Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
SIMED II
Xavior Choi, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization (CSIRO), Kinnoull Grove, Syndal,
Victoria, Australia
GCOMP
John Mansoori, BP, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Mel Miner, Marlet Consulting, Calgary, Alberta, U.S.A.

5.

6.

7.

Nomenclature
Gs =
gas storage capacity, m3/kg
GsL =
dry, ash-free Langmuir storage capacity, m3/kg
Gsi =
multicomponent storage capacity of component i,
in-situ basis, m3/kg
GsLi =
single component Langmuir storage capacity of
component i, dry, ash-free basis, m3/kg
nc =
number of components
p=
pressure, kPa
pL =
Langmuir pressure, kPa
pLi or pLj = single component Langmuir pressure of
component i or j, kPa
wa =
ash content, weight fraction
wwe =
equilibrium moisture content, weight fraction
yi or yj = mole fraction of component i or j in the free gas
(vapor) phase
Metric Conversion Factors
C
1.8 C +32 = F
2
km 2.471(102) = acre
kg/m3 6.243(10-2) = lb/ft3
kPa 0.1450
= psia
m
3.28084
= ft
m3/d 3.53147(101) = scf/d
m3/kg 3.2037(104) = scf/ton

8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14.
15.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

Gunter, W.D., Gentzis, T., Rottenfusser, B.A. and Richardson,

R.J.H.: Deep Coalbed Methane in Alberta, Canada: A Fuel
Resource with The Potential of Zero Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Energy Convers. Mgmt, Volume 38, Suppl., (1997)
S217-S222.
Wong, S., Gunter, W.D. and Mavor, M.J.: Economics of CO2
Sequestration in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs, Proceedings of
SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium 2000, Paper SPE 59785,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, April 3-5, (2000) 631-638.
Wong, S., Gunter, W.D., Law, D.H.-S. and Mavor, M.J.: Flue
Gas Injection and CO2 Sequestration in Coalbed Methane
Reservoirs, Economic Considerations, presented at The 5th
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control
Technologies (GHGT-5), Cairns, Australia, (2000) August 1316.
Law, D.H.-S., van der Meer, L.G.H. and Gunter, W.D.:
Modelling of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Coalbeds: A
Numerical Challenge, presented at The 5th International
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT5), Cairns, Australia, (2000) August 13-16.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Law, D.H.-S., van der Meer, L.G.H. and Gunter, W.D.:

Comparison of Numerical Simulators for Greenhouse Gas
Storage in Coalbeds, Part I: Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection,
presented at The 1st National Conference on Carbon
Sequestration, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., (2001) May 14-17.
Seidle, J.P. and Arri, L.E.: Use of Conventional Reservoir
Models for Coalbed Methane Simulation, Paper CIM/SPE 90118, presented at The Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM)/
Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) International Technical
Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, (1990) June 10-13.
Langmuir, I.: The Adsorption of Gases on Plane Surface of
Glass, Mica and Platinum, Journal of the American Chemical
Society, Volume 40, (1918) 1361-1403.
Arri, L.E., Yee, D., Morgan, W.D. and Jeansonne, N.W.:
Modeling Coalbed Methane Production with Binary Gas
Sorption, Paper SPE 24363, presented at The SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, U.S.A., (1992),
May 18-21.
Odeh, A.S.: Comparison of Solutions to a Three-Dimensional
Black Oil Reservoir Simulation Problem, JPT, Volume 33,
(1981) 13-25.
Weinstein, H.G., Chappelear, J.E. and Nolen, J.S.: Second
Comparative Solution Project: A Three-Phase Coning Study,
JPT, Volume 38, (1986) 345-353.
Kenyon, D.E. and Behie, G.A.: Third SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Gas Cycling of Retrograde Condensate
Reservoirs, JPT, Volume 39, (1987) 981-987.
Aziz, K., Ramesh, A.B. and Woo, P.T.: Fourth SPE
Comparative Solution Project: Comparison of Steam Injection
Simulators, JPT, Volume 39, (1987) 1576-1584.
Killough, J.E. and Cossack, C.: Fifth SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood Simulators,
Paper SPE 16000, presented at the 9th SPE Symposium on
Reservoir Simulation, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., (1987)
February 1-4.
Frioozabadi, A. and Thomas, K.: Sixth SPE Comparative
Solution Project: Dual Porosity Simulators, JPT, Volume 42
(1990) 710-715.
Nghiem L., Collins D. A. and Sharma R.: Seventh SPE
Comparative Solution Project: Modelling of Horizontal Wells in
Reservoir Simulation, Paper SPE 21221, presented at the 11th
SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Anaheim, California,
U.S.A., (1991) February 17-20.
Quandalle P.: Eighth SPE Comparative Solution Project:
Gridding Techniques in Reservoir Simulation, Paper SPE
25263, presented at the 12th SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulation, New Orlean, Louisiana, U.S.A., (1993) February
28-March 3.
Killough, J.E.: Ninth SPE Comparative Solution Project: A
Reexamination of Black-Oil Simulation, Paper SPE 29110,
presented at the 13th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., (1995) February 12-15.
Christie, M.A. and Blunt, M.J.: Tenth SPE Comparative
Solution Project: A Comparison of Upscaling Techniques,
Paper SPE 66599, presented at the SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., (2001) February 11-14.
Puri, R., Voltz, R. and Duhrkopf, D.: A Micro-Pilot Approach
to Coalbed Methane Reservoir Assessment, Proceedings of
Intergas 95, University of Alabama/Tuscaloosa, Paper 9556,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, U.S.A., (1995) May 15-19, 265-274.
Wong, S. and Gunter, W.D.: Testing CO2 Enhanced Coalbed
Methane Recovery, Greenhouse Issues, IEA Greenhouse Gas
R&D Programme, Volume 45, (November 1999) 1-3.

David H.-S., L.G.H. (Bert) van der Meer and W.D. (Bill) Gunter

21. Gash, B.W., Measurement of Rock Properties in Coal for

Coalbed Methane Production, Paper SPE 22909, presented at
The 66th SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., (1991) October 6-9.
22. Palmer, I. And Mansoori, J.: How Permeability Depends on
Stress and Pore Pressure in Coalbeds: A New Model, Paper
SPE 36737, presented at 1996 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., (1996)
October 6-9.

Appendix A Coalbed Characteristics

The problem sets have as many common features as possible
(e.g., coalbed characteristics, well radius, etc.).
Coalbed Properties
Coal seam thickness = 9 m [29.527 ft]
Top of coal seam = 1253.6 m [4112.8 ft]
Absolute permeability of natural fracture = 3.65 md
Porosity of natural fracture system = 0.001
Effective coalbed compressibility = 1.45 x 10-7 /kPa
[1 x 10-6 /psia]

nc

GsLi

isotherm

yj

p
j =1

nc
p

A-2

Lj

multicomponent storage capacity of component i,

in-situ basis
single component Langmuir storage capacity of
component i, dry, ash-free basis
single component Langmuir pressure of component
i or j
mole fraction of component i or j in the free gas
(vapor) phase
number of components
pressure of the free gas phase

Relative Permeability Data

The relative permeability relationship shown in Table A-2 is
based upon the relationship published by Gash.21 No effect of
temperature or hysteresis on the relative permeability is
considered and the capillary pressures are assumed to be zero.
Appendix B Problem Set 1
Problem 1: Single well CO2 injection test
Grid System
Cylindrical (r--z) grid system: 29 1 1 (see Figure 1)

Pure Gas Adsorption Isotherms at 45C (113F)

Average in-situ coal density = 1434 kg/m3 [89.5 lb/ft3]
Average in-situ moisture content (by wt.), wwe = 0.0672
Average in-situ ash content (by wt.), wa = 0.156
The dry, ash-free isotherm parameters shown in Table A-1
will be used to estimate the in-situ storage capacity as a
function of pressure, ash content, and in-situ moisture content
using the Langmuir relationship:7

where:
Gs
GsL
wa
wwe
p
pL

1+ p
where:
Gsi

Langmuir

py i
p Li

G si = G sLi [1 (wa + wwe )]

yi or yj

Water Properties at 45C (113F)

Density = 990 kg/m3 [61.8 lb/ft3]
Viscosity = 0.607 cp
Compressibility = 5.8 x 10-7 /kPa [4 x 10-6 /psia]

p
Gs = GsL [1 (wa + wwe )]
p + pL

isotherm theory.8 The extended

relationship is listed as following:

pLi or pLj

Initial Reservoir Conditions

Temperature = 45C [113F]
Pressure (assumed uniform from top to bottom) = 7650 kPa
[1109.5 psia]
Gas saturation = 0.408 (100% CH4)
Water saturation = 0.592

SPE 75669

A-1

gas storage capacity

dry, ash-free Langmuir storage capacity
ash content, weight fraction
equilibrium moisture content, weight fraction
pressure
Langmuir pressure

The individual component isotherm parameters are used to

compute storage capacity when multiple gas species are
present. The computation is based upon extended Langmuir

Area = 160 acres

Radius = 454 m [1,489.5 ft]
r-direction: see Table B-1
-direction: = 360
z-direction: z = 9 m [29.5 ft]
Operating Conditions
Well location: (i = 1, j = 1, k = 1)
Well radius (2 7/8 well): 0.0365 m
Well skin factor = 0

[0.11975 ft]

15-day CO2 injection period (0 15 days):

CO2 injection rate (full well) = 28,316.82 sm3/d
[1 x 106 scf/d]
Maximum bottom-hole pressure = 15,000 kPa
[2,175.6 psia]
45-day shut-in period (15 60 days)
Well shut-in for pressure falloff
60-day production period (60 120 days)
Maximum gas production rate (full well) = 100,000 m3/d
[3.5315 x 106 scf/d]
Minimum bottom-hole pressure = 275 kPa [39.885 psia]

SPE 75669

Numerical Simulator Comparison Study for Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery Processes, Part I: Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection

62.5-day shut-in period (120 182.5 days)

Well shut-in for pressure buildup
Appendix C Problem Set 2
Problem 2: 5-spot CO2-ECBM recovery process
Grid System
Rectangular (x-y-z) grid system: 11 11 1 (see Figure 2)
Area = of a 2.5 acres pattern
Pattern half width = 50.294 m [165 ft]
x and y-directions: see Table C-1
z-direction: z = 9 m [29.5 ft]
Operating Conditions
Well locations:
Injection well: (i = 1, j = 1, k = 1)
Production well: (i = 11, j = 11,k = 1)
Well radius (2 7/8 well): 0.0365 m [0.11975 ft]
Well skin factor = 0
182.5-day continuous CO2 injection/production period (0
182.5 days):
CO2 injection rate (full well) = 28,316.82 sm3/d
[1 x 106 scf/d]
Maximum bottom-hole pressure = 15,000 kPa
[2,175.6 psia]
Maximum gas production rate (full well) = 100,000 m3/d
[3.5315 x 106 scf/d]
Minimum bottom-hole pressure = 275 kPa [39.885 psia]
Problem 2P: 5-spot primary CBM recovery process
Grid System
Same as Problem 2
Operating Conditions
Well locations:
Production well: (i = 11, j = 11,k = 1)
Well radius (2 7/8 well): 0.0365 m [0.11975 ft]
Well skin factor = 0
182.5-day continuous gas production period (0 182.5 days):
Maximum gas production rate (full well) = 100,000 m3/d
[3.5315 x 106 scf/d]
Minimum bottom-hole pressure = 275 kPa [39.885 psia]

David H.-S., L.G.H. (Bert) van der Meer and W.D. (Bill) Gunter

SPE 75669

Table 1: Features for modeling coalbed methane (CBM) recovery processes

CBM Simulators

GEM

ECLIPSE

COMET

SIMED II

GCOMP

Mutliple Gas Components

(3 or more: CH4, CO2 & N2)

Dual Porosity Approach

Mixed Gas Diffusion

(Different Diffusion Rates)

Mixed Gas Adsorption

(Extended Langmuir Model)

Stress Dependent
Permeability and Porosity

Coal Shrinkage/Swelling

Table 2: Initial gas-in-place for problem sets 1 and 2

CBM Simulators

GEM

ECLIPSE

COMET 2

SIMED II

GCOMP

Initial gas-in-Place (sm ) 160-acres

Problem Set 1
6.1681x10

6.1233x10

6.1290x10

6.1340x10

6.0315x10

Initial gas-in-Place (sm ) 2.5 acres 5-Spot Pattern

Problem Set 2
2.4101x10

2.3925x10

2.3900x10

2.3993x10

2.3380x10

Table A-1: Dry, ash-free Langmuir isotherm parameters

Methane
Langmuir Pressure,
PL

kPa

psia

4,688.5

kPa

Nitrogen

psia

kPa

psia

680

1,903

276

27,241

m /kg

scf/ton

m /kg

scf/ton

m /kg

scf/ton

0.0152

486.0

0.0310

993.8

0.0150

482.0

Dry, Ash-Free Langmuir Volume, GsL

Carbon Dioxide

3,951

Table A-2: Relative permeability relationship

Water Saturation
Sw

Rel. Perm. to Water

krw

Rel. Perm. to Gas

krg

Water Saturation
Sw

Rel. Perm. to Water

krw

Rel. Perm. to Gas

krg

1.00

1.000

0.000

0.50

0.088

0.216

0.975

0.814

0.0035

0.45

0.067

0.253

0.950

0.731

0.007

0.40

0.049

0.295

0.90

0.601

0.018

0.35

0.035

0.342

0.85

0.490

0.033

0.30

0.024

0.401

0.80

0.392

0.051

0.25

0.015

0.466

0.75

0.312

0.070

0.20

0.007

0.537

0.70

0.251

0.090

0.15

0.002

0.627

0.65

0.200

0.118

0.10

0.0013

0.720

0.60

0.154

0.147

0.05

0.0006

0.835

0.55

0.116

0.180

0.00

0.000

1.000

SPE 75669

Numerical Simulator Comparison Study for Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery Processes, Part I: Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection

Table B-1: Radial grid system used for Problem Set 1

i

(m)

(ft)

(m)

(ft)

0.9110

2.9888

0.9110

2.9888

1.1600

3.8058

2.0710

6.7946

1.3456

4.4147

3.4166

11.2093

1.5609

5.1211

4.9775

16.3303

1.8106

5.9403

6.7881

22.2706

2.1003

6.8907

8.8884

29.1614

2.4364

7.9934

11.3248

37.1548

2.8262

9.2723

14.1510

46.4271

3.2784

10.7559

17.4294

57.1830

10

3.8030

12.4770

21.2324

69.6601

11

4.4114

14.4731

25.6438

84.1332

12

5.1173

16.7890

30.7611

100.9222

13

5.9360

19.4751

36.6971

120.3973

14

6.8858

22.5912

43.5829

142.9885

15

7.9875

26.2057

51.5704

169.1942

16

9.2655

30.3986

60.8359

199.5928

17

10.7480

35.2625

71.5839

234.8553

18

12.4677

40.9045

84.0516

275.7598

19

14.4625

47.4491

98.5141

323.2090

20

16.7765

55.0410

115.2906

378.2500

21

19.4608

63.8478

134.7514

442.0977

22

22.5745

74.0633

157.3259

516.1611

23

26.1864

85.9134

183.5123

602.0744

24

30.3763

99.6598

213.8886

701.7342

25

35.2364

115.6050

249.1250

817.3392

26

40.8742

134.1017

289.9992

951.4409

27

47.4141

155.5581

337.4133

1106.9990

28

55.0005

180.4478

392.4138

1287.4468

29

61.4972

201.7625

453.9110

1489.2093

Table C-1: Rectangular grid system used for Problem Set 2

i or j

x or y

x or y

(m)

(ft)

(m)

(ft)

2.5

8.2

2.5

8.2

5.0

16.4

7.5

24.6

5.0

16.4

12.5

41.0

5.0

16.4

17.5

57.4

5.0

16.4

22.5

73.8

5.294

17.37

27.794

91.17

5.0

16.4

32.794

107.57

5.0

16.4

37.794

123.97

5.0

16.4

42.794

140.37

10

5.0

16.4

47.794

156.77

11

2.5

8.2

50.294

164.97

10

David H.-S., L.G.H. (Bert) van der Meer and W.D. (Bill) Gunter

SPE 75669

29 x 1 Grid System

9m

454 m

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of radial grid system used in problem set 1

1/4 of 2.5-acre 5-Spot Pattern

P

11 x 11 Grid System

P
50.294 m

Figure 2: Schematic diagram of rectangular grid system used in problem set 2

SPE 75669

Numerical Simulator Comparison Study for Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery Processes, Part I: Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection

CO2 Injection
Pressure Falloff
Pressure Buildup

Gas Production

Figure 3: Problem set 1 well bottom-hole pressure

CO2

CH4

Figure 4: Problem set 1 CH4 and CO2 production rates

11

12

David H.-S., L.G.H. (Bert) van der Meer and W.D. (Bill) Gunter

CO2

CH4

Figure 5: Problem set 1 Production gas compositions for CH4 and CO2

CO2 Injection
Primary
Figure 6: Problem set 2 CH4 proudction rate for primary CBM and CO2-ECBM recovery processes for full 5-spot pattern

SPE 75669

SPE 75669

Numerical Simulator Comparison Study for Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery Processes, Part I: Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection

Figure 7: Problem set 2 Injection bottom-hole pressure

Total

CO2

Figure 8: Problem set 2 CO2 and total gas production rates for full 5-spot pattern

13

14

David H.-S., L.G.H. (Bert) van der Meer and W.D. (Bill) Gunter

SPE 75669

CH4

CO2
Figure 9: Problem set 2 Production gas compositions for CH4 and CO2

CO2 Mole Fraction in Gas Phase in Fracture

CO2

30 days

60 days

90 days

GEM

ECLIPSE COMET2 SIMED II

Figure 10: Problem set 2 CO2 distributions as CO2 mole fraction in gas phase in natural fracture system