2015 Afonsojmsphdcutoff CBM

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS IN
COAL: ASSESSMENT OF COAL-BED METHANE
CONTENT, RESERVES AND COAL
PERMEABILITY
Thesis submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
at the University of Leicester
by
Joo Mealha Sequeira Afonso, MGeol.
Department of Geology
University of Leicester
2014
ABSTRACT
Electrical Resistivity Measurements in Coal: assessment of coal-bed

methane content, reserves and coal permeability
by
Joo Mealha Sequeira Afonso
Coal-bed methane (CBM), also referred to as Coal seam gas (CSG), relates to the
production of methane from coal beds by drilling wells, hence lowering formation
pressure, and triggering methane release. While the potential of this resource is
significant, the assessment of the quantity and the producibility of methane from coal
seams is highly variable. For this reason the objective of this work is to investigate the
assessment of gas content, gas-in-place and coal permeability through petrophysical of
analysis and by gaining a better understanding of coal bulk properties,.
In this study 17 cored production wells were analysed from the Walloon Sub-group
coal seams fairway in the Surat Basin in Queensland Australia, which is today the most
ambitious investment in CSG worldwide. A total of 2374 coal beds were investigated to
understand how the nature of the different coal lithotypes are reflected in core analysis,
wireline logs measurements and DST test results, and how they affect coal quality, and
control gas content, fracture development and reservoir permeability.
High-resolution studies involving fine scale are required to estimate volumes and
CSG formation evaluation turns to the interpretation of standard wireline tools readings
in hundreds of coal seam wells. Nevertheless, the heterogeneous thin-bedded nature of
coal seams, together with the fact that methane within coal is mainly stored by
adsorption, create several difficulties in wireline log petrophysical analysis.
Consequently core description is used to validate the combination of the density log
with the shallow focused electric and induction resistivity measurements, benefitting
the recognition and thickness estimation of thin coal beds and coal laminae rich
mudstones. This observation, and a refined coal quality and gas content estimation
methodology, are presented and tested against previously published workflows and
provide an improved and tested strategy for petrophysical analysis of CSG.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Mike Lovell, Professor Sarah Davies,
Mr. Roger Samworth and Dr. Darren Chaney for their guidance, support, patience,
insightful thoughts in different fields of expertise and giving me the opportunity to do
this PhD research project. I would like also to thank Weatherford UK, for financially
supporting this project and the East Leake team in particular for their kindness and
advice.
I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Brent Glassborow, for his
fundamental assistance in compiling the dataset used in this project and knowledge
shared of coal seam gas operations. To Mr. Tim Pritchard, for giving me the placement
opportunity in BGs TVP office and Dr. Stefan Calvert for the opportunity to visit and
discuss my work in BGs Brisbane office.
Would like to show my appreciation for the discussions, advices and help throughout
the different stages of the project from my colleagues Sam Matthews and Sven
Koenitzer.
I would like send warm welcome to my friends Louise Anderson, Sally Morgan and
Dave Hartigan for helping me improving my manuscripts, but especially for their
friendship, encouragement and good times shared.
Finally, my biggest thanks to my family, my mother, father, sister and my
grandmother Sameirinho whose amor and unconditional support I could not be without.
iii
LIST OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................... iii
LIST OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1
1.1. Preamble ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Structure and Aims of the thesis ..................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2 CSG Geological and technical background ........................................ 7
2.1. Coal Seam Gas ............................................................................................... 7
2.2. From Peat to Coal ........................................................................................... 9
2.3. Coal Petrographical Characteristics ............................................................. 12
2.3.1. Lithotypes .............................................................................................. 12
2.3.2. Macerals ................................................................................................ 15
2.3.3. Cleat system & Permeability................................................................. 18
2.4. Coal as a Gas reservoir ................................................................................. 22
2.4.1. Coal gas origin ...................................................................................... 22
2.4.2. Gas Storage ........................................................................................... 23
2.4.3. Controls on gas content ......................................................................... 24
2.4.4. Coal Gas Saturation............................................................................... 30
2.4.5. Gas flow ................................................................................................ 33
2.5. CSG reserve & production ........................................................................... 36
2.5.1. Gas-in-place estimation ......................................................................... 36
2.5.2. Production ............................................................................................. 39
2.6. CSG formation evaluation ............................................................................ 43
2.6.1. Core analysis ......................................................................................... 44
2.6.2. Downhole wireline measurements ........................................................ 55
2.6.3. Drill stem tests (DST) ........................................................................... 62
2.7. Study area ..................................................................................................... 64
2.8. Studied Dataset ............................................................................................. 71
CHAPTER 3 Coal lithotype properties of the Walloon Sub-group, in Queensland,
Australia........................... ............................................................................................... 75
3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 75
3.2. Methodology................................................................................................. 76
3.2.1. Original data set .................................................................................... 76
3.2.2. Macroscopic description ....................................................................... 77
3.2.3. Sample selection.................................................................................... 78
3.3. Coal bed Thickness....................................................................................... 79
3.4. Lithotype distribution ................................................................................... 82
3.5. Petrography and Geochemistry .................................................................... 83
3.5.1. Rank ...................................................................................................... 83
3.5.2. Proximate Analysis ............................................................................... 85
3.5.3. Petrographical Analysis ........................................................................ 86
3.6. Cleat system.................................................................................................. 87
3.6.1. Lithotype cleat attributes ....................................................................... 88
3.7. Methane producibility .................................................................................. 91
3.7.1. Gas content and saturation .................................................................... 91
3.7.2. Coal lithotype and composition effect .................................................. 96
3.8. Wireline tool responses .............................................................................. 102
3.8.1. Standard logging reading .................................................................... 102
3.8.2. Imager and scanner readings ............................................................... 110
3.8.3. Coal lithotype and permeability effect on wireline measurements ..... 113
3.8.4. Reservoir permeability ........................................................................ 114
3.9. Discussion and Conclusions ....................................................................... 118
CHAPTER 4 Estimating coal thickness in Thinly Bedded Coal Seam Gas
(CSG).............................. .............................................................................................. 121
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 121
4.2. Core and wireline data correlation ............................................................. 123
4.3. Coal Properties ........................................................................................... 125
4.4. Wireline logging for Coal Seam Gas.......................................................... 126
4.4.1. Net coal estimation using density log ................................................. 129
4.5. Coal borehole resistivity ............................................................................. 134
4.5.1. Standard downhole resistivity measurements ..................................... 134
4.5.2. MFE Response to coal thickness......................................................... 136
4.5.3. Effect of permeability on resistivity response ..................................... 139
4.6. Net coal thickness estimation in washout zones......................................... 142
4.7. Using Resistivity in net coal estimation ..................................................... 146
v
4.7.1. Results in cored wells.......................................................................... 148
4.7.2. Results in production test wells........................................................... 153
4.8. Conclusions ................................................................................................ 157
CHAPTER 5 Evaluation of in situ Coal Seam Gas content using wireline logs .. 158
5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 158
5.2. Estimation of Coal quality .......................................................................... 159
5.2.1. Density of organic content .................................................................. 160
5.2.2. Density of inorganic content ............................................................... 165
5.2.3. Wireline density readings .................................................................... 167
5.3. Gas content and saturation.......................................................................... 168
5.4. Testing gas content estimation methodologies ........................................... 171
5.4.1. Mavor and Nelson (1997) ................................................................... 175
5.4.2. Rogers (2007) ...................................................................................... 177
5.4.3. Calvert et al. (2011)............................................................................. 179
5.4.4. New methods tested ............................................................................ 180
5.5. Conclusions ................................................................................................ 208
CHAPTER 6 Conclusions ..................................................................................... 209
6.1. Conclusions to initial questions posed ....................................................... 209
6.2. General suggestions for further work ......................................................... 216
APPENDIX A Seam and net coal thickness ......................................................... 218
APPENDIX B proximate and desorption analysis ............................................... 219
APPENDIX C wireline density to organic content x-plots................................... 221
APPENDIX D wireline responses ........................................................................ 223
APPENDIX E Permeability and coal bed characteristics ..................................... 244
APPENDIX F organic and inorganic content density estimation ......................... 245
APPENDIX G Error estimation ............................................................................ 247
APPENDIX H density and gas content equations ................................................ 250
APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms ................................................................. 256
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 257
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 MODIFIED TABLE FROM GAURAV ET AL. ( 2012) AND EHRENBERG AND NADEAU (2005)........... 9
TABLE 2.2 MACROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION OF COALS. ................................................................................... 13
TABLE 2.3 MACERAL ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION FOLLOWING THE AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS (AS 2856.1-
2000, AS 2856.2-1998, AS 2856.3-2000, AS 2856-1986). ............................................................... 18
TABLE 2.4 ASTM RANK CLASSIFICATION OF COAL APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY VALUES FROM STACH ET AL.
(1982) AND WARD (1981). ................................................................................................................ 51
TABLE 2.5 NUMBER OF CORE SAMPLES PER COAL SEAM FROM EACH WELL. .............................................. 73
TABLE 2.6 SUMMARY OF THE CORE ANALYSIS AND DST TEST RESULTS DATASET FROM EACH WELL. ....... 73
TABLE 2.7 SUMMARY WIRELINE LOG DATA USED IN THIS STUDY. .............................................................. 74
TABLE 3.1 MACROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION OF COALS BASED ON THE AUSTRALIAN STANDARD. .................... 78
TABLE 3.2 COAL BED THICKNESS FOUND IN THE 10 CORED WELL IN THE WALLOON SUB-GROUP. ............. 80
TABLE 3.3 VITRINITE REFLECTANCE IN 12 WELLS IN THE WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL SEAMS PROVIDED.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 84
TABLE 3.4 PROXIMATE ANALYSIS DATA FROM SELECTED COAL SAMPLES DOMINATED BY ONE SINGLE
LITHOTYPE AND < 50% ASH YIELD FROM WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL BEDS. .................................. 85
TABLE 3.5 MACERAL ANALYSIS DATA FROM SELECTED COAL SAMPLES DOMINATED BY ONE SINGLE
LITHOTYPE FROM WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL BEDS. ...................................................................... 87
TABLE 3.6 VARIATION OF LITHOTYPE CLEAT MEAN FREQUENCY, LENGTH AND FILLING FROM 2374
WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL BEDS. .................................................................................................. 89
TABLE 3.7 TOTAL DESORBED GAS (D.A.F.) AND GAS SATURATION FROM 12 CORED WELLS........................ 94
TABLES 3.8 MACERAL PETROGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF THE WALLOON SUB-GROUP (IN PERCENTAGE
MINERAL MATER FREE BASIS). ........................................................................................................... 99
TABLE 3.9 LITHOTYPE MEAN LOG RESPONSES ......................................................................................... 115
TABLE 3.10 DRILL STEM TEST RESULTS COMPARED TO COAL BED CHARACTERISTICS IN WELLS 1 TO 8 AND
10 TO 14. ......................................................................................................................................... 118
TABLE 4.1 TOTAL WELL DEPTH AND WALLOONS SUB-GROUP DEPTH INTERVALS IDENTIFIED IN CORE AND
WIRELINE LOGS. FROM CORED WELLS 1, 2 AND 3 SELECTED SAMPLES WERE TESTED FOR SPECIAL
CORE ANALYSIS. .............................................................................................................................. 124
vii
TABLE 4.2 COAL FACIES IDENTIFIED IN THE CORE DESCRIPTION .............................................................. 126
TABLE 4.3 EXAMPLES OF ACCURACY ESTIMATION OF 80% (IN WELL 1) AND 90% (WELLS 2 AND 3) OF
TOTAL RESERVOIR THICKNESS USING DIFFERENT CUT-OFFS. ........................................................... 149
TABLE 5.1 CORE MACERAL GROUP ANALYSIS MINERAL MATTER FREE RESULTS FROM 12 CORED WELLS (IN
PERCENTAGE MINERAL MATER FREE BASIS).. .................................................................................. 161
TABLE 5.2 ESTIMATED CORE ORGANIC MATTER DENSITY IN EACH COAL SEAM UNIT IN 490 SAMPLES FROM
12 WELLS. FOR MEAN ABSOLUTE ERROR OF THE ESTIMATE AND SAMPLE COUNT SEE APPENDIX G
ERROR ESTIMATION. ....................................................................................................................... 164
TABLE 5.3 FIXED CARBON TO VOLATILE MATTER RATIO IN EACH COAL SEAM UNIT IN 490 SAMPLES FROM
12 WELLS. FOR STANDARD DEVIATION OF THE ESTIMATE AND SAMPLE COUNT SEE APPENDIX G
ERROR ESTIMATION ........................................................................................................................ 164
TABLE 5.4 EXAMPLES OF THE ESTIMATED ASH DENSITY AND MEAN ABSOLUTE ERROR OF THE ESTIMATE
FROM 57 CORE SAMPLES IN EACH COAL SEAM UNIT IN WELLS 2 AND 3. ........................................... 167
TABLE 5.5 ESTIMATED GAS SATURATION FROM CORE DATA FROM 452 FROM 11 WELLS. FOR STANDARD
DEVIATION OF THE ESTIMATE AND SAMPLE COUNT SEE APPENDIX G ERROR ESTIMATION. ....... 169
TABLE 5.6 EQUILIBRIUM OF MOISTURE FROM ADSORPTION LANGMUIR ISOTHERM ANALYSIS CORE DATA.
........................................................................................................................................................ 170
TABLE 5.7 ESTIMATED MEAN ABSOLUTE PERCENTAGE ERROR FOR EACH METHOD FOR COAL QUALITY,
TOTAL GAS CONTENT AND COAL GAS CONTENT FOR WELL 2. .......................................................... 186
TABLE 5.8 ESTIMATED MEAN ABSOLUTE PERCENTAGE ERROR FOR EACH METHOD FOR COAL QUALITY,
TOTAL GAS CONTENT AND COAL GAS CONTENT FOR WELL 3. .......................................................... 186
TABLE 5.9 398.8 METERS OF CORE DESCRIPTION AGAINST THE RESULTS OF RESERVOIR ROCK CUT-OFF FOR
EACH METHODOLOGY IN WELL 2. .................................................................................................... 188
TABLE 5.10 CORE DESCRIPTION AGAINST THE RESULTS OF RESERVOIR ROCK CUT-OFF FOR EACH
METHODOLOGY IN WELL 3. ............................................................................................................. 188
TABLE 5.11 RESUME OF THE DIFFERENT COAL SEAM GAS WELL INTERPRETATION WORKFLOWS. ............ 205
TABLE 5.12 ROGERSS, MAVORS, CALVERTS AND THE NEW WORKFLOW RESULTS FROM WELL 2. ....... 206
TABLE 5.13 ROGERSS, MAVORS, CALVERTS AND THE NEW WORKFLOW RESULTS FROM IN WELL 3. ... 206
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 WORLDWIDE COAL BED METHANE RESERVES............................................................................ 8
FIGURE 2.2 COALIFICATION STAGES DURING COAL GENERATION. ............................................................. 10
FIGURE 2.3 CHANGES IN THE CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF COAL WITH INCREASING RANK.
MODIFIED FROM TEICHMLLER AND TEICHMLLER (1968). ............................................................ 11
FIGURE 2.4 EXAMPLES OF SPECIAL CORE ANALYSIS TESTED SAMPLES DESCRIPTION FOLLOWED IN THIS
RESEARCH. PICTURES PROVIDED BY THE OPERATOR. ........................................................................ 14
FIGURE 2.5 COAL MATRIX AND NATURAL FRACTURE NETWORK................................................................ 20
FIGURE 2.6 COAL RANK AND METHANE GENERATION FROM AHMED ET AL. (2009). .................................. 23
FIGURE 2.7 ADSORPTION CURVES AGAINST PRESSURE AT A GIVEN RANK FROM KIM (1977). .................... 25
FIGURE 2.8 TREND IN GAS STORAGE CAPACITY AGAINST RANK (%, RO MAX) IN DIFFERENT COAL
LITHOTYPES FROM LAXMINARAYANA AND CROSDALE (1999). ......................................................... 25
FIGURE 2.9 ADSORPTION CURVES AGAINST TEMPERATURE AT A GIVEN RANK FROM KIM (1977). ............. 30
FIGURE 2.10 EXAMPLES OF VERTICAL PROFILES OF DESORBED GAS CONTENT. .......................................... 31
FIGURE 2.11 SCHEMATIC GAS GENERATION AGAINST GAS STORAGE CAPACITY RELATED WITH DEPTH AND
TIME FROM MOORE (2012). ............................................................................................................... 32
FIGURE 2.12 METHANE FLOW MODEL THROUGH COAL FROM (GAMSON ET AL., 1996). ............................. 34
FIGURE 2.13 ESTIMATES OF PERCENT VOLUME DECREASE VERSUS RANK AND TEMPERATURE FROM RYAN
(2003). .............................................................................................................................................. 36
FIGURE 2.14 CSG RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY......................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 2.15 CONCEPTUAL FREE GAS AND WATER FLOW MODELS. ............................................................ 40
FIGURE 2.16 TYPICAL COAL SEAM GAS AND WATER PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS FROM ANDERSON ET
AL.(2003). ......................................................................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 2.17 APPARATUS REQUIRED FOR DESORBED GAS (Q2) ESTIMATION. ............................................. 47
FIGURE 2.18 THERMOGRAVIMETRIC ANALYZER USED FOR THE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS ESTIMATION. ....... 50
FIGURE 2.19 RETENTION OF GAS IN COAL SEAMS REDRAWN FROM SUREZ-RUIZ AND CRELLING (2008). 53
FIGURE 2.20 EXAMPLE OF ADSORPTION PERFORMANCES OF DIFFERENT GASES PRODUCED FROM LOW
BITUMINOUS COAL SAMPLE FROM WESTERN CANADA FROM SUREZ-RUIZ AND CRELLING (2008). . 54
ix
FIGURE 2.21 TYPICAL TOOL READINGS FROM WIRELINE LOG MEASUREMENTS AGAINST CORE DESCRIPTION
IN COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION. EXAMPLE FROM A COAL SEAM IN WELL 3. .................................. 61
FIGURE 2.22 LOCATION OF THE WELL DATA IN THE SURAT BASIN IN QUEENSLAND AUSTRALIA. ............ 66
FIGURE 2.23 WELL LOCATION IN WALLOON SUBGROUP DEPTH (MSS) STRUCTURE MAP. MODIFIED FROM
QGC PTY LIMITED (2012A) REPORT. ................................................................................................ 67
FIGURE 2.24 MAJOR TECTONIC ELEMENTS OF THE SURAT BASIN AND WELL LOCATION. MODIFIED FROM
QGC PTY LIMITED (2012A) REPORT. ................................................................................................ 68
FIGURE 2.25 SEISMIC SECTION LOCATED AS INDICATED IN FIGURE X. FROM (QGC PTY LIMITED, 2012B) 69
FIGURE 2.26 LITHO-STRATIGRAPHY OF THE WALLOON SUB-GROUP FROM (MARTIN ET AL., 2013)........... 70
FIGURE 2.27 QUEENSLAND AUSTRALIA PROVED AND PROBABLE RESERVES ESTIMATED IN 2013 (SOURCE
QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND MINES). ...................... 71
FIGURE 3.1 COAL LITHOTYPE THICKNESS FREQUENCY AND ACCUMULATED FREQUENCY.......................... 80
FIGURE 3.2 LITHOTYPE THICKNESS HISTOGRAMS DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF CORE FROM
10 CORED WELLS. .............................................................................................................................. 81
FIGURE.3.3 VARIATION OF LITHOTYPE THICKNESS WITH DEPTH FOR WALLOON SUB-GROUP. ................... 83
FIGURE 3.4 MEAN VITRINITE REFLECTANCE IN 12 WELL IN THE WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL SEAMS. ..... 84
FIGURE 3.5 TRENDS BETWEEN BED THICKNESS AND CLEAT FREQUENCY IN EACH LITHOTYPE FROM 2374
WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL BEDS. .................................................................................................. 89
FIGURE 3.6 CROSS-PLOT OF DEPTH VERSUS MEAN CLEATS PER METRE FROM 2374 COAL BEDS IN WALLOON
SUB-GROUP COAL SEAMS. ................................................................................................................. 90
FIGURE 3.7 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF LOST, DESORBED AND RESIDUAL OF THE TOTAL GAS YIELD IN ALL 491
SAMPLES. .......................................................................................................................................... 92
FIGURE 3.8 GAS CONTENT (D.A.F.) VERSUS DEPTH. ................................................................................... 92
FIGURE 3.9 MEAN TOTAL DESORBED GAS VOLUME AND GAS SATURATION FROM 12 CORED WELLS. ......... 95
FIGURE 3.10 WELL 2 EXAMPLE OF VARIATION OF ESTIMATED SATURATION ON A SINGLE COAL SEAM. ..... 95
FIGURE 3.11 MEASURED (RAW) GAS CONTENT VERSUS ORGANIC CONTENT MEASURED IN 491 CORE
SAMPLES FROM 12 CORED WELLS. ..................................................................................................... 97
FIGURE 3.12 MEASURED (RAW) GAS CONTENT VERSUS LIPTINITE CONTENT IN 454 SAMPLES FROM 12
CORED WELLS. ................................................................................................................................ 100
x
FIGURE 3.13 MEASURED (RAW) GAS CONTENT VERSUS VITRINITE CONTENT IN 454 SAMPLES FROM 12
CORED WELLS. ................................................................................................................................ 101
FIGURE 3.14 MEAN CLEAT DEVELOPMENT AGAINST MEAN MACERAL CONTENT IN THE WALLOON SUB-
GROUP. ............................................................................................................................................ 101
FIGURE 3.15 MACERAL PETROGRAPHIC COMPOSITION OF THE MOST COMMON LITHOTYPES OF THE
WALLOON SUB-GROUP. .................................................................................................................. 102
FIGURE 3.16 EXAMPLE OF WIRELINE LOGS SUPPLIED TO THE OPERATOR FROM WELL 3. .......................... 103
FIGURE 3.17 AN EXAMPLE OF WIRELINE DATA INTERPRETATION IN WELL 3 USING UNFILTERED DENSITY,
PE, AND FEFE LOGS. ....................................................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 3.18 WIRELINE DENSITY RESPONSES FOUND IN COAL BED ZONES IN 10 CORED WELLS................ 106
FIGURE 3.19 WIRELINE NEUTRON-POROSITY RESPONSES FOUND IN COAL BED ZONES IN 10 CORED WELLS.
........................................................................................................................................................ 106
FIGURE 3.20 WIRELINE NATURAL GAMMA-RAY RESPONSES FOUND IN COAL BED ZONES IN 10 CORED
WELLS. ............................................................................................................................................ 107
FIGURE 3.21 WIRELINE PHOTOELECTRIC RESPONSES FOUND IN COAL BED ZONES IN 10 CORED WELLS. .. 107
FIGURE 3.22 WIRELINE SONIC LOG RESPONSES FOUND IN COAL BED ZONES IN 10 CORED WELLS. ........... 108
FIGURE 3.23 WIRELINE INDUCTION RESISTIVITY RESPONSES FOUND IN 3 CORED WELLS IN COAL BED
ZONES. ............................................................................................................................................ 108
FIGURE 3.24 WIRELINE SHALLOW FOCUSED ELECTRIC RESISTIVITY RESPONSES FOUND IN 3 CORED WELLS
IN COAL BED ZONES. ........................................................................................................................ 109
FIGURE 3.25 WIRELINE LATERALOG RESISTIVITY RESPONSES FOUND IN 8 CORED WELLS IN COAL BED
ZONES. ............................................................................................................................................ 109
FIGURE 3.26 EXAMPLE TAKEN FROM WELL 2 OF IMAGER AND SCANNER RESPONSES IN COAL. ................ 111
FIGURE 3.27 (LEFT) EXAMPLE OF A SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE PICTURE SHOWING A CLEAT WITH
CALCITE FILLING. ............................................................................................................................ 112
FIGURE 3.28 (RIGHT) COAL HAND SPECIMEN SHOWING FACE AND BUTT CLEATS. ................................... 112
FIGURE 4.1 CORRELATION BETWEEN WELL 1, 2 AND 3 BASED ON CORE DESCRIPTION. FOR LOCATION SEE
FIGURE 2.22 IN CHAPTER 2. ............................................................................................................ 124
FIGURE 4.2 AN EXAMPLE OF WIRELINE DATA CORRELATED WITH CORE ANALYSIS FROM WELL 2. .......... 129
xi
FIGURE 4.3 COAL ASH AND ORGANIC CONTENT AGAINST CORE DENSITY CROSS PLOT OF WELLS 1, 2 AND 3.
........................................................................................................................................................ 130
FIGURE 4.4 WIRELINE AGAINST CORE DENSITY WITH COLOUR DISTRIBUTION OF BOREHOLE ENLARGEMENT
OF WELLS 1, 2 AND 3. ...................................................................................................................... 132
FIGURE 4.5 STUDY OF DENSITY LOG CUT-OFF VALUE. ............................................................................. 134
FIGURE 4.6 SHALLOW FOCUSED ELECTRIC RESISTIVITY AGAINST ORGANIC CONTENT ESTIMATED FROM
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AS A FUNCTION OF COAL SEAM THICKNESS. ................................................. 137
FIGURE 4.7 AN EXAMPLE OF WIRELINE DATA CORRELATED WITH CORE ANALYSIS FROM WELL 3. .......... 138
FIGURE 4.8 CLEAT DEVELOPMENT AGAINST DEPTH IN ALL THE COAL BED FOUND IN WELL 2................ 141
FIGURE 4.9 HIGH-RESOLUTION WIRELINE FEFE SHALLOW RESISTIVITY AGAINST HIGH-RESOLUTION
WIRELINE DENSITY SHOWING COLOURED VARIATION ON CLEAT DEVELOPMENT IN EACH COAL BED.
........................................................................................................................................................ 142
FIGURE 4.10 AN EXAMPLE OF WIRELINE DATA CORRELATED WITH CORE ANALYSIS FROM WELL 1. ........ 144
FIGURE 4.11 STUDY OF GAMMA RAY LOG CUT-OFF VALUE. ..................................................................... 145
FIGURE 4.12 STUDY OF NEUTRON POROSITY LOG CUT-OFF VALUE. ......................................................... 145
FIGURE 4.13 STUDY OF SONIC LOG CUT-OFF VALUE. ............................................................................... 146
FIGURE 4.14 STUDY OF WORKFLOW CUT-OFF VALUE. ............................................................................. 149
FIGURE 4.15 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ENTIRE RESERVOIR ROCK SEQUENCES IN WELL 1, 2 AND 3 FROM
CORE DESCRIPTION AGAINST THE ESTIMATED FROM 1.8 AND 2.0G/CM3 DENSITY CUT-OFF WITHOUT
AND WITH RESISTIVITY FILTERS. ..................................................................................................... 152
FIGURE 4.16 THE FEFE RESISTIVITY LOG AGAINST THE HIGH-RESOLUTION DENSITY LOG RESPONSES
THROUGHOUT THE WALLOON COAL MEASURES SEQUENCE IDENTIFIED IN CORE DESCRIPTION IN
WELL 3. ........................................................................................................................................... 155
FIGURE 4.17 THE FEFE RESISTIVITY LOG AGAINST THE HIGH-RESOLUTION DENSITY LOG WITH ESTIMATED
NET COAL THROUGHOUT THE WALLOON COAL MEASURES SEQUENCE BY 0.025M SAMPLE
INCREMENTS IN WELL 3. .................................................................................................................. 155
FIGURE 4.18 THE FEFE RESISTIVITY LOG AGAINST THE HIGH-RESOLUTION DENSITY LOG RESPONSES
THROUGHOUT THE WALLOON COAL MEASURES SEQUENCE BY 0.025M SAMPLE INCREMENTS IN
WELLS 3A AND 3B RESPECTIVELY. ................................................................................................. 156
xii
FIGURE 5.1 AN EXAMPLE OF THE EXTRAPOLATION AND MEAN ABSOLUTE ERROR OF THE ESTIMATE BARS
(WILLMOTT AND MATSUURA, 2005) OF DRY ASH AND INHERENT MOISTURE PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT
AGAINST RECIPROCAL DENSITY ONE WELL IN ARGYLE AND CONDAMINE COAL SEAMS FROM 24
SAMPLES FROM WELL 14. ................................................................................................................ 163
FIGURE 5.2 DRY ORGANIC MATTER, MOISTURE AND ASH FROM PROXIMATE CORE ANALYSIS AGAINST
RECIPROCAL DENSITY FROM 491 CORE SAMPLES TAKEN FROM 12 CORED WELLS. ........................... 166
FIGURE 5.3 MOISTURE CONTENT ESTIMATED IN PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AGAINST DEPTH FROM 491 CORE
SAMPLES TAKEN FROM 12 CORED WELLS. ....................................................................................... 166
FIGURES 5.4 AND 5.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORE RELATIVE DENSITY AND CORE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
IN ALL SAMPLES FROM WELL 2 AND 3. ............................................................................................. 178
FIGURE 5.6 COMPARISON BETWEEN INORGANIC CONTENT FROM CORE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AGAINST
MAVOR AND NELSON (1997) WIRELINE LOG ESTIMATION............................................................... 189
FIGURE 5.7 COMPARISON BETWEEN CORE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AGAINST ROGERS (2007) WIRELINE LOG
ESTIMATION. ................................................................................................................................... 189
FIGURE 5.8 COMPARISON BETWEEN CORE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AGAINST CALVERT ET AL. (2011)
WIRELINE LOG ESTIMATION. ............................................................................................................ 190
FIGURE 5.9 COMPARISON BETWEEN CORE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AGAINST W METHOD WIRELINE LOG
ESTIMATION. ................................................................................................................................... 191
FIGURE 5.10 COMPARISON BETWEEN CORE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AGAINST V METHOD WIRELINE LOG
ESTIMATION. ................................................................................................................................... 191
FIGURE 5.11 CORE RECIPROCAL CORE DENSITY AGAINST AS ANALYSED GAS CONTENT IN THE LOWER
JUANDAH. ....................................................................................................................................... 192
FIGURE 5.12 CORE RECIPROCAL DENSITY AGAINST AS ANALYSED GAS CONTENT AND PRESSURE IN THE
LOWER JUANDAH USED IN METHOD W FOR GAS ESTIMATION. ........................................................ 193
FIGURE 5.13 ORGANIC MATTER IN V/V AGAINST AS ANALYSED GAS CONTENT USED IN THE LOWER
JUANDAH IN METHOD V FOR GAS ESTIMATION. ............................................................................... 193
FIGURE 5.14 RECIPROCAL DENSITY AND PRESSURE AGAINST AS ANALYSED GAS CONTENT IN THE LOWER
JUANDAH USED IN METHOD WP FOR GAS ESTIMATION. ................................................................... 194
FIGURE 5.15 ORGANIC MATTER AND PRESSURE AGAINST AS ANALYSED GAS CONTENT (V/V) IN THE LOWER
JUANDAH USED IN METHOD VP FOR GAS ESTIMATION..................................................................... 194
xiii
FIGURE 5.16 PLOTS OF GAS CONTENT FROM CORE ANALYSIS AGAINST ESTIMATED TOTAL GAS CONTENT
ESTIMATED USING THE MAVOR AND NELSON (1997). ..................................................................... 195
ESTIMATED USING THE ROGERS (2007). .......................................................................................... 195
ESTIMATED USING THE CALVERT ET AL. (2011). ............................................................................. 196
ESTIMATED USING W METHOD. ....................................................................................................... 197
ESTIMATED USING V METHOD. ........................................................................................................ 197
ESTIMATED USING WP METHOD. ..................................................................................................... 198
ESTIMATED USING VP METHOD. ...................................................................................................... 198
FIGURE 5.23 PLOTS OF GAS CONTENT FROM CORE ANALYSIS AGAINST ESTIMATED COAL GAS CONTENT
ESTIMATED USING THE ROGERS (2007). .......................................................................................... 199
ESTIMATED USING THE CALVERT ET AL. (2011). ............................................................................. 199
ESTIMATED USING W METHOD. ....................................................................................................... 200
ESTIMATED USING V METHOD. ........................................................................................................ 200
ESTIMATED USING WP METHOD. ..................................................................................................... 201
ESTIMATED USING VP METHOD. ...................................................................................................... 201
FIGURE 5.29 AN EXAMPLE OF WIRELINE DATA ROGERSS, MAVORS AND CALVERTS INTERPRETATION IN
A MULTIPLE COAL BED BEARING ZONE IN WELL 3. ........................................................................... 202
FIGURE 5.30 AN EXAMPLE OF WIRELINE DATA INTERPRETATION IN A MULTIPLE COAL BED BEARING ZONE
IN WELL 3 USING W AND WP METHODS. ......................................................................................... 203
xiv
FIGURE 5.31 AN EXAMPLE OF WIRELINE DATA INTERPRETATION IN A MULTIPLE COAL BED BEARING ZONE
IN WELL 3 USING V AND VP METHODS. ........................................................................................... 204
FIGURE 5.32 BASIC TWO STEP WORKFLOW METHODOLOGY TO ESTIMATE NET COAL (AS DEBATED IN
CHAPTER 4) AND IN SITU GAS CONTENT WITH INPUT OF WIRELINE LOGS AND CORE AND CORE
ANALYSIS DATA. ............................................................................................................................. 207
xv
Chapter 2
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1. Preamble
Unconventional gas reservoirs are expected to play a vital role in providing
worldwide secure sources of energy. In the last two decades the global gas market has
focussed on unconventional gas resources to fulfil a worldwide increasing energy
demand (Ahlbrandt, 2002; International Energy Agency, 2013). With experience gained
in the last few years, investigating the possible development of unconventional
reservoirs, such as shale gas or coal seam gas, promising projects have emerged around
the world. At the present time natural gas is the third largest global energy source.
Global exploration of natural gas continues to grow, fuelled by increasing consumption
and because it is considered to be a cleaner energy source compared to other fossil fuels
(Unconventional Energy Resources", 2011). Local activity is expected to increase but
depends on availability of the resource and knowledge of how these reservoirs behave.
Coalbed methane (CBM) or Coal seam gas (CSG) is a natural gas source formed by
geological and biological processes and associated with coal seams. CSG resources
typically lie in non-mined or unlikely-to-be-mined coal seams. Natural gas,
predominantly methane, is stored by sorption as opposed to compression as in
conventional reservoirs. Sorption provides a much greater storage capacity at shallow
depths, and accessible production from coal at shallow depth looks attractive in a global
market. Possible usage includes electric power generation, industrial processes and
industrial and domestic heating. Furthermore, CSG is considered a clean fuel because
its combustion releases low emissions of oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. Compared to
the combustion of coal or oil, it has limited carbon dioxide per unit of energy as a by-
1
Chapter 2
product, benefitting the environment with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to
the atmosphere (Ahmed et al., 2009; Moore, 2012).
Humans have a long history of exploring coal as a cheap accessible source of energy.
More recently, over the last 3 decades, coal has been targeted for its ability to generate
and sustain significant reserves of methane gas. Exploration has benefitted from the
accumulated knowledge and has adopted evaluation techniques from coal mining,
where for example the units used for the gas content in coal are still m3/tonne,
expressing the gas volume per mass of rock. Now coal seams that are not targeted for
mining purposes are being drilled for coal seam gas with the best examples found in the
United States (San Juan and Black Warrior Basins) and Australia (Surat and Bowen
Basins).
In coal mining wireline logging tools have been used to estimate thickness and coal
quality by knowing the physical properties of coal are typically low density, low natural
gamma ray emissions and highly electrical resistivity. In CSG, gas-in-place estimation
also relies on special core analysis, where in situ gas content and sorption capacity are
amongst the properties measured. Permeability is determined by production history
analysis or by pressure transient tests. Hence, to evaluate coal as a methane reservoir
the geologist needs to analyse these data and establish correlations between within it so
CSG reservoir development can be assessed (Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Rogers, 2007;
Seidle, 2011).
CSG projects always have challenging factors related to understanding coal as a
reservoir. Difficulties appear in calculating fundamental parameters including reservoir
area, thickness, coal permeability, in situ gas content analysis and ultimately in gas-in-
place estimation. This research project exposes the challenges of CSG formation
evaluation by studying coal and coal bed properties through downhole logs, core data
2
Chapter 2
and production test results. The project demonstrates that, while using techniques
already in practice, novel interpretations can still improve and optimise the
petrophysical analysis of CSG gas-in-place estimation.
1.2. Structure and Aims of the thesis
The overall aim of this thesis is to determine the best strategy for the petrophysical
analysis of coal and coal seam gas. This objective is reached by petrophysical analyses
of a dataset, which includes downhole logs, core data and drill stem test results, from
numerous coal beds of the Walloon Sub-group coal seams, towards a better
understanding of wireline logs, gas content estimation and methane producibility. The
dataset were kindly provided by BG group, but inevitably the range of data available
(provided) limits the direction and extent of the research presented here.
This thesis first describes the origin and the physical and chemical nature of coal, in
Chapter 2. Also in the same Chapter an overview of the measurements analysed and
the study area where the dataset was acquired is provided. After this introductory
chapter the following three chapters focus on testing scientific questions.
In Chapter 3 while trying to answer the questions below a dataset gathered from the
Walloon Sub-group coal beds was analysed. These coals are well accepted to be a part
of the non-marine Jurassic super sequence K of the Surat Basin, being made of laterally
discontinuous high-volatile sub-bituminous coal seams (Crosdale, 2004; Hoffmann et
al., 2009; Papendick et al., 2011; Scott et al., 2007).
Martin et al., (2013) has divided the Walloon Sub-group coal seams in terms of
thickness by dividing them into two major groups (Class I and II) indicating that studies
are still needed to understand coal type distribution and cleat development for a more
refined petrophysical and gas production potential understanding. Hamilton et al.,
3
Chapter 2
(2012) and Scott et al., (2007) show that, like other CSG Basins, there is no single
explanatory model that can indicate the gas content of the coals at a regional scale
beyond what is observed locally.
Coal is usually analysed as part of separate reservoirs or coal seams and not as
distinct lithotypes (Calvert et al., 2011; Kabir et al., 2011). There is a general lack of
published information not only regarding the nature of coal lithotypes found in the
Walloon Sub-group but also how they influence the petrophysical properties of the coal
seams and gas producibility in CSG.
Question 1:
What is the nature of the Walloon Sub-group coal beds regarding their
composition, thickness and fracture system?
Question 2:
How are the different coal lithotypes reflected in the petrophysical
properties?
A critical parameter to be estimated when drilling for CSG is coal thickness or net
coal. Due to the low mineral content and high organic nature of coal, the standard
approach used to quantify coal thickness is based on the low density of organic matter
compared to other minerals. This approach can be applied to the density wireline log
interpretation. Nevertheless the thin nature of the coal seams that CSG exploration most
frequently targets worldwide leads to difficulties defining what should be considered
net coal in this way, and is one of the major sources of error in estimating gas-in-place
analysis with consequent significant impact in productivity forecast (Lagendijk and
Ryan, 2010; Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Nelson, 1999; Zuber and Olszewski, 1992).
4
Chapter 2
Economic viability of CSG exploration relies on drilling a large number of wells
compared to conventional oil & gas resources because of the variability in coal seams
laterally. Formation evaluation of these wells is done by interpreting standard wireline
log measurements. In addition to the primary nuclear and acoustic tools, different types
of resistivity tools are also run. Several interpretations have been given to the different
resistivity log responses provided by these tools. Samworth and Cherrie (1976)
identified that the focused electric log response had a different character to the short
spaced density log, giving a possible explanation to the higher sensitivity to moisture of
the resistivity measuring tool. Hoyer, (1991) and Yang et al. (2006) have assumed that
the response character of the laterolog and the spherically focused logs is associated
with permeability and porosity found in cleats (fractures) in coal respectively. Due to its
poor vertical resolution Induction logs are often considered to be inadequate for thin
beds and coal seam gas (Colson, 1991; Mavor et al., 1990a; Samworth and Cherrie,
1976; Yang et al., 2006)
Following this discussion of which coal features most influence wireline resistivity
readings in CSG wells, a novel approach is tested in Chapter 4 with the aim of creating
an improved economically-viable way to estimate net coal thickness using deep and
shallow penetrating resistivity measurements in coal.
Question 3:
What is the accuracy of estimating net coal thickness in thinly bedded
coal seams using density logs and other downhole standard wireline
measurement?
Question 4:
Can resistivity measurements be used to improve net coal estimation
both in cored and production wells?
5
Chapter 2
As part of the process for determining the optimal strategy for the petrophysical
analysis of coal seam gas, after the estimation of net coal thickness, the natural next
step is to determine in situ gas content. The interpretation of core analysis methods
establishes the relationship(s) with gas content that are later applied downhole through
the evaluation of downhole measurements. Based uniquely on core analysis or together
with wireline measurements, several authors have established (over the last 40 years)
procedures to estimate in situ gas content (Calvert et al., 2011; Colson, 1991; Hamilton
et al., 2012; Kempton and Peeters, 1977; Kim, 1977; Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Mavor
et al., 1990a; Mullen, 1989, 1988; Nelson, 1999; Rogers, 2007). These techniques
depend on relationships between gas content in coal with coal properties such as rank,
core density, core reciprocal of density and coal composition (namely ash content).
These relationships inevitably have a degree of uncertainty due to the heterogeneous
nature of coal and also due to the limitations associated with core and wireline log
measurements.
To constrain the analysis and improve the estimation of error in the in situ gas
content using wireline measurements, Chapter 5 investigates previous published
techniques and constructs an improved methodology. To do so core analysis and
wireline measurements were interpreted to answer the following questions:
Question 5:
What is the level of error in the estimation of in situ gas content using
published methodologies?
Question 6:
Can a methodology be created to optimize the estimation of in situ gas
content?
Chapter 6 summarises the most important aspects and conclusions of this work by
addressing the results to the questions posed here, which in themselves are presented in
more detail in chapters 3 to 5. Recommendations for further research are also proposed.
6
Chapter 2
CHAPTER 2 CSG Geological and
technical background
2.1. Coal Seam Gas

Coal Seam Gas (CSG) also known as Coalbed Methane (CBM), is the designation of
coal as a natural gas source, with a unique mechanism of gas storage (Harpalani and
Schraufnagel, 1990a). In contrast to coal mining, where coal is the target energy source,
CSG exploits only the gas the coal stores.
It is designated as unconventional gas resource due to the different way gas is
extracted compared to conventional clastic or carbonate rocks. Due to past mining and
oil & gas exploration in many Basins worldwide, the location of coal deposits, their
structure, stratigraphy and, to a certain degree, their thickness are relatively well known
(Figure 2.1). Most of the worlds CSG resources lie in seams that have not yet been
mined, or are unlikely to be developed. A CSG reservoir is an intensively stratified
continuous gas accumulation stretched along a relatively large geographic area, usually
termed a fairway (Creedy et al., 2001; Moore, 2012). Wells are drilled onshore typically
reaching shallower depths than in conventional gas reservoirs (Hewitt, 1984; Nelson,
2000a). Today, commercially viable exploitation of these resources are largely confined
to the USA (San Juan, Black Warrior, Powder River and Central Appalachian Basins)
and Australia (Surat and Bowens Basins). While in the USA the gas is mostly used as a
local domestic source of natural gas, although Australia are pioneering the export of
methane from CSG reserves (Bradshaw et al., 2012; Weijermars, 2012).
7
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Worldwide coal bed methane reserves.

Darker shading indicates coal in outcrop or subcrop (from Ahmed et al., 2009).
Besides being unconventional in an exploration point of view coal stores gas in a
different way to a conventional gas reservoir, combining three elements typical of a
hydrocarbon reservoir system. A coal seam in CSG is the source rock, the reservoir and
the seal, in a single rock formation (Faiz et al., 1992; Nelson, 2000b). As discussed in
the following chapter, and as Jones et al. (1988) and Kim (1977) have shown, coal is a
solid, usually highly microporous, highly complex, heterogeneous rock (Koenig and
Stubbs, 1986; Wold et al., 1995). The coal matrix creates conditions that allow higher
volumes of methane gas to be stored in a rock type with limited total porosity (Table
2.1). Molecules of the gas are physically bonded (adsorbed) to the walls of pores found
within the coal matrix (Curl, 1978; Gray, 1987a). These molecules can also be found,
although in much less quantities, within the fracture network as free gas or in water
solute (Levine, 1992a).
The following chapters debate the main challenges faced today in CSG formation
evaluation. It is not a challenge to find gas, but rather to find significant accumulations
with sufficient natural permeability, for it to be commercially viable. The estimation of
8
Chapter 2
reservoir volume, and thus the gas-in-place, is challenging due to the limited thickness
and uncertain lateral continuity of the coal beds normally associated with this type of
reservoir. Also permeability provided by natural fractures is an additional significant
uncertainty. In CSG Basins, these uncertainties can only be quantified by a drilling,
coring, wireline logging and production test programs (Mavor et al., 1990b) forms the
data source of this study.
Reservoir Type Permeability (md) Porosity (%)

Tight Gas Sand <0.1 6 - 12
Unconventional Shale Gas 0.001 0.01 2 -8
Coal Seam Gas 0.1 5 1 - 10
Sandstone 0.5 2900 6 - 35
Conventional
Carbonate 0.1 2200 3 - 30
Table 2.1 Modified table from Gaurav et al. ( 2012) and Ehrenberg and Nadeau (2005).
2.2. From Peat to Coal
Compositionally, coal is comprised of organic and inorganic components that have
undergone a process of diagenesis of the original organic material deposited in the peat.
Plants provide the material that later influence humic coal characteristics such as
porosity, gas content and the degree of cleating (coal fractures). The continuous
transformation of plant material from peat, to what we consider today as coal, is known
as coalification, a process that can be divided into biochemical and geochemical stages.
The main agents during the early stages of coalification (the biochemical stage:
biogenesis) are biological (Kim, 1978). The low drainage rate and lack of fresh water
help to create an acidic, low oxygen environment suited to anaerobic microbial
communities that minimise decomposition and aid the accumulation of carbonaceous
material. Originally deposited vegetation type compounds, mainly lignin and cellulose,
give origin to the microscopically recognizable organic components in coal called
macerals. With continued deposition of overlying inorganic sediments, the biochemical
9
Chapter 2
phase ends at depths of the order of several hundred metres, where percolating water
supplying microorganisms with nutrients is no longer available. The degree of
maturation is referred to as coal rank, and at this point coal can be already classified as
lignite up to sub-bituminous (Langenberg et al., 1990; Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2 Coalification stages during coal generation.
As coalification enters the geochemical stage, the sediment undergoes diagenesis
driven primarily by temperature (thermogenesis) and to a lesser extent pressure
(Rightmire, 1984). With increasing depth, the plant material is transformed by releasing
volatile matter (water, carbon dioxide and light hydrocarbons, including methane) and
becoming progressively enriched in carbon and structurally more homogenous (Kim,
1978; Langenberg et al., 1990; Teichmller and Teichmller, 1968). If the whole
10
Chapter 2
coalification range is complete the coal reaches the highest rank and is classified as a
meta-anthracite.
As coal formation is a dynamic process, with a great variety of factors involved,
there is no single molecular structure that can represent a coal molecule; the
heterogeneity in structure and composition is simply too great. The only credible
description of a coal molecule is a simplified structure formed by clusters of aromatic
rings with weaker links between them that break thermally during coalification (Kim,
1977; Figure 2.3). As coalification progresses, the coal molecules realign liberating
volatiles (CO2, CH4 and H2O) and hydrocarbon in continuous process.
Figure 2.3 Changes in the chemical and physical properties of coal with increasing rank.
Modified from Teichmller and Teichmller (1968).
11
Chapter 2
2.3. Coal Petrographical Characteristics
2.3.1. Lithotypes
The macroscopically recognizable beds in humic coals beds are called lithotypes.
They are indicative of variations in composition, conditions during deposition and
biochemical maturation of coal (Hower et al., 1990; Stach et al., 1982; Stracher et al.,
2010; Taylor et al., 1998). The macroscopic appearance of humic coal is usually brown
to grey to black, with a banded appearance due to accumulation of duller and brighter
coal laminae (Gamson and Beamish, 1991; Gamson et al., 1993; Thomas, 2002). Each
bed represents different physical and chemical characteristics. Brown coals generally
have a low rank (lignite and subbituminous coals), whereas black coals generally have a
higher rank (from bituminous to anthracite coals). Lithotypes to be recognised as such
must be at least 1cm thick; if smaller these are considered as bright or dull coal laminae
(Langenberg et al., 1990). The more bands a coal has the more variable is its
composition (Hower and Wagner, 2012), indicating changes in type and percentages of
maceral (organic) and mineral (inorganic) components.
For the purpose of this study, the Australian standard system for classification was
followed (AS 2916-2007). This classification defines coals as bright and dull, whereas
under the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) classification scheme,
the same coals would be classed as vitrain and fusain respectively; thus the reader
should beware comparisons using different terminology. The classification schemes and
terminology are compared in Table 2.2. The categories with which the Australian
standard is defined are composed of major and minor constituents of bright to dull
layers in each coal bed. In addition to these categories, there is also the designation of
stony coal for highly impure coal types rich in inorganic components. An example
core and its description are shown in Figure 2.4. It should be noted, that it is not
12
Chapter 2
expected for each lithotype to have a completely uniform composition, even when
showing identical macroscopic appearance (Cao et al., 2011). Although the
identification of lithotypes can considerably aid a better understanding of coal facies
and its characteristics at the regional scale (Lamberson et al., 1991).
(Stopes, 1919) (Schopf, 1960) ASTM standard (1978) Australian standard

Vitrain Vitrain Bright
Clarain Bright
Moderately bright Bright minor dull
Durain Attrital coal Mid. Lustre Dull and bright
Moderately dull Dull banded
Dull Banded Dull minor bright
Fusain Fusain Dull
Impure coal Bone coal Stony or Shaley
Table 2.2 Macroscopic description of coals.
13
Chapter 2
Figure 2.4 Examples of special core analysis tested samples description followed in this research. Pictures provided by the operator.
14
Chapter 2
2.3.2. Macerals
Macerals are organic components and correspond to minerals in inorganic rocks.
They originate from plant material remains and are the primary constituent of coal. The
formation of macerals in the early stages of coalification depends on the local plant
community, climatic and ecological controls, and the depositional environment. There
are three major maceral groups: vitrinite, inertinite and liptinite group (Table 2.3). Each
of these groups contains subgroups with similarities of origin, composition and optical
properties (Diessel, 1992). Dyrkacz and Horwitz (1982) and Dyrkacz and Bloomquist,
(1992) concluded that members of the liptinite group give coal lower densities than
other macerals. Several publications have defended the following sequence of maceral
group density Liptinite<Vitrinite<Inertinite (Choi et al., 1987; Parkash et al., 1983;
Stankiewicz et al., 1994; Taulbee et al., 1989). The organic matter of a coal bed is made
of different macerals due to the fact that coals originating from different vegetation
tissues mixed together in the plants body. These later on give form to a mix of different
macerals that can only be distinguishing using a microscope. These macerals groups
have each their particular density since each maceral originated from a different tissue
(Table 2.3). Another factor contributing to the heterogeneity of coal is the fact that each
maceral matures differently. Dyrkacz and Horwitz (1982) for example concluded that a
motive for the broad variability of liptinite density compared to vitrinite group is the
significant chemical structure changes occurring with maturation. The properties of the
major maceral groups are described in turn below:
15
Chapter 2
Vitrinite
Vitrinite is typically the most abundant maceral in coal, the most homogeneous and
the more conducive to form a natural fracture system (Ahmed et al., 1991; Nelson,
2000a; Paterson et al., 1992). It is in part formed by the remains of lignin, an
amorphous polymeric substance that gives structure to the plant cell wall in conjunction
with cellulose. Vitrinite is chemically richer in oxygen than liptinite macerals and
therefore indicative of high accommodation rates and rapid deposition of the original
plant material (Cohen and Spackman, 1972; Diessel, 1992). High vitrinite content gives
the coal a bright appearance due to extensive changes caused by coalification
(gelification phase) that also leads to its homogeneous structure. Harris and Yust (1976)
analysed high-volatile bituminous coal samples using electron microscopy, and
concluded that vitrinite has the smallest range in diameter (between 2nm and 20nm),
comprising the majority of smaller particles in coal. Due to its highly microporous
structure, vitrinite rich coals are also shown to have the slowest desorption rates if it
does not have an extensively developed fracture system (Clarkson and Bustin, 1997;
Crosdale et al., 1998).
16
Chapter 2
Liptinite
Liptinite, also called exinite, originates as spores, pollen, resins, oils, algae and
waxes. Liptinite macerals have chemical structures high in hydrogen compared to other
macerals (Cohen and Spackman, 1972; Diessel, 1992). In contrast to vitrinite, liptinite
has more resistance to mechanical degradation, since in this case the original plant
material was in part meant for reproductive dispersal. They are also more resilient to
oxidative degradation, so a high liptinite coal is associated with slow deposition rate
with original biological material exposed to oxidising mire acrotelm before
accommodation (Petersen et al., 1998; Taylor and Liu, 1987).
Inertinite
Though originating from the same material as other maceral groups, inertinite
macerals are the oxidized or charcoaled remains of cell walls, having been exposed to
forest fires, bacterial action and oxidation prior to coalification. It is therefore high in
carbon but contains less hydrogen than other maceral groups. As coal matures, it loses
porous volume, though this depends on the maceral constitution (Unsworth et al.,
1989). Inertinite undergoes the least volume change as coal matures, and adds the most
macroporosity to coal of the three principal maceral groups. Using electron microscopy
techniques in high-volatile bituminous coals, Harris and Yust (1981, 1976) observed
that inertinite create pores of 5 to 60nm. It is also the hardest of the macerals and the
least likely to form a good fracture system (Ahmed et al., 1991). Although having less
cleats this maceral type is known to have higher gas diffusivity due to the larger
macropore volume (Clarkson and Bustin, 1997; Crosdale et al., 1998; Karacan and
Okandan, 2001; Unsworth et al., 1989).
17
Chapter 2
Maceral Maceral
Definition/Origin Maceral
group Subgroup
Textinite
Intact cell walls that may or not be visible. From
Texto-ulminite
Telovitrinite the parenchymatous and woody tissues of roots,
stems, barks and leaves. Eu-ulminite
Telocollinite
Isolated of as cemented fine grained macerals, Attrinite
Vitrinite
Detrovitrinite originated from strong decay of parenchymatous Densinite
and woody tissues of roots, stems and leaves. Desmocollinite
Void filling of vitrinitic material. Precipitated Corpogelinite
Gelovitrinite content of plant cells or humic fluids during decay Porigelinite
and diagenesis. Eugelinite
Spores and pollen grains. Sporinite
Cuticles of leaves, roots, stems, needle and shoots. Cutinite
Resins, fats, waxes and oils. Resinite
Degradation residues. Liptodetrinite
Algae. Alginite
Liptinite Cork cell walls. Suberinite
From Vegetable oils. Fluorinite
From hydrogenated substances and Liptinite
macerals.
Exsudatinite
Degradation product from algae, bacterial,
zooplankton.
Bituminite
Partly combustion or biological oxidation of plant
material.
Fusinite
Telo-inertinite Partial oxidized plant material. Semifusinite
Inertinite Mostly fungal remains. Sclerotinite
Redeposited inertines. Inertodetrinite
Detro-inertinite
Degradation of macerals during coalification. Micritine
Gelo-inertinite Oxidized gel material. Macrinite
Table 2.3 Maceral analysis classification following the Australian Standards (AS 2856.1-
2000, AS 2856.2-1998, AS 2856.3-2000, AS 2856-1986).
2.3.3. Cleat system & Permeability

Besides its remarkable capacity to store gas, coal has another attribute that
differentiates it from other sedimentary rocks, which is the capacity to develop closely
spaced cleats at nearly all ranks of maturity. Natural fractures, or cleats, are a result of
the original material found in the peat and the physical and chemical changes which the
coal undergoes during its maturation (Nelson, 2000; Ting, 1977). Coal volume and
mass decrease due to water drainage and devolitisation during maturation, enhancing
the coal bed fracture system (Anderson et al., 2003; Rodrigues and Lemos de Sousa,
18
Chapter 2
2002; Stach et al., 1982). Coal with low mineral content has been observed to have a
larger cleat spacing, indicating how the geochemical transformations during coal
maturation such as shrinkage are important to cleat development (Kendall and Briggs,
1933; Stach et al., 1982). While vertical shrinkage of coal is accommodated downward
by boundary formations, horizontally there are no lateral movements of accommodation
creating vertical spaces (cleats) within the coal beds. Moreover, as coal undergoes
deformation, the regional minimum stress orientation promotes cleat formation by
folding, cooling and uplifting the coal seam (Barton et al., 1997; Ward, 1984). For
example, Enever and Hennig (1997) concluded that the in situ stress regime has a
strong influence on hydraulic conductivity of fracture networks and consequently coal
permeability in Australia. Considering that the regional stress field is normally
anisotropic, these vertical fractures will form normal to the direction of minimum
horizontal compressive stress (Gash et al., 1992).
Cleats form two sets: face cleats sets; the oldest and more continuous, and butt
cleats; less continuous and ending in contact with face cleats (Dron, 1925; Kulander and
Dean, 1993; Laubach and Tremain, 1991). They are orthogonal between each other and
both perpendicular to the bedding (Figure 2.5a), with no significant offset parallel to
the cleat wall and have apertures of less than 0.1mm at surface conditions (Kulander et
al., 1990; Laubach et al., 1998). Macro and micro fractures may be also present. Macro
(master) fractures, are joints and faults that cross the coal seam regardless of the
different lithotypes and non-coal interbeds (Figure 2.5b). Microfractures, not visible to
the naked eye, are considered to be the most recent to form (Figure 2.5c). Master
fractures are relatively rare in coal seams, especially if their numbers are compared
against cleats and smaller fractures, appearing randomly throughout a well regardless of
the type or rank of the coal bed (Dawson and Esterle, 2010; Wold and Jeffrey, 1999).
19
Chapter 2
Cleat horizontal connectivity, depends on the frequency of all cleats (macro to micro)
while vertical connectivity is usually limited by the boundaries between coal lithotypes.
a) b)
c)
Figure 2.5 Coal matrix and natural fracture network.

a) The primary cleat patters in plain view from Laubach et al. (1998);
b) Natural fractures hierarchies in cross-section view from Laubach and Tremain (1991);
c) Top side view of coal matrix and fracture network from King et al. (1986).
Cleat attributes can be relatively uniform at the regional scale but also can change
abruptly vertically and laterally between short spaced wells (Dron, 1925; Kendall and
20
Chapter 2
Briggs, 1933). The cleat spacing is a fundamental physical reservoir characteristic, as it
directly determines the permeability and the friability of the coal bed. Cleat spacing is
considered to be a function of various factors that may or may not change from coal bed
to coal bed, such as coal lithotype, coal rank and coal composition (Clarkson and
Bustin, 1997; Close and Mavor, 1991; Close, 1993; Nelson, 2000a). Similar to gas
content, rank is the primary factor influencing cleat development. It is well recognised
that cleat spacing decreases from lignite to medium volatile bituminous coal and
increases throughout anthracite rank (Ammosov and Eremin, 1963; Ting, 1977).
Nonetheless, coals with identical rank often have very different cleat spacing. Whilst
describing Bowen Basin coal beds, Gamson et al. (1993) registered that the spacing of
the cleats is associated with one individual bed, therefore both sets terminate at the coal
bed boundaries and are non-pervasive. Moreover, since the physical and chemical
nature of the coal changes from coal bed to coal bed vertically, the fracture
development may also change dramatically even for closely spaced coal beds (Clarkson
and Bustin, 1997; Dawson and Esterle, 2010; Tremain et al., 1991). This is in line with
publications which suggest that cleat spacing is dependent on coal composition and type
(Daniels et al., 1996). For instance, bright coal has a smaller cleat spacing than dull
lithotypes (Kendall and Briggs, 1933; Stach et al., 1982). Publications such as Close
and Mavor, (1991), Spears and Caswell (1986) and Tremain et al. (1991) contradict this
however, and suggest that cleat spacing in identical rank coals is linearly proportional to
coal bed thickness regardless of composition or coal type. Cleats may be filled,
partially filled or have no clay, calcite, quartz or pyrite filling, varying within close
spaced beds. These authigenic minerals found in cleats or fractures can block gas flow
pathways or in contrast preserve at least part of the cleat space (Daniels and Altaner,
1990; Daniels et al., 1996; Hatch et al., 1976; Spears and Caswell, 1986).
21
Chapter 2
2.4. Coal as a Gas reservoir
2.4.1. Coal gas origin

The economical interest in CSG comes from its gas producing potential. This gas
can have two primary origins: biogenic and thermogenic (Figure 2.6).
The first methane generated from coal is of methane biogenic origin. As coalification
starts, carbon dioxide and water are the first volatiles generated from coal. They are
generated while subsidence has not yet reached temperatures between 100-150C
(Clayton, 1998; Rightmire, 1984). Very little thermogenic methane is generated below
these temperatures. Methane generation begins in the lignite stage, although, unless
impermeable material is quickly deposited to form a trap, most of the initial biogenic
gas produced is lost due to high pressures (compaction) and/or temperatures (resulting
in devolatilisation) (Scott et al., 1994). Also, and more importantly, in post-coalification
if the coal is uplifted, secondary biogenic gas can be generated, and, under low
temperatures meteoric waters are introduced to the permeable coal beds. This provides
the conditions required for bacteria to metabolize organic components found in coal and
to generate methane and carbon dioxide. CSG production from biologic sources is
normally associated to thick immature (subbituminous) coal at shallow depths (Jones et
al., 2008; Scott et al., 1994).
Before coal reaches a bituminous stage, thermogenic gas starts being produced by
the breakup of carbon-carbon bond chains mainly from liptinite macerals (Das et al.,
1991). The genesis of gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and ethane are primary a
result of temperature increases with time (Whiticar, 1994). Large quantities of
thermogenic methane are generated in high volatile bituminous coals.
During the early stages of the coalification process, before bituminous rank, methane
is slowly generated and occupies the microporous system within the coal. After this
22
Chapter 2
phase, generated methane acts to expel gas into the macropore system (Thimons and
Kissell, 1973). The biggest reserves in CSG come from thermogenic gas, although
biogenic gas can have also economic value (Scott et al., 1994). Nevertheless there is no
clear transition between biogenic and thermogenic genesis which may result from both
being produced from the same coal seams (Ahmed et al., 2009).
Figure 2.6 Coal rank and methane generation from Ahmed et al. (2009).
2.4.2. Gas Storage

In a conventional reservoir gas is stored mainly by compression. In the case of CSG,
minimal gas content is stored by the compression of free gas in the macroporosity and
cleat network (Faiz et al., 2007). Porosity in coal depends on fracture development
which usually does not reach 5% and is water saturated (Ahmed et al., 1991; Gash et
al., 1992; Purl et al., 1991; Young et al., 1991). In CSG, methane and other gases are
stored within the coal, mainly in an adsorbed state (Curl, 1978; Gray, 1987a). The
attraction between gas molecules to a solid surface leads them to pack closer together, a
phenomenon known as sorption (Krevelen, 1981). In coal, sorption occurs when gas
molecules are bound by weak intermolecular attractions, or Van der Walls forces, to the
23
Chapter 2
organic materials (the solid surfaces) that makes up the coal (Brunauer et al., 1940;
Gregg and Sing, 1967).
The gases found in coal beds include: methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and ethane.
The principal gas produced from coal beds is methane, reaching a purity of 99%
methane in many cases (Gray, 1987a). Also, ethane and heavier saturated hydrocarbons
could be produced in very low percentages. Hydrocarbons heavier than methane are
more strongly adsorbed and stay this way unless thermal or strong solvent extraction
methods are applied (Levine, 1992a, p. 199). In contrast, nitrogen is less bound to coal
(Surez-Ruiz and Crelling, 2008), and associated with early production or widening of
fractures during production.
2.4.3. Controls on gas content

In CSG there is no currently known trend that relates the nature of coal to its
methane adsorption capacity and gas content due to the following controls:
Maturity
Rank is considered to be a critical factor and determines the methane storage
capacity (Yee et al., 1993). There are two opposing relationships published today
that relate rank with gas storage capacity. Firstly, that gas storage capacity increases
with rank due to an increase in microporosity (Clarkson and Marc Bustin, 1996; Faiz
et al., 1992; Gan et al., 1972; Prinz and Littke, 2005; Prinz et al., 2004), explaining
the direct correlation between gas storage capacity and rank identified in the Black
Warrior Basin (Carroll and Pashin, 2003; Kim, 1977) (Figure 2.7). Secondly, that
this relationship has a U shape behaviour, with a broad minimum values of gas
storage capacity found in the medium volatile bituminous stage (Ettinger et al.,
1966; Schwarzer and Byrer, 1983; Figure 2.8).
24
Chapter 2
Figure 2.7 Adsorption curves against pressure at a given rank from Kim (1977).
Figure 2.8 Trend in gas storage capacity against rank (%, Ro max) in different coal
lithotypes from Laxminarayana and Crosdale (1999).
25
Chapter 2
Porosity & surface area
Porosity volume is distinct from surface area. Pore surface area is defined by pore
size distribution and pore morphology, and these factors influence how gas is stored.
Microporosity is associated with a higher surface area (Mares et al., 2009b). Since
the sorption process is a bond with the pore surface inside the coal matrix, it is
directly related with methane adsorption capacity and may be its main controlling
factor (Clarkson and Bustin, 1999; Faiz et al., 1992; Levy et al., 1997; Mahajan and
Walker, 1978). The relative quantity of microporosity available can therefore be a
fundamental reservoir characteristic, while larger pores can be mainly seen as
important pathways or connectors to fractures and thus gas flow. CSG is usually
produced from shallow depths (less than 1000m) under lower pressures than
conventional reservoirs. In the micropores gas molecules are stored under low
pressures in high concentration with direct bonds to the surface of the pore (Mahajan
and Walker, 1978). If the coal is under high pressure, gas storage in the macropores,
besides the gas being adsorbed on the surface of the pore, is also by forming an
additional layer on top of this one. Any free gas that is present within the cleat
system will not be significant compared to the gas adsorption within the matrix.
Maceral composition
The influence of maceral composition on gas content and gas storage capacity is a
controversial subject. Ettinger et al. (1966) suggests that the greater storage capacity
of gas is due to higher inertinite composition. Creedy (1979), Lamberson and Bustin
(1993), Laxminarayana and Crosdale (1999) and Levine et al. (1995) suggest that
vitrinite has a positive impact on the adsorption capacity of coal, although pointing
out that the rank can be an inhibitor to these effects. Direct comparison between
26
Chapter 2
telocollinite (bright coal) and semifusinite (dull coal) rich coals from the Australian
Bowen Basin gave more pore volume to the inertinite but more surface area to the
vitrinite rich coal (Beamish and ODonnell, 1992; Crosdale and Beamish, 1993)
indicating the higher importance of vitrinite. Liptinite is generally considered to be
the middle maceral in terms of its affinity to store gas, although Karacan and
Mitchell (2003), Grdal and Yaln (2001) and Scott et al. (2007) stated that coal
with liptinite is associated with a higher gas content but present no arguments to
explain this observation. Opposing this other authors did not find in any systematic
way a relation between gas sorption and maceral composition (Carroll and Pashin,
2003; Faiz et al., 1992; Krooss et al., 2002; Schwarzer and Byrer, 1983) giving more
weight to the influence of rank.
Coal lithotype
In terms of gas storage capacity the influence of different lithotypes is as debatable
as maceral composition. Ettinger et al. (1966) suggest that gas yield increases with
dull bands, although brighter coal is usually associated with vitrinite-rich samples
and thus more microporous and a higher methane adsorption capability (Bustin and
Clarkson, 1998; Clarkson and Bustin, 1999; Crosdale and Beamish, 1993; Crosdale
et al., 1998; Hildenbrand et al., 2006; Lamberson and Bustin, 1993; Laxminarayana
and Crosdale, 1999; Mastalerz et al., 2004). Levine et al. (1993) also found that
brighter coal has a higher adsorption capacity than the same rank dull counterparts in
the coal of the Sydney Basin. The same author, testing coal samples from the Bowen
Basin concluded that the different gas adsorption capacity between the bright and
dull coal is minimal, vanishing in higher rank coals and a similar trend was also
found by Laxminarayana and Crosdale (1999).
27
Chapter 2
Coal composition
Moisture content is an influential factor that negatively affects gas yield and gas
storage capacity (Bustin and Clarkson, 1998; Crosdale et al., 2008; Joubert et al.,
1974; Levine et al., 1993; Levy et al., 1997; Yalin and Durucan, 1991; Yee et al.,
1993). Moisture is considered to affect gas holding capacity in coals by filling the
micropores which would otherwise be gas saturated, competing with methane for
adsorption sites, or by blocking the access of the gas into the micropores (Levy et al.,
1997; Mares et al., 2009b). There are several relationships in the literature that relate
the methane adsorption capacity of coal to moisture content following the equation
2-1:
2-1
Vd=Vm(1 + x*m)
Where:
Vd Methane storage capacity in dry coal, g/cm3
Vm Methane storage capacity in moist coal, g/cm3
x Multiplier
m Moist yield in coal, wt.%
Depending on the coals analysed, the methane storage capacity is differently affected
by moisture, changing the value imputed in the multiplier x in equation 2-1. Ettinger
et al.(1966) and Joubert et al. (1974) reported x should be 0.31 and 0.23 respectively
in different American Coals. Studying coals from the Bowen Basin Levy et al.
(1997) concluded that x should be 0.39. For example, in bituminous coal the
maximum sorption capacity of coal reaches its peak at zero moisture content and
decreases until the maximum sorption holding capacity of moisture is achieved,
known as equilibrium of moisture, at which point methane adsorption is no longer
affected (Joubert et al., 1974). In another example, analysing Bowen Basin coal
28
Chapter 2
samples, Levy et al. (1997) observed that at a pressure of 5MPa, a decrease in gas
adsorption capacity for each 1% increase of moisture content by a rate of 4.2g/cm3.
In rich vitrinite coals this could be exaggerated, as indicated by Levine (1993), and
that these macerals have a more open structure compared to others, with hydrophilic
groups able to adsorb more water molecules.
The amount of fixed carbon content is associated positively with coal maturity and is
strongly related to gas storage capacity (Faiz et al., 1992; Levy et al., 1997). There is
a generalised acceptance that ash content constrains gas content, gas generation and
even natural fracture (cleat) development (Mavor et al., 1990b; Schwarzer and Byrer,
1983; Spears and Caswell, 1986; Tremain et al., 1991). Laxminarayana and Crosdale
(1999) concluded that ash content works as a dilutent in terms of the gas adsorption
capacity of coal. Moisture and ash are undesirable in conventional coal mining and
CSG, as fixed carbon and volatile matter are the only components that could lead to
the production of energy. The sum of these two are what is called organic matter
content, and is directly related to sorption capacity and gas content (Faiz et al., 2007;
Levine, 1992a). Therefore coal quality is usually corrected from as analysed (or raw)
to a dry-ash-free basis, where the received sample mass is normalized to 100%
organic content.
Reservoir Pressure & Temperature
Reservoir pressure & temperature are both conflicting parameters when it comes to
gas storage capacity and gas content. Gas storage capacity is directly related to
pressure. As pressure increases, so should the gas storage potential. At in situ
conditions, if the gas generation occurs in coal simultaneously as reservoir pressure
is increased, i.e., if the gas is purely of thermogenic origin, and is not lost with time,
29
Chapter 2
gas content increases with reservoir pressure (Scott, 2002). In contrast, as
temperature increases, the sorption capacity of coal reduces (Khavari-Khorasani and
Michelsen, 1999; Kim, 1977; Scott, 2002; Yang and Saunders, 1985). Figure 2.7
and Figure 2.9 demonstrate these two opposing effects.
Figure 2.9 Adsorption curves against temperature at a given rank from Kim (1977).
2.4.4. Coal Gas Saturation

CSG exploration tends to focus on gas content estimation and generally disregards a
fundamental associated parameter, gas saturation. The term saturated is used when the
coal at a given pressure has the maximum gas content it can sustain. As in conventional
reservoirs, besides the fact that coal is also the source rock, gas is created in coal by
thermogenic or biogenic processes and not related with the physical structure of the
coal (Mares and Moore, 2008). Therefore gas content and gas saturation can have
distinctly different profiles downhole (Figure 2.10).
30
Chapter 2
Figure 2.10 Examples of vertical profiles of desorbed gas content.

(a) and gas adsorption capacity;
(b) from subbituminous Waikato coal seams in New Zealand from Mares et al.( 2009a).
Depending on gas saturation and reservoir pressure, coal as a reservoir will show
different production behaviours with critical economic significance (Mares et al.,
2009a; Nelson et al., 2000). Permeable coal beds that are saturated will produce gas
immediately, while on the contrary, under-saturated coals may or may not produce. If a
coal is under-saturated it can only produce when the reservoir pressure is reduced to the
point of the saturation pressure of the coal (Jenkins and II, 2008). This process of
reducing reservoir pressure is triggered by dewatering the coal, which can take days,
months or even years depending on the saturation and permeability of the coal. Gas
saturation can vary significantly with depth and laterally (Malone et al., 1987; Pashin,
2010).
Since there is no measurement today that can estimate gas saturation downhole, it
adds a significant margin of error to gas-in-place and production estimation (Mares et
al., 2009a). As will be demonstrated in CHAPTER 3, the general assumption that gas
saturation increases with depth, because of the increasing reservoir pressure, is not
31
Chapter 2
straightforward. Gas saturation can change within a coal seam group through time and
with depth (Figure 2.11). There are several possible explanations for these variations.
Sorption capacity can increase or decrease as a result of uplift, where a coals initial
saturation level can change as a result of the new conditions of pressure and
temperature (Faiz et al., 2007; Scott et al., 1994; Yang and Saunders, 1985), especially,
as both of these parameters decrease, they have opposite effects on coal sorption
capacity. If the case is of a coal that was saturated, then the gas can migrate over time to
overlying porous beds (Bachu and Michael, 2003; Bustin and Bustin, 2008; Zhang et
al., 2008) or even to other coals beds (Faiz et al., 2007). The gas content could also be
increased due to introduction of meteoric water in permeable coals creating conditions
for bacteria to thrive and form secondary biogenic gas (Faiz and Hendry, 2006; Faiz et
al., 2007).
Figure 2.11 Schematic gas generation against gas storage capacity related with depth and
time from Moore (2012).
32
Chapter 2
2.4.5. Gas flow

Desorption is observable to the naked eye when core samples are brought to the
surface and bubbles of gas form on the surface of the coal sample in a mixture of gas
and formation and borehole fluids. At this stage gas desorption test samples are selected
from the recovered core and placed in leak proof canisters. Diffusion (K) is a
fundamental process in CSG producibility, as it is the process of transportation of the
gas within the matrix, where 95% of the gas resides. In coal not yet drilled, the gas
pressure in the reservoir (matrix and fracture systems) is in equilibrium. Gas flow is
triggered by changes in concentration provoked by the drilling of nearby well until a
new equilibrium is achieved (Cervik, 1967). Desorption is the process by which gas
molecules after disconnecting from the porous surface system within the coal matrix
flow as free gas (Figure 2.12). While adsorption relates to the resource potential, the
desorption relates to the actual resource production (Ahmed et al., 1991). This
mechanism has long been considered as hazardous when mining coal, as mining works
release accumulations of methane within a coal seam, and if not prevented may lead to
fires, explosions and collapse of the mining structure (Cervik, 1967; Gray, 1980; Patton
S.B., 1996; Rightmire, 1984). In CSG exploration, desorption data is fundamental, as it
is the only analytical source to date that provides knowledge of the coal methane
charge, and allows the gas reserves to be extrapolated.
33
Chapter 2
Figure 2.12 Methane flow model through coal from (Gamson et al., 1996).
The rate at which desorbed gas leaves the matrix is a major factor in the initial stage
of gas production. The faster the gas desorption is the shorter is the time required for
gas to be produced (Swayer et al., 1987). At depth, under reservoir pressures, methane
molecules attached to coal surface pores are released from their Van der Vaals forces
and flow in complex systems of micropores (less than 2 nm diameter), mesopores
(between 2 and 50 nm) and macropores (>50nm) that the organic content and mineral
content form, before reaching the cleat system. The desorption rate depends on the
following factors:
Rank & depth
As coal increases in rank, the speed at which gas is released diminishes. As maturity
increases the microporosity becomes more dominant with a decrease in
mesoporosity and macroporosity (Gamson et al., 1996; Gan et al., 1972;
Laxminarayana and Crosdale, 1999). Desorption decreases with maturity, especially
in bright coals. The rearrangement of coal to a highly microporous structure while
losing volume is an inhibiting factor to diffusion and permeability (Krevelen, 1981;
Nandi and Walker Jr, 1970) (Figure 2.13). In addition, besides the matrix, the
natural fractures change with rank and depth. Ryan (2003) concluded that
34
Chapter 2
permeability increases with cleat development. This increase occurs up to the
pressure (depth) at which the ability of the coal matrix to withstand lithostatic
ceases, promoting the closing of the cleats and exponentially decreasing the
permeability. As a consequence, economically viable CSG prospects are usually
immature and at shallow depth (pressure).
Coal type
The coal type, composition and pore structure all have a strong influence on methane
desorption. Purely bright coal has been reported to have slower desorption rates than
their dull counterparts (Jones et al., 1988). Laxminarayana and Crosdale (1999) and
Crosdale et al. (1998) observed that in many cases dull (inertinite rich) coal beds
have desorption rates two to three times faster than bright (vitrinite rich)
equivalents. Brighter coal beds tend to be more homogeneous, not only in terms of
being more microporous because of their maceral composition, but also due to their
generally lower mineral content, which is usually dominated by macropores and
mesopores (Clarkson and Bustin, 1997; Karacan and Mitchell, 2003). Furthermore,
coal beds are likely to occur with a variable number of centimetric bedding planes
(or bands) creating an additional gas flow pathway (Gamson et al., 1996;
Laxminarayana and Crosdale, 2002; Mares and Moore, 2008).
Natural fracture network
The degree of fracture development (spacing, connectivity and width) and the
regional stress field also determine the gas flow within the coal bed (Harpalani and
Schraufnagel, 1990a, 1990b; King, 1985). Besides the complex multi scale porous
system, coal also has a multi scale cleat system with macroscopic and microscopic
35
Chapter 2
fractures, for which the interconnectivity can be observed using electron microscopy
(Gamson et al., 1996, 1993; Harris and Yust, 1976). The closer the spacing of the
cleats, the greater the number of beds fractured within a coal seam; bigger apertures
and less fracture filling will result in faster methane diffusion out of the coal. With
fewer cleats, methane will need to travel greater distances and will be less sensitive
to pressure reductions as the coal beds produce.
Figure 2.13 Estimates of percent volume decrease versus rank and temperature from Ryan
(2003).
2.5. CSG reserve & production
2.5.1. Gas-in-place estimation

To economically produce methane from coal, a knowledge of coal distribution, coal
maturity, gas content, coal natural permeability, deposition and structural setting, and,
in the case of biogenic gas production, ground water flow is needed (Scott et al., 1994).
Gas-in-place is the volume of methane stored within a defined rock volume. Four
parameters are needed to calculate the gas-in-place in CSG (Jenkins and II, 2008;
Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Nelson, 1999): coal reservoir area, gross coal reservoir
36
Chapter 2
thickness, average reservoir coal density, and average in situ methane content. The
equation (2-2) mostly used today to estimate gas-in-place is:
2-2
1359.7
c
c
Where:
G Gas-in-Place, scf
A Reservoir Area, acres
h Thickness, feet
Average in situ coal density, g/cm3
c

c Average in situ gas content, scf/ton
Its a challenge to accurately determine these parameters and they are commonly
under or overestimated. These parameters are estimated based on: structural maps,
seismic data, wireline logs, special core analysis and production well tests (Koenig and
Stubbs, 1986; Rieke III et al., 1981). Other methods can be also used, though with a
significant increase in uncertainty, such as using conventional drill cutting for core
thickness and gas content estimation (Mavor et al., 1994). Nelson, (1999), Mavor et al.
(1996) and Lagendijk and Ryan (2010) listed the main sources of error in gas-in-place
estimation that still have a impact today:
Lateral reservoir variability
Geologic heterogeneities like coal bed pinch out, compositional and permeability
changes create unexpected reservoir behaviour identified in gas and/or water
production (Nelson, 1999; Figure 2.14). Differences in mineral and moisture
content, sorption capacity of the organic content, variability of the cleat
development, thinning and thickening of coal beds all affect gas content distribution
locally and regionally (Scott, 2002).
37
Chapter 2
Figure 2.14 CSG reservoir heterogeneity.

Structural, stratigraphic and petrologic variations disrupt the lateral continuity of the coal
seams and these complicate the determination of reservoir geometry, coal permeability and the
estimation of gas in place from Mavor and Nelson (1997).
Net coal thickness estimation errors
The main source of data for determining potentially productive CSG coal beds is by
the interpretation of wireline logs. The selection of the maximum density cut-off
used to estimate the thickness of the coal bed can lead to underestimation or
overestimation depending on the approach taken to define what should be considered
as a potential methane producing reservoir (Nelson, 1999). Calculations by
Lagendijk and Ryan (2010) indicate that the uncertainty related with coal thickness
estimation has a great impact on regional development models.
Gas content errors
The in situ gas content can only be determined by measurements of gas desorbed
from fresh cut core samples. Such estimation has usually several sources of error. The
loss of gas during sample coring needs to be estimated indirectly and in situ residual gas
38
Chapter 2
can vary significantly (Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Nelson, 1999). The estimated sorption
capacity of a given coal is another source of error, especially considering that this
analysis is typically under-sampled (Mares et al., 2009a).
2.5.2. Production
Fractures are considered to be a critical factor, which if not present can jeopardise a
CSG prospect (Close, 1993; Gash et al., 1992; Gray, 1987a, 1987b; Kolesar et al.,
1990a, 1990b; Mavor et al., 1990a; Ting, 1977). For methane production to start,
reservoir pressure must be reduced. Reduction of the reservoir pressure is achieved by a
de-watering process, where producing water through the cleat system triggers gas
desorption (Sung and Ertekin, 1987). Therefore productivity in coalbed reservoirs is
associated with the distribution of natural fractures. The dominant type of movement
depends on cleat development. If the coal is highly fractured the flow is mainly caused
by pressure gradient Darcy flow, if that is not the case it is mainly a result of
concentration gradient by diffusion within the matrix (Cervik, 1967; Hemela et al.,
1982; Law et al., 2002; Wyman, 1984). The distinction of these two regimes also
depends of the pore diameter. If the reservoir structure is dominated by macroporosity,
for example, coal theoretically can be associated with the Darcian flow of a
conventional reservoir (Gray, 1987a).
There is debate as to whether the role of conducting fluids is provided exclusively by
the vertical surfaces (the face and butt cleats) (Figure 2.15a). The matchsticks model
was tested over laboratory data following the idea that the gas flow is mainly supported
by the cleat system, presuming that the bedding plane surfaces are closed by lithostatic
pressure and contribute little or nothing at all to the gas flow (Seidle et al., 1992). This
contradicts the previous cubic model associated to coal, that also included the
39
Chapter 2
bedding planes as paths of water and gas flow (Reiss, 1980) (Figure 2.15b). Gamson et
al. (1996) maintain that both models are too simplistic, stating that, besides the cleat
network and bedding planes, gas flow is also dependent on the degree of mineralization.
This is considered further in CHAPTER 3.
a)
b)
Figure 2.15 Conceptual free gas and water flow models.

a) matchstick model from Seidle et al. (1992).;
b) cubic model from Reiss (1980).
There is evidence of high variability in terms of productivity even when production
comes from vertically close spaced seams. One of the primary explanations for this is
significant changes in fracture development (Weida et al., 2005). In CSG, hydraulic
fracturing of the coal seam is usually an exceptional procedure as coal seams in CSG
wells are usually thin, vertically separated from each other and could be horizontally
discontinuous, making it sub-economical to fracture each well one by one (Jones et al.,
1988). Exceptional cases where the coal seam is targeted to run a small hydraulic
fracturing process are the ones where it has been proven to be gas saturated, relatively
thick and horizontally continuous (Koenig and Stubbs, 1986). Therefore, CSG reservoir
producibility at a regional scale needs to rely on natural factures (Arastoopour and
Chen, 1991; Cervik, 1967; Jenkins and II, 2008; Wold and Jeffrey, 1999). It is then
common practice in CSG exploration to describe coal core samples in terms of fracture
characteristics such as cleat spacing, length and mineral filling degree and type.
40
Chapter 2
Permeability over time, with production, changes in three primary ways (Guo et al.,
2007; Sparks et al., 1995). The initial permeability may depend on the saturating phase
in the cleats and the presence of methane in the microporous system. This effect is well-
known in the conventional oil and gas industry. Second, the effective stress change
during production, where decreases in fluid (water) pressure increase the effective stress
and constrain cleat width. The third mechanism that changes the natural permeability of
the coal is due to an increase in permeability with time as a result of coal matrix
shrinkage with the slippage of gas. Lama and Bartosiewicz (1982) mentioned that
although the shrinkage, even being less significant compared to the increasing effective
horizontal stress, could alleviate the horizontal stress of the vertical and sub-vertical
cleats, and therefore maintaining or even increasing the permeability. Also St. George
and Barakat (2001) stated that the desorption of methane is equivalent to a pressure
increment of more than 2.5 times the stress change over the coal bed. Equally, swelling
with gas adsorption has been well documented (Cody et al., 1988; Green and West,
1985; Gregg, 1951; Hargraves, 1963). It is presumed that both increasing/decreasing
permeability processes are happening simultaneously during production in different
parts of the coal seam (Palmer and Mansoori, 1996). Seidle et al. (1992) reported that a
decade of production did not change the coal permeability of the Oak Grove Field in the
Warrior Basin or the Cedar Hill field in the San Juan Basin, as no decreasing
permeability data were found in any literature from actual field production data. In
contrast, Harpalani and Chen (1997) and Gray (1987b) concluded that coal permeability
can increase significantly with decreasing reservoir pressure. Besides volume and stress
changes during production, other parameters such as capillary pressure and phase
relative permeability, both of which are also highly variable, make estimating CSG
41
Chapter 2
reservoir performance and permeability characteristics through time a difficult
nonlinear problem (Gray, 1987a) .
As previously mentioned, the de-watering process can take a very significant time.
The natural storage capacity of coal gives this unconventional reservoir a typical three-
stage production character (Figure 2.16). Usually, during the initial stages of
production most coal cleat systems are water saturated. As pressure decreases by water
production, gas desorbs and flows along with the water through the cleat system. CSG
therefore is actually a two-phase (gas and water) flow.
Figure 2.16 Typical coal seam gas and water production characteristics from Anderson et
al.(2003).
Normally in the first stage, initial production is almost completely dominated by water (Ried
et al., 1992; Sung and Ertekin, 1987). With a reduction of pressure and water saturation in the
cleats, the production will enter stage 2 where significant gas production starts. Stage II starts
when the critical desorption is reached, and this can lead to a significant jump in gas
production. Gas production will keep rising, reaching a stable production stage (sometimes
considered to be a separate stage). After gas production reaches its peak, in the beginning of
stage III, a slow decline phase starts.
42
Chapter 2
2.6. CSG formation evaluation

Drilling for CSG has distinctive particularities from conventional reservoir drilling
operations (Gray, 1987a). The first difference is the number of wells needed to
investigate and produce methane from coal beds. The lateral variability of coal
characteristics such as coal thickness, composition, gas content and permeability
underline the necessity for intensive drilling in what can be considered to be a relatively
small geographical area (Boyer, 2004; Johnston et al., 1991; Pashin, 1998). Wells are
commonly drilled with a spacing of less than 1km. A minimum of 5 wells are needed to
evaluate the performance of a reservoir. For a given area of the prospect, one of the five
wells will core the entire target formation. This becomes a key well, and the recovered
coal is submitted for special core analysis. The remaining four exploration wells are
used for permeability and production testing (Jenkins and II, 2008; Weida et al., 2005)
and no core is recovered. Wireline tools are generally run on all five wells and aid in the
correlation between the key well and production wells. Wells that are planned to be
cored have drilling practices that differ slightly from the drilling of a production well.
These two types of well differ in diameter, where the key wells are 3 3/4inches (9.6cm)
and the production wells are 8 1/2inches (21.6cm). Another common characteristic of
the wells is their shallow depth. Coal, although it increases its gas storage capability
with depth, loses permeability, so that CSG exploration usually only targets shallow
coal beds (Bodden and Ehrlich, 1998). Wells usually do not reach a total depth of 1km
and are drilled using underbalanced rotary-percussion methods, where despite the rapid
drilling rate, the objective is to minimise formation damage (Boyer et al., 1986; Mavor,
1994; Montgomery, 1999).
43
Chapter 2
In CSG exploration the heterogeneous nature of coal requires a series of distinct
measurements. Core analysis, together with wireline measurement and well tests
comprise the bulk of the data set for CSG formation evaluation. To predict the reservoir
behaviour and economic productivity it is necessary to relate all of these measurements
under very different measurement scales. The interpretation of all these data creates
obvious concern over production accuracy (Zuber and Olszewski, 1992). In the next
three sections the measurements relevant to CSG interpretation are scrutinised.
2.6.1. Core analysis

Core analysis data acquired for this research consist of a series of core tests which are
common practice in CSG exploration as part of the gas-in-place estimation procedure
(Mavor and Pratt, 1996). The most relevant reason for core recovery is to estimate the
in situ gas content, this can only be accurately achieved by collecting freshly cut coal
samples and placing them in desorption canisters immediately after they reach the
surface. Additionally this special core analysis determines the basic composition of the
sample, i.e. proximate analysis, maceral composition, rank and gas storage capacity
(Mavor et al., 1990a). To a certain extent, in conventional reservoirs formation
evaluation, lack of core data is often compensated by the analysis of drill cuttings. In
CSM, however, the multiple bed distribution of the coal associated with the major CSG
exploration Basins leads to this source of data (cuttings) to lose its relevance due to
difficulties in determining the sample depth origin. Also, gas content estimation is
seriously compromised due to the immediate escape of gas after the coal has been
crushed in situ by the drill bit (Mavor et al., 1990a).
44
Chapter 2
2.6.1.1. Gas Desorption Testing
Samples recovered using a slimline coring system are sealed immediately upon
retrieval at the wellsite. The gas volume released from the sample is measured with
time, over variable time periods, following the decrease in rate of desorption, starting
with two minute intervals up to a weekly basis with a maximum period set by operator
which in this case was no more than six months.
The reported total gas yield of a sample is done by adding what is normally
designated as lost gas (referred as Q1), desorbed gas (Q2) and residual gas (Q3). Q1 is
the portion of the gas lost during recovery of the core sample prior to its confinement
inside the desorption canister. Q1 is estimated through numerical analysis of measured
gas desorption rate data (MacLennan et al., 1995) and is therefore generally considered
the least reliable component of the total gas content (Diamond and Schatzel, 1998). It is
usual to find great variation in gas content in the coal core samples recovered (Jenkins
and II, 2008). The reliability of such an estimation depends on several factors including
technical issues such as: recovery time and type of drilling fluid and geological issues
such as: coal type, physical condition of the sample, water saturation, permeability, gas
yield and amount of free gas (Kissell et al., 1973; McCulloch et al., 1975). Once core is
retrieved to the surface, cut and sealed in a desorption canister, the gas desorbed is
measured directly (Q2). During this phase gas samples are taken to measure gas
composition. The desorption rate of the Q1 and Q2 is influenced, besides coal nature, by
the physical character of the retrieved sample (Kissell et al., 1973; McCulloch et al.,
1975). After the desorption test is complete the sample still contains some gas due to
low permeability/diffusivity and because at a pressure of 1 atm. coal may still hold
methane in equilibrium (Levine, 1992b). Q3 is then calculated by crushing the sample,
in a mill at the same temperature as the samples had previously desorbed, and
45
Chapter 2
measuring the gas release. Q1 and Q2 are considered to be the parts which can actually
be produced from the reservoir in contrast with Q3 which cannot (Eddy et al., 1982).
The argument of the unproducibility of residual gas is that this gas is only liberated in
the laboratory under atmospheric, thus below in situ conditions. Furthermore, as
indicated before (section 2.5.1), gas content in CSG exploration is a source of error
because of the lack of data regarding how much of the in situ gas is residual. The US
Black Warrior Basin coal samples indicated that residual gas content is usually 5 to 8%,
but it could be as high as 45% (Eddy et al., 1982). Desorption procedures cannot be
rerun, or at least if they are rerun, they are not be representative of in situ conditions,
due to changes coal properties due to oxidation, water, gas and volume loss (Clarkson et
al., 2011; Guo et al., 2007; Mavor and Gunter, 2006; Purl et al., 1991).
The gas yield is reported in raw (as received) and as dry-ash-free (d.a.f.) basis. The
raw basis is relevant to understanding the gas content considering the entire sample,
regardless of non-coal layers or moisture content. Using d.a.f. the weight of the sample
is corrected for non-coal components such as ash and moisture by considering that the
organic content is the only component that contains gas (Faiz et al., 2007). In terms of
analysis and correlations, results in d.a.f. are desirable (Scott et al., 1995) as long as the
methodology is consistent and stays faithful to the same basis. The final values of both
bases are then presented in a volume to weight ratio (m3/tonne).
46
Chapter 2
Figure 2.17 Apparatus required for desorbed gas (Q2) estimation.

Photo from http://www.spe-qld.org/useruploads/files/short_course/fes10-
01_short_course_oct_15_2010_crosdale.pdf.
2.6.1.2. Maceral Analysis
The maceral analysis is a procedure that identifies the various organic constituents of
coal (macerals), which have distinct properties when observed under transmitted or
reflected light subjected to UV-induced fluorescence (Stach et al., 1982). There are
three major maceral groups: Vitrinite, Inertinite and Liptinite group. Each of these
groups contains subgroups with similarities in origin, composition and optical
properties (Table 2.3). The vitrinite group has high reflectance compared to liptinite
and low reflectance compared to inertinite. In contrast Liptinite is associated with dull
coals, as the members of this group show low reflectance under the microscope.
Inertinite is distinguishable from both Vitrinite and Liptinite by its highest reflectance.
47
Chapter 2
The testing procedure and maceral classification in this study was done following
Australian Standards (AS 2856.1-2000, AS 2856.2-1998, AS 2856.3-2000, AS 2856-
1986).
2.6.1.3. Proximate Analysis
In the data set used in this study all core selected for desorption testing underwent
proximate analysis acquired from the operator to provide percentages of the four basic
constituents, fixed carbon, volatile matter, moisture, and ash yield of coal following the
Australian standard (AS1038.3-2000). This procedure determines coal quality which
has a determinative impact on coal as a reservoir (Bustin and Clarkson, 1998; Carroll
and Pashin, 2003; Kim, 1977; Lamberson and Bustin, 1993; Levine, 1993). This
analysis is based on relatively simple testing conditions where the distribution of the
different components of the rock is determined in three separate steps as the sample is
subjected to increasing heat under specified conditions.
The first component of coal to be estimated is moisture. This moisture can have
several sources, from the original vegetation which coal was formed, where water was
both physically and chemically bound, meteoric water later introduced, or borehole
fluid introduced while drilling (Riley, 2007). In this context moisture content
terminology refers to the results of a procedure to determine what is designated as air-
dried moisture. This is estimated by calculating the loss of weight of the sample
received in the laboratory after it has been exposed to low, slightly above ambient
temperatures. Moisture content has a negative relationship with rank, for example
subbituminous coals have very high moisture content (>25%) while bituminous coal are
known to have much lower values (<10%) (Nelson, 1999; Pratt et al., 1999; Rightmire,
48
Chapter 2
1984). Scott et al. (2007) note that as coal matures and compaction progresses moisture
is lost and therefore moisture content is expected to decrease with increasing depth.
Ash content is the fraction of non-coal material in the sample (Mavor et al., 1990b).
It is determined by weighing the remaining sample after it has gone through
combustion. It is composed of mineral matter disseminated in the coal, interbeds of
other rock types in the sample or mineral deposits inside the natural fractures. Ash
content can be more, equal to, or less than the mineral matter, depending of the nature
of the mineral matter and any chemical changes during heating (Riley, 2007). The ash
content varies widely depending on the core sample selection where the presence of
other rock type interbeds will provoke a significant ash content increment.
Volatile matter represents the components of coal liberated when it is heated at
standard conditions and a temperature of 900oC, such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide,
methane, ethane, carbon dioxide and also water vapour. Volatile materials derive from
thermal decomposition of the various components of coal during maturation, that are
only liberated if subjected to laboratory high temperatures (Langenberg et al., 1990;
Riley, 2007). Volatile matter has been associated with maceral composition of coal.
Inertinite has the lowest and liptinite the highest concentration of volatiles (Mathews et
al., 1997; Stach et al., 1982). The volatile content is calculated by loss of weight minus
the air-dried moisture.
Fixed carbon is mainly carbon and minor quantities of sulphur, hydrogen, nitrogen
and oxygen that remains after the removal of moisture, ash and volatiles. This
component is measured indirectly, by the difference of the sum of the percentages of
other components. As can be seen in Table 2.4, ASTM defines rank classes using
volatile matter and moisture in percentage of total weight and fixed carbon on a d.a.f.
basis.
49
Chapter 2
Together with proximate analysis, moisture, ash, volatile matter and fixed carbon,
two other physical properties are measured, relative density and sample volume. The
sample volume is calculated by the difference between the empty desorption test
canister volume and the headspace volume. Also designated as core density or apparent
density, relative density is determined by weight loss of the original core sample when
immersed in water (AS1038.3-2000; Calvert et al., 2011; Mavor and Nelson, 1997;
Thomas, 2002). Although there is variable air remaining inside the core analysed, this is
the closest measurement to what could be considered true density. Helium expansion
density is also a standard measurement in special core analysis in CSG exploration.
This measurement is associated with adsorption isotherm determination and therefore
the sample tested in this case is a pre-crushed composite of several samples from the
same seam.
Up to 5 gram sample size
Figure 2.18 Thermogravimetric Analyzer used for the proximate analysis estimation.
50
Chapter 2
Vitrinite reflectance Volatile matter Moisture

Coal rank
(Ro max) (wt.% dmmf) (wt.%)
Class Group
Peat
75
Lignite B
Lignitic
Lignite A 35
0.42
Sub-bituminous C
Sub-bituminous Sub-bituminous B 25
Sub-bituminous A
0.50 8 - 10
High-volatile C bituminous
High-volatile B bituminous
0.75
Bituminous High-volatile A bituminous
1.12 31
Medium volatile bituminous
1.51 22
Low volatile bituminous 14
1.92
Semi-anthracite 8
2.50
Anthracitic Anthracite
2
Meta-anthracite
Table 2.4 ASTM rank classification of coal approximate boundary values from Stach et al.
(1982) and Ward (1981).
2.6.1.4. Adsorption Langmuir Isotherm Analysis
The most common model used to relate storage capacity of coal, pressure and
moisture is the Langmuir Isotherm and isotherm analysis has become essential practice
in CSG exploration worldwide (Mavor and Nelson, 1997). Gas sorption capacity of coal
contributes to knowledge of gas storage capacity and the gas saturation of the reservoir,
the pressure at which the gas is released, the amount of methane produced as pressure is
reduced and the remaining gas when the reservoir is abandoned. Samples are tested at
increasing pressures including at in situ conditions, up to 10MPa, at equilibrium of
moisture and at constant (reservoir) temperature. The shape of the curve is used to
predict production performance from a coal as the reservoir pressure is reduced (Figure
2.19). Analysis of the data is performed by presuming that the sample is representative
of a typical Langmuir isotherm curve (equation 2-3). Based on work by Langmuir
51
Chapter 2
(1918) the experiment focuses on the nature of gas adsorption onto solid surfaces;
Langmuir pressure is the pressure value at which gas capacity equals 50% of the
maximum storage capacity (Langmuir volume), and is an important indicator of the
shape of an isotherm.
2-3
P
s sL1 a m
PL + P
Where:
GS Gas storage capacity, m3/ton
GsL Dry, ash-free Langmuir storage capacity, m3/ton
P Pressure, psia
PL Langmuir pressure constant, psia
a Ash content, fraction
m Moisture content, fraction
Equation 2-3 represents the adsorption of a given gas, methane alone or together
with other gases (called an extended Langmuir isotherm), in coal under increasing
pressures based on monolayer coverage of the surface area found in the pore walls of
the coal. The plateau of the isotherm indicates the filling of the monolayer at higher
pressures and establishes the point at which the coal is saturated (Gregg and Sing,
1967). Wyman (1984) stated that gases in the absorbed state form a 4- thick layer on
coal surface.
52
Chapter 2
Figure 2.19 Retention of gas in coal seams redrawn from Surez-Ruiz and Crelling (2008).
Saturated coal bed will only produce gas when the pressure is lowered under the critical
desorption pressure. Many of the coal bed found are not completely gas saturated and is
necessary to lower the reservoir pressure even lower to achieve production critical desorption
pressure of undersaturated coals. The amount of gas produced is the distance between the
points of initial production () and the abandonment pressure ().
The analysis is based on testing a sample for maximum CH4 or a CH4 + CO2 storage
capacity at increasing pressures and constant (reservoir) temperature. Carbon dioxide
sorption is greater than methane (Figure 2.20) (Mares et al., 2009b; Mastalerz et al.,
2004) with a ratio of 2:1 being reported (Clarkson and Bustin, 1999; Levy et al., 1997;
Pashin et al., 2003; Rodrigues and Lemos de Sousa, 2002) or greater depending upon
the pore dimension (Faiz et al., 1992) and vitrinite content (St. George and Barakat,
2001). This is due to the ability of carbon dioxides smaller kinetic molecular size to
reach smaller pores, and to block the entrance to larger pores (Cui et al., 2004) and also
the stronger polarity of CO2 and electrostatic forces (Gregg and Sing, 1967).
53
Chapter 2
Figure 2.20 Example of adsorption performances of different gases produced from low
bituminous coal sample from western Canada from Surez-Ruiz
Ruiz and Crelling (2008).
2.6.1.5. Reflectance Analysis

As Ahmed et al., (1991
1991) indicated, all the commercially viable CSG in Australia and
United States are in the bituminous

ituminous range. The stage of maturation can be quantified by
measuring under reflected light the vitrinite maceral constitution of a given coal. Due to
a fairly regular alteration through maturation and the common abundance of vitrinite in
coal, the reflectance measurement of this maceral group is the most common method of
estimating rank. As shown in Table 2.4 volatile matter, fixed carbon and moisture
content estimated through proximate analysis are also parameters correlatable with
rank. Macerals can be distinguished

distinguishe under the microscope, and submerged under oil the
incident light can identify vitrinite due to its dark-light

dark light gray medium-reflectance
medium
appearance, while liptinite is dark and inertinite is highly reflective (Stach et al., 1982).
1982)
The reflectance analysis was conducted by Energy Resources Consulting Pty Ltd
following Australian Standards (AS 2856.1-2000; AS 2856.2-1998;

1998; AS 2856.3-2000).
2856.
54
Chapter 2
2.6.2. Downhole wireline measurements

Wireline logging has a long history in coal exploration, and was considered a quality
method for acquiring fundamental data like coal thickness and coal quality as well as
for identifying the presence of aquifers (Rogers, 2007). With decades of experience
measuring coal, wireline formation evaluation in coal is still nevertheless limited
compared to conventional oil and gas reservoir interpretation due to the complexity and
heterogeneity of coal itself. Today, wireline log measuring tools in CSG are used
ubiquitously to estimate net coal (or coal thickness) and coal density and also to
determine the orientation of master cleats and major multi-bed fractures as well as the
stress orientation (Mavor and Nelson, 1997, p. 199). In conventional reservoirs,
interpreting down-hole measurements can determine rock storage capacity (porosity)
and hydrocarbon saturation. In CSG the former can be estimated indirectly and only to
a limited degree, while the latter cannot be estimated, as methane content has no
significant effect on any downhole measurement tool. Nevertheless, as wireline
measurements have proven to be very reliable, they can be used to establish correlations
with core analytical data. In the next section coal measurement responses from
commonly used wireline logging tools are described and explained.
2.6.2.1. Nuclear measurements
Natural gamma ray
The natural gamma ray measurement tool run in all wells used in this study was a
Weatherford MSG tool, the Compact gamma ray (Weatherford - MCG, 2012)
(APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms). The MSG measures bulk gamma rays
emitted from radioactive elements (thorium, potassium and uranium), close to the
borehore wall (Rogers, 2007) and in the borehole fluid. Normally coal has a low
55
Chapter 2
radioactivity (Figure 2.21), and therefore a low reading or gamma ray response
contrasts with neighbouring shaly zones that generally contain larger amounts of
naturally occurring radioactive mineral. As a result the gamma response is principally
used as a lithology indicator, estimating the thickness of coal seams, and helps in
situations where wash-outs occur and no reliable density readings exist. There are
nevertheless two points that make defining the top and basal boundaries of coal seams
challenging. Firstly, the gamma ray reading is an arithmetic mean of the formation
radioactivity, leading to a smoothing of the curve. Secondly, the density of the coal is
normally much lower than that of the surrounding rock types, creating a difference in
the depth and volume of investigation in coal and other sequences. In other words, a
larger volume of material contributes to the gamma ray reading in coal as opposed to
adjacent shales/sands, and this can shift the midpoint in transition from one formation to
another. This measurement is also considered inadequate for proximate analysis and
quantitative purposes due to its inability to distinguish low ash from high ash layers
within the coal seam and therefore cannot resolve thin beds (Mavor et al., 1990a).
Neutron-porosity
The neutron-porosity (Weatherford - MDN, 2012) tool responds to the hydrogen
content in the formation matrix (Ahmed et al., 1991). The readings of the neutron log
are therefore associated with the volume of organic content, clays and other minerals
containing hydrogen and fluids. Since coal has very high hydrogen content, the log
responds as an apparently very porous reservoir (very high values) (Figure 2.21).
Besides coal identification, neutron logs offer limited precision in coal, with low count
rates and significant noise due to the high hydrogen content of coal (Rogers, 2007).
56
Chapter 2
Density & Pe
Coal, as an organic rich rock, has properties very distinct from other sedimentary
formations. The organic composition gives coal a considerably lower density than other
sedimentary rocks such as mudstones, siltstones or sandstones (Figure 2.21).
Measuring density downhole (Weatherford - MPD, 2010) or in fixed laboratory
conditions is of special importance. The density log is a critical measurement that
directly affects the estimation of gas-in-place (2-2), as through its interpretation,
reservoir quality and thickness is estimated (Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Nelson, 1999).
Coal density is dependent of geological variables such as depositional environment and
the characteristics of the coal lithotypes including: rank, mineral and moisture content
and maceral type (Neavel et al., 1986; Unsworth et al., 1989; Walker Jr. et al., 1988).
The density tool is also associated with the photoelectric (PE) reading, which is
considered to be a good coal identification method (Rogers, 2007). The Pe values in
coal zones are usually very low, below 1.0 barns/electron.
2.6.2.2. Resistivity measurements
Coal, as for conventional oil and gas reservoir rocks, is an electrical insulator. If
these rocks are shown to have no porosity or are measured on a dry state, the expected
resistivity is over a million ohm.m (Hilchie, 1982). Coal has limited macroporosity,
making this rock highly resistive. The electrical resistance recorded depends not only
the type of material but also its geometric shape. To define the ability of a material to
obstruct electric flow in well logging the term used is R (resistivity). The metric unit
used in resistivity measurements is the ohm.m (ohm-metres2/metre). In downhole
measurements resistivity has a long history of being plotted using a logarithmic scale
because this property typically varies over several magnitudes. In CSG a common
57
Chapter 2
interpretation of downhole resistivity measurements relates to permeability variations
within the coal bed zone (Li et al., 2011; Mavor et al., 1990a). This is considered in
more detail in CHAPTER 4.
To measure resistivity downhole there are different devices based on different
designs, electrode sizes and spacings. Although they can vary on a well to well basis,
one or more resistivity tools are always run, providing resistivity measurements with
different depths of investigation into the formation.
The tool of choice is usually associated with the type and salinity of the borehole
fluid. It is general practice to run induction tools if the mud system is resistive or non-
conductive and laterolog tool if the mud is more conductive. Development and
production wells make up the bulk of a drilling campaign. These, with a larger borehole
diameter, are drilled with light water-based muds containing bentonite to improve
viscosity; due to this practice the induction assembly is the most common resistivity
tool run in CSG. The running of the induction assembly tool (Weatherford - MAI,
2012) is associated with another resistivity device, the high-resolution shallow focused
electric (MFE) (Figure 2.21).
Cored wells in a commercially viable CSG project are rare as they are significantly
more expensive. Drilling fluids with potassium chloride (KCl) are often used to
maintain borehole stability and, in cored wells where the main goal is to recover core
samples in the best conditions, KCl fluid systems tend to be used.. The saltier the
drilling fluid is, the more conductive it becomes, affecting the received signal in
logging devices more sensitive to conductivity. In these cases the resistivity tool run is a
focused resistivity logging system, like the Compact dual laterolog tool (Weatherford -
MDL, 2012), designed to be used in salt-based drilling muds.
58
Chapter 2
2.6.2.3. The spontaneous potential

The spontaneous potential (SP) log mainly resolves the salinity difference between
the borehole fluid and the natural reservoir fluid, and is also a non-quantitative indicator
of high permeability variations and thick coal beds (Figure 2.21). It is also influenced
by the streaming potential and the electrochemical invasion. The measurement is based
on a voltage potential difference, where the zero baseline reference is a mudstone value.
If the plotted log moves left of this baseline it indicates the salinity of the borehole fluid
is lower than the natural salinity of the formation, if it moves right of the baseline the
phenomenon is the opposite. Difficulties found in this interpretation are found in thinly
bedded and tight formations (Rogers, 2007).
2.6.2.4. Acoustic travel time

The sonic tool (Weatherford - MSS, 2012) measures formation compressional
slowness (the inverse of velocity). Sonic measurements in coal zones read long transit
times, usually longer than any other formations in the well. Readings will be affected by
coal strength and factors like temperature. Compensated acoustic logs have the
advantage of being developed to eliminate wash-out effects. In terms of specific well
logging readings, coal will give high travel time values. For example DT (conventional
compressional travel time log) value for lignite ranges from 130 to 150 s/ft, but less
than 120 for anthracite (Yao & Han. 2007) (Figure 2.21).
2.6.2.5. Electrical and acoustic imaging

Over the past two decades high resolution micro-imager type tools has been
increasingly used in CBM exploration. Tools like the Electrical microimager
(Weatherford - CMI, 2013) have an array of micro-resistivity buttons mounted on 4, 6
or 8 pads to provide a representative view (image) of the borehole walls. Acoustic
59
Chapter 2
scanners tools also generate images of the borehole by emitting ultrasound pulses and
recording the amplitude and travel time of the reflected signals. They give particularly
good information about coal thickness, identification of master-cleats and major
fractures, natural fracturing direction, present day stress determination and borehole
breakouts (Figure 2.21).
2.6.2.6. Caliper measurements

Several different sources of borehole diameter (caliper) measurements were
available in the data set. The caliper readings throughout this thesis refer to the density
caliper (Figure 2.21). The density tool measures the distance between the skid face,
where the source and the detectors are, and the backup shoe pushes the skid face against
the borehole wall. This distance is designated as density caliper and is a common
reference of borehole conditions and a washout indicator.
60
Chapter 2
Figure 2.21 Typical tool readings from wireline log measurements against core description in coal seam gas exploration. Example from a coal seam
in well 3.
61
Chapter 2
2.6.3. Drill stem tests (DST)
Experience has taken the CSG exploration industry to add significant importance to
permeability testing as a means to validate the economic potential of a prospect (Ried et
al., 1992). Today, permeability analysis in CSG is through production history data.
Nevertheless the dual porosity found in CSG makes the interpretation of pressure
transient tests difficult. The coal matrix has a very low permeability. It is believed that a
determining factor influencing the production rate is the natural fracture system and its
development (Weida et al., 2005; Yang et al., 2006).
From the first well drilled in a prospect area, which is usually cored, it is common
practice to evaluate permeability by performing a series of DST (drill stem test) tests on
selected coals seams (Kabir et al., 2011; Mavor et al., 1990a; Weida et al., 2005).
Transient pressure tests have a long history in conventional reservoirs and they are the
main source of permeability data, at least in the first stages of reservoir evaluation.
They are conducted immediately after the well has been drilled and logged with
wireline tools, before the well is cased. It is necessity to do this procedure as soon as
possible after the well has been drilled, when the coal beds are less damaged. Therefore
the DST test should be conducted in intervals before the total depth is reached. For
economic reasons this procedure may only be done when the well is totally drilled.
Before the actual DST test is run the well is required to be logged first and the
measurements interpreted, so the depth intervals for the test can be selected.
Technically, the isolation of coal seams is conducted by installing packers on the
bottom and top of the interval. From DST tests, it is possible to determine permeability,
produced fluid properties, reservoir pressure and skin damage (Earlougher, 1977;
equation 2-4). As for conventional DST testing, after the first clean up well pre-flow
62
Chapter 2
and shut-in stages, a longer period of flow is conducted. This main flow is an essential
component of the test, from where the permeability is estimated.
2-4
162.6

Where:
permeability, md
water injection rate, bpd
water formation volume factor, reservoir bbl/stb
water viscosity, cp
slope of the semilog straight line, spi/cycle

net coal thickness of the tested interval, ft
Permeability and porosity change significantly in coal productive zones near the
wellbore during production (Gu and Chalaturnyk, 2010). Another parameter that DST
testing produces is skin values. If by any means possible the formation is damaged or
highly fractured, and induces an increment or reduction of the natural permeability, the
skin factor can be negative or positive respectively (Laubach and Tremain, 1991). This
estimation of formation damage is determined from pressure build-up analysis (Dake,
1983). Skin with high positive or negative values can be caused by a variety of issues,
from non-Darcy flow of formation water, drilling mud, fines and gas flow, drill bit
action, tortuous flow paths and anisotropic cleat spacings, effect of horizontal stress
anisotropy with directional permeability and other geomechanical processes (Kabir et
al., 2011).
63
Chapter 2
2.7. Study area

The data used in this study were provided by Queensland Gas Company (QGC is
part of BG group). Well location can be seen in Figure 2.22. This data set provided a
reasonably good representative sampling of the Walloon Sub-group CSG exploration
NW-SE fairway, a northeast-southwest trend where this Sub-group is the thickest
(Figure 2.23). The coals from the Walloon Sub-group were targeted for this study due
to the complete dataset including todays standard measurement in CSG.
Part of the Great Australian Basin the Surat intracratonic Basin covers an area of
300,000km2 in the south-eastern Queensland and northern New South Wales. From
centre to its margins it overlies the Permo-Triassic Bowen Basin and the Early
Devonian to Late Triassic crystalline basement (Martin et al., 2013; Figure 2.24;
Figure 2.25). After extensive erosion in the region during the Triassic, the Surat Basin
developed during a massive depositional phase due to subsidence driven by subduction
along the eastern margin of the Australian plate. It consists of 2,500m sub-horizontal
sedimentary formations of fluvial-lacustrine deposits laid down in the late Triassic to
the early Cretaceous. The Surat Basin has its maximum thickness in the Mimosa
syncline. The sequence K (Hoffmann et al., 2009) contains the coal of the Walloon
Sub-group as part of a series cycles of grain sizes fining upwards with faults being
generally small, localized with throws of 5 to 20 metres (Exon, 1976; Jones and Patrick,
1981; Scott et al., 2007).
Found throughout the Surat Basin, overlying transitionally the Durabilla Formation,
the Middle Jurassic Walloon Subgroup with a variable thickness between 50 and 700m
(Hoffmann et al., 2009) is made of tight, fine grained argillaceous sandstone, siltstone,
mudstone, coal and rare limestone and ironstone. The coal beds are believed to have
been deposited in poorly drained floodplains with the exception of the base of the
64
Chapter 2
formation, where rare coal beds indicate stream deposition (Exon, 1976) during a
greenhouse period when the Australian continent was at higher latitudes (Bradshaw
and Yeung, 1990).
The Walloon Sub-group today is considered to be a Sub-group divided by
lithological similar Juandah (upper and lower) Coal Measures, Tangalooma Sandstone
and Taroom Measures (Smyth and Cook, 1976). The correlation of these measures has
proved difficult to both academics and industry due to variable thickness and complex
cross-sectional geometry (Calvert et al., 2011; Fielding, 1996; Jones and Patrick, 1981;
Lagendijk and Ryan, 2010). Increasing thickness is associated with the less erosion due
thinning of overlying Springbok Sandstone. To aid the correlation, the measures are
subdivided into regionally correlatable coal seam or coal groups (Kabir et al., 2011;
Figure 2.26). Upper Juandah is then divided into the Kogan, Macalister - upper and
lower - and Nangram. The lower Juandah is subdivided into Wambo, Iona and Argyle
coal seams. In this study the QGC/BG Group operator non-formal subdivision of the
Taroom Measure was used, including Auburn, Bulwer and Condamine coal seams.
Volcanic debris and montmorillonite (bentonites) are also found forming thin tuff beds.
These sediments lead to some debate about their origin due to volcanic activity in the
subducting plate margin to the east of the Basin, as suggested by Exon (1976), or
because of intra-basinal volcanic activity related to the early stages of rifting of the
south-eastern Australian continental margin stated by (Fielding, 1996).
65
Chapter 2
a)
b)
c)
Figure 2.22 Location of the well data in the Surat Basin in Queensland Australia.
c) Detail of the Well 3 field location where besides the cored well was also acquired data
from DST production wells Well 3a, 3b and 3c.
66
Chapter 2
Wells
Field
10
12
2
13
11
4
8
9
WELL 3 field
14
Figure 2.23 Well location in Walloon Subgroup depth (mSS) structure map. Modified from
QGC Pty Limited (2012a) report.
67
Chapter 2
Field
Burunga
Comet ridge Fault
10 Trelinga
Anticline
Hutton- 12
Wallumbilla
Fault 7
13 2
11
Miles Fault Undulla nose
4
Kogan
8 Anticline
9
6
Leichhardt
fault
5
14
Roma Shelf Moonie fault
Seismic section (fig.2.25)
Tingan fault
Figure 2.24 Major tectonic elements of the Surat Basin and well location. Modified from
QGC Pty Limited (2012a) report.
68
Chapter 2
Se
Figure 2.25 Seismic section located as indicated in figure x. From (QGC Pty Limited, 2012b)
69
Chapter 2
Figure 2.26 Litho-stratigraphy of the Walloon Sub-group from (Martin et al., 2013).
In Western Australia CSG exploration has been growing at a fast pace since early
1990s. According to the Australian Government, this country came from no significant
CSG production in 1997 to reach around 6,000Mm3 in 2011, from its extensive
underground coal reserves estimated to be 900,000Mm3 (Bradshaw et al., 2012; Leather
et al., 2013; Queenslands coal seam gas overview, 2013, Figure 2.27). With the first
well for CSG only drilled in 1995, the Surat Basin alone is believed to have (2013
estimate) reserves of more than 650,000Mm3 of methane. Methane production started in
2005, by 2012 had already overcome the production of the Bowen Basin.
70
Chapter 2
The relatively shallow, quick, cheap and of easy completion of most of these wells
made the number of wells drilled per year reach a record number of 720 in 2011.
Moreover, there are three CSG-to-LNG terminals under construction in Curtis Island.
These will the first ever in the world to be built to export produced CSG.
Figure 2.27 Queensland Australia proved and probable reserves estimated in 2013 (Source
Queensland Government, Department of Natural Resources and Mines).
2.8. Studied Dataset
The data used in this study was provided by QGC/BG group operator. It provided a
reasonably good representative sampling of the Walloon Sub-group CSG exploration
NW-SE fairway. The coals from the Walloon Sub-group were targeted for this study
due to the complete dataset of what is todays standard measurement in CSG. The
dataset comprises 14 cored wells and 3 production wells, the latter being part of the
evaluation of the area where well 3 was first drilled.
The core dataset is summarised in Table 2.5 to Table 2.7. With most of the
individual cored well datasets having desorption, adsorption, maceral and reflectance
analysis, and also descriptions and photographs of the core. Critical to this work, was
acquiring the individual coal seam depth intervals; this work assumes these to be
71
Chapter 2
complete and correct. All cored and production well datasets were provided with DST
test results.
The wireline dataset was provided by Weatherford UK after permission was granted
by the operator. With the exception of well 3C, all the remaining wells have wireline
log data. Most of the wireline log dataset was acquired in the original raw, unfiltered,
unsmooth version. Wells 4, 7 and 9 logs were only available in plotted version and
therefore these were impossible to be reprocessed. All the individual well data have in
common caliper, natural gamma ray, bulk density, neutron photoelectric factor (Pe),
compressional sonic velocity measurements. Standard resistivity and image logs
availability are well dependent (Table 2.7).
Minimal depth matching between core and wireline logs was needed, in other words,
although many coal beds needed depth shifting this was only of the order of a few
centimetres. Quality analysis of wireline log data identified multiple washout zones in
multiple wells, especially in well 1. In terms of QC/QA, only MMR tool readings in
well 13 were considered completely unreliable due to a lack of character of the log and
mismatching another reading of the same tool in well 5.
72
Chapter 2
Unit/Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12* 13 14
Springbok Sdt. - - - - - - - - - - - 2 -
Kogan - 2 - 2 2 6 1 - - 2 - 3 -
Macalister Upper - 3 4 4 7 7 8 12 - 4 11 6 -
Macalister Lower - - 2 5 3 2 13 4 - 12 6 5 3
Nangram - - - 3 1 2 1 5 3 1 - 3 2
Wambo 4 9 4 1 2 1 5 5 2 2 9 4 4
Iona 2 3 6 2 6 1 8 4 6 3 14 3 3
Argyle 7 6 7 4 9 9 5 2 7 8 5 9 14
Tangalooma Ss. - - - 2 2 1 - - - - 7 4 -
Auburn 2 1 4 1 7 5 - - - 2 7 4 6
Bulwer 2 2 3 2 11 1 7 1 4 5 5 3 3
Condamine 5 12 8 7 7 7 3 2 5 8 14 12 10
Well total 22 38 38 33 57 42 51 35 27 47 78 58 45
Total 571
Table 2.5 Number of core samples per coal seam from each well.
*The coal seam location of the samples in this well was estimated through correlation with well 2, the nearest.
Data/Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 3A 3B 3C
Desorption analysis
Maceral analysis
Adsorption analysis
Reflectance analysis
Petrology report
Chemostratigraphy report
Core description
Coal Seam depths Intervals
Core photos
Core HD photos
Well Completion report
DST results
DST report
Table 2.6 Summary of the core analysis and DST test results dataset from each well.
73
Chapter 2
Log Standard Resistivity Logs Imager

Well Well type Year
format MAI MFE MDL MMR CMI AS ATV
1 Cored 2006 Raw
2 Cored 2009 Raw
3 Cored 2008 Raw
3A Production 2009 Raw *
3B Production 2009 Raw *
3C Production 2009 ----
4 Cored 2006 Plotted
6 Cored 2009 Raw
8 Cored 2010 Raw
9 Cored 2010 Raw
10 Cored 2009 Raw
11 Cored 2010 Raw
12 Cored 2010 Raw
13 Cored 2009 Raw
14 Cored 2009 Raw
Table 2.7 Summary wireline log data used in this study.
Where:
AS Acoustic Scanner
ATV Acoustic Televiewer
CMI Compact Micro Imager
MAI Compact Array Induction
MDL Compact Dual Laterolog
MFE High-resolution shallow focused electric; (*) with sleeve
MMR Micro Laterolog
74
Chapter 3
CHAPTER 3 Coal lithotype properties of
the Walloon Sub-group, in Queensland,
Australia
3.1. Introduction
CSG exploration targets coal seams with distinct properties from the ones mined or
from conventional gas reservoirs. These coals are generally thinner, more vertically
spaced and less continuous horizontally. To populate the attributes in CSG reservoir
simulation, the operator needs to support pre-drilling surveys with many more wells
compared to conventional gas resources (Sung and Ertekin, 1987; Weida et al., 2005).
CSG is highly dependent on exploratory cored wells. Special core analysis can clarify
fundamental parameters related to the gas yield in the coal beds. Nonetheless, for
economic reasons, only a limited number of wells are cored. Wireline logs are usually
the most abundant data set acquired, and to which core is related to, enabling
correlation between wells. In exploration and appraisal wells open hole pressure
transient tests, also called drill stem tests (DST) also contribute to data of high
importance, which is absolute permeability (Kabir et al., 2011).
In Humic coal, it is possible to differentiate macroscopic layers designated as
lithotypes. The alternation of these structures within a coal seam indicate different
physical and chemical characteristics reflecting changes of the original plant
communities and mineral content (Cao et al., 2011; Crosdale, 1995). These major
changes in coal are then expected to influence not only the capacity to store gas but also
the way the gas flows (Clarkson and Bustin, 1997). Furthermore, it is well established
75
Chapter 3
that coal rank is a major factor affecting coal characteristics, together with coal
composition and coal bedding (Bustin and Clarkson, 1998; Laxminarayana and
Crosdale, 1999). Lastly, as demonstrated in this study, the heterogeneity associated with
the coal seam nature, in the shape of coal facies distribution, is also reflected in the cleat
network development.
This chapter examines how core analysis, wireline measurements and DST test
results reflect the bulk properties and methane producibility of coal lithotypes from the
Walloon Sub-group, illustrating the degree of heterogeneity associated with coal beds
and discuss why they still constitute a challenge to reservoir evaluation.
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Original data set
The basis for this chapter is the examination of coal macroscopically and how it is
reflected in terms of composition, wireline log responses and DST permeability
estimation. This work was carried out by interpreting a previously produced data set
acquired from common procedures in CSG exploration by the operator. It comprises a
total of 13 wells, biased by what are todays common practices, not only on which
samples were selected to be analysed but also how the measurements were taken. The
entire Sub-group was cored totalling 5676.3 metres across all the wells, with 99.4%
recovery rate. To raise the core to the surface, a slimhole wireline coring system was
used to minimize core damage and gas loss. 491 core samples were cut into 0.3m to
1.0m long, 61.5mm diameter. These were then described and tested by Earth Data Pty
Ltd Geological & Earth Science consultants for rock type, and in the case of coal, coal
lithotype, cleat spacing, cleat length and cleat mineral filling. The same company also
measured desorbed gas and provided proximate analysis. Composite samples for
76
Chapter 3
maceral, reflectance and adsorption isotherm analysis were tested by Energy Resources
Consulting Pty Ltd. Also, analysed from the same wells were 42 individual DST
permeability tests conducted by the operator.
From the well dataset 12 wells were selected that had wireline log data and core
descriptions. The wireline logging data analysed were resistivity (induction, shallow
focused electric and laterolog), nuclear (gamma ray, density, Pe, neutron porosity),
spontaneous potential, caliper measurements, resistivity imager and acoustic scanner
logs.
A recent publication by Martin et al. (2013) distinguishes the Walloon Subgroup in
three main facies associations: primary channel, overbank and volcanic extrusives. The
coal facies, designated as part of the overbank facies association, are distinguished by
the depositional styles or classes and are part of Class I - decimetre stacked coal beds up
to 8m thick intercalated by sands, claystones and volcanic tuffs - or Class II - lacustrine
originated less than 1.0 metres thick beds coarsening upwards. For the purpose of this
study, such distinction was not made, as the focus is on coal bed lithotype
characteristics and not on the coal seams (group) they are part of. The coal seams
comprise a sequence of different coal lithotypes facies, with transitions to mudstones
with variable organic matter and volcanic tuff layers, boundary by very fine to medium
grained sandstones, siltstones and siderite. Transitions between the beds are sometimes
sharp.
3.2.2. Macroscopic description
For this study several characteristics of the coal beds were individually and
collectively analysed statistically. The procedure of testing samples regardless of their
coal lithotype composition created difficulties defining unique characteristics for the
77
Chapter 3
different types of coals. Furthermore, core samples tested in many cases are shown to
be interbedded with other rock types. The original data set was then reorganized so that
it could reflect the nature of each lithotype. Characteristics for each lithotype analysed
include distribution, thickness, maceral and proximate analysis composition, cleat
development and filling, gas yield and gas saturation.
Published research for coal lithotypes associates brighter coal with higher vitrinite
content, due to the generally low liptinite content found in coal samples. Classifying as
bright if the coal is vitrinite-rich or dull if inertinite-rich (Chalmers and Marc Bustin,
2007). In the Surat Basin, coal is dominated by vitrinite, however, it also contains a
high percentage of liptinite. The description (Table 3.1) of the coal samples was
performed following the Australian standard (AS 2916-2007) lithotype classification.
Coal Lithotype Description

Bright >90% Bright Coal, occurring mainly as thin bands
Bright banded 60% to 90% Bright coal, with Dull bands
Dull and bright Similar number of Bright and Dull bands
Dull Banded Dull coal with numerous Bright bands, 10% to 40% Bright coal
Dull minor bright Dull coal with rare Bright bands, 1% to 10% Bright coal
Dull Dull coal, <1% Bright Coal
Stony coal Impure coal
Table 3.1 Macroscopic description of coals based on the Australian Standard.
3.2.3. Sample selection
At a macroscopic scale it was possible to identify the heterogeneous nature of the
coal seams of the Walloon Sub-group. The vertical and horizontal variability of coal is
often associated with the sources of error in the Gas-in-place estimation (Lagendijk and
Ryan, 2010). The beds that constitute a coal seam have different physical properties, but
because of their limited thickness it is impractical to sample every single one separately.
Depending on the coal characteristic analysed a different source of data was interpreted.
For macroscopic characteristics of the lithotypes (frequency, thickness, cleat
78
Chapter 3
development, cleat filling) the entire extension of macroscopically described coal was
used; a total of 366.8 metres of cored coal, distributed over 2374 individual coal beds,
described with a spacing of 1 cm (APPENDIX A Seam and net coal thickness). To
investigate the properties determined through gas desorption, proximate and maceral
analysis characteristics were selected for non-broken single lithotype samples, totalling
136 core samples where each sample was analysed individually. The interpretations of
reflectance and isotherm analysis have an associated difficulty due to the fact that these
tests were carried out on crushed coal seam composite samples.
3.3. Coal bed Thickness
At the macroscopic scale, lithotypes can be seen as independent parts of a coal seam.
A sequence with different lithotypes is then associated with major changes not only in
the depositional system but also the physical and chemical characteristics of the coal
itself, including gas yield (Clarkson and Bustin, 1997; Holdgate et al., 1995; Mares and
Moore, 2008). The distribution of the observed lithotype thickness is displayed in
Figure 3.1. The histogram highlights the thinly bedded nature of the coal seams. Core
macroscopic description has indicated that each individual coal bed lithotype has a
thickness mean of 0.15m, ranging from coal laminae (<1cm) to a bed as thick as 2.3m.
Observations indicate that thickness increases slightly with depth (Table 3.2) having
nevertheless a wide range of variability indicated by the standard deviation.
79
Chapter 3
350 100%
300
80%
250
Frequency
60%
200
150
40%
100
20%
50
0 0%
Thickness (metres) Cumulative %
Figure 3.1 Coal lithotype thickness frequency and accumulated frequency.
Standard
Coal Seam Count Max (m) Mean (m)
Deviation (m)
Kogan 62 0.47 0.14 0.11
Macalister Upper 148 1.35 0.15 0.18
Macalister Lower 176 1.00 0.16 0.14
Nangram 94 0.58 0.12 0.10
Wambo 162 0.78 0.16 0.14
Iona 194 0.70 0.15 0.13
Argyle 368 0.90 0.17 0.16
Tangalooma Sandstone 55 0.38 0.14 0.10
Auburn 83 0.78 0.17 0.13
Bulwer 119 0.90 0.18 0.18
Condamine 346 1.05 0.17 0.17
Table 3.2 Coal bed thickness found in the 10 cored well in the Walloon Sub-group.
80
Chapter 3
In Figure 3.2, the thickness of each lithotype indicates similar bimodal distributions
in Stony and Dull lithotypes at 0.025m and 0.1m. Dull minor bright and Dull banded
show normal distributions centred between 0.1m and 0.2m. Dull & Bright coal has a
dominating mode between 0.1 and 0.2m. Bright banded coals have a particular curious
distribution, increasing from 0.8m to 0.1, dropping at 0.05m and reaching the highest
mode in samples under 0.025m. Bright lithotypes besides being rare are much thinner
relatively to other lithotypes.
Figure 3.2 Lithotype thickness histograms distributions from the description of core from 10
cored wells.
81
Chapter 3
3.4. Lithotype distribution
The Dull minor bright is the most common lithotype (Figure.3.3) dominant in all
Walloons coal measures, followed by dull-banded coals. Overall the Walloon Sub-
group analysed in this study indicates that these are prominently dull, generally having
limited bright components distributed in the shape of bands or dispersed fragments.
Furthermore, bright-dominated coal beds are rare making less than 3% of all net coal
found. Dull minor bright coals vary between 35% and 62% of the total coal beds found
in each seam, having two peaks in the Macalister Upper and Iona. Dull-banded coal is
accounted to be between 21% and 33% of all coal in Macalister Lower and underlying
coal seams. Coal in the Kogan and Macalister Upper seams is especially dull, where
besides dull minor bright lithotype, Dull and Stony coals make significant proportions.
Coals with brightness above that of the Dull & Bright coals are generally in low
abundance with numbers under 10% in all coal seams.
The thin nature of the Bright and Bright banded coals, together with the limited
number of these facies, constrains the number of samples analysed in special core
analysis. These lithotypes when found in core samples are associated with other facies
or are distributed throughout the well in the form of isolated, very thin coal beds (0.05
m). As a consequence, further analysis, now focussed on core analysis, is restricted to
the lithotypes that make up the bulk of the Walloon Sub-group, i.e., Dull minor bright,
Dull banded, Dull, Stony and Dull & Bright.
82
Chapter 3
Figure.3.3 Variation of lithotype thickness with depth for Walloon Sub-group.
3.5. Petrography and Geochemistry
3.5.1. Rank
Reflectance analysis was performed by Energy Resources Consulting Pty Ltd over
composite samples (i.e. a blend of individual samples taken from the same coal seam).
The system used was a Leitz MPV1 to determine maximum reflectance (Ro max). The
Walloon Subgroup coal seam sequences drilled and used for this work have a range in
rank from 0.375, found in the Macalister Upper Coal Seam, up to 0.65% in Condamine
coal beds. This, together with proximate analysis, moisture and volatile matter content
results, indicates that the rank classification of the Walloon Sub-group is between sub-
bituminous and high-volatile bituminous. Note that, similar to Hamilton et al (2012),
the vitrinite reflectance measured increases only generally with coal seam depth. This
83
Chapter 3
can be observed if the wells are analysed individually (Table 3.3) or all together
(Figure 3.4).
Coal Seam/Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14
Kogan --- --- --- 0.51 0.49 0.43 0.49 --- --- 0.45 0.40 ---
Mac.Up. --- 0.37 0.46 0.51 0.45 0.44 0.48 0.5 --- 0.46 0.44 ---
Mac. Lo. --- 0.39 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.40 0.47 0.51 --- 0.44 0.42 ---
Nangram --- --- --- 0.49 0.45 0.43 0.46 0.55 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.45
Wambo 0.48 0.41 0.45 --- 0.45 0.44 0.46 0.56 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.41
Iona 0.49 --- 0.45 0.53 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.57 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.43
Argyle 0.5 0.40 0.46 0.54 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.58 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.42
Tang. Ss. --- 0.43 --- 0.52 0.44 0.47 --- --- --- --- 0.46 ---
Auburn 0.51 --- 0.52 --- 0.46 0.47 --- 0.63 --- 0.47 0.50 0.44
Burwer 0.52 0.45 0.48 0.56 0.46 0.48 0.48 --- 0.52 0.49 --- 0.47
Condamine 0.55 0.47 0.49 0.61 0.48 0.49 0.56 0.65 0.53 0.51 0.48 0.46
Table 3.3 Vitrinite reflectance in 12 wells in the Walloon Sub-group coal seams provided.
Figure 3.4 Mean vitrinite reflectance in 12 well in the Walloon Sub-group coal seams.
84
Chapter 3
3.5.2. Proximate Analysis
Proximate analysis was performed according to the Australian Standard (AS1038.3-
2000) (APPENDIX B proximate and desorption analysis). This procedure is
particularly sensitive to core selection bias, by inducing an increment in the values of
mineral content (i.e. ash yield). Therefore, the selected samples considered had less than
50% ash yield. Fixed carbon increases with brightness, while volatile matter having a
similar behaviour seems to reach a plateau in coals brighter than Dull & Bright coal
facies. Moisture decreases from duller coals until it stabilizes at about 6% (as received)
in coals brighter than Dull Banded. These results are show on Table 3.4, safe to
conclude that brightness in coal is associated with the increase of organic content, and
opposite over the ash yield.
Lithotype: Bright banded (%, ar) Lithotype: Dull & Bright (%, ar)
Proximate Standard Proximate Standard
Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Analysis Deviation Analysis Deviation
Fixed Carbon 36.9 44.3 40.8 2.9 Fixed Carbon 30.0 44.2 39.4 5.2
Volatile Matter 40.2 43.6 42.0 1.5 Volatile Matter 33.5 46.3 42.0 4.5
Ash 8.3 14.5 11.4 2.3 Ash 6.0 31.4 12.5 9.5
Moisture 5.1 7.0 5.9 0.7 Moisture 5.0 7.7 6.1 1.0
Samples Count 6 Samples Count 7
Lithotype: Dull banded (%, ar) Lithotype: Dull minor Bright (%, ar)
Proximate Standard Proximate Standard
Fixed Carbon 25.2 44.3 36.0 4.7 Fixed Carbon 21.2 45.6 33.8 5.2
Volatile Matter 30.0 46.1 39.7 4.0 Volatile Matter 31.0 48.6 39.2 4.5
Ash 5.2 37.0 18.1 8.6 Ash 3.7 42.4 20.4 9.3
Moisture 2.1 9.7 6.2 2.1 Moisture 2.3 11.0 6.6 1.8
Lithotype: Dull (%, ar)

Standard
Proximate Analysis Min Max Mean
Deviation
Fixed Carbon 15.6 42.3 31.0 13.8
Volatile Matter 24.6 41.7 35.1 9.2
Ash 5.8 49.5 26.1 24.6
Moisture 6.2 10.2 7.8 2.1
Samples Count 3
Table 3.4 Proximate analysis data from selected coal samples dominated by one single
lithotype and < 50% ash yield from Walloon Sub-group coal beds.
85
Chapter 3
3.5.3. Petrographical Analysis
Reflectance analysis using the standard Australian maceral techniques (AS2856.2-
1998) and classification (AS2856-1986) indicates that the coal beds are consistently
high in vitrinite, with mean of 72% (mineral matter free) being predominantly
telocollinite (mean 39.4% m.m.f.), desmocollinite (mean 27% m.m.mf.) and
corpogelinite (mean 6% m.m.f.). Liptinite is the second most common maceral with
23% (m.m.f.), being mainly suberinite. Inertinite is generally rare with mean 4%
(m.m.f.). The patterns indentified in terms of maceral content are generally in
agreement with Scott et al.(2007).
Petrographic analysis in single lithotypes (Table 3.5) from selected samples show
that mean Vitrinite content increases with brightness, with a sharp decrease in Bright
banded coal. Mean Liptinite content also increases with brightness, with a minor
decrease in dull-banded coal facies. Inertinite has only been found as traces (<2%).
Detailed maceral composition also indicates that in mineral matter free basis (m.m.f.),
telocollinite is common in all lithotypes ranging from 40% to 46%. Desmocollinite is
common in Dull samples (35%), Dull & Banded, Dull banded and Dull minor bright
lithotypes have similar content (24% to 26%), while Bright banded is not as common
(11%). Corpogelinite is on mean approximately 13% in Bright banded coal and
decreases as the samples became duller. Mineral matter decreases significantly as the
samples became brighter and are usually of clay, and more rarely, of carbonaceous
composition.
86
Chapter 3
Lithotype: Bright banded (%) Lithotype: Dull banded (%)

Maceral Standard Maceral Standard
Vitrinite 44.4 72.2 56.6 11.5 Vitrinite 29.1 81.0 57.7 14.7
Liptinite 17.3 40.9 30.5 11.2 Liptinite 6.1 32.2 15.0 6.5
Inertinite 0.2 1.4 0.7 0.4 Inertinite 0.0 12.4 1.6 3.3
Mineral Matter 8.2 19.8 12.3 4.6 Mineral Matter 2.7 61.4 25.6 16.2
Lithotype: Dull & Bright (%) Lithotype: Dull minor Bright (%)
Maceral Standard Maceral Standard
Vitrinite 37.0 81.5 66.1 17.2 Vitrinite 15.8 86.4 54.1 13.9
Liptinite 12.9 29.9 20.1 7.3 Liptinite 4.0 45.9 18.9 8.9
Inertinite 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.6 Inertinite 0.0 18.1 1.2 2.9
Mineral Matter 4.2 33.1 15.8 15.8 Mineral Matter 1.0 60.6 25.8 15.6
Lithotype: Dull (%)

Maceral Standard
Min Max Mean
Analysis Deviation
Vitrinite 29.7 60.6 45.2 21.8
Liptinite 10.5 14.7 12.6 3.0
Inertinite 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3
Mineral Matter 24.2 59.8 42.0 25.2
Samples Count 3
Table 3.5 Maceral analysis data from selected coal samples dominated by one single lithotype
from Walloon Sub-group coal beds.
3.6. Cleat system
When the reservoir pressure is lowered, within a gas saturated coal, diffusion is
triggered in the matrix. Following the concentration gradient, gas molecules move from
pore to pore until they flow out to the borehole through the fracture network (Levine,
1996; Wang and Ward, 2009). Fractures occur in coal with variable spacing, length and
filling. When present in coal, cleats can be of two types both perpendicular to the
bedding plain. The dominant facture set is designated as face cleat, and these strike
perpendicular to butt cleats. Free gas in the cleat/fracture system is usually disregarded,
as it is within the coal matrix that the gas is mainly stored. In contrast, the fracture
system itself has a fundamental role, as hydrocarbon and water flow to the well through
it.
87
Chapter 3
Description of the cleat patterns has identified a relationship with coal type. Cleats
may or may not be present in coal. If present, the spacing between them is commonly
uniform throughout the bed. Face cleats, which generally have the closest spacing, are
considered to be the first to develop followed by the butt cleat. Analysis indicated that
each individual coal bed has particular cleat development properties. Four
characteristics were analysed in relation to face and butt cleat development for each
lithotype: (1) the number of coal beds with cleats; (2) the number of cleats that each
sample contains; (3) the length of the cleat as percentage of penetration of the core; and
(4) percentage of cleat filling. The mean spacing shown in this analysis may or may not
be representative of the cleat development much beyond the wells radius, depending
on the beds horizontal continuity, although it has been recognized in previous studies
that patterns can be uniform at a regional scale. Furthermore, several studies have also
indicated relationships between cleat spacing and rank, coal lithotype and bed thickness
(Dawson and Esterle, 2010; Laubach and Tremain, 1991).
3.6.1. Lithotype cleat attributes
Cleats when present are very close together, in the order of millimetres, therefore it
is possible to distinguish hundreds at the coal core scale. Coal, if fractured, can have
cleat spacing as low as 0.8mm (mean 7mm) in face cleats and 0.9mm (mean 16mm) in
butt cleats. Coals with high mineral content have shown a trend of having fewer cleats
then others. Ash rich coals, i.e., Stony coals are shown to be less fractured, followed by
Dull lithotypes coal beds (Table 3.6). Interestingly, Dull lithotypes having more
samples with cleats, when present these occur lesser numbers than even Stony coals.
88
Chapter 3
Coal Samples Mean Cleat Spacing Mean Cleat Penetration Mean Cleat Filling
Coal Lithotype bed with cleats Face cleat Butt cleat Face cleat Butt cleat Face cleat Butt cleat
count (%) (cleats/m) (cleats/m) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Bright 25 84% 7.7 16.0 89.8 89.6 39.1 33.1
Bright banded 75 80% 6.6 12.5 75.6 73.0 32.6 28.3
Dull and bright 148 88% 4.0 6.9 64.0 53.6 27.8 20.5
Dull Banded 532 86% 3.9 6.6 46.6 37.8 26.9 24.8
Dull minor bright 868 82% 5.3 7.2 40.9 29.8 26.8 22.9
Dull 374 49% 14.1 23.9 71.3 72.9 20.3 18.0
Stony coal 252 25% 7.0 9.0 63.7 53.9 20.2 21.7
Table 3.6 Variation of lithotype cleat mean frequency, length and filling from 2374 Walloon
Sub-group coal beds.
No direct trend was found between cleat development and coal bed thickness, but a
trend was found between cleat development and coal lithotype and coal lithotype
banding. Banded coals are shown to be more fractured than more homogeneous coals.
Banded lithotypes
types have similar numbers of cleated coal beds, while Dull banded and
Dull and bright coal beds have the higher numbers of cleats, followed then by Dull
minor Bright.. Because the data were

w analysed by lithotype bed, it is possible to analyse
the number of cleats found as a function

fu of lithotype thickness.
ickness. As thickness increases
so does
es the number of cleats for any given lithotype (Figure 3.5).
1.0
0.8
Bed Thickness (metres)
0.6
Linear (Stony)
0.4 Linear (Dull)
Linear (Dull minor bright)
Linear (Dull Banded)
0.2 Linear (Dull & Bright)
Linear (Bright Banded)
Linear (Bright)
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Cleat frequency
Figure 3.5 Trends

ends between bed thickness and cleat frequency in each lithotype from 2374
Walloon Sub-group coal beds.
89
Chapter 3
Cleat development seems to be independent of coal type. The relationship between
the number of cleats per bed with rank have shown very poor results, with no particular
trend identified, however cleats appear to increase with depth (Figure 3.6).
Cleat length appears to be associated with coal homogeneity. The fewer bands the
coal has, the longer the cleats are. Observations generally indicate that for face cleat
filling, as brightness increases, carbonaceous and clay mineral filling in the cleats
increases as well. Therefore the mineral filling could be associated with cleat length.
Cleats are prone to present carbonaceous or clay mineral filling. Of the coals analysed,
70% of the beds with cleats demonstrated some degree of filling in the cleats, although
only 2% were completely closed by mineralization.
200
150
Cleats/metre
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Depth (metres)
Face Cleats Butt Cleats
Log. (Face Cleats) Log. (Butt Cleats)
Figure 3.6 Cross-plot of depth versus mean cleats per metre from 2374 coal beds in
Walloon Sub-group coal seams.
90
Chapter 3
3.7. Methane producibility
The two main factors that define the economic value of a CSG production are gas
volume in place and permeability. Together with the net coal thickness these are the
parameters most difficult to predict while evaluating a CSG project (Lagendijk and
Ryan, 2010). In conventional reservoirs one of the risks of investing in drilling is that
the reservoir could be dry. This risk is not associated with CSG, but instead the risk is
if the reservoir can produce methane in commercial quantities in a specific period of
time (Nelson, 2000b).
3.7.1. Gas content and saturation
Samples were analysed for total gas desorbed (desorbed gas + lost gas + residual
gas; Figure 3.7), gas saturation and gas diffusivity. Gas composition throughout all the
wells was 98% methane, with remaining gases being nitrogen, carbon dioxide and
ethane. The total desorbed gas is shown to be highly variable, with a mean 3.7 (7.0)
m3/tonne, with a minimum of 0.15 (1.1) m3/tonne and maximum of 15.2 (44.9)
m3/tonne as analysed (bracketed numbers indicate d.a.f. figures). Analysis of the data
indicated that most of the values above 12 m3/tonne on a d.a.f. basis are the result of
high gas in a core sample with lower organic content. This explains why the huge
difference between as analysed and d.a.f. basis maximum value. The data analysed
here are in agreement with previous studies over the Walloon Coal Sub-group that gas
content trends increase with depth in the Juandah and decrease in the deepest coal of the
Taroom measures (Hamilton et al., 2012; Scott et al., 2007) (Figure 3.8). Hamilton et
al. (2012) were not able to derive a single gas trend but yet three possible explanations
as to the gas variability in the Walloon Coal Measures. These were gas migration
upwards from deeper Walloon coals or from Bowen basin; methane secondary
91
Chapter 3
biogenesis in Juandah Measures;

Measures and/or early differential thermogenic gas generation
from liptinite macerals.
81%
9%
10%
Q1 - Lost Gas Q2 - Desorbed Gas Q3 - Residual gas
Figure 3.7 Mean percentage of

o Lost, Desorbed and Residual of the total gas yield in all 491
samples.
Gas content (d.a.f.) (m3/tonne)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0
Upper Juandah samples
Lower Juandah samples
100 Tangalooma Sandstone
Taroom samples
200
300
Depth (metre)
400
500
600
700
800
900
Figure 3.8 Gas content (d.a.f.) versus depth.
92
Chapter 3
Gas is stored in coal by adsorption, which is highly sensitive to coal maturity,
available organic content and pressure. Gas-in-place is usually estimated by having coal
seam grouped in close vertical proximity, similar rank, reservoir pressure and sorption
capability (Calvert et al., 2011; Mavor and Nelson, 1997). Knowing the original
desorbed gas content and testing the maximum holding capacity make it possible to
estimate gas saturation. Adsorption isotherms were used to estimate the ability to
adsorb volumes of methane as composite samples taken from a single Walloon Coal
seam. Out of the 452 samples, 97 composite samples were created and tested to create
adsorption isotherms. 24.75% of these 452 samples exhibited oversaturation in their
respective pressures, clearly indicating that this test is significantly under-sampled.
Samples indicating oversaturation were then considered to be 100% saturated (results
are shown on Table 3.7 and Figure 3.9).
The equation 3-1 was used to calculate gas saturation (Mares et al., 2009a; Mavor
and Nelson, 1997).
3-1
1 ! "#!
Where:
g gas saturation, %
a maximum holding capacity in certain depth in d.a.f. basis
d desorbed gas volume of a sample in certain depth in d.a.f. basis
Gas content does not fit the pattern of gas saturation throughout the seams (Figure
3.9) and a question can be posed as to whether gas content estimation should be
independent from the calculation of coal seam gas saturation; a discussion of this is
further explored in CHAPTER 5. Furthermore, as noted in other CSG Basins in New
Zealand (Mares and Moore, 2008) and United States (Pashin, 2010) coal beds can have
significant saturation variations within a single coal seam (an example is shown in
Figure 3.10 Well 2 example of variation of estimated saturation on a single coal seam.).
93
Chapter 3
Since only a composite sample is tested from each coal seam, this test is thought to
represent the entire coal seam thickness. Cleary this test was under-sampled since the
Walloon coal beds are shown to have different coal properties and gas storage
capacities even within a single coal seam.
Total desorbed gas (m3/tonne) (d.a.f.) Gas saturation (%)

Coal Seam Count Min Max Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Mean Std. Dev.
Kogan 18 1.3 9.5 4.4 2.2 35% 100% 72% 22%
Mac.Upper 53 1.7 14.5 5.7 3.0 29% 100% 74% 19%
Mac.Lower 44 2.7 14.8 7.2 3.0 45% 100% 84% 16%
Nangram 21 1.1 19.0 6.9 4.1 33% 100% 75% 21%
Wambo 37 2.3 37.7 8.5 7.5 39% 100% 81% 18%
Iona 44 2.7 44.9 8.2 6.6 56% 100% 88% 13%
Argyle 79 2.8 16.8 7.3 2.5 43% 100% 80% 16%
Tangalooma Sst. 8 2.6 10.0 7.3 2.5 40% 100% 81% 22%
Auburn 30 2.6 10.8 7.0 2.1 37% 100% 79% 18%
Bulwer 38 2.5 35.9 7.7 5.9 28% 100% 73% 26%
Condamine 80 2.1 19.2 6.6 2.8 24% 100% 64% 18%
Table 3.7 Total desorbed gas (d.a.f.) and gas saturation from 12 cored wells.
94
Chapter 3
Figure 3.9 Mean total desorbed gas volume and gas saturation from 12 cored wells.
Saturation % (d.a.f. basis)

65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%
359
360
361
Depth (metres)
362
363
364
365
Figure 3.10 Well 2 example of variation of estimated saturation on a single coal seam.
95
Chapter 3
3.7.2. Coal lithotype and composition effect
With the previous parameters in consideration, there is no direct relationship of
estimated gas content with the different lithotypes. Direct comparison between
lithotypes has not revealed, in a mineral matter free basis, a greater gas content or gas
storage capacity to be associated with a particular lithotype. Nonetheless, it can be
assumed that the gas content in coal for identical conditions (pressure/temperature in
part of the same seam) should increase with brightness. As previously mentioned, as
brightness increases so does organic content, and this is where the gas is mainly stored.
The relationship between gas content and total organic content (from proximate
analysis) is displayed in Figure 3.11. There is a clear organic content relation with gas
content in as analysed basis; fixed carbon plus volatile matter increases as does gas
content. In contrast, it is well documented that ash content reduces gas content and gas
holding ability in coal (Bustin and Clarkson, 1998; Lamberson and Bustin, 1993;
Laxminarayana and Crosdale, 2002, 1999). Moisture yield does not seem to be a
significant factor as it decreases steadily with depth.
Besides the composition of the coal itself, its vertical location is shown to be the key
to gas content and gas saturation. When estimating gas-in-place, by relating it with
organic content (normally through a correlation between organic content and density
measurements), care should be taken with the gas saturation used as it does not
necessary increase with coal seam depth.
96
Chapter 3
14
Gas content as analysed (m3/tonne)

12
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Organic Content (% weight)
Figure 3.11 Measured (raw) gas content versus organic content measured in 491 core
samples from 12 cored wells.
Gamson et al. (1996) concluded that the gas flow does not depend only on a dual
porosity system constituted by the porous matrix and cleats, but on a complex banded
structure each with its own composition and cleat development characteristics. Also in a
study carried out by Mastalerz et al. (2008b) the different maceral and minerals found
in coal provide it with a variability in micro, meso and macro-porosity and significant
variations in pore surface area. The organic micro-porous matter is considered to be the
main structure characteristic influencing gas sorption in coal by providing a greater
surface area where the methane is primarily stored, while in contrast mineral matter
contributes to more macro-porous volumes in coal. Micro-pore distribution in coal
depends on two main factors, rank, or percentage of fixed carbon, and organic content,
both in quantity and maceral type (Gan et al., 1972; Levine, 1996). Considering that
both vitrinite reflectance and fixed carbon increases generally with depth and the main
macerals remain relatively constant with depth compared to gas content variability
(Tables 3.8), coal micro-porosity and surface area should increase with depth. This
97
Chapter 3
doesnt seem to be reflected in the gas content. Nevertheless it may be indicative of the
variations in saturation and lead to over-saturated samples. Different coal lithotypes
have different maceral components, with different porosities and inner structures
(banding and fracture patterns). The sampling of test gas storage capacity (adsorption
isotherms) is done through a crushed composite sample of the entire seam, therefore no
association can be tested relating gas storage capacity and coal lithotypes.
Fusinite (% m.m.f.) Semifusinite (% m.m.f.)

Coal seam Count
Min Max Mean Std.Dv. Min Max Mean Std. Dv.
Kogan 15 0.0 28.2 7.8 8.9 0.0 43.4 8.6 12.1
Mac.Upper 52 0.0 13.7 2.8 3.0 0.0 62.6 4.8 9.4
Mac.Lower 45 0.0 19.6 2.7 3.8 0.0 52.2 4.8 10.9
Nangram 20 0.0 4.6 0.5 1.1 0.0 2.9 0.4 0.9
Wambo 40 0.0 33.3 1.4 5.3 0.0 33.3 1.2 5.3
Iona 42 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 50.0 1.2 7.7
Argyle 85 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.3
Tangalooma Sst. 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Auburn 29 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.3
Bulwer 38 0.0 66.7 1.8 10.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1
Condamine 82 0.0 2.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 5.4 0.4 0.8
98
Chapter 3
Telocollinite (% m.m.f.) Desmocollinite (% m.m.f.) Corpogelinite (% m.m.f.)

Coal seam Count
Min Max Mean Std.Dv. Min Max Mean Std. Dv. Min Max Mean Std.Dv.
Kogan 15 3.6 80.0 35.6 21.2 3.4 62.4 22.7 19.9 0.0 13.2 3.8 4.3
Mac.Upper 52 8.8 90.9 40.1 19.2 0.0 62.2 26.0 16.3 0.0 15.5 4.4 3.6
Mac.Lower 45 3.4 81.2 34.5 16.2 1.1 82.8 31.0 21.1 0.0 14.1 4.8 3.8
Nangram 20 22.5 77.8 48.2 15.1 0.0 49.5 21.1 14.6 0.0 15.6 5.4 4.6
Wambo 40 7.4 85.4 45.5 21.4 0.0 64.2 24.8 18.3 0.0 16.6 4.8 4.2
Iona 42 14.3 100.0 34.9 16.6 0.0 61.4 28.5 16.8 0.0 21.6 6.5 5.6
Argyle 85 11.0 83.3 42.5 17.6 2.1 54.2 26.4 14.7 0.0 14.2 5.4 4.0
Tangalooma Sst. 9 12.3 73.2 42.7 19.6 9.7 45.4 28.4 14.1 2.0 8.1 4.6 2.2
Auburn 29 5.0 100.0 40.4 18.2 0.0 50.5 26.6 14.2 0.0 15.3 5.5 4.0
Bulwer 38 0.6 86.6 32.1 19.8 0.0 49.6 25.8 14.4 0.0 20.6 7.9 5.1
Condamine 82 0.0 100.0 40.2 21.1 0.0 96.6 29.8 19.0 0.0 14.6 5.5 3.7
Sporinite (% m.m.f.) Cutinite (% m.m.f.) Suberinite (% m.m.f.)

Coal seam Count
Kogan 15 0.0 9.1 2.0 2.9 0.0 5.8 2.0 1.9 0.0 35.1 12.8 9.7
Mac.Upper 52 0.0 13.2 2.7 3.3 0.0 8.2 1.7 1.9 0.0 40.8 14.9 8.6
Mac.Lower 45 0.0 8.6 2.0 2.0 0.0 7.6 1.9 2.1 1.8 53.6 16.6 9.9
Nangram 20 0.0 4.8 1.6 1.1 0.0 11.2 3.7 3.6 4.4 41.6 18.1 9.7
Wambo 40 0.0 7.9 2.6 1.8 0.0 33.3 2.4 5.4 0.0 34.0 15.8 9.1
Iona 42 0.0 7.6 2.7 1.8 0.0 10.2 1.9 2.3 0.0 53.4 23.3 12.8
Argyle 85 0.0 16.7 2.7 2.8 0.0 10.3 2.4 2.4 3.4 44.8 19.5 9.8
Tangalooma Sst. 9 0.7 6.6 3.2 1.9 0.0 4.9 1.9 1.6 8.1 30.3 18.1 7.9
Auburn 29 0.0 9.1 2.4 2.2 0.0 7.7 2.9 2.6 0.0 42.9 21.3 11.7
Bulwer 38 0.0 8.4 2.5 2.0 0.0 5.6 1.6 1.5 0.0 66.9 25.5 14.1
Condamine 82 0.0 5.1 1.6 1.2 0.0 7.4 1.3 1.8 0.0 47.1 19.7 9.8
Tables 3.8 Maceral petrographic composition of the Walloon Sub-group (in percentage mineral mater free basis).
99
Chapter 3
Ash content is negatively associated with micro-porosity, gas sorption and number
of cleats (Mastalerz et al., 2008). There is no clear relationship identified between any
specific maceral group and gas content (Figure 3.12 and Figure 3.13) or maceral
distribution and cleat development (Figure 3.14). Nonetheless, there is an association
between maceral in lithotypes and number of cleats. Research by Yao and Liu (2009)
concluded that telocollinite is prone to fracture development. As stated before,
compared to other lithotypes, the Dull banded coal beds have been shown to be more
fractured and these are also the ones who, on an m.m.f. basis, are richer in telocollinite
(Figure 3.15).
12
Gas Content (m3/tonne) (As Analysed)
10
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Liptinite Content (%) (m.m.f.)
Figure 3.12 Measured (raw) gas content versus liptinite content in 454 samples from 12
cored wells.
100
Chapter 3
12
Gas Conent (m3/tonne) (As Analysed)

10
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Vitrinite Content (%) (m.m.f.)
Figure 3.13 Measured (raw) gas content versus vitrinite content in 454 samples from 12
cored wells.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
% (m.m.f.)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% Vitrinite
Liptinite
0%
50 100 150 200 250 300
Cleats per m3
Figure 3.14 Mean cleat development against mean maceral content in the Walloon Sub-
group.
101
Chapter 3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Bright Banded
Dull & Bright
Dull Banded
Dull minor Bright
Dull
Telocollinite Desmocollinite Corpogelinite Suberinite
Figure 3.15 Maceral Petrographic composition of the most common lithotypes of the
Walloon Sub-group.
3.8. Wireline tool responses
3.8.1. Standard logging reading

A total of 1777 coal beds, totalling
totalling 276 metres in thickness from 10 wells (wells 1, 2,
3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14), where a direct correlation between core description and
unfiltered wireline log data was possible,

possible were studied.
With the exception of laterolog and induction logs, the wireline logs are usually
provided to the operator with added smoothing filters. Examples of filtered and
unfiltered logs can be seen in Figure 3.16 and Figure 3.17. Unfiltered, unsmoothed,
raw format logs were used to ensure the best analysis of the density, gamma ray, Pe and
resistivity measurements. The high level of uncertainty of the neutron-porosity

neutron
measurement in formations
ons with high apparent porosity such as coal is due to low near-
near
spaced count rates;; consequently,

consequently the analysed NPRS (Sandstone Neutron Porosity) log
data was in the filtered format.
102
Chapter 3
The density dataset is the most important measurement currently acquired for coal
seam gas evaluation due to the relatively low density of the coal and the high-resolution
of this dataset (Kempton and Peeters, 1977; Rieke III et al., 1981). The density log is
commonly used for coal identification, coal thickness estimation and is also indirectly
used to provide estimates of gas content. The most useful density logs provided by
Weatherford for this study are the high-resolution density log (HDEN) (APPENDIX C
wireline density to organic content x-plots). The HDEN was preferred to the near
spaced density log due to the latter higher sensitivity to common washouts. Also the
HDEN was preferred to the conventional compensated density (DEN) due to its
improved resolution.
Figure 3.16 Example of wireline logs supplied to the operator from well 3.
Except SP, caliper and Induction logs, the logs are usually supplied with smoothing filters.
Track 1: the depth in metres. Track 2: SP, gamma ray and Caliper. Track 3: contains
neutron-porosity, density log, sonic and Pe. Track 4: displays the resistivity readings, shallow
focused electric and induction. Track 5: contains the core macroscopic lithological description.
Track 6: Core desorbed gas content (APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms).
103
Chapter 3
Figure 3.17 An example of wireline data interpretation in well 3 using unfiltered density, Pe,
and FEFE logs.
Track 1: the depth in metres. Track 2: SP, gamma ray and caliper. Track 3: contains
neutron-porosity, density log, sonic and Pe. Track 4: displays the resistivity readings, shallow
Track 6: Core desorbed gas content (APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms).
Another useful characteristic of coal is its naturally high resistivity, recorded in
wireline responses from laterolog, induction and high-resolution resistivity tools. For
the resistivity measurements the raw data format was also used to interpret log
responses. Laterolog and induction data are usually displayed with no smoothing filters
while these are added to high-resolution measurements such as the FEFE (shallow
focused electric) log. There is no apparent benefit to filtering such high-resolution data.
This is because the filters make the responses more constant through coal bed zones,
subduing any shoulder effects. However, this apparent benefit does not hold true where
the coal beds are thin and are interbedded with tuffaceous or low organic mudstones.
The sharp responses are clear indicators of bed boundaries between coal and other rock
104
Chapter 3
types with contrasting physical properties. Applying smoothing filters to the data only
acts to mask the boundaries and generally degrade the resolution of the measurements.
The high carbon content in coal also influences the response of neutron logs. The
very low counting rates of the near spaced detector of the neutron tool results in a log
response of apparent porosity above 50 porosity units. Natural gamma ray
measurements of coal usually yield low values that increase with the increasing mineral
content, especially clay minerals. Travel times in coal are typically high, although
dependent on the mechanical properties of the coal, between 120 and 140 us/ft.
Displayed in Figure 3.18 to Figure 3.25 are the responses of wireline log density,
neutron-porosity, natural gamma-ray, Pe, sonic velocity and induction, shallow focused
electric and laterolog resistivities. Through the analysis of this dataset, with the
correlation between centimetric core description and wireline logs, it was possible to
have a clearer notion of the benefits and limitations of interpreting these downhole
measurements over thin bedded coal seams. The integration of the core and wireline
datasets generally indicates values of high apparent porosity and travel times, low
density, gamma ray and Pe. A few coal units, however, show the opposite responses,
the main reason for which is the limited thickness of these coal beds combined with the
physical properties of the adjacent lithologies (mudstones, siltstones, sandstones and
tuffaceous interbeds). Besides issues with coal bed thickness, wireline measurements
also have some data quality issues that can affect the ability to identify thin beds. In
particular, density and Pe measurements require that the tools sensor is in direct
contact with the borehole wall which can be difficult in the event of an oversized
borehole (due to washout) which can commonly occur in these rock types. Gamma ray
responses become more relevant in these cases, although when combined with the
neutron, sonic and laterolog measurements they still do not provide sufficient
105
Chapter 3
quantitative data to allow the detection of thin coal beds. From the resistivity tools
analysed the focused electric log is the only one that seems useful in coal identification
due to its higher resolution compared to other resistivity measurements. Also, the
resistivity histograms (Figure 3.23 and Figure 3.24) indicate clearly that different
measurements of resistivity (using different downhole tools) over the same coal beds
can provided extremely different reading.
100
90
80
70
Thickness (metres)
60
50 35%
31%
40
30
20 15%
10 6% 6%
0.2% 2% 3%
0
1.0 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.4 1.4 -1.6 1.6 - 1.8 1.8 - 2.0 2.0 - 2.2 2.2 - 2.4 2.4 - 2.6
Wireline log Density (g/cm3)
Figure 3.18 Wireline density responses found in coal bed zones in 10 cored wells.
3
Density values above what would be expected in coal (>1.75g/cm ) with a total of 17.6% of
the total coal thickness logged in these wells.
80
70
60
Thickness (metres)
50
40
26% 25%
30
19%
20
11% 11%
10
2%
0.4% 3% 1% 0.1%
0
30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60 60 - 70 70 - 80 80 - 90 90 - 100 100 - 110 110 - 120 120 - 130
Wireline log Neutron-porosity (%)
Figure 3.19 Wireline neutron-porosity responses found in coal bed zones in 10 cored wells.
106
Chapter 3
100
90
80
70
Thickness (metres)
60
50
33%
40
27%
30 23%
20
11%
10
3% 3%
0
0 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100 100 - 120
Wireline log natural Gamma-ray (api)
Figure 3.20 Wireline natural gamma-ray responses found in coal bed zones in 10 cored
wells.
100
90
80
70
Thickness (metres)
60
50 35%
40
30 20%
18%
20
10 6% 7% 6% 2%
0.1% 2% 3% 1%
0
0 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.2 1.2 - 1.5 1.5 - 1.8 1.8 - 2.1 2.1 - 2.4 2.4 - 2.7 2.7 - 3.0 > 3.0
Pe (b/e)
Figure 3.21 Wireline photoelectric responses found in coal bed zones in 10 cored wells.
107
Chapter 3
90
80
70
60
Thickness (metres)
50
40 29%
27%
30
20 15%
11%
10 8%
3% 4% 3%
0
0-110 110-115 115-120 120-125 125-130 130-135 135-140 >140
Travel time (us/ft)
Figure 3.22 Wireline sonic log responses found in coal bed zones in 10 cored wells.
40
35
30 Medium
Thickness (metres)
Deep
25
20
58% 60%
15
10
22% 24%
5 14%
13% 3%
8% 0% 0%
0
0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40
Induction resistivity (ohm.m)
Figure 3.23 Wireline induction resistivity responses found in 3 cored wells in coal bed
zones.
108
Chapter 3
14
12
10
Thickness (metres)
6 19%
15%
14%
4 12% 12%
7%
2 5%
1% 4% 1% 4%
3% 1%
0
Shallow focused electric resistivity (ohm.m)
Figure 3.24 Wireline shallow focused electric resistivity responses found in 3 cored wells in
coal bed zones.
60
50
Shallow Deep
40
Thickness (metres)
30
25% 26% 25%
22% 22% 21%
20
10
7% 7% 7% 8%
5% 4%
3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2%
0
0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 100-200 >200
Lateralog resistivity (ohm.m)
Figure 3.25 Wireline lateralog resistivity responses found in 8 cored wells in coal bed zones.
109
Chapter 3
3.8.2. Imager and scanner readings

Resistivity and acoustic imaging tools have become common-place in coal seam
exploration due to the high-resolution measurements providing fine detail of the
borehole wall. Interpretation of such logs is useful to define boundaries between coal
beds and other rock types and between coal beds with distinct quantities of organic
matter. The level of detail of these measurements is exemplified in the relative easiness
to correlate them with individual core samples (Figure 3.26).
Borehole images are also extremely useful for the identification and measurement of
major factures. However, identification of coal cleats and banding using these images
within individual coal beds seems not possible, as it appears the scale of these cleats
and bands are too small to allow identification in a systematic way (
Figure 3.27 and Figure 3.28). Also, even in the optimal case of the coal beds to be
sub-horizontal, organic matter estimation is impractical as a result of the fragile nature
of the coal and its response in both tools. Furthermore, in the case of the resistivity
imager, this relies on direct contact with the rock measured. If the coal breaks and
fractures, not all the electrode buttons on the pads may stay in contact with the rock,
creating different resistivity colour contours that dont necessarily represent the real
organic content variation in the coal bed.
110
Chapter 3
Figure 3.26 Example taken from well 2 of imager and scanner responses in coal.
From left to right: 1) Core description; 2) Dynamically Normalized CMI tool image log; 3) ATV Acoustic Televiewer log; 4) Static CMI normalized image; 5)
Acoustic Scanner log.
111
Chapter 3
Cleats
Figure 3.27 (Left) Example of a scanning electron microscope picture showing a cleat with calcite filling.
Figure 3.28 (Right) Coal hand specimen showing face and butt cleats.
112
Chapter 3
3.8.3. Coal lithotype and permeability effect on wireline measurements
The question arose as to whether different lithotypes could generate different log
responses. What is observed is that lithotype undoubtedly affects the measurements
although it is difficult to distinguish them solely using the logs (Table 3.9). There are,
nevertheless, interesting responses and some trends identified. The nature of the
lithotypes influences the shallow log responses. This is not only the organic matter
associated with each lithotype but also its thickness and to certain degree its cleat
frequency and coal banding. In core analysis organic matter increases with brightness
which leads to lower relative densities from stony to dull banded coal beds.
Measurements downhole are affected by the limited thickness of the coal beds. Brighter
coal beds end up indicating higher densities due to their limited thickness. This can
also be observed in the other nuclear measurements where bright coals have lower
resistivity, lower neutron-porosity and higher Pe.
In comparison to other measurements the FEFE log is the one that better separates
different coal beds, even when they are on top of each other (Figure 3.17).
Interestingly, when it comes to resistivity, it is possible to see that besides thickness and
organic matter content the resistivity FEFE log is also to an extent affected by fracture
development and coal banding. Highly banded, highly fractured coal beds may have
their high-resolution resistivity lowered. Dull banded coal seams, which are the ones
showing more banding and more fractures, have lower resistivity than what may be
expected considering they have the lowest wireline density. Nevertheless fracture,
banding or friability cannot be quantified because the resistivity readings are
significantly affected by boundary beds. The interpretation of this measurement and its
importance in CSG gas-in-place estimation is discussed in more detail in CHAPTER 4.
113
Chapter 3
When analysing the CMI image tool it was not possible to tell lithotypes apart
beyond the organic content differences associated with them, which resistivity also
differentiates.
3.8.4. Reservoir permeability
Coal permeability depends on the interaction between the pore space (i.e. pores
within the matrix) and the fracture network (Close, 1993; Levine, 1996). In response to
a pressure drop, adsorbed methane starts diffusing within the coal matrix micropores
and mesopores, the gas then moves to the natural fractures/cleats and finally flows to
the wellbore. The intrinsic property of the coal to develop cleats in greater numbers
than other rock types, acts as a permeability enhancer in what would otherwise be a
tight bed. Cleat filling minimises the permeability of water filled cleats. Both the cleat
density, and cleat filling, together with gas content and gas saturation are shown to
change dramatically from coal bed to coal bed. With detailed core description, it was
possible to verify how many coal beds (number and thickness of coal beds), cleat
density and cleat filling relates to the actual well test performance.
In Coal seam gas exploration, permeability is usually estimated through a series of
DST tests done in exploratory cored wells and appraisal wells, where selected intervals
are targeted to evaluate production (Kabir et al., 2011). Independently of how thick
these coals are, the reservoir is made of a multi-layer, thinly-bedded coal beds
sequence. Each of these layers contributes in their own way to the two-phase flow (gas
and water). The results of these tests in Coal Seam Gas can be less than 1mD (poor
permeability) to more than several hundreds of millidarcies (permeable coal).
114
Chapter 3
Thickness Density PE Gamma Ray Neutron porosity FEFE DSLL RILM

Lithotype (m) (g/cm3) (b/e) (api) (%) (ohm.m) (ohm.m) (ohm.m)
Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev
Stony 0.11 0.15 1.82 0.31 1.79 0.86 72 21.1 65 15.1 32 53.3 43 281 7 4.8
Dull 0.12 0.10 1.69 0.29 1.58 0.57 66 25.6 68 15.4 36 55.2 30 64 8 5.5
Dull minor bright 0.19 0.17 1.64 0.32 1.54 0.58 60 23.0 73 14.5 152 423.8 57 197 9 6.1
Dull Banded 0.17 0.14 1.58 0.27 1.44 0.47 59 21.6 73 14.3 116 310.2 55 207 8 3.7
Dull & Bright 0.15 0.14 1.62 0.35 1.5 0.64 55 23.3 72 15.0 188 358.5 55 122 9 4.5
Bright Banded 0.13 0.14 1.63 0.31 1.57 0.44 55 23.3 68 16.4 --- --- 25 38 --- ---
Bright 0.04 0.04 1.90 0.31 1.93 0.82 57 26.4 61 20.8 82 109.5 25 49 5 2.2
Table 3.9 Lithotype mean log responses
115
Chapter 3
Other sources of data that are related to permeability in the dataset provided by the
operator were sorption time and diffusivity measurements taken from individual
samples. As expected the values of sorption time and diffusivity vary widely on a core-
to-core sample basis. These two measurements are known by industry experience not to
be comparable to DST data, emphasising the highly heterogeneous nature of coal
permeability. Sorption time and diffusivity were disregarded as a source of permeability
estimation for the purpose of this study as they are associated with a significant number
of sources of uncertainty related and because they provide very different values of
permeability from the coal in an in situ state (Wold and Jeffrey, 1999).
The dataset received had calculated permeability using equation 3-2. The thickness
(
) used was through wireline log interpretation. Since the dataset also had core
descriptions, a more reliable source of the coal thickness, the net coal was calculated
from core and subsequently the permeability was recalculated. This was conducted by
substituting the coal thickness (

) in the following equation 3-2.
All of the intervals tested are not purely made of coal beds, but of several different
rock types. The permeability values presented are based on the assumption that only
coal beds are providing water and or gas to the main flow. This assumption is grounded
in the premise that non-coal beds are impermeable, with a low effective porosity matrix
composed of smectite- rich sandstones, siltstones and mudstones of illite and smectite
mineralogy.
3-2
$ $
/
Where:
K permeability, mD.
Kh flow capacity, mD.m.
h thickness, m.
116
Chapter 3
In Table 3.10 (see also x-plots in APPENDIX E Permeability and coal bed
characteristics), permeability estimated from 42 DST tests in 13 wells is compared
against coal properties within the test zones. As Mavor and Nelson (1997) investigated;
the individual coal beds work as individual reservoirs. The examples show a large
number of thin coal beds, each of them contributing (or not) with very different water
and gas flow to the borehole. The table also demonstrates that cleat density and
permeability do not have a straightforward relationship. Cleat development in the coal
within the test zones is also revealed to be highly variable, meaning that a highly
cleated (with a cleat spacing smaller than 1mm) coal could be in contact with a cleat-
less coal bed. There is also no indication that only coals with a high cleat density could
allow water or gas to flow in enough quantities to influence these permeability tests.
Cleat filling, as described in core analysis, does not seem to constrain the estimated
permeability. This is understandable since cleats are not completely closed by filling
and their width can changes with production.
117
Chapter 3
Mean bed
Net coal k Cleats Mean cleat Number
Coal Seam Ro max thickness
thickness (m) (mD) per m3 filling of beds
(m)
0.45 3.1 3.5 121 31% 16 0.19
0.44 3.9 1.3 419 40% 11 0.35
Macalister
0.47 1.7 28.8 289 47% 11 0.15
Upper
0.50 9.0 1221.2 486 40% 69 0.13
- 4.0 52.7 195 25% 23 0.17
0.48 7.7 36.5 139 30% 63 0.12
0.44 6.6 6.5 545 9% 33 0.20
Macalister
0.42 4.8 2.7 259 53% 24 0.20
Lower
0.47 1.7 0.5 95 22% 11 0.16
- 2.2 1.6 379 25% 23 0.10
0.43 2.7 28.2 123 11% 18 0.15
Nangram - 5.2 238.8 404 20% 48 0.11
0.42 1.4 0.1 238 22% 9 0.16
0.56 3.4 1419.4 643 12% 27 0.13
Wambo
4.3 13.9 197 39% 20 0.22
0.53 2.5 3.0 101 36% 18 0.14
0.46 3.1 438.7 160 17% 16 0.19
Iona
- 3.3 83.4 503 14% 21 0.15
0.45 4.2 19.7 130 81% 27 0.15
0.50 2.5 136.1 46 32% 17 0.15
0.54 2.4 135.1 117 15% 16 0.15
0.46 3.4 0.1 252 16% 21 0.16
0.45 3.2 11.3 229 43% 17 0.19
0.58 2.8 1318.3 340 6% 26 0.11
Argyle
0.40 3.6 4.6 123 30% 11 0.33
0.48 2.1 247 104 24% 9 0.23
0.46 2.4 33.6 515 17% 19 0.13
0.47 1.0 5.8 495 11% 7 0.15
0.42 4.8 5.7 297 29% 22 0.22
0.48 2.4 0.1 133 51% 13 0.18
0.63 1.8 418.1 169 7% 17 0.11
Bulwer
0.49 3.6 1.6 152 0% 12 0.30
0.48 1.9 31.6 271 10% 14 0.13
0.55 1.4 12.4 109 22% 8 0.15
0.61 1.8 113.9 74 0% 17 0.11
0.48 3.9 211 112 45% 15 0.26
0.49 2.7 0.0 183 19% 18 0.15
Condamine 0.47 4.8 2.2 152 24% 14 0.34
0.53 3.0 0.9 104 10% 15 0.20
- 4.1 30.7 320 30% 15 0.27
0.48 5.1 0.1 542 9% 36 0.14
0.44 6.6 2.9 239 26% 34 0.19
Table 3.10 Drill Stem Test results compared to coal bed characteristics in wells 1 to 8 and
10 to 14.
3.9. Discussion and Conclusions
Investigation into the sub-bituminous to high-volatile bituminous Walloon Sub-
group coal beds has revealed a predominately dull thinly-bedded nature, where the coal
beds are on (mean) average 15cm thick. Dull minor bright and Dull banded coal
lithotypes are the most common, together making 69% of all coal described, and also
forming the thickest coal beds. Bright coal is found in low percentages throughout the
13 wells analysed, mainly in the shape of bands or fragments inside a generally dull
118
Chapter 3
coal bed. The lithotypes could be a part of a relatively thick seam or isolated coal beds
interbedded by siltstones, sandstones and mudstones that may or not have coal laminae.
As core analysis was originally carried out regardless of the lithotype, samples were
selected to reflect the nature of each lithotype. Proximate analyses of selected samples
indicate that as brightness increases, so does fixed carbon and volatile matter against
decreasing ash and moisture content. The Vitrinite group macerals are the most
common. Interestingly, the coal with more bright bands proved to have the highest
concentration of liptinite. The maceral content together with the proximate analysis
results may explain why liptinite content was associated with higher gas content (Scott
et al., 2007).
Cleat development seems to be influenced by the coal type and depth. The number of
cleats in a coal seam is dependent positively on the thickness of banded coal beds of
which it is composed. The mineral content is clearly constraining the cleat development
as the detailed description of the stony and dull lithotypes has shown. Dull banded and
Dull & Bright lithotypes have the closest spaced distribution of face and butt cleats,
followed by Dull minor bright. Cleat length has a negative association with cleat
frequency. Mineral filling in cleats is present in the majority of the coals, especially in
the brightest coals, although rarely completely closing the natural fractures.
No stronger relationship was found between gas content and coal lithotypes
compared to those existing with organic content. Gas content increases with depth until
the Auburn coal measure and then decreases in deeper coals. The saturation variability
was striking on a sample scale. Saturation can be expected to vary also on a coal bed
scale, indicating that each bed constitutes effectively an isolated reservoir. Of the coal
beds analysed, coal type overshadows all other factors. The geochemical properties of
119
Chapter 3
each lithotype are therefore influencing cleat development, gas content and gas storage
capacity.
Wireline logs show non-typical responses for coal in thin beds due to the limitations
of the individual tools resolution. Furthermore, differences in wireline log readings in
distinct lithotypes were identified although it is difficult to separate them in a
systematic way. Resistivity seems to be influenced to a certain extent by the lithotype
banding and fractures. Interpretation of image logs was found to be very useful for coal
seam thickness determination, identification of major fractures and for core-log
correlation.
The levels of heterogeneity in the coal seams create difficulties in the identification
of influential factors on the permeability estimated through DST tests. Nevertheless, the
general trends show that the more permeable coals seem to (1) be thinly bedded, i.e.,
the coal beds within the test zone are thinner and more numerous; (2) are more mature;
and (3) have a higher number of cleats per m3. The results may be indicative of (1) the
alluvial and lacustrine nature of the Walloon Sub-group, which may lead to limited
horizontal continuity of the cleat development described from the core; (2) limited
continuity of the coal beds and/or coal seams far beyond the borehole radius; (3)
isolation of single coal beds, even in cases that are a part of a coal seam, which could be
due to the lack of cleat development between the beds preventing inter-bed water and
gas flow; and (4) gas saturation may be affecting the DST test results due to its high
variability on an individual coal bed basis.
120
Chapter 4
CHAPTER 4 Estimating coal thickness in
Thinly Bedded Coal Seam Gas (CSG)
4.1. Introduction
To assess the economic value of this unconventional reservoir various well data
inputs are needed and most of them are acquired from core analysis, wireline logs and
drill stem tests. When compared to other hydrocarbon accumulations, the vertical and
lateral variability found in CSG requires a greater number of wells to be drilled. For
economic reasons, the number of cored wells is usually limited and consequently
standard wireline measurements are seen as a more economical practice to evaluate
fundamental parameters including coal thickness, coal quality and indirectly, coal gas
content (Mullen, 1989; Rogers, 2007; Seidle, 2011).
The estimation of reservoir thickness, also known as net coal, is a fundamental
aspect of Coal Seam Gas resource assessment as it directly influences the estimation of
gas-in-place reserves and consequently the overall economic analysis (Dhir et al.,
1991). Due to the organic-rich nature of coal, the standard approach used to quantify net
coal is the analysis of high-resolution open-hole density log data. This estimate is
nevertheless associated with being one of the main sources of error in CSG reservoir
modelling, due to the usage of a defined wireline bulk-density maximum value of
typically a value of 1.8 g/cm3 which is used to estimate gross reservoir thickness
(Lagendijk and Ryan, 2010; Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Nelson, 1999). Field experience
and the use of modern high-resolution measuring tools has diminished the degree of
uncertainty, although as demonstrated in this study, it remains significant when the coal
121
Chapter 4
seams being measured are thinly bedded; this is normally the case in CSG worldwide
(Colson, 1991; Mavor et al., 1990a).
Coal seam gas wells have distinct characteristics with regards to drilling, wireline
logging operations and interpretation (Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Palmer, 2010; Rogers,
2007; Seidle, 2011). The wells are usually shallow (less than 1000m) where special
consideration is taken into borehole stability due to common washout problems. Coal
and associated shaly lithologies have a tendency to create cavings and borehole
rugosity, and this is detrimental not only to core recovery but also to wireline logging
quality, especially in tools dependent on good contact with the borehole wall.
In this study a workflow is proposed for use as part of CSG wireline log
interpretation. This is tested in three cored and two production wells. It combines
density with resistivity measurements to improve the estimation of thinly bedded net
coal thickness in CSG.
As an effective electrical insulator, coal has relatively high electrical resistivity.
Standard resistivity measuring tools provide medium to high-resolution measurements
with different vertical ranges. The most common resistivity tools being run in CSG
wells are a combination of induction and shallow focused electric tools. An
investigation into the resistivity log responses has indicated that different logging tools
provide very different responses across coal seams. The reliability of associating
downhole resistivity log responses to coal permeability (Hoyer, 1991; Yang et al.,
2006) is tested. This involved the correlation between log data and core analysis from
thinly bedded, highly-volatile bituminous coal seams, from the Walloon Sub-group,
Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia.
122
Chapter 4
4.2. Core and wireline data correlation

The data set for this study was acquired in five wells drilled in the Surat Basin in
Queensland Australia. These data are used to evaluate and test the production potential
of coal seam gas from the Walloons Sub-group Coal Measures. For this study the data
set comprises wells where high-resolution focused electric tools were run in cored wells
(9.6cm diameter borehole) and also in production test wells (21.6cm diameter
borehole). Core recovery in the wells 1, 2 and 3 was conducted through a slim-hole
wireline coring system to minimize core damage and gas loss. The full Walloon Coal
Measures section was described macroscopically (Figure 4.1) by Earth Data Pty Ltd
Geological & Earth Science consultants personnel. Coal type was identified following
the Australian standard (Australian Standard, AS 2916-2007. Symbols for graphical
representation of coal seams and associated strata, 2007) lithotype classification. Also,
with regards to coal, the cleat (face and butt) spacing and penetrability are also
described. In these wells eighty-nine core samples were retrieved from the cored
section for special core analysis.
Besides cored wells 1, 2 and 3, wireline log data from production wells 3A and 3B
were also examined. These wells are part of the same CSG exploration development
plan of cored well 3. Not only are they in geographical proximity of each other (within
a distance of 1.7km) but they also have similar depth intervals drilled (Table 4.1). The
logging suite included resistivity (induction, shallow focused electric and laterolog),
nuclear (gamma ray, density, Pe, neutron porosity), spontaneous potential and caliper
measurements.
123
Chapter 4
Total Depth Walloons coal Core desorption

Wells
(m) measures depth (m) samples
1 (cored) 760 153 - 566 13
2 (cored) 610 297 - 610 37
3 (cored) 698 346 - 670 39
3A 716 364 - 660 ---
3B 734 350 - 653 ---
Table 4.1 Total well depth and Walloons Sub-group depth intervals identified in core and
wireline logs. From cored wells 1, 2 and 3 selected samples were tested for special core
analysis.
Figure 4.1 Correlation between well 1, 2 and 3 based on core description. For location see
Figure 2.22 in chapter 2.
124
Chapter 4
The data acquired for this study vary considerably, with each measurement
technique possessing its own vertical resolution. In addition to each downhole tool
having its own specific resolution, the data from core analysis also have their own scale
of measurement. Core description was provided on a centimetre scale. Correlation
between core macroscopic description and log response was matched at 40
samples/metre intervals (an increment of 0.025m). With regards to the core analysis, the
samples had lengths between 0.3m and 1.0m depending on the bed thickness and
limited by the length of the desorption canisters. Therefore, to relate the special core
analysis with the log response, the core thickness was averaged over the depth interval
where the core sample was recovered.
4.3. Coal Properties

In order to interpret the wireline logs it is important to understand the nature of the in
coal bearing strata. Overall, the data provided are broadly in the same setting described
by previous studies focussing on the Walloon Sub-group (Hamilton et al., 2012; Martin
et al., 2013; Scott et al., 2007). They consist of an assemblage of sub-bituminous to
high-volatile bituminous coal lithotypes with vitrinite reflectance between 0.36% to
0.55% Ro max, dominated by Vitrinite (60%-80% average), variable Liptinite (40%-
5%), very low Inertinite (<5%) interbedded with carbonaceous mudstone, tuffaceous
and siltstones beds of variable thickness. Besides coal lithotypes coal was also found in
the shape of thinly bedded layers (less than 2.5cm coal laminae) in mudstones and
siltstones. As described by Martin et al., (2013), they can be identified as Class I or
Class II, forming thicker or thinner coal seams with different lithotypes stacked on
top of each other, separated by other lithologies. The total thickness of each lithotype
can be seen in Table 4.2. In the three cored wells, an overall total of 323 individual coal
125
Chapter 4
beds were identified. Coal bed mean thickness averages 0.19m, ranging from a
minimum thickness of 0.025m up to 0.925m. Well 1 and well 3 have similar coal seam
distributions, with coal seams having on average 0.20m thickness in both wells. While
well 2 has thicker coal seams, with an overall average thickness of 0.37m.
Total Thickness (metres)

Coal Lithotype
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3
Dull & Bright 1.8 0.6 0.6
Dull banded 3.3 4.3 5.1
Dull minor bright 0.6 18.6 13.8
Dull 0.7 3.4 2.6
Stony 0.4 3.9 3.2
Total coal 6.8 30.8 25.3
Total Coal Laminae 1.5 9.2 5.1
Table 4.2 Coal facies identified in the core description
4.4. Wireline logging for Coal Seam Gas

Along with nuclear and sonic tools, which are run in all wells, resistivity tools are
also run, though these may vary in measurement technique from well to well depending
on the salinity of the drilling mud. The drilling fluid used in CSG wells is usually water
based with an exception found in cases of wells extensively cored. In these wells the
main objective is to recover core in the best condition for special core analysis and core
description. Special core analysis is a key aspect of the overall CSG exploration. In
addition to providing unique analysis, core data works as a correlation anchor to what
could be, in the case of an economically viable project, a program with hundreds of
wells with proximity of less than 1km apart where wireline logs are always run, but
core is not recovered. Cored wells account for only the number of initial pilot wells in
the region. Therefore, due to the limited thickness of the coal beds and the limited
numbers of cored wells, net coal thickness determination comes in great part from the
analysis and interpretation of wireline data.
126
Chapter 4
As observed in the core description and indicated by Martin et al. (2013), coal may
or may not grade into shaly lithologies. The more obvious sharp contacts are found in
contacts between coal and volcanic tuff beds, which besides the contrast in macroscopic
characteristics have completely different compositions with tuff beds having no organic
content. A hypothetical log used for thin coal seam interpretation should indicate
contact between contrasting facies, not only because of its competence to identify
dramatic changes in composition of the formation, but also to separate those formations
that can be potential coal seam gas producers.
For some time tool resolution has been an issue when dealing with wireline logging
in coal exploration (Kempton and Peeters, 1977; Samworth and Cherrie, 1976). As
demonstrated in the previous chapter, to understand the nature of potential productive
methane coal beds, coals thin scale heterogeneity demands a similar scale in its
measurement. Interpretation of log responses in wells drilled in the Walloon Sub-group
suffers from the same issues identified in other Basins with low thickness of individual
coal beds.(Mavor et al., 1990a) analysed evaluation procedures in CSG wells drilled in
the San Juan Basin, ranking the log measurements in terms of importance. Primary
importance was assigned to the high-resolution density log and secondary or tertiary
value to logs such as neutron, gamma ray, Pe, dual induction and laterolog resistivities
for quantitative purposes. Colson (1991), analysing log responses over coal beds less
than 1ft thick in the Black Warrior Basin, considered gamma ray and standard-
resolution density logs to have wrong and inadequate responses. Examples of
intervals that could lead to such statements are also found in the data set described in
this thesis. Figure 4.2 reveals a correlation between a zone where core was recovered
against standard wireline log measurements. Both the bulk density and the shallow
focused electric (FEFE) resistivity log responses found in that image are designated by
127
Chapter 4
the service company as high-resolution with a vertical resolution of 15cm. This level
of resolution in density depends on the source-receiver spacing and has been considered
to be the best possible for more than 40 years for this type of tool based on a gamma ray
source of Cesium 137. As shown in the same figure, interpretation from other nuclear
measurements (gamma ray and neutron-porosity) suffers from their 61cm (2ft)
resolution. The example shown in Figure 4.2 also indicates that although the two last
log responses are being influenced by the coal beds, a quantitative interpretation would
result in a significant degree of uncertainty. The coal bed thickness would be
overestimated (neutron-porosity log) or underestimated (gamma ray). When estimating
the net coal in thinly bedded coal seams, it is not just the question of identifying the
coal seam but also distinguishing the individual beds from other lithologies.
128
Chapter 4
Figure 4.2 An example of wireline data correlated with core analysis from well 2.
Track 1: the depth in metres. Track 2: SP, gamma ray and caliper. Track 3: contains density
3
log (with less than 1.8 g/cm shading) and the neutron-porosity. Track 4: displays the resistivity
readings, shallow focused electric, induction and laterolog. Track 5: contains the core
macroscopic lithological description. Track 6: derived lithological log using density log together
with induction and shallow focused resistivity log measurements (APPENDIX I tools and logs
acronyms).
4.4.1. Net coal estimation using density log

The definition of a cut-off and its application as a policy are critical in CSG
exploration, not only to know the volume of coal that can be a potential methane
producer but also to define well completions and as part of permeability estimation.
Furthermore the net coal estimation that results from a cut-off workflow can directly
affect the ultimate permeability of the producing coal beds, as thick coal seams are
selected to be under-reamed in open-hole conditions, so gas flow rate can be enhanced
by increasing the wellbore radius and cleaning drilling damage zones (Palmer, 2010).
129
Chapter 4
The importance of the accurate estimation of coal quality and coal thickness led to
the high-resolution density log response being of primary importance. Due to its
organic rich nature, coal has a lower bulk density than other sedimentary lithologies.
Density log data is used to estimate coal seam thickness and ash content so that gas in
place can then be calculated by the following equation (Mavor and Nelson, 1997):
GIP=(A*h**Gobs)
Where GIP is the gas in place (m3), A is the drainage area (m2), h = net coal
thickness (m), is the bulk density of the net coal (g/cm3) or (tonne/m3) and Gobs is the
observed gas content (m3/tonne).
The gross thickness (h) used today is estimated by using an in situ open-hole density
log cut-off. The choice of this cut-off can lead to one of the major sources of error in
CSG reservoir gas-in-place estimation (Lagendijk and Ryan, 2010; Nelson, 1999).
100
75
Weight (%)
50
25
0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Core Density (g/cm3)
Ash Content Organic Content Content Moisture Content
Figure 4.3 Coal ash and organic content against core density cross plot of wells 1, 2 and 3.
In the Walloon Sub-group, core density can be associated easily with the basic
composition of coal determined in proximate analysis. Core density against percentage
of weight of moisture, organic content and ash content for wells 1, 2, and 3 is shown in
130
Chapter 4
Figure 4.3. According to the geological definition of coal, for a sedimentary rock to be
classified as coal, it must contain less than 50% of mineral content by weight and more
than 70% of organic content by volume. The relationship found between ash content
with density and the possibility of measuring density with a high-resolution tool
downhole, leads to the application of a density cut-off as the standard method for
identifying coal in wireline log analysis. A density cut-off is a maximum value that is
applied to the density log to differentiate coal from other formations. The choice of this
value has major significance in the estimation of Gas-in-place. There is an associated
error related to borehole cavings and sharp lithological contacts, and to thin bed coal
thickness that could be less than the tools resolution.
Figure 4.4 shows the average for the density measured by a high-resolution density
log against the density of core recovered in the same zone (APPENDIX D wireline
responses). Thus it can be seen that the quality of the downhole measurement is
affected by borehole washouts making the density values lower. Moreover, it can be
observed that measuring density downhole in thin bedded coals has a tendency to
underestimate the coals quality (i.e. the density measured in core tends to be less than
that downhole). Today this leads to most companies not to follow the geological
definition to identify coal when interpreting wireline density, which from Figure 4.3
would be close to 1.6 g/ cm3; instead a higher density maximum value is used.
Experience of working with wireline logs in coal has led log analysts to increase this
density cut-off to values between 1.75 g/cm3 and 1.85 g/ cm3.
131
Chapter 4
2.6
2.4
2.2
Core density (g/cm3)
2.0
1.8
Borehole diameter
1.6 <10cm
10 to 20cm
1.4 20 to 30cm
30 to 40cm
>40cm
1.2
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
High-Resolution wireline Density (g/cm3)
Figure 4.4 Wireline against core density with colour distribution of borehole enlargement of
wells 1, 2 and 3.
The question is thus, what value should be considered as a cut-off? The application
of too low a log density cut-off can remove non-producing higher density formations
although it can also easily remove organic bearing strata. These methane productive
sedimentary sequences are organic-rich mudstones, with coal layers and coal beds that
due to their higher mineral content have higher density log readings, such as that of
shaly or stony coal. Additionally, because coal seams are thin, the density log readings
are elevated by the neighbouring beds. However, if the policy is just increasing the
maximum density cut-off, then there is an associated risk of over-estimating the
reservoir size by introducing other lithologies that have negligible gas storage capacity.
Since wells 1, 2 and 3 recovered core over the entire sequence of the Walloon Sub-
group, it is possible to correlate it to the high-resolution density log and investigate how
much of the coal was estimated by using an increasing density cut-off. This is shown in
Figure 4.5. In this cross-plot the x-axis is the ratio between the reservoir rock and the
estimated reservoir rock using a cut-off, in the case of this figure, a maximum density
132
Chapter 4
cut-off. In the y-axis is the percentage of total reservoir rock detected, as identified in
core. In other words, the score at the horizontal indicates the quality of the estimation,
while the vertical is indicative of quantity. A good methodology should score high in
both.
The fragile nature of coal seams usually leads to washout effects, where the density
tool readings are unreliable, creating difficulties distinguishing coals beds from nearby
formations. A good example of this was detected in well 1, where several zones
suffered washouts. Figure 4.5 shows how this makes well 1 score less in both axis x
and y. Wells 2 and 3 did not have the washout issue that was detected in well 1.
Nevertheless, they do not demonstrate the same behaviour in Figure 4.5. This is related
to the general thickness of the coal beds. The frequency of thicker coal in well 2 is
significantly higher than well 3. The density tool is therefore less affected by boundary
formations in well 2 and consequently a greater part of the reservoir is characterised by
lower readings in the density log compared to well 3. This explains why in Figure 4.5
the well 2 shows better results.
133
Chapter 4
100%
2.6g/cm3 2.4 g/cm3 2.0 g/cm3 2.2
90% 2.0
1.8g/cm3
80%
1.8 1.8
Total core reservoir thickness
70%
60%
1.6g/cm3
1.6
50% 1.6
40%
30%
Well 1 1.4 g/cm3 1.4
20% 1.4
Well 2
10% Well 3
0% 1.2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Core reservoir rock thickness/Estimated reservoir thickness
Figure 4.5 Study of density log cut-off value.

X-plot between the ratio of core reservoir rock thickness to estimated reservoir thickness
using a maximum wireline density cut-off against the total reservoir thickness.
4.5. Coal borehole resistivity
4.5.1. Standard downhole resistivity measurements

There are two broad factors to be considered when measuring resistivity downhole:
geological and technical. The matrix (e.g. minerals, cements) of most rocks are
electrical insulators, although sedimentary rocks are often porous and may contain salty
water where electrical current can flow with little resistance. The high concentration of
organic material found in coal constrains the pore space and reduces the pore
connectivity making this sedimentary rock highly resistive when compared to other
sedimentary rocks. Bed thickness, relative to the measurement scale, is also a
significant influence on the resistivity log response. Resistivity in conventional oil and
gas exploration has long been a source for identification of hydrocarbons through the
separation of shallow and deep measuring resistivity logs, for picking formation tops
134
Chapter 4
and bottoms, and for estimating formation hydrocarbon saturation using Archies
equation. However in coal logging, with the common use of water-based drilling muds
and the low salinity inside the borehole environment, the thin coal beds do not create
the invasion profile identifiable in more porous formations when invaded by mud
filtrate. To interpret an association of two measurements, one shallow and one deep, it
is fundamental to ensure that both are measuring the same formation vertically. This is
relevant because of the thin nature of the coal beds, in which the deep measuring log is
more affected by the boundary formation on the top and bottom of the coal than the
shallow log. This leads to the deep resistivity log showing a lower value than the
shallow log. This represents a typical result when measuring deep and shallow
resistivity through the induction tool in thinly bedded coal seams and cannot be
interpreted in the manner applicable to conventional reservoirs..
Downhole resistivity devices have different formats with different electrode sizes
and spacings. Depending on the device, coal can show a wide range of electrical
resistivities, measured downhole, over the same seam. This is demonstrated in Figure
4.2 where a section of well 2 is shown where both the Array Induction tool (AIT) and
Dual Laterolog tool (MDL) were run after the mud system was changed by adding
potassium chloride (KCl) to the water based fluid. The induction tool and the focused
electric tool are the resistivity measurements most often used in coal seam gas, at least
in the case of the Australian Walloon Sub-group, where most of the wells are drilled
with fresh water based mud. The induction tool samples the formation with several
depths of investigation (medium and deep) away from the borehole. The approximate
1.0 metre distance between the transmitter and the receiver coils defines the induction
resolution which is clearly impractical for interpreting coal seam layering with its
heterogeneities, with mudstone and tuff interbeds. The measurements are shown to be
135
Chapter 4
highly influenced by the inorganic beds bordering and interbedded in the coal seam, and
consequently the measurement does not provide the characteristic of high resistivity
normally associated with coal. In the same situation the laterolog response, because it
possesses a closer spaced electrode arrangement, has a shorter vertical investigation and
is less affected by conductive beds, thus providing resistivity values higher than an
induction survey as far as thin beds are concerned. Yet again the laterolog measurement
does not resolve shale or tuff beds within a coal seam.
4.5.2. MFE Response to coal thickness

The running of the AIT assembly tools is associated with another resistivity device,
the high-resolution shallow focused electric (MFE). Similar to the AIT and the MDL
described above, the MFE tool is centralised in the borehole. Comparison with core
data leads to the conclusion that this high-resolution shallow focused electric (MFE) log
has the best precision in thinly bedded coal seams. High-resolution resistivity shallow-
focussed devices show a clear difference between coal and other lithologies that is
distinct from induction and laterolog devices, and that are far more complicated to
interpret. When recording any non-contact resistivity measurement, the electrical
current will flow through the path of least resistance. The recorded resistivity can
therefore be significantly reduced by conductive fluid saturating more porous boundary
formations on either side of a coal bed or mineral-rich interval within the coal bed.
Correlation of the core samples macroscopic geological description and proximate
analysis with log responses suggests that the most influential factor affecting the MFE
reading is the organic content distribution, the relative volume of organic content it
contains and the thickness of the bed (Figure 4.6). The spiky response found in the
FEFE is thus associated with the existence of a single bed and a more massive irregular
136
Chapter 4
response with the packing of several independent beds. The organic content together
with the thickness of the coal seams controls the character of the readings. Therefore,
although a specific coal seam has indicated in proximate analysis to have high fixed
carbon and volatile matter, it may not show high resistivity in the FEFE log due to its
thickness. The high sensitivity of this tool to coal thickness, which does not produce a
quantifiable estimate of organic content, but if used in coordination with other logs, can
assist in the net pay estimation of thinly bedded coal seams. Figure 4.7 shows an
example in well 3 of how the macroscopic description of core relates to the MFE
response to coal beds, thinly bedded coal wisps and carbonaceous layers within
mudstones.
100
Organic Content (% by weight)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Shallow Focussed Electric Resistivity (ohm.m)
Coal Seam thickness < 15cm 15 to 30cm >30cm
Figure 4.6 Shallow Focused Electric Resistivity against Organic Content estimated from
proximate analysis as a function of coal seam thickness.
A thinly bedded coal seam in most cases consists of a variety of coal lithotypes with
variable organic content and inorganic interbedded intervals that vary in thickness.
Carbonaceous mudstones, inorganic mudstones, volcanic tuffaceous layers or siltstones
and sandstones, constitute a more conductive flow path then coal due to their porous,
often water saturated nature. In contrast to the induction readings, the shallow focused
137
Chapter 4
electric log is able to give an indication of the coal seam heterogeneity. The resistivity
measured by the MFE is sensitive to this organic content and to porosity changes. The
vertical continuity of highly rich coal lithotypes (i.e. dull & bright, dull banded, dull
minor bright and dull coal beds) is associated with high resistivity, whereas stony coal
and shaly coal are associated with lower resistivity. The alternation of these lithotypes
within a coal seam are evident in the FEFE readings; these vary between high values (
100.000 ohm.m) and low values slightly above the induction readings (as low 2
ohm.m).
Track 1: the depth in metres. Track 2: SP, caliper and gamma ray. Track 3: contains density
3
log (with less than 1.8 g/cm shading) and the neutron-porosity. Track 4: displays the resistivity
readings, shallow focused electric and induction. Track 5: contains the core macroscopic
lithological description. Track 6: derived lithological log using density log together with induction
and shallow focused resistivity log measurements (APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms).
138
Chapter 4
4.5.3. Effect of permeability on resistivity response

If present in coal beds, face cleats and butt cleats together with coal banding can
enhance the permeability of coal, creating a dual-porosity system together with the
microporosity found in the coal matrix. The cleat system, if well developed, can then be
invaded by the mud fluid injected downhole. Therefore in theory, when the borehole
fluid is more conductive then the formation fluid in a highly fractured coal, the deep
measurement can be higher than shallower resistivity, generating a separation between
deep and shallow resistivities. Downhole measurement of the permeability related to the
cleat development is nevertheless debatable, as several authors (Ahmed et al., 1991;
Gash et al., 1992; Nelson, 2000a; Purl et al., 1991) have considered that porosity
originated by cleats in coal beds can be considered to be smaller than 2%.
In this work the only proof that coal permeability is in a limited way related with
resistivity was indicated in the previous chapter, where the dull banded coal lithotype
beds had lower FEFE resistivity readings compared against other lithotypes (see Table
3.9). This suggests that resistivity may be influenced not only by the higher cleat
frequency of the dull-banded lithotypes but also related to the fact that these are banded.
Several publications have indicated an association between wireline resistivity,
particularly laterolog and microresistivity logs, and coal permeability (Hoyer, 1991;
Mavor et al., 1990a; Yang et al., 2006). Even though this is not the focus of the current
chapter, a few comments are necessary to address this point. If such an association
could be confirmed, a highly permeable coal could theoretically have a low resistivity,
consequently leading to underestimation of coal thickness using a measurement such as
the FEFE log. Although all of these referenced publications address coal permeability
as dependent on cleat development they do so referring to limited production data
results and do not directly relate to the log responses in the presence of cleats.
139
Chapter 4
In Hoyer (1991), the study of the laterolog response led to the assumption that it is
responding to cleat development. This premise, however, has several flaws. First, it is
based on the modelling study of fractured rocks of Sibbit and Faivre (1985), where in
the case of a thick, high-resistivity formation a model can be created to estimate
fracture porosity through the analysis of laterolog responses. The coal seams in CSG are
however usually associated with thin beds, where a resistivity tool such as the laterolog
has a resolution greater than the actual thickness of the coal bed it is measuring.
Secondly, there is a lack of attention given to the nature of the coal, and more
specifically to its composition. Coal resistivity is associated with its composition, which
could to a certain extent be derived from the density log. In coal, density and resistivity
logs broadly reflect the nature of coal (composition and thickness) demonstrated in
many cases by their similar characteristics if both tools are run in non-washout zones,
and both logs are of similar resolution. The electric current from a high-resolution tool
can nevertheless show a more spiky character than the density due to its sensitivity to
less organic-rich layers inside a coal seam zone. Variations of resistivity within a coal
seam are often associated with organic content variation and not so much with cleat
development. Illustrations of this statement are found in all of the logs shown in this
work, where examining the correlation between the core descriptions and the FEFE log
show many log readings are affected by the organic content and thickness of the bed.
Figure 4.9 shows a more direct demonstration of this. Note that if the resistivity
measured by the MFE was being significantly affected by cleat frequency, coal beds
with identical densities (i.e. similar organic content) would show a resistivity
dependency on the number of cleats, which was not confirmed.
When analysing wireline responses over coal beds in the Uinta Basin in the US,
Yang et al., (2006) assume that cleat porosity can be estimated through downhole
140
Chapter 4
wireline resistivity interpretation. Although the authors assume correctly that the coal
matrix porosity is minimal, they incorrectly considered that fluid-filled porosity existing
in a highly developed cleat system could influence a focused resistivity log. A
straightforward way to disprove such a theory is found in the geology of coal. Coals
with a distinct fracture development are in many cases found in close contact with each
other, within the same coal bed (see example in Figure 4.8). If the theory is that a
resistivity log measurement can be influenced by cleat derived permeability to a point
that it could be measured, then the log should indicate a dramatic variability from an
impermeable bed to a permeable one. No such behaviour, however, has been identified
in any of the wells interpreted for this study. Cleat spacing in coal is measured on the
order of millimetres, changing from coal bed to coal bed within a coal seam at a
centimetric scale. No standard resistivity tool has the capability to be influenced by a
changing fracture system on that scale in coal.
Cleats/m3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
150
200
250
300
350
Depth (metres)
400
450
500
550
600
650
Figure 4.8 Cleat development against depth in all the coal bed found in well 2.
141
Chapter 4
High-resolution shallow resistivity (ohm.m)

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0
1.2
1.4
High-resolution density (g/cm3)
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2 No cleats
<100 cleats/m3
2.4 >100cleats /m3
2.6
Figure 4.9 High-resolution wireline FEFE shallow resistivity against high-resolution wireline
density showing coloured variation on cleat development in each coal bed.
4.6. Net coal thickness estimation in washout zones

CSG wells are often associated with enlarged washout sections. A question arises as
to which log can be used to minimize the lack of reliability on the density log when
cavings occur. Figure 4.10 shows a zone in well 1 where three cavings are affecting at
least the density tool readings. These cavings can clearly be identified by the increased
caliper readings. The gamma ray and neutron logs are considered to be useful as backup
logs in washouts (Mavor et al., 1990a; Seidle, 2011), as they do not have the same
sensitivity to washouts as the density, although it can be observed that neither do they
have the precision of the MFE. The FEFE log is displayed with a yellow shading to
indicate which values are above the induction logs. Notice how the increased FEFE log,
compared to the induction medium and deep logs, corresponds to the presence of
organic material in coal or in carbonaceous mudstones (lithological log in track 5); all
seem to be unaffected by borehole enlargement.
142
Chapter 4
Research on using gamma ray, neutron-porosity and sonic (DT35) logs as net coal
quantifiers are shown in Figure 4.11 to Figure 4.13. There are two aspects that can
easily be identified. Firstly, the borehole cavings are also affecting the sonic, gamma
ray, and to a lesser degree the neutron. A good example of this is shown in Figure 4.10.
Notice how at 368.8m there is a caving indicated by the larger caliper log, where the
gamma ray is too low, and the neutron (80%) and the sonic (140us/f) are too high for a
siltstone. The only log indicating it is not a coal bed at that depth is the resistivity log.
Secondly, the thickness of the coal still affects the effectiveness of reservoir
identification as well 2 consistently remains the easiest to estimate net coal thickness
since it has the thickest coal seams. It can be concluded that the neutron-porosity is the
most effective back-up primary log in cases of non-reliable density measurement.
143
Chapter 4
3
(with less than 1.8 g/cm shading), neutron-porosity and sonic log. Track 4: displays the
resistivity readings, shallow focused electric and induction (shading place where the FEFE
resistivity is higher than the induction logs). Track 5: contains the core macroscopic lithological
description. Track 6: the log derived lithological log, shows particular good agreement with the
core beds and carbonaceous mudstones with coal wisps and closely spaced carbonaceous
laminae even in washout zones (high caliper) - (APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms).
144
Chapter 4
100%
Well 1
90%
100
90 Well 2
90
80% Well 3
80 80
Total reservoir thickness
70% 90
70 70
60%
80
50% 60
60
40%
70
60 50
30% 50
20% 50 40
40
10% 40
30 30
0% 20 30 20 20
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Reservoir rock thickness/Estimated reservoir thickness
Figure 4.11 Study of gamma ray log cut-off value.

using a maximum gamma ray (in API) cut-off against the total reservoir thickness.
100% 40
30 50
90%
80% 60
70%
60%
70
50%
40%
30%
80
Well 1
20%
Well 2 90
10%
Well 3 100
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 4.12 Study of neutron porosity log cut-off value.

using a minimum neutron-porosity (percent) cut-off against the total reservoir thickness.
145
Chapter 4
100% 100 110 110

110
90%
80% 120
Well 1
120 120
70% Well 2
60% Well 3
50%
40%
130
130
30% 130
20%
10%
140 140
0% 150
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 4.13 Study of sonic log cut-off value.

using a minimum compensated sonic (microseconds/foot) cut-off against the total reservoir
thickness.
4.7. Using Resistivity in net coal estimation

In conventional oil and gas exploration, it is common for reservoirs to be thick and
restricted in numbers. In CSG, the target reservoirs are many thinly bedded coal beds.
Through core description, 90 individual coal beds were identified in well 1, with 115 in
well 2 and 160 in well 3. Direct correlation between core and the density log has
indicated that to maximize coal bed detection the cut-off for the high-resolution density
log should be 2.0g/cm3. Isolated thin coal beds have nevertheless shown considerably
higher density (>2.0g/cm3), due to their very limited thickness, making up to 10% of the
total coal drilled in these wells. Although still considered as part of the reservoir for this
study, these isolated thin coal beds may not be considered in the total net coal thickness
because their significance as a methane producer is limited. Such a cut-off, is illustrated
146
Chapter 4
in Figure 4.5, and is enough to add to the estimated 90% of the coal identified in core.
Alone a density cut-off has a significant margin of error, especially in wells with
washout sections, for which well 1 is a good example.
To identify the coal beds in the Wells 1, 2, 3, 3A and 3B the following the workflow
was used:
- Density < 2.0 g/cm3

- FEFE resistivity > Caliper/Bit *Induction resistivity
This method uses the relation between the induction logs and the focused electric
logs when inside a coal seam zone based on the high-resolution density. The density
cut-off is then improved and the net coal identification and effectiveness increased.
These two resistivity tools have distinct ways of measuring the same coal seam. First,
the induction is measuring the coal bed with a vertical resolution of approximately 1.0
metres by inducing current flow in a circular motion parallel to the tools position in the
well. The current is influenced by the conductivity of the formation. The second
resistivity measurement by the MFE tool is part of a family of tools that try to minimize
the influences of boundary formations and borehole fluids by directing the current
horizontally (perpendicular to the tools position) and reading primarily the resistivity of
the formation with a vertical resolution of 12 (with sleeve) to 15cms (sleeveless). Given
that the induction log is mainly responding to the conductivity of the boundary
formations and interbedded intervals, it was used as a base log to separate what is low
resistivity, as measured by the induction, against high resistivity organic-rich
formations (i.e. coal seams and carbonaceous mudstones where methane gas is stored)
measured by the MFE. This is done by plotting induction logs (both deep and shallow)
and FEFE logs on a logarithmic scale showing a clear separation between the typical
low values of the first against the high values of the second. To avoid carbonaceous
mudstones being wrongly considered to be coal as a result of an increase in the FEFE
147
Chapter 4
resistivity just above the induction in washout zones, a caliper/bit size ratio was added
to the cut-off. This ratio is multiplied by the induction resistivity to increase the
effectiveness of the resistivity cut-off in large caved zones. Applying this cut-off, in a
coal seam zone where the resistivity of the FEFE is higher than the induction logs, to a
high-resolution density tool, enables the non-organic beds to be filtered so that they will
not be part of the net coal estimation. Also, the FEFE log will pick values above the
induction logs in isolated coal beds that a low-density cut-off alone would not identify,
adding this correctly to the estimate as coal. In this last situation the FEFE log indicates
a minimal increase above the induction because of its limited thickness and isolated
vertical position.
4.7.1. Results in cored wells

The method was tested in well 1, well 2 (where the coal beds tend to be thicker),
well 3 and production wells 3A and 3B. Figure 4.14 is a similar figure to Figure 4.5 in
that it shows the same density cut-off but is now shown together with resistivity
responses. All the cored wells have their net coal estimation effectively increased. To
detect 90% net coal downhole the estimation effectiveness increases by 7% in well 2
and 16% in well 3. In wells with several washout zones, which is the case of well 1,
this method led to an increase in estimating effectiveness of detection of 80% of net
coal by 37% (Table 4.3).
148
Chapter 4
Reservoir/Log estimated reservoir

Reservoir
Well Gamma
described in core Neutron Sonic Density Density + Resistivity + Caliper
ray
1 80% 9% 56% 40% 49% 86%
2 90% 16% 63% 51% 84% 91%
3 90% 17% 65% 54% 77% 93%
Table 4.3 Examples of accuracy estimation of 80% (in well 1) and 90% (wells 2 and
3) of total reservoir thickness using different cut-offs.
100%
2.6 g/cm3 2.4 g/cm3 2.2g/cm3
90% 2.0g/cm3
80%
70%
1.8g/cm3
60%
1.6g/cm3
50%
40%
30%
Well 1 1.4 g/cm3
20% Well 2
Well 3
10%
1.2g/cm3
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 4.14 Study of workflow cut-off value.

using a maximum wireline density cut-off together with resistivity and caliper measurements
filter against the total reservoir thickness.
Another way of showing how the resistivity coupled with the density log can
improve the estimation of coal bed reservoir sequences is shown in Figure 4.15. Notice
that by using resistivity as a filter to the density improves the resemblance of the true
coal bed thickness frequency compared to using the density cut-off alone.
149
Chapter 4
Well 1
14 14
Core Reservoir 2.0 g/cm3 Density Cut off
12 12
10 10
Frequency
Frequency
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
14 14
1.8 g/cm3 Density Cut off 2.0 g/cm3 Density (resistivity filter)
12 12
10 10
Frequency
Frequency
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
Thickness (metres) Thickness (metres)
150
Chapter 4
Well 2
18 18
Core Reservoir 2.0 g/cm3 Density Cut off
16 16
14 14
12 12
Frequency
Frequency
10 10
8 8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
Frequency
Frequency
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
151
Chapter 4
Well 3
40 Core Reservoir 40 2.0 g/cm3 Density Cut off
35 35
30 30
25
Frequency
25
Frequency
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
40 40
35 35
30 30
25
Frequency
Frequency
25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
Figure 4.15 Comparison between the entire reservoir rock sequences in well 1, 2 and 3 from core description against the estimated from 1.8 and 2.0g/cm3
density cut-off without and with resistivity filters.
152
Chapter 4
4.7.2. Results in production test wells

Since production wells were not cored, the effectiveness of using a resistivity filter
can only be tested by comparison with the nearest cored well measurements. DST
testing took place in wells 3A and 3B drilled 1,7km and 0.9km respectively from cored
well 3. In Figure 4.16 the high-resolution logs FEFE are plotted against the density
response in the Walloon Sub-group in well 3. The data points, representing intervals of
2.5cm, are coloured by what was described as coal (in black), organic rich mudstones
with more or less coal laminae (in green) and none or limited organic content
siliciclastic formation of sandstone, siltstone, volcanic tuff and mudstone (in red).
Based on the core description, black and green points can be considered as potential
methane gas sources. Note that more than 90% of coal and organic rich formations have
density readings of less than 2.0 g/cm3, but such a cut-off does not completely eliminate
red points (i.e. non-reservoir) from the estimation. Samples as low as 1.3g/cm3 may not
be coal or even organic rich mudstones, but may in fact be tuffaceous beds, or boundary
siltstones and sandstones. Industry practices today is to use deep or medium resistivity
as a backup reading in cases of borehole enlargement when the density is considered
unreliable (Mavor et al., 1990a). This is done by applying a resistivity cut-off where it
is interpreted that coal is above a fixed value. This would not be advisable. First,
because the values would need to change from tool to tool as different tools read
different values of resistivity in a coal seam zone. Second, because deep measuring
resistivity is less sensitive to thin coal beds and is less accurate to pin point its vertical
position. Lastly, the resistivity cut-off is not advisable because coal measured downhole
can show very low resistivity values due to its limited thickness and the influence of
boundary formations.
153
Chapter 4
Figure 4.17 shows the results of the proposed workflow. Basically Figure 4.17
displays the same plot as Figure 4.16 but instead uses the resistivity filters together
with a density cut-off of 2.0g/cm3. Notice how the zones selected as reservoir rock (in
black) in Figure 4.17 resemble the black and green data points in Figure 4.16. In
Figure 4.18, the density and FEFE log readings together with the interpretation of the
potential production sections from the production 3A and 3B wells show a good
resemblance to the associated cored well 3, demonstrating that the workflow generates
good results in both core and in production wells. Notice the more curvilinear shape the
data points make compared to well 3. This is another example of how different tools or
identical tools with different configurations can provide different measurements of the
formation resistivity. Comparing these two production wells, interpretation of resistivity
measurement in well 3B indicate that this well drilled thicker coal beds with less non-
coal interbeds.
In production wells, due to the borehole diameter, it was possible to run the MFE
tool with an enhancer sleeve. Comparing the readings in the cored and production well,
the tool run with the enhancer sleeve attached increased the resolution even though it
was run in a well with a larger diameter. This is also an indicator that the FEFE reading
is not affected by borehole enlargement.
154
Chapter 4
Figure 4.16 The FEFE resistivity log against the high-resolution density log responses
throughout the Walloon Coal Measures sequence identified in core description in well 3.
Each point represents 0.025m samples increments. Coal (black), carbonaceous mudstones
with coal wisps and closely spaced carbonaceous laminae (green); inorganic siliciclastic rocks
(red) - (APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms).
Figure 4.17 The FEFE resistivity log against the high-resolution density log with estimated
net coal throughout the Walloon Coal Measures sequence by 0.025m sample increments in
well 3.
Estimated net coal (black); remaining inorganic siliciclastic rocks (red) - (APPENDIX I tools
and logs acronyms).
155
Chapter 4
Well 3A
Well 3B
Figure 4.18 The FEFE resistivity log against the high-resolution density log responses
throughout the Walloon Coal Measures sequence by 0.025m sample increments in wells 3A
and 3B respectively.
Estimated net coal (black); remaining inorganic siliciclastic rocks (red) - (APPENDIX I tools
and logs acronyms).
156
Chapter 4
4.8. Conclusions
The challenges found in estimating coal thickness in CSG using standard wireline
logs is related to the thin nature of the beds that are often less than the tools resolution,
together with common washouts .
This chapter focuses on three cored wells, one of which has significant washouts,
and two production test wells. The aim is to establish a log analysis method that could
increase the estimation accuracy of net coal in thinly bedded coal seams. This was
performed by calibrating standard log responses with core descriptions.
The estimation of net coal relying uniquely on nuclear tools results in
underestimation, if the accepted definition of coal is followed, or overestimation, if the
cut-off is broadened.
Using the contrast between the induction and the shallow focused electric resistivity
logs applied to the high-resolution density log, net coal estimation benefits from a
sharpening of the identification and definition of top and bottom boundaries of both
thick and isolated thin coal beds, while being helpful in the identification of coal in
washout zones.
This study shows that a significant optimization of the CSG net coal estimation in
both cored and production test wells can be achieved by applying a new cut-off
workflow to commonly run wireline logs in CSG exploration and production wells.
157
Chapter 5
CHAPTER 5 Evaluation of in situ Coal
Seam Gas content using wireline logs

5.1. Introduction
Chapter 4 illustrated how the interpretation of wireline logs in coal seam gas (CSG)
can be used to estimate net coal thickness. This chapter investigates the next natural
step in CSG evaluation, the estimation of gas content in CSG.
Estimation of gas content in CSG today centres on detailed analysis of core material
recovered from wells. Wireline logging of all wells drilled provides an economical
method of evaluation, allowing correlation of in situ log responses with laboratory
measurements on core recovered from only a subset of the wells. Unfortunately, gas
content in coal has no direct significant effect on any of the downhole measurements
currently used that would allow a gas charged coal to be distinguished from an under-
saturated one. Therefore there is a necessity to establish a relationship between
properties measured in core analysis and in wireline logging that are somehow
indirectly associated with gas content in CSG. Various published studies over the last
three decades have demonstrated that the best approach is to estimate gas as a function
of coal quality. This approach has led to gas content being estimated as a function of
density, not only because the core density can be accurately measured, but also because
it can be measured at high-resolution by logging tools (Calvert et al., 2011; Kim, 1977;
Mavor and Nelson, 1997; Mavor et al., 1994; Mullen, 1989, 1988; Rogers, 2007).
This chapter describes an investigation aimed at establishing a means for estimating
in situ gas content using wireline logs. To do so we consider which of the core
analytical test results can be used to correlate with wireline logs with the aim of
158
Chapter 5
generating a gas content estimate. In doing so it is important to distinguish between
those core data types that can be used quantitatively and those that should only be
treated qualitatively.
Two well data sets were used to calculate the accuracy of reservoir thickness,
organic and/or inorganic fraction, and gas content estimation, using previously
published techniques. This study then suggests where these methodologies might be
improved, so that gas-in-place results from different interpretation procedures can be
evaluated and compared.
5.2. Estimation of Coal quality

Different special core analysis tests were investigated to determine the best gas
estimation practices. Beyond the estimation of reservoir thickness, which is considered
in chapter 4, there are two other factor influencing gas content estimation: coal quality
and gas saturation as a function of gas storage capacity and pressure. The next section
reviews how these are measured and how these data are used to create a gas log from
wireline log interpretation.
After estimating the reservoir thickness the next step to obtain gas content is to
estimate reservoir quality. When referring to quality of the reservoir, due to the
intrinsic properties of coal, the tendency is to refer to the organic yield of this rock. This
quality can be calculated by considering that organic matter, in the form of macerals,
has a significant lower density than most common rock forming minerals. Estimation of
coal quality can thus be estimated by weighing samples and estimating the relative
density during routine core analysis, or estimating it from wireline density log
interpretation.
159
Chapter 5
To evaluate the constitution of coal and how it can be estimated in wireline log data
interpretation, the density of the organic and inorganic fractions though proximate and
maceral analysis testing was investigated.
5.2.1. Density of organic content
The coal macerals have their origin different vegetation tissues and it is this that is
responsible for them having different physical and chemical properties that allow them
to be differentiated. One such property is density (Choi et al., 1987; Dyrkacz and
Bloomquist, 1992; Dyrkacz and Horwitz, 1982; Stankiewicz et al., 1994; Taulbee et al.,
1989). Since organic matter is the main contributor to the total volume of coal,
variations in maceral density influence the bulk density measured in coal bearing zones.
Maceral analysis indicates that the coal seams organic composition changes (Table
5.1). Overall the Walloon Sub-group has high vitrinite content with mean percentages
per seam being above 70 %, with the exception of the Kogan and Bulwer seams.
Liptinite is the second most abundant maceral group with a mean per seam of between
17 and 31 % content by weight. Inertinite makes up only a minor portion of the maceral
composition in all but the shallowest seams, which have mean values ranging from ~8
% to 20%. Usually inertinite constitutes one of the top 2 most abundant macerals in
coal seams along with vitrinite. Compared to other worldwide Basins, the maceral
composition of the coal beds of the Walloon Sub-group is more heterogeneous with its
higher than normal liptinite content (Berbesi et al., 2009; Colson, 1991; Crosdale et al.,
1998; Mastalerz et al., 2008a; Pan et al., 2013; Saikia et al., 2014; Strpo et al., 2007;
Rao and Wolff, 1980).
160
Chapter 5
Vitrinite (% m.m.f.) Liptinite (% m.m.f.) Inertinite (% m.m.f.)

Coal seam Count
Kogan 15 23.1 100 62.1 24.2 0.0 38.6 17.7 10.0 0.0 67.7 20.1 22.9
Mac.Upper 52 27.5 97.8 70.5 13.2 0.0 45.2 20.0 10.3 0.0 68.1 9.5 11.6
Mac.Lower 45 21.8 90.1 70.4 14.8 5.8 59.0 21.0 11.2 0.0 70.7 8.7 14.7
Nangram 20 52.3 91.5 74.7 11.0 6.8 47.7 24.0 11.6 0.0 8.6 1.2 2.4
Wambo 40 33.3 93.0 75.1 12.0 0.0 55.5 22.1 11.4 0.0 66.6 2.9 10.6
Iona 42 40.1 100 70.0 13.7 0.0 59.9 28.7 14.1 0.0 50.0 1.4 7.7
Argyle 85 47.5 90.9 74.3 10.8 9.0 51.7 25.4 10.7 0.0 2.0 0.3 0.5
Tangalooma Ss. 9 61.2 88.2 75.7 8.5 11.8 38.8 24.2 8.6 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2
Auburn 29 51.6 100 72.5 13.6 0.0 48.3 27.3 13.6 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.4
Bulwer 38 17.8 100 66.7 16.7 0.0 82.2 31.4 17.0 0.0 66.7 1.9 10.8
Condamine 82 38.4 100 76.0 11.8 0.0 47.1 23.2 10.9 0.0 5.4 0.8 1.1
Table 5.1 core maceral group analysis mineral matter free results from 12 cored wells (in percentage mineral mater free basis)..
161
Chapter 5
To know to what extent the maceral composition influences the sample density in
each coal seam, the sum of ash and moisture components was extrapolated to 0% in
each well (APPENDIX F organic and inorganic content density estimation). This
provides the mean reciprocal density (1/) of the organic matter of the samples in the
coal seam. An example of this is shown in Figure 5.1.
Table 5.2 presents the density of organic matter estimated from core samples in each unit of
the Walloon Sub-group across 12 wells. As Calvert et al., (2011) concluded, if the entire data
set is extrapolated, as in Figure 5.2, the results indicate that pure organic matter has a density
3
of 1.2g/cm . Nevertheless if the data set is analysed per well the organic matter show slightly
different density values and if analysed per coal seam in each well the variation becomes even
more significant. The organic composition in shallower units have an estimated density as high
3 3
1.32g/cm , while the deeper units can have densities as low as 1.15g/cm . A reason for this
variation that was posed but not confirmed was that the fixed carbon to volatile matter ratio
found in the organic matter could be leading to the density variations due to higher volatile
matter content in lower density macerals. This ratio was also calculated in each coal seam in
each well but no clear relation was found with either the density or the respective organic
content (
Table 5.3). Another possible explanation for this significant organic content density
variation may be found in the maceral composition. Inertinite rich coal beds in the
upper units may lead to a higher density than the remaining deeper coal seams.
Therefore in CSG formation evaluation, if it is found necessary to input organic content
density during wireline log interpretation, it should be considered how the maceral
constitution is varying and how this may reflect in the bulk density readings, thus
enabling a better relationship with gas content to be achieved.
162
Chapter 5
0.85
0.80
0.75
Reciprocal core Density (g/cc)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
Argyle
0.50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ash + Moisture (% of weight)
0.85
0.80
0.75
Reciprocal core Density (g/cc)
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45 Condamine
0.40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Ash + Moisture (% of weight)
Figure 5.1 An example of the extrapolation and mean absolute error of the estimate bars
(Willmott and Matsuura, 2005) of dry ash and inherent moisture percentage by weight against
reciprocal density one well in Argyle and Condamine coal seams from 24 samples from well 14.
Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14 All
163
Chapter 5
wells
Kogan 1.28 1.20 1.19 1.15 1.20 1.21
Macalister
1.32 1.24 1.23 1.21 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.16 1.22
Upper
Macalister
1.30 1.20 1.23 1.17 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.21 1.21
Lower
Nangram 1.19 1.21 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.19 1.21
Coal Seams
Wambo 1.18 1.19 1.14 1.17 1.16 1.18 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.20 1.18
Iona 1.18 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.17 1.21 1.18 1.17 1.20 1.26 1.19
Argyle 1.19 1.17 1.19 1.19 1.18 1.20 1.17 1.20 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.19
Tang. Ss. 1.16 1.20 1.19 1.20

Auburn 1.20 1.15 1.20 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.17 1.19
Burwer 1.22 1.21 1.31 1.20 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.19 1.19 1.24 1.20
Condamine 1.21 1.18 1.18 1.21 1.20 1.21 1.24 1.18 1.22 1.19 1.22 1.21 1.21
Upper
1.27 1.27
Measures
Juandah
Coal
Lower
1.18 1.18
Juandah
Taroom 1.19 1.18
Mean 1.20 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.19 1.20 1.21
Table 5.2 Estimated core organic matter density in each coal seam unit in 490 samples
from 12 wells. For mean absolute error of the estimate and sample count see APPENDIX G
Error estimation.
Coal Seam / Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14

Kogan 1.019 1.094 0.611 0.973 0.496
Mac.Up. 1.054 0.892 0.938 0.608 0.757 0.742 0.839 0.720 0.775
Mac. Lo. 0.807 0.919 0.755 0.644 0.711 0.880 0.850 0.673
Nangram 0.802 0.789 0.824 0.835 0.538 0.966
Wambo 0.843 0.828 0.494 0.741 0.651 0.859 0.819 0.356 0.677 0.638
Iona 0.714 0.901 0.774 0.777 0.679 0.693 0.842 0.809 0.545 0.632 0.535
Argyle 0.840 0.782 0.652 0.851 0.574 0.767 0.689 0.852 0.816 0.794 0.763
Tang. Ss. 0.814 0.900 0.925
Auburn 0.874 0.749 0.683 0.761 0.844 0.754 0.541
Burwer 0.812 0.875 0.697 0.842 0.710 0.552 1.027 0.607 0.574 0.767
Condamine 0.841 0.863 0.823 0.908 0.854 0.829 0.880 0.986 0.952 0.675 0.854 0.759
All Coal Seams 0.830 0.866 0.738 0.892 0.699 0.952 0.677 0.842 0.987 0.731 0.759 0.711
Table 5.3 Fixed carbon to volatile matter ratio in each coal seam unit in 490 samples from
12 wells. For standard deviation of the estimate and sample count see APPENDIX G Error
estimation
164
Chapter 5
5.2.2. Density of inorganic content
There are to two inorganic components in coal: inorganic mineral content and pore
fluid (moisture).
Moisture content has a very weak (r=0.25) relationship with the reciprocal density
(Figure 5.2). As expected, moisture content tends to decrease with depth due to
compaction and maturation of the coal beds (Figure 5.3).
The inorganic mineral content in the core samples can be found as either discrete
thin layers separating coal beds or within the coal beds. In the coal seams in the
Walloon Sub-group, the mineral content of the coal is largely clay (mainly kaolinite,
illite, smectite and montmorillonite) and quartz, but also with minor percentages of
plagioclase and potassium feldspar. Minor concentrations of calcite are found as cleat
filling in association with authigenic kaolinite and smectite. Volcanic tuff usually forms
very thin interbeds within a coal seam, composed mainly of smectite minerals.
Considering ash content as indicative of mineral content, Figure 5.2 shows a strong
negative correlation with reciprocal density. The extrapolation of ash density to 100%
produces a matrix density of 2.68g/cm3. Because of the variable mineralogy together
with the lower fraction found in the core samples compared to organic content, the
estimated mineral density can vary significantly from coal seam to coal seam; examples
of this for two well is shown in Table 5.4.
165
Chapter 5
Organic content Moisture Ash

0.9
0.8
Reciprocal density (cm3/g)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% by weight
Figure 5.2 Dry organic matter, moisture and ash from proximate core analysis against
reciprocal density from 491 core samples taken from 12 cored wells.
Moisture (% by weight)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
100
200
300
Depth (metres)
400
500
600
700
Upper Juandah samples
800 Lower Juandah samples
Tangalooma Sandstone
Taroom samples
900
Figure 5.3 Moisture content estimated in proximate analysis against depth from 491 core
samples taken from 12 cored wells.
166
Chapter 5
2 3
Coal Seam / Well Count Density MAE Count Density MAE
Mac.Up. 2 2.54 0.012 4 2.59 0.007

Mac. Lo. 2 2.10 0.003
Wambo 9 2.68 0.011 4 2.86 0.007
Iona 3 2.74 0.002 6 2.68 0.009
Argyle 6 2.77 0.008 7 2.65 0.023
Burwer 2 2.81 0.001 3 2.21 0.010
Condamine 8 2.76 0.017
Table 5.4 Examples of the estimated ash density and mean absolute error of the estimate
from 57 core samples in each coal seam unit in wells 2 and 3.
5.2.3. Wireline density readings
Calvert et al. (2011), referring to these same Walloon coal seams, state that they had
an average density of 1.5 g/cm3. From the same extensive wireline log dataset analysed
in chapter 3, the mean wireline density of the coal beds found in the 12 wells analysed
was 1.66 g/cm3. This estimation determined here is believed to be more credible
because it is calculated through wireline log to core correlation, while the estimate from
Calvert et al., (2011) was determined by considering that coal is only found in units
with a wireline density less than 1.8 g/cm3.
Densities of less than 1.22 g/cm3 are not expected in coal samples because coals are
not composed of pure organic matter, however they can be found in a small percentage
in wireline density data in coal zones (two examples can be found in the logs in Figure
5.30 and Figure 5.31). This is explained by the higher resolution measurement read by
high-resolution density tool downhole compared to measuring, and averaging, over a
core sample. Calvert et al. (2011) also identified these lower density coals in wireline
log readings, dismissing them as an error related with the Z/A correction (Samworth,
1992). However, because coal seams are made mainly of organic matter, with densities
167
Chapter 5
that, as demonstrated here, can be less than 1.2 g/cm3, it is feasible that very pure thin
coal beds can have such low densities.
5.3. Gas content and saturation

The main objective of recovering and testing core samples in CSG exploration is to
estimate gas content and the gas storage capacity of the coal, and to determine how
these relate to the physical properties of coal as measured by wireline logs at a regional
scale.
Core analysis has determined that all the core samples studied here are gas charged.
The measured core sample density was between 1.22g/cm3 and 2.66 g/cm3. The higher
density values indicate the presence of rock types including carbonaceous mudstones,
tuffaceous beds and, more rarely, other siliciclastic inorganic interbeds within, or
bordering, the coal seam. The gas content is associated with the presence of organic
matter in the formation, therefore although the carbonaceous mudstone has less gas
storage capacity, it may also be gas charged due to the presence, of organic compounds.
Ultimately, gas content depends on storage capacity and that is dependent on the
available organic matter, reservoir pressure and the degree of gas saturation in the coal
seams.
An Adsorption Langmuir Isotherm Analysis Test is conducted over a composite of
samples taken from the same seam. This analysis is a fundamental procedure to relate
gas storage capacity to pressure and a method for estimation of gas saturation (Calvert
et al., 2011; Mavor and Nelson, 1997). Sorption isotherm analysis is conducted with
equilibrium of moisture. Analysis of the core dataset indicates the samples are
commonly undersaturated, i.e., under 100% (Table 5.5).
168
Chapter 5
Coal Seam / Well 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14

Kogan 44% 73% 99% 63% 224% 80% 84%
Mac.Up. 59% 57% 103% 92% 65% 158% 69% 98% 63%
Mac. Lo. 62% 94% 97% 75% 187% 83% 80% 65%
Nangram 110% 87% 60% 123% 76% 50% 93% 86% 50%
Wambo 83% 83% 100% 82% 311% 109% 65% 280% 71% 58%
Iona 93% 102% 225% 81% 69% 207% 96% 78% 107% 86% 80%
Argyle 73% 92% 81% 99% 75% 91% 75% 74% 73% 99% 92%
Tangalooma Ss. 103% 40% 82% 81%

Auburn 69% 101% 64% 67% 58% 87% 82% 101%
Burwer 103% 96% 142% 42% 33% 120% 72% 155% 77%
Condamine 80% 73% 78% 38% 65% 77% 54% 60% 77% 54% 63%
Table 5.5 estimated gas saturation from core data from 452 from 11 wells. For standard
deviation of the estimate and sample count see APPENDIX G Error estimation.
The values greater than 100 %, indicate that a sample has desorbed more gas during
the desorption testing than the estimated gas storage capacity from the Adsorption
Langmuir Isotherm Analysis Test. Such overestimation is a clear indication of under-
testing of Adsorption Langmuir Isotherm Analysis, a common practice in coal seam gas
exploration (MacLennan et al., 1995; Mares et al., 2009a). For example, most of the
samples from Well 7 have more gas than the estimated storage capacity.
The Adsorption Langmuir Isotherm Analysis Test procedure has three main flaws
related to the fact that the samples are made of a composite of all samples taken from
the coal seam they are a part of. First, the sample is crushed, destroying, at least in part,
the original structural pore format that the gas is adsorbed onto. Second, the samples are
a mixture of different maceral types that may, or may not, be together under in situ
conditions and may, or may not, be in contact with the mineral matter. Therefore
saturation estimation can be over- or under-estimated due to the composite sample not
being representative of the in situ coal composition. For example, a sample made of a
coal interbedded with organic-free macroporous tuff layers results in adsorption
169
Chapter 5
capability higher than an organic and inorganic composite sample as this translates into
coal matrix surface area where the gas is adsorbed.
Finally, the equilibrium of moisture used during the test may not be representative of
the moisture in situ, limiting the gas adsorption of the sample. Equilibrium of moisture,
estimated during Adsorption Langmuir Isotherm Analysis is believed to provide a better
estimate of the true bed moisture (Crosdale et al., 2008; Langenberg et al., 1990; Mavor
et al., 1990a; Nelson, 1999; Rogers, 2007). Samples may have lost formation fluid
during coring and therefore this may be less than in situ moisture; in fact comparing
Figure 5.3 with Table 5.6 moisture estimated from proximate analysis is shown to be
lower than the estimated equilibrium of moisture. Nevertheless, Mavor et al. (1994)
suggested that possible flaw in the Langmuir Isotherm Analysis is the risk of making
the test with a equilibrium moisture content superior to the moisture in situ. Since
increasing moisture diminishes the gas storage capacity of coal, gas content storage
capacity could therefore be underestimated. Moreover, one of the motives that could
lead to the sample being tested with an equilibrium of moisture greater than the
moisture found in situ is the fact the sample is tested as a composite of samples and a
mixture of rock types that may not be together in situ.
Coal Seam / Well 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14 Average

Kogan 10.3 13.8 7.3 14.5 9.6 9.2 10.8
Mac.Up. 13.0 8.5 10.2 11.5 8.6 8.8 4.5 8.4 9.7 9.2
Mac. Lo. 12.2 10.1 9.3 13.1 8.4 10.6 5.5 9.4 6.8 9.5
Nangram 9.6 11.9 8.5 11.2 3.7 9.9 4.3 6.8 5.8 8.0
Wambo 9.7 7.9 11.5 7.0 11.4 4.1 7.4 7.9 9.5 6.5 8.3
Iona 8.6 11.9 12.1 5.9 8.6 5.0 7.6 8.4 6.8 6.9 8.2
Argyle 9.2 8.0 8.4 9.8 7.2 7.8 3.5 7.6 7.5 7.0 6.8 7.5
Tangalooma Ss. 9.2 8.0 10.1 8.9 7.0 8.6

Auburn 8.5 9.1 6.4 3.9 7.0 5.7 5.8 6.6
Burwer 7.2 12.6 9.1 8.5 5.7 9.2 7.9 5.2 9.2 8.3
Condamine 7.9 8.8 7.2 7.9 8.0 9.3 4.6 6.8 6.0 5.9 7.3 7.2
Table 5.6 Equilibrium of moisture from Adsorption Langmuir Isotherm Analysis core data.
170
Chapter 5
For these reasons the estimation of in situ gas content relies on the observed gas and
not on Adsorption Langmuir Isotherm Analysis. The results of this procedure are
therefore only largely qualitative (saturated or non saturated coal seam), though they are
still useful. The identification of undersaturated coal seams, besides being undesirable
in terms of CSG productivity, is also important in gas content estimation. The closer the
gas content is to gas storage capacity the easier it will be to estimate gas-in-place,
because it will be easier to associate it with measurable coal physical properties (coal
thickness, quality and coal depth). This is demonstrated in the next section where the
results show that for deeper coals that are undersaturated or do not have increasing gas
content with depth, it is clearly more difficult to estimate gas content from wireline log
interpretation.
5.4. Testing gas content estimation methodologies

Several authors (Calvert et al., 2011; Hawkins et al., 1992a; Kim, 1977; Mavor and
Nelson, 1997; Mavor et al., 1994; Mullen, 1989, 1988; Rogers, 2007) have defended
methods to interpret wireline measurements in coal to assess the coal thickness, quality
and gas content.
A review of Kim's (1977) methodology was found not to be applicable to the coal
seams analysed in this work. Gas content as a function of depth and the ratio between
fixed carbon and volatile matter is not applicable to the coal seams studied. As
discussed in Chapter 3, coal rank, although associated with gas storage capacity is not
related to gas content due to the deeper coal seams of the Taroom Measures not being
saturated. Also there is no apparent relationship between the maceral content, or fixed
carbon to volatile matter ratio, and the gas content. What is apparent is that the amount
of organic matter is important in terms of gas content estimates. Also, for these reasons,
171
Chapter 5
plus the observation that it is unreliable to use Langmuir Isotherm Analysis in a
quantitative way, the methodology defended by Hawkins et al. (1992) does not fit the
data set analysed. Methodologies of Mavor et al., (1994) or Mullen, (1988) that
defended a linear relationship between bulk density of all coal seams with gas were
disregarded due to the variable gas saturation of the Walloon Sub-group coal seams and
the different densities of the organic compounds that form them.
After a literature review, the methodologies that were considered to be applicable to
the Walloon Sub-group coal seams are Calvert et al. (2011), Mavor and Nelson (1997)
and Rogers (2007). These are briefly explained and results interpreted in sections 5.4.1
to 5.4.3 . Furthermore, after testing these methodologies, and considering that a new
way to estimate coal thickness was demonstrated in chapter 4, new methods are
presented and tested in section 5.4.4.
The methodologies investigated and the ones tested considered that these coal seams
are thinly bedded, with variable gas saturation, and therefore the views expressed here
are adapted to this type of resource. Due to significant differences between coal seams
in terms of coal composition, gas content and permeability it is common practice to
evaluate coal seam gas in separate reservoirs. Typically these reservoirs are coal seam
groups and in the geological sense represent sedimentary cycles where coal is
interbedded with sandstones, siltstones and mudstones. In the study by Calvert et al.
(2011) these reservoir groups are the Walloon coal measures. Mavor and Nelson,
(1997) and Rogers (2007) also separated the coal seams into reservoirs.
Wells 2 and 3 were selected due to them having a complete dataset, enabling the
application of any of methods tested. Only wells 2 and 3 in the dataset have core data
together with wireline log data that includes the shallow focused electric and induction
172
Chapter 5
resistivity logs; these are fundamental to coal thickness estimation as previously
explained in chapter 4.
For each methodology the following 4 aspects were analysed and compared:
1) Reservoir thickness estimation
The first step of formation evaluation using wireline measurements in coal seams is
to define the reservoir. The methodologies may be differentiated not only on the basis
of which rock types are considered to be gas producible but also which cut-offs are used
to identify them. Having the description of the core it was possible to compare which
rock types were selected depending on the cut-off used in each methodology. The
results are show in Table 5.9 and Table 5.10.
2) Reservoir quality estimation
In this study when mentioning reservoir quality we refer to organic content of the
coal, in percentage of weight or percentage of volume. Depending on the methodology,
the estimated reservoir quality from wireline log interpretation may or not be influential
in the gas-in-place calculation, although in some form all the methodologies present
ways to estimate coal quality. It is common practice to create linear equations relating
core bulk density and the different components of proximate analysis. To determine the
accuracy of estimation of reservoir quality the estimations were compared with
proximate analysis provided from core analysis.
173
Chapter 5
3) Gas content estimation
Gas content analysis was compared with desorbed gas from core samples and the
estimate from wireline logs. Two gas logs were created. The first considering that all
rock types can contain gas (total gas content), and a second where only the rock types
selected after the application of the cut-off contribute to gas content (producible gas).
The comparison between these two gas logs indicates the influence of the cut-off used
in the gas-in-place estimation (APPENDIX H density and gas content equations).
Considering that the core samples tested in wells 2 and 3 were mainly of coal lithology,
the coal gas content plots should show minimal differences to the total gas content plots
if the cut-offs that each methodology has defined to identify coal are accurate. The
general trend in gas content cross-plots estimation in coal are of course
underestimations compared to total gas estimation due to the fact that gas charged
carbonaceous mudstones and coal are to some extent cut out of the calculation.
4) Gas in place
Finally gas-in-place estimation results are compared using the different
methodologies. After reviewing the literature of the formation evaluation in CSG it is
expected that the gas-in-place estimation will be significantly different between the
methodologies, due partly to different interpretations of this resource, but also due to
the different interpretations of the well data.
The results of this analysis in the shape of tables, figures, examples of interpretation
plots and a resume of methodologies and the general results are displayed in pages 188
to 206 together with discussion below.
174
Chapter 5
5.4.1. Mavor and Nelson (1997)

The Mavor and Nelson (1997) methodology is based on the estimation of ash
content. Core ash and organic content reciprocal density values are determined initially
through proximate analysis extrapolation to 100% ash content and 100% ash plus
moisture content in each coal seam. These are then applied to the density log using
equation 5-1 where it is also added equilibrium of moisture, estimated from core
analysis.
Reservoir rock thickness can be any rock with a value less than the ash density
considered. In this method reservoir rock is not only coal but also sequences of coal
with carbonaceous shale. This is a clear difference compared to the following
methodologies explained here. Other methods choose to identify coal as the only source
of gas, with the argument that only this rock type has enough permeability, supported
by cleats, to be commercially viable in thinly bedded coal seams. The estimation of gas
content using the Mavor and Nelson (1997) methodology shows only total gas as this
methodology targets literally the gas in place.
After the reservoir rock is identified, the gas content log is then calculated through a
negative relationship with total inorganic matter following equations 5-2 and 5-3.
175
Chapter 5
5-1
1 1 1 1
( + &, ( +
) * )
&'
1 1

) '
5-2
- -) 1 &' &,
5-3
1359.7
c c
Where:
Wa Ash content in the coal, % by weight
Wwe Water in equilibrium of moisture % by weight
o Organic matter density g/cm3
b Bulk density g/cm3
w Water density g/cm3
a Ash content density g/cm3
Gc Gas content as received m3/ton
Gco Gas content dry ash free m3/ton
G Gas-in-Place, scf (*1359.7 for scf )
A Reservoir Area, acres
h Thickness, feet
c Average in situ coal density, g/cm3
c Average in situ gas content, scf/ton
Results
Mavor and Nelsons methodology of estimating gas content using wireline log
interpretation is based on the negative relationship between total inorganic matter and
gas content. This method stretches the reservoir thickness considerably in both wells to
a point that well 2 has almost no effective cut-off by considering that the net-coal
thickness is of 390.73 meters when in the core description it is only 40.03m (Table
5.9).
The results using this method show it to overestimate inorganic matter compared to
other methodologies (Figure 5.6 the estimated inorganic content is many times higher
than the actual core proximate analysis data), therefore in the next step this estimate
leads to an under-estimation of gas content in individual beds. This is clearly observable
176
Chapter 5
in well 2 (Figure 5.16 - the estimated gas content is many times lower than the actual
core data). Nonetheless, in spite of this methods tendency to underestimate gas content
in coal beds individually, the gas-in-place volumes estimated are much greater than any
other method due to the point of view that all organic rich beds may be considered as
part of the reservoir and not just coal. An example of the gas log created is shown in
Figure 5.29 and the gas-in-place estimated in Table 5.12 and Table 5.13 Rogerss,
Mavors, Calverts and the new workflow results from in well 3.
5.4.2. Rogers (2007)

In Rogers (2007) coal seam method the author first defines strict coal identification
cut-offs. These were applied to the high-resolution density log (<2.0 g/cm3), natural
gamma ray log (< 60 API), neutron-porosity log (> 50%), sonic log (> 80 s/ft) and
shallow focused electric log (> 50m2/m). This methodology for estimating gas
reserves has some similarity to Mavor and Nelson (1997) which by using equation 5-2,
derives an estimated ash content together with the equilibrium of moisture to estimate
gas content. Besides differences in the cut-off, this method is distinct when it comes to
estimating ash content through a relationship with density, compared with Mavor and
Nelson (1997) reciprocal density. Furthermore Rogers (2007), referring to Mullen
(1989), advocates an independent relationship between density and the proximate
analysis components. For comparison purposes both proximate analysis and gas content
equations were created in each Well 2 and 3 and are shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5.
177
Chapter 5
The gas reserves are estimated using the following equations:
5-4
./!0 1/2! 3 435 67!53 3135 835! 3 70 9326:1; <= ? ./!0 @
:<2366 ?
5498382.88 (coal tonnage per C / <=
5-5
!6 :2 40!<3 </!0 1/22! 3 435 67!53 3135 ? !6 </21321 <=
100 100
Estimated proximate analysis (% by weight)

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Core relative density (g/cm3) Core relative density (g/cm3)
Organic content Ash Moisture Organic content Ash Moisture
Figures 5.4 and 5.5 Relationship between core relative density and core proximate analysis
in all samples from well 2 and 3.
The plots represent linear trendlines used to estimate proximate analysis through Rogers
(2007) methodology.
Results
In the net coal estimation, the effect of Rogers (2007) cut-off is particularly negative
in terms of coal identification due to the fact the coal seams are thinly bedded. As
Table 5.9 and Table 5.10 show, following this methodology the application of the cut-
off clearly underestimates the net-coal thickness. Rogerss interpretation only identifies
19.2 metres (out of 40.03m) and 9.58m (out of 30.45m) of net-coal from wells 2 and 3.
Coal quality estimation is an improvement compared to Mavor and Nelson (1997)
(Figure 5.7).
178
Chapter 5
Figure 5.17 shows gas content estimation following Rogers (2007) methodology
against the gas content found in core samples. Using a cut-off in this methodology aims
to find producible gas and therefore it disregards rocks containing minor volumes of
gas. In this case the estimation of gas content results in margins of error relatively low,
although after the application of the cut-offs the estimation clearly underestimates the
CSG resource due to its cut-off parameters; this effect is striking in well 3 (Figure
5.23).
5.4.3. Calvert et al. (2011)

This 2011 publication has particular interest since it focuses on the same coal seams
analysed in this study. The reservoir rock is coal and to identify it Calvert et al. (2011)
establishe an upper limit for coal density at 1.8 g/cm3. As the authors state, this
methodology is highly influenced by Mavor and Nelson (1997) although difference are
clear in the coal thickness and how the gas content is estimated. Additionally, to
estimate proximate analysis using wireline logs the authors used a linear equation for
ash content and ash together with moisture content with the variable being reciprocal
density (equations 5-6 to 5-8); these were applied to all coal seams in both wells.
5-6
&' 226.8 ? D1#E 182.3
5-7
&' & 223.1 ? D1#E 185.5
5-8
& &' & &'
Where:
bulk density, g/cm3
Wa weight of ash, %
Ww weight of water, %
179
Chapter 5
To estimate gas content through Calvert et al.'s (2011) method a relationship
between reciprocal density and gas content is created in each cored well and in each
Walloon coal measure. This is due to the fact the relationship changes on a well to well
basis and in each Walloon coal measure, examples of this are shown on Figure 5.11.
Results
The methodology of Calvert et al. (2011) is shown to fit the Walloon coal measures
more than previous ones, although proximate analysis does not seem not be an
significant improvement compared to other methodologies (Figure 5.8). Interestingly
again, well 2 has a higher margin of error than well 3 when estimating gas content,
indicating that there are differences in gas content and/or in the nature of coal that
density, or reciprocal density, does not reflect clearly.
Another interesting effect is found regarding the effect of the cut-off in gas content
estimation. The Calvert et al. (2011) method sees minimal differences between the total
gas and coal gas content estimated in well 2 while there is a significant difference
between these two gas estimations in well 3 (Figure 5.18 and Figure 5.24). This is due
to the application of the cut-off in the estimation of gas content in coal only, by
influencing the accuracy more in well 3 than in well 2. This indicates that although the
estimate of gas content can be accurate the identification of productive zones could be
improved.
5.4.4. New methods tested

The new methodologies tested here, as in previous chapters, follow the hypothesis
that the reservoir rock is both coal and carbonaceous mudstones rich in coal laminae.
Only rock formations with high organic matter can sustain economically producible gas
180
Chapter 5
in thinly bedded formations. These rocks contain gas but may also have natural
permeability, provided by natural fractures or cleats and planar surfaces as in coal
banding or coal laminae in carbonaceous mudstones.
From core analysis it was possible to conclude that maceral content, gas content and
gas saturation vary from seam to seam in the Walloon Sub-group coals. Furthermore,
the densities of the organic matter and the mineral matter also change. Therefore the
workflow should take this into account by separating the well coal sequences into
separate reservoirs.
At this stage, through the process of creating a new methodology, two questions still
remained. Firstly, what is the best estimate of coal quality (i.e. organic content) that
could be estimated in wireline log analysis that could be better related with gas content?
And, secondly, should it be taken into account that gas content increases with pressure
in the Juandah measures and decreases in the deeper seams? After the net coal
estimation step is taken, to answer these two questions four methods were tested. Two,
named W (for weight) and WP (for weight & pressure) provide gas content logs in
m3/tonne. V (for volume) and VP (for volume & pressure) methods were created
estimating first organic matter volume previously to gas content in v/v units. New
methodologies tested are explained in more detail below:
Method W: Similar to Calvert et al. (2011), a direct relationship was calculated
between reciprocal core density and gas content (equation 5-9; APPENDIX H density
and gas content equations) with the distinction that in this case the separation of
individual reservoirs was processed to find the best fit depending of changes in the
maceral content density and gas content, this may require separating the Walloon Sub-
group in Measures or in coal seams.
181
Chapter 5
5-9
- ! ? D1#E F
Where:
- In situ gas content, m3/tonne

bulk density, g/cm3
Method V: this methodology uses an estimation of organic matter volume before
estimating gas content volume. The estimation of organic volume was obtained by first
calculating organic matter density by using similar plots to that shown in Figure 5.1 for
each coal seam in each well from core proximate analysis (Table 5.2). With these
organic densities calculated from each seam it is possible to estimate the organic
content volume (i.e. coal quality equation 5-10), after which it is correlated with gas
volume from core desorption tests so they could be applied to create a gas volume log
(equation 5-11; APPENDIX H density and gas content equations). To create a gas
volume log a linear relationship is first defined between reciprocal core density and
organic volume fraction, again with core data, so that afterwards the same relationship
could be applied to wireline density.
The purpose of the V methodology is to test if a better relationship can be achieved
by using a percentage of volume, instead of m3/tonne, and also by relating organic
matter, which is the main component in coal and not ash, directly to gas content. In
cases where the wireline density measurement is lower than the extrapolated core
organic matter (when the density tool measurement quality is considered to be reliable)
it was considered that this is due to a very low maceral content density and to close to
no mineral content. In these cases G)HI' JK- was considered to be close to 100%, where
the coal is only formed by organic matter and moisture.
182
Chapter 5
5-10
H
G)HI' JK- &)
)
5-11
- ! ? D G)HI' JK- -)JL,JL E F
G)HI' JK- bulk density, v/v

&) Weigh percentage of fixed carbon plus volatile mater, dec
H Core relative density, g/cm3
H Organic density, g/cm3
- In situ gas content, v/v
WP and VP methods: these are almost identical to the previous W and V methods
respectively with the distinction that the gas content also takes into account the pressure
(M) of the coal in situ using the following the equations 5-12 to 5-15 (APPENDIX H
density and gas content equations). The introduction of pressure is simply due to the
idea that two identical coal seams with similar saturation values can have different gas
content due to different relationships with pressure. The usage of reciprocal pressure in
the deeper coal beds could be considered counter intuitive, since gas adsorption
increases with pressure, but the goal here is to estimate in situ gas content, not gas
adsorption capacity, which the data show actually decreases with pressure in deeper
coals in Walloon Sub-group.
183
Chapter 5
Method WP
5-12 Juandah coal measures:
- ! ? ND1#E ? MO F
5-13 Taroom coal measure & Tangalooma Sandstone coal seam:
- ! ? P1# ? MQ F
Method VP
5-14 Juandah coal measures:
- ! ? N G)HI' JK- -)JL,JL ? MO F
5-15 Taroom coal measure & Tangalooma Sandstone coal seam:
- ! ? N G)HI' JK- -)JL,JL ? D1#M EO F
Results
Estimation of coal quality is shown to be advantageous if it is calculated by
volume compared to any other method calculated in percentage by weight
(Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10).
It seems to be beneficial to establish different relationships between coal
quality to in situ gas within each single Walloon coal measures. Even within
one Walloon coal measure gas saturation can vary significantly. An example
of this can be seen in the Lower Juandah in well 2. It was beneficial in well 2
to separate the Juandah measure into upper and lower (red and blue points
respectively in (Figure 5.12 to Figure 5.15) to create the best gas content
correlation. Curiously, in method VP this was not required and a good trend
was found for the entire measure (Figure 5.15).
184
Chapter 5
The Taroom measure is, as expected, the most difficult to estimate gas
content for, due to the variable gas coal saturation found in this measure and
it does not relate well with coal quality.
It seems clear that it is beneficial to estimate the organic matter volume of the
reservoir rock (Figure 5.20; Figure 5.22; Figure 5.26; Figure 5.28). The
variability of the nature, particularly the density, of the maceral content
seems to affect the relationship between the density and the gas content. The
estimation of the maceral density as a step to estimating the gas content
seems to benefit the accuracy of gas-in-place calculations.
Pressure helped to create better fit trendlines in both the WP and VP methods
indicating that this is a factor to consider when estimating gas content in situ
and should be used when creating gas content logs (Figure 5.21; Figure
5.22; Figure 5.27; Figure 5.28).
The following two tables (Table 5.7Table 5.8) show the mean absolute
percentage error for each estimation (Hyndman and Koehler, 2006). Notice
how the VP method is shown to have the lowest error when estimating total
gas content. Also the coal quality in V/V used in both V and VP methods is
shown to have the lowest mean absolute percentage error.
185
Chapter 5
WELL 2
Mavor Rogers Calvert W V WP VP
Coal quality
18.4% 9.2% 10.3% 9.4% 5.5% --- ---
MAPE
Total Gas content
23% 24.1% 26.1% 23.9% 14.6% 25.4% 13.2%
MAPE
Coal gas content
--- 31.4% 27.5% 22.1% 14.2% 24.1% 13.7%
MAPE
Table 5.7 Estimated Mean Absolute Percentage Error for each method for coal quality, total
gas content and coal gas content for well 2.
WELL 3
Mavor Rogers Calvert W V WP VP
Coal quality
15.1% 24.6% 18.5% 17.9% 12.6% --- ---
MAPE
Total Gas content
26.6% 21.6% 29.6% 29.5% 19.9% 33.5% 16.3%
MAPE
Coal gas content
--- 64.2% 26.6% 26.9% 20.0% 25.6% 18.7%
MAPE
Table 5.8 Estimated Mean Absolute Percentage Error for each method for coal quality, total
gas content and coal gas content for well 3.
From the different new methodologies tested the one that has best results was VP,
leading to an improved in situ gas volume calculation. A resume of the Mavor and
Nelson (1997), Calvert et al. (2011), Rogers (2007) and the new workflow is shown in
Table 5.11 and the resulting Gas-in-place in well 2 and 3 in Table 5.12 and Table 5.13
Rogerss, Mavors, Calverts and the new workflow results from in well 3.
The new method does not provide the highest gas in place volumes of all the
workflows discussed here, but it provides nonetheless the most reliable workflow to
estimate producible gas in place compared to others. The workflow methodology
created has two critical steps. Firstly, the definition of net coal and, secondly, a
following step to estimate gas content by creating an in situ gas log, all of this using
wireline logs and supported by core description and core analysis. The basic workflow
to create this advised workflow is show in Figure 5.32. This workflow is meant to be
the initial process used in a cored exploration well, so that afterwards it can be applied
to nearby production wells without necessarily needing core and/or core analysis input.
186
Chapter 5
RESERVOIR THICKNESS ESTIMATION TABLES
The two following tables display the results of net-coal thickness using the different
methodologies. In the Core column the total thickness of the several lithologies and
coal lithotypes found in core in wells 2 and 3 are shown. In the columns labelled
Rogers, Mavor, Calvert and New the results of cut-offs for each of these different
methodologies are displayed. For example, in the case of Dull minor bright coal total
thickness intercepted by the well 2 was 18.58 metres, and the application of Rogerss
method to wireline log interpretation considers that only 12.95m of these would be coal,
while Mavor would consider all to be coal, Calvert 16.83m and the New method
18.20m. The tables also display the total coal and net-coal estimation for the entire well.
For example, the estimated net-coal using Mavors in well 3 is of 65.65meters but
analysing the core description it is known that only 30.38m actually are coal. It can then
be concluded that Mavors methodology in this well, although identifying almost all
coal beds, also overestimates the reservoir thickness. In other words, the optimal
methodology should have both the highest total coal (for example well 2 this is 40.03
meters) and the lowest difference between estimated net-coal and total coal.
187
Chapter 5
Well 2 lithologies and net-coal cut-off results (metres)

Rock type Core Rogers Mavor Calvert New
Bright Coal 0 0 0 0 0
Bright banded Coal 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dull & Bright Coal 0.65 0.28 0.65 0.63 0.65
Dull banded Coal 4.28 2.85 4.28 3.95 4.25
Dull minor bright Coal 18.58 12.95 18.58 16.83 18.20
Dull Coal 3.40 1.18 3.40 2.15 3.33
Stony Coal 3.9 1.13 3.90 2.30 3.55
Coal Laminae 9.23 0.83 9.23 3.15 6.63
Carbonaceous Mudstone 5.38 0.28 5.38 1.20 1.93
Mudstone 23.30 0.40 23.08 0.63 0.95
Tuff 0.23 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00
Siltstone 109.15 0.03 108.25 0.55 1.03
Sandstone 219.68 0.00 213.63 0.23 0.15
Siderite 1.08 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.08
TOTAL Coal 40.03 19.20 40.03 29.00 36.60
ESTIMATED net-coal ---- 19.90 390.73 31.60 40.73

Table 5.9 398.8 meters of core description against the results of reservoir rock cut-off for
each methodology in well 2.
Well 3 lithologies and net-coal cut-off results (metres)

Rock type Core Rogers Mavor Calvert New
Bright Coal 0 0 0 0 0
Bright banded Coal 0.13 0.05 0.13 0.10 0.13
Dull & Bright Coal 0.63 0.18 0.60 0.53 0.60
Dull banded Coal 5.00 1.20 5.00 4.30 4.95
Dull minor bright Coal 13.78 6.90 13.78 12.38 13.50

Dull Coal 2.60 0.85 2.60 1.73 2.50
Stony Coal 3.18 0.23 3.13 1.68 2.95
Coal Laminae 5.15 0.18 5.15 1.68 3.83
Carbonaceous Mudstone 5.00 0.18 4.95 1.53 1.48
Mudstone 45.83 0.05 13.30 1.40 0.98
Tuff 3.43 0.43 2.88 1.48 0.28
Siltstone 67.40 0.00 5.53 0.03 0.00
Sandstone 147.83 0.03 8.58 0.00 0.15
Siderite 3.15 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00
TOTAL Coal 30.45 9.58 30.38 22.38 28.45
ESTIMATED net-coal ---- 10.25 65.65 26.80 31.33

Table 5.10 Core description against the results of reservoir rock cut-off for each
methodology in well 3.
188
Chapter 5
RESERVOIR QUALITY ESTIMATION
Mavor and Nelson (1997)
100 100

90 Well 2 90 Well 3
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20
20
10
10
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Core proximate analysis (% by weight)
Core proximate analysis (% by weight)
Ash + Moisture Ash + Moisture
Figure 5.6 Comparison between inorganic content from core proximate analysis against
Mavor and Nelson (1997) wireline log estimation.
Rogers (2007)
100 100
90 Well 2 90 Well 3
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Core proximate analysis (% of weight) Core proximate analysis (% by weight)
Figure 5.7 Comparison between core proximate analysis against Rogers (2007) wireline log
estimation.
189
Chapter 5
Calvert et al. (2011)
100 100

90 Well 2 90 Well 3
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Core proximate analysis (% by weight) Core proximate analysis (% by weight)
Figure 5.8 Comparison between core proximate analysis against Calvert et al. (2011)
wireline log estimation.
190
Chapter 5
W method
100 100

90 Well 2 90 Well 3
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Core proximate analysis (% by weight) Core proximate analysis (% by weight)

Figure 5.9 Comparison between core proximate analysis against W method wireline log
estimation.
V method
100 100
Estimated proximate analysis ( v/v)
90 Well 2 90 Well 3
Estimated proximate analysis (v/v)
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Core proximate analysis (v/v) Core proximate analysis (v/v)
Figure 5.10 Comparison between core proximate analysis against V method wireline log
estimation.
191
Chapter 5
GAS CONTENT CORRELATIONS
The examples given of the correlated desorbed core gas content are from the same
measure.
7 7
Well 2 Well 3
As analysed gas content (m3/tonne)

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Reciprocal core density (g/cm3) Reciprocal core density (g/cm3)
Figure 5.11 Core reciprocal core density against as analysed gas content in the Lower
Juandah.
The plots represent the trendlines used to estimate gas content using the Calvert et al.
(2011).
192
Chapter 5
W method
7 7
Well 2 Well 3

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Reciprocal core density (g/cm3) Reciprocal core density (g/cm3)
Figure 5.12 Core reciprocal density against as analysed gas content and pressure in the
Lower Juandah used in method W for gas estimation.
The plots represent the trendlines used to estimate gas content used in W method. In well 2
the measure was divided in upper and lower (red and blue points respectively).
V method
5 8
Well 2 Well 3
As analysed gas content (v/v)
7
As Analysed Gas Content (v/v)
4
6
5
3
2
3
2
1
1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Organic content (v/v) Organic Content (v/v)
Figure 5.13 Organic matter in v/v against as analysed gas content used in the Lower
Juandah in method V for gas estimation.
The plots represent the trendlines used to estimate gas content used in V method. In well 2
the measure was divided in upper and lower (red and blue points respectively).
193
Chapter 5
WP method
7 7
Well 2 Well 3

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Reciprocal core density (g/cm3) * Pressure (MPa) Reciprocal core density (g/cm3) * Pressure (MPa)
Figure 5.14 Reciprocal density and pressure against as analysed gas content in the Lower
Juandah used in method WP for gas estimation.
The plots represent the trendlines used to estimate gas content used in WP method. In well
2 the measure was divided in upper and lower (red and blue points respectively).
VP method
5 8
Well 2 Well 3
7
4
6
3 5
4
2
3
2
1
1
0 0
150 200 250 300 350 0 100 200 300 400 500
Organic content (v/v) * Pressure (MPa) Organic content (v/v) * Pressure (MPa)
Figure 5.15 Organic matter and pressure against as analysed gas content (v/v) in the Lower
Juandah used in method VP for gas estimation.
The plots represent the trendlines used to estimate gas content used in VP method.
194
Chapter 5
TOTAL GAS CONTENT ESTIMATION
Mavor and Nelson (1997)
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3
Estimated gas content (m3/tonne)

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core gas content as received content Core gas content as received content
(m3/tonne) (m3/tonne)
Upper Juandah Lower Juandah Taroon Upper Juandah Lower Juandah Taroon
Figure 5.16 Plots of gas content from core analysis against estimated total gas content
estimated using the Mavor and Nelson (1997).
Rogers (2007)
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
estimated using the Rogers (2007).
195
Chapter 5
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
estimated using the Calvert et al. (2011).
196
Chapter 5
W method
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core gas content as received content Core gas content as received content (m3/tonne)
(m3/tonne)
estimated using W method.
V method
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(m3/tonne)
estimated using V method.
197
Chapter 5
WP method
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
estimated using WP method.
VP method
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(m3/tonne)
estimated using VP method.
198
Chapter 5
ESTIMATED GAS CONTENT FROM COAL
Rogers (2007)
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 5.23 Plots of gas content from core analysis against estimated coal gas content
estimated using the Rogers (2007).
10 10
Well 2 Well 3
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core gas content as received content (m3/tonne) Core gas content as received content (m3/tonne)
estimated using the Calvert et al. (2011).
199
Chapter 5
W method
10 10
9
9 Well 2 Well 3

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Upper Juandah Lower Juandah Taroon

estimated using W method.
V method
10 10
9
9 Well 2 Well 3
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Core gas content as received content (m3/tonne) Core gas content as received content
(m3/tonne)
estimated using V method.
200
Chapter 5
WP method
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3

8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
estimated using WP method.
VP method
10 10
9 Well 2 9 Well 3
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
estimated using VP method.
201
Chapter 5
ROGER MAVOR CALVERT

METHOD METHOD METHOD
Figure 5.29 An example of wireline data Rogerss, Mavors and Calverts interpretation in a
multiple coal bed bearing zone in well 3.
Track 1: the depth in metres. Track 2: Sp, gamma ray and caliper. Track 3: contains density
log, neutron-porosity, sonic and Pe Track 4: displays the resistivity readings, shallow focused
electric and induction. Track 5: contains the core macroscopic lithological description. Track 6:
Core desorbed gas content. Track 7: Mullen/Rogers reservoir rock. Track 8: Mullen/Rogers
estimated gas content log. Track 9: Mavors reservoir rock. Track 10: Mavors estimated gas
content log. Track 11: Calverts reservoir rock. Track 12: Calverts estimated gas log
(APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms).
202
Chapter 5
Figure 5.30 An example of wireline data interpretation in a multiple coal bed bearing zone
in well 3 using W and WP methods.
3
log, neutron-porosity, sonic and Pe; Example log showing bulk density <1.2g/cm in coals
(circled) with good wellbore conditions. Track 4: displays the resistivity readings, shallow
Track 6: Core desorbed gas content. Track 7: reservoir rock. Track 8: Estimated gas content
log using the W method. Track 9: Estimated gas log using WP method (APPENDIX I tools
and logs acronyms).
203
Chapter 5
Figure 5.31 An example of wireline data interpretation in a multiple coal bed bearing zone
in well 3 using V and VP methods.
3
log, neutron-porosity, sonic and Pe; Example log showing bulk density <1.2g/cm in coals
(circled) with good wellbore conditions. Track 4: displays the resistivity readings, shallow
focused electric and Induction. Track 5: contains the core macroscopic lithological description.
Track 6: Core desorbed gas content. Track 7: reservoir rock. Track 8: Estimated gas content
log using the V method. Track 9: Estimated gas log using VP method (APPENDIX I tools and
logs acronyms).
204
Chapter 5
Reservoir
Method Reservoir analysis Reservoir cut-off(s) Proximate Analysis estimation In situ gas estimation
rock(s)
Coal beds Separated in < (Ash+water) density Ash percentage of weight linear Negative relationship with
Mavor Carbonaceous reservoirs relationship with reciprocal ash and moisture percentage
Mudstones core density of weight
Coal beds No distinction Density <2.0g/cm3 Organic content, ash and Negative relationship with
Natural gamma ray log < 60 api moisture percentage of weight ash and moisture percentage
Neutron-porosity log > 50% independent linear relationship of weight
Rogers with core density
Sonic log > 80 s/ft
Shallow focused electric log >
50.m
Coal beds Separated in coal Density <1.8g/cm3 Ash and Ash+Water percentage As a function of reciprocal
Calvert measures of weight linear relationship core density
with reciprocal core density
Coal beds Separated in coal Density <2.0g/cm3 Organic content and ash As a function of organic
Coal laminae seams Shallow focused electric log > percentage of volume linear content volume and in situ
New (VP)
rich induction resistivity relationship with reciprocal pressure
mudstones Caliper core density
Table 5.11 Resume of the different coal seam gas well interpretation workflows.
205
Chapter 5
Gas in Place
Method Net reservoir
estimation
Total: 390.7m
(which is) 8% coal bed (detected) 100% coal bed
2% coal laminae 100% coal laminae 1,071,530
Mavor
1% carbonaceous mudstone 100% carbonaceous mudstone m3/Acre
6% mudstone 99% mudstone
82% Sandstone/Siltstone/Tuff 98% Sandstone/Siltstone/Tuff
Total: 19.9m
Rogers 4% coal laminae 9% coal laminae 440,128 m3/Acre
1% carbonaceous mudstone 5% carbonaceous mudstone
Total: 31.6m
10% coal laminae 34% coal laminae
Calvert 662,592 m3/Acre
2% Sandstone/Siltstone/Tuff <1% Sandstone/Siltstone/Tuff
Total: 40.7m
(which is) 74% coal (detected) 97% coal bed
16% coal laminae 72% coal laminae
New (VP) 563,857 m3/Acre
Table 5.12 Rogerss, Mavors, Calverts and the new workflow results from Well 2.
Gas in Place
Method Net reservoir
estimation
Total: 65.7m
8% coal laminae 100% coal laminae 820,306
Mavor
Total: 10.3m
226,665
Rogers 2% coal laminae 3% coal laminae
m3/Acre
Total: 26.8m
Calvert
Total: 31.3m
(which is) 79% coal (detected) 97% coal bed
New (VP)
Table 5.13 Rogerss, Mavors, Calverts and the new workflow results from in well 3.
206
Chapter 5
Figure 5.32 Basic two step workflow methodology to estimate net coal (as debated in
chapter 4) and in situ gas content with input of wireline logs and core and core analysis data.
After this methodology is applied to an initial core well it can be correlated to production
wells without necessary needing the core input.
207
Chapter 5
5.5. Conclusions
This chapter focuses on how the interpretation of wireline log readings can be used
in the estimation of gas content in coal seam gas wells.
For this, core analysis was investigated as the best approach to relate gas content
with wireline log responses. It was observed that coal beds in the Walloon Sub-group
have a variable maceral composition, influencing the density of the organic matter and
the estimation of coal quality. Desorbed gas analysis was found to be a fundamental
measurement for in situ gas calculation purposes, while saturation estimation of the coal
seams is important, although only qualitatively.
Previous methodologies to estimate gas content were reviewed and discussed. The
estimation of gas in place results using different methodologies is related not only with
distinct interpretation of the well data but also to how the core to log correlation is
established.
New methodologies were created and tested, in which the VP method is shown to
achieve the best results amongst all the methodologies considered. This new workflow,
following the conclusions in chapter 4, includes an estimation of in situ gas content as a
function of organic matter volume together with in situ pressure. This new workflow is
shown to be more accurate when estimating coal seam thickness and has an associated
lower mean absolute percentage error when calculating reservoir rock quality and in
situ producible gas content compared to other methods.
208
Appendices
CHAPTER 6 Conclusions
This work investigates the nature of coal, and specifically the Surat Basin Walloon
Sub-group coal beds, by analysing well data comprising core analysis, wireline logs and
DST test results. The overall objective of the study is to determine the best strategy for
the petrophysical analysis of coal and coal seam gas by raising key scientific questions,.
The current understanding of coal beds is presented and based on this knowledge a
novel way is demonstrated to evaluate wireline logs. This new workflow can
significantly improve the estimation of gas content and reserves in CSG from
petrophysical interpretation.
6.1. Conclusions to initial questions posed
Question 1: What is the nature of the coal beds found in the Walloon Sub-group
regarding their composition, thickness and fracture system?
As a step to enable the interpretation of the physical properties such as coal thickness
and gas content chapter 3 identifies the main features found in core samples that in later
chapters are estimated through wireline log interpretation. Chapter 3 considers the
traditional macroscopic coal lithotypes terminology and discusses possible links to
critical differences in coal composition, inner structure and gas flow behaviour that
ultimately affect not only core analysis results and downhole measurements but also the
reservoir performance.
The Walloon coal seams are shown to be thinly bedded predominately dull with
more or less bright bands. Therefore most of the beds were classified as Dull minor
bright or Dull banded, and these two lithotypes together dominate all the sub-groups
individual coal seams.
209
Appendices
Composite sample reflectance analysis indicated that these are sub-bituminous
to high-volatile bituminous rank with vitrinite rich coals, predominately telocollinite
and desmocollinite. A literature search revealed that suberinite is also a common
maceral in these coals, but this are relatively rare, as many of the worldwide coal seam
gas reservoirs are usually dominated by Vitrinite, Inertinite or by both.
Analysis of the core descriptions of the 13 cored wells shows that both face and
butt cleat distribution is a function of coal type, coal quality and depth. Mineral content
clearly constrains cleat develop, nevertheless coal beds are variable when it comes to
cleat spacing, having no macroscopically visible cleats up to a cleat spacing of less than
1mm. Most of the cleats are partially filled with carbonaceous or clay minerals,
therefore restricting but not necessarily stopping gas and water flow.
Desorbed gas from the Walloon Sub-group coal is predominately methane. Gas
content increases from the shallowest coal beds to the Lower Juandah measure due to
the increased ability of the organic content to adsorb gas with each pressure increment.
The gas content within the Lower Juandah coal seams steadily decreases with depth.
Estimated saturation has been shown to be highly variable and this can be in part
explained by the limited number of samples in a heterogenous rock type.
Question 2: How are the different coal lithotypes reflected in petrophysical

properties?
This research demonstrates that the identification of independent lithotypes within a
coal seam can be associated with specific petrophysical characteristics. The bright
bands in coal seams suggest fixed carbon increase in the samples while volatiles only
increase with brightness until reaching Dull & Bright description. Moreover, duller
lithotypes are richer in ash (usually clay minerals) and moisture. As organic content
210
Appendices
increases with brightness so does the vitrinite; interestingly the Dull banded facies show
a slight decrease of liptinite in what would otherwise be a trend identical to vitrinite.
One of the features that can be associated with each lithotype is cleat
development. Dull and Stony coal beds have more samples without cleats while other
lithotypes are shown to have some degree of fracture development in most cases (80%
beds). Probably the most interesting cleat to lithotype association is the trend that coal
with more bands has more frequent cleats; in contrast the more homogenous the bed is
then the more penetrative is the cleat. In the Walloon Sub-group coal beds cleat
frequency increases with bed thickness, but is dependent on the lithotype,.
This study was unable to establish a direct relationship between coal lithotypes
and gas content except that gas content increases as the organic content increases
against ash content; in other words, as coal quality increases under identical
pressure/temperature conditions in each lithotype so does the ability to adsorb more
methane. The brightest coal beds, due to their higher organic content, may be indicative
of a higher gas content compared to other bordering coals.
Wireline log responses, especially unfiltered ones, are influenced by the nature
of the coal lithotypes, namely coal quality and thickness, even though it seems difficult
to distinguish them from log analysis in a systematic way. Additionally, highly
fractured banded coal beds are shown to have lower resistivity responses compared to
others, although permeability estimation seems impractical.
No specific characteristics in coal were found that clearly relate to the
permeability estimated from DSTs. Difficulties in establishing any relationship could be
associated with the very heterogeneous nature of lacustrine Walloon Sub-group, limited
lateral continuity of the bed(s) and/or of the cleats found in the DST test zones. Gas
saturation can also be a factor leading to difficulty in estimation of permeability due to
211
Appendices
its high variability. Nonetheless, more permeable coal zones generally are characterized
by being thinly banded coal, with a greater number of differentiated beds than low
permeability coals, and being more mature with a higher number of cleats.
Question 3: What is the accuracy of estimating net coal thickness in thinly

bedded coal seams by interpreting density logs and other standard wireline
measurements downhole?
The interpretation of logs over thinly bedded coal seams requires precision not only
from the tools themselves but also from the interpreter, which if neglected can result in
a flawed estimation of net coal, computed permeability and, consequently, the gas-in-
place reserves calculation. Chapter 3 focussed on the nature of the Walloon Sub-group
lithotypes coal bed, while chapter 4 considered wireline measurements and how net
coal can be calculated from wireline log analysis.
Interpretation of wireline responses in 5 wells (3 cored and 2 production)
compared against core analysis indicates that the calculation has a significant margin of
error associated with the limited thickness and common borehole washouts found in
coal seam gas exploration and development wells. Sharp borehole enlargements affect
more or less, all nuclear and sonic measurements. Even in good borehole conditions the
wireline nuclear measurements are not as sensitive to sharp changes in coal facies when
these are thinly bedded and exhibit dramatic differences in organic content.
The usage of a cut-off following the definition of coal as an organic rich
lithology, with low density, low natural gamma ray, high apparent neutron-porosity and
high travel time readings, leads to highly underestimated reservoir thickness. On the
other hand, relaxing the cut-offs and interpreting sections with close proximity of thin
coal bed with highly inorganic tuffaceous layers, mudstones and siltstones leads to the
overestimation of total coal net thickness. To demonstrate this, cross-plots Figure 4.5
212
Appendices
(page 134), Figure 4.11 (p145), Figure 4.12 (p145), Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14
(p149) were created comparing what was classified as reservoir rock (coal and coal
laminae rich mudstones) against what is estimated using each standard wireline
measurement analysed.
Question 4: Can resistivity measurements be used to improve the accuracy of

net coal estimation both in cored and production wells?
Downhole resistivity measurements over the same coal seam can provide very
different results depending on the tool configuration. The signal detected by the Array
Induction tool receiver is associated with the conductive fluid filled paths found in the
formation, consequently giving more weight to any conductive formations within its
investigation range.
The response of the high-resolution shallow focused electric log in the 5 wells
analysed is mainly a function of composition and geometrical configuration of coal bed
bodies and therefore the study has indicated it is advantageous to look to resistivity
measurements to increase the definition of what can be considered as a potential
methane producer when drilling for CSG. The contrast between these two
measurements is beneficial to formation evaluation of coal seam stratigraphy and coal
bed thickness calculation in cases of thicker coal seams with non-coal interbeds or
isolated coal beds.
Adding shallow focused electric and the induction resistivity log measurements
to nuclear measurements, preferably the high-resolution density log, can help
substantially with the estimation of net coal by improving the definition not only of
organic-rich coal beds but also stony coal and carbonaceous mudstones with coal wisps
(Table 4.3 in page 149).
213
Appendices
The level of accuracy improvement using this cut-off in net coal thickness
estimation depends on borehole conditions, coal seam thickness and the number of non-
coal interbeds within the coal seam. It is shown to be useful in cases where zones of the
well have suffered washouts and other logs are less reliable. It has also proved its worth
in production wells with borehole sizes larger than cored wells that make up the large
number of wells in commercially successful CSG fields.
Question 5: What is the level of error in the estimation of in situ gas content
using published methodologies?
Three workflows were tested to understand the level of error in gas content
estimation in CSG through the analysis of well data. Due to the particularities of the
Walloon Sub-group coal and the observed gas content in core samples the workflows
tested were Mavor and Nelson (1997), Rogers (2007) and Calvert et al. (2011).
Following Mavor and Nelson (1997) the estimate of gas content provides
results of gas-in-place regardless of whether the gas is in coal or other rock types.
In Rogers (2007) even though the total gas content estimation is an
improvement compared to Mavor and Nelson (1997) this methodology applied a strict
cut-off to identify coal bed that results in significant underestimation of the resource.
The Calvert et al. (2011) methodology benefits in having a similar approach to
gas content estimation to Mavor and Nelson (1997) but compared to Rogers (2007)
defines a cut-off to select coal that is much less strict and more accurate.
The Mean Absolute percentage error in total gas content estimation was as high
as 26.6% in Mavor and Nelson (1997) and as low as 21.6% in Rogers (2007).
214
Appendices
Question 6: Can a methodology be created to optimize this estimation?
Since it was found that the major factor influencing gas content is coal quality,
Chapter 5 considered how organic content density changes from coal seam to coal
seam. The maceral content of the Walloon Sub-group coal beds influences the organic
content density. The extrapolation of reciprocal density to 100% organic content
indicated that the maceral composition of the organic material produces a density of
1.32g/cm3 and 1.15g/cm3. This observation led to the question as to whether estimating
organic content volume first, before estimating gas content in coal, could improve the
estimation of gas-in-place in CSG. The identification of distinctions between Walloon
Sub-group coal seams with regards to gas saturation and the influence that pressure has
in coal gas adsorption led to testing if this last parameter could help constrain the error
of gas content estimation from wireline logs.
Out of four new methodologies tested it was possible to create one, designated
as VP, that show the best results, even when compared to published methods, which
provides a Mean standard percentage error in total gas content estimation of 13.2% in
well 2 and 16.2% in well 3. This was the lowest error when compared to other
methodologies (Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 in page 186). This methodology uses the coal
thickness estimation methodology advised in CHAPTER 4 together with estimation of
organic content volume and in situ pressure outlined in CHAPTER 5 to estimate gas-in-
place in CSG, providing what is concluded to be the optimum strategy of coal seam gas
wells petrophysical analysis.
215
Appendices
6.2. General suggestions for further work
Additional questions surfaced during the interpretation of this dataset that could only
be addressed if further analysis could be supported by new data and a longer time
frame.
As coal quality is one of the main factors attending gas storage capacity and gas
content in coal, its estimation could benefit from more detailed information regarding
the nature of maceral content, especially maceral density. Measurements of different
maceral concentrates have been tested before but not for macerals from the Surat Basin
(Choi et al., 1987; Dyrkacz and Bloomquist, 1992; Dyrkacz and Horwitz, 1982;
Stankiewicz et al., 1994; Taulbee et al., 1989). A statistical evaluation of the different
maceral density as a function of depth and maturation could possibly help the definition
of a more precise estimation of organic content volume (i.e., coal quality) during CSG
formation evaluation.
Another parameter that could be investigated more thoroughly is the gas storage
capacity of the Walloon Sub-group. The Langmuir isotherm analysis dataset used in
this work is composed of the results of tests of composite samples of the same seams
from 11 wells. As explained in this study,, the common practice in CSG exploration to
test composite samples diminishes confidence in the representability of this test. It
would be interesting to evaluate the gas storage capacity while testing core samples as
they were recovered after the in situ gas was desorbed from them.
Following the conclusions of chapters 4 and 5, it seems advantageous to apply the
techniques developed and extend them into multiple wells and to incorporate seismic
data thus enabling an evaluation of how the new workflow would affect the estimated
CSG reserves. Additionally it would be interesting to compare the conclusions from this
216
Appendices
work, which focusses on the Walloon Sub-group coal seams in the Surat Basin, against
analysis of other Basins where the nature of the coal beds is different.
217
Appendices
APPENDIX A Seam and net coal thickness
The following table provides the total thickness and the net coal in each coal seam,
through the analysis of 11 wells core description calculated in 1cm intervals provided
by the operator.
Wells
Coal seam Thickness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 13 14
Total 10.4 27.1 16.7 23.8 14.9 41.4 6.6 - 22.3 1.3 -
Kogan
Coal - 1.1 0.3 1.8 1.1 2.4 1.4 - 1.7 1.0 -
Upper Juandah
Macalister Total 16.1 20.5 11.2 11.9 22.9 22.9 29.5 7.9 28.1 30.4 -
Upper Coal - 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.4 3.9 3.1 0.5 1.7 2.9 -
Macalister Total 16.3 17.2 13.9 6.8 13.1 14.5 44.0 6.8 25.7 17.8 23.2
Lower Coal - 0.0 1.7 3.7 0.5 3.1 4.9 0.4 6.9 4.5 2.6
Total 41.2 16.5 25.3 24.4 15.5 28.9 12.9 27.4 47.5 21.1 12.2
Nangram
Coal 0.1 0.0 0.9 1.6 0.6 2.8 0.5 2.2 0.2 1.8 1.5
Total 23.4 51.0 24.1 27.6 13.5 13.9 60.0 51.4 33.4 42.2 30.1
Wambo
Lower Juandah
Coal 2.0 6.8 1.9 0.7 1.2 0.9 4.1 2.4 0.8 2.0 2.6
Total 21.6 43.3 34.0 29.7 17.8 25.3 56.9 75.8 29.1 50.2 33.0
Iona
Coal 0.8 3.4 4.2 0.7 2.5 1.3 4.4 6.4 1.8 2.3 2.2
Total 50.7 48.3 57.6 50.0 33.4 25.6 40.0 75.0 42.7 75.9 56.9
Argyle
Coal 4.0 6.5 3.9 2.6 2.5 4.7 4.6 4.6 5.3 6.2 8.3
Total 32.2 46.8 30.2 55.0 64.1 47.1 49.4 71.2 77.5 44.2 28.7
Tangalooma Ss.
Coal 0.4 1.1 0.2 1.5 2.9 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.8 0.5
Total 11.2 27.0 23.3 12.7 30.0 26.5 23.7 - 36.5 29.6 35.8
Auburn
Coal 1.2 0.5 2.0 0.8 3.9 2.9 0.4 - 1.6 3.0 1.9
Taroom
Total 44.5 51.1 27.6 32.7 38.7 15.4 88.4 39.8 13.2 73.2 32.7
Bulwer
Coal 2.3 1.1 2.2 0.8 7.6 - 4.0 2.8 3.5 2.3 1.7
Total 44.1 64.6 47.4 36.3 25.5 56.8 46.9 33.8 54.6 68.8 20.7
Condamine
Coal 2.2 8.0 5.7 3.4 6.4 5.5 3.3 3.1 4.4 7.6 6.6
Total Thickness 312 413 311 311 289 318 458 389 410 455 273
Total Coal Thickness 13 31 25 25 32 28 31 23 28 35 28
218
Appendices
APPENDIX B proximate and desorption
analysis
The following tables display the proximate analysis, desorption analysis gas content
(as analysed) and sorption time minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation
estimated from core samples retrieved from wells 1 to 8 and 10 to 14.
Volatile matter (wt.%) Volatile matter (wt.%) (d.a.f.)

Count Min Max Mean St.dev. Min Max Mean St.dev.
Kogan 18 4.8 38.1 22.3 9.8 47.8 98.9 59.6 15.9
Macalister Upper 55 4.9 45 28.8 11.5 45.1 97.5 57.8 13.1
Macalister Lower 48 5.7 43.7 29.1 10.5 48.6 99.6 57.9 11.3
Nangram 21 2 42.5 31.5 11.7 48.9 95.2 58.7 11.7
Wambo 43 1.3 48.4 28.8 11.7 1.7 98.1 58.5 14.9
Iona 47 5.7 47.5 29.7 10.8 45.2 98.3 59.1 9.2
Argyle 88 4.6 48.3 34.1 10.5 49.7 94.2 57.4 7.2
Tangalooma Ss. 9 5.5 38.9 29.3 11.4 38.8 100.0 58.6 16.7
Auburn 28 3.2 45.1 27.5 10.7 49.8 97.0 59.2 8.8
Bulwer 48 2.8 48.6 30.8 11.4 47.7 98.1 60.4 12.2
Condamine 84 3.4 45.8 34.1 9.0 47.8 98.5 55.7 9.2
Fixed Carbon (wt.%) Fixed Carbon (wt.%) (d.a.f.)

Kogan 18 0.1 40.9 19.3 12.3 1.1 52.2 40.4 15.9
Macalister Upper 55 0.2 40.8 25.0 12.3 2.5 54.9 42.2 13.1
Nangram 21 0.1 42.4 26.0 12.2 4.8 51.1 41.3 11.7
Wambo 43 0.1 74.2 24.7 13.9 1.9 98.3 41.5 14.9
Iona 47 0.1 43 23.0 11.0 1.7 54.8 40.9 9.2
Argyle 88 0.5 44.2 27.2 10.5 5.8 50.3 42.6 7.2
Tangalooma Ss. 9 13.3 42.9 29.2 10.1 0.0 61.2 41.4 16.7
Auburn 28 0.1 44.3 21.3 11.1 3.0 50.2 40.8 8.8
Bulwer 48 0.1 44.3 24.0 11.6 1.9 52.3 39.6 12.2
Condamine 84 0.1 45.3 29.6 10.3 1.5 52.2 44.3 9.2
Ash Content (wt.%) Relative Density (g/cm3)

Kogan 18 11.6 88.3 51.3 22.6 1.35 2.56 1.8 0.3
Macalister Upper 55 11.3 90 39.7 23.8 1.31 2.46 1.7 0.3
Nangram 21 8.3 94.9 36.8 24.1 1.33 2.36 1.6 0.3
Wambo 43 3.7 91.5 40.2 23.5 1.22 2.56 1.6 0.3
Iona 47 3.8 89.8 41.4 22.5 1.27 2.45 1.6 0.3
Argyle 88 4.4 93.4 33.3 21.4 1.27 2.60 1.5 0.3
Tangalooma Ss. 9 4.6 92.1 37.8 27.1 1.26 2.54 1.6 0.4
Auburn 28 5.2 95.8 46.4 22.3 1.27 2.66 1.7 0.3
Bulwer 48 8.3 94.4 40.0 23.0 1.29 2.51 1.6 0.3
Condamine 84 6.1 92.5 31.2 19.4 1.28 2.54 1.5 0.3
219
Appendices
Gas content (m3/tonne)

Count Min Max Mean St.dev.
Kogan 18 0.17 5.68 1.8 1.3
Macalister Upper 53 0.25 11.86 3.0 1.9
Macalister Lower 47 0.39 7.09 3.5 1.6
Nangram 21 0.39 7.32 3.6 2.4
Wambo 42 0.34 15.23 4.0 2.6
Iona 46 0.64 9.15 3.6 1.8
Argyle 86 0.55 9.86 4.4 2.1
Tangalooma Ss. 8 1.95 6.77 4.7 1.6
Auburn 28 0.34 6.50 3.5 1.9
Bulwer 48 0.16 10.08 3.7 2.4
Condamine 84 0.15 10.99 4.1 1.9
Sorption Time (days)

Count Min Max Mean St.dev.
Kogan 18 0.41 108.83 12.3 25.0
Macalister Upper 53 0.26 78.60 16.3 20.5
Macalister Lower 47 0.34 27.93 5.7 6.6
Nangram 21 1.16 120.73 13.1 27.5
Wambo 42 1.17 82.73 12.2 15.2
Iona 46 0.23 33.52 8.0 9.0
Argyle 86 0.15 34.46 7.8 8.2
Tangalooma Ss. 8 0.82 16.31 4.2 5.2
Auburn 28 0.16 23.23 5.9 6.3
Bulwer 48 0.18 43.84 7.8 9.6
Condamine 84 0.22 40.25 10.4 9.0
220
Appendices
APPENDIX C wireline density to organic
content x-plots
The following x-plots demonstrate that best wireline density to organic content
match is found in the unfiltered high-resolution density log (HDEN) against the filtered
version and the compensated log (DEN).
100
90 NO Filters r = 0.91
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
High-resolution wireline density (g/cm3)
100
90 WITH Filters r = 0.90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
High-resolution wireline density (g/cm3)
221
Appendices
100
90 WITH Filters r = 0.88

80
Organic Content (% by weight) 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Compensated wireline density (g/cm3)
222
Appendices
APPENDIX D wireline responses

The following tables show the correlation between core samples with the mean
wireline log responses (gamma ray, density, Pe, neutron-porosity, sonic and resistivity)
provided by Weatherford UK from samples from 10 well (1,2,3,6,8,10,11,12,13 and 14
well) from the Walloon Sub-group coal seams.
223
Appendices
Well 1 - Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Gamma ray (API) 53 60 75 56 74 64 57 60 67 43 82 44 38
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.83 1.51 1.75 1.44 1.56 1.36 1.52 1.59 1.60 1.42 1.89 1.55 1.51
Mean wireline responses
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.80 1.46 1.72 1.44 1.56 1.33 1.53 1.46 1.57 1.43 1.88 1.48 1.47
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.84 1.49 1.75 1.53 1.49 1.35 1.49 1.56 1.61 1.49 1.86 1.56 1.56
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.83 1.49 1.75 1.46 1.53 1.35 1.50 1.60 1.60 1.43 1.87 1.56 1.51
Neutron Porosity (percent) 55 63 67 84 75 83 82 80 77 86 63 79 75
NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 6292 5248 5890 4814 5051 4311 5186 5180 5327 4933 7093 5929 5254
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 293 218 250 169 176 151 178 189 200 165 298 227 207
PE (barns/electron) 1.83 1.38 1.49 1.29 1.54 1.58 1.46 1.25 1.47 1.28 1.53 1.24 0.97
FEFE (ohm.m) 39 66 40 171 14 14 152 33 58 408 27 134 1117
Medium Induction (ohm.m) 5 8 13 14 5 6 9 9 10 14 7 10 12
Deep Induction (ohm.m) 5 8 12 13 6 5 8 8 9 12 7 9 11
Sample Length (m) 0.47 0.41 0.82 0.82 0.87 0.39 0.72 0.42 0.82 1.00 0.35 0.50 0.50
Depth (m) 338.15 341.93 349.70 354.76 366.60 368.58 383.60 390.48 402.73 406.00 411.99 421.13 428.06
SEAM Wambo Iona Argyle
224
Appendices
Well 2 - Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Gamma ray (API) 69 48 71 65 49 42 70 40 47 35 53 67 38 46
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.76 1.53 1.89 1.72 1.69 1.62 1.79 1.47 1.61 1.52 1.57 1.58 1.45 1.64
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.75 1.53 1.88 1.73 1.69 1.59 1.76 1.41 1.60 1.46 1.49 1.49 1.43 1.61
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.39 1.39 1.69 1.53 1.54 1.44 1.63 1.28 1.45 1.31 1.33 1.42 1.33 1.48
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.63 1.49 1.82 1.65 1.64 1.59 1.74 1.42 1.58 1.48 1.52 1.56 1.42 1.62
(unfiltered)
Neutron Porosity (percent) 77 81 66 71 84 65 63 82 78 77 72 70 89 76

NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 5436 4952 6716 5727 5679 5823 6417 5306 5526 5430 5439 5360 5033 5323
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 198 175 271 218 198 255 278 198 201 200 228 229 166 204
PE (barns/electron) 1.83 1.68 1.97 1.97 1.90 1.69 1.83 1.58 1.70 1.35 1.61 1.46 1.67 1.91
FEFE (ohm.m) 16 30 6 27 19 56 17 93 33 108 30 31 41 24
Medium Induction (ohm.m) 6 9 2 4 6 8 5 8 10 13 10 9 11 4
Deep Induction (ohm.m) 6 9 2 4 6 6 5 7 9 12 9 9 8 3
Sample Length (m) 0.720 0.650 0.750 0.860 0.550 0.690 0.720 0.550 0.300 0.430 0.370 0.530 0.700 0.410
Depth (m) 169.03 169.74 190.36 191.63 192.28 236.18 243.85 246.28 252.15 258.82 261.89 267.86 271.10 272.21
SEAM Kogan Macalister Upper Wambo
Well 2 - Samples 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Gamma ray (API) 53 43 38 50 44 43 74 55 69 49 41 53
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.48 1.39 1.46 1.53 1.46 1.39 1.72 1.53 1.68 1.77 1.53 1.52
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.46 1.37 1.36 1.47 1.41 1.39 1.70 1.49 1.67 1.71 1.49 1.41
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.36 1.21 1.25 1.35 1.24 1.20 1.55 1.31 1.49 1.39 1.34 1.28
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.45 1.34 1.43 1.49 1.41 1.33 1.67 1.47 1.63 1.69 1.49 1.49
(unfiltered)
Neutron Porosity (percent) 88 90 83 75 80 86 76 85 73 57 85 71

NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 5148 4930 5309 5454 5201 5015 5781 5270 5649 6386 5420 5430
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 178 170 207 216 199 189 218 195 220 311 207 230
PE (barns/electron) 1.61 1.57 1.24 1.54 1.54 1.54 1.75 1.44 2.01 1.78 1.69 1.56
FEFE (ohm.m) 95 116 250 37 102 258 17 109 34 27 184 39
Medium Induction (ohm.m) 9 15 8 7 9 12 7 8 7 6 6 6
Deep Induction (ohm.m) 9 12 7 8 9 10 7 7 6 5 5 6
Sample Length (m) 0.800 0.700 0.430 0.740 0.550 0.630 0.790 0.450 0.540 0.340 0.490 0.360
Depth (m) 290.05 293.63 304.09 349.84 353.38 364.68 367.91 371.04 374.99 424.11 452.57 475.51
SEAM Iona Argyle Auburn Bulwer
225
Appendices
Well 2 Samples 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Gamma ray (API) 39 23 55 58 49 36 42 55 50 56 65 38
Mean wireline responses (unfiltered)
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.28 1.14 1.24 1.45 1.34 1.22 1.29 1.25 1.56 1.34 1.30 1.11
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.35 1.25 1.38 1.54 1.43 1.33 1.52 1.39 1.69 1.43 1.39 1.33
FEFE (ohm.m) 178 311 253 627 172 2259 3793 170 90 1102 661 600
Medium Induction (ohm.m) 27 26 10 12 15 21 16 10 6 12 15 10
Deep Induction (ohm.m) 23 16 9 11 12 14 15 8 6 11 12 8
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 151 530 57 28 41 520 50 63 17 113 62 21
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 130 480 65 25 35 432 47 62 15 94 46 16
Sample Length (m) 0.760 0.600 0.320 0.610 0.760 0.790 0.560 0.350 0.870 0.620 0.760 0.730
Depth (m) 503.07 503.77 506.84 521.24 521.92 522.70 528.98 536.93 548.53 554.71 555.48 556.23
SEAM Condamine
226
Appendices
Well 3 - Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Gamma ray (API) 33 47 51 71 76 52 58 80 136 82 115 100 57 97
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.50 1.49 1.60 1.94 1.75 1.57 2.24 1.45 2.04 1.55 1.66 1.60 1.43 1.73
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.45 1.46 1.55 1.95 1.74 1.56 2.32 1.56 2.16 1.61 1.81 1.60 1.47 1.78
(unfiltered)

PE (barns/electron) 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.3 2 1.4 2 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.63
FEFE (ohm.m) 562 490 168 33 21 39 4 57 8 36 12 24 188 18
Sample Length (m) 0.69 0.75 0.48 0.79 0.78 0.8 0.74 0.7 0.79 0.59 0.83 0.8 0.81 0.63
Depth (m) 359.07 359.79 360.40 361.04 369.84 370.92 397.43 409.28 411.23 414.67 415.60 434.91 435.72 437.44
SEAM Macalister Upper Macalister Lower Nangram Wambo Iona
Well 3 - Samples 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gamma ray (API) 61 87 49 66 80 131 69 98 57 84 86 140 70 55
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.56 1.63 1.39 1.43 1.45 2.16 1.56 1.71 1.48 1.88 1.65 1.91 1.70 1.59
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.61 1.71 1.44 1.48 1.58 2.22 1.63 1.79 1.51 1.90 1.69 1.96 1.68 1.55
(unfiltered)

FEFE (ohm.m) 183 30 704 92 34 5 246 35 376 58 46 14 120 245
Sample Length (m) 0.38 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.8 0.8 0.41 0.37 0.79 0.74 0.4 0.44 0.76 0.79
Depth (m) 438.39 442.66 445.27 467.10 469.33 474.19 476.00 476.93 478.48 479.24 555.07 562.66 563.26 564.49
SEAM Iona Argyle Auburn
227
Appendices
Well 3 - Samples 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Gamma ray (API) 58 68 73 87 50 44 49 100 42 40 71
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.64 1.67 1.48 1.54 1.41 1.49 1.46 1.62 1.38 1.36 1.53
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.71 1.56 1.60 1.68 1.52 1.57 1.52 1.69 1.47 1.47 1.63
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.71 1.63 1.53 1.61 1.48 1.55 1.49 1.63 1.41 1.40 1.60
(unfiltered)
Neutron Porosity (percent) 79 80 91 84 82 77 89 90 94 87 89

NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 5976 5298 5068 5435 5087 5520 4975 5709 4959 4897 5355
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 243 190 166 208 181 225 164 180 163 162 185
PE (barns/electron) 1.38 1.47 1.22 1.21 0.99 1.23 1.17 1.73 1.20 0.98 1.48
FEFE (ohm.m) 47 48 139 64 93 38 106 13 202 186 89
Medium Induction (ohm.m) 4 3 9 13 16 10 9 6 21 26 13
Deep Induction (ohm.m) 4 3 9 10 13 10 9 6 16 17 10
Sample Length (m) 0.71 0.8 0.81 0.49 0.83 0.53 0.8 0.41 0.81 0.8 0.8
Depth (m) 584.11 588.50 589.31 605.87 606.53 617.91 618.57 619.18 619.79 620.59 621.39
SEAM Bulwer Condamine
228
Appendices
Well 6 - Samples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Gamma ray (API) 105 63 40 103 80 66 60 39 27 31 24 65 89 36
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 2.40 1.67 1.44 2.15 1.77 1.89 1.60 1.41 1.31 1.48 1.37 1.37 2.03 1.43
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 2.41 1.71 1.41 2.16 1.79 1.92 1.63 1.42 1.34 1.46 1.36 1.41 2.14 1.45
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 8 15 31 10 25 15 20 37 198 105 413 6 5 48
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 9 14 28 10 23 14 17 28 156 88 348 7 6 36
Sample Length (m) 0.80 0.62 0.52 0.82 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.67 0.78 0.80
Depth (m) 334.9 337.2 337.8 347.6 348.5 349.5 371.1 372.2 373.0 373.8 374.6 380.2 383.5 395.1
SEAM Kogan Macalister Upper M.Lower
Well 6 - Samples 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gamma ray (API) 59 60 63 89 67 62 42 66 71 87 48 92 93 55
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.58 1.48 1.61 1.69 1.61 1.49 1.47 1.36 1.49 1.48 1.39 1.50 2.23 1.46
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.61 1.61 1.63 1.72 1.65 1.58 1.51 1.46 1.61 1.67 1.41 1.69 2.21 1.57
Sample Length (m) 0.62 0.33 0.48 0.78 0.55 0.54 0.6 0.4 0.35 0.42 0.43 0.8 0.34 0.36
Depth (m) 404.0 407.7 413.7 439.1 456.2 476.3 477.8 481.2 483.0 484.2 484.7 491.4 492.9 493.2
SEAM M.Lower Nangram Wambo Iona Argyle
229
Appendices
Well 6 - Samples 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Gamma ray (API) 54 44 40 49 48 78 44 43 61 44 98 46 50
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.52 1.52 1.39 1.55 1.37 1.62 2.30 1.42 1.63 1.38 1.84 1.37 1.42 2.37
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.64 1.58 1.40 1.57 1.43 1.65 2.30 1.42 1.64 1.46 1.86 1.41 1.42 2.39
Sample Length (m) 0.36 0.54 0.41 0.65 0.69 0.8 0.8 0.48 0.8 0.51 0.54 0.45 0.81 0.57
Depth (m) 515.0 549.2 550.1 553.5 555.3 557.3 575.2 592.0 593.4 619.9 626.2 633.1 633.7 651.0
SEAM T. Std Auburn Bulwer Condamine
230
Appendices
Well 8- Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Gamma ray (API) 59 73 55 22 35 51 78 19 38 36 60 47 70 74
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.74 1.63 1.43 1.30 1.32 1.36 1.71 1.26 1.47 1.26 1.57 1.64 2.09 1.69
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.77 1.67 1.47 1.33 1.36 1.43 1.72 1.31 1.48 1.30 1.70 1.68 2.15 1.77
Sample Length (m) 0.73 0.61 0.75 0.82 0.79 0.82 0.81 0.8 0.78 0.74 0.37 0.73 0.66 0.56
Depth (m) 316 329 330 331 332 332 333 334 335 336 341 342 363 368
SEAM Macalister Upper Macalister Lower
Well 8 - Sample 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gamma ray (API) 65 61 78 57 53 47 53 47 39 80 51 68 87 91
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.59 1.50 1.75 1.45 1.39 1.34 1.42 1.42 1.28 1.88 1.42 1.46 1.70 1.76
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.66 1.64 1.79 1.50 1.52 1.43 1.55 1.58 1.43 1.96 1.51 1.60 1.77 1.88
Sample Length (m) 0.69 0.43 0.77 0.8 0.43 0.74 0.56 0.38 0.42 0.52 0.65 0.45 0.62 0.63
Depth (m) 376 411 443 452 453 454 458 475 476 482 495 505 516 527
SEAM Macalister Lower Nangram Wambo Iona
231
Appendices
Well 8 - Sample 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Gamma ray (API) 55 73 49 62 77 94 64
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.61 1.66 1.38 1.64 1.65 1.74 1.64
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.57 1.61 1.38 1.61 1.59 1.69 1.50
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.54 1.56 1.31 1.56 1.52 1.67 1.44
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.59 1.64 1.36 1.62 1.62 1.73 1.61
Neutron Porosity (percent) 77 73 95 70 73 66 61
NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 6077 5827 5165 5903 6141 6431 6039
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 234 237 161 241 248 269 275
PE (barns/electron) 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 29 16 54 24 17 9 11
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 27 15 49 21 16 9 11
Sample Length (m) 0.82 0.71 0.8 0.8 0.64 0.52 0.39
Depth (m) 527 533 551 552 599 620 621
SEAM Iona Argyle Auburn Condamine
232
Appendices
Well 10- Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Gamma ray (API) 51 63 47 45 47 26 28 22 56 24 40 29 45 33
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.47 1.51 1.42 1.49 1.38 1.26 1.30 1.23 1.37 1.21 1.28 1.25 1.44 1.33
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.57 1.65 1.55 1.57 1.53 1.33 1.33 1.34 1.53 1.30 1.39 1.39 1.52 1.48
Sample Length (m) 0.54 0.49 0.59 0.74 0.32 0.77 0.75 0.8 0.43 0.98 0.73 0.53 0.74 0.52
Depth (m) 85.1 100.0 111.7 145.2 147.4 177.5 178.3 179.6 206.7 208.0 210.5 291.7 292.7 297.9
SEAM Nangram Wambo Iona Argyle
Well 10 - Sample 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Gamma ray (API) 40 36 26 43 47 38 41 38 40 42 45 53 37
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.44 1.63 1.40 1.52 1.53 1.51 1.47 1.53 1.49 1.46 1.52 1.52 1.48
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.40 1.58 1.36 1.42 1.45 1.41 1.37 1.43 1.42 1.37 1.50 1.54 1.39
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.32 1.49 1.29 1.33 1.38 1.37 1.29 1.36 1.35 1.30 1.42 1.46 1.35
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.41 1.60 1.37 1.48 1.50 1.49 1.44 1.49 1.46 1.43 1.49 1.50 1.46
Neutron Porosity (percent) 88 74 93 47 81 76 80 85 88 91 85 87 76
NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 4687 5393 4592 4917 5032 4940 4806 5043 4950 4810 4917 5051 4946
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 166 217 151 187 194 197 185 190 183 169 172 165 200
PE (barns/electron) 1.33 1.56 1.29 1.32 1.28 1.17 1.20 1.26 1.31 1.20 1.42 1.44 1.25
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 43 25 50 23 27 34 35 30 40 31 84 133 28
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 40 23 46 20 26 26 31 32 46 28 70 96 24
Sample Length (m) 0.7 0.49 0.79 0.54 0.65 0.52 0.56 0.63 0.55 0.54 0.7 0.74 0.41
Depth (m) 298.8 315.0 315.7 316.6 402.1 410.6 412.0 418.1 439.3 444.3 445.3 446.0 446.5
SEAM Argyle Bulwer Condamine
233
Appendices
Well 11 - Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Gamma ray (API) 54 43 31 28 65 31 58 30 26 13 18 27 22 29
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.85 1.54 1.60 1.42 2.19 1.45 1.79 1.48 1.35 1.29 1.33 1.41 1.39 1.37
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 2.11 1.60 1.68 1.46 2.22 1.61 1.86 1.54 1.41 1.35 1.41 1.46 1.41 1.43
Sample Length (m) 0.480 0.490 0.440 0.760 0.380 0.320 0.760 0.820 0.750 0.350 0.640 0.630 0.820
Depth (m) 308.36 311.845 329.52 330.07 332.27 333.67 357.5 358.29 359.1 359.875 360.425 360.92 361.575 362.32
SEAM Kogan Macalister Upper Macalister Lower
Well 11 - Sample 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gamma ray (API) 7 15 24 28 34 45 64 35 37 65 20 16 37 49
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.23 1.29 1.45 1.52 2.22 1.59 2.17 1.50 1.49 2.22 1.30 1.30 1.55 1.54
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.29 1.33 1.48 1.56 2.25 1.63 2.25 1.58 1.56 2.27 1.36 1.36 1.61 1.64
Sample Length (m) 0.720 0.550 0.630 0.530 0.660 0.780 0.500 0.330 0.730 0.700 0.380 0.620 0.555
Depth (m) 363.09 363.725 364.31 364.89 390.06 430.03 432.15 433.2 465.4 465.97 492.23 493.07 501.41 502.34
SEAM Macalister Lower Nangram Wambo Iona Argyle
234
Appendices
Well 11 - Sample 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Gamma ray (API) 29 27 35 32 55 19 36 36 28 36 28 63
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.46 1.37 1.30 1.46 1.72 1.33 1.52 1.39 1.35 1.38 1.41 2.38
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.54 1.41 1.46 1.52 1.82 1.40 1.59 1.53 1.41 1.44 1.45 2.38
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 61 89 15 47 11 80 15 35 202 33 90 7
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 54 83 15 45 10 78 13 29 178 35 92 7
Sample Length (m) 0.400 0.710 0.350 0.800 0.490 0.710 0.630 0.440 0.800 0.800 0.760 0.400
Depth (m) 503.31 510.60 511.16 518.03 521.91 524.10 613.38 649.70 652.22 655.46 656.24 657.69
SEAM Argyle Auburn Bulwer
Well 11 - Sample 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Gamma ray (API) 32 56 34 23 46 28 34 65
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.57 2.49 1.55 1.43 1.60 1.56 1.55 2.37
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.48 2.49 1.41 1.35 1.55 1.50 1.47 2.38
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.37 2.40 1.37 1.32 1.52 1.44 1.44 2.33
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.53 2.45 1.53 1.42 1.58 1.53 1.53 2.35
Neutron Porosity (percent) 73 27 77 76 71 77 75 35
NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 5298 11870 5222 4958 5196 5357 5303 9624
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 214 847 213 188 203 205 210 576
PE (barns/electron) 1.21 2.49 1.12 1.18 1.44 1.35 1.17 2.37
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 14 12 16 34 17 30 38 5
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 14 11 15 29 14 26 28 4
Sample Length (m) 0.430 0.690 0.350 0.530 0.730 0.690 0.710
Depth (m) 663.72 673.75 675.00 676.61 679.29 689.88 691.20 693.80
SEAM Condamine
235
Appendices
Well 12 - Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Gamma ray (API) 29 31 36 65 34 54 104 40 50 63 48 55 55 41
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.32 1.31 1.29 1.47 1.30 1.45 2.28 1.41 1.38 1.49 1.76 1.47 1.59 1.42
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.41 1.37 1.35 1.53 1.38 1.59 2.32 1.49 1.46 1.53 1.80 1.54 1.59 1.56
Sample Length (m) 0.45 0.5 0.77 0.77 0.83 0.435 0.775 0.37 0.72 0.73 0.56 0.5 0.66 0.69
Depth (m) 153.24 153.71 159.03 166.90 167.70 170.65 173.15 181.43 185.78 186.70 188.85 190.79 191.38 195.25
Well 12 - Sample 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gamma ray (API) 39 33 55 101 50 61 60 52 68 46 52 38 38 51
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.37 1.31 1.47 2.28 1.50 1.66 1.51 1.52 1.60 1.49 1.46 1.28 1.27 1.40
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.43 1.41 1.57 2.31 1.58 1.72 1.54 1.61 1.64 1.56 1.52 1.35 1.33 1.50
Sample Length (m) 0.4 0.62 0.51 0.57 0.66 0.79 0.6 0.58 0.56 0.77 0.64 0.78 0.8 0.62
Depth (m) 193.93 196.00 197.93 228.63 229.58 230.43 231.11 233.66 239.95 263.85 264.60 269.18 330.71 335.13
236
Appendices
Well 12 - Sample 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Gamma ray (API) 19 28 108 68 62 106 41 52 37 71 65 96 49 87
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.24 1.28 2.32 2.25 1.46 1.94 1.38 1.35 1.31 1.51 1.44 2.04 1.38 1.87
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.30 1.31 2.37 2.30 1.62 2.00 1.47 1.46 1.42 1.63 1.60 2.11 1.47 1.87
Sample Length (m) 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.69 0.32 0.43 0.54 0.41 0.57 0.43 0.32 0.71 0.49 0.51
Depth (m) 336.66 337.45 342.80 351.59 353.58 364.48 365.90 366.54 369.45 371.79 372.45 376.20 390.84 391.34
Well 12 - Sample 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Gamma ray (API) 47 63 50 86 102 51 58 38 54 54 59 46 34 66
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.38 1.59 1.35 2.08 2.17 1.45 1.55 1.28 1.46 1.49 1.48 1.32 1.31 2.36
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.48 1.57 1.48 2.15 2.23 1.51 1.56 1.35 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.36 1.35 2.41
Sample Length (m) 0.44 0.76 0.41 0.67 0.54 0.77 0.77 0.64 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.79 0.37 0.79
Depth (m) 409.49 410.39 410.98 461.70 467.65 470.58 471.33 472.04 473.20 476.50 493.14 500.38 499.79 506.81
237
Appendices
Well 12 - Sample 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Gamma ray (API) 69 80 68 95 90 44 39 30 72 75 57 38 37 65
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.53 1.58 1.42 2.44 1.89 1.38 1.29 1.21 1.53 1.65 1.43 1.34 1.44 1.48
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.65 1.72 1.54 2.47 1.97 1.41 1.33 1.27 1.62 1.74 1.50 1.41 1.44 1.54
Sample Length (m) 0.36 0.32 0.49 0.8 0.72 0.73 0.82 0.75 0.51 0.51 0.76 0.62 0.61 0.63
Depth (m) 514.06 517.80 523.38 533.74 538.95 540.50 541.28 542.06 547.60 551.45 554.40 566.33 566.95 568.06
Well 12 - Sample 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
Gamma ray (API) 35 65 53 131 48 111 33 44
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.34 1.89 1.49 1.84 1.53 1.78 1.39 1.40
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.30 1.90 1.47 1.78 1.36 1.66 1.35 1.28
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.28 1.80 1.44 1.74 1.30 1.61 1.30 1.27
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.33 1.86 1.47 1.82 1.50 1.75 1.37 1.39
Neutron Porosity (percent) 94 60 77 66 73 60 83 71
NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 4815 7004 5311 5729 5112 5576 4981 4987
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 156 329 204 243 214 249 184 197
PE (barns/electron) 1.36 2.24 1.45 1.75 1.05 1.53 1.48 1.15
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 71 15 28 8 14 8 89 32
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 54 14 29 7 12 6 105 27
Sample Length (m) 0.65 0.83 0.54 0.36 0.32 0.35 0.6 0.27
Depth (m) 568.71 578.15 578.84 584.84 586.48 587.16 589.41 589.85
238
Appendices
Well 13 - Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Gamma ray (API) 62 78 86 80 78 32 49 88 63 87 78 37 57 47
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.70 1.34 1.81 1.70 2 1.41 1.49 2.35 1.49 1.61 2.02 1.42 1.72 1.50
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.75 1.86 1.90 1.82 2 1.57 1.67 2.37 1.56 1.50 2.05 1.52 1.85 1.62
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.75 1.78 1.83 1.77 2 1.47 1.56 2.34 1.53 1.59 2.02 1.47 1.77 1.56
Sample Length (m) 0.51 0.80 0.78 0.50 0.45 0.75 0.49 0.80 0.52 0.35 0.76 0.77 0.66 0.51
Depth (m) 387.7 388.3 389.1 389.8 390.2 410.8 411.5 412.2 416.6 418.4 420.2 427.4 428.1 431.5
SEAM Springbok Std Kogan Macalister Upper Macalister Lower
Well 13 - Sample 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gamma ray (API) 48 53 38 78 101 47 48 92 32 91 71 64 66 49
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.72 1.60 1.58 1.95 2.34 1.56 1.65 1.81 1.56 1.82 1.68 1.64 1.61 1.56
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.61 1.53 1.45 1.94 2.36 1.55 1.61 2.01 1.46 2.02 1.66 1.59 1.61 1.47
Sample Length (m) 0.78 0.72 0.78 0.75 0.36 0.40 0.76 0.23 0.83 0.56 0.82 0.58 0.80 0.82
Depth (m) 433.2 437.8 458.1 458.9 460.1 472.7 485.4 500.5 501.0 538.7 550.2 551.3 571.7 572.9
239
Appendices
Well 13 - Sample 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Gamma ray (API) 47 60 36 40 65 86 49 86 80 50 51 42 99 53
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.54 1.63 1.53 1.56 1.58 1.79 1.60 1.65 1.81 1.70 1.64 1.54 1.99 1.58
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.41 1.62 1.45 1.54 1.53 1.83 1.50 1.82 1.82 1.67 1.61 1.50 2.07 1.55
Sample Length (m) 0.49 0.34 0.75 0.80 0.51 0.73 0.80 0.40 0.78 0.53 0.55 0.41 0.43 0.66
Depth (m) 580.0 582.9 585.3 602.2 603.2 611.1 626.9 627.4 654.6 666.4 668.7 671.5 691.7 692.9
SEAM Argyle Tangalooma Std. Auburn
Well 13 - Sample 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Gamma ray (API) 58 50 48 52 60 38 64 79 59 46 31 57 47 38
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.68 1.67 1.75 1.69 2.37 1.60 1.94 1.94 1.78 1.68 1.56 1.84 1.64 1.56
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.60 1.60 1.74 1.61 2.36 1.49 1.82 1.92 1.70 1.53 1.43 1.73 1.54 1.51
Sample Length (m) 0.80 0.56 0.34 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.39 0.44 0.81 0.81 0.77 0.47 0.75 0.78
Depth (m) 695.5 701.0 715.3 716.6 727.4 774.9 775.5 778.3 781.4 782.2 783.0 783.6 785.6 819.9
SEAM Auburn Bulwer Condamine
240
Appendices
Well 13 - Sample 57 58 59
Gamma ray (API) 42 49 51
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 1.4 1.5 1.6
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 1.40 1.45 1.56

NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.56 1.65 1.75
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.48 1.53 1.62

Neutron Porosity (percent) 81 92 79
NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 4612 4754 5083
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 180 159 193
PE (barns/electron) 0.75 0.75 0.94
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 34 29 19
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 30 27 18
Sample Length (m) 0.65 0.54 0.47
Depth (m) 821.2 842.6 843.1
SEAM Condamine
241
Appendices
Well 14 - Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Gamma ray (API) 25 33 100 32 38 22 30 102 29 88 66 60 70 46
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.50 1.59 2.33 1.54 1.48 1.47 1.46 2.40 1.51 2.24 1.64 1.71 1.64 1.52
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.47 1.55 2.33 1.46 1.45 1.48 1.43 2.42 1.50 2.26 1.66 1.69 1.64 1.53
Sample Length (m) 0.76 0.79 0.77 0.80 0.33 0.45 0.79 0.81 0.75 0.80 0.66 0.71 0.77 0.63
Depth (m) 583.22 584.09 588.24 605.83 606.40 616.69 617.31 621.91 629.62 644.71 650.02 653.96 679.72 684.64
Well 14 - Sample 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Gamma ray (API) 58 78 98 52 27 19 46 39 66 52 64 74 102 94
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.53 1.75 1.62 1.54 1.47 1.40 1.57 1.46 1.60 1.53 1.76 1.63 2.01 1.78
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.60 1.77 1.72 1.60 1.42 1.35 1.51 1.41 1.63 1.52 1.86 1.73 2.05 1.83
Sample Length (m) 0.53 0.81 0.80 0.42 0.80 0.80 0.63 0.70 0.55 0.42 0.32 0.33 0.73 0.79
Depth (m) 687.99 689.01 690.59 703.11 705.12 706.09 707.18 710.47 715.38 715.86 728.19 730.38 779.44 780.40
SEAM Argyle Auburn
242
Appendices
Well 14 - Samples 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
Gamma ray (API) 73 78 63 65 43 69 80 41 54 38 42 50 31 30
NEAR Density (g/cm3) 1.80 1.72 1.65 2.34 1.57 1.62 1.66 1.59 1.63 1.53 1.62 1.51 1.45 1.48
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 1.84 1.73 1.62 2.38 1.54 1.62 1.72 1.59 1.60 1.49 1.57 1.48 1.39 1.43
Sample Length (m) 0.60 0.47 0.82 0.78 0.80 0.56 0.60 0.81 0.64 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.81
Depth (m) 784.52 786.15 792.76 796.79 802.28 812.75 813.50 833.78 834.50 835.21 835.98 836.74 837.51 838.30
SEAM Auburn Bulwer Condamine
Well 14 - Samples 43 44 45
Gamma ray (API) 87 37 54
Compensated Density (g/cm3) 2.03 1.40 1.50
Vetar Density (g/cm3) 2.06 1.40 1.49

NEAR Density (g/cm3) 2.06 1.49 1.59
(unfiltered)
FAR Density (g/cm3) 2.04 1.43 1.54

Neutron Porosity (percent) 56 92 82
NEAR Neutron Raw (snu) 7602 4804 5076
FAR Neutron Raw (snu) 339 155 171
PE (barns/electron) 1.88 1.04 1.08
Shallow Laterolog (ohm.m) 15 946 118
Deep Laterolog (ohm.m) 12 716 83
Sample Length (m) 0.82 0.80 0.80
Depth (m) 845.01 845.82 846.62
SEAM Condamine
243
Appendices
APPENDIX E Permeability and coal bed characteristics
244
Appendices
APPENDIX F organic and inorganic content density estimation
The following equation was used to estimate density of organic content (o) and density of inorganic content (ash+moisture) given the
percentage of weigh of ash (&'RS ) and moisture (&T)KRLUH, ) from proximate analysis. The two following tables show the values used for a
and b respectively.
1# ! ? & &
'RS T)KRLUH, F
Coal Seams Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14 All Wells
Kogan -0.0051 -0.003 -0.0044 -0.0048 -0.0052 -0.0042 -0.0043
Macalister Upper -0.0031 -0.0041 -0.0047 -0.0043 -0.0045 -0.0046 -0.0049 -0.0041 -0.0048 -0.0043
Macalister Lower -0.0026 -0.0049 -0.0035 -0.0048 -0.0043 -0.0045 -0.0048 -0.0042 -0.0043
Nangram -0.0049 -0.004 -0.0046 -0.004 -0.004 -0.005 -0.0043

-0.005 -0.0044 -0.0051 -0.0048 -0.0049 -0.0048 -0.005 -0.0042 -0.0051 -0.0046 -0.0047
Coal Seams
Wambo
Iona -0.0049 -0.0047 -0.0045 -0.0046 -0.004 -0.0048 -0.0044 -0.0048 -0.0047 -0.0043 -0.0037 -0.0045
Argyle -0.0047 -0.0048 -0.0044 -0.0045 -0.0048 -0.0044 -0.0047 -0.0044 -0.0045 -0.0045 -0.0045 -0.0045
Tangalooma Ss. -0.0054 -0.0047 -0.0045 -0.0045

Auburn -0.0042 -0.0051 -0.0046 -0.005 -0.0044 -0.0044 -0.0047 -0.0046
Burwer -0.004 -0.0041 -0.0027 -0.005 -0.0048 -0.0043 -0.0042 -0.0046 -0.0047 -0.0034 -0.0042
Condamine -0.0044 -0.0048 -0.0045 -0.0049 -0.0046 -0.0043 -0.0042 -0.0048 -0.0045 -0.0046 -0.0043 -0.0046 -0.0044
Upper Juandah -0.0047 -0.0033

Measures
Coal
Lower Juandah -0.0047 -0.0046
Taroom -0.0046 -0.0045
All Samples -0.0047 -0.0044 -0.0045 -0.0047 -0.0046 -0.0045 -0.0046 -0.0046 -0.0045 -0.0044 -0.0044 -0.0043
245
Appendices
Coal Seams Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14 All Wells

Kogan 0.8846 0.7836 0.8356 0.8383 0.8668 0.8338 0.8253
Macalister Upper 0.7548 0.8088 0.8159 0.8294 0.837 0.8403 0.8352 0.8277 0.8621 0.8219
Macalister Lower 0.7711 0.8326 0.8107 0.856 0.8249 0.8343 0.8336 0.8253 0.8255
Nangram 0.8418 0.8269 0.8345 0.822 0.8034 0.837 0.8267
0.8457 0.839 0.8743 0.8551 0.8619 0.8481 0.8466 0.8514 0.8646 0.8352 0.8462
Coal Seams
Wambo
Iona 0.8454 0.8568 0.8394 0.831 0.8192 0.8523 0.8262 0.8445 0.8541 0.8325 0.7943 0.8402
Argyle 0.8392 0.8563 0.8398 0.8375 0.8463 0.8341 0.8551 0.8311 0.8385 0.8372 0.8368 0.8379
Tangalooma Ss. 0.8633 0.8366 0.8389 0.8368
Auburn 0.8323 0.8672 0.8306 0.8447 0.8351 0.8251 0.8529 0.8373
Burwer 0.8218 0.8249 0.7648 0.8361 0.8443 0.8328 0.8167 0.8415 0.8432 0.8046 0.8236
Condamine 0.8253 0.8462 0.8452 0.8236 0.8309 0.8265 0.8075 0.8441 0.8209 0.8372 0.8164 0.8287 0.8255
Upper Juandah 0.8589 0.7904

Measures
Coal
Lower Juandah 0.8507 0.8462
Taroom 0.8383 0.8451
All Samples 0.8371 0.8394 0.8409 0.8267 0.8364 0.8347 0.8464 0.8331 0.8321 0.833 0.8293 0.8278
246
Appendices
APPENDIX G Error estimation

The following table refers to Table 5.2 where is shown the results of the estimation of core organic matter density in each coal seam unit in 12
wells. Here is show the sample count for each seam and in case of well 2 and 3 measure and mean absolute error of the estimate.
Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14
n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE n MAE
Kogan 2 0.004 2 0.048 2 0.004 6 0.034 2 0.008 3 0.017

Macalister
3 0.028 4 0.005 4 0.003 7 0.038 7 0.015 8 0.011 12 0.038 4 0.007 6 0.009
Upper
Macalister
2 0.002 5 0.013 2 0.005 13 0.133 4 0.012 11 0.013 5 0.005 3 0.010
Lower
Nangram 3 0.003 2 0.002 5 0.007 3 0.012 3 0.041 2 0.000
Coal Seams
Wambo 4 0.008 9 0.011 4 0.006 2 0.007 5 0.020 5 0.009 2 0.001 2 0.005 4 0.026 4 0.005
Iona 2 0.004 3 0.001 6 0.012 2 0.005 6 0.026 8 0.017 4 0.023 6 0.006 3 0.008 3 0.034 3 0.008
Argyle 7 0.010 6 0.008 7 0.020 4 0.003 9 0.032 9 0.015 5 0.016 7 0.007 8 0.008 10 0.024 14 0.010
Tang. Ss. 2 0.003 2 0.004 4 0.017
Auburn 2 0.000 4 0.012 7 0.018 5 0.007 2 0.003 4 0.005 6 0.050

Burwer 2 0.001 2 0.001 3 0.010 2 0.003 11 0.007 7 0.033 4 0.003 5 0.015 3 0.005 3 0.029
Condamine 5 0.004 12 0.010 8 0.015 7 0.012 6 0.008 6 0.005 3 0.003 2 0.002 5 0.010 7 0.023 12 0.015 11 0.015
Upper
5 0.023 6 0.024
Measures
Juandah
Coal
Lower
18 0.011 17 0.024
Juandah
Taroom 15 0.011 15 0.027
Well 22 0.012 38 0.018 38 0.027 33 0.020 56 0.036 41 0.028 51 0.060 35 0.028 27 0.014 45 0.028 57 0.033 46 0.031
247
Appendices
The following table refers to Table 5.2 where is shown the results of the estimation of fixed carbon to volatile matter ratio for each coal seam
unit in 12 wells. Here is shown the sample count for each seam and standard deviation.
Well 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14
n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D.
Kogan 2 0.046 2 1.019 6 0.367 2 0.089 3 0.425
Macalister
3 0.237 4 0.050 4 0.938 7 0.386 7 0.244 8 0.303 12 0.152 4 0.430 6 0.392
Upper
Macalister
2 0.102 5 0.919 2 0.057 13 0.327 4 0.176 11 0.039 5 0.054 3 0.570
Lower
Nangram 3 0.802 2 0.044 5 0.188 3 0.102 3 0.379 2 0.111
Coal Seams
Wambo 4 0.129 9 0.100 4 0.333 2 0.151 5 0.135 5 0.081 2 0.138 2 0.475 4 0.408 4 0.445
Iona 2 0.076 3 0.115 6 0.097 2 0.777 6 0.113 8 0.169 4 0.306 6 0.051 3 0.457 3 0.292 3 0.339
Argyle 7 0.104 6 0.088 7 0.233 4 0.851 9 0.290 9 0.117 5 0.214 7 0.037 8 0.059 10 0.079 14 0.095
Tang. Ss. 2 0.814 2 0.139 4 0.436

Auburn 2 0.157 4 0.169 7 0.018 5 0.063 2 0.066 4 0.168 6 0.254
Burwer 2 0.125 2 0.059 3 0.041 2 0.842 11 0.092 7 0.297 4 0.061 5 0.337 3 0.469 3 0.136
Condamine 5 0.253 12 0.078 8 0.101 7 0.908 6 0.090 6 0.172 3 0.243 2 0.056 5 0.095 7 0.467 12 0.112 11 0.132
All coal seams 22 0.147 38 0.118 38 0.191 33 0.892 55 0.216 41 0.226 51 0.168 35 0.168 27 0.099 45 0.316 57 0.237 46 0.237
248
Appendices
The following table refers to Table 5.2 where is shown the results of the estimation of gas saturation for each coal seam unit in 12 wells. Here is
shown the sample count for each seam and standard deviation.
Well 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14
n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D. n S.D.
Kogan 2 12% 2 17% 2 5% 6 19% 2 21% 3 41%
Macalister
3 10% 4 19% 4 55% 5 18% 7 12% 8 80% 12 11% 4 64% 6 15%
Upper
Macalister
2 23% 5 19% 2 20% 2 2% 13 74% 4 12% 11 11% 5 17%
Lower
Nangram 3 16% 1 2 17% 1 5 11% 3 5% 1 3 30% 2 24%
Coal Seams
Wambo 9 28% 4 3% 1 1 5 255% 5 25% 2 5% 2 230% 4 6% 4 21%

Iona 3 36% 6 6% 2 40% 5 16% 1 8 199% 4 8% 6 21% 3 46% 3 10% 3 9%
Argyle 6 6% 7 19% 4 30% 7 42% 9 18% 5 22% 2 7% 7 40% 8 13% 10 13% 14 23%
Tang. Ss. 2 2% 1 1 4 17%

Auburn 1 4 7% 7 17% 5 16% 1 2 12% 4 9% 6 10%
Burwer 2 62% 3 11% 2 24% 11 13% 1 33% 7 65% 4 18% 5 116% 1 3 6%
Condamine 12 34% 8 11% 7 27% 6 11% 7 12% 3 20% 2 8% 5 19% 8 34% 12 16% 10 14%
249
Appendices
APPENDIX H density and gas content
equations
The following equation was used to estimate density of ash (ash) given the
percentage of weigh of ash (&'RS ) from proximate analysis. The following table show
the values used for a and b.
1# ! ? & F
'RS
Where a and b are:
Well 2 3
Coal seam a b a b
Kogan
Macalister Upper -0.0051 0.8294 -0.0039 0.7762
Macalister Lower -0.0028 0.7559
Nangram
Coal Seams
Wambo -0.0042 0.7936 -0.0048 0.8293

Iona -0.0044 0.8049 -0.0043 0.8036
Argyle -0.0045 0.8104 -0.0043 0.8072
Tangalooma Ss.
Auburn -0.0045 -0.0048 0.8265
Burwer -0.0045 0.8054 -0.0031 0.7629
Condamine -0.0049 0.8155 -0.0046 0.8219
Upper Juandah -0.0048 0.8145 -0.0034 0.7679
Measure
Coal
Lower Juandah -0.0044 0.8019 -0.0044 0.8100

s
Taroom -0.0047 0.8118 -0.0045 0.8189
250
Appendices
Estimation of density as a function of ash, organic and moisture used in Rogerss
methodology.
& ! ? F
Where a and b are
Ash Organic Moisture

a b a b a b
Well 2 89.761 -105.34 -92.691 201.54 2.935 3.68
Well 3 71.097 -74.475 -68.238 163.70 -2.802 10.7
Equations used to estimate gas content in using Calvert et al. (2011) and created
methodologies (W,WP, V and VP).
- ! ? D1#E F
Where a and b are:
Upper Lower
Taroom
Juandah Juandah
a b a b a b
Well 2 5.035 -2.237 15.175 -6.905 28.601 -15.713
Well 3 8.757 -3.075 14.875 -5.513 11.754 -3.782
251
Appendices
Method W
- ! ? D1#E F
Where a and b are:
Well 2 3
a b a b
Kogan 5.034 -2.237 8.755 -3.075
Macalister Upper 5.034 -2.237 8.755 -3.075
Macalister Lower 5.034 -2.237 8.755 -3.075
Juandah Coal
Nangram 5.034 -2.237 8.755 -3.075
Measures
Wambo 18.087 -8.484 14.875 -5.513
Iona 7.786 -2.479 14.875 -5.513
Argyle 7.786 -2.479 14.875 -5.513
Tangalooma Sandstone 63.253 -39.904 11.754 -3.782
Auburn 63.253 -39.904 11.754 -3.782
Taroom Coal
Burwer 63.253 -39.904 11.754 -3.782
Measures
Condamine 17.613 -8.131 11.754 -3.782
Method WP
Juandah coal measures:
- ! ? ND1#E ? MO F
Taroom coal measure & Tangalooma Sandstone coal seam:
- ! ? P1# ? MQ F
Where a and b are:
Well 2 3
a b a b
Kogan 2.989 -2.374 2.333 -2.766
Macalister Upper 2.989 --2.374 2.333 -2.766
Macalister Lower 2.989 -2.374 2.333 -2.766
Juandah Coal
Nangram 2.989 -2.374 2.333 -2.766
Measures
Wambo 6.638 -7.563 3.029 -4.573
Iona 1.665 -1.015 3.029 -4.573
Argyle 1.665 -1.015 3.029 -4.573
Tangalooma Sandstone 63.253 485.13 -72.683 92.926
Auburn 485.13 -72.683 92.926 -6.522
Taroom Coal
Bulwer 485.13 -72.683 92.926 -6.522
Measures
Condamine 81.184 -6.987 92.926 -6.522
252
Appendices
Method V
- ! ? V1# G WF
)HI' JK- -)JL,JL
Where a and b are:
Well 2 3
a b a b
Kogan 0.021 0.154 0.349 1.258
Macalister Upper 0.021 0.154 0.349 1.258
Macalister Lower 0.021 0.154 0.349 1.258
Juandah Coal
Nangram 0.021 0.154 0.349 1.258
Measures
Wambo 0.009 1.977 0.079 0.023
Iona 0.022 1.836 0.079 0.023
Argyle 0.022 1.836 0.079 0.023
Tangalooma Sandstone 0.001 3.735 0.052 1.876
Auburn 0.001 3.735 0.052 1.876
Taroom Coal
Bulwer 0.001 3.735 0.052 1.876
Measures
Condamine 0.188 -9.966 0.052 1.876
Method VP
Juandah coal measures:
- ! ? XV1# G W ? MY F
)HI' JK- -)JL,JL
Taroom coal measure & Tangalooma Sandstone coal seam:
- ! ? X1# G ? MY F
)HI' JK- -)JL,JL
Where a and b are:
Well 2 3
a b a b
Kogan 0.012 0.146 0.011 1.083
Macalister Upper 0.012 0.146 0.011 1.083
Macalister Lower 0.012 0.146 0.011 1.083
Juandah Coal
Nangram 0.012 0.146 0.011 1.083
Measures
Wambo 0.012 0.146 0.018 0.03
Iona 0.013 0.089 0.018 0.03
Argyle 0.013 0.089 0.018 0.03
Tangalooma Sandstone 0.016 0.089 0.018 0.03
Auburn 0.016 0.694 0.380 0.931
Taroom Coal
Bulwer 0.016 0.694 0.380 0.931
Measures
Condamine 0.908 -9.013 0.380 0.931
253
Appendices
Proximate analysis and as received gas content in v/v in wells 2 and 3.
*
GZRS &'
'
*
G)HI' JK- &)
)
G[)KRLUH, 1 GZRS G)HI' JK- -)JL,JL
]!403 !66 ? -)

-\ #]!403 8/073
WELL 2
Ash 0rganic Moisture Gcv Ash 0rganic Moisture Gcv
Sample Sample
(v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (v/v)
1 38.88 47.13 13.99 0.72 25 14.47 78.35 7.18 3.33
2 17.00 66.34 16.65 1.29 26 4.33 91.76 3.91 3.66
3 40.74 41.76 17.50 0.82 27 12.08 83.94 3.98 6.38
4 28.22 59.21 12.57 1.03 28 7.25 87.54 5.21 8.43
5 39.67 49.72 10.61 1.44 29 8.87 86.31 4.82 7.02
6 15.08 78.25 6.67 2.36 30 19.48 74.99 5.53 4.85
7 39.03 55.27 5.70 2.58 31 14.50 80.72 4.77 4.79
8 13.95 80.90 5.15 2.99 32 8.86 87.11 4.03 5.75
9 14.66 80.16 5.18 1.98 33 4.45 92.93 2.62 4.09
10 7.11 86.94 5.95 3.24 34 9.27 87.78 2.95 5.23
11 9.66 85.36 4.98 2.64 35 20.42 73.39 6.18 3.83
12 21.56 72.24 6.20 2.70 36 12.70 82.55 4.76 5.11
13 12.07 81.46 6.47 2.77 37 12.35 83.16 4.48 7.05
14 27.40 63.59 9.01 2.56 38 13.32 81.75 4.93 3.98
15 17.69 75.95 6.36 3.05
16 7.94 86.70 5.35 3.70
17 1.76 92.72 5.52 3.10
18 15.47 78.94 5.59 3.27
19 8.49 87.03 4.48 4.43
20 7.74 87.96 4.31 4.05
21 33.04 60.78 6.17 3.08
22 14.53 80.45 5.03 4.36
23 26.34 70.35 3.31 3.50
24 17.57 77.51 4.92 3.96
254
Appendices
WELL 3
Ash 0rganic Moisture Gcv
Sample
(v/v) (v/v) (v/v) (v/v)
1 12.83 82.94 4.23 4.15
2 11.07 84.93 4.00 4.26
3 30.11 64.56 5.33 3.39

4 8.81 85.97 5.21 2.50
5 19.10 74.12 6.78 2.81
6 33.39 57.50 9.11 3.36
7 -- -- -- 0.41
8 27.89 66.89 5.22 4.21
9 81.73 12.08 6.19 0.80

10 30.46 65.10 4.44 4.57
11 49.56 44.72 5.72 2.87
12 32.51 63.25 4.23 4.95
13 19.02 77.47 3.51 5.55
14 39.74 53.65 6.61 4.08

15 12.87 82.49 4.64 6.87
16 20.75 73.22 6.03 6.09
17 4.75 90.96 4.29 7.59

18 9.47 87.02 3.51 6.81
19 40.88 51.99 7.13 4.80
20 70.50 23.53 5.97 1.59

21 13.11 82.01 4.89 5.69
22 29.57 63.09 7.33 5.63
23 20.95 75.15 3.90 7.12
24 54.65 37.76 7.59 4.19
25 23.49 73.87 2.65 6.56

26 42.71 51.79 5.50 4.02
27 25.47 69.84 4.69 6.68
28 10.33 85.34 4.33 7.18

29 34.48 56.95 8.57 4.89
30 37.88 51.16 10.96 4.55

31 24.95 67.96 7.09 4.85
32 17.68 77.57 4.76 6.20
33 13.46 82.20 4.35 7.01
34 11.12 83.19 5.69 7.08

35 14.80 77.35 7.85 5.84
36 27.22 66.51 6.27 5.13
37 12.13 84.98 2.89 4.65
38 9.02 87.90 3.08 5.39
39 17.15 78.59 4.26 6.56
255
Appendices
APPENDIX I tools and logs acronyms
Tool Name
AS Acoustic Scanner
ATV Acoustic Televiewer
CMI Compact Micro Imager
MAI Compact Array Induction
MCG Compact Gamma Ray
MDL Compact Dual Laterolog
MDN Compact Dual Neutron
MFE High-resolution shallow focused electric
MMR Micro Laterolog
MPD Compact density
MSS Compact Sonic Sonde
Log Name
CLDC Caliper log
DDLL Deep dual laterolog
DEN Compensated density log
DEPT Measured depth
DSLL Shallow dual laterolog
DT35 Compressional travel time log
DT35wf Compressional travel time log (filtered)
FEFE Shallow focused electric log
FEFEwf Shallow focused electric log (filtered)
GRGC Gamma ray log
GRGCwf Gamma ray log (filtered)
HDEN High-resolution density log
HDENwf High-resolution density log (filtered)
NPRS Neutron porosity
NPRSwf Neutron porosity (filtered)
PDPE PE log
PDPEwf PE log (filtered)
RILD Deep induction log
RILM Medium induction log
SPCG Spontaneous Potential log
TGC Total core desorbed gas
256
References
REFERENCES
AAPG, 2011. Unconventional Energy Resources: 2011 Review. Natural Resources

Research 20, 279328. doi:10.1007/s11053-011-9157-x
Ahlbrandt, T.S., 2002. Future Petroleum Energy Resources of the World. International
Geology Review 44, 10921104. doi:10.2747/0020-6814.44.12.1092
Ahmed, A.-J., Johnston, S., Boyer, C., Lambert, S.W., Bustos, O.A., Pashin, J.C.,
Wray, A., 2009. Coalbed methane: Clean energy for the world. Oilfield Review
413.
Ahmed, U., Johnston, D., Colson, L., 1991. An Advanced and Integrated Approach to
Coal Formation Evaluation. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 6-9 October, Dallas, Texas, Society of Petroleum Engineers, p.
16. doi:10.2118/22736-MS
Ammosov, I.I., Eremin, I.V., 1963. Fracturing in Coal. Israel Program for Scientific
Translations 112.
Anderson, J., Simpson, M., Basinski, P., Beaton, A., Bulat, C., Ray, S., Reinheimer, D.,
Schlachter, G., Colson, L., Olse, T., Zachariah, J., Khan, R., Low, N., Ryan, B.,
Schoderbek, D., 2003. Producing Natural Gas from Coal. Oilfield Review 24.
Arastoopour, H., Chen, S.-T., 1991. Sensitivity Analysis of key Reservoir Parameters in
Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the Sensitivity Analysis of key Reservoir
Parameters in Gas Reservoirs, Society of Petroleum Engineers, p. 333.
doi:10.2118/21515-MS
Australian Standard, AS 2856.1-2000. Coal petrography Part 1: Preparation of coal
samples for incident light microscopy, 2000. . Standards Association of
Australia 6.
Australian Standard, AS 2856.2-1998. Coal petrography Part 2: Maceral analysis.,
1998. . Standards Association of Australia 32.
Australian Standard, AS 2856.3-2000. Coal petrography Part 3: Methods for
microscopical determination of the reflectance of coal macerals, 2000. .
Standards Association of Australia 16.
Australian Standard, AS 2856-1986. Coal-maceral analysis, 1986. . Standards
Association of Australia 22.
Australian Standard, AS 2916-2007. Symbols for graphical representation of coal seams
and associated strata, 2007. . Standards Association of Australia 13.
Australian Standard, AS1038.3-2000. Methods for the Analysis and Testing of Coal and
Coke. Part 3: Proximate Analysis of Higher Rank, 2000. . Standards Association
of Australia 12.
Bachu, S., Michael, K., 2003. Possible controls of hydrogeological and stress regimes
on the producibility of coalbed methane in Upper CretaceousTertiary strata of
the Alberta basin, Canada. AAPG Bulletin 87, 17291754.
doi:10.1306/06030302015
Barton, C., Hickman, S., Morin, R., Zoback, M., Finkbeiner, T., Sass, J., Benoit, D.,
1997. Fracture Permeability and its Relationship to In-Situ Stress in the Dixie
Valley, Nevada, Geothermal Reservoir. USGS Staff -- Published Research 155.
Beamish, B.B., ODonnell, G., 1992. Microbalance applications to sorption testing of
coal. Presented at the Symp. Coalbed Methane Research and Development,
Dept. Earth Sci., James Cook Univ, Townsville, pp. 3141.
257
References
Bodden, W.R., Ehrlich, R., 1998. Permeability of coals and characteristics of desorption
tests: Implications for coalbed methane production. International Journal of Coal
Geology 35, 333347. doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00039-6
Boyer, C.M., 2004. Understanding the Impact of Technology on Full Cycle CBM
Financial Viability. Presented at the Prodeedings of The Successful
Commercialisation of Global Coalbed and Coalmine Methane Projects, CWC
Associates, Ltd., London, UK.
Boyer, C.M., Popvich, G.S., Schraufnagel, R.A., 1986. The Rock Creek Methane From
Multiple Coal Seams Completion Project. Presented at the SPE Unconventional
Gas Technology Symposium, 18-21 May,, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Louisville, Kentucky,US, p. 8. doi:10.2118/15259-MS
Bradshaw, M., Hall, L., Copeland, A., Hitchins, N., 2012. Australian Gas Resource
Assessment 2012 (Geoscience Australia and Bureau of Resources and Energy
Economics No. 74032). Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.
Bradshaw, M., Yeung, M., 1990. The Jurassic Palaeogeography of Australia. Bureau of
Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics 60.
Brunauer, S., Deming, L.S., Deming, W.E., Teller, E., 1940. On a Theory of the van der
Waals Adsorption of Gases. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 62, 17231732.
doi:10.1021/ja01864a025
Bustin, A.M.M., Bustin, R.M., 2008. Coal reservoir saturation: Impact of temperature
and pressure. AAPG Bulletin 92, 7786. doi:10.1306/08270706133
Bustin, R.., Clarkson, C.., 1998. Geological controls on coalbed methane reservoir
capacity and gas content. International Journal of Coal Geology 38, 326.
doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(98)00030-5
Calvert, S., Percy, I., Pritchard, T., Morgan, N., Graham, J., Al-Ojeh, M., Maddren, J.,
Crosdale, P., 2011. Coal petrophysical properties for realistic coal gas reservoir
modelling. SPWLA 52nd Annual Symp., Colorado Springs, Colorado, May 14-
19. 16.
Cao, X., Mastalerz, M., Chappell, M.A., Miller, L.F., Li, Y., Mao, J., 2011. Chemical
structures of coal lithotypes before and after CO2 adsorption as investigated by
advanced solid-state 13C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
International Journal of Coal Geology 88, 6774.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2011.08.003
Carroll, R.E., Pashin, J.C., 2003. Relationship of sorption capacity to coal quality: CO2
sequestration potential of coalbed methane reservoirs in the Black Warrior
Basin, in: Proceedings,paper. Presented at the International Coalbed Methane
Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA, p. 11.
Cervik, J., 1967. Behavior of Coal-Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Eastern
Regional Meeting, 2-3 November, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, US, p. 10. doi:10.2118/1973-MS
Chalmers, G.R.L., Marc Bustin, R., 2007. On the effects of petrographic composition
on coalbed methane sorption. International Journal of Coal Geology 69, 288
304. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2006.06.002
Choi, C.Y., Dyrkacz, G.R., Stock, L.M., 1987. Density separation of alkylated coal
macerals. Energy Fuels 1, 280286. doi:10.1021/ef00003a010
Clarkson, C., Rahmanian, M., Kantzas, A., Morad, K., 2011. Relative Permeability of
CBM Reservoirs: Controls on Curve Shape. International Journal of Coal
Geology Volume 88, 204217. doi:10.2118/137404-MS
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 1996. Variation in micropore capacity and size
distribution with composition in bituminous coal of the Western Canadian
258
References
Sedimentary Basin: Implications for coalbed methane potential. Fuel 75, 1483
1498. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(96)00142-1
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 1997. Variation in permeability with lithotype and
maceral composition of Cretaceous coals of the Canadian Cordillera.
International Journal of Coal Geology 33, 135151. doi:10.1016/S0166-
5162(96)00023-7
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 1999. The effect of pore structure and gas pressure upon
the transport properties of coal: a laboratory and modeling study. 1. Isotherms
and pore volume distributions. Fuel 78, 13331344. doi:10.1016/S0016-
2361(99)00055-1
Clayton, J.., 1998. Geochemistry of coalbed gas A review. International Journal of
Coal Geology 35, 159173. doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00017-7
Close, J.C., 1993. Natural Fractures in Coal, in: Hydrocarbons from Coal. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, US, pp. 119132.
Close, J.C., Mavor, M.J., 1991. Influence of Coal Composition and Rank on Fracture
Development in Fruitland Coal Gas Reservoirs of San Juan Basin. SG 38:
Hydrocarbons from Coal, AAPG Special Volumes 119 132.
Cody, G.D., Larsen, J.W., Siskin, M., 1988. Anisotropic solvent swelling of coals.
Energy Fuels 2, 340344. doi:10.1021/ef00009a020
Cohen, A.D., Spackman, W., 1972. Methods in Peat Petrology and their Application to
Reconstruction of Paleoenvironments. Geological Society of America Bulletin
83, 129142. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1972)83[129:MIPPAT]2.0.CO;2
Colson, J.L., 1991. Evaluating Gas Content of Black Warrior Basin Coalbeds From
Wireline Log Data. Society of Petroleum Engineers 3, 15 22.
doi:10.2118/21489-PA
Creedy, D.P., 1979. A study of variations in gas content of coal seams in relation to
petrographic and stratigraphic variations. University of Wales.
Creedy, D.P., Garner, K., Holloway, S., Wardell, A., Ren, T.X., 2001. A review of the
worldwide status of coalbed methane extraction and utilisation. Crown
Copyright 1925.
Crosdale, P.J., 1995. Lithotype sequences in the Early Miocene Maryville Coal
Measures, New Zealand. International Journal of Coal Geology 28, 3750.
doi:10.1016/0166-5162(95)00003-V
Crosdale, P.J., 2004. Coal facies studies in Australia. International Journal of Coal
Geology 58, 125130. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2003.10.004
Crosdale, P.J., Beamish, B., 1993. Maceral effects on methane sorption. Presented at
the New Developments in Coal Geology: A Symposium., Coal Geol. Group,
Geol. Soc. of Aust, Brisbane, pp. 9598.
Crosdale, P.J., Beamish, B., Valix, M., 1998. Coalbed methane sorption related to coal
composition. International Journal of Coal Geology 35, 147158.
doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00015-3
Crosdale, P.J., Moore, T.A., Mares, T.E., 2008. Influence of moisture content and
temperature on methane adsorption isotherm analysis for coals from a low-rank,
biogenically-sourced gas reservoir. International Journal of Coal Geology 76,
166174. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2008.04.004
Cui, X., Bustin, R.M., Dipple, G., 2004. Selective transport of CO2, CH4, and N2 in
coals: insights from modeling of experimental gas adsorption data. Fuel 83,
293303. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2003.09.001
Curl, S.J., 1978. Methane production in coal mines (No. ICTIS/TR 04). London,
International Energy Agency of Coal Research.
259
References
Dake, L.P., 1983. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Elsevier.

Daniels, E.J., Altaner, S.P., 1990. Clay Mineral Authigenesis in Coal and Shale from
the Anthracite Region, Pennsylvania. American Mineralogist; (USA) 75:7-8,
825839.
Daniels, E.J., Marshak, S., Altaner, S.P., 1996. Use of clay-mineral alteration patterns
to define syntectonic permeability of joints (cleat) in Pennsylvania anthracite
coal. Tectonophysics 263, 123136. doi:10.1016/S0040-1951(96)00019-4
Das, B.M., Nikols, D.J., Das, Z.U., Hucka, V.J., 1991. Factors Affecting Rate and Total
Volume of Methane Desorption from Coalbeds. Rocky Mountain Association of
Geologists 69.
Dawson, G.K.W., Esterle, J.S., 2010. Controls on coal cleat spacing. International
Journal of Coal Geology 82, 213218. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2009.10.004
Dhir, R., Dern Jr., R.R., Mavor, M.J., 1991. Economic and Reserve Evaluation of
Coalbed Methane Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology 43, 1424 1518.
doi:10.2118/22024-PA
Diamond, W.P., Schatzel, S.J., 1998. Measuring the gas content of coal: A review.
5162(97)00040-2
Diessel, C.F.K., 1992. Coal-bearing depositional systems. Springer-Verlag.
Dron, R.W., 1925. Notes on cleat in the Scottish coalfield. Trans. Inst. Min. Eng. 70,
115117.
Dyrkacz, G.R., Bloomquist, C.A.A., 1992. Use of continuous flow centrifugation
techniques for coal maceral separation. 1. Fundamentals. Energy Fuels 6, 357
374. doi:10.1021/ef00034a005
Dyrkacz, G.R., Horwitz, E.P., 1982. Separation of coal macerals. Fuel 61, 312.
doi:10.1016/0016-2361(82)90285-X
Earlougher, R.C., 1977. Advances in Well Test Analysis. Henry L. Doherty Memorial
Fund of AIME.
Eddy, G., Rightmire, C., Byrer, C., 1982. Relationship of Methane Content of Coal
Rank and Depth: Theoretical vs. Observed. Presented at the SPE
Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium, 16-18 May, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, Society of Petroleum Engineers, p. 6. doi:10.2118/10800-MS
Ehrenberg, S.N., Nadeau, P.H., 2005. Sandstone vs. carbonate petroleum reservoirs: A
global perspective on porosity-depth and porosity-permeability relationships.
AAPG Bulletin 89, 435445. doi:10.1306/11230404071
Enever, J., Hennig, A., 1997. The Relationship between Permeability and Effective
Stress for Australian Coals and Its Implication with Respect to Coalbed
Methane Exploration and Reservoir Modelling. Presented at the International
Coalbed Methane Symposium Proceedings, The University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, USA, pp. 1322.
Ettinger, I., Eremin, B., Zimakov, B., Yanovskaya, M., 1966. Natural factors
influencing coal sorption properties I: Petrography and the sorption properties
of coals. Fuel 267275.
Exon, N.F. (Neville F., 1976. Geology of the Surat Basin in Queensland, Bulletin
(Australia. Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics); 166.
Australian Govt. Pub. Service.
Faiz, M., Aziz, N.I., Hutton, A.C., Jones, B.G., 1992. Porosity and gas sorption capacity
of some eastern Australian coals in relation to coal rank and composition. Proc.
Symp. Coalbed Methane Res. Dev. Australia 920.
260
References
Faiz, M., Hendry, P., 2006. Significance of microbial activity in Australian coal bed
methane reservoirs a review. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 54,
261272. doi:10.2113/gscpgbull.54.3.261
Faiz, M., Saghafi, A., Sherwood, N., Wang, I., 2007. The influence of petrological
properties and burial history on coal seam methane reservoir characterisation,
Sydney Basin, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology 70, 193208.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2006.02.012
Fielding, C.R., 1996. Mesozoic sedimentary basins and resources in eastern Australia; a
review of current understanding. In: Mesozoic 96. Proceedings of the Mesozoic
geology of the Eastern Australia Plate Conference. Geological Society of
Australia.
Gamson, P.D., Beamish, B.B., 1991. Characterisation of coal microstructure using
scanning electron microscopy. Presented at the AusIMM Queensland Coal
Symposium, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 921.
Gamson, P.D., Beamish, B.B., Johnson, D.P., 1993. Coal microstructure and
micropermeability and their effects on natural gas recovery. Fuel 72, 8799.
doi:10.1016/0016-2361(93)90381-B
Gamson, P.D., Beamish, B.B., Johnson, D.P., 1996. Coal microstructure and secondary
mineralization: their effect on methane recovery. Geological Society, London,
Special Publications 109, 165179. doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.1996.109.01.12
Gan, H., Nandi, S.P., Walker Jr, P.L., 1972. Nature of the porosity in American coals.
Fuel 51, 272277. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(72)90003-8
Gash, B., Volz, R., Potter, G., Corgan, J., 1992. The effects of cleat orientation and
confining pressure on cleat porosity, permeability, and relative permeability in
coal. Presented at the SCA Conference, p. 14.
Gaurav, K., Akbar Ali, A.H., Saada, T., Kumar, S., 2012. Performance Analysis in Coal
Seam Gas. Presented at the SPETT 2012 Energy Conference and Exhibition, 11-
13 June, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, Society of Petroleum Engineers, p. 15.
doi:10.2118/157696-MS
Gray, I., 1980. The Mechanism of and Energy Release Associated with Outbursts.
Presented at the Symposium on the Occurrence, Prediction, and Control of
Outbursts in Coal Mines, Australasian Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy, Southern
Queensland Branch,, Brisbane, pp. 11125.
Gray, I., 1987a. Reservoir Engineering in Coal Seams: Part 1-The Physical Process of
Gas Storage and Movement in Coal Seams. SPE Reservoir Engineering 2, 28
34.
Gray, I., 1987b. Reservoir Engineering in Coal Seams: Part 2 - Observations of Gas
Movement in Coal Seams. SPE Reservoir Engineering 2, 3540.
Green, T., West, T., 1985. Coal swelling in n-amines and n-alcohols. American
Chemical Society 488492.
Gregg, S.J., 1951. The surface chemistry of solids. Chapman & Hall.
Gregg, S.J., Sing, K.S.W., 1967. Adsorption, surface area, and porosity. Academic
Press, London; New York.
Gu, F., Chalaturnyk, R., 2010. Permeability and porosity models considering anisotropy
and discontinuity of coalbeds and application in coupled simulation. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 74, 113131.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2010.09.002
Guo, R., Mannhardt, K., Kantzas, A., 2007. Laboratory Investigation on the
Permeability of Coal During Primary and Enhanced Coalbed Methane
261
References
Production. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 47, 6.

doi:10.2118/2007-042
Grdal, G., Yaln, M.N., 2001. Pore volume and surface area of the Carboniferous
coals from the Zonguldak basin (NW Turkey) and their variations with rank and
maceral composition. International Journal of Coal Geology 48, 133144.
doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(01)00051-9
Hamilton, S.K., Esterle, J.S., Golding, S.D., 2012. Geological interpretation of gas
content trends, Walloon Subgroup, eastern Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2012.07.001
Hargraves, A.J., 1963. Instantaneous Outbursts of Coal and Gas. University of Sydney,
Sydney.
Harpalani, S., Chen, G., 1997. Influence of gas production induced volumetric strain on
permeability of coal. Geotech Geol Eng 15, 303325. doi:10.1007/BF00880711
Harpalani, S., Schraufnagel, A., 1990a. Measurement of parameters impacting methane
recovery from coal seams. International Journal of Mining and Geological
Engineering 8, 369384. doi:10.1007/BF00920648
Harpalani, S., Schraufnagel, A., 1990b. Shrinkage of coal matrix with release of gas and
its impact on permeability of coal. Fuel 69, 551556. doi:10.1016/0016-
2361(90)90137-F
Harris, L.A., Yust, C.R., 1981. The Ultrafine Structure of Coal Determined by Electron
Microscopy, in: Coal Structure, Advances in Chemistry. American Chemical
Society, pp. 321336.
Harris, L.A., Yust, C.S., 1976. Transmission electron microscope observations of
porosity in coal. Fuel 55, 233236. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(76)90094-6
Hatch, J.R., Gluskoter, H.J., Lindahl, P.C., 1976. Sphalerite in coals from the Illinois
Basin. Economic Geology 71, 613624. doi:10.2113/gsecongeo.71.3.613
Hawkins, J.M., Schraufnagel, R.A., Olszewski, A.J., 1992a. Estimating Coalbed Gas
Content and Sorption Isotherm Using Well Log Data. Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, Washington, D.C.,
Society of Petroleum Engineers, p. 10. doi:10.2118/24905-MS
Hawkins, J.M., Schraufnagel, R.A., Olszewski, A.J., 1992b. Estimating Coalbed Gas
Content and Sorption Isotherm Using Well Log Data. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/24905-MS
Hemela, M.L., Chapman, G., Reichman, J., 1982. Mathematical Model for Simulation
of Seam Gas Drainage. Presented at the Symposium on Seam Gas Drainage
With Particular Reference to the Working Seam, Australasian Ins. of Mining
and Metallurgy, Southern Illawarra Branch, Wollongong, pp. 5359.
Hewitt, J.L., 1984. Geologic Overview, Coal, and Coalbed Methane Resources of the
Warrior Basin - Alabama and Mississippi. AAPG Special Volumes 138, 73
104.
Hilchie, D.W., 1982. Applied openhole log interpretation (for geologists and engineers).
Douglas W. Hilchie Inc.
Hildenbrand, A., Krooss, B.M., Busch, A., Gaschnitz, R., 2006. Evolution of methane
sorption capacity of coal seams as a function of burial history a case study
from the Campine Basin, NE Belgium. International Journal of Coal Geology
66, 179203. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2005.07.006
Hoffmann, K.L., Totterdell, J.M., Dixon, O., Simpson, G.A., Brakel, A.T., Wells, A.T.,
McKellar, J.L., 2009. Sequence stratigraphy of Jurassic strata in the lower Surat
262
References
Basin succession, Queensland. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 56, 461

476.
Holdgate, G.R., Kershaw, A.P., Sluiter, I.R.K., 1995. Sequence stratigraphic analysis
and the origins of Tertiary brown coal lithotypes, Latrobe Valley, Gippsland
Basin, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology 28, 249275.
doi:10.1016/0166-5162(95)00020-8
Hower, J.C., Esterle, J.S., Wild, G.D., Pollock, J.D., 1990. Perspectives on coal
lithotype analysis. Journal of Coal Quality 9 4852.
Hower, J.C., Wagner, N.J., 2012. Notes on the methods of the combined
maceral/microlithotype determination in coal. International Journal of Coal
Hoyer, D.L., 1991. Evaluation Of Coalbed Fracture Porosity From Dual Laterolog. The
Log Analyst 32, 15.
Hyndman, R.J., Koehler, A.B., 2006. Another look at measures of forecast accuracy.
International Journal of Forecasting 22, 679688.
doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2006.03.001
International Energy Agency, 2013. World energy outlook. 2013. International Energy
Agency, Paris OECD.
Jenkins, C.D., II, C.M.B., 2008. Coalbed- and Shale-Gas Reservoirs. Journal of
Petroleum Technology 60, 9299.
Johnston, D.J., Gales, R.H., Ahmed, U., 1991. A New Logging Method for Enhanced
Coal Grading. Presented at the Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, 15-17
April, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver, Colorado, US, p. 8.
doi:10.2118/21810-MS
Jones, A.H., Bell, G.J., Schraufnagel, R.A., 1988. A Review of the Physical and
Mechanical Properties of Coal with Implications for Coal-Bed Methane Well
Completion and Production. Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists 169
183.
Jones, E.J.P., Voytek, M.A., Warwick, P.D., Corum, M.D., Cohn, A., Bunnell, J.E.,
Clark, A.C., Orem, W.H., 2008. Bioassay for estimating the biogenic methane-
generating potential of coal samples. International Journal of Coal Geology 76,
138150. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2008.05.011
Jones, G.D., Patrick, R.B., 1981. Stratigraphy and coal exploration geology of the
northeast Surat Basin. International Journal of Coal Geology 153163.
Joubert, J.I., Grein, C.T., Bienstock, D., 1974. Effect of moisture on the methane
capacity of American coals. Fuel 53, 186191. doi:10.1016/0016-
2361(74)90009-X
Kabir, A., McCalmont, S., Street, T., Johnson, R., 2011. Reservoir Characterisation of
Surat Basin Coal Seams using Drill Stem Tests. Presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 20-22 September, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Jakarta, Indonesia. doi:10.2118/147828-MS
Karacan, C.O., Mitchell, G.D., 2003. Behavior and effect of different coal
microlithotypes during gas transport for carbon dioxide sequestration into coal
seams. International Journal of Coal Geology 53, 201217. doi:10.1016/S0166-
5162(03)00030-2
Karacan, C.O., Okandan, E., 2001. Adsorption and gas transport in coal microstructure:
investigation and evaluation by quantitative X-ray CT imaging. Fuel 80, 509
520. doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(00)00112-5
Kempton, N.H., Peeters, M., 1977. Wireline Logging For Coal Exploration In Australia.
The Log Analyst 18, 6.
263
References
Kendall, P.F., Briggs, H., 1933. The Formation of Rock Joints and the Cleat of Coal.
Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh.
Khavari-Khorasani, G., Michelsen, J.K., 1999. Coal Bed Gas Content and Gas
Undersaturation, in: Mastalerz, M., Glikson, M., Golding, S.D. (Eds.), Coalbed
Methane: Scientific, Environmental and Economic Evaluation. Springer
Netherlands, pp. 207231.
Kim, A.G., 1978. Experimental studies on the origin and accumulation of coalbed gas.
Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, US.
Kim, G., 1977. Estimating methane content of bituminous coal beds form adsorption
data. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
King, G., 1985. Numerical simulation of the simultaneous flow of methane and water
through dual porosity coal seams during the degasification process (PhD
Thesis). Pennsylvania State University, P.A., USA.
King, G., Ertekin, T., Schwerer, F., 1986. Numerical Simulation of the Transient
Behavior of Coal-Seam Degasification Wells. SPE Formation Evaluation 1, 165
183. doi:10.2118/12258-PA
Kissell, F.N., McCulloch, C.M., Elder, C.H., 1973. The Direct Method of Determining
Methane Content of Coalbeds for Ventilation Design. Bureau of Mines, US
NTIS No. PB-221628, RI 7767, 117.
Koenig, R.A., Stubbs, P.B., 1986. Interference Testing of a Coalbed Methane
Reservoir. Presented at the SPE Unconventional Gas Technology Symposium,
18-21 May, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky, US, p. 12.
doi:10.2118/15225-MS
Kolesar, J.E., Ertekin, T., Obut, S.T., 1990a. The Unsteady-State Nature of Sorption
and Diffusion Phenomena in the Micropore Structure of Coal: Part 1 Theory
and Mathematical Formulation. SPE Formation Evaluation 5, 8188.
Kolesar, J.E., Ertekin, T., Obut, S.T., 1990b. The Unsteady-State Nature of Sorption
and Diffusion Phenomena in the Micropore Structure of Coal: Part 2 - Solution.
SPE Formation Evaluation 5, 8997.
Krevelen, D.W. van, 1981. Coal: Typology - chemistry - physics - constitution. Elsevier
Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
Krooss, B.., van Bergen, F., Gensterblum, Y., Siemons, N., Pagnier, H.J.., David, P.,
2002. High-pressure methane and carbon dioxide adsorption on dry and
moisture-equilibrated Pennsylvanian coals. International Journal of Coal
Geology 51, 6992. doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(02)00078-2
Kulander, B.R., Dean, S.L., 1993. Coal-Cleat Domains and Domain Boundaries in the
Allegheny Plateau of West Virginia. AAPG Bulletin 77, 13741388.
Kulander, B.R., Dean, S.L., Jr, B.J.W., 1990. Fractured Core Analysis: Interpretation,
Logging, and Use of Natural and Induced Fractures in Core. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Lagendijk, E., Ryan, D., 2010. From CSG to LNG: Modeling and Understanding Key
Subsurface Uncertainties for the Development of a Surat Basin Opportunity, in
Queensland, Australia. Presented at the Canadian Unconventional Resources
and International Petroleum Conference, 19-21 October, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, p. 13. doi:10.2118/137651-MS
Lama, R.D., Bartosiewicz, H., 1982. Determination of Gas Content of Coal Seams.
Presented at the Symposium on Seam Gas Drainage with Particular Reference to
the Working Seam, Australasian Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy, Southern
Illawarra Branch, Wollongong, pp. 3649.
264
References
Lamberson, M.N., Bustin, R.M., 1993. Coalbed Methane Characteristics of Gates

Formation Coals, Northeastern British Columbia: Effect of Maceral
Composition. AAPG Bulletin 77, 20622076.
Lamberson, M.N., Bustin, R.M., Kalkreuth, W., 1991. Lithotype (maceral) composition
and variation as correlated with paleo-wetland environments, Gates Formation,
northeastern British Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Coal Geology
18, 87124. doi:10.1016/0166-5162(91)90045-K
Langenberg, C.W., Kalkreuth, W., Levine, J.R., Strobl, R., Demchunk, T., Hoffman,
G., Jerzykiewicz, T., 1990. Coal geology and its application to coal-bed
methane reservoirs: lecture notes for short course, Edmonton, August 20-24,
1990. Alberta Research Council.
Langmuir, I., 1918. THE ADSORPTION OF GASES ON PLANE SURFACES OF
GLASS, MICA AND PLATINUM. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 40, 13611403.
doi:10.1021/ja02242a004
Laubach, S.., Marrett, R.., Olson, J.., Scott, A.., 1998. Characteristics and origins of
coal cleat: A review. International Journal of Coal Geology 35, 175207.
doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00012-8
Laubach, S.E., Tremain, C.M., 1991. Regional Coal Fracture Patterns and Coalbed
Methane Development. Presented at the The 32nd U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics (USRMS), July 10 - 12, American Rock Mechanics Association,
Norman, Oklahoma,US, p. 10.
Law, D.H.S., Van Der Meer, L.G.H., Gunder, W.D., 2002. Numerical Simulator
Comparison Study for Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery Processes, Part I:
Pure Carbon Dioxide Injection, in: SPE Paper 75669. Presented at the SPE gas
Technology Symposium, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, p. 14.
Laxminarayana, C., Crosdale, P.J., 1999. Role of coal type and rank on methane
sorption characteristics of Bowen Basin, Australia coals. International Journal of
Coal Geology 40, 309325. doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(99)00005-1
Laxminarayana, C., Crosdale, P.J., 2002. Controls on methane sorption capacity of
Indian coals. AAPG Bulletin 86, 201212.
Leather, D.T.B., Bahadori, A., Nwaoha, C., Wood, D.A., 2013. A review of Australias
natural gas resources and their exploitation. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering 10, 6888. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2012.09.003
Levine, J.R., 1992a. Influences of coal composition on coal seam reservoir quality: a
review, in: Symp. Coalbed Methane Res. Dev., Vol. 1. Townsville, p. 27.
Levine, J.R., 1992b. Oversimplifications can lead to faulty coalbed gas reservoir
analysis. The Oil and Gas Journal 90, 63+.
Levine, J.R., 1993. Coalification: The Evolution of Coal as Source Rock and Reservoir
Rock for Oil and Gas: Chapter 3. AAPG Special Volumes 180, 3977.
Levine, J.R., 1996. Model study of the influence of matrix shrinkage on absolute
permeability of coal bed reservoirs. Geological Society, London, Special
Publications 109, 197212. doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.1996.109.01.14
Levine, J.R., Clarkson, C.., Levy, J.H., 1995. , in: Proceedings of the 29th Newcastle
Symposium. Presented at the Advances in the Study of the Sydney Basin,
University of Newcastle, pp. 228.
Levine, J.R., Johnson, P., Beamish, B., 1993. . Proceedings of the 1993 International
Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, pp. 18795.
265
References
Levy, J.H., Day, S.J., Killingley, J.S., 1997. Methane capacities of Bowen Basin coals
related to coal properties. Fuel 76, 813819. doi:10.1016/S0016-
2361(97)00078-1
Li, J., Liu, D., Yao, Y., Cai, Y., Qiu, Y., 2011. Evaluation of the reservoir permeability
of anthracite coals by geophysical logging data. International Journal of Coal
MacLennan, J.D., Schafer, P.S., Pratt, T.J., 1995. A Guide to Determining Coalbed Gas
Content. Gas Research Institute.
Mahajan, O.P., Walker, J., 1978. Porosity of Coals and Coal Products (No. FE-2030-
TR7). Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park (USA). Coal Research Section.
Malone, P.G., Briscoe, F.H., Camp, B.S., Boyer II, C.M., 1987. Discovery and
explanation of low gas contents encountered in coalbeds at the GRI/USSC Big
Indian Creek Site, Warrior Basin, Alabama. Presented at the 1987 Coalbed
Methane Symp., Univ. Alabama, Tuscaloosa, US, pp. 6372.
Mares, T.E., Moore, T.A., 2008. The influence of macroscopic texture on biogenically-
derived coalbed methane, Huntly coalfield, New Zealand. International Journal
of Coal Geology 76, 175185. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2008.05.013
Mares, T.E., Moore, T.A., Moore, C.R., 2009a. Uncertainty of gas saturation estimates
in a subbituminous coal seam. International Journal of Coal Geology 77, 320
327. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2008.07.002
Mares, T.E., Radliski, A.P., Moore, T.A., Cookson, D., Thiyagarajan, P., Ilavsky, J.,
Klepp, J., 2009b. Assessing the potential for CO2 adsorption in a subbituminous
coal, Huntly Coalfield, New Zealand, using small angle scattering techniques.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2008.07.007
Martin, M.A., Wakefield, M., MacPhail, M.K., Pearce, T., Edwards, H.E., 2013.
Sedimentology and stratigraphy of an intra-cratonic basin coal seam gas play:
Walloon Subgroup of the Surat Basin, eastern Australia. Petroleum Geoscience
19, 2138.
Mastalerz, M., Drobniak, A., Strpo, D., Solano Acosta, W., Rupp, J., 2008. Variations
in pore characteristics in high volatile bituminous coals: Implications for coal
bed gas content. International Journal of Coal Geology 76, 205216.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2008.07.006
Mastalerz, M., Gluskoter, H., Rupp, J., 2004. Carbon dioxide and methane sorption in
high volatile bituminous coals from Indiana, USA. International Journal of Coal
Mathews, J.P., Hatcher, P.G., Scaroni, A.W., 1997. Particle size dependence of coal
volatile matter: is there a non-maceral-related effect? Fuel 76, 359362.
doi:10.1016/S0016-2361(96)00220-7
Mavor, M.J., 1994. Coal Gas Openhole Well Performance. Presented at the University
of Tulsa Centennial Petroleum Engineering Symposium, 29-31 August, Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma,US, p. 14. doi:10.2118/27993-MS
Mavor, M.J., Close, J., McBane, R., 1990a. Formation Evaluation Of Exploration
Coalbed Methane Wells. Presented at the Annual Technical Meeting, June 10 -
13, Petroleum Society of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, p. 20.
doi:10.2118/90-101
Mavor, M.J., Close, J.C., McBane, R.A., 1994. Formation Evaluation of Exploration
Coalbed-Methane Wells. SPE Formation Evaluation 9, 285 294.
doi:10.2118/21589-PA
266
References
Mavor, M.J., Gunter, W., 2006. Secondary Porosity and Permeability of Coal vs. Gas
Composition and Pressure. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 9, 114
125. doi:10.2118/90255-PA
Mavor, M.J., Nelson, C.R., 1997. Coalbed Reservoir Gas-in-place Analysis, 1st ed. Gas
Research Institute.
Mavor, M.J., Owen, L.B., Pratt, T.J., 1990b. Measurement and Evaluation of Coal
Sorption Isotherm Data. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 23-26 September, Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans,
Louisiana, US, p. 14.
Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T., Nelson, C., Casey, T., 1996. Improved Gas-In-Place
Determination for Coal Gas Reservoirs. Presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, 28 April-1 May, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, p. 12. doi:10.2118/35623-MS
Mavor, M.J., Pratt, T.J., 1996. Improved Methodology for Determining Total Gas
Content. Volume 2. Comparative Evaluation of the Accuracy of Gas-in-Place
Estimates and Review of Lost Gas Models (No. Topical Report GRI-94/0429).
Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois.
McCulloch, C.M., Levine, J.R., Kissell, F.N., Deul, M., 1975. Measuring the methane
content of bituminous coalbeds. Bureau of Mines, US.
Montgomery, S.L., 1999. Powder River basin, Wyoming; an expanding coalbed
methane (CBM) play. AAPG Bulletin 83, 12071222.
Moore, T.A., 2012. Coalbed methane: A review. International Journal of Coal Geology
101, 3681. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2012.05.011
Mullen, M.J., 1988. Log Evaluation in wells drilled for Coalbed Methane. Rocky
Mountain Association of Geologists 113124.
Mullen, M.J., 1989. Coalbed Methane Resource Evaluation From Wireline Logs in the
Northeastern San Juan Basin: A Case Study. Presented at the Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, 6-8 March, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver,
Colorado, US. doi:10.2118/18946-MS
Nandi, S.P., Walker Jr, P.L., 1970. Activated diffusion of methane in coal. Fuel 49,
309323. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(70)90023-2
Neavel, R.C., Smith, S.E., Hippo, E.J., Miller, R.N., 1986. Interrelationships between
coal compositional parameters. Fuel 65, 312320. doi:10.1016/0016-
2361(86)90289-9
Nelson, C., 1999. Effects of Coalbed Reservoir Property Analysis Methods on Gas-In-
Place Estimates. Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Conference and
Exhibition, 21-22 October, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Charleston, West
Virginia, US, p. 10. doi:10.2118/57443-MS
Nelson, C., 2000a. Effects of Geologic Variables on Cleat Porosity Trends in Coalbed
Gas Reservoirs, in: SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, 3-5 April.
Presented at the Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Copyright 2000, Society of
Petroleum Engineers Inc., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, p. 5.
Nelson, C., 2000b. Effects of Geologic Variables on Cleat Porosity Trends in Coalbed
Gas Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/59787-MS
Nelson, C., Hill, D., Pratt, T., 2000. Properties of Paleocene Fort Union Formation
Canyon Seam Coal at the Triton Federal Coalbed Methane Well, Campbell
County, Wyoming. Presented at the SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, 3-
5 April, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, p. 11.
doi:10.2118/59786-MS
267
References
Palmer, I., 2010. Coalbed methane completions: A world view. International Journal of
Coal Geology 82, 184195. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2009.12.010
Palmer, I., Mansoori, J., 1996. How Permeability Depends on Stress and Pore Pressure
in Coalbeds: A New Model. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 6-9 October, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver, Colorado,
US, p. 8. doi:10.2118/36737-MS
Papendick, S.L., Downs, K.R., Vo, K.D., Hamilton, S.K., Dawson, G.K.W., Golding,
S.D., Gilcrease, P.C., 2011. Biogenic methane potential for Surat Basin,
Queensland coal seams. International Journal of Coal Geology 88, 123134.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2011.09.005
Parkash, S., Du Plessis, M.P., Cameron, A.R., 1983. Application of Coal Petrography in
the Liquefaction of Subbituminous Coals and Lignites. Alberta Research
Council.
Pashin, J.C., 1998. Stratigraphy and structure of coalbed methane reservoirs in the
United States: An overview. International Journal of Coal Geology 35, 209240.
doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00013-X
Pashin, J.C., 2010. Variable gas saturation in coalbed methane reservoirs of the Black
Warrior Basin: Implications for exploration and production. International
Journal of Coal Geology 82, 135146. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2009.10.017
Pashin, J.C., Carroll, R.E., Richard H. Groshong, J., Raymond, D.E., McIntyre, M.,
Payton, J.W., 2003. Geologic Screening Criteria for sequestration of CO2 in
Coal: Quantifying Potential of the Black Warrior Coalbed Methane Fairway,
Alabama. U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory.
Paterson, L., Meaney, K., Smyth, M., 1992. Measurements of relative permeability,
absolute permeability and fracture geometry in coal, in: CP 210. Presented at the
Coabed Methane Symposium, James Cook University of North Queensland,
Townsville, Australia, p. 7.
Patton S.B., 1996. Simulator for degasification, methane emission prediction and mine
ventilation. SME 37, 5. doi:10.1016/0140-6701(96)87454-6
Petersen, H.I., Bojesen-Koefoed, J.A., Nytoft, H.P., Surlyk, F., Therkelsen, J.,
Vosgerau, H., 1998. Relative sea-level changes recorded by paralic liptinite-
enriched coal facies cycles, Middle Jurassic Muslingebjerg Formation,
Hochstetter Forland, Northeast Greenland. International Journal of Coal
Geology 36, 130. doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00032-3
Pratt, T., Mavor, M., DeBruyn, R., 1999. Coal Gas Resource and Production Potential
of Subbituminous Coal in the Powder River Basin. Presented at the SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, 15-18 May, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Gillette, Wyoming, US, p. 10. doi:10.2118/55599-MS
Prinz, D., Littke, R., 2005. Development of the micro- and ultramicroporous structure
of coals with rank as deduced from the accessibility to water. Fuel 84, 1645
1652. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2005.01.010
Prinz, D., Pyckhout-Hintzen, W., Littke, R., 2004. Development of the meso- and
macroporous structure of coals with rank as analysed with small angle neutron
scattering and adsorption experiments. Fuel 83, 547556.
doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2003.09.006
Purl, R., Evanoff, J.C., Brugler, M.L., 1991. Measurement of Coal Cleat Porosity and
Relative Permeability Characteristics, in: SPE Gas Technology Symposium.
Presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, 22-24 January, Society of
Petroleum Engineers Inc., Houston, Texas, US, p. 12.
268
References
QGC Pty Limited, 2012a. Surat Basin Geological Model (No. Appendix D).
Queensland, Australia.
QGC Pty Limited, 2012b. Vertical Connectivity and Geological Review (No. Appendix
O). Queensland, Australia.
QSQ, 2013. Queenslands coal seam gas overview (Industry update). Geological
Survey of Queensland.
Rao, P.D., Wolff, E.N., 1980. Petrographic, mineralogical, and chemical
characterization of certain Alaskan coals and washability products (No. Final
Report). University of Alaska Fairbanks. Mineral Industry Research Laboratory,
United States. Dept. of Energy, Alaska.
Reiss, L.H., 1980. The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Fractured Formations.
Editions TECHNIP.
Ried, G.W., Towler, B.F., Harris, H.G., 1992. Simulation and Economics of Coalbed
Methane Production in the Powder River Basin. Presented at the PE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, 18-21 May, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Casper, Wyoming, US, p. 8. doi:10.2118/24360-MS
Rieke III, H., Rightmire, C., Fertl, W., 1981. Evaluation of Gas-Bearing Coal Seams.
Journal of Petroleum Technology 33, 195 204. doi:10.2118/8359-PA
Rightmire, C.T., 1984. Coalbed Methane Resources of the United States. AAPG
Special Volumes 138, 113.
Riley, J.T., 2007. Routine Coal and Coke Analysis: Collection, Interpretation, and Use
of Analytical Data. ASTM International.
Rodrigues, C.., Lemos de Sousa, M.., 2002. The measurement of coal porosity with
different gases. International Journal of Coal Geology 48, 245251.
doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(01)00061-1
Rogers, R.E., 2007. Coalbed methane: principles and practice. PTR Prentice Hall.
Ryan, B., 2003. Cleat Development in Some British Columbia Coals. New Ventures
Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Government of
British Columbia. 20.
Samworth, J.R., 1992. The Dual-spaced Density Log-characteristics, Calibration, And
Compensation. The Log Analyst. Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log
Analysts 33, 8.
Samworth, J.R., Cherrie, M.A., 1976. A Focussed resistivity tool for slimline coal
logging systems. Society of Professional Well Log Analysts, European
Formation Evaluation Symposium, 4th, London, England 16.
Schopf, J.M., 1960. Field description and sampling of coal beds (No. 1111-B). United
States Geological Survey.
Schwarzer, R.R., Byrer, C., 1983. Variation in the quantity of methane adsorbed by
selected coals as a function of coal petrology and coal chemistry. U.S.
Department of Energy.
Scott, A.R., 2002. Hydrogeologic factors affecting gas content distribution in coal beds.
5162(02)00135-0
Scott, A.R., Kaiser, W.R., Ayers, W.B.J., 1994. Thermogenic and Secondary Biogenic
Gases, San Juan Basin, Colorado and New Mexico - Implications for Coalbed
Gas Producibility. AAPG Bulletin 78, 11861209.
Scott, A.R., Zhou, N., Levine, J.R., 1995. A Modified Approach to Estimating Coal and
Coal Gas Resources: Example from the Sand Wash Basin, Colorado. AAPG
Bulletin 79, 13201336.
269
References
Scott, S., Anderson, B., Crosdale, P., Dingwall, J., 2007. Coal petrology and coal seam
gas contents of the Walloon Subgroup Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2006.04.010
Seidle, J.P., 2011. Fundamentals of Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering, 1st ed.
PennWell Books.
Seidle, J.P., Jeansonne, M.W., Erickson, D.J., 1992. Application of Matchstick
Geometry To Stress Dependent Permeability in Coals. Presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting,18-21 May, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Casper, Wyoming, US, p. 12. doi:10.2118/24361-MS
Sibbit, A.M., Faivre, O., 1985. The Dual Laterolog Response in Fractured Rocks.
Presented at the Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts 26th Annual
Logging Symposium, 17-20 June, Society of Petrophysicists & Well Log
Analysts, Dallas, Texas, US, p. 34.
Smyth, M., Cook, A.C., 1976. Sequence in Australian coal seams. Mathematical
Geology 8, 529547. doi:10.1007/BF01042992
Sparks, D., McLendon, T., Saulsberry, J., Lambert, S., 1995. The Effects of Stress on
Coalbed Reservoir Performance, Black Warrior Basin, U.S.A. Presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 22-25 October, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas, US. doi:10.2118/30734-MS
Spears, D.A., Caswell, S.A., 1986. Mineral matter in coals: cleat minerals and their
origin in some coals from the english midlands. International Journal of Coal
Geology 6, 107125. doi:10.1016/0166-5162(86)90015-7
St. George, J.., Barakat, M.., 2001. The change in effective stress associated with
shrinkage from gas desorption in coal. International Journal of Coal Geology 45,
105113. doi:10.1016/S0166-5162(00)00026-4
Stach, E., Mackowsky, M.T.H., Taylor, D.G., Chandra, D.R., 1982. Stachs Textbook
of coal petrology. Borntraeger.
Stankiewicz, B.A., Kruge, M.A., Crelling, J.C., Salmon, G.L., 1994. Density Gradient
Centrifugation: Application to the Separation of Macerals of Type I, II, and III
Sedimentary Organic Matter. Energy Fuels 8, 15131521.
doi:10.1021/ef00048a042
Stopes, M.C., 1919. On the four visible ingredients in banded bituminous coals. Proc.
Royal Soc. 90B, 470487.
Stracher, G.B., Prakash, A., Sokol, E.V., 2010. Coal and Peat Fires: A Global
Perspective: Volume 1: Coal - Geology and Combustion. Elsevier.
Surez-Ruiz, I., Crelling, J.C., 2008. Applied Coal Petrology: The Role of Petrology in
Coal Utilization. Academic Press.
Sung, W., Ertekin, T., 1987. An Analysis of Field Development Strategies for Methane
Production From Coal Seams. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 27-30 September, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Dallas, Texas, US, p. 11. doi:10.2118/16858-MS
Taulbee, D., Poe, S.H., Robl, T., Keogh, B., 1989. Density gradient centrifugation
separation and characterization of maceral groups from a mixed maceral
bituminous coal. Energy Fuels 3, 662670. doi:10.1021/ef00018a002
Taylor, G.H., Liu, S.Y., 1987. Biodegradation in coals and other organic-rich rocks.
Fuel 66, 12691273. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(87)90066-4
Taylor, G.H., Teichmller, M., Davis, A., Diessel, C.F.K., Littke, R., Robert, P., 1998.
Organic Petrology. Gebrder Borntraeger, Berlin.
270
References
Teichmller, M., Teichmller, R., 1968. Geological Aspects of Coal Metamorphism, D.

Murchison and T.S. Westoll. ed. Elsevier Publishing Co., New York.
Thimons, E.D., Kissell, F.N., 1973. Diffusion of methane through coal. Fuel 52, 274
280. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(73)90057-4
Thomas, L., 2002. Coal Geology. John Wiley & Sons.
Ting, F.T.C., 1977. Origin and Spacing of Cleats in Coal Beds. J. Pressure Vessel
Technol. 99, 624626. doi:10.1115/1.3454584
Tremain, C.M., Laubach, S.E., Iii, N.H.W., 1991. Coal Fracture (Cleat) Patterns in
Upper Cretaceous Fruitland Formation, San Juan Basin, Colorado and New
Mexico - Implications for Coalbed Methane Exploration and Development.
AAPG Bulletin 4964.
Unsworth, J.F., Fowler, C.S., Jones, L.F., 1989. Moisture in coal: 2. Maceral effects on
pore structure. Fuel 68, 1826. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(89)90005-7
Walker Jr., P.L., Verma, S.K., Rivera-Utrilla, J., Davis, A., 1988. Densities, porosities
and surface areas of coal macerals as measured by their interaction with gases,
vapours and liquids. Fuel 67, 16151623. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(88)90204-9
Wang, X., Ward, C., 2009. Experimental investigation of permeability changes with
pressure depletion in relation to coal quality. Presented at the International
Coalbed Methane Symposium. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, p.
31.
Ward, C.R., 1984. Coal geology and coal technology. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Weatherford - CMI, 2013. Compact Microimager (CMI) Tool [WWW Document].
URL http://www.weatherford.com/dn/WFT055879 (accessed 8.6.13).
Weatherford - MAI, 2012. Compact Array Induction (MAI) Tool [WWW Document].
URL
http://www.weatherford.com/weatherford/groups/web/documents/weatherfordco
rp/wft033170.pdf (accessed 8.6.13).
Weatherford - MCG, 2012. Compact Gamma Ray (MCG) Tool [WWW Document].
URL
rp/WFT033097.pdf (accessed 7.12.13).
Weatherford - MDL, 2012. Compact Dual Laterolog (MDL) Tool [WWW Document].
Weatherford - MDN, 2012. Compact Dual Neutron (MDN) Tool [WWW Document].
Weatherford - MPD, 2010. Compact Photodensity (MPD) Tool [WWW Document].
URL
rp/www018943.pdf (accessed 7.22.13).
Weatherford - MSS, 2012. Compact Sonic Sonde (MSS) Tool [WWW Document].
Weida, S., Lambert, S., Boyer, C., 2005. Challenging the Traditional Coalbed Methane
Exploration and Evaluation Model. Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting, 14-16 September, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Morgantown, West
Virginia, US, p. 8. doi:10.2118/98069-MS
Weijermars, R., 2012. Jumps in Proved Unconventional Gas Reserves Present
Challenges to Reserves Auditing. SPE Economics & Management 4, pp. 131
146.
Whiticar, M.J., 1994. Correlation of Natural Gases with Their Sources: Chapter 16: Part
IV. Identification and Characterization. AAPG Special Volumes 77, 261283.
271
References
Willmott, C.J., Matsuura, K., 2005. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over
the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance.
Clim Res 30, 7982. doi:10.3354/cr030079
Wold, M., Davidson, S., Wu, B., Choi, S., Koenig, R., 1995. Cavity Completion For
Coalbed Methane Stimulation - An Integrated Investigation And Trial In The
Bowen Basin, Queensland. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 22-25 October, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas,
US, p. 15. doi:10.2118/30733-MS
Wold, M.B., Jeffrey, R.G., 1999. A Comparison of Coal Seam Directional Permeability
as Measured in Laboratory Core Tests and in Well Interference Tests, in: SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, 15-18 May. Copyright 1999, Society of
Petroleum Engineers Inc., Gillette, Wyoming, US, p. 9.
Wyman, R.E., 1984. Gas Resources in Elmworth Coal Seams. AAPG Special Volumes
13, 173187.
Yalin, E., Durucan, ., 1991. Methane capacities of Zonguldak coals and the factors
affecting methane adsorption. Mining Science and Technology 13, 215222.
doi:10.1016/0167-9031(91)91346-J
Yang, R.T., Saunders, J.T., 1985. Adsorption of gases on coals and heattreated coals at
elevated temperature and pressure: 1. Adsorption from hydrogen and methane as
single gases. Fuel 64, 616620. doi:10.1016/0016-2361(85)90043-2
Yang, Y., Peeters, M., Kirk, C.W.V., Cloud, T.A., 2006. Gas Productivity Related to
Cleat Volumes Derived from Focused Resistivity Tools in Coalbed Methane
(CBM) Fields. PetroPhysics 47, 250257.
Yao, Y., Liu, D., 2009. Microscopic characteristics of microfractures in coals: an
investigation into permeability of coal. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 1,
903910. doi:10.1016/j.proeps.2009.09.140
Yee, D., Seidle, J.P., Hanson, W.B., 1993. Gas Sorption on Coal and Measurement of
Gas Content, in: Law, B.E., Rice, D.D. (Eds.), Hydrocarbons from Coal.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma. pp. 203218.
Young, G.B.C., McElhiney, J.E., Paul, G.W., McBane, R.A., 1991. An Analysis of
Fruitland Coalbed Methane Production, Cedar Hill Field, Northern San Juan
Basin. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 6-9
October, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas, US, p. 14.
doi:10.2118/22913-MS
Zhang, E., Hill, R.J., Katz, B.J., Tang, Y., 2008. Modeling of gas generation from the
Cameo coal zone in the Piceance Basin, Colorado. AAPG Bulletin 92, 1077
1106.
Zuber, M.D., Olszewski, A.J., 1992. The Impact of Errors in Measurements of Coalbed
Methane Reservoir Properties on Well Production Forecasts. Presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4-7 October, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Washington, D.C., US, p. 15. doi:10.2118/24908-MS.
272

2015 Afonsojmsphdcutoff CBM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 Afonsojmsphdcutoff CBM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS IN

COAL: ASSESSMENT OF COAL-BED METHANE

CONTENT, RESERVES AND COAL

Thesis submitted for the degree of

at the University of Leicester

Joo Mealha Sequeira Afonso, MGeol.

Electrical Resistivity Measurements in Coal: assessment of coal-bed

insightful thoughts in different fields of expertise and giving me the opportunity to do

I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Brent Glassborow, for his

discuss my work in BGs Brisbane office.

friendship, encouragement and good times shared.

Finally, my biggest thanks to my family, my mother, father, sister and my

TABLE 2.2 MACROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION OF COALS. ................................................................................... 13

2000, AS 2856.2-1998, AS 2856.3-2000, AS 2856-1986). ............................................................... 18

(1982) AND WARD (1981). ................................................................................................................ 51

LITHOTYPE FROM WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL BEDS. ...................................................................... 87

WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL BEDS. .................................................................................................. 89

MINERAL MATER FREE BASIS). ........................................................................................................... 99

TABLE 3.9 LITHOTYPE MEAN LOG RESPONSES ......................................................................................... 115

10 TO 14. ......................................................................................................................................... 118

CORE ANALYSIS. .............................................................................................................................. 124

TOTAL RESERVOIR THICKNESS USING DIFFERENT CUT-OFFS. ........................................................... 149

PERCENTAGE MINERAL MATER FREE BASIS).. .................................................................................. 161

ERROR ESTIMATION. ....................................................................................................................... 164

ERROR ESTIMATION ........................................................................................................................ 164

EACH METHODOLOGY IN WELL 2. .................................................................................................... 188

METHODOLOGY IN WELL 3. ............................................................................................................. 188

FIGURE 2.2 COALIFICATION STAGES DURING COAL GENERATION. ............................................................. 10

MODIFIED FROM TEICHMLLER AND TEICHMLLER (1968). ............................................................ 11

RESEARCH. PICTURES PROVIDED BY THE OPERATOR. ........................................................................ 14

FIGURE 2.5 COAL MATRIX AND NATURAL FRACTURE NETWORK................................................................ 20

LITHOTYPES FROM LAXMINARAYANA AND CROSDALE (1999). ......................................................... 25

FIGURE 2.10 EXAMPLES OF VERTICAL PROFILES OF DESORBED GAS CONTENT. .......................................... 31

TIME FROM MOORE (2012). ............................................................................................................... 32

FIGURE 2.14 CSG RESERVOIR HETEROGENEITY......................................................................................... 38

QGC PTY LIMITED (2012A) REPORT. ................................................................................................ 67

QGC PTY LIMITED (2012A) REPORT. ................................................................................................ 68

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND MINES). ...................... 71

FIGURE 3.1 COAL LITHOTYPE THICKNESS FREQUENCY AND ACCUMULATED FREQUENCY.......................... 80

10 CORED WELLS. .............................................................................................................................. 81

WALLOON SUB-GROUP COAL BEDS. .................................................................................................. 89

SUB-GROUP COAL SEAMS. ................................................................................................................. 90

FIGURE 3.8 GAS CONTENT (D.A.F.) VERSUS DEPTH. ................................................................................... 92

SAMPLES FROM 12 CORED WELLS. ..................................................................................................... 97

CORED WELLS. ................................................................................................................................ 100

CORED WELLS. ................................................................................................................................ 101

GROUP. ............................................................................................................................................ 101

WALLOON SUB-GROUP. .................................................................................................................. 102

PE, AND FEFE LOGS. ....................................................................................................................... 104

WELLS. ............................................................................................................................................ 107

ZONES. ............................................................................................................................................ 108

IN COAL BED ZONES. ........................................................................................................................ 109

ZONES. ............................................................................................................................................ 109

CALCITE FILLING. ............................................................................................................................ 112

FIGURE 2.22 IN CHAPTER 2. ............................................................................................................ 124

OF WELLS 1, 2 AND 3. ...................................................................................................................... 132

FIGURE 4.5 STUDY OF DENSITY LOG CUT-OFF VALUE. ............................................................................. 134

PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AS A FUNCTION OF COAL SEAM THICKNESS. ................................................. 137

FIGURE 4.9 HIGH-RESOLUTION WIRELINE FEFE SHALLOW RESISTIVITY AGAINST HIGH-RESOLUTION

FIGURE 4.13 STUDY OF SONIC LOG CUT-OFF VALUE. ............................................................................... 146

FIGURE 4.14 STUDY OF WORKFLOW CUT-OFF VALUE. ............................................................................. 149

AND WITH RESISTIVITY FILTERS. ..................................................................................................... 152

THROUGHOUT THE WALLOON COAL MEASURES SEQUENCE IDENTIFIED IN CORE DESCRIPTION IN