Application of a Modified Low-Field NMR Method on Methane Adsorption of Medium-Rank Coals

Chen, Xiaozhen; Yan, Taotao; Zeng, Fangui; Meng, Yanjun; Liu, Jinhua

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6621819

Geofluids

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Hydrocarbon Migration and Extraction in Tight Formation

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 | Article ID 6621819 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6621819

Application of a Modified Low-Field NMR Method on Methane Adsorption of Medium-Rank Coals

Xiaozhen Chen,^1,2Taotao Yan ,^1,2,3Fangui Zeng ,^1,2Yanjun Meng,^1,2and Jinhua Liu³

Academic Editor: Yingfang Zhou

Received25 Dec 2020

Revised28 Jan 2021

Accepted08 Feb 2021

Published05 Mar 2021

Abstract

Methane adsorption capacity is an important parameter for coalbed methane (CBM) exploitation and development. Traditional examination methods are mostly time-consuming and could not detect the dynamic processes of adsorption. In this study, a modified low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) method that compensates for these shortcomings was used to quantitatively examine the methane adsorption capacity of seven medium-rank coals. Based on the typical amplitudes obtained from low-field NMR measurement, the volume of adsorbed methane was calculated. The results indicate that the Langmuir volume of seven samples is in a range of 18.9–31.85 m³/t which increases as the coal rank increases. The pore size in range 1-10 nm is the main contributor for gas adsorption in these medium-rank coal samples. Comparing the adsorption isotherms of these coal samples from the modified low-field NMR method and volumetric method, the absolute deviations between these two methods are less than 1.03 m³/t while the relative deviations fall within 4.76%. The absolute deviations and relative deviations decrease as vitrinite reflectance () increases from 1.08% to 1.80%. These results show that the modified low-field NMR method is credible to measure the methane adsorption capacity and the precision of this method may be influenced by coal rank.

1. Introduction

The gas adsorption property in a coal seam was controlled by its physical and chemical structure [1, 2]. Therefore, the adsorption characteristic of gas in a coal seam is comparatively complex in comparison to that in traditional reservoirs. Previous researches about adsorption mainly focus on theory and model of methane adsorption [3–6], controlling factors of the gas adsorption process [7–16], and competitive adsorption mechanism [17–22]. Generally, coalbed methane is mainly stored as an adsorbed phase in the micropores, and a few parts are stored as a free phase in macropores and fractures. Thus, the measurement of adsorbed methane in a reservoir is critical for choosing a favorable exploration area and designing engineering parameters during production processes.

Methane adsorption property in coal is usually determined according to the (a) volumetric method [23–29], (b) gravimetric method [30–32], or (c) manometric method [33–35]. These methods could not continuously detect the dynamic process of adsorption and are always time-consuming. Thus, researchers tried to obtain the adsorption property by other methods.

As an instantaneous, in situ, and dynamic method, the low-field NMR method has been used in the field of unconventional reservoir characterization (i.e., permeability, porosity, and wettability) in recent years [36–47]. There are, however, quite few studies involving low-field NMR relaxation characteristics of adsorbed methane in coal. Guo et al. [48] used a low-field NMR amplitude index from bulk methane to quantify the mass and volume of adsorbed methane in two low volatile bituminous coals, without distinguishing the bulk methane and adsorbed methane relaxation properties. Yao et al. [49] and Xie [43] built an NMR transparent isotherm adsorption experimental setup to evaluate the capacity of methane in coal. The deviations between their method and traditional volumetric method are in range of 0.50%–11.09%. Then, Yao et al. [50] improved the low-field NMR method by taking a factor “pipeline volume” into consideration and applied it to calculate the adsorbed methane volume in two shale samples. The calculated adsorbed methane volumes fit well with values from the gravimetric method. As an organic rock, the pore property (i.e., types, structure, and pore size distribution) of coal is different to that of shale rock which would influence the gas adsorption performance in reservoirs. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the suitability of this modified low-field NMR method [50] on a coal sample and the influence of the coal rank on the results from this method have never been discussed. In this study, the problems mentioned above were analyzed based on the experimental results of seven coal samples in medium-rank range according to the volumetric method, Yao et al.’s low-field NMR method [49], and our modified low-field NMR method, respectively.

2. Sample and Methods

2.1. Sample Preparation

Seven fresh block samples were obtained from underground coal mines (Malan mine (ML), Tunlan mine (TL), Dongqu mine (DQ), Xiqu mine (XQ), Ximing mine (XM), Zhenchengdi mine (ZCD), and Duerping mine (DEP)) in the Xishan coalfield, China (Figure 1). Each sample was crushed and sieved into a size range of 0.18–0.25 mm and 0.1 mm to 1 mm for methane isotherm adsorption and vitrinite reflectance () measurements, respectively.

2.2. Volumetric Method

According to GB/T 19560-2008, the experiment of methane adsorption using the volumetric method was accomplished. The volumetric apparatus mainly includes the reference cell, sample cell, and temperature control system (Figure 2(a)). Figure 2(b) is a simplified diagram of the volumetric method. At constant temperature of 30°C, the Langmuir volume of adsorbed methane was calculated under a dry basis. The theoretical background and experimental procedures for the volumetric method of gas adsorption isotherms on coal are discussed in detail in the literature [22, 26]. This experiment was conducted in the North China Petroleum Technology Service using the ISO-300 ISOTHERM DESORPTION instrument.

(a)

(b)

2.3. Low-Field NMR Relaxation Method

The low-field NMR measurement apparatus used in this study is a MacroMR12-150H-I spectrometer, manufactured by Niumag Corporation Ltd., China. The instrument has a frequency of 12.98 MHz, a magnetic strength of 0.5 T, and a magnet coil with the diameter of 60 mm. The magnetic uniformity is as low as 30ppm, and relaxation from gas diffusion could be ignored. Figure 3 is a simplified diagram of low-field NMR, mainly consisting of five parts: a gas supply system, a booster pump, a vacuum pump, a NMR measurement apparatus, and a temperature control device.

In this study, a Carr–Purcell–Meiboom–Gill (CPMG) sequence was used for measuring transverse relaxation times (). The CPMG measurement parameters were appropriately set to maximize the amount of information acquired for coal samples. The parameters echo spacing () and number of trains (NS) for the NMR experiment were 0.2 ms and 64, respectively. The wait time of 5000 ms and number of echoes (NECH) of 18000 were used to ensure that the complete decay curve would be recorded. The experimental procedures were as follows:

First, some helium with pressure less than 3 MPa was injected into the reference cell, and wait for five hours to check air tightness. Second, three conditions were set to calculate the volume of the reference cell, pipeline, and sample cell. Third, methane gas was injected into the sample cell to check for methane signal. A relationship between the mass of bulk methane and amplitude was built at a constant temperature of 30°C. After that, the coal samples which had been dried in a dry box at 110°C for 1 hour were loaded into the sample cell. Then, methane gas was injected into the sample cell for adsorption measurements. Finally, the low-field NMR measurement of the sample cell was conducted with a time interval of 1 h until two successive results had negligible fluctuation.

Seven coal samples were computed independently at six different pressures by repeating the experimental procedures above. Every sample placed in the sample cell was in the range of 28 to 30 g.

2.4. The Theory of NMR Measurements for Methane Gas

Nuclear magnetic resonance occurs when the nucleus of a hydrogen proton (i.e., water, gas, and oil) enters the static magnetic field magnetization and the RF plus gradient field excitation. Using the relaxation distribution and the relaxation time, the number of hydrogen atoms in the methane gas would be detected.

According to the basic principle of rock nuclear magnetic resonance measurement, the is affected by the relaxation times of bulk, surface, and diffusion relaxations [50, 51]; thus, where subscripts B, S, and D refer to bulk, surface, and diffuse relaxation, respectively. The CPMG pulse sequence measurement is used to obtain the relaxation under fast diffusion condition. The influence of diffusion relaxation can be ignored as the magnetic field is uniform [48, 49]. The bulk relaxation is an intrinsic property of the hydrogen-containing fluid and affected by the physical properties. Thus, the bulk relaxation () of gas does not need to be considered. Coates et al. [52] pointed that the relaxation of methane () gas is controlled by the surface relaxation, and equation (1) becomes where is the surface relaxivity, is the surface-to-volume ratio of the pore, is the shape geometry factor ( of the spherical hole and columnar pipe are 3 and 2, respectively), and the shape of the pore can be converted into a relationship with the radius.

3. Result

3.1. Characteristics of Coal Samples

The vitrinite reflectance () measurements were acquired using a Zeiss Axioskop 40 A photometer microscope, following conventional methods according to China National Standards GB/T 6948-2008 [53]. The mean maximum vitrinite reflectance () data of seven coal samples ranges from 1.08% to 1.80%, as shown in Table 1. Meanwhile, the vitrinite accounts for between 61.2 and 76.8%, while inertinite ranges from 21.2 to 35.6%, and almost no liptinite is present. The proportion of mineral matter (visible) ranges from 0.3 to 3.2%.

3.2. The Result of Methane Adsorption by the Volumetric Method

The results of methane adsorption experiment from the volumetric method are shown in Table 2. The volume of adsorbed methane was calculated and translated to the volume of methane at the standard state (101.325 Pa, 0°C).

3.3. Results by the Modified Low-Field NMR Method

3.3.1. The Volumes of the Reference Cell, Sample Cell, and Pipeline

The volumes of each part of the test system are the fundamental parameters for calculating methane adsorption volume using the modified low-field NMR method. Yao et al. [49] pointed that a small degree of helium sorption (which cannot be excluded but also not quantified) might lead to an underestimation of the sample cell volume for both methods. So, methane gas was used to minimize this deviation in this experiment. Three assumed conditions were designed to calculate the volumes of the sample cell, reference cell, and pipeline. The calculation procedure is as follows (Figure 4).

Condition 1. The sample cell is empty with the valve () between the reference cell and sample cell closed. Then, methane gas was injected into the reference cell at a certain pressure . After injection, the valve () turned to open. The equilibrium pressure was recorded as . A calculation formula in this condition then gives where is the volume of the reference cell, is the volume of the pipeline, and is the volume of the sample cell.

Condition 2. A certain volume cylinder (29.4515 mL) was put in the sample cell; then, the operation mentioned above was repeated. The calculation formula in this condition is where and stand for the injection pressure and equilibrium pressure in condition 2, respectively.

Condition 3. The sample cell was replaced by a fulfilled cell ( is 0 cm³ in this assumed condition). By repeating the pressure operation mentioned above, the calculation formula turns into where and stand for the injection pressure and equilibrium pressure in condition 3, respectively.

According to equations (3)–(5), the volumes of the sample cell, reference cell, and pipeline were calculated (Table 3).

The pressure operation processes (conditions 1–3) were repeated three times to minimize experiment deviation (Table 3).

3.3.2. The Relaxation Properties of Bulk Methane

In this study, the low-field NMR apparatus was applied to measure the relaxation of bulk methane gas at gas pressures of 0.91, 3.09, 6.35, 10.05, and 12.75 MPa while all measurements were conducted in condition of a constant temperature (30°C). The results of the low-field NMR relaxation of bulk methane are shown in Table 4. The bulk methane mass can be obtained by using an equation of state (EOS). where is the gas pressure, is the volume of the sample cell, is the gas compression factor at the pressure, is the mass of methane, is the Avogadro constant (8.314), is the temperature (303.15 K), and is the methane molecular mass constant (16).

As shown in Figure 5(a), the relaxation time of bulk methane is relatively large, which exhibits an obvious peak at 70 ms–2000 ms. The relaxation area and relaxation times of bulk methane gradually increase with the increase in pressure, which is consistent with the work of Guo et al. [48] and Yao et al. [49, 50]. Morriss et al. [51] proved that the mean free path of methane molecules declines with the increase in pressure, which results in the increase in bulk methane relaxation time.

(a)

(b)

The signal amplitude of is closely linked to bulk relaxation and thus to the number of ¹H protons. Therefore, the signal amplitude of increased linearly with the mass of methane. The mass of bulk methane was calculated based on the pressure data (equation (6)). Then, a relationship between the mass of bulk methane and the peak area of the spectrum was established. Figure 5(b) indicates that there is a distinct linear correlation between amplitude and mass of bulk methane. Thus, the mass of bulk methane gas can be calculated using this linear relationship. where is the mass of bulk methane in the sample cell and is the peak area of the spectrum.

3.3.3. The Relaxation Properties of Methane in Coal

In this experiment, six random pressures were selected between 0 and 8 MPa. The methane isotherm adsorption of coal samples was carried out according to the steps mentioned in Section 2.

Figure 6 shows the methane relaxation spectra of seven samples at different pressures. Compared to the spectra of bulk methane, these spectra show a bimodal structure. This indicates that there are two different relaxations of methane (S1 and S2). The methane relaxation time in micropores is faster than that in macropores as a response for pore radius (equation (2)). Therefore, the relaxation area of the second peak (S2) represents bulk methane in macropores ( relaxation time is between 75 ms and 1000 ms), and the relaxation area of the first peak (S1) represents adsorbed methane in micropores or on the surface of the coal matrix ( relaxation time is <1 ms). As the pressure increases, the starting value of relaxation time represents that adsorbed methane does not change while bulk methane increases. The peak position of each spectrum shows the similar characteristic with a starting value, which indicates that the pressure has no influence on the methane relaxation in the adsorbed phase.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

3.3.4. The Methane Adsorption by Modified Low-Field NMR

Firstly, the total mass of methane () was computed by equation (6). Then, after equilibrium adsorption, the mass of the methane in the reference cell and pipeline ( and ) was calculated by equation (6), and the mass of bulk methane in the sample cell () was calculated by equation (7), respectively. Finally, the mass of adsorbed methane (Table 5) was obtained using the following equation. where is the total mass of methane, is the mass of adsorbed methane, is the mass of bulk methane in the reference cell, is the mass of methane in the pipeline, and is the mass of methane in the sample cell.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Suitability of the Modified Low-Field NMR Method

The low-field NMR as an in situ and dynamic method has been extensively applied to describe unconventional reservoir physical properties. In recent years, it is used to calculate the volume of adsorbed methane [50]. In contrast to the volumetric method, the low-field NMR modified method has many advantages.

Firstly, fewer mass of coal samples was required in the low-field NMR method (about 30 g), while the volumetric method needs coal samples of 200 g. Secondly, the low-field NMR method are mostly time saving. Thirdly, the pore size distribution of coal samples can be analyzed by the data of spectra. What is more, low-field NMR could perform real-time monitoring of the adsorption process.

In this research, the Langmuir volume () and Langmuir pressure () were calculated using equation (9) based on the low-field NMR method (Table 5) comparing with and obtained from the volumetric method (Table 2). where is the adsorbed volume (m³/t), is the Langmuir volume (m³/t), is the equilibration pressure (MPa), and is the Langmuir pressure (MPa).

The data of low-field NMR relaxation were processed according to Yao et al.’s low-field NMR method [49] and our modified low-field NMR method, respectively. The deviations between the results of the volumetric method and these two low-field NMR methods are shown in Table 6. The absolute deviations calculated according to Yao et al.’s method [49] vary from 1.36 m³/t to 5.37 m³/t while relative deviations range from 5.79 to 24.42%. The absolute deviations from the modified NMR method fall in the range of 0.13–1.03 m³/t while relative deviations are <4.76%. The modified NMR method produced a relatively lower deviation compared with Yao et al.’s method [49], which indicates that the modified low-field NMR method is more suitable for measuring the amount of adsorbed methane (Figure 7).

(a) ML

(b) ZCD

(c) TL

(d) XQ

(e) XM

(f) DEP

(g) DQ

It was also found that the result of the modified low-filed NMR method lightly underestimates that of the volumetric method (Figure 7). Three possible reasons may explain this phenomenon. Firstly, the temperature error of the sample cell holder may bring in influence on the signal of bulk methane. Secondly, the accuracy of low-field NMR instrument may result in deviations (i.e., the accuracy of the pressure gauge used in the NMR method is only 0.01, while the accuracy of the pressure gauge of the volumetric apparatus is 0.001). Moreover, for the needs of all sample cell signals are captured by the NMR system, a little part of the pipeline connected with the sample cell is also located in the magnet coil. These signals in this area may be treated as a signal of the sample cell during the relaxation signal collection. These signals would lead to an additional mass of bulk methane in the reference cell.

4.2. Adsorption Equilibration Time by Low-Field NMR

The volumetric method could not monitor the mass of adsorbed methane in real time. The adsorption equilibrium time can only be determined by monitoring pressure changes. But the low-field NMR method with a set time interval of signal collection can detect the methane adsorption dynamic process.

For each coal sample, six experiment pressures were set approximately homogeneous distributed in a range of 0–8 MPa. Ten CPMG measurements were completed in each pressure condition. Figure 8 shows the integrated amplitudes of S1 (“adsorbed methane”) as a function of time after methane addition for each sample. The amplitudes of adsorbed methane (S1) increase rapidly during the first four hours and then increase slowly in the following two or three hours. Finally, the amplitudes of adsorbed methane reached an essentially stable value, which indicates sample entering an equilibrium condition (Figure 8).

(a) ML

(b) ZCD

(c) TL

(d) XQ

(e) XM

(f) DEP

(g) DQ

4.3. Pore Size Distribution in the Process of Adsorption

Previous researches proposed that micropores (<2 nm) and mesopores (2-50 nm) are significant for coalbed methane adsorption while macropores (>50 nm) mainly contribute spaces for free gas [54, 55]. In this study, the pore size distribution for each sample was calculated from the NMR data using equation (2). As shown in Figure 9(a), the pore is mainly distributed in two ranges (0.5-20 nm and 1000-20000 nm). The relaxation in pore size range of 1000-20000 nm represents the signal of free gas (i.e., free gas in the intergranular pore or void space), while the signal of adsorption gas exists in pore size range of 0.5-20 nm. The main adsorption spaces of seven samples are all in the range of 1–10 nm (Figure 9(b)). The 10-20 nm pore space contributes less than 20% to methane adsorption. The pore size in the range of 0.1~1 nm only slightly affected the methane adsorption property.

(a)

(b)

4.4. Influence of Coal Rank on Adsorption by the Modified Low-Field NMR Method

Methane adsorption capacity was affected by multiple factors, e.g., coal rank, maceral composition, and physical and chemical structure. As shown in Figure 10(a), the methane adsorption capacity rose while the coal rank of the sample increased as generally accepted.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Comparison of the results of adsorption experiments (modified low-field NMR method and volumetric method) shows that the absolute deviations and relative deviations become smaller while the increases (Figures 10(b) and 10(c)). In the range of from 1.08% to 1.80%, the modified low-field NMR method shows a strong selective suitability on relative higher rank coal. Therefore, further work will need to explain the suitability of the low-field NMR method on other coal ranks.

5. Conclusion

Based on the experimental data of the low-field NMR and volumetric method, this paper analyzed the suitability of the modified low-field NMR method in coal. The nuclear magnetic relaxation spectra of coal samples have bimodal structure characteristic. The first peak represents adsorbed methane corresponding to , and the second peak characterizes bulk methane with ranges from 75 ms to 1000 ms. The pore size in the range of 1-10 nm is the main contributor for gas adsorption in medium-rank coals. During the dynamic adsorption process, the amplitude increases rapidly during the first four hours and then increases slowly in the following two or three hours until the sample enters an equilibrium condition. The modified NMR method produced a relatively lower deviation from the volumetric method compared with Yao et al.’s method (2014). The results of modified low-field NMR agrees well with those of the traditional volumetric method that absolute deviations do not exceed 1.03 m³/t while relative deviations are <4.76%. The deviations between the NMR and volumetric method decreased with from 1.08% to 1.80% indicating that the modified low-field NMR method shows a strong selective suitability on relatively higher rank coals in this maturity range.

Data Availability

All data are derived from our experimental results, which can be provided in the appendix of the paper if necessary.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41973077, 41902178, and U1910204); the Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province, China (201701D221026, 20181101013); and the Open Fund of Beijing Key Laboratory of Unconventional Natural Gas Geological Evaluation and Development Engineering, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) (2019BJ02001).

References

Y. Li, D. Tang, D. Elsworth, and H. Xu, “Characterization of coalbed methane reservoirs at multiple length scales: a cross-section from southeastern Ordos Basin, China,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 5587–5595, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Yu, Z. Yan-ming, and L. Wu, “Macromolecule simulation and CH₄ adsorption mechanism of coal vitrinite,” Applied Surface Science, vol. 396, pp. 291–302, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. J. Crosdale, B. B. Beamish, and M. Valix, “Coalbed methane sorption related to coal composition,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 35, no. 1–4, pp. 147–158, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Donohue and G. L. Aranovich, “Adsorption hysteresis in porous solids,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 205, no. 1, pp. 121–130, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Rouquerol, D. Avnir, C. W. Fairbridge et al., “Recommendations for the characterization of porous solids (technical report),” Pure and Applied Chemistry, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 1739–1758, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Gaus, A. Kalmykov, B. M. Krooss, and R. Fink, “Experimental investigation of the dependence of accessible porosity and methane sorption capacity of Carbonaceous shales on particle size,” Geofluids, vol. 2020, Article ID 2382153, 13 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. J. Crosdale, T. A. Moore, and T. E. Mares, “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, vol. 76, no. 1-2, pp. 166–174, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Hildenbrand, B. M. Krooss, A. Busch, and R. Gaschnitz, “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, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 179–203, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Laxminarayana and P. J. Crosdale, “Role of coal type and rank on methane sorption characteristics of Bowen Basin, Australia coals,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 309–325, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Laxminarayana and P. J. Crosdale, “Controls on methane sorption capacity of Indian coals,” Bulletin, vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 201–212, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Olajossy, “The influences of the rank of coal on methane sorption capacity in coals/Wpływ Rzędu Węgla Na Pojemność Sorpcyjną Metanu W Węglach,” Archives of Mining Sciences, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 509–516, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. C. Ruppel, C. T. Grein, and D. Bienstock, “Adsorption of methane on dry coal at elevated pressure,” Fuel, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 152–162, 1974.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Ryan and T. Gentzis, “Controls on methane adsorption capacity of lower Cretaceous coals from northeastern British Columbia, Canada: part 2—effect of temperature, pressure, maceral composition, and mineral matter on adsorption,” Energy Sources, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1155–1170, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Yalçin and Ş. Durucan, “Methane capacities of Zonguldak coals and the factors affecting methane adsorption,” Mining Science and Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 215–222, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. L. Zhang, “Adsorption mechanism of different coal ranks under variable temperature and pressure conditions,” Journal of China University of Mining and Technology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 395–400, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Zhang, N. Aziz, T. Ren, S. Tu, and J. Nemcik, “Influence of coal particle size on coal adsorption and desorption characteristics,” Archives of Mining Sciences, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 807–820, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Brochard, M. Vandamme, J. M. Pellenq, and T. Fen-Chong, “Adsorption-induced deformation of microporous materials: coal swelling induced by CO₂–CH₄ competitive adsorption,” Langmuir, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2659–2670, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Y. Liu, B. J. Sun, J. C. Xu, H. Li, and X. Wang, “Study on competitive adsorption and displacing properties of CO₂ enhanced shale gas recovery: advances and challenges,” Geofluids, vol. 2020, Article ID 6657995, 15 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Liu, L. Z. Xie, D. Elsworth, and Q. Gan, “CO₂/CH₄ competitive adsorption in shale: implications for enhancement in gas production and reduction in carbon emissions,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 53, no. 15, pp. 9328–9336, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Liu, L. Z. Xie, B. He, Q. Gan, and P. Zhao, “Influence of anisotropic and heterogeneous permeability coupled with in-situ stress on CO₂ sequestration with simultaneous enhanced gas recovery in shale: quantitative modeling and case study,” International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, vol. 104, article 103208, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. G. Sui and J. Yao, “Molecular simulation of CO₂/CH₄ competitive adsorption in kerogen,” Journal of China University of Petroleum, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 147–154, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
W. N. Zhou, H. B. Wang, Z. Zhang, H. Chen, and X. Liu, “Molecular simulation of CO2/CH4/H2O competitive adsorption and diffusion in brown coal,” RSC Advances, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 3004–3011, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Busch and Y. Gensterblum, “CBM and CO2-ECBM related sorption processes in coal: a review,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 49–71, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Fitzgerald, Z. Pan, M. Sudibandriyo, K. A. M. Gasem, S. Reeves, and R. L. Robinson, Jr, “Adsorption of methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and their mixtures on wet Tiffany coal,” Fuel, vol. 84, no. 18, pp. 2351–2363, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. M. Krooss, F. van Bergen, Y. Gensterblum, N. Siemons, H. J. M. Pagnier, and P. David, “High-pressure methane and carbon dioxide adsorption on dry and moisture-equilibrated Pennsylvanian coals,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 69–92, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Luo, Y. Liu, C. Jiang, W. Jie, H. Xie, and W. Chu, “Experimental and modeling study of methane adsorption on activated carbon derived from anthracite,” Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 4919–4926, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Reeves, R. Gonzalez, K. A. Gasem et al., “Measurement and prediction of single and multi-component methane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen isotherms for U.S. coals,” International Coalbed Methane Symposium, vol. 527, pp. 16–20, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Siemons, K. H. A. A. Wolf, and J. Bruining, “Interpretation of carbon dioxide diffusion behavior in coals,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 72, no. 3-4, pp. 315–324, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Wang, N. S. Zhang, X. J. Liu, X. Wu, J. Chen, and L. Ma, “Characteristics of pore volume distribution and methane adsorption on shales,” Adsorption Science & Technology, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 915–937, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Bae and S. K. Bhatia, “High-pressure adsorption of methane and carbon dioxide on coal,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 2599–2607, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Chen, Y. L. Kang, T. S. Zhang, X. Li, K. Wu, and Z. Chen, “Methane adsorption behavior on shale matrix at in-situ pressure and temperature conditions: measurement and modeling,” Fuel, vol. 228, pp. 39–49, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Sakurovs, S. Day, and S. Weir, “Relationships between the sorption behaviour of methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and ethane on coals,” Fuel, vol. 97, pp. 725–729, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Gensterblum, A. Merkel, A. Busch, and B. M. Krooss, “High-pressure CH₄ and CO₂ sorption isotherms as a function of coal maturity and the influence of moisture,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 118, pp. 45–57, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Harpalani, B. K. P. Prusty, and P. Dutta, “Methane/CO₂ sorption modeling for coalbed methane production and CO₂ sequestration,” Energy and Fuels, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1591–1599, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Y. Li, Q. F. Liu, P. Weniger, Y. Gensterblum, A. Busch, and B. M. Krooss, “High-pressure sorption isotherms and sorption kinetics of CH₄ and CO₂ on coals,” Fuel, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 569–580, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. S. Bin, Y. Y. Bin, C. J. Yu, and W. Yao, “Research of micro-pore structure in coal reservoir using low-field NMR,” Journal of China Coal Society, vol. 40, pp. 170–176, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. D. Cai, D. M. Liu, Z. J. Pan, Y. Yao, J. Li, and Y. Qiu, “Petrophysical characterization of Chinese coal cores with heat treatment by nuclear magnetic resonance,” Fuel, vol. 108, pp. 292–302, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Q. He, Y. J. Cao, Z. Y. Miao, X. Ren, and J. Chen, “Estimation of pores distribution in lignite utilizing Hg, H₂O, CO₂, and N₂ as molecular probes,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 13259–13265, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. S. Liu, D. M. Liu, Y. D. Cai, and Z. Pan, “The impacts of flow velocity on permeability and porosity of coals by core flooding and nuclear magnetic resonance: implications for coalbed methane production,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 171, pp. 938–950, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. F. Ji, D. Y. Song, H. T. Zhao, Y. Li, and K. He, “Experimental analysis of pore and permeability characteristics of coal by low-field NMR,” Applied Sciences, vol. 8, no. 8, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. X. Sun, Y. B. Yao, D. M. Liu, and Y. Zhou, “Investigations of CO₂-water wettability of coal: NMR relaxation method,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 188, pp. 38–50, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Q. Tang, S. Q. Yang, C. Zhai, and Q. Xu, “Coal pores and fracture development during CBM drainage: their promoting effects on the propensity for coal and gas outbursts,” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, vol. 51, pp. 9–17, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. B. Xie, The application of low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in the analysis of physical properties and adsorption ability of coal reservoirs (Master's dissertation), 2015.
D. J. Xue, H. W. Zhou, Y. T. Liu, L. Zhang, and L. S. Deng, “Study of drainage and percolation of nitrogen–water flooding in tight coal by NMR imaging,” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 3421–3437, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. B. Yao, D. M. Liu, Y. Che, D. Tang, S. Tang, and W. Huang, “Petrophysical characterization of coals by low-field nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR),” Fuel, vol. 89, no. 7, pp. 1371–1380, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. L. Zhang, P. G. Ranjith, M. S. Perera, A. Haque, X. Choi, and K. S. M. Sampath, “Characterization of coal porosity and permeability evolution by demineralisation using image processing techniques: a micro-computed tomography study,” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, vol. 56, pp. 384–396, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Zheng, Y. B. Yao, D. M. Liu, Y. Cai, Y. Liu, and X. Li, “Nuclear magnetic resonance T₂ cutoffs of coals: a novel method by multifractal analysis theory,” Fuel, vol. 241, pp. 715–724, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Guo, K. Mannhardt, and A. Kantzas, “Characterizing moisture and gas content of coal by low-field NMR,” Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 49–54, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. B. Yao, D. M. Liu, and S. B. Xie, “Quantitative characterization of methane adsorption on coal using a low-field NMR relaxation method,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 131, pp. 32–40, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. B. Yao, J. Liu, D. M. Liu, J. Chen, and Z. Pan, “A new application of NMR in characterization of multiphase methane and adsorption capacity of shale,” International Journal of Coal Geology, vol. 201, pp. 76–85, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Morriss, D. Rossini, C. Straley et al., “Core analysis by low-field NMR,” The Log Analyst, vol. 38, no. 2, 1997.
View at: Google Scholar
G. R. Coates, L. Xiao, and M. G. Prammer, NMR logging: principles and applications, vol. 234, Haliburton Energy Services, Houston, 1999.
C. Liu, P. Liu, and X. Zhang, “Study on determination points of vitrinite random reflectance for mixed coal in GB/T 6948-2008,” Coal Quality Technology, vol. 2, pp. 20-21, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Jin, Y. Cheng, Q. Liu et al., “Experimental investigation of pore structure damage in pulverized coal: implications for methane adsorption and diffusion characteristics,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 10383–10395, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Eberle, H. King, P. Ravikovitch, C. C. Walters, G. Rother, and D. J. Wesolowski, “Direct measure of the dense methane phase in gas shale organic porosity by neutron scattering,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 9022–9027, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2021 Xiaozhen Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

352

Downloads

868

Citations