Enhanced Coal Bed Methane Recovery: Using Injection of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide Mixture

Abstract Conventionally, coal bed methane ( CBM ) is produced by pumping out naturally existing pore fluid (water). However, this takes extensive time, does not produce commercially viable amounts of CBM , and is associated with many environmental hazards. Therefore, it is necessary to find new technologies to recover CBM in a safer and more economical way. The process of injecting a gas or a mixture of gases into a coal seam to enhance methane recovery is called enhanced coal bed methane ( ECBM ) recovery , and CO 2 ‐ECBM and N 2 ‐ECBM are the main techniques currently used. In the CO 2 ‐ECBM process, methane is desorbed from the seam by injecting more reactive CO 2 into the coal seam and, if performed properly, will also result in long‐term sequestration of CO 2 . However, CO 2 ‐adsorption‐induced swelling in coal causes reduced fracture pore space and gas flow through the coal seam; two disadvantages that have negatively affected field CO 2 ‐ECBM projects (cf. the Allison project in the San Juan Basin). In the N 2 ‐ECBM process, injecting N 2 first displaces free CH 4 from the seam, creating a zero methane partial pressure, which eventually causes the adsorbed phase CH 4 to be released. The rapid N 2 breakthrough in producing methane is the major issue experienced in present N 2 ‐ECBM field projects (see the Tiffany unit in the San Juan Basin). Therefore, to find the optimum technique for the ECBM process, the merits and demerits of the two processes need to be compared in relation to productivity, environmental impact, and economical aspects. In relation to productivity, although the N 2 ‐ECBM process creates a quicker and higher CBM recovery, it also involves earlier N 2 breakthroughs compared to the CO 2 ‐ECBM process. Regarding the environmental impact, leakage of CO 2 from the reservoir during the CO 2 ‐ECBM process creates local hazards for humans, ecosystems, and groundwater, and global hazards such as climate change. Such hazards are minimal with the N 2 ‐ECBM process because of the inert nature of N 2 . However, the CO 2 ‐ECBM process also assists in protecting the environment by contributing to the mitigation of the atmospheric CO 2 level by the geological sequestration of CO 2 . If the economic aspect is considered, although the N 2 ‐ECBM process involves higher processing cost, it is more economically viable because of the lower quantity of N 2 required for the process, which is around 0.5 ft 3 of N 2 to displace 1 ft 3 of methane from the seam, compared to 2–3 ft 3 of CO 2 for the CO 2 ‐ECBM process. However, the considerable contribution to the reduction of atmospheric CO 2 levels of the CO 2 ‐ECBM process cannot be ignored. The injection of a mixture of CO 2 and N 2 is believed to create a better production mechanism, and according to field projects (cf. the Fenn Big Valley basin in Alberta, Canada), the N 2 + CO 2– ECBM process offers a higher production rate with early response, and sequestrates a similar amount of CO 2 to the CO 2 ‐ECBM process. Furthermore, the use of the mixture reduces problems associated with CO 2 injection‐induced coal swelling and early breakthrough with N 2 injection. However, finding the optimum N 2 + CO 2 gas mixture to recover a maximum amount of methane from a coal seam while sequestrating an optimum amount of CO 2 is a challenge due to the rank dependency of coal. To date, there is a lack of ECBM applications worldwide because of geological, economic, and policy barriers. In relation to the geological barriers, no ECBM project will be economical if there is not a commercially viable amount of gas in the coal seam or the available gas is difficult to harvest because of the geological condition of the reservoir. The large capital cost associated with drilling, exploration, production, and field‐scale testing with limited return on investment is the main economic barrier and has resulted in less investment. Moreover, the current lack of penalties for CO 2 emissions and the strict environmental rules for safe coal mining have also had negative effects. Most importantly, the ECBM technique is still in its infancy because of lack of knowledge of the process due to the complex hydro‐chemical–mechanical behavior of coal during the injection process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.