Section Oil and Gas Exploration

USING MULTI-RATE DRAWDOWN WELL TESTS FOR ESTIMATION OF

GOB GAS RESERVOIRS – MEASURMENTS CONCEPT & POLISH
EXAMPLE FROM UPPER SILESIAN COAL BASIN

MSc. Eng. Jacek Hendel1

Eng. Łukasz Banisz1
1
AGH-University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland

ABSTRACT
During longwall mining extraction, extremely high permeable spaces, called ‘gobs’, are
often created within crushed strata. Those gobs and abandoned: pathways, tunnels,
ventilation entries or shafts, could be capacious storage deposits for coal-released gases,
particular methane. This methane may be valuable source of both, energy and heat
production, in active and post mining areas. Gases form crushed, fractured zones are
explored by vertical boreholes drilled from surface, called gob gas ventholes (GGVs).
GGVs are almost every time equipped with exhausters on wellhead for support gasses
suction form strata to power engine/gas pipes. However, the main problem of
commercial gob gas production is property estimation of Gas In Place (GIP) reserves.
Prediction of GIP in gobs and overlying strata are extremely difficult because of
complex relations of porosity and permeability of gobs and its changes in time. Lifespan
of GGVs are also limited by multiple other factors e.g. boreholes location and diameter,
surface elevation, distance between borehole and mining panel, time after coal
extraction, atmospheric pressure etc. This article shortly presents concept of
implementation multi-rate drawdown well test for gob gas reservoir estimation method
for GIP estimations. Basic mathematical theory of well tests was presented. Within this
article, authors use multi-rate drawdown well tests technique to estimated gas (methane)
stored in gobs. Production data from gas well located in Upper Silesian Coal Basin were
used. Authors used IHS Markit Well Test® 2016 software to estimated reserves and
permeability and thickness of this specific reservoir. Sensitive analysis of porosity and
coal seams thickness influence on gas stored amount was also made. Authors
considered porosity values from 17% to 40% and seam thickness between 9 and 60
meters. As a conclusion, comparative results of implementation multi-rate drawdown
well tests technique in American and Polish cases were presented.
Keywords: GGVs, coal mine methane, gobs, methane production, Upper Silesian Coal
Basin (USCB)

INTRODUCTION
Underground hard coal mining extraction causes forming of extremely high permeable,
empty spaces in crushed strata, called ‘gobs’. Those gobs and abandoned: pathways,
tunnels, ventilation entries or shafts, could be capacious storage deposits for coal-
released gases, particular methane. This methane may be valuable source of both,
energy and heat production, in active and post mining areas. For the other side,
uncontrolled gasses migration from post-mining gobs through geological formations

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017H/15 651
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

into the atmosphere, may caused humans' health and life danger and increasing global
green house gasses emission level. Moreover, it is commonly known, that methane has
almost 21 times more positive impact on warming effect than carbon dioxide. Due to
those reasons, production activates of hard coal gases definitely should be implemented
on post-mining areas.

Methane desorbed during hard coal extraction is commonly known in four different
forms: CBM (Coal Bed Methane) – gas produced from virgin (currently non mined or
economical non exploitable) coal seams; VAM (Ventilation Air Methane) – methane
and air mixture released from mines through ventilation shafts (with methane
concentration less than 1%); CMM (Coal Mine Methane) – gas captured by drainage
systems and transported by mine’s pipelines and, finally, AMM (Abandoned Mine
Methane) – gas produced by wells drilled from surface into abandoned coal mines or
pipelines installed in abandoned mines’ shafts [2, 3]. Gases form crushed, fractured
zones are explored by vertical boreholes drilled from surface called gob gas ventholes
(GGVs). GGVs are almost every time equipped with exhausters on wellhead for support
gasses suction form strata to power engine/gas pipes. Several American, Asian and
European countries have power & heat plants worked on AMM/CMM fuel. Based on
possessed knowledge and personal experience, authors may listed some European
companies had beed visited during project realization: Zakłady Energetyki Cieplnej
ZEC S.A. (currently owned by DK Energy, part of EDF Group), PGNiG Termika S.A.,
Minegas GmbH and Minegas-Power GmbH, both grouped in STEAG New Energie
GmbH – a subsidiary of STEAG GmbH, Karbonia S.A. (now hold by Prairie Mining
Limited, former subsidiary of New World Resources N.V., Green Gas DPG (part of
Green Gas International), Gaz-Kop-1 Sp. z o.o., etc. In figures 1 and 2, one of the
STEAG’s New Energie GmbH power & heat plant is presented (photos were taken by
S. Napieraj).

Fig. 1. STEAG’s New Energie GmbH power & heat plant (S. Napieraj)

Fig. 2. STEAG’s New Energie GmbH power & heat plant (S. Napieraj)

652
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

The Methane to Markets Partnership (M2M) expanded to new global effort known as
Global Methane Initiative (GMI) assumed that globally 309 CMM or AMM projects
were operating or planed. American experiences of methane capture, production and
utilization from working and abandoned coal mines were presented in papers published
[4-12, 17]. Some Australian aspects of methane production were detailed described in
article [15].

CMM/AMM GAS IN PLACE RESERVES ESTIMATIONS

Advantages of CMM/AMM production and utilization are commonly known and an
undeniable. However, the main problem of commercial gob gas production is property
estimation of Gas In Place (GIP) reserves of methane stored in active/abandoned hard
coal mines. American scientists decided to implemented multiple rate drawdown well
test analysis method [8] and decline curve analysis method (Dougherty et al. [1]) for
solving this problem. Well test analyses allow describing reservoir parameters
(permeability, skin effect, and distance from wellbore to reservoir boundary
/impermeable faults).
Estimation of methane reserves needs production data collected from gob gas ventholes.
For better fitting real measured data to mathematical model, two periods of GGVs
production time have to be distinguished. Those periods called: during (panel) mining
(DM) and after (panel) mining (AM). During procedure of calculations of well and
reservoir conditions, production well should working with steady rate to reach stabilized
flow conditions [6, 8]. Because of various reservoir conditions (during DM and AM
period) two different mathematical models should be used. In fig. 3. Idealized model of
reservoir during DM period (A) and AM period (B) was presented.

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of radial-composite models used in DM (A) and AM (B) phases of
venthole production. [8]

Constant rate solution for radial flow-infinite acting period-of the venthole
production – (DM)
The constant rate solution for analyzing radial flow is equal [8]:

𝑞𝑔 ⋅ 𝑇 𝑘 ∙ 𝑡𝑎
𝜓𝑖 − 𝜓(𝑡)𝑤𝑓 = 1.632 ⋅ 106 ⋅ (𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( 2
) − 3.23 + 0.87𝑆 ′ ) (1)
𝑘⋅ℎ 𝜙 ⋅ 𝜇𝑖 ⋅ 𝑐𝑡𝑖 ⋅ 𝑟𝑤

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017H/15 653
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

In equation (1), 𝜓𝑖 and 𝜓(𝑡)𝑤𝑓 are the real gas pseudo-pressure for initial condition and
for well flow condition (in specified time), used in reservoir condition instead of
pressure in natural gas engineering industry. Pseudo-pressure function could be defined
as:
𝑝
𝑝
𝜓(𝑝) = 2 ∫ 𝑑𝑝 (2)
𝑝0 𝜇 ⋅ 𝑧

On semi-log plot based on production data, straight line will be observed. According to
equation [8]:
𝑞𝑔 ⋅ 𝑇
𝜓𝑖 − 𝜓(𝑡)𝑤𝑓 = 1.632 ⋅ 106 ⋅ (𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑡𝑎 )) +
𝑘⋅ℎ (3)
𝑞𝑔 ⋅ 𝑇 𝑘
1.632 ⋅ 106 (𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( ) − 3.23 + 0.87𝑆 ′ )
𝑘⋅ℎ 𝜙 ⋅ 𝜇𝑖 ⋅ 𝑐𝑡𝑖 ⋅ 𝑟𝑤2

Equation (3), after dividing by 𝑞𝑔 will be useful to draw plot [𝜓𝑖 − 𝜓(𝑡)𝑤𝑓 ]/𝑞𝑔 vs.
𝑙𝑜𝑔(𝑡𝑎 ). By defining slope of this plot as 𝑚, permeability and total skinn factor 𝑆 ′
could be calculated as:
𝑇 (4)
𝑘 = 1.632 ⋅ 106 ⋅
𝑚⋅ℎ

𝜓𝑖 − 𝜓(𝑡)𝑤𝑓 𝑘 ∙ 𝑡𝑎
𝑆 ′ = 1.151 ⋅ ( − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( ) − 3.23) (5)
𝑚 𝜙 ⋅ 𝜇𝑖 ⋅ 𝑐𝑡𝑖 ⋅ 𝑟𝑤2

Introducing of derivative of radial flow equation (6)

∆𝜓 𝑞𝑔 ⋅ 𝑇
𝐷𝑒𝑟𝑟 = = 7.088 ⋅ 105 ⋅ (6)
∆ln(𝑡) 𝑘⋅ℎ

equations for calculation permeability (4) and total skinn (5) factor could be redefined
into [8]:

𝑞𝑔 ⋅ 𝑇 (7)
𝑘 = 7.088 ⋅ 105 ⋅
𝐷𝑒𝑟𝑟 ⋅ ℎ

𝜓𝑖 − 𝜓(𝑡)𝑤𝑓 𝑘 ∙ 𝑡𝑎
𝑆 ′ = 1.151 ⋅ ( − 𝑙𝑜𝑔 ( ) − 3.23) (8)
2.303 ∙ 𝐷𝑒𝑟𝑟 𝜙 ⋅ 𝜇𝑖 ⋅ 𝑐𝑡𝑖 ⋅ 𝑟𝑤2

Constant rate solution for pseudo-steady state chase-bounded reservoir-of the

venthole production (AM)
The constant rate solution for analyzing radial flow in pseudo-steady stat is equal to [8]:

654
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

𝑞𝑔 ⋅ 𝑇 0.000527 ∙ 𝑘 ∙ 𝑡𝑎 𝑟𝑒 3
𝜓𝑖 − 𝜓(𝑡)𝑤𝑓 = 1.417 ⋅ 106 ⋅ ( 2
+ 𝑙𝑛 ( ) − + 𝑆 ′ ) (9)
𝑘⋅ℎ 𝜙 ⋅ 𝜇𝑖 ⋅ 𝑐𝑡𝑖 ⋅ 𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑤 4

Finally, for calculation Gas In Place reserves, equation (10) should be used:

2347 ⋅ 𝑇 ⋅ (1 − 𝑆𝑤 )
𝐺𝐼𝑃 = (10)
𝜇𝑖 ⋅ 𝑐𝑖 ⋅ 𝐵𝑔𝑖 ⋅ 𝑚

Because of the huge production parameters variation in time, in GIP estimation stored in
post-mining gobs, pseudo-time should be used instead normal time, defines as [8]:
𝑡
1
𝑡𝑎 (𝑡) = ∫ 𝑑𝑡 (11)
0 𝜇𝑐𝑡

Due to non-flow periods in production, superposition time also was implemented:

𝑛
𝑞𝑗 − 𝑞𝑗−1
𝑡𝑛 = ∑ log(𝑡 − 𝑡𝑗−1 )
𝑞𝑛
𝑗=1 (12)
POLISH EXPAMPLE FROM UPPER SILESIAN COAL BASIN

Authors used multi-rate drawdown well tests methodology to estimate GIP. One of the
GGVs belongs to GazKop-1 company, located in south part of Upper Silesia Coal Basin
in Silesia region, was the scope of investigations. Production data form gas well
covered: flowing wellhead pressure, wellhead temperature, gas rate and methane
concentration. Based on [6, 8, 11] article, radial-composite model was used within this
paper. In fluid model authors inputted 89% of methane and 11% of air (according
production data). Viscosity of gas was calculated by Carr correlation and AGA-8
equation was used for calculation rest of fluid parameters.
The main problem of GIP estimations is lack of knowledge of gobs porosity and
thickness (net pay) of post-mining gobs. Literature [13, 16] suggested, that thickness
could range between 9 and 60 m. Porosity was implemented in range between 17-40%
according to article [14]. In table 1 different results of GIP based on various input
parameters were presented. Fig. 4, and 6 showed examples of diagnostic curve and fig.
5 and 7 history matching curves. However, using extreme different values of those
unknown reservoir parameters gave huge differences in Gas In Place reserves results.
The lowest value of GIP is 181 millions of cubic meters, when the highest estimation is
equal to 368 millions. This difference can’t be accepted in profitability calculation of
AMM/CMM projects.

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017H/15 655
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

Fig. 4. Diagnostic curve for net pay 9m and porosity 17%

Fig. 5. History matching curve for net pay 9m and porosity 17%

656
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

Fig. 6. Diagnostic curve for net pay 9m and porosity 21%

Fig. 7. History matching curve for net pay 9m and porosity 21%

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017H/15 657
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

Table 1. GIP estimations

Inputs
range
Results
φ h kh1 k1 r1 kh2 k2 r2 s GIP
% m mln
mD∙m mD m mD∙m mD m -
Nm3
17 9 45 481 5 053 365.31 491 045 54 560 7 828 -8.15 286.20
17 15 51 930 3 462 137.24 473 005 31 533 6 339 -7.22 312.84
17 20 51 083 2 554 108.82 515 546 25 777 4 275 -6.98 189.68
17 25 66 531 2 661 103.18 544 225 21 769 3 742 -6.73 181.69
17 30 47 976 1 599 141.47 469 868 15 662 4 263 -7.23 296.31
17 45 60 010 1 333 62.84 478 340 10 629 3 889 -6.39 353.26
17 60 45 000 750 110.00 476 318 7 938 3 297 -7.00 338.41
21 9 55 535 6 170 109.46 498 804 55 422 7 592 -7.00 336.49
21 15 52 200 3 480 135.38 481 842 32 122 4 850 -7.19 228.91
21 20 49 974 2 498 125.13 483 791 24 189 4 007 -7.11 208.35
21 25 49 606 1 984 102.86 485 196 19 407 4 350 -6.94 306.86
21 30 47 513 1 583 120.66 496 536 16 551 3 982 -7.07 308.60
21 45 60 159 1 336 41.21 488 037 10 845 3 122 -6.02 284.64
21 60 66 515 1 108 70.28 441 853 7 364 3 075 -6.40 368.19
30 9 55 423 6 158 111.09 497 797 55 310 5 987 -6.98 295.47
30 15 49 291 3 286 110.98 497 350 33 156 3 950 -7.01 214.40
30 20 55 656 2 782 65.52 505 642 25 282 3 902 -6.47 278.79
30 25 53 042 2 121 140.47 565 293 22 611 3 678 -7.07 309.67
30 30 48 968 1 632 102.38 474 908 15 830 3 468 -6.89 330.53
30 45 53 570 1 190 93.09 412 010 9 155 2 536 -6.78 265.15
30 60 44 753 745 75.01 520 850 8 680 2 062 -6.61 233.58
40 9 59 613 6 623 99.94 476 411 52 934 5 234 -6.84 301.01
40 15 50 398 3 359 125.79 485 071 32 338 4 404 -7.08 355.18
40 20 50 617 2 530 75.39 494 754 24 737 3 481 -6.62 295.88
40 25 48 755 1 950 106.68 503 070 20 122 3 218 -6.90 316.25
40 30 50 079 1 669 89.74 538 177 17 939 2 582 -6.71 244.21
40 45 50 874 1 130 44.72 509 020 11 311 2 651 -6.10 360.57
40 60 61 200 1 020 39.49 487 299 8 121 1 999 -5.88 292.77

CONCLUSION
Within this article GIP reserves were calculated based on used multi-rate drawdown
well tests methodology. Authors made deeply review of worldwide and polish literature
to built mathematic model of reservoir and gas production. Detailed mathematical
equations of gas flow from post-extraction gobs into wellbore were presented and
discussed. Authors also tried to find in articles and scientific reports knowledge of
geological and petrophysical reservoir parameters that had to be implemented into
model. However, in some cases combination of two unknown parameters, that had to be
assumed, gives almost perfect fitting of model's output and real data, but extremely
different reserves estimations. Those differences are unaccepted from economic point of
view. Authors in future research will be focused on more precisely way of describing of
gobs-wellbore connections (seam/gobs thickness) and porosity measurements of
crushed strata. To achieve this goal, detailed three dimensional geological model should

658
 Section Oil and Gas Exploration

be constructed. Model has to contain information of extracted seam coal from mines’
plans, maps and working schedule. Moreover, data of methane content of extracted
resources should be collected. After comparison of methane released during coal mining
with methane produced through ventilation system, gas in places reserves, estimated by
well tests methods, will be comparable and properly estimate.

NOMENCLATURE
𝜓𝑖 , 𝜓𝑤𝑓 – pseudo-pressure (i – initial; wf –bottom hole flowing, psi or Pa
𝑞𝑔 – gas rate at wellhead, scf/d or Nm3/s
𝑘 - permeability, mD or m2
h – net pay, ft or m
𝑇 – reservoir temperature, K
𝜇𝑖 – fluid viscosity, cp or Pa.s
𝑟𝑒 , 𝑟𝑤 – drainage radius, wellbore radius, ft or m
𝑐𝑖 – initial compressibility, 1/psi or 1/Pa
𝑐𝑡𝑖 – total (fluid and rock) initial compressibility, 1/psi or 1/Pa
𝑆 ′ – total skin effect, -
𝑡 - time, hr, s
𝜙 - porosity, -
𝐵𝑔𝑖 - initial gas volume factor, cf/scf, m3/Nm3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of
Drilling, Oil and Gas. (Agreement no. 15.11.190.687/B3)
REFERENCES

[1] Dougherty H. N., Karacan C.Ö., Goodman G.V.R., 2010. Reservoir diagnosis of
longwall gobs through drawdown tests and decline curve analyses of gob gas
venthole productions. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Sciences 47 (2010) 851–857
[2] Hendel J., Macuda J., Chećko J.: Worldwide Examples of Coal Mine Methane
Emission and Gob Gas Production Modeling. SGEM 15th International
Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference and Expo, Conference Proceedings;
pp. 759-767, 18th-24th June 2015, Albena, Bulgaria
[3] Hendel J., Macuda J.: Coal mine methane production by vertical boreholes drilled
from surface. SGEM 17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific
GeoConference and Expo, Conference Proceedings; pp. 127–133, 29th- June – 5th
July 2017, Albena, Bulgaria

https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2017H/15 659
17th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2017

[4] Karacan C.Ö, 2012. Geostatistical assessment and quantification of uncertainty of

methane in the caved and fractured zone of longwall mines. 2012 SME Annual
Meeting and Exhibit 2012, SME 2012, Meetings Preprints
[5] Karacan C.Ö, 2015a. Modeling and analysis of gas capture from sealed sections of
abandoned coal mines. International Journal of Coal Geology 138 (2015) 30–41
[6] Karacan C.Ö, 2015b. Analysis of gob gas venthole production performances for
strata gas control in longwall mining. Int. J. Rock Mech. & Min. Sc. 79, pp.9-18
[7] Karacan C.Ö., 2008. Modeling and prediction of ventilation methane emissions of
U.S. longwall minies using supervised artificial neural networks. Int. J. Coal Geol.
73 (3-4), pp.371-387
[8] Karacan C.Ö., 2009. Reconciling longwall gob gas reservoirs and venthole
production performances using multiple rate drawdown well test analysis. Int. J.
Coal Geol. 80 (2009) 181–195.
[9] Karacan C.Ö., Schatzel, S.J., 2008. Reservoir modeling-based prediction and
optimazation of ventilation requirements during development mining in
underground coal mines. Society form Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration SME
Annual Meeting and Exhibit 2008: "new Horizons - New Challenges" pp.56-60
[10] Karacan, C.Ö., 2008. Evaluation of the relative importance of coal bed reservoir
parameters for prediction of methane inflow rates during mining of longwall
development entries. Comput. Geosci. 34 (9), 1093–1114.
[11] Karacan, C.Ö., Esterhuizen, G.S., Schatzel, S., Diamond, W.P., 2007. Reservoir-
simulation based modeling for characterizing longwall methane emissions and
gob gas venthole production. Int. J. Coal Geol. 71 (2-3), 225–245.
[12] Karacan, C.Ö., Ruiz, F.A., Cotè, M., Phipps, S., 2011. Coalmine methane: a
review of capture and utilization practices with benefits to mining safety and to
greenhouse gas reduction. Int. J. Coal Geol. 86, 121–156.
[13] Palchik V., Formation of fractured zones in overburden due to longwall mining,
Environ Geol 2003; 44:28-38
[14] Piotrowski Z., Mazurkiewicz M., Chłonność doszczelnianych zrobów
zawałowych, Górnictwo i Geoinżynieria, z. 3, 2006
[15] Qu Q., Guo H., Loney M., 2016. Analysis of longwall goaf gas drainage trials
with surface directional boreholes. International Journal of Coal Geology 156
(2016) 59–73
[16] Ropski S.: Stan pełnego i wysokiego zawału oraz strefy osiadania stropu za ścianą
na podstawie pomiarów w kopalni Wesoła (Lenin) w pokładzie 329. Prace
Komisji Nauk Technicznych, Górnictwo, z. 3, 1966
[17] Schalzel S.J., Karacan C. Ö., Dougherty H., Goodman G.V.R., 2012, An analysis
of reservoir conditions and responses in longwall panel overburden during mining
and its effect on gob gas well performance. Engineering Geology 127 (2012) 65–
74

660
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.