4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

CO2-ECBM field tests in the Ishikari Coal Basin of Japan

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COAL GEOLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 3-4, Pages 287-298

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.coal.2010.01.004

Keywords

CO2-ECBM; Ishikari Coal Basin; Hydraulic fracturing; CO2 injection and sequestration; N-2 flooding test; Coal swelling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The feasibility of extracting gas from coal seam while storing carbon dioxide underground was evaluated in Japan A CO2-ECBM project had begun near the town of Yubari on the island of Hokkaido in northern japan The primary coal seam of interest was a 5-6 m thick Yuban coal seam located at the depth of 900 m A micro-pilot test with a single well and multi-well CO2 injection tests, involving an injection and production wells. were carried out in the period between May 2004 and October 2007 There were a variety of tests conducted in the injection well, including an initial water injection fall-off test and a series of CO2 injection and fall-off tests Although gas production rate was obviously enhanced by CO2 injection, water production rate was not clearly affected by CO2 injection Several injection tests suggested that injectivity of CO2 into the virgin coal seam saturated with water was eventually increased as the water saturation near the injector was decreased by the injected CO2 It was estimated that low injectivity of CO2 was caused by the reduction in permeability induced by coal swelling N-2 flooding test was performed in 2006 to evaluate the effectiveness of N-2 injection on Improving well injectivity The N-2 flooding test showed that daily CO2 injection rate was boosted, but only temporarily Moreover. the permeability did not return to the initial value after CO2 and N-2 were repeatedly injected It was also indicated that the coal matrix swelling might create a high stress zone near to the injection well (C) 2010 Elsevier B V All rights reserved

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available