Advertisement

Arabian Journal of Geosciences

, 12:558 | Cite as

Experimental and theoretical study on influencing factor of fracture width in coalbed methane reservoir

  • Fan ZhangEmail author
  • Xiao Liu
  • Geng Ma
  • Dan Feng
Original Paper
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Fracture width in coalbed methane (CBM) reservoir is an important parameter for hydraulic fracture and of great significance for studying the permeability of CBM reservoir after being fractured. To study the impact of fracturing position on fracture width, specimens made of similar materials were applied to replace coal rock, hydraulic fracturing experiment was conducted by means of hydraulic fracturing experimental device, and fracture width was measured by displacement meter timely. The effect of other factors on fracture width was analyzed by theoretical analysis. The research results show that fracture width is affected by the position of displacement meter, fracture morphology, natural fracture width, and permeability of coal seam. The fracture morphology of three fractured specimens was different from each other in hydraulic fracturing tests. Fracture morphology of specimen No. 1 is the most complex, and the fracture morphology of specimen No. 1 and No. 2 is all more complex than the one of specimen No. 3. Fracture width fluctuates and increases with the continuous injection of fracturing fluid. The growth rate of fracture width varies with the different position of displacement meter, which is a positive correlation with fracture morphology. Fracture width is inversely proportional to the permeability of coal seam; the permeability of coal seam increases with the decrease of fracture width. Fracture width is proportional to the negative value of natural fracture width, fracture width decreases with the increase of natural fracture width. The research results would provide technical support and theoretical reference for studying fracture width and hydraulic fracturing theory.

Keywords

CBM Hydraulic fracturing Fracture width Displacement meter Permeability 

Notes

Author contributions

Fan Zhang and Geng Ma conceived the experiments. Fan Zhang, Xiao Liu, and Dan Feng performed the experiments. Fan Zhang and Geng Ma analyzed the experimental results and prepared the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding information

The authors would like to thank the Major Work on Innovation Methods of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China in 2016 (No. 2016IM010400), Science and Technology Research Project of Henan Province in 2015 (No. 152102310095), and Innovative Talent Team Construction Project of Science and Technology of Henan Province (No. 164100510024) for financial support of this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chen S, Tang D, Shu T et al (2018) In-situ stress, stress-dependent permeability, pore pressure and gas-bearing system in multiple coal seams in the Panguan area, western Guizhou, China. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 49:110–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2017.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chuprakov D, Melchaeva O, Prioul R (2014) Injection-sensitive mechanics of hydraulic fracture interaction with discontinuities. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(5):1625–1640.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-014-0596-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colmenares LB, Zoback MD (2007) Hydraulic fracturing and wellbore completion of coalbed methane wells in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming: implications for water and gas production. AAPG Bull 91(1):51–67.  https://doi.org/10.1306/07180605154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DiStefano VH, Cheshire MC, McFarlane J, Kolbus LM, Hale RE, Perfect E, Bilheux HZ, Santodonato LJ, Hussey DS, Jacobson DL, LaManna JM, Bingham PR, Starchenko V, Anovitz LM (2017) Spontaneous imbibition of water and determination of effective contact angles in the Eagle Ford Shale Formation using neutron imaging. J Earth Sci 28(5):874–887.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-017-0801-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dontsov EV, Peirce AP (2017) Modeling planar hydraulic fractures driven by laminar-to-turbulent fluid flow. Int J Solids Struct 128:73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2017.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hu Q, Liang Y, Wang H et al (2017) Intelligent and integrated techniques for coalbed methane (CBM) recovery and reduction of greenhouse gas emission. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(21):17651–17668.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9335-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jiang Y, Xing H (2016) Numerical modelling of acoustic stimulation induced mechanical vibration enhancing coal permeability. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 36:786–799.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jiang J, Zhang Q, Cheng Y et al (2016a) Influence of thermal metamorphism on CBM reservoir characteristics of low-rank bituminous coal. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 36:916–930.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.11.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jiang T, Zhang J, Wu H (2016b) Experimental and numerical study on hydraulic fracture propagation in coalbed methane reservoir. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 35:455–467.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2016.08.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kang H, Feng Y (2017) Hydraulic fracturing technology and its applications in strata control in underground coal mines. Coal Sci Technol 45(1):1–9Google Scholar
  11. Li X, Kang Y, Luo P (2009) The effects of stress on fracture and permeability in coal bed. Coal Geol Exploration 37(1):29–32Google Scholar
  12. Lin Chong, He Jianming, Li Xiao (2018) Width evolution of the hydraulic fractures in different reservoir rocks. Rock Mechanics & Rock Engineering, 51(5):1621–1627.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-017-1391-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu T, Lin B, Yang W (2017) Mechanical behavior and failure mechanism of pre-cracked specimen under uniaxial compression. Tectonophysics 712-713:330–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2017.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ma G, Fan Z, Xiao L et al (2017) Experimental study on hydraulic fracture propagation in fractured reservoir. J Min Saf Eng 34(5):993–999.  https://doi.org/10.13545/j.cnki.jmse.2017.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rahman MM, Rahman SS (2013) Studies of hydraulic fracture-propagation behavior in presence of natural fractures: fully coupled fractured-reservoir modeling in poroelastic environments. Int J Geomech 13(6):809–826.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Siriwardane H, Haljasmaa I, McLendon R et al (2009) Influence of carbon dioxide on coal permeability determined by pressure transient methods. Int J Coal Geol 77(1–2):109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2008.08.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smirnov NN, Tagirova VP (2008) Problem of propagation of a gas fracture in a porous medium. Fluid Dyn 43(3):402–417.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0015462808030083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tang J, Pan Y, Chengquan L et al (2006) Experimental study on effect of effective stress on desorption and seepage of coalbed methane. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 25(8):1563–1568Google Scholar
  19. Tao M, Ma Y, Li Z et al (2015) The isotopic tracer and resource value of microbial gas production in coalbeds-a case study of coalbed gas in Enhong, China. Energy Fuels 29(4):2134–2142.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ef502565g CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang F, Wang W, Changjiang Z (2015) The visual simulation of hydraulic crack width in coal rock and the analysis of influencing factors. China Mining Magazine 24(11):158–161Google Scholar
  21. Xu H, Tang D, Yanpeng C et al (2018) Effective porosity in lignite using kerosene with low-field nuclear magnetic resonance. Fuel 213:158–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.10.112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yan F, Lin B, Zhu C et al (2015) A novel ECBM extraction technology based on the integration of hydraulic slotting and hydraulic fracturing. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 22:571–579.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yang S, Wang J, Yang J (2017) Physical analog simulation analysis and its mechanical explanation on dynamic load impact. J China Coal Soc 42(2):335–343.  https://doi.org/10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.2016.6004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yao Q, Chen T, Li X et al (2017) Experimental study on coarsely water-bearing sandstone in roof of Jurassic coal seam. J China Coal Soc 42(1):183–188.  https://doi.org/10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.2017.5031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yin G, Li X, Wei Z et al (2011) Similar simulation study of deformation and failure response features of slope and stope rocks. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 30(Supp. 1):2913–2923Google Scholar
  26. Zhang H, Kang Y, Chen J et al (2007) Study on visualition for stress sensibility of fracture width in reservoir. Drill Prod Technol 30(1):41–43Google Scholar
  27. Zhang Y, Gong B, Li J et al (2015) Discrete fracture modeling of 3D heterogeneous enhanced coalbed methane recovery with prismatic meshing. Energies 8(6):6153–6176.  https://doi.org/10.3390/en8066153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang J, Liu D, Cai Y et al (2017) Geological and hydrological controls on the accumulation of coalbed methane within the No. 3 coal seam of the southern Qinshui Basin. Int J Coal Geol 182:94–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2017.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Energy Science and EngineeringHenan Polytechnic UniversityJiaozuoChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory for Coal Mine Disaster Dynamics and ControlChongqing UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations