Flow and Adsorption in Coal Beds
Transcript of Flow and Adsorption in Coal Beds
1
Stanford UniversityGlobal Climate & Energy Project
MIT Carbon Sequestration Forum VIIIStanford, CA
November 14, 2007
Flow and Adsorption in Coal Beds
Lynn Orr and Tony Kovscek
with all the real work done byKristian Jessen, Carolyn Seto, Tom Tang, Wenjuan Lin, Sameer Parakh, Tanmay Chaturvedi, and Jichun Zhu
2
Why Deep Unmineable Coal Beds?
• Expand the number of geologic settings that might store CO2?
• Recover adsorbed CH4?• Possible co-storage of
other components (SOx, H2S)?
• Coal-fired power plants often near coal beds.
Much better ability to predict the interaction of flow and multicomponent adsorption in a fractured medium is required.
Central issue: where does the injected CO2 go?
3
Multicomponent Flow in Coal Beds
• Analytical solutions for simplified models• Experiments to delineate mechanisms and test our ability to
model• More complex models to predict what happens at larger scale
coal bed
CH4
CO2 N2
N2disposal
CO2
CH4
flue gases
N2
N2
CH4
Objective: Predict quantitatively what happens during flow induced by CO2 injection for carbon storage in coal beds.
4
Probing flow mechanisms:Sorption, k-reduction, displacement
• Pore pressure: 60~1100 psi• Gas mixtures made in the lab by weight• Add reference cell for sorption measurements
5
CO2, CH4, N2 Adsorption/DesorptionDry Powder River Basin (WY) Coal
• Pure components are well fit by Langmuir isotherm
• CO2 adsorbs preferentially
• Adsorption hysteresis for all gases
• Scanning loops are observed
6
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 500 1000 1500 2000
P, psia
Sor
ptio
n, S
CF/
ton
CO2 @Swi=0CO2 @Swi=8.47%CH4 @Swi=0CH4 @Swi=8.67%N2 @Swi=0N2 @Swi=8.54%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 500 1000 1500
P, psia
Volu
me
adso
rbed
, SC
F/to
n CH4 at T=22oCCH4 at T=40oCCO2 @Swi=0CO2 at T=40oC
Swi=0
Effect of TemperatureEffect of Moisture
Gas Sorption on Wet Coal at Elevated Temperature
7
Simplified mathematical modelComplex interactions of flow, adsorption
Assumptions• 1D flow• local equilibrium• homogeneous porous
medium• no dispersion or diffusion• neglect gravity and
capillary forces( )LiDLgiDGDi
iDLiDLgiDGi
fxfyuH
aSxSyG
ρρφ
φρρ
+=
−++=
1
0=∂∂
+∂∂
ξτii HG
Solution• Recast system of 1st order equations as an eigenvalue problem• Eigenvalues are speeds at which a composition propagates• Eigenvectors give directions (paths) in composition space that satisfy
the molar balance equations• Find the correct path for initial, injection compositions• Solutions include shocks (jumps in composition), continuous variations
8
Shocks and rarefactions
• When CO2displaces CH4, a sharp front is predicted and observed
• When N2displaces CH4, the N2 and CH4flow together in predictions and experiments
9
CO2 injection to displace adsorbed CH4
More strongly adsorbing component displaces more weakly adsorbing component
• Preferential adsorption of CO2 creates self-sharpening displacement• Local flow velocity decrease due to adsorption of CO2• Separation of CO2 from CH4
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.5
1
Sg
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.5
1
CH
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.5
1
CO
20 0.5 1 1.5 2
0
0.5
1
H2O
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.5
1
1.5u
D
mocfd 1000
I
C B
AA
O
λ
CH4
H2O
I
C
B
A
O
CO2
10
N2
H2O
O A B
C D
I
N2 injection to displace adsorbed CH4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40
0.5
1
Sg
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40
0.5
1
N2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40
0.5
1
CH
40 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
0.5
1
H2O
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40.5
1
1.5u
D
mocfd 1000
I
BA
OCC
D
• reduction of partial pressure desorbs CH4• local flow velocity increase due to CH4 desorption• co-production of N2 and CH4 at outlet
CH4
weaker adsorbing component displaces more adsorbing component
λ
11
CO2/N2 mixtures displacing CH4: prediction versus experiment
• CO2 retarded behind N2/CH4zone
• CO2 is separated from N2 by adsorption chromatography
• N2 and CH4produced together – requires a separation for CH4recovery
12
Flue gas injection with water present
• Inject N2/CO2 mixture to displace H2O and CH4• N2 propagates rapidly, CO2 slowly• Local flow velocity changes due to volume change as
components adsorb/desorb• co-production of CH4 and N2 at outlet
CO2
H2O
CH4
N2I
O
A B
C D E F
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40
0.5
1
1.5
Sg,
uD
Sg (moc)
Sg (fd 5000)
uD
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 40
0.5
1
λ
com
pone
nt m
olar
co
mpo
sitio
n
N2
CH4
CO2
H2O
O
AB
CC
DD
EF
I
injectionN2 = 0.9CO2 = 0.1
13
N2/CO2 mixture displacing H2O/CH4 mixture
• Complex pattern of shocks and rarefactions predicted appears to be present in experimental observations
• Additional experiments needed to confirm details
14
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
pore volumes injected
CH
4 rec
over
y 1.0 N2
0.9 N2
0.4 N2
0.2 N2
0.05 N2
0.0 N2
Effect of flue gas composition on CH4 recovery
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
λ
u D
1.0 N2
0.9 N2
0.4 N2
0.2 N2
0.05 N2
0.0 N2
• Efficient recovery of CH4 from gas injection into coals
• Faster CH4 recovery for higher N2injection concentrations
• Higher N2concentrations show larger increase in local flow velocity
15
Adsorption/Desorption/Transport Modeling
• 1D:
• ai: extended Langmuir vs IAS
• dual porosity– primary and secondary (grain): φ= φ1+φ2
– instantaneous equilibrium– 2%< φ2 <8%
• PR-EOS with
• Finite difference solution
φ∂Ci
∂t+ (1 − φ)
∂ai
∂t+ ∇⋅ (vCi) = qi
Vads = zii∑ bi
coal
& C
H4
CH4 + CO2 + N2
gas analyzer
46/54 CO2 /N2
p = 600 psiSw = 0
16
IAS vs Langmuir Adsorption
Selectivity:
s2,1 =( x / y)2( x / y)1
=( x / y)CO2
( x / y)N2
Sele
ctiv
ity, C
O2/N
2
17
(25 grid blocks)
(25 grid blocks)
coal
& C
H4
gas analyzer
100% CO2
p = 600 psiSw = 0
no parameter adjustment
CH4 + CO2
CH4 CO2
CH4 CO2
Ideal adsorbed solution vsextended Langmuir adsoprtion
18
(25 grid blocks)
(25 grid blocks)
no parameter adjustment
coal
& C
H4
CH4 + CO2 + N2
gas analyzer
46/54 CO2 /N2
p = 600 psiSw = 0
CH4
CO2
N2
CH4
CO2
N2
IAS is better than Langmuir, for multicomponent flow, but not perfect
19
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
pressure (psi)
fuga
city
coe
ffici
ent
CH4CO2N2
Current Flow Modeling Activitiesdispersion, non-ideal behavior, and hysteresis
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 200 400 600 800
Pressure (psi)
Sor
ptio
n (s
cf/to
n)
predicted frombounding curves
yiPΦi = xiπiγi Methane sorption
20
Is permeability sensitive to gas type?sorption/permeability/gas injection
After grinding Coalpack
net effective stress = 400 psi
poverburden
ppore
21
1200Intact composite coal plugs
0Corresponding CT-images
Total length: 21.17 cm Diameter: 2.79 cm
Porosity: 7% Permeability to He: 1.7 md
Composite Coal
CT
Coal plugs
22
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pore pressure, psia
perm
eabi
lity
to C
H4,
md
Swi=0T=22°C
pressure increases
pressure decreases
Is permeability sensitive to gas type?hysteresis loading/unloading
net effective stress = 300 psi
poverburden
ppore
CH4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pore Pressure, psia
Per
mea
bilit
y to
CO
2, m
d
pressure increases
pressure decreases
T=22oCSwi=0
CO2
- There is a permeability hysteresisbetween loading and unloading process
- CO2 adsorption causes greater permeability reduction than CH4
23
Conclusions
• Qualitative predictions of simplified analytical model are confirmed by experiments (sharp fronts, continuous composition variations, complex banks of fluids).
• CO2 can be separated from N2 in a coal bed, but compression of lots of N2 and separation of CH4 and N2is then required.
• The ideal adsorbed solution model gives better predictions of the interplay of multicomponent adsorption and flow, but modeling of nonideality and hysteresis will also be required to make fully quantitative predictions.
• Permeability generally declines as the amount of adsorbed gas increases. The reduction for CO2 is greater than that for CH4 at a given pressure. Managing permeability will be an issue for deep coal injection.
24
Acknowledgement
• The support of the Global Climate and energy Project is gratefully acknowledged.
• We are also much indebted to Margot Gerritsen and to Jerry Harris and Mark Zoback and their research groups, our collaborators working on geophysical measurements and their applications to CO2 storage in coal beds.
• For more information about this work and other GCEP research, see:– http://gcep.stanford.edu/events/symposium2007/presentations.html– http://gcep.stanford.edu/events/symposium2007/posters.html