RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the WinWin Association?
J Michael Gatens, MGV Energy Inc William D. Gunter, Alberta Research Council
Abstract: Of a relatively marginal significance for the conventional oil & natural gas industry, coal bed methane (CMB) has been particularly promoted in some specific coal oriented-countries (USA, China, UK), despite constraints linked to environmental concerns. Papers will concentrate on the technical challenges of projects in countries such as USA, Poland, China and the UK and other former coal production countries utilising CO2 sequestration to promote gas production whilst gaining credit for carbon storage.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Canada has over 700 Tcf of CBM resource in place, with over half of this resource in Alberta and the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB).1-4 Starting in late 2001, commercial production of CBM in Canada began with the dry Horseshoe Canyon CBM play in Alberta.5 Today, there are over 4,000 CBM wells in Canada, with over 2,000 tied in and producing over 200 MMcf/D. With over 3,000 wells planned for 2005, year-end rates are expected to reach up to 500 MMcf/D by year-end 2005 and several thousand future wells are estimated to produce over 2 Bcf/D by 2015 and over 3 Bcf/D by 2025.6-7 With current Canadian natural gas production at ~17 Bcf/D, this represents up to 20% of Canadas future gas deliverability, assuming negligible growth in total production. In addition to adding to Canadas gas production, Canadian CBM reservoirs may also prove to be an effective sink for disposing of excess CO2 production. The Alberta Research Council (ARC) has been conducting basic and applied research in this area since 1996 and currently has three projects ongoing, including two in the field. In addition to storing excess CO2, these processes have the potential of enhancing CBM production by up to 40% in low permeability reservoirs. With CBM production well established in North America, there is potential to enhance CBM production and dispose of CO2 simultaneously in the future, a true win-win association. With significant CBM resources being evaluated around the world, including China, India, Australia, eastern Europe, and elsewhere, there is potential for technology transfer to not only produce significant CBM, but to develop sinks for excess CO2 production as well.

CBM RESOURCE IN CANADA

Figure 1 shows the major coal basins in Canada. The Geologic Survey of Canada (GSC), the Alberta Geologic Survey (AGS), and the British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines (BC MEM) estimate there is over 700 Tcf of CBM resource in Canada, with over 500 Tcf in Alberta (AB) and 90 Tcf in British Columbia (BC) alone.1-4 Figure 2 shows the major CBM target formations in Alberta, including the Mannville coals (267 Tcf resource), Horseshoe Canyon and Belly River coals (66 Tcf resource), the Ardley coals (53 Tcf resource) and others. Figure 3 shows the major CBM basins in BC, with about 90 Tcf distributed in the NE BC portion of the WCSB, SE BC, inter-mountain basins, and Vancouver Island. The remaining coals with CBM potential are in Saskatchewan, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and Nova Scotia. Despite the presence of this large resource, until late 2001, there was no significant CBM production in Canada.

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

Figure 1 Major coal basins in North America.

Figure 2 Distribution of major coal reservoirs in Alberta, Canada.

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

Figure 3 - Distribution of major coal reservoirs in British Columbia, Canada.

CBM HISTORY IN CANADA

As CBM technology and production began to be developed in the United States in the 1980s, a number of companies started to look at Canadas vast coal deposits for CBM potential. Beginning in the late 1980s and up to 2000, less than 200 wells were drilled for or tested CBM potential, with no success.8 The major reason for the failure of these early efforts was the lack of permeability, and therefore, deliverability, encountered. Despite the lack of permeability, significant gas resource was confirmed in the coals. Most of the early (and recent) activity was in Alberta, focusing on three major coal groups, the Mannville, Horseshoe Canyon/Belly River, and Ardley coals. Figure 4 is a stratigraphic crosssection of these coals from west to east.

Figure 4 Stratigraphic cross-section of major coal reservoirs in Alberta, Canada.

All these coals increase in depth and rank as they dip towards the deformed belt to the west in the WCSB. Much of the early efforts focused on the deeper Mannville coals, with a few relatively thick (3 to 5 m) seams at depths greater than 1,000 m. Despite in-situ gas contents of over 300 scf/ton, commercial rates were not achieved. The shallower Horseshoe Canyon/Belly River coals are comprised of numerous thin seams, most less than 1 m thick,

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

and can be found over 400 m of vertical section, with about 8 to 25 m of net coal. In addition, these are low rank coals and were not thought by many to be practical targets for CBM at the time. As a result, few early wells tested these coals. The younger Ardley coals have a few thick seams, but are also relatively low rank and some of the coal cleats, or natural fractures, were found to be filled with mineral solution deposits. In the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and in inter-mountain basins in AB and BC, tests of promising coals were also unsuccessful, partly due to latent stress effects impacting the fabric and permeability of the coals tested. By 2000, experience in the U.S. had shown that most successful CBM plays were relatively shallow (< 1,500 m) and that low rank coals, like those in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana, could be commercial CBM producers. In late 2000, new efforts were begun in Canada to evaluate the Mannville at shallower depths and the low rank Horseshoe Canyon/Belly River and Ardley coals. The objective was to find areas with sufficient depth and coal thickness to have significant gas in place, but also shallow enough to retain cleat permeability and deliverability. The largest of these early efforts was a large joint venture (JV) between PanCanadian Petroleum (PCP) and MGV Energy Inc. (MGV). PCP (now part of EnCana) had one of the largest mineral land bases in Canada on which to evaluate CBM potential and MGV, the Canadian subsidiary of Quicksilver Resources Inc., had substantial experience in evaluating and developing unconventional gas plays like CBM throughout the world. The JV drilled its first CBM wells in November 2000 and by late 2001, had established commercial flow rates in a number of wells completed in the Horseshoe Canyon/Belly River (HC) coals in southern AB5. Important JV innovations included the use of Canadian fit-for-purpose shallow gas technologies and nitrogen fracturing, adapted from Appalachian Basin shale wells.9 By late 2003, the JV had established commercial development projects in the HC play, the first commercial CBM projects in Canada. The HC CBM play in AB has proven to be the largest dry CBM play in the world, which accounts for its rapid development relative to other potential CBM plays in Canada. Due to events in the geologic past, the HC coals are significantly under-pressured. As a result, there is lower gas in place (usually < 70 scf/ton) and reservoir energy available than would be expected for even low rank coals at the depths being targeted (200 to 800 m).10 Despite this, there is still sufficient gas in place (1 to 8 Bcf/section) and 66 Tcf to make this resource attractive. The key to the success of the HC CBM play is the absence of mobile water in the cleats of the coal and the relatively high effective permeability to gas. These shallow wells make practically no water, have bulk permeabilities of 1 to 100 md and typically produce 60 to 300 Mcf/D/well. With the reduced well cost and operating cost achieved in the absence of produced water, these wells are very attractive economically in the WCSB gas market.11 Despite having the largest resource (267 Tcf), the Mannville coals have yet to yield a commercial CBM project in AB. However, Nexen, Inc. and Trident Exploration, operators of one of the largest Mannville CBM pilots, recently announced their Alberta Ft. Assiniboine JV project commercial and plan to aggressively develop the Mannville over the next several years.12 Unlike the HC coals, the Mannville coal cleats are generally full of salt water, which must be produced and disposed of deep underground to dewater the coals and establish gas production. Over 200 wells, including 70 horizontal wells, have been drilled since 2000 and there are a number of promising individual wells. There are also several ongoing pilot projects, with a number of wells produced in relatively close patterns to conduct long-term production testing to dewater the coals locally and to establish commercial gas rates. Permeabilities encountered to date in the Mannville have been relatively low (< 20 md) and vertical well technology has not been widely successful, but several horizontal wells are showing promise. The Ardley play has few wells, but has also shown some economic promise in some areas. The Ardley coals produce no water in some areas, but can also produce water, fresh or saline. Partly as a result of the potential for co-production of gas and fresh water, many Ardley areas are inactive, awaiting regulatory guidance to determine how to deal with possible fresh water production. Elsewhere in Canada, there is activity, but no commercial production to date. In BC, about 50 wells have been drilled since 2000, most as early evaluation wells. There is one pilot project ongoing in southeast BC and other pilots being considered for 2005. There have been a few

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

wells drilled in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, but these efforts are in the early evaluation phase as well. Today, there are over 4,000 CBM wells in Canada, most in AB. Over 92% of the wells in AB are completed in the HC play, with about 6% targeting Mannville and 2% targeting Ardley coals. Over 3,000 wells are planned in 2005 for AB alone, most targeting the HC coals, but many still evaluating the Mannville. CBM production is estimated to reach up to 500 Mcf/D by year-end 2005, as many of the existing and new wells are tied in to production.

CBM FUTURE IN CANADA

Figure 5 is a forecast of future CBM production in Canada generated by the Canadian National Energy Board (NEB) and TransCanada Pipeline (TCPL).6-7

Figure 5 Future production of CBM in Canada.

These estimates predict about 2 Bcf/D in 2015 and 3 Bcf/D by 2025. In addition, the NEB extended its forecast into the future, assuming the Mannville and other coals become commercial, and estimates potential recovery of up to 75 Tcf from coals in Canada. We estimate that the HC play alone could achieve the results forecasted over the next 20 years and could lead to recoveries of up to 23 Tcf.11 However, to achieve the 75 Tcf estimate, the Mannville and other coals will have to prove successful in the coming years. Canadas current gas production is about 17 Bcf/D from all sources. Assuming this production can be maintained, CBM could account for 10 to 20% of Canadas natural gas production over the next 10 to 20 years. Canadas proved conventional gas reserves are about 60 Tcf, less than the CBM recovery estimated by NEB.6 However, to achieve this recovery will require thousands of new, relatively low-rate CBM wells to produce this gas over several decades of production. It is expected many of these CBM wells will produce for up to 50 years. As a result, Canada will need other sources of natural gas (other unconventional gas, such as tight sands and shales, LNG imports, northern pipeline gas, and increased conventional gas recovery efficiencies) to maintain its gas supplies going forward. CBM is only part of the solution.

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

CO2 STORAGE POTENTIAL IN CANADIAN COALS:

Canada is one of the signatory nations to the Kyoto Accord and is committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in the future. Canadas government, industry, and public are united in seeking to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic growth in an environmentally responsible fashion. Canadas major oil and gas association, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has made a major commitment to environmental stewardship and is working with various stakeholder groups to develop strategies for responsible oil and gas development, including reduction of CO2 emissions. One of the projects being evaluated to reduce CO2 emissions is to inject greenhouse gases (including CO2) being generated from various industrial processes into underground coal seams, to trap these gases underground while producing CBM, in a process called Enhanced Coalbed Methane recovery (ECBM).13 The Alberta Research Council (ARC), with government and industry funding, has been conducting basic and applied field research on this subject since 1996. The technology is based on the relative selectivity of coal for different gaseous components with CO2 being sorbed much more strongly than methane, the dominant component of CBM (Figure 6).

Figure 6 - Sorption isotherms for Mannville coal (Courtesy of Alberta Research Council)

The effect on production in a pure CO2-ECBM recovery scheme is that the injected CO2 will travel along the coal cleats, diffusing into the coal matrix and adsorbing strongly onto the surfaces of the coal micropores, displacing the more weakly adsorbing methane; and only methane and water will be produced from the cleat system. Carbon dioxide breakthrough will only occur after the reservoir has been swept of methane (Figure 7).14 This process has been partially demonstrated in the field in a CO2-ECBM pilot in the San Juan Basin by Burlington Resources.15

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

Figure 7 - Methane production rates versus time for a generic commercial operation (modified after Wong et al., 2001).

A rough estimate of maximum storage potential of 7.5 gigatonnes of CO2 in Canadian coals can be estimated from the CBM recovery estimate of 75 TCF6 and assuming a moderate selectivity of CO2 to methane of 2 to 1 (CO2 selectivity compared to methane increases with decreasing rank of the coal reaching a high of 10 to 1 in the sub-bituminous coals of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA). To put this in perspective, storage of CO2 in CBM reservoirs could handle all of Alberta industrial emissions for more than 50 years and at the same time recover 75 TCF of natural gas.

ECBM TECHNOLOGY:
One of the biggest issues to the successful production of CBM is permeability. Sorption of gases onto coal causes swelling which tends to close the natural cleats in the coal and reduce permeability. The CO2 may also soften the coal and could lead to compressibility increases. Some speculation exists that coal may behave plastically under supercritical conditions,16 but this has not been observed under field conditions. In an ECBM project, swelling is countered by the increase in effective stress due to the increase in reservoir pressure resulting from the higher pressure of injection. Research into this phenomenon has been inconclusive17 and in the field, injectivity of CO2 has been shown to increase or decrease depending on the field area. Since the permeability of coal is dynamic, classic measurements of permeability of CBM reservoirs at rest will not accurately record the injection/production permeability. The largest source of industrial CO2 emissions in Alberta comes from coal-fired power plants where CO2 concentrations are approximately 15%, the rest being nitrogen (N2). Nitrogen sorbs less strongly to coal than CO2 (Figure 6). Pure N2 injection will cause a larger enhancement of methane production for a constant injection rate but will be accompanied by N2 breakthrough to the production well which will be produced along with the methane and water (Figure 7). This process has been demonstrated in the field in the San Juan Basin by Amoco. To evaluate the economics of ECBM, since no commercial operations exist, reservoir simulation must be performed to predict the injection/production curves based on history matching of pilot data. However, standard reservoir simulators cannot account for the many complex processes associated with ECBM. Five simulation software products were tested to assess their potential for modeling the ECBM process. All five were found to be adequate for predicting primary production of CBM. Only four products were suitable for modeling enhanced CBM production using N2 or CO2 injection, and only three were suitable for modeling flue gas injection. However, the reservoir simulation products, in their current forms,

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

were not capable of accurately predicting the produced gas compositions observed during field tests in Alberta.18 Improved understanding of the process mechanisms (e.g. mixed gas sorption on the micropore surfaces, mixed gas diffusion into/out of the coal matrix, coal matrix swelling and shrinkage due to sorption of gases and changes in effective stress, and water movement between the coal matrix and cleats) is needed to guide the future development of simulation models. After initial improvements to the simulators, most of the tested models have been successful in history matching the micro-pilot data by using a dynamic permeability function and by varying relative diffusion rates of the gaseous components between the coal matrix and the cleats.19 Further improvements to these models will be required to successfully match all the field data. The final strategy will be to use the history match of one micro-pilot to predict another micro-pilots performance, followed by predicting the performance of a multiwell pilot at the chosen site.

ECBM ECONOMICS:
A flow process was designed for a representative commercial project that determined mass and energy balances for the overall surface facilities, which are being considered for the injection gas source for a commercial ECBM project. Capital and operating costs are estimated based on the flow process. Using these data, a spreadsheet model was developed20 to be used as the basis for an economic evaluation. A beta version of the model has been completed and is currently being evaluated. The model has the capability to handle feed gas compositions varying from representative flue gas (e.g. 12% CO2 and 88% N2) to 98% CO2 based on solvent technology for capturing CO2; to assess other processing alternatives; and to be used for the non-commercial demonstration pilot phase as well. Work is in progress to enhance the model and to collect data for the purpose of evaluating other capture technologies. From an economic perspective based on the spreadsheet model, flue gas injection offered better performance than pure CO2 injection (ignoring the possibility of a CO2 credit/trading system). Typically, it takes two to three molecules of CO2 injected per molecule of methane produced for the Mannville coals. Assuming that the cost of CO2 is US$1/Mscf, this cost corresponds to a cost of US$2-3/Mscf of produced CBM for the injected CO2, which until recently was close to the wellhead price of natural gas without even considering well drilling, surface facility and production operating costs. An alternative is to use flue gas streams, a mixture of CO2 and N2, as an injectant. Compared to CO2, little of the N2 is retained in the CBM reservoir. Typically for pure N2, only 0.5 molecules of N2 are retained for each molecule of methane produced, and methane production is enhanced more quickly than for CO2 injection. However, N2 breakthrough at production wells also occurs quickly, necessitating an extra processing step to separate N2 from the produced process stream prior to sale. An economic analysis of a commercial operation in the Mannville coals was made using production curves similar to those in Figure 7 based on the field tests parameters to calculate the wellhead CBM price required for the project to break even.14, 21 Injection of a typical flue gas from a coal-fired power plant (i.e. 87% N2 and 13% CO2) was compared to injection of pure CO2 purchased at a price of US$1/Msf. The production economics suggest that flue gas-ECBM is more economical than CO2-ECBM, requiring only a wellhead price of US$1.58 to break even compared to US$2.89 for CO2-ECBM where two molecules of CO2 are stored in the CBM reservoir for ever molecule of CBM produced. However, this has to be balanced against the fact that it may be advantageous, both environmentally and economically, to store CO2 in geological formations in the future.

CO2-ECBM MICRO-PILOTS WORLD-WIDE:

Micro-pilots are single well huff and puff tests consisting of six stages: initial production (primary recovery stage) followed by a shut-in test to measure permeability during pressure build up; gas injection stage, well shut-in to measure permeability during pressure fall off; production testing (enhanced production stage) and final well testing during pressure build up. There are four CO2-ECBM micro-pilots in the world. The projects in Poland (RECOPOL) and in Japan (JCOP) had injectivity problems. The other two, operated by the Alberta Research Council, did not encounter injectivity problems in 1 to 10 md CBM reservoirs. The first micro-

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

pilot was located in the Fenn-Big Valley area of Alberta, Canada in the high volatile bituminous coals of the Mannville formation with a selectivity of CO2 to methane of 3 to 1; and other gases besides CO2 were tested.22 Carbon dioxide injectivity was found to increase with time. The second project was located in anthracitic coals of the Qinshui Basin, Shanxi Province of China.23 Carbon dioxide injectivity decreased slightly with time reaching a steady state. Modeling predictions based on history matching the micro-pilot data showed significant enhancement reaching a maximum for the anthracitic coals where the selectivity of CO2 over methane was only 1.5.

CO2-ECBM PILOTS WORLD-WIDE:

There are three pilots in the world; two are still under development (the Consol pilot in Virginia, USA incorporating horizontal wells and the Suncor (CSEMP) pilot in Ardley coals in Alberta, Canada which is planned to be heavily monitored to detect CO2 movement (e.g. water wells, deep monitoring well, 4D seismic, passive seismic, fluid sampling, tiltmeters, laser atmospheric surveys). The third, the Burlington Resources Allison pilot is located in the northern New Mexico portion of the San Juan basin, just to the north of the prolific fairway. The pilot consists of 16 methane production wells, four CO2 injection wells, and one pressure observation well which were completed in the 13 m thick Fruitland formation at a depth of 950 m and original reservoir pressure of 11.5 MPa and temperature of 115 deg F, and which is capped by the Kirtland shale. The CO2 source was the Shell CO2 Pipeline which produced CO2 from the McElmo Dome in Colorado and delivered it at over 10.4 MPa to the west Texas oil fields for EOR application. The Allison field originally began production in July 1989, and CO2 injection operations for ECBM purposes commenced in April 1995 with constant surface injection pressures on the order of 10.4 MPa. CO2 injection was suspended in August 2001 to evaluate the results of the pilot. A total of 6.4 Bcf of natural CO2 was injected into the reservoir, of which 1.6 Bcf is forecast to be ultimately reproduced, resulting in a net storage volume of 277,000 tons of CO2. A detailed reservoir characterization of the pilot was developed and future field performance was forecast under various operating conditions based on history matching.15 In this 25 md reservoir, an enhancement factor of 15% (from 77% to 95% of the original gas in place) was predicted. Injectivity was reduced by approximately 50%. Economics were sensitive to the sale price for methane and the cost of CO2 but was found to be attractive with a gas price exceeding $3 to $4.24

THE FUTURE OF CO2-ECBM:

CO2-ECBM is an emerging technology. ECBM differs from Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) because sorption to the coal rather than miscibility between the CO2 and the oil controls the success of the recovery operation. In EOR, the injected CO2 provides a pressure drive as well as lowering the oil viscosity by dissolution, thus enabling the oil to flow more easily to the producing wells. In ECBM, the injected CO2 sorbs more strongly to the coal than the methane, providing a chromatographic displacement of the methane to the production well. In a homogeneous reservoir, breakthrough of CO2 would only occur after most of the methane has been swept to the producing wells. Probably, the biggest hurdle to commercial CO2ECBM is permeability impairment due to the change in the coal properties due to sorption of CO2. However, in the relatively few field pilots performed, some success has been achieved in assessing a positive potential for CO2 storage and enhanced methane production. The technology is being tested worldwide and will probably be commercialized within the next five years, when the need to reduce CO2 emissions substantially is realized, CO2 emission trading comes into effect and the sale price of natural gas escalates.

WORLD-WIDE POTENTIAL
With about 5 Bcf/D of current CBM production in the U.S. and up to 3 Bcf/D expected in Canada in the next decade or so, CBM is well established as an important part of North American gas supply going forward. If the technologies being tested in the U.S. and Canada for enhancing CBM production by injecting greenhouse gases become successful, these CBM reservoirs will yield even more CBM while eliminating greenhouse gases in the environment. These technologies and unconventional gas resources have been developed in North America as the need for more natural gas in maturing basins to keep up with demand has been increasing. In Canada, the Canadian Society for Unconventional Gas (CSUG) was formed in 2002 to promote the responsible development of unconventional gas in Canada going forward25.

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

As other parts of the world continue to grow and their appetite for energy increases, unconventional gas, such as CBM, will likely become increasingly important as easier to access and produce conventional supplies begin to peak and decline. Countries like Australia, China, India, Poland, Ukraine, Czech Republic, South Africa, Wales, England, Mexico, and others have significant coal deposits with CBM potential. Some of these, notably Australia, China, and India, have aggressive CBM programs ongoing. A Canadian group, including ARC, is actively engaged in CBM projects in China to accelerate development there. North Americas experience in developing CBM production will be useful in developing these new basins, although each basin has unique characteristics which must be dealt with. In addition to natural gas production increases, CBM reservoirs offer the added potential of providing a disposal zone for unwanted greenhouse gas emissions. As the technologies for disposing of greenhouse gases in coals, and enhancing CBM production evolves, it should be considered for adoption in emerging CBM plays world-wide. Especially in growing or developing economies like the emerging giants of China and India, early adoption of these technologies could assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving the Kyoto Accord goals of increasing air quality world-wide.

REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Beaton, A.P.: Production Potential of Coalbed Methane Resources in Alberta, 2003 EUB/AGS Earth Sciences report 2003-03, 59p. Canadian Gas Potential Committee, 2001 report, Natural Gas Potential in Canada. Hughes, J.D.: In Situ Assessment of Coalbed Methane Resources in the Alberta Plains Volume I Unconstrained Case, Geologic Survey of Canada report to MGV Energy Inc., 2001. BC Ministry of Energy and Mines website, www.em.gov.bc.ca/subwebs/coalbedgas. Bastian, P.A., Wirth, O.F.R., Wang, L., and Voneiff, G.W.: Assessment and Development of the Dry Horseshoe Canyon CBM Play in Canada: paper SPE 96899 to be presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 9-12, 2005. Canadas Energy Future: Scenarios for Supply and Demand to 2025, Canada National Energy Board report, Calgary, 2003. Internal forecast by TransCanada Pipeline. Canadian Coal Bed Methane Forum General Catalogue of CBM Data in Alberta and British Columbia Canada (as of January 1, 1993) Volumes I & II, Sproule Associates Limited report to Canadian CBM Forum, January 1993. Stidham, J.E., Tetrick, L.T. and Glenn, S.A.: Nitrogen Coiled-Tubing Fracturing in the Appalachian Basin, SPE paper 72382 presented at the 2001 Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, OH, October 17-19. Hysert, M: Geologic Characterization of Horseshoe Canyon Coal Seams in Alberta, presentation at the CSUG Fifth Annual Unconventional Gas Conference, Calgary, Oct. 22-24, 2003. Gatens, J.M.: A Changing Business Model for Canadian Coalbed Methane Production, presentation at the Conference Board of Canada CBM Conference, Calgary, March 1, 2005. Mahony, J.: Nexen Approves CBM Project, Reports Higher Earnings; Nickles Daily Oil Bulletin, July 14, 2005. Gunter, W.D., Gentzis, T., Rottenfusser, B.A. and Richardson, R.J.H. 1997. Deep Coalbed Methane in Alberta, Canada: A Fuel Resource with the Potential of Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Convers. Mgmt. 38 Suppl., S217-S222. Wong, S., Gunter, W.D. and Mavor, M.J. 2000. Economics of CO2 Sequestration in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs, Proceedings of SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium 2000, SPE 59785, April 3-5, Calgary, Alberta, 631-638. Reeves, S.R. : Geological Sequestration of CO2 in Deep, Unmineable Coalbeds: An Integrated Research and Commercial-Scale Field Demonstration Project, SPE paper 71749 presented at the 2001 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 30 Oct. 3. Larsen, J.W. 2003. The effects of dissolved CO2 on coal structure and properties. Int. Journal of Coal Geology, 57, 63-70. Mavor, M.J. and Gunter, W.D. 2004. Secondary Porosity and Permeability of Coal vs. Gas Composition and Pressure, SPE 90255, SPE Annual Tech. Conf., Houston, TX (Sept. 26-29, 2004). Law, D.H.-S., van der Meer, L.G.H., Mavor, M.J. and Gunter, W.D., 2001. Modeling of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Coal Beds: A Numerical Challenge, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on GHG Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, (Editors: D. Williams, B. Durie, P. McMullan, C. Paulson, Andrea Smith) CSIRO Publishing, 537-542. Law, D.H.-S., L.G.H van der Meer and W.D. Gunter. 2004. Comparison of Numerical Simulators for Greenhouse Gas Sequestration in Coalbeds, Part IV: History Match of Field Micro-Pilot Data, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, Vancouver, B.C., 2004.

19.

RFP8 - Coal Bed Methane Production & CO2 Storage: the Win-Win Association?

RFP

20. Macdonald, Doug, Sam Wong, W.D. Gunter, Rick Nelson, and Bill Reynan. 2003. Surface Facilities Computer Model: An Evaluation Tool for Enhanced Coalbed Methane, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on GHG Control Technologies, Kyoto, Japan (editors J. Gale & Y. Kaya), Pergamon Press, 575-580. 21. Wong, S., Gunter, W.D., Law, D.H.-S. and Mavor, M.J. 2001. Flue Gas Injection and CO2 Sequestration in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs: Economic Considerations, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on GHG Control Technologies, Cairns, Australia, (Editors: D. Williams, B. Durie, P. McMullan, C. Paulson, Andrea Smith) CSIRO Publishing, 543-548. 22. Mavor, M.J., Gunter, W.D., Robinson, J.R. 2004. Alberta Multiwell Micro-Pilot Testing for CBM Properties, Enhanced Methane Recovery and CO2 Storage Potential, SPE 90256, SPE Annual Tech. Conf., Houston, TX (Sept. 26-29, 2004). 23. Wong, S., Law, D.H.-S., and Gunter, W.D. 2005. Enhanced Coalbed Methane Test at South Qinshui Basin, China. Greenhouse Issues #78, June, 2005, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme, Cheltenham, England, 8-10. 24. The Coal-Seq II Consortium website, www.coal-seq.ca 25. Canadian Society for Unconventional Gas (CSUG) website, www.csug.ca.