MaterialBalance Techniques for
CoalSeam and Devonian Shale Gas
Reservoirs With Limited Water Influx
G.A. King, * SPE, Chevron E&P Services Co.
Summary. This paper presents the development of two material-balance methods for unconventional gas reservoirs. One method
is appropriate for estimating original gas in place; the second is appropriate for making reservoir predictions. These techniques differ
from the material-balance methods for conventional gas reservoirs in that the effects of adsorbed gas are included. For estimating origi-
nal gas in place, the assumption of equilibrium between the free- and adsorbed-gas phases is required. No additional assumptions are
required for reservoir predictions.
Introduction
The material-balance equation is a fundamental tool for determining
the original gas in place and production performance of conven-
tional gas reservoirs. For conventional gas reservoirs, the material-
balance equation has the form I
G p = [G(Bg -Bg;} +S.61S(We - WpBw)]lBg, ............ (1)
or in terms of p/z,
zscTsc [(l-SWi)Pi Vb2 tf>i
Gp =--
Psc T Zi
P[(l-Swi)Vb2 tf>i -Sz61S(We - WpBw)] J, ........ (2a)
which for volumetric reservoirs has the form
Gp=G[(P/Zi)-(P/Z)], ............................ (2b)
Eqs. 1 and 2 are derived with the following assumptions.
1. The gas and reservoir rock are nonreactive.
2. The reservoir acts as a constant-volume tank (Le., changes
in porosity with pressure decline are negligible).
3. The reservoir can be modeled with an average pressure and
an average saturation (Le., all gradients can be ignored).
4. Reliable production and pressure data are available.
S. Reliable PVT data are available (and applicable at the aver-
age reservoir pressure).
6. Reservoir water is incompressible.
The assumption of nonreactive rock makes the use ofEqs. 1 and
2 inappropriate for coal-seam and Devonian shale reservoirs. Be-
cause of the large internal surface area in the coal seam and shale
matrix, many potential sorption sites exist on which large quanti-
ties of gas may be adsorbed (as discussed later). The release of this
gas is a two-stage process typically modeled as dual-porosity reser-
voir behavior. For this reason, Eqs. 1 and 2 have only limited ap-
plications for unconventional gas reservoirs.
A recent survey of mathematical models for coal-seam gas
reservoirs 2 ,3 revealed that material-balance techniques developed
specifically for coal seams currently do not exist. Other
investigators 4-6 also have made this observation. For Devonian
shales, Aguilera 7 reported a material-balance equation that in-
cluded the effects of adsorption; however, the analysis techniques
for this equation were not presented. Therefore, the purpose of this
paper is to provide these basic techniques to engineers working with
unconventional gas reservoirs.
CoalSeam and Devonian Shale Reservoirs
Coal-seam and Devonian shale reservoirs are characterized by a
dual-porosity nature (both primary and secondary porosities exist).
The primary-porosity system in these reservoirs is composed of very
fine pores. The dimensions of these pores have two important con-
'Now at Chevron U.K. Ltd.
Copyright 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers
SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1993
sequences. First, a large internal surface area exists in the primary-
porosity matrix. This surface area contains many potential adsorp-
tion sites on which large quantities of gas are stored. In general,
adsorption is the principal mechanism of gas storage in coal seams
and Devonian shales. Second, the permeability of the primary-
porosity system is extremely low (in effect, the primary-porosity
system is both impermeable to gas and inaccessible to water). Gas
transport through the primary-porosity system therefore is a diffu-
sion process.
Gas stored by adsorption typically is modeled with an adsorp-
tion isotherm (the amount of gas in equilibrium with the rock sur-
face as a function pressure at a fixed temperature). The adsorption
isotherm most commonly used for unconventional gas reservoirs
is the Langmuir-type isotherm:
CVE=CVLP/(PL +p), .............................. (3)
where CVE is the adsorption isotherm in scf/ft3. The adsorption
isotherm also can be written in terms of CME (Ibm mollft 3), where
C ME = (Psc/zscRTsc)CVE' ........................... (4)
If the reservoir is undersaturated (Sg=O and all gas is in the ad-
sorbed state), then the adsorption isotherm has to be held constant
at the desorption pressure, Pd, where Pd is less than the initial
reservoir pressure. The desorption pressure is the pressure at which
gas will begin to desorb. Fig, 1 gives the adsorption isotherm for
an undersaturated reservoir.
As discussed earlier, gas is transported through the primary-
porosity system through diffusion. Gas transport through the
primary-porosity matrix obeys Fick's first law 9 ,1O:
-DAzscRTsc dC M
qg= ............................ (S)
P sc dx
The secondary-porosity system of coal seams and Devonian shales
consists of the natural-fracture system inherent in these reservoirs.
This fracture system acts as a sink to the primary-porosity system
and as a conduit to production wells (Fig. 2).
MaterlalBalance Equations
A material-balance equation over the entire primary-porosity/sec-
ondary-porosity system can be obtained by combining Eqs. 2 and 4:
G = Vb2tf>iZsJsc([(I-SWi)Pi + RTCMEi ]
p
Psc T Zi tf>i
- [ [1-Cq,(Pi-;)](I-s;:,)P + RT:ME J), ............. (6)
[1-Cq,(Pi -p)]
67

....... Theo,.elical Isolhe"m
18 ;:Ad~s:::or.!::pl.::lo:.:..n.:.:lso::::lh::.:e.:..::rm~(s.:::cr-,-/.::cu:...-;:.:l1),--_ _ __
16
14
12 -
10
8 complicated analysis technique is required. This technique is ilIus-
Pd
'--_L-_L-----''-----'- _-'-'_-----'_-----'_--'-__---'-_---'
100 200 300 400 500
p,.essu,.e (psio)
Fig. 1-Adsorptlon Isotherm of a "typical" unconventional
gas reservoir.
Eq. 6 was derived with the assumption that the free- and adsorbed-
gas phases were in equilibrium. This assumption makes Eq. 6 ap-
propriate for drainage volumes that have been shut in after a finite
production period or for reservoirs undergoing rapid desorp-
tion/diffusion. The first term in the large parentheses accounts for
free gas; the second accounts for adsorbed gas. Ref. 12 gives the
formal derivation of Eq. 6.
Eq. 7 is a water-phase mass-balance equation over the secondary-
porosity system. This water treatment is also slightly different from
that used in conventional equations because of the dewatering phase
required by some unconventional gas reservoirs. While the forma-
tion and water compressibilities can be neglected for conventional
gas reservoirs, formation compaction and water expansion wilI sig-
nificantly affect water production during the dewatering phase.
In all cases, these equations can be put into the familiar form,
Also, for the special case of dry reservoirs (We = WI' =0 and
Sw = Swir) , such as Piceance basin coal seams and some Canadian
--- Aclual Isothe,.m
coal seams, Eqs. 9 become
z*=z!{[(l-c.p(Pi -p)](l-Swir)+(zRTCME/~iP)}. . .... (11)
These special cases are identified because they result in a defini-
tion of z* that is strictly pressure-dependent. Consequently, the tradi-
tional p/z analysis techniques are applicable for these cases provided
that z* is substituted for z. For the general case, a slightly more-
trated later.
A less restrictive form of the material-balance equation for coal
seams and Devonian shale reservoirs can be obtained by adding
a gas desorption term, Gd , to Eq. 2a. This equation has the form
600 700 800 900 1000
Vb2~iZscTsc \" (l-Swi)Pi [l-C.p(Pi -p)](l-Sw)p I
Gp = C j+Gd,
p~T ~ z
. ................................... (12)
where Gd=Vb2(Gli-GI) ........................... (13a)
or Gd=Vb2=Vb2DFsI t(Gli-CVE)e-DFs(t-T)dT ....... (l3b)
o
Eq. 12 is a gas-phase material balance over the natural-fracture
system, while Eqs. 13 are gas-phase material-balance equations over
the primary-porosity matrix. Eq. 13b assumes pseudo-steady-state
flow in the primary-porosity matrix. Eqs. 13, coupled with Eq. 7,
are less restrictive than Eq. 6 because they do not require the as-
sumption of equilibrium between the free- and adsorbed-gas phases.
These equations therefore are appropriate for flowing conditions.
Ref. 12 gives the formal derivation of Eqs. 12 and 13.
The average water saturation, Sw' has been left explicitly in Eqs.
6 and 12 so that it can be incorporated directly if measurements
from well logs are available (e.g., from observation wells).

G = Vb2~iZscTsc (Pi _~), ....................... (8) Example

p PscT z[ z* To ilIustrate the use of Eqs. 6 through 13, a single-well problem
(in two parts) was designed. The first part was to determine the
where in the general case, original gas in place for a production well with Eqs. 7 through 9.
z*=z!{[l-C.p(Pi-P)](I-Sw)+(zRTCME/~iP)} . ....... (9a) The second part was to predict gas and water production rates (and
consequently recoverable gas) with Eqs. 7, 12, and 13b. To en-
Eq. 9a makes use of the fact that initially Sw=Swi. If a sure that the results could be validated, all comparisons were made
Langmuir-type isotherm is used to describe the adsorbed gas, then against finite-difference generated data (as opposed to actual field
z data). Tables 1 through 3 list all petrophysical properties, sorp-
z*= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..... (9b) tion properties, and well parameters, respectively.
_ zTpsc C VL In this example, a 6-ft coal seam was produced for 10 years. The
[l-C.p(Pi-P)](l-Sw)+-- first 3 years were considered a historical period (i.e., all data used
zscTsc ~i(PL +p) to evaluate the well were collected during this period); the final
7 years were to be predicted. The initial reservoir pressure was
For the special case of volumetric reservoirs (We = Wp =0,
479.7 psia at 1,000 ft true vertical depth subsea (TVD ss) (a hydro-
c.p =c w =0, and Sw = Swir) , Eqs. 9 become
static gradient of 0.465 psi/ft). Initially, the seam was 100% satu-
z*=z![(l-Swir)+(zRTCME/~iP)]' .................. (10) rated with water.

Desorption from Diffusion through Darcy flow to

,
rock grain primary - porosity wellbore

..........
......... "'~
. ......
...... .
......... . ..... ..
:::::::: ~ : ::::::::
~

~::::::
:::::::~ .. ::::::::::
. . . . . . ::::::
:::::.!'ii~ ..
::::::'i31~"~
.......
.... ~

. ..........,..
............
: : : ..
:...... ~
.: ...........
:: : : : : : : : : : :.

Fig. 2-Schematic of the transport of gas through coal-seam and Devonian shale gas reser-
voirs (after Ref. 11).

68 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1993

 TABLE 1-PETROPHYSICAL AND PVT PROPERTIES TABLE 2-S0RPTION PROPERTIES USED IN TEST PROBLEM*
USED IN TEST PROBLEM
Langmuir volume constant, SCt/ft3 18.6
Langmuir pressure constant, psia 167.5
Depth, TVD ss, ft 1,000.0 Desorption pressure, psia 479.7
Initial porosity 0.01 Diffusion constant, day-l 0.0432
Permeability, md 26.0 Time constant, days 231.4
Klinkenberg factor, psi 4.5
Permeability exponent 3.0 'Isotherm shown in Fig. 1.
Thickness, ft 6.0
Rock compressibility, psi- 1 7.5x10- 6
Water density, of, Ibmlft 3 62.4
Water compressibility, psi- 1 3.2x10- 6 TABLE 3-WELL PARAMETERS USED IN TEST PROBLEM
Water viscosity, cp
Molecular weight of gas, Ibmllbm mol 16.04 Well radius, ft 0.5
Critical pressure, psia 673.1 Drainage radius, ft 1,050.0
Critical temperature, of -115.78 Fracture half-length, ft 125.0
z factor Skin -4.24
Gas viscosity, cp t Production schedule
Standard pressure, psia 14.7
Standard temperature, oR 520.0 'Used in materialbalance simulator only.
"t= 0.0 days, qw =50.0 STB/D
Initial pressure, psia 479.7 90.0 days, p wr = 185.0 psia
Initial saturation 1.0 = 360.0 days, q 9 = 65.0 MscflD
Temperature, oR 530.0 361.0 days, q 9 .43.3 MscflD
0.25 362.0 days, qg -21.7 MscflD
Swlr 363.0 days, q 9 = 0.0 MscflD
Sgc 0.03 =
365.0 days, Pwr = 185.0 psia
krg(Swir) 1.0 725.0 days, q 9 = 51 ,0 Mscf/D
krw(Sgc) 1.0 726.0 days, q 9 34.0 MscflD =
= 727.0 days, q 9 = 17.0 MscflD
Relative permeability
Water encroachment, bbl 0.0 * 728.0 days, q 9 0.0 MscflD
730.0 days, P wr = 185.0 psia
= 1,090.0 days, q 9 = 28.5 MscflD
=

'ASTM correlation. = 1,091.0 days, qg = 19.7 MscflD

"Hall and Yarborough correlation. = 1,092.0 days, q 9 = 9.8 MscflD
t Carr at a/. correlation. = 1,093.0 days, q 9 = 0.0 MscflD
* Appendix C of Ref. 13. = 1,095.0 days, P wr = 125.0 psia

A fractured production well (Xf = 125 ft) was used to drain the
reservoir. During the historical period, the well was subjected to
a 5-day test program at the end of each year. These tests consisted
of three 24-hour flow periods at decreasing rates (the production
rate at the beginning of the test, two-thirds of the original rate, and
one-third of the original rate), followed by a 48-hour shut-in peri-
od. The decreasing order of the test rates was chosen to condition
the reservoir for the shut-in period (i.e., the reservoir was tested
in a manner that promoted the establishment of equilibrium condi-
tions at shut-in).
Because of the high initial water saturation, 3 months of dewater-
ing was required. During this period, water was produced at an
off-take rate of 50 STBID. During the remainder of the historical
period, the well was produced at a bottomhole pressure (BHP) of
185 psia. At Year 3, the BHP was reduced to 125 psia. Fig, 3 shows
the finite-difference-generated production profile.
The following sections of this paper describe the analysis methods
used to evaluate the well. Although this example was designed for
coal seams, the methods of analysis are applicable for Devonian
shale gas reservoirs.
Estimation of Original Gas in Place. Fig. 4 shows the results of
the first test. The pressures reported are the flowing pressures, Plif.
At the end of the first 48-hour shut-in period, an approximate 6-psia
pressure difference (across the 1,050-ft drainage radius) was ob-
served. This indicates that the reservoir is not truly stabilized after
48 hours, Therefore, in this example, the use ofEq. 8 must be con-
sidered an approximation. It will be demonstrated that this approx-
imation is reasonably accurate (within 6% for this example).
In all subsequent gas-in-place calculations, the pressure at the
wellbore was used. Although.the finite-difference simulator reports
the PV -weighted average reservoir pressure, it was not used be-
cause this information would not be known in the field and because
this pressure would give artifically more-accurate estimates of gas
in place.

. Povg (psio) - Gas Rate (MSCro) I ....... Pwf (psio) - Gas Rate (MSCFD) I
Production Rate (MSCFD) Reservoir Pressure (psio) 70 Production Rot. (MSCFD) flowing Pressure (psio)
100 500 400

60 350
--_ .... -_ ....
400
Hr,tory I
Pr.dlelJon
50 . ' . ......... 300

250
300 40

30
- .................... -.. .. 200

200 150

100

a 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Time (Days) Time (Days)

Fig. 4-Slmulated results of first test period (t 360 through =

Fig. 3-Slmulated history and prediction for test problem. 365 days).

SPE Reservoir Engineering. February 1993 69

 I~ Calc. Bulk-Volume ....... Assumed Bulk-Volume I -B- Produced Gas (MMSCF)

35 Calculated Bulk-Volume (MM cu-H) Produced Gas (MMSCF)

100,-------------------~------------------_,

30
BO
25

20 60

15
40
10
20
5 a

o 10 15 20 25 30 35 o 10 15 20 25
Assumed Bulk-Volume (MM cu-ft) P /Z* (Thousands)

Fig. 5-Solution of the graphical procedure for the original- Fig. 6-Converged solution of the iterative procedure for the
gas-in-place test problem. original-gas-in-place test problem.

The method for estimating the original gas in place was devel- is 6 % less than the finite-difference simulator value of 387 MMscf.
oped with Eqs. 7 through 9. As in traditional material-balance These values were obtained after three iterations of the aforemen-
methods, Eq. 8 is a straight line inplz*. The analysis method, how- tioned algorithm. Note that the straight line was obtained and the
ever, is slightly more complicated because of the nonvolumetric gas-in-place estimate made after the water saturation went through
nature of the example. The added complication arises because the a change of more than 35 saturation units.
unknown (in this case, Vb2 ) appears in both the material-balance One drawback in the analysis techniques for estimating original
equation and the definition of z*. A graphical solution to the gas in place exists: there is no internal method of estimating the
material-balance problem can be obtained with the following water encroachment, We' Methods for estimating water encroach-
procedure. ment within the scope of the proposed material-balance technique
1. Assume several values of Vb2 that span the anticipated range are being developed.
of the drainage area.
2. For each value of Vb2 , calculate the average water saturation Estimation of Future Reservoir Performance. Eqs. 7, 12, and
(with Eq. 7) at each pressure. 13b were used to estimate the production profile of the well. A com-
3. For each value of Vb2 , calculate z* (with Eqs. 9) at each puter program was written to solve these three equations simulta-
pressure. neously. All input data used in the finite-difference simulator were
4. For each value of Vb2 , plot plz* vs. Gp . assigned in the material-balance simulator.
5. For each value of Vb2 , determine the slope, m, of the plz* The relative permeability data were incorporated into the material-
plot. balance simulator through the inflow performance relationships
6. From the slope of the plz* plot, calculate the bulk volume,
Vb2 , from
Vb2 = -mPscT/f/JizscTsC" ........................... (14)
7. Plot the calculated bulk volume vs. the assumed bulk volume.
8. The point of intersection of the calculated bulk volume and
a line of unit slope through the origin is the actual bulk volume.
9. Calculate the original gas in place with the bulk volume, ini-
In the material-balance simulator, the relative permeabilities are
tial gas saturation, initial reservoir pressure, and initial adsorbed-
evaluated explicitly (i.e., at the beginning of the timestep).
gas content.
The production during the historical period was matched with
In this procedure, the slope of the plz* plot, rather than the tradi-
tional use of the intercept at plz*=O, is used (in Steps 6 and 7) , the well skin factor as a matching parameter. The skin factor was
to determine the bulk volume. The reason is that the use ofthe slope used for the following reasons.
involves purely historical data and thus no extrapolations are re- 1. A fundamental difference exists between finite-difference simu-
quired. If an estimate of the water production at abandonment can lator well PI's and the field-scale well PI's used in the material-
be made, then the plot of plz* can be used to estimate recoverable balance simulator. 14-16
gas. 2. The skin caused by rapid gas desorption in the near-wellbore
Fig. 5 plots calculated vs. assumed bulk volume for the exam- vicinity 17 cannot be modeled properly in a material-balance
ple. The nearly horizontal slope of the calculated bulk volume sug- simulator.
gests that the graphical solution can be replaced by a rapidly 3. The skin caused by the hydraulic fracture is handled implicitly
convergent iterative procedure. in the finite-difference simulator (in this study, the finite-difference
1. Assume a value of Vb2 . simulator uses an elliptical coordinate formulation 13.18). This skin
2. Calculate the average water saturation (with Eq. 7). must be explicitly entered into the material-balance simulator.
3. Calculate z* (with Eqs. 9). The skin factor used in the material-balance simulator was -4.25.
4. Plot plz* vs. Gp- This is 23% greater than the theoretical values of -5.52 obtained
5. Determine the slope of the plz* plot. from
6. From the slope of the plz* plot, calculate the bulk volume (with s= -In(xjlrw )' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
Eq. 14).
7. Return to Step 2 and continue until convergence. All other input data were identical for the two simulators.
Fig. 6 shows the plz* plot for the converged solution. A drainage Figs. 7 and 8 show the match between the finite-difference and
radius of 1,007 ft was obtained from this iterative procedure. This material-balance simulators. The average pressure reported for the
is 4 % less than the finite-difference simulator value of 1,050 ft. finite-difference simulator in Fig. 8 is the PV -weighted average pres-
This corresponds to an original gas-in-place of 356 MMscf, which sure. Note that both simulators were run from time zero. Thus;

70 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1993

 Gas Rate (F-D Sim.) Wtr Rate (F-D Slm.) - P aV9 (F-D Sim.) $g avg (F-O Sim.)

o Gas Rate (~at. Bal.) o Wtr Rate (~at. Bal.) a P avg (Mat. 801.) o 59 avg (Mat. Bolo)

Gas Rate (MSCFD) Water Rate (ST80) Average Pressure (psia) Average Gas Saturation (percent) 50
70.---~~~--------------------------~--~60 500

60 0-... 0. ... 0 .... 0 ....0 ... .0 ... .0 .. -0. 0

50 400 00 40
0 ....0 .00 .
0
50
40 300 30

30
200 20
20
100 10
10
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time (Days)
Time (Days)

Fig. 7-Comparison of the finite-difference and materlal- Fig. 8-Comparlson of the finite-difference and material
balance solutions for the flowing well test problem: gas and balance solutions for the flowing well test problem: average
water rates. pressure and saturation.

the material-balance approach can be used to predict the "negative onstrated that adequate qtatches could be obtained during history
decline" period observed in unconventional gas reservoirs. matching and precise predictions (compared with a finite-difference
simulator) could be made for future reservoir performance.
Description of Computer Programs From the work presented here, the following conclusions were
The finite-difference simulator used in this study is a modified ver- drawn.
sion of the GRUSSP (PSU-I version) simulator 2,3, 13, 18 updated to I. Material-balance techniques can be used for unconventional
run on a personal computer. The GRUSSP simulator was written gas reservoirs.
specifically for unconventional gas reservoirs and has none of the 2. Aplz* analysis method was developed to analyze the nonvolu-
limitations typically associated with material-balance techniques. metric behavior of coal-seam and Devonian shale gas reservoirs.
Both algorithms used for the determination of original gas in place This method can be applied to any nonvolumetric gas reservoir.
were written with commercial spreadsheet software. No manual 3. For the example problem, the 48-hour shut-in periods were
intervention was required to estimate gas in place except for the sufficient to estimate the original gas in place to within 6 %.
initial assumption of bulk volume in Step I of the iterative algorithm. 4. For flowing wells, the material-balance approach can be used
The program used for predicting reservoir performance from coal to predict the negative decline observed in unconventional gas
seams and Devonian shale reservoirs (Eqs. 7, 12, and 13) was writ-
reservoirs.
ten in VS-FORTRAN. The convolution integral in Eq. 13b was evalu-
5. For flowing wells, predictions from the material-balance ap-
ated numerically with cubic spline integration coupled with fast
convolution techniques. 19 The final solution was obtained with a proach and a finite-difference simulator were in agreement. Only
Newton-Raphson iteration. minor adjustments to the theoretical skin factor were required to
The speedup factor for the material-balance simulator over the obtain a match.
finite-difference simulator was about 44. Although it may seem in- 6. The proposed material-balance methods presented provide an
appropriate to compare the timings of the two different approaches, independent source of validation for finite-difference simulators.
in a personal-computing environment, this corresponds to an en- To my knowledge, the solution to the flowing well problem dis-
tire history match and several sensitivity cases (a total of 44 cases) cussed here represents the first semianalytical work that includes
using the material-balance approach in the same real time required the effects of both two-phase flow and desorption/diffusion. Ap-
to make one history-match run with the finite-difference simulator. pendices describing equations used in this paper are included in
The material-balance approach presented here is not intended to the original version of the paper (see Ref. 12).
be a substitute for finite-difference simulators, but simply another
tool for engineers working with unconventional gas reservoirs. For Nomenclature
the simple problem discussed, this method was an appropriate tool.
A = area, L2 ft2
For field cases where the study objectives may include analyzing
pressure-transient tests, optimizing well spacing, and optimizing Bg = gas FVF, ft 3 /scf
completion intervals, or for complex stratigraphy, such as multi- Bgi = initial gas FVF, ft 3/scf
ple reservoirs or sand/shale/coal sequences, the finite-difference Bw = water FVF, bbllSTB
method would be preferred. Cw = water compressibility, Lt 2 /m, psi- I
C'" = porosity compressibility, Lt 2 /m, psi- I
Review and Conclusions CM = molar concentration, m/L3, Ibm mollft 3
Material-balance techniques were presented for estimating the origi- CME = molar equilibrium isotherm, m/L3, Ibm mollft 3
nal gas in place and future well performance of coal seam and Devo- CMEi = initial molar concentration, m/L3, Ibm mollft 3
nian shale gas reservoirs. For estimating the original gas in place, Cv = volumetric concentration, scf/ft 3
a generalized equation was developed that assumes equilibrium be- C VE = volumetric equilibrium isotherm, scf/ft 3
tween the free- and adsorbed-gas phases. For convenience, the gen- CVL = volume constant for Langmuir isotherm, scf/ft 3
eralized equation was linearized with plz*. Two algorithms, one D = diffusion coefficient, L2/t, ft2fD
graphical and one iterative, were developed to solve the generalized
Fs = shape factor, L2, ft- 2
material-balance equation. The methods used to estimate the gas
in place were successfully validated against a finite-difference G = original gas in place, L3, scf
simulator. Gd = desorbed gas, L3, scf
A material-balance method was developed for estimating future Gp = produced gas, L3, scf
reservoir performance that assumes pseudo-steady-state desorp- G = gas in primary porosity, scf/ft 3
I
tion/diffusion. For the single-well problem investigated, it was dem- h = reservoir thickness, L, ft
SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1993 71
 Author and L. Cross and D.A. Provias of Chevron U.K. Ltd. for their
reviews and critiques of the original manuscript.
Gregory R. King is a reservoir engineer
with Chevron U.K. Ltd. Previously, he References
was with Chevron E&P Services in 1. Ikoku, C.U.: Natural Gas Reservoir Engineering, John Wiley & Sons
Houston. His responsibilities include Inc., New York City (1984) 6.
reservoir engineering studies of produc- 2. King, G.R. and Ertekin, T.: "A Survey of Mathematical Models Re-
ing fields and fields under appraisal.
lated to Methane Production From Coal Seams: Part I, Empirical and
King holds BS, MS, and PhD degrees in
Equilibrium Sorption Models," paper 8951 presented at the 1989 U.
petroleum and natural gas engineering
of Alabama Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, April 17-20.
from Pennsylvania State U. He is a mem-
3. King, G .R. and Ertekin, T.: "A Survey of Mathematical Models Re-
ber of the Editorial Review Committee
and a coauthor of the upcoming SPE lated to Methane Production From Coal Seams: Part II, Non-Equilibrium
textbook on reservoir simulation. Sorption Models," paper 8951 presented at the 1989 U. of Alabama
Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, April 17-20.
4. Zuber, M.D. and Kuuskraa, V .A.: "A Reservoir Simulator-Based Meth-
k = permeability, L2, md odology for Calculating Reserves of Coalbed Methane Wells," paper
8952 presented at the 1989 U. of Alabama Coalbed Methane Symposium,
krg = relative permeability to gas, dimensionless Tuscaloosa, April 17-20.
krw = relative permeability to water, dimensionless 5. Kuuskraa, V.A. and McBane, R.A.: "Coalbed Methane, Part 7: Steps
m = slope of plz* plot, L 4t 2 1m, sef/psi To Assess Resource Economics Covered," Oil & Gas J. (Dec. 25, 1989)
m(p) = real-gas pseudopressure=2i(pIJL gz)dp, m/Lt3, 121-25.
psi 2 /cp 6. Energy Focus "Forum Series," JPT (Feb. 1990) 158.
m(pwf) = flowing pseudopressure, m/Lt3, psi 2 /cp 7. Aguilera, R.: Naturally Fractured Reservoirs, PennWell Publishing Co.,
nd = moles of desorbed gas, m, Ibm mol Tulsa, OK (1980) 395-400.
8. Smith, D.M. and Williams, F.L.: "Diffusional Effects in the Recovery
np = moles of produced gas, m, Ibm mol
of Methane From Coalbeds," SPEJ (Oct. 1984) 529-35.
n1 = moles in primary porosity, m, Ibm mol 9. Sevenster, P.G.: "Diffusion of Gas through Coal," Fuel (1959) 38,
n2 = moles in secondary porosity, m, Ibm mol 403-15.
p = pressure,m/Lt2, psia 10. Thimons, E.P. and Kissell, F.N.: "Diffusion of Methane through Coal,"
Pd = desorption pressure, m/Lt2, psia Fuel (1973) 53, 274-80.
Pi = initial reservoir pressure, m/Lt 2 , psia 11. King, G.R., Ertekin, T., and Schwerer, F.C.: "Numerical Simulation
PL = Langmuir pressure constant, m/Lt2, psia of the Transient Behavior of Coal-Seam Degasification Wells," SPEFE
Psc = standard pressure, m/Lt 2 , psia (April 1986) 165-83; Trans., AIME, 281.
12. King, G.R.: "Material-Balance Techniques for Coal Seam and Devo-
Pwf = flowing well pressure, m/Lt2, psia nian Shale Reservoirs," paper SPE 20730 presented at the 1990 SPE
qd = desorption rate, L3 It, sefID Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept.
qg = gas production rate, L3 It, Mscf/D 23-26.
qw = water production rate, L3/t, STB/D 13. King, G.R.: "Numerical Simulation of the Simultaneous Flow of
R = universal gas constant, mL2/t 2T, 10.73 psia-ft 3/(lbm Methane and Water Through Dual Porosity Coal Seams During the
mol-OR) Degasification Process," PhD dissertation, Pennsylvania State U.,
s = skin factor, dimensionless University Park, PA (May 1985).
14. Peaceman, D.W.: "Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numer-
Sg = gas saturation, dimensionless, fraction
ical Reservoir Simulation," SPEJ (June 1978) 183-94; Trans., AIME,
Sgc = critical gas saturation, dimensionless, fraction 265.
Sw = average water saturation, dimensionless, fraction 15. Peacernan, D.W.: "Interpretation of Well-Block Pressures in Numerical
Swi = initial water saturation, dimensionless, fraction Reservoir Simulation With Nonsquare Grid Blocks and Anisotropic Per-
Swir = irreducible water saturation, dimensionless, fraction meability," SPEJ (June 1983) 531-43.
t = time, t, days 16. Peaceman, D.W.: "Interpretation of Wellblock Pressures in Numeri-
cal Reservoir Simulation: Part 3-0ff-Center and Multiple Wells Within
T = reservoir temperature, T, oR
a Wellblock," SPERE (May 1990) 227-32; Trans., AIME, 289.
Tsc = standard temperature, T, oR 17. Remner; D.J. eta!.: "A Parametric Study of the Effects of Coal Seam
Vb = bulk volume, L3, ft3 Properties on Gas Drainage Efficiency," SPERE (Nov. 1986) 633-46.
V b2 = bulk volume of secondary-porosity system, L3, ft3 18. King, G.R. and Ertekin, T.: "Comparative Evaluation of Vertical and
We = encroached water, L3, bbl Horizontal Drainage Wells for the Degasification of Coal Seams,"
Wp = produced water, L3, STB SPERE (May 1988) 720-34.
xf = fracture half-length, L, ft 19. Leung, W.: "A Fast Convolution Method for Implementing Single-
z= gas supercompressibility factor, dimensionless Porosity Finite/Infinite Aquifer Models for Water-Influx Calculations,"
SPERE (Sept. 1986) 490-510; Trans., AIME, 282.
z* = gas factor for unconventional gas reservoir,
dimensionless 51 Metric Conversion Factors
zt = initial gas factor for unconventional gas reservoir,
bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3
dimensionless
cp x 1.0* E+OO mPa's
JLg = dynamic gas viscosity, miLt, cp
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
JLw = dynamic water viscosity, miLt, cp ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 m3
<p = porosity, dimensionless, fraction OF (OF-32)/1.8 C
<p i = initial porosity, dimensionless, fraction Ibm x 4.535924 E-Ol kg
md x 9.869233 E-04 JLm 2
Subscripts OR R/1.8 K
1 = primary porosity psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
2 = secondary porosity psi -1 x 1.450377 E-Ol kPa- 1
Acknowledgments * Conversion factor is exact. SPERE
I thank the management of Chevron E&P Services Co. and Chevron Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 2, 1990. Revised manuscript received
Feb. 24, 1992. Paper accepted for publication Aug. 24, 1992. Paper (SPE 20730) first
U.K. Ltd. for permission to publish this work. I also thank R. Fink presented at the 1990 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New
of Chevron U. S. A. for her encouragement to publish this material Orleans. Sept. 23-26.

72 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1993