Comparison of Gas Content Evaluation Methods in the Log Interpretation of Coalbed Methane

Jie Hou; Chang Chun Zou; Zhao Hui Huang; Liang Xiao

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.734-737.1362

Paper Titles

A Simple Model for Two-Phase Flow in Liquid-Cut Gas Wells
p.1343

Application of the Imitation Horizontal well Technique in the Development of Low Permeability Reservoirs
p.1350

Applying Analytic Hierarchy Process to Determine Separate Layer Water Injection Rate of Single Well
p.1354

Applying BP Neural Network to Determine Proper Water Injection Intensity of Water Drive Oil Field
p.1358

Comparison of Gas Content Evaluation Methods in the Log Interpretation of Coalbed Methane
p.1362

Effects of Different Ions on the Corrosion Behavior of SM 80SS Tubing Steel in CO₂/H₂S Containing Aqueous Solution
p.1367

Evaluation Model of Profile Control Layers' Selection Based on Fuzzy Cluster Analysis
p.1374

Gas Cap and Oil Rim Collaborative Development Technique Policy of Carbonate Reservoir with Condensate Gas Cap
p.1381

Hydrocarbon Accumulation Conditions and Reservoir Characteriscs of Shahejie Formation in Tangzhuang Area
p.1391

HomeAdvanced Materials ResearchAdvanced Materials Research Vols. 734-737Comparison of Gas Content Evaluation Methods in...

Comparison of Gas Content Evaluation Methods in the Log Interpretation of Coalbed Methane

Abstract:

In the log interpretation, the CBM content evaluation methods include: regression, LAN’s equation, KIM method, neural network, and so on. This paper investigates the suitability of these methods for a CBM reservoir in Southern Qinshui Basin, Shanxi Province of China, and finds out the most reasonable interpretation model of CBM content in this area. The results show that the composite parameter(COMP) method and the LAN’s equation method are more suitable for evaluating the CBM content in this study area, while the other methods are not.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 734-737)

Pages:

1362-1366

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.734-737.1362

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

August 2013

Authors:

Jie Hou, Chang Chun Zou, Zhao Hui Huang, Liang Xiao

Keywords:

Coalbed Methane (CBM), Comparison Study, Gas Content, Log Interpretation

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

Citation:

References

[1] Peihe Zhang, Xiuliang Jin, Yuhui Liu, etc. Procedia Earth and Planetary Science, Vol. (3)(2011), pp.144-153.

Google Scholar

[2] Xuehai Fu, Yong Qin, Geoff G X Wang, etc. Fuel, Vol. (88)(2009), pp.2269-2277.

Google Scholar

[3] Ann G Kim. Bureau of Mines, RI8245(1977), pp.1-11.

Google Scholar

[4] Hawkins J M, schraufnagel R A, olszewsk A J. SPE24905(1992), pp.491-501.

Google Scholar

[5] Ahmed U, Johnston D, Colson L. SPE22736(1991), pp.755-770.

Google Scholar

[6] Bhanja A K, Srivastava O P. SPE115563(2008), pp.1-5.

Google Scholar

[7] Yumin Lu, Dazhen Tang, Hao Xu, etc. Science China Technological Sciences, Vol. 54(5)(2011), pp.1281-1286.

Google Scholar

[8] Zhaohui Huang, Changchun Zou, Yuqing Yang, etc. Geoscience, Vol. 26(6)(2012), pp.1275-1282. [In Chinese].

Google Scholar

[9] Weiwu Dong. Study on Well Logging Evaluation Methods for Coalbed Methane Reservoir. TsingTao, School of Geosciences China University of Petroleum(Hua Dong)(2011), pp.63-65. [In Chinese].

Google Scholar