Next Article in Journal
Traffic and Energy Consumption Modelling of Electric Vehicles: Parameter Updating from Floating and Probe Vehicle Data
Next Article in Special Issue
Investigation of Flowback Behaviours in Hydraulically Fractured Shale Gas Well Based on Physical Driven Method
Previous Article in Journal
Fault Detection and Diagnosis Based on Unsupervised Machine Learning Methods: A Kaplan Turbine Case Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/en15010081
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genesis of Coalbed Methane and Its Storage and Seepage Space in Baode Block, Eastern Ordos Basin

by
Hao Chen
1,
Wenguang Tian
1,*,
Zhenhong Chen
1,
Qingfeng Zhang
2 and
Shu Tao
3,*
1
PetroChina Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, Beijing 100083, China
2
PetroChina Coalbed Methane Company Limited, Beijing 100028, China
3
School of Energy Resources, China University of Geosciences, Beijing 100083, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(1), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010081
Submission received: 23 October 2021 / Revised: 3 December 2021 / Accepted: 21 December 2021 / Published: 23 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Unconventional Oil and Gas)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Baode block on the eastern margin of the Ordos Basin is a key area for the development of low-rank coalbed methane (CBM) in China. In order to find out the genesis of CBM and its storage and seepage space in Baode block, the isotopic testing of gas samples was carried out to reveal the origin of CH4 and CO2, as well, mercury intrusion porosimetry, low temperature nitrogen adsorption, and X-ray CT tests were performed to characterize the pores and fractures in No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams. The results showed that the average volume fraction of CH4, N2, and CO2 is 88.31%, 4.73%, and 6.36%, respectively. No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams both have biogenic gas and thermogenic methane. Meanwhile, No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams both contain CO2 generated by coal pyrolysis, which belongs to organic genetic gas, while shallow CO2 is greatly affected by the action of microorganisms and belongs to biogenic gas. The average proportion of micropores, transition pores, mesopores, and macropores is 56.61%, 28.22%, 5.10%, and 10.07%, respectively. Samples collected from No. 4 + 5 coal seams have developed more sorption pores. Meanwhile, samples collected from No. 8 + 9 coal seams exhibited a relatively low degree of hysteresis (Hg retention), suggesting good pore connectivity and relatively high seepage ability, which is conducive to gas migration. The connected porosity of coal samples varies greatly, mainly depending on the relative mineral content and the proportion of connected pores.

1. Introduction

Following the Qinshui Basin, the Ordos Basin is another large gas field in China with proven reserves of more than 100 billion cubic meters. It is also the first demonstration area for the exploration and development of low- and medium-rank coalbed methane (CBM) in China [1,2]. The Carboniferous Permian coal seams in the Ordos Basin have undergone different degrees of subsidence, uplift, and denudation, resulting in different degrees of thermal evolution of coal seams in different regions [3,4,5]. The Baode block is located in the northern part of the eastern margin of the Ordos Basin. The Ro,max of coal ranges from 0.52% to 0.89%, belonging to low- and middle-rank bituminous coal. Some CBM wells in the Baode block have obtained industrial gas flow, showing a good prospect for CBM development [6,7].
Previous studies have made preliminary discussions on the formation conditions and genetic types of CBM in the eastern margin of the Ordos Basin, and pointed out that the shallow part is a mixture of secondary biogas and thermogenic gas, while the deep part is mainly composed of thermogenic gas [8,9]. However, there is a lack of a systematic understanding of the origin of CBM in Baode block. In addition to methane, low-rank coal reservoirs often contain a certain proportion of CO2 and N2, which can be used as important objects for studying the genesis of CBM [10].
In the current study, based on proximate analysis, mean vitrinite reflectance (Ro) measurements and maceral analyses, the material composition (including macerals, ash, moisture, volatile) of nine coal samples collected from Baode block were characterized. At the same time, isotopic testing of 54 gas samples collected from desorption tanks in different desorption periods was carried out to reveal the gas composition characteristics and gas genesis. Finally, based on high-pressure mercury injection, low-temperature liquid nitrogen, and X-ray CT experiments, the gas storage and seepage space were finely characterized, which provides a theoretical basis for further clarifying the direction of CBM exploration and development in the Baode block.

2. Geologic Setting

The Ordos Basin, a huge intra-cratonic basin, is located in North China and contains the second largest accumulation of coal resources in China [11,12] (Figure 1a). The basin is divided into seven structural units [13,14] (Figure 1b). The eastern margin of the Ordos Basin is a N–S striking and west-inclined monocline within the following three tectonic units: Weibei uplift in the north, Yimeng uplift in the south, and Jinxi fold in the middle [15,16,17] (Figure 1b). The Baode block is located in the northern part of the eastern margin of the Ordos Basin (Figure 1c). The formation is gentle, sloping westward at an angle of 1° to 5°. The faults are rare and small in scale, and the faults are mainly in the northeast direction with a fault distance of 10–25 m.
In the Baode block, the main coal-bearing sequences occur in the Upper Carboniferous Taiyuan Formation (C3t) and the Lower Permian Shanxi Formation (P1s) (Figure 2). The C3t is in integrated contact with the underlying strata, with a thickness of 50–90 m. It is mainly composed of black-gray mudstone, gray-white medium sandstone, gray coarse sandstone, and coal seam. A layer of bioclastic limestone is locally developed in the lower part, and the bottom is gray-white thick layered medium coarse sandstone and gravelly coarse sandstone. It is a set of interactive marine coal bearing deposits (Figure 2). The P1s is 60–90 m thick. It is mainly composed of gray fine sandstone, black-gray black, sandy mudstone, and coal seam. The bottom of P1s is gray-white coarse-grained quartz sandstone. The formation is a set of meandering river and delta plain swamp facies deposits (Figure 2). No. 4 + 5 coal seam in P1s and No. 8 + 9 coal seam in C3t are continuous and thick. They are the main coal seams in the Baode block and the target seam for CBM development, occurring at a depth of 400–1200 m, with a thickness ranging from 1.16 m to 20.21 m. The lithology of the roof and floor of No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams is dominated by mudstone, locally sandy mudstone. The thickness of the roof of the No. 4 + 5 coal seam is 4.3–13.9 m, and the thickness of the floor is 2.4–6.7 m, while those of the 8 + 9 coal seam are 2.8–6.8 m and 2.0–18.6 m, respectively.

3. Samples and Analytical Procedures

3.1. Coal and Gas Samples

Eleven coal samples were collected from Wells B1 and B2 (Figure 1c) in the Baode block, and the burial depths of the main coal seams in these two wells are 501.40–547.20 m and 1011.40–1068.30 m, respectively. Among them, four samples were collected form No. 4 + 5 coal seam, and seven of them were collected form No. 8 + 9 coal seam. Part of the sample was carefully packed and then immediately sent to the laboratory for experiments, and another part of the sample was immediately put into different desorption tanks to collect the desorption gas. A total of 54 gas samples were collected from eleven desorption tanks in different desorption periods for gas composition and isotopes analysis.

3.2. Material Composition

Nine of the collected coal samples were analyzed for proximate analysis on an air-dried basis following the Chinese national standard GB/T 212-2008 [18]. According to ISO 7404.3-1994 [19] and ISO 7404.5-1994 [20], mean vitrinite reflectance (Ro) measurements and maceral analyses (500 points) were performed on the same polished section of the coal samples using a Leitz MPV-3 photometer microscope. Nonlinear error: max. ±1 low significance bit. A/D conversion accuracy: ±1 low significance bit, less than 2‰.

3.3. Pore-Size Distribution

Based on the material composition analysis results, six samples were selected to analyze the characteristic pore-size distributions by using mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP), low-temperature nitrogen adsorption (LTNA) and X-ray CT. Diameters of pores detected by LTNA range from 2 to 300 nm, and those accessed by MIP are in the diameter of 30– > 1000 nm. Thus, the adsorption pores (<102 nm) [21] can be determined by LTNA, while the seepage pores (>102 nm) [21] can be well characterized by MIP. MIP was carried out according to the national standard, SY/T 5346-2005 [22], by using Micromeritics Auto Pore IV 9500 instrument. Before the LTNA experiments, all samples were crushed and sieved to a size of 0.18–0.25 mm (60–80 mesh) (dried for 48 h), and then tested using a Micromeritics ASAP2020 instrument at 77K. The X-ray CT was carried out by using U.S. ACTIS-250/320PK/225FFI industrial CT system. The spatial resolution is close to 50 μm in the process of X-ray CT measurement, and therefore large pores and microfractures can be identified in the coal core plug. The specific experimental procedures and image processing methods were presented in detail by Tao et al. (2019) [23].
Thus, the characteristics of seepage pores (>102 nm) were measured by MIP, and then the characteristics of adsorption pores (<102 nm) were measured by LTNA. Finally, the three-dimensional models of samples’ adsorption pores and percolation pores were constructed by X-ray CT experiment.

3.4. Gas Composition and Isotopes

A total of 54 gas samples were collected from eleven desorption tanks to analyze the gas composition by using an Agilent 7890B gas chromatograph, according to the Chinese national standard GB/T 13610-2014 [24]. Afterward, δ13C values of CH4 and CO2, and δD values of CH4 of 54 gas samples were determined on a Finnigan MAT 253 mass spectrometer. The δ13C and δD values were calibrated with respect to the VPDB and VSMOW standards, and the standard deviations were ±(0.1‰~0.3‰) and ±(1‰~2‰), respectively.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Basic Information of Coals

As shown in Table 1, the Baode coal samples have ash yields ranging from 4.96% to 7.31%, whereas they have relatively high moisture contents (18.6–26.56%) and volatile yields (25.95–30.32%). Higher volatile content means lower coal metamorphism, with Ro of 0.62–0.76%. The vitrinite content is the highest (41.5–84.8%, mean 69.3%), followed by inertinite (8.7–54.4%, mean 22.8%) and liptinite (0.5–17.0%, mean 7.9%). Macerals in the Baode coal samples include: cutinite, microsporinite, desmocollinite, fusinite, semifusinite, resinite, and liptodetrinite. The cutinite is usually distributed in strips, and the microsporinite is distributed in parallel planes in a worm-like shape (Figure 3).

4.2. CBM Composition and Origin

4.2.1. Compositional Characteristics of CBM

As shown in Table 2, the gas in No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams are dominated by CH4, with a volume fraction ranging from 80.9% to 94.7% (mean 88.32%). The volume fraction of N2 varies between 0.6–15.9% (mean 4.95%), and the N2 content in No. 4 + 5 coal seam is higher than that in No. 8 + 9 coal seam. Meanwhile, as the depth increases, the N2 content decreases relatively, which shows that the gas composition of shallow CBM is affected by mixing with atmospheric air [25,26]. Figure 4 indicates that the N2 volume fraction and CH4 volume fraction in the two sets of coal seams are negatively correlated. The main difference between 8 + 9 coal seam (a) and 8 + 9 coal seam (b) is the different proportions of N2 and CH4. Different proportions can characterize the source of coal seam gas. The proportion of gas in No. 8 + 9 coal seam (a) is the same as that in No. 4 + 5 coal seam. The CO2 content increases with increasing burial depth of No. 8 + 9 coal seam. This phenomenon is related to the action of CO2-reducing bacteria in the shallow part which decreases with depth [27].

4.2.2. Genetic Types of CH4 and CO2

CBM is divided into biogenic gas and thermogenic gas, and the thermogenic gas is further subdivided into early thermogenic wet gas and late thermogenic dry gas [28]. To some extent, different gas concentrations in CBM reflect the genesis of CBM which can be identified by gas composition.
As shown in Table 3, the value of δ13C (CH4) in No. 4 + 5 coal seam varies between −55.6‰ and −47.7‰, with an average of −52.5‰, and the value of that in No. 8 + 9 coal seam varies between −62.3‰ and −50.4‰, with an average of −54.5‰. The δ13C (CH4) values of the two coal seams are within the range of national δ13C (CH4) observation values of CBM (from −73.7‰ to −24.9‰) [29], belonging to light carbon isotopes. The value of δ13D (CH4) in No. 4 + 5 coal seam ranges from −256.2‰ to −241.6‰, with an average of −249.4‰, and the value of that in No. 8 + 9 coal seam ranges from −261.8‰ to −247.6‰, with an average of −252.8‰. At shallower than 550 m, the average value of δ13C (CH4) is less than −55‰, indicating that biogenic gas is the main source. With the increase in burial depth (about 1000 m in Table 3), the average value of δ13C (CH4) is around −50‰, indicating that thermogenic gas is dominant. Figure 5 also shows that No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams both have biogenic gas and thermogenic gas [30].
CO2 in CBM is mainly generated in the low maturity evolution stage of organic matter, which is generated through the chemical reaction of oxygen-containing groups such as decarboxylation and carbonyl in coal molecules [31]. Previous studies have shown that the value of δ13C in organic CO2 is generally −39‰ ~ −8‰, where the value of δ13C (CO2) produced by humic organic matter is generally −25‰ ~ −5‰; while the value of δ13C (CO2) produced by thermal degradation of organic matter is −28‰ ~ −10‰, and the value of δ13C (CO2) transformed by microbial reduction is more important, reaching 18‰. In the study area, the δ13C (CO2) value in No. 4 + 5 coal seam is between −10.5‰ and −0.6‰, and that in No. 8 + 9 coal seam is between −11.3‰ and −7.6‰ (Table 3), which conforms to the carbon isotope characteristics of organic (biological) genetic gas. Among them, some samples have higher δ13C (CO2) values due to microbial transformation. The burial depth also affects the δ13C (CO2) values. The burial depth of No. 4 + 5 coal seam and No. 8 + 9 coal seam in the same well is similar, but that of the same coal seam in different wells (such as No. 4 + 5 coal seam in wells B1 and B2) is quite different. Therefore, the δ13C (CO2) values of samples are separated in two groups in Figure 5.
According to the component data of CBM, the CO2–CH4 coefficient of each sample is calculated by:
CDMI = CO 2 CO 2 +   CH 4 × 100 %
The CDMI value and the δ13C (CO2) are used to draw the relationship diagram reflecting the genetic types of CO2 (Figure 6). No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams both contain CO2 generated by coal pyrolysis, which belongs to organic genetic gas [28], while shallow CO2 is greatly affected by the action of microorganisms and belongs to biogenic gas. In the stagnant CBM system, the water-soluble consumption of CO2 produced by coalification (including associated gas during microbial methane production and thermal degradation gas of coal-forming material) is not complete [32], resulting in high CO2 concentration in gas components, and increases with the increase of burial depth.

4.3. Characterization of Gas Storage and Seepage Space

4.3.1. Characteristics of Seepage Pores

The experimental data of mercury injection are shown in Table 4, and the mercury injection curves are shown in Figure 7. The pores contained in the coal samples are mainly micropores and transition pores, and the development of mesopores and macropores is less. The average proportion of pores in each pore size class is 56.61%, 28.22%, 5.10%, and 10.07%, respectively. Mercury injection curves can be divided into three types. Type 1 contains samples BD-1 and BD-3. At pressures lower than 10 MPa, the amount of mercury injected increased rapidly; at pressures greater than 10 MPa, the amount of mercury injected increased slowly, indicating that micropores are more developed. The mercury intrusion curve and the extrusion curve basically overlap, indicating that the mercury removal efficiency is high and the pore connectivity is good. Type 2 contains BD-5 and BD-6. At pressures below 10 MPa, the amount of mercury injected increased slowly, and at pressures greater than 10 MPa, the amount of mercury increased rapidly, indicating that the pore structure is dominated by micropores. The large offset between the mercury injection curve and the mercury extrusion curve shows the low mercury removal efficiency and poor pore connectivity. The Type 3 mercury injection curve of BD-2 and BD-9 has a three-stage structure. At pressures less than 2 MPa, the mercury injection curve rises linearly; at pressures between 2 MPa and 10 MPa, the mercury injection rate gradually slows down; at pressures greater than 10 MPa, the mercury injection rate increases again, indicating that compared with the first two types of curves, mesopores and macropores are more developed in samples BD-2 and BD-9.
Overall, the seepage pores (>102 nm) are poorly developed in Baode coal samples. Compared with No. 4 + 5 coal samples, No. 8 + 9 coal samples have a relatively small hysteresis and good pore connectivity. At the same time, the proportion of mesopores and macropores is relatively high, which is conducive to gas migration (Table 4).

4.3.2. Characteristics of Adsorption Pores

Low-temperature liquid nitrogen adsorption experiments are often used to finely characterize the adsorption pores (<102 nm) of coal samples [33,34]. As shown in Table 5, the BET specific surface area (SSA) is 1.41–5.14 m2/g, and the total pore volume of BJH is 0.0063–0.0166 mL/g. The average pore diameter (APD) ranges from 11.50 nm to 19.86 nm, and the proportion of transition pores is the largest.
Based on the adsorption/desorption curve of the nitrogen adsorption experiment, scholars use the hysteresis loop to classify the pore morphology in coal [35,36,37]. As can be seen in Figure 8, the pore morphology of the samples is divided into two types. Type 1 contains samples of BD-1 and BD-2 collected from No. 4 + 5 coal samples, which has an obvious hysteresis loop located at the relative pressure of 0.5–1, indicating that ink bottle pores are well-developed in No. 4 + 5 coal samples. Type 2 contains samples BD-3, BD-5, BD-6, and BD-9, which belong to the No. 8 + 9 coal samples. There is no hysteresis loop or an obvious hysteresis loop, which means that the inflection point of desorption curve is not obvious, thus the adsorption and desorption curves are roughly parallel, indicating that the samples mainly develop an airtight pore closed at one end.
As shown in Figure 9, all samples have pores with a diameter of 1–100 nm, and micropores with a pore diameter of less than 10 nm are less developed, and there is a peak around 40–50 nm. The contribution of SSA is dominated by 1–10 nm micropores. The difference is that the 1–3 nm pores of the No. 4 + 5 coal samples have a great contribution, while the 3–10 nm pores of the No. 8 + 9 coal samples have a great contribution. Compared with No. 8 + 9 coal samples, No. 4 + 5 coal samples have developed more adsorbed pores such as ink bottle pores, so the SSA is relatively large, which is conducive to the adsorption of CBM but not conducive to desorption.
The BET model, FHH model, and thermodynamic model are often used to calculate the fractal dimension of micropores of coal [38,39]. In this paper, the FHH model is used to calculate the fractal dimension based on nitrogen adsorption data;
ln(V/V0) = A ln (lnP/P0) + C
where V is the volume of gas molecules adsorbed at equilibrium pressure; V0 is the volume of gas adsorbed by the monolayer; P0 is the saturated vapor pressure of gas adsorption; A is the slope of the double logarithm curve of lnV and ln(ln(P0/P)); C is a constant.
In the process of liquid nitrogen adsorption, micropores are filled first, and then monolayer adsorption occurs, followed by multi-molecular layer adsorption. When the relationship between the relative pressure and pore diameter conforms to the Kelvin equation, capillary condensation occurs [40]. Therefore, taking the relative pressure as the boundary of 0.5 [40], the fractal dimensions D1 and D2 can be calculated respectively (Table 6). The fractal dimension D should meet 2 ≤ D ≤ 3, in which the larger the fractal dimension, the rougher the coal surface and the stronger the adsorption capacity [41,42].
As shown in Figure 10, the fractal dimension D1 has no obvious correlation with the SSA and APD. The fractal dimension D1 reflects the porosity of the sample with a relative pressure of 0~0.5, which cannot characterize all the pore characteristics of the sample. The fractal dimension D2 is positively correlated with the SSA and negatively correlated with the APD, which indicates that the larger the SSA, the smaller the average pore size, and the higher the overall micropore proportion of the sample. It indicates that the more developed the micropore, the stronger the adsorption capacity of coal. As the value of D2 increases, the pore structure becomes more complex, and the adsorption capacity of coal becomes stronger.

4.3.3. Three-Dimensional Model of Storage and Seepage Space

In order to intuitively obtain the distribution characteristics of pores and fractures, the samples are selected for X-ray CT imaging tests (Table 7). The results show that the porosity of the selected coal samples varies from 0.76% to 4.39%, with an average of 2.38%. However, the proportion of connected pores is extremely low (0–35.04%), resulting in an extremely low connected porosity of 0–1.21%. There is a negative correlation between the porosity and the mineral content. Sample BD-3 has the lowest porosity, because most of the fractures inside the sample are filled with minerals (Figure 11).
After three-dimensional reconstruction, the distribution of the coal matrix, pores, fractures, and minerals in coal samples can be more easily displayed (Figure 12). The distribution direction of minerals is similar to the direction of densely developed pores, especially in samples BD-3 and BD-6, and the distribution of pores and fractures is extremely uneven. Meanwhile, although some samples have relatively high porosity, such as BD-9, due to the extremely low proportion of connected pores, the connected porosity is still very low. On the contrary, if the mineral content in coal is small and distributed in a dispersed state, the proportion of connected pores will be high, and the connected porosity will be high, which is conducive to gas flow, such as sample BD-5. Therefore, it is not the measured porosity that plays a key role in the development of CBM, but it depends on the connectivity of the pore and fracture system.

5. Conclusions

(1) Gases disrobed from No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams in Baode block are dominated by CH4, followed by N2 and CO2. Under the influence of air mixing, the N2 content decreases with the increase of burial depth. Meanwhile, the CO2 content increases with increasing burial depth of No. 8 + 9 coal seam, which related to the action of CO2-reducing bacteria in the shallow part.
(2) The δ13C (CO2) value in No. 4 + 5 coal seam is between −10.5‰ and −0.6‰, and that in No. 8 + 9 coal seam is between −11.3‰ and −7.6‰. No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams both have biogenic gas and thermogenic methane. Meanwhile, No. 4 + 5 and No. 8 + 9 coal seams both contain CO2 generated by thermal maturation of coal (thermogenic gas), while shallow CO2 is likely to result from the action of microorganisms (microbial gas). With the increase of burial depth, the content of CO2 increases.
(3) The seepage pores (>102 nm) are poorly developed in the Baode coal samples. Samples collected from No. 4 + 5 coal seams have developed more sorption pores such as ink bottle pores, so the SSA is relatively large, which is conducive to the adsorption of CBM. The mercury intrusion and extrusion curves of samples from No. 8 + 9 coal seams exhibit a relatively low degree of hysteresis (Hg retention), indicating good pore connectivity. At the same time, the proportion of mesopores and macropores is relatively high, which is conducive to gas migration.
(4) The porosity of the coal samples is inversely related to the mineral content and the occurrence of the mineral. If the mineral content in coal is small and distributed in a dispersed state, the proportion of connected pores will be high, and the connected porosity will be high, which is conducive to gas flow.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.C. and W.T.; methodology, H.C.; software, Z.C.; validation, H.C., W.T. and Q.Z.; formal analysis, S.T.; investigation, S.T.; resources, W.T.; data curation, W.T.; writing—original draft preparation, H.C.; writing—review and editing, W.T.; visualization, Z.C.; supervision, Q.Z.; project administration, H.C.; funding acquisition, W.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by [the National Natural Science Foundation Project] grant number [No. 41772132, 41502157, 41530314], [the Key Project of the National Science & Technology] grant number [No. 2016ZX05043-001], [the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities] grant number [No. 2652019095] and The APC was funded by [the National Natural Science Foundation Project]. Key Technologies R&D Programme of PetroChina Company Limited (2019E-25).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tao, S.; Chen, S.D.; Pan, Z.J. Current status, challenges, and policy suggestions for coalbed methane industry development in China: A review. Energy Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 1059–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Tao, S.; Pan, Z.J.; Tang, S.L.; Chen, S.D. Current status and geological conditions for the applicability of CBM drilling technologies in China: A review. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2019, 202, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Qin, Y.; Moore, T.A.; Shen, J.; Yang, Z.B.; Shen, Y.L.; Wang, G. Resources and geology of coalbed methane in China: A review. Int. Geol. Rev. 2017, 1, 777–812. [Google Scholar]
  4. Shao, L.Y.; Wang, X.T.; Wang, D.D.; Li, M.P.; Wang, S.; Li, Y.J.; Shao, K.; Zhang, C.; Gao, C.X.; Dong, D.X.; et al. Sequence stratigraphy, paleogeography, and coal accumulation regularity of major coal-accumulating periods in China. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2020, 7, 240–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, Y.; Ma, D.M.; Xia, Y.C.; Guo, C.; Yang, F.; Shao, K. Characteristics of the mud shale reservoirs in coal-bearing strata and resources evaluation in the eastern margin of the Ordos Basin, China. Energ. Explor. Exploit. 2020, 38, 372–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tao, S.; Tang, D.Z.; Xu, H.; Li, S.; Geng, Y.G.; Zhao, J.L.; Wu, S.; Meng, Q.; Kou, X.; Yang, S.Y.; et al. Fluid velocity sensitivity of coal reservoir and its effect on coalbed methane well productivity: A case of Baode Block, northeastern Ordos Basin, China. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2017, 152, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, X.C.; Mao, J.S.; Lin, W.J.; Hao, S.; Zhao, L.M.; Wang, Y.; Li, L. Exploration history and enlightenment of coalbed methane in baode block. Xinjiang Petrol. Geol. 2021, 42, 381–388. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tian, W.G.; Tang, D.Z.; Wang, Z.L.; Sun, B. Origin of coalbed methane in Baode, Northeastern Ordos Basin. Geol. J. China Univ. 2012, 18, 479–484. [Google Scholar]
  9. Guo, H.G.; Yu, Z.S.; Zhang, H.X. Phylogenetic diversity of microbial communities associated with coalbed methane gas from Eastern Ordos Basin, China. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2015, 150, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, S.M.; Tan, F.R.; Huo, T.; Tang, S.H.; Zhao, W.X.; Chao, H.D. Origin of the hydrate bound gases in the Juhugeng Sag, Muli Basin, Tibetan Plateau. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2020, 7, 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Xu, H.; Tang, D.; Liu, D.; Tang, S.; Yang, F.; Chen, X.; Deng, C. Study on coalbed methane accumulation characteristics and favorable areas in the Binchang area, southwestern Ordos Basin, China. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2012, 95, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yang, C.; Zhang, J.; Tang, X. Microscopic pore types and its impact on the storage and permeability of continental shale gas, Ordos Basin. Earth Sci. Front. 2013, 20, 240–250. [Google Scholar]
  13. Xue, G.; Liu, H.; Li, W. Deformed coal types and pore characteristics in Hancheng coalmines in Eastern Weibei coalfields. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2012, 22, 681–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tang, X.; Zhang, J.; Shan, Y.; Xiong, J. Upper Paleozoic coal measures and unconventional natural gas systems of the Ordos Basin, China. Geosci. Front. 2012, 3, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Wang, L.; Jiang, B.; Qu, Z. Structural control on gas content distribution in eastern margin of Ordos basin. Coal Geol. Explor. 2013, 41, 14–19. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jiang, B.; Xu, J.; Zhu, K.; Wang, J.; Wang, J.; Qu, Z. Structural and hydrogeological controls of coalbed methane preservation in the eastern Ordos Basin. Geol. J. China Univ. 2012, 3, 438–446. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cao, D.Y.; Wang, A.M.; Ning, S.Z.; Li, H.T.; Guo, A.J.; Chen, L.M.; Liu, K.; Tan, J.Q.; Zheng, Z.H. Coalfield structure and structural controls on coal in China. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2020, 7, 220–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. GB/T 212-2008, Chinese National Standard: Proximate Analysis of Coal; General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine: Beijing, China, 2008. (In Chinese)
  19. ISO 7404.3-1994, Methods for the Petrographic Analysis of Bituminous Coal and Anthracite—Part 3: Method Of Determining Maceral Group Composition; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.
  20. ISO 7404.5-1994, Method for the Petrographic Analysis of bituminous Coal and Anthracite—Part 5: Method of Determining Microscopically the Reflectance of Vitrinite; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.
  21. Tao, S.; Zhao, X.; Tang, D.Z.; Deng, C.M.; Meng, Q.; Cui, Y. A model for characterizing the continuous distribution of gas storing space in low-rank coals. Fuel 2018, 233, 552–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. SY/T 5346-2005, Chinese Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry Standard: Rock Capillary Pressure Measurement; National Energy Administration: Beijing, China, 2005. (In Chinese)
  23. Tao, S.; Pan, Z.J.; Chen, S.D.; Tang, S.L. Coal seam porosity and fracture heterogeneity of marcolithotypes in the Fanzhuang Block, southern Qinshui Basin, China. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2019, 66, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. GB/T 13610-2014, Composition Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography; Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2014. (In Chinese)
  25. Yang, Z.; Grace, J.R.; Lim, C.J.; Zhang, L. Combustion of low-concentration coal bed methane in a fluidized bed. Energy Fuels 2011, 25, 975–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, Q.; Dong, S.; Wang, H.; Yang, J.; Huang, H.; Dong, X.; Yu, B. Hydrogeochemical processes and groundwater quality assessment for different aquifers in the Caojiatan coal mine of Ordos Basin, northwestern China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2020, 79, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, Z.W.; Tang, D.Z.; Tang, S.L.; Pu, Y.F.; Zhang, A.B. Study on formation mechanism of CO2-enriched CBM reservoirs in low-rank coal seams from southern Zhunggar Basin. Coal Sci. Technol. 2021, 49, 174–180. [Google Scholar]
  28. Scott, A.R.; Kaiser, W.R.; Walter, B.; Ayers, J. Thermogenic and secondary biogenic gases, San Juan Basin, Colorado and New Mexico; implications for coalbed gas producibility. AAPG Bull. 1994, 78, 1186–1209. [Google Scholar]
  29. Qi, Y.; Jiao, S.; Tang, Y.; Ye, J. Characteristics and origins of stable carbon isotope in coalbed methane of China. J. China Univ. Min. Technol. 2000, 29, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  30. Whiticar, M.J. Carbon and hydrogen isotope systematics of bacterial formation and oxidation of methane. Chem. Geol. 1999, 161, 291–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, T.; Xie, Q.; Kang, Y. Heat effect of the oxygen-containing functional groups in coal during spontaneous combustion processes. Adv. Powder Technol. 2017, 28, 1841–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gao, C.; Liu, D.; Li, Z.; Cai, Y.; Fang, Y. Fluid performance in coal reservoirs: A comprehensive review. Geofluids 2021, 2021, 6611075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tao, S.; Chen, S.D.; Tang, D.Z.; Zhao, X.; Xu, H.; Li, S. Material composition, pore structure and adsorption capacity of low-rank coals around the first coalification jump: A case of eastern Junggar Basin, China. Fuel 2018, 211, 804–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Men, X.Y.; Tao, S.; Liu, Z.X.; Tian, W.G.; Chen, S.D. Experimental study on gas mass transfer process in a heterogeneous coal reservoir. Fuel Process. Technol. 2021, 216, 106779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, S.D.; Tang, D.Z.; Tao, S.; Chen, Z.L.; Xu, H.; Li, S. Coal reservoir heterogeneity in multi-coal seams of the Panguan syncline, Western Guizhou, China: Implication for the development of superposed CBM-bearing systems. Energy Fuels 2018, 32, 8241–8253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, S.D.; Tang, D.Z.; Tao, S.; Xu, H.; Li, S.; Zhao, J.L.; Jiang, Q.; Yang, H.X. Pore structure characterization of different rank coals using N2 and CO2 adsorption and its effect on CH4 adsorption capacity: A case in Panguan syncline, western Guizhou, China. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 6034–6044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, C.; Hao, S.; Sun, W.; Chu, W. Fractal dimension of coal particles and their CH4 adsorption. Int. J. Coal Sci. Technol. 2012, 22, 855–858. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kim, D.; Seo, Y.; Kim, J.; Han, J.; Lee, Y. Experimental and simulation studies on adsorption and diffusion characteristics of coalbed methane. Energies 2019, 12, 3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Friesen, W.I.; Mikula, R.J. Fractal dimensions of coal particles. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1987, 120, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zelenka, T. Adsorption and desorption of nitrogen at 77 K on micro- and mesoporous materials: Study of transport kinetics. Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 2016, 227, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, S.D.; Tang, D.Z.; Tao, S.; Ji, X.Y.; Xu, H. Fractal analysis of the dynamic variation in pore-fracture systems under the action of stress using a low-field NMR relaxation method: An experimental study of coals from western Guizhou in China. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2019, 173, 617–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, Y.; Tang, D.Z.; Xu, H.; Tao, S.; Li, S.; Yang, G.H.; Yu, J.J. Pore and fracture characteristics of different rank coals in the eastern margin of the Ordos Basin, China. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 26, 1264–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 00081 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Location of the Ordos Basin. (b) Tectonic units of the Ordos Basin. (c) Division of eastern margin of Ordos Basin and the location of Baode block, with the location of Wells B1 and B2.
Figure 1. (a) Location of the Ordos Basin. (b) Tectonic units of the Ordos Basin. (c) Division of eastern margin of Ordos Basin and the location of Baode block, with the location of Wells B1 and B2.
Energies 15 00081 g001
Energies 15 00081 g002 550
Figure 2. Lower Permian stratigraphic column in the Baode block.
Figure 2. Lower Permian stratigraphic column in the Baode block.
Energies 15 00081 g002
Energies 15 00081 g003a 550Energies 15 00081 g003b 550
Figure 3. Characteristic macerals from Baode coals, polished section, reflected fluorescence and reflected plane-polarized light (last two pictures). Cu: cutinite; MiS: microsporinite; DC: desmocollinite; F: fusinite; Sf: Semifusinite; Py: Pyrite; V: Vitrinite; Cl: clay; Re: resinite; LD: liptodetrinite.
Figure 3. Characteristic macerals from Baode coals, polished section, reflected fluorescence and reflected plane-polarized light (last two pictures). Cu: cutinite; MiS: microsporinite; DC: desmocollinite; F: fusinite; Sf: Semifusinite; Py: Pyrite; V: Vitrinite; Cl: clay; Re: resinite; LD: liptodetrinite.
Energies 15 00081 g003aEnergies 15 00081 g003b
Energies 15 00081 g004 550
Figure 4. Relationship between N2 volume fraction and CH4 volume fraction.
Figure 4. Relationship between N2 volume fraction and CH4 volume fraction.
Energies 15 00081 g004
Energies 15 00081 g005 550
Figure 5. Genetic type discrimination map of CBM. (C1 stands for CH4) (modified from [31]).
Figure 5. Genetic type discrimination map of CBM. (C1 stands for CH4) (modified from [31]).
Energies 15 00081 g005
Energies 15 00081 g006 550
Figure 6. Relationship between δ13C (CO2) and CDMI.
Figure 6. Relationship between δ13C (CO2) and CDMI.
Energies 15 00081 g006
Energies 15 00081 g007 550
Figure 7. Mercury injection curves of typical samples in the study area.
Figure 7. Mercury injection curves of typical samples in the study area.
Energies 15 00081 g007
Energies 15 00081 g008 550
Figure 8. Typical nitrogen adsorption and desorption curve of coal samples in Baode block.
Figure 8. Typical nitrogen adsorption and desorption curve of coal samples in Baode block.
Energies 15 00081 g008
Energies 15 00081 g009 550
Figure 9. Relationship between pore diameter, SSA, and pore volume of typical coal samples in Baode block.
Figure 9. Relationship between pore diameter, SSA, and pore volume of typical coal samples in Baode block.
Energies 15 00081 g009
Energies 15 00081 g010 550
Figure 10. (a) Relationship between fractal dimension and SSA; (b) Relationship between fractal dimension and APD.
Figure 10. (a) Relationship between fractal dimension and SSA; (b) Relationship between fractal dimension and APD.
Energies 15 00081 g010
Energies 15 00081 g011 550
Figure 11. Two-dimensional slices of mineral filling fractures in sample BD-3 ((a) is the first slice and (b) is the 45th slice; white means the fractures are filled with minerals).
Figure 11. Two-dimensional slices of mineral filling fractures in sample BD-3 ((a) is the first slice and (b) is the 45th slice; white means the fractures are filled with minerals).
Energies 15 00081 g011
Energies 15 00081 g012 550
Figure 12. (a) Three-dimensional reconstruction image of coal samples (gray: matrix, blue: pores and fractures, orange: mineral). (b) Three-dimensional image of connected and isolated pores and fractures (blue: connected pores and fractures, red: isolated pores and fractures). (c) Three-dimensional image of minerals.
Figure 12. (a) Three-dimensional reconstruction image of coal samples (gray: matrix, blue: pores and fractures, orange: mineral). (b) Three-dimensional image of connected and isolated pores and fractures (blue: connected pores and fractures, red: isolated pores and fractures). (c) Three-dimensional image of minerals.
Energies 15 00081 g012
Table
Table 1. Results of the proximate and maceral analyses.
Table 1. Results of the proximate and maceral analyses.
Sample No.Coal Seam No.Depth (m)Ro (%)Maceral Composition (%)Proximate Analysis (%)
VitriniteInertiniteLiptiniteMadAadVad
BD-14 + 5501.40–501.700.6474.09.017.022.245.3327.73
BD-24 + 5502.90–503.300.6745.154.40.526.564.9626.46
BD-34 + 51011.40–1011.700.6283.58.77.924.446.5525.95
BD-44 + 51011.40–1011.700.6284.810.05.218.607.3130.32
BD-58 + 9546.54–546.840.6376.412.711.026.526.4428.08
BD-68 + 9546.84–547.200.6882.314.82.822.957.2530.12
BD-78 + 91061.10–1061.400.7081.012.96.122.335.3030.30
BD-88 + 91065.60–1066.000.7654.738.86.525.736.5130.02
BD-98 + 91068.00–1068.300.7541.544.214.425.526.5227.25
Notes: Mad = moisture content; Aad = ash yield; Vad = volatile yield; ad = air dried basis.
Table
Table 2. CBM composition of the collected gas samples from eleven desorption tanks in different desorption periods.
Table 2. CBM composition of the collected gas samples from eleven desorption tanks in different desorption periods.
Coal Seam No.Depth/mSample No.Volume Fraction of Each Component in CBM (%)Coal Seam No.Depth/mSample No.Volume Fraction of Each Component in CBM (%)
CO2N2CH4CO2N2CH4
4 + 5501.40–501.70B1-1B1-1-13.0 10.2 86.7 8 + 9546.84–547.20B1-4B1-4-33.3 10.7 86.0
B1-1-23.6 8.8 87.4 B1-4-43.5 9.9 86.6
B1-1-33.3 7.6 89.1 B1-4-53.6 5.6 90.8
B1-1-43.4 6.0 90.6 B1-4-61.9 4.7 93.5
B1-1-51.6 4.3 94.1 1061.10–1061.40B2-3B2-3-19.0 2.8 88.1
502.90–503.30B1-2B1-2-13.1 15.9 80.9 B2-3-29.4 2.6 87.9
B1-2-23.8 15.2 81.1 B2-3-39.0 2.5 88.3
B1-2-33.2 12.7 84.1 B2-3-48.6 2.7 88.5
B1-2-43.8 9.4 86.8 B2-3-58.9 2.5 88.4
B1-2-52.4 5.7 91.9 1064.00–1064.35B2-4B2-4-110.6 1.9 87.3
1011.40–1011.70B2-1B2-1-13.5 4.5 92.0 B2-4-210.4 1.6 87.8
B2-1-24.1 3.7 92.1 B2-4-310.7 1.7 87.4
B2-1-34.8 3.0 92.2 B2-4-412.0 2.1 85.7
B2-1-43.8 3.0 93.2 B2-4-510.2 1.7 88.0
B2-1-52.2 3.1 94.7 1065.60–1066.00B2-5B2-5-19.3 1.7 88.7
1014.80–1015.20B2-2B2-2-13.0 8.2 88.6 B2-5-29.2 1.6 88.8
B2-2-23.2 7.7 88.8 B2-5-310.7 1.5 87.4
B2-2-32.4 6.5 90.8 B2-5-412.0 1.7 85.8
B2-2-43.0 5.9 90.7 1066.80–1067.10B2-6B2-6-19.7 5.5 82.6
B2-2-53.6 3.3 92.6 B2-6-213.1 2.6 82.2
8 + 9546.54–546.84B1-3B1-3-14.3 8.5 87.1 B2-6-311.6 1.2 84.9
B1-3-24.0 4.8 91.2 B2-6-411.7 1.1 85.0
B1-3-34.5 2.6 92.9 B2-6-59.7 0.7 87.3
B1-3-44.4 2.2 93.4 1068.00–1068.30B2-7B2-7-17.8 1.2 88.0
B1-3-54.7 2.2 93.2 B2-7-29.5 0.6 87.2
546.84–547.20B1-4B1-4-13.1 11.5 85.4 B2-7-39.6 2.7 84.1
B1-4-22.7 14.0 83.3 B2-7-46.7 1.6 87.9
Table
Table 3. Carbon and hydrogen stable isotope compositions and CDMI values of gas samples from eleven desorption tanks in different desorption periods.
Table 3. Carbon and hydrogen stable isotope compositions and CDMI values of gas samples from eleven desorption tanks in different desorption periods.
Coal Seam No.Depth/mSample No.δ13C (‰)δD (‰)CDMICoal Seam No.Depth/mSample No.δ13C (‰)δD (‰)CDMI
CH4CO2CH4CO2
4 + 5501.40–501.70B1-1B1-1-1−55.5 −7.2 −253.6 3.48 + 9546.84–547.20B1-4B1-4-4−61.5 −9.6 −259.0 3.9
B1-1-2−54.6 −7.3 −253.2 3.9B1-4-5−61.3 −9.2 −259.9 3.8
B1-1-3−55.4 −6.0 −253.9 3.6B1-4-6−60.3 −11.3 −256.0 2.0
B1-1-4−55.5 −5.6 −254.3 3.6average−61.4−10.5−259.3/
B1-1-5−54.0 −9.8 −253.2 1.71061.10–1061.40B2-3B2-3-1−51.5 3.1 −252.3 9.3
average−55−7.2−253.7/B2-3-2−51.4 3.4 −248.9 9.6
502.90–503.30B1-2B1-2-1−55.6 −10.5 −256.2 3.7B2-3-3−51.2 3.7 −250.2 9.3
B1-2-2−55.4 −9.2 −255.8 4.4B2-3-4−50.8 4.2 −250.6 8.9
B1-2-3−55.3 −8.0 −255.1 3.6B2-3-5−50.5 3.7 −252.3 9.2
B1-2-4−55.3 −6.9 −255.9 4.2average−51.13.6−250.9/
B1-2-5−54.8 −9.0 −254.9 2.61064.00–1064.35B2-4B2-4-1−51.7 5.1 −248.5 10.8
average−55.3−8.7−255.6/B2-4-2−51.6 5.5 −249.4 10.6
1011.40–1011.70B2-1B2-1-1−51.4 −1.8 −241.6 3.7B2-4-3−51.7 5.2 −249.7 10.9
B2-1-2−51.3 −1.9 −242.1 4.3B2-4-4−51.3 6.7 −250.3 12.3
B2-1-3−50.9 −0.9 −241.6 5B2-4-5−50.5 4.8 −249.2 10.4
B2-1-4−50.8 −2.9 −243.1 3.9average−51.45.4−249.4/
B2-1-5−50.5 −2.8 −243.8 2.31065.60–1066.00B2-5B2-5-1−52.0 1.8 −249.2 9.5
average−51−2.1−242.5/B2-5-2−51.4 7.6 −251.2 9.4
1014.80–1015.20B2-2B2-2-1−49.6 −6.5 −246.6 3.2B2-5-3−51.0 5.5 −251.3 10.9
B2-2-2−49.0 −1.0 −245.3 3.5B2-5-4−50.5 4.9 −250.0 12.3
B2-2-3−48.4 −6.6 −245.3 2.6average−51.25−250.4/
B2-2-4−48.2 −3.8 −246.1 3.21066.80–1067.10B2-6B2-6-1−51.8 2.8 −248.5 10.5
B2-2-5−47.7 −0.6 −245.9 3.8B2-6-2−51.5 7.1 −249.2 13.7
average−48.6−3.7−245.9/B2-6-3−51.4 5.6 −249.3 12.0
8 + 9546.54–546.84B1-3B1-3-1−61.3 −12.0 −258.4 4.7B2-6-4−51.2 5.8 −249.1 12.1
B1-3-2−62.3 −10.3 −259.9 4.2B2-6-5−51.1 5.4 −250.0 10
B1-3-3−62.0 −8.8 −261.8 4.6average−51.45.3−249.2/
B1-3-4−61.8 −8.8 −258.0 4.51068.00–1068.30B2-7B2-7-1−51.1 5.2 −249.7 8.1
B1-3-5−61.6 −9.0 −258.9 4.8B2-7-2−50.4 3.8 −247.6 9.8
average−61.8−9.8−259.4/B2-7-3−50.9 5.1 −249.2 10.2
546.84–547.20B1-4B1-4-1−62.3 −12.4 −260.7 3.5B2-7-4−50.6 5.8 −248.0 7.1
B1-4-2−61.9 −11.0 −260.5 3.1average−50.75−248.6/
B1-4-3−60.9 −9.6 −259.8 3.7
Table
Table 4. Mercury injection data of typical samples in the Baode block.
Table 4. Mercury injection data of typical samples in the Baode block.
Sample No.Coal Seam No.Porosity
(%)		Pore Volume Percentage (%)
Micropore
(<10 nm)		Transition Pores
(10–102 nm)		Mesopore
(102–103 nm)		Macropore
(>103 nm)
BD-14 + 55.0764.0926.412.467.04
BD-24 + 55.3961.1522.193.9912.67
BD-38 + 95.4262.2426.583.357.83
BD-58 + 96.8954.8931.384.659.08
BD-68 + 96.0947.9132.879.619.60
BD-98 + 95.2949.3829.896.5414.19
Table
Table 5. Nitrogen adsorption data of typical samples in the study area.
Table 5. Nitrogen adsorption data of typical samples in the study area.
Sample No.Coal Seam No.BET SSA (m2/g)BJH
TPV (10−3 mL/g)		APD (nm)Pore Volume Percentage (%)
<10nm10–100nm>100nm
BD-14 + 54.040.011911.5029.5550.3320.12
BD-24 + 55.140.016612.5124.1262.6513.23
BD-38 + 91.810.008017.1716.3155.0128.68
BD-58 + 92.930.015619.8612.7655.1232.12
BD-68 + 91.760.007417.7316.2052.6931.11
BD-98 + 91.410.006318.3314.3452.4133.25
Notes: BJH TPV = Total pore volume; APD = Average pore diameter; BET SSA = Specific surface area.
Table
Table 6. Fractal dimension of typical samples in the study area.
Table 6. Fractal dimension of typical samples in the study area.
Sample No.Relative Pressure (P/P0): 0~0.5Relative Pressure (P/P0): 0.5~1
A1D1 = 3 + A1R12A2D2 = 3 + A2R22
BD-1−0.452.550.9997−0.412.590.9864
BD-2−0.462.540.9996−0.452.550.9996
BD-3−0.472.530.9975−0.492.510.9996
BD-5−0.512.490.9908−0.542.460.9991
BD-6−0.412.590.9962−0.472.530.9999
BD-9−0.442.560.9947−0.482.520.9987
Table
Table 7. X-ray CT imaging test results of typical samples.
Table 7. X-ray CT imaging test results of typical samples.
Sample No.Porosity (%)Connected Porosity (%)Proportion of Connected Pores (%)Mineral Content (%)
BD-11.97003.31
BD-23.920.7920.150.27
BD-30.760.079.214.5
BD-54.391.2127.560.26
BD-61.170.4135.043.52
BD-93.470.174.852.17
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, H.; Tian, W.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Tao, S. Genesis of Coalbed Methane and Its Storage and Seepage Space in Baode Block, Eastern Ordos Basin. Energies 2022, 15, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010081

AMA Style

Chen H, Tian W, Chen Z, Zhang Q, Tao S. Genesis of Coalbed Methane and Its Storage and Seepage Space in Baode Block, Eastern Ordos Basin. Energies. 2022; 15(1):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Hao, Wenguang Tian, Zhenhong Chen, Qingfeng Zhang, and Shu Tao. 2022. "Genesis of Coalbed Methane and Its Storage and Seepage Space in Baode Block, Eastern Ordos Basin" Energies 15, no. 1: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010081

APA Style

Chen, H., Tian, W., Chen, Z., Zhang, Q., & Tao, S. (2022). Genesis of Coalbed Methane and Its Storage and Seepage Space in Baode Block, Eastern Ordos Basin. Energies, 15(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010081

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop