4.

0
Fig. 4 Match of the field permeability data northeast of the Fairway by the S&D
model: Well A-1 (a), Well A-2 (b), Well A-3 (c), Well A-4 (d), Well A-5 (e), Well A-6 (f),
Well A-7 (g), Well A-8 (h), Well A-9 (i), and Well A-10 (j). The dotted lines are straightline fit to the near-linear portion of the model permeability curves.
Fig. 4 (continued) Match of the field permeability data northeast of the Fairway by
the S&D model: Well A-1 (a), Well A-2 (b), Well A-3 (c), Well A-4 (d), Well A-5 (e), Well
A-6 (f), Well A-7 (g), Well A-8 (h), Well A-9 (i), and Well A-10 (j). The dotted lines are
straight-line fit to the near-linear portion of the model permeability curves.
Fig. 5 Match of the field permeability data northeast of the Fairway by the S&D
model: Well B-1 (a) and Well B-2 (b). The pair of cleat volume compressibility
parameters in the two graphs are identical, implying that the permeability data
points of the two wells would fall on the same curve.
Fig. 6 Model-matched (initial) cleat-volume compressibility vs. the laboratory-test
results.
and

cf 0

Fig. 8 sensitivity of the S&D-model predictions for different combinations of

rc

Fig. 7 The S&D model predictions for different combinations of

rc

compared with the BC: Case 1 (a) and case 2 (b).

and

c f 0 over the BC: Case 1 (a) and case 2 (b).

5.0
Fig. 1 San Juan basin Fruitland coal, West Farmington project area.
6.0
Gambar 1. Sistem Reservoir Dual Porosity CBM
Gambar 2. Skematik Pompa PCP
7.0
Fig. 9.1Water production in Oak Grove field.11
Fig. 9.2Exponential decline of water in Well #3440-C.4,11
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.
Fig.

9.3Potentiometric level of water.4

9.4Chloride content of produced CBM waters.13
9.5Chloride ion in coalbed waters, Warrior basin.4,16
9.6 Water circulation in San Juan basin.6

8.0
Fig. 9.7Surface treatment of coalbed waters.8
Fig. 9.8 Project water production decline curve.
Fig. 9.9 presents the years trace of the creeks flow rate. Four of the largest peak
flows have been truncated.
Fig. 9.9B Creek seasonal flow rates.11
Fig. 9.10Creeks assimilative capacity limits brine discharge.
Fig. 9.11 Dual production and brine disposal well schematic. 21
9.0

Gambar
Gambar
Gambar
Gambar
Gambar

1.1 Memperlihatkan Lokasi sumber CBM di Indonesia.

3. Peta Dasar Lokasi Lapangan Rambutan
2.1. Skema Model Seam Batu bara
3.2. Hubungan tingkat kematangan batu bara dan gas yang dihasilkan
3.3. Jenis dan orientasi cleat pada batu bara

10
Gambar 2.1. Jenis-jenis adsorpsi berdasarkan kondisinya.
Gambar 2.3 Grafik adsorpsi isotermis Gibbs
11.
Figure 1. Experimental volumetric stainsinduced by gas sorpotion in coals.the symcols
represent the experimental data as given in panel , whereas the solid lines are fited
straight lines passing throughthe origin, and their slopes are defined as the
swellingcoefficients

eg .

Figure 2. Predicted volumetric strain at different pressures using equations 1 and 2.

Figure 3. Permeability variation during primary CH 2 recovery for the three western Canadian
coals. The Properties of the coals are listed in Tables 1-3, except for the individual
parameters explicitly specified. Note that the different coals have different initial pressures
(2,3, and 3 MPa [290,435, and 435 psi] for Ardley, Wolf Mountain, and Quinsam coals,
respectively), and an instantaneous equilibrium between the injected gas and coal seam was
assumed.
Figure 4. Permeability variation during CO2 or flu gas injection for Ardley coal (a), Wolf
Mountain coal (b), and Quinsam coal (c). instantaneous or equilibrium adsorption or
desorption were assumed, and thus, the cleat and matrix pressures are always equal in
value. The parameters for the reference curves are given in Table 2. Only the parameter that
is different from the referencecurve is explicitly labeled. If two curves share the same shape
symbil, then the have the same parameters except for the explicitly labeled one. The
composition of flue gas is given by the molefraction of N 2. For gas injection to displace CH 4,
the pressure is p is the partial pressure of the injected gas, whereas the total pore pressure
remains constant as p0 (when p< p0), and the pressure becomes the total pressure (when
p> p0). Therefore, the predicted permeability changes are only affected by gas sorption
when p< p0, whereas the predicted permeability changes are influenced by both gas
sorption and total pressure change whwn p> p0.

Figure 5. Permeability variation during N 2 injection to displace CH4 for Ardley, Wolf Mountain,
and Quinsam coals. Here, it is assumed that when p< p0, the pressure p is actually the
partial pressure of the injected N2, and more N2 is injected with the elevated total pressure p.
The relatively flattened change in permeability when p> p0 (or 3 MPa[435 psi] for Wolf
Mountain and Quinsam coals) reflects that the impact of CH 4 displacement by N2 alone on
permeability enhancement is much stronger than that of the elevated fluid pressure.
Figure 6. Bulk diffusivity of gas in the Wolf Mountain coal particles. The symbols represent
the values determined with the experimental adsorption rate data on crushed coals. The
fitted solid curves were applied in this study.
Figure 7. The five-spot well pattern and the finite-difference grid block. Symbol I and P
represent, respectively, the injection and production wells. For primary CH 4 recovery, the
injection well (I) is ignored and has no influence in gas production.
Figure 8. Modelling result for CO 2 sequestration in the Wolf Mountain coal (see Tables 2.3 for
coal seam properties). The thin lines represent flue gas (50& N 2 + 50% CO2) injection case,
and the thick curves represent pure CO 2 injection cases. (a) Gas injection and production
rates : gas injection rates are represented by solid lines, and the dashed lines represent gas
production or breakthrough rates in panel (a). the dotted and dash-dotted lines represent
the primary CH4 recovery with constant and stress-dependent permeability, respectively, (b).
permeability change with time during gas injection and production: the permeability change
of the injection well block is represented by the solid curves, whereas that of the productionwell block is represented by the dashed curves.
Figure 9. Comparison of effects of coal fabrics. The influences of coal fabrics are compared
by modeling flue gas injection into two coal seams that only have different cleat spacing.
The one with larger cleat spacing (a=1 cm[0.4 in.]) (coal seam A) is represented by thin
curves, whereas the coal seam with smaller cleat spacing (a=2 mm[0.08 in.]) (coal seam B)
is represented by thick curves. The distance (I -> P) of panels (b),(c), and (d) is the distance
from the injection well to the production well along the diagonal line (see figure 7). (a) A
much higher gas injection rate and later breakthrough of the injected N 2 are predicted for
coal seam B. However, an early higher peak of enhanced CH 4 recovery is predicted dor coal
seam A. for both cases, negligible CO 2 breakthrough occurs. (b) A steep change of
permeability profile is predicted for coal seam B, which resulted from the steep CO 2
concentration front and migrates toward the producing well with time. However, stronger
permeability enhancement is predicted for the zone close to the producing well of coal seam
A. (c) The smaller cleat spacing of coal sema B causes faster adsorption and retards gas
migration toward the producing well, consequently resulting in the steep gas concentration
front and the late breakthrough of N2. For coal seam A, only its smooth CO 2, concentration
profile is shown by the thin lines (d). The pressure change with time for coal seam B is much
smaller than that for coal seam A because of its relatively less permeability variation
between the injecting and producing wells.
Figure 10. Effective horizontal stress increments induced by CO 2 sorption. The coal seams
have the same properties as the Wolf Mountain coal (see Table 2) or the reference curves in
Figure 4b.
12

Fig. 1 Typical well progression of low permeability sand and shale gas wells
Fig. 2 Typical CBM-well progression showing the bell-shaped gas production profile and
decreasing water production with time.
Fig. 3 BP pilot of a solar powered, continous fiberglass rod pumping unit
13
Gambar 2.1. Lokasi Pilot Project CBM di Lapangan Rambutan Benakat Maura Enim, Sumtera
Selatan.
Gambar 2.2. Peta Stratigrafi Cekungan Sumatera Selatan
Gambar 2.4 Perbandingan Produksi Gas Jkovensional dan Produksi CBM

hal. 15

Gambar 2.5. Karakteristik produksi Coalbed Methane (CBM)

Gambar 2.6. Kontruksi sumur Pompa Angguk
Gambar 2.7.Diagram Pompa PCP
Gambar 2.8. Diagram Pompa PCP
Gambar 2.9 Skematik diagram Pompa ESP

Gambar 2.10 Karakteristik Pompa ESP

Gambar 2.11. Manifold.
Gambar 2.12. Prinsip pemisahan dalam separator berdasarkan prinsip Gravitasi
Gambar 2.13. Separator Vertikal.
Gambar 2.14. Separator Horizontal.
Gambar 2.15 Separator Bulat (spherical).
Gambar 2.16. Reciprocating Air Compressor
Gambar 2.17 Pompa Sentrifugal
Gambar 2.18 Pompa Reciprocating.
Gambar 2.19 Tangki Timbun
Gambar 2.20 Desain Gathering System Sumur CBM Lapangan Rambutan.

Table.
11
Table 1. Langmuir Parameters of the Three Coal Seams*

*As received at 25C

Table 2. Basic Physical and Chemical Properties of Coal Samples Analyzed in This Study*
*The values in this table are applied to the reference curves in Figure 4.
Table 3. Parameters Used for Numerical Simulation*
*All simulations are based on the properties of the Wolf Mountain coal. Other coal properties
are given in Tables 1 and 2 unless explicitly specified.
Table 4. Summary of Numerical Results*
*Symbol I here represents the injected gas; symbol P represents production of CH 4 or
breakthrough CO2. All volume data are cumulative values for a 10-yr period of injection and
production of a whole well penetrating a 5-m (16-ft) thick coal seam.
**Only the minimum numerical value is chosen for comparison with the analytical results at
pressure of 1.5 times the initial value. However, for the primary CH 4 recovery case, the
maximum numerical value is chosen to be compared with the analytical value predicted at
0.5 MPa (72.5 psi).
12.
Gada table
13.

Tabel 2.1 Prospek CBM di Indonesia