建立更可靠的煤层气近似分析数据估算方程

B. Widarsono, Kosasih Sartadiredja, B. A. Widjayanto
{"title":"建立更可靠的煤层气近似分析数据估算方程","authors":"B. Widarsono, Kosasih Sartadiredja, B. A. Widjayanto","doi":"10.29017/scog.32.2.839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Coal bed methane (CBM) data such as ash contents, moisture contents, volatile matters, and fixed carbon – commonly obtained from log analysis - are direct input to calculation of gas accumulation in CBM reservoirs. However, recent studies on some coal samples taken from Rambutan field CBM pilot project have shown that the commonly used log analysis equations are simply inapplicable for the field’s coal samples. Calculation results tend to give far different magnitudes when compared to laboratory results. After a series of re-evaluations and re-measurements on the laboratory results it was convinced that the problem does not lie with the laboratory results but with these ‘conventional’ equations. Therefore modification efforts are spent to find better equations. Comparisons between measured data (coal samples taken from two coal seams in the field) and calculated data show that only equation for ash contents gives accurate results. The other proximate analysis output data - i.e. moisture contents, volatile matter, and fixed carbon – is at considerable odd with their corresponding calculated data. Modification upon the original empirical models is then carried out. The following modifications on the equations have produced analogous but different empirical equations to the original equations. These equations certainly work more reliably for the field’s coals, and these better results underline that future log analyses in the field have to use the modified equations","PeriodicalId":21649,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas","volume":"557 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishment Of More Reliable Equations For Estimation Of Coalbed Methane Proximate Analysis Data\",\"authors\":\"B. Widarsono, Kosasih Sartadiredja, B. A. Widjayanto\",\"doi\":\"10.29017/scog.32.2.839\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Coal bed methane (CBM) data such as ash contents, moisture contents, volatile matters, and fixed carbon – commonly obtained from log analysis - are direct input to calculation of gas accumulation in CBM reservoirs. However, recent studies on some coal samples taken from Rambutan field CBM pilot project have shown that the commonly used log analysis equations are simply inapplicable for the field’s coal samples. Calculation results tend to give far different magnitudes when compared to laboratory results. After a series of re-evaluations and re-measurements on the laboratory results it was convinced that the problem does not lie with the laboratory results but with these ‘conventional’ equations. Therefore modification efforts are spent to find better equations. Comparisons between measured data (coal samples taken from two coal seams in the field) and calculated data show that only equation for ash contents gives accurate results. The other proximate analysis output data - i.e. moisture contents, volatile matter, and fixed carbon – is at considerable odd with their corresponding calculated data. Modification upon the original empirical models is then carried out. The following modifications on the equations have produced analogous but different empirical equations to the original equations. These equations certainly work more reliably for the field’s coals, and these better results underline that future log analyses in the field have to use the modified equations\",\"PeriodicalId\":21649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas\",\"volume\":\"557 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29017/scog.32.2.839\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Contributions Oil and Gas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29017/scog.32.2.839","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

煤层气的灰分含量、水分含量、挥发物和固定碳等数据通常通过测井分析获得,这些数据是计算煤层气储层天然气聚集的直接输入。然而,最近对Rambutan油田煤层气试点项目煤样的研究表明,常用的测井分析方程根本不适用于该油田的煤样。与实验室结果相比,计算结果往往给出大不相同的量级。在对实验室结果进行了一系列的重新评估和重新测量之后,人们确信问题不在于实验室结果,而在于这些“传统”方程。因此,为了找到更好的方程,需要进行修改。实测数据(取自野外两个煤层的煤样)与计算数据的比较表明,只有灰分含量方程才能给出准确的结果。其他近似的分析输出数据——即水分含量、挥发性物质和固定碳——与相应的计算数据相当不一致。然后对原始经验模型进行修正。对方程进行以下修改,得到了与原方程相似但不同的经验方程。这些方程对于该油田的煤来说当然更可靠,这些更好的结果表明,未来的测井分析必须使用修改后的方程
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Establishment Of More Reliable Equations For Estimation Of Coalbed Methane Proximate Analysis Data
Coal bed methane (CBM) data such as ash contents, moisture contents, volatile matters, and fixed carbon – commonly obtained from log analysis - are direct input to calculation of gas accumulation in CBM reservoirs. However, recent studies on some coal samples taken from Rambutan field CBM pilot project have shown that the commonly used log analysis equations are simply inapplicable for the field’s coal samples. Calculation results tend to give far different magnitudes when compared to laboratory results. After a series of re-evaluations and re-measurements on the laboratory results it was convinced that the problem does not lie with the laboratory results but with these ‘conventional’ equations. Therefore modification efforts are spent to find better equations. Comparisons between measured data (coal samples taken from two coal seams in the field) and calculated data show that only equation for ash contents gives accurate results. The other proximate analysis output data - i.e. moisture contents, volatile matter, and fixed carbon – is at considerable odd with their corresponding calculated data. Modification upon the original empirical models is then carried out. The following modifications on the equations have produced analogous but different empirical equations to the original equations. These equations certainly work more reliably for the field’s coals, and these better results underline that future log analyses in the field have to use the modified equations
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
SYNTHESIS AND EVALUATION OF SULPHONYL BORATE ESTER AS GREASE ADDITIVE Integrated Approach to Investigate the Potential of Asphalt/Tar Sand on Buton Island, Indonesia Comparative Study of Plug and Abandonment Using Balanced Plug Cementing Method: Case Study of Well “NV-01” Field “NS” The Comparation of Water Saturation Approaches to Reveal a Low Resistivity Reservoir Potential Case in Gumai Formation, South Sumatra Basin The 3D Seismic Survey Design of South Walio Offshore, Indonesia: Optimizing the 3D Survey Design Parameters
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1