Publication:
Impacting factors on horizontal coal seam gas well production and proxy model comparison

dc.contributor.coauthorWang, Qian
dc.contributor.coauthorDonovan, Diane
dc.contributor.coauthorThompson, Bevan
dc.contributor.coauthorRodger, Iain
dc.contributor.coauthorZhou, Fengde
dc.contributor.coauthorSu, Xianbo
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Mathematics
dc.contributor.kuauthorYazıcı, Emine Şule
dc.contributor.kuprofileFaculty Member
dc.contributor.otherDepartment of Mathematics
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteCollege of Sciences
dc.contributor.yokid27432
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-09T23:28:46Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractThis paper investigated the impact of geological and engineering factors on coal seam gas production in horizontal wells. The results were then used to compare the performance of proxy models based on linear and quadratic response surfaces and Universal Kriging (UK) to models based on Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE). A simple reservoir model was created using a commercial reservoir modelling software package which includes the capability to construct proxy models. The simple model was used for the dynamic modelling of cumulative gas production and peak gas rate under uncertainty in the input variables, e.g. the reservoir principal permeability and permeability in orthogonal directions varied as ratios of the principal permeability, porosity, gas content, coal saturation and the angle between the horizontal well and the principal permeability direction. The simulation results for cumulative gas production and peak gas rate were used to generate training data for proxy models, which were then used to predict the simulated output for other combinations of input parameters. Error analysis was conducted for each proxy model and used to compare and contrast the different modelling techniques. In addition, we investigated the sensitivity of the model to changes in the input variables. The results indicate that, for the given study, proxy models based on linear regression were not good estimators for cumulative gas production and peak gas rate. However, when enough training points were utilized, all other techniques provided good estimates. The best performing proxy model was a cubic PCE. In addition, the cubic PCE proxy model provided direct access to the sensitivity of the gas production to changes in the values of the input variables. Considering the main effects, the changes in the principle permeability and the porosity were predominant factors for the cumulative gas production and peak gas rate, respectively. As for the pairwise interactions, the combined effect of the principle permeability and the coal saturation had the most impact on the cumulative gas production, followed by the combined effect of the drilling angle and the ratio of the permeabilities in the y-direction and the x-direction, indicating that gas production can be improved by optimizing the orientation of the horizontal well. In addition, the combined effect of the coal saturation and the porosity had the most impact on the peak gas rate, an interesting result that warrants further investigation in future studies.
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.openaccessYES
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors gratefully acknowledge support by industry (Arrow Energy, APLNG and Santos) through The University of Queensland Centre for Natural Gas (natural-gas.centre.uq.edu.au). We thank Schlumberger for access to commercial reservoir simulation software. The first author would like to acknowledge the China Scholarship Council for supporting his study at the University of Queensland. The last author would like to acknowledge TUBITAK 2219 and the School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, through the awarding of an Ethel Raybould Visiting Fellowship.
dc.identifier.doi10.15530/ap-urtec-2019-198251
dc.identifier.isbn9781-6139-9673-7
dc.identifier.linkhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85085666023&doi=10.15530%2fap-urtec-2019-198251&partnerID=40&md5=876cabb274318b3126b78ca79b535844
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85085666023
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.15530/ap-urtec-2019-198251
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/11948
dc.keywordsCoal
dc.keywordsCoal bed methane
dc.keywordsCoal deposits
dc.keywordsGases
dc.keywordsHorizontal wells
dc.keywordsNatural gas well production
dc.keywordsPetroleum reservoir engineering
dc.keywordsPorosity
dc.keywordsReservoir management
dc.keywordsResource valuation
dc.keywordsUncertainty analysis
dc.keywordsCumulative gas productions
dc.keywordsEngineering factors
dc.keywordsModelling techniques
dc.keywordsOrthogonal directions
dc.keywordsPairwise interaction
dc.keywordsPolynomial chaos expansion (PCE)
dc.keywordsPrincipal permeability
dc.keywordsReservoir modelling
dc.keywordsGas permeability
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherUnconventional Resources Technology Conference (URTEC)
dc.sourceSPE/AAPG/SEG Asia Pacific Unconventional Resources Technology Conference 2019, APUR 2019
dc.subjectCoal
dc.subjectGases
dc.titleImpacting factors on horizontal coal seam gas well production and proxy model comparison
dc.typeConference proceeding
dspace.entity.typePublication
local.contributor.authorid0000-0001-6824-451X
local.contributor.kuauthorYazıcı, Emine Şule
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication2159b841-6c2d-4f54-b1d4-b6ba86edfdbe
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery2159b841-6c2d-4f54-b1d4-b6ba86edfdbe

Files