4.4 Article

Variation in the Pore Structure of Coal after Hydraulic Slotting and Gas Drainage

Journal

ADSORPTION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 8, Pages 647-666

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1260/0263-6174.32.8.647

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. State Key Basic Research Program of China [2011CB201205]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51074161]
  3. National Science and Technology Support Program [2012BAK04B07]
  4. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions [CXZZ12_0958]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The integration of hydraulic slotting and gas drainage techniques has become a mainstream technique for enhancing permeability in coal seams with low permeability. However, the mechanism of action of this process is unclear. In this paper, field experiment and laboratory tests are described that aim at elucidating this process. Given the sensitivity and accuracy of test methods and their corresponding determination principles, a combination of mercury intrusion porosimetry and nitrogen gas adsorption was proposed as a complementary technique and the pore-size distribution (PSD) was obtained. It is shown that the proportion of minipores decreases remarkably, whereas that of the macropores gradually increases with the decrease in the distance from the slotted borehole. By contrast, the mesopores and micropores present insignificant changes. Meanwhile, the adsorption pore and the seepage pore show a similar variation in tendency with the minipores and macropores, respectively. Moreover, the specific surface area decreases substantially with the decrease in borehole distances. The integration of hydraulic slotting and gas drainage can lower the gas-adsorption properties and enhance the gas-seepage capacity within the disturbed zone significantly. The paper highlights the guiding factors for improving the enhanced coal bed methane recovery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available