4.1 Article

Regional coal seam gas distribution and burial history of the Hunter Coalfield, Sydney Basin

Journal

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages 409-426

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08120099.2014.893539

Keywords

burial history; thermal maturity; Hunter Coalfield; Sydney Basin; coal seam gas; reservoir properties

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Basin modelling has been used to improve understanding of the origin and temporal evolution of coal seam gas in the Hunter Coalfield of the Sydney Basin. Burial history models were produced based on data from seven boreholes located in the southern, eastern, central and western areas of the coalfield. Mean random vitrinite reflectance (R-v,R- (r)) data, derived from measurements of mean maximum reflectance (R-v,R- (max)), were used for calibration of the models. A qualitative sensitivity analysis of one model shows that varying the paleoheat flow has a greater influence on calculated R-v,R- r than varying the eroded overburden thickness. The differences between the constructed models are significant enough to provide plausible explanations for regional gas distribution in the Hunter Coalfield. Coals in the south of the coalfield appear to have the greatest potential for thermogenic gas generation. Modelling has shown that areas that have low gas contents and decreased permeability have been uplifted more, and buried less, compared with areas that have high gas contents. Burial history modelling shows noticeable variations in the extent of burial and uplift, and, consequently, in thermal maturities and potential for thermogenic gas generation; together with the assessment of other coal and gas property data, it appears that present-day gas contents may partially reflect coal ranks and adsorption capacities, with late-stage biogenic gas generation replenishing CH4 volumes that were lost following uplift during the Late Cretaceous.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available