4.5 Article

Laboratory Study on Changes in the Pore Structures and Gas Desorption Properties of Intact and Tectonic Coals after Supercritical CO2 Treatment: Implications for Coalbed Methane Recovery

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en11123419

关键词

supercritical CO2; tectonic coal; pore structure; methane desorption

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Major Project of China [2016ZX05043005, 2016ZX05045004]
  2. State Key Research Development Program of China [2016YFC0801404, 2016YFC0801402]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51674050, 51704046]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tectonic coals in coal seams may affect the process of enhanced coalbed methane recovery with CO2 sequestration (CO2-ECBM). The main objective of this study was to investigate the differences between supercritical CO2 (ScCO2) and intact and tectonic coals to determine how the ScCO2 changes the coal's properties. More specifically, the changes in the tectonic coal's pore structures and its gas desorption behavior were of particular interest. In this work, mercury intrusion porosimetry, N-2 (77 K) adsorption, and methane desorption experiments were used to identify the difference in pore structures and gas desorption properties between and intact and tectonic coals after ScCO2 treatment. The experimental results indicate that the total pore volume, specific surface area, and pore connectivity of tectonic coal increased more than intact coal after ScCO2 treatment, indicating that ScCO2 had the greatest influence on the pore structure of the tectonic coal. Additionally, ScCO2 treatment enhanced the diffusivity of tectonic coal more than that of intact coal. This verified the pore structure experimental results. A simplified illustration of the methane migration before and after ScCO2 treatment was proposed to analyze the influence of ScCO2 on the tectonic coal reservoir's CBM. Hence, the results of this study may provide new insights into CO2-ECBM in tectonic coal reservoirs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据