4.5 Review

Advances in Cryogenic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs with LN2

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 15, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en15249464

关键词

cryogenic fracturing; coalbed methane; immersion tests; injection experiments; numerical modeling

资金

  1. NAZARBAYEV UNIVERSITY [021220CRP2022]
  2. NAZARBAYEV UNIVERSITY

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of the application of cryogenic fracturing using liquid nitrogen (LN2) in stimulating coalbed methane (CBM) reservoirs. The study finds that cryogenic fracturing is a promising and eco-friendly technique that can effectively enhance coal rock permeability and increase CBM production.
Coalbed methane (CBM) is a significant unconventional natural gas resource existing in matrix pores and fractures of coal seams and is a cleaner energy resource compared to coal and crude oil. To produce CBM, stimulation operations are required, given that the coal permeability is generally too low. Hydraulic fracturing is the most widely used technology for reservoir stimulation; however, there are a few challenging issues associated with it, e.g., huge water consumption. In the past decade, the use of liquid nitrogen (LN2) as a fracturing fluid has been intensively studied for stimulating CBM reservoirs, achieving considerable progress in understanding fracturing mechanisms and optimizing fracturing techniques. This paper presents a thorough review of experimental design and observations, modeling procedures and results, field applications, and published patents. Existing studies are divided into five different groups for discussion and comparison, including immersion tests, injection tests, jet drilling tests, numerical modeling, and field applications. Based on the comprehensive evaluation of the outcomes, it is obvious that cryogenic fracturing using LN2 is a promising eco-friendly fracturing technique that can effectively enhance coal rock permeability to increase the production of CBM.

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