International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Coal Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcoalgeo

Review article

Coalbed methane: A review

Tim A. Moore ⁎
Cipher Coal Consulting Ltd., 173 Clifton Terrace, Sumner, Christchurch, 8081, New Zealand
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The commercial extraction of methane from coal beds is now well established in a number of countries
Received 29 December 2011 throughout the world, including the USA, Australia, China, India and Canada. Because coal is almost pure
Received in revised form 19 May 2012 carbon, its reservoir character is fundamentally different to conventional gas plays. Coalbed methane (CBM)
Accepted 20 May 2012
forms as either biogenically- or thermogenically-derived gas. The former occurs in ‘under mature’ (b 0.5%
Available online 14 July 2012
vitrinite reflectance) coals and is the result of bacterial conversion of coal into CO2 or acetate, which is then
Keywords:
transformed by archaea into CH4. Thermogenic gas is formed as part of the coalification process and is purely a
Coalbed methane chemical devolatilization that releases CH4. Methane is primarily stored in coal through adsorption onto the
Coal seam gas coal surface; thus it is pore surface area that determines the maximum gas holding potential of a reservoir (as
Reservoir opposed to pore volume in a conventional reservoir). Although macro-, meso-, and micropores are present in
Biogenic the coal matrix, it is thought that the micropores are where most methane adsorption occurs. In many of the
Thermogenic micropores, the methane molecule may actually stretch, minutely, the pore and thus with de-gassing of the
Gas saturation reservoir, could result in matrix shrinkage, allowing opening of the fracture (cleat) system in the coal and thus
Production
enhancing permeability. The organic composition of the coal is paramount in determining porosity and perme-
Exploration
ability character and thus maximum gas holding capacity. In general, the higher the vitrinite content the higher the
Diffusion
Permeability gas holding potential (and ultimately the amount of desorbed gas) and permeability (all other factors being the
Desorption same). There are other organic component/gas property relationships but these seem to be specific to individual
Adsorption basins, or even seams.
Microbiology Characterising a CBM reservoir during an exploration programme is a challenge but the two most vital
Methanogens measures to determine are permeability and % gas saturation. Permeability will largely determine gas (and
Pores water) flow rate, dictating how commercial a prospect might be. Gas saturation, determined from desorption
Organic composition and adsorption measurements, also influences gas rate and the ultimate recoverability of gas from a reservoir.
Modelling of gas flow from the reservoir is highly dependent on knowledge of these parameters. Designing a
successful pilot well programme and ultimately production wells will rely mostly on the permeability and % gas
saturation character. Certification of resources and reserves, which is also very important to CBM companies as
they explore and develop their permits, depends heavily on accurate estimates of reservoir character; primarily
seam continuity, % gas saturation and permeability.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.1. Previous compilations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2. Producing fields of the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3. Gas type, quality and measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1. Biogenic gas and the microbes that create it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2. Generation of thermogenic gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3. Gas quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4. Desorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.5. Desorption accuracy and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.6. Adsorption isotherms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

⁎ Tel.: +64 21 246 6641.

E-mail address: tmoore@ciphercoal.com.

0166-5162/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.coal.2012.05.011
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81 37

4. Geological framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.1. General rank effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2. Impact of original depositional environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3. Role of structure and stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.4. Influence of external effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5. Reservoir characterisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.1. Pores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2. Sorption and diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.3. Matrix shrinkage and swelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4. Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.4.1. Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.4.2. Fracture/cleat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.4.3. Induced fracturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.5. Gas saturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6. Coal composition–gas property relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.1. Pores and permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
6.2. Maximum gas holding capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.3. Desorbed gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
7. Production, modelling and water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.1. Production profiles and modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7.2. Co-produced water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
8. Key reservoir measurements during exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
8.1. The importance of sampling protocol and mitigation of uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9. Enhanced production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
10. The impact of CBM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.1. Project viability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
10.2. From resource to reserve certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
11. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
12. Useful terms and conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

1. Introduction properties are to what are the most important measurements to

The approach taken in this review aims to satisfy an apparent need
for a current and brief summary of coalbed methane for both students
and new colleagues in the industry. Coalbed methane (CBM) is also
known as coal seam gas (CSG), coal seam methane (CSM), and coal
seam natural gas (CSNG)—all of which are identical for the purposes
of this paper. It is recognised, however, that any gas coming from
coal is not just pure methane. But the term ‘coalbed methane’ will
be used in this paper because it conveys the two principal words of
utmost interest for this forum: coal and methane. This paper is slanted
towards the practical and is intended to be broad rather than deep.
The tone will be less formal than pure research papers in order to
reach a wider than normal audience. However, it is intended that
the scientific foundations of gas in coal are clearly laid out and
referenced so that the reader can dip deeper where individual interest
may alight.
The paper will be organised with two major bounding milestones:
exploration and production—but in the opposite order. By looking at
the production of some CBM basins first we can gain a perspective
of the scale and potential that CBM can manifest itself in the world's
markets. Towards the end of the paper, critical reservoir properties
used in the assessment of an exploration programme will be reviewed.
The middle part of the paper will explore how a coal reservoir works
and what controls gas occurrence. Finally, two brief reviews will be
given, one on enhanced CBM and the other on the impacts of CBM.
It is worthwhile to note here that CBM is considered an ‘uncon-
ventional’ gas resource. Though somewhat of an arbitrary designation
it is unconventional only because it isn't classically how oil and gas
are extracted from clastic and limestone reservoirs. It is true, however,
that gas in coal is held in a fundamentally different way. Since gas
is held in such a different way in coal, than in conventional reser-
voirs, this influences everything from what the significant reservoir
take during exploration, to how to complete production wells, and
even how to produce the gas and certify the reserves. Just how different
CBM is from conventional gas resources should not be underestimated.
So there is no confusion, let me say what this paper will not
address. The more theoretical aspects of methane generation from
coal will not be covered in depth and nor will methane in coal mining.
Methane has long plagued the coal industry (Raymond, 1986). This
aspect of methane from coal has been covered in other places, including
Bibler et al. (1998), Boyer et al. (1990), Karacan et al. (2011), Sloss
(2005) and United Nations (2010). Various methods are used to identify
and extract methane in order to allow mining with the least cost to
human life. Although canaries were once used to detect methane and
have earned their place in pop culture (e.g. Sumner, 1980), technologi-
cal sophistication has progressed substantially in the detection and
drainage of gas from coal mines. Extraction and potential monetization
of methane from current or abandoned coal mines (commonly termed
‘coal mine methane’ [CMM]) is, as yet, unquantified but surely has
significant potential, both commercially and in mitigation of green-
house gases (GHG). However, concepts on methane in coal as explained
here are readily transferable from ‘virgin’ seams to those being or
having been mined. The paper will also not deal in any kind of depth
of the engineering aspects of vertical or horizontal well completions
although the reader is referred to articles by Gentzis (2009), Gentzis
et al. (2009a, 2009b), Han et al. (2009), Nie et al. (2012) and references
within.
Any review on a subject as deeply complicated as methane in coal is
doomed to disappoint someone. To grasp the entirety of coalbed methane
would be impossible within the constraints of a journal article. Thus it is
best to view this review as a narrative, and as in any narrative it is limited
to the point of view and experience of its author. It is necessarily partial
and incomplete. Its author will uniquely determine its path; another
author would take a different path.
38 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Finally, a note on the units of measure that are used throughout
this paper. The petroleum industry and people in the USA tend to
use imperial measurements whereas others tend to use metric. This
paper adopts the metric system for most units (for example gas charge
is expressed in m 3/ton) though for gas flow and resource/reserve es-
timates the imperial system is used (for example MCF [thousand
cubic feet]). There are various reasons for this but mostly because
those units are generally accepted and known throughout the CBM in-
dustry. The author has found that most people in the CBM industry
can use either metric or imperial when it comes to gas contents but gen-
erally always refer to flow rates and reserves exclusively in imperial. In
any case, the last section of this paper (Section 12) gives some useful
conversions.
1.1. Previous compilations
It would be remiss not to identify previous CBM compilations and
reviews. I will admit that most of this review will be English
language-centric in its references and I apologise for the limitation.
Also, there is no doubt that other regionally produced proceedings
addressing CBM are not listed here, but this in no way reduces their
significance.
The oil crisis of the 1970s in the USA spurred a focused interest in
potential gas resources derived from coal beds. Rightmire et al. (1984)
give a good summary of reports that were commissioned by the U.S.
Department of Energy on thirteen basins in the USA. Rightmire et al.
(1984) make the case that these reports, republished together in
1984 as part of an AAPG Special Publication prompted a deepening
interest in development of CBM in the USA.
One of the first major compilations of research on gas in coal, how-
ever, was published almost a decade later (Law and Rice, 1993) and
covered virtually all aspects of hydrocarbon generation in coal. Most
papers in the volume delve into the detailed foundation, origins and
influences on CBM. Notably, the paper by Levine (1993) outlines the
aspects and processes of coalification of organic material and the
pathways to formation of CBM. Similarly, the paper by Rice (1993)
clarifies the origins of coal gas and its formation, as understood at
the time. Flores (1993) also outlines the depositional setting of gas
producing sequences, notably presaging the advent of significant pro-
duction from the Powder River Basin. Other papers in the compilation
deal with natural fractures in coal (Close, 1993), the mechanisms of
gas sorption (Yee et al., 1993) and methane in underground mining
(Diamond, 1993) to name just a few. If I were to recommend one set
of papers to read to a colleague new to CBM, it would be this volume.
Another compendium of papers was published by the Geological
Society (Gayer and Harris, 1996) and covers various aspects of methane
resources (e.g. the calculation of resources), mainly in Europe but it also
contains brief discussions of plays in the USA. In addition, there are
several papers that report on the coal character, such as mineralisation,
in relation to reservoir properties. In almost all cases these papers focus
on high-rank coals as CBM producers. A geographic summary of CBM
characteristics for Russia, Germany, Ukraine and the UK characterises
the coal reservoir in terms of such things as resource size and the poten-
tial for development. The paper by Levine (1996) is an early work on
coal shrinkage in relation to gas production and permeability changes;
an aspect of a CBM reservoir which is still not fully understood.
Later, an evaluation of CBM as a danger and a resource was collated
by Flores (1998). These papers addressed aspects of underground coal
mine outbursts and emissions, as well as sorption characteristics, per-
meability, stratigraphy and resource assessment. The composition of
coal derived methane gas was studied (Clayton, 1998)—a subject
returned to a decade later, in a slightly different way, in a volume of
special papers by Flores (2008).
A broad reaching book edited by Mastalerz et al. (1999) covered
many aspects of CBM including regulatory regimes, resource assess-
ments, controls on CBM occurrence, reservoir evaluation, methane
emissions and modelling, among other subjects. This was the first
stand-alone book that took such an encompassing view of CBM and,
importantly, discussed microbial enhancement of CBM (Scott, 1999),
probability analysis of CBM properties (Zuber, 1999), gas saturation
in coal reservoirs (Khavari-Khoransani and Michelsen, 1999) and
pore space in coals specifically applied to CBM reservoirs (Radlinski
and Radlinska, 1999).
By the mid 1990s CBM production from high-rank coals in the USA
(i.e. the Black Warrior and San Juan basins) began to level off (see
Section 2) which accelerated exploration and development in
low-rank coals such as those in the Powder River basin of Wyoming
and Montana. These developments in turn catalysed research into
mechanisms of gas formation in low-rank coals. The special volume
edited by Flores (2008) was the first internationally available set of
papers dealing exclusively with CBM in low-rank coal and thus
addressing some of the issues of the genesis and implications of bio-
genic gas. The major difference between the first set of papers edited
by Flores (1998) and this later set was the rise in CBM production
from what would be termed ‘non-mature’ coals. Many of the papers
in this volume address the methanogenic consortium in coals and
describe laboratory experiments to determine their biokinetics. Though
much work is still to be done, this set of papers heralds an important
step in defining and understanding a type of methane generation that
a decade ago was barely recognised in the petroleum industry. An
important finding revealed in this set of papers was that methane can
be generated in stages and is not simply biogenic or thermogenic (see
Section 3.1) (Flores et al., 2008).
Other compilations of papers exist and the reader is directed to four
other special volumes, the first of which was edited by Lyons (1998)
and focuses on the reserves and geological controls of Appalachian
CBM. The second is the volume by Collett and Barker (2003), which
discusses coalbed methane properties from the Ferron coals of Utah.
The third compilation, by Karacan et al. (2009), discusses aspects of
CO2 sequestration and methane recovery in coal beds and the last, by
Golding et al. (2010), has papers covering topics from Appalachian
basin resources to controls on coal cleating.
In addition to the above compilations, two institutions in North
America have made significant contributions to research into CBM.
The Gas Technology Institute in Illinois (formally known as the Gas
Research Institute [GRI]) has produced countless reports and presenta-
tions on all aspects of gas in coal and the reader is encouraged to visit
their web site and browse their publications (www.gastechnology.
org). Similarly, the University of Alabama has run the International
Coalbed Methane Symposium for decades and much new research
and understanding has come from those proceedings (www.coalbed.
ua.edu).
There are also some non-aligned, independent, broad-interest and
review CBM papers and the reader is directed to Ayers (2002), Bell
(2006), Busch and Gensterblum (2011), Bustin and Clarkson (1998),
Liu et al. (2011), Pashin (1998), and Scott (2002). Finally, although
the paper by Laxminarayana and Crosdale (2002) is primarily about
sorption character of selected Indian coals, it does discuss and present
some fundamental, and certainly quite broadly applicable, gas–coal
relationships.
2. Producing fields of the world
Wherever there are coal basins, it is inevitable that there will be at
least some methane. But in many cases, monetising that gas is prob-
lematic because of unfavourable reservoir properties, barriers to
market, or a total lack of markets (think basins in remote jungles, or
high latitude arctic or Antarctic regions). There are, however, some
stellar examples where the right geology, geography and economics
have combined to produce a vibrant industry.
Even when there is abundant production, it is not easy to get accurate
data on gas volumes. As most of us realise, hydrocarbon reserves directly
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
influence a country's economic standing. Thus, there is always potential
for ‘gaming’ of the numbers. With this caveat in mind, and in order to
give an indication of the scale and importance of coal-derived methane
on world economics, some examples are given below.
Four countries will be discussed: the USA, Australia, China and
India. These countries are currently producing and selling CBM as
pipeline gas, or utilising for electrical generation directly on or near
site. In all cases, the gas is used domestically. Canada is also a fairly
major producer of CBM although will not be discussed here because
the USA and Australia already give ample examples of major fields;
China and India are briefly mentioned to highlight emerging CBM
markets. Other countries on the verge of commercial CBM production,
are Indonesia and Russia but will not be discussed in this paper.
The USA currently has the largest CBM production in the world
with over 1.91 TCF of gas sold in 2009 (Fig. 1; see also Pashin, 2011).
The majority of CBM production has come out of three basins: The
Black Warrior (Alabama), San Juan (New Mexico, Utah, Colorado)
and the Powder River (primarily Wyoming) (Fig. 2). The fourth
basin, the Raton, has also produced CBM but is smaller and more
restricted than the other USA basins thus will not be discussed.
In the USA commercial production began in the Black Warrior
Basin in the early 1980s but by 1989 the San Juan Basin was the
major producer (Fig. 3). Since the mid 1990s, annual production in
the Black Warrior Basin has stabilised around 115 BCF. CBM in the
San Juan Basin peaked in 1997 with an annual production of
597 BCF, but has since declined and, as of 2009, was approximately
432 BCF per annum. Although most of the significant production in
the San Juan Basin began in the late 1980s, there was an early and
spectacular well that began in the mid 1950s—the San Juan 32–7 well
reportedly produced methane for over 40 years, though generally at
rates around 100 MCF/day (Murray, 1996). Although both the San
Juan and Black Warrior basins are in long term decline at present,
they are expected to produce significant methane for a decade or two
to come.
Production through the 1980s in the USA saw double digit annual
percentage increases which fell to less than 5% by 1999 (because of
the decline in production in the Black Warrior and San Juan basins).
However, by 2000 the Powder River basin ramp-up (Fig. 3) resulted
in significant annual increases in the overall USA CBM production.
Although initial production in the Powder River basin started as early
as 1984, it took over 15 years before the right combination of technology
and economics resulted in previously unheard of development rates.
Over seven years, the number of wells drilled in the Powder River
basin went from a few dozen to over 500 per annum (Montgomery,
1999) and in 2001 up to 3655 wells were drilled (Ayers, 2002). Although
the annual CBM production in the Powder River basin has dropped in
the last two years, the field is still expected to grow and produce signif-
icant methane for a decade or two. The basin has already produced
4.3 TCF of gas since 1984 (Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission, 2011). A
defining attribute of the Powder River basin CBM production is the
Fig. 1. Coalbed methane (CBM) production in the USA from 1989 to 2009. Source: U.S.
Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC; http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/
ng/hist/rngr52nus_1a.htm.
39
amount of water produced. Over 678 million barrels of water was
produced in 2006 alone and since 1984 a total of 6.5 billion barrels of
water have been produced (Fig. 4). Much of this water is treated and
discharged (see Section 7.2).
With its huge high-rank coal reserves and numerous underground
mines, gas has always been a mining hazard in the coal fields of Australia.
A number of early trials at development of CBM by major oil companies
failed but by 1996 production began with significant ramp up occurring
in 2001 (Fig. 5). Practically all of the gas comes from either the Bowen or
the Surat basins in Queensland, however some development and pro-
duction occur in the Sydney Basin in New South Wales (Fig. 6). Although
a significant amount of Australia's production comes from coal of high-
rank, the Surat basin, which is mostly subbituminous in rank, does con-
tribute significantly to overall gas production. Finally, there have been
exploration activities in the brown coals of Victoria, but no production
has occurred to date.
Reliable production data for CBM in China is elusive, therefore
values reported here should only be taken as indicative at best. Simi-
larly, gaining information on the number and types of wells is virtually
impossible, but the general feeling in the industry is that thousands of
development wells have been drilled, but commercial utilisation of
the gas is localised as compared to the large integrated network of
CBM pipelines seen in the USA, Australia and Canada. What is known
is that practically all of the production either comes from the
high-rank coals in the Ordos or the Qinshui basins (Fig. 7) although
some CBM production can be found almost anywhere in China
where there is coal and people, which covers much of the country.
Data reported in the general press has CBM production in 2006 at
just over 1 BCF and by 2010 at 51 BCF (Fig. 8). Although most certainly
inaccurate and underestimating total production, these values probably
do reflect the rate of increase in large CBM production projects in China
over the last five years. The other certainty is that CBM in China, because
of both the size of its coal resources (estimated to be in the trillions of
tons) and its voracious energy needs, will likely increase to rival other
producing countries in the world.
Like China, India has a huge population and growing economy and
is looking for ways to maximise its energy resources. Therefore, India
has had an aggressive initiative for the last few years to explore and
develop its CBM resources through international tendering processes.
Commercial production has started and is believed to have been just
over 2 BCF in 2009 (Fig. 9). Again, the data most likely under represents
the actual CBM being produced and sold.
A final note on CBM production; over the last few years there has
been a race to feed LNG plants with methane from CBM prospects.
This is mainly occurring in Australia where it is likely that the first pur-
pose built, relatively large scale, plant will take coal seam-derived gas in
the next 5 years. A similar race is also ensuing within Indonesia. The
carrot for all the companies is the relatively high export price paid for
LNG; but in order for this to work economically, a large resource has
to be able to be developed and sustained over a large number of years.
3. Gas type, quality and measurement
CBM is primarily of interest because of its energy potential; therefore
this review considers the gas itself up front. Reviews of origins of gas in
coal and the composition or ‘quality’ of the gas have been conducted by
Clayton (1998), Hunt (1979), Rice (1993), Rice and Claypool (1981) and
Whiticar et al. (1986). The reader is directed to these papers, and the
references within, for an additional perspective and an in-depth exam-
ination of gas formation and gas composition in coal beds. To start out
with, however, we can consider that there are two primary origins of
CBM: biogenic and thermogenic (Fig. 10). The gas in the coal seam
may contain varying proportions of methane relative to other gases,
referred to as gas quality (see Section 3.3 for further discussion on gas
quality).
40 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 2. Map showing locations of USA basins discussed in this paper.
From a practical perspective, purely biogenic gas plays are almost
always lower in gas content than thermogenically-derived CBM. Gas
contents are rarely above 4 to 6 m 3/t in biogenically derived
resources though this is not a hard and fast rule. High-rank coals can
be in excess (though rarely) of 20 m3/t. Remember too that the transi-
tion from biogenic to thermogenic is not instantaneous and there will
no doubt be mixing of biogenic and thermogenic gases (see next Section
below). And finally, within a single basin, the shallow coal beds may be
biogenic plays whereas the deeper coals may be thermogenic (e.g.
Hackley et al., 2009).
3.1. Biogenic gas and the microbes that create it
It is now recognised that life below the surface of the earth is vast
(Gold, 1992) and could account for half of Earth's biomass (http://
www.deepscience.org/contents/dark_life.shtml). Mostly, life below our
lawns consists of microscopic organisms (microbes) (Fig. 11) which
play a huge role not only in decay of plant material (Rogoff et al., 1962;
Waksman and Stevens, 1929) but also in the generation of methane in
peat and low-rank coal (Strąpoć et al., 2008a; Wang et al., 1996).
When methane is derived from microbes, it is said to be biogenically
derived. It is interesting to read Rogoff et al. (1962), which is an early
review of the microbiology of coal. The questions and doubts raised in
that paper are now just beginning to be addressed and answered (see
Fig. 3. Coalbed methane production profile for the Black Warrior basin, USA from 1980
to 2009, San Juan basin, USA from 1989 to 2009 and the Powder River Basin, USA 1985
to 2010. Source: Energy Information Association http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/
rngr52sal_1a.htm, and Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: http://wogcc.
state.wy.us/.
papers in Flores, 2008 as well as Midgley et al., 2010, Penner et al.,
2010 and Strąpoć et al., 2008a).
A number of recent studies have categorised microbial taxa found
in coal-derived water and coal matrix that have been deeply (500 to
1000 m) buried (e.g. Green et al., 2008; Hendry et al., 2007; Li et al.,
2008; Midgley et al., 2010; Penner et al., 2010; Shimizu et al., 2007;
Strąpoć et al., 2008a). Usually the microbial assemblage found in
coal will consist of hundreds of taxa but it is generally believed that
there is only a smaller subgroup, aptly termed methanogens, which
metabolise the methane (Strąpoć et al., 2008a). This paper won't
detail the specific taxa found in coals, but three areas will be discussed:
1. General taxa present, 2. The methanogenic process of making methane
and 3. Indicative environmental conditions needed for microbial growth.
In terms of the taxa present, creation of biogenic methane from
coal requires the cooperation of organisms from two out of the
three Domains of Life—bacteria and archaea (note that the three
Domains [Superkingdoms] of Life are: Eukarya, Bacteria and Archaea
(Woese et al., 1990). Plants and animals (humans among them) lie
within the Eukarya branch of life). Collectively, the organisms involved
are referred to as methanogenic consortia because there are literally
hundreds of species of both bacteria and archaea that have their own
special role in making methane (Green et al., 2008). Bacteria begin the
process and archaea complete it (Fig. 12). There is a developing body
of research on biogenic gas formation; however it is recognised that
there are many more details still to be understood. The following
discussion is gleaned from a few papers (Green et al., 2008; Midgley et
al., 2010; Shimizu et al., 2007; Strąpoć et al., 2008a; Ulrich and Bower,
Fig. 4. Co-produced water from the Powder River basin from 1985 to 2010. Source:
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: http://wogcc.state.wy.us/.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 5. CBM Production in Australia from 1996 to 2009. Source: http://www.
australiamines.atlas.gov.au and http://www.ga.gov.au.
2008; Wang et al., 2010a; Whiticar et al., 1986) and greatly oversim-
plifies the process of gas formation; however, it should give the reader
at least a “mostly true” (at this point in time!) understanding of how
bacteria and archaea work to form methane. A review of this same sub-
ject can also be found in Gilcrease and Shurr (2007).
It is believed that bacteria begin the initial fragmentation of the
coal macro-molecule through two main processes: fermentation
and/or anaerobic oxidation. The fermentation of polyaromatics and
carbonylic acids results in acetate whilst ketones are fermented to
H–CO2 compounds. In contrast, different bacterial species anaerobically
oxidise the aromatic and aliphatic structures into CO2. Additionally,
through a process of homoactogenesis, some H–CO2 compounds may
be metabolised into acetate by bacteria. With the fermentation and
anaerobic oxidative processes complete, archaea take over. A number
of studies have found that archaea methanogens create CH4 through
either an acetoclastic or CO2-reduction methanogenesis process (e.g.
Green et al., 2008; Hendry et al., 2007; Penner et al., 2010 among
others).
The environmental factors limiting bacteria and archaea in a bio-
genic system are not well understood. It is known that archaea are
strictly anaerobic micro-organisms (Green et al., 2008) and are con-
sidered extremophiles as some species thrive in high salt and heat
conditions. In laboratory experiments, Green et al. (2008) have
shown that the quantity of biogenically-derived CH4 is influenced
by three factors: temperature, pH and surface area. They show that
Fig. 6. Coal basins in Australia.
41
increasing the temperature even a little (22 to 38 °C) increased labo-
ratory methane production by 300%. Similarly, decreasing the pH
from 7.4 to 6.4 resulted in a 680% increase in CH4 laboratory produc-
tion. Finally, when particle size was decreased (and thus surface area
increased) methane production increased by 200%. Rice and Claypool
(1981) also suggest that for methanogenic microbes to thrive, the
formation waters have to be low in sulphur. Recently, Papendick et
al. (2011) found that increases in both hydrogen content and surface
area may encourage microbial activity producing more methane.
These early laboratory results seem to indicate that reservoir condi-
tions of water pH, abundant surface area and temperature have to
be just right before the methanogenic process can be of relevance in
gas production. Variation in these reservoir conditions may explain
why some basins are prolific biogenic gas producers (Powder River
Basin, Wyoming [Flores et al., 2008]; Surat Basin, Queensland [Li et al.,
2008]), and others seem to be quite variable in gas contents (Huntly
Coalfield, New Zealand [Mares and Moore, 2008]) or have essentially
no biogenically-sourced gas at all (Hanoi basin, Vietnam; as indicated
from Dart Energy's relinquishment; Dart Energy Ltd., 2012).
Biologically-produced methane can form at almost any time during
a coal's life cycle. However, if coals are exposed to high heat with
resultant rank increases, it is thought that the methanogenic consortium
may be killed off (Aravena et al., 2003; Strąpoć et al., 2008a, 2008b). It is
thought that the consortia of microbes needed to produce methane can
survive at temperatures greater than 55 °C (Scott et al., 1994). This does
not, apparently, preclude the reoccurrence of methanogenic methane
formation after heating, if the coal is uplifted and favourable subsurface
environmental conditions are restored. An important criteria in the
re-formation of biogenic gas is that the coals are re-inoculated, through
water recharge, with methanogenic consortia (Clayton, 1998; Rice, 1993;
Ulrich and Bower, 2008). Shimizu et al. (2007) found methanogenic
archaea in a thermogenic gas play in Japan and interpret that they may
be contributing to the overall gas volume of the seam. Similarly, Ayers
(2002), Faiz et al. (2003), Flores et al. (2008), and Smith and Pallasser
(1996) have all shown evidence that there has been more than one epi-
sode of biogenically produced methane in the San Juan, Sydney, Bowen
and Powder River Basins, respectively. In contrast, Strąpoć et al. (2007)
found that high-rank coals in Kentucky were not secondarily enriched
in biogenic gas because the present geological conditions, structural in
nature, have prevented hydrologic recharge, and thus re-inoculation of
the seam with methanogenic consortium. It is conceivable however,
that in high-rank coals (e.g. semi-anthracites), the organic fraction has
been transformed into material not readily useable by the microbes
(Rice and Claypool, 1981).
Understanding the controls on biogenic processes in the formation
of methane in coal reservoirs is important as it may provide an alter-
native energy source that potentially could become ‘renewable’ as
long as there is a coal seam. Already a number of laboratories are
beginning to experiment with how to ‘inoculate’ a coal reservoir with
the right microbial consortium with the expressed purpose of genera-
tion of methane in real time (e.g. Martini et al., 2005; Ulrich and
Bower, 2008).
3.2. Generation of thermogenic gas
Simply put, when coal attains a rank of approximately 0.5–0.6%
vitrinite reflectance (high volatile bituminous), thermogenic gas
begins to evolve (Clayton, 1998). Gas evolution results from a combina-
tion of time, heat and pressure. These factors cause devolatilisation and
production of compounds and gases such as methane, carbon dioxide,
nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide as well as higher hydrocarbon chain
gases (e.g. ethane and propane). Onset of thermogenic gas generation
will have variable timing, in relation to coal rank, depending on organic
composition and specific basin and burial history (Whiticar, 1994).
Based on bulk organic composition as well as formation tempera-
ture, theoretical volumes of gas, and gas type can be predicted (Hunt,
42 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 7. Coal basins in China discussed in this paper.
1979; Fig. 13). However, laboratory experiments indicate that kinetic
models, in mathematical isolation, probably underestimate the amount
of gas derived from organic matter (Butala et al., 2000). Zhang et al.
(2008) suggest specific kinetic and/or laboratory predictive models
must be confined to individual basins. In their research, vitrinite reflec-
tance is related to gas generation volume and type (Fig. 14). They found,
using samples from the Piceance basin that with increasing vitrinite
reflectance, CO2 generation decreased substantially whilst CH4 and
higher hydrocarbons increased. This supports a previous study by Behar
et al. (1995) that found good experimental evidence that gas yield
increased with rank in coals. Other researchers, however, have suggested
that gas generation as modelled in laboratory experiments tends to be
less than what has been observed in actual coal beds (Clayton, 1998).
What is clear, however, is that coal beds that are high enough in
rank to produce and retain thermogenic gas tend to have higher
total gas contents than coals with purely biogenically-derived gas. Of
course, the reasons for higher rank coals generally having more gas
Fig. 8. CBM production in China from 2006 to 2010. Source: http://www.kczywm.cn/
kuangyexingqing/200810/23-16_2.html, http://www.kczywm.cn/kuangyexingqing/
200810/23-16_3.html, http://www.kczywm.cn/kuangyexingqing/200810/23-16.html,
http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2009-12/22/content_1494088.htm, and Hongmei Li, personal
communication, 2011.
may be two fold: Firstly, their holding capacity is greater (mostly
because of lack of moisture; see Section 4.1) and secondly,
devolatilisation of coal will kinematically produce more gas than bio-
genic processes. This does not mean that high-rank coals will always
have more gas than low-rank coals; de-gassing because of pressure
loss or elevated temperatures, and thus lowering of the gas saturation
of a reservoir may occur because of uplift, tectonic fracturing and
migration of gases or other factors (see Section 5.5 for the definition
and controls on gas saturation).
3.3. Gas quality
In CBM, ‘gas quality’ refers to the types of gases inherently present
in the reservoir, that is, the composition of the gas. The word quality is
used as it is the various proportions of the mixed gases that determine
the value of the gas as a commodity. Typically, gases in a CBM reservoir
can be divided into two groups: ‘productive gases’ (CH4, C2, C3, etc.)
and ‘inert gases’ (CO2, N2, H2S). Productive gases are those that add
economic value through their heating content upon combustion and
inert gases simply do not combust and thus take away value (on a
volume basis). Note that C1, C2, C3 are short-hands commonly used in
the gas business and academic circles to refer to methane, ethane and
Fig. 9. CBM production in India from 2000 to 2009. Source: Mr Sudhansu Adhikari,
personal communication, 2010.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81 43

Fig. 10. Schematic showing biogenic and thermogenic gas generation in relation to rank, moisture, vitrinite reflectance and coalification stages.

propane, respectively (Whiticar, 1994). Most low-rank CBM reservoir
gases are ‘dry’, as opposed to ‘wet’ gas; the definition of dry or wet gas
is if it has less than 1.3 or >4 l/100 m 3 of condensable liquids (Hunt,
1979). Hydrogen sulphide or H2S is relatively rare in CBM plays, howev-
er, even small quantities can have a profound effect on how the gas is
handled. The gas is incredibly toxic, with even a fraction of a percent
being fatal, as well as extremely corrosive, which has implications for
casing and pipelines. Thus, there is usually zero tolerance for H2S in
any gas stream. The terms ‘sweet’ and ‘sour’ refer to gases that are low
and high, respectively, in H2S (Hunt, 1979). H2S is derived primarily
through either the devolatilisation process of coalification (Fig. 14;
Hunt, 1979) or through bacterial sulphate reduction (Bustin, 2004). Bac-
terial sulphate reduction can occur through natural processes or, if

Fig. 11. Scanning Electron Microscope photographs of methanogenic microbes from Fig. 12. Simplified pathway of secondary biogenic methane production in coal. See text
coal, sourced from the Powder River Basin. Courtesy of Luca Technology. for further explanation and also Strąpoć et al. (2008a).
44 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 13. Timing of gas type generation in relation to temperature for humic type organic
matter. Also showing approximate H/C ratios with burial stages. Modified from Hunt
(1979) and Zhang et al. (2008).
things go wrongly, through use of bacterially contaminated drilling
or fracturing fluids introduced into the reservoir; in the latter case,
cleaning up the reservoir can be time consuming and expensive.
In general, the gases found within a CBM reservoir are greatly
influenced by rank (see Section 4.1). Because of the nature of biogenic
processes, low-rank coals contain mostly CH4 and usually only small
quantities of CO2. However, in some plays there may be spatial variation
in CH4 and CO2 because of the kinetics of differential gas transport. This
variation can have economic ramifications over the production life of a
basin (Cui et al., 2004).
Some CBM plays may have a multitude of gases present whose
relative concentrations vary greatly laterally and vertically within the
basin. For example, in the Sydney basin CO2 concentrations increase
Fig. 14. Changes in relative volumes of generated gases to vitrinite reflectance; from
experimental pyrolysis data. Modified from Zhang et al. (2008).
upwards through multiple seams (Faiz et al., 2007a). Furthermore, in
the Bulli seam within the same basin, ethane proportions vary signifi-
cantly in relation to the depth of the coal seam (Faiz et al., 2003).
Creedy and Pritchard (1983) and Rice (1993) also found a relationship
between depth and gas quality, though this doesn't appear to be univer-
sal across basins. An interesting association in the San Juan Basin exists
where coals seams below the topographically higher recharge areas
have the highest CH4 concentrations (and importantly low CO2; Scott
et al., 1994). This has been postulated to be a result of water differentially
flushing the more mobile CO2 down dip, effectively concentrating the
CH4 (Cui et al., 2004). Some production companies do note that CO2
will increase at the expense of CH4 with continued degassing of the
seam; in part this might be the result of different desorption kinetics
between CO2 and CH4 (Cui et al., 2004).
Care does have to be taken when analysing for gas quality as some
gases may be introduced or created during the sampling process or
even be altered from the containment vessel itself (van Holst et al.,
2010). For example, if canisters are not constructed out of material
which are inert and non reactive, it has been shown that significant
H2 may be produced (Faraj and Hatch, 2004). Nitrogen can also be
an introduced contaminant (as part of atmospheric air) during gas
quality analysis (Kim 1973). There is no doubt that N2 exists naturally
within some higher rank coals (Creedy and Pritchard, 1983; Hunt,
1979) but in some cases O2 may react with the coal itself and be pref-
erentially adsorbed, with the effect of leaving excess N2 in the gas
mixture (Creedy and Pritchard, 1983; Havton, 2003; Jin et al., 2010).
It is important that this relic N2 is not mistaken as being inherent
within the seam.
3.4. Desorption
The amount of actual gas (also referred to as ‘gas charge’) in a coal
bed can be estimated through taking a sample of fresh coal and
desorbing gas from it over a period of time. When a sample of coal is
brought to the surface and placed in a canister some of the gas will be
released from the coal. At depth, reservoir pressure, which is mainly
from hydrostatic head, keeps gas molecules physically adsorbed onto
the surface of the coal micropores (see also Section 5.2 and Busch and
Gensterblum, 2011 for more detail on sorption properties). The zero
hydrostatic pressure at the Earth's surface allows the gas to desorb out
of the coal and thus be measured. This process is called desorption.
Some procedures dictate that desorption should take place at the equiv-
alent reservoir temperature that the sample came from (e.g. American
Standard Testing Material [ASTM] D7965-10, 2010) whilst other proce-
dures place less emphasis on that requirement, relying more on math-
ematical corrections to simulate reservoir temperature (e.g. AS 3980–
1999, Anonymous, 1999; Saghafi et al., 1995; Williams, 1996).
Some service companies are now offering in situ gas measurements
that determine the critical desorption pressure (CDP) without the need
for core. As this technology is just being commercially trialled, the reader
is directed to www.welldog.com and www.weatherfords.com for addi-
tional information on these procedures. See also Lamarre and Pope
(2007) and Carlson et al. (2008) for a discussion. It is also possible to
use well cuttings for desorption (ASTM, 2010; Newell, 2007), though
these will yield less certain results.
Some of the earliest modern desorption procedures were developed
by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in the 1970s and early 1980s (e.g. Diamond,
1978; Diamond and Levine, 1981; Kim, 1973, 1977; Kim and Douglas,
1973; McCulloch et al., 1975). The basic concept is that coal samples
are brought quickly to surface (preferably using a wire-line coring
system), placed in a leak proof canister of roughly the same size as the
sample, and over a period of time the gas that is evolved is measured.
Since those early studies, there have been improvements (e.g. Barker
et al., 2002, Crosdale et al., 2005; McLennan et al., 1995; Moore and
Butland, 2005; Stricker et al., 2006; Yee et al., 1993; also see Diamond
and Schatzel, 1998 for an earlier review), but the essential steps have
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
remained the same. The most recent standard for desorption to be pub-
lished is that of the ASTM (ASTM D7965-10, 2010). The basic equipment
needed for desorption are canisters, and appropriately sized manome-
ters to measure the desorbed gas (see Fig. 15). Various spread sheets
for recording gas desorption measurements are given in McLennan et
al. (1995), Barker et al. (2002) and Barker and Dallegge (2005).
In most desorption procedures, there are three measurements, or
calculations, that are made:
1. Lost gas,
2. Measured gas, and
3. Residual gas.
Lost gas (sometimes referred to as Q1) is the calculated amount of
gas that has potentially been lost from the time the core leaves the
reservoir at depth to when it is placed within a canister at the surface.
Depending upon the particular procedure, a number of closely spaced
gas readings are made over the first hour or more and the regression
of those gas volume measurements is plotted against the square root
of time (Bertard et al., 1970). The Y-intersect of that line estimates the
amount of lost gas. For example, in Fig. 16a a linear regression line
indicates a lost gas of about 0.26 m 3/t. Caution should be taken when
doing lost gas estimation as even a slight interpreted change of slope
can lead to significant differences in lost gas amount. Although a linear
Fig. 15. Photograph of typical PVC desorption canister and manometer used in the
measurement of desorbed gas from core.
45
regression is typically used for calculation of lost gas, some researchers
advocate a polynomial regression (Waechter et al., 2004a, 2004b),
which may be more applicable in high permeability coals. The effect
of using a polynomial regression can be seen in Fig. 16b, which increases
the estimated lost gas to 0.53 m 3/t. Lost gas estimation is one of the
areas that contributes to the overall uncertainty in gas desorption
results. Estimation of lost gas is especially important in underground
mines which are gassy. Prediction of mine gas outbursts requires char-
acterisation of initial desorption rate and accurate measurement of lost
gas is integral to that assessment (Beamish and Crosdale, 1998;
Williams and Weissmann, 1995). Note that gas outbursts are rarely
recorded in low-rank coal, and appear to be predominantly high‐rank
coal phenomena (Beamish and Crosdale, 1998; Lama and Bodziony,
1998).
Measured gas, for the purposes of this paper, is defined according to
the ASTM standard (ASTM, 2010) as the gas which is directly desorbed
from the canister and measured using a manometer. The Australian
Standard (AS 3980–1999) refers to this as “Q2” (Anonymous, 1999;
Beamish and Crosdale, 1998). The cumulative gas over this period is
plotted against the square root of time (e.g. Fig. 17). The shape of the
curve can be significantly different between coal beds and even be-
tween coal samples from the same coal bed. The length of time, that is
the number of measurements taken for measured gas, differs between
individual operators. If an accurate measurement of residual gas is
needed (see below), then desorbed gas must be measured until there
is essentially zero gas being desorbed (a standard being that any reading
must be less than 1% of cumulative gas desorbed to date). This may take
some time in low-rank coals, on the order of months in some cases. That
length of time may be unacceptable to some users and therefore a
number of other procedures have been developed. For example, in
the case of coal mine degassing it is essential that results be obtained
almost immediately thus ‘fast’ desorption procedures are used (e.g. AS
3980–1999, Anonymous, 1999; ASTM D7569-10, ASTM, 2010). Some
operators may use a compromise between ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ desorption
which captures enough information to allow desorption rate to be
estimated but accommodates the need for relatively rapid gas volume
estimates for commercial and operational decisions.
It is important to note that low-rank coals are susceptible to produc-
ing their own gas, especially if there has been contamination within the
canister before sealing. Thus, some care and caution must be taken when
desorbing coals for long periods of time. As has already been stated in
Section 3.3, reactions with certain kinds of canister materials can pro-
duce gas unrelated to the original gas within the coal (Faraj and Hatch,
2004).
After a sample is either ‘fully’ desorbed or when the operator
decides that enough has been measured to achieve the desired goals
of the sampling, the coal is removed from the canister and a subsplit is
tested for residual gas (or Q3, in the Australian Standard; Anonymous,
1999). The apparatus for testing residual gas has been described else-
where (Anonymous, 1999), but is essentially a method for crushing
coal to approximately 250 μm size particles, which has gas tight seals
and a gas lead from which the gas evolved can be removed for measure-
ment (Fig. 18). It is important to note that residual gas is only truly
‘residual’ if the measured gas has more or less been fully desorbed. In
either the ‘fast’ desorption method (Anonymous, 1999) or with canisters
that have been decommissioned early, ‘residual’ gas will only represent
the remaining gas and not necessarily gas which might be difficult to
access for CBM recovery. However, when total gas volume is reported,
it is given as the sum total of the lost gas (Q1), measured gas (Q2), and
residual gas (Q3) (note that in the Australian Standard ‘measured gas’
[Qm] is equivalent to the ‘total’ gas of ASTM). Before the gas volumes
can be reported, however, the volume of coal in each canister must be
measured and coal quality parameters such as moisture and ash yield
determined (see ASTM D7569-10). It is crucial that when viewing
desorption results the analysis basis is always noted (for example,
‘as-received’ or ‘dry ash-free’).
46 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

Fig. 16. Example of (A) a linear regression indicating 0.26 m3/t of lost gas (Q1) and (B), on the same data, a second order polynomial regression line indicating 0.53 m3/t of lost gas.
Which is the correct way of estimating lost gas is still a debated topic.

Fig. 17. Example of measured gas (Q2) in a desorption isotherm test.

 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 18. Photograph of ring mill manometer used in the pulverisation of coal and
measurement of residual gas (Q3).
3.5. Desorption accuracy and use
The accuracy of desorption measurements is hard to estimate, for the
mere fact that a sample can't be desorbed twice. As mentioned previously,
lost gas is unquestionably a source of error in total gas estimates. To a de-
gree, the uncertainty can be quantified for lost gas from running differing
regression line scenarios. Similarly, residual gas can be assigned a vari-
ance, if two or more samples are taken from a single canister (but of
course this will not assess instrument error, only partially the sample var-
iability). However, the bulk of the total gas will usually be the measured
gas and this cannot be ‘re-desorbed’. Thus there are no truly quantifiable
ways to determine error and repeatability. Note too, that the amount of
desorbed gas will be highly sensitive to the amount of inorganic material
and moisture in the coal as well as the accuracy of the measurement of
the bulk volume of coal in the canister. Mavor and Nelson (1997) and
Nelson et al. (2000) do make some estimates on the reliability of desorp-
tion measures and they estimate a factor of ∓15%. To put that into per-
spective, if a sample had 5 m3/t of gas (at a stated coal quality), the
error factor on that measurement alone would mean the value could be
within the range of 4.25 to 5.75 m3/t. In a different approach Mares et
al. (2009a), working on a 5 m coal seam with 10 samples, determined
that in order to gain a relatively high level of accuracy (in approximating
the mean) at least four samples were required. More of these sorts of
studies should be conducted to determine the natural variance on differ-
ent types of coal beds.
Finally, just a word of caution about using desorption results for gas
in-place analysis. Single, or even a few, desorption data points are noto-
riously susceptible to measurement error having a wide range of varia-
tion within a single seam. This variation may be a result of organic
composition alone (again, see Mares et al., 2009a for an example) or
slight changes in coal quality. The way the desorbed gas was measured
and the reporting basis also should be noted as inconsistencies can
result in an inability to compare between data sets. Desorption data is
often used to estimate gas in-place (GIP):
GIP ¼ A  CT  d  GC ð1Þ
where,
GIP gas in-place
A area or distribution of coal being estimated
CT coal thickness
d density
GC gas content.
47
As most exploration geologists know, desorption data is often not
available, yet, some estimate of GIP is still required for commercial
assessments. When this is the case, an alternative method of assess-
ment is described in Moore and Friederich (2010) and Moore et al.
(2009).
Gas in-place values should always be reported on an as-received
basis or more importantly not on a dry ash-free basis, which is far
from the real reservoir character. Reporting GIP on a dry ash-free
basis will overstate the actual amount of gas present. Caution is also
needed in how GIP is interpreted from a gas producibility perspective.
Some resources may have a high gas in-place but relatively low gas
saturation making economic rates of recovery unlikely because by
the time the reservoir is de-watered there will insufficient pressure
to flow the small amount of gas (see Section 5.5 on gas saturation);
the marrying of high gas in-place with low gas saturations can be
especially prevalent in geologically young, low-rank coals. Note that
recovery rates and GIP are two very different measurements. GIP
just gives an estimate of how much gas is predicted to be in the res-
ervoir whereas the amount of economic recoverable gas is a function
of permeability, gas saturation, gas price, area actually assessable for
development etc.; all of these aspects are covered in later sections
of this paper. Lastly, desorption contents are not to be used as an
indication for flow rate of a well for all the reasons given above.
With the exception of one study (Bodden and Ehrlich, 1998) there
have been no studies linking desorption properties with individual
well flow rates, though this is an area of study which is sorely needed
from a predictive perspective.
3.6. Adsorption isotherms
As previously stated (and covered in more detail in Section 5.2,
Busch and Gensterblum, 2011 and Rice, 1993), methane is adsorbed
on to the internal surfaces of coal (and thus surface area becomes of
extreme importance in the sorption properties of coal and distin-
guishes it from clastic reservoirs). We've just covered, above, how
to measure the amount of methane that occurs within a coal seam.
However, the amount of methane found within a coal may not be
the amount it can hold and thus a gas adsorption test, conducted in
the laboratory was developed for coal. It is especially important to
remember that in order to understand reservoir character, it is abso-
lutely essential that both the amount of gas present and the amount
the reservoir is capable of holding are estimated. Currently these
two values are estimated through desorption and adsorption testing.
The outcome of those tests allows the percent gas saturation to be
calculated (see Section 5.5).
An adsorption isotherm test measures the maximum gas holding
capacity of a sample of coal at any particular pressure at a stable tem-
perature. Selection of the temperature is usually done based upon an
estimate of what the reservoir temperature is from the depth where the
sample was taken. One study indicates that the results from adsorption
tests are particularly sensitive to the temperature at which they
are conducted (e.g. Bustin and Bustin, 2008) whilst another study
(Crosdale et al., 2008) indicates that temperature can vary widely before
there is any significant difference in adsorption capacity. Obviously, this
is another area needing additional investigation. Another important
criterion is that the adsorption test is conducted at equilibrium moisture,
which, in theory, approximates the moisture levels found within the
reservoir. In the study conducted by Crosdale et al. (2008) it was found
that coal samples which had dried out—even at a small amount—gave
higher maximum gas holding capacity results at most pressures than
samples that had not dried out. This stresses the importance of analysing
only fresh samples that have not lost even small amounts of moisture.
There have been numerous studies that outline the various methods
(e.g. gravimetric, volumetric) and procedures for adsorption testing
(e.g. Busch and Gensterblum, 2011; Kim, 1977; Krooss et al., 2002;
Levine et al., 1993; Yee et al., 1993) and thus the reader is referred to
48 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

those papers and references within. Although there are no standardised
methods (e.g. ASTM, Standards of Australia, International Standards
Organisation) as yet, the adsorption testing community has conducted
repeatability tests (Crosdale et al., 2005; Mavor et al., 2004). It is worth-
while nonetheless to explain—however briefly—the fundamentals of
interpreting the results from an adsorption isotherm test.
Fig. 19 shows an example of a typical adsorption isotherm result
sheet. Although the eye is immediately drawn to the graph, probably
the most important information to register is the coal quality data.
The graph cannot be properly assessed unless the rank (e.g. volatile
matter), moisture and ash yield are known. As will be discussed
(Section 4.1), rank has a profound influence on the holding capacity
of the sample (higher rank, in general, equating to higher gas holding
capacity). The moisture value is a good check to see if indicative rank
is commensurate with the rank as indicated from the volatile matter
analysis—if these values are out of line, then both results should be
queried. Ideally, vitrinite reflectance is also measured on each adsorp-
tion isotherm sample. Finally, ash yield (an estimate of inorganic
material in the coal) can indicate a reason for lower (or higher)
than expected gas holding capacity in one sample relative to others.
The adsorption test results are usually tabulated and then
graphed. In the graph in Fig. 19 the x-axis defines pressure (in psi,
kPa or MPa) and the y-axis the gas holding capacity (in standard
cubic feet per ton [scf/t] or in cubic meters per ton [m 3/t]). It is gen-
erally accepted that in coal the gas holding capacity as related to pres-
sure follows what is known as a Langmuir curve, although there are
other models that predict holding capacity (Langmuir, 1918; and
see Harpalani et al., 2006 and references therein for a fuller explana-
tion). The measured data points, which are unique to each sample, are
then used to derive the Langmuir volume and pressure which when

Fig. 19. Example of a common adsorption isotherm report sheet. See discussion in text and note the volatile matter and ash parameters as well as the Langmuir volume and pressure
used to calculate the curve from the empirically derived data points.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
placed within the Langmuir equation define the shape of the curve. For
example, the data points shown in Fig. 19 have a Langmuir volume and
pressure of 7.36 m 3/t and 8.7 MPa and using the Langmuir equation:
V ¼ ðVL  pÞ=ðp þ PL Þ
where,
V maximum gas adsorption capacity at any particular
pressure
VL Langmuir volume (m 3/t, scf/t, etc.)
PL Langmuir pressure (kPa, MPa, psi, etc.)
p pressure (kPa, MPa, psi, etc.)
allows the curve to be generated not just through the data points but
extrapolated to higher pressures with a fair amount of confidence.
Adsorption results may be reported on an ‘as-received’ (ar) or ‘dry
ash free’ (daf) basis or both. In all cases the dry ash free basis results
will indicate a higher gas holding capacity than the as-received results
for any given pressure because moisture has been mathematically
removed thus theoretically allowing more sites for methane adsorp-
tion. Inorganic material will also be ‘removed’ in the daf calculation,
which, in general, would also increase the gas holding capacity at
any particular pressure. So, which to use and when? Viewing adsorp-
tion isotherms on a dry ash free basis remains one of the best ways to
understand rank and organic compositional controls on gas holding
capacity. In contrast, when trying to understand reservoir properties
or estimating gas‐in-place, adsorption capacity should always be
viewed or calculated to an as-received basis. It is unrealistic to assign
a dry ash free basis adsorption value to a reservoir as it will be neither
‘dry’ nor ‘ash’ free. It would be especially unwise to use adsorption
values on a dry ash free basis for gas‐in-place estimates (or within
flow models) as this could seriously inflate the apparent gas resource
values, especially in low-rank coals where moisture values are very
high.
Interpreting an adsorption curve in regard to a sample's maximum
gas holding capacity is not difficult. If the reservoir is under normal
pressure, then a constant pressure gradient is assumed (0.98 MPa/m).
If estimating gas content from the pressure gradient, it is important to
remember that it is not the depth from the surface to the target coal
seam, but the depth from the top of the water table (which can be 10s
of meters below the land surface) that should be used. The true reser-
voir pressure can be determined from direct permeability measure-
ments of the reservoir through drill stem tests (DST), injection fall off
tests (IFO) or draw-down/recovery tests (DDR) (for a brief explanation
of permeability testing see Section 5.4.2).
As an example lets determine maximum gas holding capacity for a
sample which was collected from a depth of 410 m. The resulting
adsorption curve is given in Fig. 19. If the hydrostatic head is 400 m
then the pressure can reasonably be assumed to be 3.92 MPa (4×
0.98 MPa) (or 3920 kPa) at that depth. Drawing a vertical line perpen-
dicular from the x-axis at 3.92 MPa until it intersects with the adsorption
curve will give, in theory, a maximum gas holding capacity of 6 m3/t. As
will be discussed further (Sections 5 and 6.2), there are many influences
that could affect the results of adsorption analyses and make it unwise
to rely on just one adsorption isotherm to estimate maximum holding
capacity (see also Mares et al., 2009a).
Different samples can have quite distinct adsorption curve shapes.
A ‘classic’ shape (usually associated with higher rank coals) is a curve
that has an initially steep slope but levels out quickly and remains
relatively flat even at high pressures; lower rank coals tend to have a
flatter curve throughout all pressures (Fig. 20); though it should be
noted that there are exceptions to the rule at all ranks. For example,
within a single seam, and using samples of similar composition, the
shape of the adsorption curve can vary greatly (Fig. 21) and this can
have ramifications on inferred producibility (see Section 5.5).
49
ð2Þ
Fig. 20. Example of two types of adsorption isotherm curves, one high rank (from the
Pocahontas coal seam in the Appalachian basin) and a low rank coal from the Powder
River basin. Note that the high rank coal has an initial steep slope and then flattens
whereas the low rank coal tends to have a more steady slope.
Although not as hard to estimate as desorption, the repeatability of
adsorption tests is still problematic to determine. There are many
possible sources of measurement error including handling procedures,
incorrect moisture levels, methods used to compute gas density, as
well as poor temperature and pressure calibration (Busch and
Gensterblum, 2011; Mavor et al., 2004). Although some inter-
laboratory experiments have been conducted (e.g. Crosdale et al.,
2005) it is still hard to isolate what the inherent variability of an adsorp-
tion isotherm test is. This may be the result that there are no standards
for adsorption determination of methane in coal and each laboratory
does things a little differently. It is also not as simple as running repeat
tests on the same sample—quite possibly the microstructure of coal will
change with each successive test (see the concerns of Crosdale et al.,
2005). Of the trials that have been conducted, the general feeling is
that the uncertainty of adsorption isotherm tests ranges from 7 to 20%
(Crosdale et al., 2005; Mavor et al., 2004). These uncertainties are im-
portant to remember when making statements about the reservoir.
The last few sentences should be reread a few times by anyone who
uses these data to make commercial decisions.
4. Geological framework
Often taking the time to understand the geological framework of a
CBM reservoir is undervalued and thus neglected. Characterisation of
geological influences on a CBM reservoir may be subtle, but are no
less important or worthwhile than understanding the vagaries of
the market the gas may be sold into.
Think of it like listening to classical music. If you can recognise
Beethoven from Haydn within a few bars, then the subtleties of
where the music is going can be predicted. Similarly, it is like knowing
that, in general, fluvial paleoenvironments can produce dissected and
discontinuous coal reservoirs as opposed to the generally more
Fig. 21. Nine adsorption isotherm test results from a single 5 m coal seam. Note the
differences in the shape of the curves; ash yield and organic composition are all roughly
the same. Modified from Mares et al. (2009a).
50 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
continuous nature of coastal plain-derived coals (for more details on
the shape of coal bodies, see Ferm et al., 1979). These kinds of ‘rules’
or ‘properties’ allow one to have a better understanding of both the
behaviour of music and CBM reservoirs making prediction of trends,
in either field, easier.
To help in understanding how the geology affects both the coal
and gas there are some useful conceptual guides to call upon.
Warwick (2005) outlines a system that identifies four relatively linear
stages starting from peat accumulation through preservation-burial,
diagenesis-coalification and finally the coal and hydrocarbon forma-
tion phase. Although complex, there are some fundamental tenets
that can be relied upon within this system—for example, that matura-
tion only goes forward, not backwards, that volatiles are driven off,
not taken on.
4.1. General rank effects
Coal rank is arguably the most important factor influencing methane
generation in coal beds. It is important to note that coal quality is a com-
bination of rank, grade and type. Rank is explained in more detail below
but grade and type are also essential to take into account in order to
understand the character of a coal reservoir. Coal grade usually refers
to its level of purity, that is, what are the relative amounts of organic
and inorganic materials present within a particular coal. Different coal
types are distinguished based on the composition of the organic mate-
rial, which is ultimately related to the original vegetation type, which
formed the original peat. The effects on the coal reservoir by both coal
grade and type are further discussed in Section 6.
It has already been presaged in Section 3 that low-rank coal will
have only biogenic gas whereas higher rank coals could have either or
both thermogenic or biogenic gas (see Section 5.5). “Rank”, however,
can be hard to define and mean different things to different types of
Fig. 22. Correlation of different rank parameters, all approximate.
scientists. It is generally defined as the level of organic metamorphism
or the level of coalification. In simple terms, it is the degree to which
organic matter has been ‘cooked’, one way or another, and transformed
in both physical and chemical terms from one state to the next in an
irreversible process.
There are many parameters used to estimate rank. The coal geolo-
gist may refer to organic material as being lignite or subbituminous or
bituminous whilst the coal petrographer will use vitrinite reflectance;
the chemist may use carbon content whilst the coal quality technician
may rely on moisture or volatile matter. All of these measures estimate
rank and can roughly be calibrated to each other (Fig. 22) but not all
are equally adept at characterising rank changes across the whole
coalification range (Fig. 23). By far the most accepted single parameter
used to determine rank is vitrinite reflectance, though even this mea-
sure can be influenced into giving falsely low or high readings because
of original and secondary processes acting on the coal (Newman and
Newman, 1982).
The processes of coalification are extremely complex and in almost
all cases boundaries between states, or stages, of coalification cannot
be precisely defined. This is a result of both the extreme heterogeneity
of coal (Mukhopadhyay and Hatcher, 1993; Taylor et al., 1998) as well
as the myriad of influences that organic matter can be subjected to
during burial. For a detailed consideration of coalification, the reader
is directed to summaries by Levine (1993) and Taylor et al. (1998) as
well as references therein. Because of its importance to CBM, a brief
description is given below drawing upon the above references as well
as a few others.
Coal is composed of plant remains, inorganic matter and water.
However these components can be broken down even further, to the
basic elements of C, H, O and N, plus the odd impurity (namely, the
inorganic matter, which forms—by definition—a minority proportion
within the coal). Although the base components are few, they generate
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 23. Comparison of different measurement parameters that indicate rank. Note that vitrinite reflectance is the best estimator of rank over the whole rank range.
an extraordinary range of variation when combined. This is perhaps not
surprising considering the vast array of plant material (which changes
through time) that goes into making a peat bog, and eventually a coal.
Organic material goes from being immature to mature when its
hydrocarbons are mobilised by increased temperature and pressure;
i.e. the burial process starts to change things chemically, and thus
physically. However, chemical maturation is not the start of physical
and chemical changes in coal. From the start of peat accumulation
organic material is progressively modified on its journey from a mixture
of plants and water into the solid material called coal (see Lüttig, 1986
for a review of how plants are transformed into peat and beyond).
The geochemical–biochemical transformation of plant substances
can be described as occurring over five steps, or coalification stages
(Levine, 1993; and Fig. 10):
1. Peatification
a. Plant materials in peat are humified and macerated,
b. Compaction of material begins (see Clymo, 1984, 1987; Dehmer,
1995; Moore and Hilbert, 1992),
c. Primary biogenic methane develops whilst the mire is still accu-
mulating peat (Hornibrook et al., 1997; Wang et al., 1996).
2. Dehydration
a. Significant loss of water with orders of magnitude loss of porosity
(Moore and Hilbert, 1992; Shearer and Moore, 1996),
b. Organic material enters lignite through subbituminous rank
range, holding capacity of methane increases substantially,
allowing storage of secondary biogenic gas in the coal,
c. Continued development of biogenic gas, if conditions are right
(see Section 3.1).
3. Bituminisation
a. Mobilisation of hydrocarbons (enters the ‘oil window’) (Saxby
and Shibaoka, 1986; Wilkins and George, 2002),
b. Initiation of generation of thermogenic methane, occurring any
time and throughout the subbituminous A to high volatile A
bituminous stages (Hunt, 1991),
c. Maximum gas holding capacity increases substantially, though,
mobilisation of bitumens may also clog pores, decreasing the
capacity.
4. Debituminisation
a. Maximum generation of thermogenic methane and other oil
substances,
b. Exits the oil window,
c. Moisture values at their nadir.
51
5. Graphitization
a. Organic material composed of almost all carbon (Bustin et al.,
1995; Schopf, 1966),
b. Capacity to hold gas may continue to increase,
c. Methane production can continue into the anthracite rank
range, but by the time organic matter is graphitised methane is
virtually zero and any remnants of gas have long been driven off,
d. Moisture increases slightly as a result of an increase in porosity
(Taylor et al., 1998),
e. Aromatic lamellae re-orient from the semi-anthracite to meta-
anthracite rank stages.
As the rank of a coal increases, maximum gas holding capacity also
increases. This very general association is related to both a loss in
moisture with increasing rank as well as an increase in porosity. How-
ever, the relationship between rank and gas properties is neither
straightforward nor universal. For example, there is no doubt that
rank is a primary influence on the maximum gas holding capacity of
coal. It is generally thought that all other variables being equal (e.g.
ash yield, organic composition) the more mature a coal, the more gas
it can hold (Hildenbrand et al., 2006; Kim, 1977; Fig. 24a). However, it
is not just a simple case of rank ‘A’ will correspond to gas holding capac-
ity ‘B’ anywhere in the world. Within basins, the above trend may hold,
but there is little correlation between basins (Bustin and Clarkson, 1998)
(because of differences in coal type, grade, and botanically inherited
microstructure). For example, gas holding capacity increases with
increasing rank as shown in Fig. 25 which shows samples from a single
basin, from coal seams of similar organic composition. (Note that there
is a reversal in holding capacity for the two highest rank samples,
because of very low ash yield content of the sample from 682 m; see
Section 6 for more discussion.) When different coals from different
basins are plotted together, it is clear that rank and maximum gas hold-
ing capacity have little universal correlation (see Bustin and Clarkson,
1998; Fig. 24b).
Moisture content is very sensitive to increasing rank at the early
stages of coalification (Fig. 23). In most cases, moisture content decreases
with depth (Sivek et al., 2010). With this in mind, the predominant
reason for higher gas holding capacity is considered to be a result of
less moisture competing for methane adsorption sites at higher ranks
(Bustin and Clarkson, 1998; Crosdale et al., 2008; Joubert et al., 1974;
Ozdemir and Schroeder, 2009). Thus in a lignite, although it has abun-
dant porosity and therefore sites for methane adsorption, any gas pro-
duced (biogenically) would have few places to adsorb because of high
52 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

Fig. 24. Adsorption isotherms related to rank. (A) The oft cited isotherm graph from Kim (1977) relating coal rank to maximum gas holding capacity (at 0 °C; red numbers are
approximate mean–maximum vitrinite reflectance). Although rank–gas relationships shown are in general correct, they are far from universally observed (see text). (B) Adsorption
isotherms from different coal ranks from different basins around the world (Goodman et al., 2004; Hildenbrand et al., 2006; Laxminarayana and Crosdale, 1999). Mean–maximum
vitrinite reflectance is noted to the right of each isotherm. Note that there is no systematic trend of higher rank with higher gas holding capacity.

moisture (generally >30%). Even slight changes in moisture content will
significantly affect gas holding capacity (Fig. 26).
Desorbed gas contents can also be correlated with rank. Fig. 27
illustrates rank and measured gas down hole in three drill holes; all
wells are from the same formation but drill hole ‘A’ has been affected
by a localised shallow-seated heat source (Herudiyanto, 2006; Nas,
1994) whereas drill holes ‘B’ and ‘C’ have been less affected. Drill
holes ‘B’ and ‘C’ have little rank change down hole and the increase
in desorbed gas is probably related to the increased capacity of the
coal to hold gas from the increased hydrostatic pressure. However,
it is equally clear that in drill hole ‘A’ there is an increase in rank
down hole (from 0.53% at 327 m to 0.69% at 799 m) and although
the maximum gas holding capacity will increase with hydrostatic
pressure, rank certainly plays an important role in the higher gas
charge. The same relationship can be seen in other basins (e.g. Scott
et al., 2007; Fig. 28).
The type of gas that occurs in a coal bed is also rank dependent—in
under mature coals, methane is generated only biogenically because
the heating (or ‘cooking’) process (bituminisation) has not been
sufficient to begin a chemical change and thus, mobilisation of the
organic constituents. Although isotopic evidence shows that biogenic
gas can recharge high-rank coals after uplift (Ayers, 2002; Flores et al.,

Fig. 25. Adsorption isotherms from a drill hole demonstrating relationship of rank with maximum gas holding capacity. Depths are in meters below surface and mean maximum
vitrinite reflectance is within parentheses. Ash yield (in red) given in percent (air dried basis). All seams have vitrinite concentrations between 84 and 94%. Adsorption isotherms
conducted at 35 °C and reported on an as received basis.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 26. Relationship between maximum gas holding capacity for methane and moisture
content. Modified from Levy et al. (1997).
2008), it is the thermogenic gas which is chemically produced from
major physico-chemical changes that occur during the bituminisation
and de-bituminisation stages of coalification (see Section 3.2).
Gas composition or ‘quality’ is also affected by coalification and is
closely tied to the origin of the gas (biogenic/thermogenic). In many, if
not most, cases of low-rank coal the gas is predominantly CH4 (see
Section 3.1 for discussion on how CH4 is derived biogenically). However,
although high-rank coal gas may also be predominantly CH4, often there
are other higher carbon chains such as C2H4, C2H6, C3H8, C4H10 (i.e. eth-
ene, ethane, propane and butane). This is the result of coalification
induced geochemical changes and evolution of gases from the coal, as
well as lipid vs humic sources. There is also a higher probability that
high-rank coals may contain greater concentrations of inert gases,
Fig. 27. Down hole gas contents from three drill holes, all within 5 km of each other. Note
that drill hole ‘A’ has been rank affected, vitrinite reflectance values are around 0.5% at the
top and 0.69% at the bottom of the well. Vitrinite reflectance values in the other two drill
holes range from 0.33 to 0.44% with only minor rank increase down hole.
53
Fig. 28. Relationship between depth and gas content in an Australian coal basin. Note
that there is a rough trend but much scatter most likely related to differences in gas
control from local geological conditions and coal composition. Modified from Scott et
al. (2007).
especially CO2 (e.g. the Sydney basin; Faiz et al., 2007b). The reasons
for this are not well understood, but it may be that heat sources (e.g. in-
trusives, hydrothermal fluids, shallow seated magma, etc.) which have
increased the rank of the coal and most likely its gas content too, have
also contributed volcanically-derived CO2. Therefore CO2 present in
high-rank coals may not be derived from the coal but could originate
from the association with a heat source, which could also be the driver
for increased rank.
Finally, permeability is affected in interesting and complicated
ways as coal increases in rank. Most of all, permeability to water
and gas is stress dependent, but at a given stress variability can be
related to the fracture network in the coals. All other factors being the
same (e.g. organic composition, % ash yield etc.), as rank increases the
fractures in coal (also termed cleats) related permeability tends to
increase (Law, 1993; Wang, 2006). This relationship may not be as
straightforward as it first appears (Laubach et al., 1998; Su et al., 2001)
because of the interplay between fracture and matrix permeability
(described in Section 5.4). In contrast to permeability derived from frac-
tures, matrix permeability is mostly reported to decrease with increas-
ing rank (Balan and Gumrah, 2009; Wang and Ward, 2009) and this is
seen primarily as a function of decreasing pore sizes (Durucan et al.,
2009; Rodrigues and Lemos de Sousa, 2002; see also Section 5.1).
Increase in fracture permeability with rank may not be a completely
causal relationship; with increased rank usually comes increased expo-
sure to tectonic influences that tend to produce higher cleat frequency.
Lower matrix permeability with increased rank may also be derived
from mobilisation of volatiles which then fill pores, as opposed to actual
loss of the pore structure (Schneider, 1986; Taylor et al., 1998;
Teichmüller, 1989).
54 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

4.2. Impact of original depositional environment

The depositional setting in which peat forms will naturally affect its
spatial geometry—i.e. seam thickness and splitting character (Ayers,
2002; Cameron et al., 1990; Cohen, 1984; Esterle and Ferm, 1994;
Ferm and Staub, 1984; Ferm et al., 1979; Fielding, 1984; Flores, 1993;
Flores and Hanley, 1984; Roehler, 1988). Additionally, vegetation type
plays an integral part in determining differences in composition both
between coal beds and within coal beds (facies variation). Domed peat
mires in SE Asia are an example of how this works. It has been well
documented that the type of surface vegetation in mires is correlated
with proximity to streams—big trees at the edge (where nutrients
from flood events can reach) to lower stature vegetation in the centre
(where vegetation tends to be more nutrient starved; Anderson, 1964,
1983). These differences are translated into different peat types with
lateral and vertical variability (Cameron et al., 1990; Esterle and Ferm,
1994; Esterle et al., 1992; Moore and Hilbert, 1992; Moore et al., 1996,
2000). There are other models for peat (e.g. Diessel, 1982; Teichmüller,
1989) but a common feature in all models is vertical and lateral variation
in vegetation and consequent peat types (and finally, with burial, coal
lithotypes). At a given rank the coal lithotypes and their grade will influ-
ence gas generation and holding capacity, coal strength, and fracture
permeability networks, which are all important reservoir parameters.
However, to make things even more complicated, vegetation type
has a fourth dimension: time. As plants have evolved, their chemical
makeup has changed, thus different ages of coal are unique in their
properties and this translates into unique properties of coal (see
Collinson and Scott, 1987; DiMichele et al., 1987; Greb et al., 2006; Fig. 29. Minimum effective stress influence on (A) permeability and (B) gas and water
Shearer et al., 1995). As will be discussed in Section 6, differences in production in the Cedar Cove area, Black Warrior Basin, Alabama. Modified from Bell
organic composition can play an integral part in determining gas prop- (2006) and Sparks et al. (1995).

erties within and between seams.

4.3. Role of structure and stress
The response of coal beds to stress can also best be described as com-
plex. Perhaps one reason for this is that coal is compressible, relative to
conventional sandstone reservoirs (Ayers, 2002), and controls on that
compressibility are numerous and interrelated, including rank, organic
composition and mineral matter content.
The first and most important type of stress that is encountered in
CBM is that of lithostatic pressure; that is, the deeper you go the more
pressure there is from the overlying strata. It has been well documented
that permeability decreases drastically with depth (increased stress)
most likely because the fractures are closed (Enever et al., 1999;
Somerton et al., 1975). By way of a scale, some coals can have a perme-
ability of hundreds of millidarcies (mD) at, say, 100 m depth but by
1000 m the permeability may be as low as 1 or 2 mD (more on that in
Section 5.4).
The horizontal stress regime that basins or sub-basins are subjected
to can also have major ramifications for CBM development. Horizontal
pressure tends to close up fractures. Therefore basins that have low
principal horizontal stress (PHS) are more amenable to artificial
(induced) fracturing of the reservoir.
The effective stress in a basin has also been shown to affect perme-
ability (Bell, 2006; Sparks et al., 1995). Effective stress is the difference
between reservoir or seam pressure and the opening pressure
measured in the borehole or well (Esterle et al., 2006). As the minimum
effective stress in the basin increases, permeability can decrease from
nearly 10 mD at 1 MPa to less than 1 mD at 8 MPa (Sparks et al.,
1995) (Fig. 29a). The decreasing permeability will affect both gas and
water flow rates (Fig. 29b). This effect should not be underestimated
when considering basinal controls on permeability. However, Bustin
(1997) did find that vitrinite content (and especially vitrinite occurring
as bands) in some Australian coal seams had a profound effect on per-
meability, sometimes greater than effective stress.
In general, conventional oil and gas structural exploration models
are not always appropriate for CBM. For example, targeting structural
highs, such as anticlines, has had little success within the context of
producing gas from a coal reservoir. In the Powder River Basin, however,
it has been found that in some cases, sandstones capping anticlines can
act as reservoirs and these features can be developed as gas plays in
their own right (Ayers, 2002). In addition, the Peat and Scotia CBM fields
in Australia also behave more like a conventional play in that higher gas
contents, and even ‘free’ gas have been reported at the top of anticlines
(Draper and Boreham, 2006). In other cases, structural highs are found
to have low gas saturation, possibly because the tensional nature of
the strata has allowed gas to escape through fractures. In contrast,
the synclines may have good gas saturation but low permeability
resulting in low gas flow for wells. In these types of plays, the limbs of
the synclines/anticlines may actually be the best methane producers
and this may be the result of a combination of gas saturation, permeabil-
ity and reservoir compartmentalisation (Kinnon and Esterle, 2008;
Kinnon et al., 2010).
Finally, present and historic stress of a basin will result in faults.
Regardless of fault type (i.e. normal, reverse etc.) the net effect will
be compartmentalisation of the coal reservoir. This may be good, or
this may be bad. On the one hand, closely spaced faults may reduce
the effective reserve area of a well or wells, but on the other hand,
the appropriate spacing of faults can limit de-watering required and
allow quick gas to surface, possibly enhancing the economics of a
prospect. Analysis of fault frequency must always take into account
their possible fractal nature and therefore, whatever the data density,
a proportion will no doubt be undetectable.
4.4. Influence of external effects
External effects on CBM prospects are potentially a huge topic and
therefore cannot be covered in a review paper such as this. Discussion
herein will be confined to how volcanic intrusives influence a coal,
and thus CBM potential.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
In most cases direct cross cutting of igneous intrusions through
coal seams will have minimal regional effect on coal as it has been
shown that rank change is usually spatially restricted in these circum-
stances (e.g. Cooper et al., 2007). Murchison and Raymond (1989)
showed that intrusions in Scotland affected the rank of the coals to a
larger regional extent when the timing of those intrusions were into
seams that were not fully mature.
Shallow igneous intrusives are a different story when it comes to
affecting regional rank trends. For example, the Sangatta coal deposit
of East Kalimantan, Indonesia has been affected by a well-recognised
shallow heat source (Fukasawa et al., 1987; Herudiyanto, 2006). The
resultant rank increase from subbituminous to bituminous is responsi-
ble for the level of current mining in the area (Nas, 1994) as well as CBM
exploration and development (Dart Energy Ltd., 2011)—coals of similar
age in East Kalimantan are lower in rank and have lower gas content.
The Bukit Asam deposit in Sumatra has been similarly affected from a
relatively shallow heat source (Amijaya and Littke, 2006; Susilawati
and Ward, 2006). Gurba and Weber (2001) have also reported in-
creased gas contents in the Gunnedah Basin, Australia in association
with igneous intrusive sills.
Shallow volcanic intrusives can also affect gas type. For example,
the Sydney Basin in Australia is thought to have increased CO2 content
in the gas because of a shallow heat source (Faiz et al., 2007b). In a
different mechanism, large pockets of CO2 in the Yaojie coalfield
(China) have been attributed to large scale basinal faulting that has
allowed gases from underlying carbonates to migrate into the coal (Li
et al., 2011).
5. Reservoir characterisation
5.1. Pores
A fundamental property which makes coal such a special and
unique material—and has implications for coal properties ranging
from not only methane holding capacity but also activated carbon
and liquefaction (Radovic et al., 1997)—is it's porosity. The pores are
so plentiful that just 1 cm3 of coal can contain pores with an internal
surface area of 3 m 2 (Mares et al., 2009b; Radlinski et al., 2004; another
study reported surface areas as much as 115 m 2/g of coal; Şenel et al.,
2001), the size of a very large dining table. Now envision a 5 m thick
coal seam over an area of a square kilometre, not an unusually large
seam. This seam contains around 5 million m 3 of coal and could have
internal pore surface areas of more than 1500 km2, about the size of
Rhode Island. With this in mind it is easier to understand how coal
can hold very large quantities of gas, adsorbed onto its very large pore
surface area.
It is generally accepted that there are actually two key parts to
coal's porosity system, large fractures together with the much smaller
pores (Clarkson and Bustin, 1999; Cui et al., 2004; Harpalani and
Chen, 1997; Rodrigues and Lemos de Sousa, 2002). Within the smaller
pore system it is recognised that three size classes of pores may exist
—macro, meso and micropores (Şenel et al., 2001). Macropores have
been defined as being > 50 nm in diameter whereas mesopores are
between 2 and 50 nm and micropores b2 nm (Gan et al., 1972).
Interestingly, Yao et al. (2008) report that pores follow a fractal distri-
bution being primarily influenced by the presence of natural surface
area irregularities such as original plant pores and mineral matter. It
has been argued that the size distribution of pores is even more com-
plex than a ‘simple’ bi- or trimodal distribution with porosity being
influenced by a range of types and sizes of micro-fractures (Gamson
et al., 1996; Li et al., 2003). Understanding the “dual porosity” system
is important because it is core to understanding gas desorption, max-
imum gas holding capacity and flow.
Rank influences both pore volume and pore frequency (Gan et al.,
1972). Levine (1996) plotted macropores and micropores in relation
to carbon content and found that in general macropores decreased
55
(though there was an increase again at low volatile bituminous rank)
and micropores increased with rank (Fig. 30). Other studies however
have not necessarily confirmed this relationship (Bustin and Clarkson,
1998; Radovic et al., 1997). In a Turkish coal bed, Gürdal and Yalçin
(2001) found that pore surface area increased along with rank up
until about 1.0% vitrinite reflectance but then started to decrease
again with further rank increase. Ozdemir and Schroeder (2009) also
found that pore sizes in general decreased with carbon content (i.e. in-
creased rank). Mastalerz et al. (2009), in contrast, did report an increase
in pore volume with increasing rank, but this was a rank increase in-
duced from an igneous dike. Thus, in this case, the pore volume is likely
to be more related to coke structures rather than ‘normal’ coalification
changes.
Pore volume is particularly difficult to measure in the laboratory
and the resulting measurements are notorious for their inaccuracies.
Mercury impregnation has classically been performed but, because
of lack of repeatability in coal, is rarely used now. Instead, estimates
of pore volume are conducted using small angle scatter techniques
(e.g. SAX or SANS; Radlinski et al., 2004), which give more quantitative
assessments. Typical porosity values used for gas flow modelling usually
range from 1 to 5% (Close, 1993; Zarrouk, 2008; Zarrouk and Moore,
2009) although some SAXS and SANS results indicate porosity between
16 and 25% (Mares et al., 2009b). This discrepancy serves to emphasise
that the understanding of the nature of pores in coal still has a way to go.
5.2. Sorption and diffusion
Sorption is the term that describes the physico-chemical nature of
how methane is stored within coal. In general there are three states
(Ceglarsk-Stefańska and Brzóska, 1998; Ceglarsk-Stefańska and Zarębska,
2002; Rice, 1993):
1. Free state—where methane molecules are within fractures and
macropores
2. Adsorbed state—where methane molecules have a physical
adsorption within micropore complexes
3. Absorbed state—where the methane is ‘dissolved’ within the
molecular structure of the coal.
Methane in a free state is self explanatory, i.e. gas is present in
open voids unattached to coal material. Adsorption happens when a
molecule of methane attaches itself in a loose physico-chemical
state to the surface area of a pore. In contrast, absorption is when a
single molecule of CH4 is chemically held within the molecular struc-
ture of coal. Milewska-Duda et al. (2000) describe a multiple sorption
model whereby a molecule of CH4 is both absorbed into and adsorbed
on to the surface area of submicropores. Others have speculated that
the molecule itself, because of the elastic nature of coal, can modify
Fig. 30. Relationship between % total pore volume between macropores and micropores
versus rank. Modified from Levine (1996).
56 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
the structure of the coal (Milewska-Duda et al., 2000; Ozdemir et al.,
2003; St. George and Barakat, 2001). Wang et al. (2010b) state that
methane will significantly change the volume of both micro- and
macropores.
Most methane in coal, however, is thought to be adsorbed, as op-
posed to free or absorbed methane (Milewska-Duda et al., 2000).
This means that pore surface area rather than pore volume is the
most crucial factor in terms of gas holding capacity (Moore, 2012).
This is a fundamental difference between how gas is held in conven-
tional versus coal reservoirs.
It has been reported that only micropores will play a significant
role in methane adsorption; macro- and mesopores most likely act
primarily as transport conduits (Ceglarsk-Stefańska and Brzóska,
1998; Ceglarsk-Stefańska and Zarębska, 2002; Laubach et al., 1998;
St. George and Barakat, 2001). Although different theories exist as
to how exactly methane is adsorbed onto the surface area of the
pores, it is likely that they occur as single layers, although double
layers of molecules have also been hypothesized (Zhou and Zhou,
2009). The adsorption capacity of pores is also dependent on gas
type—in most cases because of its molecular make up (that is, shape
of the molecule), CO2 is sorbed preferentially over CH4 (Harpalani et
al., 2006). A well recognised retardant to gas adsorption within
pores is the presence of water (Hildenbrand et al., 2006; Ozdemir
and Schroeder, 2009; see also Section 4.1) which is one of the main
reasons why high-moisture, low-rank coals contain only small con-
centrations of methane.
Whilst sorption character informs us about how methane is held
within coal, diffusion theory tells us how it moves from one place to
another (from one pore to the next—until the methane molecule
reaches a cleat ‘superhighway’). It is Fick's Law that describes how
gas diffusion takes place between the pores (Fick, 1855). Fick's Law
also can apply to how fluids diffuse through water, though in this
paper we deal only with gas diffusion. Initially Fick's Law was hard
to verify (Philibert, 2005) but with time was supported through ex-
perimental data. The formula for Fick's Law is:
F ¼ D dC=dx ð3Þ
where,
F diffusion flux
D diffusion coefficient
dC/dx concentration gradient.
The diffusion coefficient, D, is derived by experiment and is de-
pendent on the properties of different gases (some have high D
which means that they diffuse rapidly whilst others have low D
which means that they diffuse more slowly). In CBM, D can be esti-
mated from desorption time, which is related to the diffusion coeffi-
cient (Lama and Nguyen, 1987; Zarrouk, 2008).
What Fick's Law boils down to are three basic concepts: Firstly,
diffusion is directly proportional to the concentration gradient; in
other words, the steeper the concentration gradient, the faster the
rate of diffusion. One can think of it like a woman's perfume (or a
man's cologne): The perfume may originally been sprayed in one
area, but quickly disperses to areas distant from the original source.
However, the distance reached from the original source is dependent
on the original concentration. If the concentration is high then the
perfume might meet you from several meters away, say from even
around a street corner, whilst lower concentrations will require
more intimate proximity for detection. Secondly, diffusion is propor-
tional to the amount of pore surface area—the more pores the less
solid the gas has to diffuse through and thus the faster the rate of dif-
fusion. Once again, it is the surface area of pores that has a major im-
pact on the behaviour of CBM. Thirdly, speed of diffusion is inversely
proportional to distance—the greater the distance the slower the rate
of travel. Thus, for example, in high-rank coals that have abundant
fractures, diffusion rates are higher as there is less distance for the
gas to travel.
Gases diffuse at different rates; CH4 tends to diffuse more slowly
through coal than, CO2, for example, because of differences in water
solubility of the gas (Busch and Gensterblum, 2011; Cui et al.,
2004). Although it has been hypothesized that diffusion should most-
ly occur perpendicular to the bedding within a coal seam (Cui et al.,
2004), the physics of diffusion dictate that CH4 will move, through
Brownian motion (Philibert, 2005), from areas with high concentra-
tions of methane to areas with low concentrations. When permeabil-
ity or the hydraulic head gradient is low, then diffusion will be the
primary method for methane migration. Some studies have shown,
through modelling, that diffusion rates will change with time as a res-
ervoir is being produced (Pillalamarry et al., 2011).
5.3. Matrix shrinkage and swelling
During CBM production (i.e. during the de-watering stage), cleats
loose water buoyancy and close up, resulting in lower permeability
than in the reservoir's initial state, which will have the net effect of
reducing gas flow. The effect that matrix shrinkage has on the coal
is to re-open up the cleat system allowing greater permeability
(Gray, 1987). Thus, understanding the mechanism of coal matrix
shrinkage and swelling is fundamental to understanding permeability
changes in a coal reservoir, and therefore will be discussed separately
from, and before, permeability; though there will, of course, be some
overlap in the discussion. It should also be stated that, although the
phenomena of shrinkage and swelling in coal have been the subject
of many recent papers (e.g. Balan and Gumrah, 2009; Mazumder et
al., 2012; Pan and Connell, 2011a; Pan and Connell, 2012; St. George
and Barakat, 2001; Wang et al., 2010b), it is still not well characterised
or understood.
A coal reservoir is a dynamic system and it has been demonstrated
that over the life of a well, shrinkage may cause significant changes
(such as increases in permeability; Gu and Chalaturnyk, 2006;
Harpalani and Chen, 1995, 1997; Wang 2006; Wang and Ward,
2009). Matrix shrinkage occurs when gas is desorbed out of the coal
matrix; fundamentally it is related to the mechanical elastic proper-
ties of a coal (Durucan et al., 2009; Levine, 1996; Milewska-Duda et
al., 2000). Remember that it is thought that the majority of the meth-
ane is held in micropores (Section 5.1), and that these micropores can
be so small (~ 5.7 Å 3 with a maximum linear dimension of ~ 1.5 Å)
that the methane molecule adsorbed (and possibly absorbed) onto
(and into) the surface may actually stretch and distorts the pore.
Thus, when gas is desorbed the micropores shrink, returning to
their original shape (St. George and Barakat, 2001). Clearly the com-
bined effect of millions of micropores in a very small area of coal
shrinking will have incremental but profound effects. There has also
been some studies which indicate that loss of moisture in a reservoir
could result in matrix shrinkage as well (Ozdemir and Schroeder,
2009; Ozdemir et al., 2003).
If the shrinkage is great enough, then this could counteract any
decrease in permeability from the loss of pore pressure (from
dewatering) and cleat closure. The amount that a coal may shrink is
probably related to many things including coal rank and organic com-
position (Wang and Ward, 2009). Whether matrix shrinkage can
overcome cleat closure during dewatering might be a function of
gas saturation. Wang (2006) found that if the pressure where gas de-
sorption takes place in a reservoir is relatively high (such as in high
gas saturated reservoirs) then cleat closure is relatively small before
significant gas desorption occurs with concomitant matrix shrinkage.
In this scenario, shrinkage would have the net effect of increasing the
permeability. However, in reservoirs where desorption pressure is
relatively low (i.e. a lot of water has to be pumped from the coal to
reach critical desorption pressure), compared to the original reservoir
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
pressure (as in under saturated coal seams) then cleat closure would
be so significant that by the time desorption and matrix shrinkage
started to occur, the reservoir would have already become too tight,
in permeability terms, for matrix shrinkage to counteract.
Matrix swelling is not seen as an issue during normal CBM produc-
tion (i.e. straight desorption of gas off the reservoir). However, it may
be an important factor if theoretical gas enhancements are used, such
as CO2 flooding, to push out methane and speed up production. Thus a
brief review of matrix swelling will be given here. Carbon dioxide is
generally considered to be the most viable gas to use for enhanced
coalbed methane (ECBM); it is well known that CO2 has a much
slower break out time than, say N2 (Zarrouk and Moore, 2009) and
has a high adsorption value in coal compared to CH4 (Durucan et al.,
2009; Mastalerz et al., 2004; Stanton et al., 2001). It is also considered
a method for reducing GHG through sequestration of CO2.
It has long been recognised that coal can swell when injected with
certain gases (e.g. see Anderson et al., 1956). As already discussed,
when methane is released in coal, the molecules that are stretching
the micropores, and thus the matrix in a cumulative effect, allow
the structure to relax and, for reasons described above, shrinkage
occurs. Thus, when injected with any number of gases (i.e. CO2, CH4,
H2S, N2) these have been shown to have, not unsurprisingly, the
opposite effect of gas desorption, and causes the matrix of coal to
swell (Bustin, 2004). The swelling doesn't occur isometrically in all
directions, but interestingly seems to have the greatest swelling
perpendicular to bedding (Day et al., 2008; Levine, 1996; Pan and
Connell, 2011a). In general lower rank coals may be more affected by
swelling when injected with CO2 than higher rank equivalents
(Majewska et al., 2010). Balan and Gumrah (2009) specifically specu-
late, however, that dry coals, even if fully gas saturated, are most affected
by swelling whereas water and gas saturated seams are least affected.
Note that ‘dry’ coals are those CBM reservoirs which are not water satu-
rated and require virtually no de-watering to initiate gas flow. The
Horseshoe Canyon CBM play in Alberta, Canada is a notable example
of a ‘dry’ CBM play. The Powder River Basin (USA) would be considered
the opposite of a dry CBM play. Composition of the coal is also thought to
affect swelling properties; coal types dominated by vitrinite and liptinite
swelled more than inertinite and clay-rich coals coal types, evidently
because of higher rates of CO2 dissolution (Karacan, 2003).
5.4. Permeability
Whereas porosity informs us about the storage capacity of gas in
coal, permeability defines the level of transportability of that gas.
Even if a coal seam has high gas volume (i.e. ‘charge’) low permeability
can result in uneconomic gas production rates. Permeability in a coal is
affected by many things, including rank and basin wide stress (see
Sections 4.1 and 4.3). However it is vital to understand that there are
two broad types of permeability: matrix and fracture. How these two
types of permeability interact with each other determines, to a very
large degree, the gas production profile for a well (Levine, 1996;
Wang, 2006; Wang and Ward, 2009).
5.4.1. Matrix
Simply put, matrix permeability is the permeability of the coal
itself, not taking into account natural fractures that may crosscut and
subdivide the coal. The pore system within the coal matrix ultimately
determines matrix permeability (see Section 5.1 and Adeboye and
Bustin, in press). Estimating matrix permeability is performed in the
laboratory usually on core samples that have been collected specifically
for that purpose. Besides giving a better understanding of the coal reser-
voir from a scientific sense, matrix permeability can be used in flow
models to refine estimates of diffusion.
Typically, matrix permeability will be orders of magnitudes lower
than fracture permeability in the same coal. It is generally thought
that matrix permeability is higher in lower rank coals because, among
57
other things, of the remnant inherent plant porosity and decreases
with rank.
5.4.2. Fracture/cleat
Naturally occurring fractures in coal (i.e. cleats) are the single most
important physical attribute governing gas flow in a CBM reservoir.
The ‘how, where and why’ of cleat formation is still a matter that is
debated (see Close, 1993; Laubach et al., 1998 for extensive reviews of
cleating in coal). There are two main processes that are usually cited,
however, for cleat formation: endogenetic or exogenetic (Close,
1993). The former is the result of compaction and contraction of the
coal from desiccation and the coalification process, whilst the latter is
from tectonic stress and strain placed upon a seam as it is being buried.
Cleats in coal almost always occur as two mutually perpendicular
sets of fractures (i.e. having an orthogonal geometry). The ‘face cleat’
is the dominant fracture system whereas the ‘butt cleat’ is less laterally
continuous and almost always terminates where it intersects a face
cleat (Fig. 31). Cleats are perpendicular (or nearly so) to bedding
and face cleats will typically strike perpendicular to the axes of folds
and be parallel to normal fault systems (Cameron, 1995). There are
many instances where cleat directionality does not follow what
might be inferred from the tectonics of the basin (e.g. see Laubach et
al., 1998). In particular, directly adjacent to shear zones, the coal
cleat direction can be altered to reflect the localised stress–strain
relationships.
Because of the importance of cleats in CBM production (and min-
ing), much work has been conducted on understanding the controls
on cleat frequency and distribution. Cleat frequency has generally
been noted to decrease as a function of bed thickness (Harpalani
and Chen, 1997). In a detailed study on a small set of Bowen basin
coals, Dawson and Esterle (2010) found four classes of cleats. This
classification may be broadly applicable to other areas, at least in con-
cept (see also Anna, 2003). The four types of cleats found by Dawson
and Esterle (2010) were (Fig. 32):
1. Master cleats
2. Single vitrain layer cleats
3. Multiple vitrain layer cleats, and
4. Durain layer cleats.
Note that both ‘vitrain’ and ‘durain’ refer to macroscopically recog-
nizable coal types in coal seams. For an explanation of these see
Stopes (1919) and Taylor et al. (1998). When banding is referred to
in this paper, it refers to the degree (i.e. the proportion) to which
vitrain bands make up a coal type (i.e. lithotype).
Fig. 31. Schematic of face and butt cleats; view is looking down on the bedding plane.
Note the more continuous nature of face cleats and the termination of butt cleats at the
face cleats.
58 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 32. Schematic of cleat system in a coal face (view is perpendicular to bedding, i.e.
opposite from Fig. 31, which is parallel to bedding). (A) Cleats confined to a single
vitrain layer, (B) cleats within a package of multiple vitrain layers, bounded top and
bottom by durain layers, (C) master cleats which cross both vitrain and durain layers,
(D) cleats that occur only in durain layers, (E) large master cleat/joint systems that
cross all coal and rock parting. From Dawson and Esterle (2010).
In terms of patterns of cleating, Dawson and Esterle (2010) found
that cleat spacing was inversely proportional to cleat height (i.e. the
less frequent the cleats, the greater the length of any individual
cleat). In an example of this, vitrain layers occurring as isolated lenses
(type 2 above) or groups of lenses (type 3 above) had the most
frequent cleat spacing but were the shortest (see also Close, 1993).
In contrast, durain layers had more widely spaced cleats (type 4
above) with significantly more vertical and lateral continuity than
types 2 and 3. Finally, master cleats (type 1 above), which behave
more like conventional rock joints (Dawson and Esterle, 2010), are
very infrequent in their spacing but attain the greatest height. This
relationship between cleat spacing and height with coal type is some-
thing that can greatly improve our understanding of why and how
permeability changes from coal bed to coal bed as well as horizontally
and laterally within a single coal. At present our predictive capabilities
are still in need of refinement.
Fig. 33. Relationship between cleat aperture, number of cleats (per inch) and predicted permeability. Developed for the San Juan basin. Modified from Laubach et al. (1998).
The permeability of many CBM reservoirs is anisotropic, i.e. perme-
ability is greater in one orientation than another, and this is thought
to be the influence of differential in situ stress on cleats (Paul and
Chatterjee, 2011). The directionality of permeability is important in
optimising well placement. Anisotropy of permeability has mostly
been ascribed to the greater continuity of the face cleat, which occurs
in one direction, over that of the butt cleat, which occurs in a nearly
perpendicular direction. The specific nature of the connectivity
between the butt and face cleats however may prove to be as important
in controlling permeability anisotropy as any other property (Law,
1993).
Cleat aperture (i.e. the width of the opening) is another important
property that has an immense impact on reservoir permeability.
Obviously, direct study of cleat aperture under reservoir conditions is
difficult. However, Laubach et al. (1998) attempted to understand the
relationship between cleat spacing, aperture size and permeability.
From hundreds of measurements in the San Juan and Black Warrior
basins they proposed the relationship shown in Fig. 33. This figure
shows that, at any particular aperture size, the effective permeability
increases with increasing cleat frequency (see again the above discus-
sion about coal type controlling cleat frequency and height). Although
replete with caveats on it use, this diagram does at the very least
demonstrates how cleat frequency, aperture size and permeability
may relate to each other (though not necessarily in the absolute terms
given in the figure) in other basins.
The rank of a coal undoubtedly plays an important role in cleat
development. Both Ammosov and Eremin (referenced in Close, 1993)
and Ting (1977) cite an increase in cleat frequency from lignite into
low volatile bituminous coal with a subsequent decrease above that
rank into anthracite. There are obviously other contributing controls
that affect cleat spacing, as has already been discussed. The effect of
rank on permeability, in which cleat frequency plays a major role, has
already been discussed in Section 4.1.
The most predictable relationship with permeability is depth
(though from basin to basin the exact permeability corresponding to
a depth will be quite different because of differing coal type, tectonics
and basin burial histories). Almost without exception, the deeper you
go, the less permeable the coal reservoir will be. Coal beds from the
Carboniferous in the Upper Silesian Coal Basin (USCB) in Poland
(Fig. 34) exemplify this relationship. Similar relationships have also
been noted in coal basins in Australia (Esterle et al., 2006; Krelle,
2011) (Figs. 35 and 36). Note that at any particular depth there can
still be considerable variability in permeability. In the example given
in Fig. 35, even at depths of 400 m the permeability varies from tenths
to tens of a mD. The governing reasons behind these kinds of variations
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 34. Relationship between permeability and depth for some coals in the Upper
Silesian Coal Basin, Poland. Modified from McCants et al. (2001).
are not well understood but have to be in part related to coal type (see
discussion above on cleat and coal type) as well as the difficulty in
obtaining reliable permeability measurements. A study by Esterle et
al. (2006) demonstrates that sometimes a clearer relationship between
depth and permeability can be gained through selectively partitioning
data into sub-populations with different trends that often relate to
areas of similar geological character (Fig. 36).
As already stated, a basin's stress–strain relationship (past and pres-
ent) will have a huge impact upon the orientation of the cleat system
Fig. 35. In situ coal bed permeability versus depth in a Permian coal basin in Australia
(location is not given because of confidential nature of data).
59
Fig. 36. In situ coal bed permeability versus depth in a coal seam from the Permian age
Bowen basin (Australia). Permeability has been segregated into geological domains
(i.e. geographic areas of similar geology and gas relationships) and two areas of
‘high’ and ‘low’ permeability have been identified. This has allowed a much tighter
relationship between depth and permeability. See Esterle et al. (2006) for further
explanation.
within coal. However, localised shear zones can override and dramati-
cally change the permeability. This kind of tectonism has generally
been thought to increase permeability (Karacan and Okandan, 2000;
Li and Ogawa, 2001). Equally important in terms of permeability is the
style of shearing. When the coal is deformed in a brittle or cataclastic
manner, permeability can be enhanced 3–8 times above the surround-
ing reservoir (Li and Ogawa, 2001). This type of shearing tends to
open up existing cleat apertures and increase their interconnectedness,
thus increasing permeability (Li et al., 2003). In contrast, when shears
behave in a more ductile or mylonitic manner the resulting permeabil-
ity has been demonstrated to be greatly reduced (Gurba et al., 2001; Li
and Ogawa, 2001). With mylonitic deformation the coals tend to be
tightly compressed and cleat apertures collapse (Li et al., 2003). These
types of shear zones have also been related to gas outburst zones in
underground mines (Gurba et al., 2001).
It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe how in situ perme-
ability is measured. However, because of its importance, a brief mention
is warranted. There are many techniques to measure permeability of a
coal seam in the bore hole (and they go by many names) but the basic
types are:
• Injection fall-off test (IFO),
• Drawdown recovery test (DDR),
• Drill stem test (DST), and
• Diagnostic fracture injection test (DFIT).
The specifics of various tests and combination of tests are defined
and discussed in Clarkson and Bustin (2011), Koenig and Schraufnagel
(1987), Ramurthy et al. (2002), and Wang and Wu (2011). All of
these tests monitor changes in water flow and/or pressure as the reser-
voir is injected or drawn down and allowed to recover. However, it is
generally accepted that different types of permeability testing will
yield different results, even for the same reservoir and in the same
drill hole.
5.4.3. Induced fracturing
The permeability of coal seams cannot be increased (Close, 1993).
Coal seams, like other gas reservoirs, can be artificially fractured in
order to increase connectivity of those fractures. However, because
of both the reactive nature of coal (i.e. its high carbon content will
behave very differently to fracking polymers than conventional
60 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
reservoirs) and its ductile nature (i.e. coal's high compressibility)
hydraulic fracturing of a coal seam may not be as straight forward
as fracking a sandstone or other conventional gas reservoirs. Note
that there is some controversy around what is the correct spelling
for this word: frack, frac, fracking or fraccing. For the purpose of this
paper, frack and fracking are used.
In basins that are under a compressive stress regime, proppant
(fine sand particles, either natural or artificially made of ceramic
spheres or other materials) may have to be used in order to keep
the fractures open after fracking. The generally ductile nature of coal,
however, can mean that even fracking and proppant may not be enough
to keep the newly developed (and expensive) fracture systems open.
The key to fracking is finding the balance between expenditure on
the frack itself and the resultant gas flow. A good understanding of
the stress regime, permeability and structure of the coal seam is
crucial to the success of any fracking operation.
5.5. Gas saturation
The degree of gas saturation is arguably the second most important
parameter (after permeability) in a CBM reservoir. Without sufficient
gas saturation, gas flow will not be economic. A general rule of thumb
in the CBM industry is that reservoirs need to have greater than ~ 70%
gas saturation in order to be economic. Having said that, some reser-
voirs with low gas saturations can and have been economically devel-
oped. For example, initial CBM developments in the Powder River
Basin were in areas that were quite low in gas saturation (Flores et
al., 2005) but because production wells were shallow and inexpensive
and pipelines near to market, operators could profitably extract gas.
In order to calculate gas saturation, both the level of gas charge as
well as the maximum holding capacity of any particular coal at any par-
ticular depth and temperature must be known (see also Sections 3.5
and 3.6). All measurements must also be on the same analytical basis
(e.g. as-received or dry ash-free). A simple way to envision the interplay
of gas charge and maximum gas holding capacity in relation to the
percent gas saturation is to think of a set of cups filled to different levels.
The size of the cup represents the maximum holding capacity and the
amount of liquid in the cup represents the gas charge. These two
together determine the percent to which the cup is filled. For example,
if a 100 ml cup is filled with 50 ml of liquid it would equate to 50% full
(or in CBM terms, 50% saturated). The complication comes in when dif-
ferent coal seams, coal types within single seams, and different depths
all combine to result in a plethora of different holding capacities
(Fig. 21). A coal reservoir may hold, for example, 100 BCF of gas, but if
that represents only 50% gas saturation, then the amount of recovery
would be low (see discussion of this below). In contrast, a 50 BCF coal
reservoir at near 100% gas saturation may yield more recoverable gas
(all other parameters being equal) than the under-saturated 100 BCF
example.
The formula used to calculate gas saturation is simply:
g ¼ 1−ðða−dÞ=aÞ ð3Þ
where,
g % gas saturation
a the maximum holding capacity for a particular depth
d the measured, or desorbed, gas volume (‘gas charge’) of a
sample at a specific depth.
When calculating the percent gas saturation it is important that
both the measured gas and the maximum holding capacity are
expressed on the same coal quality basis. Some operators express
these measurements on an as-received basis whilst others report
them on a dry ash-free basis. A key factor in estimating gas saturation
is the correct determination of the pressure at the depth from which
samples were taken. A normal hydrostatic pressure gradient is usually
used (see Section 3.5) unless a direct measure of pressure has been
made at a few different depths.
The importance of gas saturation is illustrated in Fig. 37. In this
example, measured gas was determined from a sample at a depth that
would equate to the hydrostatic pressure Ps and was only 50% of the
maximum possible holding capacity at that pressure (Fig. 37a). Before
gas can be produced, the reservoir would have to be depressurised
(i.e. de-watered) to a pressure of Pp. Only upon reaching pressure Pp,
commonly referred to as the critical desorption pressure, would gas
begin to flow. If Pa is the pressure at which the well would be aban-
doned (because of economic reasons, i.e. it costs more to run the well
than the return on revenue from the gas produced) then the difference
between the gas level at Pp minus Pa is the estimate of the total produc-
ible gas. At 85% gas saturation (Fig. 37b), one can see the significant
increase in the amount of hypothetically producible gas. This has huge
implications in the economics of a CBM play, both in the time it takes
to get a well to produce gas (think delayed return on the capital invest-
ments) and the cost of water disposal during the depressurisation
phase. Note too that the shape of the curve can have an impact on
de-watering times. For example, the curve for the low-rank coal
shown in Fig. 20 may be less sensitive to changes in the level of gas
saturation than the high-rank coal.
Gas saturation can vary vertically within a single seam. Mares et al.
(2009b) showed that, even within a single 5 m seam, the gas saturation
varied from 66% to over 100% (Fig. 38). This is related to the degree of
heterogeneity of the seam that ultimately will relate back to coal com-
position (see Section 6). Many researchers believe that a coal cannot
be oversaturated. If gas saturation values are greater than 100%, as in
the case of the Mares et al. (2009b) study, then the argument is that it
must be analytical error. The salient point of the study by Mares et al.
(2009b) is that, without the proper sampling density (see Section 8.1
for a brief discussion of uncertainty), it is easy to over or under-
estimate the average gas saturation of a reservoir even at a single loca-
tion, within a single seam.
There are other factors beyond organic composition affecting gas
saturation. Gas saturation can be decreased in at least three possible
ways. Firstly, the coal seam can be buried to such a depth that temper-
ature is high enough to reverse, i.e. decrease, the gas holding capacity of
the coal, expelling gas (see Figs. 39 and 40). This, in and of itself, will still
result in the coal being fully saturated. If that same reservoir is uplifted,
with concomitant recovery of its original gas holding capacity, the gas
saturation will be lowered (unless the reservoir is somehow recharged)
(see also Ayers, 2002; Bustin and Clarkson, 1998; Khavari-Khoransani
and Michelsen, 1999; Scott et al., 1994). Some experimental data, how-
ever, suggests that only reservoirs subjected to relatively high pressures
and temperatures at depth will lose holding capacities (Bustin and
Bustin, 2008).
Secondly, gas saturation can also be lowered if uplift is sufficient
enough to allow the gas to escape to the surface. This is common
throughout the Carboniferous of Europe and the UK (for example see
Hildenbrand et al., 2006; Kędzior, 2009, 2011). This, in part, might be
related to the higher permeability at shallow depths, which more easily
allow gas leakage (as possibly seen in the Sydney Basin, Australia;
Bustin and Clarkson, 1998). Thirdly, there is some evidence that, in
hydrodynamically active basins/reservoirs, the movement of water
can strip methane (Cui et al., 2004; Qin et al., 2005) and/or inhibit bio-
genic gas production (Bustin and Bustin, 2008).
It is now believed that gas saturation can be increased, primarily
through biogenic recharge, if a reservoir is located at an effective
depth and geography for introduction of the necessary microbial con-
sortium (Kędzior, 2011). Biogenic gas generation supplementing ther-
mogenic gas in a high-rank coal has been hypothesized for a coal bed
in Japan (Shimizu et al., 2007). Similarly, other basins are thought to
have had secondary biogenic gas generation when a seam, previously
deeply buried, has been uplifted and re-inoculated with methanogen
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 37. Comparison of effect of two different gas saturations on de-pressurisation and predicted ultimate gas production. (A) 50% gas saturation and (B) 85% gas saturation. See text
for further explanation.
consortium (see Ayers, 2002; Faiz et al., 2003; Flores et al., 2008;
Pashin, 2010; Smith and Pallasser, 1996).
6. Coal composition–gas property relationships
Examples of the role of coal composition on gas properties have
already been presented, a few times in this paper. Although coal
rank is a, if not the, major factor affecting a CBM reservoir, it is the
original plant components that form the foundation of how gas
behaves in coal. Only three gas reservoir properties will be discussed
in relation to composition, though many more properties are affected
(e.g. see Busch and Gensterblum, 2011). It is also recognised that
many studies find no relationship between coal composition and gas
reservoir properties.
6.1. Pores and permeability
A fundamental attribute of a CBM reservoir, is its pore character
(and thus sorption character), and this is indisputably connected to
its organic composition (Ceglarsk-Stefańska and Zarębska, 2002),
which, in turn, is a result of the original peat and depositional setting
(see Section 4.2).
It is well established that micropore volumes are associated with
coals with high vitrinite content (Bustin and Clarkson, 1998; Clarkson
and Bustin, 1996; Unsworth et al., 1989). Within an isorank series,
Chalmers and Bustin (2007) found that bright lithotypes (i.e. vitrinite‐
rich) in Australian coals generally had greater pore volume than dull
coals. Specifically they cite a positive correlation between the maceral
61
telovitrinite and the volume of micropores. In contrast, in a study of
New Zealand Eocene age coals, Mares et al. (2009b) cite a negative cor-
relation between telovitrinite and macroporosity. Chalmers and Bustin
(2007) found that ‘reactive’ inertinite had similar pore architecture to
vitrinite and thus similar methane holding potential. (Note that
telovitrinite is a submaceral of vitrinite but represents the relatively
non decayed remains of recognizable plant remains whilst inertinite is
the most carbon rich maceral group and represents both plant remains
which have been oxidised as well as fungal remains; ICCP, 1998, 2001).
Coals with higher non-reactive inertinite have a greater abundance of
macro- and mesoporosity as opposed to microporosity (Adeboye and
Bustin, in press; Clarkson and Bustin, 1996; Lamberson and Bustin,
1993). Interestingly, Chalmers and Bustin (2007) also found that in
liptinite-rich coals (e.g. ‘boghead’ coals) methane is held as solution
gas within the pores as opposed to being adsorbed on pore surfaces.
This is an example of a depositional environment, albeit at one end of
the depositional system spectrum, influencing pore type distribution
in a CBM reservoir. Zhang et al. (2010) also cite a correlation between
micropore distribution and coal facies, though more work on this
needs to be conducted.
If the pore system is influenced by the organic composition of coal
then it is reasonable to assume that permeability (both fracture and
matrix) is also influenced (given that permeability is the level of con-
nectivity between the voids i.e. the pores). Adeboye and Bustin (in
press) argue that matrix permeability is greatest in high inertinite
coals where macro- and meso-porosity predominate over micropo-
rosity. Similarly, Wang and Ward (2009) demonstrate from laboratory
experiments that high vitrinite coal samples (with all other coal quality
62 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

Fig. 38. Profiles of (A) measured gas and maximum holding capacity and (B) total percent gas saturation in a 5 m subbituminous coal seam. Note the variability in both measured
gas and maximum holding capacity even over a relatively small coal bed. How many samples would be needed to accurately approximate the mean? (see Mares et al., 2009a for an
answer).

parameters being about equal) have the highest total permeability at
any given pressure as well as having the highest rate of increase in per-
meability as pressure decreases (Fig. 41). It is also noted that ash yield
may have a profound effect on permeability.
Finally, as already discussed in Section 5.4.2, coal lithotypes (which
are differentiated by their macro-and microscopic composition) affect
both the degree of cleat spacing as well as cleat continuity. Coal
lithotypes rich in vitrinite tend to have an increased frequency of
cleats and thus have a correspondingly higher permeability than
coals with lower vitrinite (Ayers, 2002; Smyth and Buckley, 1993).
The combination of the composition of the coal and the cleat patterns
has been termed ‘fabric’ by Bustin (1997) and no doubt the interplay
between these two attributes determines desorption, diffusion and
permeability in a coal reservoir.

Fig. 39. Time schematic of biogenic and thermogenic gas generation as related to burial and effect on gas saturation. (A) Peat is formed and buried, primary biogenic gas gives way to
secondary biogenic with depth. (B) Continued burial and rank increase have the effect of moisture loss and increase in maximum holding capacity, gas saturation is variable
depending on local conditions being conducive to biogenic gas generation. (C) With burial and temperature rise (and time) thermogenic gas begins to be generated, supplementing
biogenic gas. Eventually, burial temperature will be too great and all biogenic gas will cease. Thermogenic gas will be at its maximum and thus gas saturation, and if geological con-
ditions are right, could be 100%. (D) Burial reaches a depth where temperature is so great that maximum holding capacity actually decreases (as per ideal gas law); gas is expelled
but gas saturation remains the same. Maximum depth and maximum rank are achieved. (E) With uplift, temperature decreases and maximum gas holding capacity increases. How-
ever, since some gas has been expelled, gas saturation gets concomitantly lower. (F) In some cases if uplift is substantial and coal seams subcrop at the surface, biogenic enhance-
ment may result in re-saturation of coal seams.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 40. Graphical representation of Fig. 39. See Fig. 39 for explanation.
6.2. Maximum gas holding capacity
If organic composition affects the pore volume of a coal reservoir,
then the maximum gas holding capacity will also be affected. An early
study by Lamberson and Bustin (1993) found the highest gas holding
capacities associated with vitrinite-rich coal types in the Gates
Formation of western Canada; conversely the lowest gas holding capac-
ity was in the high inertinite samples. These results were later supported
by the work of Chalmers and Bustin (2007), Crosdale et al. (1998),
Fig. 41. Influence of percent vitrinite of a sample on permeability. Note that at all pressures,
the higher the percent vitrinite, the higher the permeability. Modified from Wang and
Ward (2009).
63
Laxminarayana and Crosdale (1999, 2002) and Vessey and Bustin
(1999) among others. These latter studies don't always arrive at exactly
the same conclusions as each other though, with Laxminarayana and
Crosdale (1999) suggesting that organic composition had less influence
at higher ranks and Chalmers and Bustin (2007) concluding the opposite.
As more studies are conducted, however, there does seem to be a
fairly consistent positive association between vitrinite abundance and
maximum gas holding capacity (Fig 42; Bustin and Clarkson, 1998).
Conversely, higher inertinite will decrease the gas holding capacity
(Fig. 43). Other variables such as submaceral type, inorganic content
and the overall fabric of the coal will no doubt make any correlation
far from perfect.
The effect of inorganic matter on the gas holding capacity of coal is
well documented. Lamberson and Bustin (1993) found that surface
area, and thus gas holding capacity, decreased with increased inorganic
material in the coal. Crosdale et al. (1998) also concluded that inorganic
material acted as a non-adsorbent material to coal gases, thus high ash
yield coal has lower gas holding capacity. Similarly, Laxminarayana and
Crosdale (1999, 2002) found that Langmuir volume decreased as ash
yield increased (Fig. 44). This sort of relationship can also be seen in
Fig. 25, where the highest gas holding capacity sample is actually a
slightly lower rank, as evidenced by vitrinite reflectance, than the
sample with the next highest holding capacity. The reason for this
‘switch’ is that the slightly lower rank coal sample (they all have roughly
the same organic composition, i.e. high vitrinite) has less than 1% ash
yield whilst the other sample has a ash yield of about 6% (air dried
basis). Finally, inorganic material may also further decrease available
methane adsorption sites if secondary diagenetic and epigenetic min-
erals are precipitated (Pitman et al., 2003).
64 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Fig. 42. Relationship between percent total vitrinite (raw coal) and maximum gas
holding capacity. Modified from Bustin and Clarkson (1998).
6.3. Desorbed gas
Unlike adsorption studies, there is a paucity of published data
relating organic composition to the amount of measured gas (i.e.
desorbed gas). In part this is a result of the expense and, in most
cases, the commercial sensitivity surrounding obtaining desorption
data in a CBM play. It is also easier to collect adsorption samples and
conduct laboratory experiments than undertake full scale, meaningful
studies on core samples that have been desorbed following rigorous
procedures.
In one of the few studies, Scott et al. (2007) characterised the pre-
dominately low-rank (mean vitrinite reflectance from 0.40 to 0.54%)
Juandah and Taroom Coal Measures (Australia) in terms of measured
gas content and organic composition. They found a general increase
in liptinite content of the coal beds down section from the Juandah
into the Taroom Coal Measures and then a decrease in liptinite content
at the bottom of the Taroom Coal Measures. This variability in liptinite
content was found to have a direct correlation with gas content. Addi-
tionally, the lowest gas contents, at the top of the Juandah Coal Measures,
are associated with the highest inertinite contents; albeit these coal
Fig. 43. Relationship between % total inertinite (whole coal basis) and maximum gas holding capacity. From the Xishanyao Formation, South Junggar Basin, China. Isotherms
conducted at 30 °C by GeoGas Pty. Ltd. (Australia). Vr = random vitrinite reflectance; Vr and maceral analysis conducted by Coal & Organic Petrology Services Pty Ltd. (Australia).
Fig. 44. Relationship between % ash yield and Langmuir volume. Modified from
Laxminarayana and Crosdale (1999).
seams tend to be slightly lower rank based on vitrinite reflectance. A
straight comparison between measured gas and liptinite content
(Fig. 45) shows a lot of scatter but still is convincing enough to indicate
some sort of trend. Examination of a single well (Fig. 46) affords a better
comparison and clearly indicates an association between measured gas
and liptinite. Hemza et al. (2009) and Mares (2009) also found an asso-
ciation between hydrogen (liptinite being hydrogen-rich) and measured
gas content. In biogenic plays (as many of these cited above are) liptinite
may act as a better feedstock for the microbial consortium generating
methane.
In coals where vitrinite is dominant, the relationship between coal
composition and measured gas contents is harder to reconcile. In the
Powder River Basin, there is some indication that coal with more
abundant vitrain will contain more gas at a given pressure or depth
(Moore et al., 2002; Fig. 47a). Esterle et al. (2006) also found a similar
relationship in Australian medium volatile rank coals (Fig. 47b). How-
ever, these associations may not be causal and other factors such as
permeability and gas migration may be at work. Butland and Moore
(2008), Mares (2009), and Mares and Moore (2008) also found
vitrain abundance to be related to increased gas volume in the Eocene
age, subbituminous Kupakupa coal seam of New Zealand, but the
overlying seam (the Renown) displayed the opposite relationship.
This is curious and if all the data for both the Kupakupa and Renown
coal seams in the Mares (2009) study are considered only by coal
type, the dominant relationship is that there is a negative association be-
tween measured gas and vitrain banding (Fig. 48; Mares and Moore,
2008). Although perhaps counterintuitive, this might be explained
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81 65

Fig. 45. Measured gas content compared to liptinite content in coal seams from the
Juandah and Taroom Coal Measures, Australia. Modified from Scott et al. (2007).

through the higher number of micropores, and thus surface area found
in coal types with less vitrain banding (Mares et al., 2009b).
Other studies have shown other correlations such as a positive
relationship between residual gas content and gelovitrinite (and a
corresponding negative relationship with telovitrinite; note that
gelovitrinite is a submaceral of the vitrinite group. It is generally amor-
phous in nature, and represents the decay products of plant material;
ICCP, 1998) or a positive relationship between lost gas and fusinite
(Fig. 49; Butland and Moore, 2008). In an early study, Ettinger et al. Fig. 47. Relationship between degree of vitrain banding and gas content in (A) a coal
(1966) found higher gas volumes related to an increase in inertinite bed from the Powder River basin, Wyoming (cited in Moore et al., 2002), and (B) in
content. The predictive power of these associations should be viewed medium volatile rank coal from Australia. Modified from Esterle et al. (2006).
with some caution, however, as these relationships are not strong and
are clearly not universal because of the differences in microstructure
and organic composition. 7. Production, modelling and water
As would be expected, coals with high inorganic content have low
measured gas (Wang, 2006; Warwick et al., 2008). This follows the 7.1. Production profiles and modelling
same trend that inorganic material has on maximum gas holding
capacity. Inorganic material cannot adsorb gas and thus the higher A CBM reservoir is different from a conventional gas play, thus it is
the ash yield of a coal, the less gas it can hold. This has been observed not surprising that production profiles between the two are also very
in many basins including the Sydney basin (Faiz et al., 2007b), the Gulf different. The fundamental distinction is that, in a conventional gas
Coast (Texas; Warwick et al., 2008) and most coal basins in New play, gas flow rates start high and, in most cases, almost immediately
Zealand (Fig. 50; Butland and Moore, 2008). However, Mares and begin a fairly steep decline with the final phase of the well being
Moore (2008) found that ash yield had to reach a threshold of 10% marked by water production. In contrast, in a CBM play, water volumes
before a reasonably strong negative correlation with measured gas start high with low gas flow rates but as the reservoir is progressively
was obtained. Below that threshold, no correlation could be discerned dewatered (i.e. depressurized) gas rates continue to rise to a peak
and variation was most likely related to organic composition and ulti- rate, months or years after dewatering started in the well (Fig. 51). As
mately pore size distribution (see previous discussion in Section 6.1
on pore size and organic composition and Mares and Moore, 2008;
Mares et al., 2009b). It should be noted that these relationships hold
for these coals and may not necessarily be applicable to other coals;
more studies are sorely needed.

Fig. 46. Comparison of measured gas content and liptinite in a single well. Increasing Fig. 48. Relationship between the degree of vitrain banding and measured gas content
sample number related to increasing depth. Modified from Scott et al. (2007). in two New Zealand coals. Modified from Mares and Moore (2008).
66 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

Fig. 49. Examples of maceral associations with desorbed gas contents. (A) Gelovitrinite
vs residual gas (from the Greymouth coal field, New Zealand) and (B) fusinite vs lost
gas (from the Ohai coal field, New Zealand). See text for further explanation. Modified
from Butland and Moore (2008).

discussed in Section 5, these differences are a result of how gas is held in

coal versus a conventional gas reservoir.
Schematically, a CBM production profile is thought of as having
three stages: a. dewatering, b. stable production and c. decline
(Fig. 51b). The time required for dewatering is highly dependent on a
combination of the percent gas saturation and degree of permeability
(all mechanical things, such as pump size and quality of performance
being equal). The time between initial pumping and stable (peak) pro-
duction will have a huge consequence on the economics of a well. The
rate of decline following peak production can be influenced by many
Fig. 51. Schematic of water and gas production from (A) conventional gas well from a
clastic reservoir and (B) CBM production profile showing the different phases of
production.
factors, including permeability, well spacing and well maintenance
frequency.
The difference between a ‘good’ well and a ‘bad’ well, in terms of
production, is almost purely related to the rate and timing of gas

Fig. 50. Relationship between ash yield and gas content in four cores from New Zealand. Modified from Butland and Moore (2008).
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81 67

flow. The worse well would take a long time to produce gas with
relatively low peak gas flow rates. A good well, of course, would be
the opposite. The shape of curves, even among good wells will vary sig-
nificantly between basins. For example, Fig. 52 shows some production
profiles from the San Juan (USA), Bowen (Australia) and Powder River
(USA) basins. In this example the profiles differ for a variety of reasons
but fundamentally because of rank (the Powder River is subbituminous
whereas the San Juan and Bowen Basins are generally high to med vol-
atile bituminous), gas charge (the Powder River generally has less than
3 m 3/t, the San Juan 5–9 m 3/t and the Bowen 4 to 16 m 3/t), net coal
thickness (the Powder River has generally 10s of meters of thickness
whilst the San Juan and Bowen have 5–20 m maximum), and well
design (both the Powder River and San Juan are vertical wells whereas
the Bowen is horizontal). The number and maturity of surrounding
wells will also have a profound effect on the shape of a production pro-
file. Even wells in the same reservoir (that is, the same seam), in close
proximity (hundreds of meters), with virtually the same coal seam
properties can have hugely different gas flow profiles (Fig. 53). This
kind of variability is something seen in every CBM field under produc-
tion and is the result of the complex interactions between multitudes
of reservoir properties (e.g. pressure, saturation, permeability). All
these highlight the difficulty of predicting gas flow prior to actual
production.
In the science community, it has become somewhat of a cliché to
say ‘garbage in, garbage out’, and no one would argue with the under-
lying truth of the statement. When it comes to modelling gas flow
through coal, however, there is probably no more apt a saying. Most
CBM exploration companies will have flow models for their prospects

Fig. 52. Three different production profiles from the (A) San Juan [USA], (B) Bowen [Australia] and (C) Powder River basins. Note the different y- and x‐axis scales (flow rate and
time, respectively) between the three different graphs.
68 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

Fig. 53. Example of three flow profiles from the Powder River Basin (Wyoming) illustrating the variability of production even in a small area. Wells are in Section 35 (1 mi2), Town-
ship 44, Range 72. Data from http://wogcc.state.wy.us/.

if only to feed into economic models that are essentially mandatory changes (e.g. shrinkage, changes in permeability etc.) that take place in
for reserve certification and/or taking a company into the public the reservoir as production proceeds over time. These coupled models
investment arena. What is usually produced is a single flow profile are still relatively specialised and are reported on by Deisman et al.
of the reservoir which is then extrapolated over the entire prospect
and that is what the economics are calculated on. In more sophisticated Table 1
simulations low, best, and high cases are run, but even in these, input Essential data input values for gas flow modelling.
parameters are usually still not that well constrained. In green field Parameter Unit Example inputs
(i.e. virgin to CBM production and essentially data barren) situations,
Well type Vertical
so little is known that input parameters for flow simulations can often Coal seam depth m 500.00
be tweaked to give a large number of possible outcomes. In fields Coal seam thickness m 15.00
where production has commenced, history matching of model outputs Reservoir temperature °C 42.00
to the actual flow profile removes a large amount of ambiguity sur- Hydrostatic head m 475.00
Adsorption gas volume m3/t 2.00
rounding reservoir behaviour (but certainly not all) and makes gas
Gas saturation % 80
rates more predictable. It is in these more mature types of basins Measured gas (gas charge) m3/t 1.60
where the effect of, for example, permeability changes, during produc- Absolute cleat permeability mD 20.00
tion become obvious (Palmer, 2009). Langmuir volume m3/t 3.58
The key inputs for a flow model in a CBM reservoir are given in Langmuir pressure kPa 1366.12
Initial water saturationa % 100
Table 1 (note the parameters which are usually estimated, all others Cleat porositya % 1
can be measured). As stated above it is wise to give a range for many Well diameter in. 6
of the parameters to reflect the uncertainty inherent in any particular Fracture half-length, xfa m 75
play. There are a variety of modelling packages that are available for Well spacinga Acre 80
Drainage areaa km2 0.4
estimating gas flow rates in coal seams including COMET, SIMED II,
Bottom hole pressurea kPa 4655
ECLIPSE, F.A.S.T.CBM and TOUGH II. This section does not cover Abandoned pressurea kPa 700
methods of gas flow modelling and the reader is directed to other pub- Ash content (%) 5
lications that have compared some of these programmes (Law et al., Moisture content (%) 7
2005; Wei et al., 2007; Zarrouk, 2008). Some of the more recent Coal density (cm3/g) 1.30

modelling packages couple gas flow dynamics and the geomechanical a

Usually estimated, other parameters can be measured.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81 69

(2008, 2010), Gu and Chalaturnyk (2006), Wei et al. (2007), and refer-
ences within. Some modifications to models have also been proposed
which would take into account the individual sorption and diffusion
character of individual gases (e.g. Clarkson, 2003). As can probably be
gathered, there are considerable refinements on flow models which
are still underway.
Regardless of which modelling package is used, a productive exer-
cise is to run sensitivities around key reservoir parameters. Fig. 54
shows the sensitivity around two key parameters already discussed:
gas saturation and permeability. As is obvious, even relatively slight
(modelled) changes in the values of those parameters result in signifi-
cant impacts on the production profile in terms of peak rate and cumu-
lative gas. Although a vertical well scenario is given in the example of Fig. 55. Sensitivity analysis of gas flow to permeability changes in a horizontal well,
Fig. 54, a horizontal well will show the same types of sensitivities consisting of two lateral wells of 1000 m length intersecting a vertical well in a single
(Fig. 55). Note that it is not the absolute values shown on the x- and CBM reservoir of 6 m thickness.

y-axes which are important in these examples, but the sensitivity of

gas flow to those key parameters.
7.2. Co-produced water
In almost all cases, methane cannot be produced from a coal seam
without producing a significant amount of water first. There is no
doubt that water produced from CBM wells can have an effect, both
in regard to depletion of ground water resources as well as impacts
on the environment from its disposal.
The volume of water produced from CBM wells is highly variable,
from virtually zero to greater than 2000 barrels a day (the amount of
water coming from a CBM well is often related to pump size and the
desire of the operator to regulate water take so as not to damage the
reservoir). In a typical CBM production well, the water is pumped to a
centralised tubing and pump arrangement and as water drawdown
proceeds, the gas rises up between the outside of that tubing and
inside of the casing (Fig. 56). The ultimate amount of water pumped
from any particular well is a function of the hydrodynamic nature of
the coal beds (i.e. if it is a ‘confined’ or ‘non-confined’ reservoir—see
below), together with the permeability and gas saturation, among
other variables. A confined coal reservoir is one where the layers
above and below the coal seam are so impermeable that water move-
ment across those layers is not possible (these layers are termed an
‘aquitard’). For example, the coal layers in the Black Warrior basin are
thought to be confined aquifers (Pashin, 2007) whereas coals in the
Powder River basin are generally thought to be unconfined aquifers.
In the latter case, dewatering is not restricted to just the coal seam
and can encompass a number of other rock units in the stratigraphy
until an aquitard is encountered.

Fig. 54. Sensitivity analysis where all variables are held the same except for (A) percent
gas saturation and (B) permeability to demonstrate their effect on gas flow (note: (A) Fig. 56. Schematic diagram showing an open hole completion with a screen (to protect
and (B) come from two different real world data sets). the pump) for a typical CBM well.
70 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
A number of studies have shown that the extent of the recharge
area and local geology can have a profound effect on the reservoir
pressure, water chemistry and production performance of wells
(Anna, 2003; Ayers, 2002; Myers, 2009; Pashin, 2007; Scott, 1993).
In the Black Warrior basin, recharge plumes were found to control
water chemistry; water pumped from wells that are within the
recharge plumes can be safely discharged at the surface with little
or no treatment whereas away from the recharge plumes, the water
chemistry is such that it needs to be reinjected into other strata
(Pashin, 2007). The San Juan basin is also thought to have similar
recharge areas that penetrate into the Fruitland Formation at depth
(Ayers, 2002). However, other studies have indicated that inflow
into the formation is quite limited (less than 5 km from outcrop;
Snyder et al., 2003), although microbes and nutrients are thought to
still be able to move into the deeper parts of the basin (Zhou et al.,
2005). Recharge rates are of special importance in CBM development
as the number of wells and the amount of water are often very large.
Anna (2003) found that the drawdown in some parts of the Ferron
Sandstone coals extended to within a short distance from the outcrop.
In the Powder River basin, Myers (2009) found that the ≥50,000
current wells that are presently in the basin could take up to 40% of
the water resources available in the target coal zone and even if pumping
stopped now, it would take 45 years to recover to an acceptable level of
recharge and over 200 years to fully recover. Obviously the manage-
ment of water resources needs care, foresight and rigorous study.
The geochemistry of the co-produced waters has been the focus of
many studies, particularly surrounding the Powder River basin. This is
unsurprising considering the number of wells drilled and the volume
of water discharged as well as the speed at which it has occurred.
Regardless of which basin, just about all CBM co-produced waters
have similar chemistries (Van Voast, 2003). In general, the waters
are dominated by sodium (Na) and bicarbonate and devoid of calcium
(Ca), magnesium (Mg) and sulphate (except when marine-derived
sediments are proximal to the coal deposits). This distinct geochemical
signature evolves from the process of biochemical reduction of sul-
phate, enrichment of bicarbonate and the precipitation of Ca and Mg
(Van Voast, 2003). Co-produced waters that are closest to recharge
areas are relatively fresh but with depth the geochemical signature
will become more prominent. The basic geochemical signature tends
to occur regardless of the coal formation, geographic position or age.
This observation has been borne out by other studies in other CBM fields
(Anna, 2003; Cheung et al., 2009; Dahm et al., 2011; Rice, 2003; Rice et
al., 1989; Rice et al. 2000; Taulis and Milke, 2007). However, Dahm et al.
(2011) found that slight variations of the geochemical pattern (though
still very recognisably a ‘CBM water chemistry signature’) can be
influenced by the type of coal deposit, its rank and the proximity to
fresh water recharge.
In a particularly extensive study, Dahm et al. (2011) looked at the
water quality from over 3000 CBM production wells from four basins
in the Rocky Mountain region. The study assessed water quality for a
multitude of parameters but the major ones were total dissolved
solids (TDS), chlorine, bicarbonate, fluorine, iron, sodium adsorption
ratio (SAR) and temperature. The results were compared to the US
standards for drinking water, livestock and irrigation. For drinking
water, almost all of the wells were outside the standard whereas for
livestock use some basins were mostly compliant and some weren't.
Water temperature was also a major issue for livestock. SAR levels
are an issue for most basins, especially the Powder River. Waters
with high SAR, if used for irrigation, will result in salt accumulation,
effectively killing off native plant species that are not salt tolerant (see
below). Interestingly, other than SAR, the Powder River co-produced
water meets standards more closely than water produced in other
basins.
Co-produced waters are often held in impoundment ponds and
many of those ponds are unlined. The issue with unlined impound-
ment ponds is the possible leaching of the co-produced waters into
shallow aquifers and into streams (McBeth et al., 2003). In the Pow-
der River basin, Jackson and Reddy (2007) found that Na, alkalinity,
SAR and pH downstream from unlined impoundment ponds were
significantly higher than background levels. In addition, Healy et al.
(2011) concluded that if co-produced water passed through the
local alluvial sediments, the water quality became even worse. The
processes such as gypsum dissolution, cation exchange and pyrite
oxidation are suspected as the culprits in decreasing the water quality.
The land surrounding impoundment ponds (or wherever the
co-produced water has contact with the soil) can also be impacted.
There is a general increase in both the salinity and sodicity of the
soil, and as discussed above, SAR values also will increase (Stearns
et al., 2005). There also tends to be more invasive, exotic plant species
that inhibit these sites; ones that are more salt tolerant (Bergquist et
al., 2007; Stearns et al., 2005).
The treatment of CBM water to make it safe to discharge is a recent
focus of research. Part of the issue is the sheer volume of water that
often needs to be treated. Various options of utilising treated (and
in some cases untreated) waters have been summarised in a report
by All-Consulting (2003). In some cases, a CBM company will set up
a separate business just dealing with water (see, for example, www.
arrowenergy.com.au). Research such as reverse osmosis and integrated
membrane systems is in the forefront of mass water treatment
(Chalmers et al., 2010). Site specific solutions, such as using locally
sourced zeolites to reduce Na levels may also offer alternatives (Taulis
and Milke, 2009).
To conclude, co-produced water is inevitable for almost all CBM
developments. Where the fields are large and volume of water sub-
stantial, the challenges will be significant. Some of the challenges
will be perceived but many, if not most, will be real and CBM operators
will have to plan their water management systems carefully.
8. Key reservoir measurements during exploration
The various influences on and characteristics of a CBM reservoir
have been discussed. But what is the essential data that needs to be
collected during exploration? There are many evaluation methods
and tools that can be used (for example, see Clarkson and Bustin,
2011). Which should be used depends on the goals of the exploration
programme.
Essentially, exploration is an exercise to reduce (or at least define)
uncertainty and thus risk. Collecting data during exploration is always
an effort and is always costly but the quantitative information gathered
helps to decrease uncertainty (see also Bratvold and Begg, 2008;
Bratvold et al., 2002). Taking it as a priori that gathering primary data
is crucial to a CBM exploration programme, let us define what are likely
to be the two main goals:
1. Define gas in-place to a sufficient certainty to allow reserve certifi-
cation over a maximised area (see Section 10.2), and
2. Gain information on the reservoir, which will give maximum success
to a pilot programme, with success being defined as representative
gas flow rates being obtained.
To obtain these goals, three crucial pieces of data need to be
collected from the target reservoir:
a. Rock (coal) volume,
b. Level of gas saturation (which requires both desorption and
adsorption analyses), and
c. Permeability.
Firstly, determining the volume of a reservoir is a basic geological
undertaking. The accuracy to which reservoir volume can be deter-
mined is dependent on the data density and the inherent heterogeneity
of the coal seam (Moore et al., 2009). In carrying out this task, it is essen-
tial that the original defining well logs or measured sections should be
sought and examined.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Secondly, gas saturation is absolutely essential to determine, for
the reasons already discussed in this paper. The two measures needed
to estimate saturation are gas charge, measured through desorption
procedures, and characterisation of maximum gas holding capacity
through an adsorption isotherm test of coal samples.
The third and final crucial reservoir property—permeability—can be
quite elusive to obtain in an exploration programme—but more often
than not, worth the effort (and expense). Probably the best, most reliable
permeability measurements are obtained in either pilot or production
wells where the well bores are cased off, stable and long-term tests can
be conducted without the pressure of rig time and concomitant expense.
During an exploration drill hole, however, there is no such luxury. There
is no one best method to obtain accurate permeability measurements in
a coal seam (see Section 5.4.2), especially during exploration drilling.
8.1. The importance of sampling protocol and mitigation of uncertainty
Without proper sampling, an exploration programme runs the risk
of being invalidated or at the very least will not decrease uncertainty.
In assessing reservoir properties for CBM, there are two rules to
follow in order to avoid invalid and/or ambiguous results:
1. Samples need to be fresh, collected as close to in situ, as possible,
and
2. Multiple samples for each and every analysis needs to be taken.
Coal properties, especially of low-rank coal, are affected by loss in
moisture and oxidation with even the briefest exposure to air, there-
fore samples have to be collected in as close to in situ conditions as
possible. This means that, in almost all cases, samples will need to
be collected from coal core at the time of arrival at the surface.
Adsorption samples are especially critical to take immediately and
then protect appropriately from the atmosphere, as even a small amount
of moisture loss may result in significant over estimation of maximum
gas holding capacity (Crosdale et al., 2008).
Because of the inherent heterogeneity of coal, considerable uncer-
tainty will be associated with any measured parameter. Uncertainty
can be reduced through identification of the major variables that
have the greatest impact. The most significant variables may change
from basin to basin or coal reservoir to coal reservoir. The collection
of more data for these crucial parameters may reduce the uncertainty,
moving what is known about a deposit from largely ambiguous,
through a range of possibilities to clear direction.
The quantification of uncertainty, however, needs to be communicat-
ed throughout the decision making process (Bratvold and Begg, 2008;
Zabalza-Mezghani et al., 2004). For example, original gas-in‐place
should always be expressed in probabilistic terms (Moore et al., 2009),
giving a best, median and low case. A single number, such has been
reported for some counties (e.g. Hadiyanto and Stevens, 2005; Stevens
et al., 2001) gives no idea of the uncertainty surrounding a value and
may give a false impression of certainty where little exist.
9. Enhanced production
Over the last decade numerous studies have looked at carbon capture
and storage technology (CCS) in conventional and unconventional reser-
voirs. The motivation for this has mostly been the concern regarding the
concept of anthropogenically-driven climate change and a consequent
desire to reduce CO2 emissions. Coal beds can hold a disproportionately
high volume of CO2 compared to CH4 because of the molecular shape of
carbon dioxide (Bromhal et al., 2005; Mastalerz et al., 2004; Ottiger et al.,
2008; Stanton et al., 2001; Zarrouk and Moore, 2009) and thus have
been a focus of much of this research (Bachu et al., 2000; Damen et al.,
2005; Gunter et al., 1997; Wong et al., 1998; Wong et al. (2007); Yu et
al., 2007). CCS studies have not only looked at how CO2 can be stored
in coal but also employed to expel methane from the seam. This could
potentially increase methane recovery rates as well as improve
71
profitability for an operator who may derive economic benefit through
sequestration of CO2. This technique is commonly referred to as
‘enhanced coalbed methane’ (ECBM) and is in many ways equivalent
to the goals of enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in conventional reservoirs.
Numerous studies have examined the processes by which CO2
adsorption occurs within coal (e.g. Mazumder and Wolf, 2008;
Ozdemir, 2009; Pan and Connell, 2007). A review of the kinetics and
sub-molecular processes of ECBM has recently been completed by
Busch and Gensterblum (2011). Models for ECBM and CO2 sequestra-
tion are also given in Palmer and Mansoori (1998), Pan et al. (2010),
and Shi and Durucan (2005). Mazzotti et al. (2009) reviewed ECBM
and specifically outlined pilots and micro-pilot projects in Canada,
Japan, the USA, China and Poland that have occurred over the last
15 years.
Distilled down to the very basics, an ECBM project involves at least
two wells: a CBM production well, which has had some level of deple-
tion, and a second injection well at a distance from the production
well (the distance being defined by the permeability attributes of
the reservoir, i.e. anywhere from a couple of hundred to 1000 m or
more). In theory, CO2 would be injected at some rate into the reservoir.
The carbon dioxide, preferentially replacing the methane adsorbed onto
the surface of the coal would create a methane front that would increase
flow within the production well. Over time, the CO2 used to push out the
methane would ‘break through’ into the production well and at that
point the well would be shut in (e.g. Ross et al., 2009; Sinayuç and
Gümrah, 2009; Zarrouk and Moore, 2009). As would be expected, pilot
scale projects indicate that reality can be slightly more complicated.
Two pilot projects illustrate the challenges of ECBM using CO2. In
the first, the Yubari project (testing took place between May 2004 and
October 2007) in the Ishikari coalfield of Japan attempted to inject su-
percritical carbon dioxide into a water-saturated 6 m coal seam at a
depth of about 900 m (Fujioka et al., 2010; Shi et al., 2008). Original
rates of injection were anticipated to be between 16 and 25 t/day of
CO2 but the actual rate was only ~14% of that (i.e. between 2.3 and
3.5 t/day). With such slow rates, the injection was temporarily halted
and N2 was injected in an effort to reduce what was suspected as swell-
ing in the coal. When they later re-injected, CO2, rates were better, but
quickly fell off again.
Laboratory studies seem to support that it was matrix swelling
causing the lower than expected CO2 flow rates in the Yubari project.
Kiyama et al. (2011) used coal from the same seam and mimicked the
conditions of the Yubari field test in the laboratory. They found in-
creased strain rates, which indicate swelling of the coal. An injection
of N2 in the laboratory sample was found to increase the permeability,
but re-injection of CO2 again caused increased strain rates (swelling)
and a concomitant decrease in permeability. It seems fairly conclusive
that swelling caused by CO2 in the Yubari project reduced the perme-
ability of the coal. Swelling caused by CO2 adsorption with related re-
duction in effective permeability has also been observed in numerous
other laboratory studies (Liu et al., 2011; Siemons and Busch, 2007;
Siriwardane et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2011). The implication of the
Yubari pilot is that the process of CO2 injection into coal differs from
injection into clastic rock and, because of the reactivity of the coal,
may not be feasible i.e. ECBM with CO2 may not be feasible in all
coal seams. This type of reaction by the coal seam, however, may
not necessarily be all bad news. Pan and Connell (2011b) modelled
interbedded coal and rock and the results seem to indicate that coal
facilitates the storage and migration pathway of the carbon dioxide
in the clastics, enhancing the capability of the rock layers to hold CO2.
In the second field trial, conducted over a number of years in the
San Juan basin (USA), a different result ensued. Injection of CO2
began in 1995 with an initial rate of about 250 t/day. Like the Yubari
project, an abrupt decrease in injectivity was observed almost imme-
diately (Ozdemir, 2009; Reeves, 2001). However, after this decline,
there was a slow, but steady increase in carbon dioxide injection rate,
returning to a maximum of about 150 t/day. During the five years the
72 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

pilot operated, there was only minimum breakthrough of CO2 into the The NPV and %IRR in a CBM project are most sensitive (but not
production well. limited) to the following top parameters:
These differing results (and these are just two field trials) highlight
the heterogeneous nature of coal seams and their differing responses 1. Gas price
to ECBM with CO2. In addition, it is not at all certain that the CO2 will 2. Drilling and completion costs
be retained within the coal seam for any length of time as the current 3. Maximum gas flow rate (i.e. MCF/day)
state of modelling has a high degree of uncertainty (Korre et al., 2009). 4. Total well reserve (i.e. BCF per well)
Moreover, the economics of CO2 injection into coal seams may or may 5. Production per year of the whole field
not make it attractive to industry (Robertson, 2009; Wong et al., 2010)
and is something that, for now, will need to be assessed on a case- The costs of drilling and infrastructure are probably the only key
by-case basis. variables that a company has the highest influence over. During
exploration and pilot programmes, drilling and completion costs will
10. The impact of CBM be high; this is mostly related to the ‘one-off’ nature of the wells and
equipment. When development and production begin in earnest, the
For the practicing, as well as the more academic geologists, it is volume of capital requirements can help to obtain lower rates. However,
important to understand the drivers and impacts of CBM develop- realistically estimating what those rates might be five years out from
ments. Without such an understanding, the usefulness of research, development is very difficult and uncertain. Also, the type of develop-
and especially application of that research to tangible projects, is ment will have an impact on the economics. For example, vertical
diminished. The modern geologist (both practicing and academic) wells tend to be cheaper but may have lower flow rates than horizontal
should exercise his or her multidisciplinary skills and embrace at wells (when a one to one comparison is made in the same formation);
least some understanding on the economies of CBM. horizontal wells (generally selected to overcome low permeability)
As an example, the current slow down in development of CBM pros- are expensive and require high gas content coals to be economic.
pects in the USA is directly linked to low gas price, but the same gas Although an attractive option in many cases because of normally higher
price may be found in other countries (especially, though not limited flow rates, horizontal wells cannot always justify their cost (Ayers,
to, developing countries), yet in those areas (think China, India and 2002). Estimating well costs are extremely time dependent and quite
Indonesia, among others) there are vibrant exploration programmes. influenced by location in the world. In a mature basin drilling costs for
In Australia, where gas prices have historically been low, CBM develop- a 500 m vertical well including all bottom completion for a single
ment is still growing (Fig. 5). seam might be as little as $US200,000 but in other places may cost
The bulk of this paper has dealt with how a CBM reservoir works over $US550,000 (without any stimulation). A horizontal well with
and Section 6 discussed what data are needed to assess those proper- two 1000 m laterals can be in the range of $US1.8 million to $US3.5
ties in an exploration programme. The quality and quantity of those million depending on geographic location and stability of the formation.
data directly impact CBM prospectively. In the science of statistics it All sets of costs include down hole equipment.
is vital to know what parameters are most important to an outcome; When a field is put into production, and history matching of gas pro-
in CBM development, it is also vital to know how the data are collected duction profiles is possible, more realistic assessments of the total
impacts on the viability of prospect. This knowledge illuminates and reserve can be made than in the exploration or pilot production phases.
informs and thus is important to discuss. In this section, the major However, during exploration when only gas flow models are available,
influences on the viability of a CBM project are discussed and this di- even slight changes into the input parameters can have major conse-
rectly and importantly links to all other previous sections of this paper. quences on both the predicted peak rate (and timing) and well reserve
(see Section 7.1). Like gas price, there is little a company can do to
10.1. Project viability change reservoir character: it is what it is. The difference comes when
imaginative and innovative engineering solutions are used to coax the
In terms of viability, CBM plays are more like mining projects than sometimes reluctant gas from the coal bed.
conventional petroleum prospects (Atkins, 2003). Typically, there are Finally, understanding sensitivities on a prospect's viability is essen-
five stages that a CBM project may go through: tial both from the technical as well as the economic sense. Table 2 gives
some examples showing the sensitivities of gas price, costs, peak flow
1. Initial identification of a prospect through a desk top study, rate and well reserve. These are meant only for illustrative purposes
2. Exploration drilling and sampling (see Section 8), and it is acknowledged that different modellers would come out with
3. Pilot wells, different, though probably not widely different, results. One issue not
4. Development drilling ahead of full commercialisation, and discussed but should not be underestimated, is the influence that
5. Full production with further drilling to maintain gas deliverability.
Table 2
The viability of a CBM project will constantly be re-evaluated Sensitivity around selected variables and effect on NPV and %IRR.
throughout this stream of work, but usually the decision to go to
Variable NPV $US millions %IRR
full development will occur after stage 3.
There are many parameters used in the assessment of the viability Gas price ($US/GJ)
$6.50 $80.6 20.3%
of a CBM project, both technical and economic. In an economic sense
$7.00 $104.3 22.9%
the two most widely used parameters are net present value (NPV) $8.00 $151.4 27.7%
and percentage of internal rate of return (%IRR). The NPV predicts if
the project will make money over its entire life, taking into account Peak flow rate (MCFD)
inflation, changes in gas price as well as capital and operational costs. 550 $77.5 18.2%
650 $96.6 21.3%
In theory, any project with a NPV above zero is worthwhile—but of
800 $116.0 25.5%
course, in a capital constrained environment where multiple projects
for investment are available, the logical choice is the one with the Well reserve (BCF)
highest NPV. Simplistically, the %IRR (also called ‘discounted cash 0.80 $53.5 19.9%
1.00 $104.3 22.9%
flow’ or ‘rate of return’ [ROR]) is the amount of profit over and above
1.50 $165.2 28.5%
capital investment.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
differing tax regimes have on the viability and ultimately the impact of
CBM development (Godfrey et al., 2010).
10.2. From resource to reserve certification
A second area where the types, quality and quantity of data have
an impact on CBM viability is in the certification of resources and
reserves. This is a case where science meets—on an equal basis—the
economics of a prospect. It behoves the scientist to understand how
the certification process works as much as it behoves the financial
analysts to understand the technical aspects of a CBM reservoir.
The value in a CBM resource lies not only with selling gas, but also
with determining the quantity of energy potentially available for
development which is then read as value. A resource or reserve booking
is like having a house of value ‘X’ that you are able to borrow against. In
a publically held company, the certification can be lodged with the stock
exchange with which the company is listed and this acts essentially as
part of the valuation of the company, though this valuation is quite
‘liquid’ and at any particular point in time will be based on the mood
of the market and local and world economies. This discussion will
focus on certifiable resources and reserves; methods for gas‐in-place
(GIP) assessments are covered by Boyer and Qingzhao (1998), Mavor
and Nelson (1997), Meneley et al. (2003), Moore and Friederich
(2010), Moore et al. (2009) and Scott et al. (1995).
As might be imagined, because of the potentially huge financial
implications associated with resource/reserve certification, the proce-
dures are tightly defined. The Society of Petroleum Engineers' (SPE)
work on defining and standardising how to assess CBM reserves and
resources is largely accepted by most CBM and certification compa-
nies as well as stock exchanges. The SPE system is detailed in the
Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS) and a discussion
is given in Anonymous (2011) and Barker (2008). Essentially, there
are three resource/reserve categories that represent levels of certainty
and commerciality (Fig. 57). From least to most certain and commer-
cial the categories are:
1. Prospective resources
2. Contingent resources
3. Reserves
Prospective resources, being the least certain, require the least
amount of data to substantiate them. Usually, just the presence of
Fig. 57. Resource and reserve classification (see Anonymous, 2011; Barker, 2008).
73
coal beds needs to be established along with some rank and coal quality
data. Within the prospective category, levels of uncertainty can also be
defined through low, best and high estimates. These can be done either
deterministically (i.e. just straight calculations) or probabilistically (see
Moore and Friederich, 2010; Moore et al., 2009). Prospective resources
may be quite a bit less than the GIP depending on the local geological
conditions, level and standard of data as well as the generosity of the
certification company. For example, it might be determined that a
certain proportion of the GIP is too deep and thus “unrecoverable” (in
the current technological and economic environment).
It is common to report GIP, prospective and contingent resources
on a probabilistic basis. Three numbers are often cited as: P10, P50
and P90. In all mathematical and statistical realms P10 is meant to
denote, “there is only a 10% chance of a value being less than the number
given” and P90 means “there is a 90% chance that a number will be less
than the number given”. However, in the PRMS it is important to note
that this is reversed, for example: P90 becomes the low estimate, and
is defined as “there is a 90% chance that a value will be higher than
the number given”. P50 has the same meaning in both the statistical
and PRMS systems, which is “there is a 50% chance that a number
could be higher or lower than the number given”.
Contingent resources require all the data that prospective resources
need plus gas data and permeability measurements from the reservoirs
within the permit area. Gas desorption and adsorption data (for calcula-
tion of gas saturation) are required before most certification companies
will give any bookings at the contingent level. Exceptions to this might
be made if there are local mines near or in the permit area that have
known and documented gas shows or if adjacent permits are already
producing gas, demonstrating that the reservoir is likely to be produc-
tive. The volume of certified contingent resources is also likely to be
substantially less than prospective resources depending on the level
and amount of data as well as the complexity of the geological condi-
tions in any particular basin. In addition, gas flow models will also be
used to help estimate what the recovery factor may be for individual
reservoirs.
In order to achieve certification at the reserve level, commercial
flow rates must be demonstrated. The amount of reserves certified
can be dependent on several factors including the extent of wells
with gas data throughout the permit, number of permeability tests
conducted, and demonstrable extent of the reservoir, among other
factors. Within the reserves classification, different levels of uncer-
tainty can be indicated. For example, a “proven reserve” designates
the drainage area of one well (that is, the producing well) and has
the highest level of certainty; “probable reserves” usually radiate out-
ward in equal directions either two to three offsets from the proven
reserve area (note that an ‘offset’ is equal to the gas drainage area
of one well); finally “possible reserves” have the least certainty and
are the most distant from the producing well, possibly extending out-
wards to seven offsets or more from the well with the proven reserves.
The size of the assignment of probable and possible reserves is usually
at the discretion of the certification company. In a less mature basin
where reservoir behaviour has a higher degree of uncertainty a certifi-
cation company will be more conservative in their estimates of reserves.
In more mature fields, where a number of operators have producing
wells, reserves might be booked without a flowing well directly associ-
ated with the permit under certification.
Note that the term 1P is equal to just the proven reserve, whilst 2P
is equal to the proven plus probable reserves and 3P is equal to the
proven plus probable plus possible reserves. A usual requirement in
obtaining a reserve booking is the ability to demonstrate the existence
of a gas market, either through an existing gas sales agreement at the
time of certification or through a convincing argument that shows that
there is an unequivocal need for gas in the immediate region and a
means to deliver it. Hypothetically, all contingent resources should
or could convert into reserves but this is rarely the case as additional
data gathered from pilot production wells has the usual effect of
74 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81

betraying the natural enthusiasm of reservoir engineers and
geologists.
As might be gathered from the discussion above, well placement, in
a geographic sense within a permit, can be hugely relevant to booking of
reserves. As an example, Fig. 58a shows the position of three strati-
graphic wells confirming the presence of coal. In many cases these
wells might have existed prior to the presence of a CBM permit. Addi-
tional drilling of wells specifically for gas and permeability testing has
the effect of converting the prospective resources into contingent
(Fig. 58b). Conversion to reserves can be a bit trickier; as previously
stated, a flowing well is almost always needed. Also, the positioning of
the pilot within the permit can also be important. Pilot wells, if possible,
should be placed so that offset assignment of probable and possible
reserves is within the permit boundaries. Strategically placed observa-
tion wells completed in the target seam(s) can record pressure changes
from the other wells and thus confirm connectivity (which can increase
the amount of reserves) (Fig. 58c). What is not desirable is when, for
example, a pilot well is situated near a permit boundary and some of
the reserve/resource bookings would then be ‘lost’ (Fig. 58d).
The impact of maximising a CBM resource and reserve booking
can be huge. As an example, Table 3 gives scenarios regarding the
value that different levels of reserves and resources from the same
hypothetical permit may provide to a company. It is important to
note that the values used in Table 3 are for illustrative purposes
only. The range in value in this example is from $23.5 to $400 million
with a best case of $119 million. The values given are indicative of a
development where two or three core holes and one to three pilot
wells have been drilled. In this scenario, given the present cost of
wells, even the low end of market capitalisation would return good
value for the drilling investment.
Finally, it is worthwhile to note that the impact of most CBM projects
is assessed based on the 2P and 3P reserves (as opposed to conventional
gas projects where 1P is the primary assessor). An example illustrating
the level of 2P reserves and market valuation is illustrated by the
growth of Arrow Energy Ltd. (Australia) which rose from zero reserves
and a market valuation of $AU20 million in the year 2000 to 719 BCF of
2P reserves and a market valuation of $AU1.7 billion in 2007 to over
6000 BCF of 2P reserves and a market value of $AU3.5 billion in 2010.
11. Summary
The presence of methane in coal seams has long been recognised,
first as a hazard and but more lately as an economically harvestable
commodity. Early exploitation of CBM viewed the reservoir in much

Fig. 58. One example (of a possible many) of how well type and placement will determine certification of resources and reserves. (A) Three stratigraphic drill holes establish there
are coals and thus prospective resources may be booked. (B) Wells specifically drilled to test for gas volume (and to calculate gas saturation) and permeability allow contingent
resources to be booked over some of the permit. (C) Pilot well which demonstrates commercial flow allows reserves to be booked. Observation well establishes connectivity of
the reservoir and allows probable reserves to be extended. (D) If the pilot well is located too close to the permit boundary, then the full potential of booked reserves may not
be realised and could actually benefit the neighbouring permit.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81 75

Table 3
Hypothetical valuation of certified reserves and resources; shown for illustrative purposes only.

Category Certified (BCF) $US value/GJ energy Unrisked estimated market valuation

Low Best High Low Best High

Proven 2 $2.00 $4.00 $5.00 $4,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000

Probable 30 $0.20 $0.70 $3.00 $6,000,000 $21,000,000 $90,000,000
Possible 150 $0.05 $0.40 $1.40 $7,500,000 $60,000,000 $210,000,000
Contingent 300 $0.02 $0.10 $0.30 $6,000,000 $30,000,000 $90,000,000
Total $23,500,000 $119,000,000 $400,000,000

GJ = gigajoule.

the same manner as a clastic (or limestone) gas reservoir would be relationships are never universal from basin to basin or even seam
viewed. This proved a mistake as coal, being overwhelmingly carbon to seam.
based, behaves in a fundamentally different way than clastic gas • Characterisation of the reservoir in terms of gas‐in-place, permeability
reservoirs. This review has only scratched at the surface of CBM fun- and gas saturation is crucial to insure both a successful pilot
damentals; however, the following crucial points have been covered: programme as well as resource certification.
• There will be some level of uncertainty in all the aspects of the char-
• Significant commercial quantities of CBM are being extracted within acterisation of a CBM reservoir and this uncertainty needs to be
several countries throughout the world, including the USA, Australia, recognised as well as quantified. Ideally, this quantification of uncer-
Canada, China and India. Many more countries (Indonesia, the UK, tainty will be conducted throughout all decision-making processes.
Russia etc.) are actively exploring and developing their CBM resources • Often the impact of a CBM prospect can be obtained prior to gas sales
and are likely to have saleable gas in the next few years. through certification of its resources and/or reserves. Maximisation of
• Initial CBM developments were in higher rank coals; understandably the impact of a CBM project is dependent on data type, quality and
these coals can generate and contain more gas, returning a higher quantity. In addition, the importance of the spatial distribution of
profit margin. Gas from these coals is termed thermogenic because those data within the permit should not be underestimated.
methane is generated after a certain rank is obtained (about 0.5–
0.6% vitrinite reflectance).
• Since the early 1990s it has been recognised that ‘under mature’ (i.e. 12. Useful terms and conversions
b0.5% vitrinite reflectance) coals can also contain commercial quanti-
ties of gas. These gases are generated biogenically through microbial
processes. Coals of subbituminous rank are the primary target for
biogenic CBM development (as opposed to lignite); although the vol- SCF standard cubic feet
umes of gas are commonly lower than thermogenically-derived CBM MCF thousand standard cubic feet
reservoirs, if the low-rank coals are thick and not too deep, the eco- MMCF million standard cubic feet
nomics may allow commercialisation. BCF billion standard cubic feet
• The fundamental measures needed to characterise a reservoir, regard- TCF trillion standard cubic feet
less of rank or gas type (i.e. biogenic or thermogenic), are gas quality MCFD thousand standard cubic feet per day
(i.e. the amount of CH4, CO2 etc.), the gas charge (i.e. desorbed gas), GJ gigajoule
the maximum gas holding capacity (derived from the adsorption iso- Bbls barrels
therm) and the permeability. mD millidarcies
• Permeability is by far the most important attribute controlling gas nm nanometer
flow in a coal seam reservoir, and is influenced by depth, stress Å angstrom
regime within the basin and also, fundamentally, the organic compo- 1m 3.3 ft
sition of the coal. 1 m3 35.31 SCF
• The second most important attribute is the level of gas saturation, 1 MCF 28.3168 m 3
which is determined through desorption and adsorption measure- 1 MMCF 28,316.8 m 3
ments. Coal reservoirs can be under saturated for a number of reasons 1 Bbls 158.98 l
including uplift after deep burial (where holding capacity and gas 1 Bbls 0.158987 m 3
charge are decreased but with uplift holding capacity is increased 1 MCF CH4 1.05 GJ
again but the gas charge is not), gas escape if the reservoir is close to 1 BCF CH4 1.05 PJ
surface or through removal of gas in a hydrodynamically active system. 1 t of CO2 556.2 m 3
• Coals of both high and low-rank my have secondary gas recharge if 1m 1 billon nm
reservoir conditions are conducive and this will have the net effect 1 nm 10 Å
of increasing gas saturation.
• Pores are the defining feature of a coal reservoir, but unlike conven-
tional gas plays where pore volume determines a rock's ability to Acknowledgements
hold gas, in coal it is the pore surface area (because methane is (pri-
marily) adsorbed onto the surface of the coal). The pore surface area More than a few people have helped to gain information and/or
is directly related to the size distribution of pores, with most methane made valuable comments at the right time and place. These colleagues
being held in micropores. are, in no particular order: Romeo M. Flores, Ray Williams, Greg
• Rank influences many attributes of a coal reservoir including gas type, Twombly, Steve Stepanek, Peter Warwick, Lesile ‘Jingle’ Ruppert,
gas quality, pore distribution, maximum gas holding capacity and per- Hongmei Li, R. Marc Bustin, John Hattner, Nathan Shahan, Michael H.
meability. Trippi, Sudhansu Adhikari, Chris M. Nelson, Nick Davies and Marina
• Coal composition can also have a significant influence on reservoir S. Manning (for the musical similes). Also, thanks to two of my students,
properties, but because of the highly variable nature of coal, these Tennille E. Mares and Carol I. Butland, who inevitably taught me more
76 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
than I them. Both Sadiq J. Zarrouk and Xingjin Wang have been my
teachers on all things gas modelling and have supplied some of the
figures. Thanks to the dynamic duo of Joan S. Esterle, who keeps me
grounded in real-world data and Catherine R. Moore, who reminds
me of the uncertainty in all things measured. Appreciation goes to
Luca Technology for providing photomicrographs of methanogen
microbes. Arrow Energy Ltd., Dart Energy Ltd. and Ephindo Energy
Ltd. are also acknowledged because much of this paper was written
whilst in the service of these three companies; they not only provided
me with intellectual stimulus and practical exploration and production
experience, but also allowed for many happy hours on the plane, unen-
cumbered by phone calls, emails and meetings. Enormous thanks to
Jane C. Shearer who edited an early version of the paper. Thanks to
Özgen Karacan for his patient and careful inputs and to Timothy
Horscroft for initiating the paper. Finally, two anonymous reviewers
helped to improve the manuscript.
References
Adeboye, O.O., Bustin, R.M., in press. Variation of gas flow properties in coal with probe
gas, composition and fabric: examples from Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin.
International Journal of Coal Geology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2011.06.015.
ALL-Consulting, 2003. Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced Water: Management
and Beneficial Use Alternatives. Ground Water Protection Research Foundation,
U.S. Department of Energy, National Petroleum Technology Office, Bureau of
Land Management, Washington DC. 322 pp.
American Standard Testing Material (ASTM), 2010. Determination of Gas Content of Coal
—Direct Desorption Method, D7569-10. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
12 pp.
Amijaya, H., Littke, R., 2006. Properties of thermally metamorphosed coal from the
Tanjung Enim Area, South Sumatra Basin, Indonesia with special reference to the
coalification path of macerals. International Journal of Coal Geology 66, 271–295.
Anderson, J.A.R., 1964. The structure and development of the peat swamps of Sarawak
and Brunei. Journal of Tropical Geography 18, 7–16.
Anderson, J.A.R., 1983. The tropical peat swamps of western Malaysia. In: Gore, A.J.P.
(Ed.), Ecosystems of the World 4B, Mires, Swamp, Bog, Fen and Moor. Elsevier, Am-
sterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 181–199.
Anderson, R.B., Hall, W.K., Lecky, J.A., Stein, K.C., 1956. Sorption studies on American
coals. The Journal of Physical Chemistry 60, 1548–1558.
Anna, L.O., 2003. Groundwater flow associated with coalbed gas production, Ferron
Sandstone, east-central Utah. International Journal of Coal Geology 56, 69–95.
Anonymous, 1999. Guide to the Determination of Gas Content of Coal—Direct Desorp-
tion Method. Standards Association of Australia. AS 3980–1999, 33 pp.
Anonymous, 2011. Guidelines for Application of the Petroleum Resources Management
System. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 221 pp.
Aravena, R., Harrison, S.M., Barker, J.F., Abercrombie, H., Rudolph, D., 2003. Origin of
methane in the Elk Valley coalfield, southeastern British Columbia, Canada. Chem-
ical Geology 195, 219–227.
Atkins, B., 2003. Coal Bed Methane—From Resource to Reserves. Focus. Gaffney, Cline &
Associates, pp. 1–2.
Ayers Jr., W.B., 2002. Coalbed gas systems, resources, and production and a review of
contrasting cases from the San Juan and Powder River basins. AAPG Bulletin 86,
1853–1890.
Bachu, S., Brulotte, M., Grobe, M., Steward, S., 2000. Suitability of the Alberta subsurface
for carbon-dioxide sequestration in geological media. Alberta Geological Survey,
Earth Sciences Report 00‐11. 86 pp.
Balan, H.O., Gumrah, F., 2009. Assessment of shrinkage-swelling influences in coal
seams using rank-dependent physical coal properties. International Journal of
Coal Geology 77, 203–213.
Barker, G.J., 2008. Application of the PRMS to coal seam gas. 2008 Society of Petroleum
Engineers Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, SPE Paper 117124,
Perth, Australia. 13 pp.
Barker, C.E., Dallegge, T.A., 2005. Zero-headspace coal-core gas desorption canister, re-
vised desorption data analysis spreadsheets and a dry canister heating system. U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 2005‐1177, Reston, Va. 9 pp.
Barker, C.E., Dallegge, T.A., Clark, A.C., 2002. USGS coal desorption equipment and a
spreadsheet for analysis of lost and total gas from canister desorption measure-
ments. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02‐496, Reston, Va. 13 pp.
Beamish, B.B., Crosdale, P.J., 1998. Instantaneous outbursts in underground coal mines:
an overview and association with coal type. International Journal of Coal Geology
35, 27–55.
Behar, F., Vandenbroucke, M., Teermann, S.C., Hatcher, P.G., Leblond, C., Lerat, O., 1995.
Experimental simulation of gas generation from coals and a marine kerogen.
Chemical Geology 126, 247–260.
Bell, J.S., 2006. In-situ stress and coal bed methane potential in Western Canada. Bulle-
tin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 54, 197–220.
Bergquist, E., Evanelista, P., Stohlgren, T.J., Alley, N., 2007. Invasive species and coal bed
methane development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environmental Mon-
itoring and Assessment 128, 381–394.
Bertard, C., Bruyet, B., Gunther, J., 1970. Determination of desorbable gas concentration
coal (direct method). International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science
7, 43–65.
Bibler, C.J., Marshall, J.S., Pilcher, R.C., 1998. Status of worldwide coal mine methane
emissions and use. International Journal of Coal Geology 35, 283–310.
Bodden, W.P., Ehrlich, R., 1998. Permeability of coals and characteristics of desorption
tests: implications for coalbed methane production. International Journal of Coal
Geology 35, 333–347.
Boyer II, C.M., Qingzhao, B., 1998. Methodology of coalbed methane resource assess-
ment. International Journal of Coal Geology 35, 349–368.
Boyer II, C.M., Kelafant, J.R., Kuuskraa, V.A., Manger, K.C., 1990. Methane Emissions
from Coal Mining: Issues and Opportunities for Reduction. US EPA, Washington
DC. EPA/400/9-90/008: 86 pp.
Bratvold, R.B., Begg, S.H., 2008. I would rather be vaguely right than precisely wrong: a
new approach to decision making in the petroleum exploration and production in-
dustry. AAPG Bulletin 92, 1373–1392.
Bratvold, R.B., Begg, S.H., Campbell, M., 2002. Would you know a good decision if you
saw one? SPE Paper 77509, Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas. 11 pp.
Bromhal, G.S., Sams, W.N., Jikich, S., Ertekin, T., Smith, D.H., 2005. Simulation of CO2 se-
questration in coal beds: the effects of sorption isotherms. Chemical Geology 217,
201–211.
Busch, A., Gensterblum, Y., 2011. CBM and CO2-ECBM related sorption processes in
coal: a review. International Journal of Coal Geology 87, 49–71.
Bustin, R.M., 1997. Importance of fabric and composition on the stress sensitivity of
permeability in some coals, Northern Sydney Basin, Australia: relevance to coalbed
methane exploitation. AAPG Bulletin 81, 1894–1908.
Bustin, R.M., 2004. Acid gas sorption by British Columbia coals: implications for perma-
nent disposal of acid gas in deep coal seams and possible co-production of meth-
ane. Final report funding agreement 2000‐16. University of British Columbia,
Vancouver. 126 pp.
Bustin, A.M.M., Bustin, R.M., 2008. Coal reservoir saturation: impact of temperature and
pressure. AAPG Bulletin 92, 77–86.
Bustin, R.M., Clarkson, C.R., 1998. Geological controls on coalbed methane reservoir ca-
pacity and gas content. International Journal of Coal Geology 38, 3–26.
Bustin, R.M., Ross, J.V., Rouzaud, J.N., 1995. Mechanisms of graphite formation from
kerogen: experimental evidence. International Journal of Coal Geology 28, 1–36.
Butala, S.J., Medina, J.C., Taylor, T.Q., Bartholomew, C.H., Lee, M.L., 2000. Mechanisms
and kinetics of reactions leading to natural gas formation during coal maturation.
Energy & Fuels 14, 235–259.
Butland, C.I., Moore, T.A., 2008. Secondary biogenic coal seam gas reservoirs in New
Zealand: a preliminary assessment of gas contents. International Journal of Coal
Geology 76, 151–165.
Cameron, M.J., 1995. Cleat Structure, Waikato Coal Region. Department of Geology.
University of Auckland, Auckland, p. 101.
Cameron, C.C., Esterle, J.S., Palmer, C.A., 1990. The geology, botany and chemistry of se-
lected peat-forming environments from temperate and tropical latitudes. Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology 12, 105–156.
Carlson, F.M., Hartman, R.C., Obluda, J.C., Miller, M.T., 2008. Field validation of new
methodology for resource assessment of undersaturated CBNG reservoirs. Interna-
tional Coalbed & Shale Gas Symposium. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Ala-
bama. Paper 819, unpaginated.
Ceglarsk-Stefańska, G., Brzóska, K., 1998. The effect of coal metamorphism on methane
desorption. Fuel 77, 645–648.
Ceglarsk-Stefańska, G., Zarębska, K., 2002. The competitive sorption of CO2 and CH4
with regard to the release of methane from coal. Fuel Processing Technology
77–78, 423–429.
Chalmers, G.R.L., Bustin, R.M., 2007. On the effects of petrographic composition on
coalbed methane sorption. International Journal of Coal Geology 69, 288–304.
Chalmers, S., Kovse, A., Stark, P., Facer, L., Smith, N., 2010. Treatment of coal seam gas
water. Water—Journal of Australian Water Association 37, 28–33.
Cheung, K., Sanei, H., Klassen, P., Mayer, B., Goodarzi, F., 2009. Produced fluids and shal-
low groundwater in coalbed methane (CBM) producing regions of Alberta, Canada:
trace element and rare earth element geochemistry. International Journal of Coal
Geology 77, 338–349.
Clarkson, C.R., 2003. Application of a new multicomponent gas adsorption model to gas
adsorption systems. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal 8, 236–250 SPE-
78146-PA. doi: 78110.72118/78146-PA.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 1996. Variation in micropore capacity and size distribution
with composition in bituminous coal of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin.
Fuel 75, 1483–1498.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 1999. The effect of pore structure and gas pressure upon the
transport properties of coal: a laboratory modeling study. 2. Adsorption rate
modeling. Fuel 78, 1345–1362.
Clarkson, C.R., Bustin, R.M., 2011. Coalbed methane: current field-based evaluation
methods. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 14, 60–75.
Clayton, J.L., 1998. Geochemistry of coalbed gas—a review. International Journal of Coal
Geology 35, 159–173.
Close, J.C., 1993. Natural fractures in coal. In: Law, B.E., Rice, D.D. (Eds.), Hydrocarbons
from Coal. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp.
119–132.
Clymo, R.S., 1984. The limits to peat bog growth. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series B 303, 605–654.
Clymo, R.S., 1987. Rainwater-fed peat as a precursor of coal. In: Scott, A.C. (Ed.), Coal
and Coal-bearing Strata: Recent Advances. Geological Society Special Publication,
London, U.K., pp. 17–23.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Cohen, A.D., 1984. The Okefenokee Swamp: a low sulphur end-member of a shoreline-
related depositional model for coastal plain coals. In: Rahmani, R.A., Flores, R.M.
(Eds.), Sedimentology of Coal and Coal-bearing Sequences. Special Publication of
the International Association of Sedimentologists, Oxford, pp. 231–240.
Collett, T.S., Barker, C.E., 2003. Coalbed methane in the Ferron coals. International Jour-
nal of Coal Geology 56, 1–202.
Collinson, M.E., Scott, A.C., 1987. Implications of vegetational change through the geo-
logical record on models for coal-forming environments. In: Scott, A.C. (Ed.), Coal
and Coal-bearing Strata: Recent Advances. Geological Society Special Publication,
London, pp. 67–85.
Cooper, J.R., Crelling, J.C., Rimmer, S.M., Whittington, A.G., 2007. Coal metamorphism
by igneous intrusion in the Raton Basin, CO and NM: implications for generation
of volatiles. International Journal of Coal Geology 71, 15–27.
Creedy, D.P., Pritchard, F.W., 1983. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide occurrence in UK coal
seams. International Journal of Mining Engineering 1, 71–77.
Crosdale, P.J., Beamish, B.B., Valix, M., 1998. Coalbed methane sorption related to coal
composition. International Journal of Coal Geology 35, 147–158.
Crosdale, P.C., Saghafi, A., Williams, R., Yurakov, E., 2005. Inter-laboratory comparative
CH4 isotherm measurement on Australian coals. In: Beeston, J.W. (Ed.), Bowen
Basin Symposium 2005. The Geological society of Australia, Yeppon, Queensland,
Australia, pp. 273–277.
Crosdale, P.J., Moore, T.A., Mares, T.E., 2008. Influence of moisture content and tempera-
ture on methane adsorption isotherm analysis for coals from a low-rank,
biogenically-sourced gas reservoir. International Journal of Coal Geology 76, 166–174.
Cui, X., Bustin, M., Dipple, G., 2004. Differential transport of CO2 and CH4 in coalbed
aquifers: implications for coalbed gas distribution and composition. International
Journal of Coal Geology 88, 1149–1161.
Dahm, K.G., Guerra, K.L., Xu, P., Drewes, J.E., 2011. A composite geochemical database
for coalbed methane produced water quality in the Rocky Mountain Region. Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology 45, 7655–7663.
Damen, K., Faaij, A., Bergen, v.-F., Gale, J., Lysen, E., 2005. Identification of early oppor-
tunities for CO2 sequestration—worldwide screening for CO2-EOR and CO2-ECBM
projects. Energy 30, 1931–1952.
Dart Energy Ltd., 2011. First gas in Sangatta West. http://www.dartenergy.com.au/page/
Investor_Relations/ASX_Announcements; 1 April 2011, Brisbane, 3 pp.
Dart Energy Ltd., 2012. Interim report for the half-year ended 31 December 2011. http://
www.dartenergy.com.au/page/Investor_Relations/ASX_Announcements/ 9 March
2012, Brisbane, 27 pp.
Dawson, G.K.W., Esterle, J.S., 2010. Controls on coal cleat spacing. International Journal
of Coal Geology 82, 213–218.
Day, S., Fry, R., Sakurovs, R., 2008. Swelling of Australian coals in supercritical CO2. In-
ternational Journal of Coal Geology 74, 41–52.
Dehmer, J., 1995. Petrological and organic geochemical investigation of recent peats
with known environments of deposition. International Journal of Coal Geology
28, 111–138.
Deisman, N., Gentzis, T., Chalaturnyk, R.J., 2008. Unconventional geomechanical testing
on coal for coalbed reservoir well design: the Alberta Foothills and Plains. Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology 75, 15–26.
Deisman, N., Mas Ivas, D., Darcel, C., Chalaturnyk, R.J., 2010. Empirical and numerical
approaches for geomechanical characterization of coal seam reservoirs. Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology 82, 204–212.
Diamond, W.P., 1978. Evaluation of the methane gas content of coalbeds; Part of a com-
plete coal exploration program for health and safety and resource evaluation. Second
International Coal Exploration Symposium, Denver, Co., October 1978. unpaginated.
Diamond, W.P., 1993. Methane control for underground coal mines. In: Law, B.E., Rice,
D.D. (Eds.), Hydrocarbons from Coal. American Association of Petroleum Geolo-
gists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 237–267.
Diamond, W.P., Levine, J.R., 1981. Direct Method Determination of the Gas Content of
Coal: Procedures and Results. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. 36 pp.
Diamond, W.P., Schatzel, S.J., 1998. Measuring the gas content of coal: a review. Inter-
national Journal of Coal Geology 35, 311–331.
Diessel, C.F.K., 1982. An appraisal of coal facies based on maceral characteristics. Aus-
tralian Coal Geology 4, 474–484.
DiMichele, W.A., Phillips, T.L., Olmstead, R.G., 1987. Opportunistic evolution: abiotic
environmental stress and the fossil record of plants. Review of Palaeobotany and
Palynology 151, 151–178.
Draper, J.J., Boreham, C.J., 2006. Geological controls on exploitable coal seam gas distri-
bution in Queensland. APPEA Journal 46, 343–366.
Durucan, S., Ahsan, M., Shi, J.-Q., 2009. Matrix shrinkage and swelling characteristics of
European coals. Energy Procedia 1, 3055–3062.
Enever, J., Casey, D., Bocking, M., 1999. The role of in-situ stress in coalbed methane
production. In: Mastalerz, M., Glikson, M., Golding, S.D. (Eds.), Coalbed Methane:
Scientific, Environmental and Economic Evaluation. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, pp. 297–303.
Esterle, J.S., Ferm, J.C., 1994. Spatial variability in modern tropical peat deposits from
Sarawak, Malaysia and Sumatra, Indonesia: analogues for coal. International Jour-
nal of Coal Geology 26, 1–41.
Esterle, J.S., Moore, T.A., Shearer, J.C., 1992. Comparison of macroscopic and microscop-
ic size analyses of organic components in both coal and peat. 26th Newcastle Sym-
posium: Advances in the study of the Sydney Basin, Newcastle, NSW, Australia,
April 3–5, 1992 143–149.
Esterle, J.S., Williams, R.J., Sliwa, R., Malone, M., 2006. Variability in gas reservoir pa-
rameters that impact on emissions estimations for Australian black coals. Final Re-
port ACARP Project C13071, Brisbane. 36 pp.
Ettinger, I., Eremin, I., Zimakov, B., Yanovskaya, M., 1966. Natural factors influencing coal
sorption properties: I. Petrographic and sorption properties of coals. Fuel 45, 267–275.
77
Faiz, M., Stalker, L., Sherwood, N., Saghafi, A., Wold, M., Barclay, S., Choudhury, J.,
Barker, W., Wang, I., 2003. Bio-enhancement of coal bed methane resources in
the southern Sydney Basin. Australian Petroleum Production and exploration Asso-
ciation 43, 595–610.
Faiz, M.M., Saghafi, A., Barclay, S.A., Stalker, L., Sherwood, N.R., Whitford, D.J., 2007a.
Evaluating geological sequestration of CO2 in bituminous coals: the southern Syd-
ney Basin, Australia as a natural analogue. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control 1, 223–235.
Faiz, M., Saghafi, A., Sherwood, N., Wang, I., 2007b. The influence of petrological prop-
erties and burial history on coal seam methane reservoir characterisation, Sydney
Basin, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology 70, 193–208.
Faraj, B., Hatch, H., 2004. Mechanism of hydrogen generation in coalbed methane de-
sorption canisters: causes and remedies. Gastips 10, 15–19.
Ferm, J.C., Staub, J.R., 1984. Depositional controls of mineable coal bodies. Special Pub-
lication of International Association of Sedimentologists 7, 275–289.
Ferm, J.C., Staub, J.R., Baganz, B.P., Clark, W.J., Galloway, M.C.C.B., Hohos, E.F., Jones Jr., T.L.,
Mathew, D., Pedlow III, G.W., Robinson, M.J., 1979. The shape of coal bodies. In: Ferm,
J.C., Horne, J.C. (Eds.), Carboniferous Depositional Environments in the Appalachian
Region. University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, pp. 605–619.
Fick, A., 1855. On liquid diffusion. Philosophical Magazine 10, 30–39.
Fielding, C.R., 1984. ‘S’ or ‘Z’ shaped coal seam splits in the coal measures of County
Durham. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society 45, 85–89.
Flores, R.M., 1993. Coal-bed and related depositional environments in methane gas-
producing sequences. In: Law, B.E., Rice, D.D. (Eds.), Hydrocarbons from Coal.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 13–37.
Flores, R.M., 1998. Coalbed methane: from hazard to resource. International Journal of
Coal Geology 35, 1–379.
Flores, R.M., 2008. Microbes, methanogenesis, and microbial gas in coal. International
Journal of Coal Geology 76, 1–185.
Flores, R.M., Hanley, J.H., 1984. Anastomosed and associated coal-bearing fluvial de-
posits: Tongue River Member, Paleocene Fort Union Formation, northern Powder
River Basin, Wyoming. In: Rahmani, R.A., Flores, R.M. (Eds.), Sedimentology of
Coal and Coal-bearing Sequences. Special Publication of the International Associa-
tion of Sedimentologists, Oxford, pp. 85–103.
Flores, R.M., McGarry, D.E., Stricker, G.D., 2005. CBNG development: confusing coal
stratigraphy and gas production in the Powder River Basin. Canadian Society of Pe-
troleum Geologists Gussow Conference, Canmore, Canada, Abstracts with Pro-
grams. unpaginated.
Flores, R.M., Rice, C.A., Stricker, G.D., Warden, A., Ellis, M.S., 2008. Methanogenic path-
ways of coal-bed gas in the Powder River Basin, United States: the geological fac-
tor. International Journal of Coal Geology 76, 52–75.
Fujioka, M., Yamaguchi, S., Nako, M., 2010. CO2-ECBM field tests in the Ishikari coal
basin of Japan. International Journal of Coal Geology 82, 287–298.
Fukasawa, H., Sunaryo, R., Napitupulu, P.H., 1987. Hydrocarbon generation and migra-
tion in the Sangatta area, Kutei Basin, Sixteenth Annual Convention. Proceedings
Indonesian Petroleum Association. Indonesian Petroleum Association, Jakarta, In-
donesia, pp. 123–139.
Gamson, P., Beamish, B., Johnson, D., 1996. Coal microstructure and secondary miner-
alization: their effect on methane recovery. In: Gayer, R., Harris, I. (Eds.), Coalbed
Methane and Coal Geology. : Special Publication, 109. Geological Society, London,
pp. 165–179.
Gan, H., Nandi, S.P., Walker Jr., P.L., 1972. Nature of the porosity in American coals. Fuel
51, 272–277.
Gayer, R., Harris, I., 1996. Coalbed methane and coal geology. The Geological Society,
Special Publication, 109. 343 pp., London.
Gentzis, T., 2009. Stability analysis of a horizontal coalbed methane well in the Rocky
Mountain Front Ranges of southeast British Columbia, Canada. International Jour-
nal of Coal Geology 77, 328–337.
Gentzis, T., Deisman, N., Chalaturnyk, R.J., 2009a. Effect of drilling fluids on coal perme-
ability: impact on horizontal wellbore stability. International Journal of Coal Geol-
ogy 78, 177–191.
Gentzis, T., Deisman, N., Chalaturnyk, R.J., 2009b. A method to predict geomechanical
properties and model well stability in horizontal boreholes. International Journal
of Coal Geology 78, 149–160.
Gilcrease, P.C., Shurr, G.W., 2007. Making microbial methane work: the potential for
new biogenic gas. World Oil 228, 37–48.
Godfrey, P., Ee, T., Hewitt, T., 2010. Coal bed methane development in Indonesia: gold-
en opportunity or impossible dream? Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
28, 233–264.
Gold, T., 1992. The deep, hot biosphere. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-
ence of the USA 89, 6045.
Golding, S.D., Rudolph, V., Flores, R.M., 2010. Asia Pacific Coalbed Methane Symposium:
selected papers from the 2008 Brisbane symposium on coalbed methane and CO2-
enhanced coalbed methane. International Journal of Coal Geology 82, 1–298.
Goodman, A.L., Busch, A., Duffy, G.J., Fitzgerald, J.E., Gasem, K.A.M., Gensterblum, Y., Krooss,
B.M., Levy, J., Ozdemir, E., Pan, Z., Robinson Jr., R.L., Schroeder, K., Sudibandriyo, M.,
White, C.M., 2004. An inter-laboratory comparison of CO2 isotherms measured on Ar-
gonne premium coal samples. Energy & Fuels 18, 1175–1182.
Gray, I., 1987. Reservoir engineering in coal seams: Part 1. The physical process of gas
storage and movement in coal seams. SPE Reservoir Engineering 2, 28–34.
Greb, S.F., DiMichele, W.A., Gastaldo, R.A., 2006. Evolution and importance of wetlands
in earth history. In: Greb, S.F., DiMichele, W.A. (Eds.), Wetlands Through Time.
Geological Society of America, Boulder, Co: Special Paper, 399, pp. 1–40.
Green, M.S., Flanegan, K.C., Gilcrease, P.C., 2008. Characterisation of a methanogenic
consortium enriched from a coalbed methane well in the Powder River Basin,
U.S.A. International Journal of Coal Geology 76, 34–45.
78 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Gu, F., Chalaturnyk, R.J., 2006. Numerical simulation of stress and strain due to gas
sorption/desorption and their effects on in situ permeability of coalbeds. Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology 45, 1–11.
Gunter, W.D., Gentzis, T., Rottenfusser, B.A., Richardson, R.J.H., 1997. Deep coalbed
methane in Alberta, Canada: a fuel resource with the potential of zero greenhouse
gas emissions. Energy Conservation Management 38 (Suppl.), S217–S222.
Gurba, L.W., Weber, C.R., 2001. Effects of igneous intrusions on coalbed methane po-
tential, Gunnedah Basin, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology 46,
113–131.
Gurba, L.W., Gurba, A., Ward, C., Wood, J., Filipowski, A., Titheridge, D., 2001. The im-
pact of coal properties on gas drainage efficiency. In: Doyle, Moloney (Ed.), Geolog-
ical Hazards—The Impact to Mining, pp. 215–220.
Gürdal, G., Yalçin, M.N., 2001. Pore volume and surface area of the Carboniferous coals
from the Zonguldak basin (NW Turkey) and their variations with rank and maceral
composition. International Journal of Coal Geology 48, 133–144.
Hackley, P.C., Guevara, E.H., Hentz, T.F., Hook, R.W., 2009. Thermal maturity and organ-
ic composition of Pennsylvanian coals and carbonaceous shales, north-central
Texas: implications for coalbed gas potential. International Journal of Coal Geology
77, 294–309.
Hadiyanto, Stevens, S., 2005. Coalbed methane prospects in lower rank coals of Indone-
sia. In: Prihatmoko, S., Digdowirogo, S., Nas, C., van Leeuwen, T., Widjajanto, H.
(Eds.), Indonesian Mineral and Coal Discoveries. Indonesian Association of Geolo-
gists, Bandung, Indonesia, pp. 152–162.
Han, J.-Z., Sang, S.-X., Cheng, Z.-Z., Huang, H.-Z., 2009. Exploitation technology of pres-
sure relief coalbed methane in vertical wells in the Huainan coal mining area. Min-
ing Science and Technology 19, 25–30.
Harpalani, S., Chen, G., 1995. Estimation of changes in fracture porosity of coal with gas
emission. Fuel 74, 1491–1498.
Harpalani, S., Chen, G., 1997. Influence of gas production induced volumetric strain on
permeability of coal. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 15, 303–325.
Harpalani, S., Prusty, B.K., Dutta, P., 2006. Methane/CO2 sorption modeling for coalbed
methane production and CO2 Sequestration. Energy & Fuels 20, 1591–1599.
Havton, S., 2003. Technical note: Oxidation of Coal in Desorption Canisters.
Unpublished Petroleum Report PR2948. Ministry of Economic Development,
Crown Minerals, Wellington, New Zealand. 4 pp.
Healy, R.W., Bartos, T.T., Rice, C.A., McKinley, M.P., Smith, B.D., 2011. Groundwater
chemistry near an impoundment for produced water, Powder River Basin, Wyo-
ming, USA. Journal of Hydrology 403, 37–48.
Hemza, P., Sivek, M., Jirásek, J., 2009. Factors influencing the methane content of coal
beds in the Czech part of the Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Czech Republic. Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology 79, 29–39.
Hendry, P., Faiz, M., Li, D., Gong, S., Fuentes, D., 2007. Microbial analysis of some New
Zealand coal samples. CSIRO, Sydney, Australia, Report to Solid Energy NZ Ltd. 69 pp.
Herudiyanto, 2006. Possible explanation of the increasing coal rank at Sangatta. Inter-
nal Report. Geological Resource Centre, Geological Agency of Indonesia, Bandung.
16 pp.
Hildenbrand, A., Krooss, B.M., Busch, A., Gaschnitz, R., 2006. Evolution of methane sorp-
tion capacity of coal seams as a function of burial history—a case study from the
Campine Basin, NE Belgium. International Journal of Coal Geology 66, 179–203.
Hornibrook, E.R.C., Longstaffe, F.J., Fyfe, W.S., 1997. Spatial distribution of microbial
methane production pathways in temperate zone wetland soils: stable carbon
and hydrogen isotope evidence. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 61, 745–753.
Hunt, J.M., 1979. Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology. Freeman & Co., San Francisco.
617 pp.
Hunt, J.M., 1991. Generation of gas and oil from coal and other terrestrial organic mat-
ter. Organic Geochemistry 17, 673–680.
ICCP, 1998. The new vitrinite classification (ICCP System 1994). Fuel 77, 349–358.
ICCP, 2001. The new inertinite classification (ICCP System 1994). Fuel 80, 459–471.
Jackson, R.E., Reddy, K.J., 2007. Geochemistry of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) produced
water in Powder River Basin, Wyoming: salinity and sodicity. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution 184, 49–61.
Jin, H., Schimmelmann, A., Mastalerz, M., Pope, J., Moore, T.A., 2010. Coalbed gas de-
sorption in canisters: consumption of trapped atmospheric oxygen and implica-
tions for measured gas quality. International Journal of Coal Geology 81, 64–72.
Joubert, J.I., Grein, C.T., Bienstock, D., 1974. Effect of moisture on the methane capacity
of American coals. Fuel 53, 186–191.
Karacan, C.Ö., 2003. Heterogenous sorption and swelling in a confined and stressed
coal during CO2 injection. Energy & Fuels 17, 1595–1608.
Karacan, C.Ö., Okandan, E., 2000. Fracture/cleat analysis of coals from Zonguldak Basin
(northwestern Turkey) relative to potential of coalbed methane production. Inter-
national Journal of Coal Geology 44, 109–125.
Karacan, C.Ö., Larsen, J.W., Esterle, J.S., 2009. CO2 sequestration in coals and enhanced
coalbed methane recovery. International Journal of Coal Geology 77, 1–242.
Karacan, C.Ö., Ruiz, F.A., Cotè, M., Phipps, S., 2011. Coal mine methane: a review of cap-
ture and utilization practices with benefits to mining safety and to greenhouse gas
reduction. International Journal of Coal Geology 86, 121–156.
Kędzior, S., 2009. Accumulation of coal-bed methane in the south-east part of the
Upper Silesian Coal Basin (southern Poland). International Journal of Coal
Geology 80, 20–34.
Kędzior, S., 2011. The occurrence of a secondary zone of coal-bed methane in the
southern part of the Upper Silesian Coal Basin (southern Poland): potential for
methane exploitation. International Journal of Coal Geology 86, 157–168.
Khavari-Khoransani, G., Michelsen, J.K., 1999. Coal bed gas content and gas
undersaturation. In: Mastalerz, M., Glikson, M., Golding, S.D. (Eds.), Coalbed Meth-
ane: Scientific, Environmental and Economic Evaluation. Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, Dordrecht, pp. 207–231.
Kim, A.G., 1973. The composition of coalbed gas. Report of Investigations 7762. U.S. Bu-
reau of Mines, Washington DC. 8 pp.
Kim, A.G., 1977. Estimating methane content of bituminous coalbeds from adsorption
data. Report of Investigation 8245. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington DC.
Kim, A.G., Douglas, L.J., 1973. Gases desorbed from five coals of low gas content. Report
of Investigations 7768. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington DC. 9 pp.
Kinnon, E.C.P., Esterle, J.S., 2008. Geological Controls on Gas Flow Pathways in Coal
Seams, 2008 Coalbed and Shale Gas Symposium, Paper 0803. Birmingham,
Alabama.
Kinnon, E.C.P., Golding, S.D., Boreham, C.J., Baublys, K.A., Esterle, J.S., 2010. Stable iso-
tope water quality analysis of coal bed methane production gases from the
Bowen Basin, Australia. International Journal of Coal Geology 82, 219–231.
Kiyama, T., Nishimoto, S., Fujioka, M., Xue, Z., Ishijima, Y., Pan, Z., Connell, L.D., 2011.
Coal swelling strain and permeability change with injecting liquid/supercritical
CO2 and N2 at stress-constrained conditions. International Journal of Coal Geology
85, 56–64.
Koenig, R.A., Schraufnagel, R.A., 1987. Application of the slug test in coalbed methane
testing. Society of Petroleum Engineers Reprint Series No. 35, 79–89.
Korre, A., Shi, J.-Q., Imrie, C., Durucan, S., 2009. Modelling the uncertainty and risks as-
sociated with the design and life cycle of CO2 storage in coalbed reservoirs. Energy
Procedia 1, 2525–2532.
Krelle, A., 2011. Geological Controls on Coal Seam Gas Domains—A Case Study in the
Moranbah Coal Measures at Saraji East. Department of Earth Sciences. The Univer-
sity of Queensland, Brisbane.
Krooss, B.M., van Bergen, F., Gensterblum, Y., Siemons, N., Pagnier, H.J.M., David, P.,
2002. High-pressure methane and carbon dioxide adsorption on dry and
moisture-equilibrated Pennsylvanian coals. International Journal of Coal Geology
51, 69–92.
Lama, R.D., Bodziony, J., 1998. Management of outburst in underground coal mines. In-
ternational Journal of Coal Geology 35, 83–115.
Lama, R.D., Nguyen, V.U., 1987. A model for determination of methane flow parameters
in coal from desorption tests. Proceedings of the Twentieth International Sympo-
sium on the Application of Computers and Mathematics in the Mineral Industries:
Mining, volume 1, pp. 275–282. SAIMM, Johannesburg.
Lamarre, R.A., Pope, J., 2007. Critical-gas-content technology provides coalbed-
methane-reservoir data. Journal of Petroleum Technology 59, 108–113.
Lamberson, M.N., Bustin, R.M., 1993. Coalbed methane characteristics of Gates Forma-
tion coals, northeastern British Columbia: effect of maceral composition. AAPG Bul-
letin 77, 2062–2076.
Langmuir, I., 1918. The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and plati-
num. Journal of the American Chemical Society 40, 1361–1403.
Laubach, S.E., Marrett, R.A., Olson, J.E., Scott, A.R., 1998. Characteristics and origins of
coal cleat: a review. International Journal of Coal Geology 35, 175–207.
Law, B.E., 1993. The relationship between coal rank and cleat spacing: implications for
the prediction of permeability in coal. 1993 International Coalbed Methane Sym-
posium, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama (USA), pp. 435–441.
Law, B.E., Rice, D.D., 1993. Hydrocarbons in coal. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists. AAPG Studies in Geology 38 394 pp., Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Law, D.H.-S., van de Meer, L.G.H., Gunter, W.D., 2005. Comparison of numerical simula-
tors for greenhouse gas storage in coalbeds, Part IV: history match of field micro-
pilot test data. In: Wilson, M., Morris, T., Gale, J., Thambimuthu, K. (Eds.), Green-
house Gas Control Technologies. Elsevier Ltd., pp. 2239–2242.
Laxminarayana, C., Crosdale, P.J., 1999. Role of coal type and rank on methane sorption char-
acters of Bowen Basin, Australia coals. International Journal of Coal Geology 40, 309–325.
Laxminarayana, C., Crosdale, P.J., 2002. Controls on methane sorption capacity of Indian
coals. AAPG Bulletin 86, 201–212.
Levine, J.R., 1993. Coalification: the evolution of coal as source rock and reservoir rock
for oil and gas. In: Law, B.E., Rice, D.D. (Eds.), Studies in Geology Series 39–77 Tulsa.
Levine, J.R., 1996. Model study of the influence of matrix shrinkage on absolute perme-
ability of coal bed reservoirs. In: Gayer, R., Harris, I. (Eds.), Coalbed Methane and
Coal Geology: Geological Society Special Publication, 109, pp. 197–212.
Levine, J.R., Jonson, P.W., Beamish, B.B., 1993. High-pressure microgravimetry provides
a viable alternative to volumetric method in gas sorption studies on coal. Proceed-
ings of the 1993 International Coalbed Methane Symposium. University of Ala-
bama, Tuscaloosa, Al, pp. 187–195.
Levy, J.H., Day, S.J., Killingley, J.S., 1997. Methane capacities of Bowen Basin coals relat-
ed to coal properties. Fuel 76, 813–819.
Li, H., Ogawa, Y., 2001. Pore structure of sheared coals and related coalbed methane.
Environmental Geology 40, 1455–1461.
Li, H., Ogawa, Y., Simada, S., 2003. Mechanism of methane flow through sheared coals
and its role on methane recovery. Fuel 82, 1271–1279.
Li, D., Hendry, P., Faiz, M., 2008. A survey of the microbial populations in some Austra-
lian coalbed methane reservoirs. International Journal of Coal Geology 76, 14–24.
Li, W., Cheng, Y.-P., Wang, L., 2011. The origin and formation of CO2 gas pools in the
coal seam of the Yaojie coalfield in China. International Journal of Coal Geology
85, 227–236.
Liu, J., Chen, Z., Elsworth, D., Qu, H., Chen, D., 2011. Interactions of multiple processes
during CBM extraction: a critical review. International Journal of Coal Geology
87, 175–189.
Lüttig, G., 1986. Plants to peat: the process of humification. In: Fuchsman, C.H. (Ed.),
Peat and Water. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 9–19.
Lyons, P.C., 1998. Introduction. International Journal of Coal Geology 38, 1–2.
Majewska, Z., Majewski, S., Ziętek, J., 2010. Swelling of coal induced by cyclic sorp-
tion/desorption of gas: experimental observations indicating changes in coal
structure due to sorption of CO2 and CH4. International Journal of Coal Geology
83, 475–483.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Mares, T.E., 2009. An Investigation of the Relationship Between Coal and Gas Properties
in the Huntly coalfield, New Zealand. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, De-
partment of Geological Sciences. 394 pp.
Mares, T.E., Moore, T.A., 2008. The influence of macroscopic texture on biogenically-
derived coalbed methane, Huntly coalfield, New Zealand. International Journal of
Coal Geology 76, 175–185.
Mares, T.E., Moore, T.A., Moore, C.R., 2009a. Uncertainty of gas saturation estimates in a
subbituminous coal seam. International Journal of Coal Geology 77, 320–327.
Mares, T.E., Radlinski, A.P., Moore, T.A., Cookson, D., Thiyagarajan, P., Ilavsky, J., Klepp, J.,
2009b. Assessing the potential for CO2 adsorption in a subbituminous coal, Huntly
Coalfield, New Zealand, using small angle scattering techniques. International Jour-
nal of Coal Geology 77, 54–68.
Martini, A.M., Nüsslein, K., Petsch, S.T., 2005. Enhancing microbial gas from unconven-
tional reservoirs. Gastips 11, 3–7.
Mastalerz, M., Glikson, M., Golding, S.D., 1999. Coalbed Methane: Scientific, Environ-
mental and Economic Evaluation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 592 pp.
Mastalerz, M., Gluskoter, H., Rupp, J., 2004. Carbon dioxide and methane sorption in
high volatile bituminous coals from Indiana, USA. International Journal of Coal Ge-
ology 60, 43–45.
Mastalerz, M., Drobniak, A., Schimmelmann, A., 2009. Changes in optical properties,
chemistry, and micropore and mesopore characteristics of bituminous coal at the
contact with dikes in the Illinois Basin. International Journal of Coal Geology 77,
310–319.
Mavor, M., Nelson, C., 1997. Coalbed reservoir Gas-In-Place Analysis. Gas Research In-
stitute, Chicago, Illinois, USA. GRI-97/0263.
Mavor, M.J., Hartman, C., Pratt, T.J., 2004. Uncertainty in sorption isotherm measure-
ments. 2004 International Coalbed Methane Symposium. University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Paper 0411. unpaginated.
Mazumder, S., Wolf, K.H., 2008. Differential swelling and permeability change of coal in re-
sponse to CO2 injection for ECBM. International Journal of Coal Geology 74, 123–138.
Mazumder, S., Scott, M., Jiang, J., 2012. Permeability increase in Bowen Basin coal as a
result of matrix shrinkage during primary depletion. International Journal of Coal
Geology 96–97, 109–119.
Mazzotti, M., Pini, R., Storti, G., 2009. Enhanced coalbed methane recovery. Journal of
Supercritical Fluids 47, 619–627.
McBeth, I., Reddy, K.J., Skinner, Q.D., 2003. Chemistry of trace elements in coalbed
methane product water. Water Research 37, 884–890.
McCants, C.Y., Spafford, S., Stevens, S.H., 2001. Five-spot production pilot on tight spac-
ing: rapid evaluation of a coalbed methane block in the Upper Silesian Coal Basin,
Poland. The 2001 International Coalbed Methane Symposium. University of Ala-
bama, Tuscaloosa, pp. 193–204.
McCulloch, C.M., Levine, J.R., Kissell, F.N., Deul, M., 1975. Measuring the methane con-
tent of bituminous coalbeds. Report of Investigations 8043. US Bureau of Mines,
Washington D.C. 22 pp.
McLennan, J.D., Schafer, P.S., Pratt, T., 1995. A Guide to Determining Coalbed Gas Con-
tent. Gas Research Institute (GRI), Chicago, Illinois. GRI-94-0396, 300 pp.
Meneley, R.A., Calverley, A.E., Logan, K.G., Proctor, R.M., 2003. Resource assessment
methodologies: current status and future direction. AAPG Bulletin 87, 535–540.
Midgley, D.J., Hendry, P., Pinetown, K.L., Fuentes, D., Gong, S., Mitchell, D.L., Faiz, M.,
2010. Characterisation of a microbial community associated with a deep, coal
seam methane reservoir in the Gippsland Basin, Australia. International Journal
of Coal Geology 82, 232–239.
Milewska-Duda, J., Duda, J., Nodzeñski, A., Lakatos, J., 2000. Absorption and adsorption
of methane and carbon dioxide in hard coal and active carbon. Langmuir 16,
5458–5466.
Montgomery, S.L., 1999. Powder River Basin, Wyoming: an expanding coalbed meth-
ane (CBM) play. AAPG Bulletin 83, 1207–1222.
Moore, T.A., 2012. How many holes does it take to fill the Albert Hall? The importance
of porosity in a coalbed methane reservoir. 36th Annual Convention & Exhibition,
Indonesian Petroleum Association. Indonesian Petroleum Association, Paper
IPA12-G-092, Jakarta, Indonesia. unpaginated.
Moore, T.A., Butland, C.I., 2005. Coal seam gas in New Zealand as a model for Indonesia.
In: Prihatmoko, S., Digdowirogo, S., Nas, C., Leeuwen, T.v., Widjajanto, H. (Eds.), In-
donesian Mineral and Coal Discoveries. Indonesian Association of Geologists,
Bogor, Indonesia, pp. 192–200.
Moore, T.A., Friederich, M.C., 2010. A probabilistic approach to estimation of coalbed
methane resources for Kalimantan, Indonesia. In: Basuki, N.I., Prihatmoko, S.
(Eds.), Kalimantan Coal and Mineral Resources. MGEI-IAGI Seminar, 29–30
March 2010, Balikpapan, Indonesia, pp. 61–71.
Moore, T.A., Hilbert, R.E., 1992. Petrographic and anatomical characteristics of plant
material from two peat deposits of Holocene and Miocene age, Kalimantan, Indo-
nesia. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 72, 199–227.
Moore, T.A., Shearer, J.C., Miller, S.L., 1996. Fungal origin of oxidised plant material in
the Palangkaraya peat deposit, Kalimantan Tengah, Indonesia: implications for
“inertinite” formation in coal. International Journal of Coal Geology 30, 1–23.
Moore, T.A., Esterle, J.S., Shearer, J.C., 2000. The rôle and development of texture in coal
beds: examples from Indonesia and New Zealand. In: Hadiyanto (Ed.), Southeast
Asian Coal Geology Conference. Ministry of Mines and Energy, Bandung, pp.
239–252.
Moore, T.A., Flores, R.M., Stanton, R.W., Stricker, G.D., 2002. The rôle of macroscopic
texture in determining coalbed methane variability in the Anderson-Wyodak
coal seam, Powder River Basin, Wyoming. In: Robison, C.R. (Ed.), 18th Annual
Meeting of the Society for Organic Petrology. The Society for Organic Petrology,
Houston, Tx, pp. 85–88.
Moore, T.A., Mares, T.E., Moore, C.R., 2009. Assessing uncertainty of coalbed methane
resources. Proceedings, Indonesian Petroleum Association, 33rd Annual
79
Convention & Exhibition. Indonesian Petroleum Association, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Paper IPA09-G-056, unpaginated.
Mukhopadhyay, P.K., Hatcher, P.G., 1993. Composition of coal. In: Law, B.E., Rice, D.D.
(Eds.), Hydrocarbons from Coal. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 79–118.
Murchison, D.G., Raymond, A.C., 1989. Igneous activity and organic maturation in the
Midland Valley of Scotland. International Journal of Coal Geology 14, 47–82.
Murray, D.K., 1996. Coalbed methane in the USA: analogues for worldwide develop-
ment. Coalbed methane and coal geology. In: Gayer, R., Harris, I. (Eds.), Coalbed
Methane and Coal Geology: Geological Society Special Publication, 109, pp. 1–12.
Myers, T., 2009. Groundwater management and coal bed methane development in the
Powder River Basin of Montana. Journal of Hydrology 368, 178–193.
Nas, C., 1994. Spatial Variations in the Thickness and Coal Quality of the Sangatta Seam,
Kutei Basin, Kalimantan. University of Wollongong, Indonesia.
Nelson, C.R., Hill, D.G., Pratt, T.J., 2000. Properties of Paleocene Fort Union Formation
Canyon seam coal at the Triton Federal coalbed methane well, Campbell County,
Wyoming. SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta Canada 3–5
April, pp. 639–649.
Newell, K.D., 2007. Wellsite, laboratory, and mathematical techniques for determining
sorbed gas contents of coals and gas shales utilizing well cuttings. Natural Re-
sources Research 16, 55–66.
Newman, J., Newman, N.A., 1982. Reflectance anomalies in Pike River coals: evidence of
variability in vitrinite type, with implications for maturation studies and “Suggate
rank”. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 25, 233–243.
Nie, R.-S., Meng, Y.-F., Guo, J.-C., Jia, Y.-L., 2012. Modeling transient flow behavior of a
horizontal well in a coal seam. International Journal of Coal Geology 92, 54–68.
Ottiger, S., Pini, R., Storti, G., Mazzotti, M., 2008. Measuring and modeling the compet-
itive adsorption of CO2, CH4 and N2 on a dry coal. Langmuir 24, 9531–9540.
Ozdemir, E., 2009. Modeling of coal bed methane (CBM) production and CO2 seques-
tration in coal seams. International Journal of Coal Geology 77, 145–152.
Ozdemir, E., Schroeder, K., 2009. Effect of moisture on adsorption isotherms and ad-
sorption capacities of CO2 on coals. Energy & Fuels 23, 2821–2831.
Ozdemir, E., Morsi, B.I., Schroeder, K., 2003. Importance of volume effects to adsorption
isotherms of carbon dioxide on coals. Langmuir 19, 9764–9773.
Palmer, I., 2009. Permeability changes in coal: analytical modeling. International Jour-
nal of Coal Geology 77, 119–126.
Palmer, I., Mansoori, J., 1998. How permeability depends on stress and pore pressure in
coal beds: a new model. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 1, 539–544 SPE-
52607-PA.
Pan, Z., Connell, L.D., 2007. A theoretical model for gas adsorption-induced coal swell-
ing. International Journal of Coal Geology 69, 243–252.
Pan, Z., Connell, L.D., 2011a. Modelling of anisotropic coal swelling and its impact on
permeability behaviour for primary and enhanced coalbed methane recovery. In-
ternational Journal of Coal Geology 85, 257–267.
Pan, Z., Connell, L.D., 2011b. Impact of coal seam as interlayer on CO2 storage in saline
aquifers: a reservoir simulation study. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control 5, 99–114.
Pan, Z., Connell, L.D., 2012. Modelling permeability for coal reservoirs: a review of an-
alytical models and testing data. International Journal of Coal Geology 92, 1–44.
Pan, Z., Connell, L.D., Camilleri, M., 2010. Laboratory characterisation of coal reservoir
permeability for primary and enhanced coalbed methane recovery. International
Journal of Coal Geology 82, 252–261.
Papendick, S.L., Downs, K.R., Vo, K.D., Hamilton, S.K., Dawson, G.K.W., Golding, S.D.,
Gilcrease, P.C., 2011. Biogenic methane potential for Surat Basin, Queensland coal
seams. International Journal of Coal Geology 88, 123–134.
Pashin, J.C., 1998. Stratigraphy and structure of coalbed methane reservoirs in the Unit-
ed States: an overview. International Journal of Coal Geology 35, 209–240.
Pashin, J.C., 2007. Hydrodynamics of coalbed methane reservoirs in the Black Warrior
Basin: key to understanding reservoir performance and environmental issues. Ap-
plied Geochemistry 22, 2257–2272.
Pashin, J.C., 2010. Variable gas saturation in coalbed methane reservoirs of the Black
Warrior Basin: implications for exploration and production. International Journal
of Coal Geology 82, 135–146.
Pashin, J.C., 2011. Coalbed methane. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, En-
ergy Minerals Division, Unconventional Energy Resources: 2011 Review: Natural
Resources Research, 20, pp. 282–286.
Paul, S., Chatterjee, R., 2011. Determination of in-situ stress direction from cleat orien-
tation mapping in coal bed methane exploration in south-eastern part of Jharia
Coalfield, India. International Journal of Coal Geology 88, 87–96.
Penner, T.J., Foght, J.M., Budwill, K., 2010. Microbial diversity of western Canadian sub-
surface coal beds and methanogenic coal enrichment cultures. International Jour-
nal of Coal Geology 82, 81–93.
Philibert, J., 2005. One and a half century of diffusion: Fick, Einstein, before and beyond.
Diffusion Fundamentals 2, 1–10.
Pillalamarry, M., Harpalani, S., Liu, S., 2011. Gas diffusion behavior of coal and its impact
on production from coalbed methane reservoirs. International Journal of Coal Ge-
ology 86, 342–348.
Pitman, J.K., Pashin, J.C., Hatch, J.R., Goldhaber, M.B., 2003. Origin of minerals in joint
and cleat systems of the Pottsville Formation, Black Warrior basin, Alabama: impli-
cations for coalbed methane generation and production. AAPG Bulletin 87,
713–731.
Qin, S., Song, Y., Tang, X., Fu, G., 2005. The mechanism of the flowing ground water
impacting on coalbed gas content. Chinese Science Bulletin 50, 118–123.
Radlinski, A.P., Radlinska, E.Z., 1999. Coal bed gas content and gas undersaturation. In:
Mastalerz, M., Glikson, M., Golding, S.D. (Eds.), Coalbed Methane: Scientific, Environmen-
tal and Economic Evaluation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 329–365.
80 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
Radlinski, A.P., Mastalerz, M., Hinde, A.L., Hainbuchner, M., Rauch, H., Baron, M., Lin, J.S.,
Fan, L., Thiyagarajan, P., 2004. Application of SAX and SANS in evaluation of poros-
ity, pore size and surface area of coal. International Journal of Coal Geology 59,
245–271.
Radovic, L.R., Menon, V.C., Leon, Y., Leon, C.A., Kyotani, T., Danner, R.P., Anderson, S.,
Hatcher, P.G., 1997. On the porous structure of coals: evidence for an
interconnected but constricted micropore system and implications for coalbed
methane recovery. Adsorption 3, 221–232.
Ramurthy, M., Marjerisson, D.M., Daves, S.B., 2002. Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test in
Coals to Determine Pore Pressure and Permeability. SPE Gase Technology Sympo-
sium. Society of Petroleum Engineers, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 16 pp.
Raymond, R., 1986. Out of the Fiery Furnace. The Pennsylvania State University, Univer-
sity Park, Pennsylvania, The impact of metals on the history of mankind. 273 pp.
Reeves, S., 2001. Geologic sequestration of CO2 in deep, unmineable coalbeds: an inte-
grated research and commercial-scale field demonstration project. First National
Conference on Carbon Sequestration, May 14–17, 2001. Department of Energy Na-
tional Energy Technology Laboratory, Washington DC. 12 pp., http://www.netl.
doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/3a3.pdf.
Rice, D.D., 1993. Composition and origins of coalbed gas. In: Law, B.E., Rice, D.D. (Eds.),
Hydrocarbons from Coal. : AAPG Studies in Geology, 38. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 159–184.
Rice, C.A., 2003. Production waters associated with the Ferron coalbed methane fields,
central Utah: chemical and isotopic composition and volumes. International Jour-
nal of Coal Geology 56, 141–169.
Rice, D.D., Claypool, G.E., 1981. Generation, accumulation, and resource potential of
biogenic gas. AAPG Bulletin 65, 5–25.
Rice, D.D., Clayton, J.L., Pawlewicz, M.J., 1989. Characterization of coal-derived hydro-
carbons and source-rock potential of coal beds, San Juan Basin, New Mexico and
Colorado, U.S.A. International Journal of Coal Geology 13, 597–626.
Rice, C.A., Ellis, M.S., Bullock, J.H.J., 2000. Water co-produced with coalbed methane in
the Powder River Basin. Wyoming: Preliminary Compositional Data. USGS Open-
File Report 00‐372, Denver, Colorado. 45 pp.
Rightmire, C.T., Eddy, G.E., Kirr, J.N., 1984. Coalbed Methane Resources of the United
States. AAPG Studies in Geology, 17. American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Tulsa, Oklahoma. 375 pp.
Robertson, E.P., 2009. Economic analysis of carbon dioxide sequestration in Powder
River Basin coal. International Journal of Coal Geology 77, 234–241.
Rodrigues, C.F., Lemos de Sousa, M.J., 2002. The measurement of coal porosity with dif-
ferent gases. International Journal of Coal Geology 48, 245–251.
Roehler, R.W., 1988. The Pintail coal bed and barrier bar G—a model for coal of barrier
bar-lagoon origin. Upper Cretaceous Almond Formation, Rock Springs Coal Field,
Wyoming. : U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 1398. 60 pp.
Rogoff, M.H., Wender, I., Anderson, R.B., 1962. Microbiology of coal. U.S. Bureau of
Mines. Information Circular 8075. 85 pp.
Ross, H.E., Hagin, P., Zoback, M.D., 2009. CO2 storage and enhanced coalbed methane
recovery: reservoir characterisation and fluid flow simulations of the Big George
coal, Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA. International Journal of Greenhouse
Gas Control 3, 773–786.
Saghafi, A., Williams, R.J., Roberts, D.B., 1995. Determination of coal gas content by
quick crushing method. CSIRO, Sydney. 9 pp.
Saxby, J.D., Shibaoka, M., 1986. Coal and coal macerals as source rocks for oil and gas.
Applied Geochemistry 1, 25–36.
Schneider, W., 1986. Vergelung im 2. miozanen Flozhorizont der Lausitz - Genese und
Erscheinung. Wiss. Techn. Geol. Wiss. 14, 735–744.
Schopf, J.M., 1966. Definitions of peat and coal and of graphite that terminates the coal
series (graphocite). Journal of Geology 74, 584–592.
Scott, A.R., 1993. Composition and origin of coalbed gases from selected basins in the
United States. Proceedings of the 1993 International Coalbed Methane Symposium,
Birmingham, Alabama, pp. 207–222.
Scott, A.R., 1999. Coal bed gas content and gas undersaturation. In: Mastalerz, M.,
Glikson, M., Golding, S.D. (Eds.), Coalbed Methane: Scientific, Environmental and
Economic Evaluation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 89–110.
Scott, A.R., 2002. Hydrogeological factors affecting gas content distribution in coal beds.
International Journal of Coal Geology 50, 363–387.
Scott, A.R., Kaiser, W.R., Ayers Jr., W.B., 1994. Thermogenic and secondary biogenic
gases, San Juan basin, Colorado and New Mexico—implications for coalbed gas
producibility. AAPG Bulletin 78, 1186–1209.
Scott, A.R., Zhou, N., Levine, J.R., 1995. A modified approach to estimating coal and coal
gas resources: example from the Sand Wash Basin, Colorado. AAPG Bulletin 79,
1320–1336.
Scott, S., Anderson, B., Crosdale, P.J., Dingwall, J., Leblang, G., 2007. Coal petrology and
coal seam gas contents of the Walloon Subgroup—Surat Basin, Queensland, Austra-
lia. International Journal of Coal Geology 70, 209–222.
Şenel, I.G., Gürüz, A.G., Yücel, H., 2001. Characterization of pore structure of Turkish
coals. Energy & Fuels 15, 331–338.
Shearer, J.C., Moore, T.A., 1996. Effects of experimental coalification on texture, compo-
sition and compaction in Indonesian peat and wood. Organic Geochemistry 24,
127–140.
Shearer, J.C., Moore, T.A., Demchuk, T.D., 1995. Delineation of the distinctive nature of
Tertiary coal beds. International Journal of Coal Geology 28, 71–98.
Shi, J.Q., Durucan, S., 2005. A model for changes in coalbed permeability during primary
and enhanced methane recovery. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 8,
291–299 SPE-87230-PA.
Shi, J.-Q., Durucan, S., Fujioka, M., 2008. A reservoir simulation study of CO2 injection
and N2 flooding at the Ishikari coalfield CO2 storage pilot project, Japan. Interna-
tional Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2, 47–57.
Shimizu, S., Akiyama, M., Naganuma, T., Fuioka, M., Nako, M., Ishijim, Y., 2007. Molec-
ular characterization of microbial communities in deep coal seam groundwater
of northern Japan. Geobiology 5, 423–433.
Siemons, N., Busch, A., 2007. Measurement and interpretation of supercritical sorption
on various coals. International Journal of Coal Geology 69, 229–242.
Sinayuç, C., Gümrah, F., 2009. Modeling of ECBM recovery from Amasra coalbed in Zon-
guldak Basin, Turkey. International Journal of Coal Geology 77, 162–174.
Siriwardane, H., Haljasmaa, I., McLendon, R., Irdi, G., Soong, Y., Bromhal, G., 2009. Influ-
ence of carbon dioxide on coal permeability determined by pressure transient
methods. International Journal of Coal Geology 77, 109–118.
Sivek, M., Jirásek, J., Sediáčková, L., Čáslavský, M., 2010. Variation of moisture content of
the bituminous coals with depth: a case study from the Czech part of the Upper Si-
lesian Coal Basin. International Journal of Coal Geology 84, 16–24.
Sloss, L.L., 2005. Coalbed methane emissions—capture and utilisation. IEA Clean Coal
Centre, London, CCC/104. 56 pp.
Smith, J.W., Pallasser, R.J., 1996. Microbial origin of Australian coalbed methane. AAPG
Bulletin 80, 891–897.
Smyth, M., Buckley, M.J., 1993. Statistical analysis of the microlithotype sequences in
the Bulli Seam, Australia, and relevance to permeability for coal gas. International
Journal of Coal Geology 22, 167–187.
Snyder, G.T., Riese, W.C., Franks, S., Pelzmann, W.L., Gorody, A.W., Moran, J.E., 2003. Or-
igin and history of waters associated with coalbed methane: 129I, 36Cl, and stable
isotope results from the Fruitland Formation, CO and MN. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta 67, 4529–4544.
Somerton, W.H., Söylemezoḡlu, I.M., Dudley, R.C., 1975. Effects of stress on permeabil-
ity of coal. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science &
Geomechanics Abstracts 12, 129–145.
Sparks, D.P., McLendon, T.H., Saulsberry, J.L., Lambert, S.W., 1995. The effects of stress
on coalbed reservoir performance, Black Warrior Basin, U.S.A. Proceedings of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SPE
Paper 30743, Dallas, Texas, pp. 339–351.
St. George, J.D., Barakat, M.A., 2001. The change in effective stress associated with shrink-
age from gas desorption in coal. International Journal of Coal Geology 45, 105–113.
Stanton, R.W., Flores, R.M., Warwick, P.D., Gluskoter, H., Stricker, G.D., 2001. Coal bed
sequestration of carbon dioxide. First National Conference on Carbon Sequestra-
tion, May 14–17, 2001. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Labora-
tory, Washington DC. CD-ROM Proceedings, paper 3A.3, 12 pp., http://www.netl.
doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/3a3.pdf.
Stearns, M., Tindall, J.A., Cronin, G., Friedel, M.J., Bergquist, E., 2005. Effects of coal-bed
methane discharge waters on the vegetation and soil ecosystem in Powder River
Basin, Wyoming. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 168, 33–57.
Stevens, S.H., Sani, K., Hardjosuwiryo, S., 2001. Indonesia's 337 tcf CBM resource: a low-
cost alternative to gas, LNG. Oil & Gas Journal 99, 40–45.
Stopes, M.C., 1919. On the four visible ingredients in banded bituminous coal. Proceed-
ings of the Royal Society, Series B 90, 470–487.
Strąpoć, D., Mastalerz, M., Eble, C., Schimmelmann, A., 2007. Characterization of the or-
igin of coalbed gases in southeastern Illinois Basin by compound-specific carbon
and hydrogen stable isotope ratios. Organic Geochemistry 38, 267–287.
Strąpoć, D., Picardal, F.W., Turich, C., Schaperdoth, I., Macalady, J.L., Lipp, J.S., Lin, Y.-S.,
Ertefai, T.F., Schubotz, F., Hinrichs, K.-U., Mastalerz, M., Schimmelmann, A., 2008a.
Methane-producing microbial community in a coal bed of the Illinois Basin. Ap-
plied and Environmental Microbiology 74, 2424–2432.
Strąpoć, D., Mastalerz, M., Schimmelmann, A., Drobniak, A., Hedges, S., 2008b. Variabil-
ity of geochemical properties in a microbially dominated coalbed gas system from
the eastern margin of the Illinois Basin, USA. International Journal of Coal Geology
76, 98–100.
Stricker, G.D., Flores, R.M., McGarry, D.E., Stilwell, D.P., Hoppe, D.J., Stilwell, K.R., Ochs,
A.M., Ellis, M.E., Osvald, K.S., Taylor, S.L., Thorvaldson, M.C., Trippi, M.H., Grose, S.D.,
Cockett, F.J., Shariff, A.A., 2006. Gas desorption isotherm studies in coals in the
Powder River Basin and adjoining basins in Wyoming and North Dakota. U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, Reston, Va, USGS Open File Report 2006‐1174. 273 pp.
Su, X., Feng, Y., Chen, J., Pan, J., 2001. The characteristics and origins of cleat in coal from
Western North China. International Journal of Coal Geology 47, 51–62.
Sumner, G.M., 1980. Canary in a coal mine. Police, Zenyatta Mondatta: A&M Records,
SP-3720, Track 4.
Susilawati, R., Ward, C.R., 2006. Metamorphism of mineral matter in coal from the
Bukit Asam deposit, south Sumatra, Indonesia. International Journal of Coal Geolo-
gy 68, 171–195.
Taulis, M., Milke, M., 2007. Coal seam gas water from Maramarua, New Zealand: char-
acterisation and comparison to United States analogues. New Zealand Journal of
Hydrology 46, 1–17.
Taulis, M., Milke, M., 2009. Sodium removal from Maramarua coal seam gas waters
using Ngakuru zeolites. Proceedings of the Water New Zealand Conference and
Expo. The New Zealand Water & Waste Association, Rotorua. unpaginated.
Taylor, G.H., Teichmüller, M., Davis, A., Diessel, C.F.K., Littke, R., Robert, P., 1998. Organic
Petrology. Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin. 704 pp.
Teichmüller, M., 1989. The genesis of coal from the viewpoint of coal petrology. Inter-
national Journal of Coal Geology 12, 1–87.
Ting, F.T.C., 1977. Origin and spacing of cleats in coal beds. Journal of Pressure Vessel
Technology 99, 624–626.
Ulrich, G., Bower, S., 2008. Active methanogenesis and acetate utilization in Powder
River Basin coals, United States. International Journal of Coal Geology 76, 25–33.
United Nations, 2010. Best practice guidance for effective methane drainage and use in
coal mines. ECE Energy Series, 31. United Nations, New York. 92 pp.
Unsworth, J.F., Flowler, C.S., Jones, L.F., 1989. Moisture in coal: 2. Maceral effects on
pore structure. Fuel 68, 18–26.
 T.A. Moore / International Journal of Coal Geology 101 (2012) 36–81
van Holst, J., Stalker, L., Le, Y., Sestak, S., 2010. Gas stable isotopes analysis—sample con-
tainment and ∂13C stability. Australian Organic Geochemistry Conference, Canber-
ra, ACT. unpaginated.
Van Voast, W.A., 2003. Geochemical signature of formation waters associated with
coalbed methane. AAPG Bulletin 87, 667–676.
Vessey, S.J., Bustin, R.M., 1999. Coalbed methane characteristics of the Mist Mountain
Formation, Southern Canadian Cordillera: effect of shearing and oxidation. In:
Mastalerz, M., Glikson, M., Golding, S.D. (Eds.), Coalbed Methane: Scientific, Envi-
ronmental and Economic Evaluation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.
367–384.
Waechter, N.B., Hampton III, G.L., Shipps, J.C., 2004a. Overview of coal and shale gas
measurements: field and laboratory procedures. Proceeding of the 2004 Interna-
tional Coalbed Methane Symposium. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Ala-
bama. 17 pp.
Waechter, N.B., Hampton III, G.L., Shipps, J.C., Seidle, J.P., 2004b. Comparison of lost gas
projections in coalbed methane. Rocky Mountain Section AAPG Poster Session,
Denver, CO. unpaginated.
Waksman, S.A., Stevens, K.R., 1929. Contribution to the chemical composition of peat:
V. The role of microorganisms in peat formation and decomposition. Soil Science
28, 315–340.
Wang, X., 2006. Influence of Coal Quality Factors on Seam Permeability Associated with
Coalbed Methane Production. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
338 pp.
Wang, X., Ward, C., 2009. Experimental investigation of permeability changes with
pressure depletion in relation to coal quality. International Coalbed Methane Sym-
posium. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 31 pp.
Wang, X., Wu, Q., 2011. Methodology review of interpreting permeability of CBM res-
ervoir across Asia Pacific region. The 3rd Asia Pacific Coalbed Methane Symposium,
Brisbane, Australia, May 3–6, 2011, Paper No. 091. 10 pp.
Wang, Z., Zeng, D., Patrick, W.H., 1996. Methane emissions from natural wetlands. En-
vironmental Monitoring and Assessment 42, 143–161.
Wang, A., Qin, Y., Wu, Y., Wang, B., 2010a. Status of research on biogenic coalbed gas
generation mechanisms. Mining Science and Technology 20, 271–275.
Wang, G.X., Wei, X.R., Wang, K., Massarotto, P., Rudolph, V., 2010b. Sorption-induced
swelling/shrinkage and permeability of coal under stressed adsorption/desorption
conditions. International Journal of Coal Geology 83, 46–54.
Warwick, P.D., 2005. Coal systems analysis: a new approach to the understanding of
coal formation, coal quality and environmental considerations, and coal as a source
rock for hydrocarbons. In: Warwick, P.D. (Ed.), Coal Systems Analysis: Geological
Society of America Special Paper, 387, pp. 1–8. Boulder, Co., USA.
Warwick, P.D., Breland Jr., F.C., Hackley, P.C., 2008. Biogenic origin of coalbed gas in the
northern Gulf of Mexico Coastal Plain, U.S.A. International Journal of Coal Geology
76, 119–137.
Wei, X.R., Wang, G.X., Massarotto, P., Golding, S.D., Rudolph, V., 2007. A review of re-
cent advances in the numerical simulation for coalbed-methane-recovery process.
SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering 10, 657–666.
Whiticar, M.J., 1994. Correlation of natural gases with their sources. In: Magoon, L.B.,
Dow, W.G. (Eds.), The Petroleum System—From Source to Trap. : Memoir, 60.
AAPG, Tulsa, pp. 261–283.
Whiticar, M.J., Faber, F., Schoell, M., 1986. Biogenic methane formation in marine and
freshwater environments—CO2 reduction vs acetate fermentation—isotope evi-
dence. Geochem. Cosmochim. Acta 50, 693–709.
Wilkins, R.W.T., George, S.C., 2002. Coal as a source rock for oil: a review. International
Journal of Coal Geology 50, 317–361.
Williams, R.J., 1996. Application of gas content test data to the evaluation of gas emis-
sion and hazards during longwall development and extraction. In: Ward, C.R. (Ed.),
81
Proceedings of the Symposium on Geology in Longwall Mining, 12th–13th Novem-
ber 1996. University of New South Wales, Sydney, p. 11.
Williams, R.J., Weissmann, J.J., 1995. Gas emission and outburst assessment in mixed
CO2 and CH4 environments. Proceedings ACIRL Underground Mining Seminar. Aus-
tralian Coal Industry Research Laboratory, North Ryde, Australia. 12 pp.
Woese, C.R., Kandler, O., Wheelis, M.L., 1990. Towards a natural system of organisms:
proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Science of the USA 87, 4576–4579.
Wong, S., Foy, C., Gunter, B., Jack, T., 1998. Injection of CO2 for enhanced gas recovery:
coal bed methane versus oil recovery. Proceedings of the Fourth International Con-
ference on Greenhouse Gas Control technologies. Interlaken: Elsevier Science, pp.
175–180.
Wong, S., Law, D., Deng, X., Robinson, J., Kadatz, B., Gunter, W.D., Jianping, Y., Sanli, F.,
Zhiqiang, F., 2007. Enhanced coalbed methane and CO2 storage in anthracitic coals
—micro-pilot test at South Qinshui, Shanxi, China. International Journal of Green-
house Gas Control 1, 215–222.
Wong, S., Macdonald, D., Andrei, S., Gunter, W.D., Deng, X., Law, D.H.-S., Ye, J., Feng, S.,
Fan, S., Fan, Z., Ho, P., 2010. Conceptual economics of full scale enhanced coalbed
methane production and CO2 storage in anthracitic coals at South Quinshui
basin, Shanxi, China. International Journal of Coal Geology 82, 280–286.
Wu, Y., Liu, J., Elsworth, D., Siriwardane, H., Miao, X., 2011. Evolution of coal permeabil-
ity: contribution of heterogeneous swelling processes. International Journal of Coal
Geology 88, 152–162.
Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission, 2011. http://wogcc.state.wy.us/2011.
Yao, Y., Liu, D., Tang, D., Tang, S., Huang, W., 2008. Fractal characterisation of
adsorption-pores of coals from North China: an investigation on CH4 adsorption
capacity of coals. International Journal of Coal Geology 73, 27–42.
Yee, D., Seidle, J.P., Hanson, W.B., 1993. Gas sorption on coal and measurement of gas
content, in: Law, B.E., Rice, D.D. (Eds.), Hydrocarbons from Coal. American Associ-
ation of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology 38, Tulsa, Oklahoma, Studies in
Geology 38, pp. 203–218.
Yu, H., Zhou, G., Fan, W., Ye, J., 2007. Predicted CO2 enhanced coalbed methane recovery
and CO2 sequestration in China. International Journal of Coal Geology 71, 345–357.
Zabalza-Mezghani, I., Manceau, E., Feraille, M., Jourdan, A., 2004. Uncertainty manage-
ment: from geological scenarios to production scheme optimization. Journal of Pe-
troleum Science and Engineering 44, 11–25.
Zarrouk, S.J., 2008. Reacting Flows in Porous Media. VDM Verlag Dr Muller
Aktiengesellshaft & Co, KG, Berlin.
Zarrouk, S.J., Moore, T.A., 2009. Preliminary model for enhanced coalbed methane
(ECBM) through CO2 injection: Huntly Coalfield, New Zealand. International Jour-
nal of Coal Geology 77, 153–161.
Zhang, E., Hill, R.J., Katz, B.J., Tang, Y., 2008. Modeling of gas generation from the Cameo
coal zone in the Piceance Basin, Colorado. AAPG Bulletin 92, 1077–1106.
Zhang, S., Tang, S., Tang, D., Pan, Z., Yang, F., 2010. The characteristics of coal reservoir
pores and coal facies in Liulin district, Hedong coal field of China. International
Journal of Coal Geology 81, 117–127.
Zhou, Y., Zhou, L., 2009. Fundamentals of high pressure adsorption. Langmuir 25,
13461–13466.
Zhou, Z., Ballentine, C.J., Kipfer, R., Schoell, M., Thibodeaux, S., 2005. Noble gas tracing of
groundwater/coalbed methane interaction in the San Juan Basin, USA. Geochimica
et Cosmochimica Acta 69, 5413–5428.
Zuber, D.M., 1999. Coal bed gas content and gas undersaturation. In: Mastalerz, M.,
Glikson, M., Golding, S.D. (Eds.), Coalbed Methane: Scientific, Environmental and
Economic Evaluation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 55–66.