Abstract
Methane sorption capacity is of significance in the issues of coalbed methane (CBM) and depends on various parameters, including mainly, on rank of coal and the maceral content in coals. However, in some of the World coals basins the influences of those parameters on methane sorption capacity is various and sometimes complicated. Usually the rank of coal is expressed by its vitrinite reflectance Ro. Moreover, in coals for which there is a high correlation between vitrinite reflectance and volatile matter Vdaf the rank of coal may also be represented by Vdaf. The influence of the rank of coal on methane sorption capacity for Polish coals is not well understood, hence the examination in the presented paper was undertaken. For the purpose of analysis there were chosen fourteen samples of hard coal originating from the Upper Silesian Basin and Lower Silesian Basin. The scope of the sorption capacity is: 15-42 cm3/g and the scope of vitrinite reflectance: 0,6-2,2%. Majority of those coals were of low rank, high volatile matter (HV), some were of middle rank, middle volatile matter (MV) and among them there was a small number of high rank, low volatile matter (LV) coals.
The analysis was conducted on the basis of available from the literature results of research of petrographic composition and methane sorption isotherms. Some of those samples were in the form (shape) of grains and others - as cut out plates of coal. The high pressure isotherms previously obtained in the cited studies were analyzed here for the purpose of establishing their sorption capacity on the basis of Langmuire equation.
As a result of this paper, it turned out that for low rank, HV coals the Langmuire volume VL slightly decreases with the increase of rank, reaching its minimum for the middle rank (MV) coal and then increases with the rise of the rank (LV). From the graphic illustrations presented with respect to this relation follows the similarity to the Indian coals and partially to the Australian coals.
Potable Reuse of Coalbed Methane-Produced Waters in Developing Country Contexts—Could the Benefits Outweigh the Costs to Facilitate Coal Transitions?