New CBM technologies

Open hole cavitation

Operators within the overpressured, highly permeable San Juan basin fairway have found that
open hole cavitated wells significantly outperform conventional cased and fractured completions,
generally by three to seven times (Fig. 5) for over 800 wells in the fairway. Outside the fairway,
conventional fractured wells generally outproduce cavitated wells.
The use of cavity completions helped underscore the serious damage being caused to
permeability by the use of heavy borate crosslinked gels during stimulation. It also showed that
hydraulic fractures were contacting only a portion of the total coal package. Understanding of
these conditions has led to significant changes in CBM stimulation design and operations.
The critical reservoir conditions for successful cavitation are still only partly understood. In
general though, low stress settings with good permeability, adequate seam thickness, and fully
gas charged coals are favorable. The use of CAVITYPC, the first publicly available rock
mechanics model to simulate the process of open hole cavitation, is providing insights into this
complex but highly effective well completion technology.
Dynamic open hole cavitation is achieved by repeatedly injecting water air mixtures into the coal
seams at high rates and pressures, followed by rapid blowdown which promotes sloughing of
coal into the wellbore, increasing its radius to several feet or more. Apart from the finite benefits
of larger hole size, productivity is enhanced by the tensile and shear fractures hypothesized to be
induced near the wellbore by the cavitation process, which better link the wellbore to the
reservoirs natural cleat and fracture system.7 Modeling of the cavitation process shows that
permeability in the near-wellbore area can increase tenfold over pre-cavitation reservoir
conditions.
Well remediation
During the late 1980s boom years in the Warrior basin and in the rush to drill prior to tax credit
expiration, many wells were inappropriately completed and experienced low productivity.
During 1993-94, GRI sponsored a research program aimed at developing technology to
remediate these poorly producing wells. The Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) study
found that a number of factors contribute to poor performance in the Warrior basin, including:
inadequate isolation of zones targeted for completion due to poor cement jobs;

perforations plugged with mineralized scale, particularly in deep wells; and

coal seams not receiving sand proppant during initial stimulation treatments.7
A second finding of the PIP study was the general lack of reliable, easy to use, low-cost
diagnostic tools and methods. Among the few diagnostic tools found to be effective were
wireline conveyed downhole camera to identify plugging and nonstimulation of coal intervals,
and production logging and zone isolation packer tools to determine zonal gas flow
contribution.8 These diagnostic tools showed that up to one third of the coal package was poorly
(if at all) connected to the wellbore.
It is estimated that improved recompletions could add approximately 550 bcf of CBM reserves
and restore the productivity of up to 1,000 poorly producing wells. Recompletion of one GRI
Rock Creek R&D well, P-3, showed that proper completion methods could increase gas
production five fold to 300 Mcfd, even after the well had been on line for 9 years9 (Fig. 6).
Reservoir work

Improved characterization of CBM reservoirs has helped operators understand the crucial
production mechanisms and properly match technology to the resource. Advanced reservoir
simulators, such as the COMET2 model, which captures the key gas storage and flow
mechanisms for CBM, have enabled CBM reserves to be reliably booked and evaluated.
COMET2 is the first triple porosity/dual permeability model for CBM and is capable of
simulating enhanced recovery using nitrogen or CO2 flooding.10
Advances in establishing gas contents and multicomponent isotherms have helped operators
pinpoint and avoid high water production, undersaturated coal conditions. Zone by zone coal
characterization has provided insights as to gas and water charged coal intervals, enabling more
selective coal completions and more appropriate stimulation fluids to be used. Improvements in
two phase well testing and analysis have provided a clearer picture of coal permeability and its
capacity to produce gas.
N2/CO2 flooding
New enhanced CBM (ECBM) recovery technology developed by Amoco, Meridian, and other
companies has the potential to dramatically boost gas recovery much as EOR can improve oil
recovery.11
Two ECBM methods are being tested in the San Juan basin: displacement desorption using CO2
or other strongly sorbing gases; and inert gas stripping employing nitrogen to lower the partial
pressure of methane. Initial field testing by Amoco indicates that nitrogen ECBM offers
commercial promise. Meridians four well CO2 flood project at the Allison Unit is under way, but
no results have been released.
Injection of nitrogen into coal reservoirs reduces the partial pressure of adsorbed methane,
accelerating desorption and production of methane while maintaining overall reservoir pressure.
Laboratory tests and computer simulations conducted by Amoco, which holds a patent for
application of this method, indicate that up to 90% of OGIP may be recovered from relatively
homogeneous coal reservoirs, significantly higher than the 30-70% generally recoverable with
conventional reservoir depressurization.
Field tests of nitrogen ECBM in the San Juan basin have demonstrated that this new technology
may have significant commercial potential (Table 6).
During 1993, Amoco successfully conducted the first nitrogen flood test within a CBM reservoir.
Amocos test pattern consisted of four exterior injection wells and the central Simon 15U-2
production well in the northwestern San Juan basin. The Simon test was successful over a 1 year
interval, as Amoco reported methane production increasing five fold to over 1 MMcfd in the
central production well.
Encouraged by the Simon test results, Amoco, Conoco, and Meridian are jointly implementing a
nitrogen flood at their 28-7 Unit in the central San Juan basin. This is a 12 well (seven producers,
five injectors) project on 320 acre spacing that will be the first commercial scale demonstration
of ECBM technology. Nitrogen for injection will be sourced from air using a skid mounted
membrane separation system, compressed to 2,000 psi, and then injected at a total rate of 4.5
MMcfd into the Fruitland coal reservoirs.
The operators anticipate a fivefold increase in production from current relatively low rates to a
total 3.5 MMcfd. Nitrogen injection will take place for 2-4 years, with ECBM recovery expected
to last 5-10 years. The nitrogen cut of the produced gas is expected to increase gradually from
5% initially, possibly to as high as 50% of total gas production by the end of the project. Thus,
nitrogen separation from produced methane is expected to be the largest operating cost in the late
stage of ECBM projects.

Amoco plans a more extensive ECBM pilot within its Tiffany area in the north central San Juan,
where the Fruitland coal reservoirs are more permeable than at the 28-7 Unit. Scheduled to
commence operations during 1996, Amoco will operate a total of 13 injection wells that will
pump 25-30 MMcfd of nitrogen into the reservoir. Amoco anticipates incremental recovery of up
to 50 bcf from the 30 production wells. Amoco predicts that ECBM application at Tiffany will
boost production at the pilot field fivefold to a total of 25-30 MMcfd. Capital costs are estimated
at $20-30 million, while operating costsprimarily for nitrogen separationare expected to be $4-6
million/year.
Apart from the San Juan basin, Amoco also plans to extend application of ECBM technology to
other coal basins. During 1995, Amoco initiated a nine well nitrogen injection program in the
central Raton basin in southern Colorado that targets Raton and Vermejo formation coalbeds at
depths of about 2,500 ft.
During the late 1980s, Amoco had drilled and successfully tested 11 Raton/ Vermejo wells in this
area, but with no pipelines nearby the wells were shut-in. Amocos ECBM test pattern in the
Raton basin will comprise two nitrogen injection wells and seven producing wells within this
existing project. Nitrogen injection rates are planned at 2.25 MMcfd per injector at a maximum
bottomhole pressure of 700 psi, just under the natural fracture gradient for the deeper zone. Once
ECBM operations begin, Amoco anticipates incremental methane production of 5.9 MMcfd from
the seven production wells, up from 1.4 MMcfd of base production. Both nitrogen and CO2
ECBM require relatively homogeneous reservoirs with few lateral discontinuities, which is
characteristic of the San Juan and several other coal basins in the western U.S.
The major costs for nitrogen ECBM include capital expenditures for drilling and completing
nitrogen injection wells, operating costs for membrane and cryogenic separation of nitrogen from
air prior to injection, and nitrogen separation from methane following production. Amoco
estimates incremental capital and operating costs for nitrogen ECBM to be under $1/Mcf of new
reserves in the San Juan basin. With continued technological refinement, ECBM is likely to
significantly expand reserves of CBM in the U.S. and extend the production life of the San Juan
and other western U.S. CBM basins.
Conclusions
Spurred by an early infusion of innovative R&D and tax incentives, coalbed methane has
evolved into a stand-alone industry. Still, numerous challenges remain for expanding the CBM
play to new, geologically more challenging basins in the U.S. and overseas and improving the
recovery from existing wells. These dual challenges call for continued advances in technology to
realize the full potential of the massive CBM resource base.
Acknowledgments
Research for this study was supported in part by funding from Gas Research Institute Contract
No. 5086-213-1390. The authors thank the numerous individual operators and state oil & gas
boards who generously contributed information for this study, particularly Jack E. Nolde,
Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy; David Tabet, Utah Geological Survey; and
Douglas Bland, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources.
References
1. Young, G.B.C.,. Paul, G.W., Saulsberry, J.L., and Schraufnagel, R.A., Identification of
multiseam coalbed methane wells with recompletion potential, 1994 AiChE summer national
meeting, Denver, Aug. 15, 1994.
2. Kelafant, J.R., and Boyer, C.M., A geologic assessment of natural gas from coal seams in the
central Appalachian basin, GRI Topical Report, GRI 88/0302, 1988.

3. Willis, C., Drilled core holes key to coalbed methane project, OGJ, Mar. 6, 1995, pp. 73-75.
4. Young, G.B.C., Paul, G., and Kuuskraa, V.A., Reservoir simulation study of U.S. coalbed
methane, Technical report in support of U.S. Geological Survey 1995 National Assessment of
U.S. Oil & Gas Resources, 1995.
5. Stevens, S., Coalbed methanestate of the industry, Quarterly Review of Methane from Coal
Seams Technology, Vol. 11, No. 1, August 1993, pp. 33-36.
6. Stevens, Scott, Coalbed methanestate of the industry, Quarterly Review of Methane from Coal
Seams Technology, Vol. 11, No. 1, August 1993, pp. 33-36.
7. Mavor, M.J., Coal gas reservoir cavity completion well performance, International Gas
Research Conference, Orlando, Fla., Nov. 16-19, 1992.
8. Lambert, S., Reeves, S.R., and Saulsberry, J.L., Coalbed methane production improvement
recompletion project in the Warrior basin, GRI Topical Report, GRI-95/0034, October 1995.
9. Kuuskraa, V.A., Reeves, S.R., Schraufnagel, R.A., and Spafford, S.D., Economic and technical
rationale for remediating inefficiently producing eastern gas shale and coalbed methane wells,
SPE 26894, Eastern Regional Conference & Exhibition, Nov. 2-4, 1993.
10. Advanced Resources International Inc., COMET2 Users Guide Version 2.0, 1995.
11. Yee, D., and Puri, R., Enhanced coalbed methane technology in the San Juan basin, presented
at Pittsburgh Coalbed Methane Forum, Apr. 14, 1995.

Unconventional Reserve ; Saatnya CBM menjadi Migas Hijau Masa Depan Indonesia
Rauf Wanda A.N.R
Teknik Perminyakan
Universitas Proklamasi 45

Yogyakarta
Santer terdengar berita, bahwa cadangan minyak di Indonesia tinggal tersisa 11 tahun lagi
(Detik Finance.com,2013). Menjadikan suatu keharusan dan kerja keras tentunya untuk segera
mengambil tindak lanjut untuk mengatasi problema tersebut. Kebutuhan akan energi, khususnya
di Indonesia semakin lama makin meningkat. Berbagai upaya sudah dilakukan untuk terus
menemukan cadangan migas yang baru. Besar harapan di masa depan, menemukan sumber
energi yang lebih murah, mengurangi Global Warming, ramah lingkungan, dan bisa habis
terbakar. Menjawab tantangan tersebut, perlu adanya strategi untuk mengembangkan energi
alternatif sperti CBM (Coal Bed Methane).
Sebelum masuk ke pembahasan, apa itu CBM? Coal Bed Methane (CBM) adalah sejenis
gas alam (CH4) yang tersimpan atau terperangkap dalam lapisan batubara. CBM merupakan
suatu produk dari coalification yang mengubah bahan-bahan yang berasal dari tumbuhan
menjadi maceralbatubara. Potensi CBM di Indonesia mendapatkan urutan kelima terbesar di
dunia. Cadangan CBM di Indonesia mencapai 453,30 TCF (Sumber, Ditjen Migas 2010). CBM
dapat dijadikan alternatif energi untuk masa depan yang menghasilkan energi untuk berbagai
keperluan kehidupan, dengan emisi gas CO2 yang paling kecil. Hasil pembakaran CBM tidak
mencemari lingkungan udara (atmosfer), karena tidak mengandung additif apapun. Alasan
tersebut, menjadikan CBM menjadi energi yang ramah lingkungan atau dapat disebut migas
hijau. Permintaan akan energi terus meningkat, baik untuk konsumsi nasional maupun global.
Keterbatasan gas pada lokasi dengan konsumsi yang tinggi, menjadikan CBM
menjadi pioneer untuk energi alternatif yang harus dikembangkan di Indonesia.
Produksi CBM, menggunakan metode perekahan (fracturing). Untuk memperoleh CBM,
sumur produksi harus dibuat melalui pengeboran dari permukaan tanah sampai ke lapisan
batubara yang menjadi target. Cadangan Batubara yang berada di dalam tanah mempunyai
tekanan yang tinggi. Air tanah akan dipompakan ke lapisan batubara tersebut untuk
menurunkan tekanan. Proses ini disebut Dewatering. Hal inilah yang menyebabkan gas metana
akan terlepas dari lapisan batubara.
Selain gas, tentu air dari proses dewatering juga akan banyak keluar pada saat produksi.
Dikarenakan proses produksi CBM dimulai dengan cara memproduksi air dalam jumlah banyak,
tentu harus diperhatikan dan menjadi tanggung jawab pengembang CBM. Pengelolaan air
terproduksi pada CBM, sampai saat ini masih menjadi fokus lingkungan hidup. Produksi air
pada CBM dalam jumlah yang banyak, berpotensi mengandung logam, garam, hidrokarbon, dan
SAR (Sodium Adsorption Ratio).
Langkah penanganan untuk mengatasi air terproduksi hasil dewatering, ditampung dalam
kolam penampung air. Langkah selanjutnya, air terproduksi dipompakan melalui pipa penyalur
menuju pengolahan air limbah (filtration unit) yang mempunyai kemampuan untuk
menyaring Total Solid Suspended (TSS), Total Dissolved Solid (TDS), Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD), kandungan logam dan kandungan garam. Air produksi yang sudah diolah, dapat
dimanfaatkan kembali untuk irigasi tanaman, perikanan air payau dan masih banyak fungsi
pemanfaatannya.
Proses pengembangan CBM tidak akan menjadi ramah lingkungan apabila resiko yang
diakibatkan tidak diantisipasi. Oleh karena itu, penting adanya untuk melakukan upaya
penanganan terhadap air terproduksi pada CBM. Mengingat kebutuhan akan energi yang

semakin meningkat, mau tidak mau Indonesia harus segera memberdayakan CBM sebagai energi
alternatif. Pemanfaatan CBM dapat digunakan untuk mengurangi ketergantungan akan energi
minyak bumi dan meningkatkan produksi gas nasional.