----I

L Society of Petroleum Engineers

IL:. _ i

SPE 38858

Application of Material Balance to Determine Ultimate Recovery of a San Juan Fruitland

Coal Well
Bob Zahner, SPE, Conoco Inc.

Copynght 1997, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in San Antonto, Texas, 5-8 October 1997
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper.
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are
subject to correction by the author(s). The material, a5 presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members.
Papers presented at SPE meetings are sUbject to publication review by Editorial
Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes withouf the written consent of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must c:,)ntain cOilspicucus acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian. SPE, PO. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083·3636,
U.S.A., fax 01·972·952-9435.
Abstract
Volumetric methods to determine original-gas-in-place
(OGlP) of coal bed methane reservoirs (CBM) are well
established and documented. These methods differ from
those used for conventional reservoirs in that they
incorporate initial adsorbed gas content and/or methane
isotherms to account for the fact that gas is adsorbed on the
coal surface.
In practice, there are a number of factors which combine
to create a great deal of uncertainty in volumetric
calculations. Specifically, they are:
I) Measurement of initial gas content is subject to several
errors and frequently shows a wide variation within a given
well. In many cases the only source of initial gas content
measurement is from drill cuttings, which are known to
give inaccurate results.
4) In San Juan Fruitland Coal, C02 content is often a high
fraction of total adsorbed ga8J's and much greater than the
produced C02 fraction. Methane isotherms can be adjusted to
account for C02, but a pure C02 isotherm is required,
something which is difficult and expensive to obtain.
A material balance procedure proposed by G.R. King l for coal
seam reservoirs can be used to get independent OGlP estimates
and can be programmed using a Lotus spreadsheet. If
abandonment pressure is known, it provides a practical means
for determining estimated ultimate recovery (EUR).
Moreover, sensitivities can quickly be run to find the critical
variables. An example of this process is presented for a well
producing from the San Juan Fruitland Coal, including analyses
of pressure transient tests to determine reservoir pressure. A
cumulative frequency distribution of methane Isotherms from
San Juan Fruitland Coal is also presented. The results are
compared to a history match with an Eclipse reservoir
simulator,
Calculation of Original Gas in Place
The volumetric calculation of original gas-in-place (OGlP) for
CBM wells is the sum of free gas in the fracture system and
adsorbed gas on the coal surface. If initial water saturation is
100%, the volumetric calculation reduces to the following
form 2 :
OGlP = 1.359 * A h Cgi d (I-fa - fm)

2) Gas content may be derived from methane isotherms, but where

they require core and are typically available for only a OGlP = Original gas-in-place, Met
limited number of intervals in a limited number of wells. A = Drainage area, acres
There is often a wide variation in the character of these h = Coal thickness, feet
isotherms. Cgi = Initial sorbed gas concentration, scflton
d = Pure coal density, glcm 3
3) Net pay is highly dependent on coal density. While fa = Average weight fraction of ash
density can be measured with logs, there is disagreement fm = Average weight fraction of moisture
within the industry on what density cutoff should be used to
determine net pay. Currently there are no methods to measure gas content in-situ
and it must be inferred from indirect measurements taken from
core or drill cuttings 3. Gas content can be determined from

147
2 BOB ZAHNER SPE 38858

measurements on conventional core or drill cuttings, or from volumetric calculations, with their inherent errors as noted
methane adsorption tests on samples, which provide a above. In an effort to improve our forecasts of EUR, the
Langmuir adsorption curve in the form of gas content versus material balance method proposed by King was investigated.
pressure. The reader is referred to King's original paper 1 for details of
With only limited data points available, common practice in the method. He presented the following equations for water
the industry is to apply gas content values from a small interval saturation and a modified gas super compressibility factor:
to the entire well and often to entire regions within the
reservoir. Since Langmuir volume represents maximum Swa = Swi [Hcw (pi-p)] + 5.6 15(We-BwWp)/0i Vb2
adsorbed gas and Langmuir pressure represents the rate of gas [I-cp (Pi-p)]
adsorption, a good correlation of the two might suggest some
consistency of coal properties for a given formation. A review and
of published isotherm data from the San Juan Fruitland Coal
Fairway indicates a significant variance in the two Langmuir z* = ...:.z'-- _
components, with virtually no correlation (Fig. 1). These [l-cp (Pi-p)] (l-Swa) + z T psc VL
isotherm data points are for dry ash-free coal samples at Tsc zsc "i (pL + p)
reservoir temperature.
To compare these data on a common basis, a pressure of 1500 where
psia is used to calculate gas contents of these samples and Swa = average water saturation, fraction
plotted as a cumulative frequency (Figure 2). Note that the P90 Swi = initial water saturation, fraction
and PIO values are 300 and 700 scf/ton, respectively. Clearly cw = water compressibility, l/psi
there is potential for significant error in volumetric calculations. pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia
Vitrinite reflectance of samples can be used to infer coal p = reservoir pressure, psia
quality, and subsequent gas content. Figure 3 shows there is We = water influx, bbl
fairly good correlation (R2 = 0.68). However, vitrinite Bw = water formation volume factor, bbl/Sm
reflectance data is not widely available. Wp = water production, bbl
In addition to a real variance, there can be wide variations "i = initial fracture porosity, fraction
within a given wellbore. Figure 4 presents measured gas Vb2 = bulk volume of fracture system, ft3
contents of core from well A, one of the two subject wells in this cp = porosity compressibility, l/psi
paper. In spite of the fact that the data is taken over an interval z = gas super compressibility factor, dimensionless
ofless than 350 feet, gas content values range from 120 to 590 z* = modified gas supercompressibility factor,
scf/ton, with a mean value of 325 and standard deviation of 98. dimensionless
Mavor presents a statistical method to estimate the number of VL = Langmuir volume constant, scf/ft3
data points required to get a representative sample 5. In the case PL = Langmuir pressure constant, psia
of well A, because the standard deviation is so high, the 26 data psc = pressure at standard conditions, psia
points for gas content gives an error bar of about ±60%. In Tsc = temperature at standard conditions, def R
other words, there is far too much data scatter to have zsc = z at standard conditions, dimensionless
reasonable confidence in the mean gas content being a
representative sample. However, since this is the only available The King technique requires iteration, but can be
data for this well, the mean gas content is used in calculations. programmed with spreadsheet software. It requires Langmuir
With respect to net pay estimates, Mavor reports that a bulk isotherm properties, reservoir pressures and rock properties.
density of 1.75 gram/cc is often used as a cutoff for net pay, but Jensen 6 presented a similar approach for the simplified case of
there can be substantial gas volumes in coal with densities a volumetric reservoir, but King's method has the advantage of
between 1.75 and 2.1 gram/cc. In the case of wells A and B, no accounting for water production. It also gives an independent
density logs were run and net pay was picked from mud logs, reservoir volume (area*thickness), which can be used to define
using a cutoff drill rate of 1.0 minute/foot where coal is the porosity given accurate water production and can be used to
dominant lithology. This cutoff value has been found to give investigate water influx.
reasonably good correlation to density logs where both density When applying the method in areas with high C02
and mud logs are available. concentrations, such as the San Juan Fruitland Coal, the
Langmuir isotherm must be adjusted to account for this effect.
Material Balance for CBM Reservoirs Harpalani and Pariti 7 present a method for this adjustment.
Early in the life of Conoco's San Juan Fruitland Coal wells, However, any adjustment for C02 content requires a pure C02
rates increased as the wells dewatered and a work program was isotherm, and very few such curves are available.
implemented to lower flowing pressures. Therefore, forecasts
and estimates of ultimate recovery (BUR) were based largely on

148
SPE 38858 APPLICATION OF MATERIAL BALANCE TO DETERMINE ULTIMATE RECOVERY OF A SAN JUAN FRUITLAND COAL WELL
Sensitivity Analysis.
Before the King method was applied, a sensitivity analysis was
performed to determine which variables would have the most
impact on EUR. The results are presented in Figure 5. Note
that Langmuir pressure has the biggest impact of any variable,
accounting for 24 percent of the total variation for all variables.
If all measured pressures are correct, the Langmuir pressure
accounts for 83 percent of the variance, and has far more impact
than any other variable. Changing porosity will greatly affect
water saturation, but has very little effect on EUR.
Although Langmuir pressure (PL) has a big impact on EUR,
Langmuir volume (VL) has very little impact. This appears to
be counterintuitive, but the explanation can be found in looking
at the recovery factor. Give a desorption curve, the recovery
factor can be determined from the initial and abandonment gas
contents 2 as follows:
RF = (Cgi - Cga) / Cgi
where:
RF = Gas recovery factor at abandonment, fraction
Cgi = Initial sorbed gas concentration, scf/ton
Cga = Abandonment sorbed gas concentration, scf/ton
Since Langmuir pressure controls the shape of the sorption
curve, it impacts how fast gas content changes, and hence the
recovery factor as per the above equation. Langmuir volume
controls the endpoint of the Langmuir curve, but has almost no
impact on the rate of change. For the sensitivity case, the
recovery factor is 78% regardless of VL, but if PL is doubled,
recovery factor increases to 84.9%. So for a given volume of
produced gas at a given pressure, there must be less OGIP to
account for the higher recovery factor.
Comparison of Volumetric and Material Balance Methods
The volumetric data for well A are summarized in Table 1 and
were used to calculate an OGIP of 10.5 Bcf for a drainage area
of 320 acres (free gas in fracture system accounts for less than
1% of total and is ignored). Vsing the King MB method and
four data points, the calculated omp is 14.5 Bcf (Figure 6).
Assuming net pay, gas content and coal density are correct, the
calculated drainage area is 448 acres, or 40% higher than the
nominal well spacing. The difference could be due to coal
thickness, gas content or coal density, and some of the possible
combinations of these variables that would match OGIP are
shown in Table 2. Since gas content and net pay have been
addressed as noted above for well A, an examination of
drainage area is in order.
A pressure buildup (pBV) test on well A shortly after it was
drilled indicated a closed drainage area of 92 acres (Figure 7).
Initially it was thought this well was in an isolated fault block
and would deplete quickly. The well has produced far more gas
than would be present in 92 acres. One possible explanation is
that the 1992 test was showing effects of drainage from offset
149
3
wells after being shut-in for several days.
Although shorter in duration, a 1997 PBV test (Figure 8)
showed no evidence of a closed reservoir. The 1997 PBV test
does show a late-time anotrully which can be matched with a
single fault (Table 3). A 3D seismic survey indicates a fault
exists at about 250 feet 8, compared to 140 feet from the PBV
test, suggesting the response is not due to a fault. The response
can also be trultched with a radial composite system, with
enhanced permeability to a distance of 180 feet from the well.
The concept of an enhanced permeability zone has been
proposed by Palmer 9 to account for production increases seen
in open hole cavity completions.
The question of whether PBV results are due to a fault or
radial composite system is not trivial, as it results in reservoir
pressures of 288 and 455 psia, for single-fault and radial
composite cases, respectively. In this case, a pressure of 288
psia was used (and corrected to datum). Although there is
ample evidence to support the radial composite model, a
reservoir pressure of 455 psia would give a much bigger
reservoir volume and increase the discrepancy between
volumetric and material balance methods. Other PBV tests
were not run long enough to see any boundary effects.
In contrast to well A, well B (Figure 9) has a much smaller
drainage area from MB than expected. The drainage area of
170 acres is 47% less than the 320 acre well spacing. To match
the 320 acres would require reduction of net pay from 108 feet
to 57 feet. Again, the net pay estimate is suspect due to lack of
a density log, and gas content estimates are subject to the same
problems as discussed above.
Well B makes a substantial amount of water (20 bwlMMcf).
With this amount of water production, fracture porosity can be
identified within a narrow range. The determination of porosity
is possible because water saturation becomes less than zero or
greater than 100% with porosity of less than 0.1% or greater
than 0.5%, respectively. In a similar manner, all of the wells
investigated were found to have porosity' s of less than 1%, with
most less than 0.5%.
Comparison to Simulation Results
A single well Eclipse model was constructed for well A to verify
the results from the King MB method. Gas rates were input to
the model with the intent of matching water rates and pressures
(Figure 10). Based on results of PBV tests which show
permeability increasing as reservoir pressure is dropped (Figure
11), an increasing permeability function was included in the
model.
A reasonably good match was obtained by using a drainage
area of 470 acres, net pay of 50 feet and initial gas content of
322 scfi'ton. When the model was put in forecast mode to an
abandonment pressure of 100 psi, it predicted an EUR of 9.6
Bcf, in good agreement with the material balance EUR of 9.9
Bcr.
4 BOB ZAHNER SPE 38858

Conclusions
1. Volumetric original-gas-in-place (OGIP) calculations for
coalbed methane (CBM) reservoirs are subject to significant
error due to uncertainties in assessing gas content, net pay and
drainage area. Methods are available to reduce uncertainty, but
data often is not.
2. King's material balance method provides an independent
check of reservoir volume and OGIP, can identify anomalies in
well performance, and gives some insight to the cause (e.g.
drainage area is larger than expected).
3. Other than accurate pressure data, ultimate recovery
calculated from the King ME method is most sensitive to
Langmuir pressure.
4. The King method can be used to determine fracture porosity,
given accurate water production data.
5. A drill rate of 1.0 minute/foot in intervals where coal is the
dominant lithology is a good indicator of net pay.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Conoco management for permission to
publish this paper, and Roger Gierhart and John Seidle at
Amoco for their review of the manuscript.

References
1. King, G.R.: "Material-Balance Techniques for Coal Seam and
Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs With Limited Water Influx,"
SPERE (Feb. 1993) 67.
2. Saulsberry, J.L. et al.: A Guide to Coalbed Methane Resen>oir
Engineering, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, II., (1996), 3.1.
3. McLennan, l.o. et a1.: A Guide to Determining Coalbed Gas
Content, Gas Research institute, ChIcago, II., (1995), 1.1.
4. Mavor, M.l. et a1.: "Quantitative Evaluation of Coal Seam
Content Estimate Accuracy," paper SPE 29577 presented at the
1995 SPE Rocky Mountain RegionallLow-Permeability
Symposium held in Denver, CO, March 20-22.
5. Mavor, M.l. et a1.: "Improved Gas-In-Place Determination for
Coal Gas Reservoirs," paper SPE 35623 presented at the 1996
SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, April
28-May I
6. Jensen, D. and Smith, L.K.: "A Practical Approach to Coalbed
Methane Reserve Prediction Using a Modified Material Balance
Technique." paper 9765 presented at the 1997 International
Coalbed Methane Symposium held in Tuscaloosa, AL, May 14-
16
7. Harpalam, S. and Pariti, U.M.: "Study of the Coal Sorption
Isotherms Using A Multicomponent Gas Mixture," paper 9356
presented at the 1993 International Coalbed Methane Symposium
held in Tuscaloosa, AL, May 17-21.
8. Benson, R.D. et al.: "Verification of Modem Three-Dimensional
Seismic Through Reservoir Simulation, Cedar Hill Field, San
Juan Co., New Mexico, U.S.A.," paper SPE 35627 presented at
the 1996 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary,
Alberta, April 28-May 1.
9. Palmer, LD., et a1.: "Openhole Cavity Completions in Coalbed
Methane Wells in the San Juan Basin," 1PT (Nov. 1993) 1072

150
 Table 1 - Volumetric Calculation for Well A

Area, Acres 320

Coal thickness, feet 50

Initial gas content, scflton 322
Coal density, gm/cc 1.5
OGIP, Bcf 10.5
EUR, Bef 7.1

Table 2 - Material Balance Combinations for Well A

Adjusted to match data Area Thickness Gas Content Density

Area, acres 448 320 320 320

Coal thickness, feet 50 70 50 50
Initial gas content, scflton 322 322 445 322
Coal density, gm/cc 1.5 1.50 1.50 2.08
OGlP, Bcf 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5
EUR, Bcf 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9

Table 3 - PBU Test Results for Well A

Test Date 1992 1997

Buildup Time, Hours 306 6.8

Modeled with closed system single radial

fault composite
Perm, mD 19 140 124
Skin 5.8 1.6 0.8
Pi, psia 852 288 455
Distance to boundary/transition, feet llOO 140 180

151
 San Juan Fruitland Coal Samples
ca 1200 ;

0; •• !
Do 1000
!:s
rn 800
rn
! 600 •
..
a.
.-::::I 400
E
CI
t: 200
CG
..J
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Langmuir Volume, set/ton

Figure 1 - Crossplot of Langmuir pressure and volume

San Juan Fruitland Coal Samples

100% ,.....---.....-----......---.....,....----.-----,-------,
~ ;

; 80% ··-----···..·-····--·----·--·-1-··'--·--··--····
!
::::I
CT ;

! 60%
I.L
t-·· ._.,-.....

~
~ 40%
.!!
::::I
§ 20%
o
0% '---_ _ o J - -_ _....l--_ _- ' - -_ _- - ' - -_ _- - ' - -_ _- - '

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Gas Content, set/ton

Figure 2 - Calculated gas content at 1500 psia

152
 ,
c San Juan Fruitland Coal Samples
S 1000
u II) •
'iii 800
R

a.
0
•...... ......1+
0
II)
~

@ 400
~
600
~._-_ .. _. __ .. _- .. -_ __
:. *
_-_.
c Roif'elation coer = 0,681
Sc
200 _ ;.......•.• " _., .....• ,._. __. • . • . . . .-!--
,
,-_.•....•..•....

0
0
fI)
ca 0
C) 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Vitrinite Reflectance

Figure 3 - Correlation of vitrinite reflectance and gas content

600
•
S 500
..
~ • ••
-.._..
( ,)

...c~400
• •••
--,. ---

S •
g 300 •• •
o
In
~
• • •
~ 200 ••
100
2500 2600 2700 2800
•2900 3000
Depth, feet

Figure 4 - Measured gas content from core of Well A

153
 Langrruir Abandrrt R"essure@ All Resv. Initial Fracture Water Langrruir Coal
Variable Ranges for: R"essure R"essure Tirre3 R"essures R"essure Fbrosity Water Influx R'oduction Volurre D3nsity
La.N Gase F90 750 150 383 -10% 1700 3.0% 0 20,000 460 1.25
Base Gase F50 500 100 450 l\C 1500 1.0% 0 28,000 580 1.35
Hgh case P10 325 50 518 +10% 1200 0.5% 50000 40,000 800 1.75

..............4121 .

·..···..·..·'3904 · ·3907······ ····..·..··· · ····..·..· -- -- ---- -- - --- --- .

......
~
3572 3575 3574

3558 3570 3570 3572 MMcf is PSO

....·· 343,2 ·3300 · · ·.. · ·..· ·· · .

3170 3179 3186

Langrnir Pressu-e Pressu-e@T1rre3 Initial Presstre W!l.er IrlIuc Langrnir VolUTe

AtBrdTt Pressll"e All Resv Presstres Fradtre Porosity 'Wiirter Proci.dion

Figure 5 - Sensitivity of Material Balance Calculations

 CBM Matenal Balance CalculatIOn
Location: Well A

Reservoir Pro erties ~stimated Ultimate Recovery. MMcf

atum depth _._ft_._+-_ 2740 prainage Area mean, acres 448 400
et Coal Thickness ft 50 brainage Area standard dey 13 !
. ·-·y-··.. . -t·····i-·--···-..t .J..! _~ .
.1. '

ell Spacing acres 320 ~GIP,~~g-~fti~~-~t~ps--- 14,701 '" !

·-~·~·:i' · ··t....·
It-::--::-c::----"------'-----+--------
nitial Reservoir Press psia
fEl_s~~gradient
nitial Water Sat.
... _- .... _-----
psi/..!!.._
percent
0 300
67%
622 pGIP from extrapolation
pGIP for given well spacing

1-- - -
------100
~-b-a~don~~~tPre-~~ure--::.c..>!.--t----
14,539
10,493

..--
300
,: .
"i ·······t····
·········r·.
.j..1\.
;
j f i l
~._
:
~
!
+ - .

~. ........+. ·····i .......~-..-......

~~.Co~pre~ 1!.psi 2.0E-04 pc @ aban. scflton 103
ater Compress 1Ipsi 2.0E -06 9,900
~ 200 ..........1"'. t····l······!····l···········!·· . ·r···..·-·
sh Content percent 28.8%
-----------.-- -t--
oisture Content percent 2 0% Langmuir Isotherm Properties ············f······· .....-. \T' ...t..... ...-.. . ---
~Q_e.r1~ity ~m/c_c--jt--_ 1.50 _~'~~'2:LJ.:r_~!:ess .P~I_a=--_+ }~
100 ..._....~...
bbl/stb 101 angmuir V o l u m e _ _ _
t'\.
_ff_e_c_tive
__Porosity . percent 0.05% Pure Coal scflton 660
-_._-_... - -_._-~-----+--------I
eservoir Temp
- ..__ ., ._-
deg F 108 In-situ scflton 457
.- -~._

-....-.---.-.-.. - 1 - , , -
tandard Temp
---------
deg F 60 In-Situ scf/ft3
------------+--- -------~
21.36
o ...... i
tandard Pressure psia 112 nitial Gas Cont scflton 322 o 5 10 15 20
..... .... _---- -~---~----.,--
.--.---...-.-------------_t_--------
dlmenls 0998 Cum Gas Production. Bct
c.n
c.n

Production Data Date: 06/01/92 07101194 02/14/96 07/31/96 04/02/97

Res. ~~~!~~r.e.:~~~e __ psia ---_.

822
-- ._-~-- _..
582
_.~------.
431
--
370 293
--f------+-.--.----....- ----.- .-.'
um Water Prod stb 9,360 15,648 18,823 20,560
'IV ater Influx
Gas Production
stb
MMcf
_
_ .._ _...- !-----------_.
... _......_..- --_.__ .
1,611 3,248
.. ----
--
3,788 5,026
-+----
+-~~~---- ----.- _.- - _._-- _.. - -- ~- ._-_.. _- --- - ._-

Gas z -factor
,;; ._------_..-- .. - -_ . dimenls 0.920 0937
---- -- ...
0948
---_.._. __ ... - o 96_0_-+- r--- .... . --+------t---- ........
.... alculations
Assumed Vb2 1t3
_......
982.993,007
---_. __._--- ... 1,018,384,176 946.775,806 957,758,711
····t--~
Sw 67 0%
. ---~.-
59.1%
.... _-_._-----
538% 489% 478%
- f - - - - - - - - - 1---..--.---- ...
dlmenls- 00022
-------_ ... -
0.0018 00015
---- ---
00014 o 0012 - --------... _-------
P/z' pSla 369,536 329,356 291,343 271,446 240,880
Slope, m sef/psi t- +-_.J..~~~51 (41,5~~) (38,618 (39,066 .. 1 .
l,.,ale Vb2 1t3 -_ ... _ .. _-_ ...
982,993,007
.. __ 1,016,384.176 946.775,806 957,758,711
1·- 1-
Variance 0.00% -0.00% -0.00% -000%
Drainage Area acres 451 468 435 440
OGIP MMcf 14 799 15 332 14253 14419

Figure 6 - Material Balance for Well A (All pressures corrected to datum)

 1-'0-
f

I
I
1>:;1
co
'"0
;;::
~
:2
:2
1--
;D
o
uJO.1
....
L
fr
N
co

..... ~
~ o
~0.01
Q)
o
--
S
ulck Match Results
adial homogeneous 8
E
-
co
Q)
lased system - (L:L:L:L]
s = 0.4
=19
bbl/psi
md
II
o =5.8 B
0.001 o
=0 l/(Mscf/day)
=1100 It II
=760.6389_ psia __ II

0.00011 0 I
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Equivalent Time (hours)

Figure 7 - Well A PBU test.(1992)indicates closed system of 92 acres

-- - ------- - - - .. _-------- - - - --------------_._--------------_.--------_ ... -- - ---- - ------------ -----~~_.
 Plot

>;
Cll
"0
~
()
III a 0
::!: 00
BlIa
0
0
00
00
::!:
--,
..-..
g01
o
II
a
8 00 000
o

o
W a
..... o
L- II
a.
()
N
Cll
o II

.~
...... a
01 10
.....
-Cll
Q)
0
I)

Quick Match Resuns

--
~
.....,
II
Radial composite
Infinitely acting
E Cs = 5 bbVpsi
~0.01 K '" 124 md
Q) o II S =0.8
0
Lrad = 180 ft
M =0.1
w "'0.1
D
Pi
°
'" 1/(Mscf/day)
'" 455.2306 psia
II

a
I
0.001 0.01 o1 10 100
u ••• • .~9!!!Yale.!!~ Time (hours) 1

Figure 8 - Well A PBU Test (1997) matched with radial composite model
 CBM Matenal Balance Calculation
Location: Well B

Reservoir Pro erties Estimated Ultimate Recovery. MMcf

_.!tum~ePth ft_ _------1_ _ 3166 Drainage Area mean, acres 169
I
60
et Coal Thickness ft
--+--
t08 prainage Area standard dey 28 I !
ell Spacing
nitial Reservoir Press psia
acres 320
1600
pGIP, avg of time steps
pGIP rr:o~ extr;pol~ti~n
17,456
----
19,679
~.-. ~:.~-..- L-.+, ---: . .J -.; - -i- -L- + .
~
-_.. _. l t. ; ..
: 1
pG IP!t>~JI!\Ien ~-;Ii~-p~cing
_~~:,.?~~e gradient . £si/ft 0505 32,981
-------'--------- .. ".1 \
n'!!~I\.'\/ater Sat percent 100% ~~a.l1.donment Pressure
be
--
100 40
··,.1.···· ···~!::,i . j..
. .?!~_c-;c:~es_s
ater Compress
--- - - - --- ----------.--.---f--.---
~
l/psi
_.. ~~E:::g4
2 OE-06
@ aban, scflton
16,047
93
N
a: .............•..... _......•..... k
sh Content
oisture Content
._~---_._._--------------

._oalg~ns!.!y
percent
percent
gm/cc
23 0%
2 0%
1 40
Langmuir Isotherm Properties
f---~I1.['':1~~~~ess pSla _~
20 ..... '-1"I . ······t.-
~
: ,,:
....- ..•...........,-..-...
.i. ; ···!:i.; '\. .._-·····1····
bbl/slb t.02 ~lJir_~o.'!J.~_e ._...._ I - - . ._
! !
~ec:tl',e_£,_()~osity_ ~!9'=l1t
eservolr Temp
---~--_._--_._.,--_
deg F
.. __._-----
050%
110
Pure Coal
--------_._.
In-SItu
scllton
sctlton
------_ .... -
948
-- - _ . _ - ~ ~ -----_ ..._---'--

711
--------.-
:.:.

"
tandard Temp deg F 60 In-Situ set/lt3 3 t .07
------._-_ .... ---_._._--- --- ---_._ .. _--
o
_ _ _ •• _ _ '· _ _ ' _ _ '*.. M _
-

tandard Pressure
._.. ---_ __psia._._ _-- 112 nitial Gas Cont
-
seflton
-_._--~------ ._----------_._-
502 o 5 10 15
Cum Gas A-oduclion, Bet
20 2"

01 dimenls 0999
(Xl

Production Data Date: 01/01192 07/01/93 07101194 06/27/96 11/14/96 03/04/97

ReservOir Pressure psia 1600 824 644 359 340 295
.-jf----.-- .. ---- ---+-----------1-------..- ----4-----+----
rum Water Pr;d-u~ilo;slb 87.588 139,745 234,819 255,000 268,200
f------.... - .--.............. ----------1---._-_.
Waler Influx sib
Gas Production MMcf _. .~,633 5.106 9,638 10.440 1___.l~,'O00
Gas z-factor dlmenls 0816c+__~_....::.0:....:.8....::.80 0904 0.946
............_.._.
0.95t 0.958-+- _ ----
C ale u laiions-·--- .---
1I=·=.:..:=-=--=-::.:..::~=------+----+-----+_-----+------+_-------4-----_+-----+----f-------f------
A.ssumed Vb2 1t3 . .._. 550,960,241 763,208,915 ,_B.!0,88.5._,.6_0__9_-i_ 912,079,937 886,695,774
Sw percent 100 0% -_._-_ 106.8% .. l1tt% 1105% t097% 1078%
.. -----_.
7· dlmenls 0.0297- - - - _.. - ..00t96
_---- 0.0172 00135 00132 0.0126
_0_.. ,-_.__._-----
P/Z' pSla 53.867 42, t21 37,424 26.666 25,734 23,376
Slope, m set/psI (224,164 (310520 (354.329 (371.090 (360,762
1--------. .-
ale Vb2 1t3 550,960.225 763208,910 870.885,608 9t2.079.936 886,695,774
. --_._------" _.~

Vananc e percent -0.00% ·000% -000% -000% -000%

Drainage Area acres 117 162 185 '94 188
OGIP MMcf t2071 t6721 19,080 19 982 19426

Figure 9 - Material Balance for Well B (All pressures corrected to datum)

 1000 r------,----------.-------r---...,--------,-------,

.-eu 800
Avg Res Press Observed Pr
.
-l..,------,-------,-------,---.,.L - - -
FBHP
-
Obsvrd FBHP

f /)
c.
...
600 :~--+-~::------+--~-~
f I
I
~ I
f/) I
I
f/) I .'

f 400 I :
• "
• ••••
Q. I .,

: '-••#,
::t:
m 200 I
I
I

I
••••••
.,

•
•
h-.•
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
Ot-.z-----L-----'--------'---...&.-..II'-'--"-----II---.l..------J
o 365 730 1095 1460 1825 2190
Days
Figure 10 - History match of Well A

25 r-------r-------r---,.----.--------r---,----------,-------,

20 - ------ -----

15 PBU tests
~
o •
!i kIko= exp(O.00245*dPr)
10 I----+----+--+---"'l~-+---;

OL.....-...J..--'----'------'----'---'-----'-----'-----'--"'---'-----.l..-~----'---J

-1600 -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0

Pr· Pro
Fig. 11 - Perm increases as reservoir pressure drops, Well A
159