SPE

SPE 21292
Hydraulic Fracturing Techniques Used for
Stimulation of Coal bed Methane Wells
by B.W. McDaniel, Halliburton Services
SPE Member
Copyright 1990, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This peper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in Columbus, Ohio. OCtober 31-November 2. 1990.
This peper was selected tor presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstraCt submitted by the author(s). Contents of the peper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by tha author(s). The.material, as presented: does not necessanly reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its oIficers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetingS are SUbject to publlC8tion rllY1eW by Editorial CommIttees of the SocIety
of Petroleum Engineers. PermtssIon 10 copy is restricted 10 an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustrations may not be copied. The abstr1Id should contain 00I\SllICU0US ackI oowledgment
of wllere and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEOAL.
Abstract
Methane gas from wells completed exclusively in coal seams
has become a major energy resource in the USA, and it is being
evaluated in many other countries. In all but a very few cases,
stimulation by hydraulic fracturing is required for adequate production
rates. The application of fracturing to improve degasification of coal
beds prior to mining began in 1974, but in recent years its application
has expanded such that many completions are independent of any
expected Mure mining operations. Wells are often completed in
multiple coal seams with possibly hundreds of feet between the
completion zones.
The hydraulic fracturing fluids, equipment, and designs used
for coalbed methane wells have seen major evolutionary changes
from the ear1y treatments when completing in seams to be mined.
When fracturing became common in coal seams where mining was
not being considered, roof integrity was no longer a concern and the
treatment designs began to undergo more accelerated changes.
This paper will trace the historical application of hydraulic
fracturing in the two major commercial coalbed methane producing
areas: The Black Warrior Basin of Northern Alabama and the San
Juan Basin of Northwest New Mexico/Southwest Colorado. Recent
applications in the Raton and Piceance Basins of Colorado and the
Central Appalachian Basin will also be addressed.
Introduction
Conventional fracturing technology cannot always be directly
applied to fracturing coal seams. Coal is a reservoir rock that has
many unusual characteristics, such as:
1. Wide variety of treating pressures, often abnormally high, with
pressure gradients commonly above 1.0 psilft (even though most
believe vertical fractures are still the predominant occurrence).
2. The very high Ieakoff of the fracturing fluid into the coal cleat
system and coal's mechanical response are not well modeled by the
mathematics used in conventional design simulators for sandstones
and carbonate reservoirs.
3. The mechanism of methane production is quite different from
traditional gas reservoirs.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
4. Postcompletion problems of coal and proppant production are
added difficulties.
Although not the only anomalies associated with completing
coalbed methane (CBM) wells, the points listed above have been the
dominant factors which have influenced the way fracturing has been
apprled as part of the completion procedure. When ear1y fracturing
treatments were performed in seams to be mined, safety concerns
over cavings from a weakened mine roof would often have the effect
of limiting pump rate. fluid volume, or fluid viscosity. These concerns
could often lead to very limited effectiveness of the stimulation
treatment.
Mining operations allowed the industry some firsthand
observations of the resultant fractures. Begiooing in 1974 and
continuing through present operations. many investigators have had
the opportunity to study some areas where the fracture(s) occurred
within the coal seams. Diamond and Oyler' presented an excellent
report on 22 government-sponsored mineback investigations following
fracturing treatments. However. we must use discretion in our
application of these observed results_ The response seen in seams
only a few hundred feet deep may not always be an accurate
indication of what will occur within more deeply buried coal seams. At
shallow depths, there is a higher probability that the two horizontal
stress components may be of similar magnitude. This wifllessen the
probability of achieving a single biwing planar vertical fracture.
Current coal typically involve depths of 1000 to 4000 ft.
More shallowcoals are occasionally included, and many operators are
evaluating the economic potential of deeper seams.
Tax Credit Effects
Duringthe mid 1980'sthe industry beganto seriously consider
coal seams as a commercial gas reservoir. The classification of
coalbed methane as an unconventional gas offered operators a
significant tax credit, which greatly the economies of coal
wells. Crouse gives a good discussion of the effects of this tax
incentive. including economic for Fruitland coal seamgas
production with and without the tax credit.
2
Drilfing activity in 1990 reached a level few had imagined
possible only afew years earfier. Possibly the greatest leap in proven
reserves of coaI)ed methane occurred during 1988. ConSidering only
the Fruitland Coal (Colorado and New MexiCO) and the coals of the
2 HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TECHNIQUES USED FOR STIMULATION OF COALBED METHANE WELLS SPE 21292
B!ack Warrior Basin, 1987 proved reserves were listed as 148 Bet, but explanations" and various publication references supporting eachone.
the value for 1988 was 882 Bcf.
3
This information is again presented here as Table 1. Although the
paper deals mostly with the application of minifrac analysis in CBM
The original federal legislation containingthetax incentivewas wells, it also disalsses operators' experiences with lessening the
repealed in 1988, but this tax credit was continued, to apply only to occurrence of abnormally high treating pressures by fracturing the
wells drilled prior to Jan. 1, 1990. This date was later extended one coal seam(s) as soon as possible after perforating. Some operators
year. At the time of this writing it was unclear if additional legislation have perforated only outside the coal seam in attempts to avoid high
would extend this time period into 1991 or beyond, although many key pressures that can be due to near-wellbore problems.
govemmental observers believed an extension was likely. Extension
of the tax credit is thought by many to be a key factor in determining Since essentially all the fluid loss occurring during hydraulic
future drilling activity levels for CBM wells. However, as Kesslerrt fracture propagation is into the cleat system, most fluid loss models
reported when interviewing a top industry executive, many ament used in design simulators wUI also be of limited validity. Even though
lease positions and initial drilling commitments were made based on totat fracture height may often be 3 to 10 times the coal thickness,
projected economics which assumed the tax credit would not be usually, the fluid loss within the coat seam wiU be so dominanl that
available. little thought is given (with respect to fluid Ieakoff) to the total fracture
height, but the injection rate selected will be a function of the total
GRI Sponsored Research coat thickness being stimulated. In recent years, the most common
design criteria has been injection rates of 1.5 to 2.5 bbVmin per foot
While the US Bureau of Mines (and later DOE) were involved of coat.
in research programs from 1973 to the Mid 1980's, the Gas Research
InstiMe (GRI) has coordinated and financially supported a very large As has been mentioned earlier, major research efforts have
percentage of the research within the last several years. This effort been sponsored by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (initially) and by the Gas
has allowed the CBM well technology to proliferate at a rate that is Research InstiMe (more recently). These studies have idenlified
unprecedented in the petroleum industry. Additional to their financiat many unique occurrences when fracturing coal seams. Even so,
sponsorship, they have been the most active party in the organization many of the successful stimulation procedures have developed by
and implementation of numerous seminars, short courses and large trial-and-error fashion. One of the noteworthy results of GRI funded
technical meetings which have been entirely dedicated to coalbed projects was the April 1990 publication of the "Coat Seam Stimulation
methane applications.>7 These are in addition to normaUy scheduled Manual." This work is the result of a two year project under a GRI
SPE sponsored technical meetings, which have recently included at contract. Its primary objective is to present guidelines to design well
least one technical session related to CBM wells. completions and hydraulic fracturing treatments in coat seams. The
manual also includes information which will help an engineer when
Successful stimulation by hydrauflC fracturing has been one trying to determine if a coat seam reservoir is an economically viable
of the primary reasons coalbed methane wells have become so candidate.
commonplace. However, stimulationtechnology in CBMwells evolved
slowly because the primary concem of mined wells was the roof rock Early History of Fracturing Applications
integrity. Now that most fracturing treatments are in coals that may
never be mined, the maximizing of gas production is the most Currently there are two major commercial coalbed methane
important consideration, as it is in conventional gas reservoirs. producing areas: The Black Warrior Basin of Northem Alabama and
Completing multiple coal seams to increase the size of the net pay the san Juan Basin of Northwest New MexicolSouthwest Colorado.
has become commonplace. For example, many operators in the Although there continue to be many completions in the Raton and
Black Warrior basin are completing three, four or all five of the Piceance Basins of Colorado and the Central Appalachian Basin, the
different coal groups shown in Fig. 1. number of completions in all these areas cormined are still dwarfed
by the number of completions in either of the two major areas.
The fracturing treatment design used for hydraUlic fracturing
stimulation will be partially dependent on the type of well completion.
Early openhole completion methods have been mostly replaced by
cased/cemented/perforated completion procedures. Occasionally,
hydrajetted slots are used instead of perforations.
In addition to considerations related to the well completion
technique, some of the variables involved in designing a fracturing
program for a coalbed methane well include: type of fracturing fluid,
fluid volume, size and quantity of frac sand, and the injection rate to
be used. In conventional reservoirs, it is most common to use a
computerized design simulator to investigate combinations of these
variables. Although these same design simulators have often been
used in coal seam treatment design, the validity of the calculated
results is usuatly very questionable because of the differences
between coal and sandstone or carbonate formations.
Treatment designs used for coal seams have seen an
evolutionary process that has sometimes been painful and difficult.
Mineback observations have shown the presence of multiple fracture
systems that appearto have coexisted for at least part of the proppant
injection period. Additionally, coat is not realistically modeled as a
"homogeneous elastic medium," which is the first assumption made
by essentially all fracture design simulators available during the
1980's.
The observation of abnormally high treating pressures in CBM
wells has been the concem of many field and laboratory studies. In
a recent paper, McDaniejl presented a table Usting eight "proposed
Early experimentation with hydraulic fracturing centered on
minable coal seams. The earliest work was in the central
Appalachian Basin, broadening to the Black Warrior Basin in the
Southem Appalachian area in the early 1980's. Treatment design
was usually selected for the purpose of investigating some specific
response within the coat seam and/or the roof rock while a single
zone was being fractured. Of the 22 wells in the govemment-
sponsored study referenced earlier,' sixteen were treated with a foam
fluid, four with gelled water, and two with nongelled water.
Treatments on three of the 22 wells did not pump any sand (although
they did contain a fluorescent paint), while five of the wells were
treated using both sand and fluorescent paint, and the remainder
pumped Sand only.
With very little gas production data obtained from the study
referenced above, its primary value to a gas producer is in what can
be learned about the way hydraulic fractures will occur when
stimulating coal seams that are completed as gas reservoirs. Fifteen
of the cases reported were for coat seams at depths of 425 to 764 ft,
and the other seven (all in Blue Creek coat) varied from 1,065 to
1,383.5 ft. Of these seven, most had multiple sand-fUIed vertical
fractures, but only one had any sand-filled horizontal components. In
that one case, the completion had a large void in the annulus through
the coat zone where cement should have been, and the only
communication through the casing was a few feet below the coal
zone.
SPE 21292 B. W. McDANIEL 3
In the more shallow seams, there is a greater likelihood that The proppants used in fracturing CBM wells have all been
the difference between the magnitude of the two horizontal stress quartz sands, with a few applications of resin coated sand. The
components may be small. When this occurs, there is a decreased shallow environment generally prevents any concem about proppant
possibility of achieving a single planar vertical fracture during a crushing, even for the larger sieve sizes. The 20/40 and 12120 size
hydraulic fracturing treatment. Abass
'O
has recently modeled this in sands have been the dominate sizes, ahhough 100 mesh (701140
laboratory work on coal blocks. size) and 40170 sand have seen signifICant use also, as has the 16130
size sand.
If multiple, parallel, and/or branched vertical fractures have
been created, there may be several negative effects. Increased fluid In a few coal seams it is believed that "closure" of the
loss into the cleat system and more narrow fractures are two of the hydraUlic fracture may never ooeur. A few such seams are fracture
principal results. It has also been speculated that this may contribute stimulated with no sand or only a very low concentration (less than
to causing the treating pressure to be abnormally high in some coals. 1/4 IbIgal) that is assumed to do little other than provide some
Figure 2 is a schematic drawing that attelTl>ts to illustrate the nature scouring action near the wellbore. However, in many of the coal
of a possible multiple fracture system, in which the cleat can be more seams where fracture closure does not seem to occur, the fracture
easily opened when there is a smaD difference in horizontal stress becomes plugged with coal and/or coal fines. sand (at high
components. With multiple vertical fractures or with very high treating concentratiOns) is used in some of these applications more to provide
pressures, it beCOmes more likely that a horizontal fracture fracture fill than a propping actiOn.
component(s) may occur, further increasing fluid loss into the cleat
system of the coal reservoir. With respect to the quantity of proppant used when fracturing
CBM wells, it seems that most operators have chosen to specify the
In one operator's experience, the net result of creating a amount of proppant desired per foot of coal being stimulated during
horizontal fracture instead of a vertical fracture was much lower a particular treatment. During the past 2 to 3 years, the proppant
production rates. Figure 3 shows the difference in gas production quantity typically has ranged from 3,000 to 6,000 Ib per foot of coal.
from a single coal seam where an operator had achieVed a vertical
fracture for only a few feet, and the remainder of the fluid went into a It is generally recognized that very high fracture conductivity
large single horizontal fracture. Although very early gas productiOn is needed to ensure rapid dewatering when the cleat system is water
was high (even higher than usual), the production rate soon fell to saturated and because very low producing pressures are required fOr
less than half the typical result from offset weDs where the final result efficient methane desorption from the coal. This has made 12120
(with the exact same type and size of fracturing treatment) was a sand the most desirable proppant for a large number of operators.
single vertical fracture. Because these fractures were created in a Thus, the demand for this size sand has greatly increased because
coal seam that is being mined, the operator was able to document of the large number of CBM wells currently being completed.
that a horizontal fracture had resulted. Due to the treating pressure However, this has caused supply shortages, which have forced the
being 1.35 to 1.5 psilft (instead of the typical 1.15 to 1.2 psilft) the use of 16130 or 20/40 size sands even when they were not the
operator had speculated that a horizontal fracture may have occurred. operator's preferred sand size.
Evolution of Field Equipment
Only a few fracturing field equipment modifICations of recent
years can be directly related to CBM well stimulation. Most of these
are attributable to one or both of these two factors: small (and often
remote) location sizes, and the need for high pumping rates along
with high sand concentrations.
Service companies have otten designed special manifolds to
more compactly arrange the pumping units on small locatiOn sites.
There have been some special fluid gelling units built to handle
continuous or semieontinuous gelation of the frac fluid at rates otten
exceeding 70 bbVmin. Higher capaCity sand delivery equipment
became necessary as many CBM wells would be stimulated with
proppant concentrations of 10 to 12 lblgal at very high injectiOn rates.
Drilling, cementing and colT1>'etion of CBM wells has also
spawned some equipment modifications, but these are not within the
scope of this paper to address.
Frac Fluid and Proppant Applications
The same fracturing fluids used in stimulating conventional
sandstone or catbonate gas reservoirs have also been the fluids used
for CBM wells. The most significant factor that effects fluid application
to CBM wells is the lower telT1>erature environment resulting from
relatively shallow depths. WIthin the San Juan and Black Warrior
Basins, it is the author's estimate that greater than 90"10 of all CBM
well fracturing treatments to date have been pumped into reservoirs
where the static temperature was below 12(fF.
During the very early years (i.e., 1974 to early 1980's) the
most common frac fluids were ~ foams and linear gels, with only a
few crosslinked gels used. During the mid to late 1980's, freshwater
(nongelled) became a very popular frae fluid, along with borate
crosslinked gels and linear gels. Nitrogen foams were sliD in limited
use, as well as other croSSlinked gel systems and a few CO
2
foams.
During the early part of 1989, a broad (but not scientifiC)
survey was made to determine the relative popularity of various
fracturing fluids for CBM wells. This review resulted inthe observation
that during the calendar year 1988, two general types of jobs seemed
to be most commonly used for CBM wells that used fresh water or
borate crosslinked gels. Table 2 presents these two generalized
types of jobs for 1988. In early 1990, the treatments performed in
1989 were reviewed and it was seen that the borate crosslinked type
of job had definitely been the most popular during that calendar year.
This result is shown in Table 3.
Summary
In summary, there are several statements that can be made
regarding the important occurrences when reviewing the shorl history
of fracturing techniques used to stimulate coalbed methane wells:
1) Investor and operator interest in coalbed methane wells has
been significantly inCreased by the benefit of a federal tax credit.
2) The technology for drilling, completion and stimulation of
coalbed methane wells has been given a boost by GRI-sponsored
research and technical meetings.
3) Several unique coalbed methane well problems must be
considered when designing fracturing stimulation treatments; these
include dewatering of the coal, very low producing pressures, coal
fines, and frae sand production.
4) Fracturing treatments have evolved from treating single coal
seams (3 to 8 tt), to multiple coals (10 to 30 ft total coal) over large
intervals (50 to 200 tt).
5) High pumping rates are used to overcome the very high fluid
loss that occurs into the cleat system of the coal seams.
HYDRAULIC TECHNIOUES USED FOR STIMULATION OF COALBED METHANE WELLS SPE 21292
6) High injection pressures when fracturing are common.
Problems can be minimized when the fracture treatment can be
performed as soon as possible after the coal is exposed or possibly
by perforating outside the coal seam.
7) Current experience indicates the best gas production will
result when a single vertical fracture is created within the coal seams.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express his appreciation to Halliburton
Services for the opportunity to prepare this paper. Barry Pieser,
Craig Barber, Alan Bennett, Bruce Thomas and Tom Garvin have
especially contributed. Many others within Halliburton Services and
various operator were also helpful.
12.
13.
14.
Jeffrey, R.G., Vandanvne, L., Hinkel, J.J., and Horner, O.M.:
"Equivalent Modulus and Parallel Fracture Effects," paper
8726 presented at the 1987 Coalbed Methane Symposium,
Tuscaloosa, AL, Nov 16-19.
Holditch, S. A., Ely, J.W., Semmelbeck, M.E., Carter, R.H.,
Hinkel, J., and Jeffrey, R.G.: "Enhanced Recovery of Coalbed
Methane Through Hydraulic Fracturing; paper SPE 18250
presented at the 1988 SPE Annual Tech. Cont. and Exhib.,
Houston, nc, pp 93-102.
Palmer, 1.0., Davids, M.W., and Jeu, S.J.: "Analysis of
Unconventional Behavior Observed During Coalbed Fracturing
Treatments; paper 8993 presented at the 1989 Coalbed
Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL, April 17-20.
1. Diamond, W.P., and Oyler, D.C.: "Effects of Stimulation
Treatments on Coalbeds and Surrounding Strata, Evidence
From Underground Observations; U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations (RI) Number 9083,
1987.
2. Crouse, P.C.: "Coal Seam Methane Is One of The Hotter
Current Plays; World Oil, Nov 1989, P 47.
3. Kuuskraa, VA and Brandenburg, C.F.: "Coalbed Methane
Sparks a New Energy Industry; Oil and Gas Journal, OCt 9,
1989 P 49.
Unit Conversions
Iblgal
bbVmin
OF
psilft
ft
References
120 kg/lIT
0.159 m
3
/min
5x( OF - 32)19 c
2.101 MPalm
0.3048 m
15.
16.
17.
Hanson, M.E. and Nielsen, P.E.: "Analysis and Implications
of Three Fracture Treatments in Coal at the USX Rock Creek
Site Near Birmingham, Alabama," Quarterly Report, July-
October 1986, to Gas Research Institute, December 3, 1986.
Reeves, S.R., Wallace, JA, and Beavers, W.M.: "Influence
of Reservoir Properties and Geologic Setting on Coalbed
Fracturing and Production: A Preliminary Evaluation of the
TEAM Project," paper SPE 16423 presented at SPEIDOE Low
Penneability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, CO, (1987) May
18-19.
Jeffrey, R.G., Vandamme, L., and Roegiers, J.C.:
"Mechanicallnteraetions in Branched or Subparallel Hydraulic
Fractures," paper SPE 16422 presented at SPEIDOE Low
Permeability Reservoirs SympoSium, Denver, CO, (1987) May
18-19.
4. Kessler, Lois: "Taurus Grabs Big Role In Coal-Bed Play;
Gulf Coast Oil World, Nov/Dec 1989, p 17.
5. 1987 Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL, Nov 16-
19.
6. 1988 Coalbed Methane Symposium, Durango, CO, July.
7. 1989Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL, April 17-
20.
8. McDaniel, B.W.: "Benefits and Problems of Minifrac
Applications in Coalbed Methane Wells; paper CIM/SPE 90-
103 presented at CIMISPE International Tech. Meeting and
Exhibition, Calgary, June 10-13, 1990.
9. Coal Seam Stimulation Manual, Gas Research Institute, GRI
Contract No. 5087-214-1469, Topical Report (Jan. 1987- Dec.
1988), SA Holditch & Assoc.
10. Abass, H.H. and Van Domelen, M.L: "Experimental
Observations of HydraUlic Fracture Propagation Through Coal
Blocks," paper SPE 21289 presented at Eastem Regional
SPE Meeting, Columbus, OCt 31 - Nov 2.
11. Jones, A.H., Bell, G.J., Morales, R.H., andSChraufnagel, RA:
"Examination of Potential Mechanisms Responsible for the
High Treatment Pressures Observed During Stimulation of
Coalbed Reservoirs," paper SPEIDOE 16421 presented at
SPEIDOE Low Permeability Reservoirs Symposium, Denver,
CO, (1987) May 18-19.
seE 21292 5
Table 1
High treating pressures when fracture stimulating CBM wells has been
attributed to these possible factors;8
Proposed Explanation References
A. High tortuosity/rugosity of fluid path in 1, 11,
the fracture ("offsets," or "lightning 15, 17
bolt" shaped fractures)
B. Multiple fractures, branching of a single or 1, 11, 12,
of mUltiple fracture strands, thought to be 14, 16, 17
mostly parallel or sUbparallel in direction
C. Fracture tip plugging by coal fines 11
D. Near-wellbore fracture constriction(s} 1,11-17
(Could be from A, B, or F)
E. Poroelastic effects 14
F. Fracture blocking by coal chips 11, 13
G. Viscous effects of fines and/or slurry 11, 13
dehydration due to fluid loss
H. Horizontal fracture component(s} 1
These references offer discussion of the specific proposed explanation.
Table 2
Most Common CBM Well Frac Jobs During 1988
80,000 to 100,000 gal Fresh Water
50,000 to 150,000 Ib 20/40 Sand
40 to 80 bbVmin Pumping Rate
or
40,000 to 60,000 gal Borate Crosslinked Gel
(30# to 40# Gel per Mgal)
150,000 to 300,000 Ib of
20/40 and/or 12120 Sand
30 to 40 bbVmin Pumping Rate
Table 3
Most Common CBM Well Frac Jobs During 1989
50,000 to 80,000 gal Borate Crosslinked Gel
(30# Gel per Mgal)
200,000 to 500,000 Ib of 12120 Sand
30 to 50 bbVrnin Pumping Rate
S2E 21292
o
Black Warrior Coal Groups
GROUP SEAM
GWIN
THOMPSON MILL
GWIN
tAOO FT
COBB
UPPER COBS
1
LOWER COBS
600 FT
-'
PRATT
NICKEL PLATE
AMERICAN
PRATT
CURRY
GILLESPIE
T
IOOO FT
j
NEWCASTLE
MARY LEE/BLUE CREEK
MARY LEE
JAGGER
j
REAM
500 FT
LICK
t
JEFFERSON
BLACK
CREEK
BLACK CREEK
Figure 1
Five Black Warrior coal groups (with primary seams listed) that may be completed in a
CBM well.
SPE 21292 7
e--\-... r...... _.,,-_. _

Figure 2
Schematic of mUltiple fractures near wellbore with offsets following cleats.
#-,

,
k
""
1/Typical Well (Vertical Fracture)

, "
,
I
\
--,
I

.....
........


........
r-... -.... ...

..

..... -.-.
-. .......
:/.... .............
Well With Horizontal Fracture

I I I
200
-

as
"t:J
150
-
u.
(.)
:E
-
(I)
100
-
as
a:
c:
0
.-
-
(,)
:::J
50
"t:J
0
a-
D.
o
o 3 6 9 12
Time (Months)
15 18
Figure 3
Comparative production trends when fracture is only vertical versus primarily
horizontal in an 8 ft coal seam.