SPE 64493

Keys to the Successful Application of Hydraulic Fracturing in an Emerging Coalbed

Methane Prospect - An Example from the Peat Coals of Australia
M. Badri, SPE, Halliburton Australia Pty Ltd; D. Dare, SPE and J. Rodda, SPE, Oil Company of Australia; G. Thiesfield,
SPE, Halliburton Australia Pty Ltd and M. Blauch, SPE, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Brisbane, Australia, 1618 October 2000.
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, as 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 without 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 contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Early stimulation work in Peat Field of Queensland, Australia
involved application of cavity completion techniques to
produce methane gas at commercial rates in the first wells
completed in the reservoir gas cap. Early in the project life,
cavity completion treatments resulted in promising and
acceptable gas flow rates. However, excessive cost associated
with this technique led to consideration of alternate
stimulation approaches by the design team. The main
objective was to achieve similar or better gas rates at the
lowest cost.
Multi-seam nitrogen-foam stimulation was conducted in
several wells of the Peat field to assess the effectiveness of
this technique in terms of: (1) production enhancement and
cost reduction; (2) location of the coal-seam intervals in the
gas cap (i..e. gas-saturated coals) and;
(3) improved
completion efficiency.
To minimise the effects of tortuosity and multiple far-field
fractures in addition to ensuring that each coal-seam interval
received adequate treatment, a staged stimulation approach in
combination with other remedies such as sand slugs and high
injection rates was adopted and successfully applied.
Zonal Isolation was achieved through the use of the newly
developed, easily drillable composite plugs that allow staged
treatment with flowback capabilities.

References at the end of the paper.

Field data of representative Peat wells will be used to

demonstrate the successful application of the hydraulic
fracturing approach that resulted in methane gas rates that
more than compete with the early cavity completion
techniques either from a cost or production improvement point
of view.
The following specifics are addressed in the paper:
A novel fracture design approach and modeling of
fracturing treatments that can be of value to a broad
audience of operators and design engineers.
Real-time fracture stimulation methodology, analysis,
and execution.
Remedies to minimize the near-wellbore tortuosity
and multiple far field fractures to avoid premature
screenout and carry the fracture treatment to
completion.
Chemical optimization of fracture fluid designed
based on coal characteristics.
Use of newly developed composite epoxy-glass
fracture and bridge plugs that provide a more efficient
and cost effective way to carry out staged stimulation
treatments.
Post-fracture production tests to estimate the nitrogenfoam fracture treatment effectiveness in multi-seam
CBM wells.
Introduction
The Peat field1 is located on the eastern edge of the Bowen
Basin about 20 km east of the town of Wandoan (Fig. 1). The
field is approximately 8 km wide and 26 km long and
comprises Late Permian Baralaba Coal Measures overlying
the Burunga Anticline, the largest anticlinal feature in the
Bowen Basin. Aggregate net coal thicknesses range from
about 7.1 m to 22.7 m over an interval of between 100 m to
140 m. Individual seam thicknesses range up to 13.7 m. Coal
depths range from 600 m below ground and are currently
being investigated to as deep as 1200 m. Within 15 km to the
west coal depths reach over 2000 m.
The field is distinguished by its complex nature1,2. The
northern culmination contains structurally trapped gas within
the fracture network, whilst the coals on the southern

M. BADRI, D. DARE, J. RODDA, G. THIESFIELD, M. BLAUCH

culmination subcrop an aquifer due to erosion by the overlying

Early Jurassic Precipice Sandstone. Drilling and completion
strategies are further complicated by the presence of smectite
and illite clays in the interseam sandstones and numerous thin
volcanic tuff beds immediately below the main (basal)
Baralaba coal seam. The field was discovered in 1994 after
drilling the Peat -1 core well following a number of older
wells targeting the deep Camboon Volcanics fracture play
which recorded positive gas indications in the Baralaba Coal
Measures. Initial drilling concentrated on the gas cap area with
air or air-mist drilling and bare-foot completions being the
preferred technique. Many of the wells recorded significant
drilling problems and were either plugged and abandoned or
switched to a mud drilling system.
Following an extensive overview of the previous
operations an integrated appraisal strategy was developed with
staged drilling programs designed to sequentially address
specific objectives designed to assess the drilling, stimulation
and completion techniques for the gas cap area, to identify the
fluid limit for the gas cap and whether a gas cap existed on the
southern culmination. The gas cap was shown to be
structurally confined and restricted to the northern
culmination1 (Fig. 1). In the gas cap area cavitation resulted in
flow rates of up to 2.5 MMscfd per well with no major drilling
problems encountered.
A review of some of the cavity completion jobs indicated
that though the production improvement was acceptable, it
was mainly due to the creation of tensile fractures in certain
cases.
In order to reduce completion times, the design team
decided to implement high rate nitrogen foam fracture
treatments in the gas saturated gas cap wells to reduce cost and
achieve acceptable production performance.
A total of five Peat wells located in the gas cap were
stimulated in two campaigns to minimize the delivery time
and hence the cost given the complicated logistics for a large
program in a remote location. The wells were then put on
production. The design team reviewed the delivery of services
and field implementation processes with the goal of improving
on past practices by implementing changes that either result in
better production rates or cost saving before the next batch of
wells were stimulated.
Staged fracture designs of the targeted Baralaba coal seams
in each of the wells were made using a Real Time 3D fracture
simulator20 with input of average properties of the coal
intervals combined with previous experience in modeling of
fracture treatments in offset wells.
Zone isolation was done through the use of the newly
developed composite fracture12 and bridge plugs13.
Real time data analysis was used to identify remedial
procedures for fracture entry problems, or make the changes
required on the fly to pump the job to completion that would
result in an effective stimulation treatment of the coal seam of
interest.
Following the high rate nitrogen foam fracture jobs the
wells were production tested to evaluate the effectiveness of

SPE 64493

the treatments and to formulate a strategy to reduce cost and

improve production through change in the job design,
implementation, and delivery of services.
Coal Description
The Peat-1 well core data provided the following information2
on the Baralaba and Kaloola coals of the Peat wells. The coals
present in the wells can be divided into two Late Permian units
stratigraphically, the Baralaba Coal Measures which
conformable overlies the Kaloola Member. The Baralaba Coal
Measures consists of up to six thick, relatively clean seams
(between 0.4 and 8.1 m thick) and are predominantly dull
clarain to clarain (Dmb to Db). They are interbedded with
sandstones and siltstones. Bright bands typically comprise 30 40% of these coals. Cleat is often unmineralized and open
fractures are evident in a number of seams.
Gas content for these coals varies between 7.52 and 10.60
m/tonne (DAF basis) with relative densities between 1.28 and
1.41 g/cc. Gas composition is variable with methane content
ranging between 81.3% and 98.7%. Vitrinite reflectance
ranges from 0.6 to 0.65 and proximate analysis has shown
these coals to have 4.9 to 17.6% ash, 6.6 to 9.1% moisture and
29.1 to 31.4% volatile matter. The coals are in the high
volatile bituminous C range.
Example Wells - Fracture stimulation methodology,
analysis, and execution
Due to the number of fracture stimulation jobs and the
logistics involved mainly the liquid nitrogen delivery
schedules, the wells were treated in batch of three to
maximize the utilization of resources, save on cost by a
reduction in the service delivery time and more importantly to
complete the jobs safely.
A parallel approach was taken whereby an exploration and
a development program were run concurrently. A stop gap
between stimulation campaigns was scheduled to evaluate
results of the treatments before completing subsequently
scheduled wells to improve on what was practiced in the
previous ones, and introduce any changes to the programs or
utilise new technologies that would help achieve better gas
deliverabilities at a lower operating cost.
Three typical Peat gas cap wells (Peat A, B, and C) were
selected to demonstrate the application of the high rate
nitrogen foam treatments to successfully enhance the gas
production of the Baralaba coal intervals. To reduce the
fluctuations in the surface pressures, the constant internal
phase design proposed by Harris23 was used. The surface
pressures were converted to bottomhole pressures as
demonstrated by Harris & Pippin24 for treatments in the
Fruitland coals wells. The converted bottomhole pressures
along with reservoir, fracture fluid properties and treatment
data were used for the analysis of the pre-fracture diagnostic
tests to estimate the stress level, leak-off characteristic, and the
friction contribution from the perforations and near well-bore
tortuosity. The results from the pre-fracture diagnostic tests

SPE 64493

KEYS TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

IN AN EMERGING COALBED METHANE PROSPECT

along with the Nitrogen foam properties were used as input in

a 3-D fracture simulator20 to infer the fracture geometry.
Peat well A, B, and C were drilled in October 1998 as
appraisal wells in the gas cap of Peat Field (Fig. 1) to assess
the lateral productivity of the coal seams of the Baralaba coal
measure across the gas cap. The wells were mud drilled to TD,
logged and cased without testing.
The stimulation program was designed to hydraulically
fracture the Baralaba coal intervals to evaluate their productive
capacity in each of the subject Peat wells. Given the thickness
of the different intervals and to ensure that each of the
Baralaba coal seams received adequate stimulation, the zones
were fractured individually to achieve good proppant
placement within each target horizon. A typical treatment
schedule for a Peat Well is shown in Table 2.
The bottom coal interval was perforated using 3.5 guns at
5 shots per foot and 60o phasing, then hydraulically fractured
pumping down the 5 casing. The next coal seam up was
then perforated, and the new composite frac-plug12 was run
using wireline and set above the bottom zone to isolate it from
the next one up. The second coal interval was stimulated and
the completion process repeated for the rest of the intervals in
the well.
Composite bridge plugs13 were at times run to isolate
intervals with low pressure to minimize the risk of guns being
stuck in the hole.
A composite bridge plug was run above the top most
interval once all the seams in a well were treated to isolate the
batch of wells in order to move in and rig up the workover rig.
Given the location of the coal seams in the gas cap, a 70%
quality nitrogen foam fluid was used to stimulate all the
intervals in Peat wells. This fluid type was selected to
minimize the liquid retention in the seams which affect the
cleats relative permeability to gas as well as any soprtion
swelling of the coal when gelled fluids are used6.
Local Australian 16/30 mesh API sand with conductivities
close to Ottawa sand was used in all the sand slugs and main
fracture stimulation jobs since it was readily available at a
cheaper price than the imported sand, thus minimising cost.
The stimulation treatment of each of the coal seam
intervals involved the following stages in the order of
execution: 1) Performing a small injectivity breakdown test, 2)
Carrying out a Stepdown test 3) Pumping of sand slugs
followed by 4) Implementing the main nitrogen foam fracture
treatment.
Multiple Stage Fracturing
Multiple coal intervals can be fractured using different
techniques such as: 1) Ball & Baffles, 2) Bridge Plugs and
Packers, 3) Sand Plugs, 4) Limited Entry, 5) Restricted Access
and 6) Interseam Access.
Up to three (3) coal seam intervals were targeted for a
staged nitrogen-foam stimulation in each of the Peat well A,
B, and C. Due to the distance between the targeted coal
intervals, and not knowing before-hand the tortuosity
restrictions, stress magnitude and levels in each of the zone,

the design team decided to isolate and fracture stimulate each

of the intervals separately to ensure that each horizon received
adequate stimulation. Moreover the design team wanted to
minimize the drill out time and complete the wells in a short
period of time to avoid fluid loss into the coal seams/fracpacks
for better production enhancement.
Zone isolation of the the coal seam intervals X1, X2, and
X3 in each of the Peat Wells was achieved through the use of
the newly developed composite epoxy-glass fracture plugs12
since the wells were already cased and cemented before the
fracture stimulation program was initiated. The fracture plug is
made of an easily drillable, lightweight composite material
containing no metals allowing staged zonal treatment with
flowback capabilities after the fracture stimulation job.
The new composite plug in combination with nitrogenfoam stimulation improves completion efficiency and greatly
reduces the potential for downhole tool problems, including
wellbore debris in addition to the reduced drilling time and
difficulties of drilling or retrieving tools that may be
experienced with the use of cast iron plugs. Guoynes et al12
presented a summary of more than 100 wells that were
completed using the composite plugs.
After the zones were treated, the well was flowed back,
allowing closure of the fractures and enhancing wellbore
clean-up.
In few instances, sand plugs were used instead of the
fracture plugs in the case of proppant left in the hole due to
under-displacment of the fracturing fluid covering the planned
plug casing seat.
After the last coal seam zone was fractured, a composite
bridge plug13 was run to isloate the wellbore. This reduced rig
standby time, allowing several wells to be treated before
mobilisation of the workover rig. The workover rig was then
moved to drill-out the plugs, clean-out the hole and run
completion.
The same bit was used to drill-out all the plugs in each of
the well without any operational problems or safety concerns.
This approach has resulted in a rig time saving of 4 hours per
well, and has allowed the Operator to achieve wellstream
production 27 days sooner than with either the use of cast iron
plugs, or the cavity completion approach.
Fracture Fluid Selection
In coal reservoirs, the interaction of the coal with stimulation
fluids is a critical design factor which is often underemphasized. Bowen basin coals10 in general, exhibit a unique
set of microlithotype, tectonic, cleat and mineralization
characteristics which require specific design consideration. A
well-engineered stimulation treatment requires the chemical
optimization of the fracture fluid based on coal characteristics
and settings.
Given the location of the gas saturated target coal intervals
in the gas cap of the subject Peat wells, procedures were
planned to minimize the introduction of liquids into the coal
cleats. This objective could be accomplished by the use of a
nitrogen foamed fracture fluid.

M. BADRI, D. DARE, J. RODDA, G. THIESFIELD, M. BLAUCH

Nitrogen foam with minimal surfactant loading and gel

content could achieve the required foam rheology under
downhole treating conditions. Because of the high free gas
content of the these coals, the higher gas content of a nitrogen
foam treatment fluid could help minimize potential
detrimental aqueous fluid saturation and relative permeability
effects in addition to enhancing methane desorption. An
additional incentive for a foamed system resulted from the
fluid efficiency afforded by a foam fluid. The high efficiency
fluid was strongly recommended based on the estimated
moderate permeability coupled with the pressure dependent
leak-off of the coal intervals considered for stimulation. The
lower leak-off of the nitrogen foam fluid helped ensure that
the minimum fluid requirement needed to create the fracture
geometry to improve the gas production.
Treated water with a base salt concentration of 2%
potassium chloride (KCl) was used to minimize clay
dispersion related to ionic depletion. The 2% KCl treated
water was used to determine injection pressures, and stress
magnitude, as well as estimate the tortuosity effects through
the use of Stepdown Rate Tests23 (SDRT). This fluid was also
used to carry the proppant during the sand slug stage3,5 which
preceded the main fracture treatments.
The pH of the pumped fluids was buffered to the range of
the 4 to 5 to reduce precipitation of potential carbonate scales
and to assist in gel clean-up10.
To minimize fluid retention, and contact with the coal over
time, well clean up of all the treated intervals was conducted at
night time following the treatment under controlled flow-back
until the pressure was dissipated prior to running the
composite bridge plug to isolate each well.
Near Wellbore Tortuosity and Far Field Multiple
fractures
The creation of multiple fractures in coal seams following
hydraulic fracture treatments has been documented by several
authors through laboratory and mineback experiments of
hydraulic fracture jobs of different types and sizes in both
Australia15,16 and the USA17.
As observed by Jeffrey et al15 through mineback of small
scale experiments at the German Creek Mine, multiple
fractures with horizontal and vertical components, as well as
orthogonal, asymmetrical and sub-parallel far field fractures
are created. It was also observed16 that fractures can be
affected by pre-existing joints and cleat fractures in the coal.
Tortuosity is described as the complex and the restrictive
path through which fluid must travel from the wellbore to the
main body of the fracture(s). The path is made complex by a
combination of turning and multiple fractures. The complex
branched geometries result in reduced width fractures which
give rise to high net fracture pressures, and an increased risk
of premature screen-out or short propped fracture if the job
is pumped to completion. A conceptual model depicting the
near wellbore restrictions and modelling of mutiple fractures is
shown in Fig. 2.

SPE 64493

To minimise the effects of near wellbore tortuosity, several

approaches have being attempted by different parties3,4,5,7,8,9.
The proposed techniques ranged from the use of high energy
stimulation8 to cutting slots7 in the coal in the direction
perpendicular to the horizontal minimum stress to initiate the
fracture in the preferred propogation plane. The creation of
slots in the casing opposite the coal interval is done using jet
nozzles in combination with a compass. Cutting slots in the
casing has worked well in some of the early wells located in
the northern part of the Bowen Basin. However due to the cost
associated with this technique, the design team decided to look
at other approaches instead.
A second approach was through the use of perforation
techniques as described by Stadulis9 for a pre-completion
consideration in which multiple fractures are anticipated.
However, due to a lack of information regarding the stress
direction and existence of weak fracture planes such as natural
fractures/joints, the design team decided to pursue a cheaper
and less complicated means of reducing the near wellbore
tortuosity such as using gel4,5 or sand slugs3,5. Gel slugs were
not considered due to the possible reduction in permeability
caused by sorption induced swelling of the coal matrix when
in contact with gelled fluid in addition to gel plugging of
cleats6.
Though sand slugs were not always successful in reducing
the tortuosity effects as discussed for the typical Peat wells
treated in this paper, they were deemed to be the most
appropriate approach due to the cost and operational ease of
implementation.
Consequently all the main treatments were preceded by
pumping sand slugs for the purpose of minimizing the effects
of near wellbore tortuosity. This was not only to avoid
premature screenout and carry the fracture treatment to
completion but also to create deeply penetrating fractures that
are required for a proper production enhancement given the
moderate to low permeability of the targeted coals intervals in
the subject wells.
The effect of multiple fractures was minimized11 by 1)
reducing the perforated length, 2) use of high rate high
injection rates, 3) high fluid viscosity such as nitrogen foams,
4) implementation of the sand slugs, or minimizing the
number of perforations.
Pre-Fracture Diagnostic Tests
Pre-fracture diagnostic tests involve the performance of
small size Injection/Breakdown, Step-Down Rate Test
(SDRT) and minifrac tests as well as the pumping of sand or
feeler slugs for the purpose of acquiring data to use in a 3D
simulator to evaluate the fracture propagation model, and to
estimate the fracture half-length and conductivity.
The pre-fracture test designs were based on past
experience in stimulating wells in the area. No mini-frac tests
were planned for the proposed wells unless pre-fracture
diagnostic tests dictates a modified approach to the one
applied in offset wells. To ensure that the proposed treatments
would behave as predicted, or close to the ones from offset

SPE 64493

KEYS TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

IN AN EMERGING COALBED METHANE PROSPECT

wells, diagnostic tests such as Injection/Breakdown, StepDown Rate Tests and the pumping of sand slugs were carried
out on the first wells to estimate the stress level, the leak-off
mechanism and parameters and to identify if any near
wellbore restrictions existed such as friction due to perforation
and tortuosity and to quantify these effects.
The G-function derivative approach following a diagnostic
injection test as proposed by Barree and Mukherjee18 was used
to identify the leak-off type and estimate the closure pressure
for each of the treated coal intervals. The data from the small
Injection/Breakdown tests was used for this purpose since
subsequent injections of fluids into the coal at times resulted in
an increase of the closure pressure. These effects are caused
by changes in the fracture geometry in addition to stress
dependent leak-off, the propagation of multiple fractures as
larger fluid volumes are pumped into the coal and the
possibility of creating a stress induced damage27 thus reducing
the permeability of the coal around the fracture plane.
Pressure dependent leak-off behavior was common to most
of the coal seam intervals as shown in Fig. 3, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23,
and 26. Pressure dependent leak-off19 is indicated by the large
hump in the superposition derivative (Gdp/dG) that lies
above a line through the normal leak-off data prior to
hydraulic fracture closure. Pressure dependent leak-off is a
result of cleats (fractures/fissures) that were dilated by the
injection test. As the pressure declines during the fall-off, the
fractures/fissures constrict until closure at the fissure opening
pressure.
However the G-function plot for Peat A well seam X2
(Fig. 6) indicated a fracture height recession. This leak-off
mechanism occurs19 when the fracture grows into high stress
relatively impermeable layer(s) adjacent to the permeable
zone. During the shut-in, the fracture begins to close in the
impermeable layer(s) first followed by the permeable interval.
The analysis of the injection tests shows that the ISIP vary
from 2322 psi for Well Peat B seam X3 (Fig. 20) to 837 psi
for well Peat A seam X3 (Fig. 9) or a fracture gradient of 1.45
psi/ft to 0.87 psi/ft and fracture closure pressure (Pc) ranging
from 1436 psi to 511 psi or a stress gradient of 1.07 psi/ft to
0.66 psi/ft for the same wells and coal intervals respectively.
Analysis of the Step-Down Rate tests carried out in Well
Peat B seam X1 and X2 (Fig. 13, 17) indicate that the friction
pressure contribution due to perforation and tortuosity was
moderate with a total friction of 402 psi and 389 psi
respectively with a 50-50 contribution form each.
The sand slugs though not a cure for all was pumped at a
concentration of 1 ppg for all the treated intervals and showed
that it can help reduce the friction pressure contribution due to
tortuosity (Fig. 7 and 21) in some cases and in others no
noticeable difference was indicated (Fig. 4, 10). However this
does not mean that higher sand concentration if used during
the sand slug stage would not have worked and since the
friction due to tortosity in most cases was low to moderate no
attempt was made to pump a second sand slug with an
increased sand concentration. The second goal of the sand slug

was also to help fluid diversion into most perforations in a

long perforated interval.
No mini-fracture tests were carried out in order to perform
the maximum number of fracture treatments to save on the
service delivery time and cost of the jobs. The results of the
pre-fracture diagnostic tests using in house interpretation
software programs along with feedback from actual treatments
provided a basis for the use of a 3D fracture simulator20 to
infer fracture growth behavior and estimate fracture
dimensions. However due to the complex process involved
when hydraulically fracturing coal seams, we relied heavily on
engineering judgement and local experience in the area in
either modifying the pumping schedule on the fly or carrying
the jobs to completion for the few cases that deviated from the
norm.
Net Pressure Analysis and Methodology
The high net fracture pressure in coal seams is caused by the
development of complex multiple fractures3,11, tip effects26,
near-wellbore tortuosity3, pressure dependent leakoff18, and
the perforation density and phasing9,11 which may act as
fracture initiation sites when the difference between the
horizontal principal stresses is small.
The consequence of these affects11 is the risk of premature
screen out, the creation of reduce fracture length, and high
proppant conductivity near the wellbore if the job is pumped
to completion.
Due the coal being a soft medium in addition to the
existence of weaknesses such as cleats and joints, and to
model its nonlinear behavior, a 3D fracture simulator20 was
used to infer the fracture propagation behavior and estimate
the created fracture half-length and conductivity. The fracture
parameters are then converted into an equivalent skin factor
that is used as one of the input parameters in a reservoir
simulator for production forecast and well spacing purposes.
The methodology that was followed in the analysis of the
net pressures is discussed next.
Following the analysis of the pre-fracture diagnostic tests
(Figs. 3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23 and 26), the stress results are used
in a 3D fracture simulator to history match the net pressures of
these tests. The total friction exponent, the perforation and
near-wellbore friction multipliers are estimated using the Step
Down Rate Test23. Modeling of the net pressures is done by
incorporating the results of the step-down rate test and varying
the values of the stresses of the bounding layers, and the leakoff coefficient(s) till the actual net pressures (Observed Net)
are close to the modeled ones (Model Net). The pressure
history matching focuses on the fall-off period since the
difference between the net pressures (observed versus
modeled) for the injection phase is due to friction from
tubulars, perforations, tortuosity, multiple fractures or a
combination of all these effects.
The parameters derived from the simulation of the prefracture data such as , friction parameters, stresses and leak-off
coefficient are then used to history match the main fracture
treatment pressures by using the rheological properties of the

M. BADRI, D. DARE, J. RODDA, G. THIESFIELD, M. BLAUCH

nitrogen foam frac fluid and by varying the number and timing
of the of multiple fractures till the observed net is close to the
modeled one (Fig. 5, 8, 11, 15, 19, 22, 25, 28, and 30).
Modeling of the net pressure using single-planar fractures
resulted in lower net pressures than observed and a fracture
half-length that is 3 to 4 times the one estimated from the post
fracture production tests. We have also tried to model the high
net pressure increase for the few cases treated in this paper by
using high fracture modulus to account for fracture tip
effects. This has resulted in very high fracture widths that
were inconsistent with the few cases where screenout (Fig.
19) occurred. Consequently we resorted to the use of multiple
fractures to model the high net pressure.
This approach was supported by the evidence of the creation
of multiple fractures through mine back experiments 15,16,17 and
the authors experience in the area where substantial decrease
in treating pressures of up to 1100 psi following the first
stages of the sand laden fluid past a critical sand
concentration (Fig. 15). This reduction in treating pressures is
the result of the screening out secondary wings of the
created multiple fractures thus leading to a less complicated
geometry or tortuous pathway and the pumping of the rest of
the fluid into the main branch. Another possible cause of the
decrease in treating pressures as discussed by Harris &
Pippen25 is the erosion of perforation tunnels with time caused
by the high pumping rates of the nitrogen foam fluid and sand.
The effects of perforation erosion may contribute to a certain
degree to the decrease in the net pressures, but we believe that
shutting off secondary fractures is a more possible cause.
More importantly the results of the post-fracture production
tests suggest that the resulting fracture(s) following a
treatment will be shorter and wider. The net pressure increase
may be the due to the existence of multiple fractures and tip
effects to a certain extent since these appear to be present in
almost all reservoirs. The results of the net pressure analysis
are summarized in Table 3.
Post-treatment Production Tests
An extended post-fracture production and pressure buildup
survey was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the
stimulation treatments in enhancing the production of the
selected wells and to formulate a strategy for the completion
of future wells in order to maximize production and or reduce
cost.
Production Logs were run on Peat Wells A, B, and C to
evaluate the flow contribution from the coal seams that were
hydraulically fractured in each of the wells. The gas flow,
water rate and surface pressures were monitored using a
surface separator. Downhole gauges were run to monitor flow
and build-up pressures which in combination with the flow
rates were used in well tests interpretations to estimate the
reservoir properties.
The lack of stabilization of the pressure derivative made
the well test interpretation difficult. This ambiguity would
have been eliminated if pre-fracture tests were conducted
where the effective permeability to gas estimates from the pre-

SPE 64493

fracture tests would have been used to estimate the effective

fracture conductivity and half-length from the post-fracture
data.
The well test interpretation using coal gas well test
technology21 was conducted to estimate the reservoir
properties. The analysis and simulation methodology resulted
in an estimate of the parameters listed in Table 1.
The log-log and Horner match of the buildup period for
Peat Well A, B, C are shown in (Fig. 31 - 36). Results of the
test interpretation as reported in Table 1 show a higly negative
skin, indicating the creation of very efficient fractures and that
the three wells were successfully stimulated.
Conclusion
The use of composite plugs resulted in a safe, more efficient
and cost effective way to carry out staged nitrogen foam
treatments and complete and produce the wells in record time.
Up to two foam fracture treatments were carried out per day
despite the limited nitrogen supply through the use of this
stimulation approach thus minimizing the service delivery and
workover time, and hence lowering the cost of each well
completion.
Past experience in the Peat area coupled with the proper
fracturing fluids selection, the use of real time fracture
analysis and process improvement led to a very successful
stimulation campaign in achieving good gas production rates
at a reduced cost. Analysis of the pre-fracture
injection/breakdown tests using the G-function derivative
approach helped identify the leakoff mechanism and estimate
the closure pressure of each coal interval. The net pressure
history match of the treatment data is achieved through the use
of mutiple fractures in a 3D fracture simulator for most cases
based on evidence from mineback experiments though tip
effects may contribute to the increased net pressures to a
certain extent.
The decrease in treating pressures past a critical sand
concentration when pumping sand laden fluids is believed to
be due to screenout of secondary fracture branches and to
certain extent caused by the erosion of perforation tunnels
with time.
More importantly this approach has resulted in a technique
that more than competes with the cavity completion that was
carried out on earlier wells in this field either in terms of
production enhancement or completion cost.
The high rate nitrogen foam fractures also resulted in the
successful creation of efficient propped fractures that gave
rise to the excellent production for the different wells treated.
Moreover the success of the stimulation treatments was
confirmed by the post-fracture production tests carried out on
the selected Peat wells that showed a high negative skin.
The high rate nitrogen foam fracturing of the Peat Wells
resulted in methane production rates of up to 5 MMscfd.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the respective management of
Halliburton and Oil Company of Australia, for the opportunity

SPE 64493

KEYS TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

IN AN EMERGING COALBED METHANE PROSPECT

to present this work. Special thanks are due to Ashley Edgar

for his contribution to the discussion on Peat coal geology. We
would like to acknowledge the efforts of all the OCA and
Halliburton personnel who participated in this project and
contributed to the success of the different campaigns and made
it fun to work with.
References
1.

Dare, D.L., Edgar A.V. and O'Neill, P.J.: An integrated

Appraisal Strategy for the Peat Coal Seam Methane Resource,
Abstract, presented at the 1998 International Conference on
Coal Seam Gas and Oil, Brisbane, Australia March 23-24.
2. Edgar A. V. Private Communication, 18 May 2000.
3. Cleary, M.P., Johnson, D.E. Kogsboll, H.H., Perry, K. F., de
Pater, C. J., Stachel, A.,Schmidt, H., and Tambimi, M.: Field
Implementation of Proppant Slugs to avoid Premature Screenout
of Hydraulic Fractures with Adequate Proppant Concentration,
SPE paper 25892 presented at the 1993 Rocky Mountain
Regional Meeting and Low-Permeability Reservoir Symposium,
26-28 April.
4. Aud, W.W., Wright, T.B., Cipolla, C.L., and Harkrider, J.D.:
The effect of Viscosity on Near-Wellbore Tortuosity and
Premature Screenouts, paper SPE 28492 presented at the 1994
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 25-28 September.
5. Kilstrom, K., Gijtenbeek, K.V., and Palmer, I.: Minimizing
Multiple fractures in Coalbed Methane Fracturing operations,
paper SPE 38859 presented at the 1997 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 5-8 October.
6. Puri, R., King, G. E., and Palmer, I. D.:Damage to Coal
Permeability During Hydraulic Fracturing, Paper SPE 21813
presented at the 1991 Joint Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting
and Low Permeability Syposium, Denver, CO, April 15-17.
7. Surjaatmadja, J.B., Abbas, H.H., and
Brumley, J.L.:
Elimination of Near-Wellbore Tortuosities by Means of
hydrojetting, SPE 28761, Presented at the 1994 Asia Pacific
Oil & Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, Nov. 7-10.
8. Snider, P.M., Hall, F.R., and Whisonant, R.J.: Experiences
with High Energy Stimulations for Enhancing Near-Wellbore
Conductivity, paper SPE 35321 presented at the 1996 SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico,
Villahermosa, Mexico, 5-7 March.
9. Stadulis, J. M.: Development of a Completion Design to
Control Screenouts Caused by Mutiple Near-Wellbore
Fractures, paper SPE 30503 presented at the 1995 Rocky
Mountain
Regional/Low-Permeability Symposium
and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, Mar. 19-22.
10. Blauch M. Private Communication, May 1998.
11. Lehman, L.V. and Brumley, J.L.: Ethiology of Multiple
Multiple Fractures, SPE paper 37406, presented at the 1997
SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
March 9-11.
12. Guoynes, J., Kozera, G., Waddell, M., Toothman, R., Albert, R.,
Franklin, K.: Non-metallic Frac Plug in Coalbed Applications,
SPE paper 51053, Presented at the 1998 Eastern Regional
Meeting, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, Nov. 8-11.

13. Savage, R. and Fowler, H.: Taking New Materials Downhole

The Composite Bridge Plug, paper presented at the 6th Annual
International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology
Multilaterals, Underbalanced Drilling and Emerging
Technology Conference, PNEC, Houston, TX, Oct. 24-26, 1994.
14. Coalbed Methane Technology, Halliburton Energy Services,
Inc., (1991) 12.
15. Jeffrey, R.G., Enever, J. R., Phillips, R., Moelle, D., and
Davidson, S.: Hydraulic Fracturing experiments in Vertical
Boreholes in the German Creek Coal Seam, paper presented at
the 1992 Coalbed Methane Symposium, Townsville, QLD 1921 November.
16. Jeffrey, R.G., Weber, C.R., Vlahovic, W., and Doyle, R.P.:
Propped Fracture Geometry of Three Hydraulic Fractures in
Sydney Basin Coal Seams, paper SPE 50061 presented at the
1998 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Perth, Australia,
Nov. 7-10.
17. Diamond, W.P. and Oyler, D.C.: Effects of Stimulation
Treatments on Coalbeds and Surrounding Strata-Evidence From
Underground Observations, Bureau of Mines RI 9083, 1987.
18. Barree, R.D. and Mukherjee, H.: Determination of Pressure
Dependent Leakoff and Its Effect on Fracture Geometry, paper
SPE 36424 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, Oct. 6-9.
19. Craig, D.P, Eberhard, M. J., and Barree, R. D.: Adapting High
Permeability Leakoff Analysis to Low Permeability Sands for
Estimating Reservoir Engineering, paper SPE 60291 presented
at the 2000 Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting/Low
Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver, CO. 12-15 March.
20. FracproPT Version 9.0 Users Manual, Pinnacle Technologies,
Inc, 1998
21. Mavor, M. J.: Peat Wells - Post-Fracture Well Test
Interpretation Internal Report prepared for Oil Company of
Australia, 7 September 1999.
22. Weijers, L., Cipolla, C. L., Byrd, A. C., and Kunzi, R.:
Implementation of Real-Data Fracture Analysis Methodology
Improves Treatment Success, GasTIPS 45, a GRI publication,
Spring 1997.
23. Wright, C. A.: On-Site, Stepdown Test Analysis Diagnoses
Problems and Improves Fracture Treatment Success, Petroleum
Engineer International, January 1997, p. 51-63.
24. Harris, P. C., Klebenow, D. E., and Kundert, D. P.: Constant
Internal Phase Improves Stimulation Results, SPE paper 17532
presented at 1988 Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper,
WY, May 11-13.
25. Harris, P. C., and Pippin, P. M.: High Rate Foam Fracturing:
Fluid Friction and Perforation Erosion, SPE Production &
Facilities Journal, February 2000.
26. Jeffrey, R.G.: The combined Effect of Fluid Lag and Fracture
Toughness on Hydraulic Fracture Propagation, SPE paper
18957 presented at the 1989 Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting/Low-Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver, CO.
27. Palmer, I.D.: Induced Stresses Due to propped Hydraulic
Fracture in Coalbed Methane Wells, paper 25861 presented at
the 1993 SPE Rocky Mountain/Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 12-12 April.

M. BADRI, D. DARE, J. RODDA, G. THIESFIELD, M. BLAUCH

Table 1. Well Test Analysis Results

Table 2. Treatment Data Summary Peat Well B

Table 3. Net Pressure Treatment Analysis Results

SPE 64493

SPE 64493

KEYS TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

IN AN EMERGING COALBED METHANE PROSPECT

Fig.1 Map of the Peat Field indicating the gas cap, QLD, Australia

10

M. BADRI, D. DARE, J. RODDA, G. THIESFIELD, M. BLAUCH

SPE 64493

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

10.00
2400
1500

BH Inject Rate
Observed Net (psi)

40.00
1500

8.00
1920
1200

32.00
1200

6.00
1440
900

24.00
900

4.00
960
600

16.00
600

2.00
480
300

8.00
300

0.00
0
0

24.90

37.50

50.10

Time (mins)

62.70

75.30

87.90

0.00
0

Fig. 5 Peat A, X1 : 70% Nitrogen Foam Fracture Stimulation

Fig. 2 Modeling of multiple hydraulic fracture
growth using equivalent fractures

Fig. 3 Peat A, X1 : G-Function plot indicating

pressure dependent leakoff

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

40.00
2400
2000

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Observed Net (psi)

Fig. 6 Peat A, X2 : G-Function plot indicating

Height Recession during Shut-In

4.000
2000

32.00
1920
1600

3.200
1600

24.00
1440
1200

2.400
1200

16.00
960
800

1.600
800

8.00
480
400

0.800
400

0.00
0
0

36.90

42.90

48.90

Time (mins)

54.90

60.90

66.90

0.000
0

Fig. 4 Peat A, X1 : Injectivity and Sand Slug diagnostic testing

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

5.000
2000
1200

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

40.00
1200

4.000
1600
960

32.00
960

3.000
1200
720

24.00
720

2.000
800
480

16.00
480

1.000
400
240

8.00
240

0.000
0
0

11.90

17.90

23.90

Time (mins)

29.90

35.90

41.90

0.00
0

Fig.7 Peat A, X2 : Injectivity and Sand Slug diagnostic testing

KEYS TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

IN AN EMERGING COALBED METHANE PROSPECT

SPE 64493

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

4.000
6000
1500

BH Inject Rate
Observed Net (psi)

3.200
4800
1200

40.00
1200

2.400
3600
900

30.00
900

1.600
2400
600

20.00
600

0.800
1200
300

10.00
300

0.000
0
0

2.90

16.30

29.70

Time (mins)

43.10

56.50

69.90

Proppant Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

14.00
6000
3000

50.00
1500

40.00
2400

8.40
3600
1800

30.00
1800

5.60
2400
1200

20.00
1200

2.80
1200
600

10.00
600

0.00

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

40.00
1500

3.200
1760
1200

32.00
1200

2.400
1320
900

24.00
900

1.600
880
600

16.00
600

0.800
440
300

8.00
300

0.000
0
0

0.00
0

23.30

28.70

Time (mins)

34.10

10.76

Time (mins)

16.14

39.50

Fig. 10 Peat A, X3 : Sand Slug diagnostic testing

44.90

Est. Perf Friction (psi)

Observed Fric B=0.98 (psi)

800.0
500.0

21.52

26.90

Est. NWB Friction (psi)

0.00
0

800.0

640.0
400.0

640.0

480.0
300.0

480.0

320.0
200.0

320.0

160.0
100.0

160.0

0.0
0.0

17.90

5.38

Fig. 12 Peat B, X1 : G-Function plot indicating

pressure dependent leakoff

Fig. 9 Peat A, X3 : G-Function plot indicating

pressure dependent leakoff

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

50.00
3000

Fig. 11 Peat A, X3 : 2% KCl Water Fracture Stimulation

Fig. 8 Peat A, X2 : 70% Nitrogen Foam Fracture Stimulation

4.000
2200
1500

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

11.20
4800
2400

0.00
0
0

0.00
0

11

0.00

6.00

12.00

Pumping Rate (bpm)

18.00

24.00

30.00

0.0

Fig. 13 Peat B, X1 : Step Down Analysis indicating NWB and

Perforation excess pressure contributions

12

M. BADRI, D. DARE, J. RODDA, G. THIESFIELD, M. BLAUCH

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

50.00
3500
3000

Proppant Conc (ppg)

Observed Net (psi)

40.00
2800
2400

0.800
2400

30.00
2100
1800

0.600
1800

20.00
1400
1200

0.400
1200

10.00
700
600

0.200
600

Est. Perf Friction (psi)

Observed Fric B=0.83 (psi)

500.0
500.0

1.000
3000

0.00

9.38

18.76

28.14

37.52

46.90

Est. NWB Friction (psi)

500.0

400.0
400.0

400.0

300.0
300.0

300.0

200.0
200.0

200.0

100.0
100.0

100.0

0.0
0.0

0.00
0
0

SPE 64493

0.00

5.00

0.000
0

10.00

Pumping Rate (bpm)

15.00

20.00

25.00

0.0

Time (mins)

Fig. 17 Peat B, X2 : Step Down Analysis indicating NWB and

Perforation excess pressure contributions

Fig. 14 Peat B, X1: Injectivity, Step Down

diagnostic testing

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

14.00
5000
2000

BH Inject Rate
Observed Net (psi)

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

Proppant Conc (ppg)

Observed Net (psi)

35.00
2000

50.00
3700
3000

11.20
4000
1600

28.00
1600

40.00
2960
2400

0.800
2400

8.40
3000
1200

21.00
1200

30.00
2220
1800

0.600
1800

5.60
2000
800

14.00
800

20.00
1480
1200

0.400
1200

2.80
1000
400

7.00
400

10.00
740
600

0.200
600

0.00
0

0.00
0
0

0.00
0
0

0.00

14.98

29.96

Time (mins)

44.94

59.92

74.90

Fig. 15 Peat B, X1: 70% Nitrogen Foam Fracture Stimulation

0.0

44.0

Time (mins)

65.9

87.9

109.9

0.000
0

Fig. 18 Peat B, X2 : Injectivity, Step Down Test,Sand Slug

diagnostic testing

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

10.00
7000
4000

BH Inject Rate
Observed Net (psi)

50.00
4000

8.00
5599
3200

40.00
3200

6.00
4198
2400

30.00
2400

4.00
2798
1600

20.00
1600

2.00
1397
800

10.00
800

0.00
-4
0

Fig. 16 Peat B, X2 : G-Function plot indicating

pressure dependent leakoff

22.0

1.000
3000

0.00

11.98

23.96

Time (mins)

35.94

47.92

59.90

0.00
0

Fig. 19 Peat B, X2 : 70% Nitrogen Foam Fracture Stimulation

KEYS TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

IN AN EMERGING COALBED METHANE PROSPECT

SPE 64493

Fig. 23 Peat C, X1 : G-Function plot indicating

pressure dependent leakoff

Fig. 20 Peat B, X3 : G-Function plot indicating

pressure dependent leakoff

Proppant Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

4.000
4000
2000

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

40.00
2000

3.200
3200
1600

32.00
1600

2.400
2400
1200

24.00
1200

1.600
1600
800

16.00
800

0.800
800
400

8.00
400

0.000
0
0

41.9

55.5

69.1

Time (mins)

82.7

96.3

109.9

0.00
0

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)

Net Pressure (psi)

2000
1500

15.00
4000
2000

BH Inject Rate
Observed Net (psi)

40.00
2000

12.00
3200
1600

32.00
1600

9.00
2400
1200

24.00
1200

6.00
1600
800

16.00
800

3.00
800
400

8.00
400

0.00
0
0

0.00
0

4.90

19.10

33.30

Time (mins)

47.50

61.70

75.90

Fig. 22 Peat B, X3 : 70% Nitrogen Foam Fracture Stimulation

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

50.00
1500

1600
1200

40.00
1200

1200
900

30.00
900

800
600

20.00
600

400
300

10.00
300

0
0

0.00

4.38

8.76

13.14

17.52

21.90

0.00
0

Time (mins)

Fig. 24 Peat C, X1 : Injectivity diagnostic testing

Fig. 21 Peat B, X3 : Injectivity, Sand Slug diagnostic testing

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

13

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

14.00
4000
3000

BH Inject Rate
Observed Net (psi)

50.00
3000

11.20
3200
2400

40.00
2400

8.40
2400
1800

30.00
1800

5.60
1600
1200

20.00
1200

2.80
800
600

10.00
600

0.00
0
0

0.00

13.98

27.96

41.94

55.92

69.90

0.00
0

Time (mins)

Fig. 25 Peat C, X1 : 70% Nitrogen Foam Fracture Stimulation

14

M. BADRI, D. DARE, J. RODDA, G. THIESFIELD, M. BLAUCH

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)

Net Pressure (psi)

3000
2000

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

40.00
2000

2400
1600

32.00
1600

1800
1200

24.00
1200

1200
800

16.00
800

600
400

8.00
400

0
0

Fig. 26 Peat C, X2 : G-Function plot indicating

pressure dependent leakoff

SPE 64493

0.000

1.580

3.160

Time (mins)

4.740

6.320

7.900

0.00
0

Fig. 29 Peat C, X3 : Injectivity diagnostic testing

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

2400
2000

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Observed Net (psi)

15.00
2000

1920
1600

12.00
1600

1440
1200

9.00
1200

960
800

6.00
800

480
400

3.00
400

0
0

0.00
0

0.00

4.18

8.36

Time (mins)

12.54

16.72

20.90

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

20.00
5700
5000

Slurry Flow Rate (bpm)

Observed Net (psi)

40.00
5000

16.00
4560
4000

32.00
4000

12.00
3420
3000

24.00
3000

8.00
2280
2000

16.00
2000

4.00
1140
1000

8.00
1000

Fig. 27 Peat C, X2 : Injectivity diagnostic testing

0.00
0
0

Btm Prop Conc (ppg)

Surf Press [Csg] (psi)
Net Pressure (psi)

15.00
4000
2500

BH Inject Rate
Observed Net (psi)

40.00
2500

12.00
3200
2000

32.00
2000

9.00
2400
1500

24.00
1500

6.00
1600
1000

16.00
1000

3.00
800
500

8.00
500

0.00
0
0

0.00

14.38

28.76

43.14

57.52

71.90

0.00
0

Time (mins)

Fig. 28 Peat C, X2 : 70% Nitrogen Foam Fracture Stimulation

0.00

10.98

21.96

Time (mins)

32.94

43.92

54.90

0.00
0

Fig. 30 Peat C, X3 : 70% Nitrogen Foam Fracture Stimulation

KEYS TO THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

IN AN EMERGING COALBED METHANE PROSPECT

SPE 64493

15

550

1,000
kh
C
S
xf
Pavg

Test conducted March 1999

71 md-ft
0.5 bbl/psi
-6.6
500 feet
985 psia

Test conducted March 1999

500

Pressure Change and Derivative, psi

100

10

400

kh
C
S
xf
Pavg

71 md-ft
0.5 bbl/psi
-6.6
500 feet
985 psia

350

Observed pressure change

Estimated derivative
Simulated pressure change
Simulated derivative
0
1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

300
Observed Horner data
Simulated Horner data
1.00E+03

Elapsed Time, hours

250
25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Superposition Time, Mscf/D

Fig. 31 Peat A, Log- Log Match Buildup Period

Fig. 32 Peat B: Horner Match Plot Buildup Period

1,000

400
Measured
kh

11 md-ft

-7.0

Simulated

350

300

250

10
200

150
1

Observed pressure change

Observed Devrivative
Simulated pressure change

kh

11 md-ft

-7.0

100

Simulated Derivative
0
1.00E-04

1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

Pseudo Pressure, psia

Pressure Change and Derivative, psi

100

50

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

0
10,000

Elapsed Time, hours

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

Superposition Time, Mscf/D

Fig. 34 Peat C: Log - Log Match Plot Buildup Period

Fig. 33 Peat A, Horner Match Plot Buildup Period

500
1,000

Observed Horner data

kh 1
176 m d-ft
kh 2
1 7.6 m d-ft
R1
200 feet
Skin
-5.8
Com pos ite M ode l

450

Simulated Horner data

400

100

300
10

250
Observed pressure chang e

200

Estim ated derivative

W ellbore s tora ge solution
W ellbore s tora ge solution

150

Com pos ite So lu tion

Com pos ite So lu tion

100

0
1.00E-04

50
1.00E-03

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

Elapsed Tim e, ho urs

0
14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

Superposition Time, Mscf/D

Fig. 35 Peat B: Log-Log Match Plot Buildup Period

Fig. 36 Peat C: Horner Match Plot Buildup Period

Pseudo Pressure, psia

Pressure Change and Derivative, psi

350

Pseudo Pressure, psia

450