SPE 87358

Technology: Catalyst for Coalgas Growth

C. D. Jenkins, SPE, DeGolyer and MacNaughton
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Applied Technology Workshop, Coal Bed
Gas Resources of Utah held in Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A., 2425 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
Over the past 20 years, coalgas has evolved from a mining
nuisance to a robust industry that provides 7% of U.S. gas
production. The key to this growth has been the development
of new technologies to locate, quantify, and produce coalgas.
Over the next 20 years, additional technological advances will
be needed to identify new coalgas reservoirs and maximize
recoveries from existing ones.
Focus areas for these
technologies include reservoir characterization, drilling and
coring, wireline logging and well testing, completion and
stimulation, production and water disposal, and improved
recovery methods. This paper identifies some of the key
technology needs in each of these areas, reviews recent
innovations and showcases emerging technologies.
Introduction
From 1990 to 2000, U.S. gas production from unconventional
resources doubled from about 2 to 4 TCF. The biggest
component of this, not surprisingly, was coalgas. During the
decade of the 1990s, the number of coalgas wells in the U.S.
increased from 3,000 to 14,000, and their associated gas
production increased from 200 BSCF to 1.4 TSCF, which is
about 7% of total domestic gas production. Current forecasts
by the Department of Energy call for annual U.S. gas demand
to increase by 45% from the current value of 22 TCF to as
much 32 TCF by 2015. To help meet this demand,
unconventional gas production is expected to double again,
increasing from 4 to 8 TCF by 2015. Coalgas will undoubtedly
be a large part of this increase, and the Rocky Mountain
States, which contain about 80% of the countrys coalgas, will
be center stage.
Technology is obviously just one of the keys to increasing
coalgas growth. Sustained higher gas prices are needed to
provide companies with the incentives to invest in coalgas
opportunities. Expanded infrastructure is another key that can

keep smaller, isolated coalbed resources from becoming

stranded assets. Improved access to public lands is critical
because these are currently responsible for almost 30% of our
annual U.S. energy production and contain the majority of the
nations undiscovered energy resources. Regulatory policies
and incentives also have a huge impact as shown by the
Section 29 tax credits that helped jump-start the coalgas
industry. But technological advancements are expected to
have the greatest impact on coalgas growth by optimizing well
placement, increasing recoveries with improved stimulation
and EOR, and reducing costs.
Technology Needs
Over the past decade, various public and private organizations
have conducted numerous surveys to help prioritize
technology needs for developing unconventional gas
resources. Most of these surveys ask industry personnel to
identify technical barriers to commercial development and
rank upstream technology areas in order of importance.
These survey results show some interesting trends. The first is
that the need for technology is now being driven by
independent producers who are responsible for more than twothirds of U.S. gas production. These companies typically do
not conduct or fund research and development, but are keenly
interested in new technologies that will impact their bottom
line. These independents need a centralized means to connect
with those who are generating the new technologies.
Another trend is that service companies appear to have greater
confidence in existing technologies than independents. This
points to the need for improved technology transfer and a
better feedback loop from producers to service companies.
Service companies also place a higher value than independents
on technologies that improve data storage and access. This is
not surprising given that the large service companies are
promoting integrated solutions to reservoir management, and
need better ways to coordinate work within their subsidiaries.
A third trend is that operators tend to rank well completion
and stimulation technologies highest, whereas non-operators
give reservoir characterization the highest priority. This
reflects the emphasis that operators place on maximizing
production from existing wells while non-operators are
focusing on the next drilling candidate. These differences in
priority are typical, and sometimes point to a lack of
understanding about the value of different technologies. For
example, one independent survey showed that seismic was

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87358

ranked as the least important technology for coalgas

extraction. This is not surprising given that none of the 29
companies responding to this survey had any geophysicists
working on coalgas reservoirs.
Based on the results of these surveys, discussions with
industry members and a review of emerging technologies, this
paper identifies six technology focus areas for improving
coalgas production, describes some of the key technology
needs in each area, and discusses recent innovations. The six
areas include reservoir characterization, drilling and coring,
wireline logging and well testing, completion and stimulation,
production and water disposal, and improved recovery
methods.
Reservoir Characterization
The most important needs in coalgas reservoir characterization
are to quantify fracture systems and their variability, and to
use this information along with other data to identify the most
prospective reservoir areas. In recent years, borehole imaging
has been effectively used to identify larger wellbore fractures
and discriminate between various lithologies. A growing use
of this imaging technology is to couple it with resistivity,
dipole-sonic and other logs to identify permeable cleats and
fractures and estimate in-situ stresses.1
The areal distribution of fractures and faults is poorly
understood in most coalgas reservoirs because so few 3D
seismic surveys have been run. This is somewhat surprising
because 3D surveys are a powerful tool for identifying
compartmentalization, complex depositional geometries, and
areas of greater fracture intensity. Undrained compartments
appear as bright spots due to decreases in compressional wave
velocity that result from higher fluid pressure and lower
effective stress. Coalbed geometries are easily resolved by the
high acoustic impedance contrast between coal and other
lithologies. Areas of greater fracture intensity are determined
by differences in shear wave velocities, which can also be
used to estimate permeability with petrophysical calibration.
A 3D survey in the Cedar Hill Field of the San Juan Basin
yielded several benefits, including the recognition of higher
productivity trends due to greater fracture density and local
overpressure, and areas of lower in-situ stress where cavity
completions were more likely to be successful. The ability of
this survey to discriminate these higher productivity areas was
subsequently confirmed by drilling.2 Similarly, a 3D survey in
the Sydney Basin of Australia used shear wave anisotropy to
determine the density of open fractures and to correlate this
with production response.3
The construction of geological models for determining
hydrocarbons-in-place, well planning and simulation have
become routine for conventional reservoirs, and so has the use
of seismic data to condition these models. This type of work
is also applicable to coalgas reservoirs as demonstrated by a
recent study in the San Juan Basin that used 3D seismic
attributes to relate coal thickness and subtle structural features
to higher productivity.4

4D seismic, which is a series of 3D seismic surveys separated

by time, has been shown by recent modeling to be useful in
determining which areas have been dewatered in a coalgas
reservoir and tracking the movement of injected fluids such as
CO2.5 The results of this modeling include recommendations
to run 3D surveys before production, after dewatering, and
after CO2 injection begins, each at a cost of about $100,000.
This work is the first step in a pilot project funded by a
consortium of several companies in Alberta to test the
feasibility of injecting CO2 for enhanced methane recovery
and carbon sequestration.
3D and 4D surveys have the potential to make a huge impact
in optimizing well locations, reducing the number of wells,
depleting reservoirs faster, and improving completions. These
surveys will become more critical in the future as producers
try to exploit deeper, lower permeability coalbeds. For these
targets, locating areas of enhanced permeability in faults, folds
and overpressured areas will be critical to achieve commercial
rates.
Expanding the use of 3D seismic in coalgas reservoirs depends
on reducing the cost and demonstrating its value to
independents. This may be easier in the future, given advances
in seismic acquisition and processing that make it easier to
distinguish between brine and gas, reveal thinner coalbeds,
and image discontinuities not previously resolvable. Even if
companies can only afford to obtain a 3D patch in a pilot area,
this will still be very useful for identifying fracture trends,
understanding reservoir mechanisms, and calibrating models
to decision field development.
.
Another emerging aspect of reservoir description technology
is the use of sophisticated models to demonstrate
environmental compliance and good engineering practice. A
recent example is a discrete fracture network model generated
to explain the variable performance of coalgas wells and
determine the likelihood of hydraulic communication between
coal reservoirs and shallow aquifers in the Black Warrior
Basin.6 In these models, fracture parameters are obtained
from outcrops and cores and are combined with statistical
scaling rules to create virtual realizations of fracture networks.
A non-seismic technology used to prospect for coalgas is
surface geochemistry, which was recently applied to identify
more productive areas of the Prairie Dog Creek coalgas field
in the Powder River Basin.7 Higher production in this field is
associated with small conventional traps and coal seams
located above the water table. Hydrocarbon seepage from
these locations creates higher concentrations in overlying
soils, indicating the position of sweet spots.
Drilling and Coring
Key technology needs for coalgas drilling and coring include
increasing penetration rates, draining reservoirs more
efficiently, reducing drilling time and costs, and maximizing
core recovery while minimizing lost gas. New technologies
are evolving to meet these needs, and existing technologies are
being customized for coalgas extraction.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87358

An example of this customization is the use of multi-lateral

wells to produce gas from low gas content coals (100-150 SCF
per ton) in the Appalachian Basin. A 200-acre pilot project is
underway that will drain methane from both mineable and
unmineable coal seams, followed by CO2 injection in the
unmineable seams to increase methane production and
sequester carbon.8 The pilot will contain three wellsone
located at the center of a square pattern and the other two
wells located at opposite corners. Two laterals will be drilled
from each corner well, defining the sides of the square. Four
laterals will then be drilled from the center well, perpendicular
to each side of the square.
A more novel drilling technique, also pioneered in the
Appalachian Basin, is a hybrid vertical and multi-lateral well
technology which produces a pinnate pattern of wells.9 This
technology consists of first drilling a vertical well through a
coalseam to determine its thickness and location. This is
followed by a second well, a horizontal well, drilled
underbalanced through the coalbed, intersecting the vertical
well and continuing for a horizontal distance of about 5000
feet. Laterals are then drilled off the main horizontal shaft to
create a pinnate or tree-branch pattern in plan view. Water
and gas from these laterals reach the surface through the
vertical well. The advantages of this system include faster
dewatering and gas depletion, economic production from
lower permeability coals, and a smaller footprint.
Another technology that has the potential to minimize drilling
footprints is below the reservoir extraction.10 This technique
consists of excavating a subsurface drilling room about 100
feet in diameter and 60 feet high lined with concrete at depths
of up to 3500 feet. The room is serviced by a 10-foot diameter
shaft that extends downward from a seven-acre surface
location. Coiled tubing is run down the shaft to the drill room,
where it is bent and angled outward into the reservoir. Using
this technique, it is possible to drill densely-spaced horizontal
wellbores that are up to 10,000 feet long to drain an area of
8,500 acres. Promoters of this technique are currently seeking
project partners in Wyoming and Alberta for a coalgas
demonstration project.
Air-drilling technologies, used for decades in mining
operations, have been adapted to the coalgas industry and are
now routinely used to achieve faster penetration, improved
hole stability, and reductions in lost circulation. Most
importantly, underbalanced air drilling significantly reduces
formation damage relative to conventional mud systems,
resulting in much greater well rates. These technologies
include air hammers to drill hard rock and straight holes, and
rotary air bits combined with MWD tools for directional
drilling.11
More recent advances in drilling technology include the
development of high-pressure, jet-assisted, coiled tubing
drilling systems.12 These use high-pressure jets to cut slots in
the rock, forming ledges that are removed by mechanical
cutters. The key to this success was the development of
downhole motors that operate reliably at high pressures.
Another innovation is the fabrication of lightweight, flexible

drillpipe from carbon-fiber composites.13 This pipe was field

tested in Oklahoma earlier this year and can drill short-radius
(20-80 feet) horizontal wells with less fatigue damage than
traditional steel pipe, resulting in greater reliability and well
life.
Recent advances have also been made in data transmission
with the development of special couplers embedded in drill
pipe connections.14 These allow data to be sent across the
gaps between each pipe and on through high-speed cable
attached to the inner pipe walls at rates of up to 2 million bits
per second. This technology should greatly increase the
amount of data that can be transmitted up-hole.
There have also been important advances over the last few
years in wireline conveyed drilling and coring. This is of
particular importance to the coalgas industry given the need to
cut and recover cores quickly to minimize lost gas. Coring
companies are now providing their own specialized rigs,
drillpipe, and coring tools for wireline operations.15 These
systems also allow wireline core bits to be converted to drill
bits if an operator wants to drill ahead to a new core point.
Some tools also contain downhole sensors that indicate when a
wireline coring tool jams so it can be pulled to the surface and
reset, reducing the amount of lost coal.
Wireline Logging and Well Testing
Some of the most important technology needs for wireline
logging are the ability to determine gas saturations from logs
and to identify behind-pipe coal reservoirs using old log
suites. For well testing, a key need is the ability to quickly
and inexpensively estimate permeability and other reservoir
parameters.
Geochemical logs are useful for indirectly estimating gas
content and cleating once these logs have been calibrated to
core analyses from the field or basin of interest.16 The first
step is to calibrate the coal and ash mineralogy from the log to
proximate analyses (ash, fixed carbon, volatiles, and moisture)
from the core. In-situ gas contents are then estimated using
gas content and isotherm values from the core adjusted for the
ash values calculated from the log (since gas does not adsorb
to ash minerals). Because coals with lower ash contents are
better cleated and therefore more permeable, the log ash
values can also be used to estimate permeability.
One of the most promising logging tools for direct
measurement of in-situ gas saturation is a miniaturized
spectrometer that is currently being field-tested in the
Rockies.17 This device, which was first developed to explore
for gas hydrates on the seafloor, quantifies methane and light
hydrocarbons using Raman spectrometry. The tool works by
focusing laser light on the formation, causing atoms to
oscillate and scatter light above and below the frequency of
the incident light (Raman scattering). Using the frequency of
the incident light and the measured frequency of the Raman
scattered light, the molecular composition of the sample can
be determined.

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87358

Because coalgas has been a development target for less than

20 years, there are literally thousands of old wells that have
penetrated uphole coal seams without considering their
production potential. In determining whether to perforate and
test these seams, techniques are needed to quantify parameters
such as permeability by analyzing old open-hole logs. One
technique recently developed for this purpose calculates a
volume of movable fluid present in the coals cleat system,
with a larger volume inferring greater permeability.18 The
software primarily uses resistivity logs and mud
characteristics, and can rapidly screen a large number of wells.
To estimate permeability, pressures, closure stress, and other
key reservoir parameters, diagnostic injection tests have been
developed to replace more expensive and time-consuming
pressure build-ups. The tests consist of pumping small
volumes of water prior to the main fracture treatment and
analyzing the subsequent pressure decline with a modified
Mayerhofer method.19 The strength of this technique is its
ability to determine reservoir pressure and permeability before
the fracture closes. These injection tests are especially useful
in multi-seam reservoirs where it is important to know the
properties of each seam to design and execute optimal fracture
treatments.
Completions and Stimulation
Technologies to improve well completions and increase
stimulation response are among the highest priorities of
coalgas operators. They are also among the most difficult
technologies to successfully apply due to large differences in
permeability, pressure, stress conditions, and wellbore stability
from field-to-field and sometimes from well-to-well. To
optimize well performance, a variety of completion and
fracture stimulation designs are being used.
Perforated, non-stimulated completions are successful when
coal permeabilities are high (tens of millidarcies) and
formation damage is slight. Open-hole cavity completions,
which are largely confined to the San Juan Basin fairway,
work when permeabilities are high and stress conditions
promote cavity enlargement. Horizontal or multi-lateral
completions are most successful in fields dominated by a
single coal seam whose properties favor the stability of long
open-hole sections. However, these three completion types
tend to be the exceptions--most coalgas reservoirs produce
from multiple, low-permeability seams that are perforated and
stimulated by hydraulic fracturing.
Current perforating techniques use shot intervals and charge
sizes which are set at the surface, generate crushed zones
around the perforations, and leave debris within them. To
increase flexibility and reduce formation damage, nextgeneration perforating tools are being researched, including
high-powered lasers. A laser system would permit downhole
changes in the number, geometry, size, and depth of holes by
altering the orientation and intensity of the beam, while errant
perforations could be sealed by melting the perforated rock.
Initial testing has shown that lasers can penetrate different
rock types at similar rates without reducing the permeability of
reservoir quality rock.20 However, much work is still needed

to adapt lasers to the wellbore, including development of a

reliable and compact unit, and the means to transport and
power it downhole.
Hydraulic fracturing has evolved rapidly in the last few years
as advances in diagnostic procedures and fracture modeling
have improved designs. One example is the Copper Ridge
Field of Wyoming, which contains multiple coals distributed
over an interval of 100 to 200 feet. The initial gel frac design
for pilot wells in this field was modified using a fracture
model calibrated with data from minifracs and propped
treatments monitored by downhole tiltmeters.21 The data
showed the potential for vertical fracture growth into wet
sands overlying and underlying the coals. The designs were
subsequently modified using smaller treatment sizes, lower
pump rates, reduced proppant size, and pumping two stages
instead of one. The benefits of this fracture modeling not only
improved the placement of hydraulic fractures, but it also
avoided a more costly trial-and-error process to optimize the
frac design.
Downhole tiltmeter data were also used to optimize fracture
stimulation in a series of Ferron coal seams distributed over a
250-foot interval in the Helper Field of Utah. Prior to this
optimization, the standard practice was to perforate and frac
the coals in two stages to ensure that all seams were
adequately stimulated. The tiltmeter data and subsequent
fracture modeling showed that pumping a single stage through
a limited set of perforations (10-foot interval) could provide
adequate frac height while reducing the number of fractures
and fracture complexity. Production results from wells treated
in this manner were as good or slightly better than neighboring
wells fraced in multiple stages, and the single stage treatments
cost $35,000 to $50,000 less per well.22
Another customization technique, applied to 42 Ferron coal
wells in a Utah field, consisted of perforating sandstones along
with the coals prior to pumping the frac job. This is based on
the theory that lower-stress sandstones are much more
efficient in propagating fractures away from the wellbore than
coals. The resulting sandstone fractures will not completely
penetrate the bounding coals, but the fractures will intersect
the coals and create a path for gas to migrate to the borehole.
This technique resulted in production rates that were twice as
high as wells perforated in only the coals.23
Coiled-tubing fracturing is also being used to reduce
stimulation costs and improve response. The technique begins
by perforating all the seams in a given well, followed by
isolating and treating them separately.
The primary
advantages to this system are more accurate job design, better
proppant placement, and faster treating. The technique has
been extensively applied to coals of the Vermejo Park Ranch
in the Raton Basin, where 43 wells were recently stimulated
using about 18 stages per well, compared to 4 per well in
conventional frac jobs. A comparison of coiled-tubing jobs to
the conventional jobs in this field showed that CT fracturing
was about $3000 cheaper per well and stimulated 10 to 22%
more net pay per well.24

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87358

Other innovations in fracture design and execution include

ultra-lightweight proppants, non-aqueous fracturing fluids, and
the mixing of proppant and fluids downhole, among others.
These innovations seek to improve the performance of
coalseam frac jobs, which sometimes result in a positive skin,
and rarely result in effective fracture lengths beyond 200
feet.23 It is estimated that recoverable reserves from coalseams
could triple if coal frac jobs could become as efficient as those
in sandstone reservoirs.
Production and Water Disposal
In terms of coalgas well production, technologies that would
benefit the industry include those that extend the lives of
producing wells, measure produced fluids more accurately,
and reduce water disposal costs.
Ejectors are one of the technologies that have recently been
used to extend the life of mature coalgas wells. High-pressure
gas, taken from the compressor discharge stream, is directed
through a downhole ejector at a high velocity. This lowers the
pressure in a mixing chamber, drawing-in produced water and
gas. The lift gas and produced fluids are then recompressed
and discharged up the tubing. This system creates less
backpressure than a rod pump, allowing more reservoir gas to
flow up the tubing-casing annulus to the surface. Ejectors
have been successfully installed on 17 wells in the San Juan
Basin where reservoir pressures are very low (as little as 45-60
psi) and small reductions in backpressure have a large impact
on gas rate.25
The coalgas industry could also use a more accurate,
affordable way to measure variable rate, low pressure gas
streams from coalgas wells. Optical flow meters, which
require neither pressure drop nor any restriction in the piping
to measure flow, are being developed for this purpose.26
Estimates indicate that these will be able to measure velocities
ranging from 1 to more than 300 feet per second at any
pressure with an accuracy of better than 0.5%. Testing is
currently underway and a commercial product should be
available in 2004 at a cost of less than $3000 per unit.
The disposal of produced water remains a major economic and
environmental hurdle for most coalgas producers. From an
environmental standpoint, the best option is to use down-hole
gas/water separation and re-injection to eliminate handling
produced water at the surface. This option is viable if a
disposal zone with sufficient permeability-thickness, pore
volume, and hydrologic isolation exists either above or below
the coal seam. This technique has been effectively used to
dispose produced water in about 20 coalgas wells in the
Cherokee Basin.27
Alternatively, the produced water can be lifted to the surface
and treated in several novel ways. One method is to allow the
produced water to freeze, concentrating dissolved solids in a
smaller, more easily disposed volume of liquid. Another is to
use reverse osmosis, which collects dissolved solids from
produced water that is passed through a semi-permeable
membrane. A third method, called phytoremediation, is to
flow produced water through a holding pond containing plants

that remediate water by collecting sodium, magnesium, and

other constituents. This water can then be discharged onto
rangeland or used for irrigation. These and other methods are
currently being tested to inexpensively improve the quality of
produced water and reduce the amount that must be reinjected.
Improved Recovery Methods
Gas recoveries from coalseams can be significantly improved
by the injection of carbon dioxide or nitrogen for enhanced
coalbed methane recovery (ECBM). Coal has a preference for
carbon dioxide and will release methane so it can absorb
injected CO2. Nitrogen, on the other hand, reduces the partial
pressure of methane causing it to desorb from the coal. Both
injection processes have been tested over the past decade in
pilot projects. The largest of these are Burlington Resources
Allison pilot and BPs Tiffany Unit pilot which are both
located in the San Juan Basin.
The Allison pilot continuously injected more than 5 BCF of
CO2 in 4 wells from 1995-2001, adding about 1.6 BCF of
additional reserves.28 This was accompanied by a slight
increase in the amount of produced CO2, which rose from 4%
to 6% of the gas stream.29 However, it is not clear how much
of the increase in methane production was actually due to CO2
injection, because compression, re-cavitation of wells and
other improvements were made during the same period. It is
clear though, that injection rates decreased with time from
about 5 MMCFD to 3 MMCFD, presumably because the coal
swells at it absorbs CO2, reducing permeability.
BPs Tiffany Unit pilot produced methane under primary
production for 9 years before injecting nitrogen into 12 wells
beginning in 1998.29 Within 15 months, production increased
from 5 to 29 MMCFD from 34 producers, and total methane
recovery is expected to increase about 50% from 1 to 1.5 BCF
per well. Nitrogen breakthrough occurred quickly in the
project, as expected, peaking at 16% of the produced gas
stream and resulting in higher separation costs.
While the results from these and other pilots are encouraging,
the bottom line is that ECBM is a relatively new technology
and there is limited field data to assess its value. However,
this is rapidly changing as numerous organizations are
planning additional pilots that will couple ECBM with carbon
sequestration. Coal is particularly attractive as a carbon sink
since coals adsorb about three molecules of CO2 for every
molecule of methane they produce. ECBM - CO2 pilot
projects are planned or underway in Canada, Poland, China,
Japan, and the United States.30
Within the U.S., carbon sequestration is the fastest growing
program in the Department of Energys Office of Fossil
Energy budget. For 2004, $62 million has been requested,
which is 40% higher than the funding for 2003. Several of
these projects are CO2 injection pilots in the Appalachian
Basin that will ultimately test whether CO2 from flue gas can
be sequestered. The proximity of these projects to coal-fired
power plants in the Ohio River valley makes this an ideal
location. The Department of Energy has also recently named

www.petroman.ir

SPE 87358

seven partnerships of state agencies, universities, and private

companies that will determine the best approaches for
sequestering greenhouse gases.31 The Southwest Regional
Partnership, which includes Utah, will receive up to $1.6
million over the next two years for this work.
Another improved recovery technology on the horizon is
microbially enhanced gas generation. The process introduces
nutrients into coal beds and organic-rich shales to stimulate
gas generation and increase production.32 Laboratory studies
indicate that a food chain of microbial organisms can operate
together in coals to produce additional gas, remove poreplugging waxes, and enhance permeability. Future field tests
will determine the viability of this technology.
Summary
It is clear that technology plays a vital role in identifying and
producing coalgas reserves. Additional improvements and
innovations will be critical for exploiting future coalgas
opportunities, which will undoubtedly be more difficult to
develop than existing assets. A recent study by the National
Petroleum Council concluded that meeting gas demand by
2015 will require driving research and technology at a rapid
rate and providing sufficient funding. This will be difficult
given ballooning government deficits, tighter corporate
budgets, and shrinking industry R&D staffs.

5.

6.

7.

8.
9.

10.

To be successful in developing new technologies, cooperation

between government, universities and industry to identify and
target spending on the most promising technologies will be
critical. But this is only half the battle. To successfully
implement these technologies, investment incentives,
favorable regulatory policies, and technology transfer
protocols must be in place. Successful development and
implementation of these new technologies will help ensure
that coalgas remains a key part of our nations energy budget,
and that Utah and other Western States attract the investment
needed to develop their coalgas resources.
References
1.

2.

3.

4.

S. Ray, CBM Reservoir Characterization Using Formation

Micro-Imager, Array Induction Resistivity and Dipole
Sonic Tools, Paper presented at the Fifth Annual
Unconventional Gas and Coalbed Methane Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada (October 22-24, 2003).
T. L. Davis, R. D. Benson and E. L. Shuck, Coalbed
Methane Multi-Component 3-D Reservoir Characterization
Study, Cedar Hill Field, San Juan Basin, New Mexico, in
High-Definition Seismic Guidebook, Rocky Mountain
Association of Geologists, 1995, 1-7.
G. J. Beaudoin, T. A. Chaimov, W. W. Haggard, M. C.
Mueller and L. A. Thomsen, The Use of Multi-component
Seismology in CBM Exploration, Paper presented at the
Second International Mining Technology Symposium:
Groundwater Hazard Control/Coal Bed Methane
Development and Application Techniques, Xian, China
(October 15-17, 1996).
I. D. Marroquin and B. S. Hart, Seismic Attribute-Based
Characterization of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs: An
Example from the Fruitland Formation, San Juan Basin,
Paper presented at the American Association of Petroleum

11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

19.

www.petroman.ir

Geologists Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah (May 1114, 2003).
S. E. Richardson, D. C. Lawton and G. F. Margrave,
Seismic Applications in Coalbed Methane Exploration and
Development, Paper presented at the Canadian Society of
Petroleum Geologists and Canadian Society of Exploration
Geophysicists Convention, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (June
2-6, 2003).
G. Jin, J. C. Pashin and J. W. Payton, Application of
Discrete Fracture Network Models to Coalbed Methane
Reservoirs of the Black Warrior Basin, Paper presented at
the 2003 International Coalbed Methane Symposium,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama (May 5-9, 2003).
J. V. Fontana, J. H. Viellenave, A. Jacob and H. TerBest
Jr., Successful High Grading of Coal Bed Methane
Prospects with Soil Gas Geochemistry: A Test of Multiple
Methods over the Prairie Dog Creek Field in the Powder
River Basin, Wyoming, Paper presented at the 2002
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Rocky
Mountain Section Meeting, Laramie, Wyoming (September
8-11, 2002)
P. Roche, Drilling Technique Could Improve Economics
of Marginal Coalbed Methane Prospects, in: Nickles New
Technology Magazine, June 2002.
D. R. Wight, Unconventional Drilling Methods for
Unconventional Reservoirs, Paper presented at the
American Association of Petroleum Geologists MidContinent Section Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma (October 1214, 2003).
M. Smith, Below-the-Reservoir Extraction Touted as
Solution, in: Nickles New Technology Magazine,
November 2002.
S. Eaton, Conquering Foothills Challenges the Air Force,
in: Nickles New Technology Magazine, March 2002.
Advanced High Pressure Coiled Tubing Drilling System,
in: Office of Fossil Energy, United States Department of
Energy, Project Fact Sheet, Project ID: DE-FC2697FT33063.
Carbon Fiber Drill Pipe Performs Flawlessly in First Field
Test, in: Techline, Office of Fossil Energy, United States
Department of Energy, January 9, 2003.
IntelliPipeTM Technology: Wired for Speed and
Durability, in: Techline, Office of Fossil Energy, United
States Department of Energy, June 5, 2003.
P. Roche, Core Competency, in: Nickles New Technology
Magazine, December 2001.
N. Clayton, R. E. Lewis, S. L. Herron and J. A. Grau, Coal
Bed Methane Evaluation Using Advanced Borehole
Geophysical Logs, Paper presented at the Petroleum
Technology Transfer Council and Colorado Geological
Surveys Coalbed Methane Potential of the Denver Basin
Workshop, Denver, Colorado (September 28, 2001).
New Spectrometer Logging Tool, in: Petroleum
Technology Transfer Council, Rocky Mountain Region
Newsletter, 5, No. 3 (Third quarter, 2002) p. 3.
A. T. Rozak, R. M. Bustin, G. W. Strashok, A. Beaton, R.
Richardson, and T. Hunter, Application of LogFAC to
Coalbed Methane Exploration in Western Canada: A Case
History from Ardley Coals near Red Deer, Alberta, SPE
75676, Paper presented at the SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (April 30-May 2,
2002).
M. Ramurthy, D. M. Marjerisson and S. B. Davis,
Diagnostic Fracture Injection Test in Coals to Determine
Pore Pressure and Permeability, Paper presented at the

SPE 87358

20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

2002 Rockies Coalbed Methane Symposium, Denver,

Colorado (June 19, 2002).
R. A. Parker, High-Powered Lasers Hold Promise as
Drilling/Completion Tools, in: Pipeline and Gas Journal,
January, 2001.
M. Mayerhofer, L. Stutz, E. Davis and S. Wolhart,
Optimizing Fracture Stimulation in a New Coalbed
Methane Reservoir in Wyoming Using Treatment Well
Tiltmeters and Integrated Fracture Modeling, SPE 84490,
Paper presented at the SPE Annual Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado (October 5-8, 2003).
H. L. Stutz, D. J. Victor, M. K. Fisher, L. G. Griffin, and L.
Weijers,
Calibrating Coal Bed Methane Fracture
Geometry in the Helper Utah Field Using Treatment Well
Tiltmeters, SPE 77443, Paper presented at the SPE Annual
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas
(September 29-October 2, 2002).
T. N. Olsen, G. Brenize and T. Frenzel, Improvement
Processes for Coalbed Natural Gas Completion and
Stimulation, SPE 84122, Paper presented at the SPE
Annual Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado
(October 5-8, 2003).
E. Burkhalter and W. Salas, Coiled-Tubing Fracturing
Solution for Vermejo Park Ranch, SPE 81739, Paper
presented at the SPE/IcoTA Coiled Tubing Conference,
Houston Texas (April 8-9, 2003).
Ejectors Extend Producing Life of Aging Coalbed
Methane Wells, in: Oil and Gas Journal, July 1, 2002, p.
52.

26. Photon Enters Agreement with Husky for Optical Flow

Meter Development, in: Nickles New Technology
Magazine, Daily News, March 14, 2003.
27. C. Phelps, Down-hole Gas/Water Separation with Reinjection in Coal-Bed Methane Plays, Paper presented at
the SRI Conference on CBM Water Management
Strategies, Durango, Colorado (February).
28. L. Schoeling and M. McGovern, Pilot Test Demonstrates
how CO2 Injection Enhances Coalbed Methane Recovery,
in: World Oil, September, 2000.
29. S. R. Reeves, Geological Sequestration of CO2 in Deep,
Unmineable Coalbeds: An Integrated Research and
Commercial-Scale Field Demonstration Project, SPE
71749, Paper presented at the SPE Annual Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana (September 30
October 3, 2001).
30. S. R. Reeves, Enhanced Coalbed Methane Recovery,
Paper presented at the 1st Canadian CO2 Capture and
Storage Technology Roadmap Workshop, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada (September 18-19, 2003).
31. DOE Names Regional Partners to Explore Best
Approaches for Sequestering Greenhouse Gases, in:
Techline, Office of Fossil Energy, United States
Department of Energy, August 16, 2003.
32. A. R. Scott, A New Energy Resource: Microbially
Enhanced Gas Generations, Paper presented at the
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual
Meeting, Denver, Colorado (June 3-6, 2001).

www.petroman.ir