Geosystem Engineering

ISSN: 1226-9328 (Print) 2166-3394 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tges20

Hydraulic fracturing design for coalbed methane

in Barito Basin, Indonesia

Wiri Heo, Wonsuk Lee & Dae Sung Lee

To cite this article: Wiri Heo, Wonsuk Lee & Dae Sung Lee (2015) Hydraulic fracturing design
for coalbed methane in Barito Basin, Indonesia, Geosystem Engineering, 18:3, 151-162, DOI:
10.1080/12269328.2015.1023468

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12269328.2015.1023468

Published online: 28 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 30

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tges20

Download by: [UQ Library] Date: 19 October 2015, At: 05:59

 Geosystem Engineering, 2015
Vol. 18, No. 3, 151162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12269328.2015.1023468

Hydraulic fracturing design for coalbed methane in Barito Basin, Indonesia

Wiri Heoa, Wonsuk Leeb and Dae Sung Leea*
a
Department of Energy and Mineral Resources Engineering, Dong-A University, Busan, South Korea; bPetroleum and Marine Research
Division, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Daejeon, South Korea
(Received 18 November 2014; accepted 23 February 2015)

The coalbed methane (CBM) reservoir in Barito Basin, Indonesia may be stimulated by hydraulic fracturing to efficiently
recover methane gas from low permeability reservoirs. The permeability of coalbed may be quite diverse, ranging up to a
few thousand mD. If the reservoir permeability is too low (less than a tenth md), hydraulic fracturing could be considered to
improve gas productivity as a stimulation treatment method. In this study, hydraulic fracturing treatment design is conducted
to determine total slurry volume and proper pump rate upon different fracture lengths. To set an optimal treatment schedule,
fracture geometry and fracture efficiency were compared depending on the increase of fracture length and pump rate by
fracturing stages. The proper pump rate was determined to be 40 bpm and resulting from high fracture efficiency.
Furthermore, usage of proppant was determined using definite proper pump rate and slurry volume determined by highest
pump rate in this study. All calculated fracture lengths of treatment with proppant were shorter than the fracture length of
treatment without proppant. Also, fracture widths and heights were larger than treatment without proppant. However, the
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015

fracture efficiency in treatment with proppant was higher than in treatment without proppant. Therefore, proppant would
contribute to improving the fracture efficiency of hydraulic fracture treatment in the CBM reservoir in Barito Basin.
Consequently, the 3D-propped fracture model was designed for the CBM. Developed hydraulic fracturing model would be
useful for the hydraulic treatment of CBM especially in Barito Basin for fracture design and treatment analysis prior to the
actual treatment.
Keywords: coalbed methane; hydraulic fracturing; permeability; Barito Basin

Introduction exploration and development of CBM. In Indonesia, the

Hydraulic fracturing is a common method of stimulating
wells to enhance methane gas recovery from low
permeability reservoirs (Acharya, 1988). This technique
uses highly pressurized fluid which enhances recovery
through creating artificial fractures and permeable travel
paths between reservoir and production wellbore
(Rachmat, Pramana, & Febriana, 2012).
Hydraulic fracturing treatment in coal has developed
significantly over the past few decades (Jeffrey, Wold,
Choi, & Settari, 1997). In general, the permeability of coal
seam may be too low or too high and it ranges between 1
and 1000 md. If its permeability is low (from 1 to 10 md),
hydraulic fracturing could be applied to improve
productivity (Caballero, 2013; Gaurav, Husen, Saada, &
Kumar, 2012; Holditch, 1993; McKee, Bumb, & Koenig,
1989). For coalbed methane (CBM), fracturing treatments
were applied in many basins. In Black Warrior Basin,
USA, the permeability of coalbed is about 0.1 10 md,
whereas the coalbeds permeability is 1 60 md in San
Juan Basin, USA (Ramaswamy, 2007).
CBM resources being developed in Indonesia are
estimated to be approximately 337 453 Tcf (Stevens,
Sani, & Hardjosuwiryo, 2001). Barito Basin in Kalimantan
is considered one of the most promising areas for the
features of CBM are suited for surface access and high
water production. Also, conventional vertical wells can be
most effective due to the coal reservoir geometry
characterized by extremely thick coal seams in Indonesia.
In addition, coal seam permeability would be considerably
low, based on poor cleat development in low-rank coals;
thus, production wells would require hydraulic stimulation
(Stevens & Hadiyanto, 2004).
Before conducting hydraulic fracturing in coal, we
may need a comprehension of (1) geological properties,
physical properties, thickness and depths of the coalbeds
as pay zone and surrounding formation, (2) existence of
natural fracture systems and their orientation in formation
and (3) geomechanical properties, i.e., stress distribution,
in situ stress and stress contrasts between coalbeds and the
surrounding formation. Afterward hydraulic fracturing
should be designed along with considering these factors
(EPA, 2004; Johnson & Woodroof, 1996).
Hydraulic fracturing design includes the selection of
fracturing fluid, proppant, treatment schedule and fracture
model, and determination of fracture geometry such as
fracture height, width and length. Also, it consists of the
evaluation of fracture conductivity and prediction of post-
fracture productivity (Usman, Marino, Soelistijono, &

*Corresponding author. Email: leeds@dau.ac.kr

q 2015 The Korean Society of Mineral and Energy Resources Engineers (KSMER)
 152 W. Heo et al.

September, 2010). In the treatment schedule of fracture

design, the volume of injected fracturing fluid and pump
rate are important parameters. Furthermore, it is essential
to determine whether proppant is used in treatment, as well
as in deciding proppant type, size, injected mass and
concentration in fracture (Hoorn, Heijinen, Gankema, &
Nitters, 2012).
To simulate hydraulic fracturing, geomechanical and
reservoir properties can be accommodated including
reservoir stress condition, Youngs modulus, Poissons
ratio, fracture toughness, permeability, porosity, reservoir
fluid properties, fluid loss coefficient, etc.
The objective of this study is to serve as case study for
the simulation of hydraulic fracturing in Barito Basin. This
study deals with the role of reservoir and geomechanical
properties for the design of hydraulic fracture. In addition,
this study describes not only the decision for proper slurry
volume and pump rate to obtain the desired fracture
geometry, but also the comparison of fracture geometry
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015

between treatment with proppant and without proppant.

The study discusses the optimization of propped 3D
fracture model for CBM in Barito Basin through
production estimation and economic analysis.

Geology
In Indonesia, extensive coal deposits distributed in 11
onshore coal basin and coals are mainly deposited in
Kalimantan. The Barito Basin especially contains gas-
charged coal seams at optimal depth, at around 150 m net
pay thickness over large areas (Nas & Hidartan, 2010;
Stevens & Hadiyanto, 2004).
The Barito Basin in south-east Kalimantan is located
along the south-eastern margin of the Schwaner Shield
(Figure 1) (Kusuma & Darin, 1989). This basin is W E
asymmetric tertiary sedimentary basin and could be
divided into three zones. The basin is represented by the
Meratus Mountains to the east; it is separated from the
Kutei Basin to the north by a flexure related to the Adang
Fault; in the south of Barito Basin, narrow opening exists
towards the Java Sea.
Two distinctly separate regimes led to the structural
development of the Barito Basin. First is an initial
transtensional regime while sinistral shear resulted in the
formation of a series of NW SE trending rifts related to
wrench. In this series, a transpressional regime involves
convergent uplift, which reactivates and inverts old tensile
structures and results in wrenching, faulting and folding
(Satyana & Silitonga, 1994).
The Barito Basin contains a thick Cenozoic sedimen-
tary succession that overlies basement rocks of Palaeocene
and older age (Witts, Hall, Nichols, & Morley, 2012). The
oldest sedimentary rocks of the Barito Basin succession
are assigned to the Tanjung Formation including
conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, lime-
Figure 1. Location of Barito Basin.
stones and coal deposited in a fluvio-tidal coastal plain to
marginal marine setting (Witts, Hall, Morley, &
BouDagher-Fadel, 2011). The Tanjung Formation is
overlain by the Montalat Formation in the north and the
Berai Formation in the south. These are laterally
equivalent in age and were deposited in marginal fluvio-
deltaic to fully marine conditions (Doust & Noble, 2008).
The Warukin Formation overlies these formations and
includes limestones, mudstones, siltstones, sandstones and
lignites deposited in a marginal marine to fluviodeltaic
setting (Satyana, Nugroho, & Surantoko, 1999).
Fracture design
Reservoir properties
There are many different completion technique utilized to
develop CBM reservoir including open-hole under ream,
cavity creation and hydraulic fracturing in vertical or
horizontal well. Properties of reservoir affect the selection
of drilling and completion techniques such as depth,
number and thickness of coal seam, permeability, porosity,
etc. (Caballero, 2013).
 Geosystem Engineering
The net seam thickness influences the decision of
whether to drill a horizontal well or a vertical well
(Ramaswamy, 2007). In Barito Basin, low rank coal
consists of multiple thick seams associated with mudstone
and sandstone (Nas & Hidartan, 2010) and total net pay
thickness is approximately 150 m thick. Consequently,
vertical wells are suitable in Barito Basin due to the given
CBM reservoir geometry (Stevens & Hadiyanto, 2004).
Coal seam permeability has not yet been tested in field
using well testing but it is anticipated that Indonesia coal
seam permeability may be considerably lower at 1 10 md
(Stevens & Hadiyanto, 2004). The optimum permeability
range for coal seam with hydraulic fracturing is 1 10 md
(Holditch, 1993). In addition, Stevens and Hadiyanto
(2004) expect that the connectivity of the cleat system is
poor. Thus, production wells would require hydraulic
stimulation in Barito Basin. The features of CBM
reservoir in Barito Basin and the whole of Indonesia are
listed in Table 1.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015
Geomechanical properties
Geomechanical properties of reservoir are important when
designing a hydraulic fracturing (Rachmat et al., 2012).
The value of in situ stress, Youngs modulus, Poisson
ratio, fracture toughness, leak-off coefficient of fractured
layer and surrounding formation are typically required
input for the fracture design.
In situ stress
The orientation and magnitude of the in situ stresses
determine the direction and geometry of the propagated
fractures (Hopkins, 1997; Warpinski, Schmidt, & North-
rop, 1982). The state of stresses is described by three
principal stresses perpendicular to each other where s1
denotes the maximum principal stress, s2 the intermediate
principal stress and s3 the minimum principal stress
(Resterepo, 2008).
Hydraulic fractures usually propagate perpendicular to
the minimum principal stress (Hubbert & Willis, 1957).
The orientation of the maximum horizontal stress (SHmax)
could be estimated in the World Stress Map. The SHmax
Table 1. Feature of CBM reservoir in Barito Basin, Indonesia.
Features Value
Water production High
Coal seam depth Low
Coal rank Low
Coal seams thickness Thick
Lithology Multilayer coal seam with
claystone and sandstone
Permeability Low
Cleat system Poor
153
near the Barito Basin is oriented towards the SW NE
direction; therefore, the orientation of fracture propagation
would be in the same direction of the SHmax. However, the
magnitude of SHmax does not influence the fracture
propagation or its created dimensions (Hoorn et al., 2012).
In general, the vertical stress (Sv) is the largest
stress and it is calculated from the overburden density
(Acock et al., 2004). As a result of this stress condition,
created fractures would be vertical. The vertical stress
gradient of coal is typically between 0.6 and 0.8 psi/ft
(Bazan, Larkin, Jacot, & Meyer, 2002). The relationship
between the horizontal and vertical in situ stresses is
inferred by assuming that the formations should not
move horizontally and remain perfectly elastic (Howard
& Fast, 1970). Thus, the horizontal strains are zero
(12 13 0). The relationship of principal stresses
could be calculated with the following Equation (Meyer
& Jacot, 2001):
v
s2 s3 s1 ; 1
12v
where v is the value of Poissons ratio and it would
range from 0.2 to 0.4 for coal seam (EPA, 2004).
In three-dimensional (3D) hydraulic fracturing model-
ling, poroelastic effect should be considered due to the
fluid migration in the porous media during fracturing
treatment (Clifton et al., 1991). To account for poroelastic
effects or a change in the pore pressure, an effective stress
concept should be considered (Nur & Byerlee, 1971).
s 0 s 2 ap0 ; 2
where s is the applied stress, p0 is the pore pressure and s 0
is the effective stress governing failure. The poroelastic or
Biots constant, a, accounts for the pore pressure
counteracting some of the stress load and varies from 0
to 1. In coal, Biots constant typically ranges from 0.5 to
1.0 (EPA, 2004). Thus, Equation 3 is derived from
Equations 1 and 2 to explain poroelastic with a term that
accounts for any tectonic forces (st) that are acting on a
formation (Meyer & Jacot, 2001).
v

s2 s3 s1 2 a p 0 ap 0 st : 3
12v
The in situ stress contrast can be estimated by mini-
frac (pre-frac). Also, this method provides the baseline of
fracture design.
Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio
Youngs modulus is defined as the ratio of stress to strain for
uniaxial stress and it is the stiffness of the rock (Rahim,
Al-Qahtani, & Buhidma, 2001). The Youngs modulus can
considerably affect the fracture geometric characteristics and
 154 W. Heo et al.
net pressure in the results of fracture design (Meyer & Jacot,
2001), i.e., low modulus in the coal would result in wider and
shorter fractures when equal treatment volumes are injected
(Bazan et al., 2002). Youngs modulus of coal ranges between
105 and 106 psi (Ayoub, Hinkel, Johnston, & Levine, 1991).
Poissons ratio is the ratio of lateral expansion to
longitudinal contraction of a rock (Rahim et al., 2001) and
it has a minor impact of fracture propagation (Hagel &
Meyer, 1994; Meyer, 1986). However, the concept of rock
brittleness combines both Youngs modulus and Poissons
ratio. It reflects a rocks failure ability under stresses while
Youngs modulus indicates the maintaining ability in
fracture (Rickman, Mullen, Petre, Grieser, & Kundert,
2008). In addition, Poissons ratio for the reservoir rock
and surrounding rock influences the stress profile;
therefore, these factors are essential for fracture model
evaluations (Halliburton, 2007).
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015
Fracture toughness
Fracture toughness is an important factor because it shows a
materials resistance to fracture propagation (Hoorn et al.,
2012). Fracture toughness is defined by fracture stress-
intensity factor. It would be evaluated by the strength of the
stress concentrated at the crack tip in a fracture. Fracture
height leads to fracture toughness in the bounding zones
with stress gradients and contrasts in the formation
(Acharya, 1988; Shlyapobersky, 1985). In a coal seam,
fracture toughness typically varies about 1000 psi m1/2
(MFrac Manual).
Leak-off coefficient
Leak-off coefficient is defined as an average rate of fluid
leak-off over the area of fracture and it is determined from
mini-frac test in field. Leak-off coefficient variations could
significantly affect not only fracture geometries (i.e.,
Figure 2. Schematic of pseudo 3D fracture model.
fracture length and height) but also proppant placement for
fracture model (Bai, Green, & Suarez-Rivera, 2005). The
fluid leak-off rate from a hydraulic fracture influences the
created area of the fracture. For example, the created
fracture area decreases when fluid leak-off rate increases
(Bazan et al., 2002). In addition, the proppant concentration
in the fracture increase when the leak-off is high (Gadde &
Sharma, 2005); therefore, higher leak-off coefficient could
cause poorer proppant placement.
Hydraulic fracture treatment
In this study, the 3D model of hydraulic fracturing for Barito
Basin was designed by using commercial hydraulic fracturing
program, MFrac. It is a comprehensive design and evaluation
simulator containing a variety of options. Also, it is able to
design many different fracture characteristics, including
height, width, length, and width profiles.
Nowadays, most fracture modelling depends on two-
dimensional (2D) models and pseudo 3D (pseudo 3D)
models that give an approximate description of real fracture
geometry. The 2D models assume that fracture height is
equal to the pay thickness. This assumption is effective only
for conventional petroleum reservoirs where there is
sufficient stress contrast in the formation. In the case of
coalbed where there might not be adequate stress contrast,
this assumption does not hold true (Valencia, Chen, Hodge,
& Rahman, 2005). Also, the 2D models assume that fracture
height is constant; therefore, fracture geometry of 2D
models could not be evaluated accurately (Pitakbunkate,
Yang, & Valko, 2011). On the contrary, the pseudo 3D
model is applied for height variation due to differences in
the minimum horizontal stress of each layer (Figure 2). For
this reason, pseudo 3D fracture modelling is used to
describe and reliably approximate the fracture geometry for
coalbed (Valencia et al., 2005). Thus, pseudo 3D model was
the fracture model designed for Barito Basin in this study.
 Geosystem Engineering 155

Fracture opening and propagation are related to the and wis the fracture of width.
governing equation of mass conservation, continuity,
24
momentum, fracture width opening pressure, fracture f ; 6 2 1
propagation criteria and constitutive (Acharya, 1988). Re
Meyer, Cooper, and Nelson (1990) studied the five primary  
Re; 1
mathematical relationships that dictate the opening and f f : 6 2 2
W
propagation of fractures.
Mass conservation equations are used to solve The relation of fracture width and opening pressure in
numerically by elementally making mathematically elasticity condition is formed as in the following equation:
discrete a fracture grid and then integrating it over each

 2 1 2 v
element. The governing mass conservation equation for W x; z; t Gw l; x; z; t H z DPx; 0; t; 7
incompressible slurry in a fracture is: G

t where Gw is a generalized influence function and l is the

qtdt 2 V f t 2 V l t 2 V sp t 0: 4
0
In this equation, qt is the injection rate of one
fracture wing during fluid loss delay time and t means that
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015
characteristic geometric shape factor. H z is a characteristic
half-height and DP is the net fracture pressure
(DP P 2 s).
The fracture propagation criteria are based on the
concept of a stress intensity factor, KI. This affects the

Equation (4-3) is described. Here, V f t is the term of the determination of the direction of fracture propagation in a
fracture volume and V l t is the fluid loss volume without given time. The fracture would propagate while the stress
spurt loss (Equation 4-1). Also, V sp t is the volume loss by intensity factor equals the fracture toughness, KIC, or
spurt (Equation 4-2). critical intensity of the rock (KI KIC).
t A
CA; t
V l t 2 dAdt; 4 2 1
0 0 t 2 t Aat Treatment design
In this study, the treatment design includes the
determination of total slurry volume and proper pump
V sp t 2Sp At; 4 2 2 rate. Also, we conducted a decision on proppant use and
designed a 3D-propped fracture model. The properties of
the CBM reservoir in Barito Basin are listed in Table 2.


A aa
tA t : 4 2 3
At
Decision of slurry volume
The mass continuity equation governs the exchange of
fluid between the fracture and its surrounding formation. In general, water with cross-linked gel is used as fracture
This equation in terms of the flow rate per unit length, fluid in CBM treatment, but gel causes damage to the
q y W, is: formation (Palmer, 1992). Therefore, water was selected
as fracture fluid for this fracture design.
~ ~q 2qL W 0;
7 5
t Table 2. Properties of CBM reservoir in Barito Basin.

~ q qL =x z =z and L is the leak-off

where 7~
Reservoir and geomechanical
properties Value
rate per unit leak-off area and leak-off velocity.
Momentum conservation equation of motion for steady Lithology of net Coal
flow explains the fluid flow behaviour of rhelologically pay zone
Target depth (m) 596 605
complex fracture fluid in response to the pressure gradient Coal rank Low (lignite to
in the fracture. sub-bituminous)
Total net pay About 45
~ 21=2fpq 2 =w 3 ;
7P 6
thickness (m)
Permeability (md) 1 10
Porosity (%) 2.5
where P is pressure in fracture and f is Darcy friction factor. In situ stress gradient (psi/ft) 0.6 0.8
If fluid flows laminar in fracture, f is described as Youngs modulus (psi) 105 106
Equation (6-1). In case of a turbulent flow, f is formed as Poissons ratio 0.3
Fracture toughness (psi m1/2) 1000
Equation (6-2). The Re is the Reynolds number and 1 is the Leak-off coefficient (cm/(min)1/2) 0.002
fracture toughness. In Equation (6), r is the density of rock
 156 W. Heo et al.

Table 3. Design for proper slurry volume and pump rate to obtain the desired fracture geometry.

Pump rate Slurry volume Average width Total height

Fracture length (m) (BPM) Time (min) (US gallon) (cm) (m) Fracture efficiency
200 10 24.05 10099.7 0.140 74.27 0.9092
20 16.925 14214.7 0.166 92.54 0.9427
30 13.205 16634.0 0.184 99.75 0.9562
40 11.09 18629.9 0.197 105.10 0.9637
300 10 43.82 18403.6 0.139 89.55 0.9003
20 31.60 26541.2 0.177 106.70 0.9382
30 30.25 38108.9 0.209 133.80 0.9482
40 30.21 50751.2 0.228 164.90 0.9503
400 10 62.49 26246.9 0.141 92.08 0.8900
20 53.00 44516.9 0.183 127.70 0.9271
30 52.10 65643.1 0.209 168.30 0.9319
40 62.93 105717.0 0.234 244.70 0.9315

In a large CBM treatment, the fracture might typically (Bair, Freeman, & Senko, 2010).
extend to a distance of 200 300 m from the well (CSIRO,
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015

2012). For the decision of slurry volume, fracture length
was assumed to be 200, 300 and 400 m considering not
only commonly fracture length but also the case when
fracture would propagate longer than 300 m. Also, water is
usually injected 15 40 barrels per minute (bbl/min, BPM)
to enhance CBM (Hollub & Schafer, 1992; Swindell,
2007). Thus, adequate slurry volume was determined by
increasing fracture length and pump rate by stage in this
study. Table 3 presents the results of variation in assumed
pump rate and length of fracture. In this result, the slurry
volume shows an increasing trend upon the increase of
fracture length and pump rate.
Selection of pump rate
To select pump rate, fracture geometry and efficiency
depending on pump rates was compared with respect to
each of the maximum fracture length pump rate. Fracture
efficiency (h) is the ratio of volume of created hydraulic
fracture Vf to the volume of the injected fracturing fluid Vi
Vf
h : 8
Vi
Therefore, the fluid efficiency changes as a function of
volume is injected. This change depends on the rate of
creation of fracture area, as well as the leak-off characteristics
of the fracturing fluid and reservoir.
Figure 3(a) shows a variation of fracture width versus
time when maximum fracture length is set to 200 m. In this
figure, average fracture width increases according to the
increase of pump rate. Also, fracture height indicates an
increasing trend depending on time in Figure 3(b).
Figure 3(c) illustrates fracture efficiency caused by
injection of fracture fluid. In the case of 200 m, fracture
efficiency increases according to time passage.
In addition, the more the pump rate increases, the more
the fracture geometry (width, height) and efficiency
increase. In the case of 300 and 400 m, similar trends are
seen as in the case of 200 m. As time passes, not only do
fracture width and height increase but also fracture
efficiency (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 3. Maximum fracture length is 200 m: (a) change of average facture width according to the time; (b) change of facture height
according to the time; and (c) change of facture efficiency according to the time for 200 m fracture length.
 Geosystem Engineering 157

Figure 4. Maximum fracture length is 300 m: (a) change of average facture width according to the time; (b) change of facture height
according to the time and (c) change of facture efficiency according to the time.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015

Figure 5. Maximum fracture length is 400 m: (a) change of average facture width according to the time; (b) change of facture height
according to the time and (c) change of facture efficiency according to the time.

Consequently, the variation of pump rate has an effect on A proper size distribution of proppant helps prevent the
fracture width and height when maximum fracture length is movement of sand and coal fines through the proppant bed
assumed a fixed value. As a result, the growth of fracture to the wellbore (Halliburton, 2007). Because 20/40 mesh
geometry depending on increased pump rate influences sand is used to reduce flow resistance near the wellbore
fracture efficiency in plots of fracture efficiency versus time. proposed by Holditch and Rahim (1994), proppant size is
Thus, we expect that 40 bpm for pump rate would make the 20/40 mesh in fracture design. Fracture geometry and
fracture efficiency higher in this fracture design. fracture efficiency was calculated for the treatment with
However, fracturing efficiency generally is less than proppant (Table 4).
one due to leak-off of fracturing fluid to the reservoir For this fracture design, pump rate was determined to
porosity during the hydraulic fracturing treatment (Bair be 40bpm causing high fracture efficiency and total slurry
et al., 2010). In this design, we assumed that the natural volumes at 18,630, 50,751 and 105,717 US gallons upon
fracture systems do not exist, injection fluid would scarcely evaluation. This simulation was performed in auto design
be leaked off into the formation, and the result of fracture mode.
efficiencies was nearly one. Therefore, it could cause
proportional relation among pump rate, fracture geometry Table 4. Fracture geometry and fracture efficiency in treatment
with proppant.
and fracture efficiency because the existence of natural
fracture systems in the formation affects leak-off of injected Treatment with proppant
fracture fluid. If natural fracture systems are considered for
Slurry
fracture design, the result could become different. volume Pump Fracture Average Total
(US rate Time length width height Fracture
gallon) (BPM) (min) (m) (cm) (m) efficiency
Comparison of treatment with proppant and treatment
without proppant 18,630 40 11.09 149.60 0.243 117.00 0.9721
50,751 40 30.21 231.44 0.271 182.94 0.9577
The sand proppant has sufficient strength for CBM 105,717 40 62.93 337.00 0.266 261.10 0.9395
applications, so it is the economical and practical choice.
 158 W. Heo et al.
To compare the fracture geometry of the treatment
with proppant and without proppant, fracture geometry is
plotted in Figure 6. This figure shows width profiles and
contour of fracture length and height. On the whole,
fracture length decreases when proppant is used for
treatment in comparison with the case of treatment without
proppant. By contrast, fracture heights and widths increase
in treatment with proppant. However, the decision of using
proppant in treatment through these results of fracture
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015
Figure 6. Comparison geometry of treatment with proppant and
without proppant: (a) using 18,630 US gallons and 40 bpm;
(b) using 50,751 US gallons and 40 bpm and (c) using 105,717
US gallons and 40 bpm.
geometry changes because the comparison of fracture
geometry should be compared only when creating fracture
shapes depending on the variation of pump rate slurry
volume. As mentioned before, fracture efficiency rep-
resents how much injected fracture fluid contributes to the
creation of fracture; therefore, the use of proppant could be
easily decided by comparing the differences in fracture
efficiency between treatment with proppant and without
proppant.
Upon simulating treatment with proppant, fracture
efficiency is higher than efficiency of treatment with
proppant (Figure 7). Although fracture length decreases,
the increase of fracture height and width might contribute
to forming bigger fracture volume and achieving higher
fracture efficiency. In this result, we expect that better
fracture geometry and fracture efficiency could be
obtained when proppant would be used in hydraulic
fracturing treatment for CBM in Barito Basin.
Table 5 shows the propped fracture geometry after the
closure of fracture and this result presents the supporting
ability of proppant. In this study, propped fracture
geometries show a slight decline in comparison with
fracture geometries before being closed. This result may
be caused to overburden stress.
Furthermore, dimensionless fracture conductivity and
fracture permeability were estimated. Fracture conduc-
tivity is defined as the width of the fracture by the apparent
permeability of the proppant pack after the fracture has
closed (Davies & Kuiper, 1988). It is given as follows:
C f wf kf ; 9
where wf is the final average fracture width and kf is the
permeability of proppant packed fracture. Fracture
conductivity has the dimensions of length cubed and it
may be reported as darcy feet or milli-darcy-meter in much
of the literature (Schechter, 1992).
Dimensionless fracture conductivity (Cfd) is defined as
fracture conductivity divided by reservoir permeability (kr)
times fracture half-length (xf).
wf k f
Cf : 10
xf k r
It provides a means of optimizing the amount of
conductivity in a fracture for various forms of permeability
and fracture length (Pearson, 2001). Dimensionless
fracture conductivity and fracture permeability are listed
in Table 6.
Evaluated propped fracture geometries for each
treatment were illustrated in Figure 8. Fracture colours
show the contour of fracture conductivity, and brighter
colour means higher conductivity. Propped fractures are
placed in different formations and these differences were
expected due to difference of lithology, which is stress
contrast among formation.
 Geosystem Engineering 159

Figure 7. Comparison fracture efficiency of treatment with proppant and without proppant: (a) using 18,630 US gallons and 40 bpm;
(b) using 50,751 US gallons and 40bpm and (c) using 105,717 US gallons and 40 bpm.

Table 5. Propped fracture geometry.

Slurry volume Pump rate Proppant mass Closure time Propped fracture Propped average Propped height
(US gallon) (BPM) (lb) (min) length (m) width (cm) (m)
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015

18,630 40 124,701 1895 144.70 0.336 69.71

50,751 40 332,798 2024 217.87 0.310 119.06
105,717 40 673,882 20565 323.80 0.275 162.59

performed to conduct design efficiently and carry out a

Table 6. Fracture conductivity and fracture permeability of
propped fracture. favourable fracture geometry (Rahman, Rahman, &
Rahman, 2003).
Slurry Average After fracture design, some factors should be evaluated
volume Pump Fracture Dimensionless fracture to optimize fracture. These factors include (1) maximiza-
(US rate conductivity fracture permeability
gallon) (BPM) (md-m) conductivity (darcy) tion of cumulative production, (2) maximization of the net
present value (NPV) that is defined as the present revenues
18,630 40 850.79 1.176 253.79 from a project at some interest rate minus the present value
50,751 40 790.14 0.725 255.15 of costs at some interest rate, and (3) trading maximum
105,717 40 703.18 0.434 256.31
NPV for minimum treatment cost (Meyer, Banzan, Jacot,
& Lattobeaudiere, 2010; Stermole & Stermole, 2009;
Valencia et al., 2005). This optimization procedure
Fracture design optimization requires designed 3D fracture model, as well as PVT
At stage of design treatment, set of values for treatment data, saturation profile, coal seam characteristics, reservoir
parameters should be decided and fracture model would and well data (Valencia et al., 2005). For this reason,
be predicted. However, designed fracture treatment could designed fracture models in this study could be used as
fail due to various operational factors; therefore, a basic input data of fracture treatment design optimization
systematic and integrated process could be additionally for CBM in Barito Basin, Indonesia.

Figure 8. Propped fracture geometry of treatment: (a) using 18,630 US gallons and 40 bpm; (b) using 50,751 US gallons and 40 bpm and
(c) using 105,717 US gallons and 40 bpm.
 160 W. Heo et al.
Conclusion
In Barito Basin, vertical well is suitable for the
development of CBM because low-rank coal consists of
multiple thick seams associated with mudstone and
sandstone in low depth. Also the permeability of coal
seam in Barito Basin is estimated from 1md to 10md, and
the connectivity of the cleat system is poor. Therefore,
hydraulic stimulation would be required for the improve-
ment of gas production.
In this study, we conducted the design of hydraulic
fracture for CBM in Barito Basin. From the above-
mentioned discussion, the following conclusions are drawn:
. To set an optimal treatment schedule, fracture
geometry and efficiency were compared depending
on the increase of fracture length and pump rate by
stage. In the result of comparison, the more the
pump rate increased, the more the slurry volume and
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015
fracture efficiency increased when maximum
fracture length was fixed respectively at 200, 300
and 400 m.
. In this treatment design, proper pump rate was
determined to be 40 bpm because it caused high
fracture efficiency. In addition, total slurry volume
was decided to be 18,630 US gallons for 200 m
fracture length, 50,751 US gallons for 300 m
fracture length and 105,717 US gallons for 400 m
fracture length.
. Slurry volumes that were determined by highest
pump rate were used to compare treatment with
proppant and without proppant. All fracture lengths
of treatment with proppant were calculated less than
the fracture length of treatment without proppant,
but widths and heights were higher than in treatment
without proppant. However, the fracture efficiency
in treatment with proppant was higher than that in
treatment without proppant. Therefore, proppant
would contribute to improving the fracture effi-
ciency of hydraulic fracture treatment in Barito
Basin.
. Propped fracture would propagate 144.7 m long,
0.34 cm wide, and 69.71 m high when slurry volume
was 18,630 US gallons and pump rate was 40 bpm.
When slurry volume was 50,751 US gallons and
pump rate was 40 bpm, propped fracture length was
217.87 m and width was 0.31 cm. Also, height was
119.06 m. Furthermore, propped fracture geometry
was estimated 323.80 m long, 0.31 cm wide and
162.59 m high when slurry volume was 105,717 US
gallons and pump rate was 40 bpm.
Designed fracture model in this study would be used
for basic input data of fracture optimization, such as
maximizing production and/or NPV with minimum
treatment cost.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Coalbed Methane(CBM)
Production Technology Optimization and On-site Empirical
Research of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the
Korea Government Ministry of Knowledge Economy
[No. 2012T100201535].
References
Acharya, R. (1988). Hydraulic-fracture-treatment design simu-
lation. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 40, 139 142.
doi:10.2118/17175-PA
Acock, A., Alexander, J., Andersen, G., Kaneko, T., Venkitara-
man, A., Lopez-de-Cardenas, . . . Twynam, A. (2004).
Practical approaches to sand management. Oilfield Review,
16, 10 27.
Ayoub, L., Hinkel, J., Johnston, D., & Levine, J. (1991). Learning
to produce coalbed methane. Oilfield Review, 1, 27 40.
Bai, M., Green, S., & Suarez-Rivera, R. (2005, June 25 29).
Effect of leakoff variation on fracturing efficiency for tight
shale gas reservoirs. In The 40th U.S. symposium on rock
mechanics (ARMA-05-697). Anchorage, AK: ARMA.
Bair, E. S., Freeman, D. C., & Senko, J. M. (2010). Expert panel
technical report: Subsurface Gas Invasion Bainbridge
Township, Geauga County, Ohio. Retrieved from http://
oilandgas.ohiodnr.go
Bazan, L. W., Larkin, S. D., Jacot, R. H., & Meyer, B. R. (2002
October 23 26). Modeling of simultaneous proppant
fracture treatments in the Fruitland coal and Pictured Cliffs
Formations in the San Juan Basin. In SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting (SPE 78694). Lexington, KY: SPE.
Caballero, J. (2013). Drilling and completion technique selection
methodology for coalbed methane well. In International
petroleum technology conference, China (IPTC 17153).
IPTC.
CSIRO. (2012). What is hydraulic fracturing? Retrieved from
http://www.csiro.au
Davies, D. R., & Kuiper, T. O. H. (1988). Fracture conductivity
in hydraulic fracture stimulation. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 40, 550 552. doi:10.2118/17655-PA
Doust, H., & Noble, R. A. (2008). Petroleum systems of
Indonesia. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 25, 103 129.
doi:10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2007.05.007
EPA. (2004). Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of
drinking water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane
reservoirs (EPA816-R-04-003) (pp. App. A-1-23). EPA.
Gadde, P. B., & Sharma, M. M. (2005). The impact of proppant
retardation on propped fracture lengths. In SPE annual
technical conference and exhibition (SPE 97106). Dallas,
TX: SPE.
Gaurav, K., Husen, A., Saada, T., & Kumar, S. (2012).
Performance analysis in coal seam gas. In SPETT 2012
Endergy conference and exhibition (SPE 157696). Port-of-
Spain. Trinidad: SPE.
Hagel, M. W., & Meyer, B. R. (1994). Utilizing mini-frac data to
improve design and production. Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, 33, PETSOC-94-03-03. doi:10.2118/
94-03-03
 Geosystem Engineering
Halliburton. (2007). Coalbed methane: Principles and practices-
hydraulic fracturing of coalseams. Retrieved from http://
www.halliburton.com
Holditch, S. A. (1993). Completion methods in coal-seam
reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 45, 270276.
SPE 20670.
Holditch, S. A., & Rahim, Z. (1994). Developing data sets for 3D
fracture propagation models. SPE Production and Facilities,
9, 257 261. doi:10.2118/26155-PA
Hollub, V. A., & Schafer, P. S. (1992). A guide of coalbed
methane operation. Chicago, IL: Gas Research Institute.
Hoorn, K., Heijinen, L. J., Gankema, M. E., & Nitters, G. (2012).
Hydraulic fracturing in limestone: A case study of two EGS
projects in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the thirty-
seventh workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering
(SGP-TR-194). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Hopkins, C. W. (1997). The importance of in-situ-stress profiles
in hydraulic-fracturing applications. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 49, 944 948. doi:10.2118/38458-JPT
Howard, G. C., & Fast, C. I. (1970). Hydraulic fracturing
(monograph) (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME.
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015
Hubbert, M. K., & Willis, D. G. (1957). Mechanics of hydraulic
fracturing. Petroleum Transactions, AIME, 210, 153 168.
Jeffrey, R. G., Wold, M. B., Choi, S. K., & Settari, A. (1997).
Stimulation for methane-gas recovery from coal. In SPE
mountain regional meeting (SPE 38345). Casper, WY: SPE.
Johnson, Jr., R. L., & Woodroof, Jr., R. A. (1996). The
application of hydraulic fracturing models in conjunction
with tracer surveys to characterize and optimize fracture
treatments in the Brushy Canyon Formation, Southeastern
New Mexico. In SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition (SPE 36470) (pp. 543 558). Denver, CO: SPE.
Kusuma, I., & Darin, T. (1989). The hydrocarbon potential of the
Lower Tanjung Formation, Barito Basin, S.E. Kalimantan.
Proceedings of Indonesian Petroleum Association, 18th
Annual Convention, 107 137.
McKee, C. R., Bumb, A. C., & Koenig, R. A. (1989). Stress-
dependent permeability and porosity of coal. In Proceedings
of 1987 coalbed methane symposium. SPE (SPE 12858)
(pp. 183 193). SPE.
Meyer, B. R. (1986 May 18 21). Design formulae for 2-D and 3-D
vertical hydraulic fractures: Model comparison and para-
metric studies. In SPE unconventional gas technology
symposium (SPE 15240) (pp. 391 400). Louisville, KY: SPE.
Meyer, B. R., Banzan, L. W., Jacot, R. H., & Lattobeaudiere,
M. G. (2010). Optimization of multiple transverse hydraulic
fractures in horizontal wellbores. In SPE unconventional gas
conference (SPE 131732). SPE.
Meyer, B. R., Cooper, G. D., & Nelson, S. G. (1990 September
23 26). Real-time 3D hydraulic fracturing stimulation:
Theory and field case studies. In 65th annual technical
conference and exhibition of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, New Orleans, LA.
Meyer, B. R., & Jacot, R. H. (2001 July 7 10). Impact of stress-
dependent Youngs moduli on hydraulic fracture modeling.
In The 38th U.S. symposium on rock mechanics
(pp. 297 306), Washington, DC.
Nas, C., & Hidartan (2010). Quality of Kalimantan coking coals,
Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 37th symposium of the
geology of the Sydney Basin, Hunter Velly.
Nur, A., & Byerlee, J. D. (1971). An exact effective stress law for
elastic deformation of rock with fluids. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 76, 6414 6419. doi:10.1029/
JB076i026p06414
161
Palmer, I. D. (1992 March 24 27). Review of coalbed
methane well stimulation. In International meeting on
petroleum engineering (SPE 22395) (pp. 679 703). Beijing:
SPE.
Pearson, C. M. (2001). Dimensionless fracture conductivity:
Better input values make better wells. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 53, 59 63. doi:10.2118/60184-JPT
Pitakbunkate, T., Yang, M., & Valko, P. P. (2011 March 27 29).
Hydraulic fracture optimization with a p-3D model. In SPE
production and operations symposium (SPE 142303)
(pp. 1 15). Oklahoma City, OK: SPE.
Rachmat, S., Pramana, A. A., & Febriana, N. (2012). Indonesias
unconventional resources, modified resource triangle, and a
typical example of stimulation of coalbed methane reservoir.
Modern Applied Science, 6, 99 111. doi:10.5539/mas.
v6n6p99
Rahim, Z., Al-Qahtani, M. Y., & Buhidma, I. (2001). Improved
gas recovery from acid of hydraulic fracturing. Saudi Aramco
Journal of Technology, 50 60.
Rahman, M. M., Rahman, M. K., & Rahman, S. S. (2003).
Optimizing treatment parameters for enhanced hydro-
carbon production by hydraulic fracturing. Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, 42, 38 46. doi:10.2118/
03-06-02
Ramaswamy, S. (2007). Selection of best drilling, completion
and stimulation methods for coalbed methane reservoir
(graduated thesis). Texas A&M University, USA
(pp. 16 53).
Resterepo, D. P. (2008). Pressure behavior of a system
containing multiple vertical fractures (graduated thesis).
University of Oklahoma, USA.
Rickman, R., Mullen, M., Petre, E., Grieser, B., & Kundert, D.
(2008). A practical use of shale petrophysics for stimulation
design optimization: All shale plays are not clones of the
Barnett shale. In SPE annual technical conference and
exhibition (SPE 115258). Denver, CO: SPE.
Satyana, A. H., Nugroho, D., & Surantoko, I. (1999). Tectonic
controls on the hydrocarbon habitats of the Barito, Kutei,
and Tarakan Basins, Eastern Kalimantan, Indonesia: Major
dissimilarities in adjoining basins. Journal of Asian
Earth Sciences, 17, 99 122. doi:10.1016/S0743-9547(98)
00059-2
Satyana, A. H., & Silitonga, P. D. (1994). Tectonic reversal in
East Barito Basin, South Kalimantan: Consideration of the
types of inversion structures and petroleum system
significance. In Proceedings of the Indonesian Petroleum
Association, 23rd Annual Convention (pp. 57 74), Jakarta.
Schechter, R. S. (1992). Oil well stimulation. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Shlyapobersky, J. (1985 June 26 28). Energy analysis of
hydraulic fracturing. In The 26th U.S. symposium on rock
mechanics (ARMA-85-0539-1). Rapid Cith, SD: ARMA.
Stermole, F. J., & Stermole, J. M. (2009). Economic evaluation
and investment decision methods (12th ed.). Lakewood, CO:
Investment Evaluations Corporation.
Stevens, S. H., & Hadiyanto (2004). Indonesia: Coalbed Methane
Indicators and basin evaluation. In SPE Asia Pacific oil and
gas conference (SPE 88630). Perth: SPE.
Stevens, S. H., Sani, K., & Hardjosuwiryo, S. (2001). Indonesias
337 TCF CBM resource a low cost alternative to gas, LNG.
Oil and Gas Journal, 99, 40 45.
Swindell, G. S. (2007 April 16 18). Powder river basin coalbed
methane wells Reserves and rates. In Rocky mountain
oil & gas technology symposium (SPE 107308). Denver,
CO: SPE.
 162 W. Heo et al.
Usman, P., Marino, D., Soelistijono, M., & September, . (2010).
Study on productivity improvement of low permeability gas
reservoir by hydraulic fracturing. LEMIGAS Scientific
Contributions to Petroleum Science & Technology, 33,
120 128.
Valencia, K. J., Chen, Z., Hodge, M. O., & Rahman, S. S. (2005
April 5 7). Optimizing stimulation of coalbed methane
reservoir using multi-stage hydraulic fracturing treatment
and integrated fracture modeling. In SPE Asia Pacific oil and
gas conference and exhibition (SPE 93245). SPE: Jakarta.
Warpinski, N. R., Schmidt, R. A., & Northrop, D. A. (1982). In-
situ stresses: The predominant influence on hydraulic
Downloaded by [UQ Library] at 05:59 19 October 2015
fracture containment. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 34,
653 664. doi:10.2118/8932-PA
Witts, D., Hall, R., Morley, R. J., & BouDagher-Fadel, M. K.
(2011 May). Stratigraphy and sediment provenance, Barito
Basin, Southeast Kalimantan. In Proceedings of Indonesian
Petroleum Association, 25th Annual Convention (IPA11-G-
054). IPA.
Witts, D., Hall, R., Nichols, G., & Morley, R. (2012). A new
depositional and provenance model for the Tanjung
Formation, Barito Basin, SE Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal
of Asian Earth Sciences, 56, 77 104. doi:10.1016/j.jseaes.
2012.04.022