SPE 100313
Production Data Analysis of Single-Phase (Gas) CBM Wells
C.R. Clarkson, SPE, Burlington Resources Canada Ltd.; R.M. Bustin, U. of British Columbia; and J.P. Seidle, SPE,
Sproule Assocs. Inc.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15–17 May 2006.
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
Coalbed methane (CBM) reservoirs commonly exhibit two-
phase flow (gas+water) characteristics, however commercial
CBM production is also possible from single-phase (gas) coal
reservoirs, as demonstrated by the recent development of the
Horseshoe Canyon coals of western Canada. Commercial
single-phase CBM production also occurs in some areas of the
low-productivity Fruitland Coal, south-southwest of the high-
productivity Fruitland Coal Fairway in the San Juan Basin,
and in other CBM-producing basins of the continental United
States. Production data of single-phase coal reservoirs may be
analyzed using traditional techniques commonly used for
conventional reservoirs. Complicating application, however,
is the complex nature of coal reservoirs; coal gas storage and
transport mechanisms differ substantially from conventional
reservoirs. In addition, single-phase coal reservoirs may
display multi-layer characteristics, dual porosity behavior,
permeability anisotropy etc.
The current work illustrates how traditional single-well
analysis techniques, such as type-curve and pressure transient
analysis, may be altered to analyze single-phase (un-
stimulated and hydraulically-fractured) CBM wells. Examples
of how reservoir inputs to the type-curves and subsequent
calculations are modified to account for CBM reservoir
behavior are given. This paper demonstrates, using simulated
and field examples, that reasonable reservoir and stimulation
estimates can be obtained from production data analysis of
coal reservoirs only if appropriate reservoir inputs (i.e.
desorption compressibility, fracture porosity) are used in the
analysis. As the field examples demonstrate, type-curve and
pressure-transient analysis methods for production data
analysis are not used in isolation for reservoir property
estimation, but rather as a starting point for single- and multi-
well reservoir simulation, which is then used to history-match
and forecast coal well production (ex. reserves assignment).
Coal reservoirs have the potential for permeability
anisotropy because of their naturally-fractured nature, which
may complicate production data analysis. To study the effects
of permeability anisotropy upon production, a 2-D, single-
phase, numerical CBM reservoir simulator was constructed to
simulate single-well production assuming various permeability
anisotropy ratios. Only large permeability ratios (>16:1)
appear to have a significant effect upon single-well production
characteristics.
Multi-layer reservoir characteristics may also be observed
with coal reservoirs because of vertical heterogeneity, or in
cases where the coals are commingled with conventional
(sandstone) reservoirs. In these cases, the type-curve and
pressure transient analysis techniques are difficult to apply
with confidence. Methods and tools for analyzing multi-layer
CBM (+sand) reservoirs are presented. Using simulated and
field examples, it is demonstrated that unique reservoir
properties may be assigned to individual layers from
commingled (multi-layer) production in the simple 2-layer
case.
Introduction
Coal gas (CBM) reservoirs differ substantially from
conventional gas reservoirs due to unique gas storage and
transport mechanisms. Unlike conventional (sand or
carbonate) reservoirs, coals act as source rocks and reservoirs
to gas, and the primary gas storage mechanism is through
adsorption within the microporous organic fraction, although
some gas storage may occur in the free gas state (compressed
in pore space), within the larger pores (macropores) and
fractures. CBM reservoirs are often naturally-fractured, and
may be modeled as dual (fracture+matrix porosity), or even
triple porosity (fracture, matrix free- and adsorbed gas)
reservoirs. Gas transport mechanisms vary, depending upon
the scale and location within the reservoir. For example, gas
transport at the scale of the matrix between natural fractures
may be due to the mechanism of diffusion whereas Darcy flow
occurs in the fracture system. Single or two-phase (gas and
water) flow can exist in these reservoirs, and hence relative
permeability characteristics can be important.
The unique reservoir characteristics of CBM reservoirs in
turn yield distinctive fluid production profiles at the single-
well and field level. Application of conventional production
data analysis (decline- and type-curve analysis) is thus
difficult to apply to CBM wells, particularly for those
exhibiting 2-phase production (gas and water). Recent
studies1-2, however, have demonstrated that conventional
2 SPE 100313
decline-curve analysis can be applied to late stage CBM fluid
production. A very recent study attempted to develop
production type-curves for 2-phase CBM reservoirs, including
the dewatering period3-4. Commercial single-phase (gas)
CBM production has been recently demonstrated in the
Horseshoe Canyon coals of western Canada5 and previously in
various basins in the U.S. Most conventional production data
analysis tools (i.e. type-curve analysis) are directly applicable
to single-phase production only, and hence single-phase CBM
wells are amenable to conventional type-curve analysis, given
certain conditions, and with some modification.
Production type-curve techniques allow reservoir data and
stimulation efficiency/damage information to be extracted
from single-well production data, flowing pressure and initial
PVT information (initial reservoir pressure and temperature,
fluid composition etc.), and some basic geologic data. These
techniques have grown in popularity because of the relatively
small amount of data required to perform the analyses, the
quality of reservoir information that can be yielded, and the
desirability of not shutting in production data (which is
required by other reservoir analysis techniques such as
material balance, flow/buildup analysis etc.).
Historically, the most popular type-curves used for
production data analysis (PDA) are those due to Fetkovitch6-8,
although recent advances in the development of type-curves
have greatly expanded their applicability (variable rates and
pressures, gas reservoirs, hydraulically-fractured wells etc.).
The accuracy of the extracted information from the Fetkovich
type-curves is a function of how closely the producing well
conforms to the somewhat limiting assumptions used in their
derivation (constant flowing-pressure, radial flow, single-layer
homogeneous reservoir etc.). Further, to extract reservoir and
completion information specifically for single-phase coal
reservoirs, the input reservoir data must, as will be
demonstrated, be corrected for unique CBM storage
characteristics.
Modern production data analysis techniques (including
modern type-curves and flowing material balance techniques)
utilize the concepts of material balance pseudo-time and
pressure- or pseudo-pressure normalized rate to account for
variable operating conditions (i.e. changing rates and flowing
pressures) and gas property variation as a function of
pressure9. Unlike the Fektovich type-curves, the modern
PDA techniques also utilize analytical solutions for boundary-
dominated flow. These techniques are more advanced than
the Fetkovich type-curves and should yield more accurate
estimates of reservoir properties, stimulation/damage
information and reserves. Although the more modern
techniques can also be used for analyzing single-phase coal
reservoirs, with appropriate modification to the time function
to account for desorption effects, this is not discussed in detail
here.
An alternative approach to production data analysis is the
use of conventional pressure transient analysis (PTA)
techniques. Hagar and Jones10 demonstrated that production
data may be treated as an extended drawdown test (variable
rate) and utilized the Odeh-Jones equation (which uses a
superposition time function) to extract permeability and
stimulation information from data during the pseudo-radial
flow period. The technique is combined with standard
derivative analysis to identify flow regimes, which is critical
for ensuring that the correct equations are applied to the
appropriate flow regimes. Additionally those authors10
demonstrated that the radius-of-investigation equation can be
used, at the time corresponding to when the boundary
dominated flow regime is reached, to calculate the drainage
area of a well.
A complication in the application of conventional
production data analysis techniques to coal reservoirs is the
fact that some coal reservoirs may exhibit permeability
anisotropy, which is a result of the natural fracture set
associated with commercial coal reservoirs. A recent study by
Cui and Bustin11 discussed the effects of coal fabric on
coalbed gas production and compositional changes; among the
effects studied were cleat porosity, cleat spacing and cleat
permeability. The effect of permeability anisotropy was not
considered. Coal seams of higher rank (sub-bituminous and
greater) commonly contain an orthogonal fracture set,
consisting of a more continuous face cleat, and less continuous
butt cleat that terminates into the face cleat (Fig. 1a). There
are many controls upon cleat development including bed
thickness, coal organic composition, rank, depth of burial and
uplift. Further, diagenesis may impact the degree of mineral
infilling of cleats. It is therefore possible that a range of
fracture geometries, continuities and intensities may exist for
commercial coalbed reservoirs, which in turn could lead to
varying degrees of permeability anisotropy. In cases where
the permeability contrast between cleats sets is extreme, or
where one cleat set is missing entirely, the CBM wells may
long-term linear flow, as has been shown for some tight gas
sand wells with natural fracturing13-14. Although several
commercial numerical simulators exist that are capable of
modeling permeability anisotropy in coal reservoirs, a 2-D,
single-phase, numerical coal reservoir simulator was
constructed for this purpose and described in the present work.
A series of single-well coal gas production profiles,
corresponding to varying permeability anisotropy ratios, were
generated with the new simulator to determine the impact of
permeability anisotropy.
The PDA techniques (type-curve and PTA) discussed
above are only strictly applicable to single-layer reservoirs,
and hence production data analysis of multi-layer reservoirs
(ex. Fig 1b), or commingled multi-reservoir systems, must
utilize other techniques. Coal reservoirs of the San Juan Basin
have been shown to exhibit multi-layer behaviour15; the multi-
seam nature of Horseshoe Canyon coals may also impart
multi-layer reservoir behaviour. In previous work15-17, single-
well reservoir simulators, constructed with spreadsheets for
specific application to coal and conventional reservoirs, were
described. It was demonstrated17 that these tank-type
(analytical) simulators could be coupled with Monte Carlo
simulation to generate a distribution of well gas (and water,
where applicable) forecasts from distributions of input
reservoir properties. This concept is extended further in this
paper by showing how the tank models can be used to
approximate multi-layer (with and without crossflow)
behavior, and that Monte Carlo simulation can be used to
“history-match” production data from single-phase, multi-
layer coal wells.
SPE 100313 3

Production Data Analysis Techniques – Theory and
Methodology
Several techniques are illustrated in this study for application
to single-well, single-phase CBM gas production. These
include type-curve analysis of production data, pressure
transient analysis of production and flowing pressure data and
reservoir simulation. Reservoir simulation is applicable to all
cases discussed for the type-curve and PTA techniques, and is
also useful for modeling complex reservoir behaviour, such as
permeability anisotropy and multi-layers. This discussion is
limited to single-well applications.
Type-Curves. There has been considerable advancement in
the development of production type-curves over the past
couple of decades. For example, modern techniques allow the
analysis of producing wells that are subject to variable flowing
pressures, that have been hydraulically-fractured18, that
produce from reservoirs of variable geometries14 etc. Well-
tests analysis techniques have historically developed constant
rate analytical solutions to various well-test scenarios, and
modern production type-curve developers have wisely drawn
from the vast inventory of well-test solutions available. The
Fetkovich type-curves6 represent an early attempt to utilize
analytical solutions (transient flow regime) for the purpose of
extracting reservoir and stimulation/damage information from
field production data, and are somewhat limited in their
application. The authors realize these limitations, but chose to
start with the simple Fetkovich-style curves to illustrate how
coal properties need to be accounted for in order to yield
quantitative information. In future work, the application of
more advanced production type-curve approaches, such as
those of Blasingame et al.19 and Agarwal et al.20, will be
attempted.
The Fetkovich type-curves are generated through the
coupling of early-time analytical solutions to the radial flow
equation with the empirical Arps21 decline-curves for
boundary dominated flow only; dimensionless variables are
used in the graphical representation of the curves. The
Fetkovich type-curves were programmed into a spreadsheet
and used the following definitions of dimensionless variable
groupings:
T
qD =
[
0.000703kh m(Pi ) − m( Pwf ) ]
q g ……….………..…...(1)
q Dd = q D [ln(re / rwa ) − 3 / 4] ……….………........................(2)
0.00634k
tD = t ………………..........................................(3)
φμ gi c ti rwa
2
Fetkovich used 1/2 to reduce the discontinuity between the
transient and depletion stems; the inflow equations in the
present work, however, reference the average reservoir
pressure during drawdown, so 3/4 was used for consistency.
The calculation of q Dd and t Dd for late-time (boundary-
dominated) flow was derived from the Arps equations21.
Calculations of the early-time (transient) production of a
single-phase (slightly-compressible) fluid used in the
derivation of the Fetkovich type-curves are obtained from the
constant-flowing wellbore pressure solution for a well
centered in a closed, circular (homogenous) reservoir with
uniform thickness. The original solution for this problem was
derived by van Everdingen and Hurst22 in Laplace space. In
this work, the approximate numerical curve fits to the transient
portion of the van Everdingen and Hurst solution, as provided
by Edwardson et al.23 were used to model the transient stems
for the Fetkovich type-curves. The type-curve set, resulting
from the combination of early- and late-time solutions, is
given in Fig. 2.
The type-curve matching procedure involves matching the
well production data, on log-log paper, with a type-curve;
from this match one can obtain information about reserves,
completion efficiency and the reservoir. Details of the
Fetkovich type-curve matching procedures have been
discussed elsewhere24 and will not be reviewed here. Once the
match of production data to a type-curve has been made, the
permeability, skin and drainage radius and pore volume may
be obtained from a match point using the equations given in
Appendix A.
For a coal reservoir, it is the bulk volume of the reservoir
Vb that is of interest (not just the fracture pore volume), which
is obtained by dividing the obtained V p (Eq. A-5) by the
fracture porosity φ . Eqs (A-5 and A-6) then become:
⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ q ⎞ 2000 Psc T
Vb = ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ t Dd
⎟ ⎜
⎠ match ⎝ q Dd
⎟ ( ) [ ( )] ....(5)
⎠ match φμ g ct i Tsc m(Pi ) − m Pwf
re = Vb / πh ………..……...................................................(6)
Once the drainage area has been established, the gas-in-
place may be determined. For a conventional gas reservoir
this calculation is as follows:
43560 Ahφ (1 − S wi )
Gi = …...…….......................................(7)
B gi

where A (acres) is derived assuming a circular drainage area,

2 with re as the drainage radius. For a coal reservoir, the gas-in-
t Dd =
[(r / r
e wa ) 2
]
− 1 [ln (re / rwa ) − 3 / 4]
t D …........................(4)
place calculation must include adsorbed gas:

Note that use of pseudopressure has been used to
accommodate gas wells at all PT conditions. In the current
work, the 3/4 is used on the right hand side of Eq. 2 and right
hand term of the denominator in Eq. 4 instead of 1/2
Gi = 1.3597 Ahρ cVi ………..…….........................................(8)
where Vi is the volume of gas adsorbed at initial reservoir
pressure, and is assumed to be corrected to in-situ conditions
4 SPE 100313
(corrected for in-situ ash and moisture content). If a
significant amount of gas is assumed to be stored in the
secondary porosity (fracture) system, the gas-in-place
calculation must be corrected to include a free-gas storage
term:
⎛ 43560φ (1 − S wi ) ⎞ g t
Gi = Ah⎜ + 1.3597 ρ cVi ⎟ …………............(9)
⎜ B gi ⎟
⎝ ⎠
For application to single-phase (gas) coal reservoirs, two
modifications to the dimensionless variables must be
considered:
Desorption. Coals are dual-porosity type reservoirs where
gas is stored in the matrix via adsorption (+ some possible
free-gas storage) and transported through the secondary
porosity (fractures or cleats) system to the wellbore. The gas
in the matrix may or may not be in equilibrium with that in the
fractures as gas pressure is lowered in the fractures. If
equilibrium exists (i.e. instantaneous desorption), the
desorption effect (gas entering the fracture set from the
matrix) must be accounted for in the total compressibility term
in the dimensionless time equation (Eq. 3). The expression for
total compressibility for a single-phase (gas) coal reservoir
(note we have assumed 100% gas saturation for simplicity) is
as follows25:
ct = c g + c f + c d ……………............................................(10)
The expression for desorption compressibility is26:
B g ρ cV L PL
cd =
( )2 φ
………………….......................(11)
32.0368 PL + P
where it is assumed that VL is corrected to in-situ conditions,
and that P is equal to the average pressure of the natural
fracture system. Also note that φ is the fracture porosity,
corrected for Swi.
Previous authors have noted that the desorption
compressibility can dominate the total compressibility term for
coal reservoirs25, and thus must be accounted for if
equilibrium exists between matrix and fractures. In cases
where no significant influx occurs from the matrix to the
fracture, desorption compressibility can be ignored. An
example of this would be in the case of well test analysis of
limited duration for coal reservoirs with a wide fracture
spacing or a very small diffusion coefficient in the coal matrix.
In this work, the dimensionless time function (Eq. 3) is simply
adjusted by including the desorption compressibility
calculated at initial reservoir pressure conditions, into the total
compressibility term (Eq.10). This was done because most
commercial type-curve matching software packages available
at present do not allow the modification of the time function
calculations directly; the initial total compressibility term can,
however, be overridden. In order to utilize more advanced
PDA techniques for single-phase (gas) coal reservoirs, the
pseudo-time function (defined below for a conventional gas
reservoir) would need to be adjusted to account for desorption
compressibility effects (by incorporated cd into total
compressibility term), which like gas compressibility and
viscosity, is a function of pressure:
( )i ∫0 μdtc
t
t a = μ g ct …………….......................................(12)
where μ g , ct are calculated at average reservoir pressure.
The dimensionless time function (Eq. 3) would then
incorporate t a instead of t . Spivey and Semmelbeck27 utilize
t a , corrected for desorption effects, in the development of an
analytical model to describe radial flow (at constant flowing
pressure) for dewatered coal seams and fractured shales.
In order to account for changing operating conditions, material
balance pseudo-time (given below) should be used:
(μ g ct )i t qdt
t ca =
q ∫ 0 μ g ct
……………....................................(13)
The calculation of t ca is iterative9 and, for coal, the procedure
would be need to include material balance corrected for
desorption effects, as discussed in Spivey and Semmelbeck27.
Fracture Porosity. The porosity term in the calculation of
dimensionless time must correspond to the fracture porosity.
As the transport of gas in coal is commonly considered to
occur only through the fracture system (in the equilibrium
scenario), the effective gas pore volume of the fracture system
should be considered only. It would be tempting to use an
effective porosity that yields the same OGIP as the coal
reservoir with adsorbed gas storage, so that the OGIP equation
for a conventional gas reservoir could be used (as is done in
the application of the conventional Fetkovich type-curves) but
as will be shown, this would yield erroneous results from the
type-curve analysis.
Pressure Transient Analysis. A recent paper10 discussed the
application of standard pressure transient methods to the
analysis of conventional and tight gas sand production and
flowing pressure data. Those authors noted that the
production of gas reservoirs is analogous to an extended
drawdown test, most commonly with variable rate production.
Using superposition, the multi-rate data can be transformed
into an equivalent single-rate drawdown test, and analyzed
using conventional techniques. Derivative curves can be
used to analyze flow regimes, as with conventional pressure
transient analysis. Hagar and Jones10 utilized the Odeh-Jones
equation for a multi-rate, drawdown test (in the infinite-acting
flow regime) assuming compressible fluids:
( ) = m ' n (q j − q j −1 ) log(t
m(Pi ) − m Pwf
qn ∑ qn
n )
− t j −1 + m ' s ….(14)
j =1
where:
SPE 100313
⎛ k ⎞ anisotropy on production profiles of single-phase coal
s = log⎜ ⎟ − 3.23 + 0.869s ……............................(15)
⎜ φμ c r 2 ⎟ data from multi-layer reservoirs.
⎝ gi ti w ⎠
and equivalent time (te) may be defined as:
(q j − q j −1 ) log(t
n
te = ∑ qn
n )
− t j −1 …….…............................(16)
j =1
A Cartesian plot with the left-hand-side of Eq. 14 (rate
normalized pseudopressure drop) versus te will yield a straight
line from which effective permeability and skin can be
estimated (when in infinite-acting flow regime). The
permeability and skin can be estimated from the slope and
intercept, respectively, as discussed in10.
In order to strictly apply Eq. 14, the pseudoradial flow
regime must be identified. The use of log-log plots in
combination with derivative curves can be used for the
purpose of identifying flow regimes, as is commonly done in
well-test analysis. In this case, the derivative is as follows:
⎛ m(Pi ) − m Pwf
Δ⎜⎜
( ) ⎞⎟
⎟
ΔP (q ) qn
= ⎝ ⎠ ……..………......................(17)
log(Δt ) Δt e
As with conventional derivative analysis, smoothing
functions may be applied to improve interpretation. We have
found, as with Hager and Jones10, that derivative smoothing is
a critical step in the use of PTA techniques applied to
production data, due to the lower accuracy of field production
data relative to well-test pressure transient data. In some cases
that we have examined for conventional well production data,
the inability to effectively identify flow regimes from poor
quality derivative data has lead to inaccurate analysis. Ideally,
however, the derivative curves should enable the identification
of various flow regimes, such as zero slope for infinite-acting
flow, ½ slope for linear flow (ex. fractured wells), and unit
slope for boundary-dominated flow.
One other useful calculation that can be made using
standard pressure transient analysis is radius-of-investigation.
The calculation (again for infinite-acting flow) is as follows:
kt
ri = ………………........................................(18)
948φμ gi c ti
This calculation can be used to estimate how far a transient
has traveled at a particular time during production and is
particularly useful for estimating drainage radius,
corresponding to the onset of boundary-dominated flow.
In this work, the equivalent time calculations were
programmed in MATLAB® while all other analyses were
performed within a spreadsheet.
Reservoir Simulation. Reservoir simulation (numerical and
analytical) is used to quantify the effects of permeability
5
reservoirs and to extract single-zone reservoir and completion
Permeability Anisotropy. Recent papers by Arevalo-
Villagran et al.13-14 demonstrated that tight gas with parallel
natural fractures could exhibit long-term linear flow
characteristics and demonstrated that anisotropic reservoirs
can be transformed into equivalent isotropic reservoirs using
the transformations shown in Fig. 3. Referring to Fig. 3, the
effect of parallel fractures would have the effect of changing
the reservoir geometry into a narrow, linear channel-type
reservoir. The effects of permeability anisotropy in coal
reservoirs are investigated using a numerical reservoir
simulator. A 2-D numerical simulator (“COALGAS2D”),
capable of modeling single-phase (gas) coal production (single
or multiple wells) from a heterogeneous reservoir, was
constructed for this purpose. For completeness, the
mathematical model and brief description of its numerical
solution is discussed in Appendix B. The transformations
described shown in Fig. 3 were used to model anisotropic
permeability effects and coupled with reservoir simulation to
illustrate the effects of permeability anisotropy upon single-
well gas production profiles (see examples).
Multi-layer Reservoirs. An example of how numerical
simulation and analytical models can be used to extract
individual-layer reservoir data from a multi-layered reservoir
was discussed in a previous paper15, using a multi-well field
example. The current work focuses on the use of single-well,
multi-layer analytical simulators15-17 to extract individual-layer
data from single-well production and pressure data. The
simulators described in previous work15-17 assume no-
crossflow, but have recently been extended to include
crossflow between layers using the communicating reservoir
(CR) model described by Payne28.
The multi-layer analytical simulators have been coupled
with Monte Carlo simulation to extract reservoir and
stimulation data, using only total well (commingled)
production data and surface flowing pressure data. A similar
procedure to that employed by Roadifer et al.29 can therefore
be used to converge on a unique solution by adjusting the
input distributions of the reservoir properties that are being
matched (the reader is referred to Roadifer et al.29 for details).
A least squares objective function is used to quantify the
difference between the actual (commingled) production profile
and the simulated profile at each Monte Carlo iteration. We
refer to this technique as Monte Carlo/Analytical
Simulation/Least Squares (MCASLS) approach. Ideally, a
unique set of reservoir properties (and stimulation values) for
each layer exists within the final input distributions, resulting
in a simulated (commingled) production profile that matches
the actual profile.
Although additional data such as production logging data
for estimation of individual-layer rates or individual-layer
shut-in pressure data would be useful to constrain the
modeling inputs to achieve unique matches of the individual
layer data (ex. see Bastian et al.5 ), these data have been
historically lacking for some fields studied by the authors.
6 SPE 100313
Example Applications
Fetkovich Type-Curve Analysis of Production Data.
Simulated and field examples are used to illustrate the use of
Fetkovich type-curves for yielding reservoir and stimulation
information from single-phase coal wells. Type-curve
matching has historically been used by the authors to establish
initial estimates of permeability and skin, and in some cases
drainage area (single-well analysis), to be input into single-
well or field reservoir simulation. For example, for some
previous studies performed by the authors, permeability
estimates derived from type-curve analysis were used to
develop kh maps that served as a starting point for reservoir
simulation studies.
If the permeability and skin values (or drainage area in the
single-well case) are adjusted during the history-match
procedure, these new values are checked to see if they fall
within the range of values that could be estimated from the
type-curves, or well-test data, if available. This is illustrated
with the two (single-well) field examples given below.
In the examples that follow, the spreadsheet-based type-
curves were used to match simulated and field single-phase
coal gas production data. The type-curve matches were
checked against other available software, such as that provided
by Munoz et al.30 (referred to in this work as New Mexico
Tech.’s type-curve software). This software package has the
ability to input user-defined porosity and total compressibility,
which is critical for matching coal production data.
Example 1 (Simulated). A commercial numerical
simulator31, and a single-well analytical simulator were used
to generate simulated gas production profiles (radial flow),
which were then matched to the Fetkovich type-curves (Fig.
4). Input data used in the simulators are given in Table 1.
The simulated well exhibits both transient and boundary-
dominated flow behavior. The early-time data from the
numerical model (Fig. 4a) appears to best match the re/rwa =
1000 stem, whereas the early-time data from the analytical
model appears to best match the re/rwa = 5000 stem (Fig. 4b).
Results, obtained from matching either stem, and using Eqs.
A-1 to A-3, are given in Table 2. The match results using the
the re/rwa = 5000 are closest to the input values into the
simulator. We have included a higher resolution of transient
stems (by including the re/rwa = 5000 stem) than is often
afforded with commercial software stems (often only re/rwa =
1000 and 10000 stems are shown). If this is the case, the re/rwa
= 10000 stem would have been chosen for the analytical
model match with permeability and skin estimates of 1.1 mD
and 0.8, respectively.
During the boundary-dominated flow period, the depletion
stem corresponding to b=0.8 appears to be the best match to
the simulated production data. The pore volume and bulk
volume of the reservoir at the onset of boundary-dominated
flow can be estimated using Eqs. A-5 and 5, respectively
(Table 2). The estimated OGIP, obtained using Eq. 8, is
essentially equal to the actual value in the simulator. The
OGIP estimated using the pore volume alone (3.21 x 104
Mscf) is much smaller than adsorbed gas OGIP; this is
because a fracture porosity of only 0.3% was used, translating
into a very small pore volume.
The Fetkovich type-curves, with proper selection of coal
input, and modified algorithms for GIP, can therefore be used
to yield reasonable estimates of reservoir and stimulation
parameters, in the case of constant operating conditions
(flowing pressure). Golan and Whitson24 discuss how to
manipulate the Fetkovich type-curve to account for abrupt
changes in backpressure (using the principle of superposition),
continuously changing flowing bottomhole pressure (rate
normalization) and re-stimulated wells (reinitialization).
Modern production type-curves9 have been designed to
account for the effects of changing backpressure through the
use of material balance time and rate-normalization.
Example 2 (Field, Horseshoe Canyon Coal ). This field
example is from a well producing from the Horseshoe Canyon
coals of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Individual
coal seams (multiple seams exist) were stimulated through
coiled tubing using a proppantless, N2 fracture-stimulation
procedure. In the field in which the well is located, the
Horseshoe Canyon coals are of low rank (sub-bituminous) and
are unusual (for a low rank coal) in that they produce very
little water and exhibit single-phase (gas) reservoir behaviour.
A Fetkovitch type-curve match of the production data for
this well is given in Fig. 5. Both the spreadsheet-based type-
curve matching software developed in this work and the New
Mexico Tech. type-curve software30 were used, with very
similar results. Input reservoir data is given in Table 3. The
well has been producing at a relatively stable backpressure
(estimated at sandface) of 20-25 psia, hence the constant-
flowing wellbore pressure assumption used in the Fetkovich
curve derivation is reasonable here.
The type-curve match results (using re/rwa = 1000 and 5000
stems) are given in Table 4. A drainage area of 75 – 80 acres
was obtained, depending on which type-curve matching
software was used. Due to the high permeability of the
reservoir, the well spent very little time in the transient flow
period thus it is difficult to get a unique estimate of
permeability and skin from the type-curve match. The re/rwa =
5000 match is more consistent with the well-test (flow and
buildup test performed upon initial completion) derived
estimates (Table 5). The slightly positive skin is not
unexpected for this stimulation style, which is designed
mainly to remove near-wellbore damage associated with
drilling the well than to create large effective hydraulic
fractures.
These estimates of permeability and skin (from type-
curve match and well test) and drainage area (from type-curve
match) were then input into an analytical simulator, and along
with the estimated flowing pressures (converted from surface)
were used to history-match the production data for the well
(Fig. 5b). In the history-matching procedure, the drainage
area was adjusted to match historical production decline. The
final result (80-acres) agrees very well with the type-curve
derived estimates of 75-80 acres, hence the history-matching
confirmed the type-curve match results.
It is worth mentioning that the pore volume estimates from
the type-curve match is < 0.2 MMcf, resulting in an OGIP
estimate of ~ 1 MMscf, which is only a small fraction of the
more correct estimated OGIP (~ 152 MMscf) using the coal
bulk volume and adsorption isotherm. This example is
extreme as we have assumed such a small value for fracture
SPE 100313
porosity, but illustrates how incorrect estimates of OGIP can
be arrived at using type-curve matching software designed for
conventional reservoirs (and conventional OGIP calculations).
Horseshoe Canyon coal wells typically (as in this example)
are completed in multiple thin coal seams, which are often
stimulated individually; these wells have the potential to
exhibit multi-layer reservoir characteristics because of
differences in coal seam productivities and gas content. In
this example, we have assumed a single-layer system and as
such have derived average permeability and skin values for
contacted reservoir in the wellbore. Although these data may
be useful for providing an initial single-layer equivalent
production profile for the well (appears to be reasonable for
the first year of the life of the well in this example), the long
term performance prediction may be inaccurate if multi-layer
reservoir behaviour is exhibited. Some operators5 have used
spinner log information along with other reservoir data to
distribute productivity to layers, which is a more rigorous and
potentially accurate approach if multi-layer reservoir
behaviour exists.
Example 3 (Field, Fruitland Coal ). This example is from
a well producing from the Fruitland coal of the San Juan
Basin. The well was part of field study performed to assess
the need for infill drilling (320 to 160-acre spacing) in areas
outside the prolific Fruitland coal Fairway15. In the
aforementioned study, type-curve analysis, combined with
single-well history-matching, was used to provide initial
estimates of kh and skin for input into the field reservoir
simulation performed for the study area. Little well-test data
were available in the area within or adjacent to the study area,
therefore type-curve/single-well analysis was the only viable
source for reservoir/stimulation information.
Flowing wellhead or sandface pressure was unavailable for
the first 21 months of the life of this well, so calculated
sandface pressures were used from the reservoir simulation
history-match, discussed in a previous paper15. The flowing
sandface pressure data is plotted in Fig. 6 to demonstrate that
the pressures are declining in this example (unlike the
previous example where they were fairly constant) – for the
type-curve match estimates of reservoir properties, the first
year average flowing pressure was used.
The type-curve matching process was challenging because
little data resided on the transient portion of the curve, making
it difficult to establish a unique permeability/skin estimate. It
is known, however, that no fracture stimulation treatment was
performed on this well, and wells that were similarly
completed yield positive to slightly negative skins. The re/rwa
= 10000 stem (Fig. 7) was therefore chosen for the match
resulting; permeability/skin estimates are given for re/rwa =
5000 and 10000 in Table 6, for both the spreadsheet type-
curves developed in this work, and the New Mexico Tech.
type-curve set. The single-well history-match, using the
analytical simulator with the type-curve match estimates of
permeability and skin as input, is also given in Fig. 7.
Although the parameter estimates are somewhat non-unique,
they still result in a reasonable match of the well production
data.
Pressure Transient Analysis of Production and Flowing
Pressure Data. Simulated examples are used to illustrate the
7
application of PTA techniques to analyze production data.
Examples of field applications (to conventional gas wells) are
given in Hager and Jones10. The lack of and quality of the
gathered flowing pressure data for the coal examples
discussed in the previous section precluded the use of the PTA
technique to extract quantitative information, thus only
simulated examples of coal production data are given.
Example 1 (Simulated). In this example, the synthetic
production profile was generated using a numerical simulator
(and assuming radial flow) and the input of Table 1. The
derivative curve is shown in Fig. 8, from which the infinite-
acting flow regime (zero slope, t < 2000 hrs) and boundary-
dominated flow regime (near unit slope, t > 4000 hrs) are
evident. The late-time straight line does not exhibit an exact
unit slope (on log-log plot) as expected during boundary-
dominated flow. It is postulated that the cause of this is due to
the fact that the data were plotted vs. time, and not pseudo-
time (Eq. 12) – if pseudo-time were used instead of time, a
unit slope is expected.
A cartesian plot of rate normalized pseudopressure vs.
equivalent time is then generated, and a straight line fit
through the data (Fig. 8) corresponding to the time-period for
infinite acting flow (obtained from derivative analysis). The
same plots were generated using data from the analytical
simulator for comparison (Fig. 9). The permeability and skin
values obtained from the slope and intercept of the diagnostic
plot are given in Table 7 and are in reasonable agreement with
the actual values of 1 md and 0 skin.
Using Eq. 18 to calculate the radius-of-investigation, and
noting that the time at the start of the unit slope (boundary-
dominated flow), the well drainage area (radial) was estimated
to be 163-165 acres, consistent with the actual drainage area of
160-acres.
Example 2 (Simulated). This example uses a numerical
simulator to generate a production profile (radial flow) that
incorporates a sorption time of ~ 110 days to establish the
impact of non-equilibrium behaviour upon the analysis (Fig.
10). A large sorption time was chosen to exaggerate the
effect; most sorption times that the authors have encountered
for commercial reservoirs have been considerably smaller than
this. All other input are the same as in Table 1.
The derivative curve demonstrates classic dual porosity-
type behaviour with a characteristic “dip”, followed by a
transition into boundary-dominated flow. In this example,
there is no well-established radial flow period (zero-slope),
although a fit through the first two data points yields
permeability (0.9 mD) and skin (0.2) values reasonably close
to actual values (1 mD and 0, respectively).
Reservoir Simulation Analysis of Permeability Anisotropy
and Multi-layer Reservoirs.
Example 1 (Permeability anisotropy, Simulated). A
series of model runs using the COALGAS2D numerical
simulator were generated for varying anisotropy ratios (2:1,
4:1, 16:1 and 100:1) and compared. The model parameters for
the isotropic case are given in Table 8. The drainage area (40-
acres) and geometric average permeability (1 mD) was fixed
in all cases, and equations displayed in Fig. 3 were used to
convert the reservoir geometry for each anisotropy case. The
resulting forecasts are shown in Fig. 11. Significant deviation
8 SPE 100313
from the base isotropic case only appears to occur for higher
ratios (16:1, 100:1), but not for lower permeability ratios (2:1,
4:1), indicating that even if some anisotropy exists, the effect
(on well production profile) would be very difficult to
distinguish from the isotropic case. When super-imposed
upon a Fetkovich type-curve plot (which assumes radial flow),
the effect of higher permeability anisotropy (i.e. 100:1) can be
easily diagnosed (Fig. 11b) – the higher permeability
anisotropy translates into longer transition times from transient
to boundary-dominated flow (characteristic of linear flow)
which cannot be analyzed effectively with the Fetkovich type-
curves. There are, however, type-curves available for
analyzing wells with permeability anisotropy/linear flow
characteristics32.
The maximum reported permeability anisotropy for CBM
reservoirs thus far is 19:133, with most anisotropies reported to
be < 8:1. It is therefore expected that in most commercial
CBM fields, permeability anisotropy would not have a
significant impact upon isolated single-well analysis, but
could certainly impact development strategy (spacing and
well-orientation with respect to fracture direction) and
ECBM/CO2 sequestration project design34.
Example 2 (Commingled sand and coal, Simulated). In
this example, a simulated (using analytical simulator)
production profile of a commingled sand and coal reservoir (2-
layer) is analyzed to demonstrate how individual layer
reservoir and stimulation (skin) values can be estimated by
using the MCASLS approach discussed above. The example
is kept simple (2-layers, simplistic input distributions) to
demonstrate the concept. No crossflow between reservoir
layers and a constant flowing bottomhole pressure is assumed.
Table 9 contains all relevant data input into the analytical
simulator to generate the forecast.
In the current example, the “unknowns” are the individual
layer absolute permeabilities, skins, and drainage areas; input
distributions (assumed discrete uniform, see Table 10) for the
unknowns were created in the history-matching (Monte
Carlo/analytical) simulator as a starting point for the analysis.
The distributions were sampled at each Monte Carlo iteration
(5000 total iterations) to generate a range of individual layer
and commingled production profiles (Fig. 12). The iteration
that led to the minimized objective function yielded individual
layer reservoir and skin values identical to the values input
into the analytical simulator. The final “matched” layer
properties and production profiles (shown on Fetkovich type-
curves) are shown in Fig 13.
This example illustrates that in the simple case of a two-
layer system (with reasonably constrained input distributions),
with no crossflow between reservoir layers, a unique set of
layer properties may be extracted. If a broader, continuous
range for the input distributions is assumed, then a procedure
such as that described by Roadifer et al.29 may be used to
reduce the uncertainty in the input distributions, and provide a
range of outcomes that represent a history-match.
Example 3 (Multilayer coal, Field). In this second
Fruitland coal example, a well was selected for which
individual layer (2 coal layers) well-test data had been
collected, and analyzed to obtained permeability, skin and
reservoir pressure (Table 11). The production history
subsequent to the well-test was used to history-match (Fig.
14); note that the well was re-stimulated at ~ 4.5 years, with a
resulting increase in production (lower skin).
As no flowing wellhead or sandface pressure data was
available for this well, the production data subsequent to the
well test was history-matched using a (2-layer) analytical
simulator; the well-test data (permeability, skin, reservoir
pressure) for each layer were input into the simulator, along
with other hard reservoir data (coal thickness, fracture porosity
etc., see Table 11), and a flowing sandface pressure profile
was created to match the production data. This flowing
pressure profile, which appears consistent with wells in the
area for which flowing pressure data were available, was used
in subsequent analysis (see Fig. 14). This approach of course
assumes that the well-test derived properties are accurate.
In this example, the skin values for each layer were
hardcoded (along with coal thickness, fracture porosity, and
gas content) and the values for permeability and drainage area
were varied in the history-matching multi-layer (2) MCASLS.
Only a handful of well-test-derived permeabilities were
available from wells offset to the example well, precluding a
statistical fit of a distribution to those data. Triangular
distributions were therefore used as input for absolute
permeability (both layers), with the most likely (peak) set at
50 mD, which roughly corresponds to the average of the offset
well data. The minimum and maximum were set at 1 and 100
mD, respectively, representing a broad range in possible
permeabilities. A discrete uniform distribution was used for
drainage area, with a minimum of 80 and maximum of 640
acres. 5000 Monte Carlo iterations were generated, with
corresponding production profiles. The least squares objective
function value was used to screen the best matches; the top
five (smallest objective function value) matches along with the
manual history-match used to derive the flowing bhp pressure
profile is given in Fig 14. Note that the history-match as
performed for actual production data up to the point at which
the well was re-stimulated (4.5 years), then a forecast was
generated with an assumed skin for post-restimulation
production.
All history-matches (manual and Monte Carlo) are in good
agreement with each other, and the average permeability for
each layer used in the matches are in reasonable agreement
with the well-test derived values (see Table 12). 3 of the top 5
iterations have drainage areas for the two layers (320-acres),
which is the same as the manual history-match, whereas 2
iterations have a 640-acre drainage area for the lower layer.
Although a 640-acre drainage area is possible, it is less likely
than 320-acres (well-spacing of comparable producing wells at
the time of production history), hence these two iterations
would be discounted in the final selection of best matches.
Discussion
The type-curve matching methodology for single-phase coal
reservoirs described above represents a simple modification of
existing technology. All the commercial software products
that the authors have used for performing production data
analysis have the ability to input total compressibility and
porosity (but lack the correct OGIP calculation for coal), and
therefore can be modified in a simplistic sense to account for
coal reservoir behaviour.
SPE 100313
More sophisticated techniques, that rigorously account for
gas and desorption isotherm properties as a function of
reservoir pressure, and changing operating conditions (i.e.
wellbore pressure) can easily be developed through the
modification of the conventional pseudo-time or material
balance pseudo-time, as discussed above. An example
application of more rigorous techniques to the Horseshoe
Canyon coal well data, is given in Fig. 15. In this example,
we have applied flowing material balance and an adjusted
Fetkovich type-curve, both of which account for desorption
compressibility in the pseudo-time function35. The flowing
material technique yields an OGIP (which accounts for
adsorbed gas) of 147.5 MMcf, which is very similar to the
value obtained from the Fetkovich match given in Table 4.
The permeability and skin values obtained from the adjusted
Fetkovich type-curves are also consistent with the previous
match although the permeability from the adjusted Fetkovich
curve is a little lower (8.8 mD vs 9.2 mD).
Using the conventional (without pseudo-time) Fetkovich
type-curves, the impact of inputting the wrong porosity and
total compressibility upon derived reservoir and stimulation
values can be significant. As discussed earlier, most existing
commercial software packages for production type-curve
analysis use a conventional (compressed gas in pore volume)
calculation to estimate GIP, and hence input of coal fracture
porosity (usually < 1%) will yield very small estimates of GIP
for coal. It would be tempting to increase the porosity to
match the adsorbed GIP estimate, but this will result in
incorrect skin estimation. For example, referring to example 1
of the Fetkovich type-curve match examples above, use of the
conventional V p calculation (Eq. A-5) results in an OGIP
estimate of 3.21 x 104 Mcf, whereas the correct (adsorbed gas)
OGIP is 1.60 x106 Mcf. If a 15% porosity is used in the
conventional OGIP calculation (instead of the fracture
porosity of 0.3%), the conventional OGIP estimate matches
the adsorbed OGIP, however, using the type-curve match for
the analytical model-generated production profile ( re/rwa =
5000 stem match), a skin value of 2.0 is obtained (compared to
.1 using fracture porosity). Use of the incorrect total
compressibility in the type-curve calculations likewise has an
impact upon the estimated skin. For example, if only gas
compressibility is considered in the calculation, the type-curve
calculations would yield (using re/rwa = 5000 stem of
analytical model match) a skin value = -1.5 is obtained
(compared to .1 for the case including desorption
compressibility).
The impact of two other potentially important coal
reservoir properties upon type-curve matching results have not
been discussed: diffusion (non-equilibrium between matrix
and fractures) and absolute permeability changes as a function
of depletion/desorption. All type-curve examples shown thus
far assume equilibrium between matrix and fractures (zero
sorption time). The common production type-curves
(Fetkovich, Blasingame, Agarwal/Gardner etc.) assume single
porosity reservoir behaviour, and thus could lead to an
incorrect analysis if dual porosity effects are significant. A
simulated example is presented in Fig. 16, where a single well
production profile was generated with the COALGAS2D
numerical simulator (cartesian grid assuming 4:1 permeability
9
anisotropy ratio) with a sorption time of zero and 110 days.
The early time production is significantly suppressed relative
to the equilibrium (zero diffusion) scenario. In the next
example (Fig. 17), we use a numerical simulator (using radial
grid) to generate a production profile with a sorption time of
110 days , match the profile with the Fetkovich type-curves,
and compare the results to the equilibrium (zero sorption time)
case (input parameters given in Table 1). The early-time
production data for the non-equilibrium case appears to trend
towards higher re/rwa stem values, indicative of a higher skin.
In other words the effect of diffusion/non-equilibrium appears
to manifest itself as an apparent positive skin.
In all example cases given above, we also have assumed
no permeability changes as a function of depletion/desorption.
Should these effects be present, it is anticipated that they
would have a significant impact upon the interpretation of the
data using type-curves, if the type-curves are not first
corrected to include such reservoir behaviour. An illustration
of the effect is given in Fig. 18 where we have type-curve
matched a simulated production profile (generated with a
numerical simulator, input parameters given in Table 1) with a
permeability-growth curve (~ 2-fold increase from 600 to 60
psia). The calculated values of permeability and skin, using
the un-corrected type-curve, and the re/rwa = 5000 stem is 1.2
mD, and 0.1, yielding a slightly higher permeability than
actual (1 mD). The boundary-dominated flow profile does not
conform to the b-stem value match (0.8) for the no-
permeability-growth case, and an increase in gas rate is
noticeable at early times, even though a constant flowing
pressure was assumed. Further work is required to establish
the impacts of different stress and desorption-dependent
permeability curves on type-curve match results.
Conclusions
This paper discusses the use of several common reservoir
engineering tools for analyzing single-phase coal gas
production data, including type-curves, pressure transient
analysis, analytical (combined with Monte Carlo) and
numerical simulation. The major conclusions are:
1) Conventional type-curve and pressure transient
analysis techniques can be applied successfully to
non-complex reservoirs (preferably reservoirs lacking
strong multi-layer behavior, strong permeability
anisotropy, large sorption times or permeability
changes with pressure/desorption), provided efforts
are made to account for desorption (through total
compressibility term) and the correct reservoir data
values are input (ex. fracture porosity)
2) The type-curve and other production diagnostic tools
should not be used in isolation; the reservoir and
stimulation data resulting from those analysis should
be validated using using single- or multi-well
(preferably the latter to account for well to well
interference effects if it occurs) reservoir simulation
methods that involve a detailed calibration (i.e.
history-matching)
3) The effect of permeability anisotropy (associated
with natural fracturing) upon single-well production
profiles appears to be significant only for large
(>16:1) anisotropy ratios
10
4) Multi-layer effects upon coal production profile can
be significant; a methodology utilizing multi-layer
analytical simulation combined with Monte Carlo
and a least squares objective function is demonstrated
to be useful for yielding individual layer reservoir
and stimulation properties
5) The techniques discussed in this work (other than
reservoir simulation) do not account for non-
equilibrium between matrix and fractures in coal
reservoirs and permeability changes during depletion
and hence may yield inaccurate results in those cases
In future work, we would like to apply additional
analytical techniques for production data analysis of single-
phase coal reservoirs including modern type-curves (ex.
Blasingame, Agarwal-Gardner). We would also like to
continue to explore the effects of more complex coal reservoir
behavior (permeability anisotropy, multi-layer effects, dual
porosity, permeability changes during depletion) upon the
results obtained from these simple analytical techniques and
possibly develop new analytical techniques to handle the more
complex reservoir characteristics.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area, acres
Ax, Ay = gridblock cross-section area, normal to direction
given in subscript (Eq. B-1), ft2
Bg = gas formation volume factor, rcf/Mscf or RB/scf
B g* = gas formation volume factor, adjusted to account for
adsorption effects (Eq. B-2), RB/scf
cd = desorption compressibility, psi-1
cf = formation compressibility, psi-1
cg = gas compressibility, psi-1
ct = total compressibility, psi-1
D = diffusion coefficient, ft2/d
G = gas-in-place, Mcf
h = formation thickness, feet
k = absolute permeability, md
m’ = slope (Eq. 14)
m(P)= pseudopressure, psi2/cp
P = reservoir pressure, psia
PL = Langmuir pressure constant, psia
Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
qg = gas surface flow rate, Mscf/d
re = drainage radius, ft
ri = radius of investigation (Eq. 18), ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
rwa = effective wellbore radius, ft
s = skin factor, dimensionless
Sw = water saturation, dimensionless, fraction
t = time, days
ta = pseudo-time (Eq. 12)
tca = material balance pseudo-time (Eq. 13)
te = equivalent time (Eq. 14)
T = temperature, °R
V = adsorbed gas volume, corrected to in-situ conditions,
scf/ton
Vb = bulk volume of the reservoir, ft3
VL = Langmuir volume constant, scf/ton
SPE 100313
Vp = pore volume of the reservoir, ft3
Z = gas supercompressibility factor, dimensionless
z * = gas supercompressibility factor, adjusted to account for
adsorption effects (Eq. B-3), dimensionless
Greek Symbols
αc = volume conversion factor, 5.615
βc = transmissibility conversion factor, 0.001127
γg = gas gravity, air = 1
μg = gas viscosity, cp
φ = porosity, dimensionless, fraction
σ = coal matrix shape factor, ft-2
τ = sorption time, days
ρc = coal bulk density, g/cm3
Subscripts
D = dimensionless
dD = type-curve dimensionless
i = initial
m = matrix
n = number
sc = standard conditions
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of
Burlington Resources for their time to review and permission
to publish this paper. The authors also thank Louis Mattar of
Fekete for his helpful comments.
References
1. Seidle, J. : “Coal Well Decline Behavior and Drainage Areas:
Theory and Practice,” paper SPE 75519 presented at the 2002
SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, 30 April –
2 May.
2. Mavor, M.J., and Pratt, T.J.: “Powder River Basin Ft. Union
Coal Reservoir Properties and Production Decline Analysis,”
paper SPE 84427 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5-8 October.
3. Aminian, K. et al.: “Type-curves for Coalbed Methane
Production Prediction,” paper SPE 91482 presented at the 2004
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, 15-
17 September.
4. Aminian, K. et al.: “Type-curves for Production Prediction and
Evaluation of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs,” paper SPE 97957
presented at the 2005 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Morgantown, West Virginia, 14-16 September.
5. Bastian, P.A. et al.: “Assessment and Development of the Dry
Horseshoe Canyon CBM Play in Canada,” paper SPE 96899
presented at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 9-12 October.
6. Fetkovich, M.J.: “Decline-curve Analysis Using Type-curves,”
JPT (June 1980) 1065.
7. Fetkovich, M.J. et al.: “Decline-Curve Analysis Using Type-
curves – Case Histories,” SPEFE (December 1987) 637; Trans.,
AIME, 283.
8. Fetkovich, M.J. et al.: “Useful Concepts for Decline-Curve
Forecasting, Reserve Estimation, and Analysis,” SPERE
(February 1996) 13.
9. Mattar, L., and Anderson, D.M.: “A Systematic and
Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced Analysis of
Production Data,” paper SPE 84472 presented at the 2003 SPE
SPE 100313
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 5-8 October.
10. Hager, C.J., and Jones, J.R.: “Analyzing Flowing Production
Data with Standard Pressure Transient Methods,” paper SPE
71033 presented at the 2001 SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum
Technology Conference, Keystone, Colorado, 21-23 May.
11. Cui, X., and Bustin, R.M.: “Controls of Coal Fabric on Coalbed
Gas Production and Compositional Shift in both Field
Production and Canister Desorption Test,” SPEJ (March 2006).
12. Laubach, S.E. et al.: “Characteristics and Origin of Coal Cleat:
A Review ”; Intl. J. of Coal Geology (1998) 35, 175.
13. Arevalo-Villagran, J.A. et al.: “Production Analysis of Long-
Term Linear Flow in Tight Gas Reservoirs: Case Histories,”
paper SPE 71516 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30
September - 3 October.
14. Arevalo-Villagran, J.A. et al.: “Transient Analysis of Tight Gas
Well Performance - More Case Histories,” paper SPE 84476
presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5 - 8 October.
15. Clarkson, C.R., and McGovern, J.M.: “Optimization of Coalbed
Methane Reservoir Exploration and Development Strategies
Through Integration of Simulation and Economics,” SPEREE
(December 2005) 502.
16. Clarkson, C.R. and McGovern, J.M.: “Study of the Potential
Impact of Matrix Free Gas Storage Upon Coalbed Gas Reserves
and Production Using a New Material Balance Equation,” paper
0113 presented at the 2001 Intl. Coalbed Methane Symposium,
The U. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 14-18 May.
17. Clarkson, C.R. and McGovern, J.M.: “A New Tool for
Unconventional Reservoir Exploration and Development
Applications,” paper 0336 presented at the 2003 Intl. Coalbed
Methane Symposium, The U. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, 5-9 May.
18. Poe, B.D. et al.: “Advanced Fractured Well Diagnostics for
Production Data Analysis,” paper SPE 56750 presented at the
1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, 3-6 October.
19. Blasingame, T.A., McCray, T.L., and Lee, W.J.: “Decline-curve
Analysis for Variable Pressure Drop/Variable Flowrate
Systems,” paper SPE 21513 presented at the 1991 SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Houston, Texas, 23-24 January.
20. Agarwal, R.G. et al.: Analyzing Well Production Data Using
Combined Type-curve and Decline-curve Concepts,” SPEREE
(October 1999) 478.
21. Arps, J.J.: “Estimation of Primary Oil Reserves,” Trans., AIME
(1956) 207, 182.
22. van Everdingen, A.F., and Hurst, W.: “Application of the
Laplace Transformation to Flow Problems in Reservoirs,”
Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 305.
23. Edwardson, M.J. et al.: “Calculation of Formation Temperature
Disturbances Caused By Mud Circulation,” JPT (April 1962)
416; Trans AIME, 225.
24. Golan, M. and Whitson, C.H.: Well Performance, second
edition, Tapir, Norway (1996).
25. Mavor, M.J.: “Coalbed Methane Reservoir Properties,” A Guide
to Coalbed Methane Reservoir Engineering, Gas Research Inst.
Report GRI-94/0397, Chicago (1996).
26. Bumb, A.C., and McKee, C.R.: “Gas-Well Testing in the
Presence of Desorption for Coalbed Methane and Devonian
Shale,” SPEFE (March 1988), 179
27. Spivey, J.P., and Semmelbeck, M.E.: “Forecasting Long-Term
Gas Production of Dewatered Coal Seams and Fractured
Shales,” paper SPE 29580 presented at the 1995 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low-Permeability Reservoirs Symposium,
Denver, Colorado, 20-22 March.
11
28. Payne, D.A.: “Material Balance Calculations in Tight Gas
Reservoirs: Pitfalls of P/z Plots and a More Accurate
Technique,” paper SPE 36702 presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, 5-9 October.
29. Roadifer, R.D. et al.: “History Matching (Reservoir Parameter
Estimation) for Coalbed Methane Reservoirs via Monte Carlo
Simulation,” paper 0364 presented at the 2003 Intl. Coalbed
Methane Symposium, The U. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, 5-9 May.
30. Munoz, J.D., Chen, H.Y., and Teufel, L.W.: “A Type-Curve-
Based Spreadsheet Program for History Matching and
Forecasting Tight-Gas Production,” paper SPE 71067 presented
at the 2001 SPE Rocky Mountain Petroleum Technology
Conference, Denver, Colorado, 21-23 May.
31. Schlumberger GeoQuest: ECLIPSE Reference Manual (2004A).
32. Cox, D.O., Kuuskra, V.A., and Hansen, J.T.: “Advanced Type-
curve Analysis for Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs,” paper
SPE 35595 presented at the 1996 Gas Technology Conference,
Calgary, Alberta, 28 April – 1 May.
33. Massarotto, P., Rudolph, V., and Golding, S.D.: “Anisotropic
Permeability Characterisation of Permian Coals,” paper 0359
presented at the 2003 Intl. Coalbed Methane Symposium, The
U. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 5-9 May.
34. Smith, D.H. et al.: “Simulating Carbon Dioxide
Sequestration/ECBM Production in Coal Seams: Effect of
Permeability Anisotropies and the Diffusion-Time Constant,”
SPEREE (April 2005), 156.
35. Rapid OppSource Inc.: PDA Theory Manual, version 3.0
36. Lee, W.J., and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir Engineering,
Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1996) 5.
37. King, G.R.: “Material-Balance Techniques for Coal-Seam and
Devonian Shale Gas Reservoirs with Limited Water Influx,”
SPERE (February 1993) 67.
38. Ertekin, T., Abou-Kassem, J.H., and King, G.R.: Basic Applied
Reservoir Simulation, Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas
(2003), 7.
39. Manik, J., Ertekin, T., Kohler, T.E.: Development and
Validation of a Compositional Coalbed Simulator,” J. Cdn. Pet.
Tech. (April 2002) 41, No. 4, 39.
40. King, G.R., Ertekin, T., and Schwerer, F.C.: “Numerical
Simulation of the Transient Behaviour of Coal Seam
Degasification Wells,” SPEFE (April 1986) 165; Trans., AIME,
284.
41. Kohler, T.E., and Ertekin, T.: “Modeling Undersaturated Coal
Seam Gas Reservoirs,” paper SPE 29578 presented at the 1995
SPE Rocky Mountain Regional/Low Permeability Reservoirs
Symposium, Denver, Colorado, 20-22 March
Appendix A
The following equations are used to extract permeability, skin,
drainage area and pore volume (at the onset of boundary-
dominated flow), using the matches of production data to the
Fetkovich type-curves36:
⎛ q ⎞ ⎛ T ⎞⎛ ⎛ re ⎞ 3⎞
k = ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ln⎜ ⎟ − ⎟
⎝ q Dd
⎟
⎠ match ⎝ [ ( )]
⎜ 0.000703h m(Pi ) − m Pwf ⎟⎜ ⎜ rwa
⎠⎝ ⎝
⎟
⎠ match 4 ⎟⎠
(A-1)
12 SPE 100313

⎛ t ⎞ 0.00634k allows for the modeling adsorbed gas storage. Bg* , as used in
2
rwa = ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎝ t Dd ⎠ match ⎛
1 ⎛ r ⎞
2 ⎞⎛ ⎛ r ⎞ 3⎞ Eq. B-1b, is given by:
φμ g c t ⎜⎜ ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ − 1⎟⎜ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟
⎟ − ⎟
2 ⎝ rwa ⎠ match ⎟⎜⎝ ⎝ rwa ⎠ match 4 ⎟⎠
⎝ ⎠ Psc T z *
(A-2) B g* = …............................................................(B-2)
α c z scTsc P
⎛ r ⎞ z * is obtained from King37, modified with the following
s = ln⎜⎜ w ⎟ …………………..………………………….(A-3)
⎟ assumptions: water and formation compressibilities are
⎝ rwa ⎠ negligible, water influx is negligible, and water saturation = 0.
The equation for z * as used in this work is:
⎛ r ⎞
re = rwa ⎜⎜ e ⎟
⎟ …...…….……………………………(A-4)
⎝ rwa ⎠ match z
z* = ……...................................(B-3)
0.031214 zTPscV L ρ c
1+
⎛ t ⎞ ⎛ q ⎞ 2000 Psc T z sc Tsc (PL + P )φ
V p = ⎜⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ t Dd
⎟ ⎜
⎠ match ⎝ q Dd
⎟ (μ c ) [
T ( )]
⎠ match g t i sc m(Pi ) − m Pwf
The above equation for z assumes a Langmuir-type
*
(A-5)
isotherm.
Procedures similar to those described in Ertekin et al.38
Assuming a circular drainage area:
were used in the numerical solution of Eqs. B-1a and B-1b.
For equation B-1a, following Manik et al.39, the sorption rate
re = V p / πhφ ………...…………………………...……(A-6) is calculated using a non-equilibrium, dual porosity
formulation, assuming a pseudosteady-state between matrix
Appendix B and fractures. The advantage of the Manik et al.39 approach
A finite difference computer model was constructed to predict over the popular King et al.40 method is that oscillations in the
reservoir pressures, and gas production rates from producing sorption rate calculations are avoided (see Kohler and
wells, in a 2-D heterogeneous, isotropic, dual-porosity Ertekin41). The non-equilibrium is expressed as:
reservoir described by the following mathematical model:
∂Vm 1
= [Ve − Vm ] …......................................................(B-4)
∂ ⎛⎜ Axkx ∂P ⎞⎟ ∂ ⎛ Ayky ∂P ⎞⎟ Vφ ∂ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ∂t τ
βc Δx + ⎜ βc Δy + qsc + qm = b ⎜ ⎟
∂x ⎜⎝ μg Bg ∂x ⎟⎠ ∂y ⎜⎝ μg Bg ∂y ⎟⎠ αc ∂t ⎜⎝ Bg ⎟⎠ where Ve is the adsorbed phase volume (within a gridblock)
(B-1a) (scf) matrix-cleat boundary and Vm is the adsorbed phase
volume (within a griblock) in the coal matrix. Integrating and
Eq. B-1a describes flow of gas through a 2-D reservoir with
re-arranging:
an incompressible pore volume. q sc (scf/D) represents gas
production (or injection) rate from a well and q m represents ⎛ − Δt ⎞ k +1 ⎡ ⎛ − Δt ⎞ ⎤
Vmk +1 = Vmk exp⎜ ⎟ + Ve ⎢1 − exp⎜ ⎟⎥ ..................(B-5)
⎝ τ ⎠ ⎝ τ ⎠⎦
gas flow from the coal matrix.
⎣
A simplification of Eq. (B-1a) can be made if we assume
that the matrix and fractures are in equilibrium:
1
where τ =
Dσ
∂ ⎛⎜ Ax k x ∂P ⎞⎟ ∂ ⎛ Ay k y ∂P ⎞⎟ V φ ∂ ⎛⎜ 1 ⎞⎟
βc Δx + ⎜ βc Δy + qsc = b
∂x ⎜⎝ μ g Bg ∂x ⎟⎠ ∂y ⎜⎝ μ g Bg ∂y ⎟⎠ αc ∂t ⎜ Bg* ⎟
⎝ ⎠ The source term in Eq. B-1a then becomes:
(B-1b)
qm =
Δt
[
−1 k +1
]
Vm − Vmk …......................................................(B-6)
This allows a conventional single-phase (single-porosity)
simulator to be converted to a single-phase (equilibrium) coal
simulator through the use of Bg* in place of B g , which
SPE 100313 13

TABLE 1. INPUT PARAMETERS FOR SIMULATED 1-PHASE COAL GAS PRODUCTION.

INPUT PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUE

THICKNESS (FT) 40

BULK DENSITY (G/CM )3 1.55

CLEAT POROSITY (%) 0.3

GAS GRAVITY 0.554

ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY (MD) 1.0

INITIAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 600

RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE (ºF) 120

LANGMUIR VOLUME (SCF/TON, IN-SITU) 250

LANGMUIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 661

DRAINAGE AREA (ACRES) 160

WELLBORE DIAMETER (INCHES) 7.875
SKIN 0
FLOWING BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE (PSIA) 100

TABLE 2. TYPE-CURVE MATCH OF SIMULATED PRODUCTION DATA.

RESERVOIR PROPERTY FETKOVICH TYPE-CURVE MATCH

RE/RWA=1000 RE/RWA=5000

PERMEABILITY (MD) 0.8 1.0

SKIN -1.5 0.1
PORE VOLUME (FT3) - 8.34 X 105
BULK VOLUME (FT3) - 2.78 X 108
OGIP* (MSCF) - 1.60 X 106

* CALCULATED USING EQ. 8, NEGLECTING FREE-GAS STORAGE

TABLE 3. RESERVOIR DATA FOR HORSESHOE CANYON COAL WELL EXAMPLE.

INPUT PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUE

THICKNESS (FT) 49.9

BULK DENSITY (G/CM )3 1.33

CLEAT POROSITY (%) 0.1

GAS GRAVITY 0.55

INITIAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 86

RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE (ºF) 67

LANGMUIR VOLUME (SCF/TON, IN-SITU) 155

LANGMUIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 547

14 SPE 100313

TABLE 4. TYPE-CURVE MATCH OF HORSESHOE CANYON COAL WELL DATA.

RESERVOIR PROPERTY FETKOVICH TYPE-CURVE MATCH

RE/RWA=1000 RE/RWA=5000

PERMEABILITY (MD) 7.3 9.2

SKIN
PORE VOLUME (FT3)
BULK VOLUME (FT3)
DRAINAGE AREA (ACRES)
OGIP* (MSCF)
-1.4 0.2
- 1.74 X 105
- 1.74 X 108
- 80
- 1.52 X 105

* CALCULATED USING EQ. 8, NEGLECTING FREE-GAS STORAGE

TABLE 5. RESULTS OF INITIAL WELL TEST (FLOW AND BUILDUP) FOR HORSESHOE CANYON WELL.

INPUT PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUE

PERMEABILITY (MD) 9.2

SKIN 0.2

P* (PSIA) 86.1

TABLE 6. TYPE-CURVE MATCH OF FRUITLAND COAL WELL DATA.

USING SPREADSHEET TYPE-CURVES GENERATED IN THIS WORK:

RESERVOIR PROPERTY FETKOVICH TYPE-CURVE MATCH

RE/RWA=5000 RE/RWA=10000

PERMEABILITY (MD) 9.9 10.8

SKIN -0.9 -0.3

USING NEW MEXICO TECH. TYPE-CURVES:

RESERVOIR PROPERTY FETKOVICH TYPE-CURVE MATCH

RE/RWA=5000 RE/RWA=9000

PERMEABILITY (MD) 9.9 9.9

SKIN -0.9 -0.4
SPE 100313 15

TABLE 7. PRESSURE TRANSIENT ANALYSIS OF NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL MODEL-GENERATED

PRODUCTION DATA.

RESERVOIR PROPERTY PTA

NUMERICAL MODEL ANALYTICAL MODEL

PERMEABILITY (MD) 1.0 1.0

SKIN -0.3 0.2
*DRAINAGE AREA (ACRES) 165 163

* CALCULATED USING EQ. 18, AND THE TIME AT THE START OF THE UNIT SLOPE (APPROXIMATE).

TABLE 8. INPUT PARAMETERS FOR SIMULATED 1-PHASE COAL GAS PRODUCTION (USING COALGAS2D
NUMERICAL SIMULATOR).

INPUT PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUE

THICKNESS (FT) 20

BULK DENSITY (G/CM ) 3 1.55

CLEAT POROSITY (%) 0.3

GAS GRAVITY 0.554

ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY (MD) 1.0

INITIAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 600

RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE (ºF) 120

LANGMUIR VOLUME (SCF/TON, IN-SITU) 250

LANGMUIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 661

DRAINAGE AREA (ACRES) 40

WELLBORE DIAMETER (INCHES) 6.25
SKIN -1
FLOWING BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE (PSIA) 150

TABLE 9. INPUT PARAMETERS FOR SIMULATED 2-LAYER COAL/SAND GAS PRODUCTION.

INPUT PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUE

COAL SAND
THICKNESS (FT) 10 10

BULK DENSITY (G/CM3) 1.45 -

CLEAT (COAL)/TOTAL (SAND) POROSITY (%) 0.3 8.0

GAS GRAVITY 0.554 0.554

ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY (MD) 1.0 0.5

INITIAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 1000 1000

RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE (ºF) 100 100

LANGMUIR VOLUME (SCF/TON, IN-SITU) 302 -

LANGMUIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 600 -

DRAINAGE AREA (ACRES) 160 320

WELLBORE DIAMETER (INCHES) 6.25 6.25
SKIN -1 -2
FLOWING BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE (PSIA) 100 100
16 SPE 100313

TABLE 10. INPUT PARAMETER DISTRIBUTIONS (DISCRETE UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION ASSUMED FOR SAND
AND COAL LAYERS) FOR MCASLS APPLICATION TO SIMULATED 2-LAYER COAL/SAND GAS PRODUCTION.
ALL OTHER RESERVOIR AND OPERATIONS DATA FIXED ACCORDING TO TABLE 9.

DISCRETE UNIFORM
INPUT PARAMETER DISTRIBUTION DATA

ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY (MD) {.1, .5, 1, 1.5, 2}

SKIN {1, 0, -1, -2}

DRAINAGE AREA (ACRES) {80, 160, 320, 640}

TABLE 11. PARAMETERS USED IN (MANUAL) HISTORY-MATCH OF FRUITLAND COAL WELL (2-LAYER) GAS
PRODUCTION. PERMEABILITY, SKIN AND INITIAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE FOR EACH LAYER OBTAINED
FROM FLOW/BUILDUP TEST PERFORMED JUST PRIOR TO HISTORY-MATCH PERIOD.

INPUT PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUE

UPPER COAL LOWER COAL
THICKNESS (FT) 18 17

BULK DENSITY (G/CM3) 1.44 1.44

CLEAT POROSITY (%) 1.0 1.0

GAS GRAVITY 0.554 0.554

ABSOLUTE PERMEABILITY (MD) 55 41

INITIAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 193 145

RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE (ºF) 89 89

LANGMUIR VOLUME (SCF/TON, IN-SITU) 334 334

LANGMUIR PRESSURE (PSIA) 823 823

DRAINAGE AREA (ACRES) 320 320

WELLBORE DIAMETER (INCHES) 6.25 6.25
SKIN -1.61 1.5
SPE 100313 17

TABLE 12. RESULTS OF TOP 5 ITERATIONS FOR HISTORY-MATCH, BASED UPON MINIMIZED LEAST SQUARES
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION. THE INPUT PARAMETERS USED FOR THE MANUAL HISTORY-MATCH ARE ALSO
GIVEN.

ITERATION INPUT PARAMETER PARAMETER VALUE

UPPER COAL LOWER COAL
1 PERMEABILITY (MD) 51.5 41.4
DRAINAGE AREA 320 320
(ACRES)

2 PERMEABILITY (MD) 53.6 39.0

DRAINAGE AREA 320 320
(ACRES)

3 PERMEABILITY (MD) 51.3 30.9

DRAINAGE AREA 320 640
(ACRES)

4 PERMEABILITY (MD) 49.5 41.7

DRAINAGE AREA 320 320
(ACRES)

5 PERMEABILITY (MD) 55.6 28.8

DRAINAGE AREA
320 640
(ACRES)

MANUAL HM PERMEABILITY (MD) 55.0 41.0

DRAINAGE AREA
320 320
(ACRES)
18 SPE 100313
SPE 100313 19
20 SPE 100313
SPE 100313 21
22 SPE 100313
SPE 100313 23
24 SPE 100313
SPE 100313 25
26 SPE 100313
SPE 100313 27
28 SPE 100313
SPE 100313 29
30 SPE 100313
SPE 100313 31
32 SPE 100313
SPE 100313 33
34 SPE 100313