0827

Best Practices for Obtaining Quality Permeability Data with

CBM Matrix Injection–Falloff Testing
Gary Rodvelt, SPE, Halliburton; R.G. Oestreich, SPE, A-Strike Consulting

ABSTRACT
Interest in unconventional plays is at an all time high in the United States as the industry responds to the
need for domestic produced energy. Many coalbed methane (CBM) producers have accepted the need to
assess their acreage with core data followed by in-situ measurement of permeability to obtain the best
results. A number of techniques have evolved to determine permeability in a timely fashion but care must
be taken to perform the testing using the best practices available to complete the test and recover data
that can be analyzed with high confidence in the solution.

The authors present best practices learned in testing and analyses from field observations of more than
55 tests in the Illinois and Appalachian basins. If the reader employs these best practices, he can be
assured of obtaining high-quality data (for the coal seam of interest) that is repeatable from one location
to the next. A test done right the first time saves money and reduces the ambiguity associated with a
poorly conducted test or data collection.

INTRODUCTION

Most coal plays in Appalachia and the Illinois basins involve sediments 500–1,000 ft thick that contain thin
seams of coal 1–5 ft thick that are bounded by shales or sand formations. Isolation of seams 2 ft or
greater has been done to determine permeability across the well. This information coupled with the core
data, i.e., gas content, adsorption isotherm, and ash content, allow the reservoir engineer to develop
modeling that will forecast water and gas production rates, leading to an economic analysis for the
project.

Several methods are available to the exploration professional for determining in situ permeability. Blauch
1
et al. described three technologies for measuring cleat permeability:
• Openhole discrete-seam drillstem testing (DST)
• Interference and matrix injection falloff testing (MIFOT)
• G-function derivative analysis
2
The advantages and disadvantages of each have been discussed previously by Rodvelt et al. in a paper
describing testing in micro-holes (3 ½-in.core holes). For the remainder of this paper, an injection falloff
test will be referred to as the MIFOT. This technique was performed on 36 seams in the Delta Project
3
described by Rodvelt and Oestreich. At the time of this writing, more than 20 additional tests had been
performed in West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, and Illinois. Lessons
learned in well setup, injection procedure, and analysis are presented for the reader to follow in designing
and performing a successful MIFOT.

BEST PRACTICES
4
Matrix injection falloff testing was described by Mavor and Saulsberry as a means of simplifying the test
for permeability, especially in the water-filled reservoirs characteristic of most coal seams. The injection of
water into a water-filled reservoir eliminates the need to estimate relative permeability behavior. MIFOTs
are recommended because they can be completed in 3-5 days versus weeks or months for slug testing.
Injecting at a constant rate for a recommended pressure increase over a given time period provides the
reservoir engineer high-quality data for permeability analysis.

1. Best practice: Perform permeability testing prior to turning the well to gas production.

If interference testing is planned after completing wells, produce the stimulation fluids back, then set up
the injection testing.

2. Best practice: Test for permeability through casing.

While testing through an open hole seems attractive because there is no casing or cement to prevent
entry into the formation, isolation of intervals, especially thin coal seams, becomes risky. Freshwater
injection can swell boundary shales and can cause hole sloughing when additional tests are attempted. If
the coal is of low permeability, fracturing may occur. Openhole packers will not contain a fracture long
before communication occurs around them and the test is aborted with little useful information. Drilling
operations can cause damage to the coals that will initially show a high skin during injection, but
continued injection will show relief. Cased holes can utilize a small amount of acid as a spot on
perforations to ease entry; this is not recommended for open holes. MIFOTs reduce the risk of fracturing
the coal when performed at recommended rates with equipment that can monitor these rates and
pressures.

3. Best practice: Utilize a state- of-the-art injection trailer.

Fig. 1 shows a state-of-the-art, self-contained trailer that houses the pumps, water storage, and
monitoring equipment used in performing the MIFOT. The small footprint of this 7 X 16-ft unit is especially
attractive for the small locations in Appalachia. Redundant pumps provide a backup pump for long
duration jobs, or the additional pump can be used for higher injection rates on post frac tests. Table 1
contains the specifications for the flow-monitoring equipment in the trailer. Surface pressure and flow rate
are captured by a laptop that provides control during the injection cycle. The capability to begin pumping
at rates less than or equal to 0.1 gal/min reduces the risk of fracturing the zone of interest with an
excessive injection rate.

4. Best Practice: Utilize a bottomhole assembly (BHA) that contains memory gauges and a downhole
shut-in valve (DHSIV).

Fig. 2 depicts the memory gauges and their dimensions. Table 2 details the specifications of the
bottomhole gauges being used with the injection trailer. Typical setup is for 5-second data capture in
order to see small changes throughout the decline.

Fig. 3 details the tools used to provide isolation and capture bottomhole data during the falloff test in a
micro-hole application. A ball and seat arrangement is used for the DHSIV. When larger casing (4.5- or
5.5-in.) is used, a 2.375-in. tubing string and compatible tools are used. A rotation DHSIV allows for shut-
in at the end of the test through rotation of the tubing to close it. This action can also be used before the
test to “pressure test” tubing integrity. The DHSIV will prevent wellbore storage effects from the column of
fluid above the tool whether the column would have remained full or not until the end of the test. An
example later in the paper will show the importance of the DHSIV in capturing quality falloff data for
analysis with the reservoir simulator.

5. Best Practice: Limit depth of the rathole to less than 35 ft with retrievable bridge plugs or drillable plugs.

Having a large volume of space open below the DHSIV and perforations provides wellbore storage that
will affect the falloff profile. This becomes important when analyzing the data with a reservoir simulator.
Limiting this volume to the least amount possible will reduce the storage effect and avoid skewing of the
decline.

6. Best Practice: Use a tubing swivel with the conventional rotating DHSIV.

In conventional testing where rotation of the tools is required to activate the DHSIV, it is a good practice
to install a tubing swivel at the surface to minimize tubing movement at the end of the test. Once the
injection cycle has been completed and the DHSIV activated, the tubing should not be moved up and
down, because the movement can cause deflections in the falloff data.
7. Best Practice: Run tubing and BHA the day before the injection cycle; load tubing with fluid to 30–50
psi.

It is best to run the tubing and BHA the day before the injection cycle. This allows the operator the chance
to fill the tubing and allow any entrapped air in the tubing to gather at the surface prior to testing. The
DHSIV can be closed and a small amount of pressure placed on it to test for leaks. If desired, the tubing
can be tested to the anticipated injection pressure and then bled down to ~ 100 psi for overnight shut-in.
The next morning, this pressure can be bled off and any air expelled from the system before reloading
and pressuring in preparation for injection.

8. Best Practice: Shut-in well overnight (minimum 6-8 hours).

Closing the well overnight will allow pressure transients created from running tubing and BHA, or the
pressure testing activity, to die off. Some operators prefer to run in 24 hours ahead of the injection to “get
a feel” for what the formation is doing with a slight amount of well hydrostatic trapped against it. Often,this
precaution provides a good “reservoir pressure” starting point for the reservoir simulator history match. It
also provides for a good comparison with the “end of job” shut-in pressure.

9. Best Practice: Begin injection at 0.1 gal/min after hole is loaded.

A good starting rate for the injection cycle is 0.1 gal/min. This allows the pump operator a chance to
watch the pressure build up and the formation begin to accept fluid without being fractured. Skin damage
always exists unless a prior breakdown has been accomplished. The pump operator will need to adjust
his injection rate up or down to provide for the recommended pressure rise over the injection period. The
objective is to get a 15 to 25% pressure rise above the reservoir pressure by the end of the injection
2
cycle. For example, Appalachia normal pressure gradient is 0.35 lb/in. /ft of depth (psi/ft). For a coal at
1,000 ft, the rise in pressure desired would be 53–88 psi; for other areas with different gradients, the
increase would be more or less.

10. Best Practice: Inject 8 hours or longer to achieve the radius of investigation desired

An 8-hour injection typically provides the desired radius of investigation without causing the work crews to
be on location beyond daylight. Longer injections may be desired in thicker seams or those with lower
permeabilities when the input rate is less than 0.1 gal/min. The shut-in time should also be increased;
“rule of thumb” is six times the injection time. A reservoir simulator can be used to produce reference
pressure curves for different rates, permeabilities, and skins.

11. Best Practice: At the completion of the injection period, activate the DHSIV and continue pumping to
achieve 50 psi over the injection pressure; do not overpressure the tubing string.

Once the injection cycle is complete, the DHSIV can be activated while the pump operator continues to
pump. The injection rate is slow enough that there is no instantaneous pressure build. After the DHSIV
has closed, the operator will notice a deviation from the final injection pressure profile. After 50 psi gain,
the job should be considered complete as it has been observed that over-pressuring the tubing can cause
deflections in the falloff data as the tubing elongates. This should be avoided to provide the best quality
falloff profile possible.

12. Best Practice: Leave well shut-in 48–72 hours without movement of tubing; if injection rate was less
than 0.1gal/min, close in an additional 24–36 hours.

After the injection cycle is complete and DHSIV activated, normal shut-in time recommended is 48–72
hours. If the injection rate is higher than 0.1 gal/min to achieve the recommended pressure rise, 48 hours
will be enough shut-in time. For lower rates, extend the shut-in an additional 1–2 days.

13. Best Practice: Analyze the injection test with two methods: a reservoir simulator and well-test
software.

It is desirable to analyze the synchronized data with both a commercial reservoir simulator for coal and
shale and commercial well-test analysis software. While the well-test analysis software provides some
automatic history matching routines, it does not take into account the pressure sensitivity of the coal. For
this reason, the reservoir simulator is considered the definitive solution because of its capability to handle
pressure sensitivity of coal porosity and permeability. Use of the simulator is on the assumption that
proper downhole shut-in requirements have been met.

TEST EXAMPLES

Fig. 4 Gives results of a test in which the injection rate exceeded the matrix rate and a fracture occurred.
Continued gain in injection rate did not give rise to a steady pressure increase. Subsequent analysis
revealed a fracture in the formation with apparent permeability less than 1 mD.

Fig. 5 shows a test in which the DHSIV failed to engage. The test was re-pumped after 48 hours and a
successful downhole shut-in achieved. Note the different falloff declines reinforcing the importance of a
good down hole shut in.

Fig. 6 presents an MIFOT chart for a moderate permeability coal with respective simulation match.

Fig. 7 displays a low-permeability test.

CONCLUSIONS

• State of the art equipment exists to perform high quality MIFOTs.

• Analysis of a MIFOT with a reservoir simulator requires use of downhole shut-in equipment for a high
confidence solution.
• Testing through a cased hole completion allows consistent and timely MIFOTs.
• Following best practices documented will help ensure delivery of accurate permeability solutions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Halliburton and A-Strike Consulting for permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES

1. Blauch, M.E., Weida, D., Mullen, M., and McDaniel, B.W.: “Matching Technical Solutions to the Lifecycle
Phase is the Key to Developing a CBM Prospect,” paper SPE 75684 presented at the 2002 SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April–2 May.
2. Rodvelt, G., Toothman, R, Hayhurst, J., Oestreich, R.: “Obtaining Permeability Values in a Coalbed Methane
Core Hole Utilizing Slimhole Technology Coupled With an Injection/Falloff Technique,” paper SPE 104319
presented at the 2006 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, Ohio, 11-13 October.
3. Rodvelt, G.D, Oestreich, R.G.: “Case History: First Commercial Illinois Coal Bed Methane Project Commences
Via a Structured Resource Evaluation Plan,” paper SPE 97720 presented at the 2005 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Morgantown, West Virginia, 14–16 September.
4. Mavor, M.J. and Saulsberry, J.L.: “Chapter-5: Testing Coalbed Methane Wells,” A Guide to Coalbed Methane
Reservoir Engineering, GRI-94/0397, published by Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

Table 1—Flowmeter Equipment Specifications

Rate, Pressure,
Model gal/min psi
CMF010P 0.01 - 3.0 6000
 Table 2—Specifications of Bottomhole Gauges
Used with Injection Trailer
Sensor type Silicon-sapphire
Pressure ranges Up to 20,000 psi
Pressure accuracy 0.03% (full-scale)
Pressure resolution 0.00%
Overpressure capacity 110% (full-scale)
Pressure drift <3 psi/yr
125°C (257°F) / 150°C (302°F) / 177°C
Temperature rating
(351°F)
Temperature accuracy 0.3°C
Temperature resolution 0.01°C

Over-temperature capacity 105% (full-scale)

Power source One AA or C lithium pack

Communications USB / RS232
Data set contents Time / pressure / temperature
Memory capacity 500,000 Data sets
0.75° (19.05 mm) / 1.0° (24.5 mm) / 1.25°
OD
(31.75 mm)
Overall length 9 in.
Service H2S
Housing material Inconel 718 / stainless steel 17-4
Sample rate 1 sec to 18 hr / Sample
Fig. 1—Permeability testing trailer.
Fig. 2—Bottomhole gauges used during shut-in.
Fig. 3—Tools used to provide isolation and bottomhole gauge data from the injection falloff test.

Fig. 4—Injection test that fractured test zone.

 Fig. 5 —Injection test without and with a downhole shut-in valve.

Fig. 6—Sample MIFOT chart for a moderate-permeability coal with respective simulation match.
Fig. 7—Sample low-permeability test.