Completion Methods in
Coal·Seam Reservoirs
Summary. Wells drilled to produce
methane from coal seams are com-
pleted with either a perforated casing
method, a stable cavity method, or
an open hole method. The perforated
casing method followed by hydraulic
fracturing works best in most coal-
seam wells. In high-permeability,
high-pressure coal seams, the stable
cavity method may be preferred. To
design the optimum completion, a
completion engineer must consider
the unique aspects of producing
methane from coal.
270
S.A. Holditch, SPE, SA Holditch & Assocs. Inc.
Introduction
Methane produced from coal seams is an im-
portant energy source in the petroleum in-
dustry. The increased development of coal-
seam reservoirs can be attributed to
(1) V. S. income tax credit that is associated
with producing coalbed methane, (2) Gas
Research Inst. (GRI) research funding to im-
prove technology, and (3) an increased
awareness in the industry concerning the im-
portance of coalbed methane.
Geologic assessments of coalbed methane
reservoirs have been funded by the V. S.
DOE and the GRI. Currently, resource as-
sessments are available on the Arcoma ba-
sin, Black Warrior basin, Cahaba and Coosa
coal fields, Central Appalachian basin,
Greater Green River coal region, illinois ba-
sin, Northern Appalachian basin, Pennsyl-
vania anthracite fields, Piceance basin,
Powder River basin, Raton basin, Richmond
and Deep River basins, San Juan basin, Vin-
tah basin, Valley coal fields, Western
Washington coal region, and the Wind River
basin. I On the basis of detailed studies of
these coal areas, GRI estimates that 300 to
400 Tcf of gas in place is contained in the
V.S.I Table 1 contains the details concern-
ing the gas in place for each basin.
Most methane recoverable from coal
seams will be in reservoirs that are less than
5,000 ft deep. The low-cost drilling associat-
ed with the shallow depths makes coalbed
methane development suitable for independ-
ent producers. In addition, the need for large
acreage positions and the technical chal-
lenges involved with producing gas from
coal seams also provide incentives for big
producing companies to pursue coalbed
methane development actively. Because of
these inducements, a wide variety of com-
panies develop coalbed methane reservoirs.
Several papers on completing wells in
coalbed methane formations have been pub-
lished. In 1980, Steidle et af.2 published a
paper concerning completion techniques
from vertical methane drainage boreholes in
Virginia. Lambert et al.,3,4 Logan et al.,5.6
7 flow through the coal cleat system to the
and Clark et ai. have discussed specific
completion problems in specific coalbed
3 Therefore, a primary concern of a com-
methane areas. Lambert et ai. ,4
Copyright 1993 Society of Petroleum Engineers
discussed completion alternatives that have
been evaluated in the Black Warrior basin.
Logan et al. 5.6 and Clark et ai. 7 discussed
coal-seam well completions in the San Juan
and Piceance basins. Much of the published
information on coal seams has evolved
through research projects sponsored by the
GRI.8-18
The objective of this paper is to explain the
various completion options that are avail-able
to an operator developing a coal-seam
reservoir. On the basis of the unique prop-
erties of coal, the engineer must develop a
completion strategy. The strategy should in-
clude specific details concerning the site of
the perforations and the stimulation treat-
ment needed to maximize gas recovery.
Unique Properties of Coal
One must understand certain properties
unique to coal seams to complete a coalbed
methane well properly. Some unique con-
cerns are high injection pressures during
stimulation; production of coal fines; effec-
tive connection of the well bore to the coal
cleat system; the coal seam must be dewa-
tered before gas can be produced; the well
should be produced at minimum bottomhole
pressure (BHP) to maximize gas desorption;
coal seams are usually thin and spread over a
large vertical interval; in coal seams, a low
Young's modulus normally is encountered;
and complex hydraulic fractures often are
encountered.
Perhaps the biggest difference between
coal bed reservoirs and sandstone reservoirs
is the mechanism by which gas is stored and
produced. In a conventional sandstone reser-
voir, gas is stored in the pore space and flows
through the pores and pore throats to the
hydraulic fracture and/or the wellbore. In a
coal-seam reservoir, most of the gas is
adsorbed on the surface of the coal. To pro-
duce this gas, the reservoir pressure must be
reduced so that the gas will desorb, diffuse
through the coal matrix, and migrate into the
coal cleat system. From there, the gas can
hydraulic fracture and/or the wellbore.
pletion engineer is to devise a completion
method that will connect the coal cleat sys-
March 1993 • JPT
tem to the wellbore efficiently. In many
TABLE 1-U.S. COAlBED METHANE RESOURCES (after Ref. 1)
cases, hydraulic fracturing treatments create
a pathway that connects the coal cleat sys-
Gas in Place
tem to the wellbore. In other cases, opera-
Coal Basin/Region States (Tcf)
tors have used openhole completions, slotted
liner completions, or stable cavity comple- Arkoma basin Oklahoma, Arkansas 2 to 4
Black Warrior basin Alabama, Mississippi 20
tions to try to maintain an efficient connec-
Cahaba coal field Alabama 2
tion between the wellbore and the formation. Central Appalachian basin Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia,
Most coal seams are not saturated with Virginia 5
free gas at initial conditions. In fact, it is Coosa coal field Alabama 1
common for the coal cleat system to be satu- Greater Green River coal region Wyoming, Colorado 1 to 30
rated completely with water at initial con- Illinois basin Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky 5 to 21
ditions. To produce gas from this reservoir, Northern Appalachian basin Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia
the water first must be produced from the Ohio, Kentucky 61
Pennsylvania anthracite fields Pennsylvania NO
coal cleat system to reduce the pressure be- Piceance basin Colorado 84
low the gas desorption pressure. As the BHP Powder River basin Montana, Wyoming 30
is reduced, more gas can desorb from the Raton basin Colorado, New Mexico 8 to 18
coal, diffuse through the matrix, and flow Richmond and Deep River basins Virginia, North Carolina 2 to 3
through the cleat system. To maximize gas San Juan basin Colorado, New Mexico
production, one must minimize the BHP. In Fruitland formation 50
most coal-seam reservoirs, the bottomhole Menefee formation 22 to 34
Uintah basin Utah, Colorado 1 to 5
flowing pressure (BHFP) must be reduced to
Valley coal fields Virginia NO
100 to 200 psi or less to desorb gas at
Western Washington coal region Washington 1 to 24
economic flow rates and to produce more Wind River basin Wyoming 1 to 2
than 50% of the original gas in place. Total 296 to 394
As with any hydrocarbon reservoir, for- NO= not quantified.
mation permeability controls production.
Many coal-seam reservoirs simply do not
have enough permeability to produce gas at from drilling fluids and cement. Although veloping coal seams, numerous problems
economical flow rates. A completion engi- formation damage may have been mini- concerning the perforated casing method
neer must run well tests, obtain core data, mized, other problems associated with open- also were encountered. The most serious
and analyze production data to determine the hole completions often were encountered. problem was that it often was difficult to
best estimate of formation permeability in a Many openhole completions had to be pump a hydraulic fracture treatment through
specific coal-seam reservoir. If the per- cleaned frequently because of coal slough- perforations. Many of these early wells did
meability is not above a certain critical ing. Also, many of these coal seams were not contain strong casing. The extremely
value, then the coal seam may not be eco- low permeability and required hydraulic high pressures required to initiate a fracture
nomical. Another important parameter is the fracture treatments. It was found that stim- and pump into a coal seam had not been an-
amount of gas that is adsorbed on the sur- ulating coal seams in an openhole environ- ticipated, and the completion was not de-
face of the coal. Before the engineer can op- ment was difficult. signed properly to allow for high-pressure
timize the well completion, the volume of pumping of a stimulation treatment. We now
sorbed gas must be determined by cutting Perforated Casing. Because of the many know that these high injection pressures are
core and running gas-content experiments problems associated with openhole comple- caused by a series of problems that are
on the core. tions, the industry gradually turned to com- unique to coal seams. Problems such as the
Although many unique problems are as- pleting coal-seam wells with the perforated creation of a complex fracture network near
sociated with developing coal-seam reser- casing method. During the early days of de- the borehole, creation of coal fines that may
voirs, certain fundamental concepts are
important to any gas well completion. First,
a sufficient quantity of gas must be in place COAL SEAM COMPLETION TECHNIQUES
to justify the expenditures involved in drill-
ing and completing the well. Second, the
PERFORATED AND
reservoir permeability must be sufficient to EARLY OPEN HOLE STABLE CAVITY FRACTURE TREATED
produce gas at rates that are economical and
will provide a reasonable return on the in-
vestment. Therefore, accurate estimates of
formation permeability and original gas in
place are critical to the successful comple-
tion of any coal-seam reservoir.

Completion Options and Strategy

Three completion techniques commonly
have been used to develop coal-seam reser-
voirs. Fig. 1 presents wellbore sketches for
an openhole completion method, a stable
cavity completion method, and a perforated
casing completion method.

Openhole. Many of the first wells complet-ed

in coal-seam reservoirs were openhole
completions. Engineers working on the in-itial
coal-seam wells used the openhole com-pletion Fig. i-Illustration of three different completion methods used in coal-seam reservoirs (after
method to prevent formation damage Ref. 5).

JPT • March 1993 271

 TABLE 2-SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES AND TIMING IN WELL COMPLETIONS
Test
Design casing
Design tubing
Obtain cores and analyze
Run drillstem tests and analyze
Run logs and analyze
Obtain data for completion
Gather database
Determine number of producing intervals
Determine areal extent of each interval
Determine permeability in each coal seam
Determine whether each coal seam will
require stimulation
Determine number of zones to be completed
Determine number of zones to be completed
Select base completion method from openhole,
liner, or cased-hole completion
Complete production casing design
Complete primary cement design
Run casing and perform primary cement job
Run cased-hole logs
Design downhole equipment (tubing, packers,
chokes, landing nipples, etc.)
Design perforating method
Prepare detailed procedure
Execute completion procedure
Prepare detailed reports
Monitor production and run well tests
Design and execute stimulation treatment
Run post-stimulation well tests and/or monitor
production
Design workovers if needed
block portions of the fracture, high poro-
elastic effects, and slip at the fracture tip, all
can cause the fracture propagation pres-sure
to increase substantially. 19
We now have recognized most of the
problems associated with completing coal-
seam reservoirs through perforations, and
solutions to many of the problems have been
2o
offered. Most wells now are completed
with strong casing that will allow the frac-
ture treatment to be pumped successfully. We
also recognize that the drilling-mud sys-tem,
the cement, and any workover fluids must be
designed to cause minimum damage to the
coal seam before the fracture treat-ment.
Completion engineers now understand how
to perforate these coal-seam wells prop-
272
Timing
Before drilling the well
Before drilling the well
During drilling
During drilling
During drilling
After preliminary formation
evaluation
After gathering data
After determining number of zones To satisfy objectives of wellbore, allow for
to be completed
After base completion method
chosen
After drilling and choosing casing size To finalize volume and chemistry of cement
After casing and cement designs
completed
After cement has set
After base completion method
chosen
After base completion method
chosen
After all design work completed
After reviewing all details
Dally during the completion
After well begins to produce
After well tests are analyzed and final
formation evaluation is completed To Improve well productivity as needed To
Monthly during entire life of well
Based on well surveillance
erly and perfonn fracture treatments to con-
nect the coal seam with the wellbore.
Because of this understanding, most coal-
seam wells can be completed successfully
with the perforated casing method.
Stable Cavity. In the San Juan basin, a few
wells are completed with a stable cavity
completion. This technique appears to be ac-
ceptable in high-penneability, high-pressure
coal seams. The method may not work as
well in low-penneability, low-pressure coal
seams. Additional research is needed to
understand the application of the stable cavi-
ty completion method. The cavity is created
by jetting the well with gas for a long time
until coal fines no longer are circulated from
Justification
To determine casing size and strength to
complete well properly
To determine tubing size and strength to
complete well properly
To calibrate logs and to determine formation
lithology, permeability, formation
mechanical properties. and gas content
To determine fluid content and permeability
To determine number and quality of coal
seams and the stratigraphy of the reservoir
To thoroughly design completion before
beginning
To obtain information on total depth,
reservoir temperature, and pressure
To determine which coal seams should be
completed
To estimate reserves in each coal seam
To estimate flow rate from each coal seam
To allow for proper type of stimulation
To allow for artificial lift
To decide whether well is to be Single,
commingled, or multiple completion
desired completion and production method
to be used, and yield desired zonal isolation
To allow desired completion and production
methods to be used by running exact size
and strength of casing needed
slurry needed for casing support and zonal
isolation
To ensure adequate zonal isolation
To determine isolation of various layers and
need for remedial squeeze cementing
To allow desired operations to be conducted
To ensure communication of reservoir to
well bore and cause no damage to the caSing
To ensure field personnel carry out proper
completion operations
To complete well as planned
To record all operations carried out and
items run into well for evaluation of
completion and for luture well work
To design stimulation treatments and to
forecast reserves
determine whether well is producing at
optimum rate
To optimize profit
the well. Depending on the rig time required
for this operation, the cost of the stable cavi-
ty completion can be greater than the cost of
a perforated casing completion, including the
fracture stimulation treatment. 5
Strategy. The strategy for choosing the
completion method for a well depends on the
stratigraphy of the coal reservoir, depth to
the coal, penneability in the coal, amount of
coal fines expected to be produced, and
problems associated with lifting and dis-
posing of water produced from the coal
seams. Formation-water disposal and coal-
fines production must be included in com-
pletion and operations planning. 21 An op-
timum completion strategy maximizes the
March 1993 • JPT
 MINIMUM IN-SITU
2700 2900
5560
SHALE
5570
5580
5
5590
.J
5600
:J:
I-
11.
_~ 5610
o SEAM 5620
COAL
5630
56'10
SHALE
5650
2700 2900
Fig. 2-Graphical presentation of the in-situ stress and mechanical properties data for the
1 Deep Seam 32-2 well (after Ref. 6).
productivity of the well but minimizes the
cost of completing and operating the well.
Design of Completion Method
To design a well completion, a production
engineer needs to consider coal stratigraphy;
the depth, permeability, and gas in place for
each coal seam; the expected fracture ge-
ometry; and the expected problems with the
production of coal fines and formation
water. A checklist for a completion engineer
is included in Table 2.
Stratigraphy. An engineer and a geologist
first should determine formation properties
of the layers of rock above and below each
coal seam. It is important to determine the
lithology, permeability, and stresses asso-
ciated with each layer of rock that composes
the coal-bearing formation. The engineer
also should identify the number of coal
seams, the thickness of each coal seam, and
the relative positions of all the coals with
respect to the other rock layers in the for-
mation. Details on the data needed for a
prefracture formation evaluation are in-
cluded in Ref. 20.
The types of rocks in between the coal seams
and the sites of the coal seams are primary
factors for determining how many coal seams
should be perforated simultane-ously, how
these coal seams should be stimu-lated, and
how one generally must approach the well
completion. For example, the thin coal seams
in the Warrior basin will be frac-ture-treated in
a way much different from the thicker coal
seams in the San Juan basin.
The permeability profile and the in-situ
stress profile must be identified in the
layered reservoir system that will be com-
pleted. To illustrate the types of data that are
useful, the stratigraphic section and the
mechanical properties from a coal-seam well
in the Piceance basin are illustrated in Fig.
JPT • March 1993
STRESS (psi)
3100 3300 3500 3700
E= 5.7
SHALE
JC
6
10 psi
I
V= 0.25
I
SANDSTONE
E = (2.4-3.7) x 10·psi
V = 0.13 -0.19
COAL
E = (0.3-0.35) x 10· psi
V=0.31
SHALE
E= 4.2S;x I06 p:si
1/=0.2
3100 3300 3500 3700
2. These data, generated by GRI at the Deep
Seam research site in Colorado, suggest that
the perforations should be placed in the low-
er portion of the Kw5 sandstone at 5,600 to
5,610 ft because this zone has the lowest
stress and will provide a competent forma-
tion for fracture initiation. The hydraulic
fracture would be expected to grow verti-
cally and to intersect the coal seam.
Depth and Permeability. Coal-seam well
depth is important because it will affect the
cost of drilling the well, coal-seam perme-
ability, and the orientation of the hydraulic
fracture treatment. 20 Previous work indi-
cates that coal-seam permeability will de-
crease with depth.22 In essence, compac-
tion compresses the cleat system, reducing
permeability in the coal as it is buried deep-
er. A production engineer should consider
the concept of a threshold permeability in
specific coal seams. Many coal seams are
thin and may not cover a large area. If these
thin coal seams also are buried deeply,
where the permeability is much less than 1.0
md, then it is questionable whether gas from
that coal seam can be produced at econom-
ical flow rates. One reason for this is that
any low-permeability formation (including
coal) requires a long hydraulic fracture to
produce gas at commercial rates. In thin lay-
ers, such as coals, it may be impossible to
create fractures long enough to stimulate
production to commercial levels.
Also, the permeability in a coal seam
might be too high and the coal seam could
not be dewatered properly. The gas flow rate
from a coal seam increases nonlinearly as
pressure decreases. To obtain high gas flow
rates, one must minimize BHP to maximize
gas desorption. In certain high-permeability
coals that are connected to strong aquifers, it
may be impractical to produce water at rates
high enough to draw down the reser-
3900
I
Filled
Filled
Coated
----
...:::. =-
:=- Underclay -=. =_ :
390<
Fig. 3-Cross section of fractures at lo-
cation 25 on the southeast rib (right) near
26
Borehole RP_3.
voir so that desorption can occur. In other
words, the permeability in a coal seam can
be too high or too low. The explorationist
should look for coal seams with permeabil-
ities between 1 and 100 md. In that range,
one normally can reduce the pressure enough
to begin gas desorption and still have a
permeability that is high enough to flow gas
at commercial flow rates.
The optimum permeability range for
producing coal-seam wells with hydraulic
fracturing techniques is I to 10 md. This
permeability range can be altered, depending
on gas price or fracturing technology im-
provements. If the coal-seam permeability is
greater than 50 md and the coal seam is thick
enough, the stable cavity may be a valid
completion method for such wells.
As with any reservoir, the completion
methods, expected flow rates, and ultimate
economics of developing the reservoir are
tied strongly to the system permeability.
Therefore, a completion engineer should de-
sign the well completion and conduct appro-
priate well tests to determine formation
permeability in the coal seams.
Gas in Place. Computing original gas in
place is important to determine how and
when a well should be completed. For a
coal-seam reservoir, the gas in place must be
measured by cutting core and running
degassification experiments in the labora-
tory. If such data are unavailable, coal-seam
reserves can be overpredicted substantially.
In new exploration areas, core should be
cut and gas content measured. After enough
data are collected, it is hoped that one can es-
tablish algorithms that will be functions of
the coal rank and coal depth to provide rea-
sonable estimates for original gas in place.
Fracture Geometry. In most coal-seam
reservoirs, hydraulic fracturing must be used
273

"To design a well completion, a production engineer
needs to consider coal stratigraphy; the depth,
permeability, and the gas in place for each coal seam;
the expected fracture geometry; and the expected
problems with the production of coal fines and formation
water."
~·::.::~~rs~n~~~~e\·/~,
0.7' Coalbed
r
4.4'
Fig. 4-Cross section of fractures at Location 15 on southeast rib (right) and Loca-tion 16 on
26
northwest rib (left) near Borehole RP_3.
to stimulate production. The expected frac-
ture geometry will dictate to a large degree
the types of completion methods that must be
used. On the basis of coal-seam depth and
knowledge of in-situ stress distributions in
each rock layer, one must determine whe-ther
horizontal or vertical fractures will be
created. Once that is determined, then the
number of coal seams that will be perforated
and fracture-treated in a certain stage treat-
ment must be evaluated. In some basins,
several thin coal seams spread over several
hundred feet will be encountered. For such
coal seams, it may be difficult to create long,
propped fractures. We also have problems
diverting fracture treatments in certain con-
ditions.
Even if a vertical fracture is expected, one
must determine whether (1) a single-planar
fracture will be created that connects several
coal seams or (2) the hydraulic fracture will
be contained in the coal and a complex frac-
ture will be created. The choice often is a
function of the coal-seam thickness.
Depending on the thickness and number of
coal seams, a completion engineer must
decide (1) where to perforate the well,
(2) the number of stages needed in the frac-
ture treatment, and (3) what diverting
methods should be used if multiple stages are
required. Once these decisions are made, the
treatment can be designed to include
volumes of fluid, volumes of proppant, in-
jection rates, pad percentage, and a prop-pant
injection schedule. Ref. 20 provides helpful
advice for obtaining data needed to design a
stimulation treatment and for de-
274
veloping treatment designs for different
types of coal stratigraphy.
Hydraulic fracture treatments in coal
seams often encounter high treatment pres-
sures. Several papers have been written to
explain complex fractures created during
many stimulation treatments in coal seams.
19,23-25 The most informative pub-lication
was written by Diamond and Oyl-er.26 Figs.
3 and 4 illustrate the complex nature of
hydraulic fractures in coal seams. Fig. 3
shows that, in certain areas, multiple vertical
fractures are created in the coal. In Fig. 4,
multiple and T -shaped fractures are evident.
These complex fracture shapes will cause
high treatment pressures; will inhibit the
injection of high sand concentrations; and
may prevent creation of long, propped
fractures.
Water and Coal-Fines Production. Before
casing is run in a well, one needs to estimate
potential problems with production of for-
mation water and coal fines after a fracture
treatment. Often, large volumes of water
must be produced before reducing pressure
in the reservoir so that gas desorption can
occur. During these pumping operations,
one should design the pumps to handle such
solids as fracture proppants and coal fines.
In addition, a completion engineer must de-
sign the facilities for water disposal and
make sure that the cost of rod pumping and
water disposal have been included in the
cost of developing a prospect.
Refs. 21 and 27 present more detail on this
subject. A completion engineer should realize
that the first downhole pump installed
GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION
OAK GROVE MINE. ALABAMA
GWIN SEAM
COBB SEAM
PRATT SEAM
FIRECLAY SEAM o
AMERICAN SEAM
100
200
NEW CASTLE SEAM
MARY LEE SEAM
BLUE CREEl< SEAM
JAGGER SEAM
300
400
~OO
LI ex CREEl< SEAM
JEFFERSON SEAM
BLACK CREEl< SEAM
Fig. 5-Stratigraphic section showing the main
coal groups of the Pennsylvania Age
Pottsville formation, Black Warrior basin.
in a well after a fracture treatment will be
destroyed during the first month or two of
production because the well normally will
produce some coal fines and/or some frac-
ture proppant. Therefore, low-cost pumps
should be used for the first pump installa-
tion. After several months of production,
when fines and/or sand production has de-
creased or stopped, other pumps can be run
into the well to improve lifting efficiency.
Field Cases
Over the last several years, a large number
of wells have been drilled and completed to
produce methane from coal seams. Thls sec-
tion briefly discusses the completion method
that has evolved in each basin.
Black Warrior Basin. GRI, Taurus, and
others 3,4,10 have performed substantial re-
search concerning the completion methods
in the Black Warrior basin, Fig. 5 illustrates
the coal stratigraphy in that area, The main
producing horizon is the Mary Lee/Blue
Creek coal seams. The completion method is
to use air to drill the well through all coals,
then cement casing with a lightweight ce-
ment. The formation may sustain some
damage, but the long-term effects of the
damage appear to be negligible.
Once the casing has been set, perforations
are placed in the lower portion of the coal-seam
interval. Often, the perforations are in siltstones
or shales near the coal seams rather than in the
coal seams themselves. Perforations are placed
outside the coal seam to minimize the failure of
coals near the well bore and to minimize the
chance of ob-
March 1993 • JPT
tammg multiple vertical fractures at the
wellbore.
From recent experience, if the well is per-
forated, then fracture-treated immediately,
a single-planar, vertical fracture will be
created that will grow several hundred feet
vertically and connect many coal seams to
the wellbore. Typically, downhole injection
pressures during such treatments will range
from 0.6 to 0.8 psilft.
After the stimulation treatment, the well is
produced back and eventually will be put on
pump. The Mary Lee/Blue Creek coal seams
can be dewatered in a reasonable time and
gas desorption begins almost immedi-ately.
Over the first 1 to 2 years, gas produc-tion
will increase gradually depending on the
permeability of the coal seams that have
been stimulated and the degree of regional
depletion. Field data have shown clearly that
when patterns or arrays of wells have been
drilled to decrease reservoir pressure, gas
desorption in the low-pressure area will
increase and flow rates will improve with
time.

San Juan Basin. Two primary completion

methods are used in the San Juan basin, but
the most prevalent is the perforated casing
completion. For this area, the well is drilled
to total depth with mud, then casing is set
and cemented with a lightweight slurry.
Coal seams in the San Juan basin are
different from those in many other basins
because they are much more permeable and
thicker than normally encountered. 28 Also,
some coal seams in the San Juan basin are
slightly geopressured. Fig. 6 illustrates the
typical stratigraphic section for the Fruitland
coals in the San Juan basin.
Because of the thickness of these coal
seams, hydraulic fractures will be confined
in the coal seams and mUltiple vertical, com-
plex fractures will be created. When this
occurs, the hydraulic fracture injection pres-
sures are quite high, and obtaining a deep
Fig. 6-Stratigraphic sequence for primary coals in the San Juan basin (after Ref. 28).

penetrating fracture is difficult. When the
Fruitland coal is surrounded by shales, ex-
cessive fracture-height growth usually is not
a problem. However, if the coal seam is im-
mediately above or below a sandstone, frac-
ture height can grow.
In some areas of the San Juan basin, the
coal seams are highly fractured and contain
permeabilities in excess of 25 md. In many
of these areas, the stable cavity method ap-
pears to provide optimum gas flow rates.
These wells are drilled with nondamaging
fluids. Casing is set above the main coal tar-
get, then the coals are jetted from the well
until a stable cavity is created. Normally, a
slotted liner will be run in the well. Logan et
al. 5 have presented details of this com-
pletion method.
Regardless of the completion method, the
coal seams in the San Juan basin must be
dewatered. In some parts of the basin, free
gas in the cleat system helps lift the water
during the early stages of the well life. How-
ever, most wells eventually will be put on
pump to lift water that is migrating through
the coals.
Raton Basin. One operator has drilled
about 20 wells in the Raton basin to test the
Ver-mejo coals and determine the economic
via-bility of those coal seams. During a pilot
test program, some wells were drilled with
air and some with mud and different
perforating and stimulating practices were
systematical-ly investigated to determine
optimum com-pletion procedures.
Generally, drilling the wells with mud and
cementing the casing did not damage the
coal seams. Experimentation with pad vol-
umes, pump rates, and proppant scheduling
has led to an optimum stimulation design
that includes two different-size proppants. A
smaller (100 mesh) proppant is used dur-ing
the early part of the treatment to help plug
small fractures near the well bore and erode
corners in the main fracture. The last portion
of the treatment is pumped with larger-mesh
proppants to pack the fracture and maximize
fracture conductivity.
In the Raton basin, it appears that a single-
planar, vertical fracture is being created that
cuts through multiple coal seams. In effect, the
optimum completion methods in the Ra-
ton basin appear to be similar to the optimum
completion methods in much of the Black
Warrior basin. Additional production data
are required to determine the economic via-
bility of producing the Vermejo coal in the
Raton basin.
Conclusions
From a literature review and our experience
in completing and stimulating wells in coal-
seam reservoirs, we present the following
conclusions.
1. The most economical completion for
most coal-seam wells is a perforated casing
completion followed by a hydraulic fracture
treatment.
2. In areas containing thick, geopres-
sured, high-permeability coals, the stable
cavity completion method may be ac-
ceptable.
3. The decision on how to perforate and
fracture-treat a coal-seam reservoir will de-
pend on the coal stratigraphy, coal depth,
coal permeability, and expected fracture
orientation.

JPT • March 1993 275


Author
Stephen A. Hoi·
ditch is president
of S.A. Holdltch &
Assocs. Inc. and a
professor of petro-
leum engineering
atTexasA&M U. He
holds BS, MS, and
PhD degrees In pe-
troleum engineer-
ing from Texas
A&M U. Holdltch Is the 1991-93 Reprint
Series Committee chairman, was an
as-sociate editor for the SPE
Monograph Recent Advances In
Hydraulic Fractur-ing, was elected a
Distinguished Mem-ber in 1989, and was
a 1982-83 Distin-guished Lecturer. He
received the 1981 SPE Distinguished
Service Award for Petroleum Engineering
Faculty and has served on and been
chairman of several committees.
4. A completion engineer should be aware
of the unique problems associated with coal
seams, such as high injection pressures, coal-
fines production, the need to dewater the coal
seam by pumping and disposing of formation
water, and the need to reduce the pore
pressure in the coal to minimum values to
allow for maximum gas desorption. These
unique features affect the way a well should
be drilled, type of casing run, cementing op-
eration applied to the casing, formation per-
foration, coal-seam stimulation, and artifi-
cial-lift requirements after the stimulation
treatment.
5. A completion engineer also should
gather proper data beforehand to make sure
that the coal seams have enough gas in place
adsorbed to the coal to make well comple-
tion profitable and that the permeability of
the coal is such that economical flow rates
can be achieved after stimulation and artifi-
ciallift have been applied. Many coal seams
do not contain enough initial gas in place or
have a high enough permeability to be eco-
nomical. These coal seams should be iden-
tified in pilot projects before full field de-
velopment.
References
I. "The United States Coal bed Methane
Resource," Quarterly Review, Methane From
Coal Seams Technology, GRI (March 1990)
7, No.3, 10-28.
2. Steidl, P.F., Trevits, M.A., and Diamond,
W.P.: "Completion Techniques and Produc-
tion Data From Vertical Methane Drainage
Boreholes, Jawbone Coalbed, Dickenson
County, Virginia," paper SPE 8965 presented
at the 1980 SPE Symposium on Unconven-
tional Gas Recovery, Pittsburgh, May 18-21.
3. Lambert, S.W., Niederhofer, J.D., and Reeves,
S.R.: "Multiple-Coal-Seam Well Completions
in the Deerlick Creek Field," JPT (Nov. 1990)
1360-63.
276
4. Lambert, S.W. and Graves, S.L.: "Coalbed
Methane-Production Strategy Developed," Oil
& Gas J. (Nov. 20, 1989) 55-56.
5. Logan, T.L., Clark, W.F., and McBane, R.A.:
"Comparing Openhole Cavity and Cased Hole
Hydraulic Fracture Completion Techniques,
San Juan Basin, New Mexico," paper SPE
19010 presented at the 1989 SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Denver,
March 6-8.
6. Logan, T.L.: "Coalbed Methane-Western
Basins Dictate Varied Operations," Oil & Gas
J. (Dec. 4, 1989) 35-39.
7. Clark, W.F. and Hemler, T.: "Completing,
Equipping, and Operating Fruitland Forma-
tion Coalbed Methane Wells in the San Juan
Basin, New Mexico and Colorado," paper
presented at the 1988 Coalbed Methane Sym-
posium, Denver, 125-32.
8. Holditch, S.A.: "Completion Technology-
Applications Different for Coalbed Gas, " The
American Oil & Gas Reporter (Dec. 1989) 15-
18.
9. Jones, A.H., Bell, G.J., and Schraufnagel,
R.A.: "A Review of the Physical and Me-
chanical Properties of Coal With Implications
for Coal-Bed Methane Well Completion and
Production," Proc., 1988 Rocky Mountain
AAPG Geology and Coal-Bed Methane
Resources Conference, Denver (1988).
10. Schraufnagel, R.A., Spafford, S.D., and
Saulsberry, J.L.: "Multiple Seam Comple-tion
and Production Experience at Rock Creek,"
Proc., Coalbed Methane Symposi-
um, Tuscaloosa, AL (1991) 211-21.
II. Diamond, W.P.: "Underground Observa-tions
of Mined-Through Stimulation Treat-ments in
Coalbeds," Quarterly Review, Methane From
Coal Seams Technology (June 1987) 19-29.
12. Zuber, M.D. and Sawyer, W.K.: "Optimiz-ing
Well Spacing and Hydraulic-Fracture De-
sign for Economic Recovery of Coalbed
Methane," SPEFE (March 1990) 98-102.
13. Bell, GJ. et at.: "Coal Seam Hydraulic Frac-
ture Propagation on a Laboratory Scale,"
Proc., U. of Alabama Coalbed Methane Sym-
posium, Tuscaloosa, AL (1989) 417-29.
14. Mavor, J.J. et al.: "Evaluation of the Hy-
draulic Fracture Stimulation of the Colorado
32-7 No.9 Well," Coalbed Methane of
Western North America, Rocky Mountain
AAPG, Denver (1991) 241-48.
IS. McKee, C.R. and Bumb, A.C.: "Flow-Testing
Coalbed Methane Production Wells in the
Presence of Water and Gas," SPEFE (Dec.
1987) 599-608.
16. Penny, G.S. and Conway, M.W.: "Labora-tory
Tests To Determine Parameters for Hy-draulic
Fracturing of Coalbed Methane," paper SPE
21812 presented at the 1991 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional/Low Permeability
Reservoirs Symposium, Denver, April 15-17.
17. Zuber, M.D., Sparks, D.P., and Lee, W.J.:
"Design and Interpretation of Injection/Fall-off
Tests for Coalbed Methane Wells," paper SPE
20569 presented at the 1990 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
18. Lambert, S.W.: "Comparison of Open Hole,
Slotting and Perforating Completion Methods
for Multiseam Coalbed Gas Wells," Proc.,
U. of Alabama Coalbed Methane Symposi-
um, Tuscaloosa, AL (1989) 253-64.
19. Holditch, S.A. et al.: "Enhanced Recovery of
Coalbed Methane Through Hydraulic Frac-
turing," paper SPE 18250 presented at the
1988 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2-5.
20. Holditch, S.A. et at.: "Coal Seam Stimula-tion
Manual," topical report, GRI (May 1990).
21. Zimpfer, G.L., Harmon, E.J., and Boyce, B.C.:
"Disposal of Production Waters From
Oil and Gas Wells in the Northern San Juan
Basin, Colorado," paper presented at the
1988 Coalbed Methane Symposium, Denver,
183-98.
22. McKee, C.R., Bumb, A.C., and Koenig, R.A.:
"Stress-Dependent Permeability and Porosity
of Coal," paper presented at the
1987 Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tusca-
loosa, AL, Nov. 16-19.
23. Jones, A.H., Bell, G.J., and Morales, R.H.:
"Examination of Potential Mechanisms
Responsible for the High Treatment Pressures
Observed During Stimulation of Coalbed
Reservoirs," paper SPE 16421 presented at the
1987 SPEIDOE Symposium on Low Per-
meability Reservoirs, Denver, May 18-19.
24. Palmer, I., Davids, M., and Jeu, S.: "Anal-ysis
of Unconventional Behavior Observed During
Coalbed Fracturing Treatments," paper 8993
presented at the 1989 Coalbed Methane
Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL, April 17-20.
25. Cramer, D.D.: "The Unique Aspects of
Fracturing Western U.S. Coalbeds," JPT (Oct.
1992) 1126-33; Trans., AIME, 293.
26. Diamond, W.P. and Oyler, D.C.: "Effects
of Stimulation Treatments on Coalbeds and
Surrounding Strata-Evidence From Under-
ground Observations," Report No. 9083, U . S.
Bureau of Interior (1987).
27. Hebert, D.W.: "A Systematic Approach to
Design of Rod Pumps in Coal Degassification
Wells: San Juan Basin, New Mexico," paper
SPE 19011 presented at the 1989 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, Denver, March
6-8.
28. Ayers, W.B. Jr. et at.: "Geologic Evalua-tion
of Critical Production Parameters for Coalbed
Methane Resources-Part I, San Juan Basin, "
annual report, Bur. of Economic Geology, for
GRI (Jan. 1990).
51 Metric Conversion Factors
fl x 3.048' E-Ol m
fl' x 2.831685 E-02 m'
psi x 6.894757 E+OO kPa
"Conversion factor is exact.
Provenance
OriginalSPE manuscript, Completion
Methods in Coal Seam Reservoirs, re-
ceived for review Sept. 2, 1990. Revised
manuscript received Nov. 9, 1992. Paper
accepted for publication Jan. 4, 1993. Paper
(SPE 20670) first presented at the 1990 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-tion
held in New Orleans, Sept. 23-26.
JPT
March 1993 • JPT