Demonstration projects for coalbed methane and Devonian shale gas: Final report

ee-t~s;??-Lf

DOE/RA/331 01-2551 (DE88001 053)

Demonstration projects for

coalbed methane and Devonian shale gas: Final report

Verrips, A.M.; Gustavson, J.B.

Apr1987

Gustavson Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO (USA)

Reproduced and Distributed by:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States

Government nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,

makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal

liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process

disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,

process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or

otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any

agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein

do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States

Government or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in

electronic image products. Images are produced

from the best available original document.

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employ~~~. makt:s any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use- fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any spe- cific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufac- turer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorseme:nt, rf'lrnm. mendat10n, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.

The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available from the National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Price: Printed Copy A03 Microfiche AOJ

Codes are used for pricing all publications. The code is determined by the number of pages in the publication. Information pertaining to the pricing codes can be found in the current issues of the following publications, which are generally avail- able in most libraries: Energy Research Abstracts (ERA); Government Reports Armuuntemenrs and Index (G KA and l); Scientific and Technical Abstract Reports (STAR); and publication NTIS-PR-360 available from NTIS at the above address.

Pmted n the Unted States of Amenca

USDOE Offoce of Scoenllfic and T echrocaf lnfOITTlabon Oak Ridge. Tennessee

.. 'Q"~I"'(:w~j

--·"'"-····'1~.:..~ DOE/RA/331 01-2551

(D£88001053)

Demonstration Projects for Coalbed Methane and Devonian Shale Gas

Final Report

A.M. Verrips J.B. Gustavson

April 1987

i

DOE/RA/33101--2551 DE88 001053

L _

Work Performed Under Contract No.: DE-FG21-79RA33101

For

U.S .. Department of Energy Office of Fm;sil Energy

Morgantown Energy Technology Center

Morg~ntown, West Virginia

By

Gustavson Associates, Inc.

Boulder, Colorado

:~

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by rrade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily rnn)ltitm~ or imply its endor~e··

menr. rf.c·nmmPnrl::uinn. Qr f;woring by the U nitcd State3 G.:.vuiHucul uc dHY agt:n- c.:ythereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily stale ur reflect those of the United StatP.s r;nvernment or any agency thereof.

This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available from the NTIS Energy Distribution Center, P.O. Box 1300, Oak Ridge.

TN 37831.

Price: Printed copy A03 Microfiche AO 1 Codes are used for pricing all publications. The code is determined by the number of pages in the publication. Information pertaining to the pricing codes can be found in the current issues of the following publications, which are generally available in most libraries: Entrg;• Research Abstracts (ERA), Govu11ment Repurts An- T!Ouncements and Index. ( GRA and I); Scientific and Technical Ah!trrl.:t Reports (STAR);

and publication NTIS-PR- 360 available from NTIS at the above address.

DOE/RA/331 01-2551 (DE88001053) Distribution Category UC-132

-. Demonstration Projects for Coalbed Methane and Devonian Shale Gas

Final Report

A.M. Verrips J.B. Gustavson

\Vork Performed Under Contract No.: DE-FG21-79RA33101

For

U.S. Department of Energy Office. of Fossil Energy

Morgantown Energy Technology Center P.O. Box 880

Morgantown, West Virginia 26507-0880

By

Gustavson Associates, Inc.

2400 Central Ave., Suite

P

Boulder, Colorado 80301

April 1987

,•

TABLE Of QJNTENTS

NERICAH PleLIC GAS ASSOCIATION <APGA>

HISTORY AND MEMBERS •...•.•.•.••••••.•••..••.••.••..

ObjectIves ...•..•••.••.••••.••••••.••••••••••••••

Future Goa Is • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2

INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW OF OOALBED/DEVONIAN SHALE DEGASIFICATION

3

Project History and Purpose...

3

Use of Resource for Munlclpal·ltles

···~··· 3

Results of Activities .••.••••••••.••••••••••••••• 4

CRITERIA FOR SELECTING A DEGASIFICATION

PROGRAM···~···

7 Criteria for Test Wei I Locating •.•••••••••••••••• 7

ECONOMICS OF OOALBED UTILIZATION •••••.•••••••••••••••• 11 011 Industry EconomIcs • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 11 Utility Industry EconomIcs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · 12 EconomIc F eas I b I I I ty • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

2 Econan I c Ex.amp I e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13

RECOMMENDATION FOR DRILLING AND COMPLETION ••••••••••••

Drll ling ...

111

16 16 .

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Compl etlon

...

Stimulation ••••••

Surface Equipment

...

...

Operations ••••••••

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUfiiWn' OF ACTIVITIES

ovcnv rcw ...

AI

abama, AI abama, AI abama, Colorado,

Now Castle

...

PI easant Grove

...

University of Alabama

...

Trinidad

...

Indiana, Huntingburg •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

New Mexico. Farmington ••.•.••••••••••••••••••••••

New York, Bath

...

Tenn~::~ssee, HawkIns County

...

CONQ US IONS

...

iv

16 17 18 20

21 22 23

25 26 27

28

29

30 31

F I gun~· 1

Figure

2

Figure 3 Figure 4 FIgure

5

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure

11

Figure 12 Figure 13

LJ.ST OF F !GURES

Well Lcx:atron P-iap •••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Typical Coalbed Cross-Section •••••••••••••••

Coal Fields of the Continental United States.

Economic Analysis <IROR = 8%> •••••••••••••••

Typical Pump and Hole Configuration •••••••••

Alabama New Castle Location Map •••••••••••••

Alabama, Pleasant Grove Location Map ••••••••

Alabama, University of Alabama Location Map ••

Colorado Location Map •••••••••••••••••••••••

Indiana Location Map ••••••••••• _ •••••••••••••

New Mexico Location Map •••••••••••••••••••••

New York Location Map •••••••••••••••••••••••

Tennessee Locatl on Map ••••••••••••••••••••••

v

6

9

10

14 19

22

23 25

26 27 28 29

30

-·

N4ER

I CAN PWLI C ~ A$SOC I AI HI« C

APGA>

HISTORY-AND MEMBERS

The Amer.lcan Public Gas Association <APGA> Is an organization which represents a large group of local publicly owned gas systems, consisting of:

• Municipal natural gas systa.s.

• Publicly owned utility districts.

• County owned districts.

• Other publicly owned agencies having gas facilities.

The organization was chartered In 1961 and has members In twenty-nine states throughout the United States.

Oblectlyes

The objectives of the APGA as determined In 1961, and which continue to guide the Association are as follows:

• P.-c.ote the

cooper

at I on between pub I I c entItIes whIch own and operate gas distribution systa.s or gas-using facilities.

• Prc.ote the •utual

l~rova.ent

of Its .a.bers.

• Render service to Its Mllbers, particularly In the fields of:

- Managa.ent and operation.

- Engineering, design, construction, operation and research.

- Accounting and

c~

.. arclal practice.

- legal policy.

- Other utters as IIBY be

~

to pub II c gas syst.s such as the

production of unconventional ges.

future Goals

The members of APGA bel leve that publ lc g8s has two major goals:

• To provIde a 1188ns for the cte.ocratlc control of one of the .:>st laportant Industries In AErlca.

• To provide gas at the lowest possible cost, and with the best possible service, In order

to

lighten the burden of everyday I fvlng end to stlaulate the growth of the nation's aoo~.

• To continue Its' efforts, working with FERC and other federal agencIes for the purpose of rev lsi ng natural gas urket I ng prec:t Ices frc:. the well heed to the ctty gate In order to Insure fair and reesonabl e returns to ell seg~~&nts of the Industry. and a rect$1Qnabl e price to the consu.er.

• To continue the support of the D.O.E. Research and Developeent of laproved technique In the production of unconventional gas frc. coal seaas

tor

the purpose of sup pi eaent I ng pIpe I I ne ges supp I y.

Further.ore; that the Gas Research I nstltute spend a auch greeter .ount of their receipts, all of which are paid for by the natural gas consu.ers, on production enhanc8118nt for both conventional and unconventional natural ges and to work closely with the D.O.E.

Research and Devel opeent Depart.ents.

I NJBOOUCT I ON

OVERviEW OF OOALBEP/DEYONIAN SHALE PEGASIFICAT!ON

ProJect History and Purpose

In 1979, the U. S. Department of Energy prov lded the American Pub! lc Gas Association <AFGA> with a 9rant to demonstrate the feaslbf! lty of bringing unconventional gas such as methane produced from coal beds or Devon! an Shale·

directly Into publicly owned utility system distribution Jfnes. In conjunction with this grant, a seven-year program was Initiated where a total of sixteen wells were drilled for the purpose of prov !ding this untapped resource to communities who distribute natural gas. While coalbed degaslflcatlon ahead of coal mining was already a real lty In several parts of the country, the AFGA demonstration program was aimed at actual consumer use of the gas. Emphasis was therefore placed on degaslflcatlon of coals with high methane gas content and on utll lzat!on of conventional oil field techniques.

Use of Resource tor Municipal !ties

The reserve potential of coalbed/Devonlan Shale methane gas has been estimated at 400-800 TCF of original gas-In-place located In 16 major coal basins throughout the Un !ted States. Many of these bas Ins are I ocated In Isolated rural areas where smal I uti I lty systems are dependent on the economic market and suppl lees.

3

Development of unconventional methane gas:

• ten suppl.ant naturel gas purchesed fro. plpel lne suppl lers as well as to help stab II lze the econa~lc conditions Involved In erratic .arket dellands.

• Provides a reasonably cost fuel source capable of growing with a co.aunlty's needs.

• Maxl•lzes energy value of coal resources.

Besy!ts of Act!vltlas

• A total of eight project sites Involving sixteen wells were selected throughout the United States for the purpose of dellonstratlng 'the feeslbll lty of developing this unique resource.

• Project sites were selected fro. the following s-tates: Alaba.a_

Colorado_ Indiana_ Nar Mexico_ New York and Tennessee.

• E I even of the sl xteen we I I s were dr II I ed to under I y I ng

coe

I sea.s w l'th -the Intent of exploiting 'the -trapped ~~&thana

gas.

• Five of these coal degeslflcatlon wells are currently producing with 'the

.,st

successful wells drilled • lthln the City I I• Its of PleaSDnt Grove_ AI ab.a.

• The re~~~~ In I ng f lve of the sIxteen wei I s were targeted at Devon I an Shale horizons.

• Three of these five Devonian wei Is are presently producing gas In the .all vIllage of Bath.; New York.

A project map (see Figure 1) II lustratlng the approximate locations of each of

4

these projects has been provided on Page 6 of this Report.

A summa~y for each project, outl lnlng the Individual results has been compl Jed In the following text. Details of each project have been compl led In Volume 2. Vql-umes 3 .and 4 provide data for public use In determining If a coalbed/Devonlan project might be feasible as well as guidance toward Its

Imp I ementatl on.

Results of this progrsn have proved to be encouraging, as some of the wells have yielded economic quantities of methane gas on basis of relatively low capital expenditures. Not all of the eight project tests were successful.

However, wIth each we II dr II I ed, a more comp I ete understandIng of the reservoir characteristics and effectfve mei"hods for extracting the trapped hydrocarbons were experienced. The knowledge gained from these wei Is has been compiled and summarized In this report as wei I as disseminated to Interested parties during the conduct of the program.

5

COLORAOO

8LhCK WARRIOR

BA31N

.··

CRITERIA FOR SelECTING A DEGASJFICATION PROGRAM

Prior to authorizing a major expenditure toward the utilization of gas generated from coal or shale beds, a technlc81 study of the geologic environment, availability of manpower and equipment costs of drll ling and operations, as wei I as potential reserves and return on Investment wll I need to be conducted. A study 8ddresslng these topics Is necessary to determine whether or not coalbed methane gas production Is a feasible source of energy for a particular application. The following "checkl 1st" outl toes the general criteria that must be considered· prior to Initiating a full-scale prognrn.

Criteria For Test Wei I Location

There are five major crlterl8 for Identifying and locating potential degasiflcatlon wei Is which are listed In the following checkl 1st:

• Ex

I stance of coe I or shale beds.

• Mlnl.al thickness of coels In the two to three-foot range.

• Depth of burial of 1,000 to 3,000 feet.

• Prior evidence of gas content In coels or shale.

• Ava II ab I II

ty

of at least a al n I au. of Joo-acre I ease under favorab I e teras.

The first criterion for determining the feasibility of a degaslflcetlon project Is to determine the existence of coal or shale beds In the Immediate area. Simple geologic cross sections can be .derived fran outcropping beds,

7

depositional envlrorwnent, previous well data, and current geologic mapping.

Based on this Information, the thickness and depth of burial can be estimated.

A minimal thickness of two to three feet of coal bed must be present to allow for ade-quate gas generation and trapping, as well as proper formation stimulation. Figure 2 on the following page II lustrates a typical cross-sectional view of a gas-bearing coal seam with adequate thickness. In the case of shale several hundreds of feet of fractured shale 1 s usual 1 y requl red.

The depth of bur I at shou I d range between 1,000 and 3,000 feet. At depths greater than 3,000 teet the drll I lng tends to become less cost effective and at depths shallower than 1,000 feet, the generation and trappl ng of the methane gas tend to be less efficient. In many Instances, evidence of gas contained within coal or shale beds can be found In older wei I records (oil or water wells>, or from mining operations. This Information Is Important, l:'s It suggests that proper maturation has taken pi ace and methane gas has been allowed to accumulate.

Other Important criteria Include the community's needs and potential distribution of such an energy source. Depending on the size and energy usage of a community, a reasonable amount of lease acreage must be obtained to meet these needs. A lease block of approximately 300 acres may be adequate to test a supply for a small community and yet allow for· future development and expansion. Figure 3 on Page 10 Illustrates the major coal fields In the continental United States. A location above any of these would meet the criteria outl !ned earl fer.

8

FIGURE 2

TYPICAL COALBED CROSS-SECTION

t200' to' 20 ^' 30 ^'

40 ^'

New Castle Coal

so'

60'

7o·ll~

^Q.

5

~

::>

~

so'U I

^CJ)

0 <

~

a:

~

90IIIICJ) (!)

a: Mary Lee Coal

< _{w 0}

t3oo'~

I z _{..J u..}

<..Jc:

10'~

I> > ^w

..J . ^>

~CJ)- 2o'

U I

^CJ) ~

a:

30'~ I~ 0 3:

40·~ I~ o.w ^z

Blue Creek Coal

Jagger Coal

so'

60'

70'

...

tllJ

Ream Coal

90' t400' to'

E X PL AN AT I 0 N COAL

~

SANDSTONE

~ ~

9

SHALE

~ ^{- -}

Coal Fi;·elds of the Continental United States

0 200 400 600 MILES

I I I I I I I

I I I I

0 200 400 600 KILOMETERS

ECONOMICS OF COALBED GAS UTILIZATION

Any ut_l llty company or other user of coal bed methane must, by necessity, Include the economics considerations of bringing this resource Into a dlstrlb.utlon system. There are two major cost factors which need to be considered, namely the:

• Initial drill lng and develo~nt of the ooalbed degaslflcatlon wells,

• the subsequently long-ten. operating

cost

of the wells,

Including the preparation of the methane gas to meet distribution system spec If lcatl ons.

Of these two cost Items, the first one Is generally considered a capital Investment of relatively hlgh.magnltude and short duration. In contrast, the operatIng . cost, as we I I as the cost of preparIng the gas for use, are relatively low level cost Items. These latter operating costs, (usually quite Inexpensive), can generally be covered.out of the Income derived fran the gas sales and need not be considered from a capital Investment standpoint. From an overall economic standpoint, both the above cost factors inust be considered.

011 Industry Economic~

It Is custanary In the oil Industry to evaluate the commercial feaslbll lty of a project by considering the Initial capital cost of drll I lng and development as an Investment and then consIder the operatf ng I I fe of the wei Is es the period for recovery of the Invested capital, plus a potential profit. During this period of capital recovery, the gross Income from the gas Is reduced by

11

appl !cable royeltles to landowners, taxes and by the above mentioned operating expenses. Any rEf!lalnlng revenue Is distributed and accounted for against the

Initial Tnvestment and as profit.

At the end of the life of the wells, It Is then possible to calculate en Internal rate of return for the overal I project, the magnitude of which, first of at I should be positive, and secondly, should preferabiV be higher then the prevailing cost of money, roughly expressed as the prime Interest rate plus

7~.

Uti I tty Industry Economics

In the uti I tty Industry, a relatively low rate of return may be acceptable In view of the consumer-directed publ lc service, which Is provided. For purposes of the fol I owIng economIc dl scuss Ions, a des I red rate of return of 8% is assumed. Adjustments may be made by Individual utility systems or other gas users to coincide with their particular economic parameters.

Economic Eeasjbl I lty

After havIng compared the des I red rate of return wIth the I nterna I rate of return as estimated for the specific project at prevailing gas prices, a decision can be made whether or not to proceed. The above epproech Is used by the convent I one I oil end gas Industry. In the cese of e utility company or another Individual user of coelbed methene, It Is often desirable to reverse the process and Instead of uti llzlng gas prices es presently experienced when

12

purchasing from major pipelines, fix en acceptable Internal rate of return.

Thereafter, e nLJnber of technical and economic parameters may be developed which u_Jtlmately will lead to a substitution gas price which would be experienced through a specific project.

For example, given a set of technical parameters such as;

• the depth to the coelbeds.

• the content of methene gas In the coelbeds

• prevailing drilling prices.

• other cost para.eters.

It Is possible to derive a final substitution price for the produced gas as an average over the· II fe of the project. A utility company or other user can then determine whether methane gas at that particular price Is acceptable.

The resulting number may be an accepteble supplement to normal pipeline supplies or fractions thereof, representing a locally controlled unlnterruptlble source of gas.

Figure 4 has been prepared to provide planning Information. Additional curves for other economic parameters are presented In Volume 3 In this series of reports. The required parameters for this Initial planning are held as simple as possible In order to facllltete the process.

Econgmlc Example

For a uti llty or user with:

• 8S as an ac:ceptab I e I nterna I rate of return

• ewell depth of 1,000 feet and a drilling cost of S6/ft.

13

5.0

40

ou: w

a:o a..

~ 3.0

en'

<(~

(!)

2.0

1.0 0

... . . .

_•

•

30 ~Cf ^tda'l

~40~ct=tdaY

-·:.o MCF tdav-

---r--

$6/ft.

~ 2!:£0

100) 1500 2<XXl 2500 3000

lOCO 15:xl 2COO 2500 3000

DEPTH TO COAL SEAM

ECONOMIC. ASSUMPTIONS IROR = 8%

Decline Rate = 5.0%/year Operating Costs = $7,200/year . Royalties = 18.75%

Tax Rate = 10%

$9/ft.

$12/ft.

3!X)() 4000

• an Initial gas flow rate of 31 MCF per day

• the substitution price of gas would be $3.00

per

MCF.

Partles .. lnterested In more detal'ls or variations of the paraneters to fit more spec! flcally Into a local situation, are Invited to contact the U. S.

Department of Energy or the American Publ lc Gas Assocl~tlon.

15

RE(X)MMENDAT I ON FOR DRILLING

AND

OOMP!, ET I ON

The forJowlng text outlines the drilling and completion methods recommended for a coal bed degaslflcatlon wei I. These recommendations are a result of the knowledge end experience gained after drtl ling twelve coalbed degaslflcatton wei Is for the American Publ tc Gas Association over a seven-year period.

Drilling

• Drill a sufficient size hole ( 7 7/8 Inch>, capable of handling a

5-1/2•

dlaaeter string of casing.

• This hole should be drilled with air In order to prevent da.age to the productive coal

seeas.

• The casing progra. and setting depths should be designed to .eat the state's requl r.ents for protectIng fresh water zones encountered during the drilling operations.

Canpl etlon

• The product I on strIng shou I d be c.ented wIth a II ght-we I ght foa111 ce.ent (6 to 8 lb/gal)

when

ce.entlng operations •ust be perf~d

across a targeted coa I 58811.

The reason for using e light-weight

foam

cement Is to pravent the cement from enterIng the

co

a I seam end causIng severe format I on damage. Another alternative Is to simply open-hole complete the wei 1. This Involves drll ling

16

through the targeted zone and not setting any type of casing across the zone.

This technique Is commonly used; however, recent experience has shown that these open-hole completions when performed In soft, friable coal seams may

lead to· compl lcatlons during stimulation operations as well as sloughing prob I ems throughout the I I fe of the we I I •

• Therefore, - It Is reoo. ended that casIng shou I d be set across the desired fonaatlon and a light-weight foam ceDent be used to •lnl•lze formation damage during these operations.

Stimulation

The hole can then be plugged back to the desired depth and stimulation operations Instigated. Many different stimulation techniques have been tested by thIs project and by varl ous organ I zatl ons over the past years and each technique has specific reasoning and designs for a particular area.

• The genera I I y accepted tech n I que I nvo I ves a n I trogen foa11 f rae wl th the appropriate quantities of sand, depending on the designed fracture I ength.

• Sma II free tree'hnents range fr011 15-30,000 I bs. of sand and I arger free treat•ents range fro. 40-80,000 I bs. Unfortunately, the nitrogen foe. free Is also one of the .ost expensive techniques presently available.

• A gel fracture trea-t.ent Is another Mthod, where a gelled substance I s used to carry the sand I nto the f0f"118t I on. Age I n, th I s I s e I so a fairly expensive .ethod.

17

• A

~n

and yet Inexpensive technique Involves large

volu~tes

of water pu.ped at hIgh rates, CXIIlb

I

ned wl th the sand

•I

xtures.

Th I

s :_technique Is cost effective; however, the chances of tracing the well out of zone are Increased due to the high pressures experienced as a :result of the rate at which the water Is puaped Into the fon.atlon.

The technology to stimulate a wei I using the three above methods has been In practice for many years and

Is

common In alI parts of the United States. The most popular methods currently used are the

• HI trogen fo. treatment and

the

• Water stl•ulatlon .athod,

depending on the regional area. This study concludes that the Initial wei l<s>

In a new area should be fractured with nitrogen foam until knowledge of the formation has been gained. Then, less expensive materials may be tested for subsequent wei Is •

. S.u.c.litc .. e-f.Q.YJP.m.e..rt

Once 'the well Is drilled and stimulated, a pumping unit similar

tu

ttre II lustratlon on page 20 Is most commonly used to pump the hydrostatic head of water from the wellbore and allow the coalbed to release methane gas. This pumping unit, referred to as a "sucker-rod pump" has been used In the oil business for many years and Is particularly applicable at shallOW depths

an~

low quantities of fluid volume,. Downhole rotary pumps may ba used where large water volumes need to be removed.

18

TYPICAL PUMP & HOLE CONFIGURATION

Counter Weight

PUMP JACK

1

2" Diameter Hole

7-7 /8" Diameter Hole

5/8' Sucker Rods

Light Weight

Foam Cement

(61b/gal)

Operations

Followlog the successful stimulation of a well and the Installation of the appropriate surface equipment such as dryers

^an~

odorlzers, the task of dally operating and maintaining the wei I Is required.

• The main objective at this point Is to keep the well producing gas by unloading water • .elntaln the equlpaent. end keep operating expenses at a

111 nl.•~·

• The gas Is generally a high

~~ethane

content pipeline quality gas which may-need only drying and odorlzlng before distribution to local consUlters.

20

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

OVERY

!_EW

The fG!!owlng text Is an overv lew of each project drl! led by the American Pub! lc Gas Association under the Department of Energy grant. The projects are I lsted In alphabetical order according to the state In which the we! Is were drilled.

• A tota I of sIxteen we I I s were dr I II ed CNer the seve~ year per I od of the progr•.

• Eight separate project sites were selected frc. the following states:

Alabaaa, Colorado," Indiana, New Mexico, New _I York and Tennessee.

• Eleven of the sixteen wells were drilled to underlying coal sea~~s

with the Intent of exploiting the trapped .ethane gas.

• Four of these coal degaslflcatlon wells are currently producing with the

.est

successful wells drilled within the city ll•lts of Pleasant Grove, AI ab.a.

• The re.alnlng five of the sixteen wells were targeted at Devonian shale horizons.

• Three of these f lve Devon I an wells are present I y producIng gas In the s.all vIllage ot Bath, New York.

A project map

II

!ustratlng the approximate locations of each of these projects has been provided on Page 6 of this Report.

21

Alabama. New Castle

Number of Wet Is:

State: Alabama County:· Jefferson Community: New Castle Date Drl lied: May 31, 1980 Target Zone: "Jane

8"

Coal Seam

Approxr mate Ot!plh: 1, 764 Feet

Current Status: Plugged and Abandoned

Comments:

..

T _s T 15

s

T 16 s

T 17 s

T 18 s

T It s

'l

T 20 s

t

FIGURE 6

RIW Rtw R6W R5W R•w RJW R2W RIW AlE

...-- ---...

~ '

.,

...

(I

^·~ _'

TJ

^.,.:-

...

_~

-~ ^{

) ~-,

~

..:, _{: -} _,..r

t ·~· _~--·

! -

,..

'I

^{I !}

r·'

~-;t~~

1..

,_l.

L

.

_{' r'}

AI"' n ' " "OW ,_~~~~ ·""":- -. fhWt '. MJ" RJW ~---H 1W H

· -

1~

D

New Castle Project

Jefferson Co.

Alabama

I T •

s

I T

s 5

I T

s 6

I T

s 7

I T

s I

T

s ; I

T 20 s

• Geo

I

og

I ca I reports obtaI ned fro. core s.p I es cut over the target horizon Indicated that the coal seea had sheled out In this particular locetlon end that no substantial quantities of hydrocerbon gas existed In tho shale aatrlx.

• Cons t deret I on ·was ude whether to att•pt to a.p I

ei

e the we I I In e shallower zone uphole at 805 feet CBieck

Creek).

• Again, laboratory desorption tests Indicated that only saall quantities of gas were present.

• Based on these test results end estiMted costs associated with c::QIIP I et I on operet Ions, the

dec

I s I on was aade to pI ug end abandon the well.

22

Alabama. Pleasant Groye

Number of Wells: 4 State: Alabama County: Jefferson

Community: Pleasant Grove Date Dell led: December

9. 1979

July

1. 1980

June

12, 1986

June

18, 1986

Target Zone: Mary lee, Blue Creek Black Creek

Approximate Depth: 1.550 Feet Current Status: Producrng

Comments:

,.

T

s

T

~~ s

T

t s ^e

7 T t s

T te s

T tt s

T 20 s

Rew R7W R6W

_r

!\.·-~

.~;-'

\. '-

""t

i...

•-

^..

Rew R7W R6W

FIGURE 7

R~W R•w RJW A 2W RtW AtE

{ ' '

Tl

\.. ~ R~w

~- -...

r-

,

^-, _{- ...}

!~

.

{ ~

.r) l

.~.

~--·

,..,

~

r'J

_,..J

R4W RJW R2W RtW RIE

Pleasant Grove Project Jefferson Co.

Alabama

t T

s

•

T

s $ t

T e

t s

t T

s 1

t T e s

T g t s

T

~ s

• These four we I Is represent the D:>st success f u I we I Is dr I I I ed by the Aller I can Pub II c Gas Associ atl on over the project • s seven-year history.

• All four wells ere currently supplying the City of Pleasant Grove wl th

c:oa

I bed ID8thene gas at en average of 25 r«:F per dey per well.

• The fIrst three we I I s dr I I I ed were open-hoI e a.p I eted dur I ng wh I ch many aechenlcal problems were experienced with the down-hole equfp.ent.

• Due to these •echenlcel probleas, Individual zones were not adequately Isolated end llalted fracture lengths were experienced.

23

• The fourth we II was ca~p I eted wIth cas I ng In en ett•pt to prevent the shortcomings experienced In the previous wells. A light-weight foe. ca.ent was used to secure the casing across the coal fonDatlon.

• The gas production fro. these wells has averaged 20-30 ..:f/dey/well

over

the pest fIve years and has gIven the Cl

ty

of PI easant Grove 1 ong-tena Independence fran economIc .arkets and supp I I ers.

24

Alabama. University of Alabama

Number-~f

We! Is:

2

State: Alabama County: Tuscaloosa Community: Tuscaloosa

Date Dr I I I ed: March, 1981 ; Apr I I , 1983 Target Zone: Mary Lee, Blue Creek Approximate Depth: 2,290 Feet Current Status: Shut-In

Comments:

r

r '

s

T

•e s

T 18 s

T 20 s

T 21 s

u T

s z• T

"

"

I

FIGURE 8

"' " ^{.., ·~ ...} " ' 1'1"1' ".!.JL_W RVW Rew

r

-

I

\ '

.=::; -·~

~ ^{A~ Rttw} JUow AIIW M_W

~- h

M2E

..

^~

....

^{a « a=}

A7W AtSw A!W

= 1

_'L

~ ~

(

.rv

[/~TW .j.J---..B.iW_

J

T 17 s

T

•e s

T IV s

T 20 s

T 21 s

T Z2 s z• T

"

D

University of Alabama Project Tuscaloosa Co.

Alabama

• The first well drilled wes successfully ocapleted In the Mary Lee end 8 I ue Creek coe I seaas wIth In It I e I recoverIes of 20 ~I dey.

• Geologlasl lnfon~etlon gathered frc::a this well Indicated that the coal SNIIS were 100 feet structurally lower then near-by core hole data as a result of significant subsurfece faulting.

• Large quent I tIes of water were produced frc. thIs we I I whIch reduced the ability

to

produce ges. The water production was dl rectly related to the faulting witnessed In the area.

• The second well was also successfully a.pleted In the Mary Lee end B I ack Creek coe I

se.s

wIth I nIt I e I recover les of 3o-40 ~I dey. ·

• Sl•ller water probl•s encountered In the first well were also experIenced In the second we II • Downhole rotary p•ps were tested.

• Methane gas produced frc. these wells helped supply the fuel needs of other ongoing research projects at the University of Alaba.e.

25

Colorado. Tr!Oidad FIGURE 9

Number ef We! Is:

3

State: Colorado County: : Las An I mas Community: Trinidad Date Drll led: Mld-1982 Target Zone: Vermejo

Approximate Oeptha 1,600 Feet

Current Status: Plugged end Abandoned

,.~-r--.,

....

/ ^I

}

;r ~

I'

I

t ^~

I

I.-I _e~w '.:--·- _60w

D

·-r--~·r-r--n

i

J JOS

j I I

- ·--·

-^'--'-·

_

_. I

$$W

Trinidad Project Las Anlmu Co.

Colorado

... -...

^~

.... -... _ ... _,_, ___ ---...J

Comments:

• All three wells showed sufficiently high •ethane contents fr011 ooalbed core sa.ples taken to justify a ooapletlon.

• large quentltt es of water were encountered requl rl ng extensl ve dewetertng.

• Structural defor•atlon of the local coelbeds. co•blned with substantlel Interfingering of porous sand bodies appear to have caused the I erge contl nuous I nf I ux of weter.

• Only s-ell quantities of ges <1-3 MCF/dey/well) were recovered so the wells were plugged and abandoned.

26

Jndlana. Huntingburg

Number.of Wells:

State: Indiana County: Dubois

Community: Huntingburg Date Drll led: January, 1983

Target Zone: Mlsslsslpplan/Devonlan New Albany Shales Approximate Depth: 2,480 Feet

Current Status: Plugged and Abandoned

Comments:

T

'

N

T

'

s

T 2 s

T

,

s

FIGURE 10

R6W RSW R•w

"' ... ""'-- v- -v-~

I ' ,

! i

I

I

! I

~--

+·

I

I I

L -R6W

---- '----·

RSW R•w

--,

RJW

I

I i

I

I I

- - -

RJW

!

T

'

N

T

s

'

T

s 2

T

'

s

D

Huntingburg Project Dubois Co.

Indiana

• The shale was located at the predicted depth end thickness.

• An atta.pt to co.plete the gas-bearing shale proved unsuccessful.

• An underlying I l.estone producing excessive .ounts of brine water which coupled with only saal I quantities of methane gas resulted In the abandon.ent of the

weff.

27

New Mexico. EarmJogton

Number of Wei Is:

State: New Mexico

County: ·. Navajo I ndl an Lands Community: Indian Reservation Date Drll led: December,

1980

Target Zone: Fruitland

Approximate Depth;

915

Feet

CurrenT Status:

^Plugged

and Abandoned

Comments:

FIGURE 11

20 IS

;r-· r--^...-~

--.---

r-· .--.--· -~..-....-r-·r7

I 7

·i

!

I

I

^I

I

l

^I

I

I ^I

I

I

-

I

U .

.=J-. ' - - __._~. __. - ._ ,_ -

.._L_L.._

2D 15 10

D

Navajo Indian Lands Project San Juan Co.

Nt!w MeJlicu

• An

l•press

I

ve seven feet of COB

I

were pene1Tated In three separate

coal seaas.

• Oesorpt I on tests revea I ed a I ow .thane content per ton of COB I •

• The well was

reccr

ended for abandonment and was not stl•ulated.

28

New York.

Bath FIGURE 12

Number-of Wei Is: 3 ,State: _New York

County: Steuben Community:

Bath

Date Dr II I ed: February 27, 1981 September 30, 1981 October 8, 1981

Target Zone: Devonian Marcel Ius Shale Approximate Depth: 2,900 Feet

Current Status: Producing

Comments:

Bath

Project Steuben Co.

New

York

• Test cores fro• the Initial well conflraed the presence of kerogen-rIch. b I ack sha I es wIth natura I fracturIng.

• Desorption analysis revealed a free gas range of .64 to 1.80 cu. ft.

of gas per ton of shale.

• The wells were successfully a.pleted and Initial production ranged frc. 10 to 20 M:f/day/well.

• Production perforaance froa these wells was lapalred due to negotiations with pi pel lne a.panles which delayed the production of these wells for over a onct-"yeDf' period.

• Gas produced fro. these we I I s has been used by the SINS I I vI I I age of Bath to he I p offset the fue I needs of the ~unIty.

29

...

Iennessee. Hawkins Qpynt¥ FIGURE 13

Number of Wells:

State: Tennessee County: Hawkins

Community: Rogersville

Date Drilled: November, 1983 Target Zone: Chattanooga Shale Approximate DepTh: 3,880 Feet

Current Status: Plugged and Abandoned

Comments:

T I N

T

s I

T 2 s

AT~E A $E ATT RTB RT&E R80E A E A 2E R83E

-~ _ _ e _ _ ^e_~ __ ·::...,,...:;!2-r~ _..:1"

v""'~

t-vv·

^{I /}

T

f""

I

[/

-.-

+·

(

^p

>

^~

~ " ^{r J_v}

T 1 N

T 1

$

T

s 2

\~ ^.. 1~

i\'\

^{, /}

T

' T

a '

A75E A7

.~~'""' ⁶

6£ A77E A78E A78E A80E R81E RUE RUE

Hawkins Project Hawkins Co.

Tennessee

• Laboratory tests on core ~pies taken fran the well Indicated e low ges content. but

logs

showed evidence of natural fractures.

• Completion atte•pts were made on several zones but proved unsuccessful es only saell a.ounts of methane ges were recovered.

• The well

•a~

plugged end abondonod.

30

WNQ US!ON

This proJect by the American Public Gas Association. CAFGA> and the U.S.

Department of Energy CDOE> was conducted to attempt the determination of the commercIal feas I b II lty of producl ng pI pel I ne qua I lty gas fran coa I seams and/or Devon! an Shale to supplement present suppl les of conventional natural gas production.

The sharp Increases In conventional domestic natural gas prices beginning In 1977, which represented a 600% Increase over the 1972 prices, continued to Increase at exorbitant levels for new gas. Many natural gas distributors and I arge end users began seek l ng out the feas I b II lty of development of the production of natural gas fran unconventional .sources.

In 1979 AFGA contracted w lth the DOE to conduct a demonstrat !on of the

"Technical and Commercial Feasibility of Utilizing Gas fran Coalbeds and Devonian Shale for Purposes of Community and Rural Development".

The demonstratl on progrsn has real lzed a reasonable amount of success to encourage an ongoing search for prime target areas as wei I as technology which

Is already underway by others.

For example:

(a) Production from the

Mary

Lee, Blue Creek and Black Creek seams at Pleasant Grove In Jefferson County, Alabama clearly Indicate commercial feas I b II I

ty.

31

(b) The two wei Is at the University of Alabama were producing at a level consIdered to be of commercIal value. However, the UnIversIty requested permission for a "cleanup" fracture In order to enhance production.

Perm I ss.l on was granted, however the "c I eanup" fracture apparent I y I eft the coal seams and began to produce excessl·ve amounts ot water. The wells hcsvt:t since been abandoned.

(c) Trinidad, Colorado - the VermeJo zone core sample lndlceted very favorable contents of methane. An open hole fracture similar to the Pleasant Grove, Alabama fractures was attempted. It appears that the fracture entered the porous sand bodIes rather than the coal seams, whIch resu I ted In practically no gas production. This Colorado area seems to have much potential but should probably be completed ~lth horizontal drilling rather than vertical and open hole fracture techniques.

< d > Bath, New York - the three wei Is at Bath, N.Y. In Steuben County are

over the Devonian Marcel Ius Shale.

The comments on these wells

on

page 29 explt!lln the Importance of production without lengthy Interruption once the stimulation Is completed.

(e) All In all, It eppears that much has been learned trom the demonstration project. AFGA would have I lked to test a few wei Is In various areas w lth the newer techno I ogy of vert I cal to hor lzontal dr Jill ng. It does appear that the techno I ogy has gree't potentIal for mueh h lgher I tvel s of pr:oductlon. APGA urges all Industry segments to pressure the Gas Research

32

Institute CGRI> to proceed with the funding of this technology.

(f) Although APGA does not have research money of It's own, they stand ready to work with any and all Interests In the further development of

unconventlon~l natural gas production.

33

DOE/RA/33101-2551 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS FOR COALBED METHANE AND DEVONIAN SHALE GAS DOE