Developments in Inseam Drilling Technology Prepared by: Scott Thomson , Principal, CoalBed Concepts / CoalBed GeoScience. Work Area Leader, Coal Seam Gas, CRC Mining. Managing Director, Norwest - Questa Energy Consultants.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Developments in Inseam Drilling Technology
Prepared by Scott Thomson Principal CoalBed Concepts CoalBed GeoScience
Work Area Leader Coal Seam Gas CRC Mining
Managing Director Norwest - Questa Energy Consultants
Where are we nowbull Developments over past 5 years
ndash Emergence of lsquoparallelrsquo energy business coal seam gas (CSM)bull Improved understanding of science of gas productionbull Business opportunities associated with contiguous resourcebull New surface based drill operators amp optionsbull Competing priorities coal v gas resourcebull Greenhouse reality is changing the economics of coal seam gas
ndash Unprecedented energy boom bull Impact upon resources manpower amp equipment
ndash Growth of MRD SIS as a means of draining coal from the surface
bull Oilfield technology now availablebull Capable of drilling large long boreholes and draining far in advance
of mine workings Chance to be proactive rather than reactive NPV issues hellip
bull Developments over past 5 years (continued)ndash Reservoir modeling tools (oilfield derived) readily available
bull Single well or full field modelsbull Tied to economic assessment toolsbull Analytical rigour now possiblebull Accuracy of outputs = quality of inputs scrutiny of gas
information databasendash Underground drilling Little change
bull Operators have passed lost tool risk to the client in inseam drilling operations No incentive for change
bull lsquoComfortrsquo with existing systems Culturebull Consolidation of inseam drilling contract servicesbull System working ndash no outburst fatalities in years
Where are we now
What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of
inseam drainagebull lsquoSoft coalrsquo ndash coal that cannot be drilled bull lsquoTight coalrsquo ndash coal that can be drilled but will not drainbull Variable flows from inseam holes ndash why do some holes
perform and others notbull Multiple seam drainagebull Cost $ tonne Too expensivebull Loss in hole of steering survey systems (related to
above)bull Inadequate geological information gathering including
drill parametersbull Horizon control
Time value of money issuehellip do we drain now or later Do we drill underground at all
Future panel
Inseam Drilling
Typical cost to mine
$1-$5 per tonne
Why has it been successful to date
bull Smart instruments routine formula drilling (mechanical repeatable)ndash Why should we engineer the smarts down the hole and not up
the holebull Australian coal is generally hard amp pore pressure low
ndash Note our system works poorly elsewherebull The pressure differential encourages gas desorption
without lsquocompletionrsquondash No lsquobringing the well on linersquo ie no production science
bull The majority of holes are lt400m depth and equipment lsquocomfortablersquo at this depth (no finesse required)ndash 12t push pull to drill NQ 400m Suggestion of over
engineeringbull Comment The IS barrier limits the alternatives available
The downsidebull Extremely expensive equipment that may be lost down
holendash At first sign of trouble lsquoboggy groundrsquo called amp hole abandonedndash Under utilisation of exploration function not drilled to distance
risk factorndash No training or emphasis on developing the finesse for long
exploration holesbull No objective means of evaluating formation during or
after drilling ndash no geophysicsndash Again under performance of exploration functionndash Reliance on skill amp diligence of operator
bull We are stuck with a mature inflexible system of underground gas drainage but we know it works
Where to from here
Main problems1 Balance pressurisation related lsquoSoft coalrsquo
poor drainage performance of holes lost tools
2 Cost Locked into antiquated systems mature amp inflexible
3 Lack of completion science amp analytical rigour
4 Geological reality ndash increasing pore pressure with depth low perm due to stress factors
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Where are we nowbull Developments over past 5 years
ndash Emergence of lsquoparallelrsquo energy business coal seam gas (CSM)bull Improved understanding of science of gas productionbull Business opportunities associated with contiguous resourcebull New surface based drill operators amp optionsbull Competing priorities coal v gas resourcebull Greenhouse reality is changing the economics of coal seam gas
ndash Unprecedented energy boom bull Impact upon resources manpower amp equipment
ndash Growth of MRD SIS as a means of draining coal from the surface
bull Oilfield technology now availablebull Capable of drilling large long boreholes and draining far in advance
of mine workings Chance to be proactive rather than reactive NPV issues hellip
bull Developments over past 5 years (continued)ndash Reservoir modeling tools (oilfield derived) readily available
bull Single well or full field modelsbull Tied to economic assessment toolsbull Analytical rigour now possiblebull Accuracy of outputs = quality of inputs scrutiny of gas
information databasendash Underground drilling Little change
bull Operators have passed lost tool risk to the client in inseam drilling operations No incentive for change
bull lsquoComfortrsquo with existing systems Culturebull Consolidation of inseam drilling contract servicesbull System working ndash no outburst fatalities in years
Where are we now
What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of
inseam drainagebull lsquoSoft coalrsquo ndash coal that cannot be drilled bull lsquoTight coalrsquo ndash coal that can be drilled but will not drainbull Variable flows from inseam holes ndash why do some holes
perform and others notbull Multiple seam drainagebull Cost $ tonne Too expensivebull Loss in hole of steering survey systems (related to
above)bull Inadequate geological information gathering including
drill parametersbull Horizon control
Time value of money issuehellip do we drain now or later Do we drill underground at all
Future panel
Inseam Drilling
Typical cost to mine
$1-$5 per tonne
Why has it been successful to date
bull Smart instruments routine formula drilling (mechanical repeatable)ndash Why should we engineer the smarts down the hole and not up
the holebull Australian coal is generally hard amp pore pressure low
ndash Note our system works poorly elsewherebull The pressure differential encourages gas desorption
without lsquocompletionrsquondash No lsquobringing the well on linersquo ie no production science
bull The majority of holes are lt400m depth and equipment lsquocomfortablersquo at this depth (no finesse required)ndash 12t push pull to drill NQ 400m Suggestion of over
engineeringbull Comment The IS barrier limits the alternatives available
The downsidebull Extremely expensive equipment that may be lost down
holendash At first sign of trouble lsquoboggy groundrsquo called amp hole abandonedndash Under utilisation of exploration function not drilled to distance
risk factorndash No training or emphasis on developing the finesse for long
exploration holesbull No objective means of evaluating formation during or
after drilling ndash no geophysicsndash Again under performance of exploration functionndash Reliance on skill amp diligence of operator
bull We are stuck with a mature inflexible system of underground gas drainage but we know it works
Where to from here
Main problems1 Balance pressurisation related lsquoSoft coalrsquo
poor drainage performance of holes lost tools
2 Cost Locked into antiquated systems mature amp inflexible
3 Lack of completion science amp analytical rigour
4 Geological reality ndash increasing pore pressure with depth low perm due to stress factors
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
bull Developments over past 5 years (continued)ndash Reservoir modeling tools (oilfield derived) readily available
bull Single well or full field modelsbull Tied to economic assessment toolsbull Analytical rigour now possiblebull Accuracy of outputs = quality of inputs scrutiny of gas
information databasendash Underground drilling Little change
bull Operators have passed lost tool risk to the client in inseam drilling operations No incentive for change
bull lsquoComfortrsquo with existing systems Culturebull Consolidation of inseam drilling contract servicesbull System working ndash no outburst fatalities in years
Where are we now
What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of
inseam drainagebull lsquoSoft coalrsquo ndash coal that cannot be drilled bull lsquoTight coalrsquo ndash coal that can be drilled but will not drainbull Variable flows from inseam holes ndash why do some holes
perform and others notbull Multiple seam drainagebull Cost $ tonne Too expensivebull Loss in hole of steering survey systems (related to
above)bull Inadequate geological information gathering including
drill parametersbull Horizon control
Time value of money issuehellip do we drain now or later Do we drill underground at all
Future panel
Inseam Drilling
Typical cost to mine
$1-$5 per tonne
Why has it been successful to date
bull Smart instruments routine formula drilling (mechanical repeatable)ndash Why should we engineer the smarts down the hole and not up
the holebull Australian coal is generally hard amp pore pressure low
ndash Note our system works poorly elsewherebull The pressure differential encourages gas desorption
without lsquocompletionrsquondash No lsquobringing the well on linersquo ie no production science
bull The majority of holes are lt400m depth and equipment lsquocomfortablersquo at this depth (no finesse required)ndash 12t push pull to drill NQ 400m Suggestion of over
engineeringbull Comment The IS barrier limits the alternatives available
The downsidebull Extremely expensive equipment that may be lost down
holendash At first sign of trouble lsquoboggy groundrsquo called amp hole abandonedndash Under utilisation of exploration function not drilled to distance
risk factorndash No training or emphasis on developing the finesse for long
exploration holesbull No objective means of evaluating formation during or
after drilling ndash no geophysicsndash Again under performance of exploration functionndash Reliance on skill amp diligence of operator
bull We are stuck with a mature inflexible system of underground gas drainage but we know it works
Where to from here
Main problems1 Balance pressurisation related lsquoSoft coalrsquo
poor drainage performance of holes lost tools
2 Cost Locked into antiquated systems mature amp inflexible
3 Lack of completion science amp analytical rigour
4 Geological reality ndash increasing pore pressure with depth low perm due to stress factors
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of
inseam drainagebull lsquoSoft coalrsquo ndash coal that cannot be drilled bull lsquoTight coalrsquo ndash coal that can be drilled but will not drainbull Variable flows from inseam holes ndash why do some holes
perform and others notbull Multiple seam drainagebull Cost $ tonne Too expensivebull Loss in hole of steering survey systems (related to
above)bull Inadequate geological information gathering including
drill parametersbull Horizon control
Time value of money issuehellip do we drain now or later Do we drill underground at all
Future panel
Inseam Drilling
Typical cost to mine
$1-$5 per tonne
Why has it been successful to date
bull Smart instruments routine formula drilling (mechanical repeatable)ndash Why should we engineer the smarts down the hole and not up
the holebull Australian coal is generally hard amp pore pressure low
ndash Note our system works poorly elsewherebull The pressure differential encourages gas desorption
without lsquocompletionrsquondash No lsquobringing the well on linersquo ie no production science
bull The majority of holes are lt400m depth and equipment lsquocomfortablersquo at this depth (no finesse required)ndash 12t push pull to drill NQ 400m Suggestion of over
engineeringbull Comment The IS barrier limits the alternatives available
The downsidebull Extremely expensive equipment that may be lost down
holendash At first sign of trouble lsquoboggy groundrsquo called amp hole abandonedndash Under utilisation of exploration function not drilled to distance
risk factorndash No training or emphasis on developing the finesse for long
exploration holesbull No objective means of evaluating formation during or
after drilling ndash no geophysicsndash Again under performance of exploration functionndash Reliance on skill amp diligence of operator
bull We are stuck with a mature inflexible system of underground gas drainage but we know it works
Where to from here
Main problems1 Balance pressurisation related lsquoSoft coalrsquo
poor drainage performance of holes lost tools
2 Cost Locked into antiquated systems mature amp inflexible
3 Lack of completion science amp analytical rigour
4 Geological reality ndash increasing pore pressure with depth low perm due to stress factors
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Future panel
Inseam Drilling
Typical cost to mine
$1-$5 per tonne
Why has it been successful to date
bull Smart instruments routine formula drilling (mechanical repeatable)ndash Why should we engineer the smarts down the hole and not up
the holebull Australian coal is generally hard amp pore pressure low
ndash Note our system works poorly elsewherebull The pressure differential encourages gas desorption
without lsquocompletionrsquondash No lsquobringing the well on linersquo ie no production science
bull The majority of holes are lt400m depth and equipment lsquocomfortablersquo at this depth (no finesse required)ndash 12t push pull to drill NQ 400m Suggestion of over
engineeringbull Comment The IS barrier limits the alternatives available
The downsidebull Extremely expensive equipment that may be lost down
holendash At first sign of trouble lsquoboggy groundrsquo called amp hole abandonedndash Under utilisation of exploration function not drilled to distance
risk factorndash No training or emphasis on developing the finesse for long
exploration holesbull No objective means of evaluating formation during or
after drilling ndash no geophysicsndash Again under performance of exploration functionndash Reliance on skill amp diligence of operator
bull We are stuck with a mature inflexible system of underground gas drainage but we know it works
Where to from here
Main problems1 Balance pressurisation related lsquoSoft coalrsquo
poor drainage performance of holes lost tools
2 Cost Locked into antiquated systems mature amp inflexible
3 Lack of completion science amp analytical rigour
4 Geological reality ndash increasing pore pressure with depth low perm due to stress factors
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Why has it been successful to date
bull Smart instruments routine formula drilling (mechanical repeatable)ndash Why should we engineer the smarts down the hole and not up
the holebull Australian coal is generally hard amp pore pressure low
ndash Note our system works poorly elsewherebull The pressure differential encourages gas desorption
without lsquocompletionrsquondash No lsquobringing the well on linersquo ie no production science
bull The majority of holes are lt400m depth and equipment lsquocomfortablersquo at this depth (no finesse required)ndash 12t push pull to drill NQ 400m Suggestion of over
engineeringbull Comment The IS barrier limits the alternatives available
The downsidebull Extremely expensive equipment that may be lost down
holendash At first sign of trouble lsquoboggy groundrsquo called amp hole abandonedndash Under utilisation of exploration function not drilled to distance
risk factorndash No training or emphasis on developing the finesse for long
exploration holesbull No objective means of evaluating formation during or
after drilling ndash no geophysicsndash Again under performance of exploration functionndash Reliance on skill amp diligence of operator
bull We are stuck with a mature inflexible system of underground gas drainage but we know it works
Where to from here
Main problems1 Balance pressurisation related lsquoSoft coalrsquo
poor drainage performance of holes lost tools
2 Cost Locked into antiquated systems mature amp inflexible
3 Lack of completion science amp analytical rigour
4 Geological reality ndash increasing pore pressure with depth low perm due to stress factors
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
The downsidebull Extremely expensive equipment that may be lost down
holendash At first sign of trouble lsquoboggy groundrsquo called amp hole abandonedndash Under utilisation of exploration function not drilled to distance
risk factorndash No training or emphasis on developing the finesse for long
exploration holesbull No objective means of evaluating formation during or
after drilling ndash no geophysicsndash Again under performance of exploration functionndash Reliance on skill amp diligence of operator
bull We are stuck with a mature inflexible system of underground gas drainage but we know it works
Where to from here
Main problems1 Balance pressurisation related lsquoSoft coalrsquo
poor drainage performance of holes lost tools
2 Cost Locked into antiquated systems mature amp inflexible
3 Lack of completion science amp analytical rigour
4 Geological reality ndash increasing pore pressure with depth low perm due to stress factors
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Where to from here
Main problems1 Balance pressurisation related lsquoSoft coalrsquo
poor drainage performance of holes lost tools
2 Cost Locked into antiquated systems mature amp inflexible
3 Lack of completion science amp analytical rigour
4 Geological reality ndash increasing pore pressure with depth low perm due to stress factors
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
What is proposed to address these issues hellip
bull Balance pressurisation hellipcost geo information hellip Coiled Tubing Systems lsquoSuper Loggerrsquo
bull Analytical rigour hellip reservoir engineering amp modeling
bull Multi-seam drainage Difficult problem best attacked from whole-field degasification strategy (not from underground)
Get drilling out of the pit amp degas from the surface
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
bull The common excuse for borehole terminationndash All about tectonic history structure and pore pressurendash Fundamentally due to borehole conditioning issues (rapid
accumulation of cuttings bed leads to drag)ndash Note may not be related to geology (but usually is) hellip
bull Cuttings removal amp balance control the keybull Balance problems = differential sticking hellipbull Problem (once diagnosed) may not be at the bit
ndash Need to define the problem zonebull May be just reaching lockup condition (not lsquoboggyrsquo at all)
due to poor borehole conditioningbull Fighting a losing battle with existing technology to deal
with this issue
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
OVERBALANCED UNDERBALANCED
PROBLEM ZONE
WATER FLOWCirculation Fluids passing through amp around the obstruction
Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
lsquoKey holingrsquo makessituation worse
May be due to a geological structureMay be due to high pore pressure of coalMay be due to weak coalMay be due to inadequate cuttings clearance
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Solving the soft coal problem is alsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
bull Inseam underground drilling is underbalancedndash Borehole drilled at lsquonear atmosphericrsquo (120kPa) and pore
pressure of seam is above 2000kPandash Pressure differential encourages desorption ndash may be very rapid
ndash gas amp coal cuttings ejected from formation into boreholebull Success of inseam drilling depends upon stable wall of
boreholendash If not pressure differentials diff stick mechanical jamming
(collapse of formation around string)bull Overbalanced state in underground drilling rare ndash but
when it occurs = troublebull It is theoretically desirable to maintain perfect balance in
drilling boreholes
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
AA
Gas and Water Rates
VARYING TUFT Kz - DAILY GAS AND WATER RATES
14
39
14
38
14
33
1
10
100
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
GAS
RAT
E (k
sm3
day)
WAT
ER R
ATE
(sm
3da
y)
Base GAS Rate Base WATER Rate TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 10md TuftKz = 001md TuftKz = 001md Date
Gas
and
Wat
erR
ates
SIMID Vari Undersat Const Undersat 10 md 30 md 4 md 10K 100K 01K Dry Wet BF 301 BF Coals 12 Wells 6 Wells
BF000 X X X X X XBF001 X X X X X XBF002 X X X X X XBF003 X X X X X XBF004 X X X X X XBF005 X X X X X XBF006 X X X X X XBF007 X X X X X XBF008 X X X X X X
REL PERM COMPLETION WELL COUNTGAS CONTENT HORIZONTAL PERM TUFT KzIndividually Test Influence of Fourteen Parameters
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
Single-Well AnalysisGas Rate Comparison
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116DATE
GAS (
Mcfd)
Vertical Well Horizonta Well (400) Horizontal Well (3000)
VerticalWell
ShortSIS
LongSIS
Gas Rate Comparison for Different Well Types
Maybe solutionis not underground
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Stratigraphiccontrol
FaultcontrolF1
M2
M1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F1
M2 M2
M1 M1
F2F2
F3F3
F4F4
F5F5
F6F6
F7F7
Window Area Models Include Geologic Flow Features
Models to display and evaluate known flow barriers baffles and enhanced flow features
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Development ModelTest Different Development Scenarios
Model different well spacings schedules and locations to testtheir impact on gas and water drainage results
Gas content and well location display
Presenter
Presentation Notes
With all these information and using kriging we created a normalized water cut map after one year of production This map shows wells that were quickly watered because of being close to a fracture system and wells that were not watered in their first years of production because they were not directly connected to a major fracture systems These well have a higher stratigraphic influence and as a consequence they are better candidates for fractures treatments Now that we knew where to frac we just had to identify what interval to frac and how to frac
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
Gas Content before and after Pre-Mining Drainage
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
12
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
DC
UCUC
322120633mE6381444640mN
322280800mE6380664320mN
322330700mE6380666730mN
UC
322469250mE6380257472mN
SHAFT No 3
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Wat
er R
ate
sm3
day
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gas
Rat
e -k
sm3
day)
Analytical rigour provides economic benchmarks assists planning amp tests your gas database
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
The past hellip
The future hellip
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
bull Continuously milled tubing (usually steel)bull Developed for workovers (re-entries) of oil and gas wellsbull Typical tubing diameters 15rdquo to 55rdquo (38mm to 140mm)bull Practically any length can be supplied
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Coiled Tubing Drillingbull Developed by the OampG drilling industry in early 1990rsquosbull Benefits of CTD include
10486721048672 Rapid tripping speeds intoout of hole (50+ mmin)10486721048672 Continuous drilling process ndash no delays due to rod
changing10486721048672 More automated less personnel - no rod handling10486721048672 Safe and efficient pressure control (underbalanced
drilling)10486721048672 Smaller footprint and weight10486721048672 Faster rigup rigdown10486721048672 High speed telemetry (optional by use of wireline)
bull Over 3500 CTD wells drilled in 2005 - 2500 of these were for CBM applications (mostly Canada)
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Oilfield CT rig
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Coiled Tubing Drilling
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
Injector
Stand-pipe
Guide archTubing Drum
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Downhole Concept
Coiled TubingBHA sub
Survey and geosensing electronics compartment
Down-hole-motor Drill Bit
Bent-sub sectionPump off sub
Survey geosensing connection sub
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Conclusionsbull More gas drainage options than ever before
ndash Therefore increased complexity many different approaches available for gas drainage
bull More analytical rigour available and little excuse to ignore it
bull CTS a possible paradigm shift in inseam drilling technology
bull Be warned Trouble ahead if systems do not change
bull However culture a major barrier to implementation of all of above
- Slide Number 1
- Where are we now
- Where are we now
- What are the core issues problems relevant to the future of inseam drainage
- Inseam Drilling
- Why has it been successful to date
- The downside
- Where to from here
- What is proposed to address these issues hellip
- lsquoSoft CoalrsquoThe lsquoboggy groundrsquo myth hellip
- Differential sticking in underground inseam drilling
- Solving the soft coal problem is a lsquoQuestion of Balancersquo
- Slide Number 13
- Addressing reservoir engineering amp modelling hellip analytical rigour
- Single-Well ModelTest Different Completion Types
- Slide Number 16
- Slide Number 17
- Development ModelOptimise Well Placement and Timing
- CSM Development ModelOptimize Well Placement and Timing
- Slide Number 20
- Slide Number 21
- If underground drilling is necessary hellip maybe Coiled Tubing
- Coiled Tubing Drilling
- Slide Number 24
- Slide Number 25
- Underground Coiled Tubing System Concept
- Downhole Concept
- Conclusions
-
Related Documents
