Funmilayo Dissertation

WATERJETTING: A NEW DRILLING TECHNIQUE IN COALBED METHANE
RESERVOIRS

By

GBENGA M. FUNMILAYO, B.S., M.S.

A DISSERTATION

IN

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement
for the Award of the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

Approved

Marshall Watson
Chair of Committee

Lloyd Heinze

Malgorzata Ziaja

Waylon House

Fred Hartmeister
Dean of Graduate School

August 2010

Copyright 2010, Gbenga M. Funmilayo
Texas Tech University, Gbenga M. Funmilayo, August 2010

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Marshall Watson, Chairman of my committee, for his valuable
advice and suggestions that helped me throughout the entire work. Beyond his advice,
he provided all the finances for the field tests leading to this report. I also want to thank
Dr. Lloyd Heinze for being so patient with me during my candidature in the department
of Petroleum Engineering, and for his meritorious guidance during the last stage of my
research activities leading to this dissertation. I am honored to have Dr. Malgorzata
Ziaja and Dr. Waylon House serve as members of my committee.
The research part of this dissertation would not have been possible, were it not for the
contributions of Doug Wright from StoneAge Inc., Joe Straeter from Barger Engineering,
Mark Lewis and his crew members from Bodine Services of Evansville, and Bill Gunn
from United Minerals Inc. Thanks to you all!
This dissertation is dedicated to my God, my mother Victoria Funmilayo, my wife
Olukemi Funmilayo, and to my children: Similoluwa, Mayowa, Oluranti, and Oluleke; for
their supports and inspirations during the thick and the thin of my career
developments.


iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.. ii
ABSTRACT.. v
LIST OF TABLESvi
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... vii
NOMENCLATURE......... ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION..1
1.0 Overview of Coalbed Methane Reservoir.....1
1.1 Potential of Coal Bed Methane...1
1.1.1 Global Potential of Coalbed Methane2
1.1.2 U.S. Potential of Coalbed Methane...3
1.2 The Geology of Coalbed Methane Reservoir...4
1.2.1 Geochemical Transformation of Coal..11
1.3 The Reservoir Engineering of Coalbed Methane..14
1.3.1 Coalbed Methane versus Conventional Reservoirs..15
1.3.2 Properties of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs...17
1.4 Drilling and Completions in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs..31
1.5 Production Engineering of Coalbed Methane Reservoir.....42
1.5.1 Water Production....44
1.5.2 Gas Production...44
1.5.3 Enhanced Coalbed Methane Production...47
1.5.4 Well Stimulation/Hydraulic Fracturing....48

iv

1.6 The Illinois Coal Basin..50
1.7 Current Challenges in Coalbed Methane Production.....54
II. LITERATURE REVIEW...57
2.0 Review of Waterjet Technology..57
2.1 Background....57
2.2 Design of Waterjet Systems63
2.3 Mechanism of Rock Failure........72
2.4 Drilling of Horizontal Well by Waterjet Technology74
2.5 Current Research versus Previous Works.......92
III. FIELD TESTING.................................................................................................97

3.0 Equipment Rig-Up...97
3.1 Equipment and Material Specifications.107
3.2 First Round of Field Test..117
3.3 Second Round of Field Test....120
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS....124
4.0 Accomplishments..........124
4.1 Results124
4.2 Discussions....148
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION..163
5.0 Conclusions...163
5.1 Recommendations.......166
REFERENCES.........169

v

ABSTRACT
Applications of waterjeting to drill horizontal wells for the purpose of degassing coalbeds
prior to mining operations and for creating rock-bolts in coalbeds, have long been
established. The closest application of waterjet technology in oil and gas industry has
been in the development of jet-assisted drill bits. This dissertation investigates the use
of high pressure waterjet technology for drilling horizontal wells in coalbed methane
reservoirs.
Horizontal Well technology has been in existence for many years. It has found
successful applications in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs. The major
difference between the conventional horizontal well technology and the proposed
waterjet horizontal well technology is the use of a waterjet to drill, as opposed to a bit.
Secondly, the components of their drillstrings are different.
This research aims at investigating the use of high pressure waterjet technology as a
new and a more cost effective technique to drill horizontal wells in coalbed methane
reservoirs. The ability of high pressure hose to replace the conventional metallic drill
pipe will be investigated. The use of a nozzle to drill horizontal wells in coalbed methane
reservoirs, as opposed to a bit will also be investigated. Optimization of tool (nozzle) for
best drilling practices will be a major objective of the field trials. The various factors that
control the direction of the nozzle, during drilling operations, will form part of the
investigation. Finally, sensitivity studies will be carried out to determine the significance
of all the variables that contribute to the impact force; that is, the force from jets of water
that cuts the rocks (coalbeds).

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Characteristics and CBM production potential of coal basin.9
Table 1.2: ASTM Rank of Coal 14

Table 1.3: Coalbed methane vs. conventional gas reservoirs... 16

Table 1.4: Properties of Coalbed Methane & their Sources18

Table 1.5: Lithostratigraphy of the Pennsylvanian System in the Illinois Basin..54

Table 2.1: Difference between conventional and waterjet horizontal well
technology... ..94

Table 4.1: Test A: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 1....138

Table 4.2: Test B: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 2....139

Table 4.3: Test C: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 3. ... .139

Table 4.4: Test D: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 4. .140

Table 4.5: Test E: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 1....141

Table 4.6: Test F: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 5...142

Table 4.7: Test G: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 3..143

Table 4.8: Test H: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 6 ..144

Table 4.9: Test I: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 7 ....144

Table 4.10: Test J: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 4....145

Table 4.11: Test K: Measurements recorded for tool configuration 3...146

Table 4.12: Effect of orifice size on impact pressure...150

Table 4.13: Effect of pressure on impact pressure...151


vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: U.S. Coalbed Methane Resource Map.... 6
Figure 1.2: Schematic of the coalification process..8
Figure 1.3: Cleat systems and permeability anisotropy of a typical coal seam....22
Figure 1.4: A typical Isotherm plot27

Figure 1.5: Isotherms for Fruitland and Fort Union coal formations...29
Figure 1.6: Effective reservoir thickness.30
Figure 1.7: Pinnate pattern drilling and completions technique..34
Figure 1.8: Drilling and Completions method.....38
Figure 1.9: Completions and stimulations methods in the US coal basins...40

Figure 1.10: Decision chart for selecting the drilling and completion method....42

Figure 2.1: A typical configuration of waterjet system..58

Figure 2.2: A typical configuration of waterjet system..58

Figure 2.3 Effect of nozzle pressure, stand-off distance, and orifice size on impact
pressure...72
Figure 2.4: Drillhead that did not require nozzle swivel..79

Figure 2.5: Jet-assisted diamond drill bit....80

Figure 2.6: Drive mechanism for the Petro Jet Multiple Lateral System...85

Figure 2.7: Addition of bent sub in the drillhead 86

Figure 2.8: Drive mechanism of the round the corner drill.....89

Figure 2.9: Equipment layout for the test to verify RTC drilling ability .90

Figure 2.10: Component of the RTC drillhead instrumentation90

Figure 2.11: Pictorial view of the proposed waterjet horizontal well technology...95


viii

Figure 3.1: Some of the major components of the rig Waterblaster.......97
Figure 3.2: Water truck that supplies the water for the test....98
Figure 3.3: Diesel engine than pumps water from the truck to the tank...99
Figure 3.4: 1st & 2nd inlet filters, and water tank.......102
Figure 3.5: Water pump..103
Figure 3.6: Diesel engine that powers the water pump.....104
Figure 3.7: Foot valve, a component of the foot dump..107
Figure 3.8: Outlet high pressure and the dump line connections....108
Figure 3.9: Diffuser, with a pressure gauge mounted on it, and whip check.....109
Figure 3.10: Backhoe, bern, pipe, testing hose, and jetting operations112

Figure 3.11: Nozzle Configuration..113

Figure 3.12: Nozzle Configuration......114

Figure 3.13: Component of BA-PA nozzle.....115

Figure 4.1: Borehole geometry and changes in the color of returning water.....129
Figure 4.2: Description of particle sizes...130
Figure 4.3: Measurement of borehole dimensions....131
Figure 4.4: Feeding of hose into the coal seam during a jetting operation........134
Figure 4.5: Borehole # seventeenth drilled to the depth of 62 ft......135


ix

NOMENCLATURE

ASTM = American Society of testing and materials
CBM = Coalbed Methane
DAF = Dry Ash-Free
ECBM = Enhanced Coalbed Methane
EOR = Enhanced Oil Recovery
G = Gas content of the coal in the formation, scf/ton
G
R
= Residual gas of core, scf/ton
G
C
= Gas released by the core in the canister, scf/ton
G
L
= Lost gas from the core during coring process, scf/ton
G
s
= Gas storage capacity, scf/ton
P = Pressure, psia
P
L
= Langmuir pressure, psia
V
L
= Dry, ash-free Langmuir volume, scf/ton
a = Ash content, weigt fraction
w
c
= Moisture content, weight fraction
= bulk density, g/cm
3

a
= ash density, g/cm
3

o
= pure coal density, g/cm
3

w
= moisture density, g/cm
3

K
anisot
= permeability anisotropy (K
max
/K
min
)

x

H
h
= thickness of the coal seam containing the horizontal wellbore, ft
H
v
= sum of all completed seams in a vertical well, ft
r
e
= drainage radius, ft
r
w
= wellbore radius, ft
S = negative vertical skin factor due to stimulation
S
mh
= mechanical skin damage to a horizontal well
S
h
= negative skin factor due to the horizontal well
S
cah
= shape related skin factor (function of drainage shape, well length, H
h
, and K
v
/Kh)
given by correlation derived from charts
L = horizontal length of wellbore, ft
W
p
= Water required to be produced for gas desorption to commence, bbls
W
i
= Water initially in place in the drainage area, bbls
c
w
= water compressibility, psi
-1
c
f
= formation compressibility, psi
-1
p
i
= Initial reservoir pressure, psia
p
d
= Desorption pressure as determined by the Langmuir isotherm, psia
G
i
= Gas in Place at initial reservoir conditions, Mscf
A = Drainage area, ac
h = coal thickness, ft
f
= Interconnected fracture (effective) porosity, fraction
S
wfi
= Interconnected fracture water saturation, fraction
B
gi
= Gas formation volume factor at p
i
, rcf/Mscf

xi

C
gi
= Initial sorbed gas concentration, scf/ton, dry, ash-free coal
f
a
= Average weight fraction of ash, fraction
f
m
= Average weight fraction of moisture, fraction
43560 = Conversion factor, ft
2
/ac
GIP
i
= initial gas in place
GIP
a
= gas in place at abandonment
Rf = Recovery factor, %
V
i
= initial volumetric gas content, scf/ton
V
a
= abandonment gas content, scf/ton
G
p
= Methane recoverable reserves, Mscf
MSHA = Mine Safety and Health Administration
WJTA = WaterJet Technology Association
Hp = Horse power
P = pump pressure, psi
Q = flow rate, gpm
P = pressure loss in pipe or hose, psi
d = internal diameter of the pipe/hose, in
L = pipe/hose stretch due to pressure, %
L
p
= pipe or hose length, ft
P
N
= pressure at nozzle, psi
P
N
= pressure loss through the nozzle, psi
C
v
= flow rating, dimensionless

xii

d
o
= internal diameter of orifice, in
C
d
= flow efficiency, dimensionless
N = number of jets (orifice) required, constant
F
R
= jet reaction force, lbs
F
P
= pulling force, lbs
= jet angle, degree
= 3.142
V = flow velocity, ft/sec
P
I
= impact pressure, psi
D
S
= stand-off distance, ft
OD = Outer Diameter
ID = Inner Diameter
CWD = Casing While Drilling
RTC = Round The Corner
BHA = Bottom Hole Assembly
MCP = Minimum Cutting Pressure
OCP = Optimum Cutting Pressure
ROP = Rate of penetration
gr = graphite
ma = meta-anthracite
an =anthracite
sa = semi-anthracite

xiii

lvb = Low Volatile Bituminous
mvb = Medium Volatile Bituminous
hvAb = High Volatile A Bituminous
hvBb = High Volatile B Bituminous
hvCb = High Volatile C Bituminous
subA = Sub-bituminous A
suB = Sub-bituminous B
subC = Sub-bituminous C
ligA = Lignite A
ligB = Lignite B


1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

1.0 Overview of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
1.1 Potential of Coal Bed Methane
Coalbed methane, CBM, has progressively been gaining ground since the early
80s, as an alternative source of energy. While technologies are still emerging in
coalbed methane production, the current technologies from both mining and oil
industries have resulted in some breakthroughs to produce methane gas from
coal seam; even though its contribution to total energy production is still minimal.
Considered to be in the category of tight gas and shale gas which are
unconventional resources; CBM is set to continually attract operators with
nations moving towards environmentally friendly natural gas, as an energy
source. In order to increase the contribution of coalbed methane gas to total
energy need, there must be advances in the understanding of coalbed behavior
and characteristics, such as adsorption, diffusion, mechanical properties, and
stress-dependent permeability. In addition to this, technological advancements in
the area of drilling, completion, and stimulation techniques are keys to increased
coalbed methane production.


2

1.1.1 Global Potential of Coalbed Methane
On a global basis, Nazish
1
reported that coalbed methane now contributes more
than 1TCF (trillion cubic feet) of gas per annum.

The Hart Energy Publications
2
once quoted Joe Awny, senior petroleum
engineer, EquiTable Production Co.; of making the following statement about the
global potential of coalbed methane gas:
In some regions, coalbed methane could eventually grow from a supplement to
conventional natural gas supply to a main source of gas. The global coalbed
methane resource is of some significance in the near-term energy mix, where it is
currently being exploited in several countries including the U.S., Canada,
Australia and China, he said. Long term, the resource is expected to be of great
significance for the U.S., India, China, Poland, South Africa, Zimbabwe and
elsewhere as a main source of gas supply.
Coalbed Methane production activities are going on in several countries around
the globe and this is expected to increase as more and more countries are
developing interest in the resource play. One particular country that has
developed interest in coalbed methane production is China, the worlds largest
coal producer. Nazish
1
reported that its coalbed methane resources are
estimated to range from between 1,000 and 2,800 TCF, which is many times
larger than its conventional gas potential. According to Nazish
1
, Indias coalbed
methane resource potential has been estimated at 280 TCF, which is also
surpassing its conventional gas potential. There are ongoing partnerships
between the U.S. and Indian companies to explore the potentials of coalbed
methane production.

3

Bangladesh and Philippines are two other countries with significant interests in
coalbed methane production. Activities in coalbed methane production have also
been reported in several parts of Europe, especially in Russia, United Kingdom,
and Germany.
Estimates of worldwide in-place coalbed methane resources are difficult to make,
either because of lack of adequate technology to make such estimate across the
world or because few areas are as mature as the United States. However, The
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
3
reported that the global coalbed
methane recoverable reserves are estimated to be about 1,200 TCF.

1.1.2 U.S. Potential of Coalbed Methane
The U.S. estimates of the total coalbed methane resource vary considerably and
the estimates are contingent upon improved understanding and technologies to
explore the resource. Towards the end of 1990s, the USGS
3
estimated in-place
coalbed methane resources in the United States at more than 700 TCF; and that
about 100 TCF of the 700 TCF is economically recoverable. The 100TCF comes
from the contiguous 48 U.S. states. The Hart Energy Publications
2
reported that
about half of the estimated 100 TCF of recoverable coalbed methane is in the
Powder River Basin with an estimated 24 TCF of recoverable coalbed methane,
the Northern Appalachian Basin with an estimated 11 TCF of recoverable
coalbed methane, the San Juan Basin with an estimated 10 TCF of recoverable
coalbed methane, and the Black Warrior Basin with an estimated 4 TCF of

4

recoverable coalbed methane. The Oil & Gas Journal
4
reported that almost 75
TCF may still be discovered in the contiguous 48 U.S. states, apparently with
improved technology. The Hart Energy Publications
2
further reported that another
57 TCF of coalbed methane is estimated to be recoverable in Alaska.

In its reports, the Energy Information Administration
5
indicated that the number of
CBM producing wells in the contiguous 48 states passed the 15,000 mark in
2001, which was up from 284 wells in 1984. The number of producing wells has
since increased. The Energy Information Administration
5
reported that coalbed
methane currently accounts for about 8 percent of total gas production in the
United States. Figure 1.1 shows the coalbed methane resources and their
locations in the United States.

1.2 The Geology of Coalbed Methane Reservoir
Coal is a product of organic decomposition of plants. It is formed when peats
undergo both physical and chemical changes due to the actions of bacterial,
temperature, and pressure over an extended period of time. This process is
called Coalification. Before Coalification is a process called Peatification. In
Peatification, plants are deposited in swamps, buried rapidly enough by
sediments to limit the rate at which the available oxygen in organic-rich water is
completely used up by the decaying process (oxidation) but to allow microbial
decomposition of the plants. The use of oxygen in the decaying process is called

5

aerobic decomposition. If the rate of burial is slow, the oxygen is rapidly used up
and a much slower decomposition process, called anaerobic, takes place. Peats
are usually formed in waterlogged environment where plant debris are deposited
and accumulated. Burial by sediments leads to compaction of peat. The
compaction allows water to squeeze out of the peat, especially during the early
stage of Peatification. As the Peatification process continues, peats are
progressively covered with sediments, pressure continues to compress the peat,
and bacteria continue to react with peat to alter its chemical composition in the
presence of heat and over and extended period of geologic time. Some of the
products of the alteration are methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen gases.

The Kentucky Geological Survey
6
reported that these gaseous products are
typically expelled from the deposit, and the deposit becomes more and more
carbon-rich as the other elements disperse. The society further asserted that the
stages of this trend proceed from plant debris through peat, lignite, sub-
bituminous coal, bituminous coal, anthracite coal to graphite (a pure carbon
mineral).

Temperature is the most important parameter in the geochemical reactions that
occur during Coalification process. In their studies, The Kentucky Geological
Survey
6
concluded that an estimate of ten vertical feet of original peat materials
produces one vertical foot of bituminous coal in eastern and western Kentucky,

6

due to the amount of squeezing and water loss that accompanies the compaction
of peat after burial varies, depending on the original type of peat the coal came
from and the rank of the coal. The Figure 1.2 shows the Schematic of the
Coalification process.

Larsen
7
, in his study, concluded that the U.S. coals originated in the Tertiary,
Cretaceous, or Carboniferous periods. However, most of the coals come from the
Carboniferous period. Rogers et al
8
also concluded that younger coals in the
Cretaceous, Paleocene, and Eocene periods are of lower rank or maturity unless
a localized heat source occurred to accelerate the normal metamorphism or
burial history was altered by tectonic action.

Figure 1.1: U.S. Coalbed Methane Resource Map

7

There are fourteen major coal Basins in the United States. They are:

1 San Juan Basin
2 Black Warrior Basin
3 Raton Basin
4 Piceance Basin
5 Greater Green River Coal Region
6 Powder River Basin
7 Northern Appalachian Basin
8 Central Appalachian Basin
9 Western Washington
10 Wind River Basin
11 Illinois Basin
12 Arkoma Basin
13 Uinta Basin
14 Cherokee Basin

The Table 1.1 gives the characteristics and production potentials of the major
Basins.


8

Figure 1.2: Schematic of the Coalification process


9

Table 1.1: Characteristics and CBM production potential of various coal Basins
(Ref # 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30).

S/N

Major U.S.
Coal Basin

Location
(States)

Age Sediment

CBM Production
Potential

Characteristics

1
San Juan Basin SW Colorado
and NW New
Mexico

Upper and
Lower
Cretaceous

Most profitable, most
prolific CBM production
Basin in the world
Favorable coal seam
thickness,
permeability, gas
content, depth, and
coal rank in large area

2
Black Warrior
Basin
Alabama

Lower
Pennsylvanian

First Basin for CBM
activities, less
profitable than san
Juan
multiple thin seams,
more difficult
and costly to complete
limited production rate

3
Raton Basin

NE New
Mexico and
SE Colorado
Cretaceous,
Paleocene,
Late Cretaceous
smallest of major coal
Basin

multiple thin seams,
discontinuous coal
groups

4
Piceance Basin

Western
Colorado

Cretaceous,
Late Cretaceous
profitable and prolific

High coal seam
thickness, High
Gas content

5
Greater Green
River Coal
Region
SW Wyoming
and NW
Colorado
Paleocene,
Eocene,
Cretaceous,
Upper
Cretaceous

has five Basins: Sand
Wash of NW CO and
SW Wyoming, Great
Divide of WY, Hanna of
WY, Green River of
WY, and Washakie of
WY

Unfavorable conditions;
such as: mostly
unsaturated, high water
production with aquifer
sands lying between
coals, thin coal seams,
low to very low
permeability, normal to
under-pressured coal
seam

6
Powder River
Basin
NE Wyoming,
and SE
Montana
Eocene,
Paleocene
Shallow formation,
profitable but not
prolific
Favorable coal seam
thickness, low Gas
content

7
Northern
Appalachian
Basin
West Virginia,
Ohio,
Kentucky
Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and

Pennsylvanian

not prolific, less
profitable than black
warrior Basin

similar thin seams to
black warrior Basin,
but more under-
pressured and
produce less water
due to extensive
mining that has taken
place in the area, lower
gas content than black
warrior Basin because
it is shallower, more
under-pressured, and
lower rank

8
Central
Appalachian
Basin
West Virginia,
Virginia,
Kentucky, and
Tennessee

Pennsylvanian

not prolific, less
profitable than black
warrior Basin

similar to northern
Appalachian and
black warrior Basins,
mining activities has
removed the amount of
water to be removed
to achieve gas
production, gas content
and permeability are
similar to black warrior
Basin, but both
properties are higher
than northern
Appalachian


10

Table 1.1: Continued

S/N

Major U.S.
Coal Basin

Location
(States)

Age Sediment

CBM Production
Potential

Characteristics

9
Western
Washington

Between
Canadian
border on the
north to
Oregon border
on the south
Eocene

no commercial CBM
production,
small Basin, complex
geology
little available data to
describe the Basin,
has good gas content

10
Wind River
Basin
West-Central
Wyoming

Paleocene,
Upper
Cretaceous

small Basin, complex
geology including
coal seam
discontinuity, no
commercial
CBM production,
located in remote area
little available data to
describe the Basin,
relatively thin coal
seams

11
Arkoma Basin

Central
Arkansas and
Oklahoma

Pennsylvanian

commercial CBM
production but not
prolific

less water due to
extensive mining
that has taken place in
the area, high
permeability and good
gas content

12
Uinta Basin

NE Utah and
NW Colorado

Upper
Cretaceous

commercial CBM
production but
not as prolific as san
Juan Basin
good coal seam
thickness, good gas
content, permeability
and production rate

13
Cherokee
Basin
Near
Oklahoma/Ka
nsas/Missouri
border and
extends
northward
along
Kansas-
Missouri
border
commercial CBM
production but
not as prolific as San
Juan Basin,
contains small amount
of low gravity oil
Similar to Arkoma
Basin: low water
production rates, high
permeability

14
Illinois Basin

Illinois,
Western
Kentucky, and
SW Indiana

Pennsylvanian

largest of the coal
Basins, no
commercial CBM
production

good coal seam
thickness, multiple coal
seams, low water
production, low gas
content, poor
permeability, high
nitrogen content,
under-saturated coals


11

1.2.1 Geochemical Transformation of Coal
Peatification, the first stage in the development of coal, is the biochemical and
physical process of converting organic matter to peat with only secondary
assistance from geochemical processes. The biogenic methane generated by
bacteria in the Peatification stage is lost unless burial of the peat is rapid enough
and trapped by interbedded shale lenses. Later, however, biogenic methane from
other locales may migrate to the developing coal and be adsorbed.

There are two types of methane gas generation. Biogenic methane is generated
as a result of bacterial reaction during Peatification process (microbial
decomposition). In his research, Rightmire
32
discovered that the methane is
usually lost unless burial of the peat is rapid enough and sealing shale lenses are
interbedded to form a trap. Also, Rogers et al
8
concluded that the biogenic
methane from other locales may migrate to the developing coal and be adsorbed.

The second type of methane generation, thermogenic methane, evolves during
the coalification process. Temperature acts to change the molecular structure of
coals over geologic time, which leads to the generation of thermogenic methane,
usually in large quantities. Rogers et al
8
described what happens in the coal
when thermogenic methane is formed: micropores develop to absorb
extraordinary amounts of methane per unit of coal, and fractures permeate the
coal to transport the excess methane. The term excess methane means the

12

methane gas that could not be stored in the coal micropores due to the fact that
the micropores are completely filled up with gas because the coal has reached its
gas capacity. Just as the compressive strength of coal, the gas content increases
with rank (coal maturation) and its permeability also increases with rank up until
the upper bituminous level and then regresses beyond this rank, due to
continued alterations in the chemical structure of anthracite.

It is a common knowledge that the largest amounts of coalbed methane gas are
from thermogenic sources. In their own work, Law et al
33
however, concluded
that biogenic methane may be retained in commercial quantity, especially in thick
coal seams such as the one of the Fort Union formation of the Paleocene Age
and the overlying Wasatch formation of the Eocene Age of the Powder River
Basin of Montana/ Wyoming. Biogenic methane is usually stored in lignite-to-
subbituminous coal rank. Rogers et al
8
explained that the practicality of and
commercial production of biogenic methane from such Basin and coal rank is
due to the combination of thick seams and shallow depths of burial. However, the
Seelyville coalbed in the Linton formation of Illinois Basin is also found to be of
commercial value due to shallow depth, even though the coal seams are not as
thick as those of afore-mentioned formations.

Volatiles are common products of Peatification and Coalification. Carbon dioxide
and water are the first volatiles generated, usually during Peatification process

13

and at a temperature lower than 212
o
F. Higher temperature favors rapid
generation of methane gas. During Coalification process, volatiles such as: CH
4
,
CO
2
, H
2
O, and N
2
are generated and evolved. Larsen
7
reported that mainly CO
2

is librated in the stage going from peat to lignite while Rogers et al
8
asserted that
the thermogenic carbon dioxide, although more strongly adsorbed to the coal
matrix than the other volatiles, is more easily dissipated because of its solubility
in water. They further reports that nitrogen is the smallest molecule among the
volatiles and it more weakly adsorbed than methane or carbon dioxide. Hence, it
is more easily dissipated by diffusion during Coalification process.

ASTM ranks coals as a measure of their maturity. The Table 1.2 shows the
various coal ranks and subdivision, according to ASTM classification. There are
five major classifications and thirteen subdivision of coal. The five major classes
are: lignite, sub-bituminous, bituminous, anthracite, and graphite. The bituminous
rank, specifically hvAb through lvb, is the best for coalbed methane production
because coal properties are well developed at this rank. Even thin coal seam of
hvAb through lvb can yield substantial amount of recoverable methane gas
because of well developed cleat systems, permeability, gas content, and gas
capacity.


14

Table 1.2: ASTM Rank of Coal
Class Group Abbreviation
Graphite Graphite gr
Anthracitic Meta-Anthracite
Anthracite
Semi-anthracite

ma
An
sa

Bituminous Low Volatile
Medium Volatile
High Volatile A
High Volatile B
High Volatile C

lvb
mvb
hvAb
hvBb
hvCb

Sub-bituminous Sub-bituminous A
Sub-bituminous B
Sub-bituminous C

subA
subB
subC

Lignitic Lignite A
Lignite B

ligA
ligB

1.3 The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Coalbed Methane
The purpose of this section is not to present all aspects of the reservoir
engineering of coalbed methane reservoirs. Those presented here are related to
this research. We would like to state clearly that the descriptions are not

15

exhaustive; and only serves the purpose of assisting readers to understand the
aspects of coalbed methane reservoir that are critical to its exploration and
production.

1.3.1 Coalbed Methane versus Conventional Reservoirs
Coalbed methane reservoirs are unconventional; which means their descriptions
do not follow common knowledge already established in the conventional oil and
gas reservoirs. Operators of coalbed methane reservoirs often rely on the
combination of knowledge gained in mining, and oil and gas industries to
produce methane gas. The unique characteristics of coalbed methane reservoirs
necessitate modified approaches in the methane gas production. Over the years,
operators have gained more in-depth knowledge of this resource plays and have
improved their understanding method of methane gas production. Researches
and field practices have lead to:
a. an improved understanding of the fundamentals of coalbed methane
production
b. advances in measuring reservoir properties
c. advances in coalbed methane reservoir simulation
Levine
34
compared the characteristics of Coalbed methane and conventional gas
reservoirs. These are presented in Table 1.3.


16

Table 1.3: Coalbed methane and conventional gas reservoirs Properties
Conventional Gas Coalbed Methane Gas
Darcy flow of gas to wellbore Diffusion through micropores by
Ficks Law
Darcy flow through fractures

Gas storage in macropores; real gas
law
Gas storage by adsorption on
micropore surfaces
Production schedule according to set
decline curves
Initial negative decline
Gas content from logs Gas content from cores. Cannot
get gas content from logs
Gas to water ratio decreases with time Gas to water ratio increases with
time in later stages
Inorganic reservoir rock. Organic reservoir rock
Hydraulic fracturing may be needed to
enhance flow
Hydraulic fracturing required in
most of the Basins except the
eastern part of the Powder River
Basin where the permeability is
very high. Permeability dependent
on fractures
Macropore size: 1 to 1 mm. Micropore size: <5Ato 50A
Reservoir and source rock independent Reservoir and source rock same
Permeability not stress dependent Permeability highly stress
dependent
Well interference detrimental to
production
Well interference helps production.
Must drill multiple wells to develop


17

1.3.2 Properties of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
Aminian
35
pointed out that gas content, storage capacity, and deliverability are
the key parameters that influence the decision making in the evaluation of CBM
prospects. Whereas gas content and gas storage capacity influence the
determination of gas-in-place, Aminian
35
stated that the natural fracture system
permeability and relative permeability are the most critical properties that
influence the deliverability of coalbed methane reservoirs. Coalbed methane
reservoir is considered a dual-porosity reservoir. The low permeability coal matrix
is considered to have the primary porosity while the secondary porosity is in the
natural fractures, the cleats. The majority of methane gas is stored in coal matrix
through adsorption. The matrix system practically has no permeability. Hence,
the flow of gas from the matrix into the cleat systems is by diffusion. The cleat
systems provide the conduit for dewatering and contain little or no gas at the
beginning of coalbed methane gas production. It is essentially filled with water.
Aminian
35
provided a list the major properties of coalbed methane reservoirs and
their methods of determination, as seen in Table 1.4.

1.3.2.1 Proximate Analysis
This is a laboratory analysis aimed at determining the composition of a coal. The
major compositions of coal, usually expressed in percentage, are the:


18

a. ash
b. fixed carbon
c. volatile matter, and
d. moisture

Table 1.4: Properties of Coalbed Methane and their Sources
Property Source
Storage Capacity Core Measurements
Gas Content Core Measurements
Diffusivity Core Measurements
Pore Volume Compressibility Core Measurements
Gross Thickness Well Logs
Effective Thickness Well Logs
In-Situ Density Well Logs
Pressure Well Tests
Absolute Permeability Well Tests
Relative Permeability Simulation
Porosity Simulation
Fluid Properties Composition Analysis and
Correlations
Gas Composition Produced and Desorbed Gas
Drainage Volume Geologic Studies


19

Ash is the mineral matter left in the coal after thermal combustion during
Coalification process. The higher the ash contents of a coal, the lower the
adsorptive capacity of the coal. That is, the lower the amount of methane that
can be adsorbed into the coal. In addition to this adverse effect, mineral matters
also limit cleat formation and gas content of a coal. Hence, mineral matters affect
both the permeability and adsorptive capacity of methane in the coal. These two
properties of coal are very essential for commercial production of coalbed
methane gas. Constituents of ash in the coal are minerals of clay, carbonate,
sulfide (pyrite) and silica (quartz). The ash reduces with coal maturation.

Volatile matters, as previously mentioned are: CO
2
, H
2
O, and N
2
. The volatile
matters reduce with coal maturation because they continually get expelled from
the coal as maturation progresses under the influence of temperature.

Moisture content reduces the adsorptive capacity of methane gas. Lower rank
coals have higher moisture content than higher rank coal. In other word, moisture
content reduces with coal maturation and gas content increases with decrease in
moisture content.

The fixed carbon content increases with coal maturation until graphite is attained
because the ash content, moisture content, and volatile matters all reduce with
coal maturation. Graphite, as a coal rank, has 100 percent fixed carbon. The

20

fixed carbon content of a coal rank is calculated by subtracting the percentage
composition of ash, moisture content, and volatile matters from the total
composition of the coal.

1.3.2.2 Ultimate Analysis
It is a laboratory analysis that gives the elemental composition, measured in
percentage, of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, and nitrogen in a given coal
seam

1.3.2.3 Permeability
Permeability, which is determined either from history matching production data or
from well test analysis, is considered the most critical parameter used in
evaluating the economic potential of a gas-bearing coal. For a gas-bearing coal
to be considered viable, the natural fracture networks and those created by
hydraulic fracturing must have sufficient permeability for commercial production
of methane. As critical as it is to CBM production, it is also the most difficult
parameter to evaluate accurately. The factors that affect permeability are:
a. frequency of the natural fractures
b. natural fractures connectivity
c. degree of fissure aperture opening
d. direction of butt and face cleats
e. water saturation

21

f. depth of coal burial
g. matrix shrinkage upon desorption, and
h. in-situ stresses

The parameter that is most important to CBM gas flow is the gas relative
permeability. The determination of this parameter is further complicated by its
changing nature with water relative permeability (water saturation in the flow
path). The most common method of determining the CBM relative permeability is
to use Corey correlation.

1.3.2.4 Permeability Anisotropy
This is a common feature in CBM production. There are two major types of cleats
system in the coal: butt and face cleats. Usually, the butt cleats permeability is
less than the face cleats. When this variation exists, geometric averaging
technique is used to estimate average permeability of the coal. The equation is
given as:

KxKy K =
1.1

Where;
K = average permeability of the coal seam, md
K
x
= permeability in x-direction (Face cleats), md

22

K
y
= permeability in y-direction (Butt cleats), md

The Figure 1.3 shows the arrangement of cleat systems and the presence of
permeability anisotropy in a coal seam.

Figure 1.3: Cleat systems and permeability anisotropy of a typical coal seam


23

1.3.2.5 Gas Content
This term is used to describe the total amount of methane gas that is present in
coal seams. Unlike conventional gas reservoirs where methane occupies void
spaces as free gas between sand grains, the CBM gas is held to the solid
surface of the coal by adsorption in numerous microspores. Even though logging
techniques can determine the presence of coal in a formation, the current logging
technologies cannot determine the presence of methane gas in coal seams.
There are two methods by which gas content of a coal seam can be determined:
a. direct method, which measures the volume of gas released from a coal
sample sealed into a desorption canister, and
b. indirect method, which uses empirical correlations, or laboratory-derived
sorption isotherm constructed from gas storage capacity data
Gas content of coal usually increases with depth as do conventional gas
reservoirs, but in contrast, the increase is due to the positive influence of
pressure on coal adsorptive capacity rather than the compressibility of the gas in
conventional reservoirs. Methane gas are either biogenic or thermogenic.
Biogenic methane is generally not economically viable because of very low gas
content; however, it can become viable in coals that are well connected and have
high permeability. The biogenic gas evolves during the early stage of
Peatification process. The coal depth is usually shallow (less than 2000 ft).
Thermogenic gas evolves when the organic mass becomes deeply buried and

24

Coalification becomes a function of pressure, temperature, and time.
Temperature is the most important property in the geochemical reactions that
result in the evolution of thermogenic methane gas.

There are three components to volumetric calculation of gas content of coals.
These are:

a. Measured gas; from the coal in the canister
b. Lost gas; during core retrieval, and
c. Residual gas; from crushed core sample in the canister.

The equation for volumetric calculation of gas content is given as:

L C R
G G G G + + =
1.2

Where;
G = Gas content of the coal in the formation, scf/ton
G
R
= Residual gas of core, scf/ton
G
C
= Gas released by the core in the canister, scf/ton
G
L
= Lost gas from the core during coring process, scf/ton

Gas content can be reported in different ways. These include:

25

a. Raw or As-Received
b. Inert Gas-Air Dry
c. Dry, Ash-Free
d. Dry, Ash-Residual Moisture-Sulfur Free
e. Theoretically Pure-Coal
f. In-situ

The most common method of reporting gas content in CBM production is the Dry,
Ash-Free. The term Dry, Ash-Free means the moisture and organic ash contents
of the coal have been removed from the volumetric calculation, leaving only the
methane gas.

1.3.2.6 Isotherm
This term defines the volume of gas adsorbed on a solid surface as a function of
pressure and at a constant temperature for a specific gas and solid material.
Type 1 isotherm is known for its applicability in microporous solids, a
characteristic of coal. Langmuir equation is generally used in the CBM process to
develop type 1 isotherm for coal. Because of its fitness to the adsorption data of
all coals, the Langmuir equation is universally used in the industry for predicting
CBM production. The model is referred to as Langmuir Isotherm. The equation is
given as:


26

L
L
L S
V
P
P
V G
P
+ =
1
1.3

Rearranging equation 3 gives:

L
c L S
P P
P
w a V G
+
= ) 1 (
1.4

Where;
G
s
= Gas storage capacity, scf/ton
P = Pressure, psia
P
L
= Langmuir pressure, psia
V
L
= Dry, ash-free Langmuir volume, scf/ton
a = Ash content, weight fraction
w
c
= Moisture content, weight fraction

It should be noted that G and G
S
are quantitatively different from each other.
Whereas G is the actual volume of gas adsorbed to the coal surface at a specific
temperature and pressure, G
S
is maximum volume of gas a coal seam can
adsorb to its surface, also at a specific temperature and pressure. This means
that G can be less than or equal to G
S
. A point to note on the isotherm is that at
lower pressure, large volumes of gas are adsorbed or desorbed with small
changes in pressure. The isotherm helps in predicting the critical desorption

27

pressure (CDP), gas content, and recovery factor. Figure 1.4 is a typical isotherm
plot. Given an initial pressure P
2
, the initial gas content can be read off on the y
(gas content) axis by tracing P
2
up from x (pressure) axis until it touches the
isotherm curve. This is an indirect method of estimating the gas content of a coal
seam.

Figure 1.4: A typical Isotherm plot.

1.3.2.7 The Critical Desorption Pressure:
The Critical Desorption Pressure, CDP, is the pressure at which gas starts to
produce during the dewatering process of coal seam. Dewatering is the process
by which water is being produced from coalbed methane reservoir in order to

28

reduce the reservoir pressure. Depending on the coal Basin, it may take up to a
year of dewatering before the critical desorption pressure is attained. In under-
saturated CBM reservoirs, gas production will not initiate until reservoir pressure
falls the CDP. The critical desorption pressure is the pressure at which the gas
content of the coal is in equilibrium with the isotherm. Below the CDP, gas
begins to desorb then diffuse from the coal matrix to the cleat systems and then
begins to flow in the cleat systems towards the wellbore at a higher rate than
water. The higher flow rate of gas as compared to water is because; below CDP,
the gas relative permeability of coalbed methane reservoirs is higher than that of
water. The gas relative permeability continues to increase and consequently, gas
flow rate increases until the production of water stops. Figure 1.5 shows the
isotherm curves constructed for the Fruitland and Fort Union coal formations.
From the Fruitland isotherm curve, the coal formation is under-saturated and has
initial reservoir pressure of 1620 psia. This corresponds to the initial gas content
of about 355 scf/ton and methane gas storage capacity of about 450scf/ton. The
reservoir pressure was reduced to the CDP of 648 psia by dewatering. This is the
pressure at which the Fruitland coal starts producing methane gas. With the
abandonment pressure set at 100 psia, the unrecoverable (abandonment) gas
content was estimated as 128scf/ton. This gives the recoverable gas content of
Fruitland formation as 227scf/ton. This corresponds to the recovery factor of
about 64 percent.

29

Figure 1.5: Isotherms for Fruitland and Fort Union coal formations

1.3.2.8 Effective and Gross Reservoir Thickness:
Effective reservoir thickness is the term used to describe the thickness of coal
seam that has been evaluated and considered commercial for production. Gross
reservoir thickness refers to the summation of the thickness of coal intervals
having densities less than the pre-determined cut-off values. The cut-off values
are generally taken to be equal to the ash density of the coal. Aminian
35
indicated
that determining net (effective) thickness is more complicated because it requires
evaluating how much of the gross coal thickness actually contributes to
production. He suggested the use of resistivity logs, well tests, production logs,
or zonal isolation tests for estimating effective reservoir thickness. Figure 1.6
shows an example of coal thickness obtained from a wireline log.


30

Figure 1.6: Effective reservoir thickness (905-915 for Seelyville coal in Indiana)

1.3.2.9 In-Situ Density
The true in-situ density of coal can be estimated from open-hole density log data.
In practice, the operators of coalbed methane reservoirs commonly use value of
1.32 to 1.36 g/cm
3
for the average in-situ density. However, Nelson
36
pointed out
that such random use can lead to serious errors in the estimation of gas-in-place.
When well log is not available, equation relating the density of the ash, moisture,
and organic (pure coal) fractions can be used to estimate the in-situ coal density.
The equation is given as:

w
c
o
c
a
w w a a

+

+ =
) 1 ( 1
1.5

where:
= bulk density, g/cm
3


31

a
= ash density, g/cm
3

o
= pure coal density, g/cm
3

w
= moisture density, g/cm
3

1.4 Drilling and Completions in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
1.4.1 Drilling
The drilling operations in coalbed methane reservoirs require that all aspects of
the formation, especially the geological transformation and reservoir properties,
be considered before a choice is made on the drilling technique. Specifically, one
should answer the following questions before selection is made on the choice of
drilling technique:

a. Is the formation saturated or under-saturated?
b. What is the formation pressure (normally pressured, under-pressured or
over-pressured formation)?
c. What is the effective thickness of the target coal seam?
d. What is the formation permeability?
e. Based on permeability and permeability anisotropy, what is the
recommended well spacing? That is how many wells will be drilled in a
given drainage area and what spacing pattern?
f. Has the top soil been reclaimed due to mining operations?


32

If the coalbed methane reservoir is saturated, then there is high tendency that
gas influx may occur during drilling operation. Hence, overbalanced drilling will
be a preferred technique. The overbalanced drilling is a process in which the
wellbore pressure is greater than the formation pressure. However, because
coalbed methane reservoirs are generally of low permeability, care should be
taken to prevent excessive pressure differential between the wellbore and
formation; to prevent formation damage. If the formation is under-saturated,
underbalanced drilling method will be preferred. Underbalanced drilling is the
opposite of overbalanced drilling. It is a process in which the formation pressure
is greater than the wellbore pressure.

In normally pressured reservoirs, drilling with air versus mud is a viable choice. In
over-pressured formations, the use of a combination of liquid, solid, and air is a
preferred option in order to maintain backpressure and also control fluid influx.
When air is used as drilling fluid, air-hammer bits are the preferred bit types.
When liquid is used as drilling mud, tri-cone rotary bits are commonly used.

Permeability and effective thickness of coal seams are usually considered
together in order to make the choice of drilling technique. In high permeability
and relatively think coal seam, vertical drilling technique is preferred. Low, but
favorable, permeability coal Basin with thin coal seams is a candidate for
horizontal drilling technique. Horizontal drilling method can take different forms:

33

a. drilling multi-lateral wells from a single vertical wells
b. drilling a single long horizontal well from a vertical well
c. drilling multi-lateral wells from four multi-lateral/horizontal wells drilled from
a vertical well (pinnate well pattern)

Schoenfeldt
37
reported that the use of multi-lateral wells from two vertical wells in
a coal seam has proves successful for a CBM operator. Vitruvian Exploration,
LLC
38
(formerly known as CDX Gas, LLC) developed an underbalanced drilling
method in which air is injected down the adjacent well to the well being drilled.
The method requires drilling lateral wells from the horizontal section of a vertical
well. This invention for coalbed methane horizontal drilling and completion
systems is called the Z-PINNATE technology. The company gives some
advantages of pinnate wells pattern as:

a. wells can drain up to 2000 acres from a single drill pad;
b. gas is produced immediately;
c. peak gas production is reached quickly, unlike a vertical wells in CBM
reservoir;
d. wells can drain a reservoir in 2 to 4 years;
e. gas recovery is high (80 to 90%); and
f. high gas flow rates (1 to 5 MMcfd) can be achieved

34

The company indicates that the pinnate pattern is specifically developed for low
permeability coalbed methane reservoirs, and therefore, not suitable in high
permeability coals, as many cases of lateral collapses have occurred. Figure 1.7
is a pictorial configuration of pinnate well pattern.

Figure 1.7: Pinnate pattern drilling and completions technique (after CDX
38
)

Horizontal well accelerates dewatering process and increases gas production
rates. For this to be achieved, the well has to be drilled perpendicular to the
direction of face cleats. Also, the horizontal well has to be drilled perpendicular to

35

direction of maximum principal stress, in order to maintain wellbore stability.
Diamond
39
listed examples of successes recorded from horizontal wells for gas
drainage in coal mines. The drainage is purely for safety reasons and not for
methane gas production as a natural gas. The examples are summarized below:

a. In Utah, two horizontal wells produced 140 Mscf/day of methane gas over
a period of six months.
b. In Pennsylvania (Pittsburg coal), four horizontal wells of lengths ranging
from 982 ft -2505 ft produced a combined total of 580 Mscf/day of
methane gas at the initial stage, but declined to 234 Mscf/day after about
32 months; with a combined total of cumulative gas production of 255
MMscf.
c. In Marylee coal in Alabama, a 1010 ft horizontal well produced methane
gas at a rate of 200 Mscf/day initially, but declined to 65Mscf/day in one
year; with a total cumulative gas production of 40 MMscf.

When considering production of methane as natural gas energy sources,
horizontal wells have been tried out in San Juan Basin with mixed results.
Watson
40
reported the results of two wells that were drilled in the Basin. One was
successful and the other was not. The well that was successful has good
permeability and well developed cleat system, while the well that was not

36

successful has opposite reservoir qualities. The success of these wells was
measured by their productivities.

One major reservoir parameter that lends itself to horizontal drilling is the
permrability anisotropy of the reservoir. The higher the permeability anisotropy,
the more favorable is using the horizontal well technique in coalbed methane
reservoir. Joshi
41
derived an equation that compares the productivity of horizontal
well to that of vertical well. The equation is used to determine the type of drilling
technique to adopt between vertical and horizontal wells in a particular formation.
Cameron et al
42
modified Joshis equation for coalbed methane reservoirs. The
modified equation is given as:

386 . 1 75 . 0
2
ln
75 . 0
2
ln
+ + +
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
+
=
cah h mh
w
e
w
e
v
h
anisot
v
h
S S S
r
r
S
r
r
H
H
K
Q
Q
1.6

|
|
\
|
=
w
h
r
L
S
4
ln
1.7

Where;
K
anisot
= permeability anisotropy (K
max
/K
min
)
H
h
= thickness of the coal seam containing the horizontal wellbore, ft

37

H
v
= sum of all completed seams in a vertical well, ft
r
e
= drainage radius, ft
r
w
= wellbore radius, ft
S = negative vertical skin factor due to stimulation
S
mh
= mechanical skin damage to a horizontal well
S
h
= negative skin factor due to the horizontal well
S
cah
= shape related skin factor (function of drainage shape, well length, H
h
, and
K
v
/Kh) given by correlation derived from charts
L = horizontal length of wellbore, ft
Cameron et al
42
concluded that production rates from horizontal wells will be
more than the rates from vertical wells if H
h
/H
v
> 0.2 and if S
mh
is < 2. 0. The
Figure 1.8 shows all the types of drilling and completions method available for
coalbed methane production.

The well spacing configurations determine the number of wells that are required
to produce a given drainage area of coalbed methane reservoirs. Factors that
influence well spacing in CBM production are:
1. well interference
2. permeability
3. permeability anisotropy, and
4. hydraulic fracturing length


38

Unlike in conventional reservoirs, well interference enhances coalbed methane
production, provided the dewatering of coal seams is facilitated by the
interference. Rogers et al
8
writes on a study that shows gas and water production

Figure 1.8: Drilling and Completions method (after Sunil
43
)

extend further in the face-cleat direction, making permeability anisotropy an
important factor in CBM well spacing. The longer the fracture length, the smaller
the number of wells required to produce a CBM field. They further stated that an

39

optimum well spacing for the most economical development of a CBM field can
only be obtained by simulation; where the combined effects of permeability,
permeability anisotropy, and fracture length on interference are considered.

There are different types of well pattern configuration in CBM, as do exist in
conventional reservoirs. The only major difference between CBM and
conventional reservoir is that CBM usually requires more wells than conventional
reservoir for the same drainage area.

If the target coal seam is in an area that has been reclaimed due to mining
operation, air drilling may be required to drill through the reclaimed top soil. This
is because the reclaimed top soil usually has high permeability. The use of
conventional drilling fluids (liquids) will result in high degree of lost circulation.
The use of air as drilling mud prevents such lost circulation from taking place.

1.4.2 Completions
The Figure 1.9 gives the detail of the completions and stimulation techniques that
have been employed in the various coal Basins in the United States. Sunil
43

listed the CBM reservoir parameters that influence the selection of drilling and
completion method; and these parameters are as follows:
a. effective thickness of coal net seam
b. coal seam gas content

40

c. coal rank
d. coal seam depth
e. permeability
f. areal extent of coal
g. compressive strength
h. dip of the coal
i. number of coal seams
j. vertical distribution of coal seams
Of the aforementioned parameters, permeability and gas content are the most
important.

Figure 1.9: Completions and stimulations methods in the US coal Basins (after
Sunil
43
)


41

Different types of completion methods exist. They include:

a. natural vertical open-hole completions
b. vertical open-hole cavity completions
c. vertical cased-hole completions
d. horizontal completions, and
e. vertical with top-set under-ream completions

The vertical cased-hole method can either be single zone or multi zone
completions. Sunil
43
developed a chart, shown in Figure 1.10, for drilling and
completion candidate selection based on these reservoir parameters and
completions methods.

1.5 Production Engineering of Coalbed Methane Reservoir
The two principal reasons why methane gas is being produced from coalbeds
are:
1. mine safety, and
2. production as natural gas energy

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) sets the threshold for
methane concentration in coal mine for safe mining operations. Any
concentration of methane gas the threshold will constitute safety hazard for

42

miners, especially in underground mining operations. Thus, mines are first
degassed to reduce the methane concentration the level set by the MSHA before
coal mining takes place. The produced gas, from mining operation point of view,
is an unwanted (hazardous) component of the mine. Here, the coal is the target
resources.

The methane gas is also produced as natural gas resources. In this situation, the
gas is the target resources while the coalbeds only serve as the reservoir rocks.

Figure 1.10: Decision chart for selecting the drilling and completion method
(after Sunil
43
)

43

1.5.1 Water Production
Most coalbed methane reservoirs are under-saturated. Hence, water must first
be produced, reducing the reservoir pressure to the critical desorption pressure
(CDP), in order to enhance methane gas production. Equation 8 is used to
calculate the amount of water produced at CDP.

) (
d i i t p
P P W c W =
1.8

f w t
c c c + =
1.9

wi i
hS A W 7758 =
1.10

Where;
W
p
= Water required to be produced for gas desorption to commence, bbls
W
i
= Water initially in place in the drainage area, bbls
c
w
= water compressibility, psi
-1

c
f
= formation compressibility, psi
-1

p
i
= Initial reservoir pressure, psia
p
d
= Desorption pressure as determined by the Langmuir isotherm, psia

1.5.2 Gas Production
The methane gas production starts once the CDP is attained from the dewatering
process.

44

1.5.2.1 Initian Gas-in-Place
The initial gas-in-place defines the total volume of methane gas present in a
given coal field, either recoverable or not. Initial gas-in-place is calculated from:

(
(
= ) 1 ( 359 . 1
) 1 ( 43560
c c gi
gi
wfi f
i
w a C
B
S
Ah G
1.11

Where;
G
i
= Gas in Place at initial reservoir conditions, Mscf
A = Drainage area, ac
h = coal thickness, ft.
f
= Interconnected fracture (effective) porosity, fraction
S
wfi
= Interconnected fracture water saturation, fraction
B
gi
= Gas formation volume factor at p
i
, rcf/Mscf
C
gi
= Initial sorbed gas concentration, scf/ton, dry, ash-free coal
c
= Pure coal density, g/cm
3

f
a
= Average weight fraction of ash, fraction
f
m
= Average weight fraction of moisture, fraction
43560 = Conversion factor, ft
2
/ac

As mentioned earlier, the process behind CBM production is to dewater the
reservoir until the critical desorption pressure is attained. The initial water

45

saturation in coal cleat is usually 100%. As mentioned earlier, dewatering can
take up to a year in some coal before reaching CDP. At CDP, gas starts to
produce and the water saturation progressively reduces as more and more gas is
being produced. It is worth mention that the cleat permeability increases at the
later stage of CBM production due to shrinkage of the coal matrix. Water is
usually produced through the tubing while gas is produced through the annulus
between tubing and casing, and sent to gas storage facility through pipelines.
The flow of gas from the micropores to the coal cleats is governed by diffusion
while the flow of gas within the cleat system and to the annulus is governed by
Darcys flow.
The gas produced (G
P
) at abandonment pressure is the difference between the
initial gas-in-place (GIP
i
) and gas-in-place at an abandonment pressure (GIP
a
).
That is:

a i p
GIP GIP G =
1.12

Where
G
p
= gas produced (recoverable gas reserve)
GIP
i
= initial gas in place
GIP
a
= gas in place at abandonment

The recovery factor is calculated as:

46

a
a i
V
V V
Rf

=
1.13

And in terms of gas in place,
i
p
G
G
Rf =
1.14

Where;
Rf = Recovery factor, %
V
i
= initial volumetric gas content, scf/ton
V
a
= abandonment gas content, scf/ton
G
p
= Methane recoverable reserves, Mscf
G
i
= Initial gas in place, Mscf.

1.5.3 Enhanced Coalbed Methane Production
Since there is practical limit for lowering total pressures on coal seams in order to
maximize recovery, it is feasible to achieve high recovery of methane by two
methods:

a. reducing the partial pressure of the methane, for example, by injecting
nitrogen into the reservoir, and
b. injecting CO
2
to displace methane from coal seams


47

These processes are called Enhanced Coalbed Methane (ECBM) recovery. This
is tantamount to what is obtained in the conventional reservoir as Enhanced Oil
Recovery (EOR).

1.5.4 Well Stimulation/Hydraulic Fracturing
Generally, coalbed methane reservoir will not give up its methane gas content at
commercial rates unless it is stimulated; commonly by hydraulic fracturing. This
is due to its characteristically low permeability. When properly executed, the
hydraulic fracturing technique increases the near-wellbore formation
permeability; thereby facilitating faster dewatering of coalbed methane reservoir
and creates paths for gas to flow from the formation to the wellbore. Progress
has been made to improve on the application of hydraulic fracturing technique
since it was first applied in coalbed methane reservoirs. Extensive researches
have been carried out by the Gas Research Institute on the application of
hydraulic fracturing technique in the Black Warrior Basin. Their works have led to
improved field practices and cost reduction in other coal Basins.

Whereas hydraulic fracturing is a common practice in conventional low
permeability sandstone gas reservoirs, Rogers et al
8
listed the following reasons
for modifications of the stimulation technique before it can be extended to
coalbed methane reservoirs:


48

a. the surface of the coal adsorbs chemicals of the fracturing fluid
b. the coal has an extensive natural network of primary, secondary, and
tertiary fractures that open to accept fluid during hydraulic fracturing but
close upon the fluid afterwards, introducing damage, fluid loss, fines, and
treating pressures higher than expected
c. fracturing fluid can leak deep into natural fractures of coal without forming
a filter cake
d. multiple, complex fractures develop during treatment
e. high pressures are often required to fracture coal
f. Youngs modulus for coal is much lower than that for conventional rock
g. induced fractures in some vertical CBM wells may be observed in
subsequent mine-throughs
h. horizontal fractures occur in very shallow coals, such as the Pratt group in
the Black Warrior Basin
i. fines and rubble result from fracturing brittle coal
j. coal seams to be fractured may be multiple and thin, perhaps only 1 or 2ft
thick, requiring a strict economical approach to the operations

Different methods currently exist in hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane
reservoirs. They include:


49

a. water without proppant
b. water with proppant
c. CO
2
or N
2
gas with proppant
d. CO
2
or N
2
without proppant
e. foam with proppant, and
f. cross-linked gel with proppant

The proppant can either be sands or ceramics. The candidate selection for the
type of hydraulic fracturing method to be employed in a given coalbed methane
reservoirs takes into account the:
a. reservoir pressure gradient
b. reservoir permeability, and
c. formation water saturation

1.6 The Illinois Coal Basin
Watson
40
gave the detailed description of Illinois Coal Basins, including the
geologic transformation of the Basin. Therefore, attempt will not be made to
duplicate such effort in this work. This section primarily describes the suitability of
Illinois coal Basin for horizontal well development, especially the Seelyville coal
(coal III) in Indiana; where the waterjet horizontal drilling technology was carried
out. Listed are the average formation properties and formation characteristics of
Illinois coal Basin.

50

a. (Low) Gas Content: 30 to 150 scf/ton, DAF
b. (Low) Gas In Place: 5 to 21 Tcf
c. Net Coal Thickness: 15 to 35 ft
d. Coal Rank: hvCb to hvAb; hvBb is common
e. Moisture Content: 5 to 19 %
f. Ash Content: 1 to 25 %
g. Sulfur (Pyrite): 2 to 11 %
h. Volatile Matter: 28 to 41 %; Nitrogen: 15 to 20 %
i. Permeability: 1to 50 md
j. Permeability anisotropy: between 10 to 40
k. Average depth: 600 to 900 ft
l. Regional Pressure Gradient: 0.455 psi/ft
m. Formation Pressure: 267 to 400 psi
n. Formation Temperature: 72
o
F

There are seven major coalbeds in Illinois Basin. They include:
a. Danville/Baker
b. Hymera/Jamestown/Paradise
c. Herrin
d. Springfield,
e. Survant
f. Colchester, and

51

g. Seelyville/Davis/Dekoven

The classification is largely based on the formation properties; namely the:

a. Extent
b. Thickness
c. Depth
d. Elevation, and
e. Coal qualities

Each of the seven coalbeds has similar formation properties, even though they
cut across the three states of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. There are about
seventy-five coalbeds that have been discovered in Illinois Basin. Drobniak et al
44

developed the lithostratigraphy of the Pennsylvanian system in the Illinois Basin,
as shown in Table 1.5. Those in red color are the major coalbeds mentioned

1.6.1 The Seelyville Coalbed
The Seelyville coalbed, located in both Posey and Gibson Counties in Indiana, is
the candidate selected for this research. It is part of the Linton formation in the
Carbondale coal group. Drobniak et al
45
carried out some studies on the
Seelyville coal to determine its methane gas production potentials. The result of
their work is summarized below:

52

a. Gas-in-place: 1.5 to 3 Tcf
b. Gas content (determined by canister desorption technique): 15.4 to 182.2
scf/ton, DAF
c. Gas content (calculated using Kim formula): 24.5 to 333.5 scf/ton, DAF

The calculated gas content using Kim formula is significantly higher than that
measured directly. Two reasons could have caused the disparity. The first is that
the lost gas might not have been well accounted for in the measurement and the
second is that the Kim equation could have over-estimated the gas content.
Drobniak et al
45
found out that the distribution of gas content in the Seelyville
coalbed is very complex and cannot be quantified only by coal rank. They
concluded that ash content, lithology of the overlying strata, and other factors
(such as depth of burial) influence the distribution of gas content in the Seelyville
coalbed. An Indiana Geologic Survey study found that the coal cleats were
initially filled with kaolinite, which helps preserve the cleat systems, and later with
calcite. The presence of these ash-forming minerals reduces the gas content, as
well as the cleats permeability. Mastalerz and Kvale
46
suggested, from their
works, that the variation is gas content distribution might partly be due to
migration of methane gas into surrounding sandstone formations. The depletion
of methane gas, due to the said migration, is responsible for the low gas content
in the Seelyville coalbed; and generally in the Illinois coal Basin.


53

Watson
40
carried out two pilot projects on Seelyville coalbed and conducted
Injection fall-off test, in order to determine the coal permeability. The two pilot
projects consisted of five vertical wells. One project was in the Posey County
while the other was in Gibson County. He found out that the Seelyville coalbed in
Posey County has an average permeability of 1md while the same coalbed in
Gibson County has an average permeability of 20md. His work confirmed already
established fact that the Illinois coal Basin has very high permeability anisotropy.
The permeability anisotropy is due to the poorly developed butt cleat system in
the Basin. The modified Joshis equation indicates that horizontal well performs
better than vertical well in formation with high permeability anisotropy. Therefore,
the significantly high permeability anisotropy in Seelyville coalbed makes
horizontal well a viable completion method in the coalbed.

1.7 Current Challenges in Coalbed Methane Production
Despite the unprecedented breakthroughs in coalbed methane production
technology, some coalbed methane reservoirs are currently not commercially
viable under the current technology, even though they have great potential for
methane gas production. These reservoirs typically have low permeability (about
1md), thin coal seams, contain some minerals in their cleat systems, and are
bounded by active water. The current challenge is to explore means of turning
these reservoirs into assets.


54

Table 1.5: Lithostratigraphy of the Pennsylvanian System in the Illinois Basin


55

One possibility is to explore another fracturing fluid that can dissolve the mineral
matters in the cleat systems and also chip off some of the coal seams along the
cleat systems (to increase permeability). A method to remove the dissolved and
chipped particles should be devised, to prevent them from clogging the fractured
flow path; thereby causing skin damage to the coal seams around the wellbore.
The proposed fluid should be designed in a way that its use should preserve the
integrity of the coalbed methane reservoirs.

Another possibility is to develop an improved horizontal drilling technique that will
increase the Maximum Reservoir Contacts (MRC), so that the rate at which
dewatering of the coal seams takes place is greater than the rate at which the
seams are being charged by the surrounding water. It is believed that waterjet
horizontal drilling technique provides the answer. This is the focus of this
research.


56

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Review of Waterjet Technology
This chapter deals with the literature review of the scientific theory behind the
ability of a volume of water leaving the nozzle to cut rocks. This process is called
waterjetting. The equations involved in waterjet operations, from the pump to the
orifice of the nozzle and rock face, will be reviewed. Also, the mechanism and
process involved in the ability of jets to disintegrate solid materials, like a coal
seam, will be discussed. Lastly, previous works on the use of waterjet technology
for drilling will be reviewed.

2.1 Background
Waterjet technology has been in existence for decades. Its applications in
industrial cleaning, mining, mechanical, and civil engineering have been well
established. However, its use in petroleum industry, especially in coalbed
methane, for both drilling and stimulation operations is only just emerging. By
definition, waterjetting is the development, transmission, and application of force;
using water as a medium. The waterjet system requires some basic equipment to
operate; which are: water tank, pump, lance (or hose), nozzle, and orifice.
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 are examples of simple configuration of water jet systems.
Water, from the water tank, flows into the pump. The pump, with the aid of the

57

motor, exerts pressure on the water as it flows through the high pressure hose
(see Figure 2.1). There is usually a coupling that connects the high pressure
hose to the control device. The device houses the control valve, the trigger, and
the trigger guard; as shown in Figure 2.2. The valve controls how much water
flows into and out of the nozzle. There are usually two lines that extend out of the
control valve: the high pressure line and the dump line. The dump line is usually
not under pressure. It is used to direct water into an open air or back into water
tank. The high pressure line connects the nozzle with the hose/control device.
The trigger directs the water, either along the high pressure line to the nozzle or
along the dump line. The combination of the high pressure line and the nozzle is
called the lance, while the combination of the lance, the trigger, the trigger guard,
and the control valve is normally called the waterjet gun.

The jets of water leave the orifice of the nozzle as a stream of water. There are
different types of water streams that leave the orifice of the nozzles. The most
common is usually in cylindrical shape, but it is often referred to as a round jet.
The major disadvantage of this type of water stream is that the area of impact is
very small. In other to increase impact area, the jetting is usually design such that
the stream is made to spread out as it leaves the nozzle orifice. This type of
stream is called a fan jet. Improved technology has resulted into development of
some nozzles that changes the shape of the stream from the cylindrical to fan
shape. These shapes that result from new nozzle designs are mainly triangle and

58

square, but other shapes have also been reported. These types of jets are called
shaped jets.

Figure 2.1: A typical configuration of waterjet system (after Summers
47
)

Figure 2.2: A typical configuration of waterjet system (after Summers
47
)


59

The definition of waterjet has been loosely expanded to include other types of
fluid or materials, depending on the usage of the technology. For instance, when
fluid other than water is being used for cutting or cleaning, it is called a fluid jet.
Waterjet cutting or cleaning ability can be enhanced in order to increase its
performance. Where waterjet is to be used to cut very hard materials, such as
glass or metal, it is usually difficult for water to penetrate the materials. In order to
increase the cutting ability of the waterjet, abrasive materials are usually added
to the stream. This is called an abrasive waterjet. In order to reduce the pressure
losses in the lance or hose, polymeric additive materials are added to the stream
of water. Summers
47
wrote that the additive materials alter the chemical
properties of the stream to reduce pressure losses due to friction which is
generated as the water flows along the walls of the delivery pipe. He also
indicates that the molecular polymers help glue the water together after it has
left the nozzle, keeping the stream together and at its delivery speed, over a
greater distance from the nozzle, and thus increasing its effectiveness. This type
of jetting can be referred to as polymer or additive jet. The polymer can be
added to both the conventional (plain waterjet) and abrasive waterjet to improve
their performances. Pulsating waterjet is another method of enhancing the
performance of waterjet systems. In this method, Summers
47
wrote that the
overall power in the jet is altered into pulses, which generate alternative very high
and much lower pressures, on the target surface.


60

The pressure provided by the pump is expended in two ways: to drive the stream
of water from the pump, through the pipe/hose, to the nozzle (thereby causing
pressure losses); and to drive the water through the orifice of the nozzle, at a
given velocity, to the target surface. The most important parameter in the cutting
ability of waterjet, as it hits its target, is the velocity at which the stream leaves
the nozzle orifice. It is a common knowledge that the water stream will no longer
be under pressure once it leaves the nozzle. Then the question is what is the
relevance of attempting to reduce the pressure losses, due to friction and
turbulence in the pipe/hose; and what is the importance of maintaining sufficiently
high pressure at the nozzle, if the pressure drops to zero as the stream leaves
the nozzle? The answer is: a given amount of pressure must be exerted by the
pump to push a given volume of water through the orifice within a given time.
When the pressure drop is minimal and sufficiently high pressure is maintained at
the nozzle, the velocity at which the stream of water leaves the nozzle will be
very high and the jets will carry much energy with them. When the jets hit its
target, the energy embedded in them is converted back to pressure, called
impact pressure. This is the pressure that actually does the work of cleaning or
cutting the target. The impact pressure produced at the target largely depends on
the volume of water arriving at the target, and the velocity at which the water
arrives at the target. The arrival velocity depends on both the volumetric rate of
water flowing in the line and the internal diameter of the orifice at the end of the
nozzle. The volume of water flowing in the line is controlled by the pressure at

61

which the pump is operating (or pressure at the nozzle) and the internal diameter
of the pipe/hose. The flow velocity and the internal diameter of the flow line or
orifice (or area of the line/orifice) define the volumetric flow rate of the water.
When the water density is factored in, the three parameters define the mass flow
rate of the water arriving at the surface to be cut.
There is usually a distance which the water leaving the orifice has to travel before
it hits the target surface. This distance is called the stand-off distance. The longer
this distance, the more energy is lost before the jets reach the target surface.
This distance has to be optimized for effective operation of waterjet systems.
When the distance is too far from the cutting face, it will result in lack of sufficient
energy to cut the target and when it is too short, it will make nozzle to stop
spinning (rotating), and will not cut the target.

Waterjetting has been defined as the use of water, with or without the addition of
other liquids or solid particles, for both cleaning and cutting purposes. WJTA
48

further classified waterjet systems according to its operating pressure. These are:
a. Pressure Water Cleaning: when water under pressure is being used for
cleaning purpose and when the operating pump pressure is 5,000 psi.
b. Pressure Water Cutting: when water under pressure is being used for
cutting purpose and when the operating pump pressure is 5,000 psi.

62

c. High Pressure Water Cleaning: when water under pressure is being
used for cleaning purpose and when the operating pump pressure is
between 5,000 psi and 30,000 psi.
d. High Pressure Water Cutting: when water under pressure is being used
for cutting purpose and when the operating pump pressure is between
5,000 psi and 30,000 psi.
e. Ultra High Pressure Water Cleaning: when water under pressure is
being used for cleaning purpose and when the operating pump pressure is
30,000 psi.
f. Ultra High Pressure Water Cutting: when water under pressure is being
used for cutting purpose and when the operating pump pressure is 30,000
psi.
This project falls under the High Pressure Water Cutting. The objective of this
work is to extend waterjet technology to drilling horizontal wells in coalbed
methane reservoir, as a cheaper alternative to conventional horizontal drilling
technique.

2.2 Design of Waterjet Systems
This section reviews with the equations involved in designing waterjet systems.
Accurate project design is a key to the success of waterjet operations. Below are
the various calculations that are required for the design of waterjet systems.

63

2.2.1 Power Calculation
A pump, powered by a motor, is required to drive the water into the flow line.
Waterjet project is usually designed for a predetermined flow rate and pressure.
Given these parameters, the capacity of the pump required for the project can be
determined using equation 2.1

2.1
Where:
Hp = Horse power
P = pump pressure, psi
Q = flow rate, gpm
The equation 2.1 can also be re-arranged to determine both the flow rate, Q, and
the pressure, P. It is a common phenomenon that the total estimated power of
the pump is usually not available for the pumps operation. In other words, the
estimated volume of water designed to be delivered into the flow line by the
pump of an estimated capacity may be less than what was originally intended.
Two factors are responsible for this: (1) the motor transmitting the power to the
pump does not usually operate at 100 percent efficiency, and (2) there could be
some small leaks, either intentional or unintentional, in the flow system. The
intentional leaks are meant to lubricate the system.

1714
*Q P
Hp =

64

2.2.2 Pressure Loss through Pipe or Hose
Pressure loss in pipe or hose occurs due to friction in the pipe or hose and due to
flow turbulence. Equation 2.2 from Wright
49
is used to estimate the amount of
pressure loss in a pipe.

2.2

Where;
P = pressure loss in pipe or hose, psi
d = internal diameter of the pipe/hose, in
L = pipe/hose stretch due to pressure, %
L
p
= pipe or hose length, ft
From the equation 2.2, the pressure loss increases as the flow rate increases
due to increase in flow turbulence. It reduces with increase in internal diameter
and stretch of the pipe/hose. Also, the pressure loss increases as the pipe/hose
length increases. The pipe/hose stretch is the percentage of increase in the
length of the pipe/hose when subject to high pressure. This parameter is often
difficult to determine when working with long pipe/hose section and is usually
neglected in pressure loss calculation. In order to optimize pressure loss in the
2
5 . 0
5 . 2
100
1
53
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
\
|
|
\
| +
=
p
L
L
d
Q
P

65

flow line and maximize pressure at the nozzle, a line with sufficient internal
diameter and optimum flow rate is required for a specified length of pipe/hose. It
is also recommended that the amount of couplings in the flow line be reduced in
order to maximize pressure at the nozzle.

2.2.3 Pressure at Nozzle
The pressure delivered at the nozzle is simply the difference between the
pressure at the pump and the pressure loss. This is the pressure that determines
the effectiveness of the jetting operations because this pressure is converted to
the flow velocity that is reconverted back the pressure, normally called the impact
pressure. When the pressure at the nozzle is not sufficient, the amount of energy
in the volume of water leaving the nozzle is reduced, which consequently
reduces the amount of energy or pressure available to perform the job of cutting
the target. Therefore, it is always recommended that sufficient pressure is
provided at the nozzle. The pressure at the nozzle can be estimated from
determining the amount of pressure required to initiate cutting of a target. This
pressure is called Minimum Cutting Pressure (MCP). This pressure varies from
material to material. As a rule of thumb, the Optimum Cutting Pressure (OCP) is
usually three times the MCP. Therefore, the pressure at the nozzle should be
equal to the OCP, at the minimum. Once both the pressure at the nozzle and the
pressure loss in the pipe/hose are known, the waterjet operation can be designed

66

to have the required pressure at the pump by adjusting the flow in the line. The
pressure at the nozzle is calculated from equation 3.3, given as:

2.3
Where;
P
N
= pressure at nozzle, psi

2.2.4 Pressure Loss through Nozzle
Wright
49
developed an empirical equation, equation 2.4, to calculate the pressure
loss through the nozzle, as the fluid flows across the nozzle and jets out through
the orifice. The equation is given as:

2.4

Where;
P
N
= pressure loss through the nozzle, psi
Q
N
= Nozzle flow rate, gpm
C
v
= flow rating, dimensionless
The flow rating is a constant term, which is usually set at 2.5.

2
(
=
v
N
N
C
Q
P
P P P
N
=

67

2.2.5 Orifice Size
It is always required to determine the internal diameter of the orifice to be
inserted in the nozzle head. This value depends on the volumetric flow rate of the
fluid (water), the pressure at the nozzle, the number of jets (orifice) to be used for
the predetermined flow rate, and the overall efficiency of the nozzle. The
equation 2.5, developed by Wright
49
is used for the calculation.

2.5

Where;
d
o
= internal diameter of orifice, in
C
d
= flow efficiency, dimensionless
N = number of jets (orifice) required, constant
The equation 2.5 can be re-arranged to give equation 2.6, which can be used to
calculate the total flow that passes through the nozzle.

2.6

The nozzle flow rate increases with increase in internal diameter of orifice,
pressure at the nozzle, number of jets, and flow efficiency. The value of this flow
5 . 0
5 . 0
* * * 92 . 29
(
=
N C P
Q
d
d N
N
o
d N
C N P d Q * * * * 92 . 29
5 . 0 2
0
=

68

rate must be equal to the pump outlet flow rate, in order for the law of
conservation of mass to hold. The pump outlet flow rate is calculated from
equation 2.7 as:

2.7

Where;
Q
p
= pump outlet flow rate

2.2.6 Jet Reaction Force
The jet reaction force is the backthrust or force an operator of waterjet equipment
may experience in holding a waterjet gun. The force depends on the pressure at
the nozzle, the nozzle efficiency, number of jets, and orifice size. The WaterJet
Technology Association
48
(WJTA) has recommended that no one operator
should be allowed to handle more than one-third of their body weight. The
reaction force is calculated using equation 2.8, developed by WJTA.

2.8
Where;
F
R
= jet reaction force, lbs

d N R
C N d P F * * * * 561824 . 1
2
0
=
231
) ( * ) ( inches nt Displaceme rpm Speed
Q
p
=

69

2.2.7 Jet Thrust/Pulling Force
This is the force required to pull the pipe/hose as the jets of water leaves the
orifice or the nozzle. The pulling force depends on the water flow rate, pressure
at the nozzle, and the jet angle. The pulling force can be calculated using
equation 2.9, developed by Wright
49,
and it is given as:

2.9
Where;
F
P
= pulling force, lbs
= jet angle, degree
= 3.142
The pulling force increases with increase in nozzle pressure, flow rate, and jet
angle.

2.2.8 Flow Velocity
The amount of pressure at the nozzle determines the velocity at which the jet
flows to the target face. The pressure is converted to velocity and carries energy
with it to the target surface. The flow velocity increases with pressure at the
nozzle. It is calculated from equation 2.10, given as:

|
\
|
=
180
* cos * 0522 . 0
5 . 0
N N P
Q P F

70

2.10

Where;
V = flow velocity, ft/sec

It is recommended that the waterjet system is designed to generate flow velocity
high enough to create impact pressure at the surface of the target, sufficient
enough to cut the target material.

2.2.9 Impact Pressure at the Surface
When the jet of water leaves the nozzle, it is no longer under pressure. The
pressure at the nozzle is converted to energy within the jet, as it leaves the
nozzle head. This energy is reconverted back to pressure, known as impact
pressure, upon reaching the surface of the material to be cut. The impact
pressure is calculated from equation 2.11, developed by Wright
49
, and it is given
as:

2.11

Where;
(
(
(
(
(
|
|
\
|
|
|
\
|
=
100
* 00177072 . 0
* 022 . 81
o
S
N
I
d
D
EXP P
P
5 . 0
7 . 14
N
P V =

71

P
I
= impact pressure, psi
D
S
= stand-off distance, ft
Figure 2.3 shows a three dimensional view of the effects of nozzle pressure,
stand-off distance, and orifice diameters on the impact pressure. The impact
pressure increases with increase in pressure at the nozzle, internal diameter of
orifice, and with decrease in stand-off distance.

2.3 Mechanism of Rock Failure
In rocks, such as coal, failure or disaggregation under waterjets is in stages.
Summers
50
wrote about this sequence.
First, the water will penetrate into any cracks, crevices, or grain boundaries of
the solid. These small fluid wedges are then pressurized by the impact of
subsequent segments of the waterjet. This has the effect of growing the crack to
the point of crack coalescence and particle libration. In many larger particulate
solids, the largest cracks are along the existing boundaries of the individual
grains. This means that the jet will break the rock down into its individual grain
constituents, if the process is correctly applied.

Iyoho et al
51
explained further that the jet which arrives at a surface will, under
normal circumstance, have a rapidly changing pressure level across its diameter.
Once it arrives at the surface, the waterjet will immediately penetrate any flaws
present in the rock. Such penetration will cause the cracks to extend and the
differential pressure across the jet diameter will cause the rock to disaggregate
into particles. In his own work, Brace
52
pointed out that such flaws (natural
cracks) typically exist at half the grain size of the target materials.

72

In coal, disaggregation occurs along the existing vertical and horizontal planes of
weakness, called cleats. When the jet intersects the cleats under high pressure,
it will flow along the coal natural factures, breaking the coal along the planes of
weakness. Experiments have shown that the hole created by this mechanism is
usually rectangular, rather than circular in nature.

Figure 2.3: The effect of nozzle pressure, stand-off distance, and orifice size on
impact pressure


73

2.4 Drilling of Horizontal Well by Waterjet Technology
Most of the research, field trials, and application of waterjet drilling technology
have been carried out in coal, either for degassing the mine prior to actual coal
mining or for creating rock bolt holes. The choice of coal, as a candidate rock for
research and field trials of waterjet drilling technology, is mainly due to its low
compressive strength; as opposed to other type of (harder) rock. However, series
of laboratory and field trials have also been carried out on the application of
waterjet technology to drill oil wells; especially in sandstone formations. The
majority of the holes so far drilled by the technology are horizontal. Application of
waterjet technology for drilling horizontal wellbores is divided into three main
categories:
a. Waterjets conveyed by metallic material as drillstring
b. Waterjets conveyed a combination of metallic rod and hose as drillstring,
and
c. Waterjets conveyed only hose as a drillstring

2.4.1 Waterjet with Metallic Material as Drillstring
This type of drillstring is being used mostly in the oil and gas industry to drill
conventional horizontal wells. A combination of coiled tubing and conventional bit
are being used to drill horizontal well. It is not the intention of this chapter to
review the application of conventional coiled tubing in drilling horizontal wells,
since this has been extensively dealt with in the literature. Nevertheless, it is

74

important to define what this section means by conventional coiled tubing. It is a
method of drilling horizontal wells in which the vertical section of the well is
inclined slowly until it reaches the horizontal section with the use of conventional
drill bit as opposed to waterjet technology (nozzle or waterjet-assisted drill bit as
drillheads). The point where the inclination begins is called the kickoff point.

Horizontal wells are usually defined by their radius of curvature. Shelkholeslami
et al
53
define horizontal wells as follows: wells with arcs of 3 to 40 foot radius are
defined as short-radius horizontal wells. Medium-radius wells have arcs of 200 to
1,000 foot radius, while long-radius wells have arcs of 1,000 to 2,500 feet. The
required horizontal displacement, length of the horizontal section, position of the
kickoff point (from the vertical), and completion constraints are generally
considered when selecting a radius of curvature of a conventional horizontal well.

Generally, the characteristics of reservoir candidates for horizontal wells are:
a. low permeability reservoir
b. thin formations
c. layered formations
d. naturally fractured formations
e. high reservoir anisotropy


75

Summers
54
et al carried out the first experiment on horizontal drilling of coal,
using waterjet technology, in 1978. A nozzle was attached to a drill rod and field
tested in a coal outcrop. The trial was designed to drill up to 49 ft at the rate of
penetration (ROP) of 3.28 ft/min. the first hole drilled interestingly exceeded the
set goal. The goal of the project was to find an improved way to degasify a coal
mine before mining operations. They found out that the dimensions of the drilled
holes were roughly square in nature and that the holes were larger than the size
of the nozzle head used in the drilling. The larger than expected borehole sizes
(or annulus between the drillstring and the coal walls) posed the problem of
reduced velocity at which spent water flows out of the hole. When the velocity is
reduced, the ability of the spent water to carry cuttings is hampered; especially
the larger particles. As experienced by Summers
54
et al, the particles from the
drilling, which are being carried out of the hole by the water, tended to settle
along the walls of the drilled holes. The continuation of the particle settling on top
of each other resulted in blockage. The blockage caused a pressured build-up
behind and which farther reduced the cutting ability of the waterjet. To solve this
problem, they frequently pulled back the drill assembly out of the hole before
feeding it back again. The advantage of this method is not only in preventing the
build-up of the particles and improving the flow of spent water, it also helps in
breaking down larger particles into smaller ones; thereby enhancing their
potential to be carried out of the hole.


76

One method for reducing the size of holes during drilling is to increase the rate of
penetration, so that the retention time of the jets per foot is reduced, thereby
making smaller holes. Another method is to reduce the rotational speed of the
drill assembly. A third method is in nozzle selection. A nozzle configuration with
jet angle of 90
0
degrees will make larger holes than those nozzles without 90
0
degrees jet angle.

The major challenge in horizontal drilling in coal with metallic materials, like drill
rod, is the bending through the corner from the vertical section to the horizontal
section. One method to solve this problem is to allow only the drill head to rotate
while not rotating the drill pipe. The high pressure waterjet connections in the drill
assembly should be design to be able to turn the corner as well. Researchers
have concluded that the head will need both a drive motor to rotate and the
waterjet connections will need a high pressure water swivel to be able to turn the
corner. Several motors and swivels are now available for this type of drilling
assembly. Baker and Timmerman
55
pointed out one particular design, shown in
Figure 2.4, which did not require swivel. This tool was field tested and it was able
to drill holes up to 98 ft in length at an average rate of penetration of 1.97ft/min.
The bending radius with this type of drilling assembly is usually large because of
the space required for the head assembly (nozzle, nozzle swivel, and motor) to
bend into the horizontal section of the holes. This type of drillstring assembly has
found its application in conventional drilling of oil wells. In his work, Maurer
56


77

carried out researches on twenty-five novel methods suggested by researchers
for improving drilling of oil wells. He found out that waterjet-assisted rotary bit is
the most promising as most of the rest were unlikely to improve the rate of
penetration or costs over conventional drilling technique. According to Maurer et
al
57
, Esso Production Research carried out studies on high pressure jet cutting.
The first jet bit tested contained two jets each with 3.81 mm in diameter and was
tested at a pressure of about 10,290 psi. A second bit was also tried in the
laboratory at a pressure up to 14,700 psi. The second bit contained five nozzles
and the rate of penetration recorded in the laboratory experiment ranged
between 54 and 90 m/hr. Summers
47
reported that the bits used in the field trial
of the laboratory results were designed so that all the cutting were carried out by
the fluid jets, and not the bits themselves. The field trials were operated at
pressures of up to13, 965 psi. The rates of penetration of conventional offset
wells were between 3 to 6 m/hr, as compared to the jets which were able to drill
at rates of 32 to 85 m/hr in three wells and 6.9 m/hr in the fourth well. The fourth
well had some gagging problems.

The improved diamond bit design, incorporating high pressure waterjet, provides
answers to the need for reducing the stand-off distance between the nozzle and
the rock. A reduced stand-off distance helps to maintain rate of penetration with
increased hole depth. The design allows high pressure jets to cut reservoir rocks
and wedge it ahead of the rocks contact with drill bit. The process results in

78

reduced compressive strength of the rock ahead of its contact with drilling bit and
increased rate of penetration of the bit. Conn and Radtke
58
presented and an
example of such drill bit, shown as Figure 2.5, designed by Hydronautics.

Application of waterjets, using nozzle assembly with coiled tubing has been
applied to drilling horizontal wells in oil reservoirs. Pendleton and Ramesh
59

reported the development of BecWell Horizontal Drilling System by Bechtel. In
the initial design, the drill head, which contains nozzle assembly, was connected
to coiled tubing, made of steel materials. The non-rotating coiled tubing
measured 1.25in OD and 1.1in ID, and operated at the pressure of 6174-10290
psi. The designed drill assembly was field-tested. After the vertical section of the
hole had been drilled and under-reamed to about 7.9 ft over the vertical interval
and a diameter of about 3.9 ft, the designed system was lowered into the hole
and directed into the horizontal position, using the reamed out interval to
maneuver the drillstring. The tool advanced in the horizontal direction. The drive
mechanism was the thrust generated at the nozzle head with the aid of the
hydraulic power of the engine, which delivered pressure to the nozzle. Since the
first design by Bechtel, there have been series of improvements in the tool
designs and configurations. A notable improvement is the development of conical
nozzle, which improves the penetration of the drill.


79

Figure 2.4: Drillhead that did not require nozzle swivel (after Baker and
Timmerman
55
)


80

Figure 2.5: Jet-assisted diamond drill bit, the numbers mark the nozzle locations
(after Conn and Radtke
58
)


81

Dickinson et al
60
reported the efforts of Petrophysics Inc. a company based in
California to drill horizontal wells using watejet technology. Their system is
called petro-jet systems. The system is further divided into what they called
Petro-Jet Multiple Lateral System and Petro-Jet Extended Reach System.

The Petro-Jet Multiple Lateral System was developed for placing multiple radial
wells from a single vertical or deviated well. It was designed to penetrate near
wellbore damage and to place multiple lateral boreholes of 50 ft to 100 ft in
length. The system uses non-rotating coiled tubing as a drillstring and either a
conical or a Leach and Walker nozzles as the waterjet drillhead. The tool
combination provides torque-free drilling system. The use of hydraulic propulsion
keeps the coiled tubing drillstring in tension and minimizes coiled tubing buckling.
Petro Jet Multiple Lateral System is capable of turning from vertical to horizontal
in just one foot, using the waterjet technology. The system was reported to have
drilled four radial wells, up to 98 ft each, from a single vertical well, in a heavy oil
unconsolidated formation of the Kern River in California. The radial wells were
used for injecting steam into the formation to stimulate oil production. Dickinson
and Dykstra
61
listed the major equipment and materials required for multiple
radial drilling by Petro-Jet Multiple Lateral System. These include:
a. Whipstock
b. Drillstring
c. Jet drilling

82

d. Control While Drilling
e. Positional survey
f. Slotted liner
g. Gravel packing, and
h. Gravity drainage

Figure 2.6 shows the drive mechanism for the Petro-Jet Multiple Lateral System.
According to Dickinson and Dykstra
61
, and as of 1995, the system has been used
to place more than 1000 radial wells in California, Canada, Louisiana, Wyoming,
and other U.S. and foreign locations; both in heavy oil and light oil.

The Petro-Jet Extended Reach System was originally designed for the U.S.
Government to drill 25,00 ft horizontally using waterjet technology, and has since
been declassified. The system uses coiled tubing, just as in Petro-Jet Multiple
Lateral System. However, the system uses drill bits, instead of nozzles, as the
drillheads. The bits are designed to work with high pressure waterjet nozzles as
previously described in Figure 2.5. The system allows changing drill bits without
tripping the drillstring and provides Casing While Drilling (CWD) capability.


83

2.4.2 Waterjet with a Combination of Rod and Hose as Drillstring
Kennerley
62
was one of the first investigators to use a combination of drill rod and
high pressure hose to drill holes into coal seam. The objective of his research
was to develop a method of drilling a long hole in coal seams to drain methane
gas (hazardous and unwanted gas, from mining point of view) before mining of
coal begins. He used hose as the connection between the pump and the drilling
rod. The drilling rod was directly connected to the nozzle. In one instance, he
drilled a hole to about 89 ft (about 27m). The adaptor connecting the rod to the
hose got swollen. He then withdrew the 89ft strings of rod and replaced it
with 33ft (10m) rod as the connection between the hose and the nozzle to
provide stiffness to the drill string. He could only manage to increase the length
of hole drilled to about 108 ft in total (33m) where the nozzle hit the floor of the
coal seam and cease to drill. He continued the drilling up to 125 ft (38m), but was
only drilling the formation the coal seam.

Kennerly
62
attempted to drill another hole, this time, with 33 ft (10m) rod
connecting the nozzle to 131 ft (about40m) high pressure hose, placing his
nozzle assembly at an angle of 4 degrees, up from horizontal. He abandoned the
hole after drilling about 39ft (12m) because the nozzle had hit the roof of the coal
seam. He attempted one more hole with the same configuration as hole , but with
3 degrees facing upward. He abandoned the hole after drilling about 92 ft (28m)
because the nozzle had hit the floor of the coal seam.

84

In the initial report of his work, Kennerley
63
experienced two problems with his
drilling design:
a. removal of cuttings, and
b. inability of his tool to drill long distances without hitting the roof or the floor
of coal seams
Tool deviation from a target formation is a common problem, even in
conventional mechanical drilling. However, the geo-steering approach with
conventional drilling method is different from that of the waterjet systems. To
tackle the problem of cutting removal, Kennerly
63
changed his nozzle designs to
the use of self-rotating type. However, this nozzle type created the problem of
residual cone in the center of the hole drilled. An improvement in tool design
overcame this problem. The improved tool design, called WOMA FR22, used two
self-rotating nozzles to carry out the drilling operation. The self-rotating nozzles
broke down the larger particles into smaller particles and were transported out of
the hole more easily. However, a test was carried out in another site and it was
discovered that the volume of water supplied to the nozzle was no longer
sufficient to transport the cuttings from the hole as the hole was getting deeper. A
set of retro-jets were then added to the drill assembly directly behind the nozzle,
in order to overcome the cutting transport.


85

Figure 2.6: Drive mechanism for the Petro Jet Multiple Lateral System (after
Dickinson and Dykstra
61
)


86

In order to solve the problem of inability to drill long distance with his tool,
Kennerley et al
64
modified the tool design, seen in Figure 2.7, by including a bent
sub (a bent rod) located directly behind the drilling nozzle. The bent sub raised
the location of the drilling nozzle, initially at an upward angle of one degree from
horizontal, to the center of the hole. This design reduced the tendency of the
drilling assembly to drop and hit the floor of the coal seam. When a larger
diameter model of the WOMA nozzle (WOMA FR47) was used, they were able to
drill holes up to 171 ft. After the holes were surveyed, it was discovered that the
holes had followed the direction of the face cleat. As a result, the drillsting was
re-designed to include a non-magnetic austenitic stainless steel drill rod section
behind the bent sub. The new feature allowed the hole to be surveyed while
drilling and the drilling direction could be changed, using the bent sub. They were
able to drill up to 728 ft with the re-designed tool at an average rate of
penetration of 3.28 ft/min, with a pressure of 9555 psi and flow rate of about 42
gpm.

Figure 2.7: Addition of bent sub in the drillhead (after Kennerley et al
63
)

87

2.4.3 Waterjet with Hose as Drillstring
In the use of waterjet technology to drill horizontal wells, the major challenge is
how to turn the corner from the vertical section, going into the horizontal direction
under a predetermined bending radius. Summers et al
65
were the first to explore
a method of turning the corner, using high pressure hose and nozzle as the
drillstring. They built an equipment and subsequently field tested several versions
of it. The machine was designed on the principle that only the nozzle head and
drive mechanism of the drillstring should rotate while the other parts of the
drillstring leading to the head will not rotate. The drill head consisted of a nozzle
assembly, small high pressure swivel, and a small drive motor. The head was
connected to the water supply tubing, which has three hoses. The first hose, high
pressure hose, was connected to the nozzles. Both the second and third hoses,
low pressure type, supply hydraulic fluid to and from the drive motor. The set-up
had a drive chain welded along the length of the hoses. During the field trials, the
hoses would be fed down the vertical section of the well as a rigid pipe, they
were disconnected on the lower end of the vertical section, and thus, were able
to rotate around the drive pulley at the bottom of the vertical well. They were
later reconnected when drilling the horizontal section of the well and were also
fed as rigid unit, driven by the drive chain; which was engaged by the toothed
sprockets of the drive gear. The drive gear was, in turn, driven by a motor in the
vertical section of the well. These investigators called their invention round the
corner (RTC). Figure 2.8 shows the drive mechanism of the RTC equipment

88

while Figure 2.9 shows the schematic equipment layout during the field test to
verify the RTC drilling ability. The process did not only prove to work in turning
the corner, but also able to drill the horizontal section of a well. The minimum
bend radius for the high pressure hose used in the equipment design is about
8.8in. Hence, in order to turn from the vertical section into the horizontal section,
one could ream out a 3 ft vertical interval to 1 ft. The drill head was able to turn
an 8.8 inches turning radius at an angle of 90
0
degrees. The additional reamed
out space (rat hole) allows the turning mechanism to be raised into the horizontal
position.

Summers et al
65
experienced the problems of hole cleaning and hole deviation in
their field trials. The hole-cleaning problem was solved by putting additional jets
on the nozzle assembly, in order to increase the flow rate of the water carrying
the rock fragments back to the vertical section of the well. Summers
66
reported a
greater than 15 m/hr rates were recorded in some of the field trials. The
equipment underwent a series of improvements, notably on the drill head to
guide the drill head and position it within the coal seam. Engler
67
reported on the
improved design of the drill head instrumentation of the RTC equipment. The
instrumentation, shown in Figure 2.10, was to survey the orientation and location
of the drill head, helping driller to adjust the drill head in the required direction
and azimuth. A full field test of the improved head was carried out in an
abandoned mine area in New Mexico. Shirey and Enger
68
reported that the drill

89

string was lowered down a vertical section to the coal seam located at some 98 ft
the surface, and raised into the horizontal section. They reported a horizontal
distance of 39ft-72ft were drilled within the coal seam.

Figure 2.8: Drive mechanism of the round the corner drill (after Summers et al
65
)


90

Figure 2.9: Equipment layout for the test to verify RTC drilling ability (after
Summers et al
65
)

Anon
69
investigated the use of high pressure hose as a drillstring in oil mining,
but no significant success or breakthrough was achieved.

Figure 2.10: Component of the RTC drillhead instrumentation (after Engler
67
)

91

2.5 Current Research versus Previous Works
The previous sections of this chapter reviewed the various application of waterjet
technology in industrial cleaning and rock cutting. In particular, applications of
waterjeting to drill horizontal wells for the purpose of degassing coalbeds prior to
mining operations and for creating rock-bolts in coalbeds, were extensively
reviewed. As previously mentioned in this chapter, the closest application of
waterjet technology in oil and gas industry has been in the development of jet-
assisted drill bits. This dissertation investigates the use of high pressure waterjet
technology for drilling horizontal wells in coalbed methane reservoirs.

Horizontal Well technology has been in existence for many years. It has found
successful applications in both conventional and unconventional reservoirs. The
major difference between the conventional horizontal well technology and the
proposed waterjet horizontal well technology is that the proposed technology
uses waterjet to drill, as opposed to a rotary bit. Secondly, the components of
their drillstrings are different. The major components of drillstring for the
conventional horizontal well technology are:
a. rigid pipe
b. bit or jet-assisted bit
c. Bottom Hole Assembly (BHA)

92

The proposed waterjet horizontal drilling technology has the major components
of its drillstring as:
a. high pressure hose
b. nozzle, and
c. swivel
In contrast to conventional horizontal well technology, the radius of curvature of
the proposed horizontal well using waterjet is designed to be a couple of feet. In
conventional horizontal well technology, the ability of the drillstring to penetrate
into the formation is enhanced by the weight on bit through the bottom borehole
assembly or by using a surface pull-down apparatus. However, in waterjet
horizontal well technology; penetration is accomplished by the pulling (tracking)
force resulting from the pressure at nozzle, efficiency of nozzle, number and
diameter of orifices, and jet angles. In conventional horizontal well technology,
the bit is always in contact with the rock being cut. This process increases the
rate of wear and tear of the bit. In the case of waterjet horizontal well technology,
the nozzle is usually not in contact with the rock to be cut. Rock cutting is
accomplished by high pressure water jetting out of the orifices of the nozzle. The
stand-off distance between the nozzle and the formation being drilled reduces
the rate of wear and tear of the nozzle. Waterjet horizontal well technology is
significantly less expensive than the conventional horizontal well technology,
because it requires simple rig. Also, the materials needed for the drilling

93

operations are cheaper than those needed by the conventional horizontal drilling
technology. An example is the significantly cheaper cost of high pressure hose
versus the high cost of drilling pipe. The rig time is less with waterjet horizontal
drilling technology than the conventional horizontal well technology. Waterjet
drilling does not require multiple and frequent tripping, for the purpose of joining
more pipes during drilling operation. The high pressure hose is long enough to
complete the drilling process in one down-borehole trip.
The differences in features and operational designs of both the conventional
horizontal well technology and the waterjet horizontal well technology are
presented in Table 2.1. The Figure 2.11 is the pictorial view of the proposed
waterjet horizontal well technology.

Detailed report on the equipment and material specifications and field trials of
waterjet horizontal well technology in coalbed methane reservoirs will be
presented in the next chapter, chapter III


94

Table 2.1: The difference between conventional and waterjet horizontal well
technology
Conventional Horizontal Well
Technology
Waterjet Horizontal Well
Technology
Drillstring made up of rigid pipe, bit or jet-
assisted bit, and bottom borehole
assembly (BHA)
Drillstring made up of high
pressure hose and nozzle
Penetration into formation is by weight
on bit or BHA
Penetration into formation is by
tracking force
Rock cutting is by bit or jet-assisted bit Rock cutting is by water jetting out
of nozzle
Bit wears more frequently due to contact
with rock
Nozzle wears less frequently due
to the presence of stand-off depth
between it and rock
Drilling fluid is a combination of water,
chemicals, and other additives
Drilling fluid is purely water
Longer rig time due to periodic tripping
for pipe coupling
Shorter rig time no need for
periodic tripping
Larger bending radius (slower build-up
rate)
Smaller bending radius (faster
build-up rate)
More expensive to operate Less expensive to operate
It has application in any formations:
sandstone, carbonate, hard or soft
It has application mostly in soft
formation, like CBM reservoir


95

Figure 2.11: A pictorial view of the proposed waterjet horizontal well technology


96

CHAPTER III
FIELD TESTING

3.0 Equipment Rig-Up
A simple rig, called WATERBLASTER and shown in Figure 3.1, was used for the
field test of the waterjet horizontal drilling project, as opposed to complex rig in
conventional horizontal drilling operations. Bodine Services of Evansville was the
contractor employed for the test. The major components of the rig are:
1. Water Truck
2. Small Diesel Engine
3. Water Hose
4. Inlet Filters
5. Water Tank
6. Diesel Engine
7. Pump
8. Foot Dump
9. Whip Check
10. Diffuser
11. Testing Hose, and
12. Nozzle


97

Figure 3.1: Major components of the rig Waterblaster

Water
Tank
Inlet
Filter
Pump
Diesel
Engine
Foot
Dump
Testing
Hose
Water
Hose

98

Figure 3.2: Water truck that supplies the water for the test (capacity is 7,700
gallon).


99

Figure 3.3: Small diesel engine than pumps water from the truck to the tank

Diesel
Engine
Water
Hose

100

Figure 3.2 shows the water truck, which was stationed to supply the water
needed for the test. Its capacity is 7,700 gallon. The water hose connects the
truck to the blaster, via a small diesel engine. With the aid of the small diesel
engine, the water from the truck is pumped to water tank, mounted on the
waterblaster. The water coming from the truck first goes to an inlet filter, then to
the tank and later comes out through an outlet line. Both the inlet filter and the
tank are mounted on the blaster.

The most important precaution in maintaining the nozzles is keeping debris or
particles from entering the tool, which will prevent it from rotating. The inlet filters
serve this purpose of screening out any debris or particle from the stream of
water. Figure 3.3 shows the small diesel engine that connects the truck to the
tank component of the blaster, while Figure 3.4 shows the tank and the two inlet
filters. Some blasters do not have water tank. In such blasters, the water is
transmitted directly from the truck to the pump. Such blasters do not have the
advantage of inline water filtration, and such practice can quickly damage the
jetting heads and prevent them from rotating or spinning.

The water from the tank flows to the pump through the water hose connecting the
two features. The pump, shown in Figure 3.5, has a pressure rating of 20,000 psi
and has five plungers, each of which is rated 8, 9, and 10. The number 8 rating

101

was used for the test. The pump has 300 horsepower. The Figure 3.6 shows the
diesel engine that powers the water pump. The pump, with the aid of the engine,
exerts pressure on the water as it flows through the high pressure hose. The
engine is also a part of the configuration of the waterblaster. It has three principal
components: the gear system, the pressure valve, and the reading panel. The
gear system is used to regulate the water flow rate.

The gear system can change the gear from 2 through 5. According to Waterblast,
the company that manufactures the blaster, each gear corresponds to certain
flow rate at which water leaves the pump, depending on the plunger rating being
used. For the plunger 8 rating used for the test, 2nd gear corresponds to the flow
rate of 12.7 gpm, 3rd gear corresponds to the flow rate of 16.5 gpm, 4th gear
corresponds to the flow rate of 21.4 gpm, and 5th gear corresponds to the flow
rate of 27.2 gpm. A higher level of gear leads to higher the pumps revolution per
minute (RPM). In this project, the equation 2.7 was used to estimate more
accurately the outlet flow rate of the pump; instead of relying on the
manufacturers gear-flow rate relationship.

The pressure valve regulates the pressure at which the pump operates. Both the
flow rate and pressure compensate each other to balance the capacity of the
pump. When the pressure is increased, the flow rate is lowered and vice versa.

102

Figure 3.4: 1st & 2nd inlet filters, and water tank

1st Inlet
Filter
2nd Inlet
Filter
Water
Tank

103

Figure 3.5: Water pump

Water
Pump

104

Figure 3.6: Diesel engine that powers the water pump

Gear
Pressure
Valve
Reading
Panel

105

The reading panel helps the operator to measure the values of the flow rate,
pressure, and rpm of the pump.

Water flows from the pump to a control device called the foot dump. The device
houses the foot valve, the dump line connection, and both the inlet and outlet
hose connections. The foot valve controls how much water flows to the nozzle.
The dump line is usually not under pressure. It is used to direct water to
atmosphere or back into water tank. The inlet line allows water under pressure to
pass through the control device while the outlet line allows the water to flow out
of the control device, through high pressure hose line, to the nozzle. The Figures
3.7 and 3.8 show the foot valve, the dump line and the inlet connections. When
the valve is pressed down, it allows water to flow through the high pressure hose.
When releases, it reduces the flow rate because it diverts some of the volume of
water to tank or atmosphere. This causes a decrease in pressure at the nozzle.
The remaining water in the high pressure line is released through the dump line.
It is not mandatory to have the control device as part of the rig system. It is a
safety device that allows the operator to release the pressure at the nozzle
before the rig is shut down.

The whip check is another safety device that connects all hoses on the rig to
itself, so that when hose couplings are loosened, they are still kept together.


106

Another important component of the rig is the diffuser. It is used to measure the
pressure at the nozzle head. The Figure 3.9 shows the whip check and the
diffuser, with a pressure gauge mounted on it. The high pressure testing hose is
connected to the outlet connection on the foot dump using the 9/16 inches
connection at one end while the nozzle head is connected to the other end of the
hose, using inches NPT connection.

3.1 Equipment and material Specifications
The equipment described here are in addition to the components of the
waterblaster already described in section 3.0.

3.1.1 The Backhoe
The backhoe, shown in Figure 3.10, was the equipment used to build the berns
that was used for the project. It also helped secure the pipe/hose. Also labeled in
the same Figure is the pipe that was used to direct the testing hose to the face of
the coal used for the test. It was secured at an angle of 180
0
on the surface of
the berns, so that the jetting can occur at a complete horizontal direction to the
coal face.


107

Figure 3.7: Foot valve, a component of the foot dump

Foot
Valve

108

Figure 3.8: Outlet high pressure and the dump line connections

Dump
Line
Intlet
Line

109

Figure 3.9: Diffuser, with a pressure gauge mounted on it, and whip check

Diffuser
Pressure
Gauge
Whip
Check

110

3.1.2 The Testing Hose
The testing hose for the project was from Spir Star. It has 3/8 internal diameter
(ID). The hose has a pressure rating of 21,700 psi and a bending radius of 8. Its
weight per foot is 0.46 lb/ft. It has NPT connection at one end and 9/16 at the
other end. The total length of the hose acquired for the test is 200 feet. The hose
is labeled in Figures 3.1 and 3.10.

3.1.3 The Nozzle
The nozzles used for the project were procured from StoneAge. Seven nozzle
configurations were used for the test. Six out of the seven configurations were
Berger tool with BA-P4 swivels; having JETTED HEAD and the seventh tool was
a Banshee type. The first nozzle configuration contains the following orifices: two
0.052", three 0.032, and two 0.020" orifice sizes. The second nozzle
configuration contains the following orifices: two 0.052" and two 0.018" and three
plugs. The third configuration contains the following orifices: two 0.052" and three
0.018" and two plugs. The fourth nozzle configuration contains the following
orifices: two 0.052" and three 0.024 and two 0.020. The fifth nozzle is called
the Banshee nozzle. Its configuration was unknown. The sixth configuration
contains the following orifices: two 0.052", three 0.024" and two plugs. The
seventh tool contains the following orifices: two 0.052" and three 0.032" and two
plugs. The 0.052" orifice sizes are installed in the rear ports having jet angles of
135
0
. The 0.032", 0.024, and 0.018 orifice sizes are installed on the front ports

111

having jet angles 15
0
, 30
0
, and 45
0
. The 0.020 orifice sizes are installed in the
side ports having jet angles 90
0
. Where there are two plugs, they are always
installed at the 90
0
slots. When the plugs are up to three, the angle 15
0
on the
front port is usually plugged. The orifice installations were already performed by
StoneAge. Hence, there was no need to install them in the field. The tools
operate on retro-jet principles. Figures 3.11 and 3.12 show the orifices and the
arrangement of the jet angles of the nozzles, and Figure 3.13 shows the
component of the BA-PA nozzle. The HEAD is there to hold the orifices, the
SHAFT supports the head and they rotate together. The BODY supports the
shaft with a film of water between, and the INLET NUT provides the means to get
the water from the hose into the shaft. There is film of water between inlet nut
stem and bore of shaft as well. The RETAINING RING holds the inlet nut into the
body, and the O-RING keeps junk out of the weep holes. The BA-P4 nozzle is
rated up to 25 gpm.


112

Figure 3.10: Backhoe, the bern, the pipe, the testing hose, and the
jetting operations

Backhoe
Testing
Hose
Bern Pipe
Jetting
Operation

113

Figure 3.11: 0.020 inches and 0.052 inches size orifices at jet angles of 90
0

and 135
0
respectively

Jet Angle
135
0

Jet Angle
90
0


114

Figure 3.12: 0.032 inches size orifices at jet angles of 15
0
, 30
0
, and 45
0

Jet Angle
30
0

Jet Angle
45
0

Jet Angle
15
0


115

Figure 3.13: Component of BA-PA nozzle (permission from StoneAge)


116

3.2 First Round of Field Tests
Two rounds of field test were conducted. This section explains the test
preparation and procedure during the first round.

3.2.1 Test preparation
The mine site used for the test was provided by the UNITED MINERALS CO.,
LLC. The mine is located in Somerville, Indiana. An approval was sought from
the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) department prior to carrying
out the test. The crew members for the test consist of four (4) personnel from
ACT Operating Company (the principal investigator) and four (4) personnel from
Bodine Services of Evansville (the waterjet/rig operator). Hazard training was
provided to all the personnel that entered the mine site for the test and all safety
precautions were strictly enforced before, during, and after the test. Serious
attention was paid to personnel safety. As a result, all personnel involved in the
test were made to wear safety equipment and materials. These include: hard hat,
safety glasses, and steel toe shoes. All personnel were made to familiarize
themselves with the operations of waterjet, as laid out in the manual published by
the WaterJet Technology Association (WJTA
47
). The latest version of the manual
at the time of this test is titled Recommended Practices for the Use of Manually
Operated High Pressure Waterjetting Equipment.


117

3.2.2 Testing Procedure
The following is a step-by-step procedure that the test followed:
I. The rig-up operation was performed by coupling and connecting all the
equipment and materials together. The Figure 3.1 shows the rig-up
configuration. The water truck was connected to the water tank via the
inlet filter, with the aid of the water hose at one end and the water tank
was connected to the pump with the aid of the water hose, at another end.
The same water hose connected the pump to the inlet line of the foot
dump. The testing hose was connected to the outlet line of the foot dump
at one end, with the 9/16 inches connection, and the nozzle head was
connected to the testing hose at the other end, with the inches NPT
connection. While the smaller engine was used to power the water truck to
flow water into the water tank via the hose, the bigger diesel engine,
mounted on the waterblaster, was used to drive the pump; so that water
from the tank flowed to the nozzle head through the connections
described above.

II. It was required that the pressure at the nozzle be determined at the
surface; prior to drilling the coal seam. The procedure is to connect a
pressure gauge to the diffuser, just behind the nozzle head. Then, operate
the pump and gradually increase the flow rate (on incremental basis) and

118

measure the corresponding pressures at the pump and at the gauge. The
Pressure gauge is rated to hold a maximum of 10,000 psi.

III. There were five nozzle configurations available for the first field trial.
These are:
Tool #1: two 0.052" rear jets, three 0.032" forward jets, and two
0.020" side jets
Tool #2: two 0.052" rear jets, two 0.018" forward jets, and three
plugs
plugs
0.020" side jets
Tool # 5: Banshee nozzle

TEST A. Tool # 1 was first selected and the pump was set at 9000 psi and
21.4 gpm. The waterjet operation was initiated with run # 1 and
borehole # 1 was drilled.

TEST B. Tool # 2 was selected.
Run 1 Pump was set at 7000 psi and 12.7 gpm
Run 2 Pump was set at 10,000 psi and 16.5 gpm

119

TEST C. Tool # 3 was selected

TEST D. Tool # 4 was selected
Run 3 Pump was set at 10,000 psi and 21.4 gpm and borehole # 2
was drilled.

TEST E. Tool # 1 was again selected; the pump was again set at 9000 psi
and 21.4 gpm. Run #s 1, 2, and 3 were czrried out; and borehole #s
3, 4, and 5 were drilled.

TEST F. Tool # 5 (Banshee nozzle) was selected; the pump was set at 9000
psi and 21.4 gpm. Run #s 1 and 2 were carried out; and borehole
#s 6 and 7 were drilled.

3.3 Second Round of Field Test
One major problem was encountered during the first field test. The hose could
not maintain its position within the coal seam during the drilling operations. The

120

second field trial was designed to overcome this problem. Three major
modifications were made to the equipment and materials used during the first
trial.
1. Rigid sections of lengths 1 to 5 feet were connected between the nozzle
head and the hose. The aim was to keep the hose within the coal seam
during drilling operations.
2. A swivel was connected between the foot dump and the high pressure
hose used for the test. The swivel was expected to aid the rotation the
hose during jetting operation.
3. The nozzles were optimized to increase its forward jetting and to improve
its spinning abilities.

3.3.1 Test Preparation
The preparation was similar to the first field trial. The service of the same
company, Bodine Services of Evansvile, was engaged for the second field trial.
The UNITED MINERALS CO., LLC again provided access to their coal mine for
the test. Safety training was also provided for all personnel prior to entering the
coal mine and prior to the field test.

3.3.2 Testing Procedure
The rig-up operation was similar to the procedure as the first test. There were
four nozzle configurations available for second field trial. These are:

121

plugs
plugs
plugs
0.020" side jets

TEST G. Tool # 3 was first selected and the pump was set at 9000 psi and
21.4 gpm. The waterjet operation was initiated with run #s 1, 2, and
3; and borehole #s 8, 9, and 10 were drilled.

TEST H. Tool # 6 was selected and the pump was set at 9000 psi and 21.4
gpm. The waterjet operation was initiated with run #s 1 and 2; and
borehole #s 11 and 12 were drilled.

TEST I. Tool # 7 was selected and the pump was set at 9000 psi and 21.4
gpm. The waterjet operation was initiated with run # 1; and
borehole # 13 was drilled.


122

TEST J. Tool # 4 was selected and the pump was set at 9000 psi and 21.4
gpm. The waterjet operation was initiated with run #s 1 and 2; and
borehole #s 14 and 15 were drilled.

TEST K. Tool # 3 was again selected
Run 1 Pump was set at 10,000 psi and 21.4 gpm; and borehole #
16 was drilled.
17 was drilled.
18 was drilled.
19 was drilled.


123

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.0 Accomplishments
This research was designed to investigate the use of high pressure waterjet
technology as a new and a more cost effective technique to drill horizontal wells
in coalbed methane reservoirs. The ability of high pressure hose to replace the
conventional metallic drill pipe or tubing was investigated. The use of a nozzle to
drill horizontal wells in coalbed methane reservoirs, as opposed to a rotary bit
was also investigated. Optimization of tool (nozzle) for best drilling practices was
a major part of the field tests. The various factors that control the direction of
hose and nozzle during drilling operations were part of the investigations. Finally,
sensitivity studies were carried out to determine the significance of all the
variables that contribute to the impact pressure, the pressure from jets of water
that cuts the rocks (coalbeds).

4.1 Results
The goal of testing different nozzle configurations was to be able to optimize the
tool. That is, to be able to determine which of the configurations works best, in
terms of greatest pulling force and longest achievable drilling depth. The field
tests sought to answer the following questions:

124

1. For each nozzle configuration and for each combination of pressures,
pulling forces and flow rates, what is the rate of penetration (ROP), depth
drilled, borehole size, borehole path, borehole geometry (square, circular),
and particles description?
2. Do tools without the 90
0
jets make a large enough borehole?
3. How much larger, if any, do the 90
0
jets make the borehole?
4. How much faster is the cutting rate with larger forward jets: (0.032 vs.
0.024 vs. 0.018)?
5. Will the tool with only two 0.018 orifice size forward cut borehole at all, and
if so, is the cutting rate sufficient?

Tables 4.1 through 4.6 shows the results obtained during the first field test; for
different tool configurations and under varying conditions of pressures and flow
rates.

Three major problems were encountered during the first field trial:
1. The nozzles frequently quit spinning after one or two runs
2. The nozzle/hose could not maintain a direction within the coal seams
3. The jets were unable to drill the coal seams for any appreciable depth

In order to solve the first problem, the inner surfaces of the nozzles were
polished; to increase the gap between rotating parts so they have less chance of

125

touching and galling during operations. For the second problem, it was assumed
that the lack of control within the coal seams could be due to the fact that the
hose has memory code in it and that it tends to follow its national bends during
jetting operations. Therefore, stiff section of lengths 1 to 3 feet were connected
between the nozzle and the high pressure hose. It was thought that the stiff
section would assist the hose in maintaining its position in the coal seam. It was
also thought that the third problem would be solved, once the hose is able to
maintain its position within the coal seam. The second first test was then carried
out, after these improvements to the tools and the equipment. The results of the
second field test are presented in Tables 4.7 through 4.11.

On another development, it has been suggested that hose rotation, during jetting
operation, could help it maintain its direction within a coal seam. Therefore, a
swivel was connected between the foot dump and the high pressure hose for the
purpose of aiding the rotation of the hose. The result of the tests suggests that
swivel does not help the hose to maintain its position within a coal seam.
Therefore, addition of a swivel to the drilling assembly would not serve any
purpose.

Figure 4.1 shows the geometry of the borehole and the color of the returning
water after drilling into the shale formation, while Figure 4.2 shows the sizes of
particles that were cut during the jetting operations. The fine to medium-fine

126

particles were about 2% to 5% of the size of the boreholes, while the large
particles range from about 5% to 10% of the size of the boreholes. The geometry
of the nineteen boreholes drilled during the two field trials is roughly square in
nature, whose dimensions range between two inches to four inches in both width
and height. Figure 4.3 shows an example of the measurement of the dimensions
of the boreholes.

In order to examine the performance of these tools, description of the results
obtained for the two field trials will be grouped under the various tool
configurations used for the tests. As mentioned earlier in section 3.1.3, all the
tool configurations have two rear-facing orifices of size 0.052, placed at a jet
angle of 135
0
. Whenever orifice size of 0.020 is part of the configuration, it is
always located at the sides and at a jet angle of 90
0
.

Two hundred feet (200 ft) of the length of high pressure hosed was used during
the first field test. The length was reduced to one hundred feet (100 ft) during the
second field trial.

4.1.1 Configuration 1: two 0.052", three 0.032", and two 0.020"
This configuration was used for tests A (Table 4.1) and E (Table 4.5) during the
first field trial. It has three forward-facing orifice size of 0.032; located at jet
angles 15
0
, 30
0
, and 45
0
. The only run of test A was set at pump pressure of

127

9000 psi. Drilling was initiated at the ROP of 8ft/min. During the drilling, the tool
(and consequently the hose) bent upward and then to the right. It later made a U-
turn and came out of the borehole at a depth of about 8.5 ft from the entrance.
Only about 6.5 ft was drilled horizontally into the coal seam.

The three runs for test E was also set at the same pump pressure and flow rate
as test A. The drilling operation during the first run was at an ROP of 8.7 ft/min.
From the start of the jetting, the tool started bending downward and then turning
left. It drilled about 14 ft within the coal seam before drilling into the shale
formation below the coal seam. This was noticed by the change in the color of
the spent water returning from the borehole. The color was black when the tool
was jetting into the coal seam and suddenly turned brownish as the tool left the
coal seam into the shale formation. About 6 ft was further drilled into the shale,
making a total length of about 20 ft. The sizes of particles that were cut during
the jetting operations were between medium-sized to fines. The rest two runs of
test E both have an ROP of 5 ft/min and the jets could only drill between 3.4 and
4.3 ft before it stopped to spin. The tool quickly bent upward during runs # 2 and
3 and stopped spinning when it hit the formation above the coal seam.

4.1.2 Configuration 2: two 0.052", two 0.018", and three plugs
This configuration was used for test B (Table 4.2) during the first field trial. The
first run was set at 7000 psi pump pressure. The second run was set at 10000

128

psi pump pressure. The tool would not spin, for the two runs, when a stand-off
depth is maintained between the tool and the coal face. It, also would not spin
when in contact with the coal face, and therefore, could not drill any borehole in
the coal seam.

4.1.3 Configuration 3: two 0.052", three 0.018", and two plugs
The third configuration was used for both field trials. The test C (Table 4.3) was
conducted during the first field trial while tests G (Table 4.7) and K (Table 4.11)
were conducted during the second field test. The pump pressure for the first run
of test C was set at 6000 psi. The second run was set at 9000 psi. The tool
stopped spinning when it was in contact with the coal face for both runs. During
the second field trial, stiff sections of length 1 to 3 ft were connected between the
nozzle and the high pressure hose for test G. This was meant to guide the hose
in maintaining its position in the coal seam. There were three runs during test G,
and were all set at the pump pressure of 9000 psi. Run 1 consisted of 1 ft of stiff
section and a borehole was drilled to a horizontal depth of 17 ft. Run 2 consisted
of 2 ft of stiff section, which drilled a horizontal depth of 20.5. Run # 3 consisted
of 3 ft of stiff section and a horizontal depth of 18 ft was drilled. The drilling
proceeded at the rate of 3 ft/min, with large particles being transported to the
surface from the borehole by the spent (retuning) water. The hose bent
downward and hit the formation below the coal seam during the three runs; at
which time the jetting operations were stopped. There were four runs in test # K.

129

Figure 4.1: Borehole geometry and changes in the color of returning water


130

Figure 4.2: Description of particle sizes


131

Figure 4.3: Measurement of borehole dimensions


132

During the first run, a stiff section of 1ft was connected between the nozzle and
the hose and pump pressure increased to 10000 psi to drill borehole number
sixteenth. The results were similar to those obtained in test G, except that a total
depth of 30.5 ft was drilled, with about 20.5 of it intentionally drilled into the shale
formation below the coal seam. The other three runs were conducted at a higher
pump pressure of 13000 psi. The characteristics of the rest three runs of test # K
were changed. The stiff section was removed and pump pressure increased to
13000 psi to drill boreholes seventeenth to nineteenth. For runs 2 and 3, a total
depth of about 62 ft was drilled and the hose was able to maintain its position in
the coal seam. The jetting proceeded at a rate of 3 ft/min for run # 2 and at 4
ft/min for run # 3. The jetting rate reduced to 1.5 ft/min during the fourth run and a
total depth of about 30 ft was drilled within the coal seam before the nozzle quit
spinning. The hose got stock in the borehole and backhoe was used to pull it out.
The particle sizes were large for the four runs during test K. Figure 4.4 shows
how the hose was being fed into the coal while Figure 4.5 shows borehole
number seventeenth that was drilled to the depth of 62 ft.

4.1.4 Configuration 4: two 0.052", three 0.024", and two 0.020"
This configuration was used for both the first and the second field trials. Test # D,
presented on Table 4.4; was conducted during the first field test and test J,
presented on Table 4.10; was conducted during the second field trial. Three runs
were made during test D. The first run was set at pump pressure of 4000 psi. The

133

second run was set at 6000 psi. The tool would spin when a stand-off distance
was maintained between it and the coal face, but stopped spinning on contact
with coal face for both runs. Hence, it could not drill any borehole in the coal
seam. The pressure was increased to 10000 psi for the third run. Drilling
proceeded at the rate of 6 ft/min and a total depth of 13 ft was drilled. The hose
bent upward and then to the right. It later made a U-turn and came out of the
borehole at a depth of about 7.5 ft from the entrance. Only about 5.5 ft was
drilled horizontally into the coal seam. The particles transported to the surface
were mostly fines. Two runs were carried out during test J. Both were set at
pressure of 9000 psi. Run 1 had connection of 1ft stiff section and run # 2 had 2
ft of the stiff section connected between the nozzle and the hose. The tool
maintained its position in the coal seam but got stuck in the hole and the jetting
operation was stopped. Depths of 14 ft and 11 ft were drilled during runs 1 and 2
respectively, at the rate of 2 ft/min; before the operation was halted. The sizes of
the particles transported to the surface were medium to fines.


134

Figure 4.4: Feeding of hose into the coal seam during a jetting operation


135

Figure 4.5: Borehole # seventeenth drilled to the depth of 62 ft


136

4.1.5 Configuration 5: Banshee tool
The dimensions of this tool were unknown at the time of the field test. It was used
for the first field trial. Test F (Table 4.6) was conducted and two runs were
performed during the test. Both were set at pressure of 9000 psi. The hose bent
upward and move towards the left before hitting the formation above the coal
seam during the jetting operations. Depths of about 15 ft and 3 ft were drilled
during runs 1 and 2 respectively before the operation was halted. The sizes of
the particles transported to the surface were medium to fines.

This tool configuration was used during the second field trial. Test H (Table 4.8)
was conducted and two runs were carried out during the test. Both were set at
pressure of 9000 psi. Run 1 had connection of 1ft stiff section and run # 2 had 2
ft of the stiff section connected between the nozzle and the hose. The hose bent
towards right and got stuck in the borehole during the first run. It was able to
maintain its position in the coal seam during the second run, but also got stuck in
the hole. The jetting operations were thereafter stopped. Depths of 5 ft and 3 ft
were drilled during runs 1 and 2, at the rate of 2 ft/min and 1ft/min, respectively;
before the operations were halted. The sizes of the particles transported to the
surface were medium to fines.


137

This last configuration was used during the second field trial. Test I (Table 4.9)
was conducted and only one run was carried out during the test. The pump
pressure and flow rate were set at pressure of 9000 psi. The run had a
connection of 1ft stiff section between the nozzle and the hose. The hose was
able to maintain its position in the coal seam, but the tool quit spinning. The
jetting operation was stopped. Depth of about 5 ft was drilled at the rate of 0.8
ft/min before the operations were stopped. The sizes of the particles transported
to the surface were mostly fines.

The relatively same values obtained for flow rates at both nozzle (equation 2.6)
and pump outlet (equation 2.7) confirms that the law of conservation of mass
holds as the water flows into and out of the nozzle.

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

A

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
1
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
1
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
3
2
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

0
.
0
2
0
"
R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
)

9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

1
5

8

3

w
i
d
e
,

2
.
2
5

h
i
g
h

S
q
u
a
r
e

W
e
n
t

u
p
w
a
r
d

a
n
d

b
e
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

r
i
g
h
t
.

M
a
d
e

U
-
t
u
r
n

a
n
d

c
a
m
e

o
u
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
.

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

o
u
t
l
e
t

h
o
l
e

w
a
s

8
.
5

f
t

M
o
s
t
l
y

f
i
n
e
s

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

B

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
2
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
2
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
w
o

0
.
0
1
8
"
,

a
n
d

t
h
r
e
e

p
l
u
g
s
R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

7
0
0
0
/
2
/
1
2
.
7

0

0

N
/
A

N
/
A

T
o
o
l

d
i
d

n
o
t

s
p
i
n

N
/
A

2

1
0
0
0
0
/
3
/
1
6
.
5

0

0

N
/
A

N
/
A

T
o
o
l

d
i
d

n
o
t

s
p
i
n

N
/
A

T
E
S
T

C

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
3
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
3
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
1
8
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
l
u
g
s
R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

6
0
0
0
/
2
/
1
2
.
7

0

0

N
/
A

N
/
A

T
o
o
l

s
t
o
p
p
e
d

s
p
i
n
n
i
n
g

w
h
e
n

i
n

c
o
n
t
a
c
t

w
i
t
h

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

N
/
A

2

9
0
0
0
/
3
/
1
6
.
5

0

0

N
/
A

N
/
A

T
o
o
l

s
t
o
p
p
e
d

s
p
i
n
n
i
n
g

w
h
e
n

i
n

c
o
n
t
a
c
t

w
i
t
h

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

N
/
A

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

D

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
4
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
4
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
2
4
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

0
.
0
2
0
"
R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

4
0
0
0
/
2
/
1
2
.
7

0

0

N
/
A

N
/
A

T
o
o
l

s
t
o
p
p
e
d

s
p
i
n
n
i
n
g

w
h
e
n

i
n

c
o
n
t
a
c
t

w
i
t
h

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

N
/
A

2

6
0
0
0
/
3
/
1
6
.
5

0

0

N
/
A

N
/
A

T
o
o
l

s
t
o
p
p
e
d

s
p
i
n
n
i
n
g

w
h
e
n

i
n

c
o
n
t
a
c
t

w
i
t
h

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

N
/
A

3

(
H
o
l
e

#

2
)

1
0
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

1
3

6

3

w
i
d
e
,

2

h
i
g
h

S
q
u
a
r
e

W
e
n
t

u
p
w
a
r
d

a
n
d

b
e
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

r
i
g
h
t
.

M
a
d
e

U
-
t
u
r
n

a
n
d

c
a
m
e

o
u
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
.

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

o
u
t
l
e
t

h
o
l
e

w
a
s

7
.
5

f
t

M
o
s
t
l
y

f
i
n
e
s

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

E

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
5
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
1
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
3
2
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

0
.
0
2
0
"
R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

(
H
o
l
e

#

3
)

9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

2
0

8
.
7

3

w
i
d
e
,

2

h
i
g
h

S
q
u
a
r
e

W
e
n
t

d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d

a
n
d

b
e
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

l
e
f
t
.

S
t
a
r
t
e
d

c
u
t
t
i
n
g

i
n
t
o

s
h
a
l
e

a
t

1
4

f
t

M
e
d
i
u
m

t
o

f
i
n
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

2

(
H
o
l
e

#

4
)

9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

3
.
4

5

3

w
i
d
e
,

2

h
i
g
h

S
q
u
a
r
e

C
u
t

c
o
a
l

b
u
t

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
e
n
t

u
p
w
a
r
d

a
n
d

h
i
t

t
h
e

r
o
o
f

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
.

T
o
o
l

s
t
o
p
p
e
d

s
p
i
n
n
i
n
g

M
o
s
t
l
y

f
i
n
e
s

3

(
H
o
l
e

#

5
)

9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

4
.
3

5

3

w
i
d
e
,

2

h
i
g
h

S
q
u
a
r
e

C
u
t

c
o
a
l

b
u
t

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
e
n
t

u
p
w
a
r
d

a
n
d

h
i
t

t
h
e

r
o
o
f

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
.

T
o
o
l

s
t
o
p
p
e
d

s
p
i
n
n
i
n
g

M
o
s
t
l
y

f
i
n
e
s

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

F

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
6
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#

5
:

B
a
n
s
h
e
e

t
o
o
l
R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

G
e
o
m
e
t
r
y
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

(
H
o
l
e

#

6
)

9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

1
5

2
.
5

w
i
d
e
,

1
.
2
5

h
i
g
h

S
q
u
a
r
e

W
e
n
t

u
p
w
a
r
d

a
n
d

b
e
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

l
e
f
t
.

H
i
t

t
h
e

r
o
o
f

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

M
e
d
i
u
m

t
o

f
i
n
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

2

(
H
o
l
e

#

7
)

9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

3

S
q
u
a
r
e

C
u
t

c
o
a
l

b
u
t

q
u
i
c
k
l
y

b
e
n
t

u
p
w
a
r
d

a
n
d

h
i
t

t
h
e

r
o
o
f

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
.

M
o
s
t
l
y

f
i
n
e
s

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

G

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
7
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
3
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
1
8
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
l
u
g
s

R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

S
t
i
f
f

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

f
t
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

(
H
o
l
e

#

8
)

9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

1

1
7

3

4

w
i
d
e

&

4

h
i
g
h

H
i
t

t
h
e

b
o
t
t
o
m

o
f

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

L
a
r
g
e

2

(
H
o
l
e

#

9
)

9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

2

2
0
.
5

3

3

w
i
d
e

&

4

h
i
g
h

H
i
t

t
h
e

b
o
t
t
o
m

o
f

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

L
a
r
g
e

3

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
0
)
9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

3

1
8

3

H
i
t

t
h
e

b
o
t
t
o
m

o
f

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

L
a
r
g
e

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

H

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
8
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
6
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
2
4
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
l
u
g
s

R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

S
t
i
f
f

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

f
t
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
1
)
9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

1

5

2

2

w
i
d
e

&

2

h
i
g
h

B
e
n
t

t
o
w
a
r
d
s

r
i
g
h
t
.

H
o
s
e

g
o
t

s
t
u
c
k

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
l
e

M
e
d
i
u
m

t
o

f
i
n
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

2

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
2
)
9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

2

6
.
5

1

2

w
i
d
e

&

2

h
i
g
h

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
.

H
o
s
e

g
o
t

s
t
o
c
k

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
l
e

M
e
d
i
u
m

t
o

f
i
n
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

T
E
S
T

I

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
9
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
7
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
3
2
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
l
u
g
s

R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

S
t
i
f
f

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

f
t
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
3
)
9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

1

5

0
.
8

2

w
i
d
e

&

2

h
i
g
h

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
,

b
u
t

t
h
e

h
o
s
e

g
o
t

s
t
u
c
k

a
n
d

t
h
e

t
o
o
l

q
u
i
t

s
p
i
n
n
i
n
g

F
i
n
e
s

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

J

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
1
0
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
4
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
2
4
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

0
.
0
2
0
"

R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

S
t
i
f
f

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

f
t
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
4
)
9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

1

1
4

2

3

w
i
d
e

&

3

h
i
g
h

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
,

b
u
t

h
o
s
e

g
o
t

s
t
u
c
k

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
l
e

M
e
d
i
u
m

t
o

f
i
n
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

2

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
5
)
9
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4

2

1
1

2

3

w
i
d
e

&

3

h
i
g
h

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
,

b
u
t

h
o
s
e

g
o
t

s
t
u
c
k

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
l
e

M
e
d
i
u
m

t
o

f
i
n
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
E
S
T

K

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
1
1
:

M
e
a
s
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
o
o
l

#
3
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
1
8
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
l
u
g
s

R
U
N
P

@

P
u
m
p
/
G
e
a
r
/
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

p
s
i
/
g
p
m
L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

S
t
i
f
f

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

f
t
D
e
p
t
h
,

f
t
R
O
P
,

f
t
/
m
i
n
H
o
l
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
H
o
l
e

P
a
t
h
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
6
)
1
0
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4
1

3
0
.
5

3

4

w
i
d
e

&

4

h
i
g
h

H
i
t

t
h
e

b
o
t
t
o
m

o
f

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

a
f
t
e
r

1
0

f
t
.

d
r
i
l
l
e
d

2
0
.
5

f
t

i
n
t
o

s
h
a
l
e

L
a
r
g
e

2

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
7
)
1
3
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4
0

6
2

3

3

w
i
d
e

&

4

h
i
g
h

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m

L
a
r
g
e

3

(
H
o
l
e

#

1
8
)
1
3
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4
0

6
2

4

4

w
i
d
e

&

4

h
i
g
h

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
L
a
r
g
e

4

H
o
l
e

#

1
9
)

1
3
0
0
0
/
4
/
2
1
.
4
0

3
0

1
.
5

4

w
i
d
e

&

4

h
i
g
h

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

i
n

c
o
a
l

s
e
a
m
.

T
o
o
l

q
u
i
t

s
p
i
n
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

h
o
s
e

g
o
t

s
t
o
c
k

i
n

t
h
e

h
o
l
e

L
a
r
g
e


147

4.2 Discussions
This section discusses the results of the field tests and the sciences behind the
results. In all, seven tool configurations were employed to drill nineteen
boreholes. Six of the seven tools were Berger nozzles while the seventh
configuration was the Banshee type of nozzle. Five of these configurations were
used during the first field test and four were used during the second field trial. All
the tools were made by StoneAge Inc. The performances of each configuration
will be discussed. The fifth tool configuration, Banshee nozzle, will not be
discussed because its specifications were not known at the time of the tests.

It is important to discuss a parameter called impact pressure, before discussing
the performances of the various tool configurations. This is a major parameter
that influences the performances of the nozzles, and consequently the efficiency
of waterjet in horizontal drilling of coalbed methane reservoirs. Impact pressure is
the pressure that jets of water generate when in contact with a target; in this
case, the coal seam. The impact pressure is a function of three important
parameters:

a. Orifice sizes
b. Pressure at the nozzle, and
c. Stand-off distance


148

Impact pressure increases with both the size of orifice and pressure at the
nozzle, but reduces with increasing stand-off distance. The higher the impact
pressure, the more likely the jets of water would be able to drill boreholes;
provided there is sufficient pulling force to drive the system and provided an
appropriate volume of water is delivered at the drilling face. As earlier mentioned
in this report, the pressure at the nozzle is converted into flow velocity; which in
turn, is converted to impact pressure when jets of water hit a target. The Table
4.12 shows the significance of orifice sizes on impact pressure with a constant
value of 10802 psi at the nozzle and a constant value of 5 inches stand-off
distance. The orifice sizes used in the computation were those used in the actual
field tests. The effect of variation in pressure at the nozzle, at constant values of
stand-off distance and orifice size is shown on Table 4.13. The stand-off distance
of 5 inches was a rough estimate because it was difficult, if not impossible, to
accurately measure this value during jetting operations. As mentioned earlier,
Table 4.12 indicates that the larger orifice sizes will produce the higher impact
pressure, and part of Table 4.13 indicates that higher pressure at the nozzle
produces higher impact pressure at a target. The rest of the Table 4.13 shows
computed values of the total orifice size, the pulling force, the nozzle flow rate,
the flow velocity, and finally the impact pressure; based on the actual test data of
pump pressures and flow rates. A nozzle efficiency of 90 percent and a stand-off
distance of 5 inches were assumed in the analyses of all the results.


149

Back on the nozzle performances; the first configuration was used for tests A and
E, during the first field trial. With the same pump pressure of 9000, only 4603 psi
was delivered at the nozzle. The tool has a combined orifice size of 0.24 inches.
This produces a total pulling force of -7.9 lb and nozzle flow rate of 16.95 gpm.
The negative sign in the pulling force means there is a pull on the hose. With
these data and relevant assumption, only impact pressure of 3594 psi could be
achieved at the face of the coal seam. Kennerley
61
determined that a pressure of
about 8000 psi is required at the nozzle for jets to be able to cut a coal. This
value is not universal, but is based on local characteristics of coal. In the case of
seelyvile coal, a higher pressure value of about 10,800 psi is required at the
nozzle for jets to produce an impact pressure of about 8200 psi that will cut the
coal. Generally speaking, an impact pressure of about 8,200 psi is the optimum
for the Pennsylvanian (Bituminous) coal in Illinois, Black Warrior, and
Appalachian Basins because they have similar petrophysical and mechanical
properties. This will be shown later in the analysis of tool configuration # 3. Four
runs were carried out during the two tests (A and E). The depth of borehole
drilled ranges from 3.4 ft to 20 ft. Such depth of drilling could not have been
possible, considering the amount of impact pressure the configuration produces.
The only reason drilling was possible is because the mine used for the test had
already been blasted, thereby reducing the natural compressive strength of the
coal seam within the first few feet of the formation. This claim is supported by the

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
1
2
:

E
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

o
r
i
f
i
c
e

s
i
z
e

o
n

i
m
p
a
c
t

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
.

C
o
n
f
i
g
-
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

H
o
s
e
,

f
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

P
u
m
p
,

p
s
i

P
u
m
p
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

g
p
m

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

N
o
z
z
l
e
,

p
s
i

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
r
o
p

i
n

H
o
s
e
,

p
s
i

T
o
t
a
l

O
r
i
f
i
c
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
c
h
e
s

T
o
t
a
l

P
u
l
l
i
n
g

F
o
r
c
e
,

l
b

N
o
z
z
l
e

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

g
p
m

F
l
o
w

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
t
/
s
e
c

I
m
p
a
c
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i

1
s
t

1
0
0

1
3
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

1
0
8
0
2

4
3
9
7

0
.
2
4
0

-
1
8
.
6

2
5
.
9
5

1
3
6
3

8
4
3
5

2
n
d

1
0
0

1
3
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

1
0
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
1
4
0

-
4
9
.
0

1
6
.
9
4

1
5
2
8

8
2
1
6

3
r
d

1
0
0

1
3
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

1
0
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
1
5
8

-
4
5
.
6

1
7
.
8
5

1
5
2
8

8
2
7
5

4
t
h

1
0
0

1
3
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

1
0
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
2
1
6

-
3
5
.
8

2
2
.
2

1
5
2
8

8
4
0
1

6
t
h

1
0
0

1
3
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

1
0
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
1
7
6

-
3
5
.
8

1
9
.
9
6

1
5
2
8

8
3
2
3

7
t
h

1
0
0

1
3
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

1
0
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
2
0
0

-
1
8
.
6

2
3
.
7
3

1
5
2
8

8
3
7
3

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
1
3
:

E
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

o
n

i
m
p
a
c
t

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

T
o
o
l
C
o
n
f
i
-
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
s
t

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

H
o
s
e
,

f
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

P
u
m
p
,

p
s
i

P
u
m
p
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

g
p
m

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

N
o
z
z
l
e
,

p
s
i

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
r
o
p

i
n

H
o
s
e
,

p
s
i

T
o
t
a
l

O
r
i
f
i
c
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
c
h
e
s

T
o
t
a
l

P
u
l
l
i
n
g

F
o
r
c
e
,

l
b

N
o
z
z
l
e

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

g
p
m

F
l
o
w

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
t
/
s
e
c

I
m
p
a
c
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i

1
s
t

A

2
0
0

9
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

4
6
0
3

4
3
9
7

0
.
2
4
0

-
7
.
9

1
6
.
9
5

9
9
7

3
5
9
4

1
s
t

E

2
0
0

9
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

4
6
0
3

4
3
9
7

0
.
2
4
0

-
7
.
9

1
6
.
9
5

9
9
7

3
5
9
4

2
n
d

B

2
0
0

7
0
0
0

1
2
.
7

5
4
5
1

1
5
4
9

0
.
1
4
0

-
2
4
.
7

1
2
.
0
4

1
0
8
5

4
1
4
6

2
n
d

B

2
0
0

1
0
0
0
0

1
6
.
5

7
3
8
6

2
6
1
4

0
.
1
4
0

-
3
3
.
5

1
4
.
0
1

1
2
6
3

5
6
1
8

3
r
d

C

2
0
0

6
0
0
0

1
2
.
7

4
4
5
1

1
5
4
9

0
.
1
5
8

-
1
8
.
8

1
1
.
4
6

9
8
1

3
4
1
0

3
r
d

C

2
0
0

9
0
0
0

1
6
.
5

6
3
8
6

2
6
1
4

0
.
1
5
8

-
2
6
.
9

1
3
.
7
2

1
1
7
5

4
8
9
2

3
r
d

G

1
0
0

9
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

6
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
1
5
8

-
2
8
.
7

1
4
.
1
6

1
2
1
2

5
2
1
1

3
r
d

K

1
0
0

1
0
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

7
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
1
5
8

-
3
2
.
9

1
5
.
1
7

1
2
9
8

5
9
7
7

3
r
d

K

1
0
0

1
3
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

1
0
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
1
5
8

-
4
5
.
6

1
7
.
8
5

1
5
2
8

8
2
7
5

4
t
h

D

2
0
0

4
0
0
0

1
2
.
7

2
4
5
1

1
5
4
9

0
.
2
1
6

-
8
.
1

1
0
.
5
9

7
2
8

1
9
0
6

4
t
h

D

2
0
0

6
0
0
0

1
6
.
5

3
3
8
6

2
6
1
4

0
.
2
1
6

-
1
1
.
2

1
2
.
4
2

8
5
5

2
6
3
3

4
t
h

D

2
0
0

1
0
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

5
6
0
3

4
3
9
7

0
.
2
1
6

-
1
8
.
6

1
5
.
9
9

1
1
0
0

4
3
5
7

4
t
h

J

1
0
0

9
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

6
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
2
1
6

-
2
2
.
6

1
7
.
6
3

1
2
1
2

5
2
9
0

T
e
x
a
s

T
e
c
h

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,

G
b
e
n
g
a

M
.

F
u
n
m
i
l
a
y
o
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
1
0

T
a
b
l
e

4
.
1
3
:

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

T
o
o
l

C
o
n
f
i
g
-
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

T
e
s
t

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

H
o
s
e
,

f
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

P
u
m
p
,

p
s
i

P
u
m
p
s

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

g
p
m

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

N
o
z
z
l
e
,

p
s
i

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

D
r
o
p

i
n

H
o
s
e
,

p
s
i

T
o
t
a
l

O
r
i
f
i
c
e

S
i
z
e
,

i
n
c
h
e
s

T
o
t
a
l

P
u
l
l
i
n
g

F
o
r
c
e
,

l
b

N
o
z
z
l
e

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e
,

g
p
m

F
l
o
w

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
t
/
s
e
c

I
m
p
a
c
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
,

p
s
i

6
t
h

H

1
0
0

9
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

6
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
1
7
6

-
2
2
.
6

1
5
.
8
4

1
2
1
2

5
2
4
1

7
t
h

I

1
0
0

9
0
0
0

2
1
.
4

6
8
0
2

2
1
9
8

0
.
2
0
0

-
1
1
.
7

1
8
.
8
3

1
2
1
2

5
2
7
2

H
o
s
e

D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

=

0
.
3
7
5

i
n
c
h
e
s

S
t
a
n
d
-
o
f
f

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

=

5

i
n
c
h
e
s

1
s
t
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
3
2
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

0
.
0
2
0
"

2
n
d
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
w
o

0
.
0
1
8
"
,

a
n
d

t
h
r
e
e

p
l
u
g
s

3
r
d
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
1
8
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
l
u
g
s

4
t
h
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
2
4
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

0
.
0
2
0
"

6
t
h
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
2
4
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
l
u
g
s

7
t
h
:

t
w
o

0
.
0
5
2
"
,

t
h
r
e
e

0
.
0
3
2
"
,

a
n
d

t
w
o

p
l
u
g
s


153

relatively higher rates of penetration experienced during the four runs, as
compared to other tests with different tool configurations. The fine nature of the
particles that were produced also lends support to the claim of reduced
compressive strength due to the blasting. As soon as the tool reached the
section of the seam whose strength had not been altered, it would either bend
downward, upward, left, or right; because the associated impact pressure was
not sufficient to cut this section. Coupled with low pulling force, the bending was
probably because the tool found paths of least resistance and traveled within the
blasted section of the coal seam. The tool stopped spinning when it hit the roof of
the coal seam because the impact pressure was not sufficient to drill through the
harder top formation.

The second tool configuration was used for test B. The first run was at 7000 psi,
while the second run of the test was at 10000 psi. These produce 5451 psi and
7386 psi respectively at the nozzle. With a total orifice size of 0.14 inches, the
first run generated -24.7 lb of pulling force and its associated nozzle flow rate of
12.04 gpm and the second run produced -33.5 lb of pulling force and nozzle flow
rate of 14.01 gpm. The impact pressures are 4146 psi and 5618 psi for runs 1
and 2 respectively. The tool did not spin at all, either with or without contact with
coal face. The problem was most probably due to some defects in the design of
the tool. It was expected to drill through, at least, the blasted section of the coal

154

seam; going by its higher pulling forces and impact pressures than the first
configuration.

The third tool configuration was used for tests C, G, and K. Test C was carried
out during the first field trial, whole G and K were carried out during the second
field trial. A site with less impact of mine blast was selected for the second field
trial. The tool has a total orifice size of 0.158 inches. There were two runs under
test C. The first run has pump pressure of 6000 psi, while the second run has
pressure of 9000 psi. The first run has a pulling force of -18.8 lb and nozzle flow
rate of 11.46 gpm. The second run has a pulling force of -26.9 lb and flow rate of
13.72 gpm. Run 1 has an impact pressure of 3410 psi and run 2 has an impact
pressure of 4892 psi. The tool would spin, but stopped spinning as soon as it was
in contact with the coal face. Hence, it could not jet-drill the coal. The most
probably reason for its inability to jet-drill the coal is that the impact pressures for
both run 1 and 2 are below the threshold required to cut the coal. Insufficient
pulling force may also be another reason the tool was not able to penetrate the
coal seam. The fact that it would spin when not in contact with the coal face
suggest that tool defect might not be an issue in this case. There were three
runs under test G. The three had 9000 psi. It was thought that addition of stiff
section between the nozzle and the high pressure hose could help the system
maintain its direction within the coal seam. Hence, run 1 had a stiff section of 1 ft
to drill a depth of 17 ft, run 2 had 2 ft of the still section to drill 20.5 ft, and run 3

155

had the stiff section of 3 ft to drill 18 ft. The drilling proceeded at an ROP of 3
ft/min for each of the three runs. The nozzle pressure of 6802 psi produced a
pulling force of -28.7 lb, nozzle flow rate of 14.16 gpm, and impact pressure of
5211 psi. The tool moved out of the coal seam and hit the formation below it after
drilling the depths earlier mentioned. The relatively low rate of penetration and
large particle sizes transported to the surface suggest that mine blasting did not
have significant effect on the test site. Otherwise, the penetration rate would
have been higher and the particles being cut would have been finer. The ability of
this configuration to drill the coal was a combination of the pulling force and the
impact pressure obtained under the conditions of pump pressure and flow rate.
Surprisingly, the incorporation of stiff section into the system did not solve the
control problem, as tool continued to drill out of the coal seams. The pump
pressure was increased to 10000 psi during test K, with a still section of 1 ft
connected between the nozzle and the hose to perform run 1. The pulling force
increased to -32.9 lb, nozzle flow rate increased to 15.17 gpm, and the impact
pressure increased to 5977 psi. Although the tools control problem persisted, the
tool was able to increase its drilling depth to 30.5 ft at an ROP of 3 ft/min. Only
about 10 ft of depth was drilled within the coal seam, while the remaining 20.5 ft
was drilled into the shale formation below the coal seam. The pump pressure
was further increased to 13000 psi to perform runs 2 through 4, under test K. The
run numbers 2 through 4 were without the connection of any stiff section. The
pulling force increased to -45.6 lb, the nozzle flow rate increased to 17.85 gpm,

156

and the impact pressure increased to 8275 psi. A depth of 62 ft was jet-drilled
into the coal seam during runs 2 and 3, at an ROP of 3ft/min and 4 ft/min
respectively. The tool maintained it position within the coal seam. The jetting
operation was intentionally stopped because the available hose length had been
used up. It was possible to record this success because there was sufficient
amount of pressure available at the pump, and consequently, at the nozzle. The
associated impact pressure was high enough to cut the coal and the pulling force
was high enough to drive the hose into the coal seam as the tool was cutting the
coal. In addition, the volume of water delivered to the coal face during the jetting
operation was just enough to transport the cuttings to the surface. In order to
ascertain that the tool kept straight directions within the coal seam during these
runs, tracking equipment was run to survey the borehole drilled. Sucker rods of
length 100 ft were coupled and driven into the drilled boreholes. The rod did not
deviate within the drilled boreholes and exact 62 ft of drilled depths were
measured. Run #4 was performed. The tool fed into the coal seam at a rate of
1.5 ft/min and was able to maintain its position within the coal seam. It, however,
quit spinning and got stuck in the hole after drilling about 30 ft. The slower rate of
penetration than the previous runs was probably due to the spinning problem the
tool suddenly developed. The reason for the tool getting stuck in the hole could
either be because it suddenly stopped spinning or because the amount of water
available to transport the large cuttings to the surface was no longer sufficient.
Part of the spent (returning) water seeped into the coal seam through the cleat

157

systems, rather than all of them returning through the drilled boreholes. When
there is no sufficient water to transport all the cuttings to the surface, the
remaining cuttings bridge the hole and prevent free movement of the hose within
the hole. To solve this problem, it is recommended that the operator drills 10 ft
into the formation, pulls back the equipment 10 ft, drills another 10 ft, and pulls
back 20 ft. The operator should repeat this technique for the entire drilling
operation. The technique helps the larger particles being cut to be further broken
down into smaller pieces, which eases their transportation to the surface with
spent water. The large particle sizes transported to the surface and the relatively
low rate of penetration suggest that mine blasting did not alter the original
compressive strength of the coal.

The fourth tool configuration was used for test D during the first field trial, and
test J during the second field trial. The total orifice size is 0.216 inches. There
were three runs for test D. Run 1 was performed at pump pressure of 4000 psi.
Run # 2 was performed at pump pressure of 6000 psi. The last run was set at
10000 psi as pump pressure. Their corresponding pressures at the nozzle were
2451 psi for run 1, 3386 psi for run 2, and 5603 psi for run 3. The 2451 psi
translates to the pulling force of -8.1 lb, nozzle flow rate of 10.59 gpm, and
impact pressure of 1906 psi for run 1. The 3386 psi translates to the puling force
of -11.2 lb, nozzle flow rate of 12.42 gpm, and impact pressure of 2633 psi for
run 2. The 5603 psi pressure at the nozzle translates to the pulling force of -18.6

158

lb, nozzle flow rate of 15.99 gpm, and impact pressure of 4357 psi for run 3. The
tool could not cut the coal during runs 1 and 2. It would spin, but stopped
spinning on contact with the coal face. This is probably because the impact
pressure achievable by the tool configuration falls below what could cut the coal.
Just as the case with the test C of the third tool configuration, insufficient pulling
force may also be another reason the tool was not able to penetrate the coal
seam. One possibility the tool stopped spinning on contact with coal face could
be a defect in the tool, as spinning was a big problem encountered in all the tool
configurations use for the field trials. Even those tools that were able to jet-drill
boreholes at the initial stages quit spinning in subsequent runs. The spinning is
expected to provide the much needed retro-jets required to cut the coal seam,
drive the tool into it, and clean up the cuttings as jetting progresses. The third run
of test D proceeded at the rate of 6 ft/min and was able to drill a total distance of
13 ft. Tool moved out of the coal seam, went up and bent towards the right
direction. It then made a U-turn and return to the surface of the coal seam. The
distance between the entrance and the exit was about 7.5 ft, indicating that only
about 5.5 ft was drilled into the coal seam. The relatively high ROP and the fine
cuttings transported to the surface suggests that mine blasting did alter the
original strength of the coal. This could be why such a low impact pressure of
4357 psi was able to cut the coal. The tool, however, returned to the surface
because the pressure was not sufficient to jet-drill the section of the coal whose
compressive strength was still intact. Also, the pulling force of -18.6 lb was not

159

enough to move the tool further into the undisturbed coal seam. Hence, the tool
returned to the surface through the path of least resistance within the section
affected by blasting. Test J was carried out after the tool was improved upon by
polishing the inner surfaces to increase the gap between rotating parts, so they
have less chance of touching and galling during operation. At a pump pressure of
9000 psi, a pressure of 6802 psi was delivered at the nozzle. This translates to
the pulling force of -22.6 lb, nozzle flow rate of 17.63 gpm, and impact pressure
of 5290 psi. Two runs were performed for this test. The first run had a still section
of 1 ft and the second run had a still section of 2 ft, both connected between the
nozzle and the hose. Depths of 14 ft and 11 ft were drilled during the first and the
second runs respectively, both at the rate of 2 ft/min. The tool maintained its
position within the coal seam, for the two runs, but the hose got stuck in the hole.
There are two possible reasons why the hose got stuck in the hole. First, at such
relatively low amount of impact pressure, the energy from the jets coming out of
the tool was no longer sufficient to cut the coal. At this point, the hose will no
longer pull further into the borehole. The second reason may be due to
ineffective borehole cleaning. If the drilled borehole is not properly cleaned, the
hose can get stuck and the tool will no longer be able to cut; even though a
considerable amount of pulling force is still available for the hose and a
considerable amount of energy is still available in the jets to cut through the coal.
To resolve the first possibility, the system would have to be operated at a much
higher pressure. Borehole cleaning can be enhanced by tripping in and out of the

160

borehole to further break the cuttings into smaller particle, so that cutting
transportation can be made easier. Increased pump pressure will also increase
the nozzle flow rate, and consequently makes more volume of spent water
available to transport cuttings to the surface.

The sixth configuration was used during the second field trial, for test H, and has
total orifice size of 0.176 inches. A pump pressure of 9000 psi delivered a
pressure of 6802 psi at the nozzle. This translates to the pulling force of -22.6 lb,
nozzle flow rate of 15.84 gpm, and impact pressure of 5241 psi. Two runs were
performed for this test. The first run has a still section of 1 ft and the second run
has a still section of 2 ft, both connected between the nozzle and the hose.
Depths of 5 ft at the rate of 2 ft/min and 6.5 ft at the rate of 1 ft/min were drilled
during the first and the second runs respectively. The tool bent towards the right
during the first run, but maintained its position within the coal seam during the
second run. The hose got stuck in the hole during both runs. The two reasons
explained under the fourth configurations could also be attributed to why the
hose got stuck under this sixth configuration.

The last configuration was used during the second field trial for test I, and has
total orifice size of 0.200 inches. A pump pressure of 9000 psi delivered a
pressure of 6802 psi at the nozzle. This translates to the pulling force of -11.7 lb,
nozzle flow rate of 18.83 gpm, and impact pressure of 5272 psi. Only one run

161

was performed for this test. With a still section of 1 ft connected between the
nozzle and the hose, a depth of 5 ft was jet-drilled at the rate of 0.8 ft/min. The
tool maintained position in coal seam, but the hose got stuck and the tool quit
spinning. The reason the hose got stuck could be due to the low pulling force
associated with this configuration. Tool defect could be why the tool quit
spinning.


162

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Conclusions
This research investigated the applicability of waterjet technology for drilling
horizontal wells in coalbed methane reservoirs. The CBM reservoir of interest is
the seelyville coal seam of Indiana, in Illinois Basin. The choice of the reservoir
was informed by its characteristics that favor horizontal well technology for its
methane production. Principal among these characteristics is the poorly
developed butt cleats, which enhances the permeability anisotropy of the coal
seam. The research concludes that waterjet technology has very high potential in
being able to drill horizontal wells in coalbed methane reservoirs.

Pulling force and impact pressure are the two principal factors that influence the
ability of waterjets to drill horizontal wells in CBM reservoirs. The pulling force
helps drive the hose into the coal seam as the impact pressure from the jets of
water cuts the coal. Both factors are a function of the orifice sizes and the
amount of pressure at the nozzle. Larger orifice sizes leads to higher impact
pressure and higher nozzle flow rate, but also leads to lower pulling force. Higher
pressure at the nozzle leads to increase in both the pulling force and impact
pressure. The pressure at the nozzle is determined by the amount of pressure at
the pump and operational design that minimizes pressure drops in the system,

163

especially in the hose. A point is reached when a value of impact pressure is
attained that is sufficient to cut the coal. Any further increase in impact pressure
beyond this threshold becomes inconsequential on the jets cutting ability.
Beyond this value, pulling force becomes more important than the impact
pressure. The higher the pulling force, the deeper the hose will drive into the coal
seam as the jets cut the coal. Generally speaking, an impact pressure of about
8,200 psi is the optimum for the Pennsylvanian (Bituminous) coal in Illinois, Black
Warrior, and Appalachian Basins because they have similar petrophysical and
mechanical properties

In an effort to determine the best nozzle configurations for the waterjet drilling,
seven different nozzle configurations were tested during two field trials to drill
nineteen boreholes. The tool configuration (third configuration) with two 0.052",
three 0.018", and two plugs worked best. Based on the field data, the tool
maintained the highest pulling force and impact pressure; and it was able to drill
the deepest distance into the coal seam. Simply put, the tool configuration has
the right combination of pulling force, impact pressure, and volumetric flow rate to
perform the jet-drilling operation. Based on the theoretical data presented in
Table 4.12, the tool configuration (second configuration) with two 0.052", two
0.018", and three plugs has potential to perform, probably better than the third
tool configuration. It gives higher pulling force and impact pressure than the third
configuration, under the same condition of pump and nozzle pressure. However,

164

there was defect with the tool, during field trial, which prevented it from spinning
and cutting the coal. Therefore, it was impossible to practically determine its
jetting ability. Unfortunately, it was not part of the configurations tested during the
second field trial.

The inner surfaces of all the tools used during the second field trials were
polished in order to increase the gap between rotating parts, so they have less
chance of touching and galling during operation. The rework most likely
contributed to why better results were obtained for the third tool configuration
than the first field trial.

It was difficult to determine which tool configuration cuts faster than the other,
because many of the tool configurations could not even cut the sections of the
coal whose compressive strength have not been altered. Therefore, the
measured ROP in Tables 4.1 through 4.11 cannot be relied upon for such
determination.

There were no significant differences in the sizes of the boreholes drilled with the
tools having 90
0
jet angles and those without it. This is probably because the
ROP recorded for the nineteen boreholes are generally low. Borehole sizes tend
to be smaller when jetting rates become very high.


165

It was difficult for the tools to maintain their positions within the coal seam during
the first field trial. It would either deviate to the right, left, upward, or downward of
the coal seam. It was then thought that incorporation of a still section of certain
length would solve the problem. Surprisingly, the connection of the stiff section
did not help in anyway. The problem was, however, resolved by maintaining
sufficiently high pressure at the nozzle. This is the most probable reason the third
tool configuration could drill up to 62 ft into the coal seam, without deviating out
of it.

Finally, there were occasions the tool got stuck in the coal during jetting
operation, due to borehole plugging by the cuttings. The problem was resolved
by drilling about 10 ft into the coal seam, tripping back 10 ft, drilling another 10 ft
and tripping back 20 ft, and so on. The process helps break down larger cuttings
that plug the borehole, into smaller particles; which consequently aids the
transportation of the cuttings to the surface.

5.1 Recommendations
The inability of many of the tools to spin, or the problem of many of them
stopping to spin on contact with coal face or after jet-drilling for sometimes,
should be looked into. In other word, the tools design, especially their retro-jet
systems, should be further improved upon to increase their life span. It is
anticipated that each tool should be able to have up to 20 hours of life span.


166

The purpose of testing different tools configurations is to be able to determine
which tools work best. Based on the result of the field tests, it is recommended
that the third tool configuration (tool with two 0.052", three 0.018", and two plugs)
be employed for the actual horizontal drilling of colabed methane reservoirs. The
tool has the right combination of pulling force, impact pressure, and nozzle flow
rate.

Since maintaining high pressure at the nozzle helped control tool direction within
the coal seam during some tests involving the third configuration, it is
recommended that a pump with very high pressure rating be employed during
subsequent tests and actual project development. Maintaining high pressure at
the nozzle will not only help control tools position within a coal seam, it will
increase the pulling force and the impact pressure; both of which will lead to
better tools performance in terms of hose driving and tools cutting ability.

The second tool configuration (tool with two 0.052", two 0.018", and three plugs)
is recommended for further field tests. It is expected that the tool should perform,
at least, as much as the third tool configuration; if a high pressure is maintained
at the nozzle. This has been demonstrated on Table 4.12.

Drilling perpendicular to the face cleat is very critical to faster dewatering and
methane production. Such drilling pattern maximizes reservoir contact.

167

The seelyville coal in Illinois Basin has high percentage of sulfur, abundant of
calcite, and other ash-forming minerals deposited within the cleat systems. It is
believed that dewatering and methane production will proceed faster once these
minerals are dissolved from the cleat systems. Therefore, acid treatment is
recommended.


168

REFERENCES

1 Nazish, Qureshi: Calbed Methane Technology Status, NTPC Limited,
India

2 Advances in Coalbed Methane Hart Energy Publications, April 2006

3 United States Geological Survey, http://www.usgs.gov

4 Oil & Gas Journal, Dec. 23, 2002

5 Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov

6 The Kentucky Geological Survey: http://www.uky.edu/KGS/

7 Larsen, V.E.: "Preliminary Evaluation of Coalbed Methane Geology and
Activity in the Recluse Area, Powder River Basin, Wyoming," Quarterly
Review of Methane from Coalseams Technology (June 1989), No. 3 and
4, pp 2-9

8 Rogers, R.E., Ramurthy,M, Rodvelt G.D, Mullen, M.: Coalbed
Methane: Principles and Practices; Textbook, published June 2007

9 Ramurthy, M., Young, G.B.C., Daves, S.B. and Witsell, F.: "Case
History: Reservoir Analysis of the Fruitland Coals Results in Optimizing
Coalbed Methane Completions in the Tiffany Area of the San Juan Basin,"

169

paper SPE 84426 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 5-8, 2003

10 Ayers, W.B. Jr. et al.: "Geologic Evaluation of Critical Production
Parameters for Coalbed Methane Resources," annual report, GRI-
90/0014.1, Part 1, San Juan Basin; January 1990

11 Ayers, W.B. and Zellers, S.D.: "Geologic Controls on Occurrence and
Producibility of Coalbed Methane, Fruitland Formation, North-Central San
Juan Basin, New Mexico," Proc., Coalbed Methane Symposium,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, April 1989, p 75

12 GRID, Gas Research Institute Digest, 1989; 12, No.2

13 Malone, P.G., Briscoe, F.H., and Camp, B.S.: "Discovery and
Explanation of Low Gas Contents Encountered in Coalbeds at the
GRI/USSC Big Indian Creek Site, Warrior Basin, Alabama," Proc., of the
Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, November 1987,
pp.63-72

14 Tremain, C.M.: "The Coal Bed Methane Potential of the Raton Mesa Coal
Region, Raton Basin, Colorado," open file report 80-4, Colorado
Geological Survey, 1980


170

15 McFall, K.S. et al.: "An Analysis of the Coalseam Gas Resource of the
Piceance Basin, Colorado," JPT; June 1988 40, No. 6, p740

16 Tremain, C.M.: "Coalbed Methane Development in Colorado," Information
Series 32, Colorado Geological Survey, U.S. Dept. of Natural Resources,
September 1990

17 Schwochow, S.D.: "Powder River Basin Wyoming and Montana,"
Quarterly Review of Methane from Coalseams Technology, Gas Research
Institute, April 1991, series 8, No. 3

18 Tyler, R., Kaiser, W.R., and McMurray, R.G.: "Geologic and Hydrologic
Controls on Coalbed Methane Production," Quarterly Review of Methane
from Coalseams Technology, April 1993, series 10, No. 4, pp.19-24

19 Larsen, V.E.: "Preliminary Evaluation of Coalbed Methane Geology and
Activity in the Recluse Area, Powder River Basin, Wyoming," Quarterly
Review of Methane from Coalseams Technology, June 1989, series 6,
Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 2-10

20 Randall, A.G.: "Shallow Tertiary Gas Production, Powder River Basin,
Wyoming," Proc., Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama,
May 1991, p. 509


171

21 Ayers, W.B. and Kelso, B.S.: "Knowledge of Methane Potential for
Coalbed Resources Grows, But Needs More Study," Oil & Gas Journal,
October 1989, series 87, No. 43, p. 64

22 Zebrowitz, M.J., Kelafant, J.R., and Boyer, C.M.: "Reservoir
Characterization and Production Potential of the Coalseams in Northern
and Central Appalachian Basins," Proc., Coalbed Methane Symposium,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, May 1991, p 391

23 Hunt, A.M. and Steele, D.J.: "Coalbed Methane Technology
Development in the Appalachian Basin," topical report, GRI-90/0288,
January 1991, p. 53

24 Stevens, S.H.: "Pacific Coal Region," Quarterly Review of Methane from
Coalseams Technology, August 1993, series 11, No. 1, pp. 21-23

25 Rieke, H.H.: "Geologic Overview, Coal, and Coalbed Methane Resources
of the Wind River Basin, Wyoming," Wind River Basin report, TRW, Inc.,
U.S. DOE, March 1981

26 Stevens, S.H.: "Illinois Basin, Illinois Indiana, and Kentucky," Quarterly
Review of Methane from Coalseams Technology, August 1993, series 11,
No. 1, pp.18-20


172

27 Tedsco, S., Atoka Coal Labs LLC: "Coalbed Methane in the Illinois Basin:
An Update," presented at the 2004 International Coalbed Methane
Symposium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, May 3-7 2004

28 Archer, P.L.: "Pennsylvania Geology and Coal and Coalbed Methane
Resource of the Illinois Basin, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky," Illinois
Basin report, TRW, Inc., U.S. DOE

29 Rieke, H.H.: "Geologic Overview Coal and Coalbed Methane Resources
of the Arkoma Basin, Arkansas and Oklahoma," TRW, Inc., U.S. DOE,
Morgantown, WV

30 Gloyn, R.W. and Sommer, S.N.: "Exploration for Coalbed Methane Gains
Momentum in Uinta Basin," Oil & Gas Journal, May 1993, series 91, No.
22, pp. 73-76

31 Stevens, S.H. and Sheehy, L.D.: "Western Interior Coal Region (Arkoma,
Cherokee, and Forest City Basins)," Quarterly Review of Methane from
Coalseams Technology, August 1993, series 11, No. 1, pp. 43-48

32 Rightmire, C.T.: "Coalbed Methane Resource," Coalbed Methane
Resources of the United States, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Studies, 1984, No. 17, p. 3


173

33 Law, B.E., Rice, D.D., and Flores, R.M.: "Coalbed Gas Accumulations in
the Paleocene Fort Union Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming,"
Coalbed Methane of Western North Rocky Mountain Association of
Geologists, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, September 1991, pp. 179-190

34 Levine, J.R.: "Coal Petrology with Applications to CBM R & D," short
course presented at Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 13 September 1990

35 Aminian, K.: Evaluation of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs Petroleum &
Natural Gas Engineering Department West Virginia University

36 Nelson, C.R.: Effects of Coalbed Reservoir Property Analysis Methods
on Gas-In-PlaceEstimates, Paper SPE 57443, Proceedings of SPE
Eastern Regional Conference, October 1999

37 Schoenfeldt, H.V., Zupanik, J., Wight, D.R., and Stevens, S.H.:
"Unconventional Reservoirs in the US and Overseas," Proceedings,
International Coalbed Methane Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL (May 3-7,
2004) 441

38 Vitruvian Exploration, LLC website; formerly known as CDX Gas,
http://www.cdxgas.com/Technology.htm, 18 May 2007

39 Diamond, W.P., "Methane Control for Underground Mines," US
Department of Interior Bureau of Mines, IC 9395, (1994)

174

40 Watson, C. Marshall: Optimizing Coalbed Methane Production in the
Illinois Basin, PhD Dissertation, p. 94, May 2008

41 Joshi, S.D., Horizontal Well Technology, Tulsa, OK: PennWell Pub. Co.
xiii, p. 535, 1991

42 Cameron, J.R., Palmer, I.D., Lukas, A. and Moschovidis, Z.A.,
"Effectiveness of Horizontal Wells in CBM," Presented at the International
Coalbed Methane
Symposium, Tuscaloosa, AL, May 23 24, 2007

43 Sunil, Ramaswamy: Selection of Best Drilling, Completion and
Stimulation Methods for Coalbed Methane Reservoirs, Masters Thesis,
Texas A & M University, December 2007

44 Drobniak, Agnieszka, Korose, Christopher, Mastalerz, Maria,
Anderson, Andrew, Moore, R. Thomas, Rupp, John: Sequestration
Potential in the Illinois Basin Coal Beds

45 Drobniak, Agnieszka, Mastalerz, Maria, Rupp, J.A., Eaton, N.K.: A
GIS-Based Evaluation of Coalbed Gas Potential of the Seelyville Coal in
Indiana, final report to the United States Geological Survey: Indiana
Geological Survey Open-File Study 02-05, year 2002


175

46 Mastalerz, Maria, Kvale, E.P.: Coal Quality Variation and Coalbed Gas
Content in Boreholes SDH-383 and SDH-384 in Posey County,
Indiana, Indiana Geological Survey Open-File Study 00-05, year 2000

47 David A. Summers: Waterjetting Technology, 1995
48 Recommended Practices for the Use of Manually Operated High Pressure
Waterjetting Equipment, published by WaterJet Technology Association;
fourteenth edition, December 2008
49 Wright, D: Flow Calculator unpublished work by StoneAge Inc,
Durango CO.
50 Summers, D.A.: Disintegration of Rock by High Pressure Jets, PhD
Thesis, University of Leeds, 1968
51 Iyoho, Summers, and Galecki: Petroleum Applications of Emerging
High Pressure Waterjet Technology; SPE 26347
52 Brace, W.F.: Dependence of Fracture Strength of Rocks on Grain Size,
Proceeding, 4th Symposium Rock Mechanics, Penn State University,
1961, pp. 96-103
53 Shelkholeslami, B.A. Schlottman, B.W. Seidel, F.A. and Button, D.M.:
"Drilling and Production Aspects of Horizontal Wells in the Austin Chalk,"
Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1991, SPE 19825, p. 773

176

54 Summers, D.A., Barker, C.R., and Keith, H.D.: Preliminary Evaluation
of Water Jet Drilling System for Application in In-Situ Gasification, Final
Report on Contract 130214, UMR to Sandia Laboratories, April 1979
55 Baker, C. R., and Timmerman, K. M.: Water Jet Drilling of Long
Horizontal Holes in Coal Beds, 1st U.S. Water Jet Symposium, Golden,
CO, April 1981
56 Maurer, W. C.: Novel Drilling Techniques, Pergamon Press, 1968
57 Maurer, W. C., Heilhecker, J. K., and Love, W. W.: High Pressure Jet
Drilling SPE 3988 47th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, San Antonio, TX
October 8-11, 1972
58 Conn, A. F., and Radtke, R. P.: ASME Energy Technology Conference,
paper 77 Pet 54, Houston, TX 1977
59 Pendleton, L. E. and Ramesh, A. B.: Bechtel Develops Innovative
Method for Horizontal Drilling, Oil and Gas Journal, May 27, 1985, pp. 95-
99
60 Dickinson, W., Dykstra, H, Nordlund, R., and Dickinson, R. W. :
Coiled Tubing Radials Placed by Water Jet Drilling: Field Results, Theory,
and Practice, SPE 26348, presented at the 1993 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX , October 3-6, 1993

177

61 Dickinson, W. and Dykstra, H. : Multiple Radials Multiple Recovery,
presented at the UNITAR International Conference on Heavy Crude and
Tar Sands, Houston, TX, February 12-17, 1995
62 Kennerley, P.: Development of a High Pressure Waterjet Drilling System
for Coal Seams, Thesis, Department of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineering, University of Queensland, January 1990
63 Kennerley, P.: An Interim Report on the Development of a High Pressure
Waterjet Drilling System for Coal Seams, Department of Mining and
Metallurgical Engineering, University of Queensland, July 1989
64 Kennerley, P., Phillips, R., Just, G.D., and Summers, D. A.: A High
Pressure Waterjet System for Inseam Longhole Drilling of Coal, 6th
American Water Jet Conference, Houston, TX, August 1991
65 Summers, D.A., Barker, C.R., and Keith, H.D., CYGNET: Preliminary
Evaluation of Water Jet Drilling System for Application in In-Situ
Gasification, Final Report on Contract 130214, UMR to Sandia
Laboratories, April 1979
66 Summers, D.A.: Potential Advantages to Water Jet Drilling for Use in In-
Situ Coal Gasification Processes, paper 80-Pet-76, 1980 ASME Energy
Technology Conference, New Orleans, LA, February, 1980

178

67 Engler, B. P.: Instrumentation for the Cornering Water Jet Drill, 8th
Underground Coal Symposium, Keystone, CO, August, 1982
68 Shirey, D. C., and Engler, B. P.: Development of a Cornering Water Jet
Drill, paper H4, 7th International Symposium on Jet Cutting Technology,
Ottawa, Canada, June, 1984 pp 455-468
69 Anon: Field Test Recommended for Oil Mining Method, Oil and Gas
Journal, May 18, 1987, p.73

Funmilayo Dissertation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Funmilayo Dissertation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WATERJETTING: A NEW DRILLING TECHNIQUE IN COALBED METHANE

You might also like