Back to Session IPA12-E-194

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Thirty-Sixth Annual Convention & Exhibition May 2012

CBM OPERATIONAL LESSONS LEARNED – BARITO BASIN, INDONESIA

Ellen De Man*
Alan Gantyno**
Suriamin Huang**
Kenneth Petersen***
Eri Saferi****
Ratna Widiarti**
Scott Wertanen***
Setya Rahardjanto***

ABSTRACT jamming in rubbelized coal, bit balling and

The first six Barito Basin Coal Bed Methane (CBM)
wells were drilled between April 2011 and January
2012 to test coal distribution, gas content and in-situ
permeability of the Miocene coal bearing Warukin
Formation.
A pre-drill basin-scale well planning study was
performed, allowing for maximal flexibility during
the early exploration phase. The basic well design
was optimized to mitigate hole enlargement in
swelling clays, sloughing coals and unconsolidated
sands. Pushing the 9-5/8” surface casing below the
base of the most reactive shales, switching to a
‘near-balanced’ mud system, and minimizing the
open hole time proved to be most effective in
reducing hole enlargement in coal seams. Hole
enlargement in shales increased with decreasing
mud weight, and is most likely controlled by a
combination of an anisotropic stress field, clay
mineralogy and mechanical vibrations induced
while drilling.
Both coring strategies used – twin well and coring-
on-the-fly – allowed for effective evaluation of the
CBM play with depth, and allowed for meeting all
geologic objectives. Improvements in work
processes in the wireline-retrievable coring system
and core canistering process resulted in reduced
‘lost gas time’ from 45 to 37 minutes. Core
recovery remains relatively low (55 – 68%) due to
* Esso Indonesia Inc., Jakarta, Indonesia
** Mobil Cepu Ltd., Jakarta, Indonesia
*** ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Jakarta, Indonesia
**** Indobarambai Gas Methan, Jakarta Indonesia
ineffective core catchers in sticky clays.
The sampling program included evaluation of gas in
place (GIP), gas composition and permeability in
different CBM subplays across the basin, while
testing lateral and vertical coal seam variability.
Gas volumes were measured via gas desorption and
adsorption on coal samples collected from 3”
diameter cores in 2ft long canisters. Rigorous
quality control and improvements in the sampling
process resulted in reliable datasets being generated
in all three core wells.
Keywords: Coal Bed Methane, Well Planning, Hole
Enlargement, Coring, Warukin Formation,
Kalimantan
INTRODUCTION
Coal bed methane gas is being produced
commercially from the United States, Australia,
China and India, and enhancements in technology
allow exploration for new CBM plays in more
challenging environments (e.g. Ayers, 2002;
Clarkson, 2010). Indonesia’s CBM potential was
discussed by Stevens and Sani (2002) (Figure 1c),
and has thus far proved moderately successful in the
Miocene coals of the South Sumatra Basin
(Sosrowidjojo and Saghafi, 2009; Mazumder et al.,
2010). After farming-in to four CBM PSC’s in
2009-2011 (Banjar 1, Banjar 2, Tapin and Barito),
ExxonMobil acquired a strategic position of over
one million contiguous acres (> 400 K ha) in a
world-class CBM play, and continues to evaluate
additional acreage (see Figure 1a).
Considering the large scale of a potential
development, the project was set-up as an integrated
cross-functional team with subsurface, drilling, gas
marketing and project development (land, permits,
site construction and community / local government
engagement). Keeping a typical CBM low-cost
structure is challenging in this remote location,
considering the pre-investments needed when
entering a new basin without oil and gas
infrastructure. Well pad construction was hampered
by swampy conditions (Figure 2), and community
objections in a number of locations required
extensive socialization efforts.
The exploration program was designed to meet PSC
commitments and to test coal distribution, gas
content and in-situ permeability of the Miocene coal
bearing formations. The original screening strategy
involved drilling twin wells from each pad location,
with an exploration well drilled first to identify the
coal seams and a second well to retrieve coal core
for gas canister analysis (e.g. Pad Location 4). To
ensure acquisition of quality permeability data,
lessons learned from the first Pad Location led to a
modification of this strategy by doing all the coring
in the first well and keeping the second well for
permeability testing (e.g. Pad Locations 8 and 3).
Detailed well design and data acquisition in each
wellbore is shown in Figure 3, from the first well on
Pad Location 4 (Well 4.1) to the last well on Pad
Location 3 (Well 3.2). Subsurface data from these
six CBM wells are currently being analyzed as part
of the early resource evaluation.
This paper aims to give an overview of
ExxonMobil’s recent CBM activities in the southern
Barito Basin, emphasizing lessons learned in terms
of quality control of data analysis, well planning,
coring efficiency and wellbore stability.
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND COAL
CHARACTERISTICS
The southern Barito Basin is a simple asymmetrical
basin dominating Southeast Kalimantan, which
constitutes the south-eastern edge of the continental
Sundaland promontory (Hall et al., 2008). It is part
of the greater Barito Basin, which is bound in the
West by the Schwaner Complex, in the East by the
Meratus Mountains and in the North by the onshore
continuation of the Adang fault zone (Mason et al.,
1993). Basin inception started somewhere between
the Late Cretaceous (Bon et al., 1996) and the
Eocene (Satyana and Silitonga, 1994; Witts et al.,
2011), with the South Barito Basin being a western
remnant of a once much larger basin, cut off by the
Latest Miocene to Plio-Pleistocene uplift of the
Meratus Mountains (Wakita et al., 1998, Wakita,
2000; Witts et al., 2011).
The coal-bearing Miocene Warukin Formation was
deposited in an environment similar to today’s
(Figure 4b), with fluvial channels and tidal creeks
intersecting the once extensive raised mires or
ombrogenous peat swamps (Demchuk and Moore,
1993; Sumawinata, 1998). Although bio-
stratigraphic control is limited in these terrestrial
successions, the Warukin Formation is believed to
have been deposited from the Burdigalian (Satyana,
1995) through the Latest Miocene (Van de Weerd
and Armin, 1992; Witts et al., 2011). The lower
successions (e.g. ‘100-sequence’, see Figure 4a),
overlying the Oligocene Berai marls, have a more
brackish marine to estuarine affinity and hence
thinner coals, while the upper successions (e.g.
‘700-sequence’) are clearly non marine (Satyana
and Silitonga, 1994; Satyana, 1995). Thickest coals
are developed in areas where the accommodation
rate slightly exceeds organic production (Bohacs
and Suter, 1995; Diessel, 1998), which is evident in
the upper sequences of the Warukin Formation.
Fluvial channels separate these coals, with
sediments prograding mainly from the north-
northwest (Panggabean, 1991; Van de Weerd and
Armin, 1992), and a possible eastern component
after the initiation of the Meratus Complex (Witts et
al., 2011).
A sequence stratigraphic framework was developed
based on offset wells, outcrop data and seismic
interpretation. The framework consists of five
sequence stratigraphic surfaces that can be
correlated regionally (Figure 4a) which allow
subdivision of the Barito Basin into different
subplays. The Warukin Formation, bounded by the
FSSB100 at the base and the FSSB800 at the top, is
the main target for CBM exploration, based on the
abundance of coal seams present in offset wells and
outcrop. Based on field work conducted by P.T.
Sugico in 2009-2010 and sequence stratigraphic
analysis of the offset wells, the thickest coal seams
seem to be present in the upper aggradational and
retrogradational sequences (up to 160ft in outcrop
and 75ft in subsurface, sequences ‘600’ and ‘700’).
The coals are generally low rank (lignite to Sub-
bituminous A / High Volatile C), with low ash (<
5%) and high moisture (~ 20%), which makes the
Warukin coals a predominantly biogenic play
(Moore, 2010). Although gas peaks are associated
with coal seams in all offset wells, gas content and
saturation remained one of the main predrill
uncertainties, with most likely estimates assumed to
be similar to the low rank / low ash coals of the
Powder River Basin (e.g. Ayers, 2002).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Subsurface data available for well planning
consisted of partially reprocessed, poor to
reasonable quality 2D seismic data (vintage 1968-
2010) and twelve offset wells (for location, see
Figure 1a). These wells were drilled during the
1970’s and 1980’s, exploring for oil and gas in the
Berai limestone and Tanjung clastics, underlying
the Warukin Formation (Bon et al., 1996; Van De
Weerd and Armin, 1992). In addition to wireline
and mudlogs, selected offset wells were also
sampled for clay stability analysis. Dielectric
Constant Measurements (DCM) of shale cuttings
determines the clay content in terms of specific
surface area (m2/g), and hence can be used as a
proxy for shale reactivity (see Scott et al., 1967).
DCM results from offset well cutting samples were
used to help plan mud design and were integrated
into the predrill geomechanical model (see wellbore
stability paragraph). The same technique was used
at the well site for shales in the CBM wells and
helped to delineate the ‘Base of the Reactive Shales
(BRS)’. Shales exceeding DCM values of 150 m2/g
are considered reactive (Figure 3).
Surface data were available as satellite and high
resolution remote sensing data (Figure 1a), and as
outcrop data along the Meratus Mountains (Figure
1b). Coals are mined in open pit mines and hence
offer a unique analogue for the coals in the
subsurface in terms of coal characteristics and seam
distribution. However, using the outcrop coals for
predicting coal rheology and cleat aperture is
limited by the fact that the coals in the eastern
Barito Basin margin have undergone significant
uplift. Hence, these are not entirely representative
for the coals in the subsurface which are
predominantly at maximum burial.
DATA ANALYSIS AND QUALITY CONTROL
The sampling program aimed to test gas in place
(GIP), gas composition and to evaluate lateral and
vertical reservoir variability. Gas volumes are
measured via gas desorption and adsorption on coal
samples collected from 3” diameter cores. These
samples and their analysis should be (1) reliable, in
order to avoid false negatives, (2) representative for
each subplay, and (3) repeatable, so they can be
used in a predictive model. To meet these three
objectives, the early exploration wells were
designed with full wireline logging suites, cement
evaluation, wireline retrieved core and injection fall
off tests (IFT). Identifying individual coal seams
with sufficient gas content, stratigraphic isolation,
gas saturation and permeability is critical to design
pilot tests for future early development.
Considering the huge scale of the potential
development (> 1 million gross contiguous acres or
> 400k ha), it is critical to identify the path to
successful development scenarios early in the
project. Hence, the exploration phase was designed
to provide high quality data that will allow further
refinement of the geologic framework and rapid
high-grading of sweet spot areas in the acreage. At
the same time, the exploration program relied on
rapid learning and operational flexibility using early
drilling results, and the ability to experiment with
different well designs (e.g. mud / cement systems,
completion and casing design) and other CBM
technologies (e.g. drill cuttings desorption).
Findings from the exploration program will allow
for further operational optimization and thus
enhance a cost-effective commercial development.
For sample collection, a wireline-conveyed coring
system was used with three 9ft core barrels and
slotted liners. Gas canister operations were
conducted following standard operating procedures,
using 2 ft canisters equipped with a pressure gauge
and temperature probe. Water treated with
bactericide was used as headspace filler and
subsequently purged with Helium. Water baths
were kept around the average mud in/out
temperature, which was significantly lower than
actual reservoir temperatures. Despite anticipated
start-up problems during data collection of Well 4.2
(e.g. electricity problem at Run#39, Figure 8); no
significant increase in lost gas was seen (D#43,
Figure 9). A rigorous quality control (QC) system
was put in place to ensure quality data generation,
especially because coals were desorbing very
quickly (in a matter of days). Special attention was
given to take adsorption samples as close to in situ
conditions as possible, to avoid underestimation of
gas holding capacity due to moisture loss (Crosdale
et al., 1998). Although cuttings desorption samples
significantly underestimate gas content values (~
30%), they proved useful as a backup measurement,
when certain coal seams were skipped during coring
operations (e.g. Well 3.1, 4500 ft, see Figure 3).
In general, significant improvements to well site
set-up and analytical procedures led to collection of
high quality data that allowed successful evaluation
of the different subplays.
WELL PLANNING AND EXECUTION
In order to meet geologic objectives in a safe
manner, a pre-drill basin-scale pore pressure
prediction and site investigation study was
performed (Figure 5). Although the pore pressure
across the basin is hydrostatic, there is one example
of a shallow gas blow-out of a water well near the
village of Barambai (northern part of Banjar 1),
which constrains the high-side pore pressure
prediction (dotted blue line in Figure 5).
Since the main predrill risk was identified to be hole
enlargement due to swelling clays, sloughing coals
and unconsolidated sands, a wellbore stability
(earth) model was built. This model is based on in-
situ stress and pore pressure estimates and was then
validated by breakout analysis using oriented 4-arm
caliper logs from offset wells and shale reactivity
measurements (DCM) from cuttings samples (see
also ‘wellbore stability paragraph’). These wellbore
stability simulations for the 8-1/2” hole section
showed breakout magnitude under specific mud
weight conditions and indicated that a high mud
weight (10-11 ppg) was needed to reduce the
compressive hoop stress to below the strength of the
shale rock and avoid shear failure. Since using high
mud weights necessary for shale stability might lead
to coal failure (Baltoiu et al., 2006), a mud system
needed to be designed that would block off the cleat
entrance and prevent fluid penetration (Zeilinger et
al., 2010). Model input parameters on wellbore
orientation, minimum and maximum horizontal
stress and coal permeability led to the development
of a special ‘Coaldrill NE mud’, containing sized
particles of CaCO3 as a blocking agent (Baracarb),
Borehib for clay inhibition, Clayseal for
encapsulating shale cuttings, polymers for viscosity
and increasing the cuttings carrying capacity, and
Barite as a weighting agent.
As summarized in Figure 3, modifications to the
mud system were made based on specific well
objectives. Wells focused on obtaining reliable coal
permeability data typically had lower mudweight
and fewer additives, incorporating the results from
laboratory tests that were done to study the effect of
polymers and breaker systems on effective coal
permeability (see also Deisman et al., 2008; Gentzis
et al., 2009).
Since the basic well design was simple (16”
conductor, 9-5/8” surface and 7” production
casing), it allowed for flexibility depending on the
exploration focus in the specific CBM subplay.
Figure 3 gives an overview of all six CBM wells,
showing casing design, wellbore profile (caliper and
borehole size in 1st column), lithology
characteristics (gamma ray (GR) and lithology),
coring (blue) / canisters (red dots) and permeability
test intervals (red boxes), clay reactivity (DCM >
150 m2/g is considered reactive), total gas (TG in
pink) and instantaneous mud losses (#bbls lost in
grey / gain in blue).
The first exploration CBM well in the Barito Basin
(Well 4.1) was drilled in 29 days and allowed
identification of coal seam thickness and
stratigraphic architecture based on good quality
wireline logs. Although the combination of mud
weight (10.5 to 10.2 ppg) and clay inhibition
seemed effective in the shale sections, significant
hole enlargement and dynamic mud losses were
observed (2600 bbl total). The majority of the losses
are interpreted to occur in the coal seams, since
there were no significant sand intervals exposed at
the time the losses occured (e.g. > 250 bbl lost in
the upper 40 ft thick coal seam, see Figure 3). Since
the option of reducing the mud weight is limited by
risk of shale failure, additional mitigations had to be
taken to help prevent these matrix losses. Surge
pressure associated with bringing the pumps on was
reduced by more effective use of the choke
(mechanical rig). While drilling Well 4.1, it was
noticed that CaCO3 particles were being stripped
out by the shale shakers, leading to an adverse
perfomance of the blocking material. Hence, coarser
shaker screens were run to ensure a better solids
management. Additionally, the flow rate was
reduced to a minimum (~ 250 gpm) while drilling
across coal seams. All these mitigation factors led
to an improved performance of the fluid system in
Well 4.2, in which mud losses were significantly
reduced (110 bbl total).
Well 4.2 was the first CBM core hole in the
southern Barito Basin with primary objectives
getting cores from different coal seams with depth
and obtaining permeability data via cased-hole
injection fall-off testing (CH-IFT). Despite the
reduced mud weight (10 ppg) and adjusted drilling
parameters, significant hole enlargement was
observed in most coal seams (Figure 3), leading to
deteriorated coal reservoir conditions. In order to
get good quality logs to TD, the mud weight was
raised to 10.2 ppg because of problems getting the
wireline tools down across ledges at coal versus
shale interfaces. Coring operations were hampered
due to bit balling in sticky shales and jamming due
to rubbelized coal (Figure 6). Of the 338 ft core cut,
230 ft were recovered to surface (68%) in a total of
44 core runs over 16 days (Figure 8). A more
detailed discussion on coring efficiency in coals is
provided in the coring paragraph. Since drilling
parameters from Well 4.2 showed that identification
of coal seams while drilling was possible, the
decision was made to try coring-on-the-fly (COTF)
at Pad Location 8. This would also save cost by
eliminating a seperate well for coring.
In Well 8.1 the standard well design (16” conductor
casing at 90 ft, 9-5/8” surface casing at ~500 ft) and
the same mud design were used as in Pad location 4
wells (Coaldrill NE mud, 10 ppg). The main
geologic objective was to get representative coal
cores with depth and assess the stratigraphic
architecture in the fluvio-estuarine and coastal plain
sequences in the western part of the Barito Basin.
All geologic objectives were achieved, despite the
lower than expected net coal thickness at this
location and the problems encountered during
coring operations (discussed in coring paragraph).
Selection of core points was based on a combination
of drilling parameters illustrated in Figure 7. The
rate of penetration (ROP) increased significantly
when drilling from shales into coals, although the
opposite trend might be seen in sands. The
mechanical specific energy (MSE) is a value
calculated from other drilling parameters (ROP,
WOB, RPM, GPM, TRQ, see Dupriest and
Koederitz, 2005) which is representative of the
amount of energy that is transfered from the bit into
the formation (low ksi values represent effective
drilling, higher values indicate energy loss due to
bit vibrations, etc.,). The MSE usually showed
decreasing values when going from a shale into a
coal. When WOB (weight on bit) and TRQ (torque)
scales were set up correctly, it was often possible to
detect coal seams early by looking for a seperation
between the two curves (Figure 7, ‘d+e’). This
‘drill-off’ event was often the quickest way of
detecting a coal seam. When the WOB was released
fast enough, less than 1 ft of coal was penetrated
before the core barrel could be run. In the thin
deeper coal seams, it was crucial to ‘pick-up off
bottom’ as fast as possible to maximize the amount
of coal interval cored. Although very subtle, the
deflection in the hook height curve was another
parameter that helped in detecting the drilling
breaks early (Figure 7, ‘c’). When a drilling break
was observed in an interval of interest, the well was
circulated bottoms up (CBU) to check for gas and
coal cuttings. Lag time was ~ 20 min (at 300 gpm),
so these parameters were ~10-20 ft ‘behind the bit’.
Pitfalls with these two lagged parameters were that
some coals did not show a distinct gas peak, or were
not detected due to gas equipment failure (e.g. coal
at 1970 ft in Well 8.1). Cuttings interpretation was
often hampered by the presence of coal cavings
from up hole, which led to a few cases where core
was cut without a coal being present.
Overall, the geologic objectives were met in Well
8.1, using coring-on-the-fly (COTF) techniques that
produced representative cores across a wide depth
range. Although encouraging attempts were made to
get coal permeability data using an open hole
wireline conveyed straddle packer system (IFT-
SPS), no valid data were obtained due to equipment
failures. For this reason, a second well was needed
on Pad Location 8 to meet the testing objectives.
Well 8.2 was the first well in which the standard
casing and mud design was altered significantly.
The 9-5/8” surface casing was pushed below the
base of the most reactive shales (BRS, see Figure
3). With the majority of the swelling clays cased-off
(with DCM >150 m2/g), the mud weight could be
reduced to ‘near-balanced’ conditions (8.6-8.8 ppg).
To minimize formation damage and assure in-gauge
coals allowing for good zonal isolation, the mud
was also modified to a clear drilling fluid,
containing only water and additives for clay
inhibition (see Figure 3). Note that ‘flocculate
water’ or KCl brine, which is commonly used in
CBM drilling operations (Baltoiu et al., 2006),
could not be used in the Barito Basin because of
logistics and waste management issues related to
the zero-discharge policy. The combination of a
light-weight clear drilling fluid, use of a mudmotor
to minimize both vibrations and open hole time,
resulted in an in-gauge borehole (Figure 10). Apart
from some minor hole enlargement observed in the
bottom sand, all clays and coals are in-gauge in
Well 8.2. Successful cementing operations using a
10.3 ppg G-cement slurry consequently led to good
zonal isolation across all coal seams, thus increasing
the probability of obtaining valid permeability data
via CH-IFT’s. In total, 4 intervals were successfully
tested.
Well 3.1 was drilled in 46 days, of which 20 were
spent coring. Since this well was testing the axis of
the Barito Basin depocenter with a significantly
thickened Warukin Formation, the TD was planned
deeper than previous wells, at 5400 ft MD.
Although far from offset well control, the coring-
on-the-fly (COTF) strategy was successful and
representative samples were obtained with depth.
In an attempt to improve core recovery, a different
coring bit was used that has larger junk slots and is
designed for drilling in soft formations. Despite all
efforts on optimizing drilling- and hydraulic
parameters, core recovery remained relatively low
(55%), with the majority of the core lost from the
coal intervals. Hole enlargement in this well was
pervasive across all coals and carbonaceous shales
(dark grey in Figure 3).
All previous permeability tests were performed as
cased-hole tests in which cement is put across coals.
Cement has been proven to damage certain coal
reservoirs (Mohammad and Shaikh, 2010). Thus the
main objective of Well 3.2 was to obtain
unambiguous open hole permeability tests (OH-
IFT) from undamaged coals. The surface casing was
pushed as close to the topmost coal as possible, so
that the mud weight could be reduced in the 8-1/2”
hole section when drilling across the coals. Hole
stability proved to be a serious issue in this location,
since the low mud weight (8.6-8.8 ppg) seemed
insufficient to prevent failure of the shales
interbedded with the coal seams. Because of this,
the well design was modified by setting the 7”
casing shallower than initially planned. Hence, only
two out of six planned OH-IFT’s provided valid
data (red boxes in Figure 3). A more detailed
discussion on hole instability is provided in the next
paragraph.
Due to the increased focus on obtaining quality
permeability data during the course of the
exploration program, flexibility in well and mud
design was needed. To incorporate the lessons
learned from previous wells, close collaboration
between drilling and geoscience was necessary.
CORING STRATEGY AND EFFICIENCY
Two different coring strategies were executed along
the course of the exploration program: twin well on
Pad Location 4 and coring on the fly (COTF) on
Pad Locations 8 and 3. Both coring strategies met
geologic objectives and allowed collection of
quality coal samples with depth. Core point
identification improved from Well 8.1 to Well 3.1,
but overall core recovery efficiency dropped. Of the
total 838 ft of core that were cut, only 529 ft were
recovered to surface (63% average over three
wells). Because of this, significant amounts of coal
core were lost. Only 199 ft of 368 ft coal cut were
recovered to surface (54% average over three
wells).
Despite a series of mitigation efforts to try to
improve core recovery, average recovery dropped
from 68% in the first well to 55% in the last well
(see Figure 8). Some improvement was seen during
drilling of Well 4.2 after optimizing hydraulic
parameters. This included minimizing surge
pressure across coal seams by a more effective use
of the choke when starting the mud pumps
(mechanical rig) and minimizing flow rates to
prevent ‘washing away’ the coals. Drilling
parameters were modified to optimize overall
efficiency and to avoid crushing the coals by
reducing the weight on bit. Core catchers were
adjusted between various runs, using a combination
of steel and aluminum fingers to optimize the way
the coal entered the core barrel. For Well 3.1, the
newly manufactured 5-bladed coring bit with larger
junk slots, and hence better suited for drilling soft
formations, did not offer the anticipated improved
core recovery. In general, coring runs were kept
short (between 7 and 9 ft average per run, see
Figure 8) to minimize the weight of the rock in the
core barrel. Where possible, shale was incorporated
into the bottom of the core barrel to provide a more
stable base for the coal in the barrel and prevent it
from falling out. A combination of sticky clays
causing core bit balling (Figure 6b) and rubbelized
coals that seemed to ‘crumble’ while coring are
interpreted to be the main causes for relatively low
coring efficiency. Although the influence of the
mud system on core recovery is not yet fully
understood, the lower mud weight used in Well 3.1
did not seem to have contributed to better core
recovery.
The sampling times for canister operations are
outlined in Figure 9, showing the amount of time
needed for core recovery (in blue), core extraction
(green) and taking the canister samples until sealed
(red + yellow). The reduction in total canister times
from 45 minutes in the first well to 37 minutes in
the last well is mainly thanks to improvements in
the core lay-down process. During Well 4.2, a
system was designed so that the wireline running
tool could be left hanging in a vertical position
instead of having to be layed down with the core
barrel. This not only reduced the extraction time
from 17 minutes to 6 minutes, but also eliminated
the risk of flexing the rope socket, which lead to a
snapped slickline in Run #3. Despite Well 3.1 being
much deeper than previous wells, good recovery
and extracation times were obtained, due mainly to
a more experienced crew. Actual canister sampling
times were affected by the number of samples taken
per run, and the type of lithology that was present
(carbonaceous shales were sampled last).
WELLBORE STABILITY
A comprehensive geomechanical analysis was
performed predrill and post-drill Well 4.1 to
understand the underlying causes of geomechanical
failure in clastics and coals. The wellbore stability
model was based on in-situ vertical stress (v),
minimum horizontal stress (hmin) and maximum
horizontal stress (Hmax) estimates, derived from the
pressure prediction analysis (Figure 5) and wellbore
stability simulations, comparing actual and modeled
breakout magnitudes derived from 4-arm caliper
data. Rock strength profiles were derived from shale
surface areas measurements (DCM) and sonic log
analyses from offset wells. The pore pressure
prediction, constrained by offset well pressure data
(RDT, DST), shows a normal hydrostatic pressure
gradient across the entire section (blue curve in
Figure 5). The overburden gradient was generated
by an exponential decline method fitted to wireline
density data (black curve in Figure 5). The
minimum stress curve (orange in Figure 5) was
calculated from the overburden gradient, pore
pressure and rock compressibility ratio (horizontal /
vertical stress) and then calibrated to leak-off test
(LOT) data from offset wells.
The geomechanical study confirmed that the
relative magnitudes of the principle stresses
correspond to a normal stress regime (Sv > SHmax >
Shmin), with a horizontal stress ratio of around 1.15
and Hmax direction oriented NNW-SSE. This is
consistent with the present-day regional stress field,
largely oriented NW-SE in Borneo (Tingay et al.,
2010; Hall et al., 2008), and with the topographic
expression of the Meratus Mountains. Note
however that most input parameters for the
geomechanical model were derived from clastics
and that experimental analyses have yet to be
performed on actual Warukin coal core samples.
Therefore, the actual geomechanical behavior of the
subsurface coals remains uncertain (see
‘Discussion’).
As discussed in the well planning section, various
combinations of mud weight (to mitigate shale
failure), and mud composition (to prevent fluid
invasion in coals) were used in the course of the
exploration program. In all wells, overbalanced mud
(9.5 to 10.5 ppg) led to significant hole enlargement
in coals, whereas near-balanced mud (8.6 to 8.8
ppg) ensured in-gauge coals (e.g. Wells 8.2 and
3.2). Reducing the mud weight had a detrimental
effect on wellbore stability in shales, as can be seen
by the significant hole enlargement in Wells 3.1 and
3.2 (Figure 3).
In Well 8.2 (Figure 10), a combination of near-
balance mud, clear drilling fluid, the use of a mud
motor (to reduce vibrations) and less open hole time
seemed effective to preserve hole integrity in both
shales and coals. Only minor hole enlargement was
seen in the sands at the bottom of Well 8.2.
Although the same parameters were used in Well
3.2 (Figure 11), dramatic hole enlargement was
observed in the shales (compare caliper logs of 1
day versus 6 days open hole time). To understand
whether this is due to a difference in shale
mineralogy (more carbonaceous shales in Well 3.2
compared to 8.2) or due to the more pronounced
stress field in Well 3.2 (closer to Meratus
Mountains), XRD analyses and detailed breakout
analyses are needed. This will help determine the
optimum mud weight to stabilize the shales and
minimize fluid invasion in the coals.
Breakout direction in shales was oriented along the
hmin direction, which indicates that the failure
mechanism in shales was shear failure due to
insufficient reduction of the compressive hoop
stress. The coals are enlarged in the Hmax direction,
which indicates a different failure mechanism. Loss
of effective radial stress due to fluid invasion into
the cleat and fracture network probably initiated
hole enlargement in coals. With time, the failure
extended around the entire borehole circumference,
at a rate that varies between locations (compare
Well 8.2 to 3.2, Figure 10 and 11).
DISCUSSION
The fact that mud losses are observed in most thick
coal seams when drilling with high mud weights,
seems contradictory with the interpreted low
permeability measured from injection fall-off tests
and with the high break-down pressure derived
from the high-rate injection test performed in Well
4.2 (see BDT#1 in Figure 5). Hence, a more
rigorous study of the in-situ stresses in the coal
seam reservoirs and experimental geomechanical
tests on coal cores is needed to fully understand the
mechanisms behind coal failure. Analyzing the
effects of CO2 adsorption on deformation behavior
in coals is important for unraveling the flow- and
mechanical properties of the Warukin coals. The
presence of CO2 could cause a more viscous / less
brittle behavior of coals due to swelling of the coal
matrix and lead to reduction of effective stress,
which might have a negative impact on
permeability (Hagin and Zoback, 2010). The effect
of drilling fluids on coal permeability is well
documented in literature (e.g. Gentzis et al., 2009;
Deisman et al., 2008). Whether drilling or injection
operations had any negative impact on permeability
measurements remains unknown.
Comparing detailed breakout analysis of the CBM
wells with the offset wells would enable delineating
variations in the local stress fields. This would shed
light on the basin history of the Barito Basin in
general and effect on cleat development in
particular.
CONCLUSIONS
The CBM project in the Barito Basin was set-up as
an integrated cross-functional team with subsurface,
drilling, project development and gas marketing.
Keeping a typical CBM low-cost structure is
challenging in this remote environment, considering
the pre-investments needed when entering a new
basin without oil and gas infrastructure. The early
exploration phase was successfully executed by
drilling six CBM wells between April 2011 and
January 2012. Subsurface data are currently being
analyzed as part of the early resource evaluation.
In order to meet geologic objectives in a safe and
efficient manner, pre-drill basin-scale models were
established for pressure prediction and
geomechanical wellbore stability analyses. The
basic well design, allowed for flexibility depending
on the exploration focus in the specific subplays.
To allow for acquisition of quality permeability data
during the course of the exploration program,
surface casing in testing wells was pushed close to
the topmost coal of interest, so that the mud weight
could be reduced when drilling across the coals.
The standard mud system, using high mud weight
for shale stability and sized blocking material to
prevent fluid invasion into the coals, led to
persistent coal failure. To assure in-gauge coals
allowing for good zonal isolation, the mud system
for testing wells was modified to a clear drilling
fluid, containing only water and additives for clay
inhibition. Since the option of reducing the mud
weight is limited by risk of shale failure,
modifications to the choke set-up, solids
management system and flow rate management
helped reducing matrix losses across coals. To
optimize the configuration of the sized blocking
particles, detailed studies on cleat apertures and coal
rheology are needed.
Data collection from cores and well tests allows
evalution of the gas in place (GIP), gas composition
and permeability in the different subplays across the
basin and will help plan the remaining exploration
program. Gas volumes are measured via gas
desorption and adsorption on coal samples collected
from 3” diameter cores in 2ft long canisters.
Although cuttings desorption samples significantly
underestimate gas content values, it proved useful
as a backup source of data. Rigorous QC and
improvements in the sampling process were needed
due to coals desorbing in a matter of days. As a
result of improvements in the core lay-down
process, a reduction in total canister times from 45
minutes in the first well to 37 minutes in the last
well was obtained, resulting in a reduction of
average lost gas from 37% to 27%.
The original ‘twin well’ coring strategy was
modified to a ‘coring-on-the-fly’ strategy. This
allowed all the coring to be done in the first well,
save cost on a separate core well, and dedicate a
second well for focusing on permeability testing in
undamaged coal reservoirs. Both coring strategies
met geologic objectives and allowed collection of
quality coal samples across a wide depth range.
Core point selection improved from Well 8.1 to
Well 3.1, but despite efforts on optimizing drilling-
and hydraulic parameters, average core recovery
dropped from 68% in the first well to 55% in the
last well, with the majority of the core lost from the
coal intervals. A combination of sticky clays
causing core bit balling and rubbelized coals are
interpreted to be the main causes for relatively low
core recovery.
Since the main drilling risk was identified to be hole
enlargement due to swelling clays, sloughing coals
and unconsolidated sands, a wellbore stability
(earth) model was built based on in-situ stress and
pore pressure estimates, and validated by breakout
analysis from offset wells. This geomechanical
model confirmed that the relative magnitudes of the
principle stresses correspond to a normal stress
regime and Hmax being oriented NNW-SSE. This
is consistent with the present-day regional stress
field, and with the topographic expression of the
Meratus Mountains. Wellbore stability simulations
indicated that a high mud weight (10-11 ppg) was
needed to mitigate shale failure. While the
combination of mud weight and clay inhibition
seemed effective in the shale sections, significant
hole enlargement and dynamic mud losses were
frequently observed in coal seams. In all wells,
overbalanced mud (9.5 to 10.5 ppg) led to
significant hole enlargement in coals, whereas near-
balanced mud (8.6 to 8.8 ppg) ensured in-gauge
coals.
Reducing the mud weight had a detrimental effect
on wellbore stability in shales in the easternmost
location, whereas a combination of near-balance
mud, clear drilling fluid, the use of a mud motor (to
reduce vibrations) and less open hole time seemed
effective to preserve hole integrity in both shales
and coals in the westernmost location. Breakout
direction in shales was oriented along the hmin
direction, indicating shear failure, whereas the coals
exhibit breakout in the Hmax direction, indicating a
different failure mechanism. Loss of effective radial
stress due to fluid invasion into the cleat and
fracture network probably initiated hole
enlargement in coals. With time, the failure
extended around the entire borehole circumference,
at a rate that varies between locations. The fact that
the coals sloughed-in when drilling with high mud
weights and mud losses were observed in most thick
coals seems contradictory with the interpreted low
permeability measured from injection fall-off tests.
Hence, a more rigorous study of the in-situ stresses
in the coal seam reservoirs and experimental
geomechanical tests on coal cores is needed to fully
understand the mechanisms behind coal failure.
Detailed breakout analysis of the CBM wells and
comparing this with the offset wells would enable
delineating variations in the local stress fields and
shed light on the basin history of the Barito Basin in
general and effect on cleat development in
particular.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the ExxonMobil
Exploration Company and P.T. Sugico for
supporting and permitting publication of this paper.
Susan Dougherty, Stefaan Van Simaeys, Peter
Hillock, Ivan Yulianto and Heejae Lee are thanked
for stimulating discussions. Steinar Ottesen
provided input on geomechanical analyses.
Improvements to this paper benefited from the
reviews by Paul Deneke, Huw Michael, Michael
Crumley and Steven Buck. Permission to publish
this work has been granted by BPMIGAS and
MIGAS.
REFERENCES
Ayers, W.B. Jr., 2002, Coalbed gas systems,
resources and production and a review of the
contrasting cases from the San Juan and Powder
River basins, AAPG Bulletin, 86 (11): 1853-1890.
Baltoiu, L.V., Warren, B.K., Natras, T.A., 2006,
State of the art in coalbed methane drilling fluids,
SPE/IADC 101231.
Bohacs, K. and Suter, J., 1995, Sequence
Stratigraphic distribution of coaly rocks:
fundamental controls and paralic examples, AAPG
Bulletin 81 (10): 1612-1639
Bon, J., Fraser, T.H. , Amris, W., Stewart, D.N.,
Abubakar, Z., Sosromihardjo, S., 1996, A review of
the exploration potential of the Palaeocene Lower
Tanjung Formation in the South Barito Basin.
Indonesian Petroleum Association, Proceedings 25th
Annual Convention Jakarta, 25: 69-79.
Clarkson, C.R., 2010, Coalbed Methane: Current
Evaluation Methods, Future Technical Challenges,
SPE 131791: 1-15.
Crosdale, P.J., Beamish, B.B. and Valix, M., 1998,
Coalbed methane sorption related to coal
composition, International Journal of Coal Geology,
35: 147-158.
Deisman, N., Gentzis, T., Chalaturnyk, R.J., 2008,
Unconventional geomechanical testing on coal for
coalbed reservoir well design: The Alberta Foothills
and Plains, International Journal of Coal Geology
75: 15-26.
Demchuk, T. and Moore, T., 1993, Palynofloral and
organic characteristics of a Miocene bog-forest,
Kalimantan, Indonesia, Organic Geochemistry, 20:
119-134.
Diessel, C.F.K., 1998, Sequence stratigraphy
applied to coal seams: two case histories, in:
Relative Role of Eustasy, Climate, and Tectonism
in Continental Rocks, SEPM Special Publication
59, 151-171.
Dupriest, F.E. and Koederitz, W.L., 2005,
Maximizing drill rates with real-time surveillance of
mechanical specific energy, SPE/IADC 92194: 1-
10.
Gentzis, T., Deisman, N., Chalaturnyk, R.J., 2009,
Effect of drilling fluids on coal permeability:
Impact on horizontal wellbore stability,
International Journal of Coal Geology, 78 (3): 177-
191.
Hagin, P.N. and Zoback, M.D., 2010, Laboratory
studies of the compressibility and permeability of
low-rank coal samples from the Powder River
Basin, Wyoming, USA, ARMA 10-170
Hall, R., van Hattum, M.W.A., Spakman, W., 2008,
Impact of India-Asia collision on SE Asia: the
record in Borneo, Tectonophysics 451: 366-389.
Mason, A.D.M., Haebig, J.C., McAdoo, R.L., 1993,
A fresh look at the Barito Basin, Kalimantan,
Indonesian Petroleum Association, Proceedings 22nd
Annual Convention Jakarta, 1: 589-606.
Mazumder, S. Sosrowidjojo, I.B., Ficarra, A., 2010,
The Late Miocene coalbed methane system in the
South Sumatra Basin of Indonesia, SPE 133488: 1-
11.
Mohammad, H.S.G. and Shaikh, S., 2010, Coalbed
Methane cementing best practices – Indian case
history, SPE 132214: 1-6
Moore, 2010, Critical reservoir properties for low
rank coalbed methane resources of Indonesia,
Proceedings 34th Annual Convention Jakarta,
IPA10-G-055.
Panggabean, H., 1991, Tertiary source rocks, coals
and reservoir potential in the Asem Asem and
Barito Basins, Southeast Kalimantan, Indonesia,
Unpublished PhD thesis at the University of
Wollongong: 224pp.
Satyana, A.H. and Silitonga, P.D., 1994, Tectonic
reversal in East Barito Basin, South Kalimantan:
Consideration of the types of inversion structures
and petroleum significance, Indonesian Petroleum
Association, Proceedings 23rd annual convention,
Jakarta, 1: 57-74.
Scott, J.H., Carroll., R.D., Cunningh, D.R., 1967,
Dielectric constant and electrical conductivity
measurements of moist rock – a new laboratory
method, Journal of Geophysical Research, 72 (20):
5101-5110.
Sosrowidjojo, I.B. and Saghafi, A.,2009,
Development of the first coal seam gas exploration
program in Indonesia: Reservoir properties of the
Muaraenim Formation, South Sumatra,
International Journal of Coal Geology 79: 145-156.
Stevens, S. and Sani, K., 2002, Coalbed methane
potential of Indonesia: Preliminary evaluation of a
new natural gas source, Proceedings 28th Annual
Convention Jakarta, IPA01-G-063: 727-738.
Sumawinata, B., 1998, Sediments of the Lower
Barito Basin in South Kalimantan: Fossil Pollen
Composition, Southeast Asian Studies, 36 (3): 293-
317.
Tingay, M., Morley, C., King, S., Hillis, R.,
Coblentz, D., Hall, R., 2010, Present-day stress field
of Southeast Asia, Tectonophysics 482: 92-104.
Van De Weerd, A. and Armin, R.A., 1992, Origin
and evolution of the Tertiary hydrocarbon bearing
basins in Kalimantan (Borneo), Indonesia,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 76: 1778-1803.
Wakita, K., Miyazaki, K., Zulkarnain, I.,
Sopaheluwakan, J. And Sanyoto, P., 1998, Tectonic
implications of new age data for the Meratus
Complex of south Kalimantan, Indonesia, The
Island Arc 7: 202-222.
Wakita, K., 2000, Cretaceous accretionary-collision
complexes in central Indonesia, Journal of Asian
Earth Sciences, 24L 679-702.
Witts, D., Hall, R., Morley, R.J., BouDagher-Fadel,
M.K., 2011, Stratigraphy and sediment provenance,
Barito Basin, Southeast Kalimantan, Indonesian
Petroleum Association, Proceedings 35th Annual
Convention Jakarta, IPA-G-054.
Zeilinger, S., Dupriest, F., Turton, R., Butler, H.,
Wang, H., 2010, Utilizing an engineered particle
drilling fluid to overcome coal drilling challenges,
IADC/SPE 128712.
 Barito Basin Warukin Coal Seam in outcrop
Satellite Map
“Altar CBM”
PSC
~17m

10
(b)
15
7
13 Thailand
CBM Basins Philippines

9 Indonesia
14 #0
MEDAN
Malaysia

6 1 Singapore
3.1 #0
PEKANBARU

8.1 Kalimantan
#0
BALIKPAPAN

11 #0
#0
BENGKULU
PALEMBANG
#0
BANJARMASIN
Sulawesi

4.1 UJUNG PANDANG

2
#0
BADAR LAMPUNG

#0
JAKARTA
BANDUNG
TJEPU
BARITO #0

#0
#0

BASIN
#0 SURABAYA
JavaYOGYAKARTA
Office 12 #0
#0
DENPASAR

Indian Ocean Plate

Warehouse Outcrop (c)

5 (picture)
Banjar
Banjar 11CBM
PSCPSC
Dahor
Dahor Fm.
Fm.
Barito Banjar
Banjar 22CBM
PSCPSC
River Warukin
Warukin Fm
Fm
Tapin PSCPSC
Tapin CBM
Berai
Berai Fm.
Fm. Barito PSCPSC
Barito CBM
30 km + Offset / CBM Wells
Tanjung
Offset / CBM Wells
Tanjung Fm
(a) Pad Location
Pad Location

Figure 1 - Location Map of the Barito Basin (Indonesia), showing block outlines and offset wells.
 
 

Pad 4 – Work on bund wall Pad 4 – Conductor cellars installed

Pad 8 – Land preparation Pad 8 – Completed base course

Pad Location 3 - After

Pad 3 – Galam tree foundation Pad 3 – Apexindo #14 rig

Figure 2 - Pad construction and rig activity in the swampy Barito Basin.
 4.1 – Expl. Well 4.2 – Twin well 8.1 – COTF well 8.2 – Testing 3.1 – COTF well 3.2 – Testing
Spud April 9, 2011 Spud May 8, 2011 Spud July 23, 2011 Spud Sept. 4, 2011 Spud Oct. 23, 2011 Spud Dec. 26, 2011
B2.4.1 [MD] B2.4.2 [MD] B1.8.1 [MD] B1.8.2 [MD] B1.3.1 [MD] B1.3.2 [MD]
ss

Core / cans
5 0 0 MD (ft)

5 0 0 MD (ft)

5 0 0 MD (ft)
GR200 0DCM 0DCM

5 0 0 MD (ft)
Core / cans
DCM 300 SSTVD 0Mud
Mud Lossloss 26 CALICALI DCM 300 0Mud
SSTVD 0DCM
TGASloss 26 CALICALI

5 0 0 MD (ft)
26 CALICALI 0DCM Mud GR200 200 0DCM Mud loss

Core / cans
5 6 CALI 26 MD 0 GR 26 CALICALI DCM 300SSTVD 0Mud
Mud Lossloss 5 6 CALI 26 MD 0 GR

5 0 0 MD (ft)
250 GR200
5 6 CALI 26MD 0GREV 4 6 CALI 26MD 0 GR 150 6 6 BS 26MD 0 GR
26 BSCALI GR200 TVD 200 26 CALICALI
5 6 CALI 26 MD 0 GREV 0DCM
DCM 550 MD 0Mud
Mud Lossloss
250 GR DCM 300 SSTVD -10Mud Loss 700

(ft)

(ft)

5 0 0MD (ft)
-50
cannist er _dpt70hperf _int erval
DCM 300SSTVD -10Mud Loss 50 canni-50
st er_dept h_shf
70 ti ed per f _int er val
GR200
canni-s50t er _dept h_shf70ti ed

(ft)
IFT
BS 0 200 0 300 0 250 0 300 -10 50 BS 0 200 0 300 0 Loss
0 300 0Mud 250 BS
BS
5 6 BS 26 1:9168 0 200 0 150
26 BS BS 0 300
00TGAS250 5 6 BS 26 1:9168 0 200 0 300 0-10 700

5 0 0 IFT
26 BS6 5 626
BS 26 0 TGAS 500 26 BSDmin 0TGAS 500 26 BSDmin
4 6 BS 26 1:9168 0TGAS 500 26 CALI BS
6 6 CALI 26 1:9168 0 200 250 5 6 BS 26 1:9168 0 200 500 26 BSDmin TGAS 500
1:9168
9-5/8”
Cor e_I nt ervals Cor e_I nt ervals_shif t ed Cor e_I nt er vals_shif t ed

5ssTVD

5ssTVD
Clay

ssTVD
T Gas T Gas T Gas Dmin T Gas 9-5/8” Dmin T Gas T Gas

5 0 IFT
react. 4 6DMIN 26 Clay 26DMAX 5 6 DMIN 26 26DMAX 5 6 DMIN 26
09-5/8" csg 26 DMAX 5 6 DMAX 26 Clay 26 DMAX 26 DMAX 6 6 DMAX 26
Cor e_I nt ervals

500 Dmax 0 500 Dmax 0 500 Clay 0 200 Dmax Clay 0 500 Dmax Clay 0 500
Dmax

00

00

500

0
react. react. react. react. react.
26DMIN
6 5 626
DMIN 26 6 4 626
26DMIN DMAX 26 26DMIN
6 6 626
DMIN 26 26 DMIN6 5 626
DMAX 26 26 DMIN6 5 626
DMAX 26
10.5 10 10 9.5
10 10
ppg ppg ppg ppg
ppg ppg
1000

1000

1000

1000

1000
1000

1000
1000

1000

1000

1000
1000
1500

1500

1500

1500

1500
1500

1500
1500

1500

1500

1500
1500
BRS BRS
BRS
BRS BRS CBM FSSB800 CBM FSSB800

9-5/8” 9-5/8" csg

2000

2000

2000

2000

2000
2000

2000
FSSB
2000

2000

2000

2000
2000
8.6
CBM FSSB800 800 7”
CBM FSSB800
CBM TS700
ppg
CBM TS700
TD
BRS BRS

(2500)

(2500)
2500

2500

2500

2500

2500
2500
2500

2500

2500

2500
TS Mud in 8-1/2” hole :
700 • MW 8.6-8.8 ppg
CBM TS700 CBM TS700
CBM 800_strat

9-5/8”
10.2 CBM SB600 mud to prevent coal
CBM SB600

(3000)

(3000)
3000

3000

3000

3000

3000
3000
3000

3000

3000
3000

ppg damage (get reliable CBM FSSB800 CBM FSSB800

SB CH-IFT)
600 8.6
• Clear drilling fluid ppg

(3500)

(3500)
3500

3500

3500

3500

3500
3500
7”
3500

3500

3500
3500

7” • Water + additives
CBM SB600 CBM SB600
CBM SB300
TD (no Baracarb or
10.2
ppg Barite) Mud Well 3.1 :
(4000)

(4000)
Mud :

(4000)
CBM TS700

(4000)

(4000)
(4000)
4000

4000

4000
4000
4000

4000
• Shale inhibition • MW 9.5-9.7 ppg
• MW lowered to 10 ppg
(Borehib + Clay 9.7 • Coaldrill NE mud
• Coaldrill NE mud:
7” 7” seal) ppg (same as Pad 4)
(4500)

(4500)

(4500)
(4500)

(4500)
TD • Baracarb: CaCO3 (sized TD

(4500)
(4500)

(4500)

(4500)
(4500)

4500

4500
• Note that no KCl
CBM SB300 particles) Mud 3.2 in 8-1/2” :
Mud : Mud : could be used
CBM FSSB100
• Borehib: clay inhibition • 8.6 - 8.8 ppg mud to
• MW 10.5 – 10.2 ppg • 10 ppg for wellbore because of issues
(5000)

(5000)

(5000)
(5000)

• Clay seal: encapsulate (5000) prevent coal damage

(5000)

(5000)

(5000)

(5000)
(5000)

5000

5000
for wellbore stability / stability / get wireline with waste
• Polymers: viscosity (get reliable OH-IFT)
get logs down logs down management and 9.7
• Barite: weighting agent 7” • Modified Coaldrill NE
• Coaldrill NE mud • Coaldrill NE mud ppg
( 5435) (5410) ( 5435) ( 5409) ( 5432) ( 5410) logistics ( 5432) ( 5411) ( 5434) ( 5434) ( 5434) (5410)

mud (no barite and

(composition see 4.2) (same as Pad 4 wells)
reduced Baracarb)
15 m (at FSSB800) 12 km 11 m (at FSSB800) 23 km 24 m (at FSSB800)

Figure 3 - Well design overview of the six CBM wells drilled during the 2011-2012 campaign.
.
Figure 4 – Stratigraphy (a) and depositional environment (b) of the southern Barito Basin. Within the
Warukin Formation, five sequence stratigraphic surfaces can be correlated regionally and
delineate different sequences. Color-coding in Figure 4b corresponds to sequences in Aalalak-1,
for which it can be used as an analog of depositional environment
  

 
Geol. FOP
FCP  
Tops**
 

0.94psi/ft  
(BDT#1)
 
Losses  
in coals
 

 
Pore Pressure (low side – best estimate – high side)  
Minimum Stress (low side – best estimate – high side)
Overburden gradient (low side – best estimate – high side)  
x x + RDT pressure data Well 4.1 / Well 8.1 / Well 3.1
x Pressure estimates Offset wells (incl. water well blow-out)  
x Leak-off Test data Well 4.1 (Fracture Closing / Opening P.)
x x x Leak-off Test data Well 8.1 / Well 3.1 / Offset wells  
Break-down test in coal around 3500 ft MD in Well 4.2
 

Figure 5 - Integrated pressure analysis for Well 3.1, as compiled from offset well data. See text at
Wellbore Stability’ paragraph for explanation.

 
 
 Figure 6 - Photos of coring operations in Well 4.2.

 
Figure 7 - Overview of wireline logs and drilling parameters, illustrating coring-on-the-fly (COTF)
parameters. Columns from left to right: caliper + borehole size. GR with lithology. Coring
intervals (blue) and gas desorption canisters (red dots). Total gas. MSE (Mechanical Specific
Energy) and Hook height. Rate Of Penetration. Weight On Bit and torque. Core point was
picked based on following trends: increasing ROP (a), decreasing MSE (b), inflection in the
Hook height curve (c), decreasing WOB (d), increasing torque (e), gas peak (f), and coal
cuttings circulated to surface.

 
  Total Core Cut  338 ft ‐ Recovered  230 ft (68%)
Well 4.2 (twin well) Core Runs 44  ‐ coring time  16 days
  Coal recovered 107 ft (of 179 ft) ‐ 60% ‐ Canisters 55

snapped
Slickline
 
Electric problem
Core Recovery (%)

Cored Length (ft)

Avg. Rec. = 68%
‘Recovery run’
 

  Avg. Core = 7.7 Ft/run

Avg. Rec = 5.2 Ft/run

 
Total Core Cut  222 ft ‐ Recovered  146 ft (66%)
 
Well 8.1 (COTF) Core Runs 25  ‐ coring time  14.5 days
Coal recovered 21.1 ft (of 34.9 ft) ‐ 61% ‐ Canisters 12
 

 
Core Recovery (%)

Cored Length (ft)

‘Recovery run’
‘Recovery run’

  Avg. Rec. = 66%

  Avg. Core = 9 Ft/run

  Avg. Rec = 6 Ft/run

 
Well 3.1 (COTF) Total Core Cut  278 ft ‐ Recovered  153 ft (55%)
Core Runs 38  ‐ coring time  20 days
 
Coal recovered 71 ft (of 154 ft) ‐ 46% ‐ Canisters 53

 
Core Recovery (%)

Cored Length (ft)

  Avg. Rec. = 55%

 
Avg. Core = 7 Ft/run
 
Avg. Rec = 4 Ft/run
 

Figure 8 - Core recovery data for Wells 4.2, 8.1 and 3.1. In total, 529 ft of core was recovered (63%), of
which 199 ft was coal.
 
 
 
Well 4.2
  15 min (42-2 max/min)
17 min (31-5 max/min)
8 samples 17 min (26-9 max/min)
  in one run Total 45 min (91-22 )

  Electric problem
Time (min)

Q1/Qtotal (%)
 

 
Avg. Q1% = 37%

Cuttings
 

No Q1 data
 

 
Canister Number
Run#9
 
Well  8.1 16 min (28-5)
  7 min (10-3)
14 min (20-9)

 
Total 37 min (58-17)
 
Time (min)

Q1/Qtotal (%)
 

  Avg. Q1% = 25%

  Canister Number

  Well 3.1
1 extra sample 20 min (24-16)
Carbonaceous shale
6 min (11-2)
  20 min (28-16)

Total 37 min (63-20)

 

 
Time (min)

 
Q1/Q2 (%)

 
Avg. Q1% = 27%

 
Canister Number
Time zero = midway between bottom / surface (~ ½ of extraction time)

Figure 9 - Canister sampling times and lost gas for Wells 4.2, 8.1 and 3.1. Note that the average lost gas
dropped from 37% in the first to 27% in the last core well.
 
 WellB1.8.1
8.1 [MD ~10m Well 8.2
B1.8.2 [MD]
26 CALI 6 6 CALI 26 MD 0 GREV 200 MD0 0.0
Cor e_I nt er vals_shif t ed
MSE 30.0 26 BS 66 BS 26 MD 0 GREV 200 per f _int er val
MD 0.0 MSE 30.0

Core
26 BS 66 BS 26 1:442 canni-s50
t er _dept h_shf
70 ti ed
Borehole Size 26 DMAX 6 6 DMAX 26 1:442 Borehole Size
ft ~ 30 days ft ~ 1 day

IFT
26 DMAX 6 6 DMAX 26 26 DMIN 6 6 DMIN 26
26 DMIN 6 6 DMIN 26
OH time Cal. arms 1‐6 8.6 ppg OH time Cal. arms 1‐6
10 ppg 1900

1900

1900

1900
9-5/8”

1997’ 1997’
Top A
Top A Top A
1950

1950

1950

1950
Base A
Base A Base A

Top B
Top B Top B

Base B 2043’
2000

2000

Base B Base B

2000

2000
2043’

Top C
Top C Top C
2050

2050

2050

2050
2053’ 2053’
Base C
Base C
Base C
2100

2100

2100

2100
2097’ 2097’

Hmax
2150

2150

2150

2150

8.8 ppg
Deeper surface
2200

2200

2231’
2200

2200

2231’
csg, lower MW,
clean drilling
fluid, use of mud
motor and
2250

2250

2250

2250

CBM TS700
TS700
limited OH time CBM TS700

2263 2263 2263 2263

Figure 10 - Wellbore profiles for Well 8.1 and 8.2, showing caliper logs, gamma ray colored by means of
lithology, coring intervals with canister samples (blue boxes and red dots respectively) and
caliper profiles. Cased-hole injection fall-off test (CH-IFT) intervals are shown in red boxes.

 
 Well 3.1
B1.3.1 [MD] ~10m
Well 3.2B1.3.2
(1[MD]
day OH) Well 3.2 (6 days
B1 3.2_3Jan11 [MD] OH)

IFT
26 CALI 66 CALI 26 MD 0 GREV 200
canni-s50
t er _dept h_shf
MD 0
70 ti ed
TGAS 500 26 CALI 6 6 CALI 26 MD 0 GREV 200 per f _int er val
MD 0 TGAS 500 26 BS 66 BS 26 MD 0 GR 200 MD N/A N/A

Core / Cans
26 BS 66 BS 26 1:299 Caliper 26 BS 6 6 BS 26 1:299 Caliper 26 DMAX 66 DMAX 26 1:299 Caliper
~ 6 days
Cor e_I nt er vals_shif t ed

26 DMAX 66 DMAX 26 ~ 30 days 26 DMAX 6 6 DMAX 26 ~ 1 day 26 DMIN 66 DMIN 26

3200

3200
3200

3200

3200

3200
26 DMIN 66 DMIN 26
OH time
26 DMIN 6 6 DMIN 26
OH time OH time
9.5 ppg 8.6 ppg 8.6 ppg

3225

3225
3225

3225

3225

3225
Top A Top A Top A

Base A Base A Base A

3250

3250

3250

3250

3250

3250
3275

3275
3275

3275

3275

3275

3300

3300
3300

3300

3300

3300

3325

3325
3325

3325

3325

3325
Top B Top B
Top B

IFT attempt
3350

3350

3350

3350

3350

3350
Base B Base B Base B
3375

3375

3375

3375

3375

3375
8.8 ppg

3400

3400
3400

3400

3400

3400
Top C
Top C

(3425)

(3425)
3425

3425

3425

3425
Base C
Base C

Borehole Size

Cal. arms 1-6

(3450)

(3450)
3450

3450

3450

3450

9.7 ppg 3458 3458

8.8 ppg 3458 3458 ( 3458) ( 3458)

Figure 11 - Wellbore profiles for Well 3.1 and 3.2, showing hole enlargement after 1 day and 6 days of open hole time. Legend same as in Figure 10.