Back to Menu
PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
Thirty-Fourth Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2010
EVALUATION OF COAL BED METHANE POTENTIAL OF BENTIAN BESAR, KUTEI BASIN
Abdul Haris*
Anang Mujiantoro**
Rudy E Kurniawan**
ABSTRACT
The Kutei basin is ones of large six coal basins
which have Coal Bed Methane (CBM) potential
resources distributed in many area of East
Kalimantan and estimated totally about 50 TCF.
Based on previous study of coal surface mapping
and characteristics, the Bentian Besar and Siluq
Ngurai District is ones having CBM potential area.
To Asses more detail the potential resources of
CBM, the subsurface geological and geophysical
study is required.
The identification, mapping distribution and
potential assessment of CBM potential in this study
area rely upon the availability of data set (seismic
and well data). Since the availability of data set is
very limited i.e. three wells and 2D seismic data,
which is not laid out in the study area, the
distribution map of the CBM is hard to be produced.
The work that can be carried out is sweet spot
identification.
In the M well, eleven coal seams can be recognized
using the electric log characters, especially gamma
ray, resistivity and density log. Coal layer is
indicated by low density value and high resistivity.
The coal seams can be identified at depth ranging
from 400 m up to 1100 m. In the shallow depth less
than 500 m, it could be identified 5 coal seams (coal
A – E) with varying thickness. Coal A, B, D and E
has thickness around 2 -3 m, while the coal C is
thicker than the others (ca. 8 m) at the depth of
465m. Based on the identified coal seam along the
depth of M well, the gas in place (GIP) potential of
the whole seam is estimated around 5.6 TCF.
Keywords: CBM potential, Bentian Besar, Gas in
place
* University of Indonesia
** Ridlatama Mining Utama
IPA10-G-139
INTRODUCTION
The Indonesian energy consumption is
progressively increases. Currently, the major energy
is still supported by conventional oil and gas and a
little come from coal and water, while oil and gas
reserve is progressively decrease. This situation
required more of diversification of energy; coal bed
methane (CBM) is ones of examples for alternative.
The CBM potential resources in Indonesia are
estimated about 337 TCF spread out in eleven (11)
coal basins, i.e.,: South Sumatra 120 TCF, Central
Sumatra 50 TCF, Barito 75 TCF, Kutei 50 TCF,
Berau 10 TCF, and Tarakan 20 TCF (Scott, 2003).
The CBM potential in Indonesia has not been
widely commercialized. The abundant of the
massive and low-rank coal deposits of Indonesia
have not previously been proposed for coal bed
methane (CBM) exploration and development. The
prevailing view is that coal reservoirs in Indonesia
are insufficiently mature to have developed high gas
content and favorable permeability required for
commercial development. Even the situation of coal
basins in Indonesia are geologically unlike the five
U.S. coal basins where CBM production has been
successfully established (Ayers, 2002). However,
the previous investigation of Indonesian coal basins
based on well and seismic data indicates that the
CBM potential in Indonesia may be considerable
(Nana, S, 2006).
The investigation of Indonesian coals focused on
surface outcrop and strip mines, where thick
Oligocene and Miocene-Pliocene coal beds are of
low sub-bituminous rank. But CBM exploration
will target coal reservoirs at 500 to 1,500 m depth,
where coal rank and gas contents are much higher
(Scott, 2003).
The CBM potential is distributed in several basins
with multi-TCF potential include the Barito, Berau,
Kutei, Tarakan, and North and Central Sumatra
basins. CBM development costs will be high and
projects may require special fiscal terms, which
Back to Menu
fostered CBM development in the U.S. ten years
ago (Scott, 2003). The Kutei basin is ones of large
six coal basins which have CBM potential resources
distributed in many area of East Kalimantan and
estimated about 50 TCF, totally. Based on previous
information of coal surface mapping and
characteristics, the Bentian Besar and Siluq Ngurai
District are ones have CBM potential area. To
Asses more detail the potential resources of CBM,
the subsurface geology and geophysical analysis.
The objective of this study is to map coal bed
methane potential in the Bentian Besar area East
Kalimantan Province by integrating all available
geological and geophysical data such as well log
data, seismic, gravity, surface geology to asses the
potential resource of CBM.
GEOLOGICAL FRAME WORK
The geological frame work of study area is
dominated by Pamaluan Formation (Late Oligocene
to Early Miocene), which is the predominant
bedrock (Figure 1). The uppermost member of this
formation, which is commonly behave as a coal
bearing rocks were absent in the area. However,
they remain well exposed in northern area
(including the Gunung Bayan coalfield).
The upper interval of the Pamaluan Formation are
composed primarily of shale, alternating sandstone
and shale, sandstone, limestone and coal beds
ranging in thickness from 10 to about 20
centimeters. In contrast to the field findings, coal
thickness is observed at the M and T wells, there are
about 11 coal beds in the lower interval of the
Pamaluan Formation, ranging in thickness from 1 to
about 3 meters.
An overall stratification of the Pamaluan Formation
are gently dipping (less than a few degrees) forming
an anticline-syncline complex. The folds axis
extents approximately in the E-W trend across the
area. Locally, however, gentle dips may become
steepened to indicate deformed beds by the
presence of high-angle normal faults. Lines of
geological cross section depicting bedrocks
correlations in the study area are shown on (Figure
2). The correlation and geologic cross sections are
based on drill cuttings descriptions from coal
exploration projects (Ridlatama, 2007). There is
also a stratigraphic correlation, which is based on
interpretations provided by the geophysical logs of
M and T wells.
Most of the cross sections trends traversing the
study area running in north to south direction.
According to those sections, the coal beds
occurrence are estimated lied at 150-200 meters
below the base of the lowermost limestone beds in
the Pamaluan Formation.
GEOPHYSICAL ANALYSIS
The main work in the geophysical analysis is
carried out in connection with the seismic, regional
gravity interpretation and modeling. The
identification, mapping distribution and potential
assessment of CBM potential in this study area rely
upon the availability of data set (seismic and well
data). Since the existence of data is very limited i.e.
three wells and six seismic data, which is not laid
out in the study area, the distribution map of the
CBM is hard to be produced. The work that can be
carried is sweet spot identification based on the
available well log data set.
Well log and Seismic Data Interpretation
The available wells data are: M, J and T wells, and
the seismic data are K-4D, K-41D, and K-40, which
are located in the eastern part of the block and close
to the T-A1 well. The others seismic lines are C5-
45, C4-34, C4-35, C4-36, C4-38 and C4-40, which
are located in the north-western part of the block
and one of the seismic is intersected with M well.
The position of this data set is represented in Figure
3. Detailed analysis based on this data set can be
used to recognize the subsurface coal seams
distribution. It can be traced that the area of M well
is the high area and it is getting deeper towards the
southwestern part to the Bentian Besar Block.
Unfortunately in the Bentian Besar Block the data is
not available.
The availability of seismic data is insufficient to
track and correlate the available wells. The
minimum requirement to take look at the continuity
or distribution of coal seam, we should have the
seismic line that crossing the area of study. Since,
the lack of seismic information the coal seam
identification is only based on the well log
information.
Our analysis on the well log data can be obtained
that in the M well, eleven (11) coal seams can be
recognized using the electric log characters,
especially gamma ray, resistivity and density log.
Coal layer is indicated by low density value and
high resistivity. The coal seams can be identified at
depth ranging from 400 m up to 1100 m. In the
shallow depth less than 500 m, it could be identified
5 spot (coal A – E) with varying thickness. Coal A,
Back to Menu
B, D and E has thickness around 2 -3 m, while the
coal C is thicker than the others (ca. 8 m) at the
depth of 465m. These coal seams are shown in
Figure 4.
The coal seam F and G, which has the thickness of
3 m and 5 m, is located at depth range of 500 – 600
m. We can identify 3 coal seams H, I and J, which
is indicated with very low density, with varying
thickness of 2 – 3 m in the depth range of 750 m –
850 m. In the depth range of 1000 – 1100 m, we
only identify one thin coal seam less than 3 m
thickness. However, we found the potential gas
sand reservoir in this depth range. In the other hand
the well log of J has no coal seam that can be
identified in depth range of 500 – 900 m. The
same situation is encountered in the well T; no log
information shows coal seam indication.
Referring to available seismic and well data, it
could be said that the coal seams can only be
identified in the M well about 15 Km from study
area and the surrounding area. Detailed analysis
needs seismic line that crossing the study area or
about 15 Km from study area. However by looking
at the coal seam indication, which is encountered in
the most of depth range of M, is still hope to have
CBM potential in this area.
Regional Gravity Interpretation
The interpretation of gravity data covers the area of
Bentian Besar Block and its surrounding area with
structural interpretation is overlain on top of
Bouguer anomaly. The Bouguer anomaly of the
regional East Kalimantan province is characterized
by long NE-SW trending elliptical Bouguer
anomaly contour closures. The trends are parallel to
the main structures in East Kalimantan.
The contour values vary from +32.5 mGal to +57.5
mGal with the contour orientation showing single
structure from northwest to southeast. The Bouguer
high forming closure reaching the value of +57.5
mGals is probably related to anticline structure. A
three dimensional of Bouguer Anomaly of the
Bentian Besar Block and its surrounding area is
illustrated in Figure 5.
The figure shows the distribution of low and high
anomalies in relation to basement configuration. It
shows that the high anomaly in Bentian Besar
predicted as the high structure of the area, and this
is coincidence where the exposure of Pamaluan
Formation occurred.
A Gravity model have been constructed using the
two dimensional GM-SYS gravity modeling
program in northwest – southeast direction which is
almost perpendicular to the major structure. The
model is intended to understand the sub surface
configuration of the Bentian Besar Block. The
ambiguity of the model as very common in gravity
model has been constrained using depth information
of each formation of Well M.
A multi layer model is generated using more
information of well data regarding the depth of
Tanjung Formation, Tuyu Formation, Pamaluan
Formation, Pulubalang Formation and Balikpapan
Formation (Figure 6). In addition, surface
geological map is also integrated to verify the
sedimentary exposure in the area where model was
constructed. This model is designed to understand
the coal seams continuity as interpreted in well M
towards the Bentian Besar Block.
The model shows the sub-surface and surface
correlation in terms of Pamaluan Formation. The
Pamaluan Formation is becoming shallow until the
area of Bentian Besar Block. A major fault was
interpreted approximately in Km 25 in the model,
where the base of Pamaluan Formation was jumped
from about 2000 m becoming 1000 m. And then in
Km 42, the top of Pamaluan Formation was
exposed as well as the basement is closed to the
surface up to 300 m under the Bentian Besar Block
and then deepening again to the southeastern part.
Surface geology indicated the presence of anticlines
and synclines to control the surface structure.
Geological Model
As mentioned previously that the lack of seismic
data and well data in the Bentian Besar Block cause
the high uncertainty of coal seams continuity and
distribution from well M, located approximately
23.85 km in the northwestern part of Bentian Besar
Block, to the Bentian Besar Block. Correlation of
well data, seismic data and gravity data and model
seem able to give a geological model of the coal
seam continuity.
From gravity data, the Bouguer anomaly map has
been converted into depth domain of Base
Pamaluan Formation. This conversion is done by
applying the Bouguer and depth correlation as
derived from gravity model. Having this depth
model of Base Pamaluan Formation, a cross line in
northwest – southeast direction is made through
well M. The model constructed by applying the
Back to Menu
geological information of Well M regarding the
cycle of transgression and regression.
The model indicates the continuity of coal seams is
part of Lower Pamaluan Formation deposited
during Transgression stage. The geometry of coal
deposition is then moving from seaward to
landward as paleogeography reconstruction suggest
the position of seaward and landward in the Bentian
Besar Block (Figure 7).
The regressive cycle occurred in upper part of
Pamaluan Formation, and based on paleogeography
model, the coals seam onwards is progressively
moving towards the seaward. The model satisfies in
explaining result of coal drilling up to 100 - 150 m
in the Bentian Besar Block (Ridlatama, 2007).
However, the geological model certainly suggests
that several coal seams is in place in Bentian Besar
Block with depth ranging from 275 m to 575 m as
they were deposited during transgressive cycle. On
the basis of those information above, the
determination for sweet spot as the area of good
coal deposits is located in the area where the coal
deposits is located between 250 m up to 600 m.
CBM POTENTIAL
Sweet spot is target area of CBM within the study
area. This target is identified using combination of
coal thickness, coal depth and rank. The presence of
gas kicks in oil and gas well is also used as
indicator of the presence of saturated gas in coal
(Kaiser et al, 1994). Due to the lack of laboratory
information, the coal bed methane calculation is
carried out by making assumption in connection
with parameter influencing the coal adsorption
capacity. Major parts of the equation derive
calculations to determine Gas-In-Place. The
standard CBM Gas-In-Place is calculated based on
equation (1) as follows:
GIP = 1359.7(A)(h)(RhoB)(Gc) +
[43,560(A)(h)(Por)(1-Sw)(Bg)] (1)
Where GIP = Gas in Place (if the reservoir is at or
above critical desorption pressure, this is original
gas in place (OGIP). If below, this will be less than
OGIP. 1359.7 = constant to convert complex
combination of metric and English units to Cu. Ft.
A = Area of reservoir for which volumetrics are
being calculated. This will be determined separately
from log analysis as part of the mapping portion of
the exercise. h = Thickness of organic reservoir.
RhoB = Avg density of reservoir interval being
calculated. Gc = Avg gas content of reservoir
interval being calculated. 43,560 = constant to
convert acres to Sq. Ft. Por = Avg porosity
produced by cleats or fractures in reservoir interval.
Sw = Avg water saturation (fraction) in reservoir
cleats or fractures. Bg = Gas compressibility factor,
driven by reservoir pressure, for free gas in
fractures.
The equation 1 consists of two terms. The first term
(left of the ‘+’ sign) pertains to gas stored within the
coals by adsorption to the coal’s molecular
structure. The second term is for free gas stored in
the cleat system (natural fractures) of the coals.
Because the fraction of free gas in coal cleat or
fracture systems is very often insignificant to the
overall reserves picture (< 2%), we will drop this
term of the equation out of our process.
Conventional reservoir GIP and CBM reservoir GIP
equations are actually pretty similar. In the CBM
version, there is a term for area of the reservoir (A),
thickness of the reservoir (h), a term for the
equivalent of porosity, which similarly measures
reservoir storage capability - (RhoB), and a term for
the equivalent of gas saturation - called gas content
(Gc). The combination of ‘Gc’, ‘RhoB’, and ‘h’
terms, gives us the mathematical equivalent of
SoPHIh in conventional reservoirs. Note that there
is not a term for Gas Volume Factor in the CBM
formula whereas one exists in the conventional
formula. The relationship of gas storage to pressure
in coal behaves a bit differently than in
conventional reservoirs and thus is handled
differently (and separately).
The following is several key reservoir property
components in the first half of the CBM equation:
(h) Calculated Pay thickness - the net coaly interval
below a certain density cutoff value. All of that is
reservoir pay; however, the less-organic material
near the cutoff value will have gas contents near
zero. (RhoB) Avg Density – This will be derived
from Bulk Density well log curves over the net
coaly interval. (Gc) Avg Gas content – which the
most involved of the variables in its derivation
because the gas content of coals is not constant and
varies across the coal zone of interest as the organic
properties, volumes of non-organic matter (ash &
moisture) and reservoir conditions in the coals
(most notably, pressure) vary. Thus we will also
compute the following modifiers to gas content: ash
content, in-situ reservoir pressure and recovery
factor.
The Gas Content number (Gc) and its variation is
the focal point of much of the discussion and work
Back to Menu
in calculating GIP. The first major step in the CBM
resource evaluation process is determining the
initial gas content (Gc) in samples that have been
deemed representative of the reservoir in the study
area. This information will serve as the reference
point. The work done for this performed in the
laboratory, so in most cases, the starting point is to
acquire that data for inclusion into the analysis. The
next step is to then use the gas content data from the
reference samples to determine the range of gas
content that is possible even in unsampled coals.
However in this case, the assumption is applied to
calculate the Gc based on the equation (2) as
follows;
Gc=24.06VR – 5.33 (2)
By assuming the Vr is 0.6 the Gc is 9.1 m3/ton,
which is equal to (321 SCF/ton).
The table 1 is the resource calculation of each seam
found in Well. Due to the lack of distribution
information of coal seam, the area of distribution is
assumed to be similar. The area of proposed field is
81,407 ha. but in resource calculation the
distribution area is adopted from sweet spot. Based
on the identified coal seam along the depth of well,
the gas in place (GIP) potential of the whole seam is
estimated around 5.6 TCF.
CONCLUSION
Since the success of a coal bed methane project is
ultimately dependent upon the success of
identification of the CBM distribution and the
substantial characterization of the reservoir
properties, the exploration program must be
established. The unique geologic and reservoir
properties of coal bed methane necessitate a
specialized exploration and reservoir
characterization program. Without the upfront
knowledge, the drilling and production engineering
are severely limited in their ability to install and
produce economically successful well.
Referring to the availability of the data set (seismic
and well), which is very limited, it’s still hard to
recognize the detailed CBM potential including the
distribution and reservoir characteristic. However,
the CBM existence can be identified in the M well
and the surrounding area. Detailed analysis needs
seismic line that crossing the study area or some
coring which is encountered coal seam depth
predicted. By looking at the coal seam indication,
which is encountered in the most of depth range of
M, is still hope to have CBM potential in this area.
Our estimation of the Gas In Place potential of the
selected coal seam is 5.6 TCF.
REFERENCES
Ayers Jr., W.B., 2002. Coalbed gas systems,
resources, and production and a review of
contrasting cases from the San Juan and Powder
Basins. American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, Bulletin, v.86, No.11, p.1853- 1890.
Kaiser, W.R., Hamilton, D.S., Scott, A.R., Tyler, R,
and Finley, R.J., 1994. Geological and hydrological
controls on the producibility of coalbed methane.
Journal of the Geological Society of London, v.151,
p.417-40
Nana S, Bambang H, Tokkis S, and Kusdji DK,
Coalbed Methane potential and coal characteristic
in the Lati region, Berau, Basin, East Kalimantan,
Jurnal Geologi Indonesia, Vol.1 No.1, Maret 2006.
Ridlatama, Geology and Geophysics study on CBM
Potential, Un-publish Report, 2007.
Scott H. Stevens, 2003, Coalbed methane in
Indonesia: an overlooked resource, AAPG
international Conference, 2000.
Scott, A.R., Zhou, N., and Levine, J.R., 1995. A
Modified Approach to estimating Coal and Coal
Gas Resources: Example from the Sand Wash
Basin, Colorado. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin, v.79, no.9, p.1320-
1336
Back to Menu

TABLE 1 - GIP CALCULATION

Gas
Coal Thickness GIP
No Density/ρb(g/cc) Content
Seam (ft) (bscf)
(scf/ton)
1 Coal A 9.84 1.3 321 489.2
2 Coal B 9.84 1.3 321 489.2
3 Coal C 22.97 1.3 321 1,141.60
4 Coal D 8.2 1.3 321 407.7
5 Coal E 9.84 1.3 321 489.2
6 Coal F 9.84 1.3 321 489.2
7 Coal G 9.84 1.3 321 489.2
8 Coal H 9.84 1.3 321 489.2
9 Coal I 9.84 1.3 321 489.2
10 Coal J 6.56 1.3 321 326.2
11 Coal K 6.56 1.3 321 326.2
Total 5,626.30
Back to Menu

Figure 1 - Regional stratigraphy of study area

Figure 2 - Geological cross-section depicting bedrock correlation in the study area

Back to Menu

Figure 3 - Study area and seismic line base map

Figure 4 - Coal seams identification on M well, 11 coal seams are identified.

Back to Menu

Teweh Proposed Block

Bouguer Surface

60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40

Bouguer Anomaly (mms-2)

38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4

Figure 5 - Bouger anomaly of study area in 3D

Figure 6 - Gravity model of study area in 2D

Back to Menu

Figure 7 - Geological model of coal depositional