# P OWDER 

# R IVER 

# B ASIN 

# C OALBED 

# M ETHANE 

# D EVELOPMENT AND 

# P RODUCED 

# W ATER 

# M ANAGEMENT 

# S TUDY

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

# National Energy Technology Laboratory Strategic Center for Natural Gas
November 2002 DOE/NETL-2003/1184DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United St ates Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refe rence therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency ther eof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Cover photos courtesy of Advanced Resources International, Inc., and ALL Consulting, 1305 E. 15 th Street, Suite 205, Tulsa, OK 74120

# Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Development and Produced Water Management Study

Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy and National Energy Technology Laboratory Prepared by: Advanced Resources International, Inc.

November 2002

## DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOREWORD The President’s National Energy Policy Plan estimates that over the next 20 years annual natural gas consumption will increase by 50 percent, from approximately 20 to 31 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). To meet this growing demand for natural gas, the Plan concludes that we will have to fully develop, in an environmentally sensitive manner, our nation’s economically recoverable natural gas resources. Natural gas produced from coal, commonly referred to as coalbed methane (CBM), constitutes 7.5 percent of total annual domestic natural gas production. In 2000, about 1.4 Tcf of coalbed methane was produced in the United States. The Powder River Basin, located in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana, is the nation’s fastest growing source of coalbed methane. In the next 10 years, natural gas development in the Powder River Basin is expected to increase dramatically. As many as 39,000 additional wells will be drilled with 23,900 of these being on Federal lands. Because of this increased drilling activity, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), must prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS’s) evaluating the environmental impacts associated with drilling activities in the region. BLM issued draft Wyoming and Montana EIS’s for comment in January and February, 2002, and expects to have both EIS’s completed in February, 2003. In a related matter, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Region 8) is conducting a study of Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) general permit requirements for produced water on Native American lands in the region. This study will be completed in December, 2002. The BLM EIS’s and the EPA Region 8 BPJ study (and possible follow-on actions) will have a significant impact on the development of natural gas resources in the Powder River Basin. Recognizing this, in April, 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy, through its National Energy Technology Laboratory, contracted with Advanced Resources International, Inc. to analyze the basin’s geology and underlying coalbed methane resources, estimate water production rates associated with coalbed methane development, and evaluate the costs, feasibility, and impacts of coalbed methane produced water disposal practices. BLM and EPA cooperated with DOE on this study, realizing that this information would be useful to them in their efforts to develop environmental policies and procedures that promote Powder River Basin coalbed methane development while protecting the basin's unique ecosystem. The present study, Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Development and Produced Water Management Study, projects that the Powder River Basin contains a considerably larger volume of coalbed methane resources than previously estimated. There is currently a range of resource

### estimates for the Powder River Basin from Federal, State, and industry organizations, varying by

almost a factor of five. For example, DOE, BLM, and the U.S. Geological Survey all have current estimates for the amount of recoverable coalbed methane in this basin ranging from 8 Tcf to 39 Tcf. The differences stem from employing alternative methodologies, different geologic models, and different assumptions. When calculating a quantity as uncertain as undiscovered recoverable natural gas resources, such differences are to be expected and even encouraged, as they lead to further scientific investigation and interagency cooperation that increases the state of knowledge about our Nation’s energy resources. In addition, each source develops its estimates for different purposes, and this also leads to the use of different approaches. Federal agencies are working together to refine our understanding of the coal bed methane resources of this Basin, and we expect, therefore, that estimates of recoverable natural gas resources in the Powder River Basin will continue to change over time. In addition, the study projects that recovering these resources will require fewer wells than those projected in the BLM EIS’s. The study also reveals that the amount of water associated with coalbed methane production in the Powder River Basin is substantially less than previously estimated. Nevertheless, the study concludes that development of the basin’s coalbed methane resources will be significantly impacted by the costs and economic feasibility of produced water management practices and requirements. The study outlines alternative water disposal options, clearly identifies their costs, and makes a compelling argument that requiring more costly methods of produced water management will substantially reduce the amount of economically recoverable Powder River Basin coalbed methane. Review comments on the study by representatives of BLM, EPA, and State officials from Wyoming and Montana have been overwhelmingly positive. The reviewers expressed their appreciation for DOE support and indicated data contained in the study will be of great value in their efforts to promote responsible, environmentally sound development of the Powder River Basin’s coalbed methane resources. The present study is one of a number of studies sponsored by DOE that examine the issues surrounding coalbed methane development. These include development of best management practices, electronic mapping of environmental and well data, a CBM primer for the public, a handbook for the development and review of environmental documents required for CBM projects, analysis of the options for beneficial use of CBM produced water, and research on technologies for produced water treatment. DOE believes that CBM produced water represents a valuable resource in the Powder River Basin and elsewhere in the arid Western U.S., and that it can be, and is, managed with no significant adverse environmental impacts. Currently, this water is used for livestock and wildlife watering, irrigation, to maintain stream flows, and in municipal aquifer recharge. All discharges of this water are permitted and meet State and Federal standards. Additional beneficial uses are being studied. For more information about DOE oil and natural gas environmental projects visit the Office of Fossil Energy website at

www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/environment or contact Peter Lagiovane at: 202-586-8116.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was conducted by Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI), located in Arlington, Virginia, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy, located in Washington, D.C., and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), with locations in Morgantown, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The principal investigator at ARI was Vello Kuuskraa. Other ARI staff contributing to this effort included A. David Decker, Brian T. Kuck, Greg J. Bank a nd Joyce A. Frank. The contractor’s effort was overseen by NETL’s Strategic Center for Natural Gas. The Center’s mission includes strategic planning and policy support, focused on creating a balanced portfolio of DOE natural gas research and development initiatives and policy analyses to support more informed government decision making. The Strategic Center for Natural Gas project manager for this analysis was John Duda. Other DOE staff contributing to th e effort included H. William Hochheiser and Peter Lagiovane of the Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Natural Gas and Petroleum Technology, and William Lawson and John Ford of the National Petroleum Technology Office. The Department extends its appreciation to those companies operating in the Powder River Basin, and staff of the Department of the In terior, Environmental Protection Agency, and Wyoming and Montana State agencies who provi ded the technical input and assistance that enabled DOE to improve the scope and quality of the analysis.

## TECHNICAL PREFACE Coalbed methane resources throughout the entire Powder River Basin were reviewed in this analysis. The study was conducted at the township level, and as with all assessments conducted at such a broad level, readers must recognize and understand the limitations and appropriate use of the results. Raw and derived data provided in this report will not generally apply to any specific location. The coal geology in the basin is complex, which makes correlation with individual seams difficult at times. Although more than 12,000 wells have been drilled to date, large areas of the Powder River Basin remain relatively undeveloped. The lack of data obviously introduces uncertainty and increases variability. Proxies and analogs were used in the analysis out of necessity, though these were always based on sound reasoning. Future development in the basin will make new data and interpretations available, which will lead to a more complete description of the coals and their fluid flow properties, and refined estimates of natural gas and water production rates and cumulative recoveries. Throughout the course of the study, critical data assumptions and relationships regarding gas content, methane adsorption isotherms, and reservoir pressure were the topics of much discussion with reviewers. A summary of thes e discussion topics is provided as an appendix. Water influx was not modeled although it is acknowledged that this phenomenon may occur in some settings. As with any resource assessment, technical and economic results are the product of the assumptions and methodology used. In this study, key assumptions as well as cost and price data, and economic parameters are presented to fully inform readers. Note that many quantities shown in various tables have been subject to rounding; therefore, aggregation of basic and intermediate quantities may differ from the values shown.

### i 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 STUDY PURPOSE, APPROACH AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.3 Partitioning the Powder River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 1.4 Study Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 1.5 Summary of Findings and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13 2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND RESERVOIR PROPERTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Basin Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2 Basin Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 2.3 Basin Stratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2.4 Major Coal Seams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2.5 Key Reservoir Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 2.6 Summary of Reservoir Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 3.0 COALBED METHANE RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.2 Coalbed Methane Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.3 In-Place and Technically Recoverable PRB CBM Resources, by Partition . . 3-3 3.4 Estimating Gas and Water Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 4.0 COSTS OF PRB CBM DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.1 Basic Cost Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 4.2 Discussion of CBM Development Capital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4.3 Discussion of CBM Well O&M Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9 5.0 ECONOMICS OF PRB CBM UNDER ALTERNATIVE WATER DISPOSAL OPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 5.2 Water Disposal Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5.3 Costs of Water Disposal Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5.4 Discussion of Water Disposal Capital and O&M Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 5.5 Detailed Economic Analyses of Water Management Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 6.0 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS BY BASIN PARTITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1 Partition #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.2 Partition #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.3 Partitions #3 and #12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6 6.4 Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9 6.5 Partition #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

### ii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.6 Partition #6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25 6.7 Partition #7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-33 6.8 Partition #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-39 6.9 Partition #9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-46 6.10 Partition #10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-46 6.11 Partition #11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-49 Figures Figure 1-1. Powder River Basin, Growth of Coalbed Methane Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 Figure 1-2. Powder River Basin, Growth in CBM Water Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 Figure 1-3. CBM Water/Gas Production Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 Figure 1-4. CBM Water Production Per Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 Figure 1-5. Powder River Basin CBM Partitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 Figure 1-6. Extent of CBM Drilling Map, Partition #4, Anderson Coal Seam Wells . . . . . . 1-6 Figure 1-7. Extent of CBM Drilling Map, Partition #4, Canyon Coal Seam Wells . . . . . . . . 1-7 Figure 1-8. Extent of CBM Drilling Map, Partition #4, Wyodak Coal Seam Wells . . . . . . . 1-8 Figure 2-1. Coal Basins of Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Figure 2-2. Center of Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Figure 2-3. Regional Structure and Tectonic Map of the Powder River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 Figure 2-4. Regional Cross Section of the Powder River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 Figure 2-5. Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary Stra tigraphic Chart for Powder River Basin . . . 2-4 Figure 2-6. Coal Bearing Units of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 Figure 2-7. Simplified Representation of Fort Union Coalbeds Near Gillette, in Campbell County, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 Figure 2-8. Sample Log Upper Fort Union Coals in Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8 Figure 2-9. Coal Correlation Diagram for Fort Union and Wasatch Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 Figure 2-10. Cross-Section Showing Latera l Variation of Coalbeds in the Wyodak Coal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 Figure 2-11. Regional Pressure Gradient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11 Figure 2-12. Reservoir Pressure Profile Used for PRB Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 Figure 2-13. Gas Content Isotherm Used for Powder River Coalbed Methane . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13 Figure 2-14. Average Synthesized Adsorption Isotherm for 41 Coal Samples From the PRB, Based on a Compilation of Data From Public and Private Sources . . . . . 2-13 Figure 3-1. Wyodak Coal Seam Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 Figure 3-2. Wyodak Type Well History Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 Figure 3-3. 10-Year Simulation of Gas and Water Production for Wyodak Type Well . . . . 3-11

### iii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Figure 6-1. Partition #1 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Figure 6-2. Partition #2 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 Figure 6-3. Canyon Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6 Figure 6-4. Wyodak Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 Figure 6-5. Partition #3 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11 Figure 6-6. Partition #12 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12 Figure 6-7. Big George Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 Figure 6-8. Big George Partition #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16 Figure 6-9. Partition #4 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18 Figure 6-10. Partition #4 Sample Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20 Figure 6-11. Partition #4 Anderson Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22 Figure 6-12. Anderson Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23 Figure 6-13. Anderson Type Well, Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24 Figure 6-14. Partition #4 Canyon Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26 Figure 6-15. Canyon Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-27 Figure 6-16. Canyon Type Well, Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-28 Figure 6-17. Partition #4 Wyodak Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29 Figure 6-18. Wyodak Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30 Figure 6-19. Wyodak Type Well, Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-32 Figure 6-20. Partition #4 Cook Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-33 Figure 6-21. Partition #4 Wall Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35 Figure 6-22. Wall Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-36 Figure 6-23. Wall Type Well, Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37 Figure 6-24. Partition #4 Pawnee Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-39 Figure 6-25. Partition #4 Cache Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40 Figure 6-26. Partition #5 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42 Figure 6-27. Smith Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-45 Figure 6-28. Smith Type Well, Partition #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-46 Figure 6-29. Anderson Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-48 Figure 6-30. Canyon Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-50 Figure 6-31. Big George Coal Seam - Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-52 Figure 6-32. Big George Coal Seam We ll Location and Elevation Map, Partition #5 . . . . . 6-53 Figure 6-33. Big George Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-54 Figure 6-34. Big George Type Well Partition #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-55 Figure 6-35. Wyodak Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-57 Figure 6-36. Partition #6 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-61 Figure 6-37. Partition #7 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-70 Figure 6-38. Partition #8 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-77 Figure 6-39. Anderson Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-80 Figure 6-40. Anderson Type Well, Partition #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-81

### iv 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Figure 6-41. Cook Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-83 Figure 6-42. Cook Type Well, Partition #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-84 Figure 6-43. Wall Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-86 Figure 6-44. Wall Type Well, Partition #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-87 Figure 6-45. Pawnee Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-89 Figure 6-46. Pawnee Type Well, Partition #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-90 Figure 6-47. Partition #9 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-93 Figure 6-48. Partition #10 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-94 Figure 6-49. Dietz Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-96 Figure 6-50. Monarch Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-98 Figure 6-51. Cook-Carney Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-100 Figure 6-52. Partition #11 Base Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-102 Figure 6-53. Dietz (Anderson) Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-103 Figure 6-54. Dietz (Anderson), Partition #11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-106 Figure 6-55. Monarch (Canyon) Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-107 Figure 6-56. Monarch (Canyon), Partition #11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-109 Figure 6-57. Carney (Cook) Time Zero Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-110 Figure 6-58. Carney (Cook), Partition #11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-111 Figure A-1. Gas Content Isotherm Used for Powder River Coalbed Methane . . . . . . . . . . A-3 Figure A-2. Average Synthesized Adsorption Isotherm for 41 Coal Samples From the PRB, Based on a Compilation of Data From Public and Private Sources . . . . A-3 Figure A-3. Variation in Sorption Capacity with Temperature, Dietz #3 Coal . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Figure A-4. Comparison of Bustin and Downey Adsorption Iostherm for Dietz #3 Coal with Advanced Resources Adsorption Isotherm for PRB Coals A-5 Figure A-5. Wyodak Time Zero Well Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7 Figure A-6. History Match Wyodak Type Well w/Free Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7 Figure A-7. Reservoir Simulation of Wyodak Type Well w/No Free Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8 Figure A-8. Reservoir Simulation of Wyodak T ype Well w/23% Gas Undersaturation . . . A-8 Figure A-9. Reservoir Simulation of Wyodak T ype Well w/66% Gas Undersaturation . . . A-9 Figure A-10. Big George Time Zero Well Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10 Figure A-11. History Match Big George Type Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-11 Figure A-12. Reservoir Simulation of Big George Type Well w/23% Gas Undersaturation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12 Tables Table S-1. Volumes of Economically Recoverable CBM w/Alternative Water Disposal Options (Tcf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Table S-2. Summary of Impacts from Using Alternative Water Disposal Methods for CBM Produced Water in the PRB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Table 1-1. Reports and Data for Powder River CBM and Water Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

### v 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Table 1-2. Electronic Data Sources for Powder River CBM and Water Study . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12 Table 1-3. Economically Recoverable CBM (Tcf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14 Table 1-4. Volumes of Economically Recoverable CBM (Tcf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14 Table 1-5. Volumes of CBM Produced Water (Billion Bbls) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15 Table 1-6. Loss of Economically Recoverable CBM (Tcf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15 Table 1-7. Loss of Mineral Royalties from CBM ($MM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16 Table 1-8. Loss of Well Drilling for CBM (# Wells) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16 Table 1-9. Loss of Capital Investment for CBM ($MM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17 Table 1-10. Summary of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17 Table 2-1. Partition #4 Coal Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 Table 2-2. Coal Thickness for Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10 Table 2-3. Average Data for Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 Table 2-4. Key Reservoir Properties for Powder River Basin Coals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16 Table 3-1. Gas In-Place for Major PRB Coal Seams (Bcf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 Table 3-2. Technically Recoverable Resources for Major PRB Coal Seams (Bcf) . . . . . . . . 3-3 Table 3-3. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #1 and #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 Table 3-4. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #3 and #12 . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 Table 3-5. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 Table 3-6. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 Table 3-7. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Table 3-8. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Table 3-9. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 Table 3-10. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 Table 3-11. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 Table 3-12. Number and Nature of CBM Wells for History Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 Table 3-13. Summary Results for PRB Coalbed Methane History Matching . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 Table 3-14. Number of CBM Type Wells for Basin Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12 Table 4-1. Capital Costs for PRB CBM Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Table 4-2. O&M Costs for PRB CBM Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 Table 4-3. Capital Costs for Alternate Method of Water Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 Table 4-4. Sample Tangible and Intangible Costs for Two PRB CBM Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 Table 4-5. Additional Drilling and Completion Costs for Two PRB CBM Wells . . . . . . . . . 4-7 Table 4-6. Pump Replacement Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9 Table 5-1. Volumes of Economically Recoverable CBM w/Alternative Water Disposal Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Table 5-2. Volumes of Economically Recoverable CBM w/Alternative Water Disposal Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 Table 5-3. CBM Water Disposal Alternative Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 Table 5-4. Capital Costs for Disposal Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 Table 5-5. Total Estimated Costs for Deep Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 Table 5-6. Total Capital Costs for Active Water Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

### vi 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Table 5-7. Annual Operating Costs for Trucking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 Table 5-8. Assumptions for Discounted Cash Flow Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 Table 5-9. Cashflow Model Surface Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5- 122 Table 6-1. Anderson Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Table 6-2. Canyon Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 Table 6-3. Wyodak Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 Table 6-4. Big George Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 Table 6-5. Cook Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 Table 6-6. Pawnee Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 Table 6-7. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #1 and #2 . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6 Table 6-8. Anderson Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 Table 6-9. Canyon Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 Table 6-10. Big George Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 Table 6-11. Cook Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9 Table 6-12. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #3 and #12 . . . . . . . . . 6-9 Table 6-13. Anderson Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11 Table 6-14. Canyon Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12 Table 6-15. Wyodak Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13 Table 6-16. Cook Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13 Table 6-17. Wall Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14 Table 6-18. Pawnee Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15 Table 6-19. Cache Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16 Table 6-20. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16 Table 6-21. Felix Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17 Table 6-22. Roland Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18 Table 6-23. Smith Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18 Table 6-24. Swartz Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19 Table 6-25. Anderson Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20 Table 6-26. Canyon Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-20 Table 6-27. Big George Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21 Table 6-28. Wyodak Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22 Table 6-29. Cook Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23 Table 6-30. Wall Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-23 Table 6-31. Pawnee Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24 Table 6-32. Cache Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25 Table 6-33. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25 Table 6-34. Cameron Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26 Table 6-35. Murry Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-27 Table 6-36. Felix Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-27 Table 6-37. Ucross Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-28

### vii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Table 6-38. Roland Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-28 Table 6-39. Anderson Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29 Table 6-40. Canyon Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30 Table 6-41. Big George Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30 Table 6-42. Cook Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-31 Table 6-43. Wall Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-31 Table 6-44. Pawnee Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-32 Table 6-45. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-32 Table 6-46. Wasatch Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-34 Table 6-47. Roland Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-34 Table 6-48. Smith Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35 Table 6-49. Anderson Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35 Table 6-50. Canyon Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-36 Table 6-51. Cook Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37 Table 6-52. Wall Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-37 Table 6-53. Pawnee Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-38 Table 6-54. Cache Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-38 Table 6-55. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-39 Table 6-56. Smith Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40 Table 6-57. Swartz Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40 Table 6-58. Anderson Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-41 Table 6-59. Canyon Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42 Table 6-60. Cook Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-42 Table 6-61. Wall Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-43 Table 6-62. Pawnee Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-44 Table 6-63. Cache Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-44 Table 6-64. Oedekoven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-45 Table 6-65. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-45 Table 6-66. Dietz Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-47 Table 6-67. Monarch Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-47 Table 6-68. Carney Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-48 Table 6-69. Pawnee Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-49 Table 6-70. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #9 and #10 . . . . . . . . . 6-49 Table 6-71. Dietz #1 Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-50 Table 6-72. Dietz #2 Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-51 Table 6-73. Dietz #3 Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-51 Table 6-74. Monarch Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-52 Table 6-75. Carney Coal Seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-53 Table 6-76. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-53

### viii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Table A-1. Comparison PRB Wyodak Coal and Overseas Low Rank Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 Table A-2. Comparison of Gas Production Rates for Wyodak Type Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 Table A-3. Wyodak Coal Seam Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10 Table A-4. Comparison of Gas Production Rates for Big George Type Well . . . . . . . . . . . A-11 Table A-5. Big George Coal Seam Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12 Table A-6. Reservoir Parameters for Powder River Basin (Fort Union Coals) . . . . . . . . . . A-13 Table A-7. Comparison of 1995 USGS and 2002 ARI Values for Gas Content of PRB Coals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-141 

### Increased potential, however, should not be confused with additional impact. Higher per well gas recoveries will allow development of the resource using far fewer wells and as a consequence, with much less disturbance. In fact, this analysis forecasts that several thousand fewer wells will be needed to develop the CBM resources in the Powder River Basin, compared to widely-accepted well count estimates. Moreover, prudent resource development is expected to lead to less water production–billions of barrels less–as compared to the draft EIS estimate. ix 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Powder River Basin coals contain a considerably larger volume of gas in place than established by previous studies. The Powder River Coalbed Methane Basin Study identifies 61 Tcf of natural gas in-place. This in-place resource value is significantly larger than previously reported and confirms that the Po wder River Basin (PRB) coalbed methane (CBM) play has the potential for providing significant additions to future domestic natural gas supplies 1 

### . Major reasons for the increased PRB coalbed methane resource in-place of 61 Tcf in this Basin Study are the following: • The study included extensive information on the deeper Fort Union coals prevalent in the basin, it compiled new data on the Wastach coals on the western edge of the basin, and it included the coals in the Montana portion of the PRB. • The study identified the presence of free gas in certain coal formations and established higher gas content values for PRB coals, both increasing the gas in- place over previous estimates. A significant portion of the coalbed methane resource in the Powder River Basin is technically recoverable. The estimate of 39 Tcf of technically recoverable resources is based on reservoir modeling and the construction of 142 “type wells” representative of the distribution in well performance (gas and water production) for 12 distinct coal seams in 12 basin partitions. All results include CBM development to date in the basin. The Basin Study’s estimate of technically recoverable coalbed methane resources for the Powder River updates earlier estimates by the Potential Gas Committee (2000) of 24 Tcf and by the U.S. Geological Survey (2002) of 14 Tcf. The costs and economic feasibility of further developing coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin will be significantly impacted by produced water management practices and requirements. The study finds that alternative produced water management options will have a profound influence on the economic viability of producing coalbed methane from the PRB. The costs of the alternative water management options in the PRB—assessed using a 15%, before corporate income tax, internal rate of return (IRR) and a long-term natural gas price (at the Henry Hub) of $3 per Mcf as the economic threshold criteria—are significant and can make an otherwise profitable CBM project uneconomic. The results of the economic analyses are presented on Table S-1 and are further discussed below.2 

### Shallow re-injection is considered in a generic sense and evaluated from a theoretical standpoint. Much uncertainty exists surrounding the real availability of shallow zones with the required geology and fluid flow properties n ecessary for long-term successful projects. x Table S-1. Volumes of Economically Recoverable CBM w/Alternative Water Disposal Options (Tcf) Economic Conditions Surface Discharge Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Case 1 (Today)* 1.5 -- -- -- Case 2 (Transition)** 22.4 20.0 18.8 7.1-10.2 Case 3 (Long Term)*** 29.1 27.8 27.1 17.8-21.6

* Basin differential remains at $1.80 per Mcf. ** Basin differential narrows from $1.80 per Mcf in year 1 to $0.80 per Mcf in year 3 and beyond. *** Basin differential is $0.80 per Mcf. 

### • Under today’s volatile natural gas prices and unfavorable Wyoming basin differentials, only using surface disposal of produced water is economic. And, this low cost water management option is economic only in sel ected, highly productive portions of the PRB. More costly water disposal options would preclude further economic development of coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin. A significant portion of the 1.5 Tcf of economic CBM potential, shown in Table S-1, is already under development, leaving little opportunity for further economically justified expansion (at today’s conditions and standard economic criteria) in the Powder River Basin. • Assuming a transition toward more normal Wyoming basin price differentials, a significant portion of the basin becomes economic to further develop, with water management practices of surface discharge, impoundment or shallow re-injection 2 

### . Requiring active treatment of the water (with current reverse osmosis technology) greatly reduces the economically viable potential for CBM in the PRB. Specifically, instead of 19 to 22 Tcfof economically recoverable coalbed methane (using one of the first three water management options, shown in Table S-1), only 7 to 10 Tcf of coalbed methane remains economic to develop with a requirement for active water treatment. This represents a loss of 12 Tcf of otherwise economically recoverable natural gas resource from the Powder River Basin. • Taking a long-term outlook on prices and assuming that the Wyoming basin differential returns to historically more normal values, the economically developable CBM resources of the PRB range from 27 to 29 Tcf (for the three lower cost water management options). Requiring active treatment of water (with current reverse osmosis technology) reduces the economically viable PRB CBM potential to a range of 18 to 22 Tcf for a loss of 7 to 9 Tcf of otherwise economically recoverable natural gas resource.

### xi The loss of CBM resources, royalties and tax receipts from more stringent CBM produced water management practices would be substantial . Table S-2 provides a summary of the potential losses that would occur from requirements to use progressively more stringent water disposal alternatives. The PRB Study recognizes that, in practice, a combination of water disposal alternatives would be used. Once the final mix of options is established, the information in this study can be used to estimate these impacts. Table S-2. Summary of Impacts from Using Alternative Water Disposal Methods for CBM Produced Water in the PRB
Water Disposal Method Loss of CBM Resource Loss of CBM Royalty Loss of Production/ Ad Valorem Taxes (Tcf) ($ million) ($ million) Surface Discharge -- -- -- Infiltration Impoundment (2.4) ($506) ($362) Shallow Re-injection (3.6) ($756) ($540) Reverse Osmosis/w: • Trucking of Residual (15.3) ($3,184) ($2,272) • Deep Disposal of Residual (12.2) ($2,547) ($1,810) 

### Improvements in coalbed methane production technology and water management practices can help maintain the economic viability of Powder River coalbed methane . The current volatile natural gas prices and historically high basin differentials place major hurdles on theeconomics of Powder River CBM. Further raising the barrier is the recognition that a considerable portion of the shallower, thick coals in the basin have already been drilled, leaving deeper and thinner coals as the target. Finally, the costs of more stringent water management practices will further lower the economic viability of this large natural gas resource.

### 1-1 1.0 STUDY PURPOSE, APPROACH AND FINDINGS 1.1 Purpose of Study The overall purpose of the Powder River Basin Study is to assist DOE/FE, NETL and NPTO better understand the energy impacts of the alternative water disposal options being considered for Powder River Basin coalbed methane. The specific objectives of the study are: 1. Develop a stronger data and analytical base for the geology, resources and CBM potential of the Powder River Basin. 2. Divide the basin into a series of geologically similar partitions to facilitate the analysis of well performance and costs. 3. Project CBM and water production rates for a series of typical wells and the distribution of well performance in each partition.4. Assemble information on the costs of CBM development and produced water management, including cash flows and economics. 1.2 Background The Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana is the site of the fastest growing domestic natural gas play—the development of coalbed methane (CBM) from the Wyodak and Big George fairways. As of the end of 2001: • Nearly 12,000 CBM wells have been drilled with 8,177 wells producing. • Coalbed methane production is at 823 million cubic feet a day (MMcfd) up from 111 MMcfd just three years earlier, as shown in Figure 1-1. Along with the growth in CBM production has been the growth in produced water, as part of dewatering and depressuring the coal formations thus enabling the coals to release their adsorbed methane. As of the end of 2001, water production was at 1,444,000 barrels per day, up from 229,000 barrels per day at the end of 1998, as shown in Figure 1-2. Progressive CBM development and dewatering, while increasing total water production, is leading to lower water to gas ratios and lower average production of water per well: • The water to gas production ratio (at the end of 2001) is 1.75 barrels per Mcf, down from 2.88 barrels per Mcf two years ago, as shown in Figure 1-3. • Water production per CBM well (at the end of 2001) is 177 barrels per day, down from 396 barrels per day two years ago, as shown in Figure 1-4.

### 1-2 111 232 544 823

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900



## 12/1998 12/1999 12/2000 12/2001CBM Production (MMcfd)



### Figure 1-1. Powder River Basin, Growth of Coalbed Methane Production

229 667 1,209 1,444

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600Water Production (MBbl/d)



## 12/1998 12/1999 12/2000 12/2001 Figure 1-2. Powder River Basin, Growth in CBM Water Production

### 1-3 

# CBM Water/Gas Ratio (Bbls/Mcf)



## 0 1 2 3 4

1999 2000 2001Barrels Water/Mcf Gas 

### 2.88 2.22 1.75



### Figure 1-3. CBM Water/Gas Production Ratio 

# CBM Water Production Per Well (Bbls/Day)



## 0 100 200 300 400

1999 2000 2001Barrels Water/Well/Day 

### 396

268 177



### Figure 1-4. CBM Water Production Per WellFor the most part, produced CBM waters are either surface discharged or placed into impoundments providing beneficial use for agriculture, st ock watering and grasslands. Should beneficial

### 1-4use of produced CBM water be constrained, other (more costly) options would need to be considered, impacting the economics and natural gas resource development in the basin. These options include: (a) shallow re-injection to conserve the water for future use; (b) pre-treatment of water with chemicals and reverse osmosis, w ith deep disposal of the residual concentrate; and/or, ©) deep re-injection into non-potable water disposal aquifers. 1.3 Partitioning the Powder River Basin To provide a series of geologically consistent an alytic units, the Powder River Basin is divided into 12 partitions, based on coal depth, developmen t status, and geographic considerations. The 12 basin partitions are shown in Figure 1-5, and consist of the following: 1. Southern Extension 2. South Eastern Area 3. South Central Area 4. East Central Area 5. Main Central Area 6. West Central Area 7. North Western Area 8. North Eastern Area 9. Eastern Montana Area 10. Western Montana Area 11. NW Basin Edge, Wyoming 12. SW Basin Edge, Wyoming Partition #4, in the east-central portion of the Power River, has seen the most extensive coalbed methane development, as well as surface mining of coal. Figures 1-6 through 1-8 show the extent of coalbed methane development (as of the end of 2001) for the Anderson, Canyon and Wyodak coal seams in Partition #4, and in surrounding townships along the eastern portion of the PRB. This study provides the gas in-place, recoverable resources and economics of each of the major coal seams in each of these 12 basin partitions.

### 1-5 Campbell

Johnson Sheridan P ow d er R i ver

9S 44E 8S 44E 7S 47E

9S 46E 6S 47E

9S 45E 8S 46E 8S 47E 8S 45E 8S 50E
9S 47E 9S 9S 53E 9S 50E 8S 41E 8S 36E 6S 50E
7S 51E 6S 51E

9S 43E 6S 41E

8S 43E 6S 43E 6S 42E

9S 49E 8S 51E
9S 48E 7S 43E 7S 41E 7S 53E 8S 38E 8S 53E 7S 50E 6S 36E

9S 51E 9S 40E 7S 36E

8S 40E 7S 37E 7S 42E 6S 40E

9S 38E 9S 42E 8S 7S 7S 40E

8S 52E 6S 6S 48E 6S 49E 6S 45E
7S 48E

9S 36E 7S 39E

8S 48E 6S 37E

8S 49E 6S 53E

9S 52E 8S 42E 7S 49E 7S 52E 6S 52E
7S 45E
8S 37E 7S 46E

9S 41E 9S 37E 7S 44E 6S 39E 6S 46E

8S 39E 6S 44E

57N 76W
56N 70W 56N 71W 56N 72W

52N 77W 52N 73W 57N 84W 57N 75W 9S 39E

55N 81W 56N 73W 56N 69W 57N 74W

49N 85W

45N 72W 51N 73W

48N 86W

46N 72W

43N 75W

39N 69W 56N 78W 7S 38E

49N 84W

44N 84W

42N 75W 45N 69W N 87W

45N 70W 53N 79W

36N 71W 56N 86W

44N 82W 47N 73W

42N 77W 52N 75W 54N 78W

43N 76W 56N 79W

49N 72W

47N 72W

43N 73W

41N 76W

36N 70W 54N 83W

51N 77W 56N 75W

51N 76W

45N 71W

42N 76W 57N 83W

50N 84W 52N 72W 53N 72W

41N 77W 51N 70W
50N 70W

43N 69W

41N 72W 41N 75W

36N 72W 57N 80W

47N 84W 49N 73W 49N 71W

38N 72W 56N 74W 57N 82W

49N 69W

44N 78W 50N 76W

42N 73W 44N 73W 52N 71W 55N 71W

44N 70W

39N 85W 49N 70W

46N 86W 51N 75W

43N 70W 57N 86W

39N 72W
38N 69W 56N 76W

41N 69W 44N 69W 51N 83W

46N 70W 50N 85W

37N 71W 44N 75W 48N 84W

39N 84W 50N 75W

48N 72W 54N 72W

41N 73W 49N 74W 53N 86W

38N 71W 42N 71W 51N 71W 56N 83W 56N 77W

52N 70W 56N 85W

53N 73W

50N 74W

37N 72W 44N 72W 52N 79W

50N 77W

41N 74W 42N 72W 54N 82W

87W 50N 71W

37N 69W 47N 70W

45N 84W

43N 71W

39N 70W 39N 71W 50N 69W 54N 79W

41N 71W 46N 77W 46N 73W 47N 77W 47N 85W

45N 78W 46N 74W 47N 71W

42N 74W 50N 73W

45N 77W 50N 80W 55N 82W

N 87W

38N 86W 48N 71W

46N 69W

42N 69W
41N 70W 52N 74W

45N 86W 55N 69W

87W 87W

45N 74W
44N 71W 45N 76W 45N 82W 52N 76W

42N 84W 53N 84W 53N 85W

46N 78W

37N 85W 55N 70W 55N 72W

42N 85W N 87W

46N 71W
45N 75W

43N 72W 46N 79W
45N 83W 51N 84W

46N 82W 52N 69W

40N 84W 45N 79W 49N 75W

47N 75W 47N 69W 47N 78W 48N 70W 54N 75W

45N 85W 49N 76W

36N 73W 48N 78W
47N 74W 56N 84W 57N 73W

38N 70W 87W

49N 77W 52N 86W

51N 69W

38N 85W 53N 69W

43N 74W 48N 69W

44N 81W

N 87W 52N 82W 56N 82W

51N 81W

37N 84W N 87W

37N 83W 37N 86W 45N 81W

37N 70W 49N 81W

37N 79W 54N 80W

48N 79W

N 87W 54N 77W
53N 70W
52N 85W

49N 83W

42N 70W 57N 77W

49N 82W 54N 73W

50N 82W

37N 78W 47N 79W 55N 84W

51N 82W 8 7W

48N 73W

46N 81W 54N 74W 55N 83W

42N 83W 57N 71W

37N 81W 49N 86W 50N 81W 55N 85W

39N 77W 52N 83W N 87W 53N 71W

46N 84W

43N 85W 52N 84W

49N 78W

6S 38E

44N 83W 48N 81W

45N 73W

37N 82W 50N 79W 57N 70W

39N 82W 53N 81W 55N 86W

46N 85W 50N 78W

39N 81W 39N 73W 41N 84W 41N 83W 43N 84W 46N 75W 53N 74W 54N 71W

48N 77W 51N 79W
50N 83W 57N 69W

36N 74W 43N 81W 53N 82W

37N 74W 37N 75W 87W

37N 73W 41N 82W 54N 86W 54N 84W

49N 80W

38N 77W 38N 73W 87W

47N 86W

37N 77W N 87W 44N 85W 53N 80W

38N 84W 40N 85W

38N 74W

36N 81W 46N 83W

39N 75W 47N 83W 50N 72W

36N 75W 57N 85W

53N 83W

43N 82W 50N 86W

39N 83W

36N 82W 38N 82W 40N 82W

38N 81W 39N 78W 87W

38N 78W 43N 77W 57N 79W

44N 74W 55N 78W

36N 69W 42N 81W

40N 69W 54N 85W

N 87W

38N 75W 87W 54N 70W

40N 86W 47N 81W 52N 81W 54N 69W
53N 75W

42N 78W 48N 82W 51N 74W

40N 81W 55N 79W

41N 78W 46N 76W 54N 76W

51N 86W

39N 74W 48N 75W

39N 76W

36N 78W 52N 78W

41N 79W 57N 78W

48N 83W
47N 76W 49N 79W

43N 78W 44N 79W

40N 78W 40N 73W

38N 83W

36N 77W 42N 82W 55N 74W

51N 78W

40N 75W 40N 77W 40N 74W 47N 82W

40N 83W

36N 76W 43N 79W

36N 79W 39N 79W 55N 73W

40N 79W 48N 76W 51N 85W

37N 76W 56N 81W

44N 77W N 87W

36N 83W 55N 77W

40N 72W

37N 80W 42N 86W 43N 86W

38N 79W 42N 79W 44N 86W

41N 81W

38N 76W 39N 86W 87W

51N 80W

36N 80W 38N 80W 44N 76W 53N 76W

40N 80W

6 N 87W 51N 72W

41N 85W 54N 81W 55N 75W

39N 80W 48N 74W

46N 80W
45N 80W

40N 70W 48N 85W 55N 76W

36N 86W 41N 86W 56N 80W

40N 76W

36N 84W 57N 72W

40N 71W 47N 80W 52N 80W

36N 85W 48N 80W 57N 81W

43N 83W 55N 80W

N 87W 53N 78W

41N 80W 42N 80W 43N 80W 44N 80W 58N 86W 87W 58N 80W 58N 85W 58N 79W 58N 84W 58N 83W 58N 82W 58N 81W 58N 78W 58N 74W 58N 73W 58N 75W 58N 77W 58N 76W 58N 71W 58N 69W 58N 70W 58N 72W

53N 77W 10S 38E 7.5S 40E

10S 43E 7.5S 41E

10S 42E

56 1/2N 69 MT WY 

# 10 9 11 7 8

6 5

12 4
3 2
1 Campbell

Johnson Sheridan P ow d er R i ver

9S 44E 8S 44E 7S 47E

9S 46E 6S 47E

9S 45E 8S 46E 8S 47E 8S 45E 8S 50E
9S 47E 9S 9S 53E 9S 50E 8S 41E 8S 36E 6S 50E
7S 51E 6S 51E

9S 43E 6S 41E

8S 43E 6S 43E 6S 42E

9S 49E 8S 51E
9S 48E 7S 43E 7S 41E 7S 53E 8S 38E 8S 53E 7S 50E 6S 36E

9S 51E 9S 40E 7S 36E

8S 40E 7S 37E 7S 42E 6S 40E

9S 38E 9S 42E 8S 7S 7S 40E

8S 52E 6S 6S 48E 6S 49E 6S 45E
7S 48E

9S 36E 7S 39E

8S 48E 6S 37E

8S 49E 6S 53E

9S 52E 8S 42E 7S 49E 7S 52E 6S 52E
7S 45E
8S 37E 7S 46E

9S 41E 9S 37E 7S 44E 6S 39E 6S 46E

8S 39E 6S 44E

57N 76W
56N 70W 56N 71W 56N 72W

52N 77W 52N 73W 57N 84W 57N 75W 9S 39E

55N 81W 56N 73W 56N 69W 57N 74W

49N 85W

45N 72W 51N 73W

48N 86W

46N 72W

43N 75W

39N 69W 56N 78W 7S 38E

49N 84W

44N 84W

42N 75W 45N 69W N 87W

45N 70W 53N 79W

36N 71W 56N 86W

44N 82W 47N 73W

42N 77W 52N 75W 54N 78W

43N 76W 56N 79W

49N 72W

47N 72W

43N 73W

41N 76W

36N 70W 54N 83W

51N 77W 56N 75W

51N 76W

45N 71W

42N 76W 57N 83W

50N 84W 52N 72W 53N 72W

41N 77W 51N 70W
50N 70W

43N 69W

41N 72W 41N 75W

36N 72W 57N 80W

47N 84W 49N 73W 49N 71W

38N 72W 56N 74W 57N 82W

49N 69W

44N 78W 50N 76W

42N 73W 44N 73W 52N 71W 55N 71W

44N 70W

39N 85W 49N 70W

46N 86W 51N 75W

43N 70W 57N 86W

39N 72W
38N 69W 56N 76W

41N 69W 44N 69W 51N 83W

46N 70W 50N 85W

37N 71W 44N 75W 48N 84W

39N 84W 50N 75W

48N 72W 54N 72W

41N 73W 49N 74W 53N 86W

38N 71W 42N 71W 51N 71W 56N 83W 56N 77W

52N 70W 56N 85W

53N 73W

50N 74W

37N 72W 44N 72W 52N 79W

50N 77W

41N 74W 42N 72W 54N 82W

87W 50N 71W

37N 69W 47N 70W

45N 84W

43N 71W

39N 70W 39N 71W 50N 69W 54N 79W

41N 71W 46N 77W 46N 73W 47N 77W 47N 85W

45N 78W 46N 74W 47N 71W

42N 74W 50N 73W

45N 77W 50N 80W 55N 82W

N 87W

38N 86W 48N 71W

46N 69W

42N 69W
41N 70W 52N 74W

45N 86W 55N 69W

87W 87W

45N 74W
44N 71W 45N 76W 45N 82W 52N 76W

42N 84W 53N 84W 53N 85W

46N 78W

37N 85W 55N 70W 55N 72W

42N 85W N 87W

46N 71W
45N 75W

43N 72W 46N 79W
45N 83W 51N 84W

46N 82W 52N 69W

40N 84W 45N 79W 49N 75W

47N 75W 47N 69W 47N 78W 48N 70W 54N 75W

45N 85W 49N 76W

36N 73W 48N 78W
47N 74W 56N 84W 57N 73W

38N 70W 87W

49N 77W 52N 86W

51N 69W

38N 85W 53N 69W

43N 74W 48N 69W

44N 81W

N 87W 52N 82W 56N 82W

51N 81W

37N 84W N 87W

37N 83W 37N 86W 45N 81W

37N 70W 49N 81W

37N 79W 54N 80W

48N 79W

N 87W 54N 77W
53N 70W
52N 85W

49N 83W

42N 70W 57N 77W

49N 82W 54N 73W

50N 82W

37N 78W 47N 79W 55N 84W

51N 82W 8 7W

48N 73W

46N 81W 54N 74W 55N 83W

42N 83W 57N 71W

37N 81W 49N 86W 50N 81W 55N 85W

39N 77W 52N 83W N 87W 53N 71W

46N 84W

43N 85W 52N 84W

49N 78W

6S 38E

44N 83W 48N 81W

45N 73W

37N 82W 50N 79W 57N 70W

39N 82W 53N 81W 55N 86W

46N 85W 50N 78W

39N 81W 39N 73W 41N 84W 41N 83W 43N 84W 46N 75W 53N 74W 54N 71W

48N 77W 51N 79W
50N 83W 57N 69W

36N 74W 43N 81W 53N 82W

37N 74W 37N 75W 87W

37N 73W 41N 82W 54N 86W 54N 84W

49N 80W

38N 77W 38N 73W 87W

47N 86W

37N 77W N 87W 44N 85W 53N 80W

38N 84W 40N 85W

38N 74W

36N 81W 46N 83W

39N 75W 47N 83W 50N 72W

36N 75W 57N 85W

53N 83W

43N 82W 50N 86W

39N 83W

36N 82W 38N 82W 40N 82W

38N 81W 39N 78W 87W

38N 78W 43N 77W 57N 79W

44N 74W 55N 78W

36N 69W 42N 81W

40N 69W 54N 85W

N 87W

38N 75W 87W 54N 70W

40N 86W 47N 81W 52N 81W 54N 69W
53N 75W

42N 78W 48N 82W 51N 74W

40N 81W 55N 79W

41N 78W 46N 76W 54N 76W

51N 86W

39N 74W 48N 75W

39N 76W

36N 78W 52N 78W

41N 79W 57N 78W

48N 83W
47N 76W 49N 79W

43N 78W 44N 79W

40N 78W 40N 73W

38N 83W

36N 77W 42N 82W 55N 74W

51N 78W

40N 75W 40N 77W 40N 74W 47N 82W

40N 83W

36N 76W 43N 79W

36N 79W 39N 79W 55N 73W

40N 79W 48N 76W 51N 85W

37N 76W 56N 81W

44N 77W N 87W

36N 83W 55N 77W

40N 72W

37N 80W 42N 86W 43N 86W

38N 79W 42N 79W 44N 86W

41N 81W

38N 76W 39N 86W 87W

51N 80W

36N 80W 38N 80W 44N 76W 53N 76W

40N 80W

6 N 87W 51N 72W

41N 85W 54N 81W 55N 75W

39N 80W 48N 74W

46N 80W
45N 80W

40N 70W 48N 85W 55N 76W

36N 86W 41N 86W 56N 80W

40N 76W

36N 84W 57N 72W

40N 71W 47N 80W 52N 80W

36N 85W 48N 80W 57N 81W

43N 83W 55N 80W

N 87W 53N 78W

41N 80W 42N 80W 43N 80W 44N 80W 58N 86W 87W 58N 80W 58N 85W 58N 79W 58N 84W 58N 83W 58N 82W 58N 81W 58N 78W 58N 74W 58N 73W 58N 75W 58N 77W 58N 76W 58N 71W 58N 69W 58N 70W 58N 72W

53N 77W 10S 38E 7.5S 40E

10S 43E 7.5S 41E

10S 42E

56 1/2N 69 MT WY 

# 10 9 11 7 8

6 5

12 4
3 2
1
Figure 1-5. Powder River Basin CBM Partitions.

### 1-6 Figure 1-6. Extent of CBM Drilling Map, Partition #4, Anderson Coal Seam Wells

### 1-7 Figure 1-7. Extent of CBM Drilling Map, Partition #4, Canyon Coal Seam Wells

### 1-8 Figure 1-8. Extent of CBM Drilling Map, Partition #4, Wyodak Coal Seam Wells

### 1-9 1.4 Study Approach 1.4.1 Coal Resource Data Base The Basin Study compiled available geologic data on the areal extent and thickness of the major Fort Union Formation coals in the PRB that met the following criteria: • Below 300 feet of depth • Thicker than 20 feet • Sufficient data exist For Montana, the depth and coal thickness criteria were relaxed (250 feet of depth and 15 feet of coal thickness) to more fully capture the coal and CBM resources in this portion of the basin. Even so, the CBM resources of Montana are only partly defined, as insufficient data existed for the deeper Knoblock coal zone in this portion of the basin. A variety of data sources were used by th e Basin Study, including data from the USGS, Wyoming and Montana State offices, private data and supplemental log analysis, as set forth in Tables 1-1 and 1-2. The available data were assembled on a township by township basis for each of the major coal seams in the basin. Special attention was given to assembling new data on the deep coals in the central portion of the PRB and on the Wasatch coals along the western edge of the PRB. 1.4.2 Projecting Gas and Water Production The coalbed methane and water production estimates in the Basin Study were developed as follows: The geologic model of the PRB (discussed in Chapter 2) provided the key reservoir properties of coal seam depth, thickness, gas content, and reservoir pressure. A gas and water production data base (discussed in Chapter 3) of over 8,000 CBM wells in the PRB was organized by coal seam and by partition and then normalized by time (using “time zero” plots) to provide a foundation of actual CBM well performance. History matching of gas and water production (discussed in Chapter 3) from 1,428 PRB CBM wells, organized into 14 distinct coal-seam and basin-partition sets, was used to establish: • Permeability (matrix, fracture) • Coal porosity (matrix, fracture) • Gas and water saturation • Confirmation of reservoir pressure and gas content

### 1-10 Table 1-1. Reports and Data for Powder River CBM and Produced Water Management Study Group File Full Description USGS BULL 1078 Mapel, W.J., 1959, Geology and coal res ources of the Buffalo-Lak e de Smet area, Johnson and Sheridan Counties, Wyom ing: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1078, 148 p. USGS BULL 1917-F Nichols, D.J., and Brown, J.L., 1992, Palynostratigraphy of the Tullock Member (lower Paleocene) of the Fort Union Formation in the Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1917-F, 35 p., 10 pls. USGS CI C-119-A. McLellan, M.W., and Biewick, L.H., 1988, Stratigraphic framework of the Paleocene coal beds in the Broadus 30’ x 60’ quadrangle, Powder River Basin, Montana—Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Coal Investigations Map C-119-A. USGS CI MAP C-113 Culbertson, W.C., 1987, Diagram s showing proposed correlation and nomenclature of Eocene and Paleocene coal beds underlying t he Birney 30’ x 60’quadrangle, Big Horn, Rosebud, and Powder River Counties: U.S. G eological Survey Coal Investigations Map C-113. USGS CI MAP C-2 Combo, J.X., Holmes, C.N., and Christ ner, H.R., 1978, Map showing the coal resources of Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Coal Investigations Map C-2. WGS CIR 14 Glass, G.B., 1998, Coal resources of the Powder River Basin, in, Guidebook to Coal Geology of the Powder River Basin: Wyoming Geologi cal Survey Information Circular no. 14, p. 97- 131. USGS CIR 53 Combo, J.X., Brown, D.M., Pulver, H.F ., and Taylor, D.A., 1949, Coal resources of Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 53, 28 p. USGS CIR 81 Berryhill, H.L., Jr., Brown, D.M., Brow n, A., and Taylor D.A., 1950, Coal resources of Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 81, 78 p. WGS FIELD GUIDE Culbertson, W.C., and Mapel, W.J., 1976, Coal in the Wasatch Formation, northwest part of the Powder River Basin near Sheridan, Sher idan County, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook 28th Annual Field Conference, p. 193-201. WGS GUIDEBOOK Mapel, W.J., 1958, Coal in the Powder River Basin: Wyoming Geological Association Guidebook, 13th Annual Fiel d Conference, p. 218-224. USGS I-1128 Law, B.E., Barnum, B.E., and Wollenzien, T.P., 1979, Coal bed correlations in the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation, Monarch, Wyoming, and De cker, Montana, areas: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1128. USGS I-1959A McLellan, M.W., Biewick, L.H., Molnia, C.L., and Pierce, F.W., 1990, Coal stratigraphy of northern and central Powder River Basin, Montana and Wyoming: U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1959-A. USGS I-1959-B Pierce, F.W., Johnson, E.A., Molnia, C.L ., and Sigleo, W.R., 1990, Coal stratigraphy of the southeastern Powder River Basin, Wyom ing: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Map I-1959-B. USGS I-1959-C (MAP) Hardie, J.K., 1991, Coal stratigraphy of the southwestern Pow der River Basin,Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1959-C. USGS I-1959-D Molnia, Carol L., and Pierce, Frances W ahl, 1992, Cross sections showing coal stratigraphy of the central Powder River Basin, Wyomi ng and Montana: U.S. Geol ogical Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1959-D, scale 1:500,000. USGS I-2011 Pierce, F.W., and Johnson, E.A., 1991, St ratigraphic cross section showing upper Paleocene coal-bearing rocks of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation in the Piney Canyon NE and Piney Canyon NW quadrangles , Campbell and Weston Counties, southeastern Powder River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2011. USGS I-2013 Johnson, E.A., and Pierce, F.W., 1991, St ratigraphic cross section showing upper Paleocene coal-bearing rocks of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation in the Coal Bank Draw and Dugout Creek North quadrangles, Ca mpbell and Weston Counties, southeastern Powder River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geologi cal Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2013.

### 1-11 Table 1-1. Reports and Data for Powder River CBM and Produced Water Management Study (Continued) Group File Full Description USGS ISBN 1-890977-15-2 Roberts, L.N.R., Mercier, T.J., Biew ick, L.R.H., and Blake, Dorsey, 1998, A procedure for producing maps and resource tables of coals assessed during the U.S. Geological Survey's National Coal Assessment: Fifteenth Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference Proceedings, CD-ROM (ISBN 1-890977-15-2), 4 p. USGS MF-1779 & MF-1929 Weaver, J.N., and Flores, R.M., 1985, Stratigraphic framework of the upper Fort Union Formation at the TA Hills, Western Powder River Basin, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF1779 & MF-1929. USGS MF-1127 & MF-1126 Flores, R.M., 1979, Restored stratigr aphic cross sections and coal correlations in the Tongue River member of the Fort Union Formation, Powder River area, M ontana: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1127 & MF-1126. USGS MF-1796 MF-1796 USGS OF 76-450 OF 76-450 USGS OF 77-283 OF 77-283 USGS OF 77-721 OF 77-721 USGS OF 79-1201 Culbertson, W.C., Kent, B.H., and Mapel , W.J., 1979, Preliminary diagrams showing correlation of coal beds in the Fort Union and Wasa tch Formations across the northern Powder River Basin, northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana: U.S. Geologi cal Survey Open-File Report 79-1201. USGS OF 82-026 OF 82-026 USGS OF 85-621 Trent, V.A., 1985, Summary of results ofthe Coal Resource Occurance and Coal Development Potential Mapping Program in Part of the Powder River basin, MT & WY: U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 85-621,49 p .,1 pl., 2 fig., 14 tables, Scale 1:1,000,000. USGS PP 1625-A 1999 Resource Assessment of Selected Tert iary Coal Beds and Zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region. WGS OF 92-4 Jones, Richard, and Glass G., 1991, Demonstr ated reserve base of coal in Wyoming as of January 1, 1991: Wyoming Geologica l Survey Open-File Report 92-4. USGS OF 97-469 Molnia, C.L., Biewick, L.R.H., Blake, Do rsey, Tewalt, S.J., Carter, M.D., and Gaskill, Charlie, 1997, Coal availability in the Hilight quadrangle, Powder River Ba sin, Wyoming: a prototype study in a western coal field: U.S. G eological Survey Open-File Report 97-469, 21 p. WGS RI 35 Ayers, W.B., Jr., 1986, Coal resources of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation (Paleocene), Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana: Geological Survey of Wyoming Report of Investigations No. 35, 22 p. WRD WRIR 85-4305 Daddow, P.B., 1986, Pot entiametric-Surface map of t he Wyodak-Anderson coal bed, Powder River Structural Basin, Wyomi ng, 1973-84: U.S. Department of the Interior, Water Resources Division, Water Resources Investigation R eport 85-4305 (prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management). BLM Bureau of Land Management, 1996, Powder River Basin Coal Production—1995; N. Braz, C. Gaskill and R. Nelson compilers, U.S. Departm ent of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Casper, Wyoming, f ile D\drawings\wo-map.dwg. USGS U.S. Geological Survey Global Land Informati on System-GLIS, 1997, digital spatial data obtained from http://edc www.cr.usgs.gov/glis/glis.html. BLM www.wy.blm.gov/minerals/og/re’s.mgt/resevmgt.html

### 1-12 Table 1-2. Electronic Data Sources for Powder River CBM and Produced Water Management Study 1. Field Conference - Coalbed Methane - Powder River OF01-126 2. http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/coal/OF-97-469.html 3. http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/open-file-reports/ofr-98-0789-a/ 4. http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/pub/open-file-reports/ofr-98-0789-b/ 5. http://www.cbmcc.vcn.com/ 6. http://www.prb-eis.org/ 7. US Coal Quality Database 8. http://www.deq.state.mt.us/coalbedmethane/ 9. http://www.cbmwyo.org 10. http://www.powderriverbasin.org 11. http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/cbmethane/ 12. http://deq.state.wy.us/ 13. http://wogcc.state.wy.us/ 14. http://www.wsgsweb.uwyo.edu/ 15. http://www.wy.blm.gov/Directory/fo_map/fo_map.html 16. Rick Marvel @WYOGC rmarve@state.wy.us 307-234-7147 17. http://bogc.dnrc.state.mt.us/ 

### Advanced Resources’ COMET3 reservoir simulator , a triple porosity and triple permeability finite difference model, specifically developed for coalbed methane production and reserve assessments, was used for history matching and establishing 14 “type wells” reflecting the geologic and reservoir diversity encountered by PRB coals (discussed in Chapter 3). The history-matched “type wells” were extended in time (using COMET3) to provide ten year coalbed methane and water production rates and estimates of ultimate gas and water recovery (discussed in Chapter 3). The 14 PRB “type wells” were scaled using actual depth, thickness and gas content to develop 142 individual “type wells” to reflect average, high and low performance for each major coal seam in each basin partition.

### 1-13 1.4.3 Basic Cost and Economic Model The study constructed a Powder River Basin coalbed methane cost and economic model, CECON (C oalbed Econ omics), to assess the economic feasibility of developing coalbed methane in the basin (discussed in Chapter 4). The model includes four components: (1) basic capital costs; (2) basic operating and maintenance costs; (3) gas transportation and compressions costs; and (4) other costs. The economic model incorporates forecasts for future natural gas prices (at the Henry Hub), current and anticipated Wyoming “basin differentials,” royalties, production taxes, and other factors that impact CBM costs and economics. The economic model is an industry standard discounted cash flow (DCF) model that provides both an internal rate of return and the net present value (NPV) of an investment at various discount rates and at various net gas prices. 1.4.4 Water Management Alternatives Finally, the Basin Study examined the costs and economic feasibility of four alternatives for CBM produced water management in the Powder River Basin. These include: 1. Untreated or passively treated produced water, with surface discharge; 2. Infiltration impoundment of the produced water, with enhanced evaporation and/or land application; 3. Shallow re-injection of the produced water; and 4. Actively treated produced water (with revers e osmosis), with surface discharge of the treated water and with disposal of the residual concentrate by trucking and/or deep re-injection. Deep re-injection of the untreated, relatively high quality CBM produced water would constitute a loss of a valuable resource and thus was not included among the water disposal alternatives addressed in this study. 1.5 Summary of Findings and Impacts 1.5.1 The Powder River Basin coals contain a considerably larger volume of gas in place than established by previous studies. Major reasons for the increased PRB coalbed methane resource in-place of 61 Tcf are: (1) the study included the deeper Fort Union coals prevalent in the basin, it compiled new data on the Wastach coals, and it included Montana coals; and (2) the study identified the presence of free gas in certain coal formations and established higher gas content values for PRB coals. 1.5.2 A significant portion of the coalbed methane resource in the Powder River Basin is technically recoverable . The estimate of 39 Tcf of technically recoverable resources is based on reservoir modeling and the construction of 142 “type wells” representative of the distribution in well performance (gas and water production) in the basin. This updates earlier estimates by the Potential Gas Committee (2000) of 24 Tcf and by the U.S. Geological Survey (2002) of 14 Tcf.

### 1-14 1.5.3 The costs and economic feasibility of further developing coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin will be significantly impacted by produced water management practices and requirements. As shown in Table 1-3, requiring active treatment of water (such as reverse osmosis) imposes a high cost penalty, and with it, loss of economically recoverable resources. Table 1-3. Economically Recoverable CBM (Tcf) Alternative Water Disposal Options Economic Cases * Surface Discharge Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Case 1 (Today)** 1.5 Tcf -- -- -- Case 2 (Transition)*** 22.4 Tcf 20.0 Tcf 18.8 Tcf 7.1-10.2 Tcf Case 3 (Long Term)**** 29.1 Tcf 27.8 Tcf 27.1 Tcf 17.8-21.6 Tcf * Natural gas price (Henry Hub)of $3 (real) per Mcf for life of project. ** Basin differential remains at $1.80 per Mcf.

*** Basin differential narrows from $1.80 per Mcf in year 1 to $0.80 per Mcf in year 3 and beyond. **** Basin differential is $0.80 per Mcf. 

### The distribution of economically recoverable CBM and estimated water production by mineral ownership (using Case 2 economic conditions) is provided in Tables 1-4 and 1-5 . Table 1-4. Volumes of Economically Recoverable CBM (Tcf) Alternative Water Disposal Options Mineral Ownership Surface Discharge Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Federal 13.7 Tcf 12.2 Tcf 11.5 Tcf 4.3-6.2 Tcf State 1.5 Tcf 1.4 Tcf 1.3 Tcf 0.5-0.7 Tcf Private 7.2 Tcf 6.4 Tcf 6.0 Tcf 2.3-3.3 Tcf TOTAL 22.4 Tcf 20.0 Tcf 18.8 Tcf 7.1-10.2 Tcf All mineral ownership results based on a simplified methodology using draft EIS data.

### 1-15 Table 1-5. Volumes of CBM Produced Water (Billion Bbls) Alternative Water Disposal Options Mineral Ownership Surface Discharge Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Federal 16.6 14.6 13.8 3.7-6.5 State 1.9 1.7 1.6 0.4-0.8 Private 8.7 7.7 7.3 2.0-3.4 TOTAL 27.2* 24.0 22.7 6.1-10.7 *Approximately 5 billion barrels less water than estimated in the WY draft EIS. 

### 1.5.4 More stringent CBM produced water management practices will lead to loss of recoverable CBM resources for federal, state and local mineral ownership. The loss of recoverable CBM resources by mineral ownership due to progressively more stringent CBM produced water management practices (using Case 2 economic conditions) is provided in Table 1-6. Table 1-6. Loss of Economically Recoverable CBM (Tcf) Alternative Water Disposal Options Mineral Ownership Surface Discharge* Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Federal (1.5 Tcf) (2.2 Tcf) (7.5-9.4 Tcf) State (0.1 Tcf) (0.2 Tcf) (0.8-1.0 Tcf) Private (0.8 Tcf) (1.2 Tcf) (3.9-4.9 Tcf) TOTAL (2.4 Tcf) (3.6 Tcf) (12.2-15.3 Tcf) * An estimated 22.4 Tcf of economically recoverable CBM resource is available under Case 2 economic conditions and surface discharge. 

### 1.5.5 More stringent CBM produced water management practices will reduce royalty collections and state severance and ad valorem tax receipts. Federal, state and private royalty payments average about $0.26/Mcf (assuming Case 2 economic conditions). The aggregate royalty payment losses would range from $506 to $3,184 million depending on the water management practice required, shown on Table 1-7.

### 1-16 Table 1-7. Loss of Mineral Royalties from CBM ($MM) Alternative Water Disposal Options Mineral Ownership Surface Discharge* Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Federal ($268) ($401) ($1,349-1,687) State ($41) ($61) ($207-$258) Private ($197) ($294) ($991-$1,239) TOTAL ($506) ($756) ($2,547-$3,184) * A total of $4,659 million of mineral royalties would be collected under Case 2 economic conditions and surface discharge. 

### State severance and county ad valorem tax receipts average about $0.15/Mcf (assuming Case 2 economic conditions and 12% (WY) and 9.3% (MT) tax rates). The aggregate tax receipt losses range from $360 to $2,270 million depending on the water management practices required. 1.5.6 More stringent CBM produced water management practices will lead to less capital investment and service work in the Powder River Basin. The loss of CBM well drilling and capital investment by mineral ownership due to more stringent CBM produced water management practices (using Case 2 economic conditions) is provided in Tables 1-8 and 1-9. Table 1-8. Loss of Well Drilling for CBM (# Wells) Alternative Water Disposal Options Mineral Ownership Surface Discharge* Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Federal (4,041) (6,324) (17,919-21,257) State (464) (726) (2,056-2,439) Private (2,120) (3,318) (9,940-11,151) TOTAL (6,625) (10,368) (29,915-34,847) * An estimated 46,944 wells would be drilled under Case 2 economic conditions and surface discharge. This represents more than 4,000 fewer wells compared to the WY draft EIS well-count estimate.

### 1-17 Table 1-9. Loss of Capital Investment for CBM ($MM) Alternative Water Disposal Options Mineral Ownership Surface Discharge* Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Federal ($455) ($712) ($2,016-$2,391) State ($52) ($82) ($231-$274) Private ($238) ($373) ($1,058-$1,255) TOTAL ($745) ($1,167) ($3,305-$3,920) * The capital expenditure for PRB CBM is estimated at $5,281 million assuming Case 2 economic conditions and surface discharge. 

### 1.5.7 Summary of Impacts. The loss of CBM resources, royalties and tax receipts from more stringent CBM produced water management practices would be substantial. Table 1-10 provides a summary of the potential losses that would occur from use of progressively more stringent water disposal alternatives. Table 1-10. Summary of Impacts
Water Disposal Method Loss of CBM Resource Loss of CBM Royalty Loss of Production/ Ad Valorem Taxes (Tcf) ($ million) ($ million) Surface Discharge -- -- -- Infiltration Impoundment (2.4) ($506) ($362) Shallow Re-injection (3.6) ($756) ($540) Reverse Osmosis/w: • Trucking of Residual (15.3) ($3,184) ($2,272) • Deep Disposal of Residual (12.2) ($2,547) ($1,810) 

### 1.5.8 Improvements in coalbed methane production technology and water management practices would help maintain the economic viability of Powder River Basin coalbed methane. Advanced technology options offer promise for reducing costs and increasing reserves per well. Conducting assessments of these technology options and supporting their adaptation to PRB operating conditions would be of high value to basin operators.

### 2-1 Legend Subbituminous Bituminous Surface Mineable Deposits 

### Figure 2-1. Coal Basins of Wyoming 2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND RESERVOIR PROPERTIES 2.1 Basin Area The Powder River Basin is one of a series of coal-bearing basins along the Rocky Mountains, stretching from northern New Mexico to centr al Montana, Figure 2-1. The basin covers approximately 28,500 square miles, with approximately one-half of this area underlain by producible coals. The basin is bounded on the east by the Black Hills uplift, on the north by the Miles City arch, on the south by the Laramide Mountains, and on the west by the Big Horn uplift and Casper arch.

### 2-2 Source: Montgomery, 1999. 

### Figure 2-2. Center of Powder River Basin Coalbed Methane Activity The bulk of coalbed methane activity to date has been in the east and central portion of the basin, around the town of Gillette, in Campbell County, Wyoming, Figure 2-2. To date, nearly 12,000 coalbed methane wells have been drilled in the Powder River Basin, providing a wealth of data for establishing the geologic setting and characteristics of the Wasatch and Fort Union Formation low rank coals in this basin.

2.2 Basin Structure The eastern flank of the Powder River Basin dips gradually at an average of 1.5 o 

### and is characterized by occasional normal faulting and folding, Figure 2-3. The basinal axis exists along the steeper western and southern margins, where the basin terminates against a complex of

### 2-3 Source: Blackstone (1981, 1988) Montana Wyoming



### Figure 2-3. Regional Structure and Tectonic Map of the Powder River Basin basement thrusts and reverse faults, as shown on the generalized cross-section of the Powder River Basin, Figure 2-4. 2.3 Basin Stratigraphy The Powder River Basin is filled mainly with thick Tertiary-age marine and fluvial deposits. The Tertiary units contain the coal bearing Fort Union and Wasatch formations that are the topic of this Basin Study, Figure 2-5.

### 2-4 Source: Montgomery, 1999. Figure 2-4. Regional Cross Section of the Powder River Basin



### Source: Law, Rice and Flores, 1991SYSTEMSERIES 

### STRATIGRAPHIC UNITTertiary (Part)OligoceneEocenePaleocene 

### Upper Cretaceous (Part) Lance Formation (Part) White River Formation
Wasatch Formation FORT UNION FORMATION Tongue River Member Lebo Shale Member

Tullock Member


### Figure 2-5. Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary Stratigraphic Chart for Powder River Basin The Tongue River Member, consisting of sandstone , conglomerate, siltstone, limestone and coal, is the principal coal-bearing unit of the Fort Union Formation. The Tongue River Member contains a large number of distinct coal seams, ranging from a few feet to over 200 feet in thickness, as shown on Figure 2-6.

### 2-5 Figure 2-6. Coal Bearing Units of the Tongue River Member of the Fort Union Formation The Tongue River Member can be further divided into upper and lower units. The Upper Tongue River unit contains the Smith/Swartz, Anderson (Deitz), Canyon (Monarch), Wyodak (where the Anderson and Canyon have merged), the Big George and the Cook (Carney) seams. The Lower Tongue River unit contains the Wall, Pawnee and Cache seams.

### 2-6 A series of Wasatch Formation coals exist on the western edge of the basin and include the Cameron, Felix and Ucross seams. These coals coalesce into a thick coal package at Lake Desmet. 2.4 Major Coal Seams The coals are exposed along the eastern edge of the basin where they are surface mined. The thickest exposed unit of coal along the east-central portion of the basin is the Wyodak seam, containing several individual coal units. As shown on Figure 2-7, the Wyodak seam splits into several thinner coal seams, such as the Anderson and Canyon, toward the basin center as well as to the north and south. Figure 2-8 provides a log of the major coals of the Upper Tongue River unit in the east-central portion of the basin. A series of informal names have been assigned to the coals in the Powder River Basin, creating stratigraphic uncertainty. The Basin Study strives to use a consistent set of coal seam terminology, following the extensive stratigraphic work by Goolsby, Finley and Associates. The distribution and correlation of the coals in the Powder River Basin is shown in Figure 2-9, an east-west cross section of the basin. 2.5 Key Reservoir Properties A series of reservoir properties, including depth, coal thickness, gas content, pressure gradient and gas saturation, were collected and assessed to calculate the gas in-place for each of the major coals in each of the 12 basin partitions. In addition, data on coal fracture and matrix porosity was established to calculate the volume of water in-place for each of the coals. Finally, coal reservoir permeability (for both the cleat system and the coal matrix) was established to calculate the amounts of recoverable methane and water. 2.5.1 Coal Seam Depth Coal depth data from completed wells and from previous studies were used to build the coal depth data base for the Powder River Basin. In formation on the depth of individual coal seams is provided in Chapter 6. Shown below is data on coal depth for basin Partition #4. Table 2-1. Partition #4 Coal Depth Coal Seam Avg. Depth (ft)* Depth Range (ft)* Anderson 450 300-650 Canyon 540 300-800 Wyodak 600 330-750 Cook 790 600-930 Wall 1,020 800-1,250 Pawnee 1,300 1,150-1,500 Cache 1,500 1,150-1,750 * Top of coal

### 2-7 Source: Modified from Randall (1989) 

## WASATCH FT. UNION WYODAK

ANDERSON (LOCAL) CANYON COOK (LOCAL) WALL
U. PAWNEE L. PAWNEE CACHE 0 0 15 50 30 100 61 200

122 400PALEOCENEEOCENE FELIX UCROSS

Meters Feet 

### Figure 2-7. Simplified Representation of Fort Union Coalbeds Near Gillette, in Campbell County, Wyoming

### 2-8 

## Canyon Anderson

Cook Split
Cook Not Shown: Wall Pawnee Cache Figure 2-8. Sample Log - Upper Fort Union Coals in Partition #4

### 2-9 Source: Law, Rice and Flores, 1991 

### Figure 2-9. Coal Correlation Diagram for Fo rt Union and Wasatch Formation, Powder River Basin, Wyoming 2.5.2 Coal Seam Thickness Coal seam thickness (net pay) was established for each major coal throughout the basin. Coal interval data from completed wells, well logs from WOGCC, and coal thickness data from previous studies (particularly the work by Gool sby, Findley and Associates and the USGS in PP 1625A) were used to build the coal thickness data base for the Powder River Basin (PRB).

### 2-10 Information on thickness of individual coal seams is provided in Chapter 6. Shown below is data on coal thickness for basin Partition #4. Figur e 2-10 provides a cross section showing the complexity of coal deposition for the Wyodak group of coals along the eastern portion of the PRB. Table 2-2. Coal Thickness for Partition #4 Coal Seam Avg. Thickness (ft) Thickness Range (ft) Anderson 30 20-50 Canyon 35 20-50 Wyodak 73 70-80 Cook 31 20-50 Wall 27 20-40 Pawnee 27 25-30 Cache 23 20-30 

### 2.5.3 Regional Pressure Gradient A regional pressure gradient versus depth function for PRB coal seams, Figure 2-11, was constructed to establish reservoir pressure for each of the coal formations. This was assembled using: • Detailed hydrology data and pressure mapping by the Wyoming BLM, • Actual pressure data from basin producers, and • History matching (using COMET3) of the pressure gradient data using long-term (4+ year) gas and water production data in the PRB. The regional pressure gradient function shows that the shallower coals are significantly underpressured and approach normal hydrostatic pressures as the coals become deeper, Figure 2-12. 2.5.4 Gas Content The Basin Study assembled available gas content data and adsorption isotherms, appropriate for the low rank coals of the PRB, from the following sources: • Past gas content data collected by the BLM and published gas content and isotherm data by industry and the USGS, • Advanced Resources’ own gas content and isotherm data collected for analogous low rank coals in other basins, and • History matching (using COMET3) of alternative isotherms using long-term (4+year) gas and water production data in the PRB.

### 2-11 Source: Rice (2000) 

### Figure 2-10. Cross-Section Showing Lateral Variation of Coalbeds in the Wyodak Coal Zone

Source: Data from BLM files and CBM operators. Data from water monitor and CBM wells. 

### Depth to Top of Coal and Original Hydrostatic PressureOriginal Hydrostatic Pressure – psig



### Depth to Top of Coal -- feet 0 300 400 500 600

0 400 800 1200 200 100
1600 

## Y = 0.3405x – 48.265 R 2 

## = 0.901

Figure 2-11. Regional Pressure Gradient

### 2-12 

### 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 Well Depth, ft./ (Pressure Gradient, psia/ft.)Reservoir Pressure, psia JAF2002049.XLS



### Depth Pressure Gradient (0.260) (0.315) (0.370) (0.435) Figure 2-12. Reservoir Pressure Profile Used for PRB Study The best fit coalbed methane isotherm was from actual gas content and isotherm data collectedon an analogous overseas low rank coal basin, Figure 2-13. As a point of comparison, Figure 2-14 provides the average synthesized adsorption isotherm for coal in the PRB assembled from older data. 2.5.5 Gas Saturation The nature of early time water and gas production was used to establish whether the PRB coals were undersaturated, fully saturated or contained free gas in the pore space: • A series of fourteen individual coal seams and partition data sets, shown on Table 2-1, were assembled involving gas and wate r production data from over 1,400 PRB CBM wells. • History matching (using COMET3) of production data was used to establish the level of gas saturation and presence of free gas in the coal cleat and matrix system.

### 2-13 Figure 2-13. Gas Content Isotherm Used for Powder River Coalbed Methane

Figure 2-14. Average Synthesized Adsorption Isotherm for 41 Coal Samples From the PRB, Based on a Compilation of Data From Public and Private Sources

### 2-14 Overall, the study established that the coals are fully saturated with methane (at the reduced reservoir pressure conditions that generally exist in the basin) and that modest amounts of free gas exist in the matrix porosity and coal cleat (fracture) porosity systems in certain seam/partition data sets. However, operators report that low gas contents and severe undersaturation conditions may exist for certain deeper coals in the portions of the basin, south of Gillette. Collection and analysis of additional gas content data would help define their potential problem areas and seams in the basin. Further discussion of the topics of gas content and gas saturation in the Powder River Basin is provided as Appendix A. 2.5.6 Coal Fracture and Matrix Porosity History matching of water production was used to estimate the fracture and matrix porosity for the PRB coals: 1. In general, the coal cleat (fracture) porosity in the coals ranges from 0.1% to 1%, consistent with other data (The Big George coal in Partition #5 has an apparently higher than usual fracture porosity). 2. The matrix porosity for these low rank coals varies widely, ranging from 1% to 10%. Matrix porosity tends to increase for the deeper coals, such as the Wall, Pawnee, and Cache. High coal matrix porosities would support the relatively high water production from otherwise thinner (25 to 30 feet) coal seams, such as the Wall. As an alternative explanation, some investigators have put forward the concept of a quifers in the Fort Union Formation as providing and supporting the high water production observed from PRB coals. Some amount of water influx or aquifer leakage from associated sands no doubt exists in some portions of the basin. However, our assessment is that porosity in these low rank coals is the primary source of the produced water and that aquifer recharge, if and where it does exist, is relatively modest for the following reasons: • First, high matrix porosity values have been documented for other low rank coals (such as the overseas low rank coal used for the gas sorption isotherm, discussed above). Seidle (2002), in his review of selected coalbed methane pilots, cites a value of 10% for the porosity of the Wyodak coal at the Rawhide Butte Field of the Powder River Basin. Cox (2000), in his assessment of aquifer controls on CBM in the PRB, used 5% for the Anderson-Wyodak coal. • Second, the water production rates in the coalbed methane wells along the maturely developed eastern portion of the Powder River Basin (such as the Canyon coal wells Partition #4) have declined to about 20 to 30 barrels per day at the end of 3 years from about 300 barrels per day during year 1. And, some coal wells in the area have stopped producing any appreciable water. If aquifer leakage is occurring in this area, it would have to be low.

### 2-15 • Third, the pressure response and gas desorption rates would be considerably different for water held in coal porosity versus water influx from aquifer leakage. The assessment of gas production by reservoir simulation tended to support the coal matrix as the primary source of the produced water, although separating porosity source water from low levels of aquifer leakage would be difficult to establish. 2.5.7 Coal Permeability In general, the coal cleat (fracture) permeability of PRB coals is favorable, ranging from 35 to 500 md. Coal matrix permeabilities are considerably lower and variable, ranging from 0.001 to 1.0 md. However, even the lower end of the range for cleat and matrix permeabilities for the coals in the PRB is sufficient to support reasonable gas recoveries (in 10 years) of 50 to 80+% of the gas in-place. 2.6 Summary of Reservoir Properties Table 2-4 provides a summary of the key reservoir properties established from the geologic study and history matching of 14 sets of coalbed methane data representing the combined well performance of 1,428 coalbed methane wells in the Powder River Basin. Additional information on individual coal seam reservoir properties is provided in Chapter 6. Shown below is the average derived data on coal seam gas content, pressure, gas saturation and porosity for basin Partition #4. Table 2-3. Average Data for Partition #4 Coal Seam Gas Content Pressure (Top of

Coal) Free Gas Saturation Porosity Fracture Matrix Fracture Matrix (cf/t) (psi) (%) (%) (%) (%) Anderson 40 141 8 10 0.2 1.5 Canyon 47 171 7 7 0.4 3.0 Wyodak 54 199 5 10 1.0 6.0 Cook* 67 257 0 1 0.1 2.4 Wall 84 340 0 0 1.0 10.0 Pawnee** 106 460 0 0 0.5 5.0 Cache** 121 558 0 0 0.5 5.0 * Based on extrapolation from history-matched Cook coal seam in Partition #8. ** Based on extrapolation from history-ma tched Pawnee coal seam in Partition #8.SeamPartArea# of WellsDepth (Top) (ft)Thickness (ft)Spacing (A/w)Pressure (top) (psi)Gas Content (cf/cf)Gas Content (cf/ton)Big G 3 T43-44N 74W 38 1,000 67.5 80 3353.58 86Anderson 4 T51N 73W 89 500 20.0 80 1501.79 43Wyodak 4 T47-48 R72 159 541 78.0 40 1632.73 65Canyon 4 T52-51 R73 172 625 37.5 80 1862.19 52Wall 4 T52N 73W 19 800 25.0 80 2552.82 67Big G* 5 1 WELL 1 1,260 150.0 80 4514.33 104Smith 5AVG 10 640 30.0 80 1972.29 55Anderson 8 T54 R76-77 261 650 52.5 80 2001.80 43Wall 8AVG 107 963 30.0 80 3003.22 77Pawnee 8AVG 19 1,055 33.0 80 3583.70 89Cook 8 T55N 75-76W 134 752 55.0 80 2372.71 65Anderson-Dietz 11 T57N R83-84W 191 650.0 22.5 80200 2.30 55Canyon-Monarch 11 T57N R83-84W 147 930.0 20.0 80306 3.25 78Cook-Carney11 T57N R83-84W 65 1,050.0 30.0 80 3563.68 88Smith 5AVG 10 640 30.0 80 1972.29 55Anderson 4 T51N 73W 89 500 20.0 80 1501.79 43Anderson 8 T54 R76-77 261 650 52.5 80 2001.80 43Anderson-Dietz 11 T57N R83-84W 191 650 22.5 80200 2.30 55Canyon 4 T52-51 R73 172 625 37.5 80 1862.19 52Canyon-Monarch 11 T57N R83-84W 147 930 20.0 80306 3.25 78Wyodak 4 T47-48 R72 159 541 78.0 40 1632.73 65Big G 3 T43-44N 74W 38 1,000 67.5 80 3353.58 86Big G* 5 1 WELL 1 1,260 150.0 80 4514.33 104Cook 8 T55N 75-76W 134 752 55.0 80 2372.71 65Cook-Carney11 T57N R83-84W 65 1,050 30.0 80 3563.68 88Wall 4 T52N 73W 19 800 25.0 80 2552.82 67Wall 8AVG 107 963 30.0 80 3003.22 77Pawnee 8AVG 19 1,055 33.0 80 3583.70 89* (17 wells modeled)f mfm f m0.002 0.040 1.00 1.00 35.0 0.0020.002 0.015 0.92 0.90 225.0 1.0000.010 0.060 0.95 0.90 500.0 1.0000.004 0.030 0.93 0.93 200.0 1.0000.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 100.0 0.1000.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 250.0 0.0010.001 0.011 1.00 1.00 45.0 0.0100.002 0.015 1.00 0.78 175.0 0.0010.010 0.095 1.00 1.00 42.0 1.0000.005 0.050 1.00 1.00 125.0 1.0000.001 0.024 1.00 0.99 50.0 0.1000.005 0.025 0.98 0.98 450.0 1.0000.005 0.095 0.98 0.98 275.0 1.0000.010 0.080 0.99 0.99 150.0 1.0000.001 0.011 1.00 1.00 45.0 0.0100.002 0.015 0.92 0.90 225.0 1.0000.002 0.015 1.00 0.78 175.0 0.0010.005 0.025 0.98 0.98 450.0 1.0000.004 0.030 0.93 0.93 200.0 1.0000.005 0.095 0.98 0.98 275.0 1.0000.010 0.060 0.95 0.90 500.0 1.0000.002 0.040 1.00 1.00 35.0 0.0020.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 250.0 0.0010.001 0.024 1.00 0.99 50.0 0.1000.010 0.080 0.99 0.99 150.0 1.0000.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 100.0 0.1000.010 0.095 1.00 1.00 42.0 1.0000.005 0.050 1.00 1.00 125.0 1.000Permeability (md)Water SaturationPorositySeamPartArea# of WellsDepth (Top) (ft)Thickness (ft)Spacing (A/w)Pressure (top) (psi)Gas Content (cf/cf)Gas Content (cf/ton)Big G 3 T43-44N 74W 38 1,000 67.5 80 3353.58 86Anderson 4 T51N 73W 89 500 20.0 80 1501.79 43Wyodak 4 T47-48 R72 159 541 78.0 40 1632.73 65Canyon 4 T52-51 R73 172 625 37.5 80 1862.19 52Wall 4 T52N 73W 19 800 25.0 80 2552.82 67Big G* 5 1 WELL 1 1,260 150.0 80 4514.33 104Smith 5AVG 10 640 30.0 80 1972.29 55Anderson 8 T54 R76-77 261 650 52.5 80 2001.80 43Wall 8AVG 107 963 30.0 80 3003.22 77Pawnee 8AVG 19 1,055 33.0 80 3583.70 89Cook 8 T55N 75-76W 134 752 55.0 80 2372.71 65Anderson-Dietz 11 T57N R83-84W 191 650.0 22.5 80200 2.30 55Canyon-Monarch 11 T57N R83-84W 147 930.0 20.0 80306 3.25 78Cook-Carney11 T57N R83-84W 65 1,050.0 30.0 80 3563.68 88Smith 5AVG 10 640 30.0 80 1972.29 55Anderson 4 T51N 73W 89 500 20.0 80 1501.79 43Anderson 8 T54 R76-77 261 650 52.5 80 2001.80 43Anderson-Dietz 11 T57N R83-84W 191 650 22.5 80200 2.30 55Canyon 4 T52-51 R73 172 625 37.5 80 1862.19 52Canyon-Monarch 11 T57N R83-84W 147 930 20.0 80306 3.25 78Wyodak 4 T47-48 R72 159 541 78.0 40 1632.73 65Big G 3 T43-44N 74W 38 1,000 67.5 80 3353.58 86Big G* 5 1 WELL 1 1,260 150.0 80 4514.33 104Cook 8 T55N 75-76W 134 752 55.0 80 2372.71 65Cook-Carney11 T57N R83-84W 65 1,050 30.0 80 3563.68 88Wall 4 T52N 73W 19 800 25.0 80 2552.82 67Wall 8AVG 107 963 30.0 80 3003.22 77Pawnee 8AVG 19 1,055 33.0 80 3583.70 89* (17 wells modeled)f mfm f m0.002 0.040 1.00 1.00 35.0 0.0020.002 0.015 0.92 0.90 225.0 1.0000.010 0.060 0.95 0.90 500.0 1.0000.004 0.030 0.93 0.93 200.0 1.0000.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 100.0 0.1000.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 250.0 0.0010.001 0.011 1.00 1.00 45.0 0.0100.002 0.015 1.00 0.78 175.0 0.0010.010 0.095 1.00 1.00 42.0 1.0000.005 0.050 1.00 1.00 125.0 1.0000.001 0.024 1.00 0.99 50.0 0.1000.005 0.025 0.98 0.98 450.0 1.0000.005 0.095 0.98 0.98 275.0 1.0000.010 0.080 0.99 0.99 150.0 1.0000.001 0.011 1.00 1.00 45.0 0.0100.002 0.015 0.92 0.90 225.0 1.0000.002 0.015 1.00 0.78 175.0 0.0010.005 0.025 0.98 0.98 450.0 1.0000.004 0.030 0.93 0.93 200.0 1.0000.005 0.095 0.98 0.98 275.0 1.0000.010 0.060 0.95 0.90 500.0 1.0000.002 0.040 1.00 1.00 35.0 0.0020.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 250.0 0.0010.001 0.024 1.00 0.99 50.0 0.1000.010 0.080 0.99 0.99 150.0 1.0000.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 100.0 0.1000.010 0.095 1.00 1.00 42.0 1.0000.005 0.050 1.00 1.00 125.0 1.000Permeability (md)Water SaturationPorosity



### 2-16Table 2-4. Key Reservoir Properties for Powder River Basin Coals

### 3-1 3.0 COALBED METHANE RESOURCES 3.1 Summary The Powder River Coalbed Methane Basin Study estimates 61 Tcf of natural gas in-place, with 39 Tcf of this gas in-place being technically recoverable. The two reasons for the increased PRB coalbed methane resource in-place of 61 Tcf in this Basin Study are: • Larger Coal Volume Data Base . The study includes extensive information on the deeper Fort Union coals prevalent in the basin; it compiles new data on the Wasatch coals on the western edge of the basin; and, it includes the shallower coals in the Montana portion of the PRB (although insufficient data was available for including the deeper Knoblock coal zone in the Montana portion of the PRB). • Free Gas and Higher Gas Contents . The study identifies the presence of free gas in certain coal formations and establishes higher inherent gas content values for PRB coals than used by previous studies, both increasing the gas in-place over previous estimates. The estimate of technically recoverable resources of 39 Tcf is based on reservoir simulation of 1,428 individual wells assembled into 14 history-matched “time zero” well clusters. These simulations are used to construct 142 “type wells” representative of the distribution in well performance (gas and water production) for 12 distinct coal seams in 12 basin partitions. 3.2 Coalbed Methane Resources 3.2.1 Gas In-Place The distribution of the 61 Tcf of gas in-place ra nges widely by basin partition and by coal seam: • Basin Partition #5, in the center of the PRB, and where all of the major coal seams are present at favorable depths, holds over 25 Tcf of gas in-place. • The Big George coal seam, that has extensive thickness in the southern and central portions of the PRB, holds over 14 Tcf of gas in-place, followed by the Canyon coal seam with nearly 9 Tcf of gas in-place. Table 3-1 provides the partition and seam level tabulation for the coalbed methane gas in-place for the major coals in the Powder River Basin. (The Knoblock and other deeper coal seams are not included in these estimates.)

### 3-2 Table 3-1. Gas In-Place for Major PRB Coal Seams (Bcf)

Even with the extensive and detailed coal seam and township level mapping of the PRB coals, considerable uncertainty still remains in these resource estimates. • First, only partial data exist on the volumes and location of the deep coals, because few wells have been drilled in the deeper portions of the basin. (New information would tend to increase the size of the in-place resource.) • Second, localized areas of the basin may have encountered degassing of the coals. While this regional analysis indicates fully gas-charged coals, localized degassing of coals has been reported in other CBM basins. (Here, new information would tend to decrease the size of the in-place resource.) • Third, coal seams with thickness of less than 20 feet are excluded from the resource estimate. • Finally, considerable judgement is used in assigning a “name” to a particular coal seam, particularly where the Wyodak coal splits into sub-seams such as the Anderson and Canyon, which are major seams on their own. (Here, new information would shift the volume of resource among the seam, but would not appreciably affect the overall estimate.) 3.2.2 Technically Recoverable Resources The distribution of the 39 Tcf of technically recoverable resources is shown on Table 3-2. Several insights emerge from the tabulation of data and reservoir simulation-based history matching of the well performance:

### 3-3 • Recovery Efficiency With Depth . Recovery efficiency of the gas in-place does not decline as severely as conventionally assumed for the deeper coals. Higher coal reservoir pressure and more favorable gas content tends to partially counter-balance the reduction in coal permeability. Even so, the technical recovery efficiencies for certain of the deeper coals still only range from 50 to 60% of the gas in-place. • Presence of Free Gas . The upper group of Fort Union coals, including the Anderson, Canyon and Wyodak, tend to have early gas production due to the presence of free gas within the coal cleat (fracture) system and in the coal matrix porosity. In addition to increasing the resource in place, the presence of free gas promotes improved relative permeability to gas and an earlier peak in gas production. • Well Spacing . Where the coals have higher permeability and free gas, wells drilled on 40 to 80 acre spacings produce the bulk of their economically recoverable gas relatively quickly, in 6 to 7 years. Table 3-2. Technically Recoverable Resources for Major PRB Coal Seams (Bcf)

3.3 In-Place and Technically Recoverable PRB CBM Resources, by Basin Partition Tables 3-3 through 3-11 provide additional detail on in-place and technically recoverable PRB coalbed methane by basin partition. These tables display the areal extent (number of townships), depth, coal thicknesses, and gas content used to establish the gas in-place for each major coal seam. The tables also provide estimates of technically recoverable CBM resources by coal seam.

### 3-4 Table 3-3. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #1 and #2 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas in Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Anderson 1 450 25 39 40 30 Canyon 2 575 48 51 210 180 Wyodak 5 440 86 42 760 560 Big George 2 863 90 86 550 320 Cook 2 740 30 65 150 120 Pawnee 5 1,336 22 108 470 420 Totals 2,170 1,630 * Top of coal 

### Table 3-4. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #3 and #12 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas in Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Anderson 1 800 55 70 160 110 Canyon 9 970 43 81 1,260 870 Big George 11 1,280 100 107 6,620 2,910 Cook 2 1,030 30 86 210 170 Totals 8,250 4,060 * Top of coal

### 3-5 Table 3-5. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #4 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Anderson 6 450 30 40 400 290 Canyon 12 540 35 47 920 800 Wyodak 6 601 73 54 890 770 Cook 5 790 31 67 450 350 Wall 5 1,020 27 84 440 350 Pawnee 5 1,295 27 106 570 510 Cache 5 1,550 23 121 540 480 Totals 44 4,210 3,550 * To top of coal 

### Table 3-6. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #5 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Felix 4 530 24 46 180 140 Roland 2 540 25 47 100 80 Smith 18 820 39 70 2,310 1,560 Swartz 2 740 43 63 220 180 Anderson 9 1030 38 86 1,180 830 Canyon 16 1060 39 88 2,320 1,500 Big George 16 1280 97 107 6,760 3,510 Wyodak 2 1000 73 85 250 210 Cook 17 1320 40 109 3,060 1,810 Wall 16 1500 32 120 2,250 1,350 Pawnee 18 1710 41 137 4,000 2,320 Cache 14 2020 32 159 2,700 1,320 Wildcat 1 2190 45 101 180 90 Totals 25,510 14,910 * To top of coal

### 3-6 Table 3-7. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #6 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Cameron 1 700 20 60 50 40 Felix 1 750 30 63 140 110 Murry 1 800 50 69 80 60 Ucross 3 790 23 66 190 150 Roland 5 1,060 21 86 370 240 Anderson 3 1,220 30 99 370 220 Canyon 8 1,520 30 123 1,090 660 Big George 2 1,670 85 136 930 490 Cook 2 1,860 58 147 690 380 Wall 1 1,630 40 130 200 110 Pawnee 4 2,000 44 158 1,270 620 Wildcat 4 2,640 25 191 760 370 Totals 6,150 3,460 * To top of coal 

### Table 3-8. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #7 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Wasatch 6 540 25 47 290 230 Roland 3 820 27 70 250 200 Smith 2 1,180 20 96 160 90 Anderson 5 910 21 75 320 230 Canyon 2 1,500 25 120 250 150 Cook 2 2,300 28 178 400 210 Wall 1 2,500 30 186 210 100 Pawnee 1 2,050 40 160 250 140 Cache 3 2,623 30 190 680 330 Totals 2,820 1,680 * To top of coal

### 3-7 Table 3-9. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #8 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Smith 8 430 33 38 380 300 Swartz 2 580 21 49 90 70 Anderson 9 600 35 51 750 530 Canyon 19 620 37 54 1,810 1,560 Cook 22 730 39 62 2,280 1,800 Wall 21 960 30 80 1,890 1,230 Pawnee 11 1,060 33 87 1,200 1,070 Cache 4 1,550 27 123 490 290 Oedekoven 2 2,560 20 188 300 170 Totals 9,190 7,020 * To top of coal 

### Table 3-10. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #9 and #10 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas in Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Deitz (Anderson) 2 250 49 25 100 90 Monarch (Canyon) 7 470 24 41 280 250 Carney (Cook) 7 650 23 55 380 330 Pawnee 3 1,080 20 88 210 190 Totals 970 860 * Top of coal

### 3-8 Table 3-11. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #11 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas in Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Deitz #1 (Anderson) 5 910 24 75 510 450 Dietz #2 5 680 24 58 330 290 Dietz #3 6 1,030 22 84 390 340 Monarch (Canyon) 8 1,070 24 88 640 570 Carney (Cook) 3 1,030 23 84 220 190 Totals 2,090 1,850 * Top of coal 

### 3.4 Estimating Gas and Water Production The gas and water production estimates for the study were developed using the following six steps: 1. Geologic Model . The geologic model (discussed above) provided the key reservoir properties of coal seam depth, thickness, gas content and reservoir pressure. 2. Well Performance . The gas and water production data base (starting with over 8,000 CBM wells in the PRB) was organized by coal seam and by partition and then normalized by time (using “time zero” plots) to provide a foundation of actual CBM well performance. For example, Figure 3-1 provides the “time-zero” plot for “on average” wells completed in the Wyodak coal seam in a 2-township area of Partition #4. (See Section 6.4 for further discussion.) 3. History Matching . History matching of gas and water production (from 1,428 PRB CBM wells, organized into 14 distinct coal seam and basin partition sets (shown on Table 3-12) was used to establish: • Permeability (matrix, fracture) • Coal porosity (matrix, fracture) • Gas and water saturation • Confirmation of reservoir pressure and gas content For example, Figure 3-2 provides the gas and water production history match for the“average” well completed in the Wyodak coal seam in the 2-township area of Partition #4, shown in Figure 3-1. (See Section 6.4 for further discussion.). Table 3-13 summarizes the reservoir properties and expected gas and water recoveries for the 14 sets of history-matched PRB coalbed methane wells.

### 3-9 Time Zero Plot f or an Average Well

0 5,000 1 0,000 1 5,000 20,000 25,000

0 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 30 35 40 45 T i me (M onths) 0 20 40 60 80 1 00 1 20 1 40 1 60 1 80 GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 3-1. Wyodak Coal Seam Time Zero Plot

1 Intensely drilled township area. 2 Time zero well in partition. 3 All Big George wells in Sec. 16, 48N 77W. 4 Includes partitions with significant numbers of CBM wells, with sufficient production data for history matching. 

### 19 2 

### Pawnee 107 2 

### 19 1 

### Wall 65 1 

### 134 1 

### Cook 17 3 

### 38 1 

### Big George 159 1 

### Wyodak 147 1 

### 172 1 

### Canyon 191 1 

### 261 1 

### 89 1 

### Anderson 10 2 

### Smith 11 8 5 4 3 Partitions 4 

### Coal Seam 

### Table 3-12. Number and Nature of CBM Wells for History Matching

### 3-10 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual Cum Water

Actual Cum Gas 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 

### Figure 3-2. Wyodak Type Well History Match

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 B C D E F G H I J K L M N O PQ R Seam Part Area # of Wells Depth (Top) ft Thickness (ft) Spacing (A/W) Pressure (top) psi Pressure Gradient,

p si/ft Comparison to Regional Prs Grad Gas Content ( cf/cf ) Gas Content ( cf/ton ) Porosity f Porosity m Sw - f Sw - m Perm (md) - f Big G 3 T43-44N 74W 38 1,000 67.5 80 335 0.320 Same 3.58 86 0.00 2 0.040 1.00 1.00 35.0 A nderson 4 T51N 73W 89 500 20.0 80 150 0.270 Same 1.79 43 0.00 2 0.015 0.92 0.90 225.0 Wyodak 4 T47-48 R72 159 541 78.0 40 163 0.274 Same 2.73 65 0. 010 0.060 0.95 0.90 500.0 Canyon 4 T52-51 R73 172 625 37.5 80 186 0.273 Same 2.19 52 0. 004 0.030 0.93 0.93 200.0 Wall 4 T52N 73W 19 800 25.0 80 255 0.300 Same 2.82 67 0.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 100.0 Big G 5 1 WELL 1 1,260 150.0 80 451 0.346 Same 4.33 104 0.010 0. 100 1.00 1.00 250.0 Smith 5 A VG 10 640 30.0 80 197 0.284 Same 2.29 55 0.001 0.011 1.00 1.00 45.0 A nderson 8 T54 R76-77 261 650 52.5 80 200 0.285 Same 1.80 43 0 .002 0.015 1.00 0.78 175.0 Wall 8 A VG 107 963 30.0 80 300 0.296 Lower 3.22 77 0.010 0.095 1.00 1.00 42.0 Pawnee 8 A VG 19 1,055 33.0 80 358 0.325 Same 3.70 89 0.005 0.050 1.00 1.00 125.0 Cook 8 T55N 75-76W 134 752 55.0 80 237 0.295 Same 2.71 65 0.0 01 0.024 1.00 0.99 50.0 A nderson-Dietz 11 T57N R83-84W 191 650.0 22.5 80 200 0.285 Same 2.30 55 0.005 0.025 0.98 0.98 450.0 Canyon-Monarch 11 T57N R83-84W 147 930.0 20.0 80 306 0.313 Same 3.25 7 8 0.005 0.095 0.98 0.98 275.0 Cook-Carne y 11 T57N R83-84W 65 1,050.0 30.0 80 356 0.325 Same 3.68 88 0.010 0.080 0.99 0.99 150.0
A nderson 4 T51N 73W 89 500 20.0 80 150 0.270 Same 1.79 43 0.00 2 0.015 0.92 0.90 225.0 A nderson 8 T54 R76-77 261 650 52.5 80 200 0.285 Same 1.80 43 0 .002 0.015 1.00 0.78 175.0 A nderson-Dietz 11 T57N R83-84W 191 650 22.5 80 200 0.285 Same 2.30 5 5 0.005 0.025 0.98 0.98 450.0 Big G 3 T43-44N 74W 38 1,000 67.5 80 335 0.320 Same 3.58 86 0.00 2 0.040 1.00 1.00 35.0 Big G 5 1 WELL 1 1,260 150.0 80 451 0.346 Same 4.33 104 0.010 0. 100 1.00 1.00 250.0 Canyon 4 T52-51 R73 172 625 37.5 80 186 0.273 Same 2.19 52 0. 004 0.030 0.93 0.93 200.0 Canyon-Monarch 11 T57N R83-84W 147 930 20.0 80 306 0.313 Same 3.25 78 0.005 0.095 0.98 0.98 275.0 Cook 8 T55N 75-76W 134 752 55.0 80 237 0.295 Same 2.71 65 0.0 01 0.024 1.00 0.99 50.0 Cook-Carne y 11 T57N R83-84W 65 1,050 30.0 80 356 0.325 Same 3.68 88 0.010 0.080 0.99 0.99 150.0 Pawnee 8 A VG 19 1,055 33.0 80 358 0.325 Same 3.70 89 0.005 0.050 1.00 1.00 125.0 Smith 5 A VG 10 640 30.0 80 197 0.284 Same 2.29 55 0.001 0.011 1.00 1.00 45.0 Wall 4 T52N 73W 19 800 25.0 80 255 0.300 Same 2.82 67 0.010 0.100 1.00 1.00 100.0 Wall 8 A VG 107 963 30.0 80 300 0.296 Lower 3.22 77 0.010 0.095 1.00 1.00 42.0 Wyodak 4 T47-48 R72 159 541 78.0 40 163 0.274 Same 2.73 65 0. 010 0.060 0.95 0.90 500.0 

### Table 3-13. Summary Results for PRB Coalbed Methane History Matching

### 3-11Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water

Actual/Projected Cum Gas



### Figure 3-3. 10-Year Simulation of Gas and Water Production for Wyodak Type Well 4. Reservoir Simulation . Advanced Resources’ COMET3 reservoir simulator, a triple porosity and triple permeability finite difference model specifically developed for coalbed methane production and reserve assessments, was used for history matching and establishing 14 “type wells” reflecting the geologic and reservoir diversity encountered in PRB coals. 5. Production Forecast . The history-matched “type wells” were extended in time (using COMET3) to provide 10-year gas and water rates and estimates of ultimate recovery. For example, Figure 3-3 provides the 10-year reservoir simulation-based forecast for gas and water production for the Wyodak type well in Partition #4, as presented previously in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.

6. Type Wells. The 14 PRB “type wells” were scaled using actual depth, thickness and gas content to develop 142 individual “type wells” to reflect average, high and low performance for each major coal seam in each basin partition, shown on Table 3-14. For example, the history-matched set of 89 Anderson wells in T51N T3W of Partition #4 (shown previously on Table 3-13), with a coal thickness of 20 feet, were scaled to represent the average 30 foot coal thickness “type well” for the Anderson coal seam in Partition #4 (as shown in Table 3-5). The expected average, high and low well performance was based primarily on the variability in coal thickness in the partition. The average well represents the average coal thickness (and other reservoir properties) value and the low and high wells represent the lowest and highest 25% of the coal thickness in the townships of the partition.

### 3-12 1 1 Oedekoven* 12 10 3 1 3 3 Cache 11 5 3 1 1 Roland 2

142 15 8 23 14 16 28 21 8 9 TOTAL 15 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 Pawnee 10 11 3 1 1 3 3 Wall 9 19 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 Cook 8 8 1 3 3 1 Big George 7 7 1 3 3 Wyodak 6 24 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 Canyon 5 25 9 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 Anderson 4 9 4 1 4 Smith/Swartz 3 8 3 4 1 Wasatch 1 TOTAL 11 9&10 8 7 6 5 4 3&12 1&2 

### Partitions Major Seams

* Includes deep “wildcats.” 

### Table 3-14. Number of CBM Type Wells for Basin Assessment

### 4-1 4.0 COSTS OF PRB CBM DEVELOPMENT This section presents the cost model used for assessing the economics of Powder River Basin (PRB) coalbed methane (CBM) development. The section contains:• A summary presentation of the basic capital, operating and maintenance, gas transportation and compression, and water disposal costs, • A discussion of other financial considerations such as royalties, production taxes, and basin differentials, • More detailed discussions of CBM capital costs, • More detailed discussion of CBM O&M costs, and • A discussion of water disposal capital and O&M costs for four water management alternatives—surface disposal, infiltration impoundment, shallow re-injection and active treatment using reverse osmosis. 4.1 Basic Cost Model 4.1.1 Introduction This section provides the basic capital and operating cost model for Powder River Basin coalbed methane development. The model attempts to reflect a series of “typical” CBM wells in the basin, with cost variability determined by well depth, geographic location and volume of gas and water production. In reality, the variability in costs is much greater than can be defined by these “typical” CBM wells and the three factors (depth, location, and gas and water production) thatare used to capture a portion of this variability. As such, the cost and well performance information are intended for use on a regional rather than a site or prospect-specific basis. The authors are deeply indebted to the many sources of cost information made available for this study. These include contributions of cost data from the producers and service companies in the basin, detailed cost data from Advanced Resources’ past studies of coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin and other coal basins, and the cost surveys and comments by the Producers Association of Wyoming. We welcome suggestions and data that would improve the quality of the information and the cost model. 4.1.2 Capital Costs for PRB CBM Well The basic capital costs for a PRB CBM well include outlays for land, permits, drilling and completion, and infrastructure (capital costs for water disposal are presented later). These costs vary considerably by well depth and location. For example purposes, we will use a Powder River Basin coalbed methane well at 600 feet of depth, spaced on 80 acres, with 2 wells per pad. Capital costs are per well, assuming a 16-well, 8-pad development unit. Gas treating and compression is assumed, provided by a third party contract. Additional detail on each of the cost items and how costs vary with depth are provided in subsequent sections of this report.

### 4-2 The basic capital costs for the above described example PRB CBM well are estimated at $88,000, as shown below. Table 4-1. Capital Costs for PRB CBM Well Cost Item Capital Costs Land Costs and Permits $13,000 Well Drilling and Completion (@600 feet) 48,180 Water Gathering* 10,210 Electric Power, inc. cable** 8,450 Gas Gathering*** 7,820 Miscellaneous 340 Total $88,000 * Allocated based on small diameter water gathering piping of 2,000 feet per well (including common trenching and survey for water, gas, and electrical cable), central water transportation (2 lines) of 10,000 feet, right of way for 42,000 feet, two surface pumps and contingency insurance and other costs of 10%. ** Allocated based on central 3-phase power installation costs of $75,000 per unit, electrical cable of 2,000 feet per well, and contingency, insurance and other costs of 10%. *** Allocated based on small diameter gas gathering piping of 2,000 feet per well, central gas transportation (2 lines) of 10,000 feet, and contingency, insurance and other costs of 10%. 

### 4.1.3 O&M Costs for PRB CBM Well The basic lease and well operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for a Powder River coalbed methane well varies by year of production, with higher costs during the initial years because of more frequent well enhancements and pump replacements. Additional detail on these costs is provided in subsequent sections of this report. For illustrative example purposes, assuming CBM recovery of 0.3 Bcf (gross) per well, the O&M costs are $0.215 per Mcf and G&A costs ar e $0.043 per Mcf, for total O&M/G&A costs of $0.258 per Mcf. Additional O&M costs are incurred for water management and disposal, as discussed later.

### 4-3 Table 4-2. O&M Costs for PRB CBM Well O&M Costs/Well Basic O&M* O&M Inc.G&A Annual Monthly Annual Monthly Year 1 $16,700 $1,390 $20,040 $1,670 Years 2 - 4 $7,500 $625 $9,000 $750 Years 5 - 10 $4,200 $350 $5,040 $420 TOTAL (Years 1 - 10) $64,400 $644 $77,280 $773 *A G&A charge of 20% for engineering, accounting, legal and other indirect costs is added to basic well costs. 

### 4.1.4 Gas Transportation, Compression, and Fuel Use The costs of gas treatment, compression and tran sportation are subtracted from the PRB netback price to establish a PRB CBM wellhead price. The costs will vary, depending on the gathering system charges for transporting natural gas from the compressor to the Colorado Interstate Gas (CIG), or another hub, and on the nature and extent of contracted third-party compression. These costs depend on the location of the CBM development in the PRB, as follows: • A charge of $0.43 per Mcf is used for third-party compression and dehydration (assuming no lease compression), and for transportation for the central and southern portions of the PRB (Partitions #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). • A charge of $0.57 per Mcf is used for third-party compression and dehydration (assuming no lease compression), and for transportation for the northeast and southwest portions of the PRB (Partitions #6, 8, and 9). • A charge of $0.77 per Mcf is used for third-party compression and dehydration (assuming no lease compression), and for transportation for the northwest and western portions of the PRB (Partitions #7, 10, 11 and 12). A fuel adjustment (“shrinkage”) for operating gas powered compressor stations, estimated at 4 to 6% of gross production, is subtracted from the sales volume. A second fuel adjustment (“shrinkage”), involving the BTU adjustment for CBM, generally 2 to 8% (to account for 920 to 980 Btu content gas), is also subtracted from the sales volume. 4.1.5 Water Disposal Alternatives Alternatives . A series of alternatives are being used or considered for CBM water disposal in the Powder River Basin, including: • Untreated or passively treated water with surface discharge.

### 4-4 • Infiltration impoundment with enhanced evaporation and/or land application. • Shallow re-injection of the produced water. • Actively treated water with infiltration, evaporation, land application, and/or surface discharge, and disposition of the residual concentrate by trucking or deep re-injection. Deep re-injection of the untreated, relatively high-quality CBM produced water would constitutea loss of a valuable resource and thus has not been included among the water disposal alternatives in this study. Capital Costs . The capital costs for the alternative CBM water disposal options add from $1,400 to $35,200 per well, depending on the water management alternative selected, as shown for the example well below. Table 4-3. Capital Costs for Alternate Methods of Water Disposal Water Disposal Costs Capital Costs/Well O&M Costs/Bbl.* Water Disposal Surface Discharge $1,400 $0.02 Infiltration Impoundment $10,300 $0.06 Shallow Re-Injection $15,150 $0.06 Active Treatment w/Disposal of Residual Concentrate • Trucking $19,600 $0.24 • Deep Re-Injection $35,200 $0.14 * Per barrel of water produced for a “typical” CBM well producing 320 barrels per day (average) during the first 2 years. 

### O&M Costs . The operating costs of alternative CBM water disposal options will add from $0.02 to $0.25 per barrel of produced water to basic well and lease O&M costs, depending on the water management alternative selected. 4.1.6 Other Considerations Royalties . Royalty payments for PRB CBM production depend on mineral ownership, as set forth below: • Royalties on federal lands are 12.5%. • Royalties on state lands are 16.7%. • Royalties on private lands range from 15% to 20%. State Severance and Ad Valorem Taxes . State and county tax payments for PRB CBM production are state specific, as set forth below: • Wyoming severance and ad valorem taxes are 12%.

### 4-5 • Montana severance taxes are 9.3%. 4.1.7 Basin Differentials Because of higher transportation costs and other market conditions, the gas price at the CIG (or another Wyoming/Rocky Mountain) hub is discounted from a marker price, as set by the Henry Hub or NYMEX (commonly called the “basin differential”). As of mid-June 2002, with the Henry Hub gas price at $3.11 per MMBtu, the W yoming Pool and the Opal hub are both at $1.33 per MMBtu, for a basin differential of $1.78 per MMBtu. The economic model assumes that the long-term basin differential between Henry Hub and Rocky Mountain hubs reverts back to a historically-based value of $0.80 per MMBtu, as published by Petrie Parkman & Co. (October 2000). Sensitivity cases have been run to examine the effects of higher basin differentials. 4.2 Discussion of CBM Development Capital Costs 4.2.1 Land Costs and Permits Regular land and permit costs for CBM development in the Powder River Basin include the following: • Mineral lease purchase and maintenance. • WOGCC hearing, division orders, and permits. • DEQ, State Engineer Office and BLM permits. The costs for water disposal permits are included later. The costs for mineral leases is $200 per acre; the costs for regular permitting and studies is $5,000 for an 80-acre well pad. For a federal lease, additional costs are required for NEPA and other permitting studies, estimated to cost an additional $10,000 for an 80-acre well pad. Assuming approximately one-half of the leases are federal, this would add $5,000 of costs for an average permit. The total land and permit costs for an 80-acre well pad are estimated at $26,000. With two wells per pad, the cost per CBM well is $13,000. 4.2.2 Well Drilling and Completion Well drilling and completion costs are governed primarily by well depth, assuming single zonecoal seam completions. The intangible (expensed) and tangible (capitalized) drilling and completion costs for two representative PRB CBM we lls, one at 500 feet and one at 850 feet, are provided below:

### 4-6 Table 4-4. Sample Tangible and Intangible Costs for Two PRB CBM Wells Coal Seam Depth 500 feet 850 feet Well Drilling Costs $28,200 $36,500 Intangible 24,400 30,500 Tangible 3,800 6,000 Well Completion Costs $12,800 $14,300 Intangible 4,700 4,700 Tangible 8,100 9,600 TOTAL* $41,000 $50,800 * Contingency, insurance costs and other costs, estimated at 10% ,are added to the above well D&C costs. 

### A significant number of the cost items, such as s ite preparation, rentals, wellhead, and gas/ water metering, are relatively insensitive to differences in well depth. Other cost items, such as production casing, tubing, and the pumping system, are directly related to well depth. Based on the itemization of fixed and variable costs, the drilling and completion cost equation for a shallow (less than 1,000 foot) PRB CBM well is as follows: ($27,000 + $28(WD)) * 1.10 where: WD is well depth < 1,000 feet As well depth increases, well drilling and completion costs rise to account for the extra costs involved with increasing depth. Based on expe riences in the PRB and other CBM basins, we would estimate the cost equation for deeper, 1,000- to 3,000-foot CBM wells as follows: ($27,000 + $28(1,000) + $56 (WD-(1,000)) * 1.10 where: WD is well depth <3,000 feet Using the above equation, the well drilling and completion costs for the example 600-foot PRB CBM well and two deeper PRB CBM wells, one at 1,500 feet and one at 2,000 feet, are calculated as follows: ($27,000 + $28(600)) * 1.10 = $48,180 ($27,000 + $28,000 + $56(500)) * 1.10 = $91,300 ($27,000 + $28,000 + $56(1,000)) * 1.10 = $122,100 Additional details on specific well drilling and completion costs are provided below.

### 4-7 Table 4-5. Additional Drilling and Completion Costs for Two PRB CBM Wells Well Depth 500' 850' Drilling Costs Intangible Drilling Costs $24,400 $30,500 Site Prep, Permit, Survey and ROW 3,700 3,700 Drilling Rig, Bits, Fluids 12,600 16,200 Cementing 4,200 4,400 Logging 700 800 Supervision (Drilling, Geologic) 2,400 3,600 Other 800 1,800 Tangible Drilling Costs $3,800 $6,000 Surface Casing (9-5/8" @ $10/ft) 600 850 Production String (7" @ $5.50/ft) 2,750 4,300 Wellhead 450 450 Completion Costs Intangible Completion Costs $4,700 $4,700 Supervision/Labor 2,400 2,400 Enhancement 1,200 1,200 Completion Rig 500 500 Water Handling 600 600 Tangible Completion Costs $8,100 $9,600 Tubing (2" @ $1.50/ft) 800 1,300 Pump, Motor, Cable 2,500 3,500 Electrical Controller/Transducer 2,000 2,000 Wellhead, Flowline Fittings 1,000 1,000 Gas and Water Metering 1,800 1,800 Total $41,000 $50,800 

### 4.2.3 Infrastructure Costs Basic Water Handling Facilities . The facilities for gathering and transporting produced CBM water includes a pump and a water metering system (already included in well completion costs) plus small diameter (3 inch) polyethylene pipe connected to the tubing of the well. The polyethylene pipe is placed underground in a common trench from the wellhead to a point of common collection. A second, larger diameter (6 inch) polyethylene pipe transports the gathered water to a point of discharge involving a natural drainage outlet or a containment facility. For purposes of the cost estimate, the following assumptions are used:

### 4-8 • Well pads are placed on 80-acre spacing; on average, two wells exist per well pad; 16 wells (8 well pads on one 640-acre section) are linked together with an underground gathering and piping system. • For cost estimation purposes, each well initially produces 400 BWD (in year 1) decliningto 240 BWD in year 2 and declining by 25% each subsequent year. Total water production is 470,000 barrels per well for the 10 years of a well’s life. (For this example well, average water production is about 4 gpm (137 barrels per day) for 10 years.) • Approximately 2,000 feet of 3-inch polyethylene pipe is required for each well; 2 lines, each using approximately 5,000 feet of 6-inch polyethylene pipe, link the 16-well unit to 2 water disposal sites. • Approximately 32,000 feet of common trenching is required for water gathering (as well as the electrical cable and small-diameter gas-gathering lines) and 10,000 feet of common trenching is required for water transportation (as well as for gas transmission). • The cost for trenching and the survey is estimated at $2.15 per foot; the cost of the polyethylene pipe is estimated at $0.50 to $0.70 per foot; and, the cost for right of way (ROW) is estimated at $0.60 per foot. The cost of the water gathering and subsurface piping system for a 16-well unit is estimated at $163,350 or $10,210 per well, based on the following: • Trenching and Survey: (42,000 ft @ $2.15 ft) = $ 90,300 • Water Gathering: 3 inch poly pipe (32,000 ft @ $0.50/ft.) = $ 16,000 • Water Transport: 6 inch poly pipe (10,000 ft @ $0.70/ft.) = $ 7,000 • Surface Pump: (2 units @ $5,000/unit) = $ 10,000 • Right of Way: (42,000 ft. @ $0.60/ft.) = $ 25,200 • Contingency, insurance, etc. (@10%) = $ 14,850 $163,350 Operating and maintenance costs for the water gathering and transportation system, including electric power, surface pump maintenance and other costs, are included in the O&M costs for surface discharge, are discussed later. Electric Power . The costs of providing three-phase el ectric power and electrical cable to a 16-well unit (without trenching and survey) are as follows: • Central 3-Phase Power* $ 75,000 • Electric Cable (32,000 ft. @ $1.50/ft.) 48,000 $123,000 • Contingency, insurance, etc. (@ 10%) 12,300 Total $135,300 * Costs can range from $50,000 to $100,000, depending on location. Based on 16 wells, the cost per well is estimated at $8,450.

### 4-9 Gas Gatherings . The costs of providing gas gathering and central gas transmission for the 16-well unit to a central compressor (without trenching and survey) are as follows: • Gas Gathering: (32,000 ft., 4" @ $0.90/ft.) $ 28,800 • Gas Transmission: (10,000 ft, 12" @ $8.50/ft.) 85,000 $113,800 • Contingency, insurance, etc. (@10%) 11,380 Total $125,180 Based on 16 wells, the cost per well is estimated at $7,820. 4.3 Discussion of CBM Well O&M Costs 4.3.1 O&M Costs for PRB CBM Well Well and lease operating and maintenance (O&M) costs in the PRB are for electricity, wages for the pumper and miscellaneous site maintenance. In addition, particularly during the initial years of operation, CBM wells require periodic replacement of the downhole water pumping system and remediation. The cost model assumes two pump replacements and a well workover during the first year of operation, an annual pump replacements during the next three years of operation (but no additional well workover), and annual pump replacement with a smaller capacity pump during the final 6 years of operation. The costs for water lifting capacity depends on well depth and the water rate, as provided below: Table 4-6. Pump Replacement Costs Pump Size (bwpd)* Pump Cost ($) Rig ($)** 171 1,100 500 342 1,365 500 684 2,115 500 1,028 2,865 500 1,371 3,696 500 * Pump size of 171 to 684 bwpd are sufficient for well depths from 300 to 1,000 feet; pump size 1,028 to 1,371 bwpd are requir ed for well depths below 1,000 feet. ** The cost for the workover rig assu mes replacements of two pumps per day. 

### The annual O&M costs for electricity are scaled by water production rates of the CBM well, with 305 barrels per day (average for the year) incurring $3,050 annual costs for electricity.The cost of replacement plumps is scaled by well depth and varies in time by changing waterletting capacity requirements.

### 4-10 The annual cost for pump replacement for well depths from 300 to 1,000 feet is provided above. The cost for pump replacement for well depths below 1,000 feet is established by multiplying the pump replacement costs for 1,000-foot wells by the following cost scaling factor: • Pump Replacement Cost (for 1,000' well) * (WD/1,000') 2 

### • For WD of 1,000' to 3,000' The annual and monthly direct well and lease O&M costs for a PRB CBM well at 600 feet of depth and producing 305 barrels of water per day in year 1 (declining with time), are provided below, by year of operation: Year 1 Annual Monthly Electricity $3,050 Pumper 1,140 Workover* 6,270 1 st Pump Replacement 2,620 2 nd Pump Replacement 2,620 Annual ROW 700 Misc. 300 Total $16,700 $1,390 ***Total w/G&A $20,040 $1,670 Year 2-4 Electricity  $1,500 Pumper 1,140 Pump Replacement 1,860 Workover**  2,000 Annual ROW 700 Misc. 300 Total $7,500 $625 Total w/G&A $9,000 $750 Years 5-10 Electricity**** $480 Pumper 1,140 Pump Replac. 1,600 Annual ROW 700 Misc. 280 Total $4,200 $350 Total w/G&A $5,040 $420 * Each well is assumed to require one re-enhancement to restore productivity during the first year.

** One out of three wells is assumed to require a clean-out during their second year. *** A G&A cost of 20% is added to the well and lease O&M costs, annual and monthly costs are rounded. **** Electricity costs are scaled based on annual water production.

### 5-1 5.0 ECONOMICS OF POWDER RIVER COALBED METHANE WITH ALTERNATIVE WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 5.1 Summary 5.1.1 Key Economic Factors The economics of coalbed methane produced water management in the Powder River Basin are influenced by four key factors: • Future natural gas prices and, most critical today, the “basin differential.” While natural gas prices at the Henry Hub have recently ranged from $3 to $3.50 per Mcf, the prices paid at the Wyoming hubs have ranged from $1 to $1.50 per Mcf, for an unprecedented and persistent “basin differential” of $1.50 to $2.00 per Mcf. • The volume and timing of gas and water production from individual coal seams in distinct portions of the basin. Expected gas recovery from a CBM well ranges by order of magnitude, from 0.1 Bcf to 1 Bcf per well; and, water recovery varies twenty-fold, from 100,000 to 2,000,000 barrels per well. • The capital and O&M costs for drilling and operating wells of different gas and water productivity and at depths of 300 to 3,000 feet. • The coalbed methane produced water management option selected by the operator, as discussed further below. 5.1.2 Economic Cases To examine the economic impact of alternative water production practices, the study used three gas price and “basin differential” cases: Case 1 (Today) . Case 1 assumes long-term natural gas prices of $3.00 per Mcf (in constant year 2002 prices) at the Henry Hub, with a basin differential of $1.80 per Mcf. This provides a natural gas price at the Wyoming Hub of $1.20 per Mcf. (As a point of reference, on July 1, 2002 the natural gas price at the Wyoming Hub was $1.07 per MMBtu, with a Henry Hub price of $3.20 per MMBtu.) Case 2 (Transition) . Case 2 uses the same gas price (at Henry Hub) as Case 1, but assumes that the “basin differential” narrows with time, from $1.80 per Mcf today, to $1.30 per Mcf in 2003, and to $0.80 per Mcf in 2003 and beyond. Case 3 (Long Term) . Case 3 uses the same gas price (at Henry Hub) as Cases 1 and 2, but assumes that the “basin differential” is and remains at $0.80 per Mcf, consistent with historical trends. For the volumes of gas and water expected to be produced, the study uses the 142 type wells representative of the different geological areas and coal seams in the PRB, presented in

### 5-2 Chapter 3. For capital and O&M costs, the study uses the cost and economic models presented in Chapter 4. 5.1.3 Overview of Economic Analyses The economics of alternative water management options in the PRB are as follows, using a 15% (before corporate income tax) internal rate of return (IRR) as the threshold criteria. Table 5-1. Volumes of Economically Recoverable CBM w/Alternative Water Disposal Options* Economic Cases Surface Discharge Impoundment Shallow Reinjection Active Treatment Case 1 (Today) 1.5 Tcf -- -- -- Case 2 (Transition) 22.4 Tcf 20.0 Tcf 18.8 Tcf 7.1-10.2 Tcf Case 3 (Long Term) 29.1 Tcf 27. 8 Tcf 27.1 Tcf 17.8-21.6 Tcf * Includes the 655 Bcf of CBM pr oduced to date from the basin. 

### Analyses of the economics of alternative water management options for PRB CBM show the following: Case 1 (Today) . Under today’s unfavorable economics (Case 1), surface disposal of produced water is the only economic water management option, and even this option is economic only in selected, high quality portions of the PRB. More costly water disposal options would preclude further economic development of coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin. A significant portion of the 1.5 Tcf of economic CBM potential shown in the above table is already under development with about 650 Bcf of this volume produced to date, leaving little opportunity for further economically justified expansion in this basin under today’s gas price and PRB “basin differential.” Case 2 (Transition) . Assuming a transition toward more normal Wyoming basin price differentials, a significant portion of the basin becomes economic to develop with water management practices of surface discharge, impoundment or shallow re-injection. Requiring active treatment of the produced water (with current reverse osmosis technology) greatly reduces the basin’s economic potential. Specifically, instead of 19 to 22 Tcf of economically recoverable coalbed methane (using one of the first three water management options), only 7 to 10 Tcf of coalbed methane remains economic to develop with a requirement for active water treatment. This represents a loss of 12 Tcf of otherwise economically recoverable natural gas resource. Case 3 (Long Term) . Using a long-term outlook for gas prices in Wyoming (requiring that development be delayed until the basin differential reaches historically more normal values), the economic CBM resources of the PRB range from 27 to 29 Tcf (for the three lower cost water management options). Imposing active treatment of water (with current reverse osmosis tech-

### 5-3 nology) reduces the economically viable PRB CBM potential to a range of 18 to 22 Tcf, for a loss of 7 to 9 Tcf natural gas resources. 5.1.4 Impact of Risk Premium Using a higher minimum rate of return—one potentially more reflective of the current highereconomic and regulatory risks in the PRB—would reduce the natural gas resource and production contribution from the PRB. Imposing hi gher cost water management options, such as active produced water treatment with reverse osmosis, and a higher risk premium would also preclude further economic development of coalbed methane in the PRB. The result of this risk premium analyses, using Case 2 natural gas wellhead price and basin differential assumption, is shown below: Table 5-2. Volumes of Economically Recoverable CBM w/Alternative Water Disposal Options Water Management Options Case 2 w/15% IRR Treshold Case 2 w/25% IRR Threshold Surface Discharge 22.4 Tcf 16.6 Tcf Impoundment 20.0 Tcf 12.7 Tcf Shallow Reinjection 18.8 Tcf 12.4 Tcf Active Treatment w/Trucking 7.1 Tcf 0.8 Tcf w/Deep Disposal 10.2 Tcf 2.1 Tcf 

### 5.2 Water Disposal Alternatives A series of alternatives are being used or considered for CBM water disposal in the Powder River Basin, including: • Untreated or passively treated water with surface discharge. • Infiltration impoundment with enhanced evaporation and/or land application. • Shallow re-injection of the produced water. • Actively treated water with infiltration, evaporation, land application, and/or surface discharge, and disposition of the residual concentrate by trucking or deep re-injection. Deep re-injection of the untreated, relatively high quality CBM produced water would be wasting a valuable resource and thus has not been included among the water disposal alternatives in this study.

### 5-4 5.3 Costs of Water Disposal Alternatives 5.3.1 Capital Costs The capital costs for the alternative CBM water disposal options add from $1,400 to $35,200 per well, depending on the water management alternative selected, as shown for the example well below. Table 5-3. CBM Water Disposal Alternative Costs Water Disposal Costs Capital Costs/Well O&M Costs/Bbl.* Water Disposal Surface Discharge $1,400 $0.02 Infiltration Impoundment $10,300 $0.06 Shallow Re-Injection $15,150 $0.06 Active Treatment w/Disposal of Residual Concentrate Trucking $19,600 $0.24 Deep Re-Injection $35,200 $0.14 * Per barrel of water produced for a “typical ” CBM producing 320 barrels per day (average) during the first 2 years. 

### 5.3.2 O&M Costs The operating costs of alternative CBM water disposal options will add from $0.02 to $0.24 perbarrel of produced water to basic well and lease O&M costs, depending on the water management alternative selected. 5.3.3 Capital Costs for Water Treating and Associated Disposal The total capital costs for using active water treatment (with RO) are as follows for a 900-gpm (30,860 barrel per day) facility:

### 5-5 Table 5-4. Capital Costs for Disposal Options Trucking Deep Disposal Three RO Unit (ins talled) $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Deep Disposal well and facilities - $1,500,000 Three Impoundments $150,000 $150,000 Three surface disc harge points $130,000 $130,000 TOTAL $1,880,000 $3,380,000 

### The cost for the RO unit and associated facilities, assuming trucking of the residual concentrate to disposal, is $1,880,000 or $19,600 per well for a 96-well unit. Using a deep disposal well and injection facilities would eliminate the costs of trucking the residual concentrate, but would raise the capital costs to $3,380,000 or $35,200 per well for a 96-well unit. 5.3.4 Operating Costs for Water Treatment and Associated Disposal Operating costs for the three RO units are estimated at $233,100 per year for a 96-well unit, or $0.02 per barrel of water treated (assuming a capacity of 30,000 barrels per day), and anoperating factor of 95%. Adding the costs of maintaining the discharge points and impoundments, and providing electricity and maintenance for the pumps, bring operating costs to $0.04 per barrel of water produced. For trucking, the total costs are estimated at $0.24 per barrel of water produced, assuming water trucking costs of $2.00 per barrel and 10% residual concentrate. For deep disposal, the total costs are estimated at $0.14 per barrel of water produced, assuming deep re-injection well and facility O&M costs of $0.10 per barrel of water injected. Table 5-5. Total Estimated Costs for Deep Disposal Annual Operating Costs* Electric Power $57,000 Chemicals Anti-scalant $73,000 Cleaning $5,000 Iron removal $3,500 Membrane Replacement (After 5 years, annualized) $33,600 Reject Disposal (10% residual concentrate) see below Annual Labor $22,000 $194,200 G&A of 20% $38,800 TOTAL $233,000 * Assuming a 96-well unit.

### 5-6 5.4 Discussion of Water Disposal Capital and O&M Costs 5.4.1 Surface Discharge This alternative involves building two water discharge points with limestone rock (rip-rap) for passive treatment of the produced water. (The cost for the water transportation system and pumps has been included above.) • The cost for 20 cubic yards of limestone rock is estimated at $600. • The cost for building a discharge point is estimated at $5,000. • Contingency, insurance, and other costs of 10% are added to the above. • The cost for the NPDES permit is approximately $1,000 per well. • The total cost is estimated at $6,200 for a 16-well facility or $400 per typical CBM well, plus $1,000 per well for the NPDES permit. The operating costs for monitoring surface discharge, including electricity and maintenance for the surface pumps, are estimated at $0.02 per barrel. 5.4.2 Infiltration ImpoundmentThis alternative involves constructing an impoundment (pond) and installing enhanced evaporation equipment (atomizers) or a surface irrigation system. • The size of the impoundment is 3 acres with a dam of 13 feet, providing 20 acre-feet (150,000 barrels) of water capacity sufficient to hold 30 days of production from a 16-well unit. • Annual water infiltration is estimated at 8 feet of water loss per year, with enhanced evaporation and surface irritation providing 12 feet of water loss per year. Together, this provides 60 acre-feet (approximately 465,000 barrels) of water loss per year or about 1,275 barrels per day (with more during summer months and less during winter months). • An irrigation or atomizing system is added to the impoundment. One such unit is able to dispose of 45 gpm or 1,500 barrels per day.• At an average water rate of 320 barrels per day (during the first two years of well operation), the 16-well unit will produce about 5,000 barrels per day of water. One impoundment with an irrigation system will accommodate about 8 wells (and more wells during subsequent years). A 16-well unit requires two such infiltration and evaporation impoundments.

### 5-7 • The cost for constructing each impoundment is estimated at $25,000 to $50,000, based on handling approximately 50,000 cubic yards of material at $0.50 to $1.00 per cubic yard. (Reclamation costs of $10,000 (on a present value basis) are added to this total). • The cost for one atomizer or irrigation system is estimated at $16,500 for a 1,500-barrels per day (45 gpm) unit, with installation costs of about 20% or $3,500. Two such units are required. • Contingency, insurance, right of way and other costs of 10% are added. • The total cost for two infiltration and evaporation impoundments is $148,500, or $9,300 per typical CBM well plus $1,000 per well for the NPDES permit. Construction $ 75,000 Reclamation (PV) 20,000 Atomizers/Irrigation (2 units) 40,000 Contingency, etc. 13,500 $148,500 The operating cost for the infiltration and evaporation impoundment is estimated at $0.06 per barrel of water produced, including $0.02 per barrel for electricity and maintenance for the surface pumps and $0.04 per barrel for operating the irrigation system and maintaining the impoundment. 5.4.3 Shallow Re-injection This alternative involves identifying shallow, ideally relatively fresh water zones into which the CBM produced water could be re-injected. A ha ndful of such shallow well injection projects exist, but with a mixed record of success. Basically, shallow re-injection is a high risk option and may be considered a speculative alternative at this time. Therefore, shallow re-injection was evaluated from a theoretical standpoint in this analysis. Ideally, the shallow re-injection zone would be under pressured and highly permeable. This would help reduce (or eliminate) pumped costs and reduce the number of required injection wells. The costs for a large, central shallow re-injection facility (or two smaller facilities) capable of dispersing 30,000 barrels per day from 96 producing CBM wells is as follows: • The cost of two 3-acre (20 acre-foot ) infiltration impoundments (with a combined capacity fo 300,000 barrels) is estimated at $104,500. This would provide storage for about 10 days of water production from a 96-well unit. The annual water loss from two impoundments would be modest, the order of 1,500 barrels per day. • The remainder of the produced water would be injected into a series of shallow wells. Assuming water injection capacity of 2,000 barrels per day (based on water production

### 5-8 and a select number of injection projects in the basin), approximately 15 shallow wells would be required. • The drilling and completion costs for shallow wells estimated to be on the order of $30,000 to $70,000 per well. Adding other costs, such as water transportation, pumps, injection facilities, permits, etc., is estimated to be about $30,000 to $50,000 per well, and provides total well costs of $90,000 (Source: CBM Producers Information Survey Results, January 2002). • Assuming average shallow well drilling and completion costs per well of $90,000, the costs for 15 wells would be $1,350,000 plus $104,500 for the impoundment facilities for a total of $1,454,500 or $15,150 per typical CBM well, as shown below: Impoundments (2) $ 104,500 Shallow Wells (10) $1,350,000 Total $1,454,500The operating costs for the shallow wells and impoundment (including electricity and maintenance for the surface pumps) are estimated at $0.06 per barrel of water produced. 5.4.4 Active Treatment Using Reverse Osmosis This alternative involves constructing water holding and residual concentration storage impoundments, installing a water treatment system involving reverse osmosis (RO), surface discharging the treated water, and either trucking or deep re-injecting the residual concentrate. Capital Costs . The capital costs are for a large, central unit able to service 96-producing CBM wells. • The cost of three surface discharge points is estimated at $18,600 (from above), plus $15,000 for water piping and $96,000 for studies and permits, for a total of $130,000 for a 96-well unit. • The cost of one 3-acre (20 acre-foot) infiltration impoundment (with a capacity of 150,000 barrels) is estimated at $52,250 (from above). This would provide storage for about 5 days of water production from a 96-well unit. Two such impoundments are required to provide 10 days of produced water storage capacity. The cost of a third smaller (10 acre-foot) lined impoundment for storing the reject water (concentrate) from the RO unit is estimated at $32,000, plus piping. This would provide storage for up to one month of reject water. The total cost for impoundments is estimated at $150,000. • Assuming a 96-well unit and 320 barrels of water per day per well (average water rate for first 2 years), 3 300-gpm (10,286 barrel per day) units are required with capacity to treat 30,000 barrels per day.

### 5-9 • The cost for 3 RO units (from Filter Tech) is $1,212,000. Assuming 20% for site preparation, the electrical system, building, et c., plus 10% for contingency, insurance and other, the cost for three units is $1,600,000. • Two options, trucking and deep disposal, exist for disposing of the residual concentrate, estimated at 10% of the treated water, or 3,000 barrels per day. • If trucking is the option, these costs are included in O&M costs, presented in the next section. • If disposal is the option, additional capital costs are required for a deep disposal well and an injection facility for the residual concentrate. The costs of the re-injection well and associated facilities are estimated at $1,000,000 for the deep re-injection well and $500,000 for the facility (including large capacity pumps, electricity, water transportation and other costs). The total capital costs for using active water treatment (with RO) are as follows for a 900-gpm (30,860 barrel per day) facility: Table 5-6. Total Capital Costs for Active Water Treatment Trucking Deep Disposal Three RO Unit (ins talled) $1,600,000 $1,600,000 Deep Disposal well and facilities (est.) - $1,500,000 Three Impoundments $150,000 $150,000 Three surface disc harge points $130,000 $130,000 TOTAL $1,880,000 $3,380,000 

### The cost for the RO unit and associated facilities, assuming trucking of the residual concentrate to disposal, is $1,880,000 or $19,600 per well for a 96-well unit. Adding a deep disposal well and injection facilities would eliminate the costs of trucking the residual concentrate, but would raise the capital costs to $3,380,000 or $35,200 per well for a 96-well unit. Operating and Maintenance Costs . Operating costs for the 3 RO units are estimated at $233,100 per year for a 96-well unit, or $0.03 per barrel of water treated (assuming a capacity of 30,000barrels per day) and an operating factor of 95%, as shown below. Adding the costs of maintaining the discharge points and impoundments, and providing electricity and maintenance for the pumps, brings operating costs to $0.04 per barrel of water produced. If trucking is the option, the costs for operating the RO unit, pumping the water, operating the discharge points, and disposing of the residual concentrate are estimated at $0.24 per barrel of water produced assuming water trucking costs of $2.00 per barrel of residual concentrate and 10% residual concentrate.

### 5-10 Table 5-7. Annual Operating Costs for Trucking Annual Operating Costs* Electric Power $57,000 Chemicals Anti-scalant $73,000 Cleaning $5,000 Iron removal $3,500 Membrane Replacement (After 5 years, annualized) $33,600 Reject Disposal (10% residual concentrate) see below Annual Labor $22,000 $194,200 G&A of 20% $38,800 TOTAL $233,000 * Assuming a 96-well unit. 

### If deep disposal of the residual concentrate is the option, the costs for operating the RO unit, pumping the water, operating the discharge points, and operating and maintaining the deep injection facility are estimated at $0.14 per barrel of water produced, assuming deep re-injection well and facility O&M costs of $1.00 per barrel of residual concentrate injected and 10% residual concentrate. 5.5 Detailed Economic Analyses of Water Management Options An example of the discounted cash flow analysis, prepared for one of the 142 PRB CBM type wells is provided in Table 5-9. The economic analysis is for the Big George coal seam with 97 feet of coal at 1,372 feet of depth, in Partiti on #5 of the PRB. The economic assumptions are: Table 5-8. Assumptions for Discounted Cash Flow Analyses Price Calculation Gas Price (Henry Hub) $3.00/Mcf Basin Differential (PRB) $1.80 to $0.80/Mcf Gathering and Compression $0.57/Mcf Net Wellhead Price $0.63 to $1.63/Mcf Sales Volume Adjustment Btu Adjustment (5%) Lease Fuel (5%)

### 5-11 The Big George coal seam in Partition #5 is estimated to recover 0.7 Bcf of natural gas plus 1,500,000 barrels of water. Economic analyses of this high water producing seam show that current practices of produced water management enable this coal seam to be economically developed. However, more costly water management options, such as reverse osmosis, will make this major coal seam in Partition #5 uneconomic.

### 5-121 

### Some quantities have been subject to rounding. 6-1 6.0 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS BY BASIN PARTITION The materials presented in the previous chapters of the Powder River Coalbed Methane Basin Study provide an overview of the study methodology and findings. Chapter 6 provides a review of this information at a more detailed, “basin partition” level. As such, Chapter 6 contains a series of sections that provide the input data and the discussion of study findings for each of the twelve basin partitions, identified previously 1 

### . Within each section, additional information is provided on the major Wasatch and Fort Union Formation coal seams present in the partition. The individual sections in Chapter 6 provide the geologic setting of the partition and its in-place and technically recoverable coalbed methane resources. This is followed by a coal seam by coal seam discussion of key reservoir properties that govern the producibility of each coal seam. Finally, each section presents the distribution of expected gas and water production for major coal seams, as represented by an average, high and low productivity CBM well completed in the seam. A series of maps, tables and figures summarize the data base and analytic work performed on the major coal seams in the Powder River Basin. Section 6.4 of Chapter 6, discussing the study findings for Partition #4, contains the full set of maps, type logs, well performance profiles, and reservoir simulation-based history matches that serve as the foundation for the PRB Basin Study. For purposes of brevity, more summary information is provided for the other basin partitions. 6.1 Partition #1 6.1.1 Summary Partition #1 covers a 20-township area in the southern portion of the Powder River Basin, from 36N to 39N and from 72W to 76W, Figure 6-1. Only one township in Partition #1 contains coal that meets the depth and thickness criteria of the study, the Anderson seam with 25 feet of coal at 450 feet. As such, the discussion of the Anderson coal in this partition is combined into Partition #2, northeast of Partition #1. 6.2 Partition #2 6.2.1 Summary The main features of Partition #2, in the southeastern portion of the Powder River Basin, are as follows: • The partition covers a 17-township area on the eastern edge of the PRB, from 40N to 44N and from 70W to 73W, Figure 6-2.

### 6-2 Figure 6-1. Partition #1 Base Map

### 6-3 Figure 6-2. Partition #2 Base Map

### 6-4 • A series of coal mines exist in the townships along the shallower eastern edge; as a result, the townships on the eastern edge of the partition (in 70W) are no longer available for CBM development. • The stratigraphic section contains the Canyon, Wyodak, Big George, Cook and Pawnee coal seams (plus the Anderson from Partition #1). The depth of these coals ranges from 450 to 1,340 feet, with coal seam thickness ranging from 22 to 90 feet (township level averages). • The gas in-place in the two partitions is 2.2 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 1,630 Bcf. The results by coal seam are provided in Table 6-7. 6.2.2 Discussion of Major Seams • Anderson . The Anderson is the only significant seam in Partition #1. It does not meet the depth and thickness criteria in Partition #2.

- Area. The Anderson coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 1 township, located in the southern portion of Partition #1.

- Coal Thickness. The Anderson seam coal thickness averages 25 feet.

- Coal Depth. The depth to the top of the Anderson seam averages 450 feet.

- Development. Only a few Anderson wells currently exist in this partition.

- Time Zero Plot. Not available.

- Type Well. The history-matched Anderson well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content and coal thickness, serves as the Anderson type well for Partition #1. Table 6-1. Anderson Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 475 25 0.12 120 

### • Canyon . The first major coal seam in Partition #2 is the Canyon, at times included within or called the Wyodak.

- Area . The Canyon coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 townships located in the western portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Canyon coal seam thickness averages 48 feet, with a range of 35 to 60 feet.

### 6-5 - Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Canyon seam averages 575 feet, with a range of 450 to 700 feet.

- Development . Considerable Canyon coal well development exists in this partition with nearly 100 shut-in and permitted wells.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 7 recently drilled Canyon coal wells is provided in Figure 6-3.

- Type Well . Because the Canyon well production data in Partition #2 is recent, limited and still erratic, the history-matched Canyon well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content, and coal thickness, serves as the Canyon type well for Partition #2. Because only two townships contain the Canyon coal seam, with significantly different coal properties, only a high and low Canyon well are used. Table 6-2. Canyon Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) High 760 60 0.46 460 Low 485 35 0.17 270 

### • Wyodak . A thick package of Wyodak coals exists in the central portion of Partition #2.

- Area. The Wyodak coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Wyodak coal seam thickness averages 86 feet, with a range of 70 to 100 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Wyodak seam averages 440 feet, with a range of 300 to 600 feet.

- Development . Wyodak coal well development is active in this partition with over 500 wells having been drilled or permitted.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 181 Wyodak coal wells is provided in Figure 6-4.

- Type Well . Because the Wyodak well production performance in Partition #2 is similar to the Wyodak well performance in Partition #4, the history-matched Wyodak well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content, and coal thickness, serves as the Wyodak type well for Partition #2.

### 6-6 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-3. Canyon Time Zero Plot

### 6-7 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

0 5 10 15 20 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-4. Wyodak Time Zero Plot

### 6-8 Table 6-3. Wyodak Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 525 86 0.37 1,140 High 700 100 0.58 1,330 Low 370 70 0.22 930 

### • Big George . The Big George coal seam, stratigraphically and depositionally similar to the Wyodak, exists in the western portion of Partition #2.

- Area . The Big George coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Big George coal seam thickness averages 90 feet, with a range of 80 to 100 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Big George seam averages 860 feet, with a range of 850 to 875 feet.

- Development . Approximately 300 Big George coal wells have been drilled or permitted in this partition.

- Time Zero Plot . The Big George coal wells in Partition #2 have been combined into a composite Fort Union interval in the production data base. Thus, a distinct time zero plot for this coal seam is not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Big George well in Partition #3, adjusted for depth, gas content, and coal thickness, serves as the Big George type well for Partition #2. Because the Big George coal exists in only two townships and has relatively uniform depth and thickness, only an average Big George well is used. Table 6-4. Big George Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 950 90 0.55 700 

### • Cook . The Cook coal seam exists at sufficient thickness in the central portion of Partition #2.

- Area . The Cook coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in two townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook coal seam thickness averages 30 feet.

### 6-9 - Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 740 feet, with a range of 650 to 830 feet.

- Development . The Cook coal seam is undeveloped.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Cook well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, and coal thickness, serves as the Cook type well for Partition #2. Because the Cook coal exists in only two townships with the same thickness, only an average Cook well is used. Table 6-5. Cook Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 770 30 0.21 200 

### • Pawnee . The Pawnee seam exists at sufficient thickness in the southwestern portion of Partition #2.

- Area . The Pawnee coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Pawnee coal seam thickness averages 22 feet with a range of 20 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Pawnee seam averages 1,340 feet, with a range of 1,200 to 1,620 feet.

- Development . The Pawnee coal seam is undeveloped.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Pawnee well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability, and coal thickness, serves as the Pawnee type well for Partition #2. Because the Pawnee coal seam has relatively uniform depth and thickness, only an average well is used. Table 6-6. Pawnee Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,360 22 0.29 290

### 6-10 Table 6-7. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #1 and #2
Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas in Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable Resources (Bcf) Anderson 1 450 25 39 40 30 Canyon 2 575 48 51 210 180 Wyodak 5 440 86 42 760 560 Big George 2 860 90 86 550 320 Cook 2 740 30 65 150 120 Pawnee 5 1,336 22 108 470 420 Totals 2,170 1,630 * Top of coal 

### 6.3 Partitions #3 and #12 6.3.1 Summary The main features of Partitions #3 and #12, in the Powder River Basin, are as follows: • Partition #3 covers a 21-township area in the south-central portion of the PRB, from 40N to 44N and from 73W to 79W, Figure 6-5. Partition #12 covers a 12-township area along the western edge of the PRB, Figure 6-6. Only one township (42N 77W) and only one coal seam, the Big George, meet the study inclusion criteria in Partition #12. Because this township forms the western extent of the Big George coal seam in Partition #3, this single township and coal seam in Partition #12 is included in the data and discussion of the Big George coal seam in Partition #3. • The stratigraphic section contains the Anderson, Canyon, Wyodak, Big George, and Cook coal seams. (The Wyodak “fairway” boundary crosses the northeast corner of the partition.) The remainder of the area is included in the Big George “fairway” for coal seam designation purposes. • The depth to the top of these coals ranges from 730 to 1,500 feet, with individual coal seam thickness ranging from 30 to 130 feet (township level averages). • The gas in place in the partition is 8.3 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 4,060 Bcf. The results by coal seam are provided in Table 6-12. 6.3.2 Discussion of Major Seams • Anderson . The Anderson exists as a distinct seam on the eastern portion of the partition.

- Area . The Anderson coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in one township.

### 6-11 Figure 6-5. Partition #3 Base Map

### 6-12 Figure 6-6. Partition #12 Base Map

### 6-13 - Coal Thickness . The Anderson seam coal thickness averages 55 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth of the Anderson seam averages 855 feet to top of coal.

- Development. Anderson coal seam development is just starting.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Anderson well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content and coal thickness, serves as the Anderson type well for Partition #3. Since only one township cont ains Anderson coal of sufficient depth and thickness, only an average well is used. Table 6-8. Anderson Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 855 55 0.40 270 

### • Canyon . The Canyon exists as a distinct seam primarily in the eastern and central portions of Partition #3. The Canyon is sometimes included within or called the Wyodak.

- Area . The Canyon coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 9 townships located in the western portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Canyon coal seam thickness averages 43 feet, with a range of 25 to 65 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Canyon seam averages 970 feet, with a range of 730 to 1,425 feet.

- Development . Canyon coal seam development is just starting and is concentrated in township 44N 74W.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Canyon well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content and coal thickness, serves as the Canyon type well for Partition #3.

### 6-14 Table 6-9. Canyon Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,013 43 0.33 330 High 960 60 0.43 460 Low 830 30 0.25 230 

### • Big George . The Big George coal seam, stratigraphically and depositionally similar to the Wyodak, exists in the central portion of Partition #3 and in Partition #12.

- Area . The Big George coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 11 townships, including one township in Partition #12.

- Coal Thickness . The Big George seam coal thickness averages 100 feet, with a range of 70 to 125 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Big George seam averages 1,280 feet, with a range of 970 to 1,500 feet.

- Development . Over 300 Big George coal wells have been drilled or permitted in this partition.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 38 producing Big George wells in T43-44N, R74W is provided in Figure 6-7.

- Type Well . The history-matched Big George well shown in Figure 6-8, adjusted for depth, gas content and coal thickness, serves as the Big George type well for Partition #3. Table 6-10. Big George Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,380 100 0.66 770 High 1,525 125 0.89 970 Low 1,420 70 0.48 540 

### • Cook . The Cook coal seam exists at sufficient thickness in the eastern portion of Partition #3.

- Area . The Cook coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in two townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook coal seam thickness averages 30 feet.

### 6-15 Time Zero Plot f or an Average Well

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 1 0,000 1 2,000 1 4,000

0 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 Ti me ( M ont hs) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-7. Big George Time Zero Plot

### 6-16Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water
Actual/Projected Cum Gas



### Figure 6-8. Big George Partition #3

### 6-17 - Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 1,030 feet, with a range of 930 to 1,125 feet.

- Development . The Cook coal seam is essentially undeveloped.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Cook well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, and coal thickness, serves as the Cook type well for Partition #3. Because the Cook coal exists in only two townships with the same coal thickness, only an average Cook well is used in Partition #3. Table 6-11. Cook Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,060 30 0.29 200 

### Table 6-12. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #3 and #12
Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas in Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable Resources (Bcf) Anderson 1 800 55 70 160 110 Canyon 9 970 43 81 1,260 870 Big George 11 1,280 100 107 6,620 2,910 Cook 2 1,030 30 86 210 170 Totals 8,250 4,060 * Top of coal 

### 6.4 Partition #4 6.4.1 Summary The main features of Partition #4, in the east-central portion of the Powder River Basin, are as follows: • The partition covers a 22-township area on the eastern edge of the PRB, from 45N to 52N and from 70W to 73W, Figure 6-9. • A series of coal mines exists in the townships along the shallower eastern edge; as a result, the bulk of CBM development is in the eight townships along the western edge of

### 6-18 Figure 6-9. Partition #4 Base Map

### 6-19 this partition. The partition contains some of the earliest CBM wells and "fields" in the PBR, such as Caballo and Bonepile. • Partition #4 contains 7 major coal seams in the Fort Union Formation. The depth to these coals ranges from 450 to 1,500 feet, with coal seam thickness ranging from 23 to 73 feet (township level averages). The gas in place in the partition is 4.2 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 3,540 Bcf. The results, by coal seam, are provided in Table 6-20. • The stratigraphic sequence for some of the major coal seams in this partition, such as the Anderson, Canyon and Cook, is shown in Figure 6-10, a sample log from Sec. 3, 53N, 74W. The log identifies coals that meet the study criteria for selection in that township (depth greater than 300 feet and thickness greater than 20 feet. In addition, a series of thinner coals, with thickness of 10 to 20 feet, exist in this partition, such as the Smith and Swartz. 6.4.2 Geologic Background Partition #4 is located along the eastern rim of the Powder River Coal Basin in an area of Fort Union Formation outcrops. Structural strike is NW/SE with a southwestern dip of 1.5 degrees. Subtle structural nosing and low relief normal faulting locally interrupt the gentile southwest dip. Stratigraphically, the coal seams in Partition #4 exist in two groups – an upper group consisting of the Smith, Swartz, Anderson, Canyon, Wyodak, and Cook seams, and a lower group consisting of the Wall, Pawnee and the Cache seams. These groups are recognizable by their depth, stratigraphic proximity and thickness. The upper group, a thick succession of coals separated by thin "parts" and "splits," is characterized by shallow depth (450 to 790 feet) and considerable coal thickness (30 to 70 feet). Correlation challenges exist due to stratigraphic proximity and apparent stratigraphic overlap due to averaging data over an entire township. (Some Powder River CBM geologist include all upper groups of coals within the Wyodak.) The lower group is characterized by deeper depth (1,020 to 1,500), lower coal thickness (20 to 30 feet), and considerable stratigraphic separation (200 to 300) feet between coal seams. CBM operators have extensively developed this partition, with the great majority of the wells in the Wyodak seam and/or its stratigraphic equivalents, the Anderson and Canyon seams, that are often called the Fort Union. 6.4.3 Discussion of Major Seams • Anderson . The first major coal seam in Partition #4 is the Anderson, often included in the Wyodak seam interval. The stratigraphic proximity of the Anderson to the adjacent Canyon, Smith and Swartz seams provides correlation challenges. (This can lead to correlation problems especially in the eastern portion of the partition where the Fort Union Formation thins dramatically.)

### 6-20 

## Canyon Anderson

Cook Split

Cook Not Shown: Wall Pawnee Cache 

### Figure 6-10. Partition #4 Sample Log

### 6-21 - Area . The Anderson coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 6 townships located in the western and central portions of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Anderson seam coal thickness averages 30 feet, with a range of 20 to 50 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Anderson seam averages 450 feet, with a range of 300 to 650 feet.

- Development . Figure 6-11 provides the location of the currently drilled Anderson CBM wells.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 89 producing Anderson coal seam wells in T51N, R73W is provided in Figure 6-12. After initial rates of 150 barrels of water per day, the water rates decline to about 60 barrels per day at the end of year 1. Gas production starts and peaks early at about 100 Mcfd indicating the presence of free gas.

- Type Well . The history-matched type well for the Anderson coal seam is provided in Figure 6-13. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows: Table 6-13. Anderson Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 480 30 0.12 150 High 700 50 0.29 240 Low 470 20 0.08 100 

### • Canyon . The Canyon seam is stratigraphically below the Anderson and is also often included within the Wyodak seam. Like the Anderson, the Canyon presents correlation problems in the western portion of the study area due the proximity of adjacent coal seams.

- Area . The Canyon coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 12 townships located in the western and central portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Canyon coal seam thickness averages 35 feet, with a range of 25 to 50 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Canyon seam averages 540 feet, with a range of 300 to 800 feet.

### 6-22 Figure 6-11. Partition #4 Anderson Wells

### 6-23 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-12. Canyon Time Zero Plot

### 6-24Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water Actual/Projected Cum Gas

10 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
0 10 

### Figure 6-13. Anderson Type Well, Partition #4

### 6-25 - Development . Figure 6-14 provides the location of the currently drilled Canyon CBM wells.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 173 producing Canyon coal seam wells in T51-52N, R73W is provided in Figure 6-15. Initial water rates are 300 or more barrels producing for the first year, declining to about 50 barrels per day at the end of year 3. Gas production starts early and peaks at nearly 300 Mcfd during year 1, indicating the presence of free gas.

- Type Well . The history-matched type well for Canyon coal seam is provided in Figure 6-16. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows below. Table 6-14. Canyon Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 575 35 0.20 270 High 700 50 0.35 380 Low 550 25 0.14 190 

### • Wyodak . The Wyodak seam is the stratigraphic equivalent of the combined Anderson and Canyon seams. As such, separating the Anderson and Canyon from the Wyodak is often arbitrary.

- Area . The Wyodak coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 6 townships located in the western portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Wyodak seam coal thickness averages 73 feet, with a range of 70 to 80 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Wyodak seam averages 600 feet, with a depth range of 330 to 750 feet.

- Development . Figure 6-17 provides the locations of the currently drilled Wyodak CBM wells.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 164 producing Wyodak coal seam wells in T47-48N, R72W is provided in Figure 6-18. Initial water rates are at 600 barrels per day, declining to about 400 barrels per day at the end of year 1 and to about 130 barrels per day at the end of year 4. Gas production increases steadily, reaching 300 Mcfd during year 1. After a 12-month plateau, gas production declines to about 150 Mcfd at the end of year 2 and to about 80 Mcf at the end of year 4.

### 6-26 Figure 6-14. Partition #4 Canyon Wells

### 6-27 Time Zero Plot f or an Average Well

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 1 0,000 1 2,000

0 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 30 35 40 45 Time ( M ont hs) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-15. Canyon Time Zero Plot

### 6-28Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 400
350
300
250

200
150
100
50
0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water
Actual/Projected Cum Gas 400
350
300
250

200
150
100
50
0 

### Figure 6-16. Canyon Type Well, Partition #4

### 6-29 Figure 6-17. Partition #4 Wyodak Wells

### 6-30 Time Zero Plot f or an Average Well

0 5,000 1 0,000 1 5,000 20,000 25,000

0 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 30 35 40 45 T i me ( M ont hs) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-18. Wyodak Time Zero Plot

### 6-31 - Type Well . The history-matched type well for the Wyodak coal seam is provided in Figure 6-19. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows: Table 6-15. Wyodak Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 670 73 0.48 960 High 760 80 0.58 1,060 Low 400 70 0.28 930 

### • Cook . The Cook seam defines the base of the upper group of Fort Union coals in Partition #4. The Cook seam is stratigraphically below the Canyon and Wyodak equivalents. The proximity of the Cook seam to the basal boundary of the Wyodak and equivalents poses correlation problems throughout the partition.

- Area . The Cook coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships in the western portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook seam coal thickness averages 31 feet, with a range of 20 to 50 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 790 feet, with a depth range of 600 to 930 feet.

- Development . The drilled Cook CBM wells are shown in Figure 6-20.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Cook well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Cook type well for Partition #4. Table 6-16. Cook Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 820 31 0.23 210 High 900 50 0.41 340 Low 620 20 0.12 140

### 6-32Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water

Actual/Projected Cum Gas



### Figure 6-19. Wyodak Type Well, Partition #4

### 6-33 Figure 6-20. Partition #4 Cook Wells

### 6-34 • Wall . The Wall seam defines the top of the lower group of Fort Union Formation coals in Partition #4. The Wall coal seam is stratigraphically below the Cook, separated by an average of 230 feet.

- Area . The Wall coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships in the central and western portions of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Wall seam coal thickness averages 27 feet, with a range of 20 to 40 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Wall seam averages 1,020 feet, with a depth range of 800 to 1250 feet.

- Development . The drilled Wall CBM wells are shown in Figure 6-21.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 19 producing Wall coal seam wells in Partition #4 is provided in Figure 6-22. Initial water rates are 300 or more barrels producing for the first year, declining to about 50 barrels per day at the end of year 3. Gas production starts early and peaks at nearly 90 Mcfd during year 1.

- Type Well . The history-matched type well for Wall coal seam is provided in Figure 6-23. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows in Table 6-17. Table 6-17. Wall Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,050 27 0.24 460 High 1,060 40 0.35 680 Low 970 20 0.16 340 

### • Pawnee . The Pawnee seam is stratigraphically below the Wall, separated by 275 feet of section.

- Area . The Pawnee coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships in the western portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Pawnee seam coal thickness averages 27 feet with a range of 25 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Pawnee seam averages 1,290 feet, with a depth range of 1,150 to 1,500 feet.

### 6-35 Figure 6-21. Partition #4 Wall Wells

### 6-36 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-22. Wall Time Zero Plot

### 6-37Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 400
350
300 250
200
150
100
50
0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water

Actual/Projected Cum Gas 450
400
350
300 250
200
150
100
50
0 450



### Figure 6-23. Wall Type Well, Partition #4

### 6-38 - Development . Figure 6-24 provides the location of the currently drilled Pawnee CBM wells.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Pawnee well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Pawnee type well for Partition #4. Table 6-18. Pawnee Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,320 27 0.35 360 High 1,330 30 0.40 400 Low 1,230 25 0.30 330 

### • Cache . The Cache coal seam is the basal unit of the lower group of Fort Union coals in Partition #4. The Cache seam is stratigraphically below the Pawnee, separated by 205 feet of section.

- Area . The Cache coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships in the western portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cache seam coal thickness averages 23 feet, with a range of 20 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Pawnee seam averages 1,500 feet, with a depth range of 1,150 to1,750 feet.

- Development . The Cache seam is lightly developed, as shown in Figure 6-25.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Pawnee well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Cache type well for Partition #4.

### 6-39 Figure 6-24. Partition #4 Pawnee Wells

### 6-40 Figure 6-25. Partition #4 Cache Wells

### 6-41 Table 6-19. Cache Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,520 23 0.34 300 High 1,780 25 0.43 330 Low 1,170 20 0.23 260 

### Table 6-20. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #4 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Anderson 6 450 30 40 400 290 Canyon 12 540 35 47 920 800 Wyodak 6 601 73 54 890 770 Cook 5 790 31 67 450 350 Wall 5 1,020 27 84 440 350 Pawnee 5 1,295 27 106 570 510 Cache 5 1,550 23 121 540 480 Totals 44 4,210 3,550 * To top of coal 

### 6.5 Partition #5 6.5.1 Summary The main features of Partition #5, in the central portion of the Powder River Basin, are as follows: • The partition covers a 38-township area in the PRB, from 45N to 52N and from 73W to 77W, Figure 6-26. • Partition #5 contains 12 major coal seams in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formation. The depth to these coals ranges from 320 to 2,260 feet, with coal seam thickness ranging from 20 to 150 feet (township level averages). The gas in place in the partition is 25.5 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 14,910 Bcf. The results by coal seam are provided in Table 6-33.

### 6-42 Figure 6-26. Partition #5 Base Map

### 6-43 6.5.2 Discussion of Major Seams • Felix . The first major coal seam in Partition #5 is the Felix. The stratigraphic proximity of the Felix to the adjacent Roland seam provides correlation challenges.

- Area . The Felix coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 4 townships in the eastern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Felix seam coal thickness averages 24 feet, with a range of 20 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Felix seam averages 530 feet, with a range of 320 to 780 feet.

- Development . The Felix coal is essentially undeveloped.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5, discussed later, serves as the type well for the Felix coal seam in this partition. Table 6-21. Felix Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 555 24 0.12 90 

### • Roland . The Roland seam is stratigraphically below the Felix. Like the Felix, the Roland presents correlation problems in the eastern portion of the partition due the proximity of adjacent coal seams.

- Area . The Roland coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in only 2 townships located in the northern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Roland coal seam thickness averages 25 feet, with a range of 20 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Roland seam averages 540 feet.

- Development . The Roland coal is essentially undeveloped.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

### 6-44 - Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5, discussed later, serves as the type well for the Roland coal seam in this partition. Table 6-22. Roland Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 565 25 0.13 100 

### • Smith . The Smith seam lies stratigraphically below the Roland seam and is a significant coal seam in Partition #5.

- Area . The Smith coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 18 townships located throughout the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Smith seam coal thickness averages 40 feet, with a range of 25 to 60 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Smith seam averages 820 feet, with a depth range of 320 to 1,200 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 339 drilled or permitted Smith CBM wells in Partition #5.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 10 producing Smith coal seam wells is provided in Figure 6-27. Initial water rates are at 130 barrels per day declining to about 70 barrels per day after 6 months. Gas production increases steadily, reaching 40 Mcfd during year 1.

- Type Well . The history-matched type well for the Smith coal seam is provided in Figure 6-28. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows. Table 6-23. Smith Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 860 40 0.31 150 High 1160 60 0.47 230 Low 500 25 0.12 100 

### • Swartz . Stratigraphically, the Swartz seam is between the overlying Smith seam and the underlying Anderson coal seam.

### 6-45 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-27. Smith Time Zero Plot

### 6-46Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 200

160

20 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water Actual/Projected Cum Gas

40 60 80 100 120 140 180 200

160

20 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 180



### Figure 6-28. Smith Type Well, Partition #5

### 6-47 - Area . The Swartz coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 townships in the northern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Swartz seam coal thickness averages 43 feet, with a range of 40 to 45 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Swartz seam averages 740 feet, with a depth range of 700 to 770 feet.

- Development . The Swartz coal is essentially undeveloped.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Smith well in Partition #5, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Swartz type well in this partition. Table 6-24. Swartz Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 785 43 0.30 160 

### • Anderson . The Anderson coal seam is stratigraphically below the Swartz, separated by an average of 300 feet of section. The A nderson seam is often included with the Canyon seam or the Wyodak elsewhere in the Powder River Basin.

- Area . The Anderson coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 9 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Anderson seam coal thickness averages 38 feet, with a range of 25 to 60 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Anderson seam averages 1,030 feet, with a depth range of 800 to 1,400 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 362 drilled or permitted Anderson CBM wells in Partition #5.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 216 producing Anderson coal seam wells in Partition #5 is provided in Figure 6-29. Initial water rates remain high, at 250 to 300 barrels per day through the first 2 years. Gas production starts early and reaches 60 Mcfd during year 1, indicating the presence of free gas.

### 6-48 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (Months)Production(Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 50 100 150 200 250Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-29. Anderson Time Zero Plot

### 6-49 - Type Well . The history-matched Anderson well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Anderson type well in this partition. Table 6-25. Anderson Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1070 38 0.33 100 High 860 60 0.43 160 Low 920 25 0.20 70 

### • Canyon . The Canyon seam is the most intensely developed coal seam in Partition #5.

- Area . The Canyon coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 16 townships throughout the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Canyon seam coal thickness averages 39 feet with a range of 30 to 55 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Canyon seam averages 1,060 feet, with a depth range of 700 to 1,400 feet.

- Development . A total of 1,610 drilled or permitted Canyon CBM wells exist in Partition #5.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 73 producing Canyon coal seam wells in Partition #5 is provided in Figure 6-30. Initial water rates are high, at 300 to 450 barrels per day, dropping to about 130 barrels per day after 18 months. Gas production reaches 80 Mcfd after 6 months.

- Type Well . The history-matched Canyon well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Canyon type well for Partition #5. Table 6-26. Canyon Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,100 39 0.32 300 High 1,060 55 0.43 420 Low 1,030 30 0.23 230

### 6-50 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (Months)Production(Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-30. Canyon Time Zero Plot

### 6-51 • Big George . The Big George is the second most intensely developed seam in Partition #5. It lies approximately 200 feet deeper than the Canyon seam and is equivalent to the Wyodak coal in the eastern portion of this partition.

- Area . The Big George coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 16 townships in the central and southern portions of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Big George seam coal thickness averages 97 feet, with a range of 80 to 140 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Big George seam averages 1,280 feet, with a depth range of 1,150 to1,460 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 1,027 drilled or permitted Big George CBM wells in Partition #5.

- Time Zero Well . The time zero plot for 121 producing Big George coal seam wells in Partition #5 is provided in Figure 6-31. Initial water rates start at 480 barrels per day, climbing to a peak late in year 2 at 1,800 barrels per day. Water rates drop off only slightly at the end of year 2 to 1,330 barrels per day. Gas production begins slowly and gradually peaks at 270 Mcfd after 20 months. The time zero plot for the Big George wells in Partition #5 shows constraints in water production during initial production. Therefore, a relatively intensely drilled area of the partition, Sec. 16 T44N, R77W, was examined in more detail. The location of these wells and the elevation map for the section is provided in Figure 6-32. These 17 wells were combined to establish the time zero plot for the Big George coal well in Partition #5, Figure 6-33.

- Type Well . The history-matched Big George coal seam well in Partition #5 was used to develop the 80 acre type well in Figure 6-34. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth, and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows in Table 6-27. Table 6-27. Big George Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,380 97 0.69 1,520 High 1,440 140 1.05 2,210 Low 1,320 80 0.56 1,260 

### • Wyodak . Essentially an equivalent of the thick Big George seam, the Wyodak coal seam exists only on the eastern side of the partition, adjacent to Partition #4.

### 6-52 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-31. Big George Coal Seam - Aggregate

### 6-53 Figure 6-32. Big George Coal Seam Well Lo cation and Elevation Map, Partition #5.

### 6-54 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 0 0 1 1 1 1Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-33. Big George Time Zero Plot

### 6-55Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 400

0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water

Actual/Projected Cum Gas

800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400

400

0 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400



### Figure 6-34. Big George Type Well Partition #5

### 6-56 - Area . The Wyodak coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 townships in the southeastern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Wyodak seam coal thickness averages 73 feet, with a range of 70 to 75 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Wyodak seam averages 1,000 feet, with a depth range of 950 to 1,050.

- Development . The Wyodak coal seam is extensively developed with nearly 700 drilled or permitted wells in Partition #5.

- Time Zero Well . The time zero plot for 442 producing Wyodak coal seam wells in Partition #5 is provided in Figure 6-35. Initial water rates start at 270 barrels per day. Gas production begins early at about 60 Mcfd and increases steadily to nearly 220 Mcfd at the end of 2 years.

- Type Well . The history-matched Wyodak well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the type well for Partition #5. Because the Wyodak coal exists in only two townships with relatively uniform production, only an average well is used. Table 6-28. Wyodak Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,075 73 0.37 480 

### • Cook . The Cook seam defines the base of the upper group of Fort Union coals in Partition #5. The proximity of the Cook seam to the basal boundary of the Wyodak and equivalents poses correlation problems throughout the partition.

- Area . The Cook coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 17 townships throughout the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook seam coal thickness averages 40 feet, with a range of 25 to 60 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 1,320 feet, with a depth range of 900 to 1,700.

- Development . A total of 1,321 drilled or permitted Cook CBM wells exist in Partition #5.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

### 6-57 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (Months)Production(Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-35. Wyodak Time Zero Plot

### 6-58 - Type Well . The history-matched Cook well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Cook type well for Partition #5. Table 6-29. Cook Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,360 40 0.37 270 High 1,460 60 0.58 410 Low 960 25 0.16 170 

### • Wall . The Wall coal seam defines the top of the lower group of Fort Union Formation coals in Partition #5. The Wall coal seam is stratigraphically below the Cook, separated by an average of 175 feet.

- Area . The Wall coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 16 townships throughout the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook seam coal thickness averages 33 feet, with a range of 20 to 45 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 1,500 feet, with a depth range of 1,220 to 1,900.

- Development . The Wall coal seam is extensively developed in only one township in the southern portion of Partition #5.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Wall well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the type well for the Wall seam in Partition #5. Table 6-30. Wall Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,530 33 0.31 560 High 1,520 45 0.39 760 Low 1,470 20 0.18 340 

### • Pawnee . The Pawnee coal seam is stratigraphically below the Wall, separated by an average of 215 feet.

### 6-59 - Area . The Pawnee coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 18 townships throughout the central and northern portions of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Pawnee seam coal thickness averages 41 feet, with a range of 25 to 70 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Pawnee seam averages 1,710 feet, with a depth range of 1,350 to 2,260.

- Development . A total of 368 drilled or permitted Pawnee CBM wells, concentrated in a handful of townships, exist in Partition #5.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Pawnee well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Pawnee type well for Partition #5. Table 6-31. Pawnee Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,750 41 0.45 540 High 1,470 70 0.64 920 Low 1,580 25 0.25 330 

### • Cache . The Cache coal seam is the basal unit of the lower group of Fort Union coals in Partition #5. The Cache seam is stratigraphically below the Pawnee, separated by approximately 300 feet of section.

- Area . The Cache coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 14 townships throughout the central and northern portions of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cache seam coal thickness averages 32 feet, with a range of 20 to 50 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cache seam averages 2,020 feet, with a depth range of 1,510 to 2,350.

- Development . The Cache coal seam is essentially undeveloped.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

### 6-60 - Type Well . The history-matched Pawnee well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Cache type well for Partition #5. Table 6-32. Cache Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 2,050 32 0.34 420 High 1,910 50 0.50 660 Low 2,220 20 0.14 260 

### Table 6-33. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #5 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Felix 4 530 24 46 180 140 Roland 2 540 25 47 100 80 Smith 18 820 39 70 2,310 1,560 Swartz 2 740 43 63 220 180 Anderson 9 1030 38 86 1,180 830 Canyon 16 1060 39 88 2,320 1,500 Big George 16 1280 97 107 6,760 3,510 Wyodak 2 1000 73 85 250 210 Cook 17 1320 40 109 3,060 1,810 Wall 16 1500 32 120 2,250 1,350 Pawnee 18 1710 41 137 4,000 2,320 Cache 14 2020 32 159 2,700 1,320 Wildcat 1 2190 45 101 180 90 Totals 25,510 14,910 * To top of coal 

### 6.6 Partition #6 6.6.1 Summary The main features of Partition #6, in the west ern portion of the Powder River Basin, are as follows: • The partition covers a 31-township area in the west-central portion of the PRB, from 45N to 52N and from 78W to 80W in the south and 78W to 82W in the north, Figure 6-36.

### 6-61 Figure 6-36. Partition #6 Base Map

### 6-62 • Partition #5 contains 12 major coal seams in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. The depth to these coals ranges from 560 to 2,900 feet, with coal seam thickness ranging from 20 to 100 feet (township level averages). The gas in place in the partition is 6.2 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 3,460 Bcf. The results, by coal seam, are provided in Table 6-45. 6.6.2 Discussion of Major Seams • Cameron . The first major coal seam in Partition #6 is the Cameron. The Cameron is separated from the underlying Murry seam by an average of 100 feet of section.

- Area . The Cameron coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in one township in the northwestern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cameron seam coal thickness averages 20 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cameron seam averages 700 feet.

- Development . The Cameron coal seam is essentially undeveloped in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5 serves as the type well for the Cameron coal seam. Table 6-34. Cameron Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 720 20 0.14 80 

### • Murry . The Murry seam is stratigraphically below the Cameron coal seam. Due to stratigraphic proximity, separation of these s eams is difficult outside of the northwestern portion of the partition.

- Area . The Murry coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in one township located in the northwestern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Murry coal seam thickness averages 50 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Murry seam averages 800 feet.

- Development . The Murry seam is essentially undeveloped in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available

### 6-63 - Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5 serves as the type well for the Murry coal seam. Table 6-35. Murry Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 850 50 0.40 190 

### • Felix . The Felix coal seam lies stratigraphically below the Cameron and Murry seams.

- Area . The Felix coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in one township located in the northwestern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Felix seam coal thickness averages 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Felix seam averages 750 feet.

- Development . The Felix seam is essentially undeveloped in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5 serves as the type well for the Felix coal seam. Table 6-36. Felix Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 780 30 0.22 120 

### • Ucross . The Ucross coal seam is often difficult to distinguish from the overlying Cameron, Murry, and Felix seams.

- Area . The Ucross coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 3 townships in the northwestern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Ucross seam coal thickness averages 23 feet, with a range of 20 to 25 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Ucross seam averages 790 feet, with a depth range of 560 to 950 feet.

### 6-64 - Development . A small number of Ucross coal seams exist in one of the townships in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Smith well in Partition #5, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Ucross type well in this partition. Table 6-37. Ucross Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 810 23 0.18 90 

### • Roland . The Roland is the uppermost Fort Union coal seam in Partition #6.

- Area . The Roland coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships in the northern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Roland seam coal thickness averages 21 feet, with a range of 20 to 25 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Roland seam averages 1,060 feet, with a depth range of 830 to 1,480 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 107 drilled or permitted Roland CBM wells in two of the townships in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Smith well in Partition #5, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Roland type well in this partition. Table 6-38. Roland Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,080 21 0.16 80 

### • Anderson . The Anderson coal seam is thin and relatively undeveloped in Partition #6.

- Area . The Anderson coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 3 townships in the central portion of the partition.

### 6-65 - Coal Thickness . The Anderson seam coal thickness averages 30 feet, with a range of 20 to 40 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Anderson seam averages 1,220 feet, with a depth range of 1,030 to 1,480 feet.

- Development . The Anderson coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Anderson well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Anderson type well for Partition #6. Table 6-39. Anderson Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,250 30 0.26 80 

### • Canyon . The Canyon seam in Partition #6 is approximately 300 feet deeper than the overlying Anderson seam.

- Area . The Canyon coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 8 townships throughout the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Canyon seam coal thickness averages 30 feet, with a range of 20 to 50 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Canyon seam averages 1,520 feet, with a depth range of 1,300 to1,720 feet.

- Development . The Canyon coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Canyon well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Canyon type well for Partition #6. Table 6-40. Canyon Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,550 30 0.32 230

### 6-66 High 1,600 50 0.27 190 Low 1,740 20 0.24 150 

### • Big George . Stratigraphically equivalent to the Anderson and Canyon coals, the Big George seam exists in areas where these two coals merge.

- Area . The Big George coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 townships in the southeastern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Big George seam coal thickness averages 85 feet, with a range of 70 to 100 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Big George seam averages 1,665 feet, with a depth range of 1,630 to 1,700 feet.

- Development . The Big George coal seam is essentially undeveloped in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well. The history-matched Big George well in Partition #3, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Big George type well for Partition #6. Table 6-41. Big George Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,750 85 0.85 660 

### • Cook . The Cook seam defines the base of the upper group of Fort Union coals in Partition #6. The proximity of the Cook seam to the basal boundary of the Canyon and equivalents poses correlation problems.

- Area . The Cook coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 townships along the eastern edge of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook seam coal thickness averages 58 feet, with a range of 25 to 90 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 1,863 feet, with a depth range of 1,850 to 1,875 feet.

- Development . The Cook seam is essentially undeveloped in Partition #6.

### 6-67 - Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Cook well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Cook type well for Partition #6. Table 6-42. Cook Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,920 58 0.66 390 

### • Wall . The Wall coal seam defines the top of the lower group of Fort Union Formation coals in Partition #6.

- Area . The Wall coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in one township in the northeastern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook seam coal thickness averages 40 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 1,630 feet.

- Development . The are no Wall CBM wells drilled in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Wall well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the type well for the Wall seam in Partition #6. Table 6-43. Wall Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,670 40 0.38 520 

### • Pawnee . The Pawnee coal seam is stratigraphically below the Wall, separated by an average interval of 365 feet.

- Area . The Pawnee coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 4 townships in the north-central portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Pawnee seam coal thickness averages 44 feet, with a range of 20 to 100 feet.

### 6-68 - Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Pawnee seam averages 2,000 feet, with a depth range of 1,730 to 2,270 feet.

- Development . The Pawnee coal seam is essentially undeveloped in Partition #6.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Pawnee well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Pawnee type well for Partition #6. Table 6-44. Pawnee Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 2,040 44 0.47 580 High 2,000 100 1.05 1,320 Low 1,750 20 0.19 260 

### Table 6-45. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #6 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Cameron 1 700 20 60 50 40 Felix 1 750 30 63 140 110 Murry 1 800 50 69 80 60 Ucross 3 790 23 66 190 150 Roland 5 1,060 21 86 370 240 Anderson 3 1,220 30 99 370 220 Canyon 8 1,520 30 123 1,090 660 Big George 2 1,670 85 136 930 490 Cook 2 1,860 58 147 690 380 Wall 1 1,630 40 130 200 110 Pawnee 4 2,000 44 158 1,270 620 Wildcat 4 2,640 25 191 760 370 Totals 6,150 3,460 * To top of coal 

### 6.7 Partition #7 6.7.1 Summary The main features of Partition #7, in the north ern Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin, are as follows:

### 6-69 • The partition covers a 23-township area in the northwestern portion of the PRB, from 53N to 58N and from 78W to 82W, Figure 6-37. • Partition #7 contains 9 major coal seams in the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations. The depth to these coals ranges from about 390 to 2,980 feet, with coal seam thickness ranging from 20 to 40 feet (township level averages). The gas in place in the partition is 2.8 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 1,680 Bcf. The results, by coal seam, are provided in Table 6-55. 6.7.2 Discussion of Major Seams • Wasatch . The shallowest major coal seam in Partition #7 is the Wasatch that combines the Felix and Ucross seams. The Wasatch is separated from the underlying Roland seam by an average of 280 feet of section.

- Area . The Wasatch coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 6 townships located in the southern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Wasatch seam coal thickness averages 25 feet, with a range of 20 to 34 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Wasatch seam averages 540 feet, with a range of 390 to 730 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 124 drilled or permitted Wasatch CBM wells in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5 serves as the type well for the Wasatch coal seam in this partition.

### 6-70 Figure 6-37. Partition #7 Base Map

### 6-71 Table 6-46. Wasatch Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 570 25 0.13 100 High 620 34 0.19 130 Low 420 20 0.08 80 

### • Roland . The Roland seam lies stratigraphically below the Wasatch and is the first Fort Union coal seam in this partition.

- Area . The Roland coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 3 township located in the southern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Roland seam coal thickness averages 27 feet, with a range of 20 to 40 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Roland seam averages 820 feet, with a range of 800 to 850 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 169 drilled or permitted Roland CBM wells in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5 serves as the type well for the Roland coal seam in this partition. Table 6-47. Roland Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 850 27 0.21 100 High 840 40 0.31 150 Low 840 20 0.16 80 

### • Smith . The Smith seam is stratigraphically below the Roland coal seam, separated by approximately 350 feet of section.

- Area . The Smith coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in two townships, located in the central portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Smith coal seam thickness averages 20 feet.

### 6-72 - Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Smith seam averages 1,180 feet, with a range of 1,065 to 1,300 feet.

- Development . The are a handful of Smith wells and permits in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available

- Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5 serves as the type well for the Smith coal seam in this partition. Table 6-48. Smith Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,200 20 0.16 80 

### • Anderson . The Anderson seam is stratigraphically below the Smith coal seam.

- Area . The Anderson coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships, 4 of which lie in the northernmost portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Anderson seam coal thickness averages 21 feet, with a range of 20 to 25 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Anderson seam averages 910 feet, with a depth range of 370 to 1,480 feet.

- Development . The Anderson coal seam is essentially undeveloped in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Anderson well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Anderson type well in this partition. Table 6-49. Anderson Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 930 21 0.16 60 High 1,500 25 0.24 50 Low 390 20 0.07 50

### 6-73 • Canyon . The Canyon is about 600 feet below the Anderson.

- Area . The Canyon coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in two townships in the southern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Canyon seam coal thickness averages 25 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Canyon seam averages 1,500 feet, with a depth range of 1,450 to 1,540 feet.

- Development . The Canyon coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Canyon well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Canyon type well in this partition. Table 6-50. Canyon Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,520 25 0.26 190 

### • Cook . The Cook seam is the next deepest coal in Partition #7.

- Area . The Cook coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in two townships in the northern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook seam coal thickness averages 28 feet, with a range of 25 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 2,300 feet, with a depth range of 2,250 to 2,350 feet.

- Development . The Cook coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Cook well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Cook type well for Partition #7.

### 6-74 Table 6-51. Cook Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 2,330 28 0.36 190 

### • Wall . The Wall coal underlies the Cook coal seam by 250 feet of section.

- Area . The Wall coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in one township in the northern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Wall seam coal thickness averages 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Wall seam averages 2,500 feet.

- Development . Wall coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Wall well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Wall type well for Partition #7: Table 6-52. Wall Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 2,530 30 0.36 390 

### • Pawnee . The Pawnee coal seam underlies the Wall coal in this partition.

- Area . The Pawnee coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in one township in the southeastern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Pawnee seam coal thickness averages 40 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Pawnee seam averages 2,050 feet.

- Development . The Pawnee coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Pawnee well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Pawnee type well for this partition.

### 6-75 Table 6-53. Pawnee Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 2,090 40 0.47 530 

### • Cache . The Cache seam is the deepest major coal seam, both stratigraphically and structurally, in Partition #7. It is nearly 600 feet below the Pawnee seam.

- Area . The Cache coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 3 townships in the northern and central portions of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cache seam coal thickness averages 30 feet in each of the 3 townships.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cache seam averages 2,623 feet, with a depth range of 2,200 to 2,980 feet.

- Development . The Cache coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #7.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Cache well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Cache type well for Partition #7: Table 6-54. Cache Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 2,650 30 0.38 400

### 6-76 Table 6-55. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #7 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Wasatch 6 540 25 47 290 230 Roland 3 820 27 70 250 200 Smith 2 1,180 20 96 160 90 Anderson 5 910 21 75 320 230 Canyon 2 1,500 25 120 250 150 Cook 2 2,300 28 178 400 210 Wall 1 2,500 30 186 210 100 Pawnee 1 2,050 40 160 250 140 Cache 3 2,623 30 190 680 330 Totals 2,820 1,680 * To top of coal 

### 6.8 Partition #8 6.8.1 Summary The main features of Partition #8, in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin, are as follows: • The partition covers a 41-township area in the northeastern portion of the Powder River Basin, from 53N to 58N and from 72W to78W, Figure 6-38. • Partition #8 contains 9 major coal seams in the Fort Union Formation. The depth of these coals ranges from about 300 to 2,770 feet, with coal seam thickness ranging from 20 to 85 feet (township level averages). The gas in place in the partition is 9.2 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 7,020 Bcf. The results, by coal seam, are provided in Table 6-64. 6.8.2 Discussion of Major Seams • Smith . The Smith coal seam is the shallowest major coal seam in Partition #8.

- Area . The Smith coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 8 townships, most of which are located in the southern portion of Partition #8.

- Coal Thickness . The Smith seam coal thickness averages 33 feet, with a range of 20 to 38 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Smith seam averages 430 feet, with a range of 300 to 500 feet.

### 6-77 Figure 6-38. Partition #8 Base Map

### 6-78 - Development . The are a total of 66 drilled and permitted Smith CBM wells in Partition #8.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5 serves as the type well for the Smith coal seam in this partition. Table 6-56. Smith Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 460 33 0.15 130 High 500 38 0.18 150 Low 320 20 0.06 80 

### • Swartz . The Swartz seam lies stratigraphically below the Smith seam, separated by an average of 150 feet of section.

- Area . The Swartz coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 township located in the southern portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Swartz seam coal thickness averages 21 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Swartz seam averages 580 feet.

- Development . The Swartz coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #8.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . After adjustment for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, the type well for the Smith coal seam in Partition #5 serves as the type well for the Swartz coal seam in Partition #8. Table 6-57. Swartz Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 600 21 0.12 80 

### • Anderson . The Anderson seam is often grouped with the underlying Canyon coal seam as the Wyodak coal. Close stratigraphic proximity with the Canyon makes recognition of the Anderson difficult in much of the partition.

### 6-79 - Area . The Anderson coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 9 townships located in the southern and central portions of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Anderson coal seam thickness averages 35 feet, with a range of 25 to 50 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Anderson seam averages 600 feet, with a range of 400 to 900 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 532 drilled and permitted Anderson CBM wells in Partition #8.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 261 producing Anderson coal seam wells is provided in Figure 6-39. Initial water rates are 130 barrels per day declining to about 90 barrels per day after 1 year. Gas production begins immediately with an initial rate of 30 Mcfd. The gas rate peaks at 135 Mcfd at the beginning of year 2.

- Type Well . The history-matched type well for the Anderson coal seam is provided in Figure 6-40. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows in the table below. Table 6-58. Anderson Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 630 35 0.18 90 High 710 50 0.29 130 Low 630 25 0.13 70 

### • Canyon . The Canyon seam is stratigraphically below the Anderson seam but is often difficult to distinctly identify.

- Area . The Canyon coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 19 townships throughout the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Canyon seam coal thickness averages 37 feet, with a range of 30 to 47 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Canyon seam averages 620 feet, with a depth range of 300 to 950 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 1184 drilled and permitted Canyon CBM wells in this partition.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

### 6-80 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-39. Anderson Time Zero Plot

### 6-81Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 40

0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water Actual/Projected Cum Gas

80 120 160 200 240

20 60 100 140 180 220

40

0 80 120 160 200 240

20 60 100 140 180 220



### Figure 6-40. Anderson Type Well, Partition #8

### 6-82 - Type Well . The history-matched Canyon well in Partition #4, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness serves as the Canyon type well in this partition. Table 6-59. Canyon Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 660 37 0.24 280 High 950 47 0.45 360 Low 560 30 0.17 230 

### • Cook . The Cook coal seam is about 100 feet below the Canyon coal seam.

- Area . The Cook coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 22 townships throughout the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Cook seam coal thickness averages 39 feet, ranging from 25 to 52 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cook seam averages 730 feet, with a depth range of 400 to 1,200 feet.

- Development . The are a total of 1,211 drilled and permitted Cook CBM wells in Partition #8.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 134 producing Cook coal seam wells is provided in Figure 6-41. Initial water rates are 400 barrels per day declining to about 200 barrels per day after 1 year. Gas production begins immediately with an initial rate of 70 Mcfd. The gas rate continues to climb through 18 months to 200 Mcfd.

- Type Well . The history-matched type well for the Cook coal seam is provided in Figure 6-42. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows in Table 6-60. Table 6-60. Cook Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 770 39 0.27 270 High 970 52 0.46 350 Low 530 25 0.12 170

### 6-83 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-41. Cook Time Zero Plot

### 6-84Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water Actual/Projected Cum Gas 400
350
300 250
200
150
100
50
0 450
400
350
300 250
200
150
100
50
0 450



### Figure 6-42. Cook Type Well, Partition #8

### 6-85 • Wall . The Wall seam is stratigraphically below the Cook seam, separated by an average of 230 feet of section.

- Area . The Wall coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 21 townships throughout the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Wall seam coal thickness averages 30 feet, with a range of 20 to 40 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Wall seam averages 960 feet, with a depth range of 530 to 1,300 feet.

- Development . The are 486 drilled and permitted Wall CBM wells in Partition #8.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 107 producing Cook coal seam wells is provided in Figure 6-43. Initial water rates are about 200 barrels per day and remain high for 15 months. Gas production begins slowly with an initial rate of 10 Mcfd. The gas rate gradually climbs to a maximum of 100 Mcfd at the end of 2 years.

- Type Well . The history-matched type well for the Wall coal seam is provided in Figure 6-44. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows in Table 6-61. Table 6-61. Wall Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 990 30 0.20 390 High 1,120 40 0.30 530 Low 800 20 0.11 260 

### • Pawnee . The Pawnee coal seam is the deepest, currently producing major coal in this partition.

- Area . The Pawnee coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 11 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Pawnee seam coal thickness averages 33 feet, ranging from 25 to 40 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Pawnee seam averages 1,060 feet, ranging from 600 to 1,400 feet.

- Development . There are 150 Pawnee CBM wells drilled and permitted in Partition #8.

### 6-86 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-43. Wall Time Zero Plot

### 6-87Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 400
350
300
250

200
150
100
50
0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water

Actual/Projected Cum Gas 400
350
300
250

200
150
100
50
0 

### Figure 6-44. Wall Type Well Partition #8

### 6-88 - Time Zero Well . The time zero plot for 19 producing Pawnee coal seam wells is provided in Figure 6-45. Initial water rates are 300 barrels per day. Gas production begins slowly with an initial rate of 10 Mcfd, but steadily climbs to over 200 Mcfd in 8 months.

- Type Well . The history-matched type well for the Pawnee coal seam is provided in Figure 6-46. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows: Table 6-62. Pawnee Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,090 33 0.35 430 High 840 40 0.33 530 Low 1,330 25 0.33 330 

### • Cache . The Cache seam is separated from the Pawnee seam by an average of 490 feet.

- Area . The Cache coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 4 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Cache seam coal thickness averages 27 feet, ranging from 20 to 40 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Cache seam averages 1,540 feet, ranging from 1,100 to 2,430 feet.

- Development . The Cache coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #8.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Cache well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Cache type well for this partition. Table 6-63. Cache Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,570 27 0.26 350 High 1,140 40 0.29 530 Low 1,370 20 0.18 260

### 6-89 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-45. Pawnee Time Zero Plot

### 6-90Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water Actual/Projected Cum Gas 400
350
300 250
200
150
100
50
0 450
400
350
300 250
200
150
100
50
0 450



### Figure 6-46. Pawnee Type Well Partition #8

### 6-91 • Oedekoven . The Oedekoven seam is the deepest major coal seam in Partition #8, an average of 1,000 feet below the Cache seam.

- Area . The Oedekoven coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 townships in the western portion of the partition.

- Coal Thickness . The Oedekoven seam coal thickness averages 20 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Oedekoven seam averages 2,560 feet, with a depth range of 2,340 to 2,770 feet.

- Development . The Oedekoven coal seam is undeveloped in Partition #8.

- Time Zero Well . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Oedekoven well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Oedekoven type well for Partition #8. Table 6-64. Oedekoven Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 2,580 20 0.30 260 

### Table 6-65. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partition #8 Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas In Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable (Bcf) Smith 8 430 33 38 380 300 Swartz 2 580 21 49 90 70 Anderson 9 600 35 51 750 530 Canyon 19 620 37 54 1,810 1,560 Cook 22 730 39 62 2,280 1,800 Wall 21 960 30 80 1,890 1,230 Pawnee 11 1,060 33 87 1,200 1,070 Cache 4 1,550 27 123 490 290 Oedekoven 2 2,560 20 188 300 170 Totals 9,190 7,020 * To top of coal

### 6-92 6.9 Partition #9 6.9.1 Summary Partition #9 covers 22 townships in the eastern Montana portion of the Powder River Basin, Figure 6-47. Only one township in Partition #9 contains coal that meets the depth and thickness criteria of the study, the Pawnee seam, with 20 feet of coal at 1,075 feet. As such, the discussion of the Pawnee coal in this partition is combined into Partition #10, on the west of Partition #9. 6.10 Partition #10 6.10.1 Summary The main features of Partition #10, in the west ern Montana portion of the Powder River Basin, are as follows: • The partition covers a 10-township area on the western edge of the PRB, from 6S to 9S and from 39E to 41E, Figure 6-48. • A series of coal mines exist in the townships along the northern edge and the coals shallow to the north; as a result, the townships on the northern edge of the partition are excluded. • The stratigraphic section contains the Deitz (Anderson equivalent), the Monarch (Canyon equivalent), and the Carney (Cook equivalent) seams, plus the Pawnee coal seam from Partition #9. The depth of these coals range from 250 to 1,200 feet, with coal seam thickness ranging from 20 to 50 feet (township level averages). • The gas in place in the two partitions is 1.0 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 860 Bcf. The results by coal seam are provided in Table 6-70. 6.10.2 Discussion of Major Seams • Dietz (Anderson). The Dietz is the uppermost significant seam in Partition #10 and contains three subunits, called Dietz #1, #2, and #3.

- Area . The Dietz coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 2 townships, located in the southern portion of Partition #10.

- Coal Thickness . The Dietz seam coal thickness averages 49 feet. The thickness of the Dietz in any locale depends on how many of the Dietz subunits are present and have been combined.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Dietz seam averages 250 feet.

- Development. A limited number of Dietz wells currently exist in this partition.

### 6-93 Figure 6-47. Partition #9 Base Map

### 6-94 Figure 6-48. Partition #10 Base Map

### 6-95 - Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 22 recently drilled Dietz coal wells is provided in Figure 6-49.

- Type Well . The history-matched Dietz well in Partition #11, adjusted for depth, gas content and coal thickness, serves as the Dietz type well for Partition #10. Because the Dietz coal seam exists in only two townships, only one average well is used in Partition #10. Table 6-66. Dietz Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 300 49 0.16 410 

### • Monarch (Canyon). The major coal seam in Partition #10 is the Monarch, located in the southern portion of the partition.

- Area . The Monarch coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 7 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Monarch coal seam thickness averages 24 feet, with a range of 20 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Monarch seam averages 470 feet, with a range of 325 to 680 feet.

- Development . Considerable Monarch coal well development exists in this partition.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 25 recently drilled Monarch coal wells is provided in Figure 6-50.

- Type Well . The Monarch well production profile in Partition #10 is similar to the Monarch wells in Partition #11. Thus, the history-matched Monarch well in Partition #11, adjusted for depth, gas content and coal thickness, serves as the Monarch type well in this partition. Table 6-67. Monarch Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 490 24 0.12 420 High 580 30 0.17 530 Low 420 20 0.08 350

### 6-96 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 5 10 15 20 25Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-49. Dietz Time Zero Plot

### 6-97 • Carney (Cook). The Carney coal seam exists at sufficient thickness in the central and southern portions of Partition #10.

- Area . The Carney coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in seven townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Carney coal seam thickness averages 23 feet, with a range of 15 to 35 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Carney seam averages 650 feet, with a range of 530 to 860 feet.

- Development . The Carney coal seam is lightly developed.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 25 recently drilled Carney coal wells is provided in Figure 6-51.

- Type Well . The history-matched Carney well in Partition #11, adjusted for depth, gas content, and coal thickness, serves as the Carney type well for Partition #10. Table 6-68. Carney Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 670 23 0.15 390 High 685 35 0.23 590 Low 870 15 0.13 250 

### • Pawnee . The Pawnee seam exists in Partition #9 (eastern Montana portion of the PRB) and includes one undesignated (wildcat) seam in Partition #10, as discussed above.

- Area . The Pawnee coal seam (including the wildcat coal seam) meets study inclusion criteria in 3 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Pawnee seam coal thickness averages 20 feet, with a range of 20 to 22 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Pawnee seam averages 1,100 feet, with a range of 1,000 to 1,200 feet.

- Development . The Pawnee coal seam is undeveloped.

- Time Zero Plot . Not available.

- Type Well . The history-matched Pawnee well in Partition #8, adjusted for depth, gas content, permeability and coal thickness, serves as the Pawnee type well for

### 6-98 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-50. Monarch Time Zero Plot

### 6-99 Partition #10. Because the Pawnee coal seam has relatively uniform depth and thickness, only an average well is used. Table 6-69. Pawnee Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,120 20 0.22 260 

### Table 6-70. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #9 and #10
Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas in Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable Resources (Bcf) Deitz (Anderson) 2 250 49 25 100 90 Monarch (Canyon) 7 470 24 41 280 250 Carney (Cook) 7 650 23 55 380 330 Pawnee 3 1,080 20 88 210 190 Totals 970 860 * Top of coal 

### 6.11 Partition #11 6.11.1 Summary The main features of Partition #11, in the Wyoming portion of the Powder River Basin, are as follows: • The partition covers a 12-township area on the northwestern portion of the PRB, from 53N to 58N and from 82W to 84W, Figure 6-52. • The stratigraphic section contains the locally named Dietz (Anderson equivalent), Monarch (Canyon equivalent), and Carney (Cook equivalent) coal seams. The depth of these coals range from 990 to 1,070 feet, with coal seam thickness ranging from 20 to 40 feet (township level averages). • The gas in place in the two partition is 2.1 Tcf, with technically recoverable gas of 1,850 Bcf. The results by coal seam are provided in Table 6-76.

### 6-100 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-51. Cook-Carney Time Zero Plot

### 6-101 6.11.2 Discussion of Major Coal Seams • Dietz #1 (Anderson). The Dietz #1 coal, the first major seam, extends over much of the northern portion of Partition #11 and shallows along the western and northern edge of the partition.

- Area . The Dietz #1 coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Dietz #1 coal seam coal thickness averages 24 feet, with a range of 20 to 25 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Dietz #1 seam averages 910 feet, with a range of 300 to 1,840 feet.

- Development . The Dietz #1 seam is being aggressively developed.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 191 producing Dietz (Anderson) coal seam wells in T57N, R83-84W is provided in Figure 6-53. After initial rates of nearly 300 barrels per day, water production declines sharply to about 180 barrels per day after 1 year. Gas production starts early at 100 to 200 Mcfd.

- Type Well . The type well for the Dietz (Anderson) series of coal seams (Dietz #1, #2, and #3) is provided in Figure 6-54. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries for the Dietz #1 coal seam are as follows in Table 6-71. Table 6-71. Dietz #1 Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 930 24 0.22 200 High 1,140 25 0.29 210 Low 800 20 0.16 170 

### • Dietz #2 . The Dietz #2 coal, the second split of the larger Dietz (Anderson) seam, exists along the northern portion of Partition #11.

- Area . The Dietz #2 coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 5 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Dietz #2 coal seam coal thickness averages 24 feet, with a range of 20 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Dietz #2 seam averages 680 feet, with a range of 300 to 1,160 feet.

### 6-102 Figure 6-52. Partition #11 Base Map

### 6-103 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 50 100 150 200 250Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-53. Dietz (Anderson) Time Zero Plot

### 6-104 - Development . The Dietz #2 seam is lightly developed in this area.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot and data for Dietz #2 coal seam wells are included in the overall Dietz time zero plot, discussed previously.

- Type Well . The type well for the Dietz #2 coal seam is the aggregate Dietz well, provided previously in Figure 6-54, adjusted for coal thickness, depth and gas content. The estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows in Table 6-72. Table 6-72. Dietz #2 Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 700 24 0.17 200 High 1,190 30 0.36 250 Low 620 20 0.13 170 

### • Dietz #3 . The Dietz #3 coal, the third split of the larger Dietz (Anderson) seam, exists along the northern portion of Partition #11.

- Area. The Dietz #3 coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 6 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Dietz #3 coal seam coal thickness averages 22 feet, with a range of 20 to 25 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Dietz #3 seam averages 1,030 feet, with a range of 350 to 1,970 feet.

- Development . The Dietz #3 seam is lightly developed in this area.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot and data for Dietz #3 coal seam wells are included in the overall Dietz time zero plot, discussed previously.

- Type Well . The type well for the Dietz #3 coal seam is the aggregate Dietz well, provided previously in Figure 6-54, adjusted for coal thickness, depth and gas content. The estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows below. Table 6-73. Dietz #3 Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,050 22 0.23 180 High 980 25 0.25 210 Low 600 20 0.12 170

### 6-105 • Monarch (Canyon). The Monarch coal is stratigraphically below the Dietz and extends over much of the partition. It shallows on the western edge of the PRB basin.

- Area . The Monarch coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in 8 townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Monarch coal seam thickness averages 22 feet, with a range of 20 to 25 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Monarch seam averages 1,070 feet, with a range of 500 to 2,200 feet.

- Development . The Monarch coal seam is under development.

- Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 147 producing Monarch (Canyon) coal seam wells in T57N, R83-84W is provided in Figure 6-55. Water production starts at 300 barrels per day and remains high for the first 2 years. Gas production starts early, reaching 200 Mcfd in year 2.

- Type Well . The type well for the Monarch (Canyon) coal seam is provided in Figure 6-56. After normalizing for coal thickness, depth and gas content, the estimated gas and water recoveries are as follows: Table 6-74. Monarch Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,090 24 0.26 430 High 1,340 25 0.32 440 Low 820 20 0.16 350 

### • Carney (Cook). The Carney coal, stratigraphically below the Monarch, exists over a limited portion of the partition.

- Area . The Carney coal seam meets study inclusion criteria in three townships.

- Coal Thickness . The Carney seam coal thickness averages 23 feet, with a range of 20 to 30 feet.

- Coal Depth . The depth to the top of the Carney seam averages 1,030 feet, with a range of 600 to 1,440 feet.

- Development . The Carney coal seam is undeveloped.

### 6-106Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 200
160

20 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water Actual/Projected Cum Gas

40 60 80 100 120 140 180 300
260
220 240 280

200
160

20 0 40 60 80 100 120 140 180 300
260
220 240 280



### Figure 6-54. Dietz (Anderson), Partition #11

### 6-107 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-55. Monarch (Canyon) Time Zero Plot

### 6-108 - Time Zero Plot . The time zero plot for 65 producing Carney (Cook) wells in Partition #11 is provided in Figure 6-57. After initial rates of about 300 barrels of water per day, the water rates decline to about 200 barrels per day at the end of year 1. Gas production starts early and peaks at about 200 Mcf at the end of year 1.

- Type Well . The history-matched Carney (Cook equivalent) well, Figure 6-58, adjusted for depth, gas content and coal thickness, serves as the Carney type well for Partition #11. Since only three townships include the Carney and the coal thickness is relatively uniform, only an average well is used. Table 6-75. Carney Coal Seam Type Well Well Depth (ft) Coal Thickness (ft) Cumulative Gas Recovery

(Bcf) Cumulative Water Recovery (M bls) Average 1,050 23 0.23 390 

### Table 6-76. In-Place and Technically Recoverable CBM, Partitions #11
Coal Seam No. Full Townships Average Depth

(ft)* Average Thickness (ft) Average Gas Content (cf/ton) Gas in Place (Bcf) Technically Recoverable Resources (Bcf) Deitz #1 (Anderson) 5 910 24 75 510 450 Dietz #2 5 680 24 58 330 290 Dietz #3 6 1,030 22 84 390 340 Monarch (Canyon) 8 1,070 24 88 640 570 Carney (Cook) 3 1,030 23 84 220 190 Totals 2,090 1,850 * Top of coal

### 6-109Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 400
350
300
250

200
150
100
50
0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water

Actual/Projected Cum Gas 400
350
300
250

200
150
100
50
0 

### Figure 6-56. Monarch (Canyon), Partition #11

### 6-110 Time Zero Plot for an Average Well

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure 6-57. Carney (Cook) Time Zero Plot

### 6-111Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water

Actual/Projected Cum Gas 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 600 550 500 450



### Figure 6-58. Carney (Cook), Partition #11

### A-1 

## APPENDIX A GAS SORPTION CAPACITY AND GAS CONTENT FOR POWDER RIVER BASIN COALS INTRODUCTION Considerable differences of opinion surround two closely related issues of importance to the outlook for coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin: • First, what is the correct sorption (storage) capacity of the low rank PRB coals, and how does this sorption capacity change by coal depth and coal seam? • Second, what is the actual (in situ) gas content in these coals, and are the PRB coals essentially fully saturated or undersaturated with gas? Attempts to conclusively answer these two questions in the past have been impeded by the high permeability in the coals, difficulties with conventional gas content measurement approaches, and the presence of much lower than normal pressure conditions in the shallow coals. This memorandum provides the data and assumptions used by Advanced Resources to address these two issues for the Powder River Basin in the DOE/NETL report “Powder River CBM Development and Produced Water Management Study” (PRB Study) of November, 2002. SUMMARY OF ADVANCED RESOURCES DATA AND METHODOLOGY Background Operators in the basin have struggled greatly with the issue of the gas content and the level of gas saturation in the coal. Early gas content data, gathered in the 1980s, showed the shallow coals along the eastern portion of the PRB to hold little methane. This gas content data led to extremely low values for gas in place, considerably below the actual gas recovery volumes established by the producing CBM wells. Further uncertainty was introduced by the significantly underpressured conditions of these shallow coals. For example, the Wyodak coal (in T47-48 R72) has a pressure gradient of 0.274 psi/ft, giving it a pressure of 163 psi (at a depth of 541 ft to top of coal with a coal thickness of 78 ft), approximately 35% less than a normal pressure of about 250 psi. This condition, plus the high water production and delay in the arrival of gas production in the initial sets of wells, led many to conclude that the coals were also undersaturated with gas. [As is further discussed below, high initial water production and delay in gas production was due to the high permeability of the coals and the immaturity of development (lack of sufficient numbers of bounded wells) in the basin.]

### A-2 These data and observations led many operators to conclude that the PRB coals were uneconomic, delaying industry’s entry into the basin. Gas Content The Advanced Resources PRB Study assembled available gas content data and adsorption isotherms, appropriate for the low rank coals of the Powder River Basin, from the following sources: • Past gas content data collected by the BLM and published gas content and isotherm data by industry and the USGS were used as a point of reference, • Advanced Resources’ own gas content and isotherm data collected for analogous low rank coals in other basins, and • Verification of the gas content and isotherm data using history matching (with COMET3) of alternative isotherms against long-term (4+year) gas and water production data in the PRB. The best fit coalbed methane isotherm was from actual gas content and isotherm data collected on an analogous overseas low rank coal basin. Advanced Resources was the on-site field service contractor for the gas content measurement for these coals and used Terra Tek (in our view one of the most consistent, high quality CBM labs) for the adsorption isotherm (sorption capacity). The moisture content, volatile matter and fixed carbon content of the overseas low rank coal and the PRB Wyodak coal were similar as shown on Table A-1. Table A-1. Comparison PRB Wyodak Coal and Overseas Low Rank Coal PRB Wyodak Coal * (59 Analyses) Overseas Low Rank Coal ** Average Range Rank Lignite/Sub-bituminous Lignite/Sub-bituminous Fixed Carbon 33.5% 30-41% 32.4% Volatile Matter 30.7% 26-33% 44.6% Moisture Content 29.8% 23-37% 23.0%*** Ash 6% 3-12% 11% Heating Value (Btu/lb) 8,224 7,420-9,310 7,440

* Source: Breckenridge, et al, (1974) ** Source: Advanced Resources Int’l, Inc. (1995) *** Moisture at 96% RH and 

### 40 o 

### C Figure A-1 provides the gas content isotherm used in the study of Powder River Basin coalbed methane. As a point of comparison, Figure A-2 provides the average synthesized adsorption isotherm for coal in the PRB assembled by the Wyoming BLM from earlier data.

### A-3 Figure A-1. Gas Content Isotherm Used for Powder River Coalbed Methane

Figure A-2. Average Synthesized Adsorption Isotherm for 41 Coal Samples From the PRB, Based on a Compilation of Data From Public and Private Sources

### A-4 Free Gas Saturation The nature of actual early time water and gas production from producing CBM wells in the basin was used to establish whether the PRB coals were undersaturated, fully saturated or contained free gas in the pore space: • Gas and water production data were assembled and compiled for over selected 1,400 PRB CBM wells. • Observation of production data from these 1,400 wells and history matching (with COMET3) of this production data was used to establish that the coals were (in general) fully gas saturated and, for certain seams, had free gas in the coal cleat and matrix system. Based on this work, the PRB Study established that modest amounts of free gas exist in the coal cleat (fracture) and matrix porosity system for the shallower coal seams. FINDINGS BY OTHER INVESTIGATORS Bustin and Downey The most recent, publicly available data on gas sorption and content for the Powder River Basin was presented by Bustin and Downey on the Dietz #3 (Anderson equivalent) coal in the northwestern portion of the PRB. Their work on the sorption capacity of the Dietz #3 coal (as a function of temperature and pressure) is provided in Figure A-3. The 20 o 

### C sorption capacity line would be reasonably representative of the upper Tongue River coals in the PRB. A. Sorption Capacity . The Sorption Capacity Isotherm used in the Advanced Resources Study is compared with the sorption isotherm of Bustin and Downey in Figure A-4, with the vertical scale enlarged for easier comparison. The overlay of the data shows that the Advanced Resources Sorption Capacity Isotherm for PRB coals is somewhat lower than the 20 o 

### C Sorption Capacity Isotherm of Bustin and Downey for the Dietz #3 coal. B. Gas Content and Saturation . In the same paper, Bustin and Downey provide a series of observations with respect to the gas content and gas saturation conditions for the coals in the PRB. (Note that when coals are saturated and/or have free gas, the gas content value is the same as the value on the Sorption Capacity Isotherm. And, it is not physically possible to have free gas and undersaturated coals at the same time). Bustin and Downey wrote: “There have been some 12,000 coalbed methane gas wells in the Powder River Basin to date, to produce methane gas from Eocene Fort Union Formation coal seams. Most have targeted the thick Wyodak coal seam(s) along the eastern flank of the basin where the coals are saturated and/or have free gas. . . . “

### A-5 Source: Bustin and Downey (2002) 

### Figure A-3. Variation in Sorption Capacity with Temperature, Dietz #3 Coal

Figure A-4. Comparison of Bustin and Downey Adsorption Isotherm for Dietz #3 Coal with Advanced Resources Adsorption Isotherm for PRB Coals1 “Gas-in-place in the Powder River Basin: Coal Core – Why Do Them? Some Field Results, Comparisons, and Suggestion”, R. Marc Bustin, the Un iversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Rover A. Downey, Energy Ingenuity Company, RMAG PTTC GTI 2002 Coalbed Methane Symposium, June 19, 2002. 

### A-6 ”Free gas in coals is predicted wherever structural closure and uplift can be demonstrated. If the coals have been substantially uplifted, desorbed gas may partially flush the fractures resulting in lower water saturations. Near one of the coal mines on the east side of the Powder River Basin, coal seam gas contents and isotherm data, correlate very well and suggest the Wyodak coal is saturated at current pressure conditions although the gas content is markedly depleted as a result of depressurization. ” 1 

### However, Bustin and Downey do state that they have observed that “some of the deeper coal seams, such as the Cache and Pawnee, may be void of methane in some areas”, particularly in areas south of Gillette, while “these coals appear to contain (and produce) methane in areas north of Gillette.” Empirical Observations of Production Data A. Basic Mechanism s. The production profile for a typical coalbed methane well is high initial water production with little to no gas production. As the water rate declines and the reservoir pressure decreases, gas is desorbed from the coal, moves through the coal matrix by diffusion and through the coal cleat system by Darcy flow to the production well. The need to establish a critical gas saturation and overcome the low initial relative permeability to gas further delay the arrival of the released methane in the production well. Depending on reservoir and development conditions (and assuming no free gas), it may take 3 months to a year (or longer) to observe significant rates of gas production. B. Evidence of Free Gas and Fully Saturated Coals. The early production of gas, as demonstrated by the 164 Wyodak coal wells drilled in the mid-1990s in T47-48N, R72W, Figure A-5, can only be explained by the presence of free gas. Advanced Resources reservoir simulation-based history matching of this set of wells, indicates the presence of 10% free gas in the matrix porosity and 5% free gas in the cleat system, Figure A-6. To examine the difference that the presence or absence of free gas has on gas production rates and recovery, we set the free gas values to zero in our next simulation run, while helping other reservoir properties the same. The resulting production curve clearly shows that gas production is much lower and later than has actually occurred, Figure A-7. Finally, we examine how the Wyodak coal wells would produce in this area if they were 23% to 66% undersaturated. The use of such extreme gas undersaturation values for the Wyodak coal provides a gas production curve that is many-fold lower than actually observed, making this coal essentially non-productive, as shown on Figures A-8 and A-9.

### A-7 Time Zero P lot for an Average Well

0 5,000 1 0,000 1 5,000 20,000 25,000

0 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 30 35 40 45 Time (Months)Production (Mcf/mo.; Barrel/mo.)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Well Count GAS WATER Well Count



### Figure A-5. Wyodak Time Zero Well DataGas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water

Actual/Projected Cum Gas



### Figure A-6. History Match Wyodak Type Well w/ Free Gas

### A-8 Gas Rate Cum GasGas Production Rate (Mcfd)Cumulative Gas Recovery (MMcf)

Days On Actual Gas Rate

No Free Gas Rate Actual Cum Gas No Free Gas Cum Gas 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 

### Figure A-7. Reservoir Simulation of Wyodak Type Well w/ No Free GasGas Production Rate (Mcfd)Cumulative Gas Recovery (MMcf)

Days On Actual Gas Rate

23% Undersaturated Gas Rate Actual Cum Gas

23% Undersaturated Cum Gas 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 

### Figure A-8. Reservoir Simulation of Wyodak Type Well w/ 23% Gas Undersaturation

### A-9Gas Production Rate (Mcfd)Cumulative Gas Recovery (MMcf)

Days On Actual Gas Rate

66% Undersaturated Gas Rate Actual Cum Gas 66% Undersaturated Cum Gas

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 400
350
300
250
200
150
100 50
0 

### Figure A-9. Reservoir Simulation of Wyodak Type Well w/ 66% Gas Undersaturation Table A-2 provides a comparison of the results from reservoir modeling of the four gas saturation cases against actual production data. Table A-2. Comparison of Gas Production Rates for Wyodak Type Well Reservoir Simulation Output Actual

Data Fully Saturated Undersaturated w/Free Gas w/No Free Gas 23% 66% Gas Rate (Mcfd) @ 46 days 263 276 69 41 0 @ 289 days 301 291 200 142 51 Cumulative Gas Recovery (MMcf) @1,475 days 255 255 196 144 58 

### Table A-3 provides data on key reservoir properties, such as coal seam depth, gas content, pressure, and porosity used in the history match and sensitivity cases for the Wyodak coals discussed in this memo.

### A-10 T ime Zero Plo t f o r an A verag e W ell

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 Time ( M ont hs) 0 5 1 0 1 5 20 25 30 35 40 GAS WATER Wel Coun t



### Figure A-10. Big George Time Zero Well Data Table A-3. Wyodak Coal Seam Properties

Coal Seam Depth Gas Content Pressure Gradient Pressure (Top of

Coal) Porosity Fracture Matrix (feet) (cf/t) (psi/ft) (psi) (%) (%) 

### Wyodak (Partition #4) 541 65 0.274 163 1.0 6.0 

### Evidence for Undersaturated Coals No doubt undersaturated coals exist for some of the coal seams in some portions of the basin, as discussed earlier by Bustin and Downey. Even in the Warrior Basin, some pockets of low gas saturation have been observed in seams where the coals have been breached by faults. However, high early water production and a delay in gas production (accepted as normal in most other coal basins of the world) are not necessarily evidence that the coals are undersaturated. To examine this, we assembled data on a group of 38 Big George coal wells in a deep, immaturely developed portion of the basin. The time-zero gas and water production curve for these wells is provided in Figure A-10. The reservoir simulation history match for these wells showed that the coals were fully gas saturated (but with no free gas) and that the delayed onset of gas production was caused by the difficulties in drawing down reservoir pressure due to high permeability and the unconfined nature of the wells, Figure A-11.

### A-11Gas and Water Production Rate (Mcfd; Bwpd)Cumulative Gas and Water Recovery (MMcf; Mbw)

Days On 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 250 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750 3,000 3,250 3,500 500 3,750 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Actual Water Rate

Actual Gas Rate Actual/Projected Cum Water
Actual/Projected Cum Gas



### Figure A-11. History Match Big George Type Well As for the Wyodak, we examined how the Big George coal wells in this area would produce if they were 23% to 66% undersaturated. Again, the use of such extreme gas undersaturation values for the Big George coal provides gas production and recovery values that are much lower than actually observed, as shown in Figure A-12 for the 23% gas undersaturated case. (No gas production occurs from the Big George coal fo r the 66% undersaturated case during the first year). Table A-4 provides a comparison of the results from reservoir modeling of the three gas saturation cases against actual production data. Table A-4. Comparison of Gas Production Rates for Big George Type Well Reservoir Simulation Output Actual

Data Fully Saturated w/No Free Gas Undersaturated 23% 66% Gas Production (Mcfd) @ 76 days 24 21 0 0 @ 289 days 78 61 20 0 Gas Recovery (MMcf)

### A-12 Days OnGas Production Rate (Mcfd)Cumulative Gas Recovery (MMcf)

Actual Gas Rate
23% Undersaturated Gas Rate Actual Cum Gas 23% Undersaturated Cum Gas 110
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 100

10 0 150 140 130 120 110
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 100

10 0 150 140 130 120

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 

### Figure A-12. Reservoir Simulation of Big Ge orge Type Well w/23% Gas Undersaturation

@350 days 16 16 3 0



### Table A-5 provides the data on key reservoir properties, such as coal seam depth, gas content, pressure, and porosity used in the history match and sensitivity cases for the Big George coal discussed in the memo. Table A-5. Big George Coal Seam Properties
Coal Seam Depth Gas Content Pressure Gradient Pressure (Top of

Coal) Porosity Fracture Matrix (feet) (cf/t) (psi/ft) (psi) (%) (%) 

### Big George (Partition #3) 1,000 86 0.320 335 0.2 4.0 

### OTHER STUDIES The 1995 USGS National Assessment included estimates for coalbed methane in the Powder River Basin. Dudley Rice, of the USGS, collect ed the geologic and reservoir data and Advanced Resources conducted the reservoir simulations to establish recoverable gas. This past assessment included the following data for the coals in the PRB, Table A-6:

### A-13 • The shallow coals were assumed to be fully gas saturated (desorption pressure equals reservoir pressure); the deep coals were assumed to be 86% gas saturated. • The gas content for the shallow coals (at 500 feet and 165 psi) was calculated at 60 scf/ton; the gas content for the deep coals (at 1,250 feet and 490 psi) was calculated at 126 scf/ton. • The shallow coals were assumed to have 30% free gas in the fracture system; the deep coals were assumed to have no free gas. Table A-6. Reservoir Parameters for Powder River Basin (Fort Union Coals) Shallow Deep Coal Depth, feet 500 1,250 Coal Thickness, feet 90 90 Pressure Gradient, psi/ft 0.30 0.38 Initial Reservoir Pressure, psia 165 490 Initial Water (Gas) Saturation, % 70 (30) 100 (0) In Situ Langmuir Volume, scf/ton a 562 562 Langmuir Pressure, psia 1,380 1,380 In Situ Gas Content, scf/ton a 60 126 Desorption Pressure, psia 165 390 b Sorption Time, days 3 3 Reservoir Temperature, o F 72 100 Cleat Porosity, % 4 2 Pore Volume Compressibility, 10 -6 psi -1 200 200 Cleat Spacing, inches 0.2 0.2 Gas Gravity 0.75 0.75 Water Viscosity at Reservoir Conditions, cp 0.96 0.69 Water Formation Volume Factor, RB/STB 1.01 1.01 Completion and Stimulation Open-hole/Cased & Frac'd c Cased & Frac'd xf = 40 ft d Well Operation Pump Down Schedule 150 bwpd Pump Rate Well Spacing, acres/well 40 40 Aquifer Recharge Rate, bwpd Weak (50), Strong (400) None Absolute Cleat Permeability, md 10, 50, 75 1, 5, 10 a In situ conditons include 3% ash and 20% moisture b Deeper coals are 86% saturated relative to the adsorptive capacity c Both completion types yield similar performance; r w = 0.26 ft used in simulations with no skin factor applied d Assumes infinite conductivity fracture half-length (xf)

### A-14 The comparison of gas content in the two studies, Table A-7 below, shows the PRB Study used somewhat lower gas content values for the PRB coals than those used in the 1995 USGS National Assessment. Table A-7. Comparison of 1995 USGS and 2002 ARI Values for Gas Content of PRB Coals Shallow Coal Deep Coal 1995 USGS 2002 ARI 1995 USGS 2002 ARI Pressure (psi) 165 165 490 490 Gas Content (cf/t) 60 45 126 105