SPE/DOESociety of

Petroleum Engineers
U.S. Department
of Energy

SPE/DOE 10832

Recovery of Gas From Hydrate Deposits Using Conventional

Technology
by Patrick L. McGuire, Los Alamos National Laboratory/ARGO Alaska

The paper was presented at the SPEIDOE Unconventional Gas Recovery Symposium of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Pittsburgh,
PA, May 16-18,1982. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expwy., Dallas, TX 75206.

ABSTRACT production engineering studies could be based. The

focus of this study is on "conventional production
Methane hydrate gas could be a sizable energy technology," in which thermal recovery techniques
resource if methods can be devised to produce this used in heavy oil recovery and hydraulic-fracturing
gas economically. This paper examines two methods techniques used in "tight gas" recovery have been
of producing gas from hydrate deposits by the adapted to hydrate gas recovery.
injection of hot water or steam, and also examines
the feasibility of hydraulic fracturing and pres- Because little is known about naturally
sure reduction as a hydrate gas production tech- occurring hydrates, relatively straightforward
nique. A hydraulic fracturing technique suitable models that yield good ballpark numbers are
for hydrate reservoirs is also described. desirable. For this reason, two fairly simple
thermal-stimulation models, one to evaluate hydrate
INTRODUCTION gas production from a hot-water flood pattern and
one to evaluate hydrate gas production from a
Gas hydrates are ice-like inclusion compounds fracture-linked injector/producer pair, have been
in which gas molecules are trapped inside voids in developed. A third model has been developed to
a hydrogen-bonded lattice structure of water mole- evaluate hydrate gas production by pressure reduc-
cules. Under suitable conditions of low tempera- tion from hydraulically fractured wells.
ture and high pressure, hydrocarbon gases will
form hydrates (see Figs. 1 and 2). Natural gas Once the models were developed, we ran para-
hydrates have long been recognized as a problem in metric studies of major reservoir and operational
gas pipelines and process facilities, but have variables to rank their importance. A major
only recently been found to occur in nature. objective of the parametric stUdies was to develop
screening criteria to identify promising hydrate
Natural gas hydrates (predominantly methane) reservoirs. Finally, as significant laboratory
are known to occur in large quantities in Siberia and field data become available, more sophisticated
and in the North American Arctic. The estimated models will be used to analyze the economic feasi-
gas hydrate reserves in the Arctic are vast, bility of gas production from specific hydrate
although they are highly speculative at best. reservoirs.
Hydrates have repeatedly been encountered in sedi-
ments overlying conventional oil and gas fields in MAJOR ISSUES AFFECTING HYDRATE GAS PRODUCTION
the MacKenzie Delta, Arctic Islands, and Beaufort
Sea of Canada, and in Alaska's Kuparuk Field (see There are a number of technical issues that
Fig. 3).1 Estimates of hydrate gas in place in must be addressed if hydrate gas is to be produced
just one hydrate reservoir in the Kuparuk Field commercially as an energy resource. One major
are over 60 Bscf (billion standard cubic feet) per issue is the low permeability that often exists in
square mile (66.3 std m3/m 2 ), so hydrates clearly hydrate reservoirs. Although there may be a few
have significant resource potential. Hydrate exceptions to this rule, in general, the solid
deposits in these areas should be viewed as a hydrate appears to plug the pores so that the
long-term resource that could extend the life and reservoir has very little natural permeability.1-3
productivity of these areas as conventional oil Drill stem tests of hydrate reservoirs typically
and gas supplies dwindle. show extremely low gas production rates, indicating
that fracturing or rubblizing of the reservoir is
OBJECTIVES IN PRODUCTION MODELING imperative to inject fluids or to produce gas at
worthwhile rates. 2
The overall objective of this study was to
develop a solid body of knowledge upon which future A second major issue is the large amount of
energy required to dissociate hydrate. Roughly
References and illustrations at end of paper. 212 Btu/lb (493 J/g) is required to dissociate
373
 RECOVERY OF GAS FROM HYDRATE DEPOSITS USING CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY SPE 10832
methane hydrate to water and free gas. This high Numerous technical problems also exist,
latent heat capacity (about 50 per cent greater especially with steam injection, but these are
than that required to melt ice) necessitates that beyond the scope of this paper. It is important
thermal-stimulation techniques use high energy to recognize the limitations of the frOntal-sweep
fluxes into the hydrate reservoir. This, in turn, model before using these results in evaluating a
involves the use of large equipment and high given hydrate reservoir. Injectivity limitations
injection flow rates. Hydrates will be found only caused by low permeability, out-of-pattern gas
in hostile environments (Arctic regions or deep migration, and recombination of free gas and water
offshore), so operating and maintaining this into hydrate are among the problems that are not
equipment will be difficult. Another consequence addressed by the frontal-sweep model. This model
of this large dissociation energy is that hydrate is quite useful in estimating hydrate gas produc-.
gas production by pressure reduction will result tion, however, because it represents the upper
in substantial temperature drops. Calculations bound of that production.
show that as the hydrate dissociates the reservoir
temperature will probably drop well below 32°F, The major variables in the frontal-sweep model
and the water released by dissociation will be include reservoir thickness, porosity, and injec-
frozen. The implications of this freezing, tion temperature. Other pertinent variables such
especially in the plugging of pore spaces and the as the thermal diffus;vity of the sediments above
hydraulic fracture, are obvious. and below the hydrate reservoir, the fraction of
hydrate filling the pores, the occupancy ratio of
Current experience in producing gas from methane to water in the hydrate, and the dissocia-
hydrate deposits is limited to Russian operations tion energy of the hydrate have been held constant
in the Messoyakha Field. 3 This Siberian gas for modeling purposes. 6 The dissociation area
field is unusual in that it contains methane (the area from which all hydrates have been pro-
hydrate in the upper part of the reservoir and duced) is given by
free gas in the lower part. Although some hydrate
gas has apparently been produced from this field,
most of the Russian work has focused on preventing
hydrate from forming near the wellbores and A(t) =
IMlha
4k211T [ez2
erfc z +
1T
(1 )
restricting free gas production. The June 16,
1981, issue of The Energy Daily summed up the state where
of hydrate production technology when it said, IISO
far, no economic method has been devised for free-
ing the gas from its permafrost prison. 1I
A major 2k (~) 1/2 (2)
z = Wh ...
objective of the Methane Hydrate Resource Evalua-
tion Program at Los Alamos was to develop and
evaluate various production techniques to determine See the Nomenclature section for definitions of
whether an lIeconomic method" does indeed exist. the variables.

FRONTAL-SWEEP MODEL This is identical to the Marx-Langenheim

heavy-oil recovery equation except that the
Figure 4 is a plan view of the frontal-sweep weighted heat capacity, M, has been replaced by
production system in which hot water is injected M which also includes the heat of dissociation
I
,

into a central injection well and the dissociated of the hydrate. The term M' is calculated from
hydrate gas flows to the surrounding production
wells. This system is analogous to steam flooding
a heavy oil reservoir, and the production equipment (3)
and reservoir analysis techniques used in both
cases are quite similar. The frontal-sweep model
is a heat-transfer model, not a porous-flow model,
and is essentially a time-dependent energy balance The rate of gas production is given by
between heat injection, heat losses to the sedi-
ments above and below the hydrate zone, and the
latent and sensible heat required to raise the (4)
reservoir from TbYd, the hydrate dissociation
temperature, to T1nj, the hot fluid injection
temperature. 4 ,5 The results of the parametric studies, using
the frontal-sweep model, are shown in Figs. 5 and
There are several assumptions that are implied 6. Figure 5 shows the total gas produced in one
by the use of the frontal-sweep model, but are not year from one 50 MMBtu/h (5.3 x 109 J/h) injec-
part of the model itself, including tion pattern (50 MMBtu/h is the thermal output of
a standard oil field steam generator used for heavy
• 'SuffiCient in situ permeability exists oil recovery). Note that the gas production is
within the hydrate zone to effectively substantial at temperatures below 250°F (121°C).
flood the pattern (which, in general, does The gas production is less than the estimated fuel
not appear to be true), and consumption (dashed line) for steam injection,
where the injection temperatures will likely be in
• The gas produced at the dissociation front excess of 400°F (204°C). This same phenomenon is
does not recombine into hydrate as it seen in Fig. 6. The heat losses to surrounding
migrates toward the production wells. sediments are too large to allow effective stimu-
lation of hydrate reservoirs by steam injection,
even if the steam can be injected at high rates
into thick hydrate reservoirs. At the other end
374
SPE 10832 P. L. McGUIRE
of the scale, low injection temperatures require co 1
very large volumetric flow rates to carry worth- I0
n=O
n
while quantities of heat into the reservoir. The
constraints of excessive heat losses and unrealis-
tically high injection flow rates will probably
limit injection temperatures to between 150 and [ : ['n2khLl/PwCwQwWeff] (6)
250°F (66 and 121°C).
Inspection of the figures also indicates that,
to be of interest as a potential resource, the
reservoir should be 15 ft (4.6 m)thick or more.
Similarly, unless the porosity is at least 15 per where Weff, the "effective width,1I is the average
cent, the heat wasted in raising the rock matrix flow path width over the interval 0 < x < L2.
temperature will render thermal stimulation As this heat flux is applied to the lsothermal
ineffective in producing useful quantities of gas. dissociation surfaces over a time step of length
T, hydrate is dissociated and the flow path is
FRACTURE-FLOW MODEL widened by an amount ~W(L1,L2). Hydrate gas
production from the element during the time step
Figure 7 is a plan view of the fracture-flow is give n by
production system in which hot water is pumped
into an injection well that has been linked by
hydraulic fracturing to a Single producing well.
This is the anticipated production technique in
hydrate reservoirs where the in situ permeability The major variables in the fracture-flow model
is extremely low because of hydrate blockage of are reservoir thickness, porosity, injection tem-
the pore channels. This fracture-flow case is perature, and fracture length (the distance between
much less effective than the frontal-sweep case the injector and the producer). Parametric studies
because a large percentage of the injected energy were run to evaluate the influence of each of these
is removed from the reservoir at the production variables. Because the model does not account for
well and is lost. The heat-transfer efficiency, heat losses to sediments above and below the
the energy expended in the reservoir divided by hydrate zone, the results are fairly insensitive
the total injected energy, decreases with time as to injection temperature. Porosity appears only
the flow path between the wells becomes wider. in the numerator of Eq. (7) and indirectly in the
This results in higher produced water temperatures denominator as part of M' , so the gas production
and lower gas production rates. is roughly proportional to porosity.

The fracture-flow heat-transfer problem is Figure 10 shows the gas produced after 1 yr
extremely complicated because it is dominated by of injecting 30,000 bpd (4770 m3 /d) of 150°F (66°C)
two-phase porous media flow; boundary layer con- water (50 MMBtu/h (5.3 x 10 9 J/h)) into a fracture-
siderations; gravity segregation of gas, hot water, linked well pair as a function of fracture length
and cold water; and phase changes. All of the and reservoir thickness. The gas production is a
above factors vary both vertically and horizontally function of the surface area of the fracture, but,
along the fracture face and are time dependent, so in all cases studied, the total gas production in
this system obviously has no closed-form solutions. 1 yr was less than the estimated fuel consumption
A lower limit to the heat transfer can be estab- requir~d to heat iO,OOO bpd (4770 m3 /d) from 32
lished, however, by assuming laminar slug flow of to 150 F (0 to 66 C). Even in the most favorable
the injection water through the porous media case, a 2640-ft (805-m) -long fracture in a 200-ft
between the fracture faces. This case then becomes (61-m) -thick reservoir, the produced water temper-
a variation of the Graetz laminar-flow conduction ature was over 130°F (54°C) after a year of injec-
problem, and it can be solved in closed form for a tion, yielding a heat-transfer efficiency of only
constant flow path width.7 The laminar slug 16 per cent. Figure 11, which is a temperature
flow solution has been incorporated into a one- profile of the fracture-flow system, illustrates
dimensional finite-element model to establish the the "thermal short circuit" that causes such low
worst-case fracture-flow performance. efficiencies and production rates.

The finite-element representation of the As in the case of the frontal-sweep model, it

fracture-flow channel is illustrated in Fig. 8, is important to realize the limitations of the
and a typical element is shown in Fig. 9. The fracture-flow model before using these results to
steady-state temperature distribution within a evaluate a given hydrate reservoir. The model is
flow channel of constant width, W, is given by based on a heat transfer solution and is not a
porous-flow model. The fracture-flow model repre-
sents the lower bound on hydrate gas production,
CXl 4(T . . -T h d)(-l)n and a real system should be more effective.
T(x,y) = T + I lnJ y
hYd n=O An COMPARISONS BETWEEN THERMAL MODELS
(5)
Several conclusions can be drawn by comparing
the frontal-sweep data with the fracture-flow data.
First, the in situ permeability of the hydrate zone
will playa major role in determining the effec-
where An = (2n+l)~. The heat flux through the tiveness of hot water injection in producing gas.
isothermal surfaces of the finite element shown in The higher the permeability is in the hydrate zone,
Fig. 9 can be approximated by
375
 RECOVERY OF GAS FROM HYDRATE DEPOSITS USING CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY SPE 10832
the more closely the high-efficiency frontal-sweep the reservoir flow properties (porosity and
model will be approached. If the hydrate zone is permeability), the rate of gas production can now
virtually impermeable, hydraulic fracturing will be calculated.
be requ i red and the reservo i r performance will
probably approach that of the low-efficiency The adiabatic dissociation temperature is
fracture-flow model. Drill stem testing to estab- calculated from the energy balance shown below:
lish in situ hydrate permeabilities would be
desirable in evaluating the resource potential of
a given hydrate reservoir. 2
(S)
Second, if the frontal-sweep model represents
the best performance (barring chemical effects = ¢ Shyd H'diss + ¢ Shyd E Phyd Z R(Tad-Tref) •
from inhibitors, such as salts and alcohols) that
can be obtained from the reservoir and the laminar This equation assumes that the mobile water satur-
fracture-flow model represents the worst perform- ation is low and the heat capacity of the methane
ance, we can at least bracket the production rates is negligible. A typical calculation for a 20 per
and the economics of thermally stimulating a cent porosity reservoir shows a drop from a 45°F
hydrate reservoir. Figure 12 shows such a compar- (7°C) initial reservoir temperature to an 1SoF
ison for a 25 per cent porosity reservoir as thick- (-SoC) adiabatic dissociation temperature. Russian
ness is varied from 10 to 200 ft (3 to 61 m). The researchers have modeled hydrate gas production
gap between the two models is large, but it can be with a decompression model similar to the one
reduced by "correcting" the models for real-life presented here, but they have assumed that the
conditions. These corrections will, of necessity, dissociation process takes place isothermally.S
be somewhat arbitrary, but should yield more The production of gas from hydrates is an energy-
accurate production estimates than the two exist- limited process, so this unrealistic assumption of
ing models. isothermal dissociation leads to very large errors
in estimated gas production as shown in Fig. 15.
DECOMPRESSION MODEL
Once the adiabatic dissociation temperature
Figure 13 is a plan view of the decompression is known, the gas production rate from a fractured
production system in which the bottomhole pressure hydrate well is given by
in a hydraulically fractured well is reduced to a
low value of 100 to 200 psia (690 to 13S0 kPa).
Methane hydrate is unstable at this low pressure
and decomposes, absorbing sensible heat from the
surrounding sediment and forming ice and free gas.
This low-pressure gas migrates to the wellbore
through the high permeability fracture, and is where
compressed on the surface and piped into a high-
pressure gas transmission line. The equipment Kl (Pad+Pwell)
required for this technique is rugged, field-proven
equipment suitable for remote Arctic operations.
This is not the case for the thermal-stimulation
techniques, in which complex equipment must handle and
tremendous quantities of both injected and produced
water in extremely cold weather.
The decompression model is a one-dimensional
porous-flow model in which the dissociation front
propagates from the fracture outward into the The term y is a constant that is calculated from
hydrate formation, and the released gas migrates the following transcendental equation:
inward from the dissociation front to the
fracture. 4 The permeability of the produced
region is much higher than that of the hydrated
region because the hydrate "shrinks" by about
13 per cent when it dissociates to ice and free
gas. In other words, 100 ~m3 of hydrate in a
pore would dissociate to form 87 ~m3 of ice and 222
13 ~m3 of methane gas, greatly enlarging the K2(Pinit -Pad) exp(-s2 )
nonfrozen flow path through the pore. Because the (1TX )1/2 erfc 13
dissociation takes place much more quickly than 2 2
heat can be conducted into the hydrate reservoir
from the overburden and the underburden, the (10 )
- {ShYd E Phyd R Tinit Z
dissociation process is essentially adiabatic. A
schematic of this process is shown in Fig. 14.
The equilibrium dissociation temperature, and - [l-S hyd (l-E)Phyd!Pice J Pad Tinit/Tad
therefore dissociation pressure, thus becomes a
known function of porosity, fluid saturations, and
latent and specific heats. Because the rate of
propagation of the dissociation front into the
reservoir is controlled by the dissociation
pressure, the bottomhole producing pressure, and
376
SPE 10832 P. L. McGUIRE
where intennittent gas lift) may be required to maintain
this low bottomhole pressure.
SALT-FRAC STIMULATION TECHNIQUE
The decompression model indicates that hydrate
It should be noted that the cumulative gas produc- gas production by pressure reduction can yield
tion is large quantities of gas at relatively high flow
rates if a high-permeability fracture can be main-
Gcum 2 Ct 1 / 2 (11 ) tained at temperatures below 32°F (O°C). There
are several problems that could prevent conven-
so the gas recovery is proportional to the square tional fracturing techniques from succeeding in
root of the length of time the well has been this application. A typical hydrate reservoir
produced. consists of unconsolidated or lightly consolidated
sands and gravels that derive their mechanical
In all model cases, the reservoir thickness, strength from hydrate and/or ice bonding of the
h, was 20 ft (6 m); the fracture length, L, was sand grains. In such a reservoir, the matrix would
500 ft (152 m); the methane mass fraction in the simply collapse around the proppant material, and
hydrate, £, was 0.129; and the dissociation energy a "crack II cou 1d not be ma i nta i ned. Even if the
of hydrate to ice and free gas, H'diss' was fracture could be held open, the water released
5000 Btu/ft 3 (1.9 x 108 J/m3) of hydrate. from the fracturing fluid and dissociation of
Parametric studies were run to determine the hydrate would freeze, plugging the fracture and
influence of porosity, permeability (both in the greatly reducing the gas production. Thus, the
hydrate region and in the produced region), and objective in fracturing a hydrate reservoir is not
bottomhole producing pressure. The results of to create a propped-open crack in the rock, but
these parametric studies are shown in Figs. 16-18. rather to establish a high permeability, ice-free
Figure 16 shows the total gas produced by a single flow path in the porous medium itself. The salt-
well in one year as a function of the ice-region frac is designed to melt the ice or hydrate sur-
permeability, K1, and of the hydrate-region rounding the fracture and to insure that the salt
permeability, K2' A very important conclusion content in that area is sufficient to prevent
can be drawn from this graph: gas production is refreezing for the life of the well. If this can
strongly dependent on the ice-region permeability, be done, the natural nonfrozen permeability of the
but is virtually independent of the hydrate-region typical hydrate reservoir will be high enough to
permeability. Many hydrate reservoirs appear to provide an excellent flow path for the dissociated
have excellent permeability (> 1000 md) when there gas.
is no hydrate or ice present, but have very low
permeability « 10 md) when hydrate is present. The best fluid for hydraulically fracturing a
The ice region is expected to be much more perme- hydrate reservoir appears to be a viscosified,
able because of the 13 per cent hydrate "shrink- "supersaturated" brine using salt crystals as the
age, so even those hydrate reservo i rs with
II proppant. The fluid would preferably use CaBr2
extremely low permeability may be producible. The and/or CaC12 salts, which have extremely low
magnitude of the shrinkage permeability increase freezing points (_117°F and _67°F (-83 and _55°C)
is unknown, and represents a very obvious goal for eutectic solutions, respectively), and polymer
future laboratory and field experiments. viscosifiers that are compatible with dense brines
and have a desirable, shear-thinning rheology. In
Another important conclusion can be made from a salt-frac, this fluid would be mixed on the sur-
this graph: large quantities of gas can be pro- face and pumped into the well in one continuous
duced from hydrate reservoirs even with moderate operation. The heat of the hydration of the salt
values of formation thickness, fracture length, will raise the temperature considerably, perhaps
and ice-region permeability. Gas 3roduction on up to 150-200°F (65-93°C), enabling the fluid to
the order of 1 Bscf (3 x 10 7 std m ) per year dissolve large quantities of additional salt.
is encouraging and could probably be justified Polymer viscosifiers will then be added, along
economically by the turn of the century, especially with more salt, and the hot, supersaturated salt
as the wells are shallow (from 1000 to 4000 ft slurry will be pumped at high rates into the
(300 to 1200 m) deep). hydrate zone to create a long fracture that is
packed with salt. The hot brine will attack the
Figure 17 confirms the observation made from ice and hydrate on both sides of the fracture to
Fig. 15, namely that hydrate gas production is an create a wide, nonfrozen, high-permeability flow
energy-limited process and, as such, the gas pro- path (see Fig. 19). As the brine cools, excess
duction is virtually independent of porosity. salt precipitates from the solution (hence, the
term supersaturated), and together with the salt
The third major variable used in the para- proppant, acts to maintain a high salt concentra-
metric studies was the bottomhole producing pres- tion in the flow path. This high salt content,
sure. Because the adiabatic dissociation pressures even if diluted considerably by water released
for methane hydrate will typically be from 200 to from the hydrate, will prevent the flow path from
300 psia (1400 to 2100 kPa), the producing pres- refreezing, thus insuring that the fracture stimu-
sures should be as low as practical. Figure 18 lation will remain effective for long periods of
shows that gas production is very sensitive to time. If large quantities of salt were not used,
producing pressure, and that, for best results, the flow path would probably refreeze, negating
pressure should be about 100 psi (700 kPa). Fluids the benefits of the fracture.
should not be allowed to accumulate in the wellbore
and some sort of fluid removal system (probably
377
 RECOVERY OF GAS FROM HYDRATE DEPOSITS USING CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY SPE 10832
SUMMARY unrealistically large injection flow rates. The
well spacing should be as large as is practical.
Two fairly simple thermal-stimulation models
have been developed to bracket the expected gas Hydrate gas production by pressure reduction
production from a methane hydrate reservoir. The should be a feasible production technique if a
frontal-sweep model represents the upper bound on high-permeability fracture can be maintained at
hydrate gas production, and the fracture-flow model temperatures well below 32°F (O°C). Because the
represents the lower bound. Parametric studies salt-frac technique should do just that, the
were made with these two models to determine the decompression production system appears to be the
importance of a number of variables, including best method for hydrate gas production. Signifi-
porosity, bed thickness, injection temperature, cant quantities of gas can be produced in a rela-
and fracture length. tively short time, and the method uses rugged,
field-proven equipment suitable for remote Arctic
A one-dimensional porous flow model was operations. Gas production is virtually independ-
developed to approximate the hydrate gas production ent of the reservoir porosity and permeability,
by pressure reduction from a hydraulically frac- and is primarily a function of fracture length,
tured well. Parametric studies were made with reservoir thickness, the permeability of the region
this decompression model to determine the impor- in which the hydrate has been dissociated, and the
tance of a number of variables, including porosity, producing bottomhole pressure. The fracture should
initial formation temperature, bottomhole producing be as long as is feasible, and the bottomhole
pressure, and the permeability in both the hydrated pressure should be roughly 100 psia (700 kPa)
sediment and in the region in which the hydrate because the dissociation pressures will only be
has been dissociated. Because the decompression about 200-300 psia (1400-2100 kPa).
model gave encouraging results, a fracture-
stimulation technique suitable for this production Numerous important questions about hydrate
method was developed. The salt-frac described in gas production remain unanswered. The most
this paper should make the production of hydrate important reservoir variable appears to be the
gas feasible even at temperatures well below 32°F permeability of the ice region formed when the
(O°C). hydrate dissociates, but there are no data on this
subject. Other important parameters such as the
CONCLUSIONS hydrate saturation and excess gas/water/ice content
are also unknown. These data represent obvious
Hydrate gas production by thermal stimulation targets for future laboratory and field research
does not appear to be economically feasible in programs.
most cases. The frontal-sweep system could yield
large quantities of net gas if operated properly, NOMENCLATURE
but most hydrate reservoirs have in situ permea-
bilities that are too low to use this system. It The variables used in the production equations
is not possible to inject hot water into these are defined below and the numbers in parentheses
reservoirs at the high rates required for accept- were used in the models.
able thermal efficiencies, and, if the wells are
fractured to establish sufficient injectivity, the A = The area of the reservoir in which
injected water will probably migrate more or less all hydrates have been dissoci-
directly to a production well and will use only a ated, ft2.
small fraction of its thermal energy in dissoci-
ating hydrate. The worst-case example of this Hydrate formation volume factor,
problem is the fracture-flow model in which the scf of produced gas per ft 3
water flows directly to the production well, hydrate (140 sCf/ft 3 ).
resulting in very low thermal efficiencies.
Thermal-stimulation techniques appear to have The specific heats of ice, gas,
potential in two areas: water, and rock (including connate
water), respectively, Btu/lbm
• Hydrate reservoirs that have sufficiently (0.5, 0, 1.0, 0.2).
high in situ permeability to use the
frontal-sweep production system. These The gas production rate and
high-permeability hydrate reservoirs appear cumulative gas production,
to be very uncommon. 1- 3 respectively.
• Hydrate reservoirs in which geothermal h The height or bed thickness of a
aquifers at greater depths could be used hydrate reservoir, ft.
to supply hot brine to the injection wells.
This would be more feasible in an area Hdiss Heat required to dissociate
where a number of deep wells (depleted oil hy~rate into gas and water at
or conventional gas wells) were already 32 F, Btu/ft (14,000).
drilled.
Heat required to dissociate
The reservoir should be at least 15 ft (5 m) hydrate into gas and ice at 32°F,
thick and have a porOSity of at least 15 per cent Btu/ft 3 (5000).
to be a candidate for thermal stimulation. The
injection water temperature should be between 150 Rate of heat injection into the,
and 250°F (65 and 120°C) to obtain an acceptable reservoir, MMBtu/h (50).
tradeoff between excessive heat losses and
378
SPE 10832 P. L. McGUIRE
k : Thermal conductivity of the reser- y = The "width dimension" of the frac-
voir and surrounding sediments, ture-flow channel, perpendicular
Btu/h-ft-OF (1.5). to the x-axis, ft.
= Permeability of the produced z = Compressibility factor for methane
region and the hydrated region, (0.9) •
respectively, md.
= The thermal diffusivity of the
= The minimum and maximum distances, reservoir and surrounding
respectively, to the injection well sediments, ft 2 /h (0.0482).
from a given finite element, ft.
= The mass fraction of methane in
M = The weighted heat capacity of the the hydrate.
reservoir and its fluids, Btu/ft 3 •
The hydrate, ice, gas, water, and
M' = Same as M, but includes the he~t rock matrix density, respectively,
of dissociation of the hydrate, lb/ft 3 (56, 57, 0, 62, 167).
Btu/ft3.
= The effective reservoir porosity
Pad,Pinit, = Adiabatic dissociation pressure, (considers connate water as part
Pref ,Pwell initial reservoir pressure, refer- of the rock matrix).
ence pressure, and bottomhole pro-
ducing pressure, respectively, Viscosity of methane gas, cp
psia (-, -, 14.7, ). (0.013).
q Heat flux into the hydrate-bearing T Time step length, h (12).
portion of the reservoir,
Btu/h-ft 2 • REF ERE NCES
Volumetric rate of water injec- 1. Barraclough, B.L.: "Methane Hydrate as an
tion, ft 3 /h. Energy Resource: A Review with Recommended
Future Research. 1I Los Alamos National Labora-
= Hydrate saturation, gas satura- tory report LA-8368-MS (1980).
tion, and mobile water saturation,
respectively. 2. 8ily, C., and Dick, J.W.L.: "Naturally
Occurring Gas Hydrates in the MacKenzie Delta,
t = Time since start of injection, h. N.W.T.II Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum
Geology, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 340-352 (1974).
Tad = Adiabatic dissociation tempera-
ture, "R. 3. Kolodenznyi, P.A., and Arshinov, S.A.: IIEngi-
neering the Pumping of Antihydrate Inhibitor
= Hydrate dissociation temperature, into Wells of the Messoyakha Field." Gasov.
of (32). De 10 , No. 11 ( 1972 ) •

= Temperature of injection water, of. 4. McGuire, P.L.: IIMethane Hydrate Gas Pro-
duction: An Assessment of Conventional
= Initial reservoir temperature, of. Production Technology as Applied to Hydrate
Gas Recovery.1I Los Alamos National Labora-
Tref = Reference temperature, 32°F/492°R. tory report LA-9102-MS (1981).
t.T = Tinj Thyd, of. 5. Marx, J.W., and Langenheim, R.H.: "Reservoir
Heating by Hot Fluid Injection." SPE Reprint
W = The width of the fracture-flow Series No.7, Thermal Recovery Processes,
channe 1, ft. pp. 150-153.
= The effective width, in terms of 6. Makogon, Yu.F.: Hydrates of Natural Gas
estimating the heat transfer, of (Cieslewicz, W.J. 1977, translation).
the fracture-flow channel at a
given point, ft. 7. Arpac i, V. S. : Conduct i on Heat Transfer
(Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1966),
t.W = The change in the fracture-flow pp. 202-214.
path width because of
dissociation, ft. 8. Verigin, N.N., and Khabibullin, LL., and
Khalikov, G.A.: IILinear Problem of the
x The distance along the path from Dissociation of the Hydrates of a Gas in a
the injection well to the produc- Porous Medium." Investiya Akademi i Nauk SSSR
tion well, ft. (1980) .

379
 DODECAHEI:.'>RON
TETRAKAIDECAHEI:.'>RON
(CAVITY DIAMETER:;; 51 nm) (CA VITY DIAMETER = 58 nm)

\ DODECAHEDRON

Fig. 1 - Lattice structure of methane hydrate. Each unit

cell consists of 46 H2 0 and 8 CH 4 molecules

a 20
TEMPERA TURE. or

~ 100
0

I.J.i
a:::
::J
VI
VI
L...J
a:::
a.
CH ..
~
::J
~ 10
Q)
-...J CO 2
-::J
0
LoJ
C:zH.

C:sH.
1+---~--~-,---4~~~-r--.---.-~
-20 -10 o 10 20
TEMPERA TURE. °C

Fig. 2 - Hydrate phase diagram for various

components typically found in natural gas
 Fig. 3 - Areas of hydrate occurrence in the North American Arctic

CUMULATIVE CAS PRODUCTICN VS INJECTION TEMPERATURE

Z500r-----~----~------r_----~----~----~

l.&..
ZOO F'T
u
VI
tOO FT
~ ZOOO 50 FT ....La.
'AODUCTION
.
a::
<I(
LIJ
>-
Z5 FT ""
VI

UJ 1sao ~
:li£
z U
0
z to FT ....:l:
• o tOOO
w
u
::>
a::
0
>
tt
0 W
0 VI
tt
a. 500
ltJ
INJECTION 0::

WELLa ""0

.
<I(

...!
0
0 100 zoo 300 400 500 GOO
INJECT ION TEMPERATURE. F

Fig. 4 - Plan view of the Fig. 5 -- Hydrate gas production as a function of

frontal-sweep production injection temperature and reservoir
system thickness for <f> = 25 percent
 CUMULATIVE GAS PRODUCTION VS INJECTIOh TEMPERATURE
Z500r-----~----~----~----_,------r_--~

....u
II)
30 PCT ....Z
I zooo ZS PCT LtJ
.
cr. 20 peT
U
ex
LaJ
c a.
,...
LI.J
15 peT
.
w 1500
z
....>
0 II)
o
-
z
o
lIJ
1000
10 peT a:
o
Q..
a::
U
::J o
0 >
0 a:
ex LaJ
a..
VI
c
'"cr.
LaJ

lJ
0L-----~----~ ____ _ 4_ _ _ _~~_ _ _ _~_ _ _ _~

o 100 ZOO 300 400 500 (,00

lNJFC:T1ON TEMPERATURE. F

Fig. 6 -- Hydrate gas production as a function of

injection temperature and porosity for h =
50 ft

• '''ODUCTIOH

__- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WELL

DIAECTION 0' '''ACTUAE .AOWTH

•
Fig. 7 -- Plan view of fracture-flow production system

HYDRATE-flUE "AACTUAE" fLOW fl'ATH

\ ,,'"
\I
-----...~----,
- ........"C""'"--...,
,,
I .------
---- .Jr.::-:==::"::l----r '\
I
\
, _.... -----~-~-~-~-~_~~----~I
\

-
".... -....-~-::-"'..::.----'
'INITE ELEMENTS

Fig. 8 -- Representation of the fracture flow path by a

series of constant-width elements (10
elements were used in the model.)
 UNIFORM VELOCITY. V

Lx w
ISOTHERMAL SUR' ACe
AT HYDRATE
DECOMPOSITION
TEMPERATURe

~_L_'____-_I__ L. ____________~.~I

Fig. 9 -- A typical finite element at distance L1 from

the injection well

CUMULATIVE GAS PRODUCTION vs FRACTURE LENGTH

500
ZOO

..... 400
u
VJ 100
I ....u.
ac
c
I.IJ
)0- 300 SO '"
VII
&.1.1
Z
W )£
Z
0 ....
U
::t
- 200
Z

0
UJ
ZS t-

-
«
0
g 10
>
II:
0 &.1.1
....,
0
a::: &.1.1
0- S II:

'"c
C)
100

O~----~----~------~----~----~----~
o SOO 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
FRACTURE LENCTH. FT

Fig. 10-- Hydrate gas production as a function of

fracture length and reservoir thickness
 FRACTURE-FLOW TEMPERATURE PROFILE DAY = 270
TEMP. F
1
7
~ )I

..iCL:.t: ')11
LL '// /' 1./
/::;
"/ ) !/~ )- ~ o·
////n~ t'J1
~ I W ~~L12ta'~/--~·T!IO': TH. FT
---,
/I V \ r '/"7

1-------~I7£ff?f17~~~7\_\_t-\,4.:
\ jW..Jw..:l.A-W-W~ ,~ '/ ./

AI
777
150
fll ~ , \ \) V [),~ //
V / V\l/h;~,¥7:;~~~~+,1.1...-7-1-7
7
/ //7 j V'J;i'L '/ :;/ _7
L
LL/ /:iifE
//////.
LI"
I.)
IL"$JJL{ "//:7 77
VL'i/////// r// -7
L //////777 V V// '//////// l/ 7
L //////////. 1/ LI " / / / / 7 / / / / / / 7
/ //////////// I) \.I '///////////7 7
'3Z
o
V /////////////.. tJ l '//
'ILL '////////////
'/////////// ~3Z0
7
3Z0·
WIDTH. FT

Fig. 11 _ Temperature profile of injected water in fracture-flow system

after 9 months of injecting 30,000 BID at 150°F

FRCNTAL SWEEP MODEL vS FRACTURE FLOW MODEL

0
l.L
4
U
::E
~
M
o
Z "3
0
I--
U
:;:)
0 Z
0 100
0::
CL
ED THICKNESS. FT
(./)
<r: 150
<...:)

0
24
I T r ME. fv',ONTHS

Fig. 12 - Parametric study of gas

production rate vs reservoir
thickness showing the upper
and lower bounds of
anticipated gas production
 4.-----------------------------____

HYDRATED SEDIMENT
-~
CD
:3
ISOTHERMAL MODEL

ci
<II(
/.
w
T >-
DISSOCIATION FRONT w
Z
o 2

HYDRATE FREE SEDIMENT ow

U
:::l
o ADIABATIC WODEL
""lIIIIIIIffIlHlJlIWlIHlffllfllflf/lll!I/8IfUIIIU'H"I!IIIIIIU!IIIII6IIIIIIII/I• •,,,,.,,,,, o
IX

~
Q.

1
HYDRAULIC fRACTURE WELLBORE
VI
<II(
CI ---- ~-------
----- ---
FRACTURE LENGTH = 500 ft o~----_,-----.------~----~----~
o 5 10 15 20 25
'//. RESERVO I R POROS I TV, PERCENT

Fig. 13 - Plan view of decompression model Fig. 15 - Comparison between adiabatic and
isothermal decompression models

Ka (HYDRATED-SEDIWENT PERWEIIBILITY). md

7///////////1fF/.////#/./0 -.. ---10.0 md

I
Col 1.0 md
• . ............ 0.1 md

PRODUCED REGION T•• .,'" ..

Ii
,..
WI
---'-0.01 md

pe r meob ilit y=K 1

~
~
DISSOCIATION FRONT 0
WI
(J

LaJ
0::
50
::> 0::
G..
~ HYDRATED SEDIMENT
~ ~ permeobllity=K ..,'"
VI

0.1
i3 T.........
2
~
~ // /////////////)/////////// 0.05 +---.,.---r--r-T-r-TT-n------r---r--.--.,...,...,..,..,...---..--.,....,-T""I"'T.......l
1 10 100
01 ST ANCE FROM WELLBORE .. Kt (HYDRATE-fREE P£RWEABILlTY). md
1000

Fig. 14 - Idealized temperature profile for Fig. 16 - Hydrate gas production as a function
adiabatic decompression of permeability
 3~-------~==~~---------------.

.u
m"
ol 2
'"
.....
~
K1 (HYDRATE-rREE PERWEABILITY). md
..... ---'1000.0 md
z
0 100.0 md
............ - 10.0 md
! 1.0 md
c
.....
()
::»
c
0
Ill:
a.
en
'"
(,)

....... M~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ..... - _ . . . . _ - - . . . . . . . WI . . . . ~"w .. _~ _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . . ~ ~

~ .............. -.................. -....... .

10 15 20 25
RESERVO I R POROS I TY, PERCENT

Fig. 17 - Hydrate gas production as a function

of porosity

500~------------------------------~
INITIAL RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE, ~
----50 ~
.5 -r
·-·-·--------.0 ~

.
~ 400 - - , - 3 5 "f"
.•-.~.--.• 30 "f"
J
ol
'" 300
~

~
z
c 200
...,
u
::»
o
o
a::
0. 100
111
'"
(,)

O~------~-------r------~------~
o 100 200 300 .. 00
PRODUC ING WELL PRESSURE, ps I Q

Fig. 18 - Hydrate gas production as a function

of producing pressure
Fig. 19 - Schematic illustration of methane hydrate gas production using the salt-frac
stimulation technique