Etha Krishna Chowdary P.Kavya B.Tech (Petroleum Engg) JNTU-Kakinada

Challenges in Exploration
& Production of Natural gas Hydrates

By
K.Geetha Krishna Chowdary
P.Kavya
B.Tech (Petroleum Engg)
JNTU- Kakinada
1
GAS HYDRATES
1 ft3 of NGH = 164 ft3 of Natural Gas

0.8 m3 of water
The compact nature of the hydrate

structure makes for highly effective
packing of gas.
Factors influencing Gas Hydrate Formation

P&T
Pore Water Salinity
Availability of Gas & Water
Geo Thermal Gradient in zone of Hydrate formation
Gas Chemistry
1 2 2
Structure of Gas Hydrates
The hydroca rbon hydra te s are non-s toichiome tric subs ta nce s
Distinguishe d by the size of the cavities and the ratio be twe e n large and sma ll cavities
The size and sha pe of the gues t molecule influence s the structure forme d
3
Classification of Hydrates & Hydrate Stable zone
Class 1:-
Hydrate-bearing layer + underlying two-phase layer of mobile gas and water
This type of hydrate is considered as the most promising reserve
Class 2:-
Hydrate-bearing layer + Free Water
Pressure Depletion is small comparatively
Class 3:-
Absence of an underlying zone of mobile fluids.
The whole hydrate-bearing layer is in P-T balance stability region.
Therefore, the gas production rate is slow during the exploitation
process
4
Area Enclosed Between Phase boundary & Geothermal Gradient-
Hydrate Stable zone
The top of the HSZ is in most instances much shallower in the

onshore permafrost environment than in the oceanic environment.
5
Identifying Gas Hydrates
BSR
Strong Acoustic Impedance Contrast, causing seismic wave to reflect upwards
Mapped to the maximum depth of 1100 mts
Only indicator but doesnt quantifies the amount
Measures Physical properties of sediments adjacent to formation

Resistivity of massive CH4 hydrate is of order 150-170 .mtr
Based on Pockmarks & mud diapers which is indicated by

reliefs
Whether Present/ only past hydrate presence is unknowable

from this data
6
Dissociation/ Production
Replacement
Destabilizing
Thermal CO2
Depressurization
Stimulation Replacement
Thermodynamically more stable

Production with Underlying Spontaneous reaction
Free Gas CO2 distribution in the hydrate is easier than
Free water CH4
No fluid
Diffusion processes appeared to be the
dominant driving
Endothermic nature of dissociation, more Heat is needed.
Heat flux Area, no of Huff & Puff Cycles
Production efficiency can be improved by prolonging the hot

water injection time (limited by the stronger pressurization effect)
Most of the heat is lost to non-hydrate bearing strata

7
8
Decomposition
Amount & The rate of
the heat injected
9
Landslide & Subsidence
Global Warming
Mechanical Hazard-Safety Issue

Hydrate presence would inhibit normal compaction & cementing
Water Disposal
Drilling Hazard
10
Case Study
1st Onshore Production test at Mallik field
1o objective to measure and monitor the production response

(Prospect)
Winter 2007
Production Test Winter 2008
Experience with test wells at Mallik and elsewhere suggests that most
problems in drilling and completion of gas hydrate wells can be
foreseen and successfully dealt with at the design stage, including
using:
Chilled drilling fluids
Sand control methods
Ports for injecting chemicals and provisions for near-wellbore Heating
Monitoring devices
11
12
Production Tests ( 1,093 to 1,105 m)
Winter 2007 ( 1 day test ) Winter 2008 (six-day test )
Estimates of formation An ESP pump, down hole
permeability 0.1 to 1 Md sensing instrumentation and an
Natural fractures are ubiquitous electric borehole
to the gas-hydrate-bearing Sand screens were installed
interval across the production interval
A substantial inflow of sand into Three BHP of approximately
the bore did occurred 7.3 MPa, 5 MPa and 4 Mpa
Several flow responses were were achieved.
observed, with the flow rate An average flow - 70 Mcf/day,
during the latter part of the test with peak rates as 160 Mcf/day
exceeding 5,000 m3/day (180 Total water production was less
Mcf/day) . than 625 bbls (3,500 ft3).
Non-uniform formation response
was observed. 13
14
Consumption of Natural Gas is 100BCM/Year
1% = 18.94 TCM = 189 Years 15

16
Depressurization
500 psi
750 psi
1000 psi
17
18
19
20
Methane Production is slow when the P-T conditions were
near the Methane Hydrate stability & at CO2 Pressure values
near saturation levels
CO2 Substitution into Methane Hydrate Crystal

21
22
23
24

Etha Krishna Chowdary P.Kavya B.Tech (Petroleum Engg) JNTU-Kakinada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Etha Krishna Chowdary P.Kavya B.Tech (Petroleum Engg) JNTU-Kakinada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Etha Krishna Chowdary P.Kavya B.Tech (Petroleum Engg) JNTU-Kakinada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenges in Exploration

& Production of Natural gas Hydrates

1 ft3 of NGH = 164 ft3 of Natural Gas

The compact nature of the hydrate

Factors influencing Gas Hydrate Formation

The top of the HSZ is in most instances much shallower in the

Mapped to the maximum depth of 1100 mts

Only indicator but doesnt quantifies the amount

Measures Physical properties of sediments adjacent to formation

Based on Pockmarks & mud diapers which is indicated by

Whether Present/ only past hydrate presence is unknowable

Thermodynamically more stable

Endothermic nature of dissociation, more Heat is needed.

Heat flux Area, no of Huff & Puff Cycles

Production efficiency can be improved by prolonging the hot

Most of the heat is lost to non-hydrate bearing strata

Mechanical Hazard-Safety Issue

1o objective to measure and monitor the production response

1% = 18.94 TCM = 189 Years 15

CO2 Substitution into Methane Hydrate Crystal

You might also like