SPE/DOESociety of
Petroleum Engineers
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
Methane hydrate gas could be a sizable energy
resource if methods can be devised to produce this
gas economically. This paper examines two methods
of producing gas from hydrate deposits by the
injection of hot water or steam, and also examines
the feasibility of hydraulic fracturing and pres-
sure reduction as a hydrate gas production tech-
nique. A hydraulic fracturing technique suitable
for hydrate reservoirs is also described.
INTRODUCTION
Gas hydrates are ice-like inclusion compounds
in which gas molecules are trapped inside voids in
a hydrogen-bonded lattice structure of water mole-
cules. Under suitable conditions of low tempera-
ture and high pressure, hydrocarbon gases will
form hydrates (see Figs. 1 and 2). Natural gas
hydrates have long been recognized as a problem in
gas pipelines and process facilities, but have
only recently been found to occur in nature.
Natural gas hydrates (predominantly methane)
are known to occur in large quantities in Siberia
and in the North American Arctic. The estimated
gas hydrate reserves in the Arctic are vast,
although they are highly speculative at best.
Hydrates have repeatedly been encountered in sedi-
ments overlying conventional oil and gas fields in
the MacKenzie Delta, Arctic Islands, and Beaufort
Sea of Canada, and in Alaska's Kuparuk Field (see
Fig. 3).1 Estimates of hydrate gas in place in
just one hydrate reservoir in the Kuparuk Field
are over 60 Bscf (billion standard cubic feet) per
square mile (66.3 std m3/m 2 ), so hydrates clearly
have significant resource potential. Hydrate
deposits in these areas should be viewed as a
long-term resource that could extend the life and
productivity of these areas as conventional oil
and gas supplies dwindle.
OBJECTIVES IN PRODUCTION MODELING
The overall objective of this study was to
develop a solid body of knowledge upon which future
References and illustrations at end of paper.
373
U.S. Department
of Energy
production engineering studies could be based. The
focus of this study is on "conventional production
technology," in which thermal recovery techniques
used in heavy oil recovery and hydraulic-fracturing
techniques used in "tight gas" recovery have been
adapted to hydrate gas recovery.
Because little is known about naturally
occurring hydrates, relatively straightforward
models that yield good ballpark numbers are
desirable. For this reason, two fairly simple
thermal-stimulation models, one to evaluate hydrate
gas production from a hot-water flood pattern and
one to evaluate hydrate gas production from a
fracture-linked injector/producer pair, have been
developed. A third model has been developed to
evaluate hydrate gas production by pressure reduc-
tion from hydraulically fractured wells.
Once the models were developed, we ran para-
metric studies of major reservoir and operational
variables to rank their importance. A major
objective of the parametric stUdies was to develop
screening criteria to identify promising hydrate
reservoirs. Finally, as significant laboratory
and field data become available, more sophisticated
models will be used to analyze the economic feasi-
bility of gas production from specific hydrate
reservoirs.
MAJOR ISSUES AFFECTING HYDRATE GAS PRODUCTION
There are a number of technical issues that
must be addressed if hydrate gas is to be produced
commercially as an energy resource. One major
issue is the low permeability that often exists in
hydrate reservoirs. Although there may be a few
exceptions to this rule, in general, the solid
hydrate appears to plug the pores so that the
reservoir has very little natural permeability.1-3
Drill stem tests of hydrate reservoirs typically
show extremely low gas production rates, indicating
that fracturing or rubblizing of the reservoir is
imperative to inject fluids or to produce gas at
worthwhile rates. 2
A second major issue is the large amount of
energy required to dissociate hydrate. Roughly
212 Btu/lb (493 J/g) is required to dissociate
 RECOVERY OF GAS FROM HYDRATE DEPOSITS USING CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
methane hydrate to water and free gas. This high
latent heat capacity (about 50 per cent greater
than that required to melt ice) necessitates that
thermal-stimulation techniques use high energy
fluxes into the hydrate reservoir. This, in turn,
involves the use of large equipment and high
injection flow rates. Hydrates will be found only
in hostile environments (Arctic regions or deep
offshore), so operating and maintaining this
equipment will be difficult. Another consequence
of this large dissociation energy is that hydrate
gas production by pressure reduction will result
in substantial temperature drops. Calculations
show that as the hydrate dissociates the reservoir
temperature will probably drop well below 32°F,
and the water released by dissociation will be
frozen. The implications of this freezing,
especially in the plugging of pore spaces and the
hydraulic fracture, are obvious.
Current experience in producing gas from
hydrate deposits is limited to Russian operations
in the Messoyakha Field. 3 This Siberian gas
field is unusual in that it contains methane
hydrate in the upper part of the reservoir and
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
restricting free gas production. The June 16,
1981, issue of The Energy Daily summed up the state
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
objective of the Methane Hydrate Resource Evalua-
tion Program at Los Alamos was to develop and
evaluate various production techniques to determine
whether an lIeconomic method" does indeed exist.
FRONTAL-SWEEP MODEL
Figure 4 is a plan view of the frontal-sweep
production system in which hot water is injected
into a central injection well and the dissociated
hydrate gas flows to the surrounding production
wells. This system is analogous to steam flooding
a heavy oil reservoir, and the production equipment
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
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
reservoir from TbYd, the hydrate dissociation
temperature, to T1nj, the hot fluid injection
temperature. 4 ,5
There are several assumptions that are implied
by the use of the frontal-sweep model, but are not
part of the model itself, including
• 'SuffiCient in situ permeability exists
within the hydrate zone to effectively
flood the pattern (which, in general, does
not appear to be true), and
• The gas produced at the dissociation front
does not recombine into hydrate as it
migrates toward the production wells.
374
SPE 10832
Numerous technical problems also exist,
especially with steam injection, but these are
beyond the scope of this paper. It is important
to recognize the limitations of the frOntal-sweep
model before using these results in evaluating a
given hydrate reservoir. Injectivity limitations
caused by low permeability, out-of-pattern gas
migration, and recombination of free gas and water
into hydrate are among the problems that are not
addressed by the frontal-sweep model. This model
is quite useful in estimating hydrate gas produc-.
tion, however, because it represents the upper
bound of that production.
The major variables in the frontal-sweep model
include reservoir thickness, porosity, and injec-
tion temperature. Other pertinent variables such
as the thermal diffus;vity of the sediments above
and below the hydrate reservoir, the fraction of
hydrate filling the pores, the occupancy ratio of
methane to water in the hydrate, and the dissocia-
tion energy of the hydrate have been held constant
for modeling purposes. 6 The dissociation area
(the area from which all hydrates have been pro-
duced) is given by
A(t) =
IMlha
4k211T [ez2
erfc z +
1T
(1 )
where
2k (~) 1/2 (2)
z = Wh ...
See the Nomenclature section for definitions of
the variables.
This is identical to the Marx-Langenheim
heavy-oil recovery equation except that the
weighted heat capacity, M, has been replaced by
M which also includes the heat of dissociation
I
,
of the hydrate. The term M' is calculated from
(3)
The rate of gas production is given by
(4)
The results of the parametric studies, using
the frontal-sweep model, are shown in Figs. 5 and
6. Figure 5 shows the total gas produced in one
year from one 50 MMBtu/h (5.3 x 109 J/h) injec-
tion pattern (50 MMBtu/h is the thermal output of
a standard oil field steam generator used for heavy
oil recovery). Note that the gas production is
substantial at temperatures below 250°F (121°C).
The gas production is less than the estimated fuel
consumption (dashed line) for steam injection,
where the injection temperatures will likely be in
excess of 400°F (204°C). This same phenomenon is
seen in Fig. 6. The heat losses to surrounding
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
SPE 10832
of the scale, low injection temperatures require
very large volumetric flow rates to carry worth-
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
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
cent, the heat wasted in raising the rock matrix
temperature will render thermal stimulation
ineffective in producing useful quantities of gas.
FRACTURE-FLOW MODEL
Figure 7 is a plan view of the fracture-flow
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
is extremely low because of hydrate blockage of
the pore channels. This fracture-flow case is
much less effective than the frontal-sweep case
because a large percentage of the injected energy
is removed from the reservoir at the production
well and is lost. The heat-transfer efficiency,
the energy expended in the reservoir divided by
the total injected energy, decreases with time as
the flow path between the wells becomes wider.
This results in higher produced water temperatures
and lower gas production rates.
The fracture-flow heat-transfer problem is
extremely complicated because it is dominated by
two-phase porous media flow; boundary layer con-
siderations; gravity segregation of gas, hot water,
and cold water; and phase changes. All of the
above factors vary both vertically and horizontally
along the fracture face and are time dependent, so
this system obviously has no closed-form solutions.
A lower limit to the heat transfer can be estab-
lished, however, by assuming laminar slug flow of
the injection water through the porous media
between the fracture faces. This case then becomes
a variation of the Graetz laminar-flow conduction
problem, and it can be solved in closed form for a
constant flow path width.7 The laminar slug
flow solution has been incorporated into a one-
dimensional finite-element model to establish the
worst-case fracture-flow performance.
The finite-element representation of the
fracture-flow channel is illustrated in Fig. 8,
and a typical element is shown in Fig. 9. The
steady-state temperature distribution within a
flow channel of constant width, W, is given by
CXl 4(T . . -T h d)(-l)n
T(x,y) = T + I lnJ y
hYd n=O An
where An = (2n+l)~. The heat flux through the
isothermal surfaces of the finite element shown in
Fig. 9 can be approximated by
P. L. McGUIRE
co 1
I0
n=O
n
[ : ['n2khLl/PwCwQwWeff] (6)
where Weff, the "effective width,1I is the average
flow path width over the interval 0 < x < L2.
As this heat flux is applied to the lsothermal
dissociation surfaces over a time step of length
T, hydrate is dissociated and the flow path is
widened by an amount ~W(L1,L2). Hydrate gas
production from the element during the time step
is give n by
The major variables in the fracture-flow model
are reservoir thickness, porosity, injection tem-
perature, and fracture length (the distance between
the injector and the producer). Parametric studies
were run to evaluate the influence of each of these
variables. Because the model does not account for
heat losses to sediments above and below the
hydrate zone, the results are fairly insensitive
to injection temperature. Porosity appears only
in the numerator of Eq. (7) and indirectly in the
denominator as part of M' , so the gas production
is roughly proportional to porosity.
Figure 10 shows the gas produced after 1 yr
of injecting 30,000 bpd (4770 m3 /d) of 150°F (66°C)
water (50 MMBtu/h (5.3 x 10 9 J/h)) into a fracture-
linked well pair as a function of fracture length
and reservoir thickness. The gas production is a
function of the surface area of the fracture, but,
in all cases studied, the total gas production in
1 yr was less than the estimated fuel consumption
requir~d to heat iO,OOO bpd (4770 m3 /d) from 32
to 150 F (0 to 66 C). Even in the most favorable
case, a 2640-ft (805-m) -long fracture in a 200-ft
(61-m) -thick reservoir, the produced water temper-
ature was over 130°F (54°C) after a year of injec-
tion, yielding a heat-transfer efficiency of only
16 per cent. Figure 11, which is a temperature
profile of the fracture-flow system, illustrates
the "thermal short circuit" that causes such low
efficiencies and production rates.
As in the case of the frontal-sweep model, it
is important to realize the limitations of the
fracture-flow model before using these results to
evaluate a given hydrate reservoir. The model is
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,
and a real system should be more effective.
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-
tiveness of hot water injection in producing gas.
The higher the permeability is in the hydrate zone,
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
It should be noted that the cumulative gas produc-
tion is
Gcum 2 Ct 1 / 2 (11 )
so the gas recovery is proportional to the square
root of the length of time the well has been
produced.
In all model cases, the reservoir thickness,
h, was 20 ft (6 m); the fracture length, L, was
500 ft (152 m); the methane mass fraction in the
hydrate, £, was 0.129; and the dissociation energy
of hydrate to ice and free gas, H'diss' was
5000 Btu/ft 3 (1.9 x 108 J/m3) of hydrate.
Parametric studies were run to determine the
influence of porosity, permeability (both in the
hydrate region and in the produced region), and
bottomhole producing pressure. The results of
these parametric studies are shown in Figs. 16-18.
Figure 16 shows the total gas produced by a single
well in one year as a function of the ice-region
permeability, K1, and of the hydrate-region
permeability, K2' A very important conclusion
can be drawn from this graph: gas production is
strongly dependent on the ice-region permeability,
but is virtually independent of the hydrate-region
permeability. Many hydrate reservoirs appear to
have excellent permeability (> 1000 md) when there
is no hydrate or ice present, but have very low
permeability « 10 md) when hydrate is present.
The ice region is expected to be much more perme-
able because of the 13 per cent hydrate "shrink-
age, so even those hydrate reservo i rs with
II
extremely low permeability may be producible. The
magnitude of the shrinkage permeability increase
is unknown, and represents a very obvious goal for
future laboratory and field experiments.
Another important conclusion can be made from
this graph: large quantities of gas can be pro-
duced from hydrate reservoirs even with moderate
values of formation thickness, fracture length,
and ice-region permeability. Gas 3roduction on
the order of 1 Bscf (3 x 10 7 std m ) per year
is encouraging and could probably be justified
economically by the turn of the century, especially
as the wells are shallow (from 1000 to 4000 ft
(300 to 1200 m) deep).
Figure 17 confirms the observation made from
Fig. 15, namely that hydrate gas production is an
energy-limited process and, as such, the gas pro-
duction is virtually independent of porosity.
The third major variable used in the para-
metric studies was the bottomhole producing pres-
sure. Because the adiabatic dissociation pressures
for methane hydrate will typically be from 200 to
300 psia (1400 to 2100 kPa), the producing pres-
sures should be as low as practical. Figure 18
shows that gas production is very sensitive to
producing pressure, and that, for best results,
pressure should be about 100 psi (700 kPa). Fluids
should not be allowed to accumulate in the wellbore
and some sort of fluid removal system (probably
377
intennittent gas lift) may be required to maintain
this low bottomhole pressure.
SALT-FRAC STIMULATION TECHNIQUE
The decompression model indicates that hydrate
gas production by pressure reduction can yield
large quantities of gas at relatively high flow
rates if a high-permeability fracture can be main-
tained at temperatures below 32°F (O°C). There
are several problems that could prevent conven-
tional fracturing techniques from succeeding in
this application. A typical hydrate reservoir
consists of unconsolidated or lightly consolidated
sands and gravels that derive their mechanical
strength from hydrate and/or ice bonding of the
sand grains. In such a reservoir, the matrix would
simply collapse around the proppant material, and
a "crack II cou 1d not be ma i nta i ned. Even if the
fracture could be held open, the water released
from the fracturing fluid and dissociation of
hydrate would freeze, plugging the fracture and
greatly reducing the gas production. Thus, the
objective in fracturing a hydrate reservoir is not
to create a propped-open crack in the rock, but
rather to establish a high permeability, ice-free
flow path in the porous medium itself. The salt-
frac is designed to melt the ice or hydrate sur-
rounding the fracture and to insure that the salt
content in that area is sufficient to prevent
refreezing for the life of the well. If this can
be done, the natural nonfrozen permeability of the
typical hydrate reservoir will be high enough to
provide an excellent flow path for the dissociated
gas.
The best fluid for hydraulically fracturing a
hydrate reservoir appears to be a viscosified,
"supersaturated" brine using salt crystals as the
proppant. The fluid would preferably use CaBr2
and/or CaC12 salts, which have extremely low
freezing points (_117°F and _67°F (-83 and _55°C)
eutectic solutions, respectively), and polymer
viscosifiers that are compatible with dense brines
and have a desirable, shear-thinning rheology. In
a salt-frac, this fluid would be mixed on the sur-
face and pumped into the well in one continuous
operation. The heat of the hydration of the salt
will raise the temperature considerably, perhaps
up to 150-200°F (65-93°C), enabling the fluid to
dissolve large quantities of additional salt.
Polymer viscosifiers will then be added, along
with more salt, and the hot, supersaturated salt
slurry will be pumped at high rates into the
hydrate zone to create a long fracture that is
packed with salt. The hot brine will attack the
ice and hydrate on both sides of the fracture to
create a wide, nonfrozen, high-permeability flow
path (see Fig. 19). As the brine cools, excess
salt precipitates from the solution (hence, the
term supersaturated), and together with the salt
proppant, acts to maintain a high salt concentra-
tion in the flow path. This high salt content,
even if diluted considerably by water released
from the hydrate, will prevent the flow path from
refreezing, thus insuring that the fracture stimu-
lation will remain effective for long periods of
time. If large quantities of salt were not used,
the flow path would probably refreeze, negating
the benefits of the fracture.
 RECOVERY OF GAS FROM HYDRATE DEPOSITS USING CONVENTIONAL PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
SUMMARY
Two fairly simple thermal-stimulation models
have been developed to bracket the expected gas
production from a methane hydrate reservoir. The
frontal-sweep model represents the upper bound on
hydrate gas production, and the fracture-flow model
represents the lower bound. Parametric studies
were made with these two models to determine the
importance of a number of variables, including
porosity, bed thickness, injection temperature,
and fracture length.
A one-dimensional porous flow model was
developed to approximate the hydrate gas production
by pressure reduction from a hydraulically frac-
tured well. Parametric studies were made with
this decompression model to determine the impor-
tance of a number of variables, including porosity,
initial formation temperature, bottomhole producing
pressure, and the permeability in both the hydrated
sediment and in the region in which the hydrate
has been dissociated. Because the decompression
model gave encouraging results, a fracture-
stimulation technique suitable for this production
method was developed. The salt-frac described in
this paper should make the production of hydrate
gas feasible even at temperatures well below 32°F
(O°C).
CONCLUSIONS
Hydrate gas production by thermal stimulation
does not appear to be economically feasible in
most cases. The frontal-sweep system could yield
large quantities of net gas if operated properly,
but most hydrate reservoirs have in situ permea-
bilities that are too low to use this system. It
is not possible to inject hot water into these
reservoirs at the high rates required for accept-
able thermal efficiencies, and, if the wells are
fractured to establish sufficient injectivity, the
injected water will probably migrate more or less
directly to a production well and will use only a
small fraction of its thermal energy in dissoci-
ating hydrate. The worst-case example of this
problem is the fracture-flow model in which the
water flows directly to the production well,
resulting in very low thermal efficiencies.
Thermal-stimulation techniques appear to have
potential in two areas:
• Hydrate reservoirs that have sufficiently
high in situ permeability to use the
frontal-sweep production system. These
high-permeability hydrate reservoirs appear
to be very uncommon. 1- 3
• Hydrate reservoirs in which geothermal
aquifers at greater depths could be used
to supply hot brine to the injection wells.
This would be more feasible in an area
where a number of deep wells (depleted oil
or conventional gas wells) were already
drilled.
The reservoir should be at least 15 ft (5 m)
thick and have a porOSity of at least 15 per cent
to be a candidate for thermal stimulation. The
injection water temperature should be between 150
and 250°F (65 and 120°C) to obtain an acceptable
tradeoff between excessive heat losses and
378
SPE 10832
unrealistically large injection flow rates. The
well spacing should be as large as is practical.
Hydrate gas production by pressure reduction
should be a feasible production technique if a
high-permeability fracture can be maintained at
temperatures well below 32°F (O°C). Because the
salt-frac technique should do just that, the
decompression production system appears to be the
best method for hydrate gas production. Signifi-
cant quantities of gas can be produced in a rela-
tively short time, and the method uses rugged,
field-proven equipment suitable for remote Arctic
operations. Gas production is virtually independ-
ent of the reservoir porosity and permeability,
and is primarily a function of fracture length,
reservoir thickness, the permeability of the region
in which the hydrate has been dissociated, and the
producing bottomhole pressure. The fracture should
be as long as is feasible, and the bottomhole
pressure should be roughly 100 psia (700 kPa)
because the dissociation pressures will only be
about 200-300 psia (1400-2100 kPa).
Numerous important questions about hydrate
gas production remain unanswered. The most
important reservoir variable appears to be the
permeability of the ice region formed when the
hydrate dissociates, but there are no data on this
subject. Other important parameters such as the
hydrate saturation and excess gas/water/ice content
are also unknown. These data represent obvious
targets for future laboratory and field research
programs.
NOMENCLATURE
The variables used in the production equations
are defined below and the numbers in parentheses
were used in the models.
A = The area of the reservoir in which
all hydrates have been dissoci-
ated, ft2.
Hydrate formation volume factor,
scf of produced gas per ft 3
hydrate (140 sCf/ft 3 ).
The specific heats of ice, gas,
water, and rock (including connate
water), respectively, Btu/lbm
(0.5, 0, 1.0, 0.2).
The gas production rate and
cumulative gas production,
respectively.
h The height or bed thickness of a
hydrate reservoir, ft.
Hdiss Heat required to dissociate
hy~rate into gas and water at
32 F, Btu/ft (14,000).
Heat required to dissociate
hydrate into gas and ice at 32°F,
Btu/ft 3 (5000).
Rate of heat injection into the,
reservoir, MMBtu/h (50).
SPE 10832 P. L. McGUIRE
k : Thermal conductivity of the reser-
voir and surrounding sediments,
Btu/h-ft-OF (1.5).
= Permeability of the produced
region and the hydrated region,
respectively, md.
= The minimum and maximum distances,
respectively, to the injection well
from a given finite element, ft.
M = The weighted heat capacity of the
reservoir and its fluids, Btu/ft 3 •
M' = Same as M, but includes the he~t
of dissociation of the hydrate,
Btu/ft3.
Pad,Pinit, = Adiabatic dissociation pressure,
Pref ,Pwell initial reservoir pressure, refer-
ence pressure, and bottomhole pro-
ducing pressure, respectively,
psia (-, -, 14.7, ).
q Heat flux into the hydrate-bearing
portion of the reservoir,
Btu/h-ft 2 •
Volumetric rate of water injec-
tion, ft 3 /h.
= Hydrate saturation, gas satura-
tion, and mobile water saturation,
respectively.
t = Time since start of injection, h.
Tad = Adiabatic dissociation tempera-
ture, "R.
= Hydrate dissociation temperature,
of (32).
= Temperature of injection water, of.
= Initial reservoir temperature, of.
Tref = Reference temperature, 32°F/492°R.
t.T = Tinj Thyd, of.
W = The width of the fracture-flow
channe 1, ft.
= The effective width, in terms of
estimating the heat transfer, of
the fracture-flow channel at a
given point, ft.
t.W = The change in the fracture-flow
path width because of
dissociation, ft.
x The distance along the path from
the injection well to the produc-
tion well, ft.
379
y = The "width dimension" of the frac-
ture-flow channel, perpendicular
to the x-axis, ft.
z = Compressibility factor for methane
(0.9) •
= The thermal diffusivity of the
reservoir and surrounding
sediments, ft 2 /h (0.0482).
= The mass fraction of methane in
the hydrate.
The hydrate, ice, gas, water, and
rock matrix density, respectively,
lb/ft 3 (56, 57, 0, 62, 167).
= The effective reservoir porosity
(considers connate water as part
of the rock matrix).
Viscosity of methane gas, cp
(0.013).
T Time step length, h (12).
REF ERE NCES
1. Barraclough, B.L.: "Methane Hydrate as an
Energy Resource: A Review with Recommended
Future Research. 1I Los Alamos National Labora-
tory report LA-8368-MS (1980).
2. 8ily, C., and Dick, J.W.L.: "Naturally
Occurring Gas Hydrates in the MacKenzie Delta,
N.W.T.II Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum
Geology, Vol. 22, No.3, pp. 340-352 (1974).
3. Kolodenznyi, P.A., and Arshinov, S.A.: IIEngi-
neering the Pumping of Antihydrate Inhibitor
into Wells of the Messoyakha Field." Gasov.
De 10 , No. 11 ( 1972 ) •
4. McGuire, P.L.: IIMethane Hydrate Gas Pro-
duction: An Assessment of Conventional
Production Technology as Applied to Hydrate
Gas Recovery.1I Los Alamos National Labora-
tory report LA-9102-MS (1981).
5. Marx, J.W., and Langenheim, R.H.: "Reservoir
Heating by Hot Fluid Injection." SPE Reprint
Series No.7, Thermal Recovery Processes,
pp. 150-153.
6. Makogon, Yu.F.: Hydrates of Natural Gas
(Cieslewicz, W.J. 1977, translation).
7. Arpac i, V. S. : Conduct i on Heat Transfer
(Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1966),
pp. 202-214.
8. Verigin, N.N., and Khabibullin, LL., and
Khalikov, G.A.: IILinear Problem of the
Dissociation of the Hydrates of a Gas in a
Porous Medium." Investiya Akademi i Nauk SSSR
(1980) .
 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