2012 - Kurihara - Analysis of 2007 and 2008 Ga

Contents
Author Index
Analysis of 2007 and 2008 gas hydrate

production tests on the Aurora/JOGMEC/
NRCan Mallik 2L-38 well through numerical
simulation
M.Kurihara1, A.Sato2, K.Funatsu2, H.Ouchi2, K.Yamamoto3, T.Fujii3,
M.Numasawa4, Y.Masuda5, H.Narita6, S.R.Dallimore7, J.F.Wright7, and
D.I. Ashford8
Kurihara, M., Sato, A., Funatsu, K., Ouchi, H., Yamamoto, K., Fujii, T., Numasawa, M., Masuda, Y.,
Narita, H., Dallimore, S.R., Wright, J.F., and Ashford, D.I., 2012. Analysis of 2007 and 2008 gas hydrate
production tests on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 well through numerical simulation; in
Scientific results from the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik 20072008 Gas Hydrate Production Research
Well Program, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada, (ed.) S.R. Dallimore, K. Yamamoto,
J.F. Wright, and G. Bellefleur; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 601, p. 217259.
Abstract: The JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik gas hydrate production tests were conducted using
the depressurization method in April of 2007 and March of 2008. These tests represent the first and so
far only successful sustained production in the world of methane gas to surface from a gas hydrate reservoir by depressurization. A variety of data, such as wellhead/bottom-hole pressure and temperature, gas/
water flow rates, and temperature along the casing measured by distributed temperature sensing, were
acquired during the tests. The flow rates of gas and water from the reservoir sand face during the tests
were estimated by comprehensive analysis of these data. Diverse history-matching simulation was then
conducted to reproduce these estimated flow rates, using the numerical simulator MH21-HYDRES coded
especially for gas hydrate reservoirs. This series of history-matching simulation studies quantitatively
clarified the mechanisms of methane hydrate dissociation and production, as well as what had happened
in the reservoir during the production tests. This paper describes the procedures and results of a series of
these studies, including the analyses of production-test data, numerical modelling and history-matching
simulation, which will provide beneficial insights into the mechanisms of methane hydrate dissociation
and production for future exploration and development planning for gas hydrate resources.
Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan, kurihara.m@waseda.jp

Japan Oil Engineering Company, 1-7-3 Kachidoki, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0054, Japan
3
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation, 1-2-2 Hamada, Mihama-ku, Chiba 261-0025, Japan
4
Japan Petroleum Exploration Company, 1-7-12 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005, Japan
5
University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan
6
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, 2-17-2-1 Tsukisamu-higashi, Toyohira-ku,
Sapporo 062-8517, Japan
7
Natural Resources Canada, Geological Survey of CanadaPacific, 9860 West Saanich Road, Sidney, British Columbia
V8L 4B2, Canada
8
Consultant, 62 Sandstone Ridge Crescent, Okotoks, Alberta T1S 1P9, Canada
1
2
217
Contents
Author Index
Rsum : Des essais de production dhydrates de gaz au moyen de la technique de dpressurisation
raliss au site JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallilk ont eu lieu en avril 2007 et en mars 2008. Il sagit date
des premiers essais de production prolonge au monde ayant russi recueillir par dpressurisation le
mthane gazeux provenant dun rservoir dhydrates de gaz. Toute une gamme de donnes a t recueillie
au cours de ces essais, portant notamment sur la pression dcoulement et la temprature, aussi bien la
tte de puits quen fond de puits, et sur les taux dcoulement et la temprature du gaz et de leau mesurs
par dtection thermique simultane sur la longueur du tubage. On a procd une analyse dtaille de
ces donnes en vue dvaluer les taux dcoulement du gaz et de leau mesurs dans linterface sableux
du rservoir. Pour reproduire ces taux dcoulement estims, on a ensuite eu recours une simulation
base sur une mise en correspondance de valeurs historiques ralise laide dun simulateur numrique
MH21-HYDRES codifi spcifiquement en fonction de rservoirs dhydrates de gaz. Cette srie dtudes
de simulation base sur la mise en correspondance de valeurs historiques a permis dtablir clairement de
faon quantitative les mcanismes luvre lors de la dissociation et de la production de mthane hydrat,
ainsi que tout ce qui sest produit au sein du rservoir au cours des essais de production. Le prsent article
fait tat des procdures et des rsultats lis une srie de ces tudes, y compris les analyses des donnes
provenant des essais de production, la simulation laide dun modle numrique et bas sur la mise en
correspondance de valeurs historiques; les aperus rvlateurs ainsi tablis quant aux mcanismes grant
la dissociation et la production du mthane hydrat devraient servir aux travaux futurs dexploration et de
planification de la mise en valeur des ressources en hydrates de gaz.
218
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
INTRODUCTION
Background
The 20072008 JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik Gas
Hydrate Production Research Well Program was conducted at the Mallik site, located in the Mackenzie Delta,
Northwest Territories, Canada. The main goal of the program was to measure and monitor the production response
of a terrestrial gas hydrate deposit to pressure drawdown (depressurization). The Japan Oil, Gas and Metals
National Corporation (JOGMEC) and Natural Resources
Canada (NRCan) funded the program and led the research
and development studies, with Aurora College/Aurora
Research Institute acting as the operator for the field program. This paper reviews observations (e.g. gas and water
flows, pressure-temperature regimes) made during the 2007
and 2008 production tests, and analyzes the gas and water
production from the reservoir sand face. It then provides
details on a series of history-matching simulation studies,
conducted to reproduce the test results, and discusses probable mechanisms of methane hydrate (MH) dissociation
and production during these tests. Complementary papers
have described the programs operations (Numasawaetal.,
2008; Ashfordetal., 2012a,b), well-log characteristics (Fujiietal., 2008b, 2012b), geophysical monitoring
techniques (Fujiietal., 2008a, 2012a), and production
behaviour (Kuriharaetal., 2010; Uddin et al, 2012).
In 1998, the Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate research well was
drilled through multiple methane hydrate (MH) layers (or
zones) constituting the Mallik reservoir, and a variety of
engineering data was collected, including well-log data and
the first sub-permafrost MH core samples (Dallimoreetal.,
1999).
In March 2002, the team involved in the Mallik 2002 Gas
Hydrate Production Research Well Program conducted a
124-hour, full-scale thermal-stimulation test on the JAPEX/
JNOC/GSC et al. 5L-38 well, which yielded an estimated
468m3 of gas from one of the MH layers (Hancocketal.,
2005a). In addition, six pressure-drawdown tests were conducted using Schlumbergers wireline Modular Formation
Dynamics Tester (MDT; Hancocketal., 2005b). The gas
production observed in these tests was very small due to
the low efficiency of the thermal stimulation and the small
magnitude of pressure drawdown. However, the results of
MDT testing suggested higher initial effective permeability
to water in the presence of MH and therefore more effective fluid movement by depressurization than previously
considered (Dallimore and Collett, 2005; Kuriharaetal.,
2005a,c). This indicated the potential for substantially
higher production rates from the Mallik reservoir using the
depressurization method.
Based on the results of these tests, a decision was made to
examine the producibility of gas from one of the concentrated
MH layers at this site (identified as Mallik zoneA) using the
depressurization method. Since the Mallik site can be accessed

only by ice road, production testing was conducted during
the winter seasons of 2007 and2008. In 2007, the Mallik
2L-38 well was re-entered and deepened prior to a production
test that lasted about 1.5days. In 2008, the production-test
duration was about 6days, making it the worlds first sustained gas production to the surface from a methane hydrate
reservoir by depressurization (Dallimoreetal., 2008).
Mallik methane hydrate reservoir

Well-log data from the Mallik 2L-38 and 5L-38 research
wells, as well as the original Mallik L-38 discovery well,
indicate approximately 110m of MH-bearing strata between
depths of about 900and 1100m, within which five distinct
MH zones (A through E) have been identified (Figure1;
Dallimore and Collett, 2005). Detailed analysis of well-log
and core data revealed that these zones typically consist of
alternating layers of sand- and silt-dominated sediments,
with MH saturations ranging from about 50 to 90%.
ZoneC is the shallowest MH zone within the Mallik reservoir, having a thickness of approximately 40m (at about
890930m). ZoneC occurs entirely within the Mackenzie
Bay Sequence, which consists of mostly unconsolidated,
well-sorted sand beds and pebble interbeds. Methane
hydrate saturation, as derived from nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)density logs, ranges from 40to 85%. The 2002
production test by hot-water circulation targeted the lower
portion of zoneC.
Zone E and zoneD collectively extend from about
940m to about 990m and are in a complexly interbedded sedimentary section comprising a series of 5to 10m
thick MH-bearing sand units separated by 0.5to 1m thick
MH-free silt layers, with MH saturation ranging from 20to
40% and from 40to 80%, respectively. These zones are
thought to have hydraulic pressure communication between
them via the intervening non-hydrate interbeds. ZoneD is
underlain by a 10m thick water-bearing layer. Three MDT
tests were conducted in 2002 on the MH intervals of zoneD
and the underlying free-water interval.
ZoneB appears only in the Mallik L-38 and 2L-38 wells,
at a depth of about 1010m (in the Mallik 2L-38 well, this zone
averages about 20m in thickness), with porosity and MH saturation ranging from 15to 30% and from 40to 80%, respectively.
Both the thickness and the MH saturation of zoneB decrease
towards the L-38 well, and this zone has not been observed in the
5L-38 well. ZoneB is underlain by a 20m thick water-bearing
interval containing sparsely distributed MH.
ZoneA represents the lowermost MH interval at Mallik,
extending from about 1070to 1110m and consisting of two
thick MH occurrences. In the lower massive-sand unit (about
10851110m), MH saturation is very high, ranging from
70to90%. Observations on core recovered in 2002 confirmed
that the MH is concentrated in pore spaces of relatively clean
219
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
sand with low silt content. In contrast, the upper unit (about
10701080m) consists of interbedded silty sand and sandy silt,
within which MH saturations range from 30 to80%. ZoneA
is underlain by an extensive water-bearing sand interval. Three
MDT tests conducted within this zone in 2002 indicated
sufficiently high hydraulic conductivity for the successful
application of a simple depressurization technique for driving
MH production. Judging from the pressure (about 11.7MPa)
and temperature (about 12.1C) estimated from the MDT tests
and the distributed temperature sensing (DTS) system, the contact between the bottommost MH layer and the free-water zone
beneath should be close to the theoretical base of MH stability.
Since the lower unit of this reservoir exhibits high MH saturation, and given that the initial reservoir pressure-temperature
condition is very close to the three-phase (hydrate-methanewater) MH stability threshold, zoneA was selected as a primary
target of the 20072008 production test. The basic physical
properties of zoneA are summarized in Table1.
(Dallimoreetal., 2008; Numasawaetal., 2008). A drilling rig,

a service rig, and support facilities were mobilized by ice road
from Inuvik to the Mallik site in January 2007 and the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 well was spud on February 23.
The open-hole section of this well, which was originally drilled
to 1150m in 1998 (Dallimoreetal., 1999), was reoccupied and
a 311.2mm (12.25in.) new hole section advanced from 1150to
1310m (KB). To establish formation properties prior to testing, the open-hole section (including the MH-bearing intervals
between 890and 1100m) was logged using five separate logging runs (Fujiietal., 2008b). A 244.5mm (9.625in.) production
casing was installed to 1288m to enable production testing in
this well and also reinjection of produced water into an isolated
disposal zone located well below the production interval (Fig.2).
In order to monitor formation response to testing, a suite of externally mounted geophysical sensors designed by JOGMEC was
installed outside the casing, and a cased-hole logging program
was conducted to allow repeat time-series logging.
Once operations were underway in the 2L-38 well, reentry operations on the Mallik 3L-38 well were begun. This
well was deepened from 1188to 1275m in preparation for
the injection and disposal of water produced during a longer
term test planned for the winter of 2008. Open- and casedhole logging programs were carried out to characterize the
geology below the MH-bearing intervals and to establish
candidate horizons for water injection (Fujiietal., 2008b).
Overview of test operations

Winter 2007 production test
The primary objectives of the winter 2007 field activities
were to 1)complete the production and water-injection wells
by re-entry of the JAPEX/JNOC/GSCetal. Mallik 2L-38 and
3L-38 wells, respectively; 2)conduct a short-term production test by depressurization to obtain insights prior to a longer
term test planned for the winter of 2008; and 3)install and test
the production monitoring instrumentation and related systems
5L-38
2L-38
After completion of the physical installations at the Mallik

2L-38 and 3L-38 wells, a 12m interval (1093to 1105m KB)
of the 2L-38 well was perforated and a temporary production
string (consisting of an inverted electric submersible pump
L-38
850
900
Zone C
Zone E
950
Depth (m)
Zone D
1000
Zone B
1050
Zone A
1100
Baseof
ofMH
methane
Base
hydrate zone
stability
stability
zone
1150
0
50
100
150
Distance (m)
220
200
250
Figure 1. Fence diagram showing gas hydrate distributions

inferred from well logs obtained
at the Mallik L-38, 2L-38, and
5L-38 wells (from Dallimore and
Collett, 2005).
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
Table 1. Geological and petrophysical properties of methane hydrate zone A as

observed at the Mallik L-38, 2L-38, and 5L-38 wells.
Zone A
Interval (m below ground
surface)
Thickness (m)
Lithology
Porosity (%)
Initial methane hydrate
saturation (%)
Initial water saturation (%)
Absolute permeability (mD)
Initial effective permeability of
water (mD)
Initial pressure (MPa)
Initial temperature (K)
Mallik L-38
10631101
38
Shaly sandstone
1040
Mallik 2L-38 (new)
Mallik 5L-38
10671102
35
Shaly sandstone
2030
5095
10631101
38
Shaly sandstone
2035
5585
505
1001000
4515
101000
0.0011
0.0011
11.48
284.7
11.50
284.8
6090
4010
1001000
0.00110
11.48
284.7
20", 94 lbs./ft., J55 (103 m)

2.875" EUE, N80 Tbg
5 MPa (~581 m)
Permafrost depth (~640 m)
Perforated joint (649 m)
4 MPa (~682 m)
13.375", 61 lbs./ft., J55 (677 m)
3 MPa (~783 m)
ESP cable with chemical injection #4
CTS cable back-up ESP sensor
ESP cable splice with chemical injection (1089 m)

Anular gauge carrier bottom (1091 m)
A zone (10931105 m)
Chemical injection point ESP cable (1106 m)

Phoenix gauge (1124 m)
Pump intake (1129 m)

Pump shroud (11271136 m)
Check valve (1139 m)

CTS gauge carrier (1141 m)
Safety shear joint (1143 m)
Chemical injection sand detection (1153 m)
EUE : external upset ends

Tbg : tubing
ESP : electric submersible pump
CTS : custody transfer system
Locator with seal assembly (1211 m)

Model S packer (1211 m)
Injection zone (12241230, 12381256, 12701275 m)
2.313" landing SXN nipple (1240 m)
Model B shear plug (1238 m)
FC : float collar
FC (1275 m)
Shoe 9.625", 40 lbs./ft., J55 (1288 m)
Figure 2. Down-hole assemblies for the winter 2007 production test on the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
221
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
and production tubing) was installed (Figure2). An initial production test, designed to evaluate equipment performance and
the short-term production response of the reservoir to depressurization, was subsequently conducted over a period of about
30hours, after which the well was formally suspended pending resumption of field activities in the winter of 2008.
Winter 2008 test

The goal of winter 2008 activities was to undertake
longer term gas hydrate production testing. A service rig and
support facilities were mobilized by ice road from Inuvik
to the Mallik site in January 2008. Re-entry and completion operations on the 2L-38 production well and the 3L-38
injection well were carried out from February15 to March9.
The sand screen was set at the perforation interval, followed
by installation of the down-hole production system, which
consisted of the electric submersible pump, centrifuge-type
gas-liquid separation device, down-hole induction heater,
and other assemblies, as illustrated in Figure3 (Yamamoto
and Saeki, 2009).
An electric induction heater was used to heat the fluid in
the lower section of the well for a period of about 10hours
before the start of production operations, in order to prevent
MH from re-forming in the wellbore (especially in the pressurized fluid discharged from the pump). The production
test was initiated by controlled pumping of fluid out of the
well casing, thereby progressively reducing the bottom-hole
pressure until the desired operating pressure at the perforations was achieved. Production operations were conducted in
three stages between March10 and16, on the same perforated interval (10931105m) that was employed in the 2007
test. During the production test, the gas produced to the surface through the annulus was metered at the wellhead prior to
being transported to a P-Tank (TrainB), and the water produced through the tubing was transported to another P-Tank
(TrainA), as illustrated in Figure4. The gas separated at these
two tanks was flared, whereas the separated water was transported to another tank for temporary storage prior to injection
and disposal in the 3L-38 well, which had been modified for
this purpose. Abandonment and demobilization operations
were completed on April1.
NOMENCLATURE
A
cross-sectional area (L2)
depth (L)
gravity acceleration (L/t2)
accumulated gas volume (L3)
absolute permeability (L2)
k*
=
effective permeability to single flowing

phase in the presence of methane hydrate
(L2)
222
ke
effective permeability (L2)
kr
relative permeability
permeability-reduction exponent
pressure (M/Lt2)
production rate (L3/t)
cumulative production (L3)
radius (L)
phase saturation
time (t)
temperature (T)
volume content
water volume in annulus (L3)
fraction with high-permeability conduits
gas-compressibility factor
pressure gradient (M/L2t2)
phase density (M/L3)
f = porosity
w
void ratio
~ = average
Subscript
an = annulus
B
middle of perforated interval
ch
casing head
e = effective
f = fluid
fv
=
for calculation of fluid (gas and water)
volumes
g
gas phase
methane hydrate phase
hp
high-permeability conduit
(i) = (i)th time level

l
liquid phase
memory gauge
NMR
NMR log
o = original
ph
Phoenix gauge
standard condition
sh = shale
surface =
measured at surface
t = total
w
water phase
wp
pumped water
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
20", 94 lbs./ft., J55 (103 m)

8 MPa (~283 m)
6 MPa (~485 m)
5 MPa (~581 m)
Permafrost depth (~640 m)
4 MPa (~688 m)
2.875" EUE, L80 Tbg

13.375", 61 lbs./ft., J55 (677 m)
ESP cable with chemical injection #4
CTS cable (back-up ESP sensor)
Downhole heater #4 cable (NO CHEMICAL INJECTION)
Bleeder valve (683 m)
Bleeder valve (739 m)
Bleeder valve with STOP (795 m)
CTS gauge carrier (~798 m)
3 MPa (~789 m)
Chemical injection splice (injection point at 811 m)
Pump intake (811 m)

Phoenix gauge (~822 m)
Downhole heater (825837 m)
EUE : external upset ends

Tbg : tubing
Anular gauge carrier bottom (1083 m)

LB permanent packer (top at 1083 m)
ESP : electric submersible pump
Mesh-Rite sand control screens
CTS : custody transfer system
A zone (10931105 m)
FC : float collar
LB permanent packer (top at 1110 m)

Cement plug (1194 m)
Bridge plug (1202 m)
Injection zone (12241230, 12381256, 12701274 m)
2.313" landing SXN nipple (1240 m)
Model B shear plug (1238 m) (sheared)
FC (1275 m)
Shoe 9.625", 40 lbs./ft., J55 (1288 m)
Figure 3. Down-hole assemblies for the winter 2008 production test, Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
223
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
the total porosity (estimated from the density log) based on

the shale content. The MH saturation was estimated using
Equation1, which combines the total porosity estimated
from the density log with that from the NMR log by applying the densitymagnetic resonance (DMR) method:
PROPERTIES OF ZONE A RESERVOIR

The petrophysical properties of zone A in the vicinity
of the Mallik 2L-38 well (e.g. shale content, porosity, MH
saturation, and initial effective permeability to water) were
estimated mainly by interpreting the open-hole well-log
data obtained during deepening of the 2L-38 well, together
with core data acquired during the 2002 production test on
the Mallik 5L-38 well (Fujiietal., 2008b; Kuriharaetal.,
2008). Initial reservoir pressure and temperature conditions
were estimated based on the results of the MDT tests and
the DTS measurement conducted as part of the Mallik 2002
production-test program. These estimated pressure and temperature values were then adjusted to reflect the pressure and
temperature measured at the bottom of the hole during the
winter 2007 test.
Sh =
Zone A petrophysical properties are shown in Figure5.

Shale content was estimated from acquired gamma-ray (GR)
log data, based on assumed GR responses for clean sand and
shale. The effective porosity was calculated by correcting
WHUPA
WHUTA
Relief line to
Flare stack N1
Well testing unit (A)
WHDPA
WHDTA
B
TRAIN A
Surface
X-mas tree Safety valve
(1)
The initial effective permeability to water in the presence

of MH was estimated using the Schlumberger-Doll Research
(SDR) method. The absolute permeability (in the absence of
MH) was inferred based on the core data analyzed in association with the 2002 production test. Because of the excessive
scatter apparent in the simple porosityabsolute permeability
relationship derived from the core data, absolute permeability
was estimated by multiple-regression analysis as a function of
porosity, shale content, and initial MH saturation, using
Equation2. The resulting absolute-permeability values shown
in Figure6 represent a significant reduction in estimation
error using the multivariate analysis relative to the simple porosityabsolute permeability relationship previously used.
Petrophysical properties
CINJP
f t f t NMR
ft
DPU
CR
NRV
1
Dual-pot
sand trap
Choke
manifold
C
PCV
Relief line to
Flare stack N1
P-TANK
DPU
CR
LCV
SP
D
Surface
Safety valve
(B)
WTA
WQA
GASPA
GASTA
GASDPA
GASQA
GASPC
GASTC
GASDPC
GASQC
Well testing unit (B)

TRAIN B
Chemical
pump
DPU
CR
Low gas
measurement skid
Relief line to
Flare stack N2
DPU
CR
NRV
1
Phase tester
Choke Tester
PCV
SP
PCV
P-TANK
Relief line to
Flare stack N2
C
B
A
PIN
POUT
DPV
TL
CSGUP
CSGUT
PIN: Phase tester pressure in

POUT: Phase tester pressure out
DVP: Venturi differential pressure
TL: Line temperature
Gas line
CSGUP: Casing upstream pressure
Pressure relief line
CSGUT: Casing gas differential pressure
GASP: Separator pressure on train A/B/C
Well effluents
GAST: Separator temperature on train A/B/C
Fluid
Water
GASDP:Separation gas differential pressure
on train A/B/C
Gas
Relief line
QASQ: Gas flow rate on train A/B/C
Hydraulic signal
WT: Seperator water temperature on train A/B
pressure signal
WQ: Water rate on train A/B
LEGEND
D
Liquid line
CSGDP
CSGDT
DPU
CR
LCV
SP
D
Emergency
down stations
WTB
WQB
To 400bbl tank
GASPB
GASTB
GASDPB
QASQB
WHUP:Well-head upstream pressure on train A/B

WHUT: Well-head upstream temperature on train A/B
WHDP: Well-head downstream pressure on train A/B
WHDT: Well-head downstream temperature on train A/B
CINJP: Chemical-injection-pump pressure
PCV: Pilot circuit valve
LCV: Liquid control valve
NRV: Non-return (check) valve
SP: Sampling point
DPU-CR: Differential pressure unit
th
Updated 10 January 2008
Figure 4. Surface facilities for the winter 2008 production test on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik
2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
224
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
Zone A
We ll: new 2L-38
Effective porosity ( e)
Volume of shale (Vsh)
Average effective porosity
1.0
MH saturation
Average Vsh
Average MH saturation
0.9
0.8
0.7
MH saturation
0.6
Shale contente
0.5
Porosity
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
11 48
11 50
11 44
11 46
11 40
11 42
11 36
11 38
11 32
11 34
11 28
11 30
11 24
11 26
11 20
11 22
1116
1118
1112
1114
11 08
Zone A
Depth (m)
We ll: new 2L-38
1110
11 04
11 06
11 00
11 02
1 0 96
1 0 98
1 0 92
1 0 94
1 0 88
1 0 90
1 0 84
1 0 86
1 0 80
1 0 82
1 0 76
1 0 78
1 0 72
1 0 74
1 0 68
1 0 70
1 0 64
1 0 66
1 0 60
1 0 62
0.0
Zone A
Absolute permeability (based on core data)

Average absolute k h(based on core data)
Average absolute k v (based on core data)
10000
Absolute permeability (based on ECS log)

Average absolute k h (based on ECS log)
Average absolute k v (based on ECS log)
Initial permeability (based on SDR method)

Average effective kh (based on SDR method)
Average effective k v (based on SDR method)
1000
100
10
Absolute permeability
Initial permeability
0.1
0.01
ECS: Elemental Capture Spectroscopy Sonde

1148
1150
1144
1146
1140
1142
1136
1138
1132
1134
1128
1130
1124
1126
1120
MH: 42 layers
Depth (m)
1122
1116
1118
1112
1114
1108
1110
1104
1106
1100
1102
1096
1098
1092
1094
1088
1090
1084
1086
1080
1082
1076
1078
1072
1074
1068
1070
Water: 13 layers
Figure 5. Petrophysical properties of zone A, Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production
research well. Abbreviations: ECS, Elemental Capture Spectroscopy Sonde; SDR, Schlumberger-Doll
Research.
a)
b)
10000.0
10000.0
Av. square
error = 0.32
Measured core permeability (mD)
1000.0
Av. square
error = 0.28
1000.0
Measured core permeability (mD)
1064
1066
1060
1062
0.001
100.0
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
100.0
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0 10000.0
Estimated absolute permeability (mD)
0.0
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0 10000.0
Estimated absolute permeability (mD)
Figure 6. Relation between estimated permeability and measured permeability for

a) a methane hydrate interval, and b) a nonmethane hydrate interval.
225
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
Initial pressure and temperature
7.220fe 2.436 Vsh + 1.123Sh
0.0106, for MH interval

log ( k ) =
6.855fe 3.331Vsh + 0.6613,
for non - MH interval
(2)
Based on Mallik 2L-38 well logs, zone A is composed of

three major MH intervals, as depicted in Figure5. The upper
interval is located at 1078to 1082m, where the effective porosity, shale content, MH saturation, absolute permeability, and
initial effective permeability to water range from 10to 30%,
from 20to 50%, from 30to 80%, from 10to 1000mD, and
from 0.01to 1mD, respectively. The middle interval, extending
from 1082to 1093m, is a silty/shaly interbed with relatively
low porosity, MH saturation, and absolute permeability. The
greatest accumulation of MH is in the lower interval of zone A,
extending from 1093to 1113m, with MH saturations of 70to
90%. In this interval, the effective porosity, shale content, absolute permeability, and initial effective permeability to water
range from 30to 35%, from 10to 20%, from 100to 1000mD,
and from 0.01to 1mD, respectively. Zone A is underlain by a
water-filled section (containing no gas hydrate) with an estimated effective porosity of about 30%, shale content of about
25%, and absolute permeability greater than 100mD.
The 12m interval between 1093and 1105m was selected
for perforation, based on numerical simulations that suggested this interval was optimal for production of gas hydrate
by depressurization. In addition, geophysical analysis by
Fujiietal. (2008b) indicated that this interval was sufficiently isolated from the free-water zone below to prevent a
break-through during the production test.
The initial reservoir pressure was estimated using the

results of the MDT tests conducted at the Mallik 5L-38 well
in 2002 (Hancocketal., 2005b) and was calibrated with the
memory-gauge data acquired during the winter 2007 test. The
initial reservoir temperature was estimated from the DTS data
measured at the Mallik 4L-38 well approximately 18months
after completion of the 2002 production test (Henningesetal.,
2005; Wrightetal., 2005), and was adjusted according to the
DTS data measured during the winter 2007 test. The initial
pressure and temperature traverses for zone A are expressed
by Equations3 and4. The results, shown in Figure7, indicate
that the initial pressure (11.7MPa) and temperature (285.3K)
at the MH-water contact level (1102m sub-sea [SS] or 1113m
KB) are almost equivalent to the equilibrium conditions for
MH, methane and water of 50000ppm salinity.
p (MPa ) = 0.0105D (m KB)
(3)
0.0379D (m KB) + 243.36, for D 1085

T (K ) =
0.0267D (m KB) + 255.56, for D > 1085
(4)
OBSERVED PRODUCTION
TEST RESULTS
Winter 2007 test
After recompletion of the Mallik 2L-38 well (12m perforation interval from 1093 to 1105m KB), the pumping test
began at about 16:00 (local time) on April2, 2007. This test,
1060
Temperature
1070
1080
Depth (m)
1090
Zone A
Figure 7. Initial reservoir pressure and
temperature traverses,
and three-phase equilibrium pressure in
the Aurora/JOGMEC/
NRcan Mallik 2L-38
gas hydrate production research well.
Test interval
1100
1110
1120
Three-phase
equilibrium pressure
1130
1140
Pressure
1150
1160
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
Pressure (MPa), Temperature (C)
226
12
12.5
13
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
however, lasted only about 30 hours due to problems arising

from the irregular (on-off) pumping operations, likely due
to the excessive sand production. The produced gas was not
delivered directly to the surface via the tubing but accumulated at the top of the casing, and the produced water was
injected into a deep aquifer located well below the MH reservoir. Hence, neither gas- nor water-production rate could
be directly measured at the surface.
Data acquired
During the production (pumping) operation, bottomhole pressure and temperature were measured (with surface
readout) at the Phoenix gauge adjacent to the pump intake
at 1124m, and at four memory gauges at about 1091m, as
shown in Figure2. The pressure at the outlet of the pump
(discharge pressure) was also monitored. In addition, a
thermometer on the pump measured the temperature of the
motor windings. At the surface, the casing-head pressure
(i.e. pressure of the annulus between casing and tubing) was
measured commencing at 04:05 on April3. Although the
temperature along the casing was measured by the DTS system, it was available only for the interval from the surface to
about 1050m (i.e. above the top of zoneA). Figure8 shows
the bottom-hole pressure and temperature measured at the
Phoenix gauge and at one of the memory gauges, along with
the casing-head pressure and pump-motor temperature.
The rate of water discharge through the pump was calculated based on the number of revolutions and the pressure
differential between the inlet and outlet of the pump. The
results are shown in Figure9 with a label of first estimate.
General observations
As shown in Figures8 and9, pumping proceeded
smoothly for the first hour after the start of testing operations, as indicated by the steady decrease in bottom-hole
pressure. After the first hour, however, the discharge pressure
decreased and the motor temperature increased abruptly,
resulting in a levelling-off in the reduction of bottom-hole
pressure (plug-off period). When the bottom-hole pressure
measured at the memory gauges (which was very close
to the pressure at the perforation interval) reached about
9.5MPa after about 4.5hours of pumping, the pump was
shut down due to the extremely low pumping efficiency. The
simple calculation shown in Figure9 (with a label of first
estimate) suggests that the pumping rate during the plug-off
period was very low except for some very short periods.
After a shut-down of about an hour, the pump was
restarted and the bottom-hole pressure decreased smoothly
for about 5hours, down to about 7.5MPa. Another plugoff was encountered at this point, which led to the second
shut-down of the pump for a period of about 1.5hours.
During this shut-down period, the casing-head pressure was
measured at about 1MPa, which indicated an accumulation

of gas at the top of the annulus and hence the dissociation
and production of MH.
The third pumping operation was attempted for about
10hours, during which the bottom-hole pressure was lowered
to about 7.2MPa and a steady increase in the casing-head
pressure (to about 2.5MPa) was observed. Although the produced gas was not directly delivered to the surface via the
tubing, it was allowed to accumulate at the top of the casing.
The steady increase in casing-head pressure clearly indicated continuous dissociation and production of MH during
this period. Unfortunately, the pump was again plugged off
after about 10 hours and had to be shut down.
Although three more pumping operations were attempted,
plug-off problems were encountered almost immediately
in each case, without successful reduction of bottom-hole
pressure. The sand that had flowed into the wellbore and
accumulated above the packer (1211m) was sensed by the
sand detector located at 1153m. Since the cross-sectional
area of the annulus was about 0.035m2, the bulk volume of
this accumulated sand was calculated to be about 2m3. In
addition to the sand accumulated in the wellbore, we consider that some produced sand was also pumped as a slurry
into the disposal zone beneath the production interval with
the produced water. Hence, we have concluded that the
more than 2m3 of sand produced from the reservoir (along
with the gas and water) effectively plugged the pump, thus
severely reducing its pumping efficiency.
Winter 2008 test

After recompletion of the Mallik 2L-38 well (including
installation of the sand screen at the perforation interval as
illustrated in Figure3) and heating of the fluid in the bottom
of the well for about 10hours, the pumping test commenced
at about 12:00 (local time) on March10, 2008. With sand
screens in place to prevent sand from flowing from the reservoir into the wellbore and pump assembly, a successful
three-step reduction of the bottom-hole pressure to about
4.5MPa was achieved, yielding sustained and continuous
gas production over a period of about 6 days. In this test,
both gas and water were delivered to the surface, which
enabled a more accurate estimate of the gas and water flow
rates from the reservoir, as well as the liquid level in the
casing as determined from the monitored parameters.
Data acquired
During the production operation, the gas-production rate
was measured by flow meters at the P-Tanks, following the
down-hole separation of water and gas into TrainsA andB,
respectively (Fig.4). In addition, the volume of produced
water accumulated in the tank prior to injection into the
Mallik 3L-38 disposal well was periodically measured. Since
227
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
Figure 8. Continuous pressure

and temperature measurements
recorded during the winter 2007
production test on the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38
gas hydrate production research
well.
Start
Pump
Plug
off
Start
Pump
Shut
down
Plug
off
Shut
down
Start
Pump
Plug
off
Shut
down
500
#1
#2
#3
400
Plug-off
period
Pump rate (m3/d)
300
Plug-off
period
Plug-off
period
200
Figure 9. Estimated and calculated water-pumping rates during

the winter 2007 production test
on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan
Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
100
0
-100
-200
Reverse flow from injection zone

toward wellhead
-300
-400
0
10
15
20
25
Time (h)
Pump rate (first estimate)
228
Pump rate (history matched)
30
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
the water-production rate was too small for accurate measurement by the flow meter, it was calculated based on changes in
the volume of the water stored in this tank. The gas-production rate, measured by the flow meters, and water-production
rate, calculated from the water volume in the tank, are shown
in Figure10.
parameters are shown in Figure11. Although the temperature along the casing was measured by the DTS system,
it was available only for the interval from surface to about
1050m.
The bottom-hole pressure and temperature were measured

at the Phoenix gauge (822m, adjacent to the pump intake),
the custody transfer system (CTS) gauge (798m), and the
four memory gauges (~1083m), as illustrated in Figure3.
At the surface, the casing-head pressure (i.e. pressure in the
annulus between casing and tubing) was measured. These
Stage1 pumping (depressurization) operations began

at about 18:30 local time on March10, 2008. Bottom-hole
pressure (as indicated by the memory gauge) was reduced
in three stages, as shown in Figure11. In the first stage, the
bottom-hole pressure (as recorded at the memory gauges
and which is expected to be close to the reservoir pressure)
General observations
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 2
90
2nd rapid
depressurization
st
1 rapid
depressurization
80
3 rapid
depressurization
Figure 10. Gas- and waterproduction rates measured at

surface during the winter 2008
well.
Pump rate (m3/d)
70
8000
7000
Pumping rate
Surface gas rate
60
6000
50
5000
40
4000
30
3000
20
2000
10
1000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Surface gas-production rate (m3/d)
9000
rd
0
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (h)
Stage 3
Stage 2
1st rapid
depressurization
60
2nd rapid
depressurization
Figure 11. Continuous pressure

and temperature measurements
recorded during the winter 2008
well.
Pressure (MPa)
10
3rd rapid
depressurization
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
Temperature (C)
Stage 1
12
0
150
Time (h)
Time
(hr)
Casing-head pressure
CTS-intake pressure
Phoenix-intake temperature
Memory-gauge temperature
Phoenix-intake pressure
Memory-gauge pressure
CTS-intake temperature
229
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
was reduced from its initial value of about 11MPa to about

7.4MPa over a period of about 12hours (shown as rapid
depressurization in Fig.11). The bottom-hole pressure was
kept almost constant for 39hours (except for an unintentional abrupt drop observed after about 35hours from the
beginning of the test). In stage2, the bottom-hole pressure
was lowered to about 5.2MPa over a period of 6hours and
maintained at this level for about 59hours. In the last stage
(stage3), the bottom-hole pressure was reduced to about
4.5MPa over a period of 4hours and maintained at this level
for 24hours.
Prior to the start of pumping operations, the temperature
measured at the Phoenix gauge (which was installed slightly
above the induction heater, as shown in Fig.3) showed an
increasing trend, due to the sensors proximity to the heating zone. After pumping commenced, the temperature at
the Phoenix gauge began to decrease due to the lowering
of the liquid level in the annulus (downward movement
of cooler fluid from above) in the early part of each stage.
Subsequently, during the period of relatively stable bottomhole pressure in each stage, the temperature again increased
due to upward fluid movement associated with the gas and
water production from the reservoir. The temperature measured at the CTS gauge, which was installed at the upper part
of the Phoenix gauge (Fig.3), showed a trend similar to
that of the Phoenix gauge, except that it fluctuated significantly in the last part of stage3. The temperature measured
at the memory gauge adjacent to the perforation interval
showed a gradual decreasing trend throughout stage1 and
stage2 production, reflecting the reduction of the nearwellbore temperature caused by the endothermic reaction
of MH dissociation. In contrast, the memory gauge temperature measured during stage3 production showed a slowly
increasing trend, likely due to the influence of warmer
well-bore fluids from the vicinity of the heater above.
Gas production was first observed at the surface soon after
the bottom-hole pressure reached about 7.4MPa. The initial
gas-production rate of approximately 4000m3/d decreased
with significant fluctuation down to about 1500m3/d at the
end of stage1. Note that TrainB gas flow was interrupted
for a period of about 2hours during stage1 operations due
to a frozen flare line, during which time gas metering was
suspended and produced gas accumulated in the well annulus. Upon reopening of TrainB, the metered gas flow spiked
briefly at almost 6000m3/d, but returned to close to previous
values (about 2500m3/d) over the next 3hours. Gas rates
continued to decrease slowly over the next 15hours, to about
2000m3/d by the end of stage1. In response to the second
(stage2) pressure drawdown, gas production initially spiked
at about 3000m3/d and subsequently dropped to about
1500m3/d over the next 2.5hours. While stage2 bottomhole pressure was maintained at an almost constant value of
5MPa for a period of about 56hours, gas production during this period increased gradually from about 1500m3/d
to nearly 2000m3/d at the end of the stage. In stage3,
the gas-production initially increased rapidly to a rate of
approximately 4000m3/d, then decreased to approximately
230
2000m3/d over the next 5hours, subsequently repeating

the slowly increasing trend observed previously during
stage2 production and finally increasing gradually toward
2500m3/d at the end of the testing period.
The water-production rate (or pumping rate), which was
periodically measured and calculated based on changes in
the volume of the water in the holding tank, ranged from
30to 40m3/d in the early part of the stage1. Note that the
water-production rate during the first 20hours of stage1 was
simply calculated based on the volume of water (24.31m3)
accumulated in the holding tank. Also, following the repair
of the frozen gas flare line, it was noticed that water flow to
the surface had been lost due to the formation of an ice-plug
in the water line downstream from the TrainA choke manifold. This problem persisted until the end of stage1, with
water circulation finally being recovered after approximately
14hours. At the beginning of stage2, water-production rates
were initially comparatively high (about 4050m3/d), presumably due to the accumulation of fluid in the well as a
consequence of the extended TrainA shutdown. This high
rate of water production persisted for about 5hours before
dropping sharply to very low values (about 1to 2m3/d) for
a period of about 5hours. Note that, during this period of
low water production, a significant spike in the gas rate
was observed. Water rates subsequently increased gradually to about 10m3/d for the remainder stage2, reflecting
an extended period of stable bottom-hole pressures. Stage3
production was similarly characterized by an initial spike in
water rates (lasting about 2hours), reaching approximately
60m3/d before rapidly dropping to low values (<5 m3/d).
As was the case at the beginning of stage2, these low water
rates were accompanied by a conspicuous spike in gas production (up to 4000 m3/d) for a period of about 5hours.
Subsequently, water rates recovered to fairly stable values,
in the range of about 1520m3/d, throughout the remainder
of the testing period.
ESTIMATION OF GAS AND

WATER PRODUCTION
Since neither gas-production rate nor water-production
rate could be directly measured at the surface in the winter
2007 test, no direct indication of the amount of gas and water
that flowed from the reservoir is available. Although both
gas- and water-production rates were directly measured at
the surface in the winter 2008 test, these rates must be different from those at the reservoir sand face because of the
accumulation of gas and water in the wellbore.
The volumes of gas and water produced from the reservoir were estimated using available pressure-temperature
data and by accounting for the changing gas-water mass balance in the wellbore. The detailed calculation methods are
described in AppendicesA andB for the winter 2007 test
and winter 2008 test, respectively.
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
Winter 2007 test
the casing-head valve was closed about 10 hours after the

start of the test and the measurement of the casing-head pressure started about 2hours after that (which was delayed due
to operator error). The volume of gas accumulated at the top
of the annulus about 12hours after the start of the test was
estimated as the cumulative gas production up to that point
in time, as described in AppendixA.
Simple estimation
The gas-production rate and cumulative gas production
were estimated for every 5-minute time interval using the
method described in AppendixA (Fig.12). When the bottomhole pressure was reduced from 11MPa to between 7.2and
7.5MPa, 1000to 2000m3/d of sustainable gas production
was achieved. Furthermore, an instantaneous gas-production
rate of about 8000m3/d was observed when the bottom-hole
pressure was decreased to 6.9MPa. Total gas production
throughout the winter 2007 test period was estimated at
830m3. Note that these calculations were possible only after
The water-production volume was first estimated based

on the theoretical (optimum) pumping rate, which was calculated from the number of revolutions and pressure difference
between the inlet and outlet sides of the pump, assuming
100% pumping efficiency, as described in AppendixA. This
first estimate suggested a cumulative production of about
40m3 of water during the testing period (Fig.13).
Shut
down
Start
Pump
Plug
off
Shut
down
10000
1000
8000
800
6000
600
4000
400
2000
200
0
0
Start
Pump
Water-production rate (m3\d)
500
Figure 13. Estimated water production during the winter 2007

well.
Cumulative gas production (m3)
Gas-production rate (simply calculated)

Gas-production rate (moving average)
Cumulative gas production
Plug
off
Shut
down
#1
10
Start
Pump
Plug
off
15
Time (h)
Shut
down
20
Start
Pump
#2
25
Plug
off
30
Shut
down
50
#3
Water-production rate (first estimate)

Water-production rate (history matched)
Cumulative water production (first estimate)
Cumulative water production (history matched)
400
40
300
30
200
20
100
10
Cumulative water production (m3)
Figure 12. Estimated gas production during the winter 2007

well.
p
Gas-production rate
( (m3/d)
)
#3
0
0
10
15
Time (h)
20
25
30
231
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
Estimation of water-production
volume by matching simulation
In the above calculation, the water-production volume
must be overestimated because the pumping efficiency was
assumed to be 100%, even during the period of suspected
plugging of the pump. Therefore, the water-production
volume and pumping rate were corrected through historymatching simulation to obtain more accurate figures. In order
to estimate the water-production volume accurately, the actual
pumping rate should also be evaluated precisely. Fortunately,
down-hole temperatures were measured at the Phoenix and
memory gauges (Fig.2), providing reasonable indications of
bottom-hole temperature. Thus, we were able to estimate the
actual rate of water production from the reservoir, as well as
the actual pumping rate, by history matching both bottom-hole
pressure and temperature through simultaneous adjustment of
these rates (Kuriharaetal., 2008).
The wellbore was simulated using a radial numerical
model measuring 3by 129 grid blocks. As illustrated in
Figure14, the three columns of grid blocks allocated in the
radial direction represent the tubing, the annulus between
the tubing and the protective pump shroud, and the annulus between the tubing/shroud and the well casing. The
initial temperature profile of the liquid in the wellbore and
that of the surrounding formation were inferred from available DTS data. In addition, we assumed that, after a certain
period following the start of the test, the temperature of the
water produced from the reservoir would be very close to the
three-phase (MH-methane-water) equilibrium temperature
corresponding to the bottom-hole pressure. The heat-transfer coefficient between the fluid inside the wellbore and the
surrounding formation was estimated based on the thermal
conductivity of fluid, casing, cement, and formation. The
temperature of the outer boundary in the radial direction
was considered to be variable, reflecting the heat transfer
with the fluid in the wellbore, which was simulated using
the method proposed by Vinsome and Westerveld (1980).
Furthermore, the temperature of water injected into the disposal zone beneath the production interval was assumed
to become the same as the initial temperature of that zone.
Similarly, the water in the grid block at the location of the
pump was assumed to become the same as the pump (motor)
temperature shown in Figure8.
The results of the first trial, in which the water-production and pumping rates estimated in the previous section
were simply applied as calculation constraints, are shown
in Figure15a. In this case, calculated bottom-hole temperatures agree poorly with observed values, the error being
greater than 4C at some points. After several trial-anderror simulation runs, a successful match between simulated
and observed bottom-hole temperatures and pressures was
attained, with the errors being less than 0.5C and 0.2MPa,
respectively (Figure15b). This yielded the adjusted estimates of water-production and pumping rates labelled as
history matched in Figures13 and9, respectively.
This history-matched model suggests that water production from the reservoir ranged from 0to 80m3/d and
that the total water production throughout the test period
was approximately 20m3, instead of the 40m3 estimated in
r direction
open
Gas
Water
Heat
Gas
Movement
m
Memory
Memory
Gauge
gauge
Phoenix
Phoenix
Gauge
gauge
Pump
Pump
Modeling
Modelling
Gas-water
production
Heat
Water
Movement
m
g
Heat Generation
p
by Pump
Water
injection
z direction
232
Figure 14. Radial numerical model of the wellbore for estimating pumping and water-production
rates during the winter 2007 production test on the
Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate
production research well.
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
a)
12000
300
9000
295
Memory-gauge pressure (observed)
6000
290
3000
Temperature (K)
Pressure (kPa)
Memory-gauge pressure (first trial)

Phoenix-gauge pressure (observed)
Phoenix-gauge pressure (first trial)
Memory-gauge temperature (observed)
Memory-gauge temperature (first trial)
Phoenix-gauge temperature (observed)
Phoenix-gauge temperature (first trial)
285
280
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time (hr)
(h)
Time
b)
12000
300
9000
295
Memory-gauge pressure (observed)
6000
290
3000
Temperature (K)
Pressure (kPa)
Memory-gauge pressure (matched)

Phoenix-gauge pressure (observed)
Phoenix-gauge pressure (matched)
Memory-gauge temperature (observed)
Memory-gauge temperature (matched)
Phoenix-gauge temperature (observed)
Phoenix-gauge temperature (matched)
285
280
0
10
15
20
25
30
Time (h)
Figure 15. Measured and simulated bottom-hole pressures and temperatures relative
to the Phoenix gauge (1124 m) and memory gauges (~1141 m) for the winter 2007
production test on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production
research well: a) before matching, and b) after matching.
233
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
the previous section (Figure13). The results also support

the notion that significant reverse flow (from the waterdisposal zone towards the wellhead) occurred, leading to a
significant increase in bottom-hole temperature during the
periods when the pump was idle; and that pump efficiency
during some pumping periods was considerably lower than
previously estimated (Figure9).
Although these history-matched estimates of water-production and pumping rates should involve a certain error due
to the rough assumption of some of the physical properties,
they are considered to be more reliable than the estimates
derived from the theoretical (optimal) pumping rate.
Winter 2008 test

As described in AppendixB, three estimates of bottom-hole pressure were obtained, based on three different
assumptions regarding the characteristics of the fluid below
the memory gauge. In the most likely case, it was assumed
that the pressure gradient of the fluid located between the
memory-gauge and the middle of the perforated zone was
identical to the gradient between the Phoenix gauge and
the memory gauge. In the aqueous case, the fluid density
between the memory gauge and the middle of the perforated
zone was considered to be the same as the water density. The
gaseous case assumed that the fluid between the memory
gauge and the middle of the perforated zone contained gas
in accordance with the void ratio of gas, which could be calculated based simply on the gas- and water-production rates.
The rate at which gas was produced from the reservoir
sand face was estimated for each 5-minute time interval as
a combination of the gas produced to the surface and that
accumulated in the top of the annulus. The water production
from the reservoir was estimated for the same time intervals
based on the rate at which liquid was produced to the surface
and the change in the liquid level in the annulus.
The liquid level, bottom-hole pressure, and gas- and
water-production rates thus estimated are depicted in
Figures16 to18. The estimated gas- and water-production
rates, which fluctuate significantly, have been somewhat
smoothed by a simple moving average in Figure19. It
was confirmed that gas and water were produced continuously from the reservoir throughout the test period. The
gas-production rate ranged from 1500to 2500m3/d and the
water-production rate was 5to 15m3/d during the period that
the bottom-hole pressure had stabilized in the latter part of
the stage2. The total gas and water production throughout
the test period are estimated at about 13000m3 and 70m3,
respectively.
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
We attempted to reproduce the gas- and water-production
volumes estimated in the previous section through historymatching simulation, in order to quantitatively examine the
reservoir responses (physical and thermodynamic) to the
2007 and 2008 production tests.
Numerical simulator
The simulator used in this study (MH21-HYDRES) was
originally developed by the University of Tokyo and has
since been modified and improved by Japan Oil Engineering
Co. Ltd., the University of Tokyo, the Japan National
Oil Corporation, and the National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology (Masudaetal., 1997,
Figure 16. Estimated well pressures and fluid levels during the
winter 2008 production test on the
Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik
2L-38 gas hydrate production
research well.
234
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
Gas-production rate (m3/d)
Figure 17. Estimated gas production during the winter 2008

well.
st
nd
1 rapid
depressurization
2 rapid
depressurization
Stage 3
3rd rapid
depressurization
14000
6000
12000
5000
10000
4000
8000
3000
6000
2000
4000
1000
2000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Stage 2
Stage 1
7000
Time (h)
Gas-production rate (most likely)
Gas-production rate (gaseous)
Gas-production rate (aqueous)
Cumulative (most likely)
Cumulative (aqueous)
Stage 2
st
1 rapid
depressurization
140
Stage 3
80
nd
2 rapid
depressurization
3rd rapid
depressurization
70
120
60
100
50
80
40
60
30
40
20
20
10
Figure 18. Estimated water production during the winter 2008

well.
Water-production rate (m3/d)
Stage 1
160
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (h)
Water-production rate (most likely)
Water-production rate (gaseous)
Water-production rate (aqueous)

Cumulative (most likely)
235
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
1999, 2008; Kuriharaetal., 2005c). This simulator is able

to deal with three-dimensional, five-phase, six-component
problems and has the following features:
Three-dimensional Cartesian and two-dimensional radial
co-ordinates can be applied with local grid refinement.
Six-components (methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen,
water, methanol, and salt) are available.
Five phases (gas [V, mobile], water [Lw, mobile], ice
[I, immobile], methane hydrate [H, immobile], and salt
[deposit; S, immobile]) are available.
Darcys law and relative-permeability curves are applied
to gas and water flows.
Effective permeability is estimated as a function of MH
and/or ice saturations.
Endothermic dissociation of MH and ice, and exothermic
formation of MH and ice are accounted for.
Kim-Bishnoi equation (Kimetal., 1987) is used for MH
dissociation kinetics.
V-H-Lw or V-H-I equilibrium pressure is estimated as a
function of temperature and pore-water salt concentration.
Various boundary conditions, such as constant-pressure
production, constant-rate production, constant pressuretemperature surface, and variable pressure-temperature
surface, can be applied.
Further details on this simulator are given in Masudaetal.
(1997, 1999, 2008) and Kuriharaetal. (2005c).
Stage 2
Stage 1
Reservoir modelling
To reflect the petrophysical properties and the initial
pressure-temperature traverses estimated in the Properties
of zone A reservoir section, a two-dimensional radial reservoir model was constructed for zoneA that mimicked an
area extending 5km from the Mallik 2L-38 well. A total of
796 grid blocks was allocated in the radial direction, 786 of
which were allocated within 1000 m of the well. In the vertical direction, 42 and 13 grid layers were assigned for the
interval above the MH-water contact and for the free-water
interval, respectively (Fig.5). The initial reservoir properties, such as effective porosity, shale content, MH saturation,
absolute permeability, and effective permeability to water,
were defined for each grid layer, as presented in Table2 and
Figure5.
The grid size in the radial direction (Dr) increased exponentially from a minimum value of 2cm for the innermost
grid block to 7.5m for the block located at 1000m from the
well. In the vertical direction, the grid blocks were more uniformly sized (Dz= 0.61.5m for the MH interval).
History matching
Overview of history-matching simulation
Figure20 illustrates the procedure for the historymatching simulation. First, the winter 2007 test results
were simulated with the reservoir model constructed as
described above, specifying the observed bottom-hole pressure profile as a boundary condition. The simulated gas- and
Stage 3
5000
100
4500
2 rapid
depressurization
rd
3 rapid
depressurization
4000
80
3500
70
3000
60
2500
50
2000
40
1500
30
1000
20
500
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (h)
236
90
nd
st
1 rapid
depressurization
Figure 19. Estimated gas- and

water-production rates (smoothed)
during the winter 2008 production test on the Aurora/JOGMEC/
NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
Table 2. Parameters for the two-dimensional (radial) reservoir model constructed for zone A
of the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
Model properties
Modelling area
Thickness (m)
Grid system
Number of grid blocks
Initial pressure (MPa)
Initial temperature (K)
Values
5000 m around the well
72.4 (39.4 for methane hydrate zone; 33.0 for water zone)
r-z radial co-ordinate
796 (r-direction); 55 (z-direction)
11.311.7 (11.5 at centre of methane hydrate zone)
284.2285.2 (284.8 at centre of methane hydrate zone)
5.033.8 for methane hydrate zone
Porosity (%)
10.329.9 for water zone
0.011615.8 for methane hydrate zone;
Absolute permeability (mD)
0.00663.8 for methane hydrate zone;
Initial effective permeability to water (mD)
083.0 for methane hydrate zone;
Initial methane hydrate saturation (%)
0 for water zone
17100 for methane hydrate zone;
Initial water saturation (%)
100100 for water zone
Figure 20. History-matching

simulation workflow for the
Mallik 2007 and 2008 production
tests conducted on the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas
hydrate production research well.
Abbreviations: BHP, bottom-hole
pressure; CHP, casing-head pressure; DTS, distributed temperature
sensing.
237
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
water-production volumes showed a significant difference

from those estimated based on the observed data. Therefore,
in the second step, the reservoir-model parameters were
adjusted so as to reproduce the observed/estimated gas- and
water-production by numerical simulation. Although the
simple modification of the reservoir-model parameters did
not produce a satisfactory history matching of the winter
2007 test, a successful match was subsequently obtained by
modifying the model parameters based on a new concept:
that the sand production might have dramatically increased
the near-wellbore permeability.
In the third step, the reservoir behaviour during the shutin period extending from the end of the winter 2007 test to
the beginning of the winter 2008 test, as well as the behaviour during the winter 2008 test, was simulated using the
reservoir model tuned through a history-matching simulation
of the winter 2007 test. Unfortunately, subsequent simulation of the winter 2008 test did not agree satisfactorily with
the observed/estimated production-flow data. In the fourth
step, a series of physical reservoir responses that might have
occurred during the tests was taken into consideration, and
the reservoir-model parameters again adjusted until observed
production trends for the entire test period (i.e. during the
winter 2007 test, the shut-in period, and the winter 2008 test)
could be reproduced by numerical simulation.
First trial: History matching of

the winter 2007 production test
History matching by conventional procedures
As shown in Figure21, the initial simulation of gas-production volumes (in which the observed bottom-hole pressure
profile was specified as a boundary condition) was far lower
than the actual volume of gas produced during the test. Several
simulation runs attempted to history match the gas-production

data by increasing the absolute permeability, the initial effective permeability to water, and/or the relative permeability to
gas. Even by increasing these permeabilities, however, the
simulated gas-production rate was still much smaller than the
estimated actual production rate, as shown in Figure22.
Additional history-matching simulation runs were carried
out by modifying other reservoir parameters, such as the salinity of formation water, the kinetic constant for MH dissociation,
and the initial distributions of permeability, MH saturation, and
layer thickness, taking serious heterogeneities into consideration.
None of these trial runs, however, were successful.
History matching with enhanced permeability

Since the conventional history-matching simulation runs
revealed the difficulty in reproducing the observed/estimated
gas production by simply adjusting the reservoir permeability
and/or other parameters, we considered that the high gas-production rate might have been caused by a drastic improvement
in permeability in the vicinity of the wellbore. We speculated
that high-permeability conduits, such as wormholes or other
open pathways, might have been generated in the near-wellbore sediments as a consequence of sand production associated
with the dissociation of MH during the test. To express this
phenomenon in the numerical simulation, the simulator was
modified so that the absolute permeability of any grid block in
which more than 3% (this figure was estimated through trialand-error history matching) of the MH had been dissociated
was increased by a factor of about50 (Figure23).
We then conducted additional history-matching simulation by employing this multiplier for absolute permeability.
Successful history matching of both the gas- and water-production volumes during the 2007 test was achieved, as shown
in Figure24. This history-matching simulation suggests
1000
10000
Gas-production rate (measured)
800
Cumulative gas production (measured)

Cumulative gas production (simulated)
600
6000
Total gas production
(simulated) ~_ 830 m3
400
4000
Total gas production
(simulated) ~_ 40 m3
200
2000
0
0
10
15
Time (h)
238
20
25
Gas-production rate (simulated)
8000
Figure 21. Comparison of gas

production simulated with initial
reservoir model and estimated
gas production for the winter 2007
test on the Aurora/JOGMEC/
NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
that the improvement of near-wellbore permeability may

increase gas production significantly, even though the area
of improvement is very limited (Kuriharaetal., 2008).
(from the end of the winter 2007 test to the beginning of

the winter 2008 test). The results of this simulation indicated that, by the beginning of the winter 2008 test, reservoir
pressures and temperatures were very close to the initial
values recorded prior to the winter 2007 test. The results
also suggested that all of the residual free gas remaining in
the formation following completion of the winter 2007 test
could have been absorbed in the re-formation of MH during
the shut-in period and, if so, near-wellbore MH saturations at
the beginning of the winter 2008 test might have increased to
values slightly higher (by 15%) than the initial saturations
determined prior to the 2007 test.
Overall history-matching simulation

Simulation of winter 2008 production-test results
using history-matched model of winter 2007 test
Using the reservoir model tuned as above through history
matching for the winter 2007 test, the production response
of the reservoir was simulated for the period of well shut-in
1000
Measured
Figure 22. Numerical simulation

of gas-production in conventional
history-matching runs for the
winter 2007 test on the Aurora/
well.
Original run
800
Absolute permeability (ka, x 10)

Initial effective permeability to water (ke, x 10)
600
Estimated
ka (x10)
400
ke (x10)
Original
200
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (h)
Well
Methane hydrate
is (partly)
dissociated.
Permeability gradually
increases with decrease
in MH saturation
b)
N=2
N=2
N = 10
N=10
N = 15
N=15
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Hydrate + ice saturation
e.g., 45
Well
Permeability was
assumed to
increase more
drastically.
k*/k
Figure 23. Concept of permeability

increase due to methane hydrate
dissociation creating high-permeability conduits near the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas
hydrate production research well:
a) conventional model, and b) highpermeability conduit model.
Permeability reduction k*/k
a)
Methane hydrate is (partly) dissociated.

(High permeability conduits, such as
wormholes, may have been generated
along with sand production.)
1
0
0
Sh
239
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
a)
10000
10000
Gas-production rate (estimated)
Gas-prodcution rate (m3/d)
8000
8000
Simulated
Cumulative gas production (estimated)
6000
4000
Cumulative gas production (simulated

and corrected*)
Cumulative gas production (simulated,
before correction)
6000
*so that the simulated cumulative gas

production after 10 hours should be zero,
since the produced gas was released
without measurement before closing the well
head valve at this time
4000
2000
2000
0
0
Estimated
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (h)
b)
240
30
Water-prodcution rate (m3/d)
25
Water-production rate (simulated)

Cumulative water production (estimated)
160
20
Cumulative water production (simulated)
Simulated
120
15
Estimated
80
10
40
10
15
20
25
Time (h)
Figure 24. Results of preliminary history matching after introducing a high-permeability conduit model (winter 2007 test) for the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas
hydrate production research well: a) gas production, and b) water production.
240
Water-production rate (estimated)
200
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
In stage1, the simulated gas-production rate did not increase

significantly with the rapid decrease in bottom-hole pressure and was lower than observed/estimated throughout the
stage. In contrast, the simulated water-production rate was
higher than observed/estimated.
In stage2, the simulated gas-production rate was much
higher than observed/estimated except for the last day,
whereas the simulated water-production rate was two to
three times higher than observed/estimated.
In stage3, the simulated gas-production rate was about
twice as high as that observed/estimated for the first half of
the stage and slightly higher than what was observed/estimated for the latter half. The simulated water-production
rate was two to three times higher than what was observed/
estimated.
Final history-matching simulation
Figure 25. Comparison of estimated gas- and water-production

rates for the winter 2008 test and
those simulated using the preliminary history-matched model of the
Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan
Mallik
2L-38 gas hydrate production
research well.
Gas-prodcution rate (m3/d)
A large number of trial simulations were run in an attempt

to obtain good matching between simulated and observed/
estimated gas- and water-production rates for both the winter
2007 and winter 2008 tests. In the course of these historymatching simulation runs, various reservoir-model parameters
were modified, taking the following into consideration:
Generation of high-permeability conduits (e.g. wormholes) in the vicinity of the well associated with the sand
production during the winter 2007 test
Expansion of these high-permeability conduits during
the winter 2008 test
Existence of free gas near the well at the beginning of the
winter 2008 test
Low vertical permeability
Extremely low relative permeability to water
Significant heterogeneities in permeability and MH saturation in both the lateral and vertical directions
Low initial salinity of formation water
Low kinetic constant for MH dissociation
Decrease in the absolute permeability in high-permeability conduits, reflecting their partial collapse and/or
deformation, and/or possible blockages of these conduits
due to the migration/accumulation of fine sand grains
during the winter 2008 test
Increase in the skin factor, due probably to the plugging
of the sand screen by the migration of fine sand and/or the
collapse of some of perforation holes during the winter
2008 test
A good match between simulated and observed/estimated production-test results was attained by adjusting the
reservoir-model parameters described below.
10000
200
9000
180
8000
160
7000
140
6000
120
5000
100
4000
80
3000
60
2000
40
1000
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Water-prodcution rate (m3/d)
The winter 2008 test was then simulated, using the previously simulated results for the end of the shut-in period as an
initial condition. As shown in Figure25, the simulated winter 2008 test results were quite different from the observed/
estimated flow data, especially in the following respects:
0
100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (h)

241
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
i) Modification of effective permeability

with high-permeability conduits
The concept that each grid block consists of two parts
(i.e. one with the original absolute permeability and the other
representing the high permeability conduits) was introduced
to more realistically account for increases or decreases in the
effective permeability of individual grid blocks. As shown in
Figure26, each grid block was assumed to be composed of
two parts: the fraction occupied by high-permeability conduits and the remaining undisturbed fraction with the original
absolute permeability. It was also assumed that the effective
permeabilities to gas and water averaged over each grid block
could be expressed by the following equations:
ii) Modification of transmissibility
k * = xk hp (1 Sh ) + (1 x ) k o (1 Sh ) ,
(5)
k eg = k * k rg , and
(6)
k ew = k * k rw ,
(7)
production during the winter 2007 test. The value of x was

calculated so that the effective permeability averaged over a
grid block by Equation5 would be the same as that estimated in the history-matching simulation for the winter
2007 test mentioned in the History matching with enhanced
permeability section. In the simulation for the shut-in period
and for the winter 2008 test, the value of x for each grid
block was assumed to be constant at the value estimated for
the end of the winter 2007 test. The reason for this was that
no additional growth of high-permeability conduits was
expected after the winter 2007 test because of the sand
control by the screen.
where x denotes the fraction of the each grid block with

high-permeability conduits and khp stands for the absolute
permeability of a high-permeability conduit. The value of khp
was considered to be 15D, assuming that a high-permeability conduit was equivalent to a pipe with a diameter of
0.01mm. Hence, the exponent for calculating the effective
permeability of the high-permeability conduits was considered to be 2. Since none of the grid blocks had a fraction
of high-permeability conduits before the winter 2007 test,
the value of x should be zero throughout the reservoir model
in the initial stage. The value of x for each grid block represents the intensity and the extent of development of
high-permeability conduits associated with the sand
In order to address the discrepancies between the

observed/estimated gas-production rates versus those predicted in the initial simulations, the transmissibility of the
grid blocks located in the vicinity of the well was decreased
coincidentally with the reduction in bottom-hole pressure
(Figure27). This decrease in the near-wellbore transmissibility was imposed to quantitatively reflect the effects of
collapse/deformation of high-permeability conduits and/or
accumulation of fine sand grains in the vicinity of the well.
iii) Modification of vertical permeability

To suppress the simulated water production caused by
the intrusion of movable water from layers overlying and
underlying the perforation interval, the absolute permeability in the vertical direction was reduced by a factor of 5 as
a result of a sensitivity simulation. This may be reasonable,
given the presence of interbedded silty sand and/or sandy silt
layers in the overlying sediments.
Figure 26. New concept expressing overall grid-block permeability as a function of MH

saturation with growth of high-permeability conduits in the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan
Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
242
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
12
Perforation
interval
20 m
High-permeability conduits
Compaction area
Transmissibility multiplier
1.4
3m
Bottom-hole
pressure
1.2
10
8
1
0.8
0.6
4
0.4
2
Transmissibility
multiplier
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Bottom-hole pressure (MPa)
1.6
0
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (h)
Figure 27. Schematic diagram showing imposed reduction of near-wellbore grid-block

permeability, reflecting collapse/compaction of high-permeability conduits during the
winter 2008 test on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production
research well.
iv) Modification of relative permeability

After the major modifications to the reservoir-model
parameters for the large-scale history matching, the relativepermeability curves were slightly modified independently
for the grid blocks with high-permeability conduits and for
those without high-permeability conduits, as illustrated in
Figure28. Note that the relative permeability value applied
to a grid block containing high-permeability conduits does
not reflect the permeability of a high-permeability conduit
per se, but rather represents the average relative permeability of the block (considering both the high-permeability
conduits and the original permeability). The alteration of
relative permeability curves was kept to a minimum, applied
only as necessary for fine-tuning of simulated gas and water
production.
Simulated gas- and water-production rates for the winter
2007 test and the winter 2008 test, based on the final historymatched model, are shown in comparison to the observed/
estimated flows presented in Figures29 and30, respectively. In addition, Figures31 to33 show the distributions
of reservoir properties (such as pressure, temperature, MH
saturation, and gas saturation) that were simulated using the
last-day results of the final history-matched model for the
winter 2007 test period, the shut-in period, and the winter
2008 test.
DISCUSSION
Winter 2007 test
Source of produced gas
Approximately 830m3/d of gas and 20m3/d of water
were produced during the winter 2007 test. Possible sources
of this gas are the methane hydrate (MH) reservoir, a free-gas
layer located in the vicinity of the tested zone, and gas dissolved in the produced water. Careful interpretation of the
well-log data did not indicate the presence of a free-gas layer
(Fujiietal., 2008b). Although dissolved gas may have been
present in the produced water, the amount should have been
very small, judging from the methane solubility (about 3m3/
m3 for pure water at 10MPa and 10C) and the total amount
of water produced (about 20m3). Therefore, most of the produced gas should have come from the dissociation of MH.
Although some undissociated gas hydrate may have been
carried into the wellbore along with the sand, we infer, based
on the estimated volume of sand (and hence MH particles)
produced, that the bulk of the gas generated was from MH
dissociated in the reservoir by depressurization. This is also
suggested by the locus of the bottom-hole pressure and temperature measured at the memory gauge, which is assumed
to be almost identical to the reservoir pressure and temperature during the period of stable production. As depicted in
Figure34, the pressure-temperature values moved along the
three-phase equilibrium curves during the stable production
period, which is consistent with the dissociation of MH in
the reservoir by depressurization.
Causes of pump trouble

During the 2007 test, pump efficiency was quite low
during some pumping periods. Since the gas volume in the
wellbore must have been very small before the first plug-off
of the pump, it is unlikely that the plug-off was caused by
gas bubbles (gas locking). Rather, evidence suggests that the
pump was plugged by sand grains produced from the reservoir. In addition, MH particles carried into the wellbore with
the sand may have contributed to the plugging. Pumping
efficiency was recovered following the shut-in of the pump,
perhaps partly because any MH particles accumulated in the
243
Contents
Author Index
1
0.9
0.8
krw (initial
guess)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
krg (initial
guess)
0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Sw (fraction)
0.8
0.7
krw (modified)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
krg (modified)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Sw (fraction)
krw
(initial)
Swc
0.272
Coreys N
5.0
krg
(initial)
Sgc
0.032
3.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
krw (modified)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
2
0.2
krg (no
1modification)
0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Sw (fraction)
Modified for highpermeability conduits
Initial guess
Coreys N
krw (modified: after

compaction)
Relative permeability
1
0.9
GSC Bulletin 601
Modified for outside of

high-permeability conduits
krw
(high
permeability)
Swc
0.272
Coreys N
3.0
krw2
(high
permeability)
Swc
0.300
Coreys N
3.0
krg
(high
permeablity)
Sgc
0.032
Coreys N
2.8
krw
(outside)
Swc
0.350
Coreys N
5.5
krg
(outside)
Sgc
0.032
Coreys N
3.0
Figure 28. Modification of relative-permeability curves for the winter 2008 test on
the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
Abbreviations: krw, water relative permeability; krg, gas relative permeability; Sw, water
saturation; Swc, critical water saturation; Sgc, critical gas saturation. Coreys N is a
water-saturation normalization factor for multiphase flow systems.
pump (along with the entrained sand) were dissociated during

the shut-in, thus leading to the (temporary) re-establishment
of effective fluid-flow pathways.
Effect of sand production

The unexpectedly high gas production observed in
response to a set bottom-hole flowing pressure of 7MPa
could not be reproduced numerically by simply increasing absolute/effective permeability in the history-matching
simulation. The successful history matching for this higherthan-predicted gas production was accomplished by
increasing the number and extent of grid blocks to which
an enhanced permeability was assigned, in an effort to
represent the influence of high-permeability conduits (e.g.
wormholes) that may have formed in the vicinity of the well
as a result of sand production.
Figure35 shows the distribution of the fraction of each
grid block occupied by high-permeability conduits (x
in Equation5). The figure indicates that 1to 10% of the
region was occupied by high-permeability conduits in the
vicinity of the well (if an absolute permeability of 15D for
high-permeability conduits is assumed) and that the area of
high-permeability conduits extended to about 10m from the
well. The volume of sand expelled from the reservoir to create these high-permeability conduits (i.e. the volume of sand
flowing into the wellbore during the winter 2007 test) was
244
then calculated at about 5m3. This volume may be consistent

with the fact that 2m3 of sand accumulated in the wellbore
in addition to the sand that was injected as a slurry into the
disposal zone beneath the production interval.
The above findings suggest that the dissociation and
production of MH with intentional sand production may be
effective. In fact, a similar method called Cold Heavy Oil
Production with Sand (CHOPS) is widely applied to recover
heavy oil from unconsolidated sand reservoirs with extremely
low initial fluid mobility, similar to MH reservoirs. Although
this method is worthy of further investigation, careful studies
are necessary because the characteristics of heavy oil, especially its viscosity for lifting sand grains through tubing, are
different from those of methane and water.
Efficiency of depressurization
The net heating value of the produced gas was calculated based on the estimated gas-production rate. The energy
required to run the pump was calculated for every 5-minute
time interval, based on the electric power consumed and
assuming a pump efficiency of 40%. This calculation
revealed that the total energy produced was about 16 times
greater than that consumed by the pump. Even though energy
other than that consumed by the pump was expended during
the test, the produced energy is still considered to exceed
the consumed energy. This suggests that the depressurization
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
a)
10000
1000
Estimated
8000
800
Simulated
Cumulative gas production (estimated)
(calibrated)
Cumulative gas production (simulated

and corrected*)
Cumulative gas production (simulated,
before correction)
6000
600
*so that the simulated cumulative

gas production after 10 hours should be
without measurement before closing the
well head valve at this time
4000
400
2000
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
Time (h)
b)
240
30
Water- production
production raterate
(estimated)
Water
(estimated)
Waterproduction
rate
(simulated)
Water production rate (simulated)
Cumulative water
production
(estimated)
Cumulative
water
production
(estimated)
Cumulative water
production
(simulated)
Cumulative
water
production
(simulated)
25
160
20
Simulated
120
15
Estimated
80
10
40
0
0
10
15
20
200
25
Time (h)
Figure 29. Results of final history matching for the winter 2007 test on the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well: a) gas production,
and b) water production.
245
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
a)
Gas- production rate (measured)
7000
14000
Gas- production rate (simulated)

12000
Cumulative gas production (measured)
Cumulative gas production (simulated)

5000
10000
4000
8000
3000
6000
2000
4000
1000
2000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
6000
0
100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (h)
b)
Water - production rate (measured)
Water - production rate (simulated)
Cumulative water production (mesured)
Cumulative water production (simulated)
Cumulative water production (simulated:modified)
90
80
100
90
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130 140
0
150
Time (h)
Figure 30. Results of final history matching for the winter 2008 test on the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well: a) gas production, and b) water production.
246
100
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
Well
well
20 m
Perforation interval
Pressure
12.000
286.000
11.000
284.500
10.000
283.000
9.000
281.000
8.000
280.000
7.000
276.000
6.000
277.000
5.000
275.500
4.000
(MPa)
Temperature
274.000
(K)
1.000
0.240
0.875
0.210
0.750
0.180
0.625
0.150
0.500
0.120
0.375
0.090
0.250
MH saturation
0.125
0.000
0.060
0.030
Gas saturation
(fraction)
(Fraction)
0.000
(Fraction)
(fraction)
Figure 31. Distributions of reservoir properties simulated using the final history-matched
model at the end of the winter 2007 test on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38
Well
well
20 m
Pressure
12.000
286.000
11.000
284.500
10.000
283.000
9.000
281.000
8.000
280.000
7.000
276.000
277.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
(MPa)
Temperature
274.000
(K)
1.000
0.240
0.875
0.210
0.750
0.180
0.625
0.150
0.500
0.120
0.375
0.090
0.250
MH saturation
275.500
0.125
0.000
0.060
Gas saturation
(fraction)
(Fraction)
0.030
0.000
(Fraction)
(fraction)
Figure 32. Distributions of reservoir properties simulated using the final history matched
model at the end of the shut-in between the winter 2007 and winter 2008 tests on the
Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
247
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
Well
well
20 m
Pressure
12.000
286.000
11.000
284.500
10.000
283.000
9.000
281.000
8.000
280.000
7.000
276.000
6.000
277.000
5.000
275.500
Temperature
4.000
(MPa)
274.000
(K)
1.000
0.240
0.875
0.210
0.750
0.180
0.625
0.150
0.500
0.120
0.375
0.090
0.250
0.060
0.125
MH saturation
0.030
Gas saturation
0.000
0.000
(fraction)
(Fraction)
(Fraction)
Figure 33. Distributions of reservoir properties simulated using the final history-matched
model at the end of the winter 2008 test on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38
12000
Time
11000
memory
gauge
Memory-gauge
WCQR-1801
WCQR-1801
P-T
diagram
P-T diagram
10000
1
5
9000
Pressure (kPa)
5%KCl
5%
KCl++3%MeOH
3% MeOH
Equilibrium curve
Curve
equilibrium
8000
10
5%
KCl++2%MeOH
2% MeOH
5%KCl
equilibrium
Equilibrium curve
Curve
7000
Time
12
NaCl
4%4%
NaCl
equilibriumCurve
curve
Equilibrium
5000
11
5% NaCl
5%
NaCl
Equilibrium curve
Curve
equilibrium
6000
13
4000
1 Flow #1 start
9 Flow #3 start
10
3 Flow #1 plug-off
11
4 Flow #1 shut-off
5 Flow #2 start
12 Flow #3 plug-off
13 Flow #3 shut-off
3000
7 Flow #2 plug-off
8 Flow #2 shut-off
2000
0
10
Temperature ()
15
Figure 34. Locus of bottom-hole pressure and temperature during winter 2007 test on
the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
248
20
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
method could be effectively applied to the production of

methane hydrate deposits having relatively high initial temperature and permeability, such as the one that occurs in the
Mallik zoneA test interval.
Winter 2008 test

Causes of high gas production with
low water production in stage1
Stage1 of the winter 2008 test was characterized by high
initial gas production, followed by a period of significant
fluctuation around a generally decreasing trend throughout
the remainder of the stage. (Note that a significant portion
of this variability was related to a number of operational
problems characterized by interruptions or disturbances in
both Train A [water] and Train B [gas] flow streams.) Stage 1
production behaviour was history matched by adjusting the
intensity and the extent of high-permeability conduits. If the
extent of the high-permeability conduits was decreased in
the history-matching simulation, it was impossible to match
a)
the simulation results with the observed/estimated gas production unless it was assumed that there was free gas near
the well at the beginning of the winter 2008 test.
According to the final history-matching results, about
2630m3 (in the standard condition) of free gas existed at the
end of the winter 2007 test (Figure31). Potentially, all of this
free gas could have been absorbed to re-form MH during the
shut-in period (Figure32), since the reservoir pressure and
temperature were within the MH stability field during this
period. However, if we assume that about 740m3 of this free
gas remained in the gaseous state at the end of the shut-in
period (i.e. the beginning of the winter 2008 test), the high
gas production with low water production can be rather easily reproduced by simulation, as shown in Figure36. This
may be a plausible scenario, given that some portion of the
residual free gas may have been isolated from free water by
membrane-like thin films of MH.
In summary, the high gas production with low water production observed/estimated in stage1 of the winter 2008
test can be reproduced assuming either 1)a relatively large
extent for the high-permeability regions, or 2)the presence of
free gas at the beginning of the winter 2008 test. In the final
b)
Well
well
Perforation
perforation
interval
interval
20 m
0.100
0.095
0.075
0.065
0.050
0.035
0.025
0.015
0.000
0.100
0.095
0.075
0.065
0.050
0.035
0.025
0.015
0.000
20 m
(Fraction)
(Fraction)
Figure 35. Fraction of each grid block in the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas
hydrate production research well occupied by high-permeability conduits at a) end of stage 2
of winter 2007 test, and b) end of winter 2007 test.
a)
b) 100
7000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

6000
90
Water-production rate (measured)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Time (h)
90
100 110 120 130 140 150
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (h)
Figure 36. Results of history matching for the winter 2008 test on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas
hydrate production research well, assuming the presence of free gas at the beginning of the winter 2008 test, for
a) gas-production rate, and b) water-production rate.
249
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
Mechanism of methane hydrate dissociation
history-matching simulation, we have adopted hypothesis1

(a relatively large extent for the high-permeability regions)
because it was considered to be more realistic. Unfortunately,
given the complexities of this scenario, we cannot be certain
that this represents a unique solution to the inverse problem of
history matching.
Methane hydrate production from zone A was achieved

by reducing the bottom-hole pressure, and hence the reservoir pressure, below the three-phase equilibrium pressure for
MH stability. Figure37 shows the locus of the bottom-hole
pressure and temperature measured at the memory gauge
(expected to be almost identical to the reservoir pressure and
temperature), along with the three-phase equilibrium curves
for water of different salinities. In stage1, the movement of
these pressure-temperature values along the band of threephase equilibrium curves suggests 1)a reduction in reservoir
temperature associated with the endothermic MH dissociation reaction, and 2)a reduction in water salinity caused by
the dilution of formation water with pure water generated by
MH dissociation (Yamamoto and Saeki, 2009).
Causes of low gas production in stages2 and3

In spite of the further reduction in bottom-hole pressure
by about 2MPa in stage2, only a small increase in gas production was realized. Furthermore, the observed gas- and
water-production rates were much lower than predicted,
except on the last day of the stage. Similarly, the observed
gas- and water-production rates in stage3 were also lower
than predicted by numerical simulation.
In stages2 and3, however, the temperature was higher

than the three-phase equilibrium temperature. For example,
the bottom-hole temperature in stage2 ranged from about 8.5
to 9.8C, which is equivalent to the three-phase equilibrium
temperature (with 2% saline water) corresponding to a pressure of about 7MPa. The bottom-hole pressure, however,
was measured at about 5to 6MPa. The difference between
the three-phase equilibrium pressure and the measured pressure may indicate the presence of an additional pressure drop
caused by near-well skin effects of more than 1MPa in this
stage. That is, the reservoir pressure may have been higher
than the bottom-hole pressure by more than 1MPa due to the
skin effect. Other possible causes of the difference between
the bottom-hole conditions and the three-phase equilibrium
conditions are 1) warming of the fluid in the vicinity of the
We propose that the lower-than-predicted gas- and waterproduction rates may be due to a reduction in transmissibility
in the vicinity of the well associated with the skin effect,
probably caused by the migration of fine sand grains and/
or the collapse/compaction of some high-permeability conduits. Our history-matching simulations suggest that these
skin effects may have decreased reservoir transmissibility to
about 30% of its initial value (in a stepwise fashion coincident with the reduction of bottom-hole pressure), as shown
in Figure27. This scenario is consistent with the notion that
each successive pressure drop caused additional reservoir
solids (sand/silt particles) to flow towards the perforation
interval and pack against the surface of the screen, reducing
the effective transmissibility across the screen.
12000
NaCl 5%
4%
3%
Stage-1
Stage 1
11000
2%
1%
0%
Pressure (kPa)
10000
9000
8000
7000
Equilibrium
Equilibrium Curve
curve
6000
Stage-2
Stage 2
5000
4000
Stage-3
Stage 3
3000
4
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10 10.5 11 11.5 12 12.5 13
Temperature (C)
Figure 37. Locus of bottom-hole pressure and temperature during the winter 2008 test
on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well.
250
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
memory gauges due to the influence of the down-hole induction heater located in the shallower part of the wellbore
(~837m); 2)inclusion in the produced water of a component of the initial (warmer) in situ pore water in addition to the
endothermically cooled water released by local gas hydrate
dissociation; and 3) the apparent nonequilibrium reaction
of MH dissociation resulting from slow dissociation of
MH restricted by a low kinetic-rate constant (although this
is considered unlikely and we have not speculated on the
possible causes of such a phenomenon). Note also that, at
the end of stage3, the temperature of the bottom-hole fluid
increased to 12.5C, which may suggest reverse circulation
of the fluids in the wellbore.
Efficiency of depressurization
As in the case of the winter 2007 test, the net heating
value of the produced gas and the energy expended on running the pump (at 40% power efficiency) for dissociation and
production of MH were calculated for every 5-minute time
interval. These calculations revealed that the total energy produced was about 32 times greater than that consumed by the
pump, which is much better than in the winter 2007 test, due
probably to more stable and sustainable gas production. The
2008 production test demonstrated that high energy efficiency
can be expected for the MH dissociation and production by
depressurization once stable gas production is established.
Comparison with conventional

gas-production characteristics
A simple calculation indicates that the gas production
from a conventional gas reservoir (assuming a constant bottom-hole pressure of 5MPa and absolute permeability of
0.2mD) rapidly decreases soon after the start of production
and continues to decrease gradually, as shown in Figure38.
On the other hand, the gas-production rate from the Mallik
reservoir observed during stage2 (at a constant bottomhole pressure of about 5MPa) remained relatively stable or
even increased during a period of about 2days. This stable
to slightly increasing production trend suggests continuous
dissociation of MH with progressive expansion of the MH
dissociation area, and hence the promise of commercial gas
production from an MH reservoir.
Summary of methane hydrate dissociation

and production behaviour during the winter
2007 and 2008 tests
Methane hydrate (MH) dissociation and production behaviour during the winter 2007 and 2008 tests on
the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate
production research well is summarized as follows and
schematically illustrated in Figure39:
Gasproduction rate (m3/d)
4500
Gas
Gas
0.09
4000
Water
Water
0.08
3500
0.07
3000
0.06
2500
0.05
2000
0.04
1500
0.03
1000
0.02
500
0.01
0
0
24
48
72
96
120
144
Waterproduction rate (m3/d)
0.1
5000
0
168
Time (h)
Figure 38. Typical production behaviour in conventional gas reservoirs.
251
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
a)
b)
Depressurization
Growth of wormhole
MH zone
MH zone
Dissociation area
Produced sand
Water-injection zone
c)
d)
Depressurization
Depressurization
Growth of wormhole
Growth of wormhole
MH zone
MH zone
Plug off!
Produced sand
Dissociation area
Dissociation area
Produced sand
f)
e)
Depressurization!
Deformation of wormhole
Gas
Re-formation
of MH
Skin?
Dissociation area
g)
Depressurization
Skin?
Dissociation area
h)
Depressurization
Skin?
Dissociation area
Figure 39. Schematic diagrams of the physical behaviour of the Mallik reservoir during the
winter 2007 and 2008 tests on the Aurora/JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production research well, inferred from history-matching simulation: a) before winter 2007 test,
b) end of stage 1 of winter 2007 test, c) end of stage 2 of winter 2007 test, d) end of stage 3
of winter 2007 test, e) end of 20072008 shut-in, f) end of stage 1 of winter 2008 test, g) end
of stage 2 of winter 2008 test, and h) end of stage 3 of winter 2008 test.
252
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
In the 2007 Mallik production test, sand production may

have created relatively high permeability conduits (e.g.
wormholes), resulting in significantly enhanced reservoir
permeability near the wellbore and promoting higherthan-expected rates of gas production for the tested
bottom-hole pressure (Fig.39ad). The area of enhanced
permeability was simulated to extend out to about 10m
from the well (Fig.27). The major area of MH dissociation was simulated to extend 7to 10m from the well
in the lateral direction and about 1to 2m above and
below the perforation interval (Fig.31), which is almost
identical to the extent of the area with high-permeability
conduits.
The simulations suggest that, during the shut-in period
from the end of the 2007 test to the beginning of the
2008 test, all of the free gas associated with the dissociation of MH during the winter 2007 test could have been
absorbed to re-form MH (Fig.32,39e), thus potentially
increasing the MH saturation in the vicinity of the well
by about 1to 5%. Note that there is a possibility for about
30% of this free gas to remain in the gaseous state during
the shut-in period if it was isolated from free water by
membrane-like thin MH films.
In stage1 of the winter 2008 test, gas production was
initially high and then fluctuated significantly throughout the remainder of the stage, but with a generally
decreasing trend. It is inferred that the rapid increase
and decrease in gas production early in this stage was
the result of rapid MH dissociation in the regions with
high-permeability conduits. The generally decreasing
production trend observed throughout the latter part of
the stage may indicate a transition to the dissociation of
MH in undisturbed portions of the reservoir outside the
high-permeability regions (Fig.39f). During this stage,
we speculate that the transmissibility in the vicinity of
the well decreased to about 70% of the original value
(Fig.27), due probably to the collapse/deformation of
high-permeability conduits and/or the migration of fine
sand grains.
When the bottom-hole pressure was further decreased
early in stages2 and3, gas production rapidly increased
due to the dissociation of MH in the high-permeability
regions. This increase, however, was not significant
because of the further reduction in transmissibility in the
vicinity of the well to about 30% of the original value
(Fig.27). The gas production late in each stage must have
been induced by the dissociation of MH located outside
the high-permeability regions (Fig.39g,h), which suggests the intrinsic (i.e. undisturbed by high-permeability
conduits) potential of the methane hydrate reservoir
(zoneA) tested.
CONCLUSIONS
Methane hydrate production tests
The methane hydrate production tests of the JOGMEC/
NRCan/Aurora 20072008 Gas Hydrate Production Research
Well Program were conducted using the depressurization
method during April 2007 (pre-test) and March 2008 (extended
production test). By analyzing various data acquired during
the tests, such as wellhead and bottom-hole pressures and temperatures, and gas/water flow rates, several conclusions can be
drawn and speculations made.
In the winter 2007 test, a certain amount of gas and water
were produced from a 12m perforated interval of Mallik
zone A by reducing the bottom-hole pressure to about
7MPa. The produced gas, however, was not directly delivered to the surface via the tubing but accumulated at the top
of the casing because of the irregular (on-off) pumping operations caused by excessive sand production. Hence, the test
results, including the gas- and water-production rates, were
assessed as follows based on the monitored data:
Gas- and water-production rates during the first few
hours of testing were negligible.
When the bottom-hole pressure was reduced from
11MPa to between 7.2and 7.5MPa, short-term gas-production rates of 1000to 2000m3/d were achieved, and
corresponding water-production rates of 10to 70m3/d
were inferred.
Instantaneous gas production of about 8000m3/d was
observed when the bottom-hole pressure was decreased
to 6.9MPa.
Total gas and water production throughout the test period
were estimated at about 830m3 and 20m3, respectively.
During periods of pump shut-down, some of the water
injected into the disposal zone beneath the production
interval reverse-flowed upwards towards the test interval,
thus increasing the wellbore temperature.
Sand production during testing may have created relatively
high permeability conduits (e.g. wormholes), resulting in
significantly enhanced formation permeability near the
wellbore and promoting higher-than-expected rates of
gas production for the tested bottom-hole pressure.
Energy efficiency during the production test was calculated at about16 (i.e. the energy recovered was 16 times
the energy expended).
In the winter 2008 test, which targeted the same reservoir interval, substantially higher gas-production rates were
sustained over a period of 6 days in response to a stepwise
reduction of the bottom-hole pressure to about 4.5MPa. This
sustained production was facilitated by employing sand screens
253
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
installed at the perforations to prevent sand from intruding into

the well. Since both the gas and water were delivered to the
surface, the 2008 test results were assessed based mainly on the
measured gas- and water-production rates and on the bottomhole temperature and pressure data, as follows:
Gas production was sustained for about 6days. The stable
gas production of 1500to 2500m3/d and water production of 5to 15m3/d may suggest the inherent potential of
gas and water production from the reservoir.
Total gas and water production from the reservoir
throughout the test period were estimated at 13000m3
and 70m3, respectively.
During production, the well may have suffered from nearwellbore disturbances probably caused by the migration
of fine sand grains and/or the collapse/deformation of
high-permeability conduits that had been created during
the winter 2007 test.
Energy efficiency during the production test was calculated at more than30 (i.e. the energy recovered was more
than 30 times the energy expended).
Numerical simulation
The results of the MH production tests conducted in April
2007 and March 2008 were successfully history matched in a series of numerical simulations, through careful iterative adjustment
of key reservoir parameters as outlined below, and by introducing
the hypotheses of the generation and growth of high-permeability
conduits and the subsequent collapse/compaction of these conduits. Each grid block within the numerical modelling space was
considered to consist of two fractions: one having the original
absolute permeability and the other assigned an enhanced permeability value representing the influence of high-permeability
conduits (wormholes). The permeability of the near-wellbore grid
blocks was increased appropriately to simulate the generation
and growth of high-permeability conduits during the winter 2007
test. The fraction of each grid block containing high-permeability
conduits was estimated from the history-matched permeability
for the winter 2007 test, and then kept at that value throughout
the simulation of the winter 2008 test (i.e. there was no additional
formation or growth of high-permeability conduits due to sand
production). The following additional parameter adjustments
were implemented in the numerical simulations of the 2008 test:
To reproduce the lower-than-predicted gas-production rates
observed during the 2008 test, the transmissibility of the
grid blocks located in the vicinity of the well was decreased
coincidentally with the reduction of bottom-hole pressure,
in an effort to simulate the effects of the collapse/deformation of high-permeability conduits and/or accumulation of
fine sand grains in the vicinity of the well.
To suppress the simulated water production caused by
crossflow from the water-bearing layers overlying the
perforation interval, the absolute permeability in the vertical direction was reduced by a factor of 5.
254
In accordance with the results of the above history-matching simulation, the test results were examined qualitatively
as follows:
The area with high-permeability conduits created by sand
production during the winter 2007 test was simulated to
extend about 10m radially from the well. The major area
of MH dissociation was simulated to be about 7to 10m
from the well in the radial direction and about 1to 2m
above and below the perforation interval.
Numerical simulations suggest that all of the free gas
remaining within the production zone following the 2007
test could have been absorbed to re-form MH during the
shut-in period between April 2007 and February 2008,
thus increasing the MH saturation in the vicinity of the
well by 1to 5%.
Following from the previous points, we infer that the rapid
increase and decrease in gas production early in stage1
of the 2008 test was the result of rapid MH dissociation
in the near-wellbore regions containing high-permeability conduits. The subsequent gradually decreasing gas
flows observed in the later part of stage1 likely reflect a
transition in production from the highly disturbed nearwellbore region towards a more stable production regime
characteristic of the comparatively undisturbed reservoir
at greater distances from the well.
Our analysis considers that, during the winter 2008 test,
near-well reservoir transmissibility may have decreased
incrementally to about 30% of the original value,
possibly due to the collapse/deformation of high-permeability conduits and/or to the accumulation of fine solids
(sand/silt) on the surface of the screens during successive
pressure draw-down stages.
The gas production late in each stage is assumed to
reflect the dissociation of MH located outside the highpermeability regions, which suggests the intrinsic (i.e.
undisturbed by high-permeability conduits) potential of
the Mallik reservoir.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was financially supported by the Research
Consortium for Methane Hydrate Resources in Japan (MH21
Research Consortium) to carry out Japans Methane Hydrate
Research and Development Program by the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). The authors gratefully
acknowledge this financial support and permission to present
this paper. The authors also thank Waseda University, Japan
Oil Engineering Co. Ltd., Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National
Corporation, Natural Resources Canada (Geological Survey
of Canada), Aurora College/Aurora Research Institute,
the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and
Technology, Schlumberger K.K., and the University of Tokyo
for their technical support.
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
REFERENCES
Ashford, D.I., Dallimore, S.R., Hernandez-Johnson, L., Mizuta,
T., Nixon, F.M., Applejon, A, and Taylor, A.E., 2012a. Overview
of engineering and operations activities conducted as part of
the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik 20072008 Gas Hydrate
Production Research Well Program, Part B: 2008 field program; in Scientific results from the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora
20072008 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program,
Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada, (ed.) S.R.
Dallimore, K. Yamamoto, J.F. Wright, and G. Bellefleur;
Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 601
Ashford, D.I., Mizuta, T., Dallimore, S.R., Yamamoto, K.,
Nixon, F.M., Imasato, Y., Wright, J.F., Taylor, A.E., and
Applejohn, A., 2012b. Overview of engineering and operations activities conducted as part of the JOGMEC/NRCan/
Aurora Mallik 20072008 Gas Hydrate Production Research
Well Program, Part A: 2007 field program; in Scientific
results from the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora 20072008 Gas
Hydrate Production Research Well Program, Mackenzie Delta,
Northwest Territories, Canada, (ed.) S.R. Dallimore,
K. Yamamoto, J.F. Wright, and G. Bellefleur; Geological
Survey of Canada, Bulletin 601.
Dallimore, S.R. and Collett, T.S., 2005. Summary and implications of the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Research
Well Program; in Scientific results from the Mallik 2002
Gas Hydrate Production Well Program, Mackenzie Delta,
Northwest Territories, Canada, (ed.) S.R. Dallimore and
T.S. Collett; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin
585, 28p., <http://geoscan.ess.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/
starfinder/0?path=geoscan.fl&id=fastlink&pass=&format=FLS
HORTORG&search=R=220702> [accessed October 10, 2012].
Dallimore, S.R., Uchida, T., and Collett, T.S. (ed.), 1999.
Scientific results from JAPEX/JNOC/GSC Mallik 2L-38
gas hydrate research well, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest
Territories, Canada; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin
Dallimore, S.R., Wright, J.F., Nixon, F.M., Kurihara, M.,
Yamamoto, K., Fujii, T., Fujii, K., Numasawa, M., Yasuda, M.,
and Imasato, Y., 2008. Geologic and porous media factors
affecting the 2007 production response characteristics of the
JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik Gas Hydrate Production
Research Well; in Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2008), Vancouver, British
Columbia, July 610, 2008, Paper 5829, 10p.
Fujii, K., Sakiyama, N., Morikami, Y., Ikegami, T., Pimenov,
V., Shako, V., Parshin, A., Inada, N., Nakatsuka, Y., Wright,
J.F., and Dallimore, S.R., 2012a. Down-holemonitoring data
analysis and interpretation for the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora
Mallik Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program;
in Scientific results from the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora
Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada, (ed.)
S.R. Dallimore, K. Yamamoto, J.F. Wright, and G. Bellefleur;
Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 601.
Fujii, K., Yasuda, M., Cho, B., Ikegami, T., Sugiyama, H.,
Imasato, Y., Dallimore, S.R., and Wright, J.F., 2008a.
Development of a monitoring system for the JOGMEC/
NRCan/Aurora Mallik Gas Hydrate Production Test Program;
in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Gas
Hydrates, Vancouver, British Columbia, July 610, 2008,
Paper 5830, 6p.
Fujii, T., Noguchi, S., Murray, D.R., Takayama, T., Fujii, K.,
Yamamoto, K., Dallimore, S.R., and Al-Jubori, A., 2012b.
Overview of wireline-logging analysis in the Aurora/
JOGMEC/NRCan Mallik 2L-38 gas hydrate production
research well; in Scientific results from the JOGMEC/NRCan/
Aurora 20072008 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well
Program, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada,
(ed.) S.R. Dallimore, K. Yamamoto, J.F. Wright, and
G. Bellefleur; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 601.
Fujii, T, Takayama, T., Dallimore, S.R., Nakamizu, M.,
Mwenifumbo, J., Kurihara, M., Yamamoto, K., Wright J.F.,
Al-Jubori, A. Tribus, M., and Evans R.B., 2008b. Wire-line
logging analysis of the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik gas
hydrate production test; Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Gas Hydrates, Vancouver, British Columbia,
July 610, 2008, Paper 5684, 12 p.
Hancock, S.H., Collett, T.S., Dallimore, S.R., Satoh, T., Inoue,
T., Huenges, E., Henninges, J., and Weatherill, B., 2005a.
Overview of thermal-stimulation production-test results
for the JAPEX/JNOC/GSCetal. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate
production research well; in Scientific results from the Mallik
Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada, (ed.) S.R.
Dallimore and T.S. Collett; Geological Survey of Canada,
Bulletin 585, 15p., <http://geoscan.ess.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/
Hancock, S.H., Dallimore, S.R., Collett, T.S., Carle, D.,
Weatherill, B., Satoh, T., and Inoue, T., 2005b. Overview of
pressure-drawdown production-test results for the JAPEX/
JNOC/GSCetal. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate production
research well; in Scientific results from the Mallik 2002 Gas
Hydrate Production Research Well Program, Mackenzie Delta,
Henninges, J., Schrtter, J., Erbas, K., and Huenges, E.,
2005. Temperature field of the Mallik gas hydrate occurrenceimplications on phase changes and thermal properties; in Scientific results from the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate
Production Research Well Program, Mackenzie Delta,
Kim, H.C., Bishnoi, P.R., Heidemann, R.A., and Rizvi, S.S.H.,
1987. Kinetics of methane hydrate decomposition; Chemical
Engineering Science, v.42, no.7, p.16451653.
255
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
Kurihara, M., Funatsu, K., Kusaka, K., Yasuda, M., Dallimore, S.R.,
Collett, T.S., and Hancock, S.H., 2005a. Well-test analysis for
gas hydrate reservoirs: examination of parameters suggested by
conventional analysis for the JAPEX/JNOC/GSCetal. Mallik
5L-38 gas hydrate production research well; in Scientific
results from the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Well
(ed.) S.R. Dallimore and T.S. Collett; Geological Survey of
Canada, Bulletin 585, 31p., <http://geoscan.ess.nrcan.gc.ca/
cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=geoscan.fl&id=fastlink&pass=&form
at=FLSHORTORG&search=R=220702>
[accessed October 10, 2012].
Masuda, Y., Konno, Y., Iwama, H., Kawamura, T., Kurihara, M.,
and Ouchi, H., 2008. Improvement of near wellbore permeability by methanol stimulation in a methane hydrate production well; in Proceedings of the 2008 Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, Paper OTC 19433, 12p.
Kurihara, M., Funatsu, K., Ouchi, H., Masuda, Y., and Narita,
H., 2005b. Investigation on applicability of methane hydrate
production methods to reservoirs with diverse characteristics; Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gas
Hydrates, Trondheim, Norway, June 1316, 2005, p.714725.
Numasawa, M., Dallimore, S.R., Yamamoto, K., Yasuda, M.,

Imasato, Y., Mizuta, T., Kurihara, M., Masuda, Y., Fujii, T.,
Fujii, K., Wright, J.F., Nixon, F.M., Cho, B., Ikegami, T., and
Sugiyama, H., 2008. Objectives and operation overview of
the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik gas hydrate production
test; in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Gas Hydrates, Vancouver, British Columbia, July 610, 2008,
Paper 5832.
Kurihara, M., Funatsu, K., Ouchi, H., Masuda, Y., Yasuda, M.,
Yamamoto, K., Numasawa, M., Fujii, T., Naria, H.,
Dallimore, S.R., and Wright, J.F., 2008. Analysis of the
JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik gas hydrate test through
numerical simulation; Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Gas Hydrates, Vancouver, British Columbia,
July 610, 2008.
Kurihara, M., Ouchi, H., Inoue, T., Yonezawa, T., Masuda, Y.,
Dallimore S.R., and Collett, T.S., 2005c. Analysis of the
JAPEX/JNOC/GSCetal. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate thermal
production test through numerical simulation; in Scientific
results from the Mallik 2002 Gas Hydrate Production Well
S.R. Dallimore and T.S. Collett; Geological Survey of Canada,
Bulletin 585, 20p., <http://geoscan.ess.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/
Kurihara, M., Sato, A., Funatsu, K., Ouchi, H., Yamamoto, K.,
Numasawa, M., Ebinuma, T., Naria, H., Masuda, Y.,
Dallimore, S.R., Wright, J.F., and Ashford, D., 2010. Analysis
of production data for 2007/2008 Mallik gas hydrate production tests in Canada; in Proceedings of the CPS/SPE
International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing,
China; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 24p.
Masuda, Y., Fujinaga, Y., Naganawa, S., Fujita, K., Sato, K., and
Hayashi, Y., 1999. Modelling and experimental studies on
dissociation of methane gas hydrates in Berea sandstone cores;
University of Tokyo, Department of Geosystem Engineering,
unpublished paper presented at 3rd International Conference
on Gas Hydrates, Salt Lake City, Utah, July 1822, 1999.
256
Masuda, Y., Naganawa, S., Ando, S., and Sato, K., 1997.
Numerical calculation of gas-production performance from
reservoirs containing natural gas hydrates; in Proceedings,
Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, California. June
2527, 1997; Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc., Richardson,
Texas, Paper SPE 38291.
Uddin, M., Wright, J. F., Dallimore, S.R, and Coombe, D., 2012.
Gas hydrate production from the Mallik reservoir: numerical
history matching and long-term production forecasting; in
Scientific results from the JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik
S.R. Dallimore, K. Yamamoto, J.F. Wright, and G. Bellefleur;
Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 601.
Vinsome, P.K.W. and Westerveld, J., 1980. A simple method for
predicting cap and base rock heat losses in thermal reservoir
simulators; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology,
v.19, no.3, p.8790.
Wright, J.F., Dallimore, S.R., Nixon, F.M., and Duchesne, C.,
2005. In situ stability of gas hydrate in sediments of the
JAPEX/JNOC/GSCetal. Mallik 5L-38 gas hydrate production research well; in Scientific results from the Mallik 2002
Gas Hydrate Production Well Program, Mackenzie Delta,
Yamamoto, K. and Saeki, T., 2009. Resource assessment and
onshore production tests of methane hydrate; Journal of the
Japanese Association of Petroleum Technology, v.74,
p. 270279.
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
Appendix A:
Methods for calculating gas and water production from Mallik zone A
(winter 2007 test )
Estimation of liquid level

The location (depth, D1) of the interface between the
gas accumulated at the top of the casing and the underlying
liquid was estimated, based on the casing-head pressure
(pch), the depth of the Phoenix gauge (Dph), and the bottomhole pressure measured at this gauge (pph), as:
D l = D ph
p ph pch
rl g
(A-1)
where r1 is the liquid density, which is equivalent to the

density of a 5% KCl solution (1.035g/cm3) in this test
(Kuriharaetal., 2008). Note that this liquid level was calculated to facilitate estimation of the gas volume present in the
annulus above the Phoenix gauge. The actual interface
between liquid and gas may be slightly shallower than that
calculated by EquationA-1 because the liquid phase contains
some gas bubbles/slugs, thereby reducing the liquid density
(r1) somewhat. Nevertheless, the gas volume calculated based
on the assumption of the perfect separation between liquid
and gas should be almost identical to that calculated as the
sum of the volumes of the gas above the shallower (actual)
liquid level and the gas bubbles/slugs contained in the liquid
phase. Note that the gas dissolved in the water was neglected
in this calculation because the associated error is estimated to
be less than 1%.
Estimation of gas-production volume

Once the liquid level is estimated as described in the previous paragraph, the cumulative gas production (Qg(i); i.e. the
gas accumulated at the top of the casing) can be calculated
for each time interval (t(i); every 5minutes in this test) from
the gas deviation factor (z), the temperature of the upper
part of the casing (T= 273.15K in this test), and the crosssectional area of the annulus between casing and tubing
(Aan= 0.035m2 in this test) as:
Q g ( i ) = A an D l
pch Ts
,
zps T
(A-2)
where ps and Ts are the pressure (0.1013MPa) and temperature (288.8K) at standard conditions, respectively. Then
the gas-production rate for each time interval (qg(i)) can be
estimated by differentiating Qg(i) as:
q g( i) =
dQ g ( i )
dt
Q g ( i ) Q g ( i 1)
t ( i ) t ( i 1)
(A-3)
Estimation of water-production volume

The volume of the liquid (W(i)) present above the Phoenix
gauge at each time interval can be calculated as:
(A-4)
W( i ) = A an D ph D l .
The rate at which water is produced from the reservoir (qw(i))

can be estimated as the summation of the pumping rate
(qwp(i)), which was calculated based on the number of revolutions and the difference in pressure between the inlet and
outlet of the pump, and the rate of the increase in W(i), as:
q w ( i ) q wp ( i ) +
W( i ) W( i 1)
(A-5)
t ( i ) t ( i 1)
The cumulative water production was then calculated by

integrating qw(i) numerically as:
Q w ( i ) Q w ( i 1) + q w ( i ) t ( i ) t ( i 1) .
(A-6)
257
Contents
Author Index
GSC Bulletin 601
Appendix B:
Methods for calculating gas and water production from Mallik zone A
(winter 2008 test )
Estimation of liquid level

The liquid level (D1) was simply calculated from the
depth of the Phoenix gauge (Dph), the casing-head pressure (pch), the Phoenix-gauge pressure (pph), and the liquid
density (r1) as:
D l = D ph
p ph pch
rl g
(B-1)
Since the liquid phase in the annulus must contain some

amount of gas, the actual interface between the gaseous phase
and aqueous phase should be slightly shallower than D1.
The estimation of bottom-hole pressure considers three
cases, for which different values of the density of fluid
below the memory gauge are specified. In the most likely
case, it was assumed that the pressure gradient of the fluid
(gf) located between the memory gauge (depth Dm) and the
mid-point of the perforated zone (DB) was identical to that
between the Phoenix gauge and the memory gauge. In the
aqueous case, the fluid density between the memory gauge
and the middle of the perforated zone was considered to be
the same as the water density. The gaseous case assumed
that the fluid between the memory gauge and the middle of
the perforated zone contained gas in accordance with the
void ratio of gas, which could be calculated based simply on
the gas- and water-production rates.
The pressure gradients inferred for the above three cases are:
p p ph
most likely case : g f = m
,
(B-2)
Dm D ph
~ stand for the average pressure and

The variables ~p and T
temperature over the interval between the middle of the
perforated zone and the Phoenix gauge, respectively; ~z
~.
denotes the z-factor corresponding to ~p and T
The bottom-hole pressure was then estimated in each of the

above three cases as:
p B = pm + g f ( D B Dm )
(B-7)
For each of the above cases, the fluid levels for calculating
the amount of gas and water present above the middle of the
perforated zone in the wellbore were estimated as:
D l fv = D B
p B pch
rl g
(B-8)
Estimation of gas-production rate

The rate at which gas was produced from the reservoir
sand face can be estimated as a combination of the gas produced to the surface and that accumulated in the top of the
annulus. Although there should be a small time lag between
the gas production from the well annulus and that measured
at the surface flow meters, such an effect was ignored in this
examination. The gas-production rate, as well as the cumulative gas production for each time interval (5minutes in this
test) were calculated as:
aqueous case : g f = rl g, and,
(B-3)
p
D
p
q g ( i ) = q gsurface ( i ) + A an l fv ( i ) ch ( i ) lfv ( i1) ch ( i 1)
z ( i 1) T( i 1)
z ( i ) T( i )
gaseous case : g f = wrl g + (1 w ) rgg,
(B-4)
(B-5)
Q g ( i ) = Q g ( i 1) + q g ( i ) t ( i ) t ( i 1) ,
(B-9)
Ts
and
t ( i ) t ( i 1) ps
where
w=
qw
qw
=
and
q w + q g q w + q g pszT
s
pT
r pT
rg = gs s .
p zT
s
258
(B-6)
(B-10)
~
where T is the average temperature over the interval between
the liquid level and the surface, and ~z is the z-factor corres~.
ponding to pch and T
Contents
Author Index
M.Kurihara et al.
Estimation of water-production rate

The water production from the reservoir sand face was
estimated for each time interval (5minutes in this test),
based on the rate at which liquid is produced to the surface
and the change in the liquid level, as:
q w ( i ) = q wsurface ( i ) A an
(D
l fv ( i )
(t
(i)
D l fv ( i 1)
t ( i 1)
Q w ( i ) = Q w ( i 1) + q w ( i ) t ( i ) t ( i 1) .
) and
(B-11)
(B-12)
259

2012 - Kurihara - Analysis of 2007 and 2008 Ga

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2012 - Kurihara - Analysis of 2007 and 2008 Ga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

Analysis of 2007 and 2008 gas hydrate

Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan, kurihara.m@waseda.jp

Rsum : Des essais de production dhydrates de gaz au moyen de la technique de dpressurisation

depressurization method. Since the Mallik site can be accessed

Mallik methane hydrate reservoir

GSC Bulletin 601

(Dallimoreetal., 2008; Numasawaetal., 2008). A drilling rig,

Overview of test operations

After completion of the physical installations at the Mallik

Figure 1. Fence diagram showing gas hydrate distributions

Table 1. Geological and petrophysical properties of methane hydrate zone A as

Mallik 2L-38 (new)

20", 94 lbs./ft., J55 (103 m)

ESP cable splice with chemical injection (1089 m)

Chemical injection point ESP cable (1106 m)

Pump intake (1129 m)

Check valve (1139 m)

EUE : external upset ends

Locator with seal assembly (1211 m)

GSC Bulletin 601

Winter 2008 test

cross-sectional area (L2)

gravity acceleration (L/t2)

accumulated gas volume (L3)

absolute permeability (L2)

effective permeability (L2)

production rate (L3/t)

cumulative production (L3)

water volume in annulus (L3)

fraction with high-permeability conduits

pressure gradient (M/L2t2)

phase density (M/L3)

middle of perforated interval

methane hydrate phase

(i) = (i)th time level

20", 94 lbs./ft., J55 (103 m)

2.875" EUE, L80 Tbg

Pump intake (811 m)

Downhole heater (825837 m)

EUE : external upset ends

Anular gauge carrier bottom (1083 m)

ESP : electric submersible pump

Mesh-Rite sand control screens

CTS : custody transfer system

LB permanent packer (top at 1110 m)

GSC Bulletin 601

the total porosity (estimated from the density log) based on

PROPERTIES OF ZONE A RESERVOIR

Zone A petrophysical properties are shown in Figure5.

Well testing unit (A)

The initial effective permeability to water in the presence

Well testing unit (B)

PIN: Phase tester pressure in

WHUP:Well-head upstream pressure on train A/B

Updated 10 January 2008

We ll: new 2L-38

We ll: new 2L-38

Absolute permeability (based on core data)

Absolute permeability (based on ECS log)

Initial permeability (based on SDR method)

ECS: Elemental Capture Spectroscopy Sonde

Measured core permeability (mD)

Measured core permeability (mD)