Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 65 (2009) 76–80

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p e t r o l

In-situ thermal stimulation of gas hydrates

Constantin Cranganu ⁎
Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, Department of Geology, 2900 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11210, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Gas hydrates are increasingly considered a potential energy resource. Various methods of exploiting gas
Received 4 October 2007 hydrates (thermal stimulation, depressurization, inhibitor injection, etc.) have been proposed so far, but each of
Accepted 26 December 2008 them has some drawbacks. To overcome some of these drawbacks, we propose a new technology for producing
methane from gas hydrates. The method uses in situ thermal stimulation by introducing a specially designed
Keywords:
hydrate heating apparatus into a horizontal borehole drilled into a gas hydrate zone (GHZ). Instead of using
gas hydrates
thermal stimulation
water or other hot fluid injected from the surface or another location away from the GHZ, an air/gas fuel
energy efficiency mixture is introduced into a combustion vessel from the surface via a fuel injection tubing string directly into
GHZ. Burning the fuel mixture results in the heat necessary to dissociate gas hydrate. The freed natural gas is
then conveyed to the surface via a casing that is lining the wellbore. This technology has the advantage of
permitting the dissociated gas to be produced through the same wellbore through which the air/gas fuel
mixture is injected, thereby avoiding the need of using two wells (injection and exploitation). An estimated
energy gain efficiency of the proposed method shows that only about 1.1 to 1.7% of gas produced will have to be
burned to decompose hydrates. Previous estimates of other thermal decomposition methods, for example
steam injection, show that about 50% of gas produced will have to be burned just to decompose hydrates. An
added advantage is that the produced natural gas is not mixed with the combustion gases, thus avoiding the
problem of the resulting gas having a BTU content that is too low.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction there remain significant technical challenges in converting these

The present paper relates generally to a technology for producing
natural gas from gas hydrates, and more particularly, but not by way of
limitation, to a method for producing natural gas from gas hydrates by
thermally stimulating the gas hydrates by internal combustion of an air/
gas fuel mixture in a vessel positioned within a gas hydrate formation.
Gas hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline substances com-
posed of water and gas, mainly methane, in which a solid water-lattice
accommodates gas molecules in a cage-like structure or clathrate. They
are formed naturally in numerous settings, but most predominantly in
permafrost zones and deep marine environments, such as outer con-
tinental margins and deep-sea bottoms.
The amount of natural gas held in hydrate form in geologic re-
servoirs in sub-bottom sediments and artic permafrost zones is vast
(Sloan, 1998; Kvenvolden, 1998, 2000; Milkov et al., 2003; Collette,
2004). In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted a study to assess
the amount of natural gas hydrate resources in the United States and
found that the estimate quantity exceeded known conventional
domestic gas resources (Collette, 2004). Recovery of natural gas from
these hydrate-bearing deposits has the potential for being economic-
ally viable (Collette, 2004; Moridis et al., 2004; Circone et al., 2005), but
⁎ Tel.: +1 718 951 5000x2878; fax: +1 718 951 4753.
E-mail address: Cranganu@brooklyn.cuny.edu.
resources into economic exploitation enterprise.
2. Methods of producing natural gas from gas hydrate deposits
To produce natural gas from hydrates, it is necessary to disassociate
the gas from the hydrate structure. In short, this entails dissociating
the hydrate. Four major potential methods for producing gas from
hydrates have been previously identified (Ohgaki et al., 1994; 1996;
Makogon, 1997; Sloan, 1998; Moridis et al., 2008). These include
thermal stimulation, pressure reduction, inhibitor injection, and gas
phase exchange.
2.1. Thermal stimulation
Thermal stimulation involves heating the deposit temperature
above the temperature of hydrate formation at a specified tempera-
ture. The usual scenario that is invoked is injection of steam or hot
brine from a surface-placed facility, using fire flooding or electro-
magnetic heating. More innovative ideas, such as using electromag-
netic heating, microwave heating or pressure pulse stimulation have
also been discussed in the literature (Kantzas et al., 1994; Kamath,
1998). To decompose hydrates containing 1 mol of methane requires
between 60 and 90 kJ (Holder et al., 1984). This represents a relatively
large amount of heat. The primary difficulty in thermal stimulation
consists in delivering heat efficiently to the location where hydrates

0920-4105/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2008.12.028
 C. Cranganu / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 65 (2009) 76–80
are to be dissociated. High energy losses occur during the injection of
the hot water or steam from the surface to the non-hydrate portion of
the reservoir and difficulties exist in establishing and maintaining
high permeability flow paths between injection wells and production
wells (Holder et al., 1982, 1984). Those energy losses from the source
to the reservoir or through pipelines would significantly increase the
production costs.
2.2. Pressure reduction (depressurization)
Pressure reduction (depressurization) was considered a more effi-
cient method of extracting gas from gas hydrates (e.g., Makogon, 1997,
Max and Dillon, 1998; Collette, 2004, Sun et al., 2005). It involves
decreasing the reservoir pressure below hydrate equilibrium, thus
allowing the gas to disassociate. However, depressurization process
is self-limiting in that once the pressure of the formation drops
below a certain level, the temperature of the formation will also be
caused to drop, thereby resulting in the hydrates maintaining a solid
state. We will try to demonstrate next what the main drawback of
this method is.
Hydrate stability depends upon both temperature and pressure, so
it is possible to initiate dissociation by either raising the temperature
or lowering the pressure, or by some combination of the two. The
amount of hydrates which can be dissociated by pressure reduction
alone is limited by the amount of the available ambient heat. Dis-
sociation by pressure reduction absorbs the same amount of heat
(thermal energy) as dissociation by other means. Conservation of
energy requires that the heat of fusion be supplied even though the
dissociation takes place by pressure reduction instead of temperature
increase. If the ambient environment contains insufficient heat to
supply the heat of fusion, then dissociation by pressure reduction will
stop after the initial thermal reservoir has been exhausted.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that if the thermal
energy for dissociation is supplied by the ambient environment, the
temperature drop in that environment will be large enough to shift the
hydrate back into a stable situation despite the change in pressure.
Consider a cubic meter of a reservoir rock with a porosity of 30% and a
hydrate saturation of 50% of the pore volume. The initial pressure/
temperature (P/T) conditions of the hydrate-bearing reservoir rock are
close to the hydrate/free gas phase boundary. Hydrates commonly
contain 10–15% gas by weight, so let us use an average of 12.5% (Holder
et al., 1984, p. 427). If the gas is methane (CH4), one mole weighs 16 g.
Suppose the density of hydrate is about 900 kg/m3 (the density of
ice). Then this cubic meter of reservoir with 50% hydrate saturation
contains:

kg g 1 mole
1 m3 × 0:3 × 0:5 × :125 × 900 3 × 1000 ×
m kg 16 g
= 1055 mole methane
The total energy necessary to dissociate the hydrate in one cubic
meter of our reservoir (either at the phase boundary or well within the
hydrate stability zone) is therefore at least
J Seo et al., 2001; Lee et al., 2003; Park et al., 2006). Apart from releasing
54; 200 × 1055 mole = 5:7 × 107 J
mole
where 54,200 J/mole is the hydrate heat of dissociation (Handa, 1986).
Assume as a first-order approximation that the density and heat
capacity of the hydrate are the same as ice (900 kg/m3 and 2040 J/kgoC).
As calculated above, the amount of heat necessary to dissociate the
hydrate in a cubic meter of rock is 5.7 × 107 J. If the energy is supplied
from a cubic meter of hydrate, how much will its temperature drop?
Temperature change (ΔT) and heat change (ΔH) are related by
ΔH = ΔTCM
77
where C is average heat capacity and M is the total mass. A cubic meter
of reservoir rock with 30% porosity and 50% hydrate saturation has an
average heat capacity of
C = ð0:7Þð800Þ + ð0:3Þð0:5Þð2040Þ = 866 J=kgo C ð4Þ
where we have assumed the heat capacity of the rock matrix to be
800 J/kgoC. The total mass is




M = ð0:7Þ 1 m3 2650 kg=m3 + ð0:3Þð0:5Þ 900 kg=m3 = 1990 kg ð5Þ
where we have assumed the rock matrix has a density of 2650 kg/m3
and that hydrate density does not differ significantly from ice density
(900 kg/m3).
If the energy for the dissociation of hydrate in 1 m3 of reservoir rock
comes from a cubic meter of rock saturated 50% with hydrates that rock
will experience a temperature drop ΔT of
ΔH 5:7×107
ΔT = = = 33o C ð6Þ
CM 866×1990
A temperature drop of 33 °C would probably move the remaining
hydrate into a stable position where dissociation would no longer be
possible unless heat were added. At the very least, further dissociation
would likely result in the formation of ice in the pore space, lowering
the permeability and preventing further gas production.
2.3. Inhibitor injection
The inhibitor injection involves injecting an inhibitor, such as
methanol or glycol, into the reservoir to decrease hydrate stability
(Kvenvolden, 1998; Sung et al., 2002). Production by inhibitor injection
would be similar to thermal stimulation, the difference being the
dissociation would be produced by chemical means rather than by heat
melting. It is important to note that even if dissociation is by inhibitor
injection, heat is nevertheless required. As the hydrate dissociates, it
absorb heat from the ambient environment. The situation is analogous
to melting ice by adding salt. If salt is added to an ice–water mixture, the
ice melts. The heat necessary to melt the ice is provided by the heat
content of the surrounding water, and the water temperature drops until
a point is reached at which the ice will no longer melt. In a reservoir, the
process may be similar. As inhibitor injection continues, the temperature
will continue to drop until the hydrate is in equilibrium with the inhi-
bitor and does no further dissociate. There appears to be no advantage
to inhibitor injection over hot-water stimulation. Even if inhibitors
are injected, the endothermic phase change is still present. Hydrate
dissociation will be a self-limiting process unless external heat is
provided. Both inhibitor injection and thermal stimulation have a
ð1Þ similar problem of delivering efficiently the dissociating agent to the in
situ hydrates.
2.4. Gas phase exchange
Finally the gas phase exchange involves using CO2 or mixed CO2 and
N2 to replace CH4 in the hydrate structure (Ohgaki et al., 1994; 1996;
ð2Þ CH4, this method is considered a potential alternative for reducing CO2
emissions through sequestration as hydrates. Neither Ohgaki et al.
(1996) or Nakano et al. (1998) addressed the important issue of the
kinetics of the gas exchange reaction. Using a Raman spectroscopic
method, Uchida et al. (2001) confirmed the swapping reaction at the
hydrate-gas interface. Although the authors did not directly address
the issues in their paper, their results suggest that the exchange
mechanism was slow with induction times requiring several days.
They did not address the more difficult question of the rate of CO2 gas
penetration further into bulk hydrate, beyond the first few hundred
ð3Þ nanometers at the interface. McGrail et al. (2004) performed scanning
78 C. Cranganu / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 65 (2009) 76–80

Raman spectroscopy experiments and determined that CO2 penetra-
tion rate into bulk methane hydrate was only a few mm per hour.
In his review of CH4 production with CO2 sequestration Goel (2006)
pointed to a number of contrasting observations concerning the in-situ
enthalpy of dissociation of CO2 and CH4 hydrates and concluded that to
understand the gas exchange technology there is a need for quan-
titative estimates of formation and dissociation processes in geologic
media core samples.
While each of the above mentioned methods have been used to
show that gas can theoretically be produced from hydrates at suffi-
cient rates to make hydrates a technically recoverable resource, each
method has drawbacks which at this point raise questions about the
commercial resource potential of gas hydrate.
To this end, a need exists for an improved technology for producing
natural gas from gas hydrates. It is to such a novel technology that the
present paper is directed.
3. Detailed description of the proposed novel technology
The novel technology proposed in this article was initiated back in
1998 and refined later (Cranganu, 2005). The present version in-
corporates a more developed mathematical model, along with more
geologic and economic considerations.
Referring now to Fig. 1, shown therein is a schematic illustration of a
hydrate heating apparatus for producing natural gas from a gas hydrate
zone. The hydrate heating apparatus utilizes a horizontal or steeply

Fig. 1. Proposed technology for producing natural gas from gas hydrates. Because the technology described herein is patent pending, some details, especially dimension values, have
been omitted.
 C. Cranganu / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 65 (2009) 76–80
inclined borehole drilled within hydrate-bearing sand. The hydrate
heating apparatus includes a combustion vessel located within the
horizontal segment of the borehole. An air/gas fuel mixture is in-
troduced into the combustion vessel from the surface via a fuel injection
tubing string. Upon the air/gas fuel mixture being introduced into the
combustion chamber to a predetermined pressure as measured by a
pressure sensor, an inlet valve is closed and a sparking device will ignite
the combustible air/gas fuel mixture. After the fuel mixture has burned,
an exhaust valve is opened to cause the evacuation of the exhaust gases
via an exhaust tubing string. After the exhaust gases have been
evacuated, the exhaust valve is closed and the cycle repeated
automatically or based on temperature conditions surrounding the
combustion vessel monitored with a temperature sensor.
Ignition of the fuel mixture in the combustion vessel results in the
production of heat that is transferred to the gas hydrate zone by the
combustion vessel. Heating of the gas hydrate zone causes the gas
hydrates to dissociate, resulting in the production of natural gas. The
freed natural gas is then conveyed to the surface via tubing within the
well casing. The exhaust from the combustion chamber is vented
separately to the surface so that no mixing with the production string
occurs. This is perhaps the most important aspect of the design. One of
the problems with other downhole combustion systems is the mixing
of combustion gases (and often nitrogen if air is used rather than pure
oxygen) with the produced natural gas. This lowers the BTU content of
the resulting gas, making it unsuitable for pipelines without expensive
gas separation.
The combustion vessel has a generally cylindrical shape and is
constructed of a corrosion resistant material. It will be appreciated that
the diameter of the combustion vessel will be sufficient to permit the
combustion vessel to pass through the borehole into the horizonta1
segment (horizontal well). The metallurgy and wall thickness of the
combustion vessel should be suitable to withstand the pressures ex-
perienced in the downhole environment.
To further increase the efficiency of heat transfer from the com-
bustion vessel to the gas hydrate zone, it is desirable that the length of
the combustion vessel be as long as possible. To this end, the combustion
vessel may be constructed of a plurality of segments (not shown) sized to
permit easy passage into the horizontal borehole. Each segment is then
attachable to an adjacent segment via threads or the like.
The combustion chamber is pressurized with the air/gas fuel mix-
ture to permit a controlled burning of the air/gas fuel mixture within
the combustion vessel to produce a gradual temperature increase to
the gas hydrate zone surrounding the combustion vessel, as opposed to
creating an explosion within the combustion vessel which can be
dangerous as well as result in melting the gas hydrate too quickly
and thus possibly damaging the gas hydrate formation. The hydrate
heating apparatus has the advantage of permitting the disassociated
gas to be produced through the same wellbore through which the air/
gas fuel mixture is injected, thereby avoiding the need of having both
injection wells and production wells. Furthermore, the gas used for the
air/gas fuel mixture may be provided from the gas produced from the
gas hydrate zone.
As shown in Fig.1, the fuel injection tubing string is positioned within
the exhaust tubing string. Locating of the fuel injection string within the
exhaust tubing string provides the advantage of allowing the air/gas fuel
mixture to be preheated, thus enhancing its burning properties. To avoid
any mixing between the exhaust gases and natural gas, packers have
been placed at the bottom of extraction strings (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1 further illustrates that a cluster of horizontal wellbores
drilled in various directions within the gas hydrate zone may be
utilized. That is, Fig. 1 shows the use of a second combustion vessel
disposed within a second horizontal segment of the borehole. Fueling
and exhausting of the additional combustion vessel may be provided
through the fuel injection tubing string and the exhaust tubing string,
or each combustion vessel may be provided with its own fuel injection
tubing string or exhaust tubing string.
79
It should be noticed that the technology described in Fig. 1 applies
to a marine environment. If the proposed technology will be used in a
permafrost area, minimum modifications will be necessary and easy
to implement by the drilling company.
It will be appreciated that the process described herein overcomes
the disadvantages associated with the injection of hot water and
steam into the gas hydrate zone in that the heat which is delivered to
the gas hydrate zone is produced in situ thereby avoiding the high
energy losses which occur during the production and injection of the
hot water or steam from the surface to the formation. In addition, this
process avoids the negative impact on production that may occur
when water is injected into a gas reservoir.
4. Estimated efficiency of the proposed method
The method presented here overcomes the main drawbacks of the
thermal stimulation method by delivering heat directly into hydrate
deposits, thus avoiding heat losses through adjacent rocks and pipe-
lines. The energy required dissociating the gas hydrates is provided in
situ by burning a small amount of gas extracted from hydrates.
To estimate the efficiency of the proposed method, following
assumptions are made:
Rock porosity: 30%;
Hydrate saturation in rock pores: 50%;
Methane content by weight: 10–15% (Holder et al., 1984);
Hydrate density: 900 kg/m3;
Heat capacity of hydrate: 2040 J/kgoC;
Rock matrix density: 2650 kg/m3;
Heat capacity of the rock matrix: 800 J/kgoC;
Average heat capacity of hydrate-rock matrix complex (30%
porosity, 50% saturation): 866 J/kgoC (Eq. (4));
The total mass of a one m3 of hydrate-rock complex: 1990 kg
(Eq. (5))
Heat of dissociation (Handa, 1986): 54.2 kJ/mole;
The rock matrix is heated by 10 °C;
One m3 of methane releases 3.475 × 107 J of energy (SPE, 2009)
Dissociation of 1 m3 of hydrates may release 150–160 m3 of methane
(Kvenvolden, 1998; Max and Dillon, 1998), or 5.2–5.6 × 109 J.
Using a simple thermodynamic calculation (Eqs. 1–6), the follow-
ing values were obtained:
Energy required to dissociate 1 m3 hydrates: 4.6–6.9 × 107 J (for 10%
and 15%, respectively);
Energy required to heat up by 10 °C the volume of hydrate-rock
complex 1 m3 of hydrates: 1.7 × 107 J.
Total energy consumed to dissociate the hydrate and heat up the
hydrate-rock complex: 6.3–8.6 × 107 J.
The energy efficiency of the proposed method is: ∼ 6000%–8900%
or only ∼ 1.1%–1.7% of gas produced will have to be used to decompose
hydrates. For comparison, the literature estimates of thermal stimula-
tion efficiency range between 1000% and 1200% (Holder et al., 1982;
1984) or 8–10% of gas produced will be necessary for consumption.
The computational model was based on a heat transfer solution and
did not consider a process flow. Viscous fingering, out-of-pattern gas
migration, reformation of free gas and water into hydrates, perme-
ability variations, and presence/absence of fractures are among the
problems not considered in the above calculations. The progression of
the heating front in space and time was not specifically addressed at
this time, but simulations using hot water injections (e.g., McGuire,
1982; Moridis et al., 2004), approximating our method, indicated that
gas production is maintainable through time provided that a heating
flux rate is applied to gas hydrate layers. The heating of the connate
water released from the hydrate layer due to dissociation or the
80 C. Cranganu / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 65 (2009) 76–80
heating of exhaust gases that are vented from the device are not
considered at this time. If taken into account, these additional factors
would probably modify our computation of energy efficiency.
The new method proposed here for commercial exploitation of gas
hydrates will require a specialized gas extraction strategy to allow for
controlled draw-down. Thus, any possible dangerous accumulation of gas
can be monitored as a pressure increase and prevention measures can be
applied in time. Then, recharge from gasifying the hydrate deposits will
replenish the extracted gas and will maintain a long gas production.
5. Gas hydrate exploitation – the determinant of costs
The economic analysis of costs and benefits using the present
method has extensively been presented in Cranganu and Downey
(1998) and Cranganu and Nitzov (2005). Apart from higher energy
efficiency, the proposed method of gas hydrate decomposition is more
cost advantageous in comparison to previously considered methods as
it involves traditional downhole technologies and surface facilities.
Therefore, the cost of producing gas from conventional deposits with
traditional technology can be used as the starting point for assessing
the cost base of methane produced from gas hydrates.
Designing an exploitation site using the method described above
implies further studying to address some specific theoretical and
practical problems, such as: for a given change in the temperature at
the apparatus/gas hydrate interface, how quickly will hydrates be
broken down? How is the release rate affected by the rate of and
magnitude of the temperature change? How do the thermophysical
properties of the hydrate reservoir affect the decomposition process?
Will hydrate be released at a faster rate from a reservoir with a higher
concentration of hydrate (but lower thermal diffusivity), or from a
reservoir with a lower concentrate of hydrate (but with a higher
diffusivity)? How fast can hydrate be released if thermal decomposi-
tion is combined with a pressure change (depressurization)? Is the
rate of release limited by the flow of heat into the base of hydrate
layer? Or is there sufficient latent energy present in the rock matrix to
power this endothermic phase change?
What is the characteristic thermal behavior of hydrate degrada-
tion? What is the relative importance of physical parameters (con-
centration, permeability, porosity, thermal conductivity, etc.) in
producing methane from gas hydrates? What is the best drilling tech-
nique to be used in drilling through hydrates and placing the heating
apparatus in place? What is the optimum cluster number and cluster
pattern of wells? Should we proceed with hydrate decompositions
from the bottom upwards, from the top down, or both?
6. Conclusions
A novel technology for producing natural gas from gas hydrates is
presented, along with technical details about the apparatus proposed
to be used by the method. It is considered that the proposed tech-
nology overcomes the main difficulties of the thermal stimulation
procedure and has some advantages over the other methods proposed
to produce natural gas from gas hydrate deposits. Its estimated effi-
ciency is between ∼6000% and ∼ 8900%. In order to maximize the
benefits, the method needs to be applied using a specialized gas
extraction strategy (controlled, relatively slow draw-down).
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Marlan Downey who introduced me to and sup-
ported my early gas hydrate research. I am thankful to David Deming
for discussions about geothermal implication of hydrate exploitation.
I would like to thank Art Johnson and three anonymous reviewers
who provided useful comments that improved an earlier version of
the manuscript. This work was partially supported by PSC-CUNY
Award # 64266-00 33.
References
Circone, S., Kirby, S.H., Stern, L.A., 2005. Thermal regulation of methane hydrate disso-
ciation: implications for gas production models. Energy Fuels 19 (6), 2357–2363.
Collette, T.S., 2004. Gas hydrates as a future energy resource. Geotimes 49 (11), 24–27.
Cranganu, C., 2005, A method for producing natural gas from gas hydrate deposits. AAPG
2005 Annual Convention, June 19–22, Calgary, Alberta, Canada [CD-ROM], pp. 1–6.
Cranganu, C., Downey, M., 1998. The outlook for production of methane from Black Sea Gas
Hydrates Deposits. The 3rd Int. Conf. on the Petroleum Geology and Hydrocarbon
Potential of the Black and Caspian Seas Areas. Geo-Eco-Marina 3, 118–119.
Cranganu, C., Nitzov, B., 2005. Harvesting the gas hydrates in the black sea: technology
and economics. J. Balkan Geophys. Soc. 8 (suppl. 1), 257–262.
Goel, N., 2006. In situ methane hydrate dissociation with carbon dioxide sequestration:
current knowledge and issues. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 51 (3–4), 169–184.
Handa, Y.P., 1986. Compositions, enthalpies of dissociation, and heat capacities in the
range 85 to 270 K for clathrate hydrates of methane, ethane, and propane, and
enthalpy of dissociation of isobutane hydrate, as determined by a heat-flow
calorimeter. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 18, 915–921.
Holder, G.D., Angert, P.F., John, V.T., Yen, S., 1982. A thermodynamic evaluation of
thermal recovery of gas from hydrates in the Earth. J. Pet. Geol. 34, 1127–1132.
Holder, G.D., Kamath, V.A., Godbole, S.P., 1984. The potential of natural gas hydrates as
an energy source. Annu. Rev. Energy 9, 427–445.
Kamath, V.A., 1998. A Perspective on Gas Production from Hydrates. Presented at JNOC
Methane Hydrate International Symposium, Chiba City, Japan, October 20–22.
Kantzas, A.P., Marentette, D.F., See, D., Adamache, I., MCIntyre, F.I., Sigmund, P.M.,
Goerge, A., 1994. Optimization of vertical miscible flood performance through cyclic
pressure pulsing. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 33 (7), 31–36.
Kvenvolden, K.A., 1998. A primer on the geological occurrences of gas hydrates. In: Henriet,
J.-P., Mienert, J. (Eds.), Gas Hydrates: Relevance to World Margin Stability and Climate
Change. Special Publications, vol. 137. Geological Society, London, pp. 9–30.
Kvenvolden, K.A., 2000. Natural gas hydrate: introduction and history of discovery. In:
Max, M.D. (Ed.), Natural Gas Hydrate in Oceanic and Permafrost Environments.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 9–16.
Lee, H., Seo, Y., Seo, Y.T., Moudrakovski, I.L., Ripmeester, J.A., 2003. Recovering methane
form solid methane hydrate with carbon dioxide, Angew. Chem.-Int. Ed. 42 (41),
5048–5051.
Makogon, Y.F., 1997. Hydrates of Hydrocarbons. PennWell Books, Tulsa. 482 pp.
Max, M.D., Dillon, W.P., 1998. Oceanic methane hydrate: the character of the Blake Ridge
hydrate stability zone and the potential for methane extraction. J. Pet. Geol. 21,
343–357.
McGrail, B.P., Zhu, T., Hunter, R.B., White, M.D., Patil, S.L., Kulkarni, A.S., 2004. A new
method for enhanced production of gas hydrates with CO2. Gas Hydrates: Energy
Resource Potential and Associated Geologic Hazards, AAPG Hedberg Conference,
Sept. 12 –16, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
McGuire, P.L., 1982. Methane hydrate gas production by thermal stimulation. Proc. of
the 4th Canadian Permafrost Conference. Alberta, Calgary, pp. 356–362.
Milkov, A.V., Claypool, G.E., Lee, Y.-J., Xu, W., Dickens, G.R., Borowski, W.S., ODP Leg 204
Scientific Party, 2003. In situ methane concentrations at Hydrate Ridge, offshore
Oregon: New constraints on the global gas hydrate inventory from an active margin,
Geology 31, 833–836.
Moridis, G.J., Collett, T.S., Boswell, R., Kurihara, M., Reagan, M.T., Koh, C., Sloan, E.D., 2008.
Toward production from gas hydrates: current status, assessment of resources, and
simulation-based evaluation of technology and potential. SPE 114163, 2008 SPE
Unconventional Reservoirs Conference. Keystone, Colorado. February 10–12.
Moridis, G.J., Collett, T.S., Dallimore, S.D., Satoh, T., Hancock, S., Weatherill, B., 2004.
Numerical studies of gas production from several CH4 hydrate zones at the Mallik
site, Mackenzie Delta, Can. J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 43 (3–4), 219–238.
Nakano, S., Yamamoto, K., Ohgaki, K., 1998. Natural gas exploitation by carbon dioxide
from gas hydrate fields – high pressure phase equilibrium for an ethane hydrate
system. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 212, 159–163.
Ohgaki, K., Takano, K., Moritoki, M., 1994. Exploitation of CH4 under the Nankai trough
in combination with CO2 storage. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu. 20, 121–123.
Ohgaki, K., Takano, K., Sangawa, H., Matsubara, T., Nakano, S., 1996. Methane ex-
ploitation by carbon dioxide from gas hydrates, – phase equilibria for CO2–CH4
mixed hydrate system. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 29 (3), 478–483.
Park, Y., Kim, D.Y., Lee, J.W., Huh, D.G., Lee, J., Lee, H., 2006. Sequestering carbon dioxide
into complex structures of naturally occurring gas hydrates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
103, 12690–12694. doi:10.1073/pnas.0602251103.
Seo, Y.T., Lee, H., Yoon, J.H., 2001. Hydrate phase equilibria of the carbon dioxide,
methane, and water system. J. Chem. Eng. Data. 46 (2), 381–384.
Sloan, E.D., 1998. Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases, 2nd edition. Marcel Dekker Inc.,
Publishers, New York. New York, 705 pp.
SPE, 2009. Unit Conversion Factors, http://www.spe.org/spe-app/spe/industry/reference/
unit_conversions.htm, accessed on January 24, 2009.
Sun, X., Nanchary, N., Mohanty, K.K., 2005. 1-D modeling of hydrate depressurization in
porous media. Trans. Porous Media. 58 (3), 315–338.
Sung, W.M., Lee, H., Lee, C., 2002. Numerical study for production performance of a
methane hydrate reservoir stimulated by inhibitor injection. Energy Sources. 24 (6),
499–512.
Uchida, T., Takeya, S., Ebinum, T., Narita, H., 2001. Replacing methane with CO2 in
clathrate hydrate: observations using Raman spectroscopy. In: Williams, D.J., Durie,
R.A., McMullan, P., Paulson, C.A.J., Smith, A.Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technology. CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood, Australia, pp. 523–527.