Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Energy
Available
Available Procedia
online
online 00 (2017) 000–000
atatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Energy
EnergyProcedia
Procedia125 (2017) 000–000
00 (2017) 467–476
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2017, EGU
European Geosciences
Division Union General
Energy, Resources Assembly 2017,
& Environment, ERE EGU
Division Energy, Resources & Environment, ERE
Numerical simulation of gas hydrate exploitation from subsea
Numerical The simulation
15th International ofSymposium
gas hydrate exploitation
on District Heating andfrom Coolingsubsea
reservoirs in the Black Sea
reservoirs in the Black Sea
Assessing the feasibility of using the heat demand-outdoor
Georg Janicki*, Stefan Schlüter, Torsten Hennig, Görge Deerberg
temperature functionStefan
Georg Janicki*, for Schlüter,
a long-term Torstendistrict
Hennig, heat Görgedemand Deerberg forecast
Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety, and Energy Technology UMSICHT, Osterfelder Strasse 3, 46047 Oberhausen, Germany
Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety, and Energy Technology UMSICHT, Osterfelder Strasse 3, 46047 Oberhausen, Germany
I. Andrića,b,c*, A. Pinaa, P. Ferrãoa, J. Fournierb., B. Lacarrièrec, O. Le Correc
Abstract
a
AbstractIN+ Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research - Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
The potential cof producing natural Veolia Recherche
gas from & Innovation,
subsea 291 Avenue
gas hydrate Dreyfous
deposits Daniel,
located in 78520 Limay,
the Black France
Sea is numerically studied within
TheGerman Département
potentialresearch
of producing Systèmes Énergétiques et Environnement - IMT Atlantique, 4 rue Alfred Kastler,
Sea44300 Nantes, France
the projectnatural
»SUGAR«.gas from subsea
A case studygasreveals
hydratethat
deposits located inby
the production thesimple
Black depressurization
is numerically studied within
is possible but at
the
quiteGerman
low rates. research
It canproject
be shown »SUGAR«. A case decomposition
that the hydrate study reveals that andthethusproduction by simplestrongly
the gas production depressurization
depend onisthe possible but at
geophysical
quite low rates.
properties of theItreservoir,
can be shown
the mass thatand
theheat
hydrate decomposition
transport within the and thus the
reservoir, andgas
theproduction strongly
model settings. depend onpermeability
In particular, the geophysicaland
propertiesheat
available of the reservoir,
required the mass and
to decompose theheat transport
hydrate, play within the reservoir,
an important role. and the model settings. In particular, permeability and
Abstract
available heat required to decompose the hydrate, play an important role.
©District
2017 The Authors.
heating Published
networks by Elsevier addressed
are commonly Ltd. in the literature as one of the most effective solutions for decreasing the
© 2017
© 2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier Ltd.
Elsevier Ltd. committee of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly 2017
Peer-review
greenhouseunder under responsibility
gas emissions from of of the
thethe scientific
building sector. These ofsystems require Geosciences
high investments
Peer-review responsibility scientific committee the European Unionwhich
(EGU) areGeneral
returned through the heat
Assembly
–Peer-review
Division
2017
sales. – Division
under responsibility
DueEnergy, Resources
Energy,
to the andofthe
Resources
changed climate
the scientific committee
andEnvironment
the Environment
conditions (ERE).
and
of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly 2017
(ERE). renovation policies, heat demand in the future could decrease,
building
– Division Energy, Resources and the Environment (ERE).
prolonging the investment return period.
Keywords: natural gas; subsea gas hydrates; methane hydrates; hydrate exploitation; numerical simulation; HyReS; SUGAR; Black Sea
The main scope of this paper is to assess the feasibility of using the heat demand – outdoor temperature function for heat demand
Keywords: natural gas; subsea gas hydrates; methane hydrates; hydrate exploitation; numerical simulation; HyReS; SUGAR; Black Sea
forecast. The district of Alvalade, located in Lisbon (Portugal), was used as a case study. The district is consisted of 665
buildings that vary in both construction period and typology. Three weather scenarios (low, medium, high) and three district
1.renovation
Introduction scenarios were developed (shallow, intermediate, deep). To estimate the error, obtained heat demand values were
1.compared
Introduction with results from a dynamic heat demand model, previously developed and validated by the authors.
TheNatural
resultsgas has gained
showed that when in importance
only weathercompared to other fossil
change is considered, energyofcarriers,
the margin because
error could it is considered
be acceptable for somea applications
relatively
Natural
»clean«
(the errorfuelgas
in haspower
for
annual gained
demand inwas
importance
generation, lowerheating
thancompared
20% systems to other
for all and as
weather fossil energy
transport
scenarios carriers,
fuel. because
It enabled
considered). the
However, it is considered
development
after introducing aofrelatively
modern
renovation
»clean«
power
scenarios, fuel
plantsthefor
like
errorpower
gas andgeneration,
value up heating
to 59.5%systems
steam cogeneration
increased plants and
(depending andon asthetransport
peak load power
weather fuel.plants,
and It enabled the development
andscenarios
renovation serves hydrogen of
ascombination modern
source for
considered).
power
Thecells
fuel plants
value of like
and slopegas
chemical and steam
coefficient
processes. cogeneration
increased
Whenoncoal isplants
average and the
within
replaced peak
by loadofpower
range
natural 3.8%
gas plants,
up to 8%
in power andperserves
decade,
production, as hydrogen
thethat source
corresponds
emission tofor
of carbon the
fuel cellscan
decrease
dioxide andthe
in bechemical
number
reducedof processes.
byheating
~50 %. When
hours of coal
Besides 22-139his replaced
the during the
production by heating
natural gas in
season
of biogas, power
the(dependingproduction,
extractiononof the emission
themethane
combination of carbon
fromofhydrates
weather and
is
renovation
dioxide
considered canscenarios
tobebereducedconsidered).
by ~50
a promising way On
%.tothe other hand,
Besides
overcome function
thefuture
production intercept increased
of biogas,
shortages. To fortheir
7.8-12.7%
the extraction
increase of per
potential decade
methane
for (depending
from
energy hydrateson the
applications is
coupled
considered
new scenarios).
technological The values way
to be a approaches
promising suggested
are to
being could
overcome be future
discussed usedandtoshortages.
modify theTo
developed function
increase
worldwide. parameters
their for years,
potential
In recent the for
scenarios
energyconsidered,
intense applications
research and
has
improve
new the accuracy
technological of heat demand
approaches estimations.
are being discussed and developed worldwide. In recent years, intense research has
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-208-8598-1420; fax: +49-208-8598-221420.
Cooling.
* E-mail address:author.
Corresponding Tel.: +49-208-8598-1420; fax: +49-208-8598-221420.
georg.janicki@umsicht.fraunhofer.de
E-mail address: georg.janicki@umsicht.fraunhofer.de
Keywords: Heat demand; Forecast; Climate change
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review underThe
1876-6102 © 2017 responsibility of theby
Authors. Published scientific
Elsevier committee
Ltd. of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly 2017
–Peer-review under responsibility
Division Energy, Resources andofthe
theEnvironment
scientific committee
(ERE). of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly 2017
– Division Energy, Resources and the Environment (ERE).
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of The 15th International Symposium on District Heating and Cooling.
1876-6102 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly 2017 – Division
Energy, Resources and the Environment (ERE).
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.157
468 Georg Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 125 (2017) 467–476
2 Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

been focused on the simulation of natural gas exploitation from gas hydrate reservoirs. Besides the technical and
economical efforts for drilling in submarine sediments, the challenges concern the reaction kinetics and transport
phenomena within the sediments in which gas hydrates are embedded in natural reservoirs. Thus, to find the optimal
strategy for the gas exploitation with or without CO2 storage, a large variety of parameters describing the properties
of particular target layers as well as time and position dependent thermodynamic conditions of hydrate/gas/water
systems have to be considered. The potential of producing methane by different approaches is numerically studied in
the frame of the research project »SUGAR - Submarine Gas Hydrate Reservoirs«. In order to describe the methane
production from subsea hydrate deposits and the replacement of methane by CO2, a scientific simulation model
based on a two-phase Darcy flow in a sediment/hydrate matrix called HyReS was developed and implemented in
COMSOL Multiphysics [1]. This tool turned out to be especially suited for the flexible implementation of non-
standard correlations concerning heat transfer, fluid flow, hydrate kinetics, and other relevant model data.
In the following, the results of the calculations based on particular reservoir parameters from a site in the Black
Sea and simple depressurization of a methane hydrate bearing reservoir at varied layer disposals are discussed.

Nomenclature

a volumetric interface area, m2/m3 φ composition derivation coefficient, 1

c molar concentration, mol/m3 ψ mass transfer coefficient, m/s
cp specific heat capacity, J/(kg∙K) η dynamic viscosity, Pa∙s
g gravitational acceleration, m/s2 Λ hydraulic conductivity, 1/(Pa∙s)
∆h latent heat, J/mol λ heat conductivity, W/(m∙K)
k dissociation constant, mol/(m2 Pa s) ν hydrate number
krel relative permeability, 1 ρ specific density, kg/m3
Kf intrinsic permeability, m2 ρ̃ molar density, mol/m3
M̃ molar mass, kg/mol Indices
P pressure, Pa * in phase equilibrium
q heat source, W/m3 abs absorption
R composition rate, mol/(m3s) C CO2 / capillary pressure
S saturation, m3/m3 CH CO2 hydrate
s mass source, kg/m3 G gas phase
s̃ molar source, mol/m3 H hydrate phase
T Temperature, K i component i
u Darcy velocity, m/s j phase j
y molar fraction, mol/mol L liquid phase
β volumetric expansivity, 1/K M methane
χ isothermal compressibility, 1/Pa MH methane hydrate
δ diffusion coefficient, m2/s n inert gas component n
ε artificial diffusion coefficient, m2/s rel relative
ϕ porosity, m3/m3 S sediment phase

1.1. Characteristics of gas hydrates

Gas hydrates are non-stoichiometric, ice-like compounds of water and gas molecules. At gas specific conditions
of low temperature and elevated pressure they form in an exothermal reaction. A lattice of water molecules encloses
the gas molecules. Generally, gas hydrates can contain different gases in different cage structures, depending on
their size and given thermodynamic conditions. Besides methane – the main component of natural gas and the
predominant component in natural gas hydrates – other small hydrocarbons, CO2 and nitrogen are involved.
Additives can be used either to promote or to inhibit their formation. [2]
Regarding the worldwide distribution of natural gas hydrate deposits several factors must coexist for hydrate
occurrence. This is to say water, organic matter for the gas formation in sediments, and the right pressure and
 Georg Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 125 (2017) 467–476 469
Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 3

temperature conditions. Depending on the water temperature, the geothermal gradient and salinity methane hydrate
typically can be found in subsea deposits at water depth beyond ~300 m [3]. They are wide-spread along all
continental margins. To name only few states, India, Japan, China, Russia and the USA have different deposits of
gas hydrates within their territories [4].

1.2. Exploitation of natural gas hydrate reservoirs

In recent years, the interest in methane hydrate as an energy resource has increased around the globe. During the
last two decades, worldwide research has been going on to localize and characterize the vast amounts of natural gas
trapped in methane hydrates in permafrost regions and subsea sediments. According to conservative estimates, the
deposits contain around 10,000 Gt of carbon. Compared to the reserves of conventional fossil fuels (coal, oil and
conventional natural gas), the carbon content of subsea gas hydrates is two to three times higher. [5,6]
According to thermodynamic equilibrium data, there are three mechanisms for the destabilization of methane
hydrates, namely increase in temperature, decrease in pressure or the addition of chemicals either to change stability
conditions or to substitute methane by another gas, e.g. carbon dioxide. A combination of these approaches may also
be suitable to destabilize hydrates and to recover the gas. The variety of measures to supply heat into a hydrate layer
for thermal destabilization ranges from injecting warm water or steam into a well [7,8] over injecting fuel and
oxygen to especially designed on-site combustion chambers [9,10] up to electromagnetic heating of a particular
region around a well [11]. Depressurization of a hydrate-bearing region is achieved by lowering the pressure inside
the target layers with the help of one or more wells [12]. According to the equilibrium curve of methane (Fig. 1,
left), a decrease in pressure will shift the equilibrium to lower temperatures. However, the release of methane gas
from its hydrate consumes heat [13] so that the reaction is self-limited and only continues until the temperature
reaches the new equilibrium point. Destabilization by injecting additives is well known from conventional gas
production, where inhibitors (e.g. methanol, glycol, salts and polymers) are added to gas streams in order to prevent
the built-up of hydrates that could block the pipelines [2,14]. This is an effective method to prevent hydrate
formation in gas pipelines, but it has to be shown whether this would help to destabilize hydrates that already exist.
However, a continuous gas production by inhibitor injection requires an enhanced mass transfer of inhibitors and
supply of heat, for that the hydrate dissociation reaction is endothermic [15].
Successful field tests in Canada, Alaska and Japan have shown that the production of natural gas from gas
hydrates is technically feasible. In production tests in the Nankai Trough offshore Japan (2013) [16-18] and in
Mallik, Canada (2008/2009) [19], natural gas hydrates were decomposed by lowering the reservoir pressure and
methane was produced via a conventional well. During the production test in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska (2012) [20], a
N2/CO2 mixture was injected to decompose the hydrate and release natural gas. The recovered natural gas consisted
predominantly of methane, while the injected CO2 was fixed as hydrate in the subsurface. Until now, the highest gas
production rate of 20,000 Nm3 per day was achieved during the offshore field test in Japan.

2. Description of the geologic system

A potential area for gas hydrates within European waters is the Black Sea. Whether it is a potential area for the
production of natural gas or not, will be one of the results of the ongoing research project »SUGAR«. Here, a
deposit within the Bulgarian territory around 200 km off-shore is investigated (Fig. 2, left). The study area is located
in the Danube delta within a deep sea fan (Fig. 2, right).
470 Georg Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 125 (2017) 467–476
4 Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Fig. 1. Maps of the Black Sea (left) showing site location (modified from Google Maps [21]); (right) indicating ubiquitous gas seepage, cold
vents, mud volcanoes and major deep-sea fans (modified from [22,23]).

According to several seismic, geophysical and geochemical surveys that have been done in that region recently
(DSDP 42b, MSM34), gas hydrates occur within a channel-leeve system that has formed in this region over the past
thousands of years. In the Danube delta different kinds of sediments (clay and fine to coarse sands) were deposited
in different layers consecutively. Here, gas hydrates can be found predominantly in sandy layers.

3. Numerical simulation

3.1. Reservoir model equations

Specially developed physico-chemical models are used for the numerical simulation of physical processes
occurring during the production of natural gas from subsea gas hydrate reservoirs by different methods
(depressurization, thermal stimulation, CO2 injection). Here, a numerical model consisting of four components
(water, methane, CO2, salt) and five phases (gas phase, liquid phase, methane hydrate phase, CO2 hydrate phase,
solid phase) based on a two-phase Darcy flow in sediments is presented. The model describes a multiphase flow of
gas and liquid within subsea hydrate-bearing sediments under non-isothermal and time-dependent conditions.
Depending on the prevailing pressure and temperature conditions the decomposition/formation of gas hydrates has
to be taken into account. Gas/liquid flow through an immobile sediment matrix is modeled as a heterogeneous
continuum; i.e. equations for the conservation of mass, momentum and energy are formulated separately for each
phase under the assumption of a continuous flow path with a mean phase volume fraction. The model was
implemented in COMSOL with a fully coupled solution approach. The basic conservation equations of the new
developed reservoir model are the phase continuity equations,

t SG G G
uG sG , t SL L L
uL sL (1), (2)

t SMH MH
sMH , t SCH CH
sCH (3), (4)

the component mass balances in the gas and the liquid phase,

SG ci,G t ci,G SG t SG eff

i,G
ci,G ci,G uG si,G (5)

SL ci,L t ci,L SL t SL eff

i ,L
ci,L ci,L uL si,L (6)

and the energy equations for gas, liquid, hydrate and sediment phases:
 Georg et
Janicki Janicki et al. / Procedia
al. / Energy Energy Procedia 125
00 (2017) (2017) 467–476
000–000 4715

SG GcP,G TG t SG G TG c
G P ,G
uG TG SG GTG PG t uG 1 T
G G
PG qG (7)

SL LcP,L TL t SL L TL c uL TL
L P ,L
qL (8)

SMH c
MH P ,MH
SCH CH P ,CH
c TH t SMH MH SCH CH TH qH (9)

1 c
S P ,S
TS t 1 S TS qS (10)

For the implementation in COMSOL Multiphysics some major modifications have been done on the main
conservation equations. Firstly, the four phase energy balances are summarized to a single energy balance of the
system with the unique dependent variable T. This is done by summarizing all energy equations together and
eliminating the interphase heat transfer fluxes. Secondly, the component mass balances for the gas phase are
switched to molar fractions as dependent variable. The resulting equations are

SG G
yi t yi t ( SG G
) SG eff
i ,G G
yi uG yi G
si,G (11)
n 1
t ( SG G
) SG G
1 SG SG t G
PG t G
TG t i ,G
Mi Mn MG yi t (12)
i 1

Thirdly, the continuity equations are further developed to get a numerically robust equation system for reservoir
pressure P and saturation SL. Therefore, the general continuity equation of a phase j is written as

Sj t Sj 1 j
t uj uj j j
sj j
(13)

This form offers the option to eliminate the time derivations of Sj by summarizing over all phases:

j
Sj 1, j
Sj t 0 (14), (15)

Due to low flow velocities, a general form of Darcy’s Law as a function of the permeability within the pore space
is used to give an expression for the velocity fields uG and uL:

uj Kf j
Pj g j
with j
krel , j j
, krel , j fj , SH , SL . (16), (17), (18)

The blocking of the flow path by gas hydrates is described by the following equation (Eq. (19)) proposed by [24]

2
Kf K 0 1 SH 1 1 SH 1 1 SH (19)

In compressible media density derivations must be taken into account in time and space; they are defined here as

j
1 j j
Pj , j
1 j j
Tj ,
T ,yi P ,yi
(20), (21), (22), (23)
i, j
1 j j
yi or i, j
1 j j
ci
P ,T P ,T
472 Georg Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 125 (2017) 467–476
6 Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

Hence, summarizing the continuity equations of all phases together, inserting the terms given above and
rearrange, the pressure equation of the reservoir system is given by the following general form:

j
Pj g j j
T
Sj j
Pj t Kf j
Pj g j
Kf j
Pj
j j j yk , j
k
k,j
(24)

sj j
Sj j
T t i, j
yi , j t Kf g j j j
T i,j
yi , j
j j i j i

The term in the flow divergence can be recognized as the sum of all phase velocities, so this form of the reservoir
pressure equation is sometimes termed the total velocity equation. Mathematically, Darcy’s Law leads to a strong
diffusion in pressure, and due to eliminating the ∂Sj/∂t terms, this equation is numerically robust and well to handle
with COMSOL solvers. But in the case of two-phase flow, a second equation is necessary for either the gas or the
liquid phase saturation. Due to lower phase velocities the liquid phase saturation is used:

SL L
PL g L L
T
SL t SL L
PL t Kf L
PL
Kf PL g ci,L
L L
i
i ,L
(25)

sL L
SL L
T t i ,L
ck ,L t Kf g L L j
T i ,L
ci,L
i i

For numerical stabilization, an artificial diffusion in SL with a diffusion coefficient ε must be introduced here to
get a robust solution process. The hydrate saturation equation for SMH does not contain any flow velocity fields, so
these can be solved as ODE’s independently of the pressure and saturation equations:

SMH t SMH MH
PL t MH
T t sMH MH
(26)

In porous media, pressure differences between gas and liquid phase occur due to capillary effects, which must be
taken into account. The capillary pressure is defined as

PC PG PL with PC f , SL , SH , (27), (28)

Setting the dependent variable P to PG, the gas and liquid phase pressures and their derivations can be expressed
by P and PC:

P PG , PL P PC , PG P, PL P PC (29), (30), (31), (32)

PG t P t, PL t P t PC t (33), (34)

Substitution of phase pressures and their time and space derivations by these expressions gives the final form of
the balance equation system.
The source terms in the conservation equations arise from hydrate formation/decomposition and gas absorption
effects. For the reservoir model, the following expressions are applied for the mass volume sources,
 Georg Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 125 (2017) 467–476 473
Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 7

sG RMH M M RCH MC si,L Mi , sL MH

RMH CH
RCH MW si,LM i (35), (36)
i i

sMH RMH MMH , sCH RCH MCH (37), (38)

sM ,G RMH sM ,L , sM ,L a
L GL
cM* ,L cM ,L , sC ,G RCH sC ,L , sC ,L a
L GL
cC* ,L cC ,L (39), (40)

and for the energy volume sources (here for the summarized energy equation):

q RMH hMH RCH hCH si,L habs,i (41)

i

The formation and dissociation of hydrates are modeled by the Kim-Bishnoi approach [25] as a kinetic rate
equation (Eq. (42) and Eq. (43)). Here, the gas phase fugacity, simplified as partial pressure difference, is used as
the driving force.

RMH kMH aMH  yM PG  P

MH  ,
*
RCH kCH aCH  yC PG  PCH
*
 (42), (43)

The initial and boundary conditions to solve these equations depend on the geological and technical scenario for a
specific reservoir simulation case.
These equations are implemented with COMSOL Multiphysics in a 2D axisymmetric model and a general 3D
Cartesian axis model. The specific model equations and space dimensions depend on the reservoir scenario, its
physics and symmetries, but in most cases the equation system is very similar to the basic equations given here. It
should be noted, that in addition to these basic conservation equations a large overhead of specific equations is
necessary for the definition of specific reservoir physics. These equations apply for the reservoir properties
(porosity, two-phase permeability and capillary pressure), the physical property data of the components (gases,
seawater, hydrates and sediment), mass and heat transfer data, thermodynamic equilibrium states (hydrate and
gas/liquid thermodynamics). They are subject of further papers, e g. [26].

3.2. Geologic and thermodynamic boundary conditions

A case study for a hydrate containing deposit in the Black Sea at a water depth of 1,653 m has been carried out.
The data from seismic surveys has been used to define a radial-symmetric model of the local stratigraphy.
According to the gained data, the most promising layer to find gas hydrates within alternating layers exists 61 mbsf
(meters below sea floor) and consists of medium-coarse sands with an intrinsic permeability of 1,000 mD containing
around 50 % of gas hydrates in the pore space (Target 1, Unit V). For Case 1, only the first 128 m of the sediment
column have been considered. For simplification, the first four layers on top of the stratigraphy and the layers below
the hydrate layer were each combined to a single layer in the model. Gas hydrates are assumed to be present only in
the middle layer, above and below no gas hydrates exist. An initial temperature at the sea floor of 9 °C with a
geothermal temperature gradient of 30 °C/km, a hydrostatic pressure profile and an initial salinity of 3 g/kg were
assumed. In contrast to previous model settings [26,27], the boundary conditions at the top (sea floor) were changed.
Instead of a closed boundary, a pressure boundary (Dirichlet-type) was defined which allows fluid flow into the
domain from above.

4. Results of the Black Sea case study

In Case 1, the production of natural gas by means of depressurization to 30 bar using a single well was simulated
in a 2D radial system with a radius of 500 m. The production well is located at the left edge over the total height of
474 Georg Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 125 (2017) 467–476
8 Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

the six meters thick hydrate layer in the middle of the grid. After a production period of 30 years, the profiles for
methane concentration in the pore water, temperature, pressure, and methane hydrate saturation are shown in Fig. 2.
After 30 years of depressurization, the pressure decreases to 30 bar in a radius of only 10-20 meters around the
well (Fig. 2, upper left). Due to the pressure boundary at the upper side of the domain, the pressure profile lacks
symmetry as in case of a closed boundary at the sea floor. The inflow of fluid from the water column (hydrostatic
pressure) results in a higher pressure level within the upper layer and the hydrate layer. Consequently, less gas
hydrate is decomposed. Only within a radius of ~250 m around the well, the hydrate phase disappears completely
(Fig. 2, upper right).
As soon as the pressure within the hydrate layer drops below the hydrate equilibrium pressure, the endothermic
hydrate decomposition starts in that region, accompanied by a decrease in temperature (Fig. 2, lower right). In Fig. 2
(lower left) the methane concentration in the pore water is shown. Since fluid flow is directed towards the well, an
inflow of »fresh« water into the upper part of the domain can be observed. This is why the concentration of methane
decreases within the first 20 meters and methane accumulates within the pore water below that zone.

Fig. 2. Profiles of pressure (upper left, in bar), methane hydrate saturation (upper right), methane concentration in the pore water (lower left, in
mol/m3), and temperature (lower right, in °C) after 30 years of depressurization.

Fig. 3 shows the gas production rate at the well for a period of 30 years. For the assumed scenario, a maximum
rate of ~1,400 Nm3/h can be achieved after ~6,300 days (~17 years). At later times, the rate decreases as the system
approaches equilibrium. In comparison, the results obtained without a pressure boundary are slightly higher (dotted
line in Fig. 3). The production reaches a maximum of ~2,700 Nm3/h after ~4,400 day (~12 years).

Fig. 3. Production rates for Case 1.

 Georg Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 125 (2017) 467–476 475
Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000 9

Being aware of the fact that the results for a hydrate layer located at a greater depth with different temperature
and pressure conditions (favorable for hydrate exploitation) might look more optimistic, a deeper layer (Target 2)
has been simulated in Case 2. The simulation setup was the same as for Case 1; only the depth (and thus the settings
associated with pressure and temperature) was changed from 61 mbsf to 130 mbsf. Fig. 4 (left) illustrates the
production rates for Case 2 after 18 years.

Fig. 4. (a) Production rates for Case 2; (b) Recovery factors for Case 1 and Case 2.

The production rates for Case 2 are more than doubled compared to Case 1 (3,600 Nm3/h vs. 1,400 Nm3/h at the
top level). The main reason is the higher temperature within the hydrate layer in combination with a lower influence
of the pressure boundary at the sea floor. The pressure decline within the hydrate layer is faster compared to Case 1
(depends on reservoir permeability assumptions). As shown in Fig. 4 (right), not only the maximum production rate
is higher for Case 2, but also the gas hydrate is decomposed completely within a shorter period of time as well. After
18 years, the recovery factor (which describes the ratio of produced gas to initial gas-in-place) in Case 2 is 100 %,
whereas it is only 50 % in Case 1.

5. Summary and conclusions

An immense presence of natural gas hydrates is presumed worldwide. The feasibility of methane recovery from
hydrate deposits has already been proven by different numerical simulations and field tests. Within the scope of the
German research project »SUGAR«, different technological approaches for the exploitation of natural gas hydrate
deposits are evaluated and compared by means of dynamic system simulations and analysis. As part of these
activities, various scenarios have been studied using the simulation model HyReS.
The results presented here illustrate the processes and effects occurring during gas production from a natural
hydrate deposit by depressurization. Based on a case study for the Black Sea, it was shown that the hydrate
decomposition, and thus the gas production strongly depend on the geophysical properties of the reservoir and the
model settings. In particular, a closed boundary at the sea floor leads to unrealistic pressure profiles within the
reservoir and higher production rates. It has been shown further that the strength of influence of the boundary
condition at sea floor level depends on the one hand on reservoir permeability assumptions and on the other hand on
the distance between the boundary and the hydrate decomposition/ pressure change zone.

Acknowledgements

The support of our research activities by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi)
and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the framework of the SUGAR project
is gratefully acknowledged. This publication is dedicated to my old friend Figo.
476 Georg Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 125 (2017) 467–476
10 Janicki et al. / Energy Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

References

[1] Comsol. (2017) Available at: https://www.comsol.de.

[2] Sloan, E. Dendy, and Carolyn A. Koh (eds) (2008) “Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases”, Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
[3] Haeckel, Matthias, and Erwin Suess. (2011) “Natürliche Gashydrate - Künftige Energieträger oder Option zur CO2-Speicherung?” in R.
Zellner (ed) Chemie über den Wolken… und darunter, Weinheim, Wiley-VCH.
[4] Kvenvolden, Keith A., and Thomas D. Lorenson. (2010) “A Global Inventory of Natural Gas Hydrate Occurrence.”
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/globalhydrate. Accessed: 12 April 2013.
[5] Kvenvolden, Keith A. (1988) “Methane hydrate - A major reservoir of carbon in the shallow geosphere?” Chemical Geology 71.1-3 (1988):
41–51.
[6] Milkov, Alexei V. (2004) “Global estimates of hydrate-bound gas in marine sediments: how much is really out there?” Earth-Science Reviews
66.3-4 (2004):183–197.
[7] McGuire, Patrick L. (1981) “Methane hydrate gas production by thermal stimulation.” in National Research Council of Canada (ed)
Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Permafrost Conference, Ottawa.
[8] Kawamura, Taro, Michika Ohtake, Yasuhide Sakamoto, Yoshitaka Yamamoto, Hironori Haneda, Takeshi Komai, and Satoru Higuchi. (2007)
“Experimental Study on Steam Injection Method using Methane Hydrate Core Samples.” in Jin S. Chung and Takeshi Komai (eds) Proceedings
of The Seventh (2007) ISOPE Ocean Mining Symposium, Lisbon.
[9] Schicks, Judith M., Erik Spangenberg, Ronny Giese, Bernd Steinhauer, Jens Klump, and Manja Luzi. (2011) “New Approaches for the
Production of Hydrocarbons from Hydrate Bearing Sediments.” Energies 4 (2011): 151–172.
[10] Castaldi, Marco J., Yue Zhou, and Tuncel M. Yegulalp. (2007) “Down-hole combustion method for gas production from methane hydrates.”
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 56.1-3 (2007): 176–185.
[11] Shagapov, V. Sh. and V. Syrtlanov. (1998) “A front problem concerning the decomposition of gas hydrates in natural strata on exposure to
high-frequency electromagnetic radiation.” Journal of Engineering Physics and Thermophysics 71.2 (1998): 263–268.
[12] Moridis, George J., Timothy S. Collett, Ray Boswell, Masanori Kurihara, Matthew T. Reagan, Carolyn A. Koh, and E. Dendy Sloan. (2009)
“Toward Production From Gas Hydrates: Current Status, Assessment of Resources, and Simulation-Based Evaluation of Technology and
Potential.” SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 12.5 (2009): 745–771.
[13] Goel, Naval.( 2006) “In situ methane hydrate dissociation with carbon dioxide sequestration: Current knowledge and issues.” Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering 51.3-4 (2006): 169–184.
[14] Kelland, Malcolm A. (ed). (2009) “Production Chemicals for the Oil and Gas Industry”, Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
[15] Cranganu, Constantin. (2009) “In-situ thermal stimulation of gas hydrates.” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 65.1-2 (2009):
76–80.
[16] JOGMEC. (2013) “Gas Produced from Methane Hydrate (provisional).”
http://www.jogmec.go.jp/english/news/release/news_01_000006.html.
[17] JOGMEC. (2013) “Gas Production from Methane Hydrate Layers Confirmed.”
http://www.jogmec.go.jp/english/news/release/release0110.html.
[18] Cyranoski, David. (2013) “Japanese test coaxes fire from ice.” Nature 496.7446 (2013): 409.
[19] Dallimore, Scott R., Koji Yamamoto, John F. Wright, and Gilles Bellefleur (eds). (2012) “Scientific results from the
JOGMEC/NRCan/Aurora Mallik 2007–2008 Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada.”
Bulletin 601.
[20] Jones, Nicola. (2012) “Gas-hydrate tests to begin in Alaska.” Nature News July (2012).
[21] Imagery ©2016 Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. NAVY, NGA, GEBCO, Landsat, Map data ©2016 Google: Google Maps.
[22] Haeckel, Matthias, Jörg Bialas, Ingo Klaucke, Klaus Wallmann, Gerhard Bohrmann, Katrin Schwalenberg, and SUGAR participants.(2015)
“Gas Hydrate Occurrences in the Black Sea - New Observations from the German SUGAR Project.” in Ray Boswell (ed) Fire in the ice. Methane
hydrate newsletter 15.2 (2015): 6–9.
[23] Schmale, Oliver, Matthias Haeckel, and Daniel F. McGinnis. (2011) “Response of the Black Sea methane budget to massive short-term
submarine inputs of methane.” Biogeosciences 8.4 (2011): 911–918.
[24] Civan, Faruk. (2001) “Scale effect on porosity and permeability. Kinetics, model, and correlation.” AIChE Journal 47.2 (2001): 271–287.
[25] Kim, H. C., P. Raj Bishnoi, Robert A. Heidemann, and Syed S. H. Rizvi. (1987) “Kinetics of methane hydrate decomposition.” Chemical
Engineering Science 42.7 (1987): 1645–1653.
[26] Janicki, Georg, Stefan Schlüter, Torsten Hennig, Hildegard Lyko, and Görge Deerberg. (2011) “Simulation of Methane Recovery from Gas
Hydrates Combined with Storing Carbon Dioxide as Hydrates.” Journal of Geological Research 9 (2011): 1–15.
[27] Janicki, Georg, Stefan Schlüter, Torsten Hennig, and Görge Deerberg. (2014) “Simulation of Subsea Gas Hydrate Exploitation.” Energy
Procedia 59 (2014): 82–89.