Thermal Reservoir Simulation Model of
Production From Naturally Occurring Gas
Hydrate Accumulations
Wim J.A.M. Swinkels, SPE, and Rik J.J. Drenth,* SPE, Shell Intl. E&P BV
Summary
Reservoir behavior of a hydrate-capped gas reservoir is modeled
using a three-dimensional thermal reservoir simulator. The model
incorporates a description of the phase behavior of the hydrates,
heat flow and compaction in the reservoir and the hydrate cap.
The model allows the calculation of well productivity, evaluation
of well configurations and matching of experimental data. It
shows the potentially self-sealing nature of the hydrate cap.
Production scenarios were also investigated for production
from the solid hydrate cap using horizontal wells and various
ways of dissociating the gas hydrates. These investigations show
the role of excessive water production and the requirement for
water handling facilities. A data acquisition program is needed to
obtain reservoir parameters for gas hydrate accumulations. Such
parameters include relative phase permeability, heat capacity and
thermal conductivity of the hydrate-filled formations, compaction
parameters and rate of hydrate formation and decomposition in
the reservoir.
Introduction
Interest in natural gas hydrates is increasing with foreseen require-
ments in the next century for large volumes of natural gas as a
relatively clean hydrocarbon fuel and with increasing exploration
and production operation experience in deepwater and Arctic
drilling.
While progress is being made in identifying and drilling natural
gas hydrates, there is also the need to look ahead and develop
production concepts for the potentially large deposits of natural
gas hydrates and hydrate-capped gas reservoirs. We are now
reaching the stage in which some of the simplifying assumptions
of analytical models are not sufficient any longer for developing
production concepts for natural gas hydrate accumulations. For
this reason we have investigated the option of applying a conven-
tional industrial thermal reservoir simulator to model production
from natural gas hydrates.
Reservoir behavior of free gas trapped under a hydrate seal is
to a great extent similar to the behavior of a conventional gas field
with the following major differences:
䊉 thermal effects on the overlying hydrate cap have to be taken
into account;
䊉 potentially large water saturations can build up in the reser-
voir;
䊉 relatively low pressures;
䊉 high formation compressibility can be expected.
Use of a thermal compositional reservoir simulator to model
the behavior of hydrates and hydrate-capped gas has not been
attempted before. We have shown before1 that existing knowledge
of phase behavior and thermal reservoir modeling can be fruitfully
combined to better understand the behavior of natural gas hy-
drates in the subsurface. In this paper we will expand on this work
and provide further results. After an overview of the model setup,
we will first show some results for modeling the depletion of the
*Now with Petroventures Intl.
Copyright © 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 68213) was revised for publication from paper SPE 56550, first presented
at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October.
Original manuscript received for review 18 November 1999. Revised manuscript received
15 March 2000. Paper peer approved 21 September 2000.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 3 共6兲, December 2000
gas accumulations underlying the hydrate layer. This will be fol-
lowed by the results for production from the hydrate layer itself,
applying heat injection in the formation.
Modeling Natural Hydrate Associated Production
Attempts to model the behavior of hydrate-capped gas and hy-
drate reservoirs have been documented by various authors in the
literature. Simple energy balance approaches are used by Kuusk-
raa and Hammershaimb et al.2 Masuda et al.,3 Yousif et al.,4 and
Xu and Ruppel5 have presented numerical solutions to analytical
models. The first two of these papers do not include thermal ef-
fects in their calculations. Reference 5 is specifically aimed at the
formation phase of hydrates in the reservoir over geological times,
and is less relevant to the production phase. An attempt at explain-
ing the production behavior of a possibly hydrate-capped gas ac-
cumulation is described by Collett and Ginsburg.6 The depth and
thickness of the hydrate layer under various conditions were de-
scribed by Holder et al.7 and by Hyndman et al.8
All these approaches apply analytical methods to explain the
subsurface occurrence and behavior of natural gas hydrates using
various simplifying assumptions.
In earlier work1 we have shown that modeling the reservoir
behavior of hydrate-capped gas reservoirs with a three-
dimensional 共3D兲 thermal hydrocarbon reservoir simulator allows
us to account for reservoir aspects, which are disregarded in most
analytical models. Such aspects include
䊉 well inflow pressure drop and the effects of horizontal and
vertical wells in the reservoir;
䊉 heat transfer between the reservoir fluids and the formation;
䊉 the geothermal gradient;
䊉 phase behavior and pressure/volume/temperature 共PVT兲 prop-
erties of the reservoir fluids as a fluction of pressure decline;
䊉 internal architecture and geometry of the reservoir; and
䊉 reservoir compaction effects.
Objective
The current study was undertaken to show the feasibility of mod-
eling production behavior of a hydrate-capped gas reservoir in a
conventional 3D thermal reservoir simulation model. Objectives
of the modeling work include the following.
䊉 Understand reservoir behavior of natural gas hydrates and
hydrate-capped reservoirs. Important aspects of the reservoir ther-
modynamics are the potential self-preservation capacity of the hy-
drate cap, the limitation on hydrate decomposition imposed by the
thermal conductivity of the rock and the influence of compaction.
䊉 Confirm material and energy balance analytical calculations.
䊉 Investigate production options, such as the application of
horizontal wells.
䊉 Calculate well productivity and evaluate well configurations.
This study was performed as part of an ongoing project involv-
ing other geological and petroleum engineering disciplines.
Accounting for Thermal Effects
In this study the thermal version of an in-house hydrocarbon res-
ervoir simulator is used.9 We represent the reservoir fluids by a
gaseous, a hydrate and an aqueous phase, which are made up of
three components, two hydrocarbons and a water component.
Energy in this reservoir fluid system is internally represented
by an extra enthalpy ‘‘component,’’ which occurs in each of the
three phases. In this way heat required for phase transitions, such
as dissociation of the hydrate, can be properly accounted for. This
1094-6470/2000/3共6兲/559/8/$5.00⫹0.50 559
Fig. 1–Annihilation of 500 m thick temperature disturbance be-
low the sea floor.
method also allows calculation of the Joule-Thomson cooling ef-
fect, which plays an important role in producing hydrate-
associated gas.
Heat flow in the formation is handled by assigning thermal
conductivity and heat capacity to gridblocks. The simulator then
calculates the heat flows. It is assumed that the hydrate stability
zone extends to the sea bottom, as is often the case. The sea
bottom temperature is assumed constant, which is a reasonable
assumption in deep sea environments.
Some simple analytical calculations were undertaken to delin-
eate the time scale of thermal conductivity effects. Fig. 1 shows
the development in time of an initially 500 m thick rectangular
temperature disturbance. The maximum time given is some
23,000 years, at which time the maximum deviation is only 4% of
the initial disturbance height. This time is equal to d 2 /k, where d
is the initial thickness of the disturbance and k the thermal diffu-
sivity of the formation, which is taken as 1.1⫻10⫺6 m2/s, an av-
erage value for a wide range of rock types. Since the temperature
disturbance is caused by hydrate formation, its thickness is the
thickness of the hydrate layer. So even for relatively thick hydrate
layers the life span of a temperature disturbance is on a much
smaller time scale than the geological one. For initial conditions,
therefore, the temperature can be taken to follow the geothermal
gradient.
Simulation Model Setup
Geology and Geometry. For the model of production from a
hydrate-capped gas accumulation, a 15⫻15⫻10 gridblock, domal
geometry is used 共similar to that in Fig. 2, which shows a 20
⫻10 version of the model兲, with dimensions of 1000⫻500 m.
The model holds a top layer of hydrate, capping a gas accumula-
tion below. The reservoir is assumed to be homogeneous, with the
reservoir properties being given in Table 1. Horizontal and verti-
cal permeability in the base case are both set at 200 md. Addi-
tional nonreservoir layers were included in the model to study the
impact of the heat capacity of the surrounding formation.
TABLE 1– INPUT PARAMETERS FOR GAS DEPLETION
MODEL
Reservoir depth 1000 m
Reservoir thickness 100 m
Reservoir length 1000 m
Initial reservoir pressure 80 bar
Gas composition CH4 80 mol%
Gas composition C2H6 20 mol%
Porosity 0.2
Permeability 200 md
Thermal gradient 3K/100 m
Max well prod.rate 0.5⫻106 m3/D
Water depth 800 m
560 W.J.A.M. Swinkels and R.J.J. Drenth: Thermal Reservoir Model
Fig. 2–Relationship between phases and components.
An aquifer is not included in this model. If an aquifer is
present, it will maintain the pressure, thus reducing the rate of
hydrate dissociation and maintaining hydrate seal integrity. An-
other benefit of an active aquifer would be improved well produc-
tivity over the lifetime of the field, as long as the water does not
reach the wells.
Phase Behavior. The simulation model uses three material com-
ponents 共methane, heavier gas and water兲 plus enthalpy, which is
also modeled as a component. Three phases are modeled: gas,
hydrate, and water. In the simulations reported in this paper the
hydrate phase is modeled as an immobile oil phase, since this was
essential for running the simulator version at the time. In the
current version this is no longer necessary. Fig. 2 shows the rela-
tionship between the four components and three phases. A solid
phase 共ice兲 for H2O is not included in the model, since our thrust
is mainly towards hydrates below the sea bottom, and less towards
hydrates in Arctic environments. For modeling hydrate conditions
in and under permafrost, including an ice phase in the model is
required.
The fluid composition as a function of pressure and tempera-
ture is entered into the simulator by specifying equilibrium ratios
or K values. The enthalpies of the various components in the
various phases are specified. These determine specific heat and
vaporization heat. Finally, the dependence of density and viscosity
on temperature is given to the simulator. For calculation of these
parameters an in-house PVT package was used, which is based on
the modified Redlich-Kwong-Soave 共MKRS兲 equation of state.
The hydrate properties calculated agree well with phase behavior
characteristics of hydrates reported in the literature, and the same
package has proven its value in practical investigations into hy-
drate behavior in production lines.
The overall composition of the gas in the thermodynamic
model used to calculate the phase behavior is summarized in
Table 1. The thermodynamic properties of this mixture are calcu-
lated using a standard in-house phase equilibrium package. The
resulting hydrate phase envelope is shown in Fig. 3.
Initialization. The model is initialized with a geothermal tem-
perature gradient of 0.03 K/m, using a temperature vs. depth table.
In the model this leads to a nonequilibrium situation, because left
to itself the temperature will slowly equalize in the model.
Pressure gradients are taken from the phase densities at reser-
voir pressure and temperature conditions, with an initial pressure
of 80 bar at a datum depth of 1050 meter sub sea 共mss兲. Under
these conditions and with the given phase behavior, the bottom of
the hydrate stability zone or the hydrate-gas contact is at 1050
mss. In the hydrate-capped gas model the volume of gas initially
in place is 0.93⫻109 m3, of which 0.44⫻109 m3 is contained in
the hydrate cap. The subsurface hydrate volume is 2.96
⫻106 m3. The volume of free water in the reservoir 共mainly the
connate water in the gas bearing part兲 is 1.48⫻106 m3.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No. 6, December 2000
 Fig. 3–Phase behavior diagram.
The initialization procedure is not based on hydrostatic equilib-
rium. The phase saturations are directly assigned to the gridblocks
and after that the solid hydrate is immobile and can only contrib-
ute to the reservoir dynamics through dissolution. After initializa-
tion the model is run for 1 year without production to equilibrate
pressures. Fig. 4 shows the saturation distribution resulting from
this initialization and equilibration procedure. In the current
model temperature equilibration will tend to wipe out the geother-
mal gradient because the geothermal energy flux is not incorpo-
rated. To avoid this, the energy flux from the core to the surface of
the earth has to be included in the model. Inspection of a nonpro-
ducing equilibration run showed that this was not necessary since
the effects of temperature equilibration are negligible over the
producing life of a hydrate-capped gas accumulation.
Relative Permeability. Measurements of relative permeability of
gas and water in the presence of hydrates were not available.
Connate water saturation S wc ⫽0.2 and Corey coefficients of n
⫽2 for gas and water were used. The hydrate phase is assumed
immobile over the full saturation range. Similar assumptions were
made by Masuda et al.2 This is an area in which a considerable
amount of experimental work is still required. An interesting ex-
periment, indicating a possible way was described by de Boer
et al.10
In sands close to the surface the capillary transition zone be-
tween water and gas is expected to be small because of the good
permeability and large density difference between gas and water.
Hence, no capillary transition zone between gas and water is as-
sumed in the model.
Fig. 4–Domal structure of a simulated reservoir and initial
phase saturation.
W.J.A.M. Swinkels and R.J.J. Drenth: Thermal Reservoir Model
Fig. 5–Temperature distribution before depletion of hydrate-
capped gas.
Compaction. Formation compressibility is included in the reser-
voir simulator as pore volume compressibility. This therefore ac-
counts purely for the compaction in reservoir pore volume, not for
subsidence effects. The compaction is assumed to be linearly de-
pendent on pressure. This is not a limitation of the simulator,
which can handle more complicated dependencies, but a choice by
the authors. We are aware that more complex dependencies would
probably be more realistic, but in the absence of actual data we
used the simplest assumption. In the probably quite loosely com-
pacted reservoir sands close to the sea bottom it is important,
though, that some form of compaction is taken into account.
Well Model. The horizontal well is shown in the cross section in
Fig. 5. The horizontal section runs at a depth of 1080 m over a
length of 500 m of which 400 m has been perforated.
The simulator used allows the inclusion of various well effects,
which are disregarded in the current investigatory studies because
of their relatively minor impact and lack of reliable data. Ex-
amples of these are the non-Darcy skin effect and turbulent pres-
sure drop in the well. Vertical flow behavior and pressure drop in
the vertical section are included in the simulator by using lift
curves for a 20 bar flowing tubing head pressure or by a minimum
flowing bottomhole pressure constraint of 50 bar.
A maximum well rate of 0.5⫻106 m3/D is allowed, which re-
quires a drawdown of a few bar only at initial reservoir condi-
tions. Neglecting the turbulent pressure drop in the horizontal well
leg makes the well productivity a nearly linear function of the
length of the horizontal section. For such rates 5-in. tubing would
be required. In general, rates should be nearer 1⫻106 m3/D to
make such developments economically feasible. Because pres-
sures in general will be low, certainly if hydrate re-gasification is
expected to play a significant role, the largest feasible tubing and
also the largest feasible diameter horizontal section will have to be
used.
During hydrate dissociation large volumes of water will be-
come mobile. Since the vertical permeability will probably be
relatively large in these accumulations, gas/water gravity segrega-
tion may occur and only a minor fraction of the mobile water is
expected to be produced directly into the producing wells. Since
temperatures are low the partial pressure of water in the gas phase
will also be low and, hence, water production originating from the
gas phase will be low.
In principle the temperature in a gas producing well can be
calculated using standard well performance programs. The pro-
grams available to us were not geared towards predicting tempera-
tures in a region in which dissociating hydrates occur. Hence the
temperature around the well will have to be modeled in the reser-
voir simulator.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No. 6, December 2000 561
 Fig. 7–Influence of additional layers on the temperature gradi-
ent after 4 years of production.

the gas bearing part of the reservoir which are added to provide
the additional heat capacity. The horizontal leg of the well is
Fig. 6–Well pressure and temperature performance during
indicated.
hydrate-capped gas depletion.
The cross section in Fig. 8 displays the overall temperature in
the reservoir after 10 years of production. The thermal gradient in
the model is clearly visible. As can be expected there is a zone in
To obtain a maximum inflow in low pressure reservoirs multi-
the model in which the hydrate is dissociating due to the pressure
lateral wells may offer the possibility to increase the effective well
drop in the gas volume below the hydrate layer. Where this dis-
length open to gas inflow, while reducing the length of horizontal
sociation takes place, heat is taken from the surrounding forma-
pipe the gas has to flow through. Whether the extra cost of drilling
tion and this cooling effect shows up as the band of lower forma-
such wells is offset by the extra productivity will depend on a
tion temperature in the model. This temperature drop in turn limits
number of mainly economic parameters.
the dissociation process at the gas-hydrate boundary, illustrating
once more that under pressure depletion conditions the rate of
Modeling Production Options
hydrate dissociation is limited by the heat flow into the reservoir.
The major use of the reservoir simulation model is in modeling
The simulation shows that dissociation of the hydrate cap
and screening production options. The spatial configuration and
above a producing hydrate-capped gas reservoir will slow down
completion of wells in a hydrate or hydrate-capped gas develop-
due to cooling at the gas-hydrate boundary, even if large amounts
ment play an important role in determining the success or failure
of heat, stored in layers directly below the reservoir, are included
of the recovery process. It is important that injection and/or pro-
in the model. This confirms our view on top seal disintegration
duction wells are designed in an optimized manner so that the
under pressure depletion, which was mentioned as a potential
reservoir energy is conserved and drainage maximized.
showstopper by BeMent et al.11
We first model the relatively simple situation of producing gas
Simulation runs with this model show that heat conduction in
from below a hydrate layer. Use of horizontal production wells,
the formation is too slow to dissociate the hydrate cap during the
which usually have much larger productivity than vertical wells, is
producing life of the reservoir. It can be expected that leaks in the
beneficial for two reasons: they allow larger flow rates at the same
hydrate cap are in principle self-sealing, since the hydrate cap will
drawdown and they increase the reservoir contact volume, poten-
be in the hydrate stability region up to the ocean bottom. This
tially exposing a larger volume of hydrates to decomposition.
effect will also play a role around producers and reduce the risk of
massive hydrate melting around the producing wells.
Depleting a Hydrate-Capped Gas Accumulation
The well performance plot 共Fig. 6兲 gives the results of the
Fig. 6 shows the performance of the well. A constant gas produc-
model with and without the five additional layers and hardly any
tion rate of 500 000 m3/D is maintained for almost 3 years, after
difference can be seen, showing that geothermal heat flow effects
which the minimum flowing bottomhole pressure of 50 bar is hit
can be neglected during the producing life of the reservoir. This
and the well goes into a sharp decline. Over this period, the res-
also illustrates the need for heat injection if large-scale hydrate
ervoir pressure declines almost linearly from 80 to 50 bar, not
dissociation is required.11
indicating sizeable pressure support from dissociating hydrates.
The flowing bottomhole temperature 共FBHT兲 of the well shows a
drop of about 1 K, due to Joule-Thomson cooling by the expand-
ing gas, a phenomenon also observed in conventional gas wells.
At the time at which the well goes in decline, lower volumes of
gas are expanding, the cooling effect will be less and, as expected,
the decline in FBHT levels off.
The observed cooling effect is beneficial for thermal behavior
of the hydrate layer around the producers, since the cooler gas
stream helps to maintain the integrity of the hydrate seal, where
this is penetrated by the wells.
Earlier analytical calculations of the Joule-Thomson cooling
effect indicated an order of magnitude of a few tenths of K/bar
pressure drop, which is in line with the current simulation results.
The pressure drop around the producing wells does not extend
into the hydrate layer, because in the model of hydrate capped gas
depletion, the hydrate layer is assumed to be fully sealing and thus
does not transmit pressure changes. Pressure distribution in the
reservoir is determined by the permeability pattern, assumed to be
homogeneous and isotropic in this case.
Fig. 7 shows the geothermal temperature distribution over a Fig. 8–Temperature distribution after depletion of hydrate-
cross section of the model with the large additional blocks below capped gas.

562 W.J.A.M. Swinkels and R.J.J. Drenth: Thermal Reservoir Model SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No. 6, December 2000

Fig. 9–Cross section of a horizontal producer in a hydrate
layer.
Another look at the difference between the model with and
without additional heat capacity is the comparison of thermal gra-
dients shown in Fig. 7. This diagram shows the distortion of the
temperature profile over the gas bearing part of the formation after
4 years of production. The only minor difference visible between
the two models is a slightly higher temperature at the bottom of
the gas bearing zone in the model with the additional heat capac-
ity. The diagram also shows that the cooling around the well will
not pull the well into the hydrate P, T region if it is deep enough
共say, 50 m兲 below the hydrate cap. This supports the statement on
production showstoppers 共by BeMent9兲 that hydrate formation in
the wells is a manageable problem.
Producing From the Solid Hydrate Layer
To investigate production from the solid hydrates a model was set
up of a 150 m by 90 m by 500 m block filled with hydrates in the
pore system 共porosity of 30%兲. A horizontal producer runs across
the length of the block and, if injection is required, this is modeled
by a horizontal injector some 10 m below the producer. The grid-
block is refined around the wells to give improved resolution of
the pressure and temperature changes. Fig. 9 gives a cross section
of this model.
In Fig. 9 the cooling around the producing wells and the hot
fluid injected in the vertical producer are clearly visible, as is a
kind of ‘‘thermal coning’’ effect toward the producing well. This
effect is caused by slightly cooler gas moving toward the well
from the cool area higher up.
One of the major problems in simulating this situation is proper
modeling of water mobility. BeMent11 mentioned water produc-
tion as a potential showstopper that impacts the cost and complex-
ity of the development.
Water will be generated if the hydrates dissociate and consid-
erable amounts of water move through the reservoir. Obviously
the volume of water which has to be lifted will be greatly depen-
dent on the relative permeability of the water phase and also on
the vertical to horizontal permeability ratio of the formation. In
particular, if additional water is injected in the form of steam or,
even worse, hot water, then downhole gas/water separation will be
almost unavoidable for production from the layer of solid hy-
drates.
Laboratory experiments, in-situ measurements, well logs and
well tests will ultimately be required to provide data which enable
the setup of reliable models for such a specific situation.
Phase Distribution in the Model. Initialization of the model with
solid hydrates requires assumptions of the phase distribution in
the hydrate-bearing layer. Table 2 gives an overview of the situ-
ations that may occur.
Since we have concentrated on suboceanic hydrate occur-
rences, the cases that contain ice were not considered further. Of
the remaining cases the situation in which all the phases were
present seemed to be the most illustrative and a model was set up
containing hydrates, gas and liquids in the pore system. In the
model mobile gas and water are present in the hydrate stability
zone. The same set of phases and components as that in the deple-
tion case was used, i.e., a gas, a solid hydrate and a liquid phase in
the reservoir, composed of two hydrocarbon components and wa-
ter. Relative permeability was defined such that gas and water are

TABLE 2– PHASE PRESENCE AND MOBILITY IN THE PORE SYSTEM

Case Free
No. Hydrate Water Gas Ice Occurrence Consequence

1 Hydrate Pore volume is 100% No mobile fluids

filled with solid hydrates
2 Hydrate ⫹ Water Likely situation if No mobile gas; wells
hydrates are created by will not flow without an
percolating gas through a energy supply in the
water bearing layer in the neighborhood of the
hydrate stability zone well
3 Hydrate ⫹ Gas This situation would No mobile water; by
develop if gas were blowing off the gas, a
generated in-situ in large volume of
excess of the quantities hydrates may be
required to consume all exposed to
the pore water dissociation due to
underpressure
4 Hydrate ⫹ Ice This situation can
develop in Arctic regions
under permafrost
5 Hydrate ⫹ Water ⫹ Gas This situation can Two mobile phases in
develop if hydrocarbon addition to the solid
components are present hydrate
in the gas phase for
which there is no ‘‘room’’
in the hydrate lattice
6 Hydrate ⫹ Gas ⫹ Ice Same as above, but below
the freezing point

W.J.A.M. Swinkels and R.J.J. Drenth: Thermal Reservoir Model SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No. 6, December 2000 563
Fig. 10–Performance with a producer in a hydrate layer above
the injector.

mobile down to very low saturation. Hydrates are immobile. En- Fig. 11–Saturation distribution with the injector below the pro-
thalpy in the model is treated as a component included in the ducer.
phases along with the other components.

Results of an Injection Case As in the previous injection case, the bottomhole temperature
This model, with a horizontal producer on top of a parallel injec- in the producing well first drops due to expansion cooling, then
tor, was run assuming injection of steam into the formation. This stabilizes at low production rates and finally after breakthrough of
resulted in the performance shown in Fig. 10. Various phenomena the heat front stabilizes at somewhat below the hot water injection
clearly show up in this diagram and they are the following. temperature.
The well, producing at a constant rate, goes into decline after After the breakthrough of water and heat in the producer, the
about 450 days when the minimum flowing bottomhole pressure gas and water production rates also stabilize.
is reached. Note that this time is a direct function of the volume of Because of the domal geometry, mobile gas in the hydrate layer
gas contained in the model. Expansion cooling around the well- in this model is in pressure communication with the underlying
bore then ends and the bottomhole temperature in the well stabi- free gas. For this reason some of the depletion effects of the
lizes. hydrate-capped gas case are also visible in this model, in particu-
The injector is switched on and the production decline is lar the cooling due to hydrate dissociation of the boundary layer
halted. Gas and water rates in the producer increase again. between the hydrate and the hydrate-capped gas.
Water and gas production stabilize due to lift constraints in the
well. Modeling Reservoir Charging
Because of the gas mobility and the good permeability, the
A simulation run was performed to try to model the formation of
bottomhole pressure in the well is a close reflection of the overall
hydrates by gas percolating through water-filled sediment. In the
reservoir pressure in the model.
model the gas was injected through five wells in the bottom layer
The pressure stabilizes at the minimum flowing bottomhole
of the reservoir. Although the model is only a crude approxima-
pressure.
tion, a hydrate was formed. Whether in the end an effective cap is
The bottomhole temperature in the producing well first drops
formed has not yet been simulated. The aim of these simulations
due to expansion cooling, then stabilizes at low production rates
will be, first, to try to model the experiments by de Boer et al.10 In
and finally increases when the hot injection fluid breaks through at
their laboratory experiments on core material they showed the
the producer.
formation of a very competent hydrate seal, which could with-
Fig. 11 illustrates how in this configuration the hot injection
stand a 2.4 bar pressure differential over a hydrate thickness of 5
fluid drains down into the reservoir away from the producer. This
cm.
also illustrates the impact of the assumed vertical permeability in
the model.
The performance plot in Fig. 12 of a case with an overlying
water injector shows the characteristics of this production sce-
nario.
The well, producing at a constant rate, goes into decline after
about 450 days. Expansion cooling around the wellbore then ends
and the bottomhole temperature in the well stabilizes.
The injector is switched on and the production decline is
halted. Gas and water rates in the producer increase again and a
short peak in the gas production shows up.
The water rate in the producing well increases early on to a
high level of 300 m3/D, which is temporarily higher than the
injection rate, when the water front, including water from the
dissociated hydrates, reaches the producer.
The flowing bottomhole pressure in the well is a close reflec-
tion of the overall reservoir pressure in the model. It shows the
linear pressure decline due to the production of 0.5 Mm3/D of gas.
The pressure stabilizes at the minimum flowing bottomhole Fig. 12–Performance with the producer in the hydrate layer be-
pressure. low the injector.

564 W.J.A.M. Swinkels and R.J.J. Drenth: Thermal Reservoir Model SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No. 6, December 2000
Discussion
Further Work Required. Reservoir parameters required as input
for this type of simulation are routinely available for conventional
oil and gas reservoirs. For accurate modeling of gas hydrate and
hydrate-capped reservoirs a dedicated laboratory and field data
collection program is needed to obtain the following parameters.
Reservoir and hydrate cap permeability, which determines res-
ervoir flow and well productivity. Permeability in the vertical di-
rection plays a role in the drainage of water, which results from
dissociation of the hydrate cap in the reservoir. This water could
potentially drain into the wells.
Relative permeability of gas and water in the presence of hy-
drates.
Thermal conductivity of a hydrate-filled formation.
Heat capacity of the hydrate filled formation.
Dissociation speed/rate of decomposition of the hydrate in the
formation. Although this parameter can be calculated from the
above measurements, it is desirable to obtain independent experi-
mental confirmation of its value in specific formations. For experi-
ments on formation and dissociation of hydrates see the work of
de Boer et al.10 and of Kamath et al.12
Compaction parameters, in particular pore volume compress-
ibility of the reservoir.
Thermal and pressure behavior of wells, both theoretical de-
scriptions and field measurements.
Reliable production data for model calibration at a reservoir
scale, including flow rates, pressures and temperatures as a func-
tion of time.
Well test data.
Model Limitations. The performance modeled here is based on a
conceptual model of some of the processes that play a role in
production from natural gas hydrates. Such a model is only the
starting point in a process to find the best development options
and well configurations. The simulation outcomes very much re-
flect the assumptions put into the model and in a real situation
some of these parameters or conditions may be different. In par-
ticular phase presence and mobility in the pore system, described
in Table 2, is a crucial parameter, which should be determined
from core and laboratory studies.
A consequence of the choice of the presence of mobile water is
that injection is modeled without hydraulic fracturing. Fracing
may well occur in a real injection situation and rock mechanics
should then be taken into account.
Another situation, which may occur in nature, is the condition
where the hydrates are not contained in a consolidated formation
with an established self-supporting pore system. Hydrates could
well be mixed with fine silt in a slurry, which changes in compo-
sition and compacts heavily when the hydrates are removed. Such
a situation cannot be modeled with the type of simulator de-
scribed, which is based on Darcy flow of fluids through a compe-
tent pore system.
Finally, the model used for this injection case is a simple cross
section. In an actual situation the reservoir geometry may play an
important role as well.
Conclusions
Current thermal simulation tools in standard use in the oil and gas
industry provide the functionality required to model pressure and
temperature behavior of hydrate and hydrate-capped reservoirs.
The simulator used here was the Shell in-house MoReS simulator,
with no specific alterations to make it suitable for hydrate simu-
lation. Any thermal simulator with suitable PVT handling, e.g.,
using K values, could be used successfully. Obtaining correct
PVT input is not a trivial exercise, however, and it requires a
suitable PVT property simulation package.
The same tools can in principle be used to model generation of
in-situ hydrates over geological times.
Modeling the depletion of a hydrate-capped gas reservoir
through a horizontal well shows the importance of Joule-Thomson
cooling around the wellbore in this type of reservoir.
W.J.A.M. Swinkels and R.J.J. Drenth: Thermal Reservoir Model
Dissociation of the hydrate cap caused by pressure depletion in
a hydrate-capped gas reservoir will be slowed down considerably
due to cooling at the gas-hydrate interface.
Production from solid hydrate requires large numbers of pro-
ducers, handling of considerable water volumes and large
amounts of energy input.
For reliable modeling of hydrate-associated reservoirs, basic
data measurements which accurately describe the distribution of
natural gas hydrates in the pore system and flow of gas and water
in the presence of natural gas hydrates are required.
Nomenclature
d ⫽ thickness of the zone with disturbed temperature
n ⫽ Corey exponent
S wc ⫽ connate water saturation
Acknowledgments
This work is a result of the Natural Gas Hydrates Production
Team at Shell International Exploration and Production, and the
authors thank team members Owen BeMent, Klaas Bil, Ulfert
Klomp, Leo Roodhart, Bob Sambell, Dan White, and Charles
Zoons for their enthusiasm and support.
References
1. Drenth, A.J.J. and Swinkels, W.J.A.M.: ‘‘A Thermal Reservoir Simu-
lation Model of Natural Gas Hydrate Production,’’ Proc., Intl. Sym-
posium on Methane Hydrates, organized by JNOC, Chiba 共October
1998兲 .
2. Kuuskraa, V.A. and Hammershaimb, E.C.: ‘‘The Energy Balance of
Hydrate Recovery,’’ Proc., 1984 Intl. Gas Research Conference, 63.
3. Masuda, Y. et al.: ‘‘Numerical Calculation of Gas Production Perfor-
mance From Reservoirs Containing Natural Gas Hydrates,‘‘ paper
SPE 38291 presented at the 1997 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Con-
ference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, 14–16 April.
4. Yousif, M.H. et al.: ‘‘Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of
Methane-Gas-Hydrate Dissociation in Porous Media,’’ SPERE 共Feb-
ruary 1991兲 69.
5. Xu, W. and Ruppel, C.: ‘‘Predicting the Occurrence, Distribution and
Evolution of Methane Gas Hydrate in Porous Marine Sediments,’’ J.
Geophys. Res. 共1999兲 104, 5081.
6. Collett, T.S. and Ginsburg, G.D.: ‘‘Gas Hydrates in the Messoyakha
Gas Field of the West-Siberian Basin: ‘A Re-Examination of the Geo-
logic Evidence,’ ’’ Proc., Seventh Intl. Offshore and Polar Confer-
ence, Honolulu, Hawaii 共May 1997兲.
7. Holder, G.D., Malone, R.D., and Lawson, W.F.: ‘‘Effects of Gas
Composition and Geothermal Properties on the Thickness and Depth
of Natural-Gas-Hydrate Zones,’’ JPT 共September 1987兲 1147; Trans.,
AIME, 283.
8. Hyndman, R.D. et al.: ‘‘Deep Sea Bottom-Simulating-Reflectors:
Calibration of the Base of the Hydrate Stability Field as Used For
Heat Flow Estimates,‘‘ Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 共1992兲 109, 289.
9. Regtien, J.M.M. et al.: ‘‘Interactive Reservoir Simulation,’’ paper
SPE 29146 presented at the 1995 SPE Symposium on Reservoir
Simulations, San Antonio, Texas, 12–15 February.
10. de Boer, R.B., Houbolt, J.J.H.C., and Lagrand, J.: ‘‘Formation of Gas
Hydrates in a Permeable Medium,’’ Geol. Mijnbouw 共1985兲 64, 245.
11. BeMent, W.O. et al.: ‘‘Are There Showstoppers to Commercial Gas
Hydrate Production?’’ Proc., Intl. Symposium on Methane Hydrates,
organized by JNOC, Chiba 共October 1998兲 .
12. Kamath, V.A. et al.: ‘‘Experimental Study of Brine Injection and
Depressurization Methods for Dissociation of Gas Hydrates,’’ SPEFE
共December 1991兲 477.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bar ⫻ 1.0* E⫹05 ⫽ Pa•s
*Conversion factor is exact. SPEREE
Wim (J.A.M.) Swinkels is currently a petroleum engineer with
Shell Technology E&P in Rijswijk, The Netherlands. e-mail:
W.J.A.Swinkels@siep.shell.com. Previously, he was the Reser-
voir Engineering Program Director for Shell E&P Training and
held various petroleum engineering positions in Shell compa-
nies in Malaysia and The Netherlands, as well as in the Shell
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No. 6, December 2000 565
Global studies team. He also held an advisory position on oil
and gas licensing matters with the Ministry of Economic Affairs
in The Netherlands from 1984–85. His special interests include
reservoir simulation and modeling, reserves and resource
management, and handling uncertainty in E&P decision mak-
ing. Swinkels holds an MS degree in applied mathematics from
Eindhoven Technical U., The Netherlands. Rik (A.J.J.) Drenth
566 W.J.A.M. Swinkels and R.J.J. Drenth: Thermal Reservoir Model
has worked for 24 years as a reservoir engineer in various po-
sitions for Shell in Holland, Norway, Nigeria, and the U.K. e-mail:
rd@petroventures.com. His special interests include hydrate
production, horizontal wells, EOR, and acreage evaluation,
especially in the Middle East. Currently, he is working as an
independent consultant through Petroventures Intl. Drenth
holds an MS degree in theoretical and technical physics from
Groningen U., The Netherlands.
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No. 6, December 2000