Gas Hydrate Production

Gas hydrate production in a high pressure and low temperature environment

From: Offshore Operation Facilities, 2014

Related terms:

Natural Gas, Simulators, Trough, Hydrate Natural Gas, Depressurization, Gas Pro-
duction, Hydrate Dissociation, Hydrate Formation, Production Method

View all Topics

Emerging technologies in methane hy-

drate projects
Lin Chen, Sukru Merey, in Oceanic Methane Hydrates, 2021

13.6 Production technologies

The gas hydrate production trial stage is the last stage in gas hydrate exploration
studies. Mainly, gas hydrate reservoir data are collected with the geophysical sur-
vey, geological explorations, LWD drilling, and coring operations. Then, after the
evaluation of gas hydrate reservoir data, the locations where gas hydrate production
trials might be conducted are chosen. After designing the gas hydrate production
test method, the gas production test is initiated. Between 2002 and 2017, these gas
hydrate production methods were tested in field-scale in the marine environment
and permafrost environment (Li et al., 2018; Liping et al., 2019):

• Depressurization

• Thermal stimulation

• Depressurization+thermal stimulation

• CH4-CO2/N2 replacement

• Reservoir fluid extraction

• Solid fluidization
In Fig. 13.17, cumulative gas production and gas hydrate production test durations
between 2002 and 2017 were summarized. In this book, these gas hydrate pro-
duction tests in Fig. 13.17 were discussed in detail except 2017-Shenhu Area gas
hydrate production tests in China. In 2017, two different production tests were
implemented in the Shenhu Area, South China Sea (Li et al., 2018; Liping et al.,
2019). One of these tests is “reservoir fluid extraction.” In the 60-day production test,
approximately 309,000 standard m3 of gas was produced by applying this method
in the Shenhu Area, South China Sea. This method is a new method applied for
the first time in the 2017-Shenhu Area gas hydrate production test. Li et al. (2018)
stated that the reservoir fluid extraction method combines a three-phase control
system. In this method, while extracting fluids from gas hydrate reservoir, hydrate
phase state and formation stabilization are also controlled as described in Fig. 13.18.
In the 2017-Shenhu Area test, depressurization from low permeable silty gas hy-
drate reservoirs was provided via predominant fluid channels (Liping et al., 2019).
Although the reservoir formation extraction method is a modified version of the
depressurization method, it is not clear how hydrate transformation and formation
stabilization were preserved while extracting fluid with depressurization. According
to the gas hydrate production trials between 2002 and 2017, formation stability is
a key point while extracting fluid from gas hydrates. However, while dissociating
gas hydrates in coarse sands, it is not possible to keep reservoir geomechanically
stable in the depressurization method. Thus, most probably, special technology was
implemented to control gas hydrate transformation and formation stability while
extracting fluid from gas hydrates in silty sediments of Shenhu Area. Currently,
the details of the reservoir formation extraction method have not been shared by
China. In 2017, the second gas hydrate production trial was also implemented in the
Shenhu Area, South China Sea, China. Unfortunately, a very risky method was tested
in a very short duration. This method is solid fluidization. In the well completion
part, this method was discussed in detail. This test was short and only 81 standard
m3 of gas was produced (Liping et al., 2019). However, in terms of environment,
health, and safety, it is very dangerous because it directly crashes gas hydrates near
the seafloor.
Figure 13.17. Gas hydrate production trials after 2002 in the world.Adapted from
Li, J., Ye, J., Qin, X., Qiu, H., et al., 2018. The first offshore natural gas hydrate
production test in South China Sea. China Geology, 1 (1), 5–16.

Figure 13.18. Key points of reservoir fluid extraction method applied in 2017-Shen-

hu Area Gas Hydrate Production Test.

According to gas hydrate exploration and production activities between 2002 and
2017, it is clear that the depressurization method (50%–80% gas recovery) is the
most efficient production method among CH4-CO2 replacement, thermal injec-
tion, and chemical injection (SBC, 2015). However, without solving sand produc-
tion problems and decreasing the depressurization rate with production, it is not
likely to have a feasible production from gas hydrates. Depressurization, CH4-CO2
replacement, chemical injection, and thermal injection are production methods
used for conventional and unconventional (i.e., shale gas, coalbed methane) oil
and gas reservoirs widely. Hence, these four methods used for gas hydrates are
already-existing methods. Thus, the gas hydrate industry needs to propose new gas
hydrate production methods. However, these newly proposed methods should not
be harmful to the environment, health, and safety as solid fluidization technique.
High water production rate during gas production from gas hydrates is one of the
most crucial problems against feasible gas production. In Fig. 13.19, average gas
to water production ratios in the recent gas hydrate production trials are shown.
This ratio ranges from 27.2 to 185.7. Due to the high amount of water produced
together with gas from gas hydrates, gas cannot reach the surface. Hence, pumps are
essential to mobilize water so gas can be produced from gas hydrates. As Figs. 13.17
and 13.19 are analyzed together, and then the highest gas to water production
ratio (~185.7) was obtained in the 2008-Mallik Field Test, where the combination of
depressurization and thermal injection was applied.

Figure 13.19. Average gas to water production ratio in recent gas hydrate production
trials (EPGH, 2008; Schoderbek et al., 2013; Yamamoto et al., 2017; Yamamoto et al.,
2019).

In conventional gas reservoirs, gas to water production ratio ranges from 20,000
(m3/m3) to 89,000 (SBC, 2015; Hancock et al., 2019). On the other hand, this ratio
is between 27.2 and 185.7 while producing fluid from gas hydrates according to
the recent gas hydrate production trials. According to Hancock et al. (2019), the
average gas to water production ratio for gas hydrates is in the order of 178 (m3/m3).
Generally, for conventional gas reservoirs, water production might be due to an
aquifer in the boundary, so it is possible to avoid water flux to gas wells by several
techniques (i.e., gel operations). However, in gas hydrates, water production is a part
of the gas hydrate dissociation process. As discussed in Chapter 1 m3 of gas hydrate
releases ~164 m3 of gas and 0.8–0.9 m3 of water. For this reason, pumps should be
used for gas hydrates. Electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) have been widely used
in the recent gas hydrate production trials (i.e., Mallik Field, Nankai Trough, Shenhu
Area) (Yamamoto and Dallimore, 2008; Birchwood et al., 2010; Matsuzawa et al.,
2014; Li et al., 2019). To illustrate, ESP string designs used in Nankai Trough are
shown in Fig. 13.20. In permafrost regions, water was produced with ESP, and water
was pumped to the surface via tubing in the production test well of the Mallik Field.
On the other hand, gas was separated with a gas separator, so gas was released to
the annulus, and gas production on the surface was conducted from the annulus.
Gas separators are inserted to ESP strings in cases of 10% or more of free gas at
ESP intake (Bearden, 2007), so gas separators should be installed in ESP string for
gas hydrate production wells. Pressure and temperature sensors exist at the bottom
of the ESP production string. It is important to monitor pressure and temperature
changes, so the heater in the ESP string might be turned on in case of any gas
hydrate formation risks inside the wellbore. Especially for gas hydrates, the sand
screen is a must because sands might plug the intake of ESP string, and ESP fails. In
Mallik 2L-38 well (cased completion and perforated without any sand control), ESP
was damaged due to sand production (Li et al., 2019).

Figure 13.20. Production string for 2013-Nankai Trough test.From Merey, S., Aydin,
H., Eren, T., (2020). Design of electrical submersible pumps in methane hydrate
production wells: A case study in Nankai trough methane hydrates. Upstream Oil
and Gas Technology 5, 100023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.upstre.2020.100023

In Fig. 13.20, the ESP production string used for the 2013-Nankai Trough Test is
shown. ESP string in the marine environment is quite complicated compared with
ESP string in permafrost regions. In the 2013-Nankai Trough test, the production
well (AT1-P) was completed with OHGP. However, this completion technique could
not prevent sand production, so sand production (~30 m3 of sand) damaged ESP
in AT1-P (Yamamoto et al., 2017; Li et al., 2019). With this ESP, it was aimed to
reduce bottom-hole pressure to 4.5 MPa from 13.5 MPa and also the ESP designs in
Figs. 13.20b and 13.21 have the capability of reducing bottom-hole pressure to 3.5-
 MPa (Matsuzawa et al., 2014). In Fig. 13.20, green color (gray arrow in print version)
represents fluid (methane and water) produced with methane hydrate dissociation.
This fluid moves upward in a specially designed production string. Heat assembly
is a measure to avoid any hydrate formation from the produced fluid (methane and
water) inside the production string. Then, produced fluid enters inside ESP assembly
(which is shown in Fig. 13.21). In a specially designed production string, separated
gas by gas separator moves to sea surface inside the riser system. Similarly, water
is sent to the choke line via ESP in a specially designed production string. Hence,
gas and water are produced separately on the sea surface. As seen in Fig. 13.21, ESP
assembly includes many cables and lines. The heater power cable sends energy to
the heater in Fig. 13.20. DTS fiber optical line is useful to collect temperature data
inside ESP assembly. The chemical injection line in Fig. 13.21 allows the injection
of methanol in case of any gas hydrate formation inside ESP assembly. Any flow
assurance problem inside assembly might cause a low rate of water production
together with high volumes of free gas production, so this might cause the failure of
ESP assembly because ESP is designed to produce mainly liquids. ESP system was
also used in the 2017-Shenhu Area production test (Li et al., 2018).

Figure 13.21. ESP Assembly used in 2013-Nankai Trough (Matsuzawa et al., 2014).

Successful production trials were implemented in 2017-Nankai Trough gas hydrate

production trials by using ESP assembly designed by Schlumberger. This specially
designed ESP assembly can be used at 0°C conditions. In this field, for the first time,
without drilling risers in the open sea, ESP installations were completed. Within
24 days of the gas hydrate production trial, 200,000 m3 of methane was produced
from one well continuously by using this specially designed ESP (SLB, 2018).

As seen in Table 13.1, the sea depth of well-known gas hydrate fields in the marine
environment ranges from 1000 to 2800 m. Thus, it might be not feasible to produce
a huge amount of water released with gas hydrate dissociation until the sea surface.
In Fig. 13.20, instead of pumping water up to the sea surface via the choke line,
the produced water might be released to the seafloor with a specially designed
check valve system. However, despite the fact that produced water with gas hydrate
dissociation is almost pure water, its effect on sea life and the environment near the
seafloor should be investigated carefully.

In Ignik Sikumi #1 well, the CH4-CO2/N2 replacement method was tested success-
fully in 2012. In a 30-day test, 28,000 m3 of gas was produced. Thus, this produc-
tion method includes injection, soaking, and production periods. In Fig. 13.22, the
schematic of the completion and instrumentation of the Ignik Sikumi #1 well is
shown. The target zone for this test was 11.7 m-thick C-1 sand, so a cased hole with
perforation is a completion technique used for Ignik Sikumi #1. 200 μm sand screen
was used on the perforations but still, sand production cannot be prevented as seen
in Fig. 13.15. DTS sensors and pressure sensors also exist in this production string,
so pressure and temperature inside the wellbore can be monitored. Differently, in
this well, two reverse jet pumps at different capacities were used and were installed
to straddle the gas lift mandrel. In this way, it was aimed to produce water and gas
flowing through the wellbore after CH4-CO2/N2 replacement. Power fluid used to
activate the reverse jet pump system was recycled and warmed in case of any gas
hydrate formation inside the production string (Schoderbek et al., 2013).

Figure 13.22. Schematic of the completion and instrumentation of the Ignik Sikumi

well (Boswell et al., 2016).
Overall, gas production from marine gas hydrates has certain environmental risks
because they are generally very close to the seafloor (125–480 mbsf as listed in
Table 13.1) and exist inside loose sediments. Therefore, during gas hydrate drilling,
well completion, and production processes, it is crucial to monitor many parameters.
These parameters are mainly:

• Pressure and temperature by sensors (i.e., DTS)

• Wellhead on the seafloor by ROV

• Gas release on the sea surface

• Seismic activity on the seafloor (i.e., subsidence)

• Newly development in geophysical equipment settled on the seafloor and

measuring resistivity changes in target gas hydrate reservoir during produc-
tion

In the 2017-Shenhu Area gas hydrate production trial in China, the environmental
monitoring system called “Four-in-one” was implemented as seen in Fig. 13.23.
“Four in one” means the monitoring system measuring data near sea surface
(atmosphere), seawater, seafloor, and borehole (Li et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018).
With this system, it is possible to detect any possible environmental risks earlier such
that necessary precautions can be taken during gas production from gas hydrates.
Similar monitoring systems are essential during long-term gas production from gas
hydrates. With the recent machine learning system, it is possible to shut off gas
hydrate production wells if any risk appears in the monitoring system.

Figure 13.23. “Four-in-one” environmental monitoring system employed during

the production test (Li et al., 2018).
In summary, significant developments in the gas hydrate industry in terms of
geophysics, drilling, coring, well logging, well completion, and production have oc-
curred between 2002 and 2019. However, feasible gas production from gas hydrates
is still at an early stage. In Fig. 13.24, technological requirements for feasible gas
production from gas hydrates according to the experiences gained between 2002
and 2019 are summarized. In terms of geophysics, specially designed geophysical
equipment is essential to monitor seismic activity and degree of subsidence on the
seafloor during both drilling and production in marine gas hydrate reservoirs. In
fact, gas hydrate reservoirs in Table 13.1 are close to the seafloor in the degree of a
few hundred meters, so geophysical equipment on seafloor monitoring resistivity
changes during production and drilling might give many clues about sensitive
gas hydrate reservoirs a few hundred meters below the seafloor. As discussed in
this chapter, drilling ships and semisubmersible drilling rigs are not designed for
shallow gas hydrate explorations, so they raise the cost of gas hydrate explorations.
As suggested in Fig. 13.24, submersible drilling units on seafloor might decrease the
drilling cost of gas hydrate explorations. Similarly, coring technologies have been
improved recently for gas hydrates, but pressure and temperature of cores should
be maintained at reservoir conditions. Moreover, practical imaging technologies
on site are essential to minimize the negative effects of transportations of core
samples from the site to laboratories on land. Well logging technology is quite
helpful for gas hydrate explorations, but the reliability of data is negatively affected
by washouts. Although it is possible to minimize washouts by better drilling designs,
it is not easy to avoid it completely in shallow weak sediments. Thus, with new
technologies, these negative effects might be removed. In Fig. 13.24, many cables
are used in the production string to transfer data and energy for sensors, heaters,
and electric motors of pumps. Instead of transferring these cables from the outside
of the production string, special tubing strings might be developed especially for
data transfer. In well completion, it is quite important to minimize sands flowing
through wellbore by better screen designs. However, as sand production is not
avoided during gas hydrate dissociation, sands are likely to be deposited around
the wellbore even if sand screens do not allow sand movement inside the wellbore.
This deposition might plug the pores around the wellbore. Careful selection of gas
hydrate production sites is crucial, so environmental risks are minimized. Production
smart monitoring technologies are important to control these risks. Overall, the
gas hydrate industry needs novel and effective production methods minimizing
geomechanical risks because currently none of gas hydrate production is a candidate
to provide feasible gas production from gas hydrates according to the experiences
gained between 2002 and 2020.
Figure 13.24. Technological requirements for feasible gas production from gas hy-
drates according to the experiences gained between 2002 and 2019.

> Read full chapter

Methane Hydrates
Ray Boswell, ... Scott Dallimore, in Future Energy (Second Edition), 2014

8.4.2 CO2−CH4 Exchange

A recent development in gas hydrate production technology is the potential to
exchange CO2 for the CH4 within the gas hydrate structure as a basis for methane
production [58,59]. The exchange approach, which involves the maintenance of
some solid gas hydrate within the pore structure throughout production, offers
several favourable elements including the potential to improve reservoir geo-me-
chanical stability as well as the opportunity to improve the overall carbon balance
of the extraction process through the permanent storage of CO2 in hydrate form.
These advantages are countered by the fact that the retention of solid hydrate will
limit the ultimate reservoir permeability. Therefore, production-utilising exchange
processes may be inferior to simple depressurisation in terms of potential gas flow
rates.

Recognition of the potential for CO2−CH4 exchange was initially based on theoretical
and experimental studies using bulk hydrates [60]. Additional experimental studies
had shown that gas mixtures containing CO2 and N2 resulted in increased exchange
capacity and greater methane release [61]. While these studies confirmed that mole-
cular exchange occurs spontaneously, the low rates observed led most to believe that
CO2−CH4 exchange was impractical for commercial application. However, further
integrated experimental and modelling efforts suggested increased CH4 release
rates were obtained when exchange was considered in more appropriate porous me-
dia settings and at typical reservoir pressure–temperature conditions [62]. However,
a major challenge facing the exchange concept is the potential for extremely low
capacity to inject CO2 (and resultant low CH4 production) driven both by (1) the low
in situ reservoir permeability typical of gas-hydrate-saturated sediments and (2) the
presence of mobile water, which can lead to further permeability reduction and loss
in capacity to inject by the formation of CO2-hydrate (prior to any exchange with
native CH4-hydrate) upon contact with in situ formation water.

To investigate the potential of CO2CH4 exchange in naturally occurring reservoirs,

an initial field experiment (the ‘Iġnik Sikumi’ field trial) was conducted on the
Alaska North Slope in 2011 and 2012 by ConocoPhillips in collaboration with the
US DOE and JOGMEC [22]. While practical field applications of exchange in gas
production commonly invoke multiple well settings, with separate gas injection
and production wells [59], this Iġnik Sikumi trial was designed as a vertical-well
‘huff-and-puff ’ that featured gas injection followed by stepwise depressurisation to
recover released gases and fluids. The field trial demonstrated that injection into
gas-hydrate and free-water-bearing reservoirs could be achieved through use of a
(CO2+N2) gas mixture. Subsequent to injection, the well was produced in four stages
(Figure 8.5): (1) unassisted flow back (1.5 days), (2) pressure reduction via down hole
pumping designed to mobilise only free gases (by ensuring that pressure reduction
was insufficient to destabilise native CH4-hydrate) (7 days), (3) further pressure
reduction to pressures very near native-methane hydrate destabilisation pressures
(2.5 days) and (4) production by depressurisation below native-methane hydrate
stability, but above pressures that would destabilise any newly formed CO2-hydrate
(19 days).
Figure 8.5. Measured gas production rate (purple) and well pressure (blue) from the
flowback portion of the Ignik Sikumi gas hydrate exchange field trial. Also shown
are calculated CH4-hydrate (red) and CO2-hydrate (green) dissociation pressures at
ambient wellbore temperatures. Here kcf·d−1 refers to a thousand cubic feet per
day and psi refers to pounds per square inch. Here 1 kcf/d=0.0929×103 m3·d−1 and
1 psi=6.895×103 Pa.

Gas production during the test ranged from peak rates of about 3500 m3·d−1
(120×103 cf·d−1) during phase 3 to (580 to 1160) m3·d−1 ((20 to 40)×103 cf·d−1) during
phase 4. During phase 4, produced gas was virtually entirely CH4 (very little CO2
or N2), with production rate steadily increasing from (500 to 1000) m3·d−1 ((18 to
35) 103 cf·d−1) in direct response to subtle changes in down hole pressure [22].
Flow back gases were preferentially scrubbed of CO2, indicating that exchange likely
did occur in situ; however, the full attribution of the various observed production
volumes to specific subsurface processes, including exchange, hydrate dissolution
and mixed gas-hydrate formation and dissociation, will require further examination.

> Read full chapter

Real offshore tests in Japan (2013, 2017)

and China (2017)
Lin Chen, Sukru Merey, in Oceanic Methane Hydrates, 2021

9.1.2 Production site selection

The test site for the first offshore gas hydrate production was selected at the Dai-
ni-Atsumi Knoll in 2013, as shown in Fig. 9.3. An outline of the -MHCZ (methane
hydrate concentrated zone) from 3D seismic data is shown through the pink (light
gray in print version) line and the area is about 12 km2 with water depth ranging
from 860 to 1405 m. The MHCZ has a thickness of tens of meters, which mainly
contained turbidite channel-type sediments within a submarine fan system in the
Ogasa Group whose age ranges from middle- to late Pleistocene.

Figure 9.3. Time structure map of seafloor of the Daini-Atsumi Knoll from 3D

seismic survey data. Pink (light gray in print version) line outlines the -methane
hydrate concentrated zone (MHCZ), as interpreted from 3D seismic data. Water
depth in the -MHCZ ranges from 857 to 1405 m. Inset (top left) locates the first
offshore production test site (2012–2013), which is on the northwestern slope of the
Daini-Atsumi Knoll (Fujii et al., 2015).

The detailed geological status of Nankai Trough reservoir is shown in Fig. 9.4. From
the figure, it can be seen that the methane hydrate reservoir is located around
300 m below the seabed, which is 1000 m below the sea level. It can be seen from
Fig. 9.4 that the basic geological layers are clearly detected by seismic reflectors and
their responses data. Five units can be divided into the response curves. According
to the data, the methane hydrate layers in this region are characterized by the
mid-three layers (around 60 m thick), which are confined by one upper muddy layer
(silt-dominated) and one underburden layer saturated by water. Those mid-three
layers are the target region of methane hydrate production.
Figure 9.4. Methane hydrate concentrated zone (MHCZ) confirmed in AT1-MC well
and lithology units. Typical seismic and resistivity log responses are also described
in (e) and (f ), respectively. (c) shows resistivity and resistivity image: white part
shows MH-bearing sand layers. It is possible that Units IV-1 and IV-2 are the same
geological unit (thin-alternating unit), upper MHCZ, which means that the main
difference is MH saturation rather than lithology. This zoning is mainly based on the
occurrence of MH, while lithological characteristics are noted in brackets. Therefore,
it is not necessarily the same as the sedimentological facies classifications described
in Komatsu et al. (Fujii et al., 2015).

In the 2013 test, one production well AT1-P and two monitoring wells AT1-MC and
AT1-MT1 were drilled in the test production between February and March in 2012, as
shown in Fig. 9.5. AT1-P was approximately 5–7 m deeper than the monitoring wells.
AT1-MC was drilled to monitor the reservoir properties of methane hydrate-bearing
sediments (HBS), while AT1-MT1 was drilled mainly to monitor temperatures with
the temperature-monitoring systems distributed temperature sensor and resistance
temperature detector. The distance between the two monitoring wells was more than
40 m. The deep distances of AT1-MC and AT1-MC from AT1-P were 34 and 22 m,
respectively (Yamamoto et al., 2017).
Figure 9.5. The locations of 2013 test and 2017 test of Nankai Trough, Japan (Ya-
mamoto et al., 2019).

> Read full chapter

Hydrate Inhibition During Drilling

and Production
Rudy Rogers, in Offshore Gas Hydrates, 2015

Abstract
Improved hydrate inhibition will be necessary for offshore hydrate-gas production,
especially in deeper waters. During production, inherent residual water memory and
bioproduct catalysis enhance hydrate re-formation as decomposed hydrate water
and gas near the wellbore. In this chapter chemical structures and mechanisms of
commercially available inhibitors are reviewed to establish prerequisites for cheaper,
biodegradable hydrate inhibitors effective in deeper waters. Antifreeze protein (AFP)
properties protecting Arctic fish, plants, insects, and bacteria against destructive
cellular ice are presented to help define future inhibitor effectiveness. Discussed is
recent research finding that microbial cell wall materials inhibit hydrates. The inhib-
itive mechanism ingeniously protects indigenous cells in seafloors from hydrate’s
heat of formation, yet strategically places the microorganisms within hydrate masses
to access the carbon repository. The text explores prospects of biodegradable cell wall
materials in low concentrations performing as economical hydrate inhibitors not
only for offshore hydrate-gas production but also for conventional gas production.
> Read full chapter

Proceedings of the 9th International

Conference on Foundations of Com-
puter-Aided Process Design
M. Wang, ... M.M. El-Halwagi, in Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 2019

Conclusion
The CO2 in the produced gas from natural gas hydrate production method by CO-
2/H2 replacement coupling steam methane reforming is beneficial to the reforming

process, but when the S/C ratio is greater than 6, the methane conversion rate has
little influence with the CO2/CH4 ratio. Adding H2 under different CO2/CH4 ratios
(lower than 1) can improve methane conversion during the reforming process. The
Reformer temperature and pressure can be set at 750 ~ 900 °C and 400 ~ 1,900 kPa
to obtain the conversion of CH4 higher than 90 %. Proper S/C ratio is 3 ~ 6.

The energy ratio increases when the CO2 mole fraction in the feed gas increases.
When the composition of CO2 in the feed gas is about 60 %, it can meet the
requirement that the flow rate of recycled gas is equal to that of feed gas, to ensure
that the subsequent production process does not need to add feed gas or discharge
recycled gas.

> Read full chapter

Comparisons of field activities in differ-

ent worldwide sites
Lin Chen, Sukru Merey, in Oceanic Methane Hydrates, 2021

12.3 Outcomes and strategies

As discussed in this chapter, reservoir properties and geological settings affect gas
hydrate production strategies. Basically, all gas hydrate production methods include
the modification of conventional gas production methods. Successful horizontal well
technology together with hydraulic fracturing in shale gas reservoirs is also proposed
for gas hydrates. However, the unstable nature of gas hydrates and their geome-
chanical characteristics make horizontal well technology and hydraulic fracturing
difficult to apply. According to the experiences gained since the 2002-Mallik field
test in the gas hydrate industry, great developments were achieved for gas hydrates
in these areas:

• Geophysics

• Geochemistry

• Drilling

• Coring

• Well logging

• Completion

On the other hand, the gas hydrate industry has many problems at the stage of gas
production from gas hydrates. High water production, high sand production, and
geomechanical problems stopped gas hydrate production tests early (up to 60 days).
Between 2002 and 2020, gas hydrate industry has gained better knowledge and
experiences about gas hydrates. To obtain feasible and safe gas production from gas
hydrates, there are many questions to be answered. These questions are summarized
in Fig. 12.9.

Figure 12.9. The questions to be answered for gas hydrate production.

Basically, numerical and experimental studies investigating the effect of horizontal

well technology and hydraulic fracturing on gas production from gas hydrates
should also focus on how to drill horizontal wells safely and how to fracture gas
hydrate without any risks. Otherwise, these studies only reach to expected results.
Currently, much more experiences about pressurized coring technology for gas
hydrates were gained, so it is possible to analyze sediments sampled from reservoirs
in laboratories almost at in situ conditions of them.

The gas hydrate industry investigated the depressurization method from syntheti-
cally formed gas hydrates both numerically and experimentally. However, without
measuring sand production and taking precautions to avoid sand production, de-
pressurization studies are not likely to be novel. In summary, the gas hydrate industry
should try to answer the questions in Fig. 12.9 while conducting experiments and
numerical simulations. Otherwise, the outcomes of these studies will not bring new
results.

> Read full chapter

Operation and well monitoring and

recording technologies
Lin Chen, Sukru Merey, in Oceanic Methane Hydrates, 2021

15.4 Emerging monitoring technologies

In recent years, distributed fiber-optic technologies have been actively used in gas
hydrate production tests. The most distinctive advantage of distributed fiber-optic
technologies over other conventional point sensing and wireline logging technolo-
gies is its “distributed sensing” feature. The distributed sensing, as the fiber itself is
the sensing medium, enables obtaining a temperature profile for the entire fiber
length with much higher spatial intervals than point sensors in a period. It also
enables continuous real-time temperature profiling at any time throughout the well,
once it is permanently installed inside the well or temporarily on production tubing
(Hartog, 2017). Unlike the production logging run, which obtains temperatures after
the event, the DTS can identify in-well performance changes as the events occur
during the entire monitoring period. In addition, fiber-optic distributed sensing
has many more advantages compared to conventional point sensors as it can be
deployed in any harsh or unusual environment, and it is small, light, and corro-
sion-resistant and has a long sensing range, good sensitivity, and electromagnetic
immunity (Lee et al., 2018).

Most recent developments in two types of distributed fiber-optic technologies are

introduced: DTS and DAS. Both DTS and DAS are widely used in oilfield applications
to monitor the life of a well as described in Fig. 15.4 (Naldrett et al., 2018).
Figure 15.4. Distributed fiber-optic technologies in oilfield (Naldrett et al., 2018).

In detail, DTS is a fiber-optic technology which provides the user with a technique
to measure the temperature distribution profile along a fiber-optic cable at any time
and to repeat such measurements as required. The fiber-optic cable can be of any
length up to about a few tens of kilometers. With the exception of the recording
instrumentation at one or both ends of the fiber, there are no electronics, sensors,
electrical wires, or electrical connections along the fiber-optic cable. The cable may
be permanent or reinstalled for each use. It is inherently safe to use in environments
where an electrical spark may pose a fire safety hazard.

So far, for all the offshore production tests conducted in Japan and China, Ra-
man-based DTS had been installed into both the production and monitoring wells
(Yamamoto et al., 2014, 2019; Chee et al., 2014; Li et al., 2018). One example can be
found in Fig. 15.5. As described in the above sections, the DTS acquisition unit for
the production well is located at surface; therefore, a commercial available DTS that
meets temperature resolution of 0.01°C and spatial measurement interval of less
than 1m should be selected. In recent years, higher specifications of Raman-based
DTS unit have been commercialized, targeting gas hydrate monitoring purpose as
shown in Fig. 15.6.
Figure 15.5. Distributed temperature sensor specifications in offshore Japan test
(Yamamoto et al., 2017).

Figure 15.6. Example of high-end Raman-based distributed temperature sensor

product with vertical spatial resolution of 0.5m and temperature accuracy of ±0.25°C
(GXHJ, 2020).

On the monitoring well, a custom engineered DTS unit named as Subsea DTS is
required for long-term autonomous monitoring purposes because the user can
continue temperature acquisition post production for reservoir recovery phase.

DAS technology based on Rayleigh backscattering provides measurement of acoustic

energy along the length of an optical fiber cable. DAS technology relies on a
fiber-optic cable same as DTS as its sensing element, and it is therefore free from
any electromagnetic disturbances and also has a long range, making the technology
extremely suitable in adverse environments such as gas hydrate production moni-
toring.

DAS uses an incident light pulse and analyzes Rayleigh backscattered light (Hartog,
2017) from individual points along the optical fiber. A change in the phase difference
of light (between individual laser pulses) scattered by two separate points along the
fiber is linearly proportional to a change in fiber length separating the points (Ma-
soudi et al., 2013). Determining these phase changes for consecutive fiber intervals
and over time can therefore be used to record the dynamic strain evolution (strain
rate) of a fiber-optic cable induced by an acoustic or a seismic signal.

The first exploration-and-production downhole field trial of DAS fiber-optic technol-

ogy was conducted during the completion of a tight gas well in February 2009 (Mole-
naar et al., 2011). Since then, DAS has extended its applicability to detect dynamic
strain change in oil and gas applications, such as well integrity monitoring (Raab
et al., 2019), vertical seismic profiling (Daley et al., 2013; Gotz et al., 2018), inflow
profiling (Bukhamsin and Horne, 2016; Panhuis et al., 2014), sanding monitoring
and detection (Sadigov et al., 2017; Mullens et al., 2010), and many others.

All DAS application areas described above can also be applicable for gas hydrate
production monitoring purposes, especially the inflow profiling, sanding detection
wellbore integrity monitoring, and so on. Based on the first offshore field test in
Japan, it was reported that massive sand production was encountered after 1 week
of gas production, which leads to the termination of the production test (Sakurai
et al., 2017; Yamamoto et al., 2014, 2017). Due to lack of sanding precursor detection
sensor, the operator could not take any mitigation plan to stop the sanding issue.
Hence, DAS seems to be a suitable technology as a sanding detection sensor in
future gas hydrate production. On the monitoring well side, a subsea-type DAS unit
could be a near-future development need for long-term autonomous monitoring
purpose.

> Read full chapter

Deep Ocean Sediment–Hydrate Rela-

tionships
Rudy Rogers, in Offshore Gas Hydrates, 2015

2.4.1 Particle Size Effects on Permeability

In computer simulations, high intrinsic permeability is shown to be important for
successful hydrate gas production. As are other important physical properties of
sediments, intrinsic permeability is a function of matrix grain size – permeability
increases with grain size. The boundary between categories of very fine sand and
smaller-sized silt is taken as a grain size of about 62.5 μm. However, it is seen from
Figure 2.5 that intrinsic permeability to gas may be adequate down to grain sizes
comprising silts before a sudden drop-off in permeability steepens in midrange of
the silt category (Winters et al., 2011).
Figure 2.5. High permeability extends into silt grain sizes (Winters et al., 2011).

A minimum permeability floor must be exceeded to accumulate hydrates in silty

sands. Based on data of Lee and Collett (2011) from wells at Mallik and Mount Elbert
in which the sands contain about 10% silt, that threshold permeability is 10–40 mD.

Another way to judge hydrate production viability is to consider impacts of sediment

particle sizes on porosity and permeability. Kurihara et al. (2011a) relate permeability
to clay, silt, and sand content of cores taken from Eastern Nankai Trough. Sediments
of 50/50 sand/silt gave permeabilities between 1 and 100 mD, whereas 100% sand
exceeded 100 mD for favorable production potential. Their correlations predict in-
creasing production difficulties as silt increases to 100% and further deterioration
thereafter with the introduction of clay in the silt.

Particle sizes of the clay, silt, and sand fractions are taken as less than 3.9 μm,
3.9–62.5 μm, and 62.5 μm to 2 mm, respectively.

The permeabilities and porosities of Nankai Trough agree closely with those of Mallik
and Mt. Elbert hydrate zones beneath Arctic permafrost.

> Read full chapter

Natural Gas Hydrates

Ray Boswell, ... Sung-Rock Lee, in Future Energy (Third Edition), 2020
6.7 Gas hydrate production technology
Driven by early views that marine gas hydrates were limited to large, low-concen-
tration, clay-hosted deposits, initial conceptions of gas hydrate production often
invoked means akin to mining. However, the discovery of high-concentration de-
posits in sediments with significant intrinsic permeability now enables gas produc-
tion concepts that utilize existing well drilling and production technologies. These
permeable (generally coarser-grained) deposits are favored as the interconnected
pore space provides means to both propagate a destabilizing perturbation into the
reservoir and provide pathways for dissociated gas to be drawn to the wellbore.

Multiple means of achieving the dissociation of pore-filling gas hydrate are known.
The least investigated involves shifting the stability boundary by the injection of
chemical inhibitors. Primary concerns with the approach include effectiveness, costs,
and risks associated with the chemical usage. A second method, thermal stimulation,
was the focus of the initial scientific production test conducted at the 2002 Mallik
research program [61]. Hot water was circulated; however, the limited gas recovery
(513 m3 total) was attributed to the general inability to effectively heat beyond the
near well-bore proximity [62] as well as the lack of pathways for flow of gas back to the
well. However, short duration wireline pressure drawdown tests conducted during
the 2002 program showed promise related to the occurrence of an unexpected
mobile water phase [63]. Further wireline formation pressure testing confirmed the
ability to access mobile water at the Mount Elbert test well in Alaska in 2007 [64].

The depressurization method is attractive because it is conceptually simple; fluids

are pumped from the wellbore, creating a pressure gradient that draws water from
the reservoir to the well. This withdrawal propagates pressure reduction rapidly from
the well leading to an expanding zone of hydrate dissociation. Released gas and
water follow the pressure gradient to the wellbore. The technical feasibility of depres-
surization was first demonstrated in the 2008 Mallik testing program (see Fig. 6.6),
which achieved 6 days of gas production with stable and gradually increasing rates
of approximately 2000 m3 per day [68]. Numerical simulation studies applied the
insight acquired in the Mallik and Mount Elbert tests to the issue of marine gas
hydrate production and revealed potential to achieve production rates much greater
than those recorded in the short-term Arctic field tests [69,70].
Figure 6.6. Gas production rates observed at scientific production experiments con-
ducted to date as reported in the literature [63–67].

In 2013, the METI-funded MH21 consortium conducted the first trial experiment of
reservoir depressurization in a marine setting. The test targeted a thick sequence of
thinly bedded, highly saturated, gas hydrate sands about 300 m below the seafloor
in 1000 m of water in the eastern Nankai Trough [65]. As at Mallik, gas production
was obtained immediately on pressure reduction. Total production obtained over
the 6-day test was 119,000 m3 for an average rate of 20,000 m3 per day. However,
the well's sand control systems failed, allowing sand production that contributed to
an early termination of the test [71].

In 2017, MH21 returned to the Nankai site to conduct further testing using two
wells that allowed the evaluation of alternative sand control system designs. Sand
intrusion again occurred in the first well, terminating production after 12 days. The
second well produced no sand and was operated for 24 days at rates of approximately
10,000 m3 per day (a total of 222,600 m3). The wells showed different production
behavior, with increased water production ratios in the second well related to
complex lateral heterogeneities in the reservoir [66].

In 2018, China initiated testing at the W11-17 site in 1300 m of water in the Shenhu
region of the South China Sea. That accumulation is roughly 200–250 m below the
seafloor, averages 57 m in thickness over an area of 6.4 km2, and had been delineated
through an extensive series of prior logging and coring programs [72]. Core data
from the location confirms that the hydrate is in pore-filling mode and at modest gas
hydrate saturations commonly ranging from 30% to 35%. The reduced saturations
are linked to lower reservoir quality clay-rich silts and silty clays. Consequently,
the test utilized additional stimulation approaches beyond simple depressurization
to achieve and sustain production, including mechanical stimulation to increase
wellbore exposure to the formation. The Shenhu test continued for 60 days with
total cumulative gas production of 309,000 m3 [73]. Another unique aspect of
the accumulation that likely contributed to the observed production behavior was
the occurrence of free gas below and interbedded with the gas hydrate, reflective of
the possible thermogenic origin of the gas, and the occurrence of both Structure I
and Structure II gas hydrates [67].

An additional production method that has been the subject of substantial research
involves the injection of alternative hydrate formers to initiate an exchange of guest
molecules without large-scale dissociation of the hydrate. This method is attractive
given the potential to sequester CO2 and has shown promise in experimental trials
[74]. However, its application is challenged in natural reservoirs by the presence of
free water, which reacts quickly with the CO2, preventing extensive interaction with
the native hydrate [75]. To overcome this issue, a mixture of CO2 and N2 was utilized
in a single well huff-n-puff field experiment conducted by ConocoPhillips, DOE,
and JOGMEC in Alaska in 2012 [76]. The test confirmed the ability to inject gas;
however, the injection resulted in a complex chemical environment in the reservoir
(including a broad range of mixed gas hydrates). The 2012 test demonstrated 19 days
of depressurization-induced production after the injection phase, with minimal sand
production. Gas production was generally stable and increasing but at low rates of
500 to 1000 m3 per day [75].

> Read full chapter

Activities in the mid-East, Europe, and

other regions
Lin Chen, Sukru Merey, in Oceanic Methane Hydrates, 2021

Abstract
Gas hydrate exploration activities targeting gas hydrate reservoirs as energy re-
sources started after 1995. Between 2002 and 2020, many countries (Canada, United
States, Japan, and China) have conducted gas hydrate production trials. In addi-
tion to these countries, there are also other countries in the Mid-East, Europe,
and other regions (i.e., India, Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey) conducting gas hydrate
explorations. In this part of the book, the gas hydrate activities completed and
planned in these countries are explained in detail. Most of the gas hydrate projects
are mostly supported by governments instead of private companies because these
projects are in the category of research and development. Thus, the investments
in these projects are not likely to bring profits in the near-future. According to the
 analysis made in this chapter, it is seen that most of the countries urging to produce
natural gas from gas hydrate reservoirs need additional energy resources as soon as
possible. The motivation of these countries is to reduce their coal imports, natural
gas imports, oil imports, and/or dependency on nuclear energy. Currently, in the
world, there is a motivation to reduce carbon footprints with clean energy. Natural
gas is considered the relatively clean fossil fuel so gas hydrates are important to
obtain cleaner hydrocarbon from fossil fuels. In this chapter of the book, seismic,
well log, drilling, and coring results in the Gulf of Mexico, India, Korea, Taiwan, and
Turkey are analyzed in detail. Moreover, there are also other countries not having gas
hydrate potential, but these countries (i.e., Germany) are interested in developing
gas hydrate drilling, coring, and other related technologies.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.