Storage of CO2 as Hydrate in
Depleted Gas Reservoirs
Olga Ye. Zatsepina, University of Calgary, and
Mehran Pooladi-Darvish, University of Calgary and Fekete Associates Incorporated
Summary
With the increasing concern about climate change, the public,
industry, and government are showing increased interest toward
reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Geological storage of
CO2 is perceived to be one of the most promising methods to
provide significant reduction in CO2 emissions over the short and
medium term. However, one major concern regarding geological
storage of CO2 is the possibility of leakage. CO2 under the pressure
and temperature conditions encountered in most geological set-
tings remains more buoyant than water. Processes that could lead to
permanent trapping of CO2 include geochemical reactions, with the
formation of solid minerals. This trapping mechanism is attractive
because it converts the CO2 into a solid compound. However, the
time scale of such reactions is perceived to be centuries to millen-
nia. In contrast, the kinetics of CO2-hydrate formation—leading
to trapping of CO2 in the solid form—is quite fast, providing the
opportunity for long-term storage of CO2. In this paper, geological
settings suitable for formation of CO2 hydrate are investigated. We
study storage of CO2 in depleted gas pools of northern Alberta.
Thermodynamic calculations suggest that CO2 hydrate is stable
at temperatures that occur in a number of formations in northern
Alberta, in an area where significant CO2 emissions are associ-
ated with production of oil sands and bitumen. Simulation results
presented in this paper suggest that, upon CO2 injection into
such depleted gas reservoirs, pressure would initially rise until
conditions are appropriate for hydrate formation, enabling stor-
age of large volumes of CO2 in solid form. Numerical-simulation
results suggest that, because of tight packing of CO2 molecules
in the solid (hydrate), the CO2 storage capacity of these pools is
many times greater than their initial-gas-in-place capacity. This
provides a local option for storage of a portion of the CO2 emis-
sions there.
In this paper, we study the storage capacity of such depleted
gas pools and examine the effect of various reservoir properties
and operating conditions thereon. In particular, we study the effect
of the in-situ gas in formation of mixed-gas hydrates; the effect of
rise in temperature as a result of the exothermic reaction of hydrate
formation; the effect of initial reservoir pressure, temperature, and
porosity; and conditions for avoiding the deleterious formation of
hydrate around the wellbore.
Introduction
Approximately 725 megatons (Mt) of CO2 was emitted to the
atmosphere in Canada in 2000, with more than 80% by combustion
of coal, petroleum, and natural gas.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so its capture and storage to avoid
accumulation in the atmosphere are important components of
climate-change mitigation. Because CO2 released from biological,
igneous, or chemical activities has been stored in the upper crust
of the Earth for millions of years, options for its storage may
involve geological settings including sedimentary basins or saline
aquifers. However, safety issues are vital in choosing a geological
formation in which to store CO2 because its sudden release poses
Copyright © 2012 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 137313) was accepted for presentation at the Canadian Unconventional
Resources and International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, 19–21 October 2010, and
revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 23 November 2010. Revised
manuscript received for review 15 July 2011. Paper peer approved 26 August 2011.
98
danger to human life, the ecosystem, and groundwater. Therefore,
a low probability of CO2 leakage and an effective/efficient trap-
ping mechanism are of great significance in choosing a storage
facility.
The requirement of secure storage is met in mineral trapping
when CO2 forms stable carbonates with calcium and magnesium
(Gunter et al. 2004). However, such mineralization reactions could
take thousands of years to complete. Solubility trapping is another
mechanism for sequestration of CO2. This process is also quite
slow because it may take centuries to dissolve CO2 naturally into
the aquifer water (Hassanzadeh et al. 2009).
Sequestration of CO2 in the form of hydrate is quite attractive
as well. Hydrates are solids composed of the framework of water
molecules with gas molecules captured within the framework (in
“cages”). As a result, storing CO2 in the form of hydrate provides
a solid structure and a high density. Kinetics of the hydrate forma-
tion that depends on thermodynamic conditions is relatively fast
(Zatsepina and Buffet 2002). Gas hydrate forms at the appropriate
conditions of high pressure and low temperature, which could eas-
ily be found in the deep ocean (Brewer et al. 1999; West et al. 2003)
or in its sediments (House et al. 2006). Furthermore, researchers
are studying sequestration of CO2 through replacement of CH4 by
CO2 in the hydrate structure when CO2 is injected into a hydrate
reservoir at the appropriate conditions (Ota et al. 2007; White and
McGrail 2008).
This paper focuses on storing CO2 through hydrate formation
in depleted reservoirs of natural gas (Koide et al. 1995). Because
natural gas has been kept in the reservoir beneath impermeable
rocks for millions of years, these gas pools could represent safe
CO2-storage facilities. Alberta is well known for its substantial oil
and gas production. The northeastern part of the province could
be used for sequestration because of the proximity to the source
of emission and availability of low-temperature depleted gas pools
(Wright et al. 2008; Côté and Wright 2010).
When CO2 is injected into a reservoir where methane (CH4)
is present, CH4/CO2 mixed-gas hydrates form. The stability con-
ditions of CH4/CO2 hydrates are different from those of either
CH4 hydrates or CO2 hydrates. This effect has been included in
modeling. In this paper, we employ the CMG STARS (CMG
2008) reservoir simulator. It is capable of handling compositional
processes and reactions with deviation from equilibrium used in
modeling mixed hydrates. The simulator has been used previously
to predict dissociation/formation of CH4/CO2 hydrate (Uddin
et al. 2008a, 2008b). The noted references have studied injection of
CO2 into geological formations with various properties, as well as
injection of CO2 into a CH4-hydrate reservoir. In the latter model,
the initial hydrate in the reservoir dissociates until the rate of CH4
production has decreased and stabilized at thermodynamic condi-
tions favorable to form CO2 hydrate. At that point, CO2 is injected
and formation of CO2 hydrate is studied.
This paper is one in a series of papers that study injection of
CO2 in depleted gas pools (Zatsepina and Pooladi-Darvish 2011).
Because we account for the formation of CH4/CO2 hydrates in the
simulations, the paper starts with a discussion of the phase dia-
grams for the pure and mixed-gas hydrate. Then, the mixed-hydrate
formation is simulated in a single-block model, which allows
excluding changes in pressure, temperature, and composition with
space. Initially, an isothermal approximation is used; then, thermal
effects are included. Finally, we present the results of CO2 injection
into a hypothetical reservoir.
February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 10
HYDRATE - VAPOR
8 or
Pressure, MPa HYDRATE - AQ. SOLUTION
6
4 60%
X 2000
VAPOR - AQ. SOLUTION
2 CO2
0 1000
2 4 6 8 10
Temperature, °C
Fig. 1—CH4-hydrate phase diagram. The cross represents a
shallow gas pool in Northern Alberta at 6°C that may be pres-
surized to 3 MPa.
Fundamentals
In this section, hydrate-phase equilibriums, along with a discussion
of some of the modeling assumptions are presented.
Hydrate-Phase Equilibrium. To predict hydrate-phase equilibri-
ums, a multiphase Gibbs energy minimization program, CSMGem
(Ballard and Sloan 2004), and an empirical expression developed
by Adisasmito et al. (1991) that relates pressure, temperature, and
composition of the vapor phase at three-phase equilibrium have
been used.
Single-Gas Hydrate. A CH4-hydrate phase diagram is repre-
sented in Fig. 1. It defines stable phases in a system of water and
CH4 when pressure changes from 0 to 10 MPa at temperatures from
2 to 12°C. The diagram shows two-phase equilibriums between the
vapor and aqueous solution as well as between the hydrate and
vapor (or aqueous solution if water is in abundance) phases. These
two-phase equilibriums are separated by the hydrate-phase bound-
ary of three-phase equilibrium, where the hydrate phase coexists
simultaneously with the vapor and aqueous-solution phases.
The phase-equilibrium diagram for CO2 hydrate exhibits the
same features, although the hydrate-phase boundary corresponds
to the lower pressures (see Fig. 2). Differences between the two
diagrams include the CO2 vapor/liquid-phase transition. To avoid
complications arising from presence of two liquids in the model-
ing, pressure is restricted to below 4 MPa while the temperature
varies from 5 to 9.2°C. A shallow gas pool in northern Alberta
at 6°C that may be pressurized to 3 MPa is denoted by an “X” in
4.5
HYDRATE - VAPOR
3.5 T=6°C
Pressure, MPa
X sion section.
2.5
T=4°C
VAPOR - AQ. SOLUTION
1.5
0.5
0 20 40 60 80
Mole Fraction of CO2 in the Vapor Phase, %
Fig. 3—Three-phase equilibrium pressure as a function of the
vapor-phase composition at temperatures of 4 and 6°C. The
cross shows a shallow gas pool in Northern Alberta at 6°C that
may be pressurized to 3 MPa.
February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
4000
HYDRATE - VAPOR
3500
CH4
Pressure (kPa)
3000 20% x
2500 40%
80%
1500 VAPOR - AQ. SOLUTION
12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Temperature (°C)
Fig. 2—CH4/CO2 mixed-hydrate phase diagram. The cross repre-
sents a shallow gas pool in Northern Alberta at 6°C that may be
pressurized to 3 MPa. Thick lines represent phase boundaries
for CH4 and CO2 hydrate; thin lines represent phase boundaries
for mixed hydrates (mole fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase is
written above the lines).
Figs. 1 through 3. These conditions correspond to a state where
CH4 hydrate is not stable while CO2 hydrate is stable (see Fig. 2).
Mixed-Gas Hydrate. A phase diagram for CH4/CO2 gas hydrates
is shown in Fig. 2. In this case, the hydrate-phase boundary is
expanded into a zone between the CO2- and CH4-hydrate bound-
aries. In the zone, pressure/temperature (P/T) conditions of the
three-phase equilibrium depend on the composition of the vapor
phase (the phase boundaries are shown at 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and
100% CO2 in the vapor phase). Consider three-phase equilibrium
at a temperature of 6°C. For CH4 hydrate, the equilibrium pressure
at 6°C is 4.61 MPa, while, for CO2 hydrate, it is 2.54 MPa. When
hydrate forms from a gas mixture of, for example, 70% CO2 and
30% CH4, the equilibrium pressure is 2.80 MPa. Consequently,
pure CO2 hydrate and this mixed-gas hydrate are stable, while CH4
hydrate does not form at a P/T condition denoted by “X.”
Fig. 2 shows that the phase boundary of the mixed hydrates
spreads to lower pressures when the fraction of CO2 in the vapor
phase increases. (The point denoted by “X” corresponds to a stable
state for the hydrate when the CO2 fraction exceeds approximately
60%.) Fig. 3 presents changes in three-phase equilibrium pressure
with composition of the gas mixture at 4 and 6°C. At both tem-
peratures, the equilibrium pressure decreases with the fraction of
CO2 in the vapor phase.
Changing gas composition affects the hydrate composition.
This is discussed next along with other assumptions used in this
work.
Assumptions. In the following subsection, the assumptions
with respect to the composition of the solid hydrate, the kinetics
of hydrate formation, changes in permeability because of hydrate
formation, and solubility of gases in water are presented. The
effects of some of these assumptions are explained in the Discus-
Hydrate Composition. The vapor-phase composition affects not
only P/T conditions of hydrate stability but also the fractionation
of gases in hydrate. In fact, experimental data (Kamata et al. 2002;
Uchida et al. 2005) suggest a proportionality constant between
compositions of the vapor and hydrate phases. Predictions from the
CSMGem software (Ballard and Sloan 2004) suggest preferential
incorporation of the CO2 molecules into the hydrate structure of
mixed-gas hydrates. However, when the fraction of CO2 in the
100 vapor phase is larger than approximately 80%, the hydrate composi-
tion follows the vapor-phase composition. This corresponds to the
range of vapor-phase compositions when hydrate forms in reservoir
examples of this work. On the basis of this observation, the constant
of proportionality between compositions of the vapor and hydrate
phase was assumed to be unity. This means that the vapor phase with
composition (for example, 80% CO2 and 20% CH4) is assumed to
99
 In this work, we assume that all hydrate is in equilibrium with
TABLE 1—RESERVOIR PARAMETERS
gas; the previously formed hydrate changes to reflect new gas com-
Parameters position. As a result, the vapor and hydrate phases in the modeling
have the same compositions. Consequently, the CO2 fraction in the
Reservoir depth (m) 270 hydrate phase would increase with injection time as CO2 molecules
Radius of reservoir (m) 300 substitute for CH4 in the structure. This is discussed further in the
Discussion section.
Thickness of reservoir (m) 5
Rate-Limiting Mechanisms, Enthalpy, Hydration Number. Rate-
Initial temperature (°C) 5 controlling mechanisms for hydrate formation in the reservoir
Initial pressure (MPa) 0.5 include intrinsic kinetics, fluid flow, and heat transfer. Competition
between these mechanisms for hydrate dissociation in the reser-
Cap/Base Rocks
voir has been discussed previously (Hong et al. 2003; Hong and
Volumetric heat capacity (J/m ⋅°C)
3
3.76×10 6 Pooladi-Darvish 2005). The noted references have shown that the
dissociation is mostly controlled by heat transfer. In this respect,
Total thermal conductivity (J/m ⋅d⋅°C) 1.5×10 5 heat of hydrate formation plays an important role. Enthalpy of
Saturation of water 1 mixed hydrates is calculated using values for the pure components
Porosity (%) 10
in the proportion they have in the hydrates. Enthalpies of hydrate
formation and dissociation are assumed to be equal. For CH4
Permeability (md) 0 hydrate, the enthalpy is 54.44 kJ/mole (Gupta et al. 2008). For CO2
Reservoir hydrate, it is equal to 60 kJ/mole, as averaged from available data
(Anderson 2003). The hydration number is chosen to be equal to
Volumetric heat capacity (J/m ⋅°C)
3
2.6×106 6 (Buffett and Zatsepina 2004), although other values have also
Hydrate heat capacity (J/g mol⋅°C) 203.7 been reported [see, for example, Lee et al. (2003)]. Because the
hydration number could be related to the fractional occupancy of
Rock thermal conductivity (J/m⋅d⋅°C) 2.468×10 5 cages in the hydrate structure, its value would affect the volume
Hydrate thermal conductivity (J/m⋅d⋅°C) 3.396×10 4 of CO2 stored in hydrate. For example, decreasing the occupancy
from 100 to 80% could decrease the volume by 20% as well.
Water thermal conductivity (J/m⋅d⋅°C) 5.53×104 Kinetics of Hydrate Formation. A number of studies on decom-
Saturation of water 0.25 position of CH4 hydrate (Hong and Pooladi-Darvish 2005; Sun
Saturation of gas 0.75 and Mohanty 2006; Kowalsky and Moridis 2007) through a series
of sensitivity studies on the kinetic constant show that the intrin-
Porosity (%) 30 sic kinetics of hydrate decomposition is so fast that the process
Permeability (md) 500 approaches equilibrium. These studies employ the kinetic model
2
Diffusion coefficient (m /d) 0 of Kim et al. (1987), with kinetic constants that were measured in
a stirred reactor. In a porous medium, however, some additional
Relative Permeability Model resistances to mass transfer may occur and decrease the global
kinetic constant (Pooladi-Darvish 2004). We have not found esti-
Swirr 0.15
mations of the kinetic constant in a porous medium. In this work,
Sgirr 0.02 we use intrinsic rate constants for CO2-hydrate decomposition
nw 3 and formation reported by Clarke and Bishnoi (2004; 2005). Our
ng 3
calculations indicate that the reported constants are large enough
for P/T conditions of CO2-hydrate formation and decomposition
Discretization to follow the equilibrium curve. We did not consider additional
resistances to mass transfer in porous media so that the pressure
Radial direction (m) 1 × 300 cells and temperature of the hydrate formation and decomposition fol-
Thickness of cap/base rock in the model (m) 25 low equilibrium conditions. If kinetic constants in porous medium
are smaller than those reported by Clarke and Bishnoi (2004; 2005)
Vertical direction in cap/base rocks (m) 5 × 5 cells by orders of magnitude, then a deviation from the equilibrium
Vertical direction in reservoir (m) 1 × 5 cells curve may occur.
Permeability in the Presence of Hydrate. Research for quantifi-
cation of permeability of porous media in the presence of hydrate
continues (Konno et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2010). In our numerical-
be in equilibrium with CH4/CO2 hydrate of the same composition simulation study, a change in permeability to the hydrate saturation
(i.e., 80% CO2 and 20% CH4). Deviations from these equilibrium is incorporated through the use of a model where changes in fluid
predictions decrease with fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase. For saturation affect gas mobility. In this model, the relative perme-
example, when the mole fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase is 60%, ability to gas is a function of gas saturation:
the deviation is 17%. However, it decreases to 3% at 90% CO2.
ng
Assume a particle of mixed-gas hydrate has formed where ⎛ S − Sgirr ⎞
krg = ⎜ g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
⎝ 1 − Swirr ⎟⎠
the mole fraction of CO2 in the hydrate phase is the same as the
mole fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase. Now, consider that the
mole fraction of the vapor phase changes (for example, by CO2
injection). The newly formed hydrate will be made up of a Similarly, the relative permeability to water is a function of
mixed hydrate that reflects a new gas composition. However, two water saturation:
situations could occur with the previously formed hydrate. If the
nw
previous hydrate is not in contact with the vapor phase, or if its ⎛ S − Swirr ⎞
krw = ⎜ w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
⎝ 1 − Swirr ⎟⎠
rearrangement to reflect the new gas composition is slow, one can
assume that the previous hydrate remains unchanged. On the other
hand, when the previously formed hydrate is in equilibrium with
the new gas composition, the hydrate will consume part of the CO2 The exponent nw is characterized on the basis of the ratio of
and adjust its CO2-hydrate fraction. Most likely, reality lies some- permeability to water (at initial hydrate saturation) to the intrinsic
where in between. Currently, there is insufficient information to permeability (Wilder et al. 2008). Values of Swirr, Sgirr and n-expo-
understand and model the fate of the previously formed hydrate. nents are given in Table 1.

100 February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 TABLE 2—SINGLE-BLOCK-MODEL PARAMETERS USED IN STARS

Parameters
3
Bulk Volume (m ) 1
Porosity (%) 30
Heat capacity

Volumetric heat capacity of rock (J/m ⋅°C)

3 6
2.6×10
Volumetric heat capacity of water (J/m ⋅°C)
3 6
4.19×10
Hydrate heat capacity (J/g mol⋅°C) 203.7
Thermal Conductivity
5
Rock thermal conductivity (J/m⋅d⋅°C) 2.468×10
4
Hydrate thermal conductivity (J/m⋅d⋅°C)* 3.396×10
4
Water thermal conductivity (J/m⋅d⋅°C) 5.183×10
Enthalpy
**
CO2-hydrate formation/dissociation enthalpy (kJ/g mole) 60.0
**
CH4-hydrate formation/dissociation enthalpy (kJ/g mole) 54.44
Initial Conditions

Initial temperature (°C) 5

Initial pressure (MPa) 2
Initial water saturation (fraction) 0.25
Initial gas saturation (fraction) 0.75
Operational Constraints
3
Injection rate (sm /d) 1

* Waite et al. (2007)

** Used in nonisothermal model only

Solubility, Salinity. We neglect the solubility of CH4, while Single-Block Isothermal. A single block is represented by a
the solubility of CO2 is included in the modeling. The influence porous medium with a bulk volume of 1 m3 and 30% porosity.
of salinity on hydrate stability is neglected. These assumptions The medium is saturated with 75% CH4 and 25% water. The initial
are incorporated in STARS (CMG 2008) for simulation studies pressure and temperature are 2 MPa and 5°C (CH4 hydrate does
reported next. not form at this particular condition because the three-phase equi-
librium pressure is equal to 4.17 MPa). The initial gas in place is
Results 4.7 std m3 of CH4. CO2 is injected at a constant rate of 1 std m3/d.
In this section, hydrate formation in a single-block model is first During the simulation, the bottomhole injection pressure is kept
studied. The model presented here acts as a uniform cell and below 4 MPa to avoid the vapor-/liquid-phase transition in CO2.
eliminates variations in pressure, temperature, and composition Table 2 lists the basic parameters used in the modeling. (For a
with space. An isothermal approximation is considered as a first discussion of their values, see the Reservoir section.)
step. This is followed by nonisothermal modeling of a single block Fig. 4 shows changes in pressure and in saturations of hydrate
before proceeding to reservoir modeling. and water with time. Pressure increases with injection of CO2
until hydrate forms, which is followed by a noticeable decrease
in pressure. As saturation of hydrate increases, both pressure and
4 1 water saturation decrease. Hydrate ceases to form when water is
no longer available for the process. After that, pressure increases
Water, Hydrate Saturation, fraction

again. In this isothermal case, hydrate formation is limited by the

P 0.8
3 availability of water.
Fig. 5 provides some explanations for the observed behavior.
Pressure, MPa

0.6 The figure shows pressure and saturation of hydrate as functions

of mole fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase. After injection of 4 std
2
m3 of CO2 in 4 days, the mole fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase
0.4 becomes 37.6% and pressure rises to 2.982 MPa. These conditions
Sh
Sw satisfy formation of mixed-gas hydrate, as shown by the open
1 squares. As the vapor phase is enriched with injected CO2, equi-
0.2
librium pressure decreases. When the fraction of CO2 in the vapor
increases to 80%, pressure declines by 0.632 MPa (from 2.982 to
0 0 2.350 MPa). At that point in time (i.e., 18 days), 18 std m3 of CO2
0 5 10 15 20 25 has been injected. Therefore, injection of a volume of CO2 that is
Time, days more than 3.5 times the initial gas in place is associated with an
increase of less than 20% in reservoir pressure. (In the absence of
Fig. 4—Pressures and saturations of water and hydrate as hydrate formation, pressure would have risen by approximately
functions of time. 350%, not accounting for changes in CO2 compressibility factor.)

February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 101

 4 1
Peq (Y)
3
Eq. Pressure, MPa
P
2
1
Sh
0 0
0 20 40 60 80
Mole fraction of CO2 in the Vapor Phase, %
Fig. 5—Three-phase equilibrium pressure, reservoir pressure,
and hydrate saturation as functions of composition of the
vapor phase.
After all water is consumed and hydrate ceases to form, pressure
exhibits a sharp increase with continued injection of CO2.
Single-Block, Nonisothermal. In this subsection, thermal effects
caused by the heat of hydrate reactions are included in the single-
block problem studied in the previous subsection. Fig. 6 shows
changes in pressure, temperature, and saturation of hydrate with
time. Before hydrate formation, pressure increases with injection
of CO2 by approximately 1 MPa while temperature remains nearly
constant.
Unlike in the previous isothermal case where continued injec-
tion of gas leads to a reduction in pressure, the thermal effects
result in an increase in pressure. Nevertheless, the slope of pres-
sure rise after hydrate formation is less than that before hydrate
formation. After pressure reaches a maximum value of 4 MPa,
injection is stopped, hydrate formation ceases, and temperature
does not change any more.
Fig. 7 shows hydrate saturation and hydrate-phase boundaries
at 40 and 70% mole fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase, corre-
sponding to the beginning and end of hydrate formation, respec-
tively, as functions of temperature. Hydrate formation causes an
increase in temperature and, correspondingly, in the equilibrium
pressure. The exothermic process follows equilibrium, with tem-
perature rising from 5 to 9° C. At the initial vapor-phase com-
position of 40% CO2, this change in temperature would have
caused the equilibrium pressure to increase from 3.0 to 4.7 MPa.
However, the fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase increases to 70%,
with the equilibrium pressure of 4 MPa at the final temperature.
Therefore, counteracting effects of the vapor-phase composition
6 1
5
Eq. Pressure, MPa
4
Peq (T) at 40% CO 2
3
2 P
Peq. (T) at 70% CO 2
1
Sh
0 0
2 4 6 8
Temperature, °C
Fig. 7—Three-phase equilibrium pressure at 40 and 70% mole
fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase, reservoir pressure, and
hydrate saturation as functions of temperature.
102
10 1
Pressure, MPa; Temperature, °C
Hydrate Saturation, fraction
Hydrate Saturation, fraction
0.8 8 0.8
T
0.6 6 0.6
0.4 4 P 0.4
0.2 2 0.2
Sh
0 0
100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time, days
Fig. 6—Pressure, temperature, and hydrate saturation as func-
tions of time.
and temperature on the equilibrium pressure cause the reduction
in the pressure slope in Fig. 7.
A decrease in hydrate saturation compared to the isothermal
case is associated with the increased temperature. So, the limit-
ing factor for hydrate saturation is no longer the volume of water
but an increase in temperature, which depends on heat of hydrate
formation and sensible heat of the medium where the hydrate for-
mation occurs. Sensitivity studies, not shown here, have indicated
that, for a larger specific heat capacity, more hydrate forms for the
same increase in pressure. Also, we have performed simple hand
calculations of hydrate saturation based on the assumption that
heat released from hydrate formation is fully absorbed by water
and rock for different porosities (20, 30, and 40%) and initial
temperature values (4, 5, and 6°C). Those predictions agree with
simulation results within 6% (not shown here).
Reservoir
Wright et al. (2008) and Côté and Wright (2010) presented a review
of shallow gas pools in northern Alberta where low temperatures
would allow formation of CO2 hydrate. Recently, we conducted
a similar search using the database of the Alberta Energy and
Utilities Board (Burrowes et al. 2001). The search area was that
of oil-sand development with associated CO2 emissions (Ranges
5 to 10, Townships 75 to 95, west of the fourth meridian). The
search was limited to reservoirs with a maximum temperature of
9°C. Depleted gas reservoirs were identified on the Clearwater,
Grand Rapids, Wabiskaw, and McMurray formations. The mean
depth, temperature, thickness, and porosity of these reservoirs are
approximately 270 m, 6°C, 4 m, and 29%, respectively. The mean
of the average pressure is 1.5 MPa, consistent with the significant
subhydrostatic pressure condition in the region. Significant pro-
duction has occurred from these reservoirs, with current pressures
often in the 0. 3- to 0.7-MPa range.
Hydrate saturation, fraction
0.8
On the basis of these properties, this study considers a depleted
gas reservoir with a radius of 300 m. It includes a 5-m-thick porous
0.6 medium with a porosity of 30% and permeability of 500 md. The
reservoir initial pressure is 0.5 MPa, initial temperature is 5°C,
and saturations of gas and water are 75 and 25%, respectively.
0.4 The initial volume of gas in place (CH4) is 1.66×106 std m3. The
reservoir is at a depth of 270 m, with thickness of caprock and
base rock chosen so that the effect of temperature changes in the
0.2
reservoir is not felt at the rock top or bottom boundaries.
We model a vertical well that is fully open to the formation.
The CO2 gas is injected at a constant rate of 0.1×106 std m3/d, with
10 the reservoir pressure restricted to no greater than 4 MPa. In prac-
tice, this maximum pressure is determined by operating or safety
requirements, typically 10–20% below the formation/caprock
fracture pressure. As mentioned earlier, most of the shallow res-
ervoirs in northeastern Alberta are significantly underpressurized
(to as much as half of hydrostatic pressure before any production
February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 10 1 4.5 1

Average Hydrate Saturation, fraction

Average Pressure, MPa; Temperature, °C

Hydrate Saturation, fraction

8 0.8 0.8
3.5

Eq. Pressure, MPa

6 T 0.6 0.6
2.5 Peq (T)

4 0.4 0.4

P
1.5
P 0.2
2 0.2
Sh Sh

0.5 0
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Time, days Temperature, °C

Fig. 8—Average pressure, temperature, and hydrate saturation Fig. 9—Equilibrium pressure, pressure, and hydrate saturation
as functions of time. at a distance of 100 m from the wellbore at the reservoir mid-
depth as functions of temperature.

occurred). Therefore, fracture pressure in these reservoirs would

be significantly larger than the pressure before any production features. The radial distribution is mostly affected by the tem-
occurred. The gas is injected at 10°C. This temperature is chosen perature of injected CO2, initial temperature, and heat of hydrate
so that no hydrate forms in the vicinity of the wellbore (because formation. It could be divided into three regions: the vicinity of
the three-phase equilibrium pressure at 10°C is 4.4 MPa, hydrate the wellbore, the outskirts, and in between. Before hydrate forma-
does not form within a minimum of 10 m from the wellbore in tion, temperature changes from 10°C of injected CO2 to the initial
the simulations). reservoir temperature of 5°C. Once hydrate formation occurs, an
In the following subsection, we introduce and analyze results in-between region develops. The CH4 is fully displaced from this
obtained in the base case. region, and P/T conditions are governed by the three-phase equi-
librium of CO2 hydrate. The maps show a reduced temperature on
Base Case. Fig. 8 shows changes in average values of pressure, the reservoir top and bottom surfaces bordering caprock/base rock
temperature, and hydrate saturation with time. During the first 90 as well as at the CO2 front bordering cold CH4. The front is associ-
days, pressure increases with injection while no hydrate forms. At ated with a vertical gradient in temperature. Testing of the results
an average pressure of 2.26 MPa, hydrate saturation is 0.001. As has revealed that vertical temperature profile at the CO2 front is
hydrate forms, gas is consumed, so the rate of pressure increase associated with gravitational segregation of CO2 in the vapor phase.
lessens. Formation of hydrate is also signified by an increase The reservoir temperature increases with time as hydrate forms.
in temperature, which continues to rise with increasing hydrate (It is equal to 7.9 and 9.1°C at 180 and 240 days, respectively.)
saturation. After 270 days and injection of more than 15 times the Because temperature in the hydrate reservoir is higher than in
initial gas in place, the average reservoir pressure and temperature surrounding rocks, heat diffuses along the temperature gradients.
have increased to 3.95 MPa and 9.2°C. Fig. 9 shows the CO2- As a result, the lowest temperature is observed in the vicinity of
hydrate-phase boundary together with changes in P/T conditions over- and underlying rocks.
and saturation of hydrate at a radius of 100 m halfway between Two-dimensional maps (Fig. 11) of hydrate saturation reflect
the top and bottom of the reservoir (the CO2-hydrate diagram is the same features discussed previously. In the radial distribution of
shown because CH4 is displaced in this region). Initially, pressure hydrate, the absence of hydrate around the wellbore is followed by
increases at a nearly constant temperature. Thereafter, it follows its constant saturation in the in-between region with a hump before
the equilibrium curve as saturation of hydrate increases. disappearing on the outskirts. Testing of the results has revealed
Two-dimensional distributions of temperature and hydrate that the hump in hydrate saturations is associated with a decreased
saturation at 180 and 240 days are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, temperature at the CO2 front. The presence of the saturation hump
respectively. The two temperature maps (Fig. 10) exhibit similar is very sensitive to the local distribution of temperature.

100 200 300 100 200 300

10.0

9.5
270
270

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5
280
280

6.0

5.5

100 200 300 5.0 100 200 300

Fig. 10—Two-dimensional distributions of temperature at 180 and 240 days (a zoomed portion of the reservoir with 11 m of rocks
on the top and bottom).

February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 103

 100 200
270
280
100 200
Fig. 11—Two-dimensional distributions of hydrate saturation at 180 and 240 days (a zoomed portion of the reservoir with 11 m
of rocks on the top and bottom).
Hydrate is absent in the vicinity of the wellbore because of the
high temperature. There is no hydrate within 22 and 10 m from the
wellbore at 180 and 240 days, respectively. (At 240 days, hydrate
forms closer to the wellbore because pressure increases with injec-
tion time.) Saturation of hydrate at the borders with the rocks is
higher than in the middle of the reservoir because of the decreased
temperature. (At 180 days, hydrate saturation at the top or bottom
of the reservoir exceeds the saturation at middepth by a factor of
two.) Results in Fig. 11 indicate that the radius of the hydrate zone
at the bottom of the reservoir exceeds that at the top. This is caused
by settling of CO2, which promotes formation of hydrate.
CH4 is displaced by injected CO2 so that pure CO2 hydrate forms
in most of the reservoir. The mixed hydrates contribute slightly to
the hydrate saturation at the rear end. At 180 days, for example, the
mixed-hydrate zone extends from the CO2 front at 257 to 277 m. The
highest fraction of CH4 in the mixed hydrates is 30%. The mixed
hydrate composition reflects composition of the vapor phase in the
mixing zone. As the fraction of CO2 in the vapor phase decreases with
radius away from the front, the equilibrium pressure increases. At the
distance where equilibrium pressure exceeds the reservoir pressure,
hydrate ceases to form.
Fig. 12 shows volumes of CO2 and CH4 stored in the form of
hydrate as a function of time. Volume of CO2 stored in hydrate
exceeds that of CH4 in hydrate by 120 times at 120 days and by
70 times at 240 days.
In this simple case, after injection of approximately 25×106 std
m3, the hydrates have taken up 9×106 std m3 of the injected CO2,
with the remainder in the free-gas phase. A comparison between
the initial gas in place and the volume of CO2 stored in hydrate
suggests that the latter is approximately five times larger than the
initial gas in place.
10
CO2 in Hydrate, ×106 std m3
8 0.2
6 0.15
4 0.1
CO2 CH4
2 0.05
0 0
0 50 100 150 200
Time, days
Fig. 12—CO2 and CH4 stored in hydrate form.
104
300 100 200 300
0.32
0.29
270
0.26
0.23
0.19
0.16
0.13
0.10
280
0.06
0.03
300 0.00 100 200 300
Sensitivity Studies
A number of simulations were conducted to understand factors that
affect hydrate formation when CO2 is injected at a constant rate of
0.1×106 std m3/d. Table 3 shows the list of cases where we examine
the effects of the initial temperature, initial pressure, porosity, and
temperature of injected CO2.
Effect of the Initial Temperature. Effects of the initial tempera-
ture are investigated by comparing results obtained in Cases 1 and
2 and the base case. The initial temperature is 4°C in Case 1 and
6°C in Case 2. Fig. 13 shows average reservoir temperature and
pressure, while Fig. 14 shows amounts of CO2 and CH4 stored in
the form of hydrate as functions of time. Fig. 13 reveals that the
initial temperature affects the pressure at which hydrate formation
is first initiated. The higher the initial temperature, the later is
the onset of hydrate formation. Consequently, the coldest case is
associated with the longest period of hydrate formation and, cor-
respondingly, the greatest amount of CO2 stored before reaching
4 MPa. In Fig. 13 and subsequent figures, a solid arrow shows the
direction of increase in the parameter studied.
Effect of the Initial Pressure. Effects of the initial pressure are
investigated by increasing its value from 0.5 MPa in the base case to
1 MPa in Case 3 and to 2 MPa in Case 4. Initial pressure determines
the amount of CH4 present in the reservoir. For example, the amount
of CH4 in Case 4 is approximately four times greater than that in the
base case. However, volumes of hydrate are negatively affected by
the volumes of the reservoir occupied by CH4: Less hydrate forms
when the CH4 volume is greater. In addition, the period of time during
which CO2 is injected decreases as initial pressure increases because
the maximum pressure of 4 MPa is reached earlier. Furthermore, the
0.25 higher mole fraction of CH4 in the vapor phase is associated with a
higher equilibrium pressure. These factors cause a significant reduc-
Methane in Hydrate, ×106 std m3
tion in the volume of CO2 stored in hydrate in Case 4 compared
with the base case. Fig. 15 presents average reservoir pressure and
temperature. It indicates that, for a higher initial pressure, hydrate
formation, signified by an abrupt increase in temperature, occurs
earlier because the equilibrium pressure is reached sooner. Fig. 16
confirms that the amount of hydrate decreases with increasing initial
pressure; the volume of CO2 stored in hydrate in the 2-MPa case is
approximately half that of the 0.5-MPa case.
Effect of Porosity. Influence of porosity on hydrate formation is
investigated by comparing results obtained in Cases 5 and 6 and
the base case. Porosities are equal to 20% and 40% in Cases 5
250 and 6, respectively. Fig. 17 shows changes in the average pressure
and temperature with time, while Fig. 18 shows changes in
amounts of CO2 and CH4 stored in hydrate with time. Fig. 17 shows
that the reservoir pressure increases faster in a medium with lower
February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 TABLE 3—LIST OF CASES*
Case
Objective Number T (°C) P (MPa) Porosity (%) Tinj (°C)

Base case BC 5 0.5 30 10

Initial temperature 1 4 - - -
2 6 - - -
Initial pressure 3 - 1 - -
4 - 2 - -
Porosity 5 - - 20 -
6 - - 40 -
Temperature of injected CO2 7 - - - 5
8 - - - 15

* A “-” in the table indicates the base-case property.

6 20 14 2

CO2 Stored in Hydrate, ×106 std m3

CH4 Stored in Hydrate, ×106 std m3

Case 1 (Ti=4°C) Case 1 (Ti=4°C)
Base Case (Ti=5°C) 12 Base Case (Ti=5°C)
5

Average Temperature, °C
Case 2 (Ti=6°C)
Average Pressure, MPa

Case 2 (Ti=6°C) 1.6

16
10
4
1.2
8
3 12
CO2
6
0.8
2 P
4
T 8
0.4
1 CH4
2

0 4 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, days Time, days

Fig. 13—Changes in the average reservoir temperature and Fig. 14—Changes in CO2 and CH4 stored in hydrate with time;
pressure with time; effect of the initial temperature. effect of the initial temperature.

porosity (caused by addition of the same amount of gas but in a confirm a suppressed rate of temperature rise in media with lower
smaller volume). As a result, the equilibrium pressure is reached porosity because of the greater capacity to store heat.
earlier at lower porosities.
Interestingly, results in Fig. 18 indicate that the amount of Effect of the Injection Temperature. Formation of hydrate
CO2 stored in hydrate is insensitive to the initial porosity. This is around the wellbore decreases permeability of the porous medium
because the lower-porosity cases are associated with more sensible and could cause a reduction in injectivity. Because this may be
heat per unit volume, enabling formation of more hydrate before avoided by injection of warm CO2, the effect of injection tem-
temperature rises to its maximum value (equilibrium temperature perature on formation of hydrate in the vicinity of the injector has
of 9.2°C at 4 MPa). been investigated. Temperatures of 5°C in Case 7, 10°C in the base
Fig. 19 represents the same average pressure and temperature case, and 15°C in Case 8 are considered. Results obtained at the
but as functions of pore volume of CO2 injected. The results end of simulations of 250 days are compared in Figs. 20 through

6 20 10 2
CH4 Stored in Hydrate, ×106 std m3
CO2 Stored in Hydrate, ×106 std m3

Base Case (Pi=0.5 MPa) Base Case (Pi=0.5 MPa)

Case 3 (Pi=1 MPa) Case 3 (Pi=1 MPa)
5 Case 4 (Pi=2 MPa)
Average Temperature, °C

8 Case 4 (Pi=2 MPa) 1.6

Average Pressure, MPa

16
4 P
6 1.2
CO2
3 12
4 0.8
2
T
8
2 0.4
1
CH4

0 4 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Time, days Time, days

Fig. 15—Changes in the average reservoir temperature and Fig. 16—Changes in CO2 and CH4 stored in hydrate with time;
pressure with time; effect of the initial pressure. effect of the initial pressure.

February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 105

 5 20 12 2

CO2 Stored in Hydrate, ×106 std m3

CH4 Stored in Hydrate, ×106 std m3

Case 5 (porosity=20%) Case 5 (porosity=20%)
Base Case (porosity=30%) Base Case (porosity=30%)
Case 6 (porosity=40%) 10 Case 6 (porosity=40%)

Average Temperature , °C
4 17 1.6
Average Pressure, MPa

8
CO2
3 14 1.2
P
6

2 11 0.8
4
T
1 8 0.4
2
CH4

0 5 0 0
0 100 200 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time, days Time, days

Fig. 17—Changes in the average reservoir temperature and Fig. 18—Changes in CO2 and CH4 stored in hydrate with time;
pressure with time; effect of porosity. effect of porosity.

22. Figs. 20 and 21 show radial distributions of temperature and with the latter controlling the total amount of hydrate that may
hydrate saturation at the reservoir middepth. Volumes of CO2 possibly form there.
stored in hydrate are compared in Fig. 22.
When the temperature of injected CO2 is higher than the Discussion
reservoir temperature, the CO2 carries heat along so that hydrate In this study, we examined hydrate formation during a relatively
formation in the vicinity of the injector is hindered. The higher the short simulation period of 8 months. During this period, the
injection temperature, the farther away from the injector hydrate sensible heat of the reservoir between the initial temperature and
forms. equilibrium temperature at maximum pressure controls the amount
In Case 7, we consider an injection temperature of 5°C, which is of hydrate formed. However, over longer periods of time (either
lower than in the base case and equal to the initial reservoir tempera- slower injection or shut-in after the injection period), the increased
ture. In this case, because temperature in the vicinity of the injector temperature in the reservoir dissipates and the reservoir cooling
is below that at three-phase equilibrium, hydrate forms as soon as would lead to formation of more hydrate or pressure reduction.
gas becomes available. The process is limited by the availability of In this case, the rate of hydrate formation would be controlled by
water. All water is consumed, with hydrate saturation of 0.32, within conduction of heat (Zatsepina and Pooladi-Darvish 2011).
12 m of the injector. Then, three-phase equilibrium is followed In this model, we assumed fast kinetics of hydrate formation.
at radii greater than 12 m. Potential loss of injectivity because of Because we did not find estimations of kinetic constant in porous
hydrate formation in the vicinity of the wellbore is incorporated only medium, we used intrinsic rate constants for CO2-hydrate forma-
in a partial way. With the relative permeability models used in this tion/dissociation obtained by Clarke and Bishnoi (2004, 2005) in a
paper, gas mobility changes as a result of changes in gas saturation. stirred reactor. Our calculations revealed that the reported constants
Additional plugging that hydrate may cause is not modeled. The are large enough for P/T conditions of CO2-hydrate formation/dis-
objective here is to demonstrate that high saturations of hydrate may sociation to follow the equilibrium curve. If kinetic constants in
appear in the vicinity of the wellbore and lead to formation plugging porous medium (where additional resistances to mass transfer may
if temperature of the injected CO2 is not controlled. be present) are smaller by orders of magnitude, then a deviation
Fig. 22 presents volumes of CO2 stored in hydrate in cases from the equilibrium curve may occur.
when the injection temperature changes from 5 to 15°C. Fig. 22 We also assumed fast exchange of gas molecules between the
reveals that the volumes do not vary, despite the difference in hydrate and vapor phases. However, in this particular work, use of
hydrate saturations in the vicinity of the injector (assuming that a slow rate of replacement will not affect the results significantly.
injection can continue despite hydrate formation in the vicinity This is because the first hydrate forms after approximately 90
of the wellbore in Case 7). This is because the sensible heat of days of injection, when reservoir pressure has increased from 0.5
the injected gas is negligible compared with that of the reservoir, to approximately 2.3 MPa. By this time, most of the in-situ gas is

5 13 16
Case 5 (porosity=20%)
Base Case (porosity=30%) Tinj=15°C
Case 6 (porosity=40%) 14
Average Temperature, °C
Average Pressure, MPa

4
11
Temperature, °C

12
3 Tinj=10°C
9 10

2
P T 8
7
1 Tinj=5°C
6

0 5 4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
qt/Pore Volume Radial Distance, m

Fig. 19—Average pressure and temperature as functions of Fig. 20—Radial distributions of temperature in the middle of the
pore volume of CO2 injected; effect of porosity. hydrate layer at 250 days; effect of CO2-injection temperature.

106 February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 0.4
Hydrate Saturation, fraction
Tinj =5°C
0.3
0.2
Tinj =10°C
0.1
Tinj =15°C
0
0 50 100 150
Radial Distance, m
Fig. 21—Radial distributions of hydrate saturation in the mid-
dle of the hydrate layer at 250 days; effect of CO2-injection
temperature.
pushed to the far boundaries of the reservoir and CO2 occupies its
major part. As the pressure increases further, the type of hydrate
that forms within this large part of the reservoir is CO2 hydrate.
The mixed-gas hydrates and change in their composition will be
limited to the boundaries of the reservoir as they form at higher
pressures.
Molecular diffusion of CO2 and CH4, with the corresponding
mixing of the components, is not included in the current model-
ing. However, because of numerical truncation errors that often
act as numerical diffusion, the CO2 and CH4 would still mix at
the CO2 front. In this work, the region with both CO2 and CH4,
where mixed-gas hydrates form, appears as a result of numerical
dispersion. In the porous medium, such factors as tortuous flow
paths and heterogeneity could contribute to dispersion of the gas
front. As a result, these mixing mechanisms could lead to forma-
tion of the mixed hydrates over a wider region of the reservoir
compared to that of this work. These aspects are the subject of
ongoing research.
Composition of the in-situ and injected gas affects hydrate
stability. The presence of heavier hydrocarbons, such as C2 and C3,
in the in-situ gas or impurities in the injected gas, such as SO2 and
H2S, expand the stability zone of hydrate. This suggests expansion
of the candidate reservoirs, with a possible inclusion of deeper and
warmer reservoirs.
The motivation for this work was the fast kinetics of hydrate
formation that could trap CO2 in the solid structure. However, it
should be noted that kinetics of hydrate dissociation is also fast
(Rovetto et al. 2007). Therefore, if P/T conditions of the reservoir
are altered, the hydrate could dissociate and the CO2 would be
released once again. This may have practical implications in north-
ern Alberta, where some of the depleted gas pools are underlain
by bitumen reservoirs that may be developed by thermal methods.
Work is under way to map those depleted gas pools where risk of
heating by thermal recovery from below is absent.
Summary and Conclusions
We have studied the problem of CO2 storage in a depleted CH4-
gas reservoir. To study the influence of composition of the vapor
phase, a single block was considered first. When the increase in
temperature as a result of hydrate formation was ignored, pressure
decreased as more CO2 was injected. This is because the equilib-
rium pressure of hydrate formation decreases with an increase in
the fraction of CO2 in vapor. In this case, the availability of water
was found to be the limiting factor in formation of hydrate.
When the heat of hydrate formation was accounted for, pres-
sure increased with continued injection, although at a lower rate
during the formation of hydrate. As compared to the previous case,
the total amount of hydrates formed was considerably diminished
February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
10
CO2 Stored in Hydrate, ×106 std m3
8
6
CO2: T inj=5°C, 10°C, 15°C
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
200 250 300
Time, days
Fig. 22—Volume of CO2 stored in hydrate as a function of time;
effect of CO2-injection temperature.
by the temperature influence and the availability of water was no
longer a limiting factor in hydrate formation.
Finally, CO2 injection into a depleted gas reservoir was studied.
It was shown that, by controlling the temperature of the injected
CO2, one could avoid hydrate formation in the vicinity of the well-
bore, where formation plugging may occur. Formation of hydrate
away from the wellbore and at saturations observed in this study
is not expected to affect injectivity. Simulation results indicate that
more hydrate forms at the bottom and top, where heat of hydrate
formation dissipates to the base rock and caprock. In all cases
studied, the volume of CO2 that turned into hydrates was many
times greater than the volume of the initial gas in place.
Presence of other hydrocarbons in the in-situ gas or impurities
in the injected gas, as well as reservoir cooling after a period of
CO2 injection, could significantly increase potential of CO2 stor-
age in depleted gas pools. This is a subject of our current research
(Zatsepina and Pooladi-Darvish 2011).
Acknowledgments
The assistance of Dennis Coombe of Computer Modelling Group
in the use of the STARS simulator for defining mixed hydrates
is gratefully acknowledged. Also, we are thankful to Moham-
mad Tavallali for the review of the gas pools in northern Alberta.
Financial funding for this research was provided by the National
Science and Engineering Council of Canada and Carbon Manage-
ment Canada.
References
Adisasmito, S., Frank, R.J., and Sloan, E.D. 1991. Hydrates of Carbon
Dioxide and Methane Mixtures. J. Chem. Eng. Data 36 (1): 68–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je00001a020.
Anderson, G.K. 2003. Enthalpy of Dissociation and Hydration Number
of Carbon Dioxide Hydrate from the Clapeyron Equation. The Jour-
nal of Chemical Thermodynamics 35 (7): 1171–1183. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/s0021-9614(03)00093-4.
Ballard, A.L. and Sloan, E.D. 2004. The Next Generation of Hydrate Pre-
diction: Part III. Gibbs Energy Minimization Formalism. Fluid Phase
Equilib. 218 (1): 15–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2003.08.005.
Brewer, P.G., Friederich, G., Peltzer, E.T., and Orr, F.M. Jr. 1999. Direct
Experiments on the Ocean Disposal of Fossil Fuel CO2. Science 284
(5416): 943–945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5416.943.
Buffett, B. and Zatsepina, O. 2004. Research on Mixed Gas Hydrate Equilib-
rium. Technical Report, Institute for Energy Utilization, National Institute
of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Ibaraki, Japan.
Burrowes, A., Marsh, R., Ramdin, N., et al. 2001. Alberta’s Energy Reserves
2000 and Supply/Demand Outlook 2000–2010. Annual report (CD-
ROM), Statistical Series 2001–98, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board,
Calgary, Alberta. http://www.ercb.ca/docs/products/STs/ST98-2001.pdf.
107
Clarke, M.A. and Bishnoi, P.R. 2004. Determination of the Intrinsic Rate
Constant and Activation Energy of CO2 Gas Hydrate Decomposi-
tion Using In-Situ Particle Size Analysis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 59 (14):
2983–2993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2004.04.030.
Clarke, M.A. and Bishnoi, P.R. 2005. Determination of the Intrinsic Kinetics of
CO2 Gas Hydrate Formation Using In-Situ Particle Size Analysis. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 60 (3): 695–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2004.08.040.
CMG. 2008. STARS: Steam, Thermal and Advanced Processes Reservoir
Simulator. Calgary, Alberta: Computer Modelling Group. http://www.
cmgroup.com/software/stars.htm.
Côté, M.M. and Wright, F. 2010. Geological Potential for Sequestration
of CO2 as Gas Hydrate in the Alberta Portion of the Western Canada
Sedimentary Basin. Paper SPE 138121 presented at the Canadian
Unconventional Resources and International Petroleum Conference,
Calgary, 19–21 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/138121-MS.
Gunter, W.D., Bachu, S., and Benson, S.M. 2004. The Role of Hydrogeo-
logical and Geochemical Trapping in Sedimentary Basins for Secure
Geological Storage for Carbon Dioxide. In Geological Storage of Car-
bon Dioxide, ed. S.J. Baines and R.H. Worden, No. 233, 129–145. Bath,
UK: Special Publication, Geological Society Publishing House.
Gupta, A., Lachance, J., Sloan Jr, E.D., and Koh, C.A. 2008. Measurements
of Methane Hydrate Heat of Dissociation Using High Pressure Dif-
ferential Scanning Calorimetry. Chem. Eng. Sci. 63 (24): 5848–5853.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2008.09.002.
Hassanzadeh, H., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Keith, D.W. 2009. Accelerating
CO2 Dissolution in Saline Aquifers for Geological Storage—Mecha-
nistic and Sensitivity Studies. Energy Fuels 23 (6): 3328–3336. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef900125m.
Hong, H. and Pooladi-Darvish, M. 2005. Simulation of Depressurization
for Gas Production from Gas Hydrate Reservoirs. J Can Pet Technol
44 (11): 39–46.
Hong, H., Pooladi-Darvish, M., and Bishnoi, P.R. 2003. Analytical Mod-
elling of Gas Production From Hydrates in Porous Media. J Can
Pet Technol 42 (11): 45–56. JCPT Paper No. 03-11-05. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2118/03-11-05.
House, K.Z., Schrag, D.P., Harvey, C.F., and Lackner, K.S. 2006. Perma-
nent Carbon Dioxide Storage in Deep-Sea Sediments. PNAS 103 (33):
12291–12295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0605318103.
Kamata, Y., Takeya, S., Ebinuma, T., et al. 2002. Pressure and Structure
of CH4+CO2 Mixture Gas Hydrate Formation. Proc., 4th International
Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH-4), Yokohama, Japan, 19–23 May,
636–639.
Kim, H.C., Bishnoi, P.R., Heidemann, R.A., and Rizvi, S.S.H. 1987.
Kinetics of Methane Hydrate Decomposition. Chem. Eng. Sci. 42 (7):
1645–1653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(87)80169-0.
Koide, H., Takahashi, M., Tsukamoto, H., and Shindo, Y. 1995. Self-Trap-
ping Mechanisms of Carbon Dioxide in the Aquifer Disposal. Energy
Convers. Manage. 36 (6–9): 505–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0196-
8904(95)00054-h.
Konno, Y., Masuda, Y., Hariguchi, Y., Kurihara, M., and Ouchi, H. 2010.
Key Factors for Depressurization-Induced Gas Production from Oce-
anic Methane Hydrates. Energy Fuels 24 (3): 1736–1744. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1021/ef901115h.
Kowalsky, M.B. and Moridis, G.J. 2007. Comparison of Kinetic and
Equilibrium Reaction Models in Simulating Gas Hydrate Behavior in
Porous Media. Energy Convers. Manage. 48 (6): 1850–1863. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2007.01.017.
Kumar, A., Maini, B., Bishnoi, P.R., Clarke, M., Zatsepina, O., and Srini-
vasan, S. 2010. Experimental Determination of Permeability in the
Presence of Hydrates and its Effect on the Dissociation Characteristics
of Gas Hydrates in Porous Media. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 70 (1–2): 114–122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2009.10.005.
Lee, H., Seo, Y., Seo, Y.-T., Moudrakovski, I.L., and Ripmeester, J.A.
2003. Recovering Methane from Solid Methane Hydrate with Carbon
Dioxide. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 42 (41): 5048–5051. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/anie.200351489.
Ota, M., Saito, T., Aida, T., et al. 2007. Macro and Microscopic CH4–CO2
Replacement in CH4 Hydrate Under Pressurized CO2. AIChE J. 53 (10):
2715–2721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.11294.
Parrish, W.R. and Prausnitz, J.M. 1972. Dissociation Pressures of Gas
Hydrates Formed by Gas Mixtures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev.
11 (1): 26–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/i260041a006.
108
Pooladi-Darvish, M. 2004. Gas Production from Hydrate Reservoirs and
its Modeling. J Pet Technol 56 (6): Distinguished Author Series, 65–71.
SPE-86827-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86827-MS.
Rovetto, L.J., Bowler, K.E., Stadterman, L.L., Dec, S.F., Koh, C.A., and
Sloan Jr, E.D. 2007. Dissociation Studies of CH4-C2H6 and CH4-CO2
Binary Gas Hydrates. Fluid Phase Equilib. 261 (1-2): 407–413. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2007.08.003.
Sun, X. and Mohanty, K.K. 2006. Kinetic Simulation of Methane Hydrate
Formation and Dissociation in Porous Media. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61 (11):
3476–3496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2005.12.017.
Uchida, T., Ikeda, I.Y., Takeya, S., et al. 2005. Kinetics and Stability of
CH4–CO2 Mixed Gas Hydrates During Formation and Long-Term
Storage. ChemPhysChem 6 (4): 646–654. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
cphc.200400364.
Uddin, M., Coombe, D., and Wright, F. 2008a. Modeling of CO2-Hydrate For-
mation in Geological Reservoirs by Injection of CO2 Gas. J. Energy Resour.
Technol. 130 (3): 032502-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2956979.
Uddin, M., Coombe, D., Law, D., and Gunter, B. 2008b. Numerical Stud-
ies of Gas Hydrate Formation and Decomposition in a Geological
Reservoir. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 130 (3): 032501-14. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1115/1.2956978.
West, O.R., Tsouris, C., Lee, S., McCallum, S.D., and Liang, L. 2003. Nega-
tively Buoyant CO2-Hydrate Composite for Ocean Carbon Sequestration.
AIChE J. 49 (1): 283–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690490127.
White, M.D. and McGrail, B.P. 2008. Numerical Simulation of Methane
Hydrate Production from Geologic Formations via Carbon Dioxide
Injection. Paper OTC 19458 presented at the Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, 5–8 May. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/19458-MS.
Wilder, J., Moridis, G., Wilson, S., et al. 2008. An International Effort to
Compare Gas Hydrate Reservoir Simulators. Paper presented at the 6th
International Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2008), Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, 6–10 July.
Wright, J.F., Côté, M.M., and Dallimore, S. 2008. Overview of Regional
Opportunities for Geological Sequestration of CO2 as Gas Hydrate in Can-
ada. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Gas Hydrates
(ICGH 2008), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 6–10 July.
Zatsepina, O.Y. and Buffett, B.A. 2002. Nucleation of CO2-Hydrate in a
Porous Medium. Fluid Phase Equilib. 200 (2): 263–275. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/s0378-3812(02)00032-8.
Zatsepina, O.Y. and Pooladi-Darvish, M. 2011. Storage of CO2 Hydrate
in Depleted Gas Reservoirs: Pre- and Post-Injection Periods. Green-
house Gases: Science and Technology, 1 (3): 223–236. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ghg.23.
Olga Ye. Zatsepina is a research associate in the Department
of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of
Calgary, Canada. Her research interests include theoreti-
cal predictions for single/mixed gas-hydrate-phase equilib-
ria, experimental simulation of hydrate formation in porous
medium, and reservoir numerical modeling. Zatsepina gradu-
ated from the Faculty of Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow
State University, Russia, and holds MS and PhD degrees from
the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University
of British Columbia, Canada.
Mehran Pooladi-Darvish is vice president of engineering at
Fekete Associates, where he leads the reservoir modeling
and simulation group. He specializes in the analytical and
numerical modeling of hydrocarbon recovery and reservoir
characterization. Pooladi-Darvish has published more than
50 journal papers, including Best Paper published in 2000
and 2005 in the Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
and a paper for the Distinguished Author Series in the Journal
of Petroleum Technology in 2004. Between 1997 and 2011,
Pooladi-Darvish was a professor of petroleum engineering at
the University of Calgary. His research focused on production
of gas from gas hydrates, CO2 sequestration in geological for-
mations, cold production of heavy oil, and naturally fractured
reservoirs. Pooladi-Darvish holds a BS degree from Amirkabir
University of Technology in Iran, an MS degrees from the
Petroleum University of Technology in Iran, and a PhD degree
in petroleum engineering from the University of Alberta. He is a
member of SPE and the Association of Professional Engineers,
Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.
February 2012 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering