Processes for Methane Production from Gas Hydrates
- 2.3k Downloads
Three processes have been proposed for dissociation of methane hydrates: thermal stimulation, depressurization, and inhibitor injection. The obvious production approaches involve depressurization, heating and their combinations. The depressurization method is lowering the pressure inside the well and encouraging the methane hydrate to dissociate. The chemical inhibition method seeks to displace the natural gas hydrate equilibrium condition beyond the hydrate stability zone’s thermodynamic conditions through injection of a liquid inhibitor chemical adjacent to the hydrate. Of these three production methodologies, the depressurization combined with the thermal stimulation process appears to be the most practical for zones where free gas is trapped beneath the methane hydrates.
There are two gas hydrate reservoir. They are arctic hydrates and marine hydrates. Gas hydrates are found within and under permafrost in arctic regions. They are also found within a few hundred meters of the seafloor on continental slopes and in deep seas and lakes.
The main cost here is only that of the pipeline used to transport the gas to the production platform. For subsea systems that do not produce to a fixed platform a drilling template must be used that connects to a group of wells. Transporting methane from the production site to the shore could be through submarine pipelines as is done for long distance transportation of natural gas. However, submarine pipelines are expensive and the geological hazards of the continental slope make this option difficult.
The economic production of natural gas from oceanic hydrate deposits will require new offshore drilling systems and methods. Recovering methane and economically transporting it, pose a challenge to technologists and scientists. Ideas have been conceptualized and research mounted to address these challenges.
Based on the calculations depressurization was shown to be the most promising technique for the class 1 type of reservoirs. Depressurization has also been quoted by many researchers as the most economically viable option. Methanol is approximately three times less expensive than ethylene glycol (EG), one must pay particular attention to the amount of methanol necessary to treat the inlet gas. With increasing gas flow rates, the EG injection process typically becomes a more viable option because the inhibitor is regenerated. The increased cost of utilizing methanol injection to treat larger gas volumes can be directly associated to the raw material make-up cost.
KeywordsMethane Production Thermal Stimulation Hydrate Dissociation Submarine Pipeline Hydrate Deposit
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- AGHPW (2005) Alaska Gas Hydrate Planning Workshop (AGHPW), proceedings, sponsored by Alaska Department of Natural Resources and United States Geological Survey, Anchorage, Alaska, 17–18 AugustGoogle Scholar
- Brandt W, Dang AS, Magne E, Crowley D, Houston K, Rennie A, Hodder M, Stringer R, Juiniti R, Ohara S, Rushton S (1998) Deepening the search for offshore hydrocarbons. Oilfield Rev Spring 2–21Google Scholar
- Chatterji J, Griffith JE (1998) Methods of decomposing gas hydrates. US Patent 5,713,416Google Scholar
- Chi W-C, Reed DL, Tsai C-C (2006) Gas hydrate stability zone in offshore southern Taiwan. Terr Atmos Ocean Sci 17:829–843Google Scholar
- Collett TS (2002) Energy resource potential of natural gas hydrates. AAPG Bull 86:1971–1992Google Scholar
- Dake LP (1978) Fundamentals of reservoir engineering. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Dallimore SR, Collett TS (2005) Scientific results from the Mallik 2002 gas hydrate production research well, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada. Bulletin 585. Geological Survey of Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
- Davies P (2001) The new challenge of natural gas. Paper presented at OPEC and the global energy balance: towards a sustainable future, Vienna, 28 September 2001Google Scholar
- Desa E (2001) Submarine methane hydrates potential fuel resource of the 21st century. Proc AP Akad Sci 5:101–114Google Scholar
- Dillon WP, Holbrook WS, Drury R, Gettrust J, Hutchinson D, Booth J, Taylor M (1997) Faulting of gas-hydrate-bearing marine sediments – contribution to permeability. Paper 8296. In: Offshore technology conference Houston, Texas, 5–8 May 1997, pp 201–209Google Scholar
- Graue A, Kvamme B, Baldwin BA, Stevens J, Howard J, Ersland G, Husebo J, Zomes DR (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging of methane – carbon dioxide hydrate reactions in sandstone pores. In: 2006 SPE annual technical conference and exhibition, pp 24–27Google Scholar
- Gudmundsson H (2003) Making concepts matter: sustainable mobility and indicator systems in transport policy. Int Soc Sci J 55:199–217Google Scholar
- Gupta A, Dec SF, Koh CA, Sloan ED (2005) NMR and remain investigations of the methane hydrate dissociation mechanism. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on gas hydrates, June 12–16, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- Haneda H, Sakamoto Y, Kawamura T, Komai T (2005) Experimental study on dissociation behavior of methane hydrate by air. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on gas hydrates, June 12–16, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- Kamata Y, Ebinuma T, Ota M, Minagawa H, Narita H, Masuda Y, Konno Y (2005) Decomposition experiment of methane hydrate sediment by thermal recovery method. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on gas hydrates, June 12–16, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- Kamath VA, Mutalik PN, Sira JH, Patil SL (1991) Experimental study of brine injection and depressurization methods for dissociation of gas hydrates. SPE Form Eval 6:477–484Google Scholar
- Kawamura T, Yamamoto Y, Ohtake M, Sakamoto Y, Komai T, Haneda H (2005) Experimental study on dissociation of hydrate core sample accelerated by thermodynamic inhibitors for gas recovery from natural gas hydrate. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on gas hydrates, June 12–16, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- Khataniar S, Kamath VA, Omenihu SD, Patil SL, Dandekar AY (2002) Modeling and economic analysis of gas production from hydrates by depressurization method. Can J Chem Eng 80:135–143Google Scholar
- Makagon YF (1997) Hydrates of hydrocarbons. PennWell Books, TulsaGoogle Scholar
- Masuda Y, Kurihara M, Ohuchi H, Sato T (2002) A field-scale simulation study on gas productivity of formations containing gas hydrates. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on gas hydrates, Yokohama, Japan, 19–23 MayGoogle Scholar
- Max MD, Chandra K (1998) The dynamic oceanic hydrate system: production constraints and strategies. In: Proceedings of the offshore technology conference, 4–7 May 1998, Houston, Texas, pp 217–226Google Scholar
- Max MD, Cruickshank MJ (1999) Extraction of methane from oceanic hydrate system deposits. In: Proceedings of the offshore technology conference, 3–6 May 1999, Houston, Texas, pp 1–8Google Scholar
- Max MD, Lowrie A (1997) Oceanic methane hydrate development: Reservoir character and extraction. In: Proceedings of the offshore technology conference, 5–8 May, Houston, Texas, pp 235–240Google Scholar
- Moridis GJ (2003) Numerical studies of gas production from methane hydrates. Soc Pet Eng J Dec 359–370Google Scholar
- Ogasawara K, Yamasaki A, Kiyono F, Kato C, Kawamura M (2005) Development of new apparatus for measuring dissociation rate of a methane hydrate under flow condition of water. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on gas hydrates, June 12–16, Trondheim, NorwayGoogle Scholar
- Pooladi-Darvish M (2004) Gas production from hydrate reservoirs and its modeling. Soc Pet Eng 56:65–71Google Scholar
- Sakamoto Y, Komai T, Kawabe Y, Tenma N, Yamaguchi T (2004) Gas hydrate extraction from marine sediments by heat stimulation method. Paper presented at the international offshore and polar engineering conference Toulon, 23–28 MayGoogle Scholar
- Sakamoto Y, Komai T, Kawamura T, Tenma N, Yamaguchi T (2005) Field scale simulation for effect of permeability distribution and anisotropy on dissociation and gas production behavior in marine sediments with gas hydrate. Seoul, South Korea. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Cupertino, pp 386–391Google Scholar
- Sawyer W, Boyer C, Franz J, Yost A (2000) Comparative assessment of natural gas hydrate production models. SPE Pap 62513Google Scholar
- Sira JH, Patil SL, Kamata VA (1990) Study of hydrate dissociation by methanol and glycol injection. Soc Pet Eng 977–984Google Scholar
- Stern LA, Circone S, Kirby SH, Durham WB (2001) Preservation of methane hydrate at 1 atm. Am Chem Soc 15:499–501Google Scholar
- Sung W, Lee H, Lee H, Lee C (2002) Numerical study for production performances of a methane hydrate reservoir stimulated by inhibitor injection. Energy Sources 24:499–512Google Scholar
- Yoon JH, Kawamura T, Yamamoto Y, Komai T (2004) Transformation of methane hydrate to carbon dioxide hydrate: in situ Raman spectroscopic observations. J Am Chem Soc 108:5057–5059Google Scholar
- Yousif MH, Abass HH, Selim MS, Sloan ED (1991) Experimental and theoretical investigation of methane-gas-hydrate dissociation in porous media. SPE Reserv Eng 6:69–76Google Scholar