Application of Computers and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry –

Dessureault, Ganguli, Kecojevic & Dwyer (eds)

© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 449 9

Feasibility of gas production of offshore gas hydrate deposits by

integration with GTL process

S.L. Patil & N.R. Nanchary

University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA

ABSTRACT: Gas-to-liquids (GTL) conversion technology, where natural gas is chemically converted to trans-
portable hydrocarbon liquid products, is an emerging technology that will undoubtedly reach commercialization
within the next decade. GTL process is a largely exothermic process, which produces so much heat that could
potentially be unused by letting the heat flow into the environment. Natural gas hydrates are a huge yet untapped
source of natural gas and the process of gas hydrate destruction is endothermic one. The brine is known to have
great potential of dissociating natural gas hydrates compared to other thermal methods and will minimize heat
losses in the well bore and the amount of reservoir heating required for hydrate dissociation. Tapping this heat
resource from the GTL process and transferring it to produce hot brine in an exchanger and utilizing the brine
for hydrate dissociating is an efficient way of utilizing the thermal energy from the GTL facility to produce gas
from natural gas hydrates that will form the feed for the GTL facility and also provide gas for lifting the well
effluent. A heat transfer model was developed that will allow calculation of energy required for decomposition
of gas hydrates, determination of hydrate and water production rates, the energy efficiency ratio (EER), and
energy released from GTL plant. This model also includes well bore heat loss calculations and fractional heat
losses to overburden and lowerburden during injection phase. The synergy between the gas hydrate recovery
system and the GTL plant was evaluated. This model was then applied to an example hydrate offshore deposit to
predict the feasibility of producing gas required for GTL conversion from hydrates by utilizing the heat required
for gas hydrate decomposition from GTL plant. Through energy balance calculations, it is shown that the energy
required for decomposition of gas hydrates into gas and water is approximately one tenth of the energy value of
the produced gas. The energy efficiency ratio (EER) predicted by this model was 17.18.

1 INTRODUCTION whereas in other technique this energy is supplied from

The estimates of amount natural gas within naturally
occurring gas hydrate deposits are so huge, that they
represent an unconventional resource of natural gas
for the new millennium. These solid hydrate deposits
contain approximately 170 to 180 SCF of natural gas
per cubic foot of hydrate. Since gas hydrates are solids
and they exist in reservoirs as relatively immobile and
impermeable, the first step in the production is to
decompose gas hydrates into gas and water by var-
ious means. The process of hydrate decomposition
requires that the heat of hydrate decomposition be pro-
vided to the decomposing hydrate surface in order to
shift equilibrium associated between hydrates, gas and
water. Various methods have been suggested for pro-
duction of gas from gas hydrate reservoirs. Recovery
techniques include depressurization, hot water injec-
tion, steam injection, injection of chemicals (such as
methanol or glycol), fire flooding and electromagnetic
heating. In thermal recovery technique heat required to
dissociate hydrates is supplied from an external source
the surrounding formations.
The amount of energy required for decomposition
of gas hydrates into gas and water is a fraction of the
energy value of the produced gas. This heat of decom-
position is dependent upon the pressure, temperature,
gas composition and the concentration of the inhibitor
used in decomposition, if any. Thus, the energy effi-
ciency ratio (EER), defined as the ratio of heating
value of the produced gas to heat required to decom-
pose hydrates to gas and water, in the range of 10 to 13
represents the highest that can be achieved in a most
thermodynamic efficient process without inhibitors.
Higher energy efficiency ratios are only possible with
the use of inhibitor, which reduce the decomposition
energy.
Thermally efficient production of natural gas can
be accomplished by the use of hot brine to dissociate
gas hydrates. Brine stimulation technique is similar to
single well steam stimulation and involves injection of
hot brine into a reservoir containing gas hydrates, thus
causing dissociation of hydrates into gas and water,

133

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 followed by production of natural gas generated due to
hydrate dissociation. At a given pressure, brine reduces
the equilibrium dissociation temperature of hydrates,
depending upon its salinity. Thus, with use of brine the
reservoir temperature needs not be raised to an extent
needed for other thermal recovery technique such as
steam or hot water injection. The higher the salinity of
brine lesser the heating of reservoir is required. Also
as a consequence of lower dissociation temperature
heat losses are lower for brine injection than steam
or hot water injection. Thus, the reduction in sensible
heat requirement and reduction in heat losses results
in better thermal efficiencies for brine injection. Brine
stimulation leads to higher gas production. Further, the
problems of blockage of rock pores and wellbore due
to reformation of hydrates during gas production can
be avoided. In addition it may be possible to obtain
hot brine from geothermal reservoirs in close prox- Figure 1. Hydrate-GTL system.
imity to hydrate reservoirs especially in sub-oceanic
environment. The salinity of sea water can be further
increased by adding salts to the sea water, which will
of unknown hydrate reservoir characteristics and field
then act as hydrate inhibitors. The gas thus obtained
studies many assumptions were made regarding input
from hydrates dissociation would be natural gas feed
data and model calculations. First, the model assumes
to GTL plant.
single zone of gas hydrates trapped between imperme-
GTL is a process that converts natural gas to liquid
able rocks. Second, it is a heat transfer model that is
petroleum products- diesel, naphtha and waxes –using
gas production is limited by rate of heat dissipation
Fischer-Tropsch technology. The most important tech-
to hydrate zone and is not governed by the flow of
nologies in the process are the synthesis gas (syngas)
gas through dissociated zone. Third, hydrate gas con-
and the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) reactions. The syngas
centration is 181.3 SCF gas/ft3 hydrate. Fourth, there
reaction converts natural gas and oxygen feed in to
is sufficient injectivity of brine into hydrate deposit.
carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The F-T reactor in
The brine is injected at a predetermined temperature
turn converts the carbon monoxide and hydrogen into
and salinity in to a reservoir containing hydrates at
straight-chain liquid hydrocarbons or synthetic crude
a constant injection rate in a cyclic manner. Each
oil. This synthetic crude is virtually free of contami-
cycle is divided into three stages (Kamath & Godbole
nants such as sulfur, aromatics and metals. The liquid
1985): brine injection stage, hydrate dissociation stage
hydrocarbons are then hydrocracked into the desired
and gas production stage. Finally, all reservoir rock
fished products.
and fluid properties remain constant during injection
The goal of GTL is to convert isolated natural gas
dissociation and production cycles. Hydrate gas com-
reserves (conventional or unconventional gas reserves)
position is uniform throughout the reservoir. Brine
into products that are easy to transport and sell in
concentration and saturation in the dissociated zone
the marketplace. In addition, GTL will yield synthetic
does not change significantly over time.
hydrocarbons of the highest quality that can be used
A system for the recovery of liquid hydrocarbons
directly as fuels or blended with lower quality crude
from hydrates on an ocean floor includes
oil derived fuels to bring them up to compliance with
increasingly stringent environmental and performance • Producing the gas from hydrates dissociation by
specifications. The GTL process is also very exother- brine stimulation.
mic and the process can be configured to produce • Delivering the gas to a syngas conversion system.
steam or hot brine. The energy from hot brine can be • Using the syngas system to convert the gas into
delivered to hydrates as explained earlier. liquid hydrocarbons.
• Using the energy from syngas conversion system in
the step of dissociating hydrates on an ocean floor.
2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL The heat transfer model is applied to an exam-
ple hydrate-GTL system shown in Figure 1. Several
The objectives of this study were to determine overall advantages are associated with this method. These
thermal efficiency of the hydrate decomposition sys- include, excess power from a conversion process may
tem, energy efficiency ratio (E.E.R), natural gas pro- be used to efficiently recover hydrate from ocean floor,
duction rate and rate of production of water. Because power-enhanced recovery techniques allow for quick

134

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 removal of natural gas hydrates, and, the GTL products
are easily marketable and extremely pure.
Step 1: Calculation of total heat generated
by the GTL plant
GTL plant operates at a throughput of 1000 BPD
capacity and takes 10 MMSCF/D of natural gas
input. It also produces 50000 lb/hr of 140◦ F steam
(56.1 MMBtu/hr) and 75000 lb/hr of 600◦ F steam
(87.6 MMBtu/hr). So, the total heat generated by the
GTL plant is 143.7 MMBtu/hr.
Step 2: Determination of flow rate of brine at
a fixed temperature and salinity
The steam from step 1 injected in heat exchanger where
brine is heated to 250◦ F and 5% salinity (wt% NaCl).
Several assumptions are assumed to calculate the heat
content of brine across heat exchanger and brine gener-
ator. Overall thermal efficiency of the heat exchanger
and brine generator is 75%. Necessary power require-
ments exist to generate brine of a desired salinity,
temperature and flow rate. Supply of seawater and
salt is available and sufficient injectivity of brine into
hydrate deposit exits. Heat associated with the brine
exiting from the brine generator is 108.8 MMBtu/hr
based on these assumptions.
Given the heat injection rate, Qb (Btu/hr) the fol-
lowing equation is used to determine the flow rate of
brine, mh (BPD),
where, ρb is brine density in (lb/ft3 ), Cpb is specific heat
of brine in (Btu/lb◦ F), To is the brine injection tem-
perature and Tref is the reference temperature (60◦ F).
Brine flow rate from Eq.1 is 42456 BPD.
Step 3: Hydrate system
Depth of hydrate deposit is assumed to be at
z = 3500 ft. Original temperature, TR , of natural gas
hydrate deposit is given by
where, a = geothermal gradient (0.0104◦ F/ft) and
b = surface temperature (12.4◦ F).
Hydrate deposit temperature, TR , under given con-
ditions is 48.8◦ F.
To determine pressure of the hydrates, we use Eq.
3 obtained from the VL1 H data of methane hydrates.
where, PR , is the formation pressure and f(x) is the
reduction in dissociation temperature due to salinity.
where ‘x’ is wt. % NaCl and f (x) is in ◦ C.
135
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
Hydrate formation pressure calculated from Eq. 3 is
936.3 psia and 100 psia is added to that value to obtain
actual hydrate pressure. It is assumed that natural gas
hydrates are at lesser temperature than predicted by
geothermal gradient. Assuming reservoir pressure to
be 1036.3 psia, hydrate dissociation, TH , calculated by
Eq. 3 is 45.68◦ F.
The dissociation heat of hydrate in cal/gmol.gas is
given as
where A = −4.02 (cal/gmol.CH 4 ◦ F and
B = 13521(cal/gmol.CH 4 )
H = 22321 (Btu/lbmol.CH 4 )
2.1 Brine injection stage
The heat injected during each cycle is then obtained by,
The heat injected in a 10 minutes injection time is
17.96 MMBtu. The injection stage thermal efficiency
is computed by considering the wellbore heat losses
as well as the heat losses to overburden-underburden
formations. Wellbore heat losses during injection of
brine are computed by approach of Ramey (1962) and
Willhite (1967). As brine moves through the wellbore
there is heat transfer between brine and the earth due to
the difference between brine and geothermal tempera-
tures. If the temperatures of the brine is high, then these
heat loses can be significant. In order to compute well-
bore heat losses, Ramey (1962) and Willhite (1967)
considered steady state heat transfer in the wellbore
and unsteady radial heat conduction to the earth. The
following equations are involved in these calculations.
Initially, the downhole temperature of brine, T1 , is
computed by
where, a is the geothermal gradient (0.0104◦ F/ft), b =
surface temperature (12.4◦ F), z is depth in ft and A is
constant given by:
where, ksoil is thermal conductivity of soil (Btu/hr
ft◦ F), Uti is overall heat transfer coefficient for a given
well completion scheme (Btu/hr ft 2◦ F) and f (t) is
the time function. Assume rti Uti = rto Uto . Overall
 heat transfer coefficient is obtained by the following Table 1. Model reservoir parameters.
equation.
Mean Annual Surface −10.9◦ C (12.4◦ F)
Temperature
Geothermal Gradient Above 0.019◦ C /M
Permafrost Base
Geothermal Gradient Below 0.032◦ C /M
Permafrost Base
Permafrost Base Depth 532 M (1745 ft)
660 ft × 660 ft
(10 acres)
Areal Extent of 1.0 (pure
Table 1 gives the model reservoir parameters. All the Reservoir methane hydrates)
parameters needed in Eq. 9 are given in Table 2. The Hydrate Saturation
time function f(t) is given by Eq. 10 for ti ≥7 days. Reservoir Rock Density, ρr 167 (lb/ft3 )
Specific Heat of Rock, Cpr 0.2 (Btu/lb◦ F)
Density of Water, rw 62.4 (lb/ft3 )
Specific Heat of Water, Cpw 1.0 (Btu/lb◦ F)
Density of Brine, ρb 59.5 (lb/ft3 )
Specific Heat of Brine, Cpb 0.96 (Btu/lb◦ F)
Thermal Conductivity of 3.22 (Btu/hr Ft.◦ F)
Dissociated Zone, kD
For injection times ti shorter than 7 days, f(t) is
Thermal Conductivity of 1.58 (Btu/hr Ft.◦ F)
obtained from tabular data3 . Hydrate Zone, kH
After computing downhole brine temperature, T1 , Thermal Diffusivity of 0.027 (ft2 /hr)
the temperature of drilled hole, Tw , temperature of cas- Hydrate Zone, αH
ing, Tco and temperature of tubing, Tto are obtained by Thermal Diffusivity of 0.04 (ft2 /hr)
the following equations. Overburden, αOB
Thermal Conductivity of 1.36 (Btu/hr Ft.◦ F)
Overburden, kOB
Hydrate Gas Concentration, 181.3 (SCF gas/ft3
βH hydrate)

Table 2. Well configuration data.

Inner Radius of Tubing, rti 0.1198 (feet)

Outer Radius of Tubing, rto 0.1458 (feet)
Inner Radius of Casing, rci 0.2615 (feet)
Outer Radius of Casing, rco 0.2917 (feet)
Insulation 100%
Radius of Wellbore, rw 0.5 (feet)
Initial Hydrate Front 2 (feet)
Radius, rfi
Thermal Conductivity of 25 (Btu/hr Ft.◦ F)
Tubing, ktubing
Thermal Conductivity of 25 (Btu/hr Ft.◦ F)
Casing, kcasing
Thermal Conductivity of 0.02 (Btu/hr Ft.◦ F)
Insulation, kins
Thermal Conductivity of 0.4 (Btu/hr Ft.◦ F)
Cement, kcement
Thermal Conductivity of 1.36 (Btu/hr Ft.◦ F)
Soil, ksoil

The wellbore heat losses Qwb are then obtained as The fractional wellbore heat losses, fwb is given by

136

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 Table 3. Calculated process parameters.
T1 (◦ F) 249.72
Tw (◦ F) 49.52
Tco (◦ F) 58.35
Tci (◦ F) 58.37
Tto (◦ F) 249.67
Qwb (Btu/hr) 144021
fwb 1.3365*10−3
Temperatures of downhole, drilled hole, casing and
tubing, wellbore heat loss and fractional wellbore heat
loss are illustrated in Table 3. Wellbore heat efficiency
during injection stage,
Ewb = 1 − fwb = 0.9987.
In order to obtain heat losses to overburden-
underburden formations during injection phase,
approach of Marx & Langenheim (1959), Mandl &
Volek (1969) and Myhill & Stegemeir (1978) is used.
The dimensionless time, is obtained by the follow-
ing equation [17]
where MOB and MD are volumetric specific heats of
overburden-underburden and dissociated zone respec-
tively, αOB is thermal diffusivity of overburden-
underburden. The unit of ti here depends on the units
of αOB .
The average volumetric heat capacity of the under-
burden and over burden is given by
where Cr , Cpb , Cpw , Cph and Cpg are mean heat capac-
ities at constant pressure (Btu/lbm-◦ F) for the rock,
bribe, water, hydrate and gas if present. In calculat-
ing MD , saturation of hydrates in the dissociated zone
is zero and saturation of brine in first cycle can be
taken as zero. Hydrates deposit is assumed to be thick
and contains 30% by volume hydrates and 70% sedi-
ments. After calculating the volumetric specific heats
of overburden and underburden, dimensionless time is
calculated by Eq. 17.
Reservoir heat efficiency, ER is then computed from
Eq. 20.
137
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
The fractional heat losses to overburden and underbur-
den, fR is given by
The overall thermal efficiency of injection period is
then obtained by the following equation:
From above equations and input data from Table 1,
overall thermal efficiency of the injection period
Einj = 0.845.
The average temperature of brine in the dissociated
zone at the end of the injection period, TB , is then com-
puted by considering heat remaining in the reservoir
and is given by
where VD is the initial volume of dissociated zone
and TD is the temperature of dissociated zone prior
to injection.
Initial volume of dissociated zone, VDi , can be
determined by
where ti is the brine injection time in minutes.
The average temperature of the brine in the disso-
ciated zone after first cycle, TB = 63.11◦ F.
2.2 Hydrate dissociation stage
At the end of brine injection stage, the temperature
distribution is approximated by a step function. The
dissociation of hydrates is unsteady state radial heat
conduction, moving boundary problem with heat
transfer in z direction as well.
In order to compute, the hydrates dissociation front,
temperature profiles in dissociation zone and hydrate
zone, heat losses to overburden and underburden as
a function of two partial differential equations with
initial and boundary conditions as given below.
The heat transfer in radial direction in dissociated
zone is described by
where TD is temperature in dissociation zone at any r
and time. The initial condition for Eq. 25 is
 and boundary condition is
where TH is dissociation temperature of hydrates, rf is
radius of hydrate dissociation front.
Heat transfer equation in hydrate zone is given by
where TS is temperature in hydrate zone at any r and
time and αH is thermal diffusivity of hydrate zone.
Initial condition for equation (28) is given by
where TR is reservoir temperature. Two boundary
conditions for t > ti are given by
Moving boundary condition for equations (25) and
(28) is given by
where, kD and kH are thermal conductivities of disso-
ciated zone and hydrate zone respectively and HD is
heat of hydrate dissociation.
The dissociation temperature of methane hydrates,
TH is obtained by correlating VL1 H data for methane
hydrates and is given by
where, PR is reservoir pressure in psia and f (x) is
reduction in dissociation temperature due to salinity.
Hydrate dissociation energy, HD is obtained from
modified Clausius Clapeyron equation and is given by
where, Ø is porosity, SH is hydrate saturation, z is
compressibility factor evaluated at PR and TH , n is
hydrate number (5.75 for methane) and Vw is change
in volume due to dissociation of hydrate.
138
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
The heat losses to overburden-underburden forma-
tions during dissociation period were computed by
solving Eq. 35.
The thermal efficiency during dissociation stage is
given by
The overall heat balance equation at the end of
dissociation phase is given by
where VDi and VDf are initial and final volumes of
dissociated zone.
2.2.1 Calculation procedure
The following procedure was adopted to compute dis-
sociation stage time, hydrate front radius at the end of
dissociation, thermal efficiency of dissociation stage
and overall efficiency of the hydrate system.
1. Assume thermal efficiency during dissociation
stage, ED , to be unity as an initial guess. Calculate
final volume of dissociation zone, VDf , from heat
balance Eq.37. Compute the radius, rf , from square
root of VDf /h.
2. Dissociation time is computed by solving equa-
tion (25)—(32) numerically. Numerical solutions
of these equations were first obtained by Sengul7
for ice moving boundary problem. He introduced
dimensionless parameters and correlations in
obtaining numerical solutions. For hydrate disso-
ciation, these parameters are given below.
In equation (41), s is a parameter obtained from
tabular data (Sengul, 1977). The solutions obtained
 Table 4. Steps to compute total efficiency of hydrate system.

Initial Guess HD HD VDf rf kH kD

ED Btu/lbmol.CH4 Btu/ft3 ft3 ft. Btu/hr-ft-*F Btu/hr-ft-*F Ø

1 22321 5033.87 31344.28 19.98 1.58 3.22 −0.06676

s Diss. Time QOB Diss. Time

σ m (from table) tD tDiss , hrs Btu ED (calc.) tDiss , hrs.

10.3887 0.4349 0.3 0.03081 0.0920 89175.91 0.999582 2.208323

LHS of RHS of
Eqn. (37) Eqn. (37) % Diff., ε ED (iterated) Ehyd.

15176278 1.518E+07 4.180E−02 0.99958 0.8450

Table 5. Parameters calculated by heat transfer model.

Qsupp. Gas Prod. Total Gas Water Prod. Total Water

Btu/hr SCF/day Prod., SCF RB/day Prod.,RB E.E.R.

9.1058E+07 3.7165E+07 2.5809E+05 29206.69 202.82 17.18

by Sengul (1977), are applicable to hydrate disso-
ciation because parameters s and Ø’ for methane
hydrates fall within range of parameters for which
equations (38)—(42) are valid. Dissociation time
for initial guess of rf in step (1) is computed from
equations (38) to (42).
3. Thermal efficiency ED , is obtained from equation
(36). QOB is calculated from Eq. 35 using the
dissociation time calculated in step 2.
4. Overall heat balance equation (37) is checked.
5. If overall heat balance equation is satisfied the solu-
tion is obtained, if not new value of rf is computed
from equation (37) using new value for ED and steps
from (2) to (4) are repeated till solution is obtained.
Iterated values are tabulated in Table 4. Total effi-
ciency of the hydrate system, Ehyd = Einj *ED = 0.845.
2.3 Gas production stage
For sake of simplicity, it is assumed that the heat
losses during gas production stage are negligible com-
pared to other heat losses. This assumption is justified
for very high production rates and short production
times. However, in actuality these heat losses would be
present. For purpose of this study, the production stage
thermal efficiency is considered to be unity. If the gas
is produced while hydrates are dissociating, then the
heat losses to overburden formations will be lower than
predicted by this model. Since this model predicts pes-
simistic values of dissociation stage efficiency if gas is
produced during dissociation stage, the improvement
in dissociation stage efficiency will counterbalance
with the heat losses during gas production.
For predetermined gas production rate, the pro-
duction time is computed by considering that all
dissociated gas is produced. The overall energy effi-
ciency ratio is computed from cumulative heat injected
and cumulative gas produced. The following equation
for energy efficiency ratio is used:
where G is gas production ratio rate in MSCF/day,
tproduction is production time in days, H.V. is heating
value of gas (1010 Btu/MSCF), N represents number
of cycles and the denominator represents cumula-
tive heat injected. Natural gas production rate, rate of
production of water and E.E.R are tabulated in Table 5.
In order to determine the best possible conditions
for gas production from hydrates by injection of hot
brine, the model was tested for wide range of param-
eters. Figures 2–3 show cumulative gas and water
production versus GTL plant capacity for various brine
injection times. It is evident from Figures 1–2 that
brine injection times strongly influences the produc-
tion volumes. Production rates are higher with increase
in brine injection times and with increase in GTL
plant capacity. Gas production rate versus GTL plant
capacity for various thermal efficiencies is displayed in

139

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 x 107 x 108
15 2.5
Cumulative Gas Production (scf)

Gas Production Rate (scf/day)

η=0.8
2
η=0.75
η=0.7
10 20 η=0.65
1.5

14 1
5

12
0.5

10 mins
0 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
GTL Plant Capacity (BPD) GTL Plant Capacity (BPD)
Figure 2. Cumulative gas production vs. GTL plant Capac-
Figure 4. Gas production rate vs. GTL plant capacity for
ity for various brine injection times.
various thermal efficiencies.

x 104
6 x 108
2.5
Cumulative Water Production (RB)

5
Gas Production Rate (scf/day)

4
20
1.5
3
14

1
2 12

1 0.5
5% NaCl
10 mins ---- 5% CaCl2
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0
GTL Plant Capacity (BPD) 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
GTL Plant Capacity (BPD)
Figure 3. Cumulative water production vs. GTL plant
capacity for various brine injection times. Figure 5. Gas production rate vs. GTL plant capacity for
various salts.
Figure 4. It is emphasized that higher the thermal effi-
ciency higher the gas production rate. Figure 5 show in this study, indicates that there is a good potential in
the effect of various salts on gas production rates ver- brine injection technique for thermally efficient pro-
sus GTL plant capacity. 5% NaCl salt acts as a better duction of gas from hydrate reservoirs, if hydrates exist
inhibitor over 5% CaCl2 . in a pure state and if the economics is favorable for
natural gas production from hydrates. Reduced heat
losses, reduced reservoir heating and lower hydrate
3 CONCLUSIONS dissociation energy are some of the advantages of brine
injection over steam injection.
The energy released from GTL plant is sufficient to Although, the mathematical formulation presented
produce large volumes of unconventional gas from in this study may be modified for actual GTL plant
hydrate formations. The theoretical analysis presented capacity and reservoir applications to obtain more

140

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 favorable results. This exercise is certainly useful in Qwr = Wellbore heat losses (Btu/hr)
obtaining the synergy between the gas hydrate recov- r = Variable
ery system and the GTL plant. Such a study will rci = Casing inner radius (ft)
greatly enhance and benefit the GTL commercializa- rco = Casing outer radius (ft)
tion projects undertaken by the US Department of rf = Hydrate front radius (ft)
Energy and Japan National Oil Corporation. rfi = Initial hydrate front radius (ft)
rti = tubing inner radius (ft)
rto = tubing outer radius (ft)
NOMENCLATURE rw = wellbore radius (ft)
a = Geothermal gradient (0.0104◦ F/ft) s = Constant defined in equation (41)
A = Constant in equation 8 (ft) Sh = Hydrate saturation
b = Surface temperature (12.4◦ F) tD = Dimensionless time in equation (42)
Cpb = Specific heat of brine (Btu/lb◦ F) tDiss = Dissociation stage time (days)
Cpw = Specific heat of water (Btu/lb◦ F) tDinj = Dimensionless time equation (17)
ED = Thermal efficiency of dissociation stage ti = Injection stage time (days)
Ehyd = total efficiency of the hydrate system tproduction = Production stage time (days)
Einj = Thermal efficiency of injection stage TB = Average brine temperature in dissociated
ER = Reservior heat efficiency during injection zone prior to dissociation (◦ F)
stage Tci = Casing temperature at rci (◦ F)
Ewb = Wellbore heat efficiency during Tco = Casing temperature at rco (◦ F)
injection stage TD = Dissociated zone temperature (◦ F)
fR = Fractional heat losses to TDi = Initial temperature of dissociated
overburden-underburden zone (◦ F)
fwb = Fractional wellbore heat losses TH = Temperature at hydrate front (◦ F)
f (t) = Time function in equation (10) TR = Reservoir temperature (◦ F)
f (x) = Reduction in dissociation TS = Temperature of hydrate zone (◦ F)
temperature due to salinity, (◦ F) Tto = Tubing temperature (◦ F)
G = Gas production rate MSCF/day TW = Wellbore temperature (◦ F)
h = Hydrate zone thickness (ft) TO = Brine injection temperature (◦ F)
H .V . = Heating value of produced gas T1 = Downhole temperature (◦ F)
(1010 Btu/MSCF) Uti = Overall heat transfer coefficient
kcasing = Thermal conductivity of casing (Btu/hrft◦ F) (Btu/hrft2◦ F)
kcement = Thermal conductivity of cement VDi , VDf = Initial and final dissociated
(Btu/hrft◦ F) volumes (ft3 )
kD = Thermal conductivity of dissociated x = Brine salinity (wt fraction)
zone (Btu/hrft◦ F) z = Depth (ft)
kH = Thermal conductivity of hydrate αD = Thermal diffusivity of dissociated
zone (Btu/hrft◦ F) zone (ft2 /hr)
kins = Thermal conductivity of αH = Thermal diffusivity of hydrate
insulation (Btu/hrft◦ F) zone (ft2 /hr)
kOB = Thermal conductivity of overburden αOB = Thermal diffusivity of
(Btu/hrft◦ F) overburden (ft2 /hr)
ksoil = Thermal conductivity of αsoil = Thermal diffusivity of
soil (Btu/hrft◦ F) soil (ft2 /hr)
ktubing = Thermal conductivity of βH = Hydrate gas concentration
tubing (Btu/hrft◦ F) (181.3 SCF/ft3 hydrate)
m = Constant in equation (40) φ = Porosity
MD = Volumetric specific heat of dissociated φ = Dimensionless constant in
zone, (Btu/ft3◦ F) equation (40)
MOB = Volumetric specific heat of σ = Constant in equation (39)
overburden (Btu/ft3◦ F) ρb = Density of brine (lb/ft3 )
n = Gmole water per gmole gas in ρr = Density of rock (lb/ft3 )
hydrate phase (5.75) ρw = Density of water (lb/ft3 )
PR = Reservoir pressure (psia) HD = Hydrate dissociation energy
QR = Heat injection rate (Btu/hr) (Btu/ft3 reservoir)
Qi = Heat injected (Btu) VW = Volume change during hydrate
QOB = Heat loss to overburden (Btu) dissociation

141

Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

 REFERENCES
Kamath,V.A., and Godbole, S.P. 1985. Evaluation of hot brine
stimulation technique for gas production from natural gas
hydrates, SPE, P 59 (March, 1985).
Ramey, H.J. 1962. Wellbore heat transmission, JPT, P427
(April, 1962)
Willhite, G.P. 1967. Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients in
Steam and Hot Water Injection Wells, J. Pet. Tech., (May
1967), 607.
142
Copyright © 2005 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
Marx, J.W., and Langeheim, R.H. 1959. Reservoir heating by
hot fluid injection, Trans. of A.I.M.E (216), P 312 (1959).
Mandl, G., and Volvek, C.W. 1969. Heat and mass transport
in steam-drive processes, Soc. Pet. Eng. J., P 59 (March,
1969).
Myhill, N.A., and Stegemeier, G.L. 1978. Steam Drive Cor-
relation and Prediction, JPT (February 1978), 173–182.
Sengul, M. 1977. Numerical solution of heat conduction
with phase change in cylindrical systems, Ph.D. Thesis,
Stanford University (1977).