Gas Hydrate Resource Potential in the Gulf of Mexico

Alexei V. Milkov BP America, Houston TX This work has been done at Texas A&M University and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The presented interpretations and ideas do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of BP.

U.S. natural gas demand and supply

Provided by DOE

What is gas hydrate?

Pictures provided by ODP, GEOMAR, A.V. Milkov, and R.Sassen

Global distribution of gas hydrates

After Milkov and Sassen, 2002

Global submarine gas hydrate estimates

Kvenvolden (1988) ODP 164 ODP 204

Milkov (in press, Earth-Science Reviews)

Looking for trends

Milkov (in press, Earth-Science Reviews)

Organic carbon in the Earth

Kvenvolden, 1988

Milkov (in press, Earth-Science Reviews)

Gas hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico

Modified from Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (bathymetry courtesy of Dr. W.Bryant)

Conceptual model for gas hydrate occurrence

Area of gas hydrate occurrence Shelf
Isolated stocks Minibasin

Sigsbee Scarp

0 2 4 6

Abyssal plain

Depth, km

8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Salt

Bacterial methane hydrates in minibasins

Bacterial and thermogenic structurally-focused gas hydrates

Milkov and Sassen, 2001

Geologic classification of gas hydrate accumulations

Gulf of Mexico Haakon Mosby mud volcano

Hydrate Ridge (southern summit) Caspian Sea Blake Ridge Blake Ridge (???)
Milkov and Sassen, 2002

Nankai Trough (???)

Origin of gas hydrates

Data from Paull et al., 2000 and Sassen et al., 1999

Area of gas hydrate resource estimation

Gas hydrates, seeps, and fields after Sassen et al., 1999

Data and assumptions (1)

Gas availability and composition (%)
Sample

C1 100

C2 0

C3 0

i-C4 n-C4 i-C5 n-C5 0 0 0 0

1 2 3

95.9 2.4 90.4 4.5

1.2 <0.1 0.3 3.7 0.6 0.6

0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1

Data after Sassen et al., 1999

Data and assumptions (2)

Pore water salinity - 35 g/l Hydrostatic pressure gradient - 10 MPa/km The effect of porous media is not considered Sloans (1998) CSMHYD Hydrate Program was used

Bathymetry of the study area

Boundary of the gas hydrate resource estimation area
700

Bathymetry contour lines Oil and gas seeps with chemosynthetic communities
700

Shallow and deep biogenic gas hydrate Shallow thermogenic gas hydrate

0 90
00 11

Mississippi Canyon

130 0
11 00

East Breaks
700

Garden Banks
0 70

700

900

1500
17 00

900

900

1900
00 11

2100

0 130
150 0

1300

190 0

50 km Alaminos Canyon Keathley Canyon

Atwater Green Canyon Walker Ridge Lund

After Bryant et al., 1990

Bottom water temperature vs. water depth in the study area

25 Water temperature (T), 0C 20 T = 295.08xB-0.5727 R2 = 0.9664

15

10

0 0 1000 2000 Water depth (B), m 3000

Data after Wash et al., 1998

Geothermal gradients in the study area

Boundary of the gas hydrate resource estimation area Geothermal gradients calculated from BHT Geothermal gradients calculated from heat flow measurements

21.7 23.0 Mississippi 22.1 Canyon 27.7 18.1 25.4

30.6 Garden Banks 34.1 23.7 50 km East Breaks Alaminos Canyon Keathley Canyon 17.0 19.3

24.2 20.6 22.0 30.1 20.9 18.5 23.6 18.8 18.1 18.1 18.3 Green Canyon

Atwater

8.0

Walker Ridge

Lund 20.0

Data courtesy of MMS and from Epp et al. (1970)

Geothermal gradients vs. water depth in the study area

40 Geothermal gradient (G), oC/km 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1000 2000 3000 Water depth (B), m G = -9.6092xLn(B) + 88.4 R2 = 0.5917

Data courtesy of MMS and from Epp et al. (1970)

Gas hydrate stability conditions

30 25 Temperature (Tst), 0C 20
100% CH4: Tst_100 = 8.9449xLn(D) - 50.148 R2 = 0.9991 95.9% CH4: Tst_95.9 = 7.1458xLn(D) - 33.908 R2 = 0.9963 90.4% CH4: Tst_90.4 = 6.6877xLn(D) - 27.637 R2 = 0.9942

15 10

5 0 0

1000

2000 Depth (D), m

3000

4000

Calculated using Sloans (1998) CSMHYD Hydrate Program

Gas hydrate stability zones vs. water depth in the study area

Milkov and Sassen, 2001

Thickness of the methane GHSZ

Boundary of the gas hydrate resource estimation area
200

Thickness of GHSZ (100% CH4) contour lines

20 0

Mississippi Canyon

40 0

Garden Banks
200

60 0

800
10 00

400

200

400

600 800

Alaminos Canyon

Keathley Canyon

10 00

East Breaks

50 km

Atwater Green Canyon Walker Ridge Lund

Milkov and Sassen, 2001

12 00

Thickness of the thermogenic (95.9% C1) GHSZ

Boundary of the gas hydrate resource estimation area
200

Thickness of GHSZ (95.9% CH4) contour lines

Mississippi Canyon
200

400

600
800

Garden Banks
200

200

1000

400
0 60

400

600 800
800 10 00

0 120

East Breaks

120 0

50 km Keathley Canyon

Atwater Green Canyon Walker Ridge Lund

Alaminos Canyon

Milkov and Sassen, 2001

Thickness of the thermogenic (90.4% C1) GHSZ

Boundary of the gas hydrate resource estimation area
300

Thickness of GHSZ (90.4% CH4) contour lines

50 0
0 70

Mississippi Canyon
900

300

Garden Banks
500
0 70
900

500

70 0

1100
13 00
15 00

90 0

East Breaks

50 km Keathley Canyon

0 110

Atwater
0 150

00 13

Green Canyon Walker Ridge Lund

Alaminos Canyon

Milkov and Sassen, 2001

Salt distribution map

Boundary of the gas hydrate resource estimation area Top salt less than 1.0 sec subseafloor Top salt 1.0 - 2.0 sec subseafloor Top salt 2.0 - 4.0 sec subseafloor Top salt >4.0 sec subseafloor Oil and gas seeps with chemosynthetic communities Shallow and deep biogenic gas hydrate Shallow thermogenic gas hydrate
Mississippi Canyon

East Breaks

50 km

Garden Banks

Green Canyon Atwater Walker Ridge

Alaminos Canyon Keathley Canyon

After Watkins et al., 1996

Minibasin geometry map

Boundary of the gas hydrate resource estimation area
Minibasins Allochthonous salt

Mississippi Fan
Oil and gas seeps with chemosynthetic communities Shallow and deep biogenic gas hydrate Shallow thermogenic gas hydrate
Mississippi Canyon

Garden Banks

50 km

Atwater
Green Canyon

East Breaks Alaminos Canyon Keatley Canyon

Walker Ridge

Lund

Compiled from Koch et al., 1998 and Risch, 1995

Structurally-focused gas hydrate between minibasins

The total volume of the GHSZ between minibasins: - ~12,000 km3 for 95.9 % of C1 - ~16,000 km3 for 90.4 % of C1 Gas hydrate saturation: 0.5 vol.% of sediments Gas hydrate yield: 140 m3 of gas per 1 m3 of gas hydrate at STP

8-11 x 1012 m3 (280-390 TCF) at STP (methane + C2+ hydrocarbon gases)

Gas hydrate in minibasins

The total volume of the GHSZ between minibasins: - ~12,000 km3 excluding Mississippi Fan - ~17,000 km3 including Mississippi Fan Gas hydrate saturation: 0.1 vol.% of sediments Gas hydrate yield: 150 m3 of gas per 1 m3 of gas hydrate at STP

2-3 x 1012 m3 (70-105 TCF) of methane at STP

Summary of GoM regional estimation

Combined estimate of the gas hydrate resource in the Gulf ranges from 10 to 14 trillion m3 (~350-495 TCF) : - Significantly less than previous (Collett, 1995) estimate; - ~ 30-40 times more gas than in conventional reservoirs. Bacterial gas hydrate in minibasins is disseminated and not economically significant. Structurally-focused gas hydrate accumulations are economically viable and should be a priority for further research in the GoM.
See Milkov and Sassen (2001, Marine Geology) for details

Estimates of hydrate-bound gas in individual accumulations

Oil&Gas Journal., 1999

Lee, 1995

Seismic profiles across gas hydrate accumulations

Lee, 1995

Sager and Kennicutt, 2000

Submarine gas hydrate stability zone

Bottom water temperature Geothermal gradient Pressure Pore water salinity Gas composition

Milkov and Sassen, 2003

Southern summit of Hydrate Ridge

Explorer plate

North American plate

Juan de Fuca plate

Hydrate Bla Ridge

n co Tra n sfor m

Oregon

Gorda plate Mendocino Transform

A poor but the only available drilled analogue for GoM high-flux accumulations? Southern summit: high seafloor reflectivity, gas vents, exposed gas hydrate, and a chemosynthetic community surrounding a 50-mhigh carbonate pinnacle Sites 1249 and 1250 lie beneath 778796 m of water A strong BSR at ~110-115 mbsf Brine (>106 g kg-1) present in shallow sediments Gas hydrate was sampled and inferred to occur throughout the section

Images from Trhu et al., 2002

But what are the concentrations???

ODP Pressure Core Sampler

PCS is a downhole tool developed at ODP (Pettigrew, 1992) to sample marine sediments under in situ pressure (up to ~70 MPa). If the recovered sediment core is not pressurized, about 99% of gas may be lost (Paull and Ussler, 2001). Thus, the PCS is a great tool to measure the in situ concentration of natural gases. Data obtained from the PCS degassing experiments and properly analyzed may be used to estimate gas and gas hydrate concentration in situ. PCS has been successfully used on Legs 164, 201, and 204.
Milkov et al., 2003

Volume of hydrate-bound gas

Gas hydrate concentrations at Sites 1249 and 1250: ~1% to 43% of porosity (average ~11%) above the BSR (all cores taken) Area: 0.19 km2 (high seafloor reflectivity) Thickness of the hydrate-bearing sediments: 115 m Gas yield of hydrate-bearing sediments: ~13.5 m3/m3

Images from Trhu et al., 2002

V=VGHZD = 0.19106 m3 115m 13.5 m3/m3= = ~3 108 m3 = ~0.01 tcf

See Milkov et al. (2003, Geology) for details

Gas hydrate concentrations

Hydrate Ridge offshore OR (summit = high gas flux setting)

Chen and Cathles, 2003

Gulf of Mexico

Milkov and Sassen, 2003

Milkov et al., 2003

Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (based on Neurauter and Bryant (1990), Cook and DOnfro (1991))

Green Canyon (GC) 184/185

Water depth: 540-650 m Area: Bush Hill mound 101,300 m2 Hazy reflections 350,700 m2 GHSZ: Thickness 370-390 m Volume 0.175109 m3 GH concentration: 1-10% GH composition: 77.5% C1 Volume of gas: (0.5-1.6)109 m3 0.017-0.056 tcf

Major uncertainty: Gas hydrate distribution

Mississippi Canyon (MC) 852/853

Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (based on Sager and Kennicutt (2000) and proprietary data)

Water depth: 1080-1120 m Area: 1,935,500 m2 GHSZ: Thickness 780 m Volume 1.5109 m3 GH concentration: 5-10% GH composition: 75.2% C1 Volume of gas: (11.4-22.7)109 m3 0.4-0.8 tcf

Major uncertainty: GHSZ Effect of migrating brines?

Green Canyon (GC) 204

Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (based on Brooks et al. (1986), Sassen et al. (2003))

Water depth: 850-1000 m Area: 26,131,000 m2 GHSZ: Thickness 640 m Volume 16.7109 m3 GH concentration: 1-5% GH composition: 61.9% C1 Volume of gas: (25.1-126)109 m3 0.9-4.5 tcf

Major uncertainty: Gas hydrate distribution

Atwater Valley (AT) 425/426

Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (based on Sager and Kennicutt (2000) and proprietary data)

Water depth: 1920-1940 m Area: 5,650,000 m2 GHSZ: Thickness 380 m Volume 2.2109 m3 GH concentration: 5-10% GH composition: 91.9% C1 Volume of gas: (16-32)109 m3 0.6-1.1 tcf

Major uncertainty: GHSZ Effect of migrating brines?

Resource and economic potential

Characteristic
Water depth (m) Resource (m3 (108)) (tcf) Recovery factor Development and production costs Infrastructure Economic potential (rank) GC 184/185
500-650

GC 234/235
500-670

B 88 650-750

MC 798/842
807-820

GC 204
850-1000

MC 852/ 853
10801120
114227 0.4-0.8

AT 425
19201940
160320 0.6-1.1

4.9-15.9 0.0170.056

18.4-36.8 0.065-0.13

1.2-237 .11-0.84

.7-14 .017-0.050

251-1260 0.9-4.5

High Low Good Low (6)

High Low Average Low (5)

High Low

High

High Average Good Average (2)

High Aver. Good High (1)

High High Poor Aver (4)

Average Average

Good Aver. (3)

ow 7)

See Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (Marine and Petroleum Geology) for details

Major exploration challenges

Define gas hydrate plays and types of accumulations: - No data below 6 mbsf at high flux sites; - To date, no significant concentrations at depth <40 mbsf away from high flux sites. - Are there other gas hydrate plays? Are there shallow sand reservoirs within the GHSZ accessible to hydrocarbon charge? Are there free gas accumulations trapped by hydrates? Understand the variations in the GHSZ: - What is the composition of hydrocarbon charge? - What is the salinity of migrating fluids? - What is the heat flow?

A new gas hydrate play?

Gas accumulations trapped by gas hydrates?

Image from Snyder et al. (NETL Gas Hydrate web site)

Major technological challenges

No proven recovery technologies: - Onshore (polar) accumulation may not be an appropriate analogue? Depressurization is not a viable mechanism? - Thermal stimulation with chemical inhibition? But too shallow for horizontal wells? Seafloor instability. Gas hydrates appear to be relatively stable and cementing sediments at present, but their decomposition during recovery may result in seafloor instability. Chemosynthetic communities. What are the environmental implications of gas hydrate recovery?
See Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (Marine and Petroleum Geology) for details

Conclusions
The results and interpretations of gas hydrate resource potential in
the GoM bear huge uncertainties. Significant progress has been made during the last 5 years through integration of available academic information on gas hydrate distribution and geochemistry. The volume of hydrate-bound gas in the GoM may be large, but smaller than previously thought. Some shallow structural accumulations in the GOM may provide gas reserves and deserve both attention and investment. New gas hydrate plays may emerge but need to be tested. The academia lacks many capabilities and sometimes lacks focus. More active involvement of industry and collaboration between industry, academia and government are the keys to the better evaluation of the prize.

Acknowledgments
Applied Gas Hydrate Research Program at GERG/TAMU Postdoctoral Scholarship at WHOI BP America for continuous support The scientists and crew of the R.V. Edwin Link and the Johnson Sea-Link research submersibles, University of North Carolina at Wilmington and NOAA/NURP for assistance in collecting deep sea floor samples.

Additional Slides

Green Canyon (GC) 234/235

Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (based on Reilly et al. (1996))

Water depth: 500-670 m Area: 612,400 m2 GHSZ: Thickness 400 m Volume 0.25109 m3 GH concentration: 5-10% GH composition: 74.3% C1 Volume of gas: (1.8-3.7)109 m3 0.065-0.13 tcf

Major uncertainty: Gas hydrate distribution

Garden Banks (GB) 388

Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (based on Reilly et al. (1996))

Water depth: 650-750 m Area: 3,200,000 m2 GHSZ: Thickness 130-495 m Volume (0.4-1.6)109 m3 GH concentration: 5-10% GH composition: ??-99.5% C1 Volume of gas: (3.1-23.7)109 m3 0.11-0.84 tcf

Major uncertainty: GHSZ Gas composition? Effect of migrating brines?

Milkov and Sassen, 2003 (based on Neurauter and Bryant (1990))

Mississippi Canyon (MC) 798/842

Water depth: 807-820 m Area: Mound 55,600 m2 Hazy reflections 217,400 m2 GHSZ: Thickness 575-580 m Volume 0.16109 m3 GH concentration: 1-10% GH composition: ?? C1 Volume of gas: (0.5-1.4)109 m3 0.017-0.050 tcf

Major uncertainty: Gas hydrate distribution