SPE 131332

Drilling Through Gas Hydrate Sediments: Managing Wellbore Stability Risks

T. Khabibullin, G. Falcone/ Texas A&M University, C.Teodoriu / Clausthal University of Technology

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Barcelona, Spain, 14–17 June 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
As hydrocarbon exploration and development moves into deeper water and onshore arctic environments, it becomes
increasingly important to quantify the drilling hazards posed by gas hydrates. To address these concerns, a 1D semi-
analytical model for heat and fluid transport in the reservoir was coupled with a numerical model for temperature
distribution along the wellbore. This combination allowed the estimation of the dimensions of the hydrate-bearing layer
where the initial pressure and temperature can dynamically change while drilling. These dimensions were then used to
build a numerical reservoir model for the simulation of the dissociation of gas hydrate in the layer. The bottomhole
pressure (BHP) and formation properties used in this workflow were based on a real field case. The results provide an
understanding of the effects of drilling through hydrate-bearing sediments and of the impact of drilling fluid temperature
and BHP on changes in temperature and pore pressure within the surrounding sediments. It was found that the
amount of gas hydrate that can dissociate will depend significantly on both initial formation characteristics and
bottomhole conditions, namely mud temperature and pressure. The procedure outlined in the paper can provide
quantitative results of the impact of hydrate dissociation on wellbore stability, which can help better design drilling
muds for ultra deep water operations.

Introduction
Natural gas hydrates are ice-like deposits, containing a mixture of water and gas with methane as a primary gas, which
are stable under high pressure and low temperatures and found in deepwater settings at relatively shallow depths
below the seafloor and in permafrost regions (Sloan, 1998). Reduction in pressure or increase in temperature, as well
as use of inhibitors, causes dissociation of gas hydrates. When hydrate-bearing sediments (HBS) are drilled through, a
change in pressure and temperature of the sediments may destabilize the hydrates.
Usually, hydrates are found in shallow sediments above the surface casing point and are drilled through before the
blowout preventer is installed. Under certain conditions, hydrate dissociation in the formation can lead to problems with
wellbore stability and interference with seabed installations, and adversely impact on the efficiency and safety of
drilling operations.
There are two main problems associated with gas hydrates dissociation that may lead to wellbore instability:
a) Dissociation in the wellbore may result in gasification of the drilling fluid, which leads to the lowering of the
mud density and changes mud rheology, lowering hydrostatic pressure and further dissociation. This may lead
to hole enlargement and wellbore collapse.
b) Dissociation in the HBS may result in change of mechanical and petrophysical properties of the sediments
such as increase in permeability and reduction in strength of the sediments.
Prediction and risk assessment of the hazards described above may be achieved by the use of a numerical
mechanical-thermal-chemical stability modeling tool that incorporates time-dependency.
HBS have been drilled successfully in the past, but there have been cases of blowout due to hydrate dissociation
reported in the literature (Collet and Dallimore, 2002). As drilling operations move into ever deeper waters, engineers
will have to develop a sound understanding of gas hydrate drilling-related threats (Schofield, 1997) and identify ahead
of time what problems are likely to occur and which steps are necessary to prevent them. Some of the techniques
adopted so far to avoid the risks of drilling in HBS include (Freij-Ayoub et al., 2007):
2 SPE 131332

• Cooling the drilling fluid.

• Increasing the mud weight to stabilize the hydrates, but avoiding fracturing the HBS.
• Adding chemical inhibitors and kinetic additives to the drilling fluid to prevent hydrate formation and to
reduce hydrate destabilization in the formation.
• Accelerating drilling by running casing immediately after hydrates are encountered and using a cement of
high strength and low heat of hydration.

Numerical simulation of the mechanisms leading to wellbore instability in HBS can be an effective tool to assess the
allowable drilling parameters such as mud weight, composition and temperature to stay within a safe operational
envelope. Some of the factors that need to be evaluated are (Freij-Ayoub et al., 2007):

• Effect of drilling fluid on heating the formation and changing the stresses and pore pressure
• Effect of heat on the formation’s thermodynamic stability of the hydrates and wellbore stability
• Effect of reduction in HBS strength and loss of cohesion due to hydrate dissociation.

Therefore, modeling wellbore stability in HBS requires consideration of various mechanisms:

• Heat and fluid transport between the drilling fluid and the formation, mechanical deformation, and drilling
fluid/formation interaction during drilling process
• Kinetic rate or equilibrium relations for gas hydrate dissociation/reformation with changes in pressure and
temperature
• The resultant changes in the mechanical and petrophysical properties of HBS
• A representative constitutive equation and yield criterion for the mechanical behavior of HBS of various
hydrate concentrations.

Research to date has presented the numerical description of HBS behavior under changing pressure and
temperature. Tsypkin (2000) considered the formation of ice upon hydrate dissociation. Yousif et al. (1991) developed
a 1D model for the kinetics of hydrate dissociation in porous media under depressurization using the Kim-Bishnoi
scheme (Kim et al., 1987) for the rate of gas generation. The model solved continuity equations for each of the three
phases (gas, liquid and hydrates) and used relations between the saturations of the phases and the rates of mass
transfer of the phases. Darcy's law was used to model the flow of water and gas separately, while porosity and
permeability were updated as dissociation took place. Heat transfer was not considered in the aforementioned models.
Moridis (2002) developed a numerical model to simulate the kinetic or equilibrium dissociation of gas hydrates with
heat transfer and multiphase fluid flow in porous media. This approach does not account for the mechanical
deformation of HBS during hydrate dissociation as the porous medium is assumed to be rigid.
Freij-Ayoub et al. (2007) used numerical modeling to quantify the risk of drilling through HBS when the drilling fluid
is at a higher temperature than the formation. The model couples the mechanical deformation of HBS to hydrate
dissociation, and assumes thermodynamic equilibrium between the hydrates and the liquid in the pore space. Darcy's
law is used to model the fluid flow, which is referred to as ‘pseudo-multiphase flow’, in that the fluid is assumed to have
the properties of the liquid, but pressure contribution also comes from gas liberation.
Most of the publications to date focus on the investigation of mechanical instability of the wellbore caused by
cementation loss and modulus reduction due to hydrate dissociation. This work looks into ways to estimate the
dissociation process itself more precisely.
In previous work (Amodu, 2008), the changes in drilling mud parameters when HBS are penetrated were analyzed
by considering the drilled volume or ‘crushed zone’ to assess the amount of dissociated hydrates, but potential
dissociation further into the formation was not considered.
The black dot shown on Fig. 1, which depicts how mud weight is affected by the circulation rate for various rates of
penetration, is the initial mud density before the hydrate zone is drilled into. Once the hydrate zone is penetrated, the
mud density changes as expected as hydrate dissociates and gas mixes with the mud.
SPE 131332 3

Fig. 1 Prediction of mud weight as a function of circulation rate for various Rates Of Penetration (Amodu 2008)

The work by Amodu (2008) provides estimates of the amount of gas evolved from dissociation in the “crushed”
zone only, so this current work expands the investigation zone further into the formation to include the amount of gas
that may evolve due to the advancement of the temperature front through the HBS.
A new procedure is proposed that allows quantification of possible dissociation of hydrates in HBS and the effect on
the drilling process more accurately.
A semi-analytical model was used to estimate the dimensions of the hydrate-bearing layer where the initial pressure
and temperature can change while drilling. The dimensions were subsequently used to build a numerical model to
simulate the dissociation of gas hydrate in the layer. The BHP and formation properties were based on a real field
case. The temperature data obtained from Logging-While-Drilling (LWD) (IODP 2009) did not have the precise
temperature measurements of the mud at the bit, as the tool was located several feet above the bottom of the
drillstring. Thus, the bottomhole temperature (BHT) was calculated numerically, according to the model proposed by
Keller et al. (1973). Some reasonable assumptions were made to simulate heat transfer and flow in porous media and
in the wellbore:

1. Darcy’s law is valid in the simulated domain under the conditions of the study.
2. In the transport of dissolved gases and inhibitors, mechanical dispersion is small compared to advection
(neglecting mechanical dispersion significantly reduced memory requirements and execution times).
3. The compressibility and thermal expansion of hydrate are the same as those of ice (necessitated by lack of
data on the subject).

To mimic the dynamic advancement of drilling, a progressive increase of well depth was modeled via a change in
pressure and temperature conditions in the wellbore, by discretizing the system in time and space. A minimum time
step was chosen to allow the assumption of steady- state conditions during the selected time period.

Linear 1D Hydrate Decomposition Following Pressure Drop

The proposed model is shown in Fig.2, where free gas (m(1- )) and hydrate (m ) coexist in the pore space of a layer
at time zero, corresponding to pressure (Pe) and temperature (Te) where m is the porosity and is the hydrate
4 SPE 131332

saturation in the layer. Subsequently, the pressure at the wellbore (x=0) sharply drops to a value PG<PD<Pe, where PD
is the hydrate dissociation pressure at the specified layer temperature. The pressure is then gradually decreased and
two zones of gas filtration appear with different collector properties, separated by moving boundary l(t). The surface l(t)
is the boundary between the zone where dissociation start (zone 1) and the zone where conditions are still within the
hydrate stability region (zone 2).

Fig.2 Schematic of gas hydrate dissociation for a simple 1D model

During dissociation of hydrates at surface, water is released along with gas. It is assumed that the permeability to
water is zero, so this phase movies immobile and, when released at l(t), it decreases porosity and gas permeability in
the first zone. Filtration of gas occurs in a direction towards a wellbore, while the surface l(t) moves further into
reservoir. The pressure distribution in the layer is described by the following gas filtration equation (Makogon 1997):

2mn μn ∂Pn ∂ 2Pn 2

= ;
k n ∂t ∂x 2 (1)
= viscosity
K = permeability
P = pressure
m1= (1-σ)m, where σ- water content of pores.
m2 = (1-β)m;
Subscript ‘n’ denotes zone 1 or zone 2

The temperature of a gas saturated layer can be described by considering the convective and conductive heat
flows, throttling and adiabatic effects (Makogon 1997):

∂ 2Tn ∂Tn ρC kn ∂Pn ⎛ ∂Tn ∂P ⎞ mn ρC ∂Pn

an = − ⎜ −δ n ⎟ −η ; (3)
∂x 2
∂t α n μ ∂x ⎝ ∂x ∂x ⎠ α n ∂t
where:

a = is the thermal conductivity;

SPE 131332 5

α = is the heat capacity;

ρc = is the volume heat capacity of gas;
δ = is the throttling coefficient of gas;
T = temperature at the point of interest..
η = is the adiabatic coefficients of gas.

Assuming an = 0 (i.e. the conductive heat flow in the porous medium is several orders of magnitude less than the
convective flow), the following boundary conditions can be used:

T2 (∞, t ) = T2 ( x, 0) = Te ,
T1 (l (t ), t ) = T2 (l , t );

The solution of the general equation for temperature field distribution is (Makogon, 1997).

⎡ ⎛ η ⎞ ⎤
T1 = T D + A1δ ⎢ er f λ1 − erf z1 + ⎜ 1 + B1 ⎟ ( Φ 1 ( z1 ) − Φ 1 (α 1 ) ) ⎥ ;
⎣ ⎝ δ ⎠ ⎦
⎡ ⎛ η ⎞ ⎤
T 2 = T e + A 2 δ ⎢ e rf z 2 − ⎜ 1 + B 2 ⎟ Φ 2 ( z 2 ) ⎥ ;
⎣ ⎝ δ ⎠ ⎦ (4)
where:

2 2
2 PD − PG 2
2 Pe − PD
2
A1 = ; A1 = ;
erfλ1 PG erfλ2 Pe
ξ1 2
2 η eη dη
π ∫0 η + C1e −η
Φ1 (ξ1 ) = ; 2

∞ 2
2 η eη dη
π ξ∫ η + C2 e −η
Φ 2 (ξ 2 ) = ; 2

1 PG 2 m1 ρ0C
B1 = ;
4 P0α I
1 Pe 2 m2 ρ 0C
B2 = ;
4 P0α II

PD 2 − PG 2 ρ 0C 1 k1
C1 = ;
PG α I 2 π erf λ1 μχ1

Pe 2 − PD 2 ρ 0C 1 k2
C2 = ;
Pe α II 2 π erf λ2 μχ 2
6 SPE 131332

x
λn = ;
2 χ nt
γ
αn = ;
4χ n
k1 PG
χ1 = ;
m(1 − σ ) μ
k2 Pe
χ2 = ;
m(1 − β ) μ
2
erf ξ = ξ
;
⎛ ⎞
⎜⎜ π ∫ e dη ⎟⎟
−η 2

⎝ 0 ⎠
erfc ξ = 1 − erf ξ ;

= dissociation pressure,
= BHP,
= initial formation pressure,
= surface pressure,
= volume heat capacity of gas at surface conditions,
, = heat capacity of 1st and 2nd zone correspondingly.
, = function arguments, substituted by correspondent value s of , (see below)

To determine dissociation pressure, , an empirical equation is used (Makogon, 1997):

(5)
where:

, , = are empirical constants depending on hydrate composition and the interval of pressure and temperature
variation.

The temperature of hydrate decomposition is determined when using equation for (Makogon, 1997):

1 Φ (6)

The parameter is determined from equation:

√ ; (7)

; (8)

Calculation Results for Linear Gas Flow

An analytical calculation routine was set up to calculate the pressure and temperature distributions in a reservoir.
Knowing the physical and chemical properties of the gas hydrates and the initial pressure and temperature, the
dissociation temperature and pressure along with the temperature propagation into the formation can be calculated.
The formation properties used for the calculations were based on the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition
311 (IODP 2009). Fig. 3 shows the estimate of the time when dissociation will start (approximately 200 minutes).
SPE 131332 7

Calculated TD, PD vs. P,T while drilling

2220 3.5

2210 3

2200 2.5

Temperature, degC
Pressure, psi
2190 2

2180 1.5

2170 Pressure, psi 1

P_D
Temp, degC
2160 0.5
T_D

2150 0
0 50 100 150min
Time, 200 250 300

Fig. 3 Estimation of drilling time to the moment when dissociation occurs

Temperature never reaches the level at which hydrates would dissociate due to thermal effects alone, but if the
pressure is below the hydrate formation pressure, dissociation will occur until approximately the 200th minute and
beyond, when pressure is again above the brown line shown in Fig. 3. This is the time, when multiplied by the rate
calculated using equation (9), can be used to assess the amount of dissociated hydrates and so assess the possible
risks of instability in borehole due to dissociation.

Determination of Boundary Conditions

To solve the differential equations of fluid flow in the reservoir when hydrate dissociation occurs, it is necessary to
define the boundary conditions. While pressure and temperature at the moving dissociation front are assumed to be
constant, the temperature and pressure at the wellbore are dynamically changing. The BHP can be determined from
available Measurement-While-Drilling (MWD) data, while temperature from LWD is usually measured 30-40 feet above
the drilling bit, and therefore the exact mud temperature at the bit is not readily available. Thus, the model proposed by
Keller (1973), which accounts for viscous flow, rotational energy and drill bit energy, was used to calculate the drilling
mud temperature at the bit, and the results were compared to the calculations performed with the empirical correlation
by Apak and Ozbayoglu (2009) and appeared to be in a good agreement, with the deviation not exceeding 5%.
Drilling fluids are pumped down the drill pipe and recirculated up the annulus surrounding the drill pipe. Drilling fluid
heats up due to contact with hotter formation, frictional flow losses in the drill pipe and annulus, shear work done in
rotating drill string, and frictional work at the drill bit.
The drilling fluid is assumed to enter the drill string at constant rate and known temperature at surface. The fluid
flowing down the drill pipe has a vertical temperature distribution resulting from convective heat transfer within the fluid,
heat generated by fluid friction, and heat exchange with drill pipe. A vertical temperature distribution is calculated for
the drill pipe by accounting for the vertical conduction of heat in the pipe and the convective heat exchange between
the pipe and the fluid column surrounding it. An energy balance for the drilling fluid in the annulus accounts for the
convective heat transfer within the fluid, heat generated by fluid friction and pipe rotation, and convective heat
exchange between the fluid and the drill pipe casing. The vertical temperature distribution in the casing string is
calculated from an energy balance equation that accounts for the vertical conduction of heat in the casing, the
convective heat with the drill fluid inside the casing, and the conduction of heat between the casing and the annulus
surrounding it.
The description of the problem presented above leads to the following finite difference equation for the energy
balance inside the drillstring (Keller et al., 1973):

(T1,Nj +1 − T1,Nj −+11 ) (T1,Nj +1 − T1,Nj )

Q1 − qm ρ m cm − 2π r1hi (TN +1
1, j −T N +1
2, j −1 ) = π r ρ m cm
1
2
; (9)
Δz j Δt
where:
= energy sources inside the drillstring,
8 SPE 131332

, ,= flow rate, density and heat capacity of the drilling fluid,

= temperature of the cell at , ,
,
Δ = depth interval of cell ,
= radius of the casing 1;
= convective coefficient inside drillstring

The terms on the left in equation 9 represent the energy source inside the drill string, the vertical convective heat
transport, and the radial transfer of heat from the fluid to the drill string, respectively. The right-hand term of equation 9
represents the accumulation of energy in an element of the fluid in the drill string. Vertical heat conduction in the fluid is
neglected. The energy term Q1 accounts for fluid friction losses inside the drill pipe and is constant except at the
bottom of the borehole. At this point, additional heat may be added due to pressure losses trough the bit and the work
done by the bit.

Hydrate- Bearing Layer Representation

The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 311 (IODP, 2009) cored a transect across the Cascadia margin, off
the coast of Vancouver, while studying gas hydrates. At all five coring sites, the first hole drilled was with an
MWD/LWD string. The shipboard results, including logging data and mechanical rock properties, as well as an
operational summary for each site, are available online (IODP, 2009).
The data for the borehole U1325A are used for these calculations. Table 1 summarizes the parameters used for
this study (Freij-Ayoub et al., 2007; IODP, 2009).
Table 1-Parameters for numerical simulation
Model parameters Parameter Value
Biot's coefficient 1
Initial sediment porosity 0.49
Sediment porosity after hydrate formation 0.25
Thermal conductivity 1.4 Wm−1K-1
Specific heat capacity 1.90E+03 JK−1kg−1
Linear thermal expansion coefficient of hydrates 7.70E-05 K−1
Linear thermal expansion coefficient of pore fluid 3.00E-04 °K−1
Saturated sediment density 2.2 g/cm3
Bulk modulus of sediments 7 GPa
Shear modulus of sediments 0.69 GPa
Poisson's ratio 0.45
In situ pore pressure 17 Mpa
Mud pressure 20 MPa
In situ temperature 15 °C (288 K)
Drilling mud temperature 20 °C (293 K)
Intrinsic permeability 1.00E-15 m2
Gas constant 8.31441 JK−1Mol-1
Hydrates crystal volume 1.73E-27
Avogadro's number 6.02E+23
Cohesion 1.8 MPa
Angle of internal friction 35 °
Tensile strength 1.5 MPa

The wellbore is drilled with an overbalance pressure of 3 MPa to partially compensate for the loss of confinement
subsequent to drilling. The temperature of the drilling fluid is the same as the impermeable formation.
SPE 131332 9

Based on the analytical model calculations, the position of the dissociation front and the pressure distribution for the
layer drill-through time can be determined, knowing the ROP. For the selected hole, the HBS layer thickness is 70 m
and the minimum ROP is 20m/hr, resulting in a drill-through time of 3.5 hours. After 3.5 hours, the pressure distribution
estimated with the analytical model is shown in Fig 5. With an initial pressure, Pe = 3749 psi, the calculated pressure
distribution almost reaches Pe at 500m. The calculated position of the dissociation front is 8.53m away from the
wellbore.

3800
3750
3700
P, psi
3650
3600
3550
3500
3450
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
r,m

Fig. 5 Analytical model estimates how far into the reservoir the initial pressure is disturbed

Fig. 6 shows a hydrate-bearing layer representation for numerical simulation. The implementation of the analytical
model allowed estimating the appropriate dimensions for the dynamic numerical simulation.

Fig. 6 Grid-block representation of the hydrate-bearing layer, based on the analytical model predictions. The
dimensions are: 500x500x70 m, with a 100x100x10 grid.

Modeling of Drilling Through HBS

The HydrateResSim reservoir simulation code (NETL, 2010), which can model the dynamic dissociation of hydrate
while drilling through hydrate-bearing geologic sediments, was used in this study. Although the code is aimed at the
simulation of gas production, it is written in a general way, allowing for several adjustments to estimate the amount of
hydrate dissociated due to pressure depletion and temperature increase, which is appropriate for this study. The
assumptions made for the application of the HydrateResSim code that apply to this study are as follows:

1) Darcy’s law is valid in the simulated domain under the conditions of the study.
10 SPE 131332

2) The compressibility and thermal expansion of hydrate are the same as those of ice (necessitated by a paucity
of data on the subject).
3) The movement of the geologic medium (soil heaving) while freezing is not described, and the effects on
pressure (caused by density differences between the liquid and ice phases) are accommodated through a
relatively high pore compressibility of the geologic medium.

To model the dynamic process of drilling (as opposed to a production scenario), the instantaneous increase of well
depth and its associated change in pressure and temperature in the wellbore must be accounted for. The pressure
change at the bit is the result of the hydrostatic column of mud and the gas-liquid-ratio (GLR). The latter .may change
due to hydrate dissociation while drilling. At any given moment in time, while the well advances into the formation,
boundary conditions must be defined in terms of temperature and pressure along the wellbore for each vertical
segments (or grid block), as illustrated in Fig.7.

k =1 T1, ,P1

k =2 T2 ,P2

k =3 T3 ,P3

Fig. 7 Vertical discretization of the hydrate-bearing layer and definition of boundary conditions at the wellbore.

Constant boundary pressures and temperatures for each vertical segment are assumed for the time interval that
each segment is being drilled through and the dissociation of hydrate while drilling results in the sum of the gas
production contributions by each layer into the drilling mud
.
Calculations for Thermal Transport in HBS
In the calculations, the formation is impermeable HBS at equilibrium conditions (time t = 0). The dissociation process is
modeled with thermal transport phenomena. The formation temperature rise slightly increases the pore pressure. In
this case, the temperature of the drilling fluid is 4° higher than the hydrate bearing formation, thermal pore fluid
expansion are induced. Fig. 8 shows how using a drilling fluid of temperature higher than the formation results in
heating the formation. The initial temperature of the formation was 10°C (283°K); the drilling fluid temperature was
14°C (287°K). The result is an increased formation temperature, as shown in Fig. 8. The new pressure and
temperature conditions are primarily the consequence of temperature increase and will cause hydrate instability. As
the temperature of the formation increases with time, the hydrate inside the formation to the left of these stability
pressure profiles become unstable (assuming hydrate exist in the sediments).
SPE 131332 11

Fig. 8 Gas Hydrates Thermodynamic stability

Temperature Distribution in formation
300

290

280
Temperature, K

270

260

250
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Normalized Distance
Fig. 9 Formation heating due to mud higher temperature. Normalized distance represents ratio of distance into
formation to hydrate-bearing layer thickness

The total amount of gas dissociated due to drilling will be equal to the sum of the amount dissociated from the
crushed zone and that from the advancement of the dissociation front into the formation:

Where.

2 ;

Where,

wellbore radius,
thickness of the drilled interval,
porosity of the layer,
hydrate concentration and is calculated numerically.

The amount of gas hydrate dissociated into gas and water mainly depends on two parameters that can be
controlled: pressure and temperature. By lowering the temperature or raising the pressure in the mud column, the
amount of gas released into the wellbore can be reduced as dissociation is avoided. Several simulation runs were
made in order to assess the influence of drilling mud temperature and BHP on the hydrate dissociation process. Fig.
10 shows that, for the case considered, the total amount of gas released due to dissociation can be dramatically
decreased by lowering the temperature by 2°K. As can be seen, the amount of gas hydrate released decreases
significantly with a slight decrease in temperature of the drilling mud or an increase in BHP (Fig. 11).
Depending on the requirements of the drilling program, restrictions on the drilling parameters may apply. For
example, in case of low fracture pressure, the BHP cannot be increased above the fracture limit. Also, temperature of
the drilling mud may not be decreased due to strong dependence of the mud rheological properties on temperature.
12 SPE 131332

Fig. 10 Cumulative dissociated gas vs. time decreases significantly with colder drilling mud

Fig. 11 Cumulative released gas vs. time decreases significantly with higher BHP

Conclusions
Previously published work analyzed changes in drilling mud parameters when gas HBS are drilled through, but only
took into consideration the drilled volume, or “crushed zone” for the assessment of amount of the hydrates that are
likely to dissociate. The possible further dissociation into the formation was not considered.
A new procedure for estimating the amount of hydrate dissociated during drilling in HBS is presented. A semi-
analytical 1D model of heat and fluid transport was coupled with a numerical model of temperature distribution along
the wellbore. This combination allowed the estimation of the size of the investigation zone into the hydrate bearing
layer and calculated the amount of gas that could be released due to pressure drop or temperature increase while
drilling. The effects of variations in porosity and permeability on pressure and temperature profiles and the movement
of a dissociation front were studied for a real field case, where the BHP and the formation properties were obtained
from a public database, and the BHT was calculated numerically.
The influence of changes in BHT and BHP on the amount of gas released due to hydrate dissociation was
investigated. The simulations showed that moderate temperature increase due to drilling process will not affect the gas
hydrate dissociation. The main parameters that affect gas hydrate dissociation are drilling mud temperature at the bit
and BHP.
The results provide an understanding of the effects of drilling a wellbore through HBS and the impact of the drilling
SPE 131332 13

fluid temperature and BHP on changes in temperature and pore pressure within the surrounding sediments. For each
specific case, the amount of gas hydrate that can dissociate will depend significantly on both initial formation
characteristics and bottomhole conditions: mud temperature and pressure. The model can provide quantitative results
of the impact of hydrate dissociation on wellbore stability, which can help better design drilling muds for ultra deep
water operations and so improve their performance in hydrate stabilization.
The proposed workflow has the capability of quantifying the gas-hydrate dissociation processes in sediments with a
minimum number of assumptions

References
Amodu, A. 2008. Drilling through Gas Hydrates Formations: Possible Problems and Suggested Solution
Apak, E.C. and Ozbayoglu, E.M. 2009. Heat Distribution within the Wellbore While Drilling. Petroleum Science and
Technology 27 (7): 678 - 686.
Birchwood, R.A. et al. 2007. Modeling the Mechanical and Phase-Change Stability of Wellbores Drilled in Gas
Hydrates by Joint Industry Participation Program (JIPP) Gas Hydrate Project, Phase II.Paper presented at SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, California, USA. SPE 110796
Collet, T.S., Dallimore, S. R. 2002. Detailed Analysis of Gas Hydrate Induced Drilling and Production Hazards.
Proceedings of the Fourth Intermnational Conference on Gas Hydrates, Yokohama, Japan.
Freij-Ayoub, R., Tan, C., Clennell, B. et al. 2007. A Wellbore Stability Model for Hydrate Bearing Sediments.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 57 (1-2): 209-220.
Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Proceedings 2010.
http://publications.iodp.org/proceedings/311/311toc.htm
Keller, H.H., Couch, E.J., and Berry, P.M. 1973. Temperature Distribution in Circulating Mud Columns. 13 (1): 23-
30. DOI: 10.2118/3605-pa
Kim, H. C., Bishnoi, P.R., Heidemann, R.A., and Rizvi, S.S.H., 1987. Kinetics of Methane Hydrate Decomposition.
Chem. Eng. Sci. Vol. 42, pp. 1645-1653.
Makogon, I.U.F. 1997. Hydrates of Hydrocarbons. Tulsa, Okla.: PennWell Books. Original edition. ISBN
0878147187.
Moridis, G.J. 2002. Numerical Studies of Gas Production from Methane Hydrates Paper presented at the SPE Gas
Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
The National Methane Hydrates R&D Program 2010. http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-
gas/futuresupply/methanehydrates/rd-program/ToughFX/ToughFx.html
Schofield, T.R., Judzis, A., Yousif, M. 1997. Stabilization of in-Situ Hydrates Enhances Drilling Performance and
Rig Safety. Paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA. SPE
38568.
Sloan, J.E.D. 1998. Clathrane Hydrates of Natural Gases: Marcel Dekker Inc. Original edition. ISBN.
Tsypkin, G.G. 2000. Mathematical Models of Gas Hydrate Dissociation in Porous Media: Gas Hydrate Challenges
for the Future. NY Academy of Sciences, NY 912: 428-436.
Yousif, M.H., Abass, H.H., Selim, M.S. et al. 1991. Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Methane-Gas-
Hydrate Dissociation in Porous Media. SPE Reservoir Engineering 6 (1): 69-76. DOI: 10.2118/18320-pa