charting the future of methane hydrate research in the united states

Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane

Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000

Ocean Studies Board

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Division on Earth and Life Studies

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C.

www.nap.edu

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. DE-AM01-99PO80016 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-09292-2 (Book) International Standard Book Number 0-309-54499-8 (PDF) Cover art designed by Van Nguyen of the National Academies Press, and includes a photograph of a burning methane hydrate taken by Liujuan Tang of the University of Hawaii. This photograph is reprinted with permission of Dr. Stephen Masutani, University of Hawaii, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, © 2003. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

v

Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and

Development Act of 20001 EARL H. DOYLE (Chair), Shell Oil (retired), Sugar Land, Texas SCOTT R. DALLIMORE, Geological Survey of Canada, Sidney, British

Columbia RANA A. FINE, University of Miami, Florida AMOS M. NUR, Stanford University, California MICHAEL E.Q. PILSON, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett WILLIAM S. REEBURGH, University of California, Irvine E. DENDY SLOAN JR., Colorado School of Mines, Golden ANNE M. TRÉHU, Oregon State University, Corvallis NRC Staff

JOANNE BINTZ, Study Director JENNIFER MERRILL, Study Director NANCY CAPUTO, Research Associate The work of this committee was overseen by the Ocean Studies Board and the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources of the National Research Council.

1 The committee and staff biographies are provided in Appendix A.

vi

Ocean Studies Board NANCY RABALAIS (Chair), Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium,

Chauvin LEE G. ANDERSON, University of Delaware, Newark WHITLOW AU, University of Hawaii at Manoa ARTHUR BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge RICHARD B. DERISO, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, La

Jolla, California ROBERT B. DITTON, Texas A&M University, College Station EARL DOYLE, Shell Oil (retired), Sugar Land, Texas ROBERT DUCE, Texas A&M University, College Station PAUL G. GAFFNEY II, National Defense University, Washington, D.C. WAYNE R. GEYER, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts STANLEY R. HART, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts RALPH S. LEWIS, Connecticut Geological Survey, Hartford WILLIAM F. MARCUSON III, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (retired),

Vicksburg, Mississippi JULIAN P. MCCREARY JR., University of Hawaii, Honolulu JACQUELINE MICHEL, Research Planning, Inc., Columbia, South

Carolina JOAN OLTMAN-SHAY, Northwest Research Associates, Inc., Bellevue,

Washington ROBERT T. PAINE, University of Washington, Seattle SHIRLEY A. POMPONI, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort

Pierce, Florida FRED N. SPIESS, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California DANIEL SUMAN, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,

University of Miami, Florida NRC Staff SUSAN ROBERTS, Director JENNIFER MERRILL, Senior Program Officer DAN WALKER, Senior Program Officer ALAN B. SIELEN, Visiting Scholar ANDREAS SOHRE, Financial Associate SHIREL SMITH, Administrative Associate JODI BACHIM, Research Associate NANCY CAPUTO, Research Associate SARAH CAPOTE, Senior Program Assistant

vii

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources GEORGE M. HORNBERGER (Chair), University of Virginia, Charlottesville M. LEE ALLISON, Kansas Energy Council, Topeka JILL BANFIELD, University of California, Berkeley STEVEN R. BOHLEN, Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Washington, D.C. ADAM M. DZIEWONSKI, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts RHEA GRAHAM, Pueblo of Sandia, Bernalillo, New Mexico ROBYN HANNIGAN, Arkansas State University, State University V. RAMA MURTHY, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis RAYMOND A. PRICE, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada MARK SCHAEFER, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia STEVEN M. STANLEY, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland BILLIE L. TURNER II, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts STEPHEN G. WELLS, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada THOMAS J. WILBANKS, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee NRC Staff ANTHONY R. DE SOUZA, Director PAUL M. CUTLER, Senior Program Officer TAMARA L. DICKINSON, Senior Program Officer DAVID A. FEARY, Senior Program Officer ANNE M. LINN, Senior Program Officer RONALD F. ABLER, Senior Scholar KRISTEN L. KRAPF, Program Officer JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Administrative Associate VERNA J. BOWEN, Administrative Associate TANJA E. PILZAK, Research Associate JAMES B. DAVIS, Program Assistant AMANDA M. ROBERTS, Program Assistant

ix

Preface Methane hydrate research took a great leap forward with the passage

of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-193; Appendix B). This act mandates several levels of coordination for a program in methane hydrate research, including specific research areas to be pursued and a method for scientific input and oversight through an advisory panel and interagency coordinating team. In the past four years, the Department of Energy (DOE) Methane Hydrate Research and Development (R&D) Program has funded more than 30 projects totaling more than $29 million. The projects encompass a wide array of field and laboratory studies conducted in collaboration with academic institutions, industry, and other federal agencies. Without congressional reauthorization, Section 3 of the act, which defines the program, will cease to be effective at the end of Fiscal Year 2005.

In addition to the mandates already mentioned, the act calls for the National Research Council (NRC) to study progress made under the program initiated by the act and to make recommendations for future methane hydrate research and development needs. The Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 was convened for this purpose (Appendix A). Committee members included representatives from both academia and industry with a wide range of scientific and engineering expertise. The committee determined that it could not address the task thoroughly without reviewing the way in which program funds are awarded and the level of scientific oversight within the program. The committee agreed that it was outside the scope of the study to evaluate the scientific merit of all 30 projects funded by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program and so chose to focus on two large international projects in which DOE participated; three large-scale, industry-managed projects that are expected to consume more than 60 percent of planned funding; and a few smaller-scale, academic and laboratory projects. The committee also was charged

x PREFACE

with determining research needs for a future hydrate program. The com-mittee did not recommend specific projects, but instead focused on emphasizing areas for future research.

In preparation for this study, the committee met in open session at three locations (Washington, D.C.; Houston, Texas; and La Jolla, California) to gather information from managers who oversee the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, interagency collaborators, members of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee mandated by the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, and members of the industrial and scientific community that participate in research funded by the program (Appendix C). Some committee members also attended the DOE Office of Fossil Energy Methane Hydrate Research and Development Conference and a Gulf of Mexico Naturally Occurring Hydrates/Joint Industry Project Workshop in Westminster, Colorado, from September 29 to October 1, 2003, sponsored by DOE and ChevronTexaco (Appendix D). The purpose of attending these meetings was to better familiarize the committee with the results of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program studies, to meet the participants, and to observe community input into the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program.

The primary goal of this report is not only to review the progress made under the act and to provide advice on future methane hydrate research and development needs, but also to emphasize the importance of scientific oversight and community input to funding that research. Such oversight, incorporating external proposal review and involvement of the advisory bodies mandated by the act and sponsored for that purpose, would bring a great deal to the program.

Earl Doyle, Chair

xi

Acknowledgments

This report was greatly enhanced by those who participated in three open meetings held as part of this study. The committee would first like to acknowledge the efforts of those who gave presentations at open meetings: Edith Allison, Department of Energy (DOE), Fossil Energy Headquarters; Brad Tomer, DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL); Deborah Hutchinson, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Robert LaBelle, Minerals Management Service; Bilal Haq, National Science Foundation, and Planning Committee of the Secretary of Energy; Bhakta Rath, Naval Re-search Laboratory; Barbara Moore, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Art Johnson, Hydrate Energy International, and chair of the DOE Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee; Robert Hunter, BP Explor-ation (Alaska), Inc.; Sivakumar Subramanian, ChevronTexaco; Thomas Williams, Maurer Technology, Inc; William Gwilliam, DOE, NETL; Steve Kirby, USGS; Tom Lorenson, USGS; Emrys Jones, ChevronTexaco; Tim Collett, USGS; George Moridis, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Peter Brewer, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute; and Miriam Kastner, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. These talks helped set the stage for fruitful discussions in the closed sessions that followed.

The committee would like to thank the Board on Energy and Environ-mental Systems, especially the director James Zucchetto, for expert advice on this activity. The committee is also grateful to a number of people who provided important discussion and/or material for this report including: Harry Roberts, Louisiana State University; William Parrish, Conoco-Phillips (retired); Timothy Collett, U.S. Geological Survey; Brad Tomer, DOE; Edith Allison, DOE; Ray Boswell, DOE; Stephen Masutani, Univer-sity of Hawaii; Ted McCallister, DOE; Keith A. Kvenvolden, USGS; Alexei V. Milkov, BP America; Bill Liddell, Anadarko Petroleum Corpor-ation; Ross Chapman, University of Victoria; John Beck, Ocean Drilling Program; Kim Bracchi, Ocean Drilling Program; and Liujuan Tang, Uni-versity of Hawaii.

xii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report.

ROBERT G. BEA, University of California, Berkeley JOHN B. CURTIS, Colorado School of Mines, Golden ROBERT FISK, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska GERALD D. HOLDER, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, University of Virginia, Charlottesville CHRIS MAPLES, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada ALEXEI V. MILKOV, BP America, Houston, Texas CHARLES K. PAULL, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,

Moss Landing, California DAVID W. SCHOLL, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California JEFF SEVERINGHAUS, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla,

California PATRICIA SOBECKY, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta JEAN K. WHELAN, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,

Massachusetts Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive

comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Carl Wunsch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, and Raymond Price, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, who were appointed by the National Research Council, and were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

xiii

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 15

The Department of Energy’s Role in Methane Hydrate Research, 16 The National Research Council Review, 19 Organization of this Report, 20 2 WHY STUDY GAS HYDRATE? 23 Gas Hydrate as a Fossil Fuel Resource, 25 Gas Hydrate and Global Climate Change, 28 Gas Hydrate and Seafloor Stability, 30 Distribution and Dynamics of Gas Hydrate in Nature, 32 Feasibility of Producing Methane from Gas Hydrate, 41 3 A REVIEW OF METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO DATE 43 Project Solicitation and Award Criteria, 43 Project Reviews, 47 International Projects, 48 Industry-Managed Targeted Research Projects, 53 USGS Programs Sponsored by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, 60 Smaller-Scale DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program Investments, 61 Summary, 69 Findings and Recommendations, 69

xiv CONTENTS

4 DIRECTIONS FOR PROGRAM EMPHASIS, RESEARCH, AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 73 Appropriate DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program

Emphasis for the Future, 73 Recommendations, 80 5 SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT OF THE DOE METHANE HYDRATE R&D PROGRAM 83 The Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee, 83 The Interagency Coordinating Committee and the Technical Coordinating Team, 86 Science in the Project Selection Process, 88 Summary, 89 Findings and Recommendations, 91 6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 93

Meeting the Goals of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, 94 Future Program Emphasis, Research, and Resource Development, 99 Scientific Oversight of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, 101 Overview, 103

REFERENCES 105 APPENDIXES A Committee and Staff Biographies, 117 B Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, 123 C Speakers and Presentation Titles from Meetings of the NRC Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Develop- ment Act of 2000, 129 D Committee Summary and Observations of the DOE Conference/JIP Workshop held September 30 to October 1, 2003 in Westminster, Colorado, 131 E Acronyms, 135 F Project Summaries, 139

CONTENTS xv

G Projects Funded by DOE Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program, 151 H Letters from the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (2001 and 2002) to DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham, 177 I Membership of the Interagency Coordinating Committee and theTechnical Coordinating Team, 191

1

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

Methane hydrate is a natural form of clathrate—a chemical substance in which one molecule forms a lattice around a “guest” molecule without chemical bonding. In this clathrate, the guest molecule is methane and the lattice is formed by water. Methane hydrate is formed naturally under conditions of low temperature and high pressure wherever sufficient gas exists in porewater. It has been found in Arctic regions and in marine sediment on the slopes flanking every continent (Plate 1).

Many countries, intrigued by the widespread occurrence of natural methane hydrate and by the promising results of recent test wells in Japan and Canada, are looking toward gas hydrate as a potential source of energy. The U.S. in-place hydrated methane gas resource may exceed the recoverable natural gas resources of the nation (Kvenvolden and Lorenson, 2001). If methane can be produced from hydrate deposits, the nation’s natural gas energy supply could be extended for many years to come. However, many uncertainties must be addressed before anyone will know whether gas hydrate can be produced safely and profitably.

There is uncertainty in the distribution of concentrated hydrate de-posits and the possibility that hydrate production could lead to pipeline and borehole instability. Uncertainties are also associated with the effect of gas hydrate on the environment. Gas hydrate may play a role in global climate change because methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and has been postulated to have caused past episodes of global warm-ing. Other uncertainties include the importance of methane hydrate in the global carbon cycle, seafloor stability, and biological communities near sub-marine outcrops.

Currently, there are few industry research efforts relating to gas hydrate. Despite this situation, interest in gas hydrate has stimulated

2 CHARTING THE FUTURE OF METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH

significant policy activity. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) has released both A Strategy for Methane Hydrates Research and Development (DOE, 1998) and a National Methane Hydrate Multi-Year R&D Program Plan (DOE, 1999). Furthermore, in 2000, Congress passed the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act (P.L. 106-193, May 2, 2000; Appendix B) authorizing the DOE, in consultation with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Minerals Management Service (MMS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Naval Research Laboratory, to conduct methane hydrate research and development to meet the goals of the act (Box ES.1).

The act also mandates that the National Research Council (NRC) conduct a study, to be completed no later than September 30, 2004, of the progress made under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development (R&D) Program administered by the DOE (Box ES.2).

Following guidance provided by the act and the statement of task above, the NRC Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 attempted to provide a fair and balanced review of the program. To do so, it was necessary to consider all of the research goals in Box ES.1. Therefore information was sought from DOE, collaborating agencies, members of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (convened as mandated by the act), and recipients of funding from the DOE program. In addition to reviewing documents provided by DOE and other agencies, the committee held three open meetings in Washington, District of Columbia; Houston, Texas; and La Jolla, California (Appendix C). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the program, participants were invited to address topics on the role and activities of the federal government in the realm of methane hydrate research, the role of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee in the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, the experience to date with industry-managed, targeted research projects, and other topics of interest and relevance (Appendix F).

The timing of this review was mandated to occur after the funding decisions affecting implementation of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-193) had been made but before most of the technical results of the projects funded by the act were available. In only a few cases were the projects funded mature enough for detailed evaluation of their outcome. Therefore the focus of this report is on recommendations for how to implement a continuation of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 based on an evaluation of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program since its inception.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following findings and recommendations are based on detailed consideration of the issues discussed above and the statement of task. These findings and recommendations are discussed in greater detail throughout the report and particularly in Chapter 6. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 will cease to be effective at the end of fiscal year 2005. The findings and recommendations are therefore intended to be considered with the reauthorization of the act.

Box ES.1 Research Goals of the Methane Hydrate Research and

Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-193, Section 3b)

In carrying out the program of methane hydrate research

and development authorized by this section, the Secretary may award grants or contracts to, or enter into cooperative agreements with, institutions of higher education and industrial enterprises to—

(A) conduct basic and applied research to identify, explore, assess, and develop methane hydrate as a source of energy;

(B) assist in developing technologies required for efficient and environmentally sound development of methane hydrate resources;

(C) undertake research programs to provide safe means of transport and storage of methane produced from methane hydrates;

(D) promote education and training in methane hydrate resource research and resource development;

(E) conduct basic and applied research to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of hydrate degassing (including both natural degassing and degassing associated with commercial development);

(F) develop technologies to reduce the risks of drilling through methane hydrates; and

(G) conduct exploratory drilling in support of the activities authorized by this paragraph.


Progress towards Meeting the Goals of the Methane

Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000

The DOE was authorized to conduct studies in several areas as mandated by the act. The Methane Hydrate R&D Program places projects in categories based on the program goals described above (Box ES.1). There are currently several ongoing projects with the following primary targets (Appendix G, Table G.2): characterizing hydrate properties, hydrate distribution, hazard mitigation, global climate and seafloor stability, improved tools for use in the field and in the laboratory, and production potential. Findings

With respect to the research areas described in the act, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program funded research on identifying, exploring, assessing, and developing methane hydrate as a source of energy (research area A); assisting in developing technologies for

Box ES.2 NRC Statement of Task

This study will review the Methane Hydrate R&D Program administered by the DOE. In particular the committee was tasked to: • provide advice on program emphasis to ensure that significant contributions are made towards understanding methane hydrate as a source of energy and as a potential contributor to climate change by advancing basic and applied research; • make recommendations for future methane hydrate research and development needs; and • assess whether the DOE program is meeting the goals of developing technologies for the efficient and environmentally sound development of methane hydrate resources, reducing the risks of drilling through methane hydrate, and mitigating the environmental impacts of hydrate degassing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

efficient and environmentally sound development (research area B); developing technologies to reduce the risk of drilling (research area F); and conducting exploratory drilling (research area G).

No projects have been funded in the area of transportation and

storage. None of the projects emphasized education and training. Research projects only minimally addressed the area of environ-mental impacts of degassing (decomposition as the solid-state hydrate transforms to gaseous methane and liquid water), and its potential for affecting climate.

Better estimates of the amount of hydrate in diffuse hydrate reservoirs

(as opposed to focused deposits) are now available and the estimates are lower than previously thought. Ground-truthing of geophysics requires an analysis of geophysical data taken from sites where samples are available for testing the geophysical models. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program supported very little of this type of analysis. For example, post-cruise research from Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 204 is supported by NSF but not by DOE. However, the MMS is updating their assessment of hydrate and the ChevronTexaco joint industry project (JIP), discussed in Chapter 3, will address the correlation of geophysical measurements with the occurrence of hydrate. Recommendation

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should strengthen its contribution to education and training through funding of post-doctoral fellowships and should increase efforts in basic research to address the relationship between gas hydrate and climate change. It is, however, appropriate that some research areas mentioned in the act (e.g., transportation) receive no support since they are peripheral to the primary objectives of the act.

Chapter 3 summarizes the process by which projects are selected for funding within the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program and reviews projects falling into four major categories: (1) international collaborative projects, (2) industry-managed targeted research projects, (3) USGS projects, and (4) smaller-scale projects. These projects were chosen based on their potential to meet the goals of the DOE Methane Hydrate


R&D Program and the proportion of program funds they consume. The findings and recommendations below are based on a review of projects within these categories, which comprise more than 90 percent of the funded work.

International Collaborative Projects

Gas hydrate research is international. Canada, Japan, and India, for example, are investing significant financial resources in hydrate research. The Methane Hydrate R&D Program has made modest investments in international projects such as the Mallik 2002 Production Research Well Program and ODP Leg 204. These projects represent significant achieve-ments with relatively small investment. Together with the United States, the international community can make substantial progress toward de-veloping the potential of gas hydrate as an energy resource. However, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program is currently not funded at a level sufficient to allow a major role in large-scale international research efforts, such as proposed for continuing studies at Mallik. Findings

By effectively leveraging funding, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program made wise investments of relatively small resources in support of major international research efforts.

Relative to the United States, other countries (e.g., Japan) are

spending significantly more money on hydrate research. Recommendations

It will be to the benefit of all nations, including the United States, to foster further collaboration with groups conducting methane hydrate research. Where appropriate, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should be encouraged to lead such endeavors.

Unless substantially greater resources are devoted to the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, the United States may fall behind other nations in leading hydrate development technology.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

Targeted Research Projects

Targeted research projects are designed to be specific to a research area (e.g., Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, transportation, modeling). Targeted research projects account for over 60 percent of planned DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program funding through 2005. Three industry-managed projects that fall into this category (reviewed in Chapter 3) were funded with considerable cost shares from industry (Appendix G, Table G.1):

• BP Exploration (Alaska): Alaska North Slope Gas Hydrate Reservoir Characterization;

• Maurer/Anadarko: Methane Hydrate Production from Alaskan Per-mafrost; and

• ChevronTexaco Joint Industry Project (JIP): Characterizing Natural Gas Hydrates in the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico: Applications for Safe Exploration.

The BP Exploration (Alaska) project and the Maurer/Anadarko project are both dedicated to energy-related research goals in the Arctic. The ChevronTexaco JIP is geared toward reducing the risk that gas hydrate deposits pose to conventional oil and gas exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico. These projects provide opportunities to advance gas hydrate science and engineering techniques. However, in some cases, they have had difficulty in meeting their respective objectives due to a project assessment and evaluation process unsuited to recognize, evaluate, and select science-based investigations that would successfully meet the objectives of the program. In addition, the results of these projects have not been made publicly available. Finding

Although the issues vary, the committee’s review of the industry-managed, targeted research projects raises concerns about each that could limit the ability of these projects to contribute to the goals of the program.


Recommendation

To ensure the future success of large, industry-managed targeted research projects, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should implement the following:

• science-based proposal review; • science-based assessments of project progress and milestones; • expert consultation with a diverse project team; • data made publicly available; and • peer-reviewed publication of results.

USGS Projects

The USGS has developed an extensive knowledge base on the geological occurrence of gas hydrate that has been instrumental for several aspects of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program. First, the USGS has been the primary agency providing evaluations of gas hydrate reserves in the Arctic. Second, the USGS has been a close collaborator with the ChevronTexaco JIP in the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, the USGS conducts laboratory experiments on natural and man-made gas hydrate. Finding

The USGS has a long history of gas hydrate research (in both the laboratory and the field) and collaboration, which has provided basic and essential information on the chemistry and occurrence of gas hydrate.

Recommendation

The USGS should continue to play a major role in gas hydrate research as a collaborator in the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

Smaller-Scale Projects

Smaller-scale projects funded by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program are evaluated in three general categories: (1) seafloor observatory in the Gulf of Mexico, (2) other university-based studies, and (3) laboratory studies. Typically, budgets for these projects have amounted to only a small percentage of the total program budget, but they are expected to yield valuable results.

Smaller-scale university based projects are designed to answer specific questions related to other parts of the program. Research conducted at national laboratories includes modeling studies, characterization of microbes, tool development, and so forth. Some are clearly integrated with overall program objectives; others are difficult to evaluate because no data are publicly available. Finding

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has funded a number of small-scale R&D projects through its proposal process. Some of these have had a major technological impact. It is important to note, however, that the results of many of these projects have not been published, and therefore, they could not be thoroughly evaluated. Recommendations

A summary of DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program-sponsored projects should be developed annually and posted on the program Web site.

A set of instructions and guidelines outlining the requirement for timely and full disclosure of project results should be provided to project applicants. As much as practical, these instructions should include the consequences of noncompliance.

Current Program Breadth and Future Emphasis, Research, and Resource Development

The overarching goal of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program

is to conduct applied research to identify, assess, and develop methane


hydrate as a source of energy. The Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000 specified broad research goals and areas of study (Box ES.1). The recommendations for future research are discussed in depth and prioritized in Chapter 4. These include increased efforts to discover focused gas hydrate deposits (“sweet spots”) near the seafloor and deeper in the subsurface, initiation of efforts at long-term monitoring of the evolution of these deposits as part of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), and perturbation experiments to calibrate and test models of the response of gas hydrate to changes in temperature, pressure, and porewater composition. Recommendations

The overriding focus of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program in the future should be on the potential importance of hy-drate as a future energy resource for the nation and the world.

To optimize the potential impact of the available hydrate re-search funding (approximately $9 million per year), such a focused program should systematically address the following research areas that are poorly or only partly understood.

• Future field experiments, drilling, and production testing

with consideration of testing offshore hydrate that might be of sufficiently large quantity for potential commercial extrac-tion

• Hydrate deposit identification and characterization • Reservoir modeling • Technology recovery methods and production • Understanding the natural system and climate change potential • Geological hazards • Transportation and storage

Collaboration between the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D

Program and other agencies, to augment infrastructure, will facilitate the achievement of program goals. For example, collaboration with NSF, especially with the OOI and the Ocean Research Interactive Observatory Network (ORION), would be useful to implement studies geared toward understanding the temporal evolution of gas hydrate systems using long-term

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11

observatories on and beneath the seafloor (NRC, 2003). (More information is available at http://www.coreocean.org/orion.)

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should sponsor a workshop focused on specific aspects of required research, for example, finding sweet spots or monitoring the evolution of gas hydrate deposits over time in the context of the OOI.

Scientific Oversight of the DOE Methane Hydrate

R&D Program

A key requirement for meeting the goals and priorities of any science-based program is scientific oversight (Chapter 5). Such oversight includes external reviews of projects and proposals to ensure that the goals of the program can be met.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000 mandated the establishment of two committees to help oversee the scientific aspects of the program. The Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (MHAC) with members from industry, academia, and government was established to advise the Secretary of Energy on potential applications of methane hydrate, to help develop research priorities, and to produce a report on the global climate impacts of methane hydrate formation, decomposition, and consumption. The members of the first MHAC were unclear about their role in the program. The program would benefit from the scientific advice of the MHAC, but members should follow an accepted conflict-of-interest protocol to ensure that they do not participate in funding decisions directly related to their own research or institutions.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC), consisting of individuals designated by the heads of all agencies engaged in hydrate research, was charged with reviewing the progress of the program and making recommendations for future research. The ICC, in turn, established the Technical Coordinating Team (TCT) consisting of the administrative program managers of the hydrate research group within each agency to aid the committee in its charge. The TCT has not played a role in reviewing the progress of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program nor provided advice on future directions.

To select projects for funding, the program used a merit-based review of proposals performed internally by DOE staff. Although such merit-based reviews are consistent with the language of the act, the additional use of external peer reviewers would help ensure the quality of


the program. See Chapter 5 for an in-depth discussion of the scientific oversight of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program. Findings

The advisory committees established by the Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000 (the MHAC and ICC) have not played a major role in evaluating the progress and priorities of the program as mandated by the act.

The internal, merit-based DOE review process used to select projects for funding is not as effective as it could be in examining the program as a whole and ensuring that overall program goals are met. Recommendations

The purview and responsibilities of the MHAC, ICC, and TCT

should be clearly defined with respect to each other, and their efforts should be clearly aligned to eliminate any confusion in how proposed projects are received, evaluated, authorized, monitored, and assessed.

All projects above a defined dollar level should be submitted to

external review following appropriate guidelines and procedures (e.g., those of NSF), and the comments and recommendations received should be evaluated by the MHAC or similar body in compliance with the conflict-of-interest protocol.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should implement a

mechanism to incorporate greater scientific oversight to assess progress toward program goals, evaluate program balance, and enhance the quality of the program over time. This could be accomplished by initiating external proposal and program reviews.

Conclusion

Although the total amount of methane trapped in gas hydrate is not well known, it is generally believed that gas hydrate has the potential to become a fossil fuel resource and a possible factor in climate change and submarine slope stability. The possible magnitude of this resource has

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13

motivated national research programs in the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, and India to investigate methods to quantify the amount of hydrate present in the subsurface through geological and geophysical remote sensing methods, to develop efficient recovery techniques, and to evaluate its dynamic forcing of and response to climate change. At this time, commercial interest in drilling and producing methane hydrate is low. Therefore, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program’s continued support of research is a key component of evaluating the nation’s ability to produce energy from gas hydrate in the future. Findings

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program provides a signifi-cant incentive and valued role in developing this nation’s ability to produce energy from gas hydrate and to understand the potential geological constraints on drilling hydrate.

Given sufficient in-place reserves, there are no obvious technical or engineering roadblocks to prevent commercial production of gas from hydrate in the future. However, there are some technical and engineering challenges that have to be solved before commercial production could begin.

15

1

Introduction

It is estimated that fossil fuels provide 85 percent of the energy consumed in the United States—a demand that is expected to increase in the coming years (NRC, 2003). As a clean fuel source, natural gas may have the potential to fulfill a disproportionately large fraction of that increase (Energy Information Administration, 2002). In addition to well-characterized, accessible natural gas reserves, large possible sources remain that require major technological advances for their use to become feasible.

Gas hydrate deposits are one such possible future reserve and have become the focus of much attention because of the vast natural resources thought to exist that could possibly be tapped as an energy source. Although gas hydrate was first discovered in the laboratory nearly 200 years ago (Davy, 1811) and found in natural gas pipelines in the 1930s (Hammer-schmidt, 1934), it was not found in nature until the 1960s (Makogon, 1965). Since then, evidence has accumulated for the widespread occurrence of gas hydrate beneath the Arctic permafrost and in sediments on continental margins worldwide (Plate 1). Total U.S. resources of gas hydrate have been estimated to be on the order of 200,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) (Collett, 1997). If the annual U.S. consumption of natural gas in 2002 of 23.6 Tcf (BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2003) doubles and 1 to 10 percent of in-place hydrate is recoverable, gas hydrate has the potential to provide the United States with natural gas for 40 to 400 years. In evaluating this estimate, it is important to note that some researchers suggest that the in-place hydrate resource may be smaller than assumed here (Milkov, 2004).


THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S ROLE IN METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH

The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) is mandated to lead the U.S.

government in activities with regard to energy. The mission of the DOE is presented in Box 1.1.

In the United States, the responsibility for funding gas hydrate research has traditionally been split among several different government agencies. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has funded a wide range of hydrate-related research studies, especially as part of the inter-national Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and its predecessor, the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has also been involved in gas hydrate research for several decades. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has support-ed methane hydrate research using submersibles.

An objective of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000 is to improve coordination among studies supported by different agencies. Although the missions of these agencies differ, a basic knowledge of gas hydrate is needed to address these mission overlaps. Research to quantify natural gas hydrate and understand its role in the global carbon cycle has been supported intermittently by DOE over the past two decades (Box 1.2). Laboratory work on gas hydrate has been conducted in national labs, as well as within academia and industry.

The DOE developed a gas hydrate research and development program as early as 1982, in response to the retrieval of a methane hydrate core off the coast of Guatemala by RV Glomar Challenger, a research vessel uniquely suited to take deep sea cores. The initial DOE methane hydrate program funded nearly $8 million in basic research, but it was discontinued in 1992.

Box 1.1 The Mission of the Department of Energy

The Department of Energy’s overarching mission is to

advance the national, economic and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex.

SOURCE: DOE, 2003a.

INTRODUCTION 17

A recommendation to renew methane hydrate research was put

forward in 1997 by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) because of a growing interest in ensuring domestic supplies of natural gas and, in part, as a response to evolving international research programs (PCAST, 1997). Planning for the current DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program began with a DOE-sponsored

Box 1.2

History of Hydrate Energy Research at DOE

1982: Coincident with the recovery of a hydrate-bearing core from offshore Guatemala (DSDP Leg 67 in 1979), DOE begins a 10-year, $8 million program to study hydrates in nature.

1992: Research is suspended to pursue shorter-range energy goals.

1997: The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) recommends a five-year national DOE fossil energy program (PCAST, 1997).

1998: Following a series of public workshops, DOE publishes A Strategy for Methane Hydrates Research and Development (DOE, 1998).

1999: DOE releases the National Methane Hydrate Multi-Year R&D Program Plan (DOE, 1999).

2000: The Methane Hydrate Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000 is passed and authorizes a five-year national program on gas hydrate, funded initially with $3.0 million and funded in each successive year at amounts ranging from $9.5 million to $10 million. A Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (MHAC) is appointed to provide advice on this effort.

2002: The MHAC publishes Methane Hydrate Issues and Opportunities: Including Assessment of Uncertainty of the Impact of Methane Hydrate on Global Climate Change. (MHAC, 2002a).

2003: The National Research Council (NRC) begins a review of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program as mandated by the Methane Hydrate R&D Act (P.L. 106-193; Appendix B), to provide “a study of the progress

made . . . and . . . recommendations for future methane hydrate research and development needs”(Box ES.2).


workshop held in January 1998 in Denver, Colorado. Approximately 120 attendees from government, academia, and industry participated. A follow-up workshop was held in Washington, D.C., in May 1998. Building on the results of these workshops, DOE prepared A Strategy for Methane Hydrates Research and Development, published in August 1998. This document includes lists and discussions of many research projects under way in the United States and other countries and sets out four program goals: (1) resource characterization, (2) knowledge and technology for production, (3) understanding the role of hydrate in the global carbon cycle and climate change, and (4) the developing the understanding necessary for safe practice and seafloor stability (DOE, 1998).

The main research emphasis was on production, as indicated by the statement: “The major long-term benefit will be an increased supply of cleaner fuel . . .” (DOE, 1998, p. 18). Another important objective was stated more explicitly: “Develop the knowledge and technology necessary for commercial production of methane from oceanic and permafrost hydrate systems by 2015” (DOE, 1998, p. 23).

By June 1999, the staff at DOE had developed a plan for the activities to be carried out, which was presented in the National Methane Hydrate Multi-Year R&D Program (DOE, 1999). This document laid the groundwork for DOE’s role in carrying forward the necessary activities should “the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999” be enacted into law and funded at anticipated levels (DOE, 1999).

In 1999, the U.S. Congress drafted legislation that culminated in the Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-193; Appendix B). The purpose of this act was to improve coordination among the various public and private agencies and the multiple engineering and scientific disciplines involved in gas hydrate research. The act significantly increased the level of funding available for gas hydrate research (Table 1.1). It authorized $47.5 million in expenditures to the DOE from Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 to FY 2005 to support the program; DOE had managed $29 million under this program through FY 2003 (Table 1.1).

Organization of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program

Activities authorized under the Methane Hydrate Research and De-

velopment Act of 2000 are the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary of

INTRODUCTION 19

TABLE 1.1 DOE Gas Hydrate Research and Development Budget

Fiscal Year Millions of Dollars 1997 0.3 1998 0.3 1999 0.5 2000 3.0 2001 10.0 2002 9.5 2003 9.5 2004 9.4

SOURCE: Allison, 2003.

Energy. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program is housed within the Office of Fossil Energy and managed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), in Morgantown, West Virginia.

Establishing program goals and direction for the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has been an open, cooperative process. The 1998 strategy was developed using an interagency task force. The follow-up report National Methane Hydrate Multi-Year R&D Program Plan (DOE, 1999) built on the 1998 strategy and was reviewed by an extensive collection of industry and academic experts.

THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REVIEW

Article 7 of the Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-193, Section 7; Appendix B) mandates an evaluation of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program by the NRC, to be completed by September 2004. This report fulfills the mandated evaluation (Box 1.3) and was conducted under the auspices of both the Ocean Studies Board and the Board on Earth Sciences and Resources.

The NRC Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 was convened in July 2003 to carry out the study. To ensure a complete assessment of the progress of the program and provide advice on program emphasis to ensure that program goals are met, the committee also considered the issues of international collaboration and scientific oversight.


ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

This report contains six chapters and nine appendixes. Chapter 2

briefly summarizes the reasons for studying gas hydrate distribution and dynamics and discusses the tools available for this research. Chapter 3 reviews specific projects funded by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program that have been completed or are in progress, to assist in assessing the effectiveness of the program in meeting the goals laid out in the Methane Hydrate R&D Act. Chapter 4 provides recommendations for program emphasis, research, and resource development within the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program. Chapter 5 provides an assessment of the scientific oversight of the program and suggests ways in which it

Box 1.3

Statement of Task for the NRC Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate

Research and Development Act of 2000

This study will review the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program administered by the Department of Energy. • The committee will provide advice on program

emphasis to ensure that significant contributions are made towards understanding methane hydrates as a source of energy and as a poten-tial contributor to climate change by advancing basic and applied research.

• The committee will also make recommendations for future methane hydrate research and devel-opment needs.

• In addition, the committee will assess whether the DOE program is meeting the goals of developing technologies for the efficient and en-vironmentally sound development of methane hydrate resources, reducing the risks of drilling through methane hydrates, and mitigating the environmental impacts of hydrate decomposition.

INTRODUCTION 21

could be strengthened. Chapter 6, the final chapter, presents a summary and discussion of the findings and recommendations in the report.

The appendixes provide background information. Appendix A contains biographical information about the NRC committee and staff responsible for this report. Appendix B is a copy of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. Appendix C lists the speakers who gave presentations at the open meetings of the Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. Appendix D summarizes of the commit-tee members impressions of the DOE 2003 Hydrate R&D Conference and a workshop sponsored by ChevronTexaco on a joint industry project in the Gulf of Mexico. Appendix E is a list of acronyms used in this report. Appendixes F and G contain information provided to the com-mittee by DOE on specifics of the projects funded by the Methane Hydrate R&D Program from 2000 to 2003. Appendix H contains two letters submitted to the Secretary of Energy by the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee formed by the act. Appendix I lists members of two advisory committees: the Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC), established by the act; and the Technical Coordinating Team, established by the ICC.

23

2

Why Study Gas Hydrate?

Gas hydrate is an ice-like substance that forms at low temperature and high pressure when adequate amounts of water and gases such as carbon dioxide or methane and higher-order hydrocarbon gases are present (Figure 2.1). Because 1 m3 of solid hydrate typically contains 160 m3 of gas at standard temperature and pressure (STP),2 large volumes of natural gas may be stored efficiently in this form (Sloan, 2003). Although the total amount of methane trapped in gas hydrate and the geological processes that lead to concentrated gas hydrate deposits are poorly understood, existing knowledge suggests that gas hydrate represents a potential fossil fuel resource for the future (e.g., Kvenvolden, 1993a; Kvenvolden and Lorenson, 2001; Milkov and Sassen, 2002). It is also likely that the presence and decomposition of gas hydrate has had an impact on global climate in the past (Kvenvolden, 1993a; Dickens et al., 1997; Kennett et al., 2003). The presence of offshore structures may induce gas hydrate decomposition causing catastrophic collapses (Hov-land and Gudmestad, 2001). However, such effects on climate change and seafloor stability are the subjects of active research and involve considerable uncertainty in their quantification; further research would help to document these effects.

Quantitative evaluation of the resource potential of gas hydrate, and of its response to local and global environmental change, requires knowledge of how it forms in nature and of its in situ physical properties. This knowledge is difficult to obtain because hydrate is not generally stable at

2 The value would be 180 m3 if all of the cavities were filled, but typically only 90 percent of the cavities are occupied by methane (Sloan, 2003).


What Are Gas Hydrates?

46 H2O

34 H2O

2

16

3

6

8

2 1

512 64

512 68

512 62

512

435663

Structure I

Structure II

Structure H

Methane, Ethane,

Carbon dioxide, etc.

"Guest" Molecules

Propane, Isobutane,

etc.

Methane + Neohexane,

Methane + Cycloheptane,

etc.

Hydrate StructureCavity Types

136 H2O

FIGURE 2.1 The hydrate crystal structures seen in the middle column are shown as their smallest repeating, or unit, structures. Given at the right of each crystal is the reported number of water molecules necessary to form the unit crystal. The “guest” molecules referred to in the right-hand column indicate the pure guests which will form in each structure under normal conditions, with methane the primary molecule of interest in this report. In the left-hand column, the cavity types are pictured with the number of pentagonal and hexagonal faces indicated as 5n6n where n refers to the number of faces. For example, 51264 indicates that the cavity has 12 pentagonal faces and 4 hexagonal faces. In the left-hand column, the n For example, the figure shows that pure propane will form in the structure II unit crystal, which has a host composed of 136 water molecules, with 16 of the 512 cavities and 8 of the 51264 cavities. SOURCE: Reprinted with permission of Nature (Sloan, 2003) Macmillian Publishers, Ltd.

Earth’s surface. For example, methane hydrate is not stable at atmo-spheric pressure unless the temperature is below –60oC (Sloan, 2003). Natural gas hydrate recovered from the seafloor or from the subsurface decomposes rapidly when it is sampled, leading to the dramatic phenomenon of burning ice (Figure 2.2). Sophisticated laboratory and

WHY STUDY GAS HYDRATE? 25

field techniques that integrate results from a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines are needed to

• quantify the resource potential of gas hydrate; • develop safe and effective methods for recovering and transporting

this resource; • mitigate the effects of its development on the environment and as

a geohazard; and • understand the role of gas hydrate in the global carbon cycle and

its potential for impact on global climate change.

GAS HYDRATE AS A FOSSIL FUEL RESOURCE

There are several published estimates of the total amount of methane stored in gas hydrate worldwide (Figure 2.3). These estimates range over several orders of magnitude and are generally based on an estimate of the volume of continental margins and Arctic permafrost basins that fall within the gas hydrate stability zone (GHSZ) and their assumed gas hydrate content. A widely cited estimate suggests that gas hydrate may account for 1019 g of carbon (1.87x 1016m3), an amount approximately twice that of all other hydrocarbon resources combined and 100 times that of conventional gas resources (Kvenvolden and Lorenson, 2001). Milkov (2004) has shown that global estimates of the methane stored in gas hydrate have decreased over time, and suggests that the estimate of Kvenvolden (1988) may be too large by a factor of 10 (Figure 2.3). Milkov’s estimate, however, does not include focused deposits, which are of most interest to resource evaluation. The global distribution of such hydrate “sweet spots” is not well known because the high-resolution seafloor and subseafloor imaging studies needed to identify such deposits are rare. The possible magnitude of this resource, coupled with an ever-increasing demand for energy, has driven national research and development programs in the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, and India to assess the potential resource value of methane hydrate and develop recovery techniques.

Consumption of natural gas in the United States has been increasing rapidly for the past several decades (Figure 2.4). Moreover, because natural


(a)

(b)

FIGURE 2.2 (a) Gas hydrate recovered from beneath the seafloor offshore Oregon. (b) Burning methane released from gas hydrate as it dissociates. SOURCES: (a) Figure courtesy of the Ocean Drilling Project at Texas A&M University, and photographer John Beck; (b) figure reprinted with permission from Dr. Stephen Masutani, University of Hawaii, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Ocean Resources Applications Laboratory. Copyright © 2003 Ocean Resources Applications Laboratory. Photographer Liujuan Tang.


This study

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year of estimate

104

103

102

10

1

0.1

Glo

bal v

olum

e of

hyd

rate

-bou

nd g

as

(10

m3

15)

FIGURE 2.3 Global estimates of the volume of hydrate-bound gas in marine sediments versus the year in which the estimate was made. SOURCE: Data from Milkov (2004). Reprinted from Milkov (2004), Figure 1A, and with permission of Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam.

gas is a cleaner-burning fuel, it is expected to be preferred for the next several decades even if alternative energy sources are developed to replace fossil fuel. A shortfall in natural gas supply from conventional and unconventional sources is expected to occur in about 2020 (Energy Information Administration, 2002). Methane hydrate from below the permafrost in the Arctic or beneath the seafloor in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) may have the potential to alleviate this projected shortfall.

It is important to note that while global and national inventories of the total amount of methane stored in gas hydrate are useful for bringing attention to the importance of gas hydrate studies, these


FIGURE 2.4 Consumption of natural gas in the United States has been increasing rapidly for the past several decades. SOURCE: Figure courtesy of Ted McCallister, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy; modified from Energy Information Administration (2002). estimates are of limited value in evaluating the production potential of a gas hydrate deposit. To do this, a better understanding of the geologic factors that lead to highly concentrated hydrate deposits and their and their geophysical dynamics is needed. Gas hydrate equilibrates with gas, and a better knowledge of the gas-gas hydrate system is required to understand resources on the seafloor as well as the potential effects of hydrate on global climate and on seafloor stability.

GAS HYDRATE AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas with a Greenhouse Warming Potential (GWP) 23 times that of CO2 on a per-molecule basis. Because methane is much less abundant than CO2 in the atmosphere today, 1.7 parts per million (ppm) compared with 370 ppm, methane’s total anthropogenic warming impact is only about one-half that of CO2. Methane is also the primary gaseous constituent of naturally occurring


gas hydrate deposits. Sudden release of methane from gas hydrate therefore has the potential to affect global climate.

Dickens (2003a) has proposed that gas hydrate may act as a sort of capacitor in the global carbon and climate cycle, storing large amounts of methane until nature triggers a change in the system that results in destabilization, releasing it to the ocean and atmosphere. Several invest-tigators have postulated both negative and positive feedback effects from gas hydrate destabilization in response to global warming and/or sea level change (Paull et al., 1991; Kennett et al., 2003). One such scenario is that rising sea level in response to global warming and melting of the ice caps will flood the Arctic coastal plain, melting the permafrost and releasing methane from Arctic gas hydrate (Kvenvolden, 1993a). An alternative scenario, with a negative feedback, is that climate cooling will lower sea level, decreasing the pressure on the seafloor and destabilizing gas hydrate, thus releasing methane to the atmosphere and counteracting the cooling (Paull et al., 1991). Recently, isotopic evidence for the release of methane from gas hydrate during a dramatic warming period accompanied by mass extinctions in the Paleocene has been documented (Dickens et al., 1995). Several other such warming episodes have also been suggested and attributed to destabilization of gas hydrate (e.g., Nisbet, 1990; Haq, 1998).

The most recent hypothesized effect is the Quaternary “clathrate gun” hypothesis (Kennett et al., 2003), which speculates that sudden releases of methane from submarine gas hydrate are responsible for Quaternary fluctuations of Earth’s climate on orbital and millennial time scales. This hypothesis is controversial (Dickens, 2003b). Atmospheric methane concentrations (reconstructed from polar ice cores) varied rapidly between 450 and 700 parts per billion (ppb) during these millennial events. Alter-native or complementary explanations for the rapid changes in methane concentration call on expansion and contraction of wetlands in response to the climatic change (e.g., Brook et al., 1999; Maslin and Burns, 2000). Alternative explanations for the millennial fluctuations in Earth’s climate cite changes in thermohaline circulation (e.g., Clark et al., 2002). In summary, there are some interesting but highly speculative hypotheses that attribute past climate variations to methane hydrate release. These hypotheses have yet to be confirmed, and even the most emphatic proposals suggest that much more research is needed.

Methane oxidation in the ocean is an important controlling factor in the atmospheric release of methane. Microbes are effective at oxidizing methane in sediment and the water column under both oxic and anoxic


conditions. Anaerobic oxidation is nearly total in diffusion-controlled anoxic sediments (Reeburgh, 1980; Alperin et al., 1988) and is a major sink term (almost 100 times larger than the next sink term, evasion at the air-sea interface) in the Black Sea water column budget (Reeburgh et al., 1991). Methane concentrations in oxic water columns are much lower than in anoxic sediments, and there have been direct oxidation rate measurements. For example, Valentine et al. (2001) made tracer mea-surements of methane oxidation rates in the Eel River basin, an area of active hydrate disassociation and seafloor venting. Their results are consistent with studies involving independently-dated ocean water masses by Scranton and Brewer (1978) and Rehder et al. (1999) that show a time scale for methane oxidation of about 50 years. The ocean would be a much larger source of atmospheric methane if not for this oxidizing effect (Reeburgh et al., 1993).

To quantify the role of gas hydrate in global warming, research is needed in the following areas:

• quantification of the distribution of gas hydrate in marine sedi-ments and polar land areas;

• determination of the geologic time scales over which gas hydrate forms;

• determination of methane flux, including oxidation effects, into the ocean from vents associated with focused methane hydrate deposits; and

• knowledge of the historical latitudinal distributions and geometric configurations of land masses and ocean basins.

GAS HYDRATE AND SEAFLOOR STABILITY

The impact of gas hydrate on seafloor stability is important for evaluating the safety of offshore structures as well as for understanding its role in climate change. Depressurized gas hydrate is metastable (Figure 2.5). If temperature increases at a fixed pressure or if pressure decreases at a fixed temperature, hydrate may pass out of the stability zone and dissociate causing a geohazard. A geohazard is defined as a constraint imposed by a particular geological feature or process that may have an adverse effect on the natural environment or any man-made operation. For example, slope instability associated with the dissociation of a hydrate is a geohazard. Since hydrate encases methane at high concentrations, when

31

31

FIG

UR

E 2.

5 M

etha

ne h

ydra

te st

abili

ty in

Arc

tic a

nd m

arin

e sy

stem

s. SO

UR

CE:

Cou

rtesy

of K

eith

A. K

v env

olde

n, U

.S. G

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey.


it is destabilized, the sediment may be converted to a gassy, water-rich fluid, thereby triggering seafloor subsidence and massive landslides.

There is circumstantial evidence that gas hydrate may contribute to slope instability along continental margins, especially during periods of lower sea level (e.g., Nisbet and Piper, 1998). Since landslides can lead to tsunamis that threaten coastal communities, a better understanding of this correlation is needed to ensure the safety of offshore structures and cables. This in turn requires a better understanding of the distribution of gas hydrate in marine sediments and the development of a means to estimate its distribution through the appropriate combination of remote sensing and ground-truthed data. Efforts to understand this phenomenon and to develop a predictive model through detailed analysis of in situ conditions are ongoing—for example, in the region of the Storrega slide, off the coast of Norway (Bouriak et al., 2000; Bryn et al., 2003).

Soil instability induced by offshore drilling and production operations represents a potential geohazard adjacent to offshore structures, where hydrate occurrence may result in foundation problems. Commercial oil and gas drilling operations and research drilling associated with the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) are moving into regions where gas hydrate may present a safety issue. Numerous drilling and production problems are attributed to the presence of hydrate: for example, uncontrolled gas release during drilling operations, well-casing collapse, and gas leakage to the surface. Gas hydrate may dissociate (subsurface) due to heating by warm drilling fluids or from the production of hot hydrocarbons from depth during conventional production. Moreover, efforts to extract oil or gas from beneath hydrate-bearing sediment may decrease the pressure at the base of the gas hydrate stability field. Any of these processes can result in hydrate dissociation and a dramatic change in the geotechnical properties of the sediment, leading to borehole instability, release of gas, and potential structural and safety concerns. Although there is anecdotal evidence of structural collapse due to gas hydrate dissociation, industry generally avoids areas where hydrate deposits are suspected to be, thereby limiting accessibility to hydrocarbon resources.

DISTRIBUTION AND DYNAMICS OF GAS HYDRATE IN NATURE

Regardless of whether the objective is to understand the impact of

hydrate on long-term climate change or to predict the stability of an off-shore structure, it is clear that a better understanding of the factors that


control gas hydrate distribution within sediments, validation of remote sensing estimates of hydrate distribution, and predictive models of the response of gas hydrate to environmental perturbation are needed. In this section the current state of knowledge of these issues is summarized briefly.

Figure 2.5 shows schematically the physical setting that determines gas hydrate stability in Arctic and marine environments. Whether gas hydrate can form is determined by pressure and temperature in the subsurface, as well as by the availability of enough gas and water to form hydrate. Beneath Earth’s surface, pressure is approximately proportional to depth, although the detailed relationship between depth and pressure requires knowledge of the density and porosity of the sediments and knowledge of whether the pressure is hydrostatic or lithostatic3 (or in between). The temperature is dependent on the local geothermal gradi-ent, which is determined by the regional geologic setting and by local subsurface hydrology.

In the Arctic, temperatures and pressures appropriate for gas hydrate formation are encountered several hundred meters beneath the surface within the permafrost zone. The GHSZ, however, extends for several hundred meters beneath this region, until the effect of increasing temper-ature overtakes the effect of increasing pressure. In the oceans, the top of the GHSZ is encountered within the water column at a depth that de-pends on ocean temperature and ranges from about 300 to 500 m. The seafloor at greater than 500 m water depth is everywhere within the GHSZ. In the subsurface, the thickness of the stability zone depends on water depth and on the geothermal gradient. With a constant geothermal gradient, the thickness increases as water depth increases. As the geo-thermal gradient increases, the thickness of the stability zone decreases. Subsurface hydrology can locally perturb the geothermal gradient by transporting warm fluids from greater depth into the gas hydrate stability field.

It is important to realize that gas hydrate is not present at every location with favorable conditions as specified in Figure 2.5. Hydrate will be present only if the concentration of hydrate-forming gas is high enough that porewaters are supersaturated, and the degree of super-saturation depends on the salinity of the porewater and on the type of gas present to form gas hydrate. The phase boundary shown in both panels of 3 Hydrostatic pressure is the pressure exerted per unit area by a column of water from sea level to a given depth. Lithostatic pressure is the pressure imposed by the weight of overlying material.


Figure 2.5 applies to pure methane hydrate. Porewater in sediments can be either fresher than seawater or several times more saline, depending on local geologic conditions or the rate of in situ gas hydrate formation, thus changing the local GHSZ by hundreds of meters. The presence of higher-order hydrocarbon gases (ethane, propane, etc.) will also change the phase boundary significantly. Finally, kinetic factors affect the rate of hydrate formation, where gas hydrate will form in the sediments, and the effect that gas hydrate has on the physical properties of the sediment. These properties depend on sediment grain size (e.g., Clennell et al., 1999) and probably other parameters such as effective stress (e.g., Torres et al., 2004). Understanding this complexity in nature requires inter-disciplinary studies that include laboratory experiments to monitor gas hydrate formation under controlled conditions, numerical modeling experiments to extend laboratory results, and field observations. Field observations are essential to ground-truth laboratory measurements and improve modeling experiments.

Origin of the Gas in Gas Hydrate

Two sources have been hypothesized to explain the origin of the free and seeping gas associated with hydrate. The first hypothesized source is thermogenic gas from deep beneath the GHSZ.4 The second is biogenic methane generated in situ by microbial methanogenesis (e.g., Claypool and Kvenvolden, 1983; Cragg et al., 1996; Boetius et al., 2000). These sources can be distinguished on the basis of isotopic ratios, and the relative contribution of each source varies from site to site. Numerical models that incorporate one or both types of sources have been proposed and used to predict the amount of gas hydrate present and the time scales over which gas hydrate deposits develop (e.g., Rempel and Buffett, 1998; Egeberg and Dickens, 1999; Xu and Ruppel, 1999; Davie and Buffett, 2001; Chen and Cathles, 2003; Torres et al., 2004). Measured porewater profiles of methane and sulfate (e.g., Ruppel, 2000; Valentine et al., 2001) have been used to estimate the relative rates of hydrate

4 Biogenic gas is produced by microbial processes. Thermogenic gas is produced via the thermal breakdown of heavier hydrocarbons. Note that much of the thermogenic gas may have originally had a biogenic origin; it has been altered by increased temperature and pressure encountered when it was deeply buried because of rapid sedimentation or underthrusting in a subduction zone.


replenishment via upward methane diffusion from the sediments below and hydrate decomposition due to interactions with warmer water above.

New data will improve estimates of the balance between these two sources at different sites. When combined with modeling to constrain rates of gas hydrate formation and maintenance, these data can be used to assess the amount and concentration of methane ultimately recoverable from any particular ocean-floor hydrate deposit. Measurements of methane flux (the amount of methane per unit time flowing through and equilibrating with a particular gas hydrate deposit) will be necessary to help constrain these models and address the following issues:

• How much, how fast, and where is methane venting from bottom seeps into the water column?

• How much methane is venting through the water column and in sediment porewaters?

• How much methane is coming from an underlying gas hydrate deposit versus an underlying gas reservoir versus in situ sediment (biogenic) sources?

• How fast is the methane moving, and what is its rate of venting? • How quickly is the methane biodegraded both in sediments and

in the water column? • Where does gas venting occur, and is it widespread or localized?

Observations of Gas Hydrate Mounds at the Seafloor

Mounds of gas hydrate have been observed directly at the seafloor during submersible dives and by using deep-towed cameras and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). In some cases, most notably in the Gulf of Mexico, these mounds are not associated with well-defined regional bottom simulating reflectors (BSRs),5 indicating that the source of the gas is narrowly focused not diffuse (Milkov and Sassen, 2001). The rough topography of many of these seafloor gas hydrate deposits (Roberts and Carney, 1997) also suggests a structurally controlled, deep-

5 A BSR is a discontinuity that causes a seismic reflection which approximately follows topography and can cut across sediment horizons. It occurs at the depth where the predicted temperature and pressure indicate the base of the GHSZ and is thought to result from the transition of gas hydrate to free gas in the sediment porespace, which causes a change in seismic impedance.


seated source. Additional occurrences of seafloor gas hydrate mounds have been inferred from high-resolution images of seafloor reflectivity (Johnson et al., 2003) and from methane anomalies in the water column (e.g., Merewether et al., 1985; Paull et al., 1995; Salyuk et al., 2002; Heeschen et al., 2003). In addition, in some areas in the Gulf of Mexico, there is geophysical evidence that the upward movement of gas can cause disruption of the sediment layers (Hovland, 2000). However, re-mote sensing of these focused deposits is an imprecise science. Only a few inferred sites have been ground-truthed, and many seafloor mounds have been found by chance, including the recent discovery by fishermen of massive hydrate mounds offshore Vancouver Island (Spence et al., 2001)(Plate 3a,b).

Some research suggests that these seafloor gas hydrate deposits may represent only a small percentage of the total amount of gas hydrate present in marine sediments (Milkov, 2004); other research suggests that episodic focused flow probably represents a much larger flux than more dispersed deposits (e.g., Clennell et al., 2000; Judd, 2003). Seafloor deposits are the most accessible and best-studied deposits and are accompanied in most cases by complicated and poorly understood faunal assemblages. In all cases that have been studied in detail, these deposits contain a mixture of biogenic and thermogenic gases and result from geological structures that focus gas from a deep-seated source to the seafloor (e.g., Roberts, 2001; Sassen et al., 2001; Tréhu et al., 2003, 2004; Milkov et al., 2004a). In some continental margin gas hydrate provinces, such as the Gulf of Mexico, this type of deposit represents the primary gas hydrate occurrence studied to date. However, dispersed gas hydrate not associated with hydrocarbon deposits have also been encountered in the Gulf of Mexico’s Orca basin (Pflaum et al., 1986). In other areas, such as along the tectonically active continental margin offshore of the U.S. Pacific Northwest, several seafloor deposits have been found along with widespread subsurface deposits inferred from remote sensing data. New hydrate-gas seep deposits of both types continue to be found at a very rapid rate in all kinds of environments in many continental margins worldwide.

The vigorous expulsion of gas bubbles in the water column above seafloor hydrate mounds, even when the mound is well within the nominal gas hydrate stability field, testifies to the dynamic nature of these seafloor deposits and the large amounts of gas often associated with them. The time scales over which these mounds form, evolve, and are destroyed (either by dissociation or by mechanical removal from the seafloor due to a spontaneous buoyancy instability and/or earthquakes) are poorly known. A


better understanding of these dynamic parameters leading to hydrate formation and destruction is necessary to evaluate whether these seafloor hydrate mounds represent a usable resource, whether they are an important factor in transferring methane from the ocean to the atmosphere, and where there may be enough free gas present to destabilize the slope.

Uncertainties of Estimating Gas Hydrate Volume in the Subsurface

Although gas hydrate could exist anywhere in the ocean basins at

depths greater than 300-500 m, it is generally believed that there is not enough gas present to form gas hydrate throughout most of this region. Indications that gas hydrate is abundant along the margins of continents and in the Arctic have come primarily from seismic studies ground-truthed by very limited data from drilling deep boreholes. Some of the first indications of gas hydrate in marine sediments were based on recognition of a seismic reflection that cut across geologic reflections in continental margin sediments. The reflection occurred at depth beneath the seafloor and was consistent with the predicted depth of the base of the GHSZ (Tucholke et al., 1977; Shipley et al., 1979). The negative polarity of this reflection (known as BSR because it follows the seafloor rather than geologic features where the seafloor is approximately flat) indicates that it results from a decrease in velocity with depth. It is thought that this decrease in velocity with depth occurs because gas hydrate-bearing sediments with relatively high seismic velocity overlie free gas containing sediments with lower velocity.

The presence of a BSR is an imperfect proxy for the presence or quantity of gas hydrate because sediments containing gas hydrate have been recovered from sites beneath which there is no BSR (Mathews and von Huene, 1985), and because it does not provide information on focused gas hydrate deposits near the seafloor. Moreover, models of gas hydrate concentration based on BSR amplitude (e.g., Hyndman and Spence, 1992; Bangs et al., 1993; Lee et al., 1993; Singh et al., 1993; Katzman et al., 1994; Pecher et al., 1996; Korenaga et al., 1997; Tini-vella and Accaino, 2000; Chand and Minshull, 2003) depend on a number of parameters, several of which are poorly constrained. For example, the effect of gas hydrate on seismic velocity depends strongly on whether the gas hydrate forms part of the sediment matrix or whether it forms as detached grains in the porespace (e.g., Helgerud et al., 1999).


The baseline seismic velocity in the absence of gas hydrate, needed to calibrate models, is also generally not known. Opportunities to test seismic models are limited because only a few sites have been drilled to date (e.g., MacKay et al., 1994; Holbrook et al., 1996; Guerin et al., 1999). Moreover, even when geophysical estimates of gas hydrate content have been compared to drilling results, in situ estimates have uncertainties due to limitations of the tools available to estimate the amount of gas hydrate in boreholes and recovered cores.

The imperfect knowledge of the distribution of gas hydrate will be much improved with the widespread and routine use of pressure coring techniques that enable direct measurement of the concentration of hydrate in sediments. For example, the Maurer/Anadarko project (dis-cussed in Chapter 3), funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) Methane Hydrate R&D (Research and Development) Program, focused on recovering and testing hydrate deposits and serves as an example of how such drilling and sampling efforts could be set up and implemented. In addition, Leg 204 of the Ocean Drilling Program was also successful in recovering hydrate cores and serves as an example of how to core, retrieve, and handle cores containing hydrate (Tréhu et al., 2003, 2004).

Quantifying the Amount of Gas Hydrate in Boreholes The only means for ground-truthing in situ estimates of gas hydrate

is through analysis of geological, geophysical, and geochemical data from deep boreholes. Comprehensive studies of boreholes in gas hydrate-bearing regions include Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 164 to the Blake Ridge gas hydrate province of the Atlantic continental margin, ODP Legs 146 and 204 to the gas hydrate province of the Cascadia accretionary complex off the U.S. Pacific Northwest, the Mallik I and II projects in the Canadian Arctic, and drilling programs in the Nankai accretionary complex offshore Japan. All of these projects have been large multidisciplinary international efforts. DOE’s participation in Mallik II (2002) and ODP Leg 204 is discussed in Chapter 3.

To estimate the amount of in situ gas hydrate accurately, several types of data must be integrated, because different tools for quantifying the gas hydrate content of sediments penetrated and sampled by a borehole have different sensitivity and spatial resolution (e.g., Tréhu et al., 2004). Traditional tools for determining the gas hydrate content of recovered cores include measuring the total amount of gas released and recovered under pressure (e.g., Dickens et al., 2000; Milkov et al., 2003)


and the dilution of porewater chloride concentration due to release of fresh water when gas hydrate in the core dissociates after core recovery (e.g., Hesse and Harrison, 1981; Ussler and Paull, 2001). For logistical reasons, these techniques sample only a small percent of the total core and provide measurements that are spaced meters to tens of meters apart. Recently, these robust but spatially incomplete measurements have been supplemented by infrared core scans, which can image all cores. This technique is based on the endothermic property of gas hydrate dissocia-tion, which results in cold spots where gas hydrate is currently or has recently dissociated (Ford et al., 2003; Tréhu et al., 2003, 2004).

Because core recovery is often incomplete, geophysical logging methods are needed to sample the entire borehole. Borehole tools to identify gas hydrate through high-resolution geophysical measurements include resistivity imaging of the borehole wall (Collett and Ladd, 2000), determining elastic wave velocities and attenuation (e.g., Guerin et al., 1999), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging of the borehole. Because a core is not needed to obtain these estimates, geophysical borehole estimates can be made less expensively and in portions of the borehole where recovery is problematic. It is essential that geophysical techniques be ground-truthed by direct measurement and by employing geochemical methods.

Insights from Laboratory Studies of Gas Hydrate

Laboratory studies are an essential component of the effort to understand how gas hydrate behaves in nature. For example, knowledge of the hydrate molecular structure will enable a better analysis of the question of whether energy can be recovered economically from Arctic or oceanic gas hydrate. Similarly, a macroscopic field experiment often indicates the need for more laboratory-based science to address issues such as production efficiency. A typical progression of science involves experiments at the bench or laboratory level, followed by progression to the pilot scale, leading eventually to full-scale field-testing. The targeted projects funded by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program and dis-cussed in Chapter 3 all follow this model to some degree. Below are some of the insights and milestones determined from laboratory studies, since Humphrey Davy first discovered hydrate in 1811, almost two centuries ago:


• The molecules that form guests in the hydrate structure are smaller than 0.9 nm—the size of normal pentane (Chen et al., 2001).

• The types of hydrate crystals that contain hydrocarbons form three different structures (I, II, and H), each of which has been observed in nature. Most oceanic and permafrost hydrates are structure I (Sloan, 2003).

• The pressures, temperatures, and compositions of hydrate have been measured under laboratory conditions. Accurate hydrate thermodynamic models, tested against this field and laboratory data, have provided an extremely cost-effective alternative to field experiments for the assessment of gas hydrate production techniques (Ballard and Sloan, 2002).

• The pressure and temperature effects on hydrate stability of other components found in nature (e.g., salts, water, ice, sediments) have been measured and/or determined theoretically. These parameters are important for determining hydrate stability in the permafrost or the ocean (Ballard and Sloan, 2002).

• The conditions for heat and mass transport through hydrate have been measured. Such measurements allow predictions of dissociation in natural hydrate reservoirs (Mori and Mochizuki, 2000).

• The geological, geochemical, and geophysical settings and properties of hydrate have been measured. These types of measurement are frequently obtained on large projects in the field and then reanalyzed in smaller-scale laboratory experiments using both natural and artificial samples (Ripmeester, 2000).

• Although all of the above results are for the steady state, it is clear that the natural environment is dynamic. Inroads are being made in measurement and prediction of the time-dependent, kinetic nature of hydrate. Such measurements will enable us to determine how rapidly hydrate will dissociate once a pulse of heat reaches the hydrate front (Clarke and Bishnoi, 2001).

Even with the laboratory-based insights summarized above, many

uncertainties remain about how gas hydrate will respond to production attempts in the field. It must be noted that laboratory experiments rarely mimic nature unless they are very carefully designed and based on reliable in situ measurements. An interactive relationship between labor-


atory, numerical, and field experiments is critical for developing an economically viable plan for extracting energy from gas hydrate.

FEASIBILITY OF PRODUCING METHANE FROM GAS HYDRATE

Although the total amount of gas hydrate in the marine environment

is estimated to be much greater than the amount of hydrate in the permafrost, permafrost hydrate is more accessible. Therefore, the first major effort to evaluate the feasibility of producing methane from gas hydrate was conducted by an international consortium in the northern Canadian permafrost. This project, carried out in 2002, was known as the Mallik II well (Takahashi et al., 2003) and followed a 1998 effort to characterize the hydrate at this site (Dallimore et al., 1999). The DOE was a participant in this effort, which is described in more detail in Chapter 3.

Given sufficient in-place reserves, there are no obvious technical or engineering roadblocks to prevent commercial production of gas from hydrate in the future. However, there are some technical and engineering challenges that have to be solved before commercial production can begin.

43

3

A Review of Methane Hydrate Research and Development Projects to Date

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Methane Hydrate Research and Development (R&D) Program is directed toward understanding the potential of methane hydrate as a natural gas resource, the role of methane hydrate formation and dissociation in global climate dynamics, and safety issues surrounding drilling and production activities in areas where methane hydrate is present. This chapter summarizes the project selection criteria and reviews science accomplished to date under this program.

PROJECT SOLICITATION AND AWARD CRITERIA

The selection process for research and development projects during the

course of the first three years of the program (outlined in Figure 3.1) has varied. Project solicitations for the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program were based initially on the results of two planning workshops and the resulting strategy documents (DOE, 1998, 1999). In addition, in August 2000, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and Chevron-Texaco held a Gulf of Mexico hydrate R&D planning workshop with 90 participants from NETL, industry, and academia. These planning efforts helped to frame the project solicitations, avoid duplication of ongoing research, and target relevant future research (DOE, 2004a). Information on science in the project selection process can be found in Chapter 5.

There are six solicitation or project types currently funded by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program (Table 3.1).

44

Bro

ad-b

ased

Sol

icita

tion

Pre

side

nts

Bud

get

Req

uest

App

ropr

iatio

n

DA

S -

Pro

gram

Fun

ding

Aut

horiz

atio

n

Sm

all

Bus

ines

sIn

nova

tion

Res

earc

h

Tar

gete

dS

olic

itatio

nN

atio

nal

Lab

Cal

lU

nsol

icite

dP

ropo

sal

Inte

rage

ncy

Tec

hnic

alC

oord

inat

ing

Tea

m R

evie

w

Mer

it-B

ased

Rev

iew

Coo

pera

tive

Agr

eem

ent

Mer

it-B

ased

Rev

iew

Mer

it-B

ased

Rev

iew

Mer

it-B

ased

Rev

iew

Coo

pera

tive

Agr

eem

ent

Fun

ded

Fie

ld W

ork

Pro

posa

l

Pee

r R

evie

w

Gra

nt

NE

TL

Pro

gram

Impl

emen

tatio

n P

lan

Pro

gram

Pla

ns /

Wor

ksho

p R

epor

t

NE

TL

In-H

ouse

Res

earc

h

Fun

ded

In-H

ouse

Wor

kP

ropo

sal

Inte

r-A

genc

yF

unds

Tra

nsfe

r

Site

Sup

port

Con

trac

t

NE

TL

Pro

gram

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Coo

pera

tive

Agr

eem

ent

Inte

rnal

/E

xter

nal

Mer

itR

evie

ws

FIG

UR

E 3.

1 Th

e D

OE

Met

hane

Hyd

rate

R&

D P

rogr

am p

roje

ct se

lect

ion

proc

ess.

NO

TE: D

AS

= D

eput

y A

ssis

tant

Sec

reta

ry. N

ETL

= N

atio

nal E

nerg

y Te

chno

logy

Lab

orat

ory.

SO

UR

CE:

Cou

rtesy

of B

rad

Tom

er a

nd R

ay B

osw

ell,

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Ene

rgy,

Nat

iona

l Ene

rgy

Tech

nolo

gy L

abor

ator

y,

Mor

gant

own,

Wes

t Virg

inia

.

A REVIEW OF PROJECTS TO DATE 45

TABLE 3.1 DOE-Funded Methane Hydrate Research from 2000 through 2003 by Solicitation or Project Type

FY 2001 funding

FY 2002 funding

FY 2003 funding

Totals for 2000-2003

(in dollars) Targeted solicitation 4,000,000 4,596,244 5,648,014 14,244,258

Broad-based solicitation 1,148,000 889,560 214,304 3,694,395

National laboratory 1,200,000 1,160,000 915,000 3,775,000

Interagency 1,298,870 1,077,438 491,000 3,342,308 NETL in-house projects 700,000 450,000 950,000 2,795,000

Other nonfederal government procurements

689,272 188,660 0 917,932

Total funding 9,036,142 8,361,902 8,218,318 28,768,893

SOURCE: Data from DOE, 2004a. Targeted solicitations were designed for a specific research area,

hence awards were issued exclusively for projects that matched the spec-ifications. The original program solicitation issued in 2001 was targeted and included studies addressing gas hydrate research needs in four specific research areas: (1) the Gulf of Mexico (both lab and field), (2) Alaska, (3) hydrate as a medium for transporting natural gas, and (4) gas hydrate modeling consortium and partnership development. The selec-tion criteria for these projects included technical criteria (scientific and technical merit, technical approach, and technical management capabilities) and government cost evaluation (DOE, 2004a). Six cooper-ative agreement awards with planned DOE allocations of $33.8 million (67 percent of planned program expenditures) resulted from this so-licitation, including three industrial projects with planned allocations of $30.8 million (63 percent of planned program expenditures through 2005). No awards were granted in the areas of transportation or modeling partnership development.


Broad-based solicitations were issued over a wide range of research areas. They have been used in years when funding is uncertain or too low to warrant a targeted solicitation (DOE, 2004a). Broad-based solicitations were issued in FY 2002 and 2003. This type of solicitation allows DOE to select projects that can fill gaps in the program. The selection criteria for FY 2000 and FY 2002 included technical criteria (scientific and technical merit and technical approach and understanding) and government cost evaluation (DOE, 2004a). All awards were issued to university-based principal investigators (PIs). The total planned expenditure for these projects is $3.7 million (8 percent of planned program expenditure).

National laboratory projects were used to fill critical gaps or to provide support for R&D activities being performed by others. Field-work proposals (FWPs) are grants typically made to other national laboratories via DOE National Laboratory Applied Research Calls (“lab calls”). The lab calls are competitive among all national laboratories, which must submit a proposal to NETL for merit review according to a defined technical need. FWPs are also used to fund industry studies that include national laboratory activities (up to 25 percent). In this case, the national laboratory receives direction from an industry partner. The source selection criteria for DOE lab calls included research concept and plan, applicant or team capabilities and facilities, and technology transfer (DOE, 2004a). To date, nine national laboratory projects have been funded with approximately $4 million (8 percent of planned total program expenditure).

Interagency projects are used to address gaps in research using an interagency agreement (DOE, 2004a). The study tasks are agreed upon at interagency Technical Coordinating Team (TCT) meetings and during subsequent collaboration between DOE and the agency doing the work. The DOE currently has interagency agreements with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with a total planned expenditure of $3.3 million from 2000 through 2005 (7 percent of total planned program expenditure).

NETL in-house projects are granted through a process of proposal submission and external and internal review. The NETL Office of Science and Technology (OST) submits proposals to the gas supply technology manager. The proposals are subjected to external merit review and internal NETL review for relevance to program needs. An external expert panel with members from industry, academia, other federal agencies, and national labs subsequently reviews the proposals considered relevant. Currently, three projects valued at $2.8 million have received funding using this mechanism (DOE, 2004a).


Other nonfederal government procurements include fixed-price contracts and small purchase orders. Fixed-price contracts are used when no other alternatives are available to perform unique tasks requiring timely action. Small purchase orders are limited to purchases of less than $100,000 geared primarily toward filling research gaps or to fill unique requirements in a timely manner. Eight projects are currently funded under this category, for a total planned allocation of $0.9 million.

PROJECT REVIEWS

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has funded 30 projects since its initiation in 2001. Prior to FY 2001 (FY 1997-2000), DOE funding for methane hydrate research was provided from NETL’s Stra-tegic Center for Natural Gas (SCNG) and not from appropriations of the Methane Hydrate R&D Act. A summary of projects with their goals and performers is presented in Appendix F. The DOE funding obligations and research-related project objectives are presented in Tables G.1 and G.2 of Appendix G. In order to capture the major efforts of the program, only projects with funding greater than $100,000 per year are reviewed in the following sections. Projects are reviewed under four major categories: (1) international collaborative projects; (2) industry-managed targeted research projects; (3) USGS programs; and (4) smaller-scale projects.

These projects were chosen by the committee based on the criteria of (1) potential for meeting the goals of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program and (2) the fraction of available funds that they consumed. The four categories comprise well over 90 percent of the funded work and include the most significant research since the program was established. Two major international collaborative efforts to which DOE contributed are reviewed because they are the only large-scale international efforts to study hydrate since the act was passed. They highlight the need for broad-based international and multidisciplinary efforts in planning and executing field experiments that are optimally designed to address com-plex natural gas hydrate systems.

The next section evaluates the status of three major DOE-industry collaborations funded under the category of targeted research projects. These are currently under way and are expected to consume more than 60 percent of the resources available through the program. After DOE-industry collaborations, USGS programs sponsored by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program have the largest budget. The USGS has a long


tradition of leadership in U.S. hydrate research on all fronts (resource evaluation, field observations, and laboratory experiments). The final section evaluates smaller-scale investments of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program. These investments include a seafloor observatory in the Gulf of Mexico focused on seafloor mounds and vents. This is the largest program within the projects being conducted at an academic institution. Other university-based and laboratory studies are discussed in less detail.

It is worthwhile to note that with the exception of the Mallik project, Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 204, and some USGS projects, there are very few peer-reviewed publications resulting from the research funded by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program. Where available, publications are cited in the appropriate sections; however, much of the research currently funded by the program has not been published in the scientific or technical literature, limiting the publicly available know-ledge on gas hydrate.

INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS

International interest in understanding and developing hydrate is increasing. Countries such as Canada, Japan, and India are investing significant resources in hydrate research. Japan, for example, is reported to be investing $65 million in 2004 in hydrate research (information available at http://www.aapg.org/explorer/emd/03_11.cfm). Plans for 2004 include drilling and coring between 10 and 20 wells in the Nankai Trough off Japan’s East Coast, where gas hydrate was recovered during field studies in 2000. This Web site states:

The government of India also is funding a large national gas hydrate program to meet their growing gas requirements. Seismic data have been acquired on the Indian continental margin, and current plans call for drilling and coring dedicated gas hydrate wells in 2004.

Given this increase in international hydrate research, DOE has invested in some programs offered for participation.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has been cost-effective through participation in two leading international programs that were being developed some years before the Methane Hydrate Research and


Development Act of 2000. These projects both fall into the category of other nonfederal government procurements. Although less than 4 percent of the total DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program budget (Appendix G) was allocated to the Canadian Geological Survey Mallik 2002 program ($339,000) and the 2002 Joint Oceanographic Institutions Leg 204 project ($1.4 million, including matching funding), vital results were obtained. These include the following:

• It is possible to produce gas in combustible amounts from natural

hydrate reservoirs in the permafrost. • Models of gas production from a hydrate reservoir can be compared

to transient well-test data with tuned model parameters. • The models can be used to optimize future production techniques. • Oceanic hydrate samples can be compared and contrasted with

those from the permafrost for technology transfer. A brief overview of these projects illustrates the benefits of international collaboration.

Mallik 2002 International Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program participated in this

program, a multidisciplinary scientific and engineering program under-taken with a primary goal to “assess the recoverability and potential production characteristics of the onshore natural gas hydrate” (http://www. netl.doe.gov/newsroom/index.html), and which was given the 2003 Canadian Award of Excellence. The project was carried out at the Mallik gas hydrate field, Mackenzie Delta, Canada, a site where rich gas hydrate-bearing strata had been identified from international scientific drilling in 1998 (Dallimore et al., 1999; Plate 2b). The 2002 program was undertaken as collaboration between eight partners and was also incorporated into part of the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (Dallimore et al., 2002). The program had a total budget of $25 million ($13 million in direct funding; $12 million pledged in in-kind support), of which the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program contributed $339,000. The Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) and the Japan National Oil Corporation were the lead agencies coordinating the overall program. However, contributions were also made by GeoForschungs-


Zentrum Potsdam, the USGS, India (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Gas Authority of India, Ltd.), an industry joint venture party (made up of Chevron Canada Resources, BP Canada Energy Company, and Burlington Resources Canada, Ltd.) and the DOE.

The Mallik 2002 program provides an example of an integrated science and engineering research endeavor. The research team included approximately 100 scientists and engineers from more than 20 institutes in 7 countries. Two 1,188 m science observation wells and one 1,166 m production research well were drilled and instrumented (Dallimore et al., 2002). Numerous novel geophysical experiments were conducted, continuous cores were collected through the gas hydrate interval, and several climate and environmental studies were initiated. Full-scale field experiments in the production well monitored the physical behavior of the hydrate deposits in response to depressurization and thermal stimulation. The observation wells facilitated cross-hole tomography and vertical seismic profile experiments (before and after production) as well as the measurement of in situ formation conditions.

A post-field research program included laboratory and modeling studies to document the sedimentology, physical and petrophysical properties, geophysics, geochemistry, microbiology, and production behavior of the Mallik 2002 gas hydrate accumulation. The Mallik 2002 program was the theme of an international gas hydrate symposium held in Chiba, Japan, in December 2003, which was attended by more than 250 gas hydrate researchers. More than 70 technical papers were presented at this symposium (proceedings available at http://www.mh21 japan.gr.jp/english/index.html). A final publication stemming from the program is expected in 2004; it will include more than 65 technical papers and full public release of scientific data. In addition, the GSC maintains a project Web site where continuing information on the project may be obtained at http://gashydrate.nrcan.gc.ca/mallik2002/home.asp.

By providing funding support for the Mallik 2002 project, the DOE became a nonvoting partner in the program. In this capacity, the DOE was able to access and share all of the intellectual property and data developed through the program as well as enable project scientist participation. Three DOE labs actively contributed to the program as did a number of other U.S.-based researchers.


Ocean Drilling Program Leg 204

The ODP is an international partnership between the United States and 22 international partners that use the scientific drilling ship JOIDES Resolution to conduct basic research into biogeochemical processes and Earth history as recorded in sediments and rocks beneath the ocean floor. Projects are proposed by independent groups of investigators and are evaluated for scientific merit and “drilling readiness” through a series of peer reviews by individual scientists and international committees. Dril-ling generally represents the culmination of several years of integration of geological and geophysical data to ensure that drill sites are optimally positioned to address the questions posed by the project. Results from each program are communicated rapidly to the research community through comprehensive publications and through an extensive online database.

Two ODP programs, Leg 164 to the Blake Ridge offshore southeast U.S. continental margin in 1996 and Leg 204 to Hydrate Ridge offshore Oregon in 2002, were dedicated to understanding the distribution of gas hydrate in marine sediments and the processes leading to this distri-bution. Distribution of gas hydrate was also a secondary objective of several other ODP legs, including Leg 141 offshore Chile, Leg 146 offshore Oregon and Vancouver Island, and Leg 201 offshore Peru.

The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 supported a variety of activities associated with Legs 201 and 204 of the ODP through contracts to the Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI) and Columbia University. Leg 201 (January-March 2002) was focused on understanding microbial life deep within marine sediments. It also provided a test-bed for some new technologies that were instrumental in the success of Leg 204 (July-September 2002). Leg 204 was the second ODP leg dedicated to understanding gas hydrate, building on results from ODP Legs 146 and 164. During Leg 204, nine sites were drilled within a well-defined structural setting. Activities supported by DOE included:

• modifications of the ODP Pressure Core Sampler (PCS), which was

originally developed by ODP to sample gas hydrate on Leg 164; • construction of two new PCSs; • participation in Legs 201 and 204 of a new generation of pressure

coring tools (Hydrate Autoclave Coring Equipment [HYACE]) developed by a consortium funded by the European community;


• purchase of infrared (IR) cameras and associated software and construction; and

• leasing of downhole seismic instrumentation and of instrumen-tation to acquire logging-while-drilling (LWD) data during Leg 204.

DOE funds provided to the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) also supported participation of two scientists from these laboratories and postcruise studies on recovered samples from Leg 204. All data collected during Leg 204 were released in December 2003 with the Leg 204 Initial Report (Tréhu et al., 2003). This report is also available through the ODP database (http://www.odp.tamu.edu/database). Further analysis of results and interpretations has begun to appear in the peer-reviewed literature (Milkov et al., 2003, 2004a,b,c; Tréhu et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2004). All members of the shipboard party have an obligation to publish their results by January 2005.

The data gathered on Leg 204 greatly improved knowledge of the distribution of gas hydrate on continental margins and the dynamics of gas hydrate formation and dissociation in the marine environment. This provides the best-documented basis for technology transfer from permafrost to oceanic hydrate. The DOE investment of $1.4 million in Leg 204 represents less than 12 percent of the total cost of that leg (F. Rack, Joint Oceanographic Institutions, Washington, D.C., personal communi-cation, 2004), which illustrates the value of leveraging funds through international collaboration.

International Project Summary and Findings

By effectively leveraging funding, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program made a wise investment of relatively small resources toward several major international research efforts. It is clear that projects such as the Mallik 2002 Production Research Well Program and the ODP Leg 204 have led to significant qualitative and quantitative improve-ment in our understanding of gas hydrate processes in nature and their potential value as an energy resource. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program played a key role by contributing direct funding to these projects. Most important is that the participation by U.S. scientists in these international programs enhanced their success and ultimately


benefited U.S. programs by providing increased intellectual support. Success has been realized through the multidisciplinary and inter-national nature of the research and through careful attention to scientific overview, as well as checks and balances to ensure that these projects reached their research and development goals. Gas hy-drate research is truly a global activity, and the future design of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program will benefit by fostering and encouraging participation in international programs.

Future programs, however, will most likely require greater investment (e.g., a full partnership) and also more directed scientific leadership. Therefore, unless substantially greater resources are devoted to the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, the United States may fall behind other nations in leading hydrate development technology. Attention must also be given to ensure that international research ventures provide public access to data and reports. However, the U.S. DOE Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program is currently not funded at a level to allow participation in large scale international research efforts such as proposed for continuing studies at Mallik.

Substantial scientific efforts on methane hydrate research are in progress internationally, particularly in Japan, Canada, Germany, and India. Together with the United States, this international community has made substantial progress in the last five years towards realizing gas hydrate as an energy source. It will be to the benefit of all nations, including the United States, to foster further collaboration with groups conducting this research. Where appropriate, the DOE Methane Hy-drate R&D Program should be encouraged to participate in or to lead such endeavors.

INDUSTRY-MANAGED TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECTS

Approximately 61 percent of the planned DOE Methane Hydrate

R&D Program funding has gone toward three industry-managed flagship activities within the program. These three projects would not have been conceived or executed without that funding. Two methane hydrate projects were dedicated to energy-related research goals in Alaska: the BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. (BPXA) project and the Maurer/Anadarko project. A regional focus in Alaska is justified because there is general


agreement that it is more technically feasible to develop Arctic gas hydrate (i.e., higher concentrations, more easily accessible) than marine gas hydrate. As stated at the first meeting of this committee, in awarding these projects, the DOE philosophy has been, “If DOE can show that hydrate is producible, then industrial funding and project takeover may follow” (Allison, 2003). The third major hydrate project, the ChevronTexaco Joint Industry Project (JIP) aims to reduce the risk gas that hydrate pose to conventional oil and gas exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico. A JIP is a multipartner collaboration to leverage funding.

BP Exploration (Alaska) Project: Alaska North Slope Gas Hydrate Reservoir Characterization

The BPXA project is focused on resource extraction and includes a

phased approach. Phase I (October 2002 to October 2004 time frame) is a detailed evaluation of the distribution and concentration of gas hydrate in the Eileen field area (Plate 2a) by reviewing existing industry drilling data and industry seismic data. Phase I work is divided into 13 well-identified tasks that include geochemistry, resource assessment, and assessment of operational procedures for drilling and production. Reservoir modeling is also going on as part of Phase I to evaluate recovery schemes. Phase I funding from DOE to date has been $2.3 million, with BPXA contri-butions of $5.9 million, in mostly in-kind data, consisting of well logs, history, and so forth. Phase II is expected to be approved in late 2004 if justified by Phase I results. Further testing and development of a pilot production facility is planned for Phase III in late 2005.

Project management is provided by a BP-employed consultant who has effectively engaged several working teams, including the University of Alaska, the University of Arizona, and other consultants. Involvement of outside academic and government researchers has been encouraged on an “as-needed” basis to address specific research requirements. The proponents of this project have made it clear that a decision to continue to Phase II of the project must be justified by a rigorous appraisal of Phase I results, which must be approved by BPXA.

No specific scientific output has been appraised due to the early stages of the research, but based on presentations to the committee and the reporting contained in the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program Web site (http://www.netl.goe.gov/scng/hydrate/), the BPXA project appears to have good technical oversight and a good management framework. If followed


through to its completion, the BPXA project has the potential to establish the United States as a leading player in hydrate resource research. The chances of success are increased because BPXA has chosen a site where industry has considerable hydrate experience, including the first hydrate-associated well developed in the West in 1972, with dedicated well-log and coring studies. A well-constrained framework for gas hydrate occur-rence has been published previously (Collett, 1983). The project is guided by clear objectives that are communicated effectively, although the only publication resulting from this project to date is a detailed article in the DOE hydrate newsletter (Hunter, 2004). While the BPXA project appears to be on track to meet its scientific goals and is consistent with the intent of all DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program-funded projects, more effort to communicate the results publicly in a peer-reviewed, archival journal is recommended. A project Web site, for example, would be valuable. The decision to proceed from Phase I to Phase II should be made by taking into account the basic goals of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D program and with external expert review. One important consideration in this regard is to ensure that the data sets and results are disclosed publicly, as generally required for projects funded by the U.S. government.

Project managers reported that a decision to proceed with the drilling phase was entirely BP’s, so that even after a considerable expenditure of DOE funds, the industry partner could make a decision that would affect whether the project could proceed. This sort of contract precludes the idea of “checks and balances” inherent in most research and development, with only the contractor in control of the project. Future projects should prevent such imbalances in the decision-making process, for example by making a pre-agreement that the decision whether to drill should be made by an external science-based review panel.

Maurer/Anadarko Project: Methane Hydrate Production from Alaskan Permafrost

The objectives of this project were to (1) analyze existing geological

and geophysical data and obtain new field data required to predict hydrate occurrences; (2) test the best methods and tools for drilling and recovering hydrate; and (3) plan, design, and implement a program to safely and economically drill and produce gas from hydrate in Alaska. A well was drilled as part of a two-year, cost-shared partnership between DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Maur-


er Technology, Inc., and Noble Engineering and Development. The project location is an area southwest of the Kuparuk River oil field between the Tarn and the Eileen gas hydrate fields (Plate 2a) in an area where gas hydrate has not previously been reported (Collett et al., 1986). However, proponents of the Maurer/Anadarko project postulated that gas hydrate deposits might be present in the area. The basis for this prognosis is unavailable because the assessment data are proprietary.

The Maurer/Anadarko project began in September 2001 with an initial office study and development of a state-of-the-art field laboratory to be housed within containerized field modules. Goals for Hot Ice No. 1 well included continuous coring to a target depth of 732 m and production testing of a gas hydrate deposit. Due primarily to a late start to the field program, field work was limited to only 22 days in 2002, and the well was suspended at 427 m, just below the base of permafrost and above the main gas hydrate target. A second field effort that reached the target depth of the Hot Ice No. 1 well was completed in the winter of 2003-2004, but no hydrate was encountered. Project Leader Tom Williams, vice president, Maurer Technology, stated, “The absence of hydrate at the site is in itself a significant scientific finding . . .”(Fisher, 2004; see also DOE, 2004b).

The planned DOE contribution to the project was $6.9 million and the corporate contribution totaled $5.7 million, of mostly in-kind contribution. A major achievement of this project was the construction and testing of a self-contained field laboratory. Because gas hydrate-bearing samples are not stable at atmospheric conditions, the proponents felt it essential that physical property testing be conducted in the field. The core laboratory was built by purchasing modern commercial testing equipment. Some of this equipment, such as the bench nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), is uniquely suited for gas hydrate studies. While no gas hydrate core was collected during the field program (Petroleum News, 2004), the laboratory and equipment were tested using permafrost core.

Initial results of the Maurer/Anadarko project have been disseminated through a project Web site and through live Web casts from the field, which were presented at a few workshops in 2003 and 2004 and available during the drilling operation on the Noble Corporation Web site. These public products have focused primarily on education and public relations. (More information is available at http://www.maurertechnology.com/Engr/RDprojects/HydratesHome.asp,


http://www.maurertechnology.com/JIP/GasHydates/NGHhome.asp, and http://fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/03/tl_arcticplatform.html.)

Few data are available to enable an external evaluation of the site selection process. The USGS prepared a report for DOE on the potential gas hydrate accumulations along the western and southern margins of the Kuparauk River Unit, North Slope, Alaska. The report, provided as a memorandum to DOE (and made available to the Anadarko project team) in December 2001 (Collett, 2001), concluded that the likelihood of en-countering gas hydrate at the proposed Anadarko Hot Ice Drill sites was very low—a point reiterated in subsequent USGS communications from September and October 2002. Given that coring hydrate was a stated objective of the project, and the concerns of the USGS scientists evalu-ating the data, an external science review of the project would have been an appropriate next step. This provides an example of a project in which an external, science-based review process would have benefited the program and have allowed an evaluation of options (e.g., drill sites) or identification of potential problems.

ChevronTexaco JIP: Characterizing Natural Gas Hydrates in the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico—Applications for Safe Exploration

There are eight DOE-funded projects in the Gulf of Mexico; of these,

the ChevronTexaco JIP is the largest and most prominent. The objectives of the ChevronTexaco project are to improve the use of seismic methods in order to identify and understand the properties of gas hydrate in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico and to better understand how the presence of gas hydrate affects seafloor stability. Improvement of existing well bore stability models to include gas hydrate is also a major goal of the program, as is field work to collect core and conduct detailed borehole geophysical data for ground-truthing.

Funding for the ChevronTexaco JIP began in 2002 with an initial DOE investment of $1.4 million in FY 2001, followed by $129,000 in FY 2002 and $2.6 million in FY 2003. The total planned project budget (through 2005) is $10.6 million from the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program and $3 million from industry. Broad participation in the JIP was sought through the offer to industry and government of partnership in the program at a $50,000 annual membership fee. Presently ConocoPhillips, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), Halliburton, Schlumber-ger/Western Geco, Total, Japan National Oil Corporation, and Reliance


India Ltd. are members, contributing an additional total of $350,000 annually to the research program. The first major field project for the JIP is a multihole drilling program now scheduled for spring 2005 (Fire in the Ice, 2004), with possible drill sites in the vicinity of the Keathley Canyon and Atwater Valley areas of the Gulf of Mexico.

Funding for the CheveronTexaco JIP supported three workshops and several subcontracts. The workshops were broadly advertised with significant community (i.e., government, academia, industry) input. The ChevronTexaco JIP enthusiastically welcomes all contributions at its workshops, including those from individual scientists. These workshops have provided community input to develop the goals detailed in the project objectives.

Appendix D provides a summary of the DOE Office of Fossil Energy Methane Hydrate R&D Conference on hydrate research and develop-ment, and a summary of the Gulf of Mexico Naturally Occurring Gas Hydrates JIP Workshop that followed, written by members of the committee who attended. One of the conclusions from the DOE Office of Fossil Energy Methane Hydrate R&D Conference was that few data exist on the physical properties of hydrate in fine-grained sediments because of the difficulty in forming hydrate within fine-grained soils in a laboratory setting.

To address this issue, a research subcontract was given to Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) to measure relevant physical properties of gas hydrate within sediments. GIT embarked on an extensive study of gas hydrate in a variety of sediments (i.e., clay, silt, sand). However, due to the complexity of creating methane hydrate within finer-grained sediments, the researchers chose to work with tetrahydrofuran (THF) hydrate. This decision has generated discussions within the hydrate research community regarding the applicability of undertaking laboratory studies of sediments containing THF hydrate for the specific goal of understanding the physical properties of natural sediments containing methane hydrate (Appendix D). In particular, THF forms a structure II hydrate, whereas methane forms a structure I hydrate. The differences in the two structures are shown and discussed in Figure 2.1. This fundamental difference in the crystal habit and other aspects of the geo-chemistry of THF-water systems may alter the occurrence of gas hydrate within the porous medium itself and, as a result, directly affect the measured physical properties if the hydrate forms at contacts between sediment grains or in pore spaces. To date, this controversy has not been resolved. This case illustrates that an external, science-based peer review


could have identified a problem and corrected the research protocol before substantial work had been undertaken.

This subcontract to study the physical properties of sediments with hydrate reveals both strengths and weaknesses of the approach taken by the ChevronTexaco JIP. On the one hand, it illustrates the flexible, dynamic approach of this program, which allows new research directions when the need is identified through open, community-based discussion. On the other hand, it appears that scientific details of the approach used to address the problem were determined with limited scientific oversight. As discussed in Chapter 5, more rigorous scientific oversight of projects as they evolve would ensure that the proper approach is taken.

Targeted Research Project Summary and Findings

Although the issues vary, the committee’s review of the industry-managed, targeted research projects raises concerns about each that could limit the ability of these projects to contribute to the goals of the program. The industry-managed targeted research projects provide excellent opportunities to advance gas hydrate science and engineering. These projects should be commended for including researchers from academia and the federal agencies. However, a review of these projects raises questions concerning each of the large targeted projects undertaken as part of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. While the questions are different for each project, they have the potential to limit the application of the results to meet program goals. Two examples are taken from the BPXA and Maurer/Anadarko projects. The BPXA project suffers from a lack of publicly accessible data and results. In addition, the decision to drill has been left to the discretion of the industry partner without external scientific review. The drilling phase of the Maurer/Anadarko project was launched despite the existence of a knowledge base for predicting a low potential that it would accomplish its stated purpose of drilling and sampling hydrate. As was predicted before drilling commenced, no hydrate was encountered. This outcome was the result of a project assessment and evaluation process unsuited to recognize, evaluate, and select science-based investigations that would successfully address the objectives of the program.

Equally troubling for the large funded programs is the apparent absence of a required timely reporting process and release of project-linked databases. The issue that data from this publicly funded research


is not forthcoming must be addressed. The deficient reporting of useful results and linked reasons for major project decisions is not a matter of noncompliance but rather one of nonrequirement. Because of their large size and cost, special checks and balances should be implemented to ensure the success of industry-managed projects. Such special consider-ations would include the following:

• adhering to a science-based review of project proposals; • continual science-based assessment of project progress and milestones; • including a diverse project team with expert consultation; • maintaining a publicly available database; and • encouraging peer-reviewed publication of results.

USGS PROGRAMS SPONSORED BY THE DOE METHANE HYDRATE R&D PROGRAM

Of the federal agencies, the USGS has, over many years, developed

the most complete knowledge base on the geological occurrence and effects of gas hydrate (e.g., Kvenvolden, 1988, 1993a,b; Dillon et al., 1992, 1998; Lee et al., 1992, 1993; Booth et al., 1994, 1998; Circone et al., 2000; Collett and Ladd, 2000; Dillon and Max, 2000a,b; Stern et al., 2000, 2003; Kvenvolden and Lorenson, 2001; Cooper and Hart, 2003). This knowledge has had an impact on three different aspects of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program.

First, the USGS has been the primary agency providing evaluations of gas hydrate resources in the Arctic. This work has been supported, in part, by DOE through the support of USGS researchers who served on both Mallik projects and have given advice on geologic aspects of drilling for the two large industry projects in the Arctic that are being supported by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program. The USGS supported the Maurer/Anadarko drilling project with data, maps, and reports detailing the well-log evidence of gas hydrate in and around the Anadarko lease holdings.

The USGS has also been a close collaborator with the ChevronTexaco JIP in the Gulf of Mexico. In collaboration with the NRL, the Marine Geology group at USGS conducted two site-survey cruises to acquire two-dimensional high-resolution seismic data, sediment cores, and geochem-ical porewater data in support of the planned drilling. These data complement the existing moderate-resolution, three-dimensional seismic


data provided by Chevron-Texaco as part of its contribution to the JIP. Results from these cruises are being used in the planning process for the JIP. Based on the prior record of this group, it is likely that the data will be published in a timely manner for the benefit of the broader research community.

Finally, the USGS conducts laboratory experiments on natural and man-made gas hydrate in its Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Denver, Colorado, and Menlo Park, California offices. DOE has been funding these efforts at a modest level for more than a decade. The current DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has not resulted in any significant increase in support for these efforts, which have been providing basic and essential information on the geology and physical chemistry of gas hydrate. These groups are active in disseminating their results to the hydrate research community in peer-reviewed publications.

USGS Project Summary and Findings

The USGS has developed an extensive knowledge base on the geological occurrence of gas hydrate and supported several aspects of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program such as:

• providing evaluations of gas hydrate resources in the Arctic; • collaborating with the ChevronTexaco JIP in the Gulf of Mexico;

and • conducting laboratory experiments on natural and man-made gas

hydrate. The USGS’s long history of research and collaboration on gas hydrate

projects (both in the laboratory and the field) has provided basic and essential information on the chemistry and occurrence of gas hydrate. Continuing collaboration of USGS with the DOE would be valuable for future gas hydrate research under the Methane Hydrate R&D Program.

SMALLER-SCALE DOE METHANE HYDRATE R&D PROGRAM INVESTMENTS

While the bulk of the planned funding under the Methane Hydrate

Research and Development Act of 2000 has supported the above four


major projects (including USGS), the program has also supported 35 smaller contracts at levels ranging from $94,000 to $1,862,108 (planned cost) (DOE, 2004a). These can be grouped into three general categories: (1) University of Mississippi efforts to establish a seafloor observatory in the Gulf of Mexico, (2) other university-based studies, and (3) laboratory or modeling projects. The third category of projects is being conducted primarily in national laboratories, including Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), INEEL, and PNNL.

Seafloor Observatory in the Gulf of Mexico

Most of the contribution of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program to the academic community is in a single project coordinated by the University of Mississippi. The objective of the project is to establish a remote, multisensor monitoring station at a selected location within the hydrate stability zone of the northern Gulf of Mexico. This effort is the largest activity supported by the program that addresses basic research to assess environmental impacts of natural methane emissions from gas hydrate. It is a broad-based effort that includes subcontracts to eight different academic institutions in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. This observatory project, if successful, would provide basic in situ data on gas hydrate on the seafloor that would be beneficial to all three major parts of the hydrate initiative—resource assessment, seafloor stability, and environmental impacts of natural methane emissions.

Several projects in this category were briefly described in a presentation at the DOE Office of Fossil Energy Methane Hydrate R&D Conference in September 2003 in Westminster, (Appendix D). These projects include development of temperature probes and cameras to study the response of a gas hydrate mound to fluctuations in bottom water temperature. Some preliminary results of this project have been presented at professional meetings and in project newsletters (e.g., Fire in the Ice, 2003; Lutken and McGee, 2004). Another project entails development of a seafloor shear wave source. A third project will lead to instrumentation of a borehole with a variety of geophysical instruments. The fourth major project leads to a new instrument to recover porewaters at in situ pressure.

Although it is likely that these different projects will lead to increased understanding of processes related to gas hydrate in the Gulf of Mexico, it is not clear from the material available how these disparate projects fit


together to address the stated objective. This group should be encouraged to prepare a concise overview of the entire program and to disseminate intermediate and final results widely and rapidly through presentations at scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Other University-Based Studies

Over the four years since the passage of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, approximately $1.8 million has been distributed to six other university-based projects. The funded projects range from $90,000 for logging analysis (Columbia University) to $700,000 for three-dimensional seismic surveys (University of Texas).

For the most part, these smaller, university-based projects were generated to answer specific questions related to other parts of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program (Appendix F). Titles and funding for the five largest projects are given in Table 3.2. As for all of the projects discussed in this report, the committee recommends that the results undergo the normal peer-reviewed process of publication and validation.

Laboratory Studies

Approximately $8.3 million, distributed among approximately 13 pro-jects with budgets ranging from $0.1 million to $1.5 million, has been granted to internal research groups at NETL and at various national laboratories (Table 3.3). These projects include modeling studies of gas hydrate reservoir development: reservoir model development at LBNL (Box 3.1); characterization of microbes associated with gas hydrate at INEEL; development of more advanced tools to image hydrate cores, such as X-ray scanner development at LBNL; laboratory efforts to determine physical properties of synthetic and natural hydrate samples at ORNL; and field efforts to acquire geophysical site characterization data at the NRL.

Some of these efforts are clearly integrated with overall program objectives, and the results are being widely disseminated to the hydrate research community (e.g., LBNL reservoir modeling results that are being used to plan both Arctic drilling efforts (Box 3.1), INEEL analysis of cores from Mallik and Leg 204). Other efforts are more difficult to evaluate


because of a lack of publications and little detail in the annual reports supplied by DOE.

Scientific direction is needed to ensure that these multiple projects are clearly directed, without significant redundancy to DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program objectives. Direction is also needed to ensure that results of these studies are communicated in a timely way to related studies that can build on their results.

Smaller-Scale Project Summary and Findings

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has, through its proposal process, funded a number of examples of small-scale research and development projects. Typically, these projects have had budgets of only a small percentage of the total, but they are expected to yield important results. Productivity was enhanced when workers built upon an existing knowledge base, had a history of working in the area, undertook effective collaboration with other workers in the field, and strove for technology transfer between fields. An example is the LBNL reservoir simulation model described in Box 3.1. This model was based on an existing reser-voir model that was modified for hydrate and is being calibrated using data from field projects such as Mallik (Dallimore et al., 1999; Moridis et al., 2002). It is important to note, however, that the results of many of these projects have not been published, and therefore, they could not be thoroughly evaluated. A summary of DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program sponsored projects should be issued on an annual basis and posted on the program Web site.

DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program Breadth

A review of the content of the present program showed that two gas hydrate research areas stipulated in the Methane Hydrate R&D Act (Box ES.1) are not being addressed: (1) Section (C), “research programs to provide a safe means of transport and storage of methane produced from methane hydrates”; and (2) Section (D), promotion of “education and training in methane hydrate resource research and development.” Section (E), to “conduct basic and applied research to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of hydrate degassing

65

TA

BLE

3.2

Oth

er U

nive

rsity

Eff

orts

Fun

ded

by D

OE

Proj

ect T

itle

Perf

orm

ing

Uni

vers

ity

Plan

ned

DO

E C

ost (

dolla

rs)

Plan

ned

Non

D

OE

(dol

lars

)

A S

ubm

ersi

ble-

Dep

loye

d M

icro

-Dril

l fo

r Sam

plin

g of

Sha

llow

Gas

Hyd

rate

D

epos

its

Texa

s A&

M U

nive

rsity

19

0,16

0 43

,000

Cha

ract

eriz

ing

Mar

ine

Gas

Hyd

rate

R

eser

voirs

Usi

ng T

hree

-Dim

ensi

onal

Se

ism

ic D

ata

Uni

vers

ity o

f Tex

as, B

urea

u of

Ec

onom

ic G

eolo

gy

700,

418

178,

477

Fiel

d St

udy

of E

xpos

ed a

nd B

urie

d G

as H

ydra

tes i

n th

e G

ulf o

f Mex

ico

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia, S

an

Die

go, (

Scrip

ps In

stitu

tion

of

Oce

anog

raph

y

334,

256

89,3

20

Thre

e-D

imen

sion

al S

truct

ure

and

Phys

ical

Pro

perti

es o

f Met

hane

H

ydra

te D

epos

it at

Bla

ke R

idge

Uni

vers

ity o

f Wyo

min

g 22

8,30

6 61

,159

Fund

amen

tals

of N

atur

al G

as a

nd

Spec

ies F

low

s fro

m H

ydra

te

Dis

soci

atio

n—A

pplic

atio

ns to

Saf

ety

Prob

lem

s

Cla

rkso

n U

nive

rsity

268,

183

103,

795

SO

UR

CE:

Dat

a fr

om D

OE,

200

4a.


TABLE 3.3 National Laboratory Efforts Funded by DOE

Project Title Performer Laboratory

Planned DOE Cost (dollars)

Gas Hydrates Research in Deep Sea Sediments NRL 1,498,638

Characterizing Gas Hydrate Kinetics and Biochemistry

ORNL 345,000

Mesoscale Characterization of Natural and Synthetic Gas Hydrates

ORNL 565,000

Fundamental Physical Properties and Chemical Stability of Gas Hydrates

LLNL 570,000

X-Ray Scanning for Characterization of Gas Hydrate Bearing Cores

LBNL 393,000

Characterization of Methane Hydrate Bearing Sediments and Hydrate Dissociation Kinetics

PNNL 340,000

Improved Technologies for Detecting Gas Hydrates

PNNL 450,000

Collection and Microbiological Analysis of Gas Hydrate Cores

INEEL 430,000

TOUGH2 (transport of unsaturated groundwater and heat ) Hydrate Reservoir Simulator Development

LBNL 810,000

Structural Characterization of Natural Gas Hydrates

BNL 75,000

Properties of Natural Gas Hydrates NETL-OST 625,000

Kinetics of Natural Gas Hydrates NETL-OST 950,000

Physical Properties, Natural Gas Production, Environmental, and Safety and Seafloor Stability Aspects of Gas Hydrates

NETL-OST 1,270,000

SOURCE: Data from DOE, 2004a.


Box 3.1 LBNL Hydrate Modeling: A Small Project with a

Major Technology Impact

Because hydrate field experiments are very expensive (e.g., the aforementioned successful examples of Mallik II [$25 million] and ODP Leg 204 [$11.5 million]), an efficient alternative is to model the production from hydrate reservoirs. Such a model is the goal of the project “TOUGH2 (EOSHYD2) Hydrate Reservoir Simulator Development” at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, funded at a total cost of $0.81 million over four years. The EOSHYD2 model is based on the program TOUGH2, resulting from many years of LBNL reservoir modeling development for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.

The EOSHYD2 model incorporates the best independently measured physical property data into a fundamental reservoir model. The model has been used to predict and to match hydrate production results from many of the above projects, such as Mallik 2002, and used for project planning purposes for the BPXA and Maurer/Anadarko projects. The program code for EOSHYD2 was made publicly available on June 24, 2004, at DOE’s NETL.

At minimal cost, EOSHYD2 can be used to answer important ques-tions, such as the following:

• Can depressurization alone economically produce hy-drate reservoirs, or will thermal stimulation be required for economic production?

• What types of hydrate reservoirs will be most productive? (LBNL has determined three classes of economically productive reservoirs.)

• What model parameters have the most influence on production (needed to assess which parameters should be measured most accurately)?

• What innovative production techniques (e.g., horizontal drilling) are likely to produce reservoirs more effectively?

The availability of the LBNL EOSHYD2 model has resulted in re-

quests for predictions from every hydrate reservoir project, resulting in a healthy collaborative interchange with a number of national and inter-national projects. At the same time, LBNL has worked to make public the information from EOSHYD2 (Moridis et al., 2002). A second small LBNL project “X-Ray Scanning for Characterization of Gas Hydrate Bearing Cores” ($0.39 million over four years) has resulted in transfer of medical technology measurements to verify hydrate reservoir predict-tions. This healthy interchange is a good example of building on past expertise and technologies, resulting in substantial cost savings in field projects.


(including both natural degassing and degassing associated with commercial development)” is addressed only minimally. Currently, there are no funded projects that advance applied and basic research on understanding the role of methane hydrate in climate change, in slope instability, and as a possible geological hazard. (The committee has construed the act authorizing studies on hydrate decomposition [degassing] to inclued climate change.

Relative to Section (C), gas storage and pipeline transmission are advanced technologies, so little new effort may be needed. However, transmission of stranded gas (methane in quantities too small to justify a liquefaction facility and more than 400 km from an existing pipeline) is implied in Section (C) as a possible research area. DOE has determined, with good reason that such research cannot be done with the limited funding available. Japanese industries (Ota et al., 2002) are designing ships to carry methane in the form of methane hydrate. This process requires less energy than transporting natural gas as liquefied natural gas (LNG). If this mode of transporting natural gas is successful, it will expand opportunities to utilize conventional stranded gas as well as geologic deposits of methane hydrate.

None of the project summaries (Appendix F) explicitly include education and training in methane hydrate resource research and development under Section (D). The intent of Section (D) may be inter-preted as support for graduate student and postdoctoral research. There may be some support for a few academic projects, but they are not explicitly identified. There are numerous examples of effective, competitive graduate and postdoctoral fellowship programs that originate in government agencies (e.g., DOE’s Hollander Fellowships; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Global Change Fellowship Program; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the ODP JOI), and the establishment of a parallel fellowship program focused on methane hydrate resource R&D is recommended. This would provide program identity to the graduate community and attract new per-spectives to the field.

Only one project in the program is directed toward assessment of the environmental impacts of hydrate decomposition as directed under Section (E). The University of Mississippi project is establishing a mooring with sampling and monitoring devices to provide instrumentation within a borehole. One aspect that should be addressed as part of this component is determining background methane levels and some measure of in situ microbial activity. Other pressing, but difficult, questions concern the natural rate of gas hydrate dissociation and the processes whereby methane can pass


through the gas hydrate stability zone without forming hydrate by either. These questions could be addressed under the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, via either measurements or modeling.

Projects to address tasks (C) and (D) were not funded, and only one minor project was funded under task (E). The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program makes leveraging of funds an important project-funding priority. Perhaps future funding efforts should stress the importance of the project rather than whether a particular effort could be leveraged with other funds.

SUMMARY

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has effectively advanced a number of R&D goals and better prepared the nation for the realization of gas hydrate as an energy source. Some notable advances have also been made in terms of assessing the importance of gas hydrate as a geohazard. While outlined as an area of possible research in the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, the present program has not addressed issues related to transportation, and has only indirectly addressed issues of education, and has only provided limitedly provided support for research on environmental effects of hydrate decomposition.


Findings By effectively leveraging funding, the DOE Methane Hydrate

R&D Program made wise investments of relatively small resources toward major international research efforts.

Relative to the United States, other countries (e.g., Japan) are

spending significantly more money on hydrate research.

A review of the industry-managed targeted research projects raises questions that are different for each project but have the potential to limit the application of their results to meeting the program goals.


The USGS has a long history of gas hydrate research (in both the laboratory and the field) and collaboration, which has provided basic and essential information on the chemistry of gas hydrate.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has, through its

proposal process, funded a number of small-scale R&D projects. Some of these have had a major technological impact. It is impor-tant, however, to note that the results of many of these projects have not been published, and therefore, they could not be thoroughly evaluated.

With respect to the research areas described in the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act (Box ES.1), the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program funded research on identifying, exploring, assessing, and developing methane hydrate as a source of energy (research area A); assisting in developing technologies for efficient and environmentally sound development (research area B); developing technologies to reduce the risk of drilling (research area F); and conducting exploratory drilling (research area G).

No projects have been funded in the area of transportation and storage. None of the projects emphasized education and training. Research projects only minimally addressed the area of environ-mental impacts of degassing (decomposition as the solid-state hy-drate transforms to the gaseous state) and its potential for affecting climate.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program provides a significant incentive and valued role in developing this nation’s abil-ity to produce energy from gas hydrate and to understand the potential geological constraints to drilling hydrate.

Recommendations

It will be to the benefit of all nations, including the United States,

to foster further collaboration with groups conducting methane hydrate research. Where appropriate, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should be encouraged to lead such endeavors.


Substantially greater resources need to be devoted to the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, otherwise the United States may fall behind other nations in leading hydrate development technology.

To ensure the future success of large, industry-managed, targeted research projects, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should implement the following:

• science-based proposal review; • science-based assessments of project progress and milestones; • expert consultation with a diverse project team; • data to be made publicly available; and • peer-reviewed publication of results.

The USGS should continue to play a major role in gas hydrate

research as a collaborator in the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program.

A summary of DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program-sponsored projects should be developed on an annual basis and posted on the program Web site.

A set of instructions and guidelines outlining the requirement for timely and full disclosure of project results should be provided to project proponents. As much as practical, these instructions should include the consequences of noncompliance.

DOE should strengthen its contribution to education and training through funding of postdoctoral fellowships and should increase efforts in basic research to address the relationship between gas hydrate and climate change. It is, however, appropriate that some research areas mentioned in the Methane Hydrate R&D Act (e.g., transportation) receive no support since they are peripheral to the primary objectives of the act.

73

4

Directions for Program Emphasis, Research,

and Resource Development

APPROPRIATE DOE METHANE HYDRATE R&D PROGRAM EMPHASIS FOR THE FUTURE

Field research in the Arctic has advanced to production testing of a

concentrated gas hydrate reservoir (Dallimore et al., 2002). The technology has stepped from a concern solely with geology, geochem-istry, and geophysics to a concern with the engineering of production. In the near future, major advances in innovation to recover hydrated energy, first in permafrost form and then in more dispersed form in oceanic sediments, should be expected.

The next decade will probably see several additional production tests to validate and calibrate different approaches to extracting methane from natural gas hydrate. Initially the focus will continue to be in the Arctic, moving eventually to the more challenging marine environment. Views of how to identify gas hydrate in nature using geologic and geophysical tools have also evolved. It is clear that gas hydrate distribution in nature is very heterogeneous. Better models for the temporal evolution of natural gas hydrate systems and remote sensing techniques that can identify and quantify concentrated gas hydrate deposits must be developed. It is clear that fundamental advances and findings essential to this program have resulted from modest investments in international collaboration.


Because commercial production of gas from hydrate is expected to have a long time horizon (20-30 years), most of the professionals practicing today cannot be expected to be active when and if commercial production becomes a reality. It is therefore important that the Department of Energy (DOE) Methane Hydrate Research and De-velopment (R&D) Program place major emphasis on educating a new generation of scientists and engineers to ensure a future pool of appro-priate expertise in all aspects of hydrate systems. As discussed in Chapter 3, this can be accomplished through a program of graduate assistantships and fellowships as well as a program of postdoctoral fellowships. The postdoctoral fellowships might be patterned after DOE’s successful Hollander Fellowship program, but be modified to include opportunities for research experience involving cooperation between academia, government, and industry.

As specified in the original enabling legislation, an overarching goal of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program is to conduct applied research to identify, assess, and develop methane hydrate as a source of energy. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 listed activities in a number of areas (P.L. 106-193, Section 3(b); Box ES.1). This section suggests research areas for future program emphasis based on the research conducted since initiation of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program by the act. These priorities are based on addressing the poorly understood aspects of the potential of hydrate as a future resource and optimizing the potential impact given the currently available program funding (~$9 million per year). This research should include both fundamental science and technology development and should involve periodic peer review as specified in A Strategy for Methane Hydrates Research and Development (DOE, 1998). Specifically, the research areas are:

• future field experiments, drilling, and production testing with consideration of testing offshore hydrate that might be con-sidered to be of sufficiently large quantity to be potentially commercial;

• hydrate deposit identification and characterization; • reservoir modeling; • technology recovery methods and production; • understanding the natural system and climate change potential; • geological hazards; and • transportation and storage.

DIRECTIONS FOR PROGRAM EMPHASIS 75

Although they are not ranked in order of importance, each research area is discussed below in terms of the most important issues that should be addressed within that area in a future research program.

Future Field Experiments, Drilling, and

Production Testing

Given the large unknowns, pursuit of experimental drilling, multi-year time-series measurements of gas hydrate systems, and experimental production clearly would be the most effective way to advance this program. Field studies should be viewed as an integral part of the learning process and should proceed using the best information available on hydrate deposit identification, reservoir modeling, recovery methods, and production techniques. A major product of the drilling program should be new technologies that reduce risks and allow efficient and environmentally sound development of hydrate resources. These drilling experiments are extremely expensive and should be available to the community of researchers, to leverage both the cost and the scientific advantages of such an effort. There is a clear record showing that major fundamental advances and findings essential to this program have resulted from modest investments in international collaboration. Future research should build on and continue to emphasize successes resulting from international cooperation.

Hydrate Deposit Identification

Before production can commence, it is necessary to select optimal test sites that will not only demonstrate feasible production but also provide for the broadest application of results for future drill sites and optimal production. To accomplish this, better estimates are needed of the location of rich hydrate zones, layers, or geological blocks (“sweet spots”), the amount and concentration of hydrate in situ before drilling, and the mobility of methane once production commences.

In the marine realm, the absence of known large, concentrated accumulations of methane hydrate most likely means that the nation cannot look to the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as a promising region to supply some of its future energy resource needs through gas hydrate production. Given that the petroleum industry has shown little


interest in exploring for large marine accumulations of hydrate, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should enable efforts to identify the likely formative setting of hydrate and where it might be found, and then assemble information about reported or suspected large deposits.

If large, potentially exploitable bodies of marine hydrate exist, they most likely will be found off the continental shelf within the hydrate stability field, embracing reservoir sequences of clastic, carbonate, or siliceous sediment on the U.S. continental slopes and adjacent fans. The occurrence of large, concentrated hydrate accumulations in these de-posits most likely will require a stratigraphic or structural connection to underlying thermogenic (i.e., petroleum) sources of methane. Other prospective areas are the thickly sedimented abyssal plains of ocean margin basins where turbidite sections have accumulated and are overlain by productive surface waters (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Shikoku Basin, Sea of Okhotsk, Bering Sea).

A main thrust of the Methane Hydrate R&D Act is to focus research on the likely locations of large accumulations of marine methane hydrate and also to field-test ideas and locate and characterize these deposits. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should therefore sponsor a workshop focused on specific aspects of required research, for example, finding sweet spots or monitoring the evolution of gas hydrate deposits over time in the context of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI).

To these ends it is crucial to do the following: • Enhance efforts to adapt and/or modify existing geophysical

techniques, such as seismic acquisition and processing methods, to obtain much higher resolution of subsurface structural and petro-physical details. This may require the use of higher seismic frequencies in three-dimensional seismic surveys.

• Invest in developing more rigorous approaches to the calibration of surface seismic data interpretation techniques to identify hydrate in situ (e.g., comparing well logs and core information to surface seismic data). The use of pressure core barrel vertical seismic profiling surveys and seismic dipole logs could also be extremely useful.

• Develop petroleum system models that incorporate concepts of accumulation and loss.

• Develop processes to identify hydrate sweet spots based on integrated geological and geophysical site data and generic knowledge from other sites as well as theory and laboratory results.


All of the above require a systematic scientific approach using wells not only for calibration of seismic data but also for controls to characterize reservoir properties away from the well. This requires coordinated laboratory studies of fluid and rock physical properties, including core analysis of physical properties in specialized laboratory settings and field laboratories.

Reservoir Modeling

Before sustainable economic production of gas hydrate can com-mence, a realistic model-based estimate is required to optimize safe and efficient production procedures, determine suitable layout and design of production wells, and ultimately predict the expected rate of reservoir production. Accurate hydrate reservoir models, tested against field experience, provide an extremely cost-effective alternative to field experiments in economic assessment of hydrated energy production techniques. Suitable reservoir simulation models must accurately quantify the unique physical, chemical, and geomechanical properties of gas hydrate, free gas, and water-saturated porous media systems and their response to production stimulation. Although progress has been made in the area of reservoir modeling (Box 3.1), key research questions must be addressed in order to move this field forward. These include the following:

• resolving knowledge gaps in the kinetics of gas hydrate dissociation and the relative permeability of the rock-gas hydrate-fluid system—to date there has been minimal work on reservoir sediments (e.g., sands, silts, shales) aimed at under-standing the response of gas hydrate to production stimulation and the flow response of the produced gas as hydrate breaks down into methane and water in different reservoir rock types; and

• determining the influence on recovery of spatial subsurface heterogeneities in rock and fluid systems, including the effects of variability in porosity, permeability, hydrate concentration, rock compressibility, sand-clay ratio, fracture or fault systems, in situ stress, and the effects of pore pressure and temperature, as well as their changes with time and production.


Technology Recovery Methods and Production

While the potential of hydrate as a major energy resource in the future appears promising, viable techniques for recovery are currently in the planning stage. It is essential that recovery techniques be investigated and tested, first in laboratory-hydrated sediments and then in controlled and carefully monitored field tests. Incentives should also be provided for investigating unconventional recovery techniques—techniques that are truly different from existing oil and gas methods.

Understanding the Natural System and Climate Change Potential

An understanding of the role of methane hydrate in the methane and the

carbon cycle remains poor and elusive. Important issues that require vigorous investigation include the following:

• determining what factors and mechanisms control hydrate for-mation and dissociation in nature and the rates of those processes;

• determining the extent of natural hydrate deposits, how dynamic they are, and how estimates of the global inventory of natural hydrate can be refined;

• ascertaining how the dissociation of hydrate influences the atmospheric inventory of methane in the short term and climate in the long term and what the climate system response will be to chronic as well as episodic methane releases from dissociating hydrate, as well as, developing methods to evaluate the magnitude of episodic releases and determining the climate impacts of these responses;

• establishing the role of microbial processes in controlling methane released by hydrate dissociation and determining whether the “oxidizing gauntlet” is effective in limiting releases of methane to the atmosphere;

• developing techniques and instruments for continuous monitoring of releases of methane from both natural deposits and hydrate deposits under development—both diffusive and advective environments have to be studied; these efforts should emphasize development of new technologies such as continuous acoustic sounding, electronic monitoring, deployment of sensitive ther-


mometer arrays, and methods for continuous measurement of methane concentration and isotope distributions and subsequent ground-truthing of these measurements; and

• ascertaining whether there are unique organisms or communities associated with hydrate deposits and vents, whether they have distinctive molecular signatures, and whether biological or chemical methods offer potential as means of locating hydrate deposits.

Understanding the temporal evolution of gas hydrate systems will require installation of long-term observatories on and beneath the seafloor. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should collaborate with the National Science Foundation (NSF), especially with the OOI and the Ocean Research Interactive Observatory Network (ORION) (http://www.core ocean.org/orion; NRC, 2003), to implement this aspect of the program. The OOI would provide the infrastructure needed to carry out in situ seafloor and subseafloor observations of gas hydrate and its associated micro- and macrobiological communities in a variety of different settings over extended periods. It would provide the measurements of methane flux both beneath the seafloor and from the seafloor into the ocean that are needed to determine how dynamic this reservoir is. This infrastructure would enable rapid-response surveys to study short-term phenomena and provide the power needed to enable perturbation experiments on the seafloor. Current ORION plans call for cable installations well situated to study gas hydrate on the continental margin of the Pacific Northwest. Additional installations in the Gulf of Mexico and on the southeast margin of the United States would be desirable for obtaining comprehensive coverage of different gas hydrate environments. Such studies would contribute to understanding the relationship between seafloor hydrate and seeping gas for resource exploration and production, as well as for slope stability and global climate change. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should sponsor a workshop focused on specific aspects of required research—for example, finding sweet spots or monitoring the evolution of gas hydrate deposits over time in the context of the OOI.

Geological Hazards

Geological hazards associated with gas hydrate relate on a fundamental level to the reduction of soil strength incurred as a result of gas hydrate dissociation and the fate and effect of the free gas produced (Kennett et


al., 2003). More fundamental research is required in the general field of geomechanics of hydrate deposits.

Gas hydrate has been implicated as the possible cause of large- and small-scale marine slope failures. Unique seafloor features such as pock marks or gas hydrate outcroppings may also be a hazard under some circumstances. Research should be conducted that locates and provides analytical verification of the correlation with past hydrate decomposition and slope instability and other observed geohazards.

Most germane to the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, gas hydrate also represents a geohazard adjacent to bottom-founded struc-tures, where the occurrence of gas hydrate near the seafloor may present foundation problems. Finally, the geohazard risk posed by gas hydrate must be considered carefully when hydrocarbon exploration or production facilities, either conventional or hydrate specific, penetrate gas hydrate and have the potential to induce coincident gas flows, casing strain, or ground surface settlements.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has undertaken valued work in this field—for example, in the Gulf of Mexico research is expected to provide a better understanding of the safety hazards involved in drilling and producing oil and gas through hydrate-containing sediments in the deep water. It is recommended that work be focused on the future development of gas hydrate; thus, issues such as ground surface settlement should be considered as well as the design of safe and effective leak-free production casings.

Transportation and Storage

This area is important, but it is not the exclusive domain of hydrate research. This area is given a relatively low priority, but it is recognized that this priority might change rapidly if commercially viable hydrate deposits are discovered.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The overriding focus of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Pro-gram in the future should be on the potential importance of hydrate as a future energy resource for the nation and the world.


To optimize the potential impact of the amount of hydrate research funding available (~$9 million per year), such a focused program should systematically address the following research areas that are poorly, or only partly, understood.

• Future field experiments, drilling, and production testing,

with consideration of testing offshore hydrate that might be considered to be of sufficiently large quantity to be poten-tially commercial

• Hydrate deposit identification and characterization • Reservoir modeling • Technology recovery methods and production • Understanding the natural system and climate change potential • Geological hazards • Transportation and storage

Collaboration between the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program

and other agencies, to augment infrastructure, will facilitate the achievement of program goals. For example, collaboration with NSF, especially with the OOI and ORION, would be useful to implement studies geared toward understanding the temporal evolution of gas hydrate systems using long-term observatories on and beneath the seafloor (http:www.coreocean.org/orion; NRC, 2003).

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should sponsor a workshop focused on specific aspects of required research, for example, finding sweet spots or monitoring the evolution of gas hy-drate deposits over time in the context of the OOI.

83

5

Scientific Oversight of the DOE Methane Hydrate Research and

Development Program

Competent and rigorous scientific oversight is a key element to the overall success of any research and development endeavor. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000 mandated the establishment of an advisory panel as well as a group to coordinate research activities between the agencies that do hydrate-related research. This chapter discusses the roles of these committees as well as how science can benefit the program and proposal process. Implementing the recommendations in earlier chapters and meeting the goals of the act will not be possible without addressing issues of increased scientific oversight utilizing the advisory panels and external program and propo-sal reviews.

THE METHANE HYDRATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000 (Appendix B) required the Secretary of Energy to establish an advisory panel (Box 5.1). As described in the act, the role of the advisory panel is intended to be integral to the Methane Hydrate R&D Program and an important component in establishing the program. The first Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (MHAC; 2000-2003) consisted of 12 members with backgrounds representative of industry, academia, and government


The broad expertise of the committee was needed to develop recom-mendations and priorities for research being undertaken by the program and to fulfill the requirement that the panel provide a report on the impacts of climate change.

The first MHAC was appointed in November 2000. Its first meeting occurred in May 2001—one year after the act was approved, most of the goals of the program had been defined, and the request for proposals (RFPs) had been developed. The committee met for a second and final time in November 2002, even though its term of appointment actually ended in May 2003. Addressing this committee at an open meeting, the

Box 5.1

The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 Requirement for a

Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee

The Secretary shall establish an advisory panel consisting of experts from industrial enterprises, institu-tions of higher education, and Federal agencies to—

(1) advise the Secretary on potential applications of methane hydrate;

(2) assist in developing recommendations and priorities for the methane hydrate research and devel-opment program carried out under subsection (a)(1); and

(3) not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and at such later dates as the panel considers advisable, submit to Congress a report on the anticipated impact on global climate change from—

(A) methane hydrate formation; (B) methane hydrate degassing (including natural

degassing and degassing associated with commercial development); and

(C) the consumption of natural gas produced from methane hydrates.

SOURCE: P.L. 106-193, Section 3c.

SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT 85

MHAC chair indicated that MHAC interpreted its role as that of advocacy for the program rather than scientific leadership (Johnson, 2003).

The Methane Hydrate R&D Act required the MHAC to submit a report to Congress on possible impacts of hydrate on global climate change no later than two years from the date the act was passed. The first MHAC determined that members with the expertise to prepare such a report were otherwise committed and could not deliver the report in the time required by the act. Therefore, they commissioned a consultant to prepare a report on the effects of methane hydrate releases on global climate change (Kennett, 2002). This report, written by a single author, focuses on a somewhat controversial (Dickens, 2003b) hypothesis (the “clathrate gun hypothesis”) that methane hydrate played a critical role in abrupt climate warming during the Quaternary (MHAC, 2002a). This report was incorporated as an appendix to the MHAC report submitted to Congress in December 2002 (MHAC, 2002a). By submitting this report, the MHAC fulfilled the mandate of the act to produce a report on climate change; however, the report does not provide a balanced discussion of models proposed by other researchers.

During its tenure, the first MHAC also submitted two letters to Secretary Abraham (Appendix H). The first letter, dated June 1, 2001, summarized the MHAC’s views on the importance of gas hydrate and stated that the funding provided was inadequate to carry out the legislative mandate. The second letter, dated December 17, 2002, presented the MHAC’s evaluation of the progress of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program and stated that the program had been successful and productive, but could be improved. In particular, the letter noted the following opportunities for improving and expanding the program that echo the findings in this report (MHAC , 2002b; both letters are provided in Appendix H):

• The level of coordination between federal agencies involved in

the hydrate program has been critical to its rapid progress. However, opportunities for enhancing cooperation remain and should be explored. An interagency partnership would improve program efficiency.

• Joint industry, academia, and government activities have been especially effective in addressing methane hydrate issues, and the use of such programs should be expanded.

• Raw data developed in hydrate studies must be archived more promptly and effectively in an accessible, electronic format.


• Adequate levels of support are needed to ensure that environmental studies are undertaken to develop and demon-strate the effectiveness of mitigation measures that will have to accompany commercial extraction of hydrate if and when it occurs.

In December 2003, the Department of Energy (DOE) appointed a new MHAC with 10 members, rather than 12, and 2 new members. Eight original members of the MHAC remain. More than 60 percent of the FY 2004 DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program funding was awarded to institutions with affiliations to 6 of the 10 members currently serving on the MHAC. Returning members of the MHAC who gave presentations at open meetings of the committee indicated that they still remain unclear about their role in the program.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program could have made more effective use of the original members of the MHAC and given them more support to carry out their charge as mandated by the Methane Hydrate R&D Act. The program would benefit from the current MHAC’s scientific advice and perspective on activities ultimately funded by the hydrate research program. However, members should follow accepted conflict-of-interest procedures and should recuse themselves from participating in review and funding discussions directly related to their own research or institutions. The MHAC implementation structure should be improved to allow the committee to take a significant role in providing guidance and recommendations on research priorities. Imple-menting these changes will help ensure that the goals of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program are being met with the best scientific input provided in a timely fashion.

THE INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND THE TECHNICAL COORDINATING TEAM

In addition to the MHAC, the Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000

called for interagency coordination in methane hydrate research and development (Box 5.2). In response, the head of each agency designated individuals to serve on an Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) (Appendix I). Member agencies within this group are: the Department of Energy (DOE), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,


Naval Research Laboratory, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Science Foundation.

The individuals designated to coordinate activities under the act are required to meet every 120 days and charged with (1) reviewing the progress of the program, and (2) making recommendations on future activities (P.L. 106-193 Section 3(a)). While this charge overlaps significantly with the charge of the MHAC, the purpose of the ICC meetings is to avoid duplication of effort and to collaborate on past, present, and future work being conducted by each agency. At the first meeting of the ICC, in January 2001, each member of the panel reported on current methane hydrate activities within his or her agency and made recommendations regarding future mechanisms for interagency coordination. In addition, the ICC determined that an interagency Tech-nical Coordinating Team (TCT) consisting of administrative program managers of the hydrate research group within each agency (when applicable) should be established (Appendix I).

The TCT first met in March 2001. Typically, the ICC meets once a year and the TCT meets at least twice a year or more often when planning workshops or writing reports (B. Tomer, DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, West Virginia, personal commun-ication, 2004). These meetings are generally used to discuss implementation of research plans. Members of the ICC and TCT attend meetings of the MHAC and often make presentations. For example, the ICC met jointly with the MHAC in Massachusetts in May 2001 and in Washington, D.C., in November 2002. However, there is currently no formal affiliation between the TCT and the MHAC.

The TCT, in its role as the “operating arm” of the ICC, has performed some of the tasks envisioned in the act for the ICC—for example, preparing reports on the goals of gas hydrate research, developing budgets for jointly funded R&D, and planning joint field programs. Overall coordination by senior agency administrators appears to working well. The TCT is to be commended for the clear gains the program has derived from this coordination. There are sure to be major scientific rewards for the program if members of the TCT can continue to work together leveraging their resources.

However, the TCT has not played a role in reviewing the progress of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program or provided advice on future directions (D. Hutchinson, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, personal communication, 2004). DOE should redefine or change the roles of the ICC and TCT to make them more effective in


providing scientific guidance to the program. The TCT should work closely with the MHAC to evaluate ongoing programs and set new directions for priorities.

SCIENCE IN THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS

To select projects for funding, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program currently uses a “merit-based review” of proposals submitted through either RFPs or broad-based solicitations. The merit review consists of input from DOE project managers responsible for managing

Box 5.2 Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000

Requirement for Interagency Coordination

(a) IN GENERAL.— (1) COMMENCEMENT OF PROGRAM.—Not later

than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director, shall commence a program of methane hydrate research and development in accordance with this section.

(2) DESIGNATIONS—The Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director shall designate individuals to carry out this section.

(3) COORDINATION—The individual designated by the Secretary shall coordinate all activities within the Department of Energy relating to methane hydrate research and development.

(4) MEETINGS—The individuals designated under paragraph (2) shall meet not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than every 120 days thereafter to— (A) review the progress of the program under

paragraph (1); and (B) make recommendations on future activities to

occur subsequent to the meeting.

SOURCE: P.L. 106-193, Section 3(a).


proposals to the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program. Currently, the project managers reviewing these proposals have responsibilities in other research areas. This internal, merit-based, DOE review process is not as effective as it could be in examining the program as a whole and ensuring that overall program goals are met. While merit-based reviews are consistent with the language in the act, the additional use of external peer reviewers in the project selection process would serve to assess progress toward program goals, evaluate program balance, aid in the perception of fairness to the research community, provide scientific guidance to program managers, and perhaps improve the quality of the program.

A panel of external reviewers should consist of working scientists chosen to minimize conflicts of interest while providing appropriate scientific expertise. The purpose of the panel would be to provide scientific expertise and facilitate examination of each proposal with regard to intrinsic scientific merit, overall program objectives, and future directions. Essentially, this is a form of the process followed by National Science Foundation (NSF) in obtaining advice on which projects are funded. This process is well respected by the science community. In addition to external review of proposals, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should initiate a formal review of projects each year to help guide their direction and make decisions on future projects.

The DOE, through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), should continue to make program summaries of funded projects available (as was done to enable this report) and updated regularly on the NETL Web site (http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/hydrate/index.html). These summaries are a valuable tool in assessing overall program direction and breadth.

SUMMARY

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has effectively advanced a number of research and development goals to determine the production potential of gas hydrate as a future energy resource and to assess potential geohazards associated with disturbance of gas hydrate deposits. A troubling aspect of the program as outlined throughout this report is a lack of scientific oversight in the identification, initiation, tracking, and evaluation of the success and relevance of major program elements. This has had a particular impact on the success of targeted research projects


due to incomplete reporting of results, inadequate project accountability, and failure to reach stated goals. These projects were approved without expert external scientific review to evaluate whether they were relevant to the overall goals of the program or if they were likely to meet their specific goals.

A lack of scientific oversight in the selection, initiation, monitoring, and assessment of major projects funded by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program could be addressed by adoption of a scientific review and decision-making process. The safeguards of a scientific review and assessment apparatus should be applied to all types of projects funded by the program.

To help meet the goals of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program the following practices should be instituted:

• A conflict-of-interest (COI) protocol should be drafted that is applicable to the MHAC. This statement would require members of the MHAC to recuse themselves from programmatic discus-sions and decisions if the outcome might affect their employer and/or other financial interests.

• All projects over a defined dollar level should be submitted to external review following appropriate guidelines and procedures (e.g., those of NSF), and the comments and recommendations received should be evaluated by the MHAC or a similar body in compliance with COI protocol.

• The purview and responsibilities of the MHAC, ICC, and TCT committees should be clearly defined with respect to each other, and their efforts should be clearly aligned to eliminate any confusion in how proposed projects are received, evaluated, authorized, monitored, and assessed.

• A set of instructions and guidelines outlining the requirement for timely and full disclosure of project results should be provided to project applicants. As much as practical, these instructions should include the consequences of noncompliance.

The Secretary of Energy formed an Advisory Board Task Force to

advise him on the future of science programs at the Department of Energy (DOE, 2003b). Greater scientific oversight of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program is consistent with recommendations of the October 2003 report Critical Choices: Science, Energy, and Security, which stated that “the DOE is a major science agency, but this fact is not


obviously reflected in its organizational structure” (DOE, 2003b, p. 16). One important recommendation of the Advisory Board was that “to recognize the centrality of science to its mission, the Department of Energy should have an Under Secretary for Science. Attendant organizational changes should be made to better accomplish that scien-tific mission” (DOE, 2003b, p. 18).


Findings

The advisory committees established by the Methane Hydrate R&D Act (the MHAC and ICC) have not had a major impact on evaluating the progress and priorities of the program as mandated by the act.

The internal, merit-based DOE review process used to select projects for funding is not as effective as it could be in examining the program as a whole and ensuring that overall program goals are met.

Recommendations

The purview and responsibilities of the MHAC, ICC, and TCT committees should be clearly defined with respect to each other, and their efforts should be clearly aligned to eliminate any confusion in how proposed projects are received, evaluated, authorized, monitored, and assessed.

All projects above a defined dollar level should be submitted to external review following appropriate guidelines and procedures (e.g., those of NSF), and the comments and recommendations re-ceived should be evaluated by the MHAC or similar body in keeping with the conflict-of-interest protocol.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should implement a

mechanism to incorporate greater scientific oversight to assess pro-gress toward program goals, evaluate program balance, and enhance the quality of the program over time. This can be accomplished by ini-tiating external proposal and program reviews.

93

6

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

The Department of Energy (DOE) Methane Hydrate Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000 enabled a renewed focus on methane hydrate research in the United States. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program established as a result of the act has to date funded more than $30 million of methane hydrate research. A successful program in methane hydrate research requires clearly defined scientific program goals, has an effective data management and dissemination strategy, coordinates actively with other agencies and international programs, develops applications that are useful to ongoing and future projects, and recognizes the importance of community support and scientific oversight.

The program has, for the last four years, administered funds from a funding base of $9 million to $10 million each year. This has allowed the program to fund some projects over multiple years and to initiate studies based on results of previous and ongoing activities. Section 3 of the act will cease to be effective at the end of FY 2005, and therefore the recommendations in this report are expected to be considered for implementation in the reauthorization of the act.

This report provides guidance to the DOE on Methane Hydrate R&D Program emphasis to ensure that contributions are made toward understanding methane hydrate as a potential source of energy and a contributor to climate change. In addition, the report provides an assessment of how well the program is meeting the goals set out in the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 and makes


recommendations for scientific oversight and research priorities that would help the program meet those goals.

MEETING THE GOALS OF THE METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

Projects Funded by the Act

In general, DOE implemented and followed the requirements of the act. The DOE was authorized to conduct studies in several areas as mandated by the act (Appendix B; P.L. 106-193, Section 3b) (see Box ES.1).

With respect to the research areas described in the act, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program funded research on identifying, exploring, assessing, and developing methane hydrate as a source of energy (A); assisting in developing technologies for efficient and environmentally sound development (B); developing technologies to reduce the risk of drilling (F); and conducting exploratory drilling (G). No projects have been funded in the area of transportation and storage. None of the projects emphasized education and training, and research only minimally addressed the area of environmental impacts of degassing (decomposition as the solid state hydrate transforms to the gaseous state), which include climate change.

To meet the goals of the act in the future, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should strengthen its contribution to education and training through funding of postdoctoral fellowships and should increase efforts in basic research to address the relationship between gas hydrate and climate change. It is, however, appropriate that some research areas mentioned in the act (e.g., transportation) receive no support since they are peripheral to the primary objectives of the act.

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program began in FY 2000. The project selection process during the course of the first three years of the program has varied. At this time, there are six solicitation or project types currently being funded by the program: (1) targeted solicitations; (2) broad-based solicitations; (3) national laboratory projects; (4) interagency projects; (5) National Energy Technology Laboratory in-house projects; and (6) other nonfederal government procurements. Each

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 95

of these project types is used to address a particular need in the program. For example, targeted solicitations are issued exclusively for projects in a specific research area, while national laboratory projects are used to fill critical gaps or support for activities performed by others.

In Chapter 3, several projects in four major categories—(1) international collaborative projects; (2) targeted research projects; (3) the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) interagency projects, and (4) smaller-scale projects—are reviewed. The results of those reviews are summa-rized below.

International Projects

Relative to the United States, other countries (e.g., Japan) are spending significantly more money on hydrate research. Canada, Japan, and India are investing significant resources in hydrate research. For example, Japan is reportedly investing $65 million in this area in 2004, which includes drilling and coring several wells in the Nankai Trough off of Japan’s East Coast.

By effectively leveraging funding, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program made wise investments of relatively small resources in support of major international research efforts. As evidenced by the Mallik 2002 International Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program and Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 204, science and engineering can be integrated through multidisciplinary research with valuable results. These types of programs are expensive to conduct, but the scientific and engineering knowledge obtained will allow methane production from gas hydrate to become a reality. The U.S. DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program is currently not funded at a level to allow participation in large-scale international research efforts such as proposed for continuing studies at Mallik. Therefore, unless substan-tially greater resources are devoted to the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program, the United States may fall behind other nations in leading hydrate development technology.

It is clear that projects such as the Mallik 2002 Production Research Well Program and the ODP Leg 204 represent achievements that will multiply the DOE investment leading to energy production from hydrate. Participation by U.S. scientists in these international programs has enhanced their success and benefited U.S. programs by providing increased intellectual support. It will be to the benefit of all nations,


including the United States, to foster further collaboration with groups conducting methane hydrate research. Where appropriate, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should be encouraged to lead such endeavors.

Targeted Research Projects

The targeted research projects funded within the authorization provided by the act, include three large industry-managed efforts: the BP Exploration (Alaska) (BPXA) project, the Maurer/Anadarko Hot Ice well, and the ChevronTexaco Gulf of Mexico Joint Industry Project (JIP). The overall aims of these projects were to (1) characterize, quantify, and determine the commercial viability of in situ recoverable gas hydrate (onshore BPXA); (2) apply technology to drill and produce methane (onshore Maurer/Anadarko), (3) develop technology to assist characterization of deepwater, naturally occurring hydrate in the Gulf of Mexico; (4) understand how natural gas hydrate affects seafloor stability; (5) gather data to aid the development of safe and efficient drilling and coring protocols in naturally occurring gas hydrate; and (6) determine how project results can be used to assess whether and by what means gas hydrate acts as a trapping mechanism for shallow oil or gas (Chevron-Texaco JIP).

A review of the BPXA project revealed that it has a good management framework and technical oversight, giving it the potential to establish the United States as a leader in hydrate research. The study area was well chosen, and project objectives have been communicated clearly. A drawback to the project is that the data have not been made publicly available. Therefore greater effort to communicate the results of the project is recommended. For example, a project Web site would be a valuable asset to other researchers interested in the data generated by this research. The decision to proceed from Phase I to Phase II (the drilling phase) has not been made, and at this time is entirely up to BPXA. It is recommended that the project undergo external peer review to assess the decision to drill while taking into account the goals of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program. Future large-scale, industry-managed projects should include a pre-agreement that the drilling decision should be made by an external science-based review panel.

Initial results of the Maurer/Anadarko project have been dissem-inated through a project Web site and through live Web casts from the


field. Although drilling has been completed, no hydrate has been encountered at the site. Few data are available to enable an external evaluation of the site selection process. USGS prepared a report for DOE on the potential gas hydrate accumulations along the western and southern margins of the Kuparauk River Unit, North Slope, Alaska. The report, provided as a memorandum to DOE (and made available to the Anadarko project team) in December 2001 (Collett, 2001), concluded that the likelihood of encountering gas hydrate at the proposed Anadarko Hot Ice Drill sites was very low; a point reiterated in subsequent USGS communications from September and October 2002. An external science-based review process would benefit the program and allow an evaluation of possible drill sites or the identification of potential problems.

The ChevronTexaco Gulf of Mexico JIP is an example of a project that engages the academic, federal agency, and industrial communities in developing and implementing a project. This has been accomplished through planning workshops and workshops to discuss results. The process employed by ChevronTexaco, whereby several workshops were used to engage community input, was effective and valuable in development of the program. While the planning process for the ChevronTexaco Gulf of Mexico JIP has been unique within the program, it is too soon to determine whether the project will be successful. It is recommended, however, that workshop summary reports be prepared and made publicly available once the JIP participants reach decisions based on the workshop.

Although the issues vary, the committee’s review of the industry-managed, targeted research projects raises concerns about each that could limit the ability of these projects to contribute to the goals of the program. To ensure the future success of large, industry-managed targeted research projects, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should implement the following:

• science-based proposal review; • science-based assessments of project progress and milestones; • expert consultation with a diverse project team; • data to be made publicly available; and • peer-reviewed publication of results.


USGS Projects

The USGS has a long history of gas hydrate research (in both the laboratory and the field) and collaboration, which has provided basic and essential information on the chemistry and occurrence of gas hydrate. Of the federal agencies, the USGS has developed an extensive knowledge base on the geological occurrence of gas hydrate. This has made the USGS instrumental in several aspects of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program. First, the USGS has been the primary agency providing evaluations of gas hydrate resources in the Arctic. USGS researchers have served on both Mallik projects and have given advice on geologic aspects of drilling for the BP Exploration (Alaska) and the Maurer/Anadarko projects in the Arctic. Second, the USGS has been a close collaborator with the ChevronTexaco JIP in the Gulf of Mexico. Finally, the USGS conducts laboratory experiments on natural and man-made gas hydrate. DOE has been funding these efforts for more than a decade. The USGS should continue to play a major role in gas hydrate research as a collaborator in the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program.

Smaller-Scale Projects

Smaller-scale projects funded by the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program are generally funded through either broad-based solicitations or national laboratory projects. In Chapter 3, these projects are grouped into three general categories for discussion: (1) University of Mississippi efforts to establish a seafloor observatory in the Gulf of Mexico, (2) other university-based studies, and (3) laboratory or modeling projects.

Overall, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has, through its proposal process, funded a number of small-scale R&D projects. Some of these have had a major technological impact. Several factors enhance the productivity of these projects including research that builds on an existing knowledge base, having a history of working in the area, undertaking effective collaboration with other workers in the field, and striving for technology transfer between fields (e.g., EOSHYD2 modeling project). It is important, however, to note that the results of many of these projects have not been published, and therefore, they could not be thoroughly evaluated. A summary of DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program-sponsored projects should be developed on


an annual basis and posted on the program Web site. In addition, a set of instructions and guidelines outlining the requirement for timely and full disclosure of project results should be provided to project applicants. As much as practical, these instructions should include the consequences of noncompliance.

Program Breadth

The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program has effectively advanced a number of research and development goals to determine the production potential of gas hydrate as a future energy resource and to assess potential geohazards associated with disturbance of gas hydrate deposits. Since initiation of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program in 2001, most (more than 60 percent) of the DOE funding has gone to targeted industry-managed projects. These projects have not indicated how methane would serve as an energy resource or as a geohazard for energy production or climate change. A minor portion (4 percent) of DOE funding was designated for participating in collaborative international projects, which resulted in advanced production testing of a gas hydrate reservoir (Mallik 2002) and characterized hydrate in a natural seafloor environment. Such projects should be encouraged in the future.

FUTURE PROGRAM EMPHASIS, RESEARCH, AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

The overarching goal of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program is

to conduct focused and applied research to identify, assess, and develop methane hydrate as a source of energy. The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 specified broad research goals and areas of study (Box ES.1) but did not prioritize activities in a number of areas. The recommendations for future research emphasis are discussed in Chapter 4.

In addition to the specific research areas discussed below, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should place major emphasis on educating a new generation of scientists and engineers. This can be accomplished through a program of graduate assistantships and fellow-ships. In addition a program of postdoctoral fellowships could be patterned after DOE’s successful Hollander Fellowship program, but


modified to include opportunities for research experience involving cooperation between academia, government, and industry.

The overriding focus of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program in the future should be on the potential importance of hydrate as a future energy resource for the nation and the world. To optimize the potential impact of the amount of hydrate research funding available (~$9 million per year), such a focused program should systematically address research in areas that are poorly or partly understood. These areas are listed below and discussed in detail in Chapter 4:

• Future field experiments, drilling, and production testing with consideration of testing offshore hydrate that might be of sufficiently large quantity for potential commercial extraction.

• Hydrate deposit identification and characterization. • Reservoir modeling. • Technology recovery methods and production. • Understanding the natural system and climate change potential. • Geological hazards. • Transportation and storage.

Collaboration between the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Pro-

gram and other agencies, to augment infrastructure, will facilitate the achievement of program goals. For example, collaboration with the National Science Foundation (NSF), especially with the Ocean Ob-servatories Initiative (OOI) and the Ocean Research Interactive Observatory Network (ORION), would be useful to implement studies geared toward understanding the temporal evolution of gas hydrate systems using long-term observatories on and beneath the seafloor (NRC, 2003). (More information available at http://www.coreocean.org \orion.) The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should sponsor a workshop focused on specific aspects of required research, for example, finding “sweet spots” or monitoring the evolution of gas hydrate depos-its over time in the context of the OOI.

Efforts to determine whether hydrate is economically producible are commendable; however, a more systematic science-based plan should be developed to ensure that the best sites are chosen and drilled so that these sites will have the best chance of producing natural gas from hydrate formations. To the extent that energy production from hydrate is likely to have a 30-year horizon, it is essential to ensure the next generation of


workers, by providing for their education in hydrate technology in the future. While the concept of energy extraction from hydrate has been validated, the proof of economical energy production from hydrate will require dedication and perseverance beyond the current generation.

SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT OF THE DOE METHANE

HYDRATE R&D PROGRAM

A key component of meeting the goals and priorities of any science-based program is scientific oversight (Chapter 5). This oversight includes external reviews of projects and proposals to ensure that the goals of the program can be met.

Roles of the Advisory Committees The DOE Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000

mandated the establishment of two committees to help oversee the scientific aspects of the program.

The Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (MHAC) with members from industry and academia was established to advise the Secretary of Energy on potential applications of methane hydrate, to help develop research priorities, and to produce a report on the global climate impacts of methane hydrate formation, degassing, and consumption. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program could have made more effective use of the original members of the MHAC and given them more support to carry out their charge as mandated by the act. The program would benefit from the current MHAC’s scientific advice and perspective on the activities ultimately funded by the program. In the future, the members of the MHAC should take a significant role in providing guidance and recommendations on research priorities for the program. They should have a role in providing a scheduled, independent, in-depth procedure for scientific review of the progress of existing projects as well as the selection criteria for new projects and site selection within the program. However, a conflict-of-interest protocol should be drafted to require the members of the MHAC to recuse themselves from discussions and decisions directly related to their own research or institutions. Implementing these changes will help to ensure that the goals of the


Methane Hydrate R&D Program are being met with the best scientific input provided in a timely fashion.

The Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) (also mandated by the act) consists of individuals designated by the heads of all agencies engaged in hydrate research. This committee was charged with reviewing the progress of the program and making recommendations for future research. While this charge overlaps significantly with the charge of the MHAC, the purpose of the ICC is to avoid duplication of effort and to collaborate on past, present, and future research being conducted by each agency. The ICC established the Technical Coordinating Team (TCT) to aid it in its charge. The TCT, acting as the operating arm of the ICC, has performed some of the tasks envisioned in the act for the ICC. The overall coordination by senior agency administrators has allowed clear gains to the program. However, neither the ICC nor the TCT has played a role in reviewing the progress of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program or provided advice on future directions.

The advisory committees established by the Methane Hydrate R&D Act (the MHAC and ICC) have not had a major impact on evaluating the progress and priorities of the program as mandated by the act. The purview and responsibilities of the MHAC, ICC, and TCT committees should be clearly defined with respect to each other. In addition, their efforts should be clearly aligned to eliminate any confusion in how proposed projects are received, evaluated, authorized, monitored, and assessed.

Science in the Project Selection Process

The internal, merit-based DOE review process used to select projects for funding is not as effective as it could be in examining the program as a whole and ensuring that overall program goals are met. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program currently uses a “merit-based review” of proposals consisting of input from DOE project managers responsible for managing proposals to the program. Currently, the project managers reviewing these proposals have responsibilities in other research areas and therefore may not be able to examine the proposals as a whole to ascertain whether particular projects would help to meet program goals. While merit-based reviews are consistent with the language of the act, the additional use of external peer reviewers in the project selection process would serve to assess progress toward program goals, evaluate program balance, aid in the perception of fairness to the research community, provide


scientific guidance to program managers, and perhaps improve the quality of the program over time.

All projects above a defined dollar level should be submitted to external review following appropriate guidelines and procedures (e.g., those of NSF), and the comments and recommendations received should be evaluated by the MHAC or similar body in compliance with the conflict-of-interest protocol. In addition, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should implement a mechanism to incorporate greater scientific oversight to assess progress toward program goals, evaluate program balance, and enhance the quality of the program over time. This can be accomplished by initiating external proposal and program reviews. A set of instructions and guidelines outlining the requirement for timely and full disclosure of project results should be provided to project proponents.

OVERVIEW

Gas hydrate has become the focus of international attention because of the vast reserves estimated to exist and the possibility of tapping those reserves for human use. Researchers recognize that the estimates are of limited use in assessing the capability for production, predicting slope instability, or understanding the potential impacts on global climate because there is a great spatial heterogeneity in gas hydrate distribution.

It is evident that significant progress has been made over the last five years by the international community to prove the concept of energy production from gas hydrate. The United States and other nations recognize that given sufficient in-place reserves, there are no obvious technical or engineering roadblocks to prevent commercial production of gas from hydrate in the future. However, there are some technical and engineering challenges that have to be solved before commercial pro-duction can begin.

The immediate future will see progress from engineering proof of concept to proof of economic production. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program provides a significant incentive and valued role in developing this nation’s ability to produce energy from gas hydrate and to understand the potential geological constraints on drilling hydrate.

Although commercial interest in drilling and producing hydrate is presently low, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program’s continued support of hydrate efforts is a key component of this nation’s ability to produce energy from hydrate in the future.

105

References Allison, E. 2003. Presentation to meeting of the Committee to Review the

Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, held in Washington, D.C., September 2-3.

Alperin, M.J., W.S. Reeburgh, and M.J. Whticar. 1988. Carbon and hydrogen isotope fractionation resulting from anaerobic methane oxidation. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2:279-288.

Ballard, A.L., and E.D. Sloan. 2002. The next generation of hydrate prediction: An overview. Journal of Supramolecular Chemistry 2:385-392.

Bangs, N.L.B., D.S. Sawyer, and X. Golovchenko. 1993. Free gas at the base of the gas hydrate zone in the vicinity of the Chile triple junction. Geology 21:905-908.

Boetius, A., K. Ravenschlag, C.J. Schubert, D. Rickert, F. Widdel, A. Gieseke, R.Amann, B.B. Jorgensen, U. Witte, and O. Pfannkuche. 2000. Microscopic identification of a microbial consortium apparently mediating anaerobic methane oxidation above marine gas hydrate. Nature 407:623-626.

Booth, J.S., W.J. Winters, and D.H. Mason. 1994. Capabilities of GHASTLI for Geo-Gas Hydrate Research. Gas Hydrate and Sediment Test Laboratory Instrument: A deep-sea in situ simulations instrument for conducting experiments on the properties and behavior of gas hydrate-sediment systems: U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 94-646. U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

Booth, J.S., W.J. Winters, W.P. Dillon, B. Clennell, and M.M. Rowe. 1998. Major occurrences and reservoir concepts of marine clathrate hydrates: Implications of field evidence. Pp. 113-127 in Gas Hydrates, J.-P. Henriet , and J. Mienert, eds. Geological Society of London Special Publication 137.

Bouriak, S., M. Vanneste, and A. Saoutkine. 2000. Inferred gas hydrates and clay diapirs near the Storegga Slide on the southern edge of the Voring plateau, offshore Norway. Marine Geology 163:125-148.

BP Statistical Review of World Energy. 2003. [Online] Available at http:/ /www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=760&contentId=2014223 [accessed August 5, 2004].


Brook, E.J., S. Harder, J. Severinghaus, and M. Bender. 1999. Atmospheric methane and millennial-scale climate change. Pp. 165-175 in Mechanisms of Global Climate Change at Millennial Time Scales, P. Clark, L. Keigwin, and R. Webb, eds. Geophyscial Monograph 112. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.

Bryn, P., A. Solheim, K. Berg, R. Lien, C.F. Forsberg, H. Haflidason, D. Ottesen, and L. Rise. 2003. The Storegga complex: Repeated large scale sliding in response to climatic cyclicity. Pp. 215-222 in Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences: Advances in Matural and Technological Hazards Research Series, J. Locat and J. Mienert, eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Chand, S., and T.A. Minshull. 2003. Seismic constraints on the effects of gas hydrate on sediment physical properties and fluid flow: A review. Geofluids 3:275-289.

Chen, D.F., and L.M. Cathles. 2003. A kinetic model for the pattern and amounts of hydrate precipitated from a gas steam: Application to the Bush Hill vent site, Green Canyon Block 185, Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(7): 1-14. doi:10.1029/2001JB001597.

Chen, D., W. Xu, and Z. Zhao. 2001. Gas hydrate structure and hydration numbers and its densities. Kuangwu Xuebao 21:159.

Cicerone, R.J., and R.S. Oremland. 1988. Biogeochemical aspects of atoms-pheric methane. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2:299-327.

Circone, S., L.A. Stern, S.H. Kirby, J.C. Pinkston, and W.B. Durham. 2000. Pure methane hydrate dissociation rates at 0.1 MPa and temperatures above 272 K, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 3rd International Conference on Gas Hydrates, v.912, p. 544-555.

Clark, P.U., N.G. Pisias, T.F Stocker, and A.J. Weaver. 2002. The role of thermohaline circulation in abrupt climate change. Nature 415:863-869.

Clarke, M.A., and P.R. Bishnoi. 2001. Determination of the activation energy and intrinsic rate constant of methane hydrate decomposition. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering l79:143.

Claypool, G.E., and K.A. Kvenvolden. 1983. Methane and other hydrocarbon gases in marine sediments. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 11:299-327.

Clennell, M.B., M. Hovland, J.S. Booth, P. Henry, and W.J. Winters. 1999. Formation of natural gas hydrates in marine sediments. I: Conceptual model of gas hydrate growth conditioned by host sediment properties. Journal of Geophysical Research 104:22,985-23,003.

Clennell, M.B., P. Henry, M. Hovland, J.S. Booth, W.J. Winters, and M. Thomas. 2000. Formation of natural gas hydrates in marine sediments: Gas hydrate growth and stability conditioned by host sediment properties. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 912:887-896.

Collett, T.S. 1983. Detection and Evaluation of Natural Gas Hydrates from Well Logs, Prudhoe Bay Alaska. Master’s thesis, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

REFERENCES 107

Collett, T.S. 1997. Resource potential of marine and permafrost associated gas hydrates. Pp. 24-33 in Oceanic Gas Hydrate: Guidance for Research and Programmatic Development at the Naval Research Laboratory, Proceedings of the workshop on Naval Research Laboratory gas hydrate research program, M.D. Max, Pallenbarg, R.E., and B.B. Rath, eds. NRL/MR/6100-97-8124. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

Collett, T. 2001. Memorandum: Preliminary Analysis of the Potential Gas Hydrate Accumulations Along Western and Southern Margins of the Kuparuk River Unit, North Slope, Alaska. A report prepared by USGS for USDOE. Available on request through the Public Access Records Office, The National Academies, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW, Room NAS 171, Washington, DC 20418, Tel: (202) 334-3543, Email: [email protected].

Collett, T. 2004. Presentation to meeting of the Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, held in La Jolla, California, January 5, 2004.

Collett, T.S., and J. Ladd. 2000. Detection of gas hydrates with downhole logs. Pp.179-191 in Proceeding of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 164, C.K. Paull, R. Matsumoto, P.J. Wallace, and W.P. Dillon, eds. Ocean Drilling Program, College Station, Texas.

Collett, T.S., K.J. Bird, L.B. Magoon, K.A. Kvenvolden, and G. Claypool. 1986. Gas hydrates North Slope of Alaska. Pp. 11-12 in Proceedings of the 2nd McKelvey Forum on Mineral and Energy Resources, held on February 5 in Denver, Colorado. USGS Circular 0974. U.S. Geological Survey, Washing-ton, D.C.

Cooper, A.K., and P.E. Hart. 2003. High-resolution seismic-reflection investi-gation of the northern Gulf of Mexico gas-hydrate-stability zone. Marine and Petroleum Geology 19:1275-1293.

Cragg, B.A., R.J. Parkes, J.C. Fry, A.J. Weightman, P.A. Rochelle, and J.R. Maxwell. 1996. Bacterial populations and processes in sediments containing gas hydrates (ODP Leg 146: Cascadia margin). Earth and Planet-ary Science Letters 139:497-507.

Dallimore, S.R., T. Uchia, and T.S. Collett, eds. 1999. Scientific Results from JAPEX/JNOC/GSC Mallik 2L-38 Gas Hydrate Research Well, Mackenzie Delta, Northwest Territories. GSC Bulletin 544. Geological Survey of Canada, Sydney, British Columbia, 403 pp.

Dallimore, S.R., T.S. Collett, T. Uchida, and M. Weber. 2002. Overview of the 2002 Mallik Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program. Pp. 36-39 in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Gas Hydrates, Yokahama, Japan. [Online] Available at http://sts.gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/gashy

drate/mallik2002/pdf/Dallimore_et_al_4th_ICGH_paper.pdf [August 18, 2004].

Davie, M.K., and B.A. Buffett. 2001. A numerical model for the formation of gas hydrate below the seafloor. Journal of Geophysical Research 106:497-514.


Davy, H. 1811. The Bakerian lecture on some of the combinations of oxymuriatic gas and oxygene, and on the chemical relations of these principles. Philosophical Transactions (The Royal Society, London) 101:1-35.

Dickens, G.R. 2003a. Rethinking the global carbon cycle with a large, dynamic and microbially mediated gas hydrate capacitor. Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Frontiers) 213:169-182.

Dickens, G.R., 2003b. A methane trigger for global warming? Science 299:1017.

Dickens, G.R., M.M. Castillo, and J.G.C. Walker. 1997. A blast of gas in the latest Paleocene: Simulating first-order effects of massive dissociation of oceanic methane hydrate. Geology 25:259.

Dickens, G.R., P.J. Wallace, C.K. Paull, and W.S. Borowski. 2000. Detection of methane gas hydrate in the pressure core sampler (PCS): Volume-pressure-time relations during controlled degassing experiments. Pp. 113-126 in Proceeding of the Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 164, C.K. Paull, R. Matsumoto, P.J. Wallace, and W.P. Dillon, eds. Ocean Drilling Program, College Station, Texas.

Dillon, W.P., and M.D. Max. 2000a. Oceanic gas hydrate. Pp. 61-76 in Natural Gas Hydrate in Oceanic and Polar Environments, M.D. Max, ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Dillon, W.P., and M.D. Max. 2000b. The U.S. Atlantic continental margin: The best- known gas hydrate locality. Pp. 157-170 in Natural Gas Hydrate in Oceanic and Polar Environments, M.D. Max, ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Dillon, W.P., R.F. Mast, K.L. Fehlhaber, M.W. Lee, and L.M.H. Carter. 1992. Gas hydrates in deep ocean sediments offshore Southeastern United States: A future resource? USGS research on energy resources 1992. [Abstract]. Pp. 18-21 in USGS Research on Energy Resources, Program and Abstracts, Mineral and Energy Resources. USGS Circular C1074. U.S. Geological Survey, Houston, Texas.

Dillon, W.P., W.W. Danforth, D.R. Hutchison, R.M. Drury, M.H. Taylor, and J.S. Booth. 1998. Evidence for faulting related to dissociation of gas hydrate and release of methane off the southeastern United States. Pp. 293-302 in Gas Hydrates: Relevance to World Margin Stability and Climate Change, J.P. Henriet, and J. Mienert, eds. Special Publication 137. Geological Society, London.

Egeberg, P.K., and G.R. Dickens.1999. Thermodynamic and pore water halogen constraints on gas hydrate distribution at ODP Site 997 (Blake Ridge). Chemical Geology 153:53-79.

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2002. Annual Energy Review 2002. DOE/EIA-0384. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. [Online] Available at http://www.eia

.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_2.html [accessed July 14, 2004].

REFERENCES 109

Fire in the Ice. 2003. “Ghosts and mosquitos in the Gulf of Mexico”. The National Energy Technology Laboratory Methane Hydrate Newsletter. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, (Winter):1-7.

Fire in the Ice. 2004. The National Energy Technology Laboratory Methane Hydrate Newsletter. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technol-ogy Laboratory, (Summer).

Fisher, P.A. 2004. What’s new in exploration? World Oil Magazine 225(4) [Online] Available at http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE _DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=2293&MONTH_YEAR=Apr-2004 [accessed July 14, 2004].

Ford, K.H., T.H. Naehr, C.G. Skilbeck, and Leg 201 Scientific Party. 2003. The use of infrared thermal imaging to identify gas hydrate in sediment cores. Pp. 1-20 in Proc. ODP, Initial Reports, 201, S.L. D’Hondt, B.B. Jørgensen, D.J. Miller, et al., eds. Ocean Drilling Program, College Station, Texas.

Guerin, G., D. Goldberg, and A. Meltser. 1999. Characterization of in situ elastic properties of gas hydrate-bearing sediments on the Blake Ridge. Journal of Geophysical Research 104:17,781-17,795.

Hammerschmidt, E.G. 1934. Formation of gas hydrates in natural gas transmission lines. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 26(8):851-855.

Haq, B.U. 1998. Natural gas hydrates: Searching the long-term climatic and slope stability records. Pp. 303-318 in Gas hydrates: Relevance to World Margin Stability and Climate Change, J.P. Henriet, and J. Meinert, eds. Special Publication 137. Geological Society, London, England.

Heeschen, K.U., A.M. Tréhu, R.W. Collier, E. Suess, and G. Rehder. 2003. Distribution and height of methane bubble plumes on the Cascadia margin characterized by acoustic imaging. Geophysical Research Letters 30:1,643-1,646.

Helgerud, M.B., J. Dvorkin, A. Nur, A. Sakai, and T. Collett. 1999. Elastic-wave velocity in marine sediments with gas hydrates: Effective medium modeling. Geophysical Research Letters 26:2021-2024.

Hesse, R., and W.E. Harrison. 1981. Gas hydrates causing pore-water freshening and oxygen isotope fractionation in deep-water sedimentary section of terrigenous continental margins. Earth Planetary Science Letters 55:453-462.

Holbrook, W.S., H. Hoskins, W.T. Wood, R.A. Stephen, D. Lizarralde, and Leg 164 Science Party. 1996. Methane hydrate and free gas on the Blake Ridge from vertical seismic profiling. Science 273:1840-1843.

Hovland, M. 2000. Are there commercial deposits of marine hydrates in ocean sediments? Energy Exploration and Exploitation 8:339-347.

Hovland, M., and O.T. Gudmestad. 2001. Potential influence of gas hydrates on seabed installations. Pp. 307-315 in Natural Gas Hydrates: Occurrence, Distribution and Detection, C.K. Paull and W.P. Dillon, eds. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.


Hunter, R. 2004. Characterization of Alaska North Slope gas hydrate resource potential. P.1 in Fire in the Ice (Spring). U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Hyndman, R.D., and G.D. Spence. 1992. A seismic study of methane hydrate marine bottom simulating reflectors. Journal of Geophysical Research 97:6,683-6,698.

Johnson, A. 2003. Presentation to the meeting of the Committee to Review the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, Committee, held in Houston, Texas, October 28-30.

Johnson, J.E., C. Goldfinger, and E. Suess. 2003. Geophysical constraints on the surface distribution of authigenic carbonates across the Hydrate Ridge region, Cascadia margin. Marine Geology 202:79-120.

Judd, A.G. 2003 The global importance and context of methane escape from the seabed. Geo-Marine Letters 23:147-154

Katz, M.E., D.K. Pak, G.R. Dickens, and K.G. Miller. 1999. The source and fate of massive carbon input during the latest Paleocene thermal maximum. Science 286(5444):1,521-1,533.

Katzman, R., W.S. Holbrook, and C.K. Paull. 1994. Combined vertical-incidence and wide-angle seismic study of a gas hydrate zone, Blake Ridge. Journal of Geophysical Research 97:17,975-17,995.

Kennett, J.P. 2002. Role of methane hydrates in global climate change? Appendix B in the Report of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee on Methane Hydrate Issues and Opportunities Including Assessment of Uncertainty of the Impact of Methane Hydrate on Global Climate Change. Report to Congress. [Online] Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/ hydrate/pdf/CongressReport.pdf [accessed July 14, 2004].

Kennett, J.P., K.G. Cannariato, I.L. Hendy, and R.J. Behl. 2003. Methane Hydrates in Quaternary Climate Change: The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., 216 pp.

Korenaga, J., W.S. Holbrook, S.C. Singh, and T.A. Minshull. 1997. Natural gas hydrates on the SE U.S. margin: Constraints from full waveform inversions of wide-angle seismic data. Journal of Geophysical Research 102:15,345-15,365.

Kvenvolden, K.A. 1988. Methane hydrates and climate change. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2:221-229.

Kvenvolden, K.A. 1993a. Gas hydrate: Geological perspective and global change. Reviews of Geophysics 31:173-187.

Kvenvolden, K.A. 1993b. A primer on gas hydrates. Pp. 279-291 in The Future of Energy Gases, D.G. Howell, ed. USGS Professional Paper 1570. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Kvenvolden, K.A. 1999. Potential effects of gas hydrate on human welfare. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 96:3,420-3,426.

Kvenvolden, K.A., and T.D. Lorenson. 2001. The global occurrence of natural gas hydrate. Pp. 3-18 in Natural Gas Hydrates: Occurrence, distribution and detection, C.K. Paull, and W.P. Dillon, eds. Geophysical Monograph 124, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.

REFERENCES 111

Lee, M.W., D.R. Hutchinson, W.P. Dillon, J.J. Miller, W.F. Agena, and B.A. Swift. 1993. Method of estimating the amount of in situ gas hydrates in marine sediments. Marine and Petroleum Geology 10:493-506.

Lee, M.W., W.P. Dillon, and D.R. Hutchinson. 1992. Estimating the amount of gas hydrate in marine sediments in the Blake Ridge area, southeastern Atlantic margin. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-275. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., 24 pp.

Lutken, C., and T. McGee. 2004. Remote observatory to provide detailed data on near-sea-floor fluid dynamics. Fire in the Ice (Summer):1-4.

MacKay, M.E., R.D. Jarrad, G.K. Westbrook, R.D. Hyndman, and Shipboard Scientific Party, ODP Leg 146. 1994. Origin of BSRs: Geophysical evidence from the Cascadia accretionary prism. Geology 22:459-462.

Makogon, Y.F. 1965. Hydrate formation in the gas-bearing beds under permafrost conditions. [English Trans.] Gazovaia Promyshlennost 56:14-15.

Maslin, M., and S.J. Burns, 2000. Reconstruction of the Amazon Basin effective moisture availability over the past 14,000 years. Science 29:2,285-2,287.

Maslin, M., M. Owen, S. Day, and D. Long. 2004. Linking continental-slope failures and climate change: Testing the clathrate gun hypothesis. Geology 32:53-56.

Mathews, M.A., and R. von Huene. 1985. Site 570 methane hydrate zone. Pp. 773-790 in Initial Report of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, R. von Huene, J. Aubouin, et al., eds. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Merewether, R., M.S. Olsson, and P. Lonsdale. 1985. Acoustically detected hydrocarbon plumes rising from 2-km depths in Guaymas Basin, Gulf of California. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(B4):3,075-3,085.

Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (MHAC). 2001. Letter from Arthur Johnson, Chair, Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee to Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, dated June 1.

Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (MHAC). 2002a. Methane Hydrate Issues and Opportunities: Including Assessment of Uncertainty of the Impact of Methane Hydrate on Global Climate Change. Report to Congress. [Online] Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/hydrate/pdf/ CongressReport.pdf [accessed July 14, 2004].

Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (MHAC). 2002b. Letter from Arthur Johnson, Chair, Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee to Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, dated December 17.

Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. Public Law 106-193. 106th Congress.

Milkov, A.V. 2004. Global estimates of hydrate-bound gas in marine sediments: How much is really out there? Earth Science Reviews 66(3-4):183-197.

Milkov, A.V., and R. Sassen. 2001. Estimate of gas hydrate resource, northwestern Gulf of Mexico continental slope. Marine Geology 179:71-83.

Milkov, A.V., and R. Sassen. 2002. Economic geology of offshore gas hydrate accumulations and provinces. Marine and Petroleum Geology 19:1-11.


Milkov, A.V., G.E. Claypool, Y.-J. Lee, G.R. Dickens, W. Xu, W.S. Borowski, and ODP Leg 204 Science Party. 2003. In situ methane concentrations at Hydrate Ridge offshore Oregon: New constraints on the global gas inventory from an active margin. Geology 31(10):833-836.

Milkov, A.V., G.E. Claypool, Y.-J. Lee, and R. Sassen. 2004a. Gas hydrate systems at Hydrate Ridge offshore Oregon inferred from molecular and isotopic properties of hydrate-bound gases. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, in press.

Milkov, A.V., G.E. Claypool, Y.-J. Lee, M.E. Torres, W.S. Borowski, H. Tomaru, R. Sassen, P. Long, and ODP Leg 204 Scientific Party. 2004b. Ethane enrichment and propane depletion indicate gas hydrate occurrence in marine sediments at Hydrate Ridge offshore Oregon. Organic Geochemistry 35(9):1067-1080.

Milkov, A.V., G.R. Dickens, G.E. Claypool, Y.-J. Lee, W.S. Borowski, M.E. Torres, W. Xu, H. Tomaru, A.M. Tréhu, and P. Schultheiss. 2004c. Co-existence of gas hydrate, free gas, and brine within the regional gas hydrate stability zone at the southern summit of Hydrate Ridge (Oregon margin): Evidence from prolonged degassing of a pressurized core. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222(3-4):829-843.

Mori, Y., and T. Mochizuki. 2000. Modeling of simultaneous heat and mass transfer to/from and across a hydrate film. Pp. 633 in Gas Hydrates, Challenges for the Future, G. Holder, and R. Bishnoi, eds. Vol. 912. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

Moridis, G., T.S. Collett, S.R. Dallimore, T. Satoh, S. Hancock, and B. Weatherill. 2002. Numerical simulation studies of gas production scenarios from hydrate accumulations at the Mallik site, Mackenzie Delta, Canada. Pp. 239-244 in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Gas Hydrates, May 19-23, Yokohama, Japan.

National Research Council (NRC). 2003. Summary of a Workshop on U.S. Natural Gas Demand, Supply, and Technology: Looking Toward the Future. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

Nisbet, E.G. 1990. The end of the ice age. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 27:148-157.

Nisbet, E.G., and D.J.W. Piper. 1998. Giant submarine landslides. Nature 392:329-330.

Ota, S., H. Uetani, and H. Kawano. 2002. Use of hydrate pellets for transportation of natural gas-III safety measured and conceptual design of natural gas hydrate pellet carrier. Pp. 991-996 in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Gas Hydrates, Yokohama, May 19-23.

Paull, C.K., W. Ussler III, and W.P. Dillon. 1991. Is the extent of glaciation limited by marine gas-hydrates? Geophysical Research Letters 18:432-434.

Paull, C.K., W.I. Ussler, W.S. Borowski, and F.N. Spiess. 1995. Methane-rich plumes on the Carolina continental rise: Associations with gas hydrates. Geology 23(1):89-92.

REFERENCES 113

Pecher, I.A., T.A. Minshull, S.C. Singh, and R. von Huene. 1996. Velocity structure of a bottom simulating reflector offshore Peru: Results from full waveform inversion. Earth Planetary Science Letters 139:459-469.

Petroleum News. 2004. Hot Ice finds gas, but no gas hydrates, at test well. Petroleum News 7(10):11-12. [Online] Available at http://www.petroleum news.com/pnarch/040307-28.html [accessed April 21, 2004].

Pflaum, R.C., J.M. Brooks, H.B. Cox, M.C. Kennicutt, II, and D.-D. Sheu. 1986. Molecular and isotopic analysis of core gases and gas hydrates, DSDP Leg 96. Pp. 781-784 in Initial Reports, Deep Sea Drilling Project 96, A.H. Bouma, J.M. Coleman, and A.W. Meyer, eds. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST). 1997. Report to the President on Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, D.C. [Online] Available at http://neri.ne.doe.gov/docs/pcast/cover.pdf [accessed July 15, 2004].

Preuss, K. 1991. TOUGH2—A General-Purpose Numerical Simulator for Multipurpose Fluid and Heat Flow. Report LBL-29400. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California.

Reeburgh, W.S. 1980. Anaerobic methane oxidation: Rates and rate depth distributions in Skan Bay sediments. Earth Planetary Science Letters 47:345-352.

Reeburgh, W.S., B.B. Ward, S.C. Whalen, K.A. Sandbeck, K.A. Kilpatrick, and L.J. Kerkhof. 1991. Black Sea methane geochemistry. Deep-Sea Research 38:S1189-S1210.

Reeburgh, W.S., S.C. Whalen, and M.J. Alperin. 1993. The role of methylotrophy in the global methane budget. Pp.1-14 in Microbial Growth on C-1 Compounds, J.C. Murrell, and D.P. Kelly, eds. Intercept Press, Andover, UK.

Rehder, G., R.S. Keir, E. Suess, and M. Rhein. 1999. Methane in the north Atlantic controlled by microbial oxidation and atmospheric history. Geophysical Research Letters 26(5):587-590.

Rempel, A.W., and B.A. Buffett. 1998. Mathematical models of gas hydrate accumulation. Pp. 63-74 in Gas Hydrates: Relevance to World Margin Stability and Climate Change, J-P. Henriet, and J. Meinert, eds. Geological Society of London 137 (Special Publication).

Ripmeester, J. 2000. Hydrate research—From correlations to a knowledge-based discipline: The importance of structure. P. 1 in Gas Hydrates, Challenges for the Future, G. Holder, and R Bishnoi, eds. Vol. 912. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York.

Roberts, H.H. 2001. Fluid and gas expulsion on the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope: Mud-prone to mineral-prone responses. Pp. 145-161 in Natural Gas Hydrates: Occurrence, Distribution and Detection, C. K. Paull, and W.P. Dillon, eds. Geophysical Monograph 124. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.


Roberts, H.H., and R.S. Carney. 1997. Evidence of episodic fluid, gas, and sediment venting on the Northern Gulf of Mexico Continental Slope. Economic Geology 92:863-879.

Ruppel, C. 2000. Natural Gas Hydrates in Oceanic and Permafrost Environ-ments. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Salyuk, A., A. Obzhirov, B. Li, N. Biebow, and E. Suess. 2002. Hydroacoustic flare imaging and estimation of the methane flux from an active natural methane vent area of the northern Sakhalin slope. Pp. 96-97 in Climate Drivers of the North, Program and Abstracts. Terra Nostra 3. Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung, Bremerhaven.

Sassen, R., S.T. Sweet, A.V. Milkov, D.A. DeFreitas, M.C. Kennicutt II, and H.H. Roberts. 2001. Stability of thermogenic gas hydrate in the Gulf of Mexico: Constraints on models of climate change. Pp. 131-143 in Natural Gas Hydrates: Occurrence, Distribution, and Detection, C.K. Paull and W.P. Dillon, eds. Geophysical Monograph 124. American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.

Scranton, M.I., and P.G. Brewer. 1978. Consumption of dissolved methane in the deep ocean. Limnology and Oceanography 23:1,207-1,213.

Shipley, T.H., M.H. Houston, R.T. Buffler, F.J. Shaub, K.J. McMillen, J.W. Ladd, and J.L. Worzel. 1979. Seismic evidence for widespread possible gas hydrate horizons on continental slopes and rises. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 63:2,204-2,213.

Singh, S.C., T.A. Minshull, and G.D. Spence. 1993. Velocity structure of a gas hydrate reflector. Science 260:204-207.

Sloan, E.D., Jr. 2003. Fundamental principles and applications of natural gas hydrates. Nature 426:353-359.

Spence, G.D., R.D. Hyndman, N.R. Chapman, and C. Cleary. 2001. Fishing trawler nets massive “catch” of methane hydrates. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 82:621, 627.

Stern, L.A., S.H. Kirby, W.B. Durham, S. Circone, and W.F. Waite. 2000. Synthesis of pure methane hydrate suitable for measurement of physical properties and decomposition behavior. Pp. 323-349 in Natural Gas Hydrate in Oceanic and Permafrost Environments, M.D. Max, ed. Kluwer Publisher, Dorecht.

Stern, L.A., S. Circone, S.H. Kirby, and W.B. Durham. 2003. Temperature, pressure, and compositional effects on anomalouse or “self” preservation of gas hydrates. Canadian Journal of Physics 81(1-2):271-283.

Takahashi, H., T. Yonezawa, and E. Fercho. 2003. Operation Overview of the 2002 Mallik Gas Hydrate Production Research Well Program at the Mackenzie Delta in the Canadian Arctic. OTC 15124. Presented at 2003 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, May 5-8.

Tinivella, U., and F. Accaino. 2000. Compressional velocity structure and Poisson’s ratio in marine sediments with gas hydrate and free gas by inversion of reflected and refracted seismic data. Marine Geology 164:13-27.

REFERENCES 115

Torres, M.E., K. Wallmann, A.M. Tréhu, G. Bohrmann, W.S. Borowski, and H. Tomaru. 2004. Gas hydrate dynamics at the Hydrate Ridge southern summit based on dissolved chloride data. Earth and Planetary Science Letter, in press.

Tréhu, A.M., G. Bohrmann, F. Rack, M.E. Torres, T. Collett, D. Goldberg, P.E. Long, A.V. Milkov, M. Riedel, P. Schultheiss, N.L. Bangs, S.R. Barr, W.S. Borowski, G.E. Claypool, M.E. Delwiche, G.R. Dickens, E. Gracia, G. Guerin, M. Holland, J.E. Johnson, Y.-J. Lee, C.-S. Liu, X. Su, B. Teichert, H. Tomaru, M. Vanneste, M. Watanabe, and J.L. Weinberger. 2003. Proceed-ing of the Ocean Drilling Program Initial Reports 204. [Online] Available at http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/204_IR/204ir.htm [accessed March 29, 2004].

Tréhu, A.M., M.E. Torres, P.E. Long, G. Bohrmann, F.R. Rack, T.S. Collett, D.S. Goldberg, A.V. Milkov, M. Riedel, P. Schultheiss, N.L. Bangs, S.R. Barr, W.S. Borowski, G.E. Claypool, M.E. Delwiche, G.R. Dickens, E. Gracia, G. Guerin, M. Holland, J.E. Johnson, Y.-J. Lee, C.-S. Liu, X. Su, B. Teichert, H. Tomaru, M. Vanneste, M. Watanabe, and J.L. Weinberger. 2004. Three-dimensional distribution of gas hydrate beneath southern Hydrate Ridge: Constraints from ODP Leg 204. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222(3-4):845-862.

Tucholke B.E., G.M. Bryan, and J.I. Ewing. 1977. Gas hydrate horizons detected in seismic-profiler data from the western North Atlantic. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 61:698-707.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1998. A Strategy for Methane Hydrates Research and Development. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1999. National Methane Hydrate Multi-Year R&D Program Plan. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2003a. DOE Mission Statement. [Online] Available at http://www.doe.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ABOUTDOE

[accessed July 20, 2004]. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2003b. Critical Choices: Science, Energy,

and Security. Final Report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s Task Force on the Future of Science Programs at the Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 25 pp.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004a. Enclosure 11. NETL Methane Hy-drate Research and Development Selection Process. National Energy Technology Laboratory, Morgantown, West Virginia, 7 pp.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004b. Alaska well targets gas hydrate, produces wealth of information. Techline (March 1). [Online] Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/2004/tl_anadarko3.html [accessed July 14, 2004].


Ussler III, W., and C.K. Paull. 2001. Ion exclusion associated with marine gas hydrate deposits. Pp. 41-52 in Natural Gas Hydrates: Occurrence, Distribution and Detection, C.K. Paull, and W.P. Dillon, eds. Geophysical Monograph 124, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C.

Valentine, D.L., W.S. Reeburgh, D.C. Blanton, and M. Kastner. 2001. Water col-umn methane oxidation adjacent to an area of active hydrate dissociation, Eel River Basin. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 65:2,633-2,640.

Winckler, G., W. Aeschbach-Hertig, J. Holocher, R. Kipfer, I. Levin, C. Poss, G. Rehder, E. Suess, and P. Schlosser. 2002. Noble gases and radiocarbon in natural gas hydrates. Geophysical Research Letters 29(15):1753.

Xu, W., and C. Ruppel. 1999. Predicting the occurrence, distribution, and evolution of methane gas hydrate in porous marine sediments. Journal of Geophysical Research 104:5,081-5,095.

117

Appendix A

Committee and Staff Biographies

COMMITTEE

Earl H. Doyle (Chair) obtained his M.S. in ocean engineering from the University of Rhode Island in 1968. Mr. Doyle is currently an independent consultant located in Sugar Land, Texas, specializing in the integration of marine geology, geophysics, and geotechnical engineering. Mr. Doyle recently retired from the Shell Oil Company, where he worked for 30 years in senior engineering positions. Mr. Doyle’s work focuses on offshore geotechnical engineering, especially the properties and behaviors of deepwater sediments. He has published on the topics of geohazard surveys in deep water and for exploratory drilling; methods of offshore piling; geological surveying for platform siting; sediment behavior re-sulting from earthquakes and wave movement; pile failure prevention; and platform system design. Mr. Doyle is a member of the National Research Council (NRC) Ocean Studies Board and served on its Committee on Exploration of the Seas. He is also a member of the American Petroleum Institute’s Geotechnical Resource Group and the U.S. Science Advisory Committee for Ocean Drilling. Mr. Doyle formerly served on the Academic Fleet Review Committee of the National Science Foundation. Scott R. Dallimore earned his M.S. in geotechnical science in 1984. For the past 19 years he has served as a research scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada. His research interests include gas hydrate occurrences in the Beaufort-Mackenzie area in Canada, the circumpolar Arctic, and offshore of Japan. Mr. Dallimore’s past experiences include a lead scientist position for the joint Imperial Oil Ltd. and Shell Canada deep coring project, and a chief scientist position for two research well programs

118 APPENDIX A

(JAPEX/JNOC/GSC Mallik 2L-38 and Mallik 2002), where he collab-orated with seven partners and twenty research agencies from four nations. Mr. Dallimore has also spearheaded a methane hydrate laboratory program at the Geological Survey of Canada. Rana A. Fine earned her Ph.D. from the University of Miami in 1975. She is a professor of marine and atmospheric chemistry at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami. Dr. Fine’s research interests include understanding the physical process-es that determine the capacity of the oceans to take up atmospheric constituents, such as carbon dioxide. This involves measuring chloro-fluorocarbons to study the rate at which the world’s oceans circulate. In addition to being a past member of the Ocean Studies Board (1992-1998), Dr. Fine served as a chair and member of several NRC commit-tees including the Committee on Major U.S. Oceanographic Research Programs, the Panel on Climate Variability on Decade-to-Century Time Scales, the Geophysics Study Committee, and the Advisory Panel for the Tropical Ocean/Global Atmosphere Program. She is currently retiring chair of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Section on Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences and a member on the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Council. Some of her past awards include being elected as a fellow of the American Geophysical Union (1993) and secretary and president of the Ocean Sci-ences Section, fellow of the AAAS (1997), and fellow of the AMS (2001). Amos M. Nur earned his Ph.D. in geophysics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a professor of geophysics and the director of the Rock Physics and Borehole Geophysics Project at Stanford University. Dr. Nur’s research interests include wave propagation, fluid flow, permeability, fractures and electrostatic properties of sedimentary rocks and how these apply to geophysical exploration, reservoir evalua-tion, and geo-thermal resources. He is also pursuing research on the mechanics of faults and accretion tectonics. Among his many awards for research and education, he is an elected member of the National Academy of Engineering, a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, a fellow of the Geological Society of America, an honorary member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists, and a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences.

APPENDIX A 119 Michael E.Q. Pilson earned an M.S. in agricultural biochemistry from McGill University, Canada, and a Ph.D. in marine biology from the University of California, San Diego. He is a professor emeritus of oceano-graphy at the University of Rhode Island. Dr. Pilson was the director of the Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory at the University of Rhode Island for 20 years. His current research interests include the chemistry of seawater, biochemistry and physiology of marine organisms, and nutrient cycling. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Sigma Xi; the American Geophysical Union; the American Society of Mammalogists; the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography; and the Oceanography Society. He has published extensively, including the textbook An Introduction to the Chemistry of the Sea (1998), Prentice Hall, New Jersey William S. Reeburgh earned his Ph.D. in oceanography from Johns Hopkins University in 1967. He is a professor of marine and terrestrial biogeo-chemistry at the University of California, Irvine. Before joining the Univer-sity of California, he was a professor of marine science at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for 25 years. Dr. Reeburgh’s research interests include the carbon cycle, especially methane biogeochemistry. His work focuses on methane distribution in waters and sediments of large anoxic basins and wetlands, distribution of natural stable and radioisotopes in methane from these environments, as well as measurement of aerobic and anaerobic oxidation rates using labeled tracers. Dr. Reeburgh is the editor of the American Geophysical Union journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles and serves on the editorial advisory board of Geobiology. He served on the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme Coordinating Panel on Ter-restrial Biosphere-Atmospheric Chemistry Interactions and was convener of the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project’s High-Latitude Ecosystems as Sources and Sinks of Trace Gases activity. He contributed to the 1994 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and served on the International Symposium on Environmental Biogeochemistry Inter-national Committee. Earle Dendy Sloan, Jr., earned his Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Clemson University in South Carolina in 1974. He did postdoctoral research in hydrate at Rice University in 1975. He is currently the Weaver Distinguished Professor of Chemical Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden and the director of the Center for Hydrate Research, where he has worked as a professor since 1976. Dr. Sloan was previously a

120 APPENDIX A

senior engineer for E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc. Dr. Sloan is known as a foremost engineer in the area of gas hydrate and is the author of a principal text in the field entitled Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases (Marcel Dekker, 1998), as well as authoring other texts including Hydrate Engineering (Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2000); and editing the First International Conference on Natural Gas Hydrates (New York Academy of Sciences, 1994). He is also the author of numerous chapters and more than 150 refereed publications in the hydrate field. He has held visiting chairs in hydrate research at Keio University, Japan (1996), and the University of Canterbury, New Zealand (2002). He holds four hydrate-related patents and is a fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Anne M. Tréhu earned her Ph.D. in 1982 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program in Oceanography. She is a professor of geophysics at Oregon State University’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. Dr. Tréhu’s research interests include seismic reflection and refraction data acquisition and processing on land and at sea; and deep crustal structure and tectonic-geologic processes at plate boundaries and continental margins, including gas hydrate on the Oregon continental margin. She was co-chief Scientist on Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 204. Dr. Tréhu served on the NRC Committee on Seismology from 1990 to 1996.

STAFF

Joanne C. Bintz (Study Director) earned her Ph.D. in biological oceanography from the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Dr. Bintz has conducted research on the effects of de-creasing water quality on eelgrass seedlings and the effects of eutro-phication on shallow macrophyte-dominated coastal ponds using mesocosms. She has directed National Research Council studies on A Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (2002), Chemical Reference Materials: Setting the Standard for Ocean Science (2002), and Enabling Ocean Research in the 21st Century: Implementation of a Network of Ocean Observatories (2003). Her interests include coastal ecosystem ecology and function, eutrophication of coastal waters, coastal restoration, oceanographic education, and coastal management and policy.

APPENDIX A 121

Jennifer Merrill (Study Director) is a senior program officer at the Ocean Studies Board and has directed studies since 2001. She earned her Ph.D. in marine and estuarine environmental science from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Horn Point Laboratory. She directed the studies on Marine Biotechnology in the Twenty-First Century: Problems, Promise, and Products (2002); Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals (2003); and Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown (2003). In addition, she assisted with the NRC report Oil in the Sea III (2003), is directing a study that will describe the determination of biologically significant activities of marine mammals to better manage their populations, and serves as the OSB staff contact for the International Council for Science’s (ICSU’s) Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research. Nancy A. Caputo (Research Associate) received a master’s of public policy from the University of Southern California and a bachelor’s degree in political science-international relations. During her tenure with the Ocean Studies Board, she has assisted with the completion of five reports: A Review of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (2002); Emulsified Fuels—Risks and Response (2002); Decline of the Steller Sea Lion in Alaskan Waters—Untangling Food Webs and Fishing Nets (2003); Enabling Ocean Research in the 21st Century: Implementation of a Network of Ocean Observatories (2003); and River Basins and Coastal Systems Planning Within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2004). Ms. Caputo has previous professional experience researching socioeconomic assistance programs for fishing communities, and habitat restoration programs. Her interests include marine policy, science, and education.

123

Appendix B

Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000

Public Law 106-193 106th Congress, May 2, 2000 H.R. 1752, Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 30 USC 1902

An Act

To promote the research, identification, assessment, exploration, and development of methane hydrate resources, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000’’. SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) CONTRACT.—The term ‘‘contract’’ means a procurement contract within the meaning of section 6303 of title 31, United States Code. (2) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.—The term ‘‘cooperative agreement’’ means a cooperative agreement within the meaning of section 6305 of title 31, United States Code. (3) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director of the National Science Foundation. (4) GRANT.—The term ‘‘grant’’ means a grant awarded under a grant agreement, within the meaning of section 6304 of title 31, United States Code. (5) INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE.—The term ‘‘industrial enterprise’’ means a private, nongovernmental enterprise that has an expertise or capability that

124 APPENDIX B

relates to methane hydrate research and development. (6) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ means an institution of higher education, within the meaning of section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(a)). (7) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. (8) SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.—The term ‘‘Secretary of Commerce’’ means the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (9) SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—The term ‘‘Secretary of Defense’’ means the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Secretary of the Navy. (10) SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.—The term ‘‘Secretary of the Interior’’ means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States Geological Survey and the Director of the Minerals Management Service. SEC. 3. METHANE HYDRATE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.— (1) COMMENCEMENT OF PROGRAM.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director, shall commence a program of methane hydrate research and development in accordance with this section. (2) DESIGNATIONS.—The Secretary, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Director shall designate individuals to carry out this section. (3) COORDINATION.—The individual designated by the Secretary shall coordinate all activities within the Department of Energy relating to methane hydrate research and development. (4) MEETINGS.—The individuals designated under paragraph (2) shall meet not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than every 120 days thereafter to—

(A) review the progress of the program under paragraph (1); and (B) make recommendations on future activities to occur subsequent to the meeting.

(b) GRANTS, CONTRACTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, INTERAGENCY FUNDS TRANSFER AGREEMENTS, AND FIELD WORK PROPOSALS.—

(1) ASSISTANCE AND COORDINATION.—In carrying out the program of methane hydrate research and development authorized by this section, the Secretary may award grants or contracts to, or enter into cooperative agreements with, institutions of higher education and industrial enterprises to—

APPENDIX B 125

(A) conduct basic and applied research to identify, explore, assess, and develop methane hydrate as a source of energy; (B) assist in developing technologies required for efficient and environmentally sound development of methane hydrate resources; (C) undertake research programs to provide safe means of transport and storage of methane produced from methane hydrates; (D) promote education and training in methane hydrate resource research and resource development; (E) conduct basic and applied research to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of hydrate degassing (including both natural degassing and degassing associated with commercial development); (F) develop technologies to reduce the risks of drilling through methane hydrates; and (G) conduct exploratory drilling in support of the activities authorized by this paragraph.

(2) COMPETITIVE MERIT-BASED REVIEW.—Funds made available under paragraph (1) shall be made available based on a competitive merit-based process.

(c) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall establish an advisory panel consisting of experts from industrial enterprises, institutions of higher education, and Federal agencies to—

(1) advise the Secretary on potential applications of methane hydrate; (2) assist in developing recommendations and priorities for the methane hydrate research and development program carried out under subsection (a)(1); and (3) not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and at such later dates as the panel considers advisable, submit to Congress a report on the anticipated impact on global climate change from—

(A) methane hydrate formation; (B) methane hydrate degassing (including natural degassing and degassing associated with commercial development); and (C) the consumption of natural gas produced from methane hydrates.

Not more than 25 percent of the individuals serving on the advisory panel shall be Federal employees. (d) LIMITATIONS.—

(1) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Not more than 5 percent of the amount made available to carry out this section for a fiscal year may be used by the Secretary for expenses associated with the administration of the program carried out under subsection (a)(1). (2) CONSTRUCTION COSTS.—None of the funds made available to carry out this section may be used for the construction of a new building or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or alteration of an

126 APPENDIX B

existing building (including site grading and improvement and architect fees).

(e) RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY.—In carrying out subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall—

(1) facilitate and develop partnerships among government, industrial enterprises, and institutions of higher education to research, identify, assess, and explore methane hydrate resources; (2) undertake programs to develop basic information necessary for promoting long-term interest in methane hydrate resources as an energy source; (3) ensure that the data and information developed through the program are accessible and widely disseminated as needed and appropriate; (4) promote cooperation among agencies that are developing technologies that may hold promise for methane hydrate resource development; and (5) report annually to Congress on accomplishments under this section.

SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO THE MINING AND MINERALS POLICY ACT OF 1970. Section 201 of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1901) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (6)— (A) in subparagraph (F), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; (B) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (H); and (C) by inserting after subparagraph (F) the following: ‘‘(G) for purposes of this section and sections 202 through 205 only, methane hydrate; and’’;

(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following: ‘‘(7) The term ‘methane hydrate’ means—

‘‘(A) a methane clathrate that is in the form of a methane-water ice-like crystalline material and is stable and occurs naturally in deep-ocean and permafrost areas; and ‘‘(B) other natural gas hydrates found in association with deep-ocean and permafrost deposits of methane hydrate’’.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy to carry out this Act—

(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; (2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2002; (3) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2003; (4) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and (5) $12,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.

Amounts authorized under this section shall remain available until expended.

APPENDIX B 127

SEC. 6. SUNSET. Section 3 of this Act shall cease to be effective after the end of fiscal year 2005. SEC. 7. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STUDY. The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the National Research Council for such council to conduct a study of the progress made under the methane hydrate research and development program implemented pursuant to this Act, and to make recommendations for future methane hydrate research and development needs. The Secretary shall transmit to the Congress, not later than September 30, 2004, a report containing the findings and recommendations of the National Research Council under this section. SEC. 8. REPORTS AND STUDIES. The Secretary of Energy shall provide to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives copies of any report or study that the Department of Energy prepares at the direction of any committee of the Congress. Approved May 2, 2000.

______________________________________________________________

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1753 (S. 330): HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-377, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Science) and Pt. 2

(Comm. on Resources). SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-33 accompanying S. 330 (Comm. on Energy

and Resources). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 145 (1999): Oct. 26, considered and passed House. Nov. 19, considered and passed Senate, amended. Vol. 146 (2000): Apr. 3, House concurred in Senate amendments with an amendment pursuant to H. Res. 453. Apr. 13, Senate concurred in House amendment.

129

Appendix C

Speakers and Presentation Titles from NRC Meetings of the Committee to Review

the Activities Authorized Under the Methane Hydrate Research and

Development Act of 2000

Meeting One Washington, D.C., September 2-3, 2003

Edith Allison, Department of Energy, Fossil Energy Headquarters:

Department of Energy Methane Hydrates Program Brad Tomer, Department of Energy, National Energy Technology

Laboratory: Status of DOE Research into Naturally Occurring Methane Hydrates

Deborah Hutchinson, U.S. Geological Survey: USGS Methane Hydrate Research

Robert LaBelle, Minerals Management Service: Secretary’s Briefing on Gas Hydrates

Bilal Haq, National Science Foundation, and Planning Committee of the Secretary of Energy: Gas Hydrate Research Academic Interests

Bhakta Rath, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL): NRL Methane Hydrates Research Initiative

Barbara Moore, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Research, National Undersea Research Program: NOAA Methane Hydrate Research

130 APPENDIX C

Meeting Two Houston, Texas, October 28, 2003

Art Johnson, Hydrate Energy International, and chair of the DOE Science

Advisory Panel: Role of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee in the DOE Program

Robert Hunter, BP Alaska North Slope: BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. Methane Hydrate Project

Sivakumar Subramanian, ChevronTexaco: Characterizing Methane Hy-drates in the Deep-water Gulf of Mexico

Thomas Williams, Maurer Technology: Alaska Hydrate Project Overview: Methane Hydrate Production from Alaskan Permafrost

William Gwilliam, DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory: General Discussion of DOE’s Approach to Production and Hazard Research

Meeting Three La Jolla, California, January 5-7, 2004

Steve Kirby, U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park: Review of Clathrate

Hydrate Mechanical Properties: How Applicable is Tetrahydrofuran Hydrate to the Real World?

Tom Lorenson, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park: USGS Methane Hydrate Research in the Gulf of Mexico

Emrys Jones, ChevronTexaco, Scripps: Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Joint Industry Project (JIP) Status

Tim Collett, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver: Energy Resource Potential of the Eileen and Tarn Gas Hydrate Accumulations on the North Slope of Alaska

George Moridis, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Gas Production from Hydrate Accumulations Under Various Geological and Reservoir Conditions

Peter Brewer, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and member of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee: National Research Council Review: Methane Hydrate Research Program

Miriam Kastner, Scripps Institution of Oceanography and member, Department of Energy Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee: National Research Council Review: Methane Hydrate Research Program

Brad Tomer, Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Labor-atory: Status of DOE Research into Naturally Occurring Methane Hydrates

131

Appendix D

Committee Summary and Observations of the DOE Conference/JIP Workshop held

September 30 to October 1, 2003 in Westminster, Colorado

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy Methane

Hydrate Research and Development Conference and a workshop by ChevronTexaco on the Joint Industry Project (JIP) entitled Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Naturally Occurring Hydrates were held in the Denver, Colorado, area from September 29 to October 1, 2003. National Research Council (NRC) Committee members—E. Doyle (chair) and M.E.Q. Pilson and NRC staff member J. Merrill attended. Two additional committee members, E.D. Sloan and S. Dallimore, were present as invited speakers. The purpose in attending the conference and workshop was to better familiarize committee members with results of DOE studies conducted in the area of methane hydrate, to meet the participants, and to observe community input into the DOE Methane Hydrate Research and Development (R&D) Program. Presentations made at the conference and workshop are available at the DOE Web site http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/hydrate/.

The purpose of the DOE conference was to present up-to-date results on hydrate projects funded by DOE. The purpose of the workshop was to allow the ChevronTexaco JIP participants and the community to discuss recent project results and obtain input to plan the next stages of the JIP.

132 APPENDIX D

DOE Office of Fossil Energy Methane Hydrate

R&D Conference

The first day’s session included a keynote address by D. Sloan, The Development of Hydrate Knowledge, before a day on Arctic activities, which included a presentation by S. Dallimore on the Canadian-led effort on the Mallik gas hydrate production research well in the Mackenzie Delta, as well as two research well programs on the Alaska North Slope (Anadarko’s Hot Ice No 1 well and a well to be drilled by BP in the Eileen trend). In addition, there were presentations by Timothy Collett of the U.S. Geological Survey on the geological characterization of gas hydrate accumulations on the North Slope and a reservoir engineering study by G. Moridis of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL).

S. Dallimore discussed the completed Mallik well study and noted that the results would be presented at an international conference in Japan in December 2003. The program appeared to be well planned and successfully executed. A significant number of Canadian and inter-national partners participated in the effort, including DOE.

Two presentations on the Hot Ice No.1 well—“Lessons Learned and Future Well Plans” by B. Liddell and “Update on the Remote Lab and Equipment” by Richard Sigal, both of the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation—provided an overview of the objectives and progress of the well. As of October 2003, the well had been drilled to the bottom of the permafrost, but had not drilled the suspected hydrate formation. Presentations were also made on the setting of the rig to minimize environmental impacts and details of the remote core lab placed on the rig. No experimental results were presented at the meeting.

A presentation by R. Hunter from BP Exploration, Inc., titled “Natural Gas Hydrate Characterization, Prudhoe Bay—Kuparuk River Area, Alaska North Slope,” discussed the objectives of the study and the technical details of site selection. As of October 2003, the pre-drill site selection work had been completed and planning was under way to drill the well. The effort engaged academic and government entities and appeared to be well planned, with a high degree of potential success in encountering hydrate since well-control data were used in the site selection process. The reservoir engineering efforts including a consider-ation of risk were part of the planning.

The second day’s session was devoted to marine hydrate and focused primarily on Gulf of Mexico research. It included presentations by Chev-

APPENDIX D 133

ronTexaco, the USGS, Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), the University of Mississippi, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Minerals Management Service (MMS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In general, these overview presentations high-lighted the varied DOE-sponsored efforts.

Presentations at the conference and the workshop highlighted the integration of many of these efforts toward a common purpose.

Gulf of Mexico Naturally Occurring Gas Hydrates JIP Workshop

This workshop consisted of formal presentations on exploration-

level, three-dimensional seismic data reprocessing and interpretation, well-bore stability research, physical property study, drilling and coring, core handling issues, logging issues, and USGS site survey results. These presentations served as the technical basis of four breakout sessions addressing (1) drilling and coring plans, (2) core analysis plans, (3) core logging plans, and (4) site selection.

Some of these presentations generated considerable discussion. For example, a GIT study on physical properties used tetrahydrofuran (THF) as the hydrate “guest,” rather than methane, and several participants questioned the assumption that actual methane-hydrate behavior could be approximated using THF. These discussions demonstrate how open scientific discourse early in the proposal or study process could troubleshoot potential weaknesses in research protocols or data inter-pretation. The breakout sessions were conducted in an open forum atmosphere, with the session leaders presenting a summary of the findings of each session at an open meeting at the end of the workshop. The JIP participants met after the workshop to synthesize the breakout session findings.

The NRC committee members that attended the workshop agreed on which breakout sessions to attend so that each session was attended by at least one committee member. In general, the committee members that attended the workshop were pleased with the program’s progress and with the open communication afforded by the workshop atmosphere, but they had some concerns that many details related to the implementation of the project seemed to be incomplete. The overall objectives of the project seemed to be well defined—that is, the primary purposes of the program were to be able to seismically identify hydrate and to safely drill through it.

135

Appendix E

Acronyms

ANS Alaska North Slope API American Petroleum Institute BBS Broad Based Solicitation BEG Bureau of Economic Geology BSR bottom-simulating reflector BPXA BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. COI conflict-of-interest CT computed tomography DOE Department of Energy DSDP Deep Sea Drilling Program EEZ exclusive economic zone FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act FWP field-work proposals GB Garden Banks Blocks GHSZ gas hydrate stability zone GIT Georgia Institute of Technology GOM Gulf of Mexico GRI Gas Research Institute GSC Geological Survey of Canada

136 APPENDIX E

GSPD Gas Supply Projects Division GWP Greenhouse Warming Potential HQ Headquarters (DOE) HYACE Hydrate Autoclave Coring Equipment ICC Interagency Coordinating Committee INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory IODP Integrated Ocean Drilling Program IR infrared JIP Joint Industry Project JOI Joint Oceanographic Institutions JOIDES Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth

Sampling LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory LNG liquefied natural gas LWD logging-while-drilling MC Mississippi Blocks MBARI Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute MHAC Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee MMS Minerals Management Service NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory NGSA Natural Gas Supply Association NMR nuclear magnetic resonance NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRC National Research Council NRL Naval Research Laboratory NSF National Science Foundation ODP Ocean Drilling Program OOI Ocean Observatories Initiative ORION Ocean Research Interactive Observatory Network ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory OST Office of Science and Technology (NETL)

APPENDIX E 137

PCAST President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

PCS Pressure Core Sampler PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory PI principal investigator ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million R&D research and development RFP request for proposals ROV remotely operated vehicle SCNG Strategic Center for Natural Gas (NETL) SCNGO Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil (NETL) STP standard temperature and pressure TAMU Texas A&M University Tcf trillion cubic feet TCT Technical Coordinating Team THF tetrahydrofuran TOUGH transport of unsaturated groundwater and heat USGS United States Geological Survey VAMP velocity amplitude peculiarity

139

Appendix F

Project Summaries

The information in this appendix was obtained from the Department of Energy (DOE) Methane Hydrate R&D Program Web site: http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/hydrate/index.html. Further information on DOE methane hydrate projects can be obtained at that site and in Appendix G.

TARGETED SOLICITATION PROJECTS

Field Study of Exposed and Buried Gas Hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico

This project is a two-year field monitoring and laboratory program in

the Gulf of Mexico. The program combines quantitative field monitoring and laboratory study to determine the physical and chemical effects of in situ environmental disturbances on the stability of gas hydrate on the northern Gulf of Mexico seafloor. The goal of this research is to determine the potential impacts of gas hydrate stability in terms of the release of methane into seafloor sediments, the ocean, and the atmosphere. Performers: University of California, San Diego; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Texas A&M University. In Situ Sampling and Characterization of Marine Methane Hydrate (ODP Leg 204 Hydrates Coring Expedition)

As part of the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 204, the R/V JOIDES Resolution spent from July 6 to September 2, 2002, off the

140 APPENDIX F

Oregon coast collecting and preserving hydrate samples. The area of interest is Hydrate Ridge, where two tectonic plates converge and scientific surveys indicate massive accumulations of hydrate. The cruise was dedicated to understanding the biochemical factors controlling the distribution and concentration of gas hydrate in an accretionary margin setting. The goal of the study is to characterize hydrate accumulation at Hydrate Ridge and improve the ability to use geophysical and subsurface logging to identify hydrate. Performers: Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI); Texas A&M University-Texas A&M Research Foundation; Columbia University, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. Petrophysical Characterization and Reservoir Simulator for Gas Hydrate Production and Hazard Avoidance in the Gulf of Mexico

In order to expand the current knowledge of gas hydrate behavior in the natural environment, this project is designed to study hydrate formation and dissociation in sediments under deepwater conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. This laboratory study will reproduce natural deepwater conditions and, using computed tomography (CT) scanning, will allow scientists to observe the formation and dissociation of hydrate in different types of sediment under various temperature and pressure regimes. The goal of the project is to develop new methodologies to characterize the physical properties of methane hydrate/sediment systems. Performers: Westport Technology Center Inter-national/Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; University of Houston.

JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECTS Characterizing Natural Gas Hydrates in the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico: Applications for Safe Exploration

This study is designed to identify key hydrate sites in the Gulf of Mexico. WesternGeco, a partner on this project, identified possible key hydrate locations for subsequent modeling and analysis in the Gulf. Using three-dimensional seismic data, possible locations for subsequent modeling and analysis were identified. Two sites were selected for further evaluation and subsequent drilling; they are the Atwater Block 14 and Keathley Canyon Block 195 in the Gulf of Mexico. The overall goal of the project is to develop a better understanding of the impact of hydrate on safety and seafloor stability in the Gulf of Mexico. Performers: ChevronTexaco

APPENDIX F 141

EPTC; Schlumberger Oilfield Services; Halliburton Energy Services; ConocoPhillips Inc.; Japan National Oil Co; Reliance Industries Ltd.; Minerals Management Service; Georgia Institute of Technology; Joint Oceanographic Institutions. Methane Hydrate Production from Alaskan Permafrost

This is a three-year, two-phase project to obtain the field data required to verify geological, geophysical, and geochemical models of hydrate and to plan, design, and implement a program to safely, economically, and in an environmentally responsible manner drill and produce gas from Arctic hydrate. The goals of the project are to determine the best techniques for drilling and recovering hydrate in Arctic areas, as well as the potential production rates. Information on this project can be obtained at the Maurer Technology Web site: http://www.maurertechnology.com/indexhydrates.-html. Performers: Maurer Technology, Inc.; Anadarko Petroleum Corp-oration; University of Alaska; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL); Sandia National Laboratory; Pacific Northwest National Labor-atory (PNNL); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); Schlumberger Oilfield Services; Paulsson Geophysical Services. Alaska North Slope Gas Hydrate Reservoir Characterization This four-year project is designed to characterize, quantify, and determine the commercial viability of in situ recoverable gas hydrate and associated free-gas resources in three areas of the Alaska North Slope (ANS): Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk River, and Milne Point units. The goal of the project is to enable industry and government to make informed decisions regarding the resource potential of ANS methane hydrate and to validate potential production techniques. Performers: BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. (BPXA); University of Alaska, Fairbanks; University of Arizona, Tucson; U.S. Geological Survey.

BROAD-BASED SOLICITATION PROJECTS Fundamentals of Natural Gas and Species Flows from Hydrate Dis-sociation―Applications to Safety Problems

The objectives of this study are to develop computational techniques that can describe the behavior of gas hydrate and provide

142 APPENDIX F

an understanding of the conditions that cause dissociation within the sediments. The goal of the project is to develop models to help determine the potential for seafloor and well bore instability during drilling. Performer: Clarkson University. Three-Dimensional Structure and Physical Properties of a Methane Hydrate Deposit at Blake Ridge

This study is a joint venture to improve the three-dimensional

seismic images and deploy a new array of ocean bottom seismometers to allow never-before-seen seismic images of a hydrate deposit. Researchers want to determine the linkage between hydrate concen-trations and seismic characteristics in subsea sediments. Performers: University of Wyoming, Department of Geology and Geophysics. Characterizing Marine Gas Hydrate Reservoirs Using Three-Dimen-sional Seismic Data

This project will use three-dimensional, multicomponent seismic data recorded in the Gulf of Mexico with four-component ocean bottom seismometers to improve the detection and characterization of gas hy-drate, as well as enhance the ability to predict the stability of ocean floors. The goal of the project is to develop seismic tools for detecting hydrate and predicting seafloor stability. Performers: University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology. Gulf of Mexico Sea Floor Stability and Gas Hydrates Monitoring Project

The Center for Marine Resources and Environmental Tech-nology at the University of Mississippi will develop, deploy, and initiate operation of a comprehensive multisensor, remotely con-trolled analytical station in the Gulf of Mexico. The objective of the continuation of the project is to study gas hydrate mounds and hydrocarbon vents for the purpose of understanding the relationships between these features and the episodes of sediment instability that threaten the petroleum industry’s infrastructure. The overall goal of these projects is to improve understanding of the dynamic nature of seafloor gas hydrate accumulations and related seafloor stability. Performers: University of Mississippi Center for Marine Resources

APPENDIX F 143

and Environmental Technology; Specialty Devices, Inc.; Georgia Institute of Technology; University of Wales, Bangor; Mississippi State University; University of Southern Mississippi; Naval Research Labor-atory; Louisiana State University; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institu-tion; Florida State University; University of North Carolina; Texas A&M University.

NATIONAL LABORATORY PROJECTS Characterizing Gas Hydrate Kinetics and Biochemistry

This project will attempt to characterize the thermodynamics of hydrate formation and dissociation, using hydrate samples obtained from ODP Leg 204 and cores from the Mallik 2002 well. The goal of the project is to improve understanding of how natural gas hydrate forms and dissociates and the potential role of biochemistry in that process. Performer: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Fundamental Physical Properties and Chemical Stability of Gas Hy-drates

This study will measure processes of hydrate formation, dissociation, and dissolution, as well as relevant physical properties of high-purity, structure I and structure II hydrate and of synthesized mixtures of hydrate plus sediments. The goal of the project is to enhance the overall understanding of the physical properties and chemical stability of methane hydrate. Performer: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. X-Ray Scanning for Characterization of Gas Hydrate Bearing Cores

In this project, LBNL designed and fabricated a field-deployable X-ray linear scanner for shipboard investigation of ocean bottom sediments collected during ODP Leg 204, off the coast of Oregon in an area known as Hydrate Ridge. The goal of the project is to develop tools and techniques for collecting hydrate core data that recognize the unique character of hydrate. Performer: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

144 APPENDIX F


This project will develop experimental methodology to character-ize structural and interfacial properties of natural gas hydrate on a mesoscopic scale. The goal of the project is to develop the information needed to model various hydrate recovery schemes and to assess and predict seafloor stability. Performer: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Improved Technologies for Detecting Gas Hydrates

The purpose of this project is to investigate, calibrate, and integrate gas hydrate information and data obtained from microscale laboratory measurements, well logging and monitoring; and macro-scale techniques, including surface and volumetric imaging and three-dimensional data analysis. The focus will be on deriving velocity, density, and structure characteristics for seismic data interpretation. The goal of the project is to develop and test approaches for detecting gas hydrate using remote sensing. Performer: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Collection and Microbiological Analysis of Gas Hydrate Cores

The objective of this project is to determine the fundamental modeling parameters for the amount of methane generated in deep sea sediments by methanogenic microorganisms, so that models for methane distribution and production in gas hydrate reservoirs can accurately reflect the volume and distribution of biogenic methane, which is presently unknown. The goal of the project is to determine the presence and activity of methanogens in methane hydrate-bearing sediments. Performer: Idaho National Engineering and Environ-mental Laboratory (INEEL). Characterization of Methane Hydrate Bearing Sediments and Hydrate Dissociation Kinetics

This study will use a high-pressure cell and state-of-the art analytical equipment to conduct measurements of methane hydrate dissociation and the effects of dissociation on flow and transport properties of hydrate-bearing sediments. The goal of this study is to

APPENDIX F 145

develop experimental techniques and models that can be used to more accurately predict the transient response of a gas hydrate reservoir to pressure and temperature perturbations. Performer: Pacific North-west National Laboratory. TOUGH2 Hydrate Reservoir Simulator Development

The objective of this project is to develop a module for the TOUGH2 (transport of unsaturated groundwater and heat) family of codes (Preuss, 1991) for simulation of the behavior of methane hydrate systems in the subsurface. The goal of this project is to model the production of methane from gas hydrate accumulations. Performer: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

INTERAGENCY PROJECTS

U.S. Geological Survey Projects

Gathering, Processing and Evaluating Seismic and Physical Data on Gas Hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico

In the Gulf of Mexico, the USGS is conducting regional high-resolution seismic studies of the mid- to upper-continental slope to determine the acoustic character of the gas hydrate stability zone (GHSZ). The goal of the project is to characterize hydrate in the Gulf of Mexico and further develop field techniques to do so. Performers: U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole Field Center; Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Characterizing Arctic Hydrates (Canadian Test Well and Alaskan “Wells of Opportunity”)

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the USGS worked together to aid in the drilling and testing of a gas hydrate production well in the Mackenzie Delta area of Canada. This work was done in conjunction with an international consortium managed by the Geological Survey of Canada. The goal of the project was to assess the recoverability and potential production characteristics of the onshore

146 APPENDIX F

natural gas hydrate and associated free-gas accumulations on the Alaskan North Slope. Performer: USGS and NETL.

U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Research Laboratory (NRL) Projects

Gas Hydrates Research in Deep Sea Sediments

This project will use NRL’s Deep-Towed, High-Resolution Seismic System to obtain seismic data in the shallow sediments in the Gulf of Mexico. The goal of the study is to advance capabilities for imaging seafloor deposits of gas hydrate and improve understanding of hydrate properties and the biogeochemical influ-ences on methane hydrate formation. Performer: NRL.

NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY IN-HOUSE PROJECTS

Properties of Natural Gas Hydrates I

This project includes the design and creation of new experi-mental equipment and techniques both to form methane hydrate and to obtain thermal property values for unconsolidated methane hydrate. The goal of the study is to provide fundamental thermal property information useful for developing production strategies for gas hydrate and understanding hydrate/sediment behavior. Performer: National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Office of Science and Technology (OST). Kinetics of Natural Gas Hydrates

The goal of this study is to provide fundamental thermal property information useful for developing production strategies for gas hydrate and understanding hydrate-sediment behavior. Performers: NETL Office of Science and Technology; University of Oklahoma; University of Hawaii; Duquesne University.

APPENDIX F 147

OTHER NONFEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENTS

Fixed Price, Sole-Source Contracts The Mallik 2002 Consortium: Drilling and Testing a Gas Hydrate Well

The objectives of this project are to participate in the drilling and testing of a gas hydrate production well in the MacKenzie Delta area of Canada, in conjunction with an international consortium managed by the Geological Survey of Canada. The goal of the project is to obtain information that can be utilized to develop gas hydrate computer production models. Performer: Geological Survey of Canada.

Small Purchase Orders Related to Gas Hydrate Research Downhole Logging at Hydrate Ridge (ODP Leg 204)

This study proposed to obtain nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) well logs through the gas hydrate-bearing sediments at Hydrate Ridge off the Oregon coast during the ODP Leg 204 cruise of the R/V JOIDES Resolution. The goal of this project is to improve methods for detecting the presence and characterizing the concentration of gas hydrate using well-logging tools. Performers: Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory; Schlumberger, Inc. Geologic Environments Favorable for Formation and Stability of Gas Hydrates

The objective of this project is to create a reference chart illustrating the characteristics of gas hydrate and its global distribution, to serve as a concise, graphical representation of the current state of knowledge regarding gas hydrate environments and distribution. The goal of the project is to develop a simple, concise depiction of the state of the knowledge related to gas hydrate, as a point of departure for planning discussions and as a hand-out at conferences. Performer: GeoExplorers International, Inc.

148 APPENDIX F

High Resolution Processing of Seismic Data from GB 424 and 425 and MC 852 and 853, Gulf of Mexico

The objective of this project is to retrieve raw data from archived field tapes and perform three-dimensional, high-resolution processing of seismic data from Garden Banks Blocks (GB) 424 and 425 and Mississippi Blocks (MB) 852 and 853 in the Gulf of Mexico, using the near-offset hydrophone groups and optimizing the high-frequency data to obtain improved resolution of near-surface features. The goal is to add to the body of knowledge that characterizes potential methane hydrate drilling sites for the ODP. Performer: Western Geco. A Submersible-Deployed Micro-Drill for Sampling of Shallow Gas Hydrate Deposits

In 2001, Texas A&M University was awarded a contract to design and fabricate a drilling device that will enable researchers to collect short cores of methane gas hydrate from deposits at the seafloor. The hydrate microdrill, a rotary frame that holds six drill bits, was devel-oped. The goal of the study is to advance the technical capabilities for sampling and monitoring seafloor deposits of naturally occurring gas hydrate. Performers: Texas A&M University; Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution; University of Nebraska.

OTHER PROJECTS Mechanical Testing of Gas Hydrate/Sediment Samples

The objective of this project is to quantify the mechanical characteristics of methane hydrate and hydrate-cemented sediments for use in models of the dynamic behavior of sediments related to drilling and seafloor installations in the Gulf of Mexico. The goal of the project is to develop an understanding of the mechanical characteristics of hydrate-containing sediments. Performers: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center; Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

APPENDIX F 149

Physical Properties, Natural Gas Production, Environmental, Safety and Seafloor Stability Aspects of Gas Hydrates

The objective of this project is to complement and supplement external gas hydrate research in areas related to modeling and experimental studies. The goal is to provide important fundamental information useful for developing production strategies for gas hydrate. Performers: NETL OST; Clarkson University; West Virginia University. Natural Gas Analysis Support, Development of Techniques for Dis-tribution of Gas Hydrates

The objective of this study is to develop a methodology for the distribution of gas hydrate information by identifying the universe of researchers (names and organizations) that have been involved in gas hydrate research. The goal of the study is to make certain that the existing community of hydrate researchers is aware of the plans and activities of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program. Performers: K&M Engineering and Consulting. National Methane Hydrate Program Web site

The objective of this project is to design, create, and maintain a Web site that will serve as a focal point for information and news about methane hydrate and current research efforts, serve as an educational tool, provide a historical perspective on how our knowledge of hydrate has developed, and provide information on a variety of issues and fundamental questions concerning hydrate. The goal is to allow researchers and the public ready access to information regarding methane hydrate research at NETL and other government agencies. Performer: NETL.

151

Appendix G

Projects Funded by DOE Under the Methane Hydrate Research and Development

Program

152 APPENDIX G

TABLE G.1 DOE-Funded Methane Hydrate Research-Related Projects With Project Details

Project Title Performer Organization

Lead Researcher

Project Start Date

Project End Date

High Resolution Processing of Seismic Data from GB 424 and 425 and MC 852 and 853, Gulf of Mexico

WesternGeco J. Larry Cain

4/17/01 7/30/01


U.S. Geological Survey

Deborah Hutchinson

9/9/97 8/31/04

A Submersible-Deployed Micro-Drill for Sampling of Shallow Gas Hydrate Deposits

Texas A&M University

Ian McDonald

5/1/01 9/30/02

Characterizing Marine Gas Hydrate Reservoirs Using 3-D Seismic Data

University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology

Robert Hardage

9/29/00 9/28/02

APPENDIX G 153

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost

Planned Non-DOE Cost

Non-DOE Cost Share (%)

DOE Obligation (2001)



32,000 32,000

2,389,180 441,000 966,800 181,000

190,160 43,000 18 94,000 96,160

700,418 178,477 20 101,426

154 APPENDIX G

TABLE G.1 Continued


Lead Researcher

Project Start Date

Project End Date


Naval Research Laboratory

Joseph Gettrust and Richard Coffin

9/15/97 9/30/04

Gulf of Mexico Sea Floor Stability and Gas Hydrates Monitoring Project

University of Mississippi

Carol Lutken

9/29/00 5/31/04


University of California, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Miriam Kastner

3/4/02 3/3/05

Characterizing Natural Gas Hydrates in the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico: Applications for Safe Exploration

ChevronTexaco Emrys Jones

9/30/01 9/30/05

APPENDIX G 155

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost

Planned Non-DOE Cost

Non-DOE Cost Share(%)




1,498,638 578,000 110,638 210,000

2,503,618 704,223 22 833,624 799,560 214,304

334,256 89,320 21 198,381 135,875

10,579,059 3,024,075 22 1,376,181 128,674 2,551,878

156 APPENDIX G

TABLE G.1 Continued


Lead Researcher

Project Start Date

Project End Date

Alaska North Slope Gas Hydrate Reservoir Characterization

BP Exploration Robert Hunter

9/30/01 9/30/05

Characterizing Arctic Hydrates (Canadian Test Well and Alaskan “Wells of Opportunity”)

U.S. Geological Survey

Timothy Collett

9/2/97 12/30/04

The Mallik 2002 Consortium: Drilling and Testing a Gas Hydrate Well

Geological Survey of Canada

Scott Dallimore

9/28/01 8/31/04

Methane Hydrate Production from Alaskan Permafrost

Maurer Technology

Thomas Williams

9/30/01 9/30/04

APPENDIX G 157

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost

Planned Non DOE Cost

Non DOE Cost Share (%)




13,269,704 8,051,889 38 1,300,000 573,546 400,000

729,870 910,486 56 229,870 100,000

339,000 12,000,000 97 339,000

6,998,710 5,711,720 45 573,819 3,106,738 2,318,153

158 APPENDIX G

TABLE G.1 Continued Project Title Performer

Organization Lead Researcher

Project Start Date

Project End Date

In Situ Sampling and Characterization of Methane Hydrate (ODP Leg 204 Hydrates Coring Expedition)

Joint Oceanographic Institutions

Frank Rack

9/30/01 10/31/05

Downhole Logging at Hydrate Ridge (ODP Leg 204)

Columbia University

David Goldberg

6/5/02 9/10/03

Three-Dimensional Structure and Physical Properties of Methane Hydrate Deposit at Blake Ridge

University of Wyoming

Steven Holbrook

9/28/00 9/30/03


Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Tommy Joe Phelps

6/30/00 12/30/03

APPENDIX G 159

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost






1,862,108 476,094 20 750,000 150,000 242,108

92,500 1,050,000 92 92,500

228,306 61,159 21 117,950

345,000 210,000

160 APPENDIX G

TABLE G.1 Continued


Lead Researcher

Project Start Date

Project End Date


Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Claudia Rawn

9/1/01 3/31/03


Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

William Durham

6/30/00 3/31/03

X-Ray Scanning for Character-ization of Gas Hydrate Bearing Cores


Barry Freifeld

8/1/02 9/30/03


Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Pete McGrail

9/1/01 3/31/03

APPENDIX G 161

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost






565,000 300,000 150,000 35,000

570,000 300,000 150,000

393,000 50,000 280,000

340,000 100,000 40,000 200,000

162 APPENDIX G



Project Start Date

Project End Date


Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

George He 9/1/01 3/31/03


Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Rick Colwell

6/30/00 12/30/03

TOUGH2 Hydrate Reservoir Simulator Development


George Moridis

6/30/00 9/30/03

Mechanical Testing of Gas Hydrate/Sediment Samples

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

David Cole 7/9/99 9/30/03

APPENDIX G 163

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost


Non DOE Cost

Share (%)

DOE Obligation

(2001)

DOE Obligation

(2002)

DOE Obligation

(2003)

450,000 300,000 150,000

430,000 300,000 100,000

810,000 200,000 110,000 300,000

110,000 50,000 31 50,000

164 APPENDIX G



Project Start Date

Project End Date

Fundamentals of Natural Gas and Species Flows from Hydrate Dissociation—Applications to Safety Problems

Clarkson University

Goodarz Ahmadi

9/22/00 9/30/03

Petrophysical Characterization and Reservoir Simulator for Gas Hydrate Production and Hazard Avoidance in the Gulf of Mexico

Westport Technology Center International

Dan Gleitman

6/26/02 3/31/05


Brookhaven National Laboratory

Devinder Mahajan

6/30/00 3/30/01

Membership in Joint Industry Project for Control of Hydrate Production Problems

Colorado School of Mines

E. Dendy Sloan

9/30/97 12/31/00

APPENDIX G 165

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost


Non DOE Cost

Share (%)

DOE Obligation

(2001)

DOE Obligation

(2002)

DOE Obligation

(2003)

268,183 103,795 28 95,000 90,000

817,942 204,488 20 438,905

75,000

120,000

166 APPENDIX G



Project Start Date

Project End Date

Properties of Natural Gas Hydrates

National Energy Technology Laboratory, Office of Science and Technology

Robert Warzinski

9/30/98 9/30/03

Kinetics of Natural Gas Hydrates


Charles Taylor

10/1/02 9/30/03



Duane Smith

9/30/99 9/30/01

Natural Gas Analysis Support, Development of Techniques for Distribution of Gas Hydrate

K&M Engineering and Consulting Corporation.

Charles Byrer

3/16/98 4/25/99

APPENDIX G 167

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost


Non DOECost

Share (%)

DOE Obligation

(2001)

DOE Obligation

(2002)

DOE Obligation

(2003)

625,000 125,000 150,000 250,000

950,000 250,000 700,000

1,270,000 575,000 50,000

120,037

168 APPENDIX G



Project Start Date

Project End Date

Geologic Environments Favorable for Formation and Stability of Gas Hydrates

Geoexplorers International, Inc.

Jan Krason

9/30/99 7/31/00

National Methane Hydrate Research Program Website

Energy and Environmental Solutions, LLC (E2S)

Ray Boswell

2/24/01 5/31/04

APPENDIX G 169

TABLE G.1 Continued

Planned DOE Cost






94,970

224,272 224,272

SOURCE: Data provided by DOE Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program, 2004.

170 APPENDIX G

TABLE G.2 DOE Methane Hydrate Research-Related Projects and Project Objectives (● primary target/objective; ○ secondary target/objective)

Project Title Project Phase

Research Topic and Geographic Emphasis

Characteristic Hydrate Properties

High Resolution Processing of Seismic Data from GB 424 and 425 and MC 852 and 853, Gulf of Mexico (GOM)

1 Field (GOM)


1 Field (GOM)

○

A Submersible-Deployed Micro-Drill for Sampling of Shallow Gas Hydrate Deposits

1 Field (GOM)

Characterizing Marine Gas Hydrate Reservoirs Using 3-D Seismic Data

1 Field (GOM)


1 Field (GOM)

●

Gulf of Mexico Sea Floor Stability and Gas Hydrates Monitoring Project

Field (GOM)


1 Field (GOM)

Characterizing Natural Gas Hydrates in the Deep Water Gulf of Mexico: Applications for Safe Exploration

1 Field (GOM)

○

APPENDIX G 171

TABLE G.2 Continued

Hydrate Distribution

Hazard Mitigation

Global Climate and Seafloor Stability

Improved Tools for the Laboratory and in the Field

Production Potential

●

● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ○ ●

● ○ ●

○ ● ●

○ ● ●

● ● ●

172 APPENDIX G

TABLE G.2 Continued



Characteristic Hydrate Properties

Alaska North Slope Gas Hydrate Reservoir Characterization

1 Field (Arctic)

Characterizing Arctic Hydrates (Canadian Test Well and Alaskan “Wells of Opportunity”)

1 Field (Arctic)

○

The Mallik 2002 Consortium: Drilling and Testing a Gas Hydrate Well

1 Field (Arctic)

Methane Hydrate Production from Alaskan Permafrost

1 Field (Arctic)

In Situ Sampling and Characteriza-tion of Methane Hydrate (ODP Leg 204 Hydrates Coring Expedition)

1 Field (Pacific)

○

Downhole Logging at Hydrate Ridge (ODP Leg 204)

1 Field (Pacific)

Three-Dimensional Structure and Physical Properties of Methane Hydrate Deposit at Blake Ridge

1 Field (East Coast)


2 Lab (Kinetics and biochemical.)

●


2 Lab (Geomechanical)

●



●

X-Ray Scanning for Characterization of Gas Hydrate Bearing Cores


○


1 Lab (Kinetics)

●


2 Lab (Geochemical)


2 Lab (Biology)

●

APPENDIX G 173

TABLE G.2 Continued


Hazard Mitigation




● ●

● ● ○ ●

● ● ● ●

○ ● ●

● ●

● ●

● ● ○ ●

● ○ ○

○

○

● ●

● ○ ○

● ●

○ ● ○

174 APPENDIX G

TABLE G.2 Continued



Charac-teristic Hydrate Properties

TOUGH2 Hydrate Reservoir Simulator Development

2 Lab (Modeling)

Mechanical Testing of Gas Hydrate/Sediment Samples


●

Fundamentals of Natural Gas and Species Flows from Hydrate Dissociation—Applications to Safety Problems

3 Lab (Modeling)

Petrophysical Characterization and Reservoir Simulator for Gas Hydrate Production and Hazard Avoidance in the Gulf of Mexico

1 Lab (Geomechanical and modeling)

●


1 Lab (Kinetics)

●

Membership in Joint Industry Project for Control of Hydrate Production Problems


●

Properties of Natural Gas Hydrates 1 Lab (Geomechanical)

●

Kinetics of Natural Gas Hydrates 1 Lab (Kinetics)

●



●

Natural Gas Analysis Support, Development of Techniques for Distribution of Gas Hydrate

1 Crosscut ○

Geologic Environments Favorable for Formation and Stability of Gas Hydrates

1 Crosscut ○

National Methane Hydrate Research Program Web site

1 Crosscut ○

APPENDIX G 175

TABLE G.2 Continued


Hazard Mitigation




● ● ●

● ○ ●

● ○ ○ ●

○ ● ●

○ ●

○ ○

●

●

○ ○ ●

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

SOURCE: Data provided by DOE Methane Hydrate Research and Development Program, 2004.

177

Appendix H

Letters from the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee (2001 and 2002) to Department of

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham

178 APPENDIX H

LETTER DATED JUNE 1, 20016

The Honorable Spencer Abraham Secretary U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-1000 June 1, 2001 Dear Mr. Secretary, In accordance with the provisions of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, a Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee was created earlier this year to advise you on a number of issues involving methane hydrate. The Committee had its initial meeting on May 17 and 18, 2001. This letter summarizes the committee’s discussions and provides you the issues and opportunities arising from ongoing research in this field. At its meeting the committee affirmed the four objectives for methane hydrate research as outlined in the Department of Energy’s 1999 National Methane Hydrate Multi-Year R&D Program Plan. These focus on: 1. Determining the location of methane hydrate deposits and assessing

their potential as a domestic and global fuel source. 2. Developing the technology for commercial production from methane

hydrates. 3. Understanding the role of methane hydrates in the global carbon

cycle and climate change. 4. Understanding hydrate-sediment systems in sediments near the sea

floor to ensure safe operations for oil and gas operations and to assess the risk of mass movement and methane release.

In addition, the committee agreed on a fifth objective: 6 This appendix shows only the text of the two letters. Official letterhead and original signatures are not included.

APPENDIX H 179

5. Understanding how best to protect the environment in the event that methane hydrate production occurs.

The committee reviewed the current status of methane hydrate research in the United States and abroad in light of the objectives laid out in the Multi-Year R&D Program Plan. The following items are a summary of the committee’s discussions and observations: • The most recent U.S. Geological Survey mean estimate for hydrate

gas in place within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone is over 200,000 TCF. If only 1% of that is commercially recoverable, the resulting resource base of 2000 TCF far exceeds the nation’s conven-tional gas resources.

• Interest in methane hydrates by the oil and gas industry has grown

steadily over the past 5 years. Industry consortia are being created and industry funding for this research is growing.

• Several methods of producing natural gas from hydrate deposits have

been proposed. More studies are needed to assess the relative merits of each technology for any specific hydrate occurrence.

• The role of methane hydrate in global climate is not well understood,

and is not consistently included in models of global climate change. Given that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and the abundance of methane stored as hydrate, additional studies on this issue should be a high priority.

• Studies of sub-sea landslides and collapse features suggest a possible

link to underlying methane hydrates. These events could have serious consequences for coastal areas and offshore operations. More research is needed to confirm this link and assess the risk of future events.

• Our knowledge of living systems associated with methane hydrate

accumulations is incomplete. This knowledge gap will likely delay any commercial development of methane hydrates. The Minerals Management Service and other agencies are encouraged to increase the pace of this research.

180 APPENDIX H

• The committee strongly agreed that the proposed funding level for FY 2002 is inadequate and unrealistic. Activities involving characterization of the resource to enable realistic assessments of hazards and eventual determination of the commercial viability of the resource require substantial experimental and field verification not possible at such low budget levels. Capabilities and interest, including industry cost sharing, exist to support higher, more appropriate funding to evaluate this potentially valuable resource.

The Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 required of the advisory committee that a report be generated by May, 2002, on the anticipated impact on global climate change from methane hydrate formation, methane hydrate degassing, and the consumption of natural gas produced from methane hydrates. The committee has initiated work on that report and it will be completed as required. The committee will continue to work with the Department of Energy to identify and prioritize research areas that will yield the greatest benefits toward achieving the objectives of H. R. 1753. We are available to provide any further advice that you need on this important area of investigation. Sincerely, Arthur H. Johnson, Chair Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee Attachments

APPENDIX H 181

Attachment 1 Membership of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee

Peter Brewer Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Richard Charter Environmental Defense Gerald Holder University of Pittsburgh Stephen Holditch Schlumberger Technology Corp. Arthur Johnson Chevron USA Production Company Miriam Kastner Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego Lorie Langley Oak Ridge National Laboratory William Parrish Phillips Petroleum Company Harry Roberts Louisiana State University Carolyn Ruppel Georgia Institute of Technology Sabrina Watkins Conoco Inc.

182 APPENDIX H

Attachment 2 Key Points Raised in Discussion

Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee Meeting Woods Hole, MA May 17-18, 2001 Resource Potential • The most recent U.S. Geological Survey mean estimate for hydrate

gas in place within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone is over 200,000 TCF. If only 1% of that is commercially recoverable, the resulting resource base of 2000 TCF far exceeds the nation’s conventional gas resources.

• The estimates of methane hydrate abundance vary considerably.

However, even the low volume estimates dwarf the volume of conventional methane in the United States.

• P.L. 106-193 identified many areas of investigation for methane

hydrate research. Before significant progress can be made on most of them, better methods of characterizing the natural occurrence of methane hydrates must be developed.

• The characteristics of methane hydrate occurrence vary significantly

from one region to another. As a result, studies will need to be carried out in several different geological settings.

• The United States lags behind Japan in assessing the potential for

methane hydrate as an energy source. Industry Involvement • Interest in methane hydrates by the oil and gas industry has grown

steadily over the past 5 years. Industry funding for this research is growing. A workshop on Gulf of Mexico hydrates in August 2000 (sponsored by the DOE and Chevron) drew 34 participants from 7 oil companies, 9 E&P service companies and 3 other energy companies.

APPENDIX H 183

As an outgrowth of that workshop, a joint industry project (JIP) was formed with the intent of conducting drilling and coring operations in the Gulf of Mexico for methane hydrate within 3 years. This JIP is contingent on support from the DOE Methane Hydrate Program.

• The immediate and near-term focus of the oil industry on methane

hydrates is on safety issues related to conventional oil and gas operations. The industry’s longer-term focus is on the resource potential.

• In the past year the DOE and U.S.G.S. conducted an evaluation of

hydrate-bearing sediments in a well drilled by Phillips Petroleum for deeper objectives on the North Slope of Alaska. The committee strongly supports such “piggybacking” of DOE programs onto industry activities as a cost-effective means of achieving their objectives.

• More than 20 proposals for methane hydrate research were submitted

in response to a recent DOE RFP, include industry responses for work in both the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico. While requesting $28 million from DOE, the proposals also include $17 [million] in cost sharing.

Production • Several methods of producing natural gas from hydrate deposits have

been proposed. More studies are needed in order to assess the relative merits of each technology for any specific hydrate occurrence.

• There are no huge technology barriers to methane hydrate

production, although it is uncertain that hydrate production will be commercially viable. A better understanding of methane hydrate deposits is needed before the commercial potential of methane hydrate production can be determined for the United States.

• Methane hydrates may form barriers to permeability that could create

stratigraphic traps for conventional gas production. Developing better methods of remote imaging of hydrates could therefore lead to significant new conventional gas production.

184 APPENDIX H

• The permafrost regions offer the most promising methane hydrate

resource potential in the near term because of existing infrastructure and because higher concentrations of methane hydrate have been identified there compared with those in oceanic sediments.

Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change • The role of methane hydrates in global climate is not well under-

stood, and is inconsistently included in models of global climate change. Given that methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and that hydrates are an enormous global reservoir for methane, additional studies on this issue should be a high priority. The committee recommends that such studies view hydrate as part of the broader cycle of methane between sediment, ocean, and atmosphere.

• Expulsion of methane from collapse and landslide events through

geologic time may have added significant amounts of methane to the atmosphere. The risk of such an event happening today is not known, and merits further assessment. The mechanism for these releases is unclear.

• In addition to large events of methane release, there appear to be

frequent small release events. A valuable area of study would be a determination of the frequency of all scales of release events, and the determination of the magnitude of a 100-year event.

• While the development of methane hydrate as a resource will result

in CO2 emissions, natural gas from hydrate can also displace fossil fuels that produce more CO2 per unit of energy produced as well as SO2. This should result in an overall reduction in CO2 and SO2 emissions.

Safety and Sea Floor Stability • Studies of sub-sea landslides and collapse features suggest a possible

link to underlying methane hydrates. These events could have serious consequences for coastal areas and offshore operations. More

APPENDIX H 185

research is needed to confirm this link and assess the risk of future events.

• Over 1,000 wells have been drilled in the Gulf of Mexico at sites

where sediments could contain methane hydrate. While no adverse effects of hydrate disassociation have been documented, the long-term impact of offshore operations on hydrate-bearing sediment is not fully understood.

• While the commercial development of methane hydrate in the United

States will be focused on the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico, methane hydrates are also abundant on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. A full understanding of the role of methane hydrates in slope stability and global climate change will require broadly based studies.

• It is possible that hydrate-bearing sediments are susceptible to slope

failure due to seismic events. This relationship bears further inves-tigation.

• There is a need for a concerted effort to document landslide and

collapse features in the geologic record that are linked to methane hydrates.

• The greatest opportunities for U.S. commercial production of gas

from hydrates are in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Slope of Alaska. These areas also have the highest potential for safety issues related to natural hydrate occurrences, although drilling and producing operations have been successfully undertaken for many years through hydrate-bearing sediments in these areas. Current geophysical techniques for estimating hydrate concentrations in a given location are unreliable.

Environmental Characterization • Our knowledge of living systems associated with methane hydrate

accumulations is incomplete. This gap in our knowledge will likely delay any commercial development of methane hydrates. The Minerals Management Service and other agencies are encouraged to increase the pace of this research.

186 APPENDIX H

Program Management • The Committee strongly agreed that the proposed funding level of

$4.75 Million per year would not answer the questions raised in P.L. 106-193. A preliminary estimate of $10-25 million per year over 5 years was seen as providing for a characterization of the resource potential and an assessment of potential hazards.

• Among the proposed activities included in P.L. 106-193 is explor-

atory drilling. While the Committee considers drilling and coring of hydrate-bearing sediments to be of critical importance to the success of the program, these activities are expensive and the funding levels currently proposed for the program are insufficient to include drill-ling, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico.

• The opportunities and issues related to methane hydrates are deemed

sufficiently valid that gas hydrate programs are currently being conducted at several Federal agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey, the Naval Research Laboratory, the Minerals Management Service, and several of the DOE laboratories. All of these programs, however, are being conducted at very low budget levels.

• There are significant opportunities for collaboration between

industry, universities, and government agencies on methane hydrate research. A more efficient use of limited funds can be realized through improvements of web-based sharing of data. A knowledge-sharing system designed along the lines of the DOE’s successful CO2 database would be valuable.

• A significant gap exists in the U.S. between resources & researchers,

with some of the most creative researchers not having the assets or resources required to carry out important work.

• The committee discussed the problems associated with low funding

levels for methane hydrate research and considered several ap-proaches for optimizing the use of DOE funds. One that had broad support was for the DOE to have more specific deliverables included in Requests For Proposals. Individuals or organizations could submit proposals to achieve those deliverables, and the DOE could then make awards based on who best could undertake that work.

APPENDIX H 187

• Due to an early recognition of their energy issues and of methane hydrate opportunities, several countries have initiated extensive methane hydrate programs. These include Japan, India, Canada, Taiwan, and Germany.

• DOE participation in foreign methane hydrate operations has been a

cost-effective means of obtaining valuable information. Continued collaboration is strongly encouraged.

188 APPENDIX H

LETTER DATED DECEMBER 17, 2001 The Honorable Spencer Abraham Secretary U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-1000 December 17, 2002 Dear Mr. Secretary, In accordance with the provisions of the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000, a Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee was created in November 2000 to advise you on a number of issues involving methane hydrate. The Committee had its second meeting on November 13 and 14, 2002. This letter summarizes the Committee’s discussions and provides you with its best judgment for sustaining and improving this important area of knowledge. In addition, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000 required that the Committee prepare a report assessing the potential impact on global climate change from methane hydrate formation, methane hydrate degassing, and consumption of natural gas produced from methane hydrates. This report is now in press. The Committee reviewed the Federal methane hydrate research program and has concluded that the program has been very successful. We have seen significant progress in all areas of investigation during the past three years. In particular Arctic methane hydrate production is expected within several years on a limited basis. Yet, most of the main goals are still at an early stage. The Committee strongly recommends that the Federal Methane Hydrate R&D program be continued. While the Committee endorses the program, it also identified the following opportunities for improving and expanding the program:

• The level of coordination between the Federal agencies involved in the hydrate program has been critical to the rapid pace of

APPENDIX H 189

progress. The Committee has observed, however, that opportunities for enhancing cooperation remain and should be explored. An interagency partnership would improve program efficiency.

• Joint industry, academia, and government activities have been

especially effective at addressing methane hydrate issues. The Committee recommends that the use of such programs be expanded.

• Raw data developed in hydrate studies needs [sic] to be archived

more promptly and effectively in an accessible, electronic format.

• The program would benefit from a single point of entry into

various databases, with all methane hydrate data readily available to researchers.

• Adequate levels of support are needed to ensure that

environmental studies are undertaken to develop and demon-strate the effectiveness of mitigation measures that will need to accompany commercial extraction of hydrates when it occurs.

• The Minerals Management Service will need to review and

revise its processes for resource evaluation as hydrates become a commercial resource so that the government receives appropriate bonuses and royalties.

Past funding projections have proven to be valid and have resulted in the success of the Federal methane hydrate program. The activities planned for the next several years are an important aspect of the overall program (including field work, laboratory studies and modeling), and will require a significant increase in funding level. Sincerely, Arthur H. Johnson, Chair Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee

190 APPENDIX H

Attachment Membership of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee

Peter Brewer Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Richard Charter Environmental Defense Gerald Holder University of Pittsburgh Stephen Holditch Schlumberger Technology Corp. Arthur Johnson Hydrate Energy International Miriam Kastner Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego Devinder Mahajan Brookhaven National Laboratory William Parrish ConocoPhillips Harry Roberts Louisiana State University Carolyn Ruppel Georgia Institute of Technology Sabrina Watkins ConocoPhillips

191

Appendix I Membership of the Interagency Coordinating

Committee and the Technical Coordinating Team

INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE

The Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) was established by the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. The ICC membership has changed little since the initial meeting (January 19, 2001). The following is a list of current and past members: Bob Kripowicz (past), Mike Smith (past), Mark Maddox—DOE Office

of the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Edith Allison, Guido DeHoratiis—DOE Headquarters Brad Tomer, Hugh Guthrie—DOE, National Energy Technology

Laboratory Chip Groat— U.S. Geological Survey Susanne Weedman (past), Deborah Pierce—U.S. Geological Survey Bob Labelle—Minerals Management Service Tom Kitsos—Minerals Management Service Barbara Moore—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Bhakta Rath—Naval Research Laboratory Doug Rau—Naval Research Laboratory

192 APPENDIX I

TECHNICAL COORDINATING TEAM

At its first meeting, the ICC decided to establish the Technical Coordinating Team (TCT). Each organization typically sends two representatives to TCT meetings. Historically, the following individuals have attended (current and past members):

Leonard Graham (past), Al Yost (past), Chuck Zeh (past), Brad Tomer,

Ray Boswell—DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory Tim Collett, Bill Dillon (past), Deborah Hutchinson—U.S. Geological

Survey Dellagarino, Mike Smith, Jesse Hunt, Roger Amato (occasional), Pulak

Ray (occasional)—Minerals Management Service George Ed Myers, Andy Shepard (occasional), John Wilshire (occa-

sional)—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Joe Gettrust, Rick Coffin—Naval Research Laboratory Richard Poore (past), Bilal Haq—National Science Foundation

PLA

TE 1

Kno

wn

and

infe

rred

gas h

ydra

te a

ccum

ulat

ions

and

pro

vinc

es a

roun

d th

e w

orld

. G

as h

ydra

te sa

mpl

es w

ere

reco

vere

d at

kn o

wn

loca

tions

by

rese

arch

subm

ersib

les,

rem

otel

y op

erat

ed v

ehic

les (

RO

Vs)

, gra

bbin

g, d

ragg

ing,

pist

on c

orin

g, a

nd c

orin

g du

ring

DSD

P an

d O

DP

oper

atio

ns. T

he

infe

rred

loca

tions

are

bas

ed o

n th

e pr

esen

ce o

f Bot

tom

Sim

ulat

ing

Refle

ctor

(BSR

) and

vel

ocity

am

plitu

de p

ecul

iarit

ies (

VA

MPs

) on

seism

ic re

cord

s, w

ell-l

og si

gnat

ures

typi

cal o

f hyd

rate

-bea

ring

sedi

men

ts, a

nd fr

eshe

ning

of p

orew

ater

in se

dim

ent c

ores

. SO

UR

CES:

Dat

a fro

m K

venv

olde

n (1

999)

and

Mi lk

ov a

nd S

asse

n (2

002)

, with

add

ition

s by

Ale

x ei V

. Milk

ov. F

igur

e co

urte

sy o

f Ale

xei V

. Milk

ov,

BP A

mer

ica,

Exp

lora

tion

and

Prod

uctio

n Te

chno

logy

Gro

up.

(b)

PLATE 2 (a) Distribution of the Eileen and Tarn gas hydrate accumulations in the area of the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River oil fields on the North Slope of Alaska. Red dot shows location of the Anadarko Hot Ice No.1 drill site 2004. (b) Map of gas hydrate drill sites and gas hydrate occurrences in the Arctic Circle showing the location of the Mallik 2L-38 test well and other drill sites, 2002. SOURCES: (a) Figure modified from Collett (2004); (b) Figure courtesy of Bill Liddell, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, The Woodlands, Texas.

(a)

(b)

PLATE 3 (a) Bacterial mats and clams on an exposed hydrate sheet on the seafloor. (b) A thinly-sedimented mound of exposed hydrate and associated clam community on the seafloor. The mound is about 3 meters high and about 6 meters diameter. Both photos were taken in August of 2002, in Barkley Canyon, about 50 km offshore Vancouver Island in the northeast Pacific Ocean during a seafloor survey by ROPOS (Remotely Operated Platform for Ocean Science), a Canadian remotely operated vehicle. SOURCE: Photos courtesy of Ross Chapman, University of Victoria.

charting the future of methane hydrate research in the united states

Documents