The first stage of any phase transition is a dynamic coupling of transport processes and thermodynamic changes. The free energy change of the phase transition must be negative and large enough to also overcome the penalty work needed for giving space to the new phase. The transition from an unstable situation over to a stable growth is called nucleation. Hydrate formation nucleation can occur along a variety of different routes. Heterogeneous formation on the interface between gas (or liquid) and water is the most commonly studied. A hydrate can also form homogeneously from dissolved hydrate formers in water, and the hydrate can nucleate toward mineral surfaces in natural sediments or a pipeline (rust). A hydrate particle’s critical size is the particle size needed to enter a region of stable growth. These critical sizes and the associated nucleation times are nanoscale processes. The dynamics of the subsequent stable growth can be very slow due to transport limitations of hydrate-forming molecules and water across hydrate films. Induction times can be defined as the time needed to reach a visible hydrate. In the open literature, these induction times are frequently misinterpreted as nucleation times. Additional misunderstandings relate to the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the number of independent thermodynamics variables. It is not possible to reach thermodynamic equilibrium in systems where hydrates form in a pipeline or in sediments. Finally, there are common misconceptions that only one type of hydrate will form. In a non-equilibrium situation, several hydrates will form, depending on which phases the hydrate formers and water come from. In this paper, we utilize a simple nucleation theory to illustrate nucleation and growth of some simple hydrates in order to illustrate the non-equilibrium nature of hydrates and the fast nucleation times. To illustrate this, we apply thermodynamic conditions for a real pipeline transporting natural gas from Norway to Germany. This specific example also serves as a case for illustration of the possible impact of rusty pipeline surfaces in kicking out water from the gas. Specifically, we argue that the tolerance limit for water concentration according to current industrial hydrate risk practice might overestimate the tolerance by a factor of 20 as compared to tolerance concentration based on adsorption on rust.

Natural gas hydrates in sediments can never reach thermodynamic equilibrium. Every section of any hydrate-filled reservoir is unique and resides in a stationary balance that depends on many factors. Fluxes of hydrocarbons from below support formation of new hydrate, and inflow of water through fracture systems leads to hydrate dissociation. Mineral/fluid/hydrate interaction and geochemistry are some of the many other factors that determine local hydrate saturation in the pores. Even when using real sediments from coring it is impossible to reproduce in the laboratory a natural gas hydrate reservoir which has developed over geological time-scales. In this work we discuss the various stages of hydrate formation, with a focus on dynamic rate limiting processes which can lead to trapped pockets of gas and trapped liquid water inside hydrate. Heterogeneous hydrate nucleation on the interface between liquid water and the phase containing the hydrate former rapidly leads to mass transport limiting films of hydrate. These hydrate films can delay the onset of massive, and visible, hydrate growth by several hours. Heat transport in systems of liquid water and hydrate is orders of magnitude faster than mass transport. We demonstrate that a simple mass transport model is able to predict induction times for selective available experimental data for CO₂ hydrate formation and CH₄ hydrate formation. Another route to hydrate nucleation is towards mineral surfaces. CH₄ cannot adsorb directly but can get trapped in water structures as a secondary adsorption. H₂S has a significant dipole moment and can adsorb directly on mineral surfaces. The quadropole-moment in CO₂ also plays a significant role in adsorption on minerals. Hydrate that nucleates toward minerals cannot stick to the mineral surfaces so the role of these nucleation sites is to produce hydrate cores for further growth elsewhere in the system. Various ways to overcome these obstacles and create realistic hydrate saturation in laboratory sediment are also discussed.

The amount of energy in the form of natural gas hydrates is huge and likely substantially more than twice the amount of worldwide conventional fossil fuel. Various ways to produce these hydrates have been proposed over the latest five decades. Most of these hydrate production methods have been based on evaluation of hydrate stability limits rather than thermodynamic consideration and calculations. Typical examples are pressure reduction and thermal stimulation. In this work we discuss some of these proposed methods and use residual thermodynamics for all phases, including the hydrate phase, to evaluate free energy changes related to the changes in independent thermodynamic variables. Pressures, temperatures and composition of all relevant phases which participate in hydrate phase transitions are independent thermodynamic variables. Chemical potential and free energies are thermodynamic responses that determine whether the desired phase transitions are feasible or not. The associated heat needed is related to the first law of thermodynamics and enthalpies. It is argued that the pressure reduction method may not be feasible since the possible thermal gradients from the surroundings are basically low temperature heat that is unable to break water hydrogen bonds in the hydrate–water interface efficiently. Injecting carbon dioxide, on the other hand, leads to formation of new hydrate which generates excess heat compared to the enthalpy needed to dissociate the in situ CH₄ hydrate. But the rapid formation of new CO₂ hydrate that can block the pores, and also the low permeability of pure CO₂ in aquifers, are motivations for adding N₂. Optimum mole fractions of N₂ based on thermodynamic considerations are discussed. On average, less than 30 mole% N₂ can be efficient and feasible. Thermal stimulation using steam or hot water is not economically feasible. Adding massive amounts of methanol or other thermodynamic inhibitors is also technically efficient but far from economically feasible.

The international interest in the energy potential related to the huge amounts of methane trapped in the form of hydrates is rapidly increasing. Unlike conventional hydrocarbon sources these natural gas hydrate deposits are widely spread around the world. This includes countries which have limited or no conventional hydrocarbon sources, like for instance Japan. A variety of possible production methods have been proposed during the latest four decades. The pressure reduction method has been dominant in terms of research efforts and associated investments in large scale pilot test studies. Common to any feasible method for producing methane from hydrates is the need for transfer of heat. In the pressure reduction method necessary heat is normally expected to be supplied from the surrounding formation. It still remain, however, unverified whether the capacity, and heat transport capabilities of surrounding formation, will be sufficient to supply enough heat for a commercial production based on reduction in pressure. Adding heat is very costly. Addition of limited heat in critical areas (regions of potential freezing down) might be economically feasible. This requires knowledge about enthalpies of hydrate dissociation under various conditions of temperature and pressure. When hydrate is present in the pores then it is the most stable phase for water. Hydrate can then grow in the concentration range in between liquid controlled solubility concentrations, and the minimum concentration of hydrate in water needed to keep the hydrate stable. Every concentration in that range off concentrations results unique free energy and enthalpy of the formed hydrate. Similarly for hydrate dissociation towards water containing less hydrate former than the stability limit. Every outside liquid water concentration results in unique enthalpy changes for hydrate dissociation. There are presently no other available calculation approaches for enthalpy changes related to these hydrate phase transitions. The interest of using CO₂ for safe storage in the form of hydrate, and associated CH₄ release, is also increasing. The only feasible mechanism in this method involves the formation of new CO₂ hydrate, and associated release of heat which assist in dissociating the in situ CH₄ hydrate. Very limited experimental data is available for heats of formation (and dissociation), even for CH₄. And most experimental data are incomplete in the sense that associated water/hydrate former rate are often missing or guessed. Thermodynamic conditions are frequently not precisely defined. Although measured hydrate equilibrium pressure versus temperature curves can be used there is still a need for additional models for volume changes, and ways to find other information needed. In this work we propose a simple and fairly direct scheme of calculating enthalpies of formation and dissociation using residual thermodynamics. This is feasible since also hydrate can be described by residual thermodynamics though molecular dynamics simulations. The concept is derived and explained in detail and also compared to experimental data. For enthalpy changes related to hydrate formation from water and dissolved hydrate formers we have not found experimental data to compare with. To our knowledge there are no other alternative methods available for calculating enthalpy changes for these types of hydrate phase transitions. And there are no limits in the theory for which hydrate phase transitions that can be described as long as chemical potentials for water and hydrate formers in the relevant phases are available from theoretical modeling and/or experimental information.

Huge amounts of natural gas hydrate are trapped in an ice-like structure (hydrate). Most of these hydrates have been formed from biogenic degradation of organic waste in the upper crust and are almost pure methane hydrates. With up to 14 mol% methane, concentrated inside a water phase, this is an attractive energy source. Unlike conventional hydrocarbons, these hydrates are widely distributed around the world, and might in total amount to more than twice the energy in all known sources of conventional fossil fuels. A variety of methods for producing methane from hydrate-filled sediments have been proposed and developed through laboratory scale experiments, pilot scale experiments, and theoretical considerations. Thermal stimulation (steam, hot water) and pressure reduction has by far been the dominating technology platforms during the latest three decades. Thermal stimulation as the primary method is too expensive. There are many challenges related to pressure reduction as a method. Conditions of pressure can be changed to outside the hydrate stability zone, but dissociation energy still needs to be supplied. Pressure release will set up a temperature gradient and heat can be transferred from the surrounding formation, but it has never been proven that the capacity and transport ability will ever be enough to sustain a commercial production rate. On the contrary, some recent pilot tests have been terminated due to freezing down. Other problems include sand production and water production. A more novel approach of injecting CO₂ into natural gas hydrate-filled sediments have also been investigated in various laboratories around the world with varying success. In this work, we focus on some frequent misunderstandings related to this concept. The only feasible mechanism for the use of CO₂ goes though the formation of a new CO₂ hydrate from free water in the pores and the incoming CO₂. As demonstrated in this work, the nucleation of a CO₂ hydrate film rapidly forms a mass transport barrier that slows down any further growth of the CO₂ hydrate. Addition of small amounts of surfactants can break these hydrate films. We also demonstrate that the free energy of the CO₂ hydrate is roughly 2 kJ/mol lower than the free energy of the CH₄ hydrate. In addition to heat release from the formation of the new CO₂ hydrate, the increase in ion content of the remaining water will dissociate CH₄ hydrate before the CO₂ hydrate due to the difference in free energy.