UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE

EVALUATION OF EQUIVALENT CIRCULATING DENSITY OF DRILLING FLUIDS UNDER HIGH PRESSURE-HIGH TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (Petroleum Engineering)

By Oluseyi Harris Norman, Oklahoma 2004

EVALUATION OF EQUIVALENT CIRCULATING DENSITY OF DRILLING FLUIDS UNDER HIGH PRESSURE-HIGH TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS

A THESIS APPROVED FOR THE MEWBOURNE SCHOOL OF PETROLEUM AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

BY

Chair: Dr. Samuel Osisanya

Member: Dr. Subhash Shah

Member: Dr. Djebbar Tiab

Copyright by Oluseyi Harris 2004 All Rights Reserved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his profound gratitude and appreciation for Dr. Samuel Osisanya. His guidance, moral and financial support, and encouragement were invaluable. The author would like to thank the members of the thesis committee, Dr Samuel Osisanya, Dr Subhash Shah, and Dr. Djebbar Tiab for their helpful comments and suggestions. Heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Subhash Shah for his assistance in allowing use of WCTC facilities in performing research for this thesis. The author wishes to extend special

thanks to colleagues whose assistance and encouragement was invaluable during the course of this research work- Ricardo Michel-Villazon, Aristotelis Pagoulatos, Kayode Aremu, Kola Ayeni. The author wishes to thank his other half, Lola for always being there. The author would also like to express immeasurable gratitude towards his parents for their constant and unwavering support and faith. Last and most importantly, thanks and praise are extended to God almighty who alone makes all things possible.

Oluseyi Harris Norman, Oklahoma July, 2004

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................xi CHAPTER PAGE

1. FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM .........................................................1 1.1. Introduction ..........................................................................................1 1.2. Literature Review .................................................................................3 1.3. Objectives and Scope of Work...........................................................13 1.4. Study Organization ...........................................................................14 2.FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS FOR ESTIMATION OF EQUIVALENT STATIC AND CIRCULATING DENSITY ....................................................15 2.1 Equivalent Static density ......................................................................15 2.2 Estimating Equivalent Static Density....................................................18 2.2.1 Compositional Models ...................................................................18 2.2.1.1 Volumetric Models for Mud Constituents ..................21 2.2.2 Empirical Models ...........................................................................23 2.3 Equivalent Circulating density ..............................................................23 2.4 Frictional Pressure Loss.......................................................................24 2.5 Fluid Rheology .....................................................................................26 2.5.1 Bingham Plastic Model ..................................................................27 2.5.2 Power Law Model ..........................................................................28 2.5.3 Herschel-Bulkley Model.................................................................30 2.5.4 Casson Model ...............................................................................31

2.5.5 Ellis Model .....................................................................................31 2.5.6 Carreau Model...............................................................................32 2.6 Temperature and Pressure Dependent Rheological Parameters.......33 2.6.1 Temperature/Pressure Dependent Plastic Viscosity....................33 2.6.2 Temperature Dependent Yield point..............................................35 2.7 Bingham Plastic Pressure Loss Equations......................................36

3.DRILLING FLUID TEMPERATURE PROFILE ESTIMATION ...................40 3.1 Heat Transfer in the Wellbore ..............................................................41 3.2 Analytical Method.................................................................................43 3.2.1 Assumptions of Analytical Model ..................................................43 3.2.2 Heat Balance in the DrillPipe........................................................44 3.2.3 Heat Balance in the Annulus ........................................................45 3.2.4 Heat Flow in the Formation and System Heat Balance ................46 3.3 Numerical Method ................................................................................50 3.3.1 Equations Governing Heat transfer in the Wellbore and Formation ...............................................................................................................50 3.3.2 Discretizing Heat Flow Equations for Finite difference Analysis ....53 3.4 Summary.........................................................................................68

4.DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE DYNAMIC DENSITY SIMULATOR AND MODELLING OF DYNAMIC DENSITY .......................69 4.1 4.2 Program Lay-Out.............................................................................70 DDS Program Execution .................................................................71

4.2.1 General Well Parameters Form ...................................................71 4.2.2 Mud Properties Form ...................................................................77 4.2.3 Formation Properties Form..........................................................77 4.2.4 Heat Transfer Coefficients Form..................................................77 4.2.5 Results and Results Form ...........................................................80 4.3 Equations used in DDSimulator Program........................................82

4.3.1 Fluid Properties ...........................................................................82 4.3.2 Temperature Profile Estimation ...................................................83

vi

4.3.3 Equivalent Hydrostatic Head and ECD ........................................84 4.4 4.5 Model Validation..............................................................................84 Dynamic Density Estimation............................................................91

Summary..................................................................................................107 5.SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................108 5.1 5.2 5.3 Summary.......................................................................................108 Conclusions...................................................................................109 Recommendations ........................................................................110

NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................112 REFERENCES ............................................................................................115 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................119 Code for DDSimulator Program ...............................................................119

vii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 PAGE

: Well and mud circulating properties for a gulf coast well.85 : Simulated Well Conditions92 : Results of Well Simulation92 : Well simulation results for parameters detailed in Table 4.2 with gG = 0.015 oF/ft......96

4.5

: Well simulation results for parameters detailed in Table 4.2 with gG = 0.025 oF/ft..96

4.6

: Well simulation results for parameters detailed in Table 4.2 with inlet fluid temperature = 80 oF......97

4.7

: Well simulation results for parameters detailed in Table 4.2 with circulation rate = 210 gal/min.....102

4.8

: Well Simulation Results for Parameters Detailed in Table 4.2 with Circulation Rate = 300 bbl/hr.105

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 : Schematic Diagram of Fluid in the Well bore at the Start of Circulation..9 2.1 : Volumetric behavior of various liquids under varying conditions of temperature and pressure......17 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2a 3.2b 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 : Shear-thinning in a typical non-Newtonian Fluid........29 : Flow curves for time-independent fluids...29 : Schematic of Heat Balance for Fluid Circulating in a Wellbore....42 : Solution grid for Finite Difference Analysis......51 : Heat Flow at Formation Annulus Boundary.....51 : Finite Difference Grid...54 : Heat Balance at Bottom-Hole....60 : DDSimulator Program Flow Chart.....72 : Title Form..73 :DDSimulator Launch Command Button....74 : Well Parameters Form....75 : Mud Properties Form...76 : Formation Properties Form....78 : Heat Transfer Coefficients Form.......79 : Results Form....80 : A Sample Temperature Profile Using Excel Graph Feature.....81 : Plot of Temperature Profile For Gulf Coast Well.86 PAGE

ix

4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30

: Well Temperature Profile While Circulating Field Salt Water89 : Temperature Profile For Gulf Coast Well.90 : Temperature Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs.93 : Annular Pressure Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs.94 : Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200ft well after 5hrs...94 : Temperature Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs.97 : Annular Pressure Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs.98 : Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200ft well after 5hrs...98 : Temperature Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs.99 : Annular Pressure Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs.99 : Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200ft well after 5hrs.100 : Temperature Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs100 : Annular Pressure Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs101 : Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200ft well after 5hrs..101 : Temperature Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs103 : Annular Pressure Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs103 : Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200ft well after 5hrs..104 : Temperature Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs....105 : Annular Pressure Profile in 17200ft well after 5hrs....106 : Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200ft well after 5hrs..106

ABSTRACT
The effects of the temperature and pressure conditions prevalent in high temperature/high pressure wells on the equivalent circulating density of drilling fluids in a circulating wellbore as well as the bottom-hole pressure are studied. High temperature conditions cause the fluid in the wellbore to expand, while high pressure conditions in deep wells cause fluid compression. Failure to take these two opposing effects into account can lead to errors in the estimation of bottom-hole pressure on the magnitude of hundreds of psi. The rheological behavior of drilling fluids is also affected by the temperature and pressure conditions. A Bingham plastic model was used to simulate the temperature and pressure dependent rheological behavior of the drilling fluids studied, with the rheological parameters expressed as functions of temperature and pressure. Analytical and numerical methods for estimating the temperature profile in a circulating well-bore were studied. A simulator called DDSimulator was developed using visual basic to simulate the wellbore during circulation. This simulator can develop the temperature and pressure profiles of a wellbore during circulation, and compute the bottom-hole pressure and equivalent circulating density taking into account the temperature and pressure conditions in the wellbore. The Crank-Nicolson numerical discretizing scheme was employed in the DDSimulator for the evaluation of the temperature profile.

xi

From the results of the DDSimulator, it was found that the geothermal gradient has a great effect on the bottom-hole temperature and pressure, and the equivalent circulating density that will occur in a circulating well-bore. It was also found that the inlet pipe temperature did not have a significant effect on the bottom-hole temperature and pressure. This is even more the case in deep wells, and in areas with high geothermal gradient. The circulation rate plays an important role in the bottom-hole temperature and pressure that will occur in circulating well. The major technical contribution of this work is the development of the DDSimulator. The density and rheological properties of the drilling fluid in the wellbore can be estimated in order to adequately evaluate the bottom-hole pressure during fluid circulation. DDSimulator allows the evaluation of the bottom-hole pressure taking into account the variation in the volumetric and rheological properties of the drilling fluid under high temperature and high pressure conditions in the wellbore. The effects of variation in the inlet fluid temperature, circulation rate, and geothermal gradient are explored and discussed in this work.

xii

Chapter 1

FORMULATION OF THE PROBLEM

1.1. Introduction
Drilling fluids are in general complex heterogeneous mixtures of various types of base fluids and chemical additives that must remain stable over a range of temperature and pressure conditions. The properties of these complex mixtures, such as equivalent static density (ESD) and the rheological properties of the fluid mixture determine pressure losses in the system while drilling. It is often assumed that these properties and thus the equivalent circulating density (ECD) are constant throughout the duration of drilling activities. This assumption can prove to be quite wrong in cases where there is large variation in the pressure/temperature conditions, such as in high pressure-high temperature (HPHT) wells, and deep-water drilling, where low temperature conditions are encountered very close to the sea bed. In HPHT wells, as the total vertical depth increases, there is an increase in the bottom-hole temperature, as well as the hydrostatic head of the mud column. These two factors have opposing effects on equivalent circulating density. The increased hydrostatic head causes increase in the equivalent circulating density due to compression. The increase in temperature on the other hand, causes a decrease in the equivalent circulating density due to thermal expansion. It is most often assumed that

these two effects cancel each other out. This is not always the case, especially in high temperature, high pressure wells. Large variations in equivalent circulating density can also occur when drilling in deep water environments where relatively cold temperatures are encountered in the riser, near the ocean bed. In deepwater wells1, the seabed temperature can be as low as 30 oF and hydrostatic pressures at the bottom of the riser will be 2700 psi, with a mud density of 8.6 lb/gal and a water depth 6000-ft. The low temperature conditions can cause severe gelling of the drilling fluid, especially in oil-base muds (OBM). Failure to take this effect into account will result in underestimation of the equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid. Errors in the estimation of equivalent circulating density have an especially disastrous effect when drilling through formations with a small gap between pore pressure, and the pressure at which the formation will fracture. In such cases, the margin for error is very small and thus, the equivalent circulating density must be estimated precisely. Disregarding pressure and temperature effects in this case can lead to greater probability for the occurrence of kicks, and blow-outs due to under-balanced pressure or fluid loss to the formation (lost circulation and formation damage) due to overbalance pressure. Various experimental studies have also shown drilling fluid rheology to be very pressure and temperature dependent
2,3

. Rheological parameters

such as viscosity and yield stress affect frictional pressure losses during the

flow of drilling fluids. Failure to take into account the dependence of these parameters on temperature-pressure conditions can result in obtaining erroneous values for equivalent circulating density, which takes into account the hydrostatic head of the drilling fluid as well as the pressure loss it experiences during flow. The focus of this research is to study the effect of pressure and temperature on equivalent static density as well as equivalent circulating density of drilling fluids.

1.2. Literature Review

Numerous publications4-10 have dealt with the behavior of equivalent static density of drilling fluids in response to variations in pressuretemperature conditions. Various models4-10 have been proposed in order to characterize this relationship, with some models being empirical in nature, and some being compositional. The compositional model4-5 characterizes the volumetric behavior of drilling fluids based on the behavior of the individual constituents of the drilling fluid. Hence, prior knowledge of the composition of the drilling fluid is required for application of the compositional model. In the compositional model, the density of any solids content in the drilling fluid is taken to be independent of temperature and pressure. It is assumed that any change in density is due to density changes in the liquid phases. It is also assumed that there are no physical and/or chemical interactions between the solid and liquid phases in the drilling fluid, or that the

solid phase is inert. Hoberock et al4 proposed the following compositional model for equivalent static density of drilling fluids.

(P2 , T2 ) =

o1 f vo + w1 f vw + s f vs + c f vc 1 + f vo o1 1 + f vw w1 1 o2 w2

(1.1)

where, 1, w1 = density of oil and water at temperature T1 and pressure P1, respectively 2, w2 = density of oil and water at temperature T2 and pressure P2, respectively f vo, fvw, fvs, fvc = fractional volume of oil, water, solid weighting material, and chemical additives, respectively P1, P2 = T 1, T2 = pressure at reference and condition 2 temperature at reference and condition 2

Application of the compositional model requires some knowledge of how the densities of each liquid phase in the mud, usually water and some type of hydrocarbon, change with changes in temperature and pressure. The static mud density at elevated pressure and temperature can be predicted from knowledge of mud composition, density of constituents at ambient or standard temperature and pressure, and density of liquid constituents at elevated temperature and pressure. Peters et al5 applied the Hoberock et al4 compositional model successfully to model volumetric behavior of diesel-based and mineral oil-

based drilling fluids. In their study, they measured the density of the individual liquid components of each drilling fluid at temperatures varying from 78-350
o

F and pressures varying from 0-15,000 psi. Using this data in conjunction

with Hoberock et als compositional model, they were able to predict the density of the drilling fluids at the elevated temperature-pressure conditions. The model predictions yielded an error of <1% over the range of temperature and pressure examined. Sorelle et al6 proposed equations expressing the relationship between water and hydrocarbon (diesel oil No. 2) densities, and temperature/pressure for use with the compositional model with some success. Kutasov8 analyzed pressure-density-temperature behavior of water and proposed a similar equation, which was reported to yield very low error in predicting water densities in the HTHP region. Isambourg et al7 proposed a nine-parameter polynomial model to describe the volumetric behavior of the liquid phases in drilling fluids, which is applicable in the range of 14.5-20,000 psi and 60-400
o

F. This model

characterizes the volumetric behavior of the liquid phases in the drilling fluid with respect to temperature and pressure, and is applied in a similar compositional model to that proposed by Hoberock et al4. The model also assumes that all volumetric changes in the drilling fluid is due to the liquid phase, and application of the model requires a very accurate measurement of the reference mud density at surface conditions.

Kutasov8 proposed an empirical equation of state (EOS) model for drilling fluids to express the pressure-density-temperature dependent relationship. As is the case for the compositional model, mud density using Kutasovs empirical equation of state is evaluated relative to its density at standard conditions (p= 14.7 psi, T = 60 oF). He applied the equation of state with a temperature-depth relationship in order evaluate hydrostatic pressure and equivalent static density as a function of depth. Babu9 compared the accuracy of the two compositional models proposed by Sorelle et al4 and Kutasov8 respectively, and the empirical model proposed by Kutasov8 in predicting the mud weights for 12 different mud systems. The test samples consisted of 3 water based muds (WBM), 5 OBMs formulated using diesel oil No. 2, and 4 OBMs formulated using mineral oil. Babu9 found that the empirical model yielded more accurate estimates for the pressure-density-temperature behavior of a majority of the muds over the range of measured data more accurately than the compositional model. He also concluded that the empirical model has more practical application because unlike compositional models, it is not hindered by the need to know the contents of the drilling fluid in question. Drilling fluids contain complex mixtures of additives, which can vary widely with the location of the well, and sometimes with different stages in the same well. This was especially apparent in the behavior of the drilling fluids prepared with diesel oil No. 2. Different oils available under the category of diesel oil No. 2 that were used in the preparation of OBMs can exhibit

different compressibility and thermal expansion characteristics, which were reflected in the pressure-density-temperature dependent behavior of the fluids prepared with them. Research has also been reported on characterizing drilling fluid rheology at high temperature/high pressure conditions. Rommetveit et al11 approached their analysis of shear stress/shear rate data at high temperature and pressure by multiplying shear stress by a factor which depends on pressure, temperature and shear rate. Coefficients of this multiplying factor are fitted to shear stress/shear rate data directly without extracting rheological parameters such as yield stress first. This eliminates the need to characterize the behavior of each rheological parameter relative to pressure and temperature changes. In essence, they obtain an empirical model in which the effects of variation in all rheological parameters that describe fluid flow behavior are lumped together. Another approach to the analysis of temperature and pressure effects on drilling fluid rheology is to consider the effect of temperature and pressure changes on each rheological parameter that describes the behavior of the fluid. The two most common models3 considered for such an analysis are the Herschel-Bulkey/Power law model and the Casson model which is an acceptable description of oil based mud rheology. Of these two models, the Herschel-Bulkley model is the most robust, as it is a three parameter model as opposed to the Casson model which is a two parameter model. In the analysis performed by Alderman et al3 on shear stress/shear rate data, the

Herschel-Bulkley/Power and Casson models were considered. The behavior of each rheological parameter in these models with respect to changes in temperature and pressure was investigated. They studied a range of fluids covering un-weighted and weighted bentonite water-based drilling fluids with and without deflocculant additives. In order to estimate equivalent circulating density, it is important to take into account the effects of temperature and pressure on fluid rheology. Two methods are proposed to accomplish this by Rommetveit et al11. They propose a stationary or static method and a dynamic method. In both methods, the contributions of hydrostatic and frictional pressure losses in high pressure/high temperature wells to the equivalent circulating density were considered. The variation in temperature vertically along the well bore is taken into account for both models, and drilling fluid properties are allowed to vary relative to temperature. The dynamic method however, also takes into account transient changes in temperature i.e. change in temperature over time. This effect is especially important in the case where circulation has been stopped for a significant amount of time. The drilling fluid temperature will begin to approach the temperature of the formation. Once circulation commences again as shown in Fig. 1.1, the lower part of the annulus will be cooled by cold fluid from the drill string and the upper part of the annulus will be warmed by hotter fluid coming from the bottom-hole. During this transient period, fluid density and rheological characteristics can change rapidly due to rapid

changes in temperature. Research on this effect is still at a very early stage and will not be taken into account during this study.

Warmer fluid from bottom-hole warming up the upper annulus

Drill Pipe

Cooler fluid from drill pipe cooling down the annulus

Figure 1.1- Schematic Diagram of Fluid in the Well bore at the Start of Circulation

Alderman et al3 performed rheological experiments on water based drilling fluids over a range of temperatures up to 260 oF and pressures up to 14,500 psi, using both weighted and unweighted drilling fluids. Rheograms were obtained for the water based drilling fluids, holding temperature constant and varying pressure, and vice versa. It was found that the Herschel-Bulkley model yielded the best fit to the experimental data. Other models that were investigated are the Bingham plastic model, and the Casson model which some authors argue is the best model for characterizing oil-based drilling fluid rheology. For the Herschel-Bulkley model, it was found that the fluid viscosity at high shear rates increased with pressure to an extent, which increases with the fluid density, and decreases with temperature in a similar manner to pure water. Alderman et al3 found the yield stress to vary little with pressuretemperature conditions. The yield stress remained essentially constant with respect to temperature until a characteristic threshold temperature is attained. This threshold temperature was found to depend on mud composition. Once this threshold is reached, the yield stress increases exponentially with 1/T. Alderman et al3 also found that the power law exponent increased with temperature, and decreased with pressure. This lead them to conclude that the Casson model will become increasingly inaccurate at these two extremes, that is, at high temperature and low pressure. The estimation of ECD under high temperature conditions requires knowledge of the temperatures to which the drilling fluid will be subjected to

10

downhole. As the fluid is circulated in the wellbore, heat from the formation flows into the wellbore causing the wellbore fluid temperature to rise. This process is more pronounced in deep, hot wells where the temperature difference between the formation and the well-bore fluid is greater. The process is very dynamic at early times, that is, at the commencement of circulation, with great changes in fluid temperature occurring over small intervals of time. There are two major methods for estimating the down-hole temperature of drilling fluid. The first is the analytical method. This method assumes constant fluid properties. Ramey13 solved the equations governing heat transfer in a well bore for the case of hot-fluid injection for enhanced oil recovery. His solution permits the estimation of the fluid, tubing and casing temperature as a function of depth. He assumed that heat transfer in the well bore is steady state, while heat transfer in the formation is unsteady radial conduction. Holmes and Swift14 solved the heat transfer equations analytically for the case of flow in the drillpipe and annulus. They assumed the heat transfer in the wellbore to be steady state. However, they used a steady-state approximation to the transient heat transfer in the formation. They justified this assumption by asserting that the heat transfer from the formation is negligible in comparison to the heat transfer between the drill pipe and annular sections due to the low thermal conductivity of the formation.

11

Arnold15,16 also solved the heat transfer equations analytically for both the hot-fluid injection case and the fluid circulation case. However, in circulation case, he did not assume steady state heat transfer in the formation. He represented the transient nature of heat flow from the formation with a dimensionless time function that is independent of depth16. Kabir et al17 also solved a similar set of equations, but for the case of flow down the annulus and up the drill pipe. They also assumed transient heat flow in the formation, and evaluated a number of dimensionless time functions. The second method of estimating fluid temperature during circulation involves allowing the fluid properties such as heat capacity, viscosity, and density to vary with the temperature conditions. This method involves solving the governing heat transfer equations numerically using a finite difference scheme. Marshal et al18 created a model to estimate the transient and steadystate temperatures in a well bore during drilling, production and shut-in using a finite difference approach. Romero and Touboul19 created a numerical simulator for designing and evaluating down-hole circulating temperatures during drilling and cementing operations in deep-water wells. Zhongming and Novotny20 developed a finite difference model to predict the well bore and formation transient temperature behavior during drilling fluid circulation for wells with multiple temperature gradients and well bore deviations.

12

1.3. Objectives and Scope of Work

The main objective of this work is to evaluate changes in drilling fluid density with variations in temperature and pressure conditions and characterize how these changes in equivalent circulating density are affected by the composition of the drilling fluid. Specifically, the objectives of this work are; 1. Evaluate changes in static density of drilling fluids with changes in the temperature-pressure conditions 2. Evaluate changes in the rheological behavior of drilling fluids with changes in the temperature-pressure conditions and ascertain the degree of the resultant effect on the dynamic ECD. 3. Evaluate different methods of estimating the circulating fluid

temperature gradient in the well bore and the effects on frictional pressure loss and hence on ECD. The objectives of this work are accomplished with the development of a Dynamic Density Simulator. This simulator was developed in the visual basic language and will allow the estimation of the equivalent circulating density under high pressure and high temperature conditions.

13

1.4. Study Organization

The fundamental concepts involved with hydrostatic pressure and frictional pressure loss are discussed in Chapter Two. The most commonly used rheological models for characterizing drilling fluid flow in conjunction with frictional pressure loss calculation methods are also discussed. The equations that express viscosity as a function of temperature and pressure will be discussed here. Chapter Three discusses the heat transfer equations in the well bore and the analytical and numerical methods for estimating the temperature profile in a circulating well. Chapter Four covers the development of the ECD simulator for high-pressure/high-temperature wells. The chapter covers the modeling procedure, model validation, and discusses the results. Chapter five covers the summary of the results, conclusions, and recommendations.

14

Chapter 2

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS FOR ESTIMATION OF EQUIVALENT STATIC AND CIRCULATING DENSITY

In todays drilling industry, deeper and hotter wells are increasingly being drilled. In order to maintain proper well control, prevent lost circulation, and accurately analyze fracture gradient data, it is of paramount importance to accurately predict the density of the drilling fluids used in drilling these wells, under high temperature-high pressure conditions. Drilling fluids in general become compressed under high pressure, and expand with temperature. Hence, their down-hole densities are often quite different from their surface densities, which are usually measured during drilling operations. The fundamental concepts of equivalent static density and equivalent circulating density are reviewed in this chapter.

2.1 Equivalent Static density

The equivalent static density of a drilling fluid is an expression of the hydrostatic pressure exerted by the fluid. Hydrostatic pressure in turn can be defined as the pressure exerted at any point by a vertical column of fluid. The hydrostatic pressure is a function of the density of the fluid, and the height of the fluid column. Hydrostatic pressure is expressed in field units as follows.

15

P = 0.052h Where, P = pressure, psi = fluid density, lbm/gal (ppg) h = height of fluid column, ft

(2.1)

This simple equation assumes the fluid in question to be incompressible. If the temperature and pressure in the mud is low, the use of constant surface mud density in conjunction with the above equation will yield a reasonable approximation of the bottom-hole density. Equivalent static density however, must take into account the effects of temperature and pressure conditions present in the well. Excluding these factors in the estimation of bottom-hole pressure in the case of deep, hot wells, can yield figures that are in error by hundreds of psi. Figure 2.1 shows the effects of temperature and pressure on the density of various base liquids that can be used in drilling fluids. As expected, these figures show that density increases with increasing pressure, but decreases as temperature increases. However, as depth increases, temperature effects tend to dominate pressure effects, so that the net result is decreasing mud density with increasing depth.

16

Figure 2.1- Volumetric Behavior of Various liquids Under varying conditions of Temperature and Pressure4

17

2.2 Estimating Equivalent Static Density

There are two main methods of characterizing the variation in equivalent static density of drilling fluids in response to changes in temperature and pressure conditions; empirically based models, and compositional models. The empirical model provides explicit empirically derived equations for estimating mud density at various temperature-pressure conditions. The compositional model however takes into account the volumetric behavior of each of the individual mud constituents in response to variations in temperature and pressure.

2.2.1 Compositional Models The compositional model proposed by Hoberock et al4 is derived as follows. In order to account for the variation in compressibility across the different constituents present in a drilling fluid, it is necessary to perform a material balance on the drilling fluid as a whole. In the model, it is assumed that all solids present in the drilling fluid are incompressible. Consider a drilling fluid that consists of oil and water phases, solid weighting material, and chemical additives. The volume and weight of the drilling fluid at some reference temperature (p1, T1) would be expressed as follows

18

V1 W Where,

= Vo + Vw + Vs = o1Vo + w1Vw + sVs

(2.2) (2.3)

Vo, Vw,Vs W o1, w1

= volume of oil, water, and solids = weight = density of oil and water phases at reference conditions (p1, T1)

= density of solid content

Ideal mixing is assumed in Eqs. 2.2 and 2.3. Once the drilling fluid is subjected to a new set of temperature-pressure conditions (p2, T2), the volume of the fluid will change due to the compressibility of the liquid phases. The new drilling fluid volume is thus expressed as V2 = Vo + Vw + Vs + Vo + Vw (2.4)

From the law of conservation of mass, the change in volume of the liquid phases can be expressed as follows.

V Vo = o1 o o2

Vo

(2.5)

V Vw = w1 w Vw w2

(2.6)

From Eqs. 2.3 and 2.4, the new mud density at T2 and p2 will be as follows.

m ( p2 , T2 ) =

o1Vo + w1Vw + sVs

Vo + Vw + Vs c + Vo + Vw

(2.7)

19

where the subscript m refers to the drilling mud. Substituting Eqs. 2.5 and 2.6 into Eq. 2.7 and dividing by the original total volume at pressure p1 and temperature T1, the following equation is obtained.

m ( p 2 , T2 ) =

o1

Vo V V V + w1 w + s s + c c V1 V1 V1 V1 o1 Vo w1 Vw Vs Vc + + + o 2 V1 w 2 V1 V1 V1

(2.8)

Consider the volume fraction fx of each component to be

fx = Vx V

(2.9)

where Vx = volume of component x fx = volume fraction of component x V = total volume Taking into account that fo + fw + fs = 1 then Eq. 2.8 can be expressed as (2.10)

m ( p2 , T2 ) =

o1 f o + w1 f w + s f s 1 + f o o1 1 + f w w1 1 o2 w2 m1
1 + f o o1 1 + f w w1 1 o2 w2

(2.11)

m ( p2 , T2 ) =

(2.12)

where m1 is the mud density at temperature T1 and pressure p1. From the above equation, it is evident that the mud density at elevated temperatures and pressures can be predicted based on knowledge of the mud constituents and the volumetric behavior of each constituent relative to variations in

20

temperature and pressure. Various authors have proposed equations expressing the volumetric behavior of water, and oil phases that may be present in drilling fluids.

2.2.1.1 Volumetric Models for Mud Constituents Sorelle et al6 proposed the following empirical expressions for the volumetric behavior of the water phase, and diesel oil No. 2.

o = Ao + A1(T) + A2(p-po) w = Bo + B1(T) + B2(p-po)

where Ao = 7.24032 A1 = -2.84383 * 10-3 A2 = 2.75660 * 10-5 Bo = 8.63186 B1 = -3.31977 * 10-3 B2 = 2.37170 * 10-5

(2.13) (2.14)

The equation for the water phase was obtained by curve fitting data from tables of physical constants, while that of the diesel oil No. 2 was obtained by curve fitting data from experiments. Kutasov 21 analyzed the pressure-density-temperature behavior of water, and proposed the following similar empirical equation.

w = 8.3619e [3.0997*10

( p p0 )2.2139*104 (T T0 )5.0123*107 (T T0 )2 ]

(2.15)

where po and To represent standard temperature (59 oF) and pressure (14.7 psia).

21

Isambourg et al7 proposed a nine parameter model to express the volumetric behavior of liquids in response to variations in temperature and pressure. The model is expressed as follows. Vr(p, T) = k00 + k01T + k10P + k02T2 + k20P2+k11pT + k12pT2 + k21p2T + k22p2T2 (2.16)

where Vr(p, T) is the volumetric ratio at pressure p, and temperature T.

Volumetric ratio = Volume ( p, T ) Volume ( po , To )

(2.17)

Eq. 2.16 is valid in the range of 14.5 to 20,000 psia, and 68 to 392 oF and can be used to estimate fluid density at elevated temperatures and pressures in the following manner.

f ( p, T ) = f ( po , To )

Vr ( po , To ) Vr ( p , T )

(2.18)

The above equation is a simplification of the compositional model proposed by Hoberock et al4. Isambourg et al7 also proposed the following equation to express variations in the density of solid weighting material with changes in temperature-pressure conditions.

s ( p, T ) =
where

[1 + as (T To )]* [1 + bs ( p po )]

s ( po , To )

(2.19)

as = 0.8*10-4 oC-1, thermal expansivity of barite bs = -1.0*10-5 bar-1, compressibility of barite

22

2.2.2 Empirical Models Kutasov8 proposed the following empirical three-parameter equation of state to describe the volumetric behavior of drilling fluids.

m = mo e[ ( p p
where,

) (T To ) (T To )2 ]

(2.20)

mo

= mud density at standard pressure and temperature (14.5 psia, 59oF)

, , = empirical constants
Kutasovs model applies to both water-based and oil-based drilling fluids, and treats the particular drilling fluid as a continuous phase. Hence, knowledge of the volumetric behavior of each of the constituents of the drilling fluid is not required.

2.3 Equivalent Circulating density

The equivalent circulating density of a drilling fluid can be defined as the sum of the hydrostatic head of the fluid column, and the pressure loss in the annulus due to fluid flow. It is expressed as density term at the point of interest.

23

 ecd =
where,

1 (Phydrostatic + Pfriction ) 0.052h

(2.21)

ecd Phydrostatic Pfriction

= equivalent circulating density (lb/gal) = Hydrostatic head of fluid column (psi) = Pressure drop due to friction in the annulus (psi)

As stated before, the hydrostatic pressure of the drilling fluid is affected by the temperature-pressure conditions present in the well-bore, and the depth of the well-bore. The frictional pressure loss term in the above equation however is affected by the well-bore and drill string geometry, fluid rheology, and the pump rate or fluid flow rate.

2.4 Frictional Pressure Loss

The frictional pressure loss is the loss in pressure during fluid flow due to contact between the fluid and the walls of the flow conduit. When fluid moves past the solid interface, a boundary layer is formed adjacent to the wall of the flow conduit. The viscous property of the fluid creates a variation in the flow velocity normal to the solid interface, ranging from zero at the pipe wall with a no-slip assumption and maximum velocity at the edge of the boundary layer. This variation in fluid velocity represents a loss in momentum and a resistance to flow. The associated pressure loss is directly proportional to the

24

length of the flow conduit, the fluid density, the square of the fluid velocity, and inversely related to the conduit diameter.

2 fv 2 p = L D
where

(2.22)

p
f

= frictional pressure loss = Fanning friction factor = fluid density = conduit length = fluid velocity = pipe diameter

L
V D

In the case of non-circular flow conduits, the diameter parameter is replaced by the equivalent diameter.

De = 4
where De Af Pw

Af Pw

(2.23)

= equivalent diameter = cross-sectional area = wetted perimeter

The variable f in equation 2.22 is known as the Fanning friction factor. The friction factor can be defined as the ratio between the force exerted on the walls of a flow conduit as a result of fluid movement, and the product of the characteristic area of the flow conduit and the kinetic energy per unit volume of the fluid.

25

2.5 Fluid Rheology

Rheology can be defined as the science and study of the deformation and flow of matter, in this case drilling fluids. It is also the characteristic of the particular fluid in reference to its flow behavior. Rheological models seek to characterize this flow behavior by developing relationships between applied shear stress, and the shear rate of the fluid. Based on the nature of this relationship, fluids in general can be classified as Newtonian, non-Newtonian, and visco-elastic fluids.

Newtonian Fluids- Newtonian fluids are fluids in which the ratio between applied shear stress, and the rate of shear is constant with respect to time and shear history. The relationship characterizing Newtonian fluids is expressed mathematically as follows:

= &
where,

(2.24)

= shear stress

& = shear rate

= viscosity
Examples of Newtonian fluids are water, light hydrocarbons, and all gases.

Non-Newtonian fluids- Non-Newtonian fluids are fluids whose viscosity varies with time and shear history. This class of fluids can be further subdivided into time-dependent and time-independent fluids. Time-dependent fluids are

26

fluids, in which the viscosity varies with time at a constant shear rate, while time-independent fluids are fluids whose viscosity is constant over time at a constant shear rate. Most drilling fluids are non-Newtonian fluids.

Visco-elastic Fluids- These are fluids which exhibit both viscous and elastic behavior. When subjected to stress, they deform and flow like true fluids, but once the stress is removed, they regain some of their original state like solids. Examples of visco-elastic fluids include flour dough, and polymer melts. The following are the rheological models that characterize the various types of non-Newtonian fluids.

2.5.1 Bingham Plastic Model The Bingham plastic model is a two-parameter time-independent rheological model that accounts for the stress required to initiate fluid flow in viscous fluids. This initial stress is referred to as the yield stress. Once the yield stress is overcome, the fluid is represented as a Newtonian fluid, which is shown by the linear relationship between the applied stress and the rate of shear. The constitutive equation for the Bingham plastic model is given as follows.

= o + p&
where

>o

(2.25)

o = yield stress

p = plastic viscosity

27

Although the Bingham plastic model does account for the yield stress, it can be inadequate for characterizing some types of drilling fluids, as it does not account for their shear thinning property.

2.5.2 Power Law Model The power law model is also a time-independent two parameter rheological model like the Bingham plastic model. However, where the Bingham plastic model expresses a linear relationship between shear stress and shear strain, the power law model uses a non-linear relationship which can better characterize the shear-thinning characteristics of most common drilling fluids. The following is the constitutive equation for the power law model.

= k& n
where k = consistency index n = flow behavior index

(2.26)

k and n are constants characteristic of a particular fluid. k is a measure of the consistency of the fluid, the higher the value of k the more viscous the fluid; n is a measure of the degree of non-Newtonian behavior of the fluid. In cases where the flow behavior index is equal to 1, the power law model describes the behavior of a Newtonian fluid. In situations where the flow behavior index is between 0 and 1, the fluid is referred to as pseudoplastic and shear-

28

thinning. Shear-thinning refers to the reduction in viscosity with the shear rate. The limiting viscosity is known as the viscosity at infinite shear, (Fig. 2.2).

Figure 2.2- Shear-thinning in a typical non-Newtonian Fluid

Yield Pseudo-plastic

Bingham Plastic

Pseudo-plastic

Shear Stress
Newtonian

Dilatant

Shear Rate

Figure 2.3- Flow curves for time-independent fluids

29

When the flow behavior index is greater than 1 the fluid is referred to as dilatant and shear thickening. This is shown in Fig. 2.3. The dimensions of k are dependent on the value of n; hence k is not a material property but an empirical constant. In general, the shear-thinning behavior is more desirable in drilling fluids; hence drilling fluids tend to be pseudo-plastic fluids. Shearthinning behavior is desirable in drilling fluids because it allows the fluid to carry cuttings even while it is at rest due to the fluid thickness, and at the same time lowers pumping costs because the fluid becomes thinner and easier to pump as it is sheared.

2.5.3 Herschel-Bulkley Model The Herschel-Bulkley model is a time-independent three parameter rheological model that accounts for both the yield stress, and the non-linear relationship between shear stress and shear rate exhibited by most drilling fluids. The constitutive equation is given below.

= o + k& n
where

> o

(2.27)

k = consistency index n = flow behavior index

o = yield stress
The Herschel-Bulkley model is also used widely in the oil industry to characterize drilling fluids as well as fracturing fluids.

30

The above three rheological models are the most commonly used in the oil industry for the characterization of drilling fluids. There are, however, various other rheological models that can and have been used. The following are a few of these models.

2.5.4 Casson Model The Casson model is a two-parameter model originally developed in order to characterize the rheology of pigment-oil suspensions. The constitutive equation is given as follows.

= o + k&
where

(2.28)

o =
k=

yield stress Casson model constant, similar to the consistency index for Power-law model

The Casson model is also commonly used to characterize the rheology of blood.

2.5.5 Ellis Model The Ellis model is a three-parameter model which accounts for a Newtonian region at low shear rates, while still expressing a power law type dependence at higher shear rates. These are the initial flat plateau and

31

successive straight line segments of Fig. 2.2. The constitutive equation is given as follows.

o a = = & 1+ 1 2
where

& 1

(2.29)

a = apparent viscosity 1/2 = shear stress @ a = 0/2

o = low shear rate viscosity = Ellis model parameter

will yield a slope of (-1). From eq. 2.29, a plot of ln o 1 versus ln 1 a 2

Hence, if o and 1/2 are known, can be estimated. o refers to the viscosity at very low shear rates, i.e. as tends to zero.

2.5.6 Carreau Model The Carreau model is a four-parameter model developed in order to account for the entire flow curve shown in Fig. 2.2, i.e. the two Newtonian-like flow regions at very high shear rates and very low shear rates characterized by flat plateaus and the power-law region in the middle. The constitutive equation for the Carreau model is as follows.

32

( n 1) 2 2 = 1 + (& ) o

(2.30)

where

o = low shear rate viscosity

= viscosity at infinite shear

= time constant
n = exponential constant The parameter is a time constant calculated from the point on the flow curve where the flow behavior transitions from the lower Newtonian region to the power law region.

2.6 Temperature and Pressure Dependent Rheological Parameters

In order to estimate the flow behavior of drilling fluids under high temperature-high pressure conditions, the following variation on the Bingham plastic model proposed by Politte22 will be applied. 2.6.1 Temperature/Pressure Dependent Plastic Viscosity Politte22 analyzed rheological data for diesel based drilling fluid and found the plastic viscosity tracked the behavior of the base oil. Hence, the plastic viscosity of the oil-based drilling fluid is normalized with the viscosity of the base oil. The plastic viscosity will be normalized with the viscosity of the

33

base fluid at reference conditions. The steps of this method are detailed as follows: 1. Measure the plastic viscosity of the drilling fluid at reference conditions (PV0). 2. Calculate the base oil viscosity at the reference conditions (o) and at the temperature and pressure conditions of interest (T,P). 3. Calculate the plastic viscosity at the conditions of interest using the following equation.

PVT , P = PVo

T , P o

(2.31)

Politte22 concluded that this procedure will be valid regardless of the type of base oil used. He obtained the following equations from the analysis of diesel viscosity data.

= P (TP ) 10
C1

A + B T + D TP + E P + F + G1 1 1 1 1 1

(2.32)

1000 P 15000 75 T 300

= A2 + B2 PT + C2 P + D2 P 2 + E2T + F2T 2
A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1 = -23.1888 = -0.00148 = -0.9501 = -1.9776*10-8 = 3.3416*10-5 = 14.6767 A2 B2 C2 D2 E2 F2 = 0.8807 = 1.5235*10-9 = 1.2806*10-6 = 1.0719*10-10 = -0.00036 = -5.1670*10-8

(2.33)

34

G1 Where

= 10.9973

T P

= viscosity (cp) = density (lb/gal) = temperature (oF) = pressure (psi)

Further analysis with other oils by Politte led to the conclusion that Eqs. 2.32 and 2.33 are applicable for estimating the downhole plastic viscosity regardless of the type of base oil used.

2.6.2 Temperature Dependent Yield point Politte22 concluded from his analysis of rheological data for emulsions that the yield point is not a strong function of pressure, and becomes progressively less as temperature increases. The effects of temperature on the yield point are, however, hard to predict, as there are chemical as well as particle effects that have to be considered. Politte22 advises that in situations where it may be important to know the precise behavior of the drilling fluid, the yield point should be measured on a viscometer capable of such measurements. If the equipment is not available, he provides the following steps based on an empirical equation obtained from the analysis of diesel oil based drilling fluid.

35

1. Measure the yield value at the reference conditions (YVTo). 2. Calculate the yield value of the drilling fluid at the temperature of interest (YVT) using the following equation.

y = yo

A3 + B3T 1 + C3T 2 A3 + B3To1 + C3To 2

(2.34)

90 T 300 A3 B3 C3 Where = -0.186 = 145.054 = -3410.322

y
T

= yield point (lbf/100ft2) = temperature (oF)

Since yield value is dependent on the chemical attractions between the particles present in the drilling fluid, Eq. 2.34 cannot be used to estimate the yield value of drilling fluids that have base fluids of significantly different chemistry from No. 2 diesel oil.

2.7

Bingham Plastic Pressure Loss Equations

In order to evaluate frictional pressure loss, it is first necessary to determine if the flow is laminar or turbulent. The apparent viscosity of the fluid is first calculated using the following equations.

36

Apparent Newtonian viscosity in pipes-

a = p +

6.66 y d v

(2.35)

Apparent Newtonian viscosity in the annulus-

a = p +
where

5 y d e v

(2.36)

a p y

= apparent viscosity (cp) = plastic viscosity (cp) = yield point (lbf/100ft2) = average fluid velocity

d de

= pipe Diameter (in) = equivalent annular diameter (in)

The apparent viscosity is then used in place of the Newtonian viscosity in order to calculate the Reynolds number according to the following equation.
N Re = 928 vd

(2.37)

where

= fluid density (lb/gal) = pipe diameter or equivalent annular diameter (in) = average fluid velocity (ft/s) = apparent viscosity (cp)

A Reynolds number greater than 2100 indicates turbulent flow. Depending on the flow regime, the frictional pressure drop can be calculated using the following equations.

37

Laminar Flow Pipe

pv Pf = + y L 2 1500d 225d
Annulus

(2.38)

pv y L Pf = + 1000(d 2 d1 )2 200(d 2 d1 )
Turbulent Flow

(2.39)

1 = 4 log10 N Re f 0.395 f
where N Re =

(Colebrook Equation)

(2.40)

928 vd

(2.41)

PF L

= Frictional pressure drop (psi) = Flow conduit length (ft) = fluid density (lb/gal) = pipe diameter or equivalent annular diameter (in) = average fluid velocity (ft/s) = plastic viscosity (cp) = inner annular wall (in) = outer annular wall (in)

p
d1 d2

If the flow regime is turbulent, once the friction factor has been obtained, the frictional pressure drop can be found with Eq. 2.22.

38

2.8

Summary For the purposes of this study, the compositional model for

characterizing the volumetric behavior of drilling fluids as expressed in Eq. 2.12 will be applied in conjunction with Eqs. 2.14 and 2.33 to express the behavior of the major fluid constituents. In order to characterize the flow behavior of the drilling fluid under high temperature-high pressure conditions, the Bingham plastic model with temperature/pressure dependent model parameters will be applied. The Bingham plastic model was chosen because it is the most commonly used rheological model on the oil field and models the behavior of a wide variety of fluids.

39

Chapter 3

DRILLING FLUID TEMPERATURE PROFILE ESTIMATION

As fluid flows in the wellbore, it absorbs heat from the formation, causing a rise in its temperature. This rise in temperature in turn can lead to changes in the fluids volumetric and rheological behavior, and thus the frictional pressure drop. This effect is more pronounced in deep high temperature wells and fluids with temperature sensitive rheological

properties11. Estimation of fluid temperature in the drill pipe and the annulus is thus necessary in order to calculate the frictional pressure drop for a number of well construction operations. Fluid temperature within the wellbore will vary with depth and time with this variation being especially pronounced at early times when the temperature within the wellbore has not stabilized appreciably. The

temperature profile within the wellbore can be estimated analytically, or numerically. This chapter gives a description of the heat transfer processes that take place in the wellbore and the methods for estimating the temperature profile.

40

3.1 Heat Transfer in the Wellbore

Figure 3.1 shows a schematic of drilling fluid circulating in the wellbore and the associated heat transfer process over a differential element of length

z. The figure shows heat flow from the formation into the annular section
through convection (qfa). This rate of heat flow by convection into the annulus is much greater than the rate of heat conduction in the formation. This is due to the relatively low heat conductivity of the formation. This fact will be important when modeling the heat transfer process in the wellbore. The fluid within the drillpipe receives heat from the annulus via convection on the pipe surface on the inside and outside of the drill pipe, and conduction through the drillpipe itself (qap). There is heat flow in and out of the differential elements within the drillpipe and annulus due to the bulk flow of fluid (qp(z), qp(z+Dz), qa(z+Dz), qa(z) respectively). Two methods have emerged for estimating the temperature profile in the wellbore during circulation. They are the analytical method and the numerical method. The analytical method entails solving the equations governing heat transfer in the wellbore analytically, that is, assuming constant fluid and formation properties. This method is best applied to systems of simple geometry as in the case of a single casing string and inner drill pipe. The numerical method uses a finite difference scheme to represent the wellbore/formation system. Systems of great complexity can be better handled using this method, and it has the added advantage of allowing variable fluid and formation properties.

41

qa(z)

qp(z)

qa(z) z qfa

qap Formation z+ qa(z+ Annulus qa(z+ qa(z+ Ta

Tp Drill Pipe

Figure 3.1- Schematic of Heat Balance for Fluid Circulating in a Wellbore

42

3.2 Analytical Method

The temperature of the fluid within the drillpipe and the annulus is described by two coupled ordinary differential equations. The temperature in the formation is determined by the geothermal gradient coupled with the transient formation heat conduction function, f(tD)13. The function accounts for the un-steady state heat conduction in the formation. In order to solve these equations, boundary conditions are required. applied are as follows. Boundary Conditions The boundary conditions

The inlet fluid temperature coming into the drillpipe at the surface. The fluid temperature in the drillpipe and the annulus are equal at the bottom-hole.

3.2.1 Assumptions of Analytical Model The assumptions used in deriving and solving the equations governing heat transfer within the wellbore are stated below16.

The analytical method assumes constant fluid properties. Heat generated by viscous forces, friction, and changes in potential
energy are negligible.

The formation is radially symmetric and infinite with respect to heat flow. Heat flow within the wellbore is rapid compared to heat flow within the
formation. Hence, heat flow within and across the wellbore conduits is

43

assumed to be steady-state, and heat flow within the formation is assumed to be transient.

3.2.2 Heat Balance in the DrillPipe Heat enters the differential element in the drillpipe from two sources; bulk fluid flow qp(z), and from convection and conduction through the drillpipe wall, qap. Heat leaves the differential element through bulk fluid flow qp(z+z). The heat balance of the differential element in the drillpipe yields the following equation qp(z) + qap = qp(z+z) where, qp(z) qap qp(z+ to yield = mc fl Tp
z

(3.1)

(3.2) (3.3) (3.4)

= 2rpU p (Ta ( z ) T p ( z ))dz

z)=

mc fl Tp

z + z

mc fl Tp + 2rpU p (Ta ( z ) Tp ( z ))dz = mc fl Tp

z

z + z

(3.5)

rearranging,

mc fl
where, m cfl

Tp 2rpU p (Ta ( z ) Tp ( z )) = 0 z

(3.6)

= mass flow rate of drilling fluid (lb/hr) = fluid Heat Capacity (Btu/lb-oF)

44

Tp Ta rp Up

= temperature of drillpipe fluid as a function of depth (oF) = temperature of annular fluid as a function of depth (oF) = radius of drillpipe (ft) = equivalent heat transfer coefficient across pipe wall (Btu/hr-ft2-oF)

= depth (ft)

3.2.3 Heat Balance in the Annulus Heat enters the differential element in the annulus from the formation by convection (qfa), and through bulk fluid flow (qa(z+z)). Heat leaves the differential element through convection and conduction through the pipe wall (q(ap)) and through bulk fluid flow (qa(z)). This process yields the following equation. qfa + qa(z+Dz) = qap + qa(z) where qfa = 2raU a (Ti ( z ) Ta ( z ))dz
z + z

(3.7)

(3.8) (3.9) (3.10) (3.11)

qa(z+Dz) = mc fl Ta qap qa(z) to yield

= 2rpU p (Ta ( z ) + T p ( z ))dz = mc fl Ta

z

2raU a (Ti (z ) Ta (z ))dz + mc fl Ta

z + z

= 2rpU p (Ta ( z ) + Tp ( z ))dz + mc fl Ta

(3.12)

45

rearranging,
2raU a (Ti ( z ) Ta ( z ))dz 2rpU p (Ta ( z ) + Tp (z ))dz + mc fl

Ta =0 z

(3.13)

where ra Ua = radius of annulus (ft) = equivalent heat transfer coefficient across formation/annulus interface (Btu/hr-ft2-oF) Ti = temperature at interface between Formation and Annulus (oF)

3.2.4 Heat Flow in the Formation and System Heat Balance The heat flow from the formation is given by the following equation.
qf = 2k F (TF (z ) Ti (z ))dz f (t D )

(3.14)

where kF TF = formation thermal conductivity (Btu/ft-oF-hour) = temperature of Formation according to the undisturbed geothermal gradient (oF) f(tD) = dimensionless time function

The dimensionless time function16 is given as

1 r2 Ei a 4t 2 f (t D ) = r2 exp a 4t

( )

(3.15)

kF F cF

(3.16)

46

where

F
cF Ei

= formation density (lb/gal) = formation heat capacity (Btu/lb-oF) = exponential Integral function

It can be observed that the heat flow from the formation should be equal to the heat flow into the annulus by convection. Thus, qf = qfa. The temperature of the interface between the formation and the annulus can thus be eliminated as follows.
2k F (TF (z ) Ti (z ))dz = 2raU a (Ti (z ) Ta (z ))dz f (t D )

rearranging,

2k F T + (2r U )Ta a a f (t D ) F Ti = 2k F + (2r U ) a a f (t D )

From Eq. 3.2,

(3.17)

Ta =

dTp dz

+ Tp

(3.18)

d 2Tp dTp dTa = + dz dz 2 dz

(3.19)

where,

mc fl

2rpU p

(3.20)

Inserting Eqs. 3.17, 3.18, and 3.19 into Eq. 3.13 will yield an equation that is in terms of Tp alone. The equation is given below.

47


where,

d 2Tp dz
2

dTp dz

Tp + TF = 0

(3.21)

= mc fl

k F + raU a f (t D ) 2raU a k F

(3.22)

The formation temperature is based on the geothermal gradient. Therefore, TF = TFs + gGz Where, TFs gG = surface formation temperature (oF) = geothermal gradient (oF/ft) (3.23)

Eq. 3.21 then becomes,

d 2Tp dz
2

dT p dz

Tp = TFs g G z

(3.24)

The solution of the above ordinary differential equation is given below.

Tp ( z ) = C1e 1 z + C2e 2 z + gG z + TFs gG

where

(3.25)

1 =

+ 2 + 4 2 2 + 4 2

(3.26)

2 =

(3.27)

From Eq. 3.25,

dTp ( z ) dz

= 1C1e 1 z + 2C2e 2 z + gG

(3.28)

48

By inserting Eqs. 3.25 and 3.28 into Eq. 3.18, we obtain the following equation for the temperature in the annulus.
Ta ( z ) = C1e 1 z (1 + 1 ) + C2e 2 z (1 + 2 ) + g G z + TFs

(3.29)

In order to obtain the constants C1 and C2, the following boundary conditions are applied16. @z=0 @z=L where, Tps L = fluid temperature at drillpipe inlet or at the surface (oF) = the total vertical depth of the well (ft) Tp(z) = Tps Tp(z) = Ta(z)

By applying the boundary conditions, the following expressions are obtained for the constants C1, and C2.
C1 = g G e 2 L 2Tdiff e 2 L 2 e 1 L 1 g G + e 1 L 1Tdiff e 2 L 2 e 1 L 1

(3.30)

C2 =

(3.31)

where, Tdiff = (TFs Tps gG) (3.32)

49

3.3 Numerical Method

The numerical method involves solving the equations governing heat flow in the wellbore and formation, using finite difference technique. Heat transfer in the wellbore is assumed to be steady-state, while heat transfer between the formation and annulus is treated as unsteady-state heat flow. The solution grid used is shown in Fig. 3.2.

3.3.1 Equations Governing Heat transfer in the Wellbore and Formation The equation of conservation of energy for a control volume inside the drill pipe20 is given as

2rpU p ( z , t ) Ta ( z , t ) Tp ( z, t ) = mc fl
where rp Up = radius of pipe (ft)

Tp ( z, t ) z

+ rp2c fl

Tp ( z , t ) t

(3.33)

= heat Transfer coefficient across boundary layer on outer pipe surface, pipe wall, and boundary layer on inner pipe surface. (Btu/hr-ft2-oF)

Ta Tp m cfl

= temperature in the annulus (oF) = temperature in the drillpipe (oF) = mass Flow rate of drilling fluid (lb/hr) = heat capacity of drilling fluid (Btu/lb-oF)

50

r z

Annuulus

DrillPipe

Formation

Figure 3.2a- Solution grid for Finite Difference Analysis

Heat Flow by Convection

Heat Flow by Conduction

q1

q2

Control Volume in the Annulus

Control Volume in the

Figure 3.2b- Heat Flow at Formation Annulus Boundary

51

The equation for conservation of energy for a control volume inside the annulus20 is given as follows:
2raU a ( z , t ) T f (ra , z , t ) Ta ( z , t ) 2rpU p ( z , t ) Ta ( z , t ) Tp ( z , t )

]
(3.34)

= ra2 rp2 c fl

Ta ( z , t ) o T ( z , t ) m c fl a t z

where ra Ua = annular radius (ft) = heat transfer coefficient across annulus/formation interface (Btu/hr-ft2-oF) TF = formation Temperature (oF)

The temperature in the formation is given by the following equation20.

1 TF ( z , r , t ) 1 TF ( z , r , t ) r = r t r r

(3.35)

where

kF

= formation transmissivity (kF/cF) = formation conductivity = formation density = formation heat transfer coeeficient

cF

Note that heat flow in the formation is assumed to occur radially only. At the boundary of the formation, heat exchange between the formation and annulus is governed by Eq. 3.36. The equation is derived by performing a heat balance about a sufficiently small control volume within the formation adjacent to the annulus.

52

@ r = ra
T ( z , ra , t ) 2raU a ( z , t ){TF ( z , ra , t ) Ta ( z , t )} + 2ra k F F r = 2ra rcF TF (z , ra , t ) t

(3.36)

The first term on the left hand side of Eq. 3.36 represents the rate at which heat is leaving the formation boundary by convection (q1 in Fig. 3.2b). The second term on the left hand side of the equation represents the rate at which heat enters the control volume by conduction (q2 in Fig. 3.2b). The right-hand side of Eq. 3.36 represents the rate at which heat accumulates in or is lost from the control volume at the formation boundary, leading to changes in temperature.

3.3.2 Discretizing Heat Flow Equations for Finite difference Analysis The solution of the equations governing heat transfer in the wellbore and formation will be propagated across the formation and well bore using the finite difference grid shown in Fig. 3.3. The solution will be advanced starting at the outer boundary of the formation in the r-direction until the temperature field is mapped for the entire formation cross-section at a particular time-step. The temperature in the wellbore and formation are expressed as follows. Tp(z, t) = Tp(iz, nt) = (Tp )i
n

Ta(z, t) = Ta(iz, nt) = (Ta )i

TF(z, r, t) = Ta(iz, jr, nt) = (TF )i , j

n

53

r
j=0 i=0 j=1 j=2

z
i=1

i=2

i=3

Wellbore Figure 3.3- Finite Difference Grid

Formatio

54

where, i= depth coordinate j= radial coordinate n= time coordinate

Two discretization schemes were considered for the equations describing heat flow in the wellbore (3.33 & 3.34). They were first discretized using explicit finite differences as follows. Eq. 3.33 can be expressed as

(Ta )n + (Ta )n (Tp )in + (Tp )in1 o (Tp )in (Tp )in1 (Tp )in +1 + (Tp )in 2 i i 1 2rp (U p )i + rp c fl = m c fl 2 2 t z
n

for i = 1,2,3,,I-1,I n = 1,2,3,N-1,N

(3.37)

Parameters bearing coordinate n are known while parameters bearing coordinate n+1, i.e. at the next time step, are not known. Equation 3.37 is rearranged with the known parameters on right-hand side and the unknown parameters on the left-hand side as follows.

(T )

n +1 p i

o t m c fl zrpU p U p t U p t (T )n (Ta )in1 + (Ta )in + = 2 p i 1 z rp c fl rp c fl rp c fl o t m c fl + zr p U + 1 z r p2 c fl (T p

n i

(3.38)

Equation 3.38 in essence, expresses the temperature at the particular coordinate of interest as a weighted average of temperatures at spatial coordinates located nearby in the pipe and annulus, at the previous time-step.

55

Stability Criterion- The coefficients of the known pipe and annulus temperatures (i.e. in the present time-step) in Eq. 3.38 must be positive in order to arrive at a stable solution of the equation. A negative coefficient would not make physical sense, because it would be saying that the hotter the temperature is at a coordinate near or at the particular coordinate of interest for the present time-step, the colder the temperature will be at the particular coordinate of interest at the next or future time-step. Therefore, the coefficients must all be greater than or equal to zero. In fact, it is usually desirable to avoid zero coefficients. Application of this rule to Eq. 3.38, results in the following constraints.
t z rp2c fl o m c fl + zrpU p

(3.39)

m c fl zrpU p

(3.40)

The equation describing heat flow in the annulus (Eq. 3.34) is discretized as follows.

2ra (U

n a i

n n (Tp )in + (Tp )in1 (TF )in + (TF )in1 (Ta )in + (Ta )in1 n (Ta )i + (Ta )i 1 2rp (U p )i 2 2 2 2

= m c fl

(Ta )in (Ta )in1

z

+ (r r )c fl
2 a 2 p

(Ta )in +1 + (Ta )in

t

for i = 1,2,3,,I-1,I n = 1,2,3,N-1,N

(3.41)

Equation 3.41 is rearranged, with known parameters on the right hand side of the equation and unknown parameters on the left hand side as follows.

56

(Ta )in+11 =

r U t r U t raU a t (TF )in1 + raU a 2t (TF )in + p p 2 (Tp )in1 + p p 2 (Tp )in 2 2 2 2 ra rp c fl ra rp c fl ra rp c fl ra2 rp c fl

o t m c fl + zraU a + zrpU p (T )n + 1 2 2 a i 1 z ra rp c fl

o t m c fl zraU a zrpU p (T )n + 2 2 a i z ra rp c fl

(3.42)

Stability Criterion- Application of the rule of positive coefficients to Eq. 3.42 results in the following constraints.
t z ra2 rp2 c fl m c fl + zraU a + zrpU p
o

(3.43)

m c fl zraU a + zrpU p

(3.44)

Boundary conditions in the Wellbore- The following boundary conditions are applied to the wellbore. @ i = 0 (pipe inlet) @ i = imax (bottom-hole) where Tps = temperature of fluid at pipe inlet

(T )

n p i

= Tps
n a i

for all n. for all n.

(T ) = (T )
n p i

The second boundary condition states that at the bottom of the well, the pipe and annulus fluid temperatures are equal. Note that Eq. 3.38 is solved from

57

the surface to the bottom in the direction of fluid flow, while Eq. 3.42 is solved from bottom-hole to surface, also in the direction of fluid flow. The explicit method detailed above was tested and found to be too slow, that is, it took a longer time to converge on an answer. This was largely due to the constraints placed on the time step. An alternative discretizing scheme, the Crank-Nicolson method26, was then used. This scheme yields an efficient, easy to use finite difference scheme which gives more accurate solutions without constraints on the time step used. Using the Crank-Nicolson scheme, Eq. 3.33 is discretized as follows.
2rp (U p )i (Ta )i
n +1

n +1

(Tp )i

n +1

}+ 2r (U ) (1 ){(T ) (T ) }
p n p i n a i n p i

(Tp )n +1 (Tp )n +1 (Tp )in+1 (Tp )in1 (Tp )in +1 (Tp )in 2 i +1 i 1 + (1 ) = m c fl (3.45) + rp c fl 2z 2z t
o

Eq. 3.45 is rearranged as

o

m c fl
2z
o

(Tp )i 1

n +1

rp2c fl m c fl n +1 n +1 (Tp )in++11 + + 2rp (U p )i (Tp )i + t 2z

o

n m c fl rp2c fl n (1 )(Tp )i 1 + (1 )(Tp )in+1 = + 2rp (U p )i (1 )(Tp )i t 2z 2z m c fl

n

+ 2rp (U p )i (1 )(Ta )i + 2rp (U p )i (Ta )i

n n n +1

n +1

(3.46)

Note that in Eq. 3.46, all the terms on the left hand side are unknowns while all the terms on the right-hand side are known except the last one which is the temperature in the annulus at the depth of interest during the current time step. This problem is solved by taking an initial guess of the temperature profile in the annulus. This guess is the temperature profile at the previous

58

time-step. Hence, the last term on the right-hand side of Eq. 3.46 will be a known term. The equation describing heat flow in the annulus (Eq. 3.34) is discretized using the Crank-Nicolson method as follows.

2ra (U a )i (TF )i , 0 (Ta )i

n +1 n +1

n +1

}+ 2r (U ) (1 ){(T )
a n a i
p n p i

n F i ,0

(Ta )i

(3.47)

2rp (U p )i (Ta )i
n +1

n +1

(Tp )i

n +1

} 2r (U ) (1 ){(T ) (T ) }
n a i n p i

= ra2 rp2 c fl

) (T )

n +1 a i

n n +1 n +1 (T )n (Ta )in1 (Ta )i o (Ta )i +1 (Ta )i 1 + (1 ) a i +1 m c fl 2 z 2 z t

Equation 3.47 is rearranged as

o

m c fl
2z

(T
o

n +1 a i 1

(ra2 rp2 )c fl m c fl n +1 n +1 n +1 + 2rp (U p )i + 2ra (U a )i (Ta )i (Ta )in++11 + 2z t

o

m c fl
2z

(1 )(T )

n a i 1

n ra2 rp2 c fl n1 n 2rp (U p )i (1 ) 2ra (U a )i (1 )(Ta )i + t

m c fl 2 z

(1 )(Ta )in+1 + 2rp (U p )in1 (1 )(Tp )in 2ra (U a )in (1 )(TF )in,0
n +1 n +1

+ 2rp (U p )i (T p )i

+ 2ra (U a )i (TF )i , 0
n +1

n +1

(3.48)

Note that all the terms on the left hand side of Eq. 3.48 are unknowns while all the terms on the right hand side are known with the exception of the last term. The sixth term is already known because the temperature profile in the drill pipe at any given time-step is evaluated before the temperature profile in the annulus. The problem of the last term is solved by making an initial guess

59

of the temperature profile in the immediate adjacent formation. The initial guess is taken to be the temperature profile at the previous time step.

Boundary Conditions in the Wellbore - A heat balance is performed at the bottom of the wellbore taking into account the bottom-hole boundary condition. Figure 3.4 shows a diagram of the heat balance.

(T )

p i max 1

(T )i max

imax

Figure 3.4- Heat Balance at Bottom-Hole

60

Note, Timax = (Tp )i max = (Ta )i max Since @ i = imax (Bottom-hole), (Tp )i max = (Ta )i max Performing a heat balance about the bottom-hole volume element in the wellbore yields the following equation.
m c fl (Tp )i max 1 m c fl (T )i max + 2raU a
o o

z {(TF )i max (T )i max } = ra2 z c fl T (3.49) 2 2 t

Where T = Tp, Eq. 3.49 is discretized as follows.

m c fl (Tp )i max 1 (Tp )i max + m c fl (1 ) (Tp )i max 1 (Tp )i max + raU a z (TF )i max,0 (Tp )i max
o n +1 n +1 o n n n +1 n +1

+ raU a z (1 ) (T

n F i max, 0

(Tp )i max
n

z (Tp )i max (Tp )i max c fl = r 2 t

n +1 n 2 a

(3.50)

Eq. 3.50 is rearranged as

o ra2 zc fl m c fl m c fl (Tp )i max 1 + 2 t
o n +1

(Tp )n +1 i max +1 (Tp )n raU a z (TF )inmax,0 i max

n

o o ra2 zc fl n = m c fl (1 )(Tp )i max 1 + m c fl (1 ) 2t

raU a z (1 )(TF )i max,0 + raU a z (Ta )i max + raU a z (1 )(Ta )i max

n n +1

(3.51)

Equation 3.46 in conjunction with Eq. 3.51, thus form a tridiagonal system of equations. The system of equations is solved easily using the Thomas algorithm26. Where T = Ta, Eq. 3.49 is discretized as follows.

61

m c fl (Tp )i max 1 (Ta )i max + m c fl (1 ) (Tp )i max 1 (Ta )i max + raU a z (TF )i max,0 (Ta )i max
o n +1 n +1 o n n n +1 n +1

+ raU a z (1 ) (T

n F i max, 0

(T

n a i max

z (Ta )i max (Ta )i max c fl = r 2 t

n +1 n
2 a

(3.52)

Eq. 3.52 is rearranged as follows

o o o ra2 zc fl n n +1 n +1 + raU a z + m c fl (Ta )i max = m c fl (Tp )i max 1 + m c fl (1 )(Tp )i max 1 2 t

+ raU a z (TF )i max,0 + raU a z (1 )(TF )i max,0

n +1 n

o ra2 zc fl m c fl (1 ) raU a z (1 ) + + 2 t

(Ta )inmax

(3.53)

Equation 3.47 is solved in conjunction with Eq. 3.53 to yield the temperature profile in the annulus.

Heat Flow Equations in the Formation Equation 3.35 governs heat flow in the formation and is discretized using the Taylor series approximation of derivatives in conjunction with the Crank-Nicolson method of finite differences. The Crank-Nicolson method results in an implicit set of linear algebraic equations which must be solved simultaneously. However, this method has the advantage of being unconditionally stable. There is no constraint set on the size of the time-step to be used. Equation 3.35 is thus discretized as follows.

62

(TF )in,+j1 (TF )in, j

t

n +1 n +1 n +1 (TF )i , j 1 2(TF )i , j + (TF )i , j +1

(r )2

(TF )in,1j 1 2(TF )in, j + (TF )in, j +1 + (r )2

(3.54)

n +1 n +1 1 (TF )i , j +1 (TF )i , j 1

2 jr

2r

n n 1 (TF )i , j +1 (TF )i , j 1 + jr 2r

Rearranging Eq. 3.54 so that unknowns are on the left-hand side,

ar ar (T )n +1 + (1 + a )(T )n +1 + ar ar (T )n +1 = n (3.55) r F i, j i, j 4j 2 F i, j i 4j 2 F i , j +1
where,

in j = ar 4 j + ar 2 (TF )in, j i + (1 ar )(TF )in, j + ar 4 j + ar 2 (TF )in, j +1 ,

ar = t

(r )2

Formation Boundary Conditions- At the formation and annulus interface, the boundary condition can be expressed as follows.
kF TF + U aTF = U aTa r

(3.56)

Equation 3.47 can be expressed as follows.

kF

(TF )in,1 (TF )in, 1

2r

+ U a (TF )i ,0 = U a (Ta )i
n

(3.57)

Rearranging Eq. 3.57 for time-steps n and n+1, we obtain the following.

(TF )in, 1 = U a {(Ta )in (TF )in,0 }2r + (TF )in,1

kF

(3.58)

(TF )in,+11 = U a {(Ta )in +1 (TF )in,+1}2r + (TF )in,1+1 0

kF

(3.59)

63

Note that there in Eqs. 3.49 and 3.50, there is a node j = -1. This is an imaginary node located outside of the formation in the annulus. Near the boundary, the equation describing internal heat flow in the formation (Eq. 3.35) is replaced with the following equation26.

2TF TF = 2 r 2 t

(3.60)

This is done to avoid the apparent singularity which occurs at the node j = 0. Equation 3.60 can be expressed as

(TF )in,+j1 (TF )in, j

t
n +1 n +1 n +1 n1 n n 2 (TF )i , j 1 2(TF )i , j + (TF )i , j +1 (TF )i , j 1 2(TF )i , j + (TF )i , j +1 (3.61) = + 2 2 2 (r ) (r )

rearranging at node j = 0, we obtain

ar (TF )i , 1 + (1 + 2ar )(TF )i , 0 ar (TF )i ,1 = in0 ,

n +1 n +1 n +1

(3.62)

where

in0 = ar (TF )in, i + (1 2ar )(TF )in, 0 + ar (TF )in,1 ,

(3.63)

The temperatures at the imaginary node j = -1 are eliminated from Eqs. 3.62 and 3.63 by inserting Eqs. 3.58 and 3.59 to obtain

2r n +1 n +1 1 + 2ar + ar U a (TF )i , 0 2ar (TF )i ,1 = in0 , kF

(3.64)

64

where

in0 = ar ,

2 r 2 r n +1 n U a (Ta )i + ar U a (Ta )i kF kF

2r n n + 1 2ar + ar U a (TF )i ,0 + 2ar (TF )i ,1 kF

(3.65)

Equations 3.64 and 3.65 express the temperature in the formation at the formation-annulus interface. Note that in Eq. 3.65, the first term on the right hand side contains the annulus temperature for the future time step. This does not create a problem because at the time when the temperature in the formation is evaluated, the temperature in the wellbore for the future time-step has already been evaluated. Hence, the temperature in the annulus for the future time step is already known. At the outer boundary of the formation, a sufficient radius of consideration is chosen at which the temperature disturbance caused by the flow of fluid in the wellbore is no longer felt in the formation. This length is generally taken to be 10 ft from the wellbore14. At this outer boundary, the temperature conforms to the undisturbed geothermal gradient. @j=J

(TF )in, j

= TFS + g G * i * z = TG

for all n

(3.66)

Equations 3.55, 3.64, and 3.66 thus form a complete set of linear algebraic equations which describe the temperature at every node in the formation. They can be expressed in matrix form as follows.

[]{T } = {}
This is done at each depth and at each time-step n as follows:

(3.67)

65

1 A M [] = M 0 0

0 0 B C A B

0 (TF )in,+1 0 n +1 0 (TF )i ,1 M (T )n +1 {T } = F i , 2 M M M A B C n +1 0 K K 0 0 1 (TF )i , J 0 K 0 0 C

in0 , n i ,1 in2 {} = , M inJ 1 , TG

where

a a A= r r 4j 2

B = (1 + ar )

C =

ar

4j

ar
2

Equation 3.56 is a tridiagonal system of linear algebraic equations, and can thus be solved using the simple but efficient Thomas Algorithm.

Numerical ProcedureThe following is a summary of the steps taken in the numerical solution. 1. The initial conditions of the system are specified (time t = 0). The initial temperature conditions in the formation conform to the geothermal gradient. The initial temperature conditions in the wellbore also

66

conform to the formation geothermal gradient. This condition is chosen because it is found that after sufficient time during a trip, the temperature of the fluid in the wellbore is equal to temperature of the formation. 2. The temperature profile in the drill pipe is evaluated first using Eqs. 3.46 and 3.51. It is first necessary to guess the temperature profile in the annulus at the current time step in order to evaluate the drill-pipe. The initial guess is taken to be the temperature profile in the annulus at the previous time step. 3. Based on the newly evaluated drill-pipe temperature, the annular temperature profile is evaluated using Eqs. 3.48 and 3.53. Note that it is necessary to guess the temperature profile in the immediate adjacent formation at the current time-step. The guess chosen is the temperature profile in the previous time step. 4. The temperature profile in the formation is then evaluated at the current time step based on the newly evaluated annulus profile. The results of the procedure are then compared with the initial guesses. If the error is insignificant, the next time step is evaluated. If there is significant error, the whole procedure is repeated with the current temperature profiles in the annulus and formation being used as the guesses. This procedure is repeated until the calculations are completed for the total circulation time.

67

3.4

Summary
The analytical and numerical methods for estimating the temperature

profile within the wellbore and formation have been described. It is assumed that heat flow in the wellbore occurs rapidly in comparison to heat flow in the formation. Heat flow in the wellbore occurs by bulk fluid flow, convection across surface films on the pipe conduit and on the outer wall of the annulus, and conduction through the pipe wall. Heat flow in the formation occurs by conduction in the radial direction only. For the numerical method, the equations governing heat flow in the wellbore and formation are solved using the Crank-Nicolson method which results in a system of linear algebraic equations. The numerical method is used in the development of the Dynamic density Simulator.

68

Chapter 4

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE DYNAMIC DENSITY SIMULATOR AND MODELLING OF DYNAMIC DENSITY
Drilling operations are being conducted to deeper depths as the need to supplement dwindling hydrocarbon resources forces exploration into more unconventional environments. Deeper wells mean the drilling fluid will encounter higher temperatures and pressures. As discussed in previous chapters, it is not expected that the volumetric and rheological properties of the fluid remain constant under these conditions. It is thus necessary to predict these downhole conditions and their impact on the drilling fluid behavior. This allows for precise drilling fluid selection and preparation, and accurate estimation of the maximum allowable pump pressure. The following chapter contains a description, development, and validation of the Dynamic Density Simulator (DDS) and analysis of the results of equivalent circulating density estimation under high-temperature/highpressure conditions. The DDS program is a predictive tool that will allow the drilling engineer to predict the down-hole temperature/pressure conditions that will be encountered and the resultant change in drilling fluid rheological behavior. The simulator was written using Visual Basic for applications automated through Microsoft Excel. The user interface is integrated with Excel and initiated with a command button that is integrated into the main

69

worksheet menu. This format was chosen because it allows ease of use and accessibility. It also allows manipulation of generated results with Excel utilities such as worksheets and graphs. The following is a detailed description and explanation of the program layout.

4.1

Program Lay-Out
The program interface is executed with a series of user forms, which

will accept data pertaining to the well bore, drilling fluid, and formation parameters and return the temperature profiles in the wellbore and formation, pressure losses in the wellbore and the ECD of the circulating fluid. The user can navigate between forms and input data at leisure using the back and next buttons. Once all the parameter values have been entered into the program, the results are displayed on a results form. The following is the sequence of forms used in the program. 1. frmStartThis is the starting form and the form that is displayed

when the program is initiated. On this form, the option is given to initiate a new well profile. 2. frmWellProps- This form allows input of the well bore parameters. These include the total vertical depth of the well, drill string dimensions such as inner and outer drill pipe diameters, drill bit dimensions, and information such as the inlet pipe temperature and the circulation rate. 3. frmMudProps- This form accepts the mud parameters such as rheological data, volumetric and constituents data, and thermal data.

70

4. frmFormationProps- This form allows input of the thermal properties of the surrounding formation. 5. frmHeatTransfer- This form allows input of the heat transfer coefficients. 6. frmResults - This form displays the frictional pressure losses and ECD results. Figure 4.1 shows a step-by-step sequence of data entry, computation and results display.

4.2

DDS Program Execution

The first form that is displayed once the program is executed is the

program title page. From this form, a new well profile can be initiated. Figure 4.2 shows a screen capture of the title form. The form is initiated by clicking on a command button that is integrated into Excels set of main menu commands as shown in the screen capture in Fig. 4.3. The following sequence of forms will be described as follows. 4.2.1 General Well Parameters Form On this form, the dimensions and configuration of the drill-string are specified. These include the dimensions of the drill-pipe, heavy-weight drillpipe and drill collars. The bit size, circulation rate, inlet pipe temperature and total vertical depth are also specified. A screen capture of this form is shown in Fig. 4.4.

71

START (Initiate Well Profile)

Drill String Configuration/Geometry Bit Configuration TVD, Circulation Rate, Inlet Pipe Temperature

INPUT WELL PARAMETERS

INPUT MUD PARAMETERS

Rheological Properties INPUT FORMATION PARAMETERS Density and Constituents Thermal Properties Reference Conditions

INPUT HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS

EVALUATE WELLBORE TEMPERATURE PROFILE

CALCULATE BOTTOMHOLE PRESSURE & ECD

DISPLAY

STOP Figure 4.1- DDSimulator Program Flow Chart

72

Figure 4.2- Title Form

73

DDSimulator Command Button

Figure 4.3- DDSimulator Launch Command Button

74

Figure 4.4- Well Parameters Form

75

Figure 4.5- Mud Properties Form

76

4.2.2 Mud Properties Form The properties of the drilling fluid are entered on this form. These include the rheological properties such as plastic viscosity and yield strength, the density and constituents, and the thermal properties such as thermal conductivity and heat capacity. The density and rheological parameters are obtained at certain reference temperature and pressure. These reference conditions are also entered. Figure 4.5 shows a screen capture of the form. 4.2.3 Formation Properties Form The properties of the formation are entered on this form. These properties include the density, geothermal gradient, surface temperature, heat conductivity, specific heat capacity, and maximum radius of interest. The maximum radius of interest refers to the minimum radius at which the formation no longer sees the temperature disturbance as a result of introducing the drilling fluid into the well. This radius is usually about 10-ft from the well-bore. Figure 4.6 shows a screen capture of the formation properties form. 4.2.4 Heat Transfer Coefficients Form The overall heat transfer coefficients for heat transfer across the annulus-formation interface, and across the drill-pipe wall are entered on this form. Figure 4.7 shows a screen capture of the heat transfer coefficients form.

77

Figure 4.6- Formation Properties Form

78

Figure 4.7- Heat Transfer Coefficients Form

79

4.2.5 Results and Results Form Once all the system parameters have been specified, the simulator can then evaluate the temperature profile inside the drill-pipe and annulus and the resultant variation in density and rheological parameters. The frictional pressure drop in the annulus and drill-pipe, the bottom-hole pressure and the ECD are then determined. The results are presented on the result form and temperature profile is presented graphically using the Excel graph feature. The result form is shown in Fig. 4.8 and a sample temperature profile is shown in Fig. 4.9.

Figure 4.8- Results Form

80

Figure 4.9- A Sample Temperature Profile Using Excel Graph Feature

81

4.3

Equations used in DDSimulator Program

The DDS program uses the numerical method to evaluate the

temperature profile in the wellbore and near formation environment. Taking the temperature profile into account, the simulator computes equivalent hydrostatic head and frictional pressure loss in the wellbore during circulation. The equations used in the simulator are as follows: 4.3.1 Fluid Properties The density of the fluid in the wellbore is computed using the compositional method according to the following equation.

m ( p2 , T2 ) =

m1
1 + f o o1 1 + f w w1 1 o2 w2

(2.12)

The volumetric behavior of the oil component is calculated as follows:

o = A2 + B2 PT + C2 P + D2 P 2 + E2T + F2T 2
where A2 C2 E2 = 0.8807 = 1.2806*10-6 = -0.00036 B2 D2 F2 = 1.5235*10-9 = 1.0719*10-10 = -5.1670*10-8

(2.33)

The volumetric behavior of the water component is calculated as follows:

w = Bo + B1(T) + B2(p-po)
where Bo = 8.63186 B1 = -3.31977 * 10-3

(2.14)

B2 = 2.37170 * 10-5

82

The density of the fluid in the annulus is computed for 200 discrete lengths of the wellbore, that is, the total vertical depth is divided into 200 discrete lengths. The temperature dependent plastic viscosity of the oil component of the fluid in the well bore is calculated according to the following equation.

= P (TP ) 10
C1

A + B T + D TP + E P + F + G1 1 1 1 1 1

(2.32)

1000 75 where A1 D1 G1 = -23.1888

P T

15000 300

B1 E1

= -0.00148 = 3.3416*10-5

C1 F1

= -0.9501 = 14.6767

= -1.9776*10-8 = 10.9973

The steps used in the DDSimulator to calculate the plastic viscosity and yield value of the drilling fluid are detailed in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of Chapter 2. The apparent viscosity of the drilling fluid is calculated according to Eqs. 2.36 and 2.36. The apparent viscosity is calculated for 200 discrete lengths of the drill pipe. 4.3.2 Temperature Profile Estimation The temperature profiles in the drill pipe and annulus are evaluated implicitly using the Crank-Nicolson method. This discretizing scheme was chosen because it is an efficient, easy to use scheme that allows for accurate solutions without constraints on the time step used. The equations and solutions steps used are detailed in Chapter 3.

83

4.3.3 Equivalent Hydrostatic Head and ECD The hydrostatic head for each of the discrete sections of the wellbore for which the density is known is computed according to Eq. 2.1. In order to compute the frictional pressure loss, the flow regime must first be known. Thus, the Reynolds number is first computed according to Eq. 2.37. If the flow regime is laminar, the frictional pressure drop is computed using Eq. 2.38 or 2.39. If the flow regime is turbulent, the friction factor is computed according to Eq. 2.40 and 2.41. The frictional pressure loss is then computed according to Eq. 2.22. The equivalent circulating density is then calculated according to Eq. 2.21.

4.4

Model Validation
As stated previously, the numerical method is applied in the

DDSimulator for temperature profile estimation in the wellbore. This method is chosen because it can model more complex geometries than the analytical method. In order to validate the temperature estimation capability of the simulator, fluid circulation in a Gulf-Coast well was modeled. The well parameters are as detailed in Table 4.1. The numerical results from the DDSimulator were compared with the results obtained using the analytical method. Fig. 4.10 shows a plot of the temperature profile in the pipe and annulus obtained with the numerical and analytical methods.

84

Table 4.1

WELL AND MUD CIRCULATING PROPERTIES FOR A GULF COAST WELL14

Well Geometry Well Depth, ft Drill Stem OD, in. Drill-Bit Size, in. Circulation Rate, bbl/hour Mud Properties Inlet Temperature, oF Plastic Viscosity, cp Yield Strength, lbf/100 ft2 Thermal conductivity, Btu/ft-oF-hour Specific Heat, Btu/lb-oF Density, lb/gal Formation Properties Thermal conductivity, Btu/ft-oF-hour Specific Heat, Btu/lb-oF Density, lb/cu ft Surface Earth Temperature, oF Geothermal Gradient, oF/ft

15000 6-5/8 8-3/8 300 75 20.9 35.3 1 0.4 10 1.3 0.2 165 59 0.0127

85

Temperature (oF)
0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 50 100 150 200 250 300

Depth (ft)

Pipe Numerical Geothermal Gradient Annulus Analytical

Annulus Numerical Pipe Analytical

Figure 4.10- Temperature Profile For Gulf Coast Well

86

Figure 4.10 shows the good agreement for the temperature profile between the numerical model and the analytical method. The maximum deviation between the two methods was less than 2%. The predicted flowing bottom-hole temperature in the well matched the observed flowing bottomhole temperature of 186 oF. Figure 4.10 also shows that the maximum temperature in the well-bore may not occur at the bottom of the hole. As seen in the figure, the maximum temperature in the well-bore for this particular case occurs in the annulus several feet above the total vertical depth (TVD). This agrees with observations made by several authors13-17. The shape of the temperature profile occurs as a result of the heat flow equilibrium attained by the fluid as it flows down the drill-pipe and up the annulus. As the fluid flows down the drill-pipe, it gains heat from the annular fluid thereby increasing in temperature until it reaches the bottom of the hole. Once the fluid enters the annulus, it starts to lose heat to the relatively cooler drill pipe. However, for a certain length in the annulus, the formation is still hotter and some heat is lost to the annular fluid. The annular fluid thus

increases in temperature, until the heat lost to the drill-pipe is greater than the heat gained from the formation or the annular fluid temperature is actually higher than the formation temperature, whichever occurs first. This process results in the highest well-bore temperature occurring in the annulus some length above the TVD, and the unique shape of the temperature profile. The numerical model was also used to simulate reported field data. The following data was obtained from a well in Matagorda County, Texas23.

87

The well had been drilled and cased with 5-1/2-in., 17 lbf/ft casing, and 2-1/2in. tubing was set without a packer at 8650-ft. Tests were conducted on the well measuring bottom-hole circulating temperature while circulating field salt water at 84 and 252 gal/min. The initial undisturbed static bottom-hole temperature was 250 oF, with a temperature gradient of 2.03 oF/100 ft. The well was circulated at 84 gal/min for 2 hours and 40 minutes. The bottom-hole temperature of the fluid dropped to 213 oF. The well was then logged and circulated again at 252 gal/min. The bottom-hole temperature at the beginning of the second circulation period was 224 oF. The well was circulated for 56 minutes, at the end of which the bottom-hole temperature dropped further to 196 oF. These conditions were simulated using the numerical method, and the results are shown in Figs. 4.11 and 4.12. The bottom-hole temperature at the end of first circulation period was estimated to be 230 oF. This value has an 8% difference relative to the actual measured value of 213 oF. The estimated bottom-hole temperature at the end of the second circulation period was 199 oF. This is a 1.5 % difference from the actual measured value of 196 oF.

88

Temperature (oF) Depth (ft)

0 0 1000 2000 3000 T e m p e ra tu re ( o F ) 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 50 100 150 200 250 300

Circulation Rate- 84 gal/min Circulation Time- 2 hrs 40 min Fluid- Field Salt Water

Pipe Numerical

Annulus Numerical

Geothermal Gradient

Figure 4.11- Well Temperature Profile While Circulating Field Salt Water

89

Depth (ft) Temperature 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Temperature (o F) 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 50 100 150 200 250 300

Circulation Rate- 252 gal/min Circulation Time- 56 min Fluid- Field Salt Water

Pipe Numerical

Annulus Numerical

Geothermal Gradient

Figure 4.12- Temperature Profile For Gulf Coast Well

90

4.5

Dynamic Density Estimation

The effects of temperature and pressure on the equivalent circulating

density in a high temperature-high pressure well were simulated using the DDSimulator. The properties of the first well that was simulated are detailed in Table 4.2. The temperature profile for the well is shown in Fig. 4.13. The temperature profile indicates that the temperature in the well-bore is higher than the formation temperature for a large portion of the hole. As fluid moves from the bottom of the hole upwards in the annulus, it looses heat to the pipe, and for about 2000 ft up the annulus. It also gains heat from the formation. Beyond this point, the annular temperature is higher than the formation temperature. Thus, heat moves from the annulus into the formation as well as into the drill-pipe. The rate of heat transfer across the pipe wall is very high due to the high heat conductivity of steel and the high flow rate. Hence, the temperature profiles in the annulus and drill pipe are very close. The results of the ECD calculations are detailed in Table 4.3. The ECD based on constant fluid properties (i.e. independent of the

temperature/pressure conditions) was evaluated for comparison. The bottomhole pressure taking into account the temperature-pressure dependence of the fluid properties was 218 psi lower than the bottom-hole pressure obtained using constant fluid properties. This is due to the volumetric behavior of the drilling fluid. The decrease in the density of the fluid due to temperature is more pronounced than the increase in density due to the pressure. Hence,

91

the bottom-hole pressure is less than one would expect if the density of the drilling fluid remained constant.

Table 4.2

Simulated Well Conditions

General well Properties Well Depth (L) Outer Drill Pipe Radius (rp) Annulus Radius (ra) Circulation Rate Circulation Time (hr) Inlet Mud Temperature (Tps) Mud Properties Viscosity (fl) (@ reference conditions) Yield Value (@ reference conditions) Thermal Conductivity (kfl) Specific Heat (cfl) Density (fl) (@ reference conditions) Oil Fraction Water Fraction Formation Properties Thermal Conductivity (kF) Specific Heat (cF) Density (F) Surface Earth Temperature (TFs) Geothermal Gradient (gG)

17200 0.208333 0.354167 400 5 120

ft ft ft bbl/hr hr
o

50.82 10 1 0.4 16.8 0.594 0.066 0.3 0.21 165 70 0.020

lb/(ft-hour) lbf/100ft2 Btu/(ft-oF-hour) Btu/(lb-oF) lb/gal

Btu/(ft-oF-hour) Btu/(lb-oF) lb/ft3

o o

F F/ft

Table 4.3

Results of Well Simulation

Temperature/Pressure Dependent Constant Property 22238 24.9 Difference -218 -0.3

Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) ECD (ppg)

22020 24.6

92

Figure 4.14 shows a plot of the bottom-hole pressure versus depth. It can be observed that there is a steady increase in pressure as the depth increases with the final bottom-hole pressure obtained with constant fluid density being higher than that obtained with a temperature/pressure dependent fluid density. Figure 4.15 shows the temperature/pressure dependent behavior of the fluid density. As depth increases the equivalent circulating density continues to decrease as a result of the greater effect of fluid expansion due to temperature, as opposed to compression due to the increased down-hole pressure.

Temperature ( F) 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Pipe Numerical
Annulus Numerical Geothermal Gradient

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Depth (ft)

Circulation Rate- 400 gal/min Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft

Figure 4.13- Temperature Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

93

Annular Pressure (psi) Annular Pressure (psi)

0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

2000

4000

6000

8000

Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 gal/min Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft

18000
Variable Fluid Properties
Constant Fluid Properties

20000

Figure 4.14- Annular Pressure Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

Equivalent Equivalent Circulating Density (ppg)(ppg) Circulating Density
24 0 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5

2000

4000

6000

8000

Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 gal/min Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft
Temperature/Pressure Dependent
Constant Fluid Properties

18000

20000

Figure 4.15- Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

94

The well parameters detailed in Table 4.2 were simulated using water based drilling fluid. The results are shown in Table 4.4, and in Figs. 4.16 to 4.18. The results showed a similar trend to that obtained with oil-based drilling fluid with the ECD obtained taking pressure and temperature conditions into account being lower than the ECD calculated assuming constant fluid properties. The effects of the temperature gradient of the formation were also studied. The same well properties as detailed in Table 4.2 were used. The results are displayed in Tables 4.5 and 4.6, and in Figs. 4.19 to 4.24. As seen in Tables 4.5 and 4.6, increase in the geothermal gradient results in a larger difference between, the bottom-hole pressure estimated taking into account the temperature/pressure conditions, and the bottom-hole pressure estimated assuming constant fluid density and viscosity with the constant property bottom-hole pressure being higher. A geothermal gradient of 1.5 oF/100-ft results in a difference of 110 psi while a geothermal gradient of 2.5 oF/100-ft results in a difference of 325 psi. These results show the higher fluid expansion that occurs with a higher geothermal gradient. This trend is also displayed in Figs. 4.21 and 4.24. Failure to take this effect into account during drill operations could lead to the occurrence of a kick and possibly a blow-out.

95

Table 4.4

Well Simulation Results for Parameters Detailed in Table 4.2 with Water-Based mud
Temperature/Pressure Dependent Constant Property 18792 21.0 Difference -207 -0.2

Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) ECD (ppg)

18585 20.8

Table 4.5

Well Simulation Results for Parameters Detailed in Table 4.2 with gG = 0.015 oF/ft
Temperature/Pressure Dependent Constant Property 22238 24.9 Difference -110 -0.2

Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) ECD (ppg)

22128 24.7

96

Table 4.6

Well Simulation Results for Parameters Detailed in Table 4.2 with gG = 0.025 oF/ft
Temperature/Pressure Dependent Constant Property 22238 24.9 Difference -325 -0.4

Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) ECD (ppg)

21913 24.5

Temperature (oF) 0 0 2000 4000 6000 D epth (ft) 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Pipe Numerical
Annulus Numerical Geothermal Gradient

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- WBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft

Figure 4.16- Temperature Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

97

Equivalent CirculatingDensity (ppg) (ppg) Equivalent Circulating Density

20.5 0 21 21.5 22 22.5 23 23.5 24 24.5

2000

4000

6000

8000 Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- WBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft
Temperature/Pressure Dependent

18000

Constant Fluid Properties

20000

Figure 4.17- Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

Annular Pressure (psi) Annular Pressure (psi) 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000

2000

4000

6000

8000

Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- WBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft
Variable Fluid Properties
Constant Fluid Properties

18000

20000

Figure 4.18- Annular Pressure Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

98

Temperature (oF) 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Pipe Numerical

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Depth (ft)

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.015 oF/ft

Annulus Numerical

Geothermal Gradient

Figure 4.19- Temperature Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs Annular Pressure (psi) Annular Pressure (psi)
0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

2000

4000

6000

8000
Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.015
Variable Fluid Properties

18000

Constant Fluid Properties

20000

Figure 4.20- Annular Pressure Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

99

Equivalent CirculatingDensity (ppg) (ppg) Equivalent Circulating Density

24.5 0 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5

2000

4000

6000

8000 Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.015
Temperature/Pressure Dependent
Constant Fluid Properties

18000

20000

Figure 4.21- Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

Temperature ( F) 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Pipe Numerical
o

100

200

300

400

500

600

Depth (ft)

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.025 oF/ft
Annulus Numerical Geothermal Gradient

Figure 4.22- Temperature Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

100

Annular Pressure (psi) Annular Pressure (psi)

0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

2000

4000

6000

8000 Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.025 oF/ft
Variable Fluid Properties
Constant Fluid Properties

18000

20000

Figure 4.23- Annular Pressure Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

Equivalent CirculatingDensity (ppg) (ppg) Equivalent Circulating Density

24 0 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5

2000

4000

6000

8000 Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.025 oF/ft
Temperature/Pressure Dependent
Constant Fluid Properties

18000

20000

Figure 4.24- Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

101

The effect of varying the inlet temperature of the drilling fluid was also studied. The well parameters detailed in Table 4.2 were simulated with an inlet temperature into the drill pipe of 80 oF. Although the return temperature coming up the annulus was reduced to 87 oF, the bottom-hole temperature and pressure after 5 hours of circulation did not change significantly from the values obtained with an inlet temperature of 120 oF. The results are shown in Table 4.7 and in Figs. 4.25 to 4.27. The ECD profile in the well during circulation also did not change appreciably from the case of 120 oF pipe inlet temperature. This trend indicates that the inlet temperature over a certain range does not play an important role in the overall wellbore heat transfer mechanism compared to the geothermal gradient.

Table 4.7

Well Simulation Results for Parameters Detailed in Table 4.2 with Inlet Fluid Temperature = 80 oF
Temperature/Pressure Dependent Constant Property 22238 24.9

Difference -209 -0. 3

Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) ECD (ppg)

22029 24.6

102

Temperature ( F) 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Pipe Numerical
Annulus Numerical Geothermal Gradient

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Depth (ft)

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft Inlet Temp = 80 oF

Figure 4.25- Temperature Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

Annular Pressure (psi) Annular Pressure (psi) 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

2000

4000

6000

8000

Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft Inlet Temp = 80 oF

16000

18000

Variable Fluid Properties

20000

Constant Fluid Properties

Figure 4.26- Annular Pressure Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

103

Equivalent Circulating Density (ppg) Equivalent Circulating Density (ppg) 24 0 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28 28.5

2000

4000

6000

8000

Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 400 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft Inlet Temp = 80 oF
Temperature/Pressure Dependent

18000

Constant Fluid Properties

20000

Figure 4.27- Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

The effects of the circulation rate on the bottom-hole pressure were also studied. The well parameters in Table 4.2 were simulated with a circulation rate of 300 bbl/hr. The results are shown in Table 4.8 and Figs. 4.28 to 4.30. The difference in the bottom-hole pressure estimated with constant fluid properties and temperature-pressure dependent properties rose to 297 psi. This could be due to the fact that the bottom-hole temperature increases slightly at the lower rate and will thus result in increased expansion of the drilling fluid and a greater reduction in the fluid density. The circulation rate thus plays a great role in the temperature and pressure profiles that will occur in a circulating well.

104

Table 4.8

Well Simulation Results for Parameters Detailed in Table 4.2 with Circulation Rate = 300 bbl/hr
Temperature/Pressure Dependent Constant Property 19089 21.3

Difference -298 -0.3

Bottom Hole Pressure (psi) ECD (ppg)

18791 21.0

Temperature ( F) 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Pipe Numerical
Annulus Numerical Geothermal Gradient

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

D epth (ft)

Circulation Rate- 300 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft Inlet Temp = 120 oF

Figure 4.28- Temperature Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

105

Annular Pressure (psi) Annular Pressure (psi)

0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

2000

4000

6000

8000 Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 300 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft Inlet Temp = 120 oF
Variable Fluid Properties
Constant Fluid Properties

18000

20000

Figure 4.29- Annular Pressure Profile in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

Equivalent Circulating Equivalent CirculatingDensity (ppg) (ppg) Density 22 22.5 23 23.5

20.5 0

21

21.5

24

24.5

25

2000

4000

6000

8000
Depth (ft)

10000

12000

14000

16000

Circulation Rate- 300 bbl/hr Circulation time- 5 hrs Fluid- OBM Geothermal Grad- 0.02 oF/ft Inlet Temp = 120 oF
Temperature/Pressure Dependent
Constant Fluid Properties

18000

20000

Figure 4.30- Equivalent Circulating Density in 17200-ft well after 5 hrs

106

Summary
A drilling hydraulic simulator called DDSimulator was developed using Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications automated through Excel. This format was chosen for ease of use and accessibility and access to Excels powerful dynamic graphing capability. The simulator allows estimation of the temperature profile in the wellbore during circulation and estimation of the frictional pressure drop under high-temperature/high-pressure conditions. The complete code for the DDS program is documented in the Appendix A. High-temperature/high-pressure well conditions were simulated. It was found that the bottom-pressure in the well is lower for the oil based mud that was simulated when the temperature-pressure conditions prevalent in the well-bore during circulation are taken into account. This indicates that the effect of the fluid expansion due to temperature was more pronounced than the effect of compression as a result of the increased pressure down-hole. Temperature thus plays a more pronounced role in this particular case. This is further confirmed by the further drop in bottom-hole pressure with increasing geothermal gradient. The inlet temperature of the drilling fluid into the drill-pipe was not found to have a significant effect on the bottom-hole pressure even though it had an effect on the return temperature out of the annulus. The circulation rate was found to play an important role in the temperature profile that develops in a well during circulation.

107

Chapter 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1

Summary
The objective of this study was to explore the effects of the

temperature and pressure conditions prevalent in high temperature/high pressure wells on the equivalent circulating density of the drilling fluid and on the bottom-hole pressure. The high temperature conditions cause expansion of the drilling fluid while the high pressure conditions at deeper depths cause compression. In the industry, these two counter effects were thought to cancel each other resulting in constant surface fluid density throughout the length of the well-bore during circulation. However, industry experience has shown that predicted bottom-hole pressures assuming constant surface fluid properties are often in error by hundreds of psi. The above objective was achieved with the development of a simulator called DDSimulator. This is a hydraulic simulator that computes the bottomhole pressure and ECD throughout the length of a circulating well-bore taking into account the temperature and pressure conditions in the well-bore. The program can compute the temperature and pressure profile in a circulating well. The effects of temperature and pressure on the density and viscosity of drilling fluids was studied in chapter 2, along with frictional pressure loss

108

estimation. Analytical and numerical methods for estimating the temperature profile in a circulating well-bore were studied in chapter 3. The CrankNicolson numerical discretizing scheme was employed in the DDSimulator for the evaluation of the temperature profile in a circulating well. Taking the temperature profile into account the program then estimates the frictional pressure loss, equivalent circulating density, and bottom-hole pressure using methods detailed in Chapter 2. In the case of the oil based drilling fluid that was simulated, it was found that the bottom-hole pressure estimated taking into account temperature and pressure conditions, is lower than if the fluid properties are taken to be independent of temperature and pressure. This indicates that the temperature effect of fluid expansion is more pronounced than the compression effect due to pressure. Thus, a reduction in the fluid density occurs. It is also important to note that the increased temperature results in lower fluid viscosity and thus lower frictional pressure drop.

5.2

Conclusions
Based on the simulations that were performed, the following

conclusions were drawn. 1. Temperature and pressure effects play an important role in the bottomhole pressure that will occur in deep hot wells. 2. Higher geothermal gradients lead to lower bottom-hole pressure.

109

3. The inlet pipe temperature does not have a significant effect on the bottom-hole pressure. 4. Higher circulation rates result in lower bottom-hole temperature and higher bottom-hole pressure. 5. The objectives of the study were achieved by developing the Dynamic Density Simulator. The simulator allows evaluation of the bottom-hole pressure and equivalent circulating density taking into account the temperature and pressure conditions in the well-bore.

5.3

Recommendations

It is recommended that a similar set of circulating wellbore simulations as detailed in this study be carried out before the commencement of drilling operations where it is known that high pressure and temperature conditions may be encountered. This will minize the occurrence of common drilling problems such as

Premature intake of formation fluid into the wellbore (kick). Formation damage Unnecessary trips

thereby reducing the total drilling cost. The following areas have been identified for further improvement.

Simulations should be carried out with more varieties of drilling fluids, including synthetic oil based drilling fluids, and drilling fluids with

110

chemical additives such as surfactants, flocculants, and fluid loss reducers. Some experimental work may be required, as data of the volumetric behavior as well as rheological behavior of drilling fluid components with respect to temperature and pressure are not abundant in the literature.

Simulations should be carried out under deep water conditions where cold temperatures and multiple temperature gradients are

encountered.

111

NOMENCLATURE
Ao, A1, A2 Af as Bo, B1, B2 bs D De = Empirically determined parameter in Sorrelle et al6 model = Cross-sectional area = 0.8*10-4 oC-1, thermal expansivity of barite = Empirically determined parameter in Sorrelle et al6 model = -1.0*10-5 bar-1, compressibility of barite = Pipe diameter = Equivalent diameter = Friction factor = volume fraction of component x

f
fx

f vo, fvw, fvs, fvc = Fractional volume of oil, water, solid weighting material, and chemical additives, respectively h k L n P Pw P1, P2 T 1, T2 V = height of fluid column, ft = consistency index = Conduit length = flow behavior index = pressure, psi = Wetted perimeter = Pressure at reference and condition 2 = Temperature at reference and condition 2 = Total volume

Vo, Vw,Vs,Vc = Volume of oil, water, solids and chemical additives

112

Vx W YV

= volume of component x = Weight = Yield value (lbf/100ft2) = Hydrostatic head of fluid column (psi) = Pressure drop due to friction in the drill string and annulus

Phydrostatic Pfriction
(psi)

= Frictional pressure loss = Ellis model parameter = shear rate = time constant = apparent viscosity = viscosity = low shear rate viscosity = plastic viscosity = viscosity at infinite shear = fluid density, lbm/gal (ppg) = Density of oil and water at temperature T1 and pressure P1, respectively

&

a o p

1, w1

2, w2

= Density of oil and water at temperature T2 and pressure P2, respectively

o1, w1
T1)

= Density of oil and water phases at reference conditions (p1,

113

s, c ecd o 1/2
A1 to G1 diesel

= Density of solids content and chemical additives = equivalent circulating density (lb/gal) = shear stress = yield stress = shear stress @ a = 0/2 = Empirical parameters in temperature/pressure dependent

viscosity equation A2 to F2 diesel density equation A3,B3, C3 = Empirical parameters in temperature/pressure yield value equation for oil based drilling fluid = Empirical parameters in temperature/pressure dependent

114

REFERENCES
1. Davison, J.M., Clary, S., Saasen, A., Allouche, M., Bodin, D., Nguyen, V.A.: Rheology of Various Drilling Fluid Systems Under Deepwater Drilling Conditions and the Importance of Accurate Predictions of Downhole Fluid Hydraulics, SPE 56632, Houston, Oct 3-6, 1999. 2. Houwen, O.H., Geehan, T.: Rheology of Oil-Base Muds, SPE 15416, New Orleans, LA, 5-8 Oct, 1986. 3. Alderman, N.J., Gavignet, A., Guillot, D., Maitland, G.C.: HighTemperature, High-Pressure Rheology of Water-Base Muds, SPE 18035, Houston, TX, 2-5 Oct, 1988. 4. Hoberock, L.L., Thomas, D.C., Nickens, H.V.: Heres How

Compressibility and Temperature Affect Bottom-Hole Mud Pressure, OGJ, Mar 22, 1982, p. 159. 5. Peters, E.J., Chenevert, M.E. and Zhang, C.: A Model for Predicting the Density of Oil-Based Muds at High Pressures and Temperatures, SPEDE (June 1990) 141-148; Trans., AIME, 289. 6. Sorelle, R.R., Jardiolin, R.A., Buckley, P., Barios, J.R.: Mathematical Field Model Predicts Downhole Density Changes in Static Drilling Fluids, SPE 11118, New Orleans, Sept 26-29, 1982. 7. Isambourg, P., Anfinsen, B.T., Marken, C.: Volumetric Behavior of Drilling Muds at High Pressure and High Temperature, SPE 36830, Milan, Italy, Oct 22-24, 1996.

115

8.

Kutasov, I., and Sweetman, M.: Method Predicts Equivalent Mud Density, OGJ, Sept 24, 2001, p. 57.

9.

Babu D. R.: Effects of P--T Behavior of Muds on Static Pressure During Deep Well Drilling, SPE 27419, SPEDC, June 1996, pp. 91-97.

10.

McMordie Jr., W.C., Bland, R.G. and Hauser, J.M.: Effect of Temperature and Pressure on the Density of Drilling Fluids, SPE 11114, New Orleans, Sept. 26-29, 1982.

11.

Rommetveit, R., Bjorkevoll, K.S.: Temperature and Pressure Effects on Drilling Fluid Rheology and ECD in Very Deep Wells, SPE 39282, Bahrain, 23-25 Nov, 1997.

12.

Baranthol, C., Alfenore, J., Cotterill, M.D., Poux-Guillaume, G.: Determination of Hydrostatic Pressure and Dynamic ECD by Computer Models and Field Measurements on the Directional HPHT Well 22130C-13, SPE 29430, Amsterdam, 28 Feb-2 Mar, 1995.

13.

Ramey, H.J., Jr: Wellbore Heat Transimission, JPT(April 1962) 42735

14.

Holmes,

C.S.,

Swift,

S.C.:

Calculation

of

Circulating

Mud

Temperatures, JPT(May 1970) 670-74 15. Arnold, F.C.: Temperature Profile During Heated Liquid Injection, Int. Comm. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 16, pp. 763-72. 16. Arnold, F.C.: Temperature Variation in a Circulating Wellbore Fluid, Journal of Energy Resources, Vol. 112, pp. 79-83.

116

17.

Kabir, C.S., Hasan, A.R., Kouba, G.E., Ameen, M.M.: Determining Circulating Fluid Temperature in Drilling, Workover, and Well-Control Operations, SPE 24581, Washington, DC, Oct 4-7, 1992.

18.

Marshal, T.R., Lie, O.H.: A Thermal Transient Model of Circulating Wells: 1. Model Development, SPE 24290, Stavanger, Norway, May 25-227, 1992.

19.

Romero, J. and Touboul, E.: Temperature Prediction for Deepwater Wells: A Field Validated Methodology, SPE 49056, New Orleans, Sept. 27-30, 1998.

20.

Chen, Z., Novotny, J.: Accurate Prediction Wellbore Transient Temperature Profile Under Mulitple Temperature Gradients: Finite Difference Approach and Case History, SPE 84583, Denver, Oct 5-8, 2003.

21.

Kutasov,

I.M.:

Water

FV

Factors

at

Higher

Pressure

and

Temperatures, Oil & Gas J. (Mar, 20, 1989) 102-104. 22. Politte, M.D.: Invert Oil Mud Rheology as a Function of Temperature, SPE13458, New Orleans, Mar 6-8, 1985. 23. Tragasser, A.F., Crawford, P.B., Horace, R.: A Method for Calculating Circulating Temperatures, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 19, pp. 1507-1512, 1967. 24. Raymond, L.R.: Temperature Distribution in a Circulating Drilling Fluid, Journal of Petroleum Technology, Vol. 21, pp. 333-341, 1969.

117

25.

Muneer, T., Kubie, J., and Grassie, T.:Heat Transfer-A Problem Solving Approach, Taylor & Francis Group, New York and London, 2003; pg 231.

26.

Ozisik, M.N.:Finite Difference Methods in Heat Transfer, CRC Press, Boca Raton, AnnArbor, London, and Tokyo, 1994; pg 99-137.

27.

Kraus, A.D., Aziz, A., and Welty, J.:Extended Surface Heat Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, 2001; pg 165-172, 181-190.

28.

Carslaw, H.S., Jaeger, J.C.: Conduction of Heat in Solids, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986; pg 220-224.

29.

Welty, J.R., Wicks, C.E., Wilson, R.E., Rorrer, G.: Fundamentals of Momentum Heat and Mass Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, 2001.

30.

Dusinbere, G.M.:Heat Transfer Calculations by Finite Differences, International Textbook Company, Scranton, Pennsylvania, 1961; pg 823, 103-106.

118

APPENDIX
Code for DDSimulator Program

119

Option Explicit 'This is a temperature profile object in which the methods to compute the pipe and annular 'temperature profiles are contained Dim Tax As WellProfile 'The following list conatins the depth coordinates at which temperature will be computed Dim Depth(200) As Double Private Sub ConstPropPressureDrop_Click() 'This sub computes the frictional pressure drop in the pipe and annulus with constant 'fluid properties Dim PlasticP As Double Dim PlasticA As Double Dim YieldP As Double Dim YieldA As Double Dim vP As Double Dim vA As Double Dim muP As Double Dim muA As Double Dim ReP As Double Dim ReA As Double Dim DPP As Double Dim DPA As Double Dim DppTotal As Double Dim DpaTotal As Double Dim i As Integer Dim imax As Integer imax = Tax.iTotal DppTotal = 0 DpaTotal = 0 'Compute Frictional Pressure Drop For i = 0 To imax If i > 0 Then 'compute plastic viscosity in cp PlasticP = Tax.RefMudPlasticViscosity PlasticA = Tax.RefMudPlasticViscosity 'Compute yield point in lbf/100ft^2 YieldP = Tax.RefMudYieldValue

120

YieldA = Tax.RefMudYieldValue 'Compute velocity in pipe and annulus vP = 4 * Tax.mRate / (7.48 * 3.142 * ((2 * Tax.rpi) ^ 2) * Tax.RefMudDensity) vA = 4 * Tax.mRate / (7.48 * 3.142 * (Tax.de ^ 2) * Tax.RefMudDensity) 'Compute apparent viscosity in pipe and annulus muP = PlasticP + (6.66 * YieldP * 2 * Tax.rp / vP) muA = PlasticA + (5 * YieldA * Tax.de / vA) 'Compute Reynold's # in pipe and annulus ReP = Tax.ReynoldsNum(Tax.RefMudDensity, vP, (2 * Tax.rp), muP) ReA = Tax.ReynoldsNum(Tax.RefMudDensity, vA, Tax.de, muA)

'Compute frictional pressure drop DPP = Tax.PressureDrop(ReP, (2 * Tax.rp), 0.01, Tax.DeltaZ, Tax.RefMudDensity, vP) DPA = Tax.PressureDrop(ReA, Tax.de, 0.03, Tax.DeltaZ, Tax.RefMudDensity, vA) DppTotal = DppTotal + DPP DpaTotal = DpaTotal + DPA End If Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 12).Value = DppTotal Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 13).Value = DpaTotal Next i End Sub Public Sub LoadProperties_Click() Set Tax = New WellProfile Tax.AnalyticalConstants

End Sub Private Sub ComputeTempProf_Click() Dim i As Integer 'The "Interval" refers to the distance between depths at which temperature will be computed

121

Dim Interval As Double

Interval = Tax.TVD / 200 For i = 0 To 200 Depth(i) = i * Interval Tax.AnalyticalComputeTemp Depth(i) Cells(i + 16, 8).Value = Tax.TPipe Cells(i + 16, 9).Value = Tax.TAnnulus If i < 300 Then End If

Next i End Sub Private Sub NumericalTemperature_Click() 'Note that terms bearing an "N" at the end signify data at the time step that 'is currently being evaluated. Dim FormTemperature() As Double Dim PipeTemperature() As Double Dim AnnTemperature() As Double Dim FormTemperatureN() As Double Dim PipeTemperatureN() As Double Dim AnnTemperatureN() As Double 'These matrices store the pressure profile with the pipe and annulus Dim PipePressure() As Double Dim AnnPressure() As Double Dim PipePressureN() As Double Dim AnnPressureN() As Double 'Dim Uaaa() As Double 'Dim Uppp() As Double 'mud density in the pipe and annulus Dim rhoPipe() As Double Dim rhoAnnulus() As Double 'i - (depth), j - (radius), n - (time)

122

Dim i As Integer Dim j As Integer Dim n As Integer Dim imax As Integer Dim jMax As Integer Dim nMax As Integer 'This array is used to store the old pipe temperature values Dim store1() As Double Dim store2() As Double 'heat transfer coefficient for inner pipe surface Dim hi As Double 'error between guess and solution Dim err As Double Dim check1 As Double Dim check2 As Double Dim check3 As Double 'Terms used to evaluate the frictional pressure loss Dim PlasticP As Double Dim PlasticA As Double Dim YieldP As Double Dim YieldA As Double Dim vP As Double Dim vA As Double Dim muP As Double Dim muA As Double Dim ReP As Double Dim ReA As Double Dim DPP As Double Dim DPA As Double Dim DppTotal As Double Dim DpaTotal As Double

imax = Tax.iTotal jMax = Tax.jTotal nMax = Tax.nTotal ReDim FormTemperature(imax, jMax) ReDim PipeTemperature(imax) ReDim AnnTemperature(imax) ReDim PipePressure(imax)

123

ReDim AnnPressure(imax) ReDim FormTemperatureN(imax, jMax) ReDim PipeTemperatureN(imax) ReDim AnnTemperatureN(imax) ReDim PipePressureN(imax) ReDim AnnPressureN(imax) ReDim rhoPipe(imax) ReDim rhoAnnulus(imax) 'ReDim Uaaa(iMax) 'ReDim Uppp(iMax) ReDim store1(imax) ReDim store2(imax) 'Worksheets.Add.Name = "PipeTemperature" 'Worksheets.Add.Name = "AnnulusTemperature" 'Worksheets.Add.Name = "FormationTemperature"

'Set initial conditions in the formation and annulus Tax.InitializeGrid FormTemperature(), PipeTemperature(), AnnTemperature(), PipePressure(), AnnPressure(), rhoPipe(), rhoAnnulus(), imax, jMax

'The following code computes temperature in the formation and wellbore For n = 1 To nMax 'Set initial guess for Ta(i,n+1), Ua(i,n+1), Tp(i,n+1), Up(i,n+1), Pp(i,n+1), and Pa(i,n+1) For i = 0 To imax AnnTemperatureN(i) = AnnTemperature(i) FormTemperatureN(i, 0) = FormTemperature(i, 0) 'PipePressureN(i) = PipePressure(i) AnnPressureN(i) = AnnPressure(i) 'rhoPipeN(i) = rhoPipe(i) 'rhoAnnulusN(i) = rhoAnnulus(i) Next i Do 'Evaluate the pipe Tax.EvaluatePipe FormTemperature(), FormTemperatureN(), PipeTemperature() _ , PipeTemperatureN(), PipePressure(), PipePressureN(), AnnTemperature() _

124

, AnnTemperatureN(), AnnPressure(), AnnPressureN(), imax 'Re-evaluate Pp(i,n+1) with the newly obtained Tp(i,n+1) For i = 0 To imax If i = 0 Then PipePressureN(i) = 14.7 Else rhoPipe(i - 1) = Tax.MudDensity(PipeTemperatureN(i - 1), PipePressureN(i - 1)) PipePressureN(i) = PipePressureN(i - 1) + 0.052 * rhoPipe(i - 1) * Tax.DeltaZ End If Next i

'Evaluate the Annulus Tax.EvaluateAnnulus FormTemperature(), FormTemperatureN(), PipeTemperature() _ , PipeTemperatureN(), AnnTemperature(), AnnTemperatureN(), PipePressure() _ , PipePressureN(), AnnPressure(), AnnPressureN(), imax, store1() 'Re-evaluate Pa(i,n+1) with the newly obtained Ta(i,n+1) For i = 0 To imax If i = 0 Then AnnPressureN(i) = 14.7 Else rhoAnnulus(i - 1) = Tax.MudDensity(AnnTemperatureN(i - 1), AnnPressureN(i - 1)) AnnPressureN(i) = AnnPressureN(i - 1) + 0.052 * rhoAnnulus(i - 1) * Tax.DeltaZ End If Next i

'Evaluate the formation Tax.EvaluateFormation FormTemperature(), FormTemperatureN(), AnnTemperature() _ , AnnTemperatureN(), AnnPressure(), AnnPressureN(), imax, jMax, store2() err = 0 'check for convergence

125

For i = 0 To imax check1 = ((AnnTemperatureN(i) - store1(i)) ^ 2) ^ (1 / 2) check2 = ((FormTemperatureN(i, 0) - store2(i)) ^ 2) ^ (1 / 2) check3 = ((PipeTemperatureN(imax) - AnnTemperatureN(imax)) ^ 2) ^ (1 / 2) If check1 > err Then err = check1 End If If check2 > err Then err = check2 End If If check3 > err Then 'err = check3 End If Next i Loop Until err <= 0.05 'update the temperature in the formation and wellbore For i = 0 To imax For j = 0 To jMax FormTemperature(i, j) = FormTemperatureN(i, j) Next j AnnTemperature(i) = AnnTemperatureN(i) PipeTemperature(i) = PipeTemperatureN(i) PipePressure(i) = PipePressureN(i) AnnPressure(i) = AnnPressureN(i) Next i 'Display results in formation For i = 0 To imax For j = 0 To jMax Worksheets("FormationTemperature").Cells((i + 2), (j + 2)).Value = FormTemperatureN(i, j) Next j Next i Next n 'Display results in wellbore For i = 0 To imax Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 3).Value = AnnTemperatureN(i) Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 2).Value = PipeTemperatureN(i)

126

Next i DppTotal = 0 DpaTotal = 0 'Compute Frictional Pressure Drop For i = 0 To imax If i > 0 Then 'compute plastic viscosity in cp PlasticP = Tax.MudPlasticViscosity(PipeTemperatureN(i), PipePressureN(i)) PlasticA = Tax.MudPlasticViscosity(AnnTemperatureN(i), AnnPressureN(i)) 'Compute yield point in lbf/100ft^2 YieldP = Tax.MudYieldValue(PipeTemperatureN(i), PipePressureN(i)) YieldA = Tax.MudYieldValue(AnnTemperatureN(i), AnnPressureN(i)) 'Compute velocity in pipe and annulus vP = 4 * Tax.mRate / (7.48 * 3.142 * ((2 * Tax.rpi) ^ 2) * rhoPipe(i - 1)) vA = 4 * Tax.mRate / (7.48 * 3.142 * (Tax.de ^ 2) * rhoAnnulus(i - 1)) 'Compute apparent viscosity in pipe and annulus muP = PlasticP + (6.66 * YieldP * 2 * Tax.rp / vP) muA = PlasticA + (5 * YieldA * Tax.de / vA) 'Compute Reynold's # in pipe and annulus ReP = Tax.ReynoldsNum(rhoPipe(i - 1), vP, (2 * Tax.rp), muP) ReA = Tax.ReynoldsNum(rhoAnnulus(i - 1), vA, Tax.de, muA)

'Compute frictional pressure drop DPP = Tax.PressureDrop(ReP, (2 * Tax.rp), 0.01, Tax.DeltaZ, rhoPipe(i 1), vP) DPA = Tax.PressureDrop(ReA, Tax.de, 0.03, Tax.DeltaZ, rhoAnnulus(i 1), vA) DppTotal = DppTotal + DPP DpaTotal = DpaTotal + DPA End If Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 4).Value = rhoPipe(i) Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 5).Value = rhoAnnulus(i) Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 6).Value = PipePressureN(i)

127

Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 7).Value = AnnPressureN(i)

Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 8).Value = DppTotal Worksheets("AnnulusTemperature").Cells((i + 2), 9).Value = DpaTotal Next i End Sub

The following Code details the methods and characteristics of a well-bore profile object.

Option Explicit 'Formation Properties Public kF As Double Public cF As Double Public FormationDensity As Double Public alpha As Double 'The maximum formation radius that will be considered (ft) 'a.k.a r-infinity Public rMax As Double 'Undisturbed formation temperature at the maximum depth considered Public Tmax As Double

'Mud Properties (densities in lb/gal) Public RefMudDensity As Double Public RefMudPlasticViscosity As Double Public RefMudYieldValue As Double Public OilFraction As Double Public WaterFraction As Double Public mRate As Double Public cfl As Double Public kfl As Double 'Reference mud conditions Public RefTemp As Double Public RefPress As Double 'annular radius Public ra As Double

128

'outer pipe radius Public rp As Double 'inner pipe radius Public rpi As Double 'heat conduction coefficient of pipewall Public kp As Double 'heat conduction coefficient of cement Public kcement As Double 'equivalent diameter of the annulus Public de As Double 'Heat Transfer coefficients across pipewall and across annulus/formation interface 'in Btu/(hour-ft2-oF) Public Ua As Double Public Up As Double

Public time As Double Public beta As Double Public gG As Double Public TVD As Double Public Tdiff As Double Public TFs As Double Public Tps As Double

'Analytical parameters Public DTime As Double Public DTimeFunc As Double Public sigma As Double Public gammaOne As Double Public gammaTwo As Double Public COne As Double Public CTwo As Double 'Temperature in the annulus and pipe (oF) terms used in analytical analysis Public TAnnulus As Double Public TPipe As Double 'time, depth and radius intervals Public DeltaT As Double Public DeltaZ As Double Public DeltaR As Double 'terms used in numerical analysis- see class initialize for definitions Public ar As Double

129

Public az As Double 'Total number of depth, radial, and time steps Public iTotal As Double Public jTotal As Double Public nTotal As Double Private Sub Class_Initialize() mRate = Range("B20").Value cfl = Range("B11").Value kfl = Range("B10").Value kF = Range("B14").Value cF = Range("B15").Value FormationDensity = Range("B16").Value ra = Range("B5").Value rp = Range("B4").Value rpi = Range("B34").Value kp = Range("B25").Value Ua = Range("B24").Value Up = Range("B23").Value rMax = Range("B22").Value alpha = Range("B21").Value time = Val(Application.Worksheets("Sheet1").CirculationTime.Value) gG = Range("B18").Value TVD = Range("B3").Value TFs = Range("B17").Value Tps = Range("B7").Value kcement = 0.025 RefTemp = Range("B27").Value RefPress = Range("B28").Value RefMudDensity = Range("B29").Value RefMudPlasticViscosity = Range("B30").Value RefMudYieldValue = Range("B31").Value OilFraction = Range("B32").Value WaterFraction = Range("B33").Value

de = 2 * (ra - rp) 'The following constants are declared for convenience beta = mRate * cfl / (2 * Pie * rpi * Up) Tdiff = TFs - Tps - beta * gG

130

'Tdiff = Tps - TFs + beta * gG Tmax = TFs + gG * TVD 'numerical intervals DeltaT = 0.05 DeltaZ = TVD / 200 DeltaR = rMax / 100 'terms used in numerical analysis ar = DeltaT / (DeltaR ^ 2) az = DeltaT / (DeltaZ ^ 2) 'compute iTotal If ((TVD / DeltaZ) - Int(TVD / DeltaZ)) < 0.5 Then iTotal = Int(TVD / DeltaZ) Else nTotal = Int(TVD / DeltaZ) + 1 End If 'compute jTotal If ((rMax / DeltaR) - Int(rMax / DeltaR)) < 0.5 Then jTotal = Int(rMax / DeltaR) Else jTotal = Int(rMax / DeltaR) + 1 End If 'compute nTotal If ((time / DeltaT) - Int(time / DeltaT)) < 0.5 Then nTotal = Int(time / DeltaT) Else nTotal = Int(time / DeltaT) + 1 End If

End Sub Private Function ExpInt(X As Double) As Double Rem C Rem DOUBLE PRECISION FUNCTION EXPIN(X) Rem C Rem C Rem C EXPIN is the function which computes Rem C the exponential integral. Rem C Rem C E1(x)=SIGMA(x---->infinity)(exp(-t)/t)dt Rem C Rem C

131

Rem IMPLICIT REAL*8(A-H,O-Z) Rem COMMON AS,BS,S,ISTEP Rem C IF (X.LE.0) WRITE(10,10) X

Dim Sign As Double Dim XX As Double Dim A1 As Double Dim A As Double Dim B As Double If (X <= 0#) Then Sign = -1# Else Sign = 1# Rem GoTo 2 End If XX = Abs(X) Rem C 10 FORMAT(//,2X,'X must be a positive number X= ',D19.8) If ((XX >= 0#) And (XX <= 1#)) Then GoTo 1 End If Rem C Rem C 1<=X<infinity. 5.1.56 Abramowitz & Stegun. Rem C A1 = XX ^ 4 A = A1 + 8.5733287401 * XX ^ 3 A = A + 18.059016973 * XX ^ 2 + 8.6347608925 * XX A = A + 0.2677737343 B = A1 + 9.5733223454 * XX ^ 3 B = B + 25.6329561486 * XX ^ 2 + 21.0996530827 * XX B = B + 3.9584969228 ExpInt = A / B / XX / Exp(XX) GoTo 2 Rem Return Rem C Rem C 0<=X<=1 5.1.53 Abramowitz & Stegun. Rem C 1 A = -0.57721566 + 0.99999193 * XX - 0.24991055 * XX ^ 2 A = A + 0.05519968 * XX ^ 3 - 0.00976004 * XX ^ 4 A = A + 0.00107857 * XX ^ 5

132

ExpInt = A - Log(XX) / Log(Exp(1#)) Rem Return Rem End Rem C 2 ExpInt = Sign * ExpInt

End Function Public Function Pie() As Double 'This function computes Pi Pie = Application.WorksheetFunction.Pi End Function Public Function Absolute(X As Double) As Double 'This function returns the absolute value Absolute = Application.WorksheetFunction.Abs(X) End Function Public Function NatLg(X As Double) As Double NatLg = Application.WorksheetFunction.Ln(X) End Function '---------------------------TRIDIAGONAL ALGORITHM Public Sub ThomasAlgorithm(A() As Double, B() As Double, C() As Double, D() As Double, X() As Double, n As Integer) Dim i As Integer For i = 1 To n B(i) = B(i) - A(i) * C(i - 1) / B(i - 1) D(i) = D(i) - A(i) * D(i - 1) / B(i - 1) Next i ' Back Substitution X(n) = D(n) / B(n) For i = n - 1 To 0 Step -1 X(i) = (D(i) - C(i) * X(i + 1)) / B(i) Next i End Sub

133

Public Sub AnalyticalConstants() 'The following code will calculate the constants "sigma", "gammaOne", '"gammaTwo", "COne", and "CTwo" 'mRate = mass flow rate, cfl = fluid heat capacity, kF = formation 'conductivity, ra = annular radius, Ua = annular heat transfer coeff, 'aplha = k/(rho*cF), time = length of time of fluid circulation, 'beta = m*cfl/(2*Pi*rp*Up), gG = formatin temp grad. , TVD = Total 'vertical depth, Tdiff = (Tfs - Tps - beta*gG)

'Calculate dimensionless time "tD" 'DTime = (ra ^ 2) / (4 * alpha * time) DTime = (-1 * ra ^ 2) / (4 * alpha * time) 'Calculate dimensionless time function "f(tD)" DTimeFunc = 0.5 * ExpInt(DTime) / Exp(DTime) sigma = mRate * cfl * ((kF + ra * Ua * DTimeFunc) / (2 * Pie * ra * Ua * kF)) 'Compute "gammaOne" and "gammaTwo" gammaOne = (beta + ((beta ^ 2) + 4 * sigma * beta) ^ (1 / 2)) / (2 * sigma * beta) gammaTwo = (beta - ((beta ^ 2) + 4 * sigma * beta) ^ (1 / 2)) / (2 * sigma * beta) 'Compute "COne" and "CTwo" COne = (gG - (Exp(gammaTwo * TVD) * gammaTwo * Tdiff)) / (gammaTwo * Exp(gammaTwo * TVD) - gammaOne * Exp(gammaOne * TVD)) CTwo = (-1 * gG + (Exp(gammaOne * TVD) * gammaOne * Tdiff)) / (gammaTwo * Exp(gammaTwo * TVD) - gammaOne * Exp(gammaOne * TVD)) 'COne = (gG + (Exp(gammaTwo * TVD) * gammaTwo * Tdiff)) / (gammaTwo * Exp(gammaTwo * TVD) - gammaOne * Exp(gammaOne * TVD)) 'CTwo = (gG + (Exp(gammaOne * TVD) * gammaOne * Tdiff)) / (-gammaTwo * Exp(gammaTwo * TVD) + gammaOne * Exp(gammaOne * TVD)) End Sub Public Sub AnalyticalComputeTemp(z As Double) 'Computes temperature in the drill pipe and annulus at a particular depth TAnnulus = AnalyticalAnnularTemp(z) TPipe = AnalyticalPipeTemp(z)

134

End Sub Private Function AnalyticalAnnularTemp(Depth As Double) As Double 'Computes the temperature in the annulus at a particular depth AnalyticalAnnularTemp = (1 + beta * gammaOne) * COne * Exp(gammaOne * Depth) + (1 + beta * gammaTwo) * CTwo * Exp(gammaTwo * Depth) + gG * Depth + TFs End Function Private Function AnalyticalPipeTemp(Depth As Double) As Double 'Computes the temperature inside the drill pipe at a particular depth AnalyticalPipeTemp = COne * Exp(gammaOne * Depth) + CTwo * Exp(gammaTwo * Depth) + gG * Depth + TFs - beta * gG End Function Public Function ReynoldsNum(rho As Double, v As Double, D As Double, mu As Double) As Double 'Computes the Reynold's number 'density (rho) is in lb/gal, velocity (v) is in ft/hr, equivalent diameter (D) is in ft 'apparent viscosity (mu) is in lb/ft-hr ReynoldsNum = (7.48 * rho * v * D) / mu End Function Private Function NusseltNum(Re As Double, Pr As Double, D As Double, L As Double) As Double 'This function computes the Nusselt number 'Re & Pr - dimensionless 'D - ft 'L - ft If L = 0 Then L = DeltaZ / 2 End If If Re < 2300 And L / D < (8 / (Re / Pr)) Then 'Seider and Tate(1936) correlation - Laminar NusseltNum = 1.86 * (Re * Pr * (D / L)) ^ (1 / 3) ElseIf Re < 2300 And L / D > (8 / (Re / Pr)) Then

135

NusseltNum = 6.49 ElseIf ((2300 <= Re) And (Re <= 10000)) Then 'Hausen(1943) correlation - Transition NusseltNum = 0.116 * ((Re ^ (2 / 3)) - 125) * (Pr ^ (1 / 3)) * (1 + (D / L) ^ (2 / 3)) ElseIf Re > 10000 Then 'Seider & Tate(1936) correlation - Turbulent NusseltNum = 0.027 * (Re ^ 0.8) * (Pr ^ (1 / 3)) End If End Function Public Function FrictionFactor(Re, Roughness, Diameter) As Double 'The friction factor is computed using the Swamme and Jain correlation If Re < 2300 Then FrictionFactor = 64 / Re Else FrictionFactor = 1.325 / (NatLg((Roughness / Diameter) / 3.7) + (5.74 / (Re ^ 0.9))) ^ 2 End If End Function Public Function PressureDrop(Re As Double, Diameter As Double, Roughness As Double _ , L As Double, rho As Double, v As Double) As Double 'Re- Reynold's # 'D - diameter in question (ft) 'e - Pipe roughness (ft) Dim F As Double If Re < 2100 Then F = 64 / Re Else F = 1.325 / (NatLg((Roughness / Diameter) / 3.7) + (5.74 / (Re ^ 0.9))) ^ 2 'f = (0.79 * NatLg(Re) - 1.64) ^ (-2) End If PressureDrop = F * rho * (L / Diameter) * (v ^ 2) * 7.48 / (2 * 32.174 * (3600 ^ 2) * (12 ^ 2))

136

End Function Private Function WaterDensity(T As Double, P As Double) As Double 'This function computes the water density at the given temperature and pressure 'The correlation used in this function was obtained from Sorelle (1982) 'This function gives water density in lb/gal 'P - psi, T - oF WaterDensity = 8.63186 + (-3.31977 * 10 ^ -3) * T + (2.3717 * 10 ^ -5) * P End Function Private Function OilDensity(T As Double, P As Double) As Double 'This function computes the oil density at the given temperature and pressure 'The correlation used in this function was obtained from Politte (1985) 'This function gives density in (g/cm^3) 'P - psi, T - oF OilDensity = 0.8807 + 1.5235 * (10 ^ -9) * P * T + 1.2806 * (10 ^ -6) * P _ + 1.0719 * (10 ^ -10) * (P ^ 2) + (-0.00036) * T _ + (-5.167 * 10 ^ -8) * T ^ 2 End Function Private Function OilViscosity(T As Double, P As Double) As Double 'This function computes the oil phase viscosity at the given temperature and pressure in "cp" 'P - psi, T - oF Dim A As Double Dim B As Double Dim C As Double Dim D As Double Dim E As Double Dim F As Double Dim G As Double A = -23.1888 B = -0.00148 C = -0.9501 D = -1.9776 * 10 ^ -8 E = 3.3416 * 10 ^ -5 F = 14.6767 G = 10.9973

137

OilViscosity = P * ((T * P) ^ C) * 10 ^ (A + B * T + D * T * P + E * P + F * OilDensity(T, P) + G / OilDensity(T, P)) End Function Public Function MudDensity(T As Double, P As Double) As Double 'This function Computes the mud density in lb/gal at the given temperature 'and pressure using the compositional model 'P - psi, T - oF MudDensity = RefMudDensity / (1 + OilFraction * ((OilDensity(RefTemp, RefPress) / (OilDensity(T, P))) - 1) + WaterFraction * ((WaterDensity(RefTemp, RefPress) / WaterDensity(T, P)) - 1)) End Function Public Function MudPlasticViscosity(T As Double, P As Double) As Double 'This function computes the plastic viscosity of the mud at the given temperature and pressure 'in centipoise (cp) 'P - psi, T - oF MudPlasticViscosity = RefMudPlasticViscosity * OilViscosity(T, P) / OilViscosity(RefTemp, RefPress) End Function Public Function MudYieldValue(T As Double, P As Double) As Double 'This function computes the yield value at the given temperature and pressure 'in lbf/100ft^2 'P - psi, T - oF Dim A As Double Dim B As Double Dim C As Double A = -0.186 B = 145.054 C = -3410.322 If T >= 90 Then MudYieldValue = RefMudYieldValue * (A + B * (T ^ -1) + C * (T ^ -2)) / (A + B * (RefTemp ^ -1) + C * (RefTemp ^ -2)) Else MudYieldValue = RefMudYieldValue

138

End If End Function Public Function ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(T As Double, P As Double, L As Double _ , D1 As Double, D2 As Double) As Double 'This function computes the heat transfer coefficient 'T - oF, P - psi, L - ft, D - ft Dim rho As Double Dim mu As Double Dim velocity As Double Dim Re As Double Dim Pr As Double Dim Nu As Double 'Compute fluid density in lb/gal 'rho = MudDensity(T, P) rho = RefMudDensity 'Compute fluid viscosity in lb/ft-hr 'mu = 2.42 * MudPlasticViscosity(T, P) mu = 2.42 * RefMudPlasticViscosity 'Compute fluid velocity in ft/hr velocity = 4 * mRate / (7.48 * 3.142 * (D1 ^ 2) * rho) 'Compute Reynold's # Re = ReynoldsNum(rho, velocity, D1, mu) 'Compute Prandtl # Pr = mu * cfl / kfl 'Compute Nusselt # Nu = NusseltNum(Re, Pr, D1, L) 'Compute heat transfer coefficient ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff = Nu * kfl / D2 End Function Public Sub InitializeGrid(FormTemp() As Double, PipeTemp() As Double, AnnTemp() As Double, PipePress() As Double, Annpress() As Double, rhoP() As Double, rhoA() As Double, imax As Integer, jMax As Integer)

139

Dim i As Integer Dim j As Integer Dim hi As Double 'Set initial conditions in the formation and annulus i.e. n = 0 PipePress(0) = 14.7 Annpress(0) = 14.7 For i = 0 To imax For j = 0 To jMax FormTemp(i, j) = TFs + gG * i * DeltaZ Next j

PipeTemp(i) = TFs + gG * i * DeltaZ AnnTemp(i) = TFs + gG * i * DeltaZ 'Specific well initial conditions 'PipeTemp(i) = 134.7 + 0.0047 * i * DeltaZ 'AnnTemp(i) = 134.7 + 0.0047 * i * DeltaZ

'Set the initial hydrostatic pressure profile in the wellbore If i > 0 Then rhoP(i - 1) = MudDensity(PipeTemp(i - 1), PipePress(i - 1)) rhoA(i - 1) = MudDensity(AnnTemp(i - 1), Annpress(i - 1)) PipePress(i) = PipePress(i - 1) + 0.052 * rhoP(i - 1) * DeltaZ Annpress(i) = Annpress(i - 1) + 0.052 * rhoA(i - 1) * DeltaZ End If Next i End Sub Public Sub EvaluateFormation(FormTemp() As Double, FormTempN() As Double _ , AnnTemp() As Double, AnnTempN() As Double, Annpress() As Double, AnnpressN() As Double _ , imax As Integer, jMax As Integer, store() As Double) 'This sub evaluates temperature in the formation and at the formation boundary Dim A() As Double Dim B() As Double Dim C() As Double

140

Dim D() As Double Dim X() As Double Dim E() As Double Dim F As Double Dim G() As Double Dim H As Double Dim K() As Double Dim L As Double Dim Q As Double Dim Uaa As Double Dim i As Integer Dim j As Integer ReDim A(jMax) ReDim B(jMax) ReDim C(jMax) ReDim D(jMax) ReDim X(jMax) ReDim E(jMax) ReDim G(jMax) ReDim K(jMax) 'Store the old guess for Tf(i,0,n+1) For i = 0 To imax store(i) = FormTempN(i, 0) Next i F = 1 + alpha * ar L = 1 - alpha * ar H = 1 + 2 * alpha * ar Q = 1 - 2 * alpha * ar For i = 0 To imax Uaa = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(AnnTempN(i), AnnpressN(i), ((100 - i) * DeltaZ), de _ , de) 'This is for a specific cased hole with cement Uaa = ((1 / Uaa) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(5.5 / 4.892) / (2 * Pie * kp * DeltaZ)) _

141

+ (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(6.108 / 5.5) / (2 * Pie * kcement * DeltaZ))) ^ (-1) 'Uaa = Ua 'construct matrix equation for formation at particular depth coordinate i For j = 0 To jMax If j = 0 Then A(j) = 0 B(j) = H + alpha * ar * 2 * DeltaR * Uaa / kF C(j) = -2 * alpha * ar D(j) = (alpha * ar * 2 * DeltaR * Uaa / kF) * AnnTemp(i) _ + (Q - alpha * ar * 2 * DeltaR * Uaa / kF) * FormTemp(i, j) _ + (2 * alpha * ar) * FormTemp(i, (j + 1)) _ + (alpha * ar * 2 * DeltaR * Uaa / kF) * AnnTempN(i) ElseIf j = jMax Then 'A(j) = 0 'B(j) = 1 'C(j) = 0 'D(j) = TFs + (gG * i * DeltaZ) E(j) = ar * alpha * ((1 / (4 * j)) - 1 / 2) G(j) = ar * alpha * (-(1 / (4 * j)) - 1 / 2) K(j) = ar * alpha * (-(1 / (4 * j)) + 1 / 2) A(j) = E(j) B(j) = F C(j) = 0 D(j) = K(j) * FormTemp(i, (j - 1)) + L * FormTemp(i, j) _ + (-G(j)) * (TFs + (gG * i * DeltaZ)) - G(j) * (TFs + (gG * i * DeltaZ)) Else E(j) = ar * alpha * ((1 / (4 * j)) - 1 / 2) G(j) = ar * alpha * (-(1 / (4 * j)) - 1 / 2) K(j) = ar * alpha * (-(1 / (4 * j)) + 1 / 2) A(j) = E(j) B(j) = F C(j) = G(j) D(j) = K(j) * FormTemp(i, (j - 1)) + L * FormTemp(i, j) _ + (-G(j)) * FormTemp(i, (j + 1)) End If

142

Next j ThomasAlgorithm A, B, C, D, X, jMax 'update the temperature in the formation grid For j = 0 To jMax FormTempN(i, j) = X(j) Next j Next i

End Sub Public Sub EvaluateAnnulus(FormTemp() As Double, FormTempN() As Double _ , PipeTemp() As Double, PipeTempN() As Double, AnnTemp() As Double, AnnTempN() As Double _ , PipePress() As Double, PipePressN() As Double, Annpress() As Double _ , AnnpressN() As Double, imax As Integer, store() As Double)

Dim A() As Double Dim B() As Double Dim C() As Double Dim D() As Double Dim X() As Double Dim E As Double Dim F As Double Dim G As Double Dim H As Double Dim L As Double Dim M As Double Dim i As Integer Dim UaaN As Double Dim UppN As Double Dim hoN As Double Dim hiN As Double Dim Uaa As Double Dim Upp As Double Dim ho As Double Dim hi As Double 'These parameters will be used to compute the bottom-hole

143

'annular temperature Dim Re As Double Dim mi As Double Dim fa As Double Dim so As Double Dim theta As Double ReDim A(imax) ReDim B(imax) ReDim C(imax) ReDim D(imax) ReDim X(imax)

'Store the old guess for Ta(i,n+1) For i = 0 To imax store(i) = AnnTempN(i) Next i E = mRate * cfl / (2 * DeltaZ) 'The following computes the bottom-hole annular temperature theta = 2 / 3 UaaN = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(AnnTempN(imax), AnnpressN(imax), ((200 - imax) * DeltaZ) _ , de, de) 'This is for a specific cased hole UaaN = ((1 / UaaN) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(5.5 / 4.892) / (2 * Pie * kp * DeltaZ)) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(6.108 / 5.5) / (2 * Pie * kcement * DeltaZ))) ^ (1) 'UaaN = Ua Re = mRate * cfl mi = Pie * ra * UaaN * DeltaZ

fa = 7.48 * MudDensity(AnnTemp(imax), Annpress(imax)) * Pie * (ra ^ 2) * DeltaZ * cfl _

144

/ (2 * DeltaT) 'fa = 7.48 * RefMudDensity * Pie * (ra ^ 2) * DeltaZ * cfl / (2 * DeltaT) so = Re * theta * PipeTempN(imax - 1) + Re * (1 - theta) * PipeTemp(imax 1) _ + mi * theta * FormTempN(imax, 0) + mi * (1 - theta) * FormTemp(imax, 0) _ + (-Re * (1 - theta) - mi * (1 - theta) + fa) * AnnTemp(imax) AnnTempN(imax) = so / (Re * theta + mi * theta + fa) For i = 0 To (imax - 1) 'These are the heat transfer coefficients at the current time-step UaaN = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(AnnTempN(i), AnnpressN(i), ((200 - i) * DeltaZ) _ , de, de) 'This is for a specific cased hole UaaN = ((1 / UaaN) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(5.5 / 4.892) / (2 * Pie * kp * DeltaZ)) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(6.108 / 5.5) / (2 * Pie * kcement * DeltaZ))) ^ (-1) hoN = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(AnnTempN(i), AnnpressN(i), ((100 - i) * DeltaZ) _ , de, de) hiN = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(PipeTempN(i), PipePressN(i), (i * DeltaZ) _ , (2 * rpi), (2 * rpi))

UppN = ((1 / hiN) + (Pie * (rpi ^ 2) / (hoN * Pie * rp ^ 2)) _ + Pie * (rpi ^ 2) * NatLg(rp / rpi) / (2 * Pie * kp * DeltaZ)) ^ (-1)

'These are the heat transfer coefficients at the previous time-step Uaa = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(AnnTemp(i), Annpress(i) _ , ((200 - i) * DeltaZ), de, 2 * ra) 'This is for a specific cased hole Uaa = ((1 / Uaa) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(5.5 / 4.892) / (2 * Pie * kp * DeltaZ)) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(6.108 / 5.5) / (2 * Pie * kcement * DeltaZ))) ^ (-1)

145

ho = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(AnnTemp(i), Annpress(i) _ , ((100 - i) * DeltaZ), de, 2 * rp) hi = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(PipeTemp(i), PipePress(i), (i * DeltaZ), 2 * rpi _ , 2 * rpi) Upp = ((1 / hi) + (Pie * (rpi ^ 2) / (ho * Pie * rp ^ 2)) _ + Pie * (rpi ^ 2) * NatLg(rp / rpi) / (2 * Pie * kp * DeltaZ)) ^ (-1)

'Uaa = Ua 'UaaN = Ua 'Upp = Up 'UppN = Up F = 2 * Pie * ra * UaaN

G = 2 * Pie * rp * UppN

H = 7.48 * MudDensity(AnnTempN(i), AnnpressN(i)) * Pie _ * ((ra ^ 2) - (rp ^ 2)) * cfl / (DeltaT) 'H = 7.48 * RefMudDensity * Pie * ((ra ^ 2) - (rp ^ 2)) * cfl / (DeltaT) L = 2 * Pie * ra * Uaa

M = 2 * Pie * rp * Upp

Select Case i Case 0 A(i) = 0 B(i) = F * theta + G * theta + H C(i) = -E * theta D(i) = -E * (1 - theta) * (AnnTemp(i) - 2) _ + (H - L * (1 - theta) - M * (1 - theta)) * AnnTemp(i) _ + E * (1 - theta) * AnnTemp(i + 1) + L * (1 - theta) * FormTemp(i, 0) _ + M * (1 - theta) * PipeTemp(i) + F * theta * FormTempN(i, 0) _ + G * theta * PipeTempN(i) - E * theta * (AnnTempN(i) - 1)

146

Case (imax - 1) A(i) = E * theta B(i) = F * theta + G * theta + H C(i) = 0 D(i) = -E * (1 - theta) * AnnTemp(i - 1) _ + (H - L * (1 - theta) - M * (1 - theta)) * AnnTemp(i) _ + E * (1 - theta) * AnnTemp(i + 1) + L * (1 - theta) * FormTemp(i, 0) _ + M * (1 - theta) * PipeTemp(i) + F * theta * FormTempN(i, 0) _ + G * theta * PipeTempN(i) + E * theta * AnnTempN(imax) Case Else A(i) = E * theta B(i) = F * theta + G * theta + H C(i) = -E * theta D(i) = -E * (1 - theta) * AnnTemp(i - 1) _ + (H - L * (1 - theta) - M * (1 - theta)) * AnnTemp(i) _ + E * (1 - theta) * AnnTemp(i + 1) + L * (1 - theta) * FormTemp(i, 0) _ + M * (1 - theta) * PipeTemp(i) + F * theta * FormTempN(i, 0) _ + G * theta * PipeTempN(i) End Select Next i ThomasAlgorithm A, B, C, D, X, (imax - 1) 'Update annulus temperature in finite difference grid For i = 0 To (imax - 1) AnnTempN(i) = X(i) Next i End Sub Public Sub EvaluatePipe(FormTemp() As Double, FormTempN() As Double, PipeTemp() As Double _ , PipeTempN() As Double, PipePress() As Double, PipePressN() As Double _ , AnnTemp() As Double, AnnTempN() As Double, Annpress() As Double, AnnpressN() As Double _ , imax As Integer) Dim A() As Double Dim B() As Double Dim C() As Double Dim D() As Double Dim X() As Double

147

Dim E As Double Dim F As Double Dim G As Double Dim H As Double Dim L As Double Dim M As Double Dim mi As Double 'This parameter is used to weight the numerical solution ' at the bottom of the hole. A value of half gives the 'Crank-Nicholoson scheme Dim theta As Double Dim i As Integer Dim Uaa As Double Dim Upp As Double Dim ho As Double Dim hi As Double ReDim A(imax) ReDim B(imax) ReDim C(imax) ReDim D(imax) ReDim X(imax)

theta = 2 / 3 E = mRate * cfl / (2 * DeltaZ) 'Store the old guess for Tp(i,n+1) 'For i = 0 To iMax ' store(i) = PipeTemp(i, n) 'Next i 'This sets the inflow pipe temperature PipeTempN(0) = Tps For i = 1 To imax ho = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(AnnTemp(i), Annpress(i), (i * DeltaZ), de, de)

148

hi = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(PipeTemp(i), PipePress(i), (i * DeltaZ), 2 * rpi _ , 2 * rpi)

Upp = ((1 / hi) + (Pie * (rpi ^ 2) / (ho * Pie * rp ^ 2)) _ + Pie * (rpi ^ 2) * NatLg(rp / rpi) / (2 * Pie * kp * i * DeltaZ)) ^ (-1) 'Upp = Up F = 7.48 * MudDensity(PipeTempN(i), PipePressN(i)) * Pie * (rp ^ 2) * cfl _ / (DeltaT) 'F = 7.48 * RefMudDensity * Pie * (rp ^ 2) * cfl / (DeltaT) G = 2 * Pie * rp * Upp H = 2 * Pie * rp * Upp

Select Case i Case 1 A(i - 1) = 0 B(i - 1) = F + G * theta C(i - 1) = E * theta D(i - 1) = E * (1 - theta) * PipeTemp(i - 1) + (F - H * (1 - theta)) * PipeTemp(i) _ - E * (1 - theta) * PipeTemp(i + 1) + H * (1 - theta) * AnnTemp(i) _ + G * theta * AnnTempN(i) + E * theta * PipeTempN(i - 1) Case imax Uaa = ConvectiveHeatTransCoeff(AnnTemp(i), Annpress(i) _ , ((200 - i) * DeltaZ), de, 2 * ra) 'This is for a specific cased hole Uaa = ((1 / Uaa) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(5.5 / 4.892) / (2 * Pie * kp * DeltaZ)) _ + (Pie * (4.892 ^ 2) * NatLg(6.108 / 5.5) / (2 * Pie * kcement * DeltaZ))) ^ (-1) 'Uaa = Ua L = mRate * cfl

149

M = 7.48 * MudDensity(PipeTempN(i), PipePressN(i)) * Pie * (ra ^ 2) * DeltaZ _ * cfl / 2 * DeltaT 'M = 7.48 * RefMudDensity * Pie * (ra ^ 2) * DeltaZ * cfl / 2 * DeltaT mi = Pie * ra * Uaa * DeltaZ

A(i - 1) = theta * L B(i - 1) = -theta * L - M C(i - 1) = 0 D(i - 1) = -(1 - theta) * L * PipeTemp(i - 1) + ((1 - theta) * L - M) _ * PipeTemp(i) - mi * theta * FormTempN(i, 0) _ - mi * (1 - theta) * FormTemp(i, 0) + mi * theta * AnnTempN(i) _ + mi * (1 - theta) * AnnTemp(i) Case Else A(i - 1) = -E * theta B(i - 1) = F + G * theta C(i - 1) = E * theta D(i - 1) = E * (1 - theta) * PipeTemp(i - 1) _ + (F - H * (1 - theta)) * PipeTemp(i) _ - E * (1 - theta) * PipeTemp(i + 1) _ + H * (1 - theta) * AnnTemp(i) + G * theta * AnnTempN(i) End Select Next i ThomasAlgorithm A, B, C, D, X, (imax - 1) 'Update pipe temperature in finite difference grid For i = 0 To (imax - 1) PipeTempN(i + 1) = X(i) Next i End Sub

150