Some Practical Considerations in the Design
of Steam Injection Wells
Robert C. Earlougher, Jr., SPE-AIME, Marathon Oil Co.
Introduction
Normally, completion of a steam injection well must
be designed so saturated steam can be injected into
an oil reservoir at the desired rate, pressure (or tem-
perature, since one determines the other) and heat
content. It is also necessary to prevent thermal dam-
age to wellbore equipment during the steam injection
process. To achieve this, both heat loss and pressure
change effects must be considered. Pressure change
in the injection string includes frictional pressure
drop, pressure increase due to the weight of the steam
column (static pressure change), and pressure change
due to change in fluid velocity (kinetic energy
change). Heat is lost to the surrounding wellbore
equipment and to the earth due to the high tempera-
ture of the steam. Generally it is desirable to design
the completion so that the cost of heat lost is mini-
mized and so the casing temperature is kept low
enough to prevent casing damage.
Willhite and Dietrlch1 ,2 as well as Leutwyler and
Bigelow3 have discussed the effects of high tempera-
ture on casing. For laterally supported casing, Will-
hite and Dietrlch1 propose that the completion be
designed so the thermal compressive stress will be
less than the yield point 'of the casing.
To calculate casing temperature and casing stress
it is necessary to calculate the heat lost by the injected
steam. Satter has presented a depth-step method for
calculating heat loss and steam quality for saturated
steam as a function of depth. Since Satter assumed
no pressure change with depth, he assumed, in effect,
In planning the completion and injection program for a steam injection well, it is important
to consider the effects of fluid dynamics and heat loss on the wellbore and on the steam so
that steam with the desired properties will reach the formation and so that wellbore
equipment will not be damaged.
JANUARY, 1969
that the temperature of the injected saturated steam
remains constant, and that only the quality varies
with depth. Holst and Flock5 improved the accuracy
of the heat loss calculation by including the effects of
frictional pressure drop in the injection string. How-
ever, they neglected static pressure change.
In this paper steam and casing conditions are pre-
sented as functions of depth for several steam injec-
tion and well completion situations. This information,
which has been obtained from heat 10ss calculations,
is used to indicate the types and magnitude of various
problems that should be considered in designing com-
pletions for steam (or any hot fluid) injection wells.
The technique used for calculating heat loss and
down-hole conditions is described briefly in the
Appendix.
Conditions During Stearn Injection
Heat loss calculations have been used to investigate
the effects of well completion on steam injection well
behavior. Figs. 1 through 4 show down-hole condi-
tions for five different completion schemes. These
figures apply after one week of injection of 500 psia,
467F, 80 percent quality steam (surface conditions)
at 6,000 Ib Ihr. Table 1 gives the physical charac-
teristics of the injection well. Table 2 gives comple-
tion details for the five cases shown in Figs. 1 through
4. For convenience in showing calculated results for
the completion conditions involved, the low injection
rate is used. At higher rates the frictional pressure
79
drop becomes so great that steam cannot be injected TABLE 1 - PROPERTIES USED FOR THE
to the depths considered in Figs. 1 through 4. (Fig. 1 STEAM INJECTION WELL
shows saturated steam pressure and temperature as Inner tubing 10, in. 1.995
Inner tubing DO, in. 2.375
functions of depth. Heat injection efficiency is pre- Second tubing (concentric with first tubing) 10. in. 3.548
sented as a function of depth in Fig. 2. Steam quality Second tubing 00. in. 4.000
is shown as a function of depth in Fig. 3, while Fig. 4 Casing 10, in. 6.171
shows casing stress as a function of depth for each Casing DO, in. 6.875
completion method.) Wellbore diameter. in. 8.000
From Fig. 1 it is evident that significant pressure Thermal conductivity of tubular goods.
change occurs in the injection string, and that this Btu/(hr ft OF) 25.0
Thermal conductivity of cement, Btu/(hr ft OF)
change is dependent on completion details. Case 1 Normal cement 0.3
shows the greatest pressure drop. This is to be ex- Insulating cement 0.1
pected since the heat loss for Case 1 is the lowest of EmissiVity of all pipe surfaces 0.9
the five cases (Fig. 2) and thus the quality is the Thermal diffusivity of the earth. sq ft/hr 0.04
highest (Fig. 3). With an increase in steam quality Thermal conductivity of the earth, Btu/(hr ft ° F) 1.40
the specific volume of the steam VT increases, causing Surface geothermal temperature, OF 60.0
the static pressure increase to become smaller (Eq. Geothermal temperature gradient. ° F/ft 0.011
1) and the frictional pressure drop to become larger Steam pressure at wellhead. psia 500.0
(Eq. 2). As a result the pressure decreases more for Steam temperature at wellhead. OF 467.0
Well is cemented to surface, casing is not free to expand.
high quality steam than for low quality steam. As the All tubing strings are free to expand.
heat loss is increased (Cases 2 and 3), the quality is
decreased, and therefore the pressure drop is smaller.
Thus decreasing the heat loss could result in a bottom- the steam quality falls so low in this interval that the
hole pressure that is too low to maintain the desired static pressure increase exceeds the pressure drop
injection rate. In this case it would be necessary to caused by friction. Thus the pressure starts increasing.
change injection conditions. The rate could be de- Also in Case 4 the steam quality becomes zero at
creased, the quality decreased, the pressure increased, about 3,750 ft, so only hot water can be injected
or the tubing size increased. below that depth. In Case 5, in which injection is
Curve 4 of Fig. 1 shows that between 2,300 and through 6.171-in. ID casing rather than through the
2,400 ft the steam pressure stops decreasing and 1.995-in. ID tubing used for the other cases, the fric-
starts increasing. Due to the high heat loss in Case 4 tional pressure loss is never great enough to exceed

SATURATED STEAM TEMPERATURE, of

420 430 440 450 460 467 500
On-.,....,,....,.-,-.,-...,.,-,--nrr-r-r--------, Or-------,------.,.-------"

1000 1000

~ 2000 ~ 2000
LLJ w
LLJ
u..
w
u..
£~ £
~
Q. Q.
W W
C
3000 c 3000

X" l,x
,/

, '" HOT
,/ X
,/ ,
,,?~T£1i'
4000
,, ,, 4lioo / / HOT
I~W.4T£1i'
,, ,,
, ,
,, ,, I
1 1
1
,, ,, 1 /
I I
I I
5000 L.:~~L-L._--L_-.J_L-..L-...L-~'..L_l.....,j 5000 ........'--- ---l '---L..-'L ..J
~ ~ @ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 50 ~ ~
STEAM PRESSURE, PS IA PERCENT OF SUPPLIED HEAT REACHING DEPTH
Fig. I-Steam pressure and temperature as a function Fig. 2-Heatinjection efficiency as a function of depth
of depth for the five cases described in Table 2. Conditions for the five cases given in Table 2. Conditions of Table 1
of Table 1 apply. Results occur after 1 week of steam injec- and Fig. 1 apply.
tion at 6,000 Ib/hr, 500 psia. 467F. 80 percent quality.
Temperature scale does not apply for dashed lines.

80 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 TABLE 2 - COMPLETION DETAILS USED FOR CASES IN FIGS. 1 THROUGH 4
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Number of tubing
strings within the 2 1 1 1 o
casing*
Packer(s) used? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Injection through inner tubing tubing tubing tubing casing
Material in tubing· nitrogen at nitrogen at nitrogen at water
tubing and tubing· atmospheric atmospheric atmospheric at high
casing annuli pressure pressure pressure pressure
Type of cement
between casing normal insulating normal normal normal
and formation
*Multiple tubing strings are concentric.

the static pressure increase. This occurs because the
casing is large (note from Eq. 2 that ApF is propor-
tional to rt -5), and because heat loss for injection
through casing is high, which causes the steam quality
to be low. In this case the steam is completely con-
densed at about 3,370 ft. In Cases 4 and 5 it is clear
that incorrect results would be obtained in heat loss
calculations if the static pressure increase were
neglected.
In Fig. 4 the thermally induced casing stress is
shown as a function of depth. This stress, which is
compressive since the casing is not free to expand, is
in addition to any stress - normally, tensile stress
due to the weight of the pipe plus any imposed tensile
stress - existing in the casing prior to steam injec-
tion. Fig. 4 shows that the stress level is higher for
Case 2 than for Case 3 although more heat is lost in
Case 3 than in Case 2 (Fig. 2). The stress level is
high in Case 2 because heat loss has been reduced by
the use of insulating cement. (Note in Table 2 that
the only difference in Cases 2 and 3 is that insulating
cement is used in Case 2 while normal cement is used
in Case 3.) Thus, while the insulating cement does
decrease heat loss, it also increases the thermal casing
stress. If the maximum compressive stress permitted
in the casing were 40,000 psi, then the casing might
have to be protected in Case 2, while there would be
no problem in Cases 1 and 3. The casing could be pro-
tected by using tubing insulation of some type above
2,000 ft, by setting the casing with approximately
5,000 psi tension, by lowering the injection tempera-
ture (and hence pressure), or by upgrading the cas-
ing. Case 2 illustrates that insulating cement, or any
insulating medium outside casing that is not free to
expand, may be a poor way to reduce heat loss. A
comparison of Case 1, in which the tubing is insulated
by a second concentric tubing string used as a heat
shield, and Case 3 shows that tubing insulation not
only decreases heat losses, but also decreases the
casing stress level.

Or---,.---,----r---,.--,....--.--,.--~

1000 1000

I- 2000 2000
w ~
...
w
...w
-% £
l- l-
n. n.
w w
c 3000 Q 3000

/
///'
4000 4000
,,"//
/ / " " , HOT
" ;" 'WATER
""
"""".""
5000 '--_-'-_....I-_-'-../.---u'--...LJ_ _.l..-_..L-_...J ""
soool-_L.---lL.-...L.iL-L..L..JiL----I_---l_-..L._--l
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 OB o 20 40 60 80
3
STEAM QUALITY. MASS FRACTION OF VAPOR COMPRESSIVE CASING STRESS. PSI X 10
Fig. 3-Steam quality as a function of depth for the five Fig. 4--Casing stress as a function of depth for the five
cases given in Table 2. Conditions of Table 1 and Fig. 1 cases given in Table 2. Conditions of Table 1 and Fig. 1
apply. apply.

JANUARY, 1969 81
 In Cases 4 and 5 there would be a serious threat with decreasing quality. Fig. 5 shows that steam
to the casing unless it could withstand stress in excess quality at the wellhead would have to be less than 48
of about 75,000 psi. In these cases it would be neces- percent to maintain a bottom-hole pressure of about
sary either to use N-80 casing or to set J-55 with 150 psia while injecting at a rate of 18,000 Ib/hr.
about 20,000 psi of initial tensile stress to avoid the Higher quality steam could be injected if frictional
risk of failure presented by such high stress levels. pressure losses were decreased by using larger di-
In both cases the casing stress falls off sharply after ameter tubing, or if the wellhead pressure were
the hot water point is reached because the tempera- increased.
ture of the water decreases rapidly due to loss of For the conditions of Fig. 5 suppose it is desired
sensible heat. that steam enter the formation at about 400F. Then
Cases 4 and 5 show the dangers inherent in inject- for an injection rate of 18,000 Ib/hr the wellhead
ing steam through tubing with water in the annulus, steam quality would have to be about 40 percent,
and in injecting through casing. If in Case 4 the water while quality would have to be about 66 percent for
were displaced from the annulus with high pressure a rate of 14,000 Ib/hr. Fig. 6 indicates that about
nitrogen, the maximum casing stress would be re- 12.9 X 106 Btu/hr would be injected for the 18,000
duced to about 52,300 psi. Also, about 47 percent Ib/hr 40 percent case, while 12.8 X 106 Btu/hr
of the supplied heat would reach 5,000 ft, and steam, would be injected for the 14,000 Ib/hr 66 percent
rather than hot water, would exist at 5,000 ft. Thus case. (Heat content for Fig. 6 is calculated from a
performance would be greatly improved at small ex- base of 32F.) Although a small cost saving can be
pense by using high pressure nitrogen in the annulus. realized (essentially the price of 11.4 bbl of water
The advantage of using a packer and low pressure and 0.13 Mcf of gas per hour) by injecting at a
nitrogen is indicated by Case 3. When designing low rate, this is not the only reason for choosing
steam injection well completions, calculations such the low rate. This can be seen by further consid-
as those illustrated in Figs. 1 through 4 will allow a ering the heat entering the formation. If formation
choice of conditions so steam can be injected at the temperature is 80F the amount of useful heat (heat
desired rate with low heat loss and small chance of above 80F) entering the formation is about 11.6 X
damage to the casing. 106 Btu/hr for each injection case. Yet the quality
The effect of steam injection rate and quality on of the steam entering the formation for the low rate
steam pressure and temperature at 1,000 ft is shown case is about 66 percent, while it is only 43 percent
in Fig. 5. For a given rate the pressure at a given for the high rate case. As a result of these quality
depth increases (total pressure drop decreases) as the differences the rate of injection of latent heat is about
quality of the injected steam decreases. This is what 7.5 X 106 Btu/hr for the low rate case, an increase
one would expect from Eqs. 1 and 2 since VT decreases of about 17 percent over the 6.4 X 106 Btu/hr for

550 , . - - - , . . . - - , - - , - - - . . , - - , - - - , - - , - - - - ,

16,.----,-----.---,....---,----,-----,--,--...,

460
450 ::- ~
..... 14
<[

........
:;)
V>
0-
...
~
I-
m
~ 12
..:
...
... 440 0
0
2
.....
IJJ
~ 350 IJJ
lL. 10
~
~ o
~
420 ~
~
...a: ::>
I-
li 8
...
<[

::> a: IJJ

...a:
~ 250

0-
400 ~
...
I-
li
a: 6
::E 380 ~
~
...
<[

l-
V>
...
I-
V>
l-
e.:>
!":J 4
150
360 ~

340
li
~ 2
320

50 L-_L.-_L.-_.L..L_-'--_-'--_-'--_-'-_-'
~ ~ M M
STEAM QUALITY AT WELLHEAD, MASS FRACTION VAPOR
Fig. 5--Steam pressure and temperature at I,OOO-ft depth
after 1 week of injection, as a function of injection rate
and quality. Conditions of Table 1 apply; one tubing string
with low pressure nitrogen annulus and normal cement.
Steam injected at 500 psia and 467F.
OL.---'-------I..._----:L-_....L...-_....J.-_----L_ _-'--_...J
~ ~ M ~ ~ W
STEAM QUALITY AT WELLHEAD, MASS FRACTION VAPOR
Fig. 6--Heat injection rate at I,OOO-ft depth after 1 week
of injection as a function of rate and quality. Conditions of
Fig. 5 apply. Base temperature for heat rates is 32F.

82 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

 the high rate case. Because more latent heat is avail-
able in the low injection rate case than in the high
rate case and because the transfer of latent heat
causes only condensation of the steam, without a
temperature drop, the steam temperature in the for-
mation will remain higher longer for the low rate case.
Thus, if high temperature is advantageous the 14,000
lb/hr, 66 percent quality injection case should be
chosen. If it is desired to inject heat at a significantly
higher rate than can be obtained from these condi-
tions and still maintain the 400F bottom-hole tem-
perature, it would be necessary to decrease frictional
losses or to increase the wellhead injection pressure.
Although this discussion applies to a single situa-
tion, it does illustrate an approach to one important
facet of steam injection design. Figures such as Figs.
5 and 6 can be used to choose optimum injection
conditions for a given well completion or to help
design a well completion so that desired injection
conditions can be attained.
The previous examples demonstrate that pressure
change during the injection of steam may have sig-
nificant effects on injection well and steam conditions.
In many instances, such as in Cases 4 and 5 of Figs.
1 through 4, the pressure increase due to fluid head
is as important as the frictional pressure drop. An
indication of the relative magnitude of the static pres-
sure increase and the frictional pressure drop is given
in Fig. 7. Only absolute values are used in Fig. 7. The
conditions of Table 1 apply except that tubing ID
varies and tubing OD is 4.5 in. (to minimize the
effect of differences in heat loss for various tubing
sizes). The annulus contains low pressure nitrogen.
Although kinetic effects· are included with the static
pressure increase, their magnitude is less than 1 per-
cent of the static pressure change for the conditions
used. As Fig. 7 shows, the absolute value of the ratio
of static-plus-kinetic pressure change to frictional
pressure drop decreases: (1) as the injection quality
increases, (2) as the injection rate increases, and (3)
as the tubing ID decreases. That is, the static pressure
increase is small compared with the frictional pres-
sure drop for the cases where frictional effects are
severe. An indication of how severe conditions must
be is given by Fig. 8, which shows the loci of points
for which the ratio of static pressure change to fric-
tional pressure change is 0.25, 0.5 or 1.0. This figure,
which is constructed from data given in Fig. 7, dem-
onstrates that the static pressure increase is negligible
only in a very limited set of circumstances. For the
conditions used for Fig. 8 and for injection at 6,000
lb/hr, the ratio of static pressure increase to fric-
tional pressure drop is greater than 0.5 (error in cal-
culated pressure change is greater than 100 percent
if only friction is considered) for almost all realistic
combinations of quality and tubing size. This would
seem to be an unacceptable error except in cases
where the total pressure change itself is very small.
For the 14,000 lb/hr case there is a larger region
in which the static pressure might be neglected; the
0.10 static-frictional ratio line would fall approxi-
mately halfway between the two 6,000 lb/hr lines.
Fig. 8 indicates that, in general, it is unwise to include
only frictional pressure changes in steam injection
calculations. Fig. 8 may also be interpreted to show
when frictional pressure drop is small compared with

500 .......- - . . . . . - - -.....----r---,-----,

a...
<l -INJECTION OUALlTY=OeO ......... a::
...J ---INJECTION OUALlTY=065 , ....... , / ~ 1.0 .....-----,,...------,-----r----r---,
~ ----INJECTION OUALlTY=050 / ' , " / " ~
-~ " ,
-
ff:
10.0

I~~"/
"
,/
,
, /'

..-
~
i=
/ I
I
I

~ 08
g 5.0 01]/ y.~,/ ,".. a::
u.
a... oJS" 0 \..~/r..~ ......, ... ' /,"-
<l "C'R.' .. , ~
s.2 ,/'~~o I~J"'/ ../ ' 2: 0.6
~ ,',/ oo~'i" ~~/ ci
<
:ii2 1.0 , / , / \A~/9~/Y.~ UJ
:::t:
~ /'/~frll,,0
...J
,/ ...J

~ 05 ," \ACW ~ 04
~ ,/ / !ci
u. " >- RATIO OF
o ", / STATIC + KINETIC LJP
~ 02
o
~.
a:: 01 "/ ,
" <
~
o
2:
<
UJ
TO FRICTIONAL LJP
025---
050 -------
1.00 _
0 L-_ _...L-_ _....J..._ - ---L
005 L..-_ _....L..._ _--l. .L-_ _....L..._ _--'
.l--_~

2.0 2.5 3.0 35 4.0 4.5 t:; 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
TUBING 1.0., INCHES TUBING 1.0., INCHES
Fig. 7-Absolute value of the ratio of static-plus-kinetic Fig. 8--Absolute value of the ratio of static·plus-kinetic
pressure change to frictional pressure change in 1,000 ft pressure change to frictional pressure change for various
for various injection rates, steam qualities and tubing wellhead steam conditions and tubing sizes. Conditions
sizes. Results occur after 1 week of injection of 500 psia, of Fig. 7 apply.
467F steam. Conditions of Table 1 apply except that tub-
ing 00 = 4.5 in. and 10 is as shown; low pressure nitro-
gen annulus and normal cement.

JANUARY, 1969 83
 static pressure increase. As might be expected, for
low injection rates, low quality, and large tubing ID,
the effects of friction could be neglected.
Plots such as Pigs. 7 and 8 show only the relative
sizes of static and frictional pressure changes. These
figures give no indication of whether the total pres-
sure change is 1 or 100 psi, and thus are of little value
when used alone. When the static pressure increase
just cancels the frictional pressure drop, which occurs
for conditions along the 1.0 line in Fig. 8, there is no
pressure change at all at the 1,000 ft depth. Por very
small total pressure change it is probably safe to neg-
lect pressure change completely. Pig. 9 gives an indi-
cation of when pressure change might be safely neg-
lected. The same conditions are used as in Figs. 7 and
8, but results are shown for only the 14,000 lbjhr
injection rate. The solid lines indicate net pressure
drops of 10 percent, 5 percent, and 2 percent of the
injection pressure (500 psia) at a depth of 1,000 ft.
The dashed line indicates a net pressure increase of
2 percent (static effects dominate frictional effects).
If the point defining tubing ID and injection quality
falls between the two 2-percent lines, then the pres-
sure drop would be less than 2 percent and probably
could be safely neglected. This occurs only for a, fairly
narrow range of conditions. Clearly the zero pressure
change line corresponds to the situation, depicted in
Pigs. 7 and 8, in which the ratio of static to frictional
effects is 1.0. Although graphs such as Pig. 9 could
be presented for a series of conditions it does not
appear worthwhile to include them here. The impor-
tant thing to realize is that for most situations neither
static nor frictional pressure changes can be neglected
in steam injection heat-loss calculations.
Conclusions
Although a variety of examples have been given to
show the effects of injection and completion details
0::
~ 1.0 ,.----r----,---......,..---"T"""----,
~ defined by R amey dimensionless
Z
o
i=
~ 0.8
0::
u-
rn
~ (hr ft °P)
:::E 0.6
c:i
« p = pressure, psia
lJJ
:::I:
-J
LJ:1 0.4
~
!cc
>-
....
:::::i 0.2
« - PRESSURE DROP
:::>
o ---- PRESSURE INCREASE
:::E
1:1 0 L..-_ _......L.. .l...-_ _- L ...I-_ _--J
t; 2.0 25 3.0 3.5 4.0
TUBING 1.0.• INCHES
Fig. 9-Pressure change in 1,000 ft as a function of well-
head quality and tubing size for injection at 14,000 Ib/hr.
Conditions of Fig. 7 apply.
84
on the conditions existing in a steam injection well-
bore, the possibilities have barely been touched. The
material presented in this paper applies specifically
only to the situations studied. However, an approach
similar to that presented may be used to study any
specific situation. Indeed, to plan a completion-injec-
tion program for which conditions are significantly
different from the one used in this paper it would be
best to make the heat loss calculations for that sys-
tem. The following conclusions may be drawn about
the cases studied.
1. Heat loss may be reduced significantly by in-
sulating the wellbore in one of several ways. If this
is done with insulating cement the temperature of the
casing is increased and casing stress develops. This
would not occur if insulation were used between the
tubing and the casing.
2. Well completion and injection conditions (tub-
ing size, insulation, and injection pressure, tempera-
ture, rate and quality) significantly affect the down-
hole properties of the steam. It is important to try to
control heat loss and pressure change because they
both have a major effect on steam conditions and on
casing stress level.
3. Generally, pressure change cannot be safely neg-
lected in calculating heat transfer from the injected
steam. Except in special circumstances, it is as im-
portant to include static pressure change as to include
frictional pressure drop. In fact, static pressure change
may be important even when frictional changes are
not.
4. Because of changes in steam properties caused
by changes in pressure in the injection string it could
be advantageous to inject steam at a lower rate than
anticipated. In this case the lower rate would be
chosen such that as much as possible of the heat
injected is latent heat of vaporization.
Nomenclature
Ce= specific heat of the earth, Btuj (lb OP)
f = Moody friction factor, dimensionless
FCtD) = transient heat-conduction time function as
9,
h = specific enthalpy, Btujlb
HL = Hagedorn and Brown liquid hold-up fac-
tor (Eq. 4), dimensionless
k he = thermal conductivity of the earth, Btuj
N Re = Reynolds number (Eq. 3), dimensionless
6.pr = frictional pressure drop (Eq. 2), psia
.
6.Qj = heat loss rate over the interval6.Zj, Btujhr
r =radial distance, ft
t = time since start of injection, hr
tD = dimensionless time (Eq. 6)
T f = formation geothermal temperature, 0p
T. =steam temperature, 0p
T w = temperature at formation face, 0p
Uc = over-all heat transfer coefficient based on
4.5
outer casing radius, Btuj (hr sq ft OP)
v = specific volume, cu ftjlb
w = mass rate of steam injection, Ibjhr
x = steam quality, mass fraction vapor
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 t:.zj= length of depth interval, ft
pe = density of the earth, Ib/cu ft
fL = viscosity, cp
Subscripts
c = casing
j = depth
l = liquid phase (such as specific volume of
the liquid phase)
t = tubing
T = total, as specific volume of the total fluid
v = vapor phase (such as specific volume of
the vapor phase)
w = wellbore
References
1. Willhite, G. Paul and Dietrich, William K: "Design
Criteria for Completion of Steam Injection Wells", J. Pet.
Tech. (Jan., 1967) 15-21.
2. Dietrich, William K and Willhite, G. Paul: "The Casing
Failure Problem in Steam Injection Wells, Cat Canyon
Oil Field, Santa Barbara, California", ASME Preprint
66-PET-38, New Orleans, Sept. 18-21, 1966.
3. Leutwyler, K and Bigelow, H. L.: "Temperature Effects
on Subsurface Equipment in Steam Injection Systems",
J. Pet. Tech. (Jan., 1965) 93-101.
4. Satter, A.: "Heat Losses During Flow of Stearn Down a
Wellbore", J. Pet. Tech. (July, 1965) 845-851. .
5. Holst, P. H. and Flock, D. L.: "Wellbore Behavior
During Saturated Stearn Injection", J. Cdn. Pet. Tech.
(Oct.-Dec., 1966) 184.
6. Hagedorn, Alton R. and Brown, Kermit E.: "Experi-
mental Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During
Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical
Conduits", J. Pet. Tech. (Apr., 1965) 475-484.
7. Bergelin, O. P., Kegel, P. K, Carpenter, F. G. and Gaz-
ley, Carl, Jr.: "Co-Current Gas-Liquid Flow n. Flow in
Vertical Tubes", Proc., Heat Transfer and Fluid Mech.
Institute, ASME (June 22-24, 1949) 19.
8. Katz, D. L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettrnann,
F. H., Vary, J. A., Elenbaas, J. R. and Weinaug, C. F.:
Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York (1959) 301-304.
9. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Wellbore Heat Transmission", J. Pet.
Tech (Apr., 1962) 427-435.
10. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "How to Calculate Heat Transmission
in Hot Fluid Injection", Pet. Eng. (Nov., 1964) 11 O.
11. Willhite, G. P., Jr.: "Over-all Heat Transfer Coefficients
in Stearn and Hot Water Injection Wells", J. Pet. Tech.
(May, 1967) 607-615.
APPENDIX
Technique for Calculating Steam
Conditions
The method used for calculating heat losses and
downhole conditions is similar to the depth-step tech-
nique used by Satter. 4 However, we have extended
Satter's method to include the effects of pressure
changes in the injection string, and the effect of the
casing and cement on heat transfer. We have also
allowed for the possibility of having tubing insulation
and concentric tubing strings act as radiation shields.
To make the calculation the wellbore is divided
into a series of depth increments. Steam properties at
the bottom of a depth interval are calculated from the
properties at the top of the interval for each depth
interval at each desired time. Steam properties at the
top of the interval are known from the calculation
for the interval above, or from the specified injection
conditions for the first interval. Calculation of heat
loss forms the basis of the procedure. Casing tempera-
JANUARY, 1969
tures, and hence casing stresses, may be calculated
for each interval once heat loss is known. For a given
interval, the following are calculated as outlined later:
(1) the pressure at the bottom of the interval, (2)
the heat loss over the interval and the temperatures
at the bottom of the interval, and (3) the steam
quality at the bottom of the interval. Only the calcula-
tion for saturated steam is presented here; the tech-
nique for superheated steam or for hot water is sim-
ilar and may be derived from the material presented
in the references.
Pressure Change Calculations
It is assumed that the pressure changes can be calcu-
lated from the fluid properties at the top of the in-
terval and that this can be done independently of the
heat transfer calculation. By applying Bernoulli's
equation the pressure at the bottom of the interval is
calculated
Pi+1 = Pi + [1.687 X 10- 1
% (V7',i - VT. ;+1) ; , : ]
+ -3
6.944 X 10 -
~Zi] - ,~P",i' . . (1)
[
VT, i
where:
~Zj = length of depth interval from j to j+ 1, ft
~PF = frictional pressure drop over interval,
psia
The subscripts j and j + 1 refer to the top and bottom
of the interval, respectively.
The first term in brackets in Eq. 1 is the pressure
change due to kinetic energy change. Since the specific
volume of the steam at the bottom of the interval is
required to calculate this quantity, a simple iterative
calculation must be used. In most cases the magnitude
of this term is less than 1 percent of the magnitude of
the other terms. The second term in brackets is the
pressure increase due to the weight of the fluid
column.
The frictional pressure drop term ~PF, j may be
calculated in one of several ways. Most published
techniques for calculating frictional pressure losses
in two-phase pipe flow apply only for horizontal flow
or for upward vertical flow. However, the approaches
of Hagedorn and Brown6 and of Bergelin, Kegel, Car-
penter and Gazley' may be applied to downward
flow. The data presented by Bergelin et at. apply
only for flow rates that, in general, are much lower
than those used in steam injection projects. Thus the
Hagedorn and Brown technique is used. It is assumed
that there is no slippage between the phases for steam
injection. Hagedorn and Brown indicate that this is
a reasonable assumption when the Reynolds number
exceeds lOG, which is normal for steam injection.
Nevertheless, the calculation is used even when the
Reynolds number is less than 106 , as one would ex-
pect the downward flow of the fluids to reduce slip-
page between the phases.
Using the Hagedorn and Brown calculation for the
steam injection case, we get
85

The Moody friction factor f may be obtained from
charts such as those given by Katz. 8 To use these
charts for Eq. 2 the Reynolds number must be cal-
culated from
0.2632 W
N Re = r, p., HLp..('-H
L) · · · · · ·
For the case of zero slippage H L may be written as
(l-x)v ,
HL = (4)
VT
Any frictional pressure drop calculation may be used
in place of Eq. 2. The particular technique used will
not affect the calculation method significantly, al-
though the results could be quite different. If and
when good techniques become available for calculat-
ing frictional pressure drop in downward flow of a
condensing two-phase system, they should be used
here.
Heat Loss Calculation
For the saturated steam case the steam temperature
at the bottom of the interval is uniquely determined
by the steam pressure. If the fluid is either super-
heated steam or hot water its temperature at the bot-
tom of the interval may. be calculated as explained
by Ramey.9,10 For saturated steam Ramey's tech-
nique for calculating heat loss is used in the following
form:
• 27l'k•• r.U. Az;
AQ;= k + U F( ) X[O.5(T.,;+T',i+')
he rc c tn
-O.5(T",+T",+,)] . . . . .
where:
Ts,i = steam temperature at top of interval, OF
Tj , i = formation geothermal temperature at top
of interval, of
The over-all heat transfer coefficient is calculated in
a manner similar to that presented by Willhite. 11 The
dimensionless time used in obtaining the transient
heat-conduction time function is defined as
. . (6)
The temperature at the formation face may be
calculated
T .. '+' = r.U.F(tD)T.,,+1 + k•• T";+,, .. (7)
, k•• + r.U. F(tD)
(3) where T w, i+1 is the temperature at the formation face
at the bottom of the interval in OF.
The temperature of the various pipe strings in the
hole, specifically of the casing, may be calculated by
using the known heat flux and Fourier's law of heat
conduction.
Steam Quality Calculation
The steam quality at the bottom of the interval is
calculated from a heat balance using the known heat
loss rate.
x;(h.,; - h,,;) + h", - h" ,+1- AQ,/w
.
X;+1 = h (1.1+1 - h l, j+t '
. . . . . . . . (8)
where:
Xi+l = steam quality at bottom of interval, mass
fraction vapor,
hv , i = specific enthalpy of vapor phase of steam
at top of interval, Btu/lb,
h!, i = specific enthalpy of liquid phase of steam
at top of interval, Btu/lb.
If all of the steam condenses in the interval, spe-
cial calculations must be made for the resulting hot
water system. The material presented here is from
(5)
runs of the computer program used to make th05e
calculations. JPT
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
office June 20, 1968. Revised manuscript received Nov. 15, 1968.
Paper (SPE 2202) was presented at SPE 43rd Annual Fall Meeting
held in Houston, Tex., Sept. 29·0et. 2, 1968; and at SPE 39th
Annual California Fall Regional Meeting held in Bakersfield, Calif.,
Nov. 7·8, 1968. © Copyright 1969 American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper will be printed in Transactions volume 246, which
will cover 1969.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY