OTC 7537

Tubing Temperature Correlations for Injection and Production

Based on Simulation and Field Experience
Peter Erpelding and R.A. Miller, Oil Technology Services Inc.

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/94OTC/All-94OTC/OTC-7537-MS/1969879/otc-7537-ms.pdf/1 by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology user on 12 October 2021
Copyright 1994, Offshore Technology Conference

This peper was presented at the 26th Annual OTC in Houston, Texes, U.S. A.,2-5 May t994.

This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of information contained In an abstract submitted by the author(a). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference end are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented. d~s not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technolofw Conference or its officers. Permission to COPYIs restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied, The abstract
should centaln conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper IS prasanted.

ABSTRACT savings. In other situations, an engineer may need to predict

the temperatures resulting from an increase in flow rate, or
A finite difference model was developed and used to perhaps predict the temperatures for a fracture stimulation
simulate transient heat transfer in wells undergoing injection on a well for which production data is atready available.
and production processes. The tubing temperature profiles The equations presented here can be used to accurately
from these simulations were then reduced to a set of predict the temperatures resulting from such operations.
algebraic equations to provide simple and effective
temperature versus depth and temperature versus time
estimates. Results from field tests are also presented and PROCEDURE
compared in order to validate the finite difference model.
In order to develop a method to quickIy estimate tubing
INTRODUCTION temperatures during injection and production, it was
necessary to identify the most sensitive input variables so
Accurate temperature prediction for dowuhole tubulars has that an appropriate correlation could be formulated. Using
become increasingly important due to the potential cost the finite difference model, the significant variables were
savings associated with more preeise optimization of string found to ix the volumetric flow rate, depth, time,
design. Much of the attention in the literature has focused undisturbed static temperature profile, well geometry,
on accurate cementing temperature modeIs, while very little flowing fluid properties, and formation thermal properties.
mention has been given to fracture stimulation or production Results from field tests were also compared in order to
temperature predictions. validate the finite difference model. A sample of the
comparisons are presented in Table-1.
In an effort to predict tubing temperature profiles during
injection and production, an axisymmetric finite difference A modified version of the injection model proposed by
model was developed. The model was developed following Rameyl was used as the basis for providing the tubing
Wmd.ard finite difference practices and provides the ability to temperature profiles. The model was modified by replacing
accurately simulate virtually any well configuration under
any sequence of flowing or static conditions. However,
numerical simulation requires substantial input, and Table-1 Comp arisen of FD Model With Field Tests
accuracy can only be assured if all input parameters are Well Inj. or Well Time Measured Finite
known. In certain situations, though, an engineer may find Prod. Depth (hr) Surface Difference
that a usable finite difference code or accurate well thermal (ft) Temp. (F) Temp. (F)
properties are unavailable. In these eases, good correlations 1 Prod. 6,000 55 200 198
can provide similar results at substantial cost and time 2 Prod. 12,500 0.5 120 125
2 Prod. 12,500 15.0 145 141
2 Prod. 12,500 16.5 Iq5 127
References and figures at end of paper

257
2 TUBING TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR INJECTION AND PRODUCTION OTC 7537
BASED ON SIMULATION AND FIELD EXPERIENCE

the analytical time function with a function predicted by the

finite difference simulations. The model was further
simplified by allowing the overall heat transfer coefficient to
f(t)= a+blog
[)
:
rO
...................................... (7)

be infinite (see Appendix), thus allowing the wellbore Evaluation of the time function parameters a and b we~
thermal effects to be included in the time function. An determined by running over 500 finite difference models on
equivalent model for production was also developed (see 10 individual wells. The resulting surface temperatures from
Appendix) and shares the same time function as the injection each sequence of finite difference runs was then used to back
model. The following equations result: calculate the respective time function parameters. A
sequence was defined by 12 time stations from 6 to 480
Tubing temperatures during injection of a liquid as a hours. Volumetric flow rate, fluid type, tubing size, packer
function of depth and time can be predicted using: fluid undisturbed temperature gradient, surface temperature,

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/94OTC/All-94OTC/OTC-7537-MS/1969879/otc-7537-ms.pdf/1 by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology user on 12 October 2021
and well geometry were all varied for each well. Table-2
T(z, t)=~m– GA+(~–~+GA)e-”A ............... (1) summarizes the results from this data and lists the most
appropriate time function parameters as a function of well
geometry. The range for time function parameter a was 0.1
For injection of a gas:
to 3.0 and was highly dependent on the well geometry.
Wells having a high percentage of insulating materials or

()
T(z, t)=7&-A G+—
gcJCp
fluids had values toward the high end of this range.
range for time function parameter b was between 1.2 and
The

/?
+[’”~+4G+g:Jl c
~-zlA
.. .. .. .. .. ... .. . . (2)
1.3.

Table-2 Time Function Parameters

Prod. Casing Packer a b
Cement Top Fluid
Equations 1-2 were developed by Rameyl are presented here ~oyc o.~o
WB 1.25
for completeness. Similarly, tubing temperatures during 1.25
50% WB 0.50
production of a liquid as a function of depth and time can be
100%’ WB 0.70 1.25
predicted using:
50% Diesel 2.8 1.25
T(z, t) = q,O + GA

+[TBH-(T$ + G:D)- GA]e(’-zDyA.................. (3) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For production of a gas: One of the most interesting aspects uncovered was that each
well analyzed had its own thermal fingerprint which could
be expressed in terms of the time function pammeters. Once
T(z, t)=~eO+A
[) G–L
geJCp
determined, these parameters could be used to accurately
predict the time-depth-temperature history of that well for

+ TBH-(~+GzD)+A
[ [ ‘.
g:Cp
G
)1 e(Z-ZD~A
.. (4)
injection or production, using any fluid or gas flowing
through any tubing diameter. For example, if tie time
function parameters had been determined for a specific well
while producing gas through a 3.5 inch tubiug string, those
whenx parameters remained unchanged while injecting water down
the same well with a 2.375 inch tubing string. It should be
A = rncpf(t) noted that the packer fluid may not be changed since its
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) properties are imbedded in the time function parameters.
2xke Figure-1 best illustrates the well signature concept. Here,
injection and production data for a single well with different
combinations of flow rate, tubing diameter, and flowing
~eo=q+G7 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. (6) media are plotted so that the time function can be visuallv.
seen. The ‘data can be seen to fall along a straight line and
thus define the time function and thermal behavior of the
well during injection and production processes.

258
OTC 7537 P. ERPELDING AND R. A. MILLER 3

EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
Two examples have been developed to illustrate the use of
the methods presented in this paper. Although, both
examples involve gas production, similar examples could
have been generated for injection of a liquid or gas, or
production of a liquid. The only difference would be that
Eqns. 1, 2, or 3 respectively, would have been used in place
of Eqn. 4.
T(0,168) = 174 “F
The finite difference result for this example is
175 ‘F.
Ew.uk=2
Consider gas production from a 14,500 ft well with a gas
composition such that the density at STP is 0.0497 lbndftq.
The density of the gas at a reservoir temperature of 284 “F
and pressure of 10,500 psi is 17.0 lbm/ft3. The specific heat
capacity at bottom hole conditions is 0.616 Btu/lbm-F. The

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/94OTC/All-94OTC/OTC-7537-MS/1969879/otc-7537-ms.pdf/1 by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology user on 12 October 2021
production rate is 45 MMCFD, the surface temperature is 60
Consider gas production from a 15,000 ft well having a “F, and the geothermal gradient is 0.016 OF/ft. The
composition of 82% methane, 9% Ethane, and 9% C02. production casing string is cemented 50% of its length. A
The production rate is 20 MMCFD, the surface temperature 12 ppg water based packer fluid surrounds a’ 4.5” 15.1 ppf
is 60 “F, and the geothermal gradient is 0.015 OF/ft. The tubing string. Production data for this well is provided in
well consists of conductor, surface, protective, and Table-3. Determine the time function parameters a and b for
production casing strings. The production casing string is this well.
cemented 20% of its length. A 10 ppg water based packer
fluid surrounds a 3.5”9.2 ppf tubing string. The reservoir Table-3 Production Data
temperature is 285 ‘F and reservoir pressure is 11,300 psi. Time (hr) Measured Surface
Estimate the flowing temperature at the surface after the well Temperature (“F)
has been producing for 1 week ( 168 hours).
1 6 1 174 I
Solution: The density of the garr mixture is 0.052 lhm/ft3 at I 12
I 188 I
168 I 215
STP and 19.3 lbm/ft3 at 11,300 psi and 285 “F. The specific
heat capacity at 285 “F is 0.58 Btu/lbm-F . (See Reidz for 720 222
determination of these values).
Solution:
~- ~~ (. 92)
=0. 022 Determine ~ for each measured temperature. For
p,c,, = (140)(. 3) ro-
example, at t=6 hc

~(168)= 0.2+( 1.25) log at (. 022)(6) = s 75

[(:2:~:fi’)=30 ~rO-= (4.5/24)’ .
ti~=pnP(MMCFD)(41667)
rn = Psrp(MMCFD)(41667)

in = (. 052)(20)(41667)= 43300
it =(.0497)(45)(41667)=93 190
~ = (43300)(. 58)(3.0)= ~3030
~ = (93190 )(.616 )f(t) = ~930j(l)
2n(0.92)
2n(0.92)
Since gas is being produced, use Eqn. 4:
Since gas is being produced, use Eqn. 4:
1
T(0,168) =60+13030 .015– T(O, f)=60+9930~(I) .016- 1
(778)(.58) )

+ 285 – 285 + 13030

[

( (778;(.58)
_.
“~)1 5 #1-lsxw13mo
+ 284 – 292 + 9930f(t)
(
[

1
(770(.616)
(778)(.616) )

–, 016 # lJ~lA’Jof,~,
)1
[ [

259
4 TUBING TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR INJECTION AND PRODUCTION
BASED ON SIMULATION AND FIELD EXPERIENCE
For t=6 hc
1 e = base of natural logarithm
174 =60+ 9930~(6) .016 -
( (778)(.616) )
[&145C0
+ 284 – 292 + 9930f (6) 1 –.016 e
[ [ (778)(.616) )]
Using an iterative method, the solution is:
f(6)=l .19
Continue this sequence for the remaining data points. The
results are summarized in Table-4.
Table-4 Reduction of Production Data
I Time (III-) I f(t) I W
y STP= 60 “F &14.65 psia
r.
6 1.19 3.75
12 1.56 7.48
168 3.o~ 105
7’20 3.79 449
Plotting the results in Table-4 on a semi-log scale yields
Figure-2. The resulting parameters are 0.475 and 1.25 for a
and b, respectively. These parameters could then be used to
accurately predict the production or injection temperatures
for this well with any combination of tubing string, flowing
fluid (liquid or gas), and flow rate.
CONCLUSIONS
Using minimal data, the equations presented can be used to
provide a good estimate of the tubing temperature profiles as
a function of time during injection and production. With the
availability of field data, users can also develop well specific
time functions to describe the thermal behavior of a
particular well with great confidence. However, the methods
presented here are not a complete solution to the temperature
prediction problem. Accuracy decreases when injection and
production events occur over short periods of time (< 3
hours). In addition, the equations presented do not allow for
flow sequencing, or prediction of shut-in periods. Reliable
temperature predictions for these conditions requires a finite
difference or finite element model.
NOMENCLATURE
A = general function defined by Eqn. 5 (ft)
a = time function parameter (defined in Table-2)
b = time function parameter (defined in Table-2)
CP = specific heat of flowing fluid (Btu/lbm-°F)
OTC 7537
CP = specific heat of earth (Btu/tbm-”F)
f(t) = time function defined by Eqn. 7
G = geothermal gradient (°F/ft)
)b9?30f(6)
/? = acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/s2)
$3. = conversion factor (32.2 lbm-ft/lbf-s2)
J = conversion factor (778 ft-lbf/Btu)
~ = conductivity of earth (Btu/hr-ft-F)
log = log lo (base 10)
m = mass flow rate (ibm/hr)
P = pressure (lbf/ft2)
ppf = pound per foot
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/94OTC/All-94OTC/OTC-7537-MS/1969879/otc-7537-ms.pdf/1 by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology user on 12 October 2021
Q = heat transfer rate (Btu/hr)
q = heat transfer (Btu/ibm)
r = inside radius of tubing (ft)
I rO = outside radius of tubing (ft)
Ss = steady state
t = injection or production time (hr)
T = temperature of fluid in tubing (“F)
TB~= reservoir temperature (production only) (*F)
TgeO=undisturbed formation temperature (“F)
Ti = fluid inlet temperature (injection only) (“F)
T, = geothermal surface temperature (“F)
T1 = temperature of outside casing string (“F)
U = overall heat transfer coefficient (Btu/hr-ft2-F)
u = internal energy (Btu/ibm)
~ = specific volume (ft3/tbm)
z = depth below surface (ft)
ZD = depth of producing intervat (ft)
(x = earth thermal diffusivity = ke/peC~ (ft2/hr)
pe = density of earth (ibm/ft3)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the management of Oil Technology Services, Inc.
for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES
1. Ramey, H.J.: “Wellbore Heat Transmission,” JPT (April,
1962) 427-435.
2. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M. and Sherwood, T.K.: The
Properties of Gases and Liqttid.s, McGraw-Hill, (1977).
260
OTC 7537 P. ERPELDING AND R. A. MILLER 5

P7=RT
d(PV) = RdT dh=CpdT ....................... (A-4)
APPENDIX
Cv+R=Cp 1
Consider gas production at a known flow rate through the
tubing with the surface of the well corresponding to zero Reduction of the energy equation yields:
depth. An analytical expression for temperature as a
function of depth and time can be obtained using Ramey’sl I’ilg(ik
method. @=-riKpdT+- ...................... ........ (A–5)
gcJ

r+ Heat transfer from the well into the fluid is:

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/94OTC/All-94OTC/OTC-7537-MS/1969879/otc-7537-ms.pdf/1 by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology user on 12 October 2021
z
1 i5Q= 2xrU(~ - T)dz .............................. .. (A-6)

rn[h+(-dh): Heat transfer from the formation into the well is:

I 2nk,(Tg,0 -q )dz
r ~Q. .............................. (A-7)
L

D
f(t)

T dz Fluid Combining Eqns. A-5, A-6, and A-7 leads to the following
geo @- T
T geo ODE:

7 .
?’
dT T
———
&A=A
-~e.
— ●
—g
gcJCp
.............................. (A-8)

mh
‘1 ‘1 where a Iineaf function is substituted for the undisturbed
temperature:

The energy equation for a single phase gas undergoing T~,0=~i-G7 . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . (A -9)
steady-flow in a pipe is:
and the general function A is:

dQ+ti2h-fi2[12
+(-dh)]+~g;j~’
=0 ......... (A- 1) A = K’p[k, + r(.lf
(t)]
.............................. (A - 10)
2xrUk,

The overall heat transfer coefficient (U) considers the net

resistance to beat flow resulting from the tubing and casing
By definition, enthalpy is: strings as well as the fluids and cements that occupy the
annuli of these strings. Evaluation of this parameter is the
dh = du + d(PV) ........................................ (A -2) most difficult step when using Ramey’s model, since heat
transfer coefficients must be determined and material
where: thermal properties utilized. In addition, since casing and
tubing strings are generally not all set to the same depth, the
dti=CidT. ................................................ (A-3) overall heat transfer coefficient is really a function of depth.
Thus, the determination of some type of average overall heat
For an ideal gas: transfer coefficient is required. In an effort to obtain a
simplified prediction method, the overall heat transfer
coefficient was assumed to be infinite. This reduces Eqn. A-
10 to;

261
6 TUBING TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR INJECTION AND PRODUCTION OTC 7537
BASED ON SIMULATION AND FIELD EXPERIENCE

* = ii’lcpj-(t)
.......................................... (A-11) For injection of an incompressible liquid:
2nk,

Setting the overall heat transfer coefficient to an infinite g+~= T.. A#O I. F.=etiA ....... (A-16) a
value does not imply that the thermal effects of the wellbore dzA~’
are ignored. Instead the thermal effects of the wellbore have
been accounted for in the time function (Eqn. 7). For injection of a single phase gas:

The solution is obtained by multiplying Eqn. A-8 by the

dT:vLo ——_ g
integrating factor (e-dA), and integrating over the A#O I. F.=etiA (A-17)
dz AA gcJCp ‘
appropriate boundary condition (temperature at the bottom of

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/94OTC/All-94OTC/OTC-7537-MS/1969879/otc-7537-ms.pdf/1 by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology user on 12 October 2021
the well at depth z~ is TB~):
For production of an incompressible liquid:

~~zDd(T,-”A)=~[($)e-”A dT T —
——— -~e.
A#O l. F.=e-tiA ..... (A-18)
dZA=A’
_(~)zez’A+[&)e-z’A]dz
. ............ (A-1.2)

Integration yields the following solution:

T(z, t)= T8,0i-A

()G–L
gcJCp

+TBH-(~ )1
[
+GzO)+A
(
--&-G e’:””y’ ... (A-14)

Equations 1-3 can be derived in a similar manner. The

major difference is in the treatment of the euthalpy term for
an incompressible liquid when developing Eqns. 1 and 3.

dh=CvdT+~=CpdT,~ .......... ..... (A-15,

J J

For liquid flow down the well, the increase in enthalpy due
to an increase in pressure is offset by the decrease in
potential energy of the liquid. For tlow up the well, the
decrease in enthalpy due to deaeasing pressure is offset by
the increase in potential energy of the liquid. The ultimate
result is that the liquid potential energy term cancels with
=Jn
the $ term in enthalpy. The differential equations and
integrating factors for development of Eqns. 1-3 are
summarized.

262
OTC 7537 P. ERPELDING AND R. A. MILLER 7

4.5

3.8

f(t) 3.1

2.4

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/94OTC/All-94OTC/OTC-7537-MS/1969879/otc-7537-ms.pdf/1 by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology user on 12 October 2021
1.7

1
1 10 at
100
—
<2

Figure-1 Time Function for Infection and Production witi

Various Tubing Sizes and Flow Rates

3.8 I t

3.4

3
f(t)= o.475+l.2510g
()
;
o

f(t) 2.6

2.2

1.8

1.4

1 1 I
1 10 100 1000
at

Figure-2 Development of Time Function Parameters

263
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/OTCONF/proceedings-pdf/94OTC/All-94OTC/OTC-7537-MS/1969879/otc-7537-ms.pdf/1 by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology user on 12 October 2021