UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Development of a Standalone Thermal Wellbore Simulator

by

Wanqiang Xiong

W
IE
A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

EV
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

PR

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN CHEMICAL AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

CALGARY, ALBERTA

DECEMBER, 2014

© Wanqiang Xiong 2014

 ProQuest Number: 1605770

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
EV
ProQuest 1605770

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

PR

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Abstract

With continuous developments of various different sophisticated wells in the petroleum

industry, wellbore modeling and simulation have increasingly received more attention. Especially

in unconventional oil and gas recovery processes, there is a growing demand for more accurate

wellbore modeling. Despite notable advancements made in wellbore modeling, none of the

existing wellbore simulators has been as successful as reservoir simulators such as Eclipse and

CMG’s and further research works on handling issues such as accurate heat loss modeling and

multi-tubing wellbore modeling are really necessary.

A series of mathematical equations including main governing equations, auxiliary

W
equations, PVT equations, thermodynamic equations, drift-flux model equations, and wellbore
IE
heat loss calculation equations are collected and screened from publications. Based on these

modeling equations, workflows for wellbore simulation and software development are proposed.
EV
Research works are conducted in key steps for developing a wellbore simulator: discretization, a

grid system, a solution method, a linear equation solver, and computer language.
PR

A standalone thermal wellbore simulator is developed by using standard C++ language.

This wellbore simulator can simulate single-phase injection and production, two-phase steam

injection and two-phase oil and water production. By implementing a multi-part scheme which

divides a wellbore with sophisticated configuration into several relative simple simulation running

units, this simulator can handle different complex wellbores: wellbore with multistage casings,

horizontal wells, multilateral wells and double tubing.

In pursuance of improved accuracy of heat loss calculations to surrounding formations, a

semi-numerical method is proposed and a series of FLUENT simulations have been conducted in

this study. This semi-numerical method involves extending the 2D formation heat transfer

ii
simulation to include a casing wall and cement and adopting new correlations regressed by this

study. Meanwhile, a correlation for handling heat transfer in double-tubing annulus is regressed.

This work initiates the research on heat transfer in a double-tubing wellbore system.

A series of validation and test works are performed in hot water injection, steam injection,

real filed data, a horizontal well, a double-tubing well and comparison with the Ramey method.

The program in this study also performs well in matching with real measured field data, simulation

in horizontal wells and double-tubing wells.

W
IE
EV
PR

iii
 Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Zhangxing

(John) Chen for his time, guidance and support throughout my MSc studies at the University of

Calgary. As the leader of the Reservoir Simulation Group, he has not only directed our research

works by his outstanding knowledge and incredible talent but also has behaved as a role model for

us by his charming personality.

I would also like to express sincerest thanks to my examining committee members, Dr.

Shengnan (Nancy) Chen, Dr. Jalel Azaiez and Dr. Qiao Sun for their time and comments.

I would like to extend my sincerest thanks and appreciations to Dr. Mehdi Bahonar and Dr.

W
Chao Dong from ConocoPhillips Canada for their invaluable support and advice on my research works.
IE
They always have the right direction guidelines and meticulous suggestions to every aspect of my

research.
EV
My sincere gratitude is extended to Ms. Viera Oballa from CMG Ltd. for her smart ideas and

kind help to me. I also want to thank Ms. Jamie McInnis and Ms. Fengyue Lin for their excellent

organization and management for our research works.

PR

I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to my family for giving me the opportunity to

pursue my dreams and realize them. Without their encouragement and support, I would not have put

my heart and soul into my research completely.

I also want to thank my friends, in particular, Hui Deng, Xia Bao, Tianlin Zhang, Xiaoduan

Ye, Bo Yang, Qiong Wang, Jinze Xu, Menglu Lin, Yueying Lu, Qingmao Li, He Zhong, Kun Wang,

and Jia Luo for their friendship and kind help. The friendships with them provide me a nice studying

and living environment and are one of such precious things for me.

iv
 Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures and Illustrations ......................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................1

1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................1
1.2 Literature Review ......................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 2: WELLBORE MODELING ........................................................................13

2.1 Governing Equations of Fluid Flow in Tubing or Annulus.....................................13
2.1.1 Mass Conservation Equation...........................................................................14
2.1.2 Momentum Conservation Equation .................................................................16
2.1.3 Energy Conservation Equation........................................................................19

W
2.1.4 Auxiliary and Reduced Equations ...................................................................21
2.2 Calculation of Wellbore Heat Loss ..........................................................................22
2.2.1 Correlation-Based Computation ......................................................................23
IE
2.2.2 Model for Numerical Simulation.....................................................................30
2.3 Modeling of Heat Transfer in Formation .................................................................32
2.4 Modeling of Fluid Flow...........................................................................................34
2.4.1 Shi Drift-Flux Model.......................................................................................36
EV
2.4.2 Hasan and Kabir Drift-Flux Model .................................................................39

CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPMENT OF A THERMAL WELLBORE SIMULATOR .........43

3.1 Development Workflow ..........................................................................................43
3.2 Gridding Scheme .....................................................................................................46
PR

3.3 Discretization Equations and Jacobian Matrix ........................................................49

3.4 Linear Solver and Numerical Settings .....................................................................58
3.5 Improvement on Heat Loss Calculation ..................................................................60

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND VALIDATION ...............................................................77

4.1 Hot Water Injection .................................................................................................78
4.2 Steam Injection ........................................................................................................82
4.3 Field Data (Bleakley 1964)......................................................................................86
4.4 Steam Injection in Horizontal Well .........................................................................89
4.5 Steam Injection in Double-Tubing Wellbore...........................................................91
4.6 Comparison with Ramey Method ............................................................................94

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS ...............................................100

5.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................................100
5.2 Future Works .........................................................................................................101

APPENDIX A: AUXILIARY EQUATIONS USED IN WELLBORE MODELING ....104

A.1. Correlations for Fluid Properties .........................................................................104

v
 A.2. Calculation of Frictional Force ............................................................................110

APPENDIX B: TYPICAL FLUENT MODLE SETTINGS ............................................111

APPENDIX C: FLUENT SIMULATION AND CORRELATION RESULTS..............114

APPENDIX D: INPUT AND OUTPUT FILE FORMAT ..............................................122

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................127

W
IE
EV
PR

vi
 List of Tables

Table 2-1: Values of the Ramey time function f(t) for t< 1 week(2) ............................................. 25

Table 2-2: Dimensionless Pipe Diameter and Critical Kutateladze Number (26) ......................... 38

Table 2-3: C0 and Vd Values for Flow regime and Flow Type (9) ............................................. 39

Table 3-1: Combinations of tubing and casing size used in FLUENT simulation ...................... 63

Table 3-2: A set of tubing and casing temperatures used in FLUENT simulation ....................... 64

Table 4-1: Typical wellbore parameters ....................................................................................... 79

Table 4-2: Assumed data for hot water injection .......................................................................... 79

Table 4-3: Assumed data for steam injection ............................................................................... 83

W
Table 4-4: Parameters of Field 1A, 1B and Field Test 2 (22, 23) ..................................................... 87

Table 4-5: Wellbore parameters for estimating Ramey calculation error..................................... 97

IE
Table 4-6: Assumed data for estimating Ramey calculation error ............................................... 97

Table: A-1 Coefficients of equation (A-22) (21) .......................................................................... 107

EV

Table A-2: Coefficients and exponents of nio and Jio (21) ......................................................... 108

Table A-3: Coefficients and exponents of Ii, Ji and ni (21) .......................................................... 109
PR

Table C-1: FLUENT and correlation results at rto=3 ½” and rci=7” .......................................... 114

Table C-2: Nusselt numbers by FLUENT and correlations at rto=3 ½” and rci=7” ................... 114

Table C-3: FLUENT and correlation results at rto=3 ½” and rci=11 ¾” .................................... 115

Table C-4: Nusselt numbers by FLUENT and correlations at rto=3 ½” and rci=11 ¾” ............. 115

Table C-5: FLUENT and correlation results at rto=4 ½” and rci=9 ⅝” ...................................... 116

Table C-6: Nusselt numbers by FLUENT and correlations at rto=4 ½” and rci=9 ⅝” ............... 116

Table C-7: FLUENT and correlation results at rto=4 ½” and rci=11 ¾” .................................... 117

Table C-8: Nusselt numbers by FLUENT and correlations at rto=4 ½” and rci=11 ¾” ............. 117

Table C-9: FLUENT and correlation results at rto=5 ½” and rci=9 ⅝” ...................................... 118

Table C-10: Nusselt numbers by FLUENT and correlations at rto=5 ½” and rci=9 ⅝” ............. 118

vii
Table C-11: Data used for regressing a new correlation............................................................. 119

Table C-12: FLUENT simulation results for double-tubing annulus ......................................... 120

Table C-13: Nusselt numbers by FLUENT for double-tubing annulus ...................................... 121

W
IE
EV
PR

viii
 List of Figures and Illustrations

Fig. 2-1: Schematic description of a typical wellbore system ...................................................... 13

Fig. 2-2: Fluid flow in a wellbore control volume of length Δz ................................................... 14

Fig. 2-3: Schematic representation of momentum balance in a fluid segment............................ 16

Fig. 2-4: Schematic description of energy balance in a fluid segment ........................................ 19

Fig. 2-5: Heat loss and temperature gradient in a typical wellbore .............................................. 23

Fig. 2-6: Values of Uto at different tubing temperature and annulus pressure (2)......................... 25

Fig. 2-7: Flowchart of Uto calculation......................................................................................... 28

Fig. 2-8: Axis system for annulus heat transfer ............................................................................ 30

W
Fig. 2-9: 2D grid system for heat flow in the formation ............................................................... 32

Fig. 2-10: Slip between Gas and Liquid in Drift-Flux Model ...................................................... 35
IE
Fig. 3-1: Flowchart of wellbore simulation process .................................................................... 45

Fig. 3-2: Staggered grid systems for a wellbore simulator ........................................................... 47

EV

Fig. 3-3: An example of multi-part scheme .................................................................................. 48

Fig. 3-4: Schematic representation of Jacobian matrix for single-phase simulation .................... 53
PR

Fig. 3-5: Schematic representation of Jacobian matrix for two-phase steam simulation ............. 57

Fig. 3-6: Build an annulus model by ICEM CFD 14.0 ................................................................. 61

Fig. 3-7: A FLUENT model for vertical annulus ........................................................................ 61

Fig. 3-8: Boundary conditions for annulus FLUENT model ........................................................ 62

Fig. 3-9: Simulation in ANSYS FLUENT 14.0............................................................................ 62

Fig. 3-10: Sample flow patterns of FLUENT simulation ............................................................. 64

Fig. 3-11: Comparison between FLUENT simulation and correlations ....................................... 65

Fig. 3-12: Performance of the new correlation by this study ........................................................ 66

Fig. 3-13: Comparison between the prediction by correlation (3-17) and the FLUENT
simulation results .................................................................................................................. 67

ix
Fig. 3-14: A FLUENT model for double-tubing wellbore .......................................................... 68

Fig. 3-15: A sample of heat flow pattern in double-tubing space ................................................. 69

Fig. 3-16: A sample of complete heat flow pattern in FLUENT models ..................................... 69

Fig. 3-17: Nusselt number by single-tubing model and double-tubing model ............................. 70

Fig. 3-18: Comparison between real coefficient α and the predicted one .................................... 71

Fig. 3-19: 2D grid system for heat transfer simulation in formation ............................................ 72

Fig. 3-20: Schematic description of general method for wellbore heat loss calculation .............. 74

Fig. 3-21: Schematic description of semi-numerical method for wellbore heat loss calculation . 75

Fig. 4-1: A snapshot of program code ......................................................................................... 77

W
Fig. 4-2: A snapshot of program WM running ............................................................................. 78

Fig. 4-3a: Pressure and temperature of hot water along the wellbore .......................................... 80
IE
Fig. 4-3b: Cement/Formation temperature and heat loss of hot water injection .......................... 80

Fig. 4-4a: Pressure and temperature of hot water along the wellbore (Non-Ramey method in
EV
this study).............................................................................................................................. 81

Fig. 4-4b: Cement/Formation temperature and heat loss of hot water injection (Non- Ramey
method in this study) ............................................................................................................. 82
PR

Fig. 4-5a: Pressure and temperature of steam along the wellbore ................................................ 84

Fig. 4-5b: Cement/Formation temperature and steam quality of steam injection......................... 84

Fig. 4-6: A CMG FlexWell model for validation of two-phase steam injection ......................... 85

Fig. 4-7: Results comparison between FlexWell and this study ................................................... 86

Fig. 4-8a: Comparison between Field 1A and this study after 71 hours of steam injection ......... 87

Fig. 4-8b: Comparison between Field 1B and this study after 117 hours of steam injection ....... 88

Fig. 4-8c: Comparison between Field Test 2 and this study after 308 hours of steam injection .. 88

Fig. 4-9: Schematic description of a horizontal well .................................................................... 89

Fig. 4-10a: Pressure and temperature profile for horizontal well case ......................................... 90

Fig. 4-10b: Steam quality profile for horizontal well case ........................................................... 90

x
Fig. 4-10c: Formation temperature profile for horizontal well case ............................................. 90

Fig. 4-11: A typical double-tubing wellbore................................................................................. 91

Fig. 4-12: Simulation results of steam injection in a double-tubing wellbore .............................. 92

Fig. 4-13: Simulation results of steam injection in a double-tubing wellbore with strong
superheated steam phenomenon............................................................................................ 93

Fig. 4-14: Simulation results of steam injection in a double-tubing wellbore with superheated
steam phenomenon................................................................................................................ 94

Fig. 4-15: Temperature comparison between the program WM and Ramey methods ................ 95

Fig. 4-16: Temperature comparison between the program WM with Ramey energy equation
and Ramey methods .............................................................................................................. 96

W
Fig. 4-17: Cement/formation temperature comparison between numerical and Ramey
methods ................................................................................................................................. 98

Fig. 4-18a: Comparison for heat loss and steam quality between semi-numerical and Ramey
IE
methods ................................................................................................................................. 98

Fig. 4-18b: Comparison for steam pressure and steam quality between semi-numerical and
Ramey method ...................................................................................................................... 99
EV
PR

xi
 List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature

Symbols

A pipe cross-sectional area for fluid flow, ft2

‫ܣ‬ଵ outside tubing surface area, ft2

‫ܣ‬ଶ inner casing surface area, ft2

Ai cross-sectional area of segment, ft2

‫ܥ‬௔௡ heat capacity of fluid in the annulus, Btu/(lbm °F)

C୮ୣ formation heat capacity, Btu/(lbm °F)

W
‫ܥ‬଴ profile parameter (or distribution coefficient), dimensionless

݀ pipe diameter, ft IE
݀௜ inside diameter of an annulus, ft

݀௜௡ pipe inside diameter, ft

EV

݀௢ outside diameter of an annulus, ft

‫ܦ‬௢ outside diameter of the annulus, ft

PR

‫ܨ‬ଵିଶ the shape factor between the two surface area, dimensionless

݂௚ in-situ gas volume fraction

݂௧௣ friction factor

G annulus gap width (‫ ܩ‬ൌ ‫ݎ‬௢ െ ‫ݎ‬௜ ), ft

‫ܩ‬௥ Grashof number, dimensionless

݃ gravitational acceleration constant, ft/sec2

்݃ geothermal gradient, °F/ft

݄ enthalpy of single-phase fluid, Btu/lbm

݄௖ convective heat transfer coefficient of fluid inside annulus, Btu/(hr ft2 °F)

xii
݄௙ convective heat transfer coefficient of fluid, Btu/(hr ft2 °F)

݄௣ enthalpy of phase p, Btu/lbm

݄௥ radial heat transfer coefficient of fluid inside annulus, Btu/(hr ft2 °F)

‫ܪ‬௔ total annulus height, ft

i segment index

݅଴ zero moment of intensity, Btu/(hr ft2)

݇ thermal conductivity of fluid in the annulus, Btu/(hr ft °F)

݇௔ air thermal conductivity in the annulus, Btu/(hr ft °F)

W
݇௖௔௦ thermal conductivity of casing, Btu/(hr ft °F)

݇௖௘௠ thermal conductivity of cement, Btu/(hr ft °F)

IE
݇௘ thermal conductivity of formation, Btu/(hr ft °F)

݇௛௔ thermal conductivity of the fluid in the annulus, Btu/(hr ft °F)

EV

݇௛௖ equivalent thermal conductivity of the fluid in the annulus calculated by natural

convection effects at the average pressure and temperature, Btu/(hr ft °F)

PR

݇௜௡௦ thermal conductivity of insulation, Btu/(hr ft °F)

݇௥ formation thermal conductivity along the radial direction, Btu/(hr ft °F)

݇௧ thermal conductivity of tubing, Btu/(hr ft °F)

݇௭ formation thermal conductivity in the z direction, Btu/(hr ft °F)

‫ܭ‬௨ critical Kutateladze number, dimensionless

݉௖௣ mass source/sink term for component c in phase p, lbm/day

݉௛ unit thermal source/sink term, Btu/(ft3 day)

݉௛_௧ total thermal source/sink term, Btu

݉௪௣ mass source/sink term for water component in phase p, lbm/day

xiii
n time level

ܰ conduction-to-radiation ratio, dimensionless

ܰ௥ total grid number along the radial direction

ܰ௨ Nusselt number

ܰ௨ᇱ modified Nusselt number for double-tubing annulus

‫݌‬ pressure in the annulus, psi

‫݌‬௪ wellbore pressure, psi

‫݌‬ஶ pressure at ܰ ൌ ∞, psi

W
ܲ fluid pressure, psi

ܲ௥ Prandtl number, dimensionless IE

‫ݍ‬ heat flux rate across the annulus, Btu/(hr ft)

ܳ௟௢௦௦ heat loss rate to the surroundings, Btu/(hr ft)

EV

ܳ௟௢௦௦_௧ heat loss the surroundings, Btu

ܴ௔ Rayleigh number, dimensionless

PR

‫ݎ‬ radius to wellbore center, ft

‫ݎ‬௖௜ inside radius of casing, ft

‫ݎ‬௖௢ outside radius of casing, ft

‫ݎ‬௖௙ cement/formation interface radius, ft

‫ݎ‬௘ external formation radius, ft

‫ݎ‬௜ radius of inner wall in the annulus, ft

‫ݎ‬௜௡௦ radius of the outside tubing insulation, ft

‫ݎ‬௢ radius of outside wall in the annulus, ft

‫ݎ‬௧௜ inside radius of tubing, ft

xiv
‫ݎ‬௧௢ outside radius of tubing, ft

‫ݎ‬௪ wellbore radius, ft

t time, days

ܶ fluid temperature in the annulus, °F

ܶ஼ outside wall temperature in the annulus, °F

ܶ௖௜ casing internal temperature, °F

ܶ௖௙ cement/formation interface temperature, °F

ܶ௘ formation temperature, °F

W
ܶ௘௜ initial formation temperature, °F

ܶ௙ fluid temperature inside tubing, °F IE

ܶ௛ inner wall temperature in the annulus, °F

ܶ௥௘௦ reservoir formation temperature, °F

EV

ܶ௦௨௥௙ surface geothermal temperature, °F

ܶ௧௢ tubing external temperature, °F

PR

‫݌‬௪ wellbore pressure, psi

‫ݑ‬ internal energy of single-phase fluid, Btu/lbm

‫ݑ‬௣ internal energy of phase p, Btu/lbm

‫ݑ‬௭ axial velocity along the z direction in the annulus, ft/s

ܷ௧௢ overall heat transfer coefficient, Btu/(hr ft2 °F)

‫ݒ‬ radial velocity along the ‫ ݎ‬direction in the annulus, ft/s

ܸ௖ characteristic velocity, ft/s

ܸௗ gas drift velocity, ft/s

ܸ௚ average gas velocity across the pipe area, ft/s

xv
ܸ௚௕ superficial gas velocity for transition from bubbly to slug flow, ft/s

ܸ௚௖ superficial gas velocity for transition from churn to annular flow, ft/s

ܸ௜ volume of segment, ft3

ܸ௅ average liquid velocity across the pipe area, ft/s

ܸ௠ average mixture velocity, ft/sec

ܸ௣ velocity of phase p, ft/sec

ܸ௦௚ gas superficial velocity, ft/s

ܸ௦௚௙ flooding velocity at which the flow regime transits into annular flow, ft/s

W
ܸ௦௅ liquid superficial velocity, ft/s

ܸ௦௣ superficial velocity of phase p, ft/sec IE

ܸ௦௦ superficial velocity of steam, ft/sec
EV
ܸ௦௪ superficial velocity of water, ft/sec

‫ݔ‬௖௚ molar fraction of hydrocarbon component c in gas phase

‫ݔ‬௖௢ molar fraction of hydrocarbon component c in oil phase

PR

‫ݔ‬௖௣ molar fraction of hydrocarbon component c in phase p

‫ݔ‬௖௪ molar fraction of hydrocarbon component c in water phase

‫ݔ‬௪௚ molar fraction of component water in gas phase

‫ݔ‬௪௢ molar fraction of component water in oil phase

‫ݔ‬௪௣ molar fraction of water component in phase p

‫ݔ‬௪௪ molar fraction of component water in water phase

z wellbore curvilinear coordinate, ft

ܼ wellbore depth, ft

ܼ௥௘௦ vertical depth of reservoir, ft

xvi
∆‫ݎ‬ grid length along the radial direction, ft

∆t time step, second

∆z segment length, ft

Greek Symbols

ߙ formation thermal diffusivity, ft2/hr

ߙ௣ in-situ volume fraction of phase p

ߙ௦ in-situ volume fraction of steam

W
ߙ௪ in-situ volume fraction of water

ߚ thermal volumetric expansion coefficient of the fluid in the annulus, °R-1

IE
ߜ annulus aspect ratio (ߜ ൌ ‫ݎ‬௧௢ ⁄‫ݎ‬௖௜ )

ߝ௖௜ emissivity of inside casing surface, dimensionless

EV

ߝ௧௢ emissivity of outside tubing surface, dimensionless

ߠ local angle between well and the vertical direction, radian

PR

ߴ kinematic viscosity, ft2/s

ߤ௔௡ viscosity of the fluid in the annulus, lbm/(ft hr)

ߩ fluid density, lbm/ft3

ߩ௔௡ density of fluid in the annulus, lbm/ft3

ρୣ formation density, lbm/ft3

ρ୥ gas density, lbm/ft3

ρ୐ liquid density, lbm/ft3

ߩ௠ mixture density, lbm/ft3

ߩ௣ phase density, lbm/ft3

xvii
ߩ௦ steam density, lbm/ft3

ߩ௪ water density, lbm/ft3

ߪ Stefan Boltzman constant, 1.713 ൈ 10ିଽ Btu/ሺftଶ hr °Rସ ሻ

ߪ௔ absorption coefficient, 1/ft

ߪ௚௟ the gas/liquid interfacial tension, lbm/s2

Subscripts

a acceleration

W
c hydrocarbon component (C1, C2, …)

f frictional

h hydrostatic
IE
p phase (gas, oil, water)
EV

s superficial
PR

xviii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Introduction

Since the first modern commercial oil well was successfully drilled in Pennsylvania in

1859, there have been countless wells drilled worldwide in this planet. In the petroleum industry,

a well plays a key role along the entire life of oilfield development. It is the only channel that

connects our surface works to the subsurface reservoirs. Issues related to wells such as well

location and well performance decide whether the limited underground hydrocarbon reserves have

been successfully and efficiently produced and the energy for that production has been effectively

W
exploited. In a typical oil production well, usually multiphase fluids (oil, gas and water) flow into

the well driven by the pressure difference between the formation and well bottom pressure and
IE
then the multiphase fluids flow up to surface facilities by consuming some pressures and
EV
sometimes are aided by a pump or other devices. In an injection well, water, hot water, steam or

some chemicals may be injected into the designated formation driven by a pressure higher than

the formation pressure. During these processes, there is also a heat exchange happening between
PR

the fluids in wellbore and the surrounding formation due to their temperature difference.

Particularly in thermal injection wells including steam injection, this heat exchange has a

significant impact on the fluid behavior in the wellbore.

Modern wells have evolved much further from a simple vertical well at the early age. Now,

in oilfields there are wells with sophisticated configurations and completions such as horizontal

wells, multi-lateral wells, and wells with multiple tubings or strings. This complexity provides all

kinds of convenience for improving well performance and helping EOR (Enhanced Oil

Recoveries) technologies. There are also a lot of technologies such as well testing and well logging

1
that are employing wellbore as main media and, therefore, need a better understanding on wellbore

behavior.

Nowadays, with continuous developments of different sophisticated wells (horizontal wells

and multilateral wells.), wellbore modeling and simulation have increasingly received more

attention. Especially in the heavy oil industry that needs to use some wellbore sensitive

technologies such as SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) and CSS (cyclic steam stimulation),

there is a growing demand for a wellbore analysis. For example, in the case of steam injection in

SAGD, CSS and other thermal injection technologies, knowing the steam conditions at the well

W
bottom is crucial for well design, well completion, reservoir monitoring, reservoir management,

and reservoir simulation. Because of high costs by using instruments to measure steam properties
IE
in the well bottom, employing mathematical models to predict them is the best choice at the current
EV
time.

In fact, modeling and simulation of wellbore fluid flow have numerous applications in the

petroleum industry. Compared with traditional correlations for calculating pressure and fluid
PR

properties along wellbore, wellbore simulation can offer more accurate results and handle more

complex wellbore configurations. In thermal injection wellbore and lines, the wellbore simulation

can accurately predict heat loss and temperature profiles along a well trajectory and, therefore,

provides precise parameters crucial for thermal operation evaluation and optimization. A lot of

wellbore completion works such as placement of flow control devices, pumps and artificial lift

devices and deciding sustainable tubing and casing types require correct calculations of downhole

parameters that a wellbore simulator can provide. Coupled wellbore-reservoir simulation will

present more accurate sand-face inputs to reservoir simulators and make the reservoir simulation

more reliable. For example, CMG Flexwell (a coupled reservoir-wellbore simulator by CMG Ltd.)

2
can provide better simulation results than a reservoir simulator without a wellbore part in SAGD

simulation. There are also published works on how wellbore simulation can help better interpret

well test results (15).Now, an integrated simulation of reservoirs, wellbore and surface facilities has

become an important development trend in reservoir engineering. It brings all the elements of an

oilfield production system together and provides engineers with complete optimization and

improved forecasts. It also allows us to more accurately optimize surface facilities and operation

condition requirements. As a result, the total production cost will reduce. There are successful

commercial reservoir simulators such as ECLIPSE and CMG’s and surface facilities simulation

W
software such as PIPESIM and IPM. Thus, for an integrated simulation, a standalone wellbore

simulator can act as a bridge and connect reservoir simulation and ground surface simulation.
IE
However, wellbore modeling and simulation, especially in those wells with complex
EV
configurations, is not an easy task. It relates to analyzing and modeling the multiphase nature of

fluid flow inside the wellbore and the heat transfer mechanisms between the wellbore and its

surrounding formations and handling complex wellbore configurations. In particular, for the heat
PR

exchange between the fluids in wellbore and surrounding formations, we need to consider

complicated mechanisms such as radiation and natural convective heat transfer through the

annulus full of air or other fluids and heat dispersion in the surrounding formations that consist of

different rocks, shale and minerals. Despite notable advancements made in wellbore modeling,

accurate heat loss modeling is still a challenge using the existing wellbore simulators. This

challenge becomes even greater when complex but common wellbore configurations such as

multi-parallel or multi-concentric tubings are used in thermal processes such as SAGD. For

example, for accurately calculating the heat loss through the annulus, most current wellbore

simulators are using empirical correlations which have been proved having large errors and cannot

3
handle wellbore with double tubings or even more tubings that are common in current thermal

injection wells (15).

There are three main areas in wellbore modeling research. The first and early developed

area is multiphase flow correlations. Some famous correlations based on flow regimes such as

Duns and Ros (29) and Beggs and Brill (30) are widely used. Some others just did not consider slip

phenomenon and flow pattern and thus have limited applications. These correlations have many

limits when they are used in different types of wellbore configurations and circumstances. The

second area is analytical models. The first analytical model was proposed by Ramey (1) and was

W
mainly focused on calculating temperature profiles along wellbore. Later, Willhite (2), Farouq Ali
(3) (23) (5)
, Fontanilla and Aziz , and Hasan and Kabir , proposed their analytical models. These
IE
analytical models were based on simplified modeling equations by ignoring some affecting factors
EV
in wellbore and then were solved by corresponding mathematical techniques. However, they have

some large errors when applied in complex situations where those ignored factors can have a

significant impact. The third area is wellbore simulators. Since Ramey first developed a
PR

mathematical model in 1962, several researchers have developed standalone wellbore or coupled
(28) (13) (12) (16)
wellbore-reservoir simulators: Stone , Livescu , Bahonar , and Dong . There are also

commercial coupled wellbore-reservoir simulators including CMG Flexwell and Eclipse Multi-

segment Well. These wellbore simulators have significant improvements in computation accuracy

and application ranges than the empirical correlations and analytical models.

However, none of the existing wellbore simulators has been well rounded, especially in

handling complex well configurations and the heat exchange mechanism between the wellbore and

its surrounding formation. Compared with well-developed reservoir simulators such as ECLIPSE

and CMG’s, the current wellbore simulators need further improvements. Challenges such as in

4
effectively solving the highly nonlinear and coupled equations and improving computation

efficiency still beset the wellbore simulation. More research works on the development of an

accurate and robust wellbore simulator are necessary.

The primary objective of this research is to develop a standalone thermal wellbore

simulator with focus on improving heat loss calculations. This wellbore simulator can handle

different wellbore configurations: multistage casings, horizontal wells, multilateral wells and

double tubing inside annulus. A multi-part scheme is implemented in this wellbore simulator to

divide a complex wellbore into several relative simple wellbore simulation units. It employs fully

W
implicit method to solve the highly nonlinear coupled governing mass, momentum and energy

equations in the tubing and annulus. It also uses fully implicit method to simulate the heat transfer
IE
from a casing wall to the surrounding formation. In annulus with single or double tubings,
EV
correlations regressed from FLUENT simulation are used. A new method using total numerical

simulation for calculating the heat loss from tubing to the surrounding formation is proposed in

this thesis. Therefore, more accurate heat loss calculation results than the Ramey method that most
PR

other wellbore simulators are currently using can be obtained. A series of validations, such as hot

water injection and steam injection, against CMG SAM, CMG FlexWell, and real measured field

data are conducted. The simulator is useful for performing wellbore simulation for all kinds of

thermal injection such as SAGD, CSS and steam drive. Also, it can be easily modified to couple

with a reservoir simulator.

This dissertation consists of five chapters. In the first Chapter, some introductions on

wellbore modeling and simulation and its development history by a literature review are presented.

Chapter 2 is mainly focused on wellbore modeling. First, the governing mass conservation,

momentum conservation and energy conservation equations and their derivations are presented.