You are on page 1of 210

WELLBORE HEAT LOSS CALCULATION DURING STEAM

INJECTION IN ONSHORE & OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY RESOURCES ENGINEERING
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
Sel¸cuk Fidan
September 2011
c Copyright by Sel¸cuk Fidan 2011
All Rights Reserved
ii
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and in quality, as partial fulfillment of the degree of
Master of Science in Energy Resources Engineering.
Prof. Anthony R. Kovscek
(Principal Adviser)
I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and in quality, as partial fulfillment of the degree of
Master of Science in Energy Resources Engineering.
Dr. Louis Castanier
iii
iv
Abstract
In the oil industry, the problem of wellbore heat loss during hot fluid injection is clas-
sical. Even today the topic is important for practical application of steam injection.
Most thermal reservoir simulators today do not yet take into account heat losses and
pressure drops along the wellbore. Neglecting these items may be acceptable for shal-
low reservoirs. For deeper injection wells and injection wells in offshore environments,
however, wellbore heat loss is often significant.
Accurate predictions of heat loss, temperature distributions and pressure profile
are essential for modeling steam injection wells. The main goal of this study is to
investigate heat losses along the wellbore during steam injection in both onshore and
offshore environments. Steam quality, steam temperature, steam pressure, and heat
loss values with and without insulation are calculated. In the literature, it is shown
that the Fontanilla and Aziz model [20] yields results in good agreement with field
data. The Fontanilla and Aziz approach is used in this study, with an improvement in
the application of two-phase flow correlations and the determination of several input
parameters.
The equations describing mass and heat flow are solved in discretized well-bore
framework. Steam properties are incorporated directly. Several two-phase flow corre-
lations for injection tubing, are used and results are compared. The calculated steam
temperature and steam pressure agree well with the field data using the Beggs and
Brill model [13, 14]. Six insulation materials are examined: 1) black aerogel, 2) white
v
aerogel, 3) fiberglass, 4) carbon fiber, 5) thermolastic insulation and 6) calcium sili-
cate. Aerogel insulations present the opportunity to create a superinsulated tubing
that overcomes many limitations of current steam injectors. A Matlab Graphical User
Interface (GUI) is developed, that enables other users to change the input parameters
and visualize the results without going into the details of the calculations.
To our knowledge, no one has predicted the result of non-condensible gas addition
on steam injectors. In this work, a novel approach is introduced for adding non-
condensible gas to steam to increase the injection pressure without increasing the
steam temperature. Additional partial pressure is obtained by adding N
2
to the
system. Steam quality, steam temperature, steam pressure, and heat loss calculation
are conducted for steam injection with non-condensible gas (N
2
). Compared with
the case of just steam injection, the steam temperature values are smaller, so are the
amounts of heat loss.
vi
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my adviser Prof.
Anthony R. Kovscek for his time, support, guidance and his unbelievable patience.
Without his support I would not be able to finish this work, Thank you Tony!
My thanks also go to Dr. Louis Castanier with whom I had helpful discussions
in the early and late stage of this project. I would also like to thank to visiting
Prof. Jan Dirk Jensen to teach us ”Design and analysis of production systems for oil
and gas reservoirs” to understand multiphase flow concept better. My special thanks
go to Prof. Khalid Aziz to provide one of his Master students Fontanilla’s thesis.
I would like to thank both to Turkish National Petroleum Cooperation (T.P.A.O)
and SUPRI-A Affiliates for their support. It was one of the biggest dream I had
since second year of undergraduate to come to Stanford and study there. It came
true, this success was not only one person’ success it was the success of the several
people in my life and I will briefly talk about those people here. My mother is the
highest priority person in my life not only she raised us with devoting her entire life to
her children but also lack of opportunity she had not to allowed to get educated, she
dedicated herself to her children to get all of them (4 sons) educated and she achieved
this, thank you ’Anne’ (means mom in Turkish). My adviser in Turkey Prof. Dr.
Mustafa Onur who has great impact on my life in terms of his knowledge, support
and trust on me. He is a unique person both in Academic world and personal world.
He always gave his students courage to excel their skills and motivated them to work
vii
hard, because of him I am here, many thanks to him. My adviser Dr. Mehmet Parlar
at Schlumberger during my internship last summer, he gave me an opportunity to
work with him and learn from his experiences, many thanks to him and as well as
my supervisor Dr. Rajesh Chanpura. Now my friends ; Elnur Aliyev, Amar Alshehri,
Mehrdad Honarkhah, Rustem Zaydullin, Alireza Iranshahr, Obi Isebor: I enjoyed
studying with you guys during my stay at Stanford.
It was my fortune to be one of the member of the such a great team SUPRI-A
that I have learned a lot and found my women of dreams and got married. My wife,
Wenjuan Lin, is the softest part of my heart and inspiration of my life, and more.
She always supported me, not only several days I stayed at school she never became
angry, but also she showed her love to me every seconds of our life. Because of her
love, I enable to finish this work! Thank you, CANIM! And my little baby daughter
Su Lin Fidan who brought fun, joy, and energy to our life, thank you little angel;).
viii
IF
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ”Hold on”;
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And - which is more - you’ll be a Man my son!
-Rudyard Kipling
ix
Dedicated to my father H¨ usn¨ u Fidan (R.I.P)
x
Contents
Abstract v
Acknowledgments vii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Literature Review 6
2.1 Emeraude Vapeur : A Steam Pilot in an Offshore Environment . . . . 6
2.2 Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Heat Transmission Mechanisms and Discussion from Authors . . . . . 11
2.3.1 Heat Transmission Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1.1 Heat Transfer by Conduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1.2 Heat Transfer by Convection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.1.3 Heat Transfer by Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.2 Heat Transmission Discussion from Authors . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Model Formulation 15
3.1 Heat Loss Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.1 Heat Loss from Surface Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.1.1 With/without Insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
xi
3.1.2 Heat Loss from Sea Level to Sea Floor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.2.1 With/without Insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.3 Heat Loss from Sea Floor to Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.1.3.1 With/without Insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2 Steam Phase behavior calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Two Phase Flow Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3.1 Modified Beggs and Brill Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.3.1.1 Flow-Pattern Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.1.2 Hydrostatic Pressure Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.3.1.3 Frictional Pressure Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.2 Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.2.1 Flow Pattern Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3.2.2 Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4 Effect of Non-Condensable Gas (N
2
) 45
5 Graphical User Interface (GUI) 49
6 Results and Comparisons 53
6.1 Examples for heat loss calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
6.1.1 Example 10.1 from Prats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6.1.2 Example for Offshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
6.1.3 Example 10.2 from Prats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
6.2 Program Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
6.3 Onshore environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.3.1 Examples with Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.3.2 Examples without Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.4 Offshore Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
xii
6.4.1 Examples with Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.4.2 Examples without Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.5 Adding Non-Condensable Gas (N
2
) in an Onshore environment . . . 84
6.5.1 Examples with Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.5.2 Examples without Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.6 Adding Non-Condensable Gas (N
2
) in an Offshore environment . . . 95
6.6.1 Examples with Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.6.2 Examples without Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7 Summary, Conclusions and Future Work 102
7.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
7.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.3 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
A Derivation of the Equations 110
A.1 Total Energy Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
A.2 Mechanical energy balance or the Extended Bernoulli Equation . . . 113
A.3 Evaluation of Heat Loss to the Surrounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
A.4 Determination of the U
to
and T
ci
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
A.5 Determination of the Convection Heat Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . 120
A.6 Determination of the Radiation Heat Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . . 122
A.7 Computational Procedure for U
to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
A.8 Determination of f(t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
A.9 Evaluation of the Derrivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
A.10 Calculation of the Annulus Fluid Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
xiii
B Codes for Heat Loss Calculations 132
B.1 Heat Losses from Surface Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
B.2 Heat Losses from Sea Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
B.3 Heat Losses from Sea Floor to Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
B.4 Table 14 from Prats [41] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
B.5 f(tD) calculation also known as Ramey[42] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
C Results for Different Insulation Materials 156
Bibliography 177
xiv
List of Tables
3.1 Thermal Conductivity of the materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2 Time Function f(t
D
) for the boundary condition model [49]. . . . . . 25
6.1 Input parameters from Prats [41] as used for different example calcu-
lations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.2 Radiation-natural convection coefficient of heat transfer. . . . . . . . 57
6.3 Field data parameters for field data 1 and field data 2 [19]. . . . . . . 63
xv
xvi
List of Figures
1.1 Schematic view of the objective of our calculations, (retrieved from [2]). 4
2.1 Emeraude field location and five spot[9]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Schematic view of conduction (after [8]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Heat transfer from a hot surface to air by convection (retrieved from
[1]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Representation of heat transfer by radiation(after [8]). . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with or without
temperature profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with tempera-
ture profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3 Sea water properties change with temperature and salinity[36]. . . . . 21
3.4 Schematic representation of the wellbore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.5 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer sea floor to
reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6 Pressure-enthalpy diagram (retrieved from [24]). . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.7 Gas-liquid flow-patterns for vertical pipes (retrieved from [12]). . . . . 27
3.8 Vertical downward two-phase flow [33]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.9 Liquid Holdup and Slippage effect representation (retrieved from[4]). 30
3.10 Flow Map for the Beggs and Brill Correlation (retrieved from[4]). . . 34
xvii
3.11 Segregated Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.12 Intermittent Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.13 Distributed Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.14 Flow Pattern map for Aziz et al. (retrieved from[14]). . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1 User interface developed GUI for onshore calculations. . . . . . . . . 50
5.2 User interface developed GUI for offshore calculations. . . . . . . . . 51
5.3 User interface developed GUI for both onshore and offshore results. . 51
5.4 User interface developed GUI post-processing for both onshore and
offshore results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6.1 Surface lines heat loss calculation with six different insulation materials. 58
6.2 Surface Heat Loss calculation without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.3 Heat loss from sea level to sea floor with six different insulations. . . 59
6.4 Heat loss from sea level to sea floor without insulation. . . . . . . . . 59
6.5 Heat loss calculation using different insulation materials based on Ex-
ample 10.2 from Prats[41]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.6 Heat loss calculation without using insulation materials based on Ex-
ample 10.2 from Prats [41]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.7 Comparison of steam temperature with field data 1 and two-phase
correlations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.8 Comparison of steam pressure with field data 1 and two-phase corre-
lations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6.9 Calculated steam quality with different two-phase correlations based
on field data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.10 Calculated heat loss calculation with insulated tubing based on field
data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
xviii
6.11 Comparison of steam temperature with field data 2 and two-phase
correlations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.12 Comparison of steam pressure with field data 2 and two-phase corre-
lations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.13 Calculated steam quality with different two-phase correlations based
on field data 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.14 Calculated heat loss calculation with insulated tubing based on field
data 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.15 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam temperature
with field data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.16 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam pressure with
field data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.17 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam quality with
field data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.18 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam temperature
with field data 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.19 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam pressure with
field data 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.20 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam quality with
field data 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.21 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.22 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using
black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
xix
6.23 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using
black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.24 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black
aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.25 Steam temperature distribution , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.26 Steam pressure distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.27 Steam quality distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.28 Heat loss distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850
lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.29 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for
black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.30 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel. 79
6.31 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black
aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.32 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel. 80
6.33 Steam temperature distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
xx
6.34 Steam pressure distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.35 Steam quality distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.36 Heat loss distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850
lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.37 Pressure drop distribution and formation pressure (green dots), 1 year,
T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel
for onshore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.38 With changing N
2
molar percentage, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.39 With changing injection rate, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.40 With changing steam quality molar percentage , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F
and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . 86
6.41 With changing injection temperature, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injec-
tion rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.42 With changing injection depth, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.43 With changing N
2
molar percentage, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.44 With changing injection rate, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.45 With changing steam quality molar percentage , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F
and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.46 With changing injection temperature, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injec-
tion rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
xxi
6.47 With changing injection depth, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.48 With changing N
2
molar percentage, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.49 With changing injection rate, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.50 With changing steam quality molar percentage , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F
and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . 97
6.51 With changing injection temperature, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injec-
tion rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.52 With changing injection depth, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.53 With changing N
2
molar percentage, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.54 With changing injection rate, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.55 With changing steam quality molar percentage , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F
and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.56 With changing injection temperature, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injec-
tion rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.57 With changing injection depth, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
A.1 Schematic view of tubing element in our calculation. . . . . . . . . . . 111
A.2 Time conduction function (retrieved from[19]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
A.3 Viscosity of the annular fluid with respect to Temperature. . . . . . . 129
A.4 Thermal conductivity of the annular fluid with respect to Temperature. 130
xxii
B.1 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with/without
temperature profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
B.2 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with tempera-
ture profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
B.3 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer sea floor to
reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
C.1 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft) , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
white aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
C.2 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white
aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
C.3 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white
aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
C.4 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. 158
C.5 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
fiber glass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
C.6 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.159
C.7 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.159
C.8 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . 160
xxiii
C.9 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
carbon fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
C.10 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon
fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
C.11 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon
fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
C.12 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. 162
C.13 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
thermolastic insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
C.14 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermo-
lastic insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
C.15 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermo-
lastic insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
C.16 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic
insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
C.17 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
calcium silicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
xxiv
C.18 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium
silicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
C.19 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium
silicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
C.20 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.166
C.21 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
white aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
C.22 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white
aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
C.23 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white
aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
C.24 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. 168
C.25 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
fiber glass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
C.26 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.169
C.27 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.170
xxv
C.28 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . 170
C.29 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
carbon fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
C.30 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon
fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
C.31 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon
fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
C.32 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. 172
C.33 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
thermolastic insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
C.34 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermo-
lastic insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
C.35 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermo-
lastic insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
C.36 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic
insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
xxvi
C.37 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with
calcium silicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
C.38 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium
silicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
C.39 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium
silicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
C.40 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.176
xxvii
xxviii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Increasing oil prices have helped raise investment in EOR applications during the last
two decades. Steam injection is the thermal method that add heat to the reservoir to
expand the oil in-place, reduce oil viscosity, provide drive energy and thereby improve
the displacement efficiency of injected fluid [44] . Crude-oil viscosity is inversely pro-
portional to temperature. When the temperature increases, viscosity decreases. Less
viscous oil results in greater mobility. Prats[41] indicated that the effect of steam
injection on recovery is significantly greater as compared to hot-water injection. It
is because steam carries more enthalpy per unit mass. The displacement of fluids by
steam is self stabilizing movement of the crude oil to the production well. Lake[30]
emphasized that thermal methods especially steam injection and steam soak, are eas-
ily the most successful enhanced oil recovery processes. Steam injection is applied to
viscous oil reservoirs in order to reduce oil viscosity and increase production. Many
applications of steam injection have been done with success in the onshore environ-
ment, but only one example exists in the literature for offshore fields. It was the
”Emeraude Vapeur” pilot test that had great technical success [9].
Many investigators have studied heat transfer to the surrounding formation while
1
2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
hot fluid injection travels downward along the wellbore. Ramey [42] was the pio-
neer and his model is used by most researchers as a starting point. Ramey assumed
that flow is steady state, non-compressible, and single phase. He solved energy and
momentum balance equations analytically to get approximate pressure and temper-
ature distributions. He neglected kinetic energy, frictional loss, and assumed that
the overall heat transfer coefficient does not change with depth. In 1967, Willhite
[49] proposed a well known overall heat transfer coefficient calculation that has been
widely used in the oil industry since. In 1969, Earlougher [17] considered steam and
casing conditions with respect to depth. He used the Hagedorn and Brown model
[22] for two-phase flow calculation and assumed that there is no slippage between the
phases for steam injection. He actually assumed that the gas and liquid phase flow
at the same speed. Several years later Pacheco and Farouq Ali [38] presented a com-
prehensive mathematical model of steam injection without taking into account slip
and the multiphase flow regime concept. Early in the 1980s, Farouq Ali [18] solved
this issue and proposed a comprehensive wellbore steam flow model. He took into
account the slip concept and flow regime of the flow and concluded that considering
the slip and the flow regime is important for calculating pressure drop and steam
quality during the downward steam injection.
Heat loss and pressure drop calculation for steam injection in offshore environ-
ments are not reported in the literature. The objective of this study is to calculate
the heat losses, pressure losses, temperature losses, and steam quality changes along
the wellbore during steam injection in both onshore and offshore environments. For
the onshore cases, pressure drops and quality changes along the wellbore are cal-
culated by coupling non-linear equations and solving them simultaneously. Several
two-phase correlations in the literature are used. Offshore cases take into account the
thermophysical properties of sea water to get the correct radiation and convection
heat transfer coefficients. For all calculations, we start with a base case following
3
similar procedures as shown by Fontanilla[20], then extend our work by applying
several more updated two-phase correlations. The results obtained using different
two-phase flow correlations are compared. Sensitivity analysis using different insula-
tion materials are also conducted to investigate the effect of insulation materials on
downhole steam properties. As another step forward, we conduct calculation of heat
transfer, pressure drops and steam quality change along the wellbore during injection
of steam with an additive of non-condensable gas, such as N
2
. This is the first time
that this kind of calculation is described in the open literature. A novel approach is
proposed to solve this problem.
Figure 1.1 shows the schematic view of the our calculation for both onshore and
offshore environments. In order to calculate heat losses from the offshore environ-
ments you must consider surface lines, sea level to sea floor and sea floor to the
reservoir. Surface lines does not contribute heat losses with comparing sea level and
sea floor to reservoir, however, insulating small amount of length gives much efficiency
on steam quality.
4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1: Schematic view of the objective of our calculations, (retrieved from [2]).
1.1 Thesis Outline
In Chapter 2, we review two cases of heat flow from wells for offshore fields. One
case had great success in terms of producing more oil resulting from steam injec-
tion, the other case used vacuum insulating tubing (VIT) to reduce heat losses and
failed. Then, we review a summary of three basic heat transfer mechanisms and their
combinations that are the backbone of our study. In addition, the wellbore heat
transmission concept is reviewed starting from Ramey’s [42] classical paper.
In Chapter 3, we discuss model formulation that we used in our calculations.
1.1. THESIS OUTLINE 5
Starting with heat transfer calculation in three parts: surface lines, sea, and sea
floor to reservoir based on both Prats’s [41] and Willhite’s [49] algorithm. Besides
the analogy for offshore, we also provide a robust solution that takes into account
thermo physical properties of seawater in order to calculate important parameters [36]
for heat-loss calculations. Continue with steam properties calculation, we present
and discuss most of the two-phase correlations that can be applied for downward
steam injection operations. Several of correlations are explained in detail. For other
correlations, references are provided.
In Chapter 4, the problem of steam with non-condensable gas (N
2
) is consid-
ered. The N
2
gives additional pressure into our steam and helps to reduce heat loss.
Once N
2
is injected into the system, it causes a decrease in steam pressure and so
steam temperature. In order to achieve this purpose, we calculated steam and non-
condensible gas properties for insulated and non-insulated tubing in both onshore
and offshore environments.
Chapter 5, is the one of the exciting parts of this thesis because we developed
a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for our calculations and gave the basics of the
program input and output that is used in our calculations. This program allows a
user to choose several correlations to be applied such as insulated or uninsulated
tubing. With this program a user can study the role of several parameters and see
the effects of those parameter on the system.
Chapter 6 discusses the results obtained in preceding chapters and compares them
in terms of using different insulation materials and steam properties. We validated
our program with field data from the literature [11] and obtained good agreement
with field data and also with Fontanilla’s approach [19]. We augment Fontanilla’s
approach as well.
A summary of our findings and suggestions for future work are presented in Chap-
ter 7.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
We review two examples from the literature for offshore cases of wellbore heat losses.
The first is Emeraude Vapeur[9] and subsequently the Marlin failure and redesign
[16, 43, 48] are discussed. This chapter continues with heat transfer mechanism and
with heat transfer discussions.
2.1 Emeraude Vapeur : A Steam Pilot in an Off-
shore Environment
The Emeraude field is located offshore Zaire (Congo), Figure 2.1 a, on the West
African coast. Water depth is 65 m. The depth of reservoirs is shallow (200-500 m)
and they consist of silt layers alternating with thin fractured limestone beds. These
very heterogeneous reservoirs are significantly depleted and oil is viscous (0.1 Pa s
(100 cp)) at reservoir conditions. A steam drive pilot test was decided in order to
estimate a recovery rate and an oil-steam ratio on two independent reservoirs in 1980.
The adverse environmental conditions required original solutions: tilted conductor
pipes, a tilted rig, and adapted pumping units on one platform because of reservoir
6
2.1. EMERAUDE VAPEUR : ASTEAMPILOT INANOFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT7
shallowness and steam production equipment on a second platform because of the
distance to the shore. The Emeraude field is estimated to contain 1 billion barrels of
viscous original oil in place (OOIP). After 14 years of production (1972-1986), only 170
million barrels had been recovered, about 3% of OOIP, and the reservoir was severely
pressure depleted. To produce the remaining reserves by primary recovery in 15-20
years, several additional platforms would be needed, and the final recovery would still
be only 5-10% OOIP [9]. Various EOR methods were considered to meet the challenge
(a) Emeraude field location. (b) Emeraude five spot.
Figure 2.1: Emeraude field location and five spot[9].
of this large amount of oil associated with this poor recovery rate. Water injection
was implemented in 1972 in a five-spot pattern, assuming that imbibition would be
active. The results were disappointing, with water breaking through to producers
almost immediately. In-situ combustion tests under laboratory conditions showed
that most of the oil would be burned in the fracture network. Promising results,
however, were obtained from steam-injection tests under laboratory conditions. The
8 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
experimental work of Willman et al.[15] shows that both steam and hot-water drives
may improve oil mobility by reducing viscosity and also may reduce residual oil at
high temperatures.
A steam-flood in Figure 2.1 b shows the five spot steam injection implemented to.
• prove the technological feasibility of such a project in adverse conditions (drilling
with a tilted rig, drilling through and cementing depleted and fractured zones,
pumping tilted wells, and producing steam from seawater) and
• evaluate reservoir responses to steam injection, steam injectivity, steam break-
through time, recovery rate, and OSR (oil steam ratio).
The Emeraude steam drive pilot provided original solutions to recover a larger amount
of OOIP than could be recovered by primary production despite difficult conditions.
Technological problems were solved during the pilot design. One of the first devel-
opments was obtained interms of getting sufficient well spacing by using a tilt rig for
drilling. A second success of development was that depleted and fractured zones were
adequately drilled and completed. A third was that pumping units were adapted to
tilted wells and electronically regulated. Lastly, facilities for steam production from
seawater were located on a platform because of the long distance to shore.
In addition to these technological solutions, some reservoir engineering conclusions
were obtained. For instance, steam can be injected at a sufficient rate in reservoirs
R1 and R2. A final conclusion was that steam improves the oil production rate in
heterogeneous reservoirs. Significant response by Well EMV07 in reservoir R2 (oil
rate increased four-fold) and other wells, located on adjacent platforms were noted.
2.2. MARLIN FAILURE ANALYSIS AND REDESIGN 9
2.2 Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign
In this section, three papers are reviewed related to this subject and including basic
information about Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT). Bradford et al. [16] describe
the Marlin failure and give several possible failure modes. They try to reduce them
by making analysis and physical evidence. Ellis et al. [43] apply the failure analysis
from the first paper to the remaining Marlin wells and focuses on the VIT redesign
process. Gosch et al. [48] addresses focusing on the value of combined VIT and
fiber/software monitoring system as a means of both controlling and observing well
thermal behavior.
VIT provides a solution for heat loss in steam injection in Arctic and offshore
environments. VIT is a tubular apparatus conveying steam or other hot fluids (>
400
o
F) to the formation through an inner tubular that is surrounded by an outer
tubular [6]. The annular space between the inner and the outer tubular is under
vacuum. The annulus is usually filled with a better material for absorbing hydrogen
formed by corrosion of the outer tubular and gases such as nitrogen, carbon monoxide,
and hydrogen released from the inner tubular at elevated temperatures [6].
The Marlin field is located in the Gulf of Mexico, Viosca Knoll Blocks 871/915,
and was originally intended to be produced from a tension-log platform by means of
five predrilled dry-tree penetrations. Right after production began, a minor tubing
leak occurred, and after that casing pressure jumped to shut in tubing pressure. It
was the first alert of a major tubing failure. Analysis of the failure came up with
several critical issues including
• excessive helical buckling of the production tubing,
• hydrate formation and dissolution,
• trapped annulus pressure leading to casing collapse, and
10 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
• improper tubulars and wellhead movement
After the fishing operation and ultrasonic caliper, they concluded that deformation
of Well A-2’s tubing was the result of collapse of production tieback. They still do
not know whether it was because of the production tieback collapsed alone or as a
result of collapse of the intermediate casing is unknown [16].
Although Marlin wells predrilled up to the completion stage limited mitigation
options, well design concepts were developed and screened using agreed-upon risk-
acceptance criteria for health, safety, and environment (HSE). They chose VIT based
on the economic analysis and risk profile associated with each option. Using VIT,
they had significant thermal isolation due to the low conductivity or low convecting
annular fluids [43]. They did several experimental studies on VIT and found out
three important facts. The overall thermal properties of the unaltered VIT were
not adequate for Marlin requirements due to the fact that heat loss at coupling
dominates the performance of a VIT joint. Second, a combination of thermal coatings
and insulated inserts provides adequate additional insulation at the couplings. Last,
several materials were tested in the annulus to reduce heat loss and N
2
is the most
effective barrier to heat loss.
In the third paper of the Marlin failure redesign [48], they have tested VIT per-
formance with developed software to see the production annulus temperature profile
in real time. This real-time monitoring gave them better control of the well such
as when a low safety factor is calculated, a well is shut in automatically. VIT de-
sign itself has lots of design considerations and challenges. They tried to understand
whether the VIT was a good choice or not based on the both experimental and nu-
merical results [48]. They sum up their work in several with giving results. Design of
VIT introduces a number of considerations not present in a design using conventional
tubing. Another important conclusion was natural convection can significantly affect
the ability of VIT to isolate tubing temperatures from the annulus. Additionally, it
2.3. HEAT TRANSMISSIONMECHANISMS ANDDISCUSSIONFROMAUTHORS11
was remarked that regional heating can add a temperature increase to outer annuli
that is not anticipated in a single well analysis. Both the thermal performance of the
VIT and its mechanical integrity require special consideration. These results lead the
authors to suggest that each well has to studied and treated individually.
2.3 Heat Transmission Mechanisms and Discus-
sion from Authors
2.3.1 Heat Transmission Mechanisms
In this section we review the heat transfer mechanisms during steam injection oper-
ations. Including conduction, convection, and radiation and a combination of two or
more in our calculations.
2.3.1.1 Heat Transfer by Conduction
Figure 2.2: Schematic view of conduction
(after [8]).
Heat conduction also called diffusion is
the transfer of energy from the more en-
ergetic particles of a substance to the ad-
jacent, less energetic ones as a result of
interaction between particles.
˙
Q
cond
= kA
T
1
−T
2
∆x
= −kA
∆T
∆x
(2.1)
where k is the thermal conductivity of
the material (Fig. 2.2). In the limit-
ing case ∆x → 0 the equation above
reduces to the differential form that is
12 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
called Fourier

s law of heat conduction after J. Fourier and becomes [8, 35].
˙
Q
cond
= −kA
dT
dx
(2.2)
2.3.1.2 Heat Transfer by Convection
Figure 2.3: Heat transfer
from a hot surface to air
by convection (retrieved
from [1]).
One mode of convection heat transfer is between a solid
surface and the adjacent liquid or gas that is in motion.
Convection is called forced convection if the fluid is forced
to flow over the surface by external means such as fan,
pump, or the wind. In contrast, convection is called natu-
ral (or free) convection if the fluid motion caused by buoy-
ancy forces that are induced by density differences due to
the variation of temperature in the fluid (Fig. 2.3). The
rate of convection heat transfer is expressed by Newton

s
law of cooling as [8, 35]
˙
Q
conv
= −hA
s
(T
s
−T

) (2.3)
2.3.1.3 Heat Transfer by Radiation
Figure 2.4: Representation
of heat transfer by radia-
tion(after [8]).
Radiation is the energy emitted by matter in the form
of electromagnetic waves as a result of changes in the
electronic configurations of the atoms or molecules.
The radiation that can be emitted from a surface at
an absolute temperature T
s
(in K or R) is given by
the Stefan −Boltzman law as [8, 35]
˙
Q
emit,max
= σA
s
T
4
s
(2.4)
2.3. HEAT TRANSMISSIONMECHANISMS ANDDISCUSSIONFROMAUTHORS13
2.3.2 Heat Transmission Discussion from Authors
In the literature many investigators have worked on the thermodynamic properties of
the hot fluid movement through wells in onshore fields for both production and injec-
tion. One of the well-known papers for wellbore heat transmission is by Ramey[42].
Most of the publications follow upon his approach. He provided an approximate ana-
lytical solution for wellbore heat transmission. In his paper, Ramey [42] made several
assumptions. He assumed that fluid is non-compressible and flow is single phase with
constant thermal and physical properties along the wellbore. He considered that heat
flows radially away the wellbore and the overall heat treansfer coefficient is indepen-
dent of depth. He did not take into account frictional pressure loss and kinetic energy
effect in his calculation.
Squier et al. [47] solved differential equations describing fluid temperature along
the wellbore, using a complete analytical method. They used hot water as injection
fluid.
Satter [45] presented a method that improved Ramey’s [42] model by making
the overall heat transfer coefficient dependent on depth-step method for calculating
heat loss and steam quality for saturated steam as a function of depth. Since Satter
assumed that there is no change in pressure with depth, he assumed, in effect that
the temperature of the injected saturated steam remains constant, and that only the
quality varies with depth.
One year after Satter’s [45] paper, Holst and Flock [25] added the friction loss and
kinetic energy effects on Ramey’s [42] and Satter’s [45] models, in order to calculate
the heat loss and quality distribution versus depth for saturated steam injection
operations. They neglected, however, the static pressure change.
In 1966, Leutwyler [31] gave a comprehensive treatment of casing temperature
behavior. Hans and Huitt [26] also developed a graphical solution for wet steam
14 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
injection operations. In their model, they calculate wellbore heat loss, steam conden-
sation rate, and casing temperature.
One year later, Willhite [49] proposed his well known method for estimation of
over-all heat transfer coefficient that is applied in our calculation as well.
Two of the pioneers in the prediction of heat loss and pressure drop in the wellbore
were Pacheco and Farouq Ali [38]. They formulated a mathematical model that
consisted of two coupled nonlinear differential equations that were solved iteratively
in terms of pressure and quality of steam. They assumed single phase flow, which is
not valid, and later on Farouq Ali [18] solved this problem by taking into account slip
between the fluids and the flow regime. He used several correlations and stated that
importance of applying two-phase flow concept and flow regime.
Wu and Pruess [50] presented a new analytical for wellbore heat transmission
without Ramey’s assumptions. Their approach was assuming non-homogeneous for-
mations as layered formation with different physical properties.
All the development both technological and understanding of the problem have
been done so far helped to understand heat transfer mechanism and solve the problem
with taking into account considerations from the authors.
Chapter 3
Model Formulation
This chapter presents the methodology for heat-loss calculations and pressure drop
estimation in injection tubing.
3.1 Heat Loss Calculations
We have adapted Fontanilla’s [19] assumptions for the solution of offshore and onshore
injectors. These assumptions follow:
1. Heat transfer in and around the wellbore takes place under pseudo steady state
conditions. Conduction is pseudo steady state when the change in temperature
with respect to time at any given point in the wellbore remains constant. This
would mean that the heat rate through the wellbore components is the same at
any given time. This can be seen in the derivation of the equation to evaluate
the overall heat transfer coefficient U
to
. The heat transfer into the earth occurs
under unsteady-state condition.
2. The heat diffusivity and the conductivity of the formation is constant.
3. The tubing hangs symmetrically inside the casing.
15
16 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
As steam travels downward in the wellbore, it loses energy to the surrounding
formation. This heat loss may result in condensation with consequent reduction in
steam quality and enthalpy.
Heat losses through pipes, whether surface lines or wells, usually are estimated
at steady-state conditions in oilfield operations. The procedures for estimating heat
losses may appear laborious. The calculation procedures of both Prats [41] and
Willhite [49] are discussed here. For offshore heat losses calculations an analogy
between electrical circuits and heat resistance is made.
One of the classic papers about over-all heat transfer coefficient was published
by Willhite [49]. He presented his widely used method that is incorporated in most
simulators for hot fluid injection and hot water. Here in our study, we will give the
equations for both surface lines and wellbores based on the methods discussed. For
comprehensive calculation procedure we refer to read Appendix A. In addition, we
provide the equations for insulated and noninsulated cases and also for offshore heat
loss calculations. In Table 3.1, we have provided thermal conductivity of the different
insulation material based on the values from the thesis of Marques[34].
Table 3.1: Thermal Conductivity of the materials
Insulation Materials W/(m*K) (BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F))
Black Aerogel 0.012 0.0069
White Aerogel 0.014 0.0081
Fiberglass 0.028 0.0162
Carbon Fiber 0.036 0.0208
Thermolastic Insulation 0.041 0.0237
Calcium Silicate 0.069 0.0400
3.1. HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS 17
3.1.1 Heat Loss from Surface Lines
3.1.1.1 With/without Insulation
(a) Surface pipe with insulation. (b) Surface pipe without insulation.
Figure 3.1: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with or without
temperature profile.
In Figure 3.1 a. we have a representative resistance to heat transfer and a temperature
profile. Prats [41] stated that even though heat losses from surface lines in hot fluid
injection operations may be a small fraction of the total heat injected, it is generally
worthwhile to use insulation to reduce heat losses to save both money and fuel. That
savings can be significant will be demonstrated by means of steam injection examples.
The basic equation used to calculate heat losses per unit length of pipe,
˙
Q
ls
, is
˙
Q
ls
=
T
b
−T
A
R
h
(3.1)
where R
h
is represented as R
h
=
1
2πrU
, U is the overall coefficient of heat transfer, and
18 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
r is an arbitrary radius that usually coincides with the radius of one of the surfaces for
which the heat loss is being determined. Here, R
h
is the specific thermal resistance
(thermal resistance per unit length of pipe) and is given in units of (BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F))
−1
, T
b
is the bulk temperature of the fluid in the pipe in degrees Fahrenheit, T
A
is the ambient temperature of the atmosphere in degrees Fahrenheit, and
˙
Q
ls
is the
rate of heat loss per unit length of pipe in BTU/(ft −hr). Rates of heat loss during
transient periods can be several times greater than at steady state. Transient effects
generally are neglected in calculations of heat losses from thermal lines, because the
transient phase is often of short duration (of the order of less than a day). For a pipe
covered with insulation, the specific thermal resistance of heat loss is given as
R
h
=
1

_
1
h
f
r
i
+
1
h
pi
r
i
+
1
λ
p
ln
r
o
r
i
+
1
h
po
r
o
+
1
λ
ins
ln
r
ins
r
o
+
1
h
fc
r
ins
_
(3.2)
Here h
f
is the film coefficient of heat transfer between the fluid inside the pipe and
the pipe wall, h
pi
is the coefficient of heat transfer across any deposits of scale or
dirt at the inside wall of the pipe, h
po
is the coefficient of heat transfer across the
contact between pipe and insulation, h
fc
is the coefficient of heat transfer due to
forced convection (air currents) at the outer surface of the insulation, r
i
is the inner
radius of the pipe,r
o
is the outer radius of the pipe and essentially the inner radius
of the insulation, r
ins
is the external radius of the insulation, and λ
p
and λ
ins
are the
thermal conductivities of the pipe and insulation. Coefficients of heat transfer are
expressed in (BTU/(sqft − hr −
o
F)) , radii in feet, and thermal conductivities in
(BTU/(ft − hr −
o
F)). Because the temperature on the surface of most insulated
lines is low, radiation is usually insignificant and is not included in Eq.3.2 above. The
physical significance of each of the six terms in the right side of Eq.3.2 is illustrated
in Figure 3.1. Each of the six terms is proportional to a thermal resistance in the
system affecting heat losses. Adjacent to the inner surface of the pipe is a low-velocity
3.1. HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS 19
fluid film (1). Because of its low velocity, this film has heat transfer characteristics
different from those of the flowing bulk fluid and accounts for the introduction of
the film coefficient of heat transfer h
f
. Note that the resistance to heat flow across
this film decreases as the value of the coefficient of heat transfer increases. Scale or
dirt deposits at the inside (2) and outside (4) pipe walls lead to coefficients of heat
transfer h
pi
and h
po
, respectively. Heat transfer through the pipe wall (3) and the
insulation (5) is by conduction. A low velocity fluid film at the exterior surface of
the insulation (6), which affects heat losses to the atmosphere by forced convection,
leads to the coefficient of heat transfer h
fc
. It should be pointed out that adding
more insulation does not necessarily reduce the rate of heat losses further.
3.1.2 Heat Loss from Sea Level to Sea Floor
3.1.2.1 With/without Insulation
(a) Sea Part with insulation. (b) Sea Part without insulation.
Figure 3.2: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with temperature
profile.
20 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
For the sea level heat loss calculation, we have made several assumptions taking
Figure 3.4 as reference:
1. heat transfer is steady because the specified thermal conditions at the bound-
aries do not change with time,
2. heat transfer is one dimensional due to thermal symmetry about the midpoint,
3. thermal conductivity is constant,
4. sea temperature does not change along the wellbore
R
total
= R
conv,1
+ R
cycl,1
+R
cycl,2
+R
cycl,3
+R
conv,2
(3.3)
R
total
=
1
h
1
A
1
+
1
2πLk
1
ln
r
2
r
1
+
1
2πLk
2
ln
r
3
r
2
+
1
2πLk
3
ln
r
4
r
3
+
1
h
2
A
4
(3.4)
In order to calculate heat losses from offshore wells we have to find T
ins
and U
to
and
also sea water parameters such as thermal diffusivity, thermal conductivity, density,
specific heat at the given salinity and temperature of the sea.
3.1. HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS 21
Figure 3.3: Sea water properties change with temperature and salinity[36].
Figure 3.4: Schematic representation of the wellbore.
22 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
3.1.3 Heat Loss from Sea Floor to Reservoir
3.1.3.1 With/without Insulation
(a) Sea Floor to Reservoir with insulation. (b) Sea Floor to Reservoir without insulation.
Figure 3.5: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer sea floor to reser-
voir.
Heat losses from wells never reach a steady state. They attain, as pointed out by
Ramey [42] and Willhite [49], a quasisteady state in which the rate of heat loss is a
monotonically decreasing function of time. This function of time, is discussed later in
more detail. It is a measure of how fast the earth conducts heat away from the well.
Heat losses from the well to the earth are characterized by Eq. 3.1, where in this
case the ambient temperature is the geothermal temperature and, thus, a function
of depth. In this case, of course, the specific thermal resistance is time dependent,
reflecting the variable effective thermal resistance of the earth. A representation of
the typical elements offering resistance to heat losses from the wellbore is given in
Fig 3.5. For the insulated tubing held concentrically within the casing shown in this
3.1. HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS 23
figure, the heat resistance elements are combined to obtain the overall coefficient of
heat loss:
R
h
=
1

_
1
h
f
r
i
+
1
h
pi
r
i
+
1
λ
p
ln
r
o
r
i
+
1
h
po
r
o
+
1
λ
ins
ln
r
ins
r
o
+
1
h
ς,an
r
ins
+
1
λ
p
ln
r
co
r
ci
+
1
λ
cem
ln
r
w
r
co
+
1
λ
Ea
ln
r
Ea
r
w
+
f(t
D
)
λ
E
_
(3.5)
The first five terms have been discussed in the preceding section for heat loss from
surface lines. The last five terms represent, in order of appearance, the resistance
to radiation and convection in the annulus, the resistance of casing, the resistance
of the cement, the resistance of an altered zone (resulting from drying due to high
temperatures) in the earth, and the variable resistance of the earth.
Different well designs lead to different expressions for determining the overall
thermal resistance R
h
. In Eq, h
ς,an
is the radiation and convection coefficient of
heat transfer for the annulus, r
ci
and r
co
are the inner and outer casing radii, r
w
is the wellbore radius, r
Ea
is the radius of the altered zone in the earth near the
wellbore, λ
cem
is the thermal conductivity of the cement, λ
Ea
and λ
E
are the thermal
conductivities of the altered and unaltered earth, and f(t
D
) is the time function
that reflects the thermal resistance of the earth. Coefficients of the heat transfer
are expressed in (BTU/(sqft −hr −
o
F)), radii in feet, and thermal conductivities in
(BTU/(ft−hr−
o
F)). The function f(t
D
) is dimensionless, and the dimensionless time
is discussed later. The function f(t
D
) and the radiation-convection coefficient of heat
transfer in the annulus, h
ς,an
, are the only additional terms requiring discussion. The
function f(t
D
) has been discussed by a number of authors, here only the Ramey[42]
and Willhite[49] representation is going to be discussed. f(t
D
) is represented in terms
of dimensionless time:
t
D
=
α
E
t
r
2
w
(3.6)
24 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
if there is an altered zone,
t
D
=
α
E
t
r
2
Ea
(3.7)
here α
E
is the thermal diffusivity of the earth in square feet per hour, and t is the
time from start of heating in hours. For values of t
D
≤ 100 and is then Ramey [42]
gives calculation:
f(t
D
)
1
2
∗ (lnt
D
) + 0.403 (3.8)
for t
D
≤ 100. For values of of t
D
≤ 100, Willhite [49] has published Table 3.2. This
Table 3.2 is used to interpolate the value for finding f(t
D
).
3
.
1
.
H
E
A
T
L
O
S
S
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
2
5
Table 3.2: Time Function f(t
D
) for the boundary condition model [49].
t
D
100 50 20 10 5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.0
0.1 0.313 0.313 0.314 0.316 0.318 0.323 0.330 0.345 0.373 0.396 0.417 0.433 0.438 0.445
0.2 0.423 0.423 0.424 0.427 0.430 0.439 0.452 0.473 0.511 0.538 0.568 0.572 0.578 0.588
0.5 0.616 0.617 0.619 0.623 0.629 0.644 0.666 0.698 0.745 0.772 0.790 0.802 0.806 0.811
1.0 0.802 0.803 0.806 0.811 0.820 0.842 0.872 0.910 0.958 0.984 1.000 1.010 1.010 1.020
2.0 1.020 1.020 1.030 1.040 1.050 1.080 1.110 1.150 1.200 1.220 1.240 1.240 1.240 1.250
5.0 1.360 1.370 1.370 1.380 1.400 1.440 1.480 1.520 1.560 1.570 1.580 1.590 1.590 1.590
10.0 1.650 1.660 1.660 1.670 1.690 1.730 1.770 1.810 1.840 1.860 1.860 1.870 1.870 1.880
20.0 1.960 1.970 1.970 1.990 2.000 2.050 2.090 2.120 2.150 2.160 2.160 2.170 2.170 2.170
50.0 2.390 2.390 2.400 2.420 2.440 2.480 2.510 2.540 2.560 2.570 2.570 2.570 2.580 2.580
100.0 2.730 2.730 2.740 2.750 2.770 2.810 2.840 2.860 2.880 2.890 2.890 2.890 2.890 2.900
26 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
3.2 Steam Phase behavior calculations
Figure 3.6: Pressure-enthalpy diagram (retrieved from [24]).
The steam properties such as density of the saturated steam and density of the sat-
urated liquid are calculated directly using IAPWS IF97[24]. Based on the function
from[24], our pressure versus enthalpy diagram looks like Figure 3.6. Steam quality
changes with depth. The appropriate ordinary differential equations are described in
Appendix A. To solve this differential equation in each interval of the well, a fourth
order Runge-Kutta method is used with Matlab ”ode45” function.
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 27
3.3 Two Phase Flow Correlations
Unlike single-phase flow, two-phase flow behavior is more complex than for single-
phase flow. The phases tend to separate because of differences in density. Shear
stresses at the pipe wall are different for each phase because of their different densities
and viscosities. The main difference between gas and liquid phase is they do not
travel at the same speed in the pipe. For downward flow, liquid always flows faster
than the gas or vapor phase. We give information about the two phase correlations
that are applied in our calculations for vertical downward flow with insulated and
uninsulated tubing for both an onshore and offshore environments. The two-phase
flow correlations we used in our calculations are modified Beggs and Brill, Aziz, Govier
and Fogarasi, Drift Flux model, and Hasan and Kabir correlations. Besides, we also
addressed flow regimes for vertical flow. We provide flow regimes in two phase vertical
flow in Figure 3.7.
Figure 3.7: Gas-liquid flow-patterns for vertical pipes (retrieved from [12]).
28 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
The general pressure gradient equation is
dp
dz
=
g
g
c
ρ
s
sinφ +

f
v
2
m
2g
c
d
+
ρv
m
dv
m
g
c
dz
(3.9)
where ρ
s
= ρ
l
H
L
+ ρ
g
H
g
and the definition for ρ
s
and the density term is used in
the acceleration component.
dp
dz
=
_
dp
dz
_
el
+
_
dp
dz
_
f
+
_
dp
dz
_
acc
(3.10)
The pressure drop caused by elevation change depends on the density of the two-phase
mixture and is usually calculated using a liquid holdup value. Friction losses require
evaluation of a two-phase friction factor. Acceleration is sometimes negligible and is
usually calculated only for high flow velocities. Many correlations have been developed
for predicting two-phase flowing pressure gradients that differ in the manner used to
calculate these three components of the total pressure gradient. Some investigators
chose to assume that gas and liquid phases travel at the same velocity (no slippage
between phases) for evaluating the mixture density and evaluate only a friction factor
empirically. Others developed methods for calculating both liquid hold up and friction
factor and some chose divide the flow conditions into patterns and developed separate
correlations for each flow regime.
Figure 3.8 shows flow regime pattern both injection and production of the fluid.
Predicting the flow regimes that occur at a given location in a well is extremely im-
portant. The empirical correlation or mechanistic model used to predict flow behavior
varies with flow pattern. Droplet flow, also known as mist flow, happens at the well-
head during steam-only injection. In this flow, the gas phase is continuous and the
bulk of the liquid is entrained as droplets in the gas phase. The pipe wall is coated
with a liquid film, but the gas phase predominantly controls the pressure gradient
[13, 14, 23, 46].
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 29
Annular mist flow also as known as annular droplet flow occurs right after the
mist flow and is characterized by the axial continuity of the gas phase in a central
core with the liquid flowing downward, both as a thin film along the pipe wall and as
dispersed droplet in the core. [13, 14, 23, 46].
Figure 3.8: Vertical downward
two-phase flow [33].
Churn flow is the change of continuous gas
phase to continuous liquid phase. There is clear
distinction between gas bubbles and liquid phase
like gas phase trapped into largebubbles. Neither
phase appears to be continuous. [13, 14, 23, 46].
During slug flow, the pipe is almost com-
pletely filled with the liquid and free gas phase
is present in small bubbles. The bubbles move at
different velocities and except for their density,
have little effect on the pressure gradient. The
wall of the pipe always contacts with the liquid
phase [13, 14, 23, 46].
The correlations addressed in this study are
discerned from each other by taking into account
both the slippage effect and flow patterns. Pa-
rameters are calculated in two-phase flow requires
knowledge of several parameters such as liquid
holdup, superficial velocity of both gas and liq-
uid phases, viscosity of both phases, slip velocity
and no-slip velocity values. Here we are going to
give equations of them.
Liquid Holdup and Slippage Effect
When two or more phases are present in a pipe, they tend to flow at different
30 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
in-situ velocities. These in-situ velocities depend on the density and viscosity of each
phase. Typically the phase that is less dense flows faster than the other. This causes
a ”slip” effect between the phases. As a consequence, the in-situ volume fractions of
each phase (under flowing conditions) differ from the input volume fractions of the
pipe. Liquid holdup is defined as the ratio of the volume of a pipe segment occupied
by liquid to the volume of the pipe segment. That is
H
L
=
volume of liquid in a pipe segment
volume of pipe segment
(3.11)
Liquid holdup is a fraction that varies from zero for all gas flow to one for all liquid
flow. The remainder of the pipe segment is of course occupied by gas, that is referred
to as gas holdup or gas fraction. That is
H
g
= 1 −H
L
(3.12)
Figure 3.9: Liquid Holdup and Slippage effect representation (retrieved from[4]).
No −Slip Liquid Holdup
No-slip holdup, sometimes called input liquid content, is defined as the ratio of the
volume of liquid in a pipe segment divided by the volume of the pipe segment which
would exist if the gas and liquid traveled at the same velocity (no-slippage). It can
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 31
be calculated directly from the known liquid and gas from rates as
C
L
=
q
L
q
L
+q
g
(3.13)
C
g
= 1 −C
L
=
q
g
q
L
+q
g
(3.14)
Velocity
Many two-phase flow correlations are based on a variable called superficial velocity.
The superficial velocity of a fluid phase is defined as the velocity which that phase
would exhibit if it flowed through the total cross section of the pipe alone. Superficial
velocity for the gas phase is
v
sg
=
q
g
A
(3.15)
Actual gas velocity is
v
g
=
q
g
AH
g
(3.16)
Superficial velocity for liquid phase is
v
sL
=
q
L
A
(3.17)
The actual liquid velocity is
v
s
=
q
L
AH
L
(3.18)
The two-phase mixture velocity is
v
m
= v
sL
+ v
sg
(3.19)
The slip velocity is
v
s
= v
g
−v
L
=
v
sg
H
g

v
sL
H
L
(3.20)
32 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
The no-slip holdup is
C
L
=
v
sL
v
m
(3.21)
Viscosity
Viscosity of the both saturated water and saturated steam is calculated based on the
correlation of from Liang et al. [32].
For saturated water viscosity
µ
w
= exp[0.484045 −3.1115 ∗ 10
−2
∗ T
0.95
+ 1.3192 ∗ 10
−4
∗ T
1.9
−2.2934 ∗ 10
−7
∗ T
2.85
¸
(3.22)
For saturated steam viscosity
µ
s
= 0.0085 + exp[−7.0661 + 2.1106 ∗ 10
−2
∗ T −7.2085 ∗ 10
−5
∗ T
2
+1.0111 ∗ 10
−7
∗ T
3
¸
(3.23)
3.3.1 Modified Beggs and Brill Model
For multiphase flow, many of the published correlations are applicable for ”vertical
flow” only, while others apply for ”horizontal flow” only. Not many correlations
apply to the whole spectrum of flow situations that may be encountered in oil and
gas operations, namely uphill, downhill, horizontal, inclined and vertical flow. The
Beggs and Brill [3, 7, 14, 39] correlation, is one of the few published correlations
capable of handling all these flow directions. It was developed using 1” and 1-1/2”
sections of pipe that could be inclined at any angle from the horizontal.
The Beggs and Brill multiphase correlation deals with both the friction pressure
loss and the hydrostatic pressure difference. First the appropriate flow regime for
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 33
the particular combination of gas and liquid rates (Segregated, Intermittent or Dis-
tributed) is determined. The liquid holdup, and hence, the in-situ density of the gas-
liquid mixture is then calculated according to the appropriate flow regime, to obtain
the hydrostatic pressure difference. A two-phase friction factor is calculated based
on the ”input” gas-liquid ratio and the Moody friction factor table using Colebrook
equation. From this the friction pressure loss is calculated using ”input” gas-liquid
mixture properties.
3.3.1.1 Flow-Pattern Determination
The Beggs and Brill correlation needs to identify the flow pattern at the given flowing
conditions in order to calculate the liquid holdup and friction pressure drop. For this
purpose, the Beggs and Brill correlation makes use of a horizontal flow pattern map
built based on the Froude number of the mixture (F
rm
) and input liquid content
(no-slip liquid holdup, C
L
).
In order to build the flow map, the observed flow patterns were grouped as: seg-
regated (stratified, wavy and annular flow), intermittent (plug and slug flow), dis-
tributed (bubble and mist flow), and transition (flow pattern included after a modi-
fication of the original publication that considers the region between the segregated
and intermittent grouped patterns).
The boundaries between these groups of flow patterns appear as curves in a log-
log plot in the original publication by Beggs and Brill. This was later revised so
that straight lines could be used instead. We use this modified flow pattern map in
our calculations. The revised lines that define the boundaries are defined as follows
(where * stands for the modification of the original curve to a straight line in a log-log
plot)
34 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
Figure 3.10: Flow Map for the Beggs and Brill Correlation (retrieved from[4]).
L

1
= 316C
0.302
L
(3.24)
L

2
= 0.0009252C
−2.4684
L
(3.25)
L

3
= 0.1C
−1.4516
L
(3.26)
L

4
= 0.5C
−6.738
L
(3.27)
The identified flow pattern is the one that would exist if the pipe were horizontal.
Unless the pipe is actually in the horizontal position, the Beggs and Brill correlation
is not able to recognize the actual flow pattern under the given conditions. Therefore,
to calculate the liquid holdup, we first determine the liquid holdup for the horizontal
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 35
flow, and this value is then corrected for the angle of interest.
The Froude number is a dimensionless number that relates the inertia with respect
to the gravitational forces. For a mixture, it is obtained as
Fr
m
=
V
2
m
gD
(3.28)
Once the input liquid content (C
L
) and Froude number of the mixture (F
rm
) are de-
termined, the corresponding flow pattern is identified when the following inequalities
are satisfied.
SegregatedFlow occurs when C
L
< 0.01 and Fr
m
< L

1
or C
L
≥ 0.01 and Fr
m
< L

2
.
Figure 3.11: Segregated Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]).
IntermittentFlow occurs when 0.01 ≤ C
L
< 0.4 and L
3
< Fr
m
≤ L

1
or C
L
≥ 0.4
and L

3
< Fr
m
≤ L

4
.
36 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
Figure 3.12: Intermittent Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]).
DistributedFlow occurs when C
L
< 0.4 and Fr
m
≥ L

1
or C
L
≥ 0.4 and Fr
m
> L

4
.
Figure 3.13: Distributed Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]).
TransitionFlow occurs when C
L
≥ 0.01 and L

2
< Fr
m
< L

3
.
3.3.1.2 Hydrostatic Pressure Difference
Once the flow pattern has been determined, the liquid holdup is then calculated.
Beggs and Brill divided the liquid holdup calculation into two parts. First, the liquid
holdup for horizontal flow, E
L
(0), is determined. Afterwards, this horizontal holdup
is corrected for inclined flow to obtain the actual holdup, E
L
(θ). The horizontal
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 37
holdup must be E
L
(0) ≥ C
L
. Therefore, in the event that E
L
(0) < C
L
, the horizontal
holdup is set to E
L
(0) = C
L
. The expression used to calculate the horizontal holdup
changes per flow pattern group as follows in MatLab:
1: if strcmp(Flowpattern,

Segregated

) then
2: E
L
(0) ←
0.98C
0.4846
L
Fr
0.0868
m
3: else
4: if strcmp(Flowpattern,

Intermittent

) then
5: E
L
(0) ←
0.845C
0.5351
L
Fr
0.0173
m
6: end if
7: if strcmp(Flowpattern,

Distributed

) then
8: E
L
(0) ←
1.065C
0.5824
L
Fr
0.0609
m
9: end if
10: if strcmp(Flowpattern,

Transition

) then
11: A ←
L

3
−Frm
L

3
−L

2
12: B ←1 −A
13: E
L
(0)
Segregated

0.98C
0.4846
L
Fr
0.0868
m
14: E
L
(0)
intermittent

0.845C
0.5351
L
Fr
0.0173
m
15: E
L
(0)
Transition
←AE
L
(0)
Segregated
+BE
L
(0)
Intermittent
16: end if
17: end if
Once the horizontal in-situ liquid volume fraction is determined, the actual liquid
volume fraction is obtained by correcting E
L
(0) by an inclination factor B(θ):
E
L
(θ) = B(θ)E
L
(0) (3.29)
B(θ) = 1 +β
_
sin(1.8θ) −
1
3
sin
3
(1.8θ)
_
(3.30)
β for all type of flow pattern is
β = (1 −C
L
)ln
_
4.70N
0.1244
vl
C
0.3692
L
Fr
0.0978
m
_
(3.31)
38 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
where N
v
l = 1.938V
sl
_
ρ
L

_1
4
and β must always be ≥ 0. Therefore if a negative value
of β is obtained, β=0.
Once the actual liquid holdup E
L
(θ) is calculated, the mixture density ρ
m
is ob-
tained. Mixture density, in turn, is used to calculate the pressure change due to the
hydrostatic head of the vertical component of the pipe
∆P
HH
=
ρ
m
gLsin(θ)
144g
c
(3.32)
3.3.1.3 Frictional Pressure Loss
In order to calculate frictional losses, a normalizing friction factor f
NS
is used. To
determine f
NS
, we utilize the Moody Friction factor calculated using the Colebrook
equation. For this purpose, the no-slip Reynolds number is used:
Re
NS
=
ρ
NS
V
m
D
µ
NS
(3.33)
Based on experimental data, Beggs and Brill presented a correlation for the ratio of
the two-phase friction factor f
tp
and the normalizing (no-slip) friction factor resulting
in the following exponential equation:
f
tp
= f
NS
e
S
(3.34)
The value of S depends on the no-slip and the actual liquid holdup:
S =
ln(Y )
−0.0523 + 3.182(ln(Y )) −0.8725(ln(Y ))
2
+ 0.01853(ln(Y ))
4
(3.35)
where Y =
C
L
E
L
(θ)
2
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 39
1: if Y ≥ 1 and Y ≤ 1.2 then
2: S ←ln(2.2Y −1.2)
3: else
4: S ←
ln(Y )
−0.0523+3.182(ln(Y ))−0.8725(ln(Y ))
2
+0.01853(ln(Y ))
4
5: end if
Finally, the expression for pressure loss due to friction is:
∆P
f
=
2f
tp
V
2
m
ρ
NS
L
144g
c
(3.36)
3.3.2 Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi Model
Fontanilla[19] investigated applicability of the Aziz et al. [29] mechanistically based
pressure drop correlation for downwards steam flow. As Fontanilla stated for Aziz et
al. [29], this correlation that was strictly developed for upward vertical flow needs
some modification in order to apply to downward flow. Those modifications are
included in the bubble flow and in the slug flow patterns. Due to the large volume
of steam(gas) as compared to the water that is present in most steam injection wells,
the annular mist flow pattern is very common.
3.3.2.1 Flow Pattern Determination
In Figure 3.14 we can see the flow-pattern map for different flow types.
N
x
= V
Sg
_
ρ
g
0.0764
_1
3
__
72
σ
L
_
_
ρ
L
62.4
_
_1
4
(3.37)
N
y
= V
SL
__
72
σ
L
_
_
ρ
L
62.4
_
_1
4
(3.38)
40 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
Figure 3.14: Flow Pattern map for Aziz et al. (retrieved from[14]).
In the Figure 3.14 we have several lines that represents flow-pattern transitions
and they are defined as:
N
1
= 0.51(100N
y
)
0.172
(3.39)
N
2
= 8.6 + 3.8N
y
(3.40)
N
3
= 70(100N
y
)
−0.152
(3.41)
where v
SL
is in ft per second, v
S
is in feet per second, ρ
g
is in pounds per cubic feet,
ρ
L
is in pounds per cubic feet and σ
L
is in dynes per centimeter.
Bubble Flow
The bubble flow pattern is characterized by small bubbles of steam(gas) dispersed in
a continuous water phase. In downward flow, the difference in densities of the two
phases causes the bubbles to travel at a velocity lesser than the average velocity of the
mixture. Bubble flow exists if N
x
< N
1
. Liquid holdup for bubble flow is calculated
from
H
L
= 1 −
v
Sg
v
bf
(3.42)
where v
bf
is the rise velocity of small gas bubbles in a flowing liquid. This velocity is
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 41
predicted for downward flow as follow
v
bf
= 1.2v
m
−v
bs
(3.43)
where the first term is the approximate velocity of the fluid mixture, accounting for
the nonuniform velocity and bubble concentration profiles across the cross section,
and v
bs
is the rise velocity of a continuous swarm of small bubbles in a static liquid
column. The v
bs
term is predicted from
v
bs
= 1.41
_
σ
L
g(ρ
L
−ρ
g
)
ρ
2
L
_1
4
(3.44)
The frictional component of the pressure gradient is determined as
∂p
∂Z
=

s
v
2
m
2d
(3.45)
where ρ
s
is determined from equation (4.34) and friction factor from Moody Friction
factor calculation using the Colebrook equation[27].
ρ
s
= ρ
L
H
L

g
(1 −H
L
) (3.46)
N
Re
=
ρ
L
v
m
d
µ
L
(3.47)
The acceleration component of the pressure gradient is considered to be negligible for
bubble flow.
42 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
Slug Flow
Slug flow exists if N
1
< N
x
< N
2
for N
y
< 4 or N
1
< N
x
< 26.5 for N
y
≥ 4.
The liquid holdup for slug flow is also calculated from Eq.(4.30) and Eq.(4.37). For
slug flow, however, the bubble-rise velocity in a static liquid column is based on large
bubble. Aziz et al.[29] state that
v
bs
= C
¸
gd(ρ
L
−ρ
g
)
ρ
L
(3.48)
where C was given by Wallis as
C = 0.345
_
1 −e
(−0.029Nv)
¸
_
1 −e
(
3.37−N
E
m
)
_
(3.49)
and
N
E
=
gd
2

L
−ρ
g
)
σ
L
(3.50)
N
v
=
_
d
3

L

L
−ρ
g
)
µ
L
(3.51)
and m is determined as
1: if N
v
≥ 250 then
2: m ←10
3: else
4: if 250 > N
v
> 18 then
5: m ←69N
−0.35
v
6: end if
7: if N
v
≤ 25 then
8: m ←25
9: end if
10: end if
3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 43
The friction pressure-gradient component for slug flow is determined from
_
dp
dZ
_
f
=

L
H
L
v
2
m
2d
(3.52)
The friction factor is obtained from a Moody friction factor and the Colebrook
equation[27]. The Reynolds number is given as
N
Re
=

L
v
m
d
µ
L
(3.53)
The acceleration pressure-gradient component was considered negligible for slug flow.
Mist Flow
Mist flow exists when N
x
> N
3
for N
y
< 4 or N
x
> 26.5 for N
y
> 4. Aziz et al.[29]
recommended the Duns and Ros [28] mist-flow method be used to calculate pressure
gradient for this flow pattern.
Transition Flow
The transition region exists when N
2
< N
x
< N
3
for N
y
< 4. In Figure 4.8, the tran-
sition region does not exist for N
y
> 4. When the transition region is predicted, the
pressure gradients must be calculated with both the slug-flow and mist-flow equations.
To obtain the pressure gradient, linear interpolation is performed.
dp
dZ
= A
_
dp
dZ
_
slug
+ (1 −A)
_
dp
dZ
_
mist
(3.54)
where A =
N
3
−Nx
N
3
−N
2
3.3.2.2 Modifications
Al-Najjar and Al-Soof [5] showed that improved results could be obtained with Aziz
et al. method if the flow pattern map in Figure 3.14 was replaced with the Duns and
Ros map. Their conclusion was based on a comparison of the predicted and measured
44 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION
pressure drops for 80 tests on 15 flowing wells in Iraq.
Chapter 4
Effect of Non-Condensable Gas
(N
2
)
In our calculations we used N
2
as the non-condensable gas. We explore the partial
pressure effect of N
2
on downhole steam quality, temperature, pressure and as well
as heat loss during the steam injection. Addition of non-condensable gas into our
system makes our calculation a little complex [10]. The pressure of the vapor phase
is now a sum of steam partial pressure and gas partial pressure:
P
total
= P
steam
+ P
N
2
(5.1)
where P
total
is the total pressure of the gas phase, P
steam
is the partial pressure of the
steam and P
N
2
is the partial pressure of the N
2
. We assume N
2
only exists in the
vapor phase with steam and has the same temperature as the steam. N
2
is assumed
not to carry heat, so contribution to the mixture enthalpy is zero. N
2
, however,
provides partial pressure during steam injection. Neglecting the enthalpy of N
2
is a
good approximation because steam enthalpy is several orders of magnitude larger in
comparison to N
2
.
45
46 CHAPTER 4. EFFECT OF NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
)
The total mol fraction of the liquid and gas phase is

x
i
= 1.0 (5.2)

y
i
= 1.0 (5.3)
where x is the liquid mole fraction of the components, y is the vapor mole fraction of
the components. Because we have only liquid water in our system inequlibrium with
steam and N
2
,

x
i
= 1.0 is always equal to x
water
.
Calculation of the partial pressure of the gas components is
P
N
2
= y
N
2
∗ P
total
(5.4)
P
steam
= y
steam
∗ P
total
(5.5)
Suppose we have a system with given injection rate, steam quality, steam tem-
perature or pressure (one determines the other), time and mol fraction of N
2
. So,
mole fraction of steam is found from Eq. 5.3 and

y
2
= y
N
2
+ y
steam
= 1.0 yields
that y
steam
= 1 − y
N
2
. With a given undilited steam pressure or temperature (one
determines other), we find the total pressure as
P
total
=
P
steam
y
steam
=
P
steam
1 −y
N
2
(5.6)
Once we find total pressure we continue to find other input parameters in our
calculation. Total mass of the steam is found as
W
mX
= Wm∗ t ∗ x (5.7)
Having the total mass of the steam in our system, we find the total moles of the steam
47
as
Mole
X
=
W
mX
∗ 454
18.02
(5.8)
With known steam mole fraction, we find how many moles of N
2
is in the system
as
y
steam
=
Mole
X
Mole
X
+Mole
N
2
(5.9)
Because y
steam
is known and y
N
2
is known, there is only one unknown in Eq. 5.9.
Mole
N
2
is easily found using Eq. 5.9. The reason we calculated mole of the N
2
is
because it is not changed entire process. Meaning that mass of the N
2
is constant al
the time. The only thing is going to change in each interval is that mol fraction of the
N
2
, and it is going to increase due to the condensation of steam. Another important
assumption is that the viscosity of mixture of N
2
and steam is the as same as the
viscosity of the undiluted steam. The equation for viscosity is given by Eq.3.23.
We assume that in two phase flow, cases occur where the gas partial pressure is
significant compared to the steam partial pressure. When this is the case the gas and
steam act as perfect gases. Thus we use ideal gas law
PV = n ∗ R ∗ T (5.10)
where P is the total pressure of the system in kilo pascal, n is the mole fraction of the
component, R is the universal gas constant 8.314 J/K-mol and T is the temperature
in Kelvin, K =
o
C + 273.15.
Total volume of the steam and N
2
is obtained using ideal gas law as
V
steam
=
Mole
X
∗ R ∗ T
steam
P
steam@initial
(5.7)
V
N
2
=
Mole
N
2
∗ R ∗ T
steam
P
steam@initial
(5.8)
48 CHAPTER 4. EFFECT OF NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
)
Once steam volume and N
2
volume are obtained, it is easy to find density of the total
gas mixture. Another, potentially more accurate, method is to obtain the steam
molar volume from the steam tables. In either case, the overall volume is found by
applying Amagat’s law. That is, the volumes of each component add ideally and
there is no volume change upon mixing. The density of the gas mixture and liquid
mixture are used in our calculation. In each segment of the wellbore, this calculation
has to be repeated until steam reaches the reservoir.
Chapter 5
Graphical User Interface (GUI)
Our GUI provides several inputs parameters and options that are useful in the cal-
culations. The user can choose different two-phase correlations and get the results
as well as choose previous calculation results for post-processing. The theory behind
calcualtions is well described in preceding chapters and the Appendix. The overall
heat transfer coefficient is implemented both following Willhite’s approach[49] and
Ramey’s time function[42]. This is similar to Fontanilla [19]. This chapter shows how
we get the results using our GUI.
GUI for the Main program
The GUI is demonstrated with snapshot of the program. The first snapshot gives the
background for the program. The second snapshot is about calculations for onshore
environment with insulated and without insulated tubing. Also, we provide solutions
for the addition of non-condensable gas N
2
for both onshore and offshore environ-
ments. The third snapshot is the input parameters for the offshore environment. The
fourth snapshot is the output tables both onshore and offshore environments. The
fifth snapshot is about the post-processing for viewing the results in figures for steam
quality, steam pressure, steam temperature and heat loss along the wellbore. All
49
50 CHAPTER 5. GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI)
calculations take into account two-phase flow correlations.
First snapshot of the program is shown Figure 5.1, it is seen that there are several
input parameters for specifically steam injection parameters for onshore cases. User
can choose different insulation materials and two-phase flow correlations. Figure 5.2
is the similar input parameters except riser radius and sea temperature inputs. User
also able to choose insulation materials and two phase flow correlation to calculate
steam temperature, steam pressure, steam quality and heat loss values. In third
figure that is Figure 5.3, after the calculation is done either for onshore or offshore
cases, results are shown this part and user able to save those datas to excel files or
clear them. Last one is the Figure 5.4, is post-processing the data that obtained from
calculations either onshore or offshore is designed specifically to visualize the results
and to save the figures or delete it.
Figure 5.1: User interface developed GUI for onshore calculations.
51
Figure 5.2: User interface developed GUI for offshore calculations.
Figure 5.3: User interface developed GUI for both onshore and offshore results.
52 CHAPTER 5. GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI)
Figure 5.4: User interface developed GUI post-processing for both onshore and off-
shore results.
Chapter 6
Results and Comparisons
In this part of the study, surface line, sea and sea floor to reservoir heat loss calcu-
lations are presented using limited data provided by Prats [41]. We compared our
results with Prats’s [41] results. It is shown that our results match with Prats’s [41]
results for surface lines. For injection wells, our results are a little higher than his
results. With this we found his minor mistake for onshore injection well and reported
here. And then results are extended to 2 field cases [11]. Moreover, non-condensable
gas addition calculations are done with different injection rate, steam quality, steam
temperature, different depth and different percentage of N
2
addition in order to see
the sensitivity of steam temperature, steam pressure, steam quality and heat loss.
6.1 Examples for heat loss calculation
Examples with known solutions are presented for surface line and onshore calcualtions
with insulated or without insulated tubing to verify the new code. There is no example
for offshore heat loss calculation, so we take input values from Prats [41] and modify
the calculations to illustrate the hole of insulation. This part of results are only
considered for heat loss aspects.
53
54 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
6.1.1 Example 10.1 from Prats
Steam at 550
o
F is injected through 4-in. N-80 pipe at a rate of 229 B/D. Prats [41]
asks ”find the steady state heat loss per year per 100 ft of pipe when the pipe is (1) is
insulated with 3 in of calcium silicate and (2) not insulated - i.e., bare.” The average
yearly temperature is 60
o
F, and the prevailing winds have an average velocity of 20
mph normal to the injection line. The input parameters are listed in Table 6.1.
h
fc
=
18v
0.6
w
r
0.6
ins
r
ins
(6.1)
With insulation, the over all specific thermal resistance is calculated from Eq. 3.2
and plotted into Figure 6.1 and for without insulation plotted into Figure 6.2.
Accordingly, the amount of heat lost from 100-ft length of pipe over a period of
1 year is Q
l
=1.1581*10
8
BTU for the calcium silicate (highest heat loss), for black
aerogel heat loss is Q
l
=2.0302*10
7
BTU (lowest heat loss).
Without insulation and at a surface temperature near 550
o
F, radiation heat losses
are important. The sum of the coefficients of heat transfer due to the radiation and
free(or natural) convection for a horizontal pipe is given Table 3.1 for a several pipe
sizes and temperatures. Eq. 3.2 is also applied here in order find the heat loss for
without insulation case.
Thus, the amount of heat lost from a 100-ft length of pipe over a period of 1 year
is: Q
l
=6.095*10
9
BTU when the pipe is bare. Therefore, the insulation reduces heat
losses by a factor of about 50 when using calcium silicate, however if you use aerogel
it would be 280. Because one barrel of oil is roughly 6.0*10
6
BTU, the reduction in
yearly heat losses resulting from insulating the pipe amounts to more than 1000 bbl
of fuel for a 100-ft length of pipe. When you use calcium silicate you would consume
100 bbl, on the other side when you use aerogel you would consume 16 bbl for 100
ft length surface pipe. When we think about deeper wells using insulation material
6.1. EXAMPLES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATION 55
should be considered especially aerogel. Table 6.1 is used when we calculate the heat
losses for the uninsulated case.
In Example 10.1 with insulations, Prats [41] used calcium silicate as the insulation
material and get the heat loss as, Q
l
=1.16*10
8
BTU, over the year. Our result
for using calcium silicate is Q
l
=1.1581*10
8
BTU and it is consistent with Prats’s
example as shown in Figure 6.1. Without insulation, Prats [41] stated that the
coefficient of heat transfer due to radiation and forced convection is estimated to be
330 BTU/ft
2
−D−
o
F, however, he used 110 BTU/ft
2
−D−
o
F and get the heat loss
results over the one year period is Q
l
=6.21*10
9
BTU. In our calculation we find this
minor mistake from Prats calculation, and it causes little deviation from the exact
results. This shows that the real heat loss from bare tubing is Q
l
=6.095*10
9
BTU as
shown in Figure 6.2. Still those results match well.
In Table 6.1, there are several column headings. Abbreviations are explained as
”SLwithIns” is the surface line with insulated tubing, ”SLwithoutIns” is the surface
line without insulated tubing, ”SeawithIns” is the offshore case with insulated tubing,
”SeawitouthIns” is the offshore case without insulated tubing, ”2ResWithIns” is the
sea floor to reservoir case with insulated tubing, and ”2ResWithoutIns” is the sea
floor to reservoir case without insulated tubing.
5
6
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
6
.
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
A
N
D
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
S
Table 6.1: Input parameters from Prats [41] as used for different example calculations.
Parameters SLwithIns SLwithoutIns SeaWithIns SeaWithoutIns 2ResWithIns 2ResWithoutIns
T
steam
550 550 600 600 600 600
T
average
60 60 70 70 100 100
r
ti
0.1478 0.1478 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
r
to
0.1667 0.1667 0.1458 0.1458 0.1458 0.1458
r
ins
0.41467 No Insulation 0.2292 No Insulation 0.2292 No Insulation
r
riserin
0 0 0.6 0.6 0 0
r
riserout
0 0 0.75 0.75 0 0
h
f
2000 2000 0 0 0 0
h
pi
∞ ∞ 0 0 0 0
h
po
2000 2000 0 0 0 0
λ
pipe
25 25 25 25 0 0
λ
cem
0 0 24 24 24 24
λ
ins
0.166/24 No Insulation 0.166/24 No Insulation 0.166/24 No Insulation
time 365*24 365*24 21*24 21*24 21*24 21*24
PipeLength 100 100 164 164 1000 1000

riserin
0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0

riserout
0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0

rto
0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0

riserin
0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9

riserout
0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9

rto
0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9
6
.
1
.
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
S
F
O
R
H
E
A
T
L
O
S
S
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
5
7
Table 6.2: Radiation-natural convection coefficient of heat transfer.
Diameter 130 180 230 280 330 380 480 580 680 780 880 980 1080 1180 1280
0.50 50.9 59.5 66.2 74.4 81.8 90.0 107.0 127 149 174 202 234 269 307 352
1.00 48.7 57.1 63.6 71.5 79.0 86.9 104.0 124 146 171 198 230 265 304 348
2.00 46.3 54.5 60.5 68.4 75.4 83.3 100.0 120 141 166 194 225 260 299 343
4.00 44.2 51.8 57.8 65.3 72.2 79.9 96.5 116 137 162 189 221 256 294 338
8.00 42.2 49.4 70.1 62.4 69.4 76.8 93.1 112 134 158 186 217 252 290 334
12.00 41.0 48.2 53.8 61.0 67.7 75.1 91.9 111 132 156 184 215 250 289 332
24.00 39.4 46.3 51.6 58.8 65.3 72.7 88.8 108 129 153 180 212 247 286 329
58 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.1: Surface lines heat loss calculation with six different insulation materials.
Figure 6.2: Surface Heat Loss calculation without insulation.
6.1. EXAMPLES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATION 59
6.1.2 Example for Offshore
Figure 6.3: Heat loss from sea level to sea floor with six different insulations.
Figure 6.4: Heat loss from sea level to sea floor without insulation.
60 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Under 600
o
F, steam injection for offshore heat loss is calculated with insulated
material and uninsulated cases. Sea temperature is taken as 70
o
F for 164 ft water
depth. This is relatively shallow. Heat loss estimation for 21 days of injection shows
that the greatest the thermal conductivity values the greatest the heat losses observed.
For instance using calcium silicate (2.87 ∗ 10
4
) BTU gives four times more heat loss
than black aerogel (0.75 ∗ 10
4
) BTU. In addition, the bare tubing (2.1 ∗ 10
5
) BTU
case also gives about 8 times more heat loss than using lowest thermal conductivity
insulation materials. It is clear that for 21 days period heat loss are substantial for
uninsulated wells.
6.1.3 Example 10.2 from Prats
Steam at 600
o
F is injected down 3.5-in. tubing set on a packer in 9 5/8 -in., 53.5-
lbm/ft N-80 casing. The annulus contains a stagnant gas at zero gage pressure at
wellhead, and the casing is cemented to surface in a 12-in. hole. The tubing is
insulated with 1 in. of calcium silicate, the insulation being held in place and sealed
from accidental entry of liquids in the annulus by a very thin sheath of aluminum. A
temperature survey in the well indicates a mean surface temperature of 100
o
F over
the 1000-ft depth. Estimate the rate of heat loss 21 days after steam injection started,
as well as the casing temperature. There is no altered zone near the boreholes. Input
parameters are taken from Table 6.1.
Heat transfer across the gas filled annulus is by radiation and natural convection.
Radiation is sensitive to the temperature levels and emissivities (∈) of the surfaces.
The temperature at the surface of the insulation (T
ins
) and that at the inner radius
of the casing (T
ci
), together with the emissivities at these surfaces (∈
ins
) and (∈
ci
),
affect the radiation heat losses across the annular space between the insulated casing.
The calculation procedure is well explained in the Prats book[41].
Prats [41] assumed that for shallow reservoir temperature change does not vary
6.1. EXAMPLES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATION 61
much with depth such as 1000 ft. He also stated that when the steam injection hap-
pens, shallow reservoir temperature stays constant. This is why using a single value
of R
h
may provide a close enough estimate of heat losses and wellbore temperatures.
This is good approach in terms of calculation and simplicity.
Example 10.2 from Prats [41] got heat loss Q
l
=4.46*10
6
BTU for 21 days that
corresponds to an equivalent energy content of 6.0*10
6
BTU/bbl of fuel, the daily
heat loss from such an insulated well corresponds to less than 1 bbl of fuel. In our
calculation we get Q
l
=4.6*10
6
BTU that is slightly different than Prats results that is
shown in Figure 6.5. It is because of several input parameters that differs somewhat.
Discussion of heat loss so far, considers the entire well as a unit. It is because of
assuming temperature of the fluid does not change with depth for shallow reservoirs.
In our program validation we do not assume this and we take into account temperature
change along the wellbore.
62 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.5: Heat loss calculation using different insulation materials based on Example
10.2 from Prats[41].
Figure 6.6: Heat loss calculation without using insulation materials based on Example
10.2 from Prats [41].
6.2. PROGRAM VALIDATION 63
6.2 Program Validation
Table 6.3: Field data parameters for field data 1 and field data 2 [19].
Input Parameters Field Data 1 Field Data 2
D
ti
0.177 0.177
r
to
0.104166667 0.104166667
r
ins
No Insulation No Insulation
r
ci
0.166666667 0.166666667
r
co
0.1875 0.1875
r
h
0.6 0.6
k
e
1 1
α
E
0.0286 0.0286
k
cem
0.2 0.2

to
0.9 0.9

ci
0.9 0.9

EARTH
0.94 0.94
W
m
4640 4850
x 0.8 0.8
p
wh
250 250
T
m
50 50
Depth 1600 1600
P
an
14.7 14.7
t 71 117
There are 2 field cases where steam temperature is reported in the literature [11].
The Martha Bigpond well data is retrieved from the paper. Fontanilla and Aziz [20]
64 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
referred to the same field data from Bleakley’s paper [11] as field data 1 and 2. These
cases are to referred in our calculations as field data 1 and field data 2 as well. Input
parameters are tabulated in Table 6.3. Besides Beggs and Brill [13, 14] and Aziz et
al. [29], Hasan and Kabir model [23, 40] and the Drift Flux model [21] are applied in
our calculations.
After applying the modified Fontanilla[20] approach with modified correlations,
we got promising results using the Beggs and Brill [13, 14] approach for multiphase
flow with field data 1. The other three correlations also get good agreement with
Fontanilla’s results as shown in Figure 6.7 and 6.8. When we look at the steam quality
versus depth, the Beggs and Brill over predicts the quality values that Fontanilla got
for field data 1 in Figure 6.9. The other three correlations that we implemented have
almost the same results. It may be because of applying different correlations to get
saturated steam properties during calculations.
In Figure 6.10, we can see the heat loss during steam injection is almost same
values for the four different correlations of multiphase flow.
6.2. PROGRAM VALIDATION 65
355 360 365 370 375 380 385 390 395 400 405
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Temperature in
o
F
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Field Data 1
Fontanilla
Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Hasan & Kabir
DriftFlux
371
o
F 364
o
F
358
o
F 368
o
F
Figure 6.7: Comparison of steam temperature with field data 1 and two-phase corre-
lations.
140 160 180 200 220 240
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Pressure in psi
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Field Data 1
Fontanilla
Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Hasan & Kabir
DriftFlux
150
160
166
168
Figure 6.8: Comparison of steam pressure with field data 1 and two-phase correlations.
66 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
0.7 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Quality
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Fontanilla
Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Hasan & Kabir
DriftFlux
0.745
0.703
Figure 6.9: Calculated steam quality with different two-phase correlations based on
field data 1.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10
5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Heat Loss in BTU
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Hasan & Kabir
DriftFlux
Figure 6.10: Calculated heat loss calculation with insulated tubing based on field
data 1.
6.2. PROGRAM VALIDATION 67
Figure 6.11 and 6.12 also show results after we run our simulator for field test
data 2. Again, we can see that the modified Beggs and Brill method gives a bet-
ter result than the Fontanillla approach compared to the field data 1. The other
three correlations give results similar to Fontanilla’s result. Although, we got good
results for steam temperature and pressure values for Beggs and Brill, our calculation
shows a little overprediction of values for steam quality as shown on Figure 6.13 from
Fontanilla’s result.
355 360 365 370 375 380 385 390 395 400 405
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Temperature in
o
F
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Field Data 2
Fontanilla
Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Hasan & Kabir
DriftFlux
Figure 6.11: Comparison of steam temperature with field data 2 and two-phase cor-
relations.
68 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Pressure in psi
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Field Data 2
Fontanilla
Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Hasan & Kabir
DriftFlux
Figure 6.12: Comparison of steam pressure with field data 2 and two-phase correla-
tions.
0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Quality
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Fontanilla
Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Hasan & Kabir
DriftFlux
Figure 6.13: Calculated steam quality with different two-phase correlations based on
field data 2.
6.2. PROGRAM VALIDATION 69
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
x 10
5
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Heat Loss in BTU
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Aziz, Govier and Fogarasi
Beggs & Brill
Hasan & Kabir
DriftFlux
Figure 6.14: Calculated heat loss calculation with insulated tubing based on field
data 2.
340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Temperature in
o
F
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Field Data 1
Our Model(with Aziz)
Our Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Fontanilla Model(with Aziz)
Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Figure 6.15: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam temperature
with field data 1.
70 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Pressure in psi
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Field Data 1
Our Model(with Aziz)
Our Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Fontanilla Model(with Aziz)
Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Figure 6.16: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam pressure with
field data 1.
0.7 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam quality
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Our Model(with Aziz)
Our Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Fontanilla Model(with Aziz)
Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Figure 6.17: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam quality with
field data 1.
When we look at the results that we got for both field data 1 and 2 cases, we had
an opportunity to compare the results with Fontanilla’s approach. The figures above
6.2. PROGRAM VALIDATION 71
for the field data 1, and our implementation of Beggs and Brill correlations starts
converging to the real data when we reach the bottom of the wellbore in Figure 6.15.
On the other hand Fontanilla’s Beggs and Brill implementation has less accurate
results than ours. Our model using Aziz et al. has good agreement with Fontanilla’s
Beggs and Brill results. Looking at the results, Fontanilla’s Aziz et al. calculations
give almost perfect results with the field data until 1000 ft. Reuslts then deviate from
the real values and go out of the range. In Figure 6.16, we can also see the same trend
with Figure 6.15. It comes to check steam quality, although we are able to calculate
steam quality with given injection rate and input parameters, in the literature we
could not find the steam quality data. Therefore we only compare the results we have
in our model and Fontanilla’s model, in Figure 6.17. We can conclude the comparison
saying that the Aziz et al. model starts converging from the beginning and obtains
similar values. On the other hand, Beggs and Brill results differ quite a bit between
the two methods.
330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Temperature in
o
F
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Field Data 2
Our Model(with Aziz)
Our Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Fontanilla Model(with Aziz)
Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Figure 6.18: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam temperature
with field data 2.
72 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam Pressure in psi
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Field Data 2
Our Model(with Aziz)
Our Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Fontanilla Model(with Aziz)
Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Figure 6.19: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam pressure with
field data 2.
0.68 0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Steam quality
D
e
p
t
h
(
f
t
)


Our Model(with Aziz)
Our Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Fontanilla Model(with Aziz)
Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill)
Figure 6.20: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam quality with
field data 2.
In the field data 2, we got the results and plot them as shown in Figures 6.18 - 6.20.
In Figure 6.18 our model with Beggs and Brill correlations gives very good agreement
6.3. ONSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 73
with the real data and converges to the exact value. In contrast, Fontanilla’s method
with the Beggs and Brill approach gives less accurate results than our model. In
our model, the Aziz et al. method, results better match field data as compared
to Fontanilla’s Aziz et al. approach, however, Fontanilla’s Aziz et al. approach
initially gives great results and captures almost exact values for several hundreds ft
then deviates substantially from the reality. We can also conclude with saying that
we improved Fontanilla’s approach using several two-phase correaltions. This trends
continue in Figure 6.19 with pressure values. The last comparison is steam quality.
We can say that our model with Beggs and Brill two-phase flow correlations has less
quality drop than Fontanilla’s Begss and Brill model in Figure 6.20. The Aziz et al.
approach has similar steam quality values in both models.
6.3 Onshore environments
For both onshore and offshore environments with insulated or uninsulated tubing
input parameters are used for field data 1. The surrounding temperature, however, is
taken as 122
o
F, time is 1 year and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr similar to the onshore,
offshore and non-condensable gas cases. For the offshore part, field data 1 values are
used as an input and exception is also used here with additional input for offshore
sea temperature is taken as 70
o
F.
Results in Figures 6.21 and 6.22 are insulated by black aerogel, and various two-
phase correlations are used. Three different steam injection temperatures and two
different depths are considered for the onshore environment. Steam temperature,
steam pressure, steam quality and heat loss values are investigated. When the steam
temperature is 400
o
F, the Beggs and Brill two-phase flow correlation model’s tem-
perature profile or pressure profile drops dramatically. On the other hand, three
other two-phase correlations converge to the same values both on temperature profile
74 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
and pressure profile. When we increase injection temperature to 500
o
F, the Beggs
and Brill two-phase flow correlation model’s temperature or pressure profile drops
less than the other correlations until 7500 ft then converge to the others. When
the depth is greater than 8000 ft, it gives a little greater value than other correla-
tions. Interestingly, the behavior of the Beggs and Brill model when the injection
temperature increased to 600
o
F gives less temperature drop than all the other three
correlations. Figures 6.25 and 6.26 show that with different temperature and depth
all the flow regimes have similar values in steam temperature, steam pressure, and
steam quality comparing with insulated case. The differences between insulated and
uninsulated tubing is the heat loss and steam quality values. Figure 6.23 and Figure
6.27 show results. The steam quality values with insulated tubing when compared to
uninsulated tubing cases differ significantly. Without insulation, there is greater heat
loss and quality decreases to a greater extent as compared to the insulated case. It is
also observed that, the Beggs and Brill model, with increasing injection temperature
overpredicts the steam quality values. Figures 6.24 and 6.28 give the information that
increasing injection steam temperature causes greater heat loss when comparing 500
o
F and 600
o
F cases.
Similar trends are obtained during the steam injection in an offshore environment
as well. Although the offshore depth of 200 ft is relatively shallow and greater pres-
sure drop and temperaure drop for small interval does not really effect the behavior
trend of the steam properties at downhole conditions. The greater the steam tem-
perature, the greater steam quality and steam properties are obtained in both cases.
The greatest heat loss is obtained using calcium silicate which has greatest thermal
conductivity value among the six different insulations. Figures presented in Appendix
C also have similar behavior in our example, therefore this explanation will help to
understand those figures as well.
6.3. ONSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 75
6.3.1 Examples with Insulation Materials
UsingBlackAerogelλ
BA
= 0.0069BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
Figure 6.21: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black
aerogel.
Figure 6.22: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
76 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.23: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
Figure 6.24: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
6.3. ONSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 77
6.3.2 Examples without Insulation Materials
Figure 6.25: Steam temperature distribution , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Figure 6.26: Steam pressure distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
78 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.27: Steam quality distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850
lbm/hr without insulation.
Figure 6.28: Heat loss distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850
lbm/hr without insulation.
6.4. OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 79
6.4 Offshore Environments
6.4.1 Examples with Insulation Materials
UsingBlackAerogelλ
BA
= 0.0069BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
Figure 6.29: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel.
Figure 6.30: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel.
80 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.31: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel.
Figure 6.32: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel.
6.4. OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 81
6.4.2 Examples without Insulation Materials
Figure 6.33: Steam temperature distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Figure 6.34: Steam pressure distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
82 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.35: Steam quality distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850
lbm/hr without insulation.
Figure 6.36: Heat loss distribution, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850
lbm/hr without insulation.
6.4. OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 83
Figure 6.37: Pressure drop distribution and formation pressure (green dots), 1 year,
T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel for onshore.
Reservoir pressure is clearly an important factor governing steam injectors. When
we know the formation pressure, we can determine whether we can inject steam and
at what temperatures in order to heat the reservoir. For this purpose, we could
conceive two different formation pressures at the same depth. One is smaller than
steam pressure one is greater than steam pressure on shown Figure 6.37. If formation
pressure is greater than steam pressure, steam can not be injected to the reservoir.
Greater the steam pressures are obtained with higher temperatures. Having this
advantage, steam can be injected with increasing temperature to the formation.
84 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
6.5 Adding Non-Condensable Gas (N
2
) in an On-
shore environment
6.5.1 Examples with Insulation Materials
Figure 6.38: With changing N
2
molar percentage, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
Non-condensable gas is added to the field data 1 scenerio an input except 122
o
F,
time is 1 year and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with modified Beggs and Brill two-phase
correlation. First, different N
2
molar percentage of steam is added to the steam,
starting from 5 % to 30% mol fraction of the steam. In Figure 6.38, the greater N
2
6.5. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANONSHORE ENVIRONMENT85
in the system gives more partial pressure to the system. The contribution of partial
pressure by steam drops significantly and temperature as well. But, steam quality
drops less so the heat loss decreases. It has a disadvantage to deliver lower steam
temperature to the reservoir in terms of less latent heat addition to the reservoir.
Reducing the fraction of N
2
in the steam gives greater heat loss and quality drop,
however, it increases steam partial pressure and temperature, so more heat is delivered
to the reservoir.
Figure 6.39: With changing injection rate, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
In Figure 6.39, different injection rate is studied with 10% by mole N
2
added to
the steam. In our calculation, frictional pressure drops have the greatest contribution
86 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
to the pressure drop calculation. Frictional pressure drop can be caused by greater
injection rate in our case. The greater the injection rate the greater the pressure
drop, steam temperature, and steam quality decrease downhole. Increasing injection
rate does not yield good results in downward steam injection operations.
Figure 6.40: With changing steam quality molar percentage , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F
and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
Figure 6.40, different steam quality values are conducted in our work with 10% N
2
.
Increasing steam quality yields more pressure and temperature drop in existing cases
for non-condensable gas. However, it also yields higher steam quality values when
the steam reaches to reservoir with rich quality but poor temperature and pressure
values. That may not be good for maintaining the temperature and pressure of the
6.5. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANONSHORE ENVIRONMENT87
steam. In the same figure, heat loss values with different steam quality does not vary
and have almost same value with different injection quality.
Figure 6.41: With changing injection temperature, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
Steam temperature values are changed in terms of checking the sensitivity of steam
quality, steam temperature, steam pressure, and heat loss. In Figure 6.41, increasing
steam temperature is caused by increasing steam pressure. Because of this, smaller
pressure drop and steam quality change is obtained with highest steam temperature
values. The greatest heat loss is observed with the greatest steam injection temper-
ature at 650
o
F.
88 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.42: With changing injection depth, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
The effect of injection depth is analysed by changing the depth. However, after
2500 ft even if steam quality was high, injection depth could not be increased, because
of the significant pressure drop along the tubing. For the different range of depth, all
the values are corresponded and follow the same distribution except depth, shown in
Figure 6.42.
6.5. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANONSHORE ENVIRONMENT89
6.5.2 Examples without Insulation Materials
Figure 6.43: With changing N
2
molar percentage, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Same scenerio is also applied for uninsulated tubing as applied to insulated tubing
cases. Figure 6.38 and Figure 6.43 has similarities in terms of the greater the mole
fraction of N
2
we have in the system, the greater pressure drop as well as temperature
drop. Another interesting observation is made with comparing to the insulated tubing
case. The two temperature and pressure drops curves have slightly higher values than
the insulated case when the N
2
mole fraction changes 5 %-10%. The other curves
have greater pressure drop compaed to the insulated case. However, steam quality
drops and heat losses values converge to the same value. Steam quality is less than
90 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
comparing with insulated tubing, but heat loss values almost 10 times greater than
without insulated case. Using insulated tubing gives advantage instead of bare tubing
regarding to less decrease with several parameters.
Figure 6.44: With changing injection rate, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
In Figure 6.44, different injection rate is studied with 10% N
2
mol fraction of
non-condensable gas as shown in Figure 6.39. In our calculation frictional pressure
drops have highest contribution to the pressure drop calculation. Frictional pressure
drop can be caused by more injection rate in our case. The greater the injection
rate greater the pressure drop, steam temperature and and steam quality drop are
observed. Increasing injection rate does not yield good results in downward steam
6.5. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANONSHORE ENVIRONMENT91
injection operations. There is a greater decrease of steam quality, steam pressure,
steam temperature and greater heat losses. Similar trends are seen with insulated
tubing except more heat loss and more quality drops are calculated without insulated
tubing.
Figure 6.45: With changing steam quality molar percentage , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F
and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Figure 6.45, shows different steam quality values are conducted in our work using
uninsulated tubing with 10% N
2
. Steam quality and steam pressure or temperature
values are inversely proportional. When steam quality increase steam pressure change
decrease more as well as steam temperature in existing cases for non-condensable gas,
and vise versa. However, it also yields higher steam quality values when the steam
92 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
reaches to reservoir with rich quality but poor temperature and pressure values. That
may not be good for maintaining the temperature and pressure of the steam. In the
same figure, heat loss values with different steam quality does not vary and have
almost same values with different injection quality. Even if we have greatest liquid
water content for the lowest steam quality, the pressure drop is the smallest. The
contribution of water to the pressure drop is dependent on the slippage effect value
and of course it is going to give little bit higher value than lowest water content on
density of the mixture. However, the main contribution for frictional pressure drop
values is mixture velocity of the components. In this case, the greater the steam
quality we have in the system, the greater the mixture superficial velocity. This
is the main explanation for the why pressure drop is dramatically for the greatest
steam quality value. For example, I have checked three things : the total density of
the mixture, mixture velocity and frictional pressure drop values for both cases and
saw that mixture velocity is higher @ x = 0.85, than @ x = 0.6 almost two times.
Mixture density of x = 0.6 is 1.2 times higher than x = 0.85, frictional pressure drop
for x = 0.85 is almost 2.5 times higher than x = 0.6 case. Therefore, mixture velocity
contribution in two-phase flow calculations have highest impact on frictional pressure
drop, so total pressure drop increase more.
6.5. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANONSHORE ENVIRONMENT93
Figure 6.46: With changing injection temperature, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Steam temperature values are changed in terms of checking the sensitivity of steam
quality, steam temperature, steam pressure and heat loss. In Figure 6.46, increas-
ing steam temperature is caused by increasing steam pressure. Because of this less
pressure drop and steam quality change obtained with highest steam temperature
values. The greatest heat loss is observed with the greatest steam injection tempera-
ture with 650
o
F. With the insulated case, it is discerned that lowest steam quality,
steam pressure, and steam temperature change found with greatest steam injection
temperature. Without insulated tubing case, it is seen that the trend of heat loss val-
ues is almost 10 times greater as compared to the insulated case. Without insulated
94 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
case less steam quality decreases when the temperature 550
o
F, the other higher two
values have corresponding values.
Figure 6.47: With changing injection depth, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Changing depth under non-condensable gas with using uninsulated tubing is stud-
ied by changing the depth ranging from 1600 ft to 2500 ft. Again, a similar trend
is shown in Figure 6.47 using insulated tubing. However, even if values seems closer
for the two different cases, heat loss values are always much greater as compared to
the insulated case.
6.6. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANOFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT95
6.6 Adding Non-Condensable Gas (N
2
) in an Off-
shore environment
Similar observation of steam temperature, pressure, quality and heat loss are obtained
with onshore environment, except for initial pressure drop is greater for offshore
environment in both insulated and uninsulated cases. For example, Figure 6.38 and
Figure 6.48 steam pressure, steam temperature, steam quality are similar except
heat losses, on Figure 6.48 heat loss values corresponds on one line, Figure 6.39 and
Figure 6.49, Figure 6.40 and Figure 6.50, Figure 6.41 and Figure 6.51, and Figure
6.42 and Figure 6.52 have similar trends between onshore cases and offshore cases
with insulated tubing. This observation continues for uninsulated tubing cases as
well. For instance, Figure 6.43 and Figure 6.53, Figure 6.44 and Figure 6.54, Figure
6.45 and Figure 6.55, Figure 6.46 and Figure 6.56, and Figure 6.47 and Figure 6.57
have similar trends between onshore cases and offshore cases with uninsulated tubing.
6.6.1 Examples with Insulation Materials
96 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.48: With changing N
2
molar percentage, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
Figure 6.49: With changing injection rate, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
6.6. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANOFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT97
Figure 6.50: With changing steam quality molar percentage , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F
and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
Figure 6.51: With changing injection temperature, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
98 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.52: With changing injection depth, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.
6.6. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANOFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT99
6.6.2 Examples without Insulation Materials
Figure 6.53: With changing N
2
molar percentage, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Figure 6.54: With changing injection rate, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
100 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS
Figure 6.55: With changing steam quality molar percentage , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F
and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Figure 6.56: With changing injection temperature, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection
rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
6.6. ADDINGNON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N
2
) INANOFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT101
Figure 6.57: With changing injection depth, 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate
4850 lbm/hr without insulation.
Chapter 7
Summary, Conclusions and Future
Work
7.1 Summary
In this thesis, we have presented an approximate, but accurate, solution for heat losses
from steam injectors in both onshore and offshore environments. Solutions take into
account pressure drop, heat loss, and multiphase flow. We compared our solution
with two field cases and got good agreement. We improved the solution provided by
Fontanilla[19] by using more accurate correlations. We made our offshore scenerio
calculation taking into account seawater thermo physical properties in order to create
a more realistic solution.
We used properties that are characteristics of six different insulation materials that
are 1) black aerogel, 2) white aerogel, 3) fiberglass, 4) carbon fiber, 5) thermolastic
insulation and 6) calcium silicate [34] with four different correlations for frictional
pressure drop in the tubing: Aziz et al. [29], Beggs and Brill [3, 7, 14, 39], Hasan
and Kabir [23, 37, 40] , and Drift Flux[21] and gave the results in results section.
When the thermal conductivity of the insulation material increases, pressure drop
102
7.2. CONCLUSIONS 103
increases, steam quality drops, and we lose more heat to the surroundings. Heat loss
and steam quality are highly related with the steam temperature and steam pressure.
In order to see this, we used three different wellhead temperatures of 400
o
F, 500
o
F,
and 600
o
F and plotted the results.
In our calculations, although we saw that Beggs and Brill gives good approx-
imation with the field data 1-2 in temperature, pressure calculations obtained over
predicted steam quality results based on Fontanilla’s approach. As we know each well
has unique characteristics and production or completions history that makes predic-
tions a little bit harder. Therefore, in order to get more accurate simulation results,
more published field data is needed.
7.2 Conclusions
1. Heat transfer equations are developed by making an analogy with circuits for
offshore application and simple heat loss calculation is done with insulated and
uninsulated tubing. Uninsulated tubing gives 8 times higher heat loss when
compared to the worst insulation material and 30 times more heat loss with
compared to the best insulation material. The lower the thermal conductivity,
the lesser the heat loss to the surroundings.
2. The Fontanilla and Aziz approach is augmented and tested against the two field
cases. With improved two-phase flow correlations, a better estimation of tem-
perature profile is obtained with the Fontanilla and Aziz approach. Pressure
and temperature distribution values converged to the field data 1 and 2, with
using the Beggs and Brill model. However, Beggs and Brill overpredicts steam
quality values with compared to Fontanilla’s results. The other two-phase corre-
lations give similar values with Fontanilla’s results in terms of comparing steam
quality. Four different two-phase flow correlations yield almost same heat loss
104 CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
results in both field cases.
3. Field data of steam quality values are not available in the literature. The
calculated steam quality values based on all the investigated two-phase flow
correlations are compared with the results of Fontanilla and Aziz. The Beggs
and Brill model yields higher steam quality values, while all the other models
yield similar results with the base Fontanilla and Aziz calculation.
4. Using insulation materials only affected heat losses and steam quality for both
onshore and offshore environments using insulated or uninsulated tubing. Hav-
ing low thermal conductive material such as black aerogel provides significantly
less heat loss and steam quality decrease over the length of the well. Onshore
and offshore results for both insulated or uninsulated cases showed similar trends
in steam quality, steam pressure, steam temperature and heat loss profiles.
5. A GUI is developed for users to make the calculation faster, and see the other
parameters effect on steam injection operations.
6. Formation pressure is important for both onshore and offshore steam injection
operations. One case is studied for two different environments, and it is shown
that when the formation pressure is greater than steam injection pressure at
given depth steam can not be delivered to the reservoir. Therefore, formation
pressure importance is emphasized in Figure 6.37.
7. The use of non-condensable gas, N
2
, is added to steam is explored. Sensitivity
analysis of the different parameters are conducted. Identical wellhead steam
injection temperature values for offshore insulated tubing are considered with
addition of 10 % N
2
to steam and a pure steam only case. We observed that
having 10 % N
2
increases steam quality value around 8 %, decreases saturated
7.3. FUTURE WORK 105
steam pressure around 20 %, and decreases heat loss around 2 %. For uninsu-
lated tubing cases, increasing N
2
mole fraction does not change the bottom-hole
steam quality and yielded greater overall heat loss. The trend with different non-
condensable gas mole fraction, different steam quality, different injection rate,
different depth and different injection temperature values are similar both insu-
lated and uninsulated cases in for onshore and offshore environments. Greater
the steam injection rate caused greater overall heat loss. Changing depth do not
have any contribution on both insulated tubing and uninsulated tubing cases.
The greatest effect on bottom-hole conditions of steam quality is observed with
the highest wellhead steam temperature. Increasing steam temperature leads to
greater heat loss, because the temperature difference between the well and the
formation is greater. At the same time, the greater the injection temperature
the greater the pressure values and the smaller the change on steam pressure
and steam temperature.
7.3 Future Work
For future work, in order to expand of understanding of the physics of the problem,
more field data has to be provided by the industry. With this more accurate results
can be obtained. Sensitivity analysis and optimization can be done with different
injection temperature, rate, time, steam quality and depth, in order to find best
combination with regarding cost constraints and technology.
106 CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
2ResWithIns Sea floor to the reservoir with insulation
2ResWithoutIns Sea floor to the reservoir without insulation
SeaWithIns Offshore cases with insulation
SeaWithoutInsOffshore cases without insulation
SLWithIns Surface line with insulation
SLWithoutIns Surface line without insulation
HSE health, safety and environment
VIT vacuum insulated tubing
Symbols
a geothermal gradient,
o
F/ft
A area,ft
2
B(θ) inclination factor
C
L
no-slip liquid holdup
˙
Q
ls
rate of heat loss per unit length of pipe in
dp pressure change, psi
dQ heat loss to the surrounding, BTU/lb
dq heat loss to the surrounding, BTU/lb
E
L
(0) horizontal liquid holdup
E
L
(θ) actual liquid holdup
f friction factor, dimensionless
f(tD) time conduction function also known as Ramey function
f
tp
two-phase friction factor, dimensionless
7.3. FUTURE WORK 107
f
NS
no slip friction factor, dimensionless
F
rm
Froud number of mixture
g acceleration due to gravity, 4.17e −8 ft/hr
2
Gr Grashoff’s number
h enthalpy, BTU/lb
h
f
film coefficient of heat transfer of the pipe, BTU/ft
2
−hr
h
fc
coefficient of heat transfer forced convection, , BTU/ft
2
−hr
h
pipe
coefficient of the heat transfer of pipe, BTU/ft
2
−hr
h
c,an
radiation and convection coefficient of heat transfer, BTU/ft
2
−hr
H
L
liquid holdup density
J mechanical equivalent of heat, 778 ft −lb
f
/BTU
L length, ft
k thermal conductivity of the material, BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
khc effective thermal conductivity of the annular fluid, BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
kha actual thermal conductivity of the annular fluid, BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
KE kinetic energy, BTU/lb
N
Re
Reynolds number
P pressure, psi
PE potential energy, BTU/lb
Pr Prandtl’s number
q
g
gas flow rate, ft
3
/hr
r
ti
inner radius of the tubing, ft
r
to
outer radius of the tubing, ft
r
ins
insulation radius of the tubing, ft
r
ci
inside radius of the casing, ft
r
co
outside radius of the casing, ft
r
h
wellbore radius, ft
108 CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
r
Ea
radius of the altered zone in the earth near the well, ft
R Reynolds number
R
h
specific thermal resistance
R
NS
no-slip Reynolds number
t time, hrs
T temperature,
o
F
Ta absolute temperature,
o
R =
o
F + 460
T
A
ambient temperature of the atmosphere,
o
F
T
b
bulk temperature of the fluid in the pipe,
o
F
Tm mean surface temperature,
o
F
U overall coefficient of heat transfer, BTU/hr −ft
2

o
F
v specific volume, ft
3
/lb
v
w
wind velocity, mph
V velocity, ft/hr
v
sg
superficial velocity for gas phase, ft/hr
v
g
actual velocity for gas phase, ft/hr
v
sL
superficial velocity for liquid phase, ft/hr
v
s
actual velocity for liquid phase, ft/hr
v
m
mixture velocity, ft/hr
Wm steam injection rate, lb/hr
X steam quality, fraction by weight
z elevation or depth, ft
Greek Symbols
α
E
thermal diffusivity of the earth, ft
2
/hr
blackbody emissive power, BTU/hr −ft
2
7.3. FUTURE WORK 109

ins
emissivity of the insulation material , BTU/hr −ft
2

ci
emissivity of the casing , BTU/hr −ft
2
λ
pipe
thermal conductivity of the pipe,BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
λ
ins
thermal conductivity of the insulation,BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
λ
cem
thermal conductivity of the cement,BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
λ
Ea
thermal conductivity of the altered zone,BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
λ
E
thermal conductivity of the unaltered zone,BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
µ
s
gas viscosity,lb/ft −hr
µ
w
liquid viscosity,lb/ft −hr
ρ
l
gas density, lbm/ft
3
ρ
l
liquid density, lbm/ft
3
ρ
s
slip mixture density, lbm/ft
3
ρ
NS
no-slip mixture density, lbm/ft
3
σ Stefan Boltzman constant, 0.1714e −8 BTU/(hr −ft
2

o
R
4
)
θ angle from horizontal, −90
Appendix A
Derivation of the Equations
A.1 Total Energy Equation
In Appendix A, all the equations are listed that are adapted and modified from the
work that was done by Fontanilla and Aziz [19]. For a constant injection rate the
continuity equation may be written as
d
dz
ρ
tp
V
m
r
2
ti
= 0 (A.1.1)
where, ρ
tp
is the two-phase density (lb/ft
3
), V
m
is the mixture velocity (ft/hr), and
r
ti
is the inside tubing radius (ft).
The energy conservation equation may be derived by taking a differential element
∆z of the tubing as in Figure A.1:
Energy In (BTU/lb) = Energy Out (BTU/lb)
h
m
1
+
z
1
J
+
V
2
m
1
2gJ
= h
m
2
+
z
2
J
+
V
2
m
2
2gJ
(A.1.2)
where, h
m
1
is the mixture enthalpy at point 1 (BTU/lb), z
1
is the elevation at point
1 (ft), J is the mechanical equivalent of heat = 778 (ft-lb
f
/BTU), V
m
1
is the mixture
110
A.1. TOTAL ENERGY EQUATION 111
velocity at point 1 (ft/hr), g is the acceleration due to the gravity = 4.17*10
8
(ft/hr
2
),
h
m
2
is the mixture enthalpy at point 2 (BTU/lb), z
2
is the elevation at point 2 (ft),
V
m
2
is the mixture velocity at point 2 = V
m
1
+dV
m
(ft/hr), dQ is the heat loss to the
surroundings, BTU/lb.
Figure A.1: Schematic view of tubing element in our calculation.
Transferring the L.H.S. of Eq. A.1.2 to the R.H.S. and assuming dV
2
m
is negligible
we have,
h
m
2
−h
m
1
+
z
2
−z
1
J
+
V
m
1
dVm
gJ
+dQ = 0 (A.1.3)
∆Enthalpy + ∆PE + ∆KE + Heat Loss to Surrounding = 0
The sign of the second term, ∆PE, is correct only if the elevation decreases downward.
In the present problem for the seafloor to reservoir, the surface is the datum plane
and the elevation increases downward, so we need to affix a negative sign before the
112 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
term.
dh
m
+
dz
J
+
V
m
1
dVm
gJ
+dQ = 0 (A.1.4)
dividing by dz
dh
m
dz
+
1
J
+
V
m
1
gJ
+
dV
m
dz
+
dQ
dz
= 0 (A.1.5)
The kinetic energy term in Eq. A.1.5 may be expanded as :
V
m
1
= V
SL
+V
SG
= G
L
v
L
+ G
g
v
g
(A.1.6)
where, V
SL
is the superficial liquid velocity (ft/hr), V
SG
is the superficial gas velocity
(ft/hr), G
L
is the liquid mass flux rate (lb/hr-ft
2
), v
L
is the specific volume of liquid
(ft
3
/lb), G
g
is the gas mass flux rate (lb/hr-ft
2
), v
g
is the specific volume of gas
(ft
3
/lb). Its equivalent differential form is
dV
m
= G
L
dv
L
+G
g
dv
g
(A.1.7)
Therefore we have
V
m
1
gJ
dV
m
dz
=
1
gJ
_
v
L
G
2
L
dV
L
dz
+v
L
G
L
G
g
dV
g
dz
+ v
g
G
g
G
L
dV
L
dz
+v
g
G
2
g
dV
g
dz
_
(A.1.8)
Substituting Eq. A.1.8 in to Eq. A.1.5
dh
m
dz

1
J
+
1
gJ
+
V
m
1
gJ
+
_
v
L
G
2
L
dV
L
dz
+v
L
G
L
G
g
dV
g
dz
+v
g
G
g
G
L
dV
L
dz
+ v
g
G
2
g
dV
g
dz
_
+
dQ
dz
= 0
(A.1.9)
A.2. MECHANICAL ENERGYBALANCE OR THE EXTENDEDBERNOULLI EQUATION113
A.2 Mechanical energy balance or the Extended
Bernoulli Equation
The basis for any fluid flow calculation is the mechanical energy balance for the
flowing fluid between two points. Because there is no external work done on or by
the fluid, a steady-state mechanical energy balance equation in differential form may
be written for 1 lb
m
of fluid as:
144
dp
ρ
tp
+dz +
v
m
1
dv
m
g
+dW
f
= 0 (A.2.1)
where dp= P
2
-P
1
is the change in pressure (lb/in
2
), ρ
tp
is the two-phase density
(lb/ft
3
), dz=z
2
-z
1
is the change in elevation (ft), v
m
1
is the mixture velocity at point
1 (ft/hr), dv
m
is the change in mixture velocity (ft/hr), g is the acceleration due
to gravity = 4.17*10
8
(ft/hr
2
), dW
f
is the frictional drag (ft). We again have to
affix a negative sign on the second term because the elevation increases downward.
Multiplying Eq. A.2.1 by
ρtp
dz
, we have
144
dp
dz
−ρ
tp
+
ρ
tp
v
m
1
g
dv
m
dz

tp
dW
f
dz
= 0 (A.2.2)
or 144
dp
dz
-
dp
dz
elevation of PE+
dp
dz
acceleration or KE+
dp
dz
friction = 0
Substituting Eq. A.1.9 into Eq. A.2.2, we have
144
dp
dz
−ρ
tp
+
ρ
tp
g
_
v
L
G
2
L
dV
L
dz
+v
L
G
L
G
g
dV
g
dz
+v
g
G
g
G
L
dV
L
dz
+ v
g
G
2
g
dV
g
dz
_
+
_
dP
dz
_
friction
(A.2.3)
The mixture enthalpy h
m
is a function of steam quality X and pressure P (psia).
h
m
= f(X, P) (A.2.4)
114 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
The specific volume of liquid (water) and gas (steam) are just functions of pressure
P (psia). V
L
= g (P),V
g
= h (P) thus we can write
dh
m
dz
=
∂h
m
∂X
dX
dz
+
∂h
m
∂P
dP
dz
(A.2.5)
dv
g
dz
=
∂v
g
∂P
dP
dz
(A.2.6)
dv
L
dz
=
∂v
L
∂P
dP
dz
(A.2.7)
Substituting Eq. A.2.5, Eq. A.2.6, and Eq. A.2.7 into Eq. A.1.9 yields:
∂h
m
∂X
dX
dz

∂h
m
∂P
dP
dz

1
J
+
1
gJ
dP
dz
_
v
L
G
2
L
∂V
L
∂P
+ v
L
G
L
G
g
∂V
g
∂P
+ v
g
G
g
G
L
∂V
L
∂P
+ v
g
G
2
g
∂V
g
∂z
_
+
dQ
dz
= 0
(A.2.8)
Substituting Eq. A.2.6, and Eq. A.2.7 into Eq. A.2.3 we have:
144
dP
dz
−ρ
tp
+
ρ
tp
g
dP
dz
_
v
L
G
2
L
∂V
L
∂P
+v
L
G
L
G
g
∂V
g
∂P
+v
g
G
g
G
L
∂V
L
∂P
+ v
g
G
2
g
∂V
g
∂P
_
+
_
dP
dz
_
friction
= 0
(A.2.9)
Solving for
dP
dz
in Eq. A.2.9,
dP
dz
=
ρ
tp

_
dP
dz
_
friction
144 +
ρtp
g
_
v
L
G
2
L
∂V
L
∂P
+v
L
G
L
G
g
∂Vg
∂P
+v
g
G
g
G
L
∂V
L
∂P
+v
g
G
2
g
∂Vg
∂P
_ (A.2.10)
Solving for
dX
dz
in Eq. A.2.8 yields,
dX
dz
=
1
dhm
dX
_

∂h
m
∂P
dP
dz
+
1
J

1
gJ
dP
dz
_
v
L
G
2
L
∂V
L
∂P
+v
L
G
L
G
g
∂V
g
∂P
+v
g
G
g
G
L
∂V
L
∂P
+v
g
G
2
g
∂V
g
∂P
_

dQ
dz
_
(A.2.11)
Eq. A.2.10 and Eq. A.2.11 are two simultaneous, first order ordinary differential
equations to be solved for pressure (P) and quality (X). Besides these we need to find
A.3. EVALUATION OF HEAT LOSS TO THE SURROUNDING 115
a method to calculate
dQ
dz
.
A.3 Evaluation of Heat Loss to the Surrounding
In order to solve Eq. A.2.11, we need to know
dQ
dz
(BTU/lb-ft) which is the heat loss
to the surroundings.
dQ =
dq
W
m
(A.3.1)
dQ is the change in heat loss by fluid (BTU/lb), dq is the change in heat loss rate
(BTU/hr), W
m
is the steam injection rate (lb/hr)
Because we have a pseudo steady state heat flow conditions in the wellbore, the
rate of heat conduction from the fluid to cement-formation interface (hole) is ex-
pressed:
dq
dz
= 2πr
to
(T
f
−T
h
) (A.3.2)
A representation of the problem for three parts of our system will be analyzed and we
refer those figures here again. Figure 3.1 refers to surface lines, Figure 3.4 refers to
sea level to sea floor and Figure 3.9 refers to sea floor to reservoir heat loss calculation
with insulated or not. Three figures and having two options each of them gives six
different heat loss calculation procedures. We adapted the surface line heat losses
from Prats and the rest of theprocedures are based on Willhite’s approach that was
discussed in chapter 3. The radius r and overall heat transfer coefficient U used in Eq.
A.3.2 is based on any reference point. In the present case, the outer tubing surface
was chosen as the reference plane. From Ramey[42], the rate of heat conduction into
the earth is expressed as,
dq
z
=
2πk
e
(T
h
−T
e
)
f(t)
(A.3.3)
where: T
e
is the temperature of the earth (
o
F), k
e
is the thermal conductivity of the
116 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
earth (BTU/hr-ft-
o
F), f(t) is the time conduction function.
Because the rate of heat conduction from the fluid to the cement formation inter-
face (hole) must equal the rate of heat conduction into the earth, Eq. A.3.2 and Eq.
A.3.3 may be equated to obtain an expression for T
h
:
T
h
=
r
to
U
to
f(t)T
f
+ k
e
T
e
r
to
U
to
f(t) + k
e
(A.3.4)
Substituting Eq. A.3.4 and Eq. A.3.1 into Eq. A.3.2 we have:
dQ
dz
=
2πr
to
U
to
W
m
_
T
f
r
to
U
to
f(t)T
f
+k
e
T
e
r
to
U
to
f(t) + k
e
_
(A.3.5)
If the geothermal gradient is provided, the temperature of the earth, T
e
, is given by
T
e
=T
m
+az, otherwise it assumes constant value. T
m
is the mean surface temperature
(
o
F), a is the geothermal gradient ((
o
F)/ft), z is the depth (ft). When we substitute
the temperature of the earth into Eq. A.3.5 we have:
dQ
dz
=
2πr
to
U
to
W
m
_
T
f
r
to
U
to
f(t)T
f
+k
e
(T
m
+az)
r
to
U
to
f(t) + k
e
_
(A.3.6)
A.4 Determination of the U
to
and T
ci
To obtain
dQ
dz
(Eq. A.3.6), we need to know U
to
which is the overall heat transfer
coefficient or the overall coefficient of conductance. The overall heat transfer con-
ductance U
to
may be evaluated by writing expressions for the heat flow through the
various components of the injector. The rate of heat conductance from the fluid to
the cement-formation (hole) interface is given by A.3.2. The rate of the heat transfer
between the flowing fluid and the inside tubing is given as:
dq
dz
= 2πr
ti
h
f
(T
f
−T
i
) (A.4.1)
A.4. DETERMINATION OF THE U
TO
AND T
CI
117
where h
f
is the film coefficient for heat transfer based on the inside surface area of the
tubing. Heat flow through the tubing wall, insulation, casing wall, and the cement
sheath occurs by conduction. Integrating Fourier’s law of heat conduction over the
thickness of the tubing wall we write:
dq
dz
=
2πk
tub
ln(
rto
r
ti
)
(T
ti
−T
to
) (A.4.2)
Integrating Fourier’s law of heat conduction over the thickness of the insulation yields:
dq
dz
=
2πk
ins
ln(
r
ins
rto
)
(T
to
−T
ins
) (A.4.3)
There are three modes of heat transfer present in the casing annulus.
1. heat conduction through the fluid in the annular space.
2. natural convection of fluid
3. radiation
Heat transfer by natural convection in the annulus is caused by fluid motion result-
ing from the variation of density with temperature. Hot fluid near the tubing and
insulation is less dense than the fluid in the center of the annulus and tends to rise.
On the other hand, the fluid near the casing wall is cooler and denser than that in
the center of the annulus and tends to fall. When a body is heated, radiant energy is
emitted at a rate dependent on the temperature of the body. The amount of radiant
energy transported between the tubing/insulation and casing depends on the view
the surfaces have of each other and their emitting and absorbing characteristics. To
account for these three modes of heat transfer, it is convenient to define the heat rate
through the annulus in terms of heat transfer coefficients h
c
(natural convection and
118 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
conduction) and h
r
(radiation), as:
dq
dz
= 2πr
to
(h
c
+ h
r
)(T
ins
−T
ci
) (A.4.4)
The heat conduction through the casing wall is given as:
dq
dz
=
2πk
cas
ln(
rco
r
ci
)
(T
ci
−T
co
) (A.4.5)
The heat conduction throught the cement sheath is given as:
dq
dz
=
2πk
cem
ln(
r
h
rco
)
(T
co
−T
h
) (A.4.6)
Note that:
T
f
−T
h
= (T
f
−T
ti
)+(T
ti
−T
to
)+(T
to
−T
ins
)+(T
ins
−T
ci
)+(T
ci
−T
co
)+(T
co
−T
h
) (A.4.7)
Solving for the temperature differences
T
f
−T
h
=
dq
dz
2πr
to
U
to
(A.4.8)
T
f
−T
ti
=
dq
dz
2πr
ti
h
f
(A.4.9)
T
ti
−T
to
=
dq
dz
2πk
tub
ln
_
r
to
r
ti
_
(A.4.10)
T
to
−T
ins
=
dq
dz
2πk
ins
ln
_
r
ins
r
to
_
(A.4.11)
T
ins
−T
ci
=
dq
dz
2πr
to
(h
c
+h
r
)
(A.4.12)
A.4. DETERMINATION OF THE U
TO
AND T
CI
119
T
ci
−T
co
=
dq
dz
2πk
cas
ln
_
r
co
r
ci
_
(A.4.13)
T
co
−T
h
=
dq
dz
2πk
cem
ln
_
r
h
r
co
_
(A.4.14)
Substituting Eqs. A.4.9 - 4.14 into the Eq. A.4.7 we will have:
T
f
−T
h
=
dq
dz

_
_
1
r
ti
h
f
+
ln
_
rto
r
ti
_
k
tub
+
ln
_
r
ins
rto
_
k
ins
+
1
r
to
(h
c
+h
r
)
+
ln
_
rco
r
ci
_
k
cas
+
ln
_
r
h
rco
_
k
cem
_
_
(A.4.15)
An equation for U
to
is found by comparing Eq. A.4.8 and Eq. A.4.15
1
r
to
U
to
=
_
_
1
r
ti
h
f
+
ln
_
rto
r
ti
_
k
tub
+
ln
_
r
ins
rto
_
k
ins
+
1
r
to
(h
c
+h
r
)
+
ln
_
rco
r
ci
_
k
cas
+
ln
_
r
h
rco
_
k
cem
_
_
(A.4.16)
Therefore,
U
to
=
_
_
r
to
r
ti
h
f
+
r
to
ln
_
rto
r
ti
_
k
tub
+
r
to
ln
_
r
ins
rto
_
k
ins
+
1
(h
c
+ h
r
)
+
r
to
ln
_
rco
r
ci
_
k
cas
+
r
to
ln
_
r
h
rco
_
k
cem
_
_
−1
(A.4.17)
The thermal conductivity of the tubing and casing steel (k
tub
= k
cas
= 25BTU/hr −
ft −
o
F) is considerably higher than that for the other materials in the wellbore
(insulation = 0.02 to 0.06 BTU/hr-ft-
o
F and cement = 0.2 to 0.6 BTU/hr-ft-
o
F).
Therefore, its relative contribution in Eq. A.4.17 is small and can be neglected (T
ti
=
T
to
and T
ci
= T
co
).
120 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
Also the film coefficient h
f
for steam and water are high enough (500 to 4000
BTU/hr-ft
2
-
o
F) to justify the assumption of infinite film coefficient (T
f
= T
ti
). Thus
Eq. A.4.17 simplifies to Eq. A.4.18
U
to
=
_
_
r
to
ln
_
r
ins
rto
_
k
ins
+
1
(h
c
+h
r
)
+
r
to
ln
_
r
h
rco
_
k
cem
_
_
−1
(A.4.18)
A.5 Determination of the Convection Heat Trans-
fer Coefficient
Before U
to
can be calculated in Eq. A.4.18, the convection coefficient h
c
and the
radiation h
r
must be evaluated. Heat transfer per unit length by conduction and free
convection in the annulus is given if there is no insulation;
dq
c
dz
=
2πk
hc
ln
_
r
ci
rto
_ (A.5.1)
if there is an insulation;
dq
c
dz
=
2πk
hc
(T
ins
−T
ci
)
ln
_
r
ci
rto
_ (A.5.2)
We can also express Eq. A.5.1 and Eq. A.5.2 may also be expressed if there is no
insulation as:
dq
c
dz
= 2πr
to
h
c
(T
to
−T
ci
) (A.5.3)
if there is a insulation:
dq
c
dz
= 2πr
ins
h
c
(T
ins
−T
ci
) (A.5.4)
A.5. DETERMINATIONOF THE CONVECTIONHEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT121
Combining Eq. A.5.1 with Eq. A.5.3 and Eq. A.5.2 with Eq. A.5.4 we will have if
there is no insulation,
h
c
=
khc
r
to
ln
_
r
ci
rto
_ (A.5.5)
if insulation present;
h
c
=
khc
r
ins
ln
_
r
ci
r
ins
_ (A.5.6)
The effective thermal conductivity of the annular fluid (khc) is related to the actual
thermal conductivity of the annular fluid (kha) as a function of the Grashoff number
and Prandtl number.
khc = (kha)(0.049)(GrPr)
0.333
(Pr)
0.074
(A.5.7)
where: Gr is the Grashoff’s number, if there is no insulation
Gr =
(r
ci
−r
to
)
3

2
an
β(T
to
−T
ci
)
µ
2
an
(A.5.8)
if there is an insulation
Gr =
(r
ci
−r
ins
)
3

2
an
β(T
ins
−T
ci
)
µ
2
an
(A.5.9)
Pr is the Prandtl’s number
Pr =
C
an
µ
an
kha
(A.5.10)
where C
an
is the specific heat of the annular fluid and µ
an
is the viscosity of the
annular fluid with given pressure in the annulus. β (
o
R
−1
) is the coefficient of volume
expansion. For ideal gas, β is the reciprocal average absolute annulus temperature.
β =
1
(T
an
+ 460)
(A.5.11)
122 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
where: T
an
if there is no insulation
T
an
=
T
to
+T
ci
2
(A.5.12)
if there is an insulation
T
an
=
T
ins
+T
ci
2
(A.5.13)
A.6 Determination of the Radiation Heat Transfer
Coefficient
Radiation heat transfer problems can be represented by ”radiation networks” as in
Carslaw and Jaeger and Herrera, et al.. The following developments are only for
bare tubings but an equivalent equation which can be used for calculation of h
r
for tubings with insulation is also given. The tubing and the casing surfaces which
exchange heat with each other may be modelled by resistances in series as shown in
Fontanilla’s thesis [19]. Here we are going to give the equations for h
r
with insulation
and without insulation. So h
r
without insulation
h
r
=
(Ta
to
+Ta
ci
)(Ta
2
to
+Ta
2
ci

1
to
+
rto
r
ci
_
1

ci
−1
_ (A.6.1)
h
r
with insulation
h
r
=
(Ta
ins
+Ta
ci
)(Ta
2
ins
+Ta
2
ci

1

ins
+
r
ins
r
ci
_
1

ci
−1
_ (A.6.2)
A.7 Computational Procedure for U
to
In order to calculate h
c
, h
r
and hence U
to
, we need to know the temperature of the
inside casing T
ci
and the temperature at the outer insulation T
ins
. Since we need to
A.7. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE FOR U
TO
123
know T
ci
and T
ins
(which are unknown) to solve for h
c
, h
r
and U
to
, a trial and error or
an iterative solution is required to determine the proper combination of U
to
, T
ci
and
T
ins
. Before describing the iteration procedure, the equations to be used the iteration
are developed. The equation for T
ins
is obtained from Eq. (A.4.3):
T
ins
= T
to

dq
dz
ln
_
r
ins
rto
_
2πk
ins
(A.7.1)
The equation for T
co
is obtained from Eq. (A.4.6):
T
ins
= T
h
+
dq
dz
ln
_
r
h
rco
_
2πk
cem
(A.7.2)
Substituting this expression for T
co
in Eq. (A.4.5), and solving for T
ci
, we have:
T
ci
= T
h
+
dq
dz
ln
_
rco
r
ci
_
2πk
cas
+
dq
dz
ln
_
r
h
rco
_
2πk
cem
(A.7.3)
Substituting Eq. (A.3.2) for
dq
dz
in Eq. (A.7.3) and solving for T
ci
T
ci
= T
h
+r
to
U
to
(T
f
−T
h
) +
_
ln
rco
r
ci
k
cas
+
ln
r
h
rco
k
cem
_
(A.7.4)
By negleccting the thermal resistance of the film, tubing, and casing, Eq. (A.7.4)
reduces to :
T
ci
= T
h
+
r
to
U
to
ln
r
h
rco
k
cem
(T
to
−T
h
) (A.7.5)
The hole temperature (T
h
) can be obtained from Eq. (A.3.4) derived earlier.
T
h
=
r
to
U
to
f(t)T
f
+ k
e
T
e
r
to
U
to
f(t) + k
e
(A.7.6)
124 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
The first thing to do is to assume an arbitrary value for
dq
dz
and calculate an initial T
ins
from Eq. (A.7.1). Then set T
ci
equal to the geothermal temperature (T
e
). Having
values for T
ins
and T
ci
; h
r
, h
c
, U
to
, and f(t) can be calculated. T
h
is then solved using
Eq. (A.7.6). Then a new value of T
ci
is calcualted using Eq. (A.7.5). The old and
new casing temperatures are compared at this point. If the absolute value of their
difference is greater than a tolerable amount, say 1
o
F, the old casing temperature
is incremented by 70 percent of the difference. The model then uses this new casing
temperature. To obtain a corresponding T
h
based on the new T
ci
, solving for T
h
in
Eq. (A.7.6) yields:
T
h
=
T
ci
k
cem
−r
to
ln
r
h
rco
T
to
k
cem
−r
to
U
to
ln
r
h
rco
(A.7.7)
Using the new T
h
from Eq. (A.7.7), we calculate
dq
dz
from Eq. (A.3.2). Calculate the
new T
ins
from Eq. (A.7.1) using the new
dq
dz
, T
ins
and T
ci
. The iteration is continued
until convergence is obtained.
In summary, the iteration procedure is as follows:
1. Assume an arbitrary value for old
dq
dz
and calculate the old T
ins
from Eq. (A.7.1).
2. Set T
ci
equal to the geothermal temperature T
e
and call this the old T
ci
3. Calculate h
r
from Eq. (A.6.2), h
c
from Eq. (A.5.6) U
to
from Eq. (A.4.18) and
f(t) from Eq. (A.8.1) knowing the old T
ins
and the old T
ci
4. Calculate the old T
h
from Eq. (A.3.4)
5. Calculate the new T
ci
using Eq. (A.7.5).
6. The old T
ci
and new T
ci
are compared. if |newT
ci
- oldT
ci
| > 1, the old T
ci
is
incremented by 70 percent of the absolute value of the difference. Otherwise
convergence is obtained.
A.8. DETERMINATION OF F(T) 125
7. If convergence is not yet obtained, a corresponding T
h
based on the T
ci
incre-
mented in step 6. is calculated using Eq. (A.7.7).
8. Calculate a corresponding
dq
dz
from Eq. (A.3.2).
9. Calculate T
ins
from Eq. (A.7.1)
10. Starting with step 3. the procedure is repeated until convergence is obtained.
A.8 Determination of f(t)
The time conduction function f(t) introduced in the equation of unsteady state heat
flow to the earth and needed to obtain
dQ
dz
and U
to
can be estimated from solutions for
radial heat conduction from an infinitely long cylinder. Such solutions are analogous
to transient fluid flow solutions used in reservoir engineering. As can be seen Figure
A.5 all five solutions converge to the same line. the convergence time is of the order of
one week for many reservoir problems. Thus, the line source solution will often provide
useful results if times are greater than a week. From Ramey[42] an approximate
equation for f (t) satisfying the line source solution for long times is:
f(t) = −ln
_
r
h
2

αt
_
(A.8.1)
126 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
Figure A.2: Time conduction function (retrieved from[19]).
In this model, regression was used to obtain a third order polynomial approxima-
tion for each of the five curves in Figure A.5.
Lets say K =
r
h
U
ke
the calculation procedure is as follows:
A.9. EVALUATION OF THE DERRIVATIVES 127
Algorithm 1 f(t) calculation based on the regression analysis
Require: x = log
10
_
αt
r
2
h
_
and Y = log
10
f(t)
Ensure: f(t) = 10
Y
1: if K == 0 then
2: Y ←.19865 + .48034x −.08619x
2
+.00148x
3
3: else
4: if K ≤ .2 then
5: Y ←−.12557 + .38757x −.07525x
2
+ .01065x
3
6: end if
7: if K ≤ 1.0 then
8: Y ←−.08738 + .3689x −.04619x
2
−.00222x
3
9: end if
10: if K ≤ 5.0 then
11: Y ←−.03018 + .36166x −.06586x
2
−.00393x
3
12: end if
13: if K ≥ 5.0 then
14: Y ←−.02435 + .33116x −.033723x
2
−.00525x
3
15: end if
16: end if
A.9 Evaluation of the Derrivatives
Farouq Ali[19] presented approximate correlations for specific volumes of saturated
liquid and saturated vapor.
v
L
= 0.01587 + 0.000086P
0.225
+ 0.0002P
0.45
(A.9.1)
v
L
= 363.9P
−0.9588
(A.9.2)
Differentiating with respect to pressure we have,
∂v
L
∂P
= 0.000019P
−0.775
+ 0.0009P
−0.55
(A.9.3)
∂v
g
∂P
= −348.907P
−1.9588
(A.9.4)
128 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
Farouq Ali[19] also proposed correlations for the enthalpy of saturated liquid and the
heat of vaporization L
v
h
L
= 91P
.2574
(A.9.5)
L
v
= h
g
−h
l
= 1318P
−.08774
(A.9.6)
for wet steam,
h
m
= h
L
+XL
v
(A.9.7)
h
m
= 91P
.2574
+ X(1318P
−.08774
) (A.9.8)
Differentiating with respect to the steam quality X and pressure P, we have:
∂h
m
∂X
= 1318P
−0.08774
(A.9.9)
∂h
m
∂P
= 23.423P
−0.7426
−115.64XP
−1.08774
(A.9.10)
A.10 Calculation of the Annulus Fluid Properties
There are several modification has been done for Fontanilla[19] solutions, one of them
is getting annulus fluid properties automatically. We get viscosity and thermal con-
ductivity of the fluid under 1 atm using figures from Prats[41].
A.10. CALCULATION OF THE ANNULUS FLUID PROPERTIES 129
Viscosity of the annular fluid, µ
annulus
Figure A.3: Viscosity of the annular fluid with respect to Temperature.
We took two points on our curve and showed on the figure both N
2
and air and
assumed that the line is linear with increasing temperature values, because lines are
only slightly different from linearity. As we know from very basic way to get slope of
the line and put that value into y = mx + n equation to get the correlation between
temperature. Temperature values both N
2
and air are T
1
= 50 and T
2
= 100, and
viscosity values are µ
1
N
2
= 0.0170 cp and µ
2
N
2
= 0.0184 cp. For air same procedure
applies µ
1
air
=0.0176 cp and µ
2
air
=0.0192 cp. Let’s find m
N
2
and m
air
values as follows:
m
N
2
=
_
µ
1
−µ
2
T
1
−T
2
_
=
_
0.0184 −0.0170
100 −50
_
= 2.8 ∗ 10
−5
(A.10.1)
130 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS
m
air
=
_
µ
1
−µ
2
T
1
−T
2
_
=
_
0.0192 −0.0176
100 −50
_
= 3.2 ∗ 10
−5
(A.10.2)
Thus, slope m
N
2
= 2.8∗10
−5
and the correlation we got µ
N
2
=2.8∗10
−5
T+0.0170 and
for air µ
air
=3.2 ∗ 10
−5
T+0.0176. We used this correaltions wrt temperature in our
calculation.
Thermal conductivity of the annular fluid, λ
annulus
Figure A.4: Thermal conductivity of the annular fluid with respect to Temperature.
The same procedure is also applied for getting correlation both N
2
and air for
thermal conductivity with respect to temperature. Temperature values both N
2
and
air are T
1
= 400 and T
2
= 800, and thermal conductivity values are λ
1
N
2
= 0.5
BTU/ft
o
FD and λ
2
N
2
= 0.68 BTU/ft
o
FD. For air same procedure applies λ
1
air
=0.5
A.10. CALCULATION OF THE ANNULUS FLUID PROPERTIES 131
BTU/ft
o
FD and λ
2
air
=0.71 BTU/ft
o
FD. Let’s find m
N
2
and m
air
values as follows:
m
N
2
=
_
λ
1
−λ
2
T
1
−T
2
_
=
_
0.68 −0.50
800 −400
_
= 4.5 ∗ 10
−4
(A.10.3)
m
air
=
_
λ
1
−λ
2
T
1
−T
2
_
=
_
0.71 −0.5
800 −400
_
= 5.25 ∗ 10
−4
(A.10.4)
Thus, slope m
N
2
= 4.5 ∗ 10
−4
and the correlation we got λ
N
2
=4.5 ∗ 10
−4
T+0.5 and
for air λ
air
=5.25 ∗ 10
−4
T+0.5. We used this correaltions wrt temperature in our
calculation.
Appendix B
Codes for Heat Loss Calculations
B.1 Heat Losses from Surface Line
(a) Surface pipe with insulation. (b) Surface pipe without insulation.
Figure B.1: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with/without
temperature profile.
132
B.1. HEAT LOSSES FROM SURFACE LINE 133
The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation starting from
surface lines with insulation and without insulation
%% Example 10. 1 Cal c ul at i ons of Heat Los s es from Sur f ace Li nes
% 4 i nc he s N−80 pi pe at r at e of 229 B/D.
% We are l ooki ng f o r the s ol ut i on at steady s t at e c ondi t i ons
% f or pi pe i s i ns ul at e d
% Thermal Recovery by Mi cheal Prats chapter 10 , pgs .125−136
%%
cl c ; cl ear al l ; cl ose al l ;
TsteamWins = 550; % F
TaverageWins = 60; % F
PipeLengthWins = 100; % f t
InjTimeWins = 365∗24; % hours
AvrWindSpeedWins = 20; % mph
r i ns i deWi ns = 0. 1478; % f t from Tabl e B. 15
routsi deWi ns = 0. 1667; % f t
r i ns ul at edWi ns = 0. 4167; % f t
lambdaPipeWins = 600/24; % Btu/ f t −hr−F
lambdaInsWins = [ 0. 166 0. 194 0. 388 0. 499 0. 569 0 . 9 6 ] . / 2 4 ;
hfWins = 2000; % Btu/sq f t −hr−F
hpiWins = i nf ; % Btu/sq f t −hr−F
hpoWins = 2000; % Btu/sq f t −hr−F
Col l ect Dat asWi t hi ns =[ ] ;
% hf c c a l c ul a t i o n based on the Eq . 10. 4
hfcWins = ( 18∗( AvrWindSpeedWins ˆ0. 6) ∗( r i ns ul at edWi ns ˆ . . .
0. 6) / r i ns ul at edWi ns ) /24;
c o l o r s = l i n e s ( length( lambdaInsWins ) ) ;
for i =1: length( lambdaInsWins )
% Over al l s p e c i f i c thermal r e s i s t a nc e
134 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
RhWins = 1/(2∗ pi ) ∗( 1/( hfWins ∗ r i ns i deWi ns ) . . .
+ 1/( hpiWins ∗ r i ns i deWi ns ) + (1/ lambdaPipeWins ) ∗ . . .
log ( routsi deWi ns / r i ns i deWi ns ) + 1/( hpoWins∗ routsi deWi ns ) +. . .
(1/ lambdaInsWins ( i ) ) ∗ log ( r i ns ul at edWi ns / routsi deWi ns ) +. . .
1/( hfcWins ∗ r i ns ul at edWi ns ) ) ;
% Heat Los s es
QlsWins = ( TsteamWins − TaverageWins )/RhWins ;
% Amount of Heat Lost from the pi pe over a per i od of ti me
QlWins = QlsWins∗InjTimeWins ∗PipeLengthWins ;
Col l ect Dat asWi t hi ns =[ Col l ect Dat asWi t hi ns ; [ RhWins QlsWins QlWins ] ] ;
Inj Ti mepl otWi ns =(1: InjTimeWins ) ’ ;
PlotQlWins =(QlsWins∗PipeLengthWins ) . ∗ Inj Ti mepl otWi ns ;
fi gure ( 1)
plot ( PlotQlWins , Inj Ti mepl otWi ns . /24 , ’ c ol or ’ , c o l o r s ( i , : ) , . . .
’ Li newi dth ’ , 3)
hold on
grid on
set ( gca , ’ XAxi sLocati on ’ , ’ top ’ , ’ YDir ’ , ’ rev ’ )
xlabel ( [ ’ Cumul ati ve Heat Los s es ( i n BTU) f or ’ . . .
num2str( PipeLengthWins ) ’ f t ’ ] , ’ Fontname ’ , ’ Cal i br i ’ , . . .
’ FontSi ze ’ , 16)
ylabel ( [ ’ Time ( i n Days ) ’ num2str( InjTimeWins / 2 4 ) ] . . .
, ’ Fontname ’ , ’ Ca l i br i ’ , ’ FontSi ze ’ , 16)
LambdaValStr = spri ntf ( ’ %0.3G’ , lambdaInsWins ( i ) ) ;
l a be l s { i } = [ ’ \lambda = ’ num2str( LambdaValStr ) ] ;
legend( l abe l s , 2 , ’ Locati on ’ , ’NE’ )
set ( gcf , ’ Uni ts ’ , ’ normal i zed ’ ) ;
set ( gcf , ’ Out er Pos i t i on ’ , [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) ;
end
Code block: SLwithoutIns.m:
B.1. HEAT LOSSES FROM SURFACE LINE 135
%% Example 10. 1 Cal c ul at i ons of Heat Los s es from Sur f ace Li nes
% 4 i nc he s N−80 pi pe at r at e of 229 B/D.
% We are l ooki ng f o r the s ol ut i on at steady s t at e c ondi t i ons
% f or pi pe i s not−i ns ul at e d
% wr i t t en 2009 , modi f i ed date 2011 , May 9th
% Fidan , S . ,
%%
cl c ; cl ear al l ; cl ose al l ;
TsteamWOutIns = 550; % F
TaverageWOutIns = 60; % F
PipeLengthWOutIns = 100; % f t
InjTimeWOutIns = 365; % days
AvrWindSpeedWOutIns = 20; % mph
ri nsi deWOutIns = 0. 1478; % f t from Tabl e B. 15
routsi deWOutIns = 0. 1667; % f t
ri nsul atedWOutIns = 0. 4167; % f t
lambdaPipeWOutIns = 600; % Btu/ f t −D−F
lambdaInsWOutIns = 0 . 9 6 ; % Btu/ f t −D−F
hfWOutIns = 48000; % Btu/sq f t −D−F
hpiWOutIns = i nf ; % Btu/sq f t −D−F
hpoWOutIns = 48000; % Btu/sq f t −D−F
% hf c c a l c ul a t i o n based on the Eq . 10. 4
hfcWOutIns = 18∗( AvrWindSpeedWOutIns ˆ 0 . 6 ) . . .
∗( routsi deWOutIns ˆ0. 6) / routsi deWOutIns ;
% Over al l s p e c i f i c thermal r e s i s t a nc e
RhWOutIns = 1/(2∗ pi ) ∗( 1/( hfWOutIns∗ri nsi deWOutIns ) . . .
+ 1/( hpiWOutIns∗ri nsi deWOutIns ) + (1/ lambdaPipeWOutIns ) . . .
∗log ( routsi deWOutIns /ri nsi deWOutIns ) + 1/( ( hfcWOutIns +. . .
htTabl e14 ( TsteamWOutIns , routsi deWOutIns ) ) ∗ . . .
136 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
routsi deWOutIns ) ) ;
di s pl ay ( [ ’ The o v e r a l l s p e c i f i c thermal . . .
r e s i s t a nc e i s c al c ul at e d from Eq . 10. 2 i s =. . .
’ num2str(RhWOutIns) ’ (BTU/ f t −D−ˆF)ˆ−1 ’ ] )
% Heat Los s es
QlsWOutIns = ( TsteamWOutIns − TaverageWOutIns ) . . .
/RhWOutIns ;
di s pl ay ( [ ’ Heat Los s es Ql s = ’ num2str( QlsWOutIns ) . . .
’ Btu/ f t −D’ ] )
% Amount of Heat Lost from the pi pe over a per i od of ti me
QlWOutIns = QlsWOutIns∗InjTimeWOutIns . . .
∗PipeLengthWOutIns ;
di s pl ay ( [ ’ Cumul ati ve Heat Los s es over the per i od . . .
of ti me woth gi ven pi pel engt h Ql =. . .
’ num2str( QlWOutIns ) ’ Btu ’ ] )
h = fi gure ( ’ Col or ’ , [ 0 0 0 ] ) ;
InjTimeplotWOutIns =(1: InjTimeWOutIns ) ’ ;
PlotQlWOutIns =(QlsWOutIns∗PipeLengthWOutIns ) . . .
. ∗ InjTimeplotWOutIns ;
pl otHeatLoss ( PlotQlWOutIns , InjTimeplotWOutIns , . . .
h , QlWOutIns , PipeLengthWOutIns , lambdaInsWOutIns , ’ r ’ ) ;
set ( gcf , ’ Uni ts ’ , ’ normal i zed ’ ) ;
set ( gcf , ’ Out er Pos i t i on ’ , [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) ;
B.2. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA PART 137
B.2 Heat Losses from Sea Part
(a) Sea Part with insulation. (b) Sea Part without insulation.
Figure B.2: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with temperature
profile.
The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation starting from sea
surface to sea floor with insulation and without insulation
%% Sol ut i on f o r Of f s hor e part wi th i ns ul a t i o n mat e r i l as
% We are l ooki ng f o r the s ol ut i on at steady s t at e c ondi t i ons
% wr i t t en 2009 , modi f i ed date 2011 , May 9th
% Fidan , S . ,
%%
cl c ; cl ear al l ; cl ose al l ;
r r i s e r o =18/12/2;
r r i s e r i =0. 60;
r t o = 0. 1458;
r c i = r r i s e r i ;
138 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
rco = r r i s e r o ;
rh= 1;
roWi thIns= r t o ;
r i ns Wi t hI ns = 0. 2292;
r ci Wi t hI ns= r r i s e r i ;
rcoWi thIns= r r i s e r o ;
rwWithIns = rh ;
rEaWithIns = 0;
TAWithIns = 70;
r i ns=r i ns Wi t hI ns ;
T=(TAWithIns −32) /1. 8;
S=35;
al pha1 = SW Di f f us i vi t y (T, S ) ;% i n [mˆ2/ s ]
% 1 [mˆ2/ s ] =38750. 077500155 [ f t ˆ2/ hr ] from
q1=al pha1 ∗38750. 077500155; %[ f t ˆ2/ hr ]
e ps c i = 0 . 9 ; eps t o= 0 . 9 ; e p s r i s e r = 0 . 9 ;
% thermal c onduc t i vi t y of water
%i n [W/m K] ==1 Btu/( h r f t ?F) = 1. 730735 W/( mK ) .
k1 = SW Conducti vi ty (T, S ) ;
%[ Perry ’ s Chemi cal Engi neers ’ Handbook , 7th Edi ti on , Tabl e 1−4]
ke=k1 /1. 730735; % conver s i on f a c t o r
LamdaTub=600/24;
aEWithIns= q1 ; ei nsWi thI ns= 0 . 9 ; eci Wi t hI ns= 0 . 9 ;
lamda EWithIns = ke ; % Btu/ f t −hr−F
l amda i nsWi thIns = [ 0. 166 0. 194 0. 388 0. 499 0. 569 0 . 9 6 ] . / 2 4 ;
InjTi meWi thIns = 21∗24; % hrs
TbWithIns = 600; % F
Pi peLengthWi thIns = 164; % f t
ki ns=l amda i nsWi thIns ;
B.2. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA PART 139
t=InjTi meWi thIns ;
lamdaPipe = 600/24;
Boltzman = ( 0. 1714 e −8); g =32. 2∗3600∗3600; Tgeo=TAWithIns ; Tf = TbWithIns ;
% Tto = TbWithIns ;
Th=TAWithIns ;
c o l o r s = l i n e s ( length( l amda i nsWi thIns ) ) ;
Col l e c t Dat as I nj I ns =[ ] ;
for i =1: length( l amda i nsWi thIns )
% Step 1 as s i gn random val ue f or dqdz
dqdz=5;
% c a l c ul a t e the ol d T i ns from eq . 16
Ti ns ol d=TAWithIns ;
% h r from eq . 15
h r=hr ( Ti ns ol d , TAWithIns , epsto , eps ci , r c i , r i ns , Boltzman ) ;
% hc from eq . 9
Tanulus=Tan( Ti ns ol d , TAWithIns ) ;%F
Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) ;%R
vi sAn=vi s cos i t yAn ( Tanulus ) ;%cp
% 1 cp = 1488 l b / f t −second = 1488∗3600 l b / f t −hr
vi sAn = visAn ∗1488∗3600;
den=densi tyAn ( Tanulus ) ;%lbm/ f t ˆ3
Gr1=Gr( Ti ns ol d , TAWithIns , visAn , Beta Gr , den , r c i , r i ns , g ) ;
kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) ;
Pr1=Pr ( kha , vi sAn ) ;
khc=khc1 ( Gr1 , Pr1 , kha ) ;
140 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
h c=hc ( khc , r c i , r i ns ) ;
% from eq . 8
Uto=UtoCal ( h c , h r , r i ns , rto , ki ns ( i ) ) ;
% f ( t ) from Ramey and Wi l l hi t e
ftD = FTIME( Uto , q1 , t , rh , ke ) ;
Tto=TAWithIns+dqdz /(2∗ pi ∗ r t o ∗( h c+h r ))+dqdz /(2∗ pi ∗ ki ns ( i ) ) ∗ . . .
log ( r i ns / r t o ) ;
Ti ns new=Tto−(( dqdz∗log ( r i ns / r t o ) ) /( 2∗ pi ∗ ki ns ( i ) ) ) ;
i t e r =0;
i f abs ( Tins new−Ti ns ol d)<=1
Ti ns new1=Ti ns new ;
Ti ns new=Ti ns new1 ;
el se
while abs ( Tins new−Ti ns ol d)>1
i t e r=i t e r +1;
Ti ns ol d=Ti ns ol d +0. 7∗( abs ( Tins new−Ti ns ol d ) ) ;
Th=Ti ns ol d−dqdz /(2∗ pi ∗ r t o ∗( h c+h r ))+dqdz∗log ( r r i s e r o / . . .
r r i s e r i ) /( 2∗ pi ∗LamdaTub ) ;
dqdz=2∗pi ∗ r t o ∗Uto∗( Tf−Th) ;
h r=hr ( Ti ns ol d , TAWithIns , epsto , eps ci , r c i , r i ns , Boltzman ) ;
% hc from eq . 9
Tanulus=Tan( Ti ns ol d , TAWithIns ) ;%F
Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) ;%R
vi sAn=vi s cos i t yAn ( Tanulus ) ;%cp
% 1 cp = 1488 l b / f t −second = 1488∗3600
B.2. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA PART 141
vi sAn = visAn ∗1488∗3600;
den=densi tyAn ( Tanulus ) ;%lbm/ f t ˆ3
Gr1=Gr( Ti ns ol d , TAWithIns , visAn , Beta Gr , den , r c i , r i ns , g ) ;
kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) ;
Pr1=Pr ( kha , vi sAn ) ;
khc=khc1 ( Gr1 , Pr1 , kha ) ;
h c=hc ( khc , r c i , r i ns ) ;
% from eq . 8
Uto=UtoCal ( h c , h r , r i ns , rto , ki ns ( i ) ) ;
% f ( t ) from Ramey and Wi l l hi t e
ftD = FTIME( Uto , q1 , t , rh , ke ) ;
Part1=TAWithIns∗ke ;
Part2=r t o ∗Uto∗ftD∗Tto ;
Part3=ke ;
Part4=r t o ∗Uto∗ftD ;
Th ol d=(Part1+Part2 ) /( Part3+Part4 ) ;
Tto=Ti ns ol d+dqdz∗log ( r i ns / r t o ) /( 2∗ pi ∗ ki ns ( i ) ) ;
Ti ns new=Tto−( r t o ∗Uto ) ∗( Tf−Th ol d )∗ log ( r i ns / r t o ) /( ki ns ( i ) ) ;
end
Ql s=2∗pi ∗ r t o ∗Uto∗( TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) ;
% TOTAL HEAT LOSS
Ql=Ql s ∗Pi peLengthWi thIns ; %BTU
I nj Lengt hpl ot =(1: Pi peLengthWi thIns ) ’ ;
Pl otQl =(Ql s ) . ∗ I nj Lengt hpl ot ;
fi gure ( 1)
142 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
plot ( Pl otQl , I nj Lengt hpl ot , ’ c ol or ’ , c o l o r s ( i , : ) , ’ Li newi dth ’ , 3)
hold on
grid on
set ( gca , ’ XAxi sLocati on ’ , ’ top ’ , ’ YDir ’ , ’ rev ’ )
xlabel ( [ ’ Cumul ati ve Heat Los s es ( i n BTU) f or ’ . . .
num2str( Pi peLengthWi thIns ) ’ f t ’ ] . . .
, ’ Fontname ’ , ’ Ca l i br i ’ , ’ FontSi ze ’ , 16)
ylabel ( ’ Depth ( f t ) ’ )
LambdaValStr = spri ntf ( ’ %0.3G’ , l amda i nsWi thIns ( i ) . / 2 4 ) ;
l a be l s { i } = [ ’ \lambda = ’ num2str( LambdaValStr ) ] ;
legend( l abe l s , 2 , ’ Locati on ’ , ’NE’ )
set ( gcf , ’ Uni ts ’ , ’ normal i zed ’ ) ;
set ( gcf , ’ Out er Pos i t i on ’ , [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) ;
end
end
Code block: SeaPartwithoutIns.m:
%% Sol ut i on f o r Of f s hor e part wi th i ns ul a t i o n mat e r i l as
% We are l ooki ng f o r the s o l ut i on at steady s t at e c ondi t i ons
% wr i t t en 2009 , modi f i ed date 2011 , May 9th , Fidan , S . ,
%%
% Heat l o s s c a l c ul a t i o n f o r wi thout i ns ul a t i o n cas e i s done
cl c ; cl ear al l ; cl ose al l ;
r r i s e r o =18/12/2;% f t
r r i s e r i =0. 60;
r t o = 0. 1458; % f t
r c i = r r i s e r i ; % f t
rco = r r i s e r o ; % f t
rh = 1; % f t
B.2. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA PART 143
rEaWi thoutIns = 0; % f t
TAWithoutIns = 70; % F
T=(TAWithoutIns −32) /1. 8;
S=35;
al pha1 = SW Di f f us i vi t y (T, S ) ;% i n [mˆ2/ s ]
% 1 [mˆ2/ s ] =38750. 077500155 [ f t ˆ2/ hr ] from
q1=al pha1 ∗38750. 077500155; %[ f t ˆ2/ hr ]
e ps c i = 0 . 9 ;
eps t o = 0 . 9 ;
e p s r i s e r = 0 . 9 ;
% thermal c onduc t i vi t y of water
%i n [W/m K] ==1 Btu/( h r f t ?F) = 1. 730735 W/( mK)
k1 = SW Conducti vi ty (T, S ) ;
%[ Perry ’ s Chemi cal Engi neers ’ Handbook , 7th Edi ti on , Tabl e 1−4]
ke=k1 /1. 730735; % conver s i on f a c t o r
t = 21∗24; % hrs
TbWithoutIns = 600; % F
Pi peLengthWi thoutIns = 164; % 50 meters % f t
lamdaPipe = 600/24;
Boltzman = ( 0. 1714 e −8);
g =32. 2∗3600∗3600;
Tgeo=TAWithoutIns ;
Tf = TbWithoutIns ;
% c a l c ul a t e the ol d T i ns from eq . 16
Tto = TbWithoutIns ;%F
% h r from eq . 15
h r=hr ( Tto , TAWithoutIns , epsto , eps ci , r c i , rto , Boltzman ) ;%btu/hr−f t 2 −F
% hc from eq . 9
Tanulus=Tan( Tto , TAWithoutIns ) ;%F
Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) ;%R
vi sAn=vi s cos i t yAn ( Tanulus ) ;%cp
% 1 cp = 1488 l b / f t −second = 1488∗3600 l b / f t −hr
144 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
vi sAn = visAn ∗1488∗3600;
den=densi tyAn ( Tanulus ) ;%lbm/ f t ˆ3
Gr1=Gr( Tto , TAWithoutIns , visAn , Beta Gr , den , r c i , rto , g ) ;
kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) ;
Pr1=Pr ( kha , vi sAn ) ;
khc=khc1 ( Gr1 , Pr1 , kha ) ;
h c=hc ( khc , r c i , r t o ) ;
% from eq . 8
Uto=UtoCal ( h c , h r , rh , rco , rto , ke ) ;
% f ( t ) from Ramey and Wi l l hi t e
ftD = FTIME( Uto , q1 , t , rh , ke ) ;
Ql s=2∗pi ∗ r t o ∗Uto∗( TbWithoutIns−TAWithoutIns ) ;
% TOTAL HEAT LOSS
Ql=Ql s ∗Pi peLengthWi thoutIns ; %BTU
I nj Lengt hpl ot =(1: Pi peLengthWi thoutIns ) ’ ;
Pl otQl =(Ql s ) . ∗ I nj Lengt hpl ot ;
fi gure ( 1)
plot ( Pl otQl , I nj Lengt hpl ot , ’ b ’ , ’ Li newi dth ’ , 3)
% Create t i t l e
t i t l e Va l St r = spri ntf ( ’ %0.3G’ , Ql ) ;
t i t l e ( [ ’ Heat Los s es wi t hi n al ong the ’ num2str( Pi peLengthWi thoutIns ) . . .
’ f t i s = ’ t i t l e Va l St r ’ i n Btu ’ ] , . . .
’ FontSi ze ’ , 14 , ’ Col or ’ , ’ k ’ ) ;
hold on
grid on
set ( gca , ’ XAxi sLocati on ’ , ’ top ’ , ’ YDir ’ , ’ rev ’ )
xlabel ( ’ Cumul ati ve Heat Los s es i n BTU’ , ’ Fontname ’ , . . .
’ Cal i br i ’ , ’ FontSi ze ’ , 16)
ylabel ( ’ Depth ( f t ) ’ )
set ( gcf , ’ Uni ts ’ , ’ normal i zed ’ ) ;
set ( gcf , ’ Out er Pos i t i on ’ , [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) ;
B.3. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 145
B.3 Heat Losses from Sea Floor to Reservoir
(a) Sea Floor to Reservoir with insulation. (b) Sea Floor to Reservoir without insulation.
Figure B.3: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer sea floor to reser-
voir.
The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation starting from sea
floor to reservoir with insulation and without insulation
%% Example 10. 2 Cal c ul at i ons of Heat Los s es from Sur f ace Li nes
% 3. 5 i n . tubi ng s e t on a packer i n 9 5/8 i n , 53. 5 lbm/ f t N−80 cas i ng
% The annul us c ont at i ns a stagnant gas at zer o gauge pr e s s ur e at wel l head
% and cas i ng i s cemented to s ur f ac e i n a 12−i n hol e .
% We are l ooki ng f o r the s ol ut i on at steady s t at e c ondi t i ons
% wr i t t en 2009 , modi f i ed date 2011 , May 9th
% Fidan , S . ,
%%
cl c ; cl ear al l ; cl ose al l ;
146 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
roWi thIns = 0. 1458; % f t
r i ns Wi t hI ns = 0. 2292; % f t
r ci Wi t hI ns = 0. 3556; % f t
rcoWi thIns = 0. 4010; % f t
rwWithIns = 0. 5000; % f t
rEaWithIns = 0; % f t
aEWithIns = 0 . 9 6 ;
ei nsWi thI ns = 0 . 9 ;
eci Wi t hI ns = 0 . 9 ;
lamda EWithIns = 24; % Btu/ f t −hr−F
lamda cemWithIns = 12; % Btu/ f t −hr−F
l amda i nsWi thIns = [ 0. 166 0. 194 0. 388 0. 499 0. 569 0 . 9 6 ] ;
InjTi meWi thIns = 21; % days
TAWithIns = 100; % F
TbWithIns = 600; % F
Pi peLengthWi thIns = 1000; % f t
c o l o r s = l i n e s ( length( l amda i nsWi thIns ) ) ;
Col l e c t Dat as I nj I ns =[ ] ;
for i =1: length( l amda i nsWi thIns )
% STEP1: I n i t i a l Assumption of the Total Thermal Res i s t ance
Rh=(log ( r i ns Wi t hI ns /roWi thIns )/ l amda i nsWi thIns ( i ) ) / pi ;
% STEP2: Cal cul at e f ( tD) at t
tD=aEWithIns∗InjTi meWi thIns /( rwWithIns ˆ2) ;
Rh2=Rh;
c=2∗pi ∗Rh2∗lamda EWithIns ;
f=f t ( c , tD) ;
ftD=f ;
% STEP3: Cal cul at e Tci from Eq . B68
Up=0;
B.3. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 147
Ucem=log ( rwWithIns / rcoWi thIns )/ lamda cemWithIns ;
i f rEaWithIns >0
Uea=log ( rEaWithIns /rwWithIns )/ lamda EWithIns ;
el se
Uea=0;
end
Uf=ftD/lamda EWithIns ;
Tci=TAWithIns+((TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) /( 2∗ pi ∗Rh ) ) . . .
∗(Up+Ucem+Uea+Uf ) ;
% STEP4: Cal cul at e Ti ns from Eq . B. 70
Ui =0; Upi =0;Upw=0;Upo=0;
Ui ns=log ( r i ns Wi t hI ns /roWi thIns )/ l amda i nsWi thIns ( i ) ;
Ti ns=TbWithIns −((TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) /( 2∗ pi ∗Rh ) ) . . .
∗( Ui+Upi+Upw+Upo+Ui ns ) ;
%STEP5: Cal cul at e hcan from Eq . B. 63 through B. 66
Tan=(Ti ns+Tci ) /2;
den=0. 076∗((460+60)/(460+Tan ) ) ;
% From FigB. 41 vi s =2.54∗10ˆ( −5)∗T+0.0164
vi s =2.54∗10ˆ( −5)∗Tan+0. 0164;
% l amda a =0. 45;
l amda a = ( 2. 8 e −004)∗Tan+0. 312;
Ban=1/(460+Tan ) ;
g=1; gc =1;
Ngr=(gc /g ) ∗7. 12∗10ˆ7∗( rci Wi thI ns −r i ns Wi t hI ns )ˆ3∗ g ∗ . . .
denˆ2∗Ban∗( Tins−Tci ) /( gc ∗ vi s ˆ2) ;
% Npr ˆ0. 4=0. 92
l amda aa =(0. 049∗ l amda a∗Ngr ˆ0. 333∗0. 92) ;
F=((460+Ti ns )ˆ2+(460+Tci )ˆ2)∗(920+Ti ns+Tci ) ;
hcan=4. 11∗10ˆ( −8)∗((1/ ei nsWi thI ns )+( r i ns Wi t hI ns / r ci Wi t hI ns ) ∗ . . .
(1/ eci Wi thIns −1))ˆ( −1)∗F+l amda aa /( r i ns Wi t hI ns ∗ . . .
log ( r ci Wi t hI ns / r i ns Wi t hI ns ) ) ;
% STEP6: Cal cul at e Rh us i ng Eq . 10. 6
148 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
Ucan=1/(hcan∗ r i ns Wi t hI ns ) ;
Rhc=1/(2∗pi ) ∗( Ui+Upi+Upw+Upo+Ui ns+Ucan+Up+Ucem+Uea+Uf ) ;
counter =0;
while abs ( Rhc−Rh) > 1e−4
counter=counter +1;
Rh=Rhc ;
% STEP2: Cal cul at e f ( tD) at t
tD=aEWithIns∗InjTi meWi thIns /( rwWithIns ˆ2) ;
Rh2=Rh;
c=2∗pi ∗Rh2∗lamda EWithIns ;
f=f t ( c , tD) ;
ftD=f ;
% STEP3: Cal cul at e Tci from Eq . B68
Up=0;
Ucem=log ( rwWithIns / rcoWi thIns )/ lamda cemWithIns ;
i f rEaWithIns >0
Uea=log ( rEaWithIns /rwWithIns )/ lamda EWithIns ;
el se
Uea=0;
end
Uf=ftD/lamda EWithIns ;
Tci=TAWithIns+((TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) /( 2∗ pi ∗Rh ) ) . . .
∗(Up+Ucem+Uea+Uf ) ;
% STEP4: Cal cul at e Ti ns from Eq . B. 70
Ui =0; Upi =0; Upw=0; Upo=0;
Ui ns=log ( r i ns Wi t hI ns /roWi thIns )/ l amda i nsWi thIns ( i ) ;
Ti ns=TbWithIns −((TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) /( 2∗ pi ∗Rh ) ) ∗ . . .
( Ui+Upi+Upw+Upo+Ui ns ) ;
%STEP5: Cal cul at e hcan from Eq . B. 63 through B. 66
Tan=(Ti ns+Tci ) /2;
den=0. 076∗((460+60)/(460+Tan ) ) ;
% From FigB. 41 vi s =2.54∗10ˆ( −5)∗T+0.0164
B.3. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 149
vi s =2.54∗10ˆ( −5)∗Tan+0. 0164;
l amda a = ( 2. 8 e −004)∗Tan+0. 312;
Ban=1/(460+Tan ) ;
g=1; gc =1;
Ngr=(gc /g ) ∗7. 12∗10ˆ7∗( rci Wi thI ns −r i ns Wi t hI ns ) ˆ 3 ∗ . . .
g∗denˆ2∗Ban∗( Tins−Tci ) /( gc ∗ vi s ˆ2) ;
l amda aa =(0. 049∗ l amda a∗Ngr ˆ0. 333∗0. 92) ;
F=((460+Ti ns )ˆ2+(460+Tci )ˆ2)∗(920+Ti ns+Tci ) ;
hcan=4. 11∗10ˆ( −8)∗((1/ ei nsWi thI ns ) +. . .
( r i ns Wi t hI ns / r ci Wi t hI ns ) ∗ . . .
(1/ eci Wi thIns −1))ˆ( −1)∗F+l amda aa /( r i ns Wi t hI ns ∗ . . .
log ( r ci Wi t hI ns / r i ns Wi t hI ns ) ) ;
% STEP6: Cal cul at e Rh us i ng Eq . 10. 6
Ucan=1/(hcan∗ r i ns Wi t hI ns ) ;
Rhc=1/(2∗pi ) ∗( Ui+Upi+Upw+Upo+Ui ns+Ucan+Up+Ucem+Uea+Uf ) ;
end
Rh=Rhc ;
% HEAT LOSS PER UNIT LENGTH
Ql s=(TbWithIns−TAWithIns )/Rh;
% TOTAL HEAT LOSS
Ql=Ql s ∗Pi peLengthWi thIns ;
Col l e c t Dat as I nj I ns =[ Col l e c t Dat as I nj I ns ; [ Rh Ql s Ql ] ] ;
I nj Lengt hpl ot =(1: Pi peLengthWi thIns ) ’ ;
Pl otQl =(Ql s ) . ∗ I nj Lengt hpl ot ;
fi gure ( 1)
plot ( Pl otQl , I nj Lengt hpl ot , ’ c ol or ’ , c o l o r s ( i , : ) , ’ Li newi dth ’ , 3)
hold on
grid on
set ( gca , ’ XAxi sLocati on ’ , ’ top ’ , ’ YDir ’ , ’ rev ’ )
xlabel ( [ ’ Cumul ati ve Heat Los s es ( i n BTU) f or ’ . . .
num2str( Pi peLengthWi thIns ) ’ f t ’ ] , ’ Fontname ’ , ’ Cal i br i ’ , . . .
’ FontSi ze ’ , 16)
150 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
ylabel ( ’ Depth ( f t ) ’ )
LambdaValStr = spri ntf ( ’ %0.3G’ , l amda i nsWi thIns ( i ) . / 2 4 ) ;
l a be l s { i } = [ ’ \lambda = ’ num2str( LambdaValStr ) ] ;
legend( l abe l s , 2 , ’ Locati on ’ , ’NE’ )
set ( gcf , ’ Uni ts ’ , ’ normal i zed ’ ) ;
set ( gcf , ’ Out er Pos i t i on ’ , [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) ;
end
Code block: InjWellwithoutIns.m:
%% Example 10. 2 Cal c ul at i ons of Heat Los s es from Wel l bore
% 3. 5 i n . tubi ng s e t on a packer i n 9 5/8 i n , 53. 5 lbm/ f t N−80 cas i ng
% The annul us c ont at i ns a stagnant gas at zer o gauge pr e s s ur e at wel l head
% and cas i ng i s cemented to s ur f ac e i n a 12−i n hol e .
% We are l ooki ng f o r the s o l ut i on at steady s t at e c ondi t i ons
% wr i t t en 2009 , modi f i ed date 2011 , May 9th
% Fidan , S . ,
%%
cl c ; cl ear al l ; cl ose al l ;
roWi thoutIns = 0. 1458; % f t
r ci Wi t hout I ns = 0. 3556; % f t
rcoWi thoutIns = 0. 4010; % f t
rwWi thoutIns = 0. 5000; % f t
rEaWi thoutIns = 0; % f t
aEWithoutIns = 0 . 9 6 ;
ei nsWi thoutI ns = 0 . 9 ;
eci Wi t hout I ns = 0 . 9 ;
l amda EWi thoutIns = 24; % Btu/ f t −hr−F
lamda cemWithoutIns = 12; % Btu/ f t −hr−F
Inj Ti meWi thoutIns = 21; % days
TAWithoutIns = 100; % F
TbWithoutIns = 600; % F
Pi peLengthWi thoutIns = 1000; % f t
B.3. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 151
lamdaPipe =600;
% Step 1 as s i gn random val ue f o r dqdz
dqdz=randperm( 10 0) ;
dqdz=dqdz ( 1 ) ;
% c a l c ul a t e the ol d T i ns from eq . 16
% Step 2: Tci = Geothermal Temperature
Tc i ol d=TAWithoutIns ;
% Step 3: h r from eq . 15 , hc from eq . 9 and
% Uto from eq . 8 and f ( t ) from Ramey
% h r from eq . 15
h r=hr ( Ti ns ol d , Tci ol d , eps i ns , eps ci , r c i , r i ns , Boltzman ) ;
% hc from eq . 9
Tanulus=Tan( Ti ns ol d , Tc i ol d ) ;
Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) ;
vi sAn=vi s cos i t yAn ( Tanulus ) ;
den=densi tyAn ( Tanulus ) ;
Gr1=Gr( Ti ns ol d , Tci ol d , visAn , Beta Gr , den , r c i , r i ns , g ) ;
kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) ;
Pr1=Pr ( ) ;%kha , visAn
khc=khc1 ( Gr1 , Pr1 , kha ) ;
h c=hc ( khc , r c i , r i ns ) ;
% from eq . 8
Uto=UtoCal ( h c , h r , rh , r i ns , rco , rto , ki ns , kcement ) ;
% f ( t ) from Ramey and Wi l l hi t e
ftD = FTIME( Uto , q1 , t , rh , ke ) ;
% s t ep 4: c a l c ul a t e the ol d Th
Th ol d=( r t o ∗Uto∗ftD∗Tf+kcement ∗Tgeo ) /( r t o ∗Uto∗ftD+kcement ) ;
% s t ep 5: c a l c ul a t e the new Tci
152 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
Tci new=Th ol d+(( r t o ∗Uto∗log ( rh/ rco ) ) /( kcement ) ) ∗( Tto−Th ol d ) ;
i t e r =0;
i f abs ( Tci new−Tc i ol d)<=1
Tci new1=Tci new ;
Tci new=Tci new1 ;
el se
while abs ( Tci new−Tc i ol d)>=1e−4
i t e r=i t e r +1;
Tc i ol d=Tc i ol d +0. 7∗( abs ( Tci new−Tc i ol d ) ) ;
Part1=Tc i ol d ∗kcement ;
Part2=r t o ∗Uto∗log ( rh/ rco )∗ Tto ;
Part3=kcement ;
Part4=r t o ∗Uto∗log ( rh/ rco ) ;
Th=(Part1−Part2 ) /( Part3−Part4 ) ;
dqdz=2∗pi ∗ r t o ∗Uto∗( Tf−Th) ;
Ti ns ol d=Tto−(( dqdz∗log ( r i ns / r t o ) ) /( 2∗ pi ∗ ki ns ) ) ;
% Step 3: h r from eq . 15 , hc from eq . 9 and Uto
%from eq . 8 and f ( t ) from Ramey
% h r from eq . 15
h r=hr ( Ti ns ol d , Tci ol d , eps i ns , eps ci , r c i , r i ns , Boltzman ) ;
% hc from eq . 9
Tanulus=Tan( Ti ns ol d , Tc i ol d ) ;
Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) ;
vi sAn=vi s cos i t yAn ( Tanulus ) ;
den=densi tyAn ( Tanulus ) ;
Gr1=Gr( Ti ns ol d , Tci ol d , visAn , Beta Gr , den , r c i , r i ns , g ) ;
kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) ;
khc=khc1 ( Gr1 , Pr1 , kha ) ;
h c=hc ( khc , r c i , r i ns ) ;
% from eq . 8
B.3. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 153
Uto=UtoCal ( h c , h r , rh , r i ns , rco , rto , ki ns , kcement ) ;
% f ( t ) from Ramey and Wi l l hi t e
ftD = FTIME( Uto , q1 , t , rh , ke ) ;
% s t ep 4: c a l c ul a t e the ol d Th
Th ol d=( r t o ∗Uto∗ftD∗Tf+kcement ∗Tgeo ) /( r t o ∗Uto∗ftD+kcement ) ;
% s t ep 5: c a l c ul a t e the new Tci
Tci new=Th ol d+(( r t o ∗Uto∗log ( rh/ rco ) ) /( kcement ) ) ∗( Tto−Th ol d ) ;
end
end
154 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS
B.4 Table 14 from Prats [41]
The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation for surface lines
without insulation radiation and free convection number interpolated values using
Table B.14 from Prats[41].
function ht=htTabl e14 (Temp, Di ameter )
% Fidan , S .
% I nt e r pol a t i o n f o r the htc
% Prats pg234 t abl e B. 14
Tabl e14 =[ 50. 9 59. 5 66. 2 74. 4 81. 8 90 107 127 149 174 202 234 269 307 352
48. 7 57. 1 63. 6 71. 5 79 86. 9 104 124 146 171 198 230 265 304 348
46. 3 54. 5 60. 5 68. 4 75. 4 83. 3 100 120 141 166 194 225 260 299 343
44. 2 51. 8 57. 8 65. 3 72. 2 79. 9 96. 5 116 137 162 189 221 256 294 338
42. 2 49. 4 70. 1 62. 4 69. 4 76. 8 93. 1 112 134 158 186 217 252 290 334
41. 0 48. 2 53. 8 61. 0 67. 7 75. 1 91. 9 111 132 156 184 215 250 289 332
39. 4 46. 3 51. 6 58. 8 65. 3 72. 7 88. 8 108 129 153 180 212 247 286 3 2 9 ] ;
DimPipeIns =[ 0. 5 1 2 4 8 12 2 4 ] ;
SurfTemp=[130 180 230 280 330 380 480 580 680 780 880 980 1080 1180 1280] ;
ht=interp2 ( SurfTemp , DimPipeIns , Table14 , Temp, Di ameter ) ;
return
B.5. F(TD) CALCULATION ALSO KNOWN AS RAMEY[?] 155
B.5 f(tD) calculation also known as Ramey[42]
The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation for sea floor to reser-
voir with/without insulation interpolated values using Table 10.1 from Prats[41].
function f=f t ( r , tD)
% Fidan , S . ,
% I nt e r po l a t i o n of the val ue of f ( t ) i n unsteady conducti on
A=[ . 311 . 312 . 313 . 313 . 314 . 316 . 318 . 323 . 330 . 345 . 373 . 396 . 417 . 433 . 438 . 445
. 421 . 422 . 423 . 423 . 424 . 427 . 430 . 439 . 452 . 473 . 511 . 538 . 568 . 572 . 578 . 588
. 614 . 615 . 616 . 617 . 619 . 623 . 629 . 644 . 666 . 698 . 745 . 772 . 790 . 802 . 806 . 811
. 800 . 801 . 802 . 803 . 806 . 811 . 820 . 842 . 872 . 910 . 958 . 984 1. 00 1. 01 1. 01 1. 02
1. 00 1. 01 1. 02 1. 02 1. 03 1. 04 1. 05 1. 08 1. 11 1. 15 1. 20 1. 22 1. 24 1. 24 1. 24 1. 25
1. 34 1. 35 1. 36 1. 37 1. 37 1. 38 1. 40 1. 44 1. 48 1. 52 1. 56 1. 57 1. 58 1. 59 1. 59 1. 59
1. 63 1. 64 1. 65 1. 66 1. 66 1. 67 1. 69 1. 73 1. 77 1. 81 1. 84 1. 86 1. 86 1. 87 1. 87 1. 88
1. 94 1. 95 1. 96 1. 97 1. 97 1. 99 2. 00 2. 05 2. 09 2. 12 2. 15 2. 16 2. 16 2. 17 2. 17 2. 17
2. 37 2. 38 2. 39 2. 39 2. 40 2. 42 2. 44 2. 48 2. 51 2. 54 2. 56 2. 57 2. 57 2. 57 2. 58 2. 58
2. 71 2. 72 2. 73 2. 73 2. 74 2. 75 2. 77 2. 81 2. 84 2. 86 2. 88 2. 89 2. 89 2. 89 2. 89 2 . 9 0 ] ;
t =[ . 1 . 2 . 5 1 2 5 10 20 50 1 0 0 ] ;
R=[1000 500 100 50 20 10 5 2 1 . 5 . 2 . 1 . 05 . 02 . 01 0 ] ;
i f tD>100
f =0.5∗ log ( tD) +0. 403;
el se
f=interp2 (R, t , A, r , tD) ;
end
return
Appendix C
Results for Different Insulation
Materials
UsingWhiteAerogelλ
WA
= 0.0081BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
Figure C.1: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft) , 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.
156
157
Figure C.2: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.
Figure C.3: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.
158 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.4: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft), 1
year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.
UsingFiberglassλ
FG
= 0.0162BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
Figure C.5: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.
159
Figure C.6: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.
Figure C.7: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.
160 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.8: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft), 1
year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.
UsingCarbonFiberλ
CF
= 0.0208BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
Figure C.9: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.
161
Figure C.10: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.
Figure C.11: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.
162 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.12: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.
UsingThermolasticInsulationλ
TI
= 0.0237BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
163
Figure C.13: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic
insulation.
Figure C.14: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.
164 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.15: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.
Figure C.16: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.
UsingCalciumSilicateInsulationλ
CaSil
= 0.04BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
165
Figure C.17: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.
Figure C.18: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.
166 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.19: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.
Figure C.20: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.
167
UsingWhiteAerogelλ
WA
= 0.0081BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
Figure C.21: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.
Figure C.22: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.
168 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.23: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.
Figure C.24: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.
UsingFiberglassλ
FG
= 0.0162BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
169
Figure C.25: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.
Figure C.26: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.
170 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.27: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.
Figure C.28: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.
171
UsingCarbonFiberλ
CF
= 0.0208BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
Figure C.29: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.
Figure C.30: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.
172 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.31: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.
Figure C.32: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.
UsingThermolasticInsulationλ
TI
= 0.0237BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
173
Figure C.33: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic
insulation.
Figure C.34: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.
174 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.35: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.
Figure C.36: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.
UsingCalciumSilicateInsulationλ
CaSil
= 0.04BTU/(ft −hr −
o
F)
175
Figure C.37: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs
depth (ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.
Figure C.38: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.
176 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS
Figure C.39: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth
(ft), 1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.
Figure C.40: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft),
1 year, T
m
= 122
o
F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.
Bibliography
[1] Schematic view of one of the heat transfer mechanism: Convection.
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Class/phy141md/doku.php?id=phy141:lectures:35.
[2] Schematic view of the offshore platform. http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dog/Picture-
a-well/PublishingImages /OFFSHORE-PLATFORM-2.jp.
[3] Two phase flow correlations : Modified Beggs and Brill two phase correlations.
www.fekete.com/software/rta/media/webhelp/c-te-correlations.htm.
[4] Two phase flow correlations with pressure loss calculation : Mod-
ified Beggs and Brill two phase correlations with Pressure Loss.
www.fekete.com/software/feketeharmony/media/webhelp/HTML-
Files/Reference-Material/Calculations-and-Correlations/Pressure-Loss-
Calculations.htm.
[5] Abu Al-Soof Nimat B Al-Najjar, Hazim S.H. Alternative flow-pattern maps can
improve pressure-drop calculations of the aziz et al. multiphase-flow correlation.
SPE Production Engineering, 4(3), 1989.
[6] Chen Chou-Ming Ayres, Paul S. and Burton D. Ziels. Vacuum
insulated steam injection tubing, united states patent 4512721.
http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/4512721.html, 1982.
177
178 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[7] H.D. Beggs and J.P. Brill. A study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes. Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 25(5):607–617, 1973.
[8] Kraus Allan D Bejan, Adrian. Heat Transfer Handbook. John Wiley & Sons,
2003.
[9] Dominuque Monfrin Bernard M. Couderc, J.F. Verpeaux and Lisette H. Quettier.
Emeraude vapeur: A steam pilot in an offshore environment. Paper SPE 16723
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas,
TX, 27-30 September, 1987.
[10] Malcolm Alister Grant & Paul F Bixley. Geothermal Reservoir Engineering.
Academic Press, second edition, 2011.
[11] W.B. Bleakley. Here are case histories of two thermal projects. The Oil and Gas
Journal, pages 123–130, 1964.
[12] Dr. Ove Bratland. The flow assurance site multi-phase flow assurance.
http://www.drbratland.com/PipeFlow2/chapter1.html, 2010.
[13] J. P. Brill and H. D. Beggs. Two-Phase Flow in Pipes.
[14] J. P.. Brill and H. Mukherjee. Multiphase Flow in Wells. Society of Petroleum
Engineers, 1999.
[15] G.W. Runberg A.J. Cornelius B.T. Willman, V.V. Valleroy and L.W. Powers.
Laboratory studies of oil recovery by steam injection. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 13(7):681–690, 1961.
[16] Jr. D.H. Gibson S.W. Gosch P.D. Pattillo J.W. Sharp C.E. Taylor D.W. Brad-
ford, D.G. Fritchie. Marlin failure analysis and redesign; part 1, description of
BIBLIOGRAPHY 179
failure. Paper SPE 74528 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 26-28
February 2002, Dallas, Texas.
[17] Robert C. Earlougher Jr. Some practical considerations in the design of steam
injection wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 21(1):79–86, 1969.
[18] S.M. Farouq Ali. A comprehensive wellbore stream/water flow model for steam
injection and geothermal applications. SPE Journal, 21(5):527–534, 1981.
[19] J. P. Fontanilla. A Mathematical Model for the Prediction of Wellbore Heat Loss
and Pressure Drop in Steam Injection Wells. Master’s thesis, Department of
Chemical Engineering, University of Calgary, 1980.
[20] Jerry P. Fontanilla and Khalid Aziz. Prediction of bottom-hole conditions for wet
steam injection wells. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 21(2):82–88,
1982.
[21] L.J. Durlofsky K. Aziz L.R. Diaz B. Alkaya G. Oddie H. Shi, J.A. Holmes. Drift-
flux modeling of multiphase flow in wellbores. SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 5-8 October 2003, Denver, Colorado, 2003.
[22] Alton R. Hagedorn and Kermit E. Brown. Experimental study of pressure gradi-
ents occurring during continuous two-phase flow in small-diameter vertical con-
duits. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 17(4):475–484, 1965.
[23] A.R. Hasan and C. S. Kabir. Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Wellbores. Society
of Petroleum Engineers, first edition, 2002.
[24] M. Holmgren. X steam for matlab. http://www.x-eng.com, 2006.
[25] P.H. Holst and D.L. Flock. Wellbore behaviour during saturated steam injection.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 5(4):184–193, 1966.
180 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[26] Hans H. A. Huygen and J. L. Huitt. Wellbore heat losses and casing temperatures
during steam injection. American Petroleum Institute, pages 25–32, 1966.
[27] Jan Dirk Jansen. Modeling and Optimization of Oil and Gas Production Systems.
Advanced Production Engineering Lecture Notes, 2011.
[28] H. Duns Jr. and N. C. J. Ros. Vertical flow of gas and liquid mixtures in wells. 6th
World Petroleum Congress, June 19 - 26, 1963 , Frankfurt am Main, Germany,
1963.
[29] and Maria Fogarasi Khalid Aziz, George W. Govier. Pressure drop in wells
producing oil and gas. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 11(3), 1972.
[30] L.W. Lake. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1989.
[31] K. Leutwyler. Casing temperature studies in steam injection wells. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 18(9):1157–1162, 1966.
[32] Miller Mark A. Liang, Zhiyue and Kamy Sepehrnoori. New functional correla-
tions for saturated steam properties. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1992.
[33] D. R. Liles. Two-phase flow. Los Alamos Science, pages 26–35.
[34] Cristovao Marques. Thaw-Front Dynamics of Super-Insulated Wells in Cold
Environments. Master’s thesis, Department of Energy Resources Engineering,
Stanford University, 2007.
[35] A.F. Mills. Basic Heat and Mass Transfer. Prentice Hall, second edition, 1999.
[36] Syed M. Zubair Mostafa H. Sharqawy, John H. Lienhard Va. Thermophysical
properties of seawater: a review of existing correlations and data. Desalination
and Water Treatment, 2009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 181
[37] Brill James P. Mukherjee, Hemanta. Empirical equations to predict flow patterns
in two-phase inclined flow. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 11(3):299–
315, 1985.
[38] E.F. Pacheco and S.M. Farouq Ali. Wellbore heat losses and pressure drop in
steam injection. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 24(2):139–144, 1972.
[39] Palmer C.M. Brill J.P. Payne, G.A. and H.D. Beggs. Evaluation of inclined-pipe,
two-phase liquid holdup and pressure-loss correlation using experimental data.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 31(9):1198–1208, 1979.
[40] Palmer C.M. Brill J.P. Payne, G.A. and H.D. Beggs. A study of multiphase flow
behavior in vertical wells. SPE Production Engineering, 3(2):263–272, 1988.
[41] M. Prats. Thermal Recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1986.
[42] H.J. Ramey JR. Wellbore heat transmission. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
14(4):436–440, 1962.
[43] D.H. Gibson S.W. Gosch P.D. Pattillo R.C. Ellis, D.G. Fritchie Jr. Marlin failure
analysis and redesign: Part 2 - redesign. Paper SPE 74529 presented at the
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 26-28 February 2002, Dallas, Texas.
[44] P. S. Sarathi and D. K. Olsen. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. Applied Science
Publishers, 1992.
[45] A. Satter. Heat losses during flow of steam down a wellbore. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 17(7):845–851, 1965.
[46] O. Shoham. Mechanistic Modeling of Gas-Liquid two-phase Flow in Pipes. So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers, first edition, 2005.
182 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[47] Smith D.D. Squier, D.P. and E.L. Dougherty. Calculated temperature behavior
of hot-water injection wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 14(4):427–435,
1962.
[48] P.D. Pattillo J.W. Sharp S.W. Gosch, D.J. Horne and P.C. Shah. Marlin failure
analysis and redesign; part 3, vit completion with real-time monitoring. Paper
SPE 74530 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, 26-28 February
2002, Dallas, Texas.
[49] G.P. Willhite. Over-all heat transfer coefficients in steam and hot water injection
wells. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 19(5):607–615, 1967.
[50] Yu-Shu Wu and Karsten Pruess. An analytical solution for wellbore heat trans-
mission in layered formations (includes associated papers 23410 and 23411 ).
SPE Reservoir Engineering, 5(4):531–538, 1990.

c Copyright by Sel¸uk Fidan 2011 c All Rights Reserved

ii

I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in Energy Resources Engineering.

Prof. Anthony R. Kovscek (Principal Adviser)

I certify that I have read this thesis and that in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and in quality, as partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in Energy Resources Engineering.

Dr. Louis Castanier

iii

iv

Accurate predictions of heat loss. Even today the topic is important for practical application of steam injection. Most thermal reservoir simulators today do not yet take into account heat losses and pressure drops along the wellbore. For deeper injection wells and injection wells in offshore environments. 2) white v . The equations describing mass and heat flow are solved in discretized well-bore framework. Steam quality. are used and results are compared. however.Abstract In the oil industry. wellbore heat loss is often significant. In the literature. Six insulation materials are examined: 1) black aerogel. Steam properties are incorporated directly. the problem of wellbore heat loss during hot fluid injection is classical. Several two-phase flow correlations for injection tubing. The main goal of this study is to investigate heat losses along the wellbore during steam injection in both onshore and offshore environments. The Fontanilla and Aziz approach is used in this study. 14]. steam temperature. and heat loss values with and without insulation are calculated. temperature distributions and pressure profile are essential for modeling steam injection wells. with an improvement in the application of two-phase flow correlations and the determination of several input parameters. Neglecting these items may be acceptable for shallow reservoirs. The calculated steam temperature and steam pressure agree well with the field data using the Beggs and Brill model [13. it is shown that the Fontanilla and Aziz model [20] yields results in good agreement with field data. steam pressure.

vi . so are the amounts of heat loss. Compared with the case of just steam injection. the steam temperature values are smaller. that enables other users to change the input parameters and visualize the results without going into the details of the calculations. and heat loss calculation are conducted for steam injection with non-condensible gas (N2 ). steam temperature. 5) thermolastic insulation and 6) calcium silicate.aerogel. Steam quality. 4) carbon fiber. a novel approach is introduced for adding noncondensible gas to steam to increase the injection pressure without increasing the steam temperature. A Matlab Graphical User Interface (GU I) is developed. steam pressure. To our knowledge. 3) fiberglass. Aerogel insulations present the opportunity to create a superinsulated tubing that overcomes many limitations of current steam injectors. no one has predicted the result of non-condensible gas addition on steam injectors. In this work. Additional partial pressure is obtained by adding N2 to the system.

this success was not only one person’ success it was the success of the several people in my life and I will briefly talk about those people here. My mother is the highest priority person in my life not only she raised us with devoting her entire life to her children but also lack of opportunity she had not to allowed to get educated. Mustafa Onur who has great impact on my life in terms of his knowledge. Dr. I would like to thank both to Turkish National Petroleum Cooperation (T. Kovscek for his time.Acknowledgments First and foremost. He always gave his students courage to excel their skills and motivated them to work vii .A. It came true. My adviser in Turkey Prof. support and trust on me. Khalid Aziz to provide one of his Master students Fontanilla’s thesis. Jan Dirk Jensen to teach us ”Design and analysis of production systems for oil and gas reservoirs” to understand multiphase flow concept better. I would also like to thank to visiting Prof. He is a unique person both in Academic world and personal world. support.P. It was one of the biggest dream I had since second year of undergraduate to come to Stanford and study there.O) and SUPRI-A Affiliates for their support. My special thanks go to Prof. thank you ’Anne’ (means mom in Turkish). Louis Castanier with whom I had helpful discussions in the early and late stage of this project. Anthony R. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my adviser Prof. Thank you Tony! My thanks also go to Dr. she dedicated herself to her children to get all of them (4 sons) educated and she achieved this. guidance and his unbelievable patience. Without his support I would not be able to finish this work.

hard. Amar Alshehri. Mehrdad Honarkhah. Wenjuan Lin. not only several days I stayed at school she never became angry. Elnur Aliyev. Rustem Zaydullin. Now my friends . many thanks to him and as well as my supervisor Dr. It was my fortune to be one of the member of the such a great team SUPRI-A that I have learned a lot and found my women of dreams and got married. many thanks to him. he gave me an opportunity to work with him and learn from his experiences. thank you little angel. and energy to our life. is the softest part of my heart and inspiration of my life. Alireza Iranshahr. I enable to finish this work! Thank you.). and more. joy. My wife. Obi Isebor: I enjoyed studying with you guys during my stay at Stanford. viii . My adviser Dr. Mehmet Parlar at Schlumberger during my internship last summer. CANIM! And my little baby daughter Su Lin Fidan who brought fun. She always supported me. because of him I am here. but also she showed her love to me every seconds of our life. Because of her love. Rajesh Chanpura.

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you. being hated. Or. Or walk with kings . And lose. If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss. And yet don’t look too good.you’ll be a Man my son! -Rudyard Kipling ix . If you can think . If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools. But make allowance for their doubting too. If you can meet with triumph and disaster And treat those two imposters just the same. If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue.which is more . And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: ”Hold on”. being lied about. And stoop and build ’em up with wornout tools. but none too much. And . Or. If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone.IF If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you.nor lose the common touch. If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you.and not make thoughts your aim. If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it. don’t give way to hating. Or watch the things you gave your life to broken. If you can wait and not be tired by waiting. nor talk too wise. If all men count with you.and not make dreams your master. and start again at your beginnings And never breath a word about your loss. If you can dream . don’t deal in lies.

P) u u x .Dedicated to my father H¨sn¨ Fidan (R.I.

. . . . .2 2. . .1 Heat Loss from Surface Lines . . . 3. . . . Heat Transfer by Radiation . . .1.2 2. . . 3. 2. . . .1.Contents Abstract Acknowledgments 1 Introduction 1. . . . . . . .3. Heat Transmission Mechanisms and Discussion from Authors . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Thesis Outline .1. . .1.1 2. . . . . . 3 Model Formulation 3. .1 Heat Transmission Mechanisms . . . . . . .1. . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2. .1 2. . Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . .1 With/without Insulation . .3 Emeraude Vapeur : A Steam Pilot in an Offshore Environment . . . . . . . . . v vii 1 4 6 6 9 11 11 11 12 12 13 15 15 17 17 2 Literature Review 2. . . . . . . Heat Transmission Discussion from Authors . . . . .3. . . . . xi . . . . . . . .3. .2 Heat Transfer by Conduction . . . . . Heat Transfer by Convection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Heat Loss Calculations . . . . .

. .1 Modified Beggs and Brill Model . . . .1 from Prats . . . . 3.3. .3. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . .1. . .1. xii . . . . . . .2 Flow Pattern Determination . . . . .1. .2 3. 6. . . . .1. . . .3. . . . . . . . 4 Effect of Non-Condensable Gas (N2 ) 5 Graphical User Interface (GUI) 6 Results and Comparisons 6. . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. .3. . . . . . . . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. .1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . .1. .3. Aziz. .4 Offshore Environments .2.3.1 With/without Insulation . . . . . .3 Heat Loss from Sea Floor to Reservoir . . .3. 3. .3 3. Examples without Insulation Materials . . .1 Examples for heat loss calculation . . . Example 10. . . .3 Example 10. . . . . . . . . . . .2 6.2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Govier and Fogarasi Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Examples with Insulation Materials . . . . . Frictional Pressure Loss . . . . . . . . . . . Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . .2 from Prats . .3. . . . . . . .2 Heat Loss from Sea Level to Sea Floor . . . .2 Flow-Pattern Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . 6. . . . Onshore environments . . .3 Steam Phase behavior calculations . . . . . . Hydrostatic Pressure Difference . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . Example for Offshore . . . .1 3. . . . . .1 6. .1 6. . .2. . . .1. . . . . . . . .1 With/without Insulation . . . . Program Validation . 19 19 22 22 26 27 32 33 36 38 39 39 43 45 49 53 53 54 59 60 63 73 75 77 79 3.1. . . . . . . . .3. . Two Phase Flow Correlations . . . . . . . . . .

. .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Future Work . . . .6.5 Determination of the Convection Heat Transfer Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Examples without Insulation Materials . . . . . .4. . . . . .3 Summary . . .3 Evaluation of Heat Loss to the Surrounding . . . . . .2 Examples with Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . 122 A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Summary. 79 81 84 84 89 95 95 99 102 Adding Non-Condensable Gas (N2 ) in an Onshore environment 6. . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . .6 Determination of the Radiation Heat Transfer Coefficient . . . . 110 A. . . . . . . . . . . .10 Calculation of the Annulus Fluid Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Evaluation of the Derrivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 xiii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . .5. . . . . .1 6. . . .1 7. . 116 A.1 Total Energy Equation . . . . . Examples without Insulation Materials . . . . . . . .6 Adding Non-Condensable Gas (N2 ) in an Offshore environment . . . . . . 102 Conclusions . . . .1 6. . . .2 7. .2 Mechanical energy balance or the Extended Bernoulli Equation . . . . . . . . . 122 A. .2 Examples with Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Determination of f(t) . . . . 113 A. . . 125 A. . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . Examples without Insulation Materials . . . . . . . .4 Determination of the Uto and Tci . . . Conclusions and Future Work 7. . . . .7 Computational Procedure for Uto .5. . .5 Examples with Insulation Materials . . . . . . . . . 127 A. 120 A. . 105 Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . 106 A Derivation of the Equations 110 A. . .1 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 B. . 132 B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 B. . . . . .3 Heat Losses from Sea Floor to Reservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 C Results for Different Insulation Materials Bibliography 156 177 xiv . . . . . . .2 Heat Losses from Sea Part . .1 Heat Losses from Surface Line . . . . .4 Table 14 from Prats [41] . 154 B. .B Codes for Heat Loss Calculations 132 B. .5 f(tD) calculation also known as Ramey[42] .

List of Tables
3.1 3.2 6.1 Thermal Conductivity of the materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time Function f (tD ) for the boundary condition model [49]. . . . . . Input parameters from Prats [41] as used for different example calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 6.3 Radiation-natural convection coefficient of heat transfer. . . . . . . . Field data parameters for field data 1 and field data 2 [19]. . . . . . . 56 57 63 16 25

xv

xvi

List of Figures
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Schematic view of the objective of our calculations, (retrieved from [2]). Emeraude field location and five spot[9]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic view of conduction (after [8]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heat transfer from a hot surface to air by convection (retrieved from [1]). 2.4 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12 4 7 11

Representation of heat transfer by radiation(after [8]). . . . . . . . . . Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with or without temperature profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

3.2

Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with temperature profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 21 21

3.3 3.4 3.5

Sea water properties change with temperature and salinity[36]. . . . . Schematic representation of the wellbore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer sea floor to reservoir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 26 27 29 30 34

3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Pressure-enthalpy diagram (retrieved from [24]). . . . . . . . . . . . . Gas-liquid flow-patterns for vertical pipes (retrieved from [12]). . . . . Vertical downward two-phase flow [33]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Liquid Holdup and Slippage effect representation (retrieved from[4]).

3.10 Flow Map for the Beggs and Brill Correlation (retrieved from[4]). . . xvii

3.11 Segregated Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12 Intermittent Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.13 Distributed Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.14 Flow Pattern map for Aziz et al. (retrieved from[14]). . . . . . . . . . 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 User interface developed GUI for onshore calculations. . . . . . . . . User interface developed GUI for offshore calculations. . . . . . . . . User interface developed GUI for both onshore and offshore results. . User interface developed GUI post-processing for both onshore and offshore results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

35 36 36 40 50 51 51

52

Surface lines heat loss calculation with six different insulation materials. 58 Surface Heat Loss calculation without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . Heat loss from sea level to sea floor with six different insulations. . . 58 59 59

Heat loss from sea level to sea floor without insulation. . . . . . . . . Heat loss calculation using different insulation materials based on Example 10.2 from Prats[41]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

6.6

Heat loss calculation without using insulation materials based on Example 10.2 from Prats [41]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

6.7

Comparison of steam temperature with field data 1 and two-phase correlations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6.8

Comparison of steam pressure with field data 1 and two-phase correlations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6.9

Calculated steam quality with different two-phase correlations based on field data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

6.10 Calculated heat loss calculation with insulated tubing based on field data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii 66

. . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam pressure with field data 2. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . 6. . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . 1 year. . . . .16 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam pressure with field data 1. . . 6. . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . .22 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . .18 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam temperature with field data 2. 6. . . .17 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam quality with field data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam quality with field data 2. . . . . .14 Calculated heat loss calculation with insulated tubing based on field data 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . . xix 75 75 72 72 71 70 70 69 69 68 68 67 . . . . . .21 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Comparison of steam temperature with field data 2 and two-phase correlations. . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam temperature with field data 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . .12 Comparison of steam pressure with field data 2 and two-phase correlations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . .13 Calculated steam quality with different two-phase correlations based on field data 2.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. . 1 year. 1 year. . . . . . . .27 Steam quality distribution. . . . . . . . . 1 year.25 Steam temperature distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . .28 Heat loss distribution. . . . . . .24 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . .31 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . 6. . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . 6.23 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.30 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel. . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . 1 year. . .33 Steam temperature distribution. 79 6. . . . . . . 1 year. . . .32 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . xx 81 80 80 79 78 78 77 77 76 76 . . . .29 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . 6. 1 year. . . . . .26 Steam pressure distribution. . . . . . . . . 1 year. . 1 year. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel. 6. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. 6. . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . 6. . . . . . . . . 6. . . .43 With changing N2 molar percentage. . 6. 6. . . . . . . . . . 1 year. .41 With changing injection temperature.42 With changing injection depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . .44 With changing injection rate. .39 With changing injection rate. . . . . . .38 With changing N2 molar percentage. . xxi 93 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 82 81 . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . 6.35 Steam quality distribution. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . 6. . . . . . . . .6. 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. 6. . . . .45 With changing steam quality molar percentage . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . . 6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . . 1 year. . . .46 With changing injection temperature. . . 6. 1 year. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. 6. . . 1 year. . . . . . . . .37 Pressure drop distribution and formation pressure (green dots). . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . 1 year.34 Steam pressure distribution. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . .40 With changing steam quality molar percentage . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel for onshore. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. .36 Heat loss distribution. . . . . . . . .

. . . . 6. . . . . . 1 year. . . .51 With changing injection temperature. . 111 A. . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . .54 With changing injection rate. . . .52 With changing injection depth. . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . 6. . . 6. . . 100 6. . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. .49 With changing injection rate. . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . 126 A. . . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . 129 A. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . . . . . .53 With changing N2 molar percentage. . . . . 6. . . 1 year. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . .47 With changing injection depth. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. . . .50 With changing steam quality molar percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Schematic view of tubing element in our calculation. . . . . . . .6. . 1 year. . . . 1 year. . . . .48 With changing N2 molar percentage. . . 100 6. . . . . . . . 101 A. . . . . . 1 year. .3 Viscosity of the annular fluid with respect to Temperature. . . . . . . . 1 year. .55 With changing steam quality molar percentage . . . . . 1 year. 6. . . . . . . 1 year. . 6. . . . . 1 year. . 6. . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . 130 xxii 99 99 98 97 97 96 96 94 . . . . .56 With changing injection temperature. .2 Time conduction function (retrieved from[19]). . .57 With changing injection depth. . . .4 Thermal conductivity of the annular fluid with respect to Temperature. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. 6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.

159 C. . . .8 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. 1 year. . . . 1 year.2 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with temperature profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . 137 B. . . . . 1 year. . . . . 1 year. . .6 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . .B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.4 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . 158 C. 145 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 C. 1 year. . . . .3 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 158 C. . . . . . . . . . . . 156 C. . . . .1 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with/without temperature profile. .7 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . . . . . .159 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 xxiii . . 157 C. . . 132 B. . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. . . . . . . . 1 year. . . 1 year. . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . .3 Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer sea floor to reservoir. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . 1 year. .17 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . .12 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. . 163 C. .14 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.10 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. . 163 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. . . 164 C. . . 161 C. . . . . . . .11 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . .C. . 164 C. .13 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . .15 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . 161 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . .16 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 xxiv . . . 1 year. 1 year. . . . . . 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . 1 year. . . . . .9 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 C. . . . .

. . . . . . . . .19 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . 166 C. . . . 167 C. . . .22 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. 167 C. . 1 year.18 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year.170 xxv . .26 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . . . . 168 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. . 1 year.27 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year. . 1 year. .24 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . 165 C. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. . . . . .25 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year.23 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . .20 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. . . . . . . . . . . . 169 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . .169 C. . . . . . . . . . . . .166 C. .21 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . . . . . .

1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . .35 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. 174 C. . . . . 1 year. . . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . 173 C. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. . . . . . . 172 C. . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. . . . . . .28 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. . .32 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . 173 C. . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 year. . 1 year. . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. 171 C. . . . .C. . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. . 1 year. . . . . . . 1 year. . .29 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. .34 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . .30 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 C. . . . . .36 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . . . 170 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. . . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 xxvi . . . . . . 172 C. . .

. . . . . . . . . .176 xxvii . . . . . .38 Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 175 C. . . . . . . .C. . . . 1 year. . . .37 Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . .39 Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . . . . . . 176 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. . . . . . . . . 1 year. . . 175 C. 1 year. . . . . . 1 year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. . . . . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. . . .40 Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). . . . . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. . .

xxviii .

The displacement of fluids by steam is self stabilizing movement of the crude oil to the production well. Many investigators have studied heat transfer to the surrounding formation while 1 . viscosity decreases. are easily the most successful enhanced oil recovery processes. Prats[41] indicated that the effect of steam injection on recovery is significantly greater as compared to hot-water injection. It was the ”Emeraude Vapeur” pilot test that had great technical success [9]. but only one example exists in the literature for offshore fields. Crude-oil viscosity is inversely proportional to temperature. provide drive energy and thereby improve the displacement efficiency of injected fluid [44] . Lake[30] emphasized that thermal methods especially steam injection and steam soak. Steam injection is the thermal method that add heat to the reservoir to expand the oil in-place. Many applications of steam injection have been done with success in the onshore environment. It is because steam carries more enthalpy per unit mass. Less viscous oil results in greater mobility. reduce oil viscosity. When the temperature increases.Chapter 1 Introduction Increasing oil prices have helped raise investment in EOR applications during the last two decades. Steam injection is applied to viscous oil reservoirs in order to reduce oil viscosity and increase production.

temperature losses. and single phase. He neglected kinetic energy. INTRODUCTION hot fluid injection travels downward along the wellbore. For the onshore cases. non-compressible. Heat loss and pressure drop calculation for steam injection in offshore environments are not reported in the literature. Several two-phase correlations in the literature are used. Willhite [49] proposed a well known overall heat transfer coefficient calculation that has been widely used in the oil industry since. Ramey assumed that flow is steady state. Earlougher [17] considered steam and casing conditions with respect to depth. Several years later Pacheco and Farouq Ali [38] presented a comprehensive mathematical model of steam injection without taking into account slip and the multiphase flow regime concept. For all calculations. He solved energy and momentum balance equations analytically to get approximate pressure and temperature distributions. we start with a base case following . pressure losses. frictional loss. pressure drops and quality changes along the wellbore are calculated by coupling non-linear equations and solving them simultaneously. and steam quality changes along the wellbore during steam injection in both onshore and offshore environments. He used the Hagedorn and Brown model [22] for two-phase flow calculation and assumed that there is no slippage between the phases for steam injection. He took into account the slip concept and flow regime of the flow and concluded that considering the slip and the flow regime is important for calculating pressure drop and steam quality during the downward steam injection. Farouq Ali [18] solved this issue and proposed a comprehensive wellbore steam flow model. He actually assumed that the gas and liquid phase flow at the same speed. In 1967. and assumed that the overall heat transfer coefficient does not change with depth. In 1969. Ramey [42] was the pioneer and his model is used by most researchers as a starting point. The objective of this study is to calculate the heat losses.2 CHAPTER 1. Early in the 1980s. Offshore cases take into account the thermophysical properties of sea water to get the correct radiation and convection heat transfer coefficients.

Figure 1. This is the first time that this kind of calculation is described in the open literature. however. such as N2 . In order to calculate heat losses from the offshore environments you must consider surface lines.1 shows the schematic view of the our calculation for both onshore and offshore environments. insulating small amount of length gives much efficiency on steam quality. pressure drops and steam quality change along the wellbore during injection of steam with an additive of non-condensable gas. then extend our work by applying several more updated two-phase correlations. sea level to sea floor and sea floor to the reservoir. Surface lines does not contribute heat losses with comparing sea level and sea floor to reservoir. The results obtained using different two-phase flow correlations are compared. we conduct calculation of heat transfer.3 similar procedures as shown by Fontanilla[20]. . As another step forward. A novel approach is proposed to solve this problem. Sensitivity analysis using different insulation materials are also conducted to investigate the effect of insulation materials on downhole steam properties.

Then. the wellbore heat transmission concept is reviewed starting from Ramey’s [42] classical paper. INTRODUCTION Figure 1. we discuss model formulation that we used in our calculations. . One case had great success in terms of producing more oil resulting from steam injection. we review a summary of three basic heat transfer mechanisms and their combinations that are the backbone of our study. we review two cases of heat flow from wells for offshore fields.4 CHAPTER 1. 1.1: Schematic view of the objective of our calculations. In addition. (retrieved from [2]). In Chapter 3. the other case used vacuum insulating tubing (VIT) to reduce heat losses and failed.1 Thesis Outline In Chapter 2.

we also provide a robust solution that takes into account thermo physical properties of seawater in order to calculate important parameters [36] for heat-loss calculations. We augment Fontanilla’s approach as well. For other correlations. it causes a decrease in steam pressure and so steam temperature. references are provided. With this program a user can study the role of several parameters and see the effects of those parameter on the system. and sea floor to reservoir based on both Prats’s [41] and Willhite’s [49] algorithm. THESIS OUTLINE 5 Starting with heat transfer calculation in three parts: surface lines. Once N2 is injected into the system. The N2 gives additional pressure into our steam and helps to reduce heat loss. Continue with steam properties calculation. we present and discuss most of the two-phase correlations that can be applied for downward steam injection operations. Chapter 6 discusses the results obtained in preceding chapters and compares them in terms of using different insulation materials and steam properties. In order to achieve this purpose.1. In Chapter 4. we calculated steam and noncondensible gas properties for insulated and non-insulated tubing in both onshore and offshore environments. the problem of steam with non-condensable gas (N2 ) is considered.1. Besides the analogy for offshore. This program allows a user to choose several correlations to be applied such as insulated or uninsulated tubing. Several of correlations are explained in detail. sea. Chapter 5. We validated our program with field data from the literature [11] and obtained good agreement with field data and also with Fontanilla’s approach [19]. . A summary of our findings and suggestions for future work are presented in Chapter 7. is the one of the exciting parts of this thesis because we developed a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for our calculations and gave the basics of the program input and output that is used in our calculations.

Figure 2.1 a. These very heterogeneous reservoirs are significantly depleted and oil is viscous (0. The first is Emeraude Vapeur[9] and subsequently the Marlin failure and redesign [16. on the West African coast. and adapted pumping units on one platform because of reservoir 6 . The depth of reservoirs is shallow (200-500 m) and they consist of silt layers alternating with thin fractured limestone beds. 48] are discussed.Chapter 2 Literature Review We review two examples from the literature for offshore cases of wellbore heat losses. a tilted rig. Water depth is 65 m. 2. The adverse environmental conditions required original solutions: tilted conductor pipes. A steam drive pilot test was decided in order to estimate a recovery rate and an oil-steam ratio on two independent reservoirs in 1980.1 Emeraude Vapeur : A Steam Pilot in an Offshore Environment The Emeraude field is located offshore Zaire (Congo). 43. This chapter continues with heat transfer mechanism and with heat transfer discussions.1 Pa s (100 cp)) at reservoir conditions.

(b) Emeraude five spot. were obtained from steam-injection tests under laboratory conditions. assuming that imbibition would be active. with water breaking through to producers almost immediately. Water injection was implemented in 1972 in a five-spot pattern. several additional platforms would be needed. The .1: Emeraude field location and five spot[9]. After 14 years of production (1972-1986). and the reservoir was severely pressure depleted.1. of this large amount of oil associated with this poor recovery rate. Figure 2. about 3% of OOIP. however. EMERAUDE VAPEUR : A STEAM PILOT IN AN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT7 shallowness and steam production equipment on a second platform because of the distance to the shore. Various EOR methods were considered to meet the challenge (a) Emeraude field location. Promising results. only 170 million barrels had been recovered. The Emeraude field is estimated to contain 1 billion barrels of viscous original oil in place (OOIP). In-situ combustion tests under laboratory conditions showed that most of the oil would be burned in the fracture network. and the final recovery would still be only 5-10% OOIP [9]. The results were disappointing. To produce the remaining reserves by primary recovery in 15-20 years.2.

facilities for steam production from seawater were located on a platform because of the long distance to shore. and OSR (oil steam ratio). steam can be injected at a sufficient rate in reservoirs R1 and R2. One of the first developments was obtained interms of getting sufficient well spacing by using a tilt rig for drilling. drilling through and cementing depleted and fractured zones. steam injectivity.[15] shows that both steam and hot-water drives may improve oil mobility by reducing viscosity and also may reduce residual oil at high temperatures. located on adjacent platforms were noted. pumping tilted wells. steam breakthrough time. some reservoir engineering conclusions were obtained. A third was that pumping units were adapted to tilted wells and electronically regulated. In addition to these technological solutions. A final conclusion was that steam improves the oil production rate in heterogeneous reservoirs. A steam-flood in Figure 2. The Emeraude steam drive pilot provided original solutions to recover a larger amount of OOIP than could be recovered by primary production despite difficult conditions. Lastly. • prove the technological feasibility of such a project in adverse conditions (drilling with a tilted rig. LITERATURE REVIEW experimental work of Willman et al. recovery rate. Significant response by Well EMV07 in reservoir R2 (oil rate increased four-fold) and other wells. A second success of development was that depleted and fractured zones were adequately drilled and completed. For instance.1 b shows the five spot steam injection implemented to.8 CHAPTER 2. and producing steam from seawater) and • evaluate reservoir responses to steam injection. . Technological problems were solved during the pilot design.

and hydrogen released from the inner tubular at elevated temperatures [6]. VIT provides a solution for heat loss in steam injection in Arctic and offshore environments. It was the first alert of a major tubing failure.2. Right after production began. Ellis et al. three papers are reviewed related to this subject and including basic information about Vacuum Insulated Tubing (VIT). The Marlin field is located in the Gulf of Mexico. carbon monoxide. and was originally intended to be produced from a tension-log platform by means of five predrilled dry-tree penetrations. The annulus is usually filled with a better material for absorbing hydrogen formed by corrosion of the outer tubular and gases such as nitrogen. MARLIN FAILURE ANALYSIS AND REDESIGN 9 2. They try to reduce them by making analysis and physical evidence. VIT is a tubular apparatus conveying steam or other hot fluids (> 400o F ) to the formation through an inner tubular that is surrounded by an outer tubular [6]. [16] describe the Marlin failure and give several possible failure modes. • hydrate formation and dissolution. Gosch et al. Viosca Knoll Blocks 871/915. Analysis of the failure came up with several critical issues including • excessive helical buckling of the production tubing.2. a minor tubing leak occurred. and .2 Marlin Failure Analysis and Redesign In this section. Bradford et al. The annular space between the inner and the outer tubular is under vacuum. and after that casing pressure jumped to shut in tubing pressure. • trapped annulus pressure leading to casing collapse. [43] apply the failure analysis from the first paper to the remaining Marlin wells and focuses on the VIT redesign process. [48] addresses focusing on the value of combined VIT and fiber/software monitoring system as a means of both controlling and observing well thermal behavior.

a combination of thermal coatings and insulated inserts provides adequate additional insulation at the couplings. Using VIT. VIT design itself has lots of design considerations and challenges. Another important conclusion was natural convection can significantly affect the ability of VIT to isolate tubing temperatures from the annulus. They still do not know whether it was because of the production tieback collapsed alone or as a result of collapse of the intermediate casing is unknown [16].10 CHAPTER 2. and environment (HSE). Second. Although Marlin wells predrilled up to the completion stage limited mitigation options. safety. The overall thermal properties of the unaltered VIT were not adequate for Marlin requirements due to the fact that heat loss at coupling dominates the performance of a VIT joint. several materials were tested in the annulus to reduce heat loss and N2 is the most effective barrier to heat loss. they had significant thermal isolation due to the low conductivity or low convecting annular fluids [43]. Additionally. well design concepts were developed and screened using agreed-upon riskacceptance criteria for health. They chose VIT based on the economic analysis and risk profile associated with each option. it . a well is shut in automatically. They sum up their work in several with giving results. Last. They tried to understand whether the VIT was a good choice or not based on the both experimental and numerical results [48]. Design of VIT introduces a number of considerations not present in a design using conventional tubing. This real-time monitoring gave them better control of the well such as when a low safety factor is calculated. they have tested VIT performance with developed software to see the production annulus temperature profile in real time. In the third paper of the Marlin failure redesign [48]. they concluded that deformation of Well A-2’s tubing was the result of collapse of production tieback. They did several experimental studies on VIT and found out three important facts. LITERATURE REVIEW • improper tubulars and wellhead movement After the fishing operation and ultrasonic caliper.

3. Both the thermal performance of the VIT and its mechanical integrity require special consideration. convection.1) where k is the thermal conductivity of the material (Fig.3 Heat Transmission Mechanisms and Discussion from Authors 2. reduces to the differential form that is . less energetic ones as a result of interaction between particles. and radiation and a combination of two or more in our calculations. T1 − T2 ∆T ˙ Qcond = kA = −kA ∆x ∆x (2.1.2: Schematic view of conduction ing case ∆x → 0 the equation above (after [8]). HEAT TRANSMISSION MECHANISMS AND DISCUSSION FROM AUTHORS11 was remarked that regional heating can add a temperature increase to outer annuli that is not anticipated in a single well analysis.1 Heat Transfer by Conduction Heat conduction also called diffusion is the transfer of energy from the more energetic particles of a substance to the adjacent. 2. In the limitFigure 2.2). Including conduction. These results lead the authors to suggest that each well has to studied and treated individually.3. 2. 2.2.3.1 Heat Transmission Mechanisms In this section we review the heat transfer mechanisms during steam injection operations.

35]. 2.12 CHAPTER 2. In contrast.2 Heat Transfer by Convection (2. The radiation that can be emitted from a surface at an absolute temperature Ts (in K or R) is given by Figure 2. Fourier and becomes [8. dT ˙ Qcond = −kA dx 2.max = σAs Ts4 (2.3. pump.3 Heat Transfer by Radiation Radiation is the energy emitted by matter in the form of electromagnetic waves as a result of changes in the electronic configurations of the atoms or molecules. 35] by convection (retrieved from [1]).4: Representation the Stefan − Boltzman law as [8.3). or the wind.3) 2. Convection is called forced convection if the fluid is forced to flow over the surface by external means such as fan. ˙ Qemit. The rate of convection heat transfer is expressed by Newton s Figure 2. LITERATURE REVIEW called Fourier s law of heat conduction after J.2) One mode of convection heat transfer is between a solid surface and the adjacent liquid or gas that is in motion.1.4) .3: Heat transfer from a hot surface to air law of cooling as [8. 35] of heat transfer by radiation(after [8]).3. convection is called natural (or free) convection if the fluid motion caused by buoyancy forces that are induced by density differences due to the variation of temperature in the fluid (Fig.1. ˙ conv = −hAs (Ts − T∞ ) Q (2.

He assumed that fluid is non-compressible and flow is single phase with constant thermal and physical properties along the wellbore. Holst and Flock [25] added the friction loss and kinetic energy effects on Ramey’s [42] and Satter’s [45] models. however. One of the well-known papers for wellbore heat transmission is by Ramey[42].3. Satter [45] presented a method that improved Ramey’s [42] model by making the overall heat transfer coefficient dependent on depth-step method for calculating heat loss and steam quality for saturated steam as a function of depth. HEAT TRANSMISSION MECHANISMS AND DISCUSSION FROM AUTHORS13 2. he assumed. Leutwyler [31] gave a comprehensive treatment of casing temperature behavior. He did not take into account frictional pressure loss and kinetic energy effect in his calculation. One year after Satter’s [45] paper. Since Satter assumed that there is no change in pressure with depth. In his paper.2 Heat Transmission Discussion from Authors In the literature many investigators have worked on the thermodynamic properties of the hot fluid movement through wells in onshore fields for both production and injection. Squier et al.3. Hans and Huitt [26] also developed a graphical solution for wet steam . in order to calculate the heat loss and quality distribution versus depth for saturated steam injection operations. using a complete analytical method. In 1966. They neglected. the static pressure change. Most of the publications follow upon his approach.2. [47] solved differential equations describing fluid temperature along the wellbore. in effect that the temperature of the injected saturated steam remains constant. He provided an approximate analytical solution for wellbore heat transmission. Ramey [42] made several assumptions. They used hot water as injection fluid. He considered that heat flows radially away the wellbore and the overall heat treansfer coefficient is independent of depth. and that only the quality varies with depth.

and casing temperature. Their approach was assuming non-homogeneous formations as layered formation with different physical properties. He used several correlations and stated that importance of applying two-phase flow concept and flow regime. Wu and Pruess [50] presented a new analytical for wellbore heat transmission without Ramey’s assumptions. All the development both technological and understanding of the problem have been done so far helped to understand heat transfer mechanism and solve the problem with taking into account considerations from the authors. Willhite [49] proposed his well known method for estimation of over-all heat transfer coefficient that is applied in our calculation as well. Two of the pioneers in the prediction of heat loss and pressure drop in the wellbore were Pacheco and Farouq Ali [38]. and later on Farouq Ali [18] solved this problem by taking into account slip between the fluids and the flow regime. LITERATURE REVIEW injection operations. they calculate wellbore heat loss. . which is not valid. One year later. They formulated a mathematical model that consisted of two coupled nonlinear differential equations that were solved iteratively in terms of pressure and quality of steam. In their model. steam condensation rate. They assumed single phase flow.14 CHAPTER 2.

The tubing hangs symmetrically inside the casing. 3. 15 . This can be seen in the derivation of the equation to evaluate the overall heat transfer coefficient Uto . Heat transfer in and around the wellbore takes place under pseudo steady state conditions. These assumptions follow: 1.Chapter 3 Model Formulation This chapter presents the methodology for heat-loss calculations and pressure drop estimation in injection tubing.1 Heat Loss Calculations We have adapted Fontanilla’s [19] assumptions for the solution of offshore and onshore injectors. This would mean that the heat rate through the wellbore components is the same at any given time. The heat transfer into the earth occurs under unsteady-state condition. 3. 2. Conduction is pseudo steady state when the change in temperature with respect to time at any given point in the wellbore remains constant. The heat diffusivity and the conductivity of the formation is constant.

The procedures for estimating heat losses may appear laborious. it loses energy to the surrounding formation. whether surface lines or wells.1: Thermal Conductivity of the materials Insulation Materials Black Aerogel White Aerogel Fiberglass Carbon Fiber Thermolastic Insulation Calcium Silicate W/(m*K) 0.028 0. In Table 3.014 0.1.0400 .0237 0. This heat loss may result in condensation with consequent reduction in steam quality and enthalpy. The calculation procedures of both Prats [41] and Willhite [49] are discussed here. For comprehensive calculation procedure we refer to read Appendix A. One of the classic papers about over-all heat transfer coefficient was published by Willhite [49]. Heat losses through pipes. we have provided thermal conductivity of the different insulation material based on the values from the thesis of Marques[34].041 0.0162 0. Here in our study.0208 0. He presented his widely used method that is incorporated in most simulators for hot fluid injection and hot water. we will give the equations for both surface lines and wellbores based on the methods discussed. usually are estimated at steady-state conditions in oilfield operations.16 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION As steam travels downward in the wellbore. In addition.0069 0.036 0. Table 3.012 0.069 (BT U/(f t − hr −o F)) 0.0081 0. For offshore heat losses calculations an analogy between electrical circuits and heat resistance is made. we provide the equations for insulated and noninsulated cases and also for offshore heat loss calculations.

In Figure 3. (b) Surface pipe without insulation.1. HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS 17 3. and . is Tb − TA ˙ Qls = Rh where Rh is represented as Rh = 1 . Qls .1 a. ˙ The basic equation used to calculate heat losses per unit length of pipe.3. we have a representative resistance to heat transfer and a temperature profile. That savings can be significant will be demonstrated by means of steam injection examples. it is generally worthwhile to use insulation to reduce heat losses to save both money and fuel.1: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with or without temperature profile.1.1.1. Figure 3. Prats [41] stated that even though heat losses from surface lines in hot fluid injection operations may be a small fraction of the total heat injected.1 Heat Loss from Surface Lines With/without Insulation (a) Surface pipe with insulation. 2πrU (3.1 3.1) U is the overall coefficient of heat transfer.

radiation is usually insignificant and is not included in Eq. and λp and λins are the thermal conductivities of the pipe and insulation. and Qls is the rate of heat loss per unit length of pipe in BT U/(f t − hr). the specific thermal resistance of heat loss is given as Rh = 1 1 1 1 ro 1 1 rins 1 + + ln + + ln + 2π hf ri hpi ri λp ri hpo ro λins ro hf c rins (3. The physical significance of each of the six terms in the right side of Eq.1. hf c is the coefficient of heat transfer due to forced convection (air currents) at the outer surface of the insulation.3.2 is illustrated in Figure 3. hpo is the coefficient of heat transfer across the contact between pipe and insulation. rins is the external radius of the insulation. For a pipe covered with insulation. Because the temperature on the surface of most insulated lines is low. Tb is the bulk temperature of the fluid in the pipe in degrees Fahrenheit.2) Here hf is the film coefficient of heat transfer between the fluid inside the pipe and the pipe wall. Rh is the specific thermal resistance (thermal resistance per unit length of pipe) and is given in units of (BT U/(f t − hr −o F))−1 .ro is the outer radius of the pipe and essentially the inner radius of the insulation. because the transient phase is often of short duration (of the order of less than a day). Coefficients of heat transfer are expressed in (BT U/(sqf t − hr −o F)) . Each of the six terms is proportional to a thermal resistance in the system affecting heat losses. and thermal conductivities in (BT U/(f t − hr −o F)). radii in feet.18 CHAPTER 3. TA ˙ is the ambient temperature of the atmosphere in degrees Fahrenheit. Adjacent to the inner surface of the pipe is a low-velocity .2 above. Rates of heat loss during transient periods can be several times greater than at steady state. hpi is the coefficient of heat transfer across any deposits of scale or dirt at the inside wall of the pipe. Transient effects generally are neglected in calculations of heat losses from thermal lines. ri is the inner radius of the pipe. MODEL FORMULATION r is an arbitrary radius that usually coincides with the radius of one of the surfaces for which the heat loss is being determined.3. Here.

leads to the coefficient of heat transfer hf c . which affects heat losses to the atmosphere by forced convection.2 3. It should be pointed out that adding more insulation does not necessarily reduce the rate of heat losses further.2. . Note that the resistance to heat flow across this film decreases as the value of the coefficient of heat transfer increases. 3. Figure 3. (b) Sea Part without insulation.1.2: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with temperature profile.1. Scale or dirt deposits at the inside (2) and outside (4) pipe walls lead to coefficients of heat transfer hpi and hpo . Heat transfer through the pipe wall (3) and the insulation (5) is by conduction.1.3.1 Heat Loss from Sea Level to Sea Floor With/without Insulation (a) Sea Part with insulation. Because of its low velocity. this film has heat transfer characteristics different from those of the flowing bulk fluid and accounts for the introduction of the film coefficient of heat transfer hf . HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS 19 fluid film (1). respectively. A low velocity fluid film at the exterior surface of the insulation (6).

2.4 as reference: 1. 4. heat transfer is steady because the specified thermal conditions at the boundaries do not change with time. heat transfer is one dimensional due to thermal symmetry about the midpoint. thermal conductivity is constant. sea temperature does not change along the wellbore Rtotal = Rconv. density. 3.1 + Rcycl.1 + Rcycl.3) (3.2 Rtotal = 1 1 r2 1 r3 1 r4 1 + ln + ln + ln + h1 A1 2πLk1 r1 2πLk2 r2 2πLk3 r3 h2 A4 (3. we have made several assumptions taking Figure 3.2 + Rcycl. MODEL FORMULATION For the sea level heat loss calculation.20 CHAPTER 3.3 + Rconv. thermal conductivity. specific heat at the given salinity and temperature of the sea.4) In order to calculate heat losses from offshore wells we have to find Tins and Uto and also sea water parameters such as thermal diffusivity. .

1. Figure 3.4: Schematic representation of the wellbore.3: Sea water properties change with temperature and salinity[36]. HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS 21 Figure 3.3. .

thus. For the insulated tubing held concentrically within the casing shown in this .22 CHAPTER 3. A representation of the typical elements offering resistance to heat losses from the wellbore is given in Fig 3. where in this case the ambient temperature is the geothermal temperature and.1.1. Figure 3. (b) Sea Floor to Reservoir without insulation. the specific thermal resistance is time dependent. is discussed later in more detail. Heat losses from wells never reach a steady state.3 3. It is a measure of how fast the earth conducts heat away from the well. This function of time.1. 3. MODEL FORMULATION 3. of course. reflecting the variable effective thermal resistance of the earth.1 Heat Loss from Sea Floor to Reservoir With/without Insulation (a) Sea Floor to Reservoir with insulation. They attain. a function of depth.5. Heat losses from the well to the earth are characterized by Eq. In this case. a quasisteady state in which the rate of heat loss is a monotonically decreasing function of time.3. as pointed out by Ramey [42] and Willhite [49].5: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer sea floor to reservoir.

f (tD ) is represented in terms of dimensionless time: tD = αE t 2 rw (3. hς. rEa is the radius of the altered zone in the earth near the wellbore. Coefficients of the heat transfer are expressed in (BT U/(sqf t − hr −o F)). rw is the wellbore radius. and f (tD ) is the time function that reflects the thermal resistance of the earth. λcem is the thermal conductivity of the cement. λEa and λE are the thermal conductivities of the altered and unaltered earth. and the dimensionless time is discussed later. and the variable resistance of the earth. rci and rco are the inner and outer casing radii.5) The first five terms have been discussed in the preceding section for heat loss from surface lines. here only the Ramey[42] and Willhite[49] representation is going to be discussed. In Eq. The last five terms represent. in order of appearance.an . The function f (tD ) has been discussed by a number of authors. The function f (tD ) and the radiation-convection coefficient of heat transfer in the annulus. the resistance to radiation and convection in the annulus.an is the radiation and convection coefficient of heat transfer for the annulus. and thermal conductivities in (BT U/(f t−hr−o F)). radii in feet. the resistance of an altered zone (resulting from drying due to high temperatures) in the earth. the resistance of the cement. The function f (tD ) is dimensionless.1. Different well designs lead to different expressions for determining the overall thermal resistance Rh . the heat resistance elements are combined to obtain the overall coefficient of heat loss: Rh = 1 1 1 ro 1 rins 1 1 1 + + ln ri + + ln + 2π hf ri hpi ri λp hpo ro λins ro hς.3.6) . the resistance of casing.an rins 1 rco 1 rw rEa f (tD ) 1 + ln + ln rco + ln + λp rci λcem λEa rw λE (3. are the only additional terms requiring discussion. hς. HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS 23 figure.

2.7) here αE is the thermal diffusivity of the earth in square feet per hour. . For values of tD ≤ 100 and is then Ramey [42] gives calculation: f (tD ) 1 ∗ (lntD ) + 0.8) for tD ≤ 100. This Table 3. MODEL FORMULATION if there is an altered zone. and t is the time from start of heating in hours. For values of of tD ≤ 100.403 2 (3.24 CHAPTER 3. tD = αE t 2 rEa (3. Willhite [49] has published Table 3.2 is used to interpolate the value for finding f (tD ).

240 1.313 0.890 0.806 1.02 0.427 0.580 1.370 1.660 1.0 0.590 1.050 2.619 0.740 10 0.730 2.0 2.0 0.430 0.910 1.323 0.480 1.1 0.900 25 .313 0.984 1.588 0.745 0.330 0.314 0.860 0.890 0.1.750 5.806 1.110 1.5 0.400 2.160 2.870 2.570 2.150 1.000 1.390 2.644 0.880 2.690 2.2: Time Function f (tD ) for the boundary condition model [49].570 2.568 0.802 1. HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS Table 3.452 0.578 0.870 2.510 2.811 1.370 1.0 10.438 0.880 0.400 1.439 0.0 20.2 0.090 2.240 1.417 0.670 1.770 2.803 1.170 2.990 2.650 1.623 0.423 0.05 0.316 0.616 0.840 2.345 0.570 2.473 0.424 0.560 2.810 1.2 0.020 1.772 0.0 5.698 0.0 100.580 2.860 2.860 2.396 0.580 2.570 1.120 2.970 2.150 2.390 2.250 1.520 1.423 0.538 0.872 1.420 2.958 1.0 50.240 1.440 1. tD 0.080 1.890 0.666 0.020 1.380 1.0 0.590 1.480 2.445 0.842 1.511 0.811 1.572 0.000 2.540 2.617 0.770 2.3.890 0.730 20 0.373 0.01 0.020 1.010 1.560 1.960 2.802 1.840 0.440 2.220 1.170 2.1 0.590 1.433 0.970 2.040 1.810 2.790 1.730 50 0.0 0.050 1.0 100 0.820 1.5 1.010 1.629 0.030 1.160 2.318 0.200 1.660 1.360 1.170 2.

Based on the function from[24]. a fourth order Runge-Kutta method is used with Matlab ”ode45” function. .26 CHAPTER 3. The appropriate ordinary differential equations are described in Appendix A. our pressure versus enthalpy diagram looks like Figure 3. To solve this differential equation in each interval of the well.6. The steam properties such as density of the saturated steam and density of the saturated liquid are calculated directly using IAPWS IF97[24].2 Steam Phase behavior calculations Figure 3. MODEL FORMULATION 3.6: Pressure-enthalpy diagram (retrieved from [24]). Steam quality changes with depth.

We provide flow regimes in two phase vertical flow in Figure 3. Drift Flux model.3. Figure 3. We give information about the two phase correlations that are applied in our calculations for vertical downward flow with insulated and uninsulated tubing for both an onshore and offshore environments.7. . and Hasan and Kabir correlations. two-phase flow behavior is more complex than for singlephase flow.3 Two Phase Flow Correlations Unlike single-phase flow.7: Gas-liquid flow-patterns for vertical pipes (retrieved from [12]). liquid always flows faster than the gas or vapor phase. Shear stresses at the pipe wall are different for each phase because of their different densities and viscosities. we also addressed flow regimes for vertical flow. The phases tend to separate because of differences in density.3. Govier and Fogarasi. The main difference between gas and liquid phase is they do not travel at the same speed in the pipe. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 27 3. Aziz. The two-phase flow correlations we used in our calculations are modified Beggs and Brill. Besides. For downward flow.

.9) where ρs = ρl HL + ρg Hg and the definition for ρs and the density term is used in the acceleration component. Many correlations have been developed for predicting two-phase flowing pressure gradients that differ in the manner used to calculate these three components of the total pressure gradient. happens at the wellhead during steam-only injection. Predicting the flow regimes that occur at a given location in a well is extremely important. dp = dz dp dz + el dp dz + f dp dz (3. but the gas phase predominantly controls the pressure gradient [13. MODEL FORMULATION The general pressure gradient equation is 2 g f ρf vm ρvm dvm dp = ρs sinφ + + dz gc 2gc d gc dz (3.28 CHAPTER 3. 23.8 shows flow regime pattern both injection and production of the fluid. 46]. Droplet flow. The pipe wall is coated with a liquid film. In this flow. also known as mist flow. the gas phase is continuous and the bulk of the liquid is entrained as droplets in the gas phase. 14. Some investigators chose to assume that gas and liquid phases travel at the same velocity (no slippage between phases) for evaluating the mixture density and evaluate only a friction factor empirically. Acceleration is sometimes negligible and is usually calculated only for high flow velocities. Figure 3.10) acc The pressure drop caused by elevation change depends on the density of the two-phase mixture and is usually calculated using a liquid holdup value. Friction losses require evaluation of a two-phase friction factor. Others developed methods for calculating both liquid hold up and friction factor and some chose divide the flow conditions into patterns and developed separate correlations for each flow regime. The empirical correlation or mechanistic model used to predict flow behavior varies with flow pattern.

The wall of the pipe always contacts with the liquid phase [13. During slug flow. 23. Neither phase appears to be continuous. 23. [13. [13. The correlations addressed in this study are discerned from each other by taking into account both the slippage effect and flow patterns. The bubbles move at different velocities and except for their density. 14. slip velocity and no-slip velocity values. Churn flow is the change of continuous gas phase to continuous liquid phase. the pipe is almost completely filled with the liquid and free gas phase is present in small bubbles. 46]. Liquid Holdup and Slippage Effect When two or more phases are present in a pipe. both as a thin film along the pipe wall and as dispersed droplet in the core. two-phase flow [33].3. they tend to flow at different . viscosity of both phases. 23. 14. 46]. There is clear distinction between gas bubbles and liquid phase like gas phase trapped into largebubbles.3. superficial velocity of both gas and liquid phases. 46].8: Vertical downward give equations of them. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 29 Annular mist flow also as known as annular droplet flow occurs right after the mist flow and is characterized by the axial continuity of the gas phase in a central core with the liquid flowing downward. Here we are going to Figure 3. 14. have little effect on the pressure gradient. Parameters are calculated in two-phase flow requires knowledge of several parameters such as liquid holdup.

that is referred to as gas holdup or gas fraction. That is HL = volume of liquid in a pipe segment volume of pipe segment (3. is defined as the ratio of the volume of liquid in a pipe segment divided by the volume of the pipe segment which would exist if the gas and liquid traveled at the same velocity (no-slippage). the in-situ volume fractions of each phase (under flowing conditions) differ from the input volume fractions of the pipe.9: Liquid Holdup and Slippage effect representation (retrieved from[4]). That is Hg = 1 − HL (3.30 CHAPTER 3. This causes a ”slip” effect between the phases. As a consequence. Typically the phase that is less dense flows faster than the other. These in-situ velocities depend on the density and viscosity of each phase.11) Liquid holdup is a fraction that varies from zero for all gas flow to one for all liquid flow. sometimes called input liquid content. Liquid holdup is defined as the ratio of the volume of a pipe segment occupied by liquid to the volume of the pipe segment.12) Figure 3. MODEL FORMULATION in-situ velocities. It can . The remainder of the pipe segment is of course occupied by gas. No − Slip Liquid Holdup No-slip holdup.

3.20) (3. The superficial velocity of a fluid phase is defined as the velocity which that phase would exhibit if it flowed through the total cross section of the pipe alone.15) .17) qg AHg (3. Superficial velocity for the gas phase is vsg = Actual gas velocity is vg = Superficial velocity for liquid phase is vsL = The actual liquid velocity is vs = The two-phase mixture velocity is vm = vsL + vsg The slip velocity is vs = vg − vL = vsg vsL − Hg HL (3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 31 be calculated directly from the known liquid and gas from rates as CL = qL qL + qg qg qL + qg (3.19) qL AHL (3.16) qg A (3.14) Many two-phase flow correlations are based on a variable called superficial velocity.3.18) qL A (3.13) Cg = 1 − CL = Velocity (3.

22) vsL vm (3.0111 ∗ 10−7 ∗ T 3 (3. downhill.2934 ∗ 10−7 ∗ T 2. many of the published correlations are applicable for ”vertical flow” only.0661 + 2. The Beggs and Brill multiphase correlation deals with both the friction pressure loss and the hydrostatic pressure difference.3192 ∗ 10−4 ∗ T 1.21) 3. It was developed using 1” and 1-1/2” sections of pipe that could be inclined at any angle from the horizontal.23) (3. inclined and vertical flow. 39] correlation.484045 − 3.1106 ∗ 10−2 ∗ T − 7. For saturated water viscosity µw = exp[0.1115 ∗ 10−2 ∗ T 0. namely uphill.0085 + exp[−7. [32]. The Beggs and Brill [3.2085 ∗ 10−5 ∗ T 2 +1.85 For saturated steam viscosity µs = 0.1 Modified Beggs and Brill Model For multiphase flow. horizontal. is one of the few published correlations capable of handling all these flow directions.95 + 1. Not many correlations apply to the whole spectrum of flow situations that may be encountered in oil and gas operations. 14. while others apply for ”horizontal flow” only.3. First the appropriate flow regime for .9 −2. 7.32 CHAPTER 3. MODEL FORMULATION The no-slip holdup is CL = Viscosity Viscosity of the both saturated water and saturated steam is calculated based on the correlation of from Liang et al.

From this the friction pressure loss is calculated using ”input” gas-liquid mixture properties.3. The liquid holdup.1 Flow-Pattern Determination The Beggs and Brill correlation needs to identify the flow pattern at the given flowing conditions in order to calculate the liquid holdup and friction pressure drop. Intermittent or Distributed) is determined. and transition (flow pattern included after a modification of the original publication that considers the region between the segregated and intermittent grouped patterns). The boundaries between these groups of flow patterns appear as curves in a loglog plot in the original publication by Beggs and Brill. In order to build the flow map. the in-situ density of the gasliquid mixture is then calculated according to the appropriate flow regime. This was later revised so that straight lines could be used instead. CL ). We use this modified flow pattern map in our calculations. to obtain the hydrostatic pressure difference. The revised lines that define the boundaries are defined as follows (where * stands for the modification of the original curve to a straight line in a log-log plot) .1. the observed flow patterns were grouped as: segregated (stratified. For this purpose. 3. and hence. distributed (bubble and mist flow). the Beggs and Brill correlation makes use of a horizontal flow pattern map built based on the Froude number of the mixture (Frm ) and input liquid content (no-slip liquid holdup. intermittent (plug and slug flow). TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 33 the particular combination of gas and liquid rates (Segregated. A two-phase friction factor is calculated based on the ”input” gas-liquid ratio and the Moody friction factor table using Colebrook equation.3.3. wavy and annular flow).

Therefore.302 L∗ = 316CL 1 −2. Unless the pipe is actually in the horizontal position. to calculate the liquid holdup.0009252CL 2 −1. 0. the Beggs and Brill correlation is not able to recognize the actual flow pattern under the given conditions. MODEL FORMULATION Figure 3.1CL 3 −6.738 L∗ = 0.25) (3.4516 L∗ = 0.5CL 4 (3. we first determine the liquid holdup for the horizontal .24) (3.4684 L∗ = 0.26) (3.27) The identified flow pattern is the one that would exist if the pipe were horizontal.10: Flow Map for the Beggs and Brill Correlation (retrieved from[4]).34 CHAPTER 3.

4 and L3 < F rm ≤ L∗ or CL ≥ 0. The Froude number is a dimensionless number that relates the inertia with respect to the gravitational forces. IntermittentF low occurs when 0.4 1 and L∗ < F rm ≤ L∗ .11: Segregated Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). the corresponding flow pattern is identified when the following inequalities are satisfied. For a mixture.01 and F rm < L∗ 2 1 .01 ≤ CL < 0. and this value is then corrected for the angle of interest.3.3. SegregatedF low occurs when CL < 0.01 and F rm < L∗ or CL ≥ 0. it is obtained as F rm = 2 Vm gD (3. Figure 3. 3 4 .28) Once the input liquid content (CL ) and Froude number of the mixture (Frm ) are determined. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 35 flow.

4 and F rm > L∗ .4 and F rm ≥ L∗ or CL ≥ 0. Beggs and Brill divided the liquid holdup calculation into two parts.36 CHAPTER 3. The horizontal . T ransitionF low occurs when CL ≥ 0.3. EL (θ). 2 3 3.12: Intermittent Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). EL (0). is determined.2 Hydrostatic Pressure Difference Once the flow pattern has been determined. this horizontal holdup is corrected for inclined flow to obtain the actual holdup. DistributedF low occurs when CL < 0.1. MODEL FORMULATION Figure 3. the liquid holdup for horizontal flow. First.13: Distributed Flow Regime (retrieved from[4]). the liquid holdup is then calculated. Afterwards.01 and L∗ < F rm < L∗ . 1 4 Figure 3.

4846 0.8θ) 3 β for all type of flow pattern is β = (1 − CL )ln 0.065CL EL (0) ← F r0.0609 m end if if strcmp(F lowpattern. Therefore.98CL EL (0) ← F r0.98CL EL (0)Segregated ← F r0.8θ) − sin3 (1.845CL 0.5824 1.29) (3.3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 37 holdup must be EL (0) ≥ CL .3692 0.0173 F rm m EL (0)intermittent ← 15: EL (0)T ransition ← AEL (0)Segregated + BEL (0)Intermittent 16: end if 17: end if Once the horizontal in-situ liquid volume fraction is determined.30) (3.845CL EL (0) ← F r0. the horizontal holdup is set to EL (0) = CL .4846 0.0978 CL F rm (3.70Nvl 0. The expression used to calculate the horizontal holdup changes per flow pattern group as follows in MatLab: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: if strcmp(F lowpattern.0868 0.5351 0.1244 4.3. Distributed ) then 0. in the event that EL (0) < CL .0868 m else if strcmp(F lowpattern.5351 0.0173 m end if if strcmp(F lowpattern. Intermittent ) then 0. the actual liquid volume fraction is obtained by correcting EL (0) by an inclination factor B(θ): EL (θ) = B(θ)EL (0) 1 B(θ) = 1 + β sin(1. Segregated ) then 0. T ransition ) then L∗ −F rm 3 A ← L∗ −L∗ 3 2 B ←1−A 0.31) .

the mixture density ρm is obtained.8725(ln(Y ))2 + 0. MODEL FORMULATION where Nv l = 1. we utilize the Moody Friction factor calculated using the Colebrook equation. ρL gσ 1 4 and β must always be ≥ 0.1.938Vsl of β is obtained.33) Based on experimental data.3 Frictional Pressure Loss In order to calculate frictional losses. in turn.0523 + 3. is used to calculate the pressure change due to the hydrostatic head of the vertical component of the pipe ∆PHH = ρm gLsin(θ) 144gc (3.3.34) (3.32) 3. Beggs and Brill presented a correlation for the ratio of the two-phase friction factor ftp and the normalizing (no-slip) friction factor resulting in the following exponential equation: ftp = fN S eS The value of S depends on the no-slip and the actual liquid holdup: S= ln(Y ) −0.35) where Y = .38 CHAPTER 3. Therefore if a negative value Once the actual liquid holdup EL (θ) is calculated. β=0.182(ln(Y )) − 0. Mixture density. To determine fN S . For this purpose.01853(ln(Y ))4 CL EL (θ)2 (3. the no-slip Reynolds number is used: ReN S = ρN S Vm D µN S (3. a normalizing friction factor fN S is used.

3. Due to the large volume of steam(gas) as compared to the water that is present in most steam injection wells.2.2Y − 1. [29].38) . [29] mechanistically based pressure drop correlation for downwards steam flow.3.4 ρL 62.2) else ln(Y ) S ← −0.01853(ln(Y ))4 end if Finally.1 Flow Pattern Determination In Figure 3. Those modifications are included in the bubble flow and in the slug flow patterns. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 39 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: if Y ≥ 1 and Y ≤ 1. As Fontanilla stated for Aziz et al.0764 1 3 Nx = VSg 72 σL ρL 62. the annular mist flow pattern is very common.8725(ln(Y ))2 +0.3.2 Aziz. Govier and Fogarasi Model Fontanilla[19] investigated applicability of the Aziz et al.3.37) Ny = VSL 72 σL (3.4 1 4 1 4 (3.182(ln(Y ))−0. 3.0523+3. ρg 0.36) 3.14 we can see the flow-pattern map for different flow types. this correlation that was strictly developed for upward vertical flow needs some modification in order to apply to downward flow.2 then S ← ln(2. the expression for pressure loss due to friction is: ∆Pf = 2 2ftp Vm ρN S L 144gc (3.

42) where vbf is the rise velocity of small gas bubbles in a flowing liquid. ρg is in pounds per cubic feet.152 (3.51(100Ny )0. In downward flow. vS is in feet per second.8Ny N3 = 70(100Ny )−0. In the Figure 3. (retrieved from[14]). Liquid holdup for bubble flow is calculated from HL = 1 − vSg vbf (3. Bubble Flow The bubble flow pattern is characterized by small bubbles of steam(gas) dispersed in a continuous water phase.40) (3.39) (3.172 N2 = 8. the difference in densities of the two phases causes the bubbles to travel at a velocity lesser than the average velocity of the mixture.40 CHAPTER 3.41) where vSL is in ft per second. Bubble flow exists if Nx < N1 . ρL is in pounds per cubic feet and σL is in dynes per centimeter.14: Flow Pattern map for Aziz et al.6 + 3.14 we have several lines that represents flow-pattern transitions and they are defined as: N1 = 0. MODEL FORMULATION Figure 3. This velocity is .

The vbs term is predicted from σL g(ρL − ρg ) vbs = 1.2vm − vbs (3.43) where the first term is the approximate velocity of the fluid mixture.44) The frictional component of the pressure gradient is determined as 2 f ρs vm ∂p = ∂Z 2d (3. . ρs = ρL HL + ρg (1 − HL ) NRe = ρ L vm d µL (3. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 41 predicted for downward flow as follow vbf = 1.47) The acceleration component of the pressure gradient is considered to be negligible for bubble flow.3.34) and friction factor from Moody Friction factor calculation using the Colebrook equation[27].41 ρ2 L 1 4 (3.3. and vbs is the rise velocity of a continuous swarm of small bubbles in a static liquid column.45) where ρs is determined from equation (4. accounting for the nonuniform velocity and bubble concentration profiles across the cross section.46) (3.

[29] state that gd(ρL − ρg ) ρL vbs = C where C was given by Wallis as (3.5 for Ny ≥ 4.37−NE m ) (3.(4.345 1 − e(−0.51) if Nv ≥ 250 then m ← 10 else if 250 > Nv > 18 then −0.30) and Eq. Aziz et al.49) gd2 (ρL − ρg ) σL d3 gρL (ρL − ρg ) µL (3.37).50) (3. however. For slug flow.(4.42 CHAPTER 3.029Nv ) and NE = Nv = and m is determined as 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 1 − e( 3. the bubble-rise velocity in a static liquid column is based on large bubble. MODEL FORMULATION Slug Flow Slug flow exists if N1 < Nx < N2 for Ny < 4 or N1 < Nx < 26.35 m ← 69Nv end if if Nv ≤ 25 then m ← 25 end if end if .48) C = 0. The liquid holdup for slug flow is also calculated from Eq.

method if the flow pattern map in Figure 3. linear interpolation is performed. In Figure 4. Aziz et al. TWO PHASE FLOW CORRELATIONS 43 The friction pressure-gradient component for slug flow is determined from dp dZ = f 2 f ρL HL vm 2d (3. the transition region does not exist for Ny > 4.3. The Reynolds number is given as NRe = f ρL vm d µL (3. Transition Flow The transition region exists when N2 < Nx < N3 for Ny < 4.14 was replaced with the Duns and Ros map.53) The acceleration pressure-gradient component was considered negligible for slug flow. dp =A dZ where A = 3.5 for Ny > 4.54) mist Modifications Al-Najjar and Al-Soof [5] showed that improved results could be obtained with Aziz et al.3.3.2. When the transition region is predicted. the pressure gradients must be calculated with both the slug-flow and mist-flow equations.2 N3 −Nx N3 −N2 dp dZ + (1 − A) slug dp dZ (3.8. Their conclusion was based on a comparison of the predicted and measured .52) The friction factor is obtained from a Moody friction factor and the Colebrook equation[27]. Mist Flow Mist flow exists when Nx > N3 for Ny < 4 or Nx > 26. To obtain the pressure gradient.[29] recommended the Duns and Ros [28] mist-flow method be used to calculate pressure gradient for this flow pattern.

MODEL FORMULATION pressure drops for 80 tests on 15 flowing wells in Iraq.44 CHAPTER 3. .

however.1) where Ptotal is the total pressure of the gas phase.Chapter 4 Effect of Non-Condensable Gas (N2) In our calculations we used N2 as the non-condensable gas. N2 is assumed not to carry heat. 45 . Neglecting the enthalpy of N2 is a good approximation because steam enthalpy is several orders of magnitude larger in comparison to N2 . temperature. pressure and as well as heat loss during the steam injection. We explore the partial pressure effect of N2 on downhole steam quality. provides partial pressure during steam injection. Addition of non-condensable gas into our system makes our calculation a little complex [10]. N2 . so contribution to the mixture enthalpy is zero. The pressure of the vapor phase is now a sum of steam partial pressure and gas partial pressure: Ptotal = Psteam + PN2 (5. We assume N2 only exists in the vapor phase with steam and has the same temperature as the steam. Psteam is the partial pressure of the steam and PN2 is the partial pressure of the N2 .

46 CHAPTER 4. steam quality.5) Suppose we have a system with given injection rate.3) where x is the liquid mole fraction of the components. we find the total pressure as Ptotal = Psteam Psteam = ysteam 1 − yN2 (5. So. 5. time and mol fraction of N2 .3 and y2 = yN2 + ysteam = 1. EFFECT OF NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) The total mol fraction of the liquid and gas phase is xi = 1.7) Having the total mass of the steam in our system.0 yields that ysteam = 1 − yN2 . steam temperature or pressure (one determines the other). xi = 1. we find the total moles of the steam . y is the vapor mole fraction of the components. With a given undilited steam pressure or temperature (one determines other).0 yi = 1.6) Once we find total pressure we continue to find other input parameters in our calculation. Total mass of the steam is found as WmX = W m ∗ t ∗ x (5.4) (5. Because we have only liquid water in our system inequlibrium with steam and N2 .0 is always equal to xwater . mole fraction of steam is found from Eq.2) (5. Calculation of the partial pressure of the gas components is PN2 = yN2 ∗ Ptotal Psteam = ysteam ∗ Ptotal (5.0 (5.

The reason we calculated mole of the N2 is because it is not changed entire process. Another important assumption is that the viscosity of mixture of N2 and steam is the as same as the viscosity of the undiluted steam.02 (5.9.9) Because ysteam is known and yN2 is known. M oleN2 is easily found using Eq. there is only one unknown in Eq. When this is the case the gas and steam act as perfect gases.9. cases occur where the gas partial pressure is significant compared to the steam partial pressure. R is the universal gas constant 8.3. Total volume of the steam and N2 is obtained using ideal gas law as Vsteam = M oleX ∗ R ∗ Tsteam Psteam@initial (5. The equation for viscosity is given by Eq.15.10) where P is the total pressure of the system in kilo pascal.23.47 as M oleX = WmX ∗ 454 18. 5. n is the mole fraction of the component.8) . Meaning that mass of the N2 is constant al the time. K =o C + 273. and it is going to increase due to the condensation of steam.8) With known steam mole fraction. we find how many moles of N2 is in the system as ysteam = M oleX M oleX + M oleN2 (5.7) VN2 = M oleN2 ∗ R ∗ Tsteam Psteam@initial (5. The only thing is going to change in each interval is that mol fraction of the N2 . 5. Thus we use ideal gas law PV = n ∗ R ∗ T (5. We assume that in two phase flow.314 J/K-mol and T is the temperature in Kelvin.

The density of the gas mixture and liquid mixture are used in our calculation. That is. the overall volume is found by applying Amagat’s law. potentially more accurate.48 CHAPTER 4. . In each segment of the wellbore. the volumes of each component add ideally and there is no volume change upon mixing. In either case. method is to obtain the steam molar volume from the steam tables. it is easy to find density of the total gas mixture. this calculation has to be repeated until steam reaches the reservoir. EFFECT OF NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) Once steam volume and N2 volume are obtained. Another.

The fourth snapshot is the output tables both onshore and offshore environments. we provide solutions for the addition of non-condensable gas N2 for both onshore and offshore environments. The user can choose different two-phase correlations and get the results as well as choose previous calculation results for post-processing. The theory behind calcualtions is well described in preceding chapters and the Appendix.Chapter 5 Graphical User Interface (GUI) Our GUI provides several inputs parameters and options that are useful in the calculations. The second snapshot is about calculations for onshore environment with insulated and without insulated tubing. The fifth snapshot is about the post-processing for viewing the results in figures for steam quality. Also. steam temperature and heat loss along the wellbore. All 49 . This chapter shows how we get the results using our GUI. The overall heat transfer coefficient is implemented both following Willhite’s approach[49] and Ramey’s time function[42]. steam pressure. This is similar to Fontanilla [19]. GUI for the Main program The GUI is demonstrated with snapshot of the program. The first snapshot gives the background for the program. The third snapshot is the input parameters for the offshore environment.

it is seen that there are several input parameters for specifically steam injection parameters for onshore cases. is post-processing the data that obtained from calculations either onshore or offshore is designed specifically to visualize the results and to save the figures or delete it.1. User can choose different insulation materials and two-phase flow correlations. . In third figure that is Figure 5. Figure 5.4. Last one is the Figure 5. results are shown this part and user able to save those datas to excel files or clear them. First snapshot of the program is shown Figure 5. after the calculation is done either for onshore or offshore cases. User also able to choose insulation materials and two phase flow correlation to calculate steam temperature. Figure 5.2 is the similar input parameters except riser radius and sea temperature inputs.1: User interface developed GUI for onshore calculations.3. steam pressure. GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI) calculations take into account two-phase flow correlations.50 CHAPTER 5. steam quality and heat loss values.

.2: User interface developed GUI for offshore calculations. Figure 5.51 Figure 5.3: User interface developed GUI for both onshore and offshore results.

GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI) Figure 5.4: User interface developed GUI post-processing for both onshore and offshore results. .52 CHAPTER 5.

It is shown that our results match with Prats’s [41] results for surface lines. And then results are extended to 2 field cases [11]. 6. different depth and different percentage of N2 addition in order to see the sensitivity of steam temperature. non-condensable gas addition calculations are done with different injection rate. 53 . so we take input values from Prats [41] and modify the calculations to illustrate the hole of insulation. steam pressure. steam quality and heat loss.1 Examples for heat loss calculation Examples with known solutions are presented for surface line and onshore calcualtions with insulated or without insulated tubing to verify the new code. We compared our results with Prats’s [41] results. our results are a little higher than his results. steam quality. There is no example for offshore heat loss calculation. sea and sea floor to reservoir heat loss calculations are presented using limited data provided by Prats [41]. This part of results are only considered for heat loss aspects. Moreover. steam temperature. surface line. With this we found his minor mistake for onshore injection well and reported here. For injection wells.Chapter 6 Results and Comparisons In this part of the study.

3. on the other side when you use aerogel you would consume 16 bbl for 100 ft length surface pipe. When you use calcium silicate you would consume 100 bbl.095*109 BTU when the pipe is bare.0*106 BTU. the reduction in yearly heat losses resulting from insulating the pipe amounts to more than 1000 bbl of fuel for a 100-ft length of pipe.1. the insulation reduces heat losses by a factor of about 50 when using calcium silicate.2 and plotted into Figure 6. the amount of heat lost from 100-ft length of pipe over a period of 1 year is Ql =1.” The average yearly temperature is 60 o F . Prats [41] asks ”find the steady state heat loss per year per 100 ft of pipe when the pipe is (1) is insulated with 3 in of calcium silicate and (2) not insulated .e. and the prevailing winds have an average velocity of 20 mph normal to the injection line. The input parameters are listed in Table 6.2 is also applied here in order find the heat loss for without insulation case.6 18vw rins rins hf c = (6. for black aerogel heat loss is Ql =2. Eq.6 0.1581*108 BTU for the calcium silicate (highest heat loss).i.1 for a several pipe sizes and temperatures. radiation heat losses are important.1) With insulation. N-80 pipe at a rate of 229 B/D. 0. Therefore. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS 6. the over all specific thermal resistance is calculated from Eq. however if you use aerogel it would be 280.1 from Prats Steam at 550 o F is injected through 4-in. Accordingly. Because one barrel of oil is roughly 6. Thus. Without insulation and at a surface temperature near 550 o F . bare.1 Example 10. The sum of the coefficients of heat transfer due to the radiation and free(or natural) convection for a horizontal pipe is given Table 3.0302*107 BTU (lowest heat loss).1 and for without insulation plotted into Figure 6. When we think about deeper wells using insulation material . the amount of heat lost from a 100-ft length of pipe over a period of 1 year is: Ql =6.. 3.54 CHAPTER 6.1.2.

”SeawithIns” is the offshore case with insulated tubing.1. Ql =1. Without insulation. Prats [41] stated that the coefficient of heat transfer due to radiation and forced convection is estimated to be 330 BT U/f t2 −D −o F .1 with insulations.1. In Example 10.21*109 BTU.6. Prats [41] used calcium silicate as the insulation material and get the heat loss as.095*109 BTU as shown in Figure 6. over the year. This shows that the real heat loss from bare tubing is Ql =6. Table 6. In Table 6. Abbreviations are explained as ”SLwithIns” is the surface line with insulated tubing. and ”2ResWithoutIns” is the sea floor to reservoir case without insulated tubing. and it causes little deviation from the exact results. he used 110 BT U/f t2 −D −o F and get the heat loss results over the one year period is Ql =6.1581*108 BTU and it is consistent with Prats’s example as shown in Figure 6.16*108 BTU.1 is used when we calculate the heat losses for the uninsulated case. ”SeawitouthIns” is the offshore case without insulated tubing. . EXAMPLES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATION 55 should be considered especially aerogel. ”2ResWithIns” is the sea floor to reservoir case with insulated tubing. ”SLwithoutIns” is the surface line without insulated tubing. In our calculation we find this minor mistake from Prats calculation. however. Our result for using calcium silicate is Ql =1.2. Still those results match well.1. there are several column headings.

9 0.6 0.1458 0.9 600 100 0.166/24 365*24 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 60 0.1478 0.2292 0.9 0.166/24 21*24 164 0.1458 0.9 CHAPTER 6.1667 0.2292 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0. Parameters SLwithIns SLwithoutIns SeaWithIns SeaWithoutIns 2ResWithIns 2ResWithoutIns Tsteam Taverage rti rto rins rriserin rriserout hf hpi hpo λpipe λcem λins time P ipeLength riserin riserout rto riserin riserout rto 550 60 0.1458 No Insulation 0.1458 No Insulation 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 No Insulation 21*24 1000 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 25 24 0.166/24 21*24 1000 0 0 0 0.14 0.1478 0.9 0 0 0 600 100 0.9 0. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS .1: Input parameters from Prats [41] as used for different example calculations.1667 No Insulation 0 0 2000 ∞ 2000 25 0 No Insulation 365*24 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 600 70 0.9 0.9 0.14 0.9 0.9 0.41467 0 0 2000 ∞ 2000 25 0 0.6 0.14 0.75 0 0 0 25 24 No Insulation 21*24 164 0.9 0 0 0 600 70 0.14 0.56 Table 6.9 0.

2 69.8 580 680 780 880 980 127 124 120 116 112 111 108 149 146 141 137 134 132 129 174 171 166 162 158 156 153 202 198 194 189 186 184 180 234 230 225 221 217 215 212 1080 269 265 260 256 252 250 247 1180 307 304 299 294 290 289 286 1280 352 348 343 338 334 332 329 57 .50 1.3 62.2 42.00 12.00 8. Diameter 130 0.8 49.4 180 59.7 65.0 100.4 72.9 48.4 48.0 39.9 76.4 71.1 72.2: Radiation-natural convection coefficient of heat transfer.5 93.8 330 81.00 2.0 96.1 54.8 75.8 51.6.0 86.2 46.5 68.9 83.9 88.5 51.2 63.1 91.00 50.1.3 79.4 61.7 46.6 280 74.00 4.6 60.5 57.4 67.7 480 107.3 44.8 70.4 65. EXAMPLES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATION Table 6.2 41.8 79.0 58.3 230 66.1 53.0 104.00 24.3 380 90.0 75.5 57.

2: Surface Heat Loss calculation without insulation.58 CHAPTER 6.1: Surface lines heat loss calculation with six different insulation materials. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Figure 6. Figure 6. .

1.3: Heat loss from sea level to sea floor with six different insulations. EXAMPLES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATION 59 6. Figure 6.1.6.4: Heat loss from sea level to sea floor without insulation. .2 Example for Offshore Figure 6.

the insulation being held in place and sealed from accidental entry of liquids in the annulus by a very thin sheath of aluminum. The temperature at the surface of the insulation (Tins ) and that at the inner radius of the casing (Tci ).5lbm/ft N-80 casing. Estimate the rate of heat loss 21 days after steam injection started.5-in.87 ∗ 104 ) BTU gives four times more heat loss than black aerogel (0.3 Example 10. 6. Radiation is sensitive to the temperature levels and emissivities (∈) of the surfaces. tubing set on a packer in 9 5/8 -in. affect the radiation heat losses across the annular space between the insulated casing.60 CHAPTER 6. as well as the casing temperature. For instance using calcium silicate (2. of calcium silicate.1.1.. Heat transfer across the gas filled annulus is by radiation and natural convection.1 ∗ 105 ) BTU case also gives about 8 times more heat loss than using lowest thermal conductivity insulation materials. There is no altered zone near the boreholes. In addition. It is clear that for 21 days period heat loss are substantial for uninsulated wells. The annulus contains a stagnant gas at zero gage pressure at wellhead. the bare tubing (2. together with the emissivities at these surfaces (∈ins ) and (∈ci ). hole. A temperature survey in the well indicates a mean surface temperature of 100 o F over the 1000-ft depth. The calculation procedure is well explained in the Prats book[41]. steam injection for offshore heat loss is calculated with insulated material and uninsulated cases. Prats [41] assumed that for shallow reservoir temperature change does not vary . Sea temperature is taken as 70 o F for 164 f t water depth. Heat loss estimation for 21 days of injection shows that the greatest the thermal conductivity values the greatest the heat losses observed. The tubing is insulated with 1 in. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Under 600 o F . This is relatively shallow. and the casing is cemented to surface in a 12-in.2 from Prats Steam at 600 o F is injected down 3. 53.75 ∗ 104 ) BTU. Input parameters are taken from Table 6.

In our calculation we get Ql =4.5. It is because of assuming temperature of the fluid does not change with depth for shallow reservoirs. He also stated that when the steam injection happens.1. This is good approach in terms of calculation and simplicity. Discussion of heat loss so far. This is why using a single value of Rh may provide a close enough estimate of heat losses and wellbore temperatures. the daily heat loss from such an insulated well corresponds to less than 1 bbl of fuel.2 from Prats [41] got heat loss Ql =4. It is because of several input parameters that differs somewhat. shallow reservoir temperature stays constant. considers the entire well as a unit. EXAMPLES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATION 61 much with depth such as 1000 ft.6*106 BTU that is slightly different than Prats results that is shown in Figure 6. In our program validation we do not assume this and we take into account temperature change along the wellbore.6. Example 10. .0*106 BTU/bbl of fuel.46*106 BTU for 21 days that corresponds to an equivalent energy content of 6.

2 from Prats [41]. .62 CHAPTER 6.5: Heat loss calculation using different insulation materials based on Example 10. Figure 6.2 from Prats[41].6: Heat loss calculation without using insulation materials based on Example 10. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Figure 6.

The Martha Bigpond well data is retrieved from the paper.104166667 No Insulation 0.1875 0.6.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 117 Wm x pwh Tm Depth Pan t There are 2 field cases where steam temperature is reported in the literature [11].2 0.104166667 No Insulation 0. PROGRAM VALIDATION 63 6. Fontanilla and Aziz [20] .8 250 50 1600 14. Input Parameters Field Data 1 Field Data 2 Dti rto rins rci rco rh ke αE kcem to ci EART H 0.94 4640 0.0286 0.177 0.2 0.6 1 0.9 0.94 4850 0.2 Program Validation Table 6.1875 0.166666667 0.2.3: Field data parameters for field data 1 and field data 2 [19].8 250 50 1600 14.177 0.0286 0.6 1 0.7 71 0.166666667 0.

. we can see the heat loss during steam injection is almost same values for the four different correlations of multiphase flow. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS referred to the same field data from Bleakley’s paper [11] as field data 1 and 2.7 and 6. the Beggs and Brill over predicts the quality values that Fontanilla got for field data 1 in Figure 6. [29].10. Input parameters are tabulated in Table 6. It may be because of applying different correlations to get saturated steam properties during calculations. we got promising results using the Beggs and Brill [13. When we look at the steam quality versus depth. The other three correlations also get good agreement with Fontanilla’s results as shown in Figure 6. 14] and Aziz et al.9.8.64 CHAPTER 6.3. Hasan and Kabir model [23. 14] approach for multiphase flow with field data 1. 40] and the Drift Flux model [21] are applied in our calculations. In Figure 6. These cases are to referred in our calculations as field data 1 and field data 2 as well. After applying the modified Fontanilla[20] approach with modified correlations. The other three correlations that we implemented have almost the same results. Besides Beggs and Brill [13.

PROGRAM VALIDATION 65 Steam Temperature in 355 0 360 365 370 375 380 385 o F 390 395 400 405 200 400 600 Field Data 1 Fontanilla Aziz.8: Comparison of steam pressure with field data 1 and two-phase correlations.2. Govier and Fogarasi Beggs & Brill Hasan & Kabir DriftFlux 800 1000 1200 1400 150 1600 160 166 168 Figure 6.7: Comparison of steam temperature with field data 1 and two-phase correlations. Govier and Fogarasi Beggs & Brill Hasan & Kabir DriftFlux Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 358 o F 364 o F 368 o F371 o F Figure 6. . 0 140 160 Steam Pressure in psi 180 200 220 240 200 400 600 Depth(ft) Field Data 1 Fontanilla Aziz.6.

Govier and Fogarasi Beggs & Brill Hasan & Kabir DriftFlux 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS 0.72 0.66 CHAPTER 6.7 0 0.77 0.79 0.10: Calculated heat loss calculation with insulated tubing based on field data 1.8 200 400 Fontanilla Aziz.9: Calculated steam quality with different two-phase correlations based on field data 1.71 0.75 0.78 0. Govier and Fogarasi Beggs & Brill Hasan & Kabir DriftFlux 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 x 10 5 Figure 6.703 0. .74 0.745 Figure 6.76 0.73 Steam Quality 0. 0 0 1 2 3 Heat Loss in BTU 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 200 400 Aziz.

The other three correlations give results similar to Fontanilla’s result. our calculation shows a little overprediction of values for steam quality as shown on Figure 6. . Again. Although. 355 0 360 365 Steam Temperature in 370 375 380 385 o F 390 395 400 405 200 400 600 Depth(ft) Field Data 2 Fontanilla Aziz. we got good results for steam temperature and pressure values for Beggs and Brill.11 and 6. PROGRAM VALIDATION 67 Figure 6.12 also show results after we run our simulator for field test data 2.2. we can see that the modified Beggs and Brill method gives a better result than the Fontanillla approach compared to the field data 1.6.11: Comparison of steam temperature with field data 2 and two-phase correlations.13 from Fontanilla’s result. Govier and Fogarasi Beggs & Brill Hasan & Kabir DriftFlux 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6.

13: Calculated steam quality with different two-phase correlations based on field data 2. .72 Steam Quality 0.78 0.68 CHAPTER 6.76 0.7 0. 0.12: Comparison of steam pressure with field data 2 and two-phase correlations. Govier and Fogarasi Beggs & Brill Hasan & Kabir DriftFlux 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6.68 0 0.74 0.8 200 400 Fontanilla Aziz. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS 140 0 150 160 170 Steam Pressure in psi 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 200 400 600 Depth(ft) Field Data 2 Fontanilla Aziz. Govier and Fogarasi Beggs & Brill Hasan & Kabir DriftFlux 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6.

.15: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam temperature with field data 1. 340 0 350 360 Steam Temperature in 370 380 o F 390 400 410 200 Field Data 1 Our Model(with Aziz) Our Model(with Beggs&Brill) Fontanilla Model(with Aziz) Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill) 400 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6.2. Govier and Fogarasi Beggs & Brill Hasan & Kabir DriftFlux 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 x 10 5 Figure 6. PROGRAM VALIDATION 69 0 0 2 4 Heat Loss in BTU 6 8 10 12 14 16 200 400 Aziz.14: Calculated heat loss calculation with insulated tubing based on field data 2.6.

77 0.75 0.8 200 400 Our Model(with Aziz) Our Model(with Beggs&Brill) Fontanilla Model(with Aziz) Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill) 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6.79 0.16: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam pressure with field data 1.71 0.72 0.74 0.7 0 0.78 0.17: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam quality with field data 1. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS 120 0 140 160 Steam Pressure in psi 180 200 220 240 260 200 400 Field Data 1 Our Model(with Aziz) Our Model(with Beggs&Brill) Fontanilla Model(with Aziz) Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill) 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6.70 CHAPTER 6. Steam quality 0.76 0.73 0. When we look at the results that we got for both field data 1 and 2 cases. The figures above . we had an opportunity to compare the results with Fontanilla’s approach.

17. PROGRAM VALIDATION 71 for the field data 1.15.18: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam temperature with field data 2. although we are able to calculate steam quality with given injection rate and input parameters. Beggs and Brill results differ quite a bit between the two methods. In Figure 6. Looking at the results. Therefore we only compare the results we have in our model and Fontanilla’s model. On the other hand. model starts converging from the beginning and obtains similar values. . 330 0 340 350 Steam Temperature in 360 370 o F 380 390 400 410 200 Field Data 2 Our Model(with Aziz) Our Model(with Beggs&Brill) Fontanilla Model(with Aziz) Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill) 400 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6. On the other hand Fontanilla’s Beggs and Brill implementation has less accurate results than ours. in Figure 6. has good agreement with Fontanilla’s Beggs and Brill results.15. It comes to check steam quality. and our implementation of Beggs and Brill correlations starts converging to the real data when we reach the bottom of the wellbore in Figure 6. Fontanilla’s Aziz et al.16. calculations give almost perfect results with the field data until 1000 ft.6. in the literature we could not find the steam quality data. we can also see the same trend with Figure 6.2. We can conclude the comparison saying that the Aziz et al. Our model using Aziz et al. Reuslts then deviate from the real values and go out of the range.

68 0 0.20: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam quality with field data 2. Steam quality 0. In Figure 6.18 .6.74 0.78 0. In the field data 2.7 0. we got the results and plot them as shown in Figures 6.8 200 400 Our Model(with Aziz) Our Model(with Beggs&Brill) Fontanilla Model(with Aziz) Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill) 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6.19: Comparison of our model with Fontanilla’s model steam pressure with field data 2.20.18 our model with Beggs and Brill correlations gives very good agreement . RESULTS AND COMPARISONS 100 0 120 140 Steam Pressure in psi 160 180 200 220 240 260 200 400 Field Data 2 Our Model(with Aziz) Our Model(with Beggs&Brill) Fontanilla Model(with Aziz) Fontanilla Model(with Beggs&Brill) 600 Depth(ft) 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Figure 6.72 0.76 0.72 CHAPTER 6.

For the offshore part. the Beggs and Brill two-phase flow correlation model’s temperature profile or pressure profile drops dramatically. In contrast. three other two-phase correlations converge to the same values both on temperature profile . The Aziz et al. and various twophase correlations are used. time is 1 year and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr similar to the onshore. On the other hand. approach initially gives great results and captures almost exact values for several hundreds ft then deviates substantially from the reality. The last comparison is steam quality. results better match field data as compared to Fontanilla’s Aziz et al. approach. the Aziz et al. ONSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 73 with the real data and converges to the exact value.20. We can also conclude with saying that we improved Fontanilla’s approach using several two-phase correaltions.6. however. This trends continue in Figure 6.3. offshore and non-condensable gas cases.19 with pressure values. We can say that our model with Beggs and Brill two-phase flow correlations has less quality drop than Fontanilla’s Begss and Brill model in Figure 6. approach has similar steam quality values in both models. Three different steam injection temperatures and two different depths are considered for the onshore environment. Fontanilla’s method with the Beggs and Brill approach gives less accurate results than our model. Steam temperature. steam pressure. 6. method.3 Onshore environments For both onshore and offshore environments with insulated or uninsulated tubing input parameters are used for field data 1. steam quality and heat loss values are investigated. Results in Figures 6. The surrounding temperature. When the steam temperature is 400 o F .22 are insulated by black aerogel.21 and 6. Fontanilla’s Aziz et al. is taken as 122 o F . however. field data 1 values are used as an input and exception is also used here with additional input for offshore sea temperature is taken as 70 o F . In our model.

the behavior of the Beggs and Brill model when the injection temperature increased to 600 o F gives less temperature drop than all the other three correlations. Although the offshore depth of 200 f t is relatively shallow and greater pressure drop and temperaure drop for small interval does not really effect the behavior trend of the steam properties at downhole conditions. therefore this explanation will help to understand those figures as well. it gives a little greater value than other correlations.27 show results. Figures 6. Without insulation. Figures presented in Appendix C also have similar behavior in our example. When the depth is greater than 8000 f t. the greater steam quality and steam properties are obtained in both cases. The steam quality values with insulated tubing when compared to uninsulated tubing cases differ significantly.74 CHAPTER 6. there is greater heat loss and quality decreases to a greater extent as compared to the insulated case. with increasing injection temperature overpredicts the steam quality values. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS and pressure profile. . The greatest heat loss is obtained using calcium silicate which has greatest thermal conductivity value among the six different insulations. Similar trends are obtained during the steam injection in an offshore environment as well. Figure 6.26 show that with different temperature and depth all the flow regimes have similar values in steam temperature. the Beggs and Brill two-phase flow correlation model’s temperature or pressure profile drops less than the other correlations until 7500 f t then converge to the others.23 and Figure 6. The differences between insulated and uninsulated tubing is the heat loss and steam quality values. Interestingly. and steam quality comparing with insulated case. It is also observed that.24 and 6.25 and 6.28 give the information that increasing injection steam temperature causes greater heat loss when comparing 500 o F and 600 o F cases. steam pressure. The greater the steam temperature. When we increase injection temperature to 500 o F . the Beggs and Brill model. Figures 6.

3. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.1 Examples with Insulation Materials U singBlackAerogelλBA = 0. 1 year. Figure 6. . ONSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 75 6.6.3.22: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year.0069BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) Figure 6.21: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).

RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Figure 6.24: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. 1 year.23: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year. Figure 6. .76 CHAPTER 6.

ONSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 77 6.25: Steam temperature distribution . 1 year. . Figure 6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. 1 year.3.2 Examples without Insulation Materials Figure 6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.26: Steam pressure distribution.6.3.

Figure 6. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Figure 6. 1 year. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.28: Heat loss distribution.78 CHAPTER 6.27: Steam quality distribution.

Figure 6.4 6.0069BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) Figure 6. .4. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel.6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel.29: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS 79 6.4. 1 year. 1 year.1 Offshore Environments Examples with Insulation Materials U singBlackAerogelλBA = 0.30: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).

80

CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS

Figure 6.31: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft), 1 year, Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel.

Figure 6.32: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft), 1 year, Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr for black aerogel.

6.4. OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS

81

6.4.2

Examples without Insulation Materials

Figure 6.33: Steam temperature distribution, 1 year, Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.

Figure 6.34: Steam pressure distribution, 1 year, Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.

82

CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS

Figure 6.35: Steam quality distribution, 1 year, Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.

Figure 6.36: Heat loss distribution, 1 year, Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.

6.4. OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENTS

83

Figure 6.37: Pressure drop distribution and formation pressure (green dots), 1 year, Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel for onshore.

Reservoir pressure is clearly an important factor governing steam injectors. When we know the formation pressure, we can determine whether we can inject steam and at what temperatures in order to heat the reservoir. For this purpose, we could conceive two different formation pressures at the same depth. One is smaller than steam pressure one is greater than steam pressure on shown Figure 6.37. If formation pressure is greater than steam pressure, steam can not be injected to the reservoir. Greater the steam pressures are obtained with higher temperatures. Having this advantage, steam can be injected with increasing temperature to the formation.

5 Adding Non-Condensable Gas (N2) in an Onshore environment 6.1 Examples with Insulation Materials Figure 6.5. starting from 5 % to 30% mol fraction of the steam. First. the greater N2 . Non-condensable gas is added to the field data 1 scenerio an input except 122 o F .38: With changing N2 molar percentage. time is 1 year and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with modified Beggs and Brill two-phase correlation. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS 6. 1 year. In Figure 6.38. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. different N2 molar percentage of steam is added to the steam.84 CHAPTER 6.

so more heat is delivered to the reservoir.5. But. In Figure 6.39. different injection rate is studied with 10% by mole N2 added to the steam. it increases steam partial pressure and temperature. however. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN ONSHORE ENVIRONMENT85 in the system gives more partial pressure to the system. The contribution of partial pressure by steam drops significantly and temperature as well. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. 1 year. It has a disadvantage to deliver lower steam temperature to the reservoir in terms of less latent heat addition to the reservoir. Figure 6. In our calculation. Reducing the fraction of N2 in the steam gives greater heat loss and quality drop.39: With changing injection rate. steam quality drops less so the heat loss decreases.6. frictional pressure drops have the greatest contribution .

1 year. Increasing injection rate does not yield good results in downward steam injection operations.40. That may not be good for maintaining the temperature and pressure of the . Frictional pressure drop can be caused by greater injection rate in our case.40: With changing steam quality molar percentage . RESULTS AND COMPARISONS to the pressure drop calculation. Increasing steam quality yields more pressure and temperature drop in existing cases for non-condensable gas. and steam quality decrease downhole.86 CHAPTER 6. The greater the injection rate the greater the pressure drop. Figure 6. different steam quality values are conducted in our work with 10% N2 . Figure 6. However. it also yields higher steam quality values when the steam reaches to reservoir with rich quality but poor temperature and pressure values. steam temperature. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.

41: With changing injection temperature.6. Figure 6. steam pressure. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. smaller pressure drop and steam quality change is obtained with highest steam temperature values. and heat loss. The greatest heat loss is observed with the greatest steam injection temperature at 650 o F . .5. Because of this. heat loss values with different steam quality does not vary and have almost same value with different injection quality. In Figure 6. Steam temperature values are changed in terms of checking the sensitivity of steam quality. increasing steam temperature is caused by increasing steam pressure. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN ONSHORE ENVIRONMENT87 steam. In the same figure.41. steam temperature.

shown in Figure 6.42: With changing injection depth. all the values are corresponded and follow the same distribution except depth.42. For the different range of depth. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. after 2500 f t even if steam quality was high. .88 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Figure 6. injection depth could not be increased. because of the significant pressure drop along the tubing. However. The effect of injection depth is analysed by changing the depth.

2 Examples without Insulation Materials Figure 6. 1 year. The two temperature and pressure drops curves have slightly higher values than the insulated case when the N2 mole fraction changes 5 %-10%. Steam quality is less than . Another interesting observation is made with comparing to the insulated tubing case. Figure 6.43 has similarities in terms of the greater the mole fraction of N2 we have in the system. However. the greater pressure drop as well as temperature drop. steam quality drops and heat losses values converge to the same value.6. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN ONSHORE ENVIRONMENT89 6. Same scenerio is also applied for uninsulated tubing as applied to insulated tubing cases.43: With changing N2 molar percentage. The other curves have greater pressure drop compaed to the insulated case.5. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.5.38 and Figure 6.

Using insulated tubing gives advantage instead of bare tubing regarding to less decrease with several parameters.39. but heat loss values almost 10 times greater than without insulated case.44: With changing injection rate. Frictional pressure drop can be caused by more injection rate in our case. Increasing injection rate does not yield good results in downward steam . The greater the injection rate greater the pressure drop. 1 year. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS comparing with insulated tubing.90 CHAPTER 6. In our calculation frictional pressure drops have highest contribution to the pressure drop calculation. steam temperature and and steam quality drop are observed. different injection rate is studied with 10% N2 mol fraction of non-condensable gas as shown in Figure 6. In Figure 6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. Figure 6.44.

1 year. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN ONSHORE ENVIRONMENT91 injection operations. Figure 6.45. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. steam pressure. Steam quality and steam pressure or temperature values are inversely proportional. When steam quality increase steam pressure change decrease more as well as steam temperature in existing cases for non-condensable gas.5. Similar trends are seen with insulated tubing except more heat loss and more quality drops are calculated without insulated tubing.6. and vise versa. shows different steam quality values are conducted in our work using uninsulated tubing with 10% N2 . steam temperature and greater heat losses. There is a greater decrease of steam quality. it also yields higher steam quality values when the steam .45: With changing steam quality molar percentage . Figure 6. However.

85.6 is 1. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS reaches to reservoir with rich quality but poor temperature and pressure values. . However. For example. the greater the steam quality we have in the system. That may not be good for maintaining the temperature and pressure of the steam. This is the main explanation for the why pressure drop is dramatically for the greatest steam quality value.5 times higher than x = 0. the greater the mixture superficial velocity. the main contribution for frictional pressure drop values is mixture velocity of the components. heat loss values with different steam quality does not vary and have almost same values with different injection quality. mixture velocity contribution in two-phase flow calculations have highest impact on frictional pressure drop.85.6 almost two times. Therefore. I have checked three things : the total density of the mixture. frictional pressure drop for x = 0. The contribution of water to the pressure drop is dependent on the slippage effect value and of course it is going to give little bit higher value than lowest water content on density of the mixture. In this case.92 CHAPTER 6. In the same figure.85 is almost 2. mixture velocity and frictional pressure drop values for both cases and saw that mixture velocity is higher @ x = 0. so total pressure drop increase more. than @ x = 0.6 case. Mixture density of x = 0. Even if we have greatest liquid water content for the lowest steam quality.2 times higher than x = 0. the pressure drop is the smallest.

1 year.46. steam temperature. Because of this less pressure drop and steam quality change obtained with highest steam temperature values. it is discerned that lowest steam quality. it is seen that the trend of heat loss values is almost 10 times greater as compared to the insulated case. steam pressure and heat loss. In Figure 6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. With the insulated case. Steam temperature values are changed in terms of checking the sensitivity of steam quality.5. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN ONSHORE ENVIRONMENT93 Figure 6. steam pressure. and steam temperature change found with greatest steam injection temperature. Without insulated tubing case.6. The greatest heat loss is observed with the greatest steam injection temperature with 650 o F . Without insulated .46: With changing injection temperature. increasing steam temperature is caused by increasing steam pressure.

94 CHAPTER 6. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS case less steam quality decreases when the temperature 550 o F .47 using insulated tubing. 1 year. a similar trend is shown in Figure 6. . Figure 6. the other higher two values have corresponding values. However. heat loss values are always much greater as compared to the insulated case. even if values seems closer for the two different cases. Again. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.47: With changing injection depth. Changing depth under non-condensable gas with using uninsulated tubing is studied by changing the depth ranging from 1600 f t to 2500 f t.

57 have similar trends between onshore cases and offshore cases with uninsulated tubing.46 and Figure 6. on Figure 6.6. quality and heat loss are obtained with onshore environment.55.39 and Figure 6. For example. Figure 6.52 have similar trends between onshore cases and offshore cases with insulated tubing.53.54.42 and Figure 6.38 and Figure 6. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT95 6.40 and Figure 6. Figure 6. 6.50. except for initial pressure drop is greater for offshore environment in both insulated and uninsulated cases.45 and Figure 6. This observation continues for uninsulated tubing cases as well. Figure 6. Figure 6.44 and Figure 6.41 and Figure 6.48 heat loss values corresponds on one line.6 Adding Non-Condensable Gas (N2) in an Offshore environment Similar observation of steam temperature. and Figure 6. and Figure 6. Figure 6. pressure. For instance. steam quality are similar except heat losses.6. Figure 6.47 and Figure 6.51. steam temperature.1 Examples with Insulation Materials .56.49.43 and Figure 6.48 steam pressure. Figure 6. Figure 6.6.

Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. .48: With changing N2 molar percentage. Figure 6.49: With changing injection rate. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.96 CHAPTER 6. 1 year. 1 year. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Figure 6.

Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel. 1 year. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT97 Figure 6. Figure 6. .50: With changing steam quality molar percentage .6.6. 1 year.51: With changing injection temperature. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.

RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Figure 6. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with using black aerogel.98 CHAPTER 6. 1 year.52: With changing injection depth.

6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. . 1 year.53: With changing N2 molar percentage. 1 year.6.2 Examples without Insulation Materials Figure 6. Figure 6. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT99 6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.54: With changing injection rate.6.

Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. 1 year. RESULTS AND COMPARISONS Figure 6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation. .56: With changing injection temperature. Figure 6.55: With changing steam quality molar percentage . 1 year.100 CHAPTER 6.

57: With changing injection depth. ADDING NON-CONDENSABLE GAS (N2 ) IN AN OFFSHORE ENVIRONMENT101 Figure 6. 1 year. .6. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr without insulation.6.

Solutions take into account pressure drop. solution for heat losses from steam injectors in both onshore and offshore environments. 5) thermolastic insulation and 6) calcium silicate [34] with four different correlations for frictional pressure drop in the tubing: Aziz et al. 7. 14.Chapter 7 Summary. 39].1 Summary In this thesis. We used properties that are characteristics of six different insulation materials that are 1) black aerogel. Conclusions and Future Work 7. 2) white aerogel. [29]. pressure drop 102 . We made our offshore scenerio calculation taking into account seawater thermo physical properties in order to create a more realistic solution. We compared our solution with two field cases and got good agreement. heat loss. Hasan and Kabir [23. 3) fiberglass. and multiphase flow. and Drift Flux[21] and gave the results in results section. 4) carbon fiber. we have presented an approximate. 37. We improved the solution provided by Fontanilla[19] by using more accurate correlations. but accurate. Beggs and Brill [3. When the thermal conductivity of the insulation material increases. 40] .

although we saw that Beggs and Brill gives good approximation with the field data 1-2 in temperature. a better estimation of temperature profile is obtained with the Fontanilla and Aziz approach. Heat transfer equations are developed by making an analogy with circuits for offshore application and simple heat loss calculation is done with insulated and uninsulated tubing. The lower the thermal conductivity. The Fontanilla and Aziz approach is augmented and tested against the two field cases. pressure calculations obtained over predicted steam quality results based on Fontanilla’s approach. Pressure and temperature distribution values converged to the field data 1 and 2. more published field data is needed. The other two-phase correlations give similar values with Fontanilla’s results in terms of comparing steam quality. with using the Beggs and Brill model. CONCLUSIONS 103 increases. In order to see this. 7. Therefore.2 Conclusions 1. and we lose more heat to the surroundings.7. the lesser the heat loss to the surroundings. steam quality drops. in order to get more accurate simulation results. Uninsulated tubing gives 8 times higher heat loss when compared to the worst insulation material and 30 times more heat loss with compared to the best insulation material. Four different two-phase flow correlations yield almost same heat loss . 2. and 600o F and plotted the results. In our calculations. 500o F . However.2. With improved two-phase flow correlations. we used three different wellhead temperatures of 400o F . Heat loss and steam quality are highly related with the steam temperature and steam pressure. Beggs and Brill overpredicts steam quality values with compared to Fontanilla’s results. As we know each well has unique characteristics and production or completions history that makes predictions a little bit harder.

Using insulation materials only affected heat losses and steam quality for both onshore and offshore environments using insulated or uninsulated tubing.104 CHAPTER 7. Therefore. 6. SUMMARY. Identical wellhead steam injection temperature values for offshore insulated tubing are considered with addition of 10 % N2 to steam and a pure steam only case. Field data of steam quality values are not available in the literature.37. 5. Formation pressure is important for both onshore and offshore steam injection operations. 7. Onshore and offshore results for both insulated or uninsulated cases showed similar trends in steam quality. 3. N2 . decreases saturated . CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK results in both field cases. Having low thermal conductive material such as black aerogel provides significantly less heat loss and steam quality decrease over the length of the well. The Beggs and Brill model yields higher steam quality values. steam pressure. and see the other parameters effect on steam injection operations. One case is studied for two different environments. The use of non-condensable gas. Sensitivity analysis of the different parameters are conducted. We observed that having 10 % N2 increases steam quality value around 8 %. is added to steam is explored. steam temperature and heat loss profiles. and it is shown that when the formation pressure is greater than steam injection pressure at given depth steam can not be delivered to the reservoir. The calculated steam quality values based on all the investigated two-phase flow correlations are compared with the results of Fontanilla and Aziz. A GUI is developed for users to make the calculation faster. formation pressure importance is emphasized in Figure 6. while all the other models yield similar results with the base Fontanilla and Aziz calculation. 4.

At the same time. more field data has to be provided by the industry. in order to find best combination with regarding cost constraints and technology. 7.7. Changing depth do not have any contribution on both insulated tubing and uninsulated tubing cases. The trend with different noncondensable gas mole fraction. and decreases heat loss around 2 %. rate. because the temperature difference between the well and the formation is greater. FUTURE WORK 105 steam pressure around 20 %. Sensitivity analysis and optimization can be done with different injection temperature. With this more accurate results can be obtained. in order to expand of understanding of the physics of the problem. time. the greater the injection temperature the greater the pressure values and the smaller the change on steam pressure and steam temperature. different injection rate.3. For uninsulated tubing cases. different depth and different injection temperature values are similar both insulated and uninsulated cases in for onshore and offshore environments. Increasing steam temperature leads to greater heat loss. steam quality and depth. Greater the steam injection rate caused greater overall heat loss. . increasing N2 mole fraction does not change the bottom-hole steam quality and yielded greater overall heat loss.3 Future Work For future work. The greatest effect on bottom-hole conditions of steam quality is observed with the highest wellhead steam temperature. different steam quality.

dimensionless . dimensionless time conduction function also known as Ramey function two-phase friction factor. o F/f t area. BT U/lb heat loss to the surrounding. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK Nomenclature Abbreviations 2ResWithIns Sea floor to the reservoir with insulation 2ResWithoutIns floor to the reservoir without insulation Sea SeaWithIns Offshore cases with insulation SeaWithoutIns Offshore cases without insulation SLWithIns Surface line with insulation SLWithoutIns Surface line without insulation HSE VIT health.f t2 inclination factor no-slip liquid holdup rate of heat loss per unit length of pipe in pressure change.106 CHAPTER 7. SUMMARY. psi heat loss to the surrounding. BT U/lb horizontal liquid holdup actual liquid holdup friction factor. safety and environment vacuum insulated tubing Symbols a A B(θ) CL ˙ Qls dp dQ dq EL (0) EL (θ) f f (tD) ftp geothermal gradient.

BT U/f t2 − hr radiation and convection coefficient of heat transfer. f t outside radius of the casing.3. f t3 /hr inner radius of the tubing. BT U/f t2 − hr coefficient of heat transfer forced convection. .7. f t wellbore radius. FUTURE WORK 107 fN S Frm g Gr h hf hf c hpipe hc.an HL J L k khc kha KE NRe P PE Pr qg rti rto rins rci rco rh no slip friction factor. f t outer radius of the tubing. BT U/lb Reynolds number pressure. BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) actual thermal conductivity of the annular fluid. BT U/lb film coefficient of heat transfer of the pipe.17e − 8 f t/hr2 Grashoff’s number enthalpy. f t . 778 f t − lbf /BT U length. 4. f t thermal conductivity of the material. BT U/f t2 − hr liquid holdup density mechanical equivalent of heat. BT U/f t2 − hr coefficient of the heat transfer of pipe. psi potential energy. BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) kinetic energy. f t insulation radius of the tubing. f t inside radius of the casing. BT U/lb Prandtl’s number gas flow rate. dimensionless Froud number of mixture acceleration due to gravity. BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) effective thermal conductivity of the annular fluid.

f t/hr superficial velocity for gas phase. f t/hr superficial velocity for liquid phase. f t3 /lb wind velocity. o F bulk temperature of the fluid in the pipe.108 CHAPTER 7. f t/hr actual velocity for liquid phase. f t/hr actual velocity for gas phase. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK rEa R Rh RN S t T Ta TA Tb Tm U v vw V vsg vg vsL vs vm Wm X z radius of the altered zone in the earth near the well. o F overall coefficient of heat transfer. SUMMARY. BT U/hr − f t2 −o F specific volume. f t Greek Symbols αE thermal diffusivity of the earth. mph velocity. f t2 /hr blackbody emissive power. hrs temperature. f t Reynolds number specific thermal resistance no-slip Reynolds number time. f t/hr mixture velocity. o F mean surface temperature. o R =o F + 460 ambient temperature of the atmosphere. o F absolute temperature. f raction by weight elevation or depth. f t/hr steam injection rate. BT U/hr − f t2 . lb/hr steam quality.

lb/f t − hr gas density.BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) gas viscosity. −90 λpipe λins λcem λEa λE µs µw ρl ρl ρs ρN S σ θ . BT U/hr − f t2 thermal conductivity of the pipe. 0. FUTURE WORK 109 ins ci emissivity of the insulation material .BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) thermal conductivity of the cement. lbm/f t3 slip mixture density.BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) thermal conductivity of the insulation. lbm/f t3 Stefan Boltzman constant. lbm/f t3 liquid density.7.BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) thermal conductivity of the unaltered zone. BT U/hr − f t2 emissivity of the casing .1714e − 8 BT U/(hr − f t2 −o R4 ) angle from horizontal.BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) thermal conductivity of the altered zone.lb/f t − hr liquid viscosity.3. lbm/f t3 no-slip mixture density.

Appendix A Derivation of the Equations
A.1 Total Energy Equation

In Appendix A, all the equations are listed that are adapted and modified from the work that was done by Fontanilla and Aziz [19]. For a constant injection rate the continuity equation may be written as d 2 ρtp Vm rti = 0 dz (A.1.1)

where, ρtp is the two-phase density (lb/ft3 ), Vm is the mixture velocity (ft/hr), and rti is the inside tubing radius (ft). The energy conservation equation may be derived by taking a differential element ∆z of the tubing as in Figure A.1: Energy In (BTU/lb) = Energy Out (BTU/lb)
2 z1 Vm1 z2 V 2 + = hm2 + + m2 J 2gJ J 2gJ

hm1 +

(A.1.2)

where, hm1 is the mixture enthalpy at point 1 (BTU/lb), z1 is the elevation at point 1 (ft), J is the mechanical equivalent of heat = 778 (ft-lbf /BTU), Vm1 is the mixture 110

A.1. TOTAL ENERGY EQUATION

111

velocity at point 1 (ft/hr), g is the acceleration due to the gravity = 4.17*108 (ft/hr2 ), hm2 is the mixture enthalpy at point 2 (BTU/lb), z2 is the elevation at point 2 (ft), Vm2 is the mixture velocity at point 2 = Vm1 + dVm (ft/hr), dQ is the heat loss to the surroundings, BTU/lb.

Figure A.1: Schematic view of tubing element in our calculation.
2 Transferring the L.H.S. of Eq. A.1.2 to the R.H.S. and assuming dVm is negligible

we have, hm2 − hm1 + z2 − z1 Vm1 dVm + + dQ = 0 J gJ (A.1.3)

∆Enthalpy + ∆PE + ∆KE + Heat Loss to Surrounding = 0 The sign of the second term, ∆PE, is correct only if the elevation decreases downward. In the present problem for the seafloor to reservoir, the surface is the datum plane and the elevation increases downward, so we need to affix a negative sign before the

112

APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS

term. dhm + dividing by dz dhm 1 Vm1 dVm dQ + + + + =0 dz J gJ dz dz The kinetic energy term in Eq. A.1.5 may be expanded as : Vm1 = VSL + VSG = GL vL + Gg vg (A.1.6) (A.1.5) dz Vm1 dVm + + dQ = 0 J gJ (A.1.4)

where, VSL is the superficial liquid velocity (ft/hr), VSG is the superficial gas velocity (ft/hr), GL is the liquid mass flux rate (lb/hr-f t2 ), vL is the specific volume of liquid (f t3 /lb), Gg is the gas mass flux rate (lb/hr-f t2 ), vg is the specific volume of gas (f t3 /lb). Its equivalent differential form is dVm = GL dvL + Gg dvg Therefore we have Vm1 dVm 1 dVg dVL dVg dVL = + vL GL Gg + vg Gg GL + vg G2 vL G2 g L gJ dz gJ dz dz dz dz Substituting Eq. A.1.8 in to Eq. A.1.5 dVL dVg dhm 1 1 Vm1 dVg dVL dQ − + + + vL G2 + vL GL Gg + vg Gg GL + vg G2 + =0 L g dz J gJ gJ dz dz dz dz dz (A.1.9) (A.1.8) (A.1.7)

A.2. MECHANICAL ENERGY BALANCE OR THE EXTENDED BERNOULLI EQUATION113

A.2

Mechanical energy balance or the Extended Bernoulli Equation

The basis for any fluid flow calculation is the mechanical energy balance for the flowing fluid between two points. Because there is no external work done on or by the fluid, a steady-state mechanical energy balance equation in differential form may be written for 1 lbm of fluid as: 144 dp vm dvm + dWf = 0 + dz + 1 ρtp g (A.2.1)

where dp= P2 -P1 is the change in pressure (lb/in2 ), ρtp is the two-phase density (lb/ft3 ), dz=z2 -z1 is the change in elevation (ft), vm1 is the mixture velocity at point 1 (ft/hr), dvm is the change in mixture velocity (ft/hr), g is the acceleration due to gravity = 4.17*108 (ft/hr2 ), dWf is the frictional drag (ft). We again have to affix a negative sign on the second term because the elevation increases downward. Multiplying Eq. A.2.1 by 144
ρtp , dz

we have (A.2.2)

ρtp vm1 dvm dWf dp − ρtp + + ρtp =0 dz g dz dz

dp dp dp dp or 144 dz - dz elevation of PE+ dz acceleration or KE+ dz friction = 0

Substituting Eq. A.1.9 into Eq. A.2.2, we have

144

dVL dVg dp ρtp dVg dVL dP −ρtp + vL G2 + vL GL Gg + vg Gg GL + vg G2 + L g dz g dz dz dz dz dz

f riction

(A.2.3) The mixture enthalpy hm is a function of steam quality X and pressure P (psia). hm = f (X, P ) (A.2.4)

114

APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS

The specific volume of liquid (water) and gas (steam) are just functions of pressure P (psia). VL = g (P),Vg = h (P) thus we can write ∂hm dX ∂hm dP dhm = + dz ∂X dz ∂P dz dvg ∂vg dP = dz ∂P dz dvL ∂vL dP = dz ∂P dz Substituting Eq. A.2.5, Eq. A.2.6, and Eq. A.2.7 into Eq. A.1.9 yields: ∂Vg ∂VL ∂hm dX ∂hm dP 1 1 dP ∂Vg ∂VL dQ − − + + vL GL Gg + vg Gg GL + vg G2 =0 vL G2 + g L ∂X dz ∂P dz J gJ dz ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂z dz (A.2.8) Substituting Eq. A.2.6, and Eq. A.2.7 into Eq. A.2.3 we have: 144 dP ρtp dP ∂VL ∂Vg ∂VL ∂Vg dP =0 −ρtp + vL G2 + vL GL Gg + vg Gg GL + vg G2 + L g dz g dz ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂P dz f riction (A.2.9)
dP dz

(A.2.5)

(A.2.6) (A.2.7)

Solving for

in Eq. A.2.9, ρtp −
ρtp g dP dz f riction

dP = dz 144 + Solving for dX dz = 1
dhm dX dX dz

vL G2 ∂VL + vL GL Gg ∂Vg + vg Gg GL ∂VL + vg G2 ∂Vg g ∂P L ∂P ∂P ∂P

(A.2.10)

in Eq. A.2.8 yields, vL G2 L ∂VL ∂Vg ∂VL ∂Vg + vL GL Gg + vg Gg GL + vg G2 g ∂P ∂P ∂P ∂P (A.2.11)

∂hm dP 1 1 dP + − ∂P dz J gJ dz

dQ dz

Eq. A.2.10 and Eq. A.2.11 are two simultaneous, first order ordinary differential equations to be solved for pressure (P) and quality (X). Besides these we need to find

2πke (Th − Te ) dq = z f (t) (A.1 refers to surface lines.3. the rate of heat conduction into the earth is expressed as. In the present case. dq is the change in heat loss rate (BTU/hr). Figure 3. A. we need to know to the surroundings. ke is the thermal conductivity of the .3. dQ = (BTU/lb-ft) which is the heat loss dq Wm (A. dz A. A.A. EVALUATION OF HEAT LOSS TO THE SURROUNDING 115 a method to calculate dQ .4 refers to sea level to sea floor and Figure 3.11.2 is based on any reference point.3 Evaluation of Heat Loss to the Surrounding dQ dz In order to solve Eq. Wm is the steam injection rate (lb/hr) Because we have a pseudo steady state heat flow conditions in the wellbore.2. From Ramey[42].3.3. Figure 3.3. The radius r and overall heat transfer coefficient U used in Eq. the outer tubing surface was chosen as the reference plane.9 refers to sea floor to reservoir heat loss calculation with insulated or not.1) dQ is the change in heat loss by fluid (BTU/lb). We adapted the surface line heat losses from Prats and the rest of theprocedures are based on Willhite’s approach that was discussed in chapter 3.2) A representation of the problem for three parts of our system will be analyzed and we refer those figures here again.3) where: Te is the temperature of the earth ( o F). Three figures and having two options each of them gives six different heat loss calculation procedures. the rate of heat conduction from the fluid to cement-formation interface (hole) is expressed: dq = 2πrto (Tf − Th ) dz (A.

3.6). f(t) is the time conduction function.6) A. The rate of the heat transfer between the flowing fluid and the inside tubing is given as: dq = 2πrti hf (Tf − Ti ) dz (A.3. The rate of heat conductance from the fluid to the cement-formation (hole) interface is given by A.3.3.4.2 and Eq. Tm is the mean surface temperature (o F). A. Because the rate of heat conduction from the fluid to the cement formation interface (hole) must equal the rate of heat conduction into the earth. is given by Te =Tm +az. A.2 we have: 2πrto Uto dQ rto Uto f (t)Tf + ke Te = Tf dz Wm rto Uto f (t) + ke (A.3. the temperature of the earth.3.5 we have: 2πrto Uto rto Uto f (t)Tf + ke (Tm + az) dQ = Tf dz Wm rto Uto f (t) + ke (A.3. A. otherwise it assumes constant value. a is the geothermal gradient ((o F)/ft). The overall heat transfer conductance Uto may be evaluated by writing expressions for the heat flow through the various components of the injector.3 may be equated to obtain an expression for Th : Th = rto Uto f (t)Tf + ke Te rto Uto f (t) + ke (A.4 Determination of the Uto and Tci dQ dz To obtain (Eq. A.2.116 APPENDIX A.3.3.5) If the geothermal gradient is provided.4) Substituting Eq.3. we need to know Uto which is the overall heat transfer coefficient or the overall coefficient of conductance. Te .3. Eq. z is the depth (ft). A.4 and Eq.1 into Eq.1) . A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS earth (BTU/hr-ft-o F). A. When we substitute the temperature of the earth into Eq.

On the other hand. heat conduction through the fluid in the annular space. casing wall. insulation. and the cement sheath occurs by conduction. Heat flow through the tubing wall.4.A.3) . radiation Heat transfer by natural convection in the annulus is caused by fluid motion resulting from the variation of density with temperature. DETERMINATION OF THE UT O AND TCI 117 where hf is the film coefficient for heat transfer based on the inside surface area of the tubing. 2. When a body is heated. natural convection of fluid 3.4.2) Integrating Fourier’s law of heat conduction over the thickness of the insulation yields: dq 2πkins = (Tto − Tins ) dz ln( rrins ) to There are three modes of heat transfer present in the casing annulus. The amount of radiant energy transported between the tubing/insulation and casing depends on the view the surfaces have of each other and their emitting and absorbing characteristics. the fluid near the casing wall is cooler and denser than that in the center of the annulus and tends to fall. To account for these three modes of heat transfer. 1. radiant energy is emitted at a rate dependent on the temperature of the body.4. Integrating Fourier’s law of heat conduction over the thickness of the tubing wall we write: 2πktub dq = (Tti − Tto ) dz ln( rto ) rti (A. Hot fluid near the tubing and insulation is less dense than the fluid in the center of the annulus and tends to rise. it is convenient to define the heat rate through the annulus in terms of heat transfer coefficients hc (natural convection and (A.

11) Tins − Tci = 2πrto (hc + hr ) (A.5) (A.8) Tf − Tti = Tti − Tto = Tto − Tins = 2πrti hf ln rto rti rins rto (A.6) 2πrto Uto dq dz (A.4) (A.4.4. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS conduction) and hr (radiation).4.4. as: dq = 2πrto (hc + hr )(Tins − Tci ) dz The heat conduction through the casing wall is given as: dq 2πkcas = (Tci − Tco ) dz ln( rco ) rci The heat conduction throught the cement sheath is given as: 2πkcem dq = rh (Tco − Th ) dz ln( rco ) Note that: Tf −Th = (Tf −Tti )+(Tti −Tto )+(Tto −Tins )+(Tins −Tci )+(Tci −Tco )+(Tco −Th ) (A.4.118 APPENDIX A.7) Solving for the temperature differences Tf − Th = dq dz (A.4.9) dq dz 2πktub dq dz (A.12) .4.4.10) 2πkins ln dq dz (A.4.

2 to 0.7 we will have:  1 + 2π rti hf dq dz  ln Tf − Th = rto rti ln + rins rto ktub kins + 1 + rto (hc + hr ) ln rco rci ln + rh rco   kcas kcem (A.15) An equation for Uto is found by comparing Eq.02 to 0.8 and Eq.4.6 BTU/hr-ft-o F ).17) The thermal conductivity of the tubing and casing steel (ktub = kcas = 25BT U/hr − f t −o F ) is considerably higher than that for the other materials in the wellbore (insulation = 0.A. A.4.9 . A.4.4.4. A.4.4.4. A.13) 2πkcem ln (A. . Therefore. DETERMINATION OF THE UT O AND TCI 119 Tci − Tco = Tco − Th = dq dz 2πkcas dq dz ln rco rci rh rco (A.  Uto =  rto + rti hf rto ln rto rti rto ln + rins rto ktub kins + 1 + (hc + hr ) rto ln rco rci rto ln + rh rco −1  kcas kcem (A.4.16) Therefore.4.15  1 1 = + rto Uto rti hf ln rto rti ln + rins rto ktub kins + 1 + rto (hc + hr ) ln rco rci ln + rh rco   kcas kcem (A. its relative contribution in Eq.14 into the Eq.17 is small and can be neglected (Tti = Tto and Tci = Tco ).14) Substituting Eqs.06 BTU/hr-ft-o F and cement = 0.4.4. A.

Thus Eq.5.2 may also be expressed if there is no insulation as: dqc = 2πrto hc (Tto − Tci ) dz if there is a insulation: dqc = 2πrins hc (Tins − Tci ) dz (A. A.18.5 Determination of the Convection Heat Transfer Coefficient Before Uto can be calculated in Eq. Heat transfer per unit length by conduction and free convection in the annulus is given if there is no insulation.4.4.5. 2πkhc dqc = rci dz ln rto if there is an insulation.18  Uto =  rto ln rins rto kins + 1 + (hc + hr ) rto ln rh rco −1  (A.4) (A.3) . A. A.18) kcem A.1) We can also express Eq.2) (A.5. A. dqc 2πkhc (Tins − Tci ) = rci dz ln rto (A.120 APPENDIX A.1 and Eq.5.17 simplifies to Eq.4.5. A.5. the convection coefficient hc and the radiation hr must be evaluated. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS Also the film coefficient hf for steam and water are high enough (500 to 4000 BTU/hr-f t2 -o F ) to justify the assumption of infinite film coefficient (Tf = Tti ).4.

5. β= 1 (Tan + 460) (A.5.4 we will have if there is no insulation. β (o R−1 ) is the coefficient of volume expansion. hc = if insulation present. For ideal gas.333 (P r)0.8) (A.5. A.2 with Eq.5.049)(GrP r)0. A. DETERMINATION OF THE CONVECTION HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT121 Combining Eq.5.10) (rci − rins )3 gρ2 β(Tins − Tci ) an µ2 an (A. A.074 where: Gr is the Grashoff’s number.5.5.7) where Can is the specific heat of the annular fluid and µan is the viscosity of the annular fluid with given pressure in the annulus.5.5.5) (A.5.3 and Eq. khc = (kha)(0.6) The effective thermal conductivity of the annular fluid (khc) is related to the actual thermal conductivity of the annular fluid (kha) as a function of the Grashoff number and Prandtl number.5.5.1 with Eq.9) (rci − rto )3 gρ2 β(Tto − Tci ) an µ2 an (A. if there is no insulation Gr = if there is an insulation Gr = Pr is the Prandtl’s number Pr = Can µan kha (A.A. A. β is the reciprocal average absolute annulus temperature. hc = khc rins ln rci rins khc rto ln rci rto (A.11) .

6.2) −1 A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS where: Tan if there is no insulation Tan = if there is an insulation Tan = Tins + Tci 2 (A.6. hr and hence Uto .. Since we need to .7 Computational Procedure for Uto In order to calculate hc .5. The following developments are only for bare tubings but an equivalent equation which can be used for calculation of hr for tubings with insulation is also given. So hr without insulation hr = (T ato + T aci )(T a2 + T a2 )σ to ci 1 to + rto rci 1 ci (A.12) A.122 APPENDIX A.5. et al.1) −1 hr with insulation hr = (T ains + T aci )(T a2 + T a2 )σ ins ci 1 ins + rins rci 1 ci (A. Here we are going to give the equations for hr with insulation and without insulation.13) Tto + Tci 2 (A.6 Determination of the Radiation Heat Transfer Coefficient Radiation heat transfer problems can be represented by ”radiation networks” as in Carslaw and Jaeger and Herrera. we need to know the temperature of the inside casing Tci and the temperature at the outer insulation Tins . The tubing and the casing surfaces which exchange heat with each other may be modelled by resistances in series as shown in Fontanilla’s thesis [19].

3.7. COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURE FOR UT O 123 know Tci and Tins (which are unknown) to solve for hc . Before describing the iteration procedure.4. (A.2) Substituting this expression for Tco in Eq.7. Tci and Tins . (A. a trial and error or an iterative solution is required to determine the proper combination of Uto .4.7. the equations to be used the iteration are developed.7.3) in Eq.7.4) By negleccting the thermal resistance of the film.6): dq ln dz rh rco Tins = Th + 2πkcem (A. (A. Eq. (A. we have: dq ln dz rco rci dq ln dz rh rco Tci = Th + Substituting Eq.7.5) The hole temperature (Th ) can be obtained from Eq.2) for dq dz 2πkcas + 2πkcem (A.7. and casing. The equation for Tins is obtained from Eq.A.6) . Th = rto Uto f (t)Tf + ke Te rto Uto f (t) + ke (A. hr and Uto .7. and solving for Tci . tubing.4) derived earlier.7. (A. (A.3) and solving for Tci ln rco rci kcas + rh ln rco Tci = Th + rto Uto (Tf − Th ) + kcem (A.4) reduces to : Tci = Th + rh rto Uto ln rco kcem (Tto − Th ) (A. (A.5).3.3): dq ln dz rins rto Tins = Tto − 2πkins (A.4.1) The equation for Tco is obtained from Eq.

if |newTci . (A. (A.18) and f(t) from Eq.124 APPENDIX A.5). In summary.oldTci | > 1. Tins and Tci .1). 2. (A. Having values for Tins and Tci .5.7.2).3. hc . (A. If the absolute value of their difference is greater than a tolerable amount.6) Uto from Eq. Calculate the old Th from Eq. the iteration procedure is as follows: 1. Calculate hr from Eq. Assume an arbitrary value for old dq dz and calculate the old Tins from Eq.6.7. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS The first thing to do is to assume an arbitrary value for dq dz and calculate an initial Tins from Eq. solving for Th in Eq.7) Using the new Th from Eq. (A. Th is then solved using Eq. The old Tci and new Tci are compared.8. (A.7. (A.3.2). The old and new casing temperatures are compared at this point. (A.7. Then set Tci equal to the geothermal temperature (Te ). hc from Eq. The iteration is continued until convergence is obtained.6).7. Uto .7. and f(t) can be calculated.1) knowing the old Tins and the old Tci 4. .5). Otherwise convergence is obtained.7). (A. To obtain a corresponding Th based on the new Tci .7. 6. (A. Then a new value of Tci is calcualted using Eq. (A. we calculate from Eq. hr .7.4) 5. Calculate the dq new Tins from Eq.7.1) using the new dz . the old Tci is incremented by 70 percent of the absolute value of the difference. Calculate the new Tci using Eq. The model then uses this new casing temperature.1).6) yields: Th = rh Tci kcem − rto ln rco Tto rh kcem − rto Uto ln rco dq dz (A. say 1 o F. the old casing temperature is incremented by 70 percent of the difference. (A.4. (A. Set Tci equal to the geothermal temperature Te and call this the old Tci 3. (A.

A.8.8.1) 10. Starting with step 3. Calculate Tins from Eq. the procedure is repeated until convergence is obtained. 9. the convergence time is of the order of one week for many reservoir problems.3. A.7. a corresponding Th based on the Tci incremented in step 6. (A. is calculated using Eq. From Ramey[42] an approximate equation for f (t) satisfying the line source solution for long times is: f (t) = −ln r √h 2 αt (A. Calculate a corresponding dq dz from Eq.1) . (A.8 Determination of f(t) dQ dz The time conduction function f(t) introduced in the equation of unsteady state heat flow to the earth and needed to obtain and Uto can be estimated from solutions for radial heat conduction from an infinitely long cylinder. (A. As can be seen Figure A. Such solutions are analogous to transient fluid flow solutions used in reservoir engineering. 8. If convergence is not yet obtained. DETERMINATION OF F(T) 125 7. Thus. the line source solution will often provide useful results if times are greater than a week.7).5 all five solutions converge to the same line.2).7.

5. In this model.2: Time conduction function (retrieved from[19]). regression was used to obtain a third order polynomial approximation for each of the five curves in Figure A.126 APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS Figure A. Lets say K = rh U ke the calculation procedure is as follows: .

19865 + . EVALUATION OF THE DERRIVATIVES 127 Algorithm 1 f (t) calculation based on the regression analysis Require: x = log10 αt 2 rh and Y = log10 f (t) Ensure: f (t) = 10Y 1: if K == 0 then 2: Y ← .33116x − .033723x2 − .48034x − .000019P −0.06586x2 − .9.07525x2 + .9 Evaluation of the Derrivatives Farouq Ali[19] presented approximate correlations for specific volumes of saturated liquid and saturated vapor.4) .45 vL = 363.12557 + .0 then 14: Y ← −.9.3) (A. ∂vL = 0.000086P 0.907P −1.A.00222x3 9: end if 10: if K ≤ 5.38757x − .00148x3 3: else 4: if K ≤ .3689x − .36166x − .0002P 0.9.2) (A.0009P −0.9.00393x3 12: end if 13: if K ≥ 5.225 + 0. vL = 0.00525x3 15: end if 16: end if A.03018 + .1) (A.08619x2 + .9.0 then 11: Y ← −.775 + 0.55 ∂P ∂vg = −348.01065x3 6: end if 7: if K ≤ 1.0 then 8: Y ← −.08738 + .9588 Differentiating with respect to pressure we have.9588 ∂P (A.01587 + 0.2 then 5: Y ← −.9P −0.04619x2 − .02435 + .

9. we have: ∂hm = 1318P −0.5) (A.6) (A.10 Calculation of the Annulus Fluid Properties There are several modification has been done for Fontanilla[19] solutions. We get viscosity and thermal conductivity of the fluid under 1 atm using figures from Prats[41].9.7426 − 115.08774 ) Differentiating with respect to the steam quality X and pressure P.08774 ∂P (A. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS Farouq Ali[19] also proposed correlations for the enthalpy of saturated liquid and the heat of vaporization Lv hL = 91P . .423P −0.9.7) (A.128 APPENDIX A.08774 ∂X ∂hm = 23.8) (A.2574 + X(1318P −.2574 Lv = hg − hl = 1318P −.9.9) (A.64XP −1.08774 for wet steam.9. hm = hL + XLv hm = 91P . one of them is getting annulus fluid properties automatically.9.10) A.

0170 µ1 − µ2 = = 2.0184 − 0.1) .0192 cp.8 ∗ 10−5 T1 − T2 100 − 50 (A.A. and viscosity values are µ1 2 = 0. We took two points on our curve and showed on the figure both N2 and air and assumed that the line is linear with increasing temperature values. For air same procedure N N applies µ1 =0.0170 cp and µ2 2 = 0.0176 cp and µ2 =0. CALCULATION OF THE ANNULUS FLUID PROPERTIES 129 Viscosity of the annular fluid. Temperature values both N2 and air are T1 = 50 and T2 = 100. µannulus Figure A.3: Viscosity of the annular fluid with respect to Temperature. Let’s find mN2 and mair values as follows: air air mN2 = 0.10.0184 cp.10. As we know from very basic way to get slope of the line and put that value into y = mx + n equation to get the correlation between temperature. because lines are only slightly different from linearity.

5 N BTU/fto F D and λ2 2 = 0.68 BTU/fto F D. and thermal conductivity values are λ1 2 = 0.2 ∗ 10−5 T1 − T2 100 − 50 (A.2) Thus. We used this correaltions wrt temperature in our calculation. Temperature values both N2 and air are T1 = 400 and T2 = 800. λannulus Figure A.5 air N .0176 µ1 − µ2 = = 3.2 ∗ 10−5 T+0. The same procedure is also applied for getting correlation both N2 and air for thermal conductivity with respect to temperature.8 ∗ 10−5 and the correlation we got µN2 =2.10.0192 − 0. For air same procedure applies λ1 =0. DERIVATION OF THE EQUATIONS mair = 0. slope mN2 = 2.8 ∗ 10−5 T+0.130 APPENDIX A. Thermal conductivity of the annular fluid.0176.4: Thermal conductivity of the annular fluid with respect to Temperature.0170 and for air µair =3.

CALCULATION OF THE ANNULUS FLUID PROPERTIES 131 BTU/fto F D and λ2 =0.71 − 0.4) Thus.71 BTU/fto F D.10.5 = = 5.10.10. Let’s find mN2 and mair values as follows: air mN2 = 0. .5 ∗ 10−4 T1 − T2 800 − 400 λ1 − λ2 0.50 λ1 − λ2 = = 4.5 ∗ 10−4 T+0.25 ∗ 10−4 T+0. slope mN2 = 4.A.68 − 0.25 ∗ 10−4 T1 − T2 800 − 400 (A.5 ∗ 10−4 and the correlation we got λN2 =4.5 and for air λair =5.5.3) mair = (A. We used this correaltions wrt temperature in our calculation.

Appendix B Codes for Heat Loss Calculations B.1: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with/without temperature profile. (b) Surface pipe without insulation. Figure B.1 Heat Losses from Surface Line (a) Surface pipe with insulation. 132 .

4 hfcWins = ( 1 8 ∗ ( AvrWindSpeedWins ˆ 0 . = 600/24. % We a r e l o o k i n g f o r t h e s o l u t i o n a t s t e a d y s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s % f o r pipe i s insulated % Thermal Recovery by Micheal P r a t s c h a p t e r 1 0 . % h f c c a l c u l a t i o n based on t h e Eq .166 0.4167. close a l l .1. = 2000. . 0. 6 ) ∗ ( r i n s u l a t e d W i n s ˆ . = inf . f o r i =1: length ( lambdaInsWins ) % Overall s p e c i f i c thermal r e s i s t a n c e .388 0. / 2 4 .6)/ rinsulatedWins )/24.569 0 . = 100.125 −136 % % clc . = 0. TsteamWins TaverageWins PipeLengthWins InjTimeWins = 550. c o l o r s = l i n e s ( length ( lambdaInsWins ) ) . = 0. clear a l l . 1 C a l c u l a t i o n s o f Heat L o s s e s from S u r f a c e L i n e s % % 4 i n c h e s N−80 p i p e a t r a t e o f 229 B/D.B.499 0. % F % F % ft % hours % mph % f t from Table B. % Btu/ sq f t −hr−F % Btu/ sq f t −hr−F % Btu/ sq f t −hr−F CollectDatasWithins = [ ] . 1 5 % ft % ft % Btu/ f t −hr−F AvrWindSpeedWins = 2 0 .1478. = 2000. . rinsideWins routsideWins rinsulatedWins lambdaPipeWins lambdaInsWins hfWins hpiWins hpoWins = 0. 9 6 ] .194 0. = 365∗24. HEAT LOSSES FROM SURFACE LINE 133 The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation starting from surface lines with insulation and without insulation % Example 1 0 .1667. 1 0 . = [0. pgs . = 60.

end =(1: InjTimeWins ) ’ . 1 6 ) LambdaValStr = s p r i n t f ( ’ %0. ’ Fontname ’ . 1 / ( hfcWins ∗ r i n s u l a t e d W i n s ) ) .3G ’ .m: . . . . % Heat L o s s e s QlsWins = ( TsteamWins − TaverageWins ) / RhWins . InjTimeplotWins . l a b e l s { i } = [ ’ \ lambda = ’ num2str ( LambdaValStr ) ] . : ) .134 APPENDIX B. . ’ n o r m a l i z e d ’ ) . ’ U n i t s ’ . . . ’ FontSize ’ . ’ Fontname ’ . set ( gcf . lambdaInsWins ( i ) ) . % Amount o f Heat Lost from t h e p i p e o v e r a p e r i o d o f time QlWins = QlsWins ∗ InjTimeWins ∗ PipeLengthWins . ’ L o c a t i o n ’ . . . 2 . . ’ YDir ’ . legend ( l a b e l s . . [ RhWins QlsWins QlWins ] ] . ’ O u t e r P o s i t i o n ’ . . ’ c o l o r ’ . ’ L i ne w i dt h ’ . log ( r o u t s i d e W i n s / r i n s i d e W i n s ) + 1 / ( hpoWins∗ r o u t s i d e W i n s ) + . InjTimeplotWins PlotQlWins figure (1) plot ( PlotQlWins . 3 ) hold on grid on set ( gca . . num2str ( PipeLengthWins ) ’ f t ’ ] . . . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS RhWins = 1 / ( 2 ∗ pi ) ∗ ( 1 / ( hfWins ∗ r i n s i d e W i n s ) . + 1 / ( hpiWins ∗ r i n s i d e W i n s ) + ( 1 / lambdaPipeWins ) ∗ . ’ C a l i b r i ’ . ’ top ’ . ( 1 / lambdaInsWins ( i ) ) ∗ log ( r i n s u l a t e d W i n s / r o u t s i d e W i n s ) + . ’ XAxisLocation ’ . C o l l e c t D a t a s W i t h i n s =[ C o l l e c t D a t a s W i t h i n s . c o l o r s ( i . . ∗ InjTimeplotWins . Code block: SLwithoutIns. . ’ r e v ’ ) xlabel ( [ ’ Cumulative Heat L o s s e s ( i n BTU) f o r ’ . . ’NE ’ ) set ( gcf . =(QlsWins ∗ PipeLengthWins ) . . ’ F o n t S i z e ’ . [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) . 16) ylabel ( [ ’ Time ( i n Days ) ’ num2str ( InjTimeWins / 2 4 ) ] . / 2 4 . ’ C a l i b r i ’ . .

= 0. % F % F % ft % days % mph % f t from Table B. TsteamWOutIns TaverageWOutIns PipeLengthWOutIns InjTimeWOutIns = 550. rinsideWOutIns routsideWOutIns r i ns u l a t e dW O u t I ns lambdaPipeWOutIns lambdaInsWOutIns hfWOutIns hpiWOutIns hpoWOutIns = 0. % % clc . . 1 C a l c u l a t i o n s o f Heat L o s s e s from S u r f a c e L i n e s % % 4 i n c h e s N−80 p i p e a t r a t e o f 229 B/D. . m o d i f i e d d a t e 2 0 1 1 . = 365. + 1 / ( hpiWOutIns ∗ rinsideWOutIns ) + ( 1 / lambdaPipeWOutIns ) .4167. . .96. = 0. clear a l l . = 100. ∗ ( routsideWOutIns ˆ 0 . HEAT LOSSES FROM SURFACE LINE 135 % Example 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 5 % ft % ft % Btu/ f t −D−F % Btu/ f t −D−F % Btu/ sq f t −D−F % Btu/ sq f t −D−F % Btu/ sq f t −D−F AvrWindSpeedWOutIns = 2 0 . = 48000. = inf . . = 0.1667. % We a r e l o o k i n g f o r t h e s o l u t i o n a t s t e a d y s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s % f o r p i p e i s not−i n s u l a t e d % w r i t t e n 2 0 0 9 . % Overall s p e c i f i c thermal r e s i s t a n c e RhWOutIns = 1 / ( 2 ∗ pi ) ∗ ( 1 / ( hfWOutIns∗ rinsideWOutIns ) . . = 48000.B.1.1478. May 9 th % Fidan . % h f c c a l c u l a t i o n based on t h e Eq . . = 600. htTable14 ( TsteamWOutIns . . S . . . close a l l . . 4 hfcWOutIns = 1 8 ∗ ( AvrWindSpeedWOutIns ˆ 0 . = 60. 6 ) / routsideWOutIns . ∗ log ( routsideWOutIns / rinsideWOutIns ) + 1 / ( ( hfcWOutIns + . . 6 ) . routsideWOutIns ) ) ∗ .

’ num2str ( RhWOutIns ) ’ (BTU/ f t −D−ˆF)ˆ−1 ’ ] ) % Heat L o s s e s QlsWOutIns /RhWOutIns . . % Amount o f Heat Lost from t h e p i p e o v e r a p e r i o d o f time QlWOutIns = QlsWOutIns∗ InjTimeWOutIns . QlWOutIns . d i s p l a y ( [ ’ Cumulative Heat L o s s e s o v e r t h e p e r i o d . 1 0 . . ’ Btu/ f t −D ’ ] ) = ( TsteamWOutIns − TaverageWOutIns ) . . . . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS routsideWOutIns ) ) . .136 APPENDIX B. set ( gcf . . . set ( gcf . . PipeLengthWOutIns . . . r e s i s t a n c e i s c a l c u l a t e d from Eq . ∗ InjTimeplotWOutIns . . . [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) . p l o t H e a t L o s s ( PlotQlWOutIns . d i s p l a y ( [ ’ The o v e r a l l s p e c i f i c t h e r m a l . ’ n o r m a l i z e d ’ ) . ’ U n i t s ’ . 2 i s = . ’ num2str ( QlWOutIns ) ’ Btu ’ ] ) h = figure ( ’ Color ’ . . . ’ r ’ ) . =(QlsWOutIns∗ PipeLengthWOutIns ) . o f time woth g i v e n p i p e l e n g t h Ql = . InjTimeplotWOutIns PlotQlWOutIns =(1: InjTimeWOutIns ) ’ . [ 0 0 0 ] ) . d i s p l a y ( [ ’ Heat L o s s e s Qls = ’ num2str ( QlsWOutIns ) . . . InjTimeplotWOutIns . . ∗ PipeLengthWOutIns . h . . . . lambdaInsWOutIns . ’ O u t e r P o s i t i o n ’ .

close a l l . r r i s e r o =18/12/2. r c i= r r i s e r i . HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA PART 137 B. May 9 th % Fidan . r r i s e r i =0. Figure B.2 Heat Losses from Sea Part (a) Sea Part with insulation. . rto = 0. (b) Sea Part without insulation.60. clear a l l . S . m o d i f i e d d a t e 2 0 1 1 .B.2: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer with temperature profile. .2. % % clc .1458. The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation starting from sea surface to sea floor with insulation and without insulation % S o l u t i o n f o r O f f s h o r e p a r t with i n s u l a t i o n m a t e r i l a s % % We a r e l o o k i n g f o r t h e s o l u t i o n a t s t e a d y s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s % w r i t t e n 2 0 0 9 .

% c o n v e r s i o n f a c t o r LamdaTub=600/24. lamda EWithIns = ke . %[ Perry ’ s Chemical E n g i n e e r s ’ Handbook .499 0. r c o W i t h I n s= r r i s e r o . r c i W i t h I n s= r r i s e r i . % t h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y o f water %i n [W/m K] ==1 Btu / ( h r f t ?F) = 1 . a l p h a 1 = S W D i f f u s i v i t y (T. / 2 4 . 9 . 9 6 ] . = 21∗24. 8 . = 164.138 APPENDIX B. 9 . rEaWithIns = 0 .388 0.2292. rinsWithIns = 0. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS rco = r r i s e r o . % hrs % F % ft .166 0. S=35.% i n [mˆ2/ s ] % 1 [mˆ2/ s ] =38750. roWithIns= r t o .569 0 . S ) .077500155 [ f t ˆ2/ hr ] from q1=a l p h a 1 ∗ 3 8 7 5 0 . 9 . rwWithIns = rh . 7 3 0 7 3 5 W/ ( mK ) . %[ f t ˆ2/ hr ] e p s c i = 0 . Table 1 −4] ke=k1 / 1 .194 0. S ) . r i n s=r i n s W i t h I n s . k1 = SW Conductivity (T. e c i W i t h I n s= 0 . e p s r i s e r = 0 . % Btu/ f t −hr−F = [0. T=(TAWithIns − 3 2 ) / 1 . = 600. 9 . TAWithIns = 7 0 . 9 . 0 7 7 5 0 0 1 5 5 . e p s t o= 0 . e i n s W i t h I n s= 0 . lamda insWithIns InjTimeWithIns TbWithIns PipeLengthWithIns k i n s=l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s . aEWithIns= q1 . 7 th E d i t i o n . rh= 1 . 7 3 0 7 3 5 .

%lbm/ f t ˆ3 Gr1=Gr ( T i n s o l d . kha ) . g = 3 2 . Beta Gr . TAWithIns .%cp % 1 cp = 1488 l b / f t −s e c o n d = 1488∗3600 l b / f t −hr visAn = visAn ∗ 1 4 8 8 ∗ 3 6 0 0 . . lamdaPipe = 6 0 0 / 2 4 . HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA PART 139 t=InjTimeWithIns . e p s c i . Boltzman ) . % c a l c u l a t e t h e o l d T i n s from eq . den=densityAn ( Tanulus ) . 1 7 1 4 e −8). den . TAWithIns ) .%R visAn=v i s c o s i t y A n ( Tanulus ) . Pr1 . 16 T i n s o l d=TAWithIns . CollectDatasInjIns =[]. Pr1=Pr ( kha . 9 Tanulus=Tan ( T i n s o l d . % hc from eq . % Tto = TbWithIns . r i n s . 2 ∗ 3 6 0 0 ∗ 3 6 0 0 . khc=khc1 ( Gr1 . Boltzman = ( 0 . Th=TAWithIns .B. visAn ) . % h r from eq . Tf = TbWithIns . 15 h r=hr ( T i n s o l d . TAWithIns . r c i . r c i . visAn . e p s t o . Tgeo=TAWithIns .%F Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) . kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) . r i n s .2. f o r i =1: length ( l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ) % Step 1 a s s i g n random v a l u e f o r dqdz dqdz =5. c o l o r s = l i n e s ( length ( l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ) ) . g ) .

else while abs ( Tins new−T i n s o l d )>1 i t e r=i t e r +1. . . 8 Uto=UtoCal ( h c . Tins new=Tto −(( dqdz ∗ log ( r i n s / r t o ) ) / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗ k i n s ( i ) ) ) .%F Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) . r i n s ) . Boltzman ) . h r=hr ( T i n s o l d . % f ( t ) from Ramey and W i l l h i t e ftD = FTIME( Uto . dqdz=2∗pi ∗ r t o ∗Uto ∗ ( Tf−Th ) . Th=T i n s o l d −dqdz / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗ r t o ∗ ( h c+h r ))+ dqdz ∗ log ( r r i s e r o / . e p s c i . . k i n s ( i ) ) . % from eq . r r i s e r i ) / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗LamdaTub ) . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS h c=hc ( khc . . Tins new=Tins new1 . Tto=TAWithIns+dqdz / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗ r t o ∗ ( h c+h r ))+ dqdz / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗ k i n s ( i ) ) ∗ . ke ) . i f abs ( Tins new−T i n s o l d )<=1 Tins new1=Tins new . r t o . 9 Tanulus=Tan ( T i n s o l d . t . log ( r i n s / r t o ) . % hc from eq . TAWithIns .140 APPENDIX B. q1 . r i n s .%cp % 1 cp = 1488 l b / f t −s e c o n d = 1488∗3600 . h r . r i n s . e p s t o . r c i . i t e r =0. T i n s o l d=T i n s o l d +0. rh . r c i .7∗( abs ( Tins new−T i n s o l d ) ) . TAWithIns ) .%R visAn=v i s c o s i t y A n ( Tanulus ) .

h c=hc ( khc . t . Pr1=Pr ( kha . Part2=r t o ∗Uto∗ ftD ∗Tto . TAWithIns . Tto=T i n s o l d+dqdz ∗ log ( r i n s / r t o ) / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗ k i n s ( i ) ) . % TOTAL HEAT LOSS Ql=Qls ∗ PipeLengthWithIns . % f ( t ) from Ramey and W i l l h i t e ftD = FTIME( Uto . ke ) . r c i .%lbm/ f t ˆ3 Gr1=Gr ( T i n s o l d . visAn ) . end Qls=2∗pi ∗ r t o ∗Uto ∗ ( TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) . kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) . h r . Part3=ke . 8 Uto=UtoCal ( h c . den=densityAn ( Tanulus ) . Th old =( Part1+Part2 ) / ( Part3+Part4 ) . % BTU InjLengthplot P lo tQ l =(1: PipeLengthWithIns ) ’ . Pr1 . kha ) . rh . Beta Gr .2. visAn . r c i . r i n s . =(Qls ) . q1 . r i n s ) . khc=khc1 ( Gr1 . ∗ I n j L e n g t h p l o t . Tins new=Tto−( r t o ∗Uto ) ∗ ( Tf−Th old ) ∗ log ( r i n s / r t o ) / ( k i n s ( i ) ) . g ) . HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA PART 141 visAn = visAn ∗ 1 4 8 8 ∗ 3 6 0 0 . den . r t o . r i n s . figure (1) .B. % from eq . Part4=r t o ∗Uto∗ ftD . k i n s ( i ) ) . Part1=TAWithIns∗ ke .

set ( gcf . 2 .% f t r r i s e r i =0. / 2 4 ) . legend ( l a b e l s . ’ n o r m a l i z e d ’ ) . ’ L o c a t i o n ’ . l a b e l s { i } = [ ’ \ lambda = ’ num2str ( LambdaValStr ) ] . . = r riseri . ’ Fontname ’ . 1 6 ) ylabel ( ’ Depth ( f t ) ’ ) LambdaValStr = s p r i n t f ( ’ %0. ’ F o n t S i z e ’ .1458. . . rto rci rco rh = 0. [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) . ’ XAxisLocation ’ . I n j L e n g t h p l o t . ’ YDir ’ . l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ( i ) . ’NE ’ ) set ( gcf . : ) . May 9 th . Fidan . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS plot ( PlotQl . end end Code block: SeaPartwithoutIns. m o d i f i e d d a t e 2 0 1 1 . num2str ( PipeLengthWithIns ) ’ f t ’ ] . . c o l o r s ( i . % % % Heat l o s s c a l c u l a t i o n f o r w i t h o u t i n s u l a t i o n c a s e i s done clc . close a l l .142 APPENDIX B. ’ r e v ’ ) xlabel ( [ ’ Cumulative Heat L o s s e s ( i n BTU) f o r ’ . ’ c o l o r ’ . .3G ’ .m: % S o l u t i o n f o r O f f s h o r e p a r t with i n s u l a t i o n m a t e r i l a s % % We a r e l o o k i n g f o r t h e s o l u t i o n a t s t e a d y s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s % w r i t t e n 2 0 0 9 . ’ Li n e wi d th ’ . clear a l l . ’ C a l i b r i ’ . ’ O u t e r P o s i t i o n ’ . = 1. ’ top ’ . = r risero . % ft % ft % ft % ft . .60. ’ U n i t s ’ . S . r r i s e r o =18/12/2. 3 ) hold on grid on set ( gca .

%[ f t ˆ2/ hr ] epsci epsto epsriser = 0. = 70.2. S ) . 9 Tanulus=Tan ( Tto .077500155 [ f t ˆ2/ hr ] from q1=a l p h a 1 ∗ 3 8 7 5 0 .%F Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) .B. % c o n v e r s i o n f a c t o r t TbWithoutIns PipeLengthWithoutIns lamdaPipe Boltzman g =32.% i n [mˆ2/ s ] % 1 [mˆ2/ s ] =38750. 7 3 0 7 3 5 . TAWithoutIns ) . 15 h r=hr ( Tto . Tf = TbWithoutIns .9. Tgeo=TAWithoutIns .%cp % 1 cp = 1488 l b / f t −s e c o n d = 1488∗3600 l b / f t −hr = 21∗24. = ( 0 . r c i . % t h e r m a l c o n d u c t i v i t y o f water %i n [W/m K] ==1 Btu / ( h r f t ?F) = 1 . S=35. % ft % F T=(TAWithoutIns − 3 2 ) / 1 . % 50 m e t e r s % hrs % F % ft = 600/24.2∗3600∗3600. %[ Perry ’ s Chemical E n g i n e e r s ’ Handbook . = 0. 7 3 0 7 3 5 W/ ( mK ) k1 = SW Conductivity (T. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA PART 143 rEaWithoutIns TAWithoutIns = 0. S ) .%F % h r from eq .%btu / hr−f t 2 −F % hc from eq .9. = 600. e p s c i . = 164. % c a l c u l a t e t h e o l d T i n s from eq . . Table 1 −4] ke=k1 / 1 . 0 7 7 5 0 0 1 5 5 .%R visAn=v i s c o s i t y A n ( Tanulus ) . e p s t o . r t o . = 0. 1 7 1 4 e −8). Boltzman ) . 16 Tto = TbWithoutIns .9. TAWithoutIns . 8 . a l p h a 1 = S W D i f f u s i v i t y (T. 7 th E d i t i o n .

’ O u t e r P o s i t i o n ’ . 3 ) % Create t i t l e t i t l e V a l S t r = s p r i n t f ( ’ %0.16) ylabel ( ’ Depth ( f t ) ’ ) set ( gcf . khc=khc1 ( Gr1 . ’ L i ne w id t h ’ . . ’ k ’ ) . TAWithoutIns . ’ top ’ . =(1: PipeLengthWithoutIns ) ’ . h r . visAn ) . ke ) . Ql ) . visAn . r c i . ’ C a l i b r i ’ . kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) .3G ’ . hold on grid on set ( gca . ’ FontSize ’ . % TOTAL HEAT LOSS Ql=Qls ∗ PipeLengthWithoutIns . ∗ I n j L e n g t h p l o t . ’ FontSize ’ . ’ b ’ . . Beta Gr . ’ ft is = ’ titleValStr ’ i n Btu ’ ] . ’ Fontname ’ . q1 . ’ XAxisLocation ’ . rco . t . rh . I n j L e n g t h p l o t . t i t l e ( [ ’ Heat L o s s e s w i t h i n a l o n g t h e ’ num2str ( PipeLengthWithoutIns ) . kha ) . r t o ) . .%lbm/ f t ˆ3 Gr1=Gr ( Tto . r t o . . ’ r e v ’ ) xlabel ( ’ Cumulative Heat L o s s e s i n BTU ’ . Pr1=Pr ( kha . . r c i . . . den=densityAn ( Tanulus ) . ’ YDir ’ . =(Qls ) . . r t o . % from eq . % BTU InjLengthplot P lo tQ l figure (1) plot ( PlotQl . ke ) . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS visAn = visAn ∗ 1 4 8 8 ∗ 3 6 0 0 . g ) . 8 Uto=UtoCal ( h c . rh . % f ( t ) from Ramey and W i l l h i t e ftD = FTIME( Uto .144 APPENDIX B. [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) . ’ U n i t s ’ .14 . h c=hc ( khc . Pr1 . set ( gcf . ’ Color ’ . Qls=2∗pi ∗ r t o ∗Uto ∗ ( TbWithoutIns−TAWithoutIns ) . ’ n o r m a l i z e d ’ ) . den . .

5 lbm/ f t N−80 c a s i n g % The a n n u l u s c o n t a t i n s a s t a g n a n t g a s a t z e r o gauge p r e s s u r e a t w e l l h e a d % and c a s i n g i s cemented t o s u r f a c e i n a 12− i n h o l e . t u b i n g s e t on a p a c k e r i n 9 5/8 in . m o d i f i e d d a t e 2 0 1 1 . S . HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 145 B. % We a r e l o o k i n g f o r t h e s o l u t i o n a t s t e a d y s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s % w r i t t e n 2 0 0 9 . 5 i n . . close a l l . % % clc . . 2 C a l c u l a t i o n s o f Heat L o s s e s from S u r f a c e L i n e s % % 3 . 5 3 .3 Heat Losses from Sea Floor to Reservoir (a) Sea Floor to Reservoir with insulation.B. The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation starting from sea floor to reservoir with insulation and without insulation % Example 1 0 . clear a l l .3: Schematic representation of resistance to heat transfer sea floor to reservoir. Figure B. (b) Sea Floor to Reservoir without insulation.3. May 9 th % Fidan .

9. 9 6 ] . = 100. % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % Btu/ f t −hr−F % Btu/ f t −hr−F = [0. = 0.166 0. = 0.194 0. = 0.499 0. = 1000.5000. % STEP2 : C a l c u l a t e f ( tD ) a t t tD=aEWithIns ∗ InjTimeWithIns / ( rwWithIns ˆ 2 ) .388 0. = 0. CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS roWithIns rinsWithIns rciWithIns rcoWithIns rwWithIns rEaWithIns aEWithIns einsWithIns eciWithIns lamda EWithIns lamda cemWithIns lamda insWithIns InjTimeWithIns TAWithIns TbWithIns PipeLengthWithIns = 0.1458. f=f t ( c . . ftD=f .2292. Rh2=Rh .146 APPENDIX B.4010.3556. = 24. = 21. c=2∗pi ∗Rh2∗ lamda EWithIns . = 0.96.569 0 . = 12. = 0. tD ) . = 0. CollectDatasInjIns =[]. B68 Up=0. = 600. % days % F % F % ft c o l o r s = l i n e s ( length ( l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ) ) . f o r i =1: length ( l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ) % STEP1 : I n i t i a l Assumption o f t h e T o t a l Thermal R e s i s t a n c e Rh=(log ( r i n s W i t h I n s / roWithIns ) / l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ( i ) ) / pi .9. = 0. % STEP3 : C a l c u l a t e Tci from Eq .

.3. B. den =0. 4 5 . % STEP4 : C a l c u l a t e Tins from Eq . 9 2 lamda aa =(0. . .11∗10ˆ( −8)∗((1/ e i n s W i t h I n s )+( r i n s W i t h I n s / r c i W i t h I n s ) ∗ . ∗ ( Ui+Upi+Upw+Upo+Uins ) . 6 . ( 1 / e c i W i t h I n s −1))ˆ( −1)∗F+lamda aa / ( r i n s W i t h I n s ∗ . % lamda a = 0 . % Npr ˆ 0 . Ngr=(gc / g ) ∗ 7 . . 7 0 Ui =0.Upo=0. g =1. Uins=log ( r i n s W i t h I n s / roWithIns ) / l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ( i ) .54∗10ˆ( −5)∗Tan + 0 . 3 1 2 . hcan =4.049∗ lamda a ∗Ngr ˆ 0 . . Tci=TAWithIns+(( TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗Rh ) ) . Ban=1/(460+Tan ) . 3 3 3 ∗ 0 . 6 3 through B.Upw=0. Upi =0. 9 2 ) . lamda a = ( 2 . % STEP6 : C a l c u l a t e Rh u s i n g Eq .54∗10ˆ( −5)∗T+0. 0 1 6 4 . i f rEaWithIns >0 Uea=log ( rEaWithIns / rwWithIns ) / lamda EWithIns . 8 e −004)∗Tan + 0 . .076∗((460+60)/(460+Tan ) ) . 4 = 0 . 1 2 ∗ 1 0 ˆ 7 ∗ ( r c i W i t h I n s −r i n s W i t h I n s ) ˆ 3 ∗ g ∗ . % From FigB . . den ˆ2∗Ban ∗ ( Tins−Tci ) / ( gc ∗ v i s ˆ 2 ) . 4 1 v i s =2. end Uf=ftD / lamda EWithIns . .B. . gc =1. HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 147 Ucem=log ( rwWithIns / r co W i t h I n s ) / lamda cemWithIns . ∗ (Up+Ucem+Uea+Uf ) . %STEP5 : C a l c u l a t e hcan from Eq . Tins=TbWithIns −(( TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗Rh ) ) . 6 6 Tan=( Tins+Tci ) / 2 . log ( r c i W i t h I n s / r i n s W i t h I n s ) ) . B. 1 0 . .0164 v i s =2. F=((460+ Tins )ˆ2+(460+ Tci )ˆ2)∗(920+ Tins+Tci ) . else Uea=0.

Rhc=1/(2∗ pi ) ∗ ( Ui+Upi+Upw+Upo+Uins+Ucan+Up+Ucem+Uea+Uf ) . ( Ui+Upi+Upw+Upo+Uins ) . 4 1 v i s =2. c=2∗pi ∗Rh2∗ lamda EWithIns . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS Ucan=1/( hcan ∗ r i n s W i t h I n s ) . Rh=Rhc . B. % STEP2 : C a l c u l a t e f ( tD ) a t t tD=aEWithIns ∗ InjTimeWithIns / ( rwWithIns ˆ 2 ) . . Uins=log ( r i n s W i t h I n s / roWithIns ) / l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ( i ) .0164 . den =0.076∗((460+60)/(460+Tan ) ) .148 APPENDIX B. ∗ (Up+Ucem+Uea+Uf ) . . %STEP5 : C a l c u l a t e hcan from Eq . Upo=0. end Uf=ftD / lamda EWithIns . . while abs ( Rhc−Rh) > 1 e−4 c o u n t e r=c o u n t e r +1. Upi =0. 7 0 Ui =0. f=f t ( c . % STEP3 : C a l c u l a t e Tci from Eq . 6 3 through B. B68 Up=0. c o u n t e r =0. % STEP4 : C a l c u l a t e Tins from Eq . Ucem=log ( rwWithIns / r c o W i t h I n s ) / lamda cemWithIns . Tins=TbWithIns −(( TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗Rh ) ) ∗ . . 6 6 Tan=( Tins+Tci ) / 2 . else Uea=0. B. Upw=0. tD ) . ftD=f . i f rEaWithIns >0 Uea=log ( rEaWithIns / rwWithIns ) / lamda EWithIns . Tci=TAWithIns+(( TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗Rh ) ) .54∗10ˆ( −5)∗T+0. % From FigB . Rh2=Rh .

. hcan =4. Ngr=(gc / g ) ∗ 7 . 1 0 . [ Rh Qls Ql ] ] . I n j L e n g t h p l o t . log ( r c i W i t h I n s / r i n s W i t h I n s ) ) . : ) . g ∗ den ˆ2∗Ban ∗ ( Tins−Tci ) / ( gc ∗ v i s ˆ 2 ) . 3 3 3 ∗ 0 . ’ Li n e wi d th ’ . . num2str ( PipeLengthWithIns ) ’ f t ’ ] . ( rinsWithIns / rciWithIns ) ∗ . . . . end Rh=Rhc . ∗ I n j L e n g t h p l o t . lamda aa =(0.11∗10ˆ( −8)∗((1/ e i n s W i t h I n s ) + . ’ FontSize ’ . 0 1 6 4 . gc =1. % STEP6 : C a l c u l a t e Rh u s i n g Eq . % HEAT LOSS PER UNIT LENGTH Qls=(TbWithIns−TAWithIns ) /Rh . % TOTAL HEAT LOSS Ql=Qls ∗ PipeLengthWithIns . ’ Fontname ’ . ’ r e v ’ ) xlabel ( [ ’ Cumulative Heat L o s s e s ( i n BTU) f o r ’ . lamda a = ( 2 .B. . c o l o r s ( i . ( 1 / e c i W i t h I n s −1))ˆ( −1)∗F+lamda aa / ( r i n s W i t h I n s ∗ . . . 8 e −004)∗Tan + 0 . F=((460+ Tins )ˆ2+(460+ Tci )ˆ2)∗(920+ Tins+Tci ) . 16) =(1: PipeLengthWithIns ) ’ .049∗ lamda a ∗Ngr ˆ 0 . . Ban=1/(460+Tan ) . 9 2 ) . ’ XAxisLocation ’ . ’ YDir ’ . . . HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 149 v i s =2. InjLengthplot P lo tQ l figure (1) plot ( PlotQl . g =1. =(Qls ) . 3 1 2 . 6 Ucan=1/( hcan ∗ r i n s W i t h I n s ) . . ’ C a l i b r i ’ . C o l l e c t D a t a s I n j I n s =[ C o l l e c t D a t a s I n j I n s . 1 2 ∗ 1 0 ˆ 7 ∗ ( r c i W i t h I n s −r i n s W i t h I n s ) ˆ 3 ∗ . ’ top ’ .54∗10ˆ( −5)∗Tan + 0 . 3 ) hold on grid on set ( gca . ’ c o l o r ’ .3. Rhc=1/(2∗ pi ) ∗ ( Ui+Upi+Upw+Upo+Uins+Ucan+Up+Ucem+Uea+Uf ) . . .

= 0. clear a l l . ’ n o r m a l i z e d ’ ) . = 0.9. 5 3 . [ 0 0 1 1 ] ) . / 2 4 ) . = 12.96.m: % Example 1 0 . ’NE ’ ) set ( gcf . % % clc . 2 C a l c u l a t i o n s o f Heat L o s s e s from Wellbore % % 3 .1458. = 0. May 9 th % Fidan .3556. = 0. close a l l . = 0. l a b e l s { i } = [ ’ \ lambda = ’ num2str ( LambdaValStr ) ] .150 APPENDIX B. legend ( l a b e l s . t u b i n g s e t on a p a c k e r i n 9 5/8 in . roWithoutIns rciWithoutIns rcoWithoutIns rwWithoutIns rEaWithoutIns aEWithoutIns einsWithoutIns eciWithoutIns lamda EWithoutIns lamda cemWithoutIns InjTimeWithoutIns TAWithoutIns TbWithoutIns PipeLengthWithoutIns = 0. % Btu/ f t −hr−F % Btu/ f t −hr−F % days % F % F % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft % ft . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS ylabel ( ’ Depth ( f t ) ’ ) LambdaValStr = s p r i n t f ( ’ %0. = 0. 5 i n . = 600. ’ L o c a t i o n ’ .4010. ’ O u t e r P o s i t i o n ’ .9. S . m o d i f i e d d a t e 2 0 1 1 . set ( gcf . = 100. l a m d a i n s W i t h I n s ( i ) . 5 lbm/ f t N−80 c a s i n g % The a n n u l u s c o n t a t i n s a s t a g n a n t g a s a t z e r o gauge p r e s s u r e a t w e l l h e a d % and c a s i n g i s cemented t o s u r f a c e i n a 12− i n h o l e .3G ’ . = 0. = 24. end Code block: InjWellwithoutIns. = 1000. = 21. ’ U n i t s ’ . 2 .5000. % We a r e l o o k i n g f o r t h e s o l u t i o n a t s t e a d y s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s % w r i t t e n 2 0 0 9 . .

t . % from eq . % s t e p 4 : c a l c u l a t e t h e o l d Th Th old =( r t o ∗Uto∗ ftD ∗ Tf+kcement ∗Tgeo ) / ( r t o ∗Uto∗ ftD+kcement ) . visAn khc=khc1 ( Gr1 .3. Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) . Pr1=Pr ( ) . dqdz=dqdz ( 1 ) . % hc from eq . e p s i n s . e p s c i . % s t e p 5 : c a l c u l a t e t h e new Tci . h c=hc ( khc . Boltzman ) . 15 h r=hr ( T i n s o l d . 1 5 . Beta Gr . r i n s . kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) . 9 and % Uto from eq .%kha . g ) . rco . r c i . r t o . k i n s . r c i . q1 .B. % Step 1 a s s i g n random v a l u e f o r dqdz dqdz=randperm ( 1 0 0 ) . hc from eq . Pr1 . visAn . kha ) . % f ( t ) from Ramey and W i l l h i t e ftD = FTIME( Uto . ke ) . HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 151 lamdaPipe =600. rh . 8 Uto=UtoCal ( h c . 9 Tanulus=Tan ( T i n s o l d . T c i o l d . r i n s ) . den=densityAn ( Tanulus ) . r c i . Gr1=Gr ( T i n s o l d . den . T c i o l d ) . r i n s . % c a l c u l a t e t h e o l d T i n s from eq . % Step 3 : h r from eq . kcement ) . visAn=v i s c o s i t y A n ( Tanulus ) . T c i o l d . 8 and f ( t ) from Ramey % h r from eq . 16 % Step 2 : Tci = Geothermal Temperature T c i o l d=TAWithoutIns . r i n s . h r . rh .

T c i o l d . dqdz=2∗pi ∗ r t o ∗Uto ∗ ( Tf−Th ) . r c i . i f abs ( Tci new−T c i o l d )<=1 Tci new1=Tci new . h c=hc ( khc . Part3=kcement . 8 . visAn . r i n s . khc=khc1 ( Gr1 . % from eq . % hc from eq . visAn=v i s c o s i t y A n ( Tanulus ) . Th=(Part1−Part2 ) / ( Part3−Part4 ) . e p s c i . hc from eq . % Step 3 : h r from eq . 8 and f ( t ) from Ramey % h r from eq . 9 and Uto %from eq . T c i o l d=T c i o l d +0. kha ) . Beta Gr . Part2=r t o ∗Uto∗ log ( rh / r c o ) ∗ Tto . kha=kha1 ( Tanulus ) . Gr1=Gr ( T i n s o l d . g ) .7∗( abs ( Tci new−T c i o l d ) ) . i t e r =0. Tci new=Tci new1 . Part4=r t o ∗Uto∗ log ( rh / r c o ) . 15 h r=hr ( T i n s o l d . den=densityAn ( Tanulus ) . Beta Gr=BetaGr ( Tanulus ) . r i n s . r c i . T i n s o l d=Tto −(( dqdz ∗ log ( r i n s / r t o ) ) / ( 2 ∗ pi ∗ k i n s ) ) . r i n s ) .152 APPENDIX B. Pr1 . 9 Tanulus=Tan ( T i n s o l d . T c i o l d . else while abs ( Tci new−T c i o l d )>=1e−4 i t e r=i t e r +1. T c i o l d ) . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS Tci new=Th old +(( r t o ∗Uto∗ log ( rh / r c o ) ) / ( kcement ) ) ∗ ( Tto−Th old ) . 1 5 . Boltzman ) . Part1=T c i o l d ∗ kcement . den . r c i . e p s i n s .

HEAT LOSSES FROM SEA FLOOR TO RESERVOIR 153 Uto=UtoCal ( h c . rh . rco . k i n s .B. kcement ) . % s t e p 5 : c a l c u l a t e t h e new Tci Tci new=Th old +(( r t o ∗Uto∗ log ( rh / r c o ) ) / ( kcement ) ) ∗ ( Tto−Th old ) . % s t e p 4 : c a l c u l a t e t h e o l d Th Th old =( r t o ∗Uto∗ ftD ∗ Tf+kcement ∗Tgeo ) / ( r t o ∗Uto∗ ftD+kcement ) . t . r i n s . ke ) . rh .3. h r . % f ( t ) from Ramey and W i l l h i t e ftD = FTIME( Uto . end end . r t o . q1 .

DimPipeIns = [ 0 . 6 7 1 . Diameter ) % Fidan . 4 7 0 . 7 8 8 . 5 6 6 . 1 112 134 158 186 217 252 290 334 4 1 . 3 7 2 . 4 8 3 .4 Table 14 from Prats [41] The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation for surface lines without insulation radiation and free convection number interpolated values using Table B. % I n t e r p o l a t i o n f o r the htc % P r a t s pg234 t a b l e B. 2 5 3 . 6 5 8 . 8 9 3 . 8 6 5 .14 from Prats[41]. 3 100 120 141 166 194 225 260 299 343 4 4 . 3 5 1 . 5 116 137 162 189 221 256 294 338 4 2 . 5 1 2 4 8 12 2 4 ] . 2 4 9 . 4 7 6 . Table14 . 4 6 9 . 4 7 5 . 9 5 9 . 9 104 124 146 171 198 230 265 304 348 4 6 . SurfTemp =[130 180 230 280 330 380 480 580 680 780 880 980 1080 1180 1 2 8 0 ] . 1 6 3 . 8 6 5 . 4 8 1 . 8 90 107 127 149 174 202 234 269 307 352 4 8 . return . 8 5 7 . 3 5 4 . S . 3 7 2 . 9 111 132 156 184 215 250 289 332 3 9 . 4 4 6 . 8 108 129 153 180 212 247 286 3 2 9 ] . 1 4 Table14 = [ 5 0 . CODES FOR HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS B. 0 6 7 . 5 6 8 .154 APPENDIX B. 2 7 4 . 0 4 8 . Temp . 5 6 0 . 1 9 1 . 7 7 5 . DimPipeIns . 5 79 8 6 . 1 6 2 . 8 6 1 . ht=interp2 ( SurfTemp . 7 5 7 . 2 7 9 . 9 9 6 . function ht=htTable14 (Temp . Diameter ) . 2 5 1 .

802 .84 1.5∗ log ( tD ) + 0 .588 .96 1.54 2.00 1. 4 4 5 .02 1.644 .772 .35 1.572 .58 1. 3 1 3 . 3 1 8 .984 1.5.800 . 3 1 3 .439 . tD ) % Fidan .37 1.578 . 3 4 5 .39 2.87 1.17 2.44 2.77 1. 3 7 3 .25 1.04 1. function f=f t ( r .910 .616 .511 . 4 3 3 .58 2. R=[1000 500 100 50 20 10 5 2 1 .64 1. 3 2 3 .52 1.629 . 3 1 4 .59 1.17 2.568 .00 2. 0 1 0 ] .57 1.698 . end return . 4 1 7 .806 .B.38 2. r .48 1.22 1.11 1.790 . 4 3 8 .806 .20 1.97 1.424 . 3 1 1 .623 . 5 1 2 5 10 20 50 1 0 0 ] .03 1.59 1.86 1.37 1.89 2 . A.65 1.958 . tD ) .89 2.09 2.74 2. else f=interp2 (R. 2 . 9 0 ] .56 1.615 .86 1.430 .24 1.81 1.619 .81 2.15 2.427 .12 2.811 .01 1.473 .99 2.423 .89 2.75 2.02 1.02 1.37 2.872 . S .423 .17 2. 3 9 6 .452 .617 .38 1. 1 .05 1.77 2.08 1.87 1.95 1.86 2.614 .745 .88 1. 0 2 .16 2.842 .811 . . 1 .24 1.44 1.57 2.538 .57 2.801 .15 1. 0 5 .820 . 3 1 2 .421 .1 from Prats[41].73 2.42 2.67 1. i f tD>100 f =0. 4 0 3 .422 . t = [ .666 .88 2.89 2.73 2. F(TD) CALCULATION ALSO KNOWN AS RAMEY[?] 155 B.39 2.84 2. % I n t e r p o l a t i o n o f t h e v a l u e o f f ( t ) i n unsteady c o n d u c t i o n A= [ .97 1.34 1.48 2.803 .40 1.01 1.58 2.01 1.69 1.00 1.73 1. 3 3 0 .16 2.57 2.66 1.05 2.802 .24 1. 3 1 6 .71 2.59 1.94 1.72 2.40 2.51 2.66 1.5 f(tD) calculation also known as Ramey[42] The following are the MatLab codes for our heat loss calculation for sea floor to reservoir with/without insulation interpolated values using Table 10.63 1.56 2. 2 .36 1. t . 5 .

Appendix C Results for Different Insulation Materials U singW hiteAerogelλW A = 0. 156 .0081BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) Figure C. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.1: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft) .

Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. 1 year. Figure C. .157 Figure C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.3: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).2: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year.

1 year.4: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).158 APPENDIX C.0162BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) Figure C. 1 year. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C.5: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. U singF iberglassλF G = 0. .

Figure C. . 1 year. 1 year.7: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.6: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass.159 Figure C.

U singCarbonF iberλCF = 0.8: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. .9: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year.160 APPENDIX C. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.0208BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) Figure C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C.

.10: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Figure C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.11: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).161 Figure C. 1 year. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.

1 year.162 APPENDIX C. U singT hermolasticInsulationλT I = 0. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.0237BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) . RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C.12: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).

163 Figure C. .13: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.14: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. Figure C. 1 year.

Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. Figure C.16: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).04BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) .15: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C. 1 year. U singCalciumSilicateInsulationλCaSil = 0. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.164 APPENDIX C.

Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.18: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. .165 Figure C.17: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year. Figure C. 1 year.

1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.20: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Figure C. 1 year.19: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C.166 APPENDIX C. .

21: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).167 U singW hiteAerogelλW A = 0. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. 1 year.0081BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) Figure C. .22: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. Figure C.

Figure C.24: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).23: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).0162BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) . RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C. U singF iberglassλF G = 0. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel. 1 year.168 APPENDIX C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with white aerogel.

169 Figure C. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. 1 year. Figure C.25: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).26: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).

Figure C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. 1 year.28: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).27: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).170 APPENDIX C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with fiber glass. . 1 year.

171 U singCarbonF iberλCF = 0. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.0208BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) Figure C.30: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).29: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year. . Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. Figure C.

1 year.0237BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) . 1 year. Figure C. RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C.31: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). U singT hermolasticInsulationλT I = 0. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with carbon fiber.32: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).172 APPENDIX C.

.34: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).173 Figure C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation. 1 year.33: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year. Figure C.

04BT U/(f t − hr −o F ) . RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C. 1 year.36: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.174 APPENDIX C. U singCalciumSilicateInsulationλCaSil = 0.35: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year. Figure C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with thermolastic insulation.

. 1 year. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.38: Steam pressure distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). 1 year.175 Figure C.37: Steam temperature distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). Figure C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.

1 year. .39: Steam quality distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft).40: Heat loss distribution for different injection temperature vs depth (ft). RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT INSULATION MATERIALS Figure C. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate. Tm = 122 o F and injection rate 4850 lbm/hr with calcium silicate.176 APPENDIX C. 1 year. Figure C.

4(3). Hazim S.html. http://www. [2] Schematic view of the offshore platform.com/software/feketeharmony/media/webhelp/HTMLFiles/Reference-Material/Calculations-and-Correlations/Pressure-LossCalculations. and Burton D. www. 177 .php?id=phy141:lectures:35.sunysb.consrv. Ziels.htm. united states patent Vacuum 4512721. http://www. [6] Chen Chou-Ming Ayres.com/software/rta/media/webhelp/c-te-correlations. 1982.ca.fekete.Bibliography [1] Schematic view of one of the heat transfer mechanism: Convection. Alternative flow-pattern maps can improve pressure-drop calculations of the aziz et al.H.htm.fekete. http://www. multiphase-flow correlation.gov/dog/Picturea-well/PublishingImages /OFFSHORE-PLATFORM-2.patentgenius.ic.com/patent/4512721.jp. [3] Two phase flow correlations : Modified Beggs and Brill two phase correlations. insulated steam injection Paul S. [4] Two phase flow correlations with pressure loss calculation : ified Beggs and Brill two phase correlations with Pressure ModLoss. 1989. www. SPE Production Engineering.edu/Class/phy141md/doku. [5] Abu Al-Soof Nimat B Al-Najjar. tubing.

D. Willman. [14] J. P.. [13] J. Ove Bratland.V. Multiphase Flow in Wells. part 1. [16] Jr. Cornelius B. 2010.W. Beggs. [12] Dr.W.F.B. 1987. J. The flow assurance site multi-phase flow assurance. Gibson S.P. A study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes. Bradford. [9] Dominuque Monfrin Bernard M.T.E. 1961. description of . Journal of Petroleum Technology. Brill and H. Marlin failure analysis and redesign. Paper SPE 16723 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas. 1973. Emeraude vapeur: A steam pilot in an offshore environment. John Wiley & Sons. Journal of Petroleum Technology. TX. D. Taylor D. Valleroy and L. P. pages 123–130. Powers. 2003. The Oil and Gas Journal.G. Pattillo J. Couderc.drbratland. D.D. http://www.H. Fritchie. Beggs and J. Bleakley.W. Brill and H. 13(7):681–690.D. Mukherjee. [10] Malcolm Alister Grant & Paul F Bixley. Quettier. Runberg A. Heat Transfer Handbook. 1999. 27-30 September. Two-Phase Flow in Pipes. Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Gosch P. [11] W. V.178 BIBLIOGRAPHY [7] H.W. 1964. second edition.com/PipeFlow2/chapter1. Adrian.J. Here are case histories of two thermal projects. [8] Kraus Allan D Bejan. Brill. 2011.html. Sharp C. Laboratory studies of oil recovery by steam injection. Society of Petroleum Engineers. [15] G.W. Academic Press. 25(5):607–617. Verpeaux and Lisette H.

A. 21(1):79–86. A comprehensive wellbore stream/water flow model for steam injection and geothermal applications.com. [18] S. 5(4):184–193. [23] A. 1965. [25] P. Alkaya G. [19] J.BIBLIOGRAPHY 179 failure. [24] M. Shi. 1969. [20] Jerry P. Wellbore behaviour during saturated steam injection. Diaz B. P. Brown. [22] Alton R. Kabir. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Hasan and C. 2002. Department of Chemical Engineering. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. Durlofsky K. Prediction of bottom-hole conditions for wet steam injection wells. Denver.x-eng. 5-8 October 2003.R. Holmgren. Colorado. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. Journal of Petroleum Technology. first edition. 1981. Oddie H. 2003.R. Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Wellbores. Aziz L. Farouq Ali. Driftflux modeling of multiphase flow in wellbores.M. Texas. Experimental study of pressure gradients occurring during continuous two-phase flow in small-diameter vertical conduits. 21(2):82–88. Earlougher Jr. Journal of Petroleum Technology. 26-28 February 2002. [17] Robert C. Holst and D. Flock. 1982. University of Calgary. Holmes. http://www.H. Hagedorn and Kermit E. 21(5):527–534. 2006. [21] L. 1980. S. Fontanilla and Khalid Aziz. 1966. SPE Journal. X steam for matlab. Paper SPE 74528 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. Master’s thesis. Some practical considerations in the design of steam injection wells. J. 17(4):475–484. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. . Fontanilla.L. Dallas. A Mathematical Model for the Prediction of Wellbore Heat Loss and Pressure Drop in Steam Injection Wells.J.

[27] Jan Dirk Jansen. . 1992. Master’s thesis. Wellbore heat losses and casing temperatures during steam injection. Frankfurt am Main. [35] A. Society of Petroleum Engineers. J. New functional correlations for saturated steam properties. Modeling and Optimization of Oil and Gas Production Systems. John H. Two-phase flow. Govier. and N. second edition. [36] Syed M. R. 6th World Petroleum Congress. 1972.180 BIBLIOGRAPHY [26] Hans H. 1963. Zubair Mostafa H. Pressure drop in wells producing oil and gas. Stanford University. Basic Heat and Mass Transfer. 11(3). 2011. Mills. Huitt. Duns Jr. Advanced Production Engineering Lecture Notes. 1966. [33] D. June 19 . 18(9):1157–1162. Desalination and Water Treatment.W. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Vertical flow of gas and liquid mixtures in wells. [31] K. A.F. Germany. Los Alamos Science. C. Ros.26. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. Thermophysical properties of seawater: a review of existing correlations and data. 1966. George W. Sharqawy. [30] L. 1999. pages 26–35. Huygen and J. Zhiyue and Kamy Sepehrnoori. Thaw-Front Dynamics of Super-Insulated Wells in Cold Environments. pages 25–32. Department of Energy Resources Engineering. Liles. 2007. Prentice Hall. Leutwyler. L. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Liang. [28] H. 1963 . Casing temperature studies in steam injection wells. [29] and Maria Fogarasi Khalid Aziz. 2009. Journal of Petroleum Technology. [34] Cristovao Marques. American Petroleum Institute. Lienhard Va. Lake. 1989. [32] Miller Mark A.

1962. S. . Thermal Recovery. Satter. Gosch P. Dallas. Hemanta. 31(9):1198–1208. [44] P. Farouq Ali.D. 17(7):845–851. Brill J. Payne.H. D. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Beggs. Beggs. [46] O.A. Sarathi and D. Shoham. [41] M. Heat losses during flow of steam down a wellbore. 1972. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 3(2):263–272. Wellbore heat transmission. Mechanistic Modeling of Gas-Liquid two-phase Flow in Pipes. Texas. Journal of Petroleum Technology. [43] D.A. and H. 11(3):299– 315. 2005.W. Mukherjee. Empirical equations to predict flow patterns in two-phase inclined flow. G. [45] A. Wellbore heat losses and pressure drop in steam injection. Journal of Petroleum Technology. Journal of Petroleum Technology. [39] Palmer C. Ramey JR. Evaluation of inclined-pipe. 1988.redesign. 24(2):139–144.C. SPE Production Engineering.G. Journal of Petroleum Technology. Ellis. Petroleum Reservoir Simulation. A study of multiphase flow behavior in vertical wells. Gibson S. International Journal of Multiphase Flow.P. Pattillo R. 1986.F. Olsen.D. [40] Palmer C. Paper SPE 74529 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. Applied Science Publishers. first edition. [38] E.M. 1992. Fritchie Jr. two-phase liquid holdup and pressure-loss correlation using experimental data. G. K.J. and H. Brill J. Payne. 1965. 26-28 February 2002. Marlin failure analysis and redesign: Part 2 .D. 1985. Prats.P.M.M. 1979. 14(4):436–440. Pacheco and S.BIBLIOGRAPHY 181 [37] Brill James P. [42] H.

Squier. Paper SPE 74530 presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference. Over-all heat transfer coefficients in steam and hot water injection wells. Calculated temperature behavior of hot-water injection wells. .L. 26-28 February 2002.P. D. Journal of Petroleum Technology. Dallas. 1962.C. [50] Yu-Shu Wu and Karsten Pruess.W. and E.W. Willhite. 1990. Shah.P. Horne and P. 19(5):607–615. part 3. Texas. SPE Reservoir Engineering. Gosch. [48] P.J. 5(4):531–538. 1967. An analytical solution for wellbore heat transmission in layered formations (includes associated papers 23410 and 23411 ).182 BIBLIOGRAPHY [47] Smith D. Journal of Petroleum Technology.D.D. Sharp S. Marlin failure analysis and redesign. Pattillo J. vit completion with real-time monitoring. 14(4):427–435. D. [49] G. Dougherty.