SPE-186937-MS

Transient Thermal Model of Drilling Fluid in Wellbore under the Effect of

Permafrost Thaw during Drilling in Arctic Region

Wang Xuerui, Sun Baojiang, Wang Zhiyuan, Zhao Yang, Wang Jintang, Zhang Zhennan, and Yonghai Gao, China
University of Petroleum

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 17-19 October 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The arctic could hold about 30% of the world's undiscovered gas and 13% of the world's undiscovered
oil according to an assessment by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). While, arctic oil and gas
exploration is faced with various challenges such as the extremely cold polar environment, the ice scour,
the permafrost. Permafrost is the perennially freezing soil (actually freezing pore water), and it can be an
important geologic hazard and constraint. Permafrost is very common in arctic region, about one-half of the
total land area of Canada and Russia and 85% of Alaska is underlain by permafrost. Besides, sub-bottom
permafrost is also wide spread phenomenon of Arctic offshore areas.
At present, the traditional thermal models of wellbore use an algebraic approximation to describe the heat
transfer between wellbore and formation. Thus a new model should be established considering the effect of
permafrost thaw during drilling in arctic region. As a matter of fact, the phase change of ice in permafrost
needs to absorb heat from wellbore which can have an effect on the wellbore temperature. At the same time,
migration of water from warm to cold regions will happen during the process of the thaw of permafrost.
The migration of water will have an effect on the temperature due to the heat transfer along with the water.
In addition, temperature in wellbore can be negative after long shut-in time due to the extremely cold polar
environment which could lead to the blocking of wellbore.
In this paper, a transient thermal model of wellbore during arctic drilling is established considering the
effect of permafrost thaw in this paper. On the basis of the new model, a simulation of an arctic well is
made and some conclusion are made from the case study: The temperature fields in wellbore and permafrost
interact with each other. Besides, the temperature in wellbore drops to negative due to the extremely cold
environment after long shut-in time, and the drilling fluid in wellbore could be frozen consequently. Long
shut-in time should be avoided during drilling in arctic region.
The new model established in this paper can determine more reasonably the wellbore temperature in artic
permafrost region than the traditional model. A method to determine the reasonable shut-in time is given in
this paper which can provide safety guidance during drilling in arctic permafrost region.
2 SPE-186937-MS

Introduction
According to an assessment of undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources in the north of the Arctic
Circle (66.56° north latitude) in 2009 by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Arctic could
hold approximately 30% of the undiscovered gas and 13% of the undiscovered oil in the world (Donald L.
Gautier, et. al. 2009). Currently, more countries and oil companies start exploration activities in the Arctic
intensely (Jed M. Hamilton 2011). A wave of researching and development work is put on the agent when
oil companies confront big challenges in the developments of hydrocarbon production in the Arctic, such
as the extremely cold polar environment, ice scour, permafrost, and the arctic marine system.
Permafrost is the perennially freezing soil (actually freezing pore water) and is very common in the
arctic region, about one-half of the total land area of Canada and Russia and 85% of Alaska is underlain
by permafrost (G. R. Harrison 1979). It can also become a serious geologic hazard and constraint with
inappropriate oil and gas developments. In addition, sub-bottom permafrost is a wide spread phenomenon
of Arctic offshore areas and has been identified in Pechora, Kara, Laptev and other Russian Arctic seas
(Andrey Loktev, et. al. 2012). The accurate prediction of wellbore temperatures is crucial for drilling design
including drilling mud, cement slurry design and others. The permafrost thaw has a positive feedback on
wellbore temperature. As a result, the research focused on the thermal model of wellbore and formation in
arctic permafrost regions is required.
Traditional wellbore thermal models use an algebraic approximation to describe the heat transfer between
wellbore and formation and focus only on the temperature in the wellbore, ignoring the temperature
distribution in formation. However, the formation temperature needs to be estimated for accurate prediction
of the permafrost thaw zone. At the same time, the phase change between ice and water needs to absorb
heat from the wellbore, which has a positive feedback effect on the wellbore temperature. In addition,
migration of water from warm to cold regions occurs during the process of permafrost thaw, and heat can
be transferred with the water migration (Yih-wu Jame, 1980). Also, the thermal parameters between water
and ice is significantly different, and permafrost thermal parameters change accordingly due to the phase
change and the water migration. In conclusion, drilling in arctic permafrost region is a complicated heat and
mass transfer process and a new coupled thermal models of wellbore and formation must be established.
In this paper, a transient thermal model of drilling fluid in wellbore under the effect of permafrost thaw
during drilling in arctic region is established. The new model takes the latent heat of fusion, water migration
and the change of thermal parameter during permafrost thaw into consideration. On the basis of the new
model, a simulation well is analyzed and sensitivity study is made through a series of numerical experiments.
Models and suggestions proposed in this paper can provide safety guidance for oil & gas exploration in
arctic permafrost regions.

Transient Thermal Model of Wellbore under the Effect of Permafrost Thaw

As shown in Fig 1, a cylindrical coordinate system is establishedbetween wellbore and formation. Beside,
the formation in Arctic region consists of two parts: the permafrost in upper part of formation and the
unfrozen formation in lower part of formation. The Fig 1(a) displays the heat transfer between wellbore and
formation during drilling process, the drilling mud goes downwards inside the drill pipe and goes upwards
inside the annulus. The Fig 1(b) displays the heat transfer between wellbore and formation after shut in, the
drilling mud stop circulating inside the wellbore after shut in.
SPE-186937-MS 3

Figure 1—Heat transfer in wellbore and formation

The following assumptions are made in the process of establishing the model.
① The three-dimensional formation heat transfer is simplified as a two-dimensional problem in the X-
Z plane.
② Drilling fluid flow in the wellbore is one-dimensional.
③ Heat loss in the direction of the wellbore is ignored and we only consider the radial heat loss.
④ Drilling fluid is incompressible.
⑤ The formation is isotropic.

Heat transfer model during drilling process

(1) Heat transfer model in annulus during drilling process. During drilling process, the drill mud inside
the annulus goes upwards and exchanges heat with both the drilling mud inside drill pipe and the formation
around wellbore. According to the heat transfer in annulus shown in Fig 2, the governing equation for fluid
temperature in a control volume can be written:

(1)

Figure 2—Heat transfer in annulus

The left side of equation (1) describes the change of internal energy in the cell, the first item on the
right side represents heat inflow from the adjacent cell in the lower part, the second item on the right side
4 SPE-186937-MS

represents heat outflow to the adjacent cell in the upper part, the third item on the right side is heat transfer
with the adjacent cell in the drill pipe, and the fourth item on the right side is the heat transfer within the
formation.
After the expressionof mass flow w=Aavaρ is inserted into equation (1), the finite differential form can
be acquired:

(2)

where .

The overall heat transfer coefficient Up is used to describe thermal resistance in a series from drill pipe to
annulus, including the heat convection in drill pipe, heat conduction of drill pipe wall, and heat convection
in annulus (WANG Zhiyuan, 2014):

(3)

The overall heat transfer coefficient is used to describe thermal resistance in a series from annulus to
formation, including convective heat transfer in annulus, heat conduction of casing, and heat conduction
of cement(WANG Zhiyuan, 2014):

(4)

(2) Heat transfer model in drill pipe during drilling process. During drilling process, the drill mud inside
the drill pipe goes downwards and exchanges heat with the drilling mud inside annulus. According to the
heat transfer in drill pipe shown in Fig 3, the governing equation for fluid temperature in a control volume
can be written:

(5)

Figure 3—Heat transfer in drill pipe

The left side of the equation (5) describes the internal energy change of the cell, the first item on the
right side represents heat inflow from the adjacent cell in the upper part, the second item on the right side
represents heat outflow to the adjacent cell in the lower part, and the third item on the right side is the heat
transfer with the adjacent cell in the annulus.
SPE-186937-MS 5

After the expressionof mass flow is inserted into equation (5), a finite differential form is acquired:

(6)

(3) Heat transfer model in permafrost. During drilling process, heat can be transferred from wellbore to
permafrost, which results in the thaw of permafrost. A complicated heat and mass transfer occurs during the
thaw of permafrost. First of all, the heat transferred from the wellbore is partly consumed by the latent heat
of fusion during permafrost thaw, which have an effect on temperature fields. Secondly, migration of water
from warm to cold regions will occur during the process of permafrost thaw under the temperature gradient.
Heat can be transferred with the water migration which can effect the temperature fields of permafrost.
Thirdly, thaw of the ice in permafrost and the water migration can lead to the change of water and ice content
in permafrost. The thermal parameters between water and ice are significantly different, and permafrost
thermal parameters change accordingly due to the phase change and the water migration.
According to the heat transfer in permafrost shown in Fig 4, the governing equation for fluid temperature
in a control volume can be written:

(7)

Figure 4—Heat transfer in permafrost

The left side of equation (7) describes the internal energy change of the cell, the first item on the right side
is heat consumed by the latent heat of fusion, the second item on the right side represents the heat transferred
with water migration, the third item on the right side represents heat inflow from the adjacent cell on the
left side, and the fourth item on the right side represents heat outflow to the adjacent cell in the right side.
Eq. (7) can be rewritten in a finite differential form:

(8)

In 1930s, the concept of Soil Water Potential was proposed in a study of water transfer in soil and the
Soil Water Potential gradient is now seen as the driving force of water migration. At the present time, most
numerical solutions of moisture transfer problems for frozen soil are based on some form of the equations
given by Harlan (1973):
6 SPE-186937-MS

(9)

The thermal parameters between water and ice are significantly different, and permafrost thermal
parameters change accordingly due to the the change of ice and water content. Heat capacity, density and
thermal conductivity of formation changes(Wang Xuerui 2017):
(10)
(11)
(12)
As a matter of fact, such complicated heat and mass transfer do not occure in the unfrozen formation
below the permafrost. Consequently the moisture transfer equation and latent heat of fusion should be
neglected, and the heat transfer model in permafrost can be simplified as heat transfer model in unfrozen
formation.

Heat transfer model after shut-in

Heat transfer model in annulus after shut-in. The drilling mud in annulusstop circulating after shut-in.
According to the heat transfer in annulus shown in Fig 5, the governing equation for fluid temperature in
a control volume can be written:

(13)

Figure 5—Heat transfer in annulus

The left side of equation (13) describes the internal energy change of the cell, the first item is heat transfer
with the adjacent cell in the drill pipe, and the second item is the heat transfer with the formation.
The finite differential form can be acquired:

(14)

Heat transfer model in drill pipeafter shut-in. The drilling mud in drill pipestop circulating after shut-
in. According to the heat transfer in annulus shown in Fig 6, the governing equation for fluid temperature
in a control volume can be written:

(15)
SPE-186937-MS 7

Figure 6—Heat transfer in drill pipe

The left side of the equation (15) describes the internal energy change of the cell, the right side of the
equation (15) represents the heat transfer with the adjacent cell in the annulus.
The finite differential form is acquired:

(16)

Boundary conditions and initial conditions

We have the following boundary conditions and initial conditions:
Boundary condition.
① On the border between wellbore and formation, the radial heat transfer occurs between wellbore and
formation. Thus:

(17)

The left side of equation (17) describes the internal energy change of the cell on the border between
the wellbore and the formation, the first item on the right side is heat inflow from the annulus, the
second item on the right side represents heat outflow to the formation.
② The injection temperature at the wellhead is equal to the temperature of drilling fluid on the platform
such that
(18)
③ The temperature of the wellbore is smooth and continuous during drilling process. Consequently,
atthe bottom of the well, we obtain
(19)
④ The formation is not disturbed at infinity:

(20)

Thus:
(21)
8 SPE-186937-MS

Initial condition. The temperature in the drill pipe and annulus are both equal to the injection temperature
at the wellhead such that:
(22)

Numerical solution
According to the model established above, the coupled wellbore and formation thermal model in arctic
permafrost regions consists of four parts: (1) the heat transfer model in the drill pipe, (2) the heat transfer
model in the annulus, (3) the heat transfer model in the formation, (4) the moisture transfer equation in
permafrost. The temperature in the annulus is needed to calculate temperature in the drill pipe and the
temperature on the border between the wellbore and formation is needed to calculate temperature in the
annulus. In addition, the heat transfer models of the formation and the moisture transfer equation are
coupled mathematically through the ‘phase change component’. An optimization procedure therefore must
be incorporated into the computational scheme and a solution must be iterated between the four models
established above. To implement the solution of these equations, a finite difference scheme is employed
in this paper.
1. Heat transfer model during drilling process
For the heat transfer model in the drill pipe:

(23)

For the heat transfer model in the annulus:

(24)

For the heat transfer model in the formation:

(25)

For the moisture transfer equation:

(26)

2. Heat transfer model after shut-in

For the heat transfer model in the drillpipe:

(27)

For the heat transfer model in the annulus:

(28)

In order to solve the equations,an optimical iterative process is proposed as shown in Fig 7.
SPE-186937-MS 9

Figure 7—Flow chart of iterative process.

Analysis of influence factors on temperature field during drilling process in

Arctic permafrost region
Compared to the non-permafrost region, drilling in arctic permafrost region is a complicated heat and
mass transfer process. To study the influence factors on temperature of wellbore and formation, a series of
numerical experiments are performed. The developed model is utilized to analyze a simulation well. The
input data of the well is shown in Table 1.
10 SPE-186937-MS

Table 1—Basic data of the simulated well.

Parameter Value Unit

Mud density 1.40 g/cm3

Surface Temperature −30 °C

Geothermal gradient 0.04 °C/m

Displacement 60 L/s

Rate of penetration 8 m/hour

Thickness of permafrost layer 750 m

Specific heat of soil skeleton 0.71 kJ/(kg×°C)

Specific heat of ice 2.1 kJ/(kg×°C)

Specific heat of water 4.182 kJ/(kg×°C)

Thermal conductivity of soil skeleton 1.83 w/(m×K)

Thermal conductivity of water 0.54 w/(m×K)

Thermal conductivity of ice 2.22 w/(m×K)

Hydraulic conductivity of permafrost 4.0×10 -9 m/s

Initial water content 0.309 m3/m3

Porosity of permafrost 0.35 m3/m3

Latent heat of fusion 334.56 kJ/kg

The casing program of the well is displayed in Fig. 8.

Figure 8—Casing program of the simulation well.

SPE-186937-MS 11

Influence of latent heat of fusion on temperature field

To study the influence of the latent heat of fusion on temperature of wellbore and formation, numerical
experiments are performed using the new model in this paper and the model ignoring the latent heat of
fusion (ILHF model). The comparison results are shown in Fig 9 and 10.

Figure 9—Comparison results of permafrost temperature between new model and ILHF model / °C. The black line
is calculated temperature using the new model, and the red line is calculated temperature using the ILHF model.

Figure 10—Comparison results of wellbore temperature between new model and ILHF model.

In the new model, some of the heat transferred from wellbore is consumed by the latent heat of
fusion which hinders the heat from transferring to the distant region. As a result, the calculated formation
temperature using the new model in this paper is lower than that of the ILHF model as shown in Fig 9. In
addition, the total volume of thawed permafrost increases with time. Thus, the difference between the two
models becomes more obvious with time.
12 SPE-186937-MS

The wellbore temperature of the new model is also lower as a result of the heat consumption by the latent
heat of fusion. As shown in Fig 10(a), the temperature difference between the two models reaches 2.23
°C at wellhead. In addition, the difference at wellhead is obvious at the early time, but becomes greatly
diminished at the late period, as shown in Fig 10(b). This phenomenon can be explained by the melting rate
of ice as illustrated in Fig 11. Higher melting rate of ice needs to absorb more heat from wellbore, which
leads to lower wellbore temperature. Therefore, the latent heat of fusion has a greater influence on wellbore
temperature at early time.

Figure 11—Melting rate of ice.

Influence of permafrost thermal parameters change on temperature field

To study the influence of the permafrost thermal parameterschange on temperature of wellbore and
formation,numerical experiments are performed using the new model in this paper and the model ignoring
the permafrost thermal parameters change (ITPC model). The comparison results are shown in Fig 12 and
13.

Figure 12—Comparison results of permafrost temperature after 14 daysbetween new model and ITPC model / °C. The
black line is calculated temperature using the new model, and the red line is calculated temperature using the ITPC model.
SPE-186937-MS 13

The thermal parameters between water and ice is significantly different as shown in Table 1. Thus,
the thaw of permafrost can leads to lower thermal conductivity and higher specific heat. Lower thermal
conductivity and higher specific heat can hinder the heat from transferring to the distant region, and the
heat is trapped in the region close to wellbore. As a result, the calculated formation temperature using the
new model is higher than that of the ITPC model in the region close to wellbore. While, the reverse is true
in the distant region as shown in Fig 12.
The wellbore is also warmed up due to the higher temperature in region close to wellbore. Therefore, the
calculatedannulus temperature using the new model is higher than that of the ITPC model, as shown in Fig
13. The temperature difference between the two models reaches 1.009°C at wellhead.

Figure 13—Comparison results of wellbore temperature after 7 hours between new model and ITPC model.

Influence of water migration on temperature field

To study the influence of the water migration on temperature of wellbore and formation, the rate of water
migration is calculated using the new model in this paper. The calculated results are shown in Fig 14.

Figure 14—Rate of water migration in permafrost / m3/s. The positive rate of water migration indicates water
migrates into the position, the negative rate of water migration means water migrates out of the position

Higher temperature leads to higher Soil Water Potential, and water migrates to the regions with lower
Soil Water Potential. Therefore, the water migrates from the region close to wellbore to the distant region, as
14 SPE-186937-MS

shown in Fig 14. In addition, the temperature gradient decreases with time. Also, the rate of water migration
decreases with time. According to Fig 14, the highest rate of water migration is only 4.72×10-5m3/s. Thus
the heat transferred with the water migration is negligible. According to the research by Taylor and Luthin,
the heat transferred with the water migration is 0.001-0.01 of the heat caused by heat conduction, which is
in accordance with the conclusion in this paper.

Comparison between the permafrost and non-permafrost region

Drilling in non-permafrost region doesn't have to consider the latent heat of fusion, water migration and
the change of thermal parameter, which can be simulated by the traditional model. To study the difference
betweenthe permafrost and non-permafrost region, numerical experiments are performed using the new
model and the traditional model, and the results are shown in Table 2, Fig 15 and 16.

Figure 15—Temperature difference at wellhead between the new model and traditional model.

Table 2—Comparison resultsof wellbore temperature at wellhead using different models / °C.

ILHF model ITPC model Traditional model

Time New model
value difference value difference value difference

2 hours 16.82877 17.70121 0.872442 16.7859 −0.04287 17.5396 0.7108

3 hours 17.99488 19.46711 1.472229 17.96341 −0.03147 19.2770 1.2821

4 hours 18.60017 20.57255 1.972372 18.57542 −0.02475 20.3442 1.7440

5 hours 18.91145 21.13894 2.227484 18.85806 −0.05339 20.8757 1.9642

6 hours 19.97215 21.40368 1.43153 19.32836 −0.64379 21.1128 1.1407

7 hours 20.98093 21.51827 0.537338 19.97179 −1.00914 21.2097 0.2288

8 hours 21.32418 21.5542 0.230019 20.47557 −0.84861 21.2349 −0.0892

9 hours 21.40948 21.55214 0.142658 20.71975 −0.68973 21.22452 −0.1849

10 hours 21.41321 21.52352 0.110315 20.82636 −0.58685 21.1934 −0.21974

12 hours 21.34498 21.44423 0.099255 20.86751 −0.47747 21.1140 −0.2309

24 hours 20.93046 21.00877 0.078308 20.54276 −0.3877 20.7004 −0.2300

48 hours 20.66372 20.72517 0.061457 20.32948 −0.33424 20.4418 −0.2218

7 days 20.41409 20.45915 0.04506 20.15711 −0.25698 20.2258 −0.2182

14 days 20.45594 20.48922 0.03328 20.20985 −0.24609 20.2685 −0.2074

28 days 20.44788 20.47388 0.026 20.219 −0.22888 20.2734 −0.1944

SPE-186937-MS 15

According to Table 2, the maximum temperature difference caused by the latent heat of fusion reaches
2.23 °C. While the maximum temperature difference caused by the change of permafrost thermal parameters
reaches 0.68 °C. Thus, the latent heat of fusion has a more obvious effect on wellbore temperature than
the change of permafrost thermal parameters. As a matter of fact, the differencecaused by the latent heat
of fusion is obvious at the early time, but becomes greatly diminished at the late period. Accordingly, the
wellbore temperature is mainly effected by the latent heat of fusion at early stage, and by the change of
permafrost thermal parameters at the late period. As a result, compared to the non-permafrost region the
wellbore temperature in permafrost region is lower at the early time and higher at the late period as displayed
in Fig 15.

Figure 16—Formation temperature difference between the new model and traditional model. The black line is
calculated temperature using the new model, and the red line is calculated temperature using the traditional model.

According to the conclusions above, both latent heat of fusion and the change of permafrost thermal
parameters can hinder the heat from transferring to the distant region. As a result, compared to the non-
permafrost region the formation temperature in permafrost region is lower as displayed in Fig 16. Also, the
difference increases with time.

Analysis on temperature field after shut-in in Arctic permafrost region

The drilling mud stops circulating after shut-in, and the characteristics of temperature field is much different
from that during drilling process. In order to figure out the characteristics of temperature field after shut-
in, simulations are made using the new model eatablished in this paper. The input data of the simulation
well is shown in Table 1 and Fig 8.
Once the well is shut in, the drilling mud stops circulating in wellbore and losses heat to the permafrost in
the shallow part of formation. Consequently, the temperature of drilling mud in the shaollow part descreases
with time after shut-in. On the contrary, the drilling mud absorbs heat from the unfrozen formation in the
deep part of formation. Consequently, the temperature of drilling mud in the deep part increases with time
after shut-in. In conclusion, the temperature of drilling mud gradually changes from circulation temperature
to the formation temperature after shut-in as shown in Fig 17. Besides the temperature of drilling mud in the
shaollow part can drop to be negative as a result of heat loss to permafrost, and the drilling fluid in wellbore
could be frozen and block the wellbore consequently. As shown in Fig 17, the temperature at wellhead
becomes negative after 10 hours. In conclusion, long time shut-in should be avoided during drilling in arctic
permafrost region.
16 SPE-186937-MS

Figure 17—Annulus temperatue change with time after shut-in

Conclusions
To estimate wellbore temperature and the permafrost thaw zone accurately, a coupled thermal model of
wellbore and formation in arctic permafrost regions is established in this paper. The latent heat of fusion,
water migration and the change of thermal parameter during permafrost thaw are considered in the new
model. On the basis of the new model, a simulation well is analyzed and sensitivity study is made through
a series of numerical experiments.
1. Heat transfer from wellbore is partly consumed by the latent heat of fusion during permafrost thaw,
which hinders the heat from transferring to the distant region. Accordingly, the latent heat of fusion
can lead to lower temperature of formation and wellbore.
2. Thaw of permafrost leads to lower thermal conductivity and higher specific heat, which can also
hinder the heat from transferring to the distant region, and trap the heat in the region close to wellbore.
Accordingly, change of permafrost thermal properties can lead to higher temperature in wellbore.
3. According to the simulation results, the highest rate of water migration is only 4.72×10-5m3/s.
Consequently, the heat transferred with the water migration is negligible.
4. Compared to the non-permafrost region, the wellbore temperature is lower under the effect of the
latent heat of fusion at the early time. While, the wellbore temperature is higher under the effect of
the permafrost thermal parameters change at the late period. In addition, the formation temperature
becomes lower compared to that of non-permafrost region.
5. Temperature of drilling mud can drop to be negative as a result of heat loss to permafrost, and the
drilling fluid in wellbore could be frozen and block the wellbore consequently. Long time shut-in
should be avoided during drilling in arctic permafrost region.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support from the National Key Basic Research Program of China
(973 Program, 2015CB251200), Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University
(IRT_14R58), National Natural Science Foundation--Outstanding Youth Foundation (51622405), National
Key Research and Development Plan (2016YFC0303408),National Key Research and Development Plan
(2016YFC0303303).
SPE-186937-MS 17

Nomenclature
Aa -cross-sectional area of annulus, m2
Ap -cross-sectional area of drill pipe, m2
Ce -specific heat capacity of permafrost, J(kg·°C)
Cf -specific heat of drilling fluid, J(kg·°C)
Cl -specific heat of water, J(kg·°C)
Cs -specific heat of ice, J(kg·°C)
Csoil -specific heat of soil skeleton, J(kg·°C)
hp -convection heat transfer coefficient between drilling fluid in the drill pipe and the drill
pipe wall, w/(m2·°C)
hap -convection heat transfer coefficient between drilling fluid in the annulus and the drill
pipe wall, w/(m2·°C)
hac -convection heat transfer coefficient between drilling fluid in the annulus and the casing
wall, w/(m2·°C)
i-1,i -space node in the vertical direction
j-1,j,j+1 -space node in the horizontal direction
K -hydraulic conductivity of permafrost, w/(m·°C)
kc -heat conductivity of casing, w/(m·°C)
kcem -heat conductivity of cement, w/(m·°C)
ke -heat conductivity of permafrost, w/(m·°C)
ks -heat conductivity of ice, w/(m·°C)
kl -heat conductivity of water, w/(m·°C)
ksoil -heat conductivity of permafrost, w/(m·°C)
kp -heat conductivity of drill pipe wall, w/(m·°C)
L -latent heat of fusion, J/kg
M -last node in the horizontal direction
n,n-1 -time node
N -node at the position at the bottom of the well
rci -inner diameter of casing, m
rco -outside diameter of casing, m
rpi -internal diameter of drill pipe, m
rpo -external diameter of drill pipe, m
rw -diameter of wellbore, m
t -time, s
T -permafrost temperature, °C
Ta -annulus temperature, °C
Ta,i -annulus temperature of space node i, °C
Ta,N -annulus temperature of the node at well-bottom, °C
Te,0 -temperature on the border between the wellbore and the permafrost, °C
Te,i -initial temperature of permafrost at nodein the vertical direction, °C
Ti,0 -temperature on the border between wellbore and permafrost, °C
Ti,j -permafrost temperature at node in the vertical direction andin the horizontal direction, °C
Ti,M -permafrost temperature at node in the vertical direction and the last node in the
horizontal direction, °C
Tin -injection temperature of drill fluid, °C
Tp -drill pipe temperature, °C
18 SPE-186937-MS

Tp,0- drill pipe temperature of the node at well-head, °C

Tp,i- drill pipe temperature of space node, °C
Tp,N - drill pipe temperature of the node at well-bottom, °C
Ua -overall heat transfer coefficient from the annulus to the permafrost, w(m2· °C
Up -overall heat transfer coefficient from the drill pipe to the annulus, w(m2· °C
va-velocity of drilling fluid in the annulus, m/s
vp-velocity of drilling fluid in the drill pipe, m/s
w-mass flow of drilling fluid, kg/s
x
-distance from the wellbore, m
z
-distance from the wellhead, m
ρ
-density of drilling fluid, kg/m3
ρe-density of permafrost, kg/m3
ρs-density of ice, kg/m3
ρl
-density of water, kg/m3
ρsoil-density of soil skeleton, kg/m3
φs-ice content per unit volume, m3/m3
φl-water content per unit volume, m3/m3
φ0 -initial water content, m3/m3
φl,i-initial water content at node in the vertical direction, m3/m3
φl,i,m
-water content at node in the vertical direction and the last node in the horizontal
direction, m3/m3
ѱ -soil water potential, m

References
Andrey Loktev, Vladimir Bondarev, Sergey Kulikov and Sergey Rokos. Russian arctic offshore permafrost. Offshore Site
Investigation and Geotechnics: Integrated Technologies - Present and Future, London, UK. 2012, 12-14 September.
Donald L. Gautier, et al. Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Arctic. Science. May 29, 2009, Volume 324,
page 1175–1179.
Jed M. Hamilton. The Challenges of Deep-Water Arctic Development. International Journal of Offshore and Polar
Engineering. 2011 (21):241–247.
Harlan, R.L., Analysis of coupled heat-fluid transport in partially frozen soil, journal Water Resources Research, 1973
19(5):1314–1323.
G. R. Harrison. Exploratory drilling: the polar challenge. 10th World Petroleum Congress, Bucharest, Romania. 1979,
9-14 September.
Wang Xuerui, Wang Zhiyuan, Deng Xuejing, Sun Baojiang, Zhao Yang, and Fu Weiqi. Coupled thermal model of wellbore
and permafrost in arctic regions. Applied Thermal Engineering, (2017).
WANG Zhiyuan, SUN Baojiang, WANG Xuerui etc. Prediction of natural gas hydrate formation region in wellbore during
deepwater gas well testing. Journal of Hydrodynamic. 2014,26(4):568–576.
YIH-WU JAME. Heat and Mass Transfer in a Freezing Unsaturated Porous Medium. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH.
1980,16(4):811–819.