SPE 146951

Impact of Reservoir Permeability on Flowing Sandface Temperatures;

Dimensionless Analysis
J.F. App, SPE, K. Yoshioka, SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Company

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, 30 October–2 November 2011.

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
Layer flow contributions are increasingly being quantified through the analysis of measured sandface flowing temperatures.
It is commonly known that the maximum temperature change is affected by the magnitude of the drawdown and the Joule-
Thomson expansion coefficient of the fluid. Another parameter which strongly impacts layer sandface flowing temperatures
is the layer permeability. Aside from determining the drawdown, the layer permeability also affects the ratio of heat transfer
by convection to conduction within a reservoir. The impact of permeability can be represented by the Peclet number, which
is a dimensionless quantity representing the ratio of heat transfer by convection to conduction. The Peclet number is directly
proportional to reservoir permeability. Through dimensionless analysis it will be shown that for a given drawdown (based on
a dimensionless Joule-Thomson expansion coefficient, JTD) the temperature change diminishes at low Peclet numbers and
increases at high Peclet numbers. This implies that for low permeability reservoirs such as shale gas or tight oil, the
temperature changes will be minimal (less than 0.1 ºF) despite the large drawdowns in many instances. Dimensionless
analysis is performed for both steady-state and transient thermal models. Results from multi-layer, transient simulations
illustrate the ability to identify contrasting permeability layers based upon the Peclet number effect.

Introduction
Layer flow contributions and reservoir permeability are increasingly being assessed through the analysis of flowing bottom-
hole temperatures. This is partly due to the improvement in both resolution and accuracy of downhole temperature
measurement and the recognition that flowing temperatures contain information regarding the reservoir permeability and
possibly skin. Initial work centered on determining either gas or water breakthrough from the relative magnitude of the
observed layer flowing bottom-hole temperatures from either vertical or horizontal producers (Pinzon et al., Yoshioka, 2007).
Subsequently, several investigators have attempted to regress upon layer permeability and flow rates using coupled reservoir
and wellbore models (Li and Zhu, 2010; Duru and Horne, 2010; Lorentzen et al., 2010; Ramazanov et al., 2010).

It has been firmly established that one of the principle causes for changes in wellbore/sandface temperatures is Joule-
Thomson expansion of the reservoir fluids. Baker and Price (1990) documented an observed temperature increase of nearly
15ºF for a drawdown of 7,000 psi during a high pressure gas drill stem test in the North Sea. They attributed the observed
temperature increase to Joule-Thomson expansion of the produced gas. App (2009) presented both oil and gas field
examples illustrating significant temperature changes under high drawdown conditions.

Reservoir permeability also has a significant impact upon the magnitude of the flowing sandface temperatures. The
impact of reservoir permeability upon sandface temperatures can be as significant as the impact of the Joule-Thomson
expansion effect. In fact, for the case of high drawdown shale gas or tight gas producers, the impact of permeability is more
significant than the Joule-Thomson effect. In addition to dictating drawdown, the permeability impacts the flowing
temperatures by determining the ratio of heat transfer by convection to conduction within the reservoir. This ratio is known
as the Peclet number. For low permeability reservoirs or layers, the Peclet number is small and heat transfer by conduction
dominates over convection. As reservoir permeability increases, the Peclet number also increases as the magnitude of the
heat transfer by convection term increases relative to that by conduction.

This study presents a dimensionless analysis illustrating the dependency of the flowing bottom-hole temperatures on both
the Peclet number and a dimensionless Joule-Thomson expansion coefficient (JTD). It will be shown that the reservoir
permeability is proportional to the Peclet number. The fundamental dependency of flowing temperatures on the Peclet
2 SPE 146951

number and the dimensionless Joule-Thomson expansion coefficient will first be presented through a steady-state
development and then examined under transient conditions. Identification of contrasting permeability layers will be
demonstrated through multi-layer transient simulations.

Steady-State Thermal Model

Mathematical Model. The steady-state energy equation was developed from the conservation of mass, conservation of
energy, and Darcy’s law. Single phase flow with no irreducible saturation was considered for this simplified problem. Eq. 1
represents the radial, steady-state thermal model used in this paper (refer to Appendix A for derivation):

dT μ λ d ⎛ dT ⎞
ρc p u − ρσ u 2 − ⎜r ⎟=0 (1)
dr k r dr ⎝ dr ⎠

Defining dimensionless variables as rD = r rw , TD = (T − Ti ) Ti , and reD = re rw , Eq. 1 can be rearranged to yield:

dTD uσμrw λ d ⎛ dTD ⎞

− − ⎜ rD ⎟=0 (2)
drD c p kTi ρc p ur drD ⎜⎝ drD ⎟⎠

Integration of Darcy’s law given pressure conditions of pe at r = re and pw at r = rw yields:

μur ⎛r ⎞
p e − p w = Δp = − ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ (3)
k ⎝ rw ⎠

which upon rearrangement provides an expression for the local velocity dependent upon the total pressure drop between the
reservoir outer boundary and the wellbore,

kΔp
u=− . (4)
μr ln reD

Replacing the local velocities in Eq. 2 with Eq. 4 provides the following equation:

dTD σΔp 1 λ d ⎛ dTD ⎞

+ − ⎜ rD ⎟=0. (5)
drD c pTi ln reD rD ρc p ur drD ⎜⎝ drD ⎟⎠

Two additional dimensionless parameters are introduced to arrive at the final dimensionless form of the steady-state thermal
equation. The first parameter is the dimensionless Joule-Thomson coefficient, JTD, defined as:

σΔp
JTD = (6)
c p Ti

where the throttling coefficient, σ, is related to the Joule-Thomson coefficient, µJT , by the relationship:

σ = −c p μ JT . (7)

The second dimensionless parameter is the Peclet number, Pe, defined as

ur
Pe = − . (8)
α
where u represents the local velocity, r is the characteristic length, and α is the thermal diffusivity, α=λ/ρcp. In the context of
heat transfer, the Peclet number represents the ratio of heat transfer by convection to heat transfer by conduction. Using
SPE 146951 3

Darcy’s Law to represent the velocity term in Eq. 8, the Peclet number can be shown to be directly proportional to the
permeability, k

ur r Δp k
Pe = − = . (9)
α α Δr μ
Substituting the definitions for the dimensionless Joule-Thomson coefficient, JTD, and the Peclet number into Eq. 5 yields
the following dimensionless form of the steady-state thermal energy equation,

dTD 1 JTD 1 d ⎛ dTD ⎞

+ + ⎜ rD ⎟=0. (10)
drD rD ln reD Pe drD ⎜⎝ drD ⎟⎠

The general solution to Eq. 10 is

C1 -Pe JTD
TD (rD ) = − rD − ln rD + C2 . (11)
Pe ln reD

The two boundary conditions to evaluate the constants C1 and C2 in Eq. 10 are: 1) the initial temperature at the reservoir
outer boundary, ( rD = reD , TD = 0 ) and 2) an insulated condition at the wellbore. The inner boundary condition is given by,

∂TD
= 0. (12)
∂rD rD =1

Applying the boundary conditions to Eq. 11 results in

TD (rD ) =
JTD
Pe ln reD
( )
⎛ ln rD ⎞
reD− Pe − rD + JTD ⎜⎜1 −
- Pe
⎟⎟ . (13)
⎝ ln reD ⎠

The wellbore solution, TwD = (Tw − Ti ) Ti @ rD = 1 , is given by

TwD =
JTD
Pe ln reD
(reD− Pe − 1) + JTD . (14)

A limit analysis of Eq. 14 shows that as the Pe → 0 , TwD approaches 0 and as the Pe → ∞ the maximum temperature
change is JTD. From a physical standpoint, the maximum temperature change occurs when convection is the dominant heat
transfer mechanism, and the minimum temperature change occurs when conduction dominates over convection. Appendix B
contains details of the limit analysis.

TwD vs Pe and JTD. The impact of the dimensionless parameters, Pe and JTD, upon the sandface temperatures was
evaluated through an examination of two cases: an oil reservoir in which the Joule-Thomson expansion results in a
temperature increase, and a gas reservoir in which the Joule-Thomson expansion results in a temperature decrease.

The location of the temperature measurements predicted by this model is at the completion sandface; for a gravel packed
completion this corresponds to a measurement point located between the screen and liner and production casing and for a
non-gravel packed completion the measurement point would be on the outside of the production casing. For gravel packed
completions, Pinzon et al. documented significant differences in the measured flowing temperatures depending upon whether
the temperatures were measured within the well flowing stream or at the sandface, i.e. between the screen and liner and the
production casing. Prediction of sandface temperatures requires only a reservoir model while prediction of temperatures
within the wellbore flowing stream requires a reservoir model coupled to a wellbore model.

The input parameters used to evaluate the dimensionless terms in Eq. 14 are listed in Table 1. For the oil case, the
throttling coefficient, σ, is positive indicating that a temperature increase will occur for a reduction in pressure. Conversely,
4 SPE 146951

for the gas example, the throttling coefficient is negative which will result in a temperature decrease for a reduction in
pressure. The JTD was modified in these examples by varying only the drawdown, ∆p (Eq. 6).

Table 1 – Input Parameters

Property Oil Gas
3
ρ, lbm/ft 51.19 17.73
cp, Btu/lbm-°F 0.53 0.53
µ, cp 1 0.036
λ, Btu/hr-ft-°F 1.93 1.93
h, ft 10 10
re, ft 5325 5325
rw, ft 0.35 0.35
Ti, °F 250 250
Pi, psia 10,000 7,000
σ, Btu/lbm-psi 3.13E-3 -2.15E-3

For the oil case, Fig. 1 illustrates the dependence of the dimensionless sandface temperature, Twd, on both the
permeability and the dimensionless Joule-Thomson expansion coefficient, JTD. Firstly, for constant permeability, the value
of the dimensionless sandface temperature, TwD, increases as the dimensionless Joule-Thomson coefficient (JTD) increases in
response to the higher drawdown. Of more interest is the dependency of TwD on permeability; given a constant value for JTD
the dimensionless sandface temperatures, TwD, increase with permeability. The dimensionless sandface temperatures start
increasing for permeabilities between 0.001-0.01 md and they reach a maximum value for permeabilities in excess of 10 md.
At the lower end of the permeability scale the temperature changes are very small even at high drawdown values.

A graph of TwD vs Peclet number should be similar to Fig. 1 given that the Pe number and permeability are proportional.
According to Eq. 9, the Pe number is proportional to the Darcy velocity, u, which is proportional to the permeability, k. The
dependence of the dimensionless wellbore temperature, TwD, upon the Peclet number and JTD is shown in Fig. 2. A clear
increase in TwD is observed with increasing Peclet number. This is due to the diminishing relative contribution of thermal
energy transfer by conduction compared to convection as the Peclet number increases. For large Peclet numbers the
convective term is more dominant, and conversely, as the permeability is reduced, the Darcy velocity decreases causing the
convective contribution to diminish relative to the conductive term. At low Peclet numbers, when conduction dominates over
convection, the conduction process will attempt to reduce the temperature gradients within the reservoir. The net effect of
this is that even under conditions of high drawdown in which Joule-Thomson expansion effects are considerable the
temperature change is infinitesimal.

0.16 290
∆p = 1000 psi, JTD=2.73E‐2
0.14 ∆p = 2000 psi, JTD=5.47E‐2 285
∆p = 3000 psi, JTD=8.2E‐2
0.12 280
∆p = 4000 psi, JTD=1.90E‐1
0.10 275
∆p = 5000 psi, JTD=1.37E‐1
Tw, °F
Twd

0.08 270

0.06 265

0.04 260

0.02 255

0.00 250
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Permeability, md

Fig. 1 – Oil Case, dimensionless sandface temperature, TwD, as a function of permeability and JTD.
SPE 146951 5

0.16 290
∆p = 1000 psi, JTD=2.73E‐2
0.14 285
∆p = 2000 psi, JTD=5.47E‐2
0.12 ∆p = 3000 psi, JTD=8.2E‐2 280
∆p = 4000 psi, JTD=1.90E‐1
0.10 275
∆p = 5000 psi, JTD=1.37E‐1

Tw, °F
Twd

0.08 270

0.06 265

0.04 260

0.02 255

0.00 250
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Peclet Number

Fig. 2 – Oil Case, dimensionless sandface temperature, TwD, as a function of Pe and JTD.

For the gas case, the dependence of the wellbore temperature, TwD, upon both the permeability and JTD is shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 is identical to Fig. 1 in characteristic shape except direction of the temperature change. A cooling effect will occur for
gas case based on the negative throttling coefficient. Fig. 4 illustrates the dependence of TwD on the Peclet number and JTD.

A key observation from Figs. 1 & 3 is that it is physically possible to have a high drawdown completion (∆p = 5000 psi)
in which the temperature change is infinitesimal. These occur at low Peclet numbers representing low permeability
reservoirs. In these circumstances the thermal energy from Joule-Thomson expansion can be significant, but the temperature
gradients are diminished by conduction acting in the presence of an insignificant convective term. Of particular interest is the
low permeability range for the gas case shown in Fig. 3. At permeabilities less than 1E-3 md, characteristic of a typical shale
gas reservoir, the sandface temperature change is insignificant even at the drawdown of 5000 psi.

0.00 250.0

‐0.01 247.5

‐0.02 245.0

‐0.03 242.5

‐0.04 240.0
Tw, °F

‐0.05 237.5
TwD

‐0.06 235.0
∆p = 1000 psi, JTD=‐1.51E‐2
‐0.07 232.5
∆p = 2000 psi, JTD=‐3.03E‐2
‐0.08 ∆p = 3000 psi, JTD=‐4.54E‐2 230.0

‐0.09 ∆p = 4000 psi, JTD=‐6.05E‐2 227.5

∆p = 5000 psi, JTD=‐7.56E‐2
‐0.10 225.0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Permeability, md

Fig. 3 – Gas Case, dimensionless sandface temperature, Twd, as a function of permeability and JTD.
6 SPE 146951

0.00 250.0

‐0.01 247.5

‐0.02 245.0

‐0.03 242.5

‐0.04 240.0

Tw, °F
‐0.05 ∆p = 1000 psi, JTD=‐1.51E‐2 237.5
TwD

‐0.06 ∆p = 2000 psi, JTD=‐3.03E‐2 235.0

‐0.07 232.5
∆p = 3000 psi, JTD=‐4.54E‐2
‐0.08 230.0
∆p = 4000 psi, JTD=‐6.05E‐2
‐0.09 227.5
∆p = 5000 psi, JTD=‐7.56E‐2
‐0.10 225.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Peclet Number
Fig. 4 – Gas Case, dimensionless sandface temperature, Twd, as a function of Peclet number and JTD.

Transient Thermal Model

The dependency of the sandface temperatures upon the permeability and Peclet number under transient behavior is evaluated
in this section. Both single layer and multilayer simulations will be presented.

Mathematical Model. The transient temperature response is evaluated through the simultaneous solution of the pressure and
energy equations. A dimensionless formulation is used to introduce the Peclet number into the energy equation. Details of
the conversion to dimensionless form are included in Appendix A. Eq. 15 represents the 2D transient pressure equation and
Eq. 16 represents the 2D transient energy equation used in this study. The z-direction component was eliminated for the 1D
model. Only single phase flow of oil was considered with no irreducible water saturation. Heat conduction to the over and
underburden was not considered.

A Peclet number with respect to flow in both the radial and vertical directions appears in the dimensionless energy
equation. The Peclet number based on flow in the radial direction is the principal interest in this study. The dimensionless
Joule-Thomson expansion coefficient, JTD, also appears in the energy equation.

∂p D ∂T 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂p ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ⎛ ∂p D ⎞⎞
PP + PT D − ⎜⎜ rD k rD D ⎟⎟ + ⎜ k zD ⎜ + g ⎟⎟ ⎟ = 0 (15)
∂rD ⎠ ∂z D ⎜⎝ ⎜⎝ ∂z D ⎟
D
∂t D ∂t D rD ∂rD ⎝ ⎠⎠
2
∂T ∂p ∂p ∂T ⎛ ∂p ⎞ ∂p ∂T ∂p ⎛ ∂p D ⎞
ET D − EP D = − k rD D D + JTD k rD ⎜⎜ D ⎟⎟ − k zD D D + JTD k zD D ⎜⎜ + g D ⎟⎟
∂t D ∂t D ∂rD ∂rD ⎝ ∂rD ⎠ ∂z D ∂z D ∂z D ⎝ ∂z D ⎠ (16)
k ∂p D ∂ ⎛ ∂TD ⎞ k zD ∂p D ∂ 2TD
+ rD ⎜ rD ⎟+
Per ∂rD ∂rD ⎜⎝ ∂rD ⎟⎠ Pe z ∂z D ∂z D2

Single Layer Simulations. Single layer simulations were initially performed to evaluate the dependency of the sandface
temperature upon reservoir permeability and the Peclet number under transient conditions. The well constraint is a constant
bottom-hole pressure which is 4000 psia less than the initial reservoir pressure at the outer boundary. Input parameters to the
model are listed in Table 2. Oil viscosity and density were held constant. As for the steady-state model, the location of the
temperature measurements predicted by this model is at the completion sandface. This 1D model contains 15 radial grids
logarithmically spaced. The Peclet number at the sandface is evaluated as
SPE 146951 7

ur qo ρ o c po
Pe = − = , (17)
α 2πhλ
where qo represents the rate at the wellbore.

Fig. 5 shows the sandface temperatures plotted against Peclet number for permeabilities ranging from 0.001 to 1000 md. The
simulations were carried out in time until steady-state behavior in pressure was achieved at which point the change in
sandface temperature was negligible. For each permeability, the temperature trace with time moves from right to left.
Initially, a reduction in temperature below the initial temperature of 250 °F is observed followed by a steady rise in
temperature. The cooling effect is due to the transient pressure behavior and is of very short duration (App, 2009). The
cooling region corresponds to the leading edge of the pressure transient; for this reason the cooling region is more
pronounced in the lower permeability simulations due to the lower diffusion rate of the pressure transient.

In contrast to the steady-state results, the transient results in Fig. 5 indicate a range of sandface temperatures and Peclet
numbers for each of the permeabilities considered. This is due to the temperature and pressure time dependent terms
included in the transient model. Similar to the steady-state results the maximum sandface temperature achieved increases
with the permeability and Peclet number. Again, permeability is the only varying parameter in these simulations as an
unvarying Joule-Thomson expansion effect at the wellbore was modeled through the constant bottom-hole pressure
constraint. Evident from Fig. 5 is that as the permeability increases the sandface temperatures span a larger range. For the
lowest permeability of 0.001 md the maximum sandface temperature achieved is slightly less than the initial temperature with
the Peclet number range between 0.003 and 0.01. This is in contrast to the maximum permeability of 1000 md (Peclet
number of 1000-3000) in which the maximum temperature at the end of the simulation time is 25 °F greater than the initial
temperature of 250 °F. The Peclet number for the 1000 md permeability case is approximately 2000, which is consistent with
the proportional relationship between the Peclet number and permeability.

0.12 280
k = 0.001 md
0.1 275
k = 0.01 md

0.08 k = 0.1 md 270

k = 1 md
0.06 265
k = 10 md

Tw, °F
TwD

0.04 k = 100 md 260

k = 1000 md
0.02 255

0 250

‐0.02 245
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Peclet Number

Fig. 5 – Single layer, transient simulation, oil, ∆p = 4,000 psi; TwD as a function of Peclet Number and permeability.

Figs. 6 and 7 represent steady-state and transient results comparing the sandface temperatures vs permeability and Peclet
number. The temperatures selected from the transient simulations are the maximum temperatures which occurred when the
steady-state pressure behavior was achieved. Figs. 6 and 7 represent drawdown scenarios of 4000 psi and 1000 psi,
respectively. Clear from Figs. 6 and 7 is that close agreement is observed between the steady-state and transient simulations.
Compared against the steady-state results, the transient simulations honor the characteristic shape of the sandface temperature
with Peclet number; however, the magnitude of the sandface temperatures is lower than for the steady-state results. This is
due to the fact that the transient simulations never reach steady-state with regard to temperature; hence the maximum
temperatures within the permeability/Peclet dependent region are less than those predicted from the steady-state simulations.
8 SPE 146951

0.12 280
Steady‐State
0.1 k = 0.001 275
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
0.08 270
k = 0.4
k = 1
0.06 265

Tw, °F
k = 10
Twd

k = 100 
0.04 260
k = 1,000
k = 10,000
0.02 255

0 250

‐0.02 245
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Peclet Number
Fig. 6 – Single layer, transient simulation, ∆p = 4000 psi; Twd as a function of Peclet Number and permeability.

0.030 257.50
Steady‐State
k = 0.001
0.025 256.25
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
0.020 k = 0.4 255.00
k = 1
0.015 k = 10 253.75

Tw, °F
k = 100 
Twd

k = 1,000
0.010 252.50
k = 10,000

0.005 251.25

0.000 250.00

‐0.005 248.75
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Peclet Number
Fig. 7 –Single layer, transient simulation, ∆p = 1000 psi; Twd as a function of Peclet Number and permeability.

Table 2 – Single Layer Transient Simulation Input Parameters

Property Property
ρ, lbm/ft3 51.20 cr, psi-1 5E-6
cp, Btu/lbm-°F 0.53 cpr, Btu/lbm-°F 0.23
µ, cp 1 βo, 1/°F 0
λ, Btu/hr-ft-°F 1.93 βr, 1/°F 0
h, ft 10 Ti, °F 250
re, ft 5325 Pi, psia 10,000
rw, ft 0.35 σ, Btu/lbm-psi 3.13E-3

Multi-Layer Simulations. The impact of permeability on layer sandface temperatures in a multilayer reservoir was
investigated through multi-layer, transient simulations. Both homogenous and heterogeneous models are used to illustrate
SPE 146951 9

the influence of varying layer permeability upon the sandface flowing temperatures. The synthetic example contains 10
layers with the permeability distributions for the homogeneous and heterogeneous models listed in Table 3. The kv/kh ratio
for both cases was 0.1. The total thickness of the reservoir is 100 ft. with each layer having a thickness of 10 ft. The input
parameters for the model are the same as the single layer simulation properties listed in Table 2. The well constraint is a
constant bottom-hole pressure which is 4000 psia less than the initial reservoir pressure at the outer boundary. Oil viscosity
and density were held constant.

Table 3 – Multilayer, Transient Layer Permeabilities

Layer Homogenous Model Heterogeneous Model
Permeability, md Permeability, md
1 10 1
2 10 0.05
3 10 4
4 10 50
5 10 0.001
6 10 7
7 10 0.1
8 10 20
9 10 2
10 10 16

Fig. 8 compares the sandface flowing temperatures between the homogeneous and heterogeneous models after 24 hours
of production. The layer permeability values for the heterogeneous case are listed on the right side of Fig. 8. For the
homogenous case the temperature change above the geothermal in each layer is identical. For the heterogeneous case the
layer temperature profile is quite different. The higher sandface temperatures are related to the higher permeability layers,
and conversely, the lower sandface temperatures are associated with the lower permeability layers. From a qualitative sense,
the magnitude of the layer temperatures can be used to assess the relative magnitude of the layer permeabilities. Therefore,
In other words, the temperature response in the heterogeneous system can be used to identify either low permeability or high
permeability layers.

Fig. 9 shows the change in layer temperature with time for the heterogeneous case illustrated in Fig. 8. The largest
increases in temperature occur for the highest permeability layers while the temperature increase is much less for the lower
permeability layers. These results also support the representation shown in Fig. 5; the temperature changes become larger as
the permeability increases. Fig. 10 represents the layer temperatures vs Peclet number for each of the 10 layers in the
heterogeneous model as a function of time. Given the proportional relationship between Peclet number and permeability, the
layers are ordered by Peclet number. The steady-state response is shown for reference. Evident from Fig. 10 is that the
temperature changes become larger with increasing Peclet number.

Fig. 11 highlights the lack of temperature change for a low permeability oil reservoir. The model consists of the same
properties shown in Table 2, a total of 10 layers with each layer having a thickness of 10 ft. The permeability of each layer is
0.001 md. The well constraint was a constant bottom-hole pressure of 6,000 psia. Layer sandface temperatures after 24
hours and 10,000 days are shown. No temperature change is evident after 10,000 days of production time. This is consistent
with the result that at low Peclet numbers (low permeability) that the sandface temperature changes are negligible regardless
of the magnitude of the drawdown.
10 SPE 146951

Temperature, °F
247.5 250 252.5 255 257.5 260 262.5 265
0
1 md
Geothermal
0.1 Homogeneous
0.05 md
Heterogeneos
0.2
4 md

ZD, dimensionless  depth

0.3
50 md

0.4
.001 md

0.5 7 md

0.6
0.1 md

0.7
20 md
0.8
2 md

0.9
16 md

1
‐0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
TwD
Fig. 8 – Heterogeneous vs homogeneous models: sandface temperature comparison by layer.

Sandface Temperature, °F
247.5 250 252.5 255 257.5 260 262.5 265 267.5
0
1 md
0.1
0.05 md
0.2
4 md
ZD, dimensionless  depth

0.3
50 md
0.4
.001 md
0.5
7 md
0.6
0.1 md
0.7 Geothermal 20 md
1 day
0.8
5 days 2 md
10 days
0.9 16 md
50 days
100 days
1
‐0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
TwD

Fig. 9 – Heterogeneous model: layer sandface temperature changes with time

SPE 146951 11

0.12
Steady‐State
0.1
1 day

0.08 10 days

100 days
0.06 1000 days
Twd

0.04

0.02

‐0.02
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Peclet Number
Fig. 10 – Heterogeneous Model, sandface temperatures vs Peclet number.

Temperature, °F
250 250.5 251 251.5 252
0

0.1 Geothermal
1 day
0.2 10,000 days
ZD, dimensionless  depth

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
TwD

Fig. 11 – Low permeability oil, homogeneous model, sandface layer temperatures with time.

Conclusions
This study evaluated the impact of reservoir permeability on sandface temperatures. Significant conclusions from this study
are as follows:

1. Reservoir permeability significantly impacts the magnitude of sandface temperature changes by affecting the ratio
of heat transfer by convection to conduction within the reservoir. These temperature changes can be related
through the Peclet number, which is a dimensionless number representing the ratio of heat transfer by convection to
conduction.
12 SPE 146951

2. At low permeability, representing a low Peclet number condition, the sandface temperature change will be small.
This is true even under conditions of high drawdown. Conversely, as the permeability increases (higher Peclet
number) the sandface temperature changes become larger.
3. Layers of contrasting permeability can be identified by the magnitude of the temperature change; small temperature
changes represent low permeability layers whereas large temperature changes represent layers of higher
permeability.

Nomenclature
c = isothermal compressibility, psi-1
cp = specific heat capacity, Btu/lbm-ºF
h = reservoir thickness, ft
k = effective permeability, md
p = pressure, psia
pe = reservoir outer pressure, psia
pw = wellbore pressure, psia
q = flow rate, bbl/day
r = radius, ft
re = reservoir outer radius, ft
rw = wellbore radius, ft
s = saturation, fraction
t = time, hr
u = velocity, ft/hr
B = formation volume factor, RB/STB
Ĥ = specific enthalpy, Btu/lbm
JTD = Joule-Thomson Expansion coefficient, dimensionless
Pe = Peclet number, dimensionless
T = temperature, ºF
α = thermal diffusivity, ft2/hr
λ = thermal conductivity, Btu/hr-ft-ºF
μ = viscosity, cp
ρ = density, lbm/ft3
σ = throttling coefficient, Btu/lbm-psi
φ = porosity, fraction
∆p = drawdown, psi
β = thermal expansion coefficient, ºF-1
Superscripts
º = reference conditions
Subscripts
f = formation
i = initial condition
m = phase
o = oil
r = r-direction
t = effective thermal conductivity
w = water
z = z-direction
D = dimensionless quantity
SI Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
Btu x 1.055 056 E+00 = kJ
cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa-s
ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
ºF (ºF-32)/1.8 = ºC
lbm x 4.535 924 E-01 = kg
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa

*Conversion factor is exact.

SPE 146951 13

References
App, J.F. 2009: Field Cases: Nonisothermal Behavior Due to Joule-Thomson and Transient Fluid Expansion/Compression Effects. SPE
124338 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 4-7 October.
Al-Hadhrami A.K., Elliott, L., and Ingham, D. B. 2003. A New Model for Viscous Dissipation in Porous Media Across a Range of
Permeability Values. Transport in Porous Media 53 (1): 117-122.
Baker, A.C. and Price, M. 1990. Modelling the Performance of High-Pressure Wells. SPE 20903 presented at Europec 90, The Hague, 22-
24 October.
Bird, R. B., Stewart, W. E., and Lightfoot, E. N. 1960. Transport Phenomena, 323. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Duru, O.O. and Horne, R.N. 2010: Modeling Reservoir Temperature Transients and Reservoir-Parameter Estimation Constrained to the
Model. SPEREE 13 (6): 873-883. SPE-115791-PA.
Li, Z. and Zhu, D. 2010: Predicting Flow Profile of Horizontal Well by Downhole Pressure and Distributed-Temperature Data for
Waterdrive Reservoir. SPEPO 25 (3): 296-304. SPE-124873-PA.
Lorentzen, R.J., Saevareid, O., and Naevdal, G. 2010: Soft Multiphase Flow Metering for Accurate Production Allocation. SPE 136026
presented at the 2010 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 26-28 October.
Nozad, I., Carbonell, R. G., and Whitaker, S. 1985. Heat Conduction in Multiphase Systems. I. Theory and Experiment for Two-Phase
Systems. Chem Eng. Sci. 40, 843-855.
Pinzon, I.D., Davies, J.E., Mammadkhan, F., Brown, G.A. 2007. Monitoring Production From Gravel-Packed Sand-Screen Completions
on BP’s Azeri Field Wells Using Permanently Installed Distributed Temperature Sensors. SPE 110064 presented at 2007 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, 11-14 November.
Prats, M. 1985. Thermal Recovery. Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas 7: 230
Ramazanov, A.Sh et al. 2010: Thermal Modeling for Characterization of Near Wellbore and Zonal Allocation. SPE 136256 presented at
the 2010 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, Russia, 26-28 October.
Yoshioka, K., Zhu, D., Hill, A. D., Dawkrajai, P., and Lake, L.W. 2007. Prediction of Temperature Changes Caused by Water or Gas Entry
Into a Horizontal Well. SPEPO 22 (4): 425-433. SPE-100209-PA.

Appendix A: Steady-State and Transient Equations

The development of the steady-state and transient thermal energy equations used in this study is described below. The
general equations represent flow of a single phase flowing through a porous medium. Capillary pressure is assumed to be
zero and no irreducible water saturation is considered.

Conservation of Mass. The conservation of mass describing flow through a porous medium expressed about component
m is,

∂(ρ mφs m )
+ ∇ • (ρu )m = 0. m = o or g (A-1)
∂t
Isothermal compressibility and thermal expansion coefficients for fluid phases are represented by Eqs. A-2 and A-3,
respectively;

1 ⎛ ∂Bm ⎞
cm = − ⎜ ⎟ , (A-2)
Bm ⎜⎝ ∂p ⎟⎠T

1 ⎛ ∂Bm ⎞
βm = ⎜ ⎟ , (A-3)
Bm ⎝ ∂T ⎠ p

where Bm represents the formation volume factor of phase m. Phase densities are pressure and temperature dependent
given by,
ρ m°
ρ m ( p, T ) = . (A-4)
Bm ( p, T )

The isothermal compressibility and thermal expansion coefficient for the rock are given by Eqs. A-5 and A-6,
respectively;

1 ⎛ ∂φ ⎞
cf = ⎜ ⎟ , (A-5)
φ ⎜⎝ ∂p ⎟⎠T
14 SPE 146951

1 ⎛ ∂φ ⎞
βf =− ⎜ ⎟ . (A-6)
φ ⎝ ∂T ⎠ p

Using Eqs. A-5 and A-6, porosity can be modeled as a function of pressure and temperature expressed as,

[
φ( p,T ) = φi 1 + c f ( p − pi ) − β f (T − Ti ) , ] (A-7)

where the subscript i represents initial conditions. Superficial velocity of phase m is represented by Darcy’s Law,

km
um = − ∇p . (A-8)
μm

Using Eq. A-1 and the relationships shown in Eqs. A-2 through A-8 results in the form of the pressure equation used in
this study:

⎡ c f + s m cm ⎤ ∂p ⎡ β f + s mβ m ⎤ ∂T ⎛ k ⎞
⎢ ⎥φ −⎢ ⎥φ − ∇ • ⎜⎜ ∇p ⎟⎟ = 0 . (A-9)
⎣ Bm ⎦ ∂t ⎣ Bm ⎦ ∂t ⎝ μ m Bm ⎠

The development of Eq. A-9 assumes an isotropic medium and ignores the impact of compaction on permeability. Phase
density is considered pressure and temperature dependent. Rock isothermal compressibility is constant; phase m isothermal
compressibility is pressure and temperature dependent given the high drawdowns considered in the study. The thermal
expansion coefficients for phase m and rock are constant. A source term is included in the equation written about the cells
connected to the wellbore for the transient model.

⎡ c f + (sc )m ⎤ ∂p ⎡ β f + (sβ )m ⎤ ∂T 1 ∂ ⎛ k r ∂p ⎞ ∂ ⎡ k z ⎛ ∂p ⎞⎤
⎢ ⎥φ − ⎢ ⎥φ − ⎜⎜ r ⎟⎟ + ⎢ ⎜ − ρ m g ⎟⎥ = 0 (A-10)
⎣ Bm ⎦ ∂t ⎣ Bm ⎦ ∂t r ∂r ⎝ μ m Bm ∂r ⎠ ∂z ⎣ μ m Bm ⎝ ∂z ⎠⎦

Conservation of Energy. An energy balance applied to single phase flow in a medium with 100% porosity and written in
terms of enthalpy, temperature and pressure, is given by (Bird et al. 1960);

(
∂ ρφsHˆ )
m
+
[
∂ ρ(1 − φ )Hˆ ]
r
(
+ ∇ • ρHˆ u ) [
= ∇ • (λ t ∇T ) + 2μ(∇u )2 ] +
Dp
. (A-11)
m m
∂t ∂t Dt
∧
where H is specific enthalpy, T is the local temperature, p is pressure, λ is the thermal conductivity, and u is the local
velocity. The velocity gradient squared term represents viscous dissipation and is approximated by − um ∇p (Al-Hadhrami
et al., 2003). The Dp/Dt term represents the substantial derivative of pressure which arises in the enthalpy formulation of the
energy equation.

The assumptions used in the development of the final thermal energy equation representing flow in a porous medium are as
follows:

• The porosity of the porous medium is a function of pressure and temperature.

• Rock isothermal compressibility is constant; phase m isothermal compressibility is pressure and temperature
dependent.
• Phase m densities are pressure and temperature dependent.
• Rock density is constant.
• Thermal expansion coefficients for phase m and rock are constant.
• A single temperature model, i.e. instantaneous thermal equilibrium is achieved between the phase m and rock
(Nozad, 1985).
• The thermal conductivity value, λt, represents the thermal conductivity of the saturated porous medium (Prats,
1985).
SPE 146951 15

Using relationships A-3 through A-7 and coupling with Eq. A-1, Eq. A-11 becomes:

∂Hˆ m ∂Hˆ f
φρ m s m
∂t
+ ρ f (1 − φ)
∂t
( ⎛ ∂p
) ∂T ⎞ ∂p
− ρ f Hˆ f + p ⎜ c f φ − β f φ ⎟ − φ = - ∇Hˆ m • (ρu )m + ∇ • (λ t ∇T )
∂t ∂t ⎠ ∂t
(A-12)
⎝

Enthalpy can be expressed explicitly in terms of pressure and temperature. For phase m this is given by,

dHˆ m = c pm dT + σ m dp, m = o,g . (A-13)

where cpm is the component specific heat capacity and σm is the component Joule-Thomson throttling coefficient. The
enthalpy for the rock is only temperature dependent;

dHˆ f = c pf dT . (A-14)

The absolute rock specific enthalpy term appearing is given by,

Hˆ f (r , T ) = c pf [T (r , T ) − Ti ] + Hˆ f (Ti ) (A-15)

Representing component specific enthalpies by Eqs. A-13 and A-14 in Eq. A-12, results in;

⎡ ⎛1− φ ⎞
⎢ρ m sm c pm + ⎜⎜
⎤ ∂T
⎟⎟ρ f c pf + ρ f Hˆ f β f + pβ f ⎥ φ (
+ ρ m sm σ m − ρ f Hˆ f c f − pc f − 1 φ
∂p
)
⎣ ⎝ φ ⎠ ⎦ ∂t ∂t (A-16)
( )
= −∇T • ρc p u m − ∇p • (ρσu )m + ∇ • (λ t ∇T ).

Representing the local velocities, u, in Eq. A-13 with Darcy’s Law (Eq. A-8) results in the 2D, transient thermal energy
balance (A source term is included in the equation written about the cells connected to the wellbore for the transient model);

⎡
(
⎢ ρsc p )m + ⎛⎜⎜ 1 −φ φ ⎞⎟⎟ ρ f c pf + (ρHˆ β ) f + pβ f ⎤⎥ φ ∂∂Tt + [( ρsσ )m − (ρHˆ c ) f − pc f − 1]φ ∂∂pt
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦ m=o, g
⎡ ∂T ∂T ⎤ ⎡ ∂p ⎛ ∂p ⎞⎤ 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞
= − ρ m c pm ⎢u +u ⎥ − ρ m σ m ⎢u + u ⎜ − ρg ⎟⎥ + ⎜ λt r ⎟ + ⎜ λt ⎟.
r
⎣ ∂r z ∂z ⎦ m r
⎣ ∂r z ⎝ ∂z ⎠ ⎦ m r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠ ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠

(A-17)

Steady-State Thermal Energy Balance. The steady-state, 1D radial thermal energy balance is obtained from Eq. A-17 by
eliminating the time derivatives and describing flow in only the radial direction:

dT dp λ d ⎛ dT ⎞
ρc p u + ρuσ − ⎜r ⎟ = 0. (A-18)
dr dr r dr ⎝ dr ⎠

The derivative of pressure in Eq. A-15 can be expressed in terms Darcy’s law,

dp μ
=− u . (A-19)
dr k
Substituting Eq. A-19 into Eq. A-18, the 1D steady-state energy equation used in this study is

dT μ λ d ⎛ dT ⎞
ρc p u − ρσ u 2 − ⎜r ⎟ = 0. (A-20)
dr k r dr ⎝ dr ⎠
16 SPE 146951

Dimensionless Form. The dimensionless form of Eqs. A-10 and A-17 are described in this section. The boundary and
initial conditions are as follows (the formation bottom is z = L and the top is z = 0):

@ r = re , T (re, z,t ) = Ti (re, z,t )

p (re, z,t ) = pi (re, z,t )
∂T (rw, z,t ) ∂p (rw, z,t )
@r = rw , = 0, =0
∂r ∂r
∂T (r,0 ,t ) ∂p (r,0 ,t ) (A-21)
@z = 0 , = 0, =0
∂z ∂z
∂T (r,L,t ) ∂p (r,L,t )
@z = L, = 0, =0
∂z ∂z
@t = 0 , T (r,z,0 ) = Ti (r,z,0 ), p (r,z,0 ) = pi (r,z,0 )

The following definitions for dimensionless variables and parameters are used to make Eqs. A-10 and A-17
dimensionless,

T (r , z , t ) − Ti pi − p(r , z , t )
TD (rD , z D , t D ). = , p D (rD , z D , t D ). =
Ti pi
r r z p
rD = , rD = e , z D = ο , t D = oi t
rw rw z μm
kr k
k rD = , k zD = z 2
2
rw zο ( )
ur r uz zο
Per = , Pe z =
λt λt
ρ m c pm ρ m c pm
σ m pi ρ gz ο
JTD = , gD = m
c pmTi pi
( )
PT = φTi β f + s mβ m , PP = φpi c f + sm cm ( )
⎛1− φ ⎞
ρ m s m c pm + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ρ f c pf + ρ f Hˆ f β f + pβ f
⎝ φ ⎠
ET =
ρ m c pm / φ
ρ m s m σ m − ρ f Hˆ f c f − pc f − 1 m = o or g, (A-22)
EP =
ρ m c pmTi / (φpi )

The dimensionless pressure equation is shown in Eq. A-23 and the dimensionless energy equation is shown in Eq. A-24,
written as,

∂p D ∂T 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂p ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ⎛ ∂p D ⎞⎞
PP + PT D − ⎜⎜ rD k rD D ⎟⎟ + ⎜ k zD ⎜ + g ⎟⎟ ⎟ = 0 (A-23)
∂rD ⎠ ∂z D ⎜⎝ ⎜⎝ ∂z D ⎟
D
∂t D ∂t D rD ∂rD ⎝ ⎠⎠
SPE 146951 17

2
∂T ∂p ∂p ∂T ⎛ ∂p ⎞ ∂p ∂T ∂p ⎛ ∂p D ⎞
ET D − EP D = −k rD D D + JTD k rD ⎜⎜ D ⎟⎟ − k zD D D + JTD k zD D ⎜⎜ + g D ⎟⎟
∂t D ∂t D ∂rD ∂rD ⎝ ∂rD ⎠ ∂z D ∂z D ∂z D ⎝ ∂z D ⎠ (A-24)
k ∂p D ∂ ⎛ ∂TD ⎞ k zD ∂p D ∂ 2TD
+ rD ⎜ rD ⎟+ .
Per ∂rD ∂rD ⎜⎝ ∂rD ⎟⎠ Pez ∂z D ∂z D2

The dimensionless boundary conditions are:

@ rD = reD , TD (reD,z D ,t D ) = 0
pD (reD,z D ,t D ) = 0
∂TD (1, z D ,t D ) ∂pD (1, z D ,t D )
@rD = 1, = 0, =0
∂rD ∂rD
∂TD (rD ,0,t D ) ∂p (r ,0,t ) (A-25)
@zD = 0, = 0, D D D = 0
∂z D ∂z D
∂TD (rD ,1,t D ) ∂p (r ,1,t )
@zD = 1, = 0, D D D = 0
∂z D ∂z D
@ t D = 0, TD (rD , z D ,0) = 0, pD (rD , z D ,0) = 0

Appendix B: Limit Analysis of the Steady-State Energy Equation

Limit Analysis. A limit analysis of Eq. 14 was performed to identify the sandface temperature behavior as the Peclet
number approaches zero and infinity. The dimensionless Joule-Thomson coefficient, JTD, was held constant. Applying
L’Hopital’s Rule to Eq. 14 evaluates the sandface temperature limit as the Peclet number approaches zero results in the
following,

Lim TwD = Lim ⎢

Pe → 0
⎡ JTD
Pe →0 Pe ln r
− Pe
reD ( ⎤
)
− 1 + JTD ⎥ = Lim [− JTD + JTD ] = 0 (B-1)
⎣ eD ⎦ Pe→0

The dimensionless wellbore temperature, TwD, as the Peclet number approaches infinity is

Lim TwD = Lim ⎢

Pe → ∞
⎡ JTD
Pe → ∞ Pe ln r
− Pe
reD ( ⎤
)
− 1 + JTD ⎥ = Lim [JTD ] = JTD (B-2)
⎣ eD ⎦ Pe→∞

From Eq. B-1 it is clear that the minimum temperature change as Pe → 0 is equivalent to 0, and from Eq. B-2 the
maximum temperature change as Pe → ∞ is JTD. From a physical standpoint, the maximum temperature change occurs
when convection is the dominant heat transfer mechanism, and the minimum temperature change occurs when conduction
dominates over convection.