3y2F’

Wellbore Heat Losses and Pressure Drop

In Steam Injection
E. F. Pacheco, kfinistry of petroleum, Bolivia
i
S. M. Farouq Ali, SPE-.4IN1E, The Pennsylvania State U.

,
Introduction
Chekalyuk et al.,’ Moss and W“hite,’ and Fokeev and Formulation of the Model
Kapyrin,3 investigated wellbore heat losses during in- Steam at a constant injection pressure, constant mass
jection of a hot or cold t3uid down the casing. Ramey4 flow rate, and constant quality (at the surface) is
made a comprehensive study of the injection of liquids injected through the tubing into the wellbore. The
and gases down casing or tubing. Squier et CZI.5pre- comp[ete system consists of the fluid, the tubing, the
sented a complete analytical treatment of hot water in- annular space containing low-pressure air, the casing,
jection down the \vellbore. Satter’ extended Ramey’s the cement, and the formation. We propose to com-
treatment to the case of steam injection. Huygen and pute the pressure and the quality of steam as functions
Huitt’ presented results of a theoretical and exper- of depth and time.
imental treatment of wellbore heat losses during steam An energy balance and a momentum balance can
injection, and pointed out the importance of the radia- be written for the flowing fluid as follows:
tion heat loss. Hoist and F1ocV as well as Earlougher9
Energy balance
extended the above treatments by including steam
pressure calculations. Eickmeier et Uf.’” considered vdv dW,
dQ=~dZ+dH+z– T. . (1)
the early transient performance, using a finite-differ-
ence model. Apart from these studies, Leutwylerl*
gave a comprehensive treatment of casing tempera- Momentum balance
ture behavior, and Willhite” presented a complete G’VdV
calculation of the over-all heat transfer coefficients. dWe ---Vdp = – $ dZ + + dFr .
g.
The chief objective of our work was to formulate
a comprehensive mathematical model of steam injec- . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
tion into a reservoir to include simultaneous calcula- The ternl dQ is given by
tion of steam pressure and quality. The model took
into account the variation of steam temperature and dQ=–(1/i,,)dq, . . . . . . . (3)
pressure due to friction, as well as heat losses by
where the iak of heat transfer to [k Formoticu is
radiation, conduction, and convection, and consisted
of two coupled nonlinear differential equations that dq = 2Yk,.(T,, -- T.) dZ/f(t) . . . . . (4)
were solved iteratively. The model results were com-
pared with those predicted by several of the above- which is the same as the rate of heat transfer to the
mentioned approaches. cement-formation interfiice, given by

r —!

This mathemutica[ mode! of t)u+mechanics of flow of wet and saturatecf steom dowlz the ~
wellbore during steam inje~’tion takes into account the variatio~ of steam temperature
ant! pressure due to frictiofi, as well as heat losses by rac!iation, conduction, and
convection. It consists of two coupled nonlinear equations that are solvecl iteratively.
——...—— ———.——

FEBRU.ARY, 1972 J-/f 139

 . ...- ‘- ---
. . .
.
.

dq = 2~rU(T, – T),)dZ . . . . . . . (5) Fourth Order Runge-Kutta Method as shown by

Pacheco’9 for simultaneous equations. The partial
The function j(t). and the premises regarding its derivatives occurring in the right-hand side were
use, are the same as given in detail in the appendix evaluated using functional dependence, so that in
of Ramey”s paper,4 and the over-all heat transfer each case the right side reduced to a function of steam
coefficient U was determined as explained bjj Will- pressure, quaiity, and depth. Afier eaeh %% a ‘e%’
bite.” Other assumptions implicit in the foregoing value of the over-alI heat transfer coefficient U was
development are that: (1) heat flow in the wellbore calculated, using the value of the previous step as
is steady state, whereas that in the formation is un- the first approximation to iterate to the new value.
steady state; (2) only radial heat flow is considered; The term dQ/dZ was also evaluated at each of these
(3) formation thermal properties are constant; (4) the steps using the calculatd value of U.
;ubing hangs concentrically ~vithin the casing; and The convergence of the Runge-Kutta so~tion was
(5) the two-phase flow of steam and condensate in tested by a series of runs, with the incremental depth
.~. +..~:ee -.- k.-.
LIIC LULJ1ll S L-all
Ac.crrihd
UL ub.. ti. .L-, --
hv gn “cf Twtive”
“J -=.
viscosity. ~Z being ya~ed from, ] i. ~~~ fi, JIIE found that
We recognize that a transport property such as effec- for LZ < 32 ft, the pressure, quality, and percent
tive viscosity of a two-phase system will depend on heat loss remained practically unchanged with AZ.
the geometry of the system. At the high velocities For 42 = 128 ft, their calculated values varied by
involved here, however, the condensate will tend to less than 0.25 percent as compared with the stabilized
flow within the steam stream rather than as a film on values. With a view to saving computer time we
the surface of the tubing, so that the wet steam may decided to use AZ= 100 ft for calculations presented
be approximated by a viscous fluid with a viscosity here. Error analysis by Richardson’s method” showed
equal to the linearly combined viscosities of water that the constant K in the error term of the Runge-
and dry steam in proportion to the respective mol Kutta method K (AZ)’ is about 10-”.
fractions at the prevailing conditions. More elaborate The computer program as well as other details of
treatments of two-phase flow can be used if desired. the computation, such as the evaluation of Ramey’s
Using Eqs. 1 through 5, the following two equa- }(t) function, are discussed in Ref. 13.
tions can be derived as shown by Pacheco13:
Results of Computations
dQ , 2H/2x ( _ fV } ., G’V2j
-.&— Sarn.p]eresulisobtained with the present model are
dp _ dZ ‘ :V/?X \ ml ] 2gcJEi .
nresented in Fig. 1. Similar pairs of graphs covering
C/z ?H
_. V
—. ?H/?x g, ; ?V
—— 1

two tubing sizes (2 and 2%-in.) and a combination

~,
~P J ?v/?x ( ;p )
of one of the three steam pressures (250, 500, and
. . . . . . . . . . . . (6)

and %
.,
dQ
@ 1 +B)+z+ gcJ G-v-f
2g,JD;
Cfx
—= (7)
dZ
%(l+B)+~* ‘ . . =“
where x-
1-
a.
u
0

B=

oh , 1 , ,
!!~ 1 /’ , 1
and
}0
i;;
,
k 2 1/2°
I 000 \\\ q j’ :0
dQ
—. 271C,V \\\ U,o, 10
0,91 !~
/!.,,,
115.1 p“’~’s \\\
01—; ; 4
dZ is [ 2000 - ‘\\\ /,’
//
= \\\ -/ / /
;

1,.
x- 0:, iil
— k,,c(Tm+uz) +115.1 p“”’’’ro,uj(l) + 3000 - l,,
811
(8) a. \\\ 1 11 [
I&+ro,uj(r) u
0
\\\ ~ ,’,’
4000 - \\\
\\\ !’ l’: II
where p is steam pressure h psia. The instantaneous ; /,”
, 1, 1000 “ / jlooo
IOooi, t, ~{o J,,
t’alue of U ~vas calculated by 1%’illhite’s method,l~ 5000 -
d 10
I
and j was obtained from ?vloody’s graphical correla- ~oc
100
tions” with the Reynolds number and the relative
roughness of a pipe, which were fitted by polynomials. TEMPERATURE, “F

The viscosities of steam and water were determined — STEAM TEMPERATURE --– OUALITY
from well known equations,” and the propeflies of ----- CASING TEMPERATURE -–- % HEAT LOSS

steam were computed using the equations given by

Fig. l—Temperature, quality, and percent heat loss in
Farouq Ali.” 2- and 21/2-in. tubing for 10,000 lb/hr steam
Eqs. 6 through 8 \vere solved by means of the injection rate at 500 psia.
 1.000 psia) and one of the three injection rates (1 ,000,
5,()()(), and 10,OOO lb/hr) are given in Ref. 13. * In-
jection times of 10, 100, and 1,000 days are con-
sidered. Each graph shows steam temperature and
quality, casing temperature, and percent heat loss as
functions of depth, as well as the above-mentioned
variables. The data are based upon an unpainted
tubing (emissivity = 0.9) within a 7-in. casiiig, set
iii d. n~~ :-
7 +! ‘Ill. I.fiI~
LIUIV
h , c;li~a
U}
epment
=,,,-- .
Tt is as~umed that
. .. . . . . . . -. -- _.

a packer is used, and that the annu[us contains low-

pressure air, the properties of which were calculated
at the average prevailing teMpei2Pdie.

Effect of Tubing Size

25L I 1 i
Fig. 2 shows the importance of tubing size in the 2.5 3.0 3.5
design of a steam injection well. The internal diameter
of tubing determines the friction factor, and to a cer- TUBING EXTERNAL DIAMETER, in
tain extent detemlines the steam pressure drop or Fig. 2—Percent heat loss for different tubing sizes.
Inlection rate 10,500 lb/h~ injection pressure
increase with depth. The percent heat losses in- 1,145 psia; time 10 days; depth 5,000 ft.
crease with diameter (Fig. 2) even though the over-all
heat transfer coefficient (based upon external diameter
of tubing) is numerically smaller for the larger sizes.

Effect of Steam Injection Pressure, Rate, and Time -600

80 ,
The steam injection rate detemlines the frictional
pressure drop, and consequently, the decrease in the STEAM QuALITY
steam temperature with depth, assuming that every- 60 - - 500
thing else is held constant. Fig. 3 shows that at a .g
given depth the steam pressure and heat loss decrease, :
whereas the quality increases with an increase in the # 40- - 4@J g
STEAM PRESSURE
injection rate. We conclude that for a given depth z
w
there is a certain rate above which an increase in ~
rate leads to an insignificant increase in quality but a
20 PERCENT HEAT LOSS
300
large drop in pressure.
Steam pressure at the formation face depends on
1
the steam iniection rate chosen (as determined by 1~
o~200
reservoir conditions), the necessa~ pressure, and the o

pressure loss (or gain) in the tubing string. The pres- INJECTION RATE, Iblhr
sure determines the temperature of saturated steam, Fig. 3—Variation of the steam quality and pressure and
and thus becomes a direct factor in determining the the percent heat loss with injection rate for 2-in.
rate of heat loss. Fig. 4 shows that for a given set of tubing at a depth of 1,000 ft. Injection pressure
500 psia; injection time IO days.
conditions the over-all heat transfer coefficient in-
creases with pressure. Fig. 5 shows that at a given
depth ihe steam quality decreases with zri ifi~i~~~~
in injection pressure as a result of the greater heat
losses caused by the higher temperatures. The dopes I I I I i I I 1
of the curves shown for two tubing sizes decrease if
any type of insulation or tubing paint is used.
As pointed out by various authors, after a certain 4
time the relative increase in the casing temperature
becomes very sn]all with time. For short injection
times, the transient diffusion of heat leads to con-
siderable variations, as seen from Fig. 1. At large 3
times the heat loss rate is lowered, and the steam
quality increases.
2
EtYect of Painting and ?miulating the Tubing
Huygen and Huitt’ first pointed out that wellbore heat
losses can be reduced considerably by applying alumi-
I I 1 I I I I I
num paint to the exterior of the tubing string in order 200 400 600 800

INJECTION PRESSURE, psio

*These may be obtained from the authors at the Dept. of Petro- Fig. 4-Heat transfer coefficient for a depth of 1,000 ft,
leum and Natural Gas, The Pen”syivania State U,, University Park, after 100 days of injection of 80-percent quality
Pa, 16802. steam through 2-in. tubing.

FEBRu.4RY, 1972 141

4=% . . . ..
 .

1 { I [ I 1 I ) to lower the surface emissivity. Results of our int”esti-

gation showed that the lmat losses can be reduced by
40 to 50 percent by lowering the tubing exterior
emissivity to 0.4. Test runs showed that little is gained
75 - by al.~o lowering the emissivi~ of the interior surface
of the casing to the same value.
1%’ellbore heat losses can also be reduced by in-
sulating the tubing or by using an insulating fluid in
70 - the annulus. Effects of tubing insulation or paint
treatment are shown in Fig. 6, which indicates that
tubing insulation leads to a large reduction in heat
2 1/2” TuB!NG
losses. and should be considered where steam is in-
65 jected over extended periods, as in stearnflooding.
Aluminum paint is quite valuable in reducing heat
loss; however, it is likely to be damaged unless it is
[ applied with the tubing in place.
1 1 1 I I u I I
2;0 400 600 800
Comparison with Previous Models
INJECTION PRESSURE, psia
Our model was compared with several previous
Fig. 5—Quality variation with injection pressure for a ~Jode]~, lJ~~ng ?be data employed in the latter.
depth o? 1,000 ft, after 100 days of injection of Ramey4 studied heat loss for saturated steam in-
80-percent quality steam at 5,000 lb/hr
through 2- and 21/2-in. tubing. jection through 7-in. casing. The parameters em-
ployed were used in our model. As a typical example,
the percent heat loss at a depth of 4,000 ft is 45
percent in Rarney’s work as compared with 31 per-
.. .- =-. 4- ill. dTPrtflf
cent m ours. The discrepancy 1s uue LU ,l,b . . ..-. _-

\\\ ,/,/
cement sheath considered in our model, as well as
,7’”
IOGV
~n 1‘$~i
\\\ =~j
~u~~~~yT
HEATLOSS ,+’ ! to the inclusion of changes in steam quality.
Fig. 7 compares the percent heat loss as predicted
/’/ by Satter’s models and by ours. The curves shown are
2000
I
‘\ ‘\’\< e“”’ ‘“”’”~\/’ ,/ i for 21/2 -in. tubing. The discrepancy for 2-in. size was
a considerably greater. The heat loss tends to be less

I
3000 \\
\, \ ‘\ ,,” /,/’ than that given by Satter’s nlodel for smaller ‘bing
[ sizes because friction reduces the pressure —and con-
4000
sequently the temperature — of the steam, thus re-
‘\\ “J+L+ ducing the heat loss. For larger tubing sizes the
5000
L /\ heat loss. may be expected to be greater than that
I ,
=I”suLATED TuBING’ given by Satter’s model.
L 8 , , , ! 1
0 20 40 60 80 Leutwyler 11 investigated the casing tenlPerature
% variation with time. His results together with ours
are given m I%g. 0, Q I ,h; .hmvs mainly
.Jlllcl.h ---- that the
Fig. 6-Percent heat loss and steam quality for injection
through 2-in. tubing at 5,000 lb/hr and over-all heat transfer coefficient and the function f(t)
500 psia for a period of 10 days.
that we used are also valid for very small times. A
comparison of the over-all heat transfer coefficients
obtained ~xpe~menta]]Y by Leut~~]er and those that
o we calculated by Wi]lhite’s method;: showed excellent
--- PRESENT MOOEL agreement.
— SATTER’S MOOEL
I ‘--=%
Fig. 9 compares predictions derived with Hoist
\\\\
looo~ \ \ \
=.
and Flock’s model~ and with our method. The dis-
*.-
I ‘\ ‘\ ‘\ ‘= -1:00 lb/hr
crepancy is attributed to the approximate momentum
\ -.= balance used in the former. In the case of 2-in. tubing
~200;f$3.
-. .,.
~ne ~ia~c pie~~~Jre ~onlpensates appreciably for the
frictional pressure drop, and consequently the steam
1
temperature continues to be close to the injection
3000 v \ -x ,3000
\
\ j temperature. For 3-iii. ~~bifig, {he ~fafi~ Pressure
\
\
\
\
causes an increase in the steam pressure that is greater
\ 50CIG
\
\
\
than the reduction caused by friction, and thus the
4ooo-
\
I \
\
1 steam temperature actually increases.
\ \ \
\
9000 \ \
Comparison of our results with those predicted by
\ \
50XJ’
~ \\\,, \ \ . Earlougher’s method’ showed deviations of the order
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
of 5 to 10 percent in pressure, quality, and heat loss.
H:AT LCSS, %

Fig. 7—ComOparison of percent heat !oss predicted by Comparison v~ith Field Data
the present model and Satter’s model, for
1 ;ear’s injection at 500 psia. There are few published field data that can be com-
 pared with the predictions derived by our method. 3. Tubing insulation can be twice as effective as
Ble~kley’4. ho\ve\-er. did present data from Home- aluminum paint. which in itself can reduce the heat
Stake Production Co., obtained from a steam injec- loss by about 40 to 50 percent as compared with
tion well. Fig. 10 compares the measured and pre- bare, unpainted tubing. Painting the inside surface of
dicted temperatures, shotving good a~reement. A casing reduced heat losses by only 2 to 3 percent.
second set of data for a different well that was inject- 4. The method described here Is recommended for
ing at approximately half the rate “of the first well accurate calculation of steam properties and heat 10SS
(less friction) showed increasing skarn temperatures with depth and time. Previously reported methods
with depth, as also predicted by our model. (especially as described in Refs. 6 and 9) are simpler,
and are accurate to within about 10 percent.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are based on the results of Nomenclature
our study: a= geothermal gradient, OF/ft
1. Tubing friction can play a major role in deter- D. diameter, ft
mining steam pressure, temperature, and quality at f= friction factor, dimensionless
any depth. At high pressures, the effect of friction is F, = friction loss in pipe, ft-lb/lb
less noticeable since the static pressure tends to com- g= acceleration due to gravity, ft,/see:
pensate for friction. gc z conversion factor, 32.17 lb*-ft/lbf-sec’
2. At lo~v rates, percent heat loss is large, leading G. mass injection rate, lb/sq ft-sec
to a large drop in steam quality, which may lead to H. enthalpy, Btu/lb
an increase in pressure with depth. At high rates, the is = S.[eanl i~j~C~~oi_L r~t~, !~/hr
steam quality may increase with depth, but the fric- J= mechanical equivalent of heat, 778 ft-lb/Btu
tional pressure drop may limit the injection depth. kh = thermal cond~ctivity, Btu/hr-ft-°F

u“ —

I
LEu TwYLE~ -----
% 400 -----
---
z
a

f 300L-
g 200-

;
< 2 7/8 TUBING
“ 100 -
7- CASING

o
10 I 00 1000 10000

INJECTION TIME, II,

‘~

1
Fig. 8--Comparison of casing temperature calculated for ~ FIELD DATA
a tubing temperature of 600’F by (a) Leutwyler’s [HOME STAKE OIL CO I
Finite Difference model, and (b) this model. o---o PREOICTEO OATA I
200

//

0(-
7 / Ii

500

1000

3000
,,

3500
t
I . .

t 1
STEAM TEMPERATURE. “F

Fig. 9—Comparison of data from Hoist and Flock with STEAM TEMPERATURE. “F
values computed with this model for injection rate of
10,500 lb/hr at 1,145 psia and 10 days’ Fig. 10--Comparison of the predicted and the
total injection time. measured field data.

FEBRUARY, 1972 143

,#-
 ... . . . .. . .. . ..+ _-.. . .. ..

pressure. psia and ib,’sq ft 5. Squier, D. P., Smith, “D. D. and Dougherty. E. L.: “Cal-
heat trtirisfer rate, B?!!/hr culated Temperature Behavior of ~VG:-%’a!er Injection
Wells.”
.--, J, Pet. Tech, (.4pril, 1962) 436-440.
heat added to the fluid, Btu/lb 6. Satter, A.: “Heat Losses During Flow of Steam Dowri
radius, ft a Wellbore,” J. Per. Tech. (July, 196S) 845-851.
time, hours 7. Huygen, H. H. A. and Huitt, J. L.: ‘Wellbore Heat
temperature, ‘F Losses and Casing Te,mpcratures During Steam Injec-
tion.” Prod. Monfbly ( 1966) 30, No. 8, 2.
over-all heat transfer coefficient, 8. Hoist. P. H. and Flock, D. L.: “W’ellhore Behavior Dur-
Btu/hr-sq ft-GF inc Salurated Steam Injection,” ./. Cdrr. Per. Trch. (1966)
velocity. ft/sec 5,-?s0. 4, 184. -

specific volume, cu ft~lb 9. Earlougherl R. C., Jr,: “Some Practical Considerations

in the Design of Steam Injection Wells,” 1. Per. Tech.
work added to the fluid, ft-lb/lb (Jan.. 1969) 79-86.
quality of steam. percent 10. EicLmeier, J. R.. Ersoy, D., and Ramey, H. 1., Jr.:
depth. negative dov.mward. ft “Wellbore Temperatures and Heat Losses During Pro-
duction or ]njection,” J. cdn. Per. Tech. ( 1970) 9, No.
2, 115.
Subscripts
11. Leutwyler. K.: “Casing Temperature Studies in Steam
c = cement Iniection Y$’ells,” J. Pcf. Tech. (Sept., 1966) 1157-1162.
~ = ~~pL~ 12. Willhite, G. P.: “Over-all Heat” T~arisfer Coefficients in
Steam and Hot Water Injection wells,” ]. pet. Tf’ch.
h = hole ( hfay, 1967) 607-615.
m = mean surface 13. Pacheco, E. F.: “hlathematical Prediction of f~’ellbore
or = outer tubing Heat Losses for Saturated Steam Injection,” MS thesis,
. The Pennsylvania State U., University Park (March,
s = steam
1969).
14. Bleakley, W. B.: “Wellbore Heat Losses,” Oil and Gas
References J. ( 1965) 63, NO. 10, 162.
1. Chekalyuk. E. B.. Oganov, K. A., Snarskii. A. N. and 15. Sommerfeld, J. T.: “Equation for J+uid Frictiorr Factor;’
S[epanchenko. E. A.: ‘“”rhermal Stimulation of a De- Hydrocarbon Processing ( 1967) 46, No. 7, 135.
pleted Oil Re~ervoir” (in Russian), ~~efr?atloc A’lloxiisll”o 16. Farouq Ali, S. M.: “Wet Steam for Thermal Recovery,”
( 1954) Nos. 1 and 2. Prod. Monthly ( 1966) 30, No. ?, 2.
?
-. Ifoss. J. T. and W’bite. P. D.: “How to Calculate Tem- 17. Farouq Ali, S. M.: Oil Reco~er-y by Stemn Injection,
peralire Profiles in a’ W’aler-Injection Well,” Oil and Producers Publishing Co., Bradford, Pa. ( 1970) 25.
Gas J. (1959) 57, NO. 11, 174. J3?’T
3. Fokeev, 1’. M. and Kapyrin, Yu. V.: “Calculation of
\\’ellbore Heal Losses. tind ihe Effect of Injection of
Large Quantities of Water on the Temperature Dis-
tribution in the Romashkin Reservoir” (in Russian),
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineera
A’efryatfoe Khomisr}’o ( 1961 ) No. 12, 33. office May 14, 1971. Revised manuscript of SPE 3428 received
4. Ra”m”ey, H. J., Jr.: ‘“Wellbore Heat Transmission,” J. Nov. 2, 1971. ~ Copyright 1972 American Institute of Mining,
Pet. Tech. (April, 1962) 427-435. Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.