See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351222558

Failure and mitigation study of packer in the deepwater HTHP gas well
considering the temperature-pressure effect during well completion test

Article  in  Case Studies in Thermal Engineering · August 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.csite.2021.101021

CITATIONS READS

9 149

7 authors, including:

Cheng Li Bo Zhang
China University of Petroleum China University of Petroleum
10 PUBLICATIONS   57 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   309 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yan Yan Chao Han

CNPC Tubular Goods Research Institute China University of Petroleum
14 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SIMULATION View project

annular pressure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yan Yan on 23 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Failure and mitigation study of packer in the deepwater HTHP gas

well considering the temperature-pressure effect during well
completion test
Cheng Li a, b, Zhichuan Guan a, b, *, Bo Zhang c, Qing Wang d, Hongqiao Xie e, f,
Yan Yan a, b, Chao Han a, b
a
School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580, China
b
Shandong Ultra-deep Drilling Process Control Tech R&D Center, Qingdao, 266580, China
c
Research Institute of Safety and Environment Protection Technology, CNPC, Beijing 102206, China
d
CNPC Engineering Technology R&D Company Limited, Beijing 102206, China
e
Sinopec Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, 100101, China
f
State Key Laboratory of Shale Oil and Gas Enrichment Mechanisms and Effective Development, Beijing, 100101, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: During the well completion test of deepwater high temperature and high pressure (HTHP) gas
Well completion test well, the force on the packer changes dramatically, leading to the packer failure and serious
Deepwater HTHP well consequences. Take consideration of the temperature-pressure effect, the packer force calculation
Packer
model and the failure judgement flow diagram of packer are established based on the theory of
Reliability evaluation
Dimensionless study
tubing mechanics, the law of momentum conservation, and the liquid PVT properties to evaluate
Nitrogen gas injection the reliability of packer. Dimensionless formulations to obtain the axial force and the pressure
difference are proposed, and ten influencing and controllable factors are chosen to the sensitivity
analysis. The results show that seven factors have great influence on the axial force and the
pressure difference. Finally, two mitigation methods, installing slip joint on the tubing string and
injecting nitrogen gas in the annulus, are studied for axial force and pressure difference, and the
concept and calculation method of axial force safety factor are put forward. The mitigation effect
of these two methods are all obvious. This study can provide theoretical guidance for packer
protection during well completion test of deepwater HTHP gas well, thus can contribute to the
development of natural gas and even the mitigation of greenhouse effect.

1. Introduction

With the development of the world economy, the consumption and demand of fossil energy are growing rapidly. By 2040, the
global energy demand will reach 20.679 billion tons of oil equivalent [1]. However, excessive application of fossil energy will cause
serious environmental problems, especially carbon dioxide and other gases generated after combustion will lead to serious greenhouse
effect. It is expected that the mass fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere will reach 540 × 10− 6–970 × 10− 6 by the middle of the 21st
century, and the global temperature will rise by 1.5–4.5 ◦ C. Then these changes will have catastrophic effects on human beings,
animals and plants [2,3].

* Corresponding author. School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580, China.,
E-mail addresses: lijiawei6709@163.com (C. Li), guanzhch@upc.edu.cn, lichengbrant@163.com (Z. Guan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.101021
Received 4 December 2020; Accepted 16 April 2021
Available online 25 April 2021
2214-157X/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

Among all fossil energy sources, pollution emission of the natural gas is the lowest, which is universally recognized as clean energy.
Compared with the traditional fuel, the comprehensive emissions of vehicles and ships using liquefied natural gas (LNG) as fuel are
reduced by about 85%. Among them, carbon monoxide emission reduction is about 90%, hydrocarbon emission reduction is about
70–80%, nitrogen oxide emission reduction is about 30–40%, carbon dioxide emission reduction is about 15–25%, and almost no
particulate matter emissions, no benzene, lead and sulfide. Natural gas has higher ignition point and lower explosive limit than refined
oil, and its density is lower than that of air, so it is safer to use; natural gas is usually cheaper than the gasoline and diesel oil and is more
economical to use. In this case, accelerating the development and exploration of the natural gas is the general trend of the world energy
development. However, with the increasing demand, natural gas development has to be carried out in the increasingly harsh envi­
ronments [4]. Therefore, the higher requirements on the applicability and performance of various technologies and tools used in
drilling and completion are also put forward [5,6].
Well completion test is an important technology in drilling and completion engineering, and the deepwater well completion test is
more difficult, cost, and risk than the test in the onshore or shallow-water well. Once there is a problem, it will cause huge economic
losses [7]. The oil spill accident happened in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 caused heavy casualties and property losses, and brought
serious damage on the ecological environment of the Gulf of Mexico and its adjacent land [8,9]. Packer is a key tool for deepwater well
completion test [10,11], it can not only ensure that the production fluid can flow out of the production layer through the oil pipe
without invading to other area [12,13], but also can reduce the casing damage by isolating the tubing casing annulus [14]. The failure
of packer is easy to cause accidents such as sealing lost, sealing neglecting and wrong sealing in the wellbore, or even leading to the
wellbore abandonment, resulting in huge economic losses [15,16]. During the well completion test in the deepwater gas well, well
opening and shut-in according to the test system will change the downhole environment, which will far different from the initial status,
resulting in dramatic changes of the force on the packer [17,18]. In deepwater HTHP gas well, this kind of change is particularly severe
[19,20]. At the same time, the deformation of tubing string caused by temperature effect, piston effect, etc., will further aggravate the
possibility of packer failure [21,22].
As an important part of wellbore, the reliability of packer directly affects the efficiency and cost of well construction. If the packer
fails, the tubing string must be re-run, which will leading to the huge risk of well control, operation time consumption, and con­
struction cost increasing. According to the past five years recording data of the Tahe Oilfield in the Tarim Basin, there are 1152 well
times of well completion test using the packer, and 30 well times of them fail due to the packer failure, which have lead to huge
economic losses [23]. Therefore, the guarantee and improvement of packer reliability is always a key research topic [24]. Moreover,
the calculation of the force on the packer and the evaluation of the packer reliability are always the important works for well
completion test of deepwater HTHP gas well.
Therefore, with the consideration of the temperature-pressure effect, the calculation model of packer force during well completion
test in the deepwater HTHP gas well will be built in this paper based on the theory of tubing mechanics, the law of momentum
conservation, and the liquid PVT properties. Then the envelope curve will be used to evaluate and describe the packer reliability, and
the key influencing factors and mitigation measures will be studied.
This research paper is divided into the following sections:

a. Build the calculation models of the axial force and the pressure difference on the packer respectively, and establish the failure
judgement flow diagram of packer (Section 2);
b. Carry out the case study combining with the calculation model of the wellbore temperature distribution, and carry out the
dimensionless sensitivity analysis by π theorem (Section 3);
c. Two mitigation methods, installing slip joint on the tubing string and injecting nitrogen gas in the annulus, are studied for axial
force and pressure difference (Section 4).

Fig. 1. Typical wellbore structure of deepwater well and the force on the packer.

2
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

2. Models and methods

The deepwater well is located in a complex environment, and the temperature at the depth of well head is always at a low tem­
perature level, for instances, the environment temperature at the mud line in the South China Sea is generally 2–4 ◦ C [25]. In the
deepwater HTHP gas well, well opening and shut-in will lead to the drastic changes of wellbore temperature and pressure, thus the
packer reliability will be affected seriously [24]. The typical wellbore structure of deepwater gas well and the force on the packer are
shown in Fig. 1.
Where, Ati, Ato, and Ap are the inner and outer areas of tubing string, and the outer area of the sealing chamber of the packer
respectively, m2; Fa is the axial force (including tensile force and compressive force) of the tubing string applied on the packer, N; Pa
and Pi are the pressure of tubing-casing annulus and the annulus under the packer respectively, Pa; ΔP is the pressure difference on the
packer, which is caused by Pa and Pi, Pa. Because the annulus under the packer is connected to the inner space of the tubing string, Pi
can also represent the pressure inside tubing string.
During well completion test, the force on the packer is composed of two parts: one is the axial force of the tubing string; the other is
the pressure difference caused by the pressure of the upper and lower annulus. Most of the previous researches combined the axial
force and the pressure difference into a resultant force, which would be compared with a given limit force to evaluate the packer
reliability [26,27]. However, this evaluation method sometimes makes mistakes in the actual field work. For instance, the maximum
pressure difference and the axial force were estimated to be 67.6 MPa and 362.6 kN respectively in the field hydraulic fracturing
operation of a gas well in Tarim Oilfield. The packer used in this wellbore can bear a pressure difference and a tensile force of 68.9 MPa
and 392 kN respectively. However, the packer failed in the actual operation. After investigation and verification, it is found that the
packer can only bear a pressure difference of 41.4 MPa under the condition of 362.6 kN tensile stress [28].
The envelope curve was firstly proposed by Baker Hughes, which comprehensively considered the limit load that the packer can
bear under the interactive influence of the components of the packer. It can effectively guide the selection of the packer and evaluate
the reliability of the packer [29,30].

2.1. Calculation model of the axial force

During the well completion test in the deepwater HTHP gas well, the downhole environment will be dramatically changed, which
will lead to the piston effect, ballooning effect, buckling effect, temperature effect, and mechanical effect, and causing the tubing string
extending or shortening. However, because the tubing string and the packer can not have relative displacement, the length change
tendency will be converted into the axial force applied on the packer.

(1) Piston effect. The fluid at the bottom of wellbore will act an upward buoyancy on the lower end of the tubing string. Besides, the
outer diameter of the tubing string changes at the packer position due to the sealing chamber of the packer, which will result a
downward pressure caused by the liquid in the casing-tubing annulus applying on the tubing string at the diameter-change
position. The axial force produced by the piston effect is shown in Eq. (1).
( ) ( )
Fpiston = Pi |Lf × Ap − Ati − Pa |Lp × Ap − Ato (1)

Where, Lf is the length of the formation section of the wellbore, which can be regarded as equal to the length of tubing string, m; Lp is
the packer depth (measured from the wellhead at the mudline), m.

(2) Ballooning effect. The imbalance of the internal pressure of the tubing string and the annular pressure of the tubing-casing
annulus can lead to the radial expansion/contraction of the string. This change will lead to the length change tendency of
the tubing string, thus the axial tensile/compressive force of the tubing string will be applied on the packer.
[ ]
Fballooning = 2 × νt × Pi |(0∼Lp ) × Ati − Pa |(0∼Lp ) × Ato (2)

Where, νt is the Poisson’s ratio of the tubing string, dimensionless. It is necessary to mention that the ballooning effect is not a localized
effect, but an effect that occurs throughout the full length of the tubing. Therefore, the force calculation is based on average pressure
both inside and outside of the tubing.

(3) Buckling effect. When buckling occurs the tubing length will be shortened, but buckling does not result in elongation in length,
which is different from both the piston effect and ballooning effect. When buckling occurs, there is a point, called as neutral
point, where, below this point, the buckling occurs and no buckling occurs above it. The height of neutral point above the packer
is calculated from Eq. (3).
[ ]
h = Pi |(0∼Lp ) − Pa |(0∼Lp ) × Ap
(3)
wt + wi − wa
The shorten length of the tubing string caused by the buckling effect can be calculated by Eq. (4).

3
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ [ ]2 ( )
⎨ Lp Lp
ΔLbulk = − ε2 × A2p × Pi |(0∼Lp ) − Pa |(0∼Lp ) = ΔL h ≥ L ΔL = ΔL × × 2 − = ΔLbulk− (4)
bulk− 1 p bulk bulk− 1 2
⎪
⎪ h < Lp h h
⎪ 8× Et × It × (wt + wi − wa )
⎪
⎩

According to the stress-strain relationship, the force caused by buckling effect is shown in Eq. (5).
ΔLbulk
Fbulk = At × Et × (5)
Lp

Where, wt, wi, and wa are the line weight of tubing string, liquid inside tubing, and liquid in tubing-casing annulus respectively, N/m; ε
is the gap between tubing and casing, m; Et is the elastic modulus of the tubing, Pa; It is the inertia moment of tubing, m4; At is the cross
section area of the tubing string, m2.

(4) Temperature effect. The temperature change of the wellbore can lead to the length change tendency of the tubing string, which
will be converted into the axial force on the packer. The temperature effect is also not a localized effect, so the temperature
change is the average temperature change on the tubing to cover the entire string length.

Ftemp = At × Et × βt × ΔTt |(0∼Lp ) (6)

Where, βt is the thermal expansion coefficient of the tubing string, K− 1; Tt is the tubing string temperature, K.

(5) Mechanical effect. Some forces are applied on the ground for various operation purposes, which are called mechanical force
(Fmech). The effect of this force on the tubing string and packer is named mechanical effect. Fmech can be determined by design or
hook load. Based on the above analysis, the axial force of the tubing string which is applied on the packer is a resultant force of
these five effects, as shown in Eq. (7).
Fa = Fpiston + Fballooning + Fbulk + Ftemp + Fmech (7)

2.2. Calculation model of the pressure difference

2.2.1. Internal pressure of tubing string

During the well completion test of the deepwater HTHP gas well, the production fluid flows up through the tubing string. Take a
micro-element with a length of dz. Assuming that the target gas well is vertical and only gas is flowing inside the tubing, the mo­
mentum conservation equation of gas flow is established, as shown in Eq. (8).

ρi · v 2
ρi · Ati v · [(v + dv) − v] = [Pi − (Pi + dPi )]Ati − f Ati · dz − ρi · g · Ati dz (8)
2dti

Where, ρi and v are the density and the flow velocity of the gas, kg/m3 and m/s; f is the friction coefficient, dimensionless; dti is the inner
diameter of the tubing, m. After polynomial transformation, the pressure gradient inside tubing string can be divided into three parts:
accelerated velocity (AV), gravitational potential energy (GP), and frictional resistance (FR). The pressure distribution inside tubing
string can be calculated by the finite difference method and the iterative calculation method.
[ ] [ ] [ ]
dPi ∂Pi ∂Pi ∂Pi
− = + + (9)
dz ∂z AV ∂z GP ∂z FR
⎧[ ]
∂Pi ρ · v2 dPi
⎪
⎪ = i ·
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∂z AV Pi dz
⎪
⎪ [ ]
⎨ ∂Pi
Where, = ρi · g
⎪
⎪ ∂z GP
⎪
⎪
⎪ [ ]
⎩ ∂Pi
⎪
⎪
⎪ ρ · v2
=f i
∂z FR 2dti

2.2.2. Annular pressure of tubing-casing annulus

The annular pressure of tubing-casing annulus is consist of two parts: the initial liquid pressure (Pao) in the annulus, and the trapped
annular pressure (dPa) caused by the temperature-pressure effect [31,32], as shown in Eq. (10).
Pa(z) = Pao(z) + dPa (10)

Where, z is the depth, and z∈(0, Lp), m. Pao can be calculated by the method proposed by Guan [33]. The tubing-casing annulus can be
simplified as a confined space with limited volume filled with liquid, which can not exchange energy and mass with outside actively.

4
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

According to the energy transfer theory in confined space and gas state equation, the external intervention on the pressure of the
confined space can be only carried out in three ways: a. dQ: The heat transfer can change the pressure by change the temperature of the
confined space; b. dVa: The pressure of confined space can be changed by changing its volume; c. dMa: The pressure of confined space
can be changed by actively injecting liquid [34,35]. Therefore, the tubing-casing annular pressure is a function of temperature, vol­
ume, and internal liquid mass. The calculation model of annular pressure is shown in Eq. (11).
Pa = f (Ta , Va , Ma ) (11)

Where, Ta and Va are the tubing-casing annular temperature and volume, ◦ C and m3; Ma is liquid mass in the tubing-casing annulus, kg.
The dPa can be obtained by calculating the total differential of Pa.
( ) ( ) ( )
∂Pa ∂ Pa ∂Pa
dPa = · dTa + · dVa + · dMa (12)
∂Ta ∂ Va ∂Ma
Assuming that the annulus is filled with liquid, and the changes of annulus volume and liquid volume are consistent. Combining
with the definitions of isothermal compression coefficient and thermal expansion coefficient, the right three terms of Eq. (12) are
decomposed and replaced, and the following expressions can be obtained:
⎧ ( )
⎪
⎪ ∂Pa dVf Vf · dPa β
⎪
⎪ · dTa = × × dTa = Ta · dTa
⎪
⎪ ∂T a V f · dT a dV f β
⎪
⎪ Pa
⎪
⎨ ( )
∂Pa Vf · dPa 1 dVa
· dVa = − × × dVa = − (13)
⎪
⎪ ∂ V a dV a V f β Pa · Va
⎪
⎪ ( ) ( )
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∂Pa
⎪ dPa × ρa dMa dPa dVf
⎪
⎩ · dMa = × = · dVf =
∂Ma dMa ρa dVf βPa · Vf

If there is no external liquid injection, which mean that the right third item of Eq. (12) is zero, then
βTa dVa
dPa = · dTa − (14)
βPa βPa · Va

Where, βTa and βPa are the thermal expansion coefficient and isothermal compressibility coefficient of annular liquid respectively, ◦ C− 1
and MPa− 1. Assuming that the outer wall of the casing is fixed by cement sheath, and there is no movement of wellhead and packer, the
volume change of the tubing-casing annulus is only caused by the radial movement of the tubing wall. According to the theory of
elastic-plastic mechanics, the radial moving distance of the tubing wall at a depth can be calculated by Eq. (15) (16). Then, the total
volume change of the annulus can be calculated by Eq. (17).
βt (1 + νt ) [( 2 ) ]
lT (z) = dto − dti2 + dto2 (1 − 2νt ) + dti2 · dTt (z) (15)
4dto (1 − νt )

Fig. 2. The failure judgement flow diagram of packer.

5
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

d { [ ] }
lP(z) = ( to ) (1 − νt ) dti2 · Pi(z) − dto2 · Pa(z) − dti2 · (1 + νt )[Pi(z) − Pa(z) ] (16)
2Et dto2 − dti2

∫ [ ]
Lp
π dci2 − (dto + lT(z) + lP(z) )2
dVa = dz − Va (17)
0 4

Where, dto and dci are the outer diameter of tubing and inner diameter of casing, m. Substitute Eq. (17) into Eq. (14), and the trapped
annular pressure can be calculated by iteration method.

2.3. Failure judgement flow diagram of packer

The failure judgement flow diagram of packer during the well completion test in the deepwater HTHP gas well is built and shown in
Fig. 2.

a. Firstly, record the geometric and physical properties of each component (string, packer, cement sheath, etc.) of the wellbore, and
calculate the temperature distribution of the wellbore according to the actual field measurement data.
b. According to the geometric and physical properties, temperature distribution, and the measurement data, calculate the axial force
and the pressure difference on the packer based on the models built in section 2.1 and 2.2.
c. Locate the calculation result in the envelope curve chart. If the result is within the curve range, it means that the packer will not fail,
and the well completion test can be carried out. If it is beyond the curve range, it means that the packer will fail. Then, the existing
problems should be analyzed, and the status of the packer should be judged again after adjusting the corresponding parameters and
tools.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Case study

The wellbore structure of a deepwater HTHP gas well is shown in Fig. 2. The depth of the packer is 3200 m, and other parameters
are list in Table 1.
The first thing to determine is the wellbore temperature distribution. Ramey had put forward a semi-steady approach [36] to
calculate wellbore temperature. This method has been widely applied in trapped annular pressure [37,38], geothermal wellbore [39],
supercritical CO2 [40] et al. Based on the semi-steady approach and the conservation law as well as radial heat conservation law,
following equation set can be obtained:
[ ]
Ti (x) = C1 · gf + Tf (x) − C2 · exp − x/C (18)
1

G · CP ·[TD +2π kf · R1 ]
Where, C1 = 2πkf
Ti and Tf are respectively the gas temperature inside tubing and the formation temperature, ◦ C; G is the mass flow rate of the gas,
kg/s; CP is the specific heat capacity of gas, J/(kg.K); kf is the geothermal gradient, W/(m.K); R1 is the total thermal resistance from the
inner tubing to the formation, m.K/W; C2 is a constant, which could be calculated by the boundary conditions; TD is the dimensionless
temperature, which can be calculated by the method proposed by Hasan [41]. Assuming that the temperature of the tubing-casing
annulus is uniform, with ignoring the influence of the string and the cement sheath on the heat transfer, the heat transferred from
the tubing string to the formation is equal to the heat transferred from the annulus to the formation after heating. The annular
temperature can be calculated by Eq. (19).
( )
TD + 2πkf · R2 · Ti(x) + 2πkf ·(R1 − R2 ) · Tf (x)
Ta(x) = (19)
TD + 2π kf · R1

Where, R2 is the total thermal resistance from the annulus to the formation, m.K/W. Therefore, after the gas well producing for 3 days

Table 1
Calculation parameters.
Parameter Value Parameter Value

Mud line temperature 2.5 ◦ C Formation thermal conductivity 2.5 W/(m ▪◦ C)

Geothermal gradient 4 ◦ C/100 m Cement thermal conductivity 0.95 W/(m ▪◦ C)
Production fluid thermal capacity 3000 J/(kg ▪◦ C) Casing thermal conductivity 50.5 W/(m ▪◦ C)
Casing Poisson ratio 0.3 Tubing thermal conductivity 50.5 W/(m ▪◦ C)
Casing elasticity modulus 210 GPa Annular liquid thermal conductivity 1.56 W/(m ▪◦ C)
Tubing linear expansion coefficient 1.2 × 10− 5/◦ C Formation diffusion coefficient 1.15 × 10− 6 m2/s
Annular liquid isothermal compressibility 4.83 × 10− 4/MPa Annular liquid thermal expansion 4.65 × 10− 4/◦ C

6
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

with a rate of 38 × 104 m3, the temperature distribution of the wellbore is shown in Fig. 3.
During the gas flowing upward along the tubing string, its temperature decreases gradually, and its lost heat will heat the whole
wellbore (including inner-tubing, tubing wall, annulus, etc.) dramatically in the meantime. Due to the influence of geothermal
gradient, the environment temperature at the depth of well bottom reaches 154.5 ◦ C, which will lead to a great influence of envi­
ronment temperature on the temperature redistribution of the wellbore. After three days of trial production, the inner-tubing tem­
perature at the wellhead increased from 2.5 ◦ C to 60.5 ◦ C, with a growth rate of 58 ◦ C; the temperature of the tubing-casing annulus at
the wellhead also reached 39 ◦ C. Moreover, the redistributed wellbore temperature shows that the tubing-casing annular temperature
is generally lower than the inner-tubing temperature, with the biggest difference of 21.5 ◦ C at the wellhead. This is because that, during
the high temperature gas flowing upward, its heat is transferred to the surrounding along the radial direction, thus the annular
temperature will not exceed the temperature inside tubing. Besides, the wellhead of deepwater well is always in the low temperature
environment at the mudline, thus the temperature change at the wellhead is the most dramatical.
This case study is based on the 5.5′ THT packer of Halliburton. The temperature working range of this packer is 37.8 ◦ C–232.2 ◦ C,
which can meet the temperature requirement of the well. Based on the judgement flow chart in Fig. 5, this packer will bear an axial
force of 152.76 kN and a pressure difference of − 5.5 MPa. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 4, the result is beyond the envelope curve (green
range), thus the packer will fail in the field work. Then, it is necessary to analyze the causes of packer failure and adjust the relevant
factors and tools to enhance the packer’s reliability.

3.2. Sensitivity analysis

3.2.1. Dimensionless optimization

The dimensionless method used in the sensitivity analysis is obviously different from other methods. This method can downplay the
influence of specific well data and structure, and transmit the general information and results. Therefore, the dimensionless method
can be used in sensitivity analysis of wells with different structure, environments, and functions [42].
According to the calculation model of packer force built in section 2, many factors can affect, even determine, the axial force and
pressure difference. Therefore, several main factors are selected to express the correlation between axial force/pressure difference and
these influencing factors. As shown in Eq. (20)
{ ( )
Fa ≡ f Aa , Lp , Lf , ρa , G, Fmech , βt , Et , νt , gf , t
( ) (20)
ΔP ≡ f Aa , Lp , Lf , ρa , G, CP , βTa , βPa , gf , t

Where, Aa is the cross section area of the tubing-casing annulus, m2; Lf is the length of the formation section of the wellbore, m; ρa is the
density of the annular liquid, kg/m3; gf is the geothermal gradient, ◦ C/m; t is the production time, s. According to the principle of
dimensional harmony, Eq. (20) can be optimized dimensionless by π theorem, and four physical parameters of ρa, gf, t, and Lf are
selected as primary dimensions (these four physical parameters are independent in dimensions). Then, Eq. (20) can be transformed
into Eq. (21).

Fig. 3. Wellbore temperature distribution.

Notice: Temperature difference 1# = temperature inside tubing – initial formation temperature Temperature
difference 2# = temperature inside tubing – tubing-casing annular temperature.

7
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

Fig. 4. Judgement result of packer reliability.

⎧ [ ]
⎪ Fa Aa Lp G Fmech βt Et
⎪
⎪ ≡ f 2, , , , , , νt
⎪ ρa · t− 2 · L4f
⎨ Lf Lf ρa · t− 1 · L3f ρa · t− 2 · L4f g−f 1 · Lf− 1 ρa · t− 2 · L2f
[ ] (21)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ΔP Aa Lp G CP βTa βPa
⎩ ≡ f 2, , , , ,
ρa · t− 2 · L2f Lf Lf ρa · t− 1 · L3f g−f 1 · t− 2 · Lf g−f 1 · L−f 1 ρa − 1 · t2 · L−f 2

The terms Fa/ρa t − 2L4f and ΔP/ρa t − 2L2f are the dimensionless expressions of axial force and pressure difference respectively. The
term Aa/L2f represents the dimensionless cross section area of the tubing-casing annulus. The term Lp/Lf represents the dimensionless
packer depth. The term G/ρa t − 1L3f represents the dimensionless mass production rate. The term Fmech/ρa t − 2L4f represents the
dimensionless mechanical force. The terms βt/gf − 1L−f 1 and Et/ρa t − 2L2f are the dimensionless thermal expansion coefficient and elastic
modulus of the tubing string respectively. The term CP/gf − 1t − 2Lf is the dimensionless specific heat capacity of the production fluid.
The terms βTa/gf − 1L−f 1 and βPa/ρ−a 1 t 2L−f 2 are the dimensionless thermal expansion coefficient and isothermal compressibility coef­
ficient of annular liquid respectively.

3.2.2. Dimensionless factors analysis

(1) Geometrical dimensions. As shown in Fig. 5(a), the dimensionless packer depth has significant influence on the dimensionless
axial force and pressure difference. When the dimensionless packer depth increasing from 0.76 to 0.92, the dimensionless axial
force drops from − 0.0199 to − 0.0518, and the dimensionless pressure difference drops from 5.42 × 106 to − 44.55 × 106.
Comparatively speaking, the dimensionless cross section area of the tubing-casing annulus has little influence on them. When
the dimensionless area increasing from 2.37 × 10− 9 to 2.49 × 10− 9, the dimensionless axial force drops from − 0.0379 to
− 0.0383, and the dimensionless pressure difference increases from − 19.67 × 106 to − 19.56 × 106.
(2) Mass production rate of gas. As shown in Fig. 5(b), the dimensionless mass production rate of gas has dramatical influence on
these two parameters. When dimensionless rate increasing from 5.95 × 10− 9 to 29.76 × 10− 9, the dimensionless axial force and
the dimensionless pressure difference drops with 0.1062 and 76.45 × 106 respectively.
(3) Mechanical force. As shown in Fig. 5(c), the dimensionless mechanical force only has a little influence on the dimensionless
axial force, which is because that the dimensionless axial force only increase 0.0247 after the dimensionless mechanical force
increased from − 0.0123 to 0.0123.
(4) Physical properties of the tubing string. These dimensionless properties have significant influence on the dimensionless axial
force, which is because that these properties can directly influence three effects (ballooning effect, buckling effect, and tem­
perature effect) of those five effects. As shown in Fig. 5(d), in the variation range of the dimensionless thermal expansion
coefficient, the dimensionless elastic modulus, and Poisson’s ratio of the tubing string, the dimensionless axial force reduces
0.0312, 0.0051, and 0.0052 respectively.
(5) Thermophysical properties of the liquid. The influences of the dimensionless thermal expansion coefficient and isothermal
compressibility coefficient of the annular liquid and the dimensionless specific heat capacity of the production fluid on the
dimensionless pressure difference are shown in Fig. 5(e). In the variation range of the dimensionless thermal expansion coef­
ficient and the dimensionless specific heat capacity, the dimensionless pressure difference reduces 37.3 × 106 and 28.52 × 106
respectively; in the variation range of the dimensionless isothermal compressibility coefficient, the dimensionless pressure
difference increases 57.23 × 106.

8
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

Fig. 5. Influence of the dimensionless factors.

(a) geometrical dimensions
(b) mass production rate of gas (c) mechanical force
(d) physical properties of the tubing string (e) thermophysical properties of the liquid

9
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

4. Mitigation study

The basic way to mitigate the packer force is to control the wellbore temperature and pressure. The general methods used in the
field are: installing slip joint on the tubing string, injecting nitrogen gas in the annulus, using the foam casing, using the heat-insulation
tubing, etc. In this section, the methods of installing slip joint on the tubing string and injecting nitrogen gas in the tubing-casing
annulus will be studied.

4.1. Installing slip joint on the tubing string

The slip joints allows the tubing string to extend or shorten without changing the total length. Under the influence of this tool, the
original length change tendency (extend/shorten) of the tubing string will decrease or disappear, thus the axial force of the string
applied on the packer will be reduced. According to the example in section 3.1, the packer is subjected to a downward pressure
difference of 5.52 MPa and a downward axial force of 152.76 kN. However, the envelope curve of this packer shows that the maximum
axial force range of this packer is [-111.2, 78.4] kN when the packer is subjected to a downward pressure difference of 5.52 MPa. As the
slip joints may not be able to completely eliminate the axial force sometimes, the packer failure can be avoided as long as the axial force
can be reduced to this range.
Therefore, the safety factor x (i.e. the reduction percentage of the length change tendency) is proposed here to express the miti­
gation capacity of the slip joint. It is assumed that when the pressure difference of packer is ΔP, the maximum axial force range of
packer is [A, B]. When the slip joints are installed, the length change tendency will be reduced to:
ΔLc = ΔL · (1 − x) (22)

Where, ΔL is the initial length change tendency, m. According to the stress-strain relation, the reliability requirement are shown in Eq.
(23).
ΔLc
Fac = Et · At · ∈ [A, B] (23)
Lp

Where, Fac is the axial force after installing the slip joints, N. Then the value range of x is shown in Eq. (24).
[ ]
A B
x∈ , (24)
Fa Fa
According to this range, the slip joints with proper x can be obtained. Fig. 6 describes the different packer statuses corresponding to
different x under a certain pressure difference. When x = 0.2, the axial force is − 122.21 kN, which is very close to the safety area. When
x = 0.5, the axial force is − 76.38 kN; when x = 0.7, the axial force is - 45.83 kN. Both of them are already in a safety area. Therefore,
the slip joints has no necessary to completely eliminate the length change tendency of the tubing string, but only to reach a certain
standard to ensure the packer reliability. According to this idea, the cost can also be reduced.

4.2. Nitrogen gas injection in the annulus

The pressure difference of the example in Section 3.1 is not extreme. However, in some special wells, such as high temperature wells
with lower pressure or ultra-deep wells, the annular pressure may be much higher than that under the packer. In these wells, the

Fig. 6. The functions of the slip joints described by envelope curve.

10
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

pressure difference is likely to exceed the safe area of the envelope curve; or although the pressure difference is within the safe area, the
safe range of the corresponding axial force is reduced. Therefore, the method of nitrogen gas injection in the tubing-casing annulus can
reduce the trapped annular pressure and thus mitigate the influence of pressure difference on the packer.
In the initial state, the gas and the liquid fill the tubing-casing annulus together. After the production has been carried on for a time,
the temperature rise will cause the expansion of gas and liquid in the annulus, which will increase the trapped annular pressure.
However, the compressibility of the nitrogen gas is far greater than that of the liquid. According to the volume compensation effect, a
large part of the pressure generated by liquid expansion will be applied on gas, which will compress the gas volume. Therefore, the
trapped annular pressure will be greatly reduced, achieving the purpose of protecting wellbore integrity [27,43–48]. The volume
relationship in Fig. 14 is shown in Eq. (25).

(25)
′
Va + dVa = Vl + Vg + dVa = Vl + dVl + Vg

Where, Vl and Vg are the initial volume of the liquid and gas respectively in the annulus, m3; Vg’ is the gas volume after compression,
m3. Assuming that the total volume of gas and liquid keeps equal to the volume of the annulus, which conforms to the principle of
volume compatibility, and the gas accords with the ideal gas state equation. Divide the gas column into n segments, and each segment
is small enough to keep the temperature and pressure uniform. Then the gas volume after the change of temperature and pressure can
be calculated by Eq. (26).

Vg ∑
n
Pao · Ta−
(26)
′ Ki
Vg =
n i=1 Pa · Tao− Ki

Where, Tao-Ki is the initial absolute temperature on each segment of gas column, K; Ta-Ki is the absolute temperature after the change of
temperature and pressure in the annulus on each segment of gas column respectively, K.
A deepwater oil well with high temperature is located at a sea depth of 1260 m, and the geothermal gradient is 0.043 ◦ C/m [27].
According to the calculation results, when the oil production rate reaches 600 t/d, the pressure difference on the packer reaches
− 66.82 MPa, and the corresponding safety range of the axial force is reduced to [-90.08, 78.4] kN. This result is obviously smaller than
the safety range [- 111.2, 78.4] kN, which is correspond to the pressure difference within [- 48.3, 72.4] MPa. Therefore, it is necessary
to reduce the trapped annular pressure in order to reduce the pressure difference on the packer. According to the ratio of nitrogen gas
volume to annulus volume as the evaluation standard, the influence of different nitrogen gas volume on the pressure difference of
packer and the trapped annular pressure is shown in Fig. 7.
With the increase of nitrogen gas volume in the tubing-casing annulus, the trapped annular pressure, pressure difference, and the
axial force safety range all change obviously. Firstly, the trapped annular pressure and pressure difference will be greatly reduced at
the beginning, for instance, after the nitrogen gas content increase from 0% to 2%, both of them were reduced by 26.19 MPa (due to
ignoring the changes of annular liquid column pressure and bottom hole flow pressure, their changes are always the same). Later, their
changes tend to be stable, for instance, after the nitrogen gas content increase from 10% to 12%, both of them were only reduced by
1.19 MPa. In the later stage, the nitrogen gas has been greatly compressed, and the intermolecular space is nearly up to the limits, thus
the compressible capacity of nitrogen gas has be significantly reduced. Therefore, the final state of the trapped annular pressure and
the pressure difference will reach a balance state.
According to the envelope curve of the packer used in this well, with the nitrogen gas content increasing gradually, the axial force
safety range increases from [-90.08, 78.4] kN (168.48 kN); when the nitrogen gas content reaches about 1.1%, the axial force safety
range increases to [-111.2, 78.4] kN (189.6 kN) and tends to be stable. Therefore, The method of nitrogen gas injection in the tubing-
casing annulus has good effect on relieving the packer force.

5. Conclusion

This paper builds an evaluation model of packer reliability for the well completion test in the deepwater HTHP gas well, and
conducts researches on the packer failure, influencing factors, and mitigation methods. The following conclusion are obtained.

a. The packer force can be divided into two parts: one is the axial force of tubing string; another is the pressure difference caused by
the upper and lower annular pressure. The envelope curve can be used to evaluate and describe the state and the reliability of
packer. With the consideration of the temperature-pressure effect, the calculation model of packer force during the well completion
test in the deepwater HTHP gas well is established based on the theory of tubing mechanics, the law of momentum conservation,
and the liquid PVT properties. Then, the failure judgement flow diagram of packer is built.
b. Dimensionless formulations to obtain the axial force and the pressure difference are proposed, and ten influencing and controllable
factors are chosen to the sensitivity analysis. Dimensionless packer depth, dimensionless mass production rate, dimensionless
mechanical force, dimensionless thermal expansion coefficient of tubing string, dimensionless thermophysical properties of the
liquid have significant contributions to the axial force and pressure difference. Dimensionless cross section area of tubing casing
annulus, dimensionless elastic modulus of tubing string, and Poisson’s ratio of tubing string has little impacts the axial force and the
pressure difference.
c. Two mitigation methods, installing slip joints on the tubing string and injecting nitrogen gas in the annulus, are studied for axial
force and pressure difference. The concept and calculation method of axial force safety factor are put forward, and the axial force

11
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

Fig. 7. The influence of different nitrogen gas volume on the trapped annular pressure, the pressure difference of packer, and the safety range of the
axial force.

will decrease from - 152.76 kN to - 45.83 kN when the safety factor increasing from 0 to 0.7. When the nitrogen gas content
increasing to 12%, the trapped annular pressure and the pressure difference will respectively decrease from 74.92 MPa to 9.87 MPa
and from - 66.82 MPa to - 1.77 MPa, and the safety range of axial force related will increase from 168.48 kN to 189.6 kN. Therefore,
the mitigation effect of these two methods are all obvious.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledge

Project funded by: National Key R&D Program of China [grant number 2017YFC0804500]; Postgraduate Innovation Funding
Project of China University of Petroleum (East China) [grant number YCX2019014]; The Innovation Team Funding Project of the
Ministry of Education of China [grant number IRT1086]; The National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 51674284]
and [grant number 51974320].

References

[1] S. Zhang, Preliminary analysis of the development situation of oil and gas in the world and China, Energy China 41 (2019) 29–32 (in Chinese).
[2] M. Bagheri, S.M. Shariatipour, E. Ganjian, Prediction of the lifespan of cement at a specific depth based on the coupling of geomechanical and geochemical
processes for CO2 storage, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 86 (2019) 43–65.
[3] N. Lu, J. Hou, Y.G. Liu, M.A. Barrufet, Y.K. Ji, Z.Z. Xia, B.Y. Xu, Stage analysis and production evaluation for class III gas hydrate deposit by depressurization,
Energy 165 (2018) 501–511.
[4] C. Li, Z.C. Guan, B. Zhang, Y.N. Sheng, Q. Wang, X.H. Wang, C. Han, A study on identification of borehole ballooning in the formation with narrow safe density
window, Energy Sources, Part A: recovery, Util. Environ. Effects 41 (2019) 105–112.
[5] Y.J. Luo, J.M. Peng, L.J. Li, J.F. He, X. Gan, K. Yin, Z.Q. Zhao, Development of a specially designed drill bit for down-the-hole air hammer to reduce dust
production in the drilling process, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 1040–1048.
[6] O.Q.F. Araujo, A.C. Reis, J.L. Medeiros, J.F. Nascimento, W.M. Grava, A.P.S. Musse, Comparative analysis of separation technologies for processing carbon
dioxide rich natural gas in ultra-deepwater oil fields, J. Clean. Prod. 155 (2017) 12–22.
[7] B.J. Sun, S.J. Cao, J.L. Zhou, Deep Water Drilling Engineering, Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, 2016 (in Chinese).
[8] J.H. Chen, Z.J. Di, J. Shi, Y.Q. Shu, Z. Wan, L. Song, W.P. Zhang, Marine oil spill pollution causes and governance: a case study of Sanchi tanker collision and
explosion, J. Clean. Prod. 273 (2020), 122978.
[9] M.P. Arora, S. Lodhia, The BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill: exploring the link between social and environmental disclosures and reputation risk management,
J. Clean. Prod. 140 (2017) 1287–1297.
[10] A. Sadana, A. Kovalchuk, C. Cook, Delayed Oil Swell Packer for Openhole Zonal Isolation of Long Laterals Wells, International Petroleum Technology
Conference, Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2020.
[11] Z.Q. Hu, J. Yang, S.J. Liu, W.L. Li, S.Z. Li, G. Tong, Prediction of sealed annular pressure between dual packers in HPHT deepwater wells, Arabian Journal of
Geosciences 11 (2018) 489.
[12] M. Kelsey, A. Stautzenberger, O. Einervoll, W. Dietz, B. Lajesic, M. Stokes, Multilateral Expandable Metal Anchoring Packer Design, Development, and
Application in the North Sea, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA, 2020.
[13] S.M. Zamani, S.A. Hassanzadeh-Tabrizi, H. Sharif, Failure analysis of drill pipe: a review, Eng. Fail. Anal. 59 (2016) 605–623.
[14] B.K. Gao, L.S. Wang, T.X. Hu, Testing String Dynamics when Jarring Stuck Packer, Twenty-Ninth, International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference,
Hawaii, USA, 2019, 2019.

12
C. Li et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 26 (2021) 101021

[15] G.J. Deng, A. Kendall, C. Cook, J. Wakefield, F. Maenza, A. Tom, M. Knebel, A completion technology milestone: a HPHT ultra-high expansion openhole packer
for multi-stage completions, in: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Canada, Alberta, 2019.
[16] L.J.R. Nunes, R. Godina, J.C.O. Matias, J.P.S. Catalao, Economic and environmental benefits of using textile waste for the production of thermal energy,
J. Clean. Prod. 171 (2018) 1353–1360.
[17] Y.F. Kang, R. Samuel, A. Gonzales, Z.C. Liu, Force Calculation with Oil Well Packer: a Revisit, International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dhahran, Saudi
Arabia, 2020.
[18] K. Cao, P. Siddhamshetty, Y. Ahn, M. El-Halwagi, J.S. Kwon, Evaluating the spatiotemporal variability of water recovery ratios of shale gas wells and their
effects on shale gas development, J. Clean. Prod., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123171.
[19] Y.P. Liang, Y.T. Tan, Y.J. Luo, Y.Y. Zhang, B. Li, Progress and challenges on gas production from natural gas hydratebearing sediment, J. Clean. Prod. 261
(2020), 121061.
[20] Z.C. Guan, C. Li, Y.Q. Xu, Y.N. Sheng, B. Zhang, Y. Yan, X.M. Ma, Failure and control of fixed down-hole packer in deepwater HPHT wells, J. China Univ. Petrol.
43 (2019) 65–72 (in Chinese).
[21] S.K. Tong, D.L. Gao, Elastic-plastic collapse limit analysis of coiled tubing under complex stress state, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 174 (2019) 106–114.
[22] L.L. Dong, K. Li, X.H. Zhu, Z.Q. Li, D.P. Zhang, Y. Pan, X.W. Chen, Study on high temperature sealing behavior of packer rubber tube based on thermal aging
experiments, Eng. Fail. Anal. 108 (2020), 104321.
[23] Y.P. Zhao, H.H. Li, J. Xie, L.Y. Fan, S.Q. Jiao, Y. Hu, Failure factors analysis and countermeasures of the casing-packer during well completion test, Technol.
Supervision Petrol. Industry 32 (2016) 52–56 (in Chinese).
[24] Z. Zhang, H. Wang, Sealed annulus thermal expansion pressure mechanical calculation method and application among multiple packers in HPHT gas wells,
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 31 (2016) 692–702.
[25] B. Zhang, Z.X. Xu, Z.C. Guan, C. Li, H.T. Liu, J.F. Xie, A.R. Hasn, Q. Wang, Evaluation and analysis of nitrogen gas injected into deepwater wells to mitigate
annular pressure caused by thermal expansion, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 180 (2019) 231–239.
[26] D.J. Hammerlindl, Packer-to-tubing forces for intermediate packers, J. Petrol. Technol. 32 (1980) 515–527.
[27] B.K. Gao, D.L. Gao, Calculation method and application on testing tubing axial force for HPHT well, J. Univ. Pet. (China) 26 (2002) 39–41 (in Chinese).
[28] W.X. Gao, B.G. Jia, A.Z. Zhang, M.Z. Song, Envelope curve of packer property, Well Test. 26 (2017) 31–33 (in Chinese).
[29] F.X. Zhang, L.L. Ding, X.T. Yang, Prediction of pressure between packers of staged fracturing pipe strings in high-pressure deep wells and its application, Nat.
Gas. Ind. B 2 (2015) 252–256.
[30] L.L. Ding, X.T. Yang, H.T. Liu, Y. Zhang, Prediction and application of lower annular pressure of hanger of ultra - deep horizontal well, Oil Drilling Prod.
Technol. 37 (2015) 10–13 (in Chinese).
[31] B. Zhang, Z.C. Guan, N. Lu, A.R. Hasan, Q. Wang, B.Y. Xu, Trapped annular pressure caused by thermal expansion in oil and gas wells: a review of prediction
approaches, risk assessment and mitigation strategies, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 172 (2019) 70–82.
[32] C. Li, Z.C. Guan, X.F. Zhao, Y. Yan, B. Zhang, Q. Wang, Y.N. Sheng, A new method to protect the cementing sealing integrity of carbon dioxide geological storage
well: an experiment and mechanism study, Eng. Fract. Mech. 236 (2020), 107213.
[33] Z.C. Guan, The influence of temperature and pressure on the column pressure of oil-based drilling fluid in deepwater drilling, J. Univ. Pet. (China) 27 (2003)
48–52 (in Chinese).
[34] Z.C. Guan, B. Zhang, Q. Wang, Y.W. Liu, Y.Q. Xu, Q. Zhang, Design of thermal-insulated pipes applied in deepwater well to mitigate annular pressure build-up,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 98 (2016) 129–136.
[35] B. Zhang, Z.C. Guan, N. Lu, A.R. Hasan, S.Q. Xu, Z. Zhang, B.Y. Xu, Y.Q. Xu, Control and Analysis of Sustained Casing Pressure Caused by Cement Sealed
Integrity Failure, Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2018.
[36] H.J. Ramey, Wellbore heat transmission, J. Petrol. Technol. 14 (1962) 527, 435.
[37] L.S. Wang, B.K. Gao, L. Gao, T.X. Hu, Prediction of annular pressure caused by thermal expansion by considering the variability of fluid properties, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 141 (2018) 234–244.
[38] B. Zhang, Z.C. Guan, A.R. Hasan, N. Lu, Q. Wang, Y.Q. Xu, Q. Zhang, Y.W. Liu, Development and design of new casing to mitigate trapped annular pressure
caused by thermal expansion in oil and gas wells, Appl. Therm. Eng. 118 (2017) 292–298.
[39] F.Z. Zhou, A.X. Fei, B.H. Wu, Heat Transfer inside and outside Geothermal Wellbore, Science Press, Beijing, 2018.
[40] R.H. Wang, H.J. Ni, Wellbore heat transfer law of carbon dioxide coiled tubing drilling, J. China Univ. Petrol. (Natural Sci. Ed.) 37 (2013) 65–70 (in Chinese).
[41] A.R. Hasan, B. Izgec, C.S. Kabir, Sustaining production by managing annular-pressure buildup, SPE Prod. Oper. 25 (2010) 195–203.
[42] L.S. Wang, B.K. Gao, T.X. Hu, C. Ma, Design and application of foamed spacer to mitigate annular pressure induced by fluid thermal expansion, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 165 (2020), 114524.
[43] M. Jiang, C.D. Tan, J. Li, X.P. Cheng, J.J. Li, Comparisons between protection fluid and nitrogen column in tube-casing annulus of gas storage wells, Acta Pet.
Sin. 38 (2017) 1210–1216 (in Chinese).
[44] S.C. Han, Q. Gao, Y.F. Cheng, C.L. Yan, Z.Y. Han, X. Shi, Experimental study on brittle response of shale to cryogenic fluid nitrogen treatment, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
194 (2020), 107463.
[45] J.B. Zhang, Z.Y. Wang, S. Liu, W.G. Zhang, J. Yu, B.J. Sun, Prediction of hydrate deposition in pipelines to improve gas transportation efficiency and safety,
Appl. Energy 253 (2019), 113521.
[46] W.Q. Fu, Z.Y. Wang, B.J. Sun, J.C. Xu, L.T. Chen, X.R. Wang, Rheological properties of methane hydrate slurry in the presence of xanthan gum, SPE J. (2020),
https://doi.org/10.2118/199903-PA.
[47] W.Q. Fu, Z.Y. Wang, J.B. Zhang, Y.Y. Cao, B.J. Sun, Investigation of rheological properties of methane hydrate slurry with carboxmethylcellulose, J. Petrol. Sci.
Eng. 184 (2020), 106504.
[48] B.J. Sun, W.Q. Fu, Z.Y. Wang, J.C. Xu, L.T. Chen, J.T. Wang, J.B. Zhang, Characterizing the rheology of methane hydrate slurry in a horizontal water-continuous
system, SPE J. 25(2020), 1026-1041.

13

View publication stats