SPE

SPE 21542
Thermal Conductivity Estimation From Temperature Logs
A.C. Seto and S. Bharatha, Esso Resources Canada Ltd.
'SPE Member
Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Thermal Operations Symposium held in Bakersfield, California, February 7-8, 1991.
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,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are sUbject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
Abstract
Heat losses to over/underburden play an important role
in determining the efficiency of a thermal oil recovery
process such as cyclic steam stimulation. Thermal
conductivity is a key parameter for evaluating heat
losses. Since there is generally little information
concerning in situ thermal conductivity values, it is often
assumed in reservoir simulation models that the reservoir
and its over/underlying formations possess the same
value of thermal conductivity. If the over/underlying
formations possess significantly higher values of thermal
conductivity compared to the reservoir, the heat losses
will be underestimated in calculations based on uniform
thermal properties. Systematic procedures to estimate
thermal conductivity values from temperature logs and
core measurements are presented in this paper and
applied to field and laboratory data.
Introduction
The commercial process employed by Esso Resources
Canada Limited to recover the highly viscous bitumen at
Cold Lake, Alberta, is cyclic steam stimulation. The
injection of steam at high pressures (10-11 MPa, 1450-
1600 psi) and temperatures (311-318 C, 592-604 OF)
results in heated reservoir zones, from which heat is lost
to the formations above and below the reservoir by
conduction. It is necessary to estimate the in situ
thermal properties of the reservoir and the
over/underlying formations, in order to assess the
References and illustrations at end of paper
179
thermal efficiency of the recovery process by analytical
or numerical methods. In particular, in situ thermal
conductivity is a key parameter for evaluating
over/underburden heat losses. However, typically there
is little information concerning in situ thermal
conductivity values and it is often assumed in reservoir
simulation models that the reservoir and its neighboring
geological formations have the same or nearly the same
thermal conductivity values (see, e.g., the values used in
the simulation work by Boberg and Rotter
1
and
Johnson et al.
2
). If the over/underlying formations
possess significantly higher values of thermal
conductivity than that of the reservoir, the heat losses
and potentially the ultimate recovery from the reservoir
may be miscalculated by assuming the same values for
the thermal conductivity of all the formations.
This paper presents a systematic procedure for
estimating thermal conductivity values from temperature
logs and laboratory measurements on cores. Anisotropy
of thermal conductivity will be ignored here. From
temperature logs, in situ thermal conductivity ratios
between geological formations can be determined. If
the in situ thermal conductivity of one formation is
known, then the in situ thermal conductivity values of
the entire stratigraphic column can be determined by
using the ratios. By using core measurements to
estimate the thermal conductivity of one formation (say
the reservoir), the in situ thermal conductivity of the
various formations may be determined from the log-
derived ratios. This estimation procedure is illustrated by
application to two initial temperature logs from Cold
Lake and data from measurements on cores from the
Athabasca oil sands deposit in Alberta. A correlation
Thermal Conductivity Estimation
Let Ri == KKi denote the ratio of Ki (for any layer i) to
ref
the thermal conductivity Kref of a reference layer (here
taken to be the Clearwater formation). The value of Ri
for each major formation above the Clearwater namely
Glacial Till. Colorado Shales. Grand Rapids (for a
description of the formations above and below the
Clearwater, see the article by Wightman et al. in Ref. 3)
was determined from (1). using average values for the
temperature gradients of each layer. The results (R
values) are presented in Figs. 2 and 3.
Once the ratios Ri are known, the in situ the r maI
conductivity profile of the Cold Lake stratigraphic
column can be determined if the thermal conductivity of
the reference layer (here the Clearwater formation) is
known.
A literature search for thermal conductivity values of oil
sands revealed that most values are obtained from
measurements on remolded or reconstituted oil sand
samples under room temperature and atmospheric
conditions. Set0
4
developed a transient state thermal
test cell to measure thermal conductivity and thermal
diffusivity properties of oil sand cores at temperatures,
pressures and fluid saturations encountered during
thermal recovery processes. Details of the test
apparatus. experimental and data analysis procedures
may be found in Refs. 3, 4 or 5. Since every attempt
was made to ensure minimum disturbance during coring
of the samples and the cores were tested under
simulated reservoir conditions, the thermal conductivity
values obtained are expected to be representative of the
in situ values. The use of a transient state thermal
conductivity measurement technique also helped to
minimize the effects of convection on thermal
conductivity measurements, as observed in most steady
state type tests.
Table 1 lists the porosity. water saturation. oil saturation,
temperature. measured and calculated (from correlation
equation (4) below) thermal conductivity values for each
test on the oil sand samples obtained from the
Athabasca oil sands deposit. 4 The test specimens
included remolded and undisturbed core samples. Note
that the partially saturated, rich. remolded oil sand
i,j = 1.2.3 ,n (1)
Theory
where n denotes the number of layers considered.
Ki (dL) =K
J
' (dL)
dz i dz j
Tables of typical thermal conductivity values for shales.
sandstones and limestones, taken from the literature. are
also included to serve as a guide for estimating thermal
conductivity values when no measurements are available.
2 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY ESTIMATION FROM TEMPERATURE LOGS SPE 21542
equation for thermal conductivity as a function of However, based on the magnitude of the temperatures,
porosity. fluid saturations and temperature for the it will be assumed that the temperature profiles
Athabasca oil sands has been developed, based on core at these wells were unaffected by steaming and
measurements. This correlation is used to estimate the in correspond to virgin reservoir conditions. The vertical
situ thermal conductivity of the Cold Lake oil sands. The solid lines showing the major formation boundaries in
thermal conductivity of formations above the reservoir Figs. 2 and 3 were determined from well logs run in
are then determined from the ratios obtained from logs. nearby wells. It is clear from the figures that the
average temperature gradients for the different
formations are unequal.
Application
Consider a horizontally layered model of the earth. as
shown in Fig. 1. Suppose that the (isotropic) thermal
conductivity of each layer is constant Ki being the
thermal conductivity of layer i. For the virgin state of
the reservoir. it is reasonable to suppose that all heat
transfer is due to conduction alone. If lateral
temperature variations are ignored and steady
conditions assumed, the vertical temperature gradient is
constant for each layer -- the temperature data from
regions unaffected by thermal recovery processes are
roughly consistent with the assumption of a constant
temperature gradient in each major formation. Let
denote the (constant) vertical temperature gradient in
layer i. T being the temperature and z being the depth
(Fig. 1). Since the vertical heat flux is the same for each
layer
Since the temperature gradient (:). for each layer is
. I
d h
. Ki b
known from the temperature ata. t e ratio K' may e
J
determined for any pair of layers from (1). If the value
of Ki is known for anyone layer. the value of Kj for all
the other layers may then be determined.
The procedure will be illustrated by application to
temperatu re data from two vertical observation wells
installed at Esso Resources' oil sands leases at Cold
Lake. where bitumen is recovered from the Clearwater
formation. The temperature log data are shown in Figs.
2 and 3. By the time these temperature logs were run.
steaming of a neighboring well pad had begun.
180
SPE 21542 A. C. SETO & S. BHARATHA 3
sample was saturated with water after the first series of
thermal conductivity measurements to allow for further
testing at a different water saturation. Similarly, water
was used to flush through the rich and lean undisturbed
oil sand specimens to reduce the bitumen saturations for
two more series of tests. Thermal conductivity
measurements on tailings sand (0% oil saturation)
samples are also included.
Somerton et a/.
6
developed a correlation for estimating
thermal conductivity values of unconsolidated oil sands
from porosity and water saturation. The equation
presented in Ref. 6 requires knowledge of the thermal
conductivity of the solid constituent. Since this
property is constant when dealing with the same type of
rock, it can be incorporated into the coefficients of the
correlation equation as follows:
where m,n,p,q are constant exponents. The results did
not improve the reduction coefficient much.
The correlation (4) will be used to estimate the thermal
conductivity of the Clearwater formation. The average
values for porosity, water saturation, oil saturation and
temperature under virgin reservoir conditions are taken
to be 0.35, 0.36, 0.64 and 13C (55 OF), respectively
(see Table 1 of Ref. 1 for typical values). The thermal
conductivity, calculated from equation (4), is 2.07
W/(m'C} (1.20 Btu/hr-ft-OF). Using the average
thermal conductivity ratios shown in Figs. 2 & 3, the
average thermal conductivities of the Till, Colorado
Shales, and Grand Rapids formations are calculated to
be 2.47, 2.07, and 2.84 W/(m'C} (1.43, 1.20, 1.64
Btu/hr-ft-OF), respectively.
K = a + b<l> + d Sw (2)
K =a + b<l> + c VSw + d VSo + eT (3)
Somerton et a/.
6
also presented a correlation that allows
linear temperature dependence of thermal conductivity.
The following generalized form of (2), including a linear
dependence on temperature, was used to correlate data
in Table 1, for cores containing gas and oil phases in
addition to the water phase in the pore space:
where K
<I>
Sw
a,b,c =
thermal conductivity (W/(m C)),
porosity (fraction),
water saturation (fraction),
constant coefficients.
It may be noted that the porosity, saturation and
temperature data required for thermal conductivity
estimation are all obtainable from logs. In cases where
thermal conductivity is not known for any of the
geological formations, one may use correlations such as
equation (4), that may be available in the open literature,
for similar formations. Typical thermal conductivity
values of sandstone, shale and limestone measured by
various researchers
7
-
22
are included in Tables 2 to 4 to
facilitate estimation in the absence of any data. It should
be noted that the thermal conductivity values of the
materials vary greatly depending on the fluid saturations,
temperature, porosity and mineralogy. Variations in
measurement methods and sample conditions may also
produce variations in the values of thermal conductivity.
Practical Implications
is the dimensionless time. In equation (7), t is the time,
Kob is the thermal conductivity of over/underburden,
Due to lack of knowledge about in situ thermal
conductivity values, the thermal conductivity Kob of the
over/underburden is typically taken to be the same as the
thermal conductivity K
r
of the reservoir. The effect of
unequal thermal conductivity values for the reservoir and
over/underburden on heat losses may be assessed for
analytical models of steam injection such as the Marx-
Langenheim model
23
. For this model, the ratio H
L
of
cumulative over/underburden heat loss to the cumulative
heat injected, is given by (Eqn. (5) of Ref. 24)
HL =1 - t:[e
tD
erfc it;; + ~ -1] (6)
.................................. (7)
tD -
where
K = a + b<l>m + cSwn + dS
o
P
+ eTq (5)
A multiple linear regression analysis was employed to
determine the coefficients appearing in (3). . The
resulting correlation
K = 4.318 - 4.883<1> + 0.474VSw - 0.987VSo - 0.0024T
................................................................................ (4)
(Since the gas saturation is equal to 1 minus the sum of
water and oil saturations, it is not necessary to include
gas saturation in the correlation.)
where So = oil or bitumen saturation (fraction),
T = temperature (0G),
d,e = constant coefficients.
fits the data quite well and has a reduction coefficient
(R-squared) of 0.9696. Thermal conductivity values,
calculated for the oil sand samples in Table 1 from (4),
are also listed in the table for comparison with measured
data.
A more general form of (3), given below, was also used
for correlation analyses:
181
4 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY ESTIMATION FROM TEMPERATURE LOGS SPE21542
Mob, Mr are the volumetric heat capacities of in reservoir simulators to account for changes in thermal
over/underburden and reservoir respectively, and h is conductivity due to porosity, fluid saturation and
the reservoir thickness. temperature variations within the reservoir during the
thermal recovery process.
Nomenclature
Acknowledgement
The assumption of equal thermal conductivity values for
reservoir and over/underburden in reservoir simulation
could lead to underestimation of over/underburden heat
losses for long term evaluation of thermal processes if,
as for the Cold Lake example, the over/underburden
possess higher values of thermal conductivity compared
to the reservoir. Use of thermal conductivity values
estimated from the procedure outlined above is expected
to improve the accuracy of predictions from analytical
and numerical models.
For the calculations here, the value Mob = 2683
kJ/(m
3
.
0
C) (40 Btu/ft
3
_OF) for the volumetric heat
capacity of the over/underburden will be taken from the
Cold Lake simulation work of Boberg and Rotter1.
Adopting a value of 7x10-
7
m
2
/s for the in situ thermal
diffusivity of the Clearwater formation, based on the
estimate obtained by Vittoratos
25
from analysis of
temperature data, and using the previously obtained
value of K
r
= 2.07 W/(mC) for the thermal conductivity
of Clearwater, the volumetric heat capacity of the
reservoir is calculated to be Mr = 2957 kJ/(m
3
.
0
C) (44
Btu/ft
3
_OF). (In Table 3 of Ref. 1, a value of 2347
kJ/(m
3
.
0
C) is given for the rock volumetric heat
capacity. However, this value, corresponding to the
sand grains, has to be increased for rocks containing
water. Since the true value, depending on temperature
and the nature of the pore fluids and their saturations, is
actually variable in the reservoir, the constant value of
2957 kJ/(m
3
.
0
C) employed here appears to be a
reasonable approximation.) Taking the reservoir
thickness h = 50 m (164 ft), plots of the heat loss ratio
H
L
as a function of time, for various R (= KOb/Kr )
values, were prepared from equations (6) and (7), as
shown in Fig. 4. It is seen that for the case presented in
Figs. 2 & 3, corresponding to R = 1.37, the increase in
the heat loss ratio over the normal case of equal
over/underburden and reservoir thermal conductivity (R
= 1.0) is about 11 % after 10 years of steam injection.
For long term economic forecasts of thermal recovery
processes, this increase in heat loss may become
significant. This is particularly true in thermal processes
where steam or hot fluid override is dominant.
The method of using initial temperature logs to estimate
thermal conductivity ratios, employed here, should
improve the accuracy of thermal property description for
reservoir and wellbore heat loss simulations.
K
T
z
<l>
Sw
So
a,b,c,d,e
m,n,p,q
H
L
tD
Kob
K
r
Mob
M
r
t
h
Ri
=Thermal Conductivity
=Temperature
= Depth
= Porosity
=Water saturation
=Oil Saturation
= Constant coefficients
= Constant exponents
= Ratio of cum. heat loss to cum. heat
injected
=Dimensionless time
= Thermal conductivity of over/underburden
= Thermal conductivity of reservoir
=Volumetric heat capacity of
over/underburden
= Volumetric heat capacity of reservoir
= Time
= Reservoir thickness
= Ratio of thermal conductivity of formation i
to that of reference formation
References
The authors wish to thank Esso Resources Canada
Limited for the permission to publish this paper. Special
thanks are due to our colleague J. M. Gronseth who
provided the temperature data and the idea of using this
data to define formation boundaries.
Conclusions
In situ thermal conductivity ratios of geological
formations may be estimated from initial temperature
logs. The estimation has been carried out using
observation well temperature data from Cold Lake.
Thermal conductivity measurements on Athabasca oil
sand cores may be satisfactorily represented by means
of a correlation equation relating the conductivity to
porosity, fluid saturations and temperature. This
correlation has been used to estimate the in situ thermal
conductivity of Clearwater formation at Cold Lake and
of the overlying formations from the ratios determined
from temperature logs. The correlation may also be used
1.
182
Boberg, T.C. and Rotter, M.B.: "History Match of
Multiwell Simulation Models of Cyclic Steam
Stimulation Process at Cold Lake," paper SPE
20743 presented at the 65th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of SPE, New Orleans,
Sept. 23-26, 1990.
Kristiansen, J., Saxov, S., Balling, N. and Poulsen,
K.: "In Situ Thermal Conductivity Measurements
of Precambrian, Paleozoic and Mesozoic Rocks on
Bornholm, Denmark," Geologiska Foreningens i
Stockholm Forhandlingar, Vol. 104, Pt. 1 (1982)
49-56.
15.
16. Kristiansen, J., Saxov, S. and Balling, N.: "The
Thermal Conductivity of Some Crystalline and
Sedimentary Rocks from Scandinavia,"
Geothermal Resources Council, Trans., Vol. 6
(1982) 129-132.
17. Evans, T.R.: "Thermal Properties of North Sea
Rocks," Log Analyst, Vol. 18, No.2 (1977) 3-12.
24. Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Heat Loss to the Adjacent
Formations," Producers Monthly, Vol. 30, (May
1966) 4-7.
22. Mongelli, F., Loddo, M. and Tramacere, A.:
"Thermal Conductivity, Diffusivity and Specific
Heat Variation of Some Travale Field (Tuscany)
Rocks versus Temperature," Tectonophysics, Vol.
83 (1982) 33-43.
21. Poulsen, K.D., Saxov, S., Balling, N. and
Kristiansen, J.I.: "Thermal Conductivity
Measurements on Silurian Limestones from the
Island of Gotland, Sweden," Geologiska
Foreningen Stockholm Forhandl, Vol. 103, Pt. 3
(1981) 349-356.
18. Birch, F. and Clark, H.: "The Thermal Conductivity
of Rocks and Its Dependence upon Temperature
and Composition," American Journal of Science,
Vol. 238, No.8 (1940) 529-635.
19. Thomas, J. Jr., Frost, R.R. and Harvey, R.D.:
"Thermal Conductivity of Carbonate Rocks,"
Engineering Geology, Vol. 7, No.1 (1973) 3-12.
20. Roy, R.F., Beck, A.E. and Touloukian, Y.S.:
"Thermophysical Properties of Rocks," in Physical
Properties of Rocks and Minerals, Data series on
Material Properties, Vol. 11-2, edited by Y.S.
Touloukian and C.Y. Ho, McGraw-Hili Book Co.,
New York (1981) 409-502.
23. Marx, J.W. and Langenheim, R.H.: "Reservoir
Heating by Hot Fluid Injection," Trans. AIME, Vol.
216, (1959) 312-315.
A.C. SETD &S.BHARATHA 5
Field: Experimental Results and an Improved
Prediction Method," Geothermics, Vol. 9,
Pergamon Press Ltd., Great Britain (1980) 169-
178.
Johnson, R.S., Chu, C., Mims, D.S. and Haney,
K.L.: "History Matching of High- and Low-Quality
Steamfloods in Kern River Field, California," paper
SPE 18768 presented at the SPE California
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, April 5-7, 1989.
2.
3. Hepler, L.G. and Hsi, C. (Eds.): A as T R A
Technical Handbook on Oil Sands, Bitumens and
Heavy Oils, AOSTRA Tech. Publ. Series #6,
Edmonton (1989).
4. Seto, A.C.: Thermal Testing of Oil Sands, M.Sc.
thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton (1985).
5. Scott, J.D. and Seto, A.C.: "Thermal Property
Measurement on Oil Sands," JCPT, Vol. 25, No.6
(Nov.-Dec. 1986) 70-77.
6. Somerton, W.H., Keese, J.A. and Chu, S.L.:
"Thermal Behavior of Unconsolidated Oil Sands,"
SPEJ, Vol. 14 (Oct., 1974) 513-521.
SPE21542
9. Somerton, W.H. and Boozer, G.D.: "Thermal
Characteristics of Porous Rocks at Elevated
Temperatures," Trans. AIME, Vol. 219 (1960)
418-422.
7. Zierfuss, H. and Van der Vliet, G.L.: "Laboratory
Measurements of Heat Conductivity of
Sedimentary Rocks," Bulletin of the American
Assoc. of Petro. Geology, Vol. 40 (1956) 2475-
2488.
8. Somerton, W.H.: "Some Thermal Characteristics
of Porous Rocks," Petro. Trans., AIME, Vol. 213
(1958) 375-378.
10. Clark, S.P. Jr. (editor): "Thermal Conductivity,"
Section 21 of Handbook of Physical Constants,
revised edition, Geol. Soc. of America, Inc.,
Memoir 97 (1966) 459-482.
11. Cermak, V.: "Coefficient of Thermal Conductivity
of Some Sediments, Its Dependence on Density
and on Water Content of Rocks," Chemie der
Erde, Vol. 26 (1967) 271-278.
12. Moiseyenko, U.I., Sokolova, L.S. and Istomin,
V.Ye.: "Electric and Thermal Properties of Rocks,"
Nat. Aero. & Space Admin., Tech. Translation No.
F-671 (1972) 1-63.
13. Anand, J., Somerton, W.H. and Gomaa, E.:
"Predicting Thermal Characteristics of Formations
from Other Known Properties," SPEJ, Vol. 13
(1973) 267-273.
14. Martinez-Baez, L.F.: "Thermal Conductivity of 25. Vittoratos, E.: "Interpretation of Temperature
Core Samples from the Cerro Prieto Geothermal Profiles From the Steam-Stimulated Cold Lake
183
6 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY ESTIMATION FROM TEMPERATURE LOGS
Reservoir," paper SPE 15050 presented at the
56th California Regional Meeting of SPE, Oakland,
April 2-4, 1986.
184
SPE21542
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
Measured Thermal Conductivity Values of Samples
Thermal Conductivity of Sandstone (after Set0
4
)
Sample $ Sw So
T (OC) K (W/(moC)
K (W/(m'oC))
Actual Calculated $ References & Remarks
(fluid medium)
Rich 0.440 0.038 0.675 20 1.281 1.402
Air Water Oil
remolded 21 1.295 1.400
0.68-4.40 4.40-6.99 1.21-4.40 0.044-0.368 Zierluss and Van der Vliet
7
oil sand 49 1.231 1.332
99 1.163 1.210 0.88 2.76 1.36 0.196 Somerton
8
151 1.114 1.084
199 0.992 0.967
0.49 1.82 1.00 0.40 ditto
0.440 0.325 0.675 20 1.734 1.580
1.13-1.38
Somerton and Boozer
9
50 1.664 1.507
1.47-4.27
Clark
10
101 1.470 1.383
149 1.336 1.267 1.05-3.06 1.63-3.10 0.00-0.180 Cermak
11
198 1.246 1.148
2.05-2.76
Moiseyenko et al.
12
Lean 0.396 0.816 0.184 20 2.216 2.341 1.47-2.34 3.08-5.19 0.162-0.292 Anand et a/.
13
remolded 49 2.186 2.270
oil sand 98 2.073 2.151
1.30-2.44 2.25-4.64 0.042-0.290 Martinez-Baez14; 56-57C
147 1.977 2.032
0.47-0.59 2.04-2.27 0.350 ditto; Unconsolidated
197 1.817 1.910
4.51-6.12
Kristiansen et a/.
15
Medium 0.350 0.270 0.730 20 2.009 1.963
3.71-4.22
Kristiansen et al.
16
undisturbed 48 1.850 1.895
oil sand 98 1.786 1.774
148 1.747 1.652
Rich 0.343 0.106 0.894 20 1.765 1.816
undisturbed 48 1.736 1.748
oil sand 98 1.659 1.626
148 1.597 1.505
196 1.500 1.388
0.343 0.597 0.403 99 2.026 2.142
TABLE 3
147 1.884 2.026
197 1.730 1.904
Thermal Conductivity of Shale (after Set0
4
)
Lean 0.311 0.786 0.214 20 2.676 2.714
undisturbed 48 2.674 2.646 K (W/(moC))
$ References & Remarks
oil sand 99 2.560 2.522 (flUid medium)
148 2.394 2.403
Air Water
197 2.391 2.284
1.04 1.69 Somerlon
8
0.071
0.293 0.629 0.159 21 2.778 2.819
1.45 Somerton and Boozer
9
49 2.767 2.751
99 2.551 2.629
1.17-2.89 ClarkI 0
149 2.385 2.507
198 2.477 2.388
0.87-1.04 1.21-1.38 Anand et a/.
13
; 70-250 OF
(21-121 C)
Tailings 0.331 1.00 0.00 21 3.377 3.125
1.40-2.00 Evans
1
?
sand 49 3.145 3.057
100 3.116 2.933 1.52 2.37 0.148 Martinez-Baez14; 56-57C
148 2.776 2.816
1.35 1.99 0.148 ditto; 124-125 C
198 2.563 2.694
TABLE 4
Thermal Conductivity of Limestone (after 5et0
4
)
References & Remarks
Birch and Clark18; Includes temperature
dependence ot thermai conductivity up to
200C
Zierluss and Van der Vliet?
Somerton
8
Somerton and Boozer
9
ClarkI 0
Cennak
11
Moiseyenko et al.
12
Thomas et al.
19
; 40.5 C
Roy et a/.
20
; Includes plols of thermal
conductivity vs temperature up 10 627C
Poulsen et a/.
21
Kristiansen et al.
15
Kristiansen at al.
16
Mongelli et al.
22
; 20-240 C
185
R=1.36 IR=1.0
Grand I Clear-
Rapids water
480 400 320 240
Colorado
Shales
160 80
Till
16
6'
12
C?...-
O>
....
::J
8
ro
....
0>
c..
E
4 0>
I-
0
I
0
'"
Layer 1, Kl
Layer 2, K
2
Layer 3, K
3
Layer i, K i
OJ
Z
Depth (m)
Figure 1. Formation Layers of Different Thermal Conductivities
Figure 2. Well 1 Temperature Log
Figure 3. Well 2 Temperature Log

N
,.
Vl

to
35 30 25 10 5
-R=1.00

-o-R=1.50
/+ ;;1---R=2.00
15 20
Time (years)
Figure 4. Cum. Heat Loss / Cum. Heat Injected Vs Time
60
L
"0
0>
-
()
50 0>
"C
ro
0>
40 I
E
::J
0
30
--
l/)
l/)
0
...J
ro
20 0>
I
E
::J
10 0
0
16
6'
12
C?...-
O>
....
::J
8
ro
....
I
R=1.23
V
R=1.02
I R=1.38 I R=
0>
a.
1.0
E
0> 4
I-
Grand IClear-
Rapids water
0
I I
0 80 160 240 320 400 480
Depth (m)
-00
'"