PETROLEUM

Heat Losses During Flow of Steam Down a Wellbore

ABSTRACT
ABDUS SATTER
JUNIOR MEMBER A/ME
Studies of wellbore heat transmission during the injec-
tion of a hot fluid, as either gas or liquid, have appeared
in the literature. The present investigation takes into ac-
count the effect of condensation, which is of practical sig-
nificance when considering steam injection operations. Cal-
culation procedures are given for superheated and for sat-
urated and undersaturated steam.
Effects of injection mte, time, pressure, temperature and
depth of a well on heat losses have been analyzed. The
benefits of using a packer are discussed. Also presented
are correlations for estimating heat losses involved during
injection of saturated steam.
INTRODUCTION
Studies of wellbore heat losses during the injection of
a hot fluid have appeared in the literature. Ramey! has
presented a useful solution for calculating temperature of
a heated gas as a function of depth and injection time.
Ramey and others have also presented solutions for the
hot liquid case.'-' No method is available to take into ac-
count the effect of condensation, which is of practical sig-
nificance when considering steam injection operations. This
paper presents a method of estimating the quality of a
condensing fluid as a function of depth and time. The
approach is basically the same as that used by Ramey.
The following injected fluids and conditions are con-
sidered in this study:
1. Injection of superheated steam
A. Decrease in temperature until cooled to the sat-
urated state
B. Condensation until condensed completely into hot
(saturated) water
2. Injection of saturated or undersaturated steam; con-
densation until condensed completely into hot (sat-
urated) water.
Although this investigation does not include cooling of
water after steam is completely condensed, Ramey's solu-
tion for the hot liquid case can be used for this purpose.
The effects of various process variables on heat losses
during the injection of steam into a well are investigated.
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers of-
fice Nov. 18. 1964. Revised manuscript received May 11. 1965. Paper
(SPE 1071) presented at SPE Production Research Symposium held in
Tulsa. May 3-4. 1965.
lReferences given at end of paper.
Discussion of this and all following technical papers is invited. Dis-
cussion in writing (three copies) may be sent to the office of the Jour-
nal of Petroleum Technology. Any discussion offered after Dec. 31. 1965.
should be in the form of a new paper. No discussion should exceed 10
per cent of the manuscript being discussed.
JULY. 1965
PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORP.
TULSA, OKLA.
THEORY
QUALITY OF CONDENSING STEAM
Predicting the behavior of condensing steam flowing
down the injection well bore requires an estimate of the
quality of steam, i.e., the mass fraction of vapor in the
mixture. Let us divide the total depth of the injection well
into several segments which might be, but do not have to
be, of equal magnitude. Consider condensation within a
given depth interval 6.Z, the bottom of which is located
at a depth Z from the surface (Fig 1). The following
equation, derived in the Appendix, relates the quality of
steam at the bottom of an interval to that at the top of
the interval:
y [Z,t] =
(6.Z),
y [(Z-6.Z),/] + a -
+ [A_' B_'
A'
( I )
where
(2)
()
B' = -----"'---
778g,L
v
(3)
See the nomenclature for symbol definitions.
The major assumptions made in the solution are as
follows:
1. Steam is injected at a constant rate, wellhead pres-
sure, temperature and quality.
2. A down-hole packer is used to prevent steam from
entering the tubing-casing annulus. The annulus is assumed
to be filled with air at low pressure.
3. The heat transfer in the wellbore is under steady-
Te = Tml------,,,-j
o
I
r--STEAM
CASE OF CASE OF
CONDENSING COOLING
I y[(Z-llZ).t] T[(Z-llZ),t]
".'''.'''''''-.''1_:_ ..I--+--+-+---i",'+ i i I L
Z "Y(Z,t) T(Z,t)
"
FIG. I-SCHDIATIC DIAGRAM OF WELLBORE HEAT PROBU:;\f.
11-15
state conditions, while heat transfer to the earth involves
l!nsteady-state radial conduction.
4. Kinetic energy changes are negligible.
5. Any variation in pressure of the steam with depth
due to hydrostatic effects and frictional losses is negligible.
6. There is negligible variation in thermal conductivity
and diffusivity of the earth with depth.
While friction and gravity could have opposing effects
on the fluid pressure (the pressure at any point in the
well bore would be decreased by friction, but increased by
gravity), they are not likely' to cancel each other. In a
shallow well and/or in the case of a lower injection rate.
the assumption of negligible variation in pressure with
depth is quite reasonable. In the case of a deep well and/or
a higher injection rate, this assumption might introduce
some error in the present method of calculation.
TEMPERATURE OF A COOLING
SUPERHEATED STEAM
Ramey's equation' describing the temperature behavior
of injected gas as it moves down the well bore IS
T[Z.t] = aZ+T",-aA-AB
where
A
+ (1', -- T", +aA +AB)e'z/'.
LC" [k",+r,Uf(t)]
271'r,Uk"f
B =--g--.
77Sg,C,
(4)
(5)
(6)
The basic assumptions made in this solution are as follows,
1. The fluid is a perfect gas.
2. The fluid does not undergo any change of phase in
the wellbore.
3. The rate of fluid injection is constant with a con-
stant temperature at the wellhead.
4. Any variation in thermal and physical properties of
the earth and wellbore fluids is negligible.
5. The heat transfer in the wellbore is under steady-
state conditions, while heat flow to the earth is unsteady
radial conduction.
6. Kinetic energy changes and frictional losses are neg-
ligible.
In the present investigation, changes in the over-all heat
transfer coefficient with temperature (or depth) are con-
sidered. A solution on a depth-step basis (similar to that
of the condensing steam case) is, therefore, suggested.
Under the present approach, it is assumed that the thermal
and physical properties of steam are constant within a
given depth interval. These properties could, however,
change from one depth interval to another.
The differential equation from which Eq. 4 was derived
is solved on a depth-step basis similar to the condensing
steam case, and the following equation relating the temper-
ature of the steam at the bottom of a given depth interval
to that at the top is obtained.
T[Z,t] = aZ+T",-aA-AB+{T[(Z-tlZ), tJ
-T",-a(Z-tlZ)+aA+AB} e-
AZ
/'. (7)
TIME FUNCTION 1ft)
The time function f(t) describing the transient heat
conduction from an infinitely long cylinder has been pre-
sented by Ramey:'
t(t) = f'
r ,-
(8)
816
Ramey's graphical solution of the above equation for
various boundary conditions can be used for estimating
f(t) at the end of a given injection time.
WELLBORE THERMAL RESISTANCE
For the heat losses during injection of steam through
the tubing, with air filling the annulus between the tubing
and the casing, the following heat-transfer coefficients have
been considered:
1. Convective heat-transfer coefficient between the in-
jected fluid and the tubing surface;
2. Convective heat-transfer coefficient between the tub-
ing and the casing through the medium of air; and
3. Radiation heat-transfer coefficient between the tub-
ing and the casing.
In addition, the thermal resistance of the tubing wall
has been taken into account, while the resistance of the
casing wall has been neglected. The over-all heat-transfer
coefficient using an arithmetic average is given by
.!... = _1_ + (r,'-r,) + ___ 1 __ .
U V, k", U,+ Ur
(9)
The heat-transfer coefficients can be found from heat-
transfer correlations presented in the literature. McAdams'
has presented methods applicable for estimating the con-
vective heat-transfer coefficient between the fluid and tub-
ing for cooling and condensation of steam. The radiation
heat-transfer coefficient between the tubing and the cas-
ing can be estimated by using a correlation also presented
by McAdams. The heat-transfer coefficient for natural con-
vection across a layer of fluid (air) between two concen-
tric cylinders has been reported by Fishenden." The over-
all heat-transfer coefficient given by Eq. 9 is dependent
mainly upon the radiation coefficient.
CALCULATION OF PER CENT HEAT LOSS
Considering the change in enthalpy and the change in
potential energy, the following equations can be used to
calculate the instantaneous rate of heat loss as a per cent
of the wellhead heat input.
Superheated Steam at the Surface
Loss of Heat Through Cooling:
[
H' - H [Z,t] + 7
gZ
] X 100
0/ 7Sg,. (10)
70 Heat Loss = .
H,-(Hwhm
Loss of Heat Through Condensation:
[H,-{Hw+Y[Z,t1L.}+ X100
% Heat Loss = .0..... ___
H,-(Hwh
m
Saturated or Undersaturated Steam
Loss of Heat Through Condensation:
[
{Y,-Y[Z,t]}Lv+ gsZ ]X100
. H L 77 g,
% eat oss = H L _ )
w+Y, v (Hw Tm
(11 )
(12)
In these equations, the heat input is taken as the amount
of heat required to generate steam (at wellhead condi-
tions) from water at the mean surface temperature of the
earth.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
CALCULA nON PROCEDURE
A computer program was written for and executed on
an IBM 704 computer. The program was composed of two
main parts. The first involved the calculation of tempera-
ture distribution in the case of cooling of a superheated
steam, and the second was concerned with the quality dis-
tribution in the case of condensation of steam. The calcu-
lation procedure was on a depth-step basis at a given in-
jection time. Several iterative calculations were required
for each depth step. For example, in the case of super-
heated steam being cooled, the temperature of the steam
at the bottom of the depth interval and an average casing
temperature within tohe interval were assumed. The average
tubing temperature in the section was estimated by the
arithmetic mean of the steam temperature at the top
(known from the preceding depth step) and the bottom of
the interval (assumed). The average air temperature was
also estimated by the arithmetic mean of the tubing and
casing temperatures. Then, the over-all heat-transfer coeffi-
cient around the wellbore could be calculated. Finally,
knowing the time function, the steam temperature at the
bottom of the interval and the average casing temperature
'Nithin the section were estimated. The calculated values
were then compared with the assumed values. In case of
discrepancy, the calculated values were used as the next
trial values. When the condition of steam was determined
the instantaneous rate of heat loss as a per cent of the
head heat input was calculated. Several subroutines were
used for calculating the time function, over-all heat-transfer
coefficient, and for finding the thermal and physical prop-
erties of steam (in the superheated and saturated region)
and air from their tabulated values.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
FACTORS AFFECTING HEAT LOSSES
Assuming that the geothermal properties and casing and
tubing sizes are constant, the major factors affecting heat
losses are (1) injection time, (2) injection rate, (3)
depth of the injection well, and (4) injection pressure and
temperature in the case of superheated steam or injection
pressure in the case of saturated steam.
Figs. 2 through 7 demonstrate the effects of these fac-
tors. The selected values of geothermal properties and cas-
ing and tubing sizes used to obtain the results shown on
these figures are listed in Table 1. These values are repre-
sentative of an average situation.
Fig. 2 shows the variation of temperature and quality
with depth and injection time while injecting 5,000 Ib/hr
of superheated steam at 500 psia and 1,000F. The tem-
perature and quality distribution varies most rapidly at
early times, but later in the life only small changes occur
with time. The point of condensation, Le., the depth at
which condensation first occurs, moves downward rapidly
with time during the early life of injection. At greater
times, the condensation point moves rather slowly down-
ward. Steam could travel to about 1,100 ft without
condensation at the end of several hours of injection. On
the other hand, even at the end of 10 years of injection,
steam would be condensing beyond the depth of about
3,100 ft. For the same injection conditions as used in Fig.
2, Fig. 3 shows the variation of heat losses with depth and
injection time, and Fig. 4 demonstrates the variation of
heat losses with time to a depth of 4,000 ft. As expected,
the variation of heat losses with time is most rapid for
early times, but very slow thereafter.
Fig. 5 shows heat loss as a function of injection tem-
perature and depth at the end of one year (for an injection
JUI.Y,1965
TABLE 1-PROCESS PARAMETERS
1. Mean earth surface temperature
2. Geothermal gradient
3. Thermal conductivity of earth
4. Thermal diffusivity of earth
5. Inside diameter of casing
6. Outside diameter of casing
7. Inside diameter of tubing
8. Outside diameter of tubing
75F
0.011 F/ft
1.0 Btu /hr.ft 0 F
0.046 sq It/hr
5.989 in.
6.625 in.
2.441 in.
2.875 in.
rate of 5,000 lb/hr of steam at 500 psia). The heat loss
per of steam is higher with higher injection tempera-
tures, which suggests an advantage in injecting saturated
steam rather tohan superheated steam. It should be pointed
out, however, that even though heat losses are higher in
superheated steam, the amount of initial heat content is
also higher than that of the saturated steam.
One advantage which superheated steam has over satu-
rated steam is that superheated steam might reach the
bottom of a well without condensation. For example, for
the conditions illustrated by Fig. 5, the superheated steam
injected at 1,000F first starts to condense at a depth of
2,512 ft, while saturated steam begins to condense as soon
as it enters the well.
Fig. 6 sh?ws how heat loss increases with injection pres-
sure and With depth (at the end of one year of injection)
for the case of injecting 5,000 lb/hr of superheated steam
at 1,000F. The heat loss is more pronounced in the con-
densing steam region for higher pressures. This is because
higher pressures have correspondingly higher saturation
temperatures, and thus greater temperature gradients
around the wellbore. Also, at a higher pressure the point
of condensation is encountered higher in the well than in
the case of a lower pressure because the degrees of super-
heat decrease with increasing pressure. This effect is more'
pronounced in the pressure range of 100 to 1,000 psia.
1000
I
I
2000
I-
W
w
ll-..
3000-
I
I-
a..
w
0
I
I
i
w "
zw

40001
-0::

zl-
o<l:
_0::
!;:tw
<Jla..
W z::;;
Ww
::;;
5000
01-
zz
00
<..)-
!;:t
0::

!;:t
6000
<Jl
__ ---.L
1.0
QUALITY, MASS
FIG. 2-TEMPERATURE AND QUALITY AS A FUNCTION OF TIME
AND DEPTH. INJECTION RATE 5,000 lb/hr OF SUPERHEATED STEAM
INJECTION TEMPERATURE I,OOOF, AND INJECTION PRESSURE '
500 psia.
847
Fig. 6 shows that hot water (saturated) is encountered
-at a depth of 5,240 ft in the case of 2,500-psia pressure.
Beyond this point, the injected fluid would travel as liquid
decreasing in temperature.
Fig. 7 indicates the variation of heat losses with injec-
tion rate and depth. It is assumed that saturated steam at
500 psia and 467F is injected for a period of one year.
At a given injection rate, the heat loss is almost directly
proportional to the depth. This is to be expected, because
in the case of condensing steam, the temperature of steam
is essentially constant and, hence, the thermal gradient
around the well bore varies only slightly with depth for a
given injection time. At a given depth, the heat loss as a
percentage of the input at the wellhead is inversely pro-
portional to the injection rate, provided other factors are
constant. In the sample graph, hot water (saturated) was
encountered before the maximum depth of 6,000 ft was
reached in the case of the injection rate of 1,000 Ib/hr.
70.
f- 60'
<1 '
W
r
I- 50
1
:::>
"-
z
;:: 40
o
0-:30
(f)
(f)
o
-' 20
f- '
<1
w
r
LINE
1666' 3600 4000 5000
DEPTH, FEET
1.0 I
10.Oi
-1
I
FIG. 3--HEAT Loss AS A FUNCTION OF TIME AND DEPTH.
hn:CTION RATE 5,000 Ih/hr OF SUPERHEATED STEAM, INJECTION
PRESSURE 500 psi a, INJECTION TEMPERATURE 1,000F .
... 50
<{
W
J:
f- 40
::l
Q.
Z
- 30
lJ..
o
i
20;
!
-
___L
I--J-- -
=-+
' :
i
- __ _ ---l_
--r- -,--
.-----1---
,
I i I
. +-
---+--
I
-.
t--
__ 1-
,
_l __
---+--
-1--+
lor
OLI __ ____ L-__ __ -L __ ____ L-__ __ -L __ __
I
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
INJECTION TIME, YEARS
FIG. 4-HEAT Loss AS A FUNCTION OF TIME. INJECTIO;'<i RATE
5.000 Ill/hr OF SUPERHEATED STEAM, INJECTIO;'<i PRESSURE 500
psia, bJECTIO;'<i TEMPERATURE 1,000F, DEPTH 4,000 ft.
::<
;;I600r '-
f-
(f)
0500
w
f-
U
400--
z, ,
;:: : CONDENSATION LINE
0300'---
CD !
-' '
; 200! .
f-
a
(f)'
(f)
g
'<i
w
r
I
I
. ____________ .. -.J
1000 3000 4000 5000 6000
DEPTH, FEET
FIG. 5-HEAT Loss AS A FUNCTION OF INJECTION TEMPERATURE
AND DEPTH. INJECTION RATE 5,000 Ih/hr, INJECTION PRESSURE
500 PSIA, TIME ONE YEAR.
litH
EFFECT OF PACKER ON HEAT LOSS
Is there any benefit in using a downhole packer? Fig. 8
shows the heat losses for injecting 5,000 Ib/hr of saturated
steam at 500 psia into a 3,000-ft deep well under the fol-
lowing conditions: (1) steam is injected through the tubing
and a down-hole packer is used to prevent steam from
entering the tubing-casing annulus; and (2) steam is in-
jected through the tubing and no packer is used.
The solution for Case 2 is obtained by assuming the
thermal resistance between the tubing and the casing to be
negligible (U = 00 ). With this assumption, the temperature
of the casing is always equal to the steam temperature.
The results show that the difference in heat losses in the
two cases is more pronounced during early days of injec-
4000
- ---
5000 6000
DEPTH,FEET
FIG. 6---HEAT Loss AS f\ FUNCTW" OF bJ ECTION PRESSURE AND
DEPTH. INJECTION RATE 5,000 Ih/hr, TIME ONE YEAR,
TEMPERATURE 1,000F.
d
3000 4000 5000 6000
DEPTH, FEET
FIG. 7-HEAT Loss AS A FUNCTION OF INJECTION RATE ANll
DEPTH. WELLHEAD CONDITION OF STEAM, SATURATED STEAM AT
500 psi a AND 467F; INJECTION TIME ONE YEAR.
60 - -. -,- -------- ---T

50 ,-.
f-
::l
40 -
1.0
CASE OF
-,' ----,-----8
r
I
,-- -j-
PACKER (A)
9.0 10.0
FIG. 8-WELLBORE HEAT LoSSES FOR CASES A AND B. INJECTION
RATE 5,000 lb/hr OF SATURATED STEAM, INJECTION PRESSURE
500 psi a, SATURATION TEMPERATURE 467F, DEPTH 3,000 ft.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
tion, but decreases with the increasing injection time. In
the case of a huff-and-puff steam operation where the
steam injection period lasts only for several days or weeks,
a substantial amount of the injected heat can be conserved
if a down-hole packer is used.
Another benefit of using a packer is illustrated in Fig. 9,
which shows how the casing temperature at the bottom of
the well changes with the injection time when a packer is
used. The casing temperature rises rapidly at early times.
u.:
o
w
I
CASING TEMPERATURE FOR CASE (A)
l
!3 300
-! I _
I-
<!
Q::
W
200
w
I- I
GEOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE=IOB
o
F.
..
_ L _ _ __1 _____ __
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
INJECTION TIME, YEARS
L ____ J
8.0 9.0 10.0
FIG. 9--CASING TEMPERATURE FOR CASE A. biJECTION RAT!:
5.000 Ib/hr OF SATURATE!) STEAM, INJECTlO'i PRESSCRE 5()() p,ja.
J:

a..
lLJ
0

lLJ
lLJ
lL.
0
0
'-
!;t
lLJ
'J:


a..
z
lL.
0

Z
lLJ
<.)
0:::
lLJ
a..
Z
(f)
(f)
0
-I
\:i
lLJ
J:
DEPTH :1,000 ft.
.1 ',--'
.2
.4
.6
.8
1.0
----
INJECTION
PRESSURE
I
PSIA.
I I I
! ! ; I
8,0
10.0 LI
FIG. lO--HEAT Loss AS A fuNCTION Of' INJECTIO'i RATE A'ilJ
PRESSI'RE I'i CASE OF bin:CTlNG SATCRATEO
FOR O'iE YEAR.
IULY, 1963
After two weeks of injection, the temperature would be
330F. Later in the life, a period of years might cause only
a small rise in tenwerature. In contrast, if steam is allowed
to enter the annulus, the casing temperature might rapidly
attain the steam temperature of 467F. Therefore, the use
of a packer can reduce the chance of a casing failure due
to sudden and excessive expansion.
HEAT-LOSS CORRELATIONS
Because of the extreme variety of conditions possible for
steam injection, it is not feasible to develop correlations
which would be applicable to all situations. However, it is
possible to obtain a correlation which would provide ap-
proximate results for a specific case.
The results shown in Figs. 6 and 7 suggest a correla-
tion of the form
heat loss/foot = f" (injection rate, injection pressure).
Fig. 10 represents such a correlation. This correlation can
be used if (1) the selected values of the parameters of
Table 1 approximate the case under investigation; (2)
saturated steam is injected through the tubing and a down-
hole packer is used; and (3) the time of injection is one
year.
Fig. 7 suggests that a provision should be made to esti-
mate the hot water point; and Fig. II provides the corre-
100
200
I-
W
W
lL.
400
1--
Z
5
600
!l.
0::
W
800
t:i
;:
1000
I-
0
:I:
1L..
0
z 2000
0
!;t
<.)
0
-'
4000
6000
8000
INJECTION
PRESSURE,
_ PSIA

0
0
.
--- INJECTION
o TEMPERATURES
/. OF
1 6'6'0>1

q,
I.t." '\.
I
--
""isP


"\. I "\.s;, 1\:""
'"
"'
,' "\ I'"
10,000
1
,<9 "' 1"- i"-
I",
2 4 6 810
INJECTION RATE, 10
3
LB/HR
F[(;. Il--LoCATION OF HOT WATER POINT AS A FUNCTION OF
RATE A]';!) PRESSURE IN CASE OF INJECTING
SATCRATEO STEA:\T FOR O"<E YEAR.
849
lation of the hot water point. Requirements for using this
correlation are the same as those for using the heat-loss
-correlation.
A sample calculation to illustrate the use of Figs. 10
and 11 is presented in the Appendix. It should be empha-
sized again that the correlation presented in Figs. 10 and
11 can be used only for first approximations. For accurate
results, calculations should be made for a specific case,
particularly where conditions are substantially different
from those on which the correlation is based.
Since heat-loss correlations in the case of injecting su-
perheated steam are more complicated, and very little, if
any, gain in thermal efficiency can be obtained by inject-
ing superheated steam compared to saturated steam, no
correlation is presented for the latter case.
Ramey achieved a good agreement between computed
wellbore temperatures and those measured in gas and water
injection wells. It would also be desirable to verify com-
puted wellbore qualities in actual field data from steam
injection wells. Unfortunately, no device is available at
present to measure steam quality down a wellbore. There-
fore, the results of this investigation are subject to veri-
fication in the field.
CONCLUSIONS
An approximate solution can be developed for estimat-
ing the quality of a condensing fluid while flowing down a
wellbore.
Wellbore heat losses and casing temperatures are pri-
marily affected by injection rate, time, pressure, tempera-
ture, quality, depth and type of injection well completion.
Significant benefits can be obtained by using a packer.
Correlations presented in this work might be used for esti-
mating wellbore heat losses during the injection of satu-
rated steam.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express his appreciation to J. D.
Neil of the Pan American Petroleum Corp. for his valu-
able assistance in preparing the computer program.
NOMENCLATURE
A = function defined by Eq. 5, ft
A' = function defined by Eq. 2, ft-OF
a = geothermal gradient, OF /ft
B = constant defined by Eq. 6, F/ft
B' = constant defined by Eq. 3, ft-
'
Co = specific heat of gas, Btu/lb-oF
f(t) = transient heat conduction time function for
earth, dimensionless, see Ref. 1
g = acceleration due to gravity, 4.17 X 10' ft/hI""
g, = conversion factor, 4.17 X lOs Ibm-ft/lb,-hI""
H = enthalpy, Btu/lb
H[Z,t] = enthalpy at a given depth and injection time
H w = specific enthalpy of saturated water at the in-
jection pressure, Btu/lb
Hi = specific enthalpy of steam at the initial pres-
sure and temperature, Btu/lb
Lv = latent heat of steam at the injection pressure,
Btu/lb
(H .,hm = specific enthalpy of water at T m, Btu/lb
850
khf = thermal conductivity of earth, Btu/hr-ft-OF
k", = thermal conductivity of tubing material,
Btu/hr-ft-OF
i, = steam injection rate, lb/hr
Q = heat-transfer rate, Btu/hr
1", = inside radius of tubing, ft
r.' = outside radius of tubing, ft
r/ = outside radius of casing, ft
T, = temperature of casing, OF
T, = temperature of earth, OF
T, = surface temperature of injected fluid, OF
T", = mean surface temperature of earth, OF
T, = saturation temperature of steam at a given
pressure, OF
T[Z,t] = depth- and time-dependent temperature of the
injected fluid, OF
t = time from the start of injection, hr
V = over-all heat-transfer coefficient, Btu/hr-ff-oF
VI = convective heat-transfer coefficient between
the fluid inside the tubing and the tubing sur-
face, Btu/hr-ft2-oF
V, = radiation heat-transfer coefficient between the
tubing and the casing, Btu/hr-ft2-oF
V2 = convective heat-transfer coefficient between
the tubing and the casing through the medi-
um of air, Btu/hr-ff-oF
y = quality, i.e. mass fraction of vapor in the
mixture, dimensionless
y [Z, t] = depth- and time-dependent quality of the in-
jected fluid
y i = quality of steam at the wellhead
Z = depth below surface, ft
t>Z = depth interval, ft
a = thermal diffusivity of earth, ff /hr
REFERENCES
1. Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Wellbore Heat Transmission", Jour. Pel.
T'ech. (April, 1962) 427.
2. Moss, 1. T. and White, P. D.: "How to Calculate Tempera
ture Profiles in a Water Injection Well", Oil and Gas Jour.
(March 9, 1959) 57, No. II, 174.
3. Squier, D. P., Smith, D. D. and Dougherty, E. L.: "Calculated
Temperature Behavior of Hot Water Injection Wells", Jour.
Pet. Tech. (April, 1962) 436.
4. Fokeev, V. M. and Kapyrin, Yu. V.: "Evaluation of Heat
Losses Along the Wellbore and the Effect of Injecting Large
Quantities of Water on the Temperature Gradient in the Ro
mashkino Field", Neft. Khoz. (1961) 39, No. 12,33.
5. McAdams, W. H.: Heat Transmission, 2nd Ed., McGrawHill
Book 'Co., Inc., New York (1942) 63, 168 and 268.
6. Fishenden, M. and Saunders, O. A.: An Introduction to Heat
Transfer, 1st Ed., Oxford U. Press, London (1950) 104.
7. Keenan, J. H. and Keyes, F. G.: Thermodynamic Properties of
Steam, John Wiley and Son" New York (1947).
APPENDIX
DERIVATION OF AN EXPRESSION
FOR THE QUALITY OF CONDENSABLE
STEAM FLOWING THROUGH A WELLBORE
Let us consider condensation of steam within a depth
interval t>Z, the bottom of the interval being located at a
depth Z from the surface (see Fig. 1). By applying the
law of conservation of energy to a differential element of
fluid height dx within the depth interval, the following
equation can be obtained:
i g .
- i.,dH + ~ g c dx = dQ
(A-I)
The specific enthalpy of a mixture of vapor and liquid
at a given saturation pressure is
H = yLv+Hw
(A-2)
JOlJRNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
Neglecting the change in pressure down the hole due to
friction and gravity, the differential change in enthalpy of
a condensing fluid is then
dB = Lvdy
(A-3)
Substituting Eq. A-3 in Eq. A-I, the following equation
is obtained:
-i,Lvdy+ dx=dQ (A-4)
Ramey's approach' is then followed to evaluate dQ as fol-
lows:
dQ = heat lost by the fluid
= heat transferred to the casing
= heat transferred to the surrounding formations.
Heat transferred to casing is
dQ = 2-rrr,U (T,-T,) dx (A-5)
Heat transferred by conduction from the casing to the
surrounding formation is
(A-6)
Combining Eqs. A-5 and A-6, the equation for casing
temperature is
T, = k"fT,+T,r,Uf(t)
r,Uf(t) +k"f
(A-7)
Assuming that geothermal temperature changes linearly
with depth,
T, = T".'+ax,
where
Tm' = T",+a(Z-.e:.Z) .
(A-8)
(A-9)
Combining Eqs. A-4, A-5 and substituting Eqs. A-7
and A-8, the following partial differential equation is ob-
tained:
oy T, A'B' + T",' + ax
ax +7 - A' = o.
where
A'=
JULY, 1965
u, [k"f+r,Uf (t)]
2-rrr,Uk"i
(A-lO)
(2)
B' = -=-:=c::-I{---::c_
7781{,L,
(3)
Since pressure drop is neglected, the temperature of the
condensing steam can be considered constant. The solution
of the above differential equation is then given by:
ax' (A'B' + T",' - T')
y = 2A' + A' x + e(t) . (A-ll)
The function c(t) can be evaluated from the condition
that y = y [(Z - e:.Z), t] at x = 0, i.e., at the top of the
interval
c(t) = y[(Z - e:.Z), t] (A-I2)
The final expression relating to the quality of steam
at the bottom of an interval e:.z to that at the top of the
interval is then given by
a(6.z)'
y[Z,t] = y[(Z - 6Z),t] + 2A'
[A'B' + T,,, + a(Z- 6Z) -
+ A'
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
(1)
Calculate the approximate heat loss in the case of inject-
ing steam through tubing (annulus is filled with air) at the
end of one year of injection. The following data are
available: injection rate, 3,000 lb/hr of saturated steam;
injection pressure, 1,000 psia; and maximum depth of
well, 3,000 ft.
SOLUTION PROCEDURE
Assume that the casing and tubing sizes and geotherm-
al properties are essentially the same as those used for
preparing Figs. 10 and 11.
Step i-Check the depth of hot water point. From Fig.
11, the hot water point is at a depth of 4,370 ft. There-
fore, the maximum depth of 3,000 ft can be reached by
the condensing steam without its being completely con-
densed.
Step the heat loss. From Fig. 10, find heat loss
in per cent of input heat/IOO ft. Depth is 1.35 per cent.
Therefore, heat loss at a depth of 3,000 ft is 40.5 per cent.
Note that the correlation of Fig. 10 is not valid beyond
the depth of the hot water point. ***
1151