Wellbore Hat Losses and Casing Temperatures

during Steam Injection $

HANS H. A. HUYGEN*AND J. L. HUITT~.
ABSTRACT
Wellbore heat loss, steam condensation rate, ancl casing temperature during wet steam injection can be
predicted with existing theory, but teclious calculations
a r e necessary f o r accurate results. However, t h e calculations can be handled graphically-and a r e so presented
here--covering all practical injection pressures, injection periods, ancl tubing-casing combinat~ons.Equations
on which the graphs a r e based, together with conductivity and emlssivity data, were taken fro111 t h e Iiterature.
INTRODUCTION
The success of saturated steam stimulation of shallow
oil \veils has prompted operators to steam deeper wells.
I n deeper wells (3,000 f t and more), the patterns of
heat-loss decline ancl casing-temperature rise a r e slmilar
to those i n shallow wells, i.e., with time, changes become
less, although steady s t a t e is never reached. However,
in deep wells, heat losses a r e surprisingly high; and
large steam generators a r e needed to get even a s ~ n a l l
fraction of the injected saturated steam to bottom hole.
Also, the deeper the well, the more important even a
moderate rise i n casing temperature becomes f o r wells
i n which the caslng is not cemented over its entire
length. Casing not cemented, yet not free to espand,
presents the danger of fatlure by buckling.
Methods of predicting wellbore heat loss and casingtemperature rise have been pul~lished. F o r instance,
Ramey'.' presented the necessary equations and some
esaml)les, but referred t o McAdanis3 f o r wellbore heattransfer coefficients. Some heat-loss d a t a were published
by Leutwyler and Bigelow'
in their study of casing
stresses. Satter5 considered superheated steam injection and included a few examples f o r saturated steam.
Bleakley recently gave simple equations in which a n
average heat-transfer coefficient w a s used. These published articles a r e very useful; ho\vereiS, the precllction
methods require either tedious calculations or sacrifice
i n accuracy. I n this paper, t h e calculations a r e replaced
by a series of graphs, without sacrifice in accuracy.
Froni the graphs, wellbore heat loss, steam condensation rate, and casing-temperature rise a t any time can
be read directly. The graphs a r e based on published
equations and cover almost any case of saturated steam
injection which m a y be encountered i n t h e field. Tubingto-casing heat transfer was checked esperimentally and
found to agree well with predictions.
':'Gulf Research & Develo1)ment Company. P l t t s h u ~ z h .Pa.
?Presently w ~ t hIiulva~tOil Co., Ltd , Ahrnad~.Kuwait.
$Presented a t the sllrlng nieet~ngof the Eastern Distr~ct.API D ~ v i slon of P~.oductlon.A11r111966.
'References are at the end of the naper.

Modes of heat transfer from tubing to casing, i.e.,

radiation, conduction, and convection, a r e briefly discussed. Racllation is by f a r the largest, and any schenle
f o r reducing heat loss and casing-temperature rise
should take this into account. Heat transfer fro111 tubing
to caslng xvas checked e x l ~ e r i n ~ e n t a l land
y
found to
agree well with predictions. The worst case was only
15 percent higher than predicted; usually t h e difference
was much less.
HEAT LOSSES
The r a t e of heat loss in the \\,ellbore and the casingtemperature rise depend upon the manner in which
steam i s injected, i.e., down tubing or down the casing.
F o r injection down casing, t h e heat loss is always higher
t h a n f o r injection down tubing. This i s because steam
condenses on the casing wall, which is quickly heated to
the saturated steal11 temperature. The heat loss i s
limited only by the ability of the s~~rrouncling
formations to conduct heat away from the casing. F o r injectlon down tubing, steam condenses inslde the tubing.
The heat flow in t h ~ scase is limited by the formattons
surrounding t h e wellbore and, In addition, by the resistance of the tubing/caslng annulus. Whether saturated steam i s injected through tubing or casing, it
gives up heat by condensation; hence the steam does
not suffer a temperature decrease (pressure drop in
wellbore neglected). Moreover, if the geothermal temperature of the formations surrounding the well i s
averagecl over t h e well depth, then no vertical temperature difference esists ancl heat flow is purely radial ancl
uniform a t a n y depth.
I ~ i j e c t i o ~Down
l
Tubing
S e t t ~ n gthe tubing on a down-hole packer prevents
steam from entering the annulus. In the ~vellbore,the
steam condenses only \\,ithln the tubing which is heated
to steam temperature. F r o m tubing to casing, heat i s
transferred by radiation ancl conduction if t h e annulus
is gas-filled. The snlall loss resulting from convection
i s neglected. F o r this case, Equation (1) applies.

W l l . e ~ e ~ nt h. :e first tern1 i s f o r conduction7 and t h e second f o r r a d i a t i o n . W e a t capacities of tubing, annular

gas, and casing a r e neglected, a s a r e the temperature
differences across tubing and casing walls. Tubing and
casing a r e considered black body radiators (a = 0.11'1
X 1 0 + B T U / l w - f t 2 OR4). The annular g a s is a mixture

EN A N D

Table 1
Conductivity of Wet Steam9

Psia
100
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
9,500

Deg F
328
467
545
596
636
668

k - BTU/hour-ft, F
0.0175
0.0251
0.0316
0.0379
0.0445
0.0500

of llght hydrocarbon vapors, air, and water vapor. The

thermal conductivity of methane is the highest, of water
vapor intermediate, and of a i r and ethane the lowest.
We will use the ~ a l u e sf o r water vapor, and more specifically, of saturated steam a t the injection temperature
f o r the thermal conductivity of the g a s In the annulus,
according to Table 1.
Since t u b ~ n gtemperature 1s equal to steam saturation
temperature a t all depths, Equation (1) relates linear
heat loss, +L, directly to caslng temperature, Tc, with
the t u b ~ n gtemperature a s a parameter.
From the caslng, heat is carried away into the surrounding formations by transient conduction. Thus a
time function appears In Equation (2), which describes
this heat transfer.1

where average values1 may be used for the fornlation

concluctivity, kj, ancl diffusivity, a,

Ran1ey1 stated that Equation ( 2 ) is accurate when injection time exceeds about 1 week. However, a t a time
a s short a s 1 day, the error is only about 11 percent.
Compared with the uncertainty i n formation conductivity and diffusivity, this is quite acceptable. The formation temperature, TI, is taken a s a n average over the
entire depth so t h a t Equation (2) relates linear heat
flow, +L, to both casing temperature, T c , ancl time, t .
Since heat flow into the casing equals heat flow away
from the casing (if caslng heat capacity is neglected),
we have two ecluations with only two unknowns, heat
loss (+L) and casing temperature ( T c ) . We can, therefore, solve f o r each of the unknowns. However, there
is a fourth order term in Equation ( I ) , and f o r this
reason, i t is simpler to solve graphically rather than
algebraically, a s has been pointed out by Leutwyler."
If we plot $ L against T c from Ecjuations (1) and ( 2 ) ,
we have two curves which, a t their intersecting points,
yield the values t h a t satisfy both equations. In fact,
each equation yields a whole family of curves since
Equation (1) contains the tubing teinperature a s parameter and Equation (2) the time of injection.

J. L. HUITT

Injection Down Casing

The casing is heated directly by condensing steam
ancl reaches the steam temperature rapidly. Instead of
Equation ( I ) , we have simply:
Te = Tsat
(3)
Equation (2) remains valid and we could solve directly
by substitution. Instead, the same graphical method w ~ l l
he used a s f o r injection down tubing.
GRAPHICAL SOLUTIONS FOR HEAT LOSSES
AND CASING TEMPERATURES
The graphical solutions of Equations (1) and (2) ancl
Equations (2) and (3) a r e given in Fig. 1 through 11.
The geothermal temperature of 80 F is based on t h e
average in a typical 1,500-ft well. (This relatively low
geothermal temperature gives heat losses higher than
would be experienced in some areas.) The tubing temperature (equal to steam temperature) parameter i n
Equation (1) corresponds to injection pressures of 100,
500, 1,000, 1,500, 3,000, and 2,500 psia. The time parameter values in Equation ( 2 ) a r e taken a s 1, 2, 4, 8, and
16 days; 1, 2, 4, and 8 months; ancl 1, 2, and 4 years.
Tubing-casing con~binations,shown in Table 2, a r e presented in the figures indicated. Nominal sizes a r e those
usually listed in A P I standards.
The heat losses obtained from a n y of these graphs can
be converted to steam condensation rates with Fig. 12.
(p. 30). The use of the graphs may be clarified a s follows.
A 3,000-ft well, completed with 7-in. casing, is to be
steam-stimulated a t a n expected surface injection
pressure of 1,000 psia. Find the rate of steam condensation ancl the casing temperature a f t e r 4 days of
injection through the casing and compare with injectlon through 2%-in. tubing to be set with a down-hole
packer.
Table 2 indicates t h a t f o r this particular tubing-casing
combination, Fig. 4 applies.
Injection Through Casing
Casing temperature a t all times equals steam saturation temperature (545 F a t 1,000 psia), a s Fig. 4
shows with the vertical line. Intersecting this line with
the diagonal line f o r 4 days of injection time gives
1,750 BTU/hour-ft f o r the heat loss on the ordinate
scale. Turning to Fig. 12 it can be seen that, a t 1,000
psia, this heat loss is equivalent to about 185 BPD/1,000
ft, hence 555 BPD f o r the total well depth.

Table 2
Tubing-casing Combinations

Tubing
Size, In.
2
2%
3%
4%

Casing Size, In.

A

4%
Fig. 1
-

5 lh
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
-

8%

Fig. 4

Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Fig. 5

10%

Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

WELLBORE
HEAT LOSSESAND CASINGTEMPERATURES
DURING STEAM
INJECTION
4000

INJECTION THROUGH CASING

Fig. 1 - 2-in. Tubing - 41/2-in. Casing

CASING TEMPERATURE

Fig. 2

- 2-in.

Tubing - 5%-in. Casing

Fig. 4

- 2%-in.

- 'F

Fig. 3 - 2%-in. Tubing - 5Y2-in. Casing

Tubing - 7-in. Casing

Heat Loss in the Wellbore and Casing Temperature during Steam Injection

27

28

HANS H. A. HUPCENAND J. L. HUITT

Fig. 5 - 3V2-in. Tubing - 7-in. Casing

Fig. 6 - 2%-in. Tubing - 8%-in. Casing

Heat Loss in the wellbore and Casing Temperature during Steam Injection

Fig. 11 - 4%-in. Tubing - 10%-in. Casing

Heat Loss in the Wellbore and Casing Temperature during Steam Injection

30

HANS H. A. HUYGENAND J. L. HUITT

temperature rises steeply a t first but slower later on,
the condensation rate declining gradually. Fig. 1 3 also
shows that, when steam is injected through tubing set
on a down-hole packer, the amount of steam condensed
in the wellbore is much less and the casing temperature
much lower than when steam is injected through the
casing.
Casing Espansion and Stresses
The temperature rise of the casing is important because of the thermal expansion o r the thermal stress
caused by casing heating. If the casing is free to move,
i t expands upon heating and rises out of the wellbore.
This expansion is proportional to both temperature rise
and length of free casing. A surface rise of about % in.
per 10 F temperature rise f o r every 1,000 f t of f r e e
casing should be expected and allowed for.
On the other hand, cemented casing cannot expand
and heating causes con~pressivethermal stresses, proportional to the temperature rise.

F o r 5-55 casing, whose yield stress increases to about

70,000 psi a t higher temperatures, the temperature rise
a t which plastic deformation begins is:

Fig. 12 - Heat Loss vs. Steam Condensation

Injection Through Tubing
Select now the 1,000-psia curve from the "Injection
Through Tubing" family of curves in Fig. 4 and intersect with the same diagonal line f o r 4 days of injection
time. The ordinate scale indicates 900 BTU/hour-ft for
the heat loss, the abscissa scale 320 F f o r the casing
temperature. After conversion to condensation rate by
means of Fig. 12, a value of nearly 100 BPD/1,000 f t
o r 300 B P D condensed in t h e 3,000-ft tubing string is
obtained.
F o r this example case, heat loss f o r injection down
tubing is only about half that f o r injection down casing.
Moreover, the casing is more than 200 F cooler a t the
example injection time. Values obtained similarly f o r
condensation rate and casing temperature (originally a t
80 F) for up to 30 days of injection in the example well
a r e plotted in Fig. 13.
A DISCUSSION O F SOME POINTS PERTINENT
T O STEAM INJECTION
The pattern of change in steam condensation rate and
casing temperature is shown in Fig. 13. Condensation
rate drops sharply in the beginning of injection through
casing and more gradually thereafter, whereas the casing temperature reaches the steam temperature almost
immediately. During injection through tubing, the casing

This is reached in a 2%-in. tubing, 5%-in. casing combination a f t e r steaming a t 1,500 psi f o r 1 month
(see Fig. 3). Any further temperature rise cannot increase stresses because plastic deformation takes place.
Upon cooling, however, stresses and deformations s t a r t
to decline immediately, and initial state of stress and
deformation is reached before the casing is completely
cooled. F u r t h e r cooling results in tensile stresses and
decrease of casing diameter. Hence, not only i s the
cement bond weakened o r destroyed, but the casing may
p a r t in tension a s well.
A third-and worse-possibility
is t h a t the casing is
constrained a t the ends but free in between. This happens, f o r instance, when casing is cemented at t h e
surface a s well a s a t bottom, o r when sloughing formations cause a bridging of the casing close to the surface.
CONDENSATION
CASING TEMPERATURE
6001
I

4"'

- 'F

COST

BPD/lOOO FT
3001
I

$/DAY-1000 F T
175

COST
2 5 t lBASIS
BB~

INJECTION TIME

- DAYS

INJECTION T I M E

- DAYS

I N J E C T I O N AT 1000 P S I A 5 4 5 ' F
2 - 1 / 2 I N T U B I N G , 7 I N CASING

Fig. 13 - Casing Temperature and Condensation vs.

Time

DURING STEAMINJECTION
WELLBOREHEAT LOSSESAND CASINGTEMPERATURES

31

Upon heating, t h e casing expands; but since it cannot

move u p o r clown, it must go sideways, i.e., it buckles.
F o r even a moderate temperature rise, there may be
casing failure.
Tubing-casing Heat Transfer Modes
The annulus between tubing and casing is usually
gas-filled. All three modes of heat transfer-radiation,
conduction, and convection-take
place. Radiation is by
f a r the largest, and accounts f o r about 85 percent of
the heat transfer. A large convection would not be
expected, because the clearance between tubing and
casing is, a t most, several inches. Heat transfer predictions based on radiation and conduction were checked
experimentally on 20-ft sections of 2%-in. tubing inside
4%-in. casing; 3-in. inside 6%-in., and 2%-in. tubing
inside 6x411. casing. Measured heat transfer was 15
percent higher than predicted only f o r very small temperature differences between tubing and casing (less
than 100 F). A t more realistic temperature differences
(200-450 F) the error decreased to 5-10 percent. Since
overall accuracy of the test was about 5 percent, i t may
be concluded that, if convection took place, it w a s
negligible.

GAS F I L L E D A N N U L U S

Reduction of Heat Loss and Casing-temperature Rise

As stated earlier, injecting through tubing set on a
packer results in lower heat loss and lower casingtemperature rise than does injection down casing. Since
heat loss and temperature rise a r e independent of injection rate (if pressure increase is neglected), a n increase
in rate diminishes percentage heat losses without increasing the casing-temperature rise. F o r a decrease in
both, tubing-to-casing resistance to heat flow should be
increased.
I n general, only schemes t h a t reduce radiation heat
flow a r e effective, because radiation is the largest heattransfer mechanism. Other possibilities, however, will
be discussed a s well. Fig. 14 shows pictorially the
"black" tubing heat loss and the reduction i n heat loss
possible with several schemes.
A low-emissivity coating on t h e tubing reduces radiation and, therefore, the overall heat transfer. This reduction depends on type of coat and its application.
F o r instance, some aluininum paints have a n emissivity
of 34 percent, hence reduce radiation by 66 percent.
However, this reduction was not always achieved in the
tests. One problem is the mill coating on the pipe which
releases g a s when heated, thus blistering the paint
coating. Before painting, the mill coating either h a s t o
be pre-heated o r removed completely. The same procedure holds f o r tubing having a film of oil on it.
Insulation, strapped onto the outside of the injection
tubing, lowers the temperature of t h e radiation-emitting
surface and can reduce heat loss by a s much a s 80
percent. An obvious difficulty, especially in deep wells,
is scraping against the wellbore during tubing-string
placement and removal.

OIL

Fig. 14 -Reduction

VERMICULITE

of Wellbore Heat Loss

Oil in the annulus eliminates radiation. However, the

conductive heat transfer is about four times t h a t for
gas and so is convection. The heat-loss reduction f o r
the case of a n annulus filled with oil is rather small,
unless convection is prevented; in which case the reduction is about the same a s f o r aluminum-coated injection
tubing.
Water in the annulus also makes radiation impossible. Conduction, however, is fire times that of oil with
a corresponding increase in convection. Consecluently,
heat losses will ceit.ainly be increased. To avoid this
situation, water present in the annulus should be boiled
off.
Placement of a granular insulation material such a s
vermiculite in the annulus seems, a t best, a remote
possibility because of the associated prol~lems.It would,
however, prevent radiation and convection. Total heat
transfer could be reduced by a s much a s 65 percent.
Gas flow clown the annulus does little to reduce heat
loss or casing temperature since radiation is not diminished. It could, however, replace the use of a down-hole

32

HANS H. A. HUYGENAND J. L. HUITT

I
packer because it would prevent steam from entering
the annulus, even a t low flow rates.
Of the foregoing possible schemes f o r reduction of
heat loss and casing temperature, the most attractive
by f a r is coating the tubing with aluminum paint. It is
inexpensive, easily accon~plished,and presents no mechanical problem. Where the reduction thus obtained is
insufficient, insulating the tubing string should be
considered.
NOMENCLATURE
kg = thermal conductivity of g a s in tubing/casing annulus, BTU/hour-ft-F
kl = thermal conclucti\.ity of the formations surrounding the wellbore, BTU/hour-ft-F
= inside radius of casing, f t
YC
E
= elasticity modulus of casing = 30 X 10'; psi
=
outside radius of casing, f t
Rc
= outside radius of tubing, f t
Rt
= compressive stress in casing, psi
S
t
= time, hours
Tt = tubing temperature, deg F
Tt4: = absolute tubing temperature, (leg R = T,+ho'O
T c = casing temperature, deg F
A T , = casing temperature rise, deg F
Tc" = absolute casing temperature, deg R = Tc+460
T a n t = saturated steam temperature, deg F
TI = geothermal temperature, averaged over total
depth, deg F
a
= average diffusivity of formations, sq ft/hour
= linear thermal expansion coefficient = 6.9 X
/3
in./in.-deg F
y
= Euler's constant, 0.577
= heat transfer per linear foot, BTU/hour-ft
L
o
= black body emissivity, BTU/hour-sq ft-deg R4

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank the Management of Gulf
Research & Development Company for pe~?nission to
publish thls paper.
REFERENCES
IRamey, H. J., Jr: Wellbore Heat Transmission, J.
Tcch., 14, 427, April (1962).

pet^.

?Ramey, H. J., Jr: How to Calculate Heat TransmisE m g ~ .36 C121

sion in Hot Fluid Injection, Pet~ole!cw~
110, Nov. (1964).
"McAdan~s,W. H : Hecrt T ~ c c ~ t s ~ ~ t i s sMcGraw-Hill
ion,
Book Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., 1954, 3rd Ed.
"eutwyler,
K. and Bigelow, H. L: Temperature
Effects on Subsurface Equipment in Steanl Injection
Systems, Appendix, S P E 1006, Oct. 11-14, 1964, Houston, Texas
jSatter, A: Heat Losses during Flow of Steanl Down
a Wellbore, SPE 1071, S P E Mid-Continent Conference
on Production Research, May 3-4, 1965, Tulsa, Okla.
"Bleakley, W. B : The How and Why of Steam, P a r t
8: Wellbore Heat Losses, Thermal Recovery - 1965, reprint from Oil Gas J.
7McAdams, W. H : Op. Cit., 13.
WcAdams, W. H : Op. Cit., 65.
"eenan,
J. H. and Keyes, F. G: T11cr?1zodync~?,liC
P r o p e ~ t i e sof Steam, 76, Table 7, Wiley & Sons, New
York, N. Y., 1955, 1st Ed. (27th printing).
locarslaw, H. S. and Jaeger, J. C: Conc12~ctionof H e a t
i n Solids, 339, Equation (19), Clarendon Press, Oxford,
England, 19.59, 2nd ed.