Advertisement

A numerical model for wet steam circulating in horizontal wellbores during starting stage of the steam-assisted-gravity-drainage process

  • Fengrui SunEmail author
  • Yuedong YaoEmail author
  • Guozhen LiEmail author
  • Wenyuan LiuEmail author
Original

Abstract

Steam-assisted-gravity-drainage (SAGD) has been proved effective in heavy oil recovery. Preheating of the wellbore-surrounding reservoir is to circulate steam in the injector and producer so that heat can be conducted into surrounding oil layer. At this stage, the amount of steam injected into the reservoir is neglected. As a result, creating a large temperature difference between wellbore and annuli is key during the preheating process. A model is established for estimating steam properties in the wellbores so that the highest steam temperature in wellbores can be achieved. The model is comprised of mass, energy and momentum balance equations and the model is solved with numerical method. It is found that: (a) rich heat energy reflected in high steam quality does little effect on heat absorption rate of oil layer. The only effective method for temperature increase in oil layer is to increase the steam temperature in wellbores; (b) in order to increase the heat conduction rate to oil layer, a lower steam quality, a higher steam pressure and a lower mass flow rate is recommended.

Nomenclature

w

The mass flow rate (kg/s)

r

The radius (m)

L

The length of the long tube or annuli (m)

v

The flow velocity (m/s)

p

The wet steam pressure (Pa)

τf

The shear force of steam flow in long tube and annuli (N)

h

The enthalpy of wet steam (J/kg)

T

The temperature of the wet steam under a certain pressure (K)

fwall

The friction coefficient of the long tube

U

The heat transfer factor (W/(m2·K))

hfITi

The forced convection heat transfer factor (W/(m2·K))

hfITo

The forced convection heat transfer factor (W/(m2·K))

Lv

The latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)

hw

The enthalpy of water (kJ/kg)

Th

The temperature at the interface between cement sheath and oil layer (K)

fwi

The convective heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2·K))

Tei

The formation temperature (K)

Greek alphabet

ω

Annuli/oil-layer heat capacity radio (dimensionless)

θ

The angle between wellbore and the horizontal line (rad)

ρ

The density of wet steam at the cross-section (kg/m3)

Q

The heat conduction (transfer) rate (J/s)

λ

The thermal conductivity (W/(m·K))

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the National Basic Research Program of China (2015CB250900), the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (Grant No.NCET-13-1030) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.40974055).

References

  1. 1.
    Ashrafi O, Navarri P, Hughes R, Lu D (2016) Heat recovery optimization in a steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) plant. Energy 111:981–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fengrui S, Yuedong Y, Guozhen L, Xiangfang L (2018) Numerical simulation of supercritical-water flow in concentric-dual-tubing wells. SPE Journal 23(6):2188–2201.  https://doi.org/10.2118/191363-PA
  3. 3.
    Zhang Z, Liu H, Dong X, Qi P (2017) Unified model of heat transfer in the multiphase flow in Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage process. J Pet Sci Eng 157:875–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Li XF, Li Q, Yang J, Wu JQ (2018) A coupled model for CO2 & superheated steam flow in full-length concentric dual-tube horizontal wells to predict the thermophysical properties of CO2 & superheated steam mixture considering condensation. J Pet Sci Eng 170:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sivaramkrishnan K, Huang B, Jana AK (2015) Predicting wellbore dynamics in a steam-assisted gravity drainage system: numeric and semi-analytic model, and validation. Appl Therm Eng 91:679–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Li XF (2018) Performance of geothermal energy extraction in a horizontal well by using CO2 as the working fluid. Energy Convers Manag 171:1529–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Li XF (2018) Geothermal energy development by circulating CO2 in a U-shaped closed loop geothermal system. Energy Convers Manag 174:971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang C, Liu P, Wang F, Atadurdyyev B, Ovluyagulyyev M (2018) Experimental study on effects of CO2 and improving oil recovery for CO2 assisted SAGD in super-heavy-oil reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng 165:1073–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sivagnanam M, Wang J, Gates ID (2017) On the fluid mechanics of slotted liners in horizontal wells. Chem Eng Sci 164:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Li XF (2018) Geothermal energy extraction in CO2 rich basin using abandoned horizontal wells. Energy 158:760–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhou W, Dong M, Chen S (2015) Investigation of initial water mobility and its effects on SAGD performance in bitumen reservoirs and oil sands. J Pet Sci Eng 135:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Zhang SK, Xu ZM, Shi Y, Li XF (2019) A slip-flow model for oil transport in organic nanopores. J Pet Sci Eng 172:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gotawala DR, Gates ID (2011) Stability of the edge of a SAGD steam chamber in a bitumen reservoir. Chem Eng Sci 66(8):1802–1809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu HT, Li Q, Sun FR (2019) Numerical simulation of CO2 circulating in a retrofitted geothermal well. J Pet Sci Eng 172:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Qu SY, Zhang SK, Shi Y, Xu ZM, Li XF (2018) Effect of pressure and temperature of steam in parallel vertical injection wells on productivity of a horizontal well during the SAGD process: a numerical case study. SPE International Heavy Oil Conference & Exhibition, SPE-193659-MS, Kuwait CityCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ (2018) Comments on: the flow and heat transfer characteristics of compressed air in high-pressure air injection wells [Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2018) 11: 519]. Arab J Geosci 11(20):631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Riyi L, Shangchao Q, Wenli S, Jianping Y, Xinwei W, Hongyuan W, Shizhong W, Zhengdong S (2018) Study on parameters of steam injection in SAGD circulating preheating section. Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science) 42(1):134–141Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Zhao L, Liu H, Li XF (2018) Water performance in toe-point injection wellbores at supercritical state. SPE Trinidad and Tobago Section Energy Resources Conference, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, SPE-191151-MSGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pan J, You H, Pan Y, Wu D, Yu L, Wang X, Qiu X, Zhang M (2016) Application of optical sensing system in heavy oil recovery. Measurement 79:198–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Li XF, Sun J (2018) Comparison of steam front shape during steam flooding process under varying steam state condition: numerical analysis. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi SPE-192996-MSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF (2018) The heat and mass transfer characteristics of superheated steam in horizontal wells with toe-point injection technique. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 8(4):1295–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Li XF, Zhang T, Lu CG, Liu WY (2018) An Improved Two-phase Model for Saturated Steam Flow in Multi-point Injection Horizontal Wells under Steady-state Injection Condition. J Pet Sci Eng 167:844–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Li GZ, Han S, Liu Q, Liu WY (2018) Type curve analysis of multi-phase flow of multi-component thermal fluid in toe-point injection horizontal wells considering phase change. J Pet Sci Eng 165:557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Li GZ, Liu Q, Han S, Zhou Y (2018) Effect of Friction Work on Key Parameters of Steam at Different State in Toe-point Injection Horizontal Wellbores. J Pet Sci Eng 164:655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Li GZ, Sun ZA (2018) Numerical Model for Predicting Distributions of Pressure and Temperature of Superheated Steam in Multi-point Injection Horizontal Wells. Int J Heat Mass Transf 121:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Li GZ, Miao YN, Han S, Chen ZL (2018) Flow Simulation of the Mixture System of Supercritical CO2 & Superheated Steam in Toe-point Injection Horizontal wellbores. J Pet Sci Eng 163:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF (2018) The Heat and Mass Transfer Characteristics of Superheated Steam Coupled with Non-condensing Gases in Horizontal Wells with Multi-point Injection Technique. Energy 143:995–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Satter A (1965) Heat losses during flow of steam down a wellbore. J Petroleum Technol: 845–851Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hasan AR, Kabir CS (1991) Heat transfer during two-phase flow in wellbores: Part I-formation temperature. In: Proceedings of the 66th annual technical conference and exhibition. SPE, Dallas, pp. 469–478Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cheng WL, Huang YH, Lu DT, Yin HR (2011) A novel analytical transient heat conduction time function for heat transfer in steam injection wells considering the wellbore heat capacity. Energy 36:4080–4088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cheng WL, Huang YH, Liu N, Ma R (2012) Estimation of geological formation thermal conductivity by using stochastic approximation method based on well-log temperature data. Energy 38:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Caetano EF (1985) Upward two-phase flow through an annulus [Doctoral thesis]. University of TulsaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hasan AR, Kabir CS (1992) Two-phase flow in vertical and inclined annuli. Int J Multiphase Flow 18(2):279–293CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lage ACVM., Time RW (2000) Mechanical model for upward two-phase flow in annuli. In: Proceedings of the 2000 SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. SPE, Dallas, pp. 1–11Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lage A (2002) An Experimental and Theoretical Investigation of Upward Two-Phase Flow in Annuli. SPE J 7(3):325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yu TT, Zhang HQ, Li MX, Sarica C (2010) A mechanistic model for gas/liquid flow in upward vertical annuli. SPE Prod Oper 285–295Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hasan AR (1995) Void fraction in bubbly and slug flow in downward vertical and inclined systems. SPE Prod Facil: 172–176Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wu H, Wu X, Wang Q et al (2011) A wellbore flow model of CO2 separate injection with concentric dual tubes and its affecting factors. Acta Pet Sin 32(4):722–727Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yang DW, Huang SB, Ma DL, Zhao YW, Zhou HJ (1999) Selection of models for two-phase flow in the steam injection well. J Univ Petrol China 23(2):44–56Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kaya AS, Sarica C, Brill JP (2001) Mechanistic Modeling of Two-Phase Flow in Deviated Wells. Spe Production & Facilities 16(3):156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ni XF, Cheng LS, Li CL (2005) An JQ. A new model for the steam properties in steam injection wells. Chin J Comput Phys 22(3):251–255Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Orkiszewski J (1967) Predicting two-phase flow pressure drops in vertical pipe. J Petrol Technol: 829–838Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Beggs DH, Brill JP (1973) A study of two-phase flow in inclined pipes. J Petrol Technol: 607–617Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hasan AR, Kabir CS, Sayarpour M (2007) A basic approach to wellbore two-phase flow modeling. In: Proceedings of the 2007 SPE annual technical conference and exhibition. SPE, Anaheim, pp. 1–9Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Yu PL, Ding GY, Zou M (2017) The flow and heat transfer characteristics of superheated steam in offshore wells and analysis of superheated steam performance. Comput Chem Eng 100:80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Chen MQ, Li XF, Zhao L, Meng Y, Sun Z, Zhang T, Feng D (2017) Performance analysis of superheated steam injection for heavy oil recovery and modeling of wellbore heat efficiency. Energy 125:795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Yu PL, Zhao L (2017) Zhang Y. A numerical approach for obtaining type curves of superheated multi-component thermal fluid flow in concentric dual-tubing wells. Int J Heat Mass Transf 111:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Zhao L (2017) Type Curve Analysis of Superheated Steam Flow in Offshore Horizontal wells. Int J Heat Mass Transf 113:850–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Zhao L, Ding GY, Zhang XJ (2017) The Mass and Heat Transfer Characteristics of Superheated Steam Coupled with Non-condensing Gases in Perforated Horizontal Wellbores. J Pet Sci Eng 156:460–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Tian J, Zhu GJ, Chen ZM (2017) The flow and heat transfer characteristics of superheated steam in concentric dual-tubing wells. Int J Heat Mass Transf 115:1099–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Li H, Chen G, Sun ZA (2017) Numerical Study on the Non-isothermal Flow Characteristics of Superheated Steam in Ground Pipelines and Vertical Wellbores. J Pet Sci Eng 159:68–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Li GZ, Chen ZL, Chang YC, Cao M, Han S, Chaohui L, Feng D, Sun Z (2018) Effect of Flowing Seawater on Supercritical CO2 - Superheated Water Mixture Flow in an Offshore Oil Well Considering the distribution of heat generated by the work of friction. J Pet Sci Eng 162:460–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF, Li GZ, Huang L, Liu H, Chen ZL, Liu Q, Liu WY, Cao M, Han S (2018) Exploitation of Heavy Oil by Supercritical CO2: Effect Analysis of Supercritical CO2 on H2O at Superheated State in Integral Joint Tubing and Annuli. Greenhouse Gases: Science and Technology 8(3):557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Li XF, Chen MQ, Chen G, Zhang T (2018) Analysis of Superheated Steam Performance in Offshore Concentric Dual-tubing Wells. J Pet Sci Eng 166:984–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li GZ, Li XF, Lu CG, Chen ZL (2018) A Model for Predicting Thermophysical Properties of Water at Supercritical State in Offshore CDTW. Measurement 124:241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF (2018) Numerical simulation of superheated steam flow in dual-tubing wells. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 8(3):925–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF (2017) Effect of gaseous CO2 on superheated steam flow in wells. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20(6):1579–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF (2018) Effect Analysis of Non-condensable Gases on Superheated Steam Flow in Vertical Single-tubing Steam Injection Pipes Based on the Real Gas Equation of State and the Transient Heat Transfer Model in Formation. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 8(4):1325–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sun FR, Yao YD, Li XF (2018) Li GZ. A brief communication on the effect of seawater on water flow in offshore wells at supercritical state. J Pet Explor Prod Technol 8(4):1587–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang YP, Li MZ, Gao X, Yao ZL (2010) A new parameter-calculating method for steam flooding in horizontal wellbore. J Southwest Petrol Univ 32(4):127–132Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dong XH, Liu HQ, Zhang ZX, Wang CJ (2014) The flow and heat transfer characteristics of multi-thermal fluid in horizontal wellbore coupled with flow in heavy oil reservoirs. J Pet Sci Eng 122:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Emami-Meybodi H, Saripalli HK, Hassanzadeh H (2014) Formation heating by steam circulation in a horizontal wellbore. Int J Heat Mass Transf 78:986–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dong XH, Liu HQ, Hou JR, Chen ZX (2016) Transient fluid flow and heat transfer characteristics during co-injection of steam and condensable gases in horizontal wells. Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science) 40(2):105–114Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Li M, Chen H, Zhang Y et al (2015) A Coupled Reservoir/Wellbore Model to Simulate the Steam Injection Performance of Horizontal Wells. Energy Technology 3(5):535–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chen WJ, Li MZ, Di QF et al (2017) Numerical simulation of the outflow performance for horizontal wells with multiple steam injection values. Acta Pet Sin 38(6):696–704Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Minghai X, Ying R, Mikang W et al (1993) Analysis on mass and heat transfer in horizontal wellbore of steam injection well. Journal of the University of Petroleum, China (Edition of Natural Science) 17(5):60–65Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Jingling L, Zhihong Z, Shengjun D et al (2014) Heat transfer calculation and influence factors analysis for SAGD circulation phase in dual horizontal wells. Xinjiang Petroleum Geology 35(1):82–86Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Best DA, Lesage RP, Arthur JE (1990) Steam circulation in horizontal wellbores. SPE/DOE 20203-MSGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Liu HQ (2013) Principle and design of thermal oil recovery. Petroleum Industry Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gu H (2016) Mass and Heat Transfer Model and Application of Wellbore/Formation Coupling During Steam Injection in SAGD Process (Doctoral Dissertation). Beijing: China University of PetroleumGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Yuan EX (1982) Engineering fluid mechanics. Petroleum Industry Press, Beijing, pp 87–163Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fontanilla Jerry P (1982) Aziz Khalid. Prediction of bottom-hole conditions for wet steam injection wells. J Can Pet Technol 21(2):82–88Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wen J, Xu Y, Li Z, Ma Z, Xu Y (2018) Inter-class sparsity based discriminative least square regression. Neural Networks 102:36–47Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wen J, Zhang B, Xu Y, Yang J, Han N (2018) Adaptive weighted nonnegative low-rank representation. Pattern Recognition 81:326–340Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sheikholeslami M (2019) Numerical approach for MHD Al2O3-water nanofluid transportation inside a permeable medium using innovative computer method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 344:306–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fu H, Li Z, Liu Z, Wang Z (2018) Research on big data digging of hot topics about recycled water use on micro-blog based on particle swarm optimization. Sustainability 10:2488Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fengrui S, Yuedong Y, Guozhen L (2018) Comments on heat and mass transfer characteristics of steam in a horizontal wellbore with multi-point injection technique considering wellbore stock liquid. Int J Heat Mass Transf 132:1319–1321Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Miao Y, Li X, Zhou Y, et al (2018) A dynamic predictive permeability model in coal reservoirs: Effects of shrinkage behavior caused by water desorption. Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering 168:533–541Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Yang, A.M.; Yang, X.L.; Chang, J.C.; Bai, B.; Kong, F.B.; Ran, Q.B. Research on a fusion scheme of cellular network and wireless sensor networks for cyber physical social systems. Ieee Access 2018, 6(99):18786–18794Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Petroleum Resources and ProspectingChina University of Petroleum – BeijingBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Petroleum EngineeringChina University of Petroleum – BeijingBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.China University of Petroleum - BeijingBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations