SPE-178445-MS

Downsizing Steam Injection Insulated Tubing through the Use of Superior

Thermal Performance
J. Damour, MAJUS; T. Brown, DNV GL, Inc.

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Thermal Well Integrity and Design Symposium held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2325 November 2015.
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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In steam injection processes such as steam flooding, SAGD, or huff & puff, the selection of the injection
tubing is an important factor that determines the steam quality downhole. For example, insulated tubing
will decrease the heat loss in the well. The tubing dimensions also have an impact on the process. The
objective of this study is to evaluate how the combination of superior thermal performance and
down-sized injection tubing can improve the steam quality downhole.
A detailed analysis of steam flows was performed for a project in the Middle East to quantify the effect
of thermal performance and tubing size on steam quality downhole. Using a steam flow analysis model,
different tubing size and thermal insulation performance combinations were compared for the same well.
The thermal performance (Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient) of different types of insulated tubing was
confirmed with a field trial by the operator prior to use as input into the model. The output of the model
is the quality, temperature, and pressure of the steam as a function of position in the well, including the
downhole conditions.
Unsurprisingly, the results of the study show that to get the highest steam quality downhole, the best
thermal performance is required. It was also found that, with the best thermal performance, downsizing
the tubing can have a positive effect on the economics of the system. Conversely, it was found that, using
tubing with relatively poorer thermal performance, downsizing the tubing was not practical. The results
were used by the operator to select the type and size of tubing for its new injector wells.
With the analysis now complete, the steam wells in the studied field are being modified according to
the study recommendations. Vacuum-Insulated tubing is being replaced with a design with improved
thermal performance and the tubing size is being reduced. The result is a system with decreased, overall
costs and increased downhole steam quality.

Introduction
In 1968, Abdus Slatter filed an application to patent the recovery of heavy oil by steam injection. Since
then, several thermal enhanced recovery methods using steam have been developed to improve heavy oil
production. The most common methods are cyclic steam stimulation, steam flooding, or SAGD, which is
widely used in Canada. These three methods are selected by operators according to their field constraints
and objectives. The role of these thermal recovery methods is to convey heat into the reservoir mainly by

SPE-178445-MS

convection. The temperature of the oil increases and its viscosity decreases significantly in the reservoir.
These methods can substantially increase the oil production of a field, increase the recovery factor or
unlock some heavy oil assets.
The steam injection methods were optimized over time with new techniques. For example, the accuracy
of reservoir modeling or seismic analysis now allows the operators to follow the time evolution of the
steam chamber and eventually modified some injection parameters on a regular basis. Before complex
reservoir modeling software was developed, some analytical calculations were used to simulate the
benefits of the steam injection in a reservoir as described by Don W. Green and G. Paul Whillhite in
Enhanced oil recovery. The main input parameters of these models are the steam parameters: pressure,
temperature and quality at the wellhead. All these parameters are directly linked to the amount of heat
conveyed by the steam from the wellhead to the reservoir and would have an impact on the steam injection
process. The use of insulated tubing is recognized as an efficient solution to reduce the heat loss in the
well. But the first insulated tubing technologies had their limits due to the poor insulation at the coupling
as described by D,P. Aeschliman, R,F. Meldau and N.J. Noble in 1983 (SPE 11735). The thermal
insulation weaknesses are even more substantial at high temperature due to radiation and convection due
to potential fluids in the casing annulus since both of these effects depend strongly on the temperature
difference across the annulus.
A new technology now exists to bring vacuum insulation above the connection as well as the main
length of the insulated tubing thus cutting the heat loss at the connection and via the welds. Moreover, it
remains very efficient when the casing annulus is filled with fluid. This new technology provides better
thermal performance than previous insulated tubing, and thus opens new possibilities. The objective of
this study is to evaluate how the combination of a superior thermal performance and down-sized injection
tubing can improve the steam injection process.

Field pilot to validate the thermal performance

A pilot was realized on steam injection wells by an operators in a heavy oil field in the Middle East as
described by Rashid Al Shaibi (SPE 172930-MS). The protocol was to install insulated tubing from four
different manufacturers in injector wells where the temperature can be monitored via optical fibers and
temperature gauges. The data gathered during the test showed that the insulated tubing using the new
technology with vacuum insulation above the connection provided the best results: best overall thermal
performance, no thermal performance degradation over times and minimum temperature difference
between the joint body and the connection. These tests results, along with laboratory thermal test results,
were used as input into the model developed to analyze the steam parameters downhole.
The thermal performance indicator of the insulated tubing is the overall heat transfer coefficient, or
U-Value; unit is W/(m2*K). The choice of U-Value over the other commonly used thermal conductivity
K-value are guided by the following:

The U-value gives the intrinsic thermal performance of an insulated tubing, included the connection.
U-value measures the overall heat transfer of a tubing; multiplied by the surface reference and the
temperature differential it gives the heat flux in Watts or BTU/hr.
Only one surface reference is required to be defined whereas the thermal conductivity K-value
requested two reference surfaces as described by J. H. Azzola, P. D. Pattillo, J. F. Richey, S. J.
Segreto in 2004 (SPE 90151).
Two definitions are commonly used for the K-value leading to possible misinterpretation of
thermal performance. K-Value could be defined relative to the outer diameter of the outer pipe and
inner diameter of the inner pipe or relative to inner diameter of the outer pipe and the outer
diameter of the inner pipe.

SPE-178445-MS

In the following document, all U-values are defined relative to the external surface of the inner pipe.
Today, almost all technologies of insulated tubing use a double wall pipe with an inner pipe and outer
pipe. The fluid is conveyed through the inner pipe.

Steam flow analysis model

The analysis model is a steady-state, thermal and hydraulic model of the tubing. The main difficulty in
modeling steam injection systems is that the temperature and pressure are tightly coupled. That is, as a
single-component system with two phases (vapor and liquid) in equilibrium, there is only one degree of
freedom; if the pressure is specified, the temperature is determined and vice-versa. Consequently, standard
modeling techniques that compute the pressure drop separately from the phase behavior are not appropriate. A second variable such as enthalpy or overall density must be known to calculate the phase
fractions or quality.
The model is a finite difference model. Typically, a section length of approximately 20 m is used.
Calculations proceed step wise from the top of the well, where the temperature (or pressure) and the
quality are specified. For the surroundings, an average temperature between the surface and the reservoir
depth is assumed. Potential and kinetic energy changes are included.
The model is derived starting from the mechanical energy balance, continuity, and a simplified
equation of state. These three equations are given below.

In the third equation, which is the equation of state, the derivative is taken along the saturation line.
Differentiating the equation of state with respect to distance, z, gives an expression for dP/dz. Substituting
this expression into the mechanical energy balance and utilizing the continuity equation to recognize that
v is constant and equal to the mass flux, m, results in:

The above equation is a linear, first order differential equation that can be solved analytically by
separating variables and integrating from z 0 (beginning of a section) to z. The result is:

At each section, the above equation is solved iteratively by Newtons method for the saturated vapor
density. In Newtons method, an analytical expression for the derivative of the equation with respect to
density is used. Once the density is known, the pressure is calculated from the gradient of density with

SPE-178445-MS

respect to pressure along the saturation line. The gradient of density with respect to pressure along the
saturation line is calculated numerically using a pressure increment of 0.01 bar.
The enthalpy is determined from the heat loss given the U-value and the temperature difference
between the steam and the surroundings. At this point in the calculations the density and enthalpy are
known. This is sufficient to define the temperature and quality. The calculations are performed in a
spreadsheet with the fluid properties calculated using the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) fluid properties model RefProp.
The inputs to the model are:

The
The
The
The
The
The
The

overall U-value.
average temperature for the surroundings.
tubing diameter.
inlet temperature or pressure.
inlet quality.
steam flow rate.
well profile.

The main limitation to the model is inlet quality. The model is derived based on the assumption that,
on a volume basis, gas is the dominant phase. As such, the model is not suitable for high liquid loadings
(low quality). Generally this is not a problem because quality is desired to be high and the vapor has a
much lower density than the liquid. For instance, with an 85% kg/kg quality at a 572 F inlet temperature
(1245 psia), the volume fraction of vapor is 0.989. At down-hole conditions, the volume fraction of vapor
is generally higher for well-insulated tubing than at the surface because the pressure decreases more than
the quality. The decrease in the pressure decreases the vapor density.

Thermal and hydraulic analysis on steam injection well

The study was based on a typical well design for the field where the pilot described above was conducted.
The main characteristics of the well and completion are:

Entire well is vertical.

Length of insulated well is 2850 ft.
U-value of the insulated tubing with superior thermal performance is 0.75 W/(m2*K) (0.13
BTU/(h*ft2*F)).
U-value of the insulated tubing with standard thermal performance is 3.0 W/(m2*K) (0.53
BTU/(h*ft2*F)).
Steam flow rate is 300 to 2000 SBPD.
Several configurations could have been run, but the selection was made on the three cases most
representative of the different solution for the wells. The three configurations are:

Configuration 1 insulated tubing with 31/2 inner pipe and standard thermal performance
Configuration 2 Insulated tubing with 31/2 inner pipe and superior thermal performance
Configuration 3 Insulated tubing with 27/8 inner pipe and superior thermal performance

For each of the configuration, steam is injected at a temperature of 572 F (300 C) and a quality of
85% at the wellhead.

Results
The results of the analysis are summarized in Figures 13, which show the predicted bottom-hole
conditions for all three configurations as a function of flow rate. For the two 3.5 tubing types, the bottom
hole temperatures and pressures are similar. This is to be expected since the pressure (temperature is fixed

SPE-178445-MS

by the pressure as discussed in the modeling section) is determined primarily by the hydraulics and the
tubing size is the same. However, the bottom-hole quality is substantially lower for the tubing with
standard thermal performance, reflecting the greater heat losses.

Figure 1Comparison of Predicted Bottom-Hole Temperatures as a Function of Flow Rate

Figure 2Comparison of Predicted Bottom-Hole Pressures as a Function of Flow Rate

SPE-178445-MS

Figure 3Comparison of Predicted Bottom-Hole Qualities as a Function of Flow Rate

For the 2 7/8 tubing in Configuration 3, the pressure drop is obviously greater than for the 3.5 tubing
in Configurations 1 and 2. This, in turn, means that the temperatures will be lower. The smaller tubing
limits the total flow rate to approximately 1250 SBPD; at higher flow rates, the bottom-hole pressure is
insufficient to overcome the reservoir pressure. Although the pressures and temperatures change with
tubing size, the quality is almost the same as for the 3.5 with superior thermal performance. In fact, the
steam quality is higher with the smaller tubing because there is less surface area for heat losses.
Figures 46 illustrate the effect of the improved thermal performance via the quality profiles along the
length of the well. These figures present the quality as a function of depth for all of the different flow rate
cases. Each figure represents one of the three different configurations. For all of the figures the vertical
axis scale has been fixed at the same values to better illustrate the thermal performance differences.

SPE-178445-MS

Figure 4 Quality Profiles along the Well for Configuration 1

Figure 5Quality Profiles along the Well for Configuration 2

SPE-178445-MS

Figure 6 Quality Profiles along the Well for Configuration 3

Figure 4 shows the performance of the 3.5 tubing with standard thermal performance. The qualities
are a strong function of flow rate indicating that the quality of steam delivered to the reservoir drops off
quickly with lower flow rates. Figures 5 and 6 show the performance of the 3.5 and 2.875 tubing with
superior thermal performance. The quality profiles are tightly clustered, which demonstrates the improved
thermal performance allows operation at low flow rates without a significant decrease in steam quality
delivered to the reservoir.

Conclusion
The results from this study show that a major improvement in the thermal performance of insulated tubing
can have significant impact on the well design and steam process. Such an improvement makes it possible
to downsize the injection tubing and improve the injected steam properties. Thus, by taking into account
this new thermal performance possibility, operators can not only achieve cost savings in procurement but
also deliver better down-hole steam which would impact the oil production and possibly the recovery rate.
Following this study, the company operating the field where the pilot was conducted followed the study
recommendations and downsized the injection tubing from 31/2 to 27/8.

New potential for steam injection process

Apart from the cost savings and better down-hole steam quality, the superior thermal performance of the
insulated tubing could be an advantage for the pre-heating phase for SAGD. By consistently delivering
higher quality steam to the reservoir, the duration of this phase could be reduced. This would improve the
economics by moving forward the oil production.
This study shows that the selection of the insulated tubing for steam injection is now part of the global
steam process optimization. In order to get all the benefits from insulated tubing with superior thermal
performance, such thermal and hydraulic analysis would be run during steam process architecture

SPE-178445-MS

definition. It can also be run during the life of a field when the steam process needs to be re-evaluated due
to the field depletion or new wells drilled for example.
Nomenclature

Grouping of parameters defined in text

Grouping of parameters defined in text

Density

Angle to horizontal
D
Hydraulic diameter
F
Friction factor
g
Gravitation constant
m
Mass flux
P
Pressure
v
Velocity
z
Distance along the tubing
Subscripts
o
indicates a reference condition (the condition at the beginning of a numerical section)
sat
indicates the saturation condition

References
1. D,P. Aeschliman, R,F. Meldau and, N.J. Noble, Thermal Efficiency of a Steam Injection Test
Well With Insulated Tubing, SPE 11735, 1983
2. Rashid Al Shaibi, Mukhaizna Steam Injectors Thermal Efficiency & Insulated Tubings Pilot
Evaluation, SPE 172930-MS, 2015
3. J. H. Azzola, P. D. Pattillo, J. F. Richey, S. J. Segreto, The Heat Transfer Characteristics of
Vacuum Insulated Tubing, SPE 90151, 2004