MS Thesis Cristovao Marques 2007

THAW-FRONT DYNAMICS OF
SUPER-INSULATED WELLS IN
COLD ENVIRONMENTS

A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RESOURCES ENGINEERING
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE

By
Cristovao Marques
June 2007
iii

I certify that I have read this report and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and in quality, as partial fulfillment of the degree of
Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering.

__________________________________
Prof. Anthony R. Kovscek
(Principal Advisor)

I certify that I have read this report and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and in quality, as partial fulfillment of the degree of
Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering.

__________________________________
Dr. Louis M. Castanier
(Co-Advisor)
v
Abstract
Steam injection is often used to recover heavy oil. In cold environments such as the Arctic,
wellbore heat losses from the steam to the surrounding rock thaw permafrost and then
damage the well. Therefore, it is indispensable to insulate the well. Amongst the various
insulation techniques, the use of fibrous insulations is attractive due to cost and versatility.
An analytical and numerical model based on a well configuration using various
insulation layers was developed to calculate wellbore heat losses, wellbore temperature and
permafrost temperature. Well failure/stability was inferred from the study of thaw-front
propagation. Different processes were simulated: one modeling an injector well with constant
fluid temperature and the other a well used for cyclic steam injection. A key parameter is the
insulation thermal conductivity, a datum often inaccurately or only partially given by the
manufacturers. Our companion experimental investigation determined thermal conductivity
versus temperature of various materials. Measurements use heat-flux sensors and thermal
conductivity is assumed to be a linear function of temperature. A simplistic qualitative
experimental study simulating mechanical stress due to thermal cycles was also conducted.
The materials tested were white and black aerogels (silica based substance composed of 90-
99.8% air), fiberglass, thermolastic insulation, and carbon fibers.
Experiments show a reasonable agreement of thermal conductivity with literature
values at ambient temperature. Aerogels (0.012 0.025 W.m
-1
.K
-1
) are half as conductive as
fiberglass (0.03 0.045 W.m
-1
.K
-1
) and three to four times less conductive than thermolastic
insulation and carbon fibers (0.04 0.067 W.m
-1
.K
-1
) for temperatures between 40C and
140C. Moreover, aerogels and carbon fibers have good mechanical resistance in comparison
to fiberglass. The wellbore heat loss and thaw-front propagation model indicates that
aerogels alone or aerogels associated with more conductive insulation meet the requirements
to avoid well failure, even for very high temperature fluids and long periods of hot fluid
injection.
Thus, in combination with active subcooling of the permafrost, aerogels appear to
provide effective thermal insulation to insure the integrity of permafrost. Although aerogel
insulations alone they are not as effective as active refrigeration, their moderate cost and their
ease of use encourage further investigation.
vii
Acknowledgments
This work was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract
No. DE-FG02-04R84063, and S-Cal Research Corporation. However, any opinions,
findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE and S-Cal Research Corporation. Additional
financial support was provided by the Stanford University Petroleum Research Institute
(SUPRI-A) Industrial Affiliates. These contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisors Prof. Anthony R. Kovscek
and Dr. Louis M. Castanier for their encouragement, support and guidance throughout this
work. I deeply appreciate their reading of my drafts and their valuable input to this report. I
thank both of them for providing me motivation to complete this task. Their enthusiastic
nature has kept me going even in the face of difficult situations.

I also would like to thank Aldo Rossi and Dr. Tom Tang who were always available to
help me in the laboratory and Dr. Cindy Ross who shared with me her experience of the
SEM. I am grateful to the staff, especially Yolanda Williams, and faculty of the energy
resources engineering department for their support in my research and study.

Special thanks to all the SUPRI-A members who contributed in bringing a friendly and
nice work atmosphere with weekly jokes and exotic food. I would like also to thank my
friends, officemates and classmates for their friendship and encouragements to give the best
of myself and made my stay at Stanford a wonderful experience. I also want to thank Jorge
Cham and Bill Watterson for helping me to cope with the stress and pressure at Stanford.

The last but not the least important, I would like to thank my parents and my brother
for their countless support. Nothing would have been possible without them.

ix
Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................... vii
Contents ................................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xi
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ xiii
1 Introduction........................................................................................................................1
2 Insulation............................................................................................................................3
2.1 Definition.................................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Heat transfer in insulator materials ........................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Transfer by conduction ..................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Other mechanisms of heat transfer ................................................................... 4
2.3 Samples studied ........................................................................................................ 6
2.3.1 Aerogel.............................................................................................................. 6
2.3.2 Fiberglass .......................................................................................................... 7
2.3.3 Carbon fibers..................................................................................................... 8
2.3.4 Thermolastic insulation..................................................................................... 8
3 Determination of thermal conductivity..............................................................................9
3.1 Experimental procedure............................................................................................ 9
3.2 Theory..................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Error propagation.................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Mechanical stress .................................................................................................... 14
4 Experimental results.........................................................................................................17
4.1 Validation................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Temperature behavior ............................................................................................. 17
4.3 Mechanical resistance ............................................................................................. 22
5 Heat transfer calculation ..................................................................................................29
5.1 Wellbore heat losses ............................................................................................... 29
5.2 Permafrost thawing around well ............................................................................. 30
5.2.1 Theoretical model ........................................................................................... 30
5.2.2 Numerical model............................................................................................. 32
5.2.3 Analytical model ............................................................................................. 35
5.3 Cyclic steam stimulation......................................................................................... 37
6 Validation of models........................................................................................................39
6.1 Comparison............................................................................................................. 39
6.2 Discussion............................................................................................................... 41
7 Simulation results.............................................................................................................43
7.1 Reference case ........................................................................................................ 43
7.2 Influence of well configuration............................................................................... 44
7.2.1 Insulation......................................................................................................... 44
7.2.2 Model of insulation thermal conductivity....................................................... 47
7.2.3 Uncertainty on insulation thermal conductivity.............................................. 48
7.2.4 Annulus........................................................................................................... 49
x
7.2.5 Well fluid temperature .................................................................................... 50
7.3 Influence of permafrost properties.......................................................................... 52
7.3.1 Thermal conductivity...................................................................................... 52
7.3.2 Thermal diffusivity ......................................................................................... 53
7.3.3 Formation temperature.................................................................................... 54
7.4 Cyclic steam injection............................................................................................. 55
7.5 Discussion............................................................................................................... 58
8 Summary and future work ...............................................................................................59
Nomenclature...........................................................................................................................61
References................................................................................................................................63
A. Code for thermal conductivity calculations .....................................................................67
B. Code for heat losses calculations .....................................................................................73

xi
List of Tables
Table 1 Physical properties of silica aerogels ................................................................................................. 7
Table 2 Thermal conductivities of materials studied................................................................................... 21
Table 3 Ranges of dimensionless parameters , and .............................................................................. 36
Table 4 Values of intercept S for various values of and ........................................................................ 37
Table 5 Well parameters ................................................................................................................................ 43
Table 6 Permafrost parameters ..................................................................................................................... 44
Table 7 Range of well fluid temperatures ..................................................................................................... 51
Table 8 Range of permafrost thermal conductivities................................................................................... 52
Table 9 Range of thermal diffusivities .......................................................................................................... 54
Table 10 Range of formation temperatures.................................................................................................. 54
Table 11 Cyclic steam injection parameters ................................................................................................. 56

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Frozen permafrost ............................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2 Thawed permafrost ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3 Thermal conductivities of some materials (in W.m
-1
.K
-1
)............................................................... 3
Figure 4 Thermal conductivities of porous media.......................................................................................... 4
Figure 5 Contribution of the different mechanisms on the heat transfer versus insulation density at
338K (after Tye, 1969)................................................................................................................................ 5
Figure 6 Different materials studied. .............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 7 Apparatus to measure thermal conductivity versus temperature. .............................................. 10
Figure 8 Photograph of experimental apparatus. ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 9 Schematic of cell to measure the thermal conductivity. ............................................................... 11
Figure 10 Experimental procedure to measure the effects of mechanical stress. ...................................... 15
Figure 11 Profile of temperature for a given power delivered by the electrical heaters........................... 17
Figure 12 Profile of heat flux for a given power delivered by the electrical heaters. ................................ 17
Figure 13 Thermal conductivity of white aerogel versus temperature....................................................... 18
Figure 14 Thermal conductivity of black aerogel versus temperature....................................................... 19
Figure 15 Thermal conductivity of fiberglass versus temperature. ............................................................ 19
Figure 16 Thermal conductivity of flame protector versus temperature. .................................................. 20
Figure 17 Thermal conductivity of thermolastic insulation versus temperature. ..................................... 20
Figure 18 Thermal conductivities of insulations studied versus temperature. .......................................... 22
Figure 19 Variation of thermal conductivities of studied insulations versus change in mass. ................. 23
Figure 20 Variation of thermal conductivities of studied insulations versus change in thickness. .......... 23
Figure 21 White aerogel before mechanical stress at 35X (upper left), 100X (upper right), 250X (lower
left), and 1000X (lower right). ................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 22 White aerogel after mechanical stress at 35X (upper left), 100X (upper right), 250X (lower
Figure 23 Composition of white aerogel........................................................................................................ 25
Figure 24 Black aerogel before mechanical stress at 35X (upper left), 100X (upper right), 250X (lower
Figure 25 Black aerogel after mechanical stress at 35X (upper left), 100X (upper right), 250X (lower
Figure 26 Composition of black aerogel........................................................................................................ 27
Figure 27 Schematic representation of the wellbore structure (after Liang, 2005)................................... 29
Figure 28 Grid scheme.................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 29 Evolution of permafrost thaw thickness for T
cement
= 200C...................................................... 40
cement
= 15C........................................................ 40
cement
= 40C........................................................ 40
fluid
= 300C with U = 2.8 Wm
-2
K
-1
. ................. 40
Figure 33 Evolution of wellbore heat losses for different insulations. ........................................................ 45
Figure 34 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for different insulations. .................................... 46
Figure 35 Evolution of cement temperature for different insulations. ....................................................... 46
Figure 36 Evolution of permafrost thaw thickness for different insulations. ............................................ 47
Figure 37 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for black aerogel and flame protector and for
different temperature dependencies of insulation thermal conductivity. ........................................... 48
Figure 38 Evolution of thaw thickness for black aerogel and flame protector and for different
temperature dependencies of insulation thermal conductivity............................................................ 48
Figure 39 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for black aerogel and flame protector and for
different experimental values of insulation thermal conductivity....................................................... 49
experimental values of insulation thermal conductivity. (Aerogel solutions lie on x-axis)................ 49
xiv
Figure 41 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for black aerogel and for different annulus
compositions. ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 42 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for flame protector and for different annulus
compositions. ............................................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 43 Evolution of thaw thickness for black aerogel and for different annulus compositions. ....... 50
Figure 44 Evolution of thaw thickness for flame protector and for different annulus compositions. ... 50
Figure 45 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for black aerogel and for different well fluid
temperatures. ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 46 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for flame protector and for different well fluid
temperatures. ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 47 Evolution of thaw thickness for black aerogel and for different well fluid temperatures. ..... 51
Figure 48 Evolution of thaw thickness for flame protector and for different well fluid temperatures. . 51
Figure 49 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for black aerogel and for different permafrost
thermal conductivities. ............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 50 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for flame protector and for different permafrost
thermal conductivities. ............................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 51 Evolution of thaw thickness for black aerogel and for different permafrost thermal
conductivities............................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 52 Evolution of thaw thickness for flame protector and for different permafrost thermal
conductivities............................................................................................................................................. 53
permafrost thermal diffusivities. ............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 54 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for black aerogel at different formation
temperatures. ............................................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 55 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for flame protector at different formation
temperatures. ............................................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 56 Evolution of thaw thickness for black aerogel and at different formation temperatures....... 55
Figure 57 Evolution of thaw thickness for flame protector at different formation temperatures. ......... 55
Figure 58 Evolution of wellbore cement temperature for different cycles. ................................................ 56
Figure 59 Evolution of the thawed permafrost thickness for different cycles and different well
configurations............................................................................................................................................ 57

1
Chapter 1
1 Introduction
Historically, the exploitation of heavy-oil resources was limited to relatively shallow
reservoirs that were located on land with benign surface conditions. Viscous resources in
cold environments were seldom produced, because of the high cost for wells and surface
facilities. In recent years, however heavy-oil resources have increased in importance due to
the decline of conventional oil reserves, the will of oil companies to diversify their areas of
production, the amelioration of the recovery techniques, and above all the increase of the
price.
The primary way to enhance heavy-oil production is to reduce oil viscosity in situ.
Various processes to reduce oil viscosity include solvent injection (Vapor Extraction
(VAPEX)), thermal processes with steam injection (cyclic steam injection, Steam-Assisted
Gravity Drainage (SAGD)) and in-situ combustion.
Many heavy-oil reservoirs are located in cold environments as in Alaska, Canada or
offshore. In the case of Alaska, reservoirs lie under a permanently frozen layer of ground of
variable thickness, the permafrost. The Ugnu Reservoir, North Slope, Alaska, is such a
reservoir that has a huge potential. The original oil in place is estimated at 6 billion bbl
(Hallam et al., 1991). Various studies (Hallam et al., 1991; Sharma et al., 2002) showed that
only thermal processes with steam injection, and more particularly SAGD and its variants,
allow a good recovery in deep oil-sand deposits.
Due to the presence of the permafrost, the use of thermal recovery techniques creates
many problems at the level of the well (Hallam et al., 1991; Castanier, 2005). Indeed, the
permafrost is heated by the well heat losses that come from the steam and the produced
fluids. This makes the ice contained in the permafrost melt. Then, there is a decrease of the
rock volume around the well that generates constraints on the casing and causes the well to
sink. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the differences between frozen and thawed permafrost,
especially at the level of the rigidity of the rock. Heat losses are also relevant to thermal
recovery for offshore fields, but not examined here.
Therefore, it is essential to limit heat losses to avoid irreparable damage to the well and
overburden, if thermal processes are to be applied successfully in cold environments. Various
studies for the design of wells in cold environment were conducted. Castanier (2005) made
an exhaustive literature review on the different existing solutions for the drilling, cementing,
completion and insulation issues. He found that a technology base for super-insulated wells
2
exists. A new design for wells in cold environment was proposed by Gondouin (2005). It
makes use of advanced insulations and countercurrent heat flow in the wellbore, so-called
subcooling of the permafrost.

Figure 1 Frozen permafrost
(after http://www.awi-potsdam.de, 2007).

Figure 2 Thawed permafrost
(after http://www.awi-potsdam.de, 2007).

The main goal of this study is to determine the optimal insulation for this well. The
material must possess low thermal conductivity, thermal resistance, mechanical resistance,
and be relatively low cost.
To achieve this objective, different insulations were tested: white and black aerogels,
fiberglass, carbon fibers, and thermolastic insulation. An experimental procedure was created
to determine their thermal conductivities and their resistance to mechanical damage. Then,
analytical and numerical simulations based on the new design of the well using those
advanced insulations were conducted. The validation of the analytical model is established.
Two cases are considered, one modeling an injector well with constant fluid temperature and
the other a well used for cyclic steam stimulation. Time evolutions of the overall heat
transfer coefficient, wellbore heat losses, and cement temperature are presented. The well
stability is deduced from estimation of the thaw-front radius that is only obtained in the case
of constant fluid temperature. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is made to see the influence of
well configuration and permafrost properties.

3
Chapter 2
2 Insulation
This section reviews background information regarding insulation and the insulating
properties of various materials. It also provides some background on the insulations studied
here.
2.1 Definition
An insulation is a material that has a thermal conductivity less than about 0.2 W.m
-1
.K
-1

(Kaviany, 2002). Usually, insulation is a porous medium constituted by a solid body filled
with a gas (air, argon, nitrogen, etc.).There are 3 kinds of insulator materials that are
classified according to their physical structure: fibrous (fiberglass, wool), granular (some
concretes) and cellular (expanded polystyrene) (Tye et al., 1969). Insulation has many
applications such as textile, building, astronautics, industry, etc.
Figure 3 gives the thermal conductivity of some common materials. Note the rather low
thermal conductivity of silica aerogel that indicates good insulating properties.

0.0l 0.0l 0.0l 0.0l
0.l 0.l 0.l 0.l
l ll l
l0 l0 l0 l0
l00 l00 l00 l00
l000 l000 l000 l000
C
o
p
p
o
r

C
o
p
p
o
r

C
o
p
p
o
r

C
o
p
p
o
r

A
I
u
m
I
n
I
u
m

A
I
u
m
I
n
I
u
m

A
I
u
m
I
n
I
u
m

A
I
u
m
I
n
I
u
m

Z
I
n
c

Z
I
n
c

Z
I
n
c

Z
I
n
c

I
c
k
o
I

I
c
k
o
I

I
c
k
o
I

I
c
k
o
I

I
r
o
n
,

p
u
r
o

I
r
o
n
,

p
u
r
o

I
r
o
n
,

p
u
r
o

I
r
o
n
,

p
u
r
o

S
f
o
o
I
,

C
n
r
b
o
n

l

S
f
o
o
I
,

C
n
r
b
o
n

l

S
f
o
o
I
,

C
n
r
b
o
n

l

S
f
o
o
I
,

C
n
r
b
o
n

l

!
o
n
d

!
o
n
d

!
o
n
d

!
o
n
d

M
n
r
b
I
o

M
n
r
b
I
o

M
n
r
b
I
o

M
n
r
b
I
o

C
I
n
s
s

C
I
n
s
s

C
I
n
s
s

C
I
n
s
s

I
u
I
I
d
I
n
g

b
r
I
c
k

I
u
I
I
d
I
n
g

b
r
I
c
k

I
u
I
I
d
I
n
g

b
r
I
c
k

I
u
I
I
d
I
n
g

b
r
I
c
k

W
n
f
o
r

W
n
f
o
r

W
n
f
o
r

W
n
f
o
r

I
I
b
o
r
g
I
n
s
s
I
I
b
o
r
g
I
n
s
s
I
I
b
o
r
g
I
n
s
s
I
I
b
o
r
g
I
n
s
s
I
x
p
n
n
d
o
d

p
o
I
v
s
f
v
r
o
n
o

I
x
p
n
n
d
o
d

p
o
I
v
s
f
v
r
o
n
o

I
x
p
n
n
d
o
d

p
o
I
v
s
f
v
r
o
n
o

I
x
p
n
n
d
o
d

p
o
I
v
s
f
v
r
o
n
o

A
I
r

l
0
0

k
I
n
)

A
I
r

l
0
0

k
I
n
)

A
I
r

l
0
0

k
I
n
)

A
I
r

l
0
0

k
I
n
)

S
I
I
I
c
n

n
o
r
o
g
o
I

S
I
I
I
c
n

n
o
r
o
g
o
I

S
I
I
I
c
n

n
o
r
o
g
o
I

S
I
I
I
c
n

n
o
r
o
g
o
I

Figure 3 Thermal conductivities of some materials (in W.m
-1
.K
-1
)
after (Kaviany, 2002).

4
2.2 Heat transfer in insulator materials
2.2.1 Transfer by conduction
Many empirical relations exist in the literature (Tye et al., 1969) to find the thermal
conductivity
cd
of an insulation knowing the thermal conductivities of the solid
s
and the
gas
g
within its void space. This value is bracketed by two theoretical arrangements of the
solid matrix. The insulation has the lowest conductivity for a series arrangement and the
greatest value for a parallel arrangement ( )
parallel cd series
< < as illustrated in Figure 4. In
the case of a local thermal equilibrium, i.e. there is equality between the temperatures of the
solid and the gas ( )
g S
T T = :
1
1

|
|
.
|
\
|

+ =
S g
series
( 1 )
and ( ) ( )
g S parallel
+ = 1 ( 2 )
with c the pore volume of the insulation.

g

Q Q
T
s

T
g

0 1
series

parallel

cd

Series arrangement Parallel arrangement

Figure 4 Thermal conductivities of porous media.

The real conductivity
cd
is a combination of those two conductivities.

2.2.2 Other mechanisms of heat transfer
There are four modes of heat transfer in insulator materials that contribute to the measured
apparent thermal conductivity (Demange et al., 2002):

5
Conduction by solid phase,
solid
,
Gas conduction in the void spaces,
gas
,
Radiation in the pores,
radiation
,
Natural convection, h
convection

Depending on the nature of the gas in the insulation, the temperature, the pressure and
the density of the insulation, these mechanisms have various effects. Indeed, for high
temperature, radiative effects become dominant (Demange et al., 2002).
Because of the inability to measure each of those mechanisms separately, an
apparent thermal conductivity is defined (Croy et al., 1984). It corresponds to the sum of
all heat transfers.
l h
convection radiation gas solid
+ + + = ( 3 )
where l is a characteristic distance of convection
Figure 5 shows the weights of the different mechanisms on the apparent thermal
conductivity.

Figure 5 Contribution of the different mechanisms on the heat transfer
versus insulation density at 338K (after Tye, 1969).

For the insulator materials, the thermal conductivity is an increasing function of the
temperature as well as the pressure (Tye et al., 1969; Kaviany et al., 2002). It also depends
on the density of the material.

6
2.3 Samples studied
Five insulations are tested: white aerogel (Aspen Aerogels, Inc.), black aerogel (Aspen
Aerogels, Inc.), fiberglass (Unifrax Corporation), Pyron carbon fibers (Oatey
) sometimes
referred as flame protector, and thermolastic insulation (Culimeta-Saveguard Ltd), (cf. Figure
6). A brief description of the different insulations is presented in the following paragraphs.

Figure 6 Different materials studied.

2.3.1 Aerogel
Aerogel (LBL, 2006; Wikipedia, 2006) is a material composed of 90-99.8% air that has
remarkable properties such as an extremely low density, an impressive load bearing ability,
good thermal resistance and very low thermal conductivity (cf. Table 1). Indeed, the small
sizes of the pores avoid forced convection, and low silica conductivity makes aerogel a low
thermal conductor.
There are different types of aerogel depending on their chemical composition. Two
samples of aerogel were experimentally studied. The first is a silica aerogel that is friable and
white (cf. Figure 6). The second is Pyrogel
6250 U manufactured by Aspen Aerogels, Inc. It

combines an opacified silica aerogel with reinforcing fibers. The main advantages are light
weight, very low thermal conductivity, flexible, low dusting, high tensile strength and high
compressive strength while retaining excellent thermal performance up to 250C (480 F).
This material is already used for thermal and fire protection, transportation, energy
absorption, and power generation (Aspen Aerogels, 2007).
Thermolastic
insulation
White
aerogel
Fiberglass
Flame
protector
Black
aerogel
7
Table 1 Physical properties of silica aerogels
(after http://eande.lbl.gov/ECS/aerogels/links.htm, March 16, 2006)
Property Value Comments
Apparent Density 3-350 kg/m
3
Most common density is ~100 kg/m
3

Mean Pore Diameter ~20 nm
As determined by nitrogen adsorption/desorption (varies
with density)
Thermal Tolerance to 500 C
Shrinkage begins slowly at 500C, increases with inc.
temperature. Melting point is >1200C
Coefficient of Thermal
Expansion
2.0-4.0 x 10
-6
Determined using ultrasonic methods
Poisson's Ratio 0.2 Independent of density. Similar to dense silica.
Young's Modulus 10
6
-10
7
N/m
2
Very small (<10
4
x) compared to dense silica
Tensile Strength 16 kPa For density =100 kg/m
3
.
Fracture Toughness ~0.8 kPa*m
1/2
For density =100 kg/m
3
. Determined by 3-point bending
Thermal Conductivity ~0.017 W.m
-1
.K
-1

At P=1 bar and T=25C
Increases with inc. pressure and temperature

Aerogel (Spaceloft

AR100 from Aspen Aerogels, Inc.) has already been tested for
insulating deepwater reelable pipe-in-pipe and it gave very encouraging results (Denniel et
al., 2004). It decreased the heat losses, the mechanical stress on pipes because of it lightness,
and the total cost of the installation. Although more costly in comparison to other insulation
materials, increasing production and economy of scale are forcing prices down (Denniel et
al., 2004).

2.3.2 Fiberglass
The fiberglass insulation is Fiberfrax
from Unifrax Corporation. According to the Users

Guide (Unifrax, 2005), Fiberfrax

is a lightweight and thermally efficient ceramic fiber
insulating material that combines the advantages of dimensional stability at high
temperatures with complete resistance to thermal shock. The usual thermal conductivity of
fiberglass is 0.04 W.m
-1
.K
-1
.

8
2.3.3 Carbon fibers
This material is called a flame protector type insulation sold by Oatey
, and made from

carbon Pyron
fibers. Pyron
is a trade name for oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers produced

by Zoltek Companies, Inc. Pyron is chemically resistant, a poor heat conductor, thermally
stable, exceptional heat blocker, and suitable for a variety of applications such as flame
retardant cloth and furnace insulation(Pyron, 2007). They are used up to (2500F).

2.3.4 Thermolastic insulation
The references of this insulation are Thermolastic: Plain Insulation Layer 100mm5.5m
and Thermolastic: Reflective Insulation Layer 100mm5.5m. The insulation is foil
wrapped to reduce radiative losses and is manufactured by Culimeta-Saveguard Ltd. The
insulation appears as a fibrous material with a texture similar to mineral fibers. It is suitable
for continuous operating temperatures of 25C to +550C with temperature excursions up to
600C (Saveguard, 2005).

9
Chapter 3
3 Determination of thermal conductivity
This section presents the experimental procedures used to determine the evolution of thermal
conductivity with temperature and mechanical stress for the different insulations studied. The
apparatus, the theory, and the different assumptions behind this study are described.
3.1 Experimental procedure
There are two principal methods to measure thermal conductivity of materials: transient and
steady-state methods (Somerton et al., 1992). Steady-state methods require substantial time
between measurements, but they are much easier to install and more accurate. For these
reasons, we focus on steady-state methods. In this category, the literature gives us two
families of procedures. One is based on measurements with heat flux sensors (HFS)
(Shallcross et al., 1990), which we will call the HFS procedure. The other is based on the
conservation of heat flux through different materials (Somerton et al., 1992). We refer it as
the comparator procedure.
The comparator procedure was tested thoroughly, but several problems discourage use
of this method. It requires the presence of a reference sample whose thermal conductivity
versus temperature is well known and very close to the unknown material. This implies we
need several materials with very low thermal conductivity, i.e. insulations, one for each range
of thermal conductivity (Somerton et al., 1992). Moreover, the apparatus also needs to be
calibrated for different ratios between thermal conductivities of the references and the
samples studied.
On Figure 7, the entire apparatus is shown schematically. A temperature controller and
potentiometers are used to control the temperature input to the upper and lower heated
surfaces. All data are collected via the microvoltmeter and stored on a PC.
Figure 8 gives an overview of the apparatus. The apparatus is placed inside a Plexiglas

box to reduce convective heat transfer with the laboratory air. It also reduces the time to
reach the steady state.
The system is composed of a superposition of cylindrical layers of different materials of
known and unknown thermal conductivity, as shown in Fig. 5. The external radius of this
system is 25.4 cm (~10). To avoid heating the support of the apparatus, there is a system of
feet. To stabilize the system, the bottom electrical heater lies on an aluminum plate (6061
T6), and the top heater on another aluminum plate.
10
The heaters are cylindrical flexible silicone rubber heaters from Omega
that have a
25.4 cm diameter. They provide up to 155 kW/m (~320 Btu/hr/in) and their maximum
operating temperature is 230C (~450F). The power is delivered by potentiometers that are
linked to a temperature controller (CN 1500 from Omega
). Temperatures are measured by

two rigid, type K, cylindrical thermocouples. Their main advantage compared to flexible
wire thermocouples is that they are stable. Their measurements do not fluctuate due to
vibration.

Potentiometer +
Temperature controller

Microvoltmeter
(Extech Instuments
)
Temperatures
+ Heat flux
T
Cable RS-232

Figure 7 Apparatus to measure thermal conductivity versus temperature.

Figure 8 Photograph of experimental apparatus.
11
The HFS are from Omega
and withstand a temperature of 200C (~390F). They are

also incorporate K-type thermocouples. Signal from the heat flux sensor is between 0.03 and
0.32 V. Thus they are linked to a microvoltmeter (Extech Instruments MM570
Multimaster
Series). The HFS are placed at the center of the plates.

The insulation samples are trimmed 5.08 cm (~2) diameter and have a variable
thickness that depends on the thickness of one layer of insulation and the number of layers
used (1 for fiberglass and 3 for white and black aerogels, flame protector and thermolastic
insulation). The thicker is the sample, the smaller are the measurement errors. The radial heat
losses are greater, however. Thus, we use the compromise and employ a 1.2 to 2 cm (~ to
) thickness.
To avoid the radial losses, the sample is surrounded by a first guard insulation. Ideally
it is the same material as the sample or at least with similar thermal conductivity. For
aerogels, white aerogel is used and for the other materials it is Fiberfrax
. To have certain
stability, we use a second guard insulation around the first one, LDS Moldable insulation
from Unifrax Corporation. It is a moldable and rigid insulation with low thermal
conductivity (~0.21 Wm
-1
K
-1
at 600C). An aluminum layer is placed around the second
guard insulation in order to limit radiation exchanges.
Between the top electrical heater and the sample, there is a layer of fiberglass and an
aluminum plate. Their purposes are to fill the voids that appear between the sample and the
guard insulations because they are not always of the same thickness and thereby limit internal
radiation and convection effects. The scheme of the apparatus is shown on Figure 9.

Insulation (Fiberglass)
Electrical heater
Aluminum plate
Aluminum layer
Plexiglas
box
Guard insulation
W
2
,

T
2

W
1
,

T
1

Thermocouples K
+
Heat Flux Sensors
Guard insulation
(moldable insulation)
Thermocouple K
Thermocouple K
Sample

Figure 9 Schematic of cell to measure the thermal conductivity.
12
3.2 Theory
Some discussion of theory is required to reach a method of interpreting measurements to
obtain thermal conductivity. We assume the following:
The steady state is reached for each measure,
There is no radial heat flux because there is a large guard zone of insulation, and a
guard heater that opposes radial heat flux, hence the heat flux is one-dimensional,
The contact resistance between the heat flux sensor (HFS) and the sample is
negligible. This is a good assumption because the samples have low thermal
conductivities,
The thermal conductivity of the sample is a linear function of the temperature,
b aT + = ( 4 )
where is the thermal conductivity of the sample, T is the temperature of the sample and a
and b are two constant coefficients.

Then, Fouriers law gives:
( ) ( )
dx
dT
x x Q = ( 5 )
where Q the heat flux given by the HFS and x the direction of the flow.
Assuming a constant heat flux implies:
( ) ( )
dx
dT
b x aT Q + = ( 6 )
That leads to the following ordinary differential equation:
Qdx bdT aTdT = + ( 7 )
By integrating the previous equation, we have the solution:
A Qx bT T
a
+ = +
2
2
( 8 )
where A is a constant depending on boundary conditions
At x=0 and x=L, we have respectively T(0)=T
l
and T(L)=T
u
, where L is the thickness
off the sample, T
l
the temperature at the lower side and T
u
the one at the upper side.
By subtracting the value of the previous equation at x=0 from that evaluated at x=L
results in:
( ) ( ) 0
2
2 2
= + QL T T b T T
a
u l u l
( 9 )
Moreover, T
l
and T
u
are determined by the following equation (Shallcross et al., 1990):
13
2 2
1 2
r
T T
r
T T
Q
l u

=
= ( 10 )
That gives:
Q
r
T T
u
2
2
= ( 11 )
and Q
r
T T
l
2
1
+ = ( 12 )
where T
1
and T
2
are respectively the temperatures given by the bottom and the top
thermocouples inserted in the HFS and r the thermal resistance of the HFS. All units are in SI
(i.e., consistent) units.
Then, the final equation is
( ) 0
2 2 2
2 1
2
2
2
1
= + +
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ QL rQ T T b Q
r
T Q
r
T
a
( 13 )
The coefficients a and b are calculated by using a linear regression on the experimental
results.
Assuming a thermal conductivity of the sample
~
uniform in the sample for each
measurement leads to (Shallcross et al., 1990):
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
r
Q
T T
L
2 1
~
( 14 )
This assumption is different than having a thermal conductivity independent of
temperature.

An important remark on this formula is that for high thermal conductivity materials,
Q
T T
2 1

and r are of the same order. This method is inadequate for such materials.

3.3 Error propagation
The experiments show that uniform and non-uniform thermal conductivity give quite similar
results. Therefore, the hypothesis of having same uncertainties ( d and
~
d ) due to
measurements on the results is made:

~
d d = ( 15 )
As the variables x
i
are uncorrelated, the uncertainty of that results from the
uncertainties of the variables is the following (Wikipedia, 2007; Ayyib et al., 2006):
14
2 / 1
2
~
~
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=

n
i
i
i
dx
x
d

( 16 )
Then
( )
2
2
2 1
2
2 1
2
2
2 1
2
2 1
~
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
r
Q
T T
dQ
Q
T T L
r
Q
T T
dT
Q
L
r
Q
T T
dL
d ( 17 )
where dL, dT, and dQ are the uncertainties on the sample thickness, the temperature
difference and the heat flux.
dL is equal to 0.5mm (~0.02), dT is equal to 0.556C (~1F) and dQ is generally equal
to 3 W/m (~0.007 Btu/hr/in). Most of the uncertainties come from dQ because the heat
fluxes are very low and then the limits of the microvoltmeter accuracy are reached.
The true value of the thermal conductivity is bracketed by
~
d :

~
d
true
= ( 18 )

3.4 Mechanical stress
After having measured the thermal characteristics of the different insulations, we focus on
the mechanical resistance. Indeed, this aspect is very important for thermal processes. For
instance, during cyclic steam injection, the well temperature varies considerably from the
injection period to the production cycle. There are cycles of thermal expansion followed by
shrinkage.
This study is purely qualitative because it is impossible to create an artificial stress that
reproduces correctly the true thermal and mechanical stresses. A simplistic method is used to
simulate thermal shocks in the laboratory. The proposed experimental procedure is described
in Figure 10. Repetitive mechanical shocks are applied on the insulation sample. A hammer
is dropped on the sample several times with the same amplitude and force. The energy
received by the sample is approximately:
h Nmg E = ( 19 )
where g is the gravity, Ah the height, a coefficient that depends on the friction coefficient
and the ratio of the energy lost during the shock between the hammer and the sample (we do
not have elastic shocks), and N is the number of times of the sample is struck by the hammer.
The parameter is taken as equal to 1. An important limitation of this procedure is that it
only replicates the resistance to perpendicular stress.

15

Balance
E
Fibers

E
m
sample

Figure 10 Experimental procedure to measure the effects of mechanical stress.

First, we measure the thermal conductivities of the different insulations against the
cumulative energy that the samples receive. Then we measure how the thermal conductivity
changes with the variation of thickness and mass. Significant reduction in weight is a
reasonable proxy for inability of the material to withstand mechanical shocks.

17
Chapter 4
4 Experimental results
This chapter presents experimental characterization of the different insulations. It quantifies
the evolution of insulation thermal conductivity with temperature as well as a trend of their
resistance to mechanical stress. It also gives a microscopic description of white and black
aerogels as determined by scanning electron microscope (SEM).

4.1 Validation
First, we establish that the assumptions of uniform profiles of temperature and heat flux are
correct. Figures 11 and 12 show that these measured values do not vary significantly in the
first 3cm. It is less than 4% for both profiles.

Figure 11 Profile of temperature for a given
power delivered by the electrical heaters.

Figure 12 Profile of heat flux for a given power
delivered by the electrical heaters.

4.2 Temperature behavior
This section gives the evolution of thermal conductivity with temperature for the different
insulations studied. Results assuming a uniform thermal conductivity (in red) and a linear
thermal conductivity with respect to temperature (in blue) in the sample are presented in
Figures 13 to 17. Error bars show experimental uncertainties for uniform thermal
conductivity profiles evaluated from Equation (17). Non-uniform have the same
uncertainties.
18
First, uniform profiles have a smaller range of temperature, because for each
measurement, only the average value of the lower and upper temperatures is taken although
both are taken for the non-uniform method. For instance, in Figure 13, the range of
temperature is 60C to 105C for uniform and 50C to 150C for non-uniform thermal
conductivity. The value 60C comes from the average between the temperature at the cold
side (50C) and the one at the hot side (70C). Identically, the value 105C is an average
between 150C and 60C.
The second remark is that thermal conductivity of all materials increases with
temperature as shown in Figures 13 to 17. This result is expected because fibrous materials
generally exhibit this behavior. Thermal conductivity almost doubles for black aerogel
between 40C to 140C, and increases by a factor 1.5 for the other insulations.
Thirdly, uniform and non-uniform thermal conductivities give comparable values
because non-uniform profiles seem to be linear regressions of uniform profiles.
For aerogels, the intervals of confidence are smaller at higher temperatures.
Uncertainties are smaller because heat fluxes are larger. However they are constant for other
materials because uncertainties mostly come from thickness definition.

Figure 13 Thermal conductivity of white aerogel versus temperature.
19

Figure 14 Thermal conductivity of black aerogel versus temperature.

Figure 15 Thermal conductivity of fiberglass versus temperature.
20

Figure 16 Thermal conductivity of flame protector versus temperature.

Figure 17 Thermal conductivity of thermolastic insulation versus temperature.
21
Figure 18 presents the different profiles of thermal conductivity versus temperature of
all the materials studied. Only the values from 40C to 140C come from the experiments,
the others are extrapolated. The error bars of all samples are similar to the behavior of
fiberglass. Three groupings of insulation are clearly defined.
As expected, both aerogels are less thermally conductive than the other materials. The
properties of the aerogels are roughly identical, especially for the experimental temperature
range. For values higher than 140C, white aerogel is less conductive than black aerogel,
although it is not designed to limit radiation effects as is black aerogel. It is possible that their
thermal conductivity profiles are not anymore linear.
The group of thermolastic insulation and flame protector has the greatest thermal
conductivity. They are approximately three to four times more conductive than aerogels.
Finally, between those two groups, there is fiberglass with a thermal conductivity twice
as large in comparison to aerogels.
Experiments show a partial agreement with literature values (cf. Table 2). At 100C,
experiments give the same value for black aerogel. Probable sources of difference are
different hygrometric conditions and material brands.
Table 2 and Figure 18 confirm that thermal conductivity is an increasing function of
temperature and that simulation models have to take into account this dependency.
Neglecting this effect leads to inaccurate results as demonstrated later. Table 2 sums up the
different results.

Table 2 Thermal conductivities of materials studied
Maximal experimental
error on measurement
Materials
Thermal
conductivity in
Wm
-1
K
-1
@ 25C
( after literature )
Thermal
conductivity in Wm
-
1
K
-1
@ 25C ( after
experiment )
Equation of thermal
conductivity (Wm
-1
K
-1
)
versus temperature (K)
Relative
Absolute
(Wm
-1
K
-1
)
White aerogel 0.017 0.014 6.04 10
-5
T 4.39 10
-3
24% 0.0036
Black aerogel 0.015 0.012 1.09 10
-4
T 2.05 10
-2
19% 0.0027
Fiberglass 0.04 0.028 1.47 10
-4
T 1.59 10
-2
9.9% 0.0033
Carbon fibers not available 0.036 1.90 10
-4
T 2.04 10
-2
5.5% 0.0024
Thermolastic
insulation
not available 0.041 1.38 10
-4
T 3.81 10
-4
7.5% 0.0038

22

Figure 18 Thermal conductivities of insulations studied versus temperature.

4.3 Mechanical resistance
Figures 19 and 20 summarize the results of tests that probe mechanical resistance. We see
that materials have opposite performances. When mechanical vertical stress is applied to the
samples sample thickness and weight decrease. For black aerogel and thermolastic insulation,
thermal conductivity increases. On the other hand, white aerogel and flame protector
conductivities decrease about 10%. This last point is not logical, because insulations were
normally designed to have the lowest possible thermal conductivity. Approximately the same
amount of energy was delivered to the samples, and then from Figure 20 we see that
thermolastic insulation and black aerogel keep much better their volume integrity than the
two other materials. However, in terms of mass variation they have the same behavior. This
implies that shrinkage effects are more important for white aerogel and flame protector and
leads to increasing mass density.

x
x
x
x
o
o
o
o
+
+
+
+
23

Figure 19 Variation of thermal conductivities of studied insulations versus change in mass.

Figure 20 Variation of thermal conductivities of studied insulations versus change in thickness.
24
A critical limitation of results in Figures 19 and 20 is that experimental errors are much
greater than in the previous experiments. There are of two kinds of uncertainty. The first is
that energy delivered is not accurately quantified and really reproducible. The second source
is that measurements of thermal conductivity greatly depend on the guard insulation. As
mentioned before, it is better to have guard insulation with similar thermal properties,
something difficult to get a priori with samples that are intentionally damaged. Caution
needs to be exercised in using these results. Results however show that the experiment is
reproducible as we have the same trends for two different black aerogel samples.

In order to see the effect o stress on microscopic scale, pictures of the white and black
aerogels were taken with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) before and after the
mechanical stress were applied. The orders of magnification used were 35X, 100X, 250X,
and 1000X. Samples were taken from the edge the previous studied samples. Figure 21
reveals that white aerogel is made by fibers intertwined with aerogel matrix. Figures 21 and
22 show that there is no difference in structure between both samples at all scales. The reason
apparently, is that as sections are picked from an edge and white aerogel is extremely friable,
the matrix has already dissociated from the fiber because of the different manipulations.

Figure 21 White aerogel before mechanical stress at 35X (upper left),
100X (upper right), 250X (lower left), and 1000X (lower right).
25

Figure 22 White aerogel after mechanical stress at 35X (upper left),

Fiber Matrix
B
e
f
o
r
e

A
f
t
e
r

Figure 23 Composition of white aerogel.
26
The analysis of the compositions of matrix and fibers with an energy-dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDS) indicates that they remain the same after the shocks. Figure 23 points out
that white aerogel is made by a great proportion of silica (Si) and by oxygen (O) and a bit of
carbon (C). Other components are not significant and come from impurities. Impurities are
more numerous in the after sample. Gold (Au) and aluminum (Al) appear because the
samples are gold coated and attached to aluminum mounts via double-sided adhesive carbon
tape. Fiber and matrix have the same constitution.
Black aerogel is also mainly composed by silica and by oxygen and carbon. Moreover
as for the white aerogel, there is no difference between the fiber and matrix constitutions (cf.
Figure 26). Composition also stays the same after shocks. Figures 2425 show that there is a
loss of matrix after the mechanical stress, what is expected since weight decreases. Indeed,
we see that there are less white particles stuck to the fibers. However, there is no clear
difference in the microscopic structure between white and black aerogels. The main
difference is that there are more particles linked to the fibers in the case of the black aerogel
than for the white one. This explains why white aerogel is more friable and less rigid than
black aerogel.

Figure 24 Black aerogel before mechanical stress at 35X (upper left),
27

Figure 25 Black aerogel after mechanical stress at 35X (upper left),

Fiber Matrix
B
e
f
o
r
e

A
f
t
e
r

Figure 26 Composition of black aerogel
.
29
Chapter 5
5 Heat transfer calculation
With the trends of thermal conductivity versus temperature in hand, it is now possible to
estimate the efficacy of these insulating materials in the field. We first discuss computation
of wellbore heat losses and then turn to estimation of thaw-front radius versus time.

5.1 Wellbore heat losses

Figure 27 Schematic representation of the wellbore structure (after Liang, 2005).

The common structure of a wellbore is given by Figure 27. Note the insulation surrounding
the inner tubing. Only a small vertical section is studied although it is possible to extend the
analysis to the entire wellbore. This section of the well is taken vertical and permafrost is
isotropic and homogeneous. It is assumed that there are only radial heat losses. The
calculation of the heat transfer by convection and conduction in the wellbore is classic (Prats,
2005; Burger et al., 1984). The use of Fouriers law
Inner
tubing
30
T q =

( 20 )
and a hypothesis of steady state gives us the heat loss dQ for a length dz at a unit time (Prats,
2005):
( )dz T T U r dQ
h fluid
=
2
2 ( 21 )
with U the overall heat transfer coefficient defined as:
( )
1
2 2
2
2
3
4 2
2
3 2
1
2 2
ln ln ln ln ln
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
co
h
cem ci
co
cas r c tub ins tub
r
r r
r
r r
h h r
r
r
r r
r
r r
r
r r
U

( 22 )
where the different radii r are defined in Figure 27, the are the different thermal
conductivities and h the radiation and convection heat transfer coefficient. Only, the thermal
conductivity of insulation is not independent of temperature.
The entire calculation is described by Liang (2005). The coefficient U is supposed to be
independent of the thickness of thawed permafrost.

5.2 Permafrost thawing around well
5.2.1 Theoretical model
The efficiency of the well insulation is determined by calculating the thawed-permafrost
region around a well. The frozen and thawed permafrost are assumed to be isotropic,
incompressible and homogeneous. They also have constant thermal conductivity, heat
capacity and density, but these quantities are not necessarily equal in both regions. Heat
transfer is by conduction and there are no heat sources or sinks in the system. The theory is
extensively discussed by Sengul (1976; 1983). The main equations are presented here.
The conduction equation in radial coordinates describes heat flow in the thawed
permafrost
t
T
r
T
r
r r
L

= |
.
|
\
|
1 1
, ( 23 )
and in the frozen permafrost
t
T
r
T
r
r r
S

= |
.
|
\
|
1 1
( 24 )
with o
L
and o
S
, respectively, the thawed and frozen permafrost thermal diffusivities, T the
temperature, t is the time, and r the radial direction of propagation.
The interface between the frozen and thawed permafrost is a moving boundary. At this
boundary, we have the following equation:
31
dt
dr
L
r
T
r
T
f
L f
L
L
S
S
=
( 25 )
where T
S
and T
L
are the temperature in the frozen and thawed permafrost,
S
and
L
are the
thermal conductivities of the frozen and thawed permafrost regions, o
L
is the thawed
permafrost density, L
f
is the latent heat of fusion of the thawed permafrost, and r
f
the thaw-
front radius. Equation 25 states that permafrost melts at the boundary when the rate of heat
conduction through the thawed region is greater than the heat conduction rate through the
frozen zone.
The boundary conditions are at the inner radius r
w
the wellbore temperature (i.e. cement
temperature) is T
w
, and at the outer radius, which is infinite, the initial formation temperature
T
e
. For practical purposes, the outer radius r
e
is finite and taken as very large (~100m). At the
moving boundary, the permafrost temperature is equal to the fusion temperature T
f
. Hence,
the boundary conditions are written
( ) ) ( , t T t r T
w w
= ( 26 )
( )
e e
T t r T = , ( 27 )
( )
f f
T t r T = , ( 28 )
The initial condition is the initial formation temperature
( )
e
T r T = 0 , ( 29 )
By making a change of variables in the Equations 23 to 29 with the following
dimensionless parameters:
f
T T = ( 30 )
w
e
r
r
= ( 31 )
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
w
e
w
r
r
r
r
u
ln
ln
( 32 )
2
ln
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
w
e
r
r
( 33 )
S
L
= ( 34 )
2
w
l
D
r
t
t

= ( 35 )
where t
D
is the dimensionless time , we have this new set of equations:
32
D
u
t u
2
2 2
( 36 )
D
u
t u
2
2 2
( 37 )
D
f
L
f
L S
L
S
u
dt
du
C
L
u u
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
2
( 38 )
( )
f w D
T T t = , 0 ( 39 )
( )
f e D
T T t = , 1 ( 40 )
( ) 0 , =
D f
t u ( 41 )
( )
f e
T T u = 0 , ( 42 )
where u
f
is the dimensionless thaw-front radius and C
pL
is heat capacity of thawed permafrost
at constant pressure. Notice that
pL L
L
L
C
= ( 43 )

5.2.2 Numerical model
Different approaches exist to model numerically this problem (Sengul, 1976). The selected
scheme uses finite differences and is upstream and fully implicit. Spatial steps Au are
constant, but not time steps At
Dn
. In our program Au is equal to 0.005. We use the following
spatial grid.

u
M
=1 u
1
=0 u
m
u
p+1
u
p

b
f

du a
f

Frozen permafrost Thawed permafrost

Figure 28 Grid scheme.

u
f

u
33
Time steps are given by the following equation
( )
1 1
1 10

= =
n D n D n D n D
t t t t

( 44 )
where A: is equal to 0.1.

The discretization of the Equations 36 to 42 gives
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ +
+ +
+

n D
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
u m
t u

1
2
1
1
1 1
1
1 2
2
( 45 )
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ +
+ +
+

n D
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
u m
t u

1
2
1
1
1 1
1
1 2
2
( 46 )
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ +
+ + +

n D
n
p
n
p
n
p
n
p
f
n
p
n
f
f
u p
t u a a u

1 1
1
1 1 1
1 2
2
( 47 )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
+
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
+
+

n D
n
p
n
p
f
n
f
n
p
n
p
n
p
f
u p
t b u b u
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2

( 48 )
0 =
f
( 49 )
where m, p a
f
, b
f
and Au are defined on Figure 28
Then we have for 2 m p1
( )
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
= + +
+
+
+ +
1
1
1 1
1
2 1 ( 50 )
with
( )
u m
n D n
m
u
t

=
1 2
2
( 51 )
For p+2 m M1:
( )
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
m
= + +
+
+
+ +
1
1
1 1
1
2 1 ( 52 )
with
( )
u m
n D n
m
u
t

=
1 2
2
( 53 )
At the moving boundary, in the thawed part, we obtain
( )
n
p
n
p
n
p
n
p
n
p
a

= + +
+
+ +
1 1
1
2 1
1
1
2
( 54 )

34
where
( )
u p
f
n D n
p
u a
t

=
1 2
( 55 )
u
a
a
f
= ( 56 )

At the moving boundary, in the frozen side, we get
( )
n
p
n
p
n
p n
p
n
p
b
1
1
2
1 1
1 1
1
1
2
2 1
+
+
+
+ +
+ +
=
+
+
( 57 )
with
u p
f
n D n
p
u b
t

+
=
2
1
( 58 )
u
b
b
f
= ( 59 )

The thaw-front is calculated using
|
.
|
\
|
+
+ =
+ +
2
1 1 n n
n D
n
f
n
f
g g
t u u ( 60 )
where g
n
is the velocity of propagation of the thaw-front
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
+

f
n
p
n
f
f
n
f
n
p
L
S
u p
f
pL
n
a b L
C
g

1
1 2
( 61 )

Sengul (1976) gives an efficient way to determine an initial guess for each time step for g
n
.
Equations 50, 52, 54 and 57 lead to solve the following system
1 +
=
n n
A ( 62 )
where A is a tridiagonal matrix given by Equation 63.
35
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

+ + +
+
+

1
2 1
2 1
2 1
1
1
2
2 1 0
0 2 1
1
1
2
2 1
2 1
2 1
1
1 1 1
2 2 2
1
1
1 1 1
2 2 2
n
M
n
M
n
M
n
m
n
m
n
m
n
p
n
p
n
p
n
p n
p
n
p
n
p
n
p
n
p
n
p
n
m
n
m
n
m
n n n
b
a

( 63 )

5.2.3 Analytical model
The analytical model is based on the results from the previous numerical model. Under the
same hypotheses, it is shown (Sengul et al., 1983; Sengul, 1976) that the thaw-front radius
only depends on five independent dimensionless parameters. The dimensionless parameters
involved are the following.
The ratio y is equal to
S
L
= ( 64 )
The symbol c represents the ratio of heat flow in the solid region resulting from the
temperature difference (T
e
T
f
) to heat flow in the liquid region resulting from the imposed
temperature difference (T
w
T
f
) (Sengul et al., 1983):
36
( )
( )
f w L
f e S
T T
T T
( 65 )
In the case of an insulated well, we take T
w
equal to the fluid temperature T
fluid
.
The ratio o of the heat required to melt a unit volume of solid to the maximum available heat
content of a unit volume of liquid (Sengul et al., 1983) is
( )
f w pL
f
T T C
L
= ( 66 )
The dimensionless t
D
time is written as
2
w
L
D
r
t
t

= ( 67 )
The dimensionless radius r
Df
is
w
f
Df
r
r
r
= ( 68 )
with
w
r the effective wellbore radius.
The complete derivation of the thaw-front radius from the unsteady-state heat
conduction in an isotropic solid equation is described by Sengul et al (1976; 1983). The main
steps in the calculation scheme for an insulated well with a constant injection temperature are
given below:
1.
31 . 0
444 . 0 e m = ( 69 )
2.
m
D Df
St r + =1 ( 70 )
where S is an interpolated value using Table 4.
3.
U r
h w
t
L
e r r
= ( 71 )
with r
h
being the wellbore radius and U being the overall heat transfer coefficient.
The typical values of o, c and y are given in Table 3.

Table 3 Ranges of dimensionless parameters , and
Dimensionless parameter Minimum value Maximum value
c -0.35 -0.005
o 0.1 3.0
y 0.2 1.0

For the following studies, the well is assumed to be stable in permafrost if the thaw-
front radius is smaller than the well radius, i.e. the thickness of thawed permafrost around the
well is null. It is possible, however that the well tolerates a small thickness of thawed
permafrost. For safety reasons, this case is not considered.
37

Table 4 Values of intercept S for various values of and

-0.35 -0.18 -0.10 -0.01 -0.005
0.1 1.586 1.838 1.963 2.082 2.088
0.2 1.496 1.696 1.799 1.902 1.907
0.5 1.266 1.344 1.393 1.455 1.456
1.0 1.051 1.082 1.106 1.129 1.127
1.7 0.885 0.909 0.917 0.929 0.930
3.0 0.729 0.729 0.730 0.745 0.746

5.3 Cyclic steam stimulation
The calculation of wellbore temperatures in the case of varying fluid temperature is
performed analytically using Duhamels theorem, also known as the superposition theorem.
This theorem only works for linear systems, which is the case in the wellbore heat transfer
calculation. It states (Myers, 1998) that if T(r,t) is the temperature response (whose initial
condition is 0) to a single nonhomogeneous input given by 0(r)U(t), the response T
cycle
(r,t) of
the same system to an input 0(r)F(t) is given by:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
i
I
i
i
t
cycle
F t r T d F t r T t r T + =

=1
0
, , , ( 72 )
where:
( )
>
<
=
0 , 1
0 , 0
t
t
t U ( 73 )
( )
=
=
otherwise
r r T
r
fluid
, 0
,
1
( 74 )
( ) ( )
+
=
i i i
F F F ( 75 )
where F(:
i
+
) is the value of F(:) right after step i and F(:
i
-
) just prior to step i. F has I steps
and is continuous between successive steps.
This formulation of the theorem is equivalent to:
( ) ( )
=
=
I
i
i i cycle
t r T t r T
1
, , ( 76 )
( ) ( ) ( ) t r T t r T t r T
i i i
, , ,
1
= ( 77 )
where T
i
are the known temperature responses to the different fluid temperatures T
fluid i
and
T
0
=0.

39
Chapter 6
6 Validation of models
Before doing any study, it is essential to expose the limitations of the different models
described, especially the analytical model. A comparison between the analytical and the
numerical models presented here is performed for the case of insulated and non insulated
wells.
6.1 Comparison
This section explores the differences between the solutions given by the analytical and
numerical calculations. In the different simulations, the overall heat transfer coefficient U is
assumed to be very large (>10
6
Wm
-2
K
-1
) in order to have equality between the cement and
fluid temperatures in the analytical calculations. This means that both cases have
approximately the same temperature at the wellbore for long periods of time. This excludes
earlier times, where cement temperature has not yet reached the pseudo-steady state in the
analytical model. On the contrary, temperature remains constant in the numerical method.
Figure 29 shows the results of a non-insulated well where the steam is at 200C. We
see that both the analytical models give consistent results for times before 30 years.
Differences between thicknesses of thawed permafrost are less than 10%. The crossover
between the two models occurs at 33 years which corresponds to a dimensionless time of
40,000. For the lowest times, the numerical model gives values greater than those obtained
with the analytical calculations. After the crossover, it is the opposite. Hence, even at late
times the analytical approximation provides conservative estimates of the disturbed zone.
Figure 30 illustrates the case where the cement temperature is held constant at 15C.
That represents the case of injection of steam at 300C in a well insulated with aerogel as it is
proved later in Chapter 7 (cf. Figure 34). There is also a good agreement between the models
and the crossover between the two models occurs at 22 years which corresponds to a
dimensionless time of 25,000.
Figure 31 represents the same configuration but with flame protector as the insulation
(cf. Figure 34) and gives the same trend as the previous cement temperatures except that
differences are smaller and crossover occurs at 21 years and a dimensionless time of 24,000.
Cement temperature is approximately 40C for long times. In Figure 32, we plot the results
for a well insulated with the flame protector using the analytical method and the true overall
heat transfer coefficient U. The fluid temperature is 300C and the cement temperature is
40C. It appears that there is a large difference between this result and those from Figure 31.
40
The thawed permafrost thickness is almost ten times smaller compared to the case of the
insulated well with hot fluid temperature than in the non-insulated well with low temperature.

Figure 29 Evolution of permafrost thaw
thickness for T
cement
= 200C.

thickness for T
cement
= 15C.

thickness for T
cement
= 40C.

thickness for T
fluid
= 300C
with U = 2.8 Wm
-2
K
-1
.

41
6.2 Discussion
From the previous section, we see that there is an agreement between the numerical and
analytical model for non-insulated well cases for a large range of temperatures (15C to
200C) and for long periods of time. In terms of dimensionless time, it is around an order of
magnitude of 10
4
. This result is expected because the analytical model is based on
interpolations coming from the numerical model for an interval of dimensionless time from 1
to 10
4
(Sengul et al., 1983) The crossover between the thawed permafrost thickness given by
the numerical and analytical models appears for later times in the case of large cement
temperature as compared to the case of low cement temperature. The analytical model always
overestimates the thaw-front radius at very long time.
Results from insulated and non-insulated wells are not as consistent (cf. Figure 3132).
One probable reason is that we do no take into account the earliest times, where cement
temperature is low. Omitting this period of unsteady temperatures involves an overestimation
of the real thaw thickness. Another possible explanation is that the dimensionless time in the
case of the insulated well is about 10
25
, a value much greater than the upper limit of the range
of applicability of the analytical model (10
4
). On one hand, we have the thickness calculated
with the analytical model that is much lower for the insulated well than for the non-insulated.
On the other hand, consider as the reference the thaw-front radius determined with the
numerical method. The size of the thawed zone is always underestimated by the analytical
calculations. Numerical calculations are not possible for an insulated wells because they are
too time demanding at present. Indeed, the spatial step du has to be around 10
-12
for U = 2.8
Wm
-2
K
-1
compared to du = 0.005 for a non-insulated well. Then, if we know the analytical
result, we assume that the true solution (numerical) has smaller thaw-front radii than the
analytical calculated radii. In the future work, we discuss this assumption further.
In the case that this hypothesis is not correct, it implies that the model developed by
Sengul (1976; 1983) is false for any non-insulated well. Indeed, any insulated well may be
described by the overall heat transfer coefficient times the appropriate radius, here the inner
tubing radius (cf. Equation 22) at least less than 1 Wm
-1
K
-1
. In this study, with the most
unfavorable case, that corresponds to a fluid temperature of 400C and the flame protector as
the insulation, the product r
2
U is equal to 0.1 Wm
-1
K
-1
. Though, by solving the Equations
67 and 71, we find that the product r
2
U needs to be less than 0.9 Wm
-1
K
-1
, i.e. U less than
30 Wm
-2
K
-1
, to have a dimensionless time equivalent to 1 month equal to 10
4
. This clearly
means that the well is not insulated and therefore that model never applies.

43
Chapter 7
7 Simulation results
This chapter presents the results of the simulations based on the analytical model. The
evolution with time of the wellbore heat losses, the overall heat transfer coefficient, the
cement temperature, and the thawed permafrost thickness is given for different well
configurations and permafrost properties.

7.1 Reference case
The well configuration is described by Gondouin (2005). It is quite different in comparison
to that described in Figure 27, but it is enough representative of the original well. One of the
main differences is that there are three insulations between the inner and outer tubings. In the
annulus, it is planned to circulate cooled reservoir gas. As, its modeling is very difficult and
different between the reservoirs, methane replaced it. Parameters are given in Table 5.

Table 5 Well parameters
Inner tubing 0.02372
First insulation 0.03016
Second Insulation 0.03334
Third insulation 0.04921
Outer tubing 0.05931
Annulus 0.06985
Casing 0.08414
Cement 0.09684
Internal radius
(m)
Permafrost 0.1524
Inner tubing 43.28
Outer tubing 43.28
Casing 43.28
Thermal conductivity
(Wm
-1
K
-1
)
Cement 0.8654
Outer tubing 0.9
Emissivity
Casing 0.9
Component Annulus methane @ 1bar
Well fluid temperature (C) 300

44
The choice of permafrost parameters is very sensitive in calculations. Properties
significantly vary from a place to another. Permafrost values were taken from the literature
(Merriam et al., 1975) and are given in Table 6. They are close to Prudhoe Bay values
(Lachenbruch et al., 1982).

Table 6 Permafrost parameters
Frozen 3.12
Thermal conductivity
(Wm
-1
K
-1
)
Thawed 2.08
Frozen 1.80 10
-6

Thermal diffusivity
(m
2
s
-1
)
Thawed 8.53 10
-7

Heat capacity (J kg
-1
K
-1
) Thawed 1340
Density (kg.m
-3
) Thawed 1820
Heat of fusion (J/kg) 60480
Formation temperature (C) -5
Melting point (C) 0

7.2 Influence of well configuration
7.2.1 Insulation
First, the role of insulations is studied using two well configurations. The first is composed of
three layers of the same insulation. The second (in dark green in Figures 33 36) is made by
black aerogel for the inner layer and by fiberglass for the others. That is we have 3.2mm of
aerogel and 26 mm of fiberglass.
On Figure33, we see that wellbore heat losses rapidly reach a quasi-steady state. As
expected, white and black aerogels generate nearly the same heat losses, respectively 58
W/m and 70 W/m. They are 1.5 to 2 times smaller than heat losses for fiberglass and aerogel
+ fiberglass and three to four times less than thermolastic insulation and carbon fibers.
On Figure 34, we see that overall heat transfer coefficients behave in fashion similar to
heat losses. Aerogels give very low overall heat transfer coefficients, between 1 Wm
-2
K
-1
and
1.2 Wm
-2
K
-1
. They are 2 to 2.5 more efficient than the most conductive materials.
On Figure 35, we observe that wellbore temperatures continuously increase with time,
but the variations are smaller for long times. Cement temperatures (less than 30C) are much
lower than the fluid temperature (300C), even after 3 years. All insulations considerably
reduce cement temperature and then heat losses.
45
Figure 36 summarizes thaw thickness versus time. Solutions for black and white
aerogel lay on the x-axis. We see that only aerogels successfully prevent permafrost thawing
after 100 years of constant injection. For aerogels the thaw thickness is negligible. Further
calculations show that permafrost starts thawing after 500 years of constant injection. For the
other insulations, we notice that small variations in overall heat transfer coefficient engender
considerable differences in terms of thaw-front propagation. For instance, there is less than a
6% difference between U for thermolastic insulation and carbon fibers cases. This 6%
difference results in a thickness of thawed permafrost 27% greater for carbon fibers after 3
years. Moreover, small variations delay the appearance of thaw as for example between
fiberglass and aerogel + fiberglass. There is a difference in heat transfer coefficients less than
10% but permafrost thaw occurs 16 months earlier for fiberglass.
Then, adding a second layer of aerogel instead of fiberglass avoids permafrost thawing.

Figure 33 Evolution of wellbore heat losses for different insulations.

46

Figure 34 Evolution of overall heat transfer coefficient for different insulations.

Figure 35 Evolution of cement temperature for different insulations.
47

Figure 36 Evolution of permafrost thaw thickness for different insulations.

7.2.2 Model of insulation thermal conductivity
This part shows the results using two models of insulation thermal conductivity. The first
model (dashed line) assumes thermal conductivity to be a linear function of temperature. In
the second model, thermal conductivity is independent of temperature. We took the values
from experiments at 50C. This is temperature for which thermal conductivity is often given
by manufacturers. We have, respectively, 0.015 Wm
-1
K
-1
for black aerogel and 0.041 Wm
-
1
K
-1
for carbon fibers.
Figures 37 and 38 underline the difference between both models. The overall heat
transfer coefficient and the thaw thickness are significantly underestimated for constant
thermal conductivity. For instance, permafrost thawing does not appear anymore for carbon
fibers in the case of constant thermal conductivity (cf. Figure 38). Overall heat transfer
coefficient is 35% lower for constant than temperature dependent thermal conductivity in the
case of carbon fibers and even 45% for black aerogel (cf. Figure 37).
Naturally, the results with the constant conductivity model are more accurate if the
thermal conductivity is taken at an average temperature. However, the choice of temperature
is impossible to make a priori.

48

Figure 37 Evolution of overall heat transfer
coefficient for black aerogel and flame protector
and for different temperature dependencies
of insulation thermal conductivity.

Figure 38 Evolution of thaw thickness for black
aerogel and flame protector and for different
temperature dependencies of insulation
thermal conductivity.

7.2.3 Uncertainty on insulation thermal conductivity
This section shows the influence of uncertainty on insulation thermal conductivity due to
experimental errors (cf. Figures 3940). Dotted lines represent the greatest thermal
conductivity value possible and dashed lines the lowest. The solid line represents the mean.
Differences between thermal conductivities are given in Table 2.
The uncertainty on overall heat transfer coefficient U is 10% for black aerogel and 4%
for carbon fibers, and the uncertainty on thaw thickness is null for black aerogel and equals
to 15% for carbon fibers. Those values are to compare with the maximal relative
experimental errors for black aerogel (19%) and carbon fibers (5.5%). There is an attenuation
of uncertainty for U but amplification for the thaw thickness. This last result is expected
because thickness is an exponential function of U (cf. Equation 71).

x
x
x
x
x x x
x
o o o
o
o
o o o
49

coefficient for black aerogel and flame
protector and for different experimental
values of insulation thermal conductivity.

aerogel and flame protector and for different
experimental values of insulation thermal
conductivity.
(Aerogel solutions lie on x-axis)

7.2.4 Annulus
In the following parts, we study the behaviors of the extreme classes of insulation. We
choose black aerogel and flame protector. Other insulation properties are deduced by
interpolation.
In this part, we focus on the influence of annulus composition. The different gases
tested are air, methane and carbon dioxide at atmospheric pressure as well as carbon dioxide
at 10 bar. Gas properties come from NIST (2006). A configuration with annulus filled with
mud is also simulated. In this case, thermal conductivity of mud is equal to 1.5 Wm
-1
K
-1
.
On Figures 4144, we see that the differences between the various gases at atmospheric
pressure are small. They are more efficient for insulation than CO
2
at 10 bar, because
conduction and convection are augmented at high pressure. We also see that mud generates
the greatest heat losses. Compared to gas annulus, mud engenders a gain of 50% in thaw
thickness after 3 years for flame protector. For black aerogel, however, we do not see any
difference for this parameter.

x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
50

coefficient for black aerogel and for different
annulus compositions.

coefficient for flame protector and for
different annulus compositions.

Figure 43 Evolution of thaw thickness
for black aerogel and for different

Figure 44 Evolution of thaw thickness
for flame protector and for different

7.2.5 Well fluid temperature
A well often works with different conditions of operation. For instance, in cyclic steam
stimulation, there are phases of steam injection followed by oil production phases. Fluids
circulating in the tubing are not the same and are at different temperature. That is why it is
interesting to study the influence of well fluid temperature. The range of temperatures
considered goes from 100C (produced fluid) to 400C (very hot injected steam). This
implies that o and c vary (cf. Table 7).
The first remark is that hot well fluids increase the overall heat transfer coefficient (cf.
Figures 4546). The values are doubled between 100C and 400C. The second observation
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x x
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
x
x
51
is that black aerogel prevents permafrost thawing for all temperatures (cf. Figure 47). For
flame protector (cf. Figure 48), there is no thawing at 100C but there is twice as much at
400C in comparison to 300C.

well fluid temperatures.

coefficient for flame protector and for different
well fluid temperatures.

aerogel and for different well fluid temperatures.

Figure 48 Evolution of thaw thickness for flame
protector and for different well fluid temperatures.

Table 7 Range of well fluid temperatures
Temperature (C) 100 200 300 400
0.4520 0.2258 0.1505 0.1129
-0.0751 -0.0375 -0.0250 -0.0188
x
x x
x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
o o o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o
o o
52
7.3 Influence of permafrost properties
7.3.1 Thermal conductivity
This section deals with the influence of the thermal conductivity of frozen and thawed
permafrost. According to the nature of the rocks in permafrost (silt, sand, gravel, shale, etc.),
thermal conductivity of frozen and thawed permafrost notably varies (Lin et al., 1978;
Osterkamp et al., 1996). Values for frozen permafrost are bracketed between 1.5 Wm
-1
K
-1

and 5 Wm
-1
K
-1
and the ratio between frozen and thawed permafrost goes from 1.25 to 2.
Table 8 gives the correspondence in terms of parameter c.
Figures 4950 teach that the lower the frozen permafrost thermal conductivity, the
greater the overall heat transfer coefficient.
Figures 5152 show that larger thermal conductivity ratios induce greater thaw-front
radii. They also indicate that low frozen permafrost thermal conductivity accelerates and
amplifies permafrost thawing. With
frozen
= 1.5 Wm
-1
K
-1
, aerogel is not able to prevent
permafrost thawing. Active subcooling of the permafrost by injecting cold gases through the
wellbore annulus is needed.
In short, simulations are clearly extremely sensitive to permafrost properties.

Table 8 Range of permafrost thermal conductivities
Frozen 1.5 3 5
Thermal
conductivity
(Wm
-1
K
-1
)
Thawed 0.75 1 1.2 1.5 2 2.4 2.5 3.3 4
frozen
/
thawed
2 1.5 1.25 2 1.5 1.25 2 1.5 1.25
-0.0292 -0.0350 -0.0467 -0.0292 -0.0350 -0.0467 -0.0292 -0.0350 -0.0467

53

permafrost thermal conductivities.

coefficient for flame protector and for different
permafrost thermal conductivities.

aerogel and for different permafrost thermal
conductivities.

protector and for different permafrost thermal
conductivities.

7.3.2 Thermal diffusivity
The thermal diffusivities for frozen and thawed permafrost are taken from the same papers.
Usual values for frozen permafrost are presented in Table 9. Calculations show that thawed
permafrost thermal conductivity influence results a little. Thus, we take them equal to the
frozen values.
Figure 53 underlines the small influence of this parameter on thawed permafrost
thickness and then on all parameters, since they are no significant distinction between the
curves. Note again that aerogel cases show minimal thaw front size.

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x
x
x
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
*
*
*
54

Table 9 Range of thermal diffusivities
Thermal diffusivity ( 10
-6
m
2
/s) 0.9 1.8 3.6

Figure 53 Evolution of thaw thickness for black aerogel and flame
protector and for different permafrost thermal diffusivities.

7.3.3 Formation temperature
Another important permafrost parameter is the initial permafrost temperature or formation
temperature. Table 10 provides the different tested values.
This temperature has a small impact on the overall heat transfer coefficient (cf. Figures
5455). Lower temperatures however delay permafrost thawing and reduce thaw thickness.
For instance, after 3 years, a difference in initial temperature of 2C causes a difference of
5cm in thaw thickness for flame protector (cf. Figure 57). But for aerogel, none of the initial
formation temperatures leads to permafrost thawing.

Table 10 Range of formation temperatures
Temperature (C) -10 -7 -5 -3 -1
-0.050 -0.035 -0.025 -0.015 -0.005

o
o
o
55

coefficient for black aerogel at different
formation temperatures.

coefficient for flame protector at different
formation temperatures.

aerogel and at different formation temperatures.

protector at different formation temperatures.

7.4 Cyclic steam injection
This section deals with the case of cyclic steam injection. A cycle is modeled as the
succession of a period of steam injection, which occurs at high temperature, and a period of
oil/water production, at lower temperature. The soaking period is not represented, because
the analytical model can only manage an imposed temperature boundary. Moreover, the
soaking period is often much shorter than injection and production periods. Table 11 gives
the length of the different cycles.
Figure 58 gives the evolution of cement temperature for different cycles. During each
period, the fluid temperature remains constant. We notice that the unsteady period between
two steps is short. Indeed, after a change of the fluid temperature, the wellbore temperature
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
56
rapidly reaches the quasi-unsteady state of the system if its boundary temperature would have
always remained constant. This implies it is rapid to cool or heat the wellbore.

Table 11 Cyclic steam injection parameters
Number of cycles 1 2 4 5 5 6
Period Injection Production Injection Production Injection Production
Time (months) 3 5 4 7 9 13
Fluid temperature (C) 300 100 300 100 300 100
Insulated 50 10 50 10 50 10
Cement
temperature
(C)
Non
insulated
300 100 300 100 300 100

Figure 58 Evolution of wellbore cement temperature for different cycles.

In Figure 59, we plot the evolution of the thawed permafrost thickness for different
cycles using the numerical method. In this model, note that only the cement temperature is
imposed. For this study, the cement temperature stays constant in each phase and is given by
57
Table 11. Two configurations are tested: one with low temperature periods and the other with
high temperatures, which respectively correspond to the case of insulated and non-insulated
wells with the same fluid temperatures.
For the non-insulated well, we notice that the slope of the thickness evolution decreases
but stays positive in the production periods. On the opposite, the slope becomes negative in
the case of the insulated well. This means that the thawed permafrost freezes, but at a
velocity much lower than the thaw velocity in the injection periods. We remark that there are
non-zero thicknesses since the earliest times even for the insulated well although it is not the
case in the different analytical simulations. This is explained by the fact that in the analytical
simulations the cement temperature starts from the initial permafrost temperature which is
negative and needs time to reach the cement temperature used in this case. We basically skip
all the unsteady period.

Figure 59 Evolution of the thawed permafrost thickness for different cycles
and different well configurations.
58
7.5 Discussion
From the previous analytical simulations, it appears that aerogels are the only
insulations able to prevent permafrost thawing for long periods of constant injection (more
than 3 years). Concerning the annulus fluids, the most efficient way to reduce heat losses are
gases at low pressure. At low temperature (100C) in the tubing, all insulations prevent
permafrost thawing, and at very high temperature (400C), aerogels are still effective.
The different sensitivity analyses show the following points. First, neglecting
temperature dependency in the insulation thermal conductivity leads to false results. It has to
be dependent of temperature in heat losses calculations. Moreover, the insulation thermal
conductivity needs to be determined accurately because experimental uncertainties generate
small uncertainties on overall heat transfer coefficient but significant uncertainties on thaw
thickness.
When we look at the permafrost properties, we see that thermal conductivities of
thawed and frozen permafrost have a huge impact on thaw thickness. In extreme cases,
aerogels do not avoid permafrost thawing. Furthermore, initial formation temperature greatly
impacts thaw thickness. At the opposite, permafrost thermal diffusivities do not significantly
influence results. Thus, accurate knowledge of permafrost properties is indispensable.
Assuming homogeneous and isotropic permafrost properties is also an unrealistic hypothesis.
Although we see that aerogels are very good to insure permafrost integrity, all those
calculations assume to have idealistically insulated tubing. But coupling problems between
the tubings or the casings and leaking issues in the tubings are frequent, and then cement
temperature is not low anymore. For this reason, it is really interesting to subcool the annulus
gases, a process suggested by Gondouin (2005).

59
Chapter 8
8 Summary and future work
An experimental procedure based on the use of heat flux sensors was created to determine
the behavior of thermal conductivity with temperature for different insulations. A simplistic
qualitative study on mechanical stress was also conducted in order to simulate thermal stress
accompanying thermal cycles.
The materials tested were white and black aerogels, fiberglass, carbon fibers, and
thermolastic insulation. Experiments show a partial agreement of thermal conductivity with
literature values at ambient temperature. Uncertainty of results is acceptable because
experimental errors are reasonable (< 20%). Aerogels (0.012 0.025 W.m
-1
.K
-1
) are half as
conductive as fiberglass (0.03 0.045 W.m
-1
.K
-1
) and three to four times less conductive than
thermolastic insulation and carbon fibers (0.04 0.067 W.m
-1
.K
-1
), for temperatures between
40C and 140C. Moreover, aerogels, thermolastic insulation, and carbon fibers have good
mechanical resistance in comparison to fiberglass. At the microscopic scale, black aerogel
presents a structure similar to the white aerogel structure except that the aerogel matrix is
more interlinked to the fibers. This observation explains the macroscopic structure of black
aerogel that is much less friable.
Then, an analytical model was built to simulate wellbore heat losses and permafrost
thawing. The analytical thaw behavior model shows good agreement with numerical results
for non-insulated wells but apparently inconsistent results with insulated wells. The thickness
derived from the analytical results is clearly an upper limit.
The case of a vertical insulated well with constant fluid temperature was performed.
Results indicate that aerogels are very efficient to prevent permafrost thawing for long
periods (100 years) of high fluid temperature (300C). For lower temperatures (100C), all
insulations studied prevent permafrost thawing for at least 3 years. A numerical simulator for
cyclic steam simulation thaw calculations was also built.
Simulations are tremendously sensitive to three parameters: insulation and permafrost
thermal conductivities, and initial permafrost temperature. Indeed, wellbore heat losses and
permafrost thaw depend significantly on the overall heat transfer coefficient, whose main
contribution is the insulation thermal conductivity. The knowledge of their behaviors with
temperature greatly reduces these uncertainties. The second key parameter is also the greatest
source of uncertainties. In fact thawed and frozen permafrost thermal conductivities are
governed by many factors such as rock constitution and porosity. Those characteristics vary
in radial and vertical directions in the case of heterogeneous reservoirs. Finally, the initial
60
permafrost temperature has to be derived by the knowledge of the geothermal temperature
gradient. Variations in those permafrost properties lead to non uniform thaw-front
propagation in the vertical direction, zones of frozen and thawed permafrost. Field data are
crucial for accurate modeling.
The future work should focus on the simulation of a well used for cyclic steam
stimulation. Ideally, this simulator should take into account anisotropic and inhomogeneous
permafrost parameters as well as a cement temperature that is exactly equal to the cement
temperature given by the analytical calculations. Concerning the experimental work, a
prototype of an insulated tubing needs also to be built in order to take into consideration the
effects of the contact resistances between the different materials and the internal radiation
and heat convection. More accurate values of the overall heat transfer coefficient will then be
obtained.
61
Nomenclature
o thermal diffusivity in m
2
s
-1

o
L
thermal diffusivity of thawed permafrost in m
2
s
-1

o
S
thermal diffusivity of frozen permafrost in m
2
s
-1

ratio between the thawed-permafrost o
L
and frozen permafrost o
S
thermal diffusivities
thermal conductivity of the sample in Wm
-1
K
-1

L
thermal conductivity of thawed permafrost in Wm
-1
K
-1

S
thermal conductivity of frozen permafrost in Wm
-1
K
-1

~
uniform thermal conductivity of the sample in Wm
-1
K
-1

o
L
density of the thawed permafrost in kg.m
-3

ratio of the heat required to melt a unit volume of solid to the maximum available
heat content of a unit volume of liquid
c ratio of heat flow in the solid region resulting from the temperature difference
(T
in
T
f
) to heat flow in the liquid region resulting from the imposed temperature
difference (T
fluid
T
f
)
m slope
r thermal resistance of heat flux sensor in W
-1
m
2
K
r
f
thaw-front radius in m
r
h
wellbore radius in m
r
w
effective wellbore radius in m
r
1
inner radius of the inner tubing in m
r
2
outer radius of the inner tubing in m
r
Df
dimensionless radius
t time in s
t
D
dimensionless time
x linear direction in m
z linear direction in m
C
pL
heat capacity of the thawed permafrost in J.kg
-1
K
-1

L thickness of the sample in m
L
f
heat of fusion of the frozen permafrost in J.kg
-1

Q heat flux in Wm
-2

S intercept
T temperature in K
T
in
initial temperature of frozen permafrost in K
62
T
f
melting temperature of frozen permafrost in K
T
h
temperature at the wellbore in K
T
fluid
temperature of the fluid in K
T
l
temperature of the lower side of the sample in K
T
u
temperature of the upper side of the sample in K
T
1
temperature measured at the bottom of the sample in K
T
2
temperature measured at the top of the sample in K
U overall heat transfer coefficient in Wm
-2
K
-1
63
References
Ayyub, B., M., and Klir, G., J., 2006. Uncertainty Modeling and Analysis in Engineering and
the Sciences, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 266-268.

Back, L. H. and Cuffel, R. F., 1978. Analysis of Heat Losses and Casing Temperatures of
Steam Injection Wells with Annular Coolant Water Flow, paper SPE 7148 presented at
the 1978 SPE California Regional Meeting, San Francisco, April 12-14.

Burger, J., Sourieau, P. and Combarnous, M., 2005. Rcupration Assiste du Ptrole. Les
Mthodes Thermiques, ditions Technip, Paris, 1984, 4.14.64.

Castanier, L. M., Wells in the Permafrost Environment: A Literature Review.

Croy, D. E. and Dougherty, D. A., 1984. Handbook of Thermal Insulation Applications,
Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ, 3638.

Demange, D., Bejet, M. and Laizet, J.-C., 2002. Nouvelle mthode de caractrisation
thermique des super-isolants. Application lidentification des diffrents modes de
conduction, Congrs franais de thermique, SFT 2002, Vittel, 3-6 juin.

Denniel, S. and Blair, C., 2004. Aerogel Insulation for Deepwater Reelable Pipe-in-Pipe,
paper OTC 16505 presented at the Offshore Technology Center, Houston, TX, May 3-6.

Gondouin, M., 2005. Downhole flow control apparatus, super-insulated tubulars and surface
tools for producing heavy oil by steam injection methods from multi-lateral wells located
in cold environments, US Patent 20050103497.

Hallam, R. J, Piekenbrock, E. J., Abou-Sayed, A. S., Garon, A. M., Putnam, T. W.,
Weggeland, M. C. and Webb, K. J., 1991. Resource Description and Development
Potential of the Ugnu Reservoir, North Slope, Alaska, paper SPE 21779 presented at the
1991 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Long Beach, CA., March 20-22.

Kaviany, M., 2002. Principles of Heat Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 201
205.
64
Lachenbruch, A. H., Sass, J. H., Marshall, B. V., and Moses, T. H. Jr., 1982, Permafrost,
heat flow and the geothermal regime at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, J. Geophys. Res.,
published on Nov. 10, 87:B11.

Lemmon, E.W., McLinden, M.O., and D.G. Friend, 2005, "Thermophysical Properties of
Fluid Systems", WebBook of Chemistry NIST, Reference Data Base NIST Number 69,
Eds. P.J. Linstrom and W.G. Mallard, published on June, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg MD, 20899 (http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry).

Liang, L., 2005. An Analytical Model for Cyclic Steaming of Horizontal Wells, MS
Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Lin, C., J., and Wheeler, J., D., 1978. Simulation of Permafrost Thaw Behavior at Prudhoe
Bay, paper SPE 6063 presented at the SPE-AIME 51
st
Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LO, Oct 3-6.

Merriam, R., Wechsler, A., Boorman, R., and Davies, B., 1975, Insulated Hot Oil-
Producing Wells in Permafrost, J. Pet. Tech., published on March, 357-365.

Myers, G, 1998. Analytical Methods in Conduction Heat Transfer, 2
nd
Edition, AMCHT
Publications, Madison, WI, 142-143.

Osterkamp, T. E., and Romanovsky, V. E., 1996. Characteristics of Changing Parameters in
the Alaskan Arctic, USA, Artic and Alpine Research, Vol. 28, No. 3, p. 268.

Prats, M., 2005. Thermal Recovery, 7
th
Edition, Monograph Volume 7, Henry L. Doherty
Memorial Fund of AIME, SPE, Richardson, TX.

Sengul, M. M. and Brigham, W. E., 1983. Determination of Permafrost Thawing Around
Oil Wells, paper SPE 11734 presented at the 1983 SPE California Regional Meeting,
Ventura, March 23-25.

Sengul, M. M, 1976. Numerical Solution of Heat Conduction with Phase Change in
Cylindrical Systems, PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Shallcross, D. C., and Wood, D. G., 1990. The Accurate Measurements of Heat Flux Using
Thin Film Heat Flux Sensors with Application to Petroleum Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, 117.
65
Sharma, B. C., Khataniar, S., Patil, S. L., Kamath, V. A. and Dandekar, A.Y., 2002. A
Simulation Study of Novel Thermal Recovery Methods in the Ugnu Tar Sand Reservoir,
North Slope, Alaska, paper SPE 76729 presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Anchorage, AK, May 20-22.

Somerton, W. H., 1992. Thermal Properties and Temperature-related Behavior of
Rock/Fluid Systems, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 39-48.

Tye, R. P., 1969. Thermal Conductivity, Volume 1, Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd,
London, 301405.

http://www.awi-potsdam.de/www-pot/geo/soils.html, accessed February 15, 2007.

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, accessed March 16, 2006.
http://eande.lbl.gov/ECS/aerogels/links.htm.

Holmgren, M., 2006. X Steam for Matlab, www.x-eng.com, accessed October 21, 2006.

Wikipedia contributors, accessed March 16, 2006. "Aerogel," Wikipedia: The Free
Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel.

Wikipedia contributors, accessed January 4, 2007. "Propagation of uncertainty," Wikipedia:
The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty.

Aspen Aerogels
TM
, accessed February 8, 2007,
http://www.aerogel.com/products/pdf/Pyrogel_6250_DS.pdf.

Saveguard, 2005. Saveguard Thermolastic System Users Guide,
http://www.saveguard.com/Downloads/Thermolastic%20data1.pdf

Unifrax, 2005. Fiberfrax

information sheet,
http://www.fssperry.com/PDF_Documents/Unifrax/blanket.pdf

Zoltek, accessed March 8, 2007. Pyron
Brochure

67
Appendix A
A. Code for thermal conductivity calculations
function HFS_black_aerogel

% Calculate thermal conductivity of sample (here black aerogel) with heat flux sensor (HFS) method

t=linspace(0,400,17);

factor=[5.5, 5.2, 5, 4.8, 4.65, 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.15,...
4.05, 3.95, 3.85, 3.75, 3.65, 3.5, 3.4, 3.25];

factor=factor*1.1/13.3+0.6;

% Output at 70F of HFS

a1=1.85e-3; %1
a2=1.83e-3; %2

% Length of the sample in m
L=1.6e-2;

% Thermal resistance of the HFS
R=0.004;

% Input: Temperature in F and heat flux in mV

W1=[.045 .07 .09 .125 .16];
W2=[.04 .06 .085 .115 .15];

T1_F=[143.4 181.5 225 263.5 303.6];
T2_F=[97.3 121.4 156 177.8 202.6];

% Conversion in C

T1=(T1_F-32)*5/9;
T2=(T2_F-32)*5/9;

dT=T1-T2;
T=(T1+T2)/2;

% Calibration factor

alpha1=interp1(t,factor,T1_F);

Q1=W1.*alpha1/a1;
Q2=W2.*alpha2/a2;
68

Q=(Q1+Q2)/2;

lambda1=L./(dT./Q1-R);
lambda2=L./(dT./Q2-R);
lambda=L./(dT./Q-R);

% Calculation of "constant" thermal conductivity

% Calculation of "linear" thermal conductivity

% Linear regression on lambda linear
x1=((T1-R*Q/2)-(T2+R*Q/2))';
x2=((T1-R*Q/2).^2-(T2+R*Q/2).^2)'/2;
y=Q'*L;
X = [zeros(size(x1)) x1 x2];
a = X\y
t=sort([T2 T1]);
q=a(3)*t+a(2);

% Linear regression on lambda constant
Y=[ones(size(T))' T'];
b=Y\lambda';
s=b(2)*t+b(1);

% Experimental errors
DT=.5556;
DL=5e-4;
DQ1=0.005*alpha1/a1;
DQ2=0.005*alpha2/a2;
dQ=abs(Q1-Q2)/2;
DQ=max(DQ1,DQ2)+dQ;

error=((1./(dT./Q-R)*DL).^2+(L./Q.*DT./(dT./Q-R)).^2+...
(L./Q.^2.*dT.*DQ./(dT./Q-R)).^2).^(1/2);
error_abs=((1./(dT./Q-R)*DL)+(L./Q.*DT./(dT./Q-R))+...
(L./Q.^2.*dT.*DQ./(dT./Q-R)));
error_linear= interp1(T,error,t,'pp');

error_percent=error./lambda;
maxe=max(error_percent)*100
maxerror=max(error)

% Plot of the figure

figure(1);
axes1 = axes('Parent',figure(1));
title(axes1,'Thermal Conductivity of Black Aerogel');
xlabel(axes1,'Temperature (C)');
ylabel(axes1,'Thermal conductivity (W.m^{-1}K^{-1})');
box(axes1,'on');
hold(axes1,'all');
69
plot1 = plot(T,lambda,'r','LineWidth',2,'Marker','square');
plot1 = plot(t,q,'b:','LineWidth',2,'Marker','square');
plot1 = plot(t,s,'g--','LineWidth',2,'Marker','square');
legend1 = legend(axes1,{'\lambda_{constant}','\lambda_{linear}',...
'\lambda_{regression constant}'},'Location','NorthWest');
errorbar(t,q,error_linear,'Color','b')
errorbar(T,lambda,error,'Color','r')

figure(2);
axes2 = axes('Parent',figure(2),'FontSize',18);
xlabel(axes2,'Temperature (C)');
ylabel(axes2,'Thermal conductivity (W.m^{-1}K^{-1})');
box(axes2,'on');
hold(axes2,'all');
grid on;
errorbar(T,lambda,error,'Color','r','LineWidth',2.5,'Marker','square');
plot2 = plot(t,q,'b','LineWidth',2.5,'Marker','square');
legend2 = legend(axes2,{'Uniform conductivity','Non-uniform conductivity'},'Location','NorthWest');

return

70
function [energy m dm L dL lambda dlambda error_percent]=stress_black

% Calculate the variation o f thermal conductivity, mass and thickness of the sample (here black
aerogel) in function of stress

t=linspace(0,400,17);

factor=[5.5, 5.2, 5, 4.8, 4.65, 4.5, 4.4, 4.3, 4.15,...
4.05, 3.95, 3.85, 3.75, 3.65, 3.5, 3.4, 3.25];

factor=factor*1.1/13.3+0.6;

% Output at 70F

a1=1.85e-3; %1
a2=1.83e-3; %2

L=[1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3]*1e-2;
m=[6.19 6.02 5.59 5.23]*1e-3;
dm=(m-m(1))/m(1)*100;
dL=(L-L(1))/L(1)*100;

R=0.004;

% Input: Temperature in F and heat flux in mV

W1=[.125 .14 .14 .15];
W2=[.115 .14 .15 .16];

T1_F=[256.8 253.7 255 246.2];
T2_F=[142.5 138.2 141.8 140.9];

% Conversion in C

T1=(T1_F-32)*5/9;
T2=(T2_F-32)*5/9;

dT=T1-T2;
T=(T1+T2)/2;


Q1=W1.*alpha1/a1;
Q2=W2.*alpha2/a2;

Q=(Q1+Q2)/2;

energy=[0 1 3 5];

% Calculation of "constant" thermal conductivity
dlambda=(lambda-lambda(1))/lambda(1)*100;
71

% Experimental errors
DT=.5556;
DL=5e-4;
DQ1=0.01*alpha1/a1/2;
DQ2=0.01*alpha2/a2/2;
dQ=abs(Q1-Q2)/2;
DQ=max(DQ1,DQ2)+dQ;

error=((1./(dT./Q-R)*DL).^2+(L./Q.*DT./(dT./Q-R)).^2+...
(L./Q.^2.*dT.*DQ./(dT./Q-R)).^2).^(1/2);
error_percent=(((error/lambda(1)).^2+(lambda*error(1)/lambda(1)).^2).^.5)*100;

% Plot of the figures

figure(1);
title(axes1,'Effect of stress on thermal conductivity of black aerogel');
xlabel(axes1,'Energy brought to the sample');
ylabel(axes1,'Variation of thermal conductivity (%)');
box(axes1,'on');
hold(axes1,'all');
plot1 = errorbar(energy,dlambda,error_percent,'Color','r','LineWidth',2,'Marker','square');

figure(2);
xlabel(axes2,'Variation of mass (%)');
box(axes2,'on');
hold(axes2,'all');
plot2 = plot(dm,dlambda,'Color','r','LineWidth',2,'Marker','square');

figure(3);
xlabel(axes3,'Variation of length (%)');
box(axes3,'on');
hold(axes3,'all');
plot3 = plot(dL,dlambda,'Color','r','LineWidth',2,'Marker','square');

return
73
Appendix B
B. Code for heat losses calculations

function heat_loss

% Calculate temperatures, overall heat transfer coefficient, heat losses and thaw-front radius for
constant fluid temperature

global Te Ts rh lambda_s lambda_l Ds Dl;

% Temperatures

% Formation
Te=268.15;

% Fluid in the well
Ts=473;

% earth
rh=0.1524;

% Diffusivities
Dl=8.53e-7; % Unfrozen permafrost
Ds=1.80e-6; % Frozen permafrost

% Thermal conductivity
lambda_l=2.08; % Unfrozen permafrost
lambda_s=3.12; % Frozen permafrost

% Time
logt=3.5:0.05:9;
t=10.^logt;
n=length(t);
t_years=t/(86400*365);

% Thermal conductivity of White Aerogel : 1
% Thermal conductivity of Black Aerogel : 2
% Thermal conductivity of Fiberglass : 3
% Thermal conductivity of Flame Protector : 4
% Thermal conductivity of Thermolastic Insulation : 5

material=[1 2 3 4 5 2 % First layer
1 2 3 4 5 2 % Second layer
1 2 3 4 5 4]; % Third layer

% Calculation of temperatures and heat transfer coefficient
for j=1:6
for i=1:n
74
[Ttubing(i,j) Tins(i,j) Th(i,j) U(i,j) Q(i,j)]=well_time(t(i),material(:,j));
end
end

% Calculation of thaw-front radii
for j=1:6
rf(:,j) = thaw_radius(Ts,U(:,j),t);
thaw_thickness(:,j) = max(rf(:,j)'-rh,0);
end

Tcement=Th-273.15;

% Plots
figure(1);
axes1 = axes('Parent',figure(1),'Fontsize',24);
title(axes1,'Evolution of Cement Temperature');
xlabel(axes1,'Time (years)');
ylabel(axes1,'Temperature (C)');
box(axes1,'on');
hold(axes1,'all');
grid on;
plot1 = plot(t_years,Tcement(:,1),'m--','LineWidth',2.5);
plot1 = plot(t_years,Tcement(:,2),'c','LineWidth',2.5);
plot1 = plot(t_years,Tcement(:,3),'r','LineWidth',2.5);
plot1 = plot(t_years,Tcement(:,4),'g--','LineWidth',2.5);
plot1 = plot(t_years,Tcement(:,5),'b','LineWidth',2.5);
plot1 = plot(t_years,Tcement(:,6),'y','LineWidth',2.5);

figure(2);
title(axes2,'Evolution of Heat Loss');
ylabel(axes2,'Q (W/m)');
box(axes2,'on');
hold(axes2,'all');
grid on;
plot2 = plot(t_years,Q(:,1),'m--','LineWidth',2.5);
plot2 = plot(t_years,Q(:,2),'c','LineWidth',2.5);
plot2 = plot(t_years,Q(:,3),'r','LineWidth',2.5);
plot2 = plot(t_years,Q(:,4),'g--','LineWidth',2.5);
plot2 = plot(t_years,Q(:,5),'b','LineWidth',2.5);
plot2 = plot(t_years,Q(:,6),'y','LineWidth',2.5);

figure(3);
title(axes3,'Evolution of Heat Transfer Coefficient');
ylabel(axes3,'U (W/mK)');
box(axes3,'on');
hold(axes3,'all');
grid on;
plot3 = plot(t_years,U(:,1),'m--','LineWidth',2.5);
plot3 = plot(t_years,U(:,2),'c','LineWidth',2.5);
plot3 = plot(t_years,U(:,3),'r','LineWidth',2.5);
plot3 = plot(t_years,U(:,4),'g--','LineWidth',2.5);
plot3 = plot(t_years,U(:,5),'b','LineWidth',2.5);
75
plot3 = plot(t_years,U(:,6),'y','LineWidth',2.5);

figure(4)
title(axes4,'Evolution of the Thaw-front Radius');
ylabel(axes4,'Thickness (m)');
box(axes4,'on');
hold(axes4,'all');
grid on;
plot4 = plot(t_years,thaw_thickness(:,1),'m--','LineWidth',2.5);
plot4 = plot(t_years,thaw_thickness(:,2),'c','LineWidth',2.5);
plot4 = plot(t_years,thaw_thickness(:,3),'r','LineWidth',2.5);
plot4 = plot(t_years,thaw_thickness(:,4),'g--','LineWidth',2.5);
plot4 = plot(t_years,thaw_thickness(:,5),'b','LineWidth',2.5);
plot4 = plot(t_years,thaw_thickness(:,6),'y','LineWidth',2.5);
legend4 = legend(axes4,{'White Aerogel','Black Aerogel','Fiberglass','Flame Protector',...
'Thermolastic Insulation','Black Aerogel + Fiberglass'},'Fontsize',20);

return

76
function cyclic

% Calculate the wellbore temperature for different cycles analytically

clear all;

global Te Ts rh lambda_s lambda_l Ds Dl ;
7
% Cyclic parameters

dt_inj_day=[3 4 9]*30; % in days
dt_prod_day=[5 7 13]*30;

T_inj=[573 573 573]; % in Kelvin
T_prod=[473 473 473];

% Number of cycles
N=length(T_inj);

% Time

t_sec(1)=0;
t_day(1)=0;

for i=1:N
t_day(2*i)=dt_inj_day(i)+t_day(2*i-1);
t_day(2*i+1)=dt_prod_day(i)+t_day(2*i);
t_sec(2*i)=dt_inj_day(i)*86400+t_sec(2*i-1);
t_sec(2*i+1)=dt_prod_day(i)*86400+t_sec(2*i);
T_cyc(2*i-1)=T_inj(i);
T_cyc(2*i)=T_prod(i);
end

Ts=[];

% Greatest common divisor of time period
% This is to reduce number of time steps

GCD=t_day(2);
for i=2:2*N
GCD=gcd(GCD,t_day(i+1));
end

t_period=0:GCD*86400:t_sec(2*N+1);
log_dt=3.5:0.1:log10(GCD*86400);
log_dt=[log_dt log10(GCD*86400)];
dt=10.^log_dt;

n_dt=length(dt);
n_gcd=t_day(2*N+1)/GCD;

t=[];
77
for i=1:n_gcd
t_int=t_period(i)+dt;
t=[t t_int];
end

for i=1:2*N+1
M(i)=t_day(i)/GCD*n_dt+1;
end

m=diff(M);

% Fill temperature period
for k=1:2*N
for i=M(k):M(k+1)-1
Ts(i)=T_cyc(k);
end
end

n=length(t);
t_years=t/(86400*365);

% Temperatures

% Formation
Te=268.15;

% earth
rh=0.1524;

% Diffusivities

% Thermal conductivity

% Thermal conductivity of White Aerogel : 1
% Thermal conductivity of Black Aerogel : 2
% Thermal conductivity of Fiberglass : 3
% Thermal conductivity of Flame Protector : 4
% Thermal conductivity of Thermolastic Insulation : 5

material=[2 % First layer
2 % Second layer
2]; % Third layer

n_mat=length(material(1,:));

% Calculation of temperatures and heat transfer coefficient
Ta=Ts;

for j=1:n_mat
78
Tb=[];
for k=1:2*N
Ts=Ta(M(k));
Tb=[Tb Ts];
kmin=min(find(Ts==Tb));
if kmin>=k
for i=1:n
[Ttubing(i,j,k) Tins(i,j,k) TH(i,j,k) U(i,j,k) Q(i,j,k)]=well_time(t(i),material(:,j));
end
else
Ttubing(:,j,k) = Ttubing(:,j,kmin);
Tins(:,j,k) = Tins(:,j,kmin);
TH(:,j,k) = TH(:,j,kmin);
U(:,j,k) = U(:,j,kmin);
Q(:,j,k)=Q(:,j,kmin);
end
end
end

Ts=Ta;

% Superposition theorem

for j=1:n_mat
Th(:,j)=TH(:,j,1);
Th1=Th(:,j);
for k=2:2*N
for i=M(k):n
Th(i,j)=Th1(i)+(TH(i-m(k-1),j,k)-Th1(i-m(k-1)));
end
for i=M(k):n
Th1(i)=Th(i,j);
end
end
end

Tcement=Th-273.15;

% Plots
figure(1);
title(axes1,'Evolution of Cement Temperature');
ylabel(axes1,'Temperature (C)');
box(axes1,'on');
hold(axes1,'all');
grid on;
plot1 = plot(t_years,Tcement(:,1),'r','LineWidth',2);

return

79
function [T2 Tins Th U q_w]=well_time(t,material)

global Te Ts rh r2 lambda_s lambda_l Ds Dl;

% all units are in SI

% Parameters

sigma=5.6705e-8;
g=9.81;
dz=1;
epsilonn=1;

% Inner tubing
r1=0.02372;
r2=0.03016;
lambda_itub=43.28; % to check

% insulation 1
r3=0.03334;

% insulation 2
r4=0.04921;

% insulation 3
r5=0.05931;

% Outer tubing
r6=0.06985;
lambda_otub=43.28;
em_6=0.9;

% casing
rci=0.08414;
rco=0.09684;
lambda_cas=43.28;
em_cas=0.9;

% cement
lambda_cem=0.8654;

% earth
lambda_e=lambda_s;

% Heat transfer coefficients
% hf=11357; % laminar film for forced convection with condensing steam
hp=11357; % dirt deposit

% Forced convection in pipe

P=1; % Pressure in bar
80
T=Ts-273.15; % Temperature in C

mu_steam=Xsteam('my_pT',P,T);
lambda_steam=Xsteam('tc_pT',P,T);
Cp_steam=Xsteam('Cp_pT',P,T);
rho_steam=Xsteam('rho_pT',P,T);

inj_rate=100e3/86400; % flow rate in kg/s, (here 100 ton/day)
Re=2*inj_rate/(pi*r1*mu_steam*rho_steam); % Reynolds number
Pr=Cp_steam*mu_steam/lambda_steam; % Prandtl number

hf=0.0265*Re.^0.8*Pr.^0.3;

% Calculation of U

% Initial guess of U

T_ins=[(2*Ts+Te)/3 (Ts+Te)/2 (Ts+2*Te)/3];

lambda_ins=[conductivity(material(1),T_ins(1))...
conductivity(material(2),T_ins(2))...
conductivity(material(3),T_ins(3))];

U=1/(2*r2)/(log(r3/r2)/lambda_ins(1)+log(r4/r3)/lambda_ins(2)...
+log(r5/r4)/lambda_ins(3));

i=0;

while epsilonn>1e-5

U0=U;
i=i+1; % iteration number

% Calculation of Ramey function f(t)
tD=Ds*t/rh^2;
f=ft(2*lambda_e/(U*r2),tD);

% Cement temperature
Th=(lambda_e*Te+Ts*r2*U*f)/(lambda_e+r2*U*f);

% Calculation of Q
Q=2*pi*lambda_e*(Th-Te)/f*dz;

% Calculation of insulation temperatures and conductivities

T2 = Ts-1/(2*pi)*(1/(r1*(hf+hp))+log(r2/r1)/lambda_itub+1/(r2*hp))*Q/dz;
T3 = T2-1/(2*pi)*(log(r3/r2)/lambda_ins(1))*Q/dz;

T_ins(1)=(T2+T3)/2;
T_ins(2)=(T3+T4)/2;
81
T_ins(3)=(T4+T5)/2;

lambda_ins=[conductivity(material(1),T_ins(1))...
conductivity(material(2),T_ins(2))...
conductivity(material(3),T_ins(3))];

% Calculation of T6 and Tci
T6 = T5-1/(2*pi)*(log(r6/r5)/lambda_otub)*Q/dz;
Tci = Th+1/(2*pi)*(log(rco/rci)/lambda_cas+log(rh/rco)/lambda_cem)*Q/dz;

% Calculation of hc
Tann=(T6+Tci)/2;
[rho_ann C_ann lambda_ann mu_ann]=methane(Tann);
beta_ann=1/Tann;
Pr=C_ann*mu_ann/lambda_ann;
Gr=(rci-r6)^3*g*rho_ann^2*beta_ann*(T6-Tci)/mu_ann^2;
hc=0.05699*(Gr*Pr)^0.333*Pr^0.074*lambda_ann/(r6*log(rci/r6));

% Calculation of hr
hr=sigma*(T6^2+Tci^2)*(T6+Tci)/(1/em_6+r6/rci*(1/em_cas-1));

% New value of U
U = real(1/(r2*(1/(r1*(hf+hp))+log(r2/r1)/lambda_itub+1/(r2*hp)+...
log(r3/r2)/lambda_ins(1)+log(r4/r3)/lambda_ins(2)+...
log(r5/r4)/lambda_ins(3)+log(r6/r5)/lambda_otub+1/(r6*(hc+hr))+...
log(rco/rci)/lambda_cas+log(rh/rco)/lambda_cem)));

epsilonn=abs(U-U0);

end

Uglobal=U;
q_w=2*pi*r2*dz*U*(Ts-Te);
Tins=T5;

return
82
function lambda=conductivity(material,T)

% Determine thermal conductivity in function of the material and temperature

% Thermal conductivity of aerogel
if material == 1
b=7.0424e-003;
a=1.2274e-005;
lambda=a*T+b;
end

% Thermal conductivity of black aerogel
if material == 2
b=-2.0503e-002;
a=1.0853e-004;
lambda=a*T+b;
end

% Thermal conductivity of fiberglass
if material == 3
b=-1.5913e-002;
a=1.4659e-004;
lambda=a*T+b;
end

% Thermal conductivity of flame protector
if material == 4
b=-2.0399e-002;
a=1.8953e-004;
lambda=a*T+b;
end

% Thermal conductivity of thermolastic insulation
if material == 5
b=-3.8079e-004;
a=1.3771e-004;
lambda=a*T+b;
end

return

83
function f=ft(r,t)

% Interpolation of the value of f(t) (Ramey function) in unsteady conduction

A=[.311 .312 .313 .313 .314 .316 .318 .323 .330 .345 .373 .396 .417 .433 .438 .445
.421 .422 .423 .423 .424 .427 .430 .439 .452 .473 .511 .538 .568 .572 .578 .588
.614 .615 .616 .617 .619 .623 .629 .644 .666 .698 .745 .772 .790 .802 .806 .811
.800 .801 .802 .803 .806 .811 .820 .842 .872 .910 .958 .984 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02
1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.15 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.25
1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.52 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.59 1.59
1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.66 1.67 1.69 1.73 1.77 1.81 1.84 1.86 1.86 1.87 1.87 1.88
1.94 1.95 1.96 1.97 1.97 1.99 2.00 2.05 2.09 2.12 2.15 2.16 2.16 2.17 2.17 2.17
2.37 2.38 2.39 2.39 2.40 2.42 2.44 2.48 2.51 2.54 2.56 2.57 2.57 2.57 2.58 2.58
2.71 2.72 2.73 2.73 2.74 2.75 2.77 2.81 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.90];

tD=[.1 .2 .5 1 2 5 10 20 50 100];
R=[1000 500 100 50 20 10 5 2 1 .5 .2 .1 .05 .02 .01 0];

if t>100
f=0.5*log(t)+0.403;
else
f=interp2(R,tD,A,r,t);
end

return

84
function [rf]=thaw_radius(Tw,U,t)

% Calculate the thaw-front radius for a constant fluid temperature

global Te Ts rh r2 lambda_s lambda_l Ds Dl;

% Parameters

% Thawed Permafrost
Cl=1340;
Lf=60480;
rho_l=1820;

% Temperature
Tf=273.15;

% S factor

S_inter=[1.586 1.838 1.963 2.082 2.088
1.496 1.696 1.799 1.902 1.907
1.266 1.344 1.393 1.455 1.456
1.051 1.082 1.106 1.126 1.127
0.885 0.909 0.917 0.929 0.930
0.729 0.729 0.730 0.745 0.746];

sigma_inter = [0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.7 3.0];
phi_inter = [-0.35 -0.18 -0.10 -0.01 -0.005];

% Dimensionless coefficients
gamma=Dl/Ds;
phi=lambda_s/lambda_l*(Te-Tf)./(Tw-Tf);
sigma=Lf./(Cl*(Tw-Tf));
m=0.444*exp(0.31*phi);

% Calculation of thaw-front radius

rw=rh.*exp(-lambda_l./(r2*U));
tD=lambda_l*t'./(rho_l*Cl*rw.^2);

S = interp2(phi_inter,sigma_inter,S_inter,phi,sigma);
rdf = S.*tD.^m+1;

rf=rdf.*rw;

return

85
function cycle_thaw

% Calculate the evolution of the thawed permafrost thickness for cyclic steam stimulation

clear all, close all;

% Parameters

% Radii
r2=0.03016;
rh=0.1524;
re=100; %re needs to be at least 5 times larger than the maximum thaw-front radius
%10 times is a good value

% Permafrost properties
Tf=273.15;
Ti=268.15;
Cl=1340;
Lf=60480;
rho_l=1820;
gamma=Dl/Ds;

beta=re./rh;
xsi=(log(beta)).^2;

% grid
du=.005;
u=0:du:1;

% Cycle parameters

dt_inj_day=[3 4 9]*30;
dt_prod_day=[5 7 13]*30;

T_inj=[573 573 573];
T_prod=[373 373 373];

% Number of cycles
n=length(T_inj);

% Discretization of time

t_sec(1)=0;
t_day(1)=0;

for i=1:n
86
t_day(2*i)=dt_inj_day(i)+t_day(2*i-1);
t_day(2*i+1)=dt_prod_day(i)+t_day(2*i);
t_sec(2*i)=dt_inj_day(i)*86400+t_sec(2*i-1);
t_sec(2*i+1)=dt_prod_day(i)*86400+t_sec(2*i);
T_cyc(2*i-1)=T_inj(i);
T_cyc(2*i)=T_prod(i);
end

Tw=[];

% Greatest common divisor of time period
GCD=t_day(2);
for i=2:2*n
GCD=gcd(GCD,t_day(i+1));
end

t_period=0:GCD*86400:t_sec(2*n+1);
log_dt=0.5:0.02:log10(GCD*86400);
log_dt=[log_dt log10(GCD*86400)];
dt=10.^log_dt;

n_dt=length(dt);
n_gcd=t_day(2*n+1)/GCD;

t=[];
for i=1:n_gcd
t_int=t_period(i)+dt;
t=[t t_int];
end

for i=1:2*n+1
Mr(i)=t_day(i)/GCD*n_dt+1;
end

m=diff(Mr);

for k=1:2*n
for i=Mr(k):Mr(k+1)-1
Tw(i)=T_cyc(k);
end
end

N=length(t);
t_years=t/(86400*365);

% Dimensionless time
tD=Dl*t/rh^2;

M=length(u);
epsilon=1e-6;

for i=1:N-1
tD1(i)=tD(i);
end
87

t1=tD1*rh.^2/Dl;
t1_year=t1/(86400*365);

% Loop counters
total_loop=0;
infinite_loop=0;
negative_loop=0;
first_negative=0;
last_negative=0;

dt=diff(tD);
rn=dt/du^2;

% Initial temperature
theta=zeros(M,N);
theta(:,1)=Ti-Tf;

% Boundary condition
theta(1,:)=Tw-Tf;
theta(M,:)=Ti-Tf;

% Initial guess
ugn1=0;
gn1=0;
ind_p(1)=1;
uf(1)=0.001;
ugn=0.001;
test=-1;

for n=2:N-1
boucle_loop=0;

if n==2
ufn=0.001;
p=1;
gn=0.0001;
else
ufn=uf(n-1)+dt(n)*gn;
p=find((u-ufn)>=0,1)-1;
end

if floor(n/1000)==n/1000
tD(n)
end

if abs(Tw(n)-Tw(n-1))>0
test=-1;
end

test=-1;

rn=dt(n)/du^2;
xn=uf(n-1)+dt(n)*gn/2;
88

while abs(ufn-ugn)>epsilon || test<0

boucle_loop=boucle_loop+1;
total_loop=total_loop+1;
[n boucle_loop total_loop];
test=1;

ufn=ugn;
A=zeros(M);
theta_n=theta(:,n-1);

% Temperature in liquid zone

A(1,1)=1; %Inner boundary condition
A(M,M)=1; %Outer boundary condition
theta_n(1,1)=Tw(n)-Tf;
theta_n(M,1)=Ti-Tf;

bf=u(p+1)-ufn;

if bf>0 % Thaw-front is not on a grid point

% Thawed permafrost

for m=2:p-1
alpha=rn*beta^(-2*u(m))/xsi;
A(m,m)=1+2*alpha;
A(m,m-1)=-alpha;
A(m,m+1)=-alpha;
end

% Frozen permafrost

for m=p+2:M-1
delta=rn*beta^(-2*u(m))/(xsi*gamma);
A(m,m)=1+2*delta;
A(m,m-1)=-delta;
A(m,m+1)=-delta;
end

% Moving boundary
af=du-bf;
a=af/du;

if p>1
alpha=dt(n)/(af*du)*beta^(-2*u(p))/(xsi);
A(p,p-1)=-2/(1+1/a)*alpha;
A(p,p)=1+2*alpha;
end

b=bf/du;
delta=dt(n)/(bf*du)*beta^(-2*u(p+1))/(xsi*gamma);
89
A(p+1,p+1)=1+2*delta;
A(p+1,p+2)=-2/(1+1/b)*delta;

else % Thaw-front is at node p

for m=2:p-2
alpha=rn*beta^(-2*u(m))/xsi;
A(m,m)=1+2*alpha;
A(m,m-1)=-alpha;
A(m,m+1)=-alpha;
end

% Frozen permafrost

for m=p+2:M-1
delta=rn*beta^(-2*u(m))/(xsi*gamma);
A(m,m)=1+2*delta;
A(m,m-1)=-delta;
A(m,m+1)=-delta;
end

% Moving boundary

alpha=rn*beta^(-2*u(p-1))/xsi;
A(p-1,p-1)=1+2*alpha;
A(p-1,p-2)=-alpha;

A(p,p)=1;
theta_n(p,1)=0;

delta=rn*beta^(-2*u(p+1))/(xsi*gamma);
A(p+1,p+1)=1+2*delta;
A(p+1,p+2)=-delta;

end

theta_n_1=A\theta_n;

% Determination of the moving boundary

if bf>0
dtheta_l=-(theta_n_1(p)/af);
dtheta_s=theta_n_1(p+1)/bf;
else
dtheta_l=-(theta_n_1(p-1)/du);
dtheta_s=theta_n_1(p+1)/du;
end

gn=Cl/Lf*beta^(-2*u(p))/xsi*...
(lambda_s/lambda_l*dtheta_s-dtheta_l);
ugn=xn+dt(n)/2*gn;

% If ufn oscillates between two values
90
if boucle_loop>20
[n ufn ufn-ugn Tw(n-1) Tw(n) Tw(n+1) gn];
ugn=(ufn+ugn)/2;
ufn=ugn;
infinite_loop=infinite_loop+1;
end

if gn<0

if negative_loop==0
first_negative=t1_year(n);
end

last_negative=t1_year(n);
negative_loop=negative_loop+1;

end

% Determination of the index before the thaw-front
p=find((u-ugn)>=0,1)-1;

end

uf(n)=ugn;
ind_p(n)=p;

theta(:,n)=theta_n_1;

end

% Thaw-front radius
rf=rh*(re/rh).^uf;
thickness=rf-rh;

figure(1);
axes1 = axes('Parent',figure(1),'FontSize',16);
title(axes1,'Evolution of the thickness','FontSize',16);
ylabel(axes1,'Thickness (m)');
box(axes1,'on');
hold(axes1,'all');
grid on;
plot1 = plot(t1_year,thickness,'r','LineWidth',2.5);

format 'short' 'g';
[n total_loop infinite_loop negative_loop first_negative last_negative];

phi=lambda_s*(Ti-Tf)./(lambda_l*(Tw-Tf));
sigma=Lf./(Cl*(Tw-Tf));
phi_sigma_gamma=[phi sigma gamma];

return

MS Thesis Cristovao Marques 2007

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MS Thesis Cristovao Marques 2007

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THAW-FRONT DYNAMICS OF

6250 U manufactured by Aspen Aerogels, Inc. It

from Unifrax Corporation. According to the Users

, and made from

is a trade name for oxidized polyacrylonitrile fibers produced

). Temperatures are measured by

and withstand a temperature of 200C (~390F). They are

Series). The HFS are placed at the center of the plates.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen