SPE 86983
A Simple Model for Predicting Heat Loss and Temperature Profiles in Thermal Injection
Lines and Wellbores With Insulations
Boyun Guo, SPE, Shengkai Duan, SPE, Ali Ghalambor, SPE, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Thermal Operations and
Heavy Oil Symposium and Western Regional Meeting held in Bakerfield, California, U.S.A.,
16-18 March 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or
the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, their officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE meetings are subject to
publication review by Editorial Committees of the SPE. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to
an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Accurate predictions of heat loss and temperature profile in
thermal injection lines and wellbores are essential to designing
and evaluating thermal operations. Although some
sophisticated computer packages are available for such
purpose, their accuracies suffer from numerical treatments and
model-building skills of inexperienced users. A simple-and-
accurate analytical heat transfer model is highly desirable.
This paper presents three analytical heat transfer solutions for
predicting heat loss and temperature profiles in thermal-
insulated flow conduits. The three solutions consist of one
steady state flow solution and two transient flow solutions.
The two transient flow solutions are for start-up mode and
flow rate change mode (shutting-down is a special mode
where the flow rate changes to zero). Capability of the
analytical model is investigated using a data set that is
representative to a typical case of liquid flow in a small-
diameter thermal pipeline. An application example is
illustrated where the model-calculated temperature profile is
used to identify the possible interval of asphaltene deposition
in an oil well. The mathematical heat transfer model can also
be used for predicting temperature distribution in offshore
pipelines.
Introduction
Heat transfer across the insulation of pipelines and wellbores
presents a unique problem affecting flow efficiency. Although
sophisticated computer packages are available for predicting
the fluid temperatures, their accuracies suffer from numerical
treatments because long-pipe segments have to be used to save
computing time. This is especially true for transient fluid-flow
analyses where a very large number of numerical iterations are
performed.
Ramey1 was among the first investigators who studied radial
heat transfer across a well casing with no insulation. He
derived a mathematical heat transfer model for an outer
medium that is infinitely large. Miller2 analyzed heat transfer
around a geothermal wellbore without insulation. Winterfeld3
and Almehaideb4 considered temperature effect on pressure
transient analyses in well testing. Stone et al.5 developed a
numerical simulator to couple fluid flow and heat flow in a
wellbore and reservoir. More advanced studies on the wellbore
heat transfer problem were conducted by Hasan and Kabir.6-10
Although multi-layers of materials have been considered in
these studies, the temperature gradient in the longitudinal
direction has not been taken into account. Traditionally, if the
outer temperature changes with length, the pipe must be
divided into segments with assumed constant outer-
temperature in each segment, and numerical algorithms are
required for heat transfer computation. The accuracy of the
computation depends on the number of segments used. Fine
segments can be employed to ensure accuracy with computing
time sacrificed. Therefore, accurate heat transfer equations of
closed-form are highly desirable. The objective of this study
was to develop analytical solutions to the heat transfer
problem under various operating conditions.
This paper presents three analytical heat transfer solutions.
They are transient flow solution for start-up mode, steady flow
solution for normal operation mode, and transient flow
solution for flow rate change mode (shutting-down is a special
mode where the flow rate changes to zero). Sensitivity
analyses are run to investigate the capability of the analytical
model using a data set that is representative to a typical case of
liquid flow in a small-diameter thermal pipeline. An
application case is illustrated where the model-calculated
temperature profile with the model was utilized to identify the
possible interval of paraffin deposition in an oil wellbore.
2 SPE 86983

( )
Problem Description 1
C=− ln β − α 2Ts − αγ (5)
Thermal injection lines are normally covered with solid α
insulations. Some wellbores, especially in deepwater, are
insulated with completion fluids. Since thermal-conductivities where T is temperature inside the pipe, L is longitudinal
of the insulating materials, such as Insu-Gel, are much lower distance from the fluid entry point, R is inner-radius of
than that of the media outside the insulation, the outer media insulation layer, k is thermal conductivity of the insulation
act as heat sinks with constant natural temperatures. For a material, v is the average flow velocity of fluid in the pipe, ρ is
given pipe with insulation, the temperature profile of fluid fluid density, Cp is heat capacity of fluid at constant pressure, s
flowing inside the conduit depends on outer temperature is thickness of the insulation layer, A is the inner cross-
profile, fluid properties, and flow parameters, as well as time. sectional area of pipe, G is thermal-gradient outside the
insulation, θ is the angle between the thermal gradient and
The problem that has been solved in this study is a simple one, pipe orientation, T0 is temperature of outer medium at the fluid
but the variation in the external temperature has been taken entry point, and Ts is temperature of fluid at the fluid entry
into consideration. The following assumptions are made: point. The rate of heat transfer across the insulation layer over
1) The longitudinal heat transfer due to conduction is the whole length of the pipe is expressed as:
negligible;
2πRk ⎧ G cos(θ ) 2
2) Temperature variation in the pipe in the radial q=− ⎨T0 L − L
direction is negligible; s ⎩ 2
3) Friction-induced heat is negligible;
4) Thermal conductivity of pipe is much higher than −
1 ⎡
2 ⎢
(β − αγ )L − αβ L2 + 1 e −α (L + C ) − e −αC ⎤⎥ ⎫⎬
[ ]
that of the insulation, which means the insulation α ⎣ 2 α ⎦⎭
layer is the limiting step for heat transfer in the radial
(6)
direction;
where q is the rate of heat transfer.
5) Temperature of the outer medium is a linear function
of longitudinal distance; Transient Temperature during Start-up. The internal
temperature profile after starting-up a fluid-flow is expressed
6) Heat capacity of the fluid is constant;
as follows:
7) Heat capacities of pipe and its insulation are
negligible. T=
1
α2
[β − αβL − αγ − e −α [ L + f ( L − vt ) ]
] (7)
These assumptions are valid for oil wells and pipelines
transporting liquids under normal operating conditions. where the function f is given by:

f ( L − vt ) = −(L − vt ) − ln{β − αβ (L − vt )
Mathematical Model 1
Formulation of governing equation and solutions to the α
− αγ − α 2 [T0 − G cos(θ )(L − vt )]} (8)
problem under different conditions are shown in the Appendix
A. The resultant equations are summarized in this section.
Temperature and Heat Transfer for Steady Fluid-Flow. and t is time.
The internal temperature profile under steady fluid-flow
conditions is expressed as: Transient Temperature during Flow Rate Change.
Suppose that after increasing or decreasing the flow rate, the
T=
α
1
2
[β − αβL − αγ − e −α ( L + C )
] (1)
fluid has a new velocity v’ in the pipe. The internal
temperature profile is expressed as follows:

where the constant groups are defined as:

T=
1
α' 2
[
β '−α ' β ' L − α ' γ '−e −α '[L + f ( L −v 't ) ] ] (9)
2πRk
α= (2) where
vρC p sA
2πRk
α '=
β = αG cos(θ )
(10)
(3) v' ρC p sA
γ = −αT0 (4)
SPE 86983
β ' = α ' G cos(θ )
γ ' = −α 'T0
and the function f is given by:
ln{β '−α ' β ' ( L − v' t ) − α ' γ '
1
f ( L − v' t ) = −( L − v' t ) −
α'
⎛α'⎞
[ ]⎪⎬ .
2
− ⎜ ⎟ β − αβ ( L − v' t ) − αγ − e −α [( L − v 't ) + C ]
⎝α ⎠
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses were performed with the temperature
models to investigate the effects of thermal conductivity, time,
and fluid flow rate on the temperature profile in a pipe. Basic
data used in the analyses are summarized in Table 1. The data
set represents a typical situation of flow of a hot fluid in a
thermal injection line.
Figure 1 illustrates steady temperature profiles calculated with
Eq. (1) using different values of thermal conductivity of the
insulation. In this situation, it appears that a thin layer of
insulation with thermal conductivity of less than 1 W/m-oC
gives satisfactory results of insulation. In fact, insulation
materials, mostly polyurethane foams11 used in the petroleum
industry have thermal conductivity values in the range of 0.1
to 1 W/m-oC.
Figure 2 presents the transient temperature profiles calculated
with Eq. (7) for a start-up process. It shows that the transient
temperature profile approaches the steady temperature profile
after one half hour of fluid flow at a constant rate. Figure 3
demonstrates the transient temperature profiles calculated with
Eq. (9) after an increase in fluid flow rate from 0.005 m3/s to
0.05 m3/s. Although a 10-times higher value of thermal
conductivity is utilized, it still shows that the transient
temperature profile approaches the steady temperature profile
after one half hour of flow at the new rate. Figure 4 shows the
transient temperature profiles calculated with Eq. (9) after a
reduction in fluid flow rate from 0.1 m3/s to 0.01 m3/s. It
indicates again that the transient temperature profile
approaches the steady temperature profile after one half hour
of flow at the new rate.
Example Application
Paraffin (wax) deposition is a serious problem in the oil
industry because it causes plugging of the wellbore,
production facilities, and transportation pipelines. Oil
composition, pressure, and temperature are factors affecting
paraffin deposition. For a given oil composition, paraffin
deposition is a strong function of temperature and weak
function of pressure except in the near-critical-point region
where it is also sensitive to pressure. It is vitally important to
predict the locations where paraffin deposition occurs in
3
(11) wellbore and pipelines. The prediction can be used for flow
assurance management in the oil production and transportation
(12) operations.
The paraffin deposition is usually evaluated in laboratories
using Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT) at different
pressures. The WAT curve draws a boundary between wax-
region and wax-free region in the pressure-temperature (P-T)
diagram. If the in-situ condition (temperature and pressure) of
⎫
(13) wellbore/pipeline falls in the wax region, paraffin deposition is
⎪⎭ expected to occur at the point.
Ahmed Hammami et al.12 evaluated characteristics of four
reservoir fluids sampled from two offshore fields in the Gulf
of Mexico as well as their propensities towards paraffins
deposition due to temperature and pressure variations. Among
the field data, fluid bubble point data is available from only
one well, High Island 557 (A-1). The following analysis is
based on the data from this well. Measured WAT curve is
shown in Fig. 5.
Using the estimated values of parameters shown in Table 2,
temperature profile in the wellbore was calculated with Eq. (1)
in a spreadsheet in this study.13 Pressure profile was also
calculated in the spreadsheet utilizing Cullender-Smith
method. The calculated temperature and pressure profiles are
plotted in a P-T diagram shown in Fig. 5. This plot shows that
the P-T profile falls in the two regions (wax and wax-free)
across the WAT curve. The cross-point is at depth of about
600 m. This means that paraffin deposition should occur in the
upper (low temperature and pressure) section of the wellbore
above 600 m.
In this example, the lease operators on location reported field
wax deposition depth and flow temperature during numerous
well paraffin cuttings for this well. Flowing
pressure/temperature surveys with downhole electronic gauges
provided the well temperatures at maximum deposition point
(see Table 3). Paraffin deposition was observed in the interval
from depth of 772 m to surface, while the model-predicted
interval is from 600 m to surface. This is considered to be a
good accuracy of model-prediction. The discrepancy is
attributed to uncertainties of parameter-values used in the
mathematical model.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn from this study:
1. Heat transfer of thermal injection lines and wellbores in the
environments with longitudinal temperature gradients can
be mathematically modeled with equations of closed form.
2. The analytical solutions can be used to predict temperature
profiles and heat loss of thermal injection lines under
various operating conditions.
3. Combined with hydraulics and dynamics of paraffin
deposition, the analytical solutions can also be used to
predict paraffin deposition in wellbores and pipelines in oil
production operations.
4 SPE 86983
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to ChevronTexaco and API for
providing Board of Regents Chevron I Endowed Professorship
and API Endowed Professorship in Petroleum Engineering
throughout this study.
Nomenclature
A = cross-sectional area of pipe open for fluid flow, m2
Cp = specific heat of fluid at constant pressure, J/kg-C
G = thermal-gradient outside the insulation, C/m
k = thermal conductivity of insulation layer, W/m-C
L = longitudinal distance from the fluid entry point, m
q = rate of heat transfer over the whole length of pipe due to
radial conduction, W
R = inner-radius of insulation layer, m
s = thickness of insulation layer, m
t = time, s
T = temperature inside the pipe, C
T0 = temperature of outer medium at the fluid entry point, C
Ts = temperature of fluid at the fluid entry point, C.
v = the average flow velocity of fluid in the pipe, m/s
θ = angle between the thermal gradient and pipe orientation,
degree
ρ = fluid density, kg/m 3
References
1. Ramey, H.J., Jr., 1962, “Wellbore Heat Transmission,”
JPT 427, Trans., AIME, pp. 225-230.
2. Miller,C.W., 1980, “Wellbore Storage Effect
Geothermal Wells,” SPE J. pp. 555-561.
3. Winterfeld, P.H., 1989, “Simulation of Pressure Buildup
in a Multiphase Wellbore/Reservoir System,” SPE
Formation Evaluation, pp. 247-252.
4. Almehaideb, R.A.,K., and Pedrosa, O.A., 1989, “A
Reservoir/Wellbore Model for Multiphase Injection and
Pressure Transient Analysis," SPE 17941, Proc.
SPE Middle East Oil Show, Manama, Bahrain, pp. 55-64.
5. Stone, T.,W., Edmunds, N.R., and Kristoff, B.J., 1989, “A
Comprehensive Wellbore/Reservior Simulator,” SPE
18419, Proc. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
Houston, Texas, pp. 88-98.
6. Hasan, A. R. Kabir, C.S., 1994, “Wellbore Heat Transfer
During Two-Phase Flow” SPE Production & Facilities.
Pp. 211-218.
7. Kabir, C.S., Hasan, A.R., and Wang, X., 1996, “A
Wellbore/Reservoir Simulator for Testing Gas Well in
High-Temperature Reservoirs,” SPE Formation
Evaluation, pp. 128-135.
8. Hasan, A.R., Kabir, C.S. and Wang, X., 1997,
“Development and Application of a Wellbore/Reservoir
Simulator for Testing Oil Wells” SPE Formation
Evaluation, pp. 182-189.
9. Hasan, A. R. Kabir, C.S. and Wang, X., 1998, “Wellbore
Two-Phase Flow and Heat Transfer During Transient
Testing” SPE J., pp. 174-181.
10. Hasan, R. and Kabir, C.S., 2002, Fluid Flow and Heat
Transfer in Wellbores, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, Texas, Chap. 7.
11. Carter, B., Gray, C. and Cai, J., 2002, “2002 Survey of
Offshore Non-Chemical Flow Assurance Solutions,”
Poster published by Offshore Magazine.
12. Hammami, A. and Raines, M.A., 1999, “Paraffin
Deposition from Crude Oils: Comparison of Laboratory
Results with Field Data” paper SPE 54021, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
held in San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October 1999.
13. Duan, S., 2003, “An Interactive Spreadsheet to Predict
Paraffin Deposition in Deepwater Wellbores and
Pipelines,” MS Thesis, University of Louisiana at
Lafayette, pp. 44-55.
Appendix A – Derivation of Analytical Solutions
Governing Equation
Figure 6 depicts a small element of pipe with an insulation
layer. Consider the heat flow during a time period of ∆t. Heat
balance is given by
qin − q out − q R = q acc (A.1)
in
where qin is heat energy brought into the pipe element by
fluid due to convection, qout is heat energy carried away the
pipe element by fluid due to convection, qR is heat energy
transferred through the insulation layer due to conduction, qacc
is heat energy accumulation in the fluid element. These terms
can be further formulated as
q in = ρC p vATL ∆t (A.2)
q out = ρC p vATL + ∆L ∆t (A.3)
∂T
q R = 2πRk∆L ∆t (A.4)
∂r
q acc = ρC p A∆L∆T (A.5)
SPE 86983 5

where ρ is fluid density, Cp is specific heat at constant Solutions for Temperature

pressure, v is the average flow velocity of fluid in the pipe, A
is cross-sectional area of pipe open for fluid flow, TL is
temperature of the flowing-in fluid, ∆t is time period, TL+∆L is
temperature of the flowing-out fluid, R is inner-radius of
insulation layer, k is thermal conductivity of the insulation
∂T
layer, ∆L is length of the pipe segment, is radial-
∂r
temperature gradient in the insulation layer, and ∆T is the
average temperature increase of fluid in the pipe segment.
Substituting Eqs. (A.2) through (A.5) into Eq. (A.1) gives
Three solutions are sought in this study:
Solution A: Steady heat transfer;
Solution B: Transient heat transfer during start-up; and
Solution C: Transient heat-transfer after a rate change.
Solution A gives temperature profile during normal operation
conditions; Solution B simulates temperature change during a
start-up process from static condition; and Solution C yields
temperature trend during rate-change processes including
shut-down operation.

∂T Steady Temperature
ρC p vA∆t (TL − TL + ∆L ) − 2πRk∆L ∆t = ρC p A∆L∆T
∂r If the mass flow rate is maintained for a significantly long
. (A.6) time, a steady heat transfer condition between the system and
its surroundings is expected. Under the steady flow condition,
Dividing all the terms of this equation by ∆L∆t yields the temperature at any point in the system is time-independent.

ρC p vA
(TL − TL+ ∆L ) ∂T ∆T
Therefore, Eq. (A.10) becomes
− 2πRk = ρC p A .
dT
∆L ∂r ∆t v = aT + bL + c (A.14)
(A.7) dL
For infinitesimal of ∆L and ∆t, this equation becomes This equation can be solved with boundary condition
∂T ∂T 2πRk ∂T T = Ts at L =0. (A.15)
v + =− . (A.8)
∂L ∂t ρC p A ∂r To simplify the solution, Eq. (A.14) is rearranged to be
The radial-temperature gradient in the insulation layer can be dT
formulated as + αT + βL + γ = 0 (A.16)
dL
∂T T − (T0 − G cos(θ ) L )
= (A.9) where
∂r s
a
where T0 is temperature of the medium outside the α =− (A.17)
insulation layer at L =0, G is thermal gradient in the external v
medium, θ is angle between the thermal gradient and pipe b
axis, and s is thickness of the insulation layer. Substituting Eq. β =− (A.18)
(A.9) into Eq. (A.7) yields v
∂T ∂T and
v + = aT + bL + c (A.10)
∂L ∂t c
γ =− . (A.19)
where v
2πRk Let
a=− (A.11)
ρC p sA u = αT + βL + γ (A.20)

b = aG cos(θ ) (A.12)
then

u − βL − γ
and T= (A.21)
a
c = −aT0 . (A.13)
and

dT 1 du β
= − . (A.22)
dL α dL α
6 SPE 86983

Substituting Eqs. (A.21) and (A.22) into Eq. (A.16) gives may write B = f(K), where f is an arbitrary function to be
determined. Writing B = f(K) in Eq. (A.32) yields
1 du β
− + u = 0.
[β − αβL − αγ − e ].
(A.23) 1
α dL α T= −α ( L + f ( K ) )
(A.33)
Integration of this equation with the method of separation of
α 2

variables yields Eliminating K using Eq. (A.29), gives:

−
1
α
ln (β − αu ) = L + C . (A.24) T=
α
1
2
[β − αβL − αγ − e −α [ L + f ( L − vt ) ]
]. (A.34)

where C is a constant of integration. Substituting Eq. (A.20) Now applying the initial condition (A.27) yields
into Eq. (A.24) and rearranging the latter result in
T0 − G cos(θ ) L =
1
[β − αβL − αγ − e −α [ L + f ( L ) ]
]
T=
1
α2
[β − αβL − αγ − e −α ( L + C )
]. (A.25) α 2

(A.35)
Applying boundary condition (A.15) to Eq. (A.25) gives the which gives
expression for the integration constant
f ( L) = − L −
1
[
ln β − αβL − αγ − α 2 (T0 − G cos(θ ) L ) ]
C=−
α
1
(
ln β − α Ts − αγ .
2
) (A.26) α
. (A.36)
Transient Temperature during Start-Up Therefore,

f ( L − vt ) = −(L − vt ) − ln[β − αβ (L − vt ) − αγ − α 2 [T0 − G cos(θ )(L − vt )]]

The temperature profile along the pipe during the starting-up 1
process can be obtained by solving Eq. (A.10) with the α
method of characteristics, subject to the initial condition . (A.37)

T = T0 − G cos(θ ) L at t = 0. (A.27) Substituting Eq. (A.37) into Eq. (A.34) results in the solution
to Eq. (A.10) subject to the initial condition (A.27). This
Consider a family of curves defined by the equation solution is valid for L − vt > 0. For points at which L − vt <
0, L − vt = 0 should be used.
dL dT
dt = = . (A.28)
v aT + bL + c Transient Temperature after a Rate Change

The characteristics are The temperature trend along the pipe after a rate change from
an established steady flow can be obtained by solving Eq.
L = vt + K . (A.29) (A.10) with a new rate v’ (use a small number for shutting-
down process). The general solution is still given by Eq.
We also have from Eq. (A.28) (A.34) with new parameters corresponding to the low velocity,
dT aT + bL + c i.e.,
= (A.30)
dL v T=
1
α '2
[
β '−α ' β ' L − α ' γ '−e −α '[L + f ( L −v 't ) ] . ] (A.38)
Using notations (A.17), (A.18) and (A.19), Eq. (A.30)
becomes where
dT
+ αT + βL + γ = 0 (A.31) α'= −
a
(A.39)
dL v'
which is exactly Eq. (A.16). Its solution is same as Eq. (A.25),
b
i.e., β '= − (A.40)
v'
T=
α
1
2
[β − αβL − αγ − e −α ( L + B )
] (A.32) and

c
where B is a constant of integration. This constant is different γ '= − . (A.41)
on each characteristic curve. Further, each characteristic curve v'
has a different value of K. Hence, as K varies, B varies and we
SPE 86983 7

The initial condition is defined by Eq. (A.25), i.e.,

T=
α
1
2
[β − αβL − αγ − e −α ( L + C )
] at t=0

(A.42)
where the constant C is given by Eq. (A.26).
Now applying the initial condition (A.42) to Eq. (A.38) gives

α
1
2
[β − αβL − αγ − e −α ( L + C )
] = α1' [β '−α ' β ' L − α 'γ '−e
2
−α '[L + f ( L ) ]
]
(A.43)
which yields
⎧⎪ ⎛α'⎞
[ ]⎫⎪⎬
2
1
f ( L) = − L − ln ⎨ β '−α ' β ' L − α ' γ '−⎜ ⎟ β − αβL − αγ − e −α ( L+ C )
α ' ⎪⎩ ⎝α ⎠ ⎪⎭
(A.44)
Therefore,

ln{β '−α ' β ' ( L − v' t ) − α ' γ '− F }

1
f ( L − v ' t ) = −( L − v ' t ) −
α'
⎛α'⎞
[ ]
2

F = ⎜ ⎟ β − αβ ( L − v ' t ) − αγ − e − α [( L − v ' t ) + C ] (A.45)

⎝α ⎠
Substituting Eq. (A.45) into Eq. (A.38) results in the solution
to Eq. (A.10) subject to the initial condition (A.42). Note: The
solution fails to predict temperature for small values of v' t
that cause the argument of the natural log function to be
negative.
Solution for Heat Transfer
Only a solution for steady heat transfer is sought in this
section. Consider a segment of pipe of length dL. Heat
transferred from fluid to outer medium across the insulation in
this segment is expressed as:
∂T
dq = k (2πRdL ) (A.46)
∂r
where

∂T T − (T0 − G cos(θ ) L )
= . (A.47)
∂r s
Substituting Eq. (A.25) into Eq. (A.47) and then substituting
the later into Eq. (A.46) gives:
2πRk ⎧
dq =
s ⎩
⎨[T − (T0 − G cos(θ ) L )] − 2 β − αβL − αγ − e
α
1
[
−α ( L +C ) ⎫
⎬dL ]
⎭
(A.48)
which can be integrated to yield an expression for the total
heat transfer over the entire pipe length L as follows:
2πRk ⎧ G cos(θ ) 2 1 ⎡ αβ 2 1 −α ( L+C ) −αC
q=− ⎨T0 L − L − 2 ⎢(β − αγ )L −
α ⎣
L + e
α
−e [ ]⎤⎥⎫⎬
s ⎩ 2 2 ⎦⎭
(A.49)
8 SPE 86983

Table 2 -Estimated Parameter Values

Average conduction k= 70 W/m-oC

Tubing radius R= 0.036 m
o
Temperature gradient G= 0.018 C/m
Fluid specific heat Cp = 2000 J/kg-oC
Fluid velocity v= 0.7 m/s
Fluid density ρ= 715.122 kg/m3
Insulation thickness s= 0.02 m
o
Formation temperature To = 65.5 C
Cross Section Area A= 0.004188 m2

Table 1 – Base Data Used in the Sensitivity Analyses

Thermal conductivity of insulation 1.0 W/m-oC

Outer radius of pipe 0.1000 m
Inner radius of pipe 0.0950 m
o
Thermal gradient outside the insulation 0.0050 C/m
Thermal gradient angle from pipe axis 0 degree
Specific heat of fluid 41800 J/kgoC
Fluid density 1000 kg/m3
Insulation thickness 0.0127 m
Fluid flow rate 0.0005 m3/s
o
External temperature at fluid entry point 100 C
o
Fluid temperature at fluid entry point 100 C
Pipe length 1000 m

Table 3 - Basic Wax Deposition Diagnostic Data

Sample type Live Oil

Fluid sample depth (m) 2213.76
Pressure at fluid sample (MPa) 18.92
o
Temperature at sample Depth ( C) 65.56
o
Bubble point pressure at 71.1 C (MPa) 18.46
Measured depth of wax deposition (m) 772.36
Pressure at depth of wax deposition (MPa) 3.86
Temperature at deposition depth (oC) 36.11
SPE 86983 9

101 101

100 Thermal Conductivity

100
(W/m-C): Time (hour):
1 >0.05
99 2 99
0.020
Temperature (C)

Temperature (C)
98 98
5 0.010
k = 10 W/m-C
k = 1 W/m-C 0.005
97 97
10 0

Flow rate increased from 0.005

96 Flow rate = 0.005 m3/s
96 m3/s to 0.05 m3/s

External
External Temperature
95 95
Temperature

94 94
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Length (m)
Length (m)

Fig. 1 – Calculated temperature profiles under steady fluid low Fig. 3 – Calculated temperature profiles after a flow rate
conditions increase

101 101

100 100 Time (hour):

Time (hour):
0
>0.5

99 0.025
99
0.35
0.050
Temperature (C)
Temperature (C)

0.100
98 0.25 98
>0.50
k = 10 W/m-C
k = 1 W/m-C
97 97
0.15

0.10 Flow rate reduced from 0.1

96 3 96 m3/s to 0.01 m3/s
Flow rate = 0.005 m /s

External 0.05 External

Temperature Temperature
95 95

94 94
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Length (m)
Length (m)

Fig. 2 – Calculated temperature profiles during a fluid flow Fig. 4 – Calculated temperature profiles after a flow rate
start-up process reduction
10 SPE 86983

30
Pipe Condition
25 Observed WAT
Predicted
20
Pressure (MPa)

paraffin Bottom
deposition hole
15
interval from condition
depth 600 m
10
to surface

0
0 20 40 60 80
Temperature (oC)

Figure 5 – P-T diagram to identify paraffin deposition interval

in a wellbore

qR
s

qin qout

∆L

Figure 6 – Sketch illustrating convection and conduction heat

transfer in a pipe flow