Chapter 1

1.1 Introduction
Background and Purpose
In many oil and gas reservoirs, producing wells are completed as partially penetrating wells;
that is, only a portion of the pay zone is perforated. This is done for many reasons the most
important being to prevent or delay unwanted fluid intrusion into the wellbore. Most oil
reservoirs produce by means of a strong aquifer underlying the pay-zone and will inevitably
begin to produce water somewhere during their lifespan. These wells produce from oil zones
by bottom water drive and due to a pressure drawdown caused by production, water moves
up toward the wellbore in a cone shape. At certain conditions, the water breaks through into
the well and simultaneous oil and water production begins. Production of water from oil
wells is a common occurrence which increases the cost of producing operations and reduces
recovery efficiency. This phenomena is called water coning. Water Coning is used to
describe the upward movement of water into the perforations of a producing well. Water
coning impacts well productivity and influences the degree of depletion and the overall
recovery efficiency of the oil reservoirs. The coning of water into a well is caused by pressure
gradients around the wellbore due to production of fluids from the well. These pressure
gradients can lead to the rise of the oil-water contact near the well where the pressure
transient is most drastic; also gravity forces as a result of differences in fluid densities offset
the flowing pressure gradients and tend to keep the water out of the oil zone.
Pressure gradients tend to reduce the gas-oil contact and elevate the water-oil contact in the
immediate region of the well. Compensating these flow gradients is the tendency of the gas to
remain above the oil zone due to its lower density and water to remain below the oil zone
because of its higher density. These counterbalancing forces tend to deform the gas-oil and
water-oil contacts into a bell shape i.e., cone. Therefore, at any given time, the gravitational
and viscous forces at regions near and away from the completion interval are balanced. But
1

when the viscous forces at the wellbore exceed gravitational forces, a previously stable cone
of water will ultimately break through into the well leading to concurrent water and oil
production.
Water coning is severe problem in mature reservoirs with bottom water drive where a
depleted oil strata overlays a sizable water zone. On cone breakthrough, the resulting high
water cut and reduced oil rate lead to early shut down of the wells without sufficient recovery
of hydrocarbons in place. Water coning can adversely affect production in oil reservoirs and a
large oil withdrawal rate may cause upward coning of water into the well perforations. Rate
of water production increases therefore decreasing the oil rate and increasing produced water
handling costs.
It is common practice in the industry to perforate above the oil-water contact (OWC) i.e.,
only a portion of the pay zone is perforated. This is known as Partial penetration; it is done
majorly to delay the onset of water intrusion into the wellbore as a result of water coning.
Partial penetration may also increase the pressure gradient near the well and this can
aggravate coning.
Three (3) forces affect fluid flow distributions around the well bore. (Tarek Ahmed
Reservoir Engineering Handbook, 2001, pg 584)
These are:

Capillary forces (negligible effect)

Gravity forces
Viscous forces

Capillary forces will be neglected in this analyses of water coning.

Gravity forces act in the vertical direction and result from fluid density differences. The term
viscous forces refers to the pressure gradients associated with fluid flow through the reservoir
as described by Darcys Law. Therefore, at any given time, there is a balance between
gravitational and viscous forces at regions near and away from the well completion interval.

When the dynamic (viscous) forces at the wellbore exceed gravitational forces, a cone will
eventually break into the well.
Coning can be further explained by introducing the concepts of:

Stable cone
Unstable cone
Critical production rate

If a well is produced at a constant withdrawal rate and the pressure gradients in the drainage
system have become constant, a steady-state condition is reached. If at this steady-state
condition the viscous forces at the well are less than the gravity forces, then the water or gas
cone that has formed will not extend to the well. Also, the cone will neither advance nor
recede, thus establishing what is known as a stable cone. On the other hand, if the pressure in
the system is in an unsteady-state condition, then the resulting unstable cone will continue to
advance until steady-state conditions prevail. If the flowing pressure drop at the well is
sufficient to overcome the gravity forces, the unstable cone will grow and ultimately break
into the well. In reality, stable system cones may only be pseudo-stable because the
drainage system and pressure distributions generally change with time. For example, with
reservoir depletion, the water-oil contact may advance toward the completion interval,
thereby increasing chances for coning. As another example, reduced productivity due to well
damage requires a greater flowing pressure gradient to preserve a given production rate. This
increase in pressure drop may force an otherwise stable cone into a well.
1.2 Critical Production Rate
The critical production rate is the rate above which the flowing pressure gradient at the well
causes water (or gas) to cone into the well. It is, therefore, the maximum rate of oil
production without concurrent production of the displacing phase by coning. At the critical
rate, the built up cone is stable but is at a position of incipient breakthrough. Defining the
conditions for achieving the maximum water-free oil production rate is a difficult problem to
solve. Engineers are frequently faced with the following specific problems: A major cause of
3

coning is pressure drawdown, a vertical well exhibits a large pressure drawdown near the
wellbore. The large pressure drawdown causes coning. Coning can be reduced by minimizing
the pressure drawdown around the vicinity of the wellbore. The reduction of the pressure
drawdown is impossible without an associated reduction in the oil production rate, which in
many cases is not economically viable. To prevent the cone from breaking into the wellbore,
there is a critical production rate below which the cone is stable and does not break through
into the wellbore. The critical rate is the maximum rate of oil production without
simultaneous production of the displacing phase (water) by coning. At the critical rate the
built-up cone is stable, but is at a position of emergent breakthrough. Typically however, the
critical rate is often too low to be economical so that high water cut becomes inevitable.
The coning problem has been addressed by many authors in terms of critical rate (the oil rate
just at initial breakthrough), water breakthrough time, and water-oil ratio (WOR) after water
breakthrough. Many methods have been so far developed for predicting these behaviors.
1.3 Statement of Project Problem
A problem area of recurring concern in the petroleum industry is the issue of water handling
and processing. This is because water produced concurrently with oil is never pure and even
after processing has restrictions on ppm of oil contained in water before disposal. Oil
reservoirs with bottom water drive have the advantage of a high oil recovery due to energy
support from the aquifer. However, water encroachment into the producing well caused by
the pressure drawdown around the wellbore creates water handling and bypass oil problems.
The production of oil and/or gas from a well creates a pressure gradient around the wellbore
vicinity. The issues with water coning have economic as well as environmental indications
that include;

Costly added water handling (includes separation, filtration and processing before
overboard disposal and/or water re-injection)

Environmental restrictions given by the government can make water handling even

more expensive especially in the case of overboard disposal.

Reduced efficiency of depletion mechanism due to concurrent water production
The afflicted well may be abandoned early
Loss of the total field overall recovery due to excess water breakthrough and bypass
oil

(Tarek Ahmed, 2001)

1.4 Significance and Contribution of this Project

To predict maximum oil flow rates that can be assigned to a completed well without

the simultaneous production of water.

Defining the optimum length and position of the interval to be perforated in a well in

order to obtain the maximum water-free production rate.

To create an easy-to-use correlation that can help petroleum engineers to have a quick
check on estimating the critical oil rate for wide range of conditions without the
necessity of any field test trials.

Chapter 2
2.1 Literature Review
The problem of coning has been widely investigated by authors in terms of critical oil rate,
water and gas breakthrough time and Water-Oil ration after breakthrough. Correlations have
been developed for predicting well behavior mostly focusing on Critical rate. Their analyses
range from theoretical; analytical; numerical and experimental methods. The analytical
solutions determined critical rates based on the equilibrium conditions that exist between
viscous and gravity forces in the well.
An oil potential function is then developed by equating viscous and gravity forces and then
solving for critical rate.
Muskat and Wyckoff (1935) determined the critical coning rate analytically by solving the
Laplace equation for single-phase flow and for a partially penetrating well. They presented an
approximate solution of the waterconing problem. For an isotropic reservoir, the critical rate
can be estimated by a graphic procedure. Their solution is based on three assumptions: the oil
5

potential distribution around the well under steady-state conditions is given by the solution of
Laplaces equation for incompressible fluids; a uniform-flux boundary condition is defined at
the well bore, giving a varying well potential with depth; the effect of the cone shape on the
potential distribution of the oil phase is negligible. Muskat considered oil flowing in a sand
formation between two parallel impermeable boundaries and into a well partially penetrating
the formation.
Muskat further studied water coning in 1946. He tried to determine conditions for the
production of water-free oil and observed that coning is a rate-sensitive phenomenon, which
develops only after certain equilibrium conditions are unbalanced by increasing the pressure
differential beyond critical limits. He assumed that under these conditions, water is in static
equilibrium and that the pressure distribution is undisturbed be the presence of the cone and
is the same for oil flowing between two parallel impermeable boundaries. When this occurs,
the water cone is termed stable.
Meyer and Garder (1954) analytically determined the maximum allowable flow of oil into a
well without the water zone coning into the production section of the well. In order to
simplify the analytical treatment, a homogeneous reservoir and radial flow were assumed.
They suggested that coning development is a result of the radial flow of the oil and associated
pressure sink around the wellbore. In their derivations, Meyer and Garder assume a
homogeneous system with a uniform permeability throughout the reservoir, i.e., kh = kv
Menouar and Hakim used numerical stimulation to analyze water coning in both vertical and
horizontal wells and presented a method of estimating the critical rate and the relevant
reservoir parameters that influenced this rate.
Wheatley (1985) observed that the Muskat and Wyckoff relation over predicts the critical oil
production rate because it did not account for the presence of the cone when calculating the
pressure distribution in the reservoir. In effect, they assumed that the pressure distribution in

the reservoir is the same with or without water coning. Wheatley, also observed that the value
of the well radius does not significantly affect the critical rate of production.
Guo and Lee (1993) showed that the existence of an unstable cone depends on the vertical
pressure gradient beneath the wellbore. They took into account the effect of limited wellbore
penetration on oil productivity; an important result of their study is that the critical rate will
not occur at zero wellbore penetration, but at a wellbore penetration about one-third of the
total pay thickness for an isotropic reservoir.
Sobocinski and Cornelius presented a correlation involving dimensionless groups of
reservoir/ fluid properties and production/ well characteristics. From empirical and simulation
results, they developed a dimensionless plot which predicts cone behavior as it builds up
from a static water-oil contact to breakthrough in a vertical well at a given withdrawal rate.
Critical rate and breakthrough time can be determined from the plot.
Bournazel and Jeanson evaluated from this plot and developed a method that combined
experimental correlations using dimensionless numbers with a simple analytical expression to
estimate the critical rate, breakthrough time, WOR increase, pressure drop, productivity index
and the minimum flow value that will exclude water production.
Chaney et al. (1956) and Chierici and Ciucci (1964) used a potentiometric model to predict
the coning behaviour in vertical wells. The results of their work are presented in
dimensionless graphs that take into account the vertical and horizontal permeability. The
authors introduced four dimensionless parameters that can be determined from a graphical
correlation to determine the critical flow rates. Chaney et al. also developed a set of working
curves for determining critical oil rate applying Muskat and Wyckoff theory to oil-water, gasoil and gas-water systems.
Hoyland et al. (1989) presented two methods for predicting critical oil rate for bottom water
coning in anisotropic, homogeneous formations with the well completed from the top of the
formation. The first method is an analytical solution, and the second is a numerical solution
7

to the coning problem. The authors presented an analytical solution that is based on the
Muskat-Wyckoff (1953) theory but here they assumed that the wellbore was infinitely
conductive. To predict the critical rate, the authors superimpose the same criteria as those of
Muskat and Wyckoff on the single-phase solution and, therefore, neglect the influence of
cone shape on the potential distribution.
Joshi used the derived expression for critical rate of horizontal wells using an effective
wellbore radius concept, and concluded that for any situation, the critical rate for horizontal
well is higher than that for vertical well.
Chaperon (1986) extended Muskats approach to study the behaviour of cresting towards
horizontal wells in an anisotropic formation assuming a constant interface elevation at a finite
distance. Her approach gave an over prediction of the critical rate because she neglected flow
restriction due immobile water in the crest.
Meyer and Gardner (1954) investigated the simultaneous flow of two or three fluids
segregated under gravity effects. Based on the assumption that only one fluid was flowing,
they proposed an approximate solution that assumes radial flow and developed a simple
model for predicting critical rate.
Abbas and Bass (1988) derived an analytical solution to calculate critical rate and coning
performance under steady-state and pseudosteady-state flow conditions in a two-dimensional
radial flow system using an average pressure concept. Though their 2D radial flow
assumption and average pressure concept may not be applicable for water coning systems,
they accounted for the effect of limited wellbore penetration on critical rate. They constructed
a Plexiglas model to obtain qualitative and quantitative description of water coning. In their
experimental study, no critical oil rate for an unstable cone was observed. They derived an
analytical solution for calculating the water-free oil. According to their solution, the optimum
fractional wellbore penetration interval (completed from top of interval) should be one-half in
oil-water coning systems.
8

Schols (1972) developed an empirical equation to solve for critical rate based on results
obtained from numerical simulator and laboratory experiments. Schols equation is only valid
for isotropic formations, i.e., kh = kv.
Papatzacos et al developed correlations for breakthrough time for horizontal wells for both
single cone and two cone cases in an infinite acting reservoir. Their solution was obtained by
two methods. In the first method, it was assumed that either the top gas or bottom water can
be represented as a constant pressure boundary. Their second method considered gravity
equilibrium in the cone instead of assuming constant pressure boundary.
Ozkan and Raghavan (1988) proposed a theoretical correlation for calculating breakthrough
time in a bottom-water-drive reservoir. They investigated the time dependence of horizontal
well performance under bottom water drive given that the mobility of water in the flooded
portion of the oil zone is the same as that of the oil. They assumed that the reservoir boundary
at the top of the formation and the boundaries at the lateral extent of the formation to be
impermeable, and that an active aquifer at the bottom of the reservoir would produce an
effect identical to that of a constant pressure boundary located at the original oil-water
contact. Also, they assumed that the density difference between the oil and water is
negligible. They graphically correlated the sweep efficiency with the dimensionless well
length and dimensionless vertical distance.
Yang and Wattenbarger presented correlations for both vertical and horizontal wells based on
the basic flow equation and regression analysis of fields data results from numerical
stimulation. They found correlations for breakthrough time, WOR, and critical rate.

Chapter 3
3.1 Model Development
1. The reservoir is homogenous
2. The horizontal and vertical directions are the principal axes of permeability.
3. The wellbore is such that three dimensional steady-state flow dominates in the
4.
5.
6.
7.

reservoir.
Capillary and relative permeability effects are neglected,
The formation underlain by water and a sharp interface exists between oil and water.
Reservoir is isothermal and can be characterized by Darcys law.
The flow system is radial/spherical combined (RSC).

Considering an infinitesimal element of the porous medium;

uz +
(uz)

u
x

y
uy +
(uy)

ux +
u
(ux)
The volumetric components of flow into the
x, y and z directions are denoted by ux, uy, and uz
z
respectively. u is the volumetric flow rate per cross sectional area.

Therefore the mass flow rate into the element is given by:
X direction:

uxyz

Y direction:

uyxz

Z direction:

uzxy
10

Mass flow rate out of the element:

X direction:

yz[ux + (ux)]

Y direction:

xz[uy + (uy)]

Z direction:

xy[uz + (uz)]

Where (ui) is the change in mass flux occurring within the element. The net flow rate i.e
Mass in Mass out is given by:
X direction:

-yz(ux)

Y direction:

-xz(uy)

Z direction:

-xy(uz)

Amount of net mass change in the element in a time increment t can be expressed as:
-t[(ux)yz + (uy)xz + (uz)xy] = xyz

- xyz
t+t

Dividing the equation by xyzt yields;

( ux ) ( u y ) ( uz )

+
+
=
x
y
z

Taking the limits as x, y, z, and t approach zero,

11

d
d
d
d
ux ) + ( u y ) + ( u z ) =
( )1
(
dx
dy
dz
dt

By Darcys law,

ux=

k x d
dx

k y d
; u y = dy

k z d
; u z= dz 2

Substituting equation 2 into 1 gives:

k d
k d d
k d
d
d
d
x
+
y
+
z
= ( ) 3
dx
dx dy
dy dz
dz
dt

) (

) (

Assuming a fluid of small and constant compressibility with compressibility defined as:
c=

1 dv
4
v dp

Which can be rewritten as:

c=

1 d
5
dP

cdP=d 6

cdP=

d
7

12

Integrating both sides,

p2

c dP=
p1

d
8

c ( p 2 p1 )=ln

c ( p 2 p 1)

2
9
1

2
10
1
c ( p2 p1 )

1 e

Assuming kx= ky= kz= k,

=211

isconstant ; is constant .

Substituting equation 11 into 3,

13

e
1 ( c ( p 2 p1 ) )

e
1 ( c ( p 2 p1 ) )

e
1 ( c ( p 2 p1 ) )

d
dx

d
dy

d
dz

e
1( c ( p2 p 1) )

dx
k

Multiplying equation 14 by

k 1 , the equation becomes;

e
( c ( p 2 p1 ) )

e
( c ( p 2 p1 ) )

e
( c ( p 2 p1 ) )

dx

d
dx

d
dy

d
dz

Equation 15 reduces to:

14

([ ) ( ) ( ) ] ]= ck dtd e

d2 d2 d2
d 2 d 2 d
+
+
+c
+
+
2
2
2
dx
dy
dz
dx d y dz

c ( p 2 p 1)

16

We further assume the compressibility term is negligible, hence:

2

d d d
c dp
+ 2 + 2 =
17
2
k dt
dx dy dz

For steady state flow,

dp
=0
dt

Therefore,
d2 d2 d2
+
+
=018
d x2 d y 2 d z2
3.2 Steady state flow into a partially penetrating vertical well.
The flow is characterized by a radial and spherical flow combined system as shown below:

L
Lp
H

rs

WO

rc
Z

Figure 3-1: Combined radial and hemispherical flow in a partially penetrating well

15

Radial flow governs the penetrated pay-zone interval while a spherical flow regime governs
the non-penetrated interval. The flow is a combination of a uniform line-sink radial flow at
the upper part and a point-sink hemispherical flow field at the lower part. The total flow rate
is the sum of flow rates from both regimes. An ideal radial flow system occurs only in a fully
penetrating system as shown in figure 2 below.

Figure 3-2: Ideal radial flow

Hemispherical flow results from partial penetration as shown in figure 3-3 below.

Figure 3-3: Hemispherical flow

Radial Flow
The radial flow equation of the coning system is given by:
1 d d
2 =
r
=019
r dr dr

( )

Where the potential function is defined as:

16

( k ) ( pz )20

The general solution to the radial equation

r

d
= A = A lnr + B21
dr

Defining boundary conditions,

r=r w =w =A ln r w +B22
r=r e = e = A ln r e +B23
Therefore,
rw
ln r e ln

A=

e w
25
re
ln
rw

B= w

e w
ln r w 26
re
ln
rw

Substituting A and B into equation 21 gives;

( r )=

e w
e w
ln r+ w
ln r w 27
re
re
ln
ln
rw
rw

17

rw
ln r ln + w

e w
( r )=

re
ln
rw

( r )=

e w
r
ln + w 29
re
rw
ln
rw

Similarly,

p ( r )=

Where

p e p w r
ln + p w 29
re
rw
ln
rw
pw = p1 + o z

Given the previous definition of flow potential function as:

( k ) ( pz )

Then introducing Darcys Law,

Flow velocity

v=

d e w 1
=
dr
re r
ln
rw

The radial volumetric flow rate can be given as:

18

q radial = v L p rd=
0

q radial =

2 L p ( p e p w )
30
re
ln( )
rw

( pe pw )=

p ( r )=

2 L p ( e w )
r
ln ( e )
rw

qr
r
ln( e )31
2 kh Lp
rw

qr
r
ln
+ p w 32
2 kh Lp
rw

( )

By substituting the value of pw, the pressure distribution can be defined in field units as

p ( r , z )=

141.2 q r
r
ln + p 1+ o z33
kh Lp
rw

For Spherical Flow,

2 =

1 d
d
r s2
=034
2
drs
rs d rs

The general solution to the spherical flow equation is given by

19

r s2

d
A
= A =
+ B35
drs
rs

A and B are determined by applying the following boundary conditions:

r s =r w = w =

r s =r e =e =

A
+ B36 a
rw

A
+ B36 b
re

Therefore,

A=

And

e w
37
1 1

rw re

B= w +

e w 1
38
1 1 rw

rw r e

The spherical potential distribution can then be defined as,

r
e w 1 1
( s)=
+ w 39
1 1 rw rs

rw r e

Then defining flow rate with Darcys law,

v s=

d e w 1
=
40
2
dr
1 1 rs

rw re

20

Spherical volumetric flow rate is defined as

q s=

2 cos o ( e w )
41
(1/r w 1/r e )

e w =

qs
1 1
42
2 cos o r w r e

Defining the potential distribution in terms of qs;

(r s )=

qs
1 1
+ w 43
2 cos o r w r s

Also, the potential distribution along the vertical direction (z-axis):

(r z )=

qs
1 1
+ w 44
2 cos o r w r z

Therefore, the pressure distribution in the spherical flow regime is defined as;

p(r s )=

q s
1 1
+ pbh 45
2 k cos o r w r s

Substituting for Pbh then gives

p ( rs ) =

q s
1 1
+ p 1+ o L46
2 k cos o r w r s

Also, pressure distribution along the vertical direction is

21

qs
1 1
+ p 1+ o L46
2 k v cos o r w r z

p ( r z )=

In oilfield units,

p ( rs ) =

141.2 qs 1 1
+ p1 + o L47
k cos o r w r s

p ( r z )=

141.2 q s 1 1
+ p1+ o L48
k v cos o r w r z

(
(

At the interface of the two flow regimes, the pressure will coincide. Therefore by equating the
two equations at any point at the interface, the flow relationship can be determined.
p(r , z)radial = p ( r s ) spherical
Therefore,
141.2 qr
141.2 q s 1 1
r
ln + p1 + o L=
+ p1 + o L49
k h Lp
rw
k h cos o r w r z

Reducing the equation gives:

L
q r=

1 1

rw re

cos o ln

) q 50

re
rw

The total flow rate is given by:

22

[ ]

1 1

rw re
q total=qr +q s= 1+
q 51
re s
cos o ln
rw
L

Before water breakthrough occurs, the water cone is in static equilibrium as expressed below:
p ( r z )+ w ( hLr z ) = powc 52

Defining

= w o and

p=p r pbh = p owc o ( hL ) p bh

And

( r z )=

kv
( p ( hLr z ) )53

Also , p= p2 p 154
Substituting equation 54 into 53

( r z )=

kv
( p p ( hLr z ) )55
2 1

p2 p1 can be gotten from equation 33.

p2 p1=

141.2 q r r e
ln 56
khL
rw

In terms of spherical flow qs

p2 p1=

141.2 q s 1 1
57
k h cos o r w r e

23

Deducing from equation 44 in field units,

( r z )= ( r z ) w =

141.2 q s 1 1
58
cos o r w r z

Putting equation 57 into equation 55

( r z )=

k v 141.2 q s 1 1
( hLr z ) 59
k h cos o r w r e

Equating equation 58 to equation 59,

141.2 q s
cos o

1 1
1 1

rw r z rw re

+ ( hLr z ) =060
kv
kh

From equation 60,

q s=

cos o (hLr z )
1 1
1 1

rw re r w r z
141.2

kh
kv

61

From equation 51, the total flow rate can therefore be defined as

q t=

cos o (hLr z )
1 1 1 1

rw re r w r z
141.2

kh
kv

[)

1 1

rw re
1+
62
re
cos o ln
rw
L

24

The value of cos o = (adj/hyp), therefore

cos o =

hL
63
r c +(hL)2
2

Using the following equation to describe the relationship between cone geometry and
reservoir anisotropy as shown by Abass and Bass (1988)
rc k h
=
hc k v

Also defining dimensionless anisotropy KD = (kh/kv)1/2

cos o =

Therefore,

hL
64
hc k D4 +(hL)2
2

Substituting equation 64 into 62,

q t=

(hLr z)
1 1
1 1

rw re r w r z
141.2

kh
kv

[)

hL
+
2
4
2
h
k
+(hL)
c D

1 1

r w re
65
re
ln
rw

The critical rate qc will occur when the cone apex touches the bottom of the well i.e. qt = qc
when rz = rw and hc = (h L).
Substituting for rz and hc with rw and (h L) respectively,

25

( h L )( D 4+1)+

( r1 r1 )
w

ln

qc =

1
66
(hLr w )

1 1

rw re
141.2
kh

( )

re
rw

Equation 63 can be rewritten as

k

( hL ) ( D 4+1)+

( r1 r1 )
w

ln

re
rw

1
67
7.08103 k h (hLr w )
qc =

1 1

rw re

Defining a fractional wellbore penetration Pfrac = L/h, Therefore L= Pfrach

Eliminating L in equation 63,

26

h (1Pfrac )r w

h P frac

( r1 r1 )
w

h(1P frac )( D 4+1)+

r
ln e
rw

1
68

7.08103 k h
1 1
[
]
qc =
r w re

Using the following approximation to convert pressure gradient

to density

w o
=
144
144
h (1Pfrac )r w

h P frac

( r1 r1 )
w

h(1P frac )( D 4+1)+

ln

re
rw

1
69

4.92105 k h
1 1
[
]
qc =
rw re

3.3 Determination of Breakthrough time

At depletion stage in the reservoir the pressure transient has reached the reservoir boundary
and a tank reservoir is assumed.
For a tank reservoir (i.e. closed boundary), one can write a material balance equation to
equate the reservoir voidage due to oil production with the expansion of the remaining oil.

27

N p B o=

V p c t ( PiP)
70
5.615

N p B o=

Ah ct ( PiP)
71
5.615

If a well is produced at a constant rate of Qo STB/Day for a period of t days, then cumulative
oil produced is
N p=Qo t72
Substituting equation 66 into 65,

Qo B o t=

Ah c t ( PiP)
73
5.615

( PiP ) =

5.615 Q o Bo t
74
Ah c t

At water breakthrough the drawdown must have exceeded pressure due to gravity, therefore

( PiP ) = P g75
P g= g h wc76
Equating equations 68 and 70,

g hwc =

5.615 Qo Bo t
77
Ah c t

Therefore breakthrough time tbt is given by

28

t bt =

g hwc Ah c t
78
5.615 Qo B o

Chapter 4
4.1 Model Application and Result Analysis
A Fortran program was written to calculate Critical Water Coning rates using the obtained
formula.
h (1Pfrac )r w

h P frac

( r1 r1 )
w

h(1P frac )( D 4+1)+

r
ln e
rw

4.92105 k h
1 1
[
]
qc =
rw re
o o

The method will be compared with previous correlations developed for vertical wells namely:
Meyer-Garder
Hoyland-Papatzacos-Skjaeveland
Chaperson
Schols
Parameter
Pay thickness, h
Penetrated interval, L
Oil Viscosity o
Oil Formation Volume Factor o
Horizontal Permeability, kh
Vertical Permeability, kv
Drainage Radius, re
Wellbore Radius, rw
Density of Water, w
Density of Oil, o

Value
50 ft
15ft
0.73cp
1.10 rb/stb
93 mD
10 mD
1000 ft
0.25 ft
63.76 lb/ft3
46.50 lb/ft3

29

Reservoir Data
Table 3-1

Table 3-2

Comparison
Correlation
Meyer-Garder
Hoyland-Papatzacos-Skjaeveland
Chaperon
Schols
New Correlation

Critical Coning Rate (Stb/d)

474
1107
556
130
60

The correlations give different values of critical rate due to the assumptions made in their
derivation. Hoyland extended the Muskat and Wyckoff theory in which cone influence on oil
potential was neglected hence optimistic values of critical water coning rate are obtained.

30

Chaperon has been reported to give over optimistic values because the effect of flow
restriction due to the presence of an immobile water crest was ignored.

Meyer and Garder assumed that the perforated interval started from the top of the reservoir
and Schols correlation assumed an isotropic reservoir, hence an effective permeability
calculated from both kh and kv was used instead.

Table 3-3 Excel Sheet to Calculate New Correlation Critical Rates

4.2 Sensitivity Analysis

Effect of Partial Penetration on Critical Rates.

31

Qc
140
120
100
80

Critical Rates, stb

Qc

60
40
20
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Dimensionless Fractional Penetration

Chart 4-1 Effect of Partial Penetration on Critical Rates.

As shown, the fractional penetration has significant effect on critical rate. Zero penetration as
shown on the chart is practically impossible, full penetration i.e. at 1 gives a critical rate of
zero. The optimal wellbore penetration is about 0.5 as shown in Chart 4-1 above.

Effect of kh/kv ratios on Critical Rates

32

60.65
60.6
60.55
60.5
Critical Rates, stb

60.45
60.4
60.35
60.3

10

12

kh/kv

Chart 4-2 Effect of kh/kv ratios on Critical Rates

Critical rates decline with increasing kh/kv ratios indicating that an increase in horizontal
permeability kh and/or a decrease in vertical permeability will result in lower critical rates as
shown in Chart 4-2.

Effect of Oil Viscosity on Critical Rate

33

200
180
160
140
120
Critical Rates, stb

100
80
60
40
20
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Oil Viscosity o

Chart 4-3 Effect of Oil Viscosity on Critical Rates

Increased oil viscosity results in a decrease in the Critical rate. Conversely, lower viscosities
result in higher critical rates as shown in Chart 4-3
Effect of Oil Density on Critical Rate
200
180
160
140
120
Critical Rates, stb

100
80
60
40
20
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Oil Density, o

Chart 4-4 Effect of Oil Density on Critical Rates.

34

Critical rate will decrease with increase in Oil density and will be zero when the oil density
equals water density which is practically unobtainable but for sake of sensitivity analysis. The
relationship between oil density and critical coning rate is shown in Chart 4-4.

35

Chapter 5
5.1 Conclusion and Recommendation
Partially penetrating wells are the norm in the petroleum industry for vertical wells and the
correlation is based on the flow regimes that will be encountered in a partially penetrating
system. The combination of radial and spherical flow helps to better evaluate the pressure
distribution at point near the perforations and away from the well bore.
The simplifying assumptions made for sake of analysis such as constant directional
permeability will make the correlation differ from empirical work. In summary, the following
are my conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Two flow regimes can be identified, radial and spherical.

At the interface of radial and spherical flow, the pressures will be equal.
Total flow rate is a combination of flow from both flow regimes.
The radial and spherical equations are solved by adopting the general solution for the

differential equations in each case.

5. Consideration of both flow regimes results in a better representation of reservoir flow
distribution.
Recommendations
1. Future work should consider simultaneous multiphase coning, i.e. water and gas
as this will give a more realistic representation of critical rates.
2. Attempts should be made to test the pressure drop to actual field data to form a
semi-analytical and empirical solution taking both flow regimes into
consideration.
3. In considering an isotropic reservoir, an effective permeability value should be
used as the correlation was developed for anisotropic reservoirs.

36

Whilst production at critical rates will prove uneconomical, the breakthrough time
correlation can be used to estimate the time at which to expect water production and
this can be adapted into field development plans.

References
37

1.

Abass, H.H. and Bass, D.M. The Critical Production Rate in Water-Coning System.
SPE 17311, Proceedings of the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference, Midland, TX, Mar. 10-11, 1988.

2.

Ahmed, T. Reservoir Engineering Handbook. 3rd Edition, Elsevier Press, Burlington,

MA, 2006.

3.

Bournazel, C., and Jeanson, B. Fast Water Coning Evaluation Method. SPE 3628,
Proceedings of the SPE 46th ATCE, New Orleans, Oct. 36, 1971.

4.

Chaperon, I. Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in

Anisotropic Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates. SPE 15377, Proceedings of
the SPE 61st ATCE, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 58, 1986.

5.

Chierici, G. L. and G. M. Ciucci. "A Systematic Study of Gas and Water Coning By
Potentiometric Model." JPT: 923-929. 1964

6.

Dake, L.P. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. Elsevier Scientific Publishing

Co., New York, 1978.

7.

Guo, B. Molinard, J.E. and Lee, R.I. A General Solution of Gas/Water Coning
Problem for Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 25050 presented at the European Petroleum
Conference, Cannes, France, 16-18 November, 1992

8.

Hoyland, L. A. et al. Critical Rate for Water Coning: Correlation and Analytical
Solution. SPERE, Nov. 1989

9.

Inikori, S.O. Numerical Study of Water Coning Control with Downhole Water Sink
(DWS) Well Completions in Vertical and Horizontal Wells, Ph.D dissertation,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 2002.

10.

Jin, L. Wojtanowicz, A.K. Performance Analysis of Wells with Downhole Water

Loop (DWL) Installation for Water Coning Control. CIPC 2008-173, Canadian
International Petroleum Conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Jun. 17-19 2008.
38

11.

Jin, L. Wojtanowicz, A.K, Hughes, R.G. An Analytical Model for Water Coning
Control Installation in Reservoir with Bottom Water. CIPC2009-098, Canadian
International Petroleum Conference. Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 16-18 June 2009.

12.

Kuo, C. T. and DesBrisay, C. L. A Simplified Method for Water Coning Predictions.

SPE 12067, Proceedings of the 58th ATCE, San Francisco, Oct. 58, 1983.

13.

Menouar, H.K. and Hakim, A.A. Water Coning and Critical Rates in Vertical and
Horizontal Wells. SPE 29877, SPE Middle East Oil Conf. Bahrain, March 11 14,
1995.

14.

Meyer, H. I., and Garder, A. O. Mechanics of Two Immiscible Fluids in Porous

Media. J. Applied Phys., No. 11, p. 25, Nov. 1954.

15.

Muskat, M. and Wyckoff, R.D. An Approximate Theory of Water-coning in Oil

Production. Trans. AIME, Vo. 114, 1935.

16.

Muskat, M. The Performance of Bottom Water-drive Reservoirs. Trans. AIME, Vo.

170, 1947.

17.

Ozkan, E., and Raghavan, R. Performance of Horizontal Wells Subject to Bottom

Water Drive. SPE 18545, Proceedings of the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Charleston, West Virginia, Nov. 24, 1988.

18.

Papatzacos, P. Approximate Partial-Penetration Pseudoskin for Infinite-Conductivity

Wells. SPE Reservoir Engineering, May, 1987.

19.

Papatzacos, P. et al. Cone Breakthrough Time for Horizontal Wells. SPE 19822,
Proceedings of the SPE 64th ATCE, San Antonio, TX, Oct. 811, 1989.

20.

Schols, R.S. An Empirical Formula for the Critical Oil Production Rate. Erdoel
Erdgas, Z., Vo. 88, No. 1, p. 6-11, January, 1972.

39

21.

Sobocinski, D. P. and Cornelius, A. J. A Correlation for Predicting Water Coning

Time. JPT. Vo. 17, No. 5, May, 1965.

22.

Stroud, K.A. Engineering Mathematics 4th Edition, MacMillan Press Limited 1995

23.

Stroud, K.A. Advanced Engineering Mathematics 3rd Edition, MacMillan Press

Limited 1996

24.

Wheatley, M.J. An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water Coning. Paper 14210 presented

at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA,
22-26 September, 1985.

25.

Yang, W. and Wattenbarger, R.A. Water Coning Calculations for Vertical and
Horizontal Wells. SPE 22931, Proceedings of the SPE 66th ATCE, Dallas, TX, Oct. 69, 1991.

Appendix
PROGRAM CRITICAL RATE
IMPLICIT NONE
!THIS PROGRAM CALCULATES THE CRITICAL WATER CONING RATE
REAL KH,KV,MU,BO,DRHO,H,PFRAC,RW,RE,KD,L,A,B,C,D,QC
Write (*,*) "Input Horizontal Permeability"
READ (*,*) KH
Write (*,*) "Input Vertical Permeability"
READ (*,*) KV
Write (*,*) "Input Oil Viscosity"
READ (*,*) MU
Write (*,*) "Input Oil Formation Volume Factor"
40

READ (*,*) BO
Write (*,*) "Input Water Density"
READ (*,*) RHOW
Write (*,*) "Input Oil Density"
READ (*,*) RHOO
Write (*,*) "Input Pay Thickness"
READ (*,*) H
Write (*,*) "Input Penetration Length"
READ (*,*) L
Write (*,*) "Input Drainage Radius"
READ (*,*) RE
Write (*,*) "Input Well Radius"
READ (*,*) RW
DRHO= RHOW-RHOO
PFRAC=L/H
KD= SQRT(KH/KV)
A= (0.000492*KH*DRHO)/(MU*BO)
B= (H*(1-PFRAC)-RW)/((1/RW)-(1/RE))
C= 1/(H*(1-PFRAC)*((KD^4)+1))
D= ((H*PFRAC*((1/RW)-(1/RE)))/LOG(RE/RW))
QC=A*B*(C+D)
PRINT (*,*) "THE CRITICAL WATER CONING RATE IS",QC,"STB"
END

Program Screenshots

41

The program is interactive and will require the user to enter the parameters as shown above.

42