UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Coning and Cusping

by

Darlington Christian Etaje

A PROJECT REPORT

SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR HEMANTA K. SARMA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETING

ENCH 657: ADVANCED RESERVOIR ENGINEEERING

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

CALGARY, ALBERTA

April 9, 2019

© Darlington Christian Etaje 2019

 Letter of Transmittal

Letter of Transmittal

Unit 107, 8 Sage Hill Terrace Northwest Calgary Phone: (403) 813 9931
Email: darlington.etaje@ucalgary.ca
UCID: 30007755

Etaje C. Darlington
PHD Candidate: Petroleum Engineering

Dr. Hemanta K. Sarma

Professor, Oil & Gas Engineering
University of Calgary
Energy, Environment, Experiential Learning Building: EEEL451B
750 Campus Drive Northwest, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4H9

Dear Dr. Sarma,

I am writing you this letter to inform you that I have completed the project report you requested as
part of the requirements for ENCH 657: Advanced Reservoir Engineering. The title of the project is
Coning and Cusping. This report was authorized by you Sir, Professor Hemanta K. Sarma and it is
due for submission on Tuesday April 9, 2019.

Exactly 8 classic methods of estimating critical coning rate was reviewed. Surprisingly, for the same
reservoir input parameters, the critical coning rate calculated for each method differs. The reason for
this difference was explained in this report. A few recent methods for controlling coning was also
reviewed in the recommendation section of the report.

At some point in this report, I became so use to the terms that I could write without reading it from
anywhere. Most of the papers referenced in this report were gotten from www.onepetro.org

If you have any questions on these matters, please contact (Darlington Etaje) at (+1 403 813 9931).

Sincerely,

Enclosure: Coning and Cusping Report

April 9, 2019
Etaje C. Darlington Date

ii
 Executive Summary

Coning is the phenomenon where the gas-oil contact and/or the oil-water contact forms a bell-like

structure during production which eventually breakthrough to the reservoir impeding the production of

oil and increasing the handling cost of water and gas. This report reviews the meaning of coning and

cusping and examines what the impact of coning is on production from a reservoir. Several correlations

for estimating critical coning rates were examined, their results were also compared for the same

reservoir input parameters.

The assumptions made affected the kind of results obtained from each of these correlations. The effects

of assumptions were summarized in this report. Several plots showing how coning occurs were used in

this report. A summary of results from an excel populated spreadsheet were summarized. A few 21 st

century methods of controlling coning was also reviewed in this report. The breakthrough time formula

from the only two authors known to derive such was presented in this report.

iii
 Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal ................................................................................................................................. ii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature ................................................................................ vii
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION TO CONING AND CUSPING ........................................................... 1
1.1 What is Coning and Cusping ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Why Does Coning Occur During Production............................................................................. 2
Chapter Two: CONING AND CUSPING (IMPACT AND SOLUTION) ............................................... 4
2.1 The Impact of Coning and Cusping ........................................................................................... 4
2.1.1 The Impact on Oil Rim Reservoirs ..................................................................................... 4
2.1.2 The Impact of Gas Coning .................................................................................................. 4
2.1.3 The Impact of Water Coning .............................................................................................. 4
2.1.4 How to Address the Problems of Coning and Cusping ...................................................... 5
2.1.5 Addressing Coning in Oil Rim Reservoirs ......................................................................... 5
2.1.6 Addressing Gas Coning ...................................................................................................... 5
2.1.7 Addressing Water Coning ................................................................................................... 6
Chapter Three: Methods of Estimating Coning and Cusping ................................................................... 7
3.1 Claude Bournazel and Bernard Jeanson ..................................................................................... 7
3.2 Chaperon Method ....................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Schol’s Method........................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Chappelear and Hirasaki Method ............................................................................................... 8
3.5 Chieric Approach ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.6 Lehner Method ......................................................................................................................... 10
3.7 Sobocinski and Cornelius Method ........................................................................................... 11
3.8 The Abass and Bass Method .................................................................................................... 12
Chapter Four: DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 15
4.1 Breakthrough Time................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Critical Coning Rate ................................................................................................................. 15
4.3 The Summary of the Process and Correlations ........................................................................ 15
Chapter Five: RECOMMENDATIONS (21st CENTURY CONING CONTROL) ............................... 17
5.1 Using PID Controller for Contains Gas Produced after Breakthrough .................................... 17
5.2 Effect of Wellbore Penetration on Critical Coning Rate .......................................................... 17
5.3 Predicting Post Breakthrough Time ......................................................................................... 17
Chapter Six: RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Comparing Critical Coning Rates for the Classic Correlation Models .................................... 18
iv
 6.2 Effect of Assumptions on Coning Rate .................................................................................... 18
Chapter Seven: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 19
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................ 20
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................. 21
A.1 Coning Rate for Multiple Wells ................................................................................................... 21
A.2 Relating Gas Lift Stability with Water Coning ............................................................................ 21
A.3 Improving Water Control Using Autonomous Inflow Control Devices (AICDs) ....................... 21

v
 List of Tables

Table 1 Estimated Critical Rate and Breakthrough Time ....................................................................... 18

List of Figures
Figure 1 Original State of the Reservoir ................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2 Coning Effects on a Reservoir ................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3 Coning in Vertical Wells ............................................................................................................ 7
Figure 4 Coning Model Geometry and Symbols ...................................................................................... 9
Figure 5 Diagrammatic Representation of a Water-and Gas-Coning System in a Homogeneous
Formation ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 6 Illustration of Lehner's Method ................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7 Schematic Diagram of a Partially Penetrating Well Subjected to Water Coning .................... 12
Figure 8 Critical Coning Rate against Dimensionless Well Penetration at Different Distance from Top
of Reservoir, Steady State ....................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9 Critical Coning Rate versus Dimensionless Well Penetration, Unsteady State ....................... 14
Figure 10 Water and Gas Coning in a Reservoir .................................................................................... 15
Figure 11 Correlations for Estimating Coning Rate and Breakthrough Time for Vertical and Horizontal
Wells ....................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12 Critical Flow Rates versus Fractional Penetration for Different Models ............................... 19

vi
 List of Symbols, Abbreviations and Nomenclature

Symbol Meaning
𝑞𝑐 Critical oil rate (STB/D)
𝑏 Length of perforation (ft.)
𝑅𝐵 Height of the oil column (ft.)
𝑘𝑅𝑜 Horizontal permeability (md)
Ψ(𝑟𝐷𝑒 , 𝜀, 𝛿) Dimensionless gas function obtained graphically
∆𝜌 Density difference btw the oil and coning fluid (gm/cc)
𝐵𝑜 Oil formation volume factor (RB/STB)
𝜇𝑜 Oil viscosity (cp)
𝑘𝑣𝑜 vertical permeability (md)
𝐿𝑔 Distance from the top of perforated interval to the GOC
𝐿𝑤 Distance from the bottom of the perforated interval to the WOC
𝑦𝑒 Half distance btw 2 lines of horizontal well (ft.)
𝐷𝑏 Distance between the WOC and horizontal well (ft.)
𝐷𝑡 Distance between the GOC and horizontal well (ft.)
𝑘𝑣 Vertical permeability (md)
𝑘ℎ Horizontal permeability (md)
𝑟𝑒 Drainage radius (ft.)
𝐿 Length of the horizontal well
ℎ Height of the oil column (ft.)
𝑘𝑜 Effective oil permeability(md)
𝑟𝑤 Wellbore radius (ft.)
ℎ𝑝 Perforated interval (ft.)
𝜌 Density (lb/ft3)
𝑔 Acceleration due to gravity, 1/144 (lbf/lbm)
ℎ𝑐𝑏 Height of completion bottom from top of formation (ft.)
ℎ𝑐𝑡 Height of completion from top of formation(ft.)
∅ porosity
𝜇𝑤 Water viscosity

vii
 Chapter One: INTRODUCTION TO CONING AND CUSPING

There are three parts of a reservoir: the aquifer below, the oil portion in the middle and the gas cap at the

top. During production, pressure reduces then the perforated zones sucks reservoir fluids in making the

interfaces between fluids to change shape to a cone shape. That is the whole concept of coning.

1.1 What is Coning and Cusping

The general accepted meaning of coning is that water cut and gas oil contact increase continuously, but

this is not a firm definition. Note that some similar concepts exist:

• Tonguing: This exist in slanting reservoirs where bottom water is moving in the slope [1].

• Cusping: This is where there is breakthrough of water-oil interface towards a producer during

displacement phenomenon.

• Fingering: This is the development of higher viscous region during unstable displacement.

During many drive mechanisms, one may meet these occurrences simultaneously, so they are usually

mixed up together as the same, but they are different. For coning to occur the buoyancy forces caused by

pressure depletion must be overcome [1]. This means the production rate has to be greater than a

particular value called the critical production rate. There have been many researches to find out how to

calculate this critical rate. Some authors use statistical methods or analytical methods while others use

simulation methods. In the situation where there is high viscosity of oil the critical rates can be reduced

or when there is high vertical permeability, the critical rates can also be reduced [1]. The square of the

distance between the fluid entry point and the interface between the fluids is directly proportional to

critical rate. One aim during completion should be to reduce the pressure drop near the wellbore. Note

that large completion intervals would reduce the distance between the fluid entry point and the interface.

There is need for data analytics to reveal how to optimize completion intervals and the distance between

the fluid entry point and the interface. Completing an interval of a tighter layer first would be ideal. If

there is room for re-completion, one can relocate from where gas or water breakthrough has occurred.

1
1.2 Why Does Coning Occur During Production

The fluids in a reservoir are balanced by two forces: one is the force pulling them to the direction of least

resistance and the other is force trying to maintain gravity equilibrium [2]. This usually occur with gas

or water. Figure 1 below shows the original state of the reservoir where oil is in the middle of gas and

water. In this case, there is partial perforation.

Figure 1 Original State of the Reservoir [2]

As production occurs, near the wellbore, there will be lowering of gas-oil contact and raising of oil-water

contact. However, the gas being lighter still has the tendency to stay above the oil while the water being

heavier wants to stay below the oil. It is this counterbalances that leads to bell shape in the oil-water

contact and, in the gas-oil contact as shown in Figure 2 below. Capillary forces, viscous forces and gravity

forces affect the flow of fluids in a reservoir.

Figure 2 Coning Effects on a Reservoir [2]

2
Capillary forces do not have effect on coning. Around the completion interval, there is a balance of

viscous forces and gravity forces [2]. Cone will occur when the viscous force is greater than the gravity

forces. If the viscous force later become lower than the gravity force, then the cone formed will not get

to the well. However, the cone will not recede either. This phenomenon is known as stable cone. This

usually happen is steady state conditions of the reservoir system [2]. But in an unsteady state system, the

cone will become unstable and proceed to the well until steady state occur again. When the pressure

drop is the well is large enough to be greater than the gravity force then the cone will eventually break

into the well. When gas or water cone breaks into the well due to this pressure drop, critical production

rate has been attained.

3
 Chapter Two: CONING AND CUSPING (IMPACT AND SOLUTION)

When coning occurs, the water and gas will enter the wellbore and be produced along with the oil which

can reduce crude oil production. This is a serious problem.

2.1 The Impact of Coning and Cusping

Coning affects well productivity and the degree of depletion. Three factors are very important in

evaluating the impact of coning and cusping. One is the critical cone rate, the other two are breakthrough

time and post breakthrough.

2.1.1 The Impact on Oil Rim Reservoirs

Reservoirs with oil column less than 80 feet are prone to coning issues. This is common in the Niger

Delta region of Nigeria in West Africa [3]. This leads to lots of difficulties in producing from these

reservoirs. Since these water and gas cones affect ultimate recovery then economics of producing from

these Lots of wells in the Niger Delta have been closed because of the occurrence of coning [3].

2.1.2 The Impact of Gas Coning

In gas coning, the gas-oil contact cones downward and moves towards the reservoir. This phenomenon

occurs in limited amounts in horizontal and deviated wells [4]. At breakthrough time, the gas-oil contact

will reach the well leading to high gas entrance into the well. This has 3 negative impacts. One the gas

being more volatile and less viscous will be dominate in production making the well uneconomical. This

large quantity of gas heading to the facilities at the surface will damage those facilities that were not

originally prepared for large amount of gas. After breakthrough gas cap would be lost quickly due to the

influx of gas into the wellbore [4]. The number of hours it takes the gas to breakthrough is of significant

concern in the industry. Many old fields have the tendency to breakthrough leading to financial

consequences from reduced oil production [4].

2.1.3 The Impact of Water Coning

Water coning occurs as a result of imbalance between gravity forces and viscous forces. During

production (flow of oil into the well), there is an upward rise of the oil-water contact [5]. Pressure drop

at the wellbore causes the water below the oil to rise upward. That rise is balanced by gravity forces

4
acting on the height of the water below the oil. This pressure drop reduces at points farther away from

the wellbore and the balance point between the two forces acting will decreases as well [5]. In a stable

cone, the oil flow above the cone while the water remains with the rising cone. The factors affecting the

size of the cone are:

• mobility ratio

• oil zone thickness

• the extent of the well penetration

• vertical permeability;

• total production rate.

Two cones can be formed in fracture reservoirs as they have dual porosity system [5]. The cone in the

fracture is usually the fast-moving cone while the cone in the formation is the slower moving clone. In

general, the position of the cones depends on production rate and the reservoir properties. Researchers

have concluded there are lower critical rates in fractures [5].

2.1.4 How to Address the Problems of Coning and Cusping

There is a need to optimize well rates when wells are coning gas or coning water. It is important to

identify the key parameters governing the formation of cones in order to build an efficient reservoir

simulator.

2.1.5 Addressing Coning in Oil Rim Reservoirs

Models have been developed using Nodal analysis to combine gas-oil system and oil-water system into

gas-oil-water system to curb the formation of gas cones and water cones [3]. The model worked well in

a Niger Delta oil filed and mostly for thin oil zones with aquifer and gas cap.

The conclusion of the test showed that the model developed can be used for assessing oil rim reservoir

for possible occurrence of gas cones and water cones [3]. The model assumes that the critical rate for

coning to occur is the pre-breakthrough time.

2.1.6 Addressing Gas Coning

Reducing the pressure drop at the well is the best way to prevent the gas-oil contact from proceeding to

the well [4]. The highest production rate where gas breakthrough will not occur is what is referred to as

5
critical rate [4]. This rate may allow stable cone to exist but not the existence of unstable cone. An

optimum well design would comprise of a favourable critical production rate and knowledge of the gas

breakthrough time. However, using production rate lower than the critical rate does not make good

profitable business since the coning is not exactly eliminated, the tendency for the gas-oil contact to move

to the well is high at some point during the depletion of the reservoir [4]. One way to solve the problem

is shut-in zones where gas breakthrough has occurred. After shut-in, the pressure drop will go down

leading to the gas-oil contact drifting away from the well. Production can then continue until

breakthrough occurs again [4].

2.1.7 Addressing Water Coning

Factors not affecting water coning are:

To effectively address water breakthrough time some factors must be taking in account. Water

breakthrough time varies with changes in these factors [5]. The factors are:

• mobility ratio

• Oil layer thickness

• fracture storativity

• Perforation thickness

• Horizontal Fracture permeability and its orientation

• Production rate

Factors not affecting water coning are:

• Fracture spacing

• Aquifer strength

• Skin factor

The well location can be changed based on the expected values of the factors that affects breakthrough

time [5]. Multi-well studies show the same dependency on these factors as in the single well case. Well

location and production history have to be noted because pressure drop in well can affect breakthrough

time in a well far away.

6
 Chapter Three: Methods of Estimating Coning and Cusping

Most coning correlations are used to estimate breakthrough time and are based on steady state assumption

so that the prediction of breakthrough time is not reliable. But there have been improvements in these

correlations which are now theoretical analysis that account for reservoir and production parameters as

well as data analytics of the completion process. Here are 8 classic coning correlations.

3.1 Claude Bournazel and Bernard Jeanson

This model assumes a current line like front shape of the cone. It is a blend of experimental correlations

and analytic approach [6]. This method estimates breakthrough time and critical production rate when

coning occurs. It is however limited to lateral drive, thin producing zone and impermeable wall [6]. This

means assuming outer limit for radial flow of fluids in a horizontal reservoir. Below are the corresponding

equations.

𝑍
(𝑡𝐷 )𝐵𝑇 =
3 − 0.7𝑍
20325𝜇𝑜 ℎ∅(𝑡𝐷 )𝐵𝑇
𝑡𝐵𝑇 =
∆𝜌𝑘𝑣 (1 + 𝑀𝛼 )
∆𝜌𝑘ℎ ℎ(ℎ − ℎ𝑝 )
𝑄𝑜𝑐 = 0.11148 × 10−4
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜

3.2 Chaperon Method

The assumption here is that the formation is anisotropic (𝐾𝑣 ≠ 𝐾ℎ ) and the well is vertical [2]. The

correlation takes note of distance between production well and boundary.

Figure 3 Coning in Vertical Wells [7]

7
 𝑘ℎ ℎ
𝑞𝑐 = 4.886 × 10−4 (∆𝜌ℎ)𝑞𝑐∗
𝐵𝑂 𝜇𝑂

3.3 Schol’s Method

Schols correlations were based on lab experiments and numerical simulator [2]. Below is his critical

coning rate equation. Schol’s equation is only valid for isotropic formations where 𝐾𝑣 = 𝐾ℎ

−4
∆𝜌𝑘𝑜 (ℎ2 − ℎ𝑝2 ) 3.142 ℎ 0.14
𝑞𝑐 = 0.0783 × 10 [ ] × [0.432 + 𝑟 ]( )
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜 ln (𝑟𝑒 ) 𝑟𝑒
𝑤

Where 𝑘𝑜 = 𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑚𝑑

𝑟𝑤 = 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠, 𝑓𝑡

ℎ𝑝 = 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑙, 𝑓𝑡

𝜌 = 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑙𝑏⁄𝑓𝑡 3

3.4 Chappelear and Hirasaki Method

The correlation was done for a partially perforated well with outer boundary inflow for a radially

symmetric homogeneous system [8]. The distribution of fluids is shown below. Several assumptions

were made:

• The fluids are incompressible

• Steady State flow prevails

• Fluids flow in segregated regions

8
 Figure 4 Coning Model Geometry and Symbols [8]

The simulator used was a semi-implicit, black oil reservoir simulator [8]. Production rate is constant. The

model was validated by comparing simulator results coning model predictions [8]. Below are the

corresponding equation.

2𝜋𝑘ℎ 𝑘𝑟𝑜 ∆𝜌𝑔ℎ𝑜 (ℎ𝑜 − ℎ𝑐𝑏 )

𝑞𝑐 =
887.2𝜇𝑜 𝑙𝑛𝑟′𝐵𝑜
𝑟𝑒
(𝑟 +
𝑤𝑟 ′)
𝑙𝑛𝑟′ = ln
1 − (𝑟𝑤 + 𝑟′)2 1
( )−2
𝑟𝑒2
ℎ𝑜
′
𝑘ℎ ℎ𝑜 − ℎ𝑐𝑏 ℎ𝑜 + ℎ𝑐𝑡 2(ℎ𝑐𝑏 −ℎ𝑐𝑡 )
𝑟 = 4ℎ𝑜 √ (| |. )
𝑘𝑣 ℎ𝑜 − ℎ𝑐𝑡 ℎ𝑜 + ℎ𝑐𝑏

3.5 Chieric Approach

It is assumed that the aquifer does not contribute to the energy of the reservoir. It is also assumed that

the potential gradient in the gas cap is negligible [9]. During production, the interfaces form cone like

shape with the reservoir as its axis as shown by Chieric in the figure below [9]. Based on Muskat’s

analysis of coning and other electrical analogy, Chieric developed some curves which help solve the

following:

• Determine critical production rate to avoid gas and water production

• Determine perforation dimensions to maximize oil production at least water and gas production

The equations are as follows:

9
 Figure 5 Diagrammatic Representation of a Water-and Gas-Coning System in a Homogeneous Formation [9]

𝑟𝑒 𝑘
• Effective dimensionless radius 𝑟𝐷𝑒 = √𝑘𝑣𝑜
ℎ 𝑟𝑜

𝑏
• Dimensionless perforated length 𝜀 = ℎ
𝐿𝑤
• Dimensionless water cone ratio 𝛿𝑤 = ℎ
𝐿𝑔
Dimensionless gas cone ratio 𝛿𝑔 = ℎ
∆𝜌 𝑘
𝑞 = 5.256 × 10−3 ℎ2 𝐵𝑜 𝜇𝑅𝑜 Ψ(𝑟𝐷𝑒 , 𝜀, 𝛿)
𝑜

3.6 Lehner Method

Lehner method works for fully perforated well as shown in the figure below. There is stabilized water

oil ratio.

Figure 6 Illustration of Lehner's Method [10]

The break-down of how Lehner arrived at critical production rate is as follows [10].

10
 i. In oil: 𝑃𝑜 (𝐵) = 𝑃𝑜 (𝐶) + 𝜌𝑜 𝑔𝛿𝑧
𝑞𝜇𝐵
𝑃𝑜 (𝐵) = 𝑃𝑜 (𝐴) + 𝜕𝑧 + 𝜌𝑜 𝑔𝛿𝑧
2𝜋𝑘𝑜 𝑟𝑧
ii. In water: Also stationary (q=0)
𝑃𝑤 (𝐵) = 𝑃𝑤 (𝐴) + 𝜌𝑤 𝑔𝛿𝑧

Equating both equations:

𝑞𝜇𝐵 𝜕𝑧
= (𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜 )𝑔𝑧𝜕𝑧
2𝜋𝑘𝑜 𝑟

Integrating from 𝑟 = 𝑟𝑤 to 𝑟 = 𝑟𝑒 at the critical rate when 𝑧(𝑟𝑤 ) = 𝑏, 𝑧(𝑟𝑒 ) = ℎ𝑒

𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑤3 𝜇𝐵 𝑟𝑒 1
ln( ⁄𝑟𝑤 ) = (𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜 )𝑔(ℎ𝑒2 − 𝑏 2 )
2𝜋𝑘𝑜 2

𝜋𝑘𝑜 ∆𝜌𝑔(ℎ𝑒2 − 𝑏 2 )
𝑞𝑐 = 𝑟
𝜇𝐵𝑙𝑛 (𝑟𝑒 )
𝑤

In field units

1.54 × 10−3 𝑘𝑜 ∆𝛾(ℎ𝑒2 − 𝑏 2 )

𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑤 = 𝑟
𝜇𝑜 𝐵0 𝑙𝑛 (𝑟𝑒 )
𝑤

𝑞𝑐𝑜𝑤 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑏/𝑑

3.7 Sobocinski and Cornelius Method

At the time when this method was created, there were no hand-calculation for actually predicting the

growth of water cone [11]. The wells must be producing at constant rates and completions to from top to

oil zone [11]. Although more data are needed to fully validate this method.

11
 Figure 7 Schematic Diagram of a Partially Penetrating Well Subjected to Water Coning [11]

0.492 × 10−4 ∆𝜌𝑘ℎ ℎ(ℎ − ℎ𝑝 )

𝑍=
𝜇𝑜 𝑞𝑜 𝐵𝑜

4𝑍 + 1.75𝑍 2 − 0.75𝑍 3
(𝑡𝐷 )𝐵𝑇 =
7 − 2𝑍

20325𝜇𝑜 ℎ∅(𝑡𝐷 )𝐵𝑇

𝑡𝐵𝑇 =
∆𝜌𝑘𝑣 (1 + 𝑀𝛼 )

𝑘𝑟𝑤 𝜇𝑜
𝑀=( )( )
𝑘𝑟𝑜 𝜇𝑤

𝛼 = 0.5 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑀 ≤ 1

𝛼 = 0.6 𝑓𝑜𝑟 1 < 𝑀 ≤ 10

∆𝜌𝑘ℎ ℎ(ℎ − ℎ𝑝 )
𝑄𝑜𝑐 = 0.141 × 10−4
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜

3.8 The Abass and Bass Method

This was a ground-breaking discovery because Abass and Bass were able to estimate the critical coning

production rate for both steady state and un-steady state conditions for radial flow around the wellbore

[12]. They showed three factors that affect the coning rate

• The Radius of the cone (𝑟1).

• The Well penetration (z).

• The cone height (hc).

After a few iterations, the following equations were derived

12
 𝑟1 𝑘ℎ
≈
ℎ𝑤𝑐 𝑘𝑣

For steady state flow

2𝜋𝑘ℎ 𝑔∆𝜌𝑥ℎ(ℎ − 𝑁 − ℎ𝑥)

𝑞𝑜𝑐 =
1 𝑟2 𝑟
𝜇𝐵𝑜 (− 2 + 2 1 2 ln (𝑟 1 ))
𝑟1 − 𝑟𝑤 𝑤

For Unsteady state flow

2𝜋𝑘ℎ 𝑔∆𝜌𝑥ℎ(ℎ − 𝑁 − ℎ𝑥)

𝑞𝑜𝑐 =
𝑟2 𝑟 𝑟2 + 𝑟2 1
𝜇𝐵𝑜 ( 2 1 2 ln (𝑟 1 ) − 1 2 𝑤 − 2)
𝑟1 − 𝑟𝑤 𝑤 4𝑟𝑒

Where

g: Gravitational constant=9.81213 m/sec2

x: Dimensionless well penetration

N: distance between the top of an oil zone and where a well is completed (ft)

h: Reservoir thickness (ft)

The plots below show coning rate versus dimensionless well penetration after using Abass and Bass

method

13
Figure 8 Critical Coning Rate against Dimensionless Well Penetration at Different Distance from Top of Reservoir, Steady State [12]

Figure 9 Critical Coning Rate versus Dimensionless Well Penetration, Unsteady State [12]

14
 Chapter Four: DISCUSSION

There are two types of coning: Gas Coning and Water Coning. Gas coning is the swelling downwards of

the gas-oil contact while water is the swelling upwards of the oil-water contact. It is due to imbalance

between the viscous forces and the gravity forces existing between these immiscible fluids as shown in

the figure below.

Figure 10 Water and Gas Coning in a Reservoir [2]

Based on the correlations from different authors, two factors are very essential in understanding coning.

One is the breakthrough time while the other is the critical coning rate. From the information gathered

from all of these authors, a summarized explanation is due at this point.

4.1 Breakthrough Time

This is the time it will take the cone to breakthrough into the well if the reservoir is being produced above

the critical production rate.

4.2 Critical Coning Rate

This is the maximum flowrate during production that will ensure no coning breakthrough. Any increase

in flow rate above the critical coning rate will definitely lead to coning breakthrough [1].

4.3 The Summary of the Process and Correlations

The figure below shows what methods best estimate breakthrough time and critical coning rate. In each
15
case, the coning could either be stable coning or unstable coning. Before the critical coning rate, the

coning occurring is stable and would not breakthrough to the well but above the critical coning rate,

coning occurring will breakthrough to the well.

Figure 11 Correlations for Estimating Coning Rate and Breakthrough Time for Vertical and Horizontal Wells

16
 Chapter Five: RECOMMENDATIONS (21st CENTURY CONING CONTROL)

In this section of this report, several methods of controlling coning or estimating coning rate are

highlighted. This are based on recent publications on coning.

5.1 Using PID Controller for Contains Gas Produced after Breakthrough

Leemhius et al in 2007 showed how a feedback control can be used to contain gas fraction from an oil

producing well after gas cone breakthrough [4]. They coupled a dynamic multiphase reservoir simulator

to several feedback controllers. Their control device was Proportional Integral Derivative (PID)

controller [4]. They successfully used the PID controller to put a limit on the gas fraction to secure topside

equipment.

5.2 Effect of Wellbore Penetration on Critical Coning Rate

In 2008, Tabatabaei et al derived a model that evaluates critical coning rate factoring in the limits of

penetration into the well in the oil productivity [13]. They found a way to calculate the optimum wellbore

penetration which is always lower than the overall pay (oil) zone thickness [13]. The optimum wellbore

penetration depends on radius of wellbore, radius of drainage area, and pay zone thickness

They also showed how to get optimum completion interval.

1 1
7.08 ∗ 10−3 𝑘ℎ ∆𝛾(ℎ − 𝐿 − 𝑟𝑤 ℎ−𝐿 𝐿 (𝑟 − 𝑟 )
𝑤 𝑒
𝑞𝑐 = ∗( + 𝑟𝑒 )
1 1 2
√𝑟𝑒 + (ℎ − 𝐿) 2
𝑙𝑛 𝑟
𝜇(𝑟 − 𝑟 )
𝑤 𝑒 𝑤

5.3 Predicting Post Breakthrough Time

Permadi et al in 2010 explained a semi-empirical method for predicting post breakthrough time for

horizontal wells with a bottom water drive [14]. They used linear flow equation by Darcy and run a

material balance on the reservoir system. They were able to accommodate their simulator for cases where

the water cut is higher than zero initially [14]. The model is only for steady-state flow. Gravity forces,

capillary forces, partial completion changes of fluid properties of each phase and wellbore friction loses

were considered negligible.

17
 Chapter Six: RESULTS

This section will compile and compare results from different coning rate correlations and also show

comparisons done by other authors on what the expected differences would be for correlations of conning

rate.

6.1 Comparing Critical Coning Rates for the Classic Correlation Models

The table below shows the results of the 7 classic methods for predicting critical coning rate and

breakthrough time.
Table 1 Estimated Critical Rate and Breakthrough Time

Breakthrough
METHOD WATER CRITICAL RATE (stb/d) GAS CRITICAL RATE (stb/d) Time (days)

CHIERCI 992.92 4,629.64

SCHOLS 4,584.06 4,954.87

LEHNER 168,105.40 181,703.61

CHAPPLELEAR 123,062.33

SOBONCINSKI 9,592.91 43.92

BOURNAZEL 7,584.52 2.09

CHAPERON 3,907.57 4,223.66

It can be noted that Lehner and Chapplelear methods have an unusually larger water critical coning rate

compared to other methods for the same input data. For both methods, the size of the perforation opening

is of essence and that may be the reason for the large differences. The assumptions made for each method

contribute to the differences as well.

6.2 Effect of Assumptions on Coning Rate

In the work by Tabatabaei et al in 2008, a similar comparison was done on the chart shown in the

conclusion of this report [13]. They noted that their model will overestimate coning rate for water wet

reservoirs and underestimate coning rate for oil wet reservoirs because capillary pressure was neglected

[13].

18
 Chapter Seven: CONCLUSION

Cone will occur when the viscous force is greater than the gravity forces. For coning to occur the

buoyancy forces caused by pressure depletion must be overcome. Two factors which are controllable

affect the critical coning rate.

• The length of perforated interval

• The distance from the perforations to the fluid contacts

As the length of perforation increases the critical coning rate decreases. Also, as the distance from the

perforation to the fluid contact increases, the critical rate increases. There have been many researches to

find out how to calculate this critical rate. Some authors use statistical methods or analytical methods

while others use simulation methods. The assumptions made in each of these correlations affect the value

of the critical coning rate estimated from the models. The chart below shows this difference.

Figure 12 Critical Flow Rates versus Fractional Penetration for Different Models [13]

The present model identified in the chart is the Tabatabaei et al optimization model for minimizing water

coning. For the same input data, the critical coning rate are different as the fractional wellbore penetration

increases.

19
 REFERENCES

1. Singhal A.K. (2006). Water and Gas Coning/Cresting: A Technology Overview. Petroleum
Recovery Institute
2. Ahmed T. (2006). Reservoir Engineering Handbook. Gulf Professional Publishing
3. Onwukwe S.I., Obah B., Chukwu G.A. (2012). A Model Approach of Controlling Coning in
Oil Rim Reservoirs. SPE Nigerian Annual International Conference and Exhibition
4. Leemhuis, A. P., Belfroid, S., & Alberts, G. (2007, January 1). Gas Coning Control for Smart
Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/110317-MS
5. Namani, M., Asadollahi, M., & Haghighi, M. (2007, January 1). Investigation of Water Coning
Phenomenon in Iranian Carbonate Fractured Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/108254-MS
6. Bournazel, C., & Jeanson, B. (1971, January 1). Fast Water-Coning Evaluation Method. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/3628-MS
7. Chaperson, I., “Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in
Anisotrophic Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates,” SPE Paper 15377, SPE 61st Annual
Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5–8, 1986.
8. Chappelear J.E., Hirasaki G.J. (1976). A Model of Oil-Water Coning for Two-Dimensional,
Areal Reservoir Simulation. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal
9. Chierici G.L., Ciucci G.M. (1964). A Systematic Study of Gas and Water Coning by
Potentiometric Models. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
10. Behrenbruch P. (2013). Reservoir and Well Performance: 2 Immiscible Fluid Displacement.
University of Western Australia.
11. Sobocinski D.P., Cornelius A.J. (1964). A Correlation for Predicting Water Coning Time.
Journal of Petroleum Technology
12. Abass, H. H. and D. M. Bass (1988). "The Critical Production Rate in Water-Coning System."
SPE 17311.
13. Tabatabaei, M., Ghalambor, A., & Guo, B. (2008, January 1). Optimization of Completion
Interval to Minimize Water Coning. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/113106-MS
14. Permadi, P., & Jayadi, T. (2010, January 1). An Improved Water Coning Calculation for
Horizontal Wells. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/133162-MS

20
 APPENDIX

A.1 Coning Rate for Multiple Wells

In 2006, Ansari et al described an analytical solution for finding critical coning rate for multiple wells

with no-flow and boundaries with constant pressure. This was done by extending formula for single wells

to multiple wells by superimposing solution for single wells with a derived potential function. The new

solution only works for steady state flow.

A.2 Relating Gas Lift Stability with Water Coning

In 2011, Aguilar et al studied flow instabilities in offshore with water coning by performing linear and

nonlinear stability analysis. They discovered a new gas-lift stability criterion which accounted for water

coning. They also found out that water coning has little impact on water cut changes. When excessive

gas is injected, a strong dependence of water cut in the well from the production rate of liquids could

result.

A.3 Improving Water Control Using Autonomous Inflow Control Devices (AICDs)

Stone et al in 2015 carried out an optimization study where autonomous inflow control devices (AICDs)

strengths and calibration parameters were made the variables for optimization control for production

wells. After full optimization with simulator of the reservoir being studied, there was an improvement in

revenue and water control.

21