Whole 12345 PDF

A REVIEW OF CRITICAL CONING RATE CORRELATIONS
AND IDENTIFYING THE MOST RELIABLE EQUATION
A Dissertation
By
Ali Khalili
Submitted to the School of Petroleum Engineering of

University of New south Wales
In Partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
July 2005
Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering
Ali Khalili July 2005

II
ORIGINALITY STATEMENT
‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my
knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by
another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been
accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any
other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made
in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I
have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis.
I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my
own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s
design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is
acknowledged.’
Signed ………………………………………………………………

III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Prof. W. Val Pinczewski, for his
guidance and support during this study.
I also wish to extend my special thanks to Petroleum University of
Technology (PUT) which provided financial support for this study.

IV
ABSTRACT
The study of coning in oil production is important because of huge

water production associated with oil production around the world each year.
Estimation of critical coning rate has been the subject of numerous studies
and a number of correlations have been reported. This study presents a
review of the current available methods for estimating critical coning rate
for both vertical and horizontal wells. The various methods and correlations
are compared and the assumptions on which they are based evaluated.
Following comparison made between the correlations, the most reliable
theories are identified for both vertical and horizontal wells separately.
Among the correlations for vertical wells, this study recommends two
implicit methods presented by Wheatley and Azar Nejad et al. They
determined the oil potential distribution influenced by water cone with a
remarkable accuracy. For horizontal wells, two methods, Joshi’s equation
and Rechem et al formula, are considered to be the most reliable. Joshi’s
equation provides lower estimates than Chaperon’s correlation in which the
water cone effect on oil potential was neglected. The Recham et al formula
also gives a similar result. On the whole, the Rechem et al method is
preferred.

V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ..........................................................II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................. III
ABSTRACT ........................................................................... IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................V
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................... VII
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................. VIII
NOMENCLATURE .....................................................................X
1 Chapter One: Introduction ............................... 1

1.1. What is Coning? ................................................................ 1
1.2. Problems resulted from coning ............................................. 1
1.3. Water coning mechanisms ................................................... 2
1.4. Stable and unstable cone .................................................... 3
1.5. Evaluation of coning phenomena ........................................... 4
1.5.1. Few concepts in coning................................................... 4
1.5.2. Critical cone rate.......................................................... 4
1.5.3. Breakthrough time ........................................................ 5
1.5.4. Well Performance after breakthrough ................................. 6
1.5.5. Optimization of completion interval ................................... 6
1.6 Scope of This Study ............................................................ 7
2 Chapter Two: Critical coning rate at vertical oil wells8

2.1. Critical coning rate at vertical oil wells (single coning) ................ 8
2.1.1. Meyer and Garder Method ............................................... 8
2.1.2. Chaperon’s Approach ................................................... 11
2.1.3. The Abass and Bass Method ............................................ 14
2.1.4. The Guo-Lee Method.................................................... 18
2.1.5 The Hoyland et al Method............................................... 23
2.1.6 Wheatley’s procedure ................................................... 26
2.1.7 The Azar Nejad-Tortike Procedure .................................... 31

VI
2.2. Simultaneous coning of gas and water................................... 38

2.2.1. The Meyer and Garder method........................................ 39
2.2.2. The Chierici-Ciucci Approach.......................................... 43
2.3. Comparison ................................................................... 54
3 Chapter Three: Coning at Horizontal oil wells ....... 57

3.1. Coning behaviour at horizontal wells .................................... 57
3.2. Correlations used to calculate the critical coning rate in horizontal oil
wells................................................................................. 58
3.2.1. Chaperon’s approach ................................................... 58
3.2.2. The Giger Approach ..................................................... 62
3.2.3. Joshi’s Method ........................................................... 66
3.2.4. The Yang-Wattenbarger Correlation for Horizontal wells ........ 68
3.3 Comparison .................................................................. 76
4 Chapter Four: Summary ................................. 80

4.1 Summary and conclusion for correlations presented for vertical wells80
4.2 Summary and conclusion for correlations presented for horizontal
wells................................................................................. 80
4.3. Further studies............................................................... 81
5 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 82
REFERENCES........................................................................ 82
6 APPENDICES ............................................... 85
Appendix A ......................................................................... 85
Appendix B: ........................................................................ 89
Appendix C: ........................................................................ 93
Appendix D: ........................................................................ 96

VII
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Example data used to plot Meyer and Garder method ............. 10
Table 2.2 Example data for Chaperon’s approach............................... 13
Table 2.3 An example data for Abass-Bass method............................. 16
Table 2.4 An example of reservoir and fluid properties for Guo’s method.. 22
Table 2.5 Data for The Hoyland methods ......................................... 24
Table 2.6 An example data for Wheatley's method............................. 30
Table 2.7 Reservoir and fluids properties for the Chierici and Meyer and
Garder method ................................................................... 46
Table 2.8 Data for the Chierici method .......................................... 46
Table 2.9 A Comparison between different correlations and Chaperon’s
method ............................................................................ 56
Table 3.1 Typical data for chaperon’s method................................... 62
Table 3.2 An example data for Giger’s theory (Bottom Water drive
mechanism)....................................................................... 65
Table 3.3 An Example data for Joshi’s correlation ............................. 67
Table 3.4 An sample data for the Weiping-Wattenbarger correlation....... 74
Table 3.5 The Critical oil rates obtained by different approaches........... 77

VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 A Schematic of a reservoir at static conditions .......................3

Figure 1.2 A schematic draw of water and gas coning ............................3
Figure 2.1 Schematic illustration of a reservoir with Stationary cone .........9
Figure 2.2 The Meyer-Garder equation to determine critical coning flow rate
..................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3 A schematic draw of Chaperon’s method ........................... 11
Figure 2.4 the Cone height at different Critical coning rate.................. 13
Figure 2.5 A modification for Chaperon's method by Joshi (1991). ........... 14
Figure 2.6 Critical coning rate against dimensionless well penetration at
different distance from top of reservoir, steady state .................... 16
Figure 2.7 Critical coning rate versus dimensionless well penetration,
unsteady-state ................................................................... 17
Figure 2.8 Low-pressure-gradient case, no unstable cone exists.
(Qt1<Qt2<Qt3) ................................................................... 19
Figure 2.9 High-pressure-gradient case, unstable cone exists (Qt3>Qt2>Qt1)
..................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.10 RSC flow pattern ...................................................... 21
Figure 2.11 A plot of critical coning rate versus dimensionless well
penetration ....................................................................... 22
Figure 2.12 Dimensionless critical coning rate against fractional well
penetration (Cited, Ahmad, 2000) ............................................ 25
Figure 2.13 Comparison between the Hoyland methods........................ 26
Figure 2.14 Critical coning rate versus well penetration for different
equations.......................................................................... 31
Figure 2.15 The Location of elements according to the Azar Nejad method 33
Figure 2.16 A comparison between the Azar Nejad-Tortike and the Wheatley
procedure to calculate the value of critical rate. ......................... 37

IX
Figure 2.17 A comparison between different studies to determine the critical

coning rate........................................................................ 37
Figure 2.18 A Schematic profile of a simultaneous coning of gas and water 40
Figure 2.19 A comparison between the water coning and simultaneous
coning of gas and water according to the Meyer and Garder Method... 42
Figure 2.20 Diagrammatic Representation of a water and gas coning system
in a Homogenous Formation. .................................................. 44
Figure 2.21 Comparison between the Chierici and Meyer Method at
simultaneous coning............................................................. 47
Figure 2.22 Dimensionless function for rDe=5 (Cited in Ahmad, 2000)....... 48
Figure 2.23 Dimensionless function for rDe=10 (Cited in Ahmad, 2000) .... 49
Figure 2.24 Dimensionless function for rDe=20 (Cited in Ahmad, 2000) ..... 50
Figure 2.29 A schematic comparison between correlations developed to
calculate the critical oil rate for vertical oil well.......................... 57
Figure 3.1 A draw of water cresting below a horizontal well.................. 58
Figure 3.2 Immobile water crest below a horizontal well. .................... 59
Figure 3.3 A relation between XA and Distance between cone apex and well
..................................................................................... 62
Figure 3.4 Non-dimensional WOC curves. ......................................... 64
Figure 3.5 Schematics of a horizontal well drainage volume ................. 67
Figure 3.6 The critical coning rate against the distance between horizontal
well and WOC .................................................................... 68
Figure 3.7 A very simple sketch of y-z profile for a horizontal well ......... 73
Figure 3.8 The Yang-Wattenbarger correlation ................................. 75
Figure 3.9 The Rechem-Touami Correlation ..................................... 75

X
NOMENCLATURE
A=Well space (ft2)
a = Normalizing factor (=2h)
aT = Transformation factor
Bo= Oil Formation Volume Factor (bbl/STB)
bopt = Dimensionless optimum well bore location
D= Drainage width or half distance between two horizontal well lines (ft)
Db = Distance between WOC and horizontal well (ft)

g = Gravity Constant, 9.8121 m/s2
h = Reservoir thickness (ft)
hc = Cone Height (ft)
h p = Perforated interval (ft)
Ko= Bessel Function of the order zero
K= Reservoir Permeability (md)
Ko= Reservoir Permeability related to oil (md)
Kw= Reservoir Permeability related to water (md)
Kro= Oil Relative Permeability (Dimensionless)
Krw= Water Relative Permeability (Dimensionless)
L= Horizontal well length (ft)
Lp= Length of perforation (ft)
M = Mobility ratio
N p = Cumulative oil production (STB)

XI
Po = Oil Pressure (psi)
Pw = Water Pressure (psi)
q o = Oil flow rate (STB/day)
q oc = Critical Coning rate (STB/day)
q cD = Dimensionless critical coning flow rate
q och = Critical Coning rate for horizontal well (STB/day)
q ocv = Critical Coning rate for vertical well (STB/day)
rw = Well radius (ft)
rwe = Effective well radius (ft)
re = Drainage radius (ft)
rDe = Dimensionless drainage radius

s = Skin factor
S o = Average oil saturation
S wc = Connate Water Saturation
S or = Residual oil saturation
x a = Drainage width (ft)
X D = Dimensionless Drainage Width
Greek symbols
3
ρ o = Oil density (lb/ft )
3
ρ w = Water Density (lb/ft )
3
ρ g = Gas Density (lb/ft )
µ o = Oil viscosity (cp)
µ g = Gas viscosity (cp)
µ w = Water viscosity (cp)
ϕ o = Oil potential (psi)

XII
ϕ w = Water potential (psi)
ϕ De = Dimensionless potential at outer boundary
φ = Porosity (fraction)
Ψ= Stream Line function

1 Chapter One: Introduction
1.1. What is Coning?
Petroleum reservoirs usually comprise three segments, a gas cap, oil
zone and an aquifer. As oil production begins, due to pressure drawdown
around the well bore, the fluid interfaces move toward the perforated
interval causing the water-oil or gas-oil interface to deform from its initial
shape to a cone shape. That is why this phenomenon is referred to coning. If
the well is produced at more than a critical coning rate the unwanted fluids
eventually will break into the well. Because of producing a huge amount of
the reservoir water associated with oil every year, numerous studies have
been conducted on water and gas coning mechanism in the vertical and
horizontal oil wells. Most of studies are concerned with prediction of the
critical coning rate.
1.2. Problems resulted from coning
There are several problems caused by water or gas coning. Oil
reservoirs can seriously be impacted by coning in terms of well productivity,
depletion degree and the overall recovery efficiency (Sobocinski, 1965).
Environmental impact of huge volumes of the reservoir water produced to
the surface is also a serious problem, which has different properties from
surface water or even seawater, flows on the ground. As a result, an
extensive part of the ground located around the well is damaged. Also,
flowing water through casing and surface facilities may result in corrosion.

2
Moreover, in terms of cost, there have to be some extra surface facilities to
separate the produced water from oil.
1.3. Water coning mechanisms
Consider Figure (1.1) to be a well partially penetrated in a reservoir at
static conditions. In fact, there are three essential forces playing key role in
the coning mechanism. They are capillary, gravity and viscous forces
(Ahmad, 2000). For simplicity, the process is assumed to be dominated by
viscous forces and capillary forces are therefore neglected. Before
production, the gravity force, which is a consequence of the density
difference between the fluids, is dominant. Once a well is allowed to
produce oil, the viscous forces which result from pressure drawdown
increase. In order to counterbalance the system, water oil contact (WOC)
deforms and moves up until viscous force is balanced by the gravitational
force at a certain elevation, that is, at a certain flow rate, there is a point at
which a balance can be achieved between the viscous force and the gravity
force. If such a balance is never achieved the cone will be dragged up until it
will break into the wellbore (figure 1.2)(Ozkan and Raghavan, 1990). The
shape and the nature of the cone depend on several factors such as
production rate, mobility ratio, horizontal and vertical permeability, well
penetration and viscous forces (Inikori, 2002).

3
Figure 1.1 A Schematic of a reservoir at static conditions
Figure 1.2 A schematic draw of water and gas coning
1.4. Stable and unstable cone
Stable cone refers to a static cone formed below the perforation for
which the viscous gradient is balanced by the gravitational force resulting
the deformation of interface. This is the only problem of the well flowing
below a critical coning rate. If the well flows above the critical coning rate,
the viscous force dominates and the cone is dragged into the wellbore. It is
important to note that a stable cone can only be maintained for a period.

4
Because of the upward movement of the fluids contact during production
and pressure depletion, the oil potential distribution changes around the
wellbore.
1.5. Evaluation of coning phenomena
1.5.1. Few concepts in coning
A survey of the literatures shows that a tremendous amount of
research has been conducted on coning. This ranges from experimental
coning studies to analytical and numerical simulation studies aimed at
understanding and predicting water coning in vertical and horizontal wells
(Kuo and DesBrisay, 1983). In order to evaluate water and gas coning, there
are three essential concepts, which are called critical coning rate,
breakthrough time and post breakthrough. The critical coning rate refers to
a maximum oil flow rate from a well at which the well will not cone water or
gas. However, due to economic necessity, oil companies often produce at a
rate of higher than critical coning rate. This causes water or gas coning or
simultaneous coning of water and gas. Therefore, if the oil flow rate of a
well exceeds the critical coning rate calculated for this well the cone
becomes unstable and will break into the wellbore after a certain time. This
period is called the breakthrough time (Ahmed, 2000).
1.5.2. Critical cone rate
Several studies have been conducted to estimate the critical cone
rate. In general, the solutions provided can be classified in three categories;

5
(i) Analytical solutions, (ii) Experimental studies and (iii) correlations
obtained using numerical reservoir simulation (Kuo and DesBrisay, 1983).
1.5.3. Breakthrough time
As noted earlier, in practical cases, a stable cone exists only for a
limited time and once the production rate exceeds the critical coning rate
the cone moves toward the well and subsequently breaks into the wellbore.
At this stage, having knowledge of breakthrough time may help to improve
well management and extend well life without production of water or free
gas (Wagenhofer and Hatzignatiou, 1996). When the unwanted fluid breaks
into a wellbore, the fluid distributions and the relative permeability change.
Therefore, by estimating the breakthrough time one can optimize the
production plan to maximize the delay of water or gas breakthrough time.
Thus, prediction of the breakthrough time is crucial for oil wells subject to
water coning (Ozkan and Raghavan, 1990). The breakthrough time has been
the subject of various studies. For instance, Sobocinski and Cornelius (1965)
and Bournazel and Jeanson (1971) proposed empirical correlations for
breakthrough time prediction. As another example, Ozkan and Raghavan
(1990) developed an analytical method to investigate the behavior of a
water/gas cone and also to predict the breakthrough time and concluded
that a horizontal well may improve the breakthrough time compared to a
vertical well.

6
1.5.4. Well Performance after breakthrough
Due to economic necessity most oil wells flow at a rate higher than the
critical coning rate. Once water breaks into a wellbore, the well
performance becomes important and merits careful attention. This
prediction might help a reservoir engineer to plan the future production to
achieve an optimum cumulative oil production. Another advantage of water
cut prediction is that the well life or abandonment time of a well can be
anticipated. A few studies have been conducted on water cut performance
after breakthrough. For example, Bournazel and Jeanson (1971) proposed an
empirical correlation to predict the water cut. Alternatively, the commercial
numerical simulators can be used to evaluate the water cut for both vertical
and horizontal wells.
1.5.5. Optimization of completion interval
Optimization of the location of the perforated interval for a well subject
to possible coning has been a subject of investigations. Traditionally, oil
companies used to perforate wells at the centre of oil zone to optimize the
distance between well and fluids interface (WOC, GOC). However, the gas
and water due to significant difference in density and mobility ratio reach
the wellbore at different times. For this reason, the perforated interval
should be located within the oil zone so that where both gas and water break
into the well simultaneously and therefore a maximum breakthrough time

7
and cumulative oil production can be achieved (Wagenhofer and
Hatzignatiou, 1996).
1.6 Scope of This Study
In this study, several correlations developed for determining the critical
coning rate will be discussed. Specifically, in chapter two the approaches
related to critical coning rate in vertical wells are considered. It is assumed
that the reservoir contains only water and oil. As a result, only those
correlations dealing with the water coning are considered with the
exemption of two studies conducted on simultaneous coning of water and gas
in vertical wells. In chapter three, the current available methods for
horizontal wells are described. Like chapter two, the system which is
considered is water-oil system. At the end of chapters two and three, a
comparison is presented between all correlations to identify the most
suitable method to calculate the critical coning rate for each of the vertical
and horizontal wells. Finally, the last chapter presents the conclusions.

8
2 Chapter Two: Critical coning rate at vertical oil wells
2.1. Critical coning rate at vertical oil wells (single coning)
2.1.1. Meyer and Garder Method
Meyer and Garder (1954) developed an equation to determine the
value of the critical coning flow rate for a static cone at the base of the
perforation. A well with depth penetration of D into a reservoir with
thickness of h, which is underlain by an aquifer, is depicted in figure (2.1).
Let Ho and Hw be the flow potential of oil and water, respectively, defined as
follows:
H o = z + ( Po − P' ) /( gρ o ) (2.1)
H w = z + ( Pw − P ' ) /( gρ w ) (2.2)
Where z is the cone height above an arbitrary reference level and P’ is
reference pressure, Po and Pw represent pressure at the oil and water phase
respectively. Since the water cone was assumed to be static, Hw is a
constant. Neglecting capillary pressure we can write,
ρw z
Ho = Hw + (ρ o − ρ w )
ρo ρo (2.3)
Darcy’s law is applied as follows:
K o dH o
q o = −2πgρ o (h − z )r
µ o dr (2.4)
Ho is substituted from equation (2.1), giving

9
K o dz
q o = −2πg ( ρ o − ρ w )(h − z )r
µ o dr (2.5)
Arranging variables and integrating,
re 0
dr K
qo ∫ = −2πg ( ρ o − ρ w ) o ∫ (h − z )dz
r µo
rw h− D
(2.6)
Therefore, the critical coning rate in field unit is written as
ρ w − ρo Ko
q oc = 2.46 × 10 −5 (h 2 − D 2 )
Bo ln(re / rw ) µ o (2.7)
Where:
ρ ,ρ r ,r ,h K µ
qoc: STB/day, w o : lb/ft3, e w : ft, o :md, o :cp, Bo=bbl/STB
Figure 2.1 Schematic illustration of a reservoir with Stationary cone

10
Below, the critical coning rate against the fractional well penetration has
been plotted by using data shown in table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Example data used to plot Meyer and Garder method
Parameter H Re K ∆ρ Μ rw
Value 70 2000 100 0.3 1 0.25
Units ft Ft md g/cm3 Cp ft
30
25
Critical flow rate(STB/day)
20
15
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless depth penetration( well penetration/reservoir thickness)
Figure 2.2 The Meyer-Garder equation to determine critical coning flow rate
As expected, figure 2.2 shows that the value of the critical coning rate
increases with decreasing fractional well penetration.

11
2.1.2. Chaperon’s Approach
Chaperon (1986) developed a method to determine the Critical coning
rate for gas coning (figure 2.3). The method is also directly applicable to the
case of water coning.
Figure 2.3 A schematic draw of Chaperon’s method
The author assumed that the well has a low penetration so that it could be
considered as a point source for estimating the flow potential which
corresponds to hemispherical flow (see Appendix A.1). In order to achieve a
static equilibrium, the flow potential is equated to the gravity potential
(Eq.A.3). The method of images is applied to determine the flow potential
difference between points A and S (Figure 2.3). The well is considered to be
a point source located at the origin of a semi-infinite porous medium. A no
flow plan is placed at z=0 and a no flow boundary at z=h. The equation for
calculating the gravity potential is written as,

12
Φ A − Φ B = ∆ρg (h − Z s ) (2.8)
Thus, by equating the flow potential difference to the gravity potential
difference (Equation 2.8), the critical coning rate in field units is written as,
kh h ∗
q oc = 4.886 × 10 − 4 (∆ρh)q c
Bo µ o (2.9)
Where
qoc is the value of the critical coning rate (STB/day) and q* is dimensionless
flow rate (See Appendix A.1).
All variables are in field units as follows:
Kh and Kv: horizontal and vertical permeability, respectively; md
h: Reservoir thickness ; ft
rA: Drainage radius for steady-state(where interface elevation is h or in the
case pseudo-steady-state rA=0.607re
qc*: dimensionless flow rate
Bo: oil formation volume factor; RB/STB
rA k v 1 / 2
)( )(
In equation 2.9, q*c is a function of h k h . This accounts for anisotropy.
As an example, the critical coning rate against different cone heights has
been plotted in figure 2.4.

13
Table 2.2 Example data for Chaperon’s approach
Parameter H rA Kv Kh Bo ∆ρ µ rW
Value 70 2000 10 100 1 0.3 1 0.25
Unit Ft ft Md md RB/STB g/cm3 cp ft
60
50
Critical oil rate(STB/day)
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Dimensionless cone height
Figure 2.4 the Cone height at different Critical coning rate
As shown, the cone height increases with increasing critical coning rate until
the critical coning rate reaches to a peak, which is somewhat around 33% of
the reservoir thickness. Afterwards, the value of the critical coning rate
declines because the gravity forces cannot prevail over the viscous forces
resulted
from higher flow rate. Consequently, to achieve a stable cone, the well
should be produced at a lower rate.

14
Alternatively, Joshi (1991) extended the Chaperon method so that it
could be applied for different fractional well penetration (Cited in Ahmad,
2000).
k h (h − h p ) 1.943 (2.10)
q oc = 7.83 × 10 −6 ∆ρ (0.7311 + )
µ o Bo rDe
As shown in figure 2.5, the Joshi modification gives a maximal value of about
68 STB/day at low well penetration. This can be compared to the maximum
critical coning rate obtained from the figure 2.4, which is 54 STB/day.
80
70
Critical Oil Rate(STB/day)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Fractional Well Penetration
Figure 2.5 A modification for Chaperon's method by Joshi (1991).
2.1.3. The Abass and Bass Method
Abass and Bass (1988) derived two equations to determine the critical
coning rate for both the steady state and unsteady-state conditions. He

15
considered that the flow was radial around the wellbore. In addition, He
pointed out that three parameters controlled the value of the critical coning
rate.(i) The Radius of the cone (r1). (ii) The Well penetration (z). (iii) The
cone height (hc). Several computer runs were made to find a relationship
between r1 and hc (equation 2.11).
r1 k
≈ h
hwc k v (2.11)
For steady state flow system the critical coning rate was determined by the
following equation in field units (see Appendix B.1).
2πk h g∆ρxh(h − N − hx)

q oc = 2
r1 r1
µBo (−1 / 2 + ln( ))
r1 − rw
2 2
rw
(2.12)
And for Unsteady State flow conditions (see Appendix B.1)
2πk h g∆ρxh(h − N − hx)

q oc =
r +r
2 2 2
r1 r 1
µBo ( ln( 1 ) − 1 2 w − )
r1 − rw
2 2
rw 4re 2
(2.13)
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)

16
As an example, the critical coning rate is plotted against well penetration for
both steady state and unsteady state conditions in figures 2.6 and 2.7
Table 2.3 An example data for Abass-Bass method
Parameter H re Kv kh ∆ρ Μ Bo
Value 70 2000 10 100 0.3 1.00 1.00
Unit Ft Ft Md md g/cm3 Cp RB/STB
18
N/h=0
16
N/h=0.2
14
Critical oil flow rate(STB/day)
N/h=0.5
12
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless Depth Penetration
Figure 2.6 Critical coning rate against dimensionless well penetration at different distance
from top of reservoir, steady state

17
18
N/h=0
16
N/h=0.2
14
Critical oil Rate(STB/day)
N/h=0.5
12
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Dimensionless depth penetration
Figure 2.7 Critical coning rate versus dimensionless well penetration, unsteady-state
Not surprisingly, figures (2.6) and (2.7) reveal that as the perforated interval
moves down from top of the reservoir the critical coning flow rate decreases
so that once penetrated interval touches the WOC, the critical coning rate
becomes zero. The critical coning rate difference between Steady-state and
unsteady-state conditions depends on the term (-r12-rw2)/4re which is close to
zero.
Comparing figures (2.7) and (2.2) reveals some differences. For
example, Abass and Bass considered that the perforated interval could be
located at any distance from top of the reservoir whereas Meyer and Garder
assumed that the perforated interval started from top of the reservoir. In
addition, figure (2.7) shows that the maximum critical coning flow rate
occurs at 50% well penetration; however, it is achieved at too low
penetration for figure (2.2). The maximum critical coning rates are 16.836

18
STB/day and 25 STB/day for the Abass-Bass and the Meyer-Garder method,
respectively.
2.1.4. The Guo-Lee Method
Guo and Lee (1993) stated that the existence of an unstable water cone
depended on the vertical pressure gradient beneath the wellbore. When the
vertical pressure gradient is higher than the hydrostatic pressure gradient of
water, an unstable water cone can form. In addition, he pointed out that the
critical coning rate had to be defined as a rate at which a stable cone rose
toward a wellbore and was the maximum water-free rate of the well.
The analysis is limited to steady state condition. There is a similarity
between his method and the Abass-Bass method. In both methods the critical
coning rate is zero when the fractional well penetration is zero and one.
However, Abass and Bass assumed flow system to be 2D radial flow whilst
Boyun considered radial/spherical/combined (RSC) 3D flow system.
The Guo and Lee view of the water coning mechanism
He stated that the upward dynamic forces resulting from wellbore
drawdown pressure caused water to rise to a height where the viscous force
was balanced by the weight of water beneath this point. In order to explain
the mechanism he classified coning phenomena in two categories; (i) low-
pressure gradient case, where there was no unstable cone (fig 2.8) ,(ii) high-
pressure gradient, where there was an unstable cone (fig 2.9).

19
Figure 2.8 Low-pressure-gradient case, no unstable cone exists. (Qt1<Qt2<Qt3)
Figure 2.9 High-pressure-gradient case, unstable cone exists (Qt3>Qt2>Qt1)
Figures 2.8 and 2.9 illustrate two cases in which the pressure distribution
along the vertical direction has been drawn. Line A-B represents the pressure
distribution in the oil zone when the flow rate is zero (Stationary Oil
Pressure) and Line B-C shows the pressure distribution curve in the water
zone. As can be seen in these figures, when the flow rate increases from zero
the oil pressure distribution is shifted toward left.

20
For the low-pressure-gradient case, the rock conductivity, which is
defined as the permeability of a reservoir rock divided by flowing fluid
viscosity, is high enough so that the well bore pressure does not fall below
the hydrostatic water pressure before water breakthrough. Therefore, the oil
pressure distribution curve intersects the line B-C at only one point. As a
result, the height of the intersection is the height of the stable cone if the
capillary pressure is assumed to be negligible.
In contrast, for the hight-pressure gradient case the rock conductivity
is low which results in a wellbore pressure below the hydrostatic water
pressure. The oil pressure distribution curve can intersect the water pressure
distribution line at two points. The lower height is the stable cone height. As
the oil flow rate increases the two points move toward each other until they
meet at one point. This point is highest point at which a cone can be stable.
Mathematical Derivation
In order to derive an equation to approximate the critical coning rate,
the flow system for completion interval was considered radial about the well
and a spherical flow-pattern pattern dominated non-penetrated oil-zone. In
other words, the radial spherical combined (RSC) flow system was a
combination of a uniform line-sink radial flow at upper part and a point-sink
semi-spherical-flow field at lower part. Thus, the total flow rate was
determined by summing both of two flow rates. The maximum water-free oil
flow rate was approximated by the equation (2.14).

21
Figure 2.10 RSC flow pattern(cited in Guo and Lee(1993)
1 1
xh( − )
7.08 × 10 k v ∆ρg
−3
kv rw re
q oc = (re − re − re h(1 − x) ) 2 × ( +
2
)
µ kh + kv
2 2 re
ln( )
rw
(2.14)
Where
Kv: vertical permeability (md)
Kh: horizontal permeability (md)
g: gravitational constant(9.8112m/sec2)
re: drainage radius(ft)
h: reservoir thickness(ft)
∆ρ: density difference (g/cm3)

22
Figure (2.11) depicts a typical comparison between the Abass-Bass method
and the Guo-Lee method.
Table 2.4 An example of reservoir and fluid properties for Guo’s method
Reservoir and
H re Kv kh ∆ρ Μ rw
fluid properties
Value 70 2000 10 100 0.3 1 .25
Units Ft Ft Md Md g/cm3 Cp ft
60
Abass & Bass
Guo
50
Critical oil Flow rate(STB/day)
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Dimesionless well penetration
Figure 2.11 A plot of critical coning rate versus dimensionless well penetration
The figure (2.11) shows a typical comparison between two similar
approaches. As shown, the value of the critical coning rate is zero for both
correlations at zero dimensionless well penetration. In regions where the
value of dimensionless penetration is between zero and one, both curves
follow different paths. However as they approach unit dimensionless

23
penetration, the value of the critical coning rate for both the curves is again
zero. Meanwhile, there is a significant difference in the value of maximum
critical coning rate. For instance, in this case the value of the maximum
critical coning rate is 17 STB/day for the Abass-Bass equation whereas Guo-
Lee’s correlation gives 53 STB/day. This difference might be a consequence
of the fact that Abass and Bass considered only radial flow while Guo and Lee
considered radial flow at perforated interval and also semi-spherical flow
(RSC) beneath the well. In other words, in the Guo-Lee method the total
critical coning rate is sum of both flow rates related to radial flow and semi-
spherical flow subsequently it gives higher result than the Abass-Bass
equation.
2.1.5 The Hoyland et al Method
Hoyland et al (1989) presented two methods to predict the value of
the critical coning rate. The first approach was based on the results of a
large number of a three-phase black oil simulator runs. In other words,
sensitivity analysis runs were made on those parameters having effect on the
value of the critical coning rate so that for each set of parameters, the
critical coning rate was determined and then they used a regression analysis
to come up with an equation. This equation can be applied for isotropic
reservoirs.
ko (ρ w − ρo ) Lp (2.15)
q oc = (1 − ( ) 2 )1.325 h 2.238 ln(re ) −1.99
10822 Bo µ o h

24
The second method was a procedure, which was an extension of the Muskat-
Wyckoff theory. Following the Muskat and Wyckoff theory, the cone
influence on oil potential was neglected. As a result, it is expected to
provide an optimistic evaluation of critical coning rate. One advantage of
this procedure is that it can be used to determine the value of the critical
coning rate for an anisotropic reservoir. The following procedure is used to
calculate the critical coning rate.
1-Calculate the dimensionless radius by using equation (2.16).
re kv (2.16)
rDe =
h kh
2-Determine dimensionless critical coning rate for several fractional well
penetrations from figure (2.12) for a dimensionless radius obtained at step
1.
3- Plot dimensionless critical coning rate against the well penetration.
4- Estimate the dimensionless critical coning rate at given fractional well
penetration.
5-Use equation (2.17) to find the critical coning rate.
h 2 ( ρ w − ρ o )k h (2.17)
qc =
40667.25Bo µ o
Table 2.5 Data for The Hoyland methods

Reservoir &
H re Kv kh ∆ρ Μ rw
fluid properties
100 18.7
Value 70 ft 2000ft 10 md 1cp .25 ft
md lb/ft3

25
Figure 2.12 Dimensionless critical coning rate against fractional well penetration (Cited, Ahmad,
2000)

26
80
second method
first method
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fractional well penetration
Figure 2.13 Comparison between the Hoyland methods
As depicted in figure (2.13), the result obtained by the second correlation is
the higher rate. This result is expected because the cone shape effect on
the oil potential distribution has not been taken into account in their study.
2.1.6 Wheatley’s procedure
The previous methods allowed the critical coning rate to be calculated
explicitly. We now consider a number of procedures when the coning rate is
calculated implicitly.
Wheatley (1985) presented a new theory based on potential
distribution for two-phase flow to calculate the value of critical coning rate.
The reservoir was considered to be homogenous, bounded above by a
horizontal impermeable barrier and below by WOC which was dragged

27
upward. In addition, the oil influx at the investigation radius was assumed to
be steady and radially symmetric.
He expressed the fluid potential in oil phase as follows:
Φ = q( A1 + aA2 + bA3 − A4 ) /(ax − b) (2.18)
Where
A1 (r , z ) = 2 ln(r ) − g (r , z − y ) + g (r , z + y ) (2.19)
A2 (r , z ) = g (r , z − x) − g (r , z + x) (2.20)
A3 (r , z ) = 1 / f (r , z − x) + 1 / f (r , z + x) (2.21)
A4 = A1 (re , z ) + aA2 (re , z ) + bA3 (re ,1) (2.22)
In which
f (r , z ) = r 2 + z 2 (2.23)
g (r , z ) = ln( z + f (r , z )) (2.24)
The unknown parameters q, qDC, a, b and Y are line source strength,
dimensionless critical coning rate, relative line source and point sources
strength, respectively. When a, b, Y, qD are determined the line source
strength can be calculated by:
q = q D ∆ρgh(ax − b) (2.25)
The WOC was considered to be a streamline because of no flow across the
WOC, thus by applying (C-11, see appendix C) the stream line could be
expressed as a function of q, a and b.
Ψ = q ( B1 + aB2 + bB3 ) /(ax − b) (2.26)
Where
B1 (r , z ) = 2 z + f (r , z − y ) − f (r , z + y ) (2.27)

28
B2 ( r , z ) = f ( r , z + x ) − f ( r , z − x ) (2.28)
And
B3 (r , z ) = −( z − x) / f (r , z − x) − ( z + x) / f (r , z + x) (2.29)
Now, by considering zero streamline at z=0 and on the well axis for z>x,
equation 2.26 was rewritten as
Ψ = 2q (2.30)
Substituting 2.30 into the 2.26
2ax − 2b = B1 + aB2 + bB3 (2.31)
A relationship between a and b in terms of y was obtained by noting that
equation 2.31 should be satisfied at the point (re,1). Thus for large value of
re
ax − b = ( r e − Y ) /( r e − 1 ) (2.32)
Equation 2.31 implies that there is a stagnation point at some point z=zs on
the well axis where
∂φ / ∂z = 0
Thus, from equation (2.18)
Y 2 = z s + z s ( z s − x 2 ) /(ax − b − 2bx 2 /( z s − x 2 )
2 2 2 (2.33)
In the case of none-penetrating well, that is, x=0, equations (2.32) and
(2.33) determine b and Y with respect to zs for rw<< x this relation is
simplified to equation (2.34).( see figure C-1)
a ln(rw / x) − b / rw = ln(1 − x 2 / Y 2 ) (2.34)
In order to determine a, b and Y, equations (2.32)-(2.34) were solved easily
by iteration method starting with Y=1.

29
Now by applying condition (C-9) to substitute potential function, the
equation (2.18) becomes
z = 1 + q D ( A1 + aA2 + bA3 − A4 ) (2.35)
Where qD is dimensionless source strength.
Equation (2.35) at cone height where z=zc and r=0 could be written
q D = (1 − z c ) /( A4 − A1 − aA2 − bA3 ) (2.36)
Where
A1 = ln(Y 2 − z c ) + ln(4)
2 (2.37)
A2 = ln(( z c − x) /( z c + x)) (2.38)
A3 = 2 xc /( z c − x 2 )
2 (2.39)
and
A4 = 2 ln(re ) + 2(Y − ax + b) / re (2.40)
A good match of the WOC equation and the streamline equation was
obtained by requiring the apex of the cone (zc) to coincide with the
stagnation point (zs). Equation (2.36) with zc=zs and with Y, a and h were
calculated from equations (2.32)-(2.34) to give the dimensionless source
strength qD in terms of the position of the cone apex. Wheatley related the
oil production rate to source strength through equation
Qoc = 4πh 2 k h ∆ρgq D / µ o (2.41)
Or in oil field units
Qoc = 0.006145h 2 k h ∆ρq D / µ o (2.42)
Qoc:RB/day, h:ft , kh:md, ρ:gm/cm3, µo:cp
Wheatley provided the following procedure for calculating the value of the
critical coning flow rate.
1).Assign an initial value of zc=zs slightly less than 1.

30
2).Calculate Y, a and b iteratively from equations (2.32)-(2.34) starting with
Y=1
3). Determine qD from equation (2.35)
4).Reduce zc=zs and recalculate a, b, Y and qD.
5).Repeat step (4) until a maximum in qD is obtained
6).Hereinafter, reduce zc and recalculate qD from equation (2.26) remain the
value of zc, Y, a and b unchanged.
7).Repeat the above step until a new maximum in qD is obtained.
8). the value of critical coning rate (Qc) can be calculated by the maximum
amount of qD obtained from step (7).
Since the WOC equation (Eq. 2.35) and bounding streamline (2.32) are
required to be identical, the value of the dimensionless drainage radius is to
be between 2 and 10 to satisfy this condition. Therefore, this procedure
gives more accurate results for the values of the drainage radius between 2
and 10. Due to considering the cone shape effect on the oil potential
distribution, this procedure may give more accurate results than previous
correlations. A typical graph has been plotted according to data given in
table 2.6.
Table 2.6 An example data for Wheatley's method

Parameter H Re K ∆ρ Μ rw
Value 70 2000 100 0.3 1 0.25
Units Ft Ft md g/cm3 Cp Ft

31
The figure (2.14) shows the behaviour of the critical coning rate value
against the fractional well penetration by different correlations.
60
Wheatley
50
Critical Oil flow rate (STB/day)
40
30
Boyun Guo
20
Meyer & Garder
10
Abass & Bass
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless well penetration
Figure 2.14 Critical coning rate versus well penetration for different equations
As shown, the Wheatley and the Meyer-Garder methods follow a similar
trend. However, as they approach low well penetration the Wheatley
approach gives a higher value for the critical coning rate. In contrast, the
Guo and Abass equations provide zero STB/day for critical coning rate at
zero penetration.
2.1.7 The Azar Nejad-Tortike Procedure
Azar Nejad and Tortike (1995) developed an analytical method to
determine the oil potential in the oil zone, which is a solution of the Laplace
equation, in a rectilinear reservoir for any completion interval. In this
method, once the oil potential distribution in the reservoir is calculated the

32
production rate and the cone height can be obtained. In addition, the effect
of the cone shape on the potential distribution was taken into account by
applying a transformation rule to transform the deformed domain into a
rectilinear domain.
Potential Distribution
Uniform Flux along the Wellbore:
All the dimensions were normalized by b as follows:
b = 2h, re = Re / b, r = R / b, w = Z / b, hb = l p / b (2.43)
Where h is the reservoir thickness. The form of the Laplace equation for
potential distribution at steady state condition is
1 ∂ ∂ϕ ∂ 2ϕ
(r )+ 2 =0 (2.44)
r ∂r ∂r ∂r
Where
∂ϕ
= 0, z = 0, b / 2 (2.45)
∂r
ϕ = const., r = re (2.46)
Madelung (1918) determined the potential in a rectilinear domain without
considering constant potential at the wellbore i.e.
2
ϕ p ( w, r , w p ) = 4q[2∑ ( K 0 (2πnr ) cos(2πnw) cos(2πnw p )) + ln( )] (2.47)
r
Where wp is the location of a point source in Z axis and K0 is Bessel function
of order zero. The equation for a line source extending from top of a
reservoir with length of x is

33
1 1 2
ϕ L ( w, r , x) = 4q[
π
∑(n K 0 (2πnr ) cos( 2πnw) sin( 2πnx ) + x ln( )
r
(2.48)
Equation (2.48) guarantees a uniform flux along the well bore, however; it
has a singular point on the Z-axis at r=0. It does not satisfy the constant
potential condition at the well bore.
Constant Potential Along the wellbore:
A superposition method was applied to obtain a constant potential along
the wellbore. In this method, six line sources and two point sources were
used so that the line sources were partially penetrating well. In the case of
uniform flux, every two line sources form a flux elements, therefore, there
are five flux elements including two point sources as follows:
Figure 2.15 The Location of elements according to the Azar Nejad method
-Flux Element (I)
This element has the same length as the original wellbore, which extends
from XS to XE.
-Flux Element (II)

34
It is a line with producing length of one sixth of original wellbore length
restricted between XS1 and XE1.This element is created by superimposing
two partially penetrating well extending from top of the reservoir to XS1 and
XE1 respectively.
-Flux Element (III)
Like the two other elements, it is a combination of two partially penetrating
wells starting from XS2 and extending to XE2.
Flux Element (4 & 5)
As shown in figure (2.15), these two flux elements are two point sources,
which are located at the top and the bottom of the first line source (sink).
Xp1=XS and Xp2=XE
Applying the superposition rule, one can write the potential at any point in
the reservoir as follows:
ϕ ( w, r ) = q1ϕ L1 ( xs, xe, w, r ) + q 2ϕ L 2 ( xs, xe1, w, r ) + q3ϕ L 3 ( xs 2, xe, w, r ) + q 4ϕ p1 ( xs, w, r )

+ q5ϕ p 2 ( xe, w, r )
(2.49)
In order to determine the unknowns a1 to a5, which are elements strength,
the equation (2.49) was applied for five different points on the wellbore
surface and they were forced to be an unique value which was well
potential. Another equation was needed to solve the system of equations.
This equation was called the constrain equation meaning that to make
potential independent of production rate all the potentials were calculated at
unit rate.

35
∑q
i =1
i =1 (2.50)
Once the potential at any point is obtained, one could apply equation (2.51)
to calculate the production rate for any arbitrary cone height and well
penetration.
5
16πkh 2 ∆ρg ∑ q n x n hc
q oc = 5
n =1
5
(2.51)
2
Bo µ o [(∑ q nφ ( x n , r , w)) − 4(∑ q n x n ) ln( )]
n =1 n =1 r
Transformation rule:
Calculation of production mainly depends on the accuracy of the potentials
appearing at the denominator of the equation (2.51). In fact, considering
the WOC as a no flow boundary, one has to deal with two problems.
The first problem is that the geometry of the WOC is unknown and he
second is that the boundary is irregular. Considering an irregular
geometry in Laplace or diffusivity equation is impossible. Consequently,
in order to consider the cone shape effect on the potential distribution, a
transformation rule was applied to transform the cone boundary to
straight line. In fact, it transforms every point of the WOC to its
conjugate on the straight line, that is, every vertical point must be
increased by a coefficient α T.
hc
αT = 1 + (2.52)
(0.5 − hc )

36
Where hc is the height of the cone at a particular instant; therefore, the
transformed perforated interval may be calculated by using the following
equation.
hc
LPT = LP (1 + ) (2.53)
0.5 − hc
Now, by determining the new well length in the rectilinear domain the exact
potential at cone height (hc) can be calculated. Azar Nejad and Tortike
proposed the following procedure to calculate the oil flow rate.
1. Start with small value of h and apply transformation rule.
2. Calculate potential by equation (2.49) at given cone height.
3. Compute production rate by equation (2.51).
4. Increment h by a small value.
5. Check the cone height with beneath the well bore and go to 1.
6. Repeat stages 1-5 until a maximum production rate, which is critical
coning flow rate, is obtained.

37
50
Wheatley
45
Azar Nejad
40
Critical Oil Rate (STB/day)
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 2.16 A comparison between the Azar Nejad-Tortike and the Wheatley procedure
to calculate the value of critical coning rate.
80
70
Critical Oil flow rate (STB/day)
Hoyland (procedure)
60 Wheatley
50
40
Azar Nejad
30
Hoyland (Simulation)
20
Meyer & Garder
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 2.17 A comparison between different studies to determine the critical coning
rate
Figure (2.16) shows a comparison between the Azar Nejad-Tortike and
Wheatley methods. The comparison shows that both methods behave

38
similarly. However, they are different in some cases. Azar Nejad and Tortike
considered the WOC to be a moving no-flow boundary and initial WOC
remained at constant pressure whereas Wheatley assumed that the WOC
could be a streamline. In order to configure the potential function,
Wheatley applied one line source and two point sources while Azar Nejad
and Tortike applied three line sources and two point sources. As a result,
because of adding two extra line sources, the Azar Nejad-Tortike procedure
may be more precise than the Wheatley method.
The value of the critical coning rate against fractional well penetration has
been plotted for several approaches for a specific example in figure (2.17).
Because they display different behaviour, the two correlations, the Abass-
Bass and the Guo-Lee curve, have been removed. It is evident that the
Hoyland et al procedure cannot be reliable as it gives much higher results
than the other correlations considered. Also, the Meyer-Garder result is too
conservative. However, the critical coning rate obtained from the Wheatley
procedure is very close to that of Azar Nejad and Tortike’s solution because
both two methods are based on determination of the oil potential
distribution. The value of the critical coning rate obtained by the Hoyland et
al equation (Simulation) is slightly higher than these two methods. However,
as an alternative correlation, it is recommended because a simple calculator
can be used to calculate the critical coning rate rather than a long
procedure.
2.2. Simultaneous coning of gas and water

39
Despite the fact that the vast majority of reservoirs contain all three
phases (Gas, Oil, and Water) together, most studies have been conducted on
the water coning or gas coning. In simultaneous coning, consideration is
taken of both the water and the free gas of the reservoir. The only
significant way to evaluate the water and gas coning is to apply reservoir
simulation (Pinczewski, 2003). However, several procedures have been
proposed to estimate the critical coning rate in the presence of both gas and
water coning.
2.2.1. The Meyer and Garder method
Following the explanation used for the water coning in the Meyer-
Garder method, now we consider a reservoir comprising three zones of gas,
oil and water. The problem is to locate the perforated interval so that the
oil production is maximal and the gas and water production is minimal.
According to assumptions noted earlier, the oil potential in the gas zone may
be written:
ρG ρ (2.54)
ϕo = ϕG − gz ( G − 1)
ρO ρ0
So that we have
ρG ρ (2.55)
ϕ o (r2 , z ) = ϕ G + g (h − D + h p )(1 − G )
ρo ρO
Where
h − D ≤ z ≤ h − D + hp (2.56)

40
Where
hp is the perforated height, r2 is the well radius and h is the reservoir
thickness.
Figure 2.18 A Schematic profile of a simultaneous coning of gas and water
And oil potential in the water zone can be written:
ρw ρ (2.57)
ϕ o (r2 , z ) = ϕ G − g (h − D)( w − 1)
ρo ρo
Where
h − D ≤ z ≤ h − D + hp (2.58)
Meyer and Garder assumed that the oil potential at gas and water zone was
equal. As a result, by equating equation (2.55) and (2.57) the following
equation was obtained.
ρo − ρG (2.59)
D = h − (h − h p )
ρ w − ρG
Similarly the oil potential at well radius at different cases might be
expressed as

41
⎧ ρw ρ
⎪ϕ w − g (h − z )(1 − G ), h ≥ z ≥ h − D + h p
⎪ ρo ρo
⎪⎪ ρw ρ
ϕ o (r2 , z ) = ⎨ϕ w + g (h − D)(1 − W ), h − D + h p ≥ z ≥ h − D
⎪ ρo ρo (2.60)
⎪ ρw ρ
⎪ϕ w + gz (1 − W ), h − D ≥ z ≥ 0
⎪⎩ ρo ρo
Also by combining the Darcy equation and the Hubbert potential function,
the Oil flow rate was expressed in the form of integral as follows:
2πkρ o h (2.61)
ln(r / r1 ) µ o ∫0
qo = ( ϕ (r , z )dz − hϕ1 ), r2 ≤ r ≤ r1
Where φ1 is the potential value at the drainage radius, r1
Therefore, by substitution the expressions in equation (2.59) and (2.60) in
(2.61) the value of the critical coning flow rate can be determined.
Eventually, the maximum critical coning flow rate can be determined if
perforated interval hp approaches zero. Thus, Meyer and Garder derived the
following equation in field units:
ρo − ρ g 2 ρo − ρ g 2
h 2 K (( ρ o − ρ g )(1 − ) + ( ρ w − ρ o )( )
ρw − ρg ρw − ρg
q oc max = 2.46 × 10 −5
re
Bo µ o ln( )
rw
(2.62)

42
30
Simultaneous coning
water coning
25
Critical Oil flow rate(STB/day)
20
15
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 2.19 A comparison between the water coning and simultaneous coning of gas and
water according to the Meyer and Garder Method.
The figure (2.19) illustrates a comparison between the water coning and the
simultaneous coning of gas and water. As shown, the value of the critical
coning rate obtained by this Approach for simultaneous coning of water and
gas is lower than that for the only water coning case.
As can be seen at equation (2.62), the only key parameter is the density
difference between the three phases. Also, the value of the maximum
critical coning flow rate is independent of the length of the perforated
interval. The independence of the critical coning rate on the length of the
perforated interval results from the assumption that the maximum rate
occurs when the water and gas comes first meet.

43
2.2.2. The Chierici-Ciucci Approach
Chierici-Ciucci (1964) used a potentiometric model technique to study
the water and gas coning in which a systematic study was conducted by
means of an electrical analogy technique. In this study the main assumptions
are: 1. Homogenous reservoir (either isotropic or anisotropic).2. The aquifer
was assumed to be so limited that it did not contribute to the energy of the
reservoir.3. The gas cap expends at a very low rate so that the potential
gradient in the gas cap is negligible. His results were presented in the form
of a set of curves to be used in the following two cases:
a- Determining the value of the critical coning rate at given reservoirs and
fluid properties, as well as the length and position of the perforated
interval.
b- Optimizing the position and length of the perforated interval at which the
well is produced at critical coning rate, at given reservoirs and fluid
characteristics.
He came up with the equations (2.63) and (2.64) to determine the value of
the critical coning rate. The critical coning rate is smaller rate obtained
from the following equations.
h 2 (ρ w − ρo ) (2.63)
q ow = 0.492 × 10 −4
k hψ w (rDe , ε , δ w )
Bo µ o
h 2 (ρ o − ρ g ) (2.64)
q og = 0.492 × 10 −4
k hψ g (rDe , ε , δ g )
Bo µ o

44
Where rDe was defined as
re kv (2.65)
rDe =
h kh
And δw, δg and Є have been defined in figure (2.20)
Figure 2.20 Diagrammatic Representation of a water and gas coning system in a

Homogenous Formation.
For any oil production rate greater than qow or qog , oil-water interface
moves up or the gas-oil interface moves down until it eventually reaches the
well and the unwanted fluid breaks into the wellbore. With this in mind, the
following equations are to be satisfied in order to achieve a maximum oil
rate without water and gas.
q oc ≤ q ow (2.66)
q oc ≤ q og
As can be seen in equations (2.63) and (2.64), the critical coning rate
is related to the fluid characteristics through a dimensionless function, ψ

45
(rDe, Є, δ). The function ψ was determined by applying a potentiometric
analyser utilizing the analogy existing between the steady state flow in
porous media and the electrical current flow in conductors. The results were
presented by figures (2.22) through (2.28). These results are valid only
within the following ranges.
5 ≤ rDe ≤ 80
0 ≤ ε ≤ 0.75
(2.67)
0.07 ≤ δ ≤ 0.9
It is important to note that the maximum critical coning rate can be
determined at the following condition.
q o = q og = q ow (2.68)
How to solve the problem?

a- Well already perforated:
In this case Є and δg are given. Besides, fluids and the reservoir
characteristics such as rDe, h, kRo, Kvo, ρw and ρo are known. Once the value
of ψ is read off by using the appropriate graph among the figures (2.22)
through (2.28), one can determine the value of the critical coning rate by
equations (2.63) and (2.64). The obtained value can be checked by applying
equation (2.67).
b- Well has not been perforated
In this case, the value of re, h, kRo, kvo and the fluids properties are
assumed to be known. The problem can be solved by applying figures (2.22)
through (2.28) and using the following procedure. A value of ε is speculated

46
and then the corresponding value of δg and ψ are read off from suitable
(∆ρog/ ∆ρwo) curve. The accuracy of the values depends on the interpolation
method applied. Thus, the perforated interval is located by knowing the
distance of the perforated interval from gas cap which is calculated by
means of the equation given in figure (2.20). Finally, having values of δg and
ψ, one can determine the critical coning rate for this penetration.
Table 2.7 Reservoir and fluids properties for the Chierici and Meyer and Garder method
Parameter H re kv kh ∆ρow ∆ρog Μ rw
Value 70 2000 10 100 0.3 0.66 1 0.25
Unit Ft Ft md md g/cm3 g/cm3 Cp Ft
Table 2.8 Data for the Chierici method

ε 0 .05 .1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.75
0.4
δgas 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 .125
75

47
30
cheirici-Ciucci
Meyer & Garder
25
Critical Oil Rate(STB/day)
20
15
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Figure 2.21 Comparison between the Chierici and Meyer Method at simultaneous coning
The figure 2.21 shows a comparison between the Chierici and the Meyer-
Garder method for simultaneous coning of water and gas. As shown, the
Chierici method gives a higher result than the Meyer-Garder equation. As
noted earlier, Meyer and Garder assumed that the water was at rest in the
cone. Also the reservoir permeability was considered uniform throughout the
reservoir. The Chierici method may be criticized on the basis that the cone
shape effect was not taken into account. Another disadvantage of this
method is that the reservoir properties must satisfy the conditions for
equation (2.67). For instance, as shown, the fractional well penetration
must be between zero and 0.75.

48
Figure 2.22 Dimensionless function for rDe=5 (Cited in Ahmad, 2000)

49

50

51

52

53

54
2.3. Comparison
Figure 2.29 shows a comparison between all the correlations considered in
this study. Depending on the assumptions and basic logic considered in
developing the correlations, different results are obtained. The following
conclusions can be drawn from figure (2.29).
The curves are categorised into two groups. The first group consists of
two curves, the Abass-Bass Curve and Guo-Lee curve. As can be seen, there
is a significant difference between these two curves and the other

55
correlations. Particularly, the value of the critical coning rate for the curves
increases dramatically as the fractional well penetration increases till it
reaches a maximum critical coning rate. It may be explained by stating that
the limited wellbore penetration moves from zero well penetration to most
oil dominant zone. This pseak value occurs at fractional well penetration of
50% and 33% for the Guo-Lee and the Abass curves, respectively. Afterward,
it starts to decline until it reaches zero at fully well penetration. Even
though the behaviour is qualitatively smaller, the Guo-Lee rates are a good
deal higher than the Abass-Bass rates.
The second group consists of all curves except the Abass-Bass and the
Guo-Lee Curves. In this group, generally, the curves begin with zero rate for
full penetration and then as the fractional well penetration approaches zero
the value of the critical coning rate increases. For instance, the outcome
provided by the Hoyland et al procedure rises dramatically as the curve
approaches low penetration. The reason is that this estimation follows the
Muskat-Wyckoff theory in which the cone shape effect on oil potential
distribution was not considered (Hoyland et al, 1989). In contrast, the
Meyer-Garder formula provides the lowest result for the fractional well
penetration of less than 42%. Therefore, the Hoyland et al and the Meyer
curves can be defined as the upper limit and the lower limit respectively.
Evidently, the results of the Wheatley, Azar Nejad-Tortike and Hoyland et
al’s equations are slightly different. To be more precise, the Wheatley and
Azar Nejad-Tortike procedures are almost the same. One of the main

56
advantages of these studies is that unlike most of the former correlations
the cone shape effect on oil potential distribution was considered.
Apart from the equation developed by Joshi for Chaperon’s theory, it is
desirable to make a comparison between Chaperon’s original method and
the other methods. Since Chaperon developed her theory for only low
penetration case, her result will be compared against the other methods,
provided that the well is perforated at the top of the oil zone. Chaperon’s
equation provides higher results compared to the other methods. For
instance, the Chaperon method gives the critical value of 26% higher than
the most reliable equations such as the Wheatley and Azar Nejad Tortike
procedures.
Table 2.9 A Comparison between different correlations and Chaperon’s method
Ciucci(simultaneous)
Azar Nejad-Tortike
Hoyland et al(1)
Hoyland et al(2)
Meyer-Garder
Correlation
Abass-Bass
Chaperon
Wheatley
Chierici-
Guo-Lee
rate(STB/day)
25
41
80
45
40
25
54
0
0
Critical

57
80
Chaperon
70
Critical Oil flowrate (STB/day)
Hoyland (procedure)
60 Wheatley
50 Guo
40
Azar Nejad
30
Hoyland (Simulation)
20
Meyer & Garder
10
Abass & Bass
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dimensionless fractional well penetration
Figure 2.29 A schematic comparison between correlations developed to calculate the critical coning rate for vertical oil well

3 Chapter Three: Coning at Horizontal oil wells
3.1. Coning behaviour at horizontal wells
Unlike the vertical wells where the upward movement of the water
creates a cone shape, the rising water at horizontal wells forms a crest which
is called the water crest (Fig 3.1). There are some advantages in drilling
horizontal wells over the conventional vertical wells. Firstly, the pressure
drawdown is concentrated in the vicinity of the vertical wells whereas in the
case of a horizontal well it is distributed over the drainage volume of the
horizontal well. Therefore, the pressure drawdown for a horizontal well may
be much smaller than that for a vertical well (Pinczewski, 2003). Secondly,
the value of the critical coning rate for a horizontal well is more than two or
three times that of the critical coning rate estimated for a vertical well at
the same cone height (Karcher and Giger, 1986). Finally, in terms of sweep
efficiency, a horizontal well is more effective because the oil volume
invaded by the water to create a crest below a horizontal well is
considerably greater than the oil volume swept to form a cone below a
vertical well (Karcher and Giger, 1986). Consequently, a higher ultimate oil
recovery is expected from a horizontal well rather than a vertical well.

58
Figure 3.1 A draw of water cresting below a horizontal well
3.2. Correlations used to calculate the critical coning rate in
horizontal oil wells
3.2.1. Chaperon’s approach
Chaperon (1986) developed an analytical correlation which was the first
study dealing with the critical coning rate in horizontal wells. The author
provided a simple estimation of the critical coning rate at steady state
condition for both isotropic and anisotropic formations. For simplicity, the
well was assumed to be near the top of the reservoir to decrease the chance
of the water coning.
Creation of a stable crest depends on a balance existing between the
viscous forces and the gravity forces (point A on the interface is away from
the wellbore and point S is on the apex of the crest, figure (3.2)). An

59
equation for the flow potential was derived based on Houpeurt’s formula and
was expressed as shown in equation (3.1) (Darcy’s unit).
Figure 3.2 Immobile water crest below a horizontal well.
qµ o πx πz (3.1)
ϕ ( x, z ) = Log (ch − cos )
2πLk h h
Equation (3.1) above was developed based on the assumptions that the
flow pattern would be radial around the wellbore, and also that it might
approach linear flow properties as the distance from the well increases.
After equating the viscous forces and gravity forces, an implicit equation was
yielded to calculate the cone height as a function of XA, which is the location
of constant pressure boundary where the interface level is zero (equation
3.2).
(3.2)
πZ s πX A
1 − cos ch +1
Z h log( h
1− s = )
h πZ s πZ s
2π sin 1 − cos
h h

60
Chaperon came up with the following equation by equating the viscous
potential difference to the gravity potential difference.
Lkh ∗ X
q oc = 4.886 × 10 −4 ∆ρqlc ( A ) (3.3)
Bo µ o h
Where
πZ sc (3.4)
2(1 − cos )
∗ h
qlc =
πZ sc
sin
h
qoc:STB/day, h: ft, L: horizontal well length(ft),∆ρ:g/cm3 ,
XA: location of the constant pressure boundary or abscissa where the
interface level is about zero for steady state conditions (ft)
Zs: The distance between the cone apex and the well (ft), i.e. cone height is
(h-Zs)
Anisotropic formation:
Apart from the end sides of the well, the flow was considered two
dimensional in x-z planes; therefore, only x and z coordinates have to be
changed in conversion from isotropic to anisotropic. For this reason, the
conversion equation can be expressed as:
∂2 p ∂2 p ∂2 p ∂2 p (3.5)
kx + k = k ′( + )
∂x 2 ∂z 2 ∂x ′ 2 ∂z ′ 2
z
In such cases, the critical coning rate for anisotropic formations is defined as
follows:
k h k v 12 ∗ (3.6)
q oc = 4.886 × 10 L∆ρh ( ) qlc
−4
µ kh
61
In order to use equation (3.6) and (3.3), one has to estimate the value of Zs
from figure (3.3) at given value of (XA/h). Once Zs is determined, q*lc as well
as qoc can be calculated.
As shown in figure (3.3), as XA/h increases the distance between the cone
apex and wellbore decreases. In other words, the system allows the water
crest to rise to a higher level for larger outer boundary radius while the
water crest remains stable. Consequently, the well can produce clean oil at
higher rate when horizontal well drainage increases.
Joshi (1991)(cited in Ahmed, 2000) derived an equation to estimate q*lc
under steady state or pseudo steady-state conditions for an anisotropic
formation (Ahmed, 2000) and proposed equation (3.7).
L (h − (h − Db )) 2 ∗ (3.7)
q oc = 7.827 × 10 −6 ( )∆ρk h q lc
D µ o Bo
Where
q ∗lc = 3.9624955 + 0.0616438( X D ) − 0.000504( X D ) 2 (3.8)
D kv (3.9)
XD =
h kh
Where D and Db represent the distance between two horizontal wells and the
distance between WOC and the horizontal well, respectively. According to
the data shown in table 3.1, the value of the critical cone rate calculated by
Chaperon’s method is slightly more than 138 STB/day compared to value of
241 STB/day provided by Joshi’s extension.

62
Table 3.1 Typical data for chaperon’s method

Parameter h L Kv Kh ∆ρ µ D Db
Value 70 1500 10 100 0.3 1 2000 70
Units ft Ft Md md g/cm3 Cp Ft Ft
160
140
120
100
XA/h
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Zs(Distance between cone apex and well(ft))
Figure 3.3 A relation between XA and Distance between cone apex and well
3.2.2. The Giger Approach
Giger (1989) presented an analytical, two-dimensional method to
determine the deformed WOC shape and the value of the critical coning rate
at three different mechanisms. (i) lateral edge drive. (ii) gas cap- drive, and
(iii) bottom water drive. He considered the following assumptions.
Fluid displacement is assumed to be piston-type

63
Capillary effects are negligible
In this study because of focusing on water coning, only the bottom water
drive mechanism is presented.
Bottom Water Drive
In this case, the lateral sides and the top of the reservoir are
impervious and the aquifer is active. The boundary condition used to solve
the problem is the Neumann condition, provided that there is no flow at the
top as well as the lateral sides of the reservoir.
Giger obtained the shape of the water crest for the distance far from
the well as a branch of Dupuit parabola with the following equation.
c + ln 2 2 c + ln 2 π 2 (3.10)
2
y ( ) − xπ ( )− = c2
h h 12
Where c is a positive parameter and x and y is the abscissa and ordinate of a
moving point describing the boundary of the water crest and h is the
distance between top of the water crest and the top of the reservoir. Also
the volumetric rate of oil production from the well per unit length is:
πk∆ρg h (3.11)
q=
µ o c + ln 2
By combing the equations (3.10) and (3.11) and considering a rough
evaluation, equation (3.12) can be obtained. As shown in equation 3.12,

64
there is a relationship between the oil flow rate and the water crest shape
below a horizontal well. The shape of the WOC has been plotted in figure
(3.4) for different values of the parameter c where xD=x/h and yD=y/h. c is a
positive parameter relating to the largest angle made by the WOC with the
horizontal axis. Giger concluded that an equation for the critical coning rate
can be obtained by calculating q, oil flow rate, from equation (3.12) for c=0.
The author reached to equation (3.13) by substituting c=0 in equation (3.12);
equation (3.14) is another form of equation (3.13) which can be used to
estimate the critical coning rate (see reference for derivation).
k H ∆ρg 2 k H ∆ρg 1 (3.12)

c 2 = π 2 〈( y ) − x− 〉
µo q µo q 12
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
-5
-10
-15
YD
c=0
c=1 -20
C=2
C=10
C=100 XD
-25
Figure 3.4 Non-dimensional WOC curves.

65
(3.13)
3 k h ∆ρgL 16 H 2
qoc = D( 1 + − 1)
2 µo 3 D2
(3.14)
9.498 × 10 −7 k h ∆ρh 2 L
q oc =
16 H 2
µ o DBo ( 1 + + 1)
3 D2
Where
H: Vertical distance of WOC at lateral boundaries from top of the horizontal
well (ft).
D: Lateral dimension of reservoir block or spacing between horizontal wells
(ft).
L: Horizontal Well length (ft).
q oc : Critical coning rate (STB/day).
As noted earlier, this equation has been developed, provided that the
water crest is located below the horizontal well. It has to be noted that H
decreases as time goes on meaning that the critical coning rate decreases
over time. For data shown in table 3.2, the critical coning rate is 27
STB/day.
Table 3.2 An example data for Giger’s theory (Bottom Water drive mechanism)
Parameter H L Kv Kh ∆ρ µ D

66
Value 70 1500 10 100 0.3 1 2000
Units Ft Ft Md md g/cm3 Cp Ft
3.2.3. Joshi’s Method
Joshi (1988) suggested that the Meyer-Garder equation could be used
for calculating the critical coning flow rate for horizontal wells, provided
that the horizontal well effective wellbore radius is used instead of the
vertical well radius. For this purpose, he calculated the effective wellbore
radius by equation (3.15).(I have edited the formula with a bigger bracket)
reh ( L / 2) (3.15)
rwe =
{ }
b 1 + 1 − ( L / 2b) 2 {h / 2rw }
h/L
Where b is half the major axis of drainage ellipse for a horizontal well and
can be determined by the following equation.(the eq 3.16 was edited )
L ⎧1 1 1 ⎫ (3.16)
b= ⎨ + + ⎬
2 ⎩2 4 (0.5L / reh ) ⎭
Substituting the horizontal-well effective wellbore radius in the Meyer-
Garder equation yields
ρw − ρo kh (3.17)
q oc = 2.46 × 10 −5 (h 2 − (h − lV ) 2 )
ln(reh / rwe ) µ o Bo
Where
L: Horizontal well length (ft)
reh : Horizontal well drainage radius (ft)
lV: Distance between WOC and horizontal well (ft)
qoc: Critical coning rate (STB/day)
h: Reservoir thickness (ft)

67
kh: Horizontal permeability (md)
Table 3.3 An Example data for Joshi’s correlation

Parameter H L Kv Kh ∆ρ µ D Reh
Value 70 1500 10 100 0.3 1 2000 2431
Units ft Ft Md md g/cm3 Cp ft Ft
Figure 3.5 Schematics of a horizontal well drainage volume

68
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
The distance between WOC and Horizontal well(ft)
Figure 3.6 The critical coning rate against the distance between horizontal well and
WOC
As shown in figure (3.6), the critical coning rate increases as the distance
between the horizontal well and WOC increases. Also, the Joshi equation
indicates that the value of the critical coning rate is zero when a horizontal
well is drilled at WOC. Joshi’s result can be compared against the Chaperon
and the Giger Methods, provided that the distance between the horizontal
well and WOC is assigned to reservoir thickness which is 70 ft for the
example shown in table 3.3. As figure 3.6 shows, the value of the critical
coning rate determined by Joshi’s equation is about 107 STB/day.
3.2.4. The Yang-Wattenbarger Correlation for Horizontal wells

69
Yang and Wattenbarger (1991) presented a correlation to determine the
critical coning rate which is based on Addington’s theory (1981) for gas-
coning. In fact, Addington observed that the plot of GOR against the average
oil column height above the perforation is a straight line after gas
breakthrough on a semi-log scale graph. Based on this, he conducted an
extensive sensitivity analysis for parameters to determine the slope and the
intercept of the straight line for various fluid and reservoir properties. Their
correlation can be used to predict the GOR and critical coning rate. Weiping
and Wattenbarger followed the same procedure as Addington did. However,
instead of gas coning they developed an equation for calculating the critical
coning rate in water coning.
Theory and approach to the problem
In order to develop the correlation, it was assumed that the oil phase
was displaced as a piston-like displacement. As a result, the water-oil front
line contact can be imagined. The height of the oil column, which is the
distance between the current water-oil contact and the bottom of the
perforation, was defined as the average oil column height below
perforation, hbp. This parameter was calculated by applying a material
balance as shown later. As depicted in figure (3.7), three regions play a
major rule in this derivation, the aquifer, the region invaded by water and
the oil column located between initial WOC and current WOC. It was
assumed that in the aquifer the oil saturation was zero. In addition, they
assumed oil saturation to be residual in the invaded region. With this in
mind, the oil material balance may be written as,

70
ht s 0 = (ht − h) × 0.0 + (h − hav )(1 − s wc ) + hav s or (3.18)
Where hav is defined as a roughly estimation for the height of water invaded
zone. Multiplying both sides by the cross sectional area, A, and porosity
gives:
ht Aφs 0 = Aφ (h − hav )(1 − s wc ) + hav s or Aφ (3.19)
The left hand site, which is the oil left in the reservoir, can be expressed as
the original oil in place minus the cumulative oil production, NP.
ht Aφs o = ( N i − N p ) B (3.20)
Substituting this equation into equation (3.19) gives
( N i − N p ) B = (h − hav ) Aφ (1 − s wc ) + hav Aφs or (3.21)
hav is determined from the above equation.
NpB (3.22)
hav =
Aφ (1 − s wc − s or )
And the average oil column height below perforation can be determined by
the following equation (see figure 3.7).
hbp = h − hav − hap (3.23)
As production increases, hbp decreases until the water breaks into the
wellbore. At this stage the average oil column height below perforation is
defined as the breakthrough height and donated by hwb. After simulating one
well for different properties, it was found that the plot of WOR plus a
constant value, c, against hbp is a straight line on a semi-log scale after
water breaks into the well. This point can be expressed mathematically as
follows:
WOR = 0 hbp > hwb
Log (WOR + c) = m(hbp − hwb ) + log(c)

71
hbp<=hwb (3.24)
Once the value of m, hwb and c is determined the whole coning behaviour can
be predicted. Thus, in order to determine the parameters described in
equation 3.24, firstly, a large number of simulation runs is made to
investigate the cone performance at different reservoir and fluid properties
and then for each run, the WOR and c are plotted against hbp on semi-log
scale from which m and hbp are determined. When hwb and m are obtained
for all cases, a regression analysis is applied to find a relationship between
the oil reservoir and the fluid properties.
In order to investigate the water coning performance, the following
assumptions are made during simulation.
1. A 2-D x-z numerical model is used.
2. No flow across the boundary.
3. Formation is underlain by a recharged bottom aquifer.
3. Reservoir is homogeneous but anisotropic.
4. No gas cap is in the reservoir.
5. Capillary pressure is neglected.
6. The horizontal well is considered to be long and fully penetrated so that a
2D x-z geometry can be used.
After applying the sensitivity analysis, it was discovered that the best
way to present the WOR against the average oil column height below
perforation (hbp) could be achieved when the value of c was 0.25.

72
WOR = 0 hbp > hwb
Log (WOR + 0.25) = m(hbp − hwb ) + log(0.25) hbp ≤ hwb (3.25)
As expected, as the production rate and the fluid viscosity increase
the breakthrough height, hwb increases meaning that the water is produced
earlier. However, hwb is limited by the natural constraint.
hwb ≤ h − hap (3.26)
Therefore:
h − hap
≥1 (3.27)
hwb
Finally, the following correlations are developed.
h − hap 1 0.65 1 1
[ ] 2 = 1 + 4.7921 × 10 − 4 D 0.32 ( ) ( )( ) (3.28)
hwb XD q cD 1 + M 0.4
D 0.18 1 0.4 1 0.5

m = 0.004[1 + 2.7496 ( ) ( ) (1 + M 0.25 )(1 − λ ) 0.3 ] (3.29)
h XD qD
D kv
xD = (3.30)
h kh
qt µ o
q cD = (3.31)
k v k h k ro Lh∆γ
hap
λ= (3.32)
h
µ o k rw
M = (3.33)
µ w k ro
The value of the Critical coning flow rate is determined by applying equation
(3.28) for given hwb, this equation can be rewritten as follows:
2
−4 1 0.65 1 hbp
q cD = 4.7921 × 10 D 0.32
( ) (3.34)
XD 1 + M 0 .4 ( h − hap ) 2 − hbp
2

73
k v k h k ro Lh∆ρ
q oc = q cD (3.35)
µ o Bo
Where
q oc = Critical coning flow rate (STB/day)
M= Water oil mobility ratio
L: Horizontal well length (ft)
kro: Oil relative permeability at connate water ( Swc).
D: Drainage width, ft
Figure 3.7 A very simple sketch of y-z profile for a horizontal well
After Weiping and Wattenbarger a few researchers applied this
theory to evaluate the water and gas coning. Since there is no analytical
insight in developing the correlations they have obtained different
equations having different coefficients. As a result, their equations
provide different outcomes. For instance, Recham and Touami (2000)
conducted a reservoir simulation study on Hassi R’mel field in Algeria and
developed the following correlations:

74
−3 1 1 (hbp − 1) 2
q cD = 1.17 × 10 ( X D ) 0.61
( )( ) 2.77
1 + M 4.45 hap (h − hap ) 2 − (hbp − 1) 2

1− ( )
h
(3.36)
Lh k v k h ( ρ w − ρ o ) (3.37)
q oc = q cD
325.86 µ o Bo
The critical coning rate against the average oil column height below
perforation, hbp is plotted in figure (3.8). As can been seen, the value of
the critical coning rate decreases with decreasing hbp, that is, as time
goes on the water-oil front line approaches the well beneath. Therefore,
in order to continue clean oil production, the well should flow at a lower
rate.
Table 3.4 An sample data for the Weiping-Wattenbarger correlation

Parameter H L Kv Kh ∆ρ µ D hap
Value 70 1500 10 100 0.3 1 2000 1
Unit Ft ft md Md g/cm3 Cp Ft ft

75
5000
4500
4000
Criticali Oil Rate(STB/day)
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Average oil column height below perforation,hbp(ft)
Figure 3.8 The Yang-Wattenbarger correlation
80
70
60
Rechem & Touami
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Average Oil Column Height Below Perforation(ft)
Figure 3.9 The Rechem-Touami Correlation

76
In order to compare the critical coning rate for horizontal and vertical
wells, the horizontal well is assumed to be located at the top of the oil
column. For this reason, the parameter hap is given as 1ft. Figures (3.8)
and (3.9) show a typical comparison between the Yang-Wattenbarger and
the Rechem-Touami method. As shown, both graphs start with a high
value of critical coning rate. They decline sharply as the water-oil
interface moves upward for about 5 ft from initial WOC. However, there
is a dramatic difference between them. For instance, the value of the
critical coning rate for the Rechem-Touami equation is almost 72 STB/day
compared to 4500 STB/day given by the Yang-Wattenbarger correlation.
This difference cannot be justified because Yang-Wattenbarger’s rate is
extremely greater than The Rechem result. Meanwhile, because of
applying regression analysis, an error has presumably occurred in the
equation development. It is remarkable to note that Pietraru and
Cosentino (1993) reached to a similar result.
3.3 Comparison
Table (3.5) shows the value of the critical coning rate obtained from
different studies. In order to discover the most suitable approach for,
understanding the assumptions and basic concepts used in these methods are
inevitable. Thus, the above studies can be classified in two major groups, the
equations developed through the analytical derivations and those obtained by

77
outcome of the numerical reservoir simulation. First group consists of the
following methods.
- The Chaperon correlation
- The Joshi modification for Chaperon method
- The Giger approach
- The Joshi approximation
The equations categorized in second group are following:
-The Yang-Wattenbarger et al correlation
- The Rechem-Touami method
Table 3.5 The Critical coning rates obtained by different approaches

Joshi’s ( Chaperon)
Rechem-Touami
Critical coning Correlation
Chaperon
Giger
Joshi
rate(STB/day)
26.9
138
241
107
72
Firstly, it is evident that the value given by the Yang-Wattenbarger equation
and the Joshi extension are highly optimistic. As noted earlier, Chaperon
solved the problem by determining the oil potential. In fact, in her solution

78
because of existence of immobile water in the water crest, the flow
restriction was neglected. This may lead to optimistic evaluation of critical
cone rate. Consequently the critical coning rate is expected to be less than
138 STB/day. Giger stated that the equation derived had to be applied for
around the wellbore. As shown in equation (3.14), the drainage width
parameter is located in denominator; therefore, the Giger correlation may
not be reliable for wells having high drainage width. For this reason, the
critical coning rate value provided by Giger’s theory is too low (27 STB/day)
which is the lowest value among the results obtained. The critical coning
rate value related to Joshi’s equation is 107 STB/day which can be
reasonable since it is lower than that of Chaperon’s result.
The developments of the second group equations are based on the
different assumptions. They assumed that there was no flow across the
boundary (Sealed boundary). Also according to their results, the critical
coning rate decreases with time which is meaningful for a closed boundary
system. Furthermore, unlike the first group, these approaches can be used
only for the finite reservoirs rather than infinite acting reservoir. In this
study the Rechem et al formula provides 72 STB/day which is acceptable.
Since the data given is the same for vertical and horizontal well, the
result can be compared against each other. For example, for the data
provided in this study the maximum critical coning rate calculated by most
reliable study for vertical well is 52 STB/day. This value for horizontal well
can be between 72 and 130 STB/day. As a result, the horizontal well

79
technology improves the value of the critical coning rate. Also, in horizontal
wells the water has less tendency to move toward wellbore.

80
4 Chapter Four: Summary
4.1 Summary and Conclusion for Correlations Presented for
Vertical wells
Briefly, several critical coning methods were described in details and
criticised. As explained earlier, the obtained results were different because
the equations have been developed based on different assumptions and
logic. This study mainly focused on water coning except few correlations
which were presented for simultaneous coning of water and gas. Briefly,
Wheatley (1985) and Azar Nejad and Tortike (1995) presented their methods
based on almost similar concepts which were to solve the oil potential
distribution in reservoir. They also considered the cone shape effect on oil
potential distribution. In conclusion, their theories are recommended for
calculation of the critical coning rate.
4.2 Summary and conclusion for correlations presented for
horizontal wells
Correlations for horizontal wells assume that the well is placed at the
tope of the reservoir. Similar to correlations developed for vertical wells,
some methods were presented for horizontal wells. Due to limited number of
correlations, only water coning was focused at this study for horizontal
wells. In other words, simultaneous coning of water and gas was not taken

81
into consideration. Summing up, The Joshi (1988) and the Rechem-Touami
(2000) correlations provide more reliable results than other correlations
considered. However, the Rechem-Touami equation has the advantage that
well performance after breakthrough may also be predicted. Summing up,
the outcome of comparison between both types of wells shows that
horizontal wells generally allow higher critical coning rates than vertical
wells.
4.3. Further studies
In this study I mainly focused on a part of coning problem called Critical
Coning Rate. As this study shows, the value of the critical coning rate is low
and uneconomic according to the current oil demand in the world.
Therefore, most oil wells flow at a rate higher than critical coning rate
subsequently it causes water production. For this reason, flowing a well at a
rate somewhat around the critical coning rate may not be an applicable
solution. Therefore, further investigations on well performance after water
breakthrough should be sought. Also, developing methods by which the water
production can be decreased are highly recommended.

82
5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
REFERENCES
Abass, H. H. and D. M. Bass (1988). "The Critical Production Rate in Water-

Coning System." SPE 17311.
Addington, D. V. (1981). "An Approach to Gas Coning Correlations for a Large

Grid Cell Simulator." Society of Petroleum Engineering of AIME 2267(74).
Ahmed, T. H. (2000). Reservoir Engineering Handbook. Houston, Tex, Gulf

Pub. Co. pp 570-622.
Azar Nejad, F. and W. S. Tortike (1995). A General Analytical Solution to

Simultaneous Coning in Oil and Gas Coning, CIM, 95-31, CIM.
Azar Nejad, F., W. S. Tortike, et al. (1996). "Potential Distribution Around

Sources With Finite Length (Horizontal and Vertical Partially Penetrating
Wells and Fractures) Part(I): Steady State Fluid Flow." SPE 35270.
Azar Nejad, F., W. S. Tortike, et al. (1996). Potential Distribution Around

Sources With Finite Length(Horizontal and Vertical Partially Penetrating
Wells and Fractures. Paper SPE 35269 to be presented at Mid-Continent Gas
Symposium. Amarillo.
Bournazel, C. and B. Jeanson (1971). "Fast Water Coning Evaluation Method."
Chaperon, I. (1986). Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and

Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations: Suncritical and Critical Rates. Paper
SPE 15377 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. New Oreleans LA.
Chierici, G. L. and G. M. Ciucci (1964). "A Systematic Study of Gas and Water
Coning By Potentiometric Model." JPT: 923-929.
Giger, F. M. (1989). Analytic Two Dimensional Models of Water Cresting

Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 15378, SPE 61 th Annual
Fall Meeting. New Orleans, LA.

83
Guo, B. and R. L. H. Lee (1993). "A Simple Approach to Optimization of

Completion Interval in Oil/Water Coning System." SPE.
Hoyland, L. A., P. Papatzacos, et al. (1989). "Critical Rate for Water Coning:
Correlation and Analytical Solution."
Inikori, S. O. (2002). Numerical Study of Water Coning Control With

Downhole Water Sink(DWS) Well Completions in Vertical and Horizontal
Wells. The Department of Petroleum Engineering, Louisiana State University.
Doctor of Philosophy: 238.
Joshi, S. D. (1988). "Augmentation of Well Productivity With Slant and

Horizontal Wells." JPT.
Karcher, J. P. and F. M. Giger (1986). "Some Practical Formula to Predict

Horizontal Well Behavior." SPE 15430.
Kuo, M. C. T. and C. L. DesBrisay (1983). A Simplisit Method For Water coning

Predictions. Paper SPE 12067 Presented at the Annual Technical Conference.
San Francisco, CA, SPE.
Madelung, E. (1918). "Das Electrishe Feld in Sytemen von Regelmassig

Angeordneten Punktlaungen." Physik 525.
Meyer, H. I. and A. O. Garder (1954). "Mechanics of Two Immiscible Fluids in

Porous Media." Journal of Applied Physics 25(11).
Muskat, M. (1932). "Potential Distribution in Large Cylindrical Disks With

Partially Penetrating Electrodes." Physics 2.
Muskat, M. (1982). The Flow of Homegenous Fluids Through Porous Media.

Boston MA, Human Resources Development Corp.
Muskat, M. and R. D. Wyckoff (1935). "An Approximate Theory of Water

Coning in Oil Production." Trans., AIME 114: 144-61.
Ozkan, E. and R. Raghavan (1990). "A Breakthrough Time Correlation for

Coning Toward Horizontal wells." SPE paper 20964.

84
Permadi, P. (1996). "Fast Horizontal-Well Coning Evaluation Method." SPE

37032.
Pietraru, V. and L. Consentino (1993). "A New Analytical Approach To Water

and Gas Coning For Vertical and Horizontal Wells." Revue De L & APOS;
Institut Francais DU Petrole 48: 513-601.
Pinczewski, V. (2003). "Resevoir Engineering A (class note)."
Pinczewski, V. (2003). "Resevoir Engineering B (class notes)."
Recham, R. and M. Touami (2000). Effect of Water Coning on Performance of

Vertical and Horizontal Wells- A Reservoir Simulation Study of Hassi R'mel
Field Algeria. CIM international conference for Horizontal wells. Calgary,
Alberta.
Sobocinski, D. P. and A. J. Cornelius (1965). "A Correlation for Predicting

Water Coning Time." JPT: 594-600.
Wagenhofer, T. and D. G. Hatzignatiou (1996). "Optimization of Horizontal

Well Placement." SPE 35714.
Wheatley, M. J. (1985). "An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water Coning."

SPE14210.
Yang, W. and R. A. Wa77ttenbarger (1991). "Water Coning Calculation for

Vertical and Horizontal Wells." SPE 22931.

85
6 APPENDICES
Appendix A
Analysis of Stable Cones Created By a Vertical Well
In this analysis the well penetration is considered to be low so that it is
assumed to act as a point source.
a. Isotropic formation
The flow potential corresponding to hemispherical flow induced by a
point source located at the origin of a semi-infinite porous medium and
limited by a no flow plane at z=0 is:
Qµ − 1 (A.1)
Ω( M ) = ( )
2Πk r
where r is the distance between the well point and any point M. However, in
the case of limited oil column of thickness, the no-flow boundary (z=h) may
be accounted for by the method of images. The image well locations are
zn=+-2nh,xn=0 (see Figure A.1.1).As a result , the viscous flow potential
toward a point well located at the bottom of the oil layer is ф which is
summation of all ψ’s obtained by the infinite series of images wells. It
applies close the wellbore, where the flow is hemispherical, and far from the
well where the flow system is radial. A point, A is considered far from a well
on gas-oil interface with coordinates of (rA,h), and S the apex of a gas cone
in equilibrium with coordinates(o,zs) above a vertical well producing at rate
Q,the potential difference may be expressed as follows:

86
Qµ +∞ 1 1 (A-2)
Φ A − ΦS = ∑ | − 2
2Πk −∞ | z S + 2nk | (rA + ( z S + 2nh) 2 )1 / 2
|
Equation (A-2) does converge rapidly because each term is equivalent to
1/(2n)2.However, in the case of practical it was calculated for 20 images.
Potential of gravity forces may be expressed as:
Φ A − Φ S = ∆ρg (h − z S ) (A-3)
and meeting equilibrium condition, that is, (A-2)=(A-3)
Thus flow rate corresponding to cone evaluation Zs can be determined by
equation (A-4).
1 k z (A-4)
Q= (∆ρgh)2Π (1 − S )
∑µ h
Where
Qµ +∞ 1 1
Σ= ∑ | − 2
2Πk −∞ | z S + 2nk | (rA + ( z S + 2nh) 2 )1 / 2
| (A-5)
Dimensionless rate, q● is defined:
zS` (A-6)
q ∗ = 2Π (1 −
) /(Σh)
h
The amount of q* can be determined by reading of the figure A.1 where
dimensionless critical coning rate has been plotted against dimensionless
cone height at different value of a. “a “ can determined by following
equation.
1
rA k v 2 (A-7)
a=( )( )
h kh

87
1
a=(rA/h)(vertical perm/hor
perm)^(1/2)
0.9
a=6.8
Dimensionless critical flow rate
0.8 a=9.42
a=30
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
dimensionless cone height(fraction)

Figure A.1.Dimensionless critical rate versus dimensionless cone height at different
value of "a"
Numerical values for critical values can be calculated by using equation (A-7)
kh (A-7)
qc = 4.886 × 10 − 4 (∆ρh)q ∗
Bo µ
With the following units:
qc:STB/day,k:md,h:ft,Bo:RB/STB,µ:cp,∆ρ:g/cm3
b.Anisotropic formation
in the case of anisotropy, if x,y,z are the principles axes of permeability,
as flow takes place in all three dimensions, the following variables should be
used:
a=kh/kv=kx/kz=ky/kz (A-9)
k”=(kxkykz)1/3=kxa-1/3=kha-1/3 (A-10)
x”=x(k”/kx)1/2=a-1/6 (A-11)

88
y”=y(k”/ky)1/2=ya-1/6 (A-12)
z”=z(k”/kz)1/2=za1/3 (A-13)
(∆ρg)”=( ∆ρg)(z/z˝)∆ρga-1/3 (A-14)
equations (A-10) to (A-13) allow the diffusivity equation to be identical to
the isotropic case, and equation(A-14) is necessary for gravity forces to
remain unchanged. With these changes Q is invariant. Equation (A-8) may be
written for anisotropic as follows:
Q = 4.886 × 10 −4 (k " h " )(∆ρgh) " q ∗ c (rA / h " )

" (A-15)
k "h" = k h h
(∆ρgh) " = ∆ρgh
rA / h " = (rA / h)(k v / k h )1 / 2

"
so the general equation for critical coning rate in reservoir conditions may be
expressed:
kh h r k
Qc = 4.886 × 10 − 4 ( )(∆ρh)q ∗c (( A )( v )1/ 2 )
µBo h kh
With the following units:
qc:STB/day,k:md,h:ft,Bo:RB/STB,µ:cp,∆ρ:g/cm3

89
Appendix B:
Abass’s method to calculate critical flow rate for Vertical oil

wells
B.1: Flow equation and boundary equations
The average pressure within the nearest cell to the wellbore can be
calculated as a volume average:
r1
∫ PdVP
P1 =
rW (B-1)
r1
rW
∫ dVP
and dvp=2∏r∆zфdr, equation (B-1) can be expressed as:
r1 r1
∫ P2Πr∆zΦdr ∫ Pr dr
P= =
rW rW
r1 r1
∫ 2Πr∆zΦdr
rw
∫ 2rdr
rw
r1
2 ∫ Pr dr
P1 =
rw
(B-2)
r1 − r w
2 2
●Pseudo State Boundary Conditions
Under pseudo state condition , the flow equation for a constant rate at the
wellbore is written as:
Qo µ o B o r r2 (B-3)
P = Pw + (ln( ) − 2 )
7.082k h ∆z rw 2re
Substituting equation (B-3) into equation (B-2) gives:

90
2 1 r
Qo µ o
r
1
r r2 (B-4)
2 ∫ w
7.082k h ∆z r∫w rw 2re 2
P= 2 ( P rdr + (ln + )rdr )
r1 − rw rw
and doing the intergration of all the terms involved, one gets
Q µ B r r r +r
2
1
2 2 (B-5)
P1 = Pw + o o o ( 2 1 2 ln 1 − 1 2 w − )
7.082k h Z r1 − rw rw 4re 2
●Steady state boundary conditions
The flow equation at steady state condition with constant rate can be
expressed as:
Qo µ o B o r (B-6)
P = Pw + ln
7.082k h z rw
Substituting equation (B-6) into equation (B-2) gives
2 1 r
Qµ B r (B-7)
2 ∫ w
P1 = 2 ( P rdr + o o o ln )
r1 − rw rw 7.082k h z rw
and integrating equation (B-7) gives:
Qµ B r r 1
2 (B-8)
P1 = Pw + o o o ( 2 1 2 ln 1 − )
7.082k h z r1 − rw rw 2

91
B.2. The calculation of critical coning rate
As derived in Appendix B.1, the pressure drawdown between wellbore and
the nearest cell for unsteady state is:
Q µ B r r r +r 1
2 2 2 (B.2-1)
P1 − Pw = o o o ( 2 1 2 ln 1 − 1 2 w − )
7.082k h Z r1 − rw rw 4re 2
and for steady state is :
Qµ B r r 1
2 (B.2-2)
P1 − Pw = o o o ( 2 1 2 ln 1 − )
7.082k h z r1 − rw rw 2
Gravity forces which are result of density difference between oil and gas
can be expressed mathematically:
∆P = ( ρ w − ρ o ) ghwc (B.2-3)
Theoretically, water breakthrough occurs when the pressure drop
caused the viscous forces exceeds the gravitational forces, so to achieve
maximum viscous force which can be offset by gravity force, these two
forces have to equal, therefore after equaling (B.2-2) and (B.2-3) and
determining for flow rate , the equation for critical coning rate at unsteady
state condition may be written:
2Π k h g∆ρxh(h − N − hx) (B.2-3)

Qc =
r +r
2 2 2
r1 r1 1
µBo ( ln( ) − 1 2w − )
r1 − rw
2 2
rw 4re 2
●Steady state Flow Condition
Similarly, by combining equations (B.2-2) and (B.2-3) result in:
2Π k h zg∆ρhwc (B.2-4)
Qc = 2
r1 r1 1
µ o Bo ( ln − )
r1 − rw
2 2
rw 2
92
since the maximum value for hwc is ho-N-z ,thus replacing hwc with its value
the equation (B.2-4) may be written:
2Πk h g∆ρxh(h − N − hx) (B.2-5)

Qc = 2
1 r1 r1
µBo (− + ln( ))
r1 − rw
2 2
2 rw

93
Appendix C:
(Wheatley’s Method)
Governing equation and boundary condition:
The problem is formulated in cylindrical co-ordinates (r*, z*). For
convenience, dimensionless coordinates (r, z) are used throughout the
appendix.
kv r * (C-1)
r=
kh h
Where
z* (C-2)
z=
h
It is convenient to introduce the fluid potential, φ which is related to the
pressure in the oil phase, Po, through the equations.
ϕ = Po (r , z ) − Po (re ,1) + ρ o gh(1 − z ) (C-3)
Where the potential is assumed to be zero at the point (re,1). Laplace’s
equation at steady-state condition in the cylindrical system is
∂ 2ϕ 1 ∂ϕ ∂ 2ϕ (C-4)
+ + =0
∂r 2 r ∂r ∂z 2
There must be no flow across the upper impermeable boundary. Thus
∂ϕ / ∂z = 0, z = 0 (C-5)
There must also be no radial flow below the well at r=0, that is,
∂ϕ (C-6)
= 0, r = 0, z > X
∂r

94
Over the surface of the well the potential should be constant
ϕ = const , r = rw , Z ≤ X (C-7)
It is also assumed that the influx of oil at the drainage radius is uniform, i.e.
ϕ = 0@ r = re (C-8)
Capillary pressure is assumed to be zero so that the pressures in two phases
are equal on the WOC. Since the water in cone is static, the drop in pressure
at the deformed WOC must be exactly balanced by the hydrostatic head
above the original WOC. Hence on the WOC
Po = Pw = Pw (re ,1) − ρ w gh(1 − z ) (C-9)
Substituting (C-9) into (C-3) makes a condition on WOC. Thus,
ϕ = −∆ρgh(1 − z ) (C-10)
The stream function can be related to potential function by assuming that
there is no flow across the WOC as it was defined in (C-10).
∂ψ ∂ϕ
=r
∂z ∂r
∂ψ ∂ϕ (C-11)
= −r
∂r ∂z
The condition of no flow boundary across the WOC is equivalent to requiring
the WOC to be a Streamline. Therefore, on the WOC
ψ = const (C-12)
Equations (C-10) and (C-11) represent the boundary condition at the WOC.

95
Figure C-1 an illustration of water coning at the Wheatley method

96
Appendix D:
Azar-Nejad et al Method
Cone height and Production Rate
The schematic drawing of reservoir geometry has presented in figure
(D.1). All parameters are made dimensionless with respect to 2ht, where ht is
the reservoir thickness.
a = 2ht (D.1)
Dimensionless potential is given by:
2πka (D.2)
ϕD = ∆ϕ
QBµ
Where
ϕ = P − γgZ (D.3)
Dimensionless time;
kt (D.4)
tD =
µφct a 2
X
x=
a (D.5)
Y
y=
a (D.6)
Z
w= (D.7)
a
Zp (D.8)
c=
a

97
Dimensionless potential is defined as:
2πka (D.9)
ϕD = ( P − γgz )
Qµ
For constant potential outer boundary the potential drop can be written as:
2πka (D.10)
ϕ D′ = ( P − γ O gz − Pt )
Qµ
Where Pt is the pressure at top of the outer boundary. Potential at the top of
the well bore is:
2πka (D.11)
′ =
ϕ DW ( Pw − γ O gZ W − Pt )
Qµ
Dimensionless potential drop at the WOC may be written as:
2πka (D.12)
ϕ D′ ( ρ , z ) = ( P( ρ , z ) − γ O gz − Pt )
Qµ
Where PW is the wellbore pressure at the top of the wellbore, and P(ρ,z) is
the pressure on the cone at horizontal distance ρ from the well and vertical
distance z from top of the reservoir.
ρ = ( x 2 + y 2 )1 / 2 (D.13)
Pressure on the WOC can be written as:
P ( ρ , z ) = Pb − γ W g (t − z ) (D.14)
Static equilibrium states that the pressure on the initial WOC remains
constant. Thus,
Pb = Pbi = Pt + γ o gt (D.15)
Substituting equation (D.14) and (D.15) into Equation (D.12):

98
2πka (D.16)
ϕ D′ ( ρ , w) = (− ∆γg (t − z ))
Qµ
The potential drop between a point on the WOC and the wellbore is:
∆ϕ D′ = ϕ D′ ( ρ , z ) − ϕ DW
′ (D.17)
And the pressure drop between the top of the wellbore and top of the outer
reservoir boundary is:
∆P = Pw − γ o gZ w − Pt (D.18)
Thus;
2πka (D.19)
∆ϕ D′ = (∆P − ∆γg (t − z )
Qµ
Dimensionless potential drop between the wellbore and the outer reservoir
boundary is:
2πka (D.20)
′ =
∆ϕ De (∆P)
Qµ
Where
∆ϕ De′ = ϕ De
′ − ϕ DW
′ (D.20)
ϕ De
′ =0
(D.21)
Dividing equation (D.19) by (D.20) and using dimensionless cone height;
hc = (t − z ) / a (D.22)
Qµ (D.23)
hc = (ϕ D ( ρ , z ) − ϕ De )
2πka 2 ∆γg
Now by substitution the value for a and considering anisotropic reservoir with
oil formation volume factor of B, one can write:

99
Qµ
hc = (ϕ D ( ρ , z ) − ϕ De ) 2
k
8π h t 2 ∆γg (D.24)
kv
Rearranging the equation D.24 with respect to flow rate, gives,
2
k
q oc = 8π∆ρg h t 2 (ϕ D ( ρ , z ) − ϕ De )
µk v

Whole 12345 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Whole 12345 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A REVIEW OF CRITICAL CONING RATE CORRELATIONS

AND IDENTIFYING THE MOST RELIABLE EQUATION

Submitted to the School of Petroleum Engineering of

In Partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering

Ali Khalili July 2005

Ali Khalili July 2005

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Prof. W. Val Pinczewski, for his

guidance and support during this study.

I also wish to extend my special thanks to Petroleum University of

Technology (PUT) which provided financial support for this study.

Ali Khalili July 2005

The study of coning in oil production is important because of huge

Ali Khalili July 2005

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ..........................................................II

1 Chapter One: Introduction ............................... 1

2 Chapter Two: Critical coning rate at vertical oil wells8

Ali Khalili July 2005

2.2. Simultaneous coning of gas and water................................... 38

3 Chapter Three: Coning at Horizontal oil wells ....... 57

4 Chapter Four: Summary ................................. 80

Ali Khalili July 2005

Ali Khalili July 2005

Figure 1.1 A Schematic of a reservoir at static conditions .......................3

Ali Khalili July 2005

Figure 2.17 A comparison between different studies to determine the critical

Ali Khalili July 2005

A=Well space (ft2)

a = Normalizing factor (=2h)

Bo= Oil Formation Volume Factor (bbl/STB)

bopt = Dimensionless optimum well bore location

Db = Distance between WOC and horizontal well (ft)

h = Reservoir thickness (ft)

hc = Cone Height (ft)

h p = Perforated interval (ft)

Ko= Bessel Function of the order zero

K= Reservoir Permeability (md)

Ko= Reservoir Permeability related to oil (md)

Kw= Reservoir Permeability related to water (md)

Kro= Oil Relative Permeability (Dimensionless)

Krw= Water Relative Permeability (Dimensionless)

L= Horizontal well length (ft)

Lp= Length of perforation (ft)

N p = Cumulative oil production (STB)

Ali Khalili July 2005

Po = Oil Pressure (psi)

Pw = Water Pressure (psi)

q o = Oil flow rate (STB/day)

q oc = Critical Coning rate (STB/day)

q cD = Dimensionless critical coning flow rate

q och = Critical Coning rate for horizontal well (STB/day)

q ocv = Critical Coning rate for vertical well (STB/day)

rw = Well radius (ft)

rwe = Effective well radius (ft)

re = Drainage radius (ft)

rDe = Dimensionless drainage radius

S o = Average oil saturation

S wc = Connate Water Saturation

S or = Residual oil saturation

x a = Drainage width (ft)

X D = Dimensionless Drainage Width

µ o = Oil viscosity (cp)

µ g = Gas viscosity (cp)