SPE 167511

Breakthrough Time Correlations for Coning in Bottom Water Supported

Reservoirs
Amarfio Eric Mensah, African University of Science and Technology, and Igbokoyi A.O, SPE
Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, July 30th – August 1st 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

This paper investigates the development and behaviour of cones (both water and gas cones) in oil reservoirs
supported by strong aquifer, and from which analytical correlations are developed for quick engineering estimates
of the time for water/gas cones to break into the perforations of the producing wells. The studies treated the cone
development and breakthrough times in both horizontal and vertical well producing reservoirs and made analysis
on them. The Ozkan and Raghavan (1990) method was employed as the base approach in the modeling of the
cones in both horizontal and vertical well. The developed models were then run on field data, the results were
graphically represented in both the horizontal and vertical well cases. Analytical correlations were then developed
from the results obtained for the breakthrough time estimations, which are simpler, compared to literature (Ozkan
et al correlations, 1990) but give close results on same example case. This work actually employs the
dimensionless (or the normalized approach) system to curtail the units complexities and represent the results in a
more generalized form. These analytical correlations can be leveraged on to plan better future recompletion
strategy as they provide an engineering estimate of when water breaks into the production wells.

INTRODUCTION

Coning is the mechanism describing the movement of water/gas into the perforations of producing wells. For water
coning the movement is upwards for the case of bottom water and sidewards for edge water, but it is downwards
for gas coning. The production of water from oil wells is a common occurrence which increases the cost of
production and also undercuts the efficiency of the depletion drive mechanism and consequently, the recovery of
reserves. The objective of this work is to model the behaviour of this coning (mainly water coning, from bottom
water) and then use it to evaluate the time, known as breakthrough time. This is the time it will take a cone to
break into the producing well in a reservoir of well-defined boundary conditions. The coning of water into
production wells is caused by two main forces; pressure gradient and gravitational force. Pressure gradient is
established around the wellbore by the production of fluids from the well and actually raises the water-oil contact
near the well where the gradients are dominant. The gravity force arises from the fluid density differences and
counterbalances the flowing pressure gradients to keep the water out of the oil zone. Therefore, there is a balance
between the gravitational and the viscous forces at any given time at any point on and away from the completion
interval. The interplay of these forces results in the following types of cone formations: stable cone, unstable cone
and critical production rate.
Stable cone: this occurs, when the pressure gradient is at a steady state condition, rate is constant and the viscous
forces at well are less than the gravity forces

Unstable cone: this occurs on the other hand, if the pressure in the system is in an unsteady-state condition. Then
the cone that will be formed is unstable and it will continue to advance until the steady-state condition takes over.
The critical production rate is the rate or the pressure gradient beyond and above which the flowing pressure
gradient at the well causes water (or gas) to cone into the well. It is therefore, the maximum rate of oil production
without water production.
2 SPE 167511

Model Formulation
We used the Ozkan and Raghavan (1990) potential flow models and assumptions, as well as the Chaperon
(1986) equilibrium conditions, as our potential flow framework definition for this study. The reason being that, their
potential flow models developed for both horizontal and vertical well reservois are simple, generic and captures
most of the parameters we our study intends to bring out I our formulations.
We devised the following methodological steps which do not only work for this particular study, but any other
study to develop coning correlations can apply them as long as the potential flow equation is right at hand.
Correlations for the breakthrough time of water coning was developed by applying the following five step
 Development of the solution of the fluid velocity potential at the oil- water interface
 Finding the differential of the developed flow potential with respect to zD..
 Development of the flow rate and cone height relation
 Estimation of the breakthrough times with incorporating step 3.
 Developments of correlations for the breakthrough time using Microsoft excel non-linear regression
analysis technique, for the breakthrough time-flow rates plot and breakthrough time-cone heights plot.

The reservoir model under this study is governed by steady-state condition with the following equation;
∆ ∆
0 (1)

Here:
∆ Where is the initial oil pressure.
= oil, o or water, w
And
 (2)
The flow equation governing the movement of the water cone in the oil is given by subtracting the water flow
equation from the oil flow equation shown as follows;

∆
∆
∆
∆
0 (3)
Therefore the dimensionless form of the resulting flow equation becomes;

0 (4)

All other terms are systematically defined in Ozkan and Raghavan (1990) work1.

Equilibrium condition
In a coning prone reservoir, both static and dynamic equilibrium can be clearly observed, as shown in figure 6 and
7. For instance, if we consider a point A, away on the original water-oil interface with coordinates (re, h), and B on
the apex of the water cone in equilibrium with the coordinate (0, ) below an horizontal or vertical well producing
at a rate, the static equilibrium condition may be expressed in terms of the flow potential difference and the
gravitational force difference established. This is given as;

Φ Φ Δ (5)

And for dynamic equilibrium, the following expression holds;

SPE 167511 3

Δ Φ Φ (6)

Chaperon showed that the maximum and the critical rate correspond to the equal sign of the equation above 2.
We applied the equilibrium condition theory in this work to develop the flow rate- cone height relations to enable
the breakthrough time estimations in both horizontal and vertical wells.

The breakthrough time is evaluated by;

⁄
(7)

According to Ozkan (1990), the general point source solution from which both horizontal and vertical interfacial
velocity potential have been developed is obtained as:
∑ , , (8)
2 1 ⁄2

, ,
, , , (10)
,

HORIZONTAL WELL
The Horizontal well solution component is given as;

⁄
0, ⁄
(11)

Where
,
∑ (12)
,
, ,
(13)
,
∑ (14)
,

Differentiating velocity flow potential with respect to ZD gives;

1 (15)

Where;
 ⁄4 (16)
 ⁄4 (17)

∑ cosϵ z sinϵ z K ϵ ,L (18)

,
∑ (19)

,

Developing the flow rate cone height relation

Φ Φ Δ (Recall equation 5)

In dimensionless form;
Φ Φ 1 (If the well location is at the top or h ft from the bottom) (20)

Φ Φ (For any arbitrary well location) (21)

4 SPE 167511

By applying equation (21), Φ becomes;

⁄
Φ ⁄
(22)

(23)
⁄ ⁄

⁄ ⁄

Estimation of breakthrough time

The estimation of the breakthrough time is done numerically, using Matlab program with equation (7) as the base
formula.
 ⁄
(Recall eq. (7))

The breakthrough times are computed from the following equation;


(24)

VERTICAL WELL
The vertical well component of the interfacial velocity is given as;

.
⁄
 ⁄
(25)

Where
,
 ∑ (26)
,

Differentiating the velocity potential with respect to

1 (27)

Where

 {Γ Γ [Γ )Γ ψ

Γ )Γ ψ ]-

Γ Γ Γ ψ Γ Γ ψ ]} (28)

.
 1⁄ 1⁄ (29a)
And
,
 ∑ 1 (29b)

,
SPE 167511 5

Flow rate cone height relation

The production rate-cone height relation is developed here using the same principles as that of the horizontal well

⁄
 Φ ⁄
(30)

⁄
 Φ ⁄
(31)

 Φ Φ

⁄ ⁄
 ⁄ ⁄
(32)

3 1 3 1
1 Γ Γ Γ Γ
4 4 4 4
3 1 3 1
Γ Γ Γ Γ
4 4 4 4

⁄ ⁄
 ⁄ ⁄
(33)

 (34)
,
 ∑ (35)
,
If we neglect second and the third terms in the numerator of the above equation then:

 (36)

The breakthrough time can be estimated as;

This is done by substituting equation 27 into equation 7, which becomes;
 (37)

.

Field Applications

Two literature examples and two field cases were considered to test the Ozkan model. Case 1 and Joshi case is for both
horizontal and vertical wells. The results of the Ozkan case is shown in figure 1 for a horizontal well, while figures 3 and 4
show the cone behaviour in a vertical well.

Example Case 1 (Ozkan). Field Case

6 SPE 167511

Initial oil zone thickness, h, =42 Initial oil zone thickness, h, =56
Oil density, ,gcc= 0.861 Oil density, ,gcc= 0.86
Formation volume factor, =1.102 Formation volume factor, =1.12
Oil viscosity, 1.44 Oil viscosity, 2.78
Horizontal permeability, , =37 Horizontal permeability, , =2000
Vertical permeability, , 3.7 Vertical permeability, , 1400
Well bore radius, , 0.29 Well bore radius, , 0.29
Drainage radius, , 1053 Drainage radius, , 785
Porosity, 0.164 Porosity, 0.164
Residual oil saturation, 0.337 Residual oil saturation, 0.337
Connate water saturation, =0.288 Connate water saturation, =0.288
Horizontal well length, = 660 Horizontal well length, =1365
Vertical well perforated interval, = 24

Joshi Example case

Initial oil zone thickness, h, =160
Oil density, ,gcc= 0.86
Formation volume factor, =1.1
Oil viscosity, 1.3
Horizontal permeability, , =200
Vertical permeability, , 20
Well bore radius, , 0.27
Drainage radius, , 1500
Porosity, 0.165
Residual oil saturation, 0.337
Connate water saturation, =0.288
Horizontal well length, =1000

Figures 2 and 7, show the results of horizontal well cases from Joshi (1991) and Ozkan (1990), and a field case
example.
The fourth example considered is for a horizontal well in the Niger Delta. The predicted cone behaviour with
Ozkan’s (1990) model is shown in Figures 7. The well has produced for about 1800 days and still producing
between 4000 – 5000 bopd without water.

DEVELOPED BREAKTHROUGH TIME CORRELATIONS

We used Microsoft excel non-linear regression analysis technique (other techniques could applied at stage cull
out the correlations) in developing the following correlations.

Horizontal wells:
For the results in figure 7 for horizontal well, the breakthrough time equation can be approximated for =1 and
for 0.1 as;
.
 (38)
SPE 167511 7

For figure 1 of the horizontal well, the breakthrough time in terms of dimensionless cone height can be
approximated as following for = 1;

 2.4347 0.3955 2.0209 (39)

Vertical wells:
For vertical well, we computed the following equation from the results in figure 4 as; for 0.01 5

.
 (40)
For figure 3 and for 0 1 the breakthrough time is given as;

.
 4.4936 (41)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Comparisons of results with literature
In order to justify and test the efficiency of our developed correlation, it is better to apply them to the same field
examples that were used by the Ozkan and Raghavan on the same level. At the rate of 1000 stb/d given under
the Ozkan example case the following results were obtained using the derived breakthrough time equations
against Ozkan and Raghavan work (1990). From the tables of result that we have given below, it is seen that our
correlations almost give the same results as that of the literature work of Ozkan and Raghavan, except for the
horizontal well where they vary slightly because of the different methodological approach used in this study.

Table1. HORIZONTAL WELL RESULTS COMPARISON WITH LITERATURE

HORIZONTAL WELL
Derived correlation LITERATURE(Ozkan)
1.25
2
tbD 0.036928 0.03
Tb(days) 57.7319 46.9

Table2. VERTICAL WELL RESULTS COMPARISON WITH LITERATURE

VERTICAL WELL
Derived correlation LITERATURE(Ozkan)
0.2538 1
3.94
tbD 0.007498 0.007498
Tb(days) 11.722 11.722
8 SPE 167511

CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that water coning is an unavoidable phenomenon in an aquifer supported reservoirs as many
studies have shown 4, 5, and 6. Its development in producing reservoirs greatly affects the productivity of wells, and
eventually results in their shut-in after breakthrough. In conclusion;
• Water coning behaviour in both horizontal and vertical wells were modelled
Simplified, analytical correlations were derived for the breakthrough time conditions in this study which can be
used for quick
• Estimation of breakthrough times of wells before any detailed simulation undertaken.
• Although, many cutting edge technologies, such as horizontal well technology and down- hole water sink
(DWS) are employed, they do not eliminate completely the possibility of producing water or gas.
• The horizontal wells shown from this studies, gave a higher breakthrough time than observed in vertical
wells.
• Our experience during this study shows that Ozkan model produced a better result close to the actual
value.

NOMENCLATURE

b = penetration ratio
BO = Oil formation volume factor. Rb/stb y = distance in the y-direction, ft [m]
f = microscopic displacement efficiency, fraction z = distance in the z-direction, ft [m]
g = gravitational constant, 32.17 ft/s2 [9.81m/ s2] ∆ = difference operator
h = height of the oil zone, ft [m] = oil viscosity, cp [pa.s]
kr = horizontal permeability, md [m2] = oil density, g/cc [kg/m3]
kz = vertical permeability, md [m2] = water density, g/cc [kg/ m3]
L = horizontal well length, ft [m] Φ = velocity potential of oil, psi [pa]
P = pressure, psi [pa] = interfacial velocity potential, d-1[s-1]
Pi = initial pressure, psi [pa]
q = production rate, stb/d [stm3/s]
r = radial distance, ft [m] SUBSCRIPTS
Sor = residual oil saturation, fraction b = breakthrough
Swc = connate water saturation, fraction D = dimensionless
t = time, d [s] e = external boundary
x = distance in the x-direction, ft [m] = oil or water
w = wellbore

REFERENCES
1. Ozkan, E., and Raghavan, R. “Performance Horizontal Wells Subject to Bottom Water Drive”. SPE 18545, Proceedings of
the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, Nov. 2–4, 1988.
2. Chaperon, I. “Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations”: Subcritical
and Critical Rates. SPE 15377, Proceedings of the SPE 61st ATCE, New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5–8, 1986.

3. Bournazel, C., and Jeanson, B. “Fast Water Coning Evaluation Method”. SPE 3628, Proceedings of the SPE 46th ATCE,
New Orleans, Oct. 3–6, 1971.
Chaney, P. E. et al. “How to Perforate Your Well to Prevent Water and Gas Coning”. OGJ, May 1956, p. 108.

4. Chierici, G. L. et al. “A Systematic Study of Gas and Water Coning by Potentiometric Models”. JPT, Aug. 1964.

5. Papatzacos, P. et al. “Cone Breakthrough Time for Horizontal Wells”. SPE 19822,

6. Sobocinski, D. P. and Cornelius, A. J. “A Correlation for Predicting Water Coning Time”. JPT. Vo. 17, No. 5, May, 1965.

7. Joshi D. Sada. “Horizontal well Technology”. PennWell Book Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma 1991.
APPENDIX

3 3
Dimensionless breakthrough time

Dimensionless breakthrough time
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dimensionless cone height Dimensionless cone height

zwD=1 zwD=0.75 zwD=0.5 b=0.4 b=0.3

Figure1 Dimensionless breakthrough time vs. Figure 3, Dimensionless breakthrough time vs.
dimensionless cone height (horizontal wells. Only dimensionless cone height (Ozkan example case only,
Ozkan field example applied). vertical wells).

3 3
Dimensionless breakthrough time

Dimensionless breakthrough time

2.5
2 2
1.5
1 1
0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 1 2 3 4
Dimensionless cone height Dimensionless rate
ozkan example case
Field case b=0.4 b=0.35 b=0.3
Joshi

Figure4. Dimensionless breakthrough time vs.

Figure 2, Dimensionless cone height vs. dimensionless
dimensionless rate (vertical wells).
breakthrough time (horizontal well).
 10 SPE 167511

ZS

ZS
ZC

ZC

Figure 7, Schematic of water coning in horizontal well

Figure 6, Schematic of water coning in vertical wells

2500

2000
Breakthroughtime in day

1500

1000

500

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Oil flow rate in stb/d

Figure 8. Horizontal well field example

Figure 6, and 7 shows a schematic of a producing vertical

and horizontal wells with the advancement of the
developed cones toward them. Point A and B indicate the
flow potential region.