SPE 113106
Optimization of Completion Interval to Minimize Water Coning
M. Tabatabaei, SPE, A. Ghalambor, SPE, B. Guo, SPE, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Europec/EAGE Annual
Conference and Exhibition held in Rome, Italy, 9–12 June 2008.
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
Horizontal wells have been found not ideal in many cases
for solving water coning problems due to premature water
breakthrough. This promoted a revisiting of the
optimization of completion interval of vertical wells in
bottom water-drive oil reservoirs. This paper presents a
new approach to determining the optimum wellbore
penetration for achieving the maximum water-free
production rate of vertical well.
After reviewing the mechanism of water coning and the
deluge of extremely sophisticated mathematical models in
the literature, a simple analytical model has been derived
in this study for completion engineers to optimize their
water coning wells. The new model estimates the
maximum water-free production rate (critical rate)
considering the effect of limited wellbore penetration on
the oil productivity of the well. To maximize the critical
rate, an optimum wellbore penetration into an oil zone has
been determined theoretically. This analytical model
shows that the optimum wellbore penetration into the pay
zone is less than half the total oil zone thickness,
depending on the radius of wellbore, radius of drainage
area, and pay zone thickness. Finally, this paper provides
a tool in form of a set of curves which can be used for
determining the optimum completion interval to make this
approach easy to use for practice.
Introduction
Water coning is a phenomenon that occurs in producing
wells which partially penetrate the pay zone in reservoir
with bottom water. When the well is producing, water-oil
contact rises toward wellbore in a cone shape. This
phenomenon occurs when the vertical component of the
viscous force exceed the net gravity force. By increasing
the production rate, the cone height increases until a
certain production rate. Prior to that production rate, the
water cone is stable with its apex at a distance below the
bottom of the well. But a production rate greater than this
certain rate will cause cone instability and water
breakthrough. This limiting rate (the maximum water free
production rate) is called the critical rate.
Water coning phenomenon has been investigated by many
investigators. So far many methods have been developed
for predicting some aspect of the coning problem such as
critical rate, water breakthrough time and water-oil ratio
(WOR) after water breakthrough.
Critical rate is probably the topic which has been
discussed the most. Since the first paper published by
Muskat and Wyckoff in 1935 [1], a number of models
have been developed for predicting this parameter.
Generally, these models can be divided into two
categories.
The first category determines critical rate analytically
based on the equilibrium conditions of viscous forces and
gravity forces. It started by developing an oil potential
function and then solved for the critical rate by equating
these two types of force. However, the methods of
calculating oil potential are various. For example, Muskat
and Wyckoff solved a Laplace equation for single phase
flow, while Chaney et al. [2] and Chierici et al. [3] used
potentiometric models. Wheatly’s method [4] also fall
into this category, but he took into account the influence
of cone shape on the oil potential, which others had not
done before. Meyer and Garder [5] proposed an
approximate equation that assumes radial flow and
developed a simple model for predicting the critical rate.
In their study critical rate was defined as the production
rate at which the stable cone reaches the well bottom.
Abbas and Bass [6] derived an analytical solution to
calculate the critical rate for steady state and pseudo
steady state flow conditions in a 2D radial flow system
using an average pressure concept. Although their 2D
radial flow assumption and average pressure concept may
not be suitable for water coning systems, they were the
first investigators to account for the effect of limited
wellbore penetration on the critical rate. Guo and Lee [7]
also took into account the effect of limited wellbore
penetration on the oil productivity in their model which
was based on a radial/spherical/combined 3D flow field
assumption in reservoirs with low conductivity.
The second category is empirical models. Schols [8]
developed a model from his lab experiment, while
Hoyland et al. [8] developed their model based on a large
2 SPE 113106
number of simulation runs with a general numerical
reservoir model.
In this study, an analytical model is presented to calculate
the critical flow rate and the optimum completion interval
for a well that partially completed from the top of the
reservoir. Since water coning mostly occurs in reservoirs
with high conductivity, this work has studied water
coning in this situation based on a
radial/spherical/combined (RSC) 3D flow field
assumption and the effect of limited wellbore penetration
on the oil productivity has been taken into account.
Consequently, this study indicates that maximum critical
rate does not occur at zero wellbore penetration but at a
wellbore penetration or completion interval of about half
of the pay zone thickness, depending on the radius of
wellbore, radius of drainage area, and pay zone thickness.
Physics of Water Coning
Since steady state flow prevails during most of the
production life of an oil well, the water coning problem is
considered under this condition in this study. In a steady
state condition, a constant production rate causes a
constant pressure drawdown at every point within the
constant potential boundaries, which results in a stable
potential distribution in the near wellbore region. When
flow rate and pressure at the outer boundary are fixed, the
spatial distribution of pressure in the reservoir is a
function of conductivity, defined as the permeability of
reservoir rock divided by the flowing fluid viscosity in the
reservoir.
In water coning system, the upward dynamic force
resulting from wellbore drawdown causes water at the
bottom of the oil zone to rise to a height where the
dynamic force is balanced by the weight of water beneath
this point. As the radial distance from the wellbore
increase, pressure drawdown and upward dynamic force
caused by it decrease and the balance point height
decreases along the radial direction. Therefore, the
balance point locus is a stable cone shaped water/oil
interface. Oil flows above the interface, while water
remains stationary below the interface. As the production
rate increases, the height of the cone above the original
WOC also increases until, at a certain production rate, the
cone becomes unstable and water is produced into the
well. The water cone becomes unstable at a certain point
because the upward dynamic force caused by wellbore
drawdown near the wellbore is so high that it can no
longer be balanced by the weight of water below that
point. In other words, the dynamic pressure gradient
everywhere above the critical point (beneath the wellbore)
is greater than the hydrostatic pressure gradient of water.
Therefore, the water in the cone above this critical point
cannot remain stationary and flows upward to search for
another balance until water breakthrough occurs. This
phenomenon usually occurs when rock conductivity is so
low that wellbore pressure can fall below the system
hydrostatic water pressure before water breakthrough
occurs. In this case, that called as high pressure gradient
case, the oil pressure gradient curve can intersect the
water pressure gradient line at two points. The height of
the lower intersection point is the height of the stable
water cone. As the production rate increases, the oil
pressure drawdown increase everywhere in the oil zone;
therefore, the lower intersection point shifts upward and
the upper intersection point shifts downward until they
meet at one point. The height of this point is the
maximum height of the stable water cone. Because the oil
pressure gradient everywhere above this point is greater
than hydrostatic water pressure gradient, the water cone
above this point is unstable. The production rate at which
the maximum stable water cone occurs is the maximum
water-free or critical rate. Fig. 1 illustrates water coning
case in a high pressure gradient case. Line A-B represents
the pressure distribution in the oil zone when the flow rate
is zero (stationary oil pressure), and line B-C represents
the pressure distribution in the water cone (stationary
water pressure). When flow rate is increased from zero,
the oil pressure distribution curve corresponding to the
flow rate shifts to the left.
Fig. 1: High pressure gradient case, unstable cone exists
(qc = q3 > q2 > q1)
In some cases where the conductivity of the reservoir is
high enough, low pressure gradient is expected. As flow
rate increases, the stable water cone can grow to the
bottom of the wellbore. In this situation the unstable cone
and the associated critical rate can not be observed.
For the low pressure gradient case, the flow resistance of
rock to flowing oil is low enough that the wellbore
pressure can not fall below the system hydrostatic water
pressure before water breakthrough occurs. Therefore, the
oil pressure gradient curve intersects the water pressure
gradient line at only one point. The height of the
intersection point is the height of the stable water cone if
capillary pressure is assumed to be negligible. When the
wellbore pressure falls to the system hydrostatic water
pressure owing to increased flow rate, the stable cone
touches the wellbore bottom. In this case, the unstable
water cone does not occur and the critical rate defined by
formation of an unstable cone does not exist. Fig. 2
illustrates this case.
Therefore in low pressure gradient case, the critical rate is
defined as the maximum allowable production rate of oil
without entry of the water cone into the wellbore. In other
word, the critical rate can be determined when the water
SPE 113106 3

cone touches the bottom of the well. This critical rate is a rate when cone touches the bottom of the well. Eq. 1 can
function of completion interval which can be optimized to be used to determine the critical rate:
achieve maximum water-free production rate.
7.08 × 10−3 kh Δγ ( h − L − rw )
qc =
⎛1 1⎞
μ⎜ − ⎟
⎝ rw re ⎠
⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
⎢ L⎜ − ⎟⎥
h−L ⎝ rw re ⎠ ⎥
×⎢ + (1)
⎢ r 2 + (h − L) 2 r ⎥
⎢ e ln e ⎥
rw
⎣⎢ ⎥⎦
Eventually, the optimum completion interval can be
calculated by maximizing the critical rate with respect to
Fig. 2: Low pressure gradient case, no unstable cone exist fractional wellbore penetration ( x ) defined as the ratio of
(qc = q3 > q2 > q1) completion length to thickness of pay zone. Eq. 2 can be
solved to find xopt :
The Mathematical Model for Critical Rate and
Optimum Completion Interval
Since water coning mostly is a headache in reservoirs ⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
with high conductivity, the mathematical model ⎢ hxopt ⎜ − ⎟ ⎥
⎢ h(1− xopt ) ⎝ rw re ⎠ ⎥ −
developed in this study is based on the definition of +
critical rate for low pressure gradient cases. In addiction, ⎢ r 2 + h2 (1− x )2 r ⎥
⎢ e opt ln e ⎥
most of the previous studies [5, 6] used this definition to rw
calculate the critical rate.
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
(2)
To come up with a model for critical rate and optimum ⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
completion interval, pressure distribution in the system ⎢ ⎜ − ⎟⎥
−re2
+ ⎝ w e ⎠⎥ = 0
r r
should be determined. According to Wheatley’s work, the ( h(1− xopt ) − rw ) ⎢⎢ 3
r ⎥
equipotential surface beneath the well is approximately
hemispherical. Therefore, the 3D flow field in partially
( 2 2
⎢ re + h (1− xopt )
2
) 2 ln e ⎥
rw ⎥
penetrated system can be approximated by an RSC 3D ⎣⎢ ⎦
flow field (Fig. 3). The RSC 3D flow field is defined so Appendix A and B gives detailed derivation of these
that a radial flow regime dominates the penetrated pay equations. In addition, several sets of numerical solution
zone interval and a spherical flow regime dominates the for Eq. 2 are provided in the form of graphes in appendix
non-penetrated interval. In other words, the RSC 3D flow C for the convenience of field application.
field is a combination of a uniform line-sink radial flow at
the upper part and a point-sink semispherical flow field at Comparison and Discussion
the lower part. The total flow rate from the well is the Figure 4 shows the critical flow rate calculated by this
sum of flow rate from both flow regimes. The relationship model and four other models versus fractional perforation
between the flow rates can be established by equating the for a sample case. All of these models used the same
pressure given by the two models at the interface of the definition for critical rate. This comparison indicates that
two regimes. Meyer and Garder’s, Schols’, Whealtley’s models predict
the maximum water free production rate at completion
interval of zero, which is physically impossible. This is
because they didn’t take into account of the effect of
limited wellbore penetration on the oil productivity of the
well. In addition, the critical rates obtained by these three
models are higher than the new model.
This comparison also indicates that the calculated critical
rates and optimum completion interval by new model are
very close to what Abbas and Bass’s model predicts.
Their model estimates the optimum completion interval is
about half of the pay zone thickness, which calculated the
optimum completion interval by this model is varying
Fig. 3: Radial/Spherical/Combined (RSC) flow field between 0.44 and 0.5 of the pay zone thickness,
depending on the radius of wellbore, drainage area and
Critical rate can be calculated by finding the total flow thickness of pay zone.
4 SPE 113106

It is believed that the result of this study is more accurate, 3. The optimum completion interval of a well that
because pure radial flow assumption and the average partially completes from the top of the reservoir
pressure concept in Abbas and Bass’s work may not be is determined by maximizing the critical rate
appropriate for partially penetrating wells. However, with respect to fractional wellbore penetration.
several limitation of this study should be noted. First, the This optimum completion interval is less than
capillary pressure effect is not considered and a sharp half the total pay zone thickness, depending on
oil/water interface is assumed to be either at the bottom of wellbore and radius, drainage area radius and
the oil/water transition zone of the water wet reservoir or pay zone thickness.
at the top of the oil/water transition zone of an oil wet
reservoir. This assumption will lead to overestimation of Nomenclature
the critical rate with our theory for a real reservoir if the C1 , C2 = parameter group 1 & 2, ft
rock is water wet. In contrast, underestimation is expected
for an oil wet rock. Although in this case due to high C3 = parameter group 3, ft-1
conductivity of reservoir this difference is insignificant, k = effective permeability, md
but in low conductivity reservoir ignoring capillary
pressure will make a significant difference. Second, the kh = horizontal permeability, md
assumption of the RSC 3D flow field may result in an kv = vertical permeability, md
overestimation of critical rate.
h = pay zone thickness, ft
L = completion length, ft
350
re = 500 ft
rw = 0.25 ft
kh = 1000 md
kv = 100 md
∆γ = 0.13 psi/ft
μ = 1 cp
p = pressure, psi
Abass' Model
h = 50 ft
300 Meyer's Model
p(rr , z ) = pressure at distance rr in vertical direction
Schols' Model

250
Whealtley's Model from wellbore in radial flow regime, psi
Present Model
p (rr ) = pressure at distance rr from wellbore in radial
200
flow regime, psi
qc (bbl/day)

150 p (rs ) = pressure at distance rs from bottom of

wellbore in spherical flow regime, psi
100
p (rz ) = pressure at distance rs in vertical direction
50 from wellbore in spherical flow regime, psi
p1 = wellbore pressure at top of pay zone, psi
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
p2 = reservoir outer boundary pressure at top of pay
x (Fractional wellbore penetration)
zone, psi
Fig. 4: Critical flow rates vs fractional penetration for pe = pressure at outer boundary of reservoir, psi
different models
pw = wellbore pressure, psi
Finally, it should be noted that result of this work is very pwo = pressure at the bottom of wellbore, psi
different from that of Guo and Lee which shows optimum
penetration about 30%, because they developed their pb = pressure at water oil contact zone, psi
model for low conductivity pay zones which require
pt = reservoir pressure at distance L from top of
different definition for critical rate. Therefore, their result
is not comparable with the result of this work. pay zone, psi
qr = oil flow rate from radial flow regime, bbl/day
Conclusions
qs = oil flow rate from spherical flow regime,
1. An analytical model has been developed to
predict the critical rate for steady state flow bbl/day
condition in an anisotropic reservoir that account qt = total flow rate, bbl/day
for the effect of limited wellbore penetration on
productivity. This solution should be applicable qc = critical rate, bbl/day
to relatively high-perm reservoirs. re = drainage radius, ft
2. The critical rate is directly proportional to rw = wellbore radius, ft
horizontal permeability and also is affected by
other properties of reservoir and well such as rr = radial distance from wellbore in radial flow
radius of drainage area, wellbore radius, regime, ft
completion length, pay zone thickness and rs = radial distance from bottom of wellbore in
pressure gradient difference between oil and
water. spherical flow regime, ft
SPE 113106 5

rz = radial distance in vertical direction from
bottom of wellbore in spherical regime, ft
vr = radial flow velocity in radial flow regime,
ft/sec
vs = radial flow velocity in spherical flow regime,
ft/sec
x = fractional wellbore penetration, dimensionless
xopt = optimum fractional wellbore penetration or
optimum completion interval, dimensionless
z = vertical distance from top of wellbore, ft
θ = streamline azimuth angle, radian
ψ = angle between vertical direction and streamline
in spherical flow regime, radian
ψ0 = maximum value of ψ that covers the critical
water cone below wellbore, radian
μ = oil viscosity, cp
γ = pressure gradient, psi/ft
6. Abbas, H.H and Bass, B.: “The Critical Production
Rate in Water Coning system”, SPE paper 17311
presented at the 1988 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, March 10-11
7. Guo, B and Lee, R.L-H.: “A Simple Approach to
Optimization of Completion Interval in Oil/Water
Coning System”, SPERE (Nov. 1993) 249-255
8. Schols, R.S.: “An Empirical Formula for the Critical
Oil Production Rate”, Erdoel Erdgas Z. (Jan. 1972) 88,
N0. 1, 6.
9. Hoyland, L.A., Papatzacos, P., and Skjaeveland, S.M.:
“Critical Rate for Water Coning: Correlation and
Analytical Solution”, SPERE (Nov. 1989) 495
Appendix A – Perssure Distribiution in RSC Flow
Filed
Since steady state flow is assumed, the Laplace equation
represents the governing equation of mass flow. To solve
for Laplace equation in this system, following
assumptions have been made:

γo = oil pressure gradient, psi/ft 1- Reservoir is homoginous

2- Wellbore is vertical and partially penetrates the
γw = water pressure gradient, psi/ft reservoir from its top
Δγ = pressure gradient difference between oil and 3- Capliary pressure is neglected
4- Near wellbore formation damage is neglected
water, psi/ft 5- 3D flow field has been approximated by a RSC
Φ = potential function, md/psi-cp filed flow
Φ (rr ) = potential at distance rr from wellbore in radial
flow regime, md/psi-cp Radial Flow:
The governing equation for radial flow can be written in
Φ (rs ) = potential at distance rs from bottom of
cylindrical coordinate as follow:
wellbore in spherical flow regime, md/psi-cp
Φ (rz ) = potential at distance rz in vertical direction 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂Φ ⎞ 1 ∂ 2 Φ ∂ 2 Φ
∇ 2Φ = ⎜ rr ⎟+ + = 0 (A-1)
from bottom of wellbore in spherical flow rr ∂rr ⎝ ∂rr ⎠ rr 2 ∂θ 2 ∂z 2
regime, md/psi-cp
Φe = potential at outer boundary of reservoir, Where the potential function ( Φ ) is defined as:
md/psi-cp
Φw = potential at the bottom of wellbore, md/psi-cp ⎛k⎞
Φ = ⎜ ⎟ ( p − γ z) (A-2)
⎝μ⎠
References
1. Muskat, M. and Wyckoff, R.D.: “An Approximate Due to symmetry of coning system about z-axis, Eq. A-1
Theory of Water Coning in Oil Production”, Trans., can be simplified as:
AIME (1935) 114, 144.
1 ∂ ⎛ ∂Φ ⎞
2. Chaney, P.E. Noble, M.D., Henson, W.L., and Rice, ∇ 2Φ = ⎜ rr ⎟=0 (A-3)
T.D.: “How to Perforate Your Well to Prevent Water rr ∂rr ⎝ ∂rr ⎠
and Gas Coning”, Oil & Gas J. (May 1956) 56, 108.
3. Chierici, G.L. and Ciucci, G.M.: “A Sestematic Study The general solution for Eq. A-3 is:
of Gas and Water Coning by Potentiometric Models”,
JPT (Aug. 1964) 923-29; Trans. AIME, 231. ∂Φ
rr = A ⎯⎯
→ Φ = A ln rr + B (A-4)
4. Wheatley, M.J.: “An Approximate Theory of Oil- ∂r
Water Coning”, SPE paper 14210 presented at the
1985 SPE Annual Technical Conference and A and B can be defined by applying the boundary
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25 conditions:
5. Meyer, H.I. and Garder, A.O.: “Mechanics of Two
Immiscible Fluids in Prous Media”, J. Applied Phys.
⎧⎪rr = rw ⎯⎯→ Φ = Φ w = A ln rw + B
(Nov. 1954) 25, No. 11. ⎨ (A-5)
⎪⎩rr = re ⎯⎯
→ Φ = Φ e = A ln re + B
6 SPE 113106

Φe − Φ w By substituting the pw , pressure distribution can be

A=
r defined as:
ln e
rw (A-6) μ qr r
Φ − Φw p(rr , z ) = ln r + p1 + γ o z (A-14)
B = Φw − e ln rw 2π kh L rw
re
ln
rw For oilfield unit, Eq. A-14 can be written as follow:

The radial potential distribution can be defined by 141.2μ qr rr

p(rr , z ) = ln + p1 + γ o z (A-15)
substituting A and B into Eq. A-4. kh L rw
Φ e − Φ w rr
Φ (rr ) = ln + Φ w (A-7) Spherical Flow:
re rw For spherical flow governing equation can be written in
ln
rw spherical coordinate as follow:

By substituting Eq. A-2 into Eq. A-7, pressure 1 ∂ ⎛ 2 ∂Φ ⎞ 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂Φ ⎞

distribution in radial flow regime is defined as: ∇ 2Φ = ⎜ rs ⎟+ 2 ⎜ sin θ ⎟
rs ∂rs ⎝ ∂rs ⎠ rs sin θ ∂θ ⎝
2
∂θ ⎠
pe − pw rr
p(rr ) = ln + pw (A-8)
re rw 1 ∂ 2Φ
ln + 2 2 =0 (A-16)
rw rs sin θ ∂ψ

Which pw is: Due to symmetry, the simplified form of Eq. A-16 is:

pw = p1 + γ o z 1 ∂ ⎛ 2 ∂Φ ⎞
(A-9) ∇ 2Φ = ⎜ rs ⎟=0 (A-17)
rs 2 ∂rs ⎝ ∂rs ⎠
To find the flow rate, Darcy’s law can be used as follow:
The general solution for Eq. A-17 is:
∂Φ Φ − Φw 1
vr = − =− e (A-10) ∂Φ A
∂rr r
ln e rr rs 2 = A ⎯⎯
→Φ = − + B (A-18)
rw ∂rs rs
Consequently, the radial volumetric flow rate can be By applying the boundary conditions, A and B can be
calculated. defined.

2π 2π L ( Φ e − Φ w ) ⎧ A
qradial = − ∫ vr Lrr dθ = ⎪ rs = rw ⎯⎯
→ Φ = Φ w = − +B
0 r
ln e ⎪ rw
rw ⎨ (A-19)
⎪r = r ⎯⎯ A
→ Φ = Φe = − + B
⎪⎩ s e
2π kh L ( pe − pw ) re
= (A-11)
r
μ ln e Φe − Φ w
rw A=
⎛1 1⎞
Therefore, the pressure difference between the reservoir ⎜ − ⎟
boundary and well in term of qr is: ⎝ rw re ⎠
(A-20)
Φ − Φw 1
μ qr r B = Φw + e
( pe − pw ) = ln e (A-12) ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ rw
2π kh L rw ⎜ − ⎟
⎝ rw re ⎠
Substituting Eq. A-12 into Eq. A-8, pressure distribution
And the spherical potential distribution can be defined as:
can be determined in term of qr as follow:
Φe − Φ w ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
μ qr Φ (rs ) = − + Φw
1 1 ⎜⎝ rw rs ⎟⎠
r (A-21)
p(rr ) = ln r + pw (A-13)
2π kh L rw −
rw re
SPE 113106 7

Darcy’s law can be used to define the flow rate. written as follow:
∂Φ Φ − Φw 1 141.2 μ qs ⎛1 1⎞
vs = − =− e (A-22) p (rs ) = ⎜ − ⎟ + p1 + γ o L (A-30)
∂r ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ rs 2 k cosψ 0
⎜ − ⎟ ⎝ rw rs ⎠
⎝ rw re ⎠
Therefore, spherical volumetric flow rate can be 141.2qs ⎛1 1⎞
Φ (rz ) = ⎜ − ⎟ + Φw (A-31)
calculated as follow: cosψ 0 ⎝ rw rz ⎠
π
2π
qspehrical = − ∫ ∫ψ
2
vs rs 2 sinψ dψ dθ 141.2 μ qs ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
0
p (rz ) = ⎜ − ⎟ + p1 + γ o L
0
(A-32)
kv cosψ 0 ⎝ rw rz ⎠
2π cosψ 0 ( Φ e − Φ w )
= (A-23)
⎛1 1⎞ Appendix B - Critical Flow Rate and Optimum
⎜ − ⎟ Completion Interval
⎝ rw re ⎠ Total Flow Rate:
Therefore, At the interface of the two flow regimes, Eq. A-15 and
Eq. A-32 should give the same pressure. Therefore by
qs ⎛1 1⎞ equating these two equations at any point on the interface,
Φe − Φ w = − ⎜ − ⎟ (A-24)
2π cosψ 0 ⎝ rw re ⎠ the relationship between the radial flow rate and spherical
flow rate can be defined.
Substituting Eq. A-24 into Eq. A-21, can define the p (rr , z ) radial = p (rs ) Spherical (B-1)
rr = re , z = L rs = re , k = kh
potential distribution in terms of qs .

qs ⎛1 1⎞ 141.2μ qr re
Φ (rs ) = ⎜ − ⎟ + Φw (A-25) ln + p1 + γ o L =
2π cosψ 0 ⎝ rw rs ⎠ kh L rw

The potential distribution along the vertical direction (z- 141.2 μ qs ⎛1 1⎞

⎜ − ⎟ + p1 + γ o L (B-2)
axis) beneath the wellbore can be defined as: kh cosψ 0 ⎝ rw re ⎠
qs ⎛1 1⎞
Φ (rz ) = ⎜ − ⎟ + Φw (A-26) ⎛1 1⎞
2π cosψ 0 ⎝ rw rz ⎠ L⎜ − ⎟
qr = ⎝ w e ⎠ qs
r r
(B-3)
By substituting Eq. A-2 into Eq. A-26, pressure r
distribution in spherical flow regime is defined as: cosψ 0 ln e
rw
μ qs ⎛1 1⎞ Therefore, the total flow rate can be determined just in
p (rs ) = ⎜ − ⎟ + pwo (A-27)
2π k cosψ 0 ⎝ rw rs ⎠ term of qs :

Then substituting the value of pwo , pressure distribution ⎡ ⎛1 1⎞ ⎤

⎢ L⎜ − ⎟ ⎥
= qr + qs = ⎢1 + ⎝ w e ⎠ ⎥ qs
is defined as: r r
qtotal (B-4)
⎢ re ⎥
μ qs ⎛1 1⎞ ⎢ cosψ 0 ln rw ⎥
p (rs ) = ⎜ − ⎟ + p1 + γ o L (A-28)
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
2π k cosψ 0 ⎝ rw rs ⎠

And the pressure distribution along the vertical direction Critical Flow Rate
is: Before water breakthrough occurs, water cone is in stable
condition or there is a static equilibrium in the system. Eq.
μ qs ⎛1 1⎞ B-5 indicate this condition as follow:
p (rz ) = ⎜ − ⎟ + p1 + γ o L (A-29)
2π kk cosψ 0 ⎝ rw rz ⎠ p(rz ) + γ w (h − L − rz ) = pb (B-5)

For oilfield unit, Eq. A-26, Eq. A-27 and Eq. A-29 can be By introducing the following notation for Δγ and Δp ,
Eq. B-5 can be rewritten as Eq. B-7 in term of potential.
8 SPE 113106

Δγ = γ w − γ o (B-6) Also by using Eq. B-4 total flow rate can be defined as:

⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
Δp = pt − pwo = pb − γ o (h − L) − pwo (B-7) ⎢ L⎜ − ⎟ ⎥
cosψ0Δγ ( h − L − rz ) ⎢
1+ ⎝ w e ⎠ ⎥ (B-16)
r r
qt =
kv ⎛ 1 1 1 1 ⎞ ⎢ cosψ ln re ⎥
ΔΦ (rz ) = ( Δp − Δγ (h − L − rz ) ) (B-8) ⎜ r −r r −r ⎟⎢ 0
rw ⎥⎥
μ 141.2μ ⎜ w e − w z ⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎦
⎜ kh kv ⎟
Also, Δp can be calculated as follow: ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Δp = p2 + γ o h − γ o h + γ o L − p1 − γ o L = p2 − p1 (B-9)
By substituting the value of cosψ 0 into Eq. B-16, qt
can be rewritten as Eq. B-18.
Substituting Eq. B-9 into Eq. B-8, we have:
kv
ΔΦ (rz ) = ( p2 − p1 − Δγ (h − L − rz ) ) (B-10)
cosψ 0 =
h−L
(B-17)
μ
re 2 + (h − L) 2
Also, p2 − p1 can be calculated from Eq. A-15.

141.2μ qr re Δγ ( h − L − rz )
p2 − p1 = ln (B-11) qt =
⎛ 1 1 1 1 ⎞
⎜r −r r −r
kh L rw
⎟
Eq. B-3 can be used to define p2 − p1 in term of qs 141.2 μ ⎜ w e − w z ⎟
⎜ kh kv ⎟
instead of qr , ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
141.2 μ qs ⎛1 1⎞ ⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
p2 − p1 = ⎜ − ⎟ (B-12) ⎢ L⎜ − ⎟⎥
kh cosψ 0 ⎝ rw re ⎠ h−L ⎝ rw re ⎠ ⎥
×⎢ + (B-18)
⎢ r 2 + ( h − L) 2 r ⎥
Also, from Eq. A-31 we have: ⎢ e ln e ⎥
rw
⎣⎢ ⎥⎦
141.2qs ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
ΔΦ (rz ) = Φ (rz ) − Φ w = ⎜ − ⎟ (B-13)
cosψ 0 ⎝ rw rz ⎠ According to the definition of critical rate in this study,
qc can be determined when cone touches the bottom of
By substituting Eq. B-12 into Eq. B-10 and equating this well or rz = rw ⇒ qt = qc . Therefore, by substituting rz
equation to Eq. B-13, we have:
in Eq. B-18 by rw , we have:
⎛ 1 1 1 1⎞
− − ⎡ h−L ⎤
141.2μqs ⎜ rw rz rw re ⎟ ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎜ − ⎟ +Δγ ( h − L − rz ) = 0 (B-14) 2
cosψ0 ⎜ kv kh ⎟ ⎢ re + (h − L) ⎥
⎜ ⎟ Δγ ( h − L − rw ) ⎢ ⎛ ⎞ ⎥
⎝ ⎠ qc = ⎢ L⎜ 1 − 1 ⎟ ⎥ (B-19)
⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎢ ⎥
⎜ r − r ⎟ ⎢+ ⎝ w e ⎠
r r
By solving Eq. B-14, qs can be defined as: ⎥
141.2 μ ⎜ w e ⎟ ⎢ r
ln e ⎥
⎜ kh ⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
cosψ 0 Δγ ( h − L − rz ) ⎜ ⎟
rw
qs = (B-15) ⎝ ⎠
⎛ 1 1 1 1 ⎞
⎜r −r r −r ⎟
141.2μ ⎜ w e − w z ⎟ Eq. B-19 can be rewritten as follow:
⎜ kh kv ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
SPE 113106 9

7.08 × 10−3 kh Δγ ( h − L − rw ) ∂qc

=0 (B-23)
qc =
⎛1 1⎞ ∂x
μ⎜ − ⎟
⎝ rw re ⎠ ⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
⎢ hxopt ⎜ − ⎟ ⎥
⎢ h(1− xopt ) ⎝ rw re ⎠ ⎥ −
⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤ +
⎢ L⎜ − ⎟⎥ ⎢ r 2 + h2 (1− x )2 r ⎥
h−L ⎢ e ln e ⎥
+ ⎝ w e ⎠⎥
r r opt
×⎢ (B-20) ⎣⎢
rw
⎦⎥
⎢ r 2 + ( h − L) 2 r ⎥
⎢ e ln e ⎥
⎣⎢
rw
⎦⎥ ⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤
⎢ 2 ⎜ − ⎟⎥
−
+ ⎝ w e ⎠⎥ = 0 (B-24)
r r
To keep the generality of solution, the completion interval
can be expressed in a dimensionless form called fractional
( h(1−xopt )−rw) ⎢⎢ re
3
r ⎥
wellbore penetration ( x ), which is defined as: ( 2 2
) 2
⎢ re +h (1− xopt ) 2 ln e ⎥
rw ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎦
L
x= (B-21) Eq. B-24 can be solved numerically to find optimum
h fractional wellbore penetration or optimum completion
Substituting, Eq. B-21 into Eq. B-20, general equation for interval ( xopt ). This equation can be rewritten by definig
critical rate can be defined as:
C1 , C2 , C3 as follow:
7.08 × 10−3 kh Δγ ( h(1 − x) − rw )
qc =
⎛1 1⎞ ⎧C1 = h(1 − xopt )
μ⎜ − ⎟ ⎪
⎝ rw re ⎠ ⎪C2 = re 2 + h 2 (1 − xopt ) 2
⎡ ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤ ⎪
⎢ hx ⎜ − ⎟ ⎥ ⎪⎪
h(1 − x)
+ ⎝ w e ⎠⎥ ⎨
r r (B-25)
×⎢ (B-22) ⎛ 1 1⎞
⎢ r 2 + h 2 (1 − x) 2 r ⎥ ⎪ ⎜ − ⎟
⎢ e ln e ⎥ ⎪ ⎝ rw re ⎠
⎣⎢
rw
⎦⎥ ⎪C3 = r
⎪ ln e
Optimum Completion Interval ⎪⎩ rw
To optimize the completion interval it is necessary to
maximize the critical rate with respect to fractional
wellbore penetration. Therefore, the derivation of Eq. B- ⎡ C1 ⎤ ⎡ re 2 ⎤
22 with respect to x should be zero at xopt .
⎢ + C3hxopt ⎥ − (C1 − rw ) ⎢C3 − 3 ⎥ = 0 (B-26)
⎣ C2 ⎦ ⎣ C2 ⎦
10 SPE 113106

Appendix C

0.5

0.49

0.48

0.47
Xopt

0.46
rw = 0.3 ft
0.45 rw = 0.45 ft
rw = 0.6 ft
rw = 0.75 ft
0.44
rw = 0.9 ft

0.43
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
re (ft)

Fig. 1C: Numerical solution for Xopt , h = 20 ft

0.5

0.495

0.49

0.485

0.48

0.475
Xopt

0.47
rw = 0.3 ft
0.465
rw = 0.45 ft
0.46 rw = 0.6 ft
rw = 0.75 ft
0.455 rw = 0.9 ft

0.45
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

re (ft)

Fig. 2C: Numerical solution for Xopt , h = 40 ft

SPE 113106 11

0.5

0.495

0.49

0.485

0.48
Xopt

0.475
rw = 0.3 ft
0.47 rw = 0.45 ft
rw = 0.6 ft
0.465 rw = 0.75 ft
rw = 0.9 ft

0.46
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
re (ft)

Fig. 3C: Numerical solution for Xopt , h = 60 ft

0.5

0.495

0.49

0.485
Xopt

0.48

rw = 0.3 ft
0.475 rw = 0.45 ft
rw = 0.6 ft
0.47 rw = 0.75 ft
rw = 0.9 ft

0.465
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
re (ft)

Fig. 4C: Numerical solution for Xopt , h = 80 ft

12 SPE 113106

0.5

0.495

0.49
Xopt

0.485
rw = 0.3 ft
rw = 0.45 ft
0.48 rw = 0.6 ft
rw = 0.75 ft
rw = 0.9 ft

0.475
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

re (ft)
Fig. 5C: Numerical solution for Xopt , h = 100 ft

0.5

0.495

0.49
Xopt

0.485
rw = 0.3 ft
rw = 0.45 ft
0.48 rw = 0.6 ft
rw = 0.75 ft
rw = 0.9 ft

0.475
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

re (ft)
Fig. 6C: Numerical solution for Xopt , h = 120 ft