9

Coning of Oil, Gas, and Water

Any discussion of the coning problem usually refers

to basic theoretical curves by Muskat and Chaney et
al. for condition of homogeneous
rocks (Figs. 9-1
through 9-3). The curves are used to obtain a production rate, q, corresponding to a theoretical set of conditions that is corrected to field conditions using the
equations shown on the proper figures. In a like man-

Muskat
Equations,
p-p.,=325(q"B/Fkh)
q,=.00333
k.C:"-o

-~::s--------

. )q

log(r.lr,)
curve

u:

.
"

100

Waler Cone HeIght vs Pressure Gradients

Solid Iinaa from Mu.kal

Mu.kat
UIoeS auumplions

~
~

]
Fig. 5.25 - 1949
Such as well r.dius

of ~'. fL, r. 01 500 ft., water density

of
.3gm/cm
(.187 psi/fl.)
andthes.e
items
must be adjusted
when diHerenllrom
field
values.

"0

..
'"

0>

Theor,'
and experience
show thai cones
can be controlled
by low rates which
ollen
are uneconomical_
However,
during
lale life most water drive reservoirs
are produced
at very high rates and
high water cut to obtain
maximum
011
reco~ery.
Production
at low rale
during
early lite then Is nolproper.

:I:

100

Figure 9-2. Water coning in oil wells in homogeneous

tesy Petroleum Engineer, February 1978)

Production
Ralesa!
StarlWller
Coning
Top Open Interval
is alTop
at Pay.
A
10%oftotalpaylsopen-Chaneyelal
B 20% ollola]
payJsopen
C 30% 01 total pay is open
o
40% 01 total payisopen
E 50% ollolalpllyisopen-Chaneyetat
F 50% oflotalp.8yisopen-Muska.1
Dalareadfromlhlslheoretlcalcur;els
converted to field conditions by equation:
q=.00333k.(Lpo,w)
'(Irom curvej

Data read trom this thaoratie.l

curve Is
converted
10 field condllions
when syslem
i. oil and gas by following
equation:

,B

10

The main assumptions

made are IS follow.:
(1) the reservoir
rock is homogeneous
(either
isotropic
or anisotropic);
(2) the
voiume
01 Ihe aquiler
underlying
the oil
zone is very .mall,
so that il does nol
conlribute
to reservoir
energy;
and (3) the
gas ClIp expands
at a very low rate, so
thai il can be assumed
to be in quasi
staflc conditions.

q, =

when system is oil and water.

k=ellective
permeabHily
to oil, md.
p = Density
conlras!,
gm/cc
q:::: Oil product1on
in STBlday
,.=011 vi.cosily,
cp
B:::: Oil RS/STB

0.00167
---_.~.

k, {~_oo,gl

'(from

curve)
---

Recovery
eHlciency
is reduced
when 011 wels
an inlUal gu
cap. Recovery
of 011 which
II
adjacent
to Ihe gu
oil contact
Is dlfflcufl
at economic
rales 01 oil production.
Gas
Injection
and completing
well.
below
water
oil conlacl
may be helpful
when Itrong
waler
ad~ance
is . ilable.

I
The main assumptions
madeara
aslol:ews:
(1) Ihereservoir
rock is homogeneous
(eilher isot,opicoranlsOlropic};
(:2) the
~olume of the aquifer underlying fhe oil
zone;s ~er)' sm"lI, so that it does not
contribute to reservoir energy; and (3)
the gas cep expands afa very low rllte,
so lhatHcan
be assumed to be in
Cluasi-staticcondilions.

Total oil colu~n

Top pre I. to GOC
Perforatedinferval
Perll/total
pay
GOC-T.P./total
pay
'Curve

400ft.
160 fl.
40ft.
10%
40%
20,000

Gas Coning vs Critical Rates

Data

1:>.

Production
Rates at Starl Waler Coning
Top Open Interval is at top 30% of Tolal Pay
A
10% of tOfal payis open-Chaney
etal.
B :20%olfolalpayisopen
C 30% oltolalpaylsopen
o
40% 01 lolaJ pay is open
E 50%oll0lalpaylsopen

pay. (cour-

Waler Cone Height vs Critical Rate

Top of open i.ntervlll
total pay In oll-wllter
Data from Chanl'!y
I
I

from

Top of open
.nd
10% 01
o Top of open
and 40% 01
Top of open
and 10% of
Top 01 open
and 40% 01

starts at30%'or
& gas-watersYltems.

graphl

Interval
011 pay
Inl&fVal
011 pay
interv.lls
oil p.y
Inlervall.
011 pay

I.
I.
I.
I.

by ChaneY

al 20"W of
perforatftd!
at 20% of
perfoTated.
al 40%'of
i. perforaled.
al 40% of
I. perforated.

011 pay
011 pay
oil pay
011 p.y

Figure 9-3. Gas coning in oil wells in homogeneous

Petroleum Engineer, February 1978)

pay. (courtesy

The relatedpreSSllre
drop can be computed
from the basIc flow equarlonl:
Muskat: p,_p"
'" 325(qI'B/Fkh)log(r,/r~)
5.10
Where Fallows
for skin, partlal penetration,
perforations.
and similar restriclions
to Ilow
p,-p., = (141 (quB/klll
[In(r'/r,l'';s
0,-.75]
p,-p"
= 141(q~B/kh)
[InCUr,) -.75J
Equations assume steady slile Ilow and
the .75 is omitted when depletlon absenl

Figure 9-1. Water coning in oil wells in homogeneous

tesy Petroleum Engineer, February 1978)

pay. (cour-

ner, data obtained from Chierici-Ciucci curves has

been crossplotted on log-log and semilog paper (Fig.
9-4,5). They are referenced when pay has lower vertical than horizontal permeability. Values of IIJ read
from the curves are used in an equation to obtain
the production rates applicable to conditions existing
in a field.

'""

~\

'

...

- ....

'7

..
..::-' '"::-

=
==
=

_~

h
,1
,2
,3
A

I pertorJted

iE'_t~~val
of 011pay

Thickness

------.. .... -- -- =L.

,~ ,'-(
'.
--- -- -- -- ,\,1=)
""
,~0,' .. ..... --.
'Ill'
----- -'-..,
r

'~

~,

O'~
\~ ~,
\.'\,
:"

'--

"

:3.07:3

.;)

~
~

~\ s

i'--.

-,

.... ....

~
f--

'\

:i =~=2
8

-- -- -- --

\~

p-

...
}
...

=~=.o

[j =-~=

'-

American

,'\

'a

5=~=.1_

"'-.., p-

Units
x

ICyl h~ ~
B"

'V

(r1h-' E,

8)

!J-"

Figure 9-4. Cross plot of data for nonhomogeneous pays, (after

Chierici and Ciucci, courtesy Petroleum Engineer, December 1978)

Several methods have been proposed to control

coning. Placing impermeable barriers to prevent vertical flow of fluids would be ideal. Unfortunately, most
reservoirs are deeper than about 1,500 ft, and fractures are vertical when fluids are injected at the high
rates required to obtain a horizontal "pancake" of
the injected liquids. In other words, nature prevents
the oil operator from attaining his objective. A vertical
fracture probably will increase the coning possibility
since \'ertical fractures usually do not seal effectively
once created.
Cones usually are not evaluated properly. Early and
extensive coning is suggested by the forecast methods, but such coning is not observed in field, probably
because of a lower vertical permeability than that obtained from cores and logs.
Coning in a field being studied can also be modeled.

Unfortunately,
the pay adjacent to the well-say,
within 50 ft-is often difficult to describe in detail.
Thin shale stringers and less-permeable
hard streaks
that severely reduce the vertical permeability may not
be recognized adequately by studying cuttings, logs,
or cores. Coning water and gas is a severe problem
in many fields. Handling the added water and gas
can be costly. Also, premature depletion of a gas cap
can reduce recovery by wetting the original gas pay
with oil. Production of secondary gas caps formed
by vertical segregation of dissolved gas reduces pressure without obtaining the displacement effects associated with gas drive. When a very strong natural
water drive is present, production at high rates results in added oil recovery at abandonment. Reducing
production rate to reduce coning does not appear attractive, as shown by Fig. 9-6.
For these conditions, an increase in the well density
at the locations of the last updip producing wells
should be economical. Downdip wells when a strong
edge-water drive is present do not contribute to ultimate recovery in homogeneous
pays. Pays often are
lenticular and are not connected-are
not homogeneous-so
downdip wells and close overall spacing
of wells may increase ultimate recovery as well as increase the overall rate of production. Unfortunately,
water entry often is limited and must be supplemented
on some pattern throughout the oil-bearing reservoir.
A source of water capable of entry is necessary, and
permeability of pay must be sufficient to allow the
necessary water to move.
A decrease in well penetration results in higher oil
recovery. Minimum penetration
permits the maximum rate of water free production.
Comparing the
graphs in Fig. 9-1 suggests a small, perforated interval
is best, and perforations somewhat below the top of
the pay are not extremely harmful when flow capacity
is adequate.
An increase in the gravity to viscous force ratio
results in a higher oil recovery.
Days, months or years are required for the cone
to form and reach the point of incipient breakthrough
into the well. During this time, the well is producible
at rates in excess of the critical production rate. A
higher rate increases the tendency toward a higher
cone, but a short early test does not evaluate the possibility of future coning problems.
The kh/kv term is the most critical term appearing
in the coning equations. Also, coning is directly proportional to oil viscosity. Compressibility, well radius,
and drainage radius are relatively unimportant in the
semisteady-state
flow equations.
A well being swabbed or pumped intermittently

Coning of Oil, Gas, and Water

b =
=h
C) = ,1
v- = ,2
- = ,3
6 = .4
E

..

1:.::::..- ..

6
5

;.;

",'
S
~

...

1"_

r-

..

pay-

\-

l--

i..,,- t" __

I--.

I-

1:1__

..... ... ,
D~-'"

....

-~

1'0--

J_

~-

I"--

1""

"'"-

.....

r
"'"'

......

r--

...

1--

,...

...

1"-

"""-

II

..

.....

C\l

'""'

1-0

-,

17'-

l"_

-.. --."'-. ---,I'---- --~-- ~.. ---.

----- r-- --1-- -.....- ...
-- -.
- ---- - -.
r--. r--

"'1'Ii

__

'(

.... ~

)-

[) - .5

1""".

",,",

..

1-

Or-

,-=,-

} II'

1-

""10-.....

1'-_

....

;.........

'-

100-..

Perforated interval
Thickness of oil

I-.- -- ... -. .r-- r--.

r-- -..... ...
-~----~,-'
..-.. --.r----r--~
-",",-....,
...
~""_,
.....
r-:.:
.. - ---,~-.
...~.
I
.
"'"
~-~-... ...--r-J_t-_....-.. --.. - ..- -'.C~l.
r--, --.
---""""--r::---- r-- '-. -."'-- ...- '--- -,.., ---. -- -- --. ~-.
-----...r---- r---..--.1-_-"-- - -- 1--'-._-- -- "". ...-. - -- EI'---- - '- .._-. -- -.-- -- .- .... ....
----,""-- ...-- 0--. --- --~.- -"""'-

.1

w,

.-

I-

'-.

_/

.--;
II

w!
II
,(

~
I

Notes:
Cross plot of data presented by Chierici and Ciucci in "A
Systematic Study of Gas and Water Coning by Potentiometric Models", Journal of Petroleum
Technology,
Aug. 1964,

1. L se this CI'OSSp]ot \I' hen H,rtit:al and horizontal are

unequal.
Refer to Continuous
Tablps. PETRO-

LEUM ENGINEER

!:\TI':I(l'i.\T!ONAL,

Fd)., HJ7<'\.

2. All methods,
Muskat. Chaney and C'hieril'i, g-ive
comparable results \\'!wn permeability
ratio is OIl<'.
:3. These curves usuall,l' al'l' not applil'able \\'!wn faults
OJ' tig-ht stringers
sUt:h as thin shall's are pl'esent,
4. Corredions
must IX' mac!l' for soml' typl'S of skins.

M"\iib~"=*

Later woe
Original woe

----

#
w

_Later

may pull in a cone during periods of high drawdown.

Plugging back a well can be successful when the open
interval is long, particularly when a probable barrier
to vertical flow is present in the well, such as a 510-ft shale stringer.
The density difference between oil and water is
small, and water quickly enters the well bore when
a cement job is faulty or when a natural or man-made
vertical fracture intersects the well bore if bottom water is present. The cement job may be repaired, but
sealing the fracture is nearly impossible.
Often, a well in a coning situation will exhibit an
initial period of oil production followed by a rapid
increase in water after breakthrough.
The water-oil
ratio should stabilize at some reasonably low value,
probably less than 50%. The water is entering
through the lowest perforations or open interval while
oil enters through a large upper interval. The bottom

water will increase gradually as the water-oil contact

increases due to continued oil and water production.
In contrast, water entering from the edge or flanks
will increase much more gradually as fingers of water
arrive at the well. The water cut will gradually increase
in both situations as the water fronts rise, and the
wells will finally be produced with cuts in excess of
90 % at high rates before reaching economic limit
when a strong water source is present.
As in all testing, production at constant rate or at
constant pressure simplifies analysis of test data. Unfortunately, field operation often is at an increasing
total fluid rate, while oil production is constant.
The initial water cone can be lowered by reducing
production rate. Since the water-invaded zone retains
excess water as the cone seeks a lower level in equilibrium with all forces, the method usually is not followed because of economics. Shutting in the well for
a week or more is one way to confirm coning has
occurred.
Water coning is difficult to control economically
unless caused by a cement problem or unless a vertical
barrier is present within the well bore. Gas coning
can be more damaging, and controlling gas-oil ratio
may be economic when a pay is thick. Packers may
also be useful.

Arthur's Method of Fingering and Coning of Water and Gas in

Homogeneous Oil Sand*
For the case of water or gas coning to a well where
the penetration extends from one boundary of the
oil sand to some distance from the static position of
the water or gas, the solution may be obtained as
follows:
1. Determine the values of the potential ratio il</>/
il</>e for various values of z from Figs. 9-7, 8, and 9
and plot il</>/ il</>e vs. z/h. The value of </>~ is given
by Fig. 9-10 for the particular penetration of the problem and for a well-radius parameter pw of 0.001.
For selected values of z/h, determine the values
of </>z from Fig. 9-10. The value </>z is given as a function of well penetration b/h and the relative distance
beyond the extremity of the well d/L. Determine </>
for a reasonable value of drainage radius from Fig.
9-11.

1.2

1.1

;:;
0

1.0

II

.2~-

0.9

0.8

.9

~
C

0.7

Spherical flow
(I)w
rw(ll

rw

'0
0

.~

0.6

([

Figure 9-7. Correction factors for converting

tials. (after Arthur, courtesy JPT, @ SPE)

well velocity poten-

Potential

above dividing

plane

{:, Potential

below dividing

plane

1230

Va;ueJl h-z at point of tangency gives

maximum equilibrium height of cone

.t
a;

12.20

"

1ij

.~
C
<D
0

0.6

12.10

r, ~ 500 tt

(L

1.000 tt

~
~-

12.00

0.5

<!>w

0
0

(L

o.
11.90

"

Ie ~

1.000 ft

Perforations
top of oil

Figure 9-8. Solution of location of dividing plane and velocity potential over well surface for case of simultaneous
gas. (after Arthur, courtesy JPT, SPE)

2. Draw a tangent

coning of water and

to the potential

curve of fl<j>/
1, zlh = 1).
The value of zlh at the point of tangency represents
the maximum height y of a stable cone (ylh = 1 zlh). Intersection of the tangent to the curve with
the value zlh = 0 gives the value expressed by:
fl<j>e vs. zlh from the point

(fl<j>/ fl<j>

Llep)
_ 1 _ gLlyh
( Llepe zlh=O
LlP
3. From the graphically determined value of (fl<j>/
solve for flP, the maximum pressure differential without coning:
fl<j>e)zlh=o,

P=

to

zone

gLlyh

1-(~:1Ih=o

Figure 9-9. Example of graphical

solution of equilibrium height

of water cone and maximum pressure drawdown without water coning, for selected values of drainage radius. (after Arthur, courtesy
JPT, SPE)

Practical Reservoir Engineering

17
.:10
16

=1-

600

:10e
400

15
14
200

13
.c

s:::
12

100

"0

0:

0;

11

Q
E
w

ro

10

Q.

~
~
"
::>

-0

CO'
W

c
it

0
10
b

Well penetration, ft

Sand thickness,

Figure 9-11.

tt

Velocity potential at drainage

radius. (after Arthur,

courtesy JPT, @ SPE)

0.1

Figure 9-10.

0.2

Velocity

0.3

0.4
0.5
0.6
Well penetration b/h

potential

distribution

07

0.8

0.9

1.0

at well radius. (after

Arthur, courtesy JPT, @ SPE)

Q= volume rate of flow

k= permeability
r= radius, ft
h = sand thickness, ft
f-L = viscosity
0/ = potential (velocity potential)
P= pressure, Ib per sq in.
!!.p = pressure drawdown of producing

Yo

w=
well, Ib per sq in.
p

<p:"

= potential at drainage

x= penetration parameter

!!.y = difference in density between two fluids

g= acceleration of gravity
z= distance of point from selected datum level, ft
t= vertical distance of well from static water level, ft
= angle of dip of sand body, degrees
y= height of cone above the datum represented by the static

o/w

= potential at well radius and at depth

<Pc

radius
b = penetration of well in sand, ft

= density of oil

interface of the two fluids, ft

= potential at well surface
= potential at well surface for pu:

<pz

0.001

= 2h

depth parameter = 2h
.

= ra d IUSparameter = 2h

q = fl ux density = 1
In = natural logarithm
C= correction of <p~ for value of pw other than 0.001
d= distance from end of perforated interval of well to point z, ft
L = distance from end of perforated interval of well to static interface of the two flUids, ft
g!!.y = difference in hydrostatic gradient at reservoir conditions
tween the two fluids involved, Ib per sq in. per ft

be-

Coning Curves Proposed by Muskat and Wyckoff *

Figs. 9-12 and 9-13 depict the maximum pressure
differentials without cone breakthrough vs. penetration devised by Muskat and Wyckoff. In both figures,
the curves are under steady-state homogeneous-fluid
flow without water-cone breakthrough
as functions
of the well penetration for various oil-zone thicknesses
(h), where:
well radius = V4 ft
external-boundary
radius
water-oil density contrast
k/pJ3 assumed = 1
k = permeability
*

=
=

500 ft
0.3 glcc

Material from Trans. AIME, 1935, @ SPE.

I-l

/3

viscosity
formation-volume

factor

However, Fig. 9-13 should not be considered quantitatively correct. Because of the higher concentrations of the pressure drop about the well bore in
heterogeneous-flow
systems, the critical pressure differentials for actual gas-drive oil-producing
wells
should be higher than those in Fig. 9-12. In estimating
the corresponding
maximal production rates from
Fig. 9-13, account for the reduced values of k/JL/3,
taken as 1 in Fig. 9-13, because of the effect of connate
water and free gas on k and of the gas evolution
on JL.

~
.0

10

.c>
0>
::l

=;:

.c

[lJ
.0

!<
OJ
(l)

:i

~
'ji

:i
1.0

40;"

100

'~

~
0

'"
0

~
'6

U)

(l)

(ij

(l)

5-

1,000

0,1

~
'x

'xOJ

10

::e

OJ

:;;

Figure 9-12. Maximum pressure differentials vs penetration. (after

Muskat and Wyckoff, @ SPE)

Figure 9-13. Maximum rates of flow vs penetration. (after MusKat

and Wyckoff, @ SPE)

Coning Curves by Chaney et al.*

Critical production rate curves were obtained from
both mathematical and potentiometric analyzer analyses.
The curves show critical production rates in reservoir barrels per day vs. the distance of the top of
the perforated interval from the top of the sand or
gas-oil contact. Curves are shown for sand thicknesses
of 12.5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 ft, having drainage radii
of 1,000 ft. It should be emphasized that the term
sand thickness refers to the actual oil-column thickness
or, in the case ofa gas reservoir, the actual gas-column
thickness.
A comparable set of critical production rates were
calculated for a drainage radius of 500 ft. Rates for
the 500-ft drainage radius ranged from 10 to 15%
higher than those for the 1,000-ft radius. The 10 to
15% figure varies according to the sand thickness and
the location of the perforations within the sand. The
following assumed fluid and sand characteristics were
used:
Permeability = 1,000 md
Viscosity of oil = 1 cp
Density difference between

oil and water

glee, between the oil

and gas
l1yg,w = density difference, glee, between the gas
and water
B = formation volume factor which converts
reservoir units to stock tank units and
may be read from B curves
V= reservoir barrels occupied by 1 standard
Mef of gas as read from V curves
Q curve = critical production rate, res. bid
Qc = corrected critical production rate for well
in question
I1Yo,g = density difference,

As an example, take the case of a 50-ft. oil column

having only a water-oil contact in the well and which
has the middle 10ft of sand perforated. This would
place the top perforation 20 ft below the top of the
sand. Referring to curve B on Fig. 9-14b, the maxi-

0.3

glee
Density difference between
cc

oil and gas

0.6 gl

Therefore to use a rate obtained from these curves,

it must be corrected for the actual values of the fluid
and sand characteristics and also must be corrected
to surface units. These corrections are taken into account by the following equations:
Water-coning rates in on oil-water system:
Qc= 0.00333 Kc (Llyo,w) Qcurve,
/-Lo B

STB/d

(9.3)

Position

of static water table

I,
I

Oil

Well

~~

/t'

Water-coning rates in a gas-water system:

0.00333

Kc (Llyg,w) Q curve

Qc = ----------

Ed

, Mo,

/-Lg V

Gas-coning rates in an oil-gas system:

Qc=

Kc

0.00167

Kc (LlYo,g) Qeurve
B
/-Lo

'

ST

BI

specific permeability of the sand to oil

or gas, md
/-Lo = viscosity of the oil, cp
/-Lg = viscosity of the gas, cp
l1yo,w = density difference, glee, between the oil
and water
=

Figure 9-14a. Coning curves. (after Arthur, courtesy JPT,

courtesy Chaney, Noble, Henson and Rice)

SPE,

mum uncorrected water-free rate of production from

chis well would be 122 res. bid. This value would
[hen be entered into Eq. 9.3, together with the correct
\alues for permeability, viscosity, ete., to obtain the
:orrected maximum water-free production rate for
chis well.

If this well had a gas-oil contact and no oil-water

contact, the uncorrected maximum gas-free oil production rate would be 250 reservoir barrels per day
as read from curve b on Fig. 9-14b. This value would
be substituted in Eq. 9.5 to obtain the correct production rate.

100

~
?i

]3

100

~
2

"
~

l'
c
a

"

c
a

~ 10

"-

0.1

10

Distance

10

10
from top perforation

15

to top of sand

20
or gas-oil

contact,

25
tt

Distance

20

40

from top perforation

60

to top of sand

80
or gas-oil

Figure 9-14b. Critical production

100
contact,

ft

rate curves. (1) Water-coning curves: A, 2.5-ft perforated interval; S, 5; C, 7.5; D, 10; E, 12.5. Gasconing curves: a, 2.5-ft perforated interval; b, 5; c, 7.5; d, 10; e, 12.5. (2) Water-coning curves: A, 5-ft perforated interval; S, 10; C, 15;
D, 20; E, 25. Gas-coning curves: a, 5-ft perforated interval; b, 10; c, 15; d, 20; e, 25. (3) Water-coning curves: A, 10-ft perforated
interval; S, 20; C, 30; D, 40; E, 50. Gas-coning curves: a, 10-ft perforated interval; b, 20; c, 30; d, 40; e, 50. (after Chaney et al.,
courtesy OGJ, May 1956)

Coning Curves of Chierici, Ciucci, and Pizzi*

The critical production rate can be determined
:-ectiy from equations in practical units:

diq = 5.256 X IO-3h2

where:

q= m3/d
-.-here:

qo = daily oil flow rate (m3/d or STB/d)

a = constant (52.52 X 10-2 metric; 7.08
American)
F1 = perforation correction
F2 = penetration correction
Fsk = skin correction
This section from JPT, August 1964, SPE.

X 10-3

h= meters
ilp = gm/cc
kRo =md
/-Lo=cp
Eo = m3/m3

Bo

kRO 'l'(rDe, E, 0)
/-Lo

Practical Reservoir Engineering

q=STB/d

On the diagram

h=ft

for

ap = gm/cc

for

rDe =

10 (Fig. 9-16), one reads:

= 0.214 and Og= 0.357, 'l'g=0.051

kRo=md
J-Lo = cp

Bo= bb/STB
The function 'l' has been determined
following ranges of its parameters:
5 ,,:;;rDe

reIvo
h
k

=-

within the

,,:;;
80

Ro

Fluids characteristics exist at reservoir conditions:

density of oil po = 0.741 gm/cc, density of gas pg =
0.098 gm/cc, density of water pw = 1.092 gm/cc, formation volume factor of oil Bo = 1.250 bbliSTB, and
viscosity of oil J-Lo = 1.11 cpo
Therefore:
-

0.07":;;0 =

It ,,:;;0.9

qog-3.0n

-3

0.643

x 10 x 140 1.25

x~

1.11

x 0.051 = 128 STB/d

and:
_

Calculation of maximum water-free and gas-free oil

production rate is requested. Based on 40-acre spacing, we get re = 745 ft. Therefore,
one calculates,
using Fig. 9-15:
rDe

745 !306
= 140 Y90 = 9.72
50

-3

qow - 3.073 X 10

20.351
140 1.25

X~

1.11
X

0.065 = 89 STB/d

These calculations show that, in this case, water

coning is the limiting condition for the oil flow rate.
The maximum oil production rate that the example
well can give without water or free-gas production
is, therefore, 89 STB/d.

09 = 140 = 0.357
30
e=140=0.214

ow=

60
140 =0.429

= 0.714 - 0.098 = 0.643 gm/cc

~pwo = 1.092 - 0.741 = 0.351 gm/cc
~POg

0,40
0.35
0.30

0.06C

0.25
0.50 0.25 0.04C

89 ~

~
h
Lw

Ow

e ~

h
b
h

Figure 9-15. Water- and gas-coning systems in a homogeneous

formation. (after Chierici, Ciucci, and Pizzi, courtesy JPT, August
1964,

SPE)

Figure 9-16. Functions 4a and 4b for rDe = 10. (after Chierici,

Ciucci, and Pizzi, courtesy JPT, August 1964, SPE)

Trimble-Rose Method for Gas Wells*

Field conditions are favorable for the application of
the Muskat- Wyckoff theory at a field. When the theory
is combined in a computer program, a very useful
tool is available for establishing water-free production
rates and for calculating reserves.
Calculated maximum efficient rates must be adjusted periodically in the presence of a rising gaswater contact. Volumetric calculations of remaining
gas in the different reservoir fault blocks can be used
in conjunction with geologic maps to determine the
gas-water contact and have been satisfactory at the
field.
The most effective method of completion is by segregating each gas zone and perforating a small interval
in the top of each producing zone.
The gas flow rate for a partially penetrating well

in an isotropic

formation

O.000703kgh(P~ qg _- ----~~-~zTR/.Lg In (re/rw)

pili)

is given by:

[b- ( 1 + 7 - cos7Tb)]
h
2b
2h
~w

This equation is modified for gas flow in field units.

The unbracketed term is Darcy's law for radial flow
of a gas in a sand thickness h. The term in brackets
accounts for convergent flow from a sand of thickness
h to the perforation of length b.
This equation may be used to calculate an MER.
A value of pw, the well pressure, is determined that
will prevent water coning. The Muskat- Wyckoff equation:

b value
.t::':::==.t:
':::OU')OLOO
llh ...... C\J(\J("')

II II II II II II
.0.0 .0..0.0.0

Reservoir pressure
Permeability

Reservoir pressure
2,000 psia
Permeability
100 md
External-boundary radius 1,000 ft

External-boundary radius

1,000

:2

:;;:"

.,;

"'5

'"

"

:-'l

100

b = footage perforated, ft
D = distance from formation to cone
surface at r, ft
h = gas-sand thickness, ft
kg ~ permeability to gas at connate
water saturation, md

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1

1.2 1.3 1.4

Perforated interval/gas-sand thickness

Figure 9-17. Water-free gas rates for 1,500 psia. (after Trimble
and Rose, courtesy JPT, May 1977, @ SPE)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0,9 1.0

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Perforated interval/gas-sand thickness

Figure 9-18. Water-free gas rates for 2,000 psia. (after Trimble
and Rose, courtesy JPT, May 1977, @ SPE)

b value

======

~~~~gjg
II II
.Q..Q

I!

II II

Reservoir pressure
2,500 psia
Permeability
100 md
External-boundary radius 1,000 ft

11

..0 ..D ..0 ..0

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

0.9 1.0

Perforated interval/gas-sand

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

thickness

Figure 9-19. Water-free gas rates for 2,500 psia. (after Trimble
and Rose, courtesy JPT, May 1977, SPE)

Sobocinski and Cornelius Method of Predicting Water

Coning Time*
The breakthrough
curve on Fig. 9-20 represents
those conditions at which a water cone that builds
from static conditions will break into the well when
it is produced at a constant and uninterrupted rate.
The basic buildup curve traces the apex of the water
cone before water breakthrough, while the departure
curves describe the rise of the apex as it approaches
the well. It is interesting to note that the slope of
the departure curve increases as it approaches the
breakthrough curve. This means the rise of the cone
apex accelerates as the apex nears the well.
The four departure curves shown were obtained
from a limited amount of laboratory data. Departure
curves for other breakthrough times can be located
by interpolation. The basic buildup and departure

* Material

from jPT, May 1965, SPE.

50

:E

4.0

OJ

'ij;
.r::

OJ

c
0

""'

3.0

"'
OJ

C
0
'u;
c
OJ

E
'6
N

Figure 9-20. Dimensionless cone height vs dimensionless

(after Sobocinski and Cornelius, courtesy JPT, May 1965,

t,-~

S==-

:..;rvesapply only to coning situations for which break::-crough conditions fall on Fig. 9-20 (i.e., if for Z at
~reakthrough,
tv is less than 7.5).
1. Using Eq. 9.11, calculate the dimensionless cone
.-_eight for breakthrough
to determine whether break::-crough will occur within the limits of Fig. 9-20, and,
-= it will, where the departure curve will lie.
:2. Find the dimensionless time, tv, that corresponds
::: the calculated Z for breakthrough.
3. Using Eq. 9-12, calculate t, the actual time of
~~eakthrough in days.
-t. Determine the cone height at any time before
_~eakthrough by assuming a cone height less than
:-.e breakthrough
height, by calculating Z from Eq.
"-11, by determining the corresponding
tv from the
~:.sic buildup and appropriate
departure curves, and
:'::-;allyby solving Eq. 9-12 for time, t.
Z = 0.00307 b.p kh h he
!Joo qo Bo

(9.11)

.6..p= water-oil density difference, gm/cc

}-Lo = oil viscosity, cp
kh = single-phase, horizontal permeability, md
h = oil zone thickness, ft
he = height of the apex of the water cone above
the average water-oil contact, ft
go = oil production rate STB/d
Bo = oil formation volume factor res bbl/STB
_ 0.00137 b.p kh (l

tv ----------

!Joo

+ Mrljt

cj> h Fk

where:
t = time, days
</> = porosity
Fk = horizontal-to-vertical
permeability ratio,
M= water-oil mobility ratio = }-Lo (kw)or/}-Lw
where (kw )or is the effective permeability
ter at residual oil saturation and (ka )wc
effective permeability to oil at connate
saturation
a=0.5 for .vl< 1; 0.6 for 1 < M< 10.

kh/k"
(ka)we
to wais the
water

Richardson et al.'s Control of Coning by Injecting Fluids*

-=-~leconing of gas can be controlled in part by injec:: In of oil as shown in Fig. 9-21. Muskat and 'Wyckoff
z:.ve the following equation for approximating
the
:-:-.a.ximumrate at which a well can produce oil without
::,mng:

qo

_ 0.0246 ko b.p (h~ - h~)

!Joo

re
Inrw

:-. which go is the oil production

rate in barrels per
a circular horizontal barrier is present,
-:le radius of that barrier is substituted into Eq. 9.13
: :,r rw and the distance from the barrier to the bottom
: f the oil zone is substituted for lip. (For anisotropic
':.nds, he can be replaced by hev k,,/kh.)
Conditions favorable for control of coning are (1)
:_lick, permeable sands containing low-viscosity oils
:':1d (2) a barrier with as large a radius as possible.
From a practical viewpoint, the size of the barrier
-III usually be limited either by the distance between
: erforations or by the rate at which liquid is injected
:: form the barrier. Within the above constraints, it
, frequently possible to approximate the performance
: = a fluid barrier by assuming that it is a fixed horizon:as. When

Figure 9-21. Model for coning control by injection. (after Richardson et al., courtesy JPT, September 1971, SPE)

tal barrier having a radius equal to .6..h and located

just above the perforated interval. The corresponding
oil production
reference rate is then calculated by
substituting .6..h of Fig. 9-21 into Eq. 9.13 in place
of rw:

go = 0.0246 ~ Li.p (h~e - h~)

re

/La

In Li.h

Production rates with and without fluid injection are

then calculated using Eqs. 9.13 and 9.14.* The difference between these two rates can then be used as a
measure of the incremental
production
rate that
would be possible with oil injection. This increase
can rarely be achieved without coning some gas, but
the increased gas production should not be serious.

re = 1,024 ft
rw = 1 ft
In 1024/1
In 1024/32

= 6.93
= 3.47

6.93/3.4 7 = 2.0
Oil is injected into the upper perforations

To find how much oil production rates can be iLcreased above the critical coning rate by injection~:
liquid, solve using Eq. 9.13. The limiting gas-free C':.
production rate possible without liquid injection IS
g-

(0.0246)(1.0)(54.3 - 5.7)(322

~=

1 darcy

2.31 cp

po

54.3 Ib/cu ft
pg=5.73 Ib/cu ft
he = 32 ft
hp = 8 ft
6.h= 32 ft
* If desired, the more accurate method of Chaney et al. can be
used for the case with no injection and this critical rate can be
multiplied by the ratio (In re/rw)/(In re/6.h) to obtain a closer estimate for the reference rate with liquid injection.

= 72.0

82)

2.31lnC,~24)

o-

}-to =

as shoh:-.

in Fig. 9-21.

bid

By injecting oil, a liquid barrier having an effecri-,c:radius of about 32 ft can be formed. The corresponc..
ing production rate is now calculated to be 144 b/e
or twice the previous rate. Thus, the model predica production increase of 72 bid should be possib>o:
with only a moderate increase in the net GaR, a:
though it is not possible, using this simple mode:
alone, to predict how much the GaR will increase

Shell Method of Controlling Coning by Perforating Below

Water Level**
Perforating wells completed in a thin zone underlain
by a very active strong water drive below the gaswater contact can be beneficial, as illustrated by the
calculations and field tests made by engineers with
Shell Oil. A drawback of the method is the extra
amount of water that must be produced before a
steady state is reached-not
only during the initial
production phase, but also after shut-in periods. The
ratios of improvement would obviously have to be
modified for cases where the permeability is not uniform, especially where there are shale lenses or fractures.

Z.
h",_

a
0.5:

2
Water

6 8 10

a;.-car thickness

Oil layer thickness

20

hw
ho

Figure 9-22. Improvement of oil production rate by perforar:-;

below instead of at the oil-water contact. (courtesy Shell Oil Compan;