Water and Gas Coning

Instructional Objectives
• Be able to explain the differences between
coning and fingering.
• Be able to explain what the critical rate
means.
• Be able to calculate the critical rate for the
following cases:
– Two-phase oil reservoir
– Two-phase gas reservoir
– Three-phase reservoir
• Be able to name 5 remedial actions to
control coning.
What is Coning?
Gas-Oil
Interface

Oil-Water
Interface
Coning Versus Fingering
Well

Oil Oil

Oil-Water Interface
Water
Coning Versus Fingering
Well
High permeability
layer

Original
OWC
Muskat and Wyckoff Analysis
rw re
r

Oil
h

Water

Z
 Muskat’s Solution

  w   z gh  z
  1 1 
e  w   e p  h 
 Shape of the Cone

• Cone rise vs p for:

– b = 0.25 h and 0.5 h
– h = 125’
– re = 500’
– rw = 0.25’
–  = 0.3 gm/cc
 Shape of the Cone
• Stable cone rise vs lateral extent for
b = 0.5 h and various p
– h = 125’
–  = 0.3 gm/cc
 Example 1
Using the Muskat Method
• Calculating critical rate, qc:
– Calculate penetration, b/h
– Read qchart
– Calculate qc
 Example 1 Solution
Calculation of Critical Rate Using Muskat Method

Maximal rates of flow without cone breakthrough (bbls. per day)

10,000
8000
6000
4000
3000
2000

1000
800
600
400
300
200

100
80
60
40
30
20
10
8
6
4
3
2

1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Penetration (per cent)

qc(stb/day) = qchart( /0.3)((k/B) /1,000)

Effect of Reservoir Parameters
 Coning increases with:
– Higher drawdown or higher
production rate
– Smaller density difference
– Closer completion interval to contact
– Higher vertical permeability
– Higher oil viscosity
 Calculation of Critical Rate
• Two-phase oil reservoir
r
b Gas
Oil h
Lw OR Lg
Oil h
Water b

z
 General Formula

3 2 khkro
qc  3.073  10 h  qDC
 oBo
 Approaches for qDC
• Meyer and Garder (analytical -
isotropic permeability)

 
 
   b  
2
 1
qDC   1   h  
 2 ln  re 
    
 r 
  w  
 Approaches for qDC

• Chierici et al. (potentiometric model)

qDC   rDe , , 
re kv
rDe 
h kh

b

h
L

h
 Approaches for qDC

• Schols (empirical, verified by

simulator)
 
  2  0.14
1     1   b    re 
qDC 0.432 
2 re    h    h 
 ln 
 rw 
 Approaches for qDC
• Hoyland et al. (correlation based on
simulation results)
2 1.325  0.238
1.990  b   1
 1.877 ln re   1
  h    
qDC
  h
Numerical Approaches for qDC

• Wheatley (numerical)

• Piper and Gonzales (numerical)

Numerical Reservoir Simulation

Perforated
interval
 Example 2
Calculation of Critical Rate
– When h = b + L
rw = 0.25’ re = 500’
r
b = 10’
h = 50’
L = 40’
Oil
Water

z
Calculation of Critical Rate

• Solve for qc in terms of qDC

– General equation
1,000 1
qc  3.073 x 10 50 
3 2
0.3  qDC
11
 2304.75 qDC
Calculation of Critical Rate
• Solve for qc
– Meyer and Garder
 
  2

 1    10 
qDC  1   
  500     50  
 2 ln  
  0 .25 
 0.06315

 qC  2304.75  0.06315   145.5 STB / D

 Critical Rate Solution
• Chierici et al.
500 1000
rDe   10
50 1000
10
  0 .2
50
40
w   0 .8
50
Read chart: qDC =  (10,0.2,0.8) = 0.14
qc = (2304.75)(0.14) = 322.7 STB/D
 Critical Rate Solution
• Schols
 
1    
2  0.14
 1      
10 500
qDC   0.432  
2 500    
50    50 
 ln  
 0.25 
 0.09356

 qc  2304.75  0.09356 

 215.6 STB / D
 Critical Rate Solution
• Hoyland et al.
1.325
 2
  0.238

qDC  1.877 ln 500 

1.990
 1   10    1
 
  50    50 
 
 0.1190
 qc  2304.75  .1190 
 274.2 STB / D
 Critical Rates Comparison
• When h = b + L
– Meyer and Garder 145.5 STB/D

– Chierici et al. 322.7 STB/D

– Schols 215.6 STB/D

– Hoyland et al. 274.2 STB/D

Critical Rates Comparison
500
400
300
Chierici et al.
200
Schols

100
80
60
re = 10
rw = 0.005
40 h = 50 ft
k = 1 Darcy Meyer & Garder
 = 1 cp
 = 0.3 gm/cc
20
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
bh
Calculation of Critical Rate
When h > b + L
rw re
r
b

Lw Oil

Water
OR
z
rw re
r
Gas
Lg
Oil
b
Two-Phase Gas Reservoir
rw re
b

h
Gas
Lw

Water

z
 Three-Phase Reservoir
rw re
r
Gas

Lg
b Oil h
Lw

Water

z
 Three-Phase Reservoir

• General formula

3k h k ro
qC  3.073 x 10 h 2
  og qDC
 oB o
 Approaches for qDC
• Meyer and Garder (analytical -
isotropic permeability)
 
  2
   wo  L w   2b  L w    g  
1 L
qDC  
 re    og  h   h h   h  
 2 ln r  
 w 
 Approaches for qDC

•Chierici et al. (potentiometric model)

min    
qDC    rDe , ,  g  , wo
 rDe , ,  w 
   og 

 Approaches for qDC

• Piper and Gonzalez (numerical)

 Example 3
Calculation of Critical Rate for a
Three-Phase Reservoir
rw = 0.25’ re = 500’
r
Gas

Lg = 10’
b = 10’ Oil
Lw = 30’

Water

z
Calculation of Critical Rate for a
Three-Phase Reservoir
• Solve for qc in terms of qDC

qc  3.073 x 10 3
50 
2

1000  1  
x 0.6 qDC
11
 4609.5 qDC
Calculation of Critical Rate for a
Three-Phase Reservoir
• Meyer and Garder
 
  2

 1    0.3   30   20 30   10 
qDC           
  500     0.6   50   50 50   50  
 2 ln  
  0 .25 
 0.02237
 qc  4609.5  0.02237 
 103.1 STB / D
Calculation of Critical Rate for a
Three-Phase Reservoir
• Chierici et al.

re k v 500 1000
rDe    10
h kh 50 1000
b 10
   0.2
h 50
L g 10 L w 30
g    0.2 &  w    0.6
h 50 h 50
Calculation of Critical Rate for a
Three-Phase Reservoir

• From Chierici et al.

 rDe ,  ,  g    10, 0.2, 0.2  0.024

 rDe ,  ,  w    10, 0.2, 0.6  0.100
Calculation of Critical Rate for a
Three-Phase Reservoir
• From
min    
qDC    rDe ,  ,  g , wo
 rDe ,  ,  w 
    og 

 0. 3 
 min  0.024, 0.1  0.024
 0. 6 
 qc  4609.5  0.024   110.6 STB / D
 Control of Coning

 Reduction of production rate

 Improvement of well
productivity

 Recompletions
 Control of Coning

 Artificial barriers

 Oil injection

 Infill drilling
Control of Coning

 Dual Completions

 Horizontal wells
 Class Exercise 1
Calculate critical rate for an oil well
having bottom water and the
properties in your notes.
a. Use Muskat’s method
b. Use Meyer and Garder’s method
c. Use the Chierici et al. method
d. Use Schol’s method
 Solution of
Class Exercise 1

Muskat’s method :
qc = 378 STB/D
 Solution of
Class Exercise 1
• Solve for qc in terms of qDC
– General equation
qc  3.073 x 10 100 
3 2 300 1
0.35  qDC
1.111.25 
 2325.5 qDC
 Solution of
Class Exercise 1

• Solve for qc
– Meyer and Garder
 
   2

1 
 1  
30  
qDC   
 2 ln 500    100  
 
 0.25 
 0.05986
 Solution of
Class Exercise 1
• Chierici et al.
500 1000
rDe  5
100 1000
30
  0.3
100
70
w   0.7
100
Read chart: qDC =  (5,0.3,0.7) = 0.16
qc = (2325.5)(0.16) = 372.08 STB/D
 Solution of
Class Exercise 1
• Schols
 
1     2

 30    500 
 0.14

qDC   0.432    1    
2  500    100    100 
 ln  
 0.25 
 0.09773
 qc  2325.5  0.09772 
 227.27 STB / D
 Class Exercise 2

Calculate the critical rate for an oil

well having bottom water and the
properties in your notes using the
Hoyland et al. method.
 Solution of
Class Exercise 2

• Solve for qc in terms of qDC

– General equation
2 1500 1
qc  3.073 x 10  16 
3
0.48  qDC
0.3 1.4 
 1348.608 qDC
 Solution of
Class Exercise 2
• Hoyland et al.
1.325
 2
  0.238

qDC  1.877 ln 1,000 

1.990
 1   5    1
 
  16    16 
 
 0.0677
 qc  1348.608  0.0677 
 91.3 STB / D
 Class Exercise 3

Calculate the critical rate for an oil

well having a gas cap and the
properties in the notes.
 Solution of
Class Exercise 3
• Solve for qc in terms of qDC
– General equation
2 500 1
qc  3.073 x 10  75 
3
0.65  qDC
1.11.3 
 3928.55 qDC
 Solution of
Class Exercise 3
• Chierici et al.
750 500
rDe   10
75 500
25
  0.333
75
50
w   0.667
75
Read chart: qDC =  (10,0.333,0.667) = 0.135
qc = (3928.55)(0.135) = 530 STB/D
 Solution of
Class Exercise 3
• Schols
 
1     2

 25    750 
 0.14

qDC   0.432    1    
2  750    
75    75 
 ln  
 0.5 
 0.0883
 qc  3928.55  0.0883 
 347 STB / D
 Class Exercise 4

Calculate the critical rate for an oil well

having both bottom water and a gas
cap and the properties in your notes.
 Solution of
Class Exercise 4
• Solve for qc in terms of qDC

qc  3.073 x 10 3
140 
2


90  1
0.643  qDC
1.111.25 
 2512.11 qDC
 Solution of
Class Exercise 4
• Meyer and Garder
 
  2

 1    0. 351   60   2  30 60   50  
qDC          
  745     0.643   140   140 140   140  
 2 ln  
  0.25  
 0.0205
 qc  2512.11 0.0205 
 51.5 STB / D
 Solution of
Class Exercise 4
• Chierici et al.
re kv 745 90
rDe    5.32
h k h 140 90
b 30
   0.214
h 140
Lg 50
g    0.357
h 140
Lw 60
w    0.42857
h 140
 Solution of
Class Exercise 4

• From Chierici et al.

 rDe ,  ,  g    5, 0.214, 0.357   0.05

 rDe ,  ,  w    5, 0.214, 0.430  0.08
 Solution of
Class Exercise 4
• From
min    
qDC    rDe ,  ,  g , wo
 rDe ,  ,  w 
    og 

 
 min  0.05,
0.351
0.08  0.0437
 0.643 
 qc  2512.110.0437   109.7 STB / D
 Summary
During this session, we have learned

• What coning is
• Why coning is a problem
• The differences between coning and
fingering
• What the critical rate is
 Summary
• How to calculate the critical rate with
a variety of methods
• What the main assumptions in these
methods are
• Why numerical reservoir simulation
is sometimes recommended to study
coning problems
 Summary
• How to control coning
• Why improvement of well productivity
may decrease (or eliminate) coning
• How dual completions can be used to
reduce coning
• Why horizontal wells may reduce
coning
Nomenclature
Nomenclature
References
References
References
Chierici et al. Figures
0.200
rDe = 5
0.100
0.080
og/wo 0.50 0.25 0.25
0.060
2
3 0.040

4

0.020

0.010
0.008
0.006
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7


Chierici et al. Figures
0.200
rDe = 10

0.100
0.080
0.060
og/wo 0.50 0.25 0.040
2
4
3 
0.020

0.010
0.008
0.006
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Chierici et al. Figures
0.200
rDe = 20

0.100
0.080
0.060
og/wo 0.50 0.25 0.040

2
3
4
0.020

0.010
0.008
0.006
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Chierici et al. Figures
0.200
rDe = 30

0.100
0.080
0.060

og/wo 0.50 0.25 0.040

2
3 
0.020

0.010
0.009
0.006
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Chierici et al. Figures
0.200
rDe = 40

0.100
0.080
0.060
og/wo 0.50 0.25 0.040
0.25
2
3 
4
0.020

0.010
0.008
0.006
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Chierici et al. Figures
0.200
rDe = 60

0.100
0.080
0.060
0.30
0.50 0.25 0.25
0.040
og/wo
3
2

4
0.020

0.010
0.008
0.006
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Chierici et al. Figures
0.200
rDe = 80

0.100
0.080
0.060

0.50 0.25
0.30 0.040
og/wo 0.25
2 
3
4 0.020

0.010
0.008
0.006
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
