IPTC 10521

An Effective Method To Improve Recovery of Heavy Oil Reservoir With

Bottomwaterdrive
B. Ju, China U. of Geosciences; S. Dai, Shengli Oil Field Dongsheng Jinggong Petroleum Development Group Co. Ltd.;
T. Fan and X. Wang, China U. of Geosciences; and H. Wu, Shengli Oil Field Dongsheng Jinggong Petroleum
Development Group Co. Ltd.
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 2123 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The coning problem for vertical wells and the ridging problem
for horizontal wells are very difficult to solve by normal
methods in the process of producing oil from the reservoir
with bottom water drive. For heavy oil reservoirs, this difficult
problem becomes more complicated for the non-Newtonian
properties. An innovative completion method with downhole
water sink was presented by dual-completed in oil and water
columns with a packer separating the two completions for
vertical wells and dual-horizontal wells that the upper well
produce the fluid over the oil water contact (OWC) and down
well the lower well produce the water below the OWC. The
unique technique may restrain the formation of the water
coning and ridging by adjusting production rates upper and
lower OWC and enlarges the oil draining area, which in turn
improve the oil recovery.
In order to evaluate quantatively the production
performances by using the new method, numerical simulation
technique was employed to find out optimal perforation
segment and fittest production rates from the formation of the
upper and lower OWC.
Introduction
Water coning has been regarded as the biggest problem during
the oil production from a reservoir with bottom water. The
phenomenon has been known for at least 100 years. The
theory of water coning has been discussed by Smith, C.L.1 62
years ago and some other previous researchers before him.
Resumptively, the occurrence of water coning is due to
pressure gradients resulting from well production from the pay
zone. The pressure gradients result in a water cone to rise
toward the bottom of the producing interval. The tendency of
the water to cone is offset or partially offset by gravity forces
since the water has a higher specific gravity than the oil. A
dynamic balance exists between the gravitational forces and

the pressure gradients caused by well production. If the

pressure gradient exceeds the gravitational force, water coning
to the wellbore will occurs. Although the theory is not difficult
to understand for a reservoir engineer, it is very difficulty to
control water coning, especially for heavy oil reservoir with
bottom water since the difference in specific gravities of oil
and water is very small. Most of the previous studies focused
on the prediction of critical production rate and water coning
process for production well to control water coning by
analytical models2-4,6,7, physical laboratory simulation5,8,9 or
numerical simulation technique10-14, artificial barriers15-17 for
controlling water coning and preventing by injection heavy
fluids or chemicals18,19 such as crosslinking polymers or gels.
In the past 100 years, reservoir engineers tried to look for
some effective techniques to control water coning for
exploiting oil from reservoirs with bottom water.
Unfortunately, only a few successful oil examples were
reported. Wojtanowicz, A.K. and Shirman E.20,21 reported that
Downhole Water Sink technology is a feasible operation to
control water coning. And some oil field examples are given
and analyzed in their papers. The thought is to design two
sinks in one formation (TSIOF), which one is located over
OWC (sink 1) and the other located down OWC (sink 2).
From the point of view of the theory for flow in sand
formation, the technique is novel because pressure gradients in
the vicinity of producing interval can be modified by changing
the production rates of two sinks. Although the thought can be
trace back to about 50 years ago22, the application of the
thought in oil field are reported in recent 10 years, and some
reservoir engineers didnt accepted the idea yet. Among the oil
field examples21, the specific gravity of oil is from 0.865 to
0.93(21-32API), and the maximum viscosity is 17 mPas
downhole. Currently, there is no report that oil field example
of heavy oil reservoir with bottom water to adopt TSIOF
technology.
As the analysis above, for a heavy reservoir with bottom
water, generally, the critical production rate is too small to
gain a profit on its operating costs. If it keeps a rate above the
critical production rate, water coning results in production
with high water-cut. One oil reservoir located H.K., Shandong,
China, is a typical heavy oil reservoir with bottom water. The
specific gravity of degassed crude oil is 0.988, and the
viscosity of degassed crude oil is 7337mPas. The viscosity of
reservoir crude oil is 710 mPas. The ratio of oil viscosity to
water viscosity in formation condition is adverse for water
displacement. The current water-cut is up to 90% while

recovery is only 1.0%. The object of this paper is to study the

feasibility of TSIOF technology to enhance oil recovery in the
oil field.
Theory Analysis for Water Coning Control
Since the occurrence of water coning is caused by pressure
gradients resulting from the sink over the OWC, pressure
gradients in the whole formation can be also modified by a
water sink down the OWC when gravity forces is not high
enough to offset the pressure gradients induced by the sink
over the OWC. Therefore, the mutual action of the pressure
gradients induced by two sinks and gravity forces control the
evolving of water coning and determine the shape of water
coning. The theory is not difficult to understand. The Fig. 1
shows the principle of TSIOF for vertical well and horizontal
wells. Fig. 1 (a) is one part of a reservoir with bottom water
and there is an OWC in the mid of the formation. Fig. 1 (b) is
one sink production from a vertical well. The current oil water
contact (COWC) has past the lower perforating interval. If two
sinks are designed for production (see Fig. 1 (c)).
Theoretically, OWC can be keeps horizontal by modifying the
rates of two sinks. That is to say, OWC can coincide with
original oil water contact (OOWC). Fig. 1 (d) illustrates that
one horizontal well is above the WOC and the other is down
the OWC. Similarly, one sink production results in water
ridging in three spaces, which looks like a water coning in
crossing profile (see Fig. 1 (e)). And water ridging can be
eliminated by modifying the rates of two sinks production
(Fig. 1 (g)). Although the OWC can keep horizontal by
production ratio of two sinks theoretically, it is very difficult
to keep it horizontal for the reservoir with high viscosity ratio.
However, TSIOF technique can prevent water coning or
ridging in some extent and put off water break-through time.
Completion Method
In order to realize TSIOF technique, a special completion is
adopted to separate production fluids from up OWC and down
OWC. Fig. 2 gives well completion configuration in a vertical
well. Packers separate the fluids producing from upper and
lower OWC. Because the formation energy is not high enough
to produce by flowing, one pump is set to pump oil into tubing
and the other is used to pump fluids into casing respectively.
Therefore the fluid from oil zone flows through tubing, and
fluid from bottom water flows through annular space.
Mathematical Model
Since the recovery of the reservoir is depended on the flooding
of the edge and bottom water, the three-dimensional threephase black oil model is chosen to study the production
performances. However, the rheology properties of the heavy
oil must be considered for the oil is a kind of non-Newtonian
fluid.
Assumptions for the Mathematical Model. The
mathematical model was developed under the following
assumptions:
1. The model is assumed that the multiphase flow is
isothermal, three dimensional, rock and fluids are
compressible .
2. The oil is non-Newtonian fluid.

IPTC 10521

3.
4.

Capillary and gravity forces are considered.

Chemical reactions are not considered.

Multiphase Flow in Porous Media. The continuity equations

of slightly compressible multiphase fluid flow and Newtonian
flow are given by the following equations:

k k rw

div
grad w + qw = ( sw Bw )
t
Bw w

(1)

k k ro

div
grad o + qo = ( so Bo )
t
Bo o

(2)

k k rg
k k ro Rs
grad o + q g
grad g +
div
B

B o o
g g

( s g Bg + S o Rs Bo )
t

(3)

For flow of the three-phases of oil, water and gas, we can

define

So + Sw + S g = 1

(4)

We define the parameters in Eq. 1~3 as

o = po + o z

(5)

w = pw + w z = po + pcwo + w z

(6)

g = p g + g z = po + pcgo + g z

(7)

where t is time. is the porosity of the porous media. S,

and p are saturation, viscosity, and pressure of fluids,
respectively. k is the absolute permeability; kr is the relative
permeability. B is the volume factor of fluid. q is the
production or injection rate of fluid. Rs is the solution gas-oil
ratio. is the specific gravity of fluids. z is the distance from
reference level. pc is the capillary force. The methods to obtain
coefficients of the equation 1-3 except oil viscosity can be
gotten in the reference23. The data from experiments in lab
shows the crude oil viscosity in reservoir is a function of both
reservoir pressure of oil phase and pressure gradients.

o = f ( po , grad ( po ))

(8)

The reservoir pressure determines the static viscosity, while

pressure gradients determine the dynamic viscosity (apparent
viscosity). The relation of apparent viscosity and pressure
gradients is showed in Fig.3. It indicates that the apparent
viscosity of oil is a variable when the pressure gradients fall in
the range of 0.04 and 0.13MPa/m.

IPTC 10521

Numerical Simulation and Discussion

Based the mathematical model above and the rheology
properties of the heavy oil. A new black oil simulator is
developed to study the feasibility of TSIOF technique to
improve recovery for the heavy oil reservoir with edge and
bottom water. For a horizontal well, a water ridging looks like
a cone in crossing profile. From the view of fluids flowing in
formation, the bottom water flows upward for both vertical
and horizontal wells, and the mechanisms are similar for
vertical well and horizontal well. Therefore, this paper focuses
on the study of TSIOF technique used in vertical well. The
main objectives of this section are as follows:
1. Prove if TSIOF technique can be used to improve oil
recovery for heavy oil reservoir with strong bottom and
edge water when water coning occurred.
History match for production well29-71 and
numerical simulation for water coning process.
The effects of production rate of sink 2 on oil
production and water-cut of sink 1.
The effects of production rate of sink 2 on the
behaviors of water coning.
The best location of perforating intervals of sink 2.
2. Prove that TSIOF technique is also one effective approach
to prevent water coning for new production well.
The effects of production rate of sink 2 on oil
production sink 1, and the total oil production of
two sinks.
The effects of production rate of sink 2 on the
cumulative water and oil ratios.
To give the answers of the objectives of the paper, a single
well model with fine grids was run on the numerical simulator
developed in the paper. The main parameters of geology and
reservoir fluids are list as in table 1. The reservoir model is
heterogeneous. The rhythm of the reservoir is composite;
however, we can regard them as anti-rhythm as a whole (see
Fig.4). The changes of oil saturation from top to bottom of the
formation are showed in Fig.5. The average grid sizes of
direction x and y are 20m, and average grid size in z direction
is 1.0m. To improve accuracy, fine-grids are used on the plane
in the vicinity of production well(Fig.6).
Prove That TSIOF Technique Fitting for Old Wells.
History Match and Water Coning Process. The well has a
history of 3 years and 4 months. The formation pressure is
almost constant due to the strong flooding by natural bottom
and edge water. Therefore, the pressure match is relative easy
and the water-cut match is the focus of history match. By
modifying the relative permeability of oil and water, watercuts are matched. The final relative permeability curves of oil
and water are showed in Fig.7; and the water-cut match is
show in Fig.8. It indicates that the numerical simulation
results have a good agreement with water-cuts from
production data except the first month. The relative high
water-cut of the first month is caused by well operation. Fig.9
gives the evolvement of water coning and indicates that a
small water coning has been formed in the first two months,
and a big water coning occurred after six months.
Consequently, the dramatic increase in water-cut of
production well results from water coning.

The Effects of Production Rate of Sink 2 on Oil

Production, Water-cut of Sink 1 and Water Coning
Behavior. This section is designed to predict the production
performances with and without TSIOF technique. Supposing
the production fluid rate of sink 1 is 20m3/day, only sink 1
production (i.e. the production rate of sink 2 is 0.0) and three
production rates (10m3/day, 20m3/day, 30m3/day) of sink 2 are
set for numerical simulation. Fig.10 shows that the increase of
the production rate of sink 2 results in obvious increase of
cumulative oil production of sink 1. The cumulative oil
production of sink 1 in five years at four cases are given in
Table 2. Fig.11 shows that the increase of the production rate
of sink 2 results in reduction in water-cut of sink 1. Fig.12
shows that the shape of water cone can be changed by the
production of sink 2. The production of sink 2 induces the
decline in high of water cone. It implies that water coning can
be alleviated by the production of sink 2; however, it is very
difficult to eliminate water cone for the severely adverse ratio
of oil viscosity to water viscosity. Inasmuch as the capacity of
waste water treatment is limited, a rate of 20~30 m3/day for
sink 2 is recommended.
Optimization for the Best Perforating Location of Sink
2.To optimize the best perforating location of sink 2, the equal
production rates (20 m3/day) of sink 1 and sink 2 are set for
simulation by changing the perforating location. Supposing
that perforating interval of sink 2 locates at 1.0m, 2.0m, 3.0m,
4.0m, 5.0m, 6.0m, 7.0m respectively from OOWC, each case
is run on the simulator 5 years. Fig. 13 gives the cumulative
oil production for each perforating location of sink 2. It shows
that perforating interval locating at 2.0~ 3.0m under OOWC
are the best location for maximum cumulative oil production
is obtained. Therefore, the upper 1/3 of the thickness of
bottom water is recommended for perforating for sink 2.
Prove That TSIOF Technique Fitting for New Wells. To
prove that TSIOF technique is also one effective approach to
prevent water coning for new production well, supposing a
new well brings into production with two sinks. Numerical
simulation by modifying the production rates of sink 2 is used
to study the feasibility of TSIOF technique.
The effects of production rate of sink 2 on oil production
performance. Supposing the production rate of sink 1 is 12
m3/day, and the production rates of sink 2 are 0.0m3/day,
4.0m3/day, 8.0m3/day and 12.0m3/day respectively. The
production time is 3 years and 4 months. Table 3 gives the
results for each case. The data shows that more oil production
and less water production of sink 1 are realized by using
TSIOF technique. In addition, the ratios of total cumulative oil
to cumulative water production also implies that TSIOF
technique can improve oil recovery and reduce water-cut for
heavy oil reservoir with edge and bottom water. When the
total cumulative fluid production increases 2 times (the rate of
sink 2 is 12.0m3/day), the total cumulative oil production
increases from 4118 to 9568 tons, which increases 2.32 times.
The effects of production rate of sink 2 water coning
behavior. Fig. 14 gives the original state of the formation and
current states (production for 3 years and 4 months) at
different production rates of sink 2. When a production rate of
sink 2 is 0.0 (i.e. only sink 1), a big water cone forms. With
the increase in production rates of sink 2, the height of water

IPTC 10521

cone reduces. When a production rate of sink 2 is 12.0 m3/day,

water coning is alleviated to a great extent. It indicates that
TSIOF technique is more fit for a new well producing from a
reservoir with bottom water.
Conclusion
1. The theory analysis for water coning control by TSIOF
technique is presented and a special well completion
design for vertical well is also given in the paper.
2. A simulator considering the rheology of heavy oil is
developed for the study of water coning problems.
3. The results of fine simulation show that TSIOF technique
is fit for not only the old well that water cone occurred,
but also the new well.
4. There are an obvious increase in oil production and
decrease in water-cut of sink 1 with TSIOF technique.
5. TSIOF technique is also effective for heavy oil reservoir
with bottom water as well as for light oil reservoir with
bottom water.
6. Although TSIOF technique can alleviate water coning
problem, it is very difficult to eliminate it for heavy oil
reservoir.
Nomenclature
B= volume factor of fluid
k = absolute permeability of a porous media
(m2 )
kr = relative permeability of a porous media
p = pressure (Pa)
q = production/injection rate (m3/s)
Rs = solution gas-oil ratio
S = solution gas-oil ratio
t = time(s)
= porosity of the porous media

=
=
=
Subscripts
c=
g=
o=
w=

6.

7.

8.
9.

10.

11.
12.

13.

14.

15.
16.
17.

specific gravity of fluids.

viscosity of fluid (Pas)
potential
18.

capillary
gas
oil
water

19.

Reference
1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

Smith, C. R. et al., Water Coning Control in Oil Wells by Fluid

Injection, SPE paper 613, SPEJ (Dec. 1963) 314.
Chierici, G. L. et al., A Systematic Study of Gas and Water
Coning By Potentiometric Models, SPE paper 613, JPT (Aug.
1965) 923-928.
Wheatley, M.J.,An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water Coning,
SPE paper14210, the 60th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Las
Vegas, NV September 22-25, 1985.
Hoyland, Leif A., et al., Critical Rate for Water Coning:
Correlation and Analytical Solution, SPERE (Nov. 1989) 495499.
Abass, H.H., et al,. The Critical Production Rate in WaterConing System, SPE paper 17311, the SPE Permian Basin Oil
and Gas Recovery Conference held in Midland, Texas, March
10-11, 1988.

20.

21.

22.
23.

Guo, Boyun, et al., A General Solution of Gas/Water Coning

Problem for Horizontal Wells, SPE paper 25050, the European
Petroleum Conference held in Cannes, France, 16-18 November,
1992.
Shirif, E. et al., Waterflooding Performance of Stratified
Reservoirs with Bottom-water Condition, SPE paper 77963, the
SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition Held
in Melbourne, Australia, 8-10, Oct. 2002.
Khan, A.R., A Scaled Model Study of Water Coning, JPT
(June, 1970) 711-713.
Wibowo, W. et al., Behavior of Water and Production
Performance of Horizontal Well in Bottom Water Drive Reservoir:
A Scaled Model Study, SPE paper 87046, the SPE Asia Pacific
Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset Management held in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 29-30 March 2004.
Pirson, S.J. and Mehta, M.M., A Study of Remedial Measures
for Water-Coning By Means of a Two-Dimensional Simulator,
SPE paper 1808, the 42nd Annual Fall Meeting of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, to be held in Houston, Tex.,
Oct. 1-4, 1967.
MacDonald, R.C. et al., Methods for Numerical Simulation of
Water and Gas Coning, SPEJ (Dec. 1970) 425
Graue, D.J. and Filgate, R.A., A Study of Water Coning in the
Kaybob South Beaverhill Lake Field, SPE paper 3623, the 46th
Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of
AIME, to be held in New Orleans, La., Oct. 3-6, 1971.
Woods, E.G., and Khurana, A.K.,Pseudofunctions for Water
Coning in a Three-Dimensional Reservoir Simulator, SPEJ
(Aug. 1977) 251-254.
Zakirov S., Yulmetjev T., Zakirov E., Enhanced Oil Recovery
from Oil Fields with Bottom Water, SPE paper 65130, the SPE
European Petroleum Conference held in Paris, France, 2425
October 2000.
Karp, J.C., et al. Horizontal Barriers for Controlling Water
Coning, JPT (July 1962) 783-789.
Romero-Juarez, Antonio, Characteristic of Oil Production
Related to Water Coning SPE paper 1089, Dec. 1964.
Islam, M.R., and Farouq Ali, S.M., Improving Waterflood
Performance in Oil Reservoirs With Bottom water, SPE paper
16727, the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas, TX
September 27-30, 1987.
Bowlin K.R. et al., Field Application of In-Situ Gravity
Segregation to Remediate Prior Water Coning, SPE paper
38296, the SPE Western Regional Meeting held in Long Beach,
California, U.S.A., 25-27 June 1997.
Shirif E.,Mobility Control by Polymers Under Bottom-Water
Conditions, Experimental Approach, SPE paper 64506, the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in
Brisbane, Australia, 1618 October 2000.
Wojtanowicz, A.K. Xu, Hui, and Bassiouni, Z.A., Oil Well
Coning Control Using Dual Completion With Tailpipe Water
Sink, SPE paper 21654, the Production Operations Symposium
held in Oklahoma City, OK, April 7-9, 1991.
Shirman E. and Wojtanowicz, A.K., More Oil with Less Water
Using Downhole Water Sink Technology: A Feasibility Study,
SPE paper 49052, the SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 October, 1988.
Widmyer, R.H., Producing Petroleum from Underground
Formation, US Patent No. 2855047, Oct.3, 1995.
Peaceman, D.W., Fundamentals of Numerical Reservoir
Simulation. Elsevier, New York, 1977.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

1.0ton=1000kg
6

1.0MPa=10 Pa
-3
1.0mPas =10 Pas

IPTC 10521

Table 1Parameters for Numerical Simulation

Parameter names
The length of geological model,m
The average depth of geological model, m
The average thickness of oil zone, m
The average thickness of bottom water, m
The grids number, NxNyNz
The average porosity
2
The average horizontal permeability, m
The average oil saturation
Initial pressure of the reservoir, MPa
Bubble pressure, MPa
The oil viscosity in reservoir, mPas
Volume factor of the crude oil
Initial the ratio of solution of oil and gas
The viscosity of formation water, mPas
Volume factor of the crude oil

The values
300
17.0
10.0
7.0
151517
37.99
0.666
0.57
11.70
8.24
710
1.06
19.0
0.48
1.01

Table 2Cumulative Oil Production of Sink 1 (Ton)

Sink 2
rate
1 year
2 year
3 year
4 year
5 year

0.0 m /day

10 m /day

20 m /day

30 m /day

1038.0
1927.6
2693.8
3387.4
4013.5

1469.7
2660.1
3668.0
4554.4
5341.9

1916.5
3480.2
4843.8
6081.7
7229.1

2339.0
4173.5
5742.6
7144.9
8426.8

Table 3the Effect of Sink 2 on the Production Performances of Sink 1

Production
rates of Sink 2,
3
m /day
0
4
8
12

Sink 1
Cumulative oil
Cumulative
production, ton
water
3
production, m
4118
10654
5506
9066
6957
7816
8342
6430

Sink 2
Cumulative oil
Cumulative
production, ton
water
3
production, m
0
0
287
4760
637
9334
1226
13670

Sink 1+Sink 2
Cumulative oil
Cumulative
production, ton
water
3
production, m
4118
10654
5793
13826
7594
17149
9568
20099

The ratios of
Total Cumulative oil
to water production
3
ton/ m
0.387
0.419
0.443
0.476

IPTC 10521

Fig. 1 The principle of TSIOF

Fig. 2 Well completion configuration

Appar ent vi scosi t y( mPa. s)

IPTC 10521

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
0

0. 05

0. 1

0. 15

0. 2

Pr essur e gr adi ent s( MPa/ m)

Fig. 3 The apparent viscosity and pressure gradient

Hor i zont al per meabi l i t y mdc

500
1000
1500
2000

2500

1174. 9
Fig. 6 Grids in plane

1177. 9
1180. 9

Relative permeability

1183. 9
1186. 9
1189. 4
Fig. 4 The rhythm of the sand formation

20

Oi l sat ur at i on(

40
60

0.8

Krw
Kro

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

80

1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17

Fig. 5 The oil saturation in each layer from top to bottom

100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Sw
Fig. 7 The relative permeability of oil and water

100
Water-cut(%)

Grid z number .

Depthm

1171. 9

80
60
40

Production data

20

Simulation

0
2001.8

2002.5

2003.1

2003.9

2004.5

Production time(year.month)
Fig. 8 Water-cut match

2005.1

IPTC 10521

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

Two months

Cumulative procdution .
oil ton

Original state

10000
8000

0.0

6000

10
20

4000

30

2000
0
0

Production time year

Fig. 10 The effects of production rate of sink 2 on oil production of sink 1.

50

100

150

200

250

300

200

250

300

Six months

50

100

150

Twelve months
Water-cut

100

50

100

150

Current state(
0
0

50
10

200

100
20

300

50

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

Oil saturation color scale

100

Perforating interval

Fig. 9 Water coning process

0. 0

80

10

70

20

60

30

50
0

Horizontal scale
0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

Vertical scale
0.85

250

3 years and 4 months)

0.25

90

Pr oduct i on t i me year
Fig. 11 The effects of production rate of sink 2 on water-cut of sink 1.

IPTC 10521

150

200

250

300

50

100

100

150

200

250

300

50

the rate of sink2 is 10m /day

100

150

200

250

50

100

150

50

100

150

200

250

300

50

100

150

200

250

300

Current state (rate of sink2 is 12.0m /day

00

50
10

100
20

Vertical scale

50

100

Horizontal scale

0.25

0.3

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

Horizontal scale
0.75

100

0.85

Vertical scale
0.8

300

Current state (rate of sink2 is 4.0m /day

300

the rate of sink2 is 30m /day

100
20

0.85

250

0.35

50
10

250

Production for 4 months,

0
0

200

0.4

50

200

the rate of sink2 is 20m /day

0
0

150

300

Production for 4 months,

100

0.25

50

300

Current state (rate of sink2 is 0.0m /day

0
0

250

Production for 4 months,

200

0.35

50

0.75

150

Original state

Current state

0.45

100

0.54

50

0.65

Oil saturation color scale

Oil saturation color scale

Perforating interval of sink1

Perforating interval of sink1

Perforating interval of sink2

Fig. 12 The effects of production rate of sink 2 on the

behaviors of water coning.
Cumulative oil production after 5 years? ton?

Perforation location .
from OOWC?m?

7450
OOWC
1

7500

7550

7600

7650

3
5
7

Fig.13 The effect of perforation location on cumulative oil

production

Perforating interval of sink2

Fig. 14 The effects of production rate of sink 2 on the

behaviors of water coning for new well.