SPE 132839

Modeling of Water Coning Phenomena in a Fractured Reservoir and

Design a Simulator
B. Moradi, SPE, Iranian Central Oil Fileds Company, Z. Dastkhan, National Iranian South Oil Company,
B. Roozbehani, Petroleum University of Technology and GH. Montazeri, Iranian Central Oil Fileds
Company

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Trinidad and Tobago Energy Resources Conference held in Port of Spain, Trinidad, 27–30 June 2010.

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
The problem of water production is one of the major technical, environmental, and economical issues associated
with oil and gas production. It is the general accepted approach to put the well on production below a critical rate
without the risk of coning.
The main goal of this study is to prepare a reservoir numerical simulator with emphasis on water coning. Present
work mostly involves numerical simulation of water coning and includes proposed correlations in the literature.
The computer program included four distinct modules to calculate: critical or maximum allowable oil rate, water
breakthrough time, well performance after water coning take palaces and water coning simulation. Flow equations
of water and oil were discretized and numerically solved for two-dimensional coordinates. The implicit scheme was
used to calculate unknown pressures of any grid block. For calculation of water saturation, explicit scheme was
used.
Real field data of a well in southwest of Iran was put into the program and critical rate, water breakthrough time,
well performance after water coning and water coning simulation of reservoir were determined. We found that the
results of correlations are very far from the reality. On the other hand, numerical simulation shows good agreement
with real production data. Also it was observed that the current production rate of this well will result in rapid water
coning.
The critical oil rate for water-free production is important in several categories, including limiting the productive life
of the oil and gas wells, separation costs, corrosion of tubular, fines migration, and hydrostatic loading.
Introduction
The problem of unwanted water production is one of the major technical, environmental, and economical issues
associated with oil and gas production. Numerous technologies have been developed to control unwanted water
production, but the nature of the water production must be known in order to design an effective treatment. Once the
water production mechanism is understood, an effective strategy can be formulated to control water production.
The origin of water production may range from bottom aquifer to upper formations. In addition to this, the type of
the problem may range from casing leakage to water coning. For each new problem related to water production, a
detailed survey is necessary.
Water coning is a term used to describe the mechanism underlying the upward movement of water into the
perforations of a producing well. Coning can seriously impact the well productivity and influence the degree of
depletion and the overall recovery efficiency of the oil reservoirs.
Coning is primarily the result of movement of reservoir fluids in the direction of least resistance, balanced by a
tendency of the fluids to maintain gravity equilibrium. The analysis may be made with respect to either gas or water.
A survey of the literature shows that tremendous amount of research work has been done ranging from experimental
studies to analytical and numerical simulation studies in order to understand and predict water coning and cresting in
vertical and horizontal wells. Previous works involved analytical solutions or empirical correlations to predict the
conditions that prevent water coning. Present works mostly involves numerical simulations in order to simulate the
phenomenon of water coning in a specific reservoir.
This work includes both available correlations in the literature and also preparation of a numerical simulator
specified for water coning. The simulator has been prepared for the case of a single well but can be configured for
multiple wells.
In this article, first the basic concepts related to water production problems are presented with an emphasis on water
coning. The industry solutions to these problems are also presented. Later, the available correlations for to prediction
of critical oil rate and water breakthrough time are presented.
The specifications of the prepared program are presented. The case study of well MI-A in Mansouri oil field is
presented .Some recommendations for future work are presented.
Water Production Problems
Unwanted water production is one of the major technical, environmental, and economical problems associated with
oil and gas production. Water production can limit the productive life of the oil and gas wells and can cause severe
problems including corrosion of tubular, fines migration, and hydrostatic loading.
Produced water represents the largest waste stream associated with oil and gas production. In the United States, it is
estimated that on average 8 barrels of water are produced for each barrel of oil. In some areas around the world,
fields remain on production when the ratio is as high as 50-to-1. The environmental impact of handling, treating and
disposing of the produced water can seriously affect the profitability of oil and gas production. The annual cost of
disposing of the produced water in the United States is estimated to be 5-10 billion dollars.
It could be argued today that oil companies would be better described as water companies. Total worldwide oil
production averages some 75 million barrels per day (BOPD) and, while estimates vary, this is associated with the
production of 300-400 million barrels of water per day (BWPD). These values of approximately 5-6 barrels of water
for every barrel of oil are quite conservative.
The extent to which produced water problem is a big nuisance in the oil and gas industry is reflected in the fact that
unwanted production of water has been estimated to cost to petroleum industry about $45 billion a year. These costs
include the expense to lift, treatment, dispose or re-inject produced waters, as well as the capital investment in
surface facility construction and to address other environmental concerns.
Water Coning Models & Correlations
There are essentially three categories of correlations that are used to solve the coning problem. These categories are:
Critical rate calculations (qco)
Breakthrough time predictions (tBT)
Well performance calculations after breakthrough (mostly WOR vs. time)
Vertical Well Critical Rate Correlations
Critical rate Qoc is defined as the maximum allowable oil flow rate that can be imposed on the well to avoid a cone
breakthrough. The critical rate would correspond to the development of a stable cone to an elevation just below the
bottom of the perforated interval in an oil-water system or to an elevation just above the top of the perforated
interval in a gas-oil system. There are several empirical correlations that are commonly used to predict the oil
critical rate, including the correlations of:
Craft and Hawkins
Meyer and Garder
Chierici and Ciucci
Hoyland, Papatzacos, and Skjaeveland
Chaney et al.
Chaperson
Schols
The Craft and Hawkins Method
Craft and Hawkins proposed the following relationship for predicting the maximum water-free oil flow rate. In
comparison with other correlations, their correlation may not be of much accuracy, because for example it doesn’t
consider the difference in oil and water density. Another weakness is due to the assumption of reservoir isotropy,
that is, kv = kh. Craft and Hawkins’ correlation for critical oil rate is as follows:
 0.007078k o h( p ′ws − p wf )
Qo = × PR
⎛r ⎞
μ o Bo ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ 1
⎝ rw ⎠
in which PR is the productivity ratio and can be defined as:
⎡ rw ⎤
PR = b′⎢1 + 7 cos(b ′ × 90 o ) ⎥ 2
⎣⎢ 2b′h ⎦⎥
where
Qo = critical oil rate, STB/day
PR = productivity ratio
p ′ws = static well pressure corrected to the middle of producing interval, psi
pwf = flowing well pressure at the middle of producing interval, psi
ko = effective oil permeability, md
re, rw = drainage and wellbore radius, respectively, ft
b ′ = penetration ratio, hp/h
h = oil column thickness, ft
hp = thickness of perforated interval, ft
μo = oil viscosity, cp
Bo = oil formation volume factor, reservoir bbl/STB
The Meyer-Garder Correlation
Meyer and Garder suggested that coning development is a result of the radial flow of the oil and associated pressure
sink around the wellbore. In their derivations, Meyer and Garder assume a homogeneous system with a uniform
permeability throughout the reservoir, i.e., kh = kv. It should be pointed out that the ratio kh/kv is the most critical
term in evaluating and solving the coning problem.
Meyer and Garder propose a similar expression for determining the critical oil rate in the water coning system. The
proposed relationship has the following form:
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
− 4 ⎢ ρ w − ρ o ⎥⎛ k o ⎞ 2
Qoc = 0.246 × 10 ⎜⎜ [
⎟ h − h p2
⎢ ⎛ r ⎞ ⎥⎝ μ o Bo ⎟⎠
] 3
⎢ ln⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦⎥
where
ρw = water density, lb/ft3
hp = perforated interval, ft
Breakthrough Time in Vertical Wells
Critical flow rate calculations frequently show low rates that, for economic reasons, cannot be imposed on
production wells. Therefore, if a well produces above its critical rate, the cone will break through after a given time
period. This time is called time to breakthrough tBT. Two of the most widely used correlations are documented
below.
The Sobocinski-Cornelius Method
Sobocinski and Cornelius developed a correlation for predicting water breakthrough time based on laboratory data
and modeling results. The authors correlated the breakthrough time with two dimensionless parameters, the
dimensionless cone height and the dimensionless breakthrough time. Those two dimensionless parameters are
defined by the following expressions:
Dimensionless cone height Z:
( ρ w − ρ o ) k h h( h − h p )
Z = 0.492 × 10 − 4 4
μ o B o Qo
where:
ρo = oil density, lb/ft3
ρw = water density, lb/ft3
kh = horizontal permeability, md
Qo = oil production rate, STB/day
hp = perforated interval, ft
h = oil column thickness, ft
Dimensionless breakthrough time (tD)BT:
4 Z + 1.75Z 2 − 0.75Z 3
(t D ) BT = 5
7 − 2Z
Sobocinski and Cornelius proposed the following expression for predicting time to breakthrough from the calculated
value of the dimensionless breakthrough time (tD)BT:
20325μ o hφ (t D ) BT
t BT = 6
( ρ w − ρ o )k v (1 + M α )
where:
tBT = time to breakthrough, days
φ = porosity, fraction
kv = vertical permeability, and
M = water-oil mobility and is defined by:
⎡ (k ) ⎤⎛ μ ⎞
M = ⎢ rw sor ⎥⎜⎜ o ⎟⎟ 7
⎣ (k ro ) swc ⎦⎝ μ w ⎠
with:
(kro)swc = oil relative permeability at connate water saturation
(krw)sor = water relative permeability at residual oil saturation
α = 0.5 for M ≤ 1
α = 0.6 for 1 < M ≤ 10
Joshi observed by examining Equation that if Z = 3.5 or greater, there will be no water breakthrough. This
observation can be imposed on Equation with Z = 3.5 to give an expression for calculating the critical oil flow rate,
or:
( ρ w − ρ o ) k h h(h − h p )
Qoc = 0.141 × 10 − 4 8
μ o Bo
The Bournazel-Jeanson Method
Based on experimental data, Bournazel and Jeanson developed a methodology that uses the same dimensionless
groups proposed in the Sobocinski-Cornelius method. The procedure of calculating the time to breakthrough is
given below.
Step 1. Calculate the dimensionless cone height Z from Equation .
Step 2. Calculate the dimensionless breakthrough time by applying the following expression:
Z
(t D ) BT = 9
3 − 0.7 Z
Step 3. Solve for the time to breakthrough tBT by substituting the above-calculated dimensionless breakthrough
time into Equation, i.e.
20325μ o hφ (t D ) BT
t BT = 10
( ρ w − ρ o )k v (1 + M α )
As pointed out by Joshi, Equation indicates that no breakthrough occurs if Z ≥ 4.286. Imposing this value on Equa-
tion gives a relationship for determining Qo.
( ρ w − ρ o ) k h h(h − h p )
Qoc = 0.1148 × 10 − 4 11
μ o Bo
After Breakthrough Performance
Once the water breakthrough occurs, it is important to predict the performance of water production as a function of
time. Normally, using numerical radial models solves such a problem. Currently, no simple analytical solution exists
to predict the performance of the vertical well after breakthrough. Kuo and Desbrisay applied the material balance
equation to predict the rise in the oil-water contact in a homogeneous reservoir and correlated their numerical results
in terms of the following dimensionless parameters:
‰ Dimensionless water cut (fw)D.
‰ Dimensionless breakthrough time tDBT
‰ Dimensionless limiting water cut (WC)limit
The specific steps of the proposed procedure are given below.
Step 1. Calculate the time to breakthrough tBT by using the Sobocinski-Cornelius method or the Bournazel-Jeanson
correlation.
Step 2. Assume any time t after breakthrough.
Step 3. Calculate the dimensionless breakthrough time ratio tDBT from:
t
t DBT = 12
t BT
Step 4. Compute the dimensionless limiting water cut from:
M 13
(WC ) lim it =
⎛ h ⎞
M + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ hw ⎠
With the parameters in Equation as defined below:
⎡ (k ) ⎤ μ
M = ⎢ rw sor ⎥ o 14
⎣ (k ro ) swc ⎦ μ w
h = H o (1 − R) 15

hw = H w + H o R 16

N p ⎡ 1 − S wc ⎤
R=( )⎢ ⎥ 17
N ⎣1 − S or − S wc ⎦
where:
(WC)limit = current limiting value for water cut
M = mobility ratio
(krw)sor = relative permeability for the water and residual oil saturation (Sor)
(kro)swc = relative permeability for the oil at the connate water saturation (Swc)
μo, μw = oil and water viscosities, cp
Ho = initial oil zone thickness, ft
Hw = initial water zone thickness, ft
h = current oil zone thickness, ft
hw = current water zone thickness, ft
Np = cumulative oil production, STB
N = initial oil in place, STB
Step 5. Calculate the dimensionless water cut (fw)D based upon the dimensionless breakthrough time ratio as given
by the following relationships:
( f w ) D = 0 for t DBT < 0.5 18
( f w ) D = 0.29 + 0.94log(t DBT ) for 0.5 ≤ t DBT ≤ 5.7
( fw )D = 1 for t DBT > 5.7
Step 6. Calculate the actual water cut fw from the expression:
f w = ( f w ) D (WC ) lim it 19
Step 7. Calculate water and oil flow rate by using the following expressions:
Qw = ( f w ) QT 20

Qo = QT − Qw 21
 where Qw, Qo, QT are the water, oil, and total flow rates, respectively. It should be pointed out that as oil is
recovered, the oil-water contact will rise and the limiting value for water cut will change. It also should be noted the
limiting water cut value (WC)limit lags behind one time step when calculating future water cut.
Specifications of Water Coning Simulator
The algorithm and specifications of the computer program is presented as well as a step-by-step procedure of using
the program for predicting and calculation of water coning parameters. The program was written in Microsoft Visual
Basic 6, but can be run in any environment which has Microsoft Windows installed.
This program is named “Water Coning Predictor and Simulator” and has four distinct modules, as listed below:
1- Oil Critical Rate Calculation Module
2- Water Cone Breakthrough Time Calculation Module
3- After Breakthrough Well Performance Prediction Module
4- Water Coning Simulation Module
Description of Program Modules
Oil Critical Rate Calculation
As defined in the previous chapter, critical rate Qoc is the maximum allowable oil flow rate that can be imposed on
the well to avoid a cone breakthrough. There are several empirical correlations that are commonly used to predict
the oil critical rate, but some of them are dependent on a specific reservoir system. The following ones are used in
this program:
I. Craft and Hawkins
II. Meyer and Garder
III. Hoyland, Papatzacos, and Skjaeveland
IV. Chaperson
V. Schols
VI. Sobocinski and Cornelius
VII. Bournazel and Jeanson
The first 5 correlation are directly used to calculate critical oil rate, but the last two correlations of Sobocinski -
Cornelius and Bournazel-Jeanson are originally used to calculated breakthrough time. From these two latter
correlations, Joshi concluded a method for calculation of critical oil rate, which is based on breakthrough time. If the
“Critical Rate calculation” task is selected, the following screen appears which allows user to select some or all of
seven correlations to proceed calculations.
Then the user is asked to enter reservoir and well data via two ways: a data file or the system keyboard. Reservoir
and well data can be loaded from a file for ease and comfort. The data file is a predefined text file which can be
modified or changed by inserting new data in appropriate fields.
The structure of such a data file is very simple: at each line the parameter is defined followed by its value, and
finally a short description of the parameter is presented. In addition to explanation of the parameter, the description
section indicates the unit of measurement of any value.
The third step is to check the data for seek of completeness and validity. If any data is missed or its value is not
reasonable, it must be corrected to its real value.
The forth step is to run the module. Then results of calculation appear on a separate screen and can be save to a file.
After Breakthrough Well Performance Prediction
When the water cone break through the well, it is frequently necessary to predict the performance of water
production as a function of time. Currently, no simple analytical solution exists to predict the performance of the
vertical well after breakthrough.
Kuo and Desbrisay applied the material balance equation to predict the rise in the oil-water contact in a
homogeneous reservoir. Their method is described in Chapter 3 in detail. Since their method requires the
breakthrough time, either methods of Sobocinski -Cornelius or Bournazel-Jeanson can be used for calculation of tBT.
The Kuo and Desbrisay method is used in the program along with the Bournazel-Jeanson correlation for calculation
of breakthrough time. At each time step after breakthrough, the production rate of oil and water, water cut,
cumulative oil production and recovery factor is calculated. The results can be viewed either in table form or in
graphical plot.
Fig. 1 depicts the plot of water cut and recovery factor versus time after breakthrough time.
Case Study: Mansouri Oil Field
The proposed correlations for predicting critical oil rate and breakthrough time are investigated and compared with
the simulation results. The comparisons are made by means of the data of rock and fluid of an Iranian oil field
named Mansouri. First a brief description of the field is presented, then correlations are examined for some
production wells.
Mansouri Oil Field
Mansouri oil field is located 60 km away from south of Ahwaz. This field was discovered in 1963 and until now 40
wells have been drilled and completed in its producing formation (Asmari). Well numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 34
are completed to produce from Asmari reservoir and the remaining wells are completed in different zones of
Bangestan Reservoir.
Asmari reservoir in water-oil level is 23 km long and 3 km wide. Water oil contact in this reservoir is located in
2400 meters subsea and the maximum thickness of oil zone is 150 meters.
Structurally, Asmari reservoir in Mansouri oil field is located in flat plateaus region. The underground contour map
(UGC) map of the top of Asmari formation in Mansouri oil field.
Evaluation of Water Coning for Well MI-A
Table 1 covers the input raw data of well MI-A. These data are used for calculation of critical rate, breakthrough
time, and well performance after breakthrough. This listing is in fact an input file for the program.
Calculation of Critical Oil Rate for Well MI-A
The reservoir data of well MI-A were input to the program and the following results were obtained for critical oil
rates.
Critical Oil Rate Calculation:
Craft and Hawkins method:
Qc= 2757.2 STB/day
Meyer and Garder correlation:
Qc= 1448.2 STB/day
Hoyland et al's method (isotropic approach):
Qc= 2810.3 STB/day
Chaperson's method:
Flow rate coefficient (q*)= 0.8422
Qc= 1908.0 STB/day

Schols' method:
Qc= 2294.5 STB/day

Indirect from Sobocinski & Cornelius correlation:

Qc= 2787.3 STB/day
Indirect from Bournazel & Jeanson correlation:
Qc= 2267.4 STB/day

Calculation of Breakthrough Time for Well MI-A

This well has produced a total of 206409 STB over an actual production time of 11125 days. This means that the
average rate was 18554 STBD. Since there is no information about the horizontal and vertical permeabilities, we
consider kv=kh. The reservoir data of well MI-A were input to the program and the following results were obtained
for breakthrough time.
Breakthrough Time Calculation:
Sobocinski and Cornelius method:
Dimensionless cone height (Z)= 1.158
Tbt= 116.1 days
Bournazel and Jeanson method:
Dimensionless cone height (Z)= 1.158
Tbt= 49.5 days
Calculation of Performance after Breakthrough for Well MI-A
Assuming the initial oil in place of 130 MMSTB in Asmari formation of Mansouri field, the following results graph
was obtained for performance of the well after breakthrough.

Conclusions
In present work, first the basic concepts and reservoir engineering fundamentals of water production problems was
investigated with an emphasis on water coning. Then all available empirical correlations for prediction of maximum
allowable oil rate and water breakthrough time were presented.
As the main output of this work, a comprehensive computer program was written which performs four types of
calculations related to water coning phenomenon. The first module was written to calculate critical or maximum
allowable oil rate without the risk of water coning. In this module, 7 common correlations are included.
The next module was devoted to calculate water breakthrough time. Two major correlations of Sobocinski-Cornelius
and Bournazel-Jeanson were included in this module.
The third module is specified for calculation of well performance after water coning has occurred. By using this
module, one can calculate the recovery factor (RF), water cut, and cumulative oil production of a well after water
coning.
As the case study, the filed and reservoir data of well MI-A were input to all modules of the program. This well
produces from Asmari formation of Mansouri oil filed. After running the program, it was observed that the current
production rate of this well will result in rapid water coning.

References
1. Di Lullo, G., and P. Rae, “New Insights into Water Control – A Review of the State of the Art”, Paper SPE 77963 presented at
SPE Asian Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia, 8-10 October, 2002.
2. Seright, R.S., R.H. Lane, and R.D. Sydansk, “A Strategy for Attacking Excess Water Production”, SPE Production and
Facilities, August 2003.
3. Inikori, S.O., “Numerical Study of Water Coning Control with Downhole Water Sink (DWS) Well Completions in Vertical
and Horizontal Wells”, PhD Dissertation, Louisiana State University, August 2002.
4. Khatib Z and P. Verbeek, “Water to Value–Produced Water Management for Sustainable Field Development of Mature and
Green Fields,” paper SPE 73853, presented at the SPE International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and
Gas Exploration and Production, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 20–22, 2002.
5. Bailey, B, Crabtree, M. Tyrie, J. Elphick, J. Kuchuk, F. Romano, C. and Roodhart, L., “Water Control”, Oilfield Review,
Spring 2000.
6. Reynolds, R.P., “Produces Water and Associated Issues”, Oklahoma Geological Survey Open File Report 6-2003, 2003.
7. Azari, M., and N. Gazi, “Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Excess Water and Gas Production”, Paper SPE 37810 presented at
the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 15-18 March, 1997.
8. Schlumberger Online Oilfield Glossary: Website: www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com R-2
9. Chan, K.S., “Water Control Diagnostic Plots”, Paper SPE 30775 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, October 22-25, 1995.
10. Aminian, K., “Water Production Problems and Solutions - Part 1”, West Virginia University, 2003.
11. Grattoni, C.A., X.D. Jing, and R. W. Zimmerman, “Disproportionate Permeability Reduction When a Silicate Gel is Formed
In-Situ to Control Water Production”, Paper SPE 69534 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Argentina, March 25-28, 2001.
12. Di Lullo, G., A.B. Ahmad, P. Rae, L. Anaya, and R.A. Meli, “Toward Zero damage: New Fluid Points the Way”, Paper SPE
69453 presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Argentina, March 25-28, 2001.
13. Ahmed, T., “Reservoir Engineering Handbook”, 2nd edition, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas, 2001.
14. Calhoun, J., “Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering”, The University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK., 1960.
15. Muskat, M, “The Physical Principles of Oil Production”, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York 1949.
16. Wheatley, M.J., “An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water Coning”, Paper SPE 14210 presented at the 60th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, September 22-25, 1985.
17. Guo, B., and R.L.H. Lee, “A Simple Approach to Optimization of Completion Interval in Oil/Water Coning Systems’, Paper
SPE 23994, SPE Reservoir Engineering, November 1960.
18. Joshi, S.D., “Horizontal Well Technology”, Pennwell Publishing Company, Tulsa, OK, 1991. R-3
19. Halliburton, “Reservoir Conformance Technology – Maximizing Your Reservoir Value Through The Management of
Unwanted Water and Gas”, Website: www.halliburton.com , Document No. H01027, 2001.
20. Ehlig-Economides, C.A., K. S. Chan, and J. B. Spath, “Production Enhancement Strategies for Strong Bottom Water Drive
Reservoirs”, Paper SPE 36613 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 6-9,
1996.
21. Widmyer, R. H.: “Producing Petroleum from Underground Formations,” U.S. Patent No. 2,855,047, October 3, 1955.
22. Driscoll, V. J., “Multiple Producing Intervals to Suppress Coning,” US Patent No. 3,638,731, February 1, 1972.
23. Permadi, P., W. Wibowo, Y. Alamsyah, and S. W. Pratomo, “Horizontal Well Completion With Stinger for Reducing Water
Coning Problems”, Paper SPE 37464 presented at SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, March 9-11,
1997.
24. Craft, B.C., and M.F. Hawkins, “Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering”, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1959.
25. Meyer, H.L., and A.O. Garder, “Mechanics of Two Immiscible Fluids in Porous Media”, Journal of Applied Physics, Vol.25,
No.11, November 1954.
 26. Pirson, S.J., “Oil Reservoir Engineering”, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Huntington, NY, 1977.
27. Slider, H.C., “Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Methods”, Pennwell Publishing Company, Tulsa, OK, 1976.
28. Chierichi, G.L., G. M. Ciucci, and G. Pizzi, “A Systematic Study of Gas and Water Coning by Potentiometric Models”, Paper
SPE 871, Journal of Petroleum Technology, August 1964.
R-4
29. Hoyland, L.A., P. Papatzacos, and S.M. Skjaeveland, “Critical Rate for Water Coning: Correlation and Analytical Solution”,
Paper SPE 15855, SPERE, November 1989.
30. Chaney, P.E., et al., “How to Perforate Your Wells to Prevent Water and Gas Coning”, Oil and Gas Journal, May 1956.
31. Chaperson, I., “Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations: Subcritical
and Critical Rates”, Paper SPE 15377 presented at the SPE 61st Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
32. Sobocinski, D.P., and A.J. Cornelius, “A Correlation for Predicting Water Coning Time”, Paper SPE 894, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, May 1965.
33. Bournazel, C., and B. Jeanson, “Fast Water Coning Evaluation”, Paper SPE 3628 presented at the 46th Annual Fall Meeting,
New Orleans, October 3-6, 1971.
34. Kuo, C.T., and C.L. DesBrisay, “A Simplified Method for Water Coning Predictions”, Paper SPE 12076 presented at the
Annual SPE Technical Conference, San Francisco, October 5-8, 1983.
35. Karcher, B., F. Giger, and J. Combe, “Some Practical Formulas to Predict Horizontal Well Behavior, Paper SPE 15430
presented at the SPE 61st Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, October 5-8, 1986.
36. Ozkan, E., and R. Raghavan, “Performance of Horizontal Wells Subject to Bottom Water Coning Drive”, Paper SPE 18545
presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Charleston, West Virginia, November 2-4, 1988.
37. National Iranian South Oilfields Co. (NISOC) Central Archive, “Mansouri Oil Field Comprehensive Book”, Interoffice
Reports.
38. Kleppe, Jon, “Reservoir Simulation”, lecture note No. 6, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2004.

Fig. 1: After breakthrough performance of the well MI-A.

Table 1: The raw data of well MI-A as imported to the program.

#variable *Description:unit
#--------- -----------------
~Data
rw=0.2578 *well radius:ft
Dt= N/A *Distance from GOC to top of perforations:ft
Db=110 *Distance from WOC to bottom of perforations:ft
Pws=3533 *Static well pressure at middle of perforations:psi
Pwf=3429 *Flowing well pressure at middle of perforations:psi
10 [Paper Number]

h=302 *(initial) pay zone thickness:ft

hp=102 *Perforated or completed interval:ft
hw=450 *Initial water column thickness:ft
Qo=18554 *Oil flowrate:STB/day
re=5280 *Drainage radius:ft
ko=650 *Permeability to oil:md
kh= N/A *Horizontal permeability:md
kv= N/A *Vertical permeability:md
oilVis=1.6 *Oil viscosity:cp
watVis=0.95 *Water viscosity:cp
gasVis= N/A *Gas viscosity:cp
oilDen=48 *Oil density:lb/cu ft
watDen=72.1 *Water density:lb/cu ft
gasDen=? *Gas density:lb/cu ft
Bo=1.3536 *Oil formation volume factor:res bbl/STB
Bw=1.05 *Oil formation volume factor:res bbl/STB
Bg=N/A *Gas formation volume factor:res bbl/MSCF
phi=0.13 *Porosity:fraction
Sor=0.34 *Residual oil saturation:fraction
Swc=0.21 *Connate water saturation:fraction
Swi=0.24 *Initial water saturation:fraction
krwsor=0.213 *Water rel. perm. at residual oil saturation:fraction
kroswc=1 *Oil rel. perm. at connate water saturation:fraction
N= N/A *Initial oil in place:STB
qt=18554 *Total flow rate:STB/day
#