SPE 108254
Investigation of Water-Coning Phenomenon in Iranian Carbonate Fractured Reservoirs
M. Namani and M. Asadollahi, SPE, NIOC RIPI, and M. Haghighi, SPE, University of Tehran
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentati on at the 2007 International Oil Conferenc e and
Exhibition in Mexico held in Veracruz, Mexico, 27–30 June 2007.
This paper was s elected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee followi ng review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been revi ewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are s ubjec t to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not nec essarily reflec t any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers pres ented at
SPE meetings are s ubjec t to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purpos es without the written c ons ent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustr ations may not be copied. The abstract must c ontain c ons picuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was pr esented. Write Li brarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The water coning caused by the imbalance between gravity
and viscous forces is the most important reason for water
production in different fractured reservoirs. There are various
controllable and uncontrollable parameters affecting this
phenomenon. In this study different dynamic models were
constructed to search for the key parameters affecting the
coning process in both single-well and Cartesian mult i-well
models.
It has been determined that oil layer thickness, perforation
thickness, fracture permeab ility and its orientation, especially
horizontal not vertical fracture permeability, p roduction rate,
mobility ratio, and fracture storativity have the major ro le in
water coning phenomenon. Also it has been determined that
fracture spacing, aquifer strength and skin factor have
insignificant effect on water coning in fractured reservoirs.
The variation of water breakthrough time respect to each
effective parameter has also been studied. We concluded that
for any production program or adjusting the wells location, the
parameter study is very important.
Multi-well studies using an Iranian fractured reservoir data
show that the trend of dependency of water coning on each
parameter is similar to the single-well model. Ho wever, in
field scale, it is necessary to have all reservoir data including
well location, and production history for a successful water
coning simu lation because a small pressure drawdown exerted
by a far well will affect the cone shape and its breakthrough
time.
Introduction
The production of water fro m o il producing wells is a co mmon
occurrence in o ilfields. It may be attributed to one or more
reasons such as normal rise of oil water contact, water coning,
and/or water fingering. The water production increases the
operating cost and it may also reduce both reserve and
recovery.1 Among these mechanisms, water coning is a serious
problem in many oilfields especially in some large Middle
East oil reservoirs, where the oil zone has an aquifer
underneath whether or not it serves as an active drive. 2
Water coning is caused by an imbalance between the
gravitational and v iscous forces around the comp letion
interval1 . In other words the flow of o il fro m the reservoir to
the well introduces an upward dynamic force upon the
reservoir flu ids. This dynamic force due to wellbore
drawdown causes the water at the bottom of the oil layer to
rise to a certain point at which the dynamic force is balanced
by the height of water beneath that point (Figure 1). Now, as
the lateral d istance from the wellbore increases, the pressure
drawdown and the upward dynamic force decrease. Thus, the
height of the balance point decreases as the distance fro m the
wellbore increases. Therefore, the locus of the balance point is
a stable cone shaped water-oil interface. At this stable
situation oil flows above the interface while water remains
stationary below the interface. 3
The extent of cone growth and/or its stabilizat ion in
conventional reservoirs depend on different factors such as
mobility ratio, o il zone thickness, the extent of the well
penetration, and vertical permeability; but the most important
parameter is total production rate. 2 In case of fractured
reservoir this problem is more co mplicated because a dual
porosity system results in formation of t wo cones. Depending
on the rates, it may be developed a fast moving cone in the
fracture and a slow moving one in the matrix. The relat ive
position of the two cones is rate sensitive and is a function of
reservoir properties.4 While there are many theoretical works
in the case of conventional reservoirs 5 , only limited analytical
works are availab le for the ideal cases of fractured reservoirs
such as Birks theory. 6, 7
In fractured reservoirs, critical rate are influenced by extra
factors such as fracture storativity , fracture transmissivity ,
fractures pattern and their interaction to matrixes especially
around the wellbore. Shorter breakthrough times and lower
critical rates are predicted for fractured systems.4 In this study
some simulat ion models have been constructed to analyze the
effect of different parameters on water coning in single-well
models (Figure 2). Furthermore some models have been
constructed to analyze the coning phenomenon in mu lti-well
configuration (Figure 3).
Single-Well Studies
In the first part, a radial model with a single-well has been
constructed in order to study the effect of different parameters
(Figure 2). We change each parameter while the other
parameters are kept constant. The characteristics of this basic
model and the PVT data shown in Tables 1 and 2 are from
2 SPE 108254
Saidi9 and Van Golf Racht 10 for an Iranian carbonate fractured
reservoir (Haft Kel field). The aquifer characteristics are
shown in Table 3. The effects of nine different parameters are
discussed below.
1. Well Penetration
Since the extent of well penetration into the pay thickness
has considerable effect on water coning and water
breakthrough time, this parameter is first investigated.
Our model has a well penetration equal to the half of the
oil pay thickness from top of the layer. Five cases with
different well penetrations have been selected while the total
oil pay thickness was constant (300 ft ). The simulat ions have
been run for 546 days (1.5 years), and the resulting water -cut
are shown in Figure 4.
Pressure drawdown, which is the source of v iscous force,
is a function of distance between the lowest perforation and
the water oil contact. If this distance increases, the viscous
force will decrease and water coning or water oil contact will
be stabilized at higher production rate.
When well penetration percentage is decreased fro m 50%
to 16.67% (case 1), the breakthrough time is increased from
155.7 days to 296.1 days. Therefore, the mo re well
penetration, the less breakthrough time takes place. This result
is mo re obvious for case 5 when the penetration percentage is
increased to 83.33% and the breakthrough time has been
decreased to 8.8 days.
The trend of water-cut after breakthrough shows that well
penetration affects only the breakthrough time and the
increasing trend of water-cut is almost the same for all models.
Also for different cases, the breakthrough time changes
linearly with penetration percent (Figure 5).
2. Oil Layer Thickness
The pay thickness is one of the uncontrollable parameters
in coning process. Five different cases have been selected to
study the effect of oil layer thickness in constant penetration
percent (50%). The base case has an oil layer thickness of 300
ft with 50% penetration (150 ft) fro m the top. The results are
shown in Figure 6. It is clear that the breakthrough time
directly depends on the oil pay thickness. By decreasing the
oil pay fro m 300 ft (basic model) to 100 ft for case 1, the
breakthrough time has approached to zero and there is an
instant coning in this thin pay thickness.
Another important point is the high slope of water-cut
curves for the cases with lower oil pay thicknesses.
Figure 7 shows that for the oil pay thickness more than 200
ft, breakthrough time is a linear function of oil layer thickness.
But for layers thinner than 200 ft, there is no linear
dependency because of the fluid flow turbulence in thin oil
reservoirs, especially in fluid entry points.
3. Fracture Permeability
Fracture permeability is the most important uncontrollable
parameter in water coning phenomenon, because in fractured
reservoirs, water cone front in fractures moves faster than
matrixes. First, we studied five different cases with isotropic
fracture permeability. Second, the orientation of fracture
permeability has been studied.
3.1. Isotropic Fracture Permeability
The results of different isotropic cases are shown in Figure
8. As we can observe, while the fracture permeability
increases, the breakthrough time is also increased. It may be
explained that more fracture permeability causes more
horizontal distribution of cone than vertical distribution due to
the gravity force and results a more stable phenomenon.
Figure 8 shows that after breakthrough the slope of water-cut
curves have a little changes for different cases and the slope of
water-cut in the case of high permeability is more than the
others. Also Figure 9 shows that above a crit ical value, the
effect of permeability on delaying b reakthrough decreases. In
other words in low permeability cases breakthrough time is
more sensitive to permeability than in high permeab ility
models.
3.2. Anisotropic Fracture Permeability
Vertical Fracture Permeability Variations
Different vertical permeab ility cases with different vertical
to horizontal permeability ratio fro m 0.01 to 3 are selected
(Figure 10). As vertical permeab ility decreases, (Kv /Kh
decrease) the breakthrough time will be higher; however,
comparing to horizontal fracture permeability, the
breakthrough time change is not considerable. This result is
contrary to Van Go lf-Racht and Sonier studies.8 For all cases,
the slope of water cut curves after breakthrough converges to a
unique curve. Figure 11 shows that in low vertical fracture
permeab ilities, the dependency of breakthrough time on the Kh
is more than high vertical permeability models.
Horizontal Fracture Permeability Variations
In this part, eight simu lation models have been constructed
with Kv /Kh variations fro m 0.33 to 100 by the horizontal
permeab ility variat ions from 20 md to 6000 md. Any
horizontal permeab ility above the base case increases the
breakthrough time gradually. However, at low permeab ility
cases water cone breakthrough is faster.
Figure 12 shows the behavior of models after the
breakthrough. This Figure shows that for the lo w horizontal
permeab ility cases, there is a sharp increase in water-cut after
the breakthrough. The slope of curves decreases when the
horizontal permeab ility increases. The effect of horizontal
fracture permeability can be exp lained by this fact that any
increase in horizontal permeability results in a better
distribution of fluid in horizontal p lane; therefore, the water
migrates better from cone shaped mediu m and the gravity
force is able to act stronger. Also Figure 13 shows the
breakthrough time as a function of horizontal fracture
permeability.
4. Production Rate
The most controllable parameter in water coning
phenomenon is production rate. There is a critical rate in
conventional oil reservoirs in wh ich lower than this rate, water
coning can be prevented. Different authors have been derived
analytical equations and empirical correlations to determine
this critical rate in conventional reservoirs.10,11 However, in
fractured reservoirs, because most of the wells have high
productivity and can produce at high rates; the crit ical rate is
very low from which is not economical to produce. Therefore,
SPE 108254
optimization of production rate is essential for controlling of
water coning problem by considering the most profitable long -
term economical conditions.
For study of the effect of production rate, ten production
rates have been chosen and production duration is selected
three years. Water-cut curves are shown in Figure 14.
Decrease of production rate delays the water breakthrough
time significantly. A lso the slope of water-cut curves in h igh
rates is more. Figure 15 shows the dependency of all cases on
production rate such that the water breakthrough decreases
when the production rate increases.
5. Mobility ratio
Eleven mobility rat ios have been selected by applying
changes in oil v iscosity (Figures 16 and 17). As we expected,
at mobility ratio of 10, the breakthrough occurred very fast
(5.5 days) and the slope of the water-cut curve is high. But at
mobility ratio of 0.1 the breakthrough time increases to 287
days and the slope of water-cut curve is low.
One impo rtant point is different distributions of water -cone
in different mobility ratios. The simu lation results show that in
high mobility ratio cases, although water breakthrough occurs
sooner, the water cone cannot distribute easily in a horizontal
plane because the cone distribution in horizontal direct ion is
less than vertical direction.
6. Fracture Storativity
Based on fracture storativity definit ion in equation 1 with
constant compressibility and applying the changes to the initial
porosity values (base case), five different cases have been
constructed.
c
 2 2 ................................................... (1)
 1c1   2 c2
ω: Storativity (Storage Ratio)
φ1 : Primary Porosity
φ2 : Secondary Porosity
c1 : Compressibility of Primary Porosity (1/psi)
c2 : Compressibility of Secondary Porosity (1/psi)
The results show the increase of storativity has delayed the
water breakthrough time (Figures 18 and 19). Since the
increase of storativity results a faster movement of oil fro m the
matrix to the fracture, less pressure drawdown takes place and
as a result the fast growth of the water cone into the wellbore
is stopped.
7. Matrix Permeability
Figure 20 shows the water-cut versus the matrix permeability.
With the increase of matrix permeability, matrix-fracture fluid
transfer increases and the exerted pressure drawdown, which
is the cause of coning formation reduces. Dependency of the
water breakthrough on matrix permeability has a linear trend.
8. Aquifer Strength
Two strong and weak aquifers have been modeled. Simulat ion
results in Figure 21 show that the aquifer characteristics have
no effect on the breakthrough time and the water -cut after
breakthrough. The presence of vertical fractures seems to play
3
the key role such that with a weak aquifer, the water coning
can take place similar to a powerful aquifer.
9. Fracture Spacing
The effect of fracture spacing on water coning has been
studied using six simu lation models. Breakthrough time for all
cases is similar. A lso, as it is shown in Figure 22, all models
have similar behavior after breakthrough. It can be concluded
that although fracture spacing plays an important ro le in o il
recovery, it has no effect on the water coning phenomenon.
Multi-Well Studies
At the second part of this work, Cartesian mult i-well
models with five-spot pattern have been constructed to
determine the differences between single-well and mult i-well
studies. Grid sensitivity analysis has been done for both cases
to ensure the applicability of the models.
Figure 3 shows the Cartesian model of five-spot pattern.
Single -well and multi-well models in the geomet ry and the
dimensions of drainage area are similar. The distance between
two wells is about 2000 ft (about 1000 ft drainage bound ary
for each well) and the total side length of the cubic model is
about 7150 ft. The total number of grid blocks is increased to
45630. The aquifer and PVT properties are the same as before.
1. Model with Five Production Wells
In this case all five wells are production wells with the
same production rate as the single-well model. The
breakthrough time has increased to 487 days compared to
155.7 days in the single-well model. Since the assumption of a
radial drainage area with radius of 1000 ft is not applicable
with four wells around the well No.1, the breakthrough time is
increased. Furthermore improvement of pressure drawdown
exerted by new wells has been result in mo re stable rise of
water-oil contact. Figure 23 shows the water saturation
distribution in the fractures in depth of 205 ft fro m top of the
reservoir and 630 days after production. It is obvious that the
cone of central well (No.1) has more arial distribution due to
more pressure drawdown exerted by side wells. Also the cones
of other wells have been distributed asymmetrically due to the
pressure drawdown of well No.1. At last, Figure 24 shows the
water-cut of the model after the breakthrough time, which has
less increasing trend compared to the case of single-well
model.
2. Model with One Production Well
The side wells have been shut in order to study the effect of
drainage area and side production wells. In this case the cone
breakthrough time is 1460 days. It appears that the drainage
area of the well changes the breakthrough time.
The water saturation distribution in this case is symmetrical.
Figure 25 shows the water saturation distribution in the depth
of 255 ft fro m top of the reservoir at the end of production
time (1460 days).
3. Model with Three Production Wells
In this case, there are three production wells in surrounding
of the model to investigate the effect of pressure drawdown
exerted by wells on the central well. Figure 26 shows the
water-cut after breakthrough. The breakthrough time occurred
4 SPE 108254
in 834 days, which is sooner than the case of one production
well but better than the case of five production wells. Figures
27 and 28 show the water saturation distribution in the depth
of 185 ft and 195 ft fro m the top of the reservoir and after
1297 days of production.
4. Different Production Rates
In this section the model with five production wells were
used and simulated for five d ifferent production rates. The
breakthrough time is different than the single-well model;
however, the trend of the breakthrough time versus rate is
similar.
The simu lation results with different production rates are
shown in Figure 29. Figure 30 shows the dependency of the
breakthrough time on the production rate.
5. Models with Different Well Penetrations
Three cases with different well penetrations have been
selected for evaluating mult i-well model. Figure 31 shows the
water-cut of different cases after breakthrough. Also Figure 32
shows the dependency of breakthrough time on the well
penetration. The curve trend is linear similar to the case of
single-well (Figure 5).
Conclusions
1. Oil layer thickness, well penetration, fracture permeability
especially horizontal fracture permeability, production rate,
mobility ratio, storativity and conductivity have considerable
effect on water coning in fractured oil reservoirs.
2. Fracture spacing, skin factor (well damage or well
acidizing) and aquifer power (including aquifer size,
permeability and porosity) have no effect on water coning.
3. Investigation of the effective parameters is necessary to
understand the mechanism of water coning. Simu lation of this
phenomenon helps to optimize the conditions in wh ich the
breakthrough time of water cone is delayed.
4. The role of horizontal permeability is more than vertical
permeab ility, because the increase of horizontal permeability
can distribute water cone in horizontal plane and delays the
water breakthrough time.
5. Fro m mu lti-well studies it is found that the overall trend of
coning changes versus different effect ive parameters is similar
to single-well model. Ho wever, in five-spot model, there are
some changes because of the sensitivity of the shape, growth,
and the breakthrough time of water cone to the low-pressure
drawdown exerted by near and far wells. Therefore, the coning
simu lation in field scale is a unique problem. For a successful
simu lation, it is necessary to have all data correspond to
reservoir including the well locations, and production history
available.
6. Study of water coning can be an important part of IOR,
because some parameters such as oil layer thickness and
permeab ility are uncontrollable parameters, but they may vary
in different locations in the reservoir, therefore, the recovery
factor can be maximized with a precise study resulting in
determination of the best wells locations and production
scenario.
7. Increasing the number of wells increases the production cost
but decreases the cone growth because of better pressure draw
down distribution in the reservoir and also water-oil contact
becomes more stable.
8. The fracture pattern, especially around the well, is very
important in water coning study in fractured reservoirs.
Accurate data of fracture pattern can imp rove the study
effectively.
References
1. Saad, S.M ., Darwich, T.D. and Assad, Y.: “Water Coning in
Fractured Basement Reservoirs,” Paper SPE 29808 Presented at
the SPE 1995 M iddle East Oil Show in Bahrain, 11-14 march.
2. Alikhan, A. and Farough Ali, S.M .: “State of the Art of Water
Coning M odeling and Operation,” Paper SPE 13744 Presented
at the 4th SPE M iddle East Oil Show in Bahrain, 1985, 11-14
march.
3. Lee, R.L. and Permadi, P.: “Water Cone Subsidence Time of a
Horizontal Well,” Paper SPE 29295 Presented at the 1995 SPE
Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference in Kuala Lumpur, M alaysia,
20-22 M arch.
4. Al-Aflagh, N.I. and Ershaghi, I.: “Coning Phenomena in Naturally
Fractured Reservoirs,” Paper SPE 26083 Presented at the 1993
Western Regional M eeting in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A., 26-28
M ay.
5. M uskat, M, and Wyckoff, R.D.: “An Approximate Theory of
Water-Coning in Oil Production,” AIM E Transaction, 1935,
Vol. 114, p144-163.
6. Birks, J.: “Coning theory and its use in predicting allowable
producing rates of wells in a fissured limestone reservoir,”
Iranian Petroleum Institute Bull, 12 & 13, 1963, P 470.
7. Saad, S. M .: “A Study of Water Coning Phenomenon in Fractured
Reservoirs,” Ph.D. Thesis, Cairo U., Cairo, Egypt, 1994.
8. Van Golf-Racht, T.D. and Sonier, F.: “Water-Coning in a
Fractured Reservoir,” Paper SPE 28572 Presented at the SPE
69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition in New
Orleans, LA, U.S.A., 1994, 25-28 September.
9. Saidi, A. M .: “Reservoir Engineering of Fractured Reservoirs
(fundamental and practical aspects),” published by TOTAL
Edition press, 1987.
10. Van Golf-Racht, T.: “Fundamentals of Fractured Reservoir
Engineering,” Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam,
1982.
11. M uskat, M.: “Homogeneous Flow in Porous M edia,” Published
by M cGraw Hill, New York, 1937.
SPE 108254 5

Table 1: The Characteristics of the Base Case of Single -Well Pattern

Matrix Porosity 0.1 Matrix Compressibility 4E-06 Psi-1

Fracture Porosity 0.015 Fracture Compressibility 4E-05 Psi-1

Matrix Permeability 0.5 md Water Compressibility 3E-06 Psi-1

Fracture Permeability 2000 md Oil Compressibility 1.5E-06 Psi-1

Fracture Spacing 8 ft Water Formation Volume Factor 1.1002 RB/STB

74.914
Production Rate 5000 STB/day Water Density
(lb/ft3)

Reservoir Thickness 300 ft Oil Density 52.1268

(lb/ft3)

Number of Grids 9000 Gas Density 0.0489079

(lb/ft3)

Perforation Depth 150 ft (50%) Reservoir External Radius 1000 (ft)

Bubble Point Pressure 1412 Psi Reservoir Model Dual Permeability

Initial Pressure 2142 Psi Girding Type Radial

Well Radius 0.25 ft Numerical Method IMPES

Table 2: PVT Properties of the Reservoir Fluid

Pressure Oil FVF Gas FVF Solution Viscosity
(psi) (RB/STB) (RB/STB) GOR
(MCF/STB)
Oil Gas

212 1.065 10.6 0.09460 1.590 0.011065

612 1.1037 4.16 0.194934 1.170 0.012059
1012 1.412 2.40 0.295268 0.910 0.013049
1412 1.181 1.662 0.3956 0.785 0.014040
1812 1.1766 0.3956 0.785 0.015032
2122 1.1723 0.3956 0.785 0.016024

Table 3: The Characteristics of the Aquifer of the Base Case

Permeability Porosity Thickness

Radius (ft) Type
(md) (%) (ft)

Bottom
300 0.1 500 20000 Drive
(360°)
6 SPE 108254

80

70

60

C on in gW a t e r - c ut %
b=50 ft
50
b=100 ft

40 b=150 ft (BM)

b=20 0 ft
30
b=25 0 ft
20

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (day)
Figure 1: Typical Water Coning Situation
Figure 4: Models with Different Penetrations

350

300
B r e a k t hr o ugh T i m e ( d a y )
250

200

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 2: Schematic of Radial Single -Well Model
Penetration %

Figure 5: Breakthrough time vs. Well Penetration

Percent

100
90
80
h=100 ft
70
C on in gW a t e r - C ut %

60 h=200 ft

50 h=300 ft (BM)

40 h=400 ft
30
h=500 ft
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (day)
Figure 3: Schematic of Cartesian Multi-Well Model
Figure 6: Models with Different Oil Layer
Thicknesses
SPE 108254 7

450 80
400
70
B r e a k th r o u g h T i m e (d a y )

Kv/K h=3 (Kv=60 00 md)

350
60 Kv/K h= 2 (Kv=40 00 md)
300
50 Kv/K h=1. 5 (Kv=300 0 md)
250

W a te r- cu t %
Kv/Kh=1 (BM)
200 40
Kv/Kh=0. 8 (Kv=1600 md)
150 30 Kv/Kh=0. 5 (Kv=100 0 md)

100 Kv/K h=0. 1 (Kv=200 md)

20
50 Kv/Kh=0. 0 1 (Kv=20 md)
10
0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Oil Layer Thickness (ft) Time (day)

Figure 7: Breakthrough Time vs. Oil Pay Thickness Figure 10: Models with Different vertical Fracture
Permeabilities

80 250
70

Br e akt hr o u gh T ime (d ay)

200
60
K=500 md
C on in gW a t e r - C ut %

50 150
K=1000 md

40 K=2000 md (BM)

K=3000 md
100
30
K=4000 md
20
50
10

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time (day) Vertical Fracture Permeability (md)

Figure 8: Models with Different Fracture Figure 11: Breakthrough Time vs. Vertical Fracture
Permeabilities Permeability

90
250 80
Kv/K h=1 00 (Kh=20 md)
70
Kv/K h=1 0 (Kh=200 md)
200
60
B r e a k thr ou g h Tim e (da y)

Kv/Kh= 2 (Kh=1 00 0 md)

Water-Cut%

50 Kv/Kh= 1. 2 5 (Kh=160 0 md)

150
40 Kv/Kh=1 (BM)

30 Kv/Kh=0. 6 7 (Kh=30 00 md)

100
Kv/K h=0. 5 (Kh=400 0 md)
20
Kv/Kh=0. 3 3 (Kh=60 00 md)
10
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
Time (day)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Fracture Permeability (md)
Figure 12: Models with Different Horizontal Fracture
Figure 9: Breakthrough Time vs. Fracture Permeabilities
Permeability
8 SPE 108254

250 90

80
MR=10
200 70
B r ea k t hr ou g h T i m e ( d ay)

MR=2
MR=1.3
60
MR=1.15
150

Water-Cut%
50 MR=1
MR=0. 85 (BM)
40
MR=0.7
100
30 MR=0.55
MR=0.4
20 MR=0.25
50
MR=0.1
10

0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Horizontal Fractu re Permeability (md) Time (day)

Figure 13: Breakthrough Time vs. Horizontal Figure 16: Models with Different Mobility Ratios
Fracture Permeability

100
90
Q=10000 STB/ D
80
Q=9000 STB/D
70
Q=8000 STB/D
60
Water-Cut%

Q=7000 STB/D

50 Q=6000 STB/D

40 Q=5000 STB/ D (BM)

30 Q=4000 STB/D

Q=3000 STB/D
20
Q=2000 STB/D
10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (day)

Figure 14: Models with Different Production Rates Figure 17: Breakthrough Time vs. Mobility Ratio

600 100

90
500 80
B r ea k t hr ou g h T i m e (d a y )

ω=0.7692
70
400
W a t e r- C u t %

60 ω=0. 6 (BM)

300 50 ω=0.25

40
ω=0. 0 62 5
200
30
ω=0. 00 66 2
100 20

10
0
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Production Rate (STB/day) Time (day)

Figure 15: Breakthrough Time vs. Production Rate Figure 18: Models with Different storativities
SPE 108254 9

600 Effect of Fracture Spacing on Water Coning

500 80
B r eakt h r o u g h T im e ( da y

70 Fract ur e Spaci n g =6 ft
400
60 Fract ur e Spaci n g =7 ft

W a te r - C u t %
300 50
Fracture Spacing=8 ft (BM)
40
Fracture Spacing=9 ft
200 30
Fract ur e Spaci n g =1 1 ft
20
100
10 Fracture Spacing=13 ft

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 200 400 600
Storativity Time (day)

Figure 19: Breakthrough Time vs. storativity Figure 22: Model with Different Fracture Spacing

Figure 20: Model with Different Matrix Permeability Figure 23: The Saturation Distribution in Fractures at
Depth 205 ft from Top of the Reservoir

80 30
70
Basicl Model 25
60 Small Size Aquif er

Big Siz e Aqui f e r 20

W at er - Cu t%

50
W a t e r -c u t %

Low Porosity
40 High Porosity 15
Low per m ea bili t y
30
High Per m ea bili t y 10
20 Weak Aquifer
Strong Aquif er 5
10
0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (day) Time (day)

Figure 21: Model with Different Aquifer Figure 24: Cartesian Multi-Well Model with 5
Characteristics Production Wells
10 SPE 108254

Figure 25: Water Saturation distribution in the Figure 28: Water Saturation Distribution in Fractures
Fractures in Depth of 255 ft from Reservoir Top in the Depth of 195 ft

16 50

45
14
40
12
35

10 30 Q=9000 (STB/d ay)

W a ter- cut %
W a t e r -c u t %

8 25 Q=7000 (STB/d ay)

20
6 Q=5000 (STB/d ay)
15
4
10

2 5

0
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Time (day) Time (day)

Figure 26: Cartesian Multi-Well Model with 3 Active Figure 29: Multi-Well Model with Different Production
Wells Rates

600

500
B r eakt h r o u g h Ti m e ( da y)

400

300

200

100

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

Production Rate (STB/day)

Figure 30: Breakthrough Time vs. Production Rate in

Figure 27: Water Saturation Distribution in the Multi-Well Model
Fractures in Depth of 185 ft
SPE 108254 11

40

35

30

25
Water-cut%

b=200 ft (66.67% )
20
b=150 ft (50% ) BM
15
b=100 ft (33.33% )
10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Time (day)

Figure 31: Multi-Well Model with Different Well

Penetration
900
800
Br e akt hr o u gh T ime (d ay)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Penetration %

Figure 32: Breakthrough Time vs. Well Penetration in

Multi-Well Model