Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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)
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
qDC rDe , ,
re kv
rDe
h kh
b
h
L
h
Approaches for qDC
• Wheatley (numerical)
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
qc 2304.75 0.09356
215.6 STB / D
Critical Rate Solution
• Hoyland et al.
1.325
2
0.238
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
min
qDC rDe , , g , wo
rDe , , w
og
Approaches for qDC
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
11
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
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
1.111.25
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
qDC 0.432 1
2 750
75 75
ln
0.5
0.0883
qc 3928.55 0.0883
347 STB / D
Class Exercise 4
qc 3.073 x 10 3
140
2
90 1
0.643 qDC
1.111.25
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
• 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
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