Analytical Comparisons of Water

Coning in Oil and Gas Reservoirs before

and after Water Breakthrough
Shen Weijun*
a. Institute of Porous Flow and Fluid Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Science,
Hebei, Langfang 065007, China
b. University of Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100190, China
* Corresponding Author
e-mail:wjshen763@gmail.com

Li Xizhe, Liu Xiaohua, Lu Jialiang

Branch, Petro-China Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and
Development, HeBei, Langfang 065007, China

ABSTRACT
The problem of water coning into oil and gas wells became one of the major concern in
terms of productivity. This paper is to investigate the analytical comparisons of water coning
in oil and gas reservoirs before and after water breakthrough. According to two theoretical
models established, and the analytical comparisons of water coning were deduced and
compared through the corresponding calculation. The results show that before water
breakthrough there was a big difference in the pressure drawdown and critical production
rate for the oil and gas reservoirs in the same water cone height. After water breakthrough
the gas-water interface tends to cone into the water while the oil-water interface at the wells
completion is horizontal. Based on the results, there is a good understanding of water coning
in oil and gas reservoirs, and it will be significant to guide the development of oil and gas
reservoirs with bottom water.
KEYWORDS: Analytical comparisons; water breakthrough; critical production;
drawdown pressure; fluids interface height

INTRODUCTION
The production of water from the gas and oil producing wells is a common occurrence in
gas and oil fields. It may be attributed to some reasons such as the normal rise of water gas and
oil contact, water coning or water fingering. The water production increases the operating costs,
and reduces the efficiency of the depletion mechanism and the overall recovery [1-5]. Among
these mechanisms, water coning is a serious problem in many gas/oil fields, where the gas and
oil zone has an underlying aquifer whether or not it serves as an active drive [6]. Water coning is
a phenomenon caused by the imbalance between gravity and viscous forces around the
completion interval [7].

- 6747 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6748

Since the first paper related to water coning by Muskat [8], many studies have been reported
on water coning in oil and gas reservoirs [9-14]. Muskat believed that the mechanism of water
coning in gas reservoirs is the same to that in oil reservoirs. Trimble [9] used the numerical
simulation and calculation method to support Muskat theory based on the water coning data.
While Kabir [10], Mcmullan [11] believed the water coning phenomenon differently in gas
reservoirs than in oil reservoirs. So far, there is no consensus on the problem, and the research
focus on numerical simulation [12-14], which are related to the following parameters, such as
perforation interval, production rate, aquifer size, reservoir permeability and so on. Therefore,
there is a need to understand the analytical comparisons of water coning between the two
reservoirs before and after water breakthrough for the field development.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the analytical comparisons of water coning in oil
and gas reservoirs before and after water breakthrough. The two theoretical models of oil and
gas reservoirs are established to deduce the analytical comparisons based on the characteristics
of fluid flow in the gaswater and oil-water systems. Through the corresponding calculation the
analytical comparisons of water coning are analysed. According to these results, there is a good
understanding of water coning in oil and gas reservoirs and it is significant to guide the
development of oil and gas reservoirs with bottom water.

ANALYTICAL COMPARISONS BEFORE WATER

BREAKTHROUGH
Theoretical Model before Water Breakthrough
As is shown in Figure 1, the theoretical model is used to compare water coning in oil and
gas reservoirs before water breakthrough. In order to facilitate the derivation and comparison,
the fundamental assumptions of the model are as follow: (1) the flow in oil and gas reservoirs is
radial flow; (2) the seepage in oil and gas reservoirs is isothermal; (3) the fluids in oil and gas
reservoirs follow Darcy,s Law, respectively; (4) the formation is homogeneous and uniform
thickness; (5) the porosity and permeability are the same in the gas-water and oil-water systems.

well

A0 B0
gas/oil
h

A B
water

Figure 1: Theoretical model of oil and gas reservoirs before water breakthrough

Analytical Comparisons
For the gas-water system, the fluid flow equations [14] can be expressed as:
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6749

Kg
vg =
(p g g g ) (1)
g
K (2)
w (p w wg )
vw =
w
where v g and v w are the gas and water phase flowing velocity, respectively; K g and K w are the
gas and water phase permeability, respectively; g and w are the gas and water phase viscosity,
respectively; p g and p w are the gas and water phase pressure, respectively; g and w are the gas
and water phase density, respectively; g is the acceleration of gravity.
In the gas-water interface, the pressure gradients between the gas phase and the water phase
are equal, thus:
( p g )
A0 B 0
= ( p w) A0 B 0 (3)
Substituting Equations (1) and (3) into Equation (2), thus:
Kw w Kw
v w= vg ( w g)g (4)

Kg g w

Then the flowing velocity difference between the gas phase and the water phase can be
expressed be:
Kw w K
v = v w v g = ( 1)v g w ( w g ) g (5)

Kg g w

From Equation (5), the condition is v =0 if the movement between the gas phase and the
water phase is steady before water breakthrough, thus:
K g K wg ( w g )
vg = (6)
K w g K g w

While the gas production can be expressed as:

=q q=
sc B g v gA (7)
where B g is the gas volume factor; A is the seepage section area.

Substituting Equation (7) into Equation (6), the critical gas production can be expressed as:
K g K wgA( w g )
q sc = (8)
B g ( K w g K g w)

Assume that the supply boundary is approximately a straight line boundary, thus:
=
= {
p p=
e, z
p p=
wf , z
0
h (9)

where p e and p wf are the pressure in the supply boundary and the bottom pressure.

According to Darcys Law, the gas flowing velocity [15] in the steady-state flowing
condition can be expressed as:
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6750

K g dp
vg = (10)
g dz
where p is the reduced pressure, p= p + g gz .

Substituting Equation (10) into Equation (7) and separating the variables and arranging,
thus:
q sc B g
( g + K g g g )dz =
K gdp (11)
A
Integrating Equation (10) in the boundary condition, thus:
K g A( p e p wf g gh)
q sc = (12)
g B gh

By substituting Equation (12) into Equation (8), the drawdown pressure can be expressed as:
K w g gh( w g )
p = p r p wf = + g gh (13)
K w g K g w

Repeating the same analysis for the oil-water system, the critical oil production can be
expressed as:

K o K wgA( w o)
q sc = (14)
B w( K w o K o w)

Thus the drawdown pressure can be expressed as:

K w ogh( w o)
p = p r p wf = + ogh (15)
K w o K o w

In order to compare water coning in oil and gas reservoirs before water breakthrough, let us
solve the following example. The data are as follow:
= b 40m,= h 50m, = K 10md, = 0.2, = p e 90MPa, = g 0.018cP,
= o 1.0cP,

= w 0.58cP,
= r e 800m,
= g 0.12g/mL, o = 0.85g/mL,
= w 1.0g/mL,
= B g 0.015,
= B w 1.

For the gas-water system and a cone height of 50 m, the pressure drawdown is 0.20 MPa and
the critical gas production is 1.46105 m3/d. However, the pressure drawdown is 2.17 MPa and
the critical oil production is 7.03105 m3/d for the oil-water system. From the simple analysis we
can conclude before water breakthrough as follows: (1) There is a big difference in the critical
production rate for the gas-water and oil-water systems in the same water cone height. (2) For
the same cone height, the pressure drop in the oil-water system is about eleven times bigger than
the pressure drop in the gas-water system. (3) It is possible to have a stable water cone of any
given height in the gas-water and oil-water systems.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6751

ANALYTICAL COMPARISONS AFTER

BREAKTHROUGH
Theoretical Model after Water Breakthrough
As is shown in Figure 2, the theoretical model is used to compare water coning in oil and
gas reservoirs after water breakthrough. The fundamental assumptions of the model are the same
to that of before water breakthrough.
well

gas/oil

Ze Z=?
water

Figure 2: Theoretical model of oil and gas reservoirs after water breakthrough

Analytical Comparisons
For the gas-water system, the flow rates [16] can be expressed as:
2 R(h z ) K g p p
Qg = (16)
g R
2 Rz K w p
Qw = (17)
w R

Rearranging Equations (16) and (17), thus:

Qg g p p
= Rhp Rzp (18)
2 K g R R
Q w w p
= Rz (19)
2 K w R

Substituting Equation (19) into Equation (18), thus:

Qg g p Q w w
= Rhp p (20)
2 K g R 2 K w

Qg g Q w w Qg g
Here defining some constants,
= m = ,n = ,m n . Rearranging Equation
2 K g 2 K wh Q w w
(20), thus:
p
=m Rp np (21)
R
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6752

Separating the variables and arranging, thus:

(1 n) p R
p = (22)
(m n + p) R

Integrating Equation (22) between two radius R and R e when the pressures are p and p e ,
thus:
1 pe p R e R
( ) p = (23)
n p m R R
( + p)
n
The solution for Equation (23) can be expressed as:
1 m p +m n R
( ) p e p ln( e ) =ln e (24)
n n p+m n R

Dividing Equation (16) by Equation (17), thus:

Qg w( h z ) p
= (25)
Qw gz

Substituting z = z e , p = p e into Equation (25), thus:

Qg w(1 z e ) p e
= h (26)
Qw ze
g
h
Rearranging Equation (26), thus:
ze
Q g g (1 h )
= = pe m n (27)
Q w w ze
h
Qg g
Substituting m n = into Equation (25), thus:
Q w w

hp
z= (28)
m n+ p

Repeating the same analysis for the oil-water system, the flow rates can be expressed as:
2 R(h z ) K o p
Qo = (29)
o R
2 Rz K w p
Qw = (30)
w R

Dividing Equation (29) by Equation (30), thus:

Q o w( h z )
= (31)
Qw oz
Rearranging Equation (31) at z = z e , thus:
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6753

Q o w( h z e )
= (32)
Qw oze

Q o o Q w w Q o o
Here defining some constants, m=
= ,n = ,m n . Substituting
2 K oh 2 K wh Q w w
Q o o
m n= into Equation (32), thus:
Q w w

h ze
m/n = (33)
ze
Q o o
Substituting m n = into Equation (31), thus:
Q w w

h
z= (34)
m n +1

In order to compare the interface in oil and gas reservoirs after water breakthrough, let us
solve the following example. The data is as follow:
=h 120m,
= K 10md,
= 0.2,
= p e 100MPa, R e = 800m,
= R w 0.15m,
= z e 80m,
= B w 1.0,
= g 0.017cP,
= o 1.0cP,
= w 0.56cP,
= g 0.1g/mL,
= o 0.8g/mL,
= w 1.02g/mL,
= p 30MPa.

For the gas-water system, substituting the above example data into Equation (27), thus:
80
(1 z e ) (1 )
m h= 120
= pe 100
= 50 (35)
n ze 80
h 120
Substituting Equation (35) into Equation (28), thus:
hp 120 p
=z = (36)
m n + p 50 + p

For the oil-water system, substituting the above example data into Equation (33), thus:
m h z e 120 80
= = = 0.5 (37)
n ze 80

Substituting Equation (37) into Equation (34), thus:

h 120
=z = = 80 (38)
m n + 1 0.5 + 1

As is shown in Figure.3, Equation (36) and (37) are the resulting profiles of the fluids
interface in the gas-water and oil-water systems after water breakthrough. From the Figure 3, the
gas-water interface tends to cone into the water after water breakthrough while the oil-water
interface at the wells completion is horizontal. Comparing the water coning phenomenon in the
gas-water and oil-water systems, we can conclude that water coning in gas well is different from
in oil well. When the water comes to the bottom of the well completion, a small inverse gas cone
is generated locally around the completion. The inverse cone will restrict water inflow to the
completion. Thus the inverse gas cone inhibits upward the water cone progress. When the water
cone breaks to the gas completion, it will not take over the completion but it remains at the
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6754

bottom of the completion providing small water inflow. Consequently, for most of the gas
production time the completion remains open to the gas inflow. Until the water cone gains so
much body, the completion will be flooded into water, which results in the rapid increase of
water-gas ratio.

Figure 3: Fluids interface height versus pressure in the gas-water and oil-water systems

CONCLUSION
According to the seepage theory, the analytical comparisons of water coning in oil and gas
reservoirs before and after water breakthrough were deduced and compared with the difference
through the corresponding calculation. Before water breakthrough, there is a big difference in
the pressure drawdown and critical production rate for the gas-water and oil-water systems in the
same water cone height. The pressure drop in the oil-water system is about nine times bigger
than the pressure drop in the gas-water system. After water breakthrough the gas-water interface
tends to cone into the water while the oil-water interface at the wells completion is horizontal.
The reason is that a small inverse gas cone generated locally around the completion restricts
water inflow to the completion when the water comes to the bottom of the well completion.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was financially supported by National Science and Technology Major Project of
the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Grant No. 50150503-12), Research on Key
Technology in Tarim Oilfiled Exploration and Development (Grant No. 2010E-2103).
Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6755

REFERENCES
1. Saad S M, Darwich T D, Assad Y. Water coning in fractured basement
reservoirs [C]. Middle East Oil Show. Bahrain: SPE, 1995: 144-161.
2. Shahbaz M, Kevin M, Julio S. The effect of bottom water coning and its
monitoring for optimization in SAGD [C]. SPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada.
Calgary: SPE, 2012: 1-12.
3. Ould-Amer Y, Chikh S, Naji H. Attenuation of water coning using dual
completion technology [J]. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
2004, 45: 109 122.
4. Shen Weijun, Li Xizhe, Liu Xiaohua et al. The calculating method of
reasonable producing pressure drop in gas reservoirs with bottom water [C].
Advance and Challenges on Fluid Flow in Porous Media- Proceedings of the
12th National Conference on Fluid Flow in Porous Media. Qingdao: China
University of Petroleum Press, 2013: 225-227.
5. Shen Weijun, Li Xizhe, Liu Xiaohua et al. Investigation of Water Coning
Phenomenon in Naturally Fractured Gas Reservoirs [J]. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 2014, 18: 1411-1420, 2014.
6. Li Xizhe, Wan Yujin, Lu Jialiang. Complex gas reservoir development
technology [M]. Beijing: Petroleum Industry Press, 2010.
7. Ould-Amer Y., Chikh, S. Transient behavior of water oil interface in an
upward flow in porous media [J]. Journal of Porous Media, 2003, 6(2): 1 12.
8. Muskat M.; Wycoff R.D: An approximate theory of water coning in oil
production [J]. Trans, AIME, 1935, 114: 144-161.
9. Timble A.E., Derose W.E. Field application of water-coning theory to
Todhunters Lake gas field [J]. SPE Journal, 1977, April 8-9.
10. Kabir C.S. Predicting gas well performance coning water in bottom-water-
drive reservoirs [C]. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. San
Francisco: SPE, 1983: 1-15.
11. Mcmullan J.H., Bassiouni Z. Optimization of gas-well completion and
production practices [C]. The 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition. Mexico: 2000, Feb 1-3.
12. Perez E, Rodriguez F, Samaniego F. Water coning in naturally fractured
carbonate heavy oil reservoir - a simulation study [C]. SPE Latin America and
Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference. Mexico: SPE, 2012: 1-15.
13. Amarfio E M, Lgbokoyi A O. Breakthrough time correlations for coning in
bottom water supported reservoirs [C]. 2013 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting.
Pittsburgh: SPE, 2013: 1-10.
14. Kong Xiangyan Advanced seepage mechanics [M]. Hefei: University of
Science and Technology of China, 2010.
15. Jin L., Wojtanowicz A.K., Hughes R.G. Analytical model for water coning
control installation in reservoir with bottom water [J]. Journal of Canadian
Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. W 6756

Petroleum Technology, 2010, 49(5): 65-70.

16. Muskat M. The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous media [Z].
International Human Resources Development Corp., Boston, 1982. 225-227.

2014 ejge