Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Review of Critical Coning Rate Correlaationns and Identifying The Most Reliable Solutions
A Review of Critical Coning Rate Correlaationns and Identifying The Most Reliable Solutions
A Dissertation
By
Ali Khalili
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
July 2005
Ali Khalili
July 2005
II
ORIGINALITY STATEMENT
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my
knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by
another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been
accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any
other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made
in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I
have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis.
I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my
own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the projects
design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is
acknowledged.
Signed
Ali Khalili
July 2005
III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ali Khalili
July 2005
IV
ABSTRACT
The study of coning in oil production is important because of huge
water production associated with oil production around the world each year.
Estimation of critical coning rate has been the subject of numerous studies
and a number of correlations have been reported. This study presents a
review of the current available methods for estimating critical coning rate
for both vertical and horizontal wells. The various methods and correlations
are compared and the assumptions on which they are based evaluated.
Following comparison made between the correlations, the most reliable
theories are identified for both vertical and horizontal wells separately.
Among the correlations for vertical wells, this study recommends two
implicit methods presented by Wheatley and Azar Nejad et al. They
determined the oil potential distribution influenced by water cone with a
remarkable accuracy. For horizontal wells, two methods, Joshis equation
and Rechem et al formula, are considered to be the most reliable. Joshis
equation provides lower estimates than Chaperons correlation in which the
water cone effect on oil potential was neglected. The Recham et al formula
also gives a similar result. On the whole, the Rechem et al method is
preferred.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ..........................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................. III
ABSTRACT ........................................................................... IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...............................................................V
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................... VII
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................. VIII
NOMENCLATURE .....................................................................X
Ali Khalili
July 2005
VI
5 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 82
REFERENCES........................................................................ 82
6 APPENDICES ............................................... 85
Appendix A ......................................................................... 85
Appendix B: ........................................................................ 89
Appendix C: ........................................................................ 93
Appendix D: ........................................................................ 96
Ali Khalili
July 2005
VII
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Example data used to plot Meyer and Garder method ............. 10
Table 2.2 Example data for Chaperons approach............................... 13
Table 2.3 An example data for Abass-Bass method............................. 16
Table 2.4 An example of reservoir and fluid properties for Guos method.. 22
Table 2.5 Data for The Hoyland methods ......................................... 24
Table 2.6 An example data for Wheatley's method............................. 30
Table 2.7 Reservoir and fluids properties for the Chierici and Meyer and
Garder method ................................................................... 46
Table 2.8 Data for the Chierici method .......................................... 46
Table 2.9
method ............................................................................ 56
Table 3.1 Typical data for chaperons method................................... 62
Table 3.2
mechanism)....................................................................... 65
Table 3.3 An Example data for Joshis correlation ............................. 67
Table 3.4 An sample data for the Weiping-Wattenbarger correlation....... 74
Table 3.5 The Critical oil rates obtained by different approaches........... 77
Ali Khalili
July 2005
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 A Schematic of a reservoir at static conditions .......................3
Figure 1.2 A schematic draw of water and gas coning ............................3
Figure 2.1 Schematic illustration of a reservoir with Stationary cone .........9
Figure 2.2 The Meyer-Garder equation to determine critical coning flow rate
..................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3 A schematic draw of Chaperons method ........................... 11
Figure 2.4 the Cone height at different Critical coning rate.................. 13
Figure 2.5 A modification for Chaperon's method by Joshi (1991). ........... 14
Figure 2.6 Critical coning rate against dimensionless well penetration at
different distance from top of reservoir, steady state .................... 16
Figure 2.7 Critical coning rate versus dimensionless well penetration,
unsteady-state ................................................................... 17
Figure 2.8 Low-pressure-gradient case, no unstable cone exists.
(Qt1<Qt2<Qt3) ................................................................... 19
Figure 2.9 High-pressure-gradient case, unstable cone exists (Qt3>Qt2>Qt1)
..................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.10 RSC flow pattern ...................................................... 21
Figure 2.11 A plot of critical coning rate versus dimensionless well
penetration ....................................................................... 22
Figure 2.12 Dimensionless critical coning rate against fractional well
penetration (Cited, Ahmad, 2000) ............................................ 25
Figure 2.13 Comparison between the Hoyland methods........................ 26
Figure 2.14 Critical coning rate versus well penetration for different
equations.......................................................................... 31
Figure 2.15 The Location of elements according to the Azar Nejad method 33
Figure 2.16 A comparison between the Azar Nejad-Tortike and the Wheatley
procedure to calculate the value of critical rate. ......................... 37
Ali Khalili
July 2005
IX
Ali Khalili
July 2005
NOMENCLATURE
aT = Transformation factor
M = Mobility ratio
N p = Cumulative oil production (STB)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
XI
Greek symbols
3
o = Oil density (lb/ft )
3
w = Water Density (lb/ft )
3
g = Gas Density (lb/ft )
July 2005
XII
Ali Khalili
July 2005
July 2005
Ali Khalili
July 2005
Ali Khalili
July 2005
Ali Khalili
July 2005
Ali Khalili
July 2005
Due to economic necessity most oil wells flow at a rate higher than the
critical coning rate. Once water breaks into a wellbore, the well
performance becomes important and merits careful attention. This
prediction might help a reservoir engineer to plan the future production to
achieve an optimum cumulative oil production. Another advantage of water
cut prediction is that the well life or abandonment time of a well can be
anticipated. A few studies have been conducted on water cut performance
after breakthrough. For example, Bournazel and Jeanson (1971) proposed an
empirical correlation to predict the water cut. Alternatively, the commercial
numerical simulators can be used to evaluate the water cut for both vertical
and horizontal wells.
July 2005
and
cumulative
oil
production
can
be
achieved
(Wagenhofer
and
Hatzignatiou, 1996).
Ali Khalili
July 2005
H o = z + ( Po P' ) /( g o )
(2.1)
H w = z + ( Pw P ' ) /( g w )
(2.2)
Ho = Hw
w
z
+ ( o w )
o
o
(2.3)
q o = 2g o (h z )r
K o dH o
o dr
(2.4)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
q o = 2g ( o w )(h z )r
K o dz
o dr
(2.5)
K
dr
qo
= 2g ( o w ) o
o
r
rw
(h z )dz
(2.6)
h D
q oc = 2.46 10 5
w o
Ko
Bo ln(re / rw ) o
(h 2 D 2 )
(2.7)
Where:
,
r ,r ,h
K
Ali Khalili
July 2005
10
Below, the critical coning rate against the fractional well penetration has
been plotted by using data shown in table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Example data used to plot Meyer and Garder method
Parameter H
Re
rw
Value
70
2000
100
0.3
0.25
Units
ft
Ft
md
Cp
ft
g/cm3
30
25
20
15
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 2.2 The Meyer-Garder equation to determine critical coning flow rate
As expected, figure 2.2 shows that the value of the critical coning rate
increases with decreasing fractional well penetration.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
11
The author assumed that the well has a low penetration so that it could be
considered as a point source for estimating the flow potential which
corresponds to hemispherical flow (see Appendix A.1). In order to achieve a
static equilibrium, the flow potential is equated to the gravity potential
(Eq.A.3). The method of images is applied to determine the flow potential
difference between points A and S (Figure 2.3). The well is considered to be
a point source located at the origin of a semi-infinite porous medium. A no
flow plan is placed at z=0 and a no flow boundary at z=h. The equation for
calculating the gravity potential is written as,
Ali Khalili
July 2005
12
A B = g (h Z s )
(2.8)
q oc = 4.886 10 4
kh h
(h)q c
Bo o
(2.9)
Where
qoc is the value of the critical coning rate (STB/day) and q* is dimensionless
flow rate (See Appendix A.1).
All variables are in field units as follows:
Kh and Kv: horizontal and vertical permeability, respectively; md
h: Reservoir thickness ; ft
rA: Drainage radius for steady-state(where interface elevation is h or in the
case pseudo-steady-state rA=0.607re
qc*: dimensionless flow rate
Bo: oil formation volume factor; RB/STB
rA k v 1 / 2
)( )
In equation 2.9, q*c is a function of h k h
. This accounts for anisotropy.
(
As an example, the critical coning rate against different cone heights has
been plotted in figure 2.4.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
13
Parameter H
rA
Kv
Kh
Bo
rW
Value
2000
10
100
0.3
0.25
ft
Md
md
RB/STB g/cm3
cp
ft
70
Unit
Ft
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
As shown, the cone height increases with increasing critical coning rate until
the critical coning rate reaches to a peak, which is somewhat around 33% of
the reservoir thickness. Afterwards, the value of the critical coning rate
declines because the gravity forces cannot prevail over the viscous forces
resulted
from higher flow rate. Consequently, to achieve a stable cone, the well
should be produced at a lower rate.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
14
q oc = 7.83 10 6
k h (h h p )
o Bo
(0.7311 +
1.943
)
rDe
(2.10)
As shown in figure 2.5, the Joshi modification gives a maximal value of about
68 STB/day at low well penetration. This can be compared to the maximum
critical coning rate obtained from the figure 2.4, which is 54 STB/day.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
July 2005
15
considered that the flow was radial around the wellbore. In addition, He
pointed out that three parameters controlled the value of the critical coning
rate.(i) The Radius of the cone (r1). (ii) The Well penetration (z). (iii) The
cone height (hc). Several computer runs were made to find a relationship
between r1 and hc (equation 2.11).
k
r1
h
hwc k v
(2.11)
For steady state flow system the critical coning rate was determined by the
following equation in field units (see Appendix B.1).
2k h gxh(h N hx)
q oc =
Bo (1 / 2 +
r1
r1 rw
2
ln(
r1
))
rw
(2.12)
q oc =
Bo (
r1
r1 rw
2
r +r
r
1
ln( 1 ) 1 2 w )
2
rw
4re
2
2
2
(2.13)
Where
g : Gravitational constant=9.81213 m/sec2
Ali Khalili
July 2005
16
As an example, the critical coning rate is plotted against well penetration for
both steady state and unsteady state conditions in figures 2.6 and 2.7
Parameter
re
Kv
kh
Bo
Value
70
2000
10
100
0.3
1.00
1.00
Unit
Ft
Ft
Md
md
g/cm3
Cp
RB/STB
18
N/h=0
16
N/h=0.2
14
N/h=0.5
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 2.6 Critical coning rate against dimensionless well penetration at different distance
from top of reservoir, steady state
Ali Khalili
July 2005
17
18
N/h=0
16
14
N/h=0.2
N/h=0.5
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Not surprisingly, figures (2.6) and (2.7) reveal that as the perforated interval
moves down from top of the reservoir the critical coning flow rate decreases
so that once penetrated interval touches the WOC, the critical coning rate
becomes zero. The critical coning rate difference between Steady-state and
unsteady-state conditions depends on the term (-r12-rw2)/4re which is close to
zero.
Comparing figures (2.7) and (2.2) reveals some differences. For
example, Abass and Bass considered that the perforated interval could be
located at any distance from top of the reservoir whereas Meyer and Garder
assumed that the perforated interval started from top of the reservoir. In
addition, figure (2.7) shows that the maximum critical coning flow rate
occurs at 50% well penetration; however, it is achieved at too low
penetration for figure (2.2). The maximum critical coning rates are 16.836
Ali Khalili
July 2005
18
STB/day and 25 STB/day for the Abass-Bass and the Meyer-Garder method,
respectively.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
19
Figures 2.8 and 2.9 illustrate two cases in which the pressure distribution
along the vertical direction has been drawn. Line A-B represents the pressure
distribution in the oil zone when the flow rate is zero (Stationary Oil
Pressure) and Line B-C shows the pressure distribution curve in the water
zone. As can be seen in these figures, when the flow rate increases from zero
the oil pressure distribution is shifted toward left.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
20
Mathematical Derivation
In order to derive an equation to approximate the critical coning rate,
the flow system for completion interval was considered radial about the well
and a spherical flow-pattern pattern dominated non-penetrated oil-zone. In
other words, the radial spherical combined (RSC) flow system was a
combination of a uniform line-sink radial flow at upper part and a point-sink
semi-spherical-flow field at lower part. Thus, the total flow rate was
determined by summing both of two flow rates. The maximum water-free oil
flow rate was approximated by the equation (2.14).
Ali Khalili
July 2005
21
q oc =
7.08 10 k v g
3
(re re re h(1 x) ) 2 (
2
kv
kh + kv
2
1 1
)
rw re
)
re
ln( )
rw
xh(
2
(2.14)
Where
Ali Khalili
July 2005
22
and
re
Kv
kh
rw
Value
70
2000
10
100
0.3
.25
Units
Ft
Ft
Md
Md
g/cm3
Cp
ft
fluid properties
60
Abass & Bass
Guo
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Ali Khalili
July 2005
23
penetration, the value of the critical coning rate for both the curves is again
zero. Meanwhile, there is a significant difference in the value of maximum
critical coning rate. For instance, in this case the value of the maximum
critical coning rate is 17 STB/day for the Abass-Bass equation whereas GuoLees correlation gives 53 STB/day. This difference might be a consequence
of the fact that Abass and Bass considered only radial flow while Guo and Lee
considered radial flow at perforated interval and also semi-spherical flow
(RSC) beneath the well. In other words, in the Guo-Lee method the total
critical coning rate is sum of both flow rates related to radial flow and semispherical flow subsequently it gives higher result than the Abass-Bass
equation.
q oc =
Lp
ko ( w o )
(1 ( ) 2 )1.325 h 2.238 ln(re ) 1.99
10822 Bo o
h
Ali Khalili
(2.15)
July 2005
24
The second method was a procedure, which was an extension of the MuskatWyckoff theory. Following the Muskat and Wyckoff theory, the cone
influence on oil potential was neglected. As a result, it is expected to
provide an optimistic evaluation of critical coning rate. One advantage of
this procedure is that it can be used to determine the value of the critical
coning rate for an anisotropic reservoir. The following procedure is used to
calculate the critical coning rate.
1-Calculate the dimensionless radius by using equation (2.16).
re
h
rDe =
(2.16)
kv
kh
qc =
(2.17)
h 2 ( w o )k h
40667.25Bo o
&
re
Kv
70 ft
2000ft
10 md
fluid properties
Value
Ali Khalili
kh
100
18.7
md
lb/ft3
rw
1cp
.25 ft
July 2005
25
Figure 2.12 Dimensionless critical coning rate against fractional well penetration (Cited, Ahmad,
2000)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
26
80
second method
first method
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Ali Khalili
July 2005
27
upward. In addition, the oil influx at the investigation radius was assumed to
be steady and radially symmetric.
He expressed the fluid potential in oil phase as follows:
(2.18)
Where
A1 (r , z ) = 2 ln(r ) g (r , z y ) + g (r , z + y )
(2.19)
A2 (r , z ) = g (r , z x) g (r , z + x)
(2.20)
A3 (r , z ) = 1 / f (r , z x) + 1 / f (r , z + x)
(2.21)
(2.22)
In which
f (r , z ) = r 2 + z 2
(2.23)
g (r , z ) = ln( z + f (r , z ))
(2.24)
(2.25)
(2.26)
Where
B1 (r , z ) = 2 z + f (r , z y ) f (r , z + y )
Ali Khalili
(2.27)
July 2005
28
(2.28)
B2 ( r , z ) = f ( r , z + x ) f ( r , z x )
And
B3 (r , z ) = ( z x) / f (r , z x) ( z + x) / f (r , z + x)
(2.29)
Now, by considering zero streamline at z=0 and on the well axis for z>x,
equation 2.26 was rewritten as
= 2q
(2.30)
ax b = ( r e Y ) /( r e 1 )
Equation 2.31 implies that there is a stagnation point at some point z=zs on
the well axis where
/ z = 0
Thus, from equation (2.18)
Y 2 = z s + z s ( z s x 2 ) /(ax b 2bx 2 /( z s x 2 )
2
(2.33)
In the case of none-penetrating well, that is, x=0, equations (2.32) and
(2.33) determine b and Y with respect to zs for rw<< x this relation is
simplified to equation (2.34).( see figure C-1)
a ln(rw / x) b / rw = ln(1 x 2 / Y 2 )
(2.34)
July 2005
29
z = 1 + q D ( A1 + aA2 + bA3 A4 )
(2.35)
q D = (1 z c ) /( A4 A1 aA2 bA3 )
(2.36)
Where
A1 = ln(Y 2 z c ) + ln(4)
(2.37)
A2 = ln(( z c x) /( z c + x))
(2.38)
A3 = 2 xc /( z c x 2 )
(2.39)
and
A4 = 2 ln(re ) + 2(Y ax + b) / re
(2.40)
A good match of the WOC equation and the streamline equation was
obtained by requiring the apex of the cone (zc) to coincide with the
stagnation point (zs). Equation (2.36) with zc=zs and with Y, a and h were
calculated from equations (2.32)-(2.34) to give the dimensionless source
strength qD in terms of the position of the cone apex. Wheatley related the
oil production rate to source strength through equation
Qoc = 4h 2 k h gq D / o
(2.41)
Qoc = 0.006145h 2 k h q D / o
(2.42)
July 2005
30
Since the WOC equation (Eq. 2.35) and bounding streamline (2.32) are
required to be identical, the value of the dimensionless drainage radius is to
be between 2 and 10 to satisfy this condition. Therefore, this procedure
gives more accurate results for the values of the drainage radius between 2
and 10. Due to considering the cone shape effect on the oil potential
distribution, this procedure may give more accurate results than previous
correlations. A typical graph has been plotted according to data given in
table 2.6.
Re
rw
Value
70
2000
100
0.3
0.25
Units
Ft
Ft
md
Cp
Ft
Ali Khalili
g/cm3
July 2005
31
The figure (2.14) shows the behaviour of the critical coning rate value
against the fractional well penetration by different correlations.
60
50
Wheatley
40
30
Boyun Guo
20
Meyer & Garder
10
Abass & Bass
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Ali Khalili
July 2005
32
production rate and the cone height can be obtained. In addition, the effect
of the cone shape on the potential distribution was taken into account by
applying a transformation rule to transform the deformed domain into a
rectilinear domain.
Potential Distribution
Uniform Flux along the Wellbore:
All the dimensions were normalized by b as follows:
b = 2h, re = Re / b, r = R / b, w = Z / b, hb = l p / b
(2.43)
Where h is the reservoir thickness. The form of the Laplace equation for
potential distribution at steady state condition is
2
1
(r
)+ 2 =0
r r r
r
(2.44)
Where
= 0, z = 0, b / 2
r
(2.45)
= const., r = re
(2.46)
(2.47)
July 2005
33
L ( w, r , x) = 4q[
(n K
2
(2nr ) cos( 2nw) sin( 2nx ) + x ln( )
r
(2.48)
Equation (2.48) guarantees a uniform flux along the well bore, however; it
has a singular point on the Z-axis at r=0. It does not satisfy the constant
potential condition at the well bore.
Figure 2.15 The Location of elements according to the Azar Nejad method
This element has the same length as the original wellbore, which extends
from XS to XE.
-Flux Element (II)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
34
Ali Khalili
July 2005
35
q
i =1
=1
(2.50)
Once the potential at any point is obtained, one could apply equation (2.51)
to calculate the production rate for any arbitrary cone height and well
penetration.
5
q oc =
16kh 2 g q n x n hc
n =1
2
Bo o [( q n ( x n , r , w)) 4( q n x n ) ln( )]
r
n =1
n =1
(2.51)
Transformation rule:
Calculation of production mainly depends on the accuracy of the potentials
appearing at the denominator of the equation (2.51). In fact, considering
the WOC as a no flow boundary, one has to deal with two problems.
The first problem is that the geometry of the WOC is unknown and he
second is that the boundary is irregular. Considering an irregular
geometry in Laplace or diffusivity equation is impossible. Consequently,
in order to consider the cone shape effect on the potential distribution, a
transformation rule was applied to transform the cone boundary to
straight line. In fact, it transforms every point of the WOC to its
conjugate on the straight line, that is, every vertical point must be
increased by a coefficient T.
T = 1 +
hc
(0.5 hc )
Ali Khalili
(2.52)
July 2005
36
LPT = LP (1 +
hc
)
0.5 hc
(2.53)
Now, by determining the new well length in the rectilinear domain the exact
potential at cone height (hc) can be calculated. Azar Nejad and Tortike
proposed the following procedure to calculate the oil flow rate.
1. Start with small value of h and apply transformation rule.
2. Calculate potential by equation (2.49) at given cone height.
3. Compute production rate by equation (2.51).
4. Increment h by a small value.
5. Check the cone height with beneath the well bore and go to 1.
6. Repeat stages 1-5 until a maximum production rate, which is critical
coning flow rate, is obtained.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
37
50
Wheatley
45
Critical Oil Rate (STB/day)
Azar Nejad
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 2.16 A comparison between the Azar Nejad-Tortike and the Wheatley procedure
to calculate the value of critical coning rate.
80
70
Hoyland (procedure)
60
Wheatley
50
40
Azar Nejad
30
Hoyland (Simulation)
20
Meyer & Garder
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 2.17 A comparison between different studies to determine the critical coning
rate
Ali Khalili
July 2005
38
similarly. However, they are different in some cases. Azar Nejad and Tortike
considered the WOC to be a moving no-flow boundary and initial WOC
remained at constant pressure whereas Wheatley assumed that the WOC
could be a streamline. In order to configure the potential function,
Wheatley applied one line source and two point sources while Azar Nejad
and Tortike applied three line sources and two point sources. As a result,
because of adding two extra line sources, the Azar Nejad-Tortike procedure
may be more precise than the Wheatley method.
The value of the critical coning rate against fractional well penetration has
been plotted for several approaches for a specific example in figure (2.17).
Because they display different behaviour, the two correlations, the AbassBass and the Guo-Lee curve, have been removed. It is evident that the
Hoyland et al procedure cannot be reliable as it gives much higher results
than the other correlations considered. Also, the Meyer-Garder result is too
conservative. However, the critical coning rate obtained from the Wheatley
procedure is very close to that of Azar Nejad and Tortikes solution because
both two methods are based on determination of the oil potential
distribution. The value of the critical coning rate obtained by the Hoyland et
al equation (Simulation) is slightly higher than these two methods. However,
as an alternative correlation, it is recommended because a simple calculator
can be used to calculate the critical coning rate rather than a long
procedure.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
39
Despite the fact that the vast majority of reservoirs contain all three
phases (Gas, Oil, and Water) together, most studies have been conducted on
the water coning or gas coning. In simultaneous coning, consideration is
taken of both the water and the free gas of the reservoir. The only
significant way to evaluate the water and gas coning is to apply reservoir
simulation (Pinczewski, 2003). However, several procedures have been
proposed to estimate the critical coning rate in the presence of both gas and
water coning.
o = G
gz ( G 1)
O
0
(2.54)
So that we have
o (r2 , z ) = G
+ g (h D + h p )(1 G )
o
O
(2.55)
Where
h D z h D + hp
Ali Khalili
(2.56)
July 2005
40
Where
hp is the perforated height, r2 is the well radius and h is the reservoir
thickness.
o (r2 , z ) = G
Where
g (h D)( w 1)
o
o
h D z h D + hp
(2.57)
(2.58)
Meyer and Garder assumed that the oil potential at gas and water zone was
equal. As a result, by equating equation (2.55) and (2.57) the following
equation was obtained.
D = h (h h p )
o G
w G
(2.59)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
41
o (r2 , z ) = w
g (h z )(1 G ), h z h D + h p
o
o
w
+ g (h D)(1 W ), h D + h p z h D
o
o
w
+ gz (1 W ), h D z 0
o
o
(2.60)
Also by combining the Darcy equation and the Hubbert potential function,
the Oil flow rate was expressed in the form of integral as follows:
(2.61)
h
2k o
qo =
( (r , z )dz h1 ), r2 r r1
ln(r / r1 ) o 0
h 2 K (( o g )(1
q oc max = 2.46 10 5
o g 2
o g 2
) + ( w o )(
)
w g
w g
Bo o ln(
re
)
rw
(2.62)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
42
30
Simultaneous coning
water coning
25
20
15
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 2.19 A comparison between the water coning and simultaneous coning of gas and
water according to the Meyer and Garder Method.
The figure (2.19) illustrates a comparison between the water coning and the
simultaneous coning of gas and water. As shown, the value of the critical
coning rate obtained by this Approach for simultaneous coning of water and
gas is lower than that for the only water coning case.
As can be seen at equation (2.62), the only key parameter is the density
difference between the three phases. Also, the value of the maximum
critical coning flow rate is independent of the length of the perforated
interval. The independence of the critical coning rate on the length of the
perforated interval results from the assumption that the maximum rate
occurs when the water and gas comes first meet.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
43
q ow = 0.492 10
q og = 0.492 10
Ali Khalili
h 2 ( w o )
k h w (rDe , , w )
Bo o
(2.63)
h 2 ( o g )
(2.64)
Bo o
k h g (rDe , , g )
July 2005
44
re
h
(2.65)
kv
kh
For any oil production rate greater than qow or qog , oil-water
interface
moves up or the gas-oil interface moves down until it eventually reaches the
well and the unwanted fluid breaks into the wellbore. With this in mind, the
following equations are to be satisfied in order to achieve a maximum oil
rate without water and gas.
q oc q ow
(2.66)
q oc q og
As can be seen in equations (2.63) and (2.64), the critical coning rate
is related to the fluid characteristics through a dimensionless function,
Ali Khalili
July 2005
45
5 rDe 80
0 0.75
0.07 0.9
(2.67)
q o = q og = q ow
(2.68)
July 2005
46
and then the corresponding value of g and are read off from suitable
(og/ wo) curve. The accuracy of the values depends on the interpolation
method applied. Thus, the perforated interval is located by knowing the
distance of the perforated interval from gas cap which is calculated by
means of the equation given in figure (2.20). Finally, having values of g and
, one can determine the critical coning rate for this penetration.
Table 2.7 Reservoir and fluids properties for the Chierici and Meyer and Garder method
Parameter
re
kv
kh
ow
og
rw
Value
70
2000
10
100
0.3
0.66
0.25
Unit
Ft
Ft
md
md
g/cm3
g/cm3
Cp
Ft
gas
0.5
.05
.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.75
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
.125
0.4
75
Ali Khalili
July 2005
47
30
cheirici-Ciucci
Meyer & Garder
25
20
15
10
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 2.21 Comparison between the Chierici and Meyer Method at simultaneous coning
The figure 2.21 shows a comparison between the Chierici and the MeyerGarder method for simultaneous coning of water and gas. As shown, the
Chierici method gives a higher result than the Meyer-Garder equation. As
noted earlier, Meyer and Garder assumed that the water was at rest in the
cone. Also the reservoir permeability was considered uniform throughout the
reservoir. The Chierici method may be criticized on the basis that the cone
shape effect was not taken into account. Another disadvantage of this
method is that the reservoir properties must satisfy the conditions for
equation (2.67). For instance, as shown, the fractional well penetration
must be between zero and 0.75.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
48
Ali Khalili
July 2005
49
Ali Khalili
July 2005
50
Ali Khalili
July 2005
51
Ali Khalili
July 2005
52
Ali Khalili
July 2005
53
Ali Khalili
July 2005
54
2.3. Comparison
Figure 2.29 shows a comparison between all the correlations considered in
this study. Depending on the assumptions and basic logic considered in
developing the correlations, different results are obtained. The following
conclusions can be drawn from figure (2.29).
The curves are categorised into two groups. The first group consists of
two curves, the Abass-Bass Curve and Guo-Lee curve. As can be seen, there
is a significant difference between these two curves and the other
Ali Khalili
July 2005
55
correlations. Particularly, the value of the critical coning rate for the curves
increases dramatically as the fractional well penetration increases till it
reaches a maximum critical coning rate. It may be explained by stating that
the limited wellbore penetration moves from zero well penetration to most
oil dominant zone. This pseak value occurs at fractional well penetration of
50% and 33% for the Guo-Lee and the Abass curves, respectively. Afterward,
it starts to decline until it reaches zero at fully well penetration. Even
though the behaviour is qualitatively smaller, the Guo-Lee rates are a good
deal higher than the Abass-Bass rates.
The second group consists of all curves except the Abass-Bass and the
Guo-Lee Curves. In this group, generally, the curves begin with zero rate for
full penetration and then as the fractional well penetration approaches zero
the value of the critical coning rate increases. For instance, the outcome
provided by the Hoyland et al procedure rises dramatically as the curve
approaches low penetration. The reason is that this estimation follows the
Muskat-Wyckoff theory in which the cone shape effect on oil potential
distribution was not considered (Hoyland et al, 1989). In contrast, the
Meyer-Garder formula provides the lowest result for the fractional well
penetration of less than 42%. Therefore, the Hoyland et al and the Meyer
curves can be defined as the upper limit and the lower limit respectively.
Evidently, the results of the Wheatley, Azar Nejad-Tortike and Hoyland et
als equations are slightly different. To be more precise, the Wheatley and
Azar Nejad-Tortike procedures are almost the same. One of the main
Ali Khalili
July 2005
56
Ali Khalili
Wheatley
Azar Nejad-Tortike
45
40
Chaperon
Hoyland et al(2)
80
54
Hoyland et al(1)
41
Ciucci(simultaneous)
Abass-Bass
0
Chierici-
Guo-Lee
0
25
Meyer-Garder
25
rate(STB/day)
Critical
Correlation
July 2005
57
80
Chaperon
70
Hoyland (procedure)
60
Wheatley
50
Guo
40
Azar Nejad
30
Hoyland (Simulation)
20
Meyer & Garder
10
Abass & Bass
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 2.29 A schematic comparison between correlations developed to calculate the critical coning rate for vertical oil well
Ali Khalili
July 2005
Unlike the vertical wells where the upward movement of the water
creates a cone shape, the rising water at horizontal wells forms a crest which
is called the water crest (Fig 3.1). There are some advantages in drilling
horizontal wells over the conventional vertical wells. Firstly, the pressure
drawdown is concentrated in the vicinity of the vertical wells whereas in the
case of a horizontal well it is distributed over the drainage volume of the
horizontal well. Therefore, the pressure drawdown for a horizontal well may
be much smaller than that for a vertical well (Pinczewski, 2003). Secondly,
the value of the critical coning rate for a horizontal well is more than two or
three times that of the critical coning rate estimated for a vertical well at
the same cone height (Karcher and Giger, 1986). Finally, in terms of sweep
efficiency, a horizontal well is more effective because the oil volume
invaded by the water to create a crest below a horizontal well is
considerably greater than the oil volume swept to form a cone below a
vertical well (Karcher and Giger, 1986). Consequently, a higher ultimate oil
recovery is expected from a horizontal well rather than a vertical well.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
58
Ali Khalili
July 2005
59
equation for the flow potential was derived based on Houpeurts formula and
was expressed as shown in equation (3.1) (Darcys unit).
q o
x
z
Log (ch cos )
2Lk
h
h
( x, z ) =
(3.1)
Equation (3.1) above was developed based on the assumptions that the
flow pattern would be radial around the wellbore, and also that it might
approach linear flow properties as the distance from the well increases.
After equating the viscous forces and gravity forces, an implicit equation was
yielded to calculate the cone height as a function of XA, which is the location
of constant pressure boundary where the interface level is zero (equation
3.2).
(3.2)
Z
1 s =
h
1 cos
Ali Khalili
Z s
X A
+1
h log(
h
)
Z s
Z s
2 sin
1 cos
h
h
ch
July 2005
60
q oc = 4.886 10 4
Lkh
X
qlc ( A )
Bo o
h
(3.3)
Where
qlc =
2(1 cos
sin
Z sc
h
(3.4)
Z sc
h
Anisotropic formation:
Apart from the end sides of the well, the flow was considered two
dimensional in x-z planes; therefore, only x and z coordinates have to be
changed in conversion from isotropic to anisotropic. For this reason, the
conversion equation can be expressed as:
kx
2 p
2 p
2 p 2 p
k
+
+
k
(
)
=
z
x 2
z 2
x 2 z 2
(3.5)
In such cases, the critical coning rate for anisotropic formations is defined as
follows:
k h k v 12
q oc = 4.886 10 Lh ( ) qlc
kh
(3.6)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
61
In order to use equation (3.6) and (3.3), one has to estimate the value of Zs
from figure (3.3) at given value of (XA/h). Once Zs is determined, q*lc as well
as qoc can be calculated.
As shown in figure (3.3), as XA/h increases the distance between the cone
apex and wellbore decreases. In other words, the system allows the water
crest to rise to a higher level for larger outer boundary radius while the
water crest remains stable. Consequently, the well can produce clean oil at
higher rate when horizontal well drainage increases.
Joshi (1991)(cited in Ahmed, 2000)
(h (h Db )) 2
L
q oc = 7.827 10 6 ( )k h
q lc
o Bo
D
(3.7)
Where
XD =
D kv
h kh
(3.8)
(3.9)
Where D and Db represent the distance between two horizontal wells and the
distance between WOC and the horizontal well, respectively. According to
the data shown in table 3.1, the value of the critical cone rate calculated by
Chaperons method is slightly more than 138 STB/day compared to value of
241 STB/day provided by Joshis extension.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
62
Kv
Kh
Db
Value
70
1500
10
100
0.3
2000
70
Units
ft
Ft
Md
md
Ft
Ft
g/cm3 Cp
160
140
120
XA/h
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Figure 3.3 A relation between XA and Distance between cone apex and well
Ali Khalili
July 2005
63
c + ln 2 2
c + ln 2 2
y (
) x (
)
= c2
h
h
12
2
q=
kg h
o c + ln 2
(3.11)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
64
there is a relationship between the oil flow rate and the water crest shape
below a horizontal well. The shape of the WOC has been plotted in figure
(3.4) for different values of the parameter c where xD=x/h and yD=y/h. c is a
positive parameter relating to the largest angle made by the WOC with the
horizontal axis. Giger concluded that an equation for the critical coning rate
can be obtained by calculating q, oil flow rate, from equation (3.12) for c=0.
The author reached to equation (3.13) by substituting c=0 in equation (3.12);
equation (3.14) is another form of equation (3.13) which can be used to
estimate the critical coning rate (see reference for derivation).
c 2 = 2 ( y
k H g 2 k H g
1
)
x
o q
o q
12
(3.12)
0
-10
-5
10
-5
-10
YD
-15
c=0
c=1
C=2
C=10
C=100
-20
XD
-25
Figure 3.4 Non-dimensional WOC curves.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
65
qoc =
(3.13)
16 H
3 k h gL
1)
D( 1 +
3 D2
2 o
2
(3.14)
9.498 10 7 k h h 2 L
q oc =
o DBo ( 1 +
16 H 2
+ 1)
3 D2
Where
H: Vertical distance of WOC at lateral boundaries from top of the horizontal
well (ft).
D: Lateral dimension of reservoir block or spacing between horizontal wells
(ft).
L: Horizontal Well length (ft).
Table 3.2 An example data for Gigers theory (Bottom Water drive mechanism)
Parameter
Ali Khalili
Kv
Kh
July 2005
66
Value
70
1500
10
100
Units
Ft
Ft
Md
md
0.3
g/cm3
2000
Cp
Ft
(3.15)
reh ( L / 2)
b 1 + 1 ( L / 2b) 2 {h / 2rw }
h/L
Where b is half the major axis of drainage ellipse for a horizontal well and
can be determined by the following equation.(the eq 3.16 was edited )
b=
L 1
1
1
+
+
2 2
4 (0.5L / reh )
(3.16)
Substituting the horizontal-well effective wellbore radius in the MeyerGarder equation yields
q oc = 2.46 10 5
w o
kh
(h 2 (h lV ) 2 )
ln(reh / rwe ) o Bo
(3.17)
Where
L: Horizontal well length (ft)
July 2005
67
Kv
Kh
Reh
Value
70
1500
10
100
0.3
2000
2431
Units
ft
Ft
Md
md
ft
Ft
g/cm3 Cp
Ali Khalili
July 2005
68
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Figure 3.6 The critical coning rate against the distance between horizontal well and
WOC
As shown in figure (3.6), the critical coning rate increases as the distance
between the horizontal well and WOC increases. Also, the Joshi equation
indicates that the value of the critical coning rate is zero when a horizontal
well is drilled at WOC. Joshis result can be compared against the Chaperon
and the Giger Methods, provided that the distance between the horizontal
well and WOC is assigned to reservoir thickness which is 70 ft for the
example shown in table 3.3. As figure 3.6 shows, the value of the critical
coning rate determined by Joshis equation is about 107 STB/day.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
69
Ali Khalili
July 2005
70
(3.18)
Where hav is defined as a roughly estimation for the height of water invaded
zone. Multiplying both sides by the cross sectional area, A, and porosity
gives:
(3.19)
The left hand site, which is the oil left in the reservoir, can be expressed as
the original oil in place minus the cumulative oil production, NP.
ht As o = ( N i N p ) B
(3.20)
( N i N p ) B = (h hav ) A (1 s wc ) + hav As or
(3.21)
(3.22)
NpB
A (1 s wc s or )
And the average oil column height below perforation can be determined by
the following equation (see figure 3.7).
(3.23)
As production increases, hbp decreases until the water breaks into the
wellbore. At this stage the average oil column height below perforation is
defined as the breakthrough height and donated by hwb. After simulating one
well for different properties, it was found that the plot of WOR plus a
constant value, c, against hbp is a straight line on a semi-log scale after
water breaks into the well. This point can be expressed mathematically as
follows:
WOR = 0
July 2005
71
hbp<=hwb
(3.24)
Once the value of m, hwb and c is determined the whole coning behaviour can
be predicted. Thus, in order to determine the parameters described in
equation 3.24, firstly, a large number of simulation runs is made to
investigate the cone performance at different reservoir and fluid properties
and then for each run, the WOR and c are plotted against hbp on semi-log
scale from which m and hbp are determined. When hwb and m are obtained
for all cases, a regression analysis is applied to find a relationship between
the oil reservoir and the fluid properties.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
72
WOR = 0
hbp hwb
(3.25)
(3.26)
Therefore:
h hap
hwb
(3.27)
h hap
hwb
] 2 = 1 + 4.7921 10 4 D 0.32 (
1 0.65 1
1
) (
)(
)
XD
q cD 1 + M 0.4
(3.28)
D kv
h kh
xD =
(3.30)
qt o
q cD =
(3.31)
k v k h k ro Lh
hap
M =
(3.29)
(3.32)
o k rw
w k ro
(3.33)
The value of the Critical coning flow rate is determined by applying equation
(3.28) for given hwb, this equation can be rewritten as follows:
4
q cD = 4.7921 10 D
Ali Khalili
0.32
1 0.65
1
(
)
XD
1 + M 0 .4
hbp
( h hap ) 2 hbp
(3.34)
July 2005
73
q oc =
k v k h k ro Lh
o Bo
q cD
(3.35)
Where
L:
Figure 3.7 A very simple sketch of y-z profile for a horizontal well
July 2005
74
q cD = 1.17 10 ( X D )
0.61
(hbp 1) 2
1
1
2.77
(
)(
)
hap
1 + M 4.45
(h hap ) 2 (hbp 1) 2
1 ( )
h
(3.36)
q oc =
Lh k v k h ( w o )
325.86 o Bo
(3.37)
q cD
The critical coning rate against the average oil column height below
perforation, hbp is plotted in figure (3.8). As can been seen, the value of
the critical coning rate decreases with decreasing hbp, that is, as time
goes on the water-oil front line approaches the well beneath. Therefore,
in order to continue clean oil production, the well should flow at a lower
rate.
Kv
Kh
hap
Value
70
1500
10
100
0.3
2000
Unit
Ft
ft
md
Md
Ft
ft
Ali Khalili
g/cm3 Cp
July 2005
75
5000
4500
Criticali Oil Rate(STB/day)
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
70
60
Rechem & Touami
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Ali Khalili
July 2005
80
76
In order to compare the critical coning rate for horizontal and vertical
wells, the horizontal well is assumed to be located at the top of the oil
column. For this reason, the parameter hap is given as 1ft. Figures (3.8)
and (3.9) show a typical comparison between the Yang-Wattenbarger and
the Rechem-Touami method. As shown, both graphs start with a high
value of critical coning rate. They decline sharply as the water-oil
interface moves upward for about 5 ft from initial WOC. However, there
is a dramatic difference between them. For instance, the value of the
critical coning rate for the Rechem-Touami equation is almost 72 STB/day
compared to 4500 STB/day given by the Yang-Wattenbarger correlation.
This difference cannot be justified because Yang-Wattenbargers rate is
extremely greater than The Rechem result. Meanwhile, because of
applying regression analysis, an error has presumably occurred in the
equation development. It is remarkable to note that Pietraru and
Cosentino (1993) reached to a similar result.
3.3 Comparison
Table (3.5) shows the value of the critical coning rate obtained from
different studies. In order to discover the most suitable approach for,
understanding the assumptions and basic concepts used in these methods are
inevitable. Thus, the above studies can be classified in two major groups, the
equations developed through the analytical derivations and those obtained by
Ali Khalili
July 2005
77
72
Rechem-Touami
Joshi
107
Giger
26.9
241
Joshis ( Chaperon)
Chaperon
138
rate(STB/day)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
78
Since the data given is the same for vertical and horizontal well, the
result can be compared against each other. For example, for the data
provided in this study the maximum critical coning rate calculated by most
reliable study for vertical well is 52 STB/day. This value for horizontal well
can be between 72 and 130 STB/day. As a result, the horizontal well
Ali Khalili
July 2005
79
technology improves the value of the critical coning rate. Also, in horizontal
wells the water has less tendency to move toward wellbore.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
80
Ali Khalili
July 2005
81
into consideration. Summing up, The Joshi (1988) and the Rechem-Touami
(2000) correlations provide more reliable results than other correlations
considered. However, the Rechem-Touami equation has the advantage that
well performance after breakthrough may also be predicted. Summing up,
the outcome of comparison between both types of wells shows that
horizontal wells generally allow higher critical coning rates than vertical
wells.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
82
5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
REFERENCES
Abass, H. H. and D. M. Bass (1988). "The Critical Production Rate in WaterConing System." SPE 17311.
Addington, D. V. (1981). "An Approach to Gas Coning Correlations for a Large
Grid Cell Simulator." Society of Petroleum Engineering of AIME 2267(74).
Ahmed, T. H. (2000). Reservoir Engineering Handbook. Houston, Tex, Gulf
Pub. Co. pp 570-622.
Azar Nejad, F. and W. S. Tortike (1995). A General Analytical Solution to
Simultaneous Coning in Oil and Gas Coning, CIM, 95-31, CIM.
Azar Nejad, F., W. S. Tortike, et al. (1996). "Potential Distribution Around
Sources With Finite Length (Horizontal and Vertical Partially Penetrating
Wells and Fractures) Part(I): Steady State Fluid Flow." SPE 35270.
Azar Nejad, F., W. S. Tortike, et al. (1996). Potential Distribution Around
Sources With Finite Length(Horizontal and Vertical Partially Penetrating
Wells and Fractures. Paper SPE 35269 to be presented at Mid-Continent Gas
Symposium. Amarillo.
Bournazel, C. and B. Jeanson (1971). "Fast Water Coning Evaluation Method."
Chaperon, I. (1986). Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and
Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations: Suncritical and Critical Rates. Paper
SPE 15377 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. New Oreleans LA.
Chierici, G. L. and G. M. Ciucci (1964). "A Systematic Study of Gas and Water
Coning By Potentiometric Model." JPT: 923-929.
Giger, F. M. (1989). Analytic Two Dimensional Models of Water Cresting
Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells. Paper SPE 15378, SPE 61 th Annual
Fall Meeting. New Orleans, LA.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
83
Ali Khalili
July 2005
84
Ali Khalili
July 2005
85
6 APPENDICES
Appendix A
( M ) =
Q 1
( )
2k r
(A.1)
where r is the distance between the well point and any point M. However, in
the case of limited oil column of thickness, the no-flow boundary (z=h) may
be accounted for by the method of images. The image well locations are
zn=+-2nh,xn=0 (see Figure A.1.1).As a result , the viscous flow potential
toward a point well located at the bottom of the oil layer is which is
summation of all s obtained by the infinite series of images wells. It
applies close the wellbore, where the flow is hemispherical, and far from the
well where the flow system is radial. A point, A is considered far from a well
on gas-oil interface with coordinates of (rA,h), and S the apex of a gas cone
in equilibrium with coordinates(o,zs) above a vertical well producing at rate
Q,the potential difference may be expressed as follows:
Ali Khalili
July 2005
86
A S =
Q +
1
1
|
2
|
(A-2)
A S = g (h z S )
(A-3)
Q=
z
1 k
(gh)2 (1 S )
(A-4)
Where
Q +
1
1
|
2
|
(A-5)
a=(
1
rA k v 2
)( )
h kh
Ali Khalili
(A-7)
July 2005
87
1
a=(rA/h)(vertical perm/hor
perm)^(1/2)
0.9
a=6.8
0.8
a=9.42
a=30
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
Numerical values for critical values can be calculated by using equation (A-7)
qc = 4.886 10 4
(A-7)
kh
(h)q
Bo
(A-9)
k=(kxkykz)1/3=kxa-1/3=kha-1/3
(A-10)
x=x(k/kx)1/2=a-1/6
Ali Khalili
(A-11)
July 2005
88
y=y(k/ky)1/2=ya-1/6
(A-12)
z=z(k/kz)1/2=za1/3
(A-13)
(g)=( g)(z/z)ga-1/3
(A-14)
(A-15)
k "h" = k h h
(gh) " = gh
rA / h " = (rA / h)(k v / k h )1 / 2
"
so the general equation for critical coning rate in reservoir conditions may be
expressed:
Qc = 4.886 10 4 (
kh h
r k
)(h)q c (( A )( v )1/ 2 )
Bo
h kh
Ali Khalili
July 2005
89
Appendix B:
Abasss method to calculate critical flow rate for Vertical oil
wells
B.1: Flow equation and boundary equations
The average pressure within the nearest cell to the wellbore can be
calculated as a volume average:
r1
P1 =
PdVP
(B-1)
rW
r1
dVP
rW
P=
r1
P2rzdr Pr dr
=
rW
r1
2rzdr
rW
r1
2rdr
rw
rw
r1
P1 =
2 Pr dr
rw
r1 r w
2
(B-2)
P = Pw +
Qo o B o
r
r2
(ln( ) 2 )
7.082k h z
rw
2re
(B-3)
July 2005
90
1
1
Qo o
2
r
r2
P= 2
(
P
rdr
+
(ln
+
)rdr )
2 w
7.082k h z rw rw 2re 2
r1 rw rw
(B-4)
and doing the intergration of all the terms involved, one gets
Q B
r
r r +r
1
P1 = Pw + o o o ( 2 1 2 ln 1 1 2 w )
2
rw
7.082k h Z r1 rw
4re
2
(B-5)
Qo o B o
r
ln
7.082k h z rw
(B-6)
(B-7)
(B-8)
Ali Khalili
July 2005
91
(B.2-1)
(B.2-2)
Gravity forces which are result of density difference between oil and gas
can be expressed mathematically:
P = ( w o ) ghwc
(B.2-3)
2 k h gxh(h N hx)
Qc =
Bo (
r1
r1 rw
2
ln(
(B.2-3)
r +r
r1
1
) 1 2w )
2
rw
4re
2
2 k h zghwc
Qc =
o Bo (
Ali Khalili
r1
r1 rw
2
ln
(B.2-4)
r1 1
)
rw 2
July 2005
92
since the maximum value for hwc is ho-N-z ,thus replacing hwc with its value
the equation (B.2-4) may be written:
Qc =
2k h gxh(h N hx)
1
2
Bo ( +
Ali Khalili
r1
r1 rw
2
ln(
(B.2-5)
r1
))
rw
July 2005
93
Appendix C:
(Wheatleys Method)
(C-1)
kv r *
kh h
Where
z=
(C-2)
z*
h
(C-3)
2 1 2
+
+
=0
r 2 r r z 2
/ z = 0, z = 0
(C-5)
There must also be no radial flow below the well at r=0, that is,
= 0, r = 0, z > X
r
Ali Khalili
(C-6)
July 2005
94
= const , r = rw , Z X
(C-7)
It is also assumed that the influx of oil at the drainage radius is uniform, i.e.
= 0@ r = re
(C-8)
(C-9)
= gh(1 z )
(C-10)
=r
z
r
= r
r
z
(C-11)
= const
(C-12)
Equations (C-10) and (C-11) represent the boundary condition at the WOC.
Ali Khalili
July 2005
95
Ali Khalili
July 2005
96
Appendix D:
Azar-Nejad et al Method
Cone height and Production Rate
a = 2ht
(D.1)
D =
2ka
QB
(D.2)
Where
= P gZ
(D.3)
Dimensionless time;
tD =
kt
ct a 2
X
a
Y
y=
a
Z
w=
a
Zp
c=
a
x=
Ali Khalili
(D.4)
(D.5)
(D.6)
(D.7)
(D.8)
July 2005
97
D =
2ka
( P gz )
Q
(D.9)
For constant potential outer boundary the potential drop can be written as:
D =
2ka
( P O gz Pt )
Q
(D.10)
Where Pt is the pressure at top of the outer boundary. Potential at the top of
the well bore is:
=
DW
2ka
( Pw O gZ W Pt )
Q
(D.11)
D ( , z ) =
2ka
( P( , z ) O gz Pt )
Q
(D.12)
Where PW is the wellbore pressure at the top of the wellbore, and P(,z) is
the pressure on the cone at horizontal distance from the well and vertical
distance z from top of the reservoir.
= ( x 2 + y 2 )1 / 2
(D.13)
P ( , z ) = Pb W g (t z )
(D.14)
Static equilibrium states that the pressure on the initial WOC remains
constant. Thus,
Pb = Pbi = Pt + o gt
(D.15)
July 2005
98
D ( , w) =
2ka
( g (t z ))
Q
(D.16)
The potential drop between a point on the WOC and the wellbore is:
D = D ( , z ) DW
(D.17)
And the pressure drop between the top of the wellbore and top of the outer
reservoir boundary is:
P = Pw o gZ w Pt
(D.18)
Thus;
D =
2ka
(P g (t z )
Q
(D.19)
Dimensionless potential drop between the wellbore and the outer reservoir
boundary is:
2ka
(P)
Q
(D.20)
= De
DW
De
=0
De
(D.20)
=
De
Where
(D.21)
hc = (t z ) / a
hc = ( D ( , z ) De )
Q
2ka 2 g
(D.23)
Now by substitution the value for a and considering anisotropic reservoir with
oil formation volume factor of B, one can write:
Ali Khalili
July 2005
99
hc = ( D ( , z ) De )
Q
2
k
8 h t 2 g
kv
(D.24)
k
q oc = 8g h t 2 ( D ( , z ) De )
k v
Ali Khalili
July 2005