PREDICTING CRITICAL OIL RATE USING SEVERAL EMPIRICAL

CORRELATION

F. Kevin, B. S. Pratama, A. Admaja, Rahmat, Aris

Petroleum Engineering, STT Migas Balikpapan

This paper was prepared for Task of Reservoir Engineering STT Migas Balikpapan

ABSTRAK
reduces oil production. Coning is used
In this paper coning water or gas in
when the well is conferred vertically as
vertical and horizontal wells is
its own function, the production of
examined. Using the Meyer-garden
water in oil wells with underwater
method, Chierici-Ciucci, Hoyland-
driving, gas production in oil wells is
Papatzacos, Chaney Et Al,
suppressed by gas caps, and
Chaperson, and Schols. Analytical
production of bottom water in gas
solutions and correlations do not
wells. Coning is a problem in the
accurately predict the breakthrough of
second phase that must be handled on
water for horizontal wells or
the surface, besides the desired
correlations to predict gas
hydrocarbon phase it usually
breakthrough time. Three-dimensional,
decreases dramatically after the cone
three-phase, black-oil commercial
penetrates into the production well.
simulators are used to examine the
The gas produced from coning in oil
effects of various rack and fluid
wells may have a reserve pool, but
properties, well configuration, reservoir
also maybe there are not. Gas
anisotropy, and others. At
production in oil wells when cones
breakthrough and curve correlations
break through can very quickly reduce
that can be used to predict the time at
reservoir pressure there, forcing the oil
which gas or water cones become
well to close. Variables that can affect
vertical or horizontal wells. Corrections
coning are the density difference
are applied at the breakthrough time of
between water and oil, gas and oil, or
the simulator to combine the effects of
gas and water (gravitational force)
numerical dispersions. The results
Liquid viscosity and relative
obtained from the new correlation were
permeability.
lowered compared to the analytical
and numerical solutions available for a
INTRODUCTION
number of cases; this comparison
Water and/or gas coning is a serious
shows that the correlation developed
problem in many reservoirs with wells
in this work can be used to predict the
producing from an oil zone underlying
breakthrough time of water or gas in
a gas cap, overlying an aquifer or both,
vertical and horizontal wells quite
Coning occurs in a well on production,
accurately. Coning is a production
when the water or gas zone moves up
problem where the gas or bottomwater
towards the wellbore in the form of a
gas cap infiltrates the perforation zone
cone.
in the area near the wellbore and
Eventually, the water or gas breaks
through into the well and water from
the aquifer and/or gas from the gas
cap is produced along with oil. The
water or gas production increases
progressively after breakthrough time
and may reduce significantly the crude
oil production.
The main factors affecting the water
and/or gas coning tendency are the
density difference between oil and gas
or oil and water, the viscosity of water
or gas, formation permeability,
pressure drawdown, flow rate, etc.
More specifically, the tendency of a
fluid to cone is directly proportional to
the density difference between the
fluid and crude oil, but inversely
proportional to the fluid viscosity and
reservoir permeability.
The water and/or gas coning can be
reduced by (i) decreasing the well
production rate; (ii) improving the
productivity of the well; (iii) using
horizontal instead of vertical wells to
produce the formation; (iv) selectively
partially penetrating the well at the top
of the reservoir in the case of water
coning, at the bottom of the reservoir
in the case of gas coning, and close to
the center of the pay zone in the case
of simultaneous water and gas coning;
(v) recompleting the well at a different
elevation to increase the distance
between the gas-oil or water-oil
contact and the perforated interval;
and (vi) infill drilling.
Most of the research efforts in the area
of water and gas coning have
concentrated on estimating the critical
oil rate and the post breakthrough well
behavior. In the subsequent parts of
this section some of these studies will
be discussed for both vertical and
horizontal wells.
Methodology and Theory
Coning is a production problem in
which gas cap gas or bottomwater
infiltrates the perforation zone in the
near-wellbore area and reduces oil
production. Gas coning is distinctly
different from, and should not be
confused with, free-gas production
caused by a naturally expanding gas
cap.
Predicting Coning
Most prediction methods for coning
predict a "critical rate" at which a
stable cone can exist from the fluid
contact to the nearest perforations.
The theory is that, at rates below the
critical rate, the cone will not reach the
perforations and the well will produce
the desired single phase. At rates
equal to or greater than the critical
rate, the second fluid will eventually be
produced and will increase in amount
with time. However, these theories
based on critical rates do not predict
when breakthrough will occur nor do
they predict water/oil ratio or gas/oil
ratio (GOR) after breakthrough. Other
theories predict these time behaviors,
but their accuracy is limited because of
simplifying assumptions.
The calculated critical rate is valid only
for a certain fixed distance between
the fluid contact and the perforations.
With time, that distance usually
decreases (for example, bottom water
will usually tend to rise toward the
perforations). Thus, the critical rate will
tend to decrease with time, and the
economics of a well with a tendency to
cone will continue to deteriorate with
time.
There are many correlation that used
to calculate critical oil rate in vertical
well:
Garder meyer
Meyer and Garder assume a
homogeneous system with a uniform
permeability throughout the reservoir,
i.e., kh = kv .
Simultaneous gas and water coning methods for predicting critical oil rate
for bottom water coning in anisotropic,
Ko h2−h p2 homogeneous formations with the well
Qoc = 0.246 x 10-4 [ ] ℜ x
μo Bo ln ( ) completed from the top of the
rw formation. The first method is an
ρo−ρg 2
[(ρw – ρo) ( ) + (ρo – ρg) ( 1 - analytical solution, and the second is a
ρw−ρg numerical solution to the coning
ρo−ρg 2 problem.
) ]….(1)
ρw−ρg The Analytical Solution Method
To predict the critical rate, the authors
The Chierici – Ciucci Approach superimpose the same criteria as
Chierici and Ciucci (1964) used a those of Muskat and Wyckoff on the
potentiometric model to predict the single-phase solution and, therefore,
coning behavior in vertical oil wells. neglect the influence of cone shape on
To calculate critical oil rate following the potential distribution. Hoyland and
the step below: his coworkers presented their
Calculate dimensionless radius: analytical solution in the following
ℜ kh
rDe =
√
h kv
Calculate dimensionless perforated
form:

length ε
hp Where :
ε= Qoc : Critical oil rate, STB/day
h
Calculate the gas cone ratio g h : total thickness of oil zone, ft
Dt ρw , ρo : water and oil density, lb/ft3
g = Kh : Horizontal permeability, md
h
Calculate the water cone ratio w Qcd : dimennsionless critical flow
Dt rate
w = Numerical Solution Method
h
Based on a large number of simulation
runs with more than 50 critical rate
values, the authors used a regression
analysis routine to develop the
following relationships:
For isotropic reservoirs with kh = kv,
the following expression is proposed:
ko ( ρw− ρo ) hp
Qoc = 0.924 x 10-4 [1 – ( ¿
μo Bo h
2 1.325
] x h2.238 [ln(re)]-1.99
Chaney et al
Chaney et al. (1956) developed a set
of working curves for determining oil
critical flow rate. The authors proposed
a set of working graphs that were
Figure 1 Dimensionless functions for
generated by using a potentiometric
rDe = 20. (After Chierici, Ciucci, and
analyzer study and applying the water
Pizzi, courtesy JPT, August 1964.)
coning mathematical theory as
developed by Muskat-Wyckoff (1935).
The Hoyland – Papatzacos –
The graphs are designed to determine
Skjaeveland Methods
the critical flow rate in oil-water, gas-
Hoyland, Papatzacos, and
oil, and gas-water systems with fluid
Skjaeveland (1989) presented two
and rock properties as listed above.
The hypothetical rates as determined
from the Chaney et al. curves
(designated as Qcurve), are corrected
to account for the actual reservoir rock
and fluid properties by applying the
following expressions:
In oil – water system
Chaperson (1986) proposed a simple
relationship to estimate the critical rate
of a vertical well in an anisotropic
formation (kv π kh). The relationship
accounts for the distance between the
production well and boundary.
kh ( h−hp )2
Qoc = 0.0703 x 10-4 [Δρ] qc*
μo Bo

In gas – oil system

Where :
Qoc : Critical oil rate, STB/day
Kh : Horizontal permeability ,mD
h : Coloumn thickness, ft
hp : perforated interval, ft

Schol’s method
Schols (1972) developed an empirical
equation based on results obtained
from numerical simulator and
laboratory experiments. His critical rate
equation has the following form:

Where :
Qoc : Critical oil rate, STB/day
h : Coloumn thickness, ft
hp : perforated interval, ft
re : drainage radius, ft

Calculation And Discussion

Data :
Critical-production-rate curves for sand oil density ρo = 47.5 lb/ft3
thickness of 75 ft., well radius of 3 in., water density ρw = 63.76 lb/ft3
and drainage radius of 1,000 ft. Water gas density ρg = 5.1 lb/ft3
coning curves: A, 7.5 ft. perforated oil viscosity μo = 0.73 cp
interval; B, 15 ft.; C, 22.5 ft.; D, 30 ft.; oil FVF Bo = 1.1 bbl/STB
and E, 37.5 ft. Gas coning curves: a, oil column thickness h = 65 ft
7.5 ft. perforated interval; b, 15 ft.; c, depth from GOC to top of perforations
22.5 ft.; d, 30 ft., and e, 37.5 ft. Dt = 25 ft
Figure 2. Critical production rate well perforated interval hp = 15 ft
curves. (After Chaney et al., courtesy wellbore radius rw = 0.25 ft
OGJ, May 1956.) drainage radius re = 660 ft
oil effective permeability ko = 93.5 md
Chaperson’s Method horizontal and vertical permeability,
i.e., kh, kv = 110 md
oil relative permeability kro = 0.85 Dt
g =
h
In this paper we used several 25
g =
correlation to predict critical oil rate 65
using data above : g = 0.38
Calculate the water cone ratio w
The Meyer-Garder Correlation Dt
Apply equation w =
h
Ko h2−h p2 h−( Dt +hp)
Qoc = 0.246 x 10 [ -4
] ℜ x w =
μo Bo ln ( ) h
rw 65−(25+15)
ρo−ρg 2 w =
[(ρw – ρo) ( ) + (ρo – ρg) ( 1 - 65
ρw−ρg w = 0.38
ρo−ρg 2 From figure 1. which correspond to
)]
ρw−ρg rDe = 20 approximate the
652−152 dimensionless function g and w
-4 93.5
Qoc = 0.246 x 10 [ ] 660 x For ε = 0.23 and g = 0.38 given g =
0.731.1 ln( )
0.25 0.050
47.5−5.1 2 For ε = 0.23 and w = 0.38 given w =
[(63.76 – 47.5) ( ) + (47.5 –
63.76−5.1 0.050
47.5−5.1 2 The last step, we calculate the
5.1) ( 1 - )]
63.76−5.1 estimate oil critical rate
Qoc = 17.09 STB/Day h2 ( ρo− ρg)
From result above we have critical oil Qog = 0.492 x 10-4 (Kro. Kh)
Bo μ o
rate 17.09 STB/Day or maximum oil g
flow rate without gas and water coning. 65(47.5−5.1)
Qog = 0.492x10-4
1.1 0.73
The Chierici – Ciucci Approach
(0.85.110) 
Using the available data, we
Qog = 56.5 STB/day
assumption Kh = 110 mD and Kv 100
mD because in this correlation only h2 ( ρw− ρo)
Qow = 0.492 x 10-4 (Kro. Kh)
used for anisotropic formation (Kh ≠ Bo μ o
Kv). The calculation Qoc is below: w
re = 660 ft 65(63.76−47.5)
Qow = 0.492x10-4
calculate dimensionless radius 1.1 0.73
ℜ kh (0.85.110) 
rDe =
√
h kv Qow = 21.64 STB/day
From calculation above we can see
660 110 the maximum oil flow rate without
rDe =
√
65 100
rDe = 19.4
water and gas coning is 21.64
STB/Day.
rDe = 20
Calculate dimensionless perforated The Hoyland – Papatzacos –
length ε Skjaeveland Methods
hp Using numerical solution method for
ε= isotropic reservoir with Kh = Kv, we
h
15 can use equation below to calculate
ε= critical oil rate
65
ko ( ρw− ρo ) hp
ε = 0.23 Qoc = 0.924 x 10-4 [1 – ( ¿
Calculate the gas cone ratio g μo Bo h
2 1.325
] x h2.238 [ln(re)]-1.99
 93.5 ( 63.76−47.5 ) Qc* = 1.001
Qoc = 0.924 x 10-4 [1 –
0.73 1.1
15 2 1.325 Step 3 Solve the Critical oil rate
( ¿] x 652.238 [ln(660)]-1.99 kh ( h−hp )2
65 Qoc = 0.0703 x 10-4 [Δρ] qc*
Qoc = 44.88 STB/day μo Bo
from calculation above, the maximum -4 110 ( 65−15 )2
oil flow rate to avoid water coning is Qoc = 0.0703 x 10
0.73 x 1.1
44.88 STB/day. [63.76 – 47.5] 1.001
Qoc = 43.65 STB/day
Chaney et al From calculation above we can see
in this correlation, we must calculate the critical oil rate is 43.65 STB/day to
critical oil rate in gas – oil system and avoid water coning.
critical oil rate in oil – water system.
For gas – oil system Schol’s method
Ko ( ρo−ρg ) In this correlation is used to isotropic
Qoc = 0.2676 x 10-4 [ ] Qcurve
μo Bo formation, so we can used all of the
We used figure 2. to determine data available.
Qcurve Qoc = 0.0783 x 10-4 [
93.5 ( 47.5−5.1 ) 2 2 3.142
Qoc = 0.2676 x 10-4 [ ] 400 ( ρw−ρo ) Ko(h −h p )
0.731.1 ] [0.432 + ln ⁡( ℜ ) ]
Qoc = 52.85 STB/day μo Bo rw
For oil – water system h 0.14
(ℜ)
Ko ( ρw −ρo )
Qoc = 0.5288 x 10-4 [ ] Qcurve Qoc = 0.0783 x 10-4 [
μo Bo 2 2
We used figure 9.22 to determine ( 63.76−47.5 ) 93.5(65 −15 )
] [0.432 +
Qcurve 0.73 x 1.1
93.5 ( 63.76−47.5 ) 3.142
Qoc = 0.5288 x 10-4 [ ] 65 0.14
0.73 1.1 660 ] ( )
ln ⁡( ) 660
320 0.25
Qoc = 32.037 STB/day Qoc = 35.6 STB/day
From calculation above, we can used Based on the Schol’s method, the
maximum oil flow rate is 32.037 maximum oil flow rate is 35.6 STB/day.
STB/day to avoid the gas coning or
water coning. Conclusion

Chaperson’s Method
In this correlation, the reservoir must
be anisotropic, so we make
assumption kh = 110 mD and Kv= 55
mD. So, the calculation critical oil rate
following the step below: References
Step 1 Calculate ” Ahmed, Tarek,. Reservoir Engineering
Kv Handbook. Gulf Publishing Company,
” = (re/h)
√
Kh
55
Houston, Texas, 2001.

” = (660/65)
” = 7.2
√
110

Step 2 Solve qc*

Qc* = 0.7311 + (1.943/”)
Qc* = 0.7311 + (1.943/)