.m...

.
m

rI

Society

of Petroleum

Engineers

SPE 49052
More Oil with Less Water Using Downhole Water Sink Technology:
Ephim 1.Shirman, and Andrew K. Wojtanowicz,

the well becomes uneconomical and the well must be shut-in.

Several technologies have been used by industry to fight
water breakthrough to oil perforations due to coning. ~ese
methods include: perforating as far from the initial water-oil
contact (WOC) as possible; keeping production rates below
the critical value, and creating a low- or no-pemeable zone
above WOC by injecting resins, polymers or gels. All these
methods being applied to wells with conventional
completions, i.e. a single completion in the oil column.
Another concept for water control was to use dual
completion together with some innovative production/injection schemes to suppress water coninig, Smith and Pirson,
and Ho# suggested a method to delay water coning by
injecting part of the produced fluid into the formation below
the production completions. The re-circulation of the produced
hydrocarbons (Hydraulic Doublet) provides a pressure
gradient barrier to delay coning. Pirson and Mehta3 discovered
that tie Doublets are most efficient when the ratio of injected
to produced oil is equal to 0.3. This method was not applied in
the field due to its low economical parameters: at later stages
of production more and more produced hydrocarbons should
be-.re-injected to prevent water breakthrough. Pirson and
Mehta also discovered that selective production of water and
oil from their respective zones, presently dubbed as Downhole
Water Sink (DWS), may reduce cone growth, but would not
reduce the total water oil ratio.
In 1958, Widrnyer4 patented a well completion principle
with separated production of oil and water in order to control
coning. It was proposed to perforate both the top and bottom
completion in the oil zone. Later, Drisco115suggested the
possibility of having more than two perforated intervals and
placing the bottom one below the initial Water-Oil Contact
(WOC). The well is then produced as a single completion with
the fluids commingled in the well bore. For nonideal
conditions, Driscoll proposed to use a packer and adjustable
flow choke to adjust pressure drops and flow rates of oil and
water.
Fisher, Letkeman, and Tetreau6 made, probably, the first
attempt of DWS evaluation. ~ey used a numerical simulator
to conclude that dual completions can reduce the effect of
coning and in some cases eliminate them entirely. Castaneda7
checked the applicability of this idea to the heavy oil
reservoirs. Cramers patented a method and apparatus to pump
fluids from the borehole as a water cut reduction method.

Cop@gh! te98, Society of Petroleum Engineera, Inc.

This paw
ws prepared Fw presantati~
al the SPE Annual Technical
ExhibitiM held In New Orfeans, Lwlslana, 27-30 October, 1998.

A Feasibility Study

SPE, Louisiana State University

Conference

This paw was selected fw presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
Inforrnafim wntslned in an abstract submitted by the author(s). CMtents d the paper, as
pre-serded, have not been reviewed by the society ef Petroleum Engineers and are subjed to
mrrectim by the authw(a). The materfal, as presented, does not necessarily reffad an~
Pasitim of the Sodety of Petroleum Englneem, Ita offlcera. w membe=. pam
wsented at
SPE meetings are subject to Nblicatlon review by Editorial Committees of the Sedely af
Petroleum Engineers. Electranlc repraducllon, dls~bution, or storage ef any part d this papsr
for mmmerdal PWS
without the written mnsent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Is
~hibiled.
Permission to raptium
in print is resbisted 10 an abstract of not more than 300
words: iBusbations may no! be mpied.
The, abstract must mntain mnspiwous
a~owledgment
of where and by where the peper was presented, Write Llhadan, SPE, P.O.
Scsi 8338% f?ichardson, TX 76083.3836, U.S.A., fes 01 -972-962-e435.

Abstract

The paper reports on recent R&D progress in the Downhole

Water Sink (DWS) technology resulting in an establishment of
a joint industry~SU project - DWS Initiative. Presented are
recent case histories of DWS design and successful field trials.
The results are then analyzed comparatively in view of the
superiority of DWS over the single conventional completions.
me analysis shows that, although DWS increases production
of oil, its potential for reducing production of water is
unknown and remains a controversial issue among operators.
The case history analysis is followed by results from the
authors theoretical and experimental study on water cut
suppression with DWS. The study was performed by
comparing WC development in the single (conventional) and
dual @WS) well completions for a broad range of oil
reservoirs with bottom water columns. These theoretical
results are supported with experiments conducted using a
laboratory physical model of a dual/single completed well The results, included in this paper,
reservoir system.
demonstrate the persistence and irreversible nature of WC in
conventional wells compared to its flexibility and easy control
in DWS completions. Defined is the range of production rates
where DWS may give a sizable, up to 40Y0,reduction of WC.
It is also shown, with calculations, how to determine the
expected WC reduction for a given reservoir and wellcompletion design.
Introduction
In a water driven oil reservoir a desired high production rate

is limited by water coning and critical flow rates. If the oil

production rate is above this critical value, water breakthrough
occurs. After the breakthrough, the water phase may dominate
the total production rate to the extent that tier
operation of
215

El. Shirrnan and A.K. Woytanowicz

49052

The fwst industrial trial of the DWS was made by Hunt

Petroleum Co. LSU designed the well completion for this
application. The production rate of the well completed with
DWS was so~o higher than of a typical well. Water cut afier
two years of production was 0.1A compared to 92% for a
typical well in the field. After 17 months of production, the
well was making 57 BOPD with pumping 1900 BWPD from
the water drainage perforations. ~us the total WC for the
completion with DWS is 970A,which is close to the value of
the WC obtained in the conventionally completed well in the
same field at the rate of 10 BOPD.
The second case history is a field test performed in Canada
in a completely watered out well that was abandoned. The
reservoir is a sandstone with a 60-foot oil column and a 23foot aquifer. Permeability varies from 2 to 9 Darcy. The well
was re-completed for water drainage and re-injection. The recompletion project included squeezing most of the old
perforations leaving 10-feet open to flow, and perfo-rating of
the 8-feet interval beIlow the OWC. Open hole in the Leduc
carbonate zone, at the bottom of the 5 Yz-incasing, was left for
water injection. Packers separated all the completed intervals.
The completion also included two pumps: PCP for oil
production and ESP for water drainage and re-injection.
Even though arbitrary completion and pumping schedules
were used in this application of DWS technology, it resulted in
technical success. The well was put on production with 250
BFPD and 5400 BWPD at the top and middle completions
respectively. The initial oil content in the top completion
stream was 6Y0.The oil content in this stream keeps increasing
at a rate of O.1/0per day.
The third case history regards a DWS field trial in
Bakersfield, California where the 10-year-old well was
recompleted for separate production of oil and water. The 40feet of net pay contains 32 API gravity oil. Prior to the
recompletion the well produced 6 BOPD with WC equal to
99Y0.After an additional completion in the water zone and
drainage of the water from it, at rate of 900 BWPD, the top
perforated interval has a production rate of 25 BOPD with a
WC of 58Y0.Production data indicates that, the total WC for
the well is 97.4%, which is close to the WC the well had
before the recompletion.
The fourth case history is about a well in East Texas. In
this field application of DWS an old, watered out well was
recovered and brought to a production rate of 24 BOPD with a
total WC of 97Y0.The maximum oil rate was as high as 47
BOPD at a water drainage rate of 628 BWPD.
The fi~ case history is about a well located in Indonesia
that had 5 yeas of a severe coning problem. WC got up to
84%. The gravity of the oil is 30, Several water shut off
attempts resulted in very limited success. After
implementation of the DWS technology, the well was able to
produce 298 BOPD (20 BOPD through the water drainage
perforations). The rate of water drainage was around 2550
BWPD.
Analysis of the results from these field tests leads to the
following observations. Except for one test (Hunt), DWS has
been tried on old wells that have been producing for a long

LSU Petroleum engineering department published results

of the fust theoretical studies of DWS in 1991-1994. The basic
concept used in the LSU approach was to add a hydrodynamic
isolation to the dual completion in order to produce each fluid
independently. It was shown that the hydrodynamic isolation
of the top and bottom completions is the key factor to obtain
control over the dual DWS system. In 1995 the fust field trial
of the DWS completion was successful; it received Special
Meritorious Award for technical innovation. Swisher and
Wojtanowicz9 10reported results of the fust field application
of DWS in Nebo-Hemphill field.
Texaco was the fust major Oil Company to becom interested interested in the application of this technology and
signed a cooperative agreement with Louisiana State
University for its development in 1997. To date, nine oil
companies participate in the Downhole Water Sink Initiative
a join industry project based upon cooperative agreements
with LSU. The objective of this project is to bring the DWS
technology into field operations.
One of the most fundamental issues here is to compare
DWS with conventional completions and qualify the actual
improvements due DWS implementation. These improvements may be identified in different ways dependent upon the
technical criterion used for the comparison. One may, for
example, compare the two completion methods in view of the
ultimate recovery factor. There is a hypothetical potential in
DWS to keep the water cone down and therefore enable oil
production through the top perforated interval which, in
conventional completion, would be blocked by the water cone.
Alternatively, the two technologies could be compared in
terms of productivity indices. Again, there is a logical reason
to expect DWS to be superior on these terms because the dual
completion gives two wells in one, so higher production
rates shall be achieved for the same values of pressure
drawdowns.
The most typical questions, however, are about increaskg
the oil production rate or reducing water cut with DWS.
Theoretically, the water cone reversal with DWS leaves the
upper completion open to inflow of oil, which may bring oil
cut up from few percent to almost one hundred percent of the
production rate. However, cone reversal requires a massive
production of water at the lower completion that may
considerably increase the total water cut, i.e. fraction of
water in combined production from the top and bottom
completions, Results from the field testing of DWS, presented
below, have shown a significant increment of the oil production rates with no reduction of total water cut.
The objective of this study is to examine the potential of
DWS for reducing water cut and increasing the oil production
rate within a broad range of liquid production rates.
Case Histories

Results of the five field applications of DWS technology are

presented below, The companies that implemented the
technology restricted the results of the field trials to the
amount of the information published in this paper, That is why
the reports on the field histories are far from completen.
216

time from conventional completions with very high water cut.

Although the wells were later re-completed with DWS
installations, their near-well zone was probably still saturated
with water and had severely reduced permeability to oil.
During these tests, the DWS system was engaged in
draining the water saturation around the top completion.
This that is a slow process and requires a considerable
drawdown to be created by the bottom completion, i.e. high
water pumping rates. Hence, there is a strong possibility that
the tests were not good indicators of the true ratios of oil to
water resulting from DWS completions.
These entire field test data confirmed the potential of DWS
to increase production rate of oil. Percentage - wise this
increase was very substantial as compared to conventional
single completions. However, in terms of absolute values,
except for the last case, the production rates with DWS were
small. The reason was that the tests were limited to marginal
wells having a small productivity index even without water
coning. As the trend of testing or using the DWS technology
in marginal wells is likely to continue it is important to
employ a theoretical approach and examine performance of
DWS for a broad range of production rates.

qw~w

APw = Y. ~

Ww

qo,crPo

02doho

9w=~

qOPO
~
00

In

= A~cr

................ ................(3)

7. (90 9cr)#okwhw . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)

pwkoho

9.= >

ORlim(qo

).............................(5)

9cr

Since WORlim and q,, can easily be determined from the

reservoir and fluid properties, the only unknown parameter left
in the equation is the ratio of the oil and water cone shape
factors.
Determination of the Cone Shape Factors. To determine
the ratio of the two shape factors, we compared predictions
made using Eq. 5 with numerical simulator results obtained by
Van Golf-Racht and Sonier15.Van Golf-Racht and Sonier used
five different models to examine the coning behavior in
fractured reservoirs. The total pay (60 m) and the well
penetration (50Yo)were kept constant for all five cases. The
thickness of the oil zone, ~, was variable in the performed
experiments. Oil mobility was assumed equal unity. Table 1
presents the characteristics of the five well models used in the
simulation.
Van Golf-Racht and Sonier presented results of the simulation runs, in the form of a graph showing water cut in the
produced fluid versus the production rate after 100 days of
production. We have rearranged these data and presented them
in water rate vs. oil rate coordinates in Figure 1.
The fact that the experimental data lay along the straight
lines in the q~ vs. qocoordinates, as seen from Figure 1, proves
that theoretical analysis of the post-breakthrough well
performance is correct. Least square analysis performed on the
data proves an almost perfect linear relation between rates of
water and oil in the produced fluid after water breakthrough
occurs. The smallest value of the R* for all five straight lines is

()
~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)

rw

Thus, for a well of any penetration, there is a linear

relation between the rates of the fluid being produced and the
breaking through fluid as,

Single Completion. Equilibrium water cut represents a

balanced water cone situation after breakthrough for li uid3,13
production rates greater than critical rate. Some authors
(B&J, and Kuo and DB) assume that, after the time needed for
the cone stabilization,established WC in the produced oiI is
always equal to its limiting, ultimate value. According to the
experiments Leverett, Lweis and True14,this is not always the
case. If the oil rate is not high enough to bring the cone up to
the position where the reservoir geome~ plays a restrictive
role, the water cut would stabilize at some value that is lower
than the limiting one.
For a well partially ~enetrating the oil zone, according to
Bournazel and Jeansonl , pressure drawdowns at the well in
the oil and water zones can be expressed as
Y.

[)

+A~cr

Substituting Eq. 3 into Eq. 2 and firther subtracting Eq. 2

from Eq. 1, we obtain

The design ofDWS11, to date, is based upon an analytical

method dubbed the Moving Spherical Sink Method (MSSM).
The method only predicts the shape of the segregated inflow
envelope. The area above the envelope is qualitatively
described as a reversed cone or an oil-breakthrough zone. The
area below the segregated inflow envelope describes the
clean-water sink or water breakthrough zone. Thus, to make
the design procedure complete, it is necessary to expand the
procedure outside the segregated inflow window. h other
words the procedure should work at post-breakthrough
conditions.

in

We extend the Boumazel and Jeanson theory and restate

the water breakthrough conditions in terms of pressure
drawdown rather than the critical cone height or critical rate.
An additional drawdown is needed for water breakthrough in a
partially penetrating well as compared to a well completely
penetrating the oil zone. When the oil production rate is equal
to the critical value, the water rate is equal to zero and the
height of the cone is equal to the critical height, z.,, which
yields

Theory of Water Cut Determination

APo

More Oil with Less Water Using Downhole Water Sink Technology: A Feasibility Study

4W52

.. ...... ......................(1)

rw

and,

217

El. Shirrnan and A.K. Woytanowicz

The main difference between the conventional and DWS

completions is that in the latter, the critical rate becomes a
variable depending upon the position and length of the water
sink, and water drainage rate. The higher the water drainage
rate, the higher the oil critical rate would be. I assumed that,
most likely, Eq. 8 should be valid for the DWS completions if
the corrected critical rate is substituted into the equation.
To verify this hypothesis, a series of experiments was
performed on the Hele-Shaw model in which oil was produced
at different rates under the effect of different water drainage
rates. The Hele-Shaw model was a part of the experimental set
described elswhere16.
OiI rate varied horn 6.34 to 73.06 cc/rein; water drainage
rate ranged between O and 107.53 cc/rein. Three topmost and
three bottommost perforations were open to flow of the oil and
the water respectively. For each group of experiments
performed with a fixed water rate, ultimate water cut and the
critical rate were determined using graphs of the water versus
oil rate at the top (oil) completion. Results of the estimated
values of the critical rates and ultimate cut are displayed in
Table 3.
Fairly stable values of the ultimate WC were obtained
from all the experimental runs; average ultimate WC is 0.86.
Using the obtained values for the ultimate water cut and
critical rates, we made a forecast of the WC in the top
perforations, after water breakthrough, at different water
drainage rates. Figure 3 displays a comparison of the experimental WC with values calculated using Eq. 8. As seen from
Figure 3, forecast of the WC in the top completion of the well
with DWS is very accurate: the maximum relative error is less
than 8V0.
We now have proof that Eq. 8 can be expanded to forecast
the post-breakthrough performance of wells with DWS. In this
case the critical oil rate should be determined by some
independent method, say with MSSM for the value of water
drainage rate of interest. Thus the stable, segregated inflow
window becomes a basis for prediction of the post-breakthrough performance of the wells with DWS.

0.9873 (R2=1 represent exact fictional

relation),
According to the Eq. 5, the slope of the straight line should
be proportional to the ultimate WOR, and the ratio of the
intercept and the slope are equal to the critical production rate.
Table 2 displays values of the slopes and intercepts obtained
as a result of the regression analysis of the experimental data
presented in Figure 1. In the same table ultimate WOR and
critical rate values calculated by different methods are also
shown.
Analytically predicted critical rates are h good correlation
with the values of intercept to slope ratios. The analytical
results are also a good match with critical rate obtained from
simulator for the low production rate (up to 2000 bbl/d). At
higher rates, predictions of the simulator looses validity,
probably due to the low accuracy of extrapolation of
calculated results to the low-water-cut zone, used by Van Golf
Racht and Sonier to estimate the critical rates for the simulated
cases.
To determine the effect of the cone shape factor ratio, we
have constricted a correlation graph, where we plot theoretical
values of the ultimate WOR vs. slopes of the corresponding
experimental lines, as shown in Figure 2. The ultimate WO~
calctiated as a slope of a straight line presented in the graph of
water rate vs. oil rate, is in excellent agreement with the
theoretical values of WOR1i~.The relation is almost tictional
(R~O.9992), and the coefficient of proportionality, 0,9762,
has no statistical difference horn 1.Thus, the ratio of the cone
shape fictors is a constant equal to unity.
Thus, Eq. 5 may be used to predict WC for postbreakthrough well conditions in its final, simplified form:
9w=WoRlim(90

-9cr)

"'"""""""""'"'"""""""o""'""'"'"""(6)

Division of the left and the right parts of this equation by

qo yields
WOR = WO~ti

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(7)

I ~

()

Or after taking in consideration that WC= WOR/(WOR+ 1),

we obtain
Wc = Wcb

()

~_&
9

49052

Use of MSSM to Predict Cone Profiles after

Breakthrough
Calculation Method. The fact that we can predict the
equilibrium WC at a given production rate using Eq. 8 is very
helpfil in reducing the number of unknown parameters. Use
of Eq. 8 makes the position of the cone in the well completion
to be the only unknown parameter. An algorithm to determine
the interface ~rotile was constructed as follows:
1. Calculat~ critical rate and ultimate WC for the given
reservoir and fluid properties;
2. If given production rate is below critical, there is no
breakthrough in the well;
3. Otherwise use Eq. 8. to calculate WC;
4. Assume the interface position in the well;
5. Assume that oil is produced from both the oil and water
zones and calculate the pressure drawdown in the
reservoir due to the production of this fluid through the
top part of the completion (above assumed WOI);

...... ...... ... ...... ... ...... ...(8)

Verification of the valididty of the Eq. 8 for the

combinations of fluids with mobility ratios not equal to unity
is presented in the Appendix.
Completions with DWS. According to Eq. 8, in a conventional completion, WC at any rate is determined by the
values of the ultimate WC and the critical rate. Ultimate WC
is a fiction of the reservoir geometry and fluid properties
(mobility ratio), and does not depends upon the type of the
completion. Unlike the ultimate WC, the critical rate depends
also on the position and length of the completion. In
conventional completions, for the given position of the initial
OWC, critical rate is a constant.

218

49052

More 011 with Less Water

Using Downhole

Water

A Feasibility

Study

using both conventional and DWS completion, Figure 7

presents the results of the experiments, where total oil rate is
plotted against the total production rate. For conventional
completion the line simply presents effect of postbreakthrough WC. In the well with DWS total production is a
summation of the fluids produced both at the top and the
bottom completions. Respectively, the total oil rate is the
amount of oil produced through the top and the bottom
completions.
During the experiments we set a production rate for the top
completion and ran the initial test with DWS shut-in, getting a
point for the conventional completion performance line. Then,
without changing production at the top completion we varied
rate at the bottom one. In Figure 7 lines having different
graphical style presents experimental conditions with a
constant production rate at the top completion.
Two different types of the oil rate trends were observed
during experiments: one for the production rates completion
above and the other for the rates below the ultimate rate.
(Ultimate rate is the minimum rate of production in
conventional completion, at which reservoir geometry
becomes a restriction factor for the WC value.)
As it is seen from Figure 11.3.2, if the production at top
completion is above the ultimate rate (above 8 cc/rein), oil rate
is the same as in a conventional completion until the
increment of bottom completion rate causes a reversal of the
cone. Afier the cone reversal, additional oil is being produced
at the bottom completion.
For a rate at the top completion equal to 6.24 cclmin,
which is below the ultimate rate, oil breakthrough occurred at
the slightest rates of water drainage at the bottom completion.
The reduction of the rate below the ultimate value yields a
disproportional reduction in WC. That is why initially sharp
increment in the oil rate was achieved. It is interesting to note
that this oil rate trend has a maximum, at a total rate of about
60 cc/rein. If the total rate is above this value, amount of
additional oil (compare to the rate of the conventional
completion) reduces.
Plotting the total WC versus ratio of the rate at the top
completion to the wells total rate, we discover the optimum
bottom completion rate that yields the minimum overall WC.
The similar minimums exist for each production rate at the top
completion. Figure 8 illustrates this DWS behavior. DWS
produces with the maximum WC when the water cone is fully
developed and filly reversed. For the rates below the ultimate
rate, value of WC passes through a minimum value. It is
interesting to notice that, at this point, the ratio of the
production rate at the top completion to the wells total rate is
close to the value of the ultimate WC.

Assume that water is produced from both the oil and

water zones and calculate pressure drawdown in the
reservoir due to the production of this fluid through the
bottom part of the completion (below assumed WOI);
7. Calculate the difference between the pressures determined
in the steps 5 and 6.
8. Add the effect of gravity, determined by the density
difference of the fluids.
9. The points at which the result, obtained in Step 8, is equal
to zero, represent boundary between drainage areas of the
two sets of completions, hence the interface profile;
10. Check whether the obtained interface position in the well
matches the assumed in Step 4 value;
11. If the result of step 10 is TRUE the solution is obtained,
otherwise repeat the procedure from step 5, using
corrected value of the cone height (interface position in
the well).
6.

Example of interface profile prediction. To demonstrate the

independence of the obtained solution from the direction, in
which the cone develops, we used a case of deep completion
(water drainage part of DWS) for the example calculations. A
well is considered deep completed when it is perforated below
the initial WOC. Figure 4 shows the sketch of the reservoir
and the well completion for the example case,
After computations, when the assumed position of the cone
apex was correct, the line representing zero value of the
drawdown difference passes through the assumed point in the
well completion, as shown in Figure 5. Needless to say that it
took several trails before the match was obtained. After the
matched is reached the computer program stores the
coordinates of all zero-pressure-difference points and makes a
plot of the cone profile. The above method and software for
calculating dynamic interface oil/water profile was validated
by comparing the results with those from a commercial
numerical simulator.
Verification with Numerical Simulation. To verify the
results obtained with the drainage area approach to predict
post-breakthrough behavior, it was decided to make a
comparative calculation of the same example using a SS1
Workbench numerical simulator. After the grid used for the
simulation was scaled into actual dimensions, the interface
profile was compared with the shape of the cone obtained
using the drainage area method.
From the comparison, shown in Figure 6, it is seen that
qualitatively the results obtained with the numerical simulator
are similar to the predictions of the drainage area method
DWS vs. Single Completion:
Comparison

Sink Technology:

Experimental
Conclusions

1. A simple relation between values of stabilized WC and

production rate was developed.
2. The relation is valid both in radial- and linear-flow
systems,
3. Water drainage through DWS increases the critical rate in
oil completion without any feasible effect on limiting

One of the most frequently asked questions related to the

DWS applications is whether the new technology reduces the
WC in the produced oil. Theoretical study of this problem is
presented in above. Here we present some experimental results
on the subject.
The experiments were performed on a Hele-Shaw model[b

219

4.
5.

Production from Reservoirs Overlaying Aquifers, International

Student Paper Contest, Proceedings, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, October 6-91996, Vol.
H, 853-860.
12. Bournazel, C. and Jeanson, B.: Fast Water-Coning Evaluation
Method: paper SPE 3628 presented at 1971 Fall Meeting, New
Orleans, LA, Oct., 1971.
13. Kuo, M.C.T. and DesBrisay, C.L.: A simplified Method of
Water ConingPredictions, SPE 12067, presented at the 1983
Annual Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, CA, Oct. 5-8.
14. Leverett, M.C. Jr., Lewis, W.B., and True, M.E.: Dimensional model Studies of Oil -field Behavior, Proceedings, AIME
Meeting, Dallas, TX, Oct. 1941,157-193.
15. Van Golf-Racht, T.D. and Sonier, F.: Water Coning in
Fractured Reservoir: SPE 28572, 69fi Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 25-28, 1994.
16. Shirrnan E.I., Wojtanowicz, A.K.: Water Coning Reversal Using
Downhole Water Sink Theory and Experimental Study: SPE
38792, presented at the 72* Annual Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, ~, Oct. 5-8., 1997.
17. Meyer, H.I. and Searcy, D.F.: Analog Study of Water Coning,

(ultimate) WC,
DWS results in increment of the oil production rate
compare to conventional completion.
Proper design and production scheduling for the
completions with DWS may result in reduction of the
total Wc.

Nomenclature
h = thickness of the zone
k = permeability
q = production rate
r. = constant pressure boundary radius
rW = wellbore radius
Ap = pressure drawdown
z = cone height above initial WOC
WC = water cut
WOC = water-oil contatc
WOR = water-oil ratio
y = cone shape factor
p = dynamic viscosi~
Z =3.14 ....

Trans.207, 1956,302-305.
18.Shirrnan,E.I.: Experimentaland theoreticalStudy of Dynamic
Water Controlin Oil Wells,Ph.D. Dissertation,LouisianaState
University,1998,137-139.

Subscripts
cr
Iim
o
w

= critical
= limiting, ultimate
=oil
= water

Appendix A - Validation of the Method with Phisical

Experiments

We validated the presented method both with published

experiments and our experimental results. The experimental
data represent wide range of permeability, reservoir geometry,
and fluid physical properties,

References
1. Smith, C.R., and Pirson, S.J.: Water Coning Control in Oil
2.

49052

El. Shirrnan and A.K. Woytanowcz

Wellsby Fluid Injection,SPEJ,VO1.3,No.4,314-326,1963.

Hoyt,D.L.: GradientBarrier in a Secondary Recovery Operation

Radial Model. Leverett, Lewis, and True*4 studied the effect

of production rate on water cut on a cylindrical sand-packed
model, having a one-foot inside diameter and height. They
used glycerin and S.A.E. 70 lubricating oil for the
experiments. The fluids mobility ratio was 1.75. Thickness of
the oil and glycerin zones were 16 and 8 inches respectively.
Thus, the ultimate glycerin cut (equivalent of water cut)
determines as follows:

to Inhibit Water Coning; U.S. Patent No.3, 825,070, July23,

1974.
3. Pirson, S.J. and Mehta, M.M.: A study of Remedial Measures
for Water-Coning by Means of a Two-Dimensional Simulator;
SPE 1808, 42th SPE Meeting, Houston, TX, Oct. 1-4, 1967.
4. Widmyer, R.H.: Producing Petroleum from Underground
ForrnationsY US Patent No. 2,855,047, Oct. 3, 1955.
5. Driscoll, V.J.: Multiple Producing Intervals to Supress Coning,n
US Patent No. 3,638,731, Feb. 1, 1972.
6. Fisher, W.G, Letkeman, J.P, and Tetreau, E.M.: The Application
of Numerical Coning Model to Optimize Completion and
Production Methods To Increase Oil Productivity in Bellshill
Lake Blairmore Pool: JCPT, Ott-Dec., 1970,33-39.
7. Castaneda F.: Mathematical Simulation Effect of Selective
Water Encroachment in Heavy Oil Reservoirs, Proceedings of
the II UNITAR Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, Feb. 7-17, 1982.
8. Cramer, R.L.: Method and Apparatus for Pumping Fluids from
Bore Holes; Canadian Patent No.1, 140,459, Feb. 1, 1983.
9. Swisher. M.D. and Woitanowicz. A.K.: In Situ-Semegated
-Production of Oil and Water - A production Method with
Environmental Merit: Field Application: SPE 29693 SPE/EPA
Exploration & Production Environmental Conference, Houston,
TX, March 27-29, 1995.
10. Swisher, M.D. and Wojtanowicz, A.K.: New Dual Completion
Method Eliminates Bottom Water CiningY SPE 30697, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct.
22-25,1995.
11. Shirman E.I.: A Well Completion Design Model for Water-Free

Wc,h=

M hw

1.75*8

h4hW+h01.75*8+16

= 0.47

There is no approximation available to predict the critical

rate for the completion the authors used in their model: 2-inch
length slots 5.5 inches above glycerin-oil contact. me results
of the experiments are presented in Table 4 and Figure 9. A
straight line that fit the data points has a slope of 0.835 and
intercept of 189.89. Thus, the experimental ultimate glycerin
cut (WC) is equal to

WC= 0.835
=
0.455
0.835+1
This result is pretty close to the theoretically calculated
value; relative error is 3.2Y0.The value of experimental critical
rate, calculated as a ratio of the lines intercept to its slope,
gives 227.4 cc/hr. This value is twofold higher than the first

220

490$2

More Oil with Less Water Using Downhole Water Sink Technology: A Feasibility Study

experimental reading of 1.9V0of glycerin at 100-cc/hr oil rate.

From a figure presented in the paper14 that displays the cone
profiles, it is seen that at the 100-cc/hr oil rate, there is no
glycerin breakthrough into the oil completion. Most likely,
glycerin is just being produced through a channel along the
wellbore.

Hele-Shaw, Linear, Model. At this stage of the experimental

vetilcation, we try to predict the composition of the produced
mixture of different fluids in the Hele-Shaw models with
different permeability. The following combinations of fluids
were used in this part of verification: S.A.E. 70 oil and
glycerin, kerosene and glycerin, and white oil (Simetrol-4) and
distilled water. The range of the spacing between the glass
plate (spacing determines the permeability) in the models
varied from 0.154 to 0.318 mm. The experimental runs made
with white oil and water are results of our experiments. me
other two sets of experimental data belong to Mayer and
Searcy17.
Values of critical rate and ultimate WC for our data were
obtained during the experiment. Values of the critical rates
were not presented in the Mayer and Searsys paper and we
could not fiid any correlation to estimate critical rate for flow
in Hele-Shaw models in literature. Thus, we developed a
special technique* to obtain this missing piece of information.
Knowing the values of the critical rate and the ultimate water
cut for each experiment, we used Eq. 8 to predict WC
corresponding to the conditions of each experiment.
Comparison of the calculated and experimental results are also
presented in Figure 10. Figure 10 demonstrates close match of
the experimental and calculated values of the WC even for
very small values of the latter, which proves the validity of the
proposed method for a wide vairity of reservoir geometries
and fluid mobility ratios.

221

El. Shirrnan and A.K. Woytanowicz

Table 1.

Parameter

49052

of the studied cases.

A

Case

45

54

15

22.5

27

Oil zone thickness, m

15

30

Water Zone Thickness, m

54

45

30

7.5

15

, Perforated Interval, m
Table 2. Determination

~
I

of the critical rate and ultimate WOR from the experimental

data.

Table 3. Experimental determination of the critical rate and ultimate water cut
SI*
Total rate at the top @omtions, cdmin
6.34
12.45
45.63
73.06
28.67

Wate drainage,
Cc/mill

0.00

12.78

30.80

50.33

81.00

Wc
Oil rate, cc.fmin
Waterrate, drnin

0.76

0.81

1.54
4.81

2.41
10.04

0.82
5.24
23.43

0.90
4.56
41.06

Wc
oil rate, Cdmin
Waterrate, cdmin
Wc
oil rate, dmin
Water rate, dmin
Wc
Oil rate, cc/rein
Waterrate, drnin
Wc
Oil rate, dmin

0.44

0.65

0.73

0.82

0.82

3.53

4.31

7.79

8.21

2.81
0.00
6.34

8.15
0.36
7.96

20.88
0.64
10.42

0.00

4.49

0.00
6.34
0.00
0.00
6.34
0.00

0.00
12.45
0.00
0.00
12.45
0.00

Water rate, dmin

Intercept critical I-atfUltimate

Wc

0.85

10.69
62.36

6.30

3.34

0.53

0.86

12.95

6.09

18.91

3.11

0.86

37.41
0.78
10.21

60.11
0.78
16.13

6.02

38.53

6.40

0.86

18.24

35.42

56.93

0.40
17.20
11.47
0.10
25.80
2.87

0.64
16.22
29.40
0.46
24.65
20.98

0.70
22.02
51.04
0.61
28.57
44.49

5.17

64.87

12.55

0.84

7,67

179.16

23.37

0.88

Table 4. Change of the glycerin cut vs. oil rate after Leverett, Lewis, and True.

Total rate, cchr

Glycerin cut, YO

Cdmin

100

337

650

1960

7960

1.9

18.8

28

35.8

44.5

222

49052

More Oil with Less Water Using Downhole Water Sink Technology: A Feasibility Study

20000

$8000
1-[

/icl

16000

Q.

14000

R=
y=

1.0502 x-1436.7
Ra= 0,9873

-,-o,

Ac I

0.9978

t291 x-508
Rz = 0,9875

,57

Y = 0,3015x-734.25

g12000
3
-10000
#
j

8000
6000
4000

2000
0
2000

Fig. 1-

Simulated

4000

6000

post-breakthrough

8000

10000
12000
01[ rlfc, Cub. m/D

14000

16000

18000

20000

well performance.

13

oil

Water

Fig. 4Fig. 2-

Completion

used in the example calculation

Correlation of the ultimate WOR data.

+
K
Rmte .1 the

top COmpktto,

cc/m,.
634

8124S

28,67

X43 63
073M

0.1

02

03

0.4

0.S

0.6

0,7

0,S

0.9

al
~M

Fig. 5- Determination
two drainage areas.

Fig. 3- Correlation of experimental and calculated values of WC

for different production rates through top completion of the well
with DWS

223

of the cone profiles as a boundary between

10

49052

El. Shirman and A.K. Woytanowi=

401X-35W- 3000-2mo--

y -0,835.-189,39
R- 0.9956

5
i 2000-~ ,,w -

low -mu-0 !~

Fig. 6- Oilcone profiles obtained with drainage-area

numerical simulator.

method and

500

I Ow

I 500

2000

3~0 3500 4000 4500

2500
Oilrti,C&r

Fig. 9- Determination of ultimate water cut and critical rate

for the experimental data of Leverett, Lewis, and True
..

So

5niti&&tc41
Canletim -

m
60

~...

Wce-d

,0

+ 6.34
12.33
~ 34,27
u 37,83
0 55.2
-~d

0001

0.0031

0.1

0,01

5
/
/
+

4.

/%
/
20
10
O.ml -

n
o

40

20

T@ x

Fig. 7-

120

Im

U3

&l

140

tin

Effect of DWS on oil production

rate.
O.m 1-

Fig. 10-

am

010

QiY3

Q30

Qm

QW

~~

o.m

om

O,m

1.03

&@

Fig. 8-

EWect of DWS on total water cut.

224

Correlation

of the calculated and experimental.