Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 69

DEVELOPMENT OF CONING CORRELATIONS FOR OIL RIM

RESERVOIRS USING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESPONSE


SURFACE METHODOLOGY

A Thesis Presented to the


Department of Petroleum Engineering

African University of Science and Technology

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements


For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By
Abdulkarim, Maryam Ahmed

Abuja, Nigeria

December, 2014

1
DEVELOPMENT OF CONING CORRELATIONS FOR OIL RIM
RESERVOIRS USING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESPONSE
SURFACE METHODOLOGY

By

Abdulkarim, Maryam Ahmed

RECOMMENDED:
Supervisor, Prof. David Ogbe

Professor Wumi Iledare

Dr. Alpheus Igbokoyi

APPROVED:
Head, Department of Petroleum Engineering

Chief Academic Officer

DATE

i
Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLE ............................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................... viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 3

1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................... 4

1.4 SCOPE ...................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK ........................................................................ 4

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 6

2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 6

2.2 CONING EVALUATION STUDIES....................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Analytical and Experimental Studies ................................................................. 7

2.2.2 Numerical Simulation Studies ......................................................................... 12

2.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY 18

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................ 20

3.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 20

3.2 Generic Simulation Model for Thin Oil Rim reservoir .......................................... 20

3.3 PARAMETRIC STUDIES ..................................................................................... 22

3.4 RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 22

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................... 24

ii
4.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 24

4.2 PARAMETRIC STUDIES ..................................................................................... 24

....................................................................................................................................... 39

4.3 CRITICAL RATE DETERMINATION................................................................. 40

4.4 RESPONSE SURFACE MODEL .......................................................................... 42

4.4.1 Correlation Development ................................................................................. 42

4.4.1.1 Oil cumulative recovery (CR) ..................................................................... 43

4.4.1.2 Field water break through time ........................................................................ 46

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 49

5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 49

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 50

NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................... 52

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 53

APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 56

iii
LIST OF TABLES

PAGES
Table 3.0: Generic Simulation Box Model Description 22

Table 4.1: High and low values for parameters varied in correlation

development 43

Table 4.2: Cumulative recovery models summary statistics 44

Table 4.3: Fields water breakthrough time models statistics summary 46

Table A1: Central Composite Design for Experiments. 56

Table A2: Water and Gas Breakthrough Time at Different Horizontal

Well Length 57

Table A3: Gas and Water Breakthrough Time at different Well Landing

Positions 57

Table A4: Water and Gas Breakthrough Time at Different Values of Oil

Viscosity 58

Table A5: Variation of Water and Gas Breakthrough Time with Liquid Rate 58

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1.1: Water Coning in a Homogenous Sand Formation 2

Figure 3.0: Generic Simulation Box Model Representing a Thin

Oil Rim Reservoir 21

Figure 4.1: Effect of liquid flow rate on cumulative production 25

Figure 4.2: Effect of liquid flow rate on water cut progression 26

Figure 4.3: Effect of liquid flow rate on reservoir pressure 26

Figure 4.4: Effect of horizontal well length on cumulative recovery of oil 27

Figure 4.5: Effect of horizontal well length on water cut progression 28

Figure 4.6: Effect of horizontal well length on reservoir pressure 28

Figure 4.7: Effect of oil viscosity on cumulative recovery of oil 29

Figure 4.8: Effect of oil viscosity on water cut progression 30

Figure 4.9: Effect of oil viscosity on reservoir pressure 30

Figure 4.10: Variation of total oil recovered with time for oil rim reservoirs

with varying well landing position. 31

Figure 4.11: Variation of water cut with time for oil rim reservoirs with

varying well landing position 32

Figure 4.12: Variation of reservoir pressure with time for an oil rim

with varying well landing position 32

Figure 4.13: Effect of vertical permeability on recovery of oil 33

Figure 4.14: Effect of vertical permeability on water cut progression 34

Figure 4.15: Effect of vertical permeability on reservoir pressure 34

v
Figure 4.16: Effect of vertical anisotropy ratio on recovery of oil 36

Figure 4.17: Effect of vertical anisotropy ratio on water cut progression 37

Figure 4.18: Effect of vertical anisotropy ratio on reservoir pressure 37

Figure 4.19: Breakthrough time variation with well length for oil rim

reservoir under consideration 38

Figure 4.20: Breakthrough time variation with well landing position from

GOC for oil rim under consideration 39

Figure 4.21: Breakthrough time variation with oil viscosity at base values

of reservoirs properties 39

Figure 4.22: Variation of breakthrough time with liquid production rate at

base value of reservoirs properties 40

Figure 4.23: Determination of critical rate for the system 41

Figure 4.24: Normal plot of residuals for cumulative recovery model 45

Figure 4.25: Cross plot for predicted values of cumulative recovery versus

the actual recovery value 45

Figure 4.26: Normal plot of residuals for water breakthrough time model 47

Figure 4.27: Cross plot for predicted values versus the actual values

for water breakthrough time 48

vi
DEDICATION

TO ALMIGHTY GOD

THE MOST BENEFICIENT, THE MOST MERCIFUL

..FOR EVERYTHING

vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I thank Almighty GOD for all his favors in my life. Without which I would be

nobody.

I say a big thank you to my lovely parents who have stood by me and greatly supported

me throughout my program. They are the strongest pillar of human support in my life. I

also want to thank my entire family for all their prayers and support. May Almighty GOD

reward you all abundantly.

I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. David Ogbe for his immense contribution to

this work. His continual guidance to the very end is greatly appreciated. I would like to

thank the entire faculty of Petroleum Engineering who impacted in me invaluable

knowledge. I would also like to acknowledge the entire faculty of African University of

Science and Technology; those who taught me and those who didnt. You all inspired me

one way or the other. Thank you.

Special thanks go to Mr. Akeem Arinkoola, Mrs. Yetunde Aladeitan, Mr. Olalekan

Ladipo and Mr. Haruna Onuh for their valuable contribution to the work. I also want

acknowledge the entire members of Petroleum Engineering department (MSc class of

2013/2014 and the PhD students). It was a really wonderful journey thanks to you all. To

the entire members of African University of Science and Technology community, thank

you for creating such a wonderful community for me. To all my friends and well-wishers,

I say thank you for everything and may you remain blessed.

viii
ABSTRACT

Proper management of thin oil rim reservoirs is required to maximize recovery and

minimizes coning tendencies. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of

reservoir and fluid properties on coning tendencies in thin oil rim reservoirs and to

develop numerical correlations to predict oil recovery and water break through time for

these reservoirs.

Numerical correlations for the prediction of recovery and water breakthrough time using

response surface methodology have been developed. The thin oil rim reservoir was

represented using a generic simulation box model.

Production rate, horizontal well length, oil viscosity, vertical landing of well from the

gas-oil contact (GOC), vertical permeability and anisotropy ratio were varied and their

effects on oil recovery, reservoir pressure, water cut and breakthrough time were studied.

The results show that an increase in horizontal well length reduces the coning tendencies

and improves recovery of oil. Increasing viscosity of oil (reducing oil mobility) increases

the coning tendencies whilst reducing the productivity index of a well hence decreasing

recovery. An increase in the horizontal well landing position from the gas-oil contact

(GOC) results in an increase in water cut. An increase in vertical permeability and

vertical anisotropy ratio both increases the coning tendencies in thin oil rim reservoirs.

Correlations for the prediction of cumulative oil recovery and water breakthrough time

were developed for reservoir and fluid properties and well configurations within specific

ranges which can be used for reliable predictions.

The major contribution of this work to knowledge is it presents a means of using

experimental design and response surface methodology to develop reliable equations for

ix
generalized prediction of cumulative recovery and water breakthrough time in thin oil rim

reservoirs without running simulation models when the required equipment and time is

unavailable.

x
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW

Coning is the result of high pressure gradient around the producing well which causes the

oil-water contact to rise and the gas-oil contact to depress near the wellbore. Gravitational

forces tend to segregate the fluids according to their densities. However, when

gravitational forces are exceeded by the flowing pressures (viscous force), a cone of

water and/or gas will be formed which will eventually penetrate the wellbore (Beveridge,

1970). Figure 1.1 is a schematic illustrating the phenomenon of water coning in a

producing vertical well. This dynamic force due to wellbore drawdown causes the water

at the bottom of the oil layer to rise to a certain point at which the dynamic force is

balanced by the height of water beneath that point. As the lateral distance from the

wellbore increases, the pressure drawdown and the upward dynamic forces decrease.

Thus, the height of the balance point decreases as the distance from the well bore

increases. Therefore, the locus of the balanced point is a stable cone shaped water oil

interface. At this stable situation, oil flows above the interface while water remains

stationary below the interface (Namani, 2007). This also applies to gas coning.

1
Figure 1.1: Water Coning in a Homogenous Sand Formation (Adapted from Muskat and

Wyckoff, 1934).

The extent of the cone and it stabilization depends on a lot of reservoir and fluid

properties. A lot of correlations have been developed to predict the rate at which coning

will occur for any conventional reservoir and the breakthrough time for a particular

production rate. However, these correlations have their limitations due to assumptions

made during their development which tends towards ideality rather than what is actually

obtainable.

Parametric studies of coning involves using actual production data and reservoir

properties to model how this phenomenon will behave under changing conditions within

a given field. The results can be used to optimize the production process for the field

involved and similar fields. Experimental design and response surface methodology also

provides a numerical method of developing correlations which may be applied for

generalized prediction of output parameters such as oil recovery and breakthrough time.

Generalized coning correlations have been developed but there is a dearth of numerical

coning correlations developed specifically for fields located in the Niger Delta. Since the

introduction of experimental design in early 90s (Damsleth et.al (1992), Egeland and

2
Larson, (1992)), reservoir engineers has applied several engineering workflows to various

reservoir engineering studies (Friedmann et.al (2003), White (2003), Amudo (2008),

Ghomian et. al (2008), Purwar et.al (2010)). This study attempts to fill this knowledge

gap of predicting the onset of coning from producing wells in the Niger Delta using

experimental design and response surface modelling.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Coning is an inevitable problem associated with producing oil reservoirs having an

underlying aquifer, overlying gas cap or both. Recovery of oil in these types of reservoirs

is greatly reduced because of this phenomenon. A production period exists whereas the

coned fluid would break into the well. The determination of the time of breakthrough and

recovery is necessary for the estimation of the optimal rate of production from a

reservoir. These parameters depend on the reservoir and wellbore properties and

completion interval. Correlations can be developed to predict these parameters.

Numerous analytical models/correlations have been developed (e.g., Muskat and

Wyckoff (1934), Meyer and Gardner (1954), Arthur (1981), Chaperon (1986), etc.) to

predict some of these parameters. However, a lot of idealized assumptions are made in

the development of these models which do not adequately represent the real system.

Numerical models/correlations, however, which use data obtained from the area under

consideration would generally be better representation of water and gas coning in

producing reservoirs in the area considered. In this study, numerical models for

calculating breakthrough time will be developed from a generic thin oil rim reservoir

model for Niger Delta. Correlation for the prediction of cumulative recovery will also be

developed with applicability within the ranges of parameter considered.

3
1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aims at developing numerical correlations for prediction of coning parameters

for Niger Delta thin oil rim reservoirs.

To achieve this aim, the following are the objectives of the study;

i. Carry out a parametric study to determine the effect of reservoir and

fluid properties on coning tendencies.

ii. Develop correlations for estimating cumulative recovery and

breakthrough time using numerical simulation and design of

experiments (DoE) methodology

iii. Determine optimal conditions of parameters that minimize water cut

and maximizes the breakthrough time of water/gas cones.

1.4 SCOPE

The work considered a thin oil rim reservoir which is a type of reservoir that is extremely

prone to coning. The results are applicable to the Niger Delta as reservoir properties

ranges used were what are predominantly found in that environment. It might also be

applicable to other areas with similar reservoir properties.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK

This work is presented in five chapters. Chapter 1 presents an overview and a breakdown

of the work being carried out. It presents the objectives and scope of the work. Chapter 2

4
discusses the previous works that have been carried out on coning; causes, control,

quantification and response surface model applicability. Chapter 3 discusses the

methodology for the parametric study and development of a response surface model.

Chapter 4 contains the results obtained from the study and the discussion of the results.

Chapter 5 contains the statement of contribution to knowledge; conclusions derived from

the work and recommendations for further investigations and future contributions.

5
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The production of water from oil wells is a common occurrence in oil producing fields. It

may be attributed to one or more reasons such as normal rise of oil water contact, water

coning and/or water fingering (Namani, 2007). Water coning is a usual occurrence in a

reservoir with an active aquifer during production.

A tremendous amount of work has been carried out on water and gas coning in oil wells

ranging from experimental to analytical studies as well as numerical simulation to

understand the phenomenon. Through these studies, correlations have been developed

that enable the prediction of various parameters like water breakthrough time, critical

coning rates and other parameters related to performance after breakthrough. Many of

these correlations have been verified in fields around the world. Sensitivity analysis on

various parameters affecting water coning is usually carried out to determine the inputs

for the development of the correlations.

A review of literature is presented in the following section to provide background

information for the work carried out so far on prediction of coning parameters and the

work proposed in this study. The dearth of numerical correlation relative to analytical

correlation would be shown and the limitations of analytical correlation would also be

discussed. Correlations (proxy models) developed for predictions using response surface

model would be discussed. Applicability of various proxy models developed using

response surface model would also be discussed.

6
2.2 CONING EVALUATION STUDIES

2.2.1 Analytical and Experimental Studies

Muskat and Wyckoff (1935) were the first to develop a theory of water coning in oil

production by assuming a homogeneous sand formation in which the upper and lower

portion were saturated with oil and water respectively. Employing conditions of static

equilibrium, they were able to determine the cross sectional shape of water cones for

various pressure drops and the critical pressure drop at the onset of water coning as a

function of well penetration and oil zone thickness. They stated that it was impossible to

eliminate water coning when producing from a thin oil zone unless the production rate is

reduced to extremely low values or the well penetration is significantly decreased. They

reported that even though maximum production rate without coning depends on well

penetration depth, the degree of dependency is not significant up to a depth of 15-20% of

the oil layer thickness.

Muskat and Wykcoff (1934) also developed the first critical rate correlation. They

however assumed a homogeneous sand-bed in developing their correlations. However, oil

reservoirs are generally heterogeneous in nature. Also, the ratio of vertical permeability

to horizontal permeability (kv/kh) or anisotropy ratio that greatly impact on coning was

not considered.

Meyer and Garder (1954) suggested that coning development was a result of the radial

flow of the oil and associated pressure sink around the wellbore. They assumed a

homogeneous system with a uniform permeability throughout the reservoir, i.e., kh = kv.

7
Similar to Muskat and Wykcoff (1934), they assumed a homogenous bed and an isotropic

system which is generally not applicable.

Chaney et al. (1956) studied the coning critical rate problem both analytically and

experimentally. They developed a set of working curves for determining oil critical flow

rate. The authors proposed a set of working graphs that were generated by using a

potentiometric analyzer study and applying the water coning mathematical theory as

developed by Muskat and Wyckoff (1935).

Efros (1963) proposed a critical flow rate correlation for a horizontal well that is based on

the assumption that the critical rate is nearly independent of drainage radius. The

correlation does not also account for the effect of the vertical permeability. Efros

developed two relationships that are designed to calculate the critical rate in oil-water and

gas-oil systems.

Henley et. al (1961) conducted the first scaled-model laboratory experiments to study oil

recovery by bottom water drive. They investigated the effects of well spacing, fluid

mobilities, rate of production, capillary and gravity forces, well penetration and well

completion techniques on the oil recovery performance in unconsolidated sand pack

models with permeability ranging from 30 to 250 darcies using two different models.

Various oil and water solutions were used to obtain the combination of fluid properties

and to represent a practical range for field situation. Their results indicated that the

ultimate sweep efficiency or the oil recovery did not vary significantly with well

penetration. The results also indicated that gravity effects could have a major influence

8
on sweep efficiency, while the capillary forces did not have any significant effect over

the range of conditions considered.

Chierici and Ciucci (1964) used a potentiometric model to predict the coning behavior in

vertical oil wells. The results of their work are presented in dimensionless graphs that

take into account the vertical and horizontal permeability.

Caudle and Silberberg (1965) showed that for designing, and operating scaled models for

reservoirs with natural water drive, it is important to consider the resistance to flow in the

aquifer and its effect on the movement of water into the oil bearing zone. They concluded

that this is paticularly true for high (unfavourable) mobility ratios and high production

rates.

Early coning studies (before 1965) did not consider the time for gas (or water)

breakthrough. Faced with the prospect of zero profit, many operators prefer to produce

their wells at higher flow rates and solve gas or/and water problems later.

Sobocinski and Cornelius (1965) were the first to develop a correlation to predict the

onset of water coning. To generalize the applicability of their correlation, they expressed

time and cone height in dimensionless groups involving those scaling factors considered

important to coning. These factors were: oil viscosity, water-oil density difference, oil-

zone thickness, porosity, oil flow rate, and oil formation volume factor.

9
Bournazel and Jeanson (1971) developed a methodology that uses the same

dimensionless groups proposed in the Sobocinski-Cornelius method. They found that the

actual breakthrough time measured in their laboratory and field experiments was less than

the time predicted by Sobocinski and Cornelius (1965) correlation.

Both Sobocinski and Cornelius method and Bournazel and Jeanson method are limited at

a certain point which takes the solution to infinity.

Khan (1970) studied water encroachment in the vertical direction in a three-dimensional

scaled laboratory model. The model employed a porous sand pack and analog modelling

fluids to represent thin oil and water sand layers. The results of the experiments indicated

that mobility ratio had a significant influence on the value of water-cut and the degree of

water coning at a given total production rate. Regarding the shape of the cone, it was

found that for mobility ratios less than unity, the water cones have relatively lower

profiles and greater radial spread, while for higher mobility ratios, the water cone

experiences an initial rapid rise followed by a radial spread.

In all of the research studies described above, no attempt was made to obtain saturation

and pressure distribution in the test bed as a function of time. The lack or this information

inhibited a better understanding of the coning phenomenon.

Mungan (1979) conducted a laboratory study of water coning in a layered model where

fluid saturation was tracked as a function of time and location in the test bed. He

10
conducted several experiments to deal with the effect of oil viscosity and production rate

on the behavior of the water cone, the effect of heterogeneity in the test bed, the effect of

injection of a polymer slug at the oil water contact before injection. He found that a

layered model resulted in lower oil recovery and higher water-oil ratio. Stratification

appeared to be detrimental to oil recovery in coning situation. Observations during the

course of the experiment showed an interesting phenomenon, water saturations was

higher in the two low permeability layers than in the adjacent higher permeability matrix.

It was suggested that imbibition of water into the low permeability layers causes the

variation in saturations.

Arthur (1981) extended Muskat and Wcykoff (1935) theory to include simultaneous

water and gas coning in non-homogeneous sand. He found that coning may be restricted

by small lenses of relatively low permeability directly below the bottom of the well.

Karcher (1986) proposed a correlation that produces a critical oil flow rate value similar

to that of Efros equation. Again, the correlation does not account for the vertical

permeability.

Chaperon (1986) theoretically estimated the critical flow rates for the onset of water

coning for vertical and horizontal wells. The critical flow rate increases with decrease in

the vertical permeability in vertical wells. Horizontal wells allow higher critical flow

rates than vertical wells and would have the advantage of higher production rates

provided the vertical permeability is not much larger than the horizontal permeability.

11
Ozkan and Raghavan (1988) proposed a theoretical correlation for calculating time to

breakthrough in a bottom-water-drive reservoir for horizontal wells. They assumed a

homogeneous and anisotropic reservoir with the oil-water mobility ratio being unity.

Fluid density difference was incorporated in the modelling but capillary pressure was

neglected.

Papatzacos et al. (1989) proposed a methodology that is based on semi analytical

solutions for time development of a gas or water cone and simultaneous gas and water

cones in an anisotropic, infinite reservoir with a horizontal well placed in the oil column.

Permadi and Jayadi, (2010) used a linear steady state approach as a basis to develop an

empirical method for predicting post breakthrough performance of a horizontal well in a

bottom water drive reservoir. A correction factor was also applied to the final model. This

model was verified using field data. A procedure of calculation was developed to cover

prediction of performance of new horizontal wells having high or positive water cut at the

start up. Two examples of field data were used to validate the applicability of the

proposed method. Comparisons between predicted performance and field data

demonstrate the reliability of the method (Permadi and Jayadi, 2010).

2.2.2 Numerical Simulation Studies

Several computer simulation studies of coning phenomenon have been carried out.

Numerical simulator for black oil of IMPES type widely used for reservoir problems

12
many years ago were found to be unsuitable for coning simulations. This arises primarily

from the small size of the blocks immediately around the well bore, as a result of which

fluid throughput over one time step in one of these blocks may be several times the

blocks pore volume. With increasing computing power and the improvement of

simulation technology, it became possible to adequately simulate the coning process.

Coning models are now therefore fully implicit to handle this rapid saturation changes

occurring around the wellbore. Radial systems are usually applied to studying coning

problems.

Welge and Weber (1964) carried out the first numerical simulation on coning problem.

They applied a two phase, two dimensional model using alternating direction implicit

procedure (ADIP) in gas and water coning simulation.

Pirson and Metha (1967) developed a computer program to simulate water coning based

on the Welge and Webers mathematical model. They studied the effects of various

factors such as vertical to horizontal permeability ratio, mobility ratio between oil and

water, specific gravity differential between the two phases and flow rate on the advance

of a water cone.

Both Welge and Weber (1964) and Pirson and Metha (1967) made use of implicit

pressure, explicit saturation (IMPES) models.

13
MacDonald and Coats (1970) improved upon the small time step restriction of coning

problems by making the transmissibility term implicit. They were able to use time steps

16 times larger than those for IMPES models.

Letkemann and Ridings (1970) presented a numerical coning model based on implicit

transmissibilities, and simple linearizing techniques. They were able to obtain time step

100 to 1000 times larger than those previously possible by IMPES simulator. However,

as simulation models evolved and implicit formulations became common practice, coning

simulations became less difficult to handle.

Weinstein et. al (1972) present the results of a comparative solutions project where

eleven commercially available models were used to solve a three-phase coning problem

that can be described in a radial cross-section with one central producing well. It was

found that the overall results from all the eleven models were in fairly good agreement.

A number of researchers have conducted sensitivity studies to delineate the relative

importance of various parameters in coning situations. Kaneko and Mungan (1972)

carried out a numerical simulation study for a light reservoir with bottom water. They

showed that water breakthrough time decreased and water-oil ratio increased significantly

as production rate increased but, the ultimate recovery was not dependent on production

rate. Also increase in well penetration depth reduced the water-free oil production. There

was no significant effect of wellbore radius on water-oil ratio and water breakthrough

14
time. They however did not consider capillary pressure effect as important in their

simulation study.

Mungan (1975) conducted an experiment and numerical modelling studies of water

coning in producing wells under two phase immiscible and incompressible flow

conditions. These were done in pre-shaped cylindrical model. Results obtained from the

numerical coning model indicated that oil recovery and water-oil ratio is lower when the

production rate, well penetration, vertical permeability and well spacing are decreased or

when horizontal permeability and the ratio of gravity to viscous force are increased.

When permeability anisotropy, that is, the ratio of vertical permeability to horizontal

permeability, is greater than one, closer well spacing would be required for better oil

recovery due to increased vertical communication and decreased horizontal

communication. Most efficient oil recovery occurs when high permeability layer was

located away from the oil-water contact and near the top of the oil zone.

Blade and Stright (1979) performed a numerical simulation study for water coning

behavior of an under saturated, high viscous (3mPa.s 60mPa.s) crude oil reservoirs

being pressure maintained by bottom water drive. They used a computer coning model to

make 45 simulation runs and from the results developed a set of type curves (defined by

oil zone thickness and viscosity) to predict coning behaviors and ultimate recovery in

specific reservoirs.

15
Blade and Stright (1979) presented limited data for a heavy oil reservoir in southeastern

Alberta where coning is a serious problem. They presented the performance history of

two wells in Hays Lower Mannville pool. They showed that the data were valuable in

determining the economic limits of production and verifying a numerical model which

then could be used for predicting performance of other wells.

Casteneda (1982) conducted a numerical simulation study to investigate water movement

into heavy oil reservoir with specific goal of developing operational guidelines to

maximize oil recovery. His conclusions were similar to that of Mungan. In addition, he

reported that the aquifer thickness had very little effect on the production characteristics

of the formation and that decreasing ratio of vertical permeability to horizontal

permeability (permeability anisotropy) resulting in increasing the oil recovery.

Osisanya et.al (2000) carried out an extensive sensitivity analysis of water coning using

numerical simulation to predict critical oil rate, and water breakthrough time for both

vertical and horizontal wells. Correlations were developed based on the basic flow

equations and regression analysis using the data from numerical simulation. Their results

confirmed that the use of horizontal wells improves oil recovery and reduces water

coning significantly compared to vertical wells. Also, for both vertical and horizontal

wells, oil recovery increases and water-coning tendency decreases for lower vertical

anisotropy ratio values.

16
Ghalambor et.al (2012) presented an analytical model to calculate the critical flow rate

and the optimum completion interval for a vertical well that is partially completed from

the top of the reservoir. Their work applied to reservoirs with high conductivity due to

the propensity to coning and was based on a radial symmetrical coning 3D flow-field

assumption. The effect of limited wellbore penetration on the oil productivity was taking

into account. The study indicated that the critical rate does not occur at zero wellbore

penetration but at wellbore penetration or completion interval of approximately half of

the pay zone thickness, depending on the radius of the wellbore, the radius of the

drainage area, the pay zone thickness and the permeability anisotropy of the reservoir.

It can be established from the above review that analytical models and semi-analytical

models derived from either experimental studies or pure analysis are very popular. Their

popularity can be attributed to their generality in application. However, they are usually

unable to accurately predict coning parameters due to some idealistic assumptions made

in their development. Numerical models developed from a robust generic model and

verified using properly history matched fields will generally predict more accurate values

for coning parameters.

Verga et. al (2007) stated that in general, in the case of vertical wells, the critical rate

obtained from the analytical methods underestimates the critical rate obtained from

numerical models which are more accurate, especially for high anisotropy ratios and low

oil viscosities. In the case of horizontal wells the critical rate obtained from analytical

methods strongly overestimates the critical rate obtained from numerical models. They

17
stated that the errors in predicting the critical rate for vertical wells with analytical

models with respect to numerical simulation can be acceptable in most cases, whereas

reliable evaluation of the critical rates for horizontal wells should only rely on numerical

modeling.

For thin oil rim reservoirs in the Niger Delta, which are usually produced using

horizontal wells due to their high tendency to coning, analytical model are generally used

for predictions. Verga (2007) showed that using analytical model in this kind of system

may give grossly erroneous results and properly developed numerical model would give

much more accurate results. Numerical simulations are necessary to develop models that

can predict coning parameters and recovery for this type of reservoirs. This work

therefore is geared toward developing different coning models using numerical

simulations for specific ranges of fluid and rock properties and wellbore configurations.

2.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY

In the following section we discuss some of the publications related to the use of

experimental design and response surface methodology in reservoir studies.

Damsleth et. al. (1992), in one of the earliest work on applications of experimental design

methodology, demonstrated that information can be maximized from a minimum number

of simulation runs through a recipe of combining parameter settings. Also, the work

verified the possibility of substituting a response surface for the reservoir simulation in a

probabilistic Monte Carlo analysis.

18
Ghomian et. al. (2008) used a novel approach based upon four dimensionless scaling

groups commonly used for hydrocarbon phase behavior modelling (reduced temperature

and acentric factors for light and heavy pseudo components) as well as multivariate

regression analysis based on response surface methodology to develop a minimum

miscibility pressure (MMP) correlation of CO2 flooding for a broad range of reservoirs

oils. Predicted values from the MMP correlation was compared to previously developed

correlations for MMP prediction and was found to have a low average error.

Purwar et. al (2010) demonstrated that response surface model can be incorporated into

optimization models in a way that accurately represents the decision-making process and

uncertainty revelation using a gas flooding scenario.

Quinoa and Zarrouk (2014) applied experimental design and response surface model to a

simple geothermal process model and used it to estimate the amount of electrical

generating capacity from this synthetic geothermal system. A response variable

(electrical generating capacity) as a function of the main uncertain parameters was

derived from the simulation runs.

This work is a continuity to the many works carried out to understand and help manage

coning tendencies and is geared towards providing a means of improving our

understanding of the phenomenon and using response surface methodology as a tool to

provide a means of prediction of relevant responses that would assist in the proper

management of this type of reservoirs. The methodology followed to achieve this is

outlined below.

19
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

To optimize oil recovery and plan for coning in reservoirs with coning tendencies, the

various parameters affecting recovery and water and gas production has to be adequately

studied. Oil rim reservoirs are extremely difficult to manage effectively due to these

tendencies. In this study, parametric studies and response surface methodology were used

to study and quantify the effects of different parameters on recovery, water breakthrough

time and water cut with emphasis on Niger Delta oil rim reservoirs. A generic reservoir

simulation model was developed to mimic a thin oil rim reservoir in the Niger Delta.

3.2 Generic Simulation Model for Thin Oil Rim reservoir


A generic simulation box model shown in Figure 3 was developed to study the coning

tendencies in a thin oil rim reservoir. The input properties of the model were patterned

after properties of typical oil rim reservoirs located in the Niger Delta.

The oil rim reservoir model dimension was averagely 4560ft2240ft85ft (Table 3). The

gas cap dimension in the model was averagely 4560ft2240ft419ft. The aquifer is

approximately infinite. The oil originally in place and gas originally in place in the thin

oil rim under consideration is 22.014MMSTB and 247,073 MMscf, respectively.

20
Figure 3.0: Generic Simulation Box Model Representing a Thin Oil Rim Reservoir

21
Table 3.0: Generic Simulation Box Model Description
Model Description
Parameter Value Unit

Grid Dimension 572820

Oil Layer Thickness 85 ft

M-factor 5

Model's Length in the x-direction 4560 ft

Model's Length in the y-direction 2240 ft

Model's total thickness 671 ft

STOIIP 27.4 MMSTB

3.3 PARAMETRIC STUDIES

Parametric studies were carried out to evaluate the effect of different parameters on the

coning tendencies using the generic simulation model. Oil flow rate, horizontal well

length, vertical offset of well with respect to the gas-oil contact, vertical permeability,

permeability anisotropy ratio and oil viscosity were varied and their effects on recovery,

water breakthrough time, field pressure drop and water cut with respect to time were

determined. Eclipse simulation software was used for this purpose.

3.4 RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY

A response surface model was developed using central composite design. The

procedure is outlined below,

22
o Oil flow rate, horizontal well length, vertical offset of well with respect to the

gas-oil contact, vertical permeability, anisotropy ratio and oil viscosity were

selected and specified as factors in the central composite design. Recovery and

water breakthrough time were specified as responses.

o A -experiment type was specified. 52 different combinations of the parameters

were generated to give 52 different experiments. Each experiment was simulated

on Eclipse simulation software package by specifying the parameter values on the

generic simulation box model as specified for the experiment. They were labelled

appropriately.

o The values of the responses for each experiment were extracted from Eclipse and

fed as input in the appropriate position in the central composite design

spreadsheet.

o The experiments were evaluated and the results generated.

o The relationship between the response and factors is defined using a particular

transformation depending on the maximum and minimum value of the responses.

o The responses were fitted to linear, 2-factor interactions, quadratic and cubic

models and the most suitable models are highlighted to be chosen.

o The analysis of variance (ANOVA) tab was selected to display the ANOVA

results and the correlation developed for the ranges of input parameters.

o The model developed was compared with the actual values of the responses to

determine if it is representative. This was carried out under the diagnostic section.

o Model graphs were generated that showed the relationship between the response

and the various factors affecting the response.

23
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The results from the parametric studies of coning tendencies in a thin oil rim are

presented below. Response surface models are developed for the system using a central

composite design. Central Composite Design was used to develop several models for

prediction. Sensitivity studies were carried out to quantify the different parameters effect

on the various responses. As indicated earlier, the originally oil in place and originally

gas in place in the thin oil rim under consideration is 22.014MMSTB and 247,073

MMscf respectively.

4.2 PARAMETRIC STUDIES

The effects of production rate, oil viscosity, horizontal well length, vertical landing of

well from the GOC, vertical permeability and anisotropy ratio on recovery, water cut and

reservoir pressure are discussed below. The variations of water breakthrough time and

gas breakthrough time with these parameters are also outlined.

o Production rate

The Figure 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 below shows the effect of production rate on recovery, water

cut and reservoir pressure in the oil rim reservoir.

24
Figure 4.1: Effect of liquid flow rate on cumulative production (water cut limit = 0.935).

For the reservoir under consideration, the liquid production rate selected was

2250STB/D. This rate minimized water cut and maximized recovery from the system for

the slated reservoir depletion period (see figure 4.1 and 4.2).

The total oil recovered after the 31.5year period when operating at 2250STB/D was about

9.2MMSTB which represents a recovery factor of about 34%.

25
Figure 4.2: Effect of liquid flow rate on water cut progression

Figure 4.3: Effect of liquid flow rate on reservoir pressure

26
o Horizontal Well Length

Figures 4.4 through 4.6 show the results of varying the horizontal well length during the

parametric study.

Figure 4.4: Effect of horizontal well length on cumulative recovery of oil (water cut limit
of 0.935)

An increase in the horizontal well length results in an increase in cumulative production

and a decrease in pressure drop for the same liquid rate in the system considered. This is

due to reduced friction to flow as a result of reduced flow distance of fluids from

reservoir to line sink (wellbore). The reduced pressure drop results in reduced water cut

and hence increases recovery.

27
Figure 4.5: Effect of horizontal well length on water cut progression

Figure 4.6: Effect of horizontal well length on reservoir pressure.

28
o Viscosity of Oil

Oil viscosity was also varied to evaluate its impact on oil recovery and coning tendencies.

Figures 4.7 through 4.9 show the results of the variation of oil viscosity during the

parametric study.

Figure 4.7: Effect of oil viscosity on cumulative recovery of oil (water cut limit =
0.935).

29
Figure 4.8: Effect of oil viscosity on water cut progression

Figure 4.9: Effect of oil viscosity on reservoir pressure.

30
Oil viscosity (oil mobility) has a profound effect on oil recovery and water breakthrough

as shown in figure (4.7-4.9). An increase in oil mobility (decrease in oil viscosity)

resulted in an increase in recovery of oil and a decrease in water cut progression with

time.

o Vertical offset of well from the GOC.

Figures 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 show the effect of variation of vertical landing of well from

the GOC on the recovery, water cut and reservoir pressure.

Figure 4.10: Variation of total oil recovered with time for oil rim reservoirs with varying
well landing position.

31
Figure 4.11: Variation of water cut with time for oil rim reservoirs with varying well
landing position

Figure 4.12: Variation of reservoir pressure with time for an oil rim reservoir with
varying well landing position

32
An increase in the distance of the well from the GOC (i.e., the well is moving closer to

the oil-water contact) results in an increase in water cut. Recovery however is maximum

at the horizontal wells landing of 44ft from the GOC. This position therefore represents

the optimum position for production amongst well landing positions considered.

o Formation Vertical Permeability

The results showing the effect of varying the vertical permeability are displayed in

Figures 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15.

Figure 4.13: Effect of vertical permeability on recovery of oil

33
Figure 4.14: Effect of vertical permeability on water cut progression

Figure 4.15: Effect of vertical permeability on reservoir pressure

34
Note, the results show that an increase in vertical permeability resulted in decrease in

cumulative oil recovery. Increase in vertical permeability also resulted in reduced

pressure drawdown for production at the same liquid rate. This is due to the relatively

ease for fluid to flow in a system with higher vertical permeability. However, a more

permeable system eases the pathway for water to cone. The severity of water coning

increased with increasing vertical permeability at the initial stage of production. As

production progressed, this trend reversed. This is due to the effect of pressure drawdown

in the system which became dominant (see Figure 4.13-4.15).

o Vertical Anisotropy ratio

Figures 4.16, 4.17 and 4.18 show how variation in anisotropy ratio affects recovery,

pressure drop and water cut in oil rim reservoirs. An increase in anisotropy ratio increases

the tendency of gas and oil to cone and decreases oil recovery

35
Figure 4.16: Effect of vertical anisotropy ratio on recovery of oil

Figure 4.17: Effect of vertical anisotropy ratio on water cut progression

36
Figure 4.18: Effect of vertical anisotropy ratio on reservoir pressure

Water and Gas Breakthrough Time

Figures 4.19, 4.20 and 4.21 show the variation of breakthrough time (water and

gas) with horizontal well length, well landing position from the GOC and oil

viscosity respectively.

An increase in horizontal well length results in an increase in breakthrough time

for gas and water as shown in Figure 4.19. Increasing the horizontal well length

therefore increases breakthrough time which is desired.

37
Figure 4.19: Breakthrough time variation with well length for oil rim reservoir under
consideration

Figure 4.20 shows that an increase in horizontal well landing position from the GOC

results to an increase in water breakthrough time and decrease in gas breakthrough time.

This means that the closer a horizontal well is positioned to the contacts, the shorter is the

breakthrough time and vice versa.

38
Figure 4.20: Breakthrough time variation with well landing position from GOC for oil
rim under consideration

An increase in oil viscosity results in a decrease in gas and water breakthrough time as

shown in figure 4.21. This means that higher viscosity of oil results in quicker water

Figure 4.21: Breakthrough time variation with oil viscosity at base values of reservoirs
properties.

39
or/and gas breakthrough as the mobility ratios (water-to-oil and gas-to-oil) will favour

preferential flow of water (water breakthrough) and flow of gas (gas breakthrough).

4.3 CRITICAL RATE DETERMINATION

Figure 4.22 shows the variations of water and gas breakthrough time with liquid

production rate. The points considered were fitted to a power trend. The high R-squared

values for the two curves (almost one) indicate the suitability of the equations

representing these lines in predicting values outside the points considered.

Figure 4.22: Variation of breakthrough time with liquid production rate at base value of
reservoirs properties

Figure 4.23 shows the variation of liquid production rate with the inverse of the gas and

water breakthrough time. Polynomial trend provided the best fit to the points considered

as can be seen from the R-squared values. The equations of the curves can be used to

40
determine the critical rate, which is the rate of production at which water and gas do not

break into the wellbore during production. This is when 1/tBT=0.

Figure 4.23: Determination of critical rate for system

Critical rate occurs when 1/breakthrough time (1/tBT) = 0

From equation of the line,

And,

At 1/tBT=0,

For oil, Critical rate = 414. 27STB/D

For gas, Critical rate = 2007STB/D

41
Therefore, for the system

Critical rate = 414.27STB/D

4.4 RESPONSE SURFACE MODEL


4.4.1 Correlation Development
The following assumptions were made in developing the correlations,

Horizontal well length, vertical landing position of horizontal well relative to the

layer thickness, production rate, vertical permeability, anisotropy ratio, viscosity

of oil were taken to be the dominant factors in determining oil recovery and water

breakthrough time in thin oil rim reservoir.

System can adequately handle gas and water produced.

These factors were used to create a central composite design and 52 different

experimental runs were made using Eclipse simulation software. In this case, the

experiment consisted of a high and low value, a center point and a star (extreme) point.

The star (extreme) point is usually a value outside the factorial box as it exceeds the plus

and minus value of the design. It makes the design rotatable. See Appendix A for details.

The responses considered were oil cumulative recovery and water breakthrough time.

Each of the response was fitted to the best transformation and model type statistically.

The correlations apply to thin oil rim reservoirs with properties within the high and low

value of the following parameters in the table below.

42
Table 4.1: High and low values for parameters varied in correlation
development
PARAMETER LOW VALUE HIGH VALUE
Horizontal well length, L (ft) 560 1840
Relative vertical landing position of the
well, H/H(t) 0.29 0.77
Anisotropy ratio, kv/kh 0.05 0.5
Vertical permeability, kv (md) 50 500
Production Rate, Q (STB/D) 1000 2500
Oil viscosity, OVISC(cp) 0.48 4.7

4.4.1.1 Oil cumulative recovery (CR)

The relationship between the response and the factors affecting the response was fitted to

a natural log transformation. The statistics summary and diagnostic plots were considered

in selecting the transform. The two factor interaction was selected as the model type to

use. The proxy model is represented below. Table 4.2 lists the summary statistics.

Figures 4.24 and 4.25 show the normal plot of the residual for cumulative recovery model

and predicted versus actual value for cumulative recovery respectively. The normal plot

of the residual shows an acceptable trend. The linearity of the point (figure 4.24) along

the line shown is the determinacy of it acceptability. The actual plot versus the predicted

plot trend in figure 4.25 is also acceptable. The summary statistics also proves the

adequacy of the model as can be seen from the high R-square value, the reasonable

agreement between the adjusted and predicted R-square value and the low value of the

standard deviation.

43
, the unit of

Table 4.2: Cumulative recovery models summary statistics


Table 3: Recovery Model Statistics Summary
Std. Dev. 0.158209 R-Squared 0.961236
Mean 15.33895 Adj R-Squared 0.941854
C.V. 1.03142 Pred R-Squared 0.87505
PRESS 2.743171 Adeq Precision 29.60992

44
Figure 4.24: Normal plot of residuals for cumulative recovery model

Figure 4.25: Cross plot for predicted values of cumulative recovery versus the actual
recovery value

45
4.4.1.2 Field water break through time
The relationship between the response and the factors affecting the responses were fitted

to a natural log transform. The statistics summary and diagnostic plots were considered in

selecting the transform. The linear model was selected as the model type to use. The

proxy model is represented below.

Table 4.3 lists the summary statistics. Figures 4.26 and 4.27 show the normal plot of the

residual for water breakthrough time model and predicted versus actual value for water

break through time respectively. The normal plot of the residual shows a fairly

acceptable trend. The linearity of the point along the line shown (figure 4.26) is the

determinacy of it acceptability. The actual plot versus the predicted plot trend in figure

4.27 is also acceptable. The summary statistics also prove the adequacy of the model as

can be seen from the high R-square value, the reasonable agreement between the adjusted

and predicted R-square value and the low value of the standard deviation.

, the unit of

Table 4.3: Fields water breakthrough time models statistics summary


Std. Dev. 0.64 R-Squared 0.8855
Mean 4.2 Adj R-Squared 0.8702
C.V. 15.32 Pred R-Squared 0.8647
PRESS 21.98 Adeq Precision 32.793

46
Figure 4.26: Normal plot of residuals for water breakthrough time model

47
Figure 4.27: Cross plot for predicted values versus the actual values for water
breakthrough time

48
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study is to determine the effect of reservoir and fluid properties on

coning tendencies in thin oil rim reservoirs and to develop numerical correlations to

predict oil recovery and water break through time for these reservoirs.

Parametric studies were carried out to determine the effect of production rate, vertical

permeability, vertical anisotropy ratio, oil viscosity, horizontal well length and well

landing position from the gas-oil contact on oil recovery, water cut and reservoir pressure

drop in a thin oil rim reservoir of oil layer thickness of 85ft. Response surface

methodology was used to develop correlations to predict oil recovery and water

breakthrough time within an applicable range of values.

From the results obtained, the following conclusions are made.

o Experimental design and response surface methodology can be used in developing

reliable equations for prediction of critical rate and cumulative recovery in thin oil

rim reservoirs. These equations can be used as substitutes for simulation modeling

that may require equipment and time which may not be available.

o The results of a sensitivity analysis indicated that,

In thin oil rim reservoir, there exists an optimum rate of production that

maximizes recovery. For the system considered a liquid rate of

2250STB/D maximized recovery.

49
An increase in horizontal well length increases recovery and water

breakthrough time. An increase in horizontal well length also reduces

water cut and reservoir pressure drop.

Increasing viscosity of oil reduces the productivity index of a well and

decreases recovery and water breakthrough time. An increase in viscosity

increases water cut and reservoir pressure drop.

An increases distance of the well from the GOC results in an increase in

water cut. Recovery however is maximum at wells landing of 44ft in the

85ft thick oil rim. This position therefore represents the optimum position

for production amongst well landing positions considered.

An increase in vertical permeability results to a decrease in recovery,

water breakthrough time and water cut progression.

An increase in vertical anisotropy ratio results in a decrease in recovery

and water breakthrough time.

o Correlations for the prediction of cumulative recovery and water breakthrough

time were developed for reservoir and fluid properties and well configurations

within specific ranges which can be used for reliable predictions in thin oil rim

reservoirs

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

o A thin oil rim reservoir is the case study in this project. Analysis on other types of

reservoirs can also be carried out in a future study.

50
o The parameters considered during the parametric study were limited to six

reservoir, fluid properties, and wellbore configuration. Other properties can also

be investigated as further study.

o The accuracy of the correlations developed can be continually improved by

including more parameters and testing their significance. This task is

recommended for future research.

51
NOMENCLATURE

FOPT Field Oil Production Total

FPR Field Reservoir Pressure

FWCT Field Water Cut

GOC Gas Oil Contact

H Vertical Landing Position from Gas Oil Contact

H(t) Oil Leg Thickness

Kh Horizontal Permeability

Kv Vertical Permeability

L Horizontal Well Length

OVISC Oil Viscosity

p(r, z) Pressure in the Oil Zone immediately above--

the Surface of the Water at the Point (r, z).

Q Production Rate

WOC Water Oil Contact

WBBT Water Breakthrough Time

Viscosity

w Density of the Water

o Density of the Oil

52
REFERENCES
1. Beveridge S.B, Coats K.H, Alexandre M. T (1970) NUMERICAL CONING
APPLICATION. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

2. Benamara A, Tiab D (2001) GAS CONING IN VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL


WELLS: A NUMERICAL APPROACH. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal
(SPE 110026).

3. Koederitz F. L (2001) LECTURE NOTES ON RESERVOIR SIMULATION.


World Scientific. Page 7.

4. Marcano L, Wojtanowicz A.K (2005). DUAL GAS LIFT IN IN WELLS WITH


DOWNHOLE WATER SINK TECHNOLOGY: A FEASIBILITY STUDY. Society
of Petroleum Engineers, Production and Facilities (15) 4.

5. Wojtanowicz A.K, Xu H (1995). DOWNHOLE WATER LOOP: A NEW


COMPLETION METHOD TO MINIMIZE OIL WELL PRODUCTION WATER
CUT IN BOTTOM DRIVE RESERVOIRS. The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, Vol 34, No 8.

6. Permadi P (1996) FAST HORIZONTAL WELL CONING EVALUATION


METHODS. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal. (SPE 37032)

7. Joshi S.D (1988). AUGMENTATION OF WELL PRODUCTIVITY WITH SLANT


AND HORIZONTAL WELLSPE Philips Petroleum Co. Journal of Petroleum
Technology.

53
8. Qin W, Wojtanowicz A.K, White D. C (2014) NEW COLD PRODUCTION
TECHNIQUES FOR HEAVY OIL WITH STRONG BOTTOM WATER DRIVE.
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal.

9. Tarek A (2001) RESERVOIR ENGINEERING HANDBOOK. 2ND Ed.


Butterworth-Heinemann Woburn.

10. Permadi P, Jayadi T (2010). AN IMPROVED WATER CONING


CALCULATIONS FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS. Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal (SPE 133162)

11. Verga F, Viberta d, Ferraro P (2007) PREDICTION OF WATER CONING AND


WATER CRESTING: ANALYTICAL OR NUMERICAL MODELS. Politecnico di
Torino,.

12. Osisanya S.O, Rechem R, Touami M (2000) EFFECT OF WATER CONING ON


THE PERFORMANCE OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL WELLS: A
RESERVOIR SIMULATION STUDY OF HASSI RMELFIELD. Canadian
International Petroleum Conference.

13. Muskat M, Wyckoff R.D (1934). AN APPROXIMATE THEORY OF WATER


CONING IN OIL PRODUCTION. Gulf Research and Development Co-
operation, Pittsburgh, PA

14. Rajan S.V.V, Luhning W. R (1993) WATER CONING SUPRESSION. Journal


of Canadian Petroleum Technology (SCPT 93-04-02). Vol 32, No 4.

15. Onwekwe S. I, Obah B, Chukwu G. A (2012). A MODEL APPROACH OF


CONTROLLING CONING IN OIL RIM RESERVOIRS (SPE 163039).

16. Quinao J. J, Zarrouk J. S (2014) APPLICATIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL


DESIGN AND RESPONSE SURFACE METHOD IN PROBABILISTIC
GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PRELIMINARY RESULTS.

54
Thirty-Ninth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford
University, Stanford, California.

17. Ghomian Y, Pope G. A, Sepehrnoori K (2008) DEVELOPMENT OF A


RESPONSE SURFACE BASED MODEL FOR MIMIMUM MISCIBILITY
PRESSURE (MMP) CORRELATION OF CO2 FLOODING (SPE 116719).

18. Purwar S, Jablonowski C.J, Nguyen Q P (2010) A METHOD FOR


INTEGRATING RESPONSE SURFACE INTO OPTIMIZATION MODELS WITH
REAL OPTIONS: A CASE STUDY IN GAS FLOODING (SPE 129566).

55
APPENDIX

Table A1: Central Composite Design for Experiments.


Response
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Response 1 2
Cumulative
Run Block A:Q B:H/H(t) C:L D:OVISC E:Kv F:Kv/Kh Recovery WBBT
STB/day 0.53 ft cp md STB Days
1 Block 1 1750 0.29 1040 2.59 275 0.51 4.16E+06 45.5
2 Block 1 2500 0.78 560 4.7 500 0.5 2.04E+06 16.2
3 Block 1 1750 0.53 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.29E+06 476
4 Block 1 1750 0.77 1040 2.59 511.25 0.28 4.94E+06 41.2
5 Block 1 2500 0.77 560 0.48 500 0.5 1.16E+07 16.4
6 Block 1 1000 0.53 560 0.48 50 0.5 5.04E+06 68.5
7 Block 1 962.5 0.29 1040 2.59 275 0.28 3.58E+06 111.9
8 Block 1 2500 0.29 560 0.48 500 0.05 1.52E+07 371.9
9 Block 1 2500 0.53 560 0.48 50 0.5 1.89E+06 266.1
10 Block 1 1750 0.53 536 2.59 275 0.28 4.11E+06 22.2
11 Block 1 1750 0.53 1040 4.81 275 0.28 3.30E+06 22.56
12 Block 1 1750 0.77 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.66E+06 49.08
13 Block 1 1000 0.28 560 0.48 500 0.05 7.30E+06 108.6
14 Block 1 1750 0.53 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.61E+06 47
15 Block 1 2537.5 0.77 1040 2.59 275 0.28 5.35E+06 28.3
16 Block 1 2500 0.29 1520 4.7 500 0.5 3.71E+06 3.2
17 Block 1 1000 0.29 1520 0.48 500 0.05 1.07E+07 6940
18 Block 1 2500 0.53 1520 0.48 50 0.05 1.16E+07 970.02
19 Block 1 1750 0.29 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.61E+06 48.13
20 Block 1 1000 0.29 1520 0.48 50 0.5 7.36E+06 2351.76
21 Block 1 1000 0.77 560 4.7 50 0.5 8.76E+05 100.65
22 Block 1 2500 0.53 560 0.48 50 0.05 1.24E+07 30.96
23 Block 1 1750 0.77 1040 2.59 38.75 0.28 1.74E+06 86.9
24 Block 1 1000 0.29 1520 4.7 500 0.05 2.67E+06 13.84
25 Block 1 1000 0.77 1520 4.7 50 0.05 3.69E+06 420.15
26 Block 1 1000 0.29 1520 0.48 50 0.05 7.04E+06 262
27 Block 1 1000 0.77 1520 4.7 500 0.5 3.32E+06 212.2
28 Block 1 2500 0.53 1520 0.48 50 0.5 8.81E+06 69.5
29 Block 1 1750 0.77 1040 0.37 275 0.28 1.16E+07 412.88
30 Block 1 2500 0.53 560 4.7 500 0.05 4.60E+06 1
31 Block 1 1750 0.29 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.61E+06 48.1
32 Block 1 2500 0.29 560 4.7 50 0.05 9.99E+05 55.65
33 Block 1 1000 0.29 560 0.48 50 0.05 8.86E+06 1726
34 Block 1 2500 0.29 1520 4.7 50 0.5 1.97E+06 76
35 Block 1 2500 0.77 1520 4.7 500 0.05 5.92E+06 61.5

56
36 Block 1 1000 0.53 560 4.7 500 0.5 1.91E+06 3.2
37 Block 1 1750 0.53 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.61E+06 48.13
38 Block 1 1750 0.53 1544 2.59 275 0.28 5.10E+06 72.92
39 Block 1 1750 0.29 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.61E+06 48.13
40 Block 1 2500 0.29 1520 0.48 500 0.5 1.31E+07 518.74
41 Block 1 1000 0.77 560 4.7 500 0.05 3.90E+06 72.6
42 Block 1 1000 0.53 560 4.7 50 0.05 2.48E+06 4.53
43 Block 1 1750 0.77 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.61E+06 48.13
44 Block 1 1000 0.53 1520 0.48 500 0.5 6.35E+06 249
45 Block 1 1750 0.77 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.61E+06 48.13
46 Block 1 2500 0.29 1520 0.48 500 0.05 1.24E+07 75.58
47 Block 1 1000 0.53 560 0.48 500 0.5 7.90E+06 779.12
48 Block 1 1750 0.77 1040 2.59 275 0.04 6.26E+06 56.67
49 Block 1 1000 0.77 1520 4.7 50 0.5 2.31E+06 13.41
50 Block 1 2500 0.77 1520 4.7 50 0.05 4.53E+06 4.58
51 Block 1 2500 0.53 560 4.7 50 0.5 1.31E+06 1.5
52 Block 1 1750
0.53 1040 2.59 275 0.28 4.61E+06 48.13

Table A2: Water and Gas Breakthrough Time at Different Horizontal Well Length
Horizontal Well Water Breakthrough Gas Breakthrough Time,
Length, ft Time, years years
560 0.175 0.573
880 0.251 1.783
1200 0.34 4.696
1520 0.46
1840 0.56

Table A3: Gas and Water Breakthrough Time at different Well Landing Positions
Well Landing Distance Water Breakthrough Gas Breakthrough
from the GOC Time, years Time, years
4.68 0.0059
24.33 1.1788 0.037
44.33 0.991 0.7026
64.33 0.345 4.6927
69.33 0.033

57
Table A4: Water and Gas Breakthrough Time at Different Values of Oil Viscosity

Water Breakthrough Time,


Oil Viscosity years Gas Breakthrough Time, years
0.479 0.76
0.94 4.693 0.356
2.256 0.808 0.1121
4.7 0.246 0.0472

Table A5: Variation of Water and Gas Breakthrough Time with Liquid Rate

LIQUID RATE Water Breakthrough Gas Breakthrough


-1
(STB/D) Time (tBT), days 1/(tBT), day Time (tBT), day 1/tBT
1000 406.43 0.00246
2000 153.08 0.00653
2250 128.46 0.00778 1917.5 0.00052
2500 113.82 0.00879 1156.7 0.00086
3000 92.35 0.01083 547 0.00183
4000 64.43 0.01552 224.3 0.00446
5000 50.41 0.01984 118.12 0.00847

58