PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2004-242

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Nodal Analysis for Oil Wells With

Downhole Water Sink Completions
O. ARSLAN, C.D.WHITE, A.K.WOJTANOWICZ
Louisiana State University

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Societys 5th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (55th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 10, 2004. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract production at the bottom completion limited to the maximum

Downhole water sink (DWS) technology is an alternative to
conventional limited-entry completions and downhole water
separation in controlling water production in wells with bottom
water drive. DWS wells comprise two completions: the bottom
completion produces water and keeps the top completion open
to oil inflow. The system performance depends on the top and
bottom rates to maximize oil productivity and produce oil-free
water from the bottom completion.
Conventional nodal analysis methods cannot provide a
solution for DWS wells because of the complex fluid dynamics
depending on the top and bottom rates where critical rate for
water coning changes with water drainage rate. Analytical
modeling to date estimates DWS wells inflow conditions (water
coning, reverse/oil coning, and segregated inflow) from a
characteristic plot of critical rates for oil and water, but falls
short in accurately predicting pressure interference for water
coning, because the model couldnt account for distributed
saturation around the well and resulting multiphase flow
effects. A reservoir simulator is therefore used to model two-
phase flow to the dual completions using algorithms to
automatically create, queue, and analyze simulation runs and to
build accompanying tubing performance models.
In this paper, a nodal analysis approach for dual completed
wells is proposed to evaluate natural flow rate. The approach
identifies the operational range of top and bottom rates with
water coning at the top completion and oil-free water
rate of water disposal by injection. Also, inflow and tubing
performance relationships accounts for the bottom rate
dependent critical rate and water cut response. Since the
operational range changes in time, time-dependent analysis is
required to evaluate the maximum oil and clean water
production rate for a given increment of cumulative production.
As the process of water-free oil recovery in short time cannot be
practically accomplished via conventional wells, DWS wells are
shown to be effective in improving recovery for a given
production increment.
Introduction
Water cones often develop in response to oil production in
partially completed wells. Water movement toward the oil zone
completions changes the saturation profile near the wellbore.
The vertical movement of water is time and rate dependent. The
partial completion prevents water breakthrough if the oil rate is
under the critical rate. However, the critical rate is too low to be
economically viable for most wells, and therefore these wells
produced above critical rate where the well experiences a
multiphase flow both in inflow and in tubing.
With the onset of water cone, the area where oil flows into
the wellbore decreases while there is also a water saturation
distribution in water cone (Figure 1). The presence of cone
decreases the oil productivity via blocking oil flow path, and

1
degrading the total mobility due to relative permeability effects
(Figure-1.) So, a representative well production analysis must
consider water coning.
Production systems (Nodal) analysis seeks the highest oil or
gas production rate. The method is named by its imposition of
consistent pressures and rates at key interfaces or nodes in the
reservoir-well-pipeline system (e.g., the node at the bottom of a
well couples the tubing and inflow performance, Figure-2)
Valid solutions require that the tubing and inflow curves
intersect at the flowing bottomhole pressure (the rate and
pressure must be consistent). This production optimization
technique requires a representative inflow model. Inflow
performance curves are generated either using analytical or
empirical models or by reservoir simulators.
Muskat (1) was one of the earliest researchers analyzing
pressure rate relationships. He pointed that a straight-line
relationship should not be anticipated for multiphase (oil and
gas) flow conditions. He reported that when combining with gas
oil ratio observations, the well productivity index might be of
value in interpreting abnormalities of well behavior in gas-drive
reservoirs. Following his work, five different methods to predict
the pressure-production performance of oil wells producing
from solution-gas drive reservoirs were proposed by Vogel (2),
Fetkovich (3), Jones, Blount and Glaze (4), and Kilns and
Majcher (5). These methods are widely used because they only
require parameters available from a production test.
Wiggins (6) suggested generalized three-phase IPRs similar
to Vogels. IPR equations are developed after a regression
analysis on simulator results for a given set of relative
permeability information, fluid property data and water
saturation. Simulation results are obtained from a radial flow
geometry produced at a constant oil rate production. Then, the
production ratios are regressed on the pressure ratio. His
solution didnt consider vertical segregation of water and oil
because all the simulator models based on 1-D - radial model
where water saturation is only dispersed in the reservoir. Gallice
and Wiggins (7) later provided a detailed analysis for common
inflow models. They concluded that none of the methods could
be considered as the best method over a wide range of reservoir
conditions. One may provide the best estimation for a particular
case, while providing the worst for some other case. Therefore,
they recommend the use of more than one method to obtain a
possible range of outcomes. They pointed out that Fetkovichs
method tended to be the most reliable among these five
methods. Significantly, Gallice and Wiggins argued that a
single IPR method might not be reliable for varying reservoir
pressures. Because changes in reservoir parameters in time
result in changes in its flow properties, real time optimization
should consider a representative model for the reservoir
response; a flexible and accurate IPR is needed.
Gilbert (8) examined the effect of water-cut on IPR curves
and its relationship to other factors such as interflow rates. For
solution drive reservoirs, he showed that the gross inflow rate
decreases as the water cut increases whereas the gross inflow
rate for active water drive wells will increase as the water cut
increases. He considered the water production to be from
relatively low pressure source or relatively high pressure
source depending on the IPR response for a particular well
producing water along with oil. Nind (9) presented a similar
approach, treating water production as moving from the water
source to the well via relatively conductive stringers in the
formation. The approach studied by Gilbert, Nind and later by
Brown (10) does not address the reservoirs with bottom water
2
drive where the datum corrected pressures (potential) in oil and
water zones are equal. Another limitation in this model is that
the effect of changing water cut was not considered in IPR (i.e.,
the zone IPRs are assumed to be straight lines for oil and water
zones).
Arslan (11) identified the effects of producing water cut on
IPR response, oil productivity, and tubing performance. He
indicated the water cut response over the gross production rate
for a partially penetrated well using the term of oil productivity
index and presented the effect of water intrusion on oil
productivity index. Water affects the well productivity by
decreasing oil mobility and degrades the tubing performance by
increasing the hydrostatic gradient. He showed that Downhole
Sink Well (DWS) completions improve oil productivity in
comparison to the conventional partial penetration applications.
However, he only considered steady state flow conditions in his
analysis.
A nodal analysis approach for dual completed wells is
proposed to evaluate natural flow rate in this paper. Extending
this approach, reservoir depletion is also considered in
successive nodal analysis stages.
Nodal Analysis Method for DWS Wells
DWS wells comprise two completions: the bottom
completion drains water and keeps the top completion open to
oil inflow (Figure 3). The system performance depends on the
top and bottom rates to maximize oil productivity and produce
oil-free water from the bottom completion. For DWS wells, the
rates for the two completions are adjusted to reduce or
completely eliminate water from the top completion while
drained water not contaminated with oil that can be injected
back into a lower zone without further processing.
Due to the absence of a representative analytical or
empirical model for oil inflow under water coning effects for
both conventional wells and DWS wells, a numerical approach
was needed. Modern reservoir simulators and desktop
computing could quickly simulate a particular case of water
coning (a typical run would take 20 - 80 seconds on 2.0 GHz
Pentium 3); thus allowing many different producing scenarios
to be considered. Batch management programs are used to
create, queue, and analyze these scenarios by creating an
interface with commercial software (ECLIPSE - 2002)TM. (12).
Using the numerical tool written in Visual BasicTM a cluster of
inflow performance relationships (IPR) for a DWS well was
generated. Classical nodal analysis is extended for DWS wells
by evaluating the pressure versus flow rate relationship for the
top completion for a range of bottom rates. The diagnostic plots
are the same as used previously. Inflow curves for a
conventional well (zero bottom rate) and DWS well with 500
and 800-stb/day bottom rates are shown together with their
related tubing performances including the varying inflow water
cuts (Figure 4) By reducing water production from the top
completion, DWS increases the maximum natural flow rate,
reduces the flowing water cut, and produces oil-free water from
the bottom completion.
The two rates impose competing vertical forces on the water
oil contact. The simulation interface software provides
visualization for a given range of rates of interest. Figure 5
shows how the certain combinations of top rate and drainage
rate enhance oil productivity index defined by equation 1.
 qo particular allowed pressure drawdown, the top completion
Jo = ....(1) production rate is improved by draining water to the bottom
p pw completion until to the point of flip-flop line where basically
top completion has no water coning.
Figure 5 indicates a sharp ridge where the top rate and
The nodal analysis for DWS wells is based on the following
drainage rate leads to maximum oil productivity for the top
operation principles:
completion. This occurs when the top completion is producing

Produce at maximum possible top rate (economic
water-free oil where the reduction in oil zone mobility is
goal).
minimal due to minimal cone presence as indicated by figure 1.

Maintain a pressure drawdown below or equal to
However, the best operating condition is not simply the highest
the maximum allowable pressure drawdown for
productivity index value from this plot. Analysis is based on:
both completions (completion limit)

Inflow performance relationship (IPR).

Maintain a water drainage rate below the flip-flop

Tubing performance relationship (TPR) or
line for any top rate (No reverse coning.) (An
outflow.
environmentally imposed limit)

Limiting drainage rate (depends on water

Set the top and drainage rates that can flow to
injectivity or disposal).
surface. (TPR limit)

Operating under/at maximum allowable pressure

Limit drainage rate according to maximum
drawdown at top and drainage completions (to
allowable injection limit possible. (Disposal limit)
ensure completion stability).

Maintaining oil-free water drainage for injection
without water processing (for processing or
environmental reasons). Time-dependent Analysis
Oil wells are generally produced at their highest possible Available nodal analysis solutions generally offer an inflow
rate to maximize the cash flow. However, the maximum
model that uses reservoir properties at given time. The
allowable pressure drawdown is a limiting factor due to the
calculated production rate from these models is employed to
practical considerations such as well integrity, sand control, gas predict the incremental recovery for period of interest. Using
liberation, etc. This limit is should also be considered in inflow
this incremental recovery, the change in the average reservoir
models.
properties at different stages of depletion is estimated via
material balance. The future rates are predicted successively in
The five operating limitations above are interrelated in a
this manner.
single plot called as DWS characteristic plot (figure 6). Water
coning and reverse coning (oil coning to drainage completion) The above approach is viable for oil wells with water coning
regions are shown in figure 6. There is also a segregated flow
problems due to two reasons. First, there is not an empirical or
region where the top completion produces only oil while oil-
analytical solution that can model the cone behavior and in
free water is drained from the bottom completion. This region is terms of inflow performance. Second, later stages of production
not obvious from the plot because high ranges of rates greater
should inherit the saturation distribution around the well as a
than the critical rates for water coning and reverse coning are
result of previous production stage. Averaging reservoir
considered. This small area for the segregated flow is located properties for the future stages will not preserve the realistic
around the origin.(13)
coning conditions as a result of earlier production stages.
The flow regions are separated by flip-flop line (11) (fw = Considering the operation principles listed above and
0 and fo = 0) under which top completion flow rate dominates
presented in figure 6, a successive nodal analysis approach is
over the drainage rate and water coning occurs (fw > 0). Above
proposed in this paper. The numerical tool mentioned above is
the flip-flop line the drainage rate overcomes the top completion used to model a representative DWS well inflow performance,
rate and reverse coning occurs (fo>0). The slope of this line is
and preserve the water coning conditions resulted from the
related to stabilized steady-state water cut of this system and
earlier production stages. The workflow for this approach is
therefore to end point mobility ratio. given in table 1.

1 An example case is studied for the reservoir and fluid

fw = .(2)
properties given in tables 2 and 3. The first nodal analysis
h 1
1+ o approach is applied to the simulation results for the end of first
hw M year (Figure 7.) The shaded area in figure 7 designates the well
operation region for the well operation principles given above.
The tubing performance relationship (TPR) curve is also
The flip-flop line is also sensitive to the gravity effects,
imposed on the characteristic plot by interrelating the producing
distributed saturation effects around the wellbore. Equation 2 is
water cut for the top completion and estimating flowing
an approximate estimation for its slope.
bottomhole pressure.
Shirman (14) proposed the DWS well characteristic plot with
pressure drop terms. His analytical model does not consider
The conventional well operates at 525 bpd with 49 % water
multiphase flow effects around the well and pressure
cut (oil production is only 259 bopd) is limited by the tubing
interference between the top and bottom completions.
performance (where drainage rate is zero). However, DWS
Extending Shirmans approach, the maximum allowable
optimum operating point occurs at 735 bpd at the top
pressure drop values for both top and drainage completions are
completion with 5 % water cut (700 bopd) for the drainage rate
included in the characteristic plot, figure 6. For example, the
of 1200 bwpd. DWS well operation is constrained by the
maximum allowable pressure for the top completion is shown
maximum allowable pressure drawdown limits while
by the thick line making an right angle with Qtop - axis at the
intersection point where the drainage rate is zero. On this

3
conventional well inflow is not maximized because of TPR
limit.
The above analysis is applied successively for future
production stages. Nine production stages are analyzed in this
example study. The well production rate and water drainage rate
response is given in figure 8 and the characteristic plot approach
in stages is presented in figure 9 for these stages. As the
depletion of oil zone continues the water oil contact moves
upward. This depletion process resulted in:
1. Higher ultimate water cut values: As the water
thickness increased, the required drainage rate for low
water cut production rate at the top completion
increase. This is indicated by the increasing slope of
flip-flop line for all stages in figure 9.
2. At average reservoir pressures that are sufficiently high
for flowing well production to surface, the maximum
pressure drawdown limits control the well operation (a,
b and c stages).
3. Then, as depletion proceeds the TPR limit defines
DWS well production (c though i). This effect
narrows down the operable region in time.
4. Comparing production rates for DWS and conventional
well practices in figure 8, DWS well is shown to be
effective in improving recovery for a given production
increment via enhancing well rate for a given stage of
water oil contact and cone position.
The impacts of limiting conditions on well production and
drainage rate response are also shown in figure 8 where:

ptop and pdrainage limit rate at early stages.

pdrainage and TPR limit rate at mid stages.

TPR and clean water drainage limited at later stages.
Conclusion
A new nodal analysis approach is proposed for DWS wells.
The method considers five operational constraints that have not
been analyzed in earlier studies. DWS improves reduces water
coning and the resulting adverse multiphase effects, thereby
improving well productivity.
The maximum pressure drawdown limits early production
rates. When reservoir pressure drops, tubing performance
controls production rate. At late time, the oil-free water
drainage constraint limits production. DWS technology may
increase oil production rate more than twofold under all these
production regimes.
Because the process of water-free oil recovery in short time
cannot be practically accomplished via conventional wells,
DWS wells are shown to be effective in improving recovery for
a given production increment.
Acknowledgement
This study is part of an LSU research program Downhole
Water Sink Technology Initiative (DWSTI) funded by Joint
Industry Project (JIP) for the application and development of
the Downhole Water Sink Technology for water control in
petroleum wells. Authors would like to express appreciation to
the DWSTI JIP and State of Louisiana EDA program for
supporting this study.
4
NOMENCLATURE
fw = ultimate water cut
hp = oil zone thickness
hw = water zone thickness
Jo = oil productivity index
M = end point mobility ratio
P = average reservoir pressure
Pw = flowing well pressure
qo = oil production
REFERENCES
1. Muskat, M., Physical Principals of Oil Production.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1949.
2. Vogel, J.V., Inflow Performance Relationships for
Solution Gas Drive Wells. JPT, Jan. 1968.
3. Fetkowich, M.J., The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells.
SPE 4529 presented the 1973 SPE Annual Meeting, Las
Vegas, NV, Sep. 30-Oct. 3.
4. Jones, L.G., Blount, E.M., and Glaze, O.H., Use of
Short Term Multiple Rate Flow Tests to Predict
Performance of Wells Having Turbulence. SPE 6133
presented at the 1976 SPE Annual Technical Meeting
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 3-6.
5. Klins, M.A., and Majher, M.W., Inflow Performance
Relationships for Damaged or Improved Wells
Producing Under Solution-Gas Drive. JPT, Dec. 1992,
p. 1357-1363.
6. Wiggins, M.L., Generalized Inflow Performance
Relationship for Three-Phase Flow. SPE 25458,
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK,
March 21-23, 1993.
7. Gallice, F. and Wiggins, M.L., A Comparison of Two-
Phase Inflow Performance. SPE 52171, presented at the
1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, OK, 28-31 March 1999.
8. Gilbert, W.E., Flowing and Gas Lift Well Performance.
API Drilling and Production Practice, 1954, Dallas,
Texas, 126-157.
9. Brown, K.E., The Technology of Artificial Lift
Methods. Pages. 61-66, PennWell Publishing Co.,
Tulsa, OK, 1977.
10. Nind, T.E.W., Principles of Oil Well Production.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1964.
11. Arslan, O, Wojtanowicz, A.K, and White, C.D., Inflow
Performance Methods for Evaluating Downhole Water
Sink Completions versus Conventional Wells in Oil
Reservoirs with Water Production Problems, CIPC
2003 - 195, Calgary, Canada, June 10-12 2003.
12. GeoQuest, Schlumberger, ECLIPSE Reference Manual
2001A(2001).
13. Shirman, E.I. and Wojtanowicz, A.K., Water Coning
Reversal Using Downhole Water Sink- Theory and
Experimental Study. SPE 38792, PROC. 72th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE, San
Antonio, Texas, October 5-8, 1997.
14. Shirman, E.I., DWS Well Selection and Production
Optimisation Method for Maximum Performance.
Downhole Water Sink Technology Initiative Year 2000
Annual Report (internal report).
 Oil 1.2 1
Total mobiltiy
Zone
1 kro
0.8
krw

0.8

t, md/cp
0.6

kr
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0 0
Water Zone
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Sw

FIGURE .1 Water coning and total mobility behavior.

Inflow (reservoir)
Outflow
pR performance
(tubing)
performance
pwf
ppump
minimum Pwf

Maximum
natural
flow

q, bpd

FIGURE .2 Nodal analysis approach - inflow and outflow performance.

rdrainage
rwell
Dres-top

htop-loc

htop-pen

hoil

DWOC
( , k h , hv ) oil zone

WOC(Static)
hbot-loc

hbot-pen
( , k h , hv ) water zone
hwa
t

FIGURE .3 Drainage - injection configuration DWS wells.

5
 6200
Inflow Outflow WC
qbot=0 bpd 0 0 0.258
500 500 0.061
800 800 0.006
6000

qbot=500 bpd
5800

Pwf, psi
qbot=800 bpd
5600

5400

5200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Top Completion Rate, bpd

FIGURE .4 Nodal analysis approach for DWS wells at the top completion. (After Arslan, 2003)

2.4

1.8
Joil, bpd/psi

1.2

0.6
90
75

0
0
60

ay
45

2000
0

1500 l/d
30

1000 b
,b
15

500
0

Qdrainage, bbl/day 0
0

Q top

FIGURE .5 Oil productivity. (After Arslan, 2003)

1000
fo=0.4
fo=0.3
fo=0.2
fo=0.1
800

Reverse (Oil) Coning

Bottom Rate, bbl/d

600 fw=0.1

fw=0.2
400

fw=0.3
200
Water Coning
fw=0.4

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Top Rate, bbl/d

FIGURE .6 Characteristic plot DWS well production.

6
1 Read input, create numerical simulation decks for the specified rates
2 Queue runs, call ECLIPSE, and feed each run
3 Read data from simulation results to the spreadsheets and generate plots for analysis
4 Generate TPR for tubing properties and simulation results
5 Generate DWS well - characteristic plot for given operational limits from the output
6 Find optimum operating top and drainage rates
7 Register production time and rates
8 Repeat for the next production stage

TABLE .1 Workflow for DWS well production optimization in time.

DATA Units Values

Reservoir depth ft 13000
Thickness of oil zone ft 50
Depth of WOC (static) ft 13000
Thickness of water zone ft 100
Reservoir pressure ft 6000
Distance of top completion to formation top ft 0
Thickness of top completion ft 20
Distance of bottom completion to WOC ft 10
Thickness of bottom completion ft 10
Horizontal permeability (absolute) md 80
Vertical permeability (absolute) md 48
Porosity fraction 0.3
Well Radius ft 0.292
Outer Radius ft 1000
Depth to Reservoir Top ft 12950
Rock compressibility 1/psi 4.0E-06
Aquifer Volume bbl 1.00E+09
Total compressibility of aquifer 1/psi 7.00E-06
Aquifer Productivity Index stb/day/psi 2.00E+01
Tubing inner diameter in 1.25
Tubing head pressure psi 50

TABLE .2 Reservoir and well data.

Fluid Properties Data Units Water Oil

Reference pressure psi 6000 6000
Formation factor rbbl/stb 1.02 1.26
Compressibility 1/psi 0.000003 2E-05
Water Viscosity cp 0.4 0.8
Surface Density lb/cu-ft 68 48

TABLE .3 Fluid properties data.

7
 FIGURE .7 Example study - characteristic plot @ 1 yr DWS well production.

1500

Top Rate
1200 Drainage Rate
Ptop & Pdrainage
Conventional
limited

900 Pdrainage &TPR

Q, bpd

limited

600

TPR & Oil-free water drainage

limited

300

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time, yrs

FIGURE .8 Top and drainage rate responses in time in comparison with conventional well rate.

8
 2000 2000 2000

1500 1500 1500

Drainage Rate, bbl/d

Drainage Rate, bbl/d
Drainage Rate, bbl/d

1000 1000 1000

500 500 500

0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800

Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d

a) 1st year performance b) 2nd year performance c) 4th year performance

2000 2000 2000

1500 1500 1500

Drainage Rate, bbl/d

Drainage Rate, bbl/d

Drainage Rate, bbl/d

1000 1000 1000

500 500 500

0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d

d) 6th year performance e) 8th year performance f) 10th year performance

1500 1500 1500

Drainage Rate, bbl/d

Drainage Rate, bbl/d

Drainage Rate, bbl/d

1000 1000 1000

500 500 500

0 0 0
0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450 0 150 300 450
Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d Top Rate, bbl/d

g) 12th year performance h) 14th year performance i) 18th year performance

fo0= 0 DeltaPmax-top DeltaPmax-drainage TPR limit

FIGURE .9 Example study nodal analysis in time.