CRITICAL FLOW CALCULATION METHOD TO NOT HAPPEN WATER CONING

AND GAS CONING

By :

1. Nurfaridha Rahma Ratuwara

2. Riski Ananda Bachri
3. Christian M.D Suwuh
4. Wisnu Bram Wijaya

Abstract :

In the process of oil production, there are often problems with water and gas
coning, the symptoms of water and gas conferencing are indicated by the water and gas
breaktrough that is too early. There are several factors causing a decrease in water
content, one of which is the problem of vertical water movement infiltrated into the
productive layer. This problem can occur due to actual Q exceeding critical Q, so
excessive suction results in a gradient of flow pressure exceeding the gravitational force
resulting in breaking of the productive layer by water, the characteristics of this coning
can be seen from the surface, that is, a significant increase in water content is
continued by analyzing the extent of the critical production flow with the chiericci method
and also analyzing the development of coning. Excessive production of wells and
passing critical flow conditions causes a number of water in the aquifer and gas in the
gas hood to be produced in the reservoir fluid flow. Strong increase in gas flow because
gas coning produces back nuts because the gas to oil ratio (GOR) can greatly limit oil
production. Water and gas coning that occur can have a negative influence on oil
production, one of the effects of water and gas coning is decreasing productivity, lifting
costs are high because water is heavier than oil and the last is decreasing efficiency of
recovery because the water cut exceeds economic limits prevention efforts need to be
carried out since the beginning of the production process takes place, one of which is
first, do not let the reservoir pressure difference with the wellbore pressure. In the initial
design, we had to place a perforation hole away from the water oil contact. This was
done so that the water coning did not occur quickly because basically HC will continue
to decrease during production due to the increase in WOC. Besides that, it is also
common with well completion planning with proper well completion planning that can
slow down the occurrence of coning, so that optimum oil production can be maintained
and ultimate recovery will result in optimal field economy.
Introduction :
Gas coning and water coning are
serious problems that are often found in
oil fields, especially in thin oil layers
where water and gas are not expected
to be produced, so the production of
water and gas increases the cost of
production, and reduces the efficiency of
oil recovery.
Production of water from a well can be
caused by water converting or fingering.
Water coning occurs when water moves
from the bottom of the reservoir
vertically to the bottom of the perforation
and forms a water cone until a water
breakthrough occurs (water reaches the
perforation). While fingering occurs in a
sloping reservoir, that is if the water
moves and overtakes the oil above it
towards the bottom of the perforation
due to unstable water oil contact (WOC).
In water coning there are several
problems that are faced, namely:
1. What is the maximum water flow
rate so that water cones do not
form
2. If the water cone cannot be
avoided, how long will the water
arrive at perforation, which is the
approximate time of water
penetration
3. What is the performance of the
reservoir with the water cone
Both the water coning and fingering
which occur until the water breakthrough
in the perforation will be operationally
detrimental because:
1. Oil productivity decreases
2. Lifting cost is higher because the
fluid in the well is heavier and the
discharge of water on the surface
is more heavy
3. Recovery efficiency decreases
because the water cut reaches
economic limit
In determining the critical rate there are
several methods for determining critical
flow rates that have been carried out by
various groups, including the Meyer-
Garder method, ChierichiCiucci, Schols,
Muscat and Wyckoff, Wheatley, Piper
and Gonzales, Hoyland et al, Chaney et
al. Papatzacos, etc.
In this paper we will only focus on a
number of methods mentioned above.
After calculating from several methods it
will be compared to the critical flow rate
so that water coning and gas coning
does not occur.
Methodology :
In this paper we use 6 methods of
calculating critical flow rates, namely the
Meyer-Garder method, Chierici-Ciucci,
Hoyland-Papatzacos, Chaney et al,
Chaperson, Schols. After getting the
results of the calculation, it will be
compared to the Qo limit so that water
coning and gas coning does not occur.
Analysis and Discussion :
In calculating the critical flow rate (Qo)
43.5 − 5.1
several methods are used to prevent 𝑄𝑜𝑔 = 0.246 𝑥 10−4 [ 660
]
water and gas coning. 𝐼𝑛 (0.25)

Using the data below 93.5

( ) 652 − 152
0.73 𝑥 1.1
𝜌𝑜 47.5 lb/ft3
= 62.32451 STB/day
𝜌𝑤 63.76 lb/ft3
For the assumption of water the
𝜌𝑔 5.1 lb/ft3 following formula is used:

𝜇𝑜 0.73 cp 𝑄𝑜𝑤

Bo 1.1 bbl/STB 𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑤 𝐾𝑜
= 0.246 𝑥 10−4 [ 𝑟𝑒
] ( ) ℎ2
𝐼𝑛 (𝑟𝑤) 𝜇𝑜𝐵𝑜
h 65 ft
− ℎ𝑝2
Dt 25 ft
63.76 − 47.5
hp 15 ft 𝑄𝑜𝑔 = 0.246 𝑥 10−4 [ 660
]
𝐼𝑛 (0.25)
rw 0.25 ft
93.5
re 660 ft ( ) 652 − 152
0.73 𝑥 1.1
ko 93.5 md = 23,82 STB/day
kv 110 md In the Meyer-Garder method the critical
flow rate (Qo) limit on the assumption of
kro 0.85
water is more effective than the
assumption of gas.

The following methods are calculated: 2. Chierici-Ciucci Method

ℎ(𝜌𝑜 − 𝜌𝑔)
1. Meyer-Garder Method 𝑄𝑜𝑔 = 0.492 𝑥 10−4 (𝐾𝑟𝑜 𝐾ℎ)
𝐵𝑜𝜇𝑜
For the gas assumption the 𝜑𝑔 (𝑟𝐷𝑒 𝜀 𝜏𝑔)
formula is used:
𝑟𝑒 𝑘ℎ
𝑟𝐷𝑒 = √ = 16,8382
𝜌𝑜 − 𝜌𝑔 ℎ 𝑘𝑣
𝑄𝑜𝑔 = 0.246 𝑥 10−4 [ ]
𝐼𝑛 (𝑟𝑤)
𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑝
𝜀= = 0,230
ℎ
𝐾𝑜 𝐷𝑏
( ) ℎ2 − ℎ𝑝2 𝜏𝑔 = = 0,384
𝜇𝑜𝐵𝑜 ℎ
 △ 𝜌𝑜𝑤 = 𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜 = 16.26 For the gas assumption, the
following formula is used:
△ 𝜌𝑜𝑔 = 𝜌𝑜 − 𝜌𝑔 = 42.4

∆𝜌𝑜𝑔 𝑄𝑜𝑔
= 2,607
∆𝜌𝑜𝑤 (𝜌𝑜 − 𝜌𝑔)𝐾𝑜(ℎ2 − ℎ𝑝2 )
= [0.432
2049 𝐵𝑜 𝜇𝑜
𝜏𝑔 = 𝑔𝜏𝑤, 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑎 𝜑𝑤 = 𝜑𝑔 = 0,053

Then the results that have been 𝜋 ℎ

+ 𝑟𝑒
] ( )0,14
obtained are entered into the formula as 𝐼𝑛 (𝑟𝑤) 𝑟𝑒
follows:

ℎ(𝜌𝑜 − 𝜌𝑔)
𝑄𝑜𝑔 = 0.492 𝑥 10−4 (𝐾𝑟𝑜 𝐾ℎ)
𝐵𝑜𝜇𝑜 = 61,532 STB/day

𝜑𝑔 (𝑟𝐷𝑒 𝜀 𝜏𝑔) In the Schols method the critical flow

rate (Qo) limit on the assumption of gas
= 20.85 STB/day
is more effective than the assumption of
ℎ(𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜) water
𝑄𝑜𝑤 = 0.492 𝑥 10−4
𝐵𝑜𝜇𝑜 4. .Hoyland-Papatzacos Method
(𝐾𝑟𝑜 𝐾ℎ)𝜑𝑔 (𝑟𝐷𝑒 𝜀 𝜏𝑤)
For the assumption of water the
= 54.39 STB/day following formula is used:

In the Chierici-Ciucci method the critical

𝑄𝑜𝑤
flow rate (Qo) limit on the assumption of
𝐾𝑜 ( 𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜)
water is more effective than the = [1
173.35 𝐵𝑜 𝜇𝑜
assumption of gas.
ℎ𝑝 2 1.325 2.238
− ( ) ] ℎ [𝐼𝑛 (𝑟𝑒)]−1.990
3. Schols Method ℎ
= 2805,172 𝑆𝑇𝐵/𝑑𝑎𝑦
For the assumption of water the
following formula is used: for the assumption of gas the
𝑄𝑜𝑤 following formula is used:
(𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜)𝐾𝑜(ℎ2 − ℎ𝑝2 )
= [0.432 𝑄𝑜𝑤
2049 𝐵𝑜 𝜇𝑜 𝐾𝑜 ( 𝜌0 − 𝜌𝑔)
= [1
173.35 𝐵𝑜 𝜇𝑜
𝜋 ℎ 0,14
+ 𝑟𝑒
]() ℎ𝑝 2 1.325 2.238
𝐼𝑛 (𝑟𝑤) 𝑟𝑒 − ( ) ] ℎ [𝐼𝑛 (𝑟𝑒)]−1.990
ℎ
= 7314,839 𝑆𝑇𝐵/𝑑𝑎𝑦
= 136,65 STB/day
 In the Hoyland-Papatzacos 𝑟𝑒 𝑘𝑣 0.5
𝛼 = ( ℎ ) (𝑘ℎ) = 10.15
method the critical flow rate (Qo)
1.943
limit on the assumption of water 𝑞𝑐 = 0.7311 + = 0.92
𝛼
is more effective than the
assumption of gas. = 42.53 STB/day

5. Chaney et al Method For the water assumption the

formula is used:
From the curve you can plot
Qcurve = 380 4.888 𝑥 10−4 𝑘ℎ ℎ2
To assume the water used 𝑄𝑜𝑤 = [∆𝑝] 𝑞𝑐
𝐵𝑜 𝜇𝑜
formula: 𝑟𝑒 𝑘𝑣 0.5
𝛼 = ( ℎ ) (𝑘ℎ) = 10.15
1.943
𝑄𝑜𝑤 𝑞𝑐 = 0.7311 + = 0.92
𝛼
𝐾𝑜 (𝜌𝑤 − 𝜌𝑜)
= 0.5288 𝑥 10−4 [ ] 𝑄𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜 = 16.21 STB/day
= 38.04 STB/day
In the Chaperon method the critical flow
For the gas assumption, the rate (Qo) limit on the assumption of gas
following formula is used: is more effective than the assumption of
water.
𝑄𝑜𝑔
𝐾𝑜 (𝜌𝑜 − 𝜌𝑔)
= 0.5288 𝑥 10−4 [ ] 𝑄𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑣𝑒
𝜇𝑜 𝐵𝑜 Conclusion :
= 50.20 STB/day
Gas coning and water coning are
serious problems that are often found in
In Chaney et al's method the
oil fields, especially in thin oil layers
critical flow rate (Qo) limit on the
where water and gas are not expected
assumption of water is more
to be produced, so that the production of
effective than the assumption of
water and gas increases the cost of
gas.
production, and reduces the efficiency of
oil recovery. Water coning occurs
6. Chaperon Method
because if water moves from the bottom
of the reservoir vertically towards the
For the gas assumption the
bottom of the perforation and forms a
formula is used:
cone while fingering occurs in the
sloping reservoir. If there is a water
4.888 𝑥 10−4 𝑘ℎ ℎ2
𝑄𝑜𝑔 = [∆𝑝] 𝑞𝑐 coning and fingering, it will cause
𝐵𝑜 𝜇𝑜 operational losses because the oil
productivity drops and recovery
efficiency decreases, so we must
calculate the critical flow rate so that the
coning problem does not occur.

Bibliography:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/268472215/
3-II-Water-Coning

https://www.coursehero.com/file/748775
0/Kuliah-10-Water-Coning/

https://www.coursehero.com/file/104801
04/Contoh-Perhitungan-Coning-2/

Made By :
Abstract: Wisnu Bram Wijaya

Introduction : Risky Ananda B

Analysis and discussion : Nurfaridha

Rahma R

Conclusion : Christian M.D Suwuh