European Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-216X Vol.39 No.4 (2010), pp.477-488

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2010
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm

Analysis of Cone Formation and Water Movement in

Horizontal Wells
Ibelegbu, Charles
Schlumberger Oilfield Services North Africa, Algiers, Algeria
E-mail: Cibelegbu@slb.com
Tel: +213770934133, +2347055520233
Onyekonwu, Michael
University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt
Abstract
A knowledge of water cut and GOR trends in a reservoir is needed to ensure fair
judgment of a depletion process in new and existing wells, and this judgment is the basic
statistics that relates a wells flow rate with its GOR and BS&W. Often critical rates are
never economical to operators as they seek to produce above the established critical rates
without any prior analysis of an economical stands-off rate at which continuous high GOR/
BS&W becomes uneconomical. Therefore, knowledge of the cone time, height and the
water movement is critical toward remedial / adjustment decisions in wells.
This study calculates the cone time, cone height and present oil-water contact
(water movement) of two field cases. The study principle adapted in the cone formation
analysis is that of the tank balance which simply relates the cone height reached to
displacement of oil by water and the total oil produced to pore volume of the oil column.
Therefore an area depth computation of cone shape wells (volume enclosed in a cone)
resulted to the volume of oil displaced, which when subtracted from the original oil inplace + oil produced (Np), gives us the present oil-water contact. A numerical model is
used to validate these results.
Keywords: Coning, critical rate, OWC- original oil water contact, POWC- present oil
water contact.

Introduction
Coning is a term used to describe the mechanism underlying the upward movement of water and/or the
downward movement of gas into the perforations of a producing well. In most oil and gas field over
the world, produced water due to coning is usually present in the reservoir even before production
started, as in bottom water aquifer; and/ or in artificially improved recovery scheme, e.g., water
injection.
In thin oil or gas pay sections, the presence of oil-water contact hinders production and often
causes early abandonment of the afflicted well if a completion is even attempted. Even when relatively
thick pay sections are found, the encroachment of water when a water drive is present will eventually
pose serious water coning problem. In most field development plans the arrival of water at the
production wells, the so called water breaking through, is put off as long as possible by an optimal well

Analysis of Cone Formation and Water Movement in Horizontal Wells

478

placement and by diligently manipulating fluid withdrawal and circulation rates. If three phase are
present in the reservoir in a sandwich- like situation, water and/or gas might be produced in a cone
shape together with the oil.
An active aquifer is an aquifer which is large enough so as to maintain the reservoir pressure.
Depending on the position of the active aquifer with respect to the well, we discern two extreme cases:
the bottom water case where the oil bearing zone is fully underlain by water bearing layer, and the edge
water case in which the water encroaches the oil. The edge water case leads in the limit of negligible
capillary pressure to the formation of Dietz water tongue (Muskat and Wyckoff, 1935) as it is
assumed that the reservoir is a dipping plane and that the water encroaches piston-like from below
towards the well. Analytical formulations exist for the two-dimensional, aerial, shape of the water-oil
interface. An active bottom-water aquifer is good for production as long as the water remains in the
reservoir. Once the water breaks through in the production well, it means a loss of the natural drive
energy. The production of water also means that the net production rate of oil or gas decreases, unless
the production units are able to cope with extreme fluid withdrawal rates. Furthermore, the arrival of
gas or water at a production well can cause lifting problems.
Now, if we imagine a zone of water fully underlying by oil. The movement of the water
maintains the same streamlines. As the OWC is a material interface, it will move with a larger velocity
when the streamlines are closer together. That means that the OWC forms a cone near the well, and
eventually breaks through.
Produce water or cone water which is always present in the reservoir with the hydrocarbon tend
to accompany or even by-pass the hydrocarbon when well is put on production. Thus this result to
HGOR and HBS&W values which tend to reduce profitability of asset planned. Even when all the
assumptions of the critical rate concept hold, technical and economic necessities may enforce
production rate above the critical rate. It is therefore important to predict the evolution of the cone and
the time to breakthrough so that the future completion and production scheme can be envisaged.
Therefore the aim of this study is to analyze the develop of cone formation and the movement of water
along from its original oil water contact. This will help in given us an estimated breakthrough time at
the completions/ perforations.

Horizontal Well Critical Rate, Breakthrough time Correlations

In the early days of coning studies it was observed experimentally that there exists a rate below which
water/ gas does not arrive at the production well. The maximal rate for which this is true was termed
the critical rate
Many authors had come-up with critical rate and breakthrough time correlation;
Meyer & Garder (1954) proposed the formula
2
2
(1)
qc= k o g (p w p o ) ( h oi h p )
r
o ln e
rw
Chaperson (1986) provides a simple and practical estimate or the critical rate under steady-state
or pseudosteady-state flowing conditions for an isotropic formation. Efros (1963) proposed a critical
flow rate correlation that is based on the assumption that the critical rate is nearly independent of
drainage radius. Joshi (1988) suggests the following relationships for determining the critical oil flow
rate in horizontal wells. Sobocinski and Cornelius (1965) used a two-dimensional finite difference
simulator to determine the behavior of a water cone under various conditions. Ozkan and Raghavan
(1988) proposed a theoretical correlation for calculating time to breakthrough in a bottom-water-drive
reservoir. 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.

479

Ibelegbu, Charles and Onyekonwu, Michael

t BT =

22.758.528ho t DBT
K v ( w o )

(2)

Where;
tBT= time to water breakthrough as expressed in days
o= oil density, lb/ft3
w= water density, lb/ft3
Coning Phenomenon in Horizontal Wells
For reservoirs with gas cap and bottom water, coning will never occur if piston-like displacement is
maintained between the oil and gas, and/or oil and water interfaces. However, a non piston-like
displacement can occur as production progresses. In such situation, there is cresting particularly when
the viscous forces are much higher than the gravity forces. Thus gas and water will make their way to
the wellbore. Coning tendencies are inversely proportional to density difference and are directly
proportional to the viscosity Joshi (1990). The density difference between gas and oil is normally
larger than the density difference between water and oil. Hence gas has less tendency to cone than
water. However gas viscosity is much lower than the water viscosity, and therefore, for the same
pressure drawdown in the given reservoir, the gas flow rate will be higher than the water flow rate.
Thus, density and viscosity difference between water and gas tend to balance each other. Therefore to
minimize gas and/ or water coning, a preferred perforated or completion interval is at the centre of the
oil pay zone. Practical, many wells are however completed closer to the OWC than to the GOC.
One of the major causes of coning is large pressure drawdown. Thus to achieve a given
production rate, one has to impose a large pressure drawdown in a low permeability reservoir than in a
high permeability reservoir. However in naturally fractured reservoirs, especially those with vertical
fractures, one can have severe coning in spite of high reservoir permeability. This happens with the fact
that bottom water and top gas travel through high-permeability (vertical) fractures. This is very true in
fractured reservoirs with low matrix permeability and large matrix blocks where water imbibition in
the matrix is very slow (Joshi, 1990). The analysis may be made with respect to either gas or water. Let
the original condition of reservoir fluids exist as shown schematically in Figure 2, water underlying oil
and gas overlying oil. For the purposes of discussion, assume that a well is partially penetrating the
formation so that the production interval is halfway between the fluid contacts. Production from the
well would create pressure gradients that tend to lower the gas-oil contact and elevate the water-oil
contact in the immediate vicinity of the well. Counterbalancing these flow gradients is the tendency of
the gas to remain above the oil zone because of its lower density and of the water to remain below the
oil zone because of its higher density. These counterbalancing forces tend to deform the gas-oil and
water-oil contacts into a bell shape as shown schematically in Figure 3.
Figure 1: Bottom-water drive (water conning)

Oil zone
Cone

Water

Analysis of Cone Formation and Water Movement in Horizontal Wells

480

Figure 2: Original reservoir static condition.

Figure 3: Gas and water coning

Y
Gas

Oil

Water

Figure 4: Oil rate and GOR for well SUF48

Oil Rate bbl/d

oilrate (b/d)

GOR cf/bbl
4000

1600

3500

1400

3000

1200

2500

1000

2000

800

1500

600

1000

400

500

200

0
--------------

0
3/31/2001

11/30/2001

7/31/2002

3/31/2003
11/30/2003
Date

7/31/2004

3/31/2005

11/30/2005

GOR (cf/bbl)

481

Ibelegbu, Charles and Onyekonwu, Michael

Figure 5: Water-cut plot for well SUF48
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35

Water-cut

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
12/6/1999

4/19/2001

9/1/2002

1/14/2004

5/28/2005

10/10/2006

DATE

Cone Formation in Horizontal Well

Calculating Cone Formation (Cone height, cone time and water movement)
A new reliable way of estimating the cone height and time reached with its present oil-water contact
(water movement) is by first calculating the bulk volume and the pore volume of the thin oil column.
This can be easily done by the volumetric method of estimating in place fluids. There after using the
principle of tank balance to match volume of fluid withdrawn from the formation through production
to the original in place pore volume of the formation. This is analysed as function of time (production
time, start-time of cone and duration).
Calculation of Fluid Volumes
Consider a reservoir which is initially filled with liquid oil. The oil volume in the reservoir (oil in
place) is
OIP= V (1- Swc) res vol.
Where V = the net bulk volume of the reservoir rock
= the porosity, or volume fraction of the rock which is porous and
Swc = the connate or irreducible water saturation and is expressed as a fraction of the pore
volume. The product V is called the pore volume (PV) and is the total volume in
the reservoir which can be occupied by fluids. Similarly, the product V (1Swc) is
called the hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV) and is the total reservoir volume which
can be filled with hydrocarbons either oil, gas or both. Thus the newly proposed step
is detailed below;
Step in computing cone height, cone time and water movement
1. An area- depth graph is made from the structural map
2. Compute the bulk volume (BV)of the height above original OWC
3. Compute the pore volume (PV) of this column (BV*)
4. Base on the PV computed; match your last cumulative production Np to the PV. The difference in
depth gives us the column displaced by the water (water movement).
5. The established depth difference is our present oil-water contact (POWC)
6. Make a table of cone height and match each Npi and Npi+1 with the PVi and PVi+1 as a function of
time (cone time).
7. Calculate delta t (t): ti = ti ti-1
8. Cone time = producing time delta t (t).

Analysis of Cone Formation and Water Movement in Horizontal Wells

482

Example Calculation # 1
Well Review 1 (well SUF48)
Well came on stream in August, 2001 in D6.4 sand at a rate 2568 bopd on bean 44/64, THP 300psi,
GOR 300 scf/bbl BSW 0%.
In Sep. 2000: bean changed to 52/64, rate: 3059 bopd. THP 275 psi, GOR 310 scf/bbl BSW 0.
While in Aug. 2001: peak production 3714 bopd, bean 64 after that it declined. Again in Sep. 2001:
an Acid job was carried out in this well but there was no improvement on production.
July 2003: Water breakthrough was observed and water-cut has steadily increased to about
50%. July 2006: Production rate was 874 bopd net, GOR = 424 scf/stb; FTHP = 368 psi BSW = 50%
through bean 64/64.Cum. Prod.3.75MMbbls.
Cone Formation in Well SUF48
Using steps as detailed in earlier, the area-depth-bulk volume map (figure 6) was generated and pore
volume (PV) calculated. The withdrawal (Np) was matched with corresponding PV and the water
movement calculated from it original OWC. Below is the cone height, cone time and water movement
calculated in table 1, figure 6 & 7.
Figure 6: CBV/area vs depth graph for well SUF48

483

Ibelegbu, Charles and Onyekonwu, Michael

Figure 7: Cone formation estimation (cone time, cone height) well SUF48
cone time adjusted

1200

1000

conetime(days)

800

600

400

200

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

cone he ight (ft)

Table 1:

Cone formation for well SUF48

Cone Height
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105

produce time
15
30
60
81
91
100
121
152
182
210
241
271
332
424
547
728
912
1062
1277
1612
1946
2128

Delta t
15
30
21
10
9
21
31
30
28
31
30
61
92
123
181
184
150
215
335
334
182
1035

cone time
0
0
39
71
82
79
90
122
154
179
211
210
240
301
366
544
762
847
942
1278
1764
1035

cone time adjusted

0
0
39
71
82
79
90
122
154
179
211
210
240
301
366
544
762
847
942
1025
1031
1035

Example Calculation # 2
Well Review 2 (well SUF25)
Well started production from the E4.2 sand 1976 and stopped production in Jan. 1997: with an average
production of 73 bopd, Cum. Oil 1266 Mbbl, Wcut 45%. Finally the interval was isolated by putting
plug in nipple in 1999.
This well also produced from the E4.0 sand. This interval produced only 0.17 MMbbls before
quitting on low FTHP and 52% BSW.
Below is the cone height, cone time and water movement calculated in table 2, figure 10 & 11.

Analysis of Cone Formation and Water Movement in Horizontal Wells

484

Figure 8: Oil rate and GOR for well SUF25

1000

3500
oil rate

900

GOR

3000

800

oil rate (b/d)

600

2000

500
1500

400
300

GOR (cf/d)

2500

700

1000

200
500
100
0
4/30/1976

0
6/30/1980

8/31/1984

10/31/1988

12/31/1992

Date

Figure 9: Water-cut plot for well SUF25

w ater-cut

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

water-cut

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1/0/1900

2/19/1900

4/9/1900

5/29/1900
date

7/18/1900

9/6/1900

10/26/1900

485

Ibelegbu, Charles and Onyekonwu, Michael

Figure 10: CBV/area vs. depth graph for well SUF25

Figure 11: Cone formation estimation (cone time, cone height) well SUF25
cone time
1200

Cone time (days)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0

20

40

60

80
Cone height (ft)

100

120

140

160

Analysis of Cone Formation and Water Movement in Horizontal Wells

486

Table 2: Cone Formation of SUF25

cone height
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145

produce time
0
0
7
10
20
30
40
50
62
93
124
155
186
217
279
310
341
372
434
496
651
806
961
1178
1457
1674
2077
2635
3441
5797

Delta t
0
7
3
10
10
10
10
12
31
31
31
31
31
62
31
31
31
62
62
155
155
155
217
279
217
403
558
806
2356
5797

cone time
0
-7
4
0
10
20
30
38
31
62
93
124
155
155
248
279
310
310
372
341
496
651
744
899
1240
1271
1519
1829
1085
0

cone time adjusted

0
0
0
0
10
20
30
38
31
62
93
124
155
155
248
279
310
310
372
341
496
651
744
899
1240
1271
1519
1829
3441
1085

Discussion
Knowledge of water cut and GOR trends in a reservoir is needed to ensure fair judgment of a depletion
process in new and existing wells, and this judgment is the basic statistics that relates a wells flow rate
with its GOR and BS&W. Therefore, knowledge of the cone time, height the water movement with
respect to the GOR and BS&W value attained in a well is critical toward remedial / adjustment well
decisions.
The principle adapted in the cone formation analysis is that of the tank balance which simply
relates the cone height reached to displacement of oil by water and the total oil produced to pore
volume of the oil column. Therefore an area depth computation of cone shape (volume enclosed in a
cone) would result to the volume of oil displaced, which when subtracted from the original oil in-place
+ oil produced (Np), gives you the present oil-water contact. For wells SUF48 and SUF25 with
reservoir sand thick of 150ft & 220ft respectively, cone height reach is 105ft in 1035days and 145ft in
5797days. The Eclipse numerical model (figure 12) built also validated these results obtained.
However it should be noted that cone height and time attained is dependant more on the production
rate, the rock/ fluid properties plus the hysteresis of the system, rather than the reservoir thickness.
Therefore correlation on the dependant variables is required to have detail process of the cone
phenomenon. This study is limited to obtaining the cone time and height reached.

487

Ibelegbu, Charles and Onyekonwu, Michael

Figure 12: Varying Production rate: 0% water-cut (initial condition-2001)

Figure 13: Water coning: 50% water-cut (2006)

Conclusion
The principle adapted in the cone formation analysis simply relates the cone height reached to
displacement of oil by water and the total oil produced to pore volume of the oil column. This helps to
trace the water movement in the reservoir and thus provides the present oil water contact at anytime.

Recommendation
The study principle adapted in the cone formation analysis which relates the cone height reached to
displacement of oil by water and the total oil produced to pore volume of the oil column is
recommended for use as it also generates the present oil water contact at any time.

Analysis of Cone Formation and Water Movement in Horizontal Wells

488

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

Chaperson, I., Oct. 58, (1986) Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical
Wells in Anisotrophic Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates, SPE Paper 15377, SPE 61st
Annual Fall Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
Efros, D. A., (1963), Study of Multiphase Flows in Porous Media (in Russian),
Gastoptexizdat, Leningrad.
Joshi, S. D., (June 1988) Augmentation of Well Productivity Using Slant and Horizontal
Wells, J. of Petroleum Technology, pp. 729739.
Meyer, H. I., and Garder, A. O., (Nov. 1954) Mechanics of Two Immiscible Fluids in Porous
Media, J. Applied Phys., No. 11, p. 25.
Muskat, M. and Wyckoff, R.D. (1935): An Approximate theory of Water-coning in Oil
Production, Trans. AIME, pp 144-163.
Ozkan, E., and Raghavan, R., (Nov. 24, 1988) Performance of Horizontal Wells Subject to
Bottom Water Drive, SPE Paper 18545, presented at the SPE Eastern
Papatzacos, P., Herring, T. U., Martinsen, R., and Skjaeveland, S. M., (Oct.
811, 1989) Cone Breakthrough Time for Horizontal Wells, SPE Paper 19822, presented at
the 64th SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
Sobocinski, D. P., and Cornelius, A. J., (May 1965) A Correlation for Predicting Water
Coning Time, JPT, pp. 594600.