PREDICTION OF CRITICAL OIL RATE USING 6 DIFFERENT METHODS TO
AVOID WATER AND GAS CONING IN VERTICAL WELLS
Group 14 : Alawy Q (1401009), Bagus S.P (1601195), Aurelius A. (1401021),
Florianus A. (1601141), Jivon P.K (1501214), Claudia N.P (1601195)
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the prediction
of oil critical rate in vertical wells using
6 different correlations, such as
 Meyer-Garder
 Chierrici-Ciucci
 Hoyland–Papatzacos
 Chaney et al
 Chaperson
 Schols.
Every 6 correlations are used to
estimating critical oil rate (Qoc) to
avoid the water and gas coning in
reservoir system. On these following
methods, Critical Oil Rate value is
about 17.027 STB/day until 58.251
STB/day.
Most prediction methods for coning
predict a "critical rate" at which a
stable cone can exist from the fluid
contact to the nearest perforations.
The theory is that, at rates below the
critical rate, the cone will not reach the
perforations and the well will produce
the desired single phase. At rates
equal to or greater than the critical
rate, the second fluid will eventually
be produced and will increase in
amount with time. However, these
theories based on critical rates do not
predict when breakthrough will occur
nor do they predict water/oil ratio or
gas/oil ratio (GOR) after
breakthrough. Other theories predict
these time behaviors, but their
accuracy is limited because of
simplifying assumptions.
The calculated critical rate is valid only
for a certain fixed distance between the
fluid contact and the perforations. With
time, that distance usually decreases
(for example, bottom water will usually
tend to rise toward the perforations).
Thus, the critical rate will tend to
decrease with time, and the economics
of a well with a tendency to cone will
continue to deteriorate with time.
Whether a cone will move toward
perforations depends on the relative
significance of viscous and gravitational
forces near a well. The pressure
drawdown at the perforations tends to
cause the undesired fluid to move
toward the perforations. Gravitational
forces tend to cause the undesired fluid
to stay away from the perforations.
Coning occurs when viscous forces
dominate.
INTRODUCTION
Critical rate Qoc is defined as the
maximum allowable oil flow rate that
can be imposed on the well to avoid a
cone breakthrough. The critical rate
would correspond to the development
of a stable cone to an elevation just
below the bottom of the perforated
interval in an oil-water system or to an
elevation just above the top of the
perforated interval in a gas-oil system.
There are several empirical correlations
that are commonly used to predict the
oil critical rate, including the
correlations of :
• Meyer-Garder
• Chierici-Ciucci
• Hoyland-Papatzacos-Skjaeveland
• Chaney et al.
• Chaperson
• Schols
1
METHODOLOGY completed from the top of the formation.
The Meyer-Garder Correlation The first method is an analytical
Meyer and Garder (1954) suggest that solution, and the second is a numerical
coning development is a result of the solution to the coning problem.
radial flow of the oil and associated
pressure sink around the wellbore. In Critical Rate Curves by Chaney et al.
their derivations, Meyer and Garder Chaney et al. (1956) developed a set of
assume a homogeneous system with a working curves for determining oil
uniform permeability throughout the critical flow rate. The authors proposed
reservoir, i.e., kh = kv It should be a set of working graphs that were
pointed out that the ratio kh/kv is the generated by using a potentiometric
most critical term in evaluating and analyzer study and applying the water
solving the coning problem. They coning mathematical theory as
developed three separate correlations developed by Muskat-Wyckoff (1935).
for determining the critical oil flow rate:
Chaperson’s Method
• Gas coning Chaperson (1986) proposed a simple
• Water coning relationship to estimate the critical rate
• Combined gas and water coning of a vertical well in an anisotropic
formation (kv π kh). The relationship
The Chierici-Ciucci Approach
accounts for the distance between the
Chierici and Ciucci (1964) used a
production well and boundary.
potentiometric model to predict the
coning behavior in vertical oil wells. The
Schols’ Method
results of their work are presented in
Schols (1972) developed an empirical
dimensionless graphs that take into
equation based on results obtained
account the vertical and horizontal
from numerical simulator and
permeability. The diagrams can be
laboratory experiments.
used for solving the following two types
of problems:
ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
a. Given the reservoir and fluid
Analysis
properties, as well as the position of
Based on available data, that we used
and length of the perforated
to calculated the value of Critical Oil
interval, determine the maximum oil
Rate (Qoc), we used six different
production rate without water
methods or correlations, such as :
and/or gas coning.
b. Given the reservoir and fluids 1. Meyer-Garder
characteristics only, determine the 2. Chierici-Ciucci
optimum position of the perforated 3. Hoyland-Papatzacos-Skjaeveland
interval. 4. Chaney et al.
5. Chaperson
The Hoyland – Papatzacos 6. Schols
Skjaeveland Methods
Hoyland, Papatzacos, and Skjaeveland The following data that we used are :
(1989) presented two methods for oil density ro = 47.5 lb/ft3
predicting critical oil rate for bottom water density rw = 63.76 lb/ft3
water coning in anisotropic, gas density rg = 5.1 lb/ft3
homogeneous formations with the well oil viscosity mo = 0.73 cp
2
 oil FVF Bo = 1.1 bbl/STB
oil column h = 65 ft
thickness
depth from GOC Dt = 25 ft
to top of
perforations Picture 3. The Meyer-Garder Correlation
well perforated hp = 15 ft
interval Apply Equation above to solve for the
wellbore radius rw = 0.25 ft simultaneous gas- and water-coning
drainage radius re = 660 ft problem, to give:
oil effective ko = 93.5 md
permeability Qoc = 0.246 x 10-4 (93.5/(0.73x1.1)
horizontal and kh, kv = 110 md ((652 – 152) / ln(660/0.25)) x ((63.76 –
vertical 47.5) ((47.5 – 5.1) / (63.76- 5.1))2 +
permeability (47.5 – 5.1) (1-((47.5 – 5.1) / (63.76 –
oil relative kro = 0.85 5.1))2
permeability
Qoc = 17.027 STB/day
1. Meyer-Garder
Meyer and Garder propose the The critical oil rate (Qoc) using Meyer-
following expression for determining Garder correlation is 17.027 STB/day.
the oil critical flow rate in a gas-oil
system : 2. Chierrici-Ciucci
The solution for Chierrici-Ciucci Method
is :

Picture 1. Meyer-Garder in Gas-Oil system Step 1. Compute the distance from the
WOC to the bottom of the perforations
Meyer and Garder propose a similar Db :
expression for determining the critical
oil rate in the water coning system. Db = h – Dt - hp
Db = 65 – 25 – 12 = 25 ft
Step 2. Find the dimensionless radius
rDe :
Picture. 2 Meyer-Garder in Water Coning
System.
rDe = re/h √kh/kv
rDe = 660/65 √110/110
For this combined gas and water
= 10.15
coning, Pirson (1977) combined
Equations in picture 1 and picture 2 to
Step 3. Calculate the dimensionless
produce the following simplified
expression for determining the perforated length :
maximum oil-flow rate without gas and
water coning : = hp/h
= 15/65
= 0.236

3
Step 4. Calculate the gas cone ratio g : Qog = 0.492 x 10-4 (652 (47.5 - 5.1) / (1.1
 x 0.73)) (0.85 x 110) 0.054
g = Dt/h Qog = 55.42 STB/day
g = 25/65
These calculations show that the water
= 0.384 coning is the limiting condition for oil -
flow rate. These maximum oil rate
Step 5. Determine the water cone ratio without water or free – gas production
w : is, therefore, 21.25 STB/day.

w = Db/h 3. Hoyland-Papatzacos-Skjaeveland
w = 25/65 Hoyland and his coworkers presented
their analytical solution in the following
= 0.384
form:
Step 6. Calculate the oil-gas and water-
oil density differences :

ow w o 63.76 - 47.5 Picture 4. The Hoyland-Papatzacos-
= 16.26 lb/ft3 Skjaeveland Method.
og o g 47.5 - 5.1 where,
= 42.4 lb/ft3 Qoc = critical oil rate, STB/day
h = total thickness of the oil zone, ft
Step 7. Find the density differences rw, ro = water and oil density, lb/ft3
ratio : kh = horizontal permeability, md
 qCD = dimensionless critical flow rate
og/ow = 42.4/16.26
= 2.61 • For isotropic reservoirs with kh = kv, the
following expression is proposed :
Step 8. Approximate the
dimensionless functionsg and w:

for =0.236and g = 0.384 to give Picture. 5 For Isotropic resevoir

g = 0.054
and
for =0.236and w = 0.384 to give
w = 0.054
Step 9. Estimate the oil critical rate :
Qow = 0.492 x 10-4 (652 (63.76 - 47.5) /
(1.1 x 0.73)) (0.85 x 110) 0.054
Qow = 21.25 STB/day
In this reservoir, the condition is
isotropic with kv = kh. Therefore, we
used the equation of the Hoyland-
Papatzacos for Isotropic reservoir :
Qoc = 0.924 x 10-4 [93.5(16.26) / (0.803)]
[1-(15/65)2]1.325 x (65)2.238
[ln(660)]-1.99
Qoc = 44.925 STB/day
The critical oil rate using Hoyland-
Papatzacos in isotropic reservoir with
kv = kh is 44.925 STB/day

4
 4. Chaney et al where,
From the following data that we used, Qoc = critical oil rate, STB/day
we assume that : kh = horizontal permeability, md
 In oil-water systems Dr = rw - ro, density difference, lb/ft3
 Homogeneous and isotropic h = oil column thickness, ft
reservoir with kv = kh hp = perforated interval, ft
 For h = 65 ft give Qcurve = 270 bbl/day
So, the equation that used based on Joshi (1991) correlated the coefficient
data and assumptions is : q*c with the parameter ” as

q*c = 0.7311 + (1.943/”)

Picture. 6 Equation of Chaney et al in oi-water ”= (re /h) √kv / kh

systems.

Solution,
Calculate critical oil rate from equation
above.
Step 1. Calculate α” from Equation.
Qoc = 0.5288 x 10-4 [(93.5(63.76 – 47.5))
α" = (660/65) √11/110
/ (0.73 x 1.1)] 270
= 3.21
Qoc = 27.03 STB/day
Step 2. Solve for q*c by applying its
Equation.
So, critical oil rate in oil-water systems
with homogeneous and isotropic
q*c = 0.7311 + (1.943 / 3.21)
reservoir is 27.03 STB/day.
= 1.336
5. Chaperson’s Method
Step 3. Solve for critical oil rate Qoc by
Chaperson (1986) proposed a simple
using its equation
relationship to estimate the critical
rate of a vertical well in an anisotropic
Qoc = 0.0783 x 10-4 [110(65 – 15)2 /
formation (kv ≠ kh).
(0.73 x 1.1)] [63.76 – 47.5] (1.336)
So, from the data, we change kv and kh
into :
Qoc = 58.251 STB/day
kv = 11 mD
kh = 110 mD
The calculation of critical oil rate using
The relationshipaccounts for the
Chaperson’s Method is obtained
distance between the production well
58.251 STB/day.
and boundary. The proposed
correlation has the following form :
6. Schols’ Method
Schols (1972) developed an empirical
equation based on results obtained
from numerical simulator and
Picture 7. The equation of Chaperson’s laboratory experiments. His critical rate
Method equation has the following form :

5
 In Chaperson, with an anisotropic
formation (kv ≠ kh), and we change kv
and kh into :
kv = 11 mD
kh = 110 mD
Picture. 8 critical rate equation of Schols we obtained the critical oil rate is 58.251
Method STB/day

where In Schols’, we obtained the value of

ko = effective oil permeability, md
rw = wellbore radius, ft
hp = perforated interval, ft
= density, lb/ft3
Schols’ equation is only valid for
isotropic formation, i.e., kh = kv.
critical oil rate is 35.620 STB/day.
CONCLUSION
Based on the result of this paper, we
calculate the value of critical oil rate
(Qoc) from each methods and we
obtained :

Qoc = 0.0783 x 10-4 [((63.76 – 47.5) 1. Meyer-Garder 17.027 STB/day

(93.5) (652 – 152 )) / (0.73 x 1.1)] x
2. Chierrici-Ciucci 21.25 STB/day
[0.432 + (3.142 / ln(660/0.25))]
(65/660)0.14 3. Hoyland- 44.925 STB/day
Papatzacos
Qoc = 35.620 STB/day
4. Chaney et al 27.03 STB/day
The critical oil rate in Schols Method is 5. Chaperson’s 58.251 STB/day
equal 35.620 STB/day.
6. Schols’ 35.620 STB/day
Discussion So it can be concluded that the biggest
In Meyer-Garder, we obtained the value value of Qoc is in the Chaperson’s
of critical oil rate is 17.027 STB/day. Method with 58.251 STB/day.
Assuming that the reservoir is
In Chierrici-Ciucci, we obtained the anisotropic (kv ≠ kh), with kv = 11 mD,
value of critical oil rate in oil-water and kh = 110 mD.
system (Qow) is 21.25 STB/day, and in And the smallest value of Qoc is in the
gas-oil system (Qog) we obtained Meyer-Garder Method with just 17.027
55.42 STB/day. These calculations STB/day.
show that the water coning is the
limiting condition for oil - flow rate. REFFERENCES
These maximum oil rate without water 1. Ahmed, Tarek, 2000, “Reservoir
or free – gas production is, therefore, Engineering Handbook”, Gulf
21.25 STB/day. Publishing Company, Houston,
Texas.
In Hoyland-Papatzacos, critical oil rate
in isotropic reservoir with kv = kh is 2. Clark, N., “A Review of Reservoir
44.925 STB/day. Engineering,” World Oil, June
1951.
In Chaney et al, critical oil rate in oil-
water systems with homogeneous and
isotropic reservoir is 27.03 STB/day.

6
BAGIAN PENGERJAAN
1. Abstract : Bagus
2. Introduction : Aurelius
3. Methodology : Aurelius
4. Analysis & Discussion : Alawy
5. Conclusion : Alawy
6. Refferences : Bagus