SPE 75720

Severity of Water Coning in Gas Wells

M. Armenta, SPE, Louisiana State University; A. Wojtanowicz, SPE, Louisiana State University
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium held in
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April2 May 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Theoretical study, reported in this paper, qualifies unique
mechanisms of water coning in gas wells. Water coning in gas
wells has been understood as a phenomenon similar to that in
the oil wells. It is shown, however that both the water inflow
mechanism and its impact on wells productivity are
substantially different. It is shown, for example, that, after
water breakthrough, the oil-water interface at the wells
completion would continue to cone, while the gas-water
interface reverses at the top of the cone.
Analyzed in the paper are the results of a conventional
simulation of water coning in gas wells showing that water
could affect productivity only at the very late stage of wells
life. However, field data, shown in the paper, evidence early
and severe water problems. This contradiction is explained in
the paper by including the effects of Non-Darcy flow,
perforation density and the ratio of vertical-to-horizontal
permeability in modeling of water coning in gas wells. Results
from numerical simulation combined with analytical models
show that an early water breakthrough and a considerable
increase in water production may result from combined effects
of increased vertical permeability, lower density of perforation
and high-velocity gas flow around the wells.
Introduction
Water coning in gas well has been understood as a
phenomenon similar to that in oil well. In contrast to oil wells,
relatively few studies has been reported an aspect of
mechanisms of water coning in gas wells.
Muskat1 believed that physical mechanism of water coning in
gas wells is identical to that for oil wells; moreover, he said
that water coning would be less serious difficulties for wells
producing from gas zone than for wells producing oil.

Trimble and DeRose2 supported Muskat theory with water

coning data and simulation for Todhunters Lake Gas field.
They calculated water-free production rate using MuskatWyckof3 model for oil wells in conjunction with the graph
presented by Arthurs4 for coning in homogeneous oil sand.
The results were comparing with a field study with a
commercial numerical simulator showing that the rates
calculated with Muskat-Wyckof3 theory were 0.7 to 0.8 those
of the coning model for a 1-year period.
Kabir5 used the analogy between high oil mobility well and a
typical gas well, to investigate gas well performance coning
water in bottom-water drive reservoir. He built a numerical
simulator model for a gas-water system. He concluded that
permeability and pay thickness are the most important
variables governing coning phenomenon. Other variables such
as penetration ratio, horizontal to vertical permeability, well
spacing, producing rate, and the impermeable shale barrier
have very little influence on both the water-gas ratio response
and the ultimate recovery
McMullan and Bassioni(6) believed that water coning behaves
differently in gas wells than in the oil wells. Using a
commercial numerical simulator they got similar results than
Kabir(5) for the insensitivity of ultimate gas recovery with
variation of perforated interval and production rate. They
demonstrated that a well in the bottom water-drive gas
reservoir would produce with small water-gas ratio until
nearly its entire completion interval is surrender by water.
In this study, water problems begin when recovery factor is
less than 30%. Fig. 1 shows water-gas ratio and gas recovery
factor from field data of a gas well. It shows water production
started after 404 days when the recovery was 22%. This well
was killed for water production after 600 days of gas
production when the recovery factor was 28%. Fig. 2 shows
gas and water production rate versus time for another gas well.
It shows water production star after 119 days of production.
Gas rate was reduced from 6.0 MMSCFD to 4.0 MMSCFD
due to water production rate of 30 BPPD. These two field data
shows early water production in gas wells.
Analytical Comparison of Water Coning in Oil and
Gas Wells Before Water Breakthrough
Two petroleum systems, oil and gas, in vertical
equilibrium with bottom water are considered to compare
water coning in oil and gas wells before breakthrough. The
two systems have the same reservoir properties, and thickness,

M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ

and are perforated at the top of the producing zone. Fig. 3

shows the reservoir system including the properties
and dimensions.
A pressure drawdown needed to generate the same static water
cone and the fluid rate for each System was calculated. For the
system of oil and water and a cone height of 20 ft, we need a
pressure drawdown equal to 2 psi, and the oil production rate
6.7 STB/D. In case of gas-water system, for the same 20 ft
height of water cone we need 8 psi pressure drop, and the gas
production rate of 1.25 MMSCFD.
From this first simple analysis we conclude as follows:
It is possible to have a stable water cone of any given
height in the two systems (oil-water and gas-water).
For the same cone height in vertical equilibrium, pressure
drop in the gas-water system is four times grater than the
pressure drop in the oil-water system.
There is a big difference in the fluids production rate for
gas-water and oil-water system, for the same water cone
height. It is economically possible to produce gas-water
systems at the gas rate below critical. However, in most cases
it is not economically possible to produce oil-water systems
without water breakthrough.
Analytical Comparison of Water Coning in Oil and
Gas Wells After Water Breakthrough
The objective is to compare the shape of oil-water and
gas-water interfaces at the wellbore after water breakthrough.
After the water breakthrough, there is a stratified inflow of oil
or gas with the water coveting the bottom section of the well
completion. Again, two systems having the same reservoir
properties, and thickness, are compared oil-water and gaswater. Both systems are totally penetrated. An equation
describing interface shape was derived using the assumptions
of Muskat(1).
Appendix-A gives the derivation and
mathematical computations. In reality the resulting equations
will not describe perfectly the inflow at the well. However,
they are useful to compare the coning phenomenon in oilwater and gas-water system.
Fig. A-2 shows the resulting profiles of the fluid interface in
gas-water and oil-water systems. After breakthrough, the oilwater interface at the wells completion is horizontal, while
the gas-water interface tends to cone into the water.
From comparison of water coning in gas-water and oil-water
systems, we can conclude that in gas wells, water cone is
generated in the same way as in the oil-water system. When
the water comes to the bottom of the well completion, a small
inverse gas cone is generated locally around the completion.
This inverse cone restricts water inflow to the completions.
Also, the inverse gas cone inhibits upward progress of the
water cone. In the result, after the water cone breaks to the gas
completion, it cannot take over the completion so it remains
at the completions bottom providing small water inflow.
Thus, the completion remains open to the gas inflow for most
of the production time. Eventually, the water cone gains so
much body (most due advancement of gas-water contact) that

SPE 75720

the completion becomes flooded into water, which results in

rapid increase of water-gas ratio.
Discussion of Gas-Water and Oil-Water Systems
Sensitivity to Water Inflow
We compare water sensitivity of the two systems for two
different scenarios, reservoir pressure exceeding normal
pressure, and smaller than the normal pressure.
When reservoir pressure exceeds hydrostatic pressure of
water, the oil-water system, would produce both fluids to the
surface without artificial lift. The amount of each fluid that
can be produced would depend on the well geometry (depth,
tubings ID), operational parameter (tubing head pressure,
frictional pressure lost), and the fluids properties. Also, the
gas-water system would naturally produce both fluids to the
surface. Even if the well is loaded in the water. However, at
high reservoir pressure, the gas rate is grater than critical rate,
the well is unloaded from water. Thus, gas wells are less
sensitive than oil well to water inflow when the reservoir
pressure is higher than the normal pressure.
When reservoir pressure drop below normal pressure, the oilwater system would tolerate would tolerate water cut only
until the bottom hole flowing pressure reaches the reservoir
pressure. Then the oil well would need artificial lift. Thus oil
water system is capable of producing with high water cut
using artificial lift. For the gas-water system, however, it is not
possible to produce any more gas when bottom hole flowing
pressure equals the reservoir pressure. The well must be
unloaded to resume gas production. Also the gas rate is
smaller than the critical rate.
In short, under the same conditions, less amount of water is
needed in the oil system to block the oils natural flow to the
surface. However, production may continue using artificial
lift. On the other hand, when water stop the natural flow of gas
to the surface, almost always it is not possible to produce
more gas.
From this analysis we can conclude that gas wells are less
sensitive than oil wells to water when reservoir pressure is
higher than the normal pressure. Moreover, gas wells are more
sensitive than oil wells to water when reservoir pressure is
lower than the normal pressure.
This observation has an important practical implication since
gas reservoirs are produced best at lowered reservoir pressure
by coproducing water [Arco and Bassiouni(7)]. However, at
low-pressure even small water inflow would kill the gas well.
Specific Mechanisms of Water Coning in Gas Wells
We selected mechanism specific for gas wells that
might potentially enhance early water production in these
wells. The mechanisms investigated are vertical permeability,
Non-Darcy flow effect, and density of perforations.
Effect of Vertical Permeability. It is postulated here that
high vertical permeability should generate early water
production in gas reservoir with bottom water-drive. Vertical
permeability accelerates water coning because high vertical
permeability would reduce the time needed for a water cone
to stabilize.

SPE 75720

SEVERITY OF WATER CONING IN GAS WELLS

A commercial numerical simulator, shown in Fig. 4, was

adopted to evaluate the effect of vertical permeability in gas
wells. Two values of vertical permeability, 10 md and the
other one 50 md, were considered. The results are shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. Fig. 5 depicts water saturation in the reservoir
after 760 days of gas productions for vertical permeability 10
md. The initial water-gas contact was at 5100 ft. The top of
the cone is at 5060 ft after 760 days of production. The water
cone is still below the completion and there is no water
production. Fig. 6 shows water saturation in the reservoir after
760 days of gas productions for vertical permeability 50 md
and the same depth of initial water-gas contact, 5100 ft. After
760 days of production, the top of the cone is at 5025 ft. The
water cone has reached the completion, resulting in water
production inflow to the well.
Non-Darcy Flow Effects on Water Coning. Non-Darcy
flow generates an extra pressure drop around the well bore
that could intensify water coning. Non-Darcy flow happens at
high flow velocity, which is a characteristic of gas converging
near the well perforations.
The extra pressure drop is a kinetic energy component in the
Forchheimers formula(8),
dp

= v 2 .....(1)
dL
The Non-Darcy effect was studied analytically for two cases
of well completion, complete penetration of the gas and water
zones, and penetration of the gas zone. In the second case the
well perforated in only the gas zone. Fig. 7 illustrates the
completion schematic and the production system properties.
The analytical model of the well inflow comprises the
following components:
Gas inflow model:
Pe2 Pw2 =

1.422T g Zq g
k g hg

[ln(r / r ) + S + Dq ]
e

(9)

.....(2)

Where: S = S d + S dp + S pp ..(3)
and D = D r + D p .(4)
Water inflow model:
qw =

0.00708k w hw ( Pe Pw )
w Bw [ln(re / rw ) + S ]

(9)

.(5)

Where: S = S d + S dp + S pp ..(6)
Skin factor representing mud filtrate invasion (10):
hg

(rd rw ) k g
Sd =
1 ln(rd / rw ) ...(7)
1 0.2

h per
h per k d

Skin factor representing perforation density(11):

hg
k
k
ln(rdp / r p ) g g .(8)
S dp =
Lpnp
k dp k d

Skin factor due to partial penetration (12):

hg
hg k H
2 ..(9)
1 ln
S pp =
h per
rw kV

Non-Darcy skin around the well(9):
2.22 *10 15 g k g r
....(10)
Dr =
g h g rw
r =

2.33 *1010
......(11)
k 1g.2

Non-Darcy skin in the crashed rock around the perforation

tunnels(11):
dp k g h g g
.....(12)
D p = 2.22 *10 15 2 2
n p L p r p g

dp =

2.6 *1010
..(13)
k dp

The results of the study are shown in the Figs. 8-10. Fig. 8
demonstrates the delayed effect of water in a gas well
completed in gas and water zone (a worst possible
completion). Not only the problem occurs after 80% of gas
recovered but also WGR, is independent of pressure
drawdown and production rates.
Fig. 9 indicates that combined effects of skin and Non-Darcy
flow would strong stimulate water production in gas wells.
Also, WGR increases with increasing pressure drop across the
skin.
Figs. 10 shows WGR histories for a gas well penetrating only
the gas column. Reducing well completion to the gas column
does not change WGR development; the WGR history is
almost identical to that for complete penetration. Interestingly,
although the completion bottom is at gas-water contact the
production is practically water-free for almost half of the
recovery. This finding is in agreement with the analytical
analysis of gas-water interface and the inverse internal cone
mechanism presented in previous sections.
From this study we conclude as follow:
Non-Darcy and distributed mechanical skin increase
water gas ratio (WGR) by reducing gas production rate, and
increasing water inflow, and the two effects accelerate water
breakthrough to gas well.
It does not make much difference how much of the well
completion is covered by water as long as the completion is in
contact with water.
The above observations regarding distribute skin and NonDarcy effects have been based on a simple analytical
modeling. The results are partially verified with a commercial

M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ

numerical simulator for the well-reservoir model shown

in Fig. 4.
Unfortunately the commercial simulator used for this study
does not simulate the distributed skin and wall Non-Darcy
flow effects around the well. Instead, it applies these effects
merely at the wellbore wall. In the results, simulated values of
pressure in the reservoir at the bottom of well completion
increases with increasing input value of skin (Non-Darcy plus
mechanical). This leads to incorrect physical behavior in
where water coning reduces with increasing skin
pressure drop.
We demonstrate the correct physical behavior analytically. An
additional pressure drop around the well caused by Non-Darcy
flow is modeled by modifying the Forchheimer equation. The
solution to Forchheimer equation for steady state, radial flow,
isotropic formation, constant density and viscosity is(13):
3.161 * 1012 g zTq g2 1 1

hk
h2
r2 r1
...(14)

p12 p22 =

1424zTq g ln(r1 / r2 )

The model is modified replacing h by hper in the second right

term of Eq. 14 to include the Non-Darcy due to limited
entry(14), (15) (We have not found any information on how to
include Non-Darcy effect due to crashed zone around the
perforation tunnels).
Using the modified model, we assumed gas rate equal to 20
MMscfpd, and three cases of skin effect: no Non-Darcy effect,
including Non-Darcy effect without limited entry effect, and
the combined effects of Non-Darcy flow and limited entry.
The results are shown in Fig. 11.
Analysis of the plots in Fig. 1 indicates that when Non-Darcy
flow occurs around the well, pressure drawdown will increases
in the wells vicinity (20-30 ft). Al semi-log pressure
distribution plots has two different trends, one away from the
well where Darcy flow is in control (m2), and another near the
well bore where Non-Darcy flow is predominant (m1). For this
example case, the values of m2 and m1 are: m1= 159, and m2=
19. The result demonstrates dramatic effect at Non-Darcy flow
and its potential to enhance water coning.
The effect of distributed skin is also modeling by modifying
the input data to the commercial numerical simulator through
permeability reduction zone around the well completion. Size
of the zone and its permeability is estimated using results in
Fig. 11. We assume a size of 30 ft. Also, using the two slopes
(m1, and m2) we compute permeability as,
m
19
k1 = 2 * k 2 =
*100 = 11.9md 10md
159
m1
Fig. 12 shows water saturation in the reservoir after 1124
days of gas productions without the effect of distributed skin.
A 32 feet water cone developed from the initial water-gas
contact at 5100 ft, to 5068 ft after three years of gas
production. Fig. 13 shows water saturation in the reservoir
after 1124 days of gas productions whit inclusion of the skin.
The water cone extends up to 5054 ft after 1124 days of

SPE 75720

production and is 8 feet taller than the one with no skin effect.
From the Non-Darcy flow's study we can conclude as follow.
Effect of Perforations on Water Production. The next step
for this study was to investigate how density of perforation
affects water production in gas well. Specifically, we studied
behavior of the water-gas ratio. Perforations concentrate gas
inflow around the well, increase flow velocity and further
amplify the effect of Non-Darcy flow. The effect is examined
here using the modified analytical model from the previous
section (Figs. 7). We used similar calculation procedure
including skin and Non-Darcy effect, and two values of
density, 4 shoots per foot to 12 shoots per foot. The results are
shown in Fig. 14.
There is a 40 percent reduction in water-gas ratio resulting
from a three-fold increase in perforation density. Shows in Fig
14 is the effect of decreased pressure drawdown that
significantly reduces WGR. Thus, well perforations enhance
water production due Non-Darcy flow effect; the smaller the
perforation density the higher the water-gas ratio.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Water coning in gas wells is physically different than oil
wells. Water cone does not tend to flood the well
completion thus leaving larger section of well completion
open to gas inflow.
2. Gas wells are more sensitive to water production than oil
wells when the reservoir pressure is lower than the normal
pressure; at high reservoir pressure, as more gas recovered by
lowering reservoir pressure using technique of water coproduction, or out-running the aquifer there is a need
for water inflow control at the well to maintain
wells productivity.
3. Distributed skin effect around the well comprising
permeability damage, Non-Darcy flow effect, and density of
perforation promotes water coning in gas wells resulting in
early breakthrough and elevated values of water-gas ratio.
Nomenclature
Bw = water formation volume factor, reservoir
barrels per surface barrels.
D = Non-Darcy flow coefficient, day/MSCF
dp = pressure derivative, psia
dL = length derivative, feet
hg = thickness of gas, feet
hpre = perforated interval, feet
hw = thickness of water, feet
k = peremeability, millidarcies
kd = altered reservoir peremeability, millidarcies
kdp = crashed zone peremeability, millidarcies
kH = horizontal peremeability, millidarcies
kg = gas peremeability, millidarcies
kV = vertical peremeability, millidarcies
kw = water peremeability, millidarcies
L = length, feet
Lp = length of perforation, feet
np = number of perforations

SPE 75720

SEVERITY OF WATER CONING IN GAS WELLS

p = pressure, psia
Pe = reservoir pressure at the boundary, psia.
Pw = flowing bottom hole pressure, psia.
Qg = gas flow rate, MSCF/day
Qw = water flow rate, barrel/day
qg = gas flow rate, MSCF/day
qw = water flow rate, barrel/day
rd = altered reservoir radius, feet
rdp = crashed zone radius, feet
re = outer radius, feet
rp = radius of perforation, feet
rw = wellbore radius, feet
S = skin factor
Sd = skin factor representing mud filtrate invasion
Sdp = skin factor representing perforation density
Spp = skin factor due to partial penetration
T = temperature, oR
v = velocity, ft per second
y = gas-water or oil- water interface thickness, feet
ye = water thickness at the boundary, ft
Z = gas deviation factor
= turbulent factor, 1/ feet
r = turbulent factor for reservoir, 1/ feet
dp = turbulent factor for crashed zone, 1/ feet
= density, lbm/ft3
p = pressure derivative, psia
r = radius derivative, feet
= porosity
g = specific gravity of gas
= viscosity, centipoises
g = viscosity of gas, centipoises
w = viscosity of water, centipoises
References
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

6.

7.
8.

Muskat, M.: Flow of Homogeneous Fluids, International Human

Resources Development, Boston (1982).
Timble, A.E., DeRose, W.E.: Field Application of WaterConning Theory to Todhunters Lake Gas Field, paper SPE
5873 presented at the 1976 SPE-AIME 46th Annual California
Regional Meeting, Long Beach, April 8-9.
Muskat, M. and Wyckoff, R.D.: An approximate Theory of
Water Coning in Oil Production, Trans., AIME (1935) 114,
144-163.
Arthur, M.G.: Fingering and Coning of Water and Gas in
Homogeneus Oil Sand, AIME (1944) 155, 184-199.
Kabir, C.S.: Predicting Gas Well Performance Coning Water in
Bottom-Water Drive Reservoirs, paper SPE 12068 presented at
the 1983 SPE 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Francisco, Oct 5-8.
McMullan, J.H., Bassiouni, Z.: Optimization of Gas-Well
Completion and Production Practices, paper SPE 58983
presented at the 2000 SPE International Petroleum Conference
and Exhibition, Mexico, Feb 1-3.
Arco, D. P. and Bassiouni, Z. A.: The Technical And Economic
Feasibility of Enhanced Gas Recovery in The Eugene Island
Field by Use a Coproduction Technique, JPT (May 1987).
Lee J. and Wattenbarger R.: Gas Reservoir Engineering, Society
of Petroleum Engineering, Richardson, Texas, (1996).

9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.

Beggs H.D.: Gas Production Operation, Oil and Gas

Consultants International, Inc, Tulsa, Oklahoma, (1984).
Jones, L.G. and Watts, J.W.: Estimating Skin Effects in a
Partially Completed Damaged Well, JPT (Feb. 1971) 249-52;
Trans., AIME, 251.
McLeod, H.D. Jr.: The Effect of Perforating Conditions on
Well Performance, JPT (Jan. 1983) 31-39.
Saidikowski, R.M.: Numerical Simulations of the Combined
Effects of Wellbore Damage and Partial Penetration, paper SPE
8204 presented at the 1979 Annual Fall Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Nevada, Sep 23-26.
Katz D.: Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, (1959).
Dake L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, New York, (1978).
Golan M. and Whitson C.: Well Performance, Prentice-Hall
Inc., New Jersey (1991).
Craft B.C. and Hawkins M.F.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1991).

APPENDIX - A
Analytical development for comparison of water coning in
oil and gas wells after water breakthrough
wel

oil / gas

Pw

Pe
ye

y=?

water

Fig A-1 - Theoretical model used to compare water coning in oil

and gas wells after breakthrough.

Assumptions: radial flow, isothermal conditions, porosity and

permeability are the same in the gas and water zone, and
steady state conditions.
For gas-water system:
2r (h y )kp p
Qg =
.(A-1)
g
r
Qw =

2ryk p
(A-2)
w r

R=

M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ

Qg
Qw

w (h y ) p
g y

R=

At re

Qg
Qw

.(A-3)
w Pe (1 ( y e / h))

g ( y e / h)

...(A-4)

Rearranging equation (A-1):

Qg g
p
p
= rhp
ryp
.(A-6)
2k
r
r
Rearranging equation (A-2):
Qw w
p
..(A-7)
= ry
2k
r
Substituting (A-7) in (A-6):
Qg g
p Q w w
p ..(A-8)
= rhp

2k
r 2k
Let us define some constants:

a=
b=

Qg g
2kh

..(A-9)

Qw w
.(A-10)
2kh

Substituting (A-9) and (A-10) in (A-8):

p
a = rp
bp ..(A-11)
r
Rearranging equation (A-11) gives:
1
p
r
b
p =
...(A-12)
r
a

+ p
b

Integrating (A-12):
pe

e
p
r
p = ....(A-13)
(1 / b)
[(a / b) + p] r r
p

The solution for (A-13) is:

r
1
a p + a / b
.... (A-14)
ln e = p e p ln e
r b
b p + a / b
The ratio (a/b) may be found dividing equations (A-9) by
equation (A-10):
a Qg g
=
(A-15)
b Qw w

SPE 75720

From equation (A-4):

Q g g 1 ( y e / h)
a
(A-16)
pe =
=
Qw w
( y e / h)
b
The ratio (1/b) could be found from equation (A-14) at the
well bore (r = rw p = pw):
r
ln e
1
rw
=
(A-17)
b
a p e + (a / b)
( p e p w ) ln

b p w + (a / b)
Finally, y may be solve from equation (A-3) and (A-15):
Q g g (h y ) p a
hp
=
=
y=
..(A-18)
[(a / b) + p]
Qw w
y
b
Repeating the same analysis for oil-water system:
Qo =

2r (h y )k p
....(A-19)
o
r

Qw =

2ryk p
....(A-20)
w r

R=

Qo w (h y ) p
=
...(A-21)
o y
Qw

If: a =

Qo o
Q
, and b = w w , then
2kh
2kh

Qo o
p
p
....(A-22)
= rh
ry
2k
r
r
Integrating (A-22):
a re r 1 pe
= p .(A-23)
+ 1
b p
b r r

r
ln e
r

1
( p e p )
b
....(A-24)
=
a

+ 1
b

Solving for y: y =

h
a
+ 1
b

..(A-25)

SPE 75720

SEVERITY OF WATER CONING IN GAS WELLS

In order to demonstrate the model for gas-water and oil-water

system describing the interface between the fluids, let us solve
the following example.
The system data is as follow:
pe = 2000 psi re = 2000 ft
h = 50 ft
ye = 40 ft
k = 100 md
Bw = 1.0
g = 0.017 cp

rw = 0.4 ft
w = 0.498 cp
= 0.25

6000
ln

1
=
= 0.031
b
2000 + 500
(2000 1700) (500) ln

1700 + 500

7.

Assuming a pressure value between pe and pw, we

calculate r and the gas-water profile y, using Eqs. A-14
and A-18 respectively. This is the gas-water interface
profile:
r
1
a p + a / b

ln e = p e p ln e
r b
b p + a / b

The procedure is as follow:

1. Assuming a value for the pressure drawdown (300 psi).
2.

3.

4.

Calculating the flowing bottom hole pressure

( p w = p e p = 2000 300 = 1700) ; we assume that
pw is constant along the wellbore.

ln

Computing the water flow rate (Qw) using Darcys law

equation (16):

y=

Qw =

0.00708khw ( pe pw )
w Bw ln(re / rw )

Qw =

0.00708 * 100 * 40 * (2000 1700)

= 2000
0.498 * 1.0 * ln(2000 / 0.4)

Calculating a/b, using Eq.A-16:

Q g * 0.017 * 5.615
a Qg g
=
500 =
b Qw w
2000 * 0.498
Qg = 5.22 MMscf/d
Note that WGR is constant for the system and depends
only on the system geometry (ye, h) and pressure drive
(pe).
6.

Computing 1/b, using Eq. A-17 :

r
ln e
1
rw
=
b
a p e + (a / b)
( p e p w ) ln

b p w + (a / b)

hp

[(a / b) + p]

y=

50 * p
[500 + p]

By comparison, from equation A-25, we see that for oil-water

system y remains constant, y = 40, and independent from radius.
Fig. A-3 shows the resulting profiles of the fluid interface in gaswater and oil-water systems.

fluids interface height (y) vs radii (r)

41

fluids interface height (ft)

Finding Qg, from Eq. A-15 in Appendix 1-A:

2000 + 500
6000

= 0.0312000 p 500 ln
r

p + 500

(Note that this pressure distribution does not depend on values of

flow rate but only on their ratio)

[1 (40 / 50)]* 2000 = 500

a 1 ( y e / h)
pe =
=
b
( y e / h)
(40 / 50)
Which is constant for the system and independent for
the gas rate.
5.

40

39

38

37
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Radius (ft)
gas-water contact

oil-water contact

Fig. A-2 - Shape of the gas-water and oil-water contact for total
perforation

M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ

SPE 75720

FIGURES
9,000

140

25.0

300
20.0

250
200

15.0

150

10.0

100
5.0

50

Gas Production (MSCFPD)

8,000

350

120

7,000
100
6,000
5,000

80

4,000

60

3,000
40
2,000
20

1,000

0
314

0.0
345

376

404

435

465

495

521

551

573

600

0
2

29

60

91

Time (days)
Water-Gas Ratio

119

Gas Recovery Factor

223

0
254

Fig. 2 Gas and Water production rate for well CC-2 (field data)
Well

= 25%
Sgr= 20%
Pinitial= 2500 psia

rw= 0.5 ft

w=0.56 cp
w= 1.02 gr/cc

197

Water Production Rate (BPD)

Gas Prodcution Rate (MSCFPD)

well

50 ft

177

Time (Days)

Fig. 1 Water gas ratio and gas recovery factor for well CC-1
(field data)

K= 100 md
=0.2
P=2000 psi
T= 112 oF

149

Water Production Rate (BPD)

30.0

Recovery Factor (%)

Water-Gas Ratio (STB/MMSCF)

400

20 ft
Oil
= 1.0 cp
= 0.8 gr/cc

Swir= 30%
S.G.gas=0.6
kr= 100 md

2500 ft

100 of 1 ft
layers

50 ft

Gas
0.017 cp
0.1 gr/cc

water

Gas

9 of 10 ft, and
one 110 ft
layers

200 ft

Water
5000 ft

re= 1000 ft
Fig. 3 - Theoretical model used to compare water coning in oil and
gas wells before breakthrough.

100 ft

Fig. 4 Base numerical model.

Irreducible Water
Saturation

Irreducible Water
Saturation

Swept Zone

100% Water Saturation

Fig. 5 - Distribution of water saturation after 760 days of gas

production. The well has produced at maximum gas rate. Vertical
permeability is 10 md.

Swept Zone

100% Water Saturation

Fig. 6 - Distribution of water saturation after 760 days of gas

production. The well has produced at maximum gas rate. Vertical
permeability is 50 md.

SPE 75720

SEVERITY OF WATER CONING IN GAS WELLS

2,100

K= 100 md
P=2500 psi
o
T= 120 F

Water-Gas ratio (bbl/MMscfpd)

rw= 0.5 ft

Gas
40 ft

w=0.56 cp
w= 1.02 gr/cc
K= 100 md
Bw= 1 0 rb/STB

Kh / Kv = 10

1,800
1,500
1,200
900
600
300
0

40 ft

Water

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Recovery Factor (%)

re= 2500 ft

Pressure Drawdown = 100 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 300 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 500 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 1000 psi

Presure Drawdown= 1500 psi

Fig. 7 Analytical model used to investigate the effect of NonDarcy in water coning.

Fig. 8 Water-Gas ratio versus gas recovery factor for total

penetration of gas and water columns and without skin and NonDarcy effect.

Water-Gas Ratio (BLS/MMSCF)

3,000

Water-Gas Ratio (BLS/MMSCF)

2,100
1,800
1,500
1,200
900
600

2,700
2,400
2,100
1,800
1,500
1,200
900
600
300
0
0

300

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Recovery Factor (%)

0
0

0.1

0.2

Pressure Drawdown = 100 psi

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Recovery
Factor (%)
Pressure Drawdown = 300 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 500 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 1000 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 100 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 300 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 1000 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 1500 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 500 psi

Pressure Drawdown = 1500 psi

Fig. 9 Water-Gas ratio versus gas recovery factor for total

penetration of gas and water columns skin and Non-Darcy effect
included.

Fig. 10 Water-Gas ratio versus gas recovery factor for well

completed only through total perforation the gas column with
combined effects of skin and Non-Darcy.

900

m2

850

Pressure (psia)

800
Q= 20 M M SCFPD

750
700

Irreducible Water
Saturation

650
600

m1

550
500
0.1

10

100

1000

10000

Swept Zone

Radial Distance(ft)
DarcyFlow

Non-Darcyflow

ModifiedForchheiner

Fig. 11 Pressure distribution in the reservoir using Modified

Forchheimer model of Non-Darcy flow.

Fig. 12 Distribution of water saturation after 1124.4 days of gas

production; Qg = 13 MMscfpd. Low-pressure (Non-Darcy) zone
near the well bore is not included.

10

M. ARMENTA, A. WOJTANOWICZ

SPE 75720

Water-Gas Ratio (BLS/MMSCF)

1,600

Irreducible Water
Saturation

1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
0

Swept Zone

Fig. 13 Distribution of water saturation after 1124.4 days of gas

production; Qg = 13 MMscfpd. Low-pressure (Non-Darcy Effect)
zone near the well bore is included.

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Gas Recovery Factor (%)

Pressure Drawdown= 100 psi (4 spf)

Pressure Drawdown = 500 psi (4 spf)

Pressure Drawdown = 1000 psi (4 spf)

Pressure Drawdown = 100 psi (12 spf)

Pressure Drawdown = 500 psi (12 spf)

Pressure Drawdown = 1000 psi (12 spf)

Fig. 14 Effect of perforation density on water-gas ratio for a well

perforating in the gas column skin and Non-Darcy effect included.