Fingering and Coning of Water and Gas in Homogeneous Oil Sand

By M. G. ARTHUR, * JUNIOR MEMBER A.I.M.E.

(Los Angeles Meeting, October 1943)

ABSTRACT reservoir or in the vicinity of a particular

THIS paper is a theoretical analysis of finger-
ing of water and coning of water and gas in
homogeneous sand. Investigation of this
idealized case illustrates the relative magnitude
of the factors involved in actual conditions.
The body of the report presents equations,
example calculations, and charts that facilitate
solution of such problems. Derivation of the
equations introduced in this paper and a dis-
cussion of previously published equations are
included in the appendix.
INTRODUCTION
Production of water from oil wells as a
result of the pressure gradients established
by flow of fluids through oil-producing
sands is a common occurrence, which in-
fluences the cost of oil production, the
degree of depletion and the efficiency of
expUlsion of oil from naturally occurring
reservoirs. Control of water production and
encroachment are important both in pri-
mary and secondary phases of oil-field
exploitation in order to produce oil and gas
at lowest cost and in order to achieve the
greatest ultimate recovery of the oil in the
reservoir. Although many actual oil reser-
voirs present a multitude of variables that
influence fingering and coning of water and
gas, an inspection of the relationship and
magnitude of the forces involved in the case
of a homogeneous sand may indicate satis-
factory methods of controlling water
production. Application of equations relat-
ing the variables may indicate the geometric
type of drainage that exists in a particular
Manuscript received at the office of t~e
Institute Sept. 13. 1943. Issued as T.P. 1723 m
PBTROLEUX TECHNOLOGY. March 1944.
• Union Oil Company of California. Comp-
ton. California.
well.
A homogeneous sand body is assumed
within the portion of the reservoir influ-
enced by the well. Two geometric types of
drainage are considered theoretically. The
first is water fingering into an oil sand that
is relatively thin compared with the lateral
extent of the sand. This sand may represent
the entire oil-producing reservoir or it may
represent one interval in an oil reservoir,
which is separated from other producing
intervals by competent lithologic barriers to
flow of fluids. For the condition of complete
penetration of a well in such a sand body. it
may be assumed that no flow occurs across
bedding planes. A mathematical relation is
developed between the limit of approach of
a water finger to the well without being
drawn into the well and the corresponding
operating pressure drawdown.
The second condition considered is that
of water or gas entry into an oil well as the
result of coning through bedding planes.
The theory a.nd graphical solution devel-
oped by Muskat! for the limit of approach
of a water or gas cone to a well, without its
entry into the well, related to the cor-
responding maximum pressure drawdown,
is reviewed and amplified. Charts are
presented, which facilitate graphical solu-
tion of the problem. A method is presented
for the extension of this type of graphical
solution to the case where gas and water
coning occurs simultaneously.
WATER FINGERING
Consider the case illustrated by Fig. I. A
water cusp is formed in a sand because of
1 References are on page 197.
 M. G. ARTHUR

the pressure gradients in the Howing Huid. causing How, and for horizontal How the
Assume that a two-dimensional radial How pressure P may be used for the value of rp.
exists. The equation for the rate of How However, for nonhorizontal How the veloc-

P.. ;tion of static wat... table

FIG. I.-WATERrFINGERING CONDITIONS.

involves the quantity rp, which is the ity potential is used to express the force
velocity potential, a measure of the relative causing flow, because it applies a necessary
force at a point. The gradient of velocity correction to the pressure at various points
potential is a measure of the force gradient in the system. This correction amounts to
186 FINGERING AND CONING OF WATER AND GAS IN HOMOGENEOUS OIL SAND
the portion of the difference in pressure
between points that is due to hydrostatic
gradient, the effect of gravity on the mass of
fluid between points of different elevation.
The rate of flow may be expressed by the
following equation:*
[I]
where
et> = P - "!ogz
In order for a water finger extending up-
dip toward a producing well to be stable it is
necessary that the pressure gradient at the
top of the water surface equal the differen-
tial gravitational force between the water
and the oil. This stable relationship is
expressed by
/let> = AP -/In (t - ~; r) [4]
Combination of these two equations in
the manner developed in the appendix
gives Eqs. 12 and IS. The minimum
distance that a finger can approach without
being drawn into the well by an unstable
condition is given by
The minimum vertical distance a well
can be located above the static water table
without fingering is
The term r. in the foregoing equations
represents the drainage radius, which is
the distance from the center of the well at
which the static or shut-in pressure of the
well exists during flowing conditions, and
the difference between this static pressure
and the flowing pressure at the well con-
stitutes the drawdown pressure /lP. For a
value of static pressure measured after
.• Nomenclature at end of text.
sufficient shut-in time has occurred to
allow equilibrium to be attained, the cor-
responding value of r. is the maximum
radial distance from the well that influence
extends in affecting pressure and drainage
of fluid. Although usually this must be
arbitrarily assumed it should be noted that
throughout the practical range of the values
in the relationship, large differences in r.
cause relatively small differences in the
results, because the logarithm of the ratio of
radii is employed. Where values of the
other factors are known, the equations
developed may afford a means of measuring
an effective value of the drainage radius in
a uniform sand.
To illustrate applications of Eqs. 12 and
IS, consider the example defined by the
following data:
Differential weight between water and oil
= /l,,!g = 0.141b. per sq. in. per ft. of depth.
Dip of sand = ¥r = sin 8 = 0.1
Well radius = r .. = H ft.
For selected values of drainage radius of
600 and 6000 ft. and for the given condi-
tions, the relationship between distance of
the well above the static water table t and
the drawdown pressure /lP is presented in
Fig. 2.
The asymptotic nature of the curves
results from the fact that water cannot be
drawn toward the well from a location
beyond the drainage radius of the well.
WATER AND GAS CONING
Consider the coning of gas or water into a
well that partially penetrates a homoge-
neous oil sand, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Theoretical development of this problem
has been presented by Muskat,l who has
shown that the following equation repre-
sents the relationship of the factors involved
in a homogeneous sand:
/let> = et> .. - et>.
/let>. et> .. - et>.
= I _gIl,,!
/lP
h (I _ ~)
h
[16]
 M. G. ARTHUR

200

190 I I

6P
180 f - - rmin =
6~·g·Sin a'ln2
110 f - -
rw /J
160 f - - ( r,.
/ /
tmin=--
61"9 \
AP 1+lnr.-:
m,"
In~
)
/
V j
150 r - -
r",
/ Becom•• A:~rnptoti"
140 r- 6P" Well .ta~ic pr..... - flow pre .... lb •. /in.· / b ~.600·.t _
A "f.g • Differential wei,ht betw.en "'ater f oil V
130 f- a 0.14 Ib./in·/ft. of depth /
~~ .. dip of .and· 0.1 /
120 I- r.. • W.II radius' Y3 ft. I /

~
..:
110 I-
t • Req"ired hei,hf of ",ell aboy .. water /
t.bl. fOI"

well. ft .
no flow of water ;"V
... 100

90
;(I . 6000'
/
80 J
70 /
60 / ,.- -
50
V /'
40 ! /",re =600'

30
VI ~

20 II
10 f
I
10 20 30 so 60 70 110 90 100 110 110 130
6 P (Ib • ./i"~)

FIG. 2.-MINIKUK VEllTICAL DISTANCE OF AN EXAMPLE WELL ABOVE THE STABLE WATER TABLE
FOR WATER FINGEll NOT TO ENTER WELL.
188 FINGERING AND CONING OF WATER AND GAS IN HOMOGENEOUS OiL SAND

Eq. 16 relates the potential forces set up (b) Correct the value of 1/>' to the value of
II

in the fh!id flowing in the sand to the dif- 1/>., corresponding to the radius parameter
ferential gravitational forces between. the of the well by use of Fig. 5.

t ~~ t/Gas-Oillnferface

-t--------~I ~ l-----!>tt::!~::)':
r~ r FIG. 3.-WATEl1.-CONING AND GAS-CONING CONDITIONS.
oa-Water
Interface

two fluids involved. An explanation of I .

equations expressing the velocity potentials
(e) For selected values of h' determme
is presented in the appendix. Fig. 4 presents the values of 1/>. from Fig. 4. 1/>. is given as
a cross plot of values given by Muskat 1 a function of well penetration, ~, and the
for potential below the bottom of the well
1/>. and potential at the well surface 1/>' .. for relative distance beyond the extremity of
d
a particular value of well radius defined by the well I:
the well-radius parameter p... Correction
(d) Determine 4>. for a reasonable value
factors to be applied to 1/>'.. for values of
of drainage radius from Fig. 6.
well radius other than that on which Fig. 4
2. Draw a tangent to the potential
is based are presented in Fig. 5.
t.1/> z . (t.1/>
It is shown in the appendix that the curve of t.1/>. vs. ii from the pomt t.1/>. = I,
velocity potential at the drainage radius
may be expressed by: ~ = I)-
1/>. = 4qx In-
2
(a) The value of ~ at the point of tan-
p

n
gency represents the maximum height y of
GRAPHICAL SOLUTION OF CONING
a stable cone. (i = I -
For the case of water or gas coning to a
(b) Intersection of the tangent to the
well in which the penetration of the well
extends from one boundary of the oil sand curve with the value 1= 0 gives the value
to a point some distance from the static expressed by the following form of Eq. 16:
position of the water or the gas, the solution
may be obtained by the following procedure: (tt)i =0 = I _ g~;h
I. Determine the values of the potential
3. From the graphically determined
• t.1/> f .
ratIO t.1/>. or vanous values of from the
I
value of (tt)i -0 solve for llP, the maxi-
charts presented herein and plot ::. vs. ~. mum pressure differential without coning.
(a) I/>~ is given by Fig. 4 for the par- llP - gt.-yh [21J
ticular penetration of the problem and for a - (t.I/»
well-radius parameter p. of 0.001. 1- t.1/>. i- o
 M. G. ARTHUR

An additional step is required in the dure outlined above. The basis for location
solution of the problem of water and gas of the horizontal dividing plane in the sand
coning in a well in which the interval open is that the potential over the well surface
17

16

V /,
v:-
15

14 /' I
V /1
"" ~,1
13 --
~),- V J
12
I ~1
l 1I
,/ 1/1
/
,
II" /1
JI
V I!
I I I!
8 / 1/ i J

7
V~ I/
1/ IfA
...J
c(
~
Z 6

~ ~ 0/
W
~
o 5
a..
4
~'\.S ~ ~ l>~
V
~z / /. ~ ~
v::
3

l /' ~ ,.....~ ~
L ~~~
V
I /~

jii P"'"
0
o .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .9 1.0
WELL PENETRATION
FIG. 4.-VELOCITY POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION AT WELL RADIUS.

to production is located within the sand
body, above the static water level and
below the static gas-oil interface. In such a
case the sand should be divided into two
parts and each part treated by the proce-
cf> .. must be the same for both the upper and
lower portions. The division is located by a
trial and error choice of values from Fig. 4
corrected by Fig. 5. Solution is greatly
facilitated by a plot of the corresponding
 1.2
...
."-
~~~~ ~1\
~ \ \ '8
::i. \
1.1
0
~
~~
~
0
0
;t cP 1 14, ( Pot jential ~ ;yond ..t1'4 tnity of ell
1.0

~
a:
~ \ ~10 w. I Per ~t,.. on

...J t- = 0 10
4:
i= 0.9

\~~~~
Z
w I
~
0Q.
,Q

0 0.8 ~1I.

)\ \
~ ~f" ~ ~
~
t-
~
...J
4: ~ ~

'" "
~ phe ric. I low
i=
Z ~ P'= I~
r' \ ~
~
t'- ~
0.7
~
.~
W

\ 1\
w
t- \
~
O

\ '"1\
Q. \ I' I"-
\ r--
""
0., \ 1\ & f'-
0
0.6
..
\ " ~ "f'
""
i=
c(
a:
O.S
.ooot .0001 .0005 .000'1 ,oOt
\.OOC .005 .004
f\. .001 .006
I'-.
.008 .QI

WELL RADIUS PARAMETER

FIG. 5.-CORKECTION FACTORS FOR CONVERTING WELL VELOCITY POTENTIAL OF FIG. 4 TO VEL0CITY POTENTIAL FOR OTHER
WELL RADII.
 M. G. ARTHUR

000
900
800
'\
\. \.
" \

\ \ \
700
\ \ \ \ \
"""
1\ \ \ \ \ \
"A \. \ \ \ \ \ \
'A, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

200 1\ 1\ 1\ \ 1\ \ 1\ 1\ 1\
; \
oJ
a::
II

100
90
i\l\ \ ,,\ ,\ \ \ ~~ ~
'\
"i\' " ""
y:; I.,,!I.
\
~
'\ \dI
LLI eo \~-
70
\ \ ~
I-
60
\ \ I~. , :- \ i\ \
".'

LLI
'\ \ \ \
~
~ 50
"\
«
a:: '<l \ \ \ \ 1\ \
40
«
Q.
30
K\ \ \ 1\ \ \\
~ 1\\\ 1\\ '
\
en
::>
25 20
\
~ ~ ~\\
«
a:: \
LLI

'z«"' 10
9
,
8
1\ \.
,'\.'\. \ \ \
\.\. \ 1\ \ \ \ \
;(
a:: 6
\.\ ,\\ \ \ \
o b. Well ,ft. ~\\\lill
5
~~\\\
h • Sa"d Thickness, ft.
4
~

~
3

l
-10 -9 -8 -7

POTENTIAL AT DRAINAGE
-6 -5 -4 ..,3 -2

RADIUS ~.
-I
1ll
0 +1 +2

FIG. 6.-VELOCITY POTENTIAL AT DRAINAGE RADIUS.

 19 2 FINGERING AND CONING OF WATER AND GAS IN HOMOGENEOUS OIL SAND

values of well potential for each portion of Location of the dividing plane is shown
the sand against the distance of the divid- by Fig. 7. The values of cf>wT (well potential
ing plane from an arbitrary datum. in top portion) and cf>"B (well potential in
12.SO
~
I I I
12.40
~ 0 Potentia' above dividing plane
A Potential below clividinCj p'an. ___._

"
12.30
~ ')

+
.
l

12.20 ~ /
~
"li
."
~
J
• '2.10

V
"
/' k '\
~
12.00
V
/ TW T

11.90 / /
11.80
121 122. 123 124 125 126 12.1
Oi$tanc.. of Dividinq P'ane from Gas Oi' Interface ft.
FIG. 7.-S0LUTION OF LOCATION OF DIVIDING PLANE AND VELOCITY POTENTIAL OVER WELL SURl"ACE
FOR CASE OF SIMULTANEOUS CONING OF WATER AND GAS.

EXAMPL:e bottom portion), which are functions of

Depth of gas-oil interface, ft...
Depth of oil-water interface, ft.
Top of perforations, ft ...... :.
Bottom of perforations, ft.. . ..
Size of liner = 5 in. Radius. ..
·Oil gradient in well, lb. per sq. in.
per ft ................... "
Water gradient in well, lb. per
sq. in. per ft ...............
Gas gradient in well, lb. per sq.
in. per ft ............•....•
7535 corresponding values of penetration and
7695 well-radius parameter, are plotted against
7623 the distance of the dividing plane from the
7685 gas-oil interface. The intersection of the
0.2083 ft. curves indicates that the correct location of
the division is 125.35 ft. below the gas-oil
0.325 interface and that the potential at the well
is 12.14. The calculation of one set of points
0.425 follows:
Take the dividing plane to be 125.3 ft.
0.085 below gas-oil \nterface.
 M. G. ARTHUR 193

..OO,----"""T'----r------,---"""T'"----r---_

0.9

O.B

0.7 1----- Af = I _ 9b.'f' h (I-.:L)

A<Pe AP II

Value of 11- z at point of tang.nc.y giv ••

':1
-eo 0.6
mal(.imum equililt,.ium h.i9ht of: cone

o 1000'
I-
<:(
a: O.S
.J
<:(
I-
Z
ILl
I- 0.4
oQ.

0.3

Per-foro.tiO". +0
tap of oil 10ft_
0.2

0.1

o O.~4------·~~~5--~~~~------~0.=7-------0~.~B-------O~9~~........I~.O

PENETRATION ~
FIG. S.-EXAMPLE OF GRAPIDCAL SOLUTION OF EQUILIBRIUM HEIGHT OF WATER CONE, AND KAXDlUK
PRESSURE DRAWDOWN WITHOUT WATER CONING, FOR SELECTED VALUES OF DKAlNAGE llADIUS.
194 FINGERING AND CONING OF WATER AND GAS IN HOMOGENEOUS OIL SAND

r", 0.2083 Water Coning

pWT = -h = X = 0. 00083 I
2 T 2 125.3
. b 125.3 - 88.0 h = 34.65 ft., b = 24.65 ft.,
PenetratIon = h-TT = 1 2 5.3
penetration = 71.1 per cent
q,.. =

,
= 29.75 per cent 12.14

1.000

.900 .rh ~
~ .
{/
~~ ~
1MlI'

~ .BOO ~~ ~ ..nno:

.,,,M/l
,

o /" ~ 11'/ ~ :::::::

Y V .rfA ~
V
~
cr .700
[7~
..J
« .; / ~(!
/'
~
z
W.600
IJ" V./I ~ 1

~ / 7~ i ~ 6+e = I - ~h(
M... 6P·I-.!..)
h

~
Value of h - Z at point of t.n9.n~y
9ives ma .. imum .'1uilibriuM depth of cone .
.500
/

.400
o ~ ~ ~ U ~ MUM M ~

PENETRATION %
FIG. 9.-EXAMPLE OF GRAPmCAL SOLUTION OF EQUlLI1IRlUM DEPTH OF GAS CONE AND MAXIMUM
PRESSURE DRAWDOWN WITHOUT GAS CONING, FOR SELECTED VALUES OF DRAINAGE RADIUS.

q,''''T = II.75 for p.. = 0.001 (from Fig. 4)

Chosen values of ~ are expressed in terms
C = 1.033 (from Fig. 5)
q,VJT = Cq,' ..T = 12.14 of ~ in order to evaluate q,. from Fig. I.
r.. 0.2083
p•• = 2hB = 2(160 - 12 5.3) = 0.00300
I~ = ~h -b)
bB
- = --
hB
34.7 -
34.7
10.0
= 71.2 per cent \l h-b
q,'•• == 14.S4 for P.. = 0.001 (from Fig. 4) q,.. - q,. il.q, z
= 0.836 (fr9m Fig. S)
C Values of q,.. _ q,. = il.q,.
VS. hare

q,•• = Cq,'•• = 14.S4 X 0.836 = 12.1S determined for various values of drainage
 M. G. ARTHUR

radius and are presented in Fig. 8. The radius for the given example. The low
maximum allowable pressure drawdown values of drawdown pressure that would
without water coning is calculated from result in water coning are caused by the

1.100

..:
vi
a:
\
.;.
c 1.600
C
--.. -
0
U

.
10
L

~
1.500 \ I00.

"'<
) WATER CoNING
0
-£ vi
j n:
c:
J
'" I'---..... .,.

-- -
0 1.400 ........... 90. .~
.
."
J
\ r-- r--- o
0
...
L
.
U

•
\ ~

...". 1.300 80. ~

a"
E
3
\ !
~
c

'xof
E
\ GAS CONING ~
1..
::E 1.200 10.

"- ~ - 'C---
o
..
..."
.............
I-- r--- 60.
l'

-
1.100 -f-
Q.
E
3

...E
•
~
1.000 so.
o z ;5 5 6 7 8 9 10
Drainage Radius, r., Thou.ands of Feet
FIG. lo.-EXAMPLE Ol!' MAXIMUM PRESSURE DRAWDOWN WITHOUT CONING Ol!' WATER AND GASAS
l!'UNCTION Ol!' DRAINAGE RADIUS.

Eq. 21, in which: drilling of the well to a point only 10 ft.

above the oil-water interface in the sand.
g A-y = 0.425 - 0.3 25 = Failure of these relationships to hold in
0.10 lb. per sq. in. per ft.
such. cases can be traced to the fact that
Aq,)
(A.I. ~ -0 IS
. calculated from the slope
fingering-type water entry occurs rather
..". h than coning, owing to ineffective vertical
of the tangent in Fig. 8 for the particular permeability in the sand over appreciable
value of drainage radius. vertical distance.
Fig. 10 presents the variation of maxi- The maximum drawdown without water
mum pressure drawdown with drainage coming for the example may be compared
196 FINGERING AND CONING OF WATER AND GAS IN HOMOGENEOUS OIL SAND
with the corresponding value, if the per-
forations extended up to the gas-oil inter-
face. Although the constants in the evalua-
tion are entirely different, as may be seen
in Fig. 8, it would seem logical that the
values of drawdown without water coning
would be of the same order of magnitude for
each case. For a drainage radius of 1000 ft.,
the maximum drawdown is I.21b. per sq. in.
for the case of perforations extending to the
top of the productive oil sand, and 1.5 for
the actual conditions of the well chosen as
an example.
Gas Coning
h = 125.35 ft., b = 37.35 ft.,
penetration = 29.8 per cent
q,u = 12.14
VaIues 0 f Aq,
Aq,. as a f '
unctIOn 0
f Z
Ii as
determined from Figs. 4 and 5 are pre-
sented in Fig. 9 for various values of drain-
age radius. The variation of maximum
drawdown without gas coning as a function
of drainage radius for the example is in-
cluded in Fig. 10.
CONCLUSIONS
The problem of water fingering from a
static edge water, updip into a producing
oil well in a homogeneous sand, can be
solved by application of Eqs. 12 and 15.
Drainage radius often is the least known
quantity. It can be determined from the
drawdown pressures and structural posi-
tions that cause water fingering. Water
and gas coning in homogeneous sand can be
determined by graphical solution of Eq. 16,
which was developed by Muskat,l by the
use of charts provided in this paper.
In homogeneous sand, where permeabil-
ity is uniform in vertical and horizontal
directions, the distance of the well from the
static interface of the two fluids is very
important. Fingering and coning occur with
decreasingly small drawdowns as the dis-
tance shortens between the well and the
fingering or coning fluid. In nonhomo-
geneous sand, coning is greatly restricted
by small lenses of relatively low permeabil-
ity directly below the bottom of the well,
since these small lenses greatly distort the
potential gradients in the sand.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author appreciates the permission of
the Union Oil Company of California' to
publish this paper and especially thanks E.
C. Babson for many suggestions and con-
tributions. Thanks are also due to Jan Law
for his review and criticism.
NOMENCLATURE
Q = volume rate of flow.
k = permeability.
T = radius. ft.
h = sand thickness. ft.
po = viscosity.
.p = potential (velocity potential).
P = pressure, lb. per sq. in.
/lp = pressure drawdown of producing well.
lb. per sq. in.
'Yo = density of oil.
/l'Y = difference in density between two
fluids.
g = acceleration of gravity.
z = distance of point from selected
datum level. ft.
t = vertical distance of well from static
water level. ft.
8 = angle of dip of sand body, degrees.
'Y = height of cone above the datum
represented by the static interface of
the two fluids, ft.
.ptll = potential at well surface.
.pt.' = potential at well surface for Pw
= 0.001.
.p. = potential at well radius and at depth
z.
.p.= potential at drainage radius.
b = penetration of well in sand, ft.
. b
x = penetration parameter = 2ii
z
w = depth parameter = 2ii
_ r
P = radIUS parameter = 2h'
q = flux density = I.
In = natural logarithm.
C = correction of .p",' for value of P.. other
than 0.001.
d = distance from end of perforated
interval of well to point z. ft.
L = distance from end of perforated inter-
val of well to static interface of the
two fluids, ft.
g/l'Y = difference in hydrostatic gradient at
reservoir conditions between the two
fluids involved. lb. per sq. in. per ft.
 M. G. ARTHUR 197
r(n) = gamma function defined by From consideration of horizontal radial
flow, the following relationship exists:
r(n) = !o '" X'-' e-z dx = !or (In ~)-'
IJ.Q r
Tables of the gamma function are M = 27rkh In r.:
given in Dwight.'
I(s, y) = zeta function of Riemann'" defined Although the flow is not horizontal, it is
by
two-dimensional if the well completely
'" penetrates the sand, since the fluid motion
,(s, y) = ~(n ~ y)' is identically the same in parallel planes.
o
Furthermore, the static and flowing pres-
Subscripts sures whose difference constitutes M,
w = at well surface. the pressure drawdown, are both measured
z = at point in sand. at the same point; namely, the bore of the
e = at drainage radius.
T = above horizontal dividing plane in well. Consequently the factor of gravita-
sand. tional gradient between a point at the well
B = below horizontal dividing plane in
sand. bore and a point at radius r has been
eliminated. For these reasons P as well
REFERENCES as cp will satisfy the La Place differential
1. M. Muskat: The Flow of Homogeneous equation of potential theory.
Fluids through Porous Media. New York,
1937. McGraw-Hill Book Co. In order for the water finger to be stable,
2. Whittaker and Watson: Modern Analysis,
Ed. 4. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1927.
it is necessary that the pressure gradient
3· H. B. Dwight: Tables of Integrals and Other at the top of the water surface equal the
Mathematical Data. New York 1934. differential gravitational force between
Macmillan.
the water and the oil.
ApPENDIX

Consider the development of the equa-

cp = cpo - il'Yg (t - ~r)
il'Yg (t - ~; r)
tions for water fingering. The conditions
ilcp = M -
are illustrated by Fig. I and are described
in the body of the report. The rate of flow ilcp = M - il'Ygy [4]
may be expressed by the following equation: The quantity y represents the vertical
height of the water finger above the static
water level. Substitution of relationships
where expressed by Eqs. 2 ~d 3 gives
cP = p - 'Yogz IJ.Q In ~ =M - il'Ygy [5]
27f"kh rIO
The significance of the velocity potential
cp has been discussed. The flow is expressed . 27f"kh'
The quantity p.Q wh'h'
lC
tt
IS cons an
in terms of velocity potential rather than for any given set of conditions, may be
directly in terms of pressure because the evaluated at r equal to the drainage radius,
direction of flow is not horizontal and the the distance from the well at which the
gravitational gradient must be considered. static or shut-in pressure of the well exists
Separating variables in Eq. I, and in- during flowing conditions, by the following
tegrating between the limits of well radius form of Eq. 3:
and any greater radius gives:
IJ.Q _ M
[6]
27f"kh -1 r.
n-
r.
198 FINGERING AND CONING OF WATER AND GAS IN HOMOGENEOUS OIL SAND

Therefore Eq. 5 may be rewritten: By substitution of Eq. 12 for rmiD,

tli' r tli'
- In - = tli' - !:J.:ygy Yma. = ImlD - ---r-
In!.! r. A-yg In..!!.
r Vl r ..

The equation of the surface of the water Equating this to the general equation for
cusp is expressed by: y (Eq. 8), and solving for t gives

y =I- r sin (J =~(

'Yg
J -
In !.)
---...!!!
In !.!
[8]
I . _ _
miD -
tli'
A'Yg
(1+ r.) In-
rmiD
In!:!. [IS]
r Vl r ..

The limit of approach of the water finger The example cited in the body of the
to the well without exceeding the condi- report illustrates application of water
tion of stability can be determined. Fingers fingering in a homogeneous sand that has
of water approaching closer than this limit the geometric conditions shown by Fig. I.
will be drawn into the well. The potential In coning of water or gas into a well that
gradient set up from fluid flow may be partially penetrates a homogeneous oil
represented by sand as illustrated by Fig. 3, the relation of
the potential forces set up from the fluid
flowing in the sand to the differential
[9]
gravitational forces between the fluids
involved is shown by Muskat 1 to be
Substitution of the relationship expressed
by Eq. 6 gives A</> = </>.. - </>. = I _gA'Y h (I _:)
A</>. </>.. - </>. tli' h
[16]
[10]
Equations expressing the velocity poten-
tials deserve some explanation. Muskat
and the potential gradient set up by the has derived the following expression for the
differential gravitational forces between value of the potential over a sand in which
th,:, oil and water is given by there is a partially penetrating producing
well. The expression is valid for small
d</> dz • values of the radius parameter,
fir = !:J.-yg dr = !:J.-yg sm (J [II]
</> = {_ In reI + +
w X)r(I - w x) +
Simultanet)lls soluti(lfi (If the two pre- q reI - w - X)r(I w - x) +
ceding equations for r gives the minimum + In w + x + [p9 + (w + X)2]~
distance a finger can approach without W - X [p9+ +
(w - x)2]~i
being drawn into the well by an unstable
condition:
-i p'[f(2, I - W - x) - t(2, I - W+ x)
+ t(2, I -I- w - x) - rc2, i +. 10 + x)]
tli'
rmiD = [12] + 0(p4) \ [17]
A-yg sin (} In !!
r ..
The last term drops out because the
From geometric considerations, coefficient is zero. The term involving p2
is negligible for the range of values encoun-
y =t- r sin (} [13] tered. Eq. 17 is derived for a well of in-

finitely small radius. However, it does not
conform to the requirements that the
potential is uniform over the well surface.
In order to satisfy this condition for a
well of finite radius, the flux density q
is not taken to be uniform over the well
surface. It is adjusted to values over finite
increments of length of the well that will
enable a uniform potential to be obtained
over the surface of the well. Fig. 80 of
Muskat1 shows the adjusted and unad-
justed values given by Eq. 17. Fig. 4 of
this paper is a cross plot of the adjusted
values presented graphically by Muskat.
Muskat indicates that the actual well
potential may be taken to be proportional
to the value obtained from Eq. 17, using
a uniform flux density q and setting
w= %x.
Fig. 4 is based on a particular well-radius
parameter p. = 0.001, or rIO = 0.002h.
In order to correct the values given by
Fig. 4 for potential at the well-bore radius
to values of well-bore radius other than
p.. = 0.001, Eq. 17 was evaluated for
different values of the variables and with
w = %x. It was assumed that the variation
of the adjusted well potential with well
radius is proportional to the variation of
the unadjusted values of potential. The
variation of CPo with P.. was found to be
negligible except for points very close to
the well. Well-bore correction factors to
be applied to the value of well potential
CP ..' from Fig. 4 are presented in Fig. 5.
Variation of CPo is also included in Fig. 5
for the extreme case of 90 per cent well
penetration and at a point 10 per cent into
the oil sand beyond the extremity of the
well.
For large values of the radius parameter,
the value of the potential in the sand is
given by Muskat to be
n- '"
cP = 4q [!7r n=1
k !ff Ko(2n7rp) cos (2mru')
sin (2ff7rW) + x ln~]
DISCUSSION 199
Ko is the Hankel function or Bessel
function of zero order and modified second
kind (sometimes called the third kind).
A detailed discussion of Bessel functions
is given by Whittaker and Watson. 2 For
large values of the argument X, the follow-
ing asymptotic expansion is given for
Ko by Dwight:'
Ko(X) ~C~)~ e-x [I - J!~2X+ 2~~8;;2
12 • 32 • 52 ]
- 3f(8XP + ... [191
Since the value of the argument X = 2mrp
is large, the value of the function Ko is
neglibibly small for practical values of
drainage radius. For p equal to or greater
than one, Eq. 18 may be written
2
cP = 4qxln-p
Eq. 20 is the basis for the values of cpo
presented in Fig. 6.
DISCUSSION
N. VAN WINGEN,* Los Angeles, Calif.-This
paper presents an interesting application of
mathematical concepts developed by M.
Muskat. Because of the complexity of the
problem, the mathematics are of necessity
involved and although treatment is facilitated
by means of Mr. Arthur's charts, a considerable
knowledge of advanced mathematics continues
to be necessary in order to follow through
adequately the various steps of the analysis.
As such, the paper presents a formidable
obstacle to the average engineer.
In regard to the practical value of the results
to be obtained by this method, it is apparent
that the simplifying assumptions, which, of
necessity, have to be made as yet for the
analytical treatment of a problem of this
nature, may in certain areas severely limit the
quantitative usefulness of the data. For
example, it seems doubtful whether any pro-
ductive zone in California could meet the
required prerequisite of homogeneity and yet
[181 • Senior Production Engineer. Richfield Oil
Corporation.
200 FINGERING AND CONING OF WATER AND GAS IN HOMOGENEOUS OIL SAND
be sufficiently massive to permit the selective
perforation of but a portion of the productive
sand to yield a commercially productive well.
Likewise, inability to discern small lenses of
low-permeability sand directly below the bot-
tom of the well in an otherwise homogeneous
sand body would result, as the author points
out, in the well being perforated unnecessarily
high. This will not only cause a loss in well
potential but may well result also in the obtain-
ment of a lesser ultimate recovery due to
by-passing of the encroaching water. One other
point suggests· itself, and that is that the per-
missible well drawdown to prevent fingering
and coning will decrease continuously as water
encroaches with the depletion of the oil reserve,
or in the event of an expanding gas cap. This
again may mean that well rates may soon
become uneconomic.
These comments are not offered to distract
in any manner from the value of this excellent
paper, but merely to emphasize again that
extreme caution has to be exercised in applying
analytical methods to actual oil-field problems.
It is to be hoped that work of this nature will
continue to be pursued intensively, so that
ultimately we may perhaps learn to evaluate
specifically the effects of the various complicat-
ing factors that now have to be ruled out from
the consideration as being too complex to lend
themselves to mathematical treatment.
W. T. LIETZ,· Los Angeles, Calif.-I con-
sider Mr. Arthur's paper a valuable contribu-
tion to the theoretical background of water and
gas coning. In the application of the results of
this theoretical analysis, the following points
may need some further investigation. It
appears from the mathematical development
that the maximum height to which a water
cone can be drawn up without entering the
well is independent of the permeability of the
rock, viscosities of the fluids and relative per-
meabilities of the rock after replacement of one
fluid by another.
The only factors appearing in the formulas
are Slope of formation, distance of well from
edge water and difference in density of fluids.
This result would seem logical, since the
"thor considers the time that the cone has
ieached its maximum height ~nd is therefore
stationary. However, when one considers the
• Shell on Company.
period in which the cone is formed, the situa-
tion is somewhat different.
The rate of advancement of the cone is a
function of the relationship between the vis-
cosities of the fluids and relative permeability.
During the time the cone is formed, oil is
produced from the well, causing a general rise
of the water table, and conditions may prevent
stable conditions from ever being reached. It
would be interesting to make some investiga-
tions for different known viscosities and relative
permeabilities of the effect of the delay in the
formation of the water cone.
In a water drive, the oil is produced as a
result of the replacement of oil by water. For a
maximum recovery of oil, it is essential that
the washing action in the area, invaded by the
water, is as complete as possible, and that the
volume of the reservoir, invaded by the water,
is a maximum at the time the well reaches its
economic limit. The mathematical develop-
ment in the paper deals only with static condi-
tions, and it would be interesting to see an
analysis of the effect of the rate of production
on the efficiency of replacement and the size
and shape of the reservoir invaded by water at
the time the well is abandoned.
These investigations would seem necessary
for an interpretation of the mathematical
developments of the paper. The numerical
example shows that for a development with
600 ft. radius (± 30 acres per well) the allow-
able drawdown is very small, so that, unless
permeabilities are extremely high, the rate of
production would be so small that in some
cases the well would reach its economic limit
before the cone has been formed, owing to the
decline in productivity index observed in many
reservoirs.
These considerations apply also to the case
of water and gas coning discussed in the second
part of the paper.
M. G. ARTHUR (author's reply).-Since it
was realized that the mathematics involved in
a development of the problem are a formidable
obstacle to many engineers, the paper pre-
sented attempted to indicate the relative effect
of the various variables to those who would
accept the validity of the mathematical
development.
Some California oil fields having high perme-
ability and low standard deviations of perme-
 DISCUSSION
ability· are sufficiently homogeneous for coning
to occur. However, most California fields have
relatively low effective permeability at right
angles to the bedding planes and the fingering
type of water encroachment is commoner than
coning.
In fields where there is evidence that coning
may occur, intervals of low permeability such
as shale lenses may be located by electric logs
or by cores, and if such a break is at a con-
venient point the well may be plugged to this
point before the liner is run, or cemented blank
liner may be perforated above this point. If
vertical permeability is such that coning can
occur, little oil will be lost ultimately because
the level of the bottom water probably will
rise, flushing oil out of the sand below the
shale lens at which the well was bottomed.
If the water table fails to rise, the interval
below the shale lens may be perforated as a
salvage operation late in the life of the field,
at which time drawdowns will be low and
adequate dehydration facilities probably will
have been constructed to handle the production.
Where water encroaches the oil reservoir
with depletion, it is unavoidable that produc-
tion rates without coning will eventually be-
come uneconomic. The solution would be to
accept the production of water with the oil or
to prevent it by plugging back the wells. It is
hoped that consideration of the relationships
presented in the paper will aid in determining
the extent of these operations.
• J. Law: A Statistical Approach to Inter-
stitial Heterogeneity of Sand Reservoirs. This
volume, page 202.
201
In primary and secondary water drive the
objective is not to prevent water encroachment
but to prevent undue fingering of the ad-
vancing water front. :For edge water advancing
at a relatively constant rate in a homogeneous
sand, the relationships presented in the paper
will determine the lead that a finger or cone
can have on the advancing front. If the general
encroachment is so rapid that stable conditions
cannot be attained, fingering and coning will
be of less magnitude than shown by the paper.
The effect of rate of production on efficiency
of replacement or washing action is a dynamic
problem of a nature different from coning and
fingering. It must be attacked from an entirely
different approach, which would involve many
more variables than those considered in this
paper.
The solution of the problem of preventing
unreasonably low drawdowns without water
coning is to stay some distance away from the
static edge-water position. The allowable pres-
sure drawdowns increase exponentially with
increasing distance of the well from static
edge-water position. In the numerical example
of water coning presented, uneconomical rates
of production would be required in order to
prevent water coning. The alternatives would
be to accept production of water with the oil
or to plug back the well to a greater distance
from the bottom water.
In regard to well density, the spacing is not
a good measure of the drainage radius. Drain-
age radius very often is greater than the dis-
tance between wells.