SPE 133162

An Improved Water Coning Calculation for Horizontal Wells

P. Permadi and T. Jayadi, Institut Teknologi Bandung

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE/RO&G Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference held in Moscow, Russia, 26–28 October 2010.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Actual coning behavior in a horizontal well is not fully understood. Lacks of knowledge of fluids distribution within the
reservoir and the heterogeneity as well lead to either over-predicting or under-predicting performance of the well implemented.
The prediction done then needs to be revised in the effort to re-evaluate the economic of the well.
This paper presents a semi-empirical method for predicting post breakthrough performance of horizontal wells. The
method was developed based on straight forward Darcy equation for linear flow and the principle of material balance. An
iterative procedure of calculation is provided for predicting production performance. Based on results of the parametric study
conducted using a numerical reservoir simulator, corrections necessary for the linear flow model proposed were established.
Water cresting efficiency is defined in this study by inverting the correction factor and was found systematically to relate with
factors that influence the coning behavior.
The applicability of the proposed method was validated using two sets of field data. The first data set is the case
having practically initial zero water cut, while the other set represents cases with high water cut since the production start up.
Results of prediction for both cases are in very good agreement with the field data.

Introduction
Water coning is a process of water invasion into oil zone that occurs in a bottom water drive reservoir. The water underlying
the oil column is drained by the well bore during the oil production. The cone of water is formed because the water starts
moving from the presumably flat oil-water contact toward the perforated interval located above that contact. Water coning will
occur when the viscous forces are sufficiently greater than the gravity forces within the drainage area and the viscous forces
decreases from the well bore toward the drainage boundaries. Such a process is frequently called as water cresting when the
well is a horizontal well.
Once the top of water crest touches the productive interval of the well, the well just starts producing water together
with the oil. The very first arrival of water in the wellbore is called as breakthrough. Since then the rate of increase in water
production is influenced by several factors such as withdrawal rate, ratio of water-to-oil mobility, ratio of vertical-to-horizontal
permeability, distance from the wellbore to oil-water contact, productive length of the wellbore, and both the size and shape of
drainage area (Yang and Wattenberger, 1991; Permadi, 1996; de Souza et al, 1998).
Knowledge about the advantages of horizontal well technology for improving oil recovery over conventional vertical
one has been well established. In bottom water drive reservoirs, some of the advantages include higher production rate, longer
time for water breakthrough, and better sweep efficiency in displacing oil by the bottom water.

Literature Review
Many studies have been conducted on the behavior of water coning. Muskat and Wyckoff in 1935 proposed a simple
formulation for water coning in a vertical well. Such efforts were then followed by others (see Joshi (1991) and Recham
(2001)) to develop correlations for estimating critical rates and breakthrough time in vertical wells. Later, empirical
correlations were developed to predict after breakthrough performance of vertical well producing oil from a bottom water
drive reservoir (Kuo and DesBrisay, 1983). These were based on sensitivity study of parameters affecting the coning behavior.
As the horizontal well technology advances, researches on water cresting behavior were conducted mathematically
(Chaperon, 1986; Hoyland et al, 1986; Giger, 1989; Ozkan and Rhagavan, 1990; Papatzacos, 1991; Guo et al, 1992;
Tiefenthal, 1992) and physically as well at laboratory scale (Abbas and Bass, 1988; Aulie et al, 1993; Permadi et al, 1995;
Jiang and Butler, 1998; Wibowo et al, 2004). Comprehensive mathematical modeling was conducted to investigate the best
grid systems to be used and factors affecting water cresting behavior (Abbas and Bass, 1988; Islam, 1990, Yang and
2 SPE 133162

Wattenberger, 1991; Palagi and Azis, 1993; de Souza et al, 1998). Numerical models were also used to derive semi-empirical
and empirical equations to estimate critical rates and breakthrough time (Yang and Wattenberger, 1991; Recham et al, 2000;
Recham, 2001), optimum rate (Recham, 2001), and predict post breakthrough performance (de Souza et al, 1998).
The existing correlations and the calculations procedure available for post-breakthrough prediction are to predict a horizontal
well performance having initial zero water cut. In the implementation of a horizontal well in a bottom water drive reservoir,
however, unexpected high water cut at the time of start up may occur or water cut suddenly jumps high in several days after
start up.

Problem Statement
In many cases, due to economic reasons, horizontal wells drilled in bottom water drive reservoir are produced above critical
rates, causing a water crest to deform. A short breakthrough time might be expected. Even sometimes, due to some reasons, a
horizontal well produces liquid with relatively high water cut at the start up, leading to over-prediction of actual oil production.
In this situation, the plan of water treatment may have to be re-evaluated regarding the time of installation, the size of
facilities, and the amount of chemicals required. The economic calculation made has automatically to be re-evaluated. This
situation put a reservoir engineer to promptly re-predict production performance of the well. Except the method of numerical
simulation which is costly and time consuming, no quick but reliable method is available to re-predict such horizontal well
performance.

Objectives
The objectives of the present work are to:
1) develop an empirical method to predict horizontal well performance producing oil from a bottom water drive
reservoir,
2) modify the previous calculation procedure to accommodate cases where the water cut is initially greater than zero,
and
3) demonstrate the applicability of the improved method using field data.

Method Development
Fig. 1 shows a conceptual cross-section of a homogenous but vertically anisotropic bottom water drive reservoir producing the
oil through a horizontal well having a length L. The cross-section is perpendicular to the horizontal well bore axis. The oil
reservoir is modeled to have a thickness h with a drainage length and width of Ye and Xe, respectively. The initial oil-water
contact is at a distance of h from the no-flow upper boundary. The reservoir pressure at the lateral boundaries is assumed
constant throughout the producing life of the well.

Fig. 1 - A schematic cross-section of the model, perpendicular to horizontal wellbore axis (after Permadi, 1996).

The assumptions made for this model are steady-state flow and negligible effects of all: gravity forces, capillary
forces, partial completion, changes of fluid properties of each phase, and well-bore friction losses. During production of the
oil, the average thickness of the oil zone invaded by water is hw (see Fig. 1). At the time of water breakthrough tBT, the average
thickness of the invaded zone hwBT can be determined using Eq. (1) below.

5.615Qo Bot BT
hwBT = ............................................... (1)
X eYeφ (1 − S wc − S or )

In deriving the equation for calculating water-oil ratio after water breakthrough it is for now assumed that the horizontal well
fully penetrates the drainage length, L = Ye, and positioned at a distance d from the oil-water contact, single phase flow occurs
in each liquid zone, drainage width Xe is much larger than the height of water crest, and both radial flow around wellbore and
end effects are ignored. Assuming further that pressure differences between reservoir and wellbore are the same for the two
zones and oil and water flow at irreducible water saturation and residual oil saturation, respectively, then the equation for a
SPE 133162 3

linear system at reservoir conditions is:

qw ⎛ k rw
′ μ o ⎞⎛ hw ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ ...................................................... (2)
qo ⎝ k ro′ μ w ⎟⎠⎜⎝ d − hw ⎟⎠

It has been shown previously that, in a system with water cresting, the flow of water and oil is affected by many factors, in
addition to mobility ratio, such as productive well length, withdrawal rate, stand-off of the horizontal wellbore, vertical
anisotropy, and drainage size (Yang and Wattenberger, 1991; de Souza et al, 1998). These factors may cause the fluids to
deviate from linear flow within the drainage area. It is therefore proposed here a correction factor that accommodates the
deviation in the use of Eq. (2). Suppose Fc is the correction factor that takes into account all of the affecting factors just
mentioned, so that Eq. (2) takes the following form:

qw ⎛ hw ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ × Fc .............................................................. (3)
qo ⎜⎝ d − hw ⎟⎠

In the use of Eq. (2) or Eq. (3), the value of hw is constrained by d, meaning that water cut will reach 100% when hw = d. In
this context, it implies that a horizontal well should be placed up away from the oil-water contact in order for the well to drain
the oil as much as possible. To find Fc for the use of Eq. (3), we have built a bottom water drive reservoir model run in a
commercial reservoir simulator. This will be discussed later in the next section. Determination of hw is discussed first below.

The development of water layer or the invaded zone above oil-water contact is due to the bottom water stripping out the oil
column in a linear, piston-like displacement fashion. By using material balance at reservoir conditions, the average thickness
hw at a producing time t is:

n
5.615 Σ (Qoi Boi Δti )
hw = hwBT + i =1
..................................... (4)
X eYeφ (1 − S wc − S or )

where QoiBoi is the average oil production rate at reservoir conditions during an incremental producing time Δti after water
breakthrough and ΣΔti = ti – tBT. In the calculation, for simplicity, the formation volume factor of the oil Boi may be assumed
constant throughout the producing life of the well.

TABLE 1 – BASIC DATA SET FOR SIMULATION RUNS

Drainage length, ft 2640

Drainage width, ft 1320
Oil column, ft 75
Porosity, fraction 0.20
Horizontal permeability, md 1000
-1 -6
Rock compressibility, psi 1 × 10
Initial reservoir pressure, psi 2320
Vertical permeability, md 1000
Bubble point pressure, psi 1500
Connate water saturation, fraction 0.40
Residual oil saturation, fraction 0.25
Oil viscosity, cp 1.10
Water viscosity, cp 0.47
Oil formation volume factor, rb/stb 1.22
Water formation volume factor, rb/stb 1.00
End-point oil relative permeability, fraction 0.80
End-point water relative permeability, fraction 0.35

Correction Factor Fc
A box-shaped bottom water drive reservoir model was built. A single horizontal well model was implemented in the reservoir
simulator with black oil option. A logarithmic grid system is selected for both i-direction, perpendicular to the wellbore axis
and k-direction with the smallest grid width is about 1 foot. The linear grid length in j-direction is about 25 feet. The ratio of
4 SPE 133162

aquifer-to-reservoir volume is greater than 40, depending on the reservoir size. A Corey-type relative permeability was
adopted with an exponent of 1.0 for both oil and water relative permeability curves. Table 1 shows the basic parameters of the
reservoir and fluid properties data for the numerical simulation study. Variations of the parameters (2nd to 8th columns) used
in the sensitivity study are presented in Table 2. In all the cases, the horizontal well is placed at a distance of 0.75h above the
oil-water contact. Each simulation run was performed with the limit of water cut of 98%. There were thirty three cases run.

TABLE 2 – VARIATION OF PARAMETERS USED

IN THE SENSITIVITY STUDY AND THE RESULTED CORRECTION FACTOR

Xe Ye L Qt M kv/kh h Fc

Drainage Width 1320 2640 1000 5000 1.86 1 75 1.799

1000 2.179
1460 1.647
1860 1.332
Drainage Length 1320 1.603
2000 1.695
4000 2.066
Length of 500 2.105
Horizontal 1000 1.799
1500 1.631
2000 1.426
Liquid Rate 1000 1.327
2500 1.558
4000 1.706
6000 1.905
10000 2.320
Mobility Ratio 1.34 1.427
2.59 2.151
9.25 3.617
13.9 4.323
kv/kh 0.1 1.290
0.25 1.445
0.4 1.545
0.5 1.610
0.70 1.721
Thickness 25 2.882
40 2.375
50 2.237
65 1.949

Note: 1. Numerical values in the first row were for the base case.
2. Blank entry indicates that the parameter has its base values.

{ Simulation { Simulation
– Proposed Method – Proposed Method

Fig 2 – Typical comparison of Water Cut (a) and Cumulative Oil Production (b) versus time after matching the
calculated performance with the results of numerical simulation.

In completing Eq. (3), the correction factor for each case was first guessed by using Eq. (9) of the previous
publication (Permadi, 1996) with the procedure of calculation as given in the Appendix of the present paper. The limit of water
SPE 133162 5

cut was the same with that used in the simulation runs. The results of calculation for each case, particularly the performance
of water cut and cumulative oil, were then compared with those obtained from the simulation. Corrections were then made to
find Fc needed by trial-and-error in order for the calculated performance to match with that resulted from the numerical
simulation (typically shown in Fig. 2). Thirty three values of Fc were resulted from combination of the seven parameters
varied, as presented in the last column of Table 2. As depicted in this table, for example, the value of Fc increases with
withdrawal rate and mobility ratio. It is certainly expected that deviation from linear flow increases as water cresting becomes
severe. Next to do was to group all the sensitivity parameters into three dimensionless groups each containing parameters with
the same unit. For the effect of vertical flow, the parameter d was used, instead of h, because water cresting behavior was
considered more sensitive to well-bore stand off than to oil column thickness. Withdrawal rate parameter was not taken into
account in grouping to simplify the formulation of Fc. It was assumed in this study however that after breakthrough
performance for cases with early or premature water breakthrough is controlled by viscous forces primarily due to withdrawal
rate in addition to mobility ratio. Therefore, we considered the relationship directly between withdrawal rate and correction
factor as a part in establishing an empirical formula for Fc. By performing non-linear regression analysis, the following
formula is obtained:

B
′ μ o ⎞ ⎛ X eYe ⎞ ⎛ k v ⎞ D
⎛ k rw
C

⎜
Fc = A⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ k ⎟ ................................. (5)
k ′
⎝ ro w ⎠ ⎝ dL ⎠ ⎝
μ h⎠

where A = 0.025Qt0.23, B = 0.45, C = 0.503, and D = 0.14.

Eq. (3) now takes the following form:

0.503
qw 0.45 ⎛ X Y ⎞ ⎛ kv ⎞
0.14
⎛ hw ⎞
= 0.025Qt0.23 (M ) ⎜ e e ⎟ ⎜ k ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (6)
qo ⎝ dL ⎠ ⎝ h⎠ ⎝ d − hw ⎠

where M is end-point mobility ratio. Eq. (6) indicates that water cresting behavior is significantly influenced by mobility ratio,
drainage geometry or area, both horizontal well length and position, and withdrawal rate, but not much affected by kv/kh. After
water breakthrough and at any producing time t, water-oil ratio increases with withdrawal rate, mobility ratio, and drainage
area and is reduced as the well stand-off and length increases and vertical-to-horizontal permeability ratio decreases.
When water-oil ratio can be determined, Eq. (7) below is then used to calculate the surface water cut in percent.

1
WC = × 100 ........................................................ (7)
q o Bw
+1
q w Bo

The procedure of calculation for determining average daily producing rates for both oil and water and cumulative oil
is given in the Appendix.

Cresting Efficiency
Like in other processes of oil displacement by water, recovery of bottom water drive reservoirs also depends on how effective
the bottom water in displacing the oil column within the drainage area. The most efficient displacement process will be
obtained when the displacement front, the oil-water contact in this case, moves at the same velocity throughout the area. This
situation may be achieved at the corresponding critical rate or lower. In normal operations, however, withdrawal rates are
usually higher than the critical rate.
This study takes the benefit from establishing the deviation factor to estimate the displacement efficiency provided by
the bottom water. As discussed previously, the approach used in developing the proposed method is for a linear, piston like
displacement. Eq. (2) above says that no correction is needed when the flow is perfectly linear or Fc = 1 and thus no deviation
occurs. Furthermore, it is obvious that the maximum volumetric displacement efficiency of any displacement process is 1.0 or
100%. This corresponds to a maximum displaceable oil (Soi – Sor) in an immiscible displacement and the maximum recovery
efficiency is (Soi – Sor)/ Soi. It is just shown that the correction factor Fc obtained in the present study has values greater than
1.0, ranging from 1.29 to 4.32. Let us now define cresting efficiency Ec = 1/Fc and thus Ec obtained here ranges from 0.23 to
0.77 or 23% to 77%. If Ec is volumetric displacement efficiency then the maximum Ec should be 1.0. Therefore, we can write
the maximum recovery efficiency due to water cresting is Ec(Soi – Sor)/ Soi. Defining this term of efficiency facilitates engineers
understanding about water cresting behavior and its implication to recovery efficiency from the use of a horizontal well
experiencing water cresting.
6 SPE 133162

100 100

90 90 (b)
(a)
80 80
Cresting Efficiency, %

Cresting Efficiency, %
70 70

60 60

50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Withdrawal Rate, BFPD Mobility Ratio (M), dimensionless

100

90 (c)
80
Cresting Efficiency, %

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Drainage Length (Ye), ft

Fig. 3 - Relationships between cresting efficiency Ec and factors affecting cresting behavior.

Typical results of Ec versus all the affecting parameters are shown in Fig. 3 for all the cases run in the parametric study
(see also Table 2). This figure demonstrates, for instance (see Fig. 3-a), that cresting efficiency Ec increases systematically as
withdrawal rate is reduced and Ec tends to go to 1.0 when the rate is low positive. The similar effect is shown by mobility ratio
(Fig. 3-b) in that Ec decreases even worst for mobility ratio of greater than about 1. The effect of drainage width Ye and length
Xe on cresting efficiency is demonstrated in Figs. 3-c and 3-d, respectively, for the base case (see Table 2). This explains how
the reservoir flow deviates from linear flow fashion as Ye is increased and Xe is reduced, but Xe yields more pronounced effect.
This is obvious because the increase in Xe/h leads the fluids being dominated by linear flow. Even though, the net effect of Xe
and Ye is the effect of drainage area on the drawdown (Jayadi, 2009). In return, the higher the drawdown, the lower is the
cresting efficiency. Fig. 3-e shows as expected that Ec increases for longer horizontal well length but it is significantly reduced
SPE 133162 7

below 500-foot well length for this particular base case. In the case of Ec against kv/kh (see Fig. 3-f), cresting efficiency
increases slowly when kv/kh is reduced. But it would be quite significant if the low effective vertical permeability within the
drainage area were due to the existence of impermeable or nearly impermeable streaks (Permadi et al., 1996; Dou et al., 1999;
Zhao, et al., 2006). Fig. 3-g exhibits the effect of oil column thickness on Ec where cresting efficiency increases with the
thickness. Again, for a constant withdrawal rate, an increase in oil thickness results in a reduced drawdown and a longer
breakthrough time. Basically overall, changing parameters that cause an increase in drawdown within the drainage area will
cause water coning or cresting more severe and thus reduce water cresting efficiency. There are some situations, however,
where the effect of one or two parameters on cresting behavior may be overcome by the others.

Applications
Calculation procedure. The procedure of calculation to predict production performance of a horizontal well in a bottom water
drive reservoir is presented in the Appendix. The procedure is taken from our previous publication (Permadi, 1996) with slight
modification to include cases with high water cut at the production start up.
As discussed previously, the ideal model used in the proposed method assumes that the oil-water contact is flat
initially prior to production. This means that tBT > 0. For the case with initial WC > 0, one has to determine first an amount of
cumulative oil, called as pseudo cumulative oil that had been produced at that water cut. When this determination is done, the
pseudo Np is converted to an oil column thickness which is added to both the actual data of the oil column thickness and well
bore stand off. To check whether this new or pseudo oil column thickness is correct, iterative calculation has to be performed
until the calculated thickness is convergent. When this convergence is achieved, the calculation can be continued by using both
the historical data of withdrawal rates and producing time and then prediction of future performance can be made.

History of the wells. Two cases of horizontal wells (after Luwansha, 2004), E-1HW and E-2STH, are used to demonstrate the
applicability of the proposed method. These two wells are located in the same offshore field and were drilled to produce the oil
from the same E sand. As the standard, a pilot hole was drilled first prior to drilling the horizontal section to obtain data of top
boundary of the sand and well logs, and to estimate the thickness of the oil column. Drilling the first well horizontally was
considered very successful because the productive sand is relatively thin of about 22 feet and the horizontal wellbore section
length of 1,100 feet could be placed close to the top of the sand. This well bore exists in between a major fault and a minor
fault. Upon completion of the well, production start up was initiated on September 9, 1996, at a rate of 729 BFPD, yielding a
low water cut of about 6%. This particular well is separated from the other wells by a fault. Water cut started to increase a
month later after withdrawing the fluids at rates above 1,200 BFPD. Following this success, a deviated well, E-2DW,
producing oil with water cut of 88% from the same sand was decided for side tracking a horizontal well. The pilot hole
penetrated 16-foot oil column. The program again successfully drilled a 1,200-foot horizontal well, E-2STH, with 13-foot
stand-off but the well bore is about 200 feet from the major fault. Also the toe and tip of the well are at a distance of about
1,000 feet and 700 feet, respectively, from the E-2DW well and another deviated well. Surprisingly, the initial water cut at the
start up with a withdrawal rate of 109 BFPD was about 61% and the water cut remained nearly constant for the first six
months, even when the withdrawal was increased as high as 2,000 BFPD. Such high initial water cut could be due to the
effects coming from those neighbor deviated wells. Furthermore, within the last one and a half years water cut was not much
affected by withdrawal rate which was increased gradually from about 1,100 to 1,600 BFPD. The two wells under this study
had similar water cut performance in that the water cut went up and down and sometime stayed constant for months or even
more than one year although the withdrawals were significantly changed. These wells could maintain production economically
for more than eight years, giving a cumulative oil of 1.12 MMSTB from E-1HW well and 0.85 MMSTB from E-2STH well.
Table 3 shows the related data for those wells.
8 SPE 133162

TABLE 3 – FIELD DATA OF EXAMPLES USED

(After Luwansha, 2004)
Well Name
Parameter E – 1HW E – 2STH

Drainage width, (Xe) ft 1700* 2400

Drainage length, (Ye) ft 3000 3000
Average horizontal permeability, (kh) md 500 500
Average vertical permeability, (kv) md 400 400
Porosity, (φ) fraction 0.32 0.32
Connate water saturation, (Swc) fraction 0.35 0.35
Residual oil saturation, (Sor) fraction 0.30 0.30
End-point oil relative permeability, (kro@Swc) fraction 0.72 0.72
End-point water relative permeability, (krw@Sor) fraction 0.4 0.4
Oil column thickness, (h) ft 22 16
Horizontal well length, (Lh) ft 1100 1200
Stand-off, (d) ft 20 13
Oil viscosity, (μw) cp 0.37 0.37
Water viscosity, (μo) cp 0.53 0.53
Oil density, (ρo) lb/cuft 51.792 51.792
Water density, (ρw) lb/cuft 66.768 66.768
Oil formation volume factor, (Bo) rb/STB 1.33 1.33
Water formation volume factor, (Bw) rb/STB 1.00 1.00
Well bore radius, (rw) ft 0.51 0.51
Water Cut at start-up, % 6 61
Cumulative oil, MMSTB 1.12 0.85

* After correction due to existing faults.

Fig. 4 - Comparisons of water cut and cumulative oil production between results of prediction and the field data for E-1HW well.

Predictions. For E-1HW well, since water cut is very low at the start-up, it is convenient to assume that tBT is so small that
NpBT is neglected. The calculation for prediction was then performed using the procedure given in the Appendix from steps No.
5 to No. 15. Here a tolerance ε1 = 1 × 10-3 for step No. 12 is chosen for accuracy in predicting water cut. The number of
iteration needed to meet the value of ε1 was only 2 to 4. The results of prediction are compared with the historical data as
shown in Fig. 4. Some values of predicted water cut are quite far off for some production periods. The up and down in water
cut of the field data (see Fig. 4-a) are probably due to the effects of nearby faults, heterogeneity of the reservoir, or the aquifer
strength that might be weaker than expected. In terms of cumulative oil production, however, the prediction shows very good
match with the historical data (see Fig. 4-b). In addition, this example with such a low initial water cut demonstrates that
taking tBT = 0 as an assumption yields a reliable results of prediction.
The E-2STH well may be a typical of many horizontal wells that have unexpected high water cut at production start-
up. Side-tracking from a vertical well having a high water cut combined with unknown fluids saturation distribution within the
drainage area might be one of the factors causing unexpected performance of the horizontal well. This is probably due to the
drainage area of the horizontal well covers the area of the older deviated wells as described above, so that the horizontal well
drained a portion of the drainage area having high water saturation. Beside, the E-2STH well has in fact been draining too
SPE 133162 9

much water very early, resulting in the initial water cut of about 61% as mentioned above.
Using the data given in Table 3 and following the calculation procedure presented in the Appendix with ε2 = 0.01
required at step No.18 for the case with initial water cut greater than zero. The calculation done resulted in the pseudo-h of 23
feet which is the actual oil column thickness of 16 feet plus the one converted from the calculated pseudo-cumulative oil of
0.741 MMSTB that were produced at water cut of 61%. With the pseudo-h meaning that the well would produce fluids with
zero water cut at the start up. Eventually, the prediction of the performance is then compared with the actual field performance.
As shown in Fig 5-a, although the predicted water cut for E-2STH well can not match closely with the actual data points, the
trend of the prediction still follows the field performance. For the cumulative oil production (see Fig. 5-b), the resulted
prediction is lower than the field data at the late production period with the largest difference of 11.7% for the last data point.
This difference is probably due to the complexity of the reservoir system, including the unknown initial fluids distribution that
caused such high initial water cut and the actual driving mechanisms. It should be recalled that the method was developed by
assuming an ideal, homogeneous system.

Fig. 5 - Comparisons of Water Cut and cumulative oil production between results of prediction and the field data for E-2STH well.

The application of the cresting efficiency resulted as functions of the important parameters to estimate recovery by a
horizontal well is evaluated employing those field data. Based on the data shown in Table 3, it can be said that the mobility
ratio is a favorable one. The horizontal wells are quite long and the withdrawal rates are several hundreds to 2300 BFPD. The
reservoir has excellent vertical-to-horizontal permeability ratio and relatively thin oil columns. The use of Fig. 4 (generated for
final water cut of 98%) yields an arithmetic average Ec = 72% and 70% and thus the recovery efficiency is about 39% and
37% (= Ec (Soi – Sor)/ Soi), respectively, for E-1HW well and E-2STH well. These are the ultimate recovery efficiency that will
be obtained for the wells at water cut of 98%. The oil recovery predicted by the proposed method is about 34% for the first
well at the last predicted water cut of 83% and only 24% at the last predicted water cut of 87% for the second well. This
situation tells us how less efficient the use of horizontal well (i.e. E-2STH) with premature waterbreakthrough. More
interestingly, as has been described above, water cut in this field was not much affected by withdrawal rate in some production
periods. This may be one of many field examples for which further study is needed to better understand water coning or
cresting phenomena in the effort to establish production strategy to gain better oil recovery.
Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that the proposed method is applicable for predicting water cresting behavior
in horizontal wells with acceptable results.

Conclusions
1. A linear, steady-state flow approach was used as the basis to develop an empirical method for predicting post-
breakthrough performance of a horizontal well in a bottom water drive reservoir. A reservoir simulation study was
conducted to investigate the deviation resulted from the approach. The deviation obtained was then numerically used as
the correction factor for the linear flow model.
2. An empirical correlation to estimate the correction factor was developed. The correction factor is a function of parameters
influencing cresting behavior.
3. Cresting efficiency was defined in this study. The understanding obtained from this study is very helpful in establishing
the strategy for producing oil from bottom water drive reservoirs.
4. A procedure of calculation was developed to cover re-prediction of new horizontal wells having high or positive water cut
at the start-up. Two examples of field data were used to validate the applicability of the proposed method. Comparisons
between predicted performance and the field data demonstrate the reliability of the method.
10 SPE 133162

Nomenclature
A = constant in Eq. (6)
B = exponent in Eq. (6)
C = exponent in Eq. (6)
D = exponent in Eq. (6)
Bo = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB
Boi = average oil formation volume factor at time ti, RB/STB
Bw = water formation volume factor, RB/STB
d = stand-off or distance from wellbore axis to oil-water contact, ft
Ec = cresting efficiency, fraction or percent
Fc = correction factor, dimensionless
h = oil column thickness, ft
Δh′ = Pseudo-oil oil column thickness, ft
hw = average thickness of water-invaded zone, ft
hwBT = average thickness of water-invaded zone at breakthrough time, ft
i = i-th increment
kh = horizontal permeability, md
kv = vertical permeability, md
k'ro = end-point oil relative permeability
k'rw = end-point water relative permeability
L = productive length of horizontal wellbore, ft
M = mobility ratio, dimensionless
n = number of incremental producing time after breakthrough
Np = Cumulative oil production, STB
Npp = Pseudo-cumulative oil, STB
qo = reservoir daily oil production rate, RB/d
qt = reservoir daily liquids production rate, RB/d
qw = reservoir daily water production rate, RB/d
Qo = surface daily oil production rate, STB/d
Qoi = average surface daily oil production at Δti, STB/d
Qt = surface daily liquids production rate, STB/d
Sor = residual oil saturation, fraction
Swc = connate water saturation, fraction
t = producing time, day
tBT = breakthrough time, day
Δt = incremental producing time after breakthrough, day
Δti = i-th incremental of producing time after breakthrough, day
WC = water cut, percent
ε1 = absolute error of calculated water cut
ε2 = absolute error of calculated thickness of oil column
μo = oil viscosity at reservoir conditions, cp
μw = water viscosity at reservoir conditions, cp
φ = porosity, fraction.

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Yolli Purnama for typing the manuscript and Dr. Utjok Siagian for correcting the English grammar.
SPE 133162 11

References
1. Abass, H.H., and Bass, D.M. The Critical Production Rate in Water-Coning Systems. paper SPE 17311, presented at the SPE Permian
Basin Conference, Texas, March 10 – 11, 1988.
2. Aulie, T. et al. Experimental Investigation of Cresting and Critical Flow of Horizontal Wells. paper SPE 26639 presented at 1993 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston 3-6 October.
3. Chaperon, I. Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations: Subcritical and Critical
Rates. paper SPE 15377 presented at the 1986 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans 5-8 October.
4. CMG Reservoir Simulator Manual, version 2009.
5. de Souza, A.L.S. et al. Practical Procedure to Predict Cresting Behavior of Horizontal Wells. SPE journal, December 1998, pp. 382 –
392.
6. Dou, H.E. et al. The Experimental Studies of Physical Simulation of Bottom Water Reservoirs with Barrier and Permeable Interbed on
Horizontal Well. paper SPE 55995, presented at the SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage, AK, May 26 – 27, 1999.
7. Giger, F.M. Analytic Two-Dimensional Models of Water Cresting Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells. SPERE (November
1989) 409.
8. Guo, B. et al. A General Solution of Gas/Water Coning Problem for Horizontal Well with Water/Oil Interface Cresting. paper SPE
24324 presented at the 1992 SPE 25050, presented at the 1992 SPE European Petroleum Conference, Cannes 16-18 November.
9. Hansen, K.L. and Verhyden, M. Horizontal Well Solves Water Coning. paper published in PETROLEUM ENGINEER International,
September 1991, pp. 16 – 26.
10. Islam, M.R. Comprehensive Mathematical Modeling of Horizontal Wells. Proc., 2nd European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil
Recovery, Paris (1990) 169.
11. Jayadi, T. A Predictive Method for Horizontal Wells Performance in Bottom Water Drive Reservoir. A Final Assignment, Institut
Teknologi Bandung, 2009.
12. Jiang, Q. and Butler, R.M. Experimental and Numerical Modeling of Bottom Water Coning to a Horizontal Well. the Journal of
Canadian Petrol. Tech., Oct. 1998, Vol. 37, No. 10, 82 – 91.
13. Joshi, S.D. Horizontal Well Technology. A textbook, PennWellBooks, Tulsa, OK, USA, 1991.
14. Kuo, M.C.T. and DesBrisay, C.L. A Simplified Method for Water Coning Predictions. paper SPE 12067 presented at the 58th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Fransisco, California, October 5 – 8, 1983.
15. Luwansha, D. Prediksi Produksi Sumur Horizontal pada Bottom Water Drive Reservoir. A Final Assignment, Institut Teknologi
Bandung, 2004.
16. Muskat, M. and Wyckoff, R.D. An Approximate Theory of Water Coning in Oil Production. Trans., AIME (1935) 114, 144.
17. Ozkan, E. and Raghavan, R. A Breakthrough Time Correlation for Coning Toward Horizontal Wells. paper SPE 20964, 1990, pp. 209 –
218.
18. Palagi, C.L. and Aziz, K. Flexible Gridding Techniques for Coning Studied in Vertical and Horizontal Wells. paper SPE 25563, 1993.
19. Permadi. P. Practical Methods to Forecast Production Performance of Horizontal Wells. paper SPE 29310 presented at the 1995 SPE
Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 20-22 March.
20. Permadi, P. et al. Behavior of Water Cresting under Horizontal Wells. paper SPE 30743 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas 22-25 October.
21. Permadi, P. et al. Water Cresting and Oil Recovery by Horizontal Wells in the Presence of Impermeable Streaks. paper SPE/DOE
35440, presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 21 – 24, 1996.
22. Permadi, P. Fast Horizontal-Well Coning Evaluation Method. paper SPE 37032 presented at the 1996 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference held in Adelaide, Australia, 28-31 October.
23. Recham, R., et al. Effect of Water Coning on the Performance of Vertical and Horizontal Wells – A Reservoir Simulation Study of
Hassi R’mel Field, Algeria. paper SPE/CIM 65506 presented at the 2000 SPE/CIM Conference on Horizontal Well Technology,
Calgary, November 6 – 8, 2000.
24. Recham, R. Super-Critical Rate Based on Economic Recovery in Water and Gas Coning by Using Vertical and Horizontal Well
Performance. paper SPE 71820 presented at the Offshore Europe Conference held in Aberdeen, Scotland, September 4 – 7, 2001.
25. Tiefenthal, A.A. Super-Critical Production from Horizontal Wells in Oil Rim Reservoirs. paper SPE 25048 presented at 1992 SPE
European Petroleum Conference, Cannes, 16-18 November.
26. Wang, B. A Parametric Study of Gas and Water Coning in Vertical and Horizontal Wells. paper IPA 91-21.02 presented at the 1991
Indonesia Petroleum Association, Jakarta, Indonesia, 6-9 October.
27. Wibowo, W. Interaksi Gaya-Gaya, Kinerja dan Strategi Produksi Sumur Horizontal pada Reservoir Bertenaga Dorong Bottom: Suatu
Penelitian Laboratorium. A Disertation, Institut Teknologi Bandung, 2004.
28. Wheatley, M.J. An Approximate Theory of Oil/Water Coning. paper SPE 14210 presented at the 1985 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada 22-25 September.
29. Yang, W. and Watterbarger, R.A. Water Coning Calculation for Vertical and Horizontal Wells. paper SPE 22931 presented at the 1991
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas 6-9 October.
30. Zhao, G. et al. An Insight into Development of Bottom Water Reservoirs. the Journal of Canadian Petrol. Tech., April 2006, Vol. 45,
No. 4, 22 – 30.
12 SPE 133162

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp × 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s

ft × 3.048* E-01 =m
ft2 × 9.290 304* E-02 = m2
ft3 × 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
in. × 2.54* E+00 = cm
md × 9.869 233 E-04 = μm2
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa

Appendix
This appendix provides the procedure of calculation for predicting production performance of a horizontal well in bottom
water drive reservoir. The calculation is an iterative process. The number of iteration required depends on the error limits ε1 (=
|calculated WC – assumed WC|) and ε2 (=|hi – hi-1|) where h is oil column thickness used in calculation for cases with WC > 0.
Procedure:
1. Given Data and assign a limit of WC, ε1, and ε2 appropriately.
2. Is the case has production data? If YES then GO TO step No. 3, otherwise design withdrawal rates and then GO TO step
No. 4.
3. Is the initial WC > 0? If YES then GO TO step No. 16, otherwise GO TO step No. 4.
4. Estimate tBT.
5. Calculate hwBT using Eq. (1).
6. Choose incremental time Δti.
7. Assume a value of WC.
8. Calculate Qoi = Qti (1-WC).
9. Calculate hwi using Eq. (4).
10. Determine qw/qo using Eq. (6).
11. Calculate WCi using Eq. (7).
12. If |calculated WCi – assumed WCi| > ε1 then take the calculated WCi as a new assumed WC and GO BACK to Step No. 7,
otherwise proceed to next step.
13. Determine surface producing rates Qoi and Qwi at time ti = tBT + ΣΔti,

Qoi = Qti (1 − WCi )

Qwi = QtiWCi

14. Determine cumulative oil Np = NpBT + Σ(QoiΔti).

15. Is WCi ≥ the limit of WC given? If YES then STOP calculating, otherwise go back to step No. 6.
16. Assume first that WC = 0 and select any withdrawal rate giving tBT of a small value (use the correlation employed in step
No. 4), and perform calculation from step No. 5 to No. 14 only until WC ≈ WC recorded in the field at the start up. When
this is achieved, the last calculated cumulative oil is the pseudo-cumulative oil Npp converted to Δh′ as follows:

5.615 N ppi Boi

Δhi′ =
Aφ (1 − S wc − Sor )

17. Determine hi and di: hi = hi-1 + Δh’i and di = di-1 + Δh′i

(h0 and d0 are the actual data of h and d, respectively), then NEXT.
18. If |hi – hi-1| > ε2 then go to step No. 4 with h = hi and new d = di, otherwise continue the calculation with the existing field
and if needed the future withdrawal rates, start accounting real producing time with interval time Δt but this Δt is added
to the last ΣΔti in the calculation and GO TO step No. 7.