GAS AND WATER CONING

Coning is primarily the result of movement of

reservoir fluids in the direction of least resistance,
balanced by a tendency of the fluids to maintain gravity
equilibrium. The analysis may be made with respect to
either gas or water. Let the original condition of reservoir
fluids exist as shown schematically in Fig.1, water
underlying oil and gas overlying oil. For the purposes of
discussion, assume that a well is partially penetrating the
formation (as shown in Fig.1) so that the production
interval is halfway between the fluid contacts.

Production from the well would create pressure

gradients that tend to lower the gas-oil contact and
elevate the water-oil contact in the immediate vicinity of
the well. Counterbalancing these flow gradients is the
tendency of the gas to remain above the oil zone because
of its lower density and of the water to remain below the
oil zone because of its higher density. These
counterbalancing forces tend to deform the gas-oil and
water-oil contacts into a bell shape as shown
schematically in Fig.2.
 There are essentially three forces that may affect
fluid flow distributions around the well bores. These are:
• Capillary forces
• Gravity forces
• Viscous forces

Capillary forces usually have negligible effect on coning

and will be neglected. Gravity forces are directed in the
vertical direction and arise from fluid density differences.
The term viscous forces refers to the pressure gradients
associated fluid flow through the reservoir as described
by Darcy’s Law. Therefore, at any given time, there is a
balance between gravitational and viscous forces at
points on and away from the well completion interval.
When the dynamic (viscous) forces at the wellbore
exceed gravitational forces, a “cone” will ultimately break
into the well.
We can expand on the above basic visualization of
coning by introducing the concepts of:
• Stable cone
• Unstable cone
• Critical production rate
If a well is produced at a constant rate and the pressure
gradients in the drainage system have become constant,
a steady-state condition is reached. If at this condition the
dynamic (viscous) forces at the well are less than the
gravity forces, then the water or gas cone that has formed
will not extend to the well. Moreover, the cone will neither
advance nor recede, thus establishing what is known as
a stable cone.

Conversely, if the pressure in the system is an unsteady-

state condition, then an unstable cone will continue to
advance until steady-state conditions prevail. If the
flowing pressure drop at the well is sufficient to overcome
the gravity forces, the unstable cone will grow and
ultimately break into the well. It is important to note that
in a realistic sense, stable system cones may only be
“pseudo-stable” because the drainage system and
pressure distributions generally change.
For example, with reservoir depletion, the water-oil
contact may advance toward the completion interval,
thereby increasing chances for coning. As another
example, reduced productivity due to well damage
requires a corresponding increase in the flowing pressure
drop to maintain a given production rate. This increase in
pressure drop may force an otherwise stable cone into a
well.

The critical production rate is the rate above which the

flowing pressure gradient at the well causes water (or
gas) to cone into the well. It is, therefore, the maximum
rate of oil production without concurrent production of the
displacing phase by coning. At the critical rate, the built-
up cone is stable but is at a position of incipient
breakthrough.
Defining the conditions for achieving the maximum
water-free and/or gas-free oil production rate is a difficult
problem to solve. Engineers are frequently faced with the
following specific problems:
1. Predicting the maximum flow rate that can be assigned
to a completed well without the simultaneous production
of water and/or free-gas.
2. Defining the optimum length and position of the interval
to be perforated in a well in order to obtain the maximum
water and gas-free production rate.
Calhoun (1960) pointed out that the rate at which the
fluids can come to an equilibrium level in the rock may be
so slow, due to the low permeability or to capillary
properties, that the gradient toward the wellbore
overcomes it. Under these circumstances, the water is
lifted into the wellbore and the gas flows downward,
creating a cone as illustrated in Fig.2. Not only is the
direction of gradients reversed with gas and oil cones, but
the rapidity with which the two levels will balance will
differ.
Also, the rapidity with which any fluid will move is
inversely proportional to its viscosity, and, therefore, the
gas has a greater tendency to cone than the water. For
this reason, the amount of coning will depend upon the
viscosity of the oil compared to that of water.
It is evident that the degree or rapidity of coning will
depend upon the rate at which fluid is withdrawn from the
well and upon the permeability in the vertical direction kv
compared to that in the horizontal direction kh. It will also
depend upon the distance from the wellbore withdrawal
point to the gas-oil or oil-water discontinuity.
 The elimination of coning could be aided by
shallower penetration of wells where there is a water zone
or by the development of better horizontal permeability.
Although the vertical permeability could not be lessened,
the ratio of horizontal to vertical flow can be increased by
such techniques as acidizing or pressure parting the
formation.

CONING IN VERTICAL WELLS

Vertical Well Critical Rate Correlations

Critical rate Qoc is defined as the maximum allowable oil
flow rate that can be imposed on the well to avoid a cone
breakthrough. The critical rate would correspond to the
development of a stable cone to an elevation just below
the bottom of the perforated interval in an oil-water
system or to an elevation just above the top of the
perforated interval in a gas-oil system. There are several
empirical correlations that are commonly used to predict
the oil critical rate. The correlations given by Meyer-
Garder would be discussed.

The Meyer-Garder Correlation

Meyer and Garder (1954) suggest that coning
development is a result of the radial flow of the oil and
associated pressure sink around the wellbore. In their
derivations, Meyer and Garder assume a homogeneous
system with a uniform permeability throughout the
reservoir, i.e., kh kv. It should be pointed out that the
ratio kh/kv is the most critical term in evaluating and
solving the coning problem. They developed three
separate correlations for determining the critical oil flow
rate:
• Gas coning
• Water coning
• Combined gas and water coning

Gas coning
Consider the schematic illustration of the gas-coning
problem shown in Fig.3.

Meyer and Garder correlated the critical oil rate required

to achieve a stable gas cone with the following well
penetration and fluid parameters:
• Difference in the oil and gas density
• Depth Dt from the original gas-oil contact to the top of
the perforations
• The oil column thickness h

The well perforated interval hp, in a gas-oil system, is

essentially defined as hp h Dt. Meyer and Garder
propose the following expression for determining the oil
critical flow rate in a gas-oil system:
Where
Qoc critical oil rate, STB/day
g, o density of gas and oil, respectively, lb/ft3
ko effective oil permeability, md
re, rw drainage and wellbore radius, respectively, ft
h oil column thickness, ft
Dt distance from the gas-oil contact to the top of the
perforations, ft

If gas density g and oil density o are expressed

gm/cc, then

Critical oil rate for gas coning in vertical well

is given by the equation:

Application of horizontal wells for reducing

gas coning
Horizontal wells allow higher production rates
at correspondingly lower draw down pressure.
This reduces the problem of gas coning. It is
possible to restrict coning further by placing the
horizontal lateral in the reservoir in the optimum
position relative to oil and gas contacts.
It can be summarized that coning gas is a
severe problem in many fields. Handling the
added water and gas can be costly. Also,
premature depletion of a gas cap can reduce
recovery by wetting the original gas pay with oil.
The primary sources of gas in oil wells are:
(a) gas dissolved in oil, (b) primary or secondary
gas caps, and (c) gas flow from zones on
reservoirs above or below the oil zone. The
remedial measures include work over to reduce
gas production in oil wells, production of oil at a
rate to produce oil without coning and application
of horizontal wells.

Water coning
Meyer and Garder propose a similar expression for
determining the critical oil rate in the water coning system
shown schematically in Fig.4.
The proposed relationship has the following form:

Where
w water density, lb/ft3
hp perforated interval, ft

If water density  w and oil density o are

expressed gm/cc, then

Critical oil rate for water coning in vertical

well is given by the equation:

 w  o Ko
qo  1.535 x10 3 (h 2  hp )
2

Ln (re / rw ) ( o  o )

Diagnosis and remedy for Water Coning: If

coning is the problem, increasing production rate
will usually increase the percentage of water
produced, decreasing production rate or shutting
in the well for one to three months will usually
decrease water coning.

The usual procedure to minimize water coning is

to plug back and recomplete as high above the oil-
water or gas-water contact as practicable. If there
are at least partial barriers to vertical flow, plug
back can be quite effective.

Alternatives to Workover: An initial approach

to reduce coning is to shut in the well for one to
three months to allow the water cone to recede.
When the well is opened, it should be initially
produced at a rate much lower than the previous
rate. Then the producing rate can be increased on
a step-wise basis over a period of days or weeks.
This approach is frequently impractical because
producing rates to prevent coning may be too low
for profitable oil or gas production.

If the reservoir can be produced as a unit by a

single operator, it is usually more profitable to
produce only wells high on the structure to avoid
water coning until most of the reservoir oil or gas
has been recovered.

Simultaneous gas and water coning

If the effective oil-pay thickness h is comprised between
a gas cap and a water zone (Fig.5), the completion
interval hp must be such as to permit maximum oil-
production rate without having gas and water
simultaneously produced by coning, gas breaking
through at the top of the interval and water at the bottom.
This case is of particular interest in the production from a
thin column underlain by bottom water and overlain by
gas.

For this combined gas and water coning, Pirson (1977)

combined Equations 1 and 2 to produce the following
simplified expression for determining the maximum oil-
flow rate without gas and water coning:
Example 1
A vertical well is drilled in an oil reservoir overlain by a
gas cap. The related well and reservoir data are given
below:
Horizontal and vertical permeability, i.e., kh, kv 110 md
Oil relative permeability, kro 0.85
Oil density, o 47.5 lb/ft3
Gas density, g 5.1 lb/ft3
Oil viscosity, o 0.73 cp
Oil formation volume factor, Bo 1.1 bbl/STB
Oil column thickness, h 40 ft
Perforated interval, hp 15 ft
Depth from GOC to top of perforations, Dt 25 ft
Wellbore radius, rw 0.25 ft
Drainage radius, re 660 ft
Using the Meyer and Garder relationships, calculate the
critical oil flow rate.

Solution
The critical oil flow rate for this gas-coning problem can
be determined by applying Equation 1. The following two
steps summarize Meyer-Garder methodology:

Step 1. Calculate effective oil permeability ko

ko kro k (0.85) (110) 93.5 md
Step 2. Solve for Qoc by applying Equation 1

Example 2
Resolve Example 1 assuming that the oil zone is
underlain by bottom water. The water density is given as
63.76 lb/ft3. The well completion interval is 15 feet as
measured from the top of the formation (no gas cap) to
the bottom of the perforations.

Solution
The critical oil flow rate for this water-coning problem can
be estimated by applying Equation 2. The equation is
designed to determine the critical rate at which the water
cone “touches” the bottom of the well to give

The above two examples signify the effect of the fluid

density differences on critical oil flow rate.

Example 3
A vertical well is drilled in an oil reservoir that is overlaid
by a gas cap and underlain by bottom water. Fig.6 shows
an illustration of the simultaneous gas and water coning.
The following data are available:
oil density o 47.5 lb/ft3
water density w 63.76 lb/ft3
gas density g 5.1 lb/ft3
oil viscosity o 0.73 cp
oil FVF Bo 1.1 bbl/STB
oil column thickness h 65 ft
depth from GOC to top of perforations Dt 25 ft
well perforated interval hp 15 ft
wellbore radius rw 0.25 ft
drainage radius re 660 ft
oil effective permeability ko 93.5 md
horizontal and vertical permeability, i.e., kh, kv 110 md
oil relative permeability kro 0.85
Calculate the maximum permissible oil rate that can be
imposed to avoid cones breakthrough, i.e., water and gas
coning.

Solution
Apply Equation 3 to solve for the simultaneous gas- and
water-coning problem, to give:
Pirson (1977) derives a relationship for determining the
optimum placement of the desired hp feet of perforation in
an oil zone with a gas cap above and a water zone below.
Pirson proposes that the optimum distance Dt from the
GOC to the top of the perforations can be determined
from the following expression:

where the distance Dt is expressed in feet.

Example 4
Using the data given in Example 3, calculate the optimum
distance for the placement of the 15-foot perforations.
Solution
Applying Equation 4 gives