A s o c ia c i n C o lo m b ia n a d e In g e n ie ro s d e P e tr le o s

ACIPET
Use of Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry as Selective Conformance System to
Decrease Watercut on Cantarell Field
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton

Category: Mark with one "X"

Technical Paper x
College University Project
Graduate School Thesis
Author Copyright 2009: ACIPET

This technical paper was prepared to be presented to the XIII Congreso Colombiano del Petrleo, organized by ACIPET in Bogot D.C., Colombia December 1st. to 4th. 2009

This paper was selected to be presented, by the ACIPET technical committee based on the information included in the abstract sent by the author.

Abstract
Watercut present in the oil stream coming from the wells producing in the offshore Cantarell mature field is an issue of critical
importance because oil production is sent to exportation. Lack of water handling facilities forces operators to monitor wells with
watercut as low as 0.8 %. Water production is normally controlled by decreasing the choke size but in the worst cases may require
shutting the well in completely causing a negative impact on the production of the field. The problem is even worse in this highly
naturally fractured carbonate field where oil bearing zones are already close to the water-oil contact. Because of a low-formation
fracture gradient of the reservoir, most of the production liners cementing jobs are deficient causing an influx of water behind casing
in almost every well that is completed.
This paper describes how ultrafine, hydrocarbon-based slurry has been used as an alternative conformance system to seal off
unwanted water flowing through these channels. This slurry sets when it contacts mobile water with no effect on the oil bearing zones
allowing for selective water control. Historic cases and experiences learned on the application of this system are also presented.

Introduction
Excessive water production from hydrocarbon-producing wells is one of the most serious problems in the oil industry. Water tends to
become the dominant produced fluid as the hydrocarbon fields mature. Unwanted water production can adversely affect well
economics because of water-disposal costs, environmental issues, and reduced hydrocarbon production. Other problems may develop
at some point as a result of the undesired water production, including sand production, scale, corrosion, and others. Water-production
problems can vary from: (1) leaks in casing, producing tubing, or packers, (2) flow behind casing, (3) water-coning (or water cresting
in horizontal wells), and/or (4) direct communication from injector to producer through natural or induced fractures.
Several techniques for controlling water production have been attempted, varying from mechanical to chemical treatments, or
combinations of both. Over the last decade, polymer gel systems have emerged as one of the most powerful tools for shutting off or at
least controlling water production (Deolarte 2008). One of the major challenges for water-shutoff treatments is to significantly reduce
water production without damaging the hydrocarbon productivity of the well. Therefore, candidate selection is critical to the success
of conformance control.
Understanding reservoir behavior provides a basis for determining the real origin of water production and its mechanism of
entrance into the well, thus allowing the conformance team to recommend the best suitable treatment. Much of the success of these
treatments is attributed to adequate problem identification. Case histories presented in this paper were found to be communicated
through channels behind the casing because of poor cementing or the complete absence of cement sheet and water influx through the
massive presence of vugular, high-permeability streaks.
Cantarell, a complex of offshore naturally fractured carbonate fields located in the Bay of Campeche, about 50 miles off the
Yucatan Peninsula, is the most important complex in Mexico (Fig. 1). It is comprised of five fields, being Akal the largest, with 32
billion standard barrels of oil, 86 percent of the OOIP of the complex.
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 2

Main pay zones in Cantarell are highly fractured-vuggy carbonate formation from Jurassic, cretaceous, and Lower Paleocene
geological ages. Within Akal, formations are hydraulically continuous and have an average thickness of about 4,000 ft and structural
relief of over 7,000 ft.

Fig. 1Cantarell Field in offshore Mexico.

The reservoir contains a 22 API oil, initially undersaturated; pressure at the reference depth of 7,544 ft below sea level. The
typical total porosity in the reservoir is 8% and it has been determined that up to 35% of it is secondary porosity, fracture, and vugs.
Typical absolute-permeability in the matrix and fracture is 1 and 3,000 mD respectively.
Akal field has produced under gravity dominated flow conditions throughout its life. Under natural depletion, a secondary gas-cap
formed and was subject to water encroachment from an associated regional aquifer shared with other nearby fields.
Cantarell field produces a significant portion of the total oil production of the country. However, over the past years, this field has
been declining, and mainly because of the maturity of the field. Sustaining oil production at current levels is a constant challenge. One
of the main challenges involves an increase in water production, which has led to wells being temporarily shut in until a workover rig
becomes available. This waiting time could be years. The reason for leaving these wells shut in is because the oil production is sent to
exportation and there is a lack of dehydration facilities in offshore Mexico.
During the drilling stage, the production and target formation is drilled under total loss of circulation conditions with the level of
fluid being at 1200 m, on average, because the formation is depleted. The same scenario is presented during execution of the
cementing job because the job sequence is performed without fluid returns from the annular space. In fact, seawater is pumped
through the annulus during the cementing job to keep the well under control and to avoid any possible gas kickoff because the gas cap
continuously loses hydrostatic pressure because of the severe losses. Standard practice had evolved to the point where circulation of
cement on top of the drilling liner was not even attempted, event though zonal isolation is required. Upon drilling out the shoe, total
losses occurred and the entire production interval was drilled without returns (Kulakosky 2006; Zepeda 2006).

Conformance Problem Sources

Conformance problems are classified as either near wellbore problems or reservoir-related problems. Some problems, however, could
easily be placed in both categories. For example, barrier breakdown is related to fracturing out of zone and could be considered
reservoir-related, but it is considered a near-wellbore problem. Similarly, although coning and cresting occur in the near-wellbore
region and can result from a completion too near the water or gas zone, they are considered reservoir-related (Conformance Tech
Manual 1996).
Near-wellbore conformance problems include:
Casing leaks
Channels behind casing
Barrier breakdown
Debris, scale, and bacteria
Completion into or near water or gas

In the case of this field channel behind casing in combination with completing the well into or near water is the main problem faced.

Channels Behind Casing

Channels can develop behind the casing throughout the life of the well, but such channels are most likely to occur immediately after
the well is completed or after the well is stimulated. Unexpected water production at these times strongly indicates that a channel may
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 3

exist. Channels in the casing-formation annulus result from poor cement casing bonds or cement/formation bonds. Fluid influx can
only be prevented if proper displacement techniques are used. As mentioned earlier, cementing operations are deficient and proper
cement sheaths rarely are achieved leaving the casing liner free of cement in many cases.

Application of Conformance Technologies

Different conformance technologies were reviewed before selecting a one that matched most of the idealized criteria. One of the main
criteria for selecting technologies was the fact that the interval treated needed to continue producing hydrocarbons. Based on that
requirement most of the sealants were discarded and a selective system was evaluated.

Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry

This option is an oil-slurried cement system that uses ultrafine cement particles (D50 2.5 microns) that are carried in oil. This system
was developed in the early 1990s and has been used since then in South Mexico. It was a development from diesel oil cement (DOC)
that has been used both for curing lost circulation in aquifers and for water control. It was one of the earliest products used for
preventing excessive water production. Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry and DOC work on the same principle: they do not
hydrate until the cement comes into contact with water and therefore will not set (Fig. 2). The significant difference in the systems is
that conventional cement has a much larger particle size and therefore does not penetrate the formation to the same extent because of
the finer particles used in the ultrafine system. Being selective in where it sets in the formation (i.e., only in the presence of water),
this system might be developed into a practical solution.
The ultrafine system is composed of microfine cement, a hydrocarbon-carrying fluid (i.e., diesel, kerosene, etc.), and a wetting
surfactant. These are mixed to form slurry that remains inactive unless contacted by water. On water contact, the slurry remains
pumpable for a period of time dependent on the bottomhole temperature, pressure, and the time it takes for the water to contact the
slurry. When set, it forms a hard, dense set like conventional cement. Microfine cement is based on granulated blast furnace slag and
is comparable to high sulphate resistant (HSR) cement used for general oilfield cementing; the key difference is that this material has a
much finer particle size. The finer particle size means there is much more surface area available for hydration, so the material can be
difficult to retard (i.e., delayed setting) when used conventionally and mixed with water. In the case of mixing with an oil-based
carrier fluid, the temperature limit can be raised because retardation of the cement is not required in the absence of water; and while
the reservoir temperature in this field is 98C, the system is applicable for temperatures as high as 150C.

Fig. 2Initial appearance of the system once mixed ( left), after contamination with water ( center) and before it reacts in contact with the
water (right).

Bullheading
The simplest, most economical treatment placement method is the bullheading technique, in which the treatment is injected the
through existing tubulars. This technique can be used effectively for entry into zones that will take 100% of fluids or for entry into
perforations where a permeability decrease is necessary. Bullheading is seldom recommended, however, because without zonal
isolation, the treatment may seal not only the intended water zone but the oil zone as well. Fig. 3 shows a bullhead treatment that has
sealed both zones.
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 4

Fig. 3Bullhead placement technique

To design an effective placement procedure and responsive treatment, engineers must carefully consider well conditions and
reservoir characteristics. Specifically, they must analyze injectivity profiles and perform a multi-rate injection analysis to determine
variances in entry that are associated with variances in injection pressures/rates. The possibility of static condition crossflows that
might continue after placement should also be considered. The profile entry logs generated during these tests are visuals for near-
wellbore entry only, and analysts must always consider the possibility that conditions may differ deeper in the formation.
This option was selected as being more practical and less expensive. All the treatment was mixed and pumped by using a stimulation
boat so no additional equipment was required.

Placement Procedure Design

Treatment Placement was considered as follows:
1. Fill annulus with diesel. This action is performed in order to leave gas lift mandrels wet with oil base fluid and avoid any
potential reaction of the Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry in the event it penetrates the valves during the pumping stage.
2. Preflush with an oil-wetting hydrocarbon system to displace all the water from the near wellbore and push it into the formation.
Care is needed that the volume is not too large such that the Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry never comes into contact with the
water. Removal of the water is aided by the use of a suitable surfactant that helps in stripping the water from the formation. The main
aim of removing the water from the near wellbore is to prevent early setting of the Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry in fractures
close to the wellbore.
3. Pump Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry into the formation. The difficulty in this phase is deciding on the volume of slurry to be
used, so that the injection rate is reduced to a point that further injection is not required and Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry
remains in the wellbore, and simultaneously, sufficient Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry is used to plug the water-bearing
fractures.
4. Overflush the treatment with a hydrocarbon to move the Ultrafine Hydrocarbon-Based Slurry deep into the formation water-bearing
fracture system.
In this particular case, more overflush volume was seen as being positive to maximize the depth of penetration into the fractures. On
this stage an increase on the surface pressure is often observed as a positive signal of the reaction with some source of water (Fig. 4).
5. Wait on the system to set.
6. Open well to flow and monitor the watercut reduction response; this information is used to evaluate whether or not a second
treatment should be performed.
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 5

Fig. 4Pressure increase observed in many cases as a signal of the slurry reacting with water.

Case History 1
Well 1 is a deviated, cased hole well drilled at 3,169 mV (10,397.5 ftV) and completed in an open hole section of 6 -in. and 89 mV
(292 ftV) of carbonate formation (Fig 5). Well 1 was shut in November 2008 with 78% of watercut (1,378 BWPD and 388.74 BOPD),
1,767 BPD of total production. Well 1 was select of group of wells with an opportunity to recover production for a maximum of 6
months because of the oil-water contact is at 3,128 mV. That means that 50% of openhole is in the WOC.

Fig 5Schematic of the well and openhole log interpretation highlighting the zone treated with the ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry.
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 6

The treatment was bullheaded with the following sequence: 65 m3 of diesel in the annulus to wet the mechanical parts of the gas lift
mandrels, maintain a pressure of 20 kg/cm2 in the Annulus, perform injection test with 40 m3 of diesel, pump 20 m3 of solvent, then 10
m3 of diesel with a surfactant followed by 45 bbl of ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, displaced with diesel with surfactant.
In this case, no increase of the pumping pressure was observed during the arrival of the treatment to the formation and a second
treatment was pumped in order to make sure the water source was reached Fig. 6 and 7.

Fig. 6Well 1 pumping schedule ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, first treatment.

Fig. 7Well 1 pumping schedule ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, second treatment.

The result of the treatment can be observed in Fig. 8 (the production history) after the first treatment, the well produced 670 BOPD
and 1,096 BWPD. This means a reduction in watercut of 78 to 60%. After the second treatment was performed, the well produced 580
BOPD and 350 BWPD, meaning a reduction in the watercut from 60% to 37%.
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 7

Fig. 8Well 1 production history before and after treatments of ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry.

Case History 2
Case 2 is a deviated, cased-hole well drilled at 4,416 mD (14,488.96 ft) and completed in a carbonate formation (Fig. 9). Well 2 was
shut in February of 2005 with a watercut of 25%.

Fig. 9Well schematic of Case 2 showing the openhole log interpretation highlighting the zone treated with the ultrafine hydrocarbon-based
slurry.
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 8

The treatment was bullheaded with the following sequence: 5 m3 of Solvent and 5 m3 of diesel with surfactant followed of 24 bbl of
ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, the displacement was with 100 bbl of diesel with surfactant and 87 bbl of diesel (Fig. 10 and 11).

Fig. 10Well 2 pumping schedule ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, first treatment.

Fig. 11Well 2 pumping schedule ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, second treatment.

The result of the treatment is demonstrated in Fig. 12. The watercut before the treatment was of 25% and after the treatment with
ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, the well maintained a watercut of 2% and still remains after 4 years.
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 9

Fig 12Well 2 production history before and after treatments of ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry.

Case History 3
Case 3 is a deviated, cased-hole well drilled at 3,104 mD (10,184.2 ft) and completed in a cased hole section of 7 5/8-in. into a
carbonate formation (Fig 13). As the well was completed, water production began to appear almost immediately along with the oil
production in a value of 4 to 5%. Oil production cannot be incorporated to the oil stream because this production was sent directly to
exportation.

Fig 13Well 3 schematic and openhole log interpretation highlighting the zone treated with the ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry.
Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 10

The treatment was bullheaded with the following sequence: pump 10 m3 of solvent, then 5 m3 of diesel with a surfactant, followed
of 45 bbl of ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, displaced with 436 bbl of diesel with surfactant (Fig. 14).
The result of the treatment is explained in Fig. 15 (the production history), the watercut before of the treatment was around 4 to
5% and after the treatment with ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry, this percentage dropped to 1% and remained for almost four years.
Table 1 shows a brief summary of the water-cut behavior of the nine cases performed on this field, tracking the water cut up to one
year after the water control treatment was performed.

Conclusions
The ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry system was successful in reducing watercut in the wells presented on this work. This was
achieved by the preferential plugging of the water-carrying fractures in this naturally-fractured carbonate reservoir.
The watercut was reduced to a level that made it possible to flow the well for production thus recovering production in wells
already shut in, resulting in a significant commercial benefit. The treatment was paid for in a short amount of time.
Stable production (in excess of four years in one of the cases) has been achieved, indicating a long-lasting sealing of the fractures
with the ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry system. All the treatments were bullheaded, saving money by reducing the amount of
equipment involved (CT units for example).

Fig 14Well 3 pumping schedule ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry.

Carlos Deolarte, PEMEX; Victor Cancino, Fernando Robles, Eduardo Soriano, Halliburton 11

Fig 15Well 3 production history before and after treatments of ultrafine hydrocarbon-based slurry.

Table 1. Historical Water Cut after the treatments

Before 30 Days After 90 Days After 120 Days After 360 Days After
Well No.
Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment

1 65 35* --- --- ---

2 25 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.0
3 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0
4 100 10.0 50.0 --- ---
5 62 6 10 10 20.0
6 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7 4 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
8 12* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9 6 0.2 0.5 2.0 2.0
* A Second treatment was placed after 27 days of the first one.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank PEMEX and Halliburton for their support and permission to publish this work
References
Deolarte, C., et al 2008. Successful Combination of an Organically Crosslinked Polymer System and Rigid-Setting Material for Conformance
Control in Mexico, paper SPE 112411 presented at the International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in
Lafayette, Louisiana, 13-15 February.
Kulakofsky, D., et al. 2006. Ultra-Lightweight Cementing Technology Sets Worlds Record for Liner Cementing with a 5.4 lb/gal Slurry Density.
Paper IADC/SPE 98124 presented at the Drilling Conference held in Miami, Florida, 2123 February.
Zepeda, R., et al. 2006. Synergy Between Engineered Fibers and Lightweight Cement Slurries to Cement Depleted Formations. Paper IADC/SPE
103885 presented at the Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, 1315 November.
Conformance Technology Manual. 1996. (Publication F-3373) Houston: Halliburton