SPE 96945
Relative Permeability Modifier Treatments on Gulf of Mexico Frac-Packed and
Gravel-Packed Oil and Gas Wells
M.J. Pietrak, SPE, BP America Production Co., and F.O. Stanley, B.J. Weber, and J.S. Fontenot, SPE, BJ Services Co.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9 12 October 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Estimates of worldwide oilfield water production are as high
as 300 to 400 million barrels of water per day (bwpd), while
oil production is only 75 million barrels per day (bopd)1. Put
in different terms: for every 1 bopd produced, our industry
produces approximately 4 to 6 bwpd, and for many depleted
areas of the world this oil-to-water ratio can be much higher,
reaching up to 1:100. Excessive water production from oil and
gas wells can cause serious reductions in well productivity and
significantly increases operating expenses.
In an attempt to reduce the oil industrys dilemma related
to water production, there has recently been an increased
interest in water control treatments using relative permeability
modifiers (RPM). A new and unique RPM polymer is yielding
significant economic benefits by increasing hydrocarbon
production from treated wells.
Generally, RPMs are designed to control water production
from high permeability streaks or due to coning issues. The
polymer adheres to formation rock exposing its hydrophilic
(water-loving) side to the pore throats. The RPM restricts
water movement through the pore throat by reducing the
effective size of the throat in the presence of water and by
increasing drag on formation water flowing through the
reservoir matrix. Because it deforms in the presence of
hydrocarbons, the RPM typically does not adversely effect oil
or gas flow. The newly developed RPM (along with careful
selection of well candidates, correct treatment design, and
proper placement) is helping increase the success of RPM
treatments.
This paper will discuss the application and economic
benefits from using the new low-risk RPM polymer. Multi-
well RPM matrix treatments were performed on offshore Gulf
of Mexico (GoM) frac-packed and gravel-packed wells. One
particular RPM treated gas well showed a significant decrease
in water production, a five fold increase in gas production and
double the amount of oil. Payout for the entire treatment was
just 7 days.
Introduction
Oil and gas well profitability is often compromised by
excessive water production. Decreased well productivity and
increased operating expenses are among the inherent problems
associated with excessive water production. In addition,
environmental concerns and local/federal regulatory agencies
are making disposal of produced water increasingly difficult.
The cost of handling produced water ranges from less than
$0.10 to more than $4 per barrel of water produced, costing
the industry billions of dollars per year.
Mature field development is driving the need for effective
water management technologies in our industry, especially as
marginal fields become more common and environmental
regulations become more stringent. Numerous methods and
attempts have been made over the years to control water
production; however the difficulty begins with understanding
the source of the water (i.e., channels behind casing, casing
leaks, coning, encroachment, water breakthrough, natural or
induced fractures, or high perm streaks). If the water source
can be easily identified, then mechanical intervention (such as
bridge plugs and/or various cement system solutions) can
often be successfully implemented.
Other options include the use of various products such as
polymer blocking, silicate and phenol-formaldehyde gels but
each of these methods must be applied only after the water
source is identified. Then, the problem zone needs to be
isolated to prevent the unintentional placement of the
blocking/damaging chemicals into the hydrocarbon producing
sections of the zone. Herein lies the crux of the problem,
locating the water source can be costly, time-consuming and,
at times can even include guesswork in diagnosing the water
source and/or water-producing pathway. If the water source
diagnosis is incorrect and a subsequent treatment is misapplied
to the hydrocarbon interval, the effects on production can be
devastating.
A less risky approach to water management is to use
products that can selectively treat water without detrimentally
affecting hydrocarbon production. One product, termed a
relative permeability modifier (RPM)2-8, is the primary focus
of this paper and offers an advantage to the industry because it
can be bullheaded across an entire interval with minimal
chance of damaging hydrocarbon production. Because RPM
products primarily work/react in water-rich intervals, the
2 SPE 96945
advantage of bullheading is that it reduces the need to pinpoint
the exact location of water entry. Another advantage of
selective RPM products is the relative ease which they can
generally removed in the unlikely event their response reduces
hydrocarbon production.
In the past, RPM products have been used to reduce water
permeability in wells having either water-coning problems or
high permeability water-producing streaks.9-11 Past RPM
treatments performed unpredictably and, as a consequence, the
industry lost some confidence in this water management
approach.12 Often, the engineers expectations exceed the
capabilities of existing technology, and many practitioners fail
to appreciate (or more often fail to implement) a systematic
approach to water management. Chemical treatment program
objectives and expectations vary from field to field and, in
some cases, even from well to well. These objectives include
total water shut-off, reducing water production below surface
handling capacities, reducing discharge or re-injection
volumes, and increasing hydrocarbon-to-water ratio.
For water conformance treatments to be more successful,
candidate selection, treatment selection and treatment
placement (Figure 1) must be more effectively studied and
implemented.13 The latest approach to chemical water
management combines improved RPM technology and value-
driven treatment assessment, best applied on a multi-well or
field-wide basis, not just a one-off treatment.
. writing, the high-performance version of the RPM has been
13
Figure 1 - From SPE paper SPE 84623 - Schematic diagram
illustrating the relationship between Candidate Selection,
Treatment Selection and Treatment Placement. All three
processes are related; knowledge of all three is essential to
successfully complete the process.
Chemistry of unique RPM highlights from SPE
paper number 90430.16
The new and improved RPM is a moderate molecular weight
hydrophilic synthetic ter-polymer based on acrylamide
chemistry.14,15,16 One of the monomers used is sulfonated,
allowing the polymer more tolerance for highly saline
formation waters, particularly those with high concentrations
of Ca+2 and Mg+2. This hydrophilic characteristic, coupled
with a unique chemical structure that allows the polymer to
attach itself to rock, provides the basis for the polymers
performance.
The polymer, with its anchoring structure, is designed to
partition itself both onto reservoir rock and into reservoir
brines. The actual mechanism responsible for water reduction
is unknown, but it is suspected the polymer regulates the
effective pore-throat diameter. Electrostatic attraction between
the formation surface and the adjacent water layer inhibits that
layer of water from flowing. This layer is regarded as the
immobile water phase. As the distance from the surface
increases, electrostatic forces weaken to a point where the
formation has relatively little effect on the water, allowing
water to flow essentially uninhibited. The RPM
simultaneously anchors itself in pore throats and partitions
itself in the water layer, creating a weak, three-dimensional
structure. This structure increases the depth of the immobile
phase, thus reducing the effective diameter of the pore throat
and inducing drag on the flowing water. This phenomenon is
believed to significantly reduce water permeability and limits
water flow through the treated portion of the reservoir.
The performance of the improved RPM can be further
enhanced with a new additive. This additive is designed to
form a covalent bond between the RPM and the formation
surface. This high-performance version of the RPM treatment
solution can be applied in high-velocity flow conditions and in
very high matrix permeability sandstone formations, even
under high-temperature conditions. The additive basically
enhances the polymer anchoring to the formation. As of this
field-tested with promising early post-treatment results under
extreme temperature conditions over 300F (149C) and
permeability over 2 Darcies. These treatment conditions were
previously beyond the capabilities of other competitive RPM
products.
Laboratory data also indicates oil flow through treated
rock is minimally affected when properly treated with either
version of the improved RPM. This behavior can be
rationalized with the weak three-dimensional structure. The
hydrophilic RPM is repelled by oil droplets. Consequently, the
three-dimensional structure of the hydrated polymer responds
to continuous flow of oil droplets or a coalesced stream of
droplets by deforming to accommodate the oil. Deformation
occurs in a manner that reduces the thickness of the immobile
water phase allowing oil to flow through treated pathways
essentially unobstructed. This behavior is observed in the
laboratory as a minimal impairment of oil permeability. Other
explanations for the RPM behavior have been reported in the
literature and include the existence of segregated oil and water
flow paths through the porous media17 and the balance
between capillary forces and elastic confining forces.18
Another advantage of the RPM is its packaging. Many
RPMs are packaged as dry powders and require sophisticated
blending equipment to mix the treating fluid. This equipment
is necessary to ensure the treating fluid is homogeneous and
void of fisheyes that could reduce hydrocarbon production.
Other RPMs are packaged as invert polymer emulsions. These
products readily disperse in treating fluid to provide
homogeneous solutions, but the emulsions are stabilized with
non-ionic surfactants. These surfactants are dispersed in water
and are notorious for forming emulsions with oil which can
significantly reduce oil permeability.
SPE 96945
The new RPM is packaged as a concentrated polymer
solution with viscosity less than 6,000 cP as measured on a
Brookfield viscometer with a #4 spindle at 60 rpm and 25C
(77F). At this viscosity, the concentrate is easily pourable
into the mix water used to prepare the treating fluid. The RPM
concentrate is also packaged without surfactants to avoid any
potential emulsion problems, (although non-emulsifiers are
added to the treating fluid as additional insurance against
emulsions forming down-hole). Consequently, the new RPM
treating fluid is operationally simple to prepare at the well site.
Laboratory evaluation
The primary and most meaningful means to evaluate RPM
performance is through actual multi-well treatment response.
However, laboratory core-flow testing provides a pre-
treatment screening method. Unfortunately, at this time, there
is no standard or industry recognized method for translating
linear core flow test results to meaningful prediction of field
results.
A principal means to evaluate performance of the new
RPM polymer was core-flow testing, covered in previous
papers.14,15,16
Based on experience, there is little correlation between
laboratory core flow test results and field treatment response.16
One may exceed the other. Rarely do the two coincide. Core
flow tests can effectively evaluate chemical interactions
between the RPM and the core medium under simulated
formation conditions but they cannot adequately address
actual produced water and hydrocarbon flow pathways to the
wellbore and treatment placement needs. Treatment placement
is as important, if not more so, than the RPMs chemical
interactions.
Candidate selection and general treatment considerations
The following candidate selection and treatment
considerations generally apply to all RPM treatments,
including the unique RPM system addressed in this paper.
The candidate should be as close to an undamaged state as
possible (skin = 0). If damage related to skin exists, matrix
stimulation may be required prior to performing the RPM
treatment or as part of the water control treatment itself. A
positive skin limits potential improvement to relative
hydrocarbon/water inflow imparted by RPM treatment and
the ability to take advantage through increased well
drawdown.
The most favorable RPM treatment candidates are wells
producing from multi-layered sandstone formations with
one or more layers still saturated with hydrocarbons.19-20
Otherwise, distinct water and hydrocarbon production
(especially oil) within the production interval is desirable.
If water is mobile in all productive layers, the benefit of a
RPM treatment can be of limited duration.
If cross-flow is occurring between zone layers, then water
management with RPMs is more risky and generally not
recommended.
RPM treatments are not expected to be effective in
controlling water produced from natural fractures or voids.
3
For such cases, current technology dictates use of water
blocking systems such as cement or gels.
If RPMs are placed in homogeneous zones producing both
water and hydrocarbon (fractional flow), both water and
hydrocarbon permeability may be reduced especially in
oil wells. If such wells are treated, the capacity to increase
drawdown is a required factor to take advantage of the
relative hydrocarbon-to-water inflow following RPM
treatment.
In clay-rich formations (with homogeneous distribution of
clay minerals) the RPM may preferentially adsorb in the
clay-rich portion of the rock and limit the treatments depth
of penetration.
In formations that are not initially highly water-wet (or are
damaged/coated with organic deposits), a special pre-
conditioning spearhead treatment should be included in
the RPM treatment procedure to provide a more favourably
adsorptive surface for the RPM polymer.
Low-viscosity oil and gas wells, in particular, are good
RPM treatment candidates due to the higher mobility of
hydrocarbons relative to water. Highly viscous oil wells can
be candidates too, because the viscous hydrocarbon may
serve to divert the RPM treatment to the water-bearing
zone(s). For viscous (thick) oil reservoirs, combining RPM
with visco-elastic fluid systems has shown particular
effectiveness.2,21
Treatment is ideally designed for radial penetration of about
10 feet (about 3 meters). However, adequate treatment
design may be for radial penetration of 3 to 7 feet (about 1
to 2 meters). As a practical matter, depth of treatment
beyond the wellbore in horizontal completions must be less,
unless fluid entry is known and treatment placement can be
limited to strategic locations along the interval.
RPM treatments can be bullheaded or placed through coiled
tubing. Coiled tubing placement is preferred for vertical
intervals over about 30 feet (about 10 meters) and for long
horizontal and deviated intervals.
RPM treatment volume for matrix porosity
Treatment volume (gal) = 7.4805 (R2-Rw2)
where R = Desired treatment radius (feet)
Rw = Wellbore Radius (feet)
H = Height of treatment interval (feet)
= Porosity (fractional volume of total); e.g.
20% porosity = 0.20
= 3.14159
To calculate treatment volume in gal/feet, use H = 1.
Example calculation for a 20-foot treatment interval
Desired treatment radius: 8 feet
Wellbore diameter (hole size): 7 in (Rw = 3.5 in)
Height of treatment interval: 20 feet
Porosity (): 18% (0.18)
4 SPE 96945
Treatment volume = (7.4805)(0.18)(3.14159)(20)
[(8 + (3.5/12))2 (3.5/12)2]
= (84.6)(68.75 - 0.085)
= 5,809 gal (22 m3)
= 290 gal/feet (3.6 m3/m)
Note: For treatment of a matrix formation feeding a frac pack,
an alternative basis for treatment volume calculation would be
used.
Example Basic RPM Treatment Procedure
1. Spearhead (Surfactant-based treatment)
2. RPM treatment (RPM + additives in aqueous solution)
3. Displacement (Brine)
4. Shut-in (24 hours)
RPM case histories
Field history / reservoir overview
The Case A and Case B gas wells are both located in the
Grand Island (GI) 93 block. The A well is completed in the
Bul I-2B sand, and the B well is completed in the Bul I-4 sand.
The Bul sands are Lower Pliocene sands upthrown on the
main GI 95 counter-regional trapping fault. The depositional
environment is lowstand shelf edge deltaics, and the nearest
paleo marker is the bulminella I; hence, the naming
convention BUL I-2, I-4, etc. sands. The zones have a
strong water drive and are loosely consolidated, requiring sand
control.
The Case C oil well is located in the Ewing Banks 826
field and is completed in the B-1 sand of middle Pleistocene
age. These sands are believed to have a depositional
environment of amalgamated channels and overbank deposits.
They are thinly laminated and have a shaly nature. The
reservoirs in the area have a combination of structure and
stratigraphic traps on top of a salt canopy as well as several
north south faults in the area. The loosely consolidated B-1
sand is similar to most reservoirs in the area with a
combination of weak water drive and pressure depletion,
requiring sand control.
Case A
Gas Well A (GI 93 field - Bul I-2B sand) was drilled with a
maximum hole angle of 600, 190 through the zone of interest.
The well was perforated 75 feet in 7 casing from 13,460 to
13,535 MD (11,489 to 11,560 TVD). The estimated
reservoir pressure and temperature were 5,050 psi (8.42 ppg
equivalent) and 2100F. A 4 OD sand control screen was run
and the frac-pack and gravel-pack were pumped in April 2003.
A total of 23,627 pounds of 20/40 ceramic man-made
proppant was placed in the formation (and GP) and a net
pressure of approximately 530 psi was observed during the
pre-mature tip screen-out.
Gas production peaked in July 2003 when the well
produced 30 mmcfd and 1,400 bopd (360 API gravity). Water
production increased shortly thereafter and peaked in August
2003 at 3,000 bwpd while gas production declined to 7
mmcfd. In October 2003, 10 feet of perforations were added to
the lower portion of the completion zone from 13,549 to
13,559. These perfs were below the sump packer at 13,543.
No sand control treatment was performed on this additional
ten foot interval and no increase in gas production resulted.
In mid 2004, a water control treatment, using the new
unique RPM polymer, was recommended, and on October 27,
2004 was pumped. In the months before the treatment, water
production exceeded 1,000 bwpd, and gas production had
declined to less than 300 mcfd. A typical test was recorded as:
105 bopd, 256 mcfd, 1,300 bwpd (93%), 2,168 psi FTP on a
11/64 choke.
The RPM treatment with 12,000 gallons of diluted RPM
solution was designed to cover the bottom portion of the zone
where it was thought that the majority of the water was
coming from. Design volumes were difficult to calculate,
however an average radial penetration depth of approximately
8 feet was used. The RPM solution (which included a water-
wetting surfactant) was preceded by 1,500 gallons of
spearhead fluid composed of 7% KCl with a mutual solvent
and a water-wetting surfactant. 3,500 gallons of 7% KCl with
the water-wetting surfactant followed as an over-flush. The
treatment was then displaced to the perforated interval with
7% KCl.
The treatment was bullheaded at matrix rates of +/- 2.4
bpm with an average injection pressure of 1,450 psi. No
significant pressure changes were noted. A shut-in period of
24 hours was performed to allow the RPM polymer to fully
adsorb/bond to the formation.
The treatment was deemed an immediate and tremendous
success because gas production significantly increased (five
fold) from less than 300 mcfd to over 1,400 mcfd. Oil
production also increased (two fold) from 100 to over 200
bopd while the water cut was reduced water 93% to 84%. An
average test just after the treatment was 200 bopd, 1,500 mcfd,
1,026 bwpd, 2,497 psi FTP on a 15/64 choke (Figure 2).
After 2 weeks of somewhat stable production, the well was
shut in due to sand production which was assumed to be
coming from the ten feet of perfs below the sump packer
(which had no sand control). To remediate the problem, a plug
was set in the XN nipple just below the sump packer. The
well was placed back on line with water production
temporarily dropping by an additional +/- 500 bwpd. An
example test just after the lower 10 feet were isolated was 243
bopd, 1,140 mcfd, 305 bwpd, 2,574 psi FTP on a 15/64
choke.
The payout for the entire job was just 7 days (1 week),
resulting in additional RPM interest for offset wells/fields.
Treatment response has been maintained: a June 2005 test was
71 bopd, 512 mcfd, 415 bwpd (85%), 1,889 psi FTP on a
13/64 choke.
Case B
Gas Well B (GI 93 field - Bul I-4 sand) was drilled with a
maximum hole angle of 390, 230 through the zone of interest.
The well was perforated 88 feet in 7 5/8 casing from 13,214
to 13,277 MD (11,700 to 11,758 TVD). The estimated
original reservoir pressure and temperature were 6,378 psi
(10.46 ppg equivalent) and 2110F. A 4.5 OD pre-packed sand
control screen was run and the frac-pack and gravel-pack were
pumped in April 2003. A total of 61,561 pounds of 20/40
ceramic man-made proppant was placed in the formation (and
SPE 96945
GP) and a net pressure of approximately 918 psi was observed
during tip screen-out.
Gas production peaked in August 2003 when the well
produced 26 mmcfd and 1,000 bcpd (450 API gravity). Water
production began increasing later on in 2003, peaking at 3,000
bwpd in November 2003. During this same time, gas
production declined to below 8 mmcfd.
Because of the success of the treatment on Gas Well A,
Gas Well B was also selected for a similar RPM treatment.
There were concerns about successfully distributing the RPM
polymer across a frac packed completion - given the
uncertainty of the location of water entry from the matrix
feeding the fracture in such completions. However, the
success of the treatment on the similar Gas Well A was
encouraging and provided the impetus for the subsequent
treatment of Gas Well B. A major concern for Gas Well B was
that it was making close to 2,000 bwpd while Gas Well A had
been making a much lower amount of water (+/- 1300 bwpd).
To compensate for the large amount of water production, a
larger RPM treatment of 32,000 gallons was proposed. A
lower concentration of RPM polymer was recommended,
compared to Gas well A. The job was performed on March 15,
2005.
The RPM volume of 32,000 gallons was based on five feet
of linear treatment penetration across a 41 frac packed
interval with a fracture half-length of 17 feet. The first 16,000
gallons were prepared in 16% KCl (9.2 ppg) so that it would
be 0.5 ppg heavier than the formation water (8.7 ppg). The
idea was to direct this portion of the treatment into the lower
part of the fracture (and into the matrix feeding the fracture) -
where the majority of the water production was predicted. The
second 16,000 gallons were mixed in 7% KCl but nitrified
with 800 scf/bbl nitrogen to better spread the RPM and assist
in flowback. The flush and the displacement were also
nitrified. The RPM treatment was preceded by 2,500 gallons
of 7% KCl water including a solvent and 2,500 gallons of 7%
KCl water including both a mutual solvent and a water-
wetting surfactant. These two preflushes were designed to
remove any organic deposition around the near-wellbore area
and enhance the binding of the RPM polymer to the formation.
The RPM treatment was then flushed into the formation with
1,200 gallons nitrified 7% KCl containing the water-wetting
surfactant.
Injection was established with one tubing volume of 7%
KCl fluid. While establishing injection, rates were increased to
3.5 bpm with an injection pressure of 620 psi. This high rate
was established to divert the RPM treatment over the greatest
possible area while still maintaining matrix injection rates.
With the RPM treatment on formation, injection pressures at
3.9 bpm began to slowly rise, but the total increase was minor
(10 to 20 psi). When pumping the nitrified half of the RPM
treatment, the fluid pump rate was reduced to 2 bpm so that
the nitrogen pump could maintain a 1,200 scfm rate while the
nitrogen mixed with RPM treatment fluid at a ratio of 800
scf/bbl. Injection pressures slowly climbed to 2,500 psi with
nitrified RPM polymer treatment on zone.
Just prior to the treatment, Gas Well B was producing 38
bcpd, 1,243 mcfd, 1,980 bwpd (98%) on a 18/64 choke with
1,453 psi FTP. After treatment, well tests have varied a July
2005 test was 45 bcpd, 1,324 mcfd, 2,476 bwpd (98%) on a
5
20/64 choke with 1,324 psi FTP (Figure 3). To achieve the
pre-treatment gas rate of 1,300 to 1,500 mcfd, the well had to
be pulled harder. This resulted in a greater water production
and drawdown across the completion than before the
treatment. It is estimated that the drawdown across the
formation was increased by 150 psi.
Case B - possible reasons for disappointing RPM treatment
response.
1. There are indications of high pre-treatment skin which
would make this a higher risk candidate.
2. Coverage through the fracture (and to wherever water is
entering the pack) is uncertain. The actual size and
geometry of a frac pack can be estimated but in reality are
still unknown. The RPM treatment may not have been
diverted adequately throughout the fracture even though
an attempt was made to cover the entire frac pack area.
3. Gas production could be flowing through the poor quality
rock at the top of the completion interval and therefore
would not be as influenced by water production as
originally assumed.
4. Hydrocarbon productivity could have been reduced by
over-treatment of the hydrocarbon zone as a result of a
lower than assumed permeability. Low permeability
formations call for lower RPM concentrations. The
treatment was aggressive in terms of polymer
concentration, and particularly the fluid volume, based on
the assumption that the formation perm was < 50 mD.
Lower concentrations with high treatment volumes
(design may equate to equivalent polymer volume as used
before, in some cases) can be more effective.
5. Gas and water production could be flowing together;
inhibiting the water production could likewise inhibit gas
production.
Case C
Oil Well C (Ewing Banks 826 field B1 sand) was drilled
with a maximum hole angle of 470, 410 through the zone of
interest. The well was recompleted in December 2003 into the
B-1 sand. The upper 26 feet of the total sand interval of 54
feet was perforated from 10,654 to 10,680 MD (10,124 to
10,143 TVD). The estimated original reservoir pressure and
temperature were 6,336 psi (12.0 ppg equivalent) and 1800F.
A 4 OD sand control screen was run and a high rate water
pack was pumped (2,000 pounds of 40/60 resieved GP sand).
The original production from the zone (December 2003)
was 451 bopd, 272 bwpd, 1,358 mcfd on a 15/64th choke with
2,050 psi FTP. Mid 2004, an attempt was made to bump up
the choke and the water cut increased from 75% to 81%. From
that time onward, oil and water production has been fairly
stable. The RPM treatment was proposed to help reduce the
coning effect; thereby, reducing water production and possibly
enhancing both oil production and reserve recovery.
Also, there was a concern that the well would die during
the period of time when operations on the platform would not
allow gas lift valves to be run in the well. The reservoir
pressure was declining, and an RPM treatment was desired to
keep the well flowing until well work on the offshore platform
could be completed. The idea was to lower the water cut
enough to prevent loading up of the well. At the time of the
6 SPE 96945
treatment, the well was making 53 bopd, 278 bwpd (84%), and
195 mcfd on a 17/64 choke with 400 psi FTP. When the well
work was to be completed, it could then be placed on gas lift,
and there would have been no interruption in production due
to the well being unable to flow because of low flowing tubing
pressure.
The RPM treatment volume of 14,000 gallons (reduced
strength similar to Case B) was based on achieving ten feet of
radial penetration over a 20-foot sand interval. A water-
wetting surfactant was be added to the RPM treatment fluid.
The RPM was be preceded by 650 gallons of 7% KCl solution
including a mutual solvent and a water-wetting surfactant.
This combination would remove any organic deposition
around the near-wellbore area and enhance the binding of the
RPM to the formation. The RPM treatment fluid was flushed
into the formation with xylene which included a non-
emulsifier. The xylene would enhance the immediate recovery
of the oil. Prior to the treatment, field oil and water samples
were sent to the lab where compatibility tests, using treatment
formulations, were performed. No incompatibilities were
found.
The job was performed on January 22, 2005. Prior to the
RPM treatment fluid contacting the zone, injection was 1.2
bpm with 2,600 psi treating pressure. Pressure peaked at the
end of the job at 3,600 psi. At that time, rate had been reduced
to 0.6 bpm.
It is estimated that downhole pressure had reached 7,200
psi when the RPM treatment fluid first contacted the
perforations, less than 100 psi below estimated frac pressure.
Tubing and casing integrity was maintained by holding 1,200
psi on the annulus. Following the treatment, a downhole
tubing restriction was discovered. The high injection pressure
could have led to the development of the tubing restriction at
9,124. There were no indications of tubing integrity failure
during the job. The effects of this restriction on production
have been hard to determine, but they do seem to have
affected and masked what is indicated as a successful water
control treatment.
Case C - pre-treatment production analysis - During the
completion of this well in December of 2003 the bottomhole
pressure was measured at 6,336 psi. In June 2004, the static
bottomhole pressure was measured as 5,533 psi. At that time,
the well was producing 119 bopd, 354 bwpd (75%), 700 mcfd
on a 17/64 choke with 1,100 psi FTP. Using a system
analysis program, this production was matched using a
permeability of 10 mD and a skin of 24.
Just prior to the RPM treatment, the A-4 well was making
53 bopd, 278 bwpd (84%), 195 mcfd on a 17/64 choke with
400 psi FTP. A system analysis was again performed, and this
well test was matched by reducing reservoir pressure to 5,000
psi which seems reasonable. The estimated drawdown across
the perfs was 1,578 psi.
It was assumed that the well was coning water and that
there was a moderate water drive present. In hindsight the
quickly reducing reservoir energy may have been due to a
rapidly depleting gas cap and there may not be as much water
drive strength as initially anticipated.
Case C - post-treatment production Analysis - After
treatment, the well made 56 bopd, 199 bwpd (78%), 124 mcfd
on a 24/64 choke with 200 psi FTP (Figure 4). The well
made the same amount of oil as before but with a lower water
cut nearly 80 bwpd (28%) reduction in produced water
volume. The choke/drawdown had to be increased to reach the
pre-treatment oil rate of 50 bopd.
Once again, well performance was modeled with a systems
analysis program. The post-treatment well test was matched
by reducing the net sand TVD in the reservoir from 54 to 31.
This simulates the RPM polymer reducing the contribution of
the water portion of the sand. Reducing water cut increases
well productivity. However, the effect of reducing
contributing net sand, even if this reduced net sand produces
water, can lead to a reduction in well productivity. The
analysis estimated that the drawdown across the formation
was 2,360 psi, an increase of 800 psi. This amount of
increased drag across the formation was unexpected, prior to
knowing about the restriction, and was thought to be attributed
to the lower permeability of the formation increasing the
effectiveness of the RPM. After modeling this drawdown we
now believe that some of the 800 psi is due to the tubing
restriction.
General summary
A general conclusion for this paper is that a multi-well
approach should be applied when considering the application
of RPMs. Lack of early success should not abruptly end the
campaign. This requires a commitment by the operator to
perform a series of jobs and not single-well treatments. This
does not mean that the operator and service company
shouldnt build from the learnings during the project.
Due to the less intrusive nature of RPM treatments they
can have less predictable results, however with a multi-well
campaign the risks are mitigated. The incremental
hydrocarbons recovered from the one big success (Gas well A)
of this GoM project has more than paid for all three well
treatments, with a payout of one month. The question could be
asked; what would happen if the other two wells had been
pumped first? Would another operator have shut down this
water management project and if so, they would not have
benefited from the highly successful well.
Paper conclusions
1. Gravel and frac-packed wells can be treated successfully
with the new RPM.
2. Treatment of frac-packed wells can be unpredictable,
given the uncertainty in the location of water entry from
the matrix feeding the fracture.
3. RPM treatment candidates must have the capacity to
increase drawdown after treatment to ensure
maintenance (or increase) of hydrocarbon production.
Conversely, wells with high skin prior to treatment should
be considered with caution or stimulated prior to RPM
treatment.
4. RPM treatments can be nitrified, as well as weighted up
for better placement.
5. RPM treatments for water management should be
implemented in multi-well or field-wide programs to
SPE 96945
maximize the economic benefit to operations and value
creation.
6. Evaluation of RPM treatments should not be based strictly
on observed water cut reduction, but on added value to
operations with respect to water handling capability,
additional hydrocarbon revenue, or a combination of both.
Nomenclature
GoM = Gulf of Mexico
ppg = pound per gallon
GP = gravel pack
bhp = bottom hole pressure
mcfd = thousand cubic feet gas per day
mmcfd = million cubic feet gas per day
bfpd = barrels of fluid per day
bopd = barrels of oil per day
cP = centipoise
FTP =flowing tubing pressure
RPM = relative permeability modifier
mD = millidarcy
bpm = barrels per minute
scf/bbl = standard cubic feet per barrel
scfm = standard cubic feet per minute
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of BP
America Production Company and BJ Services Company for
permission to publish this paper. Also, many thanks to Reagan
Rawe, Leonard Kalfayan and Kern Smith for their support and
valuable contributions to this project.
References
1. Society of Petroleum Engineers website data.
2. di Lullo, G, Rae, P.: New Insights Into Water Control A
Review of the State of the Art, paper SPE 77963, 2002.
3. Sparlin, D.D.: Polyacrylamides can Restrict Water, Oil
and Gas Production Its Your Choice, paper SPE 6473,
1977.
4. Botermans, C.W., Van Batenburg, D.W., and Bruining, J.:
Relative Permeability Modifiers: Myth or Reality? paper
SPE 68973, 2001.
5. Dalrymple, E.D. et al.: Relative Permeability Modifiers
for Improved Oil Recovery: A Literature Review, 1999
International Conference on Reservoir Conformance,
Profile Control, Water and Gas Shutoff, Houston, Nov. 8-
9.
6. Zaitoun, A., and Kohler, N.: Improved Polyacrylamide
Treatments for Water Control in Producing Wells, paper
SPE 18501, 1989.
7. Tielong, C.: A Relative Permeability Modifier for Water
Control of Gas Wells in a Low-Permeability Reservoir,
SPE Reservoir Engineering (1996) 168.
8. Pusch, G.: Practical Experience with Water Control in
Gas Wells by Polymer Treatments, 1995 EAPG Improved
Oil Recovery European Symposium, Vienna, Austria, Vol.
2, 48-56.
9. Dunlap, D.D., Boles, J.L., Novotny, R.J.: Method for
Improving Hydrocarbon/Water Ratios in Producing
Wells, paper SPE 14822, 1986.
7
10. Stanley, F.O., Hardianto, Marnoch, E., Tanggu, P.S.:
Amphoteric Polymer Improves Hydrocarbon/Water
Ratios in Producing Wells An Indonesian Case Study,
SPE Production Facilities (Aug. 1997), 181-186.
11. Zaitoun, A. et al.: Water Shutoff by Relative Permeability
Modifiers: Lessons from Several Field Applications,
paper SPE 56740, 1999.
12. Novotny, Rudolf J.: Matrix Flow Evaluation Technique
for Water Control Applications, Paper SPE 030094
presented at the 1995 European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 15-16.
13. Mitchell, W., Martin, A.N., Stemberger, D.,
Thayanukulvat, P.: Innovative Business Partnership
Produces Effective Water Conformance Treatments, paper
SPE 84623, 2003.
14. Campbell, J.A.S., Dawson, J.C., Kalfayan, L.J., Malone,
M.: Development, Laboratory Testing, and First Field
Applications of a New Relative Permeability Modifier to
Reduce Water Production, OMC Paper 105, presented at
the Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition
(Ravenna, Italy), March 26-28, 2003.
15. Nelson, S.G., Kalfayan, L.J., Rittenberry, W.M.: The
Application of a New and Unique Relative Permeability
Modifier in Selectively Reducing Water Production, paper
SPE 84511, 2003.
16. Kalfayan, L.J., Dawson, J.C.: Successful Implementation
of Resurgent Relative Permeability Modifier (RPM)
Technology in Well Treatments Requires Realistic
Expectations, paper SPE 90430, 2004.
17. Liang, J., Seright, R.S.: Further Investigations of Why
Gels Reduce kw More Than ko, paper SPE 37249
presented at the 1997 International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry, Houston, Texas, February 18-21. Mennella, A.
et al.: Candidate and Chemical Selection Rules for Water
Shutoff Polymer Treatments, paper SPE 54736, 1999.
18. Nilsson, S., Stavland, A.: Mechanistic Study of
Disproportionate Permeability Reduction, presented at the
1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, OK, April 19-22.
19. Mennella, A. et al.: Candidate and Chemical Selection
Rules for Water Shutoff Polymer Treatments, paper SPE
54736, 1999.
20. Burrafato, G. et al.: Rigless WSO Treatments in Gas
Fields by Bullheading Gels and Polymers in Shaly Sands:
Italian Case Histories paper SPE 54747, 1999.
21. di Lullo, G., Rae, P., Curtis, J.: New Insights Into Water
Control A Review of the State of the Art Part II, paper
SPE 79012, 2002.
8 SPE 96945

2000

1800 Pre-treatment
Production: Shut in for
105 bopd, 256 mcfd, sand
1600 and 1300 bwpd (93%) Choke reduced from
15/64" to 14/64"
1400
BOPD, MCFD and BWPD.

1200 Choke reduced from

14/64" to 13/64"

1000
RPM
800 Treatment
Well shut in for
pipeline
600 construction
Plug set in "XN" nipple
400
71 bopd, 512 mcfd
and 415 bwpd (85%)
200

0
6/12/2004 8/1/2004 9/20/2004 11/9/2004 12/29/2004 2/17/2005 4/8/2005 5/28/2005 7/17/2005

BOPD MCFD BWPD

Figure 2 Gas well A production response from RPM treatment

3000
Pre-treatm ent:
38 bcpd, 1243 m cfd,
2500 1980 bw pd, 18/64" choke
FTP = 1453 psi

2000
During May - Platform
MCFD and BWPD

Construction caused
daily 12 hour shut-in
1500

1000

RPM Treatm ent

Post-treatm ent:
500 45 bcpd, 1324 m cfd,
2476 bw pd, 20/64" choke
FTP = 1392 psig

0
11/9/2004 12/29/2004 2/17/2005 4/8/2005 5/28/2005 7/17/2005

MCFD BWPD

Figure 3 Gas well B production response from RPM treatment

SPE 96945 9

450

400

RPM
350
treatment
300 Post-treatm ent:
BOPD, MCFD, BWPD

78 bopd, 99 m cfd, 173 bw pd

(69%) on a 64/64" choke w ith 200
250
psi FTP

200 Pre-treatm ent:

53 bopd, 195 m cfd, 278 bw pd
150 (84%) on a 17/64" choke w ith
400 psi FTP
100

50
Gas-lift Installation
planned
0
9/20/2004 11/9/2004 12/29/2004 2/17/2005 4/8/2005 5/28/2005 7/17/2005

BOPD MCFD BWPD

Figure 4 Oil well C production response from RPM treatment