SPE 106042
Using Microgels to Shut Off Water in a Gas Storage Well
A. Zaitoun, SPE, R. Tabary and D. Rousseau, Institut Français du Petrole; T. Pichery and S. Nouyoux, Gaz de France; P.
Mallo and O. Braun, Seppic.
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 28 February–2 March 2007.
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, 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 an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
The present paper describes the first field application of a new
water shutoff technology using size-controlled microgels for
the treatment of a gas storage well.
The treatment was designed from an integrated study
combining laboratory coreflood experiments and near-
wellbore reservoir simulations. The candidate well (open hole
completion with liner) was drilled in a sandstone reservoir
formation made of a succession of layers with different
petrophysical quality all connected each other. The presence
of a thin high-permeability streak located in the bottom part of
the open interval was assumed to be the main factor of
excessive water production. A bullhead option was chosen for
the treatment. Microgel size (around 2 micron) favored their
placement in the high-permeability layer, whereas the
penetration in the rest of the reservoir was expected to be very
superficial.
The treatment was performed in June 2005. Due to pressure
constraints, the volume of the treatment had to be reduced to
26 m3 only. A backflush of gas was necessary to recover gas
injectivity. The well was kept on production during the whole
winter season 2005-2006. Water production was significantly
reduced thus enabling higher gas rate production. A positive
impact on sand production was also observed. Well behavior
was in good agreement with model predictions.
Introduction
Water intrusion from aquifer in underground gas storage wells
affects well performances more especially when the Gas-
Water Contact is high in the reservoir and the gas rates due to
peaks of demand are intense. Some pioneer field operations
have shown that polymer technology can be an efficient way
to solve this problem.1,2
The principle of the treatment is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The
polymer injected into the open interval invades the different
layers surrounding the wellbore with a deeper invasion of the
higher permeability layers, which are frequently the main
water producing zones. This type of product adsorbs on the
formation rock almost irreversibly and induces a selective
reduction of the relative permeability to water with respect to
the relative permeability to oil or to gas. This unique property
of water soluble polymers and gels is well documented in the
petroleum literature, as "RPM" (Relative Permeability
Modification) or "DPR" (Disproportionate Permeability
Reduction). Indeed, although the origin of this phenomenon
remains controversial, there is a large consensus about the
reality of this property, which has been observed during either
water/oil or water/gas two-phase-flow coreflood experiments
with many different core materials and polymer/gel species.3-12
The combination of a polymer/gel favorable placement in the
water-producing layers together with RPM effect induces
lower water cut production after treatment. If the loss of
Productivity Index can be compensated by higher drawdown,
the treated well can produce more oil or more gas.
Liang, Lee and Seright pointed out that RPM effect is not
enough to garantee a successful treatment, especially in radial
flow conditions.13 In fact , a perfect RPM product, which
reduces the relative permeability to water without inducing
any change in the curves of relative permeability to oil or to
gas, may affect the effective permeability to oil or to gas
through an increase in water saturation. This occurs when the
fractional flow of water from the oil producing layers is
significant. The water blocking effect increases with the depth
of penetration of the polymer/gel in the layer and with the
intensity of the permeability reduction to water. Therefore,
preventing a deep penetration of RPM products into the oil/gas
layers can be considered as mandatory to achieve a good water
shutoff treatment.
A new microgel technology has been recently designed for
water shutoff applications.14-19 The microgels are polymer
species with internal crosslinks, which make them more rigid
and larger than conventional high-molecular-weight polymers
currently available in the market. The main parameters which
can be varied in the manufacturing process are (1) microgel
size, (2) consistency and (3) chemistry. Figure 3 compares
different microgel species with conventional high-molecular-
weight polymer macromolecule (like polyacrylamide). The
polymer behaves like a flexible coil with a size of around
2 SPE 106042
0.3 µm. The largest microgels have a size of around 2 µm.
They can be produced with a low crosslink density (which
makes them "soft") or with a higher crosslink density (which
makes them "hard", or less deformable). The smallest
microgels have almost the same size as the polymer (0.3 µm),
but their internal crosslinks makes them more rigid and stable
than conventional polymers. The microgels have been shown
to be good RPM products and to have an excellent shear,
thermal and chemical stability.15 Moreover, due to their large
size, their penetration in low-permeability layers can be
minimized, which fulfills one of the challenges of the water
shutoff technology.
The first field application of the new microgel technology was
performed on a gas storage reservoir. Well near-wellbore
configuration, made of a thick succession of layers with large
permeability contrast, was well-suited to test the superior
placement of microgels in bullhead conditions. The treatment
was designed from an integrated study combining laboratory
coreflood experiments and reservoir simulations.
Laboratory study
Experimental conditions
Microgel solutions
Due to the presence of high-permeability zones surrounding
the wellbore and to mild reservoir conditions, a "soft" large
microgel quality was chosen for the application. The
commercial product was under inverse emulsion form, with
30% in weight of active material. The solution was prepared
in two steps: (1) preparation of a microgel concentrate at 6000
ppm in a 1% KCl brine under energic stirring (warring blender
11000 rpm for 10 minutes); (2) dilution to final concentration
of 3000 ppm in same 1% KCl brine.
A viscosity curve (Fig. 4) was established in a broad range of
shear rate (Couette viscometer LS30 from Contraves).
Coreflood experiments
The gas/water two-phase flow set-up is schematized in Fig. 5.
The core (diameter=4 cm, length=6 cm) was mounted in a
Hassler cell placed in an oven maintained at a temperature of
30°C. Brine and microgel solution were injected at constant
flow rate (Pharmacia P-500 pumps) into the core. Nitrogen
was injected into the same core face. Displaced water was
collected in a silicagel column put on a balance at the outlet of
the core. Microgel concentration in the effluent was detected
by pressure drop measurement on a calibrated capillary tube.
Differential pressure in the core was monitored throughout the
whole experiment via pressure gauges connected to a PC. The
complete procedure includes the following steps:
1. Saturation of core with brine (Sw=100%).
Measurement of absolute permeability k,
2. Gas flush until irreducible water saturation Swi.
Measurement of gas relative permeability krg@Swi,
3. CO2 flush. Saturation of core with brine (Sw=100%).
4. Microgel injection (1st front). Determination of 1st
microgel front, measurement of Mobility Reduction
Rm,
5. Brine injection. Determination of Permeability
Reduction Rk,
6. 2nd microgel front. Measurement of adsorption by
delay of 1st front with respect to 2nd front.
Measurement of Mobility Reduction Rm,
7. Brine injection. Determination of Permeability
Reduction Rk,
8. Gas injection until Swi. Measurement of krg@Swi in
the presence of adsorbed microgel,
9. CO2 flush. Saturation of core with brine (Sw=100%).
10. Microgel injection,
11. Gas injection until Swi. Measurement of krg@Swi in
the presence of bulk microgel.
Two coreflood experiments were performed, the first one
with a high-permeability core (k=6000 mD) coming from the
high-permeability interval, the second one with a lower-
permeability core (k=205 mD) more representative of the rest
of the reservoir.
Results
Microgels propagate easily into the 6000 mD core with a
moderate value of Rm=15, whereas in the 205 mD core, the
propagation is more difficult (Figs. 6 and 7). In the low-
permeability core, at high rates, the pressure drops reach a
pseudo stabilization with high Rm values (of around Rm=50).
At low rate, the pressure drop does not stabilize anymore
showing a face plugging tendency.
To take into acount such a behavior, in the reservoir
simulations, two different Rm data sets coming from the
laboratory coreflood experiments were affected to (1) the
high-permeability layer and (2) the rest of the reservoir.
Numerical simulations
Numerical simulations aimed at (1) evaluating different
treatment scenarios, (2) defining an optimal treatment design,
and (3) forecasting post-treatment well behavior. The
simulations were run with a black oil reservoir simulator,
namely ATHOSTM, having a polymer module. The simulations
were run in two steps, (1) construction of a simplified radial
model of the well and the surrounding reservoir, which
achieves a satisfactory history match of the well, and (2)
simulation of different treatment scenarios as well as post-
treatment well behavior. As pointed out before, actual
Mobility Reduction, Permeability Reduction and adsorption
values coming from the laboratory study were used as inputs
for the numerical simulations.
Figure 8 shows the radial reservoir model for the well and the
surrounding reservoir established from log data and core
measurements at different levels of the open interval in a
cored neighboring well. Unfortunately, no core data from the
candidate well were available. The reservoir is made of a
succession of layers with permeability ranging between 1mD
and more than 5000 mD. The highest permeability layer, with
a thickness of 1.5 m only, but with a permeability greater than
5000 mD, is located in the bottom part of the reservoir. This
SPE 106042
layer is probably the main water producing interval in the
well. All layers are connected each other. Two large aquifer
layers were placed at the bottom. Water influx from the
aquifer was adjusted by the introduction of a low-permeability
thin layer between the aquifer and the open interval.
The history matching was performed by constraining the
model with actual gas injection and production rates and
trying to reproduce by the simulation the water production
history as well as the evolution of the bottom hole pressure.
Figure 9 shows actual and simulated cumulate water and
bottom hole pressure between the years 2001 and 2004. The
cyclic use of the well as gas injector during summer and gas
producer during winter results in the oscillatory trend of the
pressure curve. Also, the cyclic use of the well explains the
evolution in "stair steps" of the cumulative water curve, which
increases during the gas production period, and remains
constant during the gas injection period. Although not pefect,
the history match obtained with this simplified model is
satisfactory. Such a model can thus be considered as a good
basis to simulate different treatment scenarios.
Figure 10 shows simulation results of three treatment
scenarios with a volume of 50, 100 and 200 m3 respectively.
As a baseline, we simulated regular cycles of gas injection and
production without any treatment (solid curve). As expected,
the cumulative water curve increases regularly with a "stair
steps" trend as before. The cumulative water curve drops
strongly after a microgel treatment. The reduction in water
production appears to be little sensitive to the volume of the
microgel slug. At this stage, we can conclude that a slug of
50 m3 is enough to reduce strongly the water production from
the well (water is divided by a factor of three approximately).
Another important result was obtained from the numerical
simulations, i.e. the evolution of the bottom hole pressure
during the injection of the microgel slug (Fig. 11). For
economical reasons, it was decided to perform the injection in
less than two days. For a 200 m3 slug, the pressure reaches a
value (175 bar) far above the fracturation pressure, which is
unacceptable. In fact, the injection of the 50 m3 slug was the
only one keeping the pressure below the maximum limit
authorized (75 bar). This new result confirmed our first
choice, i.e. the optimal volume for the microgel treatment is
50 m3. With such a slug size, the water is expected to be
reduced by a factor of 3 approximately.
Field test
The microgel treatment was performed on July 2005. The
operations lasted two days. Surface handling facilities
consisted of two polymer dissolution tanks equipped with
paddle mixers, one pumping unit and one logging unit to
monitor the evolution of the downhole pressure during the
operations. The microgel was delivered on site under the form
of inverse emulsion with a concentration in active material of
30% in weight. The emulsion was directly added to a 1% KCl
brine kept under paddle stirring. The inversion of the emulsion
did not require any addition of chemical. With such a system,
the microgel was fully dissolved within 20 minutes.
3
Reservoir pressure at the beginning of the operations was 10
bar higher than expected, which resulted in a reduced pressure
windows of 11 bar only to pump the product. During the
pumping of the microgel solution, downhole pressure
evolution was in good agreement with simulation forecasts.
Finally, due to the severe pressure constraints, the treatment
was reduced to 26 m3 only instead of the planned 50 m3. A
postflush of gas was injected after the microgel treatment
without success, the formation having difficulties to take gas.
A few days later, an attempt to recover gas injectivity by
reversing the flow was found to be successful and
progressively, the well recovered its initial PI. This temporary
problem is probably due to the presence of residual oil
droplets coming from the initial emulsion, which formed a
tight and superficial film on sand face, having low
permeability to gas. Reversing the flow removed this film and
re-established gas pathways at the sand face.
Gas injection was maintained in the well during the summer
period. Afterwards, from November 2005, the well was
converted into gas producer during the whole winter period,
until April 2006. A careful monitoring of water and gas
production was performed in this well and in the neighboring
ones. Figure 12 gives the evolution of the water-to-gas ratio
for the treated well and for the neighboring ones for 4 years,
i.e. during the three years preceding the treament and during
the year following the treatment. Before the treatment, the
water-to-gas ratio of the candidate well is one of the highest of
the reservoir. The treatment induces a strong drop of this ratio,
while, at the same time, the neighboring wells maintain their
past performances. Moreover, this positive result was obtained
with a total gas production 25% higher than the years before
the treatment, the operators having produced the treated well
more intensively due to the reduction in water production. A
rough estimate of water reduction factor gives a value of
around 5, which is a little bit better than expected from the
simulations. The careful monitoring of well performances
during the next injection and production cycles will tell more
about the durability of the treatment.
The treatment had also a positive impact on sand production.
As mentioned before, the candidate well was also suffering
from a problem of sand production, which lead the operator to
choke the well and not produce it at full capacity. A campaign
of sand monitoring was scheduled during the winter period
2004-2005 (before the treatment) and 2005-2006 (after the
treatment). The sand monitoring test consisted in producing
the well at a given gas rate for 1-2 hours while measuring the
sand production via a ClamponTM tool positioned on a curve of
the pipe at the wellhead. The Clampon tool is a detector of
shocks of sand grain on the pipe, which are converted in a
signal visualised on a PC. The test was repeated at several
levels of gas production rate. Figures 13 and 14 compare three
tests performed before and after the treatment. The treatment
is shown to almost stop the production of sand. As for the
water shutoff effect, the monitoring of sand production for the
coming years should tell more about the durability of the
microgel treatment to prevent sand production.
4 SPE 106042
Conclusions
The first field application of a new water shutoff technology
using size-controlled microgels was performed in an
underground gas storage well.
The preparation of the treatment combined laboratory
coreflood experiments in different rock types and near-
wellbore reservoir simulations. Laboratory values of Mobility
Reduction, Permeability Reduction and adsorption were used
as inputs for the reservoir simulations.
Microgel size (2 µm) favored self-placement in the highest
permeability streaks surrounding the wellbore (those
contributing the most to water production), whereas microgel
penetration was very superficial in the low-to-medium
permeability layers. Gas permeability after microgel squeeze
was excellent (good RPM properties).
Microgel slug was sized up from numerical simulations. The
optimal scenario (50 m3) was expected to reduce water
production by a factor of three while maintaining downhole
pressure during microgel pumping at an acceptable value (75
bar).
Well behavior during and after the microgel treatment was in
very good agreement with simulation predictions. During the
pumping of the microgel into the well, the evolution of the
pressure occurred as expected. Severe pressure constraints
imposed to reduce the volume of treatment to 26 m3 only.
Also, the presence of oil residues from the microgel emulsion
induced the formation of a tight film at the sand face. To
remove this film and recover gas permeability, a small back
flow of gas was necessary.
During the winter season following the treatment, the well was
found to produce much less water than before. The reduction
factor is estimated in the range 3 to 5, which is in very good
agreement with simulation forecasts. Moreover, as a
synergistic effect, the treatment reduced dramatically the
production of sand from the well.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the CEP&M. The authors wish to
thank M. Okamoto for his contribution in the numerical
simulations and N. Blin for his contribution in the laboratory
work.
References
1. Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N. and Guerrini, Y.: “Improved
Polyacrylamide Treatments for Water Control in
Producing Wells,” J.Pet.Techn., 862-867, July 1991.
2. Zaitoun, A. and Pichery, T.: “A Successful Polymer
Treatment for Water Coning Abatement in Gas Storage
Reservoir,” paper SPE 71525 presented at the SPE ATCE,
New Orleans, 30 September-3 October 2001.
3. Schneider, F.N. and Owens, W.W.: “Steady-State
Measurements of Relative Permeability for Polymer/Oil
Systems,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 79-86,
1982.
4. Zaitoun, A. and Kohler, N.: “Two-Phase Flow Through
Porous Media : Effect of an Adsorbed Polymer Layer,”
paper SPE 18085 presented at the 1988 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX,, Oct.
2-5.
5. Zaitoun, A., Bertin, H. and Lasseux, D.: “Two-Phase
Flow Property Modification by Polymer Adsorption,”
paper SPE 39631 presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium in Tulsa, OK, April
19-22.
6. Liang, J., Sun, H. and Seright, R.S.: “Why Do Gels
Reduce Water Permeability More Than Oil
Permeability?” SPERE (November 1995) 282-286.
7. Liang, J. and Seright, R.S.: “Further Investigations of
Why Gels Reduce Water Permeability More Than Oil
Permeability,” SPEPF (November 1997) 225-230.
8. Mennella, A., Chiappa, L., Bryant, S.L. and Burrafato, G.:
“Pore-Scale Mechanism for Selective Permeability
Reduction by Polymer Injection,” paper SPE 39634
presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 19-22 April.
9. Thompson, K.E. and Fogler, H.S.: “Pore-Level
Mechanisms for Altering Multiphase Permeability with
Gels,” SPE Journal, Vol. 2, Sept. 1997, 350-362.
10. Nilsson, S., Stavland, A. and Jonsbraten, H.C.:
“Mechanistic Study of Disproportionate Permeability
Reduction,” paper SPE 39635 presented at the 1998
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
OK, April 19-22.
11. Stavland, A. and Nilsson, S.: “Segregated Flow is the
Governing Mechanisms of Disproportionate Permeability
Rediction in Water and Gas Shutoff,” paper SPE 71510
presented at the 2001 SPE ATCE, New Orleans, 30 Sept.-
3 October.
12. Al-Sharji, H.H., Grattoni, C.A., Dawe, R.A. and
Zimmerman, R.W.: “Pore-Scale Study of the Flow of Oil
and Water Through Polymer Gels,” paper SPE 56738
presented at the 1999 SPE ATCE, Houston, 3-6 October.
13. Liang, J.T., Lee, R.L. and Seright, R.S.: “Gel Placement
in Production Wells,” SPEPF, Nov. 1993, 276-286.
14. Chauveteau, G., Omari, A., Tabary, R., Renard, M., and
Rose, J.: “Controlling Gelation Time and Microgel Size
for Water Shutoff,” paper SPE 59317 presented at the
2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, april 3-5.
15. Chauveteau, G., Omari, A., Tabary, R., Renard, M., and
Veerapen, J.: “New Size-Controlled Microgels for Oil
Production,” paper SPE 64988 presented at the 2001 SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston,
february 13-16.
16. Feng, Y., Tabary, R., Renard, M., Le Bon, C., Omari, A.,
and Chauveteau, G.: “Characteristics of Microgels
Designed for Water Shutoff and Profile Control,” paper
SPE 80203 presented at the 2003 SPE Int. Symp. on
Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA, february 5-8.
17. Chauveteau, G., Tabary, R., Le Bon, C., Renard, M.,
Feng, Y., and Omari, A.: “In-Depth Permeability Control
by Adsorption of Soft Size-Controlled Microgels,” paper
SPE 82228 presented at the 2003 SPE European
SPE 106042 5

Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The

Netherlands, may 13-14.
18. Chauveteau, G., Tabary, R., Blin, N., Renard, M.,
Rousseau, D., and Faber, R.: “Disproportionate
Permeability Reduction by Soft Preformed Microgels,”
paper SPE 89390 presented at the 2004 SPS/DOE
Fourtheenth Symposium of Improved Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, april 17-21.
19. Rousseau, D., Chauveteau, G., Renard, M., Tabary, R.,
Zaitoun, A., Mallo, P., Braun, O. and Omari, A.:
“Rheology and Transport in Porous Media of New Water
Shutoff/Conformance Control Microgels,” paper SPE
93254 presented at the 2005 SPE Int. Symp. on Oilfield
Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA, February 2-4.
6 SPE 106042

100

Water
Water Oil
Oil

Viscosity (cPo)
10
Oil Oil Low k Oil Oil

W
Water Water High K Water Water

Swollen or 1
weakly 0,1 1 10 100 1000
X-linked polymer Shear Rate (sec-1)

Fig. 4 - Microgel solution viscosity curve in 1% KCl brine

(C=3000 ppm, T=30°C)
Fig. 1 - Principle of production well water shutoff treatment.

End Point situation Situation before and after Microgels

Fig. 5 - Experimental coreflood set-up for two-phase flow

Fig. 2 - Relative permeability modification by polymer adsorption
(water/gas) in porous media

300 120
Effluent concentration (%)

250 (4) 100

(3)
Rm1 (q = 2 cm3/h) (2)
Mobility Reduction

200 80
(1)

150 60

100 40
3
Rm2 (q = 20 cm /h)

50 Rm3 (q = 2 cm3/h) 20
Rm4 (q = 200 cm3/h)
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Injected volume (cm3)

Fig. 3 - Polymer and fully water-soluble microgel species.

Fig. 6 - Microgel propagation in low-permeability rock facies
(kw=205 mD, φ=0.25, T=30°C).
SPE 106042 7

21 200
19 180

Effluent Concentration (%)

17 160
Mobility Reduction Rm

15 140
13 120
11 100
Simulated
9 80
7 60
5 40 Actual
3 20
1 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Injected Volume (cm3)

Simulated
Fig. 7 - Microgel propagation in high-permeability rock facies
(kw=6000 mD, φ=0.30, T=30°C).

Actual

Fig. 9 - Actual and simulated cumulated water and bottom-hole

pressure curves between years 2001 and 2004.

Simulated

Fig. 8 - Radial reservoir model construction with crossflow (11

layers with k ranging between 1 mD and more than Fig. 10 - Simulation results of three treatment scenarios with slug
5000 mD, 2 large aquifer layers at the bottom). volumes of 50, 100 and 200 m3 of microgels.
8 SPE 106042

20 0 1_20 0 2 20 0 2_20 0 3 20 0 3_200 4 20 0 4 _20 0 5 20 0 5_20 0 6

Fig. 12 - Water-to-gas ratio for the treated well (in red) and for the
neighboring ones for 4 years (treatment performed on July 2005).

Fig. 11 - Expected evolution of bottom-hole pressure for the three

treatment scenarios.

12000. u.a 15000 12000. u.a 15000 12000. u.a 15000

7 dec. 2004 11 jan. 2005 8 feb. 2005

Sand Sand
Qg Qg
8000. u.a 10000 8000. u.a 10000 8000. u.a 10000

4000. u.a 5000 4000. u.a 5000 4000. u.a 5000

Sand
Qg
0. u.a 0 0. u.a 0 0. u.a 0
00

15

30

45

00

15

30

45

15

30

45

15

30

45

00

15
:0

:1

:3

:4

:0

:1

:3
:

:
15

15

15

15

16

16

16

16

09

09

09

10

10

10

10

11

11

11

11

11

11

12

12

Fig. 13 - Sand production monitoring before treatment.

12000. u.a 15000 12000. u.a 15000 12000. u.a 15000

15 dec. 2005 17 jan. 2006 16 m ar. 2006

Sand Sand
Qg Sand
Qg
Sand (min)
Qg (n)m3/h
8000. u.a 10000 8000. u.a 10000 8000. u.a 10000

4000. u.a 5000 4000. u.a 5000 4000. u.a 5000

0. u.a 0 0. u.a 0 0. u.a 0

0

0
:0

:1

:3

:4

:0

:1

:3

:4

:0

:1

:3

:0

:3

:0

:3

:0

:3

:0

:3

:4

:5

:0

:1
15

15

15

15

16

16

16

16

17

17

08

09

09

10

10

11

11

12

12

14

14

15

15

Fig. 14 - Sand production monitoring after treatment.