PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM PAPER NO.

98-47

Water Shutoff Treatments - ReduceWater

and Accelerate Oil Production

F. Brent Thomas, D. Brant Bennion,Hycal EnergyResearchLaboratoriesLtd.

GregoryE. Anderson,Bradford T. Meldrum. Aqueolic CanadaLtd.

This paper is to be presented at the 4~ Annual Teclmical Meeting ofllle Petroleum Society ofCIM in Calgary, AIber1a,
Canada. June 8-10, 1998. Discussion of this paper is invited and nay be presented at the ~ting if filed in writing with the
technical program c~ prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be consi~
fcw publication in CIM journals. Publication rights ~ reserved. This is . ~-print and is subject to conection.

ABSTRACT The first is microscale heterogeneity which could be

Gel treatment applications have been used for
production well WaR reduction. 11aerehave been a
number of cases where conformance was very poor and,
by invocation of gel treatment strategies, WaR was
significantly reduced. 11aispaper discusses both the
characteristics of reservoirs and wells which result in
high WaR, as well as characteristics of gel treatments
which need to be designed in order to effectively minimize
the produced water from a reservoir or an oil field.
Examples are provided in this paper whereby, through
the use of gel treatments in production wells, WaR and
oil production was increased. 11aepaper concludes that
there is a significant upside to gel treatmentsfor reservoir
optimization and production well revitalization.
INTRODUcnON
A serious problem in oil-producing reservoirs is water
production. As with most things in nature, fluids also
tend to follow paths of least resistance which, in
reservoirs, are often created by the heterogeneousnature
of the rock. There are two levels to this heterogeneity.
represented as a simple porous feature distribution. and
the second is macroscale heterogeneity which includes
layering, natural or induced fractures, and high vertical
and horizontal permeabilities. Both can lead to poor
conformance and, therefore, need to be controlled. If
conduits for water flow are available then they need to be
blocked in order for production wells to continue
operation. In terms of water disposal costs, approximately
$1 billion is spent in Alberta alone each year.
The macroscale heterogeneities are more commonly
understood and more intuitive. It is commonly known
that, in some instances where fracturing operations have
been misapplied or resulted in unfortunate connection to
bottom water sources, the fracture pem1eability (100 to
1000 times gteater than the penneability of the rest of the
rock) has resulted in very quick water breakthrough and
very low recovery of the hydrocarbons in the reservoir.
A similar response can also be observed where high
pem1eability layers are present in certain porous media.
Nevertheless, their effect is that much of the rock remains
UDSWept
 F. B. Thomas, D. B. Bennion, G.E. Anderson, B.T. Meldrum
Another form of macroscale heterogeneity, which
contributes to very poor conformance is the case where
poor cementing operations are present. In such cases,in
order to produce anything from the well, near wellbore
fluid profile modification must occur. The same applies
for injection wells. For microscale conformance
difficulties, often simple laboratory tests can identify
problems associated with exploitation strategies. For
instance, the recovery efficiency associated with a
waterflood is often based on analogous reservoirs or past
experience. In some cases,subtle changesin the structure
of the rock can result in vast changes in the sweep
associated with the flow unit even though the porosity
remains about the same value. Many examples exist in
the literature where permeability and porosity of
reservoirs have been sufficiently high to motivate
operating companies to full developmental strategiesonly
to find out that. upon implementation, the sweep through
the homogeneous flow unit is much less than the average
literature numbers would have indicated. In such a case,
even though there is no macrosca1e problem, the
microscale structure predisposes the reservoir to
inefficient oil recovery. In such cases, although
production well strategies can be effective at reducing
WaR. they should be viewed as "band-aid" treabnents
and more long-term and pervasive influence can usually
be achieved with injection well procedures. Nevertheless,
production well applications can be very lucrative if done
correctly.
PROFILE MODmCADON MEmODS
When flooded out channels and productive low
permeability zones are well isolated from each other,
mechanical methods that alter the production profile can
be used. Mechanical methods include the use of selective
completion configurations and squeezecementing. When
flooded-out channels and paths of least resistance are not
well isolated from one another, mechanical methods may
be less effective and somewhat less efficient In many
cases,die optimal profile modification strategy must rely
on the inherent interaction between the treabnent fluids,
the reservoir fluids and the reservoir rock into which the
treabnent is placed.
Forpmposesof this discussion,anystrategyby which
fluids are diverted from their path of least resistanceis
classifiedasa profile modifier. Thesimplestexamplesof
theseare water-alternatinggas techniquesor polymer
floods which make use of the inherent interaction
betweenfluids and the rock characteristics.
2
In many operations there are much more drastic
contrasts between layers or zones of the reservoir and
more common techniques may not work effectively. In
addition, local wellbore problems can be very difficult to
resolve and very rigid blocking agents may be necessary.
The authors recently tested a gel which was stable to
water pressure gradients in excess of 7500 psi/foot in a
highly vuguJar carbonate.
GEL TREATMENT FOR IMPROVED
PRODUCnON
WELLPERFORMANCE
Typically, gel treatments are one of the most
aggressive types of conformance control or profile
modification. Gel technology is more aggressive since it
can totally block certain porous features associated with
the porous media and thus, in a very drastic manner,
divert fluid flow from areas of low drag to areas of much
greater drag (high permeability to lower permeability).
There are many examples of where this can occur and
how this is achieved. Some of the situations where this
occurs will next be discussed. Following this discussion,
some ofdle parameters which should be considered in gel
treabnent applications for production well performance
are reviewed.
Fractures
From work perfonned by the authors, fractured
reservoirs can exhibit high productivity coupled with
serious technica1challenges. The major challenge is due
to the fact that the permeability through the fractures is
orders of magnitude larger than the permeability through
the matrix. Once the hydrocarbons have been recovered
from the fracture then the remaining target for recovery
is in the tighter mabix. Preferentially, this is not where
the injection fluids want to flow and therefore some
means of modifying their natural proclivity to flow
through the fractures must be implemented. If successful.
the overall recovery can be significantly higher than that
expected from a fractured reservoir.
High Permeability Streaks
In contrast to fractures which may have very localized
separation of the porous media. high permeability streaks
are better represented by a naturaJ flow unit or layer
which has a much lower resistance to fluid flow than
oilier layers. Examples abound in ilie literature where
this bas occurred. The Pembina reservoir in Alberta.
Canada is a prime example where the upper layer
 -
Water Shutoff Treatments ReduceWater and AccelerateOil Production
penneability is in the range of 200 mD and contains
approximately 10% of the total oil in place. The lower
flow unit, although having penneability approximately 10
to 50 times lower than the upper flow unit, contained the
bulk of the oil. In such a case, fluid flowed preferentially
through the upper zone and very little of it was diverted
into the lower zone. With properly designed gel
strategies, the target from a reservoir such as this is much
greater than without.
Bottom Water and Coning
A COnUIlOn problem for both gas and oil reservoirs is
coning. In one example recently addressed by the
authors, a prolific gas well, having potential to produce
100 BSCF was shut in after only hours of production due
to bottom water coning. The rate was subsequently
reduced to a level which mitigated the coning problem
but which reduced revenues by 60%. In such a case, if
the bottom water could be controlled, the prize would be
significant.
Worm Holes
In heavier oil reservoirs with unconsolidated porous
media, any pressure surge from the injector can result in
a parting of the fonnation. In such cases, there are
literally holes which develop in the rock through which
fluid flow is very easy. Unless these holes are blocked
and flow is diverted away from these holes, conformance
can be very poor. A number of examples exist in the
literature where this has occurred but one of the most
obvious was proven on the basis of a dye tracer test
performed on a heavy oil reservoir in Elk Point, Alberta.
In this case, a dye was injected into the injector and
within 30 minutes the tracer was being observed in the
offset producers. Based on the volume of dye injected
and the time and distance traveled, the path of least
resistance present in this reservoir was adequately
described as a large pipe connecting the injector to the
producer. Unless controlled, this problem can result in
abandonment of many producing wells.
Near Wellbore Difficulties
Often, there are problems with the wellbore, including
such things as poor cement and less than optin1a1
completion practices. In such cases, unless a blocking
agent can be applied, the well's potential is seriously
iII11)acted.
-1
The aboveexamplesareby no meansexhaustivebut
provide a quick commentaryas to the types of pathsof
least resistancewhich can be presentin reservoUsand
which result in poor performance. In order to resolve
someof theseissues,the characteristicsof gel treatments
must be consideredin order to optin1izethe benefit.
Someof thesecharacteristicswill next be discussed.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A GEL TREATMENT
There are only so many things which can be altered in
tem1Sof the parameters of a natural gel treatment Many
gels have various viscosities at time of injection. Most are
of an aqueous phase but hot waxes are beginning to see
some use in terms of profile modification strategies. Most
gels exhibit a density greater than that of water. In
addition. setup time can also be extremely important in
terms of what type of control one is trying to apply.
These four parameters will now be discussed with their
attendant effects on performance.
Viscosity at Time of Injection
The drag associated with the injection phase is
proportional to the viscosity of the treatment. The greater
the viscosity, the greater the differential pressurerequired
to inject that treatment into the formation, whatever the
formation description may be. Due to the inherent pore
size distn"bution of the reservoir rock, there is a difference
in the surface area to volume ratio from the smallest
porous features to the largest porous features. For the
largest porous features, the surface area to volume ratio is
the smallest, and for the smallest porous features, the
surface area to volume ratio is the largest. Because of the
affinity between the fluid flow and the walls of the porous
features, in the context of a no slip boundary condition at
the wan, it is obvious that the more core which is
encountered per volume of fluid flowing, the greater the
drag. This feature has its advantages and disadvantages.
The advantages are that, because of this inherent
difference in surface area to volume ratio and the
increased drag on more viscous fluids, the greater
viscosity fluids may tend to flow only through the largest
porous features. For the case where the largest porous
features are flowing water or unwanted gas and the target
for recovery is the matrix or the smallest porous features,
the operator may only want invasion into the largest
porous features of the porous media. This is accomplished
by having a treatment of higher injection-time viscosity.
 F. B. Thomas, D. B. Bennion, G.E. Anderson, B.T. Meldrum
The disadvantages of having a higher viscosityupon
injection is that the treatment may not be nearly as
invasiveor, in someporousmedia,the injectivity might
be very low and the operatormay encounterdifficulties
and challengesin trying to introduce sufficient volumes
in the time available according to the setup time
requirementsof the treatment.Nevertheless,viscosityis
defmitely a designvariable.
Nature of the Phase
The nature of the phase of the b"eatment. that is
whether it is an oil phase or a water phase, has received
little attention over the years. Most practitioners would
readily admit that. since water is mainly the phase of
interest for shutoff, the b"eatment should be aqueous.
This makes sense both from a relative permeability
argument or from a more fundamental argument in terms
of interfacial tension and the accompanying capillary
pressure and threshold pressurerequired for invasion into
certain porous features of the rock. Most would indicate
that the b"eatmentphase should be aqueous.
111iscommentary notwithstanding, hot wax treatments
have become in vogue relatively recently for near
wellbore production problems where specific zonesof the
reservoir can be isolated. By the same token, certain high
permeability zones of an injection well could also be
isolated with the hot wax treatment where the pour point
of the wax injected is greater than the reservoir
temperature. In such cases,whole zones could potentially
be sealed off and flow diverted. The data base is
insufficient at this time to comment on the relative
strength and stability of a hot wax treatment compared to
a gel treatment but there is defmitely a potential for hot
wax in some instances. Evidence also suggeststhat some
of the benefits of wax treatments are its relatively lower
cost and ease of application as compared to multi-
component types of gel treatments.
Density
One parameter which can be of importance,
particularly when gravity enters into the equation, is
density. Most of the polymers which are used have
densitieswhich are greater than that of water. If the
densityof the treatmentis greaterthan that of water and
the viscosity is very low then there is nothing stopping
the treatmentfrom going directly into the waterzoneand
continuing to sink until it reaches gravimetric
equilibrium. In many of thesecases,the gel treatment
4
will be very ineffective in any performance response
modification. For this reason, and particularly in the
casesof coning studies and bottom water control, the best
profile modification strategies should include a type of
density modification.
The authorshaveexperimentedwith different means
of alteringthe densityof the gel treatmentsbut thereare
also advantagesand disadvantages to this. The
advantages arethat onecandesignthe densityso that the
treatmentwill float on water andprovide somedegreeof
control. One of the disadvantages, however,is that the
implementationis more complex and the stability and
strength of the treatment are somewhat djmjnished.
Again, in this case,the data base is too diminutive to
commentmore objectively on the potential for modified
densitytreatmentsin gel applications.
Setup Time
The setup time can be a variable of extreme
importance. For injection well conformance control
where deep invasion is both desirable and in fact required
then setup time may be prolonged. If the setup time is
increased somewhat then this would allow for the
injection phase to propagate for large distances and to be
able to seal off complete channels or paths of least
resistance where water flow is occurring. In such cases,
a treatment with a long setup time can effectively increase
the overall recovery efficiency of a pattern. A longer
setup time may result in less localized influence and more
ubitiquous change in response.
A disadvantageof longer setup times is dispersion.
Dispersionin somecasesis so seriousthat shortersetup
times are recommended. Indeed, where tracer studies
havebeenperformedand residencetimes are available,
appropriate volumes and setup times can be more
accuratelydesigned.
EXAMPLES
The paper concludes with a discussion of a number of
production well scenarios where water-oil ratios were
significantly impacted by the implementation of gel
treatment.
Table I reports results from a heavy oil reservoir
where producing water cuts were normally above 900/0.
Many of the 12 wells exhibiting high WaR's were
without comment but of the four from which results were
 -
Water Shutoff Treatments ReduceWater and AccelerateOil Production
available there was significant reduction in WaR. In one
case, a considerable increase in oil production was
observed. These applications were for blocking paths of
least resistance in an oil reservoir with an adverse
viscosity ratio of approximately 1000. The treatments
were two-stage sequential with about six to eight hours
between stages, each stage exhibiting a setup time of less
than two hours. It appeared that the first stage blocked
the largest paths of least resistance and the second stage
"plugged" the secondary pathways. The analogy to
highways and streets exists; the first stage blocks the
highways and the second stage the streets. Subsequent
fluid flow is diverted to the smaller porous features which
still contain the oil.
The second example is taken from production well gel
squeezes into a vuggy carbonate formation (Table 2).
These b"eatmentswere destined to improve the cement
seal between the casing and formation. Cement squeezes
alone were ineffective until they were preceded by a gel
b"eatrnent.It seemedasthough the gel precursor provided
a cushion for the cement and significant benefit was
accrued.
The third example was taken from the Nonnan Wells
areaof northern Canadawhere a number of gel treatments
were applied to both injection and production wells. The
field is on waterflood and many of the wells show high
water cuts. Gel treabnents were done on both injectors
and producers and the results are summarized in Table 3.
Table 4 presents the results of the producing wells and
overall the implementations were judged successful by
operating company engineers. The fmal economic
analysis indicated that for approximately $231,000
invested in gel treatments, profit accrued was in the
$1,700,000 to $2,300,000 range over a two year period.
Table 4 presents some production well responses.
The fourth example is a recent example of an mfill
well that was treated with a low viscosity, very invasive
water shutoff treatment The intill well was drilled with
conventional technology and considerable drilling fluid
was lost during the drilling operation. The
communication with offset production wells was so
immediate that, subsequent to the intill well, the offset
producers had almost 1000/0water cut It was as though
the drilling fluid. from the infi11wen. created conduits to
the water zone beneath the offset producing wells and
seriously changed the water cut.
s
The 20 m3 treabnent was dien placed using a cement
retainer and the response from two offset producers is
shown in Figures IA and I B. The response was
immediate, and it appears that die water production
remained about die samebut the oil production increased
significantly. The duration of dle treatment effects was at
least two years.
Lastly, a well had perfonned poorly relative to
expectation based upon some surrounding wells
completed in the same formation. Fracturing was
common in these wells and therefore a low viscosity
invasive treatment was conducted. Figure 2 shows the
response from this work. The production profile of the
well returned to that of the surrounding wells, and the oil
recovered since b"eatment exceeds 222,000 bbls. The
easiest intexpretation of the response is that, once the
fractures were plugged, the oil became the most mobile
phase in the reservoir and oil production continues to the
present time.
SUMMARY
A mscussionof gel treatments in production and
injection wells has been provided. There are a number of
parameters which figure in the optimal design of a gel
treabnent. The main ones are injection-time viscosity,
density of the treatment, the natme of the treabnent phase
and setup time. Cost must also be considered but
evidence suggests that treatment cost is almost
inconsequential compared to the increased production oil
volumes and decreasedwater volumes produced.
To design effective gel treabnents. a number of
reservoir parameters need to be considered which would
include but not be restricted to pore size distribution, oil
viscosity, source of the water problem, penneability
trends, fracture orientation and all production, completion
and log data for the wells in the field.
Treabnents for water shutoff can be very effective
technically and economically if the product exhibits the
appropriate characteristics relative to the deficiencies of
the well. This technology holds promise as a means of
significantly accelerating oil production and reducing
operating expenses.
 Table 1
Production Well Gel Applications

WeD Date of Fresh Water Comments

# Treatment Overdisplace
94-10-01 1.Om! Water cut reduced from 36% to l00/c
4.9 In' of21o/c (94-10-18)

2 94-10-15 0.5 mJ eachstage Water cut reducedfrom 95% to 35%

10.2m3of200/o (94-10-18)
94-11-01 0.5 m3 each stage No results
2 x 5.0 m3of21%

4 94-11-01 0.5 m3 each stage No results

2 x 5.0m3of21%
s 94-11-02 O.5m3 No results
').~ ~.OIn' of21%

6 94-11-11 O.5m No resulIs

2 x 4.8 m3of21%

1 94-11-11 O.Sm No results

2 x 4.8 m3of21%

8 95-03-09 0.1 m3 No results provided

9.7 In' of21%

~ 95-03-09 O.2m No results provided

9.7 m3of21%

10 95-03-14 O.Om' No results provided

9.7 m3of21%

11 95-04-28 O.3m' (95-05-10)Water cut reducedfrom

9.7 m' of21O/t 99% to 18%,oil increasedfrom 3 to
257 BOPD

12 95-05-01 O.3m' (95-05-10)Watercut reducedfrom

9.7 In' of21% ~/O to 18%
 Table 2

Stabilized Oil
Well Volume (bbl/day)
# (bbl)
Before After

14-17 120 24 168

7-22 60 41 78

16-26 60 36 72

16-5 60 1'- 33

3-27 18 15.4

Table 3

Table 4
Norman Wells Oil Production and WOR Changes

Oil Production
Producer (bbl/day) Oil Gain WOK
(bbl/day)
Before After Before After

G46 24 84 60 10 20
K44 24 ISO 126 2 0.5
126 60 210 150 10 1.5
K34 192 282 90 1.3 0.1.
C4O 60 300 240 6 0.5
838 N/A 150 150 N/A 0.3
Figure IA

Figure IB