SPE 104572
Successful Application of Relative-Permeability Modifiers To Control Water Production
in Rose Run Fracturing
Len Fry and Don Everett, Halliburton; Mark Moody and Brad Hina, Great Lakes Energy Partners; and Jim Gessel and
Steve Gessel, Green Energy
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Canton, Ohio, U.S.A., 11–13 October 2006.
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, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A number of wells in the Rose Run formation of Ohio were all
completed with small acid treatments and placed online within
the last 12 years. These wells are approximately 20 miles west
of Canton, near Brewster.
Reductions in well performance over short periods of time
indicated the need to stimulate the wells. Fracture stimulation
has not been widely used in the area due to the potential water
production resulting from fracturing out of zone. The objective
of the hydraulic fracturing treatments in these wells was to
obtain a short, highly conductive propped fracture past the
damaged area. Fracturing models were used to determine the
fracture geometry.
In an attempt to minimize post-fracturing water
production, a relative permeability modifier (RPM) was
pumped as a preflush to the fracturing treatment. Fracture
designs were based on individual well characteristics. The
RPM was designed to effectively reduce the relative
permeability to water without significant changes to the
hydrocarbon relative permeability. A low gel-loading borate
crosslinked fluid was then used to fracture-treat the wells.
A total of 12 wells were fractured with the RPM ahead of
the fracturing treatment. The results of these treatments were
compared to offset wells that were fracture-treated without the
RPM. The increase in water production in the RPM-treated
wells was one-half that of the offset wells. These RPM-treated
wells also had lower water-oil ratios (WOR) and water-gas
ratios (WGR).
This paper will describe the properties of the RPM, the
Rose Run formation, as well as, the treatment designs. It will
also detail the post-fracturing results and the comparisons with
the offset wells.
Reservoir Description
The Rose Run sandstone is located within the Knox
unconformity. The age of the Knox group is not clearly
defined. The Cambrian-Ordovician boundary lies within the
Knox group. In Ohio, the Rose Run sandstone has been
assigned to the late Cambrian age. The regional structure of
the Knox group is a rather even, low-gradient dip
southeastward. Localized basement faulting and other
structural features enhance the production of the Rose Run
sandstone on a local basis.1
The primary trapping mechanisms in the Rose Run
sandstone are erosional remnants, up-dip truncations at the
unconformity, and basement-related structures. The reservoir
rock consists of up to five sandstone stringers within a
nonporous dolomite. Porosity in the Rose Run sandstone
ranges from approximately 3 to 20% and averages 9%.
Permeability ranges from 0.01 to 198 mD with an average
permeability of 5 mD. The average cumulative gas production
from a Rose Run sandstone well after 10 years is 400 MMcf.1
The drive mechanism of the Rose Run can be solution gas, gas
cap, or water drive.
Within the area of the study wells, the Rose Run sandstone
is approximately 6,500 ft below surface. The total thickness of
all the sandstone lenses is approximately 50 ft. Production is
primarily from erosional remnants beneath the Knox
unconformity.1 Average porosity within the area is 8%.
Permeability can vary substantially, but averages 4 mD. A
map of the study area is shown in Fig. 1.
Treatment Objectives
The objective of the fracturing treatments was to improve the
gas and/or oil production while limiting water production.
Producing water requires as much if not more energy than
producing an equal volume of oil. Water production also
causes other problems, including but not limited to, tubular
corrosion, sand production, and handling/disposal costs.2
Fracturing simulators were utilized to determine the
downward height growth of the induced fractures in the initial
candidate wells. From the model, it was determined that the
fracture would grow down to the water-bearing sand, even at
low pumping rates. Fracture geometry from the model is
shown in Fig. 2. Offset well production was also used to
determine the extent of water produced in wells previously
fractured with no attempt to control post-fracturing water
production. Based on model output and offset production
2 SPE 104572
information, three fracturing treatments were designed. Each
well was treated based on information from the fracturing
models and offset production.
Relative Permeability Modifier
The RPM used in these fracturing treatments is a
hydrophobically modified water-soluble polymer. The
polymer is diluted and added to the fracturing fluid; it
performs by adsorption to the rock surface within the fluid
flow paths.3 The polymer can be added as a preflush to the
fracturing treatment, to the pad of the fracturing treatment, or
throughout the fracturing fluid. The polymer will alter the
relative permeability to water in the region around the fracture
where fluid leakoff has occurred. The RPM has chemical and
physical properties that reduce water flow in the treated area
of a water-producing zone. However, in the treated area of a
hydrocarbon-producing layer, the RPM will have little or no
effect on the relative permeability of oil.4 Another advantage
of this particular RPM is that it does not degrade with shear.
Therefore, there are no special placement techniques required.
The diluted polymer solution has a very low viscosity and
adsorption to the rock is immediate; no shut-in time is
required for the polymer.
Fracture Design
The treatments designed for each well varied in pumping rate
from 6 to 15 bbl/min using 130 to 280 sacks (sks) of proppant.
All the treatments contained a 6,000-gal RPM preflush. These
pumping schedules are detailed in Tables 1–3. The fracturing
fluid used on all the wells was a low polymer-loading borate
crosslink. Offset production was used to determine which
areas in the field experienced more severe water production
after the fracturing treatments. In these areas, fracturing
designs had been low rate and sand volumes had been held to
130 sks. In the areas where offset production did not indicate
severe water production, the fracturing treatments had been
designed with pump rates as high as 15 bbl/min and sand
volumes as high as 280 sks.
The fracturing model estimated a half fracture length of
approximately 120 ft and a lower fracture height of
approximately 30 ft on the low-rate treatments. This design
would result in a fracture with an average conductivity of
1,200 mD-ft. For the treatments pumped at 15 bbl/min, the
model predicted a half fracture length of approximately 265 ft
and a lower fracture height of approximately 75 ft. The
resulting fracture would have an average conductivity of 800
mD-ft.
Production Results
Production rates were obtained for 22 wells in the area. Any
well that was not productive or not currently online was
disregarded. Any well that had been fracture-treated with
uneconomical results was rejected as well. All prefracturing
production data was limited to 12 months prior to the date of
fracturing.
A total of 11 wells were fracture-treated using the RPM
preflush. These wells averaged 43 Mcf/d gas, 1.8 bbl of oil per
day (BOPD), and 1 bbl of water per day (BWPD) production
for the 12 months prior to fracturing. Post-fracturing
production rates averaged 124 Mcf/d gas, 4.2 BOPD, and 6.3
BWPD. Production increases were 3.6-fold in gas production,
1.8-fold in oil production, and 2.4-fold in water production.
Five of the wells showed no increase in water production after
fracturing.
Eleven offset wells were also fracture-treated without the
RPM preflush. These wells had prefracture production
averages of 27 Mcf/d gas, 16 BOPD, and 2.1 BWPD for 12
months prior to fracturing. The average post-fracturing
production of these wells was 60 Mcf/d gas, 30 BOPD, and
7.6 BWPD production. Production increases were 2.8-fold in
gas production, 3.2-fold in oil production, and 4-fold in water
production. Of the 11 wells, only one well had no increase in
post-fracture water production.
One well fractured with the RPM preflush had a 6-fold
water production increase. This well was subsequently
retreated with the RPM. The bullhead matrix treatment
resulted in increased gas production and decreased water
production over the next five months. The current water
production from this well is down to a 4.5-fold increase. The
production data for all the wells is detailed in Table 4.
Conclusions
In this study, 22 wells made up the survey group, of which 11
were fractured without the RPM preflush and 11 were
fractured with the RPM preflush. Analysis of the post-
fracturing data indicates the following:
• The wells in this area can be hydraulically fractured with
the use of a relative permeability modifier to control
post-fracturing water production.
• The average increase in gas production in the RPM-
treated wells was higher than that of the non-RPM-
treated wells.
• Average water production in the RPM-treated wells was
lower than that of the non-pretreated wells.
In short, the post-fracturing water-gas ratio, as well as the
water-oil ratio, were both lower in the RPM-treated wells.
References
1. Roen, J., Walker, B.: “The Atlas of Major Appalachian Gas
Plays,” West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey.
Publication V-25, 1996.
2. Shahan, T., Briney, M., Reyes, R., Creel, P., Dalrymple, D.:
“Technology and Methods Used to Reduce Water Production in
the Lower Delaware Sands of Southeastern New Mexico and
West Texas,” paper SPE 95688 presented at the 2005 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
9–12 October.
3. Eoff, L., Dalrymple, D., Reddy, B.: “Development of a
Hydrophobically Modified Water-Soluble Polymer as a
Selective Bullhead System for Water-Production Problems,”
paper SPE 80206 presented at the 2003 SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 5–8
February.
4. Eoff, L., Dalrymple, D., Reddy, B., Everett, D.: “Structure and
Process Optimization for the Use of a Polymetric Relative
Permeability Modifier in Conformance Control,” paper SPE
84951 revised from SPE 64985 first presented at the 2001 SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston,
Texas, 13–16 February.
SPE 104572 3

Table 1—Job Schedule No. 1

Clean Vol Clean Slurry Vol Slurry
Stage Stage Vol, Actual, Time
Cum, Left, gal Rate, Stage, Cum, Rate,
No. Description gal gal Stage, min
gal bbl/min gal gal bbl/min
1 Prepad 2,500 2,500 26,300 6.00 2,500 2,500 6 9.92
2 RPM Fluid 6,000 8,500 23,800 6.00 6,000 8,500 6 23.81
3 Prepad 2,500 11,000 17,800 6.00 2,500 11,000 6 9.92
4 Pad 4,500 15,500 15,300 7.00 4,500 15,500 7 15.31
5 .5-3# RAMP 5,600 21,100 10,800 7.41 6,047 21,547 8 18.00
6 4# PLF 800 21,900 5,200 8.46 946 22,493 10 2.25
7 0 4,400 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
8 0 4,400 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
9 0 4,400 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
10 Flush 4,400 4,400 4,400 10.00 4,400 4,400 10 10.48

Totals 26,300 26,893 89.68

Slurry
Stage Stage Prop Conc, Prop Left, Actual, Prop Base Fluid Density,
Density, Stage, lb
No. Description lb/gal Cum, lb lb lb No. 8.33
lb/gal
1 Prepad 8.33 0 0 13,000 ABF Name
2 RPM Fluid 8.33 0 0 13,000 Prop 1 0.0456 Ottawa
3 Prepad 8.33 0 0 13,000 Prop 2 0.037 Carbolite
4 Pad 8.33 0 0 13,000 1 Prop 3 0
5 .5-3# RAMP 9.34 1.75 9,800 9,800 13,000 1
6 4# PLF 10.43 4 3,200 13,000 3,200 1
7 0.00 0 0 0 1
8 0.00 0 0 0 1
9 0.00 0 0 0 1
10 Flush 8.33 0 0 0

Totals 13,000
4 SPE 104572

Table 2—Job Schedule No. 2

Clean Vol Slurry Vol Slurry

Stage Stage Vol, Left, Actual, Clean Rate, Time Stage,
Cum, Stage, Cum, Rate,
No. Description gal gal gal bbl/min min
gal gal gal bbl/min
1 Pre Pad 2500 2500 31820 8.00 2,500 2,500 8 7.44
2 RPM Fluid 6000 8500 29320 8.00 6,000 8,500 8 17.86
3 Pre Pad 2500 11000 23320 8.00 2,500 11,000 8 7.44
4 Pad 5500 16500 20820 12.00 5,500 16,500 12 10.91
5 1# PLF 2000 18500 15320 11.48 2,091 18,591 12 4.15
6 2# PLF 4000 22500 13320 11.00 4,365 22,956 12 8.66
7 3# PLF 5000 27500 9320 10.56 5,684 28,640 12 11.28
8 0 4320 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
9 0 4320 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
10 Flush 4320 4320 4320 12.00 4,320 4,320 12 8.57

Totals 31820 32,960 76.31

Slurry
Stage Stage Prop Conc, Prop Cum, Left, Actual, Prop Base Fluid Density,
Density, Stage, lb
No. Description lb/gal lb lb lb No. 8.33
lb/gal
1 Pre Pad 8.33 0 0 25,000 ABF Name
2 RPM Fluid 8.33 0 0 25,000 Prop 1 0.0456 Ottawa
3 Pre Pad 8.33 0 0 25,000 Prop 2 0.037 Carbolite
4 Pad 8.33 0 0 25,000 1 Prop 3 0
5 1# PLF 8.92 1 2,000 2,000 25,000 1
6 2# PLF 9.47 2 8,000 10,000 23,000 1
7 3# PLF 9.97 3 15,000 25,000 15,000 1
8 0.00 0 0 0 1
9 0.00 0 0 0 1
10 Flush 8.33 0 0 0

Totals 25,000
SPE 104572 5

Table 3—Job Schedule No. 3

Clean Vol Clean Slurry Vol Slurry
Stage Stage Vol, Left, Actual, Time
Cum, Rate, Stage, Cum, Rate,
No. Description gal gal gal Stage, min
gal bbl/min gal gal bbl/min
1 Pre Pad 2,500 2,500 32,820 15.00 2,500 2,500 15 3.97
2 RPM Fluid 6,000 8,500 30,320 15.00 6,000 8,500 15 9.52
3 Pre Pad 2,500 11,000 24,320 15.00 2,500 11,000 15 3.97
4 Pad 5,500 16,500 21,820 15.00 5,500 16,500 15 8.73
5 1# PLF 2,000 18,500 16,320 14.35 2,091 18,591 15 3.32
6 2# PLF 4,000 22,500 14,320 13.75 4,365 22,956 15 6.93
7 3# PLF 6,000 28,500 10,320 13.19 6,821 29,777 15 10.83
8 0 4,320 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
9 0 4,320 0.00 0 0 0 0.00
10 Flush 4,320 4,320 4,320 15.00 4,320 4,320 15 6.86

Totals 32,820 34,097 54.12

Slurry
Stage Stage Prop Conc, Stage, Prop Left, Actual, Prop Base Fluid Density,
Density,
No. Description lb/gal lb Cum, lb lb lb No. 8.33
lb/gal
1 Pre Pad 8.33 0 0 28,000 ABF Name
2 RPM Fluid 8.33 0 0 28,000 Prop 1 0.0456 Ottawa
3 Pre Pad 8.33 0 0 28,000 Prop 2 0.037 Carbolite
4 Pad 8.33 0 0 28,000 1 Prop 3 0
5 1# PLF 8.92 1 2,000 2,000 28,000 1
6 2# PLF 9.47 2 8,000 10,000 26,000 1
7 3# PLF 9.97 3 18,000 28,000 18,000 1
8 0.00 0 0 0 1
9 0.00 0 0 0 1
10 Flush 8.33 0 0 0

Totals 28,000
6 SPE 104572

Table 4—Results of Treatments

Gas Oil Water Post-Frac
Well Sand
Frac Date Post- Fold Pre Post- Fold Pre Post Fold Frac Fluid
No. Pre Prod sks WGR WOR
Prod Inc Prod Prod Inc Prod Prod Inc
1 2/13/2001 50 261 5.22 5 10 2.00 0 0 0.00 RPM Fluid 130 0.00 0.00
2 9/13/2001 79 91 1.15 4 2 0.50 1 4 4.00 RPM Fluid 130 0.04 2.00
3 3/7/2005 32 94 2.94 0 2 2.00 0 5 5.00 RPM Fluid 280 0.05 2.50
4 3/10/2005 24 270 11.25 2 3 1.50 6 34 5.67 RPM Fluid 130 0.13 11.33
5 3/14/2005 6 7 1.17 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 RPM Fluid 250 0.00 0.00
6 3/17/2005 44 231 5.25 5 8 1.60 0 0 0.00 RPM Fluid 130 0.00 0.00
7 4/12/2005 69 57 0.83 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 RPM Fluid 280 0.00 0.00
8 4/6/2005 96 55 0.57 1 1 0.00 0 4 4.00 RPM Fluid 130 0.07 0.00
9 4/14/2005 6 15 2.50 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 RPM Fluid 250 0.00 0.00
10 6/2/2005 31 159 5.13 1.5 16 10.67 2.75 16 5.82 RPM Fluid 130 0.10 1.00
12 2/12/2002 8 24 3.00 0 1 1.00 1 11 11.00 Frac Treatment 130 0.46 11.00
13 6/1/1999 11 43 3.91 9 13 1.44 18 34 1.89 Frac Treatment 0.79 2.62
14 21 87 4.14 0 1 1.00 0 2 2.00 Frac Treatment 0.02 2.00
15 7/1/2000 66 60 0.91 2 11 5.50 0 4 4.00 Frac Treatment 290 0.07 0.36
16 5/1/2000 49 159 3.24 1 7 7.00 0 1 1.00 Frac Treatment 0.01 0.14
17 2/1/2003 0 0 0.00 60 101 1.68 0 1 1.00 Frac Treatment 0.00 0.01
18 5/1/2000 1 6 6.00 34 126 3.71 0 2 2.00 Frac Treatment 0.33 0.02
19 6/15/1998 4 24 6.00 30 27 0.90 1 17 17.00 Frac Treatment 0.71 0.63
20 1/25/2002 111 233 2.10 34 28 0.82 0 1 1.00 Frac Treatment 280 0.00 0.04
21 2/1/2000 0 1 1.00 1 10 10.00 0 0 0.00 Frac Treatment 0.00 0.00
22 3/21/2002 31 19 0.61 2 5 2.50 3 11 3.67 Frac Treatment 130 0.58 2.20

Average RPM Fluid

43.70 124.00 3.60 1.85 4.20 1.83 0.98 6.30 2.45 0.04 1.68
Wells
Average Treatment
27.45 59.64 2.81 15.73 30.00 3.23 2.09 7.64 4.05 0.27 1.73
Wells
SPE 104572 7

Fig. 1—Study area in Ohio’s Rose Run formation.

Fig. 2—Fracture geometry from the model.