SPE 117603

Relative-Permeability Modifiers Used in Conjunction With Hydraulic

Fracturing Can Increase Hydrocarbon Production and Reduce Water
Production
R.J. Curtice and C. Carlson, Halliburton, and M. Stahl, Questar Exploration and Production

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint Meeting held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 11–15 October 2008.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The demand for hydrocarbon production increases each year as world population continues to grow and more energy is
consumed. This increasing demand has caused the oil and gas industry not only to develop new technology but also to
develop reservoirs that were previously overlooked. These marginal reservoirs were deemed uneconomic, primarily because
they typically existed on the outer fringes of known reservoirs or the potential productive formations were subject to
excessive water production.
Many of these previously-overlooked reservoirs need to be hydraulically stimulated to make them economic. When using
fracture stimulation to complete a wellbore in marginal reservoirs, it is not uncommon to produce excessive amounts of
water. This excessive water production can come from the producing formation, water-wet formations which bound the
producing interval, or lack of sufficient barriers between the productive zone and nearby water-bearing zones.
Because wells drilled in these marginal reservoirs are economically borderline, any additional water production resulting
from the completion of these wells jeopardizes the already questionable economics. Consequently, the operators run a much
higher economic risk when completing wells in these marginal reservoirs.
This paper describes a case history using a relative permeability modifier (RPM) incorporated into a hydraulic fracture
stimulation treatment to reduce excessive water production. By implementing this process, it gives the operator an additional
tool to increase the chances of producing formations containing hydrocarbons which had been previously overlooked.
Therefore, this process can help reduce the higher economic risk of completing marginal reservoirs. Incorporating this
technique into a fracture stimulation treatment resulted in the best producing well in the study area.

Introduction
With the world’s demand for additional hydrocarbon production increasing every year, more marginal reservoirs are being
explored. These reservoirs were overlooked in the past because of their potential for excessive water production after
hydraulic stimulation treatments. Since the beginning of the modern oil and gas industry, water production has been a
problem that has plagued operators. It can cost as much, if not more, to produce a barrel of water as it does to produce
additional hydrocarbons. Water production can also lead to additional costly problems such as scale, corrosions, production
fines, etc. (Dalrymple et al. 1998). Water production, regardless of the reason, can hinder and in some cases result in
complete loss of hydrocarbon production. If no action is taken once the water production occurs, the problem typically
worsens before it becomes better. The industry has dealt with this by separating the produced water from the hydrocarbons,
then disposing of it. There are more regulations each year regarding the handling and disposing of produced water, which
continually increases the cost of handling this water.
Another method used within the industry is squeezing portions of the wellbore with a plugging agent, usually cement, to
reduce or stop water production. Care must be taken when using a plugging agent to reduce water production because if the
product is not placed in the proper area of the reservoir, it can shut off hydrocarbon production and water production. Also,
depending on the product used, depth penetration can be limited to near-wellbore, which sometimes results in a temporary
fix.
Anything that can reduce or stop water production benefits the operator and the industry. This paper will describe a
process used on hydraulic stimulation treatments of wells that helps reduce the risk of producing excessive water. This
process uses a RPM as a spacer introduced at the beginning of a hydraulic stimulation treatment that helps minimize the risk
of producing excessive water.
2 SPE 117603

Relative Permeability Modifiers (RPM)

RPMs were first introduced in the late 1970s and were primarily used for water conformance. Applications were for water
fingering, water coning, early water breakthrough, and communications with water via high perm streaks. A major benefit of
using RPMs was that they are a non-plugging agent, which reduced the permeability to water and had little or no effect on the
permeability to hydrocarbons. They also were unaffected by multivalent cations, oxygen, or acids (Weaver 1978). However,
because of the nature of the polymer used to make the initial RPM fluid, the chemistry had limited applications. The
permeability range in which the RPM fluid would work was 10 md to 750 md, the polymer itself was shear sensitive, and the
upper temperature limit was 250°F.
The chemistry of the initial RPMs has been modified by using different polymers several times since their introduction to
the industry. This has allowed several changes regarding the application and use of RPMs. In the mid-1990s, RPMs were
introduced as a prepad fluid in hydraulic stimulation treatments in areas where breaking into nearby water zones commonly
occurred. The results of this application significantly reduced postwater production after hydraulic stimulation treatment, and
allowed operators to treat and produce previously bypassed formations (Brocco et al. 2000; Fry et al. 2006; Torres et al.
2006).
The current RPM fluid, which was introduced to the industry in 2002, is currently a fourth-generation polymer and has a
broader permeability range. It is not affected by shear, has an upper temperature range of 325°F, and has greatly extended the
applications where RPM fluids can be used. Fluids that contain the RPM material have unique properties that allow them to
help minimize water production (Nieves et al. 2002).
Once the RPM material enters the formation, it immediately attaches to the formation surface, thus restricting the ability
for water to flow through the formation. The RPM material restricts the flow area for water-based fluids and has little or no
effect on hydrocarbons (Fig. 1) (Garcia et al. 2008). Because this material begins to work immediately, it not only helps
reduce the flow of water being produced, it also helps reduce the amount of a water-based fluid entering the formation.
Therefore, the RPM fluid not only is a self diverting fluid, but it also works as a fluid-loss additive that could result in longer
frac lengths.

Fig. 1—Typical permeability modification results seen in the lab using RPM fluids.

Study Area
The study area where treatments were pumped is located in the Uintah Basin of northeastern Utah. The basin is located in the
Greater Natural Buttes Field and extends into northwestern Colorado. It is one of Utah’s major producers of oil and natural
gas (Fig. 2) (USGS 2003). The Natural Buttes Field is one of the major gas-producing areas in the basin. There are areas in
this field that are considered marginal reservoirs because of minimal production and/or excessive water production. This
paper reviews both conditions. The study area is located in Township 9 South, and includes ranges 23 East and 24 East in
Uintah County, Utah. Production comparison in the study area includes wells from six different operators. Of the 103 total
wells in the study area, more than 95% of the wells studied were drilled and completed between 2001 and 2006. There were
only six wells from the 103 wells treated using the RPM spacer fluid, and these were all pumped between May and
November of 2006.
The wells located in Range 24 East are typically marginal producers and are on the fringe of being uneconomical. Any
type of water production is a costly downside to stimulating these wells. The first well treated with the RPM prepad was
located in Range 24, and the results compared to wells in the same range were outstanding. Production was the highest for
any well found in the entire study area. The results from this treatment were more successful than expected (Fig. 3) when
compared to the average production from the 97 wells that had conventional frac treatments in both Ranges 23 and 24 East.
There are 16 producing wells found in Range 24 East were pumped using conventional frac treatments. Two other wells that
were treated in Range 24 East using the RPM prepad in the hydraulic stimulation treatment, for a total of three in Range 24
East.
SPE 117603 3

Wells treated in Range 23 East are on the eastern boundary of the Natural Buttes Field and are better producers than those
wells found in Range 24 East. However, the initial production for the wells treated with the RPM prepad was not nearly as
impressive as those found in Range 24 East. As a result, the RPM prepad was only pumped on an additional two wells,
creating a total of three treatments in Range 23 East. The results from these two treatments were similar to those of the first
well treated in this range, and the operator quit pumping the RPM prepad treatment because the benefits were not
immediately observed.
Production from all wells compared in the study area was from the Wastach and Mesa Verde formation. Both formations
are major gas reservoirs in the Uinta Basin, and both are considered tight gas sands with average permabilities of 0.04 md in
the Wasatch and 0.01–0.02 md in the Mesa Verde. Porosity averages from 8–12% in the Wasatch and 6–12% in the Mesa
Verde, while water saturations typically are as high as 45% in the Wasatch and 52% in the Mesa Verde. Depending on the
area and the operator, either both or only one of the formations were completed.

Fig. 2—Map of Uinta Basin, located in northeastern Utah, showing study area.
4 SPE 117603

Fig. 3—First RPM frac compared to 97 wells with conventional frac in both ranges.

Data Acquisition
Production data for all wells in the study area was taken from the Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining public Web site. All
wells in the study area have undergone hydraulic stimulation treatments that were pumped to reach their full economical
potential. Only wells with 10 months of continuous production were used in the study. Continuous production is defined as
having some type of gas production occurring throughout the entire 10-month period. To get a truer look at actual production
after a hydraulic stimulation treatment had been pumped, the first month of the 10 months was left out of the analysis. This
was done because the first month of production includes the actual frac treatment that can lead to high initial production of
not only gas but also water. This does not always reflect the true production potential of the well that has been treated.
The remaining nine months of production of gas and water were then averaged for a comparison of RPM Frac treatments
and Conventional Frac Treatments. The categories that were looked at were the actual number of production days for that
specific month, the total amount of gas produced for that month in Mcf, and the total barrels of water produced for that
month.
The totals of each well for each month were compiled into the following categories:
• The combined total of production days of each well from month 1–9.
• The total amount of gas produced at each well from month 1–9.
• The total amount of water produced at each well from month 1–9.

Averages for daily gas production were determined in Mcf/D, and the average daily water production in BWPD. These
averages were then compared to wells of conventional frac treatments versus RPM frac treatments for ranges 23E and 24E
(Figs. 4 and 5).
With the exception of the first well treated with the RPM fluid, the initial production of the remaining wells treated did
not appear to be as conclusive. This resulted in the operator limiting the amount of wells treated with this process. However,
a well which has been treated using this process typically takes 3–6 months or longer to show the overall impact of this type
of treatment on the formation in question. Therefore, it is possible to draw incomplete conclusions if one is looking for
immediate results, which can lead to additional hydrocarbon production and economic savings to the operator (Fig. 6 and 7).
SPE 117603 5

Fig. 4—Conventional frac 81 compared to RPM frac 3, Twn 9S Rng 23 E.

Fig. 5—Conventional frac 16 compared to RPM frac 3, Twn 9S Rng 24E.

6 SPE 117603

Fig. 6—Water production per MMscf Twn 9-Rng 23E.

Fig. 7—Water production per MMscf Twn 9-Rng 24E.

Design Criteria
Before considering using an RPM frac treatment, it should be determined that the formation being treated shows high
potential for either water production, or a high probability that the treatment will grow into a water-producing zone. Once this
has been determined, a treatment design can be chosen. The RPM portion of the treatment is run in a prepad portion of the
treatment and consists of a fluid much thinner than the treatment fluid. This is so the RPM fluid can leak off into the
formation ahead of the main treatment, which will then divert and act as a fluid loss so that less of the frac treatment leaks off
during the treatment.
Depending on the compatibility of the fluid type, it is also possible to run the RPM fluid throughout the entire frac
treatment if desired. However, like anything else, economics should be considered and, on some treatments, the additional
cost may be prohibitive. The amount of RPM fluid to be added to the fluid is based on formation permeability and the
bottomhole static temperature of the formation. Once these two factors have been determined, the amount of RPM product is
added per 1,000 gallons of fluid. The total volume of fluid to be treated with the RPM product can vary significantly,
depending on the area and severity of the problem.
SPE 117603 7

For wells treated in this study area, the prepad volume was a minimum of 25% of the total treatment. Other areas where
this process has been applied have used as much as 50%, and in some cases the entire treatment contained the RPM material.
When first considering the application of an RPM fluid in a stimulation treatment, it is better to start high and then work your
way down. The important thing is to determine if it is effective before reducing the amount of fluid treated using the RPM
product.
The wells to be treated should also have some remaining economic potential, and can be either an oil or gas well. Both
sandstones and carbonates can be treated; however, there should be existing near-wellbore problems and the reservoir should
not contain void spaces or large fractures.

Results
Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the overall averages of both gas production and water production of a conventional frac versus an
RPM frac. Both ranges have either slightly or significantly better gas production, and water production tends to drop for both
types of treatments. However, another way to look at the effectiveness of the RPM fracs is to take a look at amount of water
produced per MMcf of gas.
Wells treated with the RPM fracs in Range 23 E produced 50% less water per MMcf when compared to those that were
pumped using conventional frac treatments (Fig. 6). Wells treated with RPM fracs in Range 24 E produced 25% less water
when compared to wells pumped with conventional fracs (Fig. 7). Fig. 8 shows the increased revenue as a result of increased
gas production and factors in the associated water disposal (less water to dispose of in Range 23 E, more to dispose of in
Range 24 E). However, even with more water to dispose of in Range 24 E, the gas production is 8 to 10 times higher than
that of a well which had a conventional frac. The costs used for this comparison totaled $4/bbl of water, to account for water
hauling and disposal, and a very conservative estimate of $2/Mcf was used for the price of gas.
The additional costs added to the treatment when using an RPM spacer over a conventional stimulation treatment was low
enough in each area of the field of study that the treatments paid for themselves in less than one month, even at $2/Mcf. The
RPM fluid is simple to use, can be used with several fluid systems, and can be added as a prepad or run throughout the entire
treatment if desired.

Fig. 8—Incremental revenue comparison at $4/bbl for water disposal and $2/Mcf for gas.

Conclusions
Since the introduction of RPM fluids in the late 1970s, the chemistry has improved and has allowed polymers to be used in
other areas besides conventional water conformance treatments. Introducing this process into hydraulic stimulation processes
has allowed operators to complete formations which in the past were marginal because of their proximity to water, resulting
in uneconomical wells. Applying the RPM process has not only reduced water production in these areas, but it has also
resulted in increased production. However, before using this process, ensure that such a water problem exists. It is also
important to monitor production for several months after the treatment to determine the success or failure of the application.
Results from these types of treatments are not as immediate as other treatments. Also, the primary purpose of these
treatments is to help reduce excessive water production and typically will not completely reduce all water production.
8 SPE 117603

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Questar Exploration and Halliburton for allowing us to publish this paper.

References
Brocco, C., Dalrymple, E.D., Peacock, H., Creel, P., and Everett, D. 2000. Relative Permeability Modifier Preflush Fracture Stimulation
Technique Results in Successful Completion of Previously Bypassed Intervals. Paper SPE 59348 presented at the SPE/DOE Oil-
Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 3–5 April.
Dalrymple, E.D., Creel, P., Rohwer, C., and Crab, H. III. 1998. Results of Using a Relative-Permeability Modifier with Fracture-
Stimulation Treatment. Paper SPE 49043 presented at the SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 27–30
September.
Fry, L., Everett, D., Moody, M., Hina, B, Gessel, J., and Gessel, S. 2006. Successful Application on Relative-Permeability Modifiers To
Control Water Production in Rose Run Fracturing. Paper SPE 104572 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Canton, Ohio,
11–13 October.
Garcia, B., Soriano, E., Chacon, W., and Eoff, L. 2008. Novel Acid Diversion Technique Increases Production in the Cantarell Field,
Offshore Mexico. Paper SPE 112413 presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 13–15 February.
Morgan, C.D., McClure, K.P., Bereskin, S.R., Deo, M.D., and Weller, K. 2000. Reservoir Characterization of the Lower Green Formation,
Southwest Uinta Basin, Utah, Biannual Technical Progress Report #3 submitted to the United States Department of Energy National
Petroleum Technology Office, Tulsa, Oklahoma (June 2000).
Nieves, G., Fernandez, J., Dalrymple, E.D., Sierra, L., Eoff, L., and Reddy, B.R. 2002. Field Application of Relative Permeability Modifier
in Venezuela. Paper SPE 75123 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 13–17 April.
Torres, A., Peano, J., Lopez, E., Ramirez, R., and Dalrymple, D. 2006. Conformance While Fracturing: Technology Used to Reduce Water
Production in Northern Mexico. Paper SPE 104053 presented at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition in Mexico,
Cancun, Mexico, 31 August–2 September.
Weaver, J.D., 1978. A New Water-Oil Ratio Improvement Material. Paper SPE 7574 presented at the 53rd Annual Fall SPE Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 1–3 October.