SPE 84513
An Engineering Approach To Predicting Post-Treatment Well Performance Using
Selective Chemical Water Shut-Off Techniques: An RPM Example
Nicholas Kume, SPE/BJ Services Company
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5 – 8 October 2003.
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
The demand for effective selective chemical water control
techniques is at an all time high, as old fields tend towards
maturity and decline. This has become even greater, as the
industry trend is toward horizontal and high angle well
completions, where techniques to mitigate water production at
breakthrough and subsequent to that, still remain elusive. Even
when an effective solution is identified in laboratory tests, the
absence of a reliable method to predict actual job post-
treatment performance remains a major obstacle to the
building of confidence in the field. In addition to the
difficulty in establishing conviction of potential users, a poor
ability to predict the results also limits the ability to recycle
and build on the successes of these technologies, as well as to
explain their failures and improve on job designs.
The aim of this paper is therefore to present an easy
method for predicting the outcome of selective matrix water
control chemical treatments – specifically with relative
permeability modifiers (RPMs). This method applies
reservoir fluid mechanics principles and uses tools already
available in the oil industry’s predictive inventory. It also links
laboratory test results with field performance prediction. The
method is more of a guide. Specific field circumstances may
lead to modification of certain assumptions. The core
reasoning should however apply to most circumstances where
RPM technologies are properly applied. As an initial tool for
use, this approach should help provide a first order of
magnitude performance prediction, while further applications
and results would be used to fine tune its predictability.
This paper also presents an easy-to-follow procedure to assist
with the understanding of this RPM-treatment
prediction technique.
Introduction
Generally, large quantities of produced water add to the
overall cost per barrel of producing a well, which might also
result in premature shut-in of the field due to the unfavorable
overall economics. Water control should therefore be seen not
only in terms of the acceleration of incremental oil production
which usually results, but also in terms of reduction of
operating costs associated with water production, both
material and environmental. In addition, the overall
improvement in hydrocarbon recovery, leading to improved
field-wide economics, is of particular interest.
With most fields depleting and new field developments
largely adopting horizontal and high angle well completions,
water control is one of the most pressing issues facing
operators worldwide1,2. Unfortunately, various techniques
have been developed to mitigate this problem with sporadic
and often limited success. With the recent developments in
well completion techniques, there has been a drive towards
developing selective chemical water control and shut-off
technologies. Recently, promising developments have been
made with encouraging field results in this respect9,10,11,12.
However, the potential of such technologies, at this stage, is
limited to a certain extent by the absence of a reliable and
simple treatment performance predictive tool. Although a
considerable volume of laboratory core flow test data exists,
little has been linked to a predictive model. This shortfall has
slowed the speed of application of selective water control
chemical treatment technology, as operators are sometimes
reluctant to use their wells, which they perceive as test cases
with no treatment validation.
This paper describes a simple engineering approach to
predicting selective water control chemical treatment post-job
well performance The aim here is not to describe in detail the
chemical and physical interactions that elicit water control or
shut-off. It is instead to assemble a simple to apply predictive
tool that can be easily applied in the field to gain an insight
into the possible treatment outcome. Even though a universal
theory does not presently exist, detailed description of various
theories describing how these chemical treatments function is
described elsewhere3,,4,5. It is believed that with a good
predictive tool, a number of advantages will be gained:
1. Improved and optimized job design with respect to
treatment volumes and cost.
2 SPE 84513
2. Placement of more mutually beneficial performance
incentive proposals and Risk/Reward arrangements often
favored by many operators .
3. Higher level of industry confidence in applying selective
water control chemical treatment technologies, thereby
increasing implementation.
4. Post-mortem shall be greatly enhanced leading to both
technique and product improvement.
5. Reproduction of successful results in other areas leading
to a more rapid expansion of RPM technologies, while
reducing the perceived risk.
Water Control Engineering Techniques
One of the major considerations when designing the treatment
of wells for excessive water production is to determine the
mechanism of the water production. These can include
wettability problems, water fingering, coning and channeling
behind casing. Establishing the mode of water production
requires a thorough study of individual well and reservoir
data, production/injection histories, casing and cementing
practices, electric logs, core analysis, mud logs and pressure
data. Reservoir simulation can estimate the time and place of
water breakthrough in a particular well bore. Various
empirical methods exist, such as WOR and WOR derivative
plots/performance curves used to determine the mechanism of
water production6,7,8, as well as a method described by
Dunlap, Boles and Novotny1,2. These empirical methods can
be used to initially distinguish between matrix produced water
and water production from other flow mechanisms such as
channeling. These methods can be quite cost-effective in
selecting potential candidate wells before the application of
more expensive downhole surveys for determining the source,
sink and type of the produced water.
The determination of the water invasion mechanism is then
used to select the proper design for the water control
treatment. The chemical design is dependent on the ability to
place the water control treatment without adversely affecting
hydrocarbon production. Water control or shut-off treatments
available in the industry can be divided into selective and non-
selective methods. Only selective treatment post-job well
performance predictions are discussed in this paper.
Selective Water Control Chemical Treatment Methods
Selective methods are treatments in which the treating agent
reacts selectively with water and or formation to reduce
permeability to water while having minimal effect on the
hydrocarbon production. These methods can be applied in all
matrix water control situations, as they do not necessarily
require placement in the water zone alone. These methods also
have the advantage of reducing relative permeability to water
in some reservoirs with a considerable transitional water
saturation zone, while enhancing the permeability relative to
oil. These methods such as the multivalent polymers,
amphoteric polymers, and micro-gel systems3 are quite
versatile since their applications cover a wide range of
permeabilities. Of course, the advantage of selective systems
is that they are relatively low risk treatments. In addition, the
selective water control chemical described in this paper leaves
a minimal environmental footprint. From an operational
standpoint, such chemicals can be applied without need for
complicated isolation tools and techniques downhole. Also, in
most cases, they can be mixed and pumped by conventional
regular pumping equipment in very direct fashion.
Recently, an efficient selective water control chemical has
been developed with performance significantly better than
other methods applied previously. This system will be referred
herein as “New RPM”. The New RPM has been extensively
tested in service, independent and major operator research
laboratories. The New RPM technology has been applied in
West Africa, the Far East, the Gulf of Mexico, and South
America, showing promising results (Tables 1,2,3).
New RPM Selective Water Control Chemical
The New RPM is a low risk water control system designed to
reduce undesirable water production from oil and gas wells. It
is applicable in both sandstone and carbonate matrix
formations. This system is applicable in quartz-based
sandstones formations that are producing water from the
hydrocarbon-bearing interval, although an ideal candidate is
one, which produces water and hydrocarbon from distinct
zones, or sections of a zone. The water production can either
originate from edge-water drive reservoirs that transport the
water through higher permeable, water-wet streaks occurring
in the producing interval or from bottom-water drives that
promotes early coning problems. Under its current state of
development, it will not reduce water production originating
from fractures. The product has been tested successfully at
temperatures up to 300°F (149°C).
The New RPM is a synthetic ter-polymer. Its chemical
characteristics of the system is described elsewhere6
The polymer is highly hydrophilic, and is designed to partition
itself onto formation surfaces and into the water phase,
occupying the water adjacent to grain and mineral surfaces.
This process of polymer adsorption/retention results in a
sufficientl polymer “layer” that can substantially affect the
water flow. It is believed that this partitioning behavior
reduces the effective size of the pore throat and causes
significant drag on the formation water flowing from the
matrix to the wellbore. This effect is has been shown to reduce
water production by as much as 80%. Being hydrophilic. but
elastic, the polymer also easily deforms in the presence of
hydrocarbons. This polymer deformation effectively re-
establishes the original pore throat size causing little, if any,
restriction to hydrocarbon production. The New RPM, in
contrast to other products in this category shows strong
adsorption in virgin quartz formations.
Some laboratory observations
Several laboratory tests have been conducted using the
New RPM, From these tests a number of
observations can be made.
1. There is an optimal polymer pore volume at which
optimal RRFw (Residual Resistance Factor to Water)
is achieved. In most cases this pore volume is greater
than 3 (Fig. 3).
2. Above a certain differential pressure, (delta P), the
treatment effectiveness is diminished. However, when
the excessive pressure differential is released, RRFw
values resulting from treatment with the New RPM
are restored to nearly the original values. It is felt that
SPE 84513
as the pressure differential is increased to a certain
level and beyond, the adsorbed polymer ‘bends over’,
thereby lessening the restriction to water flow. Upon
reduction of the differential pressure, the polymer
adsorption state is re–established to the previous state.
This therefore implies that following well treatment,
the beneficial effect of the New RPM can be restored
even if excessive drawdowns were applied on the
well (Fig. 4)..
3. The New RPM is not adversely affected by alternating
cycles of water and oil. Unlike other RPMs, this
product is expected to retain effectiveness in instances
where there is some cycling of the oil/water
phases (Fig. 5).
Performance Prediction
As mentioned previously, there are many factors ranging from
job design, sales consideration, and job evaluation that require
a predictive model to estimate the outcome of selective water
control treatments. First, there should be a determination of
the mechanism of the water flow. Producing layers can be one
of two extremes with various combinations in between.
Homogeneous Inflow Conditions
In this case there is a single sand body with no separating
barriers (shale or other) between them. Here, an effective
selective chemical water control system would not only reduce
the water flow, but would impede oil production as well. This
is because an incremental water saturation is created in the
near well-bore area. This is also because the treatment does
not stop the flow of water deep in the formation, but only
creates a restriction to its flow in the well bore. Eventually the
water saturation in the near well-bore treated area increases
with a resultant increase in the relative permeability to water,
subsequent to its being reduced by the chemical treatment.
This results in a decrease in oil relative permeability and after
a certain time (depending on the mobility ratios and horizontal
to vertical permeability contrast) the ratios of the relative
permeabilities to oil and water revert to their pre-treatment
values. The only difference this time is that the total fluid
production has been reduced as a consequence of the skin
introduced by the chemical treatment around the well-bore.
In the case where there is an alternative path for water
production, such as in a multi-well development with high
drainage from offset wells, the water hold-up might be
delayed or never occur as any additional water flow towards
the treated well bore would be diverted to the offset drainage
points. In this case we can expect a decrease in water
production and a decrease in the water cut – particularly if the
horizontal to vertical permeability contrast is high. To
properly predict this outcome, a reservoir simulator should
be applied.
Heterogeneous Inflow Conditions
In this case the reservoir to be treated has several intervals
with distinct physical barriers between – impeding pressure
communication between the layers. These layers produce
mainly water or oil. A selective chemical water control or
shut-off treatment results in a modification of the pressure
distribution in the water-producing layers with the resultant
3
decrease in the water production and an improvement in the
oil rate. The engineering methodology outlined here is mainly
applicable to a heterogeneous inflow condition. The earlier
scenario of the homogeneous inflow condition can also be
approached using this method. However, in that case, a
reservoir simulator needs to be used to evaluate the time to
water breakthrough due to mobility contrast to oil. The
estimated time value can be compared to the payback time
required to justify treatment.
Points to Note
1. For a zero skin, the production increase in oil can be
substantial when the oil permeability is not affected by
the treatment. However for high values of skin, most of
the pressure drop is across the skin and significant
production decreases in the water might not be noticed, as
the effect of the treatment is negligible in draw down
terms relative to the skin pressure drops. Skin analysis is
therefore very important in selecting candidates for
selective chemical water control treatments. This makes a
case for matrix stimulation in some cases prior to
treatment (Appendix 1).
2. There is the possibility of increasing both the oil and
water production rates after a successful treatment. The
water cut shall however be less than before. This would
usually occur where the vertical lift advantages exceed the
detrimental inflow performance resulting from treatment
3. It is possible to extrapolate linear laboratory pressure
gradients to radial cases by combining Darcy’s equations
for linear and radial flow.
4. For high Residual Resistance Factor to Water (RRFw)
values, minor modifications in the adsorbed layer
thickness of the polymer can cause significantly large
variations in the value.
5. With increasing reservoir permeability, the adsorbed
chemical layer needs to increase to affect water flow
significantly. Hence, in higher permeability formations,
laboratory core flow tests need to be carried out to
correlate chemical performance with expected
drawdown conditions.
6. Many treatment pore volumes need to be back-produced
before the produced oil returns the reservoir rock to
original connate water saturation conditions where the
relative permeability to the oil is optimal. As such, long
clean-up time might be experienced in some field
applications before pre-job oil productions and/ or gains
are noticed. In some cases this can take weeks or
even months.
7. Higher solution concentrations of the New RPM
propagate faster in laboratory testing for the same
injection rate. It is there fore recommended to use the
maximum permissible concentrations of the polymer for a
given situation, to reduce logistical requirements and
job cost.
Analysis Sequence
A procedure for analysing available data to predict the
outcome of selective water control chemical treatments is
given. This process involves inter-disciplinary interactions, as
what might appear to be a good candidate from a well bore
4 SPE 84513
point of view, might not be favorable relative to the entire
reservoir. Again, there are many meaningful papers have been
published over the years regarding the need to bring an
interdisciplinary approach to water control. The steps
described below assume that due diligence in this regard has
been carried out.
The following steps are suggested:
1. Determine if produced water is matrix water using the
spreadsheet derived from Dunlap, et al1 and Novotny2.
Use diagnostic plots of WOR and WOR’ versus time to
determine the water production mechanism (coning,
channel breakthrough, or bottom water rising6). Use
Muskat’s coning equation to evaluate if coning is
probable. In fractured formations, critical rate for coning
should also be calculated to verify if coning watering
mechanism can be eliminated by modifying rate. Similar
analysis needs to be done on offset wells to establish if
the water problem is local or field wide.
2. Establish reservoir skin using
• Results of well tests such as BHP analysis
• Matching of actual production figures using
a simulator
• Matching skin with Systems Analysis software
through sensitivity matching analysis
3. If reservoir analysis in step 1 suggests a heterogeneous
inflow condition, or if production logs indicate a clean
break between the water and oil zones then; the oil and
water-producing heights are calculated using production
figures together with mobility ratios of the oil and water.
Htotal = Hoil + Hwater
Qw Kew * Hwater * µo
=
Qo Keo * Hoil * µw
Since the total height as well as the oil and water rates and
viscosities are known, the water-producing height as well
as the oil height can be established. It must be stressed
that the oil and water rates are reservoir and not surface
rates. Verify these results with any logs available
indicating sand heights and perforation interval lengths.
4. Equations 1 to 8 below (or a multilayer systems analysis
software program) are now used with both the water- and
oil-producing heights to define the Q’ for each after
treatment by applying the applicable RRFw and RRFo to
the respective defined water and oil heights.
5. Calculate the new water cut.
6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 for different radial penetration
depths of treatment and product concentrations using
RRFw and RRFo derived from laboratory tests.
7. Check New RPM ‘bend over’ delta P from lab test and
extrapolate to the radial reservoir case. Use this to
establish maximum drawdown to be imposed on well.
8. Using step 6 and 7 to calculate the minimum allowable
wellhead pressure or the maximum bean size to be used
post job.
9. Calculate the net present value, pay-out time, and rate of
return of the New RPM treatment. Do not forget to
include the value of the cost of handling water
10. Use the above analysis of the proposed treatment –
including both the value of the water to be removed from
the system and any incremental hydrocarbon expected.
The Issue of Extrapolating Linear Pressure Drops to
Radial Flow
In all of the discussions above, it has been assumed that
laboratory pressure drops can be extrapolated directly to a
field radial case. As the following analysis shows, this can
lead to over-estimation of the effect of the treatment. There
are two principal reasons for this:
1. A source of error in field analysis is to assume that
because a 10 ft treatment depth, for example, is carried
out, we apply a 10 ft RRFw and analyse the
corresponding reduction in water. Laboratory experiments
show that it takes sometimes up to six pore volumes of
treatment in a linear core to give the reported values of
RRFw. Hence, for a 10 ft treatment, one would expect to
replicate the laboratory result over a treatment depth of :
10 2
h=
6
This gives about four feet of similar effectiveness, with
decreasing effect further into the reservoir. As such, one
could use a 4 ft RRFw as a worst case scenario for
performance prediction (for a 10 ft radial
treatment design).
2. A relationship between the expected radial flow pressure
drop and the linear flow pressure drop measured in the
laboratory using Darcy’s equations for linear and radial
flow can be established. The measured RRFw with the
equations given in (Appendix 1) can then be used. By
sensitizing post-treatment production rate versus
treatment depth, it is possible to establish the minimum
treatment depth for there to be ‘fold over’ for a given
post-job rate, or conversely, establish the maximum rate
of production for a given treatment scenario to avoid
folding over. As a result, one should avoid extrapolating
reported linear flow pressure gradients given from
laboratory reports in bar/cm or psi/ft and using these
directly in estimating maximum drawdown. They need
first to be related to their radial counterpart.
Case Histories
• Two case histories are given in Tables 1 and 2. The first
row in the tables gives pre-job production data at bean
72/64th choke and the second row gives the immediate
post-job production data on 26/72th choke. The third row
gives the later production on the original choke
(72/64ths).
From this data summary it can be seen that even though a
considerable skin has been introduced into the formation,
the improvement in vertical lift performance due to the
diminished water cut more than compensates for the
diminished PI as predicted. Even at initial production
SPE 84513
conditions, case history 1 shows an 8 bopd gain in oil for
a 550 bwpd reduction in water production on a lower bean
– with an oil gain of 92 bopd and reduction of 283 bwpd
once the well was restored to original producing
conditions (on 72/64ths choke). In both cases, a pre-
treatment to reduce the skin (if the nature of the skin is
removable) could have led to enhanced results.
Future Outlook
There is a certain need for a systematic approach to predicting
the performance of wells treated with the New RPM for water
control. A number of initiatives are being pursued with some
already completed.
These are:
• Generating empirical correlations between laboratory test
results data such as RRFw, permeability, temperature and
additive concentration
• Establishing a decision tree for candidate selection as well
as a New RPM treatment design guide.
Conclusions
1. A new RPM for matrix water control shows promise as a
superior selective chemical system.
2. Application of the New RPM system has been increasing
with a demand for performance incentive-based
jobs arrangements.
3. In order to be able to properly leverage on the promising
results of this and other systems, there needs to be a
systematic and straight-forward methodto predict the
performance of field treatments.
4. Petroleum engineering principles and existing industry
approaches can be applied to determine more accurate
prediction of field results.
5. A systematic approach should improve technology
implementation, improve and ease job design, and help
propagate successes. This approach is expected to add
significant value to this already high quality technology.
Acknowledgements
Our thanks go to the Management of BJ Services, particularly
Dave Dunlap whose encouragement and interest has fostered
the development of Selective Water Shut-off Chemical
Technologies in BJ Services. Special thanks also go to
Leonard Kalfayan, Jeff Dawson, Rudy Novotny and all the BJ
Technology Center Tomball staff whose dedication is key in
the development of these technologies. Finally we wish to
acknowledge the many BJ Services operating locations
worldwide for their invaluable feed back on these technologies
and methodology.
References
1. Dunlap, D.D., Boles, J.L., Novotny, R.J.: “Methods for Improving
Hydrocarbon-Water Ratios in Producing Wells,” paper SPE
14822 presented at the 1996 SPE Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, February 27-27.
2. Novotny, R.J.: “Matrix Flow Evaluation Technique For Water
Control Applications,” paper SPE 030094 presented at the 1995
European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague,
Netherlands, May 15-16.
3. Botermans, C.W., Dalrymple, E.D., Dahl, J,. Smith, D,.:
“Chemical Systems for Water and Gas Control: Terminology,
5
Evaluation Methods, Candidate Selection, and Expectations”
paper SPE 65415 presented at the 2001 SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas,
13-16 February.
4. Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N., Bossie-Cordreanu, D., Denys, K.,:
“Water Shutoff by Relative Permeability Modifiers: Lessons
from Several Field Applications” paper SPE 56740 presented at
the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, 3-6 October.
5. Mennella, A., Chiappa, L,. Lockhart, T.P., Burrafato, G.,:
“Candidate and Chemical Selection Guidelines for Relative
Permeability Modification(RPM) Treatments” paper SPE 72056
presented at the 1999 European Formation Damage Conference,
The Hague, 31 May – 1 June.
6. Chan, K.S.,: “Water Control Diagnostic Plots” paper SPE 30775
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, 22-26 October.
7. Chan, K.S., Bond, A.J., Keese, R.F., Lai, Q.J.,: “Evaluation of a
Water Conformance Treatment in Prudhoe Bay Alaska” paper
SPE 38834 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October.
8. Ranjbar, M., Czolbe, P., Kohler, N.,: “ Comparative Laboratory
Selection and Field Testing of Polymers for Selective Control of
Water Production in Gas Wells” paper SPE 28984 presented at
the1995 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
San Antonio, Texas, 14-17 February 1995.
9. J.A.S. Campbell, J. Dawson, L.J. Kalfayan, M. Malone:
“Development, Laboratory Testing, and First Field Applications
of a New Relative Permeability Modifier to Reduce Water
Production”, OMC Paper 105, presented at the 2003 Offshore
Mediterranean Conference, Ravenna, Italy (March 2003).
10. di Lullo, G. and Rae, P.: “New Insights Into Water Control – A
Review of the State of the Art”, paper SPE 77963, 2002.
11. di Lullo, G., Rae, P., and Curtis, J.: “New Insights Into Water
Control – A Review of the State of the Art – Part II”, paper SPE
79012, 2002.
Appendix – 1
Equations and Calculations
Inflow Performance Calculations considerations
The following equations are derived from Darcy’s flow
equation and can be used for an understanding of some of the
predictive issues affecting the outcome of water shut off jobs.
These equations are based on the assumption of a single phase,
in this case water. It is also assumed that a treatment has been
carried out around a production well to a treatment depth of h
(Fig. 1). The absolute permeability is assumed to be Kabs, and
in this post treatment case has been reduced by a factor of
RRF.
So the permeability of the treated area is Kabs’ and given by:
Kabs
Kabs ' =
RRF
Equation 1
The well skin yields an additional pressure drop when the
fluid enters the well bore. The pressure drop takes place at the
left-hand boundary of the brown (treated) area in Figure 1.
6 SPE 84513

We assume a flow rate Q, a water viscosity µ, a well bore

 re    h  
radius rw, and a homogeneous isolated reservoir zone with ln  + ln1 +  + S 
permeability Kabs and thickness H. Q'  rw + h    rw  
=
Q  re    h  
In the case of no treatment we can write down the following ln  + RRF ln1 +  + S 
expression for the pressure difference Pe-Pwf (Pe is the  rw + h    rw  
reservoir pressure, Pwf is the bottom hole flowing pressure in Equation 5
the well bore):
Here Pwf’ denotes the bottom hole flowing pressure after a
Qµ   re   treatment. In the case that the treatment depth is zero, there is
Pe − Pwf = ln rw  + S  no reduction in flow or increase in pressure draw down.
2πKabsH    
Equation 2 In the special case that the treatment area (rw < r< rw+ h)
covers the region where the major part of the pressure draw
re is the drainage radius of the well. down before the treatment can be found, i.e.:

Case 1. Non-Darcy well skin (well skin is not affected by  h   re 

treatment). ln1 +  ≅ ln  + S
 rw   rw 
Post treatment the pressure drop can be distributed over the
treated and untreated areas as follows: The flow rate after treatment will be reduced by the factor
RRF (in case of constant pressure drawn down ) or the draw
Pe−Pwf=[Pe−P(rw+h)] +[P(rw+h) −P(rw)] +[P(rw) −Pwf] = down will increase with a factor RRF (in case of constant
flow rate.
Q' µ   re  Q' µ   rw+h Qµ
ln  + ln  + [S] Therefore, for low to moderate RRFw values a treatment can
2πKabsH  rw+h 2πKabs' H   rw  2πKabs' H
hardly change the pressure profile and thus the productivity.
Equation 3

Q’ is the flow rate after the treatment. The fact that the last
term containing the factor S contains Kabs instead of Kabs Case 2: Well skin is damage skin (affected by a treatment)
reflects the assumption that the well skin is not affected by the In this case the expression for the pressure drawdown can be
treatment. written as:

If the pressure drawdown Pe –Pwf remains the same before Pe− Pwf = [Pe− P(rw+ h)] +[P(rw+ h) − P(rw)] +[P(rw) − Pwf] =
and after the treatment, from Eqs. (1 to 3) the reduction in
Q' µ   re  Q' µ   rw+ h  Q' µ
flow rate Q’/Q can be derived as follows:
ln  + ln  + [S
2πKabsH  rw+ h  2πKabs' H   rw  2πKabs' H
Q' 1
=
Q   h  Equation 6
 (RRF − 1) ln1 + rw  
   The fact that the last term containing the factor S now contains
  
re  Kabs’ instead of Kabs reflects the assumption that the well
ln  + S
 rw
   skin is now affected by the treatment; the pressure drop at the
well bore due to the skin increase by a factor RRF at constant
Equation 4 flow rate.
Alternatively, in case of constant fluid flow rate the increase in
If the draw down (Pe –Pwf) remains the same before and after
pressure drawdown after the treatment is given by:
the treatment, Eqs. (1, 2and 6) can be used to derive the
reduction in flow rate Q’/Q.

 (RRF −1)ln1 + h  
Pe − Pwf '  rw    re    h  
= 1+  ln  + ln1 +  + S 
Pe − Pwf   re   Q'  rw + h    rw  
ln  + S =
  rw   Q  re    h  
Equation 5 ln  + RRF ln1 +  + S 
 rw + h    rw  
Equation 7
SPE 84513 7

Alternatively, in case of constant fluid flow rate the increase in Economic valuation and payback calculation equations
pressure drawdown after the treatment is: A very detailed work has been published on this subject3
The basic equations employed in this case should tie in
   some value to the removal of water from the producing
 re  h 
ln  + RRF ln1 +  + S  system. The net present value of the treatment as well as
Pe − Pwf '  rw + h    rw  = the pay out time can be given by:
=
Pe − Pwf  re    h  
ln  + ln1 +  + S  t =T
Rt − Ct
 rw + h    rw   NPV = ∑
t =0 (1 + r )t
   h   Where:
 (RRF − 1)ln1 +  + S   r discount rate
1+    rw   t time (year)
  
re  Rt return (cash)
 ln  + S  Ct cost (cash)
  rw  
Equation 8 Total Cost of Treatment
Pay Out Days =
[∆(BOPD )* ($ / bbl )] + [∆(BWPD )* ($ / bbl )]
In Equation 6 the damage well skin is interpreted as an
infinitesimal thin flow restriction around the well bore at
Rate of Return (ROR) is the annualized rate percentage of the
radius r = rw. Therefore, even for treatment depth h is zero
investment that is paid back with:
there will be a reduction in flow rate as the well skin due to its
Return on Investment (ROI) is then given by:
infinite small a real extent is assumed to be fully affected.
Hence Eqs. 7 and (A-8) are only valid if the treatment depth h
is sufficiently large to affect the full well skin. In view of the ROI = ROR − Discount Rate
large uncertainties in nature and extent of the damage part of
a well skin the above assumption is justified for the majority Nomenclature
of all practical cases. Bean = Choke
BHST = Bottom Hole Static Temperature
In the case of a significant damage well skin the pressure BLPD = Barrel of Water per Day
drawdown in the area to be treated will be a large compared to BOPD = Barrels of Oil per Day
the pressure drawdown in the untreated part of the BWPD = Barrels of Water per Day
reservoir, i.e.: BPM = Barrel per Minute
BSW = Base Sediment and Water (%)
C = Initial investment
 h   re 
ln1 +  + S >> ln  + S H = reservoir thickness
 rw   rw  h = treatment depth
Equation 9 i = time (years)
Kabs = effective absolute permeability
Then the flow rate will be reduced by the factor RRF, (in case Kabs’ = treated area permeability
of constant pressure drawdown) or the drawdown will increase Pe = Reservoir pressure
with a factor RRF (in case of constant flow rate. Pwf = flowing bottomhole pressure
The above equations only represent the inflow Q’ = flowrate after treatment
performance of water into the well bore from the reservoir. Q = flowrate before treatment
For a complete analysis, the effect on the oil as well as the r = rate of return
complete systems analysis needs to be done using a re = well drainage radius
combination of techniques. In the case where a full size RRF = Residual Resistance Factor
reservoir simulator is available the total systems analysis can S = Skin Factor due to damage
be done using a multi layer simulator. The methodology that V = net cash flow
follows represents a simple method applicable in the field
using reservoir, fluid and well parameters as well as a systems SI Metric Conversion Factors
analysis software such as perform. The aim here is first of all bblx 1.589873 E-01= m3
to do a diagnosis on the type of produced water and once it is ft x 3.048* E-01= m
established that it is treatable by a chemical selective water gal x 3.785412 E-03= m3
shut-off mechanism, apply a methodology that extrapolates inch x 2.54* E+00= cm
laboratory performance of the chemical into a real field radial mdx 9.869233 E-04= µm2
flow scenario. psi x 6.894757 E+00= kPa
°Fx (°F-32)/1.8 = °C
8 SPE 84513

Table 1 - Technical and Economic Data on Wells Treated With New Selective Water Shut-off Chemical System.

Case History 1
Water-cut Total Fluid rate Oil rate(BOPD) Water(BWPD) WHP (psi) Skin
Prejob on 89 897 100 797 180 97
72/64ths
Post job on 72 385 108 277 345 322
26/64ths
PostJob on 72 714 200 514 180 322
72/64ths

Case History 2
Water-cut Total Fluid rate Oil rate(BOPD) Water(BWPD) WHP (psi) Skin
Prejob on 87 2346 305 2041 135 47
72/64ths
Post job on 73 460 124 336 525 123
26/64ths
Post Job on 73 2014 544 1470 135 123
72/64ths

o
Table 2 – Laboratory Test Resistance Factors for Berea Core(660md) at 60 C using New Water Shut-off chemical

Pressure Resistance Factor to Resistance Factor to Oil(RRo)

Differential Water(RRw)
1 261.4 .88
3 13.8 .8
5 10.4 1.06
SPE 84513 9

WELLBORE

Treated area Untreated formation

re(reservoir radius)
Wellbore radius rw Treatment depth h

Figure 1: Effect of treatment with penetratation depth h on fluid production from the reservoir to the well

End-Point Permeability at 48 psi/f oot

5000

Injection
Effective Permeability to Fluid, millidarcys

4000 Production

3000

2000

1000

0
Specif ic Kw Baseline Ko Baseline Kw Kw Af ter Ko Af ter Kw Af ter Ko Af ter
at Sw i at Sor Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment
Cycle 1 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 2

Fig. 2 – Laboratory test results showing effect of New Selective Water Shut-off Chemical on water and Oil permeability
10 SPE 84513

In ject 1000 p p m o f A q u aC o n
D elta P (psi) F low R ate (m l/m in)

18 2
16 1.8
14 1.6
Injection Pressure

12 1.4

Flow Rate
1.2
10
1
8
0.8
6 0.6
4 0.4
2 0.2
0 0
216.00 218.00 220.00 222.00
P o re V olum e

Fig. 3 – injection profile of New Selective Water Shut-off chemical in a 660md Berea sandstone core

W ater P erm after 1000 ppm Treatm ent

Perm , K (m d) D elta P (psi)

300
25

250
20
200
Permeability

Pressure

15
150
10
100

50 5

0 0
222.00 232.00 242.00 252.00 262.00 272.00 282.00
P ore Volum e

Fig. 4 - Injection profile of New RPM in a 660 md Berea sandstone core showing polymer ‘fold over effect.
SPE 84513 11

Water Perm after 2000 ppm Treatment

Perm, K (md) Delta P (psi)

60 50
50 40
Permeability

40

Pressure
30
30
20
20
10 10

0 0
284.00 288.00 292.00 296.00 300.00 304.00 308.00
Pore Volume

Fig 5- injection profile of New Selective Water Shut-off chemical in a 660md Berea sandstone core showing effect of cycling water and oil