Advanced Technology To Reduce
Water Cut: Case Studies From the
Pemex Southern Region
Gustavo A. Farrera Romo, and Héctor Hernández Leyva, Cinco Presidentes Asset Team, Pemex; and
Raúl Bonifacio Aguilar, Carlos Caballero Campos, Larry Eoff, and Dwyann Dalrymple, Halliburton
Summary
This paper presents the results of a successful application of a
new-generation polymeric relative permeability modifier (RPM)
that enables treatments to reduce water cut without workover
equipment. The new RPM can be bullheaded into open intervals
without the need for isolating water zones from hydrocarbon
zones. This treatment was applied to several wells in the Pemex
southern region. As a result of the treatment, the productive life
of the wells has been extended, with a gradual decrease in water
cut. These results indicate high potential profitability values for
mature fields with high water cut requiring a simple, low-cost
treatment without the need for workover equipment or shut-in
times. The new treatment can increase the hydrocarbon recovery
percentage in sands that in all probability would be destined for
abandonment otherwise.
This paper describes the treatment methodology, which begins
with problem identification and an understanding of the origin
of the water breakthrough. Next, the paper describes the new
technology, which uses hydrophobically modified water-soluble
polymers, and explains how applying such polymers can control
water selectively. In addition, the detailed execution of the treat-
ment is described, followed by the very positive production results
of the treatment. The results of this low-investment, high-profit
technology are very promising for other wells under similar con-
ditions in which workovers with conventional technologies would
be cost prohibitive.
Introduction
The Cinco Presidentes field is located in Pemex Exploration and
Production’s (PEP’s) southern region (Fig. 1). It consists of tertiary
oil-producing sandstones. The well involved in this study is Well
5P-155, completed with a 65⁄8-in. casing at a total depth of 9,121
ft. The sandstone was perforated in the interval at 6,552 to 6,568
ft in the Encanto formation with 22% porosity, 17% water satura-
tion, a calculated permeability of 50 md, a reservoir pressure of
2,000 psi, a static bottomhole temperature of 160°F, and a drainage
radius of 328 ft.
The interval from 6,552 to 6,568 ft was perforated on 24 Feb-
ruary 2002 with a 21⁄8-in. disintegratable-type gun at 45° phasing
and 7 shots/ft, with good oil production (166 BOPD and gas/oil
ratio of 72.33 ft3/ft3), and no water production. However, by August
2002, a gradual water-cut increase was observed until it reached
values close to 85% with the corresponding gradual decrease in
oil production to 57 BOPD because of the increase of the hydro-
static column.
Fig. 2 shows the production history of the well. Highlighted is
the August 2002 oil-rate increase because of the beginning of gas
lift in the well. Coincidentally, the water cut, which was initially
zero, began to increase gradually, indicating the possibility that
the increase in differential pressure favored coning because of the
closeness of a dirty sand interbedded with free water.
Copyright © 2010 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 102711) was accepted for presentation at the International Symposium
on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 28 February–2 March 2007, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 03 January 2007. Revised manuscript received for
review 11 September 2009. Paper peer approved 23 September 2009.
May 2010 SPE Production & Operations
To validate this hypothesis and discard other possible causes
for water breakthrough, well electrical logs were analyzed (Fig. 3).
The perforated zone (6,552 to 6,568 ft) was quite clean with low
shaliness, according to the gamma ray and spontaneous-potential
responses. In addition, the caliper showed a calibrated hole in
this zone, indicating good hole stability, probably because of the
limited presence of reactive clays. The difference in the short- and
long-resistivity readings indicated permeability, and its values
indicated the presence of hydrocarbon.
However, in the base of the perforated interval at 6,568 ft, a dra-
matic drop in the resistivity values was observed with a washed hole,
as observed in the caliper. In consequence, this might have been the
interbedded zone of water generating an effect because of its close-
ness to the perforated interval. From 6,575 to 6,604 ft, the degree
of shaliness increased in the sandstone, and subsequently, the prob-
abilities to find the permeable zones were reduced. The zone from
6,604 to 6,627 ft practically could be considered a shaly body.
In addition, in analyzing the history of the well workovers,
corrective squeeze jobs were performed above and below before
perforating the interval from 6,552 to 6,568 ft, exactly in the interval
from 6,525 to 6,529 ft (no injection), and between 7,218 and 7,316 ft.
The production-history pattern showed gradually increasing water
cuts exactly at the time the gas lift began. Analysis of the electrical
logs showed a possible water intercalation, leading to a diagnosis of
a coning problem in the well. The recementation results invalidated
any problem with channeling or lack of isolation in the well’s vicin-
ity. Furthermore, with channeling problems, water breakthrough
typically occurs suddenly, not gradually as in this case.
When the problem was understood, three alternatives for this
well were identified: (1) abandonment of the interval and produc-
tion from the upper interval, (2) interval workover with conven-
tional techniques, and (3) application of a new technology based
on a hydrophobically modified RPM polymer. After discarding the
procedure to abandon the interval, the last two alternatives, Options
A and B, were proposed.
Option A: Conventional intervention with equipment for work-
overs, which would proceed as follows:
1. Take out the production tubing.
2. Bring down a cement retainer.
3. Perform a squeeze job in the open interval.
4. Wait for setting time.
5. Perforate the base of the interval.
6. Apply water control with blocking gels and cement.
7. Wait for setting time and gel solidification.
8. Perforate the top of the interval.
9. Bring down the tubing.
10. Put the well on production.
Option B: Application of the new technology of RPM hydro-
phobic polymers, which would proceed as follows:
1. Apply water control with a hydrophobically modified poly-
mer (HMP).
2. Put the well on production.
Following analysis of the preceding elements, implementation
of the new technology of an HMP was selected on the basis of
evident cost reduction, execution simplicity, and quick response.
Because this material had never been used in this area, special
attention would be paid to the quality control of the products,
139

Fig. 1—The Cinco Presidentes field, located in PEP’s southern
region.
design and execution in strict compliance to experimental proce-
dures, and laboratory tests of the new system.
Technology of the HMP
One of the greatest challenges for mature fields at present is water
production; produced water can significantly impact maintenance
costs and decrease the hydrocarbon-recovery percentage. Water cut
can also bring about ecological problems, issues with product han-
dling at surface, corrosion problems, and a waste of the reservoir’s
energy. All these can strongly impact the profitability of gas- and
oil-producing fields.
Methods to mitigate this problem include blocking gels, cement,
microcement, and silicates. Because these materials all act as seal-
ing agents, the water zone is isolated from the hydrocarbon zone,
implying the use of mechanical or chemical systems and, in most
applications, the use of equipment for major workovers. The class
of materials known as RPMs does not require zonal isolation and
functions by selectively decreasing permeability to water without
altering or damaging the permeability of hydrocarbon zones (Weaver
1978; Zaitoun et al. 1991). This process allows treatment of the open
interval without the need for isolating the zones; consequently, it has
Time, Months
Fig. 2—Production history of Well 5P-155.
140
the execution benefit of being a bullhead treatment. The new technol-
ogy described in this paper uses an HMP (Eoff et al. 2003).
RPMs are typically dilute polymer solutions that perform
because of adsorption onto the pore walls of the formation flow
paths. A large number of such polymer systems have been pro-
moted throughout the years, and a large volume of literature has
been devoted to this topic (Dalrymple et al. 1999). One relatively
common theme mentioned for such systems has been that they
are best applied to layered, heterogeneous formations without
reservoir crossflow.
Fig. 4 illustrates the adsorption of a generic water-soluble poly-
mer onto a rock surface pore-throat wall, as well as the adsorption
of HMP onto a surface. The presence of the hydrophobic groups
on the polymer serves to increase the level of polymer adsorption
by allowing polymer to adsorb to polymer. This process has been
described previously (Eoff et al. 2003), as has the theory that this
HMP leads to higher levels of water-permeability reduction than
those obtained with a nonmodified polymer, without damage to
hydrocarbon permeability.
Design and Execution of the Job
Once the origin of water breakthrough has been identified, the job
can be designed and executed. Because this is an operation without
zonal-isolation equipment, the design and execution are simple and
consist of (1) creating the operational procedures, execution plan,
and quality-control tests for the fluids to be used; (2) determining
the volume to be used for each fluid; and (3) planning the pump-
ing and monitoring of operational parameters, with all due safety
measures and environmental protections.
The operational procedures consist of (1) performing an injec-
tion test with treated water to verify the mechanical conditions of
the well, (2) establishing injection followed by pumping of the
HMP system for the selective reduction of water, (3) applying
an overflush with treated water to place the greatest quantity of
polymer inside the formation in the desired radius, and (4) apply-
ing a diesel overflush.
The composition of the fluids was detailed as follows:
Treated water
• 2.0% KCl clay stabilizer
• 0.5% surfactant
HMP system
• HMP (typically 0.2% by weight)
Diesel
• 98% diesel
• 2.0% surfactant
Water Cut, %
May 2010 SPE Production & Operations
 Fig. 3—Electrical-log analysis. Depths are in feet.
The quality-control tests, especially for the HMP system, were
carried out by monitoring the appearance and viscosity of the
system within the ranges established by the laboratory tests (12
to 25 cp at room temperature), without generating emulsions in a
50:50 blend of HMP/oil.
The HMP volume was designed to achieve a penetration of 10
radial ft, which resulted in 251 bbl of the system. On the basis of
the effective-porosity values from electrical logs of 22% and the
open interval of 16 ft, the overflush with treated water was 1/3 the
HMP volume. The diesel flush was based on the well’s capacity
of 41 bbl, plus an additional 12.5 bbl.
The work was performed according to the following operational
program:
1. Hold a meeting for safety, environmental-protection, and
operational guidelines.
2. Test high-pressure lines and pumping units with 5,000-psi
pressure.
3. Verify wellhead and tubing pressures, then proceed to well
shut-in to perform the selective water control.
4. Perform injection test with 63 bbl of treated water.
5. Start the injection of 251 bbl of HMP system.
6. Overflush with 82 bbl of treated water.
7. Flush with 53 bbl of diesel plus surfactant.
8. Open the well and produce it as soon as possible.
The injection test was performed on 5 September 2003, and it
was decided to trace 19 bbl of the treated water to eliminate any
Fig. 4—Adsorption of nonmodified polymers (left) and HMPs (right).
May 2010 SPE Production & Operations
existing questions of an anomaly in the rig. A gradual pumping
from 1 to 5 bbl/min was performed, with practically no pressure
at the wellhead (Fig. 5).
The job for selective water control was carried out on 11
September. After the well’s total injection and confirmation of the
existence of the open interval, the HMP system was bullheaded.
Wellhead pressure began to increase gradually from the time the
system entered the open interval. It is assumed that this pressure
increase is an indication of the adsorption of the hydrophobic
polymer onto the formation surface. The injection of the HMP
system was continuous as programmed, allowing for injection of
100% of the programmed fluids by adjustment of the rate on the
basis of the wellhead-pressure response, which increased up to
1,400 psi. More importantly, the job was performed safely, without
accidents or spills (Fig. 6).
Once the operation concluded, the equipment was decom-
missioned and the well was immediately put on production. The
new technology does not require a shut-in period for set times or
consolidation of the system.
Results
Production data following the treatment showed a gradual water
reduction from 85 to 58% after 2 months. This finding represents a
decrease of 30%, and the water cut had dropped by 68% 6 months
after the treatment was applied. Hydrocarbon production increased
from 57 to 104 BOPD (an 82% increase) because of the lowering of
141
 Injectivity Test at 6,551 to 6,558 ft

Sealing off annulus with packer Monitor wellhead pressure

Pumping 792 gal treated water with tracer Pumping 1,849 gal treated water

Pumping wellbore volume capacity at 3 bbl/min Rate = 4 bpm

Rate = 5 bpm Final pressure

Fig. 5—Injection test before the treatment.

Rate, bbl/min Density, lb/gal

Sealing off annulus with packer WH pressure

10,567 gal RPM 3,513 gal at treated water

528 gal diesel Displacing diesel with 1,717 gal

at treated water
Well closed

Fig. 6—Execution of the treatment.

142 May 2010 SPE Production & Operations

 Time, months
Fig. 7—Production results.
the hydrostatic column in the well. This increase demonstrates that
the HMP neither damaged the interval nor reduced permeability to
hydrocarbon in the interval (Fig. 7).
Generally, the primary criterion for a technical success is the
water-cut reduction. However, while some wells do react quickly,
others show a smoother behavior. This different behavior can even
occur within the same field. Thus, a definite water-cut evaluation
may require several months of monitoring. In the example shown
here, the water reduction observed was not immediate, but instead
occurred over a period of approximately 2 months. This behavior is
not an anomaly, but is typical of what is observed following RPM
treatments (Di Lullo and Rae 2002; Zaitoun et al. 1999; Hardy-
McGowen et al. 2009). There are several possible explanations.
Below are two:
1. The data point indicating a gradual decline could be because
of commonly seen production variations. The production data
reported, which indicate that the drop in water production was a
daily average, were based on 1 month of production. That monthly
total was divided by the number of days in the month to obtain
the value in BWPD.
2. Relative permeability effect as a result of varying water
saturation near the wellbore: Water was believed to have been
drawn upward to the producing perforations because of coning.
In that section near the wellbore, the water saturation would have
increased significantly over that of the native state, which existed
before the formation of the water cone. Once the well was put
back on production, the oil could possibly have re-established
pathways back to the wellbore in the upper region of the water
cone. As observed in relative permeability curves, the higher the
water saturation the lower the effective permeability to oil (and
vice versa for water); it would take a definite time period for the
rates of the two fluids to equilibrate. The effective permeability
to oil and water would both be governed by the dynamic satura-
tion value of the rock. In that case, as the water-production rate
decreased, the oil-production rate would have increased (which is
what was observed).
The gradual increase of water cut was attributed to the bot-
tomhole water-coning expansion, which indicated that a larger
job volume would be required in future treatments. It was also
observed that the fractional flow of water should not be expected
to reduce to zero using the HMP technology (because this treat-
ment does not consist of a blocking agent), but rather a restricted
effect of water flow should be expected, as evidenced by the results
achieved in Well 5P-155.
May 2010 SPE Production & Operations
There is a substantial difference in costs between this technol-
ogy and conventional methods using workover equipment (on the
order of 79% less), as illustrated in Fig. 8.
From the standpoint of hydrocarbon recovery before abandon-
ment of the sand, in the 6 months following the treatment, 16,500
bbl of additional oil was recovered. The return on investment was
realized after approximately 1 month. The net present value after
6 months is approximately USD 250,000, based on an oil price of
USD 25/bbl and an international rate of 25%. Furthermore, the well
continues flowing to the present from the same interval.
Savings because of reduction of produced water are approxi-
mately USD 33,000 in present value, considering a reduction of
24,655 bbl of water at a cost of USD 2/bbl for water handling and
disposal at a rate of 15%.
In summary, in terms of economics and profitability, USD
250,000 has been added to the hydrocarbon production at present
value. Savings are USD 187,000 in terms of intervention costs and
USD 33,000 for surface-water-handling costs at present value.
As of March 2008, 172 jobs using the HMP technology have
been performed worldwide. While results for many of these jobs
are not available, data from 21 of the jobs are shown in Table 1.
These results show both oil/gas and water rates before and after the
treatment as well as the water/oil-ratio and water/gas-ratio values.
Financial data have not been gathered on any of these jobs, as was
done for the current paper. However, as shown in Table 1, most of
these jobs resulted in increased oil or gas production.
Cost, USD
Fig. 8—Cost of conventional treatment compared to that of the
RPM treatment.
143
 TABLE 1—RESULTS FROM USE OF HMP

Qoil, Qoil, Qgas, Qgas, Qwater, Qwater,

Well T Before After Before After Before After WOR WOR WGR WGR
Lithology Type (°F) BOPD BOPD MSCF/D MSCF/D BWPD BWPD Before After Before After

Sandstone Oil 223 3 3 250 257 2000 612 – – 8 2

Sandstone Oil 215 156 252 – – 6797 6020 39.0 27.0 – –
Sandstone Oil 215 100 170 – – 7633 7600 76.0 45.0 – –
Sandstone Oil 213 44 300 – – 6500 6700 147.7 22.3 – –
Sandstone Oil 209 219 203 – – 3775 1750 17.2 8.6 – –
Sandstone Gas 207 – – 386 484 457 114 – – 1183.9 235.5
Carbonate Oil 207 31 70 — — 90 94 2.9 1.3 – —
Shale Oil 195 0.61 6.1 2.7 0.9 659 237 1080.3 38.9 244 263
Sandstone Gas 183 – – 8000 8000 399 232 – – – –
Sandstone Gas 180 – – 1100 965 700 300 – – 0.64 0.31
Sandstone Oil 180 54 260 – – 1224 1042 23.0 4.0 – –
Sandstone Oil 160 57 104 – – 350 150 6.1 1.4 – –
Sandstone Oil 160 56 280 – – 1344 1120 24.0 4.0 – –
Sandstone Oil 139 10.5 14 – – 35 23 3.3 1.6 – –
Sandstone Oil 137 525 777 – – 1092 978 2.1 1.3 – –
Sandstone Oil 130 13.68 14 – – 2721 1986 198.9 141.9 – –
Sandstone Oil 122 20 55 – – 400 375 20.0 6.8 – –
Sandstone Gas 120 – – 301 350 290 7.5 – – 0.96 0.02
Sandstone Gas 115 – – 720 600 30 0 – – 41.7 0
Carbonate Oil 100 28 45 – – 2500 2000 89.3 44.4 – –
Sandstone Oil 100 1 1 – – 1645 1346 1645.0 1346.0 – –

Conclusions
Results achieved from applying the new HMP technology to reduce
water cut in mature fields indicate that this new engineering tool
can provide an alternative to traditional solution methods (selec-
tive polymers vs. blocking gels). Because of its simple design,
low cost, and the fact that it does not require isolation equipment,
the decision-making process for well workover is facilitated. This
technology could positively impact the profitability of production
asset teams by helping solve one of the main industry problems
worldwide: water production.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Production Asset Team of Cinco Presiden-
tes, Southern Region, PEP, and Halliburton for their support and
authorization to present this paper.
Hardy McGowen, M.A., Barrett, E., Dedigama, T., Squire, A., and Vasquez,
J. 2009. Reducing Water Rates to Increase Hydrocarbon Rates in
Australia. Paper SPE 122111 presented at the 8th European Formation
Damage Conference, Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 27–29 May. doi:
10.2118/122111-MS.
Weaver, J.D. 1978. A New Water-Oil Ratio Improvement Material. Paper
SPE 7574 presented at the SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, 1–3 October. doi: 10.2118/7574-MS.
Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N., and Guerrinl, Y. 1991. Improved Polyacrylamide
Treatments for Water Control in Producing Wells. J. Pet Tech 43 (7):
862–867. SPE-18501-PA. doi: 10.2118/18501-PA.
Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N., Bossie-Codreanu, D., and Denys, K. 1999. Water
Shutoff by Relative Permeability Modifiers: Lessons From Several
Field Applications. Paper SPE 56740 presented at the SPE Annular
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. doi:
10.2118/56740-MS.

References Larry Eoff is a research and development chemist for Halliburton

Dalrymple, E.D., Eoff, L., Reddy, B.R., and Botermans C.W. 1999. Rela-
tive Permeability Modifiers for Improved Oil Recovery: A Literature
Review. Paper presented at the 1999 International Conference on
Reservoir Conformance, Profile Control, Water and Gas Shut Off,
Houston, 8–10 November.
Di Lullo, G. and Rae, P. 2002. New Insights into Water Control—A Review
of the State of the Art. Paper SPE 77963 presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne, Australia,
8–10 October. doi: 10.2118/77963-MS.
Eoff, L., Dalrymple, D., Reddy, B.R., Morgan, J., and Frampton, H. 2003.
Development of a Hydrophobically Modified Water-Soluble Polymer
as Selective Bullhead System for Water-Production Problems. Paper
SPE 80206 presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry, Houston, 5–7 February. doi: 10.2118/80206-MS.
Energy Services in conformance technology. Eoff has been with
Halliburton for 18 years and has worked in cement product
development as well as in conformance. In addition, Eoff spent
two years with Baker Performance Chemicals in Houston. He
holds a BS degree from the University of Central Arkansas and
a PhD degree from the University of Arkansas. Raul Bonifacio
is currently operations manager for Halliburton’s Production
Enhancement Product Service Line.He has been with Halliburton
for 14 years, working in various cementing, stimulation, and con-
formance projects across the Latin America region. He holds
a BS degree from the University of Veracruz. Hector Hernandez
Leyva is currently a well productivity leader for Pemex, respon-
sible for several areas throughout Mexico. He has held various
positions with Pemex since 1986. He holds a BS degree in petro-
leum engineering from the Upper School of Engineering and
Architecture from the National Technical Institute of Mexico.

144 May 2010 SPE Production & Operations