SPE 126845

Risk Analysis and Decision Making in Relative Permeability Modifier Water

Shut-off Treatment
Quosay Awad, SPE, University of Khartoum, Abdelhalim Ibrahim, University of Khartoum, Ramzi Salah, University of
Khartoum, Ahmed Bakheet, PDOC

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 14–17 February 2010.

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
In the last few years, water shut off (WSO) treatments in production wells have started to become as a part of standard well
service. Decision making, taking into account the uncertainties of reservoir and well data, is a difficult job with regard to WSO
treatment especially with the current high oil price.
The success of any relative permeability modifier (RPM) treatment is depending on the pre-treatment reservoir and well
production parameters. The uncertainty within these parameters leads to improper prediction of the post treatment condition and
consequently a wrong WSO treatment decision may be taken.
An RPM WSO treatment evaluation model was developed based on Monte Carlo simulation and a developed radial flow equation.
The model predicts the post- treatment water cut and production rates specifying a range that extends from minimum output value
to a maximum value in order to alienate any chances of associated risks. The simulation inputs and results are also illustrated as
probabilistic distributions providing a complement to the previously cited production results. Decision tree model is used to choose
the best option among different RPM WSO treatment scenarios.

Introduction
Huge quantities of water are produced beside hydrocarbons in oil and gas fields all over the world. Water production is one of the
major practical environmental and economical problems linked with oil and gas production. In many cases, innovative water
control technology can lead to considerable cost cutback and improved oil production. One of these technologies is relative
permeability modifiers (RPM) water shut off treatment (WSO).
RPM can greatly reduce permeability to water with little or no restriction to hydrocarbon flow. This approach (which uses unique
polymer chemistry to help create oil water separation in the reservoir, thereby impeding water flow and enhancing hydrocarbon
flow to the well bore), the polymer works by adsorbing onto the rock surface and reducing permeability to water compared to
hydrocarbons. The objective is to shut off water without seriously damaging hydrocarbon-producing zones. Thus one wants to
maximize RPM fluid penetration into water-source pathways, while minimizing (or eliminating) penetration into hydrocarbon
zones 3.
In order to make a successful RPM WSO treatment many engineering decisions shall be made. It starts by how to select the right
candidate. The RPM fluid composition must be determined according to the candidate well characteristics. A proper treatment
design is also essential to obtain good treatment results. However, unfortunately many RPM WSO treatments result in either no
significant reduction in water flow rate or high reduction in oil production rate. Such results could be a combination of biased
collection of well and reservoir data, wrong estimations or incorrect calculations during the WSO treatment preparation process.
In this paper we will concern only bout the first part, i.e. the screening for the right candidate for RPM WSO treatment. Previously,
there are a lot of works done in describing or modeling the features of the right candidate for such treatment. The selection is done
based on given data for number of wells. The selection process is conducted either by check list (number of questions with
possible answers) and/ or simple calculation to predict the post treatment water cut and/or water oil ratio. However, in this paper
the screening process will involve another concept which we believe it can improve the quality of the screening outcomes.
Consequently, better decisions can be taken.
2 SPE 126845

Usually petroleum service companies, who intend to apply RPM WSO treatments, give a kind of prediction for the post treatment
production rates, i.e. reduction in water production rate and the increasing rate of oil, if any. This kind of prediction can be
considered as a helping tool for the petroleum operating companies to make up a decision of applying RPM WSO treatment or not.
However, there are a lot of uncertainties and risks associating such a treatment, which is reflected, somehow, on the prediction of
the post-treatment condition.

In this paper, post treatment production performance will be modeled analytically. Then the mathematical model will be applied in
Monte Carlo Simulator that will overcome the risks of inputting biased data into the model. Finally a simple decision tree will be
built based on range of outcomes produced by the Monte Carlo simulator. The decision tree will help decision makers to decide
whether to apply RPM WSO treatment or not.

Theory
In order to conduct WSO treatment in a production well, firstly the cause of the excessive water production problem need to be
identified. After that, a mechanical or a chemical solution for the problem will be matched with the current well condition. In our
case the matching process for particularly RPM WSO solution will be highlighted.
A brief description for the main pre-treatment preparation processes is exposed as follows:
1- Screening for the right candidate:
Proper selection of the right candidate for RPM WSO treatment can be done by identifying the criteria being good candidate
(pre screening) and then predict the post treatment production performance. Some wells have single production layer where
oil and water are produced together from the same zone. Such a condition is not suitable for RPM WSO treatment. While
some wells have multi layers but with cross-flow between the oil and the water layers. This also results on temporary water
shut off and then the problem starts again. In some wells the permeability contrast between producing layers is not enough to
ensure deep invasion of the RPM fluid into the water layer more than into the oil layers. Such a condition leads to high
reduction in oil production rate after the treatment. It is also found that wells with low productivity index are bad candidates
for RPM WSO treatment 1. In addition, there are so many factors affecting the treatment like well depth, completion type,
bottom hole pressure and temperature, type of producing fluids, …etc. Therefore, it is important to conduct a pre-screening
procedure before going into modeling the post treatment production performance for RPM WSO treatment.
The following table identifies the good and the bad candidate for RPM WSO treatment in a production well with un-fractured
reservoir:

Good Candidate Bad Candidate

Multi production zones with at least one clean oil
production zone.
No cross flow between the clean oil zone and other
watered out zones.1
Not fully drawn down with relatively high reservoir
productivity.
Moderate value for well’s water cut 50%< fw <95%
The existence of permeability contrast between producing
zones, where watered out zones have higher permeability
than in oil zones. This works especially in case of
bullhead injection for the RPM fluids.
Table 1: Pre-screening for RPM WSO treatment candidate well
Single production zone where oil and water are flowing
together.
There is cross flow between producing zones.
Fully-drawn down reservoir and/or low productivity index.
Where no room for increasing the drawdown.
Very high water cut (greater than 97%) or very low water cut.
No permeability contrast between zones or even negative
permeability contrast, where oil producing zones have higher
permeability than in water zones. In case of selective zone
isolation, permeability contrast is not a screening issue.

2- RPM fluid selection:

Some RPM fluids are strong enough to block both water and oil producing layers, while some RPM fluids are so weak to
decrease relative permeability to water to the required level. Some RPM fluids are robust in reservoir condition, i.e. high
pressure and high temperature; and some are not 2. Since each well is an individual case, therefore a tailor made RPM fluid
composition is required. The best RPM fluid is the one who implies the maximum Residual Resistant Factor (RRF) to the
water layer and the minimum RRF to the oil layer. The composition of the RPM fluids and the calculation and modeling of the
RRF are beyond the scope of this paper.
SPE 126845 3

3- Treatment design: although detailed treatment design is beyond the scope of this paper but it is important to highlight its main
processes. However, these processes contain a lot of uncertainties that could be modeled and solved by Monte Carlo
Simulation similarly with the approach of this paper towards the post treatment production performance.
RPM WSO treatment design is a complicated job. There are so many factors must be considered in the design. These factors
may affect one of the treatment processes and therefore the whole treatment will be deficiently done. The common designing
processes of the RPM WSO treatment are:
ƒ Determination of the RPM fluid gelation time: The gelation time for an RPM fluid is a function of temperature, polymer and
crosslinker concentrations in addition to some other properties of the formation fluids. Improper determination of RPM fluid
gelation time can lead to a complete failure to the entire treatment 14.
ƒ RPM fluid volume and injection rate and pressure: The volume of RPM fluid must be designed to fill in the pours media to
a certain limit. More volume may damage the wellbore vicinity, while less volume will result in poor WSO treatment. The
injection rate has a direct relationship with the fluid gelation time. Very low injection rate may let it start gelation in
production tubing before even reach the bottom hole. The injection pressure must be designed to be higher than bore
pressure and lower than the formation fracturing pressure.
ƒ Fluid invasion depth in each layer: Since the penetration depth of the RPM fluid in any layer is a function of the layer’s
pressure, porosity, permeability and irreducible saturations; therefore wrong data may lead to improper design and
consequently inefficient RPM WSO treatment.
ƒ Well shut in time: Usually after injecting the RPM fluid into the formation, the well is shut-in for sometime in order to
complete the chemicals gelation process inside the formation. Shorter shut-in time will allow the RPM fluid to be back
produced once the well is opened. On the other hand, long shut-in time may allow gel syneresis effect to take place.
ƒ Post-treatment production performance: After a successful RPM WSO treatment, a considerable reduction might occur in
well productivity index as well as water cut. Therefore it is very important to design an optimum post-treatment flow rate,
where water production decreases to the maximum allowable limit while oil production increases or even remain as it was
before the treatment. This could be done by tuning the well drawdown by increasing or decreasing the bottom hole flowing
pressure.

Radial flow equations for RPM WSO treatment model

The best way to evaluate the RPM WSO treatment performance in an un-fractured production well is to compare the pre-treatment
production condition to the estimated post-treatment production performance.
• Pre-treatment production performance
For two phase liquid flow (above the bubble point pressure), assume a sandstone reservoir with fixed radial flow rate Q which is
the summation of oil and water flow rates (qo and qw). The fractional flow of water is fw (water cut) and the current total
productivity index is PI. While reservoir average pressure is Pr and the bottom hole flowing pressure is Pwf. If water and oil are
commingle produced from different separated layers (assume two layers) then the flow rate of oil and water are:

……………..…….. (1) ……………..…... (2)

…………….………… (3) …………...………... (4)

Total flow rate (oil + water)

............... (5) ………… (6)

Where ko and kw are the effective permeability to oil and to water respectively.

............................................ (7) ...................................... (8)

The flow in the vertical tubing is assumed to be governed by the hydrostatic pressure loss, where total fluid density, i.e. the
summation of water and oil densities according to fractional flow of each phase; is the main factor in the determination of tubing
performance 7.

• Post-treatment production performance

Assume RPM WSO treatment is conducted in a production well which has the criteria of Good Candidate (as per table 1); the post
treatment oil and water flow rates will be different that the pre treatment flow rates due to the effects of:
4 SPE 126845

- Permeability reduction:
Theoretically after the treatment, krw will be reduced much more than kro. This will affect the inflow performance
relationship (IPR) of the well, where the well PI is reduced, i.e. productivity index of water dramatically decreases while
the oil productivity index will slightly decreased. This is because of the positive skin formed by the gelled RPM fluid
which it invades the water layers deeper than the invasion occurs in oil layers. Thus, the bottom hole flowing pressure
(BHFP) after the treatment will be less than it was before the treatment for the same total flow rate 7.
For example, when initial BHFP equals to 125 bar in a reservoir with a pressure of 180 bar at drainage radius of 1000m;
and RPM WSO treatment takes place in 2m inside the reservoir with an RRF equals to 4; the new BHFP will reduce to
about 70 bar due to the PI reduction in the treated zones. Figure 1 explains the mentioned example.

- Improvement in tubing performance 200

Bottom hole flowing pressure, bar
(vertical lift): Pwf1
Since the total water cut in the well stream 150
is reduced, then the hydrostatic pressure
losses in the vertical tubing will 100
consequently decreases as a result of
lowering the effective density of the
wellstream column 12. 50 Pwf2
The reduction of the hydrostatic pressure
losses decreases the pressure losses in the 0
entire upstream production system, i.e. the
difference between Pr and Pwh. Therefore, 0.1 1 10 100 1000
when Pwh is kept constant, extra drawdown Radius, m
will take place due to this reduction in the
tubing pressure losses. Pre‐treatment BHFP Post‐treatment BHFP
Treatment radius
This improvement in the vertical lifting
performance may overcome some of the
well productivity reduction and therefore the Figure 1: Pre and Post- treatment pressure drawdown
post treatment total flow rate won’t be
dramatically decreased. For the same reason and when the new water cut is much less than the pre treatment one, some
wells experience increase in oil production rate after RPM WSO treatment even without increasing the drawdown.

For example, if a RPM WSO treatment is conducted in a well with two layers, one of them is producing 100% oil, as shown in
figure 2. And the RPM fluid invasion depth in watered out zone and in oil zone are rxw , rxo respectively.
Then the post treatment production rate can be analytically found as follows:

a) The post treatment productivity index PI2:

The new productivity index for oil and water layers is given by:
........................ (9) ......................... (10)

The relative productivity index for oil and water layers:

………..(11) )..................(12)
. .

...................................................(13) ........................................................(14)

Where, RRFo and RRFW are residual resistance factor for oil and water respectively. RRF is used as a relative measure of
permeability reduction and for oil is defined as the ratio of permeability to oil before treatment to permeability of oil after
treatment and to water is the ratio of water permeability before treatment to water permeability after treatment 6.
The RRF is a critical design factor for the RPM WSO treatment and it can be controlled by alteration of polymer and crosslinker
concentrations in the RPM fluid.
Thus the post treatment PI2 is:
SPE 126845 5

. 1 …. (15)
PI2 is a function of the pre treatment
water cut and the relative productivity for
water and oil layers.13

b) The vertical lift improvement ,

ΔPlift 7:
By definition the vertical lift improvement
can be calculated as:
∆ ………...……... (16)
Where h is the well true vertical depth
calculated from mid perforation. The
length h could be also from mid
perforation to pump intake depth.
…………............................ (17)
Pre and post treatment produced liquid
densities are function of pre and post
treatment water cut (fw), respectively:
1 ................. (18)
1 .............. (19)
For the successful RPM WSO treatment,
the new produced liquid density is always
lower the old one, therefore (ρ1 > ρ2) and Figure 2: Schematic for RPM WSO treatment
then ∆ has always positive value.
On the other hand, the post treatment water cut could be found as:
……………………….. (20)
Where, qw2 and qo2 are functions of PIrw and PIro respectively 13.

c) Analytical solution for Post-treatment total production rate Q2 :

∆ ……...... (21)
By combining equations 16, 17 and 21; the post treatment liquid flow rate is given by:
……………... (22)
Post treatment water production rates can easily be found by multiply Q2 by the new water cut.
Equation 22 shows that the value of BHFP is corrected by the ratio of produced fluid post treatment density to the pre treatment
ones ( ). Since the densities ratio is < 1, which means the BHFP is corrected to a lower value and consequently Q2 will be higher
than normally calculated. This incremental flow rate is a direct result of the lift improvement. Equation 22 is considered as a new
developed inflow performance equation that considers the vertical lift improvement.

d) Graphical solution for Post-treatment total production rate

Figure 3, shows a graphical solution for the post treatment production rate. Where the production rate is plotted versus BHFP (IPR
curve for single phase flow) and the BHFP is plotted versus depth to illustrate pressure losses in the vertical tubing.
Since the post treatment BHFP is less than it was before the treatment (Pwf2<Pwf1), as shown in figure 1, therefore in figure 3, there
are two starting points (Pwf2 and Pwf1) at mid perforation for the tubing pressure curve versus depth. However, the slope of the curve
of the post treatment condition must be corrected to (ρ2.g)-1 instead of (ρ1.g)-1. At zero depth (wellhead) the pressure difference
between the corrected curve and the not corrected one is the vertical lift improvement (ΔPlift). One the other hand, the cross-
section between the extended lines from Pwf2 and Pwf1 with the post and pre treatment IPR curve is representing the operating points
Q2 and Q1 respectively. Once the ΔPlift is added to Pwf2, a new extended line will cross with the post treatment IPR curve and gives
a new corrected operating point Q2-c. The Q2-c has higher value than Q2 , which is more realistic since vertical lift improvement is
considered. The Q2-c values were defined for many different cases and being compared with post treatment flow rate values
calculated by equation 22. It is found that both analytical and graphical solutions are giving very similar values of post-treatment
liquid flow rate.
6 SPE126845

ƒ Q1: is the flow rate before the

RPM WSO treatment.
ƒ Q2: is the flow rate after the
treatment without considering
the effect of the reduction in
hydrostatic pressure gradient in
the vertical tubing.
ƒ Q2-c: is the corrected value of
Q1 the post-treatment production
Q2-c rate.
Q2
ƒ ΔPlift: is the difference between
tubing pressure at a certain
depth (could be at wellhead or
ΔPlift pump intake depth)

Pwf-2 Pwf-1 Pr

Figure 3: The graphical solution for the post-treatment production rate

Why using Monte Carlo Simulation:

In petroleum industry, sometimes production and reservoir collected data are not representing the current real situation. For
example, to calculate well productivity index, it is important to know the value of reservoir drainage radius, permeabilities, zone
thickness, fluid viscosity ...etc. all these data have considerable rage of uncertainties; since they were found either long time ago,
or they had been calculated using biased data. In our case here, we need to model the post treatment liquid production rates using
analytical equation while uncertainties associated with the model inputs are considered in the entire model calculation.
Traditionally, analysis combine single "point" estimates of a model's variables to predict a single result. This is like the standard
Excel calculation. In reality, however, many things just don't turn out the way that has been planned. Maybe some estimates were
too conservative while others were too optimistic. The combined errors in each estimate often lead to a real-life result that is
significantly different from the estimated result 4. The decision made based on "expected" result might be the wrong decision, and
a decision would have never been made if a more complete picture of all possible outcomes was present.
In oil industry especially when dealing with excessive water production problem, some factors such as reservoir pressure,
permeability, and residual resistance factors may be a target to some significant hesitation; therefore estimates and assumptions
were used. Using (Monte Carlo simulation) provides an explicit inclusion of the uncertainty present in the estimates to generate
results that show all possible outcomes.
Monte Carlo simulation represents uncertainty surrounding all possible incomes and outcomes for various options by setting
probabilistic distributions for each of the inputs. The probabilistic distribution that will be used for each input depends on the
margin of error of obtained data input.
Monte Carlo simulation brings risk and uncertainty as integral parts of the calculations rather than as reconsideration. Most
importantly, it brings probability into the picture. This statistical technique addresses the question, "If something happens, then
what is the range of possible outcomes?” It yields probability versus value relationships for key parameters and the effect of each
SPE 126845 7

parameter 4. In our case, it can be used to answer technical questions such as the range of water cut and production rates after
executing RPM WSO treatment.
Example for using probabilistic distribution in reservoir flow equation:
1- Single points calculation:
PI (single point) . ΔP (single ponit) = Q (single point)
2- Instead of using single point value in the above equation the probabilistic distribution could be used as follow:

PI (Probabilistic distribution) ΔP (Probabilistic distribution) Q (Probabilistic distribution)

The outcome will depend on the probabilistic distributions for each variable and the combination of mathematical operations
included in the previous formula. The outcome will be demonstrated as a probabilistic distribution ranging from minimum to
maximum with the most likely value which is obviously having the highest probability.

COMPUTER MODEL FOR RPM WSO TREATMENT:

A computer model based on radial flow equations, as mentioned earlier, and Monte Carlo Simulation is developed to predict the
RPM WSO post-treatment production performance.
Assumptions:
The model based on the following assumptions:
1. The treatment is done in a production well that produce two phase flow (water and oil). No gas is involved.
2. Radial flow in sand stone formation, where fractures are not exists.
3. Treatment applied to a reservoir that consists of two layers (one clean oil zone and the other is watered out zone) isolated by
impermeable barrier.
4. Injected fluid penetrates deeper into water zone than oil zone due to high permeability in water zone compared to permeability
in oil zone. (see figure 2)
5. The reservoir has good productivity and it is not fully drawndown.

Required Data: Pre-treatment (input data):

It is required to insert the probabilistic distribution and the (minimum, mean and
maximum) values for:
- Reservoir Data: Average reservoir pressure and reservoir drainage radius
- Production Data: Total production rate, water cut and BHFP,
- Well Data: Well radius, well depth or pump intake depth.
- Fluids Data:, Oil and water densities
- Treatment Design Data: RRFw & RRFo, penetration radius in oil layer and
penetration radius in water layer
Since reservoir structure is so complicated and many factors may be subjected to
some uncertainty; suitable probabilistic distributions were assigned for each of the
previous factors: (in many variables a triangular distribution was used since this
type gives more realistic distribution description).
Figure 4 shows an example of probabilistic distribution for reservoir pressure. These probabilistic distributions used in radial flow
equations as a replacement for data (obtained from well testing, logging and production history) that are usually used as a single
point.
Figure 4: example of probabilistic
Main Results: Post-treatment (output data): distribution window (Triangle type)
The model outcomes will depend on the probabilistic distributions of the inputs.
The outcome will be demonstrated as a probabilistic distribution ranging from minimum to maximum with the most likely value.
The main outcomes are predicting the post-treatment condition, which are:
8 SPE 126845

- Total production rate

- New water cut
- Oil and water production rate
- New productivity index
The values of each outcome could be also displayed in a table where each value is given against its probability.

Decision analysis:
As water production increases in a daily basis it is obvious that introducing a method that helps identifying and making decisions
regarding water shut off treatment is a fundamental step towards a crystal clear view of the future economical aspects of oil
reservoirs development in any petroleum operating company 3.
In the oil industry there are two main types of decisions:
- Engineering/technical decisions which focus on scientific and technical sides of any project, i.e. decisions to be taken during
the project design.
- Financial decisions that take into account the economical side of the project. Typically, a lot of financial decisions should be
made based on engineering decisions.
Decision analysis is a strategy for achieving a good decision for identifying problems by decomposing a complicated problem into
smaller parts that can be instantly analyzed and understood. Decision analysis helps to integrate the technical and economical sides
and transform them into options with values.
One of the most powerful tools for decision analysis is Decision Tree. It is very useful tool that helps decision maker to choose
between several courses of action, like the decision of conducting RPM WSO treatment in a currently oil producing well or to
apply mechanical WSO or even keep the current condition. Decision tree provides a highly effective structure within which it is
easy to explore options, and to investigate the possible outcomes of choosing those options. Decision trees also help to form a
balanced picture of the risks and rewards associated with each possible course of action.
A decision Tree consists of three types of nodes 5:-
1- Decision nodes - commonly represented by green squares: The decision node has a branch extending to every available
option (only one option will be chosen). The top cell for each branch has a TRUE or FALSE indicating whether the
branch was selected or not. The cell below the branch contains the branch value.
2- Chance nodes - represented by circles: The chance node (red cycle) has branches for each possible outcome.
3- End nodes (payoff) - represented by triangles: The end node returns the payoff and probability for the associated path.

Drawn from left to right, a decision tree has only burst nodes (splitting paths) but no sink nodes (converging paths). Therefore,
used manually, they can grow very big and are then often hard to draw fully by hand. A lot of commercial softwares work out
decision trees. One of these softwares is called “@RISK” which is a Monte Carlo simulator and Precision Tree add-in Microsoft
Excel.

Decision tree model:

In this case (prediction of RPM WSO treatment in oil producing well) many parameters, factors and reservoir data may be
subjected to some uncertainties; so if single points taken as reference in calculation to get the outcome very considerable error may
occurred. Although Monte Carlo Simulation is utilized to give probabilistic distributions to the RPM WSO treatment model inputs
in order to avoid the error in single point data, but the model’s outcomes is also shown as probabilistic distributions, i.e. minimum
(P10), mean (P50) and maximum (P90). For the decision maker the real situation after implementing the RPM WSO treatment will
be within the value range produced by the model. On the other hand, in case of many scenarios are applied in the model then
understanding the model outcomes and taking a decision based on those outcomes will be a difficult issue.
For example the following scenarios could be applied on the RPM WSO treatment model, while the outcomes of each scenario
could be compared with the initial condition, i.e. the current oil and water flow rates before applying any treatment; in order to
give the decision maker a bigger vision:
1- Applying the RPM WSO treatment on a production well without increasing the drawdown after the treatment: in this case
the post-treatment total liquid production rate will be dramatically reduced due to the reduction in the treated well’s
productivity index; while water oil ratio (WOR) will decrease since water cut is reduced.
2- Applying the RPM WSO treatment on a production well and increasing the drawdown after the treatment: in this case the
post-treatment total liquid production rate may reach or exceed the pre-treatment liquid flow rate with a new WOR.
However, post treatment water flow rate may have high value as it was before the treatment; while oil flow rate may
increase compared with the pre-treatment condition.
SPE 126845 9

3- Not applying RPM WSO treatment on the production well while increasing the drawdown: in this case the new total
liquid production rate will be higher than the original liquid flow rate but the WOR will keep the same value as it was
before increasing the drawdown.

In order to compare the outcomes of the above mentioned scenarios with each other and also compare them with the pre-treatment
condition (the base case) a common reference is required. Since this is a WSO treatment where excessive water production is the
main problem, then the common reference could be the decreased amount of water production rate after applying the treatment.
But in a lot of cases oil production rate is the vocal point for the decision maker, so considering only the amount of reduced water
cannot be accepted as a common reference to evaluate the outcomes of each scenario. This paper shows a method that considers
production equivalent to assess the economical side of the RPM WSO treatment. The production equivalent (PE) is the ratio
between oil production rate to water production rate multiply by 100%. PE represents oil water ratio (OWR), so the higher post
treatment PE the better it is. Usually
for a normal candidate for WSO
treatment, the pre treatment PE is less
than 100%.
The outcomes of the Monte Carlo
simulation for RPM WSO treatment
for the three scenarios together with
the base case are the inputs for
decision tree model, i.e. input values
for chance nodes and payoff nodes.
The decision model starts by a
decision node that has four branches
(number of branches depend on how
many scenarios do we have). These
branches are explaining the available
options for the decision maker.
According to the decision tree shown
in figure 5, the four options are:
- Apply RPM WSO with constant
drawdown.
- Apply RPM WSO with increased
drawdown
- Do not apply RPM WSO but
increase the drawdown Figure 5: A decision tree highlighting some possible options for RPM WSO treatment
- Apply no treatment (base case) outcomes.
Then from each branch a chance node
called “Production Equivalent (PE)” which has three sub-branches “minimum”, “mean” and “maximum” is developed. The
probability and the value of each sub-branch are given by the Monte Carlo simulation results.
The outcome of the decision tree is the branch (option or scenario) which has the highest PE value (see figure 5). Sensitivity
analysis could be performed on the chosen scenario. This can be also done throughout the decision analysis software.

The process of risk analysis and decision making for RPM WSO treatment:
It is the stage to summarize the entire process of risk analysis and decision making for the RPM WSO treatment. Figure 6 shows
the sequence should be followed in order to make a decision for the risky RPM WSO treatment. Before conducting the first step, a
study should be conducted to identify the cause behind producing a lot of formation water. After that, all available alternatives for
mechanical and chemical WSO should be investigated. In case RPM WSO treatment is one of the available options, then the
process in figure 6 can be taken. The process of risk analysis and decision making can be considered as a professional screening
job for RPM WSO treatment.
10 SPE 126845

Pre-screening for RPM WSO Decision making for applying RPM

candidate well.
• It can be done manually by
applying the criteria (shown in
table 1) of good candidates.
WSO treatment in a production well.
• Decision tree model is used to
indentify the best scenario using
the probabilistic results obtained
from the Monte Carlo Simulation
according to the common
reference.

Prediction of the post treatment flow
condition analytically.
•Applying the analytical equations
(equ 9-22), where post treatment
flow rates, water cut, productivity
index ..etc can be calculated.
Arrange all the model’s outputs from
all possible scenarios for decision
making process
•A common reference (such as oil
water ratio or NPV) must be set to
compare the results that obtained
from applying different scenario
in the model.

Computer modeling of the RPM Applying different scenarios in the

WSO post treatment condition RPM WSO computer model to
considering risks and uncertainties in simulate all possible options
model’s inputs.
• post treatment condition will be
• Monte Carlo simulation is used to
simulated for different scenarios ,
overcome the risk in the model’s
like increasing the drawdown or
inputs and to give probabilistic
even not to conduct the RPM
distribution for the model’s
WSO treatment.
outputs.
Figure 6: Risk analysis and decision making for the RPM WSO treatment in production well

Case study:
Many RPM treated wells, taken from the literature, were simulated by Monte Carlo simulation and by decision tree model. The
simulation and decision model give very similar results to the actual conditions. The model’s results also been compared with
other spreadsheet models done by Randy Seright (SPE, New Mexico-PRRC), and again they were quite similar to each other.
The devolved RPM WSO treatment simulator was used to model a treated well with an emulsified cross-linked polymer (one type
of RPM fluids). The treated well is described in an SPE paper number 99729. It has an excessive water production problem and set
to RPM WSO treatment in 2004. The screening shows that this well can be considered as a good candidate for RPM WSO
treatment. The well data was inserted into the RPM WSO treatment Monte Carlo Simulation model to predict the post-treatment
condition. The real pre and post treatment production data are illustrated in Figure A-1. Some scenarios were applied on the model
to verify the quality of the treatment decision taken to that well. The simulated scenarios are similar to the ones discussed earlier.
The Monte Carlo simulation results for all the scenarios are shown in following table:
Water Flow rate (CUM/day) Oil Flow rate (CUM/day) Oil Water Ratio %

# Probability (P5, P50, P95) Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean

1 Base Case (Before Treatment) 1960 2787 2345 47 267 154 2.4% 9.6% 6.6%
After RPM WSO treatment
2 619 1680 1113 39 244 134 6.3% 14.5% 12.0%
(Constant Drawdown)
Before Treatment with
3 3873 5521 4690 90 592 309 2.3% 10.7% 6.6%
increased drawdown
After RPM WSO treatment
4 1332 3391 2112 74 461 252 5.6% 13.6% 11.9%
(Increased Drawdown)
Table 2: Monte Carlo Simulation results for four scenarios where OWR % is the input data for the decision tree
SPE 126845 11

The Monte Carlo simulation post treatment liquid flow rate and oil flow rate are illustrated in figure A-2 and A-3. The values
obtained from the simulation model were compared with the actual treated well data as below:

The real treated well data The Monte Carlo Simulation

(average values) outputs (mean values)
Total liquid rate, CUM/day 1375 1247
Oil flow rate, CUM/day 138 134
Table 3: a comparison between the actual treated well post treatment data and the results obtained from the simulation model

The decision tree model was used to analyze the four mentioned scenarios (see figure A-1). The decision is analyzed base on the
PE value. The scenario with the highest PE is the chosen one.

Figure 7: Optimum decision for well 30/3-A16 T2 Veslefrikk Field

As it is shown in figure 7, amoung the three different scenarios as well as the base case, the recommended decision is to conduct
the RPM WSO treatment without increasing the drawdown. Similar decision was taken by the operating company at that time as
shown in figure A-2. However, that decision by the operating company is not a reference, but in that particular case, that decision
was a good one.
Form this example it is found that the Monte Carlo RPM WSO treatment model and the decision tree model are giving good
prediction to the post treatment condition as well as suggesting an analyzed option to the decision maker for such a risky operation.

Conclusion:
1- Candidate well selection for RPM WSO treatment is suggested to be done firstly through pre sceening criteria of good
and bad candidate (as shown in table 1) and then predicting the post-treatment production performance.
2- An analytical model describing the post treatment production rates has been developed. The model considers the
improvement in vertical lifting performance, since the hydrostatic pressure loss is decreased as a result of lowering the
produced liquid density in post treatment condition.
3- The effect of the lift improvement on the well inflow performance is modeled by correcting the BHFP with post/pre
treatment densities ratio, as per equation 22.
4- A graphical solution for the post treatment production rate is developed using IPR curve and pressure vs. depth curves. It
is found that both analytical and graphical solutions are giving very similar values of post-treatment liquid flow rate.
5- An RPM WSO treatment evaluation model was developed based on Monte Carlo simulation and the developed radial
flow equation. The model predicts the post- treatment water cut and production rates specifying a range that extends from
minimum output value to a maximum value in order to alienate any chances of associated risks. The simulation inputs and
results are also illustrated as probabilistic distributions providing a complement to the previously cited production results.
6- Since many scenarios could be applied in the Monte Carlo simulation RPM WSO model, therefore understanding the
model outcomes and taking a decision based on those outcomes will be a difficult issue. Therefore a decision tree model
is developed to help decision maker to analyze the available scenarios and to choose the optimum option.
7- A decision process is presented which describes the sequence should be followed in order to make a decision for the risky
RPM WSO treatment. The process starts from the pre screening stage, throughout the modeling and simulation stages, up
to decision analysis and decision making stage.
8- Form case studies, it is found that the Monte Carlo RPM WSO treatment model and the decision tree model are giving
good prediction to the post treatment condition as well as suggesting an analyzed option to the decision maker for such a
risky operation.
12 SPE 126845

Nomenclature:
WSO = Water Shut-Off
RPM = Relative Permeability Modifier
BHFP = Bottom hole flowing pressure, bar
IPR = Inflow performance relationship
= Average reservoir pressure, bar
= Flowing bottom hole pressure, bar
= Well head pressure, bar
  = Water cut
  = Reservoir drainage radius, m
  = Well radius, m
RRF = Residual resistance factor
= Productivity index, m3/day/bar
= Density, kg/m3
= Flow rate, m3/day
= Permeability, md
= Formation volume factor, m3/m3
= Viscosity, cp
= Length, m
= Gravity acceleration, m/s2
∆P = Pressure difference due to lifting improvement, bar

Subscript:
= Water
= Oil
= Penetration in water layer
= Penetration in oil layer
  = Water relative
  = Oil relative
1 = Pre-treatment
2 = Post-treatment

Superscript:
  = Post treatment

REFERENCES
1. R.D. Sydansk and R.S. Seright “When and where relative permeability Modification Water Shutoff Treatments Can Be
Successfully Applied” SPE 99371 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, U.S.A.,
22-26 April 2006.
2. A. Stavland, Steinar Ekrann and others, “Disproportionate Permeability reduction in not a panacea” SPE reservoir Evaluation
& Engineering 1998, Page 359-366.
3. Robert T.Clemen, Terence Reily “Making hard decision with decision tools” ISBN 0-534-42199-7 Brooks/Cole 2001, pages2,
3, 217-247, 459-494.
4. Robert T.Clemen, Terence Reily "@RISK manual", Palisade Corporation, February 2004, pages 39-41.
5. Robert T.Clemen, Terence Reily, “Precision tree manual”. Palisade Corporation, February 2004, pages 15,
17,21,25,27,33,35,36.
6. J. Vasquez, I. Jurado, and A. Santillan, Halliburton, and R. Hernandez, Pemex: “Organically Crosslinked Polymer System for
Water Reduction Treatment in Mexico” paper SPE 104134 presented at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition
in Mexico held in Cancun, Mexico, 31 August-2 September 2006.
SPE 126845 13

7. A. Stavland , K.I. Andersen and others “ How to Apply a blocking gel system for bullhead selective water shutoff: From
Laboratory to Field” paper SPE 99729 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa,
U.S.A., 22-26 April 2006.
8. J. Herbas, R. Moreno, M.F. Romero, D. "Gel Performance simulations and Laboratory/Field Studies to Design Water
Conformance Treatments in Eastern Venezuelan HPHT Reservoirs” SPE 89398 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on -
Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma ,U.S.A,17-21april 2004.
9. A.Stavalnd, S.Nilsson “Segregated Flow is the Governing Mechanism of Disproportionate Permeability Reduction in Water
and Gas Shutoff”, paper SPE 71510 presented at SPE annual technical conference and exihpition, New Orleans (October
2001).
10. Jenn.Tai Liang, R.L.Lee and R.S. Seright: “Gel placement in production wells”, SPE Production & Facilities (Nov. 1993)
276-283.
11. R.J. Fulleylove, J.C. Morgan, D.G. Stevens & D.R. Thrasher: “Water shut-off in Oil production wells – Lessons from 12
Treatment” SPE 36211 presented at 7th Abu Dhabi international petroleum exhibition and conference, 1996, pages 415-427.
12. R.S. Seright: “Optimizing Disproportionate Permeability Reduction”, paper SPE 99443 presented at SPE/DOE symposium on
improved oil recovery, Tulsa (April 2006).
13. A. Stavland: “Appendix Analytical Description of the effect of DPR treatment” International Research Institute of Stavanger
presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, U.S.A., (April 2006) 31-41.
14. Aniello Mennella, L. Chiappa and T.P.Lockhart: “Candidate and chemical Selection Guidelines for Relative Permeability
Modification (RPM) Treatments” (Aug. 2001) SPE 72056.
15. Jenn-Tai Liang, R.S. Seright, New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center “Further Investigations of Why Gels Reduce
Water Permeability More than Oil Permeability”, paper SPE 37249 presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, February 18-21, 1997.
16. O.Vazquez ,M.Singleton and others "Sensitivity study on main factors affecting a polymeric RPM treatment in the near-
wellbore region of mature oil-producing well” paper SPE 106012 presented at the 2007 international Symposium on oilfield
chemistry held in Houston ,texas,U.S.A.,28 February -2 march2007.
17. Len Fry, Don Everett &others "successful application of relative permeability modifiers to control water production in Rose
Run Fracturing" paper SPE 104572 presented at the 2006 SPE eastern regional meeting held in Canton, Ohio, U.S.A., 11-13
October 2006.
18. M.J.Pietrak, F.O.Stanley &others "Relative Permeability Modifier Treatments in Gulf Mexico Frac-Packed and Gravel-
Packed Oil and Gas Wells" paper SPE 96945 presented at the 2005 SPE annual Technical Conference & Exhibition held in
Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9-12 October 2005.
19. M.Amanullah, SPE, CSIRO Petroleum "Experimental Evaluation of The Blockage Efficiency of a Novel Gel System to
Mitigate Water-Cut Problem of Producing Wells" paper SPE 99491 presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved
Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 22-26 April 2006.
20. Guoyin Zhang, R.S.Seright "Conformance and Mobility Control: Foams vs. Polymers" paper SPE 105907 presented at the
2007 international Symposium on oilfield chemistry held in Houston, texas, U.S.A., 28 February - 2 March2007.
14 SPE 126845

Appendix:

Figure A1: Veslefrikk A-16 pre and post treatment production performance
according to the real collected data 13

Figure A-2: Monte Carlo Simulation results for the RPM WSO post treatment production rate for Veslefrikk A-16

Figure A-3: Monte Carlo Simulation results for the RPM WSO post treatment oil production rate for Veslefrikk A-16