Accepted Manuscript

Numerical simulation study to understand the performance of RPM gels in water-

shutoff treatments

Dheiaa Alfarge, MingzhenWei, Baojun Bai, Abdullah Almansour

PII: S0920-4105(18)30665-X
DOI: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.07.082
Reference: PETROL 5179

To appear in: Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Received Date: 19 March 2018

Revised Date: 25 July 2018
Accepted Date: 31 July 2018

Please cite this article as: Alfarge, D., MingzhenWei, , Bai, B., Almansour, A., Numerical simulation
study to understand the performance of RPM gels in water-shutoff treatments, Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.petrol.2018.07.082.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Numerical Simulation Study to Understand the Performance of RPM Gels in Water-

Shutoff Treatments

Dheiaa Alfarge, Iraqi Ministry of Oil, Missouri University of Science and Technology; Mingzhen Wei and
Baojun Bai, Missouri University of Science and Technology; Abdullah Almansour, King Abdulaziz City for

PT
Science and Technology

Abstract

RI
Disproportionate Permeability Reduction (DPR) is often used as a water-shutoff treatment in production
wells when conventional solutions such as mechanical isolations are difficult to perform. Although this property has

SC
been well documented by different investigators, the performance of DPR treatments in field applications has varied
between success and failure without understandable reasons. This work investigated the DPR performance in
different scenarios to see when, where and at which conditions DPR treatments can give better results. Numerical

U
simulation methods were used to simulate different scenarios happening in oil and gas fields such as five-spot
pattern system and linear-system, with different number of layers, with and without crossflow. The possibility of
AN
using DPR treatment in hydraulically-fractured reservoirs was also investigated since many reports indicated that
there is an increase in the water production for some oil and gas reservoirs after being hydraulically-fractured.
Moreover, the physical reasoning behind the variations in the DPR performance for different scenarios has been
M

extensively discussed.
The results explored that the DPR performance was excellent in both of water-cut reduction and oil-
D

recovery improvement when the flow regime was viscous dominated (viscous-gravity number<0.1). On the other
hand, when the flow regime was gravity dominated (viscous-gravity number >10), the effective period of DPR
TE

treatment was a short-term remedy. Secondly, when the high-K layer is existed at the lower-zone of oil or gas
reservoir, the reservoir would be a good candidate for the DPR treatment as compared with the reservoirs that have
the high-K layer located at the upper zone. Furthermore, selecting the correct time to perform DPR treatments
EP

generally could have a significant role to mitigate water production. Finally, the dimensions of the treated fracture
are the key components to get a successful DPR-treatment in the hydraulically fractured reservoirs.
C

1. Introduction
AC

Water production is considered one of the most dominant problems in matured oil and gas wells. Difficulty
of this problem comes from the significant cost associated with the water production. This cost is resulted from
separating, treating, and disposing of the produced water. The cost of the produced water in the matured wells was
approximately estimated as $50 billion per year (Hill et al., 2012). Different solutions were suggested to control the
excessive water production according to the sources and reasons of the produced water in hydrocarbon reservoirs.
However, in some situations, all the suggested methods to control water production would not be effective except
DPR treatments (Mennella et al., 2001). Therefore, DPR treatment is one of the attractive methods to mitigate water
production through production wells, not only by its low cost, but also by its easiness to be performed. The DPR
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

property is considered very important in production wells when the mechanical isolation is very difficult to perform
(Liang et al., 1993). And, there are some situations which need DPR treatments to be performed; otherwise the well
would be abandoned (Mennella et al., 2001).
Some researchers call this property ‘Relative Permeability Modifier (RPM)’ which is technically
considered the same meaning for DPR in this study. This terminology came from the ability of polymers and some
gels to reduce water permeability (Krw) by a factor which is greater than that for oil permeability (Kro) reduction. It

PT
has been reported that different types of gels, polymer, and even some monomers behave as DPR fluids (White et
al., 1973; Schneider 1982; Kohler, 1983; Sparlin et al., 1976; Dunlap et al., 1986; Zaitoun et al., 1991; Liang et al.,

RI
1992; Seright et al., 1995; Stanley et al., 1997; Nilson et al., 1998; Grattoni et al., 2001; Morgan, 2002; Eoff,
2003b). The chemical fluids, which have DPR property, have often different chemical composition such as HPAM,
Biopolymer, oil soluble gels (TMOS), silicate gels, and polymer itself. Also, these polymer gels could have a

SC
different status according to their stage of formation, in which DPR property given, such as in-situ gels, partially
preformed gels, and preformed gels (Faber at al., 1998; Rousseau et al., 2005; Sydansk et al., 2005). The ability of
polymers and some gels to reduce water permeability by a factor which is greater than that for oil permeability

U
reduction makes most of the specialists asking a one common question. This question is “what the
AN
mechanism/mechanisms which gels and polymers have so they can behave as a DPR fluid”. Although there were a
lot of efforts tried to investigate many mechanisms for DPR fluids, understanding the principle mechanism is not an
easy task. We summarized the proposed mechanisms with their investigators, proposal of each mechanism, the
M

opinions which conflict with, and the weak points in each one as shown in Table 1. These results regarding the
DPR mechanisms are based on a comprehensive review and analysis for different resources from experimental
studies and field applications. It is well understood that the conditions which had been used by the previous
D

investigators are different from each other, but we tried to explain the strength of each mechanism depending on
TE

their weak points and the physical basis. Depending on the critical review which we conducted, the segregated
pathway mechanism is the most acceptable one; therefore, this mechanism was simulated in this study.
In addition, it is clear from Table 1, there is no unique opinion among the investigators about a certain
EP

mechanism. However, some researchers think that a combination of more than one mechanism might be behind the
DPR behavior for DPR agents. Another opinion said that the DPR is caused by the hysteresis effect. The hysteresis
effect is happening because fluids types would change in the target formation before and during the gel injection.
C

However, Liang et al., (1992) concluded that the hysteresis has no effect to create a DPR behavior.
In field applications, some operators think that the DPR phenomenon is not true or not practical (myth)
AC

(Botermans et al., 2001). This belief is coming from some bad results for DPR treatments in field applications.
However, Sydansk and Seright (2007) argue that DPR creates a big damage if it is used by inexperience operators.
We believe that there are special conditions which give green lights to use DPR in production wells. Therefore, this
work was conducted to simulate DPR fluid behavior in different scenarios to see when, where and at which
conditions, DPR treatments can give better results. The performance of DPR was evaluated by how much this
treatment would reduce the water cut and how much would affect the oil production at the effective-period of the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

DPR treatment. According to the guidelines from this study, it can be possible to predict the DPR performance
depending on the reservoir and well candidate conditions.

2. DPR in Field Applications

Although White et al., (1973) and Sydansk and Southwell (1998) reported excellent results for DPR
treatments in field applications, the performance of DPR treatments has been generally accompanied with a huge

PT
ambiguity even in the same reservoir with different wells (Faber et al., 1998). The selection criteria of the candidate
well have a significant impact on the treatment results (Zaitoun et al., 1999). However, the highest degree candidate
for DPR treatment might have disappointing results as compared with other wells if the candidate is not selected on

RI
a careful analysis (Zaitoun et al., 1999). The DPR technique is not only used for water channeling problems, but also
for water conning problems (Moffitt, 1993). The following field examples selected from different resources are

SC
good evidences to support this introduction.
The first example explains the DPR treatment performance in Marmul oil field in Oman which was
experiencing a low oil recovery due to its high oil viscosity (80mpa.s) (Faber et al., 1998). This field experienced an

U
early increasing water production because of the channeling and conning problems. The drive mechanism in this
field was a strong to moderate edge water drive. The properties of the reservoir as follow: T=115 oF,
AN
STOIIP=390*106 m3, very heterogeneous reservoir, K= (1-20 D), and water-oil mobility ratio (M=45). It had been
suggested to use the DPR fluid in the production wells to control the excessive water production. Cationic
M

polyacrylamide with glyoxal as a cross-linker were used as a DPR fluid. The treatment was done by injecting three
stages of DPR fluid with a gradual increase in the polymer concentration. The results of this treatment were as
follow. The first treatment was done for six wells. Five of the six wells which were treated gave positive results,
D

meaning a high reduction in the water cut and increasing in the oil flowrate. The second treatment was done for
eight wells, but all of them failed.
TE

The second example is about DPR applications in Mid-Continent Region. White et al., (1973) reported the
primary cases of the field applications which had an interesting success for the DPR fluid (polymer) in production
wells. These results were attractively encouraging due to the significant improvement in the oil production and a
EP

high reduction in the water production. Some people thought that the reason behind the increment in the oil
production resulted from the DPR treatment was due to the fact that the DPR fluid re-distributed the reservoir
C

pressure in that field (White et al., 1973). As water cut decreased, it would lead to more pressure available for the oil
production by improving both areal and vertical sweep efficiency. As general, all results which were reported by
AC

White et al., (1973) were approximately positive.

Third example is from different field applications conducted around the world and reported by Zaitoun et
al., (1999). They reported the conditions and results of the DPR applications conducted in horizontal wells in
Pelican Lake and South Winter. Four heavy-oil horizontal wells were treated, but only one well showed good results
in both of water cut reduction and an increment in the oil production. Some investigators thought that the reason
behind the success in that well only was due to the favorable mobility for the polymer invasion. This means that the
successful well appeared to have a high-water saturation near the wellbore as compared to other wells, where the
injected polymer invaded only the oil zone because the oil zones were the weaker zone (Zaitoun et al., 1999).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Zaitoun et al., (1999) reported some results for DPR applications in Chagritsk field (Russia) which had multiple
layers. Although DPR applications performed in the same field, there were varied results for those treatments. Some
wells responded positively and others negatively, with unknown reasons. To sum up, the lack of understanding for
where DPR can be successfully applied is behind this ambiguity. However, some researchers were convinced that
DPR can be generally applied in oil reservoirs with a linear flow and in some conditions of the oil reservoirs with a
radial flow (Seright, 2009; Seright website).

PT
3. Methodology

RI
.3.1 Gel Model Description. A chemical reaction between polymer and X-linker has been coupled within STARS
simulator to form an in-situ gel. Since the segregated pathways theory is the most acceptable mechanism for the

SC
DPR fluid (White et al., 1973; Liang et al., 1997; Stavland et al., 1998), it was simulated in this work. Some of in-
situ gels are considered as excellent DPR agents since there were many successful field DPR treatments conducted
by in-situ gels as reported by Faber et al., (1998). The gel type used in this study was a water-based in-situ gel with

U
concentrations illustrated in Table 2. The system was composed of cationic polyacrylamide and the crosslinker
glyoxal. The base for the polymer concentration is 3000ppm and for the x-linker concentration is 1500ppm. Also,
AN
we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the concentration after the scenarios of the base case were performed. The
rheological behavior of polymer is shown in Fig. 4. The reaction frequency factor between x-linker and polymer is
M

3240 which was taken from some reported cases. The reaction module which used in this simulator is depending on
the concentration of reactants (polymer + x-linker) to form the produced gel. The chemical stoichiometry
coefficients codes were used to simulate the reaction between the x-linker and the polymer. The reaction is
D

depending on temperature, but in this model, we used isothermal conditions ignoring the temperature effect on the
DPR performance. The total mass change of any component is calculated in the grid blocks. All the reaction rates in
TE

this paper have been built based on the approach of Scott et al., (1987). The parameter mentioned in their paper with
the symbol (K) was used to represent the reaction frequency factor. The K parameter was determined by using the
following equation:
EP



/ = (1)
 


Where:
/ is the time needed to convert a half of gelant into a gel. K is the reaction frequency factor.  is the
C

initial x-linker concentration.  is the initial polymer concentration.

AC

For Example, if the time needed to get a half of reactants (polymer and crosslinker) mixture converted into a gel is
(100 days) and you have a gelant with 1000 PPM of polymer and 20 PPM of crosslinker, the K will be calculated as
follows:

100 =  (.∗.) This will lead to K=5000000 (day-1)

Therefore, K physically represents how fast the gel would be formed from the interaction between the crosslinker
and the polymer.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.2 Gel Adsorption Model. Gel adsorption can be modeled in two ways in STARS simulator. The first way is by
taking lab data and implanting them in the model through inserting tables of components concentrations versus the
adsorption quantity. The second way is by using the Langmuir coefficients method. It is known that the adsorption
is a function of rock properties such as the density and mineralogy as well as gel properties and other operating
parameters. We might quantify the adsorption in the lab conditions and upscaled it to the field scale, but we think
there will be a clear difference between the adsorption in the lab scale versus the field scale. What we did in the

PT
models used in the paper is the following: Firstly, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to investigate the effect of the
adsorption parameters (a different range for each parameter of the adsorption model) on the performance of the

RI
RPMs. Then, we selected the range of adsorption values that would not make a significant impact difference on the
performance of RPMs. The purpose of this screening criteria is to eliminate the effect of adsorption on the RPMs
performance since the adsorption parameters are difficult to be quantified in the field scale. After that, we used the

SC
confidential range of the adsorption parameters to be inserted in the models of this paper as shown in Table 3. Our
adsorption model is done by using Langmuir coefficients correlation and the values of this correlation are shown in
Table 3. The second way of simulating the gel adsorption was used in this work, so we would discuss this method in

U
detail.
AN
3.3 Langmuir Coefficients Method. This method includes two steps to build an adsorption model: The first step
includes building adsorption component functions which include the name of component to which the adsorption
function would apply, phase from which the adsorbing component’s composition dependence would be taken (like
M

water, oil, gas), and temperature composition factor (CMG, STARS). In the step of the adsorption component
functions, there are three parameters which are adsorption isothermal parameters as shown in Table 3. The second
step includes relating the adsorption data to the rock properties, called rock-dependent adsorption data, which is
D

designing rock (permeability) dependence of adsorption information for component/phase. The second part contains
TE

some important parameters which need to be specified so the adsorption model would be corrected. The first
parameter is the maximum adsorption capacity and it should be positive. The second parameter is the residual
adsorption level and allowed to be in a range from 0 to the maximum adsorption-capacity value. A zero value means
EP

the adsorption is totally reversible. The third parameter is the accessible pore volume or a fraction of the pore
volume that is still available. This parameter is allowed in a range of 0 to 1. The accessible pore volume can be
expressed in another way which is one minus the fraction of pore volume that is not accessible to the component.
C

The adsorption properties such as the component adsorption and inaccessible pore volume depend on the formation
permeability. Reservoir heterogeneities make the adsorption properties to vary largely in different parts of reservoir
AC

and this is a good representation for what is going on in the field. Gel adsorption is one of the reasons that make gels
to reduce oil or water permeability (Eoff et al., 2003a).

3.4 Heterogeneous Linear-Flow System Description. It is known that the crossflow from one layer to another
resulted from one or all the four driving forces, capillary, viscous, gravity and dispersion which make the fluid flow
in the porous media (Zapata and Lake, 1981). Therefore; in this case, we used a linear reservoir system containing
two layers of a different permeability, with crossflow, with one producer and one injector to investigate the effect of
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

these forces on the DPR performance. A geometric coordinate system has three dimensions (i, j, k) was applied to
represent the reservoir dimensions in this model. The number of grids in x, y, z directions was 50, 1, and 6
respectively. The total number of grid blocks was 300. The OOIP is 4.56E+05 STB in an undersaturated reservoir
with initial pressure of 5000 psi. The dimensions of the first 5 blocks, which are close to the producer, have the
following dimensions, 20 feet in the x direction, 100 feet in the y direction, and 10 feet in the z direction while the
rest of grids have the following dimensions 50 ft, 100 ft, and 10 ft in x, y, and z respectively. The reason behind

PT
making the first ten grids, which are close, to the producer are smaller than the rest of grids is to see the small
changes in the saturation, gel penetration, and adsorption for these cells. We conducted a grid sensitivity by using

RI
different grid size for different scenarios. Using any other grid sizes, rather than the grid sizes shown in this
manuscript, might slightly change the values of water cut and oil recovery factor, but it would not change any of the
major conclusions for this paper. This grid size is sufficient for both visualization and the accuracy. Fig. 1 explains

SC
the 3D view of the linear system model which has two wells, one producer located in the block (1, 1, 1:6), and one
injector located in the block (50, 1, 1:6). The injection flowrate and production flowrate are equal to 600 STB/D.
The other fluid and reservoir properties are listed in Table 4. The data used for the relative permeability curves

U
before and after gel injection are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 consequently. We used a dead oil with a viscosity of
AN
1cP, density of 50 lb/ft3 and Bo of 1.0.

3.5 Heterogeneous Radial-Flow System. In this case, a reservoir system with a radial-flow has been constructed
M

containing two layers with one producer and four injectors. These two layers divided to six grids vertically to see
any change in the saturation or any other properties. The permeability of the top three grids in k-direction is equal to
1000 md (horizontal permeability) and 10000 md for the bottom three grids. The number of grids in x, y, z
D

directions was 97, 97, and 6 respectively. The total number of grid blocks was 56454. The OOIP is 1.87E+06 STB
TE

in an undersaturated reservoir with initial pressure of 5000 psi. Fig. 5 explains the 3-D view of radial-flow system
model. There are five wells, one producer located in the block (49, 49, 1:6), and four injectors located in the blocks
(1, 1, 1:6), (97, 97, 1:6), (1, 97, 1:6), (97, 1, 1:6) respectively. The same operating parameters, fluid properties and
EP

reservoir criteria which were described for the linear-flow system were used in the radial-flow system. Also, the
rock and fluid data are the same as in the linear-flow system. The main purpose of the simplicity for the models
constructed is to understand the main mechanisms of RPMs in the field scale and how these mechanisms would
C

impact the reservoir performance. Also, this study gives a clear physical understanding for the factors controlling the
success and failure of RPMs agents by providing all the reasonings from the reservoir engineering prospective.
AC

Adding more uncertainties and complications to the constructed models would make this paper without any new
outcomes due to the interaction effects for different parameters because of the reservoir complexity. We believe that
adding more heterogeneity into the model would enhance the performance of RPM gels in all scenarios without
changing the main conclusions of this study. The enhancement in the performance of RPM gels is directly
proportional to the degree of the reservoir heterogeneity. This happens due to the theory of the segregated pathways
mechanism which is the main reason behind the RPM gels behavior. To sum up, increasing the reservoir
heterogeneity would enhance the segregated pathways mechanism for the RPM gels. Two cases for both of linear-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

flow system and radial-flow system were used to investigate the effect of the crossflow on the DPR performance:
One case with crossflow by setting the vertical permeability to one tenth of horizontal permeability and another case
without crossflow by representing shale barrier conditions.

4. Results and Discussion

PT
4.1 Where Can DPR Be Applied?
4.1.1 Short-Term DPR Applications: Linear and Radial Flow Systems with Crossflow. Initially, the model was run

RI
normally without DPR treatment for 4 years by water flooding process as shown in Fig. 8-A. After one year from
starting the production, the water cut reached to 80% as shown in Table 5 and Fig. 10. This water production
happened due to the poor sweep efficiency which was due to the channeling problems because that the lower zone

SC
has a permeability of 10 times greater than that permeability for the upper zone as shown in Fig. 8-A. At water cut
equals to 80%, DPR fluid with concentrations listed in Table 2 was injected in the production well. The DPR fluid
volume of 2000 bbl was injected in two days. The injected amount of gelant created a range of water residual

U
resistance factor as shown in Fig. 7. The distribution of the adsorbed gel in the grids is shown in Fig. 6. We notice
AN
that the gel penetration depth in the water zone is greater than that for the oil zone, and this is a good representation
for the proposal of the segregated pathways mechanism as shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.

•
M

Water blocking problem: After 5 days of shut-in for all the wells following the placement of the DPR
agent, the production process was resumed. In the first a few couple days of DPR post-treatment, the water-
cut reduced from 80% to 0%, then the water cut started to increase gradually as shown in Table 5. The
D

reason causing this gradual downgrading for the DPR performance is due to the fact that the water in the
lower zone crossed to the upper zone as shown in the 3-D graph of Fig. 8-B. We notice that the water
TE

crossed-in directly in the front of the gel penetration region because the water would take the less-
resistance pathway. After water crossed to the oil zone, the water started to build-up. As water saturation
build-up increased, the water permeability increased, and the oil permeability decreased, so this process led
EP

to increase the water cut and decrease the oil flowrate (Ligthelm 2001; Gludicellie and Truchetet 1993;
Kalfayan and Dawson 2004). Also, there is a large quantity of the remaining oil in the front of the water
C

building-up sector as shown in Fig. 8-B. Increasing the number of layers would not change the conclusions
of this paper or reduce the water blocking problems. This is very well consistent with the conclusions
AC

which have been reported by Sydansk and Seright, (2007). The same scenario also happened in the radial-
flow system. However, the DPR performance in the linear-flow system is better than the radial-flow system
because there is one direction for the water stream in the linear system while in the radial system, the flow
came from about all directions, from the four injectors, so using the same total gel volume would have less
impact on the water-cut reduction for the radial-flow system as in the linear one. As far as the penetration
depth of the DPR fluid increased, the DPR performance would increase (Alfarge et al., 2017). However,
this conclusion is correct if the gel damage to the oil zone is very small or neglected (ideal DPR treatment).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• Viscous-Gravity Number (Ngv): The Viscous-Gravity Number (Ngv) is one of the dimensionless group
used to determining the fluids flow type (whether it is viscous dominated, or gravity dominated). When
this Ngv is greater than 10, the flow is gravity dominated. However, when this Ngv is less than 0.1, the flow
is viscous dominated. The following equation is used to quantify the Viscous-Gravity Number (Ngv):

 ∆ () 
 = (field units) (2)

PT
 ∆(! ) "

Where: Ngv is the Viscous-Gravity Number, # is the vertical permeability, ∆ρ is the water-density
difference, α is the dip angle, L is the length of the reservoir, $" is the horizontal permeability, and ∆(%" )

RI
is the pressure difference along the horizontal component. Therefore, the Viscous-Gravity Number (Ngv)
physically equals to the ratio of the time which any fluid needs to move horizontally between two specific

SC
points to the time which that fluid needs to move vertically between two specific points. Fig. 9 gives a
clear explanation for the Viscous-Gravity Number (where Ngv=tAB/tBC in Fig. 9).

U
• DPR effective period: In this paper, the DPR effective period is defined as the effective time that DPR
AN
agent would last in reducing the water cut of the well before the water cut goes back to the pre-treatment
projection value. For example, we have a well that has a pre-treatment water cut of 80%. Then, the DPR
treatment was performed, and reduced the water cut to 0%. After 90 days in the post-treatment, the water
M

cut raised to 83% to be intersected with the pre-treatment water cut projection curve. This means that the
DPR effective period is 90 days. Fig. 10 gives a clear explanation about the DPR effective period.
D

• How can water blocking problem be solved? The most important question is how we can prevent the
TE

water from crossing to the oil zone or oil pathways, so we can increase the effective-period of DPR
treatment to more than 90 days as reported in Table 5. It is known that there are three main forces,
capillary forces, viscous forces, and gravity forces in stratified reservoirs controlling water flooding process
EP

which are function of the production flowrate, fluid and reservoir properties (Zapata and Lake 1981). In our
case of DPR treatment, which has a production rate of 600 STB/D with fluid and reservoir properties listed
in Table 4, it would give an effective DPR period of 90 days. To increase the effective DPR period, we
C

need to prevent the water from crossing to the oil zone and this can be done by making the fluid flow is a
viscous dominated flow. However, the gravity-viscous number is a function of fluid properties, rock
AC

properties, and the production flowrate. Most of rock and fluid properties are out of our control. Therefore,
we can only predict the DPR performance depending on the reservoir and fluid data. As a result, the DPR
performance would enhance if the flow regime is viscous dominated rather than gravity dominated.
However, the only parameter which we can control is the production flowrate, so if the flowrate is reduced,
the DPR performance would be enhanced and vice versa. However, the production rate, which prevents the
vertical crossflow of water to the oil zone, needs to be always optimized after the DPR treatment
conducted, and that flowrate might be not economic in some situations of reservoir and well conditions.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The concept of controlling the production rate to enhance the DPR performance should be similar to the
concept of controlling the production rate to mitigate the water and gas coning problems.

4.1.2 Long-Term DPR Applications: Linear and Radial Flow Systems Without Crossflow. At the beginning, the
base case of this model was run normally without DPR treatment for 4 years by water flooding. All reservoir and
fluid properties are the same as in the previous case except that the vertical permeability is equal to zero to simulate

PT
the shale-barrier conditions. After one year of the production, the water cut reached to 80% as shown in Fig. 12.
This high-water production happened due to the poor sweep efficiency which came from the channeling problems

RI
because the lower zone has a permeability which is 10 times greater than the permeability in the upper zone as
shown in Fig. 11-A. At water cut equals to 80%, DPR fluid with concentrations listed in Table 2 was injected in
the production well. The DPR fluid volume is 2000 bbl injected in two days. After 5 days of shut-in process for all

SC
the wells following the DPR treatment, the production process was resumed. The water-cut reduced from 80% to
65% and the oil flowrate increased. These improvements in the production well performance lasted for 455 days
which are much longer as compared with the previous case as shown in Table 6, then the water cut raised suddenly

U
to 90% because both of the two layers are watered-out as we have seen in Fig. 12 and Fig. 11-B. The reason
AN
causing the reduction in the water-cut to be limited to only 15% is due to the ratio of Frrw to Frro which has been
used in this model where the same gel properties of the previous case used for comparison purposes. Moreover, in
this case, which has no crossflow in a stratified reservoir with a high permeability (10000 md) in the lower zone
M

and 1000 md in the upper zone, these conditions would require a significant value for Frrw/Frro to resist or block
the water flow from the lower zone due to the restriction from the barrier as compared to the with-crossflow case.
The same scenario happened in the radial system without crossflow case.
D
TE

4.1.3 Comparison between DPR Performances under Aquifer versus Water Flooding. Some researchers
reported that DPR can be used to treat both of channeling problems in oil and gas reservoirs and water conning
problems (Liang et al. 1993; Stavland et al. 1998; Botermans et al. 2001). That conclusion motivated us to compare
EP

the DPR performance in aquifer cases versus edge-water flooding scenarios in a multilayer reservoir. The same
model of the linear-flow system with crossflow and the radial-flow system with crossflow are run under the edge-
water flooding and aquifer to compare DPR results in different conditions. The results indicated that DPR
C

performance under water flooding is slightly better than that under aquifer in the linear-flow system as clear in Fig.
13. However, in the radial-flow system, the results are the same. Why is that happening? In the linear-flow system,
AC

the aquifer has an equal contact with all bottom parts of the reservoir. Therefore, the drainage area for the production
well would apply a significant pressure drop on the gel treatment so the DPR treatment would be less pronounced.
However, in the edge water flooding, the injector is in the opposite side, which means that DPR fluid has not been
affected too much by the small pressure drop which is close to the production wells area. However, in the radial-
flow system, four injectors were used which could act like aquifer especially in the situations, in which the high-
permeability layer is in the lower zone, in the same direction of the gravity help (Dake, 1978).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.1.4 Comparison between DPR Performances in Thin Reservoirs versus Thick Reservoirs. For both linear-
flow system and radial-flow system with crossflow, reservoirs models with different thickness have been run. The
purpose of this comparison is to see which reservoir is the best candidate for the DPR treatment, the thick or thin
reservoir. The first model is a linear-flow system with crossflow, each layer has a thickness about 100 ft while the
thickness of each layer in the second model is about 40 ft. Both models have the same reservoir, fluids, and
operating conditions. Initially, after running both models without DPR treatment, under water flooding mechanism,

PT
it has been noticed that the oil recovery factor for the thin reservoir is 52% while the oil recovery in the thick
reservoir is 42 % as shown in Fig. 14. The reasoning causing this difference in the primary oil recovery is due to the

RI
difference in the sweep efficiency for thin reservoirs as in thick reservoirs. The sweep efficiency in thin reservoirs is
much better than that for thick reservoirs because the gravity segregation is more pronounced in thick reservoirs
(Dake, 1978). At water cut equals to 80% in both models, the DPR treatment was performed with the same

SC
parameters in both models. We noticed that the water cut reduced in the thin reservoir by 6% and the oil recovery
factor improved by 0.5%. However, in the thick reservoir, the water cut reduced by 16 % and oil recovery factor
improved by 6% as shown in Fig. 14. The physical reasoning causing this difference in the DPR performance in thin

U
reservoirs as in thick reservoirs is under two reasons. The first reason is that the thick reservoir helps the gel to be
AN
segregated into the water zone and block the water movement because both gel and water have approximately the
same density. Therefore; the water-cut reduction in the thick reservoir is higher than that for thin reservoirs, and the
same reasoning would be held for the oil recovery factor improvement. The second reason is that, in thick reservoirs,
M

the gravity forces overcomes the viscous forces. Therefore, the water does not cross to the oil zone and does not
cause water build-up effect. On the other hand, the confining process form the gravity force is very small in thin
reservoirs as compared to thick reservoirs. Therefore, the viscous forces would overcome the gravity forces in thin
D

reservoir and make water crossing to the oil zone in a significant rate causing water build-up problems. As a result,
TE

water blocking effect would be enhanced and the DPR performance would be downgraded. To sum up, for all the
previous reasons, the DPR performance in thick reservoirs is better than that in thin reservoirs, so thick reservoirs
are good candidates for the DPR treatments.
EP

4.1.5 Comparison between DPR Performances in Stratified Reservoirs When High-Permeability Zone in
Different Positions. The wondering is whether DPR can give the same performance when the high-permeability
C

layer is in the upper zone versus as in the lower zone. We used two models have the same criteria except one, where
the high-k (10000md) in the top once, and in the bottom for another scenario. Firstly, after both models were run
AC

under the water flooding mechanism, without DPR treatment, it has been noticed that the oil recovery factor for the
reservoir of a high-k in the upper zone is 56 % while the oil recovery in the reservoir of a high-k in the lower zone is
42.5 % as shown in Fig.15. The reasoning causing this behavior is that the sweep efficiency by the water flooding in
the reservoir of a high-k layer in the upper zone is normally better than the sweep efficiency in the reservoir with a
high-k layer in the lower zone because the gravity segregation is more pronounced in the last one (Dake, 1978). At a
water-cut of 80% in both models, the DPR-treatment was performed with the same parameters in both models. We
noticed that the oil recovery factor improvement for the reservoir with a high-k in the upper zone was improved by
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.5 % while the oil-recovery factor improvement in the reservoir with the high-k layer in the lower zone was
improved by 5 % as shown in Fig. 15. And, the water cut for the reservoir with a high-k in the upper zone was
reduced by 4 % while the water cut in the reservoir with a high-k in the lower zone was reduced by 20 %. The
reasoning behind this difference in the DPR performances is under two reasons. The first reason is that, in the
reservoir with a high-k in the lower zone, the gravity helps more gels to be segregated into water-zone and block the
water movement because both gel and water have approximately the same density. Therefore; the water cut

PT
reduction in the reservoir with a high-k in the lower-zone was higher than as in the reservoir with a high-k in the
upper zone. The second reason is that, in the reservoir with a high-k in the lower zone, there is gravity forces which

RI
reduce the viscous forces contribution leading to reduce the water from fingering and crossing to the oil zone. On
the other hand, there is no gravity force in the reservoir with a high-k in the upper zone to reduce the crossing water
to the oil zone, but in this case, the gravity forces and viscous forces are in the same direction which is downward

SC
toward the oil zone. The late case makes water crossing into the oil zone in a significant rate causing a significant
water build-up effect.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.1.6 DPR Application in Hydraulically Fractured Reservoirs. Since the hydraulic fracturing process is widely
used around the world in current days, DPR is required to be injected as pre-pad or in pad because the hydraulic
fracture is going to propagate through oil water contact in many cases (Armirola et al., 2010). Therefore; using DPR
during or after hydraulic-fracturing process is very beneficial to reduce the water production and allowing oil to be
produced easily since the DPR fluid would be adsorbed on the fracture faces. Also, many people reported that when
the hydraulic fracturing process performed in many of gas and oil reservoirs, the water production rate would

PT
increase in post-treatment period as in pre-treatment period. This happens because the fracture would break down to
the water zone which creates connected pathways to the oil zone. Therefore, the common question is whether the

RI
DPR treatment can control the water production in hydraulically fractured reservoirs or not. In our work, we
investigated the possibility of using the DPR treatment to control the water production and the factors impacting the
DPR performance in hydraulically fractured reservoirs. The model used for this purpose has the criteria listed in

SC
Table 7. We created another rock type of permeability curves for the fracture model as shown in Fig. 18 and Fig.
19. We injected the DPR fluid at a water cut of 80% after the hydraulic fracture was created. We concluded the
following points from many scenarios done for fractured reservoirs. First, we found that the DPR treatment can give

U
better results when crossflow exists among layers rather than if there is no crossflow among layers which is the
AN
opposite to what happens in non-fractured reservoirs. This difference in the DPR performance can be explained by
the dragging force concept. If the crossflow existed among the reservoir layers, this would reduce the dragging
force on the gel adsorbed on the fracture faces. As a result, this reduction in the dragging force would increase the
M

DPR criteria on fracture faces. Second, the DPR performance was not strong function of fracture dimensions if the
crossflow existed among layers. For example, when we changed the fracture width from 0.01 ft to 0.001 ft, it did not
enhance the DPR performance or downgrade it. On the other hand, if we changed the fracture width from 0.01 ft to
D

0.001 ft, while there is no crossflow among reservoir layers, that would enhance DPR performance at a significant
TE

trend so that the effective period of gel would be increased by 3 times. The reasons behind this behavior are that the
restriction of gel on water molecules would be so strong as far as the fracture width is small. Also, increasing the
fracture width would increase the drawdown between the fracture and the matrix which lead to reduce the gel
EP

resistance. Therefore, the DPR performance would reduce. Third, the height of fracture (hf) has a significant impact
on the DPR performance if there is no crossflow existed among layers. We found that when the height of fracture
increased, the DPR performance enhanced. For example, when the fracture height changed from 80 ft to 160 ft, it
C

might increase the effective period of gel for about 3 times. We can explain that through enhancing the gravity
segregation in the fractures of 160 ft thickness as compared with 80 ft ones. This segregation would make more gel
AC

flowing to the water zone as compared with the oil zone. The pressure distribution inside the fracture model with
time is shown in Fig. 20. After many scenarios were run to quantify the DPR treatment performance and to conduct
the physical analysis in the fractured reservoirs, we summarized the change in the DPR performance as a function of
reservoir and fracture parameters in Table 8.
After the results were obtained from the previous scenarios, the answer for where DPR can
successfully applied is summarized in the flow chart as shown in Fig. 17.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.2 When Can DPR Be Applied? For all cases, the DPR treatment applied at different values of water cut which are
50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%, and 95%. This work was done to find when DPR can be successfully applied and how
the pre-treatment water cut affects the DPR performance. We concluded that DPR can give better results in both
water-cut reduction and oil-recovery improvement when it is applied at a lower water cut which means as soon as
possible as shown in Fig. 16. For example, in the linear-flow system with crossflow case, water cut could be reduced
by 35%, 31%, 28%, 25%, 20%, and 10% if the DPR treatment applied at a water cut of 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%,

PT
and 95% respectively. Also, the oil recovery could be increased by 7%, 5%, 3%, 2.5%, 2%, 1.5% respectively. The
other three cases could have the same trend, but with different values. We noticed the rank of DPR performance

RI
from the best model to worse model as linear-flow without crossflow, linear-flow with crossflow, radial-flow
without crossflow, and radial-flow system with crossflow respectively. The reasoning for applying DPR treatment
at a low water cut value is more successful than at a high-water cut is that the oil pathways are usually not

SC
continuous and not connected at a high water cut. While DPR treatment needs more oil channels connected after
DPR treatment performed, DPR treatment would not be pronounced at a high water cut conditions because the oil
molecules would be encapsulated by water molecules. To sum up, starting DPR treatment earlier gives better results.

U
AN
5. Conclusions
Different cases and scenarios were simulated for different conditions of hydrocarbon reservoirs to investigate when,
M

where, and at which conditions, DPR treatments can be successfully applied. Although it is clear that the success
conditions for DPR treatments appear to depend on many factors, some of these factors should be considered as
primary factors with a significant impact such as the crossflow while other factors should be considered as
D

secondary factors such as the thickness of the reservoir. From this study, we can draw the following conclusions:
TE

• DPR performance was excellent in both of water-cut reduction and oil-recovery improvement when the
flow regime was viscous dominated (viscous-gravity number<0.1).
• DPR can be successfully applied in thick reservoirs rather than thin reservoirs.
EP

• When a hydrocarbon reservoir has the high-K layer in the bottom zone is a good candidate for the DPR
treatment as compared when the high-K layer in the upper zone.
• DPR treatment is generally more pronounced in the edge water drive rather than in the bottom water drive
C

conditions.
• Conducting DPR treatment at a lower water cut might be very beneficial as compared with performing
AC

DPR treatments at a later time.

• The performance of DPR treatment in hydraulically-fractured reservoirs would be more significant in the
cases which have crossflow among reservoir layers rather than the cases of no-crossflow.
• DPR performance is not strong function of the fracture parameters if crossflow existed among the
reservoir layers. However, DPR performance is strong function of the fracture parameters in cases of no-
crossflow.
• The width of hydraulic fractures has a negative impact on DPR performance. The performance of DPR
treatments would be downgraded if performed in a reservoir with a wide fracture.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• The height of the fractures has a positive impact on DPR performance.

Acknowledgment
We greatly acknowledge the Higher Committee for Education Development (HCED) in Iraq for their financial

PT
support. Also, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and the fruitful
discussions that created a significant impact on this paper.

RI
Nomenclature
ADMAX Maximum Adsorption Capacity, lbmole/ft3

SC
DOE Design of Experiments
DPR Disproportionate Permeability Reduction

U
Frro Residual Resistance Factor for Oil Phase
Frrw Residual Resistance Factor for Water Phase
AN
K Permeability
K1/K2 Ratio of High-Permeability Zone to Low-Permeability Zone
M

Perm-k Vertical Permeability

Qo Oil Flowrate (STB/day)
D

RPM Relative Permeability Modifiers

RRFT Residual Resistance Factor for the Adsorbing Component in Rock Type
TE

SCTR Sector
Bo Oil Formation Volume Factor
EP

References
C

Alfarge, D. K., Wei, M., and Bai, B. Numerical simulation study of factors affecting relative permeability modification for
water-shutoff treatments, In Fuel, Volume 207, 2017, Pages 226-239, ISSN 0016-2361,
AC

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.06.041.

Al-Sharji HH, Grattoni CA, Dawe RA, Zimmerman RW. (2001). Disproportionate permeability reduction due to polymer
adsorption entanglement. Paper SPE 68972 SPE European formation damage conference, 21–22 May, The Hague,
Netherlands; 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/68972-MS.

Al-Sharji, H.H., Grattoni, C.A., Dawe, R.A., and Zimmerman, R.W. 1999. Pore-Scale Study of the Flow of Oil and Water
through Polymer Gels. Paper SPE 56738 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, 3–6 October. DOI: 10.2118/56738-MS.

.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Armirola, F., Machacon, M., Romero R., Perez, G., Lastre, M., Ortega, A., and Milne, A. 2010. A New Approach to
Hydraulic Fracturing With Relative Permeability Modifiers. Paper SPE 138926 was prepared to present at the SPE
Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Lima, Peru, 1–3 December 2010.

Botermans, C.W., Van Batenburg, D.W. and Bruining, J. 2001. Relative Permeability Modifiers: Myth or Reality. Paper SPE
68973 presented at the 2001 European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherland, May 21-22.

PT
Computer Modeling Group, STARS Manual. Https: www.CMG.Ca/ accessed 2015.

Dake, L.P.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York, (1978) 349-428.

RI
Dunlap, D.D., Boles, J.L., and Novotny, R.J. 1986. Method for Improving Hydrocarbon/Water Ratios in Producing Wells.
Paper SPE 14822 presented at the SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26-27
February. DOI 10.2118/14822-MS.

SC
Eoff, L., Dalrymple, D., Reddy, B.R., and Everett, D.M. 2003a. Structure and Process Optimization For the use of a Polymer
Relative Permeability Modifier in Conformance Control. SPEJ 8 (3): 92-98. SPE-84951-PA. DOI: 10.2118/84951-
PA.

U
Eoff, L., Dalrymple, D., Reddy, B.R., Morgan, J., and Frampton, H. 2003b. Development of Hydrophobically Modified
Water-Soluble Polymer as a Selective Bullhead System for Water-Production Problems. Paper SPE 80206
AN
presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 5-7 February. DOI:
10.2118/80206-MS.

Faber, M. J., Joosten G. J. P., Hashmi, K. A., and Gruenenfelder, M. 1998. Water Shut-off Field Experience with a Relative
M

Permeability Modification System in The Marmul Field (Oman). Paper SPE 39633 presented at the 1998
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Oklahoma, 19–22 April. DOI: 10.2118/39633-MS.
D

Gludicellie, C.B and Truchetet, R.A. 1993. Prediction of the Oil Rate Increment with Water Profile Control by Polymer
TE

Injection. Paper SPE 26608 presented at the SPE annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6
October. DOI: 10.2118/39633-MS.

Grattoni, C.A., Jing, X.D., and Zimmerman, R.W. 2001. Disproportionate Permeability Reduction When a Silicate Gel Is
Formed In-Situ to Control Water Production. Paper SPE 69534 presented at the SPE Latin American and
EP

Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 25–28 March. DOI: 10.2118/69534-MS.

Hill F, Monroe S, Mohanan R. Water management—an increasing trend in the oil and gas industry. Presented at the SPE/EAGE
european unconventional resources conference and exhibition, Vienna, 20–22 March; 2012. SPE-154720-MS.
C

http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/154720-MS.

Kalfayan, L.J. and Dawson, J.C 2004. Successful Implementation of Resurgent Relative Permeability Modifier (RPM)
AC

Technology in Well Treatment Requires Realistic Expectations. Paper SPE 90430 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Meeting and Exhibition, Houston, 26-29 September. DOI: 10.2118/90430-MS.

Kohler, N., Rahbari, R., Ming, H., and Zaitoun, A. 1983. Weak Gel Formulations for Selective Control of Water Production
in High-Permeability and High-Temperature Production Wells. Paper SPE 25225 presented at the SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, New Orleans, 2–5 March. DOI: 10.2118/25225-MS.

Krishnan P, Asghari K, Willhite GP, McCool CS, Green DW, Vossoughi S. Dehydration and permeability of gels used in in-situ
permeability modification treatments. Society of petroleum engineers; 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/59347-MS.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Liang J, and Seright RS. (2000). Wall-effect/gel-droplet model of disproportionate permeability reduction. Society of petroleum
engineers; 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/59344-MS.

Liang, J., and Seright, R.S. 1997. Further Investigations of Why Gels Reduce kw More Than ko. Paper SPE 37249 presented
at the 1997 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 18–21 February.

Liang, J., Lee, R.L., and Seright, R.S. 1993. Gel Placement in Production Wells. SPEPF8 (1): 276–284; Trans., AIME295.
SPE-20211-PA. DOI: 10.2118/20211-PA.

PT
Liang, J., Sun, H. and Seright, R.S. 1992. Reduction of Oil and Water Permeabilities Using Gels. Paper SPE 24195
presented at SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22–24 April.

RI
Liang, J.-T., Sun, H., and Seright, R.S. 1995. Why Do Gels Reduce Water Permeability More Than Oil Permeability?
SPERE 10 (4): 282–286; Trans., AIME, 299. SPE-27829-PA. DOI: 10.2118/27829-PA.

Ligthelm, D.J 2001. Water Shut Off in Gas Wells: Is there Scope for Chemical Treatment? Paper SPE 68978 presented at the

SC
SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, 21-22 May. DOI: 10.2118/68978-PA.

Mennella, A., Chiappa, L., Lockhart, T., and Burrafato, G. 2001. Candidate and Chemical Selection Guidelines for Relative
Permeability Modification (RPM) Treatments. SPEPF16 (3): 181–188. SPE-72056-PA. DOI: 10.2118/72056-PA.

U
AN
Moffitt, P. D. (1993, April 1). Long-Term Production Results of Polymer Treatments on Producing Wells in Western Kansas.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/22649-PA.

Morgan, J. et al. 2002. Development and Deployment of a “Bullheadable” Chemical System for Selective Water Shut Off
M

Leaving Oil/Gas Production Unharmed. Paper SPE 78540 Presented at the SPE Abu Dhabi International
Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 13-16 October. DOI: 10.2118/78540-
MS.
D
TE

Nilsson, S., Stavland A., and Jonsbraten, H. C. 1998. Mechanistic Study of Disproportionate Permeability Reduction. Paper
SPE 39635 presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Oklahoma, 19–22 April. DOI:
10.2118/39635-MS.
EP

Prado Paez M, Rauseo O, Reyna M, Ferreira I. Evaluation of the effect of oil viscosity on the disproportionate permeability
reduction of a polymeric gel used for controlling excess water production. Society of petroleum engineers; 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/121499-MS.
C
AC

Rousseau, D. et al.: “Rheology and Transport in Porous Media of New Water Shutoff/Conformance Control Microgels,”
paper SPE 93254, presented at the 2005 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands,
TX, Feb. 2-4.

Schneider, F.N. and Owens, W.W. 1982. Steady- State Measurements of Relative Permeability for Polymer/Oil System.
SPEJ (February): 79-86. SPE-9408-PA. DOI: 10.2118/9408-PA.

Scott, T., Roberts, L. J., Sharp, S. R., Clifford, P. J., & Sorbie, K. S. (1987, November 1). In-Situ Gel Calculations in
Complex Reservoir Systems Using a New Chemical Flood Simulator. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
doi:10.2118/14234-PA.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Seright, R.S. 1995. Reduction of Gas and Water Permeabilities Using Gels. SPEPF 10 (2) 103–108. SPE- 25855 -PA. DOI:
10.2118/ 25855 –PA.

Seright RS. Polymer gel dehydration during extrusion through fractures. Society of petroleum engineers; 1999.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/56126-PA.

Seright, R.S. 2009. Disproportionate Permeability Reduction with Pore-Filling Gels. SPEJ 14 (1):5–13. SPE-99443-PA.
DOI: 10.2118/99443-PA.

PT
Seright RS. Optimizing disproportionate permeability reduction. Paper SPE 99443 SPE/DOE symposium on improved oil
recovery, Tulsa, 22–26 April; 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99443-MS.

RI
Seright Website: http://www.prrc.nmt.edu/groups/res-sweep/. Excessed 2016.

SC
Seright, R.S., Liang, J., Lindquist, W.B., Dunsmuir J.H. (2002). characterizing disproportionate permeability reduction using
synchrotron X-ray computed microtomography SPEREE, 5 (5) (2002), pp. 355-364, 10.2118/79717-PA
SPE-79717-PA.

U
AN
Sparlin, D.D. 1976. An Evaluation of Polyacrylamides for Reducing Water Production. SPEJ 28 (8) 906–914. SPE-27829-
PA. DOI: 10.2118/5610-PA.
M

Stanley, F.O., Tanggu, P.S., Marnoch, E., and Marnoch, H. 1997. Amphoteric Polymer Improves Hydrocarbon/Water Ratios
in Producing Wells—An Indonesian Case Study.SPEPF12 (3): 181–186. SPE-37016-PA. DOI: 10.2118/37016-
PA.
D

Stavland A. and Nilsson, S., 1998. Segregated Flow is the Governing Mechanism of Disproportionate Permeability
TE

Reduction in Water and Gas Shutoff. Paper SPE 71510 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October. DOI: 10.2118/71510-MS.
EP

Sydansk, R.D. and Seright, R. S.: “When and Where Relative Permeability Modification Water-Shutoff Treatments Can Be
Successfully Applied,” SPE Production & Facilities, Vol.22 (2), 236-247, 2007. DOI: 10.2118/99371-PA.

Sydansk, R.D., Xiong, Y., Al-Dhafeeri, A., Schrader, R., and Seright, R. S. 2005. Characterization of Partially Formed
C

Polymer Gels for Application to Fractured Production Wells for Water Shut off Purposes. SPE Prod & Fac 20(3):
240-249. SPE-89401-PA. DOI: 10.2118/ 89401-PA.
AC

Sydansk, R. D., & Southwell, G. P. (1998, January 1). More Than 12 Years of Experience with a Successful Conformance-
Control Polymer Gel Technology. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/49315-MS.

White, J.L., Goddard, J.E., and Phillips, H.M. 1973. Use of Polymers to Control Water Production in Oil Wells. SPEJ25 (2)
143–150. SPE-3672-PA. DOI: 10.2118/3672-PA.

Willhite, G.P. 2002. Mechanisms Causing Disproportionate Permeability in Porous Media Treated With Chromium
Acetate/HPAAM Gels. SPEJ 7 (1): 100–108. SPE-77185-PA. DOI: 10.2118/77185-PA.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Yan, Z., McCool, C.S., Green, D.W., and Willhite, G.P.: “Modification of oil and water permeabilities in Berea sandstone by
a gel treatment”, SPE 50753 presented at the 1999 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in
Houston, Texas, 16-19 February 1999.

Zaitoun, A. and Kohler N. 1988. Two-Phase Flow through Porous Media: Effect of an Adsorbed Polymer Layer. Paper SPE
18085 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 2–5 October.

Zaitoun, A. and Kohler N. 1991. Thin Polyacrylamide Gels for Water Control in High-Permeability Production Wells. Paper

PT
SPE 22785 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 6–9 October.

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 Annual Technical Conference

RI
and Exhibition, Houston, 3–6 October. DOI: 10.2118/56740-MS.

Zapata, V.J. and Lake, L.W.: (1981)"A Theoretical Analysis of Viscous Crossflow," paper SPE 101 11 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 5-7.

SC
Zitha, P.L.J., Vermolen, F.J., and Bruining, H. 1999. Modification of Two Phase Flow Properties by Adsorbed Polymers or
Gels. Paper SPE54737 presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The
Netherlands, 31 May 1 June. DOI: 10.2118/54737-MS.

U
AN
Dheiaa Alfarge, SPE, he is a PhD Candidate at Missouri University of Science and Technology, specializing in petroleum
engineering. Previously, he was a drilling Engineer in Maysan Oil Company. He has about 2 years of experience working in oil
fields. His research interests include enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and unconventional reservoirs. He holds a bachelor’s degree in
petroleum engineering from University of Bagdad and master’s degree in petroleum engineering from Missouri University of
Science and Technology.
M

Mingzhen Wei, she is an assistant professor of petroleum engineering at Missouri University of Science and Technology, where
she has been since 2012. Her research interests include unconventional oil and gas resources, EOR, reservoir simulation, and data
analytics and data mining applied in the oil and gas industry. Wei has authored or coauthored more than 50 technical papers. She
holds a PhD degree in computer science from New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; an MS degree in reservoir
D

engineering from China University of Petroleum, Beijing; and a BS degree in petroleum engineering from China University of
Petroleum, Huadong. Wei is a member of SPE.
Baojun Bai, he is the Lester R. Birbeck Endowed Chair professor of petroleum engineering at Missouri University of Science
TE

and Technology. Previously, he was a reservoir engineer and head of the conformance-control team at the Research Institute of
Petroleum Exploration and Development, Petro China. Bai was also a post-doctoral scholar at the California Institute of
Technology and a graduate research assistant at the New Mexico Petroleum Recovery Research Center for EOR projects. He has
more than 20 years of experience in the area of EOR, especially in gel treatments. Bai has published more than 130 papers in the
area of EOR methods and application. He holds a PhD degree in petroleum engineering from New Mexico Institute of Mining
EP

and Technology and a PhD degree in Petroleum geology from China University of Geoscience, Beijing. Bai served on the
editorial committee of the Journal of Petroleum Technology for the feature of EOR Performance and Modeling during 2007–13.
He is a technical editor for SPE Journal and SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. Bai is a member of SPE.
Abdullah Almansour, he is a petroleum engineer who has been working as academic researcher at National Center for Oil &
Gas Technology at King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) since 2009. His interest and objective are to
C

Enhance Oil Recovery and investigations of rock characterizations in general and carbonate and sandstone reservoirs in particular
for Saudi Arabia. He earned his B.S. degree in petroleum geology from King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah-Saudi Arabia in
AC

2004, M.S. in Information Technology from western Oregon University in 2008, and his Ph.D. in petroleum engineering from
Missouri University of Science and Technology in 2014.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig.1: 3-D view of linear-flow system of two layers
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.2: The relative permeability curves for the matrix model used before DPR treatments
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig.3: The relative permeability curves for the matrix model used after DPR treatments
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.4: The rheological behavior of the polymer used in the simulated models
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig.5: 3-D View of the radial -flow system (five spot-pattern of two layers)
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 6: Adsorbed Gel amount distribution through the simulated reservoir (linear-flow system with two
layers)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig.7: Frrw distribution through the simulated reservoir (linear-flow system with two layers)
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

A-Before DPR Treatment B-After DPR Treatment

Fig.8: Oil saturation distribution after ten years from the water flooding (linear-flow system, with two
layers, with crossflow)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig.9: Layout explaining the concept of the Viscous-Gravity Number (Ngv) in the reservoirs engineering
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.10: Water cut versus time before and after DPR treatment (linear-flow system with two layers and
crossflow existed)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
A-Before DPR Treatment B-After DPR Treatment
Fig.11: Oil saturation distribution after ten years from the water flooding (linear-flow
system, with two layers, without crossflow)
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.12: Water cut versus time before and after DPR treatment (linear-flow system with two
layers, without crossflow)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Fig. 13: Water cut versus time; before and after DPR treatment (comparison between DPR performances
under aquifer versus water flooding)
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.2 Oil recovery factor versus time; before and after DPR treatment (comparison between DPR
performances in thin reservoirs versus thick reservoirs)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M

Fig.3: Oil recovery factor versus time; before and after the DPR treatment (comparison between DPR
performances when the high-k in lower zone versus when the high-k in the upper zone)
D

45
TE

40

35
Water cut reduction %

EP

30 Linear with cross flow

25
Linear without cross flow
C

20
Radial flow with cross flow
15
AC

10 Radial flow without cross

flow
5

0
50 60 70 80 90 100
Pre-treatment WC %

Fig. 16 Effect of pre-treatment water cut on the DPR performance (water cut reduction) in different systems
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

DoesWater Production Problem Exist?

Linear Flow*
Yes Radial Flow**

PT
With cross-
Without Without cross- With cross-
Flow

RI
cross- Flow Flow Flow

SC
Short-Term
Short solution=Yes Short-Term
&Long Short-Term

U
solution=Possible
Terms=Yes solution=Yes
Long-Term
AN
solution=Possible Long-Term
Long-Term
solution=Challenging
solution=Impossible
M
D
TE

DPR Results for All Scenarios DPR Results for All Scenarios
would be Enhanced if Would be Downgraded if
EP

Edge Water Bottom Water

C

High-K in Lower High-K in Upper

AC

Zone Zone

Thick Reservoirs Thin Reservoirs

Fig. 17: Flow chart for where DPR can be applied

* refers to flow through fractured reservoirs or very heterogeneous reservoirs; **refers to flow through matrix; Yes refers to easy to obtain
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig.18: The relative permeability curves for the fracture model (before DPR treatments)
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.19: The relative permeability curves for the fracture model (after DPR treatments)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig 20: The pressure distribution inside the HF with time
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: The Proposed Mechanisms for DPR with Their Weak points (Alfarge et al., 2017)

DPR Mechanisms Proposal Investigated Weak points Not

by supported by
1-Wall Effect and Gel 1-wall effect can explain Liang and It would not Al Sharji et al.
Droplet DPR when the gelant is Seright,(2000) explain DPR (1999); Liang
prepared from or match property and Liang,

PT
the wetting phase of the happening at (2000)
rock. small oil
2. Gel droplet model residual

RI
explains DPR when the saturation
gelant is prepared from or
match non-wetting phase

SC
of rock.
2-Gravity Effect The density of water Liang and 1-Frr is White et al.,
soluble gel (usually 99% Seright.1995 insensitive for (1973);
water) =density of brine. change in Nilsson et al.

U
Therefore; Gels would go direction and (1998); Liang
to water rather than oil. orientation and
AN
Then, gel would reduce 2-Different oil Seright.1995
Krw more than Kro. densities=Same
Frro
M

3-Lubrication Effect The interface between oil Prado et al., DPR would Liang and
and adsorbed polymer (2009); Liang happen even Seright(1995);
D

would lubricate path of oil and when water Nilsson et al.

rather than water. Serght(1995); and oil have (1998)
Zaitoun and the same
TE

Kohler (1988) viscosity

4-Rock Wettability DPR is due to polymer Zaitoun and DPR treatment Liang et al.
Change and adsorption on water-wet Kohler (1988); is significant in (1992); Liang
EP

Water/Oil Pathways rock walls Liang and intermediate and Seright

Constriction Seright(1995); wet rocks not (1997)
Seright et al. in water wet
(2002) ones.
C

5- Segregated The water based gel White et al., In transparent Al Sharji et al.
Pathways would flow through most (1973); Nilsson micromodels, (1999)
AC

Mechanism parts of pores which are et al. (1998); gel goes for
available to brine Al Sharji et al. both oil and
(1999) water
pathways
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6- Capillary Forces DPR resulted from the Liang and Change the Liang and
and Gel Elastic Effect balance between capillary Sergiht (1997); confining Seright (1997)
forces and gel elasticity Seright et al. pressure and
(2006a) gel elasticity
would not
support this
theory

PT
7-Polymer Leaching DPR due to polymer Liang and Both of Frrw Seright
from Gel and leaching from gel during Sergiht (1997) and Frro are (1999);
Reducing Brine water injection and not decreasing Willhite et al.

RI
Mobility Mechanism leaching through oil with flowrate (2002), Yan et
injection following al. (1999)
power law

SC
model
8- Gel Swelling in DPR due to water-based Alsharji et al. No change in Alsharji et al.
Water and shrink in gel is shrinking in oil and (1999); Liang gel volume (1999); Liang
Oil swelling in water and Seright after contact and Sergiht

U
(1995) with oil and (1995)
water by video
AN
monitoring

9- Polymer Polymer layer would be Alsharji et al. Why does DPR Liang and
Adsorption formed on the crevices (2001); Zitha happen in oil Seright (1997)
M

Entanglement between grains and et al. (1999). wet system?

handers only water
10- Gel Deformation Oil would deform and Krishnan et al. Both of water Zaitoun et al
D

or Dehydration dehydrate the gels while 2000; Willhite and oil would (1991) ; Liang
water would not. et al. 2002 deform the gel and Seright
TE

(1997)
EP

Table 2: Gelant component concentrations

Component Mole Fraction %

Water 0.999863404
C

Polymer 4.8839e-006

X-linker 0.000131712
AC

Total 1

Table 3: Adsorption model parameters

Langmuir Parameters Value Unit Rock type

Isothermal Adsorption lbmole/ft^3 1&2

isothermal 11.46
Coefficients parameter A
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

salt effect 0 dimensionless 1&2

parameter
Adsorption 5540000 lbmole/ft^3 1&2
isothermal
parameter B
Max. adsorption 0.00000259 lbmole/ft^3 1
capacity
(ADMAXT)

PT
Residual 0.00000259 lbmole/ft^3 1
Adsorption Level
(ADRT)

RI
Accessible pore 0.01 dimensionless 1
volume (PORFT)
Accessible 20000 dimensionless 1
Rock dependent Resistance Factor

SC
parameters Max. adsorption 0.00000459 lbmole/ft^3 2
capacity
(ADMAXT)
Residual 0.00000459 lbmole/ft^3 2

U
Adsorption Level
(ADRT)
AN
Accessible pore 1 dimensionless 2
volume (PORFT)

Accessible 80000 dimensionless 2

M

Resistance Factor
D
TE
EP

Table 4: Model input data of fluids and reservoir properties

Property Value
Reservoir temperature (F) 140
C

Water density (lb/ft^3) 62.4

Oil density (lb/ft^3) 50
AC

Oil viscosity (C.P) 1

Water viscosity (C.P) 0.5
Reservoir Pressure (PSI) 5000
Top of reservoir (ft) 9000
Number of layer 2
KH1 (md) 1000
KH2 (md) 10000
KV (md) 0.1 *KH
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Porosity 1 0.20
Porosity 2 0.25

Table 5: Treatment results for the case of linear system with crossflow

PT
Cum. Oil
prd. Cum. Oil

RI
Before prd. After
WC % RF % before RF% After DPR DPR
WC % After DPR DPR treatment treatment

SC
Time (Days) Date Before DPR DPR treatment treatment (STB) (STB)
365.92 1/1/2016 79.49 0.00 36.08 36.05 144052.34 143940.69
366.22 1/2/2016 79.50 0.00 36.09 36.05 144088.39 143940.69
366.64 1/2/2016 79.52 0.00 36.10 36.05 144138.95 143940.69

U
367.00 1/3/2016 79.53 0.00 36.11 36.05 144182.22 143940.69
AN
367.62 1/3/2016 79.56 0.00 36.13 36.05 144257.69 143940.69
368.17 1/4/2016 79.58 0.00 36.14 36.05 144323.03 143940.69
369.32 1/5/2016 79.62 0.00 36.18 36.05 144462.69 143940.69
372.00 1/8/2016 79.72 0.00 36.26 36.05 144786.05 143940.69
M

378.14 1/14/2016 79.95 29.95 36.45 36.72 145527.41 146621.52

381.89 1/17/2016 80.10 28.55 36.56 37.14 145980.13 148291.16
D

387.63 1/23/2016 80.31 37.55 36.73 37.70 146673.70 150526.92

395.02 1/31/2016 80.59 58.40 36.96 38.17 147566.22 152430.69
TE

396.00 2/1/2016 80.63 61.27 36.99 38.23 147684.42 152661.17

405.74 2/10/2016 80.86 75.05 37.27 38.61 148817.81 154175.91
425.00 3/1/2016 81.33 80.26 37.83 39.20 151059.97 156544.08
EP

456.00 4/1/2016 81.94 82.01 38.70 40.08 154546.55 160020.47

Effective
Period 90 days
C
AC

Table 6: Treatment results for the case of linear system without crossflow

Cum. Oil
prd. Cum. Oil
RF % Before prd. After
WC % WC % before RF% After DPR DPR
Before After DPR DPR treatment treatment
Time (Days) Date DPR DPR treatment treatment (STB) (STB)
365.33 1/1/2016 80.89 0.00 34.07 34.06 136027.36 135990.28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

517.00 6/1/2016 85.47 70.06 37.86 41.72 151188.06 166606.48

609.00 9/1/2016 86.81 72.38 39.82 45.82 158999.38 182956.34
625.89 9/17/2016 87.05 72.76 40.16 46.54 160344.39 185824.41
700.00 12/1/2016 88.00 74.42 41.58 49.57 166021.84 197940.52
762.00 2/1/2017 88.70 75.64 42.69 51.97 170455.27 207522.92
779.92 2/18/2017 88.87 75.88 43.00 52.65 171687.67 210217.34

PT
790.00 3/1/2017 88.97 76.24 43.17 53.02 172380.81 211710.16
800.76 3/11/2017 89.07 77.14 43.35 53.40 173101.58 213243.84
813.59 3/24/2017 89.19 84.84 43.57 53.71 173961.23 214457.88

RI
821 4/1/2017 89.26 89.95 43.69 53.82 174457.23 214921.63
Effective Period
(D) 455.6666565

SC
Table 7: Hydraulic fracture properties

U
Parameter Value
AN
Fracture Width (0.001-0.01 ft)
Intrinsic Permeability Infinite Conductivity
Orientation I-direction
Number of Refinement in I-direction 3
Number of Refinement in J-direction 3
M

Number of Refinement in K-direction 1

Fracture Length 250ft
Grid Cell Width 2ft
Fracture Height 80ft
D
TE

Table 8: DPR performance functionality for fracture parameters

Fracture Parameter DPR Performance
Fracture Width ↑ ↓
Fracture Height ↑ ↑
EP

Fracture Length ↑ ↓
Cross Flow Among Reservoir Layers ↑ ↑
C

Table 9: Parameters with their range which were used in CMOST

Parameters Range
AC

Reservoir Thickness (ft) 10-100

Ratio (K zone1/Kzone2) 1-10000
Ratio of (Vertical Permeability/Horizontal permeability) 0-1
Oil viscosity c.p 0.75-60
Oil Density (lb/Ft^3) 30-62
Gel Volume (bbl) 500-5000
Frrw/Frro 1-173
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• Issue1
(We have received citation for figure (Fig. 15), but the corresponding figure is not supplied, kindly check
and provide figure with caption.)

The Answer for Issue 1

PT
The figure 15 was actually supplied, but wrongly numbered as Fig. 2. We are sorry for this mistake. The

RI
figure below is Fig. 15 with the caption:

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig.1 Oil recovery factor versus time; before and after the DPR treatment (comparison between DPR
performances when the high-k in lower zone versus when the high-k in the upper zone)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• Issue2
(We have received two set of figure(Fig.2), kindly check and advise which one should be follow)

PT
The Answer for Issue 2

RI
The figure below is Fig. 2 with the caption:

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP

Fig. 2: The relative permeability curves for the matrix model used before DPR treatments
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• Issue3
((Table 1,5,6) are provided as images and are not editable, kindly check and provide tables in editable
ms doc format)

PT
The Answer for Issue 3

RI
Please, find the tables below in editable ms doc format:

SC
Table 1: The Proposed Mechanisms for DPR with Their Weak points (Alfarge et al., 2017)
DPR Mechanisms Proposal Investigated Weak points Not

U
by supported by
1-Wall Effect and Gel 1-wall effect can explain Liang et It would not Al Sharji et
AN
Droplet DPR when the gelant is al.,(2000) explain DPR al. (1999);
prepared from or match property Liang et al.,
the wetting phase of the happening at (2000)
rock. small oil
M

2. Gel droplet model residual

explains DPR when the saturation
gelant is prepared from or
D

match non-wetting phase

of rock.
TE

2-Gravity Effect The density of water Liang et 1-Frr is White et al.,

soluble gel (usually 99% al.1995 insensitive for (1973);
water) =density of brine. change in Nilsson et al.
Therefore; Gels would go direction and (1998); Liang
EP

to water rather than oil. orientation et al.1995

Then, gel would reduce 2-Different oil
Krw more than Kro. densities=Same
C

Frro
AC

3-Lubrication Effect The interface between oil Prado et al., DPR would Liang et
and adsorbed polymer (2009); Liang happen even al.1995;
would lubricate path of oil et al.(1995); when water Nilsson et al.
rather than water. Zaitoun and and oil have (1998)
Kohler (1988) the same
viscosity
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4-Rock Wettability DPR is due to polymer Zaitoun and DPR treatment Liang et al.
Change and adsorption on water-wet Kohler (1988); is significant in (1992); Liang
Water/Oil Pathways rock walls Liang et intermediate et al. (1997)
Constriction al.(1995); wet rocks not
Seright et al. in water wet
(2002) ones.
5- Segregated The water based gel White et al., In transparent Al Sharji et

PT
Pathways would flow through most (1973); Nilsson micromodels, al. (1999)
Mechanism parts of pores which are et al. (1998); gel goes for
available to brine Al Sharji et al. both oil and

RI
(1999) water
pathways
6- Capillary Forces DPR resulted from the Liang et al. Change the Liang et al.

SC
and Gel Elastic Effect balance between capillary (1997); Seright confining (1997)
forces and gel elasticity et al. (2006a) pressure and
gel elasticity
would not

U
support this
theory
AN
7-Polymer Leaching DPR due to polymer Liang et al. Both of Frrw Seright
from Gel and leaching from gel during (1997) and Frro are (1999);
Reducing Brine water injection and not decreasing Willhite et al.
Mobility Mechanism leaching through oil with flowrate (2002), Yan
M

injection following et al. (1999)

power law
model
D

8- Gel Swelling in DPR due to water-based Alsharji et al. No change in Alsharji et al.
Water and shrink in gel is shrinking in oil and (1999); Liang gel volume (1999); Liang
TE

Oil swelling in water et al. (1995) after contact et al. (1995)

with oil and
water by video
monitoring
EP

9- Polymer Polymer layer would be Alsharji et al. Why does DPR Liang et al.
Adsorption formed on the crevices (2001); (Zitha happen in oil (1997)
Entanglement between grains and et al. 1999). wet system?
C

handers only water

10- Gel Deformation Oil would deform and Krishnan et al. Both of water Zaitoun et al
AC

or Dehydration dehydrate the gels while 2000; Willhite and oil would (1991) ; Liang
water would not. et al. 2002 deform the gel et al. (1997)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5: Treatment results for the case of linear system with crossflow
Cum. Oil
prd. Cum. Oil
Before prd. After
WC % RF % before RF% After DPR DPR
WC % After DPR DPR treatment treatment
Time (Days) Date Before DPR DPR treatment treatment (STB) (STB)

PT
365.92 1/1/2016 79.49 0.00 36.08 36.05 144052.34 143940.69
366.22 1/2/2016 79.50 0.00 36.09 36.05 144088.39 143940.69
366.64 1/2/2016 79.52 0.00 36.10 36.05 144138.95 143940.69

RI
367.00 1/3/2016 79.53 0.00 36.11 36.05 144182.22 143940.69
367.62 1/3/2016 79.56 0.00 36.13 36.05 144257.69 143940.69
368.17 1/4/2016 79.58 0.00 36.14 36.05 144323.03 143940.69

SC
369.32 1/5/2016 79.62 0.00 36.18 36.05 144462.69 143940.69
372.00 1/8/2016 79.72 0.00 36.26 36.05 144786.05 143940.69
378.14 1/14/2016 79.95 29.95 36.45 36.72 145527.41 146621.52

U
381.89 1/17/2016 80.10 28.55 36.56 37.14 145980.13 148291.16
387.63 1/23/2016 80.31 37.55 36.73 37.70 146673.70 150526.92
AN
395.02 1/31/2016 80.59 58.40 36.96 38.17 147566.22 152430.69
396.00 2/1/2016 80.63 61.27 36.99 38.23 147684.42 152661.17
405.74 2/10/2016 80.86 75.05 37.27 38.61 148817.81 154175.91
M

425.00 3/1/2016 81.33 80.26 37.83 39.20 151059.97 156544.08

456.00 4/1/2016 81.94 82.01 38.70 40.08 154546.55 160020.47
Effective
D

Period 90 days
TE

Table 6: Treatment results for the case of linear system without crossflow
EP

Cum. Oil
prd. Cum. Oil
RF % Before prd. After
WC % WC % before RF% After DPR DPR
C

Before After DPR DPR treatment treatment

Time (Days) Date DPR DPR treatment treatment (STB) (STB)
AC

365.33 1/1/2016 80.89 0.00 34.07 34.06 136027.36 135990.28

517.00 6/1/2016 85.47 70.06 37.86 41.72 151188.06 166606.48
609.00 9/1/2016 86.81 72.38 39.82 45.82 158999.38 182956.34
625.89 9/17/2016 87.05 72.76 40.16 46.54 160344.39 185824.41
700.00 12/1/2016 88.00 74.42 41.58 49.57 166021.84 197940.52
762.00 2/1/2017 88.70 75.64 42.69 51.97 170455.27 207522.92
779.92 2/18/2017 88.87 75.88 43.00 52.65 171687.67 210217.34
790.00 3/1/2017 88.97 76.24 43.17 53.02 172380.81 211710.16
800.76 3/11/2017 89.07 77.14 43.35 53.40 173101.58 213243.84
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

813.59 3/24/2017 89.19 84.84 43.57 53.71 173961.23 214457.88

821 4/1/2017 89.26 89.95 43.69 53.82 174457.23 214921.63
Effective Period
(D) 455.6666565

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• DPR performance was excellent in both of water-cut reduction and oil-recovery improvement when the flow
regime was viscous dominated (viscous-gravity number<0.1).

• DPR can be successfully applied in thick reservoirs rather than thin reservoirs.

• When a hydrocarbon reservoir has the high-K layer in the bottom zone is a good candidate for the DPR treatment
as compared when the high-K layer in the upper zone.

PT
• DPR treatment is generally more pronounced in the edge water drive rather than in the bottom water drive
conditions.

• Conducting DPR treatment at a lower water cut might be very beneficial as compared with performing DPR

RI
treatments at a later time.

• The performance of DPR treatment in hydraulically-fractured reservoirs would be more significant in the cases

SC
which have crossflow among reservoir layers rather than the cases of no-crossflow.

• DPR performance is not strong function of the fracture parameters if crossflow existed among the reservoir layers.
However, DPR performance is strong function of the fracture parameters in cases of no-crossflow.

U
• The width of hydraulic fractures has a negative impact on DPR performance. The performance of DPR treatments
AN
would be downgraded if performed in a reservoir with a wide fracture.

• The height of the fractures has a positive impact on DPR performance.

M
D
TE
C EP
AC