More Than 12 Years’ Experience With
a Successful Conformance-Control
Polymer-Gel Technology
R.D. Sydansk, SPE, and G.P. Southwell, SPE, Marathon Oil Co.
Summary
In this paper, we discuss and describe our extensive experience
with the widely applied and quite successful Cr共III兲-carboxylate/
acrylamide-polymer 共CC/AP兲 gel technology for use in oilfield
conformance-control, sweep-improvement, and water and gas
shutoff treatments. Chromic triacetate is the often preferred
chemical crosslinking agent used in conjunction with this
polymer-gel technology. The CC/AP gel technology is character-
ized as having a robust gel chemistry and as being highly insen-
sitive to petroleum reservoir environments and interferences. This
gel technology, as of May 1998, has been employed in over 1,400
conformance-control treatments worldwide. Highlights of illustra-
tive field applications and results involving the CC/AP
conformance-control gel technology are presented. An overview
of what a decade plus of experience in applying the CC/AP gel
technology has taught us is discussed. This includes discussion of
classifying and distinguishing conformance problems and treat-
ments, attributes of good candidate wells and well patterns for gel
conformance-control treatments, requirements that must be met in
candidate wells and well patterns in order to achieve success, gel
treatment elements that must be successfully implemented to
achieve success, guidelines as to where polymer-gel conformance
treatments are most successfully applied, risks and pitfalls of gel
conformance treatments, and quality control issues.
Introduction
The development and application of effective conformance-
control polymer-gel treatments have been, until somewhat re-
cently, elusive goals within the oil industry. Broadly speaking,
conformance-control treatments include both treatments to im-
prove volumetric sweep efficiency during oil-recovery flooding
operations and treatments to reduce excessive and unproductive
coproduction with oil of fluids such as water and gas. That is, the
coproduction of other fluids that compete with the production of
oil. Conformance-control treatments have at times been referred
to, in an overly narrow fashion, as profile-modification treatments.
Polymer gels of gel conformance treatments act as permeability-
reducing agents and, as such, serve as blocking and plugging
agents. The gels of such treatments operate by reducing the fluid-
flow capacity within the treated portion of the reservoir.
A number of other polymer gel technologies have been dis-
cussed and reported in the literature for use in conformance-
control, water-shutoff, and gas-shutoff treatments. These include
both classical fully continuous single-phase polymer gels, such as
in the CC/AP gel technology of this paper, and ‘‘colloidal disper-
sion’’ two phase gels. Beyond the scope of discussion of this
paper are conformance-control inorganic gels 共e.g., silicate gels兲
and in-situ-polymerized organic monomer gels. Biopolymer-based
gels are also beyond the scope of this paper. Field results involv-
ing conformance-control treatments using aluminum-citrate-
crosslinked colloidal dispersion gels and zirconium-lactate-
crosslinked colloidal dispersion gels can be found in, respectively,
Refs. 1 and 2. Representative papers that discuss laboratory stud-
ies and field applications of polymer gels employing ‘‘organic’’
Copyright © 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 66558) was revised for publication from SPE 49315, prepared for the
1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, 27–30 Sep-
tember. Original manuscript received for review 25 October 1998. Revised manuscript
received 28 March 2000. Paper peer approved 3 May 2000.
270 SPE Prod. & Facilities 15 共4兲, November 2000
crosslinkers are in Refs. 3 through 7. Cr共VI兲-redox systems were
one of the earliest applied oilfield conformance-control polymer
gels and they have enjoyed various degrees of acceptance over
the years.8-10
In this paper we describe the CC/AP oilfield polymer-gel tech-
nology, and then present a series of illustrative examples of its
field application and performance. We conclude with an overview
summarizing what a decade plus of experience with this success-
ful and widely applied conformance polymer-gel technology has
taught us. This paper is a revised and shortened version of the
paper of Ref. 11.
Cr„III…-CarboxylateÕAcrylamide-Polymer Gels
Gel Technology. Cr共III兲-carboxylate/acrylamide-polymer 共CC/
AP兲 gels for conformance-control and fluid-shutoff applications
are aqueous-based gels in which acrylamide polymers are chemi-
cally crosslinked together with a Cr共III兲-carboxylate-complex
crosslinking agent in a single fluid.12-14 The chromic-triacetate
chemical complex is often the preferred Cr共III兲-carboxylate
crosslinking agent used in conjunction with this gel technology.
The use of gels where Cr共III兲 malonate is the crosslinking agent
for acrylamide polymers and for applications at high temperatures
has been discussed in the literature.15,16 Mumallah has reported on
the use of Cr共III兲 propionate in an acrylamide-polymer-gel tech-
nology involving the sequential injection of an aqueous polymer
solution and an aqueous solution containing the crosslinking
agent.17
Exploiting the coordinate-covalent ligand exchange chemistry
of the Cr共III兲-carboxylate crosslinking agent of the CC/AP gel
technology provides for a means by which to obtain an exception-
ally broad range of highly controllable and predictable gelation
onset times and to control gelation rates over a broad range of
temperatures.12-14 At or near room temperature, gelation onset
times of minutes to months are possible. However, economic and
other constraints often favor CC/AP gel formulations that have a
narrower window of gelation onset times 共hours to several days兲.
For any given CC/AP gel formulation, the gelation rate increases
with increasing temperature.
There are presently two major conformance-treatment formula-
tion versions of the CC/AP gel technology that are in wide usage.
The first version involves the use of high 共⬎4,000,000兲 molecular
weight 共MW兲 polymers incorporated into the gels at relatively low
polymer concentrations 共⬃0.3 to 2.0%兲. This version is usually
employed to selectively treat fractures or other multidarcy high-
permeability anomalies within petroleum reservoirs. These
gels are often applied as relatively large volume treatments
共e.g., 500 to 40,000 bbl兲 and are often formulated with saline
produced waters.
The second version of the CC/AP gel technology involves the
use of relatively low 共⬃200,000 to 2,000,000兲 MW polymers and
relatively high 共⬃3.5 to 7.0%兲 polymer concentrations in the gel
formulations. This version of the gel technology is used in total-
fluid-shutoff treatments that are usually applied in the near-
wellbore 共often ⬍15 ft radial penetration兲 region of matrix rock
共unfractured兲 reservoirs. The use of fresh water within the formu-
lations of these particular gels tends to standardize their formula-
tions without adding substantial cost to the relatively small vol-
ume 共usually ⬍500 bbl兲 treatments of this near-wellbore fluid-
shutoff technology.
1064-668X/2000/15共4兲/270/9/$5.00⫹0.50
 TABLE 1– OVERVIEW OF DIFFERENT CCÕAP GEL TREATMENT VERSIONS AND APPLICATIONS

Degree of
Polymer MW Fluid-Flow
Classification Permeability Type of High Injector or Reduction in
of Gel Polymer of Channel to Permeability Producer Representative Typical the Treated
Formulation MW be Treated Channel to Well Types of Depth of Reservoir
Versions (millions) (darcies) be Treated Treatment Treatments Treatment Volume

High MW 4 to ⬎20 Greater Fractures and Both Sweep Intermediate Usually partial
version than ⬃2 other high improvement, to far in the entire
permeability water/gas wellbore treated reservoir
anomalies shutoff, coning volume

Intermediate ⬃4 to ⬃8 ⬃0.2 to ⬃2 High Primarily Water shutoff, Intermediate Partial with

high MW permeability producers sweep to near possible lesser
version matrix rock improvement, wellbore reductions in oil/
coning gas flow

Low MW ⬍2 Less Matrix Both Water/gas Near Total shutoff

version than ⬃2 reservoir rock shutoff, zone wellbore most often
abandonment
squeeze and
recompletion,
casing leaks, flow
behind the pipe

Presently, the CC/AP gel technology discussed in this paper is
not widely applied as deeply placed treatments for improving con-
formance and volumetric sweep efficiency within unfractured ma-
trix rock reservoirs.
Table 1 provides an overview of the different CC/AP gel tech-
nology types and applications differentiated by the molecular
weight of the acrylamide polymer employed within the gel formu-
lation. The gel treatment type of the second row of Table 1, using
intermediate-high molecular weight acrylamide polymers to treat
⬃0.2 to ⬃2 darcy permeability matrix reservoir rock, is a gel
application with which neither of the authors of this paper has had
any direct experience. The authors of this paper do not necessarily
recommend or endorse this type of gel treatment.
Application of the Gel Technology. As will be elaborated on
later in this paper for a number of the subsequent points, gels of
the CC/AP technology have been applied successfully in the oil
patch as the following types of treatments: volumetric sweep im-
provement during oil recovery flooding operations, water shutoff,
gas shutoff, squeeze and recompletion, zone abandonment, water
coning, gas coning, chemical liner completions during drilling op-
erations, soil stabilization and consolidation, and lost circulation
material during drilling operations. Coning problems that are most
amenable to treatment by polymer gels are those in which the
water or gas is being drawn into the well through vertical natural
or hydraulic fractures.
Through May 1998, over 1,400 CC/AP conformance-control
and fluid-shutoff gel treatments had been applied worldwide. Our
company had applied over 500 of these gel treatments within our
own operated fields. Of these 500 treatments, 330 of them had
been applied by licensed service companies. Thus, over 900
CC/AP gel treatments had been applied by operators other than
Marathon.
High-Temperature Considerations. For the CC/AP gel technol-
ogy of this paper, the upper reservoir temperature limit for gel
application 共in order to promote satisfactory long-term gel stabil-
ity and adequate long-term performance兲 is an interrelated func-
tion of polymer concentration, hardness ion level within the gel’s
makeup water 共especially Ca⫹⫹兲, polymer purity, and the chemi-
cal stabilizer package which is optionally incorporated into the gel
formulation.
The CC/AP gel technology of this paper employs four dis-
tinctly different technologies that can be used separately or in
combination, at the enduser’s discretion, to obtain sufficiently
long gelation onset delay times, especially for high-temperature
gel applications. First, the use and choice of the carboxylate spe-
cie employed within the crosslinking agent 共for example, chromic
triacetate vs. chromic trilactate兲 is a means of controlling the ge-
lation onset delay time for this gel technology.18 Of note, the use
of chromic triacetate, vs. the use of chromic trichloride alone as
the crosslinking agent, substantially reduces the gelation rate. In
fact, the addition of small amounts of chromic trichloride to the
chromic-tricarboxylate crosslinking agent of this gel technology is
often used as a means by which to accelerate the gelation rate of
these polymer gels. Second, the use of low-hydrolysis acrylamide
polymers can be employed advantageously as a means of reducing
the gelation rate.13 Third, the reservoir can be precooled by inject-
ing cooling water prior to the gel treatment as a means of retard-
ing the treatment gelation rate.19
Fourth, the most powerful and versatile means by which to
retard the gelation rate is to employ the chemical additive retar-
dation package that involves the addition of relatively strong car-
boxylate gelation-rate-retardation ligands to the gel
formulation.18,20 By controlling the strength and/or the amount of
the retarding carboxylate ligand 共e.g., lactate兲 that is to be added,
widely varying gelation onset delay times can be obtained. Al-
though the addition of the carboxylate gelation-rate-retardation
agent can at times somewhat reduce the final gel strength, this
weakening phenomenon can be easily mitigated by slightly in-
creasing the concentration of the gel’s crosslinking agent and/or
polymer. At high temperature, the high hydrolysis level and asso-
ciated increased ligand strength attained by the acrylamide poly-
mer tend to greatly mitigate the weakening effect on the final gel
strength that results from the addition of the originally relatively
strong carboxylate ligand as a gelation-rate-retardation agent.
It should be noted that in general for any given gel formulation
of this technology, as the temperature increases, the polymer con-
centration must be increased in order to maintain comparable gel
strength and stability.
CC/AP gels, formulated with high-MW polymers for treating
fractures and other high-permeability anomalies, can be applied,
under appropriate conditions, to reservoirs having temperatures up
to ⬃270°F. The successful application of these gels near the upper
end of this temperature range is limited to gels that are formulated
with a brine having a hardness level roughly less than, or equal to,
sea water, formulated, if necessary, with an appropriate chemical
stabilizing package, and/or applied to a limited range of mineralo-
gies.

R.D. Sydansk and G.P. Southwell: Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technology SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000 271
Fig. 1–Production response to the CCÕAP gel treatment applied
to injector O-7 in the SOB field.
For CC/AP gels formulated with low-MW polymers for near-
wellbore treatments that are to be applied in matrix reservoir rock
for total fluid-shutoff purposes, these gels can be applied to res-
ervoirs having temperatures up to 300°F. However, the applica-
tion of these gels to reservoirs with temperatures exceeding 270°F
is not routine due to a limited demand for such gel treatments at
these temperatures.
During a coreflooding experiment performed in our laboratory,
over 4.5 pore volumes 共PV’s兲 of a total-shutoff CC/AP pregel
solution, which was heated to 300°F throughout the entire dura-
tion of pregel solution injection, were successfully injected over a
5.1-hour period into a 3.0⫻1.0 in. diameter, 270 md, fired Berea
sandstone plug that was maintained at 300°F throughout the entire
flooding experiment. The gel was formulated with 7.0 wt% active
polyacrylamide of low hydrolysis and 270,000 MW. The gel for-
mulation contained a gelation-rate retardation agent. After allow-
ing the gel to age to maturity in the sandstone plug and then after
applying for 23 days about 1,000 psi of ⌬p in the reverse flow
direction across the plug length while injecting synthetic seawater,
the permeability reduction imparted by the gel was measured to be
k f /k i ⫽2⫻10⫺6 , that is, the final permeability of the treated plug
was determined to be 0.0005 md.
Illustrative Field Results
Early Big Horn Basin Applications. Much of the early field
demonstration work involving the CC/AP gel technology was
conducted in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming. The field application
of, and production responses to, the first 29 CC/AP gel treatments,
which were applied in the Big Horn Basin between 1985–88 to
naturally fractured reservoirs for sweep-improvement and water-
shutoff purposes, have been previously reported in the
literature.21,22 During this field demonstration program, 27 differ-
ent wells were treated in 9 different fields. The gel treatments
were applied to two carbonate formations and to a single sand-
stone formation. Of the 29 treatments, 14 were applied to two
different carbonate reservoirs, and 15 were applied to a single
sandstone reservoir. Of these polymer-gel treatments, 17 were ap-
plied to injection wells as sweep-improvement treatments, and 12
were applied to production wells as water-shutoff treatments.21,22
As a result of having applied the 17 injection well treatments, it
was reported21,22 that these gel sweep-improvement treatments re-
covered 3,650,000 bbl of incremental oil recovery or, on average,
215,000 bbl of incremental oil for each gel treatment. The cost of
the incremental oil, on average, was reported to be $0.21/bbl.
During these CC/AP gel treatments, 13.6 bbl of incremental oil
were recovered for each pound of polymer employed within the
gels. Stated another way, about 4,000 tons of oil were recovered,
for each ton of polymer expended within the gels.
Of the 17 injection well treatments, 11 were applied to carbon-
ate reservoirs and 6 to a sandstone reservoir. The average incre-
mental oil recovery and the cost of the incremental oil for the gel
treatments applied to the carbonate reservoirs were, respectively,
261,000 bbl and $0.18/bbl vs. 129,000 bbl and $0.33/bbl for the
gel treatments applied to the sandstone reservoir.
Fig. 1, adapted from Ref. 22, shows the production response to
one of the first half-dozen CC/AP gel treatments ever conducted.
272 R.D. Sydansk and G.P. Southwell: Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technology
Fig. 2–Production response to the CCÕAP gel treatment applied
to injector O-17 in the SOB field.
Shown is the combined production response of four direct offset-
ting production wells to the gel-treated injection well. This gel
treatment field test was applied for waterflood sweep-
improvement purposes to the naturally fractured Embar carbonate
formation surrounding well O-7 of the SOB field in the Big Horn
Basin, Wyoming. The wide variations in the water/oil ratio
共WOR兲 and oil production rate, shown in Fig. 1 prior to the gel
treatment, are quite common in many of the well patterns of this
highly fractured reservoir. Reference 22 provides more details re-
garding this 20,000 bbl gel treatment.
Fig. 2, which is adapted from Ref. 23, shows 7 years of com-
bined incremental-oil-production response for the direct offset
producing wells to CC/AP gel-treated injection well O-17 of the
SOB field. Well O-17 was treated in roughly the same manner and
as part of the same gel treatment series of the cited well O-7 gel
treatment in the previous paragraph. Fig. 2 illustrates the type of
treatment longevity that can be expected to result from CC/AP gel
treatments.
Water Shutoff Treatments Within Our Organization. As of
May 1998, as a result of applying a total of 252 CC/AP gel water-
shutoff treatments to production wells throughout our company,
we have shut off a total of 500,000 BWPD of excessive and
detrimental water production. In addition, these gel treatments
have increased in total oil production following shortly after the
treatments by 8,000 BOPD.
Fig. 3 shows the production response of an early CC/AP gel
treatment that was applied for water-shutoff purposes. This gel
treatment was applied to the 145°F fractured carbonate reservoir
surrounding production well LSD N-17P in a field of the Big
Horn Basin, Wyoming. The excessive water production, which
occurred during primary production, was thought to be edge water
emanating through fractures from a strong aquifer. Water produc-
tion prior to the gel treatment slightly exceeded 5,000 BWPD.
Following the treatment, as shown in Fig. 3, the water production
was reduced to slightly less than 1,000 BWPD.
Fig. 3–Production response to the CCÕAP gel water-shutoff
treatment applied to production well LSD N-17P.
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000
 This production well treatment, which was performed in No-
vember of 1991, was one of the very first to ever be performed
using the second generation of CC/AP gel water-shutoff treat-
ments for application to fractured reservoirs. The second genera-
tion production well treatments employ intermediate strength
‘‘tonguing’’ CC/AP gels of the same general type used to treat
injection wells suffering from fracture problems. The first genera-
tion of CC/AP gels, which was used as water-shutoff treatments
applied to fractured production wells, involved the use of stronger
rigid gels. A volume of 7,200 bbl of gelant, mixed in produced
water and containing 5,000 ppm of high-MW polymer, was in-
jected during the N-17P CC/AP gel treatment. This gel treatment
involved injecting 100 bbl of gel per perforated foot within the
wellbore-treated interval. The volume of gel injected per perfo-
rated foot for this particular CC/AP water-shutoff gel treatment is
somewhat larger 共by a factor of 2 to 4兲 than many subsequent and
comparable treatments that have been performed.
CCÕAP Gel Treatments During CO2 Flooding. Because of the
pH insensitivity of CC/AP gels when formulated with acrylamide
polymers having an appropriate hydrolysis range, the gels are
uniquely well suited for application in conjunction with CO2
flooding, especially during CO2 flooding in naturally fractured
reservoirs where flooding with relatively low-viscosity CO2 often
results in acute conformance and channeling problems. CO2 tends
to be acidic.
Borling24 reported on successful CC/AP gel treatments applied
at the Wertz field CO2 tertiary water-alternate-gas 共WAG兲 flood-
ing project in the Wind River Basin, Wyoming. He discussed 10
injection-well gel treatments applied to the 165°F fractured Ten-
sleep sandstone reservoir. The following benefits were reported to
have been derived from having applied these CC/AP gel treat-
ments during the Wertz CO2 flooding project in this naturally
fractured reservoir:
䊉 resulted in incremental oil recoveries of up to 140,000 bbl/
well pattern;
䊉 increased oil production rates by 100 to 300 BOPD per well
pattern;
䊉 extended economic lives of marginal well patterns by nearly 2
years;
䊉 reduced gas/oil ratios 共GOR’s兲 and WOR’s
䊉 reduced gas and water cycling;
䊉 reduced gas and water breakthrough times;
䊉 improved water and gas injection profiles;
䊉 reduced operating expenses;
䊉 contributed substantially to the field-wide decline-rate reduc-
tion in 1992 from 24 to 9%;
䊉 were effective where conventional oilfield foams had failed;
䊉 had rapid payout times of often less than 3 months;
䊉 recovered of substantial reserves that would not have been
otherwise recovered.
Hild and Wackowski25 reported on 44 injection-well CC/AP
gel treatments that were applied during 1994 at the large CO2
miscible WAG flooding project of the Rangely Weber Sand Unit
which is located in northwestern Colorado. The Rangely Weber
Sand Unit was stated to be the largest field in the Rocky Mountain
region in terms of daily and cumulative oil production. The eco-
nomic rate of return on these large volume 共⬃10,000 bbl兲 injector
gel treatments was reported to be 365%. The success rate of these
treatments was reported to be 80%. These authors discussed mod-
eling results forecasting that polymer gel conformance-
improvement treatments will, for the most likely midcase scenario
at Rangely, yield in the year 2007 a daily incremental oil produc-
tion rate in excess of 2,500 BOPD.
CCÕAP Gel Treatments for Gas Shutoff. Sanders et al.19 have
reported on 37 CC/AP gel gas-shutoff treatments that were ap-
plied to 31 production wells in the 190 to 220°F reservoir of the
Prudhoe Bay field, Alaska. They reported that these gas-shutoff
gel squeeze treatments cost 75% of comparable Portland cement
gas-shutoff squeeze treatments, while at the same time afforded a
higher success rate. It was reported by them that these gel gas-
R.D. Sydansk and G.P. Southwell: Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technology
TABLE 2– OVERVIEW OF 14 BIG LAKE CCÕAP GEL WSO
TREATMENTS
Before After
BOPD BWPD BOPD BWPD
Average 2* 3,410 14 993
Gross change ⫹161 ⫺33,800
*Actual production
shutoff treatments had been credited with a total initial 共1 month
of production兲 incremental-oil-production rate of 22,000 BOPD. It
was also stated that these gel treatments, containing polymer con-
centrations of 4.3 to 5.0%, had rendered a total reduction in gas
production rate of 213 MM scf/D. To quote from Ref. 19,
‘‘Squeeze longevity has been greater than 1 year 关to date兴 in some
cases with drawdown pressures exceeding 1,500 psi.’’
Lai et al. of ARCO have recently reported on 13 successful
CC/AP gel gas-shutoff treatments, followed immediately by Port-
land cement squeeze treatments, that have been applied, beginning
in 1998, to a 185 to 210°F sandstone reservoir having properties
similar to those of the Prudhoe Bay reservoir.26 The 13 combined
CC/AP-gel/cement treatments were reported to have an 85% eco-
nomic success record 共11 out of 13 treatments兲. The success rate
was reported to be 86% 共6 out of 7 treatments兲 for these combined
gel/cement treatments that were applied as gas-shutoff resqueeze
treatments. This latter performance should be compared to a 40%
success rate for the traditional Portland cement gas-shutoff
resqueeze treatments that had previously been applied to this type
of well in this field. The CC/AP gels of these treatments contained
5.0 to 7.0% polymer concentrations.
Water Shutoff in Marginal Wells. Between 1992–94, 14
CC/AP water-shutoff gel treatments were applied to economically
marginal production wells of the old and mature Big Lake field in
Reagan County, Texas. These 14 gel treatments included 6 gel
treatments in addition to those of the series of gel treatments that
were originally reported in Ref. 27. The gel treatments were ap-
plied to reduce excessive water production from high water-cut
wells equipped with electric submersible pumps. The goal was to
reduce lifting costs by converting from electric submersible
pumps to less expensive conventional rod pumps. The main pro-
ducing zone of these wells is the dolomitic Grayburg formation
that is naturally fractured. Excess water production was believed
to be coning up through vertical fractures from the underlying
active aquifer.
Of the 14 production wells treated, 12 were shut in prior to
treatment due to being uneconomic. Following the gel treatments,
all 14 of the wells could be, and were, produced economically,
and all the wells were converted to conventional and less expen-
sive rod pumps. In all cases, lifting costs were substantially re-
duced. The production responses resulting from these 14 CC/AP
water-shutoff gel treatments are summarized in Table 2.
These gel treatments ranged in volume from 700 to 4,000 bbl.
The concentration of the high-MW polymer in the gel of these
treatments was generally ramped up from 3,000 to 5,000 ppm as
the gel was being injected. Most of the gel volume pumped con-
tained 5,000 ppm polymer.
Gel Jobs Combined with Stimulation Treatments. Recently
two papers have been published demonstrating how CC/AP gel
jobs can be synergistically applied in combination with stimula-
tion treatments in naturally fractured reservoirs.
Whisonant and Hall28 have reported on the success of syner-
gistically applying water-shutoff CC/AP gel treatments to frac-
tured production wells in the Oregon Basin field, Wyoming, in
conjunction with applying foamed acid stimulation technology
and a newly developed propellant stimulation technology. They
state, ‘‘The combination of the three different technologies al-
lowed the treatment of a number of wells that had not previously
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000 273

Fig. 4–Production from the fractured Madison carbonate for-
mation of the gel-treated Big Horn Basin field.
been considered stimulation candidates due to their high total fluid
production rates.’’ These authors reported that such combined
treatments of the naturally fractured Embar carbonate reservoir of
the Oregon Basin field have resulted in 675,000 STBO of Embar
reserve development, untapped by 70 years of previous reservoir
development. The average incremental reserve development per
treatment for the 28 producing well treatments, which were con-
ducted in 1996 in this field, was reported to be 24,100 STBO, at
an average reserve development cost of $2.50/bbl.
Kintzele29,30 has reported recently on a series of CC/AP gel
water-shutoff treatments that were performed in combination with
acid stimulation treatments prior to the gel jobs and were applied
to the Madison formation of a field in the Big Horn Basin area,
Wyoming. The treated Madison carbonate formation was charac-
terized as being highly fractured and/or containing a significant
amount of vugular porosity. There is a prolific natural water drive
associated with the Madison formation in this area. The field in
question has a production history dating back at least to the
1930’s. The stimulation treatments were extreme-overbalanced
acid/nitrogen surge treatments.
Kintzele also reported that the 17 CC/AP gel water-shutoff
treatments have, on average, reduced water production rates by
over 2,000 BWPD, increased oil production rates by 50 BOPD,
reduced WOR to less than one-third of pre-gel treatment ratios,
and lowered producing well fluid levels by over 1,100 ft per well.
The overall oil reserve development cost was reported to be, on
average, $2.01/STBO, while the reserve development cost for the
treatments of the ‘‘recent optimized design’’ was reported to be
$1.11/STBO. Perhaps, the most significant outcome that was dis-
cussed by Kintzele was the field-wide production ‘‘effects of the
recent recompletion and drill well activity sparked by
successful....共CC/AP兲 gel treatments.’’ This field-wide production
effect is shown in Fig. 4 that is adapted from a figure in Ref. 30.
Fig. 4 shows an increase in water production, along with the
increase in oil production, following the initiation of the gel treat-
ments. The net increase in water production resulted from the
increased water production following the acid stimulation treat-
ments, even after accounting for a substantial reduction in water
production rates imparted by the gel treatments. If the gel treat-
ments had not been performed, the increase in water production
would have been much greater. Of note, water handling and dis-
posal costs in this field are relatively low, and the field economics
are more sensitive in this case to increased oil production when
compared to increased water production.
Gel Chemical Liner Treatments. Over 100 CC/AP gel treat-
ments, which were applied as chemical liner completions, have
been performed during a successful drilling program involving
short-radius horizontal wellbores in the Yates field in Pecos
274 R.D. Sydansk and G.P. Southwell: Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technology
County, Texas.27,31 The gel chemical liner completions were ap-
plied to the openhole curved section of the horizontal wellbores.
The lateral borehole of these wells penetrates a relatively thin oil
column in a fractured dolomitic reservoir, where the oil column is
overlaid by a substantial gas cap. The openhole curved section of
the short-radius borehole partially extends up into the gas cap. If
the curved section of the boreholes were not sealed, the horizontal
wells would produce at excessively, and often uneconomically,
high GOR’s.
The development and application of these CC/AP gel chemical
liner completions were one of several innovations that were re-
quired to be implemented in order to bring this horizontal-
wellbore drilling program to a successful economic conclusion. In
1995, the first 80 of these horizontal wellbores, which had been
treated with the gel chemical liner treatments, were producing
12,500 BOPD and had recovered roughly 6,000,000 cumulative
barrels of crude oil.32
Foamed CCÕAP Gel Treatments. In an interesting new develop-
ment, Friedmann et al.33 reported on the successful injection of
36,400 bbl of CO2 CC/AP foamed gel into an injection well of the
naturally fractured Rangely Weber Sand Unit, Colorado, where a
large CO2 miscible WAG flood is being conducted. The CC/AP
gel of this treatment was of a novel enhanced and augmented
gel-formulation design. The objectives of the foamed gel treat-
ment were to improve the volumetric sweep efficiency within this
CO2 flooding project by reducing CO2 breakthrough times and
cycling through the fractures, and increase oil production using a
treatment system with a lower unit cost/volume than the gel of a
traditional large-volume CC/AP gel treatment. In the Conclusion
section of the paper,33 the authors state, ‘‘Preliminary injection
well and reservoir responses are encouraging.’’
In a follow-up paper to Ref. 33, Hughes et al.34 reported on the
first three enhanced and augmented CO2 CC/AP foamed gel treat-
ments 共35,000 to 45,000 reservoir bbl兲 that have been applied to
fractured injection wells of the CO2 miscible flood of the Rangely
Weber Sand Unit. Initial production responses to these foamed gel
treatments are reported to be encouraging. To quote from the Con-
clusion section of that paper, ‘‘For a given treatment volume, the
cost of a 共CC/AP兲 foam-gel treatment 关of this series兴 at Rangely is
40 to 50% below the average cost of 共comparable CC/AP兲
polymer-gel treatments. As the foam can be injected at a higher
rate, the total pump time required for a 40,000 bbl foam-gel treat-
ment is similar to a 20,000 bbl polymer-gel treatment. In regions
of the reservoir which require large-volume treatments, the foam-
gel approach provides a cost-effective method by which to
achieve in-depth conformance improvement.’’
In view that the aforementioned foamed-gel treatments were
recently performed between November of 1996 and November of
1997 and that foamed-gel treatments are still considered to be an
emerging technology, the long-term effectiveness and longevity of
CC/AP foamed-gel treatments of the type reported in Refs. 33 and
34 have yet to be determined.
What Has Been Learned
In this section of the paper, we will discuss an overview of what
a decade plus of experience with the successful and widely ap-
plied conformance-control and fluid-shutoff CC/AP gel technol-
ogy has taught us.
Classifying and Distinguishing Conformance Problems and
Treatments. Often the first basic distinction that needs to be
made is whether the fundamental objective of the conformance
gel treatment under consideration is to improve volumetric sweep
efficiency during oil recovery flooding operations and to promote
incremental oil production, or shut off detrimental excessive and
unproductive water or gas coproduction.
When conducting a fluid 共water or gas兲 shutoff treatment, one
needs to determine, as best as possible, the source and flow path to
the producing well of the excessive and detrimental fluid produc-
tion. Is it emanating from channeling, coning, flow behind pipe,
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000
casing leaks, etc.? The nature of the ‘‘plumbing’’ of the flow path
of the excess fluid production needs to be determined or, at least,
hypothesized.
When considering the application of a polymer-gel conform-
ance treatment, one needs to determine what class of problems is
being treated. That is, is one conducting a
䊉 sweep improvement treatment,
䊉 water shutoff treatment,
䊉 gas shutoff treatment,
䊉 squeeze and recompletion treatment,
䊉 zone abandonment treatment,
䊉 water or gas coning treatment,
䊉 casing leak repair treatment, or
䊉 treatment for mitigating flow behind the pipe?
For a conformance gel treatment that is to be applied within the
actual reservoir, the following distinction needs to be made at the
very onset of treatment conception. Are you treating and will the
gel be functioning within matrix 共unfractured兲 reservoir rock hav-
ing permeabilities of less than roughly 2 darcies, or fractures or
other high-permeability anomalies having permeabilities exceed-
ing roughly 2 darcies? This distinction and classification are criti-
cal because the CC/AP polymer gel technology requires distinctly
different gel-formulation versions for treating each of these con-
formance problem classifications and reservoir flow-channel
types.
If one is treating matrix conformance problems, he/she needs to
determine very early in the process if the conformance problems
are areal or vertical in nature. Areal matrix conformance problems
are difficult and challenging to treat, and usually require relatively
large-volume gel treatments. If one is treating vertical problems in
a matrix rock reservoir with a profile modification treatment, then
the critical distinction that must be made in this case is whether
there is vertical fluid-flow communication between the high per-
meability and channeling strata or layers, and the remaining strata
or layers within the reservoir. If there is no vertical fluid-flow
communication between the reservoir layers, as exemplified by
continuous shale strata existing between the reservoir layers, and
there is good cement behind the pipe, then only a relatively small
near-wellbore gel treatment is required. Such gel treatments can
be applied from either the injection well or production well side.
If the matrix conformance problem involves vertical fluid cross-
flow between reservoir strata or layers, this situation will require
deep placement of relatively large volumes of gel within the res-
ervoir in order to be able to effectively treat this problem type.35
If treating fracture conformance problems, the first distinction
that needs to be made is are you treating hydraulic or natural
fractures? The second distinction that needs to be made is are you
treating vertical or horizontal fractures? If treating vertical frac-
tures, you need to determine if you are treating simple and non-
interconnected fractures, an intermediate intensity fracture net-
work, or a highly intense fracture network. Fracture aperture
widths to be treated should be determined or estimated. All of
these distinctions and information regarding fracture gel treat-
ments, and all their nuances, will strongly influence the design,
size, and execution of properly designed gel conformance-control
and fluid-shutoff treatments that are to be applied to fracture prob-
lem reservoirs. These factors also strongly influence the probabil-
ity of success and the risk factors involved when applying gel
treatments to fracture conformance problems.
When conducting a gel treatment to abate water or gas coning,
a critical distinction to make, which will profoundly influence
treatment design, size, application strategy, and likelihood of suc-
cess, is whether the coning is occurring through matrix reservoir
rock or vertical fractures.
When treating carbonate reservoirs, another important distinc-
tion that needs to be made is whether the high-permeability flow
path to be treated involves matrix reservoir rock only, matrix rock
with nonconnecting and noncommunicating vugular porosity,
fractures, solution channels, interconnected vugular porosity, or
caverns.
R.D. Sydansk and G.P. Southwell: Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technology
Fracture conformance gel treatments should be designed so the
gel does not substantially invade and damage the matrix reservoir
rock, and so the gel is readily injectable into, and flows readily
through, the fractures during placement of the gel treatment. Con-
formance gel treatments of matrix rock reservoirs, on the other
hand, must be designed so the pregel solution or gelant is actually
readily injectable into, and can readily flow through, matrix res-
ervoir rock, enabling the placed gel to be able to effectively re-
duce the fluid-flow capacity 共especially to water兲 of the treated
matrix reservoir rock volume.
There has historically been a trend whereby operators, when
first considering the application of conformance gel treatments in
a new field, tend to underestimate the permeability and fluid-flow
capacity of the high-permeability channels and flow paths within
the reservoir to be treated.
Attributes of Good Candidate Wells. Based on a decade plus of
experience with the CC/AP gel technology and treatments, we
have concluded the following.
Good injection well candidates for gel treatments are charac-
terized by having
䊉 early injectant breakthrough;
䊉 an excess in injection capacity;
䊉 a substantial movable oil saturation within the well pattern;
䊉 unexpectedly low oil recovery within the well pattern.
Good production well candidates for gel treatments are charac-
terized by having
䊉 a high WOR or GOR;
䊉 high producing fluid levels in the wellbore;
䊉 excessive competing water or gas coproduction;
䊉 a substantial movable oil saturation within the well pattern;
䊉 unexpectedly low oil recovery;
䊉 early water or gas breakthrough.
Requirements of Candidate Wells and Patterns. Because
polymer-gel conformance treatments are in fact just treatments,
the well or well pattern to be treated must be suffering from a
treatable conformance or excessive fluid coproduction problem.
Since gel treatments alone do not reduce microscopic-
displacement residual oil saturation, any well pattern to be treated
must contain an economically sufficient volume of movable and
recoverable oil saturation. When performing a fluid shutoff treat-
ment, the production well must be producing an excessive amount
of unproductive water or gas. Unproductive water or gas copro-
duction is flow that is competing with the oil production and is
usually entering into the well through a separate reservoir flow
path.
Treatment Elements That Must Be Successfully Executed. The
successful application and execution of a conformance-control or
fluid-shutoff gel treatment requires that all five of the following
elements of any given polymer-gel treatment be simultaneously
implemented successfully, or there is a high probability of treat-
ment failure.
䊉 The treatment fluid must function as intended downhole.
䊉 The conformance problem must be correctly identified.
䊉 A proper treatment fluid system must be selected.
䊉 The gel treatment must be properly designed and sized.
䊉 The treatment fluid must be properly applied and placed.
It has been our observation with the CC/AP gel technology that
the treatment success rate is often directly proportional to the
operator’s involvement in all of the above treatment elements.
Our experience with the CC/AP gel technology has clearly
demonstrated to us that the successful implementation of gel treat-
ments for conformance-control and fluid-shutoff purposes requires
a high degree of teamwork between the operator and the service
and technology provider共s兲.
Guidelines of Where Best Applied. In general, polymer-gel
sweep-improvement treatments for promoting incremental oil pro-
duction are most advantageously applied to injection wells. Water
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000 275
coning or water channeling up through vertical fractures is a prob-
lem that often can be treated successfully with polymer gels. On
the other hand, water coning through matrix reservoir rock is a
problem that is difficult to successfully treat with gels. Except as
noted in the following sentence, gel treatments that are applied for
water and gas shutoff are usually most advantageously applied to
production wells. When applying polymer gel conformance treat-
ments in conjunction with gas flooding 共e.g., CO2 flooding兲 in
naturally fractured reservoirs, gel treatments, whether for sweep
improvement or fluid shutoff, are often more advantageously ap-
plied to injection wells.
It has been our field experience to date with the CC/AP gel
technology that fracture conformance problems are often more
easily and successfully treated compared to matrix rock conform-
ance problems. However, there definitely exists a very substantial
potential for the successful application of polymer-gel conform-
ance treatments to matrix rock reservoirs. It should be emphasized
that there has been a large number of very successful near-
wellbore applications of the CC/AP gel technology as sweep-
improvement and fluid-shutoff treatments that have been applied
to mitigate conformance problems in matrix rock reservoirs.
Risks and Potential Pitfalls. One of the important lessons that
we have learned from our field experience with the CC/AP gel
technology is that polymer-gel jobs, no matter what gel technol-
ogy might be employed, are in fact just treatments. As such, you
must have a treatable conformance or fluid-shutoff problem at the
well or well pattern to be treated, or else you are just wasting your
money and time. Not surprisingly, polymer-gel treatments are not
a panacea. Polymer-gel treatments for conformance improvement
and water and gas shutoff are a relatively new and emerging en-
gineering tool that should be added to the petroleum engineer’s
‘‘toolbox.’’
Another important constraint is that, unfortunately, gel
conformance-control and fluid-shutoff treatments tend to be
highly well, well pattern, and reservoir specific.
An improperly designed or executed polymer gel conformance-
control treatment can reduce oil or gas production rates, reduce
ultimate oil or gas recovery from the treated well or well pattern,
cause injection or production operational problems, and following
producing well treatments, result in excessive backproduction of
gel, causing production and production facility problems.
The most common pitfall that we have encountered in applying
the CC/AP gel technology is the following. There has been a
number of operators who have applied the matrix-reservoir-rock
and low-MW-polymer version of the CC/AP gel technology to
producing formations, especially sandstone formations, initially
believing that they were treating reservoir rock permeabilities that
did not exceed 2 darcies, only to find out during pregel solution
injection and the treatment’s postmortem that the permeabilities of
the high-permeability channels within their reservoir formation
substantially exceeded 2 darcies and to find out that the treatments
did not perform as well as expected because the conformance
problem of their reservoir had not been properly diagnosed. This
limitation and pitfall of the CC/AP gel technology can be circum-
vented by properly defining the conformance problem prior to gel
treatment application.
The second most common pitfall that we have experienced in
conjunction with the application of CC/AP gel conformance treat-
ments involves acrylamide-polymer quality control issues. Due to
impurities that can be introduced during the manufacturing pro-
cess, some commercial low-MW acrylamide polymers, which are
to be used in the matrix-reservoir-rock version of the CC/AP gel
technology, are surprisingly not readily injectable into reservoir
matrix rock of normal permeabilities. Due to other impurities that
are often introduced during the manufacturing process and impu-
rities that result in poor polymer stability at high temperatures,
some commercial acrylamide polymers are not well suited for use
in CC/AP gel treatments that are to be applied to reservoirs at the
upper end of the temperature range of applicability of the CC/AP
gel technology. This problem and pitfall of the CC/AP gel tech-
nology can be avoided and worked around by proper quality con-
276 R.D. Sydansk and G.P. Southwell: Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technology
trol testing of the acrylamide polymer to be used in a given gel
treatment and then, if necessary, finding another supplier who can
provide a polymer that will perform adequately in terms of ther-
mal stability within the gel.
Other pitfalls that have been encountered include the following.
First, operators and service companies who are designing gel
treatments which are to be applied in the near-wellbore regime for
water-shutoff purposes within soft sand formations that have pro-
duced a lot of sand and have large cavities behind the liner of the
production well, have not always taken into account that relatively
larger gel treatment volumes will be required. A second pitfall
involves operators, who cool the treated reservoir volume using
water injection prior to the gel treatment, have not always ac-
counted adequately in their gel treatment design for the relatively
slow rate that the cooled reservoir volume will reheat. Third, op-
erators and service companies have not always properly custom
tailored the CC/AP gel formulations for those treatments that are
to be applied to high-temperature carbonate or to carbonate-
mineral-containing reservoirs in order to properly account for, and
to circumvent, the high degree of alkalinity that the gel will en-
counter in such high-temperature reservoirs. Fourth, treated wells
involving certain CC/AP gel treatments have occasionally been
brought back onto production too fast following gel treatment
placement and gel maturation. Fifth, a serious pitfall that has oc-
curred involves operators who have applied a fracture-problem
producing-well CC/AP gel treatment and who have not fully ac-
counted for, and prepared for, the backproduction of a relatively
small amount of mature gel that can possibly occur and have not
prepared for what problems this gel backproduction can cause in
the operators’ production vessels, separation equipment, and
desander/deoiler equipment.
Our 12 years of experience with the CC/AP gel technology has
taught us that when determining the lowest concentration of poly-
mer that will render acceptable long-term gel stability and assure
treatment longevity, long-term 共months to years兲 gel stability test-
ing at reservoir temperature is required. Gel formulations that are
stable over the short term 共days to weeks兲 are not necessarily
stable over the long term at any given reservoir temperature. A
pitfall that can occur, when an operator is developing a gel for-
mulation for application to a given reservoir, is as follows. The
operator should not use short-term gel stability testing as a crite-
rion to justify reducing the polymer concentration in the gel to be
employed as a means to reduce treatment chemical costs. The
operator should use the recommended polymer concentration in
his/her gel formulation as specified by the technology provider.
Quality Control Is Critical. We have noted a strong correlation
between service companies and, especially, operators who have
implemented, or insist on having implemented, a strong quality
control and quality assurance program during the application of
polymer-gel treatments and the success rate and degree of ex-
pected benefits rendered by the applied gel treatments.
We have found that it is essential for the operator to request,
and to also closely monitor and/or actually participate in, the qual-
ity control program of polymer-gel conformance treatments 共be it
for any gel technology兲 if the operator expects to enjoy a high
success rate for such chemical treatments. This is especially true
for the first application of a gel treatment in any given field. The
quality control program should include, but not be limited to,
assuring that the proper chemicals are being used in the actual gel
formulation of the treatment, formulating and testing the gel with
the actual chemicals and water to be used, prior to pumping the
gel, assuring adequate dissolution of solid-grade polymer prior to
injection, when conducting matrix rock treatments, assuring that
the polymer solution alone without crosslinker is injectable into
the matrix reservoir rock without face plugging occurring, and
taking pregel solution samples regularly at, or near, the wellhead
as the treatment is being pumped.
When performing nonroutine polymer gel treatments using any
gel, particularly for a new application or during a first-time treat-
ment in a field, properly executed bottle testing, which is con-
ducted in the field or at a nearby laboratory using actual field gel
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000
formulation chemicals and gel makeup water and which is con-
ducted at reservoir temperature, is an especially powerful and ef-
fective quality control and assurance tool. Such testing provides a
semiquantitative check on the gelation rate, a semiquantitative
check on the final gel strength, and an indication of the gel stabil-
ity. In addition, such testing provides a degree of assurance that
the proper chemicals are being used in the actual field gel formu-
lation and that there are no chemical interferences in the field
makeup water that will interfere with the gel. Furthermore, such
testing can provide a degree of assurance that the actual field
recipe being used is the correct and a workable formulation.
Conclusions
The following conclusion pertain to field applications and results
of the CC/AP gel technology.
Over 1,400 CC/AP gel treatments, which have been applied for
conformance-control purposes to treat a wide range of conform-
ance and fluid-shutoff problems, had been performed worldwide
at the time of the writing of this paper.
Conformance-control CC/AP gel treatments can generate rela-
tively large volumes of incremental oil production or substantially
reduce operating expense costs per unit weight or cost of chemical
expended, and these gel treatments can, in certain instances, be
used to extend the economic lives of marginal and highly mature
wells and well patterns.
The following conclusion pertain to what has been learned as a
result of having applied numerous CC/AP gel treatments.
Correctly classifying the conformance problem to be treated, in
terms of whether treating matrix reservoir rock problems or high-
permeability anomaly problems, is critical to treatment success.
When treating vertical conformance problems in matrix reser-
voir rock, determining whether vertical fluid crossflow exists be-
tween the reservoir strata being treated and the other reservoir
strata is critical to treatment success. If crossflow exists, matrix
rock near-wellbore CC/AP gel treatments will not likely be suc-
cessful in rectifying the conformance problem.
When conducting water or gas shutoff treatments, it is critical
to first determine that the well to be treated is coproducing exces-
sive amounts of unproductive and competing water or gas produc-
tion and that there exists within the well pattern to be treated an
economically sufficient volume of recoverable oil saturation.
There are at least five elements of a CC/AP gel conformance
treatment that must be simultaneously executed successfully, or
the chances of achieving treatment success are remote at best.
Having in place and executing a strong quality control and
assurance program are essential to maintaining a high success rate
when applying the CC/AP, or any other polymer gel,
conformance-treatment technology.
Nomenclature
k f /k i ⫽ final permeability/initial permeability
⌬p ⫽ differential pressure
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Marathon Oil Co. for supporting
this work and granting permission to publish this paper. They
would also like to acknowledge the numerous laboratory and field
personnel within Marathon and the licensees of the CC/AP gel
technology who contributed substantially to the development and
field demonstration of the conformance CC/AP polymer-gel tech-
nology.
References
1. Mack, J.C. and Smith, J.E.: ‘‘In-Depth Colloidal Dispersion Gels Im-
prove Oil Recovery Efficiency,’’ paper SPE 27780 presented at the
1994 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, 17–20 April.
R.D. Sydansk and G.P. Southwell: Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technology
2. Moffitt, P.D. et al.: ‘‘Development and Field Testing of a New Low
Toxicity Polymer Crosslinking System,’’ paper SPE 35173 presented
at the 1996 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference,
Midland, Texas, 27–29 March.
3. Moradi-Araghi, A., Bjornson, G., and Doe, P.H.: ‘‘Thermally Stable
Gels for Near-Wellbore Permeability Contrast Corrections,’’ SPE Ad-
vanced Technology Series 共April 1993兲 1, No. 1, 140.
4. Whitney, D.D., Montgomery, D.W., and Hutchins, R.D.: ‘‘Water
Shutoff in the North Sea: Testing a New Polymer-Gel System in the
Heather Field, UKCS Block 2/5,’’ SPEPF 共May 1996兲 108.
5. Dovan, H.T., Hutchins, R.D., and Sandiford, B.B.: ‘‘Delaying Gela-
tion of Aqueous Polymers at Elevated Temperatures Using Novel
Organic Crosslinkers,’’ paper SPE 37246 presented at the 1997 SPE
Intl. Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 18–21 February.
6. Bryant, S.L., Bartosek, M., and Lockhart, T.P.: ‘‘Laboratory Evalua-
tion of Phenol-Formaldehyde/Polymer Gelants for High-Temperature
Applications,’’ J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 共1997兲 17, 197.
7. Hardy, M. et al.: ‘‘The First Carbonate Field Application of a New
Organically Crosslinked Water Shutoff Polymer System,’’ paper SPE
50738 presented at the 1999 SPE Intl. Symposium on Oilfield Chem-
istry, Houston, 16–19 February.
8. Todd, B.J., Willhite, G.P., and Green, D.W.: ‘‘A Mathematical Model
of In-Situ Gelatin of Polyacrylamide by a Redox Process,’’ SPERE
共February 1993兲 51.
9. Purkaple, J.D. and Summers, L.E.: ‘‘Evaluation of Commercial
Crosslinked Polyacrylamide Gel Systems for Injection Profile Modi-
fication,’’ paper SPE 17331 presented at the 1988 SPE/DOE En-
hanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17–20 April.
10. Schoeling, L.G., Green, D.W., and Willhite, G.P.: ‘‘Introducing EOR
Technology to Independent Operators,’’ JPT 共December 1989兲 1344.
11. Sydansk, R.D. and Southwell, G.P.: ‘‘More Than 12 Years of Expe-
rience with a Successful Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technol-
ogy,’’ paper SPE 49315 prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 27–30
September and presented at the 1999 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting, Gillette, Wyoming, 15–18 May.
12. Sydansk, R.D.: ‘‘A Newly Developed Chromium共III兲 Gel Technol-
ogy,’’ SPERE 共August 1990兲 346.
13. Sydansk, R.D.: ‘‘Acrylamide-Polymer/Chromium共III兲-Carboxylate
Gels for Near-Wellbore Matrix Treatments,’’ SPE Advanced Technol-
ogy Series 共April 1993兲 1, No. 1, 146.
14. Sydansk, R.D. and Argabright, P.A.: ‘‘Conformance Improvement in
a Subterranean Hydrocarbon-Bearing Formation Using a Polymer
Gel,’’ U.S. Patent No. 4,683,949 共1987兲.
15. Lockhart, T.P. and Albonico, P.: ‘‘New Chemistry for the Placement
of Chromium共III兲/Polymer Gels in High-Temperature Reservoirs,’’
SPEPF 共November 1994兲 273; Trans., AIME, 297.
16. Stavland, A. and Nilsson, S.: ‘‘Delayed Gelation in Corefloods Using
Cr共III兲-Malonate as a Crosslinker,’’ J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 共1995兲 13, 247.
17. Mumallah, N.A.: ‘‘Chromium共III兲 Propionate: A Crosslinking Agent
for Water-Soluble Polymers in Hard Oilfield Brines,’’ SPERE 共Feb-
ruary 1988兲 243.
18. Sydansk, R.D.: ‘‘Hydrocarbon Recovery Process Utilizing a Gel Pre-
pared From a Polymer and a Preformed Crosslinking Agent,’’ U.S.
Patent No. 5,415,229 共1995兲.
19. Sanders, G.S., Chambers, M.J., and Lane, R.H.: ‘‘Successful Gas
Shutoff With Polymer Gel Using Temperature Modeling and Selec-
tive Placement in the Prudhoe Bay Field,’’ paper SPE 28502 pre-
sented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
New Orleans, 25–28 September.
20. Sydansk, R.D.: ‘‘Process for Reducing Permeability in a Subterranean
Hydrocarbon-Bearing Formation Utilizing a Gelation Solution Hav-
ing a Controlled Gelation Rate,’’ U.S. Patent No. 5,421,411 共1995兲.
21. Sydansk, R.D. and Moore, P.E.: ‘‘Production Responses in Wyo-
ming’s Big Horn Basin Resulting from Application of Acrylamide-
Polymer/CrIII-Carboxylate Gels,’’ paper SPE 21894 available from
SPE, Richardon, Texas 共1990兲.
22. Sydansk, R.D. and Moore, P.E.: ‘‘Gel Conformance Treatments In-
crease Oil Production in Wyoming,’’ Oil & Gas J. 共January 20, 1992兲
40.
23. Southwell, G.P.: ‘‘Marathon Oil Company’s Experience with Pro-
duced Water Control and Conformance Improvement Using Polymer
Gels,’’ Proc. 46th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course,
Texas Tech U., Lubbock, Texas 共1999兲.
24. Borling, D.C.: ‘‘Injection Conformance Control Case Histories Using
Gels at the Wertz Field CO2 Tertiary Flood in Wyoming,’’ paper SPE
27825 presented at the 1994 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Sym-
posium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17–20 April.
25. Hild, G.P. and Wackowski, R.K.: ‘‘Results of the Injection Well
Polymer Gel Treatment Program at the Rangely Weber Sand Unit,
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000 277
 Rangely, Colorado,’’ paper SPE 39612 presented at the 1998 SPE/
DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 19–22
April.
26. Lai, Q.J. et al.: ‘‘Gel-Cement Combination Squeezes For Gas Shut-
off,’’ paper SPE 54596 presented at the 1999 SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Anchorage, 26–28 May.
27. Southwell, G.P. and Posey, S.M.: ‘‘Applications and Results of
Acrylamide-Polymer/Chromium共III兲-Carboxylate Gels,’’ paper SPE
27779 presented at the 1994 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Sym-
posium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17–20 April.
28. Whisonant, R.J. and Hall, F.R.: ‘‘Combining Continuous Improve-
ments in Acid Fracturing, Propellant Stimulations, and Polymer Tech-
nologies to Increase Production and Develop Additional Reserves in a
Mature Oil Field,’’ paper SPE 38789 presented at the 1997 SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5–8
October.
29. Kintzele, M.J.: ‘‘Polymer Treatments Brighten Production Profiles of
Rocky Mountain Wells,’’ Am. Oil & Gas Reporter 共February 1998兲
107.
30. Kintzele, M.J.: ‘‘Optimizing Producing Well Crosslinked Polymer
Conformance Treatments in the Big Horn Basin Area, Wyoming,’’
Proc., PNEC 3rd Intl. Conference on Reservoir Conformance, Profile
Control, and Water and Gas Shutoff, Houston 共1997兲.
31. Odorisio, V.G. and Curtis, S.C.: ‘‘Operational Advances From Field
Application of Short-Radius Horizontal Drilling in the Yates Field
Unit,’’ paper SPE 24612 presented at the 1992 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4–7 October.
32. ‘‘Polymer Gels,’’ Marathon Messenger 共1995兲 95, No. 1, 4.
33. Friedmann, F. et al.: ‘‘Development and Testing of a New Foam-Gel
Technology to Improve Conformance of the Rangely CO2 Flood,’’
paper SPE 38837 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5–8 October.
278 R.D. Sydansk and G.P. Southwell: Conformance-Control Polymer-Gel Technology
34. Hughes, T.L. et al.: ‘‘Large-Volume Foam-Gel Treatments to Im-
prove Conformance of the Rangely CO2 Flood,’’ paper SPE 39649
presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 19–22 April.
35. Sorbie, K.S. and Seright, R.S.: ‘‘Gel Placement in Heterogeneous
Systems With Crossflow,’’ paper SPE 24192 presented at the 1992
SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
22–24 April.
Robert D. Sydansk is a senior technical consultant at the
Marathon Oil Co. Petroleum Technology Center in Littleton,
Colorado. e-mail: rdsydansk@marathonoil.com. He presently
is concentrating his efforts on developing and improving
conformance-control fluid and treatment systems. His R&D ex-
perience with Marathon in the area of improved oil and gas
recovery included development of CC/AP gel technology.
He chaired the 1993 SPE Forum on Advances in Conformance
Control and received SPE’s 1999 Production Engineering
Award. He holds a BS degree in chemistry from the U. of Colo-
rado. George P. Southwell is an advanced senior licensing
representative at the Marathon Oil Co. Petroleum Technology
Center in Littleton, Colorado. His current assignment is the
commercialization and field implementation of Marathon’s
CC/AP polymer-gel technology. His twenty-five year career
with Marathon has included oil field production and plant op-
erations at several U.S.A. locations. He has BS degrees in pe-
troleum engineering and finance, and an MBA degree in in-
ternational business.
SPE Prod. & Facilities, Vol. 15, No. 4, November 2000