SPE 101781
A Review of Over 100 Polymer Gel Injection Well Conformance Treatments in
Argentina and Venezuela: Design, Field Implementation, and Evaluation
C. Norman, SPE, B. Turner, SPE, and J.L. Romero, SPE, Tiorco Inc., and G. Centeno, SPE, and E. Muruaga, Tecpetrol
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the First International Oil Conference and Exhibition
in Mexico held in Cancun, Mexico, 31 August –2 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
During the last 15 years, polymer gels have become an
accepted technology for improving volumetric sweep
efficiency in heterogeneous waterfloods. Water injected
subsequent to the gel treatment ideally enters previously
unswept zones with significant mobile oil saturation.
Results from several field projects in four hydrocarbon basins
in Argentina and Venezuela are described based on the
application of two available polymer gel technologies:
MarcitSM and Unogel. The types of reservoirs and reservoir
conditions where polymer gels have been successful, and
unsuccessful, are illustrated. Fundamental reservoir rock and
fluid characteristics, reservoir temperatures, polymer gel
designs, and project evaluation are presented for each of the
field projects. A high temperature (275°F) reservoir is
included.
In multi-layered reservoirs where crossflow is believed to be
limited, one strategy is to inject a small gel volume in order to
improve the vertical profile in the near wellbore region. If
crossflow is believed to exist between layers or within a layer,
significant gel volumes are recommended for deeper
placement in the offending zones so that water cannot easily
bypass the gel treatment.
Gel formulation is a fundamental issue. Traditionally,
minimum polymer concentrations of at least 3000 ppm have
been recommended for injection well gel treatments. Lower
polymer concentrations were believed to be ineffective. A
large scale and ongoing field project is presented in which low
concentration polymer gels have been successful. In the same
field project, the results of multiple gel treatments in the same
injection well are discussed.
Introduction
This paper will summarize polymer gel applications in three
basins in Argentina and the Lake Maracaibo basin in
Venezuela (Figure 1 and 2), using two of the most widely
applied polymer gel technologies: MarcitSM,1 and Unogel2.
Several of the case studies presented in the following
paragraphs included extensive pre-treatment diagnostics. Due
to the space limitations, those procedures are not discussed in
detail.
Ma rath on’spa tentedMarcitSM gel technology was developed
for application in naturally fractured reservoirs and was first
applied in the Tensleep and Phosphoria reservoirs of
northwest Wyoming. The Unogel technology was developed
and patented by Union Oil Company of California (Unocal),
primarily for use in high temperature (>250° F) reservoirs.
Although somewhat less versatile than the MarcitSM gels,
Unogel has shown promise in high temperature reservoir
applications. Both MarcitSM and Unogel gelants are typically
formulated using a partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
polymer (PHPA). The primary difference lies in the
crosslinking mechanism. MarcitSM gels are crosslinked with a
metal ion (Chromium III) while the Unogel technology
requires an organic crosslinker and a stabilizing agent for
delayed gelation.
Although polymer gels evolved from the application of
polymers for mobility control, gel treatments are not designed
to improve an adverse mobility ratio. One of the primary
criteria for polymer gel applications are reservoirs with low oil
recovery efficiency and, in many cases, such reservoirs exhibit
an adverse mobility ratio. However, the primary objective of
any polymer gel treatment is selective permeability reduction
due to reservoir heterogeneity. Oil viscosity is not, in itself,
an important consideration for well selection or treatment
design.
The case histories presented in the following paragraphs are
unique for several reasons. First, virtually all other published
case histories describe the application of polymer gels in
naturally fractured reservoirs. Some academics assert that
polymer gels cannot be applied in matrix reservoirs. This
paper includes field applications in reservoirs that are not
characterized by the operators as naturally fractured. Whether
the operator and the literature3 have properly characterized the
2 SPE 101781
reservoirs or whether a high permeability anomaly in matrix
rock can exhibit fracture-like behavior, is left for the readers to
decide. Secondly, polymer gels have traditionally been
formulated with relatively high polymer concentrations
(>3000 ppm) under the assumption that strong gels are
required for permeability reduction in natural fractures. A
successful large scale field project is presented using
polymer/crosslinker formulations that would not be considered
a“ bulkg el”byt raditi
on als t
a ndards.
Most of the field gel projects were applied in multi-layer
formations in which selective injection (downhole mandrels)
were used in an attempt to control the distribution of injected
water. However, the case histories demonstrate that near
wellbore solutions usually do not correct in-depth reservoir
heterogeneity.
Finally, it is important to note that the vast majority of the gel
tre
atme ntswe r
e“ bullhea ded” . Th a tis,a llz on esi nt he
wellbore were exposed during gel injection. No plugging of
low permeability zones was observed.
Argentina
Principle Productive Areas
Noroeste
Cuyana
. LA VENTANA
Neuquina
Gulfo San Jorge
Austral
Figure 1. Hydrocarbon Productive Areas in
Argentina
Figure 2. Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela
Ar
gent
ina’
sCuyanaBasi
n
The Vizcacheras Field
The Vizcacheras field (Figure 3) is comprised of two
reservoirs, the Barrancas and the Papagayos. The Barrancas
reservoir was the target of the gel treatments. The reservoir is
a heterogeneous, unfractured matrix rock with an average
permeability and temperature of 500 md and 208°F (98°C)
respectively. It is comprised of sand conglomerate bodies
interbedded with impermeable shales. The layers are
characterized by high permeability anomalies. Initial oil
production from the formation occurred in mid-1966. Peak
production was reached in 1968 with 19,411 BOPD at an
average water cut of only 5%. Prior to the water conformance
pilot, the Barrancas formation had undergone a workover
campaign in 1991 and a pilot secondary recovery project in
1996 that was expanded in 1977 and 1998 to include a total of
20 injection wells in inverted seven spot patterns.
MENDOZA
RIO MENDOZA BARRANCAS
RIO TUNUYAN
RIO TUNUYAN
EMBALSE
EL CARRIZAL
30
MENDOZA
VIZCACHERAS
Cañada
Dura
CUENCA
CUYANA
10 KM
Figure 3. Map of the Cuyana Basin
In December of 2003, a water conformance pilot was designed
using MarcitSM gels with the goal of improving volumetric
sweep improvement and thus oil recovery. By injecting
15,000 bbls of 3000 ppm polymer gel into the central injection
well, the goal was to squeeze gel into the highest permeability
zones thus forcing subsequently injected water into lower
permeability/higher oil saturated layers that had not previously
received injection. The VI-144 pilot area (Figure 4) was
analyzed with tracers before and after the gel treatment and
results showed that gel had preferentially entered the highest
permeability channels that existed before the gel treatment.
Furthermore, in the pilot pattern, approximately 200,000 bbls
(32,000 m3) of incremental oil were produced at 1.53 U$S/bbl.
For a more detailed discussion of the pilot area, please see
SPE 99379.4
Because of the economic success of the VI-144 pilot, the
target area was expanded in November 2004 to include two
adjacent patterns: VI-145, and VI-1002. Also, a second gel
treatment was performed in the VI-144 well. Figure 4 shows
the expanded area. These treatments followed the designs
used in the VI-144 pilot pattern and had the added benefit of
being modified by the experience gained in the pilot. All
SPE 101781 3

treatments were placed well below reservoir fracture pressure,

and all treatments included a larger post-treatment overflush to 100
prevent sand backflow in the wells, a problem observed in the WOR in affected wells
pilot trial. The injected volume in the pilot area, which was Gel Treatment
10% of the thief zone, was used as a guideline for the field
expansion treatments. WOR = 40

WOR
Figure 5 shows the cumulative response in all three well
patterns combined. The increasing water to oil ratio (WOR)
trend before the gel treatment is indicated by the black line.
As can be seen by the location of the pink square (which
denotes the first well in the expansion area to receive gel
injection in 2004), an immediate response was not seen. In
fact, the response to the oil treatments took approximately one 10
year to develop, as compared to a nearly immediate response 4,500,000 5,500,000 6,500,000 7,500,000 8,500,000
in the initial (VI-144) pilot. This is not surprising in light of Np bbls Oil
the following four considerations:
 The VI-144 pa tterni n
clude ss ev eral“ first-line” Figure 5. Incremental Oil from Vizcacheras Gel
producing wells that are closer to the injector; Treatments
 The VI-144 well had already been treated once, and
the highest permeability anomalies had been The Barrancas Field
remedied. Further treatment was aimed at in-depth, In February 2002, eight injection well MarcitSM gel treatments
thus long-term results; were performed in the Barrancas field, which is located
 Pre-treatment tracers indicated more rapid channeling approximately 50 Km northwest of the Vizcacheras field
in the VI-144 pattern vs. the VI-145 and VI-1002 (Figure 3). The target formation was the Barrancas formation.
patterns, thus the response from the first VI-144 gel This is the same formation described in the Vizcacheras field
treatment was anticipated to be more immediate; and discussion. However, average horizontal permeability is an
order of magnitude lower than the Barrancas formation in the
 Twelve months is a historically reasonable time for
Vizcacheras field. Four distinct flow units, separated by
gel treatment response in matrix reservoirs based on
impermeable shales, are encountered at depths of 7700 to
the Vizcacheras field well spacing.
8000 ft (2350 to 2450 m). The average permeability in the
No changes were made in the operation of the field, thus the
Barrancas field is 80 md.
only variable affecting the WOR ratio was the gel treatments.
Before and after each well treatment, approximately 100
At the time this paper was written, the WOR had not returned
barrels of 7.5%--10% HCl was circulated to remove scale
to the trend observed before the gel treatment. However, for
from impurities and solids in the injection water. After the
analysis, a parallel line was drawn in Figure 5 to show the
acid treatment, fresh water was used to mix the gels. Each of
present incremental oil recovered from the gel treatments. At
the gel treatments began on a vacuum; however, surface
the present time, approximately 240,000 bbls (38,000 m3) of
pressure increased rapidly and within hours approached the
incremental oil have been recovered at a cost of 3.02 U$S/bbl,
estimated reservoir fracture pressure of 3000 psi. It was hoped
which should decrease with the passage of time.
that since there was little or no crossflow between the flow
126 40 222 units, small volume gel treatments that improved the injection
profile would be sufficient to improve volumetric sweep
232
efficiency.

136 137
23 135 As indicated in Table 1, vertical sweep efficiency (Ev) was
248
255 improved in six of eight wells after the gel treatment. The
VI-1007
246 operator calculated vertical efficiency by normalizing the
242 volume of water injection per meter of perforations. However,
144 41 145 no significant oil response was noted in any of the offset
143
producing wells. Total fluid production did not change
249 VI-1001 appreciably in most of the patterns. It was concluded that
heterogeneities within each of the flow units remained
29 150 151 essentially unaffected by the near wellbore gel treatments due
149
to the small gel treatment volumes.
245

159 1002 160 161

158

Figure 4. Vizcacheras Gel Treatment Area

4 SPE 101781

Table 1. Sweep Efficiency in the Barrancas Field Prior to the polymer gel treatments, oil production in the Area
Inj. Well Pre Ev Post Ev Start PSI End PSI Bbls Gel
of Interest (Figure 6) was approximately 16 BOPD. After the
B-307 25% 69% 0 2500 620 gel treatments, oil production peaked at 80 BOPD and is
B-298
B-249
62%
40%
35%
51%
0
0
2650
2480
1040
370
currently approximately 38 BOPD (Figure 13). The WOR
B-240 54% 56% 0 2600 390 declined from 71 (pre-gel) to less than 10. As of April 2006,
B-152 52% 64% 0 2900 910 the WOR was approximately 16 (Figure 14). The final
B-342 48% 74% 0 3000 530
B-351 63% 48% 0 2650 120 volume of incremental oil production is not yet known.
B-357 67% 77% 0 2750 130 However, payout was achieved in approximately four months.

Ar
gent
ina’
sNeuquina Basin
The Entre Lomas Field
The Entre Lomas field, located on the east flank of the
Neuquina basin, Argentina (Figure 1), produces hydrocarbons
from the lower Cretaceous Quintuco Formation. The main
reservoir rocks are shallow marine to nearshore carbonates
deposited as part of a generally shallowing-upward sequence.
Four depositional sequences occur in this package. The lower
three intervals are dominated by fine-grained siliciclastic
sediments; the fourth, including the productive reservoir
interval, contains high-energy carbonate-clastic deposits. Four
main facies are found in the reservoir interval. These include
storm deposits, upper shoreface and offshore bar deposits,
carbonate beach deposits and capping sabkha facies with
anhydrite and dolomite mudstones. The pebbly skeletal
grainstones and dolomitic grainstones form excellent reservoir
rocks with an average of 18% porosity and 100 md
permeability. Porosity occurs as moldic and intergranular
pores. The reservoir interval is capped by the tight anhydrites
and dolomite mudstones.5

In June of 2003, the first polymer gel treatment was performed

in well EL-10, the only horizontal injector in the Area of
Interest (Figure 6). Only 263 barrels of gel were injected due
to a rapid increase in pressure during gel injection. From
April 2004 to July 2004, five more injection wells were
treated. Average well depth was approximately 1975 meters
(6500 feet) and average reservoir thickness was 33 ft. (10 m).
The MarcitSM gel technology was selected due to the moderate
reservoir temperature and fresh water available for gel mixing.
In those treatments, gel volumes ranged from 8000 to 11000
bbls gel at average polymer concentrations from 1000 to 1900
ppm.
The polymer concentration range between 1000 and 1900 ppm
polymer is considered well below traditional MarcitSM gel
concentrations and well above traditional Colloidal Dispersion
Gel (CDG) concentrations. However, laboratory tests
conducted by the service provider showed that the gel
formulations with those concentrations had visually
observable weak gels as well as transition pressures6 between
7 and 15 psi. CDGs with these transition pressures are usually
formed with higher molecular weight polymers at lower
concentrations, but because the MarcitSM technology was
chosen for this application, a medium molecular weight
product was chosen. The decision to use the MarcitSM/CDG
hybrid gel system was made based on pressure response and
desired gel volumes.
Figure 6. Map of the Entre Lomas Field
The Charco Bayo/Piedras Blancas Field
The Charco Bayo/Piedras Blancas field (CB/PB), located 90
Km. north of the city of Neuquen, was discovered by Shell in
1960. Two large anticlinal structures, Charco Bayo and
Piedras Blancas, operated as a single field, produce
hydrocarbons from the Tordillo Formation (Figure 15). The
Tordillo is a multi-layered unfractured sandstone found at a
depth of 7550 ft (2300 m) with average total thickness of
approximately 250 ft. (76 m). The upper layers are eolian,
followed by a series of fluvial flow units and a poorly sorted
conglomerate at the base7,8 (Figure 16). The mobility ratio of
1.4 is favorable at the reservoir temperature of 85°C.
However, reservoir heterogeneity is extreme; a Dykstra-
Parsons permeability coefficient of 0.91 has been calculated
from core data. Permeability ranges from less than 10 md to
more than 1000 md. Selective injection mandrels have been
installed in most injection wells in an attempt to distribute the
injected water more uniformly.
Waterflooding began in 1975 based on inverted seven spot
patterns. In 1994 certain areas of the field were converted to a
staggered line drive configuration. However, less than 20% of
the original oil in place has been recovered after 30 years of
waterflooding.
SPE 101781 5

The initial gel treatments in the CB/PB field were performed Figure 17 and Figure 18 include the pre and post treatment
from late 1999 until September 2000 using MarcitSM gel production data from two offset producers that showed a
technology. The results of the those gel treatments are significant change in oil production: CB-208 and CB-91. The
described in a previous SPE paper.9 Based on that pilot oil response is evident within a few months after the gel
project, an average of 11 injection well gel treatments were treatments.
completed in each of the years 2002 through 2005. In all
cases, trivalent chromium was the crossinking agent. Based Case 2: CB-120 and CB-207 are part of three adjacent
on more than 60 gel treatments in the CB/PB field, several injection wells in a line drive configuration to the west of the
observations are noteworthy: Case 1 wells. The CB-120 well was treated in November
 Oil response after the gel treatments is clearly more 1999 and August 2004. The CB-207 injector was treated in
significant in the CB structure than the PB structure. December 1999 and October 2004. Table 3 shows the
Recent geological studies have confirmed significant concentrations and volumes used in both the initial treatments
compartmentalization in the PB structure, and the re-treatments.
corroborated by a detailed analysis of waterflood
Table 3. Polymer concentrations: CB-120 and CB-
response. A secondary consideration is that the
207
eolian layer is much more prominent in the PB
structure. The eolian flow unit tends to be relatively Polymer CB-120 (bbls gel) CB-207 (bbls gel)
low permeability and less heterogeneous than the Concentration Treatment #1 & #2 Treatment #1 & #2
underlying fluvial layers. Due to the requirement of 900 0 2650 0 3646
injecting below fracture pressure, the gel treatments 1200 0 5882 0 0
in the PB structure have been smaller in volume and 1500 3425 1705 1081 0
with lower polymer concentrations than the gel 2000 625 0 0 0
treatments in the CB structure. 3000 950 0 132 0
 Laboratory tests have confirmed that stable gels can 3500 0 0 182 0
be formed at polymer concentrations of 900 to1500
6000 0 0 24 0
ppm in the fresh water available in the CB/PB field.
5000 10237 1419 3646
Field results confirm that these low concentration
gels have been very effective in improving
volumetric sweep efficiency, particularly in the CB The 1999 treatments were smaller than planned due to the
structure. rapid pressure response during gel injection. The lack of
natural fractures impeded the injection of significant gel
 The water, polymer, crosslinker, and temperature in
volumes below the formation parting pressure. Consequently,
the CB/PB field are the same as was used in the Entre
the treatment strategy changed in the design of the 2004
Lomas field. Many of these treatments would be
treatments. Lower concentration gels could be injected in
con sidere d“ hybrid” treatme nt
si nt h et rans i
tion
significantly larger volumes. An oil response after each of
concentrations between bulk gels and colloidal
the two treatments was noted in the following offset producing
dispersion gels. Therefore, the discussion above
wells: CB-68, CB-123, CB-181, CB-193 and CB-221. A
regarding CDGs and MarcitSM gels is valid in the
composite graph of the production from these wells is shown
CB/PB as well.
in Figure 19 and Figure 20. Although the 1999 treatments
Several injection wells have been re-treated. The re-
were successful, detailed analysis indicates that the lower
treatments in the CB structure have been as successful as the
concentration, larger volume gel treatments are more effective
initial treatments. This is discussed in more detail in the
in the CB structure.
following paragraphs.
It should be noted that in each of the cases discussed above, no
Example results in the CB structure:
infill wells were drilled during the evaluation period. Only
Case 1: The CB-73 and CB-200 injectors are in adjacent
those producing wells in which a clear, unequivocal oil
patterns located near the southeastern edge of the CB
response was noted are included in the accompanying
structure. The wells were treated in September and October of
graphical analysis. For example, if a workover was performed
2000 with the stages of polymer concentrations detailed in
in an offset producing well, no incremental oil from the gel
Table 2.
treatment was attributed to that producing well. As of March
2006, the average cost per incremental barrel of oil attributed
Table 2. Polymer concentrations CB-73: and CB-200
to the 1999-2005 gel treatments is less than $2.00/incremental
Polymer CB-73 CB-200 barrel, including all well preparation and treatment costs.
Concentration (bbls gel) (bbls gel)
900 3965 8294 Ar
gent
ina’
sGulfo San Jorge Basin
1200 400 700
1500 0 3491 The Golfo San Jorge (GSJ) basin (see Figure 1) is located in
1800 0 936 the southern Argentina provinces of Santa Cruz and Chubut.
2000 0 729 The GSJ has a surface area of approximately 170,000 km2,
4365 14150 approximately 1/3 of which is offshore. This is the most
6 SPE 101781

prolific basin in Argentina, having produced over 3 billion 1000 and 2000 ppm and 75% at polymer concentrations
barrels of oil and approximately 3 tcf of gas since the initial between 2000 and 2500 ppm. Formation water used to mix
discoveries in 1907. More than 26,000 wells have been drilled the gels had an average TDS of approximately 20,000 ppm.
in the GSJ basin. However, waterflood oil recovery is
generally low due to the combined effects of reservoir
heterogeneity and, in many fields, an adverse mobility ratio.

The most significant hydrocarbon accumulations of the basin

occur in a series of fluvial and shallow lacustrine reservoirs.
During the Tertiary, the basin developed a series of alternating Fm. Canadon Seco
marine and continental deposits. The Quaternary deposits
represent drastic climatic changes, such as glaciations and
accompanying fall in sea level. Volcanic activity throughout
the history of the basin is expressed in the high tuffaceous
content of the entire column, affecting the quality of the
reservoirs. As a consequence, the GSJ reservoirs are
notoriously difficult to interpret using conventional log
analysis. Hydrocarbon generation and expulsion is thought to
have begun 50-80 million years ago. After migrating through Fm. Mina el Carmen
a network of faults and pathways, the oil accumulated in both
extensional and compressional stratigraphic traps.10 Injection
well polymer gel treatments have been performed in three Figure 7. Mina El Carmen depositional environment
formations on the north flank of the GSJ basin: Mina El
Carmen, Yac. El Trebol, and Comodoro Rivadavia.
The Diadema Field
The El Trebol formation consists of deltaic and fluvial-
The Jose Segundo Field
lacustrine sandstone packages deposited in the late
Toward the flanks of the basin, the Mina El Carmen (MEC)
Cretaceous. The El Trebol facies are generally characterized
formation is characterized by thin, discontinuous sandstones
as finer and more continuous than the underlying Mina El
of fluvio-deltaic depositional environments (Figure 7). The
Carmen. In the northern flank, the sandstone member Pozo S-
first MEC gel treatment was completed in March 2004,
83 is thought to have been deposited by deltaic fans.
followed by a second well treatment in April 2006. Both
treatments were performed in the same field on the north flank
The Diadema field is located on the northern flank of the
of the basin. Average horizontal permeability in the field is
basin. In February 2005, three adjacent injection wells were
approximately 200 md, with a Dykstra-Parsons coefficient of
treated with MarcitSM gels. Well spacing in the first pilot area
approximately 0.72. Reservoir temperature is 180°F (82° C)
was approximately 40 acres and average net pay was 33 ft (10
at an average depth of 5400 ft (1650 m). Cumulative (primary
m). Gel volumes and average polymer concentrations ranged
+ secondary) oil recovery is estimated at 32% OOIP. Rapid
from 3000 to 6500 barrels of gel and 2900 to 4600 ppm
water breakthrough was evident in several offset producing
polymer, respectively. A significant oil response was noted in
wells. On the basis of this data, the two candidate wells were
several offset producing wells within 2-3 months after the gel
reasonable polymer gel candidates. Only the most prolific
treatments.
lay er,the“ 410” ,wa st rea t
edwi thg e l
. Al lot herpr odu
cin
g
intervals were protected by placing blind valves in the
Although the results of the first gel pilot remain confidential,
selective injection installation during the gel treatment.
the operator initiated a second MarcitSM gel project in
February 2006 significantly larger than the February 2005
The 2004 gel treatment, in a well at the edge of the field, was
pilot, indicating that the first pilot was very encouraging. The
moderately successful according to the operator. Based on
second project included ten adjacent injection wells with
these two gel treatments, the MEC formation is a challenging
average well spacing and net pay of approximately 30 acres
gel application for the following reasons:
and 15 ft (4.5 m), respectively (Figure 8). The second area,
 Uncertain injector-producer connectivity in some
with about half the average net pay thickness of the first pilot
areas of the GSJ.
area, enabled deeper penetration of the gel, with the objective
 Surface pressure increased rapidly in both injection of extending the duration of the oil response. The average
well gel treatments, indicating the thief zone(s) polymer concentration was approximately 3500 ppm (ranging
permeability may not be sufficient to allow in-depth from 2000 to 4500 ppm). Most of the gel treatments were
injection of bulk gels. between 5000 and 7000 barrels. In both pilots, produced
water with TDS of approximately 15,000 ppm, was utilized
In the first well, the treatment was terminated after injecting for mixing the gels.
approximately 4100 barrels of MarcitSM gel. Injectivity in the
second injector was somewhat better; approximately 7000
barrels of MarcitSM gel were injected. In both well treatments,
25% of the gel volume was at polymer concentrations between
SPE 101781
Figure 8. Pilot Expansion in the Diadema field
The El Tordillo Field
From an economic standpoint, the Comodoro Rivadavia
formation is the most significant reservoir in the San Jorge
basin. Most of the sand bodies have been deposited by
ephemeral fluvial systems, although eolian depositional
environments are evident in some fields. The thickness of
these units varies between 656 and 984 ft (200 and 300 m) at
marginal locations and 3281 to 3937 ft (1000-1200 m) at distal
positions (basin center). In the northern flank, the sandstone
packages are thicker, more continuous and contain less
volcanic material than in the southern flank of the basin.
P-9
P-8
P - 10
I-2
P-7
P-2
P-1
I-1
P-3
P-4
P-6
P-5
Figure 9. El Tordillo Patterns
In November 2005 MarcitSM gel treatments were completed in
two adjacent injection wells in the El Tordillo field located in
the northern flank of the basin (Figure 9). Well spacing in
each pattern is approximately 40 acres. Water injection in the
two subject injection wells began in October 1999 and
October 2002. The estimated oil recovery factor (primary +
secondary) in the pilot area was less than 20% OOIP at the
time of the gel treatments. Average well depth was
approximately 5400 ft (1650 m), the reservoir temperature was
7
187°F (86°C) and average net pay and porosity was 56 to 59 ft
(17 to 18 m) and 25%, respectively. The permeability of the
thief zones was believed to be multi-darcy.
Tracer studies conducted before the gel treatments indicated
fluid channeling within 24 hours. In several offset producing
wells, oil production declined rapidly after water
breakthrough.
The two polymer gel treatments were started on a vacuum and
completed at surface pressures of 350 to 500 psi which is well
below estimated formation parting pressure. Treatment rate
was 1000 barrels/day. The gel volumes were approximately
12,000 and 16,000 barrels with the majority of the gel at
polymer concentrations of 3000 to 4000 ppm. Produced water
with average TDS of approximately 7000 ppm was used for
mixing the gel chemicals.
Figure 10 shows the preliminary results from the gel
treatments in the El Tordillo field. Only the five wells that
responded positively (P1, P6, P7, P8, and P9 as shown in
Figure 10) to the gel injection are included. Three other wells
in the pattern (P3, P5, and P10) saw neither positive nor
negative response, while P2 and P4 experienced unrelated
operational changes and were not included in the analysis.
The operator has noted a decrease in the WOR while Figure
10 shows an increase in the average oil production rate.
Furthermore, no changes have been made in the injection rates
or in the operation of the field. As of May 2006, the operator
estimates that incremental oil production is approximately 63
BOPD (10 m3/d). The payout period is estimated as 4 months.
1000
BOPD
100
Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Oct-04 Oct-05 Oct-06
Positive Responders (P1, P6, P7, P8, P9)
Gel Treatment
Figure 10. Oil Response from El Tordillo gel
treatments
Venezuel
a’sMar
acai
boBasi
n
The Maracaibo basin, located in northwestern Venezuela
(Figure 2) represents one of the most productive hydrocarbon
basins in the world. Since the early 20th century, over 17,000
wells have produced more than 37 billion barrels of oil. OOIP
has been estimated to be in the range of 300 billion barrels.
Evolving from a Cretaceous to Eocene back-arc basin to a
foreland basin during the Eocene, the basin did not develop in
its current form until the mid Eocene. The oil source rock is
primarily upper Cretaceous and is produced primarily from
Eocene and Miocene clastic reservoirs. Most of the oil found
8 SPE 101781

in the west and northwest parts of the basin is found in faulted

anticlines. In the east, the primary trapping mechanism is the Injection Profile History

truncation and lenticularity of the Miocene reservoirs and a tar 1998 1999 2000 2001
seal at the Miocene outcrop. Oil is also produced from the
faulted and truncated Eocene.11,12
A

The C-4-X sandstone is found at an average depth of

approximately 12,500 ft (3810 m) in the central region of Lake

Zone
B
Maracaibo. The reservoir produces 29-32 API gravity crude
oil from three fluvial intervals,n
ame d“ A” ,“ B”a nd“ C”i n
this paper. The total productive area operated by the client C
includes approximately 9600 acres. Average total thickness is
400 feet (122 m). OOIP is estimated at 1.1 billion STBO.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Interval “A”is the most prolific, with average porosity and
shale volume of 18% and 9%, respectively. The reservoir
Figure 11. Injection profile history in Maracaibo
rock is heterogeneous, with horizontal permeability in the
Basin
range of 100 md to 1,200 md. There is evidence of vertical
communication from producing intervals above the C-4-X
sands. Initial reservoir energy was provided by solution gas
drive. Subsequent reservoir studies, historically stable
reservoir pressure, and high water-oil ratios in perimeter
producing wells confirm the presence of an active aquifer
below the C-4 reservoir. As of 2001, primary and secondary
recovery totaled approximately 31% and 7% OOIP,
respectively.

From 1968 through 1978, 88 wells were drilled by the

operator in the C-4-X interval. Maximum production reached
approximately 60,000 STB/D in February, 1970, subsequently
declining at an average rate of 12% per year. Water injection
began October, 1977 along the eastern flank of the field.
During the period 1983—1994 water injection was expanded
along the northern and southern flanks of the field. A 1996
reservoir study, which included 3D seismic, indicated that
water injection along the field flanks was not optimal due to a
series of faults trending northeast-southwest on each side of
the anticlines restricting flow across the fault boundaries.
Therefore, a series of 80 acre inverted five spot patterns were
developed in the field interior. Pressure differential from
producing wells in the central part of the field has resulted in
upward oil migration toward the crest of the anticlines in the
North and South Domes.
Due to reservoir heterogeneity, water breakthrough in some
patterns occurred within a few months. Production logs
confirmed a tendency for water channeling in the “ A”layer
(Figure 11) throughout the field, resulting in virtually no
waterflood benefit in layers “
B”and“ C”.
In 2000, a pilot area (Figure 12) was selected for a polymer
gel pilot using the Unogel technology. The Unogel
technology was selected due to the reservoir temperature of
275° F (135°C). Maracaibo Lake water, with TDS of about
4600 ppm, was used to mix the gel chemicals. Since the wells
are offshore, the gel treatments were performed from portable
barges connected to the wellhead.
Figure 12. Pilot area in Maracaibo Basin
The first Unogel treatment was performed in injector 366 in
November 2000. Injection wells 372 and 374 were treated in
January and July of 2004, respectively. The treatment designs
are described in Table 4.
The Unogel technology includes crosslinking and stabilizing
agents, which were added to the polymer/water solution.
However, the gel strength is determined primarily by the
polymer concentration. Several offset producing wells
responded favorably to the gel treatments (Figure 21 and
Figure 22). The oil production response after the first gel
treatment (injector 366) is very clear. After treating injection
wells 372 and 374, the total fluid production stabilized.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 do not include producing wells 61,
132 and 25. These wells did not show a significant change in
oil production after the gel treatments, which may reflect the
reservoir anisotropy documented by previous reservoir studies.
The authors were informed that there were no significant
changes in the water injection volumes before and after the gel
treatments. However, historical water injection data was not
provided by the operator.
SPE 101781 9

Table 4. Treatment designs for Maracaibo basin  Gel volume too small (if WOR curve shows
Unogel treatments slow breakthrough, a small gel treatment
will not solve the problem)
Polymer 366 372 374
 High oil recovery
concentration (bbls gel) (bbls gel) (bbls gel)
4. Single pattern pilots are difficult to evaluate and are
3000 500 600 -
frequently classified as failures.
3500 - - 458
5. Gel treatments are designed to improve volumetric
4000 2000 5418 4324
sweep efficiency. Some waterflood problems cannot
4500 - - - be corrected. For example, if a pattern has not
5500 3000 - - responded well to water injection, a gel treatment will
6000 - 360 835 probably not be effective.
8000 500 - - 6. Polymer gels are not a panacea, but are one of the
6000 6378 5617 few technologies that can be applied to reduce
heterogeneities deep in the reservoir. An effective
An economic evaluation is not available from the operator. strategy is to combine polymer gel treatments with
However, based on the costs of well preparation, chemicals, other reservoir management strategies to improve
supervision and offshore pumping costs, the authors believe overall oil recovery efficiency.
that the cost per incremental barrel of oil is less than U$S 7. Because polymer gels were developed primarily for
3.00/barrel. application in naturally fractured reservoirs, polymer
concentrations of less than 3000 ppm were not
Summary believed to be sufficient to reduce “ thiefz on e”
permeability. However, gels with significantly lower
Polymer gel technologies have been applied in several Latin polymer concentrations can be extremely effective in
American reservoirs that represent a broad range of heterogeneous matrix (unfractured) reservoirs,
depositional environments and petrophysical characteristics especially if they exhibit colloidal dispersion gel
(See Table 5). Traditionally, polymer gels were believed to be qualities.
applicable exclusively in naturally fractured reservoirs. 8. Higher concentration gel treatments followed by
However, none of the reservoirs described above are lower concentration re-treatments in the same
characterized as naturally fractured. The results suggest that injection well can be effective.
high permeability anomalies in matrix reservoirs should also
be considered candidates for gel treatments.

Today, a diverse suite of polymers are available so that gel

formulations can be tailored to the reservoir rock and fluid
characteristics of each reservoir. For example, low
concentration gels can be effective in low permeability,
heterogeneous reservoirs. Another key strategy in matrix
reservoirs is to maximize the gel volume. Finally, rigorous
post treatment analysis is essential in order to optimize future
treatment designs.

Conclusions

1. Reasonable oil rate and WOR response times for gel

treatments in matrix reservoirs can range from 3-18
months, depending on well spacing and thief zone
permeability.
2. Small gel treatments with the objective of improving
the vertical injection efficiency may not be effective,
even in layers that are isolated by impermeable
layers. The reason is that thief zones within the
layers continue to channel water.
3. IW gel treatments can fail for several reasons
including the following:
 Poor connectivity in the pattern
 Permeability of thief zones is too low for gel
injection (gel molecule too large to pass
through pore throats)
10 SPE 101781

8
Acknowledgements Benito, J.I. et. al., Permeability from Well Logs of an Eolian
and Fluvial Formation, Entre Lomas Block, Neuquen Basin,
The authors acknowledge the assistance and contribution of Argen tina”,Fi fthLa t
inAme r icana ndCa ri
bbeanPe t
roleum
Carlos Wouterlood, Dario Ibañez, Esteban Falcigno and Engineering Conference and Exhibition, Rio de Janeiro,
Andres Paladini (Petrolera Entre Lomas), Juan Pablo De Lucia Brazil, Aug. 30—Sept 3, 1997.
(Repsol-YPF) and Sebastian Kaminsczcik and Jorge Busciak
(Capsa). 9
Wou t
erl
ood,C. J.,et.al.
,“ Conforma nceI mpr oveme ntwith
Low Concentration Polymer Gels in a Heterogeneous, Multi-
Conversions Laye
rRe se
rvoi r”,SPE75 161 ,2002 .

1 m3 = 6.29 BBLS 10
Sylwan, C.A., Geology of the Golfo San Jorge Basin,
1 psi = 0.07031 kg/cm2 Argentina, Journal of Iberian Geology, 2001 vol 27, pp. 123-
1 m = 3.281 ft 157.
11
Nomenclature Ca lleja,R.,“Cuenca Del Lago De Maracaibo, Geología II”
,
Ministerio De Educación, Universidad de Zulia, 1998.
Ev = Vertical Sweep Efficiency
12
k = permeability, md Joh nson,C. D.
,“Structure, Hydrocarbon Habitat and
Np = Cumulative oil production, BBLS Politics in the Lago Medio Area, Maracaibo Basin,
OOIP = Original Oil in Place Venezuela” ,or
alpr
ese
ntati
on ,Oc t
obe
r17 ,2003.
∆P=Pr essuredr opbe twe
eni n
j ectora ndprodu
cer
,ps
i
q = Injection rate, B/D
∑Q inj = Sum of injection well rates, B/D
Qo = Oil rate, BOPD
Qw = Water rate, BWPD
TDS = Total Dissolved Solids, ppm
WOR = Water oil ratio

References
1
Sydansk, R.D., A New Conformance Improvement Treatment
Chromium (III) Gel Technology, SPE 17329, 1988.
2
Hutchins, R.D., et. al., Field Applications of High
Temperature Organic Gels for Water Control, SPE 35444,
1996.
3
Schiuma, M., et. al., Rocas Reservorio De Las Cuencas
Productivas De La Argentina, Instituto Argentino del Petróleo
y del Gas, 1st Edition, 2004.
4
Norman, C., et. al., Improving Volumetric Sweep Efficiency
With Polymer Gels in the Cuyo Basin of Argentina, SPE
99379, 2006.
5
Ca r
bone ,O.C. ,et.al.,“Stratigraphic Analysis of the Lower
Member of the Quintuco Formation in Entre Lomas Field,
Neuquen Basin, Argentina, AAPG Annual Meeting, 2001.
6
Smith, J. E. The Transition Pressure: A Quick Method for
Quantifying Polyacrylamide Gel Strength, SPE 18739, 1989.
7
Wou terlood,C. J.,et.al
.,“As pectosdeDe s
arrollodeu n
Reservorio Heterogéneo Baj o Re cupe raci
ón Se cunda r
ia”
,
Tercer Seminario Internacional Exploración y Exploitación
del Petróleo y Gas, INGEPET, Lima, Peru, October 1999.
SPE 101781 11

Entre Lomas Field

1000 1400

Oil
1200
Total Fluid
Water Injection

1000
Total Fluid & Oil (m3/day)

100

Injection Rate (m3/day)

800

600

10
400

200
Begin Gel
Treatments
1 0
D-90 A-92 A-93 J-95 M-96 O-97 F-99 J-00 N-01 M-03 A-04 D-05 M-07

Figure 13. Entre Lomas Fluid Rates

Entre Lomas Field

100

Begin Gel Treatments

10
WOR

Begin Water Injection

1

0
80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000
Np (m3)

Figure 14. Entre Lomas Field Response

12 SPE 101781

Piedras
Blancas

Charco
Bayo

Figure 15. Map of Charco Bayo/Piedras Blancas

Eolian

90 m

Fluvial sandstones separated by

shale layers

Conglomerate

Figure 16. Geographic Representation of Tordillo formation

SPE 101781 13

Charco Bayo/Piedras Blancas Field

Neuquina Basin, Argentina
Injection Well Patterns CB-73 & CB-200
100000

10000

1000

100
Nov-93

Nov-94

Nov-95

Nov-96

Nov-97

Nov-98
Dec-88

Dec-89

Dec-90

Dec-91

Dec-92

Oct-99

Oct-00

Oct-01

Oct-02

Oct-03

Sep-04

Sep-05

Sep-06
Qo (BPM) Qw (BPM) Qo Oil Trend Gel Treatments ∑Q Inj.

Figure 17. Pre and post gel production data for CB/PB Case 1

Charco Bayo/Piedras Blancas Field

Neuquina Basin, Argentina
Injection Well Patterns CB-73 & CB-200

100

10
WOR

0
1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

1,700,000

Np (barrels)
WOR Gel Treatments

Figure 18. WOR graph for CB/PB Case 1

14 SPE 101781

Charco Bayo/Piedras Blancas Field

Neuquina Basin, Argentina
Injection Well Patterns CB-120 & CB-207
100000

10000

1000

100
Aug-95

Aug-96

Aug-97

Aug-98

Aug-99

Aug-00
Sep-91

Sep-92

Sep-93

Sep-94

Jul-01

Jul-02

Jul-03

Jul-04

Jul-05

Jul-06
Qo (BPM) Qw (BPM) Qo Oil Trend Gel Treatments ∑Q Inj.

Figure 19. Pre and post gel production data for CB/PB Case 2

Charco Bayo/Piedras Blancas Field

Neuquina Basin, Argentina
Injection Well Patterns CB-120 & CB-207
100

10
WOR

0
600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1,600,000

1,700,000

1,800,000

1,900,000

Np (bbls)
WOR Gel Treatments

Figure 20. WOR graph for CB/PB Case 2

SPE 101781 15

Lake Maracaibo Basin

Injection Wells 366, 372 & 374
Producing Wells 33, 272, 216, 263 & 117

1000000

100000

10000

Begin Flank Waterflooding

1000

100
May-96

May-97

May-98

May-99

May-00

Apr-01

Apr-02

Apr-03

Apr-04

Apr-05

Apr-06
Jun-95

Nov-95

Nov-96

Nov-97

Nov-98

Nov-99

Nov-00

Oct-01

Oct-02

Oct-03

Oct-04

Oct-05

Oct-06
Qo (BPM) Qw (BPM) Qo Oil Trend Gel Treatments

Figure 21. Oil response in Maracaibo Basin

Lake Maracaibo Basin

Injection Wells 366, 372 & 374
Producing Wells 33, 272, 216, 263 & 117

10

Begin Flank
WOR

0 Waterflooding

0
15,000,000

16,000,000

17,000,000

18,000,000

19,000,000

20,000,000

21,000,000

22,000,000

23,000,000

24,000,000

25,000,000

Np (barrels)
WOR Gel Treaments

Figure 22. WOR response in Maracaibo Basin

16 SPE 101781

Table 5. Summary Table

Formation Basin Lithology Technology Result

1 SM
Barrancas Cuyana Sandstone Marcit Success
2 SM
Barrancas Cuyana Sandstone Marcit Failure
SM
Quintuco Neuquina Carbonate Marcit Success
SM
Tordillo Neuquina Sandstone Marcit Success
SM
Mina El Carmen GSJ Sandstone Marcit Under Evaluation
SM
El Trebol GSJ Sandstone Marcit Success
SM
Comodoro Riv. GSJ Sandstone Marcit Success
C-4-X Maracaibo Sandstone Unogel Success
1
Vizcacheras Field
2
Barrancas Field