SPE 54357

Water/Gas Shut-off Candidates Selection

A.H. Kabir, SPE M.A. Bakar, SPE, M.A. Salim, SPE, M. Othman, SPE and A. Yunos, SPE, Petronas Carigali Sdn. Bhd.

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022 April 1999.
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
Selecting water/gas shut-off (WGSO) candidates with proper
understanding is a critical step which influences outcome of
any WGSO effort. Quite often an inexperienced engineer is
perplexed by the task of having to find candidates for
water/gas shut-off applications, whereas he/she has little idea
as to where to start. He/she gets even more confused by
selection criteria suggested by various authors, which aren't
very clear.
In this paper a systematic approach for finding suitable
candidates for WGSO applications is presented. Several
techniques of WGSO candidate pre-screening are discussed. A
step by step procedure which takes the engineer through a
clear thinking process is suggested. WGSO candidates
selection is best treated as part of his/her routine wellbore
utility study (yearly event). Starting point is to conduct a well
and reservoir performance review for the entire field based on
all the data in hand. A list of required basic data which are
helpful in this review is provided, as much of which as
possible should be collated prior to this candidate selection
exercise. Guidelines for further diagnosis to firm up WGSO
candidates is also provided. Outcome of this study is a
comprehensive list of all potential remedial work, of which
WGSO is a subset. Having a complete picture of the well and
reservoir performance helps an engineer understand reservoir
fluid movement mechanism and therefore objectives of any
remedial work becomes very clear. Then the engineer can
review all products and services available in the market and
can choose the most appropriate solution. Without a proper
diagnosis and clear understanding of reservoir fluid flow
pattern, any attempted solution will only be a guesswork and
success rate will remain low.

Introduction
There has been a lot of talk about various Water and Gas Shutoff (WGSO) technology in the oil industry. Service and oil
companies R&D sectors continue to come up with new
products and solutions claiming to offer better chances of
success. Despite a lot of interest from the industry, their
application has not grown proportionately, thwarted by
industry-wide disappointing success rate. Oil companies
continue to look for avenues to minimise water & gas
production from oil wells while maintaining or enhancing oil
production, in their pursuit of operating cost reduction.
Engineers get instructions from management to look into
WGSO technology applications in order to reduce burden of
water handling cost / reserves loss / reservoir energy loss. The
idea of being able to stop excessive water or gas production
from oil producing wells sounds very attractive, since they
claim to be able to stop production of the unwanted phase and
seek out oil only. Quite often a new engineer is perplexed by
the task of having to find candidates for water/gas shut-off
applications, whereas he/she has little idea as to where to start.
He/she gets even more confused by selection criteria
suggested by various authors for various technology.
The concept of shutting unwanted gas or water from an oil
producer is nothing new and has been being applied since
early days of the industry. The only difference is, innovative
solutions to perform the job in smarter ways keep on coming
in. However, not all the innovative solutions bring the desired
results as claimed because of various reasons. Some of the
technology are not proven 1 and implementation of others2,3 are
difficult/expensive. From an engineers point of view, one
should look at defining and solving a problem in hand rather
than trying to apply a given technology i.e. the problem but
not the solution should be the driver.
Literature Review
A numerous papers have been published on water and gas shut
off (WGSO) case studies using various chemicals, especially
polymer gels. Some of them propose selection criteria to
identify potential candidates for the respective solution
option.4,5,6,7 However, none of them talk about how the
problem in hand was defined, which is a critical step that
influences the outcome of any water or gas shut-off
applications. The current literature is quite poor in treating

A.H. KABIR M.A. BAKAR, M.A. SALIM, M. OTHMAN AND A. YUNOS

reservoir engineering aspect of problem wells (excessive

water/gas producer) identification. Chan 8 described Water
Control Diagnostics Plots technique which can be helpful in
identifying WGSO candidates. Wu et.al.9 described an expert
system which helps engineers come up with probability of
various water production mechanism. Hardy et.al.10 provided a
list of reservoir, production and completion information that
help determine water production mechanism. However,
description of a systematic approach for WGSO candidates
selection is absent from the literature. For a novice
surveillance or production engineer this would help him/her
define the problem clearly and he/she then could look for a
suitable solution for the problem type in hand which is
adequately addressed in the literature.
Moreover, in a real production environment, textbook type
symptoms for diagnosing a WGSO problem does not happen
very often. That is because, in theoretical study we cant
model all the factors / phenomena that dictate the production
performance of a well and sometimes a combination of
various factors manifest as hybrid symptoms. Deciphering
these require some thorough analysis in order to understand
the root cause(s).
Candidates Selection Fundamentals
Good (or associated) water/gas can be defined as the
amount of water/gas that must be produced together with the
oil in order to produce the oil with the existing completion
configuration. Bad (or harmful) water/gas can be defined as
the water /gas which is produced in excess to that required
for the production of hydrocarbon i.e. abnormal amount of
water/gas. Some examples of good and bad water/gas
are:
a) coning / cusping (good or bad)
b) reservoir channelling (bad)
- high permeability streak (bad)
- fissures, fractures, faults, vugs etc (bad)
- hydraulic fractures grown out of zone (bad)
- injector-producer communication through high
permeability intervals (bad)
c) fingering (bad)
d) behind pipe channelling (bad)
e) depleting reservoir (good)
Having defined Bad and Good water/gas, delineation
between good vs. bad water/gas could be quite difficult at
times. A good example would be coning. Coning could be
both good and bad based on the economics of any potential
coning control measure. In conventional completion (as
opposed to simultaneous oil and water production for coning
control as in Downhole Water Loop2) reliable ways of coning
control are draw-down reduction (via rate control or PI
increase) and maintaining enough clearance from the
OWC/GOC. Sometimes in order to produce a well above
economic rate leaves one with no choice but to accept coning
condition.

SPE 54357

The following conditions must be fulfilled before one looks

into potential solution options:
1) There is a well which produces excessive water or gas
which is abnormal or bad.
2) Fluid flow pattern in the reservoir and into the wellbore
is understood with reasonable confidence.
Then only one should scrutinise the solution options based
on their merits/de-merits.
Fluid movement (flow path) visualisation is the most
challenging part of WGSO candidate selection. Without
proper understanding of the fluid movement mechanism and
the entry of the unwanted phase (water or gas) into the
perforations, chances of stemming any such flow is remote.
Integrating WGSO Diagnosis Work with Routine
Wellbore Utility Study
It is recommended that surveillance engineers handle WGSO
candidate selection as a part of their routine wellbore utility
study which will make his/her job simpler. In every E&P
company engineers review their well/reservoir performance at
least once a year and subsequently plan their rate enhancement
/ remedial work. This wellbore utility study cycle is the best
time to start identifying problem water/gas producers and
continue the work thereafter.
As much of the following data as possible need to be put
together before the engineer embarks on such a study:
- production history
- well history (workover, perforation etc)
- wellbore schematics
- well logs (open hole and cased hole)
- reservoir and fluid properties
- core reports / petrophysical data
- depositional environment / geology
- fluid contact (OWC / GOC) movement and pressure
history
- structural map / cross-sections
- stick diagram showing relative depth of perforations by
reservoir
- drive mechanism / depletion strategy
- reserves information
- simulation results, if any
Water/Gas Shut-off Diagnosis Steps
Diagnosis of an excessive water or gas production problem is
best done in a step by step, modular fashion. Easier and less
expensive investigation i.e. pre-screening is done at the earlier
stage in order to understand fluid movement mechanism in the
reservoir and into the well-bore. Further diagnosis work is
warranted only when the easier and simpler work prove to be
inadequate to provide an answer with reasonable degree of
confidence. Fig.1 summarises WGSO candidate selection
process in a flow chart format which is summarised below.
This proposed work flow is further illustrated through some
case studies described later.

SPE 54357

WATER/GAS SHUT-OFF CANDIDATES SELECTION

Pre-screening
1) Well & reservoir production history analysis (plotting)
2) Correlation of any production performance change with
well workover, events, production condition changes (chokes,
separator pressure etc), reservoir intervention (onset or change
in IOR/EOR process) or drive mechanism changes (eg.
pressure decline below bubble point) etc.
3) Water Control Diagnostic Plots8 analysis
4) Well and reservoir information review (wellbore
schematics, well logs, reservoir and fluid properties, geology,
core reports etc)
5) Reservoir OWC/GOC history and relative well position
(depth and space) data reconciliation with well performance
- WC/GOR scattergram analysis
- stick diagram of the wells in the same reservoir
- stratigraphic cross correlation of neighbouring wells
- fluid contact movement data analysis
6) Reserves analysis:
- reserves estimation using various methods (decline,
volumetric, simulation) and reconciliation
- relative drainage area comparison assuming known / best
estimate reservoir parameters i.e. Bubble Map analysis
7) Reservoir simulation results analysis
8) Easy diagnosis work (production and multirate test, tubing
integrity test, well configuration check etc)
If the pre-screening work succeeds in diagnosing the
problem, one can run simple economics to exclude obviously
uneconomic candidates at this stage
Further Diagnosis
1) Fluid contact logs (e.g. Pulsed Neutron Capture tools,
Gamma Ray Spectroscopy (saturation ) Tools etc.)
2) Water movement detection logs (eg. radioactive surveys
like Water Flow Log, Hydrolog etc.)
3) Production logging combination tools (temperature /
spinner / capacitance etc)
4) Cement bond log
5) Noise logs
6) Pressure build-up tests
7) Tracer testing
8) Downhole video camera
9) 4-D seismic result
Opportunities Inventory
At the end of the diagnosis work the engineer will come up
with a clear picture of reservoir fluid movement pattern and its
flow into the wellbore. Now this well will be added to the
wellbore opportunities list which is further refined as the
available solution options and their viability are considered.
Candidates Selection Philosophy
Make use of data in hand first before starting to invest in
expensive diagnosis work. Pre-screening exercise helps one
narrow down potential candidates by making use of the data in
hand. As one gradually narrows down his/her candidate pool,

he/she proceeds with further diagnosis which demands more

efforts and resources.
Use performance plots , Water Control Diagnostic Plots
etc. as probable indicative tools which sometimes guide one
in the right direction. No single tool (except for the hard data)
is to be taken as the diagnosis tool; they should rather be
treated as subset of a suite of tools (described above) which
should be reviewed and reconciled. A close attention is
required to understand the reservoir fluid movement pattern
and its flow into the wellbore. For example, a well which has
been shut-in for a long time may show a sudden jump in WC
or GOR in the performance plot if it was plotted against Np or
Cumulative Producing Days, which is indicative of
channelling8,. This false alarm may be due to production from
the neighbouring wells while the well in question was shut-in
and fluid contact may have moved in the mean time.
Example1 (below) illustrates one such case.
Case Studies of Some WGSO Candidates Selection
Examples of some WGSO candidate selection are described
below. Three wells from Tinggi field have been chosen for
illustration.
Field History
Tinggi field is part of PM-9 block, located in the southeastern part of the Malay Basin, approximately 280 kilometres
offshore east of Kerteh, Terengganu, Malaysia (Fig.2). This
field was developed during August 1982 to March 1984.
Tinggi structure is a small east-west trending anticline (4.5 km
x 1.5 km at J reservoirs OOWC) with a vertical relief of
100 meters. J, the major group of reservoirs, are early Miocene
age sandstone accumulation deposited in a shallow marine
environment. These reservoirs produce under a combination of
natural water drive and gas re-injection at the crest of the
small cap present. About 91% of their UR (101.1 MMSTB)
has been depleted with current WC of 85% and GOR 1200
scf/STB.
Example 1 (Well Tinggi A-19)
Tinggi A-19 was completed in J15/16 reservoir in 1983. WOR
and WOR of its historical production data (Fig.3) shows a
positive slope after about 2500 production days. This at the
first instance makes one suspect water channelling behaviour
described by Chan 8. A closer look at the normal production
history plot (Fig.4) reveals that the well was shut in
intermittently during 1992-1994 period and those positive
jumps in WOR and WOR are caused by OWC rise due to
neighbouring wells production during A-19s shut-in periods.
Another close look at the WOR/WOR plot shows that WOR
also has negative slopes segments alternating with positive
ones. GOR and WC fluctuation in later years can be related to
separator pressure fluctuation due to periods of low pressure
mode operation and wellhead choke changes. One exception is
December 96s WC and GOR data, which appear to be

A.H. KABIR M.A. BAKAR, M.A. SALIM, M. OTHMAN AND A. YUNOS

erroneous and can be related to use of an unvalidated test

during production allocation.
Production history plots vs. Np (Fig.5) also show WC
jumps like WOR/WOR plot, which can mislead one to
suspect channelling behaviour, if not correlated with well
history and production condition changes. After a detailed
review of the well logs, completion configuration, volumetric
reserves estimate, production performance correlation with
nearby wells etc. it was concluded that this well is normal and
it is not producing any bad water or gas.
Example 2 (Well Tinggi A-12)
As it can be seen from the production history of the well
(Figs.6,7), WC took a sudden jump in late 1990 after it was
put back on line following a 5-month shut-in period (for gas
lift valve installation). This triggers the question of any
potential water channelling problem. GOR drop in 1989 is
most likely due to gas cone subsidence during shut-in period.
The 1990 GOR spike could be due to very low oil volume and
minor gas measurement error. GOR values have been quite
low (max. 1500 scf/STB, Rsi 685 scf/STB) and no further
investigation was warranted. However, water production
became a problem all on a sudden. The well tested up to
99.6% WC in subsequent short flowing periods in 1993, 1997
and 1998 (not included in the production history plot) and
therefore has been kept shut-in. The WOR/WOR plot (Fig.8)
seems to show a positive slope, however a closer look shows
that these values were actually fluctuating, however showing a
sudden jump at the end, indicative of channelling.8 In this
case, please note that WOR/WOR plot reveals no extra
information other than what is evident from normal production
history plots.
Subsequently well history, logs (Fig.9) and completion
schematic (Fig.10) were checked. The well was completed in
J15/16 and J17 sand in March 1983 and was produced
commingled by two sets of perforation intervals, 4.0 and 5.0 m
respectively. Gamma ray readings (Fig.9) suggests that J15/16
reservoir is of much poorer quality compared to lower J17
reservoir. A significant shale streak exists between these two
zones. Initial WC increase of the well till 1990 looks gradual
and normal given that the original OWC was about 14.4 m
TVD below lower perforation interval. The sudden increase of
WC in late 1990 could be due to any kind of channelling or
OWC movement during 7 months shut-in period. However,
reservoir wide WC performance plot does not suggest such a
drastic increase of water level within that 7 months of
production.
Further Analysis and Diagnosis Needs. The following
analysis and diagnosis could be carried out in order to
understand fluid movement mechanism in the reservoir and
into the wellbore:
a) Well Scattergram (WC/Np) of the reservoirs
b) Bubble Map of the J15/16/17 reservoir
c) multi-rate well test to test coning effect

SPE 54357

d) run Production Logging Combination Tool to see

contributions (and fluid type) from both the zones and any
other source of water inflow.
e) run water movement detection log
Items (a), (b) and (c) are easy & inexpensive to do and
therefore were carried out immediately. J15/16 Scattergram
(Fig.11) is revealing in the sense that it indicates A-12 WC to
be much higher than any of the neighbouring wells in the same
reservoir. J17 Scattergram (Fig.12) indicates that A-12
performance is in line with other J17 completions. Multirate
well test was conducted by varying lift gas volume, however
all the tests recorded WC above 99%.
From the above easy analysis and diagnostic work it seems
that A-12 performance match closely with others from J17 but
not of those from J15/16. Also given the rock quality contrast
between J15/16 and J17 (Fig.9) raises the question whether
J15/16 is contributing at all. Therefore it was decided to
conduct Production Logging to see contributions from both the
commingled zones. The result of the production log is
presented in Fig. 13. The Spinner and Capacitance curve
clearly indicate that majority of the flow was coming from J17
with minor hydrocarbon contribution from J15/16. Based on
this result , it was concluded that J15/16 sand is not
contributing to A-12s production which is supported by all
earlier analysis and further expensive diagnostic work was
deemed unnecessary. It was, therefore, decided to squeeze the
bottom perforations with cement slurry and reperforate the
J15/16 interval. The job will be carried out in April 1999.
Example 3 (Well Tinggi A-2)
Tinggi A-2 was completed in the J17 sand in October 1982.
Fig.14 shows a simple well schematic. Production history
(Figs.15,16) shows that WC started increasing in 1991 and
reached 50% in 1996. In early 1997 WC took a sudden jump
to 90% after a short SI period. This arouses curiosity as to
why and how WC made such a jump. Water Control
Diagnostic Plot (Fig.17) suggests coning behaviour in the
early life with one sudden jump which corresponds to early
97. Again quick examination of composite log (Fig.18)
suggests coning is unlikely to be the water production
mechanism since J17 is a coarsening upward sequence with
short limestone streaks in the lower part. The vertical distance
from the OOWC to the bottom of the perforation interval is
24.7m (81ft). If coning was the water production mechanism it
would not take water 8 years to break through in this quality
reservoir (J17 average permeability 300mD, oil gravity 470
API, bottom-hole temperature is 205 oF). Unfortunately Water
Control Diagnostic Plot does not help in diagnosing the
problem. J17 Well Scattergram (Fig.12) WC distribution
suggests that 90% water is consistent with its relative position
in the structure. A-2 perforation intervals relative vertical
position can be visualised from a stick diagram of the wells
(Fig.19), which supports the earlier statement. Also Np of this
well (7.6 MMSTB) is the highest in this sand, suggesting that
drainage area covered is relatively large and chances of bypassed oil are low which is supported by the Bubble Map of

SPE 54357

WATER/GAS SHUT-OFF CANDIDATES SELECTION

J17 sand (Fig.20). A quick review of the stratigraphic cross

correlation of the neighbouring wells (Fig.21) supports the
above analysis. All neighbouring completions in J17 have
been watered out . However, some shaley streaks at the lower
part of J17 is evident from the Gamma Ray curves. These
relatively lower permeability streaks have the potential to hold
up some unswept oil.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Petroliam Nasianal Berhad
(PETRONAS) and Petronas Carigali Sdn Bhd (PCSB)
management staff for their support in carrying out the
investigation work and for their permission to publish this
paper. Our special thanks to Hj. Awis Ahmad (Senior
Manager, PCSB) for his encouragement and support.

Further Analysis and Diagnosis Needs. Based on the

above analysis it was decided to conduct the following further
diagnosis work :
a) multi-rate well test to confirm that coning was not an
water production mechanism
b) run Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Tool to see OWC and
any unswept oil patches.
Fig.22 shows result of multirate well tests which shows
WC almost constant indicating no coning. Saturation log
(GST) result (Fig.23) suggests OWC at 1316.1 mTVDSS or
5657.7 ftMD which is at the lower part of the perforation
interval. Moreover no unswept hydrocarbon zones below
current OWC is present. From these findings it is clear that
water is being produced normally from the lower part of the
perforations. Given the coarsening upward sequence of J17
sand, lower part of the perforations would be relatively less
prolific and benefit of any gel squeeze at the lower part will
not be very attractive. Moreover, since there is no permeability
barrier in J17 itself (lower permeability shaley streaks are not
barriers, since they did not hold up oil), water will very
quickly find its way to the perforations. Also, squeezing
sealant gel to the lower part of perforations by dual pumping
was assessed as difficult to implement (risky). Therefore, it
was decided to let this well produce till depletion at its current
mode (normal).

Nomenclature

Conclusions
a) Accurate diagnosis of excessive water/gas production
i.e. understanding reservoir fluid flow pattern (flow path
visualisation) is a prerequisite for any water or gas shut-off
application.
b) Treat water/gas shut-off work as part of routine
wellbore utility study and production enhancement efforts.
This makes engineers task easier. WGSO work should be
problem driven and any push by management to apply new
unproven technology in a hurry must not be treated as a
license to skip diagnosis work, if one wants to stand any
chance of success.
c) A systematic approach to diagnose WGSO problem has
been developed. This proposes that the engineer uses the
simpler data in hand first, before plunging into expensive
diagnostic work and he/she progressively narrows down to
root cause of water/gas production, be it normal or abnormal.
d) Avoid selecting candidates for WGSO work solely
based on production history or diagnostic plots. Need to
integrate these with well history, log data, geological
information, production and stratigraphic correlation with
neighbouring wells, fluid contact data etc.

bbl/d=
CD=
EOR=
GOC=
GOR=
GST=
IOR=
KL=
km3/d=
M=
MD=
mD=
MM=
Np=
OOWC=
OWC=
PLCT=
Qo=
scf=
STB=
TVDSS=
UR=
WC=
WCDP=
WGSO=
WOR=
WSO=

barrel/day
calendar day
enhanced oil recovery
gas oil contact
gas oil ratio
[scf/STB]
Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Tool
improved oil recovery
kilo litre
thousand meter cube per day
thousand
measured depth
milli Darcy
million
cumulative oil production [MMSTB]
original oil water contact
oil water contact
production logging combination tools
oil production rate
[bbl/day]
standard cubic feet
stock tank barrel
true vertical depth, sub-sea
ultimate recovery
[MMSTB]
water cut
water control diagnostic plots
water/gas shut-off
water oil ratio
water shut-off

References
1. Stavland, A., Ekrann, S., Hettervik, K.O, Jakobsen, S.R.,
Schmidt, T. and Schilling, B.: Disproportionate Permeability
Reduction is Not a Panacea, paper SPE 50983, SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, August 1998.
2. Wojtanowicz, A.K. and Xu, H.: A New In-Situ Method to
Minimise Oilwell Production Watercut Using Downhole Water
Loop, paper CIM 92-13, Proc. 43rd Annual Technical Meeting of
the Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, 1992.
3. Wojtanowicz, A.K., Xu, H.and Bassiouni, Z.: Oilwell Coning
Control Using Dual Completion With Tailpipe Water Sink.
Oklahoma, paper SPE 21654, Proc. SPE Productions Symposium,
1991.
4. Bakar, J.A., Henry, T.B. and Mokhtar, S.M.: Samarang
Water Shut-off Using Pfizer Floperm 500, paper presented at the
Water Abatement Technology Workshop held in Langkawi, Kedah,
Malaysia, 11-12 September 1995.
5. Gandawidjaja, P and Indra H.P.: Acrylamide-copolymer Gel
for Profile Modificaion: A Case Study in Central Sumatra Basin,
Indonesia, paper SPE/DOE 35384 presented at the 1996 SPE/DOE
Tenth Symposium on IOR held in Tulsa OK, 21-24 April 1996.

A.H. KABIR M.A. BAKAR, M.A. SALIM, M. OTHMAN AND A. YUNOS

6. Barge, D.L., Kalfoglou, G. and Wibowo, B.C.: Case History:

Water Control Treatment in the Minas Field, Central Sumatra,
Indonesia, paper presented at the Twenty Third Annual Convention,
Indonesian Petroleum Association, October 1994.
7. Sanders, G.S., Chambers, M.J. and Lane, R.H.: Successful
Gas Shut-off With Polymer Gel Using Temperature Modelling and
Selective Placement in the Prudhoe Bay Field, paper SPE 28502
presented at the SPE 69th ATC&E held in New Orleans, LA, USA,
25-28 September 1994.
8. Chan, K.S. : Water Control Diagnostic Plots, paper SPE
30775 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 22-25,1995.
9. Wu, F.H., Chiu, T.J., Dalrymple, D., Dahi, J. and Rahimi,
A.B.: Development of an Expert System for Water Control

Applications, paper SPE 27552 presented at the Petroleum

Computer Conference held in Aberdeen, U.K., 15-17 March 1994.
10. Hardy, M., Batenburg, D.V. and Botermans, W.:
Improvements in the Design of Water Shut-off Treatments, paper
SPE 38562 presented at the SPE Offshore European Conference held
in Aberdin, Scotland, 9-12 September, 1997.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl x 1.589 873
E-01 = m3
ft x 3.048
E-01 = m
o
F (oF-32)/1.8
= oC
o
o
API (141.5/(131.5+ API))
= g/cm3
mD x 9.869 233 E-04
= m2

REVIEW WELL PERFORMANCE

Production history / well history :
Analyse production performance (plots)
Try to correlate events with performance
changes
Water/Gas Control Diagnostic Plots

WC/GOR PERFORMANCE
ANOMALY
HIGH WC/GOR?

Pre-screening

Well/Reservoir Performance Review :

Y
wellbore schematics & logs
reservoir & fluid properties
OWC/GOC & Pressure history
structural map / stick diagram
stratigraphic cross-correlation
core reports / petrophysical data
WELL/RESERVOIR PERFORMANCE REVIEW
reserves analysis
Easy diagnosis :
well test / multirate flow test
well configuration, integrity etc. check
using wireline

EASY DIAGNOSIS WORK (WELL TEST/

WIRELINE CHECK)

Preliminary Reserves Estimate

Run quick economics

ROUGH ECONOMICS TO JUSTIFY

FURTHER INVESTIGATION

Documentation/
Recommendation

Further
Diagnosis

JUSTIFIED?

Further diagnosis :
Contact/ Saturation Logs,
PLCT, Water Movement
Log, Video Camera, Tracer
Test etc.
FURTHER DIAGNOSIS WORK (DETERMINE CONTACTS,
FLOW PATHS, SOURCE OF WTAER/GAS)

Prepare list of candidates with complete

documentation of source of water/gas
and mode of production)

SPE 54357

BASKET OF WGSO
CANDIDATE WELLS

SELECT TECHNOLOGY AND IMPLEMENT

STOP

Fig. 1-Water/gas shut off candidates selection process.

SPE 54357

WATER/GAS SHUT-OFF CANDIDATES SELECTION

PERMATA
TABU

PM-9 Block
TINGGI FIELD

GUNTONG
PALAS

IRONG BARAT
IRONG

TAPIS
INTAN

BERANTAI

KEPONG
TIONG

MANIK

GELIGA
BEKOK

SELIGI AND PINANG

KACA
PINANG
MARMAR
PULAI

BERLIAN

South Chine Sea

LEDANG

Kerteh
East Peninsular
Malaysia
Fig. 2-Tinggi field location.

x
x
x
x x x
x x x
x
x

xx
xx x
xxx x
x
xx
x

x
x

Fig. 3-Tinggi A-19 water control diagnostic plot.

Fig. 4-Tinggi A-19 production history versus time.

Fig. 5-Tinggi A-19 production history versus cumulative

Production.

Fig. 6-Tinggi A-12 (J-17 reservoir) production history versus

time.

A.H. KABIR M.A. BAKAR, M.A. SALIM, M. OTHMAN AND A. YUNOS

SPE 54357

Fig. 7-Tinggi A-12 (J-17 reservoir) production history versus

cumulative production.

FIELD OWC
1338.1 mTVDSS

x
x
xxx x
x x
x
x x x
xxx x x x
xx
x
x
xx
x
x

Fig. 8-Tinggi A-12 (J-17 reservoir) water control diagnostic

plot.

Fig. 9-Tinggi A-12 completion log. The original field OWC was
at 1338.1 mTVDSS.

TVDSS
1307.0 m

J-15/16
1310.9 m
SHALE

SHALE

1318.9 m

J-17
1322.9 m

Fig. 10-Tinggi A-12 wellbore schematic.

The well was completed commingled in
J-15/16 and J-17 which was separated
by shale.

SPE 54357

WATER/GAS SHUT-OFF CANDIDATES SELECTION

A-12
(98%)
A-29
(68%)

A-19
(69%)

A-16
(40%)

A-10

A-2

A-4

A-18
(95%)

A-9
(50%)
A-11
A-15U
(GI/GP)

A-20U
(GI)
A-31
(35%)

A-21
(100%)

OGOC -1283.2 m TVDSS

A-28
(69%)

A-24
(98%)

A-17
(80%)

A-25
(40%)

OOWC -1338.1 m TVDSS

Legend :
Penetrated & completed
Penetrated but not
completed

Description
:Well Name
WC - status as at
1.1.99

Fig. 11-J-15/16 reservoir well scattergram showing water

cut distribution.
LOSS OF PERMEABILITY
FOR J-17 sst.
A-16
(1.0,80%) A-12
(3.5,98%)
A-9
(1.9,40%) A-4
(0.4,50%)

A-2
(7.6,90%)
A-10
(0,100%)

A-20U (GI)

A-13
(0.5,95%)

A-18
(0.4,100%)

A-11
(0.5,98%)
A-21
(0.1,100%)

OGOC -1283 m TVDSS

OOWC -1338.1 m TVDSS

Description :
Well Name
Np (MMstb), WC
status as at 1.1.99

Fig. 12-J-17 reservoir well scattergram showing cumulative

production and water cut distribution.

Fig. 13-Tinggi A-12 PLT log. It shows major flow from the J-17
Reservoir and no apparent flow from the J-15/16 reservoir.

1308.5 m
TVDSS

J-17
1318.3 m

Fig. 14-Tinggi A-02 wellbore schematic.

10

A.H. KABIR M.A. BAKAR, M.A. SALIM, M. OTHMAN AND A. YUNOS

SPE 54357

Fig. 15-Tinggi A-02 production history versus time.

Fig. 16-Tinggi A-02 production history versus cumulative

production.

Fig. 18-Tinggi A-02 completion log.

WC 80%

x
xx
x
x
x
xx

x
x
x

xx

x x
x x x
x
x
x x x x xx
xx
x
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x

DEPTH (m-TVDSS)

1,260

50%

50%

98%

100%

90%

95%

98%

100%

CURRENT GOC @ 1277 mTVDSS

1,280

OGOC

J-15/16

1,300
J-17

1,320
PERFORATION
INTERVAL

xx

1,340

CURRENT OWC
@1316 mTVDss

OOWC

A-16 A-09 A-04 A-12 A-10 A-02 A-18 A-11 A-21

Fig. 17-Tinggi A-02 water control diagnostic plot.

Fig. 19-Stick diagram of J-15/16 and J-17 wells.

SPE 54357

WATER/GAS SHUT-OFF CANDIDATES SELECTION

11

Fig. 20-J-17 reservoir bubble map showing hypothetical drainage area.

TGA-12

TGA-10

TGA-02

TGA-11

TGA-18

90%
1308.5

98%
1302.5

100%
1310.0

ORIGINAL OWC @ 1338.1 mTVDSS

WATER CUT
TOP (mTVDSS)

98%
1318.9

100%
1303.0

NOTE : Depth scale in MD, aligned at original OWC.

TOP = Top of J-17 perforations.

Fig. 21-Stratigraphic cross correlation of J-17 completion (Tinggi A-02 and nearby wells).

12

A.H. KABIR M.A. BAKAR, M.A. SALIM, M. OTHMAN AND A. YUNOS

100

water cut

90

80
70

60
50

40

Watercut (%)

Gaslift (km3/d)

gaslift rate

30
4

20

Test 1

Test 2

Test 3
TEST NUMBER

Fig. 22-Tinggi A-02 multirate test result.

0
Test 4

perforation interval

10
3

Fig. 23-Tinggi A-02 Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Tool (GST) log result.

SPE 54357