SPE-177914-MS

Successful Chemical Water Shut-Off Treatment in an Omani Field

Heavy-Oil Well
Guillaume Dupuis, Jerome Bouillot, Arnaud Templier, and Alain Zaitoun, Poweltec

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9 –12 November 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This paper relates the successful water shut-off treatment of a heavy-oil Omani well combining the use
of microgel and gel.
As many sandstone reservoir with strong aquifer in Southern Oman, this vertical well faced early water
breakthrough along with sand production. Water cut increased dramatically until reaching 100%. The
average permeability was around 500 mD but effective permeability ranged from milli Darcy to several
Darcy. Due to well characteristics (several perforation intervals, gravel pack, etc. . .), it was not possible
to identify and isolate the water production zones, which oriented the strategy towards the use of RPM
products (Relative Permeability Modifiers). The treatment consisted of microgel and gel injections which
were bullheaded into the whole open interval. After the treatment, the water cut dropped from 100% to
85% and sand production was stopped over a period of time superior to one year. The treatment was cost
effective, producing more than 9000 bbl of extra oil in one year.
In this paper, we describe the treatment design methodology combining laboratory study and near
wellbore simulations, and the optimization of injection sequences. Finally, the treatment execution is
detailed followed by the presentation of the results obtained since the realization of the operations.
The results show that combining low-risk approach and low-cost RPM technology is an attractive way
to restore productivity of watered out wells, in which conventional water shut-off zone isolation is not
feasible.

Introduction
The WSO candidate well, located in Southern Oman field, faced severe water and sand production. Main
reservoir characteristics are summarized below:
– Formation: multilayer sandstone
– Vertical wells
– Gravel packed with multilayer perforated intervals
– Reservoir temperature ⫽ 60°C
– Pay zone thickness ~ 50 m
– Average permeability ⫽ 450 –500 mD
2 SPE-177914-MS

– Porosity ⫽ 27%
– Moderate heavy oil, viscosity ⫽ 100 –178 cP at 60°C
– High water cut ⬎ 98%
– Activation ⫽ Beam pump
The average permeability is 450 –500 mD but the range of permeability is from milliDarcies to several
Darcies. Most production water is expected to come from high-permeability streaks. The well has several
perforation intervals and is gravel packed. There is no way to know from which layer is produced the
excess water and the sand. Treatment strategy consisted in injecting a large microgel slug followed by a
smaller slug of gel. Both microgel and gel slugs are injected bullheading. The products are expected to
deeply invade the high-permeability zones, while preserving oil permeability.
In this paper is detailed how laboratory and simulation studies were used to design WSO treatment and
lowering the associated risks.

Water Shut-Off Technology

Microgels
Microgels are swollen cross-linked copolymers obtained by water-in-oil emulsion copolymerization (A.
Zaitoun, 2007). Final product is thus available under the form of inverse emulsion (or inverse latex).
Nanogels can also be obtained by micro-emulsion copolymerization. During the manufacturing process,
several parametes can be varied such as i) microgel size, ii) consistency, and iii) chemistry. Figure 1
compares microgel and nanogel species with conventional high-molecular weight polymer (HPAM). The
polymer behaves like a flexible coil with a size of 0.3 ␮m. Nanogels have similar size (around 0.3 ␮m)
while Microgels are usually about 2 ␮m. Microgels can be produced with low cross-linking density
(which make them ⬙soft⬙) or with a higher cross-linking density (which make them ⬙hard⬙). Due to their
internal cross-linking, microgels and nanogels are usually much more rigid and stable than conventional
polymers (H.H. Al-Sharji, 2013).

Figure 1—Representation of microgels and nanogels compared to HPAM polymer.

Microgels are Relative Permeability Modifiers (RPM). When injected into a formation, they will
adsorb on the rock surface generating an adsorbed layer whose thickness is equivalent to the size of the
microgel in solution. RPM effects obtained by an adsorbed microgel layer are visualized in Figure 2-a and
Figure 2-b. As a result, after microgel adsorption, a strong drop in the relative permeability to water
occurs, while oil relative permeability remains almost unaffected. Moreover, due to their large size,
microgel are not able to penetrate the low-permeability layers. Thus spontaneous diversion to the
SPE-177914-MS 3

high-permeability zones occurs. Microgel will thus strongly reduced water permeability in the high and
medium permeability layers preserving the low permeability ones.

Figure 2—Principle of Relative Permeability Modification by Microgels.

Delayed gel
Delayed gels are formed by the cross-linking of a water soluble polymer such as polyacrylamide by either
a metallic or an organic cross-linker. In the case of metallic cross-linking, the carboxylate groups of the
polymer react with multivalent cations to form ionic bonds. Chromium acetate is the most commonly used
metallic cross-linker (Sydansk, 1993). This system presents environmental issues due to the use of
Chromium.
In order to propose a better answer to WSO issues in terms of product performances and toxicity, a new
range of gelling systems which are composed of hydrosoluble polymer and organic cross-linker were
developed. These new formulations are adapted to different ranges of temperature from ambient temper-
ature up to 140°C and are available in water salinities ranging from 1 to 230 kppm TDS. Each formulation
can be adjusted to get a gelling time between 8 and 150 hours. Consistency can also be adjusted from soft
RPM gel (Figure 3-a) to ringing sealing gel (Figure 3-b). In our case, the objective was to obtaine a soft
RPM gel.

Figure 3—Variation of gel consistency, (a) soft RPM gel, (b) ringing sealing gel.

Treatment strategy combined large microgel slug followed by short gel slug. The gel slug aimed at
increasing treatment consistency close to the wellbore.
Sand control benefits
Sand production issues are often observed in sandstone reservoirs. The high fluid velocities erode the
cement of the rock (fines) and, progressively, sand grains are transported to the surface causing damages
and early damage of the completion and of the surface facilities. After treatment, microgels will adsorb
on the rock forming a film that covers the surface and prevent from erosion as shown in Figure 4. This
4 SPE-177914-MS

film is soft and gel-like. The target penetration depth is 3 to 5 meters. This technology has been
successfully applied in underground gas storage wells (A. Zaitoun, 2007) (Zaitoun & Pichery, 2009), gas
producers (G. Burrafato, 2014), injection wells and oil producers over the past years. Combination of
microgel and gel enabless reinforcing sand consolidation near the wellbore where fluid rates are higher.

Figure 4 —Principle of sand control by polymer/microgel, (a) without polymer/microgel, (b) after polymer/microgel adsorption.

Well Data
Figure 5 gives a cross-section scheme of the well with its completion. Due to the presence of only one
perforation zone, treatment was injected bulheading into the open interval.
SPE-177914-MS 5

Figure 5—Cross-section of the treated well.

Last production data are summarized in Table 1 together with initial data. Productions are reported in
Figure 6. Production decline was strong. Oil production dropped down from 200 m3 to 10 m3 in almost
10 years while water cut increased from 10 to 95% during the same period of time. In 2009, water cut
reached 100% and the well was shut in. Several tests have been performed between August 2009 and
September 2011 during which only water was produced.

Table 1—Production data before treatment.

Oil Production Water Production

Initially 100 m3/day Initially 27 m3/day

Before treatment 0 m3/day Before treatment 90 m3/day
6 SPE-177914-MS

Figure 6 —Production history.

Laboratory and Simulation Study

Chemical selection and evaluation
Two microgels and two different gel formulations were evaluated in the lab, with viscosimetry measure-
ments, stability tests and coreflood injections. Coreflood results were used as input data during the
simulation study.
Fluids Make-up brine was tap water ⫹ KCl 3%, the same brine was used on the field for chemicals
injection. Brine was filtered through 0.22 ␮m MF Millipore™ membranes (␮brine ⫽ 0.5 mPa.s at 60°C).
Brine was degased and kept under helium blanket prior to coreflood injection to prevent from bubble
formation in the core.
A mix of mineral oils was used to mimic crude oil viscosity of 100 mPa.s at 60°C.
Products: Microgel and gel formulation Microgel Powelgel™ M2ES having a size of 2 ␮m and low
cross-linking density (⬙soft⬙ microgel) was chosen due to relative low reservoir temperature and to the
softness of the make-up water. A mother solution of microgel was prepared at 10000 ppm by dispersion
in make-up water under energic steering during 2 hours. Dilute solutions were obtained by dilution of the
mother solution with make-up water. Dilute solutions were kept under mixing at 200 rpm during 30 min.
Polymer Powelgel™ P100-H and cross-linker Powelgel™ X150 were mixed together to obtain a gel
formulation leading to the formation of a soft RPM gel within 72 hours at 60°C. A mother solution of
polymer was prepared at 8000 ppm by dispersion in make-up water under gentle steering during 1 hour.
Dilute solutions of polymer were obtained by mixing of mother solution with make-up water. Dilute
solutions were kept under gentle mixing at 100 rpm during 30 min before adding cross-linker.
Microgel and polymer solutions were filtered by gravity under 4 –7 ␮m Whitmann™. Prior to core
injection, polymer and microgel solutions were degassed under vaccum and kept under helium blanket to
prevent from bubble formation in the core.
SPE-177914-MS 7

Viscosity measurements Viscosity measurements were performed using Low Shear LS30 viscometer
from Contraves equipped with a 2T-2T geometry (Couette geometry). Measurements were performed at
60°C. Viscosity values obtained for different microgel concentrations and for the gel formulation are
reported in Table 2.

Table 2—Products viscosity at 60°C in tap water ⴙ 2% KCl.

Viscosity at
Product Concentration (a.m.) 60°C

Powelgel M2ES 1000 ppm 1.8 mPa.s

Powelgel M2ES 2000 ppm 4.5 mPa.s
Powelgel M2ES 3000 ppm 15.2 mPa.s
Powelgel P100-H 6000 ⫹ 250 ppm 100 mPa.s
⫹ X150

Table 3—Products and quantities.

Product Quantity Conditioning Provider

Fresh water 30 m3 Truck (30 m3) Operador

Clean water 100 m3 Frac tank ⫹ trailer Operador
Powelgel M2ES 600 kg Can of 25 kg Poweltec
Powelgel P100-H 150 kg Bag of 25 kg Poweltec
Powelgel X150 25 kg Can of 25 kg Poweltec
KCl 1000 kg Big bag of 1000 kg Pumping company
Crude Oil 15 m3 Truck (60m3) Operador
Bleach 100 L Bottles of 0.5 gal Pumping company

Coreflood experiment Coreflood experiment was performed on a reservoir core. The core was cleaned
using a mix of methanol and toluene and then dried in an oven before use. Core characteristics are reported
in Table 4.

Table 4 —Core characteristics.

Parameter Value

Length 5.055 cm
Diameter 3.871 cm
Weight (dry) 118.35 g
Pore volume 14.2 mL
Porosity 23.9%
Absolute permeability 3800 mD
Average pore 11.3 ␮m
radius at Sw ⫽ 1
Pore volume 8.5 mL (Sor ⫽ 0.371)
at Sw ⫽ 1-Sor
Permeability to 522 mD
water at Sw ⫽ 1-Sor
Average pore 6.5 ␮m
radius at Sw ⫽ 1-Sor

The coreflood set-up included the following items:

– An injection system with constant flow rate piston pumps (Pharmacia P-500) to inject brine and oil
and a mono-piston pump (Isco Teledyn 260D) for microgel and gel injection.
8 SPE-177914-MS

– A Hassler core holder.

– A back pressure device to apply a controlled pore pressure all along the experiment (BPR ⫽ 8 bar).
The core holder was equipped with differential pressure sensors (60 mbar, 2500 mbar and 20 bar)
enabling the monitoring of pressure drop across the core during the experiment. A pressure sensor (30 bar)
placed on the injection line enabled monitoring the evolution of the injection pressure.
The coreflood experiment was performed as follows.
– Mounting core in Hassler cell and set-up of equipment in oven at reservoir temperature. Establish
overburden pressure (80 bar) and pore pressure (8 bar). Verify equipment tightness and pressure tap
responses.
– Saturation with brine. Measurement of absolute permeability, K.
– Injection of tracer (KI). Measurement of pore volume and porosity. Displace tracer with brine.
– Injection of synthetic oil at increasing rates until irreducible water saturation, Swi. Measurement of
relative permeability to oil, kro at Swi.
– Injection of brine at increasing rates. Measurements of relative permeability to water at residual oil
saturation, krw at Sor.
– Repeat the two previous step until obtaining reproducible end points.
– At Sor, injection of microgel at low concentration (C1) ⫹ tracer. Measurement of 1st fronts of
microgel and tracer, and mobility reduction.
– Brine injection until displacement of all non-adsorbed microgel. Measurement of permeability
reduction.
– Injection of microgel at the same concentration (C1) ⫹ tracer. Measurement of 2nd fronts of
microgel and tracer and mobility reduction curve. Determination of microgel adsorption by delay
of the 1st polymer front vs 2nd polymer front.
– Microgel injection at higher concentrations (C2 and C3). Measurement of mobility reduction
curves.
– Brine injection. Measurement of permeability reduction curves.
– Injection of mineral oil at increasing rates until irreducible water saturation. Measurement of
permeability to oil, kro at Swi in presence of adsorbed microgel.
– Injection of brine at increasing rates. Measurements of relative permeability to water at residual oil
saturation, krw at Sor in presence of adsorbed microgel.
– Injection of gel slug and shut-in for two days.
– Injection of brine to measure gel breakthrough and permeability reduction after breakthrough.
– Injection of mineral oil at increasing rates until irreducible water saturation. Measurement of
relative permeability to, kro at Swi after gel.
– Injection of brine at increasing rates. Measurements of relative permeability to water at residual oil
saturation, krw at Sor after gel.
Main parameters The main parameters studied in this work were the adsorption, the relative viscosity,
the mobility reduction, the permeability reduction, the breakthrough pressure, and the yield stress.
The relative viscosity, ␮r, is defined as the ratio of viscosity between the microgel or polymer solution
and the brine ␮0 used as solvent at the same temperature and the same shear rate:

The dynamical adsorption is determined by the injection of two Microgel fronts (containing a tracer)
separated by brine to remove non-adsorbed Microgel. Microgel breakthrough is monitored using online
capillary tube placed at the outlet of the core. The delay between the first and the second microgel fronts
enables determining the dynamic adsorption:
SPE-177914-MS 9

Where C is the microgel concentration in active material and mdry is the weight of the dry core. ⌫ is
expressed in ␮g/g.
The Mobility Reduction (Rm) is the apparent relative viscosity of the Microgel solution flowing
through a porous medium. It can be easily determined from pressure drop measurements:

Where ⌬P is the pressure drop measured during the injection of the microgel solution in the core at a
given shear rate and saturation, and ⌬P0 is the reference pressure drop generated by the flow of brine
through the core before the injection of the Microgel solution under the same flow rate and saturation
conditions.
The Permeability Reduction (Rk) corresponds to the reduction of permeability of the core to brine after
injection of a microgel solution. It corresponds to the ratio of the pressure drop generated by the brine
while flowing through the core after (⌬Pf) and before (⌬P0) injection of Microgel solution. As mentioned
previously, ⌬Pf and ⌬P0 have to be measured under the same flow rate and saturation conditions:

In the literature, Rm and Rk are also called RF (Resistance Factor) and RRF (Residual Resistance
Factor) respectively.
Results and discussion
– Drainage/imbibition sequences
We proceed to two consecutive oil and brine flushes until reaching reproducible end-points, i.e., kro
⫽ 0.9 at Swi ⫽ 0.121 and krw ⫽ 0.21 at Sw ⫽ 0.629 (Sor ⫽ 0.371). Curves are shown in Figure
7.

Figure 7—kr curves before chemical injection, after microgel and after gel.
10 SPE-177914-MS

– Propagation/adsorption of Microgel Powelgel M2ES

Injectivity and propagation of the microgel solution are reported in Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure
11. Pressure is levelling at low injection rate (2 mL/h). After adsorption, all injectivity and
propagation profiles are improved and pressure stabilization is observed. Adsorbed microgel
enhnces injectivity.

Figure 8 —Microgel adsorption in reservoir core at 1000 ppm (a.m.).

Figure 9 —Injectivity curves of Microgel M2ES in reservoir core at 1000 ppm (a.m.).
SPE-177914-MS 11

Figure 10 —Injectivity curves of microgel M2ES in reservoir core at 2000 ppm (a.m.).

Figure 11—Injectivity curves of microgel M2ES in reservoir core at 3000 ppm (a.m.).

As expexted, because of microgel adsorption, the first front of microgel is delayed with respect to
the second front of microgel (c.f. Figure 8). The adsorption was determined to be 12 ␮g/g.
– Mobility and permeability reductions
The mobility reduction, Rm and permeability reduction, Rk curves are displayed on Figure 12,
12 SPE-177914-MS

Figure 13 and Figure 14 for microgel concentrations of 1000, 2000 and 3000 ppm (active material)
respectively. The permeability reduction to water, Rk, ranges from 2.5 to 2.8.

Figure 12—Mobility and Permeability Reductions at 1000ppm

Figure 13—Mobility and Permeability Reductions at 2000ppm

SPE-177914-MS 13

Figure 14 —Mobility and Permeability Reductions at 3000ppm

– Drainage/Imbibition sequences in adsorbed microgel conditions

After microgel adsorption, the oil relative permeability is not impacted and keeps the same trend
as before microgel adsorption. Water relative permeability is divided by a factor of 2 (c.f. Figure
7).
– Mobility and permeability reduction during/after gel slug
In Figure 15, mobility reduction obtained during gel injection is close to 50. Before shut-in, inlet
and outlet core faces have been cleaned by brine injection.
14 SPE-177914-MS

Figure 15—Mobility reduction of the gel formulation. Permeability reduction after 7 days of shut-in.

After 7 days, brine was injected at low flow rate (2 mL/h). The permeability reduction before gel
breakthrough is 450. The gel strength was evaluated as 2.7 bar/m (c.f. Figure 16). A ramp-up and
ramp-down of brine injection rate was performed in order to observe if the gel collapses or
maintains a high permeability reduction (c.f. Figure 14). Rk after gel is in the range of 200 at low
rates and 40 at high rates.

Figure 16 —Gel breakthrough after 7 days of shut-in, estimation of the yield stress.
SPE-177914-MS 15

– Drainage/imbibition sequences after gel setting

The oil curve keeps the same trend than before chemical injection, however Swi is higher due to
higher saturation of water trapped in the gel structure. The relative permeability to water is strongly
affected by the gel. In presence of microgel krw at Swi dropped from 0.162 to 0.115 while it
dropped to 0.019 after gel (c.f. Figure 7).
The set of data obtained here was used as input data for the simulator.

Simulation study
Near-wellbore simulation study was performed using Pumaflow™ software. First a model was con-
structed on the basis of the geological information provided by the operator. Model was validated through
extensive history matching using data from the operator. The data from the coreflood injections (labo-
ratory study) were used to optimize the injection sequences in terms of concentration, volume and
injection rate. The results of the simulation study were used to predict the economics of the treatment.

Treatment design
The treatment was designed on the basis of simulation work using near-wellbore model and previous
experience on similar cases.
The treatment scenario consists of the following steps
– Preparation of a brine preflush (injectivity test with low Microgel concentration, 16 m3)
– Injection of a large Microgel slug (80 m3)
– Injection of a small gel slug (24 m3)
– Injection of a postflush of crude oil (1.5 hole volume, 15 m3)
– Spot bleach in front of the perforations (3 m3)
– Shut-in for 7 days
– Release of well production with slow ramp-up during 7 days
All injection sequences were performed bullheading, i.e. by direct injection through the production
tubing from the wellhead into the whole open interval. Shut-in of 7 days was decided to ensure the gel
was properly set.

Operations

Surface equipments and products

Surface handling equipment scheme is given in Figure 17. They were composed of two water storage
tanks, two paddle mixing tanks for product dissolution, a centrifugal pump for transferring the water from
the storage tanks to the mixing tanks, a triplex pump for products injection, a non-shearing sampling
assembly placed between the triplex pump and the well head for sample collection (QC analysis) and
crude oil tailer for gel post-flush.
16 SPE-177914-MS

Figure 17—Surface handling equipment.

Operational sequences
At the beginning of the operations, a maximum well head pressure of 2521 psi was fixed by the operator
(frac gradient ⫽ 15 kPa/m, depth ⫽ 1160 m). The mixing tanks received on site were full of oil residues.
A cleaning sequence was necessary before the job with clean water (5 m3), with a discharge into the
sucker truck.
The sequences of the treatment were as follows.
– Rig-up equipment, pressure test (3000 psi for 10 minutes).
– Load 100 m3 of clean water in frac tank (400 bbl).
– Prepare microgel batches in paddle mixing tanks by direct addition of liquid Microgel cans into the
tank. Pump into the well at a tentative rate of 300 L/min.
– During preparation of one batch, inject the other batch into the well in such a way to maintain
steady injection rate.
– After injection of the microgel slug, prepare three batches of gel in paddle mixing tanks by slow
addition of polymer powder to the fresh water under gentle paddle mixing. Let hydrate for 1 hour
under paddle mixing, add cross-linker. Pump the gel mixture into the well.
– After last gel batch, inject crude oil postflush (15 m3).
– Spot bleach in front of the perforations to remove any residue of gel or microgel.
– Well shut-in for 7 days.
– Release well production with slow ramp-up.
SPE-177914-MS 17

All sequences occurred almost with no problem expected a pump failure during the injection of the gel
sequence. Hopefully, since gel time was sufficiently delayed, it was possible to stop the injection to
change the pump without any risk of early gelation in the well.

Post-Treatment Data
Data recorded after WSO treatment performed on September 2011 are reported in Figure 18, they clearly
indicate positive well response. Oil production was reestablished with an average production rate of 3.9
m3/day (24.5 bbl/day) and water cut decreased from 100 to about 90%. Additional oil production due to
the treatment gave a return on investment within 6 months.

Figure 18 —Post-treatment production data.

In Figure 19, we plotted the evolution of Cumulative oil vs. cumulative water before and after
treatment. The treatment is shown to induce a strong increase in the slope of the curve, inducing steady
and important incremental oil production.
18 SPE-177914-MS

Figure 19 —Cumulative oil production vs cumulative water production, trends before and after WSO job.

Additionally, since the realization of the treatment, sand production has been completely stopped.

Conclusions
Water shut-off was successfully performed on a watered out well (with 100% water production).
Treatment was designed from laboratory and simulation studies to select the best chemicals regarding
formation characteristics and to optimize the injection sequences. Main results can be summarized as
follows.
– Laboratory study showed that combining microgel and soft RPM gel enables minimizing perme-
ability reduction to oil while reducing strongly water permeability.
– Simulation study enabled predicting treatment efficiency and optimizing injection sequences.
– WSO treatment injection requires light equipment easily available on-site and cost effective.
– Gel time has to be sufficiently delayed in case of any unexpected event as the pump failure
observed during the treatment.
– Well restart has to follow a progressive ramp-up to avoid any damage.
This treatment demonstrated the potential of the technology to restart oil production from watered-out
wells.

References
A. Zaitoun, R. T. (2007). Using Microgels to Shut Off Water in a Gas Storage Well. 2007 SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, SPE 106042. Houston.
Chauveteau, G. (1982). Rodlike Polymer Solution Flow through Fine Pores: Influences of Pore Size
on the Rheological Behaviour. Journal of Rheology, 26, 111–142.
SPE-177914-MS 19

G. Burrafato, G. C. (2014). Sand/Water Control Polymer Treatments of Offshore Gas Wells. PEA
WGSO and Chemical EOR Forums. Ludwigshafen.
H.H. Al-Sharji, Z. A.-H.-M. (2013). Mechanical and Thermal Stability of Polyacrylamide-based
Microgel Products for EOR. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, SPE-164135-
MS. The Woodlands.
Sydansk, R. (1993). Acrylamide-Polymer/Chromium (III)-Carboxylate Gels for Near Wellbore Matrix
Treatments. SPE Advanced Technology Series, SPE-20214-PA(01).
Zaitoun, A., & Pichery, T. (2009). New Polymer Technology for Sand Control Treatments of Gas
Storage Wells. 2009 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, SPE-121291-MS. The
Woodlands.