A Relative Permeability Modifier For Water

Control : Case Study

Navdeep Dhaka
19MT0231
 Outline
• Introduction
• Description of RPM
• Candidate Selection Criteria for HRPM System
• HRPM Treatment Design—Volume and Polymer
Concentration
• Field Implementation
• Conclusion
• References
 Introduction
• The produced hydrocarbons are often accompanied by large
amounts of undesired water production that can impact the
hydrocarbon production and the overall profitability of the
well.
• RPMs became appealing to operators because their
deployment requires no zonal isolation (i.e., bullhead-type
treatments).
• RPMs are typically dilute polymer solutions that perform by
adsorption onto the pore walls of the formation flow paths.
• Here we discusses the application of a HRPM system .
 Description of the RPM System
• The polymer attaches to the surface of the rock immediately
as it enters the formation matrix by simple electrostatic
attraction.
• , it selectively reduces the permeability to water-based fluids
with little to no effect to hydrocarbon permeability
• The hydrophobic modification of the water-soluble polymer
allows multiple layers of the polymer to build up because of
the association of the hydrophobic groups.
• Once the polymer is attached to the surface of the rock, it
significantly reduces the permeability to water-based fluids
with little to no effect to hydrocarbon permeability
A typical core flow test designed to demonstrate the selective
permeability reduction properties of the HRPM system
Candidate Selection Criteria for HRPM
System
• Ideal candidate for a RPM treatment is a multilayered
formation in which water and hydrocarbons are being
produced from separate zones.
• The HRPM treatment will follow the path of least resistance,
most of the treatment will travel into the highest-permeability
zone.
• Single pay zones with high mobile water saturation are
generally not considered good candidates for RPM
treatments.
• When the water/oil flow reaches the treated zone, water flow
might be impeded while oil flow is not impeded thus an
increase in the water saturation and results in a decrease of
oil permeability
• Another scenario is multiple pay zones with reservoir
crossflow (no impermeable barriers between zones) .
• Again, in general, RPM treatments are not considered
applicable to this situation.
• Initially, the treatment might result in reduction of water
with no effect on oil. However, because of vertical
permeability, when the water reaches the treated zone, it
can travel up (or down) into the oil zone.
 HRPM Treatment Design—Volume
and Polymer Concentration
• The HRPM treatments are typically designed to reach 7- to 10-
ft radial penetration into the matrix of the rock. The volume
design is simply a volumetric calculation and is given by
Equation.

• where Vtreatment is the volume of the HRPM treatment in

gallons, h is the thickness of the zone to be treated in ft, is
the average porosity of the rock as a percent, rwellbore is the
wellbore radius in inches, and rtreatment is radial penetration of
the treatment into the matrix of the rock in feet.
 Field Implementation
Well-1
• Well 1 is a cased-hole and perforated wellbore producing
from an onshore laminated sandstone oil reservoir in Latin
America.
• This well was completed in 15 different zones with the
following properties: 20°API oil, average permeability ~195-
md, average porosity ~13%, and BHT~280°F.
• Water production had been a major challenge
• The wellbore schematic and the results of a production
logging tool (PLT) run performed before the RPM treatment.
• Production rates for Well 1 before the RPM treatment were
reported as 1200-BFPD, 260-BOPD, 960- BWPD, and 80%
water cut.
• This reservoir had a well-documented history of organic
deposits that affected the production life of Well 1. Because
of this condition, a solvent-based treatment was pumped
ahead of the HRPM treatment to remove any paraffin or
asphaltene deposits that could prevent the polymer from
effectively adsorbing to the rock surface.
• After the HRPM treatment, Well 1 began producing at 2400-
BFPD, 1560-BOPD, 840-BWPD, and 35% water cut.
• Two months later, production had stabilized to 850-BFPD,
510-BOPD, 340-BWPD, and 60% water cut.
 Well-6
• Well 6 is a cased-hole and perforated wellbore producing
from an onshore sandstone oil reservoir in Latin America. This
well was completed in a single sandstone pay zone (that had a
high- mobile-water saturation underneath .
• The interval had the following petrophysical properties:
average permeability ~50-md, average porosity ~22%, and
BHT ~160°F.
• Gas artificial lift was implemented in the wellbore, which
resulted in an increase of oil production with increase of
water production, indicating the possibility that this increase
in drawdown pressure induced a coning effect on the high-
mobile-water saturation zone below the perforated interval.
 Option 1: Conventional Intervention with
Workover Equipment

• Remove wellbore completion.

• Perform a squeeze job in the current perforated interval.
• Perform logging run to identify current water-oil-contact
(WOC) and then create perforations at this depth to deploy a
deep-penetrating sealant to slow down the coning effect. If
WOC is not clearly identified, perform the same treatment at
the base of the original perforated interval.
• Perforate the top of the original producing interval.
• Bring down the production tubing and resume production.
Option 2. Bullheading the HRPM Treatment (No
Zonal Isolation Required).
• There was a substantial difference between the cost
associated with the HRPM treatment and the other option
requiring workover equipment , a savings of 79% with the
bullhead-type treatment.
• The treatment consisted of bullheading 252-bbl of the HRPM
system at 2000-ppm polymer loading (11-ft radial
penetration). After the treatment, production rates stabilized
at 104-BOPD, and 58% water cut (2 months after). Six months
after the treatment, Well 6 had a total gain of 82% in oil
production and a 47% decrease in water production . At the
end of the six months, water cut appeared to be increasing
again, but at a slower pace. This behavior was not attributed
to the HRPM actually degrading or breaking down under
reservoir condition
Production rates before and after the HRPM treatment
 Conclusions
• The HRPM selectively reduces the permeability to water-based
fluids with little to no effect to hydrocarbon permeability.
• In contrast to porosity fill sealants (i.e., crosslinked polymer gels),
HRPM treatments only provide a restriction to water flow.
• The ideal candidate for a RPM treatment is a multilayered reservoir
in which water and hydrocarbons are being produced from separate
zones, where water production is mainly being produced from one
zone.
• The HRPM treatments are typically designed to reach 7- to 10-ft
radial penetration into the matrix of the rock.
• The hydrophobic modification of the HRPM system allows multiple
layers of the polymer to build up because of the association of the
hydrophobic groups, allowing improved cleanup of the polymer
that penetrates an oil- saturated zone and increased reduction to
water flow compared to the unmodified polymer.
 References

• Vasquez, J., and Eoff,L.2013.field Implementation of Relative

Permeability Modifier during Stimulation Treatment. Paper
SPE 164804 presented at London, United Kingdom (2013)
• Dake, L.p.: Fundamental of reservoir engineering , Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam(1978)
• Wikipedia