IPTC 13576

Novel Fracturing Technique Inhibits Post-Fracturing Water Production

Ahmed Ali, Rami Yassine, Mohamed Salem, and Arshad Waheed, Halliburton; Ezz Abdel Aal, Mohamed Abdul
Monsef; Qarun

Copyright 2009, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 7–9 December 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees
of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Hydraulic fracturing has been extremely successful in the western desert of Egypt, with approximately 85% of the production
resulting from the use of this stimulation technique. However, in many cases the proximity of producing zones to underlying
(or overlying) water zones can be a deterrent to fracturing. In the absence of geological barriers, the fracture height can grow
uncontrolled during a fracturing treatment into the water-bearing interval and cause unwanted water production. Excessive
water production can be detrimental to the economics of a well. By shortening the well’s production life and increasing
disposal and lifting costs, excessive water production can be extremely detrimental in marginal fields.
This paper presents case histories in which wells were hydraulically fractured using conventional techniques, resulting in
higher than 60% water cut, even as much as 100% in one case. While using the conformance-while-fracturing (CWF) method,
the water cut was as low as 4%, even when the adjacent water zones were within 20 ft of the perforations. This technique
provides a tremendous boost to the economics and an effective solution to a field otherwise plagued with water
overproduction. The CWF technique incorporates a relative permeability modifier (RPM) in the fracturing-fluids design. The
RPM results in a reduction of effective permeability-to-water without significant changes to the relative permeability-to-oil.
This paper describes the geological environment of the El Dour field and discusses properties of the RPM, the CWF job-
design considerations, its field applications, and post-fracturing results in comparison to offset wells fractured conventionally.
These techniques might be beneficial to other companies faced with similar water-production challenges.

Introduction
As the world’s oil-energy demand increases, challenging reservoirs are now being explored. One of the biggest challenges is
the water production that normally accompanies the hydrocarbon production. The water can trap the oil and leave huge
hydrocarbon reserves unrecovered and also accelerate the fines-migration problem. During well completion, water can
increase the chances of corrosion to the surface, downhole tubular, and the chances of scale formations, which can be very
difficult to remove once formed (Curtice et al. 2008).
An example of a challenging reservoir is one that does not produce normally without hydraulic-fracturing treatments and has
water zones very near to the hydrocarbon zone.
Once these reservoirs are completed using hydraulic fracturing, the water production increases. The problems caused by
the water production can be difficult to solve. The case presented in this paper involves one of these reservoirs located in
southern Cairo in the western desert, called El Diyur field.

Geological Description of El Diyur Field

El Diyur field is considered one of the most important reservoirs in the western desert in southern Cairo. The main target of
these reservoirs is the A/R “G” formation. A/R “G” is the lowermost member of the A/R formation. It was deposited in a
shallow marine environment during the continuation of regional transgression that took place during the Cenomanian Period.
In the northeastern part of the El Diyur concession, the sandstone beds are developed into three main distinct subdivisions
based on their relative position within the A/R “G” member:
• U.A/R “G” sandstone bed (G-5)
• M.A/R “G” sandstone bed (G-10)
• L.A/R “G” sandstone bed (G-20)
2 IPTC 13576

The average porosity of the three main beds is estimated to be about 16%. The permeability ranges form 5 to 20 md based
on the shale content in every zone. The thickness of each zone is important because the thickness for G-20 varies from 10 to
25 ft, G-10 from 8 to 16 ft, and 5 to 15 ft for G-5.
The sedimentological studies that were carried out for the similarly cored interval in Karama development lease (East
Bahariya concession) indicated that the depositional environment of the M.A/R “G’’ middle sandstone (G10) is interpreted as
deltaic distributary channel deposits, whereas the L.A/R’’G’’ lower sandstone is interpreted as a part of the incised valley
system.
The well of interest is called North El Diyur-21 “NED-21” with middle and lower A/R “G” formations as producing
formations. The L.A/R “G” is divided into three subzones, G-20, G-21, and G-22. The separation between each zone will not
exceed 10 ft with the lowermost two zones watered out Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. While the upper zone has the most potential to
produce the oil and the M.A/R “G” (G-10), the sandstone is very dirty as indicated from the logs (Fig. 3) below, which means
that most of the oil is coming from the L.A/R “G” (G-20) formation.

Fig.1— L.A/R “G” formation-depth structure.

Challenges
The main challenge of this job was the proximity of the water-to-oil zone. The offset well, NED-22, was fractured over the
L.A/R “G” (G-20) and produced 100% water in the test after frac. No more than 20 ft was indicated from the log interpretation
of the L.A/R’’G’’ formation (Fig. 2). In addition, the formation itself did not produce without fracturing as was the outcome
with the first two wells in the area. NED-1 and NED-2 resulted in unsatisfactory and uneconomical production rates.
Therefore, the decision was made to complete all the wells in the area after performing hydraulic fracturing on all producing
zones. Another problem this well presented was that there were no stress values based on sonic logs or core data, and the
stresses were estimated based on the gamma ray reading for the openhole logs. One solution to the challenges discussed was to
use a CWF service to reduce the effective permeability-to-water once it was hit by the frac and keep the effective
permeability-to-oil unaffected.
IPTC 13576 3

Fig. 2— NED-21 L.A/R ”G” log interpretation.

4 IPTC 13576

Fig. 3—NED-21 M.A/R ”G” log interpretation.

RPM Properties
The oil industry has used permeability modifiers since the 1970s. They have been primarily used to reduce the water
production coming from water-fingering, water-coning, early water breakthrough in water-injection reservoirs, and water
coming from permeability water streaks.
One great advantage of the RPMs in reducing water production is that they only decrease the relative permeability-to-water
with little to no effect on the relative permeability-to-hydrocarbon.
The RPM used in this technique has certain advantages over other RPMs that have been introduced previously in the
industry. Primarily it is a water-soluble polymer combined with water-insoluble alkyl chains (retaining the overall water
solubility), otherwise known as a hydrophobically modified polymer.

Fig. 4—Hydrophobic modification phenomena.

A hydrophobic modification is a water-soluble polymer with small groups attached that are not water soluble. Because
only a few of these groups are attached, the polymer is still soluble in water. However, because these groups are hydrophobic,
IPTC 13576 5

they tend to attract each other and repel water molecules. This could almost be called a crosslinking mechanism, although it is
a weak association. This is why a hydrophobically modified polymer has increased solution viscosity. This weak association
also leads to increased levels of adsorption (Fig. 4). The bottom layer of lines represents polymer molecules adsorbed onto a
rock surface. With a normal polymer, this is all that would result. There is no driving force for more polymers to adsorb onto
the first layer. But with the hydrophobically modified polymer, the hydrophobic associations cause more polymer to adsorb (as
demonstrated by the dashed lines in Fig. 4.), and this is why higher levels of water-permeability reduction occur with this
polymer.
This polymer, once it is pumped into the formations, adheres immediately to the formation grains and begins to work at
once. Incorporating this chemical as padding before the hydraulic-fracturing treatments helps to stimulate marginal reservoirs
where the possibility of crossing water zones near the hydrocarbon zones is very high. This technique yields good results. The
mechanism of permeability reduction is based on restriction of the water flow path in the matrix of rock without harm to
effective oil permeability (Fig. 5) (Dalrymple et al. 2008).

Fig. 5—RPM treatment effects.

Job Design and Execution

Usually the wells in El Diyur field do not produce economically without hydraulic-fracturing treatments, which is why this
type of stimulation is often used in this area of the western desert. However, there are still challenges. The L.A/R “G,” which
is the primary target of the well, has two zones that are watered out, as indicated from the log interpretation above, and are
very near to the oil zone, approximately +/- 20 ft apart (Fig. 2). The M.A/R “G” zone is very dirty and does not have much
potential to produce oil, even after the zone is fractured (Fig. 3). Therefore, the well was overlooked by the operator for more
than six months until the CWF technique was proposed to be applied to the well.
The CWF is incorporating a RPM into the fracturing fluid to help reduce the water production once the water zone is
crossed by fracture during the stimulation of nearby oil zones.
The RPM concentration is calculated based on the water-zone permeability and reservoir temperature. For this well design
the RPM fluid was pumped as prepad before the fracturing fluid with the same rate of the fracturing job and at a percentage of
100% of the proposed pad,which was 10,000 gal. The design of the fracturing treatment was 80,000 lb of 16/30-mesh proppant
and 6 lbm/gal was added at the end of the job to to increase the conductivity of the created fracture.

Job Results
The well was tested after the job and showed +/-350 BFPD with +/- 20 % water cut., but with production the water cut
decreased, eventually reaching +/-2%, which was low compared to the offset wells, which show +/-60% average and 100%
from the L.A/R “G” in one well. In the production comparison (Fig. 6) not only were the wells adjacent to the study well, but
it was also compared to the wells at the same level for the zone that produced water L.A/R “G,’’ as it is seen from the structure
map (Fig. 1). Even after six months of production, when the water cut increased to +/-17%, that percentage was still low
compared to the offset wells.
6 IPTC 13576

Conclusions
It has been concluded from the above discussion and the results of Fig. 6 that the water zones that are located near the intended
fracturing zones are not currently a problem for the operator and can be easily handled once correctly diagnosed and the proper
solution chosen. It should be considered that this treatment may need some time to show its peak effectiveness as indicated in
Fig. 6 for the NED-21 water-cut profile.
It has also been theorized that the RPM incorporated with the hydraulic-fracturing treatment does not only reduce the water
production but also keeps the oil production unaffected. The primary purpose of these treatments is to help reduce excessive
water production, but typically water production will not be completely eliminated.

Fig. 6—NED-21 and offset wells water-cut comparison.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Qarun Petroleum Company and Halliburton for their help and also the approval to present the paper and
special thanks to the frac crew in Egypt.

References
Curtice, R. and Carlson, C., and Stahl, M. 2008. Paper SPE 117603 presented at the SPE Eastern Regional/AAPG Eastern Section Joint
Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, 11–15 October. DOI: 10.2118/117603-MS.
Curtis, R. Carlson, C. Stahl, M. 2006. Conformance Through Chemistry: Relative Permeability Modifiers Deliver Significant Reduction in
Post-Frac Water Production. E&P, http://www.epmag.com/archives/features/5923.htm. Downloaded Oct. 5 2009.
Prudnikova, A., Anashkin, A., Dalrymple, D. 2008. Paper SPE 114828 presented at the SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and
Exhibition Moscow, Russia, 28–30 October. DOI: 10.2118/114828-RU.
Dalrymple, D., Eoff, L. and Everett, D., 2008. Paper SPE 114557 presented at the SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 9–11 June. DOI: 10.2118/114557-MS.