SPE 35171
Review of Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Conformance Control Technology
Mehdi Azari and Mohamed Soliman, Halliburton Energy Services
*SPE Members
Copyright 1996, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Permian Basin Oil & Gas Recovery
Conference held in Midland, Texas 27-29 March 1996.
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. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract should 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 01-214-952-9435.
Abstract
Conformance control is any action taken to improve the
injection or production profile of a well. It encompasses
procedures that enhance recovery efficiency, improve
wellbore/casing integrity, and satisfy environmental
regulations. Unwanted fluid production in oil- and gas-
producing wells is a limiting factor that controls the
productive life of a well. The cost of produced water disposal
in an environmentally non-threatening fashion may be a major
concern for many producers. In addition, control of excess
water and gas production improves profitability by allowing
additional oil to be produced.
Application of water control technology assists to
minimize water production and maintain the oil flow rate of a
well. Reservoir engineering and well testing play essential
roles in characterizing and detecting the problems associated
with producing formations and wells.
This paper starts with problem identification in both
producing and injection wells. It then covers the behavior
and control of several types of reservoirs with different drive
mechanisms. Applications of reservoir simulation and well
testing in the control of water and gas coning; determination
of the amount and the best appropriate treatment application,
257
effect of formation layering, control of relative permeability
to water, application of permeability blocking agents, water
channeling, secondary recovery, viscous fingering, and
polymer .flooding are detailed in this paper. In addition
several techniques to evaluate the overall success of a
conformance control procedure are presented.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to identify reservoirs associated
with excessive gas or water production and to recommend the
proper remediation. Conformance control begins with
identifying the source of problem. This requires a thorough
investigation of all aspects of well and reservoir parameters.
The following is a list of some of the parameters required for
identification of the reservoir performance problems.
• Reservoir permeability and porosity
• Relative permeability to oil, water, and gas
• Connate water and irreducible oil and gas saturations
• Net formation height
• Recovery mechanism
• Reservoir dip
• Oil, gas, and water production rates versus time
• Original water-oil contact
• Length of time before water production began
• Location of all perforations
• Fraction of the productive interval completed
• Identification of fluid entry locations and the type of fluid
entering well bore (production logging)
• Location and continuity of any shale layers
• Identification of cement to casing bonding (bond log)
This review paper is divided into the following four main
sections:
2 REVIEW OF RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONFORMANCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
• Problem Identification. Conformance control must
begin with understanding the problem from a reservoir
engineering viewpoint. This section reviews production
and injection wells with their associated problems.
• Reservoir Behavior. A brief review of several types of
reservoir behavior is given. In some cases the behavior
is studied in greater detail to give the reader a better
understanding of the subject. Control of the problem is
given for several types of reservoir problems.
• Conformance Control Techniques. A review of
several control techniques as it relates to reservoir
problems is given.
• Testing the Success of Conformance Control.
Methods to test the overall success of a conformance
control service for both producing and injection wells are
provided.
Problem Identification
The first step is to identify the problem. As mentioned in the
introduction, there are two classifications of conformance
applications, the producing well and the injection well. In
some cases there is not a clear delineation between problems
associated with either or both the producer and/or the
injector.
Production Wells (Early Breakthrough)
If water breakthrough is experienced early in the life of a well
the available history of the well should be examined for the
following sources of the problem:
Undesired Production from a Channel Behind Casing.
This type of problem may occur any time in the life of a well,
but it is most noticeable after initial completion or stimulation
of a well. Unexpected water production at that time is a
strong indication that a channel exists. Temperature, noise,
and bond logs can verify this problem.
Perforation into Water or too Close to the Water Zone.
The logs, core data, and driller's daily report should be
examined to determine the cut-off point of moveable water.
Fracturing out of Zone. Stimulation treatment which may
have entered a water zone some distance away from a well, or
connected an injector to a producer. Detection of this
problem can be made by using a spinner survey, tracer
survey, detailed review of fracturing treatment, and by well
testing, such as pressure buildup, interference, or pulse
testing.
258
SPE 35171
Production Wells (Late Breakthrough)
If water entry is experienced later in the life of well the
operator may suspect one or more of the following
conditions:
Channel from a Waterflood or Natural Water Drive.
High permeability streaks cause premature breakthrough of
water, leaving behind unswept oil in lower permeability
zones. Reservoir simulation of the field, interference pulse
testing, detailed well control and mapping, tracer surveys, and
well logging are several ways the channel may be detected.
Bottom Water Coning. Coning is a case of vertical water
movement through a hydrocarbon phase around well bore.
Coning is always a possibility when the producing formation
is located above a water zone. Fluid density changes, Pulsed
Neutron Spectroscopy (PSG) and Thermal Multigate Decay
(TMD) logs, well testing, and monitoring the field
performance may be used to detect encroachment of bottom
water.
Casing Leaks. Casing leaks are normally detected by an
unexpected increase in water production. Temperature logs
or water analysis comparisons with those of nearby
formations may be used to locate the source of the leak.
Depleted Reservoir. If the problem is the result of a
depleted reservoir, there is very little that can be done as
economical amounts of hydrocarbons must be present to be
produced. Reservoir simulation, volumetric analysis, decline
curve analysis, and comparison to nearby fields can be used
to determine the extent of depletion.
Injection Wells
Injection wells serve to provide a source of energy for the
production of a reservoir. Most often the injected fluid is
water in oil reservoirs and is gas in gas-cycling and gas-cap
maintenance cases. Primarily, the problems in injector wells
are injecting into unwanted zones, buildup of materials which
reduce the effective injectivity, inadequate information about
the reservoir drainage area, presence of a gas-cap, and
reservoir heterogeneity. The following gives a checklist of
sources of data to help identify the problems most often
associated with injector wells.
Records of Injection Pressures and Rates. The daily
injection rate and wellhead pressure records will give
indications of changes in reservoir injectivity. This type of
information along with data obtained from well testing can be
used in numerical simulators to develop an understanding of
flow channels and reservoir heterogeneity which may exist.
Injection Profiles. The injection profile is analogous to the
production profile and is obtained with a spinner survey tool.
Figure 1 depicts production and injection pressure profiles
SPE 35171 MEHDI AZARI AND MOHAMED SOLIMAN
versus depth for both oil and gas phases.! The data may be
used to identify layering, fluid entry points, casing leaks,
leaks in packers and tubing, and thief zones.
Tracer Surveys for Interwell Communication. Interwell
communications and channeling can be identified with tracer
surveys whereby an injected fluid is tagged with a radioactive
tracer and the producer is monitored for possible detection of
this tag. The detection indicates communication and from the
time to detection, reservoir flow capacity can be calculated.
Tracer' surveys in multi-well injection-production patterns
may be utilized to estimate the portion of the reservoir being
swept.
Interference Pulse Testing. Pressure pulse tests are used to
detect well communications, sealing faults, and reservoir
parameters common to injectors and producers. In this type
of test the flow rate schedule of the injector well is modified
and the corresponding pressure responses at the producer well
are monitored. The pressure disturbance caused by rate
changes propagates throughout the reservoir and ultimately
reaches the producer if it is in communication with the
injector. Time, flow rate and pressure data are analyzed using
pressure transient techniques and reservoir simulation.
Debris, Scale, or Presence of Bacteria. Deposition of
debris, scale or bacteria on the perforations or in the region
around the well bore of an injector can alert the operator of
possible sources of fluid diversion. The buildup of debris can
effectively decrease the injectivity of a well and result in fluid
movement into undesired reservoir strata. Water analysis
comparison between injection and reservoir fluids is an
excellent method to determine the possibility of scale
problems. All fluids injected into the well should be
evaluated for the possibility of introducing bacteria to the
formation face.
Location of Faults. Fault identification is an essential part of
defining the flow path for injected fluids. Presence of nearby
faults can cause rapid pressure increases in the early-life of an
injector. This behavior can be mistaken for other injector-
related problems such as partial blockage of perforations,
rapid scale buildup, fluid incompatibilities, and many other
phenomena. Well testing methods such as pressure buildup
and interference tests are very useful in detecting reservoir
boundaries.
Injection out of Zone. When fluid is injected at high
pressures above the initial reservoir pressure into a low
permeability formation, the injected fluid may channel behind
the casing and/or cement. It may also fracture the formation,
thus reducing the sweep efficiency with the possibility of
fracture going out of zone to a higher permeability stratum or
to an adjacent water or gas zone. Rock mechanics and
reservoir data can be evaluated to identify the possibility of
259
3
channeling and fracturing out of zone prior to start of an
injection program.
Crossflow. Crossflow typically occurs in injection and shut-
in wells. It may either occur in the well bore between layers in
a layered reservoir or in the reservoir due to one of the
following reasons:
• Fractures. A direct communication between an injector
and a producer may be present because of natural
fractures or geological structures or it may have occurred
by fracture stimulation treatments.
• Channels. If the injected water has very little or no
apparent effect on incremental oil recovery, possible
causes may include: a) injection and production wells are
not perforated in the same zone, b) existence of a gas
cap, c) unfavorable mobility of the injected fluid, and d)
producing wells are not pumped off effectively.
• High or low pressure layers. When a well is shut-in
crossflow between high and low pressure layers occurs
through well bore. Figure 2 shows a typical situation
where one zone is at a higher pressure than another and
both are in communication. In this case the upper zone
has a higher pressure than the one below it.
• Other causes. Casing leaks, corroded tubing, or a thief
zone through wells that were improperly plugged and
abandoned.
Production logging (spinner survey, pressure records,
density, and temperature logs) and well testing can be used to
identify crossflow. Tracer surveys can be utilized to estimate
the portion of the reservoir being swept and evaluate
streamlines for detecting crossflow between layers.
Reservoir Behavior
The following sections will provide an insight into this
diverse field with more detailed explanation in the selected
topics.
Even though most conformance control jobs would
benefit from steps taken to limit the treatment to targeted
zones, some formations can be effectively treated without any
remedial work to isolate zones. Operators recognize the need
for zone isolation; however, for economical reasons, they may
elect to skip the zone isolation steps. The choice made would
heavily influence the treatment design. The proper treatment
for each problem will vary with every individual well. The
typical candidate is usually several years old, in poor
condition, and has had previous stimulation and/or workover
performed on it.
4 REVIEW OF RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONFORMANCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Primary Recovery
The ultimate recovery of hydrocarbons from a reservoir is
highly dependent on the drive mechanisms, rock properties,
fluid properties, structural relief, well locations and on
reservoir management techniques.
Understanding correct reservoir behavior gives a basis to
determine if excessive gas and/or water is a possible concern
in the future and if gas and/or water is currently being
produced in excess. Without a solid basis on which to make
this engineering judgment the expectations of the
conformance control may be overly optimistic and the design
may have intrinsic error.
The primary mechanisms driving the recovery are
depletion, water, segregation and gravity processes.
According to the API bulletin D-14, 3 the lowest recoveries
are associated with a dissolved gas drive depletion and the
highest by natural water drives. 2
Specifically, a dissolved gas drive provides 15 to 27
percent recovery whereas a water drive is expected to provide
35 to 70 percent recovery of hydrocarbon reserves. Lying
somewhere between these two extremes are combination
mechanisms involving limited water and or gas cap drives,
segregation and gravity drainage processes. Slider classifies
methodologies to improve primary recovery in two categories
of well control and reservoir control. 3
Primary recovery enhancement through well control
involves stimulation, paraffin control, proper well placement
and spacing, completion intervals, rate control, and tubulars.
Reservoir control centers on preserving the original drive
mechanism or enhancing it. Unlike well control, reservoir
control requires a comprehensive understanding of the whole
makeup of the reservoir body, its closure, phase movements,
heterogeneity, production mechanism, faulting, dip, and
drainage pattern.
Figures 34 and 4 show the pressure behavior of expected
oil recovery and gas-oil performance for different drive
mechanisms. Investigation of behavior such as this gives the
reservoir engineer quantitative evidence to discern one drive
mechanism over the other.
Depletion Drive. The depletion drive mechanism is
characterized by the expansion of gas and oil as its source of
energy to move fluids. In an undersaturated reservoir the
expansion of oil and dissolved gas are responsible for fluid
production. As pressure decreases below bubble point, the
reservoir becomes saturated. Initially, the liberated gas
replaces the oil volume on an equal-volume basis. As a gas
cap develops the gas phase becomes mobile and more gas
expansion per unit volume of oil is required. This ability of
the gas to flow freely with the oil depletes the gas as a source
of energy and reduces the relative permeability to oil. Figure
5 details the development of a gas cap and the evolution of
gas into the well as the depletion process proceeds.
260
SPE 35171
Segregation Drive (without counter flow). In high-relief
geologic structures containing reservoirs with oil and gas it is
not uncommon to find the oil and gas in a state of stratified or
segregated phases, that is, an oil zone overlain by a gas cap.
In this type of reservoir the presence of shale stringers, low
vertical permeability, or other impermeable zones suppresses
the counter flow of oil and gas associated with gravity
drainage processes. The primary drive mechanism is gas cap
expansion and is often a candidate for pressure maintenance
by injecting gas into the gas cap. Pirson offers a very good
review of the segregation processes. 5
Gravity Drainage (segregation drive with counter flow).
The development and expansion of a gas cap over an oil zone
may result from an active fluid segregation process wherein
oil migrates downward due to the forces of gravity and gas
migrates upward from buoyancy effects. In this type of
reservoir the vertical permeability must favor hydrocarbon
movement and volumetrically there must be as much gas
moving upward as oil downward. The rate of fluid
segregation increases as the mobility of oil approaches that of
gas. This type of reservoir is not usually a good candidate for
gas injection into the gas cap. Depletion of the gas cap
through coning is especially detrimental to reservoir
performance.
Water Drive. Natural water drive reservoirs develop as a
result of an oil bearing stratum being embedded into an
aquifer or when a hydraulic connection exists between the
reservoir and an outcrop where water can infiltrate. When the
source of water is of sufficient extent to volumetrically
replace the produced oil then the reservoir is considered to
have an active water drive. The determination of the
optimum production rate to maintain a volumetric balance
between the oil and the water is essential in prolonging the
life of a water drive reservoir.
Figure 6 shows how an oil-water contact moves towards
the wellbore during production. Note that the reservoir is at
an angle or "dip" which is not at all uncommon to oil bearing
structures.
Influx of water into a reservoir from an underlying
aquifer is often a dilemma. Existence of the water often
provides a strong energy support mechanism which enhances
production; however, it does so at a cost. Often times,
depending on vertical permeability, length of the completion
interval, distance of the perforations to the oil/water contact,
oil viscosity, and the oil and water densities, water can begin
to form a cone and move into the well via this coning
phenomena. Prediction of this behavior helps to minimize
formation damage caused by the water cone. In addition,
determining the optimum production rate of oil which
minimizes water coning while at the same time optimizes the
economics is an important consideration throughout the
production life of a well.
SPE 35171 MEHDI AZARI AND MOHAMED SOLIMAN
Numerous models have been constructed to predict
coning ranging from simplistic analytic models such as that of
Wheatley,6 to finite-difference formulations in which the cone
is treated as a locally refined static grid in 3-dimensional
space under 3-phase (oil, water, and gas) conditions,? or the
grid can be dynamic and move with the rising cone. 8 For
fully compositional modeling of coning problems the
adaptive-implicit approach of Collins, et al. 9 is recommended.
Water encroachment into an oil reservoir in a horizontal
plane results from a hydraulic connection with an outcrop
which can conduct large amounts of water. Generally, the
influence of water on engineering calculations appears as a
constant pressure boundary in the solution of the diffusivity
. lor
equatIOn ~'I
OJ or gas. 10. 11
Unlike gas reservoirs where the gas movement is rapid,
oil reservoirs benefit most from water influx as the rate of oil
movement is close to that of water. Calculation of the unit
recovery for water-drive reservoirs follows equations by
Buckley and Leverett l2 modified by Welge13 and by Pirson. s
The methods assume that an oil bank exists, no water
moves past the oil/water front, the relative movement of oil
and water behind the front is a function of the relative
permeability of the two phases, and oil and water move
behind the front. Useful information on the time when water
will appear at the wellbore, fractional recovery, average
saturations, and other information is developed through these
methods.
Secondary Recovery
In primary recovery, oil is displaced to the production well by
natural reservoir energy. Any method which improves oil
production beyond the primary recovery is referred to as
enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Secondary recovery refers to
any EOR process which does not involve chemical reaction
between the injected fluid and the oil-in-place. Pressure
maintenance techniques like water or gas injection, and
polymer flooding are among the widely applied secondary
recovery processes.
Water-Injection Pressure Maintenance. Waterflooding is
a secondary-recovery method by which water is injected into
an oil reservoir to enhance recovery after the primary
recovery operations have reached their final stages.
Prediction of waterflood performance follows similar
techniques used for natural water influx with additional
calculations to predict flood patterns and sweep efficiencies.
Comparisons of these methods are given by Guerrero and
Earlougher l4 and Higgins and Leighton. ls
Gas-Injection Pressure Maintenance. Gas injection is used
to maintain reservoir pressure at a selected level or to
supplement natural reservoir energy by injection of the
produced gas. Complete or partial pressure-maintenance
operations can result in increased hydrocarbon recovery and
improved reservoir performance. In most regards, gas
261
5
injection follows similar methods and mechanisms as water
Injection. With some modifications performance of gas-
Injection reservoirs can be modeled as water-injection. 16
These modifications include the effects of gas solution in the
reservoir oil and vaporization of lighter hydrocarbons.
Gas and Water Viscous Fingering. Viscous fingering is
believed to occur when mobility, kill, of a displacing fluid is
higher than that of the displaced fluid, that is, when the
mobility ratio, M, is greater than 1. When this occurs small
instabilities occur at the displacement front, visually
appearing like fingers, which grow with the injected volume.
Figure 7 shows fingering for two different mobility ratios and
several injected pore volumes. I An injected pore volume of 1
represents the total pore volume between an injector and a
producer. The growing viscous fingers bypass recoverable oil,
referred. to as poor sweep efficiency, and result in early
breakthrough time of the injected fluids at the producer well.
Gas injection into oil reservoirs favors viscous fingering as
gas has a very high mobility to that of oil. Because of its
close mobility to oil, water is the preferred injection fluid.
One of the most controversial issues among reservoir
engineers is the effect of viscosity ratio on the flow of
immiscible fluids. I? Many engineers consider there is no
direct relationship between relative permeability curves and
viscosity of the displaced and displacing fluids. Others have
investigated this relationship in terms of viscous fingering,18
.
microscopIC . roc k heterogenelty,
. 19 an d capl'11 ary ~lorces. 20
In general, relative permeability curves are unaffected by
viscosity ratio when a wetting phase fluid displaces a non-
wetting fluid in strongly wetted systems. For intermediate
wettability systems it appears that viscosity ratios have a
strong effect. When a non-wetting fluid displaces a wetting
fluid viscosity ratios ranging from 1 to less than 100 have
been shown to change the relative permeability curves.
Polymer Flooding. Polymers 21 have been used in the
production of oil reservoirs for several tasks:
• In near-well situations to improve performance of water
injectors or high water-cut producers by blocking off the
high-conductivity zones.
• Polymer flooding to reduce the ratio of the mobility of
the displacing agent to that of the displaced fluid to less
than 1, a favorable mobility ratio.
• To create a diversion or block at a depth in a reservoir.
In this case polymer is first injected and then cross-linked
in the reservoir, to form a solid. Usually polymer is
injected with an inorganic metal cation, which will cross-
link the injected polymer molecules with the ones already
bound to solid surfaces.
6 REVIEW OF RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONFORMANCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SPE 35171

Water Coning Studies
In this section the reservoir behavior referred to as "water
coning" will be discussed. Water coning and channeling are
two of the main sources of water problems in a reservoir.
Water movement occurs when a pressure gradient is
applied to a continuous source of water where water
saturation is above connate or immobile water saturation and
favorable relative permeability to water exists. Coning is a
case of vertical water movement where the water phase moves
upward through a hydrocarbon phase in the direction of a
negative pressure gradient around wellbore towards the open
set of perforations. Figure 8 depicts a common idealization
of a water cone in an oil reservoir.
A reservoir expected to cone water is often completed in
the upper 20 percent of the available hydrocarbon pay
thickness to place the source of pressure drop far away from
the hydrocarbon/water contact. Even with this precaution, in
circumstances where vertical permeability is high and
sufficient pressure drop exists, water will move into the
well bore and reduce hydrocarbon production.
Treatment Volume. The volume of the injected polymer per
net pay thickness and porosity, Qp/¢h, can be related to an
invasion front, rp' by assuming a uniform invasion into the
formation. Equations 1 and 2 can be used to calculate the
required injection volume to reach a certain distance into a
given formation. Any mobility reduction resulting from
invasion of polymer may be related to a skin damage as is
shown with Eq. 3.
Reservoir Simulation Studies. The flow of each individual
phase in the formation can be duplicated separately through
application of a proper reservoir simulator. Of particular
interest are the simulations of coning, channeling, and
crossflow which is possible by appropriately defining and
initializing the model. Plots of water-cut and GOR versus
treatment volume of the injected polymer can be presented for
several reduced mobility ratio values.
A 3-phase, 3-D numerical simulator was employed to
perform these studies. The model is fully implicit and was
gridded in r-z coordinate system using logarithmic radial
grids and small z-direction blocks to provide for very accurate
modeling of the vertical flow into the well bore.
The vertical profile of the simulated reservoir shown in
Fig. 10 consists of a formation with a 100-ft thick pay zone
having a connate water saturation of 30% overlaying a lO-ft
thick layer with 80% water saturation located on top of a 50-ft
thick zone of 100% water saturation. To reduce the coning
effect only 15 feet from the top of the pay zone is perforated
in this study.
The other general reservoir properties are given in Table
2, the fluid properties in Table 3, relative permeability and
capillary pressure values for the oil-water in Table 4, and for
the oil-gas in Table 5. Radial girding distances given in
Table 6 are based on a logarithmic distribution from the
radius of the well bore to 5000 ft. The simulator was
initialized in a fully-implicit, 3-phase, r-z grid configuration
for these studies.

(1) TABLE 2. Reservoir Properties for the 3-D, 3-Phase Simulation

Oil comp., IIMMpsi 10 Initial press. WOC, psia 4000

Qp 2
¢h = IT rp ....................... (2) Water comp., IIMMpsi 3.0 Bubblepoint press, psia 4000
Rock comp., IIMMpsi 3.0 Constant BHP, psi 1500
Oil density, Ibmlft' 46.3 Max. ~p, psi 50
(3) Water density, IbmlftJ 62.2 Pay thickness, ft 100
Water FVF, rb/STB 1.0 Perforated pay, ft 15
Water viscosity, cp 1.0 Disc thickness, ft 5
Table 1 presents chemical volumes and equivalent radial flow Initial water sat., % 30 Dist. from perfs to disc, ft 10, 35, 75
skin values calculated with Eqs. 2 and 3 for several polymer Porosity, % 30 Water layer height, ft 50
penetration radii that reduces mobility by a factor of 100. Radial perm, md 100 Vertical grid blocks 30
The data of Table 1 plotted in Figs. 9A & B shows the Vertical perm, md 20
relationship between treatment volume and equivalent skin
versus the penetration radius of the injected chemical.
TABLE 3. Fluid Properties for the 3-D, 3-Phase Simulation
TABLE 1. Penetration Radius, Treatment Volume and Equivalent
Skin for a 100 times reduction in permeability Pressure Bo Bg 110 I1g
psia rb/STB rb/scf cp cp
rp Q/<»h Se 2200 1.217 0.00150 0.612 0.0105
ft gal/ft 2400 1.220 0.00138 0.594 0.0110
10 2,350 318.7 2600 1.222 0.00127 0.576 0.0115
25 14,687 409.4 2800 1.225 0.00119 0.559 0.0120
50 58,748 478.0 3000 1.228 0.00111 0.543 0.0126
100 234,991 546.6 3200 1.231 0.00105 0.528 0.0131

262
SPE 35171 MEHDI AZARI AND MOHAMED SOLIMAN 7

3400 1.235 0.00100 0.513 0.0136 production and cumulative oil recovery by reducing the
3600 1.239 0.00095 0.500 0.0142 relative permeability to water curve by 20 and 50 percent.
3800 1.243 0.00091 0.487 0.0148 Figure 11 shows the effects of these reductions. Note
4000 1.247 0.00087 0.475 0.0154 that the oil production curves are nearly coincident in
comparison to the water production curves which are
noticeably affected by the change in relative permeability to
TABLE 4. Oil and Water Relative Permeability and Capillary water.
Pressure Data for the 3-D, 3-Phase Reservoir Simulation
Remediation by a Permeability Block. Our second
Sw krw kro Pcow remediation option is blocking the water movement path
0.00 0.00 1.000 6.30 entirely by placing a 5-foot thick impermeable disc between
0.22 0.00 1.000 6.30 the perforations and the oil/water contact, as shown in Fig.
0.30 0.07 0.400 3.60 12. This block attenuates pressure and moves the pressure
0.40 0.15 0.125 2.70 drop out into the reservoir. Thus the pressure drop dissipates
0.50 0.24 0.065 2.25 into the formation and reduces the uplifting of water right
0.60 0.33 0.005 1.80 around well bore. In addition to retarding water production
0.80 0.65 0.000 0.90 this block causes a more uniform displacement of oil by water
0.90 0.83 0.000 0.45 which helps to increase oil production.
1.00 1.00 0.000 0.00 The first study on impermeable disc remediation is to
1.10 1.00 0.000 0.00 determine the best location for the disc. Figure 13 shows
three placements, the first being 10 ft above the oil/water
contact, the second at a the middle of payzone, and the third
TABLE S. Oil and Gas Relative Permeability and Capillary Pressure 10 ft below the perforations. In this example a 200 ft radius
Data for the 3-D, 3-Phase Reservoir Simulation disc is used. This figure clearly shows that placing the disc
nearest to the bottom of the perforation is the most favorable;
Sg krg kro PCog oil production increase and water production decrease are
0.00 0.000 1.000 0.000 obtained. All further studies will place the disc at 10 ft below
1.00 1.000 0.000 0.000 the perforations.
The variation in impermeable disc size as it affects
production is plotted in Fig. 14. Three disc sizes of 50, 100,
TABLE 6. Radial Grid Block distances for the 3-D, 3-Phase and 200 ft in radius were employed. This study shows that
Reservoir Simulation the larger disc size has the most favorable impact on oil and
water production.
0.40 0.56 0.77 1.065 1.47 2.04
2.82 3.91 5.41 7.49 10.37 14.36 Remediations by a Combination of Reduction in Relative
19.87 27.51 38.08 52.71 72.97 101.01 Permeability to Water and a Permeability Block. The first
139.82 193.54 267.92 370.87 513.38 710.65 study reduced water production significantly and the second
983.73 1361.74 1885.Q1 2609.35 3612.03 5000.00 study showed oil production enhancement as well as
reduction in water production. Therefore, a combination of
In the studies which follow water coning problem is the two treatments should produce the best remediation.
remediated by the following three methods: Figure 15 shows the effect of a combination of both
• The first technique is a reduction in relative permeability treatments using a 20% reduction in relative permeability to
to water which is studied through numerical reservoir water and addition of an impermeable disc with varied disc
simulation. diameters. A comparative cumulative recovery graph shown
• The second remediation places a blocking agent between in Fig. 16 indicates that the combined treatment produces the
the perforations and the oil/water contact. This is again highest amount of oil followed by, only using an impermeable
studied using numerical simulation. disc, by only reducing the relative permeability to water, and
• The third technique is combination of reduction in by the untreated reservoir.
relative permeability to water and a permeability block.
Conclusion: There are two distinctly different approaches to
Remediation by Reducing the Relative Permeability to remediation of coning problems, the first is to reduce the
Water. Altering the rock properties to allow less water to be relative permeability to water and the second is to place a
conducted involves changes in the surface tension and wetting blocking agent between the perforations and the oil/water
properties. We modeled its effects on oil production, water contact. Engineers may employ 3-D, 3-phase numerical
simulators to optimize these treatments for a given well.

263
8 REVIEW OF RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONFORMANCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Gas Cap Percolation
Modeling of gas cap influx is very similar to reservoir
modeling of a rising water cone which was discussed earlier.
The same criteria apply regarding phase densities, location of
the perforations, distance to the fluid contacts, and so forth.
A simplified treatment of the problem is given by Piper22
where both the water coning and gas coning problems are
solved to yield the optimum completion interval and the
critical oil production rate. A more rigorous approach would
be to model the behavior through numerical simulation
techniques such as the models of Zhao,7 Biterge and Ertekin,8
and Collins, et al. 9 which were described earlier.
Water Channeling Studies
Another source of excessive water production is from water
channeling. In this case water enters payzone in a horizontal
plane as compared with coning where water moves vertically.
In this section a detailed study of water channeling is given.
Water channeling occurs when a very high effective
permeability connection between a source of water and the
production well exists as shown in Fig. 17. In many cases the
source of water is a water injection well in a water-flooded-
reservoir. A connection such as this between an injector and
a producer reduces the amount of available water to push oil
to the producer, decreases sweep efficiency, and increases the
produced water volume which must be disposed of.
To simulate water channeling a 5-foot thick, very high
permeability connection is made between an injector and a
producer well. Figure 18 shows such a reservoir. Water is
produced and bypasses potential oil in-place contained in a
100 md, 50-foot thick formation, underlying the 5-ft channel.
The objective is first to disrupt the high permeability
connection using a permeability blocking agent and secondly,
to reduce the channel permeability using a pre-pad
permeability reducer polymer.
Remediation by a Change in the Injector Profile. The
purpose in redirecting the injection profile from the high
permeability channel to the primary payzone is to improve
sweep efficiency and reduce water channeling. In this
simulation study the depth of the blocking agent at the
injection well versus oil and water production at the producer
was investigated.
Results of the study are give in Fig. 19. In this reservoir
the high permeability channel was blocked at the injection
well to depths of25, 75,125, and 175 ft. The curves indicate
the most success was during producing times of 2,000 to
9,000 hours. Before 2000 hr, water is not yet broken through
the high permeability channel, and for every volume injected
equal volume is produced regardless of the size of the
blocked permeability. After water breaks through the low
permeability reservoir, production decline rate for different
lengths of blocked permeability in the channel approaches to
that of the unaltered reservoir and the blocking agent is not
effective anymore.
264
SPE 35171
Remediation by Reducing Permeability in the Channel. A
different approach to water channeling remediation is to
reduce the permeability in the channel towards that of the
main pay. This overall reduction in absolute permeability can
be accomplished by first injecting a pre-pad chemical, prior to
waterflooding. The pre-pad preferentially sweeps the high
permeability area first as it is being pushed through the
reservoir by the waterflood.
Figure 20 shows an unaltered reservoir and several with
channel-to-pay permeability contrasts of 1, 10, 20, 50, and
100. As can be seen in the figure, the closer the channel
resembles the main pay, the better the oil production and the
lesser the water production.
Conclusion. This study defines two approaches to remediate
channeling problems. The first is to place a blocking agent
into the high permeability channel, thereby, redirecting flow
of the injected fluid into the region of interest. The second is
an overall reduction in the absolute permeability of the
channel between the injector and the producer. A 3-D, 3-
phase numerical simulation of the problem is recommended
to optimize these treatments for a given formation.
Conformance Control Techniques
There are several methods for conformance control. The
techniques detailed under water coning and channeling
sections can all be used to control excessive water and gas
production. Most of the well problems can be remedied by
injection of specialized chemicals or by squeezing cement
into the problem areas.
Squeeze Cementing for Zone Isolation
The first method usually attempted in resolving a
conformance control problem is squeeze cementing.
Economic considerations and familiarity with the product are
the reasons for this choice. Two of the most important and
useful items of information needed to design a successful
zone isolation with cement treatment are formation pressure
and fracturing pressure. Such information is useful to (1)
avoid loss of a large volume of cement slurry into the
formation, (2) determine realistic column height for re-
cementing treatments, and (3) control cement fallback. From
pressure buildup analysis and injectivity tests it can be
determined whether a well can hold a full column of fluid.
Downhole pressure gauges should be used if formation
pressure is not high enough to keep a full column of liquid in
the well.
If a program requires circulating cement into the open
annulus, formation pressure data and a series of "rate-in, rate-
out" circulation tests can be used to evaluate (1) perforation
location, (2) realistic cement column height, and (3) if there is
a need for additional cleaning, foamed flushes, or the
application of ultra light foam cement.
SPE 35171 MEHDI AZARI AND MOHAMED SOLIMAN
A high incidence of first squeeze failures has gone a long
way toward eliminating the phrase "simple squeeze job". A
squeeze job failure is usually a failure to place enough slurry
in the areas where it can be effective, and hold it there long
enough to form a permanent seal. The most common
contributors to squeeze job failures and field-proven methods
of handling each one are discussed below.
Lack of Fluid Loss Control. Poor fluid loss control and low
placement rates can lead to a premature squeeze which can
either block an uncemented annulus and force cement into the
wrong area, or prevent sufficient slurry from entering an
injection zone. Fluid loss control during squeeze jobs
depends mostly on slurry composition, namely fluid loss
additives, gelatin materials, foam content, and foam stability.
Fluid loss can also be reduced by large pre-charge volumes
and reactive flushes pumped ahead of the cement.
Low Placement Rates. A low injection rate simply gives
more time for a specific volume of cement slurry to lose fluid
and become a solid mass. The placement rate supplies the
time factor for fluid loss.
No Knowledge of Where Cement is Needed. Some squeeze
jobs are apparently run with little more knowledge than the
approximate depth of the casing leak. If more than one
formation is open in an uncemented annulus, the slurry will
enter the formation with the lowest frac gradient, which is
often not the formation which produced the brine.
Poor Injection Point Control. Slurry entrance into at least
one formation is normally needed for a successful squeeze
treatment. Simply isolating a hole in the casing with packers
does not ensure that slurry can be forced into the formation at
that point. Some zones cannot be successfully squeezed
without first blocking the uncemented annulus below the
depth where the squeeze is needed.
Effect of Bottom Water. In controlling bottom water,
problems occur where natural or induced fractures extend into
lower zones. One method of combating bottom water is to
inject a low viscosity temporary blocking material into the
upper zone before squeezing the bottom zone. The success
ratio of this type of treatment is greatly improved by using
reactive pre-flushes ahead of the cement.
Crossflow. High volume water flow in an uncemented
annulus (often referred to as crossflow) can dilute a cement
slurry to a point that it is no long~r an effective sealing
material. Controlling such conditions eventually requires
squeezing off the brine producing zone. This means
treatment pressures which exceed the producing zone
pressure. If a weak zone is open in the same uncemented
area, special techniques such as foam cementing may be
265
9
needed. 4 A multiple stage cement job with selective injection
could also suffice if slurry injection points can be controlled.
Poor Bonding. Poor bonding to the formation is common in
salt formations where the cure time presents a dual problem.
Salt saturated slurries are needed for good bonding, but such
slurries can have long thickening times and initial set times at
low to moderate temperatures which can complicate squeeze
procedures. The slurry must remain static from the placement
time to the initial set time. High pressure water can easily
enter and disrupt the integrity of a cement during its transition
from a fluid to a solid.
Cement Flow Back. When pumping is stopped, the
downhole pressure is initially equal to the hydrostatic
pressure plus any remaining surface pressure. If no squeeze
pressure is obtained some formations will continue to take
slurry until the hydrostatic pressure is equal to the fracture
extension pressure. As the cement gels and fluid is lost from
the slurry (to permeable formations) the pressure in the
cement rapidly decreases. This pressure decrease allows gas
or brine to enter the cement column, migrate upward, mix
with the cement slurry, and form flow channels for the brine
or gas. 4 Foam cement, thixotropic additives, and
compressible cement are often effective in controlling this
phenomenon.
Multiple Injection Zones. Difficulties of squeezing more
than one area with a single job are mostly,. self evident,
however, treating multiple injection points or paths in a single
zone is less understood. For instance, a reactive pre-flush or
pad ahead of the slurry can result in a complete blockage of
one flow path, yet the following slurry meets very little added
restriction, and no squeeze pressure is evident. This
condition is best solved either with mUltiple stage squeeze
jobs with an in-situ gel forming pre-flush ahead of each stage,
or by pumping a large volume of a sealant polymer solution
which will react with the formation brine and form a stiff gel
in the formation. This type of fluid may be used to form a
barrier to water zones or reduce fluid loss into thief zones and
high permeability streaks.
Testing the Success of Conformance Control
The success of a conformance control project can be
quantified by evaluation of production performance,
downhole video camera, production logging, well testing,
tracer surveys, and field wide reservoir simulation.
Well test data evaluation and numerical simulation are
required to properly quantify the effect of a treatment.
Numerical simulations similar to the ones described in the
reservoir behavior section can be used to simulate the
production behavior.
10 REVIEW OF RESERVOIR ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONFORMANCE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SPE 35171

Well Testing TABLE 7. Reservoir Rock and Fluid Data

The complications of a numerical simulator are simplified to
several equations in well test data evaluation programs. In Symbol Name Value
general, the equations account for variation in flow rate called Flow rate, STB/D
q 20
superposition,23 include a mathematical definition of reservoir h Net pay thickness, ft 20
pressure, time and rate behavior in dimensionless forms,24 and T Reservoir temperature, OF 250
are combined in a matching aigorithm2S which modifies the Porosity, fraction 0.2
<P
reservoir model's parameters to a point where the model k\ Invaded zone permeability, md I
calculated pressures match those recorded during the well k2 Formation permeability, md 100
test. kz Vertical permeability, md 0.2
The general superposition equation relating reservoir rw Wellbore radius, ft 0.4
pressure in terms of real gas potential to the dimensionless S Skin damage, dimensionless 0.0
pressure, variable flow rate, and time is given by Eq. 4: Wellbore volume, ft3
Vw 130.2
Cw Wellbore storage constant, bbl/psi 0.000184
m(pw)=m(p;)-
Sew Connate water saturation, fraction 0.20
96.783 PsJ k=j 2 (4) Oil gravity, API 40
( k h ) I [(qcqk-1) PD(tDj -tD,)]-qj D Yo
g k=1 Yg Gas gravity, fraction 0.75
Rs Solution gas-oil-ratio, scf/STB 300
To interpret interference and pulse testing data for two or Bo Formation volume factor, bbllSTB 1.218
more wells, the above equation is modified considerably to Ct Total formation compressibility, IIMMpsi 10.78
include the effects of offset production. Solutions are also /-lo Viscosity, cp 0.736
available which account for reservoir boundaries, aquifer
influence, gas-cap, layering, partial penetration, naturally and
hydraulically fractured formations, and composite reservoirs. In the sections to follow several simplified techniques
Pressure transient testing methods can be used to check will be presented to aid in identifying a successful
how far and how effective a polymer solution has reduced conformance control project. They provide qualitative
permeability around wellbore. Additionally, formation information under field conditions. However, the method of
permeability, skin damage around wellbore, reservoir analysis as described above or a numerical simulation is
pressure, formation continuity and boundaries, and interwell strongly recommended to quantify the control project results.
communication can be evaluated by pressure transient testing.
Coning phenomena can also be approximated through Producing Wells
pressure transient testing. Production data offers a good source of information to
A quick comparison can be obtained by approximating evaluate conformance projects. The water-oil ratio, gas-oil
the injected polymer with a composite reservoir which has a ratio, oil production rates, wellhead pressure, and temperature
reduced mobility around well bore that extends a distance of rp data can be plotted for assessments.
into the formation. Furthermore, for the lower boundary of
this formation a constant pressure can be assumed to Injection Wells
represent bottom-water influx. Once this well is placed on A popular method for evaluating injection wells is the Ha1l 26
production the time the bottom boundary is detected at plot, provided the cumulative volume of injected fluid and a
well bore as a function of rp and the reduced value of mobility good record of injection pressures are available. The method
ratio can be observed. assumes a series of steady-state injections which means PD is
Halliburton's well test design software, RESULTS was independent of time. This assumption is not correct for long
used to show the application of well testing in identification periods of time and is valid as long as external boundaries,
of bottom water coning. Table 7 presents the reservoir data fluid contacts, and reservoir heterogeneity are not
used for this study. This reservoir has a permeability of 100 encountered and the rate variation is not frequent. It is an
md which is reduced to 1 md up to a radius of rp, by the acceptable approximation over reasonable time periods and
injection of polymer. Figure 21 shows the log-log plot of the provides a simple method for monitoring injection-well
change in pressure versus production time for four rp values performance. In Eq. 5 Wi is the cumulative water injected,
of 10, 25, 50, and 100 ft. For comparison a plot of a Pe is the reservoir pressure, f:.Ptw is the hydrostatic head
composite reservoir with rp of 100 ft but with no bottom-
pressure inside the well bore, and Ptf is the wellhead pressure
water influx is also included in Fig. 21. Equation 2 can be
in an injection well. When (p, - dPtw) t is small compared
used to calculate the minimum chemical volume required to
penetrate the distances shown in Fig. 21. to the integral, the plot of this integral versus cumulative
water injected results in a straight line.

266
SPE 35171 MEHDI AZARI AND MOHAMED SOLIMAN 11

7. Zhao, Liyan, Progress Report No. 16, Texas A&M Reservoir

Modeling Consortium, personal communications, (1993).
8. Biterge, M.B. and Ertekin, T.: "Development and Testing of a
Static/Dynamic Local Grid-Refinement Technique," paper SPE
The slope of the straight line section is given by Eq. 6, 19803, April 1992.
9. Collins, D.A, Nghiem, L.X., and Grabonstotter, J.E.: "An
141.2J1B(PD + S) Efficient Approach to Adaptive-Implicit Compositional
mH = kh (6)
Simulation with an Equation-of-State," paper SPE 15133, May
1992.
For a radial flow pattern Eq. 6 simplifies to: 10. Muskat, M.: The Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through
Porous Media, IHRDC, Boston, (1982) 454-76.
,
11. Slider, H.C.: Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering
141.2.u B re
mH = kh
[In(-)+S] . . . . . . . .
rw
(7) Methods, Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa (1976) 353-
64.
12. Buckley, S.E. and Leverett, M.C.: "Mechanism of Fluid
Equation 8 can be used to evaluate the reservoir before and Displacement in Sand," Trans, AIME, (1924) 146, 107-16.
after a conformance control service to estimate the ratio of the 13. Welge, H.J.: "A Simplified Method for Computing Oil
new flow efficiency to the old flow efficiency: Recovery by Gas or Water Drive," Trans, AIME (1952) 195,
91-8.
14. Guerrero, E.T. and Earlougher, R.C.: "Analysis and
(8) Comparison of Five Methods Used to Predict Waterflooding
mH after Reserves and Performance," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API Dallas
(1961) 78-95.
A successful conformance control project will result in a flow 15. Higgins, RV. and Leighton, AJ.: "A Computer Method to
efficiency ratio of less than 1. Equation 9 shows calculation Calculate Two-Phase Flow in Any Irregularly Bounded Porous
of the resulting skin after a conformance control job. Medium," JPT (June 1962) 679-83.
16. Coats, K.H.: "An Analysis for Simulating Reservoir
kbefore h Performance Under Pressure Maintenance by Gas and/or Water
Safter = Sbefore + 141.2 .u B (mHafter - mHbefore) ...•. (9) Injection," SPEJ (Dec. 1968) 331-40.
17. Willhite, G. Paul: Waterflooding, Textbook Series, SPE,
Richardson, TX (1986) 28.
The value of k /.u employed in Eqs. 6, 7, and 9 can be 18. van Meurs, P. and van der Poel, C.: "Experimental and
determined from a conventional well test, such as a pressure Calculated Relative Permeability Data for Systems Containing
buildup. The change in skin value after a conformance Tension Additives," SPEJ (Sept. 1966) 247-53.
control operation reflects combined changes in permeability 19. Craig, F.F. Jf.: The Reservoir Engineering Aspects of
around well bore, fluid properties, offset well production, and Waterflooding, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, TX
accumulation of a flow resistive skin damage on the well bore (1971)34.
20. Lefebvre du Prey, E.1.: "Factors Affecting Relative
face.
Permeability of a Consolidated Porous Medium," SPEJ (Feb.
1973) 39-47.
Acknowledgements 21. Needham, RB., Threlkeld, C.B., and Gall, J.W.: "Control of
We appreciate the management and the staff of Halliburton Water Mobility Using Polymers and Multivalent Cations,"
Energy Services for support throughout the development of paper SPE 4747 presented at the 1974 Improved Oil Recovery
this paper. Symposium, Tulsa, April 22-24.
22. Piper, L.D. and Gonzalez, F.M. Jr.: "Calculation of the Critical
Oil Production Rate and Optimum Completion Interval."
References 23. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: "The Application of the
1. Bradley, Howard, B.: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, Laplace Space Transformation to Flow Problems in
Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX, (1987). Reservoirs," Trans, AIME (1949) 186, 305-24.
2. Arps, J.J., Brons, F., van Everdingen, AF., Buchwald, RW., 24. Earlougher, RC. Jf.: Advances in Well Test Analysis,
and Smith, A.E.: "A Statistical Study of Recovery Efficiency," Monograph Series Volume 5, SPE, Richardson, TX, 4-9.
API Bulletin D-14. 25. Marquardt, D.W.: "An Algorithm for Least Squares Estimation
3. Slider, H.C.: Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering of Nonlinear Parameters," J. SIAM (June 1963) 11, No.2, 431-
Methods, Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa (1976) 360-4. 41.
4. Adams, Neal: Workover Well Control, PennWell Books, Tulsa, 26. Hall, H.N.: "How to Analyze Waterflood Injection Well
OK, (1981) 1-19. Performance," World Oil (Oct. 1963) 128-30.
5. Pirson, S.1.: Oil Reservoir Engineering, Second Ed., McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, (1958).
6. Wheatley, M.1.: "An Approximate Theory of OillWater
Coning," paper SPE presented at the 60th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25, 1985.

267
 Wellhead Pressure Injection Pressure
p.. p..
I
I
I
I
I
,
I"
~

I
,
! I
\
I
!
I
\
\
I
\
\
I
Pressure - - . . Pressure ------+-
Producing Injecting

Fig. 1-Production and injection profiles. Fig. 2-Schematic of crossflow.

100 100
'I ~ .....
"" ............
iii "... ..... .... , Dissolved
Gas Drive
0. ' ...
"
'6> 80 .... .....- ......... 80
(§ ".~ .....- WaterDrlw

'0
C \ -~

~',------------- :c
:g
Gaa Cap Drive

~., 60 60
n. \ (,)
:IE
\
.,~ 40 \
c£
0 40
Xl ..
~
Dissolved
Gu
Cl
r!r. '\ Drive
~

'0 ...
~ "'~, 20
20
"
1--_""_=-_:;; ___________________________
Water Drive
_
II: '."
"1.

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Oil Produc1ion, Percent of original Oil in Place Oil Production, Percent of original Oil in Place

Fig. 3-0il production for various drive mechanisms. Fig. 4-Characteristic gas-oil performance for various
reservoir-drive mechanisms.

Initial Condition
Initial Condition

Oil

Gas Cap Expansion

o IW Con ta c t M 0 ve s Tow a r d

Gas Cap ProdUc1ion

High Water Production

Fig. 5--Expansion and production of gas cap with Fig. 6--Advancing oil-water contact and subsequent water
production of oil. production with oil.

268
 PV PV

~ ~
0.5

0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1 0.15
0.05
0.05

M=2.40 M=17.3

Fig. 7-Displacement fronts for different mobility ratios and injected PV

until breakthrough, quarter of a five-spot. Fig. 8-Water coning.

240
550
~
III 200 ¢ =20%
Cl c:
0 500
:iii:

-
0
q 160 en
.... c:
CIi ~ 450
E 120 !\l k1 = 1 md
:l
(5 .::::l
-
>
c:
80 w
0-
400
k2 = 100 md
rw =0.4 ft

-...
C1I
E
I II
C1I
t-
40
350
o
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Penetration Radius, ft Penetration Radius, ft

Fig. 9A-Treatment volume vs. penetration radius of polymer. Fig. 9B-Equivalent skin vs. penetration radius of polymer.
 ~~-----.------r------r-----.------'------.

50% reduction in kw
20% reduction in kw
~ 1500 No reduction in k,.
Iii
~-
c:
o 1000
~
::l
'0
o . "" . """". ,.".". ,'''".......................... ''' ...,......
0:.
'0
.~ 500
_.... ------- ------------ , Water

:J
Oil

OL-____- J______ ~ ______ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~

o 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000

Time, hrs

Fig. 10-Vertical profile of the simulated reservoir. Fig. 11-0il and water production vs. time for an unaltered reservoir and
reservoirs with reduced relative permeability to water.

2100

Disc Location
~t- 1700
_ _ 10' below perforations
V)
•• .. Middle of Payzone
.j
~ - - 10' above w/o contact
II: 1300
I: ........., No disc
,2
'0

e
:l
'0

[l.
'0
900
"," ","'"' ." ", . . , " " '"' J- Water

':; 500
0'
:J

L -__ ~ ____-L____ ~ ____ ~ __ ~ ____

J- ~
Oil

100
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000
Time, hrs

Fig. 13-----0il and water production vs. time for an unaltered reservoir and
reservoirs with a 200 ft radius impermeable disc located at various points
Fig. 12-Water coning remediation with impermeable disc. above the O/W contact.
 2100 2000

0
~, Disc Radius
Disc Radius ill \
1700 .... "\
-200'
0
ill
....
_ 200' (/)
oj
1500
\, \ _ _ 100'

i;
\\, '\
(/) - - 100' ........... NO Disc
a:
~ 1300
•••• so· c
a:
c
........ H No Disc .Q
0:::J
1000 '\ '\
\~,~ ~\""",
-..;.-,. .>~~~:~~';;:':.:."." ------------------ }waler
0
~ '0
0
", ......................,...................... """'..... '''.... '', ...... "....,", ............................,
:::J
'0 900 0:.
!::! '0 500
C- '5
oo
'5
C"
::i
500
C"
::i ,,;,'/"~.,,.. _.",.. ..... ..". ". - .... trr.\,~ .."m't ••'Iftl:..~ ..=..,'!ft'I,.':'::t.•~.:rrrt'''''''''"''.I'III\\._'''''''._._.'''''''
J-Oil
~ ______L -______
~ ______ ~ ______ ~ ______ ~ ______
". . . ]-011
~
0
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000
100
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 Time, hrs
Time, hrs
Fig. 15--0il and water production vs. time for an unaltered reservoir and
Fig. 14-0iI and water production vs. time for an unaltered reservoir and reservoirs with a 20% reduction in permeability to water and an impermeable
reservoirs with an impermeable disc located 10ft below perforations. disc located 10 ft below perforations.

...
I\)
.......
700

0
in
....
(/)
600
::E
C 500
.2
ti
:::J
'0
0 400
0:.
(5 300
Gl _ _ _ _ 20% k reduction and 200' disc
.~
10
:; 200 _ _ _ 200' disc
E •••••••••• 50' disc
:::J
U - _ . _ - - 20%-50% reduction In k,.
100
._................_ .. Unaltered reservoir

16,000 20,000 24,000

Time, hrs

Fig. 16-Cumulative oil production vs. time for an unaltered reservoir and
reservoirs with reduced permeability to water, impermeable disc and a
Fig. 17- Early water breakthrough in a layered reservoir with high
combination of both.
permeability channels.
 400

e
ED
I-

..
en
OJ
300

a:
c:
.2 200
ti
:::I
'0
~
a..
100
~

1,000 5,000 9,000 13,000 17,000 21,000 25,000

Time, hrs
Fig. 18-Schematic showing high permeability streaks.
Fig. 19---0il and water production vs. time for reservoirs having a high
permeability channel which is blocked at the injection well to different depths.

I\)
-...,J
I\) 500 103

.=---..-r:: . ..:r= ....::=.-===: ..::=."::-:.-==."=:=."::::

400
--------------------------------
C _._._.- 100
iD
I-
.., ......... ---100
" ....... _.. _.. _..- .. ......
en 300 10 2
- -50
Qi 51- _._.-.- 25
1ii -0
II: Channel-to-Pay Permeability Ratio ... \
'.\ -----.10

n
c:
0
200
-- I
0
a..
\
\
\
\.\ '.
:J
10
5 ,,\ \~-- No Bottom Water Influx
20 Gi
"0 \ \ \
...
0 50 C
\" \
a..
"0
·S 100
100 10'
,"
,\ \
' k1 = 1 md
~
0"
:::i \ \ k2 = 100 md
Oil \, \\ \\
o~;......-----

1,000 5,000 9,000 13,000 17,000 21,000 25,000 10·

10-2 10-' 10· 10' 102 103 10'
Time, hrs Delta Time, hrs

Fig. 20-0il and water production vs. time for reservoirs having a high Fig. 21-Production pressure profile for various treatment penetrations
permeability channel. with and without botom-water coning.