SPE 90430
Successful Implementation of Resurgent Relative Permeability Modifier (RPM)
Technology in Well Treatments Requires Realistic Expectations
Leonard J. Kalfayan, SPE, BJ Services Company and Jeffery C. Dawson, BJ Services Company
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26–29 September 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Industry interest in relative permeability modifier (RPM)
treatments for water control is revived. However, as in the
past, a majority of the treatments are applied to wells with
extremely high water cuts (95% and greater) – with the
unrealistic expectation that use of such agents will
substantially reduce percent water cut or even prevent (shut
off) unwanted water flow altogether.
Recent field experience with newly-developed RPM-based
treatments is leading to clearer definition of the proper
applications necessary to overcome the existing barriers to
success which include, but are not limited to, treatment
penetration depth, treatment placement, formation
permeability and wettability characteristics, pre- and post-
treatment reservoir fluid flow mechanisms, and a history of
skepticism.
With these aspects in mind, this paper points to the largely
unrecognized economic benefits that can be realized through
creative and strategic deployment of low-risk or risk-reducing
RPM-based technologies in multi-well scenarios. Examples
include oil and gas producer matrix treatments, especially in
high permeability and clean sands.
Introduction
It is estimated that, on average, every barrel of oil produced in
the U.S. is accompanied with nine barrels of water in the U.S.
Current water production worldwide is estimated at more than
300 million barrels per day – with a water-to-oil ratio of
perhaps at least four-to-one1. In addition, regulatory
requirements governing disposal of produced water are
becoming more stringent.
Water production compromises the profitability of all oil
and gas producing wells. Decreased well productivity and
increasing operating expenses are among the inherent
problems associated with excessive water production. Water
handling costs range from less than 5 cents to more than $4
per barrel of water produced, thus costing the industry billions
of dollars per year. The need for effective water management
technologies in the industry becomes more apparent as fields
mature, as operations move into marginal fields, and as
environmental restrictions become more stringent.
Numerous attempts have been made over the years to
control water production. Mechanical intervention such as
bridge plugs and a variety of cement systems have been
successfully applied once the water source has been identified.
Other successful options include the use of polymeric
blocking gels, silicate gels, phenol-formaldehyde gels and
plugs. It is important that each of these methods be applied
only after the water source is identified and the problem zone
isolated to prevent the inadvertent placement of the chemicals
in the hydrocarbon rich sectors of the formation. Locating the
water source can be expensive and time consuming and at
times include speculation and luck in diagnosing the water
pathway. Misapplying a treatment, particularly, if the water
source is misdiagnosed and the treatment is injected into a
hydrocarbon rich interval, can have disastrous effects on
production and possibly cause the operator to lose the well.
One approach to water control that does not inadvertently
reduce hydrocarbon production is to use products that
selectively respond to water without impairing hydrocarbon
production. These products offer several advantages including
the ability to bullhead treatments without fear of restricting
hydrocarbon recovery, in the ideal case. This advantage also
negates the need to pinpoint the exact location of water entry
since these products only respond in water rich intervals.
Another advantage of the selective products is that most are
easily removed in the event that their response impairs
hydrocarbon recovery. There are several products that have
some degree of water selectivity. One class of products is the
relative permeability modifier (RPM).2-7
The RPM products have been used to reduce water
permeability in wells having either high permeability water-
producing streaks or water-coning problems.8,9 Historically,
these products have performed very inconsistently.10 As a
consequence of this inconsistent behaviour, the industry has
lost confidence in this approach to water management.
The reason for this is that the need as well as the
expectations exceeded the capabilities of existing technology.
The objectives and expectations of water management
chemical treatment programs vary from field to field and in
some cases, even from well to well. These have included total
water shut-off, simply reducing water production below
2 SPE 90430
surface handling capacities or reducing discharge or re-
injection volumes, and increasing hydrocarbon to water ratio.
A new approach to address water management chemical
programs combines improved RPM technology and value-
driven treatment assessment that is best applied on a multi-
well or field-wide basis.
Chemistry
The improved RPM is a moderate molecular weight
hydrophilic synthetic ter-polymer based on acrylamide
chemistry.11,12 One of the monomers used in the polymer is
sulfonated, allowing the polymer to be more tolerant to highly
saline formation waters, particularly those having high
concentrations of Ca+2 and Mg+2. This hydrophilic
characteristic, coupled with a unique chemical structure that
allows the polymer to attach itself to rock, provides the basis
for the polymer’s performance.
The polymer, having this anchoring structure, is designed to
partition itself both onto reservoir rock and into reservoir
brines. The actual mechanism responsible for water reduction
is unknown but it is suspected that the polymer regulates the
effective pore throat diameter. Electrostatic attraction between
the formation surface and the adjacent water layer inhibits that
layer of water from flowing. This layer is regarded as the
immobile water phase. As the distance from the surface
increases, the electrostatic forces weaken, ultimately to a point
where the formation has relatively small effects on the water,
allowing the water to flow essentially uninhibited. The RPM
simultaneously anchors itself in pore throats and partitions
itself in the water layer creating a weak three-dimensional
structure. This structure increases the depth of the immobile
phase thus reducing the effective diameter of the pore throat
and induces a drag on the flowing water. This phenomenon is
believed to cause significant reduction of water permeability
and impairs water flow through the treated portion of the
reservoir.
The performance of the improved RPM is further enhanced
with a new additive. This additive is designed to couple with
the RPM and the formation surface covalently. This high
performance version enables treatment of high flow velocity
conditions and very high matrix permeability sandstone
formations, even under high temperature conditions. The
additive basically enhances the anchoring of the polymer to
the formation. As of this writing, the high performance
version has been field-tested with promising early post-
treatment results under extreme conditions of temperature –
over 300 °F (149 °C) and permeability – over 2 Darcies.
These are treatment conditions previously beyond the
capabilities of RPM products.
Laboratory data also indicates that oil flow through treated
rock is minimally impacted or essentially unaffected when
treatment with either version of the improved RPM is properly
employed. This behaviour can be rationalized again with the
weak three-dimensional structure. The RPM, being very
hydrophilic, is repelled by oil droplets. Consequently, the
three-dimensional structure of the hydrated polymer responds
to the continuous flow of oil droplets or coalesced stream of
droplets by deforming to accommodate the oil. The
deformation occurs in a manner that reduces the thickness of
the immobile water phase, allowing oil to flow through treated
pathways essentially unobstructed. This behaviour is observed
in the laboratory as a minimal impairment of oil permeability.
Other explanations for the RPM behaviour have been reported
in the literature and include the existence of segregated oil and
water flow paths through the porous media13 and the balance
between capillary forces and elastic confining forces.14
Another advantage of the RPM is the packaging of the
product. Many RPMs are packaged as dry powders and
require sophisticated blending equipment to mix the treating
fluid. This equipment is necessary to assure that the treating
fluid is homogeneous and void of “fisheyes” that could
detrimentally reduce hydrocarbon production. Other RPMs are
packaged as invert polymer emulsions. These products readily
disperse in the treating fluid to provide homogeneous
solutions but the emulsions are stabilized with non-ionic
surfactants. These surfactants, dispersed in water, are
notorious for forming emulsions with oil and can significantly
reduce oil permeability.
The RPM is packaged as a concentrated polymer solution
having viscosity less than 6,000 cP as measured on a
Brookfield with a #4 spindle at 60 rpm and 25°C. At this
viscosity, the concentrate is easily pourable into the mix water
used to prepare the treating fluid. The RPM concentrate is also
packaged without any surfactants to avoid any potential
emulsion problems, although non-emulsifiers are added to the
treating fluid as additional insurance those emulsions do not
form down-hole. Consequently, the RPM treating fluid is
operationally simplistic to prepare at the well site and will be
further discussed in the field case history section of this paper.
Laboratory Evaluation
The primary and most meaningful means of evaluating RPM
performance is through actual multi-well treatment response.
However, laboratory core flow testing provides a pre-
treatment screening method. At this point in time, though,
there is no standard, systematic evaluation method for RPM
treatments. Thus, it becomes difficult to apply any screening
process, including core flow tests, to predict ultimate well
treatment outcome.
Based on our experience, there is little correlation between
laboratory core flow test results, for example, and field
treatment response. One may exceed the other. Rarely do the
two coincide. Core flow tests can effectively evaluate the
chemical interactions between the RPM and the core medium
under simulated formation conditions – but they cannot
adequately address actual produced water and hydrocarbon
flow pathways to the wellbore and treatment placement needs.
Treatment placement is as important, if not more so, than the
chemical interactions of the RPM.
Field Treatment Considerations
The following treatment considerations generally apply to
RPM treatments, including the improved RPM systems
addressed in this paper.
• The most favorable RPM treatment candidates are wells
producing from multi-layered sandstone formations with
one or more layers that are still saturated with
hydrocarbon.15-17 Otherwise, distinct water and
SPE 90430 3

hydrocarbon production (especially oil) within the Rw = Wellbore Radius (ft)

production interval is desirable. H = Height of treatment interval (ft)
Φ = Porosity (fractional volume of total); e.g.
• The candidate should be at or close to an undamaged state 20% porosity = 0.20
(skin = 0). If damage skin exists, matrix stimulation may π = 3.14159
be required prior to placing the RPM treatment – or as part
of the water control treatment itself. A positive skin limits To calculate treatment volume in gal/ft, use H = 1.
potential improvement to relative hydrocarbon/water
inflow imparted by RPM treatment and the ability to take Example calculation for a 20-foot treatment interval
advantage through increased well drawdown. Desired treatment radius: 8 ft
• If water is mobile in all productive layers, the benefit of a Wellbore diameter (hole size): 7 in (Rw = 3.5 in)
Height of treatment interval: 20 ft
RPM treatment can be of limited duration.
Porosity (Φ): 18% (0.15)
• RPM treatments are not expected to be effective in
Treatment volume = (7.4805)⋅(0.18)⋅(3.14159)⋅(20)
controlling water producing from fractures or voids. For
[(8 + (3.5/12))2 – (3.5/12)2]
such cases, current technology dictates use of water
= (84.6)⋅(68.75 - 0.085)
blocking systems such as cement or gels.
= 5809 gal (22 m3)
• If RPMs are placed in homogeneous zones producing both = 290 gal/ft (3.6 m3/m)
water and hydrocarbon (fractional flow), both water and
hydrocarbon permeability may be decreased – especially in Example Basic RPM Treatment Procedure
oil wells. If such wells are treated, the capacity to increase 1. Spearhead (Surfactant-based treatment)
drawdown is a required factor – to take advantage of the 2. RPM treatment (RPM + additives in aqueous solution)
relative hydrocarbon-to-water inflow following RPM 3. Displacement (Brine)
treatment. 4. Shut-in (24 hours)
• In clay-rich formations in which clay minerals are
RPM Field Case Histories
distributed homogeneously, it is possible that the RPM will
adsorb preferentially in the clay-rich portion of the rock, 1. Gas – single well example
and limit treatment depth of penetration. A relatively low permeability Canadian gas well producing
from a short interval of about 10 feet (3 meters) and a
• In formations that are not highly water-wet to begin with, a moderate permeability sandstone formation (~25 millidarcies)
special formation pre-conditioning spearhead treatment was treated successfully with a 3% RPM solution, preceded by
should be included in the RPM treatment procedure to a KCl brine + surfactant spearhead. Treatment placement was
provide a more favourably adsorptive surface for the RPM. not necessitated. Table 1 summarizes production response at
two and five months after treatment.
• Low viscosity oil and gas wells, in particular, are good
candidates because of the higher mobility of hydrocarbon Table 1. RPM Treatment Response in Gas Well
relative to water. Highly viscous oil wells may be
favourable, as well, as the viscous hydrocarbon may serve Water Gas Water / Gas Ratio
to divert treatment to water-bearing zone(s). For viscous (bwpd) (mscfd) (bwpd / mmscfd)
(thick) oil reservoirs, combination RPM / visco-elastic Before (annual average) 14 254 56
fluid systems have shown particular effectiveness.1,18 2 months after RPM 9 396 23
• Treatment is ideally designed for radial penetration of 5 months after RPM 0 380 0
about 10 ft (about 3 meters). However, adequate treatment
Gas flow could not be induced initially following treatment,
design may be for radial penetration of 3 to 7 ft (about 1 to
and the well was shut in for several weeks. Once the well was
2 meters). As a practical matter, depth of treatment beyond returned to production two months after treatment, gas flowed
the wellbore in horizontal completions must be less, unless at low rate, but with significant reduction in the water to gas
fluid entry is known and the treatment placement can be ratio. With time, the well responded, showing a significant
limited to strategic locations along the interval. increase in gas production (from an average of about 254
• RPM treatments can be bullheaded or placed through mscf/d in 2002 to nearly 400 mscf/d. The water to gas ratio
coiled tubing. Coiled tubing placement is preferred for dropped from an average value of 56 for the year prior to
vertical intervals over about 30 ft (about 10 meters) and treatment to 23 after post-treatment production stabilized.
certainly for long horizontal and deviated intervals. Water production and water to gas ratio reached zero after five
months, with gas rate remaining at 380 mmscfd. The
improving trend in water to gas ratio is significant, as it relates
RPM treatment volume to the well’s ability to sustain gas production at a higher
average daily rate.
Treatment volume (gal) = 7.4805⋅Φ⋅ π⋅ Η (R2-Rw2)
Even on this single well basis, added annual value from
where R = Desired treatment radius (ft) sustained gas rate could exceed $150,000 (at $4 per mcf gas)
4 SPE 90430

for a treatment cost of one-sixth that amount or less, in this Table 2. 5-well (Oil) RPM Program Value Estimate
case. This is not considering the additional value potential Ten months after the RPM treatments, cumulative reduction
from less frequent remedial de-watering procedures and the in produced water volume was about 2.7 million barrels – 1.8
associated cost savings. It also stands to reason that translation million realized in the first four months. Starting four months
of the single well demonstration to a multi-well scenario after the treatments, wells were produced at higher drawdowns
would result in substantial value to production operations. to elevate oil production, according to the original primary
objective of the project. As a result, cumulative incremental
2. Oil – multi-well example (or accelerated) oil production over the 10-month period was
A 5-well treatment program conducted in an offshore field in about 60 thousand barrels.
the Far East serves as an excellent example of the economic The estimated value after the 10-month period based on
benefits in treating a series of very high water cut wells with actual production response was over $1.6 million, despite the
hydrocarbon production potential. The design considerations, small combined well water cut reduction. The 5-well treatment
program objectives, and post-treatment production history of cost was less than one-eighth this amount. For the sake of
this program have been thoroughly detailed previously.19 example, if a water handling cost of $0.20 per barrel of water
However, a subsequent conservative estimate of the value produced were applicable, then an additional $200,000 in
derived from the program was far greater than may have been added value would have been realized.
anticipated, especially had focus been placed primarily on Applying this example generally, beyond this specific case,
water cut reduction. implies that additional up front cost to diagnose water entry, as
The five wells were similar – conventional wire-wrapped well as treatment placement considerations could be well
screen, gravel pack completions producing via electronic justified.
submersible pump (ESP) from a single perforated interval.
The producing formation is a high permeability sandstone. Conclusions
The five wells were treated during a 5-day period in July 1. RPM treatments conducted on an individual well basis are
2002, with combined pre-treatment production of about of limited value to operations.
45,000 bopd and 1.8 million bwpd. Individual well water cuts 2. RPM treatments for water management should be
ranged from 95 to 98%. implemented in field-wide or multi-well programs to
Table 2 summarizes treatment program value estimate based maximize the economic impact and value creation.
on a simple assessment method. The method considers a set 3. Implementation of treatment programs should be with clear
oil price of $25 per barrel for the 10-month post-treatment understanding of field water management objectives. For
tracking period and a low constant water handling cost of example, the objective in a field operating at low water
$0.05 per barrel of water produced. Actual monthly post- handling cost may be to maintain maximum water handling
treatment production rates were compared to operator capacity with an increase in relative hydrocarbon to water
projected rates based on a decline analysis of pre-treatment ratio. In a high cost environment, the need to reduce field-
production. wide produced water volume may override hydrocarbon
Projected Production rate maximization.
Without RPM Program 4. Evaluation of RPM treatments should not be based strictly
Mo
Water
Oil BOPM
Water Mo Oil Mo Water on observed water cut reduction, but on added value to
Cut BWPM $000 $000
operations with respect to water cost savings, additional
1 97.3% 46638 1701911 $1,166 $85 hydrocarbon revenue, or a combination of both.
2 97.3% 44215 1607191 $1,105 $80
3 97.3% 46201 1679772 $1,155 $84 5. Greatest value may be derived from very high water cut
4 97.3% 43142 1560819 $1,079 $78 wells with additional drawdown capacity and with low
5 97.4% 41155 1533013 $1,029 $77
6 97.3% 44715 1630731 $1,118 $82
water cut reduction expectations. Minor reduction in field
7 97.3% 39831 1452451 $996 $73 water cut can result in significant improvement well
8 97.3% 43325 1581288 $1,083 $79 performance, increase in net hydrocarbon price (revenue
9 97.3% 41316 1505042 $1,033 $75
10 97.3% 41745 1519199 $1,044 $76
less water costs – per barrel of oil or mscf of gas), and
extension of field economic life.
Actual Production
After RPM Program
Acknowledgments
Net Value
Mo
Water
Cut
Oil BOPM
Water
BWPM
Mo Oil
$000
Mo Water
$000
Net Gain
$000
Saving Added The authors thank BJ Services for permission to publish this
$000 $000
paper. Thanks are also expressed to Dr. Syed Ali of
1 96.2% 44146 1122556 $1,104 $56 ($62) $29 ($33)
2 96.1% 47269 1168015 $1,182 $58 $76 $22 $98
ChevronTexaco, David Smith of Occidental Petroleum, Glenn
3 96.2% 50262 1258105 $1,257 $63 $102 $21 $123 Swanson, Phil Rae, Gino di Lullo, James Curtis, Andrew
4 96.0% 49063 1162759 $1,227 $58 $148 $20 $168 Campbell, Jim Cole-Hamilton, and Tony Martin, for their
5 96.1% 50420 1229021 $1,261 $61 $232 $15 $247
6 96.2% 53432 1366116 $1,336 $68 $218 $13 $231
insights and contributions to the revival of RPM treatments.
7 96.4% 47156 1252582 $1,179 $63 $183 $10 $193
8 96.7% 52289 1522037 $1,307 $76 $224 $30 $227 References
9 96.7% 50984 1484335 $1,275 $74 $242 $10 $243
10 96.9% 47516 1487988 $1,188 $74 $144 $16 $146
1. di Lullo, G, Rae, P.: New Insights Into Water Control –
Total $1,507 $186 $1,642 A Review of the State of the Art, paper SPE 77963, 2002.
SPE 90430 5

2. Sparlin, D.D.: “Polyacrylamides can Restrict Water, Oil 15. Mennella, A. et al.: “Candidate and Chemical Selection
and Gas Production – It’s Your Choice”, paper SPE 6473, Rules for Water Shutoff Polymer Treatments”, paper SPE
1977. 54736, 1999.
3. Botermans, C.W., Van Batenburg, D.W., and Bruining, J.: 16. Burrafato, G. et al.: “Rigless WSO Treatments in Gas
“Relative Permeability Modifiers: Myth or Reality?” Fields by Bullheading Gels and Polymers in Shaly Sands:
paper SPE 68973, 2001 Italian Case Histories” paper SPE 54747, 1999.
4. Dalrymple, E.D. et al.: “Relative Permeability Modifiers 17. Zaitoun, A. et al.: “Water Shutoff by Relative
for Improved Oil Recovery: A Literature Review”, 1999 Permeability Modifiers: Lessons from Several Field
International Conference on Reservoir Conformance, Applications”, paper SPE 56740, 1999.
Profile Control, Water and Gas Shutoff, Houston, Nov. 18. di Lullo, G., Rae, P., Curtis, J.: New Insights Into Water
8-9. Control – A Review of the State of the Art – Part II, paper
5. Zaitoun, A., and Kohler, N.: “Improved Polyacrylamide SPE 79012, 2002.
Treatments for Water Control in Producing Wells”, paper 19. Mitchell, W., Martin, A.N., Stemberger, D.,
SPE 18501, 1989. Thayanukulvat, P.: Innovative Business Partnership
6. Tielong, C.: “A Relative Permeability Modifier for Water Produces Effective Water Conformance Treatments,
Control of Gas Wells in a Low-Permeability Reservoir”, paper SPE 84623 (2003).
SPE Reservoir Engineering (1996) 168.
7. Pusch, G.: “Practical Experience with Water Control in
Gas Wells by Polymer Treatments”, 1995 EAPG
Improved Oil Recovery European Symposium, Vienna,
Austria, Vol. 2, 48-56.
8. Dunlap, D.D., Boles, J.L., Novotny, R.J.: “Method for
Improving Hydrocarbon/Water Ratios in Producing
Wells”, paper SPE 14822, 1986.
9. Stanley, F.O., Hardianto, Marnoch, E., Tanggu, P.S.:
“Amphoteric Polymer Improves Hydrocarbon/Water
Ratios in Producing Wells – An Indonesian Case Study”,
SPE Production Facilities (Aug. 1997), 181-186.
10. Novotny, Rudolf J.: “Matrix Flow Evaluation Technique
for Water Control Applications”, Paper SPE 030094
presented at the 1995 European Formation Damage
Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, May 15-16.
11. Campbell, J.A.S., Dawson, J.C., Kalfayan, L.J., Malone,
M.: Development, Laboratory Testing, and First Field
Applications of a New Relative Permeability Modifier to
Reduce Water Production, OMC Paper 105, presented at
the Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition
(Ravenna, Italy), March 26-28, 2003.
12. Nelson, S.G., Kalfayan, L.J., Rittenberry, W.M.: The
Application of a New and Unique Relative Permeability
Modifier in Selectively Reducing Water Production,
paper SPE 84511, 2003.
13. Liang, J., Seright, R.S.: ”Further Investigations of Why
Gels Reduce kw More Than ko”, paper SPE 37249
presented at the 1997 International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, February 18-21.
Mennella, A. et al.: “Candidate and Chemical Selection
Rules for Water Shutoff Polymer Treatments”, paper SPE
54736, 1999.
14. Nilsson,S., Stavland,A.: ”Mechanistic Study of
Disproportionate Permeability Reduction”, presented at
the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, OK, April 19-22.