SPE-169262-MS

A Novel Procedure To Apply a Relative Permeability Modifier During

Perforating Guns and TCP
W. Suzart, H. Llerena, E. Lopez, and M. Gonzalez, Halliburton; F. Paz, and E. Davila, Petroamazonas

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Maracaibo, Venezuela, 21–23 May
2014.

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

Abstract
Water sensitive formations, mature fields, and relatively depleted formations can require complex fluid
formulations using specific bottomhole assemblies (BHAs) and underbalanced guns fired to help mini-
mize formation damage. Results have demonstrated that, in many cases where standard procedures were
followed, production decreased and such procedures were not always completely effective. This phe-
nomenon can be attributed to formation characteristics, such as kaolinite, smectite, silica incrustations,
tertiary precipitations, pH changes, clay swelling, and others.
Relative permeability modifiers (RPMs) are being formulated and used within the oil industry to help
mitigate such issues. Physically, the objective is to decrease the relative permeability to water without any
(or minimum) modifications of relative permeability to oil. Basically, this methodology can be applied in
water wet formations without oil permeability modifications. A standard procedure was executed in four
wells and two different formations to prove this technique.
The technique involves using a standard BHA to clean and condition the well, after having selected the
zone where the perforating guns will be fired. A specific formulation of RPM treatment is placed inside
the casing using a balanced fluid placement technique in front of the section to be shot. This type of fluid
has no salinity sensitivity and very low viscosity (less than 4 cp). After placing the RPM fluid, tubing must
carefully be pulled out of the hole (POOH) to avoid disturbing and damaging this temporary plug. Guns
are run into the hole(RIH) to the selected zone to be perforated after spotting the RPM and then fired,
squeezing the system into the desired formations through the casing. The pressure limit must be related
to the casing integrity and no more than 1,500 psi as closure pressure (10 min stabilization trend) is
measured at surface, and then the final BHA run to begin production.
The primary objective of this paper is to present a non-damaging fluid that can be pumped (or gravity
injected) through recently open perforations, reaching casing closure pressure, and changing nearby water
permeability, without causing any completion fluid invasion into the formation or induced damage. This
process can put the well into production immediately, without any additional cleaning fluid necessary for
the removal of the RPM fluid from the formation. The treated wells experienced production with zero
damage to formations.
2 SPE-169262-MS

Introduction
When evaluating a formation with low pressure, it is expected that a completion fluid will migrate to
porous media and cause changes to natural permeability independent of the characteristics of fluid, unless
that operator is working with the original hydrocarbon of the formation or diesel. However, in the latter
case, environmental regulations can become a concern.
The primary difficulty in this case is how the operator can complete a depleted well with a low-cost
application and improve or maintain original permeability during this step of completion.
Currently, the oil and gas industry uses one-trip perforating guns to perform this process to minimize
water loss to the formation; however, this technology has a relatively high cost that must be considered
during evaluation jobs in depleted formations.
Independently, if the methodology using one-trip guns becomes more frequently used, wells will
usually require future recompletion attributed to maintenance of downhole pumps, stimulation issues, etc.
So, operators continue to use special, more expensive, fluids to maintain permeability and increase
production. Based on this scenario, the authors have pioneered applying this process simultaneously with
conventional guns and RPMs with no salinity sensitivity and low viscosity.
The formulation of this unique fluid allows it to build pressure after the guns have been fired, helping
perform the completion without any significant water or fluid loss to the formation. The fluid is used with
perforating guns and does not have to be removed. The well can be put into production immediately after
the job, without the use of acid or crosslinked gel during the process. This low-viscosity RPM can be used
with conventional tubing-conveyed perforation (TCP) or conventional perforating guns.
No other fluid with these characteristics is currently used for well completion (without the necessity of
having to remove it from the formation) while causing zero damage and build pressure in the casing during
completion of a depleted well.

History of Well Completion with Polymer

Water-soluble polymers used within the oil and gas industry can be classified into three main types:
synthetic polymers, natural-based polymers, and biopolymers(Audibert-Hayet1999). Guar gum, a polyga-
lactomannan derived from a natural botanical source, is used during well operations, such as fracturing
and spud muds. Chemical modification, usually by hydroxyalkyl substitution of galactomannans, provides
improved water solubility, better tolerance of salts, enhanced rheological behavior, temperature stability,
and bacterial resistance.
During well completion fluid formulation, polymers are sometimes necessary to provide viscosity and
reduce fluid loss and water invasion. However, when the operator uses polymers, it is usually necessary
to remove them such as by using acid or swabbing. In this case, the polymers used provide fluid-loss
control, preferably without any effect on fluid rheology. Many formulations have been tested and,
currently, the use of carboxymethyl celluloses and polyanionic celluloses are the most suitable polymers
for viscosity and fluid-loss control during drilling operations and well completion.
Actually, the industry is aware of the risk of reduced production, organic or not, induced by polymer
entering into a reservoir and building damage during completion and well drilling. The authors clarify that
non-damaging drilling fluids are not a focus in this paper and are only discussed in terms of well
completion.
An important step during this process is that the operator can identify the source of damage if it was
induced during drilling or completion because using perforating guns with low-viscosity RPM does not
cause fluid loss to the formations.
Therefore, if, during the completion process, the methodology proves that no fluid was lost to the
formation, the possibility exists that damage was originated during well construction caused by polymers
used in the formulation contributing to building filter cake, which is sometimes difficult to remove during
SPE-169262-MS 3

wellbore preparation for the well cementing process, causing a low fraction fluid loss chain in the invading
filtrate to the formations.

Previous RPM and New Application

The RPM is a type of polymer treatment intended to reduce the permeability to water without significantly
affecting the hydrocarbon permeability while reducing water production (Dalrymple al. 2000). Currently,
to apply the RPM techniques, the formation limits are temperatures up to 325°F (163°C) (Eoff et al. 2001)
and average permeability between 0.1 milidarcy up to 6 darcies. The case histories and laboratory tests
presented by Al-Taq et al. (2008) provide the minimum permeability necessary to use the RPM. More
details can be found in Al-Taq et al. (2008).
The technique generally used is to clean up a desired formation using a spacer, balance the fluid in the
pay zone and pump an overdisplacement of fluid to the formation interval, building pressure in the casing
to react more deeply using slow pumping; the primary objective is to reach radial flow. The volume
treatment in case of water control can vary from 10 to 12 ft radial depth and is dependent on porosity.
However, when using perforating guns with RPM, only a small fraction of this volume is necessary.
The new procedure discussed was used in a sandstone formation and the fluid placement technique was
carefully followed according to laboratory recommendations and formulations. When applying the
technique in a new well, it is recommended to use a fluid with low pH near 3.5 to support enough time
for the process of pulling out and cleaning the BHA and RIH perforating guns.
When using the technique on an old well where it is necessary to change zones to increase production
or as a recompletion, the authors recommend running coiled tubing (CT)downhole and spotting the RPM
to the formation before POOH. The same procedures can be applied using CT in cases of a well with
downhole motor. The operation consists of filling CT with RPM, running downhole and squeezing the
formation with original oil in front of the zone and RPM; neither water nor spacer are required; only the
RPM fluid can be used.
Laboratory testing was conducted with special laboratory test cells using formation characteristics of
water wet formations having temperatures within the RPM limitation requirements. The polymers
reported as potential RPM chemicals demonstrated that plugging on the face (injection end) of the cores
was responsible for the apparent reduction of the effective water permeability of those systems without
significant damage to oil permeability. Typically, the theory is that the fluid has a comparative behavior
of a brush to create superficial rock absorption and reduce the size of the water fluid channel, and
consequently reduce permeability of water.
A limited adsorption study was also conducted with the “brush” polymer and the two component
polymers. Previous testing using the fluids was presented by Eoff et al. (2001), and the reaction product
of the two component polymers created a branched polymer with the necessary structure to block water
flow. Although the exact nature of the adsorption of the brush polymer is unknown, the test data suggests
that the RPM “brushes” are strongly adsorbed onto the surface and serve as anchors for the adsorption-
(Fig. 1).
The presence of residual oil makes it difficult to determine the “true” effect of an RPM polymer alone.
The actual modification of the relative permeabilities in treated, layered formations is dependent on many
factors. An RPM treatment must be performed as a “systematic” process (which can include pre-flushes
and over-flushes), rather than as a single chemical that is bullheaded into a formation, Eoff et al. (2001).
Seright et al. (2003) presented a strategy for attacking excess water production describing cases
histories, processes, and, if a problem exists, the place and most significant time to attack. Actually, the
operators treated this case as preventive maintenance to retard the water production (Fig. 2).
Using the same theory of Sharan et al.(2005), the authors understood that it could be applied with
respect to well completions to understand the phenomenon and help achieve zero water invasion during
4 SPE-169262-MS

Figure 1—Laboratory research to prove effectiveness of the RPM.

Figure 2—Excess water production problems and treatment categories (Seright et al. 2003).

well intervention. Based in this structure, the paper presented the case history to build up pressure after
firing the perforating guns to increase RPM penetrations and minimize water invasion (Fig. 3).
Steps of Treatment using Perforating Guns with RPM Fluids
There are several references to RPM applications to reduce water production. However, RPM application
for well completion using perforating guns with no reported damage can be achieved with this new
procedure.
After observing more than 140 jobs placing this regular RPM fluid into entailed formations, an average
of 3% less water cut was observed during well completions. Therefore, the process described within this
paper focuses on creating only high pressure diversion to block invasion of completion fluid to the
formation.
Based on many case histories in the Ecuadorian basin, the authors began using this new application
involving using the perforating guns with a balanced spotted volume of low-viscosity RPM resistant to the
salinity the fluid used at the same time of the firing perforating guns into the formation. The steps to this
application are listed below.
SPE-169262-MS 5

Figure 3—Theoretic model to change water permeability of water (Shahan et al. 2005).

1. After the primary cementing job, the operator begins to clean the well. The RPM density must be
0.5 to 1.0 lbm/gal greater than the completion fluid.
2. Run completion tubing to the desired zone and balance the RPM with an average to fill up to 50
ft above the zone to be perforated. Typically, the volume is between 30 and 60 bbl in a 7-in. liner,
so it can vary as a function of net pay height and formation pressure.
3. To support more time in the wellbore, it is recommended to reduce the new RPM fluid to a pH
between 3.5 and 4.5. This value helps support fluid stability for approximately four days until the
perforating guns are to be fired.
4. Once the guns have been lowered to within 300 ft of the zone to be treated, reduce the tubing
velocity so as not to disturb the RPM balanced in front of zone.
5. Fire the perforating guns or TCP with RPM filling that part of the casing. Squeeze the RPM to
the formation after the perforating guns have been fired.
6. Establish pressure in the casing, approximately 1,000 psi, and obtain pressure stabilization.
POOH the work string (or used wireline guns) and run the production string downhole.
7. No acid or swab is necessary to remove this fluid from the formation. The well can be put in
production immediately.
In case of an old well and/or recompletion, the process can be placed using CT before to POOH the
completion string. The same procedure can be applied in cases of wells with downhole motors. The CT
is filled with RPM and there is no need for water or spacer. Only the RPM will be spotted to the formation.
Of course, during operations with CT, the residual fluid in front of formation will be squeezed to the
formation; but, this residual fluid represents the same fluid on the original rock and no changes are
expected to conductivity (e.g., oil from a formation with high water cut).

Field Results
Well Z-38 is an oil producer in Ecuador with a deviated, cased hole completion. The interval initially
completed in this well was Sand TDss (11,083 to 11,093 ft measured depth [MD]). However, this interval
was squeezed and abandoned with microcement because of excessive water production. The plan for this
well was to begin producing from another interval by perforating the Sand Za at 10,832 to 10,842 ft MD
(bottomhole temperature [BHT] ⬃192°F, bottomhole pressure [BHP]⬃3,300 psi, k⫽170 md, and ⌽⫽
16%). Based on offset producers, fluid losses were highly anticipated during the perforation stage. The
operator requested a non-damaging fluid-loss pill that could be used during the TCP stage. The solution
presented was a recommendation using a low-viscosity RPM because of recent success in a comparable
area with other fluid-loss-control problems (i.e., wellbore cleanouts). For this first case, 100 bbl of RPM
fluid was placed as a balanced pill (with drillpipe) to then perforate Sand Za. The RPM pill (at 137
6 SPE-169262-MS

Figure 4 —Well after firing TCP guns using RPM fluid during well completion.

gal/Mgal RPM, 2.5 gal/Mgal surfactant, pH⬃3.5) was exposed to downhole conditions (BHT⬃192°F) for
at least 24 hr before the TCP stage.
Directly after the TCP stage, RPM began being displaced into the formation, immediately reducing the
permeability to water. An increase in casing pressure was observed to 900 psi (Fig. 4) and fluid losses
were effectively reduced to zero.
This well is currently producing at 428 BOPD, 0.2% BSW. This treatment has opened a new window
of opportunity in this Ecuador basin and to other operators for controlling losses during the TCP stage.
It is important to highlight that this RPM remained stable after being exposed for 24 hr at downhole
conditions and even after the turbulence and heat exposure caused by the TCP stage.
Case histories can be found with additional references in Romo et al.(2010) where the authors describe
the process and applications involved in bullheading into an open interval without the need for isolating
water zones from the hydrocarbon interval. This treatment was applied to several wells in a Mexico basin
for water control. BecauseAnsah et al.(2006) presented a simulator for optimization of conformance
decisions, here, because the formation was water wet, the authors were able to apply the methodology for
use of the RPM with perforating guns. No special criteria was necessary for establishing well intervention
with this process.
Results achieved by applying the RPM technology to reduce water cut in mature fields indicated that
this new tool can provide an alternative solution compared to traditional methods of water control. Romo
et al.(2006 and 2010) demonstrated that, using the similar theory presented, damage control with
completion fluid could be minimized by RPM application and help the operator understand the source of
the damage (if it had derived from well construction or during old completions).
Single and parallel core flow tests were conducted on carbonate and sandstone cores at reservoir
conditions. Single core flow tests showed that RPM polymers can damage tight cores (less than 1 md) by
forming an external filter cake on the injection face of the cores. Accumulation of RPM polymers at the
face of the core means that this chemical will not properly propagate inside the core, which significantly
reduces their ability to minimize water production. Parallel core-flood experiments conducted at reservoir
temperature (200°F) showed that the RPM damaged the permeability to oil when there was a large
permeability contrast (greater than 1:5) in favor of the oil-saturated core. Because of the high permeability
contrast, most of RPM polymer solution preferentially entered the oil-saturated zone, thus damaging the
oil production zone. Field data supported lab findings and showed that oil production of an oil well
dropped significantly following RPM polymer treatment. It was found that polymer injection rate was a
SPE-169262-MS 7

key factor for minimizing damage to the oil saturated core whenever a large permeability contrast existed
in favor of the oil-saturated core (Anash et al. 2006).
Therefore, to support the theory present by Anash et al. (2006), the authors introduced that, if the
formations exhibits oil wet characteristics, the RPM can affect oil permeability and the laboratory
experiment can be reproduced to determine if the RPM will form a filter cake in very low permeability.
Conclusions
The authors demonstrated in this paper that the RPM fluid placed at the same time of firing the perforating
guns can replace one trip of the perforating guns at a very low cost in cases of depleted formations.
Currently, this methodology represents a good option for reducing fluid loss to the formation during
well completion and zero damage is caused during this step.
Independently, this operator will use the one-trip perforating guns in the near future to recomplete wells
because of many various needs, and the RPM fluid can be a good option at a very low cost.
The application of the RPM with conventional perforating or TCP guns shows promise as an effective
RPM for reducing formation damage attributed to completion fluid invasion.

References
Al-Taq, A.A., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Saudi, M.M. et al. 2008. Potential Damage Due to Relative
Permeability Modifiers: Laboratory Studies and A Case History. Paper SPE 112458 presented at the SPE
International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA,
13–15 February. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/112458-MS.
Ansah, J., Soliman, M.Y., Ali, S.A. et al. 2006. Optimization of Conformance Decisions Using a New
Well-Intervention Simulator. Paper SPE 99697 presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 22–26 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/99697-MS.
Audibert-Hayet A., Rousseau, L., McGregor W.M. et al. 1999. Novel Hydrophobically Modified
Natural Polymers for Non-Damaging Fluids. Paper SPE 56965 presented at the Offshore Europe Oil and
Gas Exhibition and Conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 7–10 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
56965-MS.
Dalrymple, E.D., Eoff, L., Reddy, B.R. et al. 2000. Studies of a Relative Permeability Modifier
Treatment Performed Using Multitap Flow Cells. Paper SPE 59346 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved
Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 3–5 April. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/59346-MS.
Eoff, L., Dalrymple, E.D., Reddy, B.R. et al. 2001. Structure and Process Optimization for the Use of
a Polymeric Relative-Permeability Modifier in Conformance Control. Paper SPE 64985 presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, USA, 13–16 February. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/64985-MS.
Romo, G.A.F., Leyva, H.H., Aguilar, R.B. et al. 2006. Advanced Technology to Reduce Water Cut:
Case Studies from the Pemex Southern Region. Paper SPE 103638 presented at the International Oil
Conference and Exhibition in Mexico, 31 August-2 September, Cancun, Mexico, Cancun, Mexico, 31
August–2 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103638-MS.
Romo, G.A.F., Leyva, H.H., Aguilar, R.B., et al. 2010. Advanced Technology To Reduce Water Cut:
Case Studies From the Pemex Southern Region. SPE Prod &Oper 25 (2): 139 –144. SPE-102711-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/102711-PA.
Seright, R.S., Lane, R.H., and Sydansk, R.D. 2003. A Strategy for Attacking Excess Water Production.
SPE Prod &Fac 18 (03): 158 –169. SPE-84966-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84966-PA.
Shahan, T.W., Briney, M.R., Reyes, R.P. et al. 2005. Technology and Methods Used To Reduce Water
Production in the Lower Delaware Sands of Southeastern New Mexico and West Texas. Paper SPE 95688
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9 –12 October.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/95688-MS.