SPE 56740

Water Shutoff by Relative Permeability Modifiers: Lessons from Several Field

Applications
A. Zaitoun, SPE, N. Kohler, SPE, D. Bossie-Codreanu and K. Denys, SPE, Institut Franais du Ptrole

Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 36 October 1999.
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. 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 an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract
must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
IFP water shutoff technology is based on the use of relative
permeability modifiers (RPMs). The technique consists of
bullhead injection of polymer solutions into existing
completions, usually without zone isolation. The polymer can
be swelled or weakly crosslinked in situ to increase
permeability reduction to water. The chemistry of the different
processes is explained. Each process covers a specific domain
of temperature and salinity. All systems are designed to affect
oil or gas relative permeability only slightly.
By reviewing typical field cases, i.e. water shutoff in gas
storage wells, heavy-oil horizontal wells, offshore gravelpacked wells and multilayer-waterflooded wells in both
sandstone and limestone reservoirs, several guidelines are
presented, dealing with candidate well selection, process
design, operational aspects and treatment evaluation. Crucial
for a successful treatment is the placement of the chemicals.
Therefore in order to make RPM treatments more reliable,
future focus of research should be oriented towards diversion
aspects. Some solutions are suggested and discussed.
Introduction
Almost all oil or gas reservoirs produce water. Since nature
doesnt like vacuum, water usually replaces oil as hydrocarbon
reserves decline in the field. In mature or old fields, most of
produced fluid is water, with oil or gas representing a few
percent of total production. Moreover, many reservoirs are
submitted to water injection, which provides pressure
maintenance and improves sweep efficiency. A continuous
increase in water production is thus a normal behavior in the
lifetime of a field.

Often, water flow paths in the reservoir, especially close to

the wellbore, are irregular, by-passing large hydrocarbonsaturated zones and inducing undesirable high water-cut
levels. In such situations, we are dealing with "bad"
undesirable water, as opposed to "good" water produced
under normal conditions. The causes of excessive water
production are multiple. Seright1 proposes the following list,
whose order corresponds to increasing difficulty of treatment
by gels:
1. Tubing/casing/packer leaks
2. Flow behind pipe
3. Layered reservoirs with vertical flow barriers
4. Individual fractures between injectors and producers
5. "2-D coning" through fractures
6. Channeling through naturally fractured reservoirs
7. 3-D coning or cusping
8. Layered reservoirs without vertical flow barriers.
In this list, cases 1 and 2 correspond to completion failures,
a workover problem. Gels have the advantage over cements or
mechanical plugs to be able to penetrate the formation over
several feet, and thus create a deeper barrier. Moreover, they
can easily be removed from the borehole by water recirculation.
Since case 3 is frequently encountered in field situations and is
already difficult to solve, we will consider it as our base case
(Fig. 1).
Lets consider a two-layer reservoir with a strong
permeability contrast (for example 1/10) and a horizontal
continuous barrier which prevents cross-flow. Since the highpermeability layer is swept first, it has a tendency to overtake
the oil production from the low-permeability layer. This
situation calls for a treatment which intends to decrease water
influx from the high-permeability layer, thus favoring lowpermeability layer production.
When the different layers are clearly separated and
workover costs are acceptable, a water shutoff treatment aims
at sealing off the watered-out layer with strong gels placed by
mechanical tools (coil tubing, packers, etc.). Nevertheless, in
practice, bullheading is often the only option for the operator
due to several problems like poor identification of the different
zones surrounding the wellbore, multilayered production,
unfavorable completion (gravel pack, slotted liners, etc.) or

A. ZAITOUN, N. KOHLER, D. BOSSIE-CODREANU

excessive workover costs (offshore wells, marginal wells). The

recent development of horizontal, multilateral, subsea wells
calls for more bullhead treatments in the future. One viable
technique, confirmed by numerous field successes, is the use
of "Relative Permeability Modifiers" (RPMs). High-molecularweight water-soluble polymers or weak gels reduce selectively
the relative permeability to water with respect to the relative
permeability to oil or to gas (Fig. 2).2 They are more suitable
for matricial than for fractured reservoirs, and are usually
bullheaded into the existing completion without zonal isolation.
Since the early 1980's, the Institut Franais du Ptrole (IFP)
has had a continuous activity on water shutoff by RPMs, from
research to process design and field applications. More than
100 well treatments have been performed worldwide with IFP
processes. This paper tries to establish the state-of-the-art of
the technique resulting from this experience.
RPM mechanisms
Adsorption in reservoir rocks of water-soluble polymers or
gels induces a selective reduction of the relative permeability
to water with respect to the relative permeability to oil or to
gas. Fig. 3 plots end point permeability reduction for oil vs.
end point permeability reduction for water of various gel
systems.3 All data except one verify this property.
The RPM pore scale mechanism is still controversial. There
are two main "schools", one of which relying on "fluid
partitioning", whereas the other relies on "wall effects." The
fluid partitioning theory claims that there are segregated flow
paths for oil and for water inside the porous medium, and the
gel tends to invade water flow paths, thus reducing water
mobility preferentially.4-6 In the wall effect theory, the basic
assumption is that after gel injection, a film covers the pore
walls and changes dramatically two-phase flow properties by
wettability-, steric- and lubrication effects. Fig. 4 gives a
picture of end point pore situations. For the wall effects, there
are two hypotheses, one assuming that the polymer/gel film is
almost rigid,2, 7-8 the other that the film can be squeezed by oil
flow through pore channels.9
Due to hydration water, polymer adsorption increases the
irreducible water saturation. Furthermore, for a formation
producing both oil and water, a reduction of permeability to
water induces automatically an increase in water saturation in
the zone invaded by the RPM. The combination of these
effects, both inducing an increase in water saturation,
decreases oil permeability.10 Thus in practice it is very
important to evaluate these unfavorable water saturation
effects and to minimize them whenever possible. As a
consequence, RPM treatments are more suitable in wells
having zones with high oil saturation surrounding the wellbore
than in wells where all zones produce at the same water cuts.
Due to the reduction of both water and oil permeabilities,
RPM treatments always induce a loss in the well productivity
index. If this productivity loss is not counterbalanced by an
increase in the drawdown on the well (by activation or by a

SPE 56740

lightening of the well fluid column), there is an obvious risk of

losing oil production, even with the water cut strongly
reduced. For RPM bullhead treatments in matricial reservoirs,
it is thus risky to drop the relative permeability to water by a
factor greater than 10. For fractured formations, due to the
superficial invasion of the matrix blocks, RPM treatments have
less impact on the well productivity index.
Candidate selection
Several factors have to be taken into account for RPM
candidate well selection, i.e.,
1) Heterogeneity
For both permeability and saturation issues, strong vertical
heterogeneity is a positive factor for the choice of a candidate
well. As explained earlier, the presence of both highly oilsaturated and highly water-saturated layers producing
together is preferable than having all the layers producing at
the same water cut. Also, a strong permeability contrast
between the layers is advantageous because the placement of
the gel will be favored. In bullhead treatments, the gelant will
invade more deeply the high-permeability watered out layers
(to be plugged) and less far the low-permeability oil-saturated
layers (to be protected). From a more general point of view,
since vertical heterogeneity is a factor enhancing water
breakthrough, it makes at the same time the well a good
candidate for a water shutoff treatment.
2) Crossflow
When there is crossflow between the layers, water can rapidly
bypass the gel in place and therefore will return to the same
rate as before treatment. Crossflow is thus a negative factor for
candidate choice. As a consequence, wells with a water coning
are, in principle, bad candidates for RPM treatments. On the
other hand, multilayered wells with no communication between
the layers are good candidates.
3) Production mode
Since a gel treatment reduces the well productivity index,
maintaining well production requires a higher drawdown on the
well either through more activation (pumping, gas lift) or
through reduction of the water cut (for eruptive wells) by
lightening of the fluid column. Also, a good pressure
maintenance in the reservoir (active aquifer, gas cap) is an
advantage for maintaining well productivity.
4) Technical constraints
The gel should withstand reservoir conditions for long periods
of time. Thermal stability is often a major factor for treatment
selection.
Also local environmental regulations, well
accessibility etc. may play an important role in candidate
selection.
5) Economical constraints
Water shutoff treatments are usually considered as workover
operations. Treatment decision is based on comparison of
costs vs. expected returns. It is very important to evaluate
both at an early stage. A candidate well should have a
potential of incremental oil production sufficient to cover

SPE 56740

WATER SHUTOFF BY RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIERS: LESSONS FROM SEVERAL FIELD APPLICATIONS

treatment cost and make significant profit. An expensive

treatment can be perfectly suitable for a big offshore well, but
completely inadequate for a small onshore well. Although in
most cases producing more oil is the target, sometimes the
operator can tolerate some loss in oil production provided
water production is strongly reduced. This is frequently the
case under offshore conditions when water handling capacities
are limited. As a rule of thumb, treatment costs should be paid
out by three months of post-treatment production.
6) Origin of water production
Some methods have been proposed in the literature to identify
the origin of water production in a given well.11 Although none
of them has reached commercial practice, these methods may
help in the selection of candidate wells. For example, the
profiles of WOR plots are markedly different for coning than
for multilayer production.12 Recently, a method based on water
cut analysis at the level of a field pattern has been proposed to
identify the contribution of surrounding wells (injectors and
producers) to the productivity of the candidate well.13,14
7) Logs
Log analysis is a good indicator of the configuration of the
part of the reservoir surrounding the wellbore. Resistivity logs
give the saturation of the different layers. Gamma-ray logs
point to the presence of shale barriers and help to evaluate
clay vertical distribution. Whenever possible production logs
are run before and after the gel treatment in order to identify
the contribution of each individual layer in terms of total fluid
flow and water production.
IFP processes
IFP has designed several RPM processes which have been
applied in the field. All processes use non-toxic materials and
can be bullheaded into the well. The processes are based on
the use of high-molecular-weight water-soluble-polymers
which can be either swollen or weakly crosslinked in situ. A
short description of the processes is given hereafter. Fig. 5
shows a temperature/salinity diagram indicating the application
domains of the processes.
Process A
Applicable in low-salinity, low-temperature matricial reservoirs.
Hydrolyzed polyacrylamides are injected in a high-salinity
brine. After production release, low-salinity formation water
replaces progressively injection brine and swells the polymer
adsorbed on pore walls. Advantages are a low viscosity during
injection, a large adsorption and a high permeability reduction
to water without the risk of well impairment by gels. More
details are given in Ref. 15.
Process B
Depending on produced brine salinity, nonionic
polyacrylamides are injected with either a caustic swelling
agent (that hydrolyzes the polymer in situ) or an organic
crosslinker (glyoxal). For higher temperatures acrylamide

copolymers can be crosslinked by zirconium lactate. A process

description with different options is given in Ref. 15-17.
Process C
Applicable in high-temperature matricial reservoirs. It uses
scleroglucan, a polysaccharide with strong shear-thinning
rheology and excellent thermal stability. Polymer swelling can
be simply obtained by the release of shear forces between high
injection rates and low production rates. The polymer can be
weakly crosslinked by zirconium lactate. Process description is
given in Ref. 18, 19.
Methodology
The preparation of a RPM water shutoff treatment requires
laboratory experiments, numerical simulations and on-field
adjustments.
The laboratory study aims at (1) verifying polymer/
additives injectivity and compatibility, (2) optimizing chemical
formulations, (3) running two-phase flow corefloods under
reservoir conditions to measure end point relative
permeabilities before and after polymer treatment.
Numerical simulations are run in three phases, i.e. (1)
establishment of a history match of fluid production from the
candidate well with a simplified near-wellbore reservoir
description, (2) simulation of polymer injection, (3) posttreatment production forecasts. Numerical simulations aim at
sizing treatment slug volume and evaluating expected
performances.
Onfield adjustments are made with a light lab equipment
enabling treatment survey during field operations. This
equipment includes Brookfield TM type viscometer, pH meter
and in-flow wellhead pressure recorder. Quick compatibility
checks with actual fluids are usually done before starting
operations. During polymer injection, solution viscosity has to
be adapted to the actual wellhead pressure, which of course
has to remain below the fracturation pressure (a 20% safety
factor is usual).
Field cases
In the following, different field cases are discussed. Applied
guidelines dealing with candidate well selection, process
design and operational aspects are presented and correlated
with treatment evaluation.
1) Gas storage wells: Treatments of sandstone and limestone
reservoirs (France)
Several water shut-off treatments on gas storage wells in
sandstone reservoirs have been performed. Well treatments
based on RPM technology have proven to be effective in most
cases.15,20
For example the treatment of well VA 48 of the CervilleVelaine gas storage reservoir by Process A reduced the
water/gas ratio for at least 3 years. The main characteristics of
the well treatment are shown in Table 1. The treatment is
documented in Ref. 15.

A. ZAITOUN, N. KOHLER, D. BOSSIE-CODREANU

A candidate well from a gas storage limestone reservoir

was proposed for a polymer treatment. Usually carbonate
reservoirs are at least slightly fissured and require a gel
treatment to reduce water encroachment. In the case of well VN
21 from the Saint-Clair-sur-Epte gas storage the formation
consisted of a superposition of alternating layers of high
permeability grainstone deposits (k = 0.7 m2) and layers of low
permeability packstones (k = 0.01 m2) (Table 1). Due to the
higher formation brine salinity, Process B was preferred. Lab
studies performed on model carbonate cores demonstrated the
feasibility of a polyacrylamide based adsorption process
followed by in situ swelling of the adsorbed polymer by KOH.
It was concluded from numerical simulations and laboratory
tests that the optimal RPM slug volume was 250-300 m3 and
that injection had to be done in the zone below a packer
located in the middle of the pay-zone.
Consequently a slug of 248 m3 of polymer solution (average
concentration 2 kg/m3) was injected. Due to the use of river
water, a bactericide was added. Unexpected compatibility
problems between the bactericide and the swelling agent
induced a premature crosslinking of a part of the polymer in
both surface installations and in the wellbore. Polymer
injection was nevertheless continued without swelling agent
but with a reduced injection rate and followed by a river water
postflush.
Gas injection (started one week after treatment) showed
that injection rate in the zone below the packer was lower (10
000 std m3/h) than before the treatment (15 000 std m3/h).
Besides, a productivity test, performed at the end of the
following winter producing campaign, showed that water
production rate from the well was almost unchanged
(Table
1). It was concluded that due to the premature gelling of a part
of the injected polymer solution, some damage was done to the
formation, thus explaining treatment failure. Consequently the
polymer adsorption process did not proceed as intended.
2) Horizontal wells: Treatments in the Pelican Lake and
South Winter fields (Western Canada)
Four heavy-oil horizontal wells from the Pelican Lake field,
namely wells 11-15A, 11-15B, 14-10A and 14-10B, were treated
by Process B (Table 2).21 Although the same injection
procedure was applied, i.e. bullheading the chemicals into the
slotted liner drainhole, only well 11-15A gave a good response.
After treatment, the water cut dropped immediately from 85 to
50% and remained low afterwards (Fig. 6). For this well both an
increase in oil production and a decrease in water production
were observed for two years following the treatment (Fig. 7).
For the three other wells, the response to the treatment was
much weaker. A possible explanation for this difference in
behavior, could the less favorable placement of the polymer.
Indeed, horizontal well profiles (Fig. 8) show that the lowest
points of the drainhole (corresponding to a higher water
saturation) are at the heal for well 11-15A and further away for
the other wells. Probably, for these wells, an appreciable

SPE 56740

amount of polymer invaded oil productive zones before

reaching water zones. Moreover, since the aquifer is not active,
both oil and water production decrease strongly due to the
poor pressure maintenance. The long term trend for all wells,
even without treatment, is a progressive reduction of the water
cut.
Another horizontal well, B 4-10 from the South Winter field,
was treated by Process B. This well was producing heavy oil
from a high-permeability sand reservoir laying above a very
active bottom aquifer (Table 2). Bottom water coning was
responsible for the high water cut, rendering the production
uneconomic. It was decided to perform the treatment of well B
4-10 in two steps, bullheading the first half of the injected
polymer volume through a tubing placed at the heal of the
horizontal slotted liner and the second half at the tail. Due to
the high oil/water mobility ratio it was estimated that the
polymer would invade the water zones preferentially.
After treatment, the water cut decreased from 95 to 80% for
2 months and then slowly increased again to reach the
economic productivity limit. It was concluded that polymer
diversion to water zones was well achieved. However, the
treatment effect did not last due to the presence of a strong
bottom aquifer and a too weak gel formulation.
Table 2 summarizes the treatments of the horizontal wells in
both fields.
3) Gravel-packed wells: Treatment of two offshore wells in the
Gulf Coast
Two gravel-packed oil wells in the Gulf Coast with bottomhole
temperatures of 88C and 93C respectively, were submitted to
bullhead treatments by Process C. These types of wells were
known to water out quickly after breakthrough . A RPM
treatment was expected to stabilize or reduce the water cut.
Moreover their gravel-packed completions called for RPM
technology instead of cement squeeze or zonal isolation.
For the first well, the gamma ray log showed a permeability
decrease from bottom to top with an average permeability of
about 1.25 m2 enhancing the water coning effect. The net
result of the injection of 500 m3 of a 0.5 kg/m3 polysaccharide
solution was to reduce the water production substantially
during a 2.5 year period following the treatment (Fig. 9).22 The
basic action of the polymer was to redistribute the fluid flow
and allow reconstitution of some permeability barriers near the
wellbore. As a result the water production was reduced and oil
production from low permeability layers was stimulated.
Following this successful treatment, the operating
company proposed a second candidate well from the same
field. Although the average permeability of the 14 m thick
reservoir was only 0.07 m2, the water production was as high
as 2000 BWPD. It was estimated that in this case water
encroachment proceeded through high permeability streaks.
As a result of the injection of 305 m3 of polymer solution both
the water/oil ratio and the total fluid rate were dramatically
reduced. Contrary to the first well, polymer treatment induced a

SPE 56740

WATER SHUTOFF BY RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIERS: LESSONS FROM SEVERAL FIELD APPLICATIONS

20% reduction in oil rate. For economical reasons this well was
then recompleted in another sand.
4) Multilayer waterflooded wells: Treatments in the
Chagirtsk field (Russia)
A number of wells from the Chagirtsk field were treated by
Process B. Candidate well selection was performed according
to the earlier mentioned criteria, especially those concerning
the existence of stratifications and permeability anisotropy. In
this extensively waterflooded field, Bobrick 2 (Bb 2) is the main
oil producing interval. All wells are usually perforated over the
total height of the sandstone reservoir. Nevertheless some of
the wells are also producing from the upper Tula 2b (Tl 2b) and
Bobrick 1a (Bb 1a) intervals (Table 3). Prior to polymer
treatment a water injectivity logging test was performed on
each candidate well. For all wells except two, the injected water
entered the Bb 2 reservoir. The exceptions were wells C 325
and C 1160, where brine injection affected respectively the top
of reservoir Bb 1a and the total height of the reservoir Tl 2b
(Table 3).
Process B is usually implemented in two sequences: it
starts with a single polymer treatment aiming at diverting the
gelant, injected after, towards the more permeable water
bearing layers.
The size of each sequence is deduced from such data as
reservoir thickness, injection rate, wellhead pressure during
water injectivity test and production prior to the treatment.
Table 3 shows that for both wells C 325 and C 1160 the
volume of the second sequence was much larger than for the
other wells. This was done in order to reduce water
productivity from reservoirs Bb 1a or Tl 2b and favor
production from reservoir Bb 2. Table 4 shows that this choice
seemed to be erroneous for well C 325 and right for well C 1160.
For well C 325 the water cut was found to increase after the
treatment leading to an estimated loss of about 3,400 tons of oil
over a 13 months period of time. For well C 1160, the water cut
decreased drastically during the first 4 months after treatment
and increased again to values close to 100%. Presumably for
both wells it would have been preferable to force the treatment
to enter the lower Bb 2 reservoir.
As can be seen in Table 4, the water cut in all other wells
was reduced, leading to appreciable amounts of incremental oil.
5) Carbonate wells: Treatments in the Kudryachevo field
(Russia)
Process B was also implemented on three wells in the
Kudryachevo field producing from the Tournaisien formation
(limestone reservoir). This formation is characterized by a
superposition of three to seven oil producing layers more or
less clearly differentiated. According to the operator the
existence of large fractures in this reservoir is not proven. The
formation has thus to be considered as essentially matricial
with production characteristics quite similar for the three
candidates.

A water injectivity logging test on these wells showed a

reasonable injectivity, equally distributed over the entire
height of the perforated intervals. Wellhead pressure during
this test was nevertheless much lower for wells K 2 and K 9,
indicating the presence of microfissures or high permeability
streaks (Table 5). Consequently the slug size of the
polymer/crosslinker sequence for these wells was chosen to be
larger than for well K 3. Actual wellhead pressure during
treatments remained quite similar for all the wells (5000 - 10
000 kPa).
Table 6 gives main treatment results. Both wells K 2 and K
9 maintained their overall productivity after treatment and had
a strong reduction in water cut. On the contrary well K 3
showed a loss in average production rate over 9 months
resulting from an initial mechanical failure of the pumping
equipment and an irreversible damage of formation
productivity. Although the treatment of wells K 2 and K 9
produced the same amount of incremental oil, their behavior
was quite different during the 9 months following the release of
production (Figs. 10, 11). For both wells production rate took
about 3 months to reach the level before treatment. Well K 9
showed an improvement in oil productivity during this period
while the water cut of well K 2 remained high. After 3 months
the opposite was observed: the water cut of well K 2 dropped
sharply and remained low, while for well K 9 it increased to pretreatment level. The reason for this difference in behavior is
not clear.
Treatment evaluation
For most operators, a successful treatment should induce both
a significant reduction in water production and an increase in
oil production. From the examples given, it follows that the
effect of a RPM treatment can last for several months up to
several years (for example Pelican Lake, well 11-15 A).21
Generally, the primary criterion for a technical success is
the water cut reduction. However, some wells do react quickly,
while others show a smoother behavior. This different
behavior can even occur within the same field (for example
Kudryachevo). Thus a definite water cut evaluation may
require several months of monitoring. In some cases due to the
reduction of the well productivity index, a strong decrease in
the water cut may coincide with a significant decrease in oil
production. In such a case, a post-flush of a breaking agent
(peroxyde, acid) can be attempted to restore well productivity.
A convenient tool to evaluate incremental oil production is
given by plots of cumulative oil vs. cumulative water (Fig. 7).
A successful water shutoff treatment induces a break in the
plot, with a strong increase in the slope. Incremental oil can be
estimated then by the difference between the actual cumulative
oil curve and the extrapolated values from pre-treatment
slope.13,14 However, this plot does not indicate the production
rate evolution, which has to be checked also to evaluate
treatment success. As a rule of thumb, a treatment can be
considered as successful when the pay out is obtained in a

A. ZAITOUN, N. KOHLER, D. BOSSIE-CODREANU

three month period and the returns largely exceed treatment

costs. In our best cases (for example Well 11-15A in Pelican
Lake) the pay-out was obtained in a couple of weeks and the
return was more than ten times treatment cost.
Discussion, guidelines and future research focus
From the field cases presented in this paper we can conclude
that RPM water shutoff treatments have a wide range of
application and could lead to remarkable successes. However
for the users the results are often disappointing as the
technology still suffers from a lack of confidence.
Here are some guidelines to possibly improve the chances
of success of a RPM treatment:
(1) Candidate selection
The mechanism of RPM implies that in the zone invaded by the
gel water saturation increases, thus reducing oil permeability.
The magnitude of this reduction increases with the fraction of
water produced from the zone invaded. Therefore, wells having
near-wellbore "virgin" oil layers are good candidates (for
example young wells having a sudden water encroachment).
On the contrary, old wells, having produced for long periods of
time at high water cut, are often bad candidates.
Heterogeneous reservoirs without crossflow between the
layers and with high permeability contrast are also good
candidates, because (i) water and oil flow through different
pathways, so both permeability and saturation contrasts
between the layers are high, and (ii) once the RPM is placed,
the absence of communication between the layers prevents
water flow in oil productive zones.
Each candidate well has to be considered as a case per se.
This implies that (i) all available data (which could be collected
in the form of a check list) have to be analyzed before taking a
decision, (ii) a successful treatment obtained in a first well does
not guarantee success in a neighboring one (although it
increases chances of success), and (iii) some wells which look
a priori as poor candidates may be acceptable or even good
candidates after careful analysis. This last situation is attested
by two remarkable successes obtained from our own
experience, i.e. the first horizontal well (11-15A) treated in
Pelican Lake field (where a water path was located close to the
heal) and the first well treated in the Gulf Coast where shale
laminations existed close to the roof of the reservoir in a
coning situation.
(2) Operational issues
Obviously the treatment has to be adapted to well/reservoir
conditions. Temperature vs. salinity diagrams (Fig. 5) are
helpful for process screening. Once the process is chosen, the
concentrations of the different chemicals (polymer, crosslinker
or swelling agent, biocide) are defined by laboratory studies. It
is worthwhile to perform quick lab tests on site with actual
fluids. During treatment the chemical composition has to be
adjusted according to well response during injection. Some
unexpected behavior may occur with actual fluids and
chemicals. This happened in Saint-Clair-sur-Epte gas storage,

SPE 56740

where a premature gelation occurred due to interaction

between the swelling agent and the biocide (Table 1).
The normal sequence of a treatment starts with the
preparation of the well (pump release, wellbore clean up by
brine recirculation) followed by an injectivity test with brine.
Wellhead pressure is monitored during brine injection at
different rates. The injectivity index is measured and compared
to expected values. If it is too low, a stimulation treatment may
be considered (acid, solvent squeezes). Polymer injection can
only proceed when the value of the injectivity index is
acceptable. If the injectivity remains low, the polymer
concentration may be reduced. On the other hand, if it is high,
polymer concentration has to be increased.
RPM treatments begin with injection of polymer alone (to
check injectivity). A skin is then developed in the low
permeability (oil-bearing) layers, thus preventing deep
penetration of the subsequent polymer/crosslinker mixture. In
our Russian treatments, we injected more or less equal volumes
of single polymer and polymer/crosslinker mixture (except in
the special cases discussed). After polymer injection it is
useful to injected a small post-flush of brine, followed by diesel
oil, to clean up and resaturate the near wellbore. Well shut-in
time before production release is typically in the order of a few
days. The release of well production has to be very
progressive to avoid sudden pressure drawdown on the
polymer/gel bank.
(3) Future focus of research
The upper temperature limit of RPM is currently around 120C
(Process C). For higher temperature applications there is a
need of new products, which could be low concentration
versions of high-temperature plugging gels (for example
acrylamide copolymer/polyethyleneimine system, 23 or low
molecular weight polymers 20). The consistency of RPM
products can be adjusted by the concentrations of the
different compounds. The key issue to improve RPM
treatments concerns placement techniques. When the
chemicals have to be bullheaded into the existing completion, it
is very important to reduce gel penetration in oil-bearing
layers. Since most often these layers are also the less
permeable ones, a promising way could be to inject a diverter
as a preflush that can build-up a superficial skin on the lowpermeability layers. The barrier created is expected to prevent
gelant penetration in these zones. The skin formed on the oilproductive zones must be destroyed before production release,
for example by breaker postflush. Two diversion techniques for
RPM treatments have been recently proposed in the literature.
The first one is based on the use of flexible polymers with high
adsorption energy, which can bridge pore throats.24-26 The
second is based on preflushing a highly viscous nondamaging fluid before the gelant.27,28 Both approaches are
currently investigated in a European research program
(WELGEL).

SPE 56740

WATER SHUTOFF BY RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIERS: LESSONS FROM SEVERAL FIELD APPLICATIONS

Conclusions
1) IFP has designed several RPM water shutoff processes in
order to treat various types of reservoir characteristics. They
are based on adsorption of high-molecular-weight watersoluble polymers, which can be either swollen, or weakly gelled
by organic crosslinkers. Their application domains in terms of
temperature and salinity are quite complementary.
IFP
processes can be applied at various salinities and temperatures
up to 120C.
2) The processes have been used in different field situations,
i.e., gas storage wells, heavy-oil horizontal wells, gravel-packed
offshore wells, multilayer waterflooded wells both in sandstone
and in limestone reservoirs. The paper reviews some of these
applications, commenting successes and failures.
3) Guidelines concerning candidate well screening and
operational issues are discussed. One of the key selection
criteria is the presence of heterogeneities between the different
layers surrounding the wellbore (both in terms of permeability
and oil saturation).
4) Due to the adverse effect on oil permeability of increased
water saturation in the zones invaded by the RPM, it is
important to prevent deep penetration in oil zones. Since these
zones are often the less permeable, the use of a diversion
preflush should be considered in the future.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the managements of
Chevron, Gaz-de-France, CS Resources and Permneft for their
cooperation.
References
1. Seright, R.S. in Minutes and Key points of SPE Applied
Technology Workshop on Water Conformance, Dunkeld,
Scotland, 19-22 May 1997, prepared by Bob Eden, SPE.
2. Zaitoun, A., Bertin, H. and Lasseux, D.: "Two-Phase Flow
Property Modifications by Polymer Adsorption," paper
SPE 39631 presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE IOR Symposium,
Tulsa, OK, 19-22 April 1998.
3. Liang, J., Sun, H. and Seright, R.S.: "Reduction of Oil and
Water Permeabilities Using Gels," paper SPE 24195
presented at the 1992 SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 22-24 April.
4. Liang, J., Sun, H. and Seright, R.S.: "Why Do Gels Reduce
Water Permeability More Than Oil Permeability?" SPERE
(November 1995) 282-286.
5. Liang, J. and Seright, R.S.: "Further Investigations of Why
Gels Reduce Water Permeability More Than Oil
Permeability," SPEPF (November 1997) 225-230.
6. Nilsson, S., Stavland, A. and Jonsbraten, H.C.:
"Mechanistic Study of Disproportionate Permeability
Reduction," paper SPE 39635 presented at the 1998

SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 19-22

April.
7. Barreau, P., Bertin, H., Lasseux, D., Glnat, P. and Zaitoun,
A.: "Water Control in Producing Wells: Influence of an
Adsorbed-Polymer Layer on Relative Permeabilities and
Capillary Pressure," SPERE (November 1997) 234-239.
8. Barreau, P., Lasseux, D., Bertin, H., Glnat, P. and Zaitoun,
A.: "Polymer Adsorption Effect on Relative Permeability
and Capillary Pressure: Investigation of a Pore Scale
Scenario," paper SPE 37303 presented at the 1997 Int.
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 18-21
February.
9. Mennella, A., Chiappa, L., Bryant, S.L. and Burrafato, G.:
"Pore-Scale Mechanism for Selective Permeability
Reduction by Polymer Injection," paper SPE 39634
presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, 19-22 April.
10. Liang, J.T., Lee, R.L. and Seright, R.S.: "Gel Placement in
Production Wells," SPEPF (November 1993) 276-284.
11. Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N. and Bossie-Codreanu, D.: "Water
Control in Hydrocarbon Reservoirs and Storages: A
Literature Review - Chapter 4 : Reservoir Evaluation
techniques," Final Report, European Commission
Directorate-General for Energy, Contract THERMIE - N
DIS-1203-97-DE (1998).
12. Chan, K.S.: " Water Control Diagnostic Plots", SPE 30775,
SPE Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, TX, 22-25
October, 1995.
13. Renard, G., Dembele, D., Lessi, J. and Mari, J.L.: "System
Identification Approach Applied to Watercut Analysis in
Waterflooded Layered Reservoirs, " paper SPE 39606
presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE IOR Symposium, Tulsa,
OK, 19-22 April 1998.
14. Kohler, N., Lessi, J. and Tabary, R. : "Successful
Application Cases of Water Control Treatments in Russia,
" Revue de lInstitut Franais du Ptrole, Vol 50 (3), 381390, May-June 1995.
15. Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N. and Guerrini, Y.: Improved
Polyacrylamide Treatments for Water Control in Producing
Wells, J.Pet.Techn., 862-867, July 1991.
16. Zaitoun, A., Rahbari, R. and Kohler, N.: Thin
Polyacrylamide Gels for Water Control in High-Permeability
Production Wells, SPE 22785, 66th SPE Annual Fall
Meeting, Dallas TX, October 6-9, 1991.
17. Kohler, N., Zaitoun, A., Maitin , B.K. and Truchetet, R.:
Selective Control of Water Production in Oil or Gas
Producing Wells," Oil and Gas in a Wider Europe, 4th EC
Symposium, Berlin ,Germany, 1992.
18. Kohler, N. and Zaitoun, A.: Polymer Treatment for Water
Control in High-Temperature Production Wells, SPE
21000, SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
Anaheim, CA, February 20-22, 1991.
19. Kohler, N., Rahbari, R., Han, M. and Zaitoun, A.: Weak Gel
Formulations for Selective Control of Water Production in

A. ZAITOUN, N. KOHLER, D. BOSSIE-CODREANU

High-Permeability and High-Temperature Production

Wells, SPE 25225, SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, New Orleans, LA, March 2-5, 1993.
20. Pusch, G., Kohler, N. and Kretzschmar, H.J.: Practical
Experience with Water Control in Gas Wells by Polymer
Treatments, 8th European IOR Symposium, Proceedings
vol 2, 48-56, Vienna, Austria, May 15-17, 1995.
21. Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N. and Montemurro, M.A.: "Control of
Water Influx in Heavy-Oil Horizontal Wells by Polymer
Treatment," paper SPE 24661 presented at the 1992 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington,
DC, October 4-7.
22. Gruenenfelder, M., Zaitoun, A., Kohler, N., Ali, S.A. and
Linser, T.M.: Implementing New Permeability Selective
Water Shutoff Polymer Technology in Offshore GravelPacked Wells, SPE/DOE 27770, SPE/DOE 9th Symposium
on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, OK, April 17-20, 1994.
23. Hardy, M. and Botermans, C.W.: "New Organically
Crosslinked Polymer System Provides Competent
Propagation at High Temperatures in Conformance
Treatments," paper SPE 39690 presented at the 1998 SPE
Symposium on IOR, Tulsa, OK, April 19-22.

SPE 56740

24. Zitha, P.L.J. , Chauveteau, G. and Zaitoun, A.:

"Permeability-Dependent Propagation of Polyacrylamides
Under Near-Wellbore Flow Conditions," paper SPE 28955
presented at the 1995 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio, TX, February 14-17.
25. Zitha, P. L.J. and Botermans, C.W.: "Bridging Adsorption
of Flexible Polymers in Low-Permeability Porous Media,"
paper SPE 36665 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 6-9
October.
26. Zaitoun, A. and Chauveteau, G.: "Effect of Pore Structure
and Residual Oil on Polymer Bridging Adsorption," paper
SPE 39674 presented at the 1998 SPE Symposium on IOR,
Tulsa, OK, April 19-22.
27. Kvanvik, B.A., Litlehamar, T. and Stavland, A.: "Gelant
Transport and Placement in Heterogeneous Reservoirs," in
RUTH Program Summary, Skjaeveland et al. (eds.),
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, 1996.
28. Thompson, K.E. and Kwon, O.: "Selective Conformance
Control in Heterogeneous Reservoirs Using Unstable,
Reactive Displacements," paper SPE 39672 presented at the
1998 SPE Symposium on IOR, Tulsa, OK, April 19-22.

Table 1 Treatments of gas storage wells

Characteristics
Reservoir parameters
Lithology
Thickness (m)
Permeability (m2)
Brine salinity (g/L TDS)
Temperature (C)
Treatment
RPM process
Polymer concentration (ppm)
Brine salinity (g/L TDS)
Injected volume (m3)
Results

Sandstone reservoir
VA 48

Limestone reservoir
VN 21

Massive sandstone
60
0.1-1 (top 55 m)
5 (bottom 5 m)
0.972
30

Layered limestone
28
grainstones: 0.7
packstones: 0.01
14
36

Process A
(HPAM + salinity gradient)
3000
8.2
700

Process B
(PAM + KOH)
2000
river water
248

Water/gas ratio
Water production strongly reduced
Gas injection/production unchanged

Gas injection rate

before = 15 000 std m3/h
after = 10 000 std m3/h
Water production rate unchanged

SPE 56740

WATER SHUTOFF BY RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIERS: LESSONS FROM SEVERAL FIELD APPLICATIONS

Table 2 Horizontal well treatments in Pelican Lake and in South Winter

Characteristics
Reservoir Parameters
Horizontal length (m)
Lithology
Permeability range (m2)
Aquifer
Oil viscosity (mPas)
Brine salinity (g/L TDS)
Treatment
RPM process
Injected volume (m3)
Injected viscosity at 9.5 s -1
(mPas)
Results
Water cut (%)

Pelican Lake

South Winter

500
Wabiskaw sand
>1
very weak
1000
10

800
Dina sand
35
very strong
3000
52

Process B
(PAM + KOH)
60 110

Process B
(PAM + Glyoxal)
400

50

15

85-90 50-70
( 2 years)

95 80
(2 months)

Table 3 Main characteristics of well treatments in Chagirtsk

Well

Perforated interval
(m)

Water injectivity test

(m3)

Treatment
(m3)

Layer
Tl 2b

Bb 1a

Bb 2

Total
10

Rate
(m3/day)
116

Pressure
(kPa)
11 000

Intake
interval
Bottom Bb 2

Polymer
alone
50

Polymer
+ X-linker
42

C 2131

10

C 336

11

11

286

10 000

Total Bb 2

50

33

C 1143

208

8000

Bottom Bb2

44

42

C 1177

18

132

11 000

Bottom Bb 2

48

36

C 325

5.2

6.6

7.8

19.6

192

9000

Top Bb 1a

36

66

C 1160

16

21

150

13 500

Total Tl 2b

25

67.5

10

A. ZAITOUN, N. KOHLER, D. BOSSIE-CODREANU

SPE 56740

Table 4 Main results of well treatments in Chagirtsk

Well

Production data before

treatment

Production data 4 months after

treatment

Incremental oil
(tons in
[ x] months)

Rate
(m3/day)
120

Water cut
(%)
90

Rate
(m3/day)
150

Water cut
(%)
80

2149 [4]

C 336

35

80

35

50

3054 [13]

C 1143

150

85

160

75

4988 [13]

C 1177

130

90

145

80

5464 [13]

C 325

160

90

190

100

- 3399 [13]

C 1160**

110

85

110

45

3534 [4]

C 2131*

* Well C2131 was shut in after 4 months due to pump failure

** The water cut of well C1160 increased strongly to near 100 % after 4 months

Table 5 Main characteristics of well treatments in Kudryachevo

Well

Perforated interval

Treatment (m3)

Water injectivity test

(m)

K2

13

Rate
(m3/day)
775

Pressure
(kPa)
3000

Polymer alone
25

Polymer
+ X-linker
59

K3

24.5

680

8000

30

41

K9

20

750

1000

20

67.9

Table 6 Main results of well treatments in Kudryachevo

Well

Production data before

treatment

Production data 6 months after

treatment

Incremental oil
(tons in
9 months)

K2

Rate
(m3/day)
110

Water cut
(%)
90

Rate
(m3/day)
110

Water cut
(%)
50

6272

K3

115

95

60

95

not evaluated

K9

120

90

120

60

4772

SPE 56740

WATER SHUTOFF BY RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIERS: LESSONS FROM SEVERAL FIELD APPLICATIONS

Fig. 1 Principle of RPM treatment

Fig. 2 Modification of relative permeability after polymer

adsorption in water-wet sandstone

Fig. 3 Disproportionate permeability reduction

by polymers and gels

11

12

A. ZAITOUN, N. KOHLER, D. BOSSIE-CODREANU

SPE 56740

Fig. 5 Field of application of water shutoff treatments

versus formation temperature and salinity

Fig. 4 Pore scale end point situations

Fig. 6 Pelican Lake 11-15A monthly production

SPE 56740

WATER SHUTOFF BY RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIERS: LESSONS FROM SEVERAL FIELD APPLICATIONS

Fig. 7 Pelican Lake 11-15A oil production versus water production

Fig. 8 Structural comparisonPelican Lake

13

14

A. ZAITOUN, N. KOHLER, D. BOSSIE-CODREANU

Fig. 9 WOR history for Gulf Coast well no.1

Fig. 10 Water cut history for well Kudryachevo 2

Fig. 11 Water cut history for well Kudryachevo 9

SPE 56740