Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 9 –12 November 2015.
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
This paper relates the successful water shut-off treatment of a heavy-oil Omani well combining the use
of microgel and gel.
As many sandstone reservoir with strong aquifer in Southern Oman, this vertical well faced early water
breakthrough along with sand production. Water cut increased dramatically until reaching 100%. The
average permeability was around 500 mD but effective permeability ranged from milli Darcy to several
Darcy. Due to well characteristics (several perforation intervals, gravel pack, etc. . .), it was not possible
to identify and isolate the water production zones, which oriented the strategy towards the use of RPM
products (Relative Permeability Modifiers). The treatment consisted of microgel and gel injections which
were bullheaded into the whole open interval. After the treatment, the water cut dropped from 100% to
85% and sand production was stopped over a period of time superior to one year. The treatment was cost
effective, producing more than 9000 bbl of extra oil in one year.
In this paper, we describe the treatment design methodology combining laboratory study and near
wellbore simulations, and the optimization of injection sequences. Finally, the treatment execution is
detailed followed by the presentation of the results obtained since the realization of the operations.
The results show that combining low-risk approach and low-cost RPM technology is an attractive way
to restore productivity of watered out wells, in which conventional water shut-off zone isolation is not
feasible.
Introduction
The WSO candidate well, located in Southern Oman field, faced severe water and sand production. Main
reservoir characteristics are summarized below:
– Formation: multilayer sandstone
– Vertical wells
– Gravel packed with multilayer perforated intervals
– Reservoir temperature ⫽ 60°C
– Pay zone thickness ~ 50 m
– Average permeability ⫽ 450 –500 mD
2 SPE-177914-MS
– Porosity ⫽ 27%
– Moderate heavy oil, viscosity ⫽ 100 –178 cP at 60°C
– High water cut ⬎ 98%
– Activation ⫽ Beam pump
The average permeability is 450 –500 mD but the range of permeability is from milliDarcies to several
Darcies. Most production water is expected to come from high-permeability streaks. The well has several
perforation intervals and is gravel packed. There is no way to know from which layer is produced the
excess water and the sand. Treatment strategy consisted in injecting a large microgel slug followed by a
smaller slug of gel. Both microgel and gel slugs are injected bullheading. The products are expected to
deeply invade the high-permeability zones, while preserving oil permeability.
In this paper is detailed how laboratory and simulation studies were used to design WSO treatment and
lowering the associated risks.
Microgels are Relative Permeability Modifiers (RPM). When injected into a formation, they will
adsorb on the rock surface generating an adsorbed layer whose thickness is equivalent to the size of the
microgel in solution. RPM effects obtained by an adsorbed microgel layer are visualized in Figure 2-a and
Figure 2-b. As a result, after microgel adsorption, a strong drop in the relative permeability to water
occurs, while oil relative permeability remains almost unaffected. Moreover, due to their large size,
microgel are not able to penetrate the low-permeability layers. Thus spontaneous diversion to the
SPE-177914-MS 3
high-permeability zones occurs. Microgel will thus strongly reduced water permeability in the high and
medium permeability layers preserving the low permeability ones.
Delayed gel
Delayed gels are formed by the cross-linking of a water soluble polymer such as polyacrylamide by either
a metallic or an organic cross-linker. In the case of metallic cross-linking, the carboxylate groups of the
polymer react with multivalent cations to form ionic bonds. Chromium acetate is the most commonly used
metallic cross-linker (Sydansk, 1993). This system presents environmental issues due to the use of
Chromium.
In order to propose a better answer to WSO issues in terms of product performances and toxicity, a new
range of gelling systems which are composed of hydrosoluble polymer and organic cross-linker were
developed. These new formulations are adapted to different ranges of temperature from ambient temper-
ature up to 140°C and are available in water salinities ranging from 1 to 230 kppm TDS. Each formulation
can be adjusted to get a gelling time between 8 and 150 hours. Consistency can also be adjusted from soft
RPM gel (Figure 3-a) to ringing sealing gel (Figure 3-b). In our case, the objective was to obtaine a soft
RPM gel.
Figure 3—Variation of gel consistency, (a) soft RPM gel, (b) ringing sealing gel.
Treatment strategy combined large microgel slug followed by short gel slug. The gel slug aimed at
increasing treatment consistency close to the wellbore.
Sand control benefits
Sand production issues are often observed in sandstone reservoirs. The high fluid velocities erode the
cement of the rock (fines) and, progressively, sand grains are transported to the surface causing damages
and early damage of the completion and of the surface facilities. After treatment, microgels will adsorb
on the rock forming a film that covers the surface and prevent from erosion as shown in Figure 4. This
4 SPE-177914-MS
film is soft and gel-like. The target penetration depth is 3 to 5 meters. This technology has been
successfully applied in underground gas storage wells (A. Zaitoun, 2007) (Zaitoun & Pichery, 2009), gas
producers (G. Burrafato, 2014), injection wells and oil producers over the past years. Combination of
microgel and gel enabless reinforcing sand consolidation near the wellbore where fluid rates are higher.
Figure 4 —Principle of sand control by polymer/microgel, (a) without polymer/microgel, (b) after polymer/microgel adsorption.
Well Data
Figure 5 gives a cross-section scheme of the well with its completion. Due to the presence of only one
perforation zone, treatment was injected bulheading into the open interval.
SPE-177914-MS 5
Last production data are summarized in Table 1 together with initial data. Productions are reported in
Figure 6. Production decline was strong. Oil production dropped down from 200 m3 to 10 m3 in almost
10 years while water cut increased from 10 to 95% during the same period of time. In 2009, water cut
reached 100% and the well was shut in. Several tests have been performed between August 2009 and
September 2011 during which only water was produced.
Viscosity measurements Viscosity measurements were performed using Low Shear LS30 viscometer
from Contraves equipped with a 2T-2T geometry (Couette geometry). Measurements were performed at
60°C. Viscosity values obtained for different microgel concentrations and for the gel formulation are
reported in Table 2.
Coreflood experiment Coreflood experiment was performed on a reservoir core. The core was cleaned
using a mix of methanol and toluene and then dried in an oven before use. Core characteristics are reported
in Table 4.
Length 5.055 cm
Diameter 3.871 cm
Weight (dry) 118.35 g
Pore volume 14.2 mL
Porosity 23.9%
Absolute permeability 3800 mD
Average pore 11.3 m
radius at Sw ⫽ 1
Pore volume 8.5 mL (Sor ⫽ 0.371)
at Sw ⫽ 1-Sor
Permeability to 522 mD
water at Sw ⫽ 1-Sor
Average pore 6.5 m
radius at Sw ⫽ 1-Sor
The dynamical adsorption is determined by the injection of two Microgel fronts (containing a tracer)
separated by brine to remove non-adsorbed Microgel. Microgel breakthrough is monitored using online
capillary tube placed at the outlet of the core. The delay between the first and the second microgel fronts
enables determining the dynamic adsorption:
SPE-177914-MS 9
Where C is the microgel concentration in active material and mdry is the weight of the dry core. ⌫ is
expressed in g/g.
The Mobility Reduction (Rm) is the apparent relative viscosity of the Microgel solution flowing
through a porous medium. It can be easily determined from pressure drop measurements:
Where ⌬P is the pressure drop measured during the injection of the microgel solution in the core at a
given shear rate and saturation, and ⌬P0 is the reference pressure drop generated by the flow of brine
through the core before the injection of the Microgel solution under the same flow rate and saturation
conditions.
The Permeability Reduction (Rk) corresponds to the reduction of permeability of the core to brine after
injection of a microgel solution. It corresponds to the ratio of the pressure drop generated by the brine
while flowing through the core after (⌬Pf) and before (⌬P0) injection of Microgel solution. As mentioned
previously, ⌬Pf and ⌬P0 have to be measured under the same flow rate and saturation conditions:
In the literature, Rm and Rk are also called RF (Resistance Factor) and RRF (Residual Resistance
Factor) respectively.
Results and discussion
– Drainage/imbibition sequences
We proceed to two consecutive oil and brine flushes until reaching reproducible end-points, i.e., kro
⫽ 0.9 at Swi ⫽ 0.121 and krw ⫽ 0.21 at Sw ⫽ 0.629 (Sor ⫽ 0.371). Curves are shown in Figure
7.
Figure 7—kr curves before chemical injection, after microgel and after gel.
10 SPE-177914-MS
Figure 9 —Injectivity curves of Microgel M2ES in reservoir core at 1000 ppm (a.m.).
SPE-177914-MS 11
Figure 10 —Injectivity curves of microgel M2ES in reservoir core at 2000 ppm (a.m.).
Figure 11—Injectivity curves of microgel M2ES in reservoir core at 3000 ppm (a.m.).
As expexted, because of microgel adsorption, the first front of microgel is delayed with respect to
the second front of microgel (c.f. Figure 8). The adsorption was determined to be 12 g/g.
– Mobility and permeability reductions
The mobility reduction, Rm and permeability reduction, Rk curves are displayed on Figure 12,
12 SPE-177914-MS
Figure 13 and Figure 14 for microgel concentrations of 1000, 2000 and 3000 ppm (active material)
respectively. The permeability reduction to water, Rk, ranges from 2.5 to 2.8.
Figure 15—Mobility reduction of the gel formulation. Permeability reduction after 7 days of shut-in.
After 7 days, brine was injected at low flow rate (2 mL/h). The permeability reduction before gel
breakthrough is 450. The gel strength was evaluated as 2.7 bar/m (c.f. Figure 16). A ramp-up and
ramp-down of brine injection rate was performed in order to observe if the gel collapses or
maintains a high permeability reduction (c.f. Figure 14). Rk after gel is in the range of 200 at low
rates and 40 at high rates.
Figure 16 —Gel breakthrough after 7 days of shut-in, estimation of the yield stress.
SPE-177914-MS 15
Simulation study
Near-wellbore simulation study was performed using Pumaflow™ software. First a model was con-
structed on the basis of the geological information provided by the operator. Model was validated through
extensive history matching using data from the operator. The data from the coreflood injections (labo-
ratory study) were used to optimize the injection sequences in terms of concentration, volume and
injection rate. The results of the simulation study were used to predict the economics of the treatment.
Treatment design
The treatment was designed on the basis of simulation work using near-wellbore model and previous
experience on similar cases.
The treatment scenario consists of the following steps
– Preparation of a brine preflush (injectivity test with low Microgel concentration, 16 m3)
– Injection of a large Microgel slug (80 m3)
– Injection of a small gel slug (24 m3)
– Injection of a postflush of crude oil (1.5 hole volume, 15 m3)
– Spot bleach in front of the perforations (3 m3)
– Shut-in for 7 days
– Release of well production with slow ramp-up during 7 days
All injection sequences were performed bullheading, i.e. by direct injection through the production
tubing from the wellhead into the whole open interval. Shut-in of 7 days was decided to ensure the gel
was properly set.
Operations
Operational sequences
At the beginning of the operations, a maximum well head pressure of 2521 psi was fixed by the operator
(frac gradient ⫽ 15 kPa/m, depth ⫽ 1160 m). The mixing tanks received on site were full of oil residues.
A cleaning sequence was necessary before the job with clean water (5 m3), with a discharge into the
sucker truck.
The sequences of the treatment were as follows.
– Rig-up equipment, pressure test (3000 psi for 10 minutes).
– Load 100 m3 of clean water in frac tank (400 bbl).
– Prepare microgel batches in paddle mixing tanks by direct addition of liquid Microgel cans into the
tank. Pump into the well at a tentative rate of 300 L/min.
– During preparation of one batch, inject the other batch into the well in such a way to maintain
steady injection rate.
– After injection of the microgel slug, prepare three batches of gel in paddle mixing tanks by slow
addition of polymer powder to the fresh water under gentle paddle mixing. Let hydrate for 1 hour
under paddle mixing, add cross-linker. Pump the gel mixture into the well.
– After last gel batch, inject crude oil postflush (15 m3).
– Spot bleach in front of the perforations to remove any residue of gel or microgel.
– Well shut-in for 7 days.
– Release well production with slow ramp-up.
SPE-177914-MS 17
All sequences occurred almost with no problem expected a pump failure during the injection of the gel
sequence. Hopefully, since gel time was sufficiently delayed, it was possible to stop the injection to
change the pump without any risk of early gelation in the well.
Post-Treatment Data
Data recorded after WSO treatment performed on September 2011 are reported in Figure 18, they clearly
indicate positive well response. Oil production was reestablished with an average production rate of 3.9
m3/day (24.5 bbl/day) and water cut decreased from 100 to about 90%. Additional oil production due to
the treatment gave a return on investment within 6 months.
In Figure 19, we plotted the evolution of Cumulative oil vs. cumulative water before and after
treatment. The treatment is shown to induce a strong increase in the slope of the curve, inducing steady
and important incremental oil production.
18 SPE-177914-MS
Figure 19 —Cumulative oil production vs cumulative water production, trends before and after WSO job.
Additionally, since the realization of the treatment, sand production has been completely stopped.
Conclusions
Water shut-off was successfully performed on a watered out well (with 100% water production).
Treatment was designed from laboratory and simulation studies to select the best chemicals regarding
formation characteristics and to optimize the injection sequences. Main results can be summarized as
follows.
– Laboratory study showed that combining microgel and soft RPM gel enables minimizing perme-
ability reduction to oil while reducing strongly water permeability.
– Simulation study enabled predicting treatment efficiency and optimizing injection sequences.
– WSO treatment injection requires light equipment easily available on-site and cost effective.
– Gel time has to be sufficiently delayed in case of any unexpected event as the pump failure
observed during the treatment.
– Well restart has to follow a progressive ramp-up to avoid any damage.
This treatment demonstrated the potential of the technology to restart oil production from watered-out
wells.
References
A. Zaitoun, R. T. (2007). Using Microgels to Shut Off Water in a Gas Storage Well. 2007 SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, SPE 106042. Houston.
Chauveteau, G. (1982). Rodlike Polymer Solution Flow through Fine Pores: Influences of Pore Size
on the Rheological Behaviour. Journal of Rheology, 26, 111–142.
SPE-177914-MS 19
G. Burrafato, G. C. (2014). Sand/Water Control Polymer Treatments of Offshore Gas Wells. PEA
WGSO and Chemical EOR Forums. Ludwigshafen.
H.H. Al-Sharji, Z. A.-H.-M. (2013). Mechanical and Thermal Stability of Polyacrylamide-based
Microgel Products for EOR. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, SPE-164135-
MS. The Woodlands.
Sydansk, R. (1993). Acrylamide-Polymer/Chromium (III)-Carboxylate Gels for Near Wellbore Matrix
Treatments. SPE Advanced Technology Series, SPE-20214-PA(01).
Zaitoun, A., & Pichery, T. (2009). New Polymer Technology for Sand Control Treatments of Gas
Storage Wells. 2009 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, SPE-121291-MS. The
Woodlands.