SPE 100660

Late Life Production Boost for BP Miller with Combined Scale Squeeze and Chemical
Water Shut Off Treatments

G. Williams, SPE, A. MacDonald, SPE, J. Wylde, SPE, Clariant Oil Services; C. Shields, C. Smitton, H. Frampton, SPE,
BP Exploration Operating Company; J. Morgan, Jimtech; A. Morris, Alamo Ecosse
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 8th international Symposium on Oilfield Scale
held in Aberdeen, U.K., 31st May - 1st June 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the authors. 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
The current, late life production on the Miller field is
characterised by high water cut wells that need frequent scale
inhibitor squeezes to manage the production of scale. In
addition, the wells are often choked back due to plant water
constraints. The key to managing the decline in oil production
is therefore to reduce water production. This allows the wells
to flow un-choked and also lightens the fluid column,
increasing drawdown and oil rate in the well. Other
advantages include increased scale inhibitor squeeze (SISQ)
life, reduced OPEX costs and reduced environmental impact
of overboard discharge of produced water and production
chemicals. However, the presence of scale in the wells means
that intrusive surveillance and mechanical water shut off
would require costly milling to gain access. The field is
therefore ideal for the use of chemical selective water shut off
(SWSO) treatments, which can be deployed without access to
production logging data. BP Miller and Clariant have
progressively applied SWSO treatments on a range of wells.
A dilute solution of cross-linkable polymer is bullheaded
down the wells and reacts with added cross-linker in situ.
After cross-linking, the web of polymer is inflated in the
presence of water, effectively blocking the flow path, whilst
deflating in the presence of oil. Since the whole producing
zone is treated, water will be retarded without the need to
know where it is coming from. Providing due precautions are
taken, this can be highly successful. For example, in May

2005 on Slot 32, oil production increased from 800 bopd to

2,800 bopd, whilst water cut reduced from 92% to 77%. The
most likely explanation for this is a combined effect of the
treatment stimulating production from the J-sand region while
limiting water flow potential from wetter areas.
Introduction to Water Shut Off Techniques
Water production is a world wide challenge, with an average
of three barrels of water being produced for every barrel of oil
[1]. Economic and environmental issues are created due to
lifting, separation and disposal of unwanted water. Water
production can also lead directly to loss of hydrocarbon
production due to gross fluid processing constraints or simply
the inability to lift a well back to production due to very high
water cut. The major environmental impacts of high water
production are discharge of oil and entrained production
chemicals in overboard water. Reducing the volume of
disposed water is clearly the best way to reduce these types of
discharge. Reducing water production also has the potential to
reduce the requirement for some types of production
chemicals associated with water production, e.g. scale
inhibitors. Frequent scale squeezes also involve excessive
down-time leading to significant production loss.
There are numerous established methods of water control
using an impermeable barrier in the well or reservoir to
prevent fluids from flowing into the production tubing. These
total blocking techniques can be broadly divided into two
categories:
1.

2.

Plugs or patches: these are physical devices placed

within the wellbore to shut off whole sections of
perforations or to block off isolated parts of
perforations.
Rigid setting fluids: these are pumped into the
producing formation where they set and seal off
production through a part of the matrix. These
include cements, polymer based gels and a wide
range of other chemistries.

SPE 100660

Although these techniques are potentially very effective, they

suffer from several collective limitations:
1.

2.

3.

4.

Placement must be into a specific location, generally

using wire line to place plugs or patches, or coiled
tubing for cements or gels. This has significant
logistical implications and the use of expensive
downhole equipment means these solutions can fail
to be cost effective, especially with older wells with
limited oil production.
With total blocking solutions it is necessary to know
exactly the source of the water in the well so that the
barriers can be accurately placed. Accurate and up to
date production logging data is therefore essential,
but this can be costly and / or not possible to obtain.
Total blocks are relatively high risk. If placed on the
hydrocarbon-producing part of the well they will
inevitably damage production and remediation may
be difficult and / or expensive.
It may not be possible to use these systems on
difficult to access wells, for example sub-sea wells,
long deviated or horizontal wells etc.

With the above limitations in mind, there has been a longstanding requirement for a low risk, cost effective option for
water shut off. This requirement has been fulfilled with the
application of selective water shut off systems (or relative
permeability modifiers) [2]. These are chemical treatments
that are bullheaded from surface through the production tubing
and into the formation. Once in place they allow the passage
of hydrocarbons whilst hindering water production. Due to
this selective mechanism, it is not necessary to know where
the water is coming form in order to treat a well. These
treatments can therefore be deployed without obtaining
production logging data. They are therefore ideal for the
Miller field, where the presence of scale in the wells prevents
mechanical access.
There are various selective water shut off (SWSO) systems
available [3]. Some use high molecular weight polymers
which adsorb onto the surface of the producing formation,
altering the wettability properties and so reducing the
permeability of the rock to water relative to oil. However, this
approach can be limited as only a surface coating is formed.
The type used on Miller uses a cross-linking polymer which
can form a three-dimensional network across the entire pore
space.
Miller Field Background
The Miller field is operated by BP Exploration and Operating
Company and is located in the North Sea on the UK
Continental Shelf across blocks 16/7b and 16/8b. The platform
has 10 producer wells with first oil occurring mid-way through
1992. The 38 API crude is exported down the Forties
Pipeline System and is processed at Grangemouth. Produced
gas travels down the Miller Gas Pipeline to the mainland

where it fuels Peterhead Power Station. Reservoir support is

provided by 6 injector wells currently injecting treated
seawater. In the past gas has been injected into the reservoir as
an enhanced oil recovery technique. Seawater injection began
one year after first oil and peaked some years later at 350
mbwpd. Plateau production occurred during 1993 to 1996 at
140,000 bopd (with a GOR of 2,500 scf per bbl). From 1997,
oil decline has been rapid, in parallel with water breakthrough
on many of the producers. The current field potential is only
10% of the plateau production at 11,100 bopd, with associated
water production of 60,000 bwpd. The field has however
achieved more than its original expected recoverable reserves
with over 345 million barrels of oil produced to date (58%
recovery factor).
One option on Miller is to use the reservoir for carbon dioxide
enhanced oil recovery as part of a hydrogen power plant
development in North East Scotland. Natural gas produced
from the North Sea would be converted to hydrogen for power
generation and the carbon dioxide transported to Miller via the
existing pipeline for re-injection. The proposal is to get this
system online in 2009. However, by the end of 2006 oil
production is expected to decline to an average of 5,000 bopd,
which is too low for the platforms oil plant to function. A
number of issues need to be resolved to ensure the field can
continue to produce between 2006 and 2009 by allowing the
plant to operate below the current technical limit. These
include resizing of flow meters, installing new oil export
pumps and a rethink of power generation. In addition scale
squeeze management and water injection strategy need to be
reviewed to ensure optimum oil production and to ensure the
wells can flow back after scale squeezing. In order for these
plant modifications to occur to plan it is essential to maintain
steady production through the projected decline to 5,000 bopd;
losing just one well to scale or watering out could have a
significant impact on this. Therefore any technology that can
increase squeeze efficiency, reduce water production, or
increase oil production is key to the future of Miller
production and subsequent carbon dioxide re-injection.
Miller downhole temperature is typically 121C. Tubing head
producing temperatures range from 85 105C, depending on
the depth and length of the well and water cut. The Miller field
formation water contains approximately 650 ppm of barium
ions. Combined with seawater breakthrough of 40 60%, this
results in one of the harshest oilfield scaling environments in
the world. The water chemistry is summarised in Table 1 and
at a glance it can be seen that the Miller formation water
displays a high supersaturation with respect to CaCO3. In the
presence of seawater BaSO4, SrSO4 and CaSO4 scales also
precipitate in abundance. The most commonly observed
location for catastrophic sulphate scaling occurs around 200
feet above the perforated interval and so Miller has historically
relied on scale inhibitor squeeze technology to control
downhole scale formation [4-6]. Seawater breakthrough has
occurred on all the current producing wells. It is therefore
clear that the control of water production and scaling is

SPE 100660

absolutely crucial in allowing the field to produce until the

planned shutdown period for carbon dioxide injection facilities
installation.
Field Application of Selective Water Shut Off Gel
The SWSO technology deployed on the Miller wells is a
cross-linked polymer system that results in a threedimensional gel forming a continuous pill around the near
well-bore along the whole of the perforated interval. The
technical details, limitations and operational considerations
have been documented elsewhere so are not dwelt on here
[1,2]. The SWSO treatments are pumped as a single stage
treatment into the reservoir rock, typically an addition to the
overflush of a scale inhibitor squeeze to minimise deployment
costs and down-time. During shut in, the polymer cross-links
to form a flexible, open hydrated polymer network that
bridges across the pore spaces. Higher polymer concentrations
lead to denser, stronger networks, which gives useful design
and performance options.
Generally, as discussed below, it is not the intention to make
the polymer network totally prevent fluid flow through the
pores (unlike using cements or stiff gels). However, where
there is water production, the interaction of the water
molecules with the polymer network causes resistance to flow,
effectively reducing the permeability of the formation to
water. Where there is oil or gas production the pressure
gradient pushes hydrocarbons into the network, displacing
water, causing it to dehydrate and collapse, and allowing
hydrocarbon production. The dehydrated network remains in
the formation but provides minimal resistance to oil or gas
flow. In the event of subsequent water flow the network is
capable of re-hydrating and providing resistance. The overall
anticipated effect of the treatment on a well is therefore to
reduce water production while maintaining oil or gas
production using low concentration, low cost chemicals.
The aim of performing these treatments on Miller was
threefold:

pressure (THP) rose sharply to 1,600 psi (still well below the
3,000 psi maximum allowable pressure) as the tubing was
cleared of hydrocarbons. After the main treatment was
injected the THP steadily fell to zero and only after the rate
was increased during the over flush and water shut off
treatment stages did the THP rise to 300 psi.
Field Application on Slot 32 / A18
Slot 32/A18 is a vertical producer well, cased and perforated
with 200 feet of producing interval. The producing formation
consists of layered sandstone and shales. Permeability in the
producing layers is mostly in the range 100-200 mD, with
isolated streaks of up to 1000 mD. Porosity is typically 22%.
Slot 32 was assessed as most likely to contain distinct oil and
water producing zones, based on the high degree of reservoir
structure and on production history. Analysis of well fluids
indicated that near 100% formation water is produced
(indicated by Barium ion concentrations of 650 750 ppm). It
is believed that this water production is from a high pressure
layer lower in the stratigraphy, with dry oil production
remaining in some of the thinner and / or lower pressured Jsands (Figure 4).
However, limited well access prevented production logging,
and it was therefore necessary to design the initial treatment
without confirmation of the fluid inflow pattern into the well.
To manage this application risk, the performance of the
system was investigated in the laboratory using field specific
long sand pack tests [2]. It was found that the properties of the
system could be altered by increasing or decreasing the
concentrations of polymer and cross-linker used. The higher
the concentrations, the higher the reduction in the effective
permeability to water, and therefore the greater the degree of
water shut off which will be expected. However, a
concentrated treatment that would give a high degree of water
shut off could also cause more damage to oil production (and
be harder to remediate) in the event that the oil and water do
not form distinct production streams in the reservoir.

To reduce the water to oil ratio to give more

economic production.
To reduce water throughput and remove the need to
choke wells back due to plant water handling
constraints.
To extend the squeeze life of high squeeze frequency
wells by lowering the water production rate.

This was the first well to be treated after the success seen with
initial test treatments on a low value producer, Slot 40/A08
[2,6]. Four treatments in total have been performed to date on
Slot 32/A18. The first treatment was intended to demonstrate
the potential for water shut off while minimising the risk of
damage to the well. Following a successful first treatment, the
polymer concentration was increased for the second, and then
increased again for the third and subsequent treatments.

The treatments themselves were pumped as shown in Figure 2.

Two chemical injection feeds were used to spike treatment
chemicals into diverted injection water which was then
bullheaded down the target well. All streams were metered to
ensure accuracy of chemical dosing concentrations as well as
the total volume of fluid injected into the well. Figure 3 shows
an example of a pumping log for a combined scale inhibitor
squeeze / selective water shut off treatment, with each stage of
the treatment annotated. It can be seen that the tubing head

The success of the treatments can be seen in Table 2. After the

first treatment, carried out on 13th May 2003, an increase in
the oil rate occurred with production almost tripling from 413
to 1,147 bopd. However, only a slight reduction of 4% was
observed in the post-treatment water rate. Although this is a
low level of water shut off, the stimulation to the oil
production showed this well to be particularly suited to this
treatment. Also, the improved drawdown post-treatment
masks the fact that significantly more than 4% WSO actually

1.
2.
3.

occurred. The increase in oil was shown to last for

approximately three months with the benefit diminishing
slowly over time.
The second treatment (16th January 2004) used an increased
concentration of polymer and water was reduced by 58% and
oil stimulated by 89%. The effect of this treatment was
sufficiently large that, when gas lift was turned off the well
continued to flow, whereas previously the well had
insufficient pressure support to produce naturally. The benefit
of incremental oil and reduced water was again shown to last
for approximately three months before the well returned to
pre-treatment rates.
The third treatment was performed on 4th October 2004 and
was the only stand alone treatment performed on Slot 32/A18,
all the others being deployed in combination with scale
squeezes. Another positive response was seen with water
being reduced and oil increasing, although not as much as
observed with the second treatment whilst using a similar
treatment design. Although the reasons for this are a little
unclear, it could be due to the fluid inflow pattern changing
between the treatments, causing a different placement pattern
or well response.
The final treatment was unsuccessful as a straight water shut
off, as water production increased after the treatment.
However, again the oil production was stimulated to a greater
extent than the water production. The effect of the treatment
was therefore to give additional oil with a slight reduction in
water cut. Several well tests were made over a period of ten
months to track the effect of this treatment, as shown in the
discussion section.
Field Application on Slot 23/A12
Slot 23/A12 is a vertical producer well, cased and perforated
with 200 feet of producing interval. The producing formation
consists of layered sandstone and shales. Permeability in the
producing layers is mostly in the range 100-200 mD. Porosity
is typically 20%. Slot 23/A12 is one of the most frequently
squeezed wells on the Miller field, with over 225 performed to
date. The aim on this well was therefore primarily to reduce
water production and extend the scale inhibitor squeeze life.
Water production pre-SWSO treatment on this well was in
excess of 15,000 bwpd with corresponding oil production of
approximately 2,500 bopd.
Three successive SWSO treatments have now been performed
on this well, the results of which have been summarised in
Table 3 in the form of pre-treatment and post-treatment well
test data. Each treatment used successively larger volumes of
SWSO polymer as confidence grew that the treatment was
non-damaging on this key producing well. The first treatment
attempted to prove that addition of the polymer into the rock
matrix would not cause damage to productivity. The well was
returned to production after the treatment was bullheaded and
whilst no alteration to the oil-water ratio was seen, neither was

SPE 100660

any formation damage. The second treatment was performed 6

months later using additional polymer and reduced the water
production by 19%, enabling the squeeze life to be pushed out
beyond the previously accepted duration.
After a further 6 months, the third treatment was performed.
This treatment used three times more polymer than the
original SWSO application and not only reduced water
production but also gave a small amount of incremental oil
production. Several well tests were made over a period of six
months to track the effect of this treatment, as shown in the
discussion section.
Field Application on Slot 29/A25
Slot 29/A25 is a vertical producer well, cased and perforated
with 28 feet of producing interval. The producing formation
consists of layered sandstone and shales. Permeability in the
producing layers is mostly in the range 300-1000 mD.
Porosity is typically 15-20%. Following the success of
treatments on Slot 32 and Slot 23, it was proposed to extend
deployment to a number of other wells. Slot 29 requires a
relatively large scale squeeze volume and combined with sand
production, there was doubt over the ability to place the
treatment. However, with changing seawater breakthrough, it
was hoped that SWSO would help stabilize the squeeze life. It
therefore received a similar strength treatment to the most
recent Slot 32 and Slot 23 treatments. The pre- and posttreatment well test figures can be found in Table 4. The
increase in oil rate is relatively small while water production
dropped by 800 bpd. This allowed the squeeze life to be
maintained, despite changing seawater break through
threatening to reduce squeeze life.
Discussion
Application of water shut off on these wells can be seen
consistently to produce benefit. In some cases a significant
decrease in water production without loss of oil is clearly seen,
showing that the treatments are functioning as selective water
shut off systems. In some cases the effect seen was extremely
high - almost 60% for the second treatment on Slot 32.
However, more typically the effect seen is of the order of a 520% reduction in water productivity.
In some cases additional oil has been seen as a result of the
treatment. While some incremental oil may be expected due to
increased drawdown as water cut is reduced, the observed
increases in oil production on Slot 32 are much greater than
can be explained by these changes. This suggests that there is
a combination of two mechanisms operating. One is water
shut off, related to the actual and ongoing presence of the gel
(which would provide extra oil production only as long as the
gel persisted and impacted the sweep pattern). The other is a
stimulation process in the near well bore region (which would
provide extra oil on an ongoing basis).
There is no vertical communication between the J- and Ksands in Slot 32 and they are believed to be at different

SPE 100660

pressures. Prior to SWSO, production would mainly have been

from the lower, high pressure K sand which produced mainly
formation water. The treatments are believed to have restricted
K-sand and stimulated J-sand production, allowing the low
pressure J-sand to produce, resulting in increased oil
production. That the J-sand was not completely dry is
indicated by the increase in gross water production following
treatment 4 and by an increase in sea water breakthrough.
Elsewhere in the field, J-sand sweep is characterised by
seawater breakthrough from the injectors. Lower down in the
reservoir a large amount of aquifer coning occurs, thus
formation water is produced.
In the 10 months that the fourth treatment was in the reservoir,
the change in J-sand production resulting from SWSO was
responsible for an additional 140,000 bbls of oil. Water
production was reduced by 750,000 bbls over the same period,
in part due to water shut off and in part due to production from
the drier J-sand.
The Slot 23 SWSO treatments had a more moderate effect
with oil being increased by a total of 15,000 bbls over the 6
month period but water production being reduced by 200,000
bbls. This reduction in water production has helped maintain
the current squeeze life of 10 days during a period of increased
sea water break through which would typically reduce the life
of the squeeze. Slot 29 SWSO had a similar response, with a
small increase in oil of 2,000 bbls over 2 months and a
decrease in water of 40,000 bbls over the same period.
There is a large degree of uncertainty in the outcome of
specific treatments, especially on Slot 32. This is due to the
difficulty of obtaining downhole or well test data. More
recently however, several well tests have been performed on
Slot 32 post-treatment 4 and Slot 23 post-treatment 3. These
are shown in Figures 5 and 6, which show the production of
oil and water over time, normalised to the pre-treatment rates.
These two treatments were very different in their outcomes:
the first stimulated water production but stimulated oil
production to a greater extent; the second gave a moderate
degree of water shut off with a small amount of added oil. The
results are also complicated by the underlying field decline.
However, it can be seen from the data that, even where both
fluids are stimulated and regardless of the uncertainties in the
mechanism, these treatments are consistent in reducing water
relative to oil at all points subsequent to the treatment.
Conclusions
Bullheaded selective water shut off treatments have
consistently shown significant benefit on a wide range of
production wells on the Miller field. In some cases significant
water shut off has been achieved, in other cases stimulation of
oil production has occurred.
Overall the benefit of the treatments presented here is
estimated to be 167,000bbls of additional oil and a reduction

of nearly 1,000,000 bbls in the total water production. During

2005, SWSO treatments were responsible for approximately
20% of platform production.
Based on the continued success of SWSO, further treatments
are planned on these and all other producing wells on the
Miller field.
By implementing these treatments, BP and Clariant Oil
Services have taken major steps towards boosting late life
production. These treatments therefore have a significant role
in ensuring that field production continues through to the onset
of enhanced oil recovery in 2009.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank both BP and Clariant for
allowing this paper to be published and the people onshore
and offshore responsible for planning and executing the
squeeze treatments.
References
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Williams G., Morgan J., Wylde J., Frampton H.,

Successful Field Application of a New Selective Water
Shut Off System. Presented at the 16th International
Oilfield Chemistry Symposium, Geilo, Norway, 13-16th
March 2005.
Morgan, J., Gunn, A., Fitch, G., Frampton, H., Harvey, R.,
Thrasher, D., Lane, R., McClure, R., Heier K. H., and
Kayser, C. Development and Deployment of a
Bullheadable Chemical System for Selective Water shut
off leaving Oil/Gas Production Unharmed. SPE 78540.
Presented at 10th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition.
Hamed H. Al-Sharji, Carlos A. Grattoni, Richard, A. Dawe
& Robert W. Zimmerman. Pore-Scale study of the flow of
water and oil through polymer gels. SPE 56738. Presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, Texas, 3 - 6 October 1999.
Wylde J.J, Williams G.D.M., Careil F., Webb P., and
Morris A. Deep downhole chemical injection on BP
operated Miller: Experience and learning. SPE 92832.
Presented at Reservoir Simulation Symposium 2005 Texas
USA.
Wylde J.J. Williams G.D.M., Careil F., Webb P. and
Morris A. A new type of super-adsorption high-desorbtion
scale squeeze chemistry: doubling treatment life on Miller
Wells. SPE 92833. Presented at the SPE 2005 Scale
Symposium, Aberdeen.
Wylde, J.J., Williams, G.D.M. and Careil, F. Innovative,
Integrated and cost effective chemical management on the
Miller Platform. SPE 92834. Presented at the Middle East
Oil and Gas Show and Conference 2005.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft* x 3.048
E-01
psi x 6.894 757
E+00
bbl x 1.589 873
E-01
md x 9.869 233
E-04
* Conversion factor is exact

= Pa s
= kPa
=m3
= m2

SPE 100660

Figure 3: Example of a field treatment pumping log

WSO
980 bbl

Displacement
546 bbl

9
8
7

1200

1000

5
Pressure

800

Pump Rate

:3
0

:0
0

:1
0

:1
0
13

12

11

11

:1
5

:1
5

:4
5

:4
5
10

10

09

09

:0
5

:4
5
08

08

:1
5

:4
5

:4
5
07

07

:4
5

:1
5
06

05

:0
1

:1
5

:1
5
05

05

04

04

03

03

02

02

:4
5

0
:1
5

0
:4
5

200

:4
5

:2
5

400

:3
8

600

Pump rate (bbl/min)

Overflush
1450 bbl

1400

02

Pressure (psi)

1800 Preflush
100 bbl Main Treatment
1000bbl (20% SI)
1600

06

Figure 1: Map of Miller Wells

Time

Figure 4: openhole log for producing interval in Slot 32 / A18

J-sand
Oil

K-sand

Figure 2: Schematic of the chemical injection rig up

Table 1: Summary of the produced water from Miller wellhead

samples.

Ion
Na+
K+
Ca2+
Mg2+
Sr2+
Ba2+
Fe2+
HCO3SO42ClSWBT%

Slot 23
A12
19,250
1,100
590
270
18
200
1
2,200
1,100
30,000
45 55

Slot 29
A25
26,400
1,200
550
75
25
240
1
2,200
600
42,000
40 50

Slot 32
A18
26,500
1,100
650
120
70
730
1
2,200
200
45,000
0 10

SPE 100660

Water bpwd

Oil bopd

Water cut %

9,795
9,414
-4%
9,901
4,135
-58%
8,200
7,100
-13%
7,447
9,335
+25.6%

413
1,147
+178%
728
1,378
+89%
1,400
1,800
+29%
800
1,312
+64%

96
89
-7%
93
75
-20%
85
80
-7%
90
88
-2%

Figure 5: Long term changes in oil and water production following

th
the 4 SWSO treatment on Slot 32 / A18. Production rates are
shown relative to pre-treatment well test rates.

400%
Water
Oil

300%

200%

100%

0%
Fe
b05
M
ar
-0
5
Ap
r05
M
ay
-0
5
Ju
n05
Ju
l-0
5
Au
g05
Se
p05
O
ct
-0
5
N
ov
-0
5

Treatments
1, 2,3 and 4
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change

Post to pre-treatment production rates

Table 2: Summary of RELTREAT water shut off treatments

performed on Slot 32/A18

Table 3: Summary of RELTREAT water shut off treatments

performed on Slot 23/A12

Water cut %
85
82
-3%

100%

90%

80%

Se
p05

Oil bopd
1,192
1,246
+4%

Oil

Au
g05

Water bpwd
6,548
5,754
-12%

Water

Ju
l-0
5

Treatment 1
Before
After
Change

110%

Ju
n05

Table 4: Summary of RELTREAT water shut off treatment

performed on Slot 29/A25

Figure 6: Long term changes in oil and water production following

rd
the 3 SWSO treatment on Slot 23 / A12. Production rates are
shown relative to pre-treatment well test rates.

05

83
83
0%
85
82
-3%
87
85
-2%

M
ay
-

3,000
3,000
0%
2,859
2,859
0%
2,355
2,558
+9%

05

15,000
15,000
0%
16,075
13,000
-19%
15,352
14,843
-3%

Ap
r-

Water cut %

05

Oil bopd

M
ar
-

Water bpwd

Post- to pre-treatment production rate

Treatments
1, 2 and 3
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change
Before
After
Change