SPE-189136-MS

Evaluation of Polymeric Water and Gas Shut-Off Treatments in Oil Wells

Amba Ndoma Egba, DPR/Emerald Energy Institute; Joseph A. Ajienka, Emerald Energy Institute, University of Port
Harcourt

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 31 July – 2 August 2017.

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
Controlling excessive gas and water production from oil wells is still a major problem in the global E & P
industry. Various strategies have been advised in the petroleum literature by industry experts and vendors.
Different service companies continue to lay claim of innovative Water and Gas Shut-Off (WGSO) products
that will offer better results. No doubt, there are noteworthy improvements in unwanted water and gas
control technology, the problem however, has continued unabated.
Polymers have been developed to help in the reduction of the water-oil-ratio (WOR) while at the same
time not limiting the flow of hydrocarbon. Polymer-foam for gas shut off also reduces the GOR, but not the
oil flow rate. Though, some successes have been reported in polymer water and gas shut off in oil wells,
a survey of field cases however shows, that most treatments have been unsuccessful. Our findings suggest
that different diagnostic methods, treatment design and applications vary from vendor to vendor even with
the same diagnostics. Companies also use different economic yardsticks to measure the success of WGSO
operation. This has led to tremendous failures in polymeric WGSO application.
Relying on a data base of WGSO field cases, some treatments could guarantee substantial increase in
oil production while in others the production was relatively small, zero and sometimes negative. Several
factors could be responsible for these; Wrong diagnosis and poor candidate selection, improper treatment
design and application. There is also lack of an economic model to evaluate the success of a polymer water
and gas shut off treatment.
This paper therefore evaluates the causes of success or failure of the polymer water and gas shutoff
treatment in the Niger Delta

Introduction
Water and gas production in oil wells is a serious concern in the global E & P industry. The production of
water and gas with oil could be beneficial and in some instances, harmful. Water and gas production are
beneficial if they help in sweeping oil from the reservoir. In this case production of water and gas cannot
be stopped without affecting the ultimate recovery of the well. However, when water and gas production
becomes unwarranted, and produces no oil sufficiently to pay for the cost of treating large volumes of water
or gas, the problems associated with it can lead to corrosion, scale deposits, salts deposits and gas hydrate. It
2 SPE-189136-MS

also bring fines and sand production thereby increasing the cost of lifting and separation which often results
in the untimely shut-in of oil wells. So the consideration to shut off unwanted water or gas production to
recover remaining oil becomes necessary.
Several methods of Water or Gas Shut-Off techniques in oil wells have been suggested by (Dahl et al,
1992; Chukwueke et al, 1998); Houwelingen, 1999; Kabir et al., 1999); Bailey, 2000; Prabuddha et al.,
2000; Llamedo et al 2005; Joseph and Ajienka, 2010; Elkarsani et al 2014; Zang et al., 2015). These methods
which can broadly be classified into two groups: mechanical and chemical, range from cement slurries,
Bridge plugs, sand plugs, straddle packers, downhole water seperators, expandable tubulars, particulate
solids, resins, to water soluble polymers and gels.

Polymer Water and Gas Shut-Off Treatments

Polymers have been used widely in different phases of oil and gas development ranging from drilling
to production (Carico and Bagshaw 1978). The use of polymers for the control of water and gas during
oil production have been described in the petroleum engineering literature (Chatlerji and Borchardt 1980;
Zaitoun and Kohler, 1991; Kabir et al. 1999; Houwelingen, 1999; Prabuddha et al 2000; Llamedo et al
2005; Elkarsani et al., 2014).
In the oil field, the major class of synthetic polymers used are acrylamide polymers and co polymers.
Detailed explanation on how acrylamide and co polymers are usually prepared is documented (Meltzer,
1972). Szabo, (1979) explained the use of acrylamide containing polymers for mobility control in
enhanced oil recovery. Other polymers have also been tested for enhanced oil recovery, they include; 2-
acrylamido-2 -methyl propane -sulfuric acid salts, 2 -sulfoethylmethacrylate and numerous other acrylamide
and copolymers (Mclaughlin, 1970; McCormick et aI, 1979).
Schneider and Owen, (1982); Zaitoun and Kohler, (1988); Zatoun et aI., 1991; Kabir et al (1999)
have confirmed the use of polymers in the near wellbore zone of a reservoir to reduce water or gas
production from an oil well. The relative permeability to water in the polymer invaded zone reduces
greatly while the relative permeability to oil is not affected. It was explained that the polymer molecules
were absorbed on the rock surface by forming an impenetrable layer on the pore walls, thereby altering
the streamlines around the wellbore. This action reduced the mobility of the wetting phase while that of
the non-wetting phase remained unchanged. In this case, the relative permeability to water was greatly
reduced while that of oil was not affected. A review over the past decade by Elkarsani et al, (2014),
classified polymers used for water shut-off into two major types; the first should do with water shut-off
in the near wellbore region while the second is polymer used for the treatment of water injection wells to
prevent loss of water to thief zones (high permeability zones). For the near wellbore region, according to
Elkarsani et al, (2014), various polymer systems have been developed. These include, polyurethane resins,
chromium crosslinking terpolymers, crosslinking foamed partially hydrolysed polyacrylamide (PHPA), and
nanoparticle polyelectrolyte complexes (PECs). Water-soluble polymers are among the most widely used
chemical methods for water shut off (Elkarsani et al, 2014) because of its ability to penetrate the reservoir
and ease of pumping. Methods of polymer deployment is either through bullhead injection or through coiled
tubing.
Polymer foam for gas shut off is also applied through tubing by means of bull heading where selective
placement is not possible (Houwelingen, 1999). Foam is a dispersant of gas in liquid phase in a porous
medium, in which the liquid phase is continuous with gas occupying a greater percentage of the total volume
(Zang et al, 2015). The presence of foam in porous media, changes drastically (by decreasing) the relative
permeability to gas while not affecting the relative permeability to water or oil. More than one mechanism
and different products may be applied at any time to shut off unwanted water or gas production depending
on the circumstances. The behaviour of polymer in porous media may be independent of the product type.
Most treatment failures may not be attributed to product failure but to poor candidate selection and perhaps
treatment design. The technique of applying the polymer system varies but irrespective of the type of
SPE-189136-MS 3

polymer used, the basic behaviour of the polymer is independent of the process, to shut-off unwated water
and gas while allowing oil flow.
Though several successful cases of water and gas shut off treatment have been reported, the overall
success rating is still low. In addition, the economics of WGSO oil wells is poorly understood. This paper
evaluates polymer water and gas shut-off treatments to ascertain the causes of success or failure by using
some selected cases of water and gas shut–off in the Niger Delta. It also used payout modeling as the
economic yardstick to evaluate the success of water and gas shut-off treatment.

Evaluation Method and Criteria

Relying on a data base of selected field cases, this paper evaluates the causes of success or failure of the
polymeric water and gas shut-off treatments by
1. Determining the source of water or gas production using absolute permeability characteristic from
production history
2. Pre and post treatment performance using oil rate, Qo, gas rate, Qg, water rate, Qw
3. Treatment radius and treatment volume
4. Payout as measurement of the economic yardstick.

Permeability
Permeability relationship can be expressed as shown in eq. (1) below

(1)

Where i = oil, water, or gas.

It can be noted that; 0 ≤ Ko, Kg, Kw ≤ k; 0 ≤ Kro, Krg, Krw ≤1
Through the determination of the effective and relative permeabilities of a formation, the absolute
permeability (K) can be calculated from equation (1). If the formation is damaged, the permeability close to
the well will be reduced while if the well is stimulated, the permeability will exceed the average formation
permeability. If there is a reduction in absolute permeability, there may be build-up, wettability changes or
formation damage (Dake, 1978; Novotny, 1995). But when there is increase in absolute permeability, then
water or gas production may be from channel, casing leak or another source outside the formation. In our
evaluation, this technique is used to identify the source of water or gas production.

Relative Permeability
The relative permeability for a water wet imbibition condition (Smith et al, 2012) is given by the equations
below:

(2)

(3)

Using production and PVT data, the relative or effective permeability ratio for a water oil system (Smith
et al., 2012) may be calculated as follows:

(4)
4 SPE-189136-MS

For a gas oil system in which the wetting phase (oil) is decreasing in saturation, the relative permeabilities
are given by:

(5)

(6)

Sm = 1 - Sgc, Sgc = Critical gas saturation, that saturation in which the free gas becomes mobile. For
sandstone, 4% < Sgc < 7% (Smith et al., 2012)
By using production data, the effective or relative permeability ratios can be calculated as:

(7)

Where R= GOR= Gas produced per day/oil produced per day

Rs = Solution gas oil ratio, SCF/STB
The instantaneous producing gas oil ratio, R can also be obtained from production data. The factors, Bo,
Bg, μg, μo and Rs are functions of pressure and are determined from correlation or PVT data analysis.

Treatment Radius
For a successful water shut-off, the polymer may be designed to penetrate a distance rt given by Jimmie
et al (1979) as follows:

(8)

The treatment volume is a function of the treatment radius; formation thickness and porosity is given by:

(9)

Evaluation Steps
Step 1:
For water oil system, Calculate Krw from eq. (2), Kro from eq. (3). Determine Kro/Krw. For gas oil system,
calculate Kro from eq. 5. Krg from eq. (6). Determine Krg/Kro.
Step 2:
Generate values for different water, oil and gas saturations.
Step 3:
Using production data, calculate the water oil permeability ratio (Ko/Kw) for the well using eq. (4). Calculate
the gas oil permeability ratio (kg/ko) for the well using Eq. (7)
Step 4:
From step (3) and using values of Kro/Krw, Krg/Kro, Krw, Kro, Krg, generated in step 1, estimate the
absolute permeability from Eq. (1) using polynomial interpolation. This is done by a program written in
MatLab (Appendix A).
Step 5:
Compare the absolute permeability with field information and determine the source of water or gas
production.
Step 6:
SPE-189136-MS 5

If the source of water or gas production is from the reservoir matrix, the treatment volume is calculated
based on Eq. 9. If water production from the reservoir matrix, the treatment radius is determined using eq.
(8). This is compared with field observation using +/-15% variation.

Economic Methodology
Before investing in oil and gas business, the economic benefits must be considered. The benefits are
measured by economic indicators which include but not limited to; profit to investment ratio, net present
value profit, discounted cash flow rate of return and payout or payback. The major weakness of the profit to
investment ratio is that it does not reflect the time rate pattern of income from the project. For the net present
value, it is difficult to determine the minimum acceptable rate of return to justify investment. Discounted
cash flow rate of return is made by trial and error series of calculations making its application cumbersome
(Ikoku, 1985).
The payout or the payback period also refered to as the breakeven point (Mian, 2011) is traditionally
undiscounted and is the time it takes for the cumulative net cash earnings to be equal to the intial investment.
Payout measures the speed in which investment funds are returned to the business. It is a simple measure
of capital turnover and provides some rough measurement of risk by indicating how long the investment
capital is exposed, (Seba 2008).
This paper therefore uses payback as the economic yardstick for Mathematically, Payback is expressed as;

(10)

The net Cash flow is the incremental revenue minus royalty. The daily oil sales which is oil rate qo x
Price P. In equation form, the general specification will be given as;
(11)
Asuming a log linear relationship, the above functional specification can be expressed as follows:
(12)
Where α, β, ɣ, ϕ, ʎ are parameters to be estimated using multiple regression. Other variables in the model
are defined as follows: Ct is the treatment cost, $, ΔQo is the daily incremental oil production rate bbl/day,
P is oil price, $/bbl, Ro is Royalty fraction while ε is the error term.
To estimate equation (12), we relied on data from selected case histories of WGSO treatment in the Niger
Delta, the average daily crude oil price was gotten from the U.S Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration from (1986–2016). An econometric, simulation and statistical software, EVIEWS was used
for the analysis and estimation.

Results and Discussions

Appendix B shows the results of the estimation of the log-linear relationship underlying equation (12).
From the results, all the independent variables are statistically significant both jointly and severally as
measured by the t and f-statistics, (Table 1). Generally, the estimated model explained more than 90% of the
dependent and independent variables. The model has no serial correlation as seen from Breusch-Godfrey
Serial Correlation LM Test (Table 2). There is also no heteroskedasticity as shown from the Breusch-Pagan-
Godfrey Heteroskedasticity Test (Table 3). The residuals are normally distributed which is a good sign. We
can therefore rely on this model and use it for prediction. From fig. 1 and 2, the prediction and actual payout
match with a root mean square error of 0.26 which indicates that the model predicts well.
Based on the above, the payout model for WGSO in oil wells can conveniently be expressed as;
6 SPE-189136-MS

(13)

This model has been validated with field data and can be used to predict the breakeven points for water
or gas shut-off treatments in oil wells.

Field Case 1
This well was a prolific oil producer completed in April 1995 as a Two Strings Multiple on the x1, x2 and
x3 reservoirs with x3 and x2 contributing to production on the long string. The x1 sand was shut-in 1998
for excessive HGOR with no re-completion option. The combine production rate of the well from x2 and
x3 sands was 5400 bopd with zero water cut. This well produced for seven years without any water or
sand problem. Gradually, water cut increased from 0 to 92% and the well was shut-in. Realising that the
economic limit of the well has not reached, a production logging tool (PLT) analysis was carried out on
the well and it was established that the water production was from the upper zone (x2). Both the upper and
lower zones were treated with polymer gel. After polymer treatment, the water cut reduced by about 72%
and the oil rate increased from 225 to a sustained average rate of about 1806 bopd.
Reservoir x2 has a thickness of 50ft with the following properties, Bo= 1.26rb/STB, μw = 0.46cp,
μo=3.07cp, Swi= 0.21, re= 1436.1ft, rw= 0.531ft, DP= 208.6psi. A candidate evaluation was carried out
for this well by calculating the absolute permeability from production history. Absolute permeability of
996.7 md was obtained which agreed with field information that the field has an absolute permeability range
between 800 and 1008 mds (well #1 Tab. 4). This indicates that the water production from this well is from
matrix flow. Using Eq. (8) (Kdw = 80md, Kt = 135, Kw = 265.83, Kwavg= 996.7 md), treatment radius of
8.2ft with a volume of 503 barrels were calculated to restore oil production. This agrees with observation
in the field in which treatment volume of 430 barrels and penetration of 9.01ft (Tab. 5) was used to restore
production to an average of 1806 bopd. The payout from this treatment was 15.13 days.

Field Case 2
The well came on stream in at a rate of 1950 bopd on bean 28/64″. This well has a reservoir thickness of 32ft
with a Bo= 1.51 rb/stb, μw = 0.58cp, μo = 4.03cp, Swi= 0.23, re= 1525.1ft, rw= 0.4831ft, DP= 93.6psi It
was subsequently beaned up and it produced at 2300 bopd. The well continued production intermittently on
chokes 28 and 32 successfully without any water or sand problem until water gradually increased to 60%.
All attempts to control water production were unsuccessful. Eventually, the well quit production probably
due to water loading at a water cut of up to 90%. The well was later re-entered in which the old set of
perforations (11071 – 11096 ft-ah) were squeezed-off for water shut-off and the interval re-perforated higher
at (11044 – 11076 ft-ah). The well was re-opened after the workover at a rate of 479 bopd with water cut
increasing gradually after bean up. Last production test indicated the well was producing 174 bbl/day with
a water rate of 2306 bbl/day. A polymer water shut off treatment with a volume of 550 barrels at treatment
penetration of 8.2ft was carried out on this well in July 2008. When the well was opened for production, oil
rate decreased to 50 bbl/day and the water rate deceased to 1800 bbl/day. Though there was a reduction in
water production, this treatment was adjoint to be a failure as the oil rate also reduced drastically.
An investigation into this case indicated a high absolute permeability range of 1230–1550 md in this
field.The absolute permeability from evaluation for this reservoir was 1410md (well #2, Tab. 4) indicating
that the water production was from the reservoir matrix. Using Eq. (8) (Kdw = 168.8md, Kt = 182.1, Kw
= 553.19, Kwavg= 1400 md), The observed treatment radius of 8.2 ft and volume of 550 barrels were
consistent with the calculated treatment radius of 7.5 ft and volume of 500 barrels (well # 2, Tab. 6). The
polymer reduced the water production but it also reduced the production of oil. Further enquiry revealed
that the reservoir was water drive and the water aids in the recovery of oil. Oil and water have been flowing
together and so, reducing the water invariably reduced the oil production.
SPE-189136-MS 7

Field Case 3
This well was initially completed on two zones at intervals of 11681–11700 and 11829–11849; separated
by a shale barrier of 11ft. The well produced at 1885 bopd on bean 24/64" with THP of 1820 psi and GOR
of 1485 scf/stb. The well produced at an average rate of 1700 scf/stb while oil rate was maintained at an
average rate of 1800 bopd on bean 24/64" with a BSW of about 0.5%. Suddently, the well started producing
an increasingly disturbing GOR of 2.5–8 Rsi. Consequenly, oil rate decreased to 300 bopd until it was
closed in for high GOR in July 2004. Well was reopened in April 2005 and produced at rates declining
from 300bopd to 79bopd.
Production log taken in 2005 in the well recorded a GOC of 11697tss implying that the uppermost
perforation interval has been swept by gas. The reservoir surveillance mapping carried out in the well
to evaluate the saturation distribution also indicated an expanded gas cap. The well was therefore
recommended for GSO treatment to shut off the excessive gas production.
About 148 bbls of of gel was formulated with low molecular weight polymer that allows for penetration
into matrix pore spaces that works by entering the reservoir by reducing the permeability to gas. Polymer
foam was injected into the gas flused zone and when well was opened for production, the gas rate has
decreased to 8045 scf/stb while oil rate increased to 1120 bopd An evaluation into this case suggest that the
absolute permeability varies between 524–920 md (well #3 Tab. 4). The absolute permeability of 813 md
isolates the possibility of gas production coming from another source outside the formation. The gas shu-
off operation was adjoined to be technically and economically successful (well #3, Tab. 5). The calculated
volume of 170.11 barrels agreed with 148 barrels within +/-15% window.The success could be attributed
to excellent choice of treatment and characterization of the gas entry problem. Economically, the treatment
paid in 30.52 days.

Field Case 4
Well was completed as a single string oil producer without gas lift. SCSSSV was installed on the well and
the interval started production at an average rate of 2500 bopd on a choke of 24/64″ with a GOR of 708scf/
stb at 0% BSW. The increase in GOR to about 15,897 scf/stb let to a decrease in oil production to 1500
bopd. The well was then prepared for polymer gas shut off treatment by mobilizing coiled tubing to the site.
The polymer treatment pumped 418 bbls into the formation at a treatment penetration of 7.3 ft. When
well was opened, gas production increased to 15960 scf/stb and oil production decreased further to 1000
bopd. The gas shut-off treatment failed. Simulation runs and further diagnosis confirmed that this well has
been producing above bubble point pressure. The reservoir was undersaturated with an initial pressure of
3128 psi at a bubble point of 2897 psi. Further diagnosis including a PLT and cased hole logging indicated
that the gas production was caused by casing leak from a shallow gas reservoir penetrated by the well. This
zone was identified and a cement sqeeze operation was conducted to seal off the gas producing zone. The
operation restored production to an average of 2145 bopd with GOR of 950 scf/stb at BSW of 10%.
From our evaluation, there was a significant increase in absolute permeability to 2352md (well #4, Tab.
1). The absolute permeability in the field range from 1283 – 1675 md indicating that the source of gas
production was outside the reservoir matrix. The lesson learned from this case show that proper diagnosis
remains a key factor for any water or gas shut off application and matrix evaluation would have helped in
the pre-treatment evaluation.
Summary of Diagnostic Cases. Tab. 4 in Appendix C is a summary of water and gas shut-off evaluation
cases from well # 1 to well # 25. The absolute permeabilities were evaluated and compared with field
information.Treatment radius and volume were also evaluated for water shut-off. For gas shut-off, the
treatment volume is a function of the assumed treatment radius. Success was measured by oil rate increment,
reduction in water or gas production and the source of water or gas including the production zones. Our
investigation shows that for water or gas shut off, most failed treatments were due to poor candidate selection
8 SPE-189136-MS

and and wrong diagnosis. A few cases showed inadequate treatment volume and radius for water shut-off.
A summary of field cases is shown in table 4. Economic success is measured by the time it takes to reach
payout. The shorter the time, the better the project is worth.
Analysis of Success. The evaluated successful cases are presented in (Tab. 5). The observed and calculated
treatment radius and volumes were consistent within +/- 15% variation.The sources of water for wells #1, 6,
8, 14, 25 and gas for wells #, 3, 18 and 22 were established to be from matrix flow. From the results, polymer
water and gas shut-off treatments were effective in these cases. It was established that the production zone
for oil, water and gas plays a role. From the evaluation, it was similarly ascertained that polymers were
effective when the production of oil and water or gas were from a different zone in the same wellbore.
Where the source of water or gas production were estimated to be outside the formation matrix (casing
leak, channel, damage) for wells #5, 15, 17, 19, and 24, appropriate treatments were effective in restoring
production.
Analysis of Failure. The evaluated failed cases are presented in (Tab. 6). The sources of water for wells #
2, 9, 10 and gas for wells #20, 21 were from the reservoir matrix. From our evaluation, polymer water and
gas shut off failed in these wells because the water or gas could be contributing to the oil from the same
zone. Shutting down the gas or water, also shut down the oil. Where the production of water or gas was from
a different zone, (wells #7, 23), the cause of failed treatment could be attributed to inadequate treatment
penetration and perhaps volume. Where it was established that the source of water or gas production was
outside the formation matrix (wells #4, 11, 12, 16), either due to casing leak, damage or channeling, polymer
water or gas shut-off failed.Wells were later restored to production by doing stimulation in the case of
damage and squeeze cementing for casing leak and channeling behind pipe.

Conclusion
Polymeric Water or Gas Shut-Off treatments were evaluated in terms of post treatment oil rate, water rate,
and Gas Oil Ratio values. Post treatment values include data obtained six months after the treatment while
pre-treatment data are obtained one month before the treatment in each well. In some of the wells, no
increase in production was observed, some treatments resulted in significant oil recovery.
Though the polymeric WGSO treatments works very effectively, some field applications however, proved
to be less successful. From our evaluation, not all high water cut or high GOR producing wells are candidates
for polymer treatment. It was ascertained that polymers are only effective when the source of water or gas
production is from the reservoir matrix. However, the water or gas production must be from a different
zone, though in the same wellbore.
Treatments were ineffective where high water or gas production were believed to be outside the formation
matrix or where water or gas is being produced together with oil. In this case, the water or gas help in
contributing to oil recovery and so polymer treatment cannot shut-off water or gas without reducing oil
production. It was also observed that WGSO were unsuccessful were the radius and volume of the polymer
were inadequate. The limited success of some of these treatments may not be due to product failure but to
poor candidate selection and perhaps inadequate treatment penetration.Unless proper diagnosis is exercised
in choosing wells to be treated, treatment could result to failure. Therefore, proper candidate selection and
treatment design is an important pre- treatment step.
An economic success was not clearly defined and depended upon who made the evaluation. Poor
evaluation wasted money and resulted in missed opportunities. It was therefore necessary to use an economic
yardstick to evaluate these treatments.The economic yardstick predicts payout as a function of treatment
cost, oil rate, crude oil price and royalty. Economic success is achieved when the treatment reaches payout
within a short period. This provides insight into which wells are good candidates for polymeric WGSO
treatments.
SPE-189136-MS 9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to the management of the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) and Emerald
Energy Institute, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria for the permission to publish this paper.

NOMENCLATURE
$ =dollar
△Qo = Incremental oil rate, bbl/day
µo = viscosity of oil, cp
µw = viscosity of water, cp
Bo = oil formation volume factor, rb/stb
Bw = water formation volume factor, rb/stb
Ct = treatment cost, $
D = well depth, ft
ft = foot/feet
Fw = water cut, %
Gain = Gain in oil production, bopd
GOC = Gas oil contact
GOR = Gas oil Ratio
Gross = Total production of oil and water, bpd
H = formation height, fr
hr = hour
Kabs = absolute permeability, md
Kdw = desired average permeability, md
Ko = effective permeability to oil, md
Kro = relative permeability to oil, md
Krw = relative permeability to water, md
Kt = permeability of treated region, md
Kw = effective permeability to water, md
Kwavg = average water permeability, md
m = metre
P = oil price, $/bbl,
Qg = gas rate, scf/day
Qo = oil rate, bbl/day
Qw = water rate, bbl/day
R = Instantaneous producing gas oil ratio, Scf/Stb
Ro = Royalty fraction
Rs = Solution gas oil ratio, Scf/Stb
rt = treatment penetration, ft
rw = wellbore radius
Sg = gas saturation
Sgc = critical gas saturation
Sm =mobile saturation
Snwt Non wetting phase saturation
So = oil saturation
Sw = water saturation, fraction
Swc, Swi = connate water saturation, fraction
T = time, days
10 SPE-189136-MS

Tp = payout time, days

US = United States
Vt = treatment volume, barrels
WOR = Water oil ratio, dimensionles
Δp = drawdown, psi
ε = error term.
Ф = porosity, fraction
α, β, ɣ, ϕ, ʎ = Parameters from multiple regression.

References
Bailey, B., Crabtree, M. Tyrie, John, E., Fikri, K., Christian, R., and Leo, R., (2000): Water Control Oilfield Review, 12
(1): 30–35
Carico, R. D., and Bagshaw, F. R., (1978): "Description and use of polymers in drilling, workover and completions," SPE
Paper No. 7747 presented at the SPE production technology symposium, Hobbs, Nm, Oct. 30–31.
Chatterji, J. and Borchardt, J. K., (1980): "Application of water soluble polymers in the oil field" SPE Paper No. 9288
presented at the SPE 55th Annual Technical Conference Exhibition held in Dallas, Sept. 21–24.
Chukwueke, V. O., Bouts, M. N., and Dijkum, V. (1998) "Gas Foam Treatments", SPE Paper No. 39650 presented at the
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Oklahoma April 19–22.
Dahl, J. A., Dalrymple, E. D., Nguyen, P. D., and Rahimi, A. B., (1992): "Current water control treatment design," SEP
Paper No. 25029 presented at the European petroleum conference, Cannes, France, N-10.v. 16–18
Dake, L. P., (2008): Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier, the Netherlands, Vol. 8, pg. 141–142
El-Karsani, K. S. M., Ai-Muntasheri, G. A., and Hussein, I. A., (2014) : "Polymer System for Water Shutoff and Profile
Modification; A Review over the last Decade", JPT, Feb.
Houwelingen, J. V., (1999): "Chemical Gas Shut-Off Ttreatment in Brunei", SPE Paper No. 57268 presented at the Asis
Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala, Lumpur, Malaysia Oct.25–26.
Ikoku, C. U., (1985): Economic Analysis and Investment Decisions, John Wiley and Sons, New York, Chap. 6 pg. 145–163.
Jimmie, D. W., Ronney. R. K., Hugh, J. A., and Stanley, H. S., (1979): "A theoretical design procedure and field results for
a water oil ratio control agent," SPE Paper No. 8408 presented at the 54th annual technical conference and exhibition,
Las Vegas, Sept. 23–26.
Joseph, A. and Ajienka, J. A., (2010): "A Review of Water Shut off Treatment Strategies in Oil Field", SPE Paper No.
136969 presented at the SPE Annual International Conference and Exhibition, Calabar, 31 July-August 7
Kabir, A. H., Bakar, M. A., Salim, M. A., Othman, M., and Yunos, A., (1999): "Water/Gas Shut-Off Candidate Selection",
SPE Paper no. 54357 Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia,
April, 20–22
Llamedo, M. A., Mejias, C., Gonzalez, C., Espinoza, R., Valero, E. M., and Calis, N., (2005) : "Successful Gas Shutoff with
Gel: Evaluation and Implementation, Northeast Venezuela, SPE Paper No. 96696 presented at the Offshore Europe,
Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, Sept. 6–9.
McLaughlin, H. C., (1970): "Method of placement of polymer solution in primary production and secondary recovery
wells," U.S. patents 3,490,533, Jan 20.
Meltzer, Y. L., (1972): Water soluble polymers: Technology and applications, Chemical process review No.64, Noyes data
Corp., Park Ridge, NJ 17–19.
Mian, M. A., (2011): "Project Economics and Decision Analysis", PennWell Publishers, Vol.1 chap.6, pg. 301–373.
Novotny, R.J., (1995): "Matrix flow evaluation technique for water control applications," SPE Paper No. 0030094
presented at the European formation damage conference held in the Hague, the Netherlands, may 15–16.
Prabuddha, J., Sharma, V., Raju, A. V. and Patra, S. K., (2000): "Polymer Gel Sqeeze for Gas Shutoff and Injection Profile
Improvement in Bombay High Pilot Wells", SPE Paper No. 64437 presented at the SPE Asis Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference, Brisbane, Australia, Oct.16–18.
Schneider, F. N., and Owen, W.W., (1982): "Steady state measurement of relative permeability for polymer oil-system,"
JPT, Feb. 79–86
Seba, R. D., (2008): "Economics of Worldwide Petroleum Production", OGCI and Petroskills Publications, Chap. 10, pg
149–194
Smith, C. R., Tracy, G. W., and Farrar, R. L., (2012): "Applied Reservoir Engineering", OGCI and Petroskill Publications,
Chap. 2, Pg. 1–57
Szabo, M. T., (1979): "An evaluation of water-soluble polymers for secondary oil recovery-part 1," JPT May 553–560
SPE-189136-MS 11

Zaitoun, A. and Kohler, N., (1988): "Two-phase flow through porous media: Effect of an adsorbed polymer layer," SPE
Paper No.18085 presented at the SPE technical conference and exhibition, Houston, Oct. 2–5
Zaitoun, A., Rahbari, R., and Kohler, N., (1991): "Thin polyacrylamide gels for water control in high permeability
production wells." SPE Paper presented at the 66th annual technical conference and exhibition, Dallas, Texas, Oct.6–9.
Zang, J., Li, X., Chen, Z., Huang, L., Li, Y., and Telphi, Y., (2015): "An Analytical Model of Foam Resistance Factor in
Gas Foam Flooding", SPE Paper No. 178339 presented at the SPE Annual International Conference and Exhibition,
Lagos, August 4–6
12 SPE-189136-MS

APPENDIX A
Program for Absolute Permeability Determination Used for Matrix flow Evaluation
SPE-189136-MS 13

Appendix B
Estimated Economic Modelling Result
Table 1

Table 2—Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test

14 SPE-189136-MS

Table 3—Heteroskedasticity Test: Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey

Figure 1—Normality Distribution Test

SPE-189136-MS 15

Figure 2—Model Stability

Figure 3—Observed and Predicted Payout

16 SPE-189136-MS

Appendix C
List of Tables
Table 4—Selected Water and Gas Shut-Off Case Histories

Table 5—Analysis of Success

Table 6—Analysis of Failure