SPE 93060
Two Different Water Shutoff Applications in a Poorly Consolidated Sandstone
Reservoir With Strong Waterdrive
M. Prado, PDVSA Intevep; J. Palencia, PDVSA E&P; and M. Reyna, I. Fernández, J. Espinoza, and O. Rauseo, PDVSA Intevep
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2 – 4 February 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subjected
to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineer, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subjected to publication reviewed 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal 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
This paper describes the design, operation and results of
two different water shut-off applications in a field located in
Southern Venezuela. The production mechanism of the main
reservoirs of the studied field is strong water drive. The
presence of the active aquifer, the geological complexity and
the high drawdown produced by the electric submersible
pumps, it has abruptly increased the water-oil ratio causing
premature shutting.
The limitations of the traditional water shut-off applications in
this field are the slotted liners gravel pack completion of the
wells, the high formation permeability and the presence of
caverns in the near wellbore due to sand production. A project
was proposed to evaluate the gel technology, including the
diagnosis of the high water production source and the design
of applications to overcome these limitations.
Two mayor causes were detected, water channeling through
high permeability strakes at the top of the reservoir where thin
shale barriers are present; and rapid coning at the base, where
the sand has a higher vertical permeability and the water-oil
contact is present.
According to this, two different applications were designed
and successfully evaluated in three wells of the field, two of
them correctives and the other preventive. Relevant aspects of
the design are the use of an elastic gel system of high
consistency with easily controlled gelling times; and the use of
placement techniques to guarantee the seal of offensive zones
and the protection of the productive ones. In the corrective
treatments the gelant was injected using mechanical isolation
and the total volume was pumped in two batches, while dual
injection was carried out in the preventive application. A
reduction of 3000 barrels per day of water production was
obtained, as well as a substantial increase in the productive life
of the three wells.
Introduction
The main recovery mechanism of the reservoirs located in
Southern Venezuela is strong waterdrive from radial infinite
aquifers, which have maintained the pressure near the initial
values supporting a very high productivity over the past
twenty years.
However, the high drawdown and production rates obtained
with the use of electric submersible pumps (ESP) as lifting
method, have caused a substantial increase in water production
reaching a present water-oil ratio of 10. This situation is
affecting the profitability of the field due to the constant
decrease in oil production and premature well shutting.
Past experiences with conventional water control techniques,
like squeeze cementing and mechanical isolation with bridges
or cement plugs, have not been successful in reducing the
water production for a long period of time. The reasons
associated with these short-time results are:
High vertical permeability.
Poor rock consolidation and possible cavern presence in
the wellbore, increasing the vertical communication
between layers.
Non or limited penetration in the reservoir of the
materials used for water control.
Gel technology has been used the past decades as a method to
reduce water production because of its capacity to penetrate
deep into the formation, reducing permeability and creating a
seal in the wellbore.
Key factors to guarantee success on this type of water shutoff
treatments are a good diagnostic of the cause of water
production and a correct design of the gel system, volume and
placing tecnique1-2.
Three years ago a project was initiated to evaluate gel
technology as a method to control the water production in this
field. This paper describes the methodology used to identify
the causes of the rapid water breakthrough and to design gel
treatments to efficiently correct and prevent water production
under reservoir characteristic and well completion. Operation
execution of three treatments and results of two of them, are
also shown.
Reservoir Description
The reservoir under study is characterized for a medium
crude oil of 28°API in undersaturated state. It is located at a
depth of 6900 ft and consists of a fulted anticline dipping
toward northeast with a 3° angle. This sandstone reservoir has
excellent petrophysical properties with an average porosity of
25% and permeability ranging between 500 and 3000 mD.
2 SPE 93060
The grains of the rock are poorly consolidated, which causes
sand production problems and made necessary to use inside
gravel-pack well completions.
The reservoir has been on production since 1984 and after two
decades, the pressure has decreased only 150 psi, thanks to the
action of a strong waterdrive recovery mechanism. The current
reservoir pressure is around 2950 psi and the temperature is
190 °F. The high water cuts and productivity index of the
wells, motivated in 1994 the implementation of ESP system as
lifting method in the field3. Since then, the water-oil ratio has
increased from 1 to 10 having a current oil production of
16000 BPD through 58 active wells.
Problem Identification
The first step of the analysis was to identify if the increase
in water production was actually affecting the oil recovery.
Bailey et al.4 proposed a plotting method to evaluate if the
water is contributing to oil production or otherwise, it is
affecting it. Figs. 1 and 2 show the recovery and production
history plots of the reservoir.
The recovery plot shows that if the water oil ratio keeps the
current behavior, it won’t be possible to extract all the
expected reserves. Likewise, the production history plot shows
a simultaneous increase in water production rate and a
decreased in oil production rate in the last 5 years. Both results
indicate that water production is excessive and is affecting oil
recovery, therefore, it is necessary to implement water shutoff
techniques.
Once the excess water production was identified, the second
step was to make a review of sedimentological information
and petrophysical properties of the reservoir in order to try to
distinguish the mechanisms that could be causing it.
Sedimentological information and petrophysical
properties. The formation consists mainly of fluvial-deltaic
deposits with tidal influence in a marine transgression system.
Specifically, the reservoir sandstone was deposited in a low
energy environment with predominance of stages of backward
movement of the deltaic front and the subsequent advance of
the sea5.
A typical gamma ray - resistivity log is shown in Fig. 3. The
sedimentary tendency is decreasing grain size upward, with
massive sandstone bodies at the base (a) whose thickness
reduces substantially through the top because of the increase
in fines content and the presence of shale layers (b).
The resistivity curve shows a clear water-oil contact at the
base of the reservoir and the petrophysical evaluation indicates
an homogeneous horizontal permeability around 700 mD,
which allows the water moves up uniformly.
At the top of the reservoir the curve indicates a resistivity
reduction due to lenticularity, increase in clay content, and
presence of sand layers highly water saturated. The
petrophysical evaluation shows a strong variability in
permeability values with depth and the presence of thin sand
layers with permeability values of up to 2 Darcys.
Stratigraphic correlations made between neighbor wells show
lateral changes in the thickness of shale layers, which means
they do not necessarily suppose regional barriers.
According to this description, a mixed problem of coning at
the base of the reservoir and channeling through high
permeability strakes at the top was suspected. To confirm this
hypothesis, a more detailed analysis of affected wells was
required. Next step consisted on a review of wells completion,
log data and production behavior.
Well completion. Most of the wells are completed across all
reservoir section in several intervals, however, for the next
stage wells completed only at the top or at the base were
analyzed.
Log data. The amount of log data available is limited because
wells are not provided with downhole tools to run production
logs. For this reason only cement evaluation logs were
analyzed. It was found that only a 20% of affected wells
presented bad quality cement and therefore, a likely problem
of flow behind pipe.
Production behavior. There is not a direct way to establish
the type of problem of a well just with the production
behavior, however the methodical integration of several
production and reservoir parameters allows a reliable
diagnostic.
It was found that wells completed at the top of the reservoir
across a lenticular section with a high permeability sand layer
and good cement, showed a rapid water breakthrough and an
abrupt increase in water-oil ratio. Fig 4 shows an example of
this case. This type of behavior has been described as a
channeling problem4.
On the other hand, wells completed at the base of the reservoir
in homogeneous sand with or near the water-oil contact
showed a short initial period of clean production followed by a
rapid increase in water-oil ratio. Reduction of water
production is only temporary after shutting of the well or after
a cement squeeze and reperforating job. Fig 5 shows an
example of this case. This type of problem has been described
as a coning problem4.
In conclusion, two mayor causes of excess water production
were detected. Water channeling through high permeability
strakes at the top of the reservoir where thin shale barriers are
present; and coning at the base, where the sand has a more
homogeneous permeability and the water-oil contact is
present.
Recommended Water Shutoff Applications
According to the identified problems, two different water
shutoff applications were designed.
For those wells with high permeability streaks causing excess
water production, a corrective gel treatment consisting of
isolating the high permeability zones while protecting the low
permeability ones, was recommended.
On the other hand, in those wells where coning is the cause of
the problem, the idea of a corrective treatment was refused.
Although some successful experiences had been reported6,
many authors2,4,7 agree that there is a very low probability of
success when applied gel treatments to correct coning
problems. The risk of damaging oil productive zones due to
vertical communication, and the large volume of gelant
needed to obtain a significant reduction in water production,
are among the causes of this. For these reasons, a preventive
technique similar to the one proposed by Smith and Pirson8,
SPE 93060
was recommended. This application consist of creating a “disk
of gel” of deep penetration around the wellbore between the
water-oil contact and the producing interval, with the purpose
of retarding the coning processes and extending the productive
life of the well.
Candidate Selection
Once the causes of excess water production were identified
and water shutoff applications were recommended, the
selection of potential candidates was performed. The main
parameters used were related to production, reserves and
mechanical conditions.
Production. Active wells with a water-oil ratio higher than 4
and a productivity index higher than 1 BPD/psi were
considered potential candidates for corrective treatments. On
the other hand, inactive wells or active from other depleted
horizons with oil rate lower than 150 BPD, were selected for
the preventive treatments.
Reserves. For both applications, wells with a high volume of
remaining reserves were selected. Wells located at the top of
the structure were considered higher potential candidates. For
the coning prevention case, a carbon-oxygen log was
recommended before the treatment to guarantee the presence
of oil and to locate the current water-oil contact.
Mechanical condition. For both cases, isolation behind the
casing between offensive and productive zones was
considered a vital aspect for the candidate selection.
Treatment Design
Gel System. Selection of the gelling system was based on the
following aspects:
• High gel consistency. Because of the high formation
permeability, the poor rock consolidation and the possible
presence of caverns, a system capable of develop high
consistency at reservoir temperature during a long period
of time was needed.
• Controllable gelling times. Each application has a
different objective and to accomplish it, a different gelant
volume is required. For this reason, a system with gelling
times easily adjustable was needed.
• Low cost. The purpose of the project was to evaluate a
technology with the aim of extend its use to other
candidate wells in the field. For this, a low cost product
was convenient specially in those applications that
required a high gel volume.
According to this, a gelling system compound by a thermally
stable polymer and organic crosslinkers designed in PDVSA
Intevep9 was selected. The evaluation process consisted of two
steps. The first step was to evaluate the consistency and
gelling times of different formulations outside the porous
medium by bottle tests at the reservoir temperature. Table 1
shows the properties of the selected formulation for each
application.
As notice, for both applications the formulation selected
present a consistency of J-K according to the scale proposed
by Kakadjian et al10. Also, a gel with longer initial and final
gelling times was selected for the coning prevention
application.
3
The next step was to measure the blocking capacity of the gel
system by a displacement test at reservoir temperature
condition using a real core sample. The test results are shown
in Fig. 6. In spite of the high consistency, the water residual
resistance factor was between 250 y 270, and the average final
water permeability was 2 mD. These results were related to
the high core absolute permeability (7615 mD).
Additionally, it was noticed that the gel system showed a DPR
effect (Disproportionate Permeability Reduction), a typical
property of polymeric gel systems. The oil residual resistance
factor vary between 65 and 70, with an average final oil
permeability of 50 mD. This result was not surprising because
previous studies11 have found that water based gels in water
wet cores show a most important disproportionate
permeability reduction in high permeability cores.
Although the results showed that the reduction in water
permeability is very significant, the gel system is not
completely sealant to water due the high formation
permeability. On the other hand, the DPR effect was
considered a convenient property because of the risk of
vertical communication and consequently, invasion of oil
productive zones during the operations.
Volume. Determination of gelant volume needed for each
water shutoff application was done using the following
equation:
Vg = 0.56 rp2 hpφ…………..(1)
Where, Vg is the gelant volume (Bls), rp is the radius of
penetration into the formation (ft), hp is the perforated
thickness (ft), and φ is the porosity (fraction). Water saturation
was assumed equal to 1.
The radius of penetration into the formation was selected
according to the type of problem and water shutoff
application.
Channeling Correction. Literature7 and previous
experiences indicate that a 5 to 10 ft radius of penetration
would be enough to plug a water channel if effective barriers
to crossflow are present. However, the local character of the
shale barriers, the high permeability formation and the
obtained result of the porous medium evaluation indicated that
a deeper penetration radius should be used. As a first trial, a
radius of 25 ft was selected to minimize the risk of partial
blocking. However, it was decided that post-treatment
production behavior evaluated by swabbing, would determine
if an extra gel volume would be needed.
Coning Prevention. The effectiveness of this type of
treatment is directly related to gel volume, therefore, a deeper
radius of penetration guarantee longer results. However, this
necessarily means higher treatment costs. Thus, the bigger
allowable radius was selected. According to the studies
performed by Meyer and Gardner12, a 40 ft radius of
penetration allows to increase the critical coning rate by a
factor of 3. Considering the critical rate value for the field
about 150 BPD, the 40 ft radius of penetration was considered
attractive and therefore, recommended for this application.
Placement Technique. Analytical studies supported by many
field experiences establish that in the absence of fractures or
other types of linear flow, it is strictly necessary to protect oil
4 SPE 93060
productive zones during gel treatments, even so when the
system shows DPR effect13.
Based on previous statement, it was decided to remove the
ESP equipment and the inside gravel pack before treatment,
since otherwise, it would have made impossible to protect
productive zones during the gelant injection. Next step was to
select the appropriate isolation technique for each application..
Channeling Correction. Most of the wells presenting
channeling through high permeability streak were completed
in one perforated interval all along the top of the reservoir, or
in several intervals very close to each other. Under this
circumstances it was not possible to isolate mechanically by
using conventional elements like packers, or bridge plugs. For
this reason, a squeeze cementing job followed by the
reperforation of the offensive zone, was needed to guarantee
no gelant penetration into the productive zone. Once the gelant
had been injected and final gelling time had passed, the
productive interval could be reperforated and open to
production.
Coning Prevention. Coning occurs due to high vertical
permeability, that allows movement of the water up to the
perforations. The use of mechanical isolation under this
condition is limited by the absence of natural barriers to
vertical flow that prevent invasion of the oil productive zones
by the gelant. To effectively protect productive zone and to
reach the desired radius of penetration, the dual injection
technique was recommended for this application.
Dual injection tecnique14-15 consist on a simultaneous pumping
of gelant into the offensive zone through a tubing or coiled
tubing, and a protective fluid into the oil productive zone
through the annular space, at the same injection pressure.
Results
Three water shutoff applications, two of them correctives
(W-143 and W-60) and another preventive (W-93) had been
carried out since year 2001. Table 2 shows the main
characteristics and results of each application.
W-143. The first treatment for high permeability strake
correction was carried out in well W-143. This well produced
170 BOPD and 2710 BWPD due to a water channeling
through a sand layer of 6 ft and a permeability of 1600 mD at
the lower part of the perforated interval, locally separated
from the producing zone by a 4 ft shale barrier. Initially, a
gelant volume of 600 Bls equivalent to 25 ft radius of
penetration was pumped only to the offensive zone. As agreed,
the producing zone was previously cemented for protection.
Tubing head pressure (THP) during pumping was 200 psi at 2
BPM. A gelant volume of 2 Bls was left at the bottomhole to
guarantee full invasion at sand face. After the treatment, no
gel was found in the bottomhole and an evaluation by
swabbing, allowed to estimate a production of 500 BWPD.
For those reasons, an extra volume of 300 Bls of gelant was
pumped reaching a maximum THP of 1400 psi at 0.9 BPM.
The strong injectivity reduction during the second injection
was attributed to the gelant penetration in minor permeability
channels in the sand that were not filled during the first
injection. Once the production zone was reperforated, the well
was reopened with ESP system. After a long washout period,
the water production stabilizes in 50 BWPD and the oil
production increased to 450 BOPD.
W-60. In this well an excess water production problem by
channeling through a high permeability strake at the bottom of
the perforations was also identified. The well completion was
similar to well W-143 and therefore, the same operational
procedure previous to gel injection was carried out. To
optimize well intervention time, a consecutive two batches gel
injection was performed in this well to achieve a full invasion
in one treatment. A first batch of 200 Bls of gelant was
injected at 1 BPD and a THP of 700 psi. Once initial gelling
time took place, a second batch of 150 Bls was injected at the
same rate and a THP of 1100 psi. As in well W-143, 2 Bls of
gelant were left in front of perforations, but no gel was found
after the treatment due to a reduction in fluid level in the well.
For this reason, a third batch of 50 Bls of gelant was injected
to assured presence of gel at the sand face. The THP reached
2000 psi at 0.7 BPM. Several operational problems after the
treatment delayed the evaluation process. After the upper
interval was reperforated and stimulated for fines blockage, a
stable production of 420 BOPD and 300 BWPD was observed.
W-93. This well was producing from the top of the reservoir
125 BOPD and 1730 BWPD and after 7 years of production
the well had accumulated 2.5 MMBls of oil. However, at the
base of the reservoir, the well showed a massive sand of 1500
mD average permeability with an oil thickness of 38 ft.
Remaining oil reserves in this sand were calculated in 900
Mbls, since coning had affected recovery from nearby wells.
According to this, the well was selected as a candidate for a
preventive water shutoff application. Prior to the gel
treatment, a carbon-oxygen log was run showing no changes
in water-oil contact depth, therefore the current producing
interval was cemented and both gel and productive intervals,
were perforated. Figure 7 shows the perforated intervals and
mechanical configuration during the treatment.
Coiled tubing facilities were not available, so the injection was
done using a cement retainer and a 3½ in OD tubing. After
carring out compatibility tests, gasoil was recommended as
protective fluid. No downhole pressure gauges were available,
so a previous simultaneous injectivity test was performed to
adjust the injection rate for each fluid to guarantee the same
injection pressure. As an extra safety measure, the injection of
the protective fluid was initiated before the gelant. A volume
of 1000 Bls of gelant was injected through tubing at 1.3 BPM
and a THP of 1000 psi, while gasoil was injected through
casing-tubing annular space at 2.4 BPM and a THP of 1480
psi. This treatment was performed recently and at the time of
writing this paper the evaluation process is still in progress,
however, first production test show no water production for
this well.
Conclusions
1. The integrated analysis of reservoir geologic
characteristics, well production behavior, completion and
log information, allowed to diagnostic a mixed problem
of channeling through high permeability strakes and
coning, as the main causes of excess water production.
2. A corrective treatment for channeling and a preventive
treatment for coning were specially designed to reservoir
conditions and well completion type.
SPE 93060 5

3. The design consisted in the use of a high consistency not 8. Smith, C.R. and Pirson, S.J.: “Water Coning Control in Oil Wells
completely sealing gel system, a deep radius of gel by Fluid Injection”. Soc. Pet. Engr. Jour. (Dec. 1963).
penetration and placement techniques that guaranteed the 9. Hernández, M.I. et al.: “Gel System Design, Formulation and
isolation of productive zones during the treatment. Evaluation for Water Control in Venezuelan Wells”, presented at
the 4th International Conference on Reservoir Conformance,
4. A reduction of more than 3000 BWPD and an increase of Profile Control, Water and Gas Shutoff held in Houston, Texas,
625 BOPD could be accomplish in two channeling 10-12 August 1998.
correction application. A consecutive two batches gel 10. Kakadjian, S., Rauseo, O. and Mejías, F.: “Dynamic Rheology as
injection technique allowed reducing intervention time. a Method to Quantify Gel Strength of Water Shutoff Systems”,
5. Additional evaluation work is needed to establish the paper SPE 50751 presented at the International Symposium on
benefits of the preventive coning application in extending Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas, 16-19 Feb. 1999.
productive life of wells active at the base of the reservoir. 11. Liang, J., Seright, R.S.: “Wall-Effect/Gel-Droplet Model of
Disproportionate Permeability Reduction”, paper SPE 59344
Acknowledgements presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium
held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 3-5 April 2000.
We would like to thank PDVSA-Intevep and PDVSA Petróleo 12. Meyer, H., Gardner, A.: “Mechanics of Two Inmiscible Fluids in
División Centro Sur, for allowing us to prepare and present Porous Media”, Journal of Applied Physics, 25 (Nov. 1954)
this paper. We also thank personnel from the Departments of 1400-1406.
Desarrollo de Yacimientos and Perforación of Apure 13. Liang, J., Lee, R.L., Seright, R.S.: “Placement of Gels in
Exploitation Unit for assistance during the development of the Production Wells”. SPEPF (Nov. 1993) 276-284; Trans. AIME
project. 295.
14. Miller, M.J., Chan, K.S.: “Water and Gas Control Gel
Nomenclature Placement”, paper SPE 38325 presented at the SPE Western
DPR = Disproportionate permeability reduction Regional Meeting held in Long Beach, California, 25-27 June
1997.
ESP = Electric submersible pump 15. Plahn, S.V. et al.: “A Novel Dual Injection System for Water
φ = Effective porosity, adim Shut-Off Treatments”, paper SPE 38194 presented at the SPE
hp = Thickness of perforated interval, ft [m] European Formation Damage Conference held in The Hague, The
Vg = Gelant volume, Bls [m3] Netherlands, 2-3 June 1997.
OD = Outer Diameter, in [m]
rp = Gel radius of penetration, ft [m]
THP = Tubing head pressure, psi [kPa] Metric Conversion Factors
bbl x 1.589873 E-01 = m3
References cp x 1.0 E-03 = Pa.s
1. Seright, R.S., Liang, J.: “A Survey of Field Applications of Gel ft x 3.048 E-01 = m
Treatments for Water Shutoff”, paper SPE 26991 presented at the in x 2.54 E+00 = cm
III Latin American/Caribbean held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, md x 9.869233 E-04 = µm2
27-29 April 1994. psi x 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
2. Sydansk, R.D., Southell, G.P.: “More Than 12 Years of
Experience with a Successful Conformance-Control Polymer Gel
Technology”, paper SPE 49315 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30
September 1998. Table 1. Gel properties of used formulations.
3. Torres, G.: “Utilization of Submersible Pump Systems in Channeling Coning
Southwestern Venezuela”, paper SPE presented a the Production Application
Correction Prevention
Operation Symposium held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 7-9
April 1991. Initial gelling time (h) 13 17
4. Bailey et al.: “Water Control”, Oilfield Review 12 (Spring 2000) Final gelling time (h) 19 96
30-51. Final consistency K J
5. Maldonado, R. et al.: “Fase II: Descripción Detallada de los
Yacimientos G-9 y G-10 del Área Guafita Norte, Edo. Apure”.
PDVSA INTEVEP Internal Report IT-5737,98. (1998).
6. Hunter, S. et al.: “Successful Application of Water-Conformance
Technology: A Case Study from East Kalimantan, Indonesia”,
paper SPE 54352 presented SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 20.22 April
1999.
7. Seright, R.S., Lane, R.H. and Sydansk, R.D.: “A Strategy for
Attacking Excess Water Production”, paper SPE 70067 presented
at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference held
in Midland, Texas, 15-16 May 2001.
6 SPE 93060

Table 2. Main characteristics and results of each applications.

Well W-143 W-60 W-93
Channeling Channeling Coning
Application
Correction Correction Prevention
Designed radius of
25 25 40
penetration, ft
Design gel volume, Bls 600 350 1000
Pumped gel volume, Bls 900 400 1000
Number of batches 2 3 1
Mechanical Mechanical Dual
Placement Technique
Isolation Isolation Injection
BOPD (before treatment) 170 175 125

BWPD (before treatment) 2710 1050 1730

WOR (before treatment) 16 6 13.8

BOPD (after treatment) 450 420 ---
BWPD (after treatment) 50 300 ---
WOR (after treatment) 0.11 0.7 ---
Increase BOPD 280 345 ---
Reduction BWPD 2660 750 ---

50
Reservoir extrapolated

40
Reservoir expected
production

30 LLS
recovery
WOR

0.2 (ohm m) 2000

GR
MD LLD
20 0 (API) 200 1:200
0.2 (ohm m) 2000
ft
10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cumulative O il Production (MMBls)

Fig. 1 Reservoir recovery plot.

b

1000
a
100
Water
MBPD

Oil
10

1
Fig. 3 An example of a gamma ray – resistivity log for the
0,1 studied field.
10 100 1000 10000

Production Time (days)

Fig. 2 Reservoir production history plot.

SPE 93060 7

400 20
LLS
0.2 (ohm m) 20 00
GR
MD LLD
0 (API) 20 0 1:200
0.2 (ohm m) 20 00
ft
300 15

200 10

100 Oil Rate 5

WOR
0 0
0 100 200 300 400
P roduction time (days)

Fig. 4 Electrical log and production behavior of a well with a problem of

channelling through high permeability strake.

LLS

GR MD
0.2 (ohm m)
LLD
2000 3600 12
0 (API) 200 1:2 00
0.2 (ohm m) 2000
ft
3000 10
2400 8
1800 6
1200 Oil Rate 4
600 WOR 2
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Production time (days)

Fig. 5 Electrical log and production behavior of a well with coning problem.

3½ in OD
Tubing
300

200 GASOIL
RRF

Water
Oil
100
Cement
Retainer
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 GELANT

Q (cc/min)

Fig. 6 Blocking capacity of the selected gelling

system at reservoir conditions.

Fig. 7 Mechanical configuration of dual injection application

in well W-93.