SPE 84897

Field Application of a New In-Depth Waterflood Conformance Improvement Tool

James Pritchett, SPE, PT Caltex Pacific Indonesia; Harry Frampton, SPE, BP Exploration and Production Technology
Group; Joe Brinkman, SPE, ChevronTexaco; Steve Cheung, SPE, ChevronTexaco; Jim Morgan, * SPE, BP Exploration
and Production Technology Group; K. T. Chang, SPE, Ondeo Nalco Energy Services; Dennis Williams, SPE, Ondeo
Nalco Energy Services; James Goodgame, ** SPE, ChevronTexaco

Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–21 October 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
An Industry Consortium (BP, ChevronTexaco and Ondeo
Nalco Energy Services) conducted a multi-company research
project known as Bright Water. The goal of this project was
to develop a time-delayed, highly expandable material that
would improve the sweep efficiency of a water flood.
In November 2001, the first of these water flood profile
modification treatments was pumped in the Minas field. The
Minas Field, located on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia,
has an OOIP of 8.7 billion barrels, is at nearly 50% recovery,
and has water-cuts greater than 97%. Reservoir thief zones
have been identified throughout the main reservoir layers.
The main objective for pumping a profile modification
material is usually to divert injected water out of thief zones
and into zones with higher oil saturation, though areal sweep
improvement can also be expected.
The profile modification treatment of 42,000 barrels
water containing 4500 ppm of active material was pumped
into Minas injector 7E-12 (“A1” sand). The objective of the
field trial was to verify that significant volumes of this low
cost material could be pumped deep into the reservoir at low
viscosity, and then expand after a pre-designed time interval.
Injection tracer studies were conducted pre- and post-
treatment to aid in determining changes to the injection sweep
efficiency. A bottom hole pressure fall off test was also used
to measure post – job permeability.
The trial demonstrated that large volumes of the
material can be pumped into the formation without raising the
injection pressure or blocking the injection well bore, can
propagate in the rock pore system, and then will expand at a
pre-designed time. Changes in oil production after the trial
* Now with Jimtech Limited.
** Now retired.
will be discussed along with the field data acquired during and
after the trial.
As part of the continued development of this material, a
second trial commenced in late November 2002 on a North
Sea (UK) production platform. The treatment was
successfully placed in mid December, 2002.
Introduction
This paper presents a case history in which a novel profile
modification treatment was pumped in the Minas waterflood.
Of all the problems that can beset oil wells, unwanted water
production is one of the most troublesome, yet water flooding
to improve the recovery of oil is the most common secondary
recovery process used in the modern oil industry. Water
production causes many problems such as corrosion, scaling,
cost of oil water treatment and cost of disposal.
In water injection projects excess water production is
often linked to poor sweep efficiency, which renders
significant amounts of oil irrecoverable during the economic
life of a field. Poor sweep efficiency can be the result of
zones with unfavorable permeability in heterogeneous
reservoirs or unfavorable mobility ratio within homogeneous
rock. Specifically water can break through from the water
injection to the oil production wells in the most permeable
zones while significant oil is left in the reservoir (Fig. 1) or it
can pass through low mobility oil by a process of
viscous fingering.1
Figure 1: Thief zone in an oil reservoir
The problem can be even more severe when bottom
water zones with high water saturation and therefore
variations in relative permeability exist. 2,3
Polymer flooding was proposed as a means of
correcting the sweep in a reservoir in the early 1960’s.4 This
2 SPE 84897
works well in reservoirs with excess injectivity and low
salinity where the polymer can be injected at significant rates
with relatively high viscosity, typically 10 cP at about 7 sec-1.
Problems exist that render it a less attractive option in most
reservoirs. Polymer solutions are typically shear thinning, and
the point of injection is normally the highest shear rate
environment. The shear rate falls rapidly as the solution enters
the reservoir. The viscosity of the injected polymer solution
increases as the shear rate falls and a viscous bank is formed
around the injection well. This reduces the injection rate
achievable. The majority of water floods operate with
minimum excess injection capacity, and reduction of
injectivity can mean that new injection wells need to be drilled
to allow polymer flooding. This is often an undesirable
prospect. A further limit is imposed on the injection rate by
the shear instability of some polymers. If the shear rate during
injection is too high, it can break the molecules apart and
significantly decrease the cost effectiveness of the process.
Near wellbore treatments have been used in attempts to
correct waterflood sweep profile. However, in general, the
depth of penetration, is typically no more than 15 feet (5
meters), and is too small to exert a controlling influence on
reservoir flow unless extensive barriers to fluid movement
exist orthogonal to the well. Even if vertical conformance is
corrected, areal conformance problems can still be significant.
Alternating slug treatments using synthetic polymers
cross-linked with aluminium ions supplied as Aluminium
Citrate were proposed by Pye as a means of treating injection
profile control problems.5 These were widely used in the
field, and with some variations have achieved a degree of
success.6 The viscous polymer slugs tended to divert the
crosslinker into different zones, so it may be hard to get them
to mix and the degree of mixing caused in the reservoir is not
controllable. Additionally, there are problems in propagating
aluminium ions (as a citrate complex) deep into a reservoir
rock. Loss of aluminium to the rock matrix by adsorption or
precipitation often occurs which means that large quantities of
aluminium can be required to establish in – depth treatment.7,8
Deep Diverting Gels (DDG) have been proposed as a
means of achieving placement of a cross-linked polymer slug
deep within the reservoir.9 An AcrylamideAcrylate polymer
was mixed with Aluminium Citrate under controlled
conditions. Association between the polymer and aluminium
ions took place, but a gel was not formed for a considerable
time. A field trial of the process showed that the injection
profile was modified as expected but the improvement was
premature and did not last for long. Loss of the aluminium to
the porous medium was believed to be the major limiting
factor. The permeability modification appeared to be
primarily in the region of the injection well.
Colloidal Dispersion Gel (CDG) is related to DDG in
being composed of a mixture of polymer and aluminium
crosslinker. Association between the polymer and the metal
ion again lies at the heart of the process where intramolecular
crosslinking is believed to create cross-linked polymer
molecules or small aggregates in the formation. Willhite et al
showed the injectivity of the mixture to be limited at low shear
rate.10 Smith et al showed that the mixtures could be injected
at higher shear rates.11 Given the rapid fall in shear rate with
distance away from an injection well, questions about the
ability of the gel to propagate very deep into the reservoir
still exist.
A system was still required which can reduce the
permeability of thief zones deep within the oil reservoir to
achieve more efficient displacement of the oil to the producing
wells. An essential feature was seen as having only one
injected component, so that no separation could occur. Also,
density close to that of an average injection brine was seen as
desirable, to minimize segregation. This paper reports some of
the results from a joint oil industry research consortium
project aimed at providing such a system. Figure 2 below
illustrates conceptually how incremental oil could result from
such a system.
®
Figure 2: Thief zone plugged with Bright Water treatment
Field simulations within BP Exploration and
Technology led to an initial estimate that over the life of a
field improved volumetric conformance could increase
recovery up 10 percent in favorable cases. It can also
contribute to a significant reduction in operating costs related
to reduced water production.
Statement of Theory and Definition
Concept of the reagent. In 1996 an industry and academic
seminar, sponsored by BP, produced numerous potential
options for achieving physical or chemical changes using
“triggers”, i.e. properties of the reservoir that differ between
thief zones and the bulk of the rock. The concept eventually
developed was that of a particle which could inject and
propagate with the water flood through the pores of the rock
matrix, then after a temperature change in the thief zone(s) or
after a certain time, would increase in volume (Popping) to
block pore throats, diverting chase water into poorly swept
zones. To maintain injectivity, it was important that the
injected viscosity of the system should be as near as possible
to that of water. Once popped, interactions with pore throats
were intended to be the means of delivering water
resistance factor.
It was envisaged that a large volume of such a reagent
might have to be injected to achieve a major influence on
reservoir sweep, which dictated that it should be low cost.
Rock thermal properties together with the water
injection and reservoir temperatures determine the conditions
under which the particles must propagate and trigger. The
diameters and rheological properties of the particles before
popping must be compatible with the pore throat size
distribution of the target rock. A typical pore throat size
distribution for Minas sandstone, obtained by mercury
porosimetry, is shown below in Figure 3.
SPE 84897
Figure 3: Pore throat size distribution for CPI Minas Core
Filtration and particle propagation studies suggested
that in order to ensure ease of injection and propagation, the
initial particles, termed “kernels”, must have a mean particle
diameter less than about one tenth of the mean of the pore
throat size distribution and physical properties, such as
density, likely to ensure that they were carried effectively with
the water flow. To guarantee a substantial effect after
“popping”, the “popcorn” particles were predicted to need a
mean diameter on the order of, or greater than one quarter of
the mean pore throat diameter. However, both these
conditions should be particle-concentration dependent. At a
lower concentration of injected kernels, kernel sizes closer to
the pore throat size would become injectable. Figure 4 depicts
a cartoon of particle expansion under the influence of time
and temperature.
Figure 4: Particle expansion
In 1997, the MoBPTeCh (Mobil, BP, Texaco, Chevron)
research consortium adopted the project, and developed a
reagent termed Bright Water® in association with Nalco
Exxon (later Ondeo Nalco) Energy Services.
Laboratory studies. Prototype materials were screened using
bottle tests and slim tube sand packs designed to model the
propagation of the particles through the reservoir rock. The
3
sand pack method used was very similar to that reported by
Morgan et al.12
The Bright Water® kernels are supplied as a 30% active
dispersion of polymer in light mineral oil. Test solutions were
made by high shear dispersion of the oleic concentrate into
water with an added surfactant, using a high shear mixer.
Before use, the kernels “solutions” were conditioned in an
ultrasonic bath. The ultrasonic bath was used to simulate the
individual particles dispersed in water by field equipment.
Bottle tests. 5000 ppm active kernel dispersions in water
were treated with a thermal stabilising additive. As the kernel
particles “pop” and increase in size, the viscosity increases
because the particles start to interact more with each other.
This solution concentration chosen was sufficient to give a
substantial bulk viscosity after the kernels had “popped”. The
solution was used to fill a series of bottles, then the void space
of each was flushed with Nitrogen, and they were sealed with
lids. The test samples were stored in ovens or water baths to
represent the process of ageing in a reservoir.
Samples were periodically taken and the viscosity
characteristics determined using a thermostatically controlled
Brookfield LVT Viscometer with a UL adapter. The results
were used as an indication of the relative “popping” times of
different materials, and also the viscosity increase was taken
as an indication of the degree of swelling.
Injectivity tests. Injectivity tests were completed using sand
packs of between 1 and 5 feet in length with relatively high
rates of fluid injection to simulate the shear rates found on
injection in the field. Core injection tests using Berea and
field cores were used to confirm the results obtained.
Propagation tests. Propagation tests used slim tube sand
packs of up to 66 feet in length, and were done at much slower
frontal advance rates (1-3ft/day). Some of these tests were
linear and some used tubes of increasing radius to simulate the
fall off of shear rate in radial flow away from the injection
well. Propagation of the kernel particles was confirmed
through lack of pressure build up in any sections of the tubes,
and through comparison of the inlet and outlet solution
properties. The viscosity of the outlet solutions matched the
inlet solution well. The turbidity was less well matched and it
was inferred that this was because of changes in the state of
emulsification of the carrier oil during passage through
the packs.
Popping tests. Long slim tube sand packs were constructed in
sections with a pressure transducer between each section.
They were then flooded with carbon dioxide to remove air and
conditioned with synthetic Minas brine, then Crude oil, then
flooded to residual water saturation with brine.
These tests confirmed that activation could be delayed
until the kernels had travelled well down the sand-pack. They
were used to check the influence of factors such as
temperature, kernel concentration, pH and salinity on the time
of popping and magnitude of water block seen. Different
sands were used to simulate different permeabilities. Some
core floods were also run to confirm injectivity. However, as
these cores were generally short, “popping” tests in core had
4 SPE 84897
to use a shut-in period after injection to allow sufficient time
for activation.
Description and Application of Processes
The field trial was to demonstrate that the polymer solution
could be injected at normal pre-trial well rates and pressures,
would activate as planned deep within the formation, and
would divert water to the bypassed oil zone and improve
waterflood sweep efficiency.
Screening fields for sweep efficiency improvements. Many
factors, some positive and some negative, need to be
considered when ranking candidates for in-depth sweep
improvement. Most can be covered by these questions:
1. Is there sufficient target in terms of improved oil
rate/reserves (or reduced water production)?
2. Is there a place where water diversion can be activated to
mobilize and recover these reserves?
3. Can the process be placed there without encountering or
causing technical problems?
4. Can the predicted waterflood improvement be observed
and quantified, and is it economic?
5. Is there an easier, cheaper or lower risk option to achieve
the same ends?
The approach used was to eliminate targets with
obvious negative factors, and then to rank remaining targets
based on a weighted multi-question risk assessment, based
primarily on the above questions.
Numerical simulation, and laboratory tests, can also be
used to optimize the treatment placement, and the best
treatment size/strength for each candidate. This approach
helps quantify the likely production gains as well as treatment
costs. It can also compare in-depth diversion with alternative
well treatment options, and with alternative waterflood
management options. In practice, the acquisition of the
required local reservoir description and performance data, plus
the simulation of many targets can cost more than the
treatment itself. Therefore, we usually defer this work until
candidates have been pre-selected based on a simple
ranking process.
Usually, reservoir engineers are well aware of the
efficiency of their waterfloods. When the localized recovery
factor in a given reservoir sector is predicted to be high (60%
of OOIP or better), and the amount of water required to
achieve this is 1.5 sector pore volumes or less, then there will
be no significant target for remedial treatments.
Generally, the worse the waterflood performs, the more
likely it is that an economic remedial treatment can be applied,
but there are exceptions. Examples include, poor sweep due
to excessive reservoir compartmentalization or lack of
reservoir continuity, and highly fractured reservoirs. The
treatment presented in this paper is intended for diversion in
matrix, not fractures.
For reservoirs with vertical pay zones separated by
impermeable shales, it should be simpler and less costly to
mechanically shut off individual watered-out layer(s) either at
the producer or injector. However, in some cases, the first
zones to water out still contain valuable reserves, and shut-off
at the producer is considered unacceptable. Also shutting off
an isolated zone at the injector is often difficult because the
wells have local injection-induced fractures. Therefore, these
stratified targets remain an option for Bright Water®,
particularly where areal and vertical sweep issues both exist.
However, the preferred reservoir target type for the
initial Bright Water® version tested here had some
communication between swept and unswept zones. With this
structure, when the thief zone was blocked deep in the
reservoir, pressure would build up between the injector and
the block, and water would exit the thief zone, being diverted
into lower pressure unswept zones.
The material initially produced had a fixed particle size,
which meant that the thief zone permeability had to be within
a required range. Also, the activation time was temperature
dependent. The temperature encountered in the reservoir had
to be at least 80C for activation to occur in an acceptable time.
The injection water temperature had to be no more than 70C,
to avoid activation near the wellbore. Cold injected water will
cool the rock it encounters, an excessive volume of cold-water
injection prior to the treatment could mean that the particles
injected would not see reservoir temperature rock until far
from the well. Activation might not then occur in an
acceptable time or distance. All these considerations came
into the initial target screening for this project. Since then,
these restrictions have been eased considerably by
further development.
The following points should be considered when
evaluating a potential candidate for Bright Water®. Preferred
target properties:
1. Available movable oil reserves
2. Early water breakthrough to high water-cut
3. Problem with high permeability contrast, (thief zone at
least 5 times unswept zone)
4. Porosity of highest perm zone > 17%
5. Permeability in thief zone >100 mD
6. Minimal reservoir fracturing
7. Temperature from 50 C (122 F) to 150 C (302 F)
8. Expected injector-producer transit time >30 days
9. Injection water salinity under 70,000ppm
Pattern selection within the Minas Field. Many variables
must be considered when selecting a good candidate for
profile modification, including evidence of a thief zone,
bypassed oil reserves target, and well pair connection.
After initial screening, the most attractive patterns were
further evaluated using pressure pulse tests to verify injector
/producer connections. The selection of Pattern 7E-12,
targeting the A1 Sand, resulted from the pulse testing. The
test showed offset producers 6E-97, 7E-13, and 7E-23 were
hydraulically connected to injector 7E-12 while other wells
within the pattern were not connected.
Finally, tracer was injected and monitored to determine
the direction of flow, and verify the magnitude of the thief
zone. Tracer tests confirmed fluid communication between
these well pairs (Fig. 5), and showed the magnitude of those
connections (days to tracer breakthrough).
SPE 84897
Figure 5: Tracer results in Minas 7E-12 pattern
In general, the A1 sand of Minas field comprises
amalgamated sand with fining upward deposition. The upper
deposition usually has lower permeability, and the deeper
section has high permeability. Mapped resistivity in the upper
5 feet of the A1 Sand indicated high resistivity in the 7E-12
pattern, or an opportunity for bypassed oil, Figure 6.
However, there was also data to support the lack of bypassed
oil in the A1. Initial oil saturations may have been low in the
fining upward sequence of the A1 and relatively little oil may
have migrated into it. Therefore, even though the zone may be
bypassed, the oil targets may have been relatively small.
Figure 6: Map of resistivity in the upper 5 feet A1 Sand
Map is based on
average data from
RTCH in 5 feet of
UA1
The pattern selected had a steady and well-documented
previous operational history, so the baseline performance was
known. Also the injector-producer well spacing was close
enough that tracers could be used to establish the pre-
treatment and post-treatment water transit times. The pattern
chosen was partly isolated from the effects of other injectors,
so that changes in non-pilot wells were less likely to affect
the outcome.
Presentation of Data and Results
Pre-treatment well work. For better clarifying oil targets,
Cased Hole Formation Resistivity (CHFR) logs were run in
7E-23 and 6E-97. The CHFR logs and other production logs
indicated that most of the fluid and oil was coming from the
A1 Sand. Therefore, for better project control (reservoir
management), bridge plugs were set in 7E-12, 7E-23, 7E-13,
and 6E-97 so that all injection and production was from the
A1 Sand.
5
A pressure transient analysis was conducted in 7E-12 to
investigate k(mD) before the Bright Water® treatment.
Permeability was estimated in the range of 400 to 600 mD.
These were within the range of the 420 mD, the
log-derived permeability.
A spinner survey was conducted on 7E-12 to verify
fluid distribution at A1 sand after the A1 was isolated. The
log showed 96% of the injected water entered the lower
interval of the A1 sand, and the rest leaked below the packer.
The upper A1 showed no injection.
Conceptual-treatment design. The initial aim was to inject
about 10% of the pore volume of thief zone pore volume in
the sector between the injector and nearest 2 producers. The
initial design volume was 120,000 bbl with a concentration of
the Bright Water® kernels at 1500 ppm.
Lab design work was based on 85C, but it was later
discovered from the pre-treatment tracer results that
significantly more of the cool injection water had headed
towards the nearest producer than originally thought. This,
combined with a somewhat cooler than average injection
temperature in 7E-12, meant that the reservoir temperature
could range to a low of 74C out to a very significant distance.
This difference in design versus injection water temperature
gave rise to concerns about getting a gel set, or popping of the
polymer out in the reservoir. Also, the pre-treatment tracer
work revealed unexpectedly fast breakthrough times. It was
thought prudent to modify the conceptual treatment design to
allow for these possibilities and to ensure a gel set.
The concentration of the Bright Water® kernels was
raised to 4500 ppm to ensure that the treatment would have a
measurable effect on a very high permeability streak if it were
present. Catalyst, sodium hydroxide, was added to the design
to reduce the popping time from the 40 days designed to about
15 days. A shut in period, after the injection and initial
displacement of the kernels with injection water, was also
added to ensure that the slug of Bright Water® still stayed in
the central portion of the streak should a fracture be present.
The treatment was reduced from 120k to 40k barrels at
the 4500 ppm concentration. While the total treatment cost
stayed the same, the per-barrel injected polymer cost was
increased from $3/bbl to $9/bbl. Generally however, the
dilute version is technically preferable and is now under
field trial.
Treatment execution. Polymer injection began November
11, 2001 and ended November 20, 2001. A total of 42,000
bbl. water with 4,500 ppm polymer and 1,500 ppm surfactant
was injected in the 9 day period. In addition, 50% caustic soda
was added to keep the injection water pH at 9.5 for the first
half of the chemical injection and a pH of 10 during the
second half of the chemical injection. The injection wellhead
pressure was “on-vacuum” through out pumping, except for
the last 14 hours. The pressure came off vacuum and
registered 10 psig. The polymer was injected from 5 iso-
containers and surfactant from 2 iso-containers. The 50%
caustic soda was supplied in stainless steel and plastic totes.
Figure 7 shows the site layout for chemicals and pumps.
6 SPE 84897

Pressure fall-off test. A log-log plot of the pressure

Figure 7: Site layout of the chemical pumps ®
fall-off test performed on 7E-12 after the Bright Water
treatment is contained in Figure 8. The primary conclusion
from the pressure data is that a definitive change in injectivity
did occur. It was also estimated from the pressure data that the
effective permeability to water was decreased to a distance of
®
about 125 feet from the well. The Bright Water treatment
was flushed with 68,800 bbls of injection water prior to the
short shut-in for activation. The distance of 125 feet estimated
from the fall-off test is about ½ of that calculated from the
volumetric estimates of the distance the polymer was flushed
away from the wellbore
Figure 8: Log-log plot of 7E-12 fall-off test data.

After polymer injection, the polymer slug was over-

flushed with 68,800 bbl of field water the following two (2)
weeks and the injector was then shut-in (SI). In addition, at
the end of the two-week over-flush period, offset producers
were SI for up to 3 weeks to allow the polymer slug to “cook”
and assure it would gel. The SI schedule was also developed
to prevent polymer breakthrough, and to minimize oil
production losses during SI (i.e. higher water cut wells SI
longer). The SI schedule can be seen in Appendix Tab. A-1.
After SI, the injector, 7E-12, was returned to injection at 5,000
bbl per day and was seen to be still at a “vacuum”
injection pressure.
Monitoring program. Post injection monitoring started Nov
12th, 2001. The monitoring program consisted of recording
daily injection, daily surface temperature, offset production
well tests every 5 days, water sampling in offset producers for
evidence of polymer production, and post-polymer injection
tracer and falloff tests. This monitoring was continued to
April 2002, and no polymer was detected. The detection limit
was about 25 ppm.
Tracer tests. The content of 2-FBA and 4-FBA
(fluorinated benzoic acid) in water samples from pattern
production wells was measured following tracer slug
injections both before and after the polymer treatment. Tracer
2-FBA was used before the Bright Water® treatment, and 4-
FBA was used to monitor any change in subsurface fluid flow
after the treatment. Comparison data in Table 1 shows the
post treatment tracer reached well 7E-23 and 7-E13 faster than
the pre treatment tracer surveys. This could be explained by
the fact that the pumps in both wells were upsized after the pre
treatment tracer was measured. Well 6E-97 did not have a
pump change during the tracer study period and the post job
tracer took 72 days longer to reach the well.
Water injection. The pre-treatment injection rate was
13,000 BWPD (fully open choke). The post-treatment
injection rate is 5,000 – 6,000 BWPD (fully open choke), or
roughly a 60% reduction in injectivity. A small portion of the
injection rate reduction can be attributed to a slightly lower
wellhead injection pressure after the polymer treatment than
before the treatment (180 psi vs 230 psi). However, when
daily pressure fluctuations occur, up to 250 psi, the injection
rate is still well below 7,000 BWPD.
Oil production. While the injection response to the
treatment was successfully confirmed, the oil production
response is less certain. The general consensus of the Minas
operations team is that little incremental oil production
resulted from the Bright Water® treatment. The production
plot below in Figure 9 depicts the allocated production from
the 7E-12 inverted seven spot pattern. The hashed area on the
plot indicates the potential incremental oil resulting from the
treatment. Unfortunately, this represents a relatively small
volume and the decline of the pattern tends to follow the pre-
treatment trend in less than 12 months after the treatment.

Table 1: Pre and Post Treatment Tracer Test

Tracer Comparison data
Wells 7E-23 6E-97 7E-13 6E-85 6E-87 6E-24 6E-98
Pre-treatment
Breakthrough (day) 30 43 70 NA NA NA NA
Peak (concentration) 70 40 18 NA NA NA NA

Post-treatment
Breakthrough (day) 18 115 43 108 108 115 122
Peak (concentration) 26 12 13 14 4 5 4

Difference
Days pre and post -12 72 -27 NA NA NA NA
SPE 84897 7

Figure 9: Production plot of 7E-12 pattern 1. The polymer was pumped at low viscosity, about twice
20.00
Pump
Incremental Oil ?
200
that of water at the same temperature.
18.00
Upsizes
(only pattern wells included) 180
2. The polymer was successfully displaced a significant
16.00 160 distance from the wellbore.
14.00 140 3. The material appeared to gel as designed, 125 feet
distance from the injector, and caused A1 Sand injectivity
M Bbls Water / CD

ST Bbls Oil / CD
12.00 120

10.00 100
to reduce by more than 60% from 13,000 BPD to
8.00
Bright Water
80
5,000 BPD.
Treatment
4. No polymer was produced in the offset wells and tracer
6.00 60
survey indicated flow directions were altered.
4.00
Avg. FIFO = .35
40
5. The popping time can be manipulated by pH control,
after BW Job
2.00 20
though we can now also manipulate it just by
0.00
Ma Ap Ma Ju Ju Au Se Oc No De Ja Fe Ma Ap Ma Ju Ju Au Se Oc No De Ja
0
molecular design.
r-
01
r-
01
y-
01
n-
01
l-
01
g-
01
p-
01
t-
01
v-
01
c-
01
n-
02
b-
02
r-
02
r-
02
y-
02
n-
02
l-
02
g-
02
p-
02
t-
02
v-
02
c-
02
n-
03 6. Pumping was trouble free in the Minas field trial, and in
FIFO M CDwater
Time
M CDwinj CDoil
the simplified North Sea field trial.
7. The volume of incremental oil production attributable to
Although this is monthly data it is interesting to note the project is uncertain. As discussed, a number of factors
that the response time is faster than expected. The transient likely contributed to this outcome, factors which may or
time from the tracer test, Table 1 referenced above, did may not be related to the effectiveness of this new thief-
indicate cycle time from 3 to 6 weeks for two of the offset blocking agent. Additional field trials are needed to
producers. The initial oil production response could have quantify the commercial viability of this concept.
resulted from oil being dislodged by the surfactant in the
leading edge of the polymer slug and being quickly swept Acknowledgements
ahead through the thief zone to the producers. The second We would like to acknowledge CPI engineering and support
bump in production, in the January-February 2001 time frame, functions, including Adly Guchi, Construction Coordinator
may be related to some diversion of the waterflood into the who saved the day for us logistically. Others included:
lower permeability zones. Fuaadi Ibrahim, Reservoir Engineering; Darmawan Boedi,
From the period leading up to the 7E-12 Bright Water® Facilities Engineering; Ginting Kasmir and Hadi Prijono,
treatment through the last attempts to gather data, a number of Facilities Electrical; Petrus Krisologus, Safety, Health &
operational factors come into play which make it difficult to Environmental; Pulangan, Operations Wells and Fac.; Andi
quantify exactly what volume of incremental oil production Bachtiar, Project Champion; Dike Fitriansyah Putra, Produce
resulted from the Bright Water® treatment. These factors Sub-Surface. Kudus Kurniawan was our Ondeo Nalco Energy
include pump changes just prior to the treatment as well as Services(Indonesia) representative.
injection water rate changes in and around the test pattern. We thank ChevronTexaco’s Les Munson for reservoir
The fluid-in fluid-out ratio for the pattern after the simulation, and candidate well selection, and Medhat Kamal
treatment was considerably less than one. A low voidage for the design and interpretation of the Pressure Fall-off test.
replacement ratio, coupled with not all of the wells in the
pattern being aligned with injection into the A1 sand, could Nomenclature
have contributed to the apparent low volume of OOIP, original oil in place
incremental oil. sec-1, reciprocal seconds, shear rate
It should be noted that given proper in-situ profile
modification candidates, with water cycling to offset References
producers in a thief zone(s), when the thief zone is plugged
and water injection into it is reduced, oil rates should improve 1. A. L. Benham, SPE 513, 1st November 1962. “A model
because of the re-distribution of areal support to the study of viscous fingering”.
offset producers. 2. E. Shirif, K. Elkadiffi & J. J. Hromek. SPE Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, February 2003. “Waterflood
Further development. A second field trial using the Bright performance under bottomwater conditions:
Experimental approach.”
Water® polymer was conducted in December 2002 on a North
3. A. L. Barnes, Journal of Petroleum Technology October
Sea (UK) production platform. A total of 88,360 bbls of 1962, 1147, Trans. AIME volume 225. “The use of a
injection seawater containing 1500 ppm of polymer and 750 viscous slug to improve waterflood efficiency in a reservoir
ppm of surfactant was pumped over a twenty (20) day period. partly invaded by bottom water.”
A much smaller and simplified pumping skid was used in this 4. D. J. Pye, Journal of Petroleum technology, August 1964,
second field trial. The per-barrel injected polymer cost for this 231, Trans. AIME volume 231. “Improved secondary
treatment was about $4.30/bbl. recovery by control of water mobility.”
5. R. B. Needham, C. B.Threlkeld & J. W. Gail, SPE 4747
Conclusions presented at the 1974 SPE Improved Oil Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, OK, April 23 – 24. “Control of water
Several of the major objectives of the Minas field trial were
mobility using polymers and multivalent cations”
met while other important goals were not. 6. H. Surkalo, M. J. Pitts, B. Sloat and D. Larsen. SPE 14115
Presented at the 1986 SPE International meeting on
8 SPE 84897

Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, March 17 – 20

1986. “Polyacrylamide Vertical Conformance Process
improved Sweep Efficiency and Oil Recovery in the
OK field”
7. C. A. Rocha, D. W. Green, G. P. Willhite and M. J.
Michnik, SPE 18503 prepared for the SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, February
8 – 10 1989. “An Experimental Study of the Interactions of
Aluminium Citrate Solutions and Silica Sand”
8. M. P. Walsh, B. A. Rouse, N. N. Senol, G. A. Pope and L.
W. Lake. SPE 11799 presented at the International
Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry,
Denver, CO, June 1 – 3 1983. Chemical Interactions of
Aluminium citrate Solutions with Formation Minerals”
9. A. J. P. Fletcher, S. Flew, I. N. Forsdyke, J. C. Morgan, J.
C. Morgan and D. Suttles, Paper presented at the 6th
European Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Stavanger, Norway, May 21 – 23 1991. “Deep Diverting
Gels for very cost effective Waterflood Control”
10. R. Ranganathan, R. Lewis, C. S. Mc Cool, D. W. Green
and G. P. Willhite. SPE 52503 in SPE Journal, December
1998, 337 – 343. “Experimental Study of the Gelation
Behaviour of a Polyacrylamide/Aluminium Citrate
Colloidal-Dispersion Gel System”
11. J. E. Smith, H. Liu and Z. D. Guo. SPE 62610, prepared
for presentation at the 2000 SPE/AAPG Western Regional
meeting, Long Beach CA, June 19 – 23 2000. “Laboratory
Studies of In-Depth Colloidal Dispersion Gel Technology
for Daqing Oilfield”
12. J. C. Morgan, A. Gunn, G Fitch, H Frampton, R. Harvey,
D. Thrasher, R. Lane, R. McClure, K. H. Heier and C
Kayser. SPE 78540 presented at the 10th Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference,
October 2002. “Development and Deployment of a
“Bullheadable” Chemical System for Selective Water shut
off leaving Oil/Gas Production Unharmed”

Appendices

Table A-1: Minas 7E-12 Pattern Shut-in Schedule

Perform regular well tests (oil, water, and gas rates) on all surrounding
producers at least once every two weeks for six months following end
of field trial.

Producer Shut-in Schedule:

Dec 4 (2 weeks after end of polymer injection) SI 7E-23 for 3 wks.
Dec 11 (3 weeks after end of polymer injection) SI 6E-97 for 2 wks.
Dec 18 (4 weeks after end of polymer injection) SI 7E-13 for 1 wk.
Dec 25 (5 weeks after end of polymer injection) return all 3 wells to
production.

Injection Shut-in Schedule:

Nov 21 At end of polymer injection, continue injection at 5,000 bpd
for 2 wks.
Dec 4 Shut-in injector (7E-12) for 3 wks.
Dec 25 Return to injection. - Do not exceed 250 psig surface
injection pressure – Begin injection at 5000 bpd
Dec 26-29 Increase in increments of 2000 bpd each day until
an injection pressure of 250 psig or full pre-treatment rate (~13,000
bpd) is achieved.