SPE 94352
Case History Evaluation of RPMs on Conform Fracturing Applications
J.A.C.M. dos Santos, Petrobras; R.C.B. de Melo, SPE, and G. Di Lullo, SPE, BJ Services
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20 – 23 June 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 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 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
Actual worldwide oil production averages some
75 million barrels per day and, while estimates vary, this is
associated with the production of 300 – 400 million barrels of
water per day. These values of approximately 5 – 6 barrels of
water for every barrel of oil are quite conservative. In some
areas around the world, fields remain on production when the
ratio is as high as 50 to 1.
Water production causes several problems to oil
wells such as scaling, fines migration or sandface failure,
corrosion of tubular, and kills wells by hydrostatic loading,
amongst other things. Thus, while water production is an
inevitable consequence of oil production, it is usually
desirable to defer its onset, or its rise, for as long as possible.
Numerous strategies, both mechanical and
chemical, have been employed over the years in attempts to
achieve this. Simple shut-off techniques using cement,
mechanical plugs and cross-linked gels have been widely
used. Exotic materials such as DPR (disproportionate
permeability reducers) and the new generation of relative
permeability modifiers (RPM) have been applied in matrix
treatments with varying degrees of success. Most recently,
Conformance Fracturing operations have increased
substantially in mature fields as the synergistic effect obtained
by adding a RPM to a fracturing fluid have produced
increased oil production with reduced water cut in one step,
consequently eliminating the cost of additional water shut off
treatment later on.
This paper is an evaluation of various RPM materials
commonly used on Conformance Fracturing treatments
performed in the northeast of Brazil and other South American
countries, rather than the usual laboratory testing methods and
theoretical estimations. The paper also describes the technical
design and operational methodology to treat single zone to
laminated reservoirs with different mobility ratios. We believe
conformance fracture techniques could significantly impact
the development strategies of many fields worldwide.
Introduction
Water cuts in oil producing wells continue increasing as time
passes and oil fields mature. The source of the water can be
either formation or injected water used for reservoir pressure
maintenance. Limited reservoir thickness, excessive pressure
drawdown, high water/oil mobility ratios and reservoir
heterogeneities can cause water channeling through high
permeability streaks, hairline fractures and/or near-wellbore
water coning early in the well's productive life. However,
mobility is not the only factor. Wettability effects caused by
heavy oil deposition, or capillarity effects caused by depletion
such as trapped condensate, can also compound the problem.
Many reservoirs may not prove commercial without proper
stimulation treatments. These may include dirty sandstones,
lower permeability layered formations in water drive
reservoirs and/or with nearby water zones.
Sandstone acidising is usually a damage removal exercise
and, at best, can produce only about 1.4 folds production
increase in undamaged formations.
Radial, matrix conformance treatments in these types of
wells are not a commercial option due to the treatment cost
and limited production potential, so many of these zones are
never produced around the world and a substantial volume of
oil is left behind.
So far, we have discussed matrix-type treatments, since
hydraulic fracturing stimulation treatments have traditionally
been designed to avoid water zones, at all costs. A typical
result has been to end up with a water producer after the
fracturing attempt, because the high-conductivity propped
fracture reached the wet zone (analogous to having a high
vertical permeability), and also to the unfavorable water/oil
mobility ratio.
As we have not yet mastered fracturing design or its
execution to effectively control and restrict fracture height
growth, the fracture stimulation technique has not been a valid
option for these marginal reservoirs and again, a substantial
volume of oil has been left behind.
Since both treatments (conformance and fracturing) are
required, a unique and cost effective solution will be to
perform them simultaneously. In this scenario the only cost
associated to the conformance treatment would be the
materials themselves.
2 SPE 94352
Conformance-Fracture Concept
A water conformance fracture treatment must provide a return
on investment over its useful life. If the well is marginal or
damaged, it must be stimulated anyway (at least to an
undamaged state), if water zones are near by, then the
fracturing fluid becomes the cost effective carrier for the
conformance material.
From all types of materials available today for radial
conformance treatments, the only types that do not produce
damage to the oil zones and that can be injected under high
shear (pressure and rate) are the Relative Permeability
Modifiers (RPMs). Therefore, these become the obvious
choice and the ones that are chemically compatible with the
selected fracturing fluid can then be used.
The addition of an RPM to the fracturing fluid, will create
a resistance to water flow in the fracture fluid filtrate-invaded
region on either side of the fracture faces, and also (even
though not so important), inside the proppant pack itself. This
resistance will act against the high proppant conductivity to
the wet zone and the usually higher water mobility. Assuming
the RPM achieves a high NFRR (normalized fluid resistance
ratio, reference 3), the net effect on oil productivity would be
an increase. As a consequence, a conformance-fracture
technique is a method of selectively stimulating a well. Oil
productivity is selectively increased, while water productivity
is selectively decreased or maintained constant.
Some will wonder how such a reduced RPM penetration
could impair or reduce water flow. The answer is simple, first
the fracturing treatment reduces the drawdown pressure at the
fracture faces to values below 0,5 pound per square inch and
under these drawdown pressures, a RPM can choke water
production by up to 270 times in two inch long cores (see
figure 2). Typically, all fracturing treatments performed as
designed today, already produce an invaded leak-off zone at
the fracture face, with a penetration deeper than three inches.
An additional feature of the conformance-fracture
technique is that the RPM material also restricts filtrate flow
(reference 1) into the reservoir (leak-off), since the fracturing
fluid in these cases is commonly water-based. While not the
subject of this paper, some consequences are reduced fracture
leak off, improved fracture efficiency and reduced treatment
volume. The conformance-fracture concept is illustrated in
Figure 1.
Fracturing Fluid Selection
As long as they are chemically compatible, any fracturing
fluid could be used (including oil base fluids and foams).
However, as we are discussing marginal wells, a cost effective
fracturing fluid may be the right choice.
Chemically, however, a viscoelastic anionic surfactant
fracturing fluid would be the perfect technical choice. These
fluids are the least damaging to the formation. They possess
their own selective conformance/blocking mechanism
(breaking in contact with oil, but do not break in the presence
of water, reference 4), they water wet sandstones favoring oil
production and they have reasonable fluid leak-off control
characteristics under pressure (reference 2). In addition,
viscoelastic fluids prevent proppant settling during fracture
closure. Usually, the water saturated zone, is below the
productive zone and proppant settling benefits water
production, as the more conductive section of the fracture is
closer to the water-saturated zone.
Unfortunately, the relatively high cost of VAS fracturing
fluid systems could prohibit their use in some marginal wells.
Therefore our choice is often limited to the use of neutral to
higher pH, polymer based fracturing fluids. Low polymer
fracturing fluids (concentration below 20 ppt) are
recommended in very low permeability formations and
conventional fracturing fluids (concentration above 25 ppt)
can be used in medium to high permeability formations. In
actual fact, as the added RPM material improves the efficiency
of the fracturing fluid, lower polymer concentrations than are
customarily employed can be used. Indeed from all the
“conformance fracture treatments” done in South America,
only one had a premature screen out. However, with polymer-
based fluids, to prevent proppant settling during fracture
closure, it is recommended to apply the “forced closure”
technique (bleed off treating pressure immediately after
pumping end) or to use ultra-light weight proppants (specific
gravity below 1.75).
In our field trials we used three different fracturing fluids:
a VAS fluid, as described in reference 2, 3 and 4, and two
polymer based fluids (guar gum), where the only difference
between them is the replacement of a cost effective mono-
borate cross linker with a more exotic and expensive
organoborate complex. In both cases, enzyme breakers were
used to break the fluid viscosity and destroy polymer residues.
Other breakers, such as oxidizing agents (ammonium
persulfate) or even encapsulated peroxides, can be used, but
only after checking their compatibility with the selected RPM.
The criterion for selecting the polymer base fluid was decided
and based solely on well configuration and fracture geometry
considerations.
Relative Permeability Modifiers Selection
These are water-soluble, hydrophilic polymer systems that,
when hydrated, produce long polymer chains that, in the rock
will loosely occupy the pore spaces. Being strongly
hydrophilic, RPMs attract and trap water and repel oil. As a
net result they produce a reduction of water flow in the
productive zone with minimal (and sometimes positive) effect
on oil flow (reference 5). When water flow, is caused by
channeling through high permeability streaks, the use of
RPMs produces impressive, long lasting results. The same
could be said for water coning. However, in this case, water
production is caused by an excessive drawdown, or a low
horizontal-to-vertical permeability ratio. In extremely water
saturated, homogeneous formations, the RPM will initially
reduce the water cut without altering the rock-matrix water
saturation and, therefore, treatment durability is unpredictable
as it depends on too many variables. At the level of the
formation matrix, the pores either produce water or oil
(segregated oil theory, reference 6), but not both. The overall
fluid distribution, within the matrix-rock, dictates the
formation’s water saturation level and this, in conjunction with
rock heterogeneities (permeability profile), is the basis of the
water cut measured during production. In other words,
percentage wise, the water cut will not necessarily be the same
SPE 94352
as the water saturation and comparative lower water cut rate
(percentage) cannot be necessarily used to define the treatment
as successful. In environments highly water-saturated, where,
the water cut is different than the water saturation level, it is
good indication that RPM can be successfully used to control
water production. Some engineers have questioned the
application of RPM in highly water-saturated reservoirs in the
past, but field results have proved that the application of
RPM’s can result in a good technique for water control.
From all RPMs available, those that produce a higher
NFRR and are not sensitive to shear or water hardness are the
preferred choice. Obviously, they must be chemically
compatible with the fracturing fluid, as noted above, and this
is an important factor, as a low pH (below 5) fracturing fluid
could impair their performance.
Ideally, RPM materials should be liquid and the
concentration applied should be proportional to the formation
permeability. The selected RPM should produce a resistance
(drag) to water flow in the order of 3 to 10 times and a
detrimental drag to oil close to one, and no higher than 2.
In our field trials, we used three different RPM materials; a
cost effective anionic polyacrylamide, an amphoteric
terpolymer and a new vinyl-amide terpolymer (reference
1&5), specially developed for stability under harsh
environments (temperature, pH and salinity conditions).
The selection criteria were based on formation
permeability, produced water salinity and temperature.
Design Methodology for Field trials
Over 500 conformance fracture treatments have been
performed so far. Of those, fifty-three were performed during
the last two years in South America for nine different
operators. In this paper, we review the results obtained of
sixteen treatments in a field southwest of Argentina and
twenty-three new treatments performed in a field, in the
northeast of Brazil.
Initially, the jobs were done, as designed for the
particular area, with the addition of the RPM to the complete
fracturing fluid using a liquid additive pump (including
minifrac when applicable). As such, an RPM penetration of at
least 4 inches in each fracture face was achieved. As the jobs
were successful, an optimization process was started and the
RPM was then removed from the last sand stages, as this fluid
remained in the fracture itself and never penetrated into the
formation. Later, the RPM total volume was calculated
assuming that two inches of filtrate penetration was sufficient
(based on laboratory results), allowing us to add the RPM only
to the minifrac (when applicable) or to the pad stage, which
represented around 15 to 25% of the total treatment volume.
Under these conditions, the RPM penetrated around 3 inches
in each fracture face. Considering that the fracture could
growth in height during the treatment, a better procedure
(applied in a few jobs) was using a lower concentration of
RPM, throughout the complete treatment.
3
Case History Argentina - Overview
Even though the conformance fracturing technique has been
used with five different operators in Argentina, in this paper
we review sixteen jobs that were performed in a field near
Rincon de los Sauces, in the Neuqen basin. Lessons learned
from theses treatments (reference 2) where applied
everywhere else in South America and especially on the
Brazilian project discussed later on. This field is a water drive
reservoir, in which production started over twenty-three years
ago, and today has around 280 producing wells. At the
moment, pressure is being maintained by close to 200 injector
wells and water saturation everywhere in the field is quite
high, with wells producing with water cuts varying from 50%
to as high as 90%. The lithological profile of one well is
presented in figure 3 for illustration purposes. Water
production in this field today is 3.6 times higher than oil
production and, at the moment, there is an extensive in-fill
drilling campaign to reduce well spacing from 60 acres to 23
acres. Fracturing during the completion phase is a standard
procedure in this field and the newer wells being drilled are
neither tested nor produced before the fracturing job.
However, historical data show an average of four folds of
production increase after the frac. A few wells that have been
tested have water cuts similar to the older wells (50% to 90
%). The first conformance fracture job performed, and the
most successful so far, was done using a polymer free
fracturing fluid (VAS) containing 4% by volume of the
amphoteric terpolymer throughout the treatment. This case
study is thoroughly explained in reference 2 and a production
comparison with neighboring wells is presented in figure 4
and a production curve versus time in figure 5. As can be seen,
the one-month water cut was below 20%, being the lowest in
the entire field. The water cut was low for almost 2 years
before reaching water cut levels similar to neighboring wells.
A second attempt with the system didn’t produce such a
spectacular result and the search for a more cost effective
solution started.
Another thirteen treatments have been performed so far
using a guar gum based fluid, crosslinked with an
organoborate complex and broken with an enzymatic breaker.
From 2% to 2.5% by volume of either a terpolymer or
vinylamide RPM were added in the minifrac and pad fluid and
the average water cut measured after one month of production
was, respectively, 64 % and 57%. Most recently two
additional treatments have been performed using a low
polymer fracturing fluid (carboxymethylguar) and the
terpolymer RPM. One-month production data is not available
at the time of writing this paper, but initial results looks
encouraging.
The forced closure technique was not applied in any of
these treatments because of their smaller size and rapid
fracture closure.
Case History Brazil
In the northeast of Brazil, there are several small to
medium size oil reservoirs. In most of them, three distinct
formations are encountered which contain different API crude
and are produced independently.
Each formation is a structure that contains various
producing zones; one of the formations is extremely
4 SPE 94352
heterogeneous containing thin and intercalated layers of
shale’s and sandstones and production wise is considered as a
single zone. As the shale zones are thin and weak, they cannot
be trusted as barriers for fracturing operations that are required
for commercial production. Two examples are illustrated in
figures 6 & 7 showing that fractures could propagate above
and below the perforated interval (in orange). Looking at the
lithological columns, the zones colored in light blue are water
saturated. As can be seen, water is found anywhere within the
structure. Notice that in figure 6, the water is at the bottom
while in figure 7 it is at the top.
Fracture Conformance stimulation has been found to be the
only viable way of producing this structure. So far, twenty-
three treatments have been performed using a guar gum base
fluid, crosslinked with monoborate, for bottom hole
temperatures under 150 degrees Fahrenheit. At higher
temperatures, an organoborate complex was used and, in both
cases, the gel was broken with an enzymatic breaker. All three
RPMs have been used. Polyacrylamide, being more cost
effective, was the preferred choice to start with and it was
used three times. One problem caused by the polyacrylamide
is that, at the required concentration (0.6 to 0.7 %), it increases
the fracturing fluid viscosity, making fluid handling more
difficult. The average one-month water cut obtained was 70%
and 5 months later it has dropped to 14%. However, post
fracture analysis indicates that one of these treatments did not
reach the water zone (figure 7). Removing it from the statistics
changes the average water cuts for one and six months to 56%
and 19%, respectively. Another 12 jobs were performed using
from 2% to 6% by volume of the terpolymer. In seven
treatments it was added to the entire fluid and, in the
remaining five, only in the minifrac and pad fluids. The
average water cut after one month for the first seven
treatments was 39 % and, five months later 35%. Two
treatments are not considered in the statistics, as these wells
didn’t produce oil.
The remaining five treatments had an average one-month’s
water cut of 27% and 5 months later increased to 44%.
Five additional jobs were performed using from 1% to 2.5%
by volume of the vinylamide that was added in the minifrac
and pad fluids. After one-month of production, the average
water cut was 51% and 5 months later was 52%.
Three other treatments that were done later (two of them with
polyacrylamide and the last one with the vinylamide) are not
included in the statistics as production data is not available at
the time of writing this text.
The fracture “forced closure” technique was used in all 23
treatments.
An initial analysis of above data indicates that the
polyacrylamide affects fluid returns and well clean-up takes
much longer. When the RPMs (all three) are added throughout
the complete treatment, the water cut gets lower as time
approaches six months, probably due to a deeper penetration
into the formation. Overall, the 6-month water cut is at least
10% lower than with the other treatments, with less RPM.
Meanwhile, the wells treated with the RPMs added in the
minifrac and pad fluid have lower initial water cut, but this
one increased with time. It is not possible from above data to
depict the best RPM, as the polyacrilamide was used in areas
where formation water is less salty and bottom hole
temperatures are lower and the vinylamide was used where
conditions were harsher, this is the reason why most jobs were
treated with the terpolymer.
The other objective of a fracture conformance treatment is the
oil production and due to the fact that formations and
treatments are not exactly the same, the only way to obtain
some meaningful information is to calculate the oil production
on a per foot of net pay basis at different times. The fracture
treatments using the polyacrilamide produced an average of
2.40 BOPD/foot and 3.19 BOPD/foot after one month and six
months respectively. Meanwhile the terpolymer RPM
produced an average of 6.04 and 7.14 BOPD/foot and the
vinylamide RPM produced 16.08 and 14.05 BOPD/foot for
the same periods.
Conclusions
1. The conformance-fracturing method has been
successfully demonstrated to selectively stimulate oil
production, while simultaneously controlling water
production.
2. The conformance-fracturing technique has proven to be a
viable method for stimulating marginal zones in highly
water saturated reservoirs.
3. A new vinyl-amide polymeric RPM has been field-tested
at one third of the concentrations required by the
traditional terpolymer in Fracture Conformance
operations with excellent results.
4. NFRR estimated from linear core flow tests must be
considered for conformance fracturing treatments; as
expected the new generation of RPM (vinylamide)
produced over 2 & 4 times more oil on a per foot basis
than the terpolymer and the polyacrilamide respectively.
5. The use of the “forced closure” technique with polymer
based fracturing fluids (instead of VAS systems) helped
on reducing water cuts as it prevented proppant settling
during the fracture closure period. Alternatively, ultra
lightweight proppants could be used.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Petrobras and BJ Services for permission to
publish this paper. Thanks are also expressed to Phil Rae and
James Curtis for their technical contribution and to BJ’s
engineering staff for supporting the project and collecting the
data.
Nomenclature
kw = Horizontal permeability, darcies
ko = Vertical permeability, darcies
Rfw = Resistance to water flow, dimensionless
Rfo = Resistance to oil flow, dimensionless
NFRR = Rfw/Rfo, normalized fluid resistance ratio
VAS = Viscoelastic anionic surfactant
RPM = Relative permeability modifier
Bfpd = Total fluid production rate, bbls/day
Bopd = Oil production rate, bbls/day
Ppt = Pounds per 1000 gallons
SPE 94352 5

References SI Metric Conversion Factors

ºAPI 141.5/(131.5 + ºAPI) = g/cm3
1. Kalfayan L. and Nelson S.: “Reducing Water Permeability
Through the Application of a New Unique Relative Permeability
bbl % 1.589 874 E – 01 = m3
Modifier” presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical cp % 1.0* E – 03 = Pa·s
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, USA, Oct 5-8. ft % 3.048* E – 01 = m
2. Zubillaga A., Cortona M., Veiga M., Briggiler N.: “Control de ºF (ºF – 32)/1.8 = ºC
Agua, Aplicacion de Nuevas Tecnologias y Productos” gal % 3.785 412 E – 03 = m3
presented at the 2003 II Congreso de Hidrocarburos, Buenos lbm % 4.535 924 E – 01 = kg
Aires, Argentina, Feb 5-8.
3. Di Lullo, G. Rae P. and Curtis J.: “New Insights Into Water psi % 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
Control – A Review Of The State Of The Art, Part II” presented sack % 4.535 924 E + 01 = kg
at the 2002 SPE International Thermal Operations and Heavy * Conversion factor is exact.
Oil Symposium and International Horizontal Well Conference,
Alberta, Canada, Nov 4 – 7.
4. Di Lullo, et al.: “Towards Zero Damage: New Fluid Points the
Way,” paper SPE 69453 presented at the 2001 SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Buenos Aires, March 25 – 28.
5. Di Lullo, G. and Rae, P.: “New Insights Into Water Control – A
Review Of The State Of The Art,” paper SPE 79963 presented
at the 2002 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne,
Oct. 8 – 10.
6. Stavland, A. and Nilsson, S.: “Segregated Flow is the
Governing Mechanism of Disproportionate Permeability
Reduction in Water and Gas Shutoff,” paper SPE 71510
presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 30 – Oct. 3.

Conformance-Fracture Treatment Concept

Shale Propped hydraulic fracture stimulates the reservoir.

Pay Zone RPM provides reduction in relative permeability to

water everywhere (in the filtrate-invaded zone and also
inside the propped fracture itself).

Shale

Optional VAS base fluid provides selecti ve permeability

Water Zone blocking only in the water-saturated zone (in the filtrate-
invaded region and also i nside the fracture itself).
The VAS system breaks clean i n the oil-saturated zone,
Shale
allowing the oil to flow unrestricted.

Figure 1 - Illustration of the conformance-fracture concept.

6 SPE 94352

Pressure Polyacrylamide Co-Polymer Amphoteric

(psi) DMDAAC Vinyl - Amide
NFRR NFRR NFRR
1.0 4.5 4.9 270
2.0 4.0 3.5 60
3.0 3.3 3.2 29
4.0 2.6 2.0 13

Figure 2 - Comparison of normalized fluid resistance ratios

Perforati ons
114 5 – 5 0m

Sw > 75%
( Wet Zone)

Figure 3- Lithological profile of a water flooded reservoir with bottom-drive in the Neuquen basin, Argentina, which was treated
with a conformance-fracture treatment. The bottom of the interval is wet (below 1158 m), showing a water saturation of 75% –
100%. There is no lithological barrier to restrict downward vertical fracture height growth into the water.
SPE 94352 7

Water Cut Comparison Versus Neighbours Wells

A "Conform-Fracture Treatment " - B & C "Conventional Fracture
Treatments"
100
90
80
70
Water Cut, %

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2-Nov-01 20-Jan-02 9-Apr-02 27-Jun-02 14-Sep-02 2-Dec-02 19-Feb-03 10-May-03

Water Cut A Water Cut B Water Cut C

Figure 4- Water cuts obtained after a fracture conformance treatment (A) and two conventional fracture treatments in neighboring
wells (B & C).

Well A - Historical Production

100

90

80

70
Qp [m3/d] / W.Cut [%]

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
08/03/2002

12/03/2002

11/04/2002

22/05/2002

08/06/2002

25/07/2002

08/09/2002

12/10/2002

07/11/2002

23/11/2002

09/12/2002

27/12/2002

14/01/2003

09/02/2003

06/03/2003

31/03/2003

27/04/2003

21/05/2003

25/06/2003

16/07/2003

05/08/2003

30/08/2003

24/09/2003

08/10/2003

28/10/2003

10/11/2003

18/12/2003

10/03/2004

28/06/2004

21/09/2004

23/12/2004

22/01/2005

Time

Qp % Water

Figure 5- First Fracture conformance treatment in Argentina using the VAS-Terpolymer combination, which produced spectacular
results with regards to durability and water cut.
8 SPE 94352

Figure 6- Lithological profile and calculated fracture geometry for a layered formation northeast of Brazil. Notice that the fracture
reaches the water formation at bottom (light blue).

Figure 7- Lithological profile and calculated fracture geometry for a layered formation northeast of Brazil. Notice that the fracture
does not extend to the water zone that in this specific well is above the perforated interval (light blue).