SPE 106564
Successful Experiences for Water and Gas Shutoff Treatments in North Monagas,
Venezuela
Lenin Perdomo, SPE, SSO; Héctor Rodríguez, SPE, María Llamedo, SPE, Luis Oliveros, Edwin González, and Osmel
Molina, PDVSA; and Claudio Giovingo, SSO
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference 2007, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 15-18 April 2007.
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
Normally, the average on success rate of water shut-off
treatments in the world ranges between 40% – 50%. This
average is lower for gas shut-off treatments. In North
Monagas, Venezuela, where some hard conditions are present,
such as high bottom hole temperatures (over 280 F), in some
cases very tight reservoirs which complicates a matrix
penetration of any gel treatment without overcoming the
fracture gradient, in other cases naturally fractured wells
which complicates the effectively fillout of all fracture nets;
this success rate could decrease even more, making the
treatment not economically attractive.
In order to obtain a high success rate in North Monagas, it
was designed a special aqueous polymer gel with a low
viscosity to handle the difficulty of matrix penetration without
overcome the fracture gradient, and delay its crosslinking
process for a period of long time due to very low injected
rates. Also, it can maintain its blocking properties at
temperatures over 290 F without the need to inject cool-down
pads; it can perform effectively even gas shut-off treatments,
taking into account its difficulty due to higher mobility than
water and oil.
Carefully studied Coiled Tubing (CT) operations were
carried out taking into account the hard conditions already
described, without damage other oil producing zones. Several
case histories are showed in this paper, including some gas
shut-off operations, with the results obtained in each one. As a
result, higher water/gas shut-off success rate than the typical
average (40% – 50%) was achieved.
Introduction
Some of the most important reservoirs in Venezuela are
located in North Monagas area, which production started in
1988, by PDVSA (Venezuelan National Oil Company). It is
placed at Eastern Venezuela (Fig 01). This area is divided in 5
fields called: El Furrial, Orocual, Jusepin, Carito and Pirital. In
terms of overall production, El Furrial, Carito and Pirital
exhibit the highest production of the area. All presented cases
are related to these three fields. North Monagas overall
production is about 860,000 BOPD.
North Monagas area shows a compositional gradient fluid
system that varies from gas condensate to medium oil. Oil API
gravity vary with depth from 40 to 16.
It is characterized as follows:
• Vertical or low slanted wells (less than 30 degrees), with
a few exceptions.
• Depths range from 14,000 ft to 19,000 ft.
• Bottom Hole Static Pressures (BHSP) range from 6,000
psi to 8,500 psi.
• Bottom Hole Static Temperatures (BHST) range from 280
to 310 F
• Absolute Permeabilities (K) vary from 20 to 1800 md
• Average Production per well ranges from 500 BOPD to
5,000 BOPD, with a few wells with higher production.
Wells on this area are completed with cemented casing,
and then perforated. Wells flow spontaneously, without any
artificial lift method. Production problems are related to
asphaltene precipitates and unwanted gas/water production,
and in other few cases with sand production. Coiled Tubing
(CT) operations are very often in order to maintain production.
Well Details
Different well completions on this area are described as
follows:
• 5-1/2” monobore wells (5-1/2” tubing and production
liner).
• 4-1/2” and 3-1/2” tubing with 7” or 5-1/2” production
liners.
• Double strings wells (3-1/2” plus 2-7/8” tubings) with 7”
production liners.
Wells analyzed in this document are completed with the
first two types in the list above (one single production string).
Figure 02 shows a typical well schematic from the area. In
this case, the well has a 4-1/2” production tubing and a 5-1/2”
production liner.
2 SPE 106564
Problem Diagnostics
North Monagas area is divided in two main reservoirs:
Naricual, at the top, and Cretaceous, at the bottom. Different
sand layers, with different reservoir properties constitute both
formations.
The diagnoses are by fields (El Furrial, Carito and Pirital),
although the gas and water mechanism production is the same
for all North Monagas area.
El Furrial field
Production mechanism initially was rock and fluid expansion
without a gas cap1. The composition varies from 30 API
gravity, at formation top, to extra heavy oil at the deepest
formation, called “Tarmat”. Productivity is severely affected
by asphaltene deposition. The reservoirs are of a highly
undersaturated, volumetric type, without gas caps and with a
bitumen layer (Tarmat) that inhibits the aquifer influence.
Consequently, reservoir pressure has been declining rapidly
and dropping close to the critical point where asphaltenes
precipitate. In order to prevent this, water injection was
initiated in 1992 in the flank of the area. In addition, a
miscible gas injection project (artificial gas cap created) was
started at the top of Upper Naricual in 1998. The pressure
decline was reversed, which confirmed that the pressure
maintenance project was highly beneficial, maximizing total
hydrocarbons recovery and optimizing reservoir exploitation2.
A wide range of reservoir properties at the different sand
layers, impose a natural heterogeneous production/injection
profile, where some intervals dominate the
production/injection, and preferential flow path (channeling)
will develop yielding inefficient oil recovery and possibly
accelerating the production of unwanted fluids (water-gas)2.
Carito and Pirital fields
Carito and Pirital drive mechanisms are solution gas drive and
fluid expansion, with reservoir pressure declining rapidly3.
The hydrocarbon column varies from a gas-condensate cap at
the top of the structure (different to El Furrial field which does
not have a natural gas cap) to heavy oil at the bottom of the
structure3.
In order to develop and exploit these reservoirs, a high
pressure gas injection project was initiated for pressure
maintenance as well as for gas recycling purposes4 (not water
injection is performed in these two fields). With the reservoir
pressure maintenance, large losses of oil have been avoiding
due to retrograde condensation effects and asphaltene
precipitation4.
Again, heterogeneities encountered at the different sand
layers can cause injection gas channeling through higher
permeability streaks/hairline fractures on the gas injection
wells.
Summarizing, for all fields in the North Monagas (El
Furrial, Carito and Pirital), the problem of unwanted fluids
production (water-gas) is associated with channeling through
higher permeability streaks/hairline fractures at the gas/water
injection wells, or with heterogeneous production profile (part
of El Furrial case) due to wide range reservoir properties. It is
clear that the influence of any aquifer on the produced water is
discarded, then all unwanted water/gas produced is water/gas
injected. Therefore, in a scenario where some intervals are
produced in a well, and some of them produce unwanted
water/gas fluids, any water control treatment must be able to
bear the higher pressure of the injected water/gas front line.
To establish and design an appropriate water/gas control
treatment, especially in case of selective treatments, it is
crucial to collect all needed information; from the perforated
production intervals, petrophysic properties, geology, rock
characterization, production data, pressure, temperature and
primary cement jobs.
Gel System
Aqueous polymer gels have been used in numerous water and
gas shut off applications around the world5. PDVSA Intevep
(PDVSA Development and Research Institute) has developed
its own gel system according to its requirements for high
pressure and high temperature reservoirs in Eastern
Venezuela. Currently, the gel system has been applied for
conformance treatment to reduce water or gas production and
to improve injection profiles in different Venezuelan fields for
more than 10 years. There are four different groups of gel
system, depending on reservoir temperature6, which consider a
wide range of temperature from 130 F to 320 F (Table 01).
Gel system is constituted by a thermally stable polymer water
soluble and an organic crosslinker1,7. The gel system is
designed to fill either pore space or fractures, and block
undesired gas or water production. The gelation occurred
inside the reservoir and once the gel is formed it is capable to
reduce the effective permeability.
This polymeric gel system has the following characteristics:
a) Controllable gel elasticity and consistency7. This property
allows the system to be adapted to each specific
application. It means from a soft mobile gel with a
Disproportionate Permeability Reduction (DPR) effect8;
to a rigid gels for blockage or sealing treatment where a
complete isolation is desired. A DPR effect is a fluid with
the ability to reduce the water permeability more than the
hydrocarbon permeability.
b) Controllable gel times. This property allows adapting the
initial and final gelling times to any particular application,
in terms of borehole temperature, designed volume, well
injectivity and desired shutting time. In case of North
Monagas applications, initial gel times can not be short
due to low injection rates during treatment (low reservoir
permeability), but it must not be so long neither, because
long shuting production period is not desired.
c) Stability for a wide range of pH, water salinity and H2S
concentrations, once the gel is fully crosslinked.
d) Stability for high reservoir temperatures, over 300 F. For
DPR gel system, is encountered this stability, which it is
currently difficult to achieve. As an example, there is one
DPR field application with a reservoir temperature over
SPE 106564
310 °F. Other gel systems applications need to inject cool-
down pads to delay gelation9, but this is difficult to
achieve if formation injection rates (for cool-down pads)
are very low due to low reservoir permeabilities.
e) High elasticity (not fragile) of the gel system once is fully
crosslinked. It allows bearing high differential pressures.
In a field application, it was observed differential pressure
even higher than 5000 psi, without breaking the gel
barrier. However, it is not recommended to exert high
differential pressures on crosslinked gel.
Once the diagnosis has determined the cause of high water
cut or high gas oil ratio, it is possible to define if the problem
can be solved using a gel system. For all proposed gel system
treatments, is necessary to make some experimental
evaluations to design the specific gel system according to the
type of problem and reservoir conditions. These evaluations
include water compatibility analysis and gel characterization.
Water compatibility analysis consists of; a) the evaluation
of the water formation or injection in an oven at reservoir
temperature; and b) the modeling at reservoir pressure and
temperature, to establish any implication of the saturation
index on the precipitation of the ions presents in the water
formation or injection at reservoir conditions when they
interacts with the gel system.
The gel characterization comprises two types of tests:
outside porous media and inside porous media.
1. The outside porous media tests consist of bottle tests, to
obtain the most important characteristics of the gel
system: gelation time (initial and final), consistence and
stability of the system during long time (more than one
year) at reservoir temperature. These tests are also
evaluated in a range of different pH, in order to control
gelation times and determine if it is necessary to add an
extra compound (buffer) to accelerate or inhibit the
gelation time.
2. The inside porous media tests are also known as
coreflooding experiments. This coreflooding experiments
should be performed in coreholders that have internal
pressure taps. The internal pressure taps allow the
evaluation of flow through a porous media without having
capillary “end effect” then mask the results. The inside
porous media are obligatory when the diagnosis show a
zone with important recovery oil reserves, but also with
associated water production. For this no sealing system
testing, the residual resistance factor (RRF) is determined
to water and oil6. The permeability to the specific phases,
before and after the treatment, should be known. The
permeability reduction is the ratio of the effective
permeability before and after the gel treatment.
K before
RRF = (1)
K after
3
where:
Kbefore = effective permeability before treatment
Kafter = effective permeability after treatment
The RRF expression should be determined for the fluids
present: water, oil and gas, if it is the case.
This type of displacement test allows the determination
of the DPR effect of the gel system in front of the
specific fluids of the zone proposed for the treatment at
reservoir conditions, being the best recommendation to
use core plug from the formation. As higher is the RRF,
higher is the permeability reduction in the porous media
(blockage). DPR and blockage effect are shown in Fig
03, in terms on RRF6.
The stability of the gel system with a differential pressure
and time is also evaluated to ensure it maintains its
performance, specifically with production drawdown
condition as part of the porous media evaluation. The gel
stability is determined by the decreasing of the RRF after
flowing several times.
Fig 04 shows the porous media test for Well #W-46, this
core was from the North Monagas area, from El Furrial field,
where an important double effect is observed with high
temperature gel system, having a DPR and a blockage effect at
the same time. It can be observed from the graph that gel
reduces water permeability between 850 and 1700 times,
while oil permeability is reduced between 200 and 420 times.
In this case, water production would be shut off, but with an
oil production reduction as well. This gel system could bear up
to 2050 psi of differential pressure on the same laboratory test.
Also, it is important to maintain a high gel quality control
during all process: initial mixture, pH adjustment,
transportation to the location, location storage and injection
process, to reproduce all laboratory gel properties.
Treatment Execution
Coiled Tubing (CT) operations are very common in North
Monagas area. Although many technologies and tools have
been developed over the years in the remedial wellwork
program, CT technology is one of the most significant because
of its versatility, capabilities to work with the well-live (less
formation damage) and cost effectiveness compared with
conventional rig operations9.
In the case of water control, most of the treatments have
been pumped through CT. Among the several reasons
mentioned above, CT offers benefits to isolate zones. The
much lower inner CT volume compared with the production
tubing volume means that the gel system (polymer at this step)
is pumped to perforations more rapidly, and eliminate the
probability that wellbore wreckage will be dislodged during a
bullheading process to plug formation entry points1, taking
into account the asphaltene usually adhered to inner tubing
walls. In a few cases, it has been mandatory to bullheading the
treatment due to limitations with maximum wellhead pressure
4 SPE 106564
allowed and the necessity to install a tree saver to protect the
wellhead (without CT injector installed over wellhead).
Operational sequence is widely discussed before the
execution for each job, even being procedure recurrence (with
a few changes), and it is understood that operational sequence
is critical to ensure the success in the treatment application.
Therefore, operational procedure is described as follows:
1. Due to the common asphaltene precipitation problems, it
is mandatory previously to perform a CT cleanout run.
Aromatic solvents are used to guarantee asphaltene-free
tubing walls.
2. All North Monagas water/gas shutoff treatments have
been selective treatments. There are some zones that must
be protected to avoid being damaged. Therefore, to
protect lower oil production zones, a sand plug is pumped
through CT to isolate them. Many times, is used sand
with different grain sizes to obtain lower sand plug
permeability in order to guarantee that gel treatment can
not filtrate through sand plug to oil production zones. In
some cases, from 5 ft to 10 ft dump bailer cement plug
have been used when distance between oil and water
production zones is very short, or when lower oil
production zones have much larger permeability
compared with water production zones to be sealed. In
case of necessity to protect upper oil production zones,
inflatable packers have been used, although it is not so
common this case. Due to high BHST, is mandatory to
use special high temperature sealant elements in the
inflatable packers.
In case where there are more than one zone to be treated,
and these zones have very different reservoir properties
(heterogeneities), gel treatment has been performed
separately to guarantee complete isolation and penetration
of the treatment in each zone.
3. Once sand plug has been pumped, it is checked with
Gammy-Ray (GR) and Casing Collar Locator (CCL) log
run, with a wireline unit, to be sure sand plug is placed
correctly.
4. To be effective, gel treatment, it must enter the complete
zone and strongly adhere to the surface rock10. Therefore,
removing asphaltenes deposits from the formation and oil
films in the pore spaces, is mandatory. As well, oil-water
emulsions have been encountered in some well treated,
which it must be removed previous to gel treatment.
Thereby, different types of solvent preflushes have been
used for this purpose on a matrix regime. Right after, a
non-ionic surfactant solution is preflushed, to reduce the
surface tension. In case where the zone to be treated
presents 100% water (determined by a previous PLT), it is
not necessary to inject solvent preflushes, and just a non-
ionic surfactant solution is injected. This non-ionic
surfactant preflush is also used for injectivity tests
purposes, and forecast next gel pumping times, rates, etc.
5. Then, gel treatment is performed. It has been found best
way to inject it, to spot the gel with CT. CT is pulled out
to surface, and gel is injected to the formation through
bullheading. Gel volumes depends directly on the desired
formation penetration, and which follows the next
criterion:
• 8 ft to 10 ft, of penetration to permanent block an
undesired water production zone.
• 15 ft of penetration to permanent block an undesired
gas production zone. Larger penetration due to much
higher gas mobility than water and oil.
• 15 ft of penetration for naturally fractured formation.
• To get DPR effect; 5 ft to 8 ft. Shorter penetration
because this type of treatment reduces also the oil
relative permeability (in a lower proportion than
water relative permeability), is not desired to reduce
significantly the oil production.
Of course, this criterion is analyzed for each well, and it
could be changed depending on the particular application.
First gel treatments, a cement squeeze were performed
right after the gel injection was finalized. Of course, it
was previously known that cement penetration would be
extremely short (only to fillout the perforation tunnels),
and the idea was to build a thin cement film to protect the
gel treatment12. As chemical water control treatments are
not permanent, it was believed that any stimulating
treatment performed later could destroy the gel water
blockage10. Thereby, the gel was able to penetrate low
permeability formation, and cement, which could not
penetrate in low permeability formations, would build the
thin film to protect the gel treatment12.
It was observed that gel treatment for water shutoff were
strong enough to avoid being destroyed by later
stimulating treatments (most of the time asphaltene
solvents), and strong enough to bear high drawdown on
the wellbore. Besides, cement volume which could be
actually squeezed was extremely small (less than one
barrel), that it left doubts if actually cement film was
created or not. Subsequent field tests have demonstrated
that gel treatment alone (without cement) can bear easily
high drawdown (in both directions, production and
injection differential pressures). Nowadays, for water
shutoff treatments, just gel treatments (without cement)
are pumped.
For gas shutoff is different, due to much higher gas
mobility compared with oil and water, all gas shutoff
applications have been performed with cement squeeze
after gel treatment, although still exists the doubt that the
thin cement film is actually created or not.
Normally, North Monagas gel treatment is actually
composed of two gel systems. First one, is a gel system
with higher gellation time to penetrate close to 80% to
90% of the total penetration in the formation, and it is
followed by a second gel system with short gellation time
SPE 106564
which penetrate only one or two feet into the formation1.
This allows to create a fast rigid barrier at the front of the
perforations (second gel system) to maintain most of the
gel volume in place, into the formation, and avoid the
gravitational segregation at the front of the formation
(where is the most important place). Gravitational
segregation is the gelant-draining effect to the bottom of
the treated zone by higher water base gel density1.
Although the gel system used has been improved
continuously to reduce the initial gel viscosity (before
crosslinking process), injectivity pressures always are
very close to fracture pressure. In a few cases, especially
at the beginning of the injection process (first foot of
penetration), the treating pressure has overcome the
estimated fracture pressure, but it has not been observed
any indicative of formation fracture. It is believed by the
authors that at very low gel injection rates (0.3 – 0.4
bbl/min), it is difficult to achieve a typical formation
fracture. It is possible, that micro fractures (in order tenths
of inch) are created, and typical indicative of formation
fracture (injection pressure drop, etc) is not observed.
6. Well is closed until final gellant time is achieved,
allowing the polymer to fully crosslink.
7. CT is run in hole to cleanout gel excess in the liner. Then,
two seal integrity tests are performed.
First, an injectivity test is performed with 1,000 – 1,500
psi differential pressure. This pressure should be
maintained during one hour. This means that gel barrier is
not leaking into the formation.
Second, an influx test is performed. Previously, PDVSA
reservoir engineers agree of the maximum production
drawdown that the well eventually could have during its
post treatment production. This is taking into account
maximum drawdown possible to avoid asphaltene
precipitation on the oil production zones, and not the
maximum drawdown allowed by the gel treatment. Gel
treatment should bear the maximum drawdown to avoid
asphaltene deposition, in other words, post treatment well
conditions should not be limited to a restricted drawdown
by the gel treatment.
Thereby, a drawdown around 800 psi is created by
opening the choke size on surface. Then, the well is
closed by one hour. The wellhead pressure should remain
constant without any well influx, in other words, wellhead
pressure should not reestablish itself, considering that just
treated zones are open to production, and the rest are
isolated with a sand plug or an inflatable packer. If there
is some wellhead pressure recovery, then some leak from
the formation to the wellbore is occurring.
If a DPR job is performed, of course, these tests do not
apply.
5
The elasticity of the used gel system already fully
crosslinked is one the most important properties because
it allows to bear high stress, and consequently to bear
high differential pressures.
8. Once the seal integrity test has been performed, sand plug
is removed by a CT cleanout.
9. Finally, a post treatment PLT is performed to evaluate the
treatment effectiveness, with different drawdowns
applied.
Case Histories
At the moment, was written this document, in North Monagas
area, there were nine (9) different water/gas shutoff
applications with the gel system already described.
Applications are as follows:
• 5 Oil wells for water shutoff. One of them, it was a
DPR effect job.
• 2 Oil wells for gas shutoff.
• 1 Water injector well to water shutoff (to modify the
water injection profile).
• 1 Gas injector well to gas shutoff (to modify the gas
injection profile).
In this section it will be discussed some of these jobs
showing pre and post treatment performances.
Oil Well #01 - Water shutoff:
This well is situated in El Furrial field. It has the following
characteristics:
• 4-1/2” tubing with 7” liner.
• BHSP = 6644 psi
• BHST = 288 F
• K = 169 md (zone treated).
Before gel treatment, with 3/8” choke size, well #01
produced 1,112 BOPD and 714 BWPD (39% water cut).
According to a pre-treatment PLT (Fig 05), 100% water
production (injection water) was produced from the first zone
(upper zone) at (14550 ft – 14560 ft), and this particular zone
did not produce any oil.
Therefore, it was designed a blocking gel system to seal
this first zone, isolating through a sand plug the lower zones. It
was pumped just gel blocking treatment, without any cement
squeeze. Post-treatment production was 1,543 BOPD and 0
(zero) BWPD, with 3/8” choke size. It was performed a post-
treatment PLT which confirmed the production results,
showing zero flow at (14550 ft – 14560 ft) treated zone (Fig
06). Besides the complete elimination of water production, it
can be observed that there was a 431 BOPD production
gained. This is associated only to a lower hydrostatic column
due to water production elimination. This job is considered a
complete success.
Oil Well #02 - Water shutoff:
This well is situated in El Furrial field. It has the following
characteristics:
6 SPE 106564
• 4-1/2” tubing with 7” liner.
• BHSP = 6950 psi
• BHST = 297 F
• K = 190 md (average of all zones).
Before gel treatment, with 1/2” choke size, well #02
produced 981 BOPD and 2,309 BWPD (70.1% water cut).
According to a pre-treatment PLT (Fig 07), with two different
choke sizes, water production (injection water) was produced
from different zones, but most of the water production came
from first 6 upper zones, while the lower zones did not
produce significantly due to high hydrostatic column present
at the well.
Thereby, a blocking gel was designed to be pumped to the
first 6 upper zones. Remaining 8 lower zones were isolated
with a sand plug. It was decided to inject the gel treatment
with all 6 zones opened to the injection (not separately),
because most of the water production came from the zones
with better reservoir properties (higher permeability), which
there were first 4 upper zones, then it was concluded that gel
treatment would have the preference to penetrate in these
zones. It was tried to squeeze cement, but less than one barrel
could actually be injected, and it could actually have been
tubing expansion instead of one barrel cement injection to the
formation.
Post-treatment production was 2,027 BOPD and 1,091
BWPD (34.9% water cut), with 1/2” choke size. There were a
1,046 BOPD production gain and 1,218 BWPD reduction. It
was performed a post-treatment PLT, with two different choke
sizes, which showed interesting results (Fig 08):
• First 4 upper zones show zero flow.
• Although, the gel system was designed as a permanent
blocking gel, it actually created a DPR effect on fifth and
sixth zones. This zones produced water plus oil before the
treatment, and produced only oil after the treatment. This
has been already observed in other applications
(especially in gel blocking systems for high temperature),
where permanent blocking gel cause DPR effects on
zones which produce water and oil.
• Post-treatment water is produced from lower zones, which
were not treated with the gel system. Therefore, zones
which were gel treated (firsts 6 upper zones) did not
produce any water after treatment.
It was also concluded a complete success this job.
Besides these two oil wells jobs showed above, there were
other three similar oil wells jobs to water shutoff, with also
similar good results: significant water production reduction
and oil production gains. One of them, was a DPR effect job
(gel was designed with DPR effects from the laboratory),
where water production was reduced from 50% to 0.5% water
cut, and oil production remained basically the same. This gel
system designed from laboratory with DPR effect has the
advantage of maintaining its properties at high reservoir
temperatures. This well had a BHST of 310 F, which
confirmed good results already obtained in the laboratory.
Most of the other different DPR or Relative Permeability
Modifier (RPM) gel systems have the limit to be used below
240 – 250 F10. In this case, the gel system used in North
Monagas area, does not have this limitation.
Oil Well #03 - Gas shutoff:
This well is situated in Carito field. It has the following
characteristics:
• 4-1/2” tubing with two liners, a 7” upper liner and a
4-1/2” lower liner.
• Well was completed in two different sands. First one,
called A-1 sand, at 7” upper liner; and second one,
called A-2 sand, at 4-1/2” lower liner.
• BHSP = 7500 psi.
• BHST = 298 F.
Before treatment, well produced 1,468 BOPD and 25.8
MMSCFPD, resulting a Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) of 17,639
SCF/STB. Normally, gas production of the field is
significantly lower, which ranges between 2.0 – 7.0
MMSCFPD. This high gas production was resulted from gas
injection channeling.
Initially, well #03 was completed with double production
strings. Short string, which produced from A-1 sand (7” upper
liner into Naricual formation), and had this high gas
production rate, due to gas injection channeling. While long
string, which produced from A-2 sand (4-1/2” lower liner, into
Cretaceous formation), has a much lower gas production rate
(expected from the field). Then, completion was replaced to a
single string (4-1/2” tubing), and both sands were produced
through same completion. Once, completed with a single
string, PLT verified high gas production was produced from
A-1 upper sand (Naricual formation). In Fig 09, it is observed
gas flow from A-1 zone, which has two intervals perforated,
showed in the PLT (Fig 09 does not show the production of
the A-2 sand). Besides, PLT evidences different fluid portion
from these two different intervals, which corresponds with
high heterogeneity between both of them (in the same A-1
sand) related to permeability. Permeability on first interval
(13972 ft – 14008 ft) was 200 md, on second interval (14038
ft – 14068 ft) was 54 md. Due to so different permeabilities on
both intervals (at the same A-1 sand), it was decided to pump
the gel treatment separately to guarantee acceptable
penetration in both intervals.
Once blocking gel treatment was designed, the lower A-2
sand was isolated with a sand plug to protect it. Besides, both
intervals were treated with gas shutoff gel separately, and
cement squeeze were performed in both intervals. In both
treatments, injected cement volume were lower than 3 barrels.
A post-treatment PLT was performed (Fig 10), which did
not indicate any entry point of flow from A-1 sand (both
intervals), which demonstrates that high gas production sand
was completely sealed with the gel treatment. It can be
observed from flowmeter curve, that there is not any flow
from A-1 sand, as well as temperature curves which did not
indicate any temperature change on treated sand. Production
SPE 106564
after treatment was 1,498 BOPD and 3.5 MMSCFPD,
resulting a GOR of 2,370 SCF/STB. It is important to notice
that final gas production comes from A-2 lower sand (gas
production expected from the field). More interesting is that
these results have been maintained during three years.
Oil Well #04 - Gas shutoff:
This well is situated in Pirital field. It has the following
characteristics:
• 4-1/2” tubing with a 7” liner.
• Well was completed in two different sands. Upper
sand, called A-1 sand; and lower sand, called A-5
sand.
• BHSP = 7642 psi
• BHST = 282 F
• K = 10 md
Initially, well #04 was completed with double strings.
Short string produced from A-1 lower sand, and long string
produced from A-5 lower sand. Then, completion was
replaced to a single completion (4-1/2” tubing). Before
treatment, well produced 6.38 MMSCFPD, with a ¼” choke
size. Most of the gas production came from A-1 upper sand at
(16860 ft – 16950 ft) interval. A PLT was performed (Fig 11),
indicating most of the gas production came from lower section
of the mentioned interval due to heterogeneities in formation
properties at the same sand (Fig 11 does not show production
of the A-5 lower sand).
Due to formation pressure maintenance purposes, it was
decided to apply a gas shutoff treatment to this A-1 upper
sand, in order to produce from A-5 lower sand alone.
A-5 lower sand was isolated with a sand plug. Because
heterogeneities through the same interval to be treated, it was
pumped two different gel systems with different gellant times
in order to achieve auto-diversion between both systems and
an uniform penetration into the complete interval. Then, it was
attempted to cement squeeze, and only less than one barrel
could be injected (probably not cement was actually injected,
and it was tubing expansion).
Post-treatment production was 2.69 MMSCFPD, with ¼”
choke size, despite drawdown was much higher than initial
pre-treatment production. Due to different drawdowns before
and after the treatments, effectiveness of gas shutoff was
measured in terms on Productivity Index (PI) before and after.
With a post-treatment PLT, it was measured bottom hole
flowing pressure (BHFP) to obtain PI post-treatment as well
(Fig 12). Thereby, pre-treatment PI resulted 4.846
MMSCFPD/(1000 psi), and post-treatment PI resulted 0.860
MMSCFPD/(1000 psi). Considering initial PI (4.846
MMSCFPD) as 100%, then final PI results 17.75%, obtaining
a gel treatment effectiveness of 82.25%, which is considered a
complete success for a gas shutoff job.
7
Gas Injector Well #05 - Gas shutoff:
This gas injection well is situated in El Furrial field. It has the
following characteristics:
• 7” tubing with a 7” liner.
• BHSP = 6500 psi
• K= 395 mD
• BHST = 158-230 F
Total injection rate was 65 MMSCFPD. From different
PLT performed, it can be detected a gas injection channeling
through first upper zone (13078 ft – 13090 ft). Therefore, it
was decided to reduce total gas injection rate. Last PLT before
treatment (Fig 13), shows the well was injecting 44
MMSCFPD. This gas injection channeling created a high
GOR to the producer wells related to this interval, by a not
uniform gas barrier through the reservoir.
Therefore, a gas shutoff blocking gel was designed. It is
important to notice that this job was one of the first jobs
performed in North Monagas area, although it is being
described after other applications already analyzed. A
blocking gel system was pumped and then the job was
evaluated with a post-treatment PLT (Fig 14).
Post-treatment PLT shows an 11.2% gas injection
reduction into the first upper zone, but it was not enough.
Besides, it can be observed a significant increase of gas
injection in second upper zone (13094 ft – 13152 ft), which
represented 39.6% gas injection increase. Total gas injection
rate was 38 MMSCFPD at this moment.
Obviously, this job can not be considered a success. But,
some insights could be concluded from this failure:
• Final Gellant Time: for this job, it was designed a
blocking gel with a very long gellant time (almost four
days). The authors consider that this long gellant time
helped gravitational segregation to occur. As there is a
full gas presence in the reservoir, and a water base gel
with a much higher density was pumped, during long
crosslinked time, water base gel flowed to the bottom
of the treated interval, avoiding a complete coverage
in the reservoir thickness to be treated.
• Communication between first and second intervals:
post-treatment PLT evidenced a hydraulic
communication during treatment, through reservoir,
between first zone (13078 ft – 13090 ft) and second
zone (13094 ft – 13152 ft). This caused that estimated
gel penetration on first zone was not reached.
Therefore, this job is considered a failure.
Overall Gel Treatments Effectiveness:
It was already mentioned that a total of nine (9) water/gas
shutoff applications have been performed in North Monagas
area with the gel system described in this document. In one of
the treatments (water injector well), the effectiveness (post-
treatment PLT) could not be measured due to a mechanical
completion problem after the treatment. Therefore, this job is
8 SPE 106564

not considered for evaluation of overall gel treatments success and cement plugs, chemical pre-flushes to guarantee gel
in North Monagas area. system adherence to the formation, injection rates used,
and post-treatments field tests.
Considering eight (8) different water/gas applications, with 6. Field experiences and post-treatment results let have
just one failure (Gas Injector Well #05), an overall success conclude for North Monagas area, that gel-cement
rate of 88% was achieved, much higher than typical average combination squeezes are required for gas shutoff, and
(40% - 50%) in the world. Of course, this typical success rate only gel squeeze for water shutoff.
considers different difficulties such as complex problem 7. Pre-treatment and post-treatment evaluations are very
diagnosis, which most of the time is not corrected or not important to improve the performance of water and gas
properly analyzed, in the case of application failures. conformance applications and to economically evaluate
these treatments.
Future Improvements 8. Overall treatment effectiveness in North Monagas area,
Some improvements are being considered to obtain better gel with diagnostics, gel system and procedures used, is over
system properties. Such as: 80%, much higher than typical water and gas shutoff
• Laboratory tests are being performed to obtain a success rate in the world.
crosslinker more environmentally-favorable to minimize
environment and health hazards. Nomenclature
• Gel system with DPR effect has already tested in CT = Coiled Tubing
laboratory and field, with satisfactory results. Also, it is BOPD = barrel of oil per day
being analyzed a gel system with RPM effect, with lower ft = feet
values of RRF for both, to oil and water, compared with BHSP = Bottom Hole Static Pressure
DPR gel systems. psi = pounds per square inch
• For highly natural fractured wells, laboratory tests are BHST = Bottom Hole Static Temperature
being performed to obtain a complex mixture between gel K = Absolute Permeability
systems and plugging materials, commonly used to BWPD = barrel of water per day
control lost circulation, to help the sealing in high natural BPD = barrel per day
fractured formations under high differential pressures. GR = Gamma-Ray
• To improve the polymer process mixture, the use of CCL = Casing Collar Locator
alcohol to help the polymer hydratation is being tested in PLT = Production Logging Tool
the laboratory. Complete gel properties are being studied DPR = Disproportionate Permeability Reduction
to establish the alcohol addition does not compromise the RPM = Relative Permeability Modifier
final gellation properties. MMSCFPD = Million of Standard Cubic Feet Per Day
GOR = Gas Oil Ratio
SCF/STB = Standard Cubic Feet Per Stored Tank Barrel
Conclusions PI = Productivity Index
1. Most of the production of unwanted water or gas is BHFP = Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure
associated with fluids channeling through formation after RRF = TResidual Resistance FactorT
a Secondary Recovery Project was implemented in North Q = Flow Rate
Monagas area. Influence of any aquifer on the produced
water is discarded. Metric Conversion Factors
2. The gel system used in North Monagas area has special bbl x 1.589873 E-01 = m3
properties such as controllable elasticity and consistency, BOPD x 1.589873 E-01 = m3 /day
controllable gellation times, stability for a wide range of ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
pH, water salinity, H2S concentration, and the most md x 9.869233 E-04 = µm2
important, stability for high reservoir temperature (over (°F – 32)/1.8 = °C
300 F). Enough elasticity allows bearing high differential * Conversion factor is exact
pressures.
3. The gel system applied in North Monagas area, can be Acknowledgements
designed as a blocking gel with DPR effect. Laboratory The authors thank the management of PDVSA and SSO
and field results demonstrated that this DPR gel system Service Company for their willing to publish this paper. The
can maintain its properties at temperatures higher than work and dedication of PDVSA reservoir, subsurface and
300 F. drilling engineering and operational staff to help the proper
4. Laboratory tests (inside and outside porous media) are execution and evaluation of this application are greatly
very critical to guarantee the success of a conformance appreciated. The authors also acknowledge the major
job, as well as gel quality control. North Monagas contributions by Javier Espinoza on supporting laboratory
laboratory tests simulate all reservoir conditions, tests, and the idea exchanges with Neite Calis, Milagros
including the gel stability during a long time period. Maestre, Jose Villarroel, Argenis Rodriguez, Francisco Farias,
5. Operational sequence must be carefully performed; Rafael Hernandez, Giovanny Salazar, Esteban Garcia and
properly oil zones isolation, correct placement of sand Francisco Arevalo on field applications.
SPE 106564
References
1. Llamedo, M., Mejías, F., Gonzalez, E., Espinoza, J.,
Valero, E., Calis, N. and Maestre, M.: “Successful Gas
Shutoff with Gel, Evaluation and Implementation, North
East Venezuela” paper SPE 96696, presented at the
Offshore Europe 2005, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K.,
September 6-9, 2005.
2. Rodríguez, H., Molina, O., Salazar, A., Rondon, A.K.,
Mendez, M., Fayard, A., Gama, C., Smitheman, C.,
Mármol, A. and Cervantes, E.: “Customized
Reperforating with New Technologies for Optimal Field
Drainage and Productivity Enhancement: East Venezuela
Applications” paper SPE 103070, presented at the 2006
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., September 24-27, 2006.
3. Porras, J.C. and Campos, O.: “Rock Typing: A Key
Approach for Petrophysical Characterization and
Definition of Flow Units, Santa Barbara Field, Eastern
Venezuela Basin” paper SPE 69458, presented at the SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 25-28,
2001.
4. Rodriguez, E., Garcia, F., Lopez, L. and Bozo, D.: “8500
PSI Gas Injection Project” paper SPE 35603, presented at
the SPE Gas Technology Symposium Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, April 28 - May 01, 1996.
5. Hernández, M.I., Fernández, I., Rauseo, O., Mejias, F.,
Valero, E., Paz, F.,“Gel System Design, Formulation,
Evaluation for Water Control in Venezuela Wells”,
presented at the 4th International Conference on Reservoir
Conformance, Profile Control, Water and Gas Shutoff
held in Houston, Texas, 10-12 August, 1998.
6. Mejías, F., Prado, M., Reyna, M., Fernandez, I., Mendez,
F. and Llamedo, M.: “Conference of Multigel System for
Water and Gas Shutoff”, PDVSA Intevep, Venezuela,
July, 2004.
7. Der Sarkissian, J., Prado, M.-, Rauseo, O., “Lessons
Learned from Four Selective Water Shutoff Treatments in
Mature Reservoirs in Maracaibo Lake”, paper SPE 96528,
held in Aberdeen, 6-9 September 2005.
8. Kakadjian, S., Rauseo, O. and Mejias, F., “Dynamic
Rheology as a Method for Quantify Gel Strength of Water
Systems”, SPE 50751, held in Houston, February 16-19,
1999.
9. Bond, A.J., Blount, C.G., Davies, S.N., Keese, R.F., Lai,
Q.J. and Loveland, K.R.: “Novel Approaches to Profile
Modification in Horizontal Slotted Liners at Prudhoe Bay,
Alaska” paper SPE 38832, presented at the 1997 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
Antonio, Texas, October 5-8, 1997.
9
10. Di Lullo, G. and Rae, P.: “New Insights into Water
Control – A Review of the State of the Art” paper SPE
77963, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Melbourne, Australia,
October 8-10, 2002.
11. Di Lullo, G., Rae, P. and Curtis, J.: “New Insights into
Water Control – A Review of the State of the Art – Part
II” paper SPE 79012, presented at the SPE International
Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and
International Horizontal Well Technology Conference
held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, November 4-7, 2002.
12. Lai, Q.J., Bond, A.J., Cahalene, T.W., Carpenter, R.W.,
Newhouse, D.P., Singh, J.W. and Styler, J.W.: “Gel-
Cement Combination Squeezes for Gas Shutoff”, Paper
SPE 54596, held in SPE Western Regional Meeting,
Anchorage, Alaska, May 26-27, 1999.
13. Mejias, F., Isacci, J., Faieta, R., Salazar, A., Aristimuno,
A., Poleo, E., Espinoza, J., Velasquez, A., Marin, A., Gil,
J., Prado, M.: “Modification of Gas Injection Profile with
the Multigel Gel System. Pilot Test in a Producer Well,
North Monagas” Technical Report, PDVSA-Intevep,
August, 2002.
14. Botermans, C.W., Dalrymple, E. D., Dahl, J., and Smith
D., “Chemical Systems for Water and Gas Control:
Terminology, Evaluation Methods, candidate Selection,
and Expectations”, paper SPE 65415, held in Houston,
February 13-16, 2001.
15. Romero-Zerón, L., Manalo, F., “Characterization of
Crosslinked Gel Kinetics and Gel Strength Using NMR”,
paper SPE 86548, held in Lafayette, Louisiana, February
18-20, 2004.
16. Kabir, A.H., “Chemical Water & Gas Shutoff Technology
–An Overview”, paper SPE 72119, held in Kuala
Lumpur, October 8-9, 2001.
17. Arangath, R. and Mkpasi, E.E.: “Water shut-off
treatments in open hole horizontal wells completed with
slotted liners” paper SPE 74806, presented at the
SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition
held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., April 9-10, 2002.
18. Chang K.S.: “Water Control Diagnostic Plots” paper SPE
30775, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, U.S.A., October
22-25, 1995.
19. Briones, M., Zambrano, J. and Zerpa, C.: “Study of Gas-
Condensate Well Productivity in Santa Barbara Field,
Venezuela, by Well Test Analysis” paper SPE 77538,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., September 29 –
October 02, 2002.
20. Maan, N., Rosales, E. and Medina, H.: “Development and
Exploitation Strategies in a High Pressure-Temperature
Reservoir with a Complex Hydrocarbon Fluid Column”
paper SPE 30759, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.,
October 22-25, 1995.
10 SPE 106564

Gel System Description in terms

Temperature Range
on Temperature
Monagas State
• UHT Gel System 260 F – 320 F
North Monagas • HT Gel System 230 F – 302 F
Field • LT Gel System 158 F – 230 F
• ULT Gel System 130 F – 170 F
Table 01: Formulation Gel Systems according to
Temperature.

Factor(adim))

RRF
RRF Residual Resistence Factor(adim
RRFw

Fig 01: North Monagas Field Location

RRFo

Q/min)
Q(cc/min)
Q(cc
Disproportionate
Sub Surface Safety Valve
DisproportionateReduction
Permeability Permeability Reduction
(DPR)
(SSSV) @ 377 ft DPR)

20” Casing @ 1030 ft

RRF
RRFw
13 3/8” Casing @ 5620 ft
RRFo
RRFo

4-1/2” Production Tubing, 12.75

PPF, 95SS, 563 HYDRIL
Q
Q(cc/min)
Q(cc/min)
Blockage
Bottom P & T Sensor @ 13219’ Blockage
Locator, ID 4,67” @ 13250’
9 5/8” x 6” ID Permanent Packer
@ 13253’ Fig 03: RRF Trends for DPR and Blockage Effects
9 5/8” x 5 1/2” Hanger @ 13287’

9 5/8” Casing @ 13585’

2000
RRF AGUA
1600 RRF CRUDO
R R F (a d im )

(14413 ft – 15076 ft) Lower

Naricual Sand
1200

5 1/2” Landing Collar @ 15083’

800
5 1/2” Liner Shoe @ 15130´ 400
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2
Fig 02: Typical Well Schematic
Flow (ml/min)

Fig 04: Core Test, RRF Trends for Well #W-46,

where it can be observed the DPR Effect
SPE 106564 11

PLT Before, Choke Size = 3/8"

5/8” Choke Size 1/2” Choke Size
(14550 - 14560)

(14828 - 14838)
DPR Effect
Water (BWPD)
Zones (ft)

(14876 - 14882)
Oil (BOPD)
(14886 - 14894)

(14908 - 14935)

(14990 - 15000)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Rate (BPD)

Fig 05: PLT before treatment, Oil Well #01

Rate (BPD) Rate (BPD)

Fig 08: PLT Results after Treatment, Oil Well #02

PLT After, Choke Size = 3/8"

(14550 - 14560)

(14828 - 14838)

Water (BWPD)
Zones (ft)

(14876 - 14882)
Oil (BOPD)
(14886 - 14894)

(14908 - 14935)

(14990 - 15000)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Rate (BPD)

Fig 06: PLT after treatment, Oil Well #01

5/8” Choke Size 1/2” Choke Size

Rate (BPD) Rate (BPD)

Fig 07: PLT Results before treatments, Oil Well #02

12 SPE 106564

Fig 09: PLT before treatment, Oil Well #03. It shows Fig 10: PLT after, Oil Well #03. It does not show any
gas flow from A-1 upper sand gas flow from A-1 upper sand
 SPE 106564 13

INYECTOR
14/05/01
Fig 08: PLT after treatment, Oil Production Well 13078-13090

#03. It does not show any gas flow from A-1 upper 13094-13152

13162-13174
sand 13197-13230

13248-13273

13278'-13310'

13310-13336
13434-13465

13465'-13480' Total 44
Gas Injection
MMPCGD
13488-13522 Rate = 44 MMSCFPD
13558-13568

13574-13586

13592-13602

13606-13616

13624-13665

13665'-13676'

13710-13728

13748-13762

13764-13774
13800-13820

13858-14866

13873-13884
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Fig 13: Last PLT result before treatment, Gas Injector Well
#05. It shows a clear gas injection channeling through (13078
ft – 13090 ft) upper zone
Fig 11: Oil Well #04, PLT before treatment. It can be
observed gas flow from the lower section of upper
sand at (16860 ft – 16950 ft)
INYECTOR
30/07/01
13078-13090

13094-13152

13162-13174

7500
13197-13230
P= 7183 psi 13248-13273
7000 13278'-13310'
PI before = 4.846 MMSCFPD/(1000 psi)
13310-13336
6500
13434-13465

13465'-13480'
Total 38
GasMMPCGD
Injection
Pressure (psi)

6000

Choke 1/4"
13488-13522 Rate = 38 MMSCFPD
5500 Choke 5/16" 13558-13568
13574-13586
5000
13592-13602
PI after = 0.860 MMSCFD/(1000 psi)
13606-13616
4500
13624-13665
Choke 1/4"
4000 13665'-13676'
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000
Qg (MMSCFPD) 13710-13728

Fig 12: Oil Well #04, Graph generated with bottom 13748-13762

differential pressures to obtain PI before and after 13764-13774

13800-13820

13858-14866

13873-13884
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Fig 14: PLT result after treatment, Gas Injector Well

#05. It shows a not enough gas injection reduction
through (13078 ft – 13090 ft) upper zone