SPE 97238
Unconventional RPM Applications in Hydraulic Fracturing
J. Leal, SPE, and M.A. Gonzalez, Hocol S.A., and G. Villa, R. Garay, and A. Castro, SPE, BJ Services
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9–12 October 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
In fracturing applications, addition of the Relative
Permeability Modifiers (RPM’s) to water base fracturing
fluids, preferably to pre-pad and pad stages, can provide
multiple potential treatment enhancement benefits. The RPM
may reduce post-stimulation water production, and increase
fracturing fluid efficiency. RPM’s may also pump as a post-
fracturing treatment at matrix rates following load recovery.
After the RPM treatment in an oil well, hydrocarbon solvents
compatible with the hydrocarbon-bearing interval compose the
recommended flush solutions. These solvents may include
aromatic solvents such as xylene, diesel or mixtures of diesel
and aromatic solvent. This flush is designed to reconnect the
hydrocarbon reserves to the wellbore in an effort to accelerate
return of oil production. In this application, the diesel base
frac fluid accomplished this function.
In water sensitive hydrocarbon bearing is desirable to
avoid excessive use of water base fluids. Good results are
obtained using oil base fracturing fluids. However, RPM’s
cannot be added directly to oil base fluids. To address this
issue, an unconventional method was proposed and executed
with successful results. Prior to the propped frac treatment, a
water base frac fluid with RPM polymer is pumped at
fracturing rates, with a volume calculated to occupy the
formation with an equivalent fracture geometry slightly larger
than the expected created geometry of the subsequent propped
oil/solvent based frac fluid treatment.
This paper describes guidelines for candidate
selection for this application, analysis and logs to optimize
treatments, advantages obtained with this method, and case
histories in a Colombian field. The RPM used is a synthetic
ter-polymer based on acrylamide chemistry.
Introduction
Water production in oil wells generally increases with time.
The source of the water is either formation water or injected
water (basic difference being the chloride content) used for
reservoir pressure maintenance purposes. In addition,
heterogeneities encountered in reservoir rocks may cause
water channeling through higher permeability streaks, natural
fractures, hydraulic fractures and/or near-wellbore water
coning at early times in the well's productive life, usually due
to limited reservoir thickness or excessive pressure
drawdowns. Whatever the scenario, the cause is always
associated with a higher mobility of water relative to oil 1, 2, 3.
Commonly used stimulation techniques include
hydraulic fracturing, frac&pack, fracture acidizing, carbonate
and sandstone matrix acidizing. With these techniques, one
can be expecting some increase in productivity index, and, in
turn, an increase on production rate, or decrease pressure
drawdown, or both. The benefits of decreased pressure
drawdown include minimizing sand production and water
conning or reduction of condensate formation 4.
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.
Radial, matrix conformance treatments on these types
of wells are not a commercial option due to treatment costs
and limited production potential, so many of these zones are
under produced or not produced, since hydraulic fracturing
stimulation treatments have traditionally been designed to
avoid water zones, no matter what.
Historically, the ability to control water production,
in conjunction with fracturing treatments, has been achieved
through selective perforating, or mechanical isolation
techniques requiring costly well intervention. As result, one
may end up with a water producer after the fracturing attempt,
because the high-conductivity propped fracture reached the
water table or oil/water transition zone (analogous to having a
high vertical permeability), and also to the unfavorable
water/oil mobility ratio 2, 4.
To convert fracture stimulation technique as a valid
option for these marginal reservoirs, it is required to perform
water control. This treatment may also be pumped as a post-
fracturing treatment at matrix rates following load recovery,
but, since both treatments (conformance and fracturing) are
required, a sole and cost effective solution is to perform them
simultaneously.
Unconventional Conformance Fracture Method
Given the limited extension of typical water control
treatments, a water conformance fracture treatment must
provide a return on investment over its useful life. If the well
2 SPE 97238
is marginal or damaged, it must be stimulated, and if water
zones are near by, then a fracturing fluid becomes a 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 oil zones and can be injected under high shear
(pressure and rate) are the Relative Permeability Modifiers
(RPM's). Therefore, they become the obvious choice and the
ones that are chemically compatible with the selected
fracturing fluid can then be used 2.
By adding an RPM polymer to the fracturing fluid,
preferably to pre-pad and pad stages, or throughout the
complete treatment, a resistance to water flow will be created
in the fracture fluid filtrate-invaded region on either side of the
fracture faces, and also 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
ratio2), the net effect on oil productivity would be an increase.
Thus, 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.
Treatment is ideally designed for radial penetration of
about 10 ft 5. This radial/matrix concept is not reliable to a
propped fracture. A fracturing treatment reduces the
drawdown pressure at the fracture faces to values below 0.5
psi per square inch, and, under these drawdown pressures, a
RPM can choke water production several times in 2 (two) inch
long cores1. Typically, all fracturing treatments performed as
designed today, already produce an invaded leak-off zone at
the fracture face, with a lateral penetration deeper than three
inches.
On water sensitive fields, or oil fields with high
levels of paraffins and asphaltenes6, it is desirable to avoid
excessive use of water base fluids. The unconventional
conformance fracture method is based on joining an oil based
frac fluid with a RPM on the same well intervention, avoiding
a post-fracturing water control treatment. The advantages to
use an oil based frac fluid are faster fluid recovery, no
polymer damage, and reduced impact on organic deposits
from native crude oil. A standard conformance fracture was
discarded also because the current available RPM’s are not
suitable for use in oil base carrier fluids.
The developed alternative consider the injection of a
water base conform frac fluid (the fluid including RPM as
additive) at fracturing rates, designed to invade the formation
with a created fracture length slightly bigger than the expected
created geometry of the subsequent propped treatment. It is let
to soak overnight to assure adsorption of the RPM, and fluid
breaking, followed by a minifrac test, and a propped frac using
(crosslinked) oil based frac fluid.
The recommended flush solutions after a RPM
treatment on an oil well are composed of hydrocarbon
solvents, compatible with the hydrocarbon-bearing interval.
These solvents can include aromatic solvents such as xylene,
diesel or mixtures of diesel and aromatic solvent. This flush is
designed to reconnect the hydrocarbon reserves to the
wellbore in an effort to accelerate return oil production. On
this unconventional conformance fracture method, this is
accomplished by the oil base frac fluid leak-off, which include
solvents and additives as detailed in the Stimulation Fluids
section of this paper.
Field Description
San Francisco Field, located in the middle Magdalena Valley
basin in Colombia, has an average reservoir depth of 2,700 ft,
below a superficial anticline (at 125 °F temperature). The field
presents three main units in the Caballos formation (KC). Two
units are reservoirs: Upper and Lower Caballos (KCU - KCL).
The third one acts as seal between the two producer units:
Middle Caballos (KCM). Upper Caballos has 9 flow units
known as: A1, A2, B, C1, C2, C3, D, E y F. Lower Caballos
has 3 flow units: A, B y C.
The reservoir is classified as saturated black oil
(approximately 15,000 bbl of oil per day of 27 API deg). The
initial reservoir drive mechanism was solution gas. In 1990 a
peripherical pattern waterflooding project was implemented as
pressure support system (figures 1, 2). In 1997, water injection
in the crestal area of structure was started. An alternated gas
water injection program (WAG) was also initiated in 2000
year in the North East Area.
Currently there are 104 producer wells, 44 injector
wells and 4 inactive wells. 9 wells are completed with
progressive cavity pumps, 55 have electro submersible pumps,
40 wells are completed with beam pumping, and 4 wells are
currently completed as gas injectors as part of the WAG
system.
A continuous workover and stimulation campaign is
required in order to maintain production level because of
different formation damage mechanisms occurring as part of
the field production process:
• Moderate calcium carbonate scaling (associated with
formation water).
• Organic scaling (paraffin /asphaltene).
• Incompatible produced waters (and some emulsions) as
result of early water breaktrough in low water cut wells.
Historically, the main challenge has been control the
water production as part of stimulation intervention. In some
cases, the BSW has been impacted during weeks as result of
base scale inhibition, hydraulic fractures or inorganic acid
intervention, all of which had been in water base fluids,
applying other RPM technologies7, 8.
This paper summarizes the value on having oil base
frac fluids in conjunction with appropriate RPM water control
technology as an alternative option for improving well value,
while reducing water cut and accelerating well stabilization.
Stimulation Fluids
Before the main stimulation treatment (fracture), a carbonate
scale inhibition treatment was performed in each Caballos
zone (upper and lower) matrix rates, in some cases, preceded
by an organic solvent cleaning to improve inhibition treatment
results.
An option to consider the inclusion of compatible
scale inhibitor (a low molecular compound polymer system)
with the RPM frac fluid was done in the second well, but due
to the good results obtained with the selected field proved
phosphonate based scale inhibitor, which impair water base
SPE 97238
frac fluid performance related to its low pH (below 5), this
could be implemented as a standard in a forward step. The
advantages of this single fluid package, RPM frac fluid and
scale inhibitor, are reduction of operational time and injected
water volumes. Also, as the inhibitor is to be injected at frac
rates, the protection, and formation coverage would be better.
The RPM water base frac fluid used was an organo-
borate crosslinked guar fluid (30 ppt polymer) containing a
patented polymer specific enzyme breaker system, which
includes the RPM at 2 to 4%. The RPM used was a moderate
molecular weight hydrophilic synthetic ter-polymer based on
acrylamide chemistry9, 10 which has additional advantages: is
packaged as a concentrated polymer solution without any
surfactants to avoid potential emulsion problems, is easily
pourable into the mix water or pumped on fly. Consequently,
the RPM treatment is operationally simplistic to prepare at the
well site.
RPM concentration depends on the permeability of
the treated zone. Laboratory data for the concentration used in
these cases indicates that oil flow through treated rock is
minimally impacted or essentially unaffected while restriction
to water flow is observed.
Taking in account that the formation crude oil is
around 27°API and has a 13.3% asphaltene and 1.6% paraffin
contents, the oil base fluid was blended with xylene (aromatic
solvent), an aliphatic solvent, terpene based solvent and a
multipurpose surfactant (strong anionic surfactant which has
asphaltene dispersant and asphaltene inhibitor properties).
Also, EGMBE mutual solvent and non-ionic surfactant were
used to improve wettability.
The hydrocarbon frac fluid uses a modified
phosphate ester as a gellant. It is crosslinked with an iron-
based activator11. Two breakers are used to provide adequate
viscosity degradation: a slurried magnesium oxide and a urea
solution. Various viscosity performances at 120°F and 40 sec-1
of the diesel based frac fluid are shown on figure 3, with
different concentrations of solvents and additives. Based on
these results, the formulation selected was the corresponding
to Test 1. In this way, the frac fluid formulated acts also as a
stimulation fluid designed to attack organic deposits and
minimize undesirable reactions with native formation oil.
Looking for a more economic fluid, in order to avoid
the costly diesel, various crude oils from the field or neighbor
fields (table 4) were evaluated, but only the Tenay field crude
oil was able to produce the desired viscosity behavior,
requiring an increased concentration from 4 to 5 gpt of gellant
and x-linker agents compared to the diesel base fluid, to obtain
appropriate performance. The viscosity curves with this base
fluid are shown in figure 2. Test 6 was selected, despite the
viscosity being lower than the other tests, as the fluid accepted
all the other desired additives. Another observation was that
the flash point of the Tenay crude oil is 63°F. When premixed
with the solvents and surfactants (not including the gellant, x-
linker and breakers, that are pumped on fly), this value is
increased to 83°F (table 1), converting the fluid to a less risky
fluid from the point of view of flammability. Then, crude oil
was used as a base fluid in the third well.
All the fluids and treatments used were tested for
compatibility observing no adverse effects.
3
Candidate Selection
This selection process was based on a new methodology that
relates three different well criteria:
1. Implementation of a complete database, including BSW
values, well TVD’s, chlorides source, reservoir pressure,
IPR and the available bottom hole flowing pressures. The
outcome was to rank the water cut percentage, define the
water source (aquifer formation water, injected water or a
mix), determine the hydraulic impact in the wellbore and
compare with the well potential (IPR). A spreadsheet tool
allowed pivoting this table and determining the initial well
selection criteria (Figure 5).
2. A new well completion database, including well deviation
and completion type, allows understanding the fluid
placement risk. Main outcome was focused on getting the
lowest operational risk while ranking cemented cased hole
wells, high angle wells, slotted liner and open hole
completions. A final exercise defines the specific fluid
placement technique and the operational risk value.
3. A complete database with water injection profiles (ILT´s),
allowing the understanding the water injection pattern and
correlating it with oil producer wells.
In addition, after sorting the wells ranking, a
complete PLT/RMT logs were ran for each candidate (just
before start the well intervention) in order to reduce the
reservoir risk, improve the wellbore understanding and
provide an specific water saturation, mineralogy and
production potential / BSW per layer.
Field Case Histories
As of this writing, three wells have been stimulated with the
unconventional conformance fracture method. All three cases
have additional challenge of being highly deviated at the
perforations (+/- 50°). The wells are completed with 7 inch 26
#/ft casing at the upper zones (KCU), and as barefoot on the
lower zone (KCL). Table 2 shows the main characteristics of
the fractured intervals. On each well intervention, the 3 ½”
treating string was cleaned out using a neutral pickling
solution to prevent undesirable injection of materials in the
reservoir12.
Well SF143. This well was the first selected candidate to
evaluate the unconventional conformance fracturing. Two
hydraulic fractures using the diesel base frac fluid were
performed. The operational sequence was as follows:
• A RMT and PLT logs were ran while lifting the well
with nitrogen to define the wellbore profile water production
distribution by layer. Results indicated that 80% of the water
was coming from the lowest KCU interval.
• Each zone was selectively treated using RBP & PKR
with a solvent mix (35% aliphatic solvent, 60% xylene, 2 gpt
multipurpose surfactant, 3 gpt non ionic surfactant, 50 gpt
mutual solvent), injecting at matrix rates, with 8 hours soaking
time.
• Each zone was selectively treated using RBP & PKR
with phosphonate scale inhibitor and overflushed, at matrix
rates, with 12 hours soaking time.
• Each zone was selectively treated using RBP & PKR
with the RPM water base frac fluid at fracturing rates. For the
lower zone 4% of the RPM was used and 2% for the upper
4 SPE 97238

zone. Due operational constraints, the treatment was soaking 2. Incremental reserves estimation is around 80,000 bbls as a
around 36 hours. result of oil base hydraulic frac implementation.
Due the lower than expected frac fluid efficiencies 3. Well cleanup took no more than a week, decreasing the
observed (8%), possible due presence of multiple parallel deferred production impact per intervention (in
fractures, two changes were done: comparison with water based fracs).
- Isolate the lowest interval of each zone with sand before 4. Good experience for using new generation RPM as part of
to perform each main frac treatment, in order to reduce the well stimulation campaign is now extended to wellbore
occurrence of multiples fractures, and application (in a radial matrix way) with good results as
- Add a 30 ppt of biodegrable fluid loss additive (starch well.
based) in the minifrac and pad of the diesel base frac fluid. 5. Application of Tenay crude oil as a frac fluid allowed a
With these adjustments, each zone was successfully cost reduction impact of 25% for the total intervention
hydraulic fractured; placing 8,000 lbs of 16/20 mesh proppant cost compared with the diesel frac fluid and
in the lower zone and 18,700 lbs in the upper zone. Production simultaneously enhanced fluid efficiency, proppant
results are summarized in the table 3. Figure 6 shows the placement and frac geometry.
historical production.
Acknowledgments
Well SF149. On this second well, one fracture treatment with The authors of this paper would like to thank the management
the diesel base frac fluid was performed. The operational of Hocol S.A, Ecopetrol, ATP Ingenieria and BJ Services, for
sequence was as follows: their support, encouragement and permission to publish this
• The three perforated intervals were treated paper.
simultaneously using RBP & PKR, after no success on isolate The authors would also like to acknowledge the
the lowest interval with a sand plug. contributions made to the project by the following individuals:
• Scale inhibitor (low molecular compound polymer Hubert Borja, Luis Eduardo Goyeneche, Armando Sarmiento,
system) was included in the RPM water based frac fluid at 2% Jose Mora, Jorge Falla, Daniel Hernandez, Luis Alejandro
(RPM at 3 %) and injected at fracturing rates. The combined Montes, Carlos Anacona, Pablo Campo and Milton Díaz for
treatment was left soaking for 24 hours. their help and support. We further express our
• Due the low fluid efficiency obtained (6%), and due to acknowledgement to the operational team of BJ Services-
the three exposed intervals (multiple parallel fractures in Neiva for their effort to apply the unconventional technology.
highly deviated wellbore), the biodegrable fluid loss additive
concentration used in the first well was increased to 35 ppt in Nomenclature
the diesel frac fluid, and a 100 mesh sand slug was pumped in BOPD = Barrels of Oil per Day
part of the pad. BFPD = Barrels of Fluid per Day
With these adjustments, a hydraulic fracture was BSW = Basic Sediment and Water (%)
successfully performed, placing 21,000 lbs of 16/20 mesh gpt = Gallons per 1,000 gallons
proppant. Production results are summarized in the table 4. GOR = Gas Oil Ratio
Figure 7 shows the historical production. ILT = Injection Logging Tool
IPR = Inflow Performance Relationship
Well SF147. The third well was hydraulically fractured using MD = Measured Depth (ft)
the Tenay crude oil based frac fluid. Operational sequence MSCFD =Million Standard Cubic Feet per Day
was: PIP = Pressure Intake at Pump
• The two perforated intervals were treated simultaneously PKR = Packer
using RBP & PKR with phosphonate scale inhibitor and PLT = Production Logging Tool
overflushed, at matrix rates, with 12 hours of soaking time. ppt = Pounds per 1,000 gallons
• RPM water base frac fluid was pumped at fracturing rates Pwf = Flowing well pressure (psig)
obtaining 12% fluid efficiency. RBP = Retrievable Bridge Plug
• The minifrac with the crude oil frac fluid resulted in 11% RPM = Relative Permeability Modifier
efficiency with no fluid loss control additives. The main RMT = Reservoir Monitoring Tool
treatment was pumped, placing 26,000 lbs of 16/20 mesh sec = seconds
proppant TVD = Thrue Vertical Depth (ft)
As this job was just recently performed, no WAG = Alternated Gas Water injection
production results are available at the time of writing this #/ft = pounds per foot
paper.
References
Conclusions 1. Dos Santos, J. A., Melo, R. and Di Lullo, G.: “Case History
1. With these three well interventions, the current production Evaluation of RPMs on Conform Fracturing Applications,”
behavior confirms an average BSW reduction of 7% as paper SPE 94352 presented at the 2005 SPE Latin American
result of RPM campaign, considering other matrix and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de
Janeiro, June 20-23.
treatments. This fact confirms the effectiveness of the 2. Di Lullo, G., Rae, P. and Curtis, J.: “New Insights into Water
unconventional conform frac treatment. Control – A Review of the State of the Art - Part II,” paper SPE
SPE 97238 5

79012 presented at the 2002 SPE International Thermal
Operations and Heavy Oil Symposium and International
Horizontal Well Conference, Alberta, Canada, Nov 4–7.
3. 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 2002 Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Melbourne, Australia, Oct. 8–10.
4. Economides, M., Oligney, R. and Valko, P.: Unified Fracture
Design, Orsa Press, Alvin, TX (2002).
5. Kalfayan, L. J. and Dawson, J. C.: “Successful Implementation
of resurgent Relative Permeability Modifier (RPM) Technology
in Well Treatments Requires Realistic Expectations,” paper
SPE 90430 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 26-29.
6. Rae, P. and Di Lullo, G.: “Fracturing Fluids and Breaker
Systems – A Review of the State-of-the-Art,” paper SPE 37359
presented at the 1996 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Columbus, Ohio, Oct. 23-25.
7. Castano, R. et al.: “Relative Permeability Modifier and Scale
Inhibitor Combination in Fracturing Process at San Francisco
Field in Colombia, South America,” paper SPE 77412
presented at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, Sept. 29- Oct. 2.
8. Gonzalez, S., Izquierdo, G. and Tellez, O.: “Best Practices from
RPM-Fracturing Treatments in Colombia, South America,”
paper SPE 89987 presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 26-29.
9. Campbell, J.A., Dawson, J., Kalfayan, L. J. and Malone, M.:
“Development, Laboratory Testing, and First Field
Applications of a New Relative Permeability Modifier to
Reduce Water Production,” paper 105 presented at the 2003
Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition, Ravenna,
Italy, March 26-28.
10. Nelson, S. G., Kalfayan, L. J. and Rittenberry, W. M.: “The
Application of a New and Unique Relative Permeability
Modifier in Selectively Reducing Water Production,” paper
SPE 84511 presented at the 2003 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 5-8.
11. Gupta, D. V. and Leshchyshyn, T. T.: “CO2 Energized
Fracturing Fluid: History & Field Application in Tight Gas
Wells in the Rock Creek Gas Formation,” paper SPE 95061
presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, June 20-23.
12. Curtis, J. and Kalfayan, L. J.: “Improving wellbore and
Formation Cleaning Efficiencies with Environmental Solvents
and Pickling Solutions,” paper SPE 81138 presented at the
2003 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Port of Spain, Trinidad, April 27-30.

Table 1 – Fluids & Flash Point

Fluid * API Gravity Vapor Press. (psi) ** Flash Point (°F)
Balcones Crude 33 2.8 59.5
Tenay Crude 35 2.3 63
San Francisco Crude 27 1.6 92
Tenay Weathered 0.9 63
Tenay + Solvent/Surfactants 1.1 83
* at 60°F ** Cleveland Open Cup

Table 2 – Wells Characteristics at KCU Formation

K Res. Press.
Well Skin Deviation API Perforations (MD)
(md (psi)
SF143 (L) 200 14 48.8º 890 26.8º (3040’-3060’) (3066’-3094’)
SF143 (U) 150 14 48.8º 890 26.8º ( (2974’-2998’) (3002’-3022’)
SF149 90 7 51.9º 790 27.8º (2969’-2984’) (2987’-2992’) (2998’-3022’)
SF147 70 5.5 49.9º 480 26.6º (2952’-2978’) (2992’-3004’)

Table 3 – Production Summary Well SF143

Before Initial After 1 week After 1 Month After 3 Month After 6 Month
BFPD 432 1500 1128 924 884 582
BSW 66 45 52 50 60 63
BOPD 147 825 541 462 358 205
GOR 76 149 148 89 96 163
GAS (MSCFD) 11 123 80 41 34 33

Table 4 – Production Summary Well SF149

Before Initial After 1 week After 1 Month After 3 Month
BFPD 408 348 480 666 518
BSW 68 59 62 60 49
BOPD 131 143 182 266 264
GOR 130 154 157 150 213
GAS (MSCFD) 17 22 29 40 56
6 SPE 97238

Figure 1 – San Francisco Field – BSW Historical and Forecast

Figure 2 – San Francisco Field –Historical Water Injection

SPE 97238 7

Base Fluid: Diesel + 10 gpt Mutual Solvent + 0.5 gpt Surfactant + 4 gpt Gellant + 4 gpt X-Linker
700 280
TEST 1: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 10 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 2 gpt A4 + 0,25 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
TEST 2: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 20 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 2 gpt A4 + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,5 gpt B2
TEST 3: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 10 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 0,25 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
600 TEST 4: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 20 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 2 gpt A4 + 1gpt B1 + 0,5gpt B2 240
TEST 5: BF + 15 gpt A1 + 30 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 3 gpt A4 + 0,25 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
TEST 6: BF + 20 gpt A1 + 20 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 1gpt B1 + 1gpt B2
APPARENT VISCOSITY @ 40 sec-1, Cps

TEST 7: BF + 20 gpt A1 + 20 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 1gpt B1 + 0,5gpt B2

500 TEST 8: BF + 20 gpt A1 + 20 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 2 gpt A4+ 1gpt B1 + 0,5gpt B2 200
Temperature (ºF)

TEMPERATURE, ºF
400 160

300 120

200 80

100 40

0 0
00:01:50

00:13:48

00:23:49

00:33:49

00:43:49

00:53:49

01:03:49

01:13:49

01:23:49

01:33:49

01:43:49

01:53:49

02:03:49

02:13:49

02:23:49

02:33:50

02:42:50
TIME (min)
PRODUCTS : BF = Base Fluid, A1 = Aromatic Solvent, A2 = Aliphatic Solvent, A3 = Terpene Solvent, A4 = Surfactant multi purpose, B1 = Breaker A, B2 = Breaker B

Figure 3 – Diesel Base Frac Fluid Optimization

Base Fluid: Tenay Crude Oil + 10 gpt Mutual Solvent + 0.5 gpt Surfactant + 5 gpt Gellant + 5 gpt X-
400 300
TEST 1: BF + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
TEST 2: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
TEST 3: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 5 gpt A2 + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
TEST 4: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 5 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
TEST 5: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 5 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 2 gpt A4 + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2 250
APPARENT VISCOSITY @ 40 sec-1 (Cps)

TEST 6: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 5 gpt A2 + 5 gpt A3 + 1 gpt A4 + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2

300 TEST 7: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 5 gpt A2 + 10 gpt A3 + 2 gpt A4 + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
TEST 8: BF + 5 gpt A1 + 5 gpt A2 + 10 gpt A3 + 1 gpt A4 + 0,5 gpt B1 + 0,25 gpt B2
S. Temp (°F)
200
TEMPERATURE, (°F)

200 150

100

100

50

0 0
00:03:10

00:23:08

00:43:08

01:03:08

01:23:08

01:43:09

02:03:10

02:23:12

02:43:13

03:03:14

03:23:15

03:43:16

04:03:17

TIME (min)
PRODUCTS : BF = Base Fluid, A1 = Aromatic Solvent, A2 = Aliphatic Solvent, A3 = Terpene Solvent, A4 = Surfactant multi purpose, B1 = Breaker A, B2 = Breaker B

Figure 4 – Crude Oil Base Frac Fluid Optimization

8 SPE 97238

1.6

SF-148

1.4

SF-097
1.2
SF-123

1
SF-083
SF-075
IPoil

SF-095
0.8 SF-043

SF-126 SF-087
SF-135 SF-061
0.6 SF-069 SF-076
SF-034 SF-143
SF-094
SF-014 SF-146
SF-098
SF-040
0.4 SF-059 SF-027 SF-044 SF-145
SF-149 SF-060 SF-042 SF-073
SF-092 SF-100
SF-082
SF-133 SF-025
SF-090
SF-139
SF-019 SF-018 SF-036
SF-078 SF-071
SF-011SF-131 SF-002
SF-028 SF-142 SF-088
SF-004 SF-138 SF-008
SF-053 SF-125
0.2 SF-124
SF-016 SF-096 SF-070 SF-147
SF-085SF-066
SF-111
SF-033 SF-099 SF-089
SF-013 SF-132
SF-063
SF-023
SF-024SF-140 SF-045SF-093
SF-112 SF-129
SF-064
SF-017 SF-068 SF-046
SF-005SF-030 SF-130
SF-074 SF-127 SF-141
SF-081 SF-128 SF-020 SF-137
SF-091
SF-134
SF-010 SF-021
SF-080
SF-051 SF-067 SF-077
SF-047 ST-057T
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
PWF

< 75 75 a 85 86 a 93 >93

Figure 5 – Well Candidate selection – Criteria 1 (BSW %)

10000 100

5000 50

1000 10

500 5

Axis 1 SF-143
100 THP 1
Surface.Casingholepressure
50 PIP 0.5
BPPD
BFPD
Axis 2
BSW SF-143
10 0.1
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2004 2005
Date
Figure 6 – Historical Production. Well SF-143 (Job Date: December 2004).
SPE 97238 9

1000 100

500

50

100

Axis 1 SF-149
50 THP
Surface.Casingholepressure
PIP
BPPD
BFPD
Axis 2
BSW SF-149
10 10
JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
2004 2005
Date
Figure 7 – Historical Production. Well SF-149 (Job Date: March 2005).