Controlling Water Production Using
Gelled Polymer Systems
G.P. Willhite, SPE, University of Kansas and R.E. Pancake, SPE, Murfin Drilling Co, Inc.
Summary
Arbuckle reservoirs in central Kansas produce by natural water-
drive. Although clean oil is usually produced on initial completion
of a well, the water cut increases with time. Water cuts of 99% and
water production rates of 400 to 3,000 B/D are common. Wells can-
not be pumped off. Water production has been reduced selectively
by treating wells with a chrome acetate-polyacrylamide gelant. In
most cases, incremental oil is produced following the treatment.
This paper describes results from a seven-well program in
which production wells were treated with chrome acetate-
polyacrylamide gelant. Pressure data were obtained before the
treatment, during the gel treatment and after gel treatment. Buildup
data were interpreted to estimate kh before the treatment, and the
extent of permeability reduction to oil and water caused by the
treatment. Bottomhole-pressure (BHP) data obtained during the
treatment provided were used to monitor gelant placement. Pro-
duction data following the treatments were analyzed to determine
incremental oil production and correlate the treatments to the pro-
duction response. Water-production rates were reduced in every
well, and reductions were persistent during intervals ranging from
7 to 36 months. Incremental oil was produced in four of seven
wells treated in the program. The amount of incremental oil in-
creased with volume of gelant injected in wells with openhole
completions. Results of this test program suggest how to distin-
guish wells that are likely to take large treatments from those that
can be treated only with small amounts of gelant. These results
should improve treatment design and identify wells that are good
candidates for successful treatment.
Introduction
The Arbuckle reservoirs in central Kansas are a major source of oil
production. These reservoirs produce by natural waterdrive, yield-
ing millions of bbl of fluid during 40 years with little decline in
pressure from discovery pressures. In many reservoirs, a thick oil
column is believed to be underlain by an extensive aquifer, as
shown in Fig. 1, and development was accomplished by complet-
ing the wells open hole in the upper 2 to 10 ft. Penetration was
limited because deeper completions often led to production of
large volumes of water. The nature of the connection with the
water aquifer is not understood. However, water/oil ratios in-
creased with time, and ratios of 100:1 or higher are common when
production becomes uneconomic. Other Arbuckle reservoirs ap-
pear to consist of multiple permeable layers separated by lower-
porosity intervals (Franseen et al. 2003; Mulling and Ireland
1967), as shown in Fig. 2. In these reservoirs, wells are completed
by setting the casing through the entire productive interval and
perforating selective intervals. The wells also produce large vol-
umes of water with time, but the contributions of each interval to
the production of oil and water are not known.
Arbuckle reservoir rock is a dolomite with highly variable
properties. Permeabilities vary from a few millidarcies to several
darcies (Mulling and Ireland 1967). Because of the completion
practices, Arbuckle cores are limited. Complete cores through the
entire productive interval are not available in the major Arbuckle
reservoirs, such as that shown in Fig. 1, so net thickness is uncertain.
Copyright © 2008 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 89464) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/DOE Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, 17–21 April, and revised for publication. Original manuscript
received for review 19 January 2004. Revised manuscript received for review 27 February
2008. Paper peer approved 6 March 2008.
454
Arbuckle wells frequently have high initial production rates
that are considered to be inconsistent with flow through matrix
rock. A typical reservoir description of wells completed (as shown
in Fig. 1) usually contains a hypothetical fracture system con-
nected to the aquifer to explain the high water-production rates.
Consequently, water-shutoff programs usually are developed with
the objective of treating the fractures, shutting off direct flow of
water to the producing well, and forcing the water through matrix
rock where oil can be displaced. Some Arbuckle core is not frac-
tured, leading to the possibility that vugs and other permeable flow
paths exist within Arbuckle reservoirs. Arbuckle reservoirs (such
as that shown in Fig. 2) consist of alternating oil- and water-
saturated intervals. There is no evidence of communication be-
tween separate zones in Fig. 2, and it is common to find water-
saturated zones above oil-saturated zones.
An important characteristic of the Arbuckle reservoirs is the
strong pressure support from either bottomwater or edgewater
aquifers (Franseen et al. 2003; Mulling and Ireland 1967). Fig. 3
shows a pressure buildup from Hadley A#3. The well was pro-
duced at a rate of 740 B/D (733 BWPD and 7.5 BOPD) with a
producing BHP of 896 psi. Pressure buildup was rapid and was
complete within 1 hour after the well was shut-in. As described in
the section “Pressure Buildup During Gel Injection,” pressure
buildup after the completion of a polymer-gel treatment was also
rapid, indicating a good hydraulic connection with the source of
reservoir pressure after the gel treatment.
Gelled-polymer treatments have been used successfully to re-
duce water production in Arbuckle wells, prolonging the life of
some wells and increasing oil recovery (Moffitt 1993; Sloat 1975;
Portwood 1999, 2005). Since 1989, more than 1,400 treatments
have been applied. This paper describes results from a seven-well
program in which production wells were treated with chrome ac-
etate-polyacrylamide gelant to reduce water production and in-
crease oil production. Pressure data were obtained before the treat-
ment to estimate reservoir permeability. BHP data obtained during
some gel treatments provided insight into the behavior of gelant
during placement. Finally, buildup data were obtained after gel
treatment to determine the extent of permeability reduction to oil
and water caused by the treatment.
Arbuckle Gel Program
A field program was developed through the cooperation of Vess
Oil Company, Murfin Drilling Company, Tiorco, Gel-Tec, and
Trilobite Testing LLC to evaluate candidates selected for gel treat-
ments before the treatment and to determine the effect of the gel
treatments on reservoir properties and oil/water production. Seven
wells were identified by the respective companies as high water
producers. Pressure buildups were conducted on each well before
treatment using a computerized fluid-level unit (Echometer,
Wichita Falls, Texas) to estimate the properties of the reservoir
around the well. Continuous BHP recorders were run in five wells
to record pressure and temperature before, during, and after the gel
treatments. The description of each gel treatment was obtained.
Pressure-buildup tests were conducted on six of the wells after the
gel treatment to estimate the properties of the reservoir after the gel
treatment. Production data and fluid levels were provided for
each well so that the effects of the gel treatment on production
were evaluated.
Table 1 summarizes the data available for each well before the
gel treatment. Water-production rates averaged 837 B/D, with wa-
ter cuts of approximately 0.99. Wells were acidized before the
polymer treatments to clean the wellbore and surrounding region.
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Fig. 1—Schematic of typical open hole completion in the Ar-
buckle formation in the Bemis Shutts field in central Kansas.
Fig. 2—Cross section of Arbuckle interval in Fuller 11 showing oil productive zones.
Fig. 3—Pressure buildup of Hadley A#3 to estimate reservoir properties before gel treatment.
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Gel treatments were carried out after the spent acid was swabbed
from the well. There was no attempt to determine if part of the
oil-production increase observed following the gel treatment could
be attributed to wellbore cleanup by the acid. All gel treatments
were performed using the chrome acetate-polyacrylamide system
(Sydansk 1988) licensed to Gel-Tec and TIORCO by Marathon
Oil Company. Treatments are summarized in Table 2. The in-
jected gelant was prepared by mixing polymer and crosslinking
agent in fresh water. Polymer concentrations varied from 3,500 ppm
to 7,000 ppm. The ratio of polymer to Cr(III) was 40:1 on a mass
basis. Volume of gelant injected at each concentration was deter-
mined by the vendor on the basis of the pressure response of the
well. All wells had some period during which gelant was injected
on vacuum (i.e., no surface pressure was detected). Surface pres-
sure developed during several treatments, leading to termination of
the gel treatment before injection of the volume anticipated in de-
signing the project. BHP was limited to avoid fracturing the well.
Results from treatments of the seven wells are presented in
Tables 3 and 4. Water-production rates were reduced significantly
by the treatment, and values of the water productivity index, Jw
(given in B/D/psi) after treatment were lower by a factor of 2 or
larger than the pretreatment values, as shown in Fig. 4. Reduction
of the water productivity index persisted for periods ranging from
7 months to more than 36 months in five wells, as shown in Table
4, and were still at these levels at the end of December 2006. Both
Hall B#4 and McCord A#4 returned close to pretreatment values
455
456 June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
of Jw after production of 40,000 to 50,000 bbl of fluid. Persistence
of the reduced values of Jw in five of the seven wells demonstrates
that this gel system is resistant to deterioration over long periods of
time after placement. This contrasts with earlier gel systems,
which tended to wash out with time and lose their effectiveness in
reducing water production. Reduction of water production should
lead to substantial reduction in lifting and water-disposal costs.
These costs are viewed by some operators to be offset by the cost
of additional chemical treatment to control corrosion.
In most cases, incremental oil must be produced to justify the
polymer treatment. In wells that had a good oil response (Hadley
A#3, Hall B#4, Colahan A#8, and J. Johansen #8), there was a
flush-oil-production rate that declined with volume of fluid pro-
duced. Oil and water rates following the treatment of J. Johansen
#8, presented in Fig. 5, are typical responses to a successful gel
treatment. In Fig. 5, oil rates after treatment remained approxi-
mately 4 B/D above the pretreatment rate 4 years after the treat-
ment. Oil-production rates decline with volume of fluid produced,
as shown in Fig. 6. Fig. 6 illustrates the decline of the oil-
productivity index (Jo in B/D/psi) for J. Johansen #8 with cumu-
lative volume of fluid produced. The value of Jo declined to the
pretreatment value (0.027 B/D/psi) after production of approxi-
mately 55,000 bbl of fluid. This well was produced with approxi-
mately the same drawdown following the gel treatment. There
appears to be no reduction of Jo as a result of the polymer treat-
ment in this well. However, as noted earlier in this section, the
contribution of the acid treatment to increased oil production (pos-
sibly because of wellbore cleanup) is unknown. Estimated incre-
mental oil produced was determined by deducting the oil that
would have been produced at the pretreatment rate for the time
interval from the beginning of the treatment to the time when Jo
returned to the pretreatment value. Volume of incremental oil was
8,775 bbl for J. Johansen #8, which is equivalent to 2.95 bbl of oil
per bbl of gelant injected, as indicated in Table 3.
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Well McCord A#4 did not respond favorably to the gel treat-
ment, and Jo declined below the pretreatment value after the pro-
duction of 20,000 bbl of fluid. The effective permeability of this
well is so low that only a small amount of gelant could be injected
before the job was terminated because of surface pressure to avoid
fracturing the formation.
Wells Fuller 10-28 and Fuller 11 had multiple zones open
during the gel treatment. The amount of gel that entered each zone
was not known. The zones are believed to be isolated, as indicated
in Fig. 2 (Fuller 11). The contribution of each zone to well pro-
ductivity was unknown. Oil and water rates for Fuller 10-28 are
shown in Fig. 7. Water production was reduced by factors of 11.5
and 9.5, respectively, for Fuller 10-28 and Fuller 11, which were
nearly pumped off for most of the time period after the gel treat-
ment. Although there was a small amount of incremental oil pro-
duced in the first 2 months following the gel treatment, stable oil
rates were less than pretreatment values. This led to the loss of oil
production, as shown in Table 3. The water/oil ratio returned to
pretreatment values with the wells pumped off. On the basis of
these results, gel treatments in Arbuckle wells with multiple iso-
lated zones do not appear to have the potential for generating
additional oil production. Water production was reduced dispro-
portionately, but these treatments would not be economic just be-
cause of cost savings from reduced water production on most
leases. Incremental oil production is needed for economic treatment.
The amount of incremental oil increased with volume of gelant
injected, as shown in Fig. 8, for wells completed open hole. This
suggests that treatment volume should be considered in the design
of water-shutoff programs.
Gel Placement
An important parameter in gel placement is the gelation time.
In-situ gelation causes rapid reduction of permeability with a cor-
responding increase in pressure and/or reduction of rate. It is im-
457

Fig. 4—Graph of Jw vs. cumulative volume of fluid produced
after treatment of wells with polymer gelant.
Fig. 5—Oil- and water-production rates from J. Johansen #8 before and after gelled polymer treatment.
Fig. 6—Graph of Jo vs. cumulative volume of fluid produced for J. Johansen #8.
458
portant to design the composition of the gelant so that the desired
volume can be injected into the reservoir before injection becomes
limited by either injection rate or pressure.
Temperature of the Arbuckle formation ranges from 103 to
112°F in the wells treated. In this temperature range, the gel time
in bottle tests is on the order of 5 to 6 hours for polymer concen-
trations of approximately 5,000 ppm. Results from a typical bottle
test at 104°F are shown in Fig. 9, in which the viscosity measure-
ments are plotted against time for a solution containing 5,000 ppm
Alcoflood 935 and 100 ppm chromium as chromium triacetate in
1% KCl solution. The onset of gelation is characterized by a rapid
rise in viscosity at approximately 5.7 hours. Gelation time de-
creases as polymer concentration increases at the same ratio of
polymer to chromium.
In previous research (Jordan et al. 1982), we demonstrated that
the gel time follows an Arrhenius relationship given by Eq. 1:
B
−
tg = Ae T, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
where T is the absolute temperature and A and B are constants
determined from experimental data. Gel time decreases exponen-
tially with increasing temperature. Gel quality is checked often
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 7—Oil- and water-production rates from Fuller 10-28 before and after polymer-gel treatment.
during placement by measuring the gelation characteristics at el-
evated temperature to accelerate gelation.
Gelants are prepared by mixing polymer and crosslinker with
water at ambient temperature by use of a portable injection unit.
Treatment rates varied from 1,000 to 1,800 B/D depending upon
formation properties and the injection unit. If the gelant is mixed
inline, the polymer solution will arrive at the Arbuckle-formation
sandface (depth approximately 3,150 to 3,500 ft) within 20 to
30 minutes after mixing. Time from mixing is slightly longer for
gelants that are batch mixed before injection. The time between
mixing and arrival at the sandface is a small fraction of the gel
time. Thus, the solution leaving the wellbore is a high-
concentration polymer solution containing crosslinker but with no
gel structure.
All gel treatments were performed in the October-through-
December time interval, so injection temperatures were in the
range of 50 to 65°F. The temperature of the gelant entering the
reservoir is substantially less than the reservoir temperature for
most of the treatment. For example, bottomhole temperatures mea-
sured during the first 9 hours of the gel treatment in J. Johansen #8
are shown in Fig. 10. The gelant temperature entering the forma-
tion dropped from approximately 90 to 62°F during this time and
remained at approximately 62°F until the treatment was com-
pleted. Actual gel time of the solution entering the formation is
significantly longer than that determined from bottle tests at res-
ervoir temperature. The temperature of the gelant increases as the
solution is displaced into the warmer formation and the rate of
gelation increases.
Pressure Response During Gel Injection
Pressure data from the five wells equipped with BHP gauges dur-
ing gel placement are plotted in Figs. 11 through 15. Changes in
Fig. 8—Correlation of incremental oil with volume of gelant in-
jected for wells completed open hole.
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
gelant composition are noted on each graph, but changes in injec-
tion rate are not indicated. Hadley A#3 (Fig. 11) and Hall B#4
(Fig. 12) were treated on vacuum. Both wells had substantial in-
jectivity at the end of the treatment and were capable of being
treated with larger volumes of gelant. Gelant volume was limited
by the maximum wellhead pressure for J.Johansen #8 (Fig. 13, and
McCord A#4 (Fig. 14), and treatments were terminated before
the anticipated volume of gelant was injected to avoid fracturing
the formation.
Gel treatments are terminated by injecting water and/or oil to
flush the gelant from the tubing and casing. In some wells, this is
followed by an oil overflush to displace the gelant enough distance
from the wellbore to avoid near-wellbore plugging when gelation
occurs and to provide continuity when the well is placed on pro-
duction. Volumes of fluid injected for each treatment are presented
in Table 2. Water and oil flushes generally are injected at 900 to
1,080 B/D.
Pressure profiles during the injection of 3,500 ppm gelant,
shown in Figs. 11 and 12, and the injection of 4,000 ppm gelant in
Fig. 13 are characteristic of radial flow of a polymer solution from
the wellbore through a porous matrix rather than linear flow in a
major fracture system. There is little indication of in-situ gelation
during this time period. In contrast, the pressure in McCord A#4
increased rapidly with time during the injection of 3,500 ppm
gelant, as shown in Fig. 14. This well is thought to have low
effective water permeability as indicated from the analysis of pres-
sure-buildup data obtained before the gel treatment. The pressure
increase is attributed to retention of polymer because of displace-
ment through the low-permeability porous matrix with in-situ ge-
lation occurring as the concentration of retained polymer increases
with time. At the end of the gel treatments, the pressure in these
wells decreased quickly to the initial reservoir pressure.
The pressure response in Hall B#4 contains several pressure
cycles of approximately 100 psi. This is because of the buildup of
the fluid level in the injection tubing followed by the increased
injection rate at the higher pressures with a corresponding drop in
fluid level and BHP.
Continuous measurement of BHP provides information on in-
jectivity of the gelant. Fig. 16 is a correlation of gelant injectivity
with volume of gelant injected. Injectivity is expressed in terms of
B/D/psi/ft, in which the feet of formation open at the wellbore is
used to calculate injectivity. The decrease in injectivity with vol-
ume of gelant injected is consistent with radial-flow models on the
basis of the displacement of a viscous solution in the formation.
Continuous measurement of BHP also provides the capability to
adjust polymer concentration during the treatment in response to
changes in injectivity, particularly in the last part of the treatment
when in-situ gelation begins to occur. Pressure measurement al-
lows the operator to tailor the last stage so that a high-concentra-
tion gel region can be placed in the immediate vicinity of the
wellbore to minimize production of polymer when the well is
returned to production.
459
 Fig. 9—Variation of solution viscosity of typical chrome acetate/polyacrylamide gelant with time from mixing at 104°F.
Analysis of Pressure-Buildup Data Before and
After Polymer Treatment
Pressure-buildup data were obtained before each gel treatment
with the hope that analysis of the data could provide insight for the
design of future gel treatments. Each well was selected previously
by the operator for treatment, so interpretation of buildup data was
used for analysis of the treatment rather than selection of candi-
dates for treatment.
Analysis of the pressure-buildup data before the gel treatment
is complicated by wellbore-storage effects that dominate a large
fraction of the buildup period in Arbuckle wells. Fig. 3 illustrates
the pressure/time data from the initial buildup in Hadley A#3.
Pressure rises quickly to the initial reservoir pressure. The well-
bore-storage effect is so long that it is not possible to identify the
appropriate place to determine effective permeability using Horner
analysis. A second complication in the analysis of data is the lack
of information on reservoir thickness in reservoirs completed only
a few feet at the top of the reservoir. In these wells, only the open
hole interval is known with certainty from well-completion
records. The effective thickness of each well estimated from the
water/oil contact is an approximation.
Effective oil and water permeabilities were estimated from the
pressure-buildup data by using computerized analysis of the
buildup data, assuming that a constant-pressure boundary condi-
tion existed. In all cases, the simplest reservoir model that could be
used to interpret the data was radial flow in a reservoir with uni-
form horizontal properties, constant-pressure boundaries, and uni-
form vertical permeability. Wells completed open hole at the top of
the formation (Hadley A#3, Hall B#4, McCord A#4, Colahan A#8,
and J. Johansen #8) were analyzed using a partially-penetrating-
Fig. 10—Bottomhole temperature during the first 9 hours of gel placement in J. Johansen #8.
460
well model (Streltsova-Adams 1979). Partial penetration causes a
pseudoskin because of limited entry into the well. The analysis
produced estimates of vertical permeability (kz) and the skin. Re-
sults from the analysis of pre- and post-treatment pressure-buildup
data are summarized in Table 5.
Gelant injectivity was adequate in wells with effective water
permeability of 46 md or greater and vertical permeabilities (kz)
ranging from 263 to 554 md. Of the wells in which complete
buildups were available before treatment, McCord A#4 was esti-
mated to have such low effective permeability that limited gelant
injection was expected and was observed. This well produced little
incremental oil and the water productivity index returned to pre-
treatment values within a year following treatment. Fuller 11 also
had limited polymer injectivity. This well has five distinct perfo-
rated zones separated by low-permeability layers, as shown in Fig.
2. There is no way to determine from buildup tests if one or two
zones are the principal contributors to high water production. Pre-
treatment buildups have the potential to identify wells that are likely
to have low effective permeability and cannot be treated effectively
with gelant concentrations typically used in Arbuckle formations.
Analysis of pressure-buildup data often does not produce
unique interpretations. It is frequently possible to match data with
different models. For example, it is possible to match the pressure
buildup in McCord A#4 using a radial-homogeneous model with
constant-pressure boundaries located equidistant from the well.
Good matches were obtained for net thickness of 38 and 64 ft.
Pressure-buildup data also were matched with a partial-penetration
model, which assumes uniform vertical permeability, kz, through-
out the model. A large value of kz reported in Table 5 means there
is little vertical pressure gradient in this model. The partial-
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 11—BHP in Hadley A#3 during gel treatment.
penetration model does not have the capability of indicating a
channel near the wellbore. A positive skin is expected from the
analysis of buildups using partial-penetration models of the well-
bore. A negative skin may indicate near-wellbore enhancement of
permeability because of acid treatments.
Pressure buildups conducted several weeks after a well was in
production after treatment were analyzed to estimate the effect of
the treatment on the reservoir properties in the region around the
wellbore. In Hadley A#3 and Hall B#4, the stabilized pressure at
the end of the buildup after the gel treatment was lower than the
initial reservoir pressure. For example, the post-treatment stabi-
lized pressure in Hadley A#3, shown in Fig. 17 was approximately
90 psi less than the pressure measured before the treatment. This
reduction in stabilized reservoir pressure may occur because the
gel treatment reduced the connectivity between the source of res-
ervoir pressure and the drainage volume affected by this well. In
addition, the post-treatment buildup took longer to reach the sta-
bilized pressure, as shown in Fig. 17, for Hadley A#3.
In contrast, pressure data obtained from McCord A#4 in Fig. 18
show no effect of gel treatment on the reservoir pressure. The
effective vertical permeability, kz, was reduced significantly by the
treatment in Hadley A#3 and Colahan A#8. This may correlate
with reduced water production observed in these wells.
Analysis of post-treatment-buildup data indicates that signifi-
cant skin effects were present in three of the wells with open hole
completions. Effective oil permeability increased in four of the
five open hole-completed wells.
Discussion
Results from the seven-well test program in this paper provide
insight into the design of polymer treatments to reduce water pro-
duction and increase oil production from Arbuckle reservoirs.
Fig. 12—BHP in Hall B#4 during gel treatment.
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
First, there is adequate polymer injectivity in most wells to permit
injection of a significant quantity of polymer with crosslinking
agent if appropriate polymer concentrations are used to prepare the
gelant. Pressure-buildup tests can be used to estimate effective
water and oil permeability in the region connected to a well and to
identify wells that may not have sufficient injectivity to receive an
effective polymer treatment.
Pressure-buildup tests also provide rule-of-thumb evaluation of
potential injectivity from the time required to reach a stable res-
ervoir pressure. Fig. 19 shows buildup data from five wells with
open hole completions. Three wells reached stable pressures (fluid
levels) in 2 hours or less and had sufficient injectivity during gel
placement. Wells with slow buildup, such as that observed for
McCord A#4, do not have sufficient permeability for a gel treatment.
Realtime-BHP measurement is a useful tool in managing the
treatment process, particularly in adjusting rates and compositions
in response to changes in reservoir flow characteristics in a spe-
cific well. This was the first use of BHP gauges in Arbuckle
treatments, and it led to widespread use of pressure measurement
in subsequent treatments.
The water productivity index was reduced significantly in all
wells that were treated, and the reduction persisted for periods in
excess of 3 years. Produced-fluid volumes were reduced as well as
associated lifting/disposal costs. In general, incremental oil is re-
quired to justify the treatment. Oil productivity indices following
treatment were larger than pretreatment values and declined to
pretreatment values with volume of fluid produced in all wells.
Four wells (Hadley A#3, Hall B#4, Colahan A#8, and J. Johansen
#8) were still producing incremental oil approximately 3 years
after treatment. Incremental oil was produced in four of the seven
wells treated in this study. It is not possible to predict the amount
of incremental oil stemming from a given treatment.
461
 Fig. 13—BHP in J. Johansen #8 during gel treatment.
The amount of incremental oil increased with the volume of
gelant injected, as shown in Fig. 8. We hypothesize that incremen-
tal oil is produced when water-flow paths are shut off by gel
injection, forcing the water to flow through regions that have not
been displaced to the same saturations by previous water flows.
The duration of the response to the treatment should be a function
of the volume of gelant injected, and wells receiving small treat-
ments should have a limited response. This interpretation is sup-
ported by the response of McCord A#4 to a small-volume gel
treatment. This also suggests that larger-volume treatments should
increase the amount of oil that is potentially recoverable using gel
treatments. Treatment size has increased to approximately 4,000
bbl for similar wells in the Arbuckle reservoirs in central Kansas.
Wells are acidized before gel treatment, possibly removing well-
bore damage and increasing the productivity index. Sustained in-
creased oil-production rates, several years after the gel treatment,
as shown in Fig. 5, may be the result of the large acid treatment.
There is no way to isolate this effect from the gel treatment.
Conclusions
The conclusions are based on the seven-well program to evaluate
the treatment of wells to reduce water production from Arbuckle
reservoirs in central Kansas using chromium acetate-polyacryl-
amide gelant. The analysis was performed after wells were se-
lected and treated.
1. Water-production rates and the water productivity indices were
reduced in every well by the polymer treatment. Reductions
ranged from 53 to 90%.
2. Reduction of the water productivity index persisted for periods
ranging from 7 months to more than 36 months in four wells
and was still at these levels at the end of the test period. The
Fig. 14—BHP in McCord A#4 during gel treatment.
462
water productivity index returned to pretreatment values in two
wells after production of 40,000 to 50,000 bbl of fluid.
3. The oil productivity index declined with volume of fluid pro-
duced in wells in which fluid-level data were available at a
frequency adequate to estimate the productivity index. Incre-
mental oil production was considered complete when the oil
productivity index declined to the pretreatment value.
4. Incremental oil was produced in four of the seven wells, and
was produced for approximately 3 years after treatment.
5. The amount of incremental oil increased with volume of gelant
injected in wells with open hole completions.
6. Three wells had a reduction in the oil productivity index from
the polymer treatment. Water productivity indices in two of
these wells were reduced by a factor of approximately 10.
7. Pressure-buildup data taken before treatment of a well may
allow identification of wells with low effective water perme-
ability, which cannot be treated with a large gel treatment.
Open hole completions with effective water permeability
greater than 46 md were treated successfully with sufficient
gelant to obtain incremental-oil recovery.
8. Wells with open hole completions that built up to stable res-
ervoir pressure in less than 2 hours had adequate gel injectivity
for a large-volume treatment.
9. The single unsuccessful gel treatment was performed in a well
with open hole completion that had an effective water perme-
ability of 14 md, estimated from the pressure-buildup analysis
before treatment. This effective permeability appears to be too
low to be treated using the gel compositions containing 3,500
ppm polymer or larger.
10. Treatments of wells containing multiple productive zones re-
duced the water production disproportionately to oil but re-
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 15—BHP in Colahan A#8 during gel treatment.
duced the oil production below pretreatment values. These
wells are not candidates for gel treatments when incremental
oil is needed to obtain a successful treatment.
Nomenclature
A ⳱ constant determined from experimental data in Eq. 1, hours
B ⳱ constant determined from experimental data in Eq. 1, °R
kw ⳱ water permeability in horizontal direction, md
ko ⳱ oil permeability in horizontal direction, md
kz ⳱ vertical permeability of reservoir, md
Jw ⳱ water productivity index, B/D/psi
Jo ⳱ oil productivity index, B/D/psi
tg ⳱ gelation time in beaker test, hours
T ⳱ absolute temperature, °R
Acknowledgments
The data presented in this paper were obtained through a coopera-
tive effort involving Murfin Drilling Company, Vess Oil Com-
pany, Gel Technologies Corporation, Tiorco, Trilobite Testing LLC,
and the Tertiary Oil Recovery Project at the University of Kansas.
References
Franseen, E.K., Byrnes, A.P., Cansler, J.R. et al. 2003. Geologic Controls
on Variable Character of Arbuckle Reservoirs in Kansas: An Emerging
Picture. Kansas Geological Survey, Open-file Report no. 2003-59.
Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas.
Jordan, D.S., Green, D.W., Terry, R.E., and Willhite, G.P. 1982. The Effect
of Temperature on Gelation Time for Polyacrylamide/Chromium (III)
Fig. 16—Correlation of gelant injectivity with volume of gel injected.
June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Systems. SPEJ 22 (4): 463–471. SPE-10059-PA. DOI: 10.2118/10059-
PA.
Moffitt, P.D. 1993. Long-Term Production Results of Polymer Treatments
in Producing Wells in Western Kansas. JPT 45 (4): 356–362. SPE-
22649-PA. DOI: 10.2118/22649-PA.
Mulling, C.A. and Ireland, W.C. 1967. Additional Arbuckle Reserves De-
veloped Below Original Completion Depth in Stratified Reservoir. Pa-
per SPE 1963 presented at the SPE Midway USA Oil and Gas Sym-
posium, Wichita, Kansas, 9–10 November. DOI: 10.2118/1963-MS.
Portwood, J.T. 1999. Lessons Learned from Over 300 Producing Well
Water Shut-off Gel Treatments. Paper SPE 52127 presented at the SPE
Mid-Continent Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
28–31 March. DOI: 10.2118/52127-MS.
Portwood, J.T. 2005. The Kansas Arbuckle Formation: Performance
Evaluation and Lessons Learned from More Than 200 Polymer-Gel
Water-Shutoff Treatments. Paper SPE 94096 presented at the 2005 SPE
Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
16–19 April. DOI: 10.2118/94096-MS.
Sloat, B. 1975. Increasing Oil Recovery by Chemical Control of Producing
Water-Oil Ratios. Paper SPE 5341 presented at the Rocky Mountain
Regional Meeting of SPE-AIME, Denver, 7–9 April. DOI: 10.2118/
5341-MS.
Streltsova-Adams, T.D. 1979. Pressure Drawdown in a Well With Limited
Flow Entry. JPT 31 (11): 1469–1476. SPE-7486-PA. DOI: 10.2118/
7486-PA.
Sydansk, R.D. 1988. A New Conformance-Improvement-Treatment Chro-
mium(III) Gel Technology. Paper SPE 17329 presented at the SPE
Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, 17–20 April. DOI:
10.2118/17329-MS.
463
 G. Paul Willhite is the Ross H. Forney Distinguished Professor of
SI Metric Conversion Factors Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Kan-
sas, Lawrence, Kansas and Co-Director of the Tertiary Oil Re-
bbl × 1.589 873 E–01 ⳱ m3
covery Project (TORP). He has been a member of the faculty
°F (°F−32)/1.8 ⳱ °C since 1969, served as chair of the department from 1988-1996
ft × 3.048* E–01 ⳱ m and Interim Chair from 2003-2004. Willhite holds a BS degree
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 ⳱ kPa from Iowa State University and a PhD degree from Northwest-
ern University both in chemical engineering. He is the author of
*Conversion factor is exact. the SPE textbook, Waterflooding published in 1986 and the
coauthor of the SPE textbook, Enhanced Oil Recovery pub-

Fig. 17—Comparison of pressure buildup before and after gel treatment in Hadley A#3.

464 June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Fig. 18—Comparison of pressure buildup before and after gel treatment in McCord A#4.

lished in 1998. He received the Distinguished Achievement
Award for Petroleum Engineering Faculty in 1981, the Lester C.
Uren Award in 1986 and the John Franklin Carll Award in 2001.
Willhite received the IOR Pioneer Award at the 2004 SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. He was elected to the Na-
tional Academy of Engineering in 2006. Rich Pancake is a pro-
duction engineer for Murfin Drilling Company in Wichita, Kan-
sas. Previously, he was an EOR engineer for the TORP at the
University of Kansas and an operations engineer for Mobil Oil in
California, Oklahoma, and southwest Kansas. He holds a BS
degree in petroleum engineering and a MS degree in environ-
mental engineering, both from the University of Kansas.

Fig. 19—Pressure buildup of wells with open hole completions.

June 2008 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 465