Summary
This paper provides guidance on when and where
relative-permeability-modification/disproportionate-permeability-reduction
(RPM/DPR) water-shutoff (WSO) treatments can be successfully applied for use in
either oil or gas production wells. When properly designed and executed, these
treatments can be successfully applied to a limited range of oilfield
excessive-water-production problems. When these treatments are applicable, they
may be placed using bullhead injection (not requiring mechanical zone
isolation)—a very favorable feature. However, there are a substantial number of
limitations and possible pitfalls relating to the successful application of
RPM/DPR WSO treatments. First-time application by an inexperienced operator
should be considered a somewhat high-risk undertaking. In order to successfully
treat unfractured production wells (i.e., radial flow through matrix rock into
the well) that are fully drawn down, the oil and water zones should not be in
pressure communication and the oil-producing zone(s) must be producing at 100%
oil cut (dry oil). When treating unfractured and multizoned production wells
that are not fully drawn down, the well’s long-term oil-production rate can be
increased if the post-treatment drawdown is increased substantially. Treatments
that promote short-term (transient) decreased water/oil ratios can, in
principle, be applied to many unfractured production wells (that are not
totally watered out) in matrix-rock reservoirs. However, these latter
treatments must be custom designed and engineered on a well-by-well basis.
Furthermore, for most wells, the performance and the economics of such
transient WSO treatments are generally marginal. An attractive application of
RPM/DPR WSO treatments is the use of robust pore-filling gels in the matrix
reservoir rock that is adjacent to a fracture(s) when oil and water is being
co-produced into the treated fracture.
Introduction
RPM is a property that is exploited during certain oilfield WSO treatments,
and a property whereby many water-soluble polymers and aqueous polymer gels
reduce the permeability to water flow to a greater extent than to oil or gas
flow. These are some of the many illustrative literature references (Sandiford
1964; White et al. 1973; Sparlin 1976; Weaver 1978; VanLandingham 1979;
Schneider 1982; Kohler et al. 1983; Dunlap et al. 1986; Dovan and Hutchins
1994; Seright 1995; Stanley et al. 1997; Faber et al. 1998; Eoff et al. 2003a;
Ligthelm 2001; Morgan et al. 2002; Di Lullo and Rae 2002; Eoff et al. 2003b;
Kume 2003; Seright 2006; Pietrak et al. 2005) that discuss the RPM phenomenon.
RPM WSO treatments are applicable to both oil and gas production wells.
RPM is also referred to as disproportionate permeability reduction DPR. Some
practitioners reserve the term “DPR” for relatively strong polymer gels that
impart a large degree of disproportionate permeability reduction and a large
reduction in water permeability. These practitioners reserve the term “RPM” for
systems such as solutions of water-soluble polymers or relatively “weak” gels
that impart more subtle disproportionate permeability reductions and more
subtle reductions in water permeability. However, in this paper, the terms RPM
and DPR will be considered synonyms. At times in the literature, DPR and RPM
have also been referred to as “selective-permeability reduction” and
“selective-permeability blocking.”
In this paper, the term “WSO treatment” refers to a chemical treatment that
is applied (to an oil or gas producing reservoir) to either reduce or totally
shutoff water production from a well.
Historically, RPM/DPR is a phenomenon that was believed limited to fluid
flow in matrix-rock porous media. More recently, it has been reported that
certain relatively strong WSO gels impart RPM/DPR to fluid flow within
gel-filled fractures (Sydansk et al. 2005). However, because such relatively
strong gels also significantly reduce the permeability to oil flow in
fractures, these gels are better characterized as total shutoff gels than as
RPM/DPR WSO gels.
© 2007. Society of Petroleum Engineers
View full textPDF
(
1,213 KB
)
History
- Original manuscript received:
4 April 2006
- Manuscript approved:
14 June 2006
- Version of record:
20 May 2007
View Cart
