Chapter 17: Water Production Control

The treatment of wells to prevent or control unwanted fluid production has a long history in the oil production industry. Methods of modifying channeling, gas or water coning and other reservoir problems have resulted in a great many treatments, most of which were unsuccessful. This section describes procedures and techniques to modify flow paths or change other reservoir characteristics near the wellbore to control unwanted production or injection of fluids. The modification of the reservoir to achieve water shutoff, redistribution of injection or other sweep improvement in a secondary flood operation, is a poor substitute for using reservoir information to plan the location of wellbores to take advantage of the reservoir features. Unfortunately, by the time such information is known about the formation, the wells have been drilled and there many not be sufficient reserves to justify new wells. With the increasing use of the technology of horizontal wells and the radial extension drilling from existing vertical wells, however, newer techniquesto improve the drainage in established fields are available. Before extensive experimentation with the chemical and mechanical methods of changing flow paths, a study should be made o@the possibility of using the reservoir character to improve the fluid recovery.
Summary of Important Points

The following major points illustrate the experience gained with treatment of water injection and production problems.
1. For chemical or physical permeability modifying techniques to be successful in a pattern water-

flood, the treatment must be injected deep enough into the reservoir to modify the flow of the fluid in a large area of the pattern. The actual depth of injection required will depend on horizontal and vertical permeability and well spacing in the pattern. In waterfloods, it may be necessary to selectively treat both injector and producer.
2. If deeply penetrating, permanent permeability reducing techniques are used in a primary recov-

ery zone, the residual hydrocarbons in the zone may not be available by later recovery methods.
3. For near wellbore permeability reduction or water control techniques to be completely effective, there must be natural, impermeable reservoir-wide barriers between the treated zone and the productive zone, the vertical permeability must be very low in contrast to horizontal permeability, or a pressure balance method of depletion may be used.
4. Treatment of a zone to reduce water flow in a pattern waterflood, especially a very high perme-

ability zone, will reduce the total fluid injected in the well. In wells that are operating just below the fracture extension pressure, the zones cannot take any more fluid, regardless of the available volume of water. Reducing the flow capacity of a high permeability zone must be accompanied by a lowering of the expectation of water input. The only way to more rapidly process or sweep the formation is to drill more wells and reduce the distances between injector and producer. This is of critical importance in a low permeability reservoir.
Sources of Water

Before touching on a discussion of shutoff methods, a brief description of the sources of water influx is worthwhile.20 Water may exist in solution with oil or as water mixed with gas. Water may also exist as a pore filling phase (conflate water) or it may flow into the reservoir in response to pressure reduction.
1. Solution water exists as a mixture of water vapor in hot gas reservoirs or as a dissolved phase in the oil. The amount of water that can be dissolved in oil is small, usually less than 0.2% by vol-

ume. However, more water is often contained as a micro-droplet dispersion in oil. What ever the method of containment, the production of this type of water cannot be stopped.

17-1

2. Connate water is a distinct phase in the pore of the formation. When production is started, some of this connate water will be produced. The amount that is mobile will depend on the irreducible water volume. Pore fillings that create high microporosity, such as some chlorite and illite clays, will hold higher volumes of this water. Like the solution water, this type of water cannot be stopped without stopping the oil.
3. Active drive aquifers, from either bottom or edge sources, can provide pressure support for enhanced recovery from a reservoir but can also produce enormous quantities water. If permeability barriers exist between the water and oil zones or if the reservoir vertical permeability is much lower than the horizontal permeability, then water production from these sources can be controlled in the near wellbore. Since the water drive is an active pressure support, the water production cannot be stopped completely, but with careful planning, the water movement can be used to advantage to help drive the oil.

a. In bottom water drive applications, coning near the wellbore is the biggest problem. Stopping coning requires information on the values of horizontal and vertical permeability. When vertical permeability is much less than horizontal permeability (below 50%), then near wellbore treatments to place permeability barriers can have some effect in reducing water production. If the formation is fractured, either naturally or hydraulically, matrix permeability barriers are useless. If the vertical permeability approaches 50% or more of horizontal permeability, barriers are also useless, but horizontal wells may be very useful. b. In edge water drives, the problem is from both vertical permeability and from horizontal permeability variance or streaks of high permeability. These streaks can allow water breakthrough early in the project life. For successful control, the streaks must be plugged from the production well. Depth of plugging depends on the vertical permeability. If there are barriers (vertical perm=O), then plugging depth can be shallow. If vertical permeability is high, the barrier must extend nearly back to the original oil/water contact if the water control is to be successful. c. In the special case of fractured reservoir, the fractures must be plugged deep (radius of treatment of hundreds of feet) before any water control attempt will be long lasting. If the fracture extends down into the water, density contrast techniques may be effective in plugging off just the bottom zone. 4. Water injection in a flood follows the same rules as an edge water drive except that plugging can be applied from both producing and injection wells. Barriers are critical to individual zone control. 5. Entry of water from reservoir or tubular leaks may be very troublesome, but usually can be identified by salinity contrast and sealed by repair treatments such as cementing squeezes.
Problem Definition Reservoir

Before any treatments can logically be discussed, a definition of the problem must be presented. Without a full understanding of what is causing the sweep problem or unwanted water production in a well or between wells, effective treating is a very remote possibility. An analysis of fluid flow patterns and a description of the reservoir are critical to success. There is a distinct separation of water channelling problems into near wellbore and deep reservoir based on both effect in the reservoir and methods of treatment. In the near wellbore area of production wells, the greatest problem in producing hydrocarbon fluids from all of the pay is permeability contrast. No formation is homogeneous, and permeability variations of 1 to 2 orders of magnitude are common in many reservoirs. To effectively drain all of the reservoir often requires selective stimulation of the lower permeability sections, or at times, reducing the permeability of the higher permeability zone if a water or gas drive is active. When a reservoir contains natural fractures, the problem of rapidly and evenly producing all the reservoir may be compounded. Open natural fractures provide a pathway with typical permeability between 10 millidarcies and 1 darcy. Completion of a well into a naturally fractured reservoir invariably leads to

17-2

a state of flush production during which producing rates are very high, followed by a sharp decline in rate as the fractures empty. Production may fall 50 to 90% in a matter of weeks. The production stabilizes with flow from the matrix into the natural fracture system. This is a characteristic of the naturallyfractured formation and is not a solvable problem. Natural fracture systems are usually a positive aspect of the reservoir, especially if the well locations are selected to take advantage of the improved drainage that the fracture system offers. Many times, however, the natural fracture system is not extensive enough to economically serve as a conduit to the wellbore. In these cases, hydraulic fracturing with either acid in a carbonate formation or proppant and a fluid in either carbonates or sandstone are very beneficial if the fracture can be contained in zone.
Problem Definition Near Wellbore

Mechanical problems in the well are often invisible culprits which cause productivity of a well to suffer. Incorrectly sized tubing, casing, insufficient perforations or improperly designed lift systems can act as a choke on a reservoir and severely limit production. There is no cure for a mechanical problem other than redesigning and recompleting the well.
Coning

Natural and induced problems in a well include fluid coning or channeling, water or gas blockages and related relative permeability effects?-3 Coning of a fluid usually occurs when a oil or gas zone is bordered by water in a reservoir with no barriers between the pays. It also may occur as gas coning into an oil producing interval. Coning is a response of a fluid to flow towards a pressure drop. It occurs when only part of a fluid filled, continuous formation or series of formations is perforated. The pressure in the produced area of the formation is lowered through production. The fluid in the adjacent zone then moves up or down towards the pressure drop. Coning will occur in any reservoir where there is an absence of a permeability barrier between the produced fluid and the unwanted fluid. Coning results in an increase in the unwanted fluid and a decrease in the production of the oil. The oil decrease occurs because the water or gas in the cone occupies part of the pore space that was once occupied by the oil. The amount of coning is related to the amount of vertical permeability (in the absence of a barrier), the mobility of the produced and coned fluids, and the pressure differential. A sketch of cone development is shown in Figure 17.1. At initial production, the oil and water (in this case) lies at the initial oillwater contact and the entire oil column is perforated. As the oil is produced, the water rises near the wellbore in the section of the reservoir that was occupied by the oil. The operator often reacts to the water encroachment by squeezing off the lower perfs with cement or other chemical barrier material. The water continues to rise in the zone with the operator squeezing and producing at the same or a higher drawdown. At abandonment of the well, there is a large amount of oil remaining in the reservoir but only a small path to the wellbore. This problem is especially acute in bottom water drive reservoirs. Controlling coning is attempted by restricting the producing rate to a value that minimizes water rise or by chemical treatments. There are a number of mathematical models for prediction of the maximum production rates to avoid or slow the rate of coning.4* These models assume a homogeneous formation with no natural fractures (these are usually poor assumptions). An equation from Karp8 is given as a example method.

0.0246 k,Ap ( h2 - D2)

where:
kh

= horizontal permeability in darcies

17-3

~ . : ~ . : t . : . : . : . ~

...................... ....................... ................. ................... . .................. ...................

Figure 17.1: A worst case, very advanced cone that has caused early P&A of a well. This type of cone may occur where vertical permeability was as high or higher than horizontal permeability as in the case of localized natural fractures extendina from the hvdrocarbon zone into the water zone in the area near &e wellbore.

Ap
h D
PO

= density difference, Ibm/ft3 = oil-zone thickness, ft

B re

rb
rw

= completion interval thickness, ft - oil viscosity, cp = oil FVF, RB/STB - drainage radius = radius barrier (if used), otherwise rb = rw - wellbore radius -

The use of an artificial barrier has been proposed by several authors to prevent or slow cone development.2*8i4These barriers are usually envisioned as thin, impermeable and pancake shaped as shown in Figure 17.2. The chemicals used for this treatment include polymers, inorganic gels, and foam. The basic problem with all the treatments is the diameter of the barrier. It must extend into the reservoir far enough so that the gravitational force on the water will be larger than its response toward the pressure drop of the production well. This concept is neither affordable nor possible for most treating chemicals. Barriers rarely are a long term solution to the problem of coning and water breakthrough regularly occur, Figure 17.3. Additional problems with barriers are that they are seldom accurately placed in the right location and that they channel through the formation rather than moving out uniformly from the wellbore. Vertical channels often do not exactly overylay horizontal permeability channels. The more promising methods of controlling water coning in the most severe cases are the use of horizontal wells, Figure 17.4, and the concept of balanced fluid withdrawal from the r e ~ e r v o i r .Coning ~*~ control by the horizontal well are discussed in the chapter on special completions. Balanced fluid withdrawal involves the removal of both oil and water from the well. The primary method of equalizing pressure is to even the drawdown across both the water and the oil zones. This is a radical change in production procedure since it requires perforating the water zone, isolation at the interface with a good cement job and a packer, and then dually completing the water zone with a dedicated lift system and surface facility. The drawbacks in initial cost could be overcome in some projects by the savings in water treating and disposal. Water produced in this manner should be naturally low in oil and the producer may be able to classify the water in a different manner as the water separated from oil. The procedure would obviously be most applicable where oil-water separation problems were severe, where large vertical permeability values could create rapid cones, and where legal restrictions were very stringent. The process would be of only limited use in reservoirs with edge water drive and those

17-4

Figure 17.2: An idealized schematic of a barrier in the reservoir separating the hydrocarbon and water zones. Barriers are probably never this uniform since they follow the same low resistance pathways as other injected fluids.

Figure 17.3:

Probably results of water flow around a barrier as water flow responds to the continued pressure decrease in the hydrocarbon zone caused by fluid withdrawal.

under water flood. Reservoirs that depend upon the bottom water drive as the sole source of driving energy could still use the dual completion process by controlling the rate of upward movement of the oil-water interface. This may be accomplished by balanced fluid withdrawals at the production wellbore and water replacement in the aquifer at an injection well.
Water Block

Occasionally, when a well is killed with water or when a well goes off production and fills up with produced water, the water will enter the zone of gas or oil production and displace the hydrocarbons from the area around the wellbore. In some cases, when the well is returned to production, the hydrocarbons will not displace the water. This behavior is usually indicative of a water block. Water blocks cannot be perfectly defined in the sense that they cannot be reliably recreated in the laboratory. However,

17-5

.-. : : :
$0

drawdown Uses bottom water

Figure 17.4: Use of a horizontal well to slow the rate of coning in a bottom water drive reservoir. there are four conditions which usually occur when a severe water block is encountered: (1) an untreated water (surface tension near 72 dyne/cm); (2) low reservoir pressure; (3) small pore throats; and (4) a gas zone (low pressure oil zones account for roughly 10 to 25% of reported water blocks). Although water blocks have been known to form in oil zones, they are rarer than the water blocks reported from gas producing zones. Blockages in the oil zones may also be the result of emulsions or sludges formed from contact of oil with water or acids. Diagnosis is difficult and the major problems (emulsion) is usually prepared for with a treatment of alcohol or alcohol mixture mutual solvent that can penetrate deeply and remove either emulsion or water block. Water blocks are usually physical changes to relative permeability or clay equilibrium. Other relative permeability problems are related to the presence of natural or injected surfactants which may cause an oil or water wetting (a bound layer of water or oil) and i n situ emulsions. Any time that the pore passages are restricted by trapped fluid or high viscosity fluid, regardless of the method entrapment, flow will be restricted. Other near wellbore problems include the formation of scale, the deposition of paraffin, and the occurrence of migrating fines in the near wellbore area or in the reservoir. These problems and the induced problems of surfactant adsorption and emulsions are best described as formation damage and can be controlled with remedial treatment and/or inhibition production techniques.
Problem Definition Injection Well

The injection well is a special case of flow path consideration. In the unfractured injection well, the flow is outward radial flow. Injection of fluid in the unfractured case is described by the concept of radial darcy flow through cylindrical beds in series where the beds may be areas of different permeability or layers of permeability-reducing material from solids carryover. In addition, in a typical heterogeneous formation, fractures, high permeability channels and permeability barriers (faults, permeability pinchouts, etc.) all affect the distribution of fluids at the injection well or the reservoir. Once in the reservoir, the sweep pattern between injection and production wells are directly controlled by the path of least resistance: the fluids move in the highest permeability channels to the limit of what the channels can carry towards an area of reduced pressure. Permeability variations and pressure distributions through the reservoir completely control the way fluids move and the rate of their movement from injection well to production well. The mobility ratio, solubility of fluids within each other and the effect of injected gases on heavy ends are all very important; however, the fluids will only go where the reservoir characteristics allows them. The most basic problem, then, is how to successfully modify the reservoir character or use the reservoir character to the best advantage for oil recovery. Because of varying operating philosophies for water floods over the years, most injection wells have been fractured. This must be considered in job design.

17-6

Reservoir Description and Modeling Necessities

To properly apply any lasting and effective profile modification mechanism, regardless of whether it is relocation of the wellbore, deep matrix penetration of a permeability-reducing material or near wellbore application of a zone shutoff material, it is imperative that a good description of the reservoir be available. This description will likely be a combination of geologic and engineering knowledge and hopefully will be present in the form of computer simulator to save time in comparison of zone control mechanisms. To use the reservoir simulation route, the model must be constructed with as much detailed reservoir description involving flow geometry as is possible. Location of natural fractures, vertical or horizontal permeability impairments, hydraulic fractures, thief zones and a complete description of the driven and driving fluids are necessities. From this information, a solution giving details on how deep to inject a permeability modification material or where to relocate the wellbores of injection and production wells to make optimum use of the reservoir characteristics may be possible. Simplistic two-dimensional models or linear correlations are rarely adequate. Modeling is greatly aided by the input of data gathered in monitoring of water in flu^.^
Treating Considerations

Obviously, the large volume treatment of wells with expensive chemicals will depend on the amount of reserves remaining on a particular area of the field and the opportunities for success. The selection of matrix treating materials should also take into account the later plans for the reservoir in terms of stimulation or a tertiary flood. If a matrix or a thief zone is completely shut off by a deeply penetrating, permeability-reducing material, the opportunities for tertiary recovery are severely diminished. Most of the water shutoff materials are not removable because of either lack of a solvent or inability to contact the blocking material in the pores of the rock. Acid can remove most cement plugs and perforating can reach beyond those that are shallow ( r 4 ft). Fracturing is the only mechanism that can reach beyond the deeply penetrating shutoff techniques.

Modification of Permeability
Regardless of flow geometry of the reservoir, there will always be a need, usually several times in the life of a project, for a treatment to change the permeability of a particular zone. These treatments can be divided into two subdivisions of the two major classes: deep and shallow methods of either decreasing permeability or increasing permeability. Whenever permeability of a zone is reduced by chemical treatment, the total water injection expectations to a well should be reduced or other zones should be carefully fractured if possible. Allowing indiscriminate fracturing of a well by increasing pressure to increase injection rate should be avoided at all costs.
Deep Modification Permeability Reduction To deeply reduce or plug off high permeability, a few methods are available with proven performance. The processes described in the following paragraphs are all listed in the cross-reference of Table 17.1. Deep treating processes include silica ge11*12and lignosulfonate gel for matrix treating and fly ash, limestone fines, or thermoset or catalyzed plastics for shallow to moderate depth plugging of gravel packs or fractures.10112 Foam diversion is often listed as a deep matrix plugging technique but may be operable only in formations where matrix permeability is at least on the order of several hundred millidarcie~.~ Most polymer systems, including those intended for deep treatment, are usually limited to shallow placement by the high viscosity of the gel or undissolved polymer buildup (fisheyes, microgels and trash) on the injection face. Crosslinked polymers may have application in plugging fractures. Deep Modification Increasing Permeability

Unfortunately, hydraulic fracturing is the only method of improving the permeability enough to influence the reservoir flow behavior. Although there is very good confidence in the mechanics of fracturing, the direction or orientation of the fracture is controlled by the reservoir stresses, and the fracture height growth from large fracture treatments (above and below the plane of interest) is difficult to regulate, although monitoring techniques are a~ailable.~ The technology of very tightly controlled fractur-

17-7

lame i7.1 : Generic Materrais ana Processes Available tor Reaucing Permeability
Product Lignosulfonate Gel Silica Gel Polymers Foam Comments deeply penetrating, total permeability snutoff moderately to deeply penetrating, total permeability shutoff shallow penetrating, partial to total permeability shutoff unproven except in high permeability control, may have good application in steam wells shallow penetrating, permanent, total permeability shutoff shallow penetrating, some application where distinct separation of water occurs but exact zone locations are unknown face plugging of a zone. Only effective where barriers exist or vertical permeability is a small fraction of horizontal permeability a designation for a slurry of dry cement in diesel or other oil. The mixture sets up when water is contacted. Basic application is in vuggy or naturally fractured formations with distinct oil and water pays where the exact zone locations are not known. Penetration is typically shallow in vugs or fractures. It produces face plugging in any matrix.

Plastics Selective Polymers Cement "Gunk Squeeze"

ing in small treatments, to limit length and height growth, is currently available and should be considered when injection rate must be increased.
Shallow Modification Permeability Reduction

There are many products and techniques to selectively or totally reduce the permeability in the near wellbore area.10*15-19 To describe them, they should be separated into groups designed to accomplish the specific tasks of: (1) total zone shutoff, (2) coning and encroachment control, and (3) selective permeability reduction. Total permeability shutoff can be easily accomplished by a number of products if one criteria is met: there must be an impermeable barrier between the zone being sealed and the producing zones. If there i s a barrier, then cement squeezes, plastics, polymers and inorganic gels will all work. If there i s no barrier to flow, the problem will be the same as the coning problem addressed in the following paragraph. Controlling coning is usually a delaying tactic and the established treatments may isolate large quantities of otherwise recoverable reserves. Coning occurs when water (or less frequently, gas) takes over part of the productive oil zone. The flow of water is a reaction to production of hydrocarbons leading to a lower pressure in the oil zone in general and the near wellbore area in particular. Squeezing off the lower perfs and completing higher in the zone may temporarily reduce water production, but water breakthrough will occur and oil may be trapped and production hindered in this limited completion. Eventually, in the case of an active bottom water drive, the wellbore will be completely watered out and no oil will be produced, even though substantial reserves may remain in the reservoir. Chemical companies have several products designed and sold as selective permeability reducers. These products (usually polymers) can treat a sandpack or formation core so that oil will pass through the pack but water will not. While the sales concept and benchtop tests are impressive, the technology is extremely poor and will probably reduce oil production in any well where oil and water are produced from the same zone or in many coning applications. In any case where oil flows with water towards a pressure drawdown, reducing or stopping the water will reduce or stop oil production. If there is no way of removing the water from around the wellbore then there is no method to flow oil toward the well as long as the water is there.

17-8

Shallow Modification Increasing Permeability Most matrix methods (nonfracturing) of increasing permeability in reservoir rock are very shallow penetrating. Fortunately, very shallow damage removal can boost production or injection enormously and even increases of undamaged permeability can boost production or injection several percent. Removal of damage is the most important item in consideration of methods of improving production or injection with an inexpensive near wellbore treatment. Improving initial matrix permeability with acid or other chemical methods can assist in a small way, but most matrix methods are limited to a few feet of penetration at the very most. By examination of flow capacity increase available by the beds-in-series modification of Darcy law, it can be demonstrated that the maximum increase available is only a few percent. Very small, carefully controlled fracture treatments are also useful in improving near wellbore permeability. The short, fat fracs of a few thousand gallons of fluid and several thousand pounds of proppant are very useful for improving flow. In limestones, acid breakdowns are a standard in treating and retreating both injection and production wells, both from a cleanout and stimulation viewpoint.

References
1. Endean H. J., Shelton, R. D.: Water lnitiaied Problems in Production Operations, Champion

Technologies, Inc., Houston, Texas, 1991.

2. Richardson, J. G., Sangree, J. B. and Sneider, R. M.: Coning, Technology Today Series, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (August 1987), pp. 883-884.

3. Sparlin, Derry D. and Hagen, Raymond W. Jr.: Controlling Water in Producing Operations, World Oil, (April 1984), pp. 77-86.
4. Woods, E. G. and Khurana, A. K.: Pseudo-functions for Water Coning in a 3-0 Reservoir Simulator, SPE 5525.

5. Wheatley, M. J.: An Approximate Theory of OilNVater Coning, SPE 1421 0.

6. Giger, F. M.: Analytic 2-D Models of Water Cresting Before Breakthrough for Horizontal Wells, SPE 15378.

7. Chaperone, I.: Theoretical Study of Coning Toward Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Anisotropic Formations: Subcritical and Critical Rates, SPE 15377, 1986 SPE Annual Mtg. New Orleans, OCt 5-8.

8. Karp, J. C., Lowe, D. K., Marusov, N.: Horizontal Barriers for Controlling Water Coning, J. Pet. Tech., (July 1962). 9. Patton, L. Douglas: Optimize Production Through Balanced Reservoir Depletion, Part 4--1njection and Water Influx Monitoring, Petroleum Engineer International, (March 1989), pp. 28-30.
10. Sparlin, Derry D. and Hagen, Raymond W. Jr.: Controlling Water in Producing Operations, Part 4-Grouting Materials and Techniques, World Oil, (June 1984), pp. 149-152.

1 1 . Jurinak, J. J., Summers, L. E. and Bennett, K. E.: Oilfield Application of Colloidal Silica Gel, SPE 18505, pp. 425-454.

17-9

12. Smith, L. R., Fast, C. R. and Wagner, 0. R.: Development and Field Testing of Large Volume Remedial Treatments for Gross Water Channeling, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (August 1969), pp. 1015-1025. 13. Dietz, et al.: Foam Drive Seldom Meaningful, JPT, May 1985, pp. 921-922. 14. Strickland, Richard F.: Artificial Barriers May Control Water Coning-1 nal, (October 7, 1974), pp. 61-64.
,I

The Oil and Gas Jour-

15. Carroll, J. F. and Bullen, B.: Successful Water Control Examples in Gulf of Mexico Gravel Packed Gas Completions, SPE 18228, pp. 495-501.

16. Burkholder, L. A. and Withington, K. C.: New Gel Suppresses Water Flow in Oil Wells, Oil and Gas Journal, (September 1987), pp. 93-98. 17. Hess, Patrick H., Clark, C. O., Haskin, C. A. and Hull, T. R.: Chemical Method for Formation Plugging, Journal of Petroleum Technology, (May 1971), pp. 559-564, 153, 63-66. 18. Chan, Keng Seng: Injection Profile Modification With a New Non-Polymer Gelling System, Petroleum Society of CIM, Paper No. 89-40-46, pp. 46-1 -46-1 4. 19. Rike, J. L.: Obtaining Successful Squeeze - Cementing results, SPE 4608, Las Vegas, Nev., Sept. 30-Oct. 3, 1973. 20. Chan, K. S.: Water Control Diagnostic Plots, SPE 30775, Dallas, Oct. 22-25, 1995.

17-10