SPE 144112

Application of Silicate/Polymer Water Shut-Off Treatment

in Faulted Reservoirs with Extreme High Permeability
Lakatos, I., Lakatos-Szabó, J., Research Institute of Applied Earth Sciences, UM, Miskolc-Egyetemváros, Hungary
Kosztin, B., Al-Sharji, H. H., Ali, E., A. A. R. Al-Mujaini, E., A. A. R., Al-Alawi, N., Petroleum Development Oman
(PDO) LLC., Muscat, Oman

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE European Formation Damage Co nference held in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7–10 June 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have
not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. Th e abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
In frame of the project, one injector and two oil producers operating in different reservoirs having extremely high permeability
were treated using the silicate/polymer method. The well selection based on analysis of production history, reservoir structure,
and tracer test and production characteristics. The water cut in producers was close to or well above 90%. The chemical
system was individually tailored to each well. The gel-forming solutions were sequentially injected into the wells using
bullhead technique. The producers operating with sucker rod pumping were treated through the producing tubing or the
annulus. In the latter case, a new “virtual” reactor concept was elaborated to mix the solution on the fly. Evaluating the results,
it can be concluded that the project was successful. The cumulative daily oil production increased by 68 m 3/d; meanwhile the
water production decreased by 285 m3/d. Thus, on yearly basis, the incremental oil production might be as high as ~25,000
m3/y with water production less than 105,000 m3/y. The project clearly proved that the silicate/polymer technology could meet
the requirements of the unique reservoir conditions (extreme permeability, faulted structure, and low formation temperature).
In addition, great advantage of the composite methods is that easily available, cheap, and environmental friendly chemicals
were used.

Introduction
Background of arising problems in Omani hydrocarbon production can be traced back to unfavorable types of reservoirs and
properties of oils. Most of the oil bearing formations are faulted, highly heterogeneous with extremely high average
permeability. In addition, the formation temperature is often low and the crude oils have high viscosity. Hence, the early water
breakthrough and high water cut are often characterizing the production. Under these circumstances, the recovery factor is low,
and poor well performance usually jeopardizes the optimal oil rate. Recognizing and understanding the production problems
and forecasting their detrimental effects on deliverability, substantial efforts had been made recently to avoid production
decline and mitigate the damaging processes. Among others, IOR/EOR methods addressing the whole reservoir space and well
stimulation technologies were tested and routinely applied at different fields. In the frame of these endeavors, ambitious pilot
tests were carried out to restrict water production in oil wells and simultaneously, to improve sweep efficiency in injectors
through flow profile control. Earlier, diverse techniques including cementing, perforation relocation, polymer, and gel
treatment were tested with partial success. The basic goal of the extensive field programs was to select the most efficient
methods, which are flexible enough to meet the requirements at different oil fields. That strategy made the field tests of the
silicate/polymer methods possible treating two producers and one injector. The company’s idea also determined the target
wells operating in different oil fields, hence under different, sometimes harsh formation conditions.
In 2008, The Research Institute of Applied Chemistry (Res. Inst. of Appl. Earth Sci., UM) was approved by PDO for
profile correction in water injectors and water shutoff in oil producers trial with the aim at improving well performance at oil
 2

fields. The main objectives of the trial was the application of the silicate/polymer technique developed in the Research Institute
of Applied Chemistry (Res. Inst. of Appl. Earth Sci., UM) for profile correction in water injectors and water shut-off in oil
producers. The offered technique is an in-situ multifunctional barrier-forming method based on simultaneous cross-linking and
polymerization of hydrolized polyacrylamide and sodium ortho-silicates. The efficiency of that method was properly
demonstrated by pilot tests and routine applications at Hungarian oil fields. Until now, the different variants of silicate and
silicate/polymer methods have been successfully applied more than hundred times for profile corrections in injectors and water
shut-off in oil producers2-6. Sophisticated technologies were used for restriction of gas coning in gas-capped oil fields7,8,
blocking of vertical synthetic gas migration caused by fractured cement casing in underground gas storage (Germany)9 and
restriction of CO2 loss in a collapsed well operating in overpressurized CO2 field (Serbia)10. The special challenge of the PDO
project was the fact that the mentioned methods have never been applied in faulted reservoirs having extremely high
permeability and advanced depletion stage characterized by unfavorably high water cut.

Reservoir description and well behavior

ABC asset team evaluated several producers and injectors as potential target of well treatment. Summarizing pros and cons
finally three wells, two producers and one injector was selected for water shut-off and profile control. The wells were
operating in a well-defined region, but different reservoirs. These reservoirs and the well could be characterized as follows.

Well A-60 water injector

The field A is located on the South-Eastern flank of the south Oman salt basin. The field is a highly faulted N-S elongated
structure that produces from the clastic reservoirs of the Gharif Formation. The reservoir rock is sandstone with 28% porosity
and 0.5-1.5 D permeability. The depth of the formation is between 820-1100 m, the reservoir pressure is about 90 bars and
formation temperature is 50 °C. The field was discovered in 1985 and the production started in 1987. The water flooding
(pressure maintenance and sweep improvement) has started in 1993. By December 2003, there were 21 active water injectors
and 61 active oil producers. In that time, the field was producing ~ 6400/2500 m 3/d gross/net fluid rate and the average water
injection rate was 7,100 m3/d, which corresponded 60% average water cut. Since that time, the water cut gradually increased
especially from the old wells. Although most of the Field A injectors were injecting below fracturing pressure, some of the
wells have demonstrated to be in direct contact with nearby producers. Also in 2003, different water shut-off techniques were
tried for improving the volumetric sweep efficiency for those injectors that have shown good communication with the nearby
producers having high water cut. The efforts aimed at using polymer gel injection in two injectors, a cement squeeze, and
selective mechanical completion in one of the producers. The projects resulted in partial positive response, but not final and
long-lasting improvements in water production could be indicated.
In 2008, potential of water shut-off application in A field was re-evaluated. Starting points of the discussion clearly
demonstrated that target formation in field A is a layered reservoir with varying permeabilities. Some layers have high
permeabilities in the range of the Darcies; meanwhile other layers have permeabilities in mD range. The layered character of
the field and the large permeability contrasts led to diverse vertical depletion. Therefore, the field A waterflood is thus
characterized as typical one of poor vertical conformance. Namely, water shut-off and profile control by gel treatments may
significantly contribute to enhanced sweep efficiency. Based on these considerations, the well A-60 injector was selected as
candidate for chemical profile control. This well is located in the middle of the reservoir in vicinity of several producers and
the tracer test performed earlier clearly proved asymmetric fluid flow around the well. The job was further reasoned by
relatively high water cut in producers. In time of survey the water cut was the following: well A-45: 81%;well A-73: 91%;
well A-78: 92%; and well A-86: 94%. Analyzing the production history of the wells it can be stated that there was a close
correlation with the oil and water production, viz. drop in oil rate was parallel with increasing water production (Figs 1-9).
Consequently, the high water production had detrimental effect of oil rate, which was only fraction of the original gross rate in
time of the well treatments.

Well B-10 oil producer

The well B-10 producing well is located in the middle of layered field. This well has single, IGP with 4 ½” WWS and beam
pump completion. The field has also high permeability (>1 D), mixed wettability and stores high viscosity oil (~300-400 mPa
s in LG1 and LG2 and ~80 mPa s in MG2). The reservoir rock is sandstone and the alluvial system is characterized by
occurrence of small braided channels and sheet flood sands. Because of unfavourable viscosity ratio at formation temperature,
the mobility ratio is extremely high and hence, the early water breakthrough jeopardized the oil production. Another special
circumstance, which unfavourably influences the flow characteristics around the well, is that the field is subdivided by faults,
and the well B-10 is located very close to one of them running vertically in the middle of the field. That fact may also result in
a rapid water breakthrough and high water cut in producing wells.
The well B-10 is crossing several layers, among others MG and LG, between 860 and 1100 m. The formation temperature
in the LG2 is about 48 °C, the porosity might be as high as 30% and the permeability as high as 10 D. The formation water
contains 2700 ppm TDS. The reservoir pressure, according to a logging in 2007, is about 80 bars. The well was drilled in 1981
and perforated for MG and LG1 in 1987. The total height of perforation is about 70 m; however, the net pay zone is 157 m. In
the early period, the water cut was less than 40%, but later on, it fluctuated between 40% and 80%. At present the oil
 3

production is 11 m3/d; meanwhile the water cut steeply increased from 60% to 90% (Figs 10-12). Therefore, the water shut-off
treatment is reasonable to decrease the water production in the given drainage area.

Well C-30 oil producer

The field C is located in Southern Oman, located in the Eastern Flank of South Oman Salt Basin, was discovered in 1978 and
the first oil was produced in 1980. The well has dual completion with ESP. Unfortunately, the field is traversed by several
high angles, NW-SE trending faults that segment the structure into three fault blocks. The permeability in most of the blocks is
well above 1 D, usually close to or above 2 D. The porosity of the layers between 1500 and 1600 m is higher than 20%. The
formation rock consists of different sands and their main clay component is kaolinite. The present, the formation pressure is
between 100 and 120 bar. The fractures do not influence the flow mechanism, but some faults are running through the
formation. The reservoir stores oil, gas, and water alike. The oil has medium viscosity (13 mPa s at 58-60 °C) and its gas
saturation is insignificant. The estimated oil saturation is 65%. The original reserve was surprisingly high thanks to 80 m net
pay zone. The original formation pressure was about 150 bars. Despite a substantial amount of gross liquid production, the
formation pressure decreased slightly until now. C field wells are good producers. The initial wells started producing dry oil
from the attic of the structure but the water from the peripheral aquifer encroached into the wells, so these wells started
producing water after only a few years. The liquid producing rates are quite high; some wells produce 400 m 3/d liquid;
meanwhile other wells produce up to 1500 m3/d. Evaluating several wells as candidates for water shut-off treatments, finally
the well C-30 was selected, which is located very close to or exactly at the fault running through the field. The well C-30H1
was drilled as a vertical producer in January 1989. After perforation of HMGD formation (1499.98-1521.98 m) in December
2008, the gross rate was above 100 m3/d, with 66.2% water cut. Last valid production evaluation was performed in February
2009, and found gross rate of 102.9 m3/d, and 3.39 m3/d oil rate, therefore the existing water cut was higher than 96% (Figs
13-15). Based on that result the decision on treatment was well founded.

Fundamentals of the silicate/polymer method

The technique is an in-situ multifunctional barrier-forming method based on simultaneous cross-linking and polymerization of
hydrolyzed polyacrylamide and sodium ortho-silicates. The high efficiency of its chemical mechanism is attributed to parallel
chemical reactions taking place in the mixing zone of treating solutions (gel-forming and cross-linking ones), which contain
the following main components:
Solution A : partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide
silicate (Na or K ortho-silicate)
sodium disulfide (oxygen scavenger, stabilizer)
formaldehyde (or equivalent biocide, stabilizer)
Solution B : potassium aluminum sulphate (alum)
calcium chloride
hydrochloric acid
In the mixing zone or phase of the mentioned solutions, particularly if it happens in natural porous media, the following
processes are taking place:
Chemical reactions : cross-linking of polymers
gelation (polymerization) of silicates
precipitation of polymers silicates and aluminium hydroxides
Interfacial effects : adsorption of chemicals
entrapment of micro domains (microgels, clusters, hydroxides, etc.).
The mentioned solutions were sequentially injected into the target reservoir space without zone isolation (bullhead injection).
The parallel and coinciding processes jointly result in a radical mobility reduction in the target reservoir space, but
contributions of rheological and the pore structure modifying factors (actual permeability reduction) significantly depend on
the local conditions, the chemical system, and the placement technique applied. Under favorable or optimal circumstances, the
blocking efficiency of the polymer/silicate gels may be characterized by the following parameters:
Permeability reduction : 4-5 orders of magnitude (from 1 D to 0.1-1.0 mD)
Gel strength : >10 bar/m
Thermal stability : >150 C
Mass transport in gel : diffusion
Blocking barrier : sandwich type

Field operations
Placement of chemicals and their solutions into the target reservoir space can be accomplished by two different ways:
Sequential injection of cross-linking solution and polymer/silicate solution separated by spacer, and
 4

Bulk injection of solution containing all chemical components needed to produce gel in-situ.
The mentioned two technological concepts can be combined: sometimes it is advantageous to carry out a preliminary bulk
injection in order to block the zones having the highest permeability, then to follow the protocol with sequential injection with
the aim at placing the barrier deeply into the reservoir. Occasionally, the operation is terminated by bulk injection again to
provide total blocking in the vicinity of injection wells. In the present case, sequential injection techniques were used although
the method was very close to the bulk injection protocol when the treating fluids were injected into the layer through the
production casing-production tubing annulus. Using that version, special preventive actions had to be made to control setting
and residence time due to the larger volume of annulus compared to the production tubing. This technique provided valuable
experiences and observation and opened new options for treating procedures, which is “virtual reactor” concept. The
sequential technology usually consisted of the following elements:
1. Acidizing
2. Injectivity test
3. Injection of Solution A
4. Injection of spacer
5. Injection of Solution B
6. Injection of spacer
7. Cyclic repetition of points 3 through 5
8. Injection of spacer
9. Injection of crude oil
The preliminary actions served to clean-up bottom hole and the near wellbore zone. An appropriate KCl solution was used
for clean-up and to determine the injection rate to be applied. As a typical example, the injectivity of well A-60 well during the
preparatory phase is shown in Fig. 16. Accomplishing the injectivity test, the chemical treatment has immediately started with
injection of the cross-linking solution. The total volume of chemical solutions was 400 m3 on average and the ratio between
the gel-forming and the cross-linking solutions was 50:50%. In addition, 100-150 m3 KCl solution was injected into the well
through the whole job. The procedure, including cycle number, slug and spacer volume, composition of treating fluids was
tailored individually to each well. Due to the extremely high injectivity (and permeability), concentration programming was
used. The average consumption of chemicals was the following:
Water glass : 27 m3
Polymer : 960 l
Irgatreat liquid : 40 l
Irgatreat powder : 50 kg
Alum : 400 kg
Calcium chloride : 400 kg
20% HCl : 12.5 m3
KCl : 3t
The treating fluids were prepared with 50-50 bbl batch mixer. The polymer/silicate and the cross-linker solutions were
mixed in separate mixer tanks. The applied mixing procedure required 1.5 day mixing time. Quality (chemical composition) of
the mixing water was checked and tested in the PDO field lab. The water quality satisfied the previous requirements. The fluid
qualities were almost laboratory standard. The prepared solutions were separately stored in frac tanks until a twin triplex pump
injected them. In the treatment phase the general observation was that the injection pressure in the first half of the job was
negative, then injecting 20-40% of the total treating fluid, it gradually increased up to 600-1000 psi, when the job was
completed with KCl solution (water injector) or crude oil (producers) injection. Typical characteristics of injectivity are
illustrated in Figs 17-18. Change of injectivity clearly indicated that the in-situ gelation definitely takes place in the reservoir,
and the partial blocking of zones being responsible for high water production has ensued. Injection of chemicals was
terminated at 800-1000 psi wellhead pressure avoiding thus the overdosing or total blocking (killing).

Evaluation of well response and results

The final and general conclusions can be drawn by the data in Tables 1-5 and Figs 19-22 shown below. The tables contain
actual production data directly before and after treatment; meanwhile the figures represent the average values including the
response of silicate/polymer treatments. We may state that the treated producers have similar or even identical production
characteristics:
1. The gross fluid production dropped (well C-30) or remained constant (well B-10);
2. The net oil production increase, significantly in well B-10 and slightly in well C-30;
3. The net water production dropped, significantly in well B-10; and
4. The water cut, because of converging changes, decreased in all cases.
The response of producers around the injector can be subdivided into two groups. The well A-73 and well A-78 behave
identically and similarly as the treated producers: all analyzed parameter changed in positive directions. That fact can be traced
 5

back to the efficient, but probably partial restriction of water flow in the zones or layers having high conductivity. On the other
hand, and logically, based on rearrangement of injected water, the water flux increased in direction toward well A-45 and well
A-83 wells. Unfortunately, the latter well has been out of operation since 2007. The production database of PDO contains only
limited number of data from November 2009. According to the earlier data, the well produced appr. 450 m3 gross fluid with oil
traces, viz. the calculated water cut was above 99%. The recent data are the following: gross fluid rate 40 m 3, net oil rate 3.5
m3, net water rate: 36.5 m3, namely the water cut dropped to 90%. Since the individual parameters changed in the same
direction, we may conclude that the higher fluid rates are the consequence of the improved sweep efficiency induced by the
profile correction around the well A-60 injectors.
The average improvement of may serve to calculate the daily fluid rates and predict the annual benefits of project. The
final results make realistic to gain the following production data:
Incremental oil production : 63 m3/d (380 bbl/d)
22,000 m3/y (132,000 bbl/y)
Reduced water production : 283 m3/d (1700 bb/d)
103,300 m3/y (620,000 bbl/y)
Based on the positive results (positive more or less in every respects), the project can be qualified as a successful one, and
it is highly probable that this statement is true in both technical and economic senses alike.

Conclusions
1. Three wells, one injector, and two producers were treated. The producers operated with ESP and beam pump;
2. The polymer/silicate method has never been applied in such, extremely high permeability reservoirs. Hence, the injectivity
was unexpectedly high up to injection of 100-200 m3 treating fluids;
3. The injection pressure in the first half of the job was negative, then it gradually increased up to 600-1000 psi, when the job
was completed;
4. The well response were different, but the overall gross fluid and water production decreased; meanwhile the net oil
production increased on average;
5. On daily basis, the overall oil production increased by 63 m3; meanwhile the water production decreased by 280 m3 soon
after treatment; Based on these data the annual production might be as high as 22,000 m3 with less than 103,000 m3 water
production;
6. In some cases (>1 D permeability), particularly wells with sucker rod pumping, the annulus treatment should be preferred
in contrast to tubing injection. The annulus might be a virtual “reactor” approaching thus the “bulk injection” principle;
7. Profile correction in water injector improved significantly the sweep efficiency, and redistribution of the injected water
yielded substantially higher oil rate in all wells locating in the vicinity of treated well;
8. The effective profile correction was definitely proved by the changes of gross fluid rate, which increased in two cases,
meanwhile it decreased in other two cases.
9. Based on the positive field results, extension of the project is recommended for other producing wells operating at water
cut above 80%;
10. The project repeatedly proved that the silicate/polymer is an efficient, flexible, relatively cheap method, which can be
used to cure different production problems, mainly restriction of water and gas flow in oil and gas fields and underground
gas storage facilities.

References
1. BP Statistical Review of the World Energy 2010, BP Plc., London, UK (2010)
2. Lakatos, I., Munkácsi, I., Trömböczky, S., LakatosSzabó, J.: Potential of Repeated Polymer Well Treatments, SPE Paper 20996
presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference held in Hage, The Netherlands (1990)
3. Lakatos, I., LakatosSzabó, J., Tiszai, Gy., Kosztin, B., Palásthy, Gy., Trömböczky, S., Bodola, M., PattermanFarkas, Gy.: Application
of Silicate-Based Well Treatment Techniques at the Hungarian Oil Fields, SPE Paper 56739 presented at the SPE Annual Conference
and Exhibition held in Houston, USA (1999)
4. Lakatos, I., Munkácsi, I., Trömböczky, S., LakatosSzabó, J.: Potential of Repeated Polymer/Silicated Well Treatment, SPE Production
and Facilities, 4: 269275 (1993)
5. Lakatos, I., LakatosSzabó, J., Trömböcky, S., Munkácsi, I., Kosztin, B., Palásthy, Gy.: Polymer/Silicate Well Treatment Techniques:
State-of Art and Experiences at the Algyő Field, Hungary, Erdöl Erdgas Kohle, 116(4), 186191 (2000)
6. Lakatos, I., LakatosSzabó, J., Trömböczky, S., Munkácsi, I., Kosztin, B., Palásthy, Gy.: Polymer/Silicate Well Treatment Technique: A
Potential Alternative to Gel Treatments, pp. 137150 in Lakatos I. (ed.): “Novelties in Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery”, Progress in
Mining and Oilfield Chemistry, Vol. 2., Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, ISBN 963 05 7724 0 (2000)
7. Lakatos, I., LakatosSzabó, J., Kosztin, B.., Palásthy, Gy.: Restriction of Gas Coning by a Novel Gel/Foam Technique, SPE Paper 39654
presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, USA (1998)
8. Lakatos, I., LakatosSzabó, J., Kosztin, B.., Palásthy, Gy.: Restriction of Gas Flow in Gas-Capped Oil Reservoirs: Field Experiences and
Lessons to Learn, SPE Paper 65278 presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference held in Paris, France (2000)
 6

9. Lakatos, I., Kretzschmar, H. J., Czolbe, P., Bittkow, P., Wassermann, I.: Polimerinjektionen zur Stimulierung oder Abdichtung von Öl-,
Gas- oder Wasserbohrungen, Erdöl Erdgas Kohle, 104(1): 1924 (1988)
10. Lakatos, I., Medic, B., Jovicic, D., Basic, I., Lakatos-Szabó, J.: Prevention of Vertical Gas Flow in a Collapsed Well Using
Silicate/Polymer/Urea Method, SPE Paper 121045 presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in The
Woodlands, USA 2009

Acknowledgments: The authors also wish to express their appreciation to the management of the Petroleum Development
Oman for their permission and courtesy to present the paper and the main results of the project.

Table 1: Production of A-45 producer prior to and after treatment

Date Gross fluid rate Netoil rate Net water rate Water cut
m3/d m3/d m3/d %
Prior to treatment
01-03-09 52.2 49.24 2.95 5.66
01-04-09 40.91 40.86 0.05 0.12
01-05-09 40.31 40.28 0.03 0.09
01-06-09 34.23 34.23 37.92 54.55
01-07-09 45.26 40.55 4.71 4.71
01-08-09 51.77 38.77 13.00 25.11
01-09-09 50.79 37.09 13.69 26.96
After treatment
01-10-09 106.14 43.53 59.60 57.78
01-11-09 79.78 43.63 58.87 45.31
01-12-09 112.38 48.55 36.15 56.80
01-01-10 139.27 59.03 63.83 57.61
01-02-10 136.64 62.00 80.23 54.61
01-03-10 132.82 66.90 74.63 49.62
01-04-10 132.09 61.05 65.91 53.77
01-05-10 130.03 57.27 71.03 55.95
01-07-10 121.55 62.68 72.75 48.43

Table 2: Production of A-73 producer prior to and after treatment

Date Gross fluid rate Netoil rate Net water rate Water cut
m3/d m3/d m3/d %
Prior to treatment
01-01-09 385.16 59.37 325.79 84.58
01-02-09 387.78 60.33 327.45 84.44
01-03-09 389.00 47.00 342.00 88.00
01-04-09 388.00 46.56 341.44 88.00
01-05-09 381.28 48.02 333.25 87.40
01-06-09 367.00 44.00 323.00 88.00
01-07-09 381.34 45.34 336.00 88.00
01-08-09 375.03 43.97 331.06 88.82
After treatment
01-10-09 369.00 44.28 324.72 88.00
01-11-09 363.10 43.80 319.42 88.00
01-12-09 364.90 43.68 321.10 88.00
01-01-10 355.70 59.51 296.18 83.26
01-02-10 371.99 59.15 312.84 84.50
01-03-10 362.43 57.45 304.98 84.09
01-04-10 370.72 57.36 313.36 84.14
01-05-10 346.60 55.60 291.09 83.96
01-06-10 357.32 60.35 296.96 83.10
01-07-10 356.17 65.04 274.37 81.74
 7

Table 3: Production of A-78 producer prior to and after treatment

Date Gross fluid rate Netoil rate Net water rate Water cut
m3/d m3/d m3/d %
Prior to treatment
01-01-09 269.00 21.50 247.50 92.00
01-03-09 332.44 24.48 307.96 92.63
01-06-09 381.65 36.51 345.13 90.43
01-07-09 388.87 42.60 346.27 89.04
01-08-09 379.56 42.84 336.71 88.71
01-09-09 368.05 43.70 320.57 88.00
After treatment
01-10-09 364.05 37.36 330.68 89.84
01-11-09 366.97 39.59 327.44 89.21
01-12-09 367.03 36.26 330.72 90.11
01-02-10 361.67 43.04 318.62 88.09
01-03-10 350.46 50.56 299.89 85.57
01-04-10 345.95 51.30 294.64 85.16
01-05-10 335.94 48.08 287.85 85.68
01-06-10 330.80 50.71 287.82 85.75
01-07-10 338.53 47.13 283.66 83.21

Table 4: Production of B-10 producer prior to and after treatment

Date Gross fluid rate Netoil rate Net water rate Water cut
m3/d m3/d m3/d %
Prior to treatment
01-01-09 176.17 38.71 137.46 78.03
01-02-09 163.22 33.44 129.78 79.51
01-03-09 202.16 22.76 168.40 83.30
01-04-09 147.43 16.45 130.98 88.84
01-05-09 130.38 11.65 118.74 91.07
01-06-09 106.85 8.82 98.03 91.08
01-07-09 235.03 19.19 215.84 91.85
01-08-09 350.62 28.33 322.29 91.92
01-09-09 249.31 20.73 228.58 91.69
01-10-09 233.89 20.09 213.80 91.41
01-11-09 148.57 12.72 135.86 91.44
After treatment
01-12-09 59.30 4.94 54.36 91.67
01-01-10 231.69 29.55 202.14 87.24
01-02-10 79.13 14.53 64.6 81.63
01-03-10 41.84 7.48 34.36 82.13
01-05-10 119.92 20.71 99.21 82.73
01-06-10 237.84 40.09 197.76 83.15
 8

Table 5: Production of C-30 producer prior to and after treatment

Date Gross fluid rate Netoil rate Net water rate Water cut
m3/d m3/d m3/d %
Prior to treatment
01-01-09 86.51 31.53 54.99 63.56
01-02-09 86.96 29.00 57.95 66.65
01-03-09 56.91 1.61 55.31 97.18
01-04-09 38.80 1.13 37.67 97.09
01-05-09 108.28 3.11 105.17 97.13
01-07-09 141.00 5.00 136.00 97.01
01-08-09 148.19 6.08 142.11 95.90
01-09-09 138.03 6.08 131.95 95.60
After treatment
01-10-09 132.08 5.03 127.05 96.19
01-11-09 126.24 4.80 121.44 96.19
01-12-09 4.12 0.16 3.96 96.17
01-01-10 52.77 2.30 50.47 95.65
01-02-10 76.62 3.46 73.16 95.49
01-03-10 77.17 3.70 73.47 95.20
01-04-10 91.05 5.20 85.85 94.28
01-05-10 97.59 6.21 91.37 93.63
01-06-10 91.20 6.19 85.00 93.21
 9

250

200
Production, m3/d

150

100

50

0
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 1: Oil production of well A-45 well prior to treatment

100

80

60

40

20

0
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Fig. 3: Water cut (%) in well A-45 well prior to treatment

400

350

300
Production, m3/d

250

200

150

100

50

0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 5: Water production of A-73 well prior to treatment
 10

300

250
Production, m3/d

200

150

100

50

0
98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 2: Water production of well A-45 well prior to treatment

350

300

250
Production, m3/d

200

150

100

50

0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 4: Oil production of well A-73 well prior to treatment

100

80

60
Water cut

40

20

0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 6: Water cut (%) in well A-73 well prior to treatment
 11

160

140

120
Production, m3/d

100

80

60

40

20

0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Fig. 7: Oil production of well A-78 well prior to treatment

100

80

60
Water cut

40

20

0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Fig. 9: Water cut (%) in well A-78 well prior to treatment

250

200
Production, m3/d

150

100

50

0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 11. Water production of well B-10 well prior to treatment
 12

350

300

250
Production, m3/d

200

150

100

50

0
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Fig. 8: Water production of well A-78 well prior to treatment

100

80
Production, m3/d

60

40

20

0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 10: Oil production of well B-10 well prior to treatment

100

80

60
Water cut

40

20

0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 12: Water cut (%) in B-10 well prior to treatment
 13

80

60
Production, m3/d

40

20

0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 13. Oil production of well C-30 well prior to treatment

100

80

60

40

20

0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 15: Water cut (%) in well C-30 well prior to treatment

0,7

0,6

0,5
Injectivity, m3/d/psi

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

Fig. 17: Injectivity of well A-60 well during treatment

 14

160

140

120
Production, m3/d

100

80

60

40

20

0
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
Fig. 14. Water production of well C-30 well prior to treatment

1,2

1
Injectivity, m3/d/psi

0,8

0,6

0,4

0,2

Fig. 16: Clean-up and injectivity test prior to treatment (A-60)

50
45
40
Injectivity, m3/d/psi

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Fig. 18: Injectivity of well C-30 well during treatment

 15

400
Before
350
After
300
Production, m3/d

250

200

150

100

50

0
A-45 A-78 A-73 B-10 C-30

Fig. 19: Average change of gross rate in oil producers

350
Before
300
After

250
Production, m3/d

200

150

100

50

0
A-45 A-78 A-73 B-10 C-30

Fig. 21: Average change of water rate in oil producers

70
Before
60 After

50
Production, m3/d

40

30

20

10

0
A-45 A-78 A-73 B-10 C-30

Fig. 20: Average change of oil rate in oil producers

 16

100 Before

After
90

80
Water cut, %

70

60

50

40
A-45 A-78 A-73 B-10 C-30

Fig. 22: Average change of water cut (%) in oil producers