SPE 158059

Well Selection Criteria for Water Shut-Off Polymer Gel Injection in

Carbonates
Serhat Canbolat & Mahmut Parlaktuna, SPE, Middle East Technical University

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1114 November 2012.
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. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Polymer Gel Injection is an efficient method for Water Shut-Off (WSO) application in naturally fractured carbonate
oil reservoirs with high water cuts. The application of WSO extends the economic life of the field is extended with
the decline in water production. Polymer gel injection has become a common application to remediate high water
rates in fractured networks replacing the usual procedures of squeeze cementing, landing open-hole packers, and
liners.
A well selection procedure is developed for a successful WSO treatment in a given field which is based on the
analysis of reservoir rock and fluid properties and production history of the field. The best candidates of wells are
chosen with respect to; estimated remaining mobile hydrocarbons in place, productivity index (PI) values, number
of fracture intensity, completion types and water cut of the wells. Then, the effects of WSO application simulations
run for water-shut-off polymer gel injection application for the selected wells on oil recovery comparison. Finally,
application economics for the selected wells are studied for the justification of procedure.
In the candidate field the results showed that the wells having high PI values with high fracture density
distributions (number of fractures) located on the apex of the field were the good candidates. Also, the wells,
having low cumulative oil recovery with high water cut %, completed as a cased hole or short pay zone under the
casing (open hole) were the verified well candidates with the field simulator, for WSO polymer gel application in
the field.
Consequently, the results of simulations showed that the treatment was economically more profitable.WSO
treatment in candidate field was resulted in immediate payout in 60 days. The selected five wells, after the
application gave 2.77 profits to investment ratio at the end of ten months production period with an incremental oil
recovery of 15.763 bbls.
Introduction
High water production in oil fields is one of the major difficulties for the petroleum industry, as reservoirs become
mature. Costs of lifting, handling, separation and disposal of large amounts of produced water; environmental
concerns about this water; increased corrosion rates; higher tendency for emulsion; and, scale formation are
among the main problems due to water production which often decrease the economic life of a well. Therefore,
there is a need to reduce excessive water production.
WSO polymer gel injection is a successful method for naturally fractured reservoirs which generally exhibits
extreme water cut values. Gels are used in carbonate reservoirs that are dominated by secondary porosity
features. This technology will preferentially flow into these features and selectively reduce permeability to water.
Success of the application is based on the proper selection of the wells (Seright et al., 2003).
Currently, gel polymer treatments have an 85-90% success rate in reducing water production and, in many cases,
increasing oil production. Gel polymer systems have a penetration property greater than the mechanical methods
and cement to provide a deeper barrier against the excess water (Portwood, 2005). Also, plugging due to gel
polymers can be removed unlike physical cement plugging which leads to a permanent plug in the porous media.
The residual oil cannot be produced from the treated region by cementing method after decreasing of excess

SPE 158059

water production (Ghedan et al., 2009).

The production well treatment involves injection of the gellant into the fractures or high permeability zones that
produces a lot of water, thereby reducing oil production. This application not only improves drawdown from the
productive zones; but, it also reduces or eliminates the costs associated with the produced water (Perez et al.
2001).
For the selection of the right well/wells for a successful treatment; the reservoir rock and fluid properties and
petrophysical properties of the candidate field were analyzed to generate the right reservoir simulation model.
After generation of the field model, production performance of the wells, completion types and remaining mobile
hydrocarbons in place were considered for the WSO polymer gel injection simulator for application runs. WSO
polymer gel injection application was studied for the selected wells for oil recovery and application economics
compared for the well selection criteria.
The results showed that the wells having high PI values, with high fracture density distributions, with low
cumulative oil productions were the good candidates for the application. Short open holes and cased-hole
completions were the verified well candidates for WSO polymer gel application in the selected field.
Candidate Field for WSO
Candidate Field for WSO application is located in Southeastern Turkey which has an asymmetric anticline
structure extending over an area of 1.5 km by 1.0 km. The field was discovered in December 1989 and has been
on production since 1990. The structural contour map top of producing formation, Formation B, is mapped with
Google Earth and is given in Figure 1. The field is a typical carbonate reservoir with primary drive mechanism of
bottom water drive. Three zones (formation) are oil bleeding throughout the field. The formation A is dominantly
mudstone. These formations are one of the least permeable rocks in most sedimentary sequences. The formation
is not expected to have matrix porosity or intergranular porosity (Broichhausen, et al., 2005). Accordingly they can
act as seals for fluid flow leading to abnormal overpressures. Fracture porosity is present but limited, mostly in
microfracture type and adds limited reserve potential when compared to the reserves created by matrix and
intergranular porosity. However, permeability created by fractures is potentially very high. The formation B is an
organic rich muddy limestone and formation C is a limestone which has a good secondary porosity developed by
fresh water leaching. The summary of the candidate field properties are tabulated in Table-1.
Screning Creteria for Well Selection
The success of a polymer gel treatment is dependent on the selection of wells for the treatment which requires
screening criteria to choose the best ones among the several candidates. With the guidance of the past
experiences present in the literature, it was possible to define what is involved in the field polymer gel application
and the potential accomplishment in a given situation.
The following features are considered to select the right candidates for polymer gel treatment;
1. Permeability / fracture distribution: Secondary porosity is one of the characteristic features of
carbonate reservoirs. Due to variation in depositional environment and diagenetic processes, several
types of secondary porosity including vuggs, moulds, channels, and fractures may develop in carbonates.
Secondary porosity may enhance permeability when it exceeds a certain value, subsequently increasing
production. Fracture identification logs show a lot of fractures which enhance permeability (Ghafoori et.al,
2008). Higher fracture density and/or higher permeability is the first criterion for higher water-cut (Demir et
al., 2009), (Larson et al., 1999), (Perez et al., 2001). In this study, the natural fracture analysis was
carried out on six wells of the field using the formation micro scanner (FMS) images. In the analysis,
number of natural fractures per well were described as sealed or cemented fractures whereas the rest are
either fully open or partly open. Using the natural fracture numbers determined from the interpretation
study, field fracture distribution map (Figure 2) is prepared over the field using gridding methods. Fracture
distribution map indicates that the center (apex) and east of the field have higher fractures compared to
the rest of the field (GeoQuest, 1998).
2. Water cut value of the well: Abandoned or producing wells with water-cuts as high as 98% or greater, at
or near at their economic limit are good candidates for WSO application. Wells reached the high watercuts in their early production life and continuing to produce with high water cuts are also considered to be
good candidates.
3. Remaining recoverable oil-in-place: The wells should be checked whether they have enough
recoverable oil in place to be produced after the water shut-off polymer gel injection operations.
Remaining Recoverable Oil (RRO) calculation is considered for each well for the selection criteria
(Burrafato et al. 1999). In carbonate reservoirs, when the water phase within a reservoir is linked with an
aquifer, it can provide pressure to drive the oil from the reservoir to the well head. Typical oil recovery

SPE 158059

efficiencies are 35 to 75% of the OOIP. Common types of aquifer: bottom and edge. Reservoir pressure
remains high (depends on aquifer strength). Producing GOR is unchanged until reservoir pressure
declines below bubble point (Dake, 1978). For various reservoir types at varied stages of development
and depletion, the key unknown in volumetric reserves determinations may be rock volume, effective
porosity, fluid saturation, or recovery factor. Important considerations affecting a volumetric reserves
estimate are outlined below: Rock volume may simply be determined as the product of a single well
drainage area and wellbore net pay or by more complex geological mapping. Recovery factor is based on
analysis of production behavior from the subject reservoir, by analogy with other producing reservoirs,
and/or by engineering analysis. In estimating recovery factors the evaluator must consider factors that
influence recoveries, such as rock and fluid properties. In order to calculate remaining oil in each well,
Sw, porosity, average pay zone thickness, formation volume factor, area OOIP values calculated for each
wells. Using the below equation for recovery efficiency from Guthrie and Greenberger (Arps, 1956):
ER = 0.2719 logk - 0.255569SW - 0.1355logO - 1.53 - 0.0003488h + 0.11403 ............. (1)
values determined for each zone in the reservoir. RRO can be calculated for each well subtracting the
official oil recovery numbers as of June 2011 from the recoverable oil in place. With respect to the
calculations, summary of RRO in place with Total Recovery Fraction (TRF) of the wells in field tabulated
and allocated to the selected wells listed in Table-2 for screening criteria for well selection.
4. Productivity index (PI): The wells with High PI values are good/preferred candidates for injecting
polymer gel to reduce high water cuts. Calculated PI values of the candidate field wells are mapped in
Figure 3 which exhibits a similarity between the fracture distribution map shown in Figure-2. This verifies
that in naturally fractured reservoirs the fracture density controls the fracture permeability and hence
governs the reservoir production performance and PI values. Well`s fluid levels, production data and PI
values analyzed for the candidate field that are given in Table-3.
5. Well Completion: Good cement bond behind the casing string or short open hole lengths are plus for the
selection criteria situation (Der Sarkissian, 2005). Thats why, wells completed as cased hole or having
short pay zone under the casing (open hole) are the selected candidates given in Table-4.
6. Salinity change in the produced water: This is another indicator for the selection criteria for the
candidate wells, whether the produced water is from the aquifer or reservoir. The water channeling
caused by reservoir heterogeneities that lead to presence fractures are the most common cause for
extreme water production (Willhite and Pancake, 2004). Figure 4 shows the measured water salinity
values of candidate wells with a decreasing trend with time. It is an indication that the aquifer water bypassing the remaining oil and flow through the fractures to the wellbore.
Considering the above criteria, 5 wells namely, 6, 11, 14, 15, and 20, were selected from the field for evaluation of
the WSO polymer gel injection operation. Summary of the selected candidate wells data, (number of fractures, PI,
cumulative production, water cut %, penetration in the open-hole section, producing formation, completion type
and salinity values) are tabulated in Table-4. Rather than the completion type the potential of the remaining
hydrocarbon and the PI value extremely considered for the criteria.
Description of the Reservoir Model
The reservoir modeled in this study is a heterogeneous reef composed of four distinct formations. The upper
formation (zone A) is mudstone which is thought to be the cap rock. However, due to the vertical fractures
accumulated on the bottom part of this zone, with an average pay zone of 25 ft (7.6 m) out of 500 ft (152.4 m)
formation thickness it has been producing oil in most wells. Thats why the zone has only average porosity of 16%
due to fractures. The middle formation (zone B) is limestone with an average pay zone of 18 ft (5.5 m), out of 100
ft (30.5 m) formation thickness. The formation has an average porosity of 11%, and average matrix permeability
of 0.65 md. The lower formation (zone C) is also limestone with both fracture and matrix porosity of average 6%.
The thickness of aquifer formation (zone D) was assumed 30 ft (9.2 m.) for the simulation model.
The reservoir model created in Cartesian coordinates contains a total of 54,432 grid blocks (28x18x9) from which
49,896 of them are active (CMG, IMEX Users Guide, 2005). Effective fracture permeability map of the model is
given in Figure 5,
The aquifer zone was implemented by using the data related to aquifer system into CMG simulator. No flow
boundary condition was assumed at the boundaries surrounding the reservoir.
The prepared simulation model for WSO polymer gel injection is based on the permeability reduction of the
selected candidate wells (Verre and Blunt, 2007).
Simulations were run and history match was done for the cumulative oil production data gathered from daily

SPE 158059

production reports of each well. In Figure 6 the well #11 cumulative oil production and simulation data were
matched. Moreover, to confirm the simulator`s convenience, bottom whole pressure measured in last five years
also matched. Figure 7 shows the bottom hole pressure match of well #11. Both plots show acceptable match
with measured values.
Simulation Run for WSO Application
Field wells frequently have high initial production rates that are considered to be consistent with flow through
matrix rock. A typical reservoir description usually contains a hypothetical fracture system connected to the
aquifer to explain the high water production rates. Consequently, WSO programs are usually developed with the
objective to treat the fracture shutting off direct flow of water to the producing well and forcing the water through
matrix rock, where oil can be displaced. An important characteristic of the field is the strong pressure support from
bottom aquifer (Willhite and Pancake, 2004).
In the simulation model polymer gel application simulation was run for the selected wells as like the practical
application in the literature (Demir, et al., 2009).
The WSO polymer gel injection application run in selected 5 wells, which were, 6, 11, 14, 15, and 20. The
application time for each well shut-in was for a minimum of 4 to 7 days to allow time for the gels to form. Then the
wells were put on production. The wells monitored ten months for economic evaluation of WSO application.
Figure 8 shows the water cut reduction and incremental recovery seen in the WSO polymer gel treatment in #11.
The water cut %, decreased from 95 to 61 and the incremental oil recovery was realized as 6,012 bbls. BHP
decreased from 1,700 psi to 1,400 psi after injecting polymer gel to the well (Figure 9).
The selected well's simulation results encourage the WSO polymer gel application in the candidate field.
Incremental recovery of the simulations resulted in 15,763 bbls oil with decreasing water cut % (% 95-99 to % 6167). The selected wells ten months performance is summarized in Table-5.
Economics of the WSO Operation
Following the simulation runs of WSO polymer gel injection treatment in candidate field, totally, 15,763 bbls net oil
recovered in ten months period from the selected wells. This incremental recovery is the 39% of the expected
annual cumulative oil production at the end of this year.
WSO of polymer gels used at producing wells selectively reduce water production, on the contrary increased oil
production. Performance of the wells showed that, high initial recovery followed by decreasing trend while
production carried on. The total recovery of the application was 2,948 bbls in the first month and then the recovery
gradually diminished to 1,041 bbls in the tenth month. The best recovery and the performance were seen in #11
well during the application period. WSO treatment may particularly attractive, as it was resulted in an immediate
positive impact in short period. On the contrary water cut % decreased also increasing during the ten months
production period.
The average cost for a WSO treatment volume of 2,500 barrels for each well is $25.000 ($10 per gel barrel). This
is the only cost for the gel treatment, and does not include other costs associated with pumping unit, services,
tanks etc. The selected wells for treatment in this report have recovered a total of 15.763 bbls incremental oil in
10 months period. Assumptions made for the surface equipment, pumping unit, transportation of gel chemicals as
$130.000 US and consultancy for seven days as $7.000 US. The price of gel chemicals for 5 wells cost $125.000
US (5*$25.000 US) (Portwood, 2005) (Demir, et al. 2009).
The total capital expenditure was summed as $262,000 US. The average Rasgharip oil price was counted as
$100 US/bbls the economical analysis for the project calculated in Table-6.
Finally, the field model simulations showed that the chosen candidates, 6, 11, 14, 15 and 20; resulted in an
incremental recovery of 15,763 bbls crude oil having treatment cost of $262,000 US, creating $724,812 US as a
cumulative cash flow at the end of ten months, with a 2.77 profits to investment ratio (Table-7). In two months the
project turned to be very profitable with the calculated rate of profit to investment ratio (Seba, 2003).

Conclusions
A selection procedure was developed for water-shut of polymer gel treatment in a fractured carbonate reservoir.
The modeling study of the candiadate field after well selection indicated an incremental recovery of 15,763 bbls
crude oil which accounts for a 39% of the expected annual cumulative oil production at the end of the studied
year. The average water cut decreased from % 95-99 to % 61-67. Economics of the treatment in the field resulted
in immediate payout in 60 days, creating $724,812 US as a cumulative cash flow at the end of ten months with a
2.77 profits to investment ratio.

SPE 158059

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank SAYER Group of Companies for giving the permission of Candidate Field data
used in this study.
Nomenclature

h
k
o
Sw

: porosity, fraction
: net thickness, ft
: effective permeability of reservoir rock to a given fluid, md
: oil viscosity, cp
: water saturation, fraction

References
Seright R.S., Lane, R.H. and Sydnask, R.D.: A Strategy for Attacking Excess Water Production, SPE
Production and Facilities, 158-169, (August 2003).
Portwood, J.T., The Kansas Arbuckle Formation: Performance Evaluation and Lessons Learned From
More Than 200 Polymer-Gel Water-Shutoff Treatments, Paper SPE 94096, Presented at the SPE Production and
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, 17-19 April 2005.
Ghedan S. et al., Development of Early Water Breakthrough and Effectiveness of Water Shut off
Treatments in Layered and Heterogeneous Reservoirs, Paper SPE 125580, Presented at the SPE/EAGE
Reservoir Characterization and Simulation Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 19-21 October 2009.
Willhite, G. P. and Pancake, R. E., Controlling Water Production Using Gel Polymer System, Paper SPE
89464 Presented at the SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, (2004).
Perez. D. et al., Applications of Polymer Gel for Establishing Zonal Isolations and Water Shutoff in
Carbonate Formations, SPE Drilling & Completion, 16, 3, (2001).
Hurley N.F., et.al, Quantification of Vuggy Porosity in a Dolomite Reservoir from Borehole Images and
Core, Dagger Draw Field, New Mexico, Paper SPE 49323, Prepared for SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September 1998.
Broichhausen, H. et al., Mudstone compaction and its influence on overpressure generation, elucidated by
a 3D case study in the North Sea ,International Journal Of Earth Science volume 94 August 2005
Ghafoori M. R., et. al, Secondary Porosity; a Key Parameter Controlling the Hydrocarbon Production in
Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoirs (Case Study) the Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts
(SPWLA) 49th Annual Logging Symposium held in Edinburgh, Scotland, May 25-28, 2008.
Fracture Interpretation Study for 8 wells in Candidate Field by Schlumberger GeoQuest Eastern
Mediterranean District, 1998.
User's Guide IMEX, Advanced Oil/Gas Reservoir Simulator By Computer Modeling Group Ltd. Version
2010.
Burrafato, G. et al., Rigless WSO Treatments in Gas Fields. Bullheading Gels and Polymers in Shaly
Sands: Italian Case Histories, Paper SPE 54747, European Formation Damage Conference held in The Hague,
The Netherlands, 31 May-1 June 1999.
Dake, L.P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier Science B.V. Sara Bugerhartstraat 25, P.O.
Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1978.
Arps, J. J., Estimation of Primary Oil Reserves, Paper SPE 627-G, Petroleum Transactions, AIME,
Volume 207, pages 182-191, 1956.
Der Sarkissian, J. et.al, Lessons Learned from Four Selective Water-Shutoff Treatments in Mature
Reservoirs in Maracaibo Lake, Paper SPE 96528, SPE Offshore Europe 2005 held in Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 69 September 2005.
Larson J.B. et.al, Production Well Water Shut Off Polymer Treatment in the Weber Sandstone Ashley
Valley Field, Uintah County, UT, Paper SPE 55629, Presented at the 1999 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting held in Gillette, Wyoming, 1518 May 1999.
Demir, M et al., Water Shutoff Polymer Gel Injection Operation in Raman Field, The 17th International
Petroleum and Natural Gas Congress and Exhibition, Ankara, TURKEY, 13-15 May 2009.
Verre, F. and Blunt, M., Applicability of Water Shutoff Treatment for Horizontal Wells in Heavy-Oil
Reservoirs, Paper SPE 106908, SPE/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in London, U.K., 11-14 June
2007.
Seba R.D., Economics of Worldwide Petroleum Production, OGCI and Petroskills Publications, Tulsa,
Oklahoma USA, 2003.

SPE 158059

Tables and Figures

Table-1 Summary of Field Properties.
Field Discovery, year
Location
Original Oil In Place, MMSTB
Initial Pressure, psi
Bubble Point Pressure, psi
Temperature, F
Average Porosity, %
Average Water Saturation , %
Average Permeability, md
Net Thickness, ft
Water Oil Contact Depth (subsea), ft
API Gravity
Specific Gravity,
Viscosity, cp
Gas Oil Ratio (GOR), scf/stb
Original Oil Formation Volume Factor, bbl/stb
Formation Water Salinity, ppm
Compressibility of Oil, 1/psi
Compressibility of Water, 1/psi
Compressibility of Rock, 1/psi
Sulfur Content, % weight

1989
South East Turkey
14.40
1,900
50
150
12.4
25
10 - 65
59
2800
23.2
0.9145
23.1
50
1.05
15,000-19,000
-6
1210
-6
310
-6
610
2.68

Table-2 Summary of RRO and TRF of Selected Field Wells as of June 2011.
Well
#
4
6
7
9
11
12
14
15
16
20

Total ROIP
bbls
308,619
231,314
440,558
455,572
175,299
191,512
284,998
364,936
173,779
133,826

Production
bbls
121,542
77,100
293,169
342,865
73,556
70,076
99,415
167,890
44,479
21,881

Remaining Oil
bbls
187,077
154,214
147,389
112,707
101,743
121,436
185,583
197,046
129,300
111,945

Total Recovery
fraction
0.39
0.33
0.67
0.75
0.42
0.37
0.35
0.46
0.26
0.16

Table-3 Productivity Index (PI) for the Wells in June 2011.

Well
#
9
15
20
11**
14
6**
7
13
4
12

Fluid Level
ft
750
749
885
1488
1651
712
2027
2708
2691
4510

BHP
psi
1753
1726
1628
1430
1217
1707
1093
836
875
103

Prod. Rate
bbls/day
564
600
720
492
640
110
216
175
115
176

PI
bbls/day/psi
2.87
2.68
2.24
0.95
0.87
0.45
0.25
0.16
0.11
0.10

*Abandoned wells, **Shut in Wells

Table-4 Summary of Field Wells Production Information for Candidate Selection as of June 2011.

Number
of
Fractures
291

0.45

Cumulative
Production,
bbls
77,100

99

58

A,B

Remaining
Recoverable Oil,
bbls
154,214

Cased

Salinity
ppm
Cl2300

11

60

0.95

73,556

99

101

A,B,C

101,743

Open

3100

14

50

0.87

99,415

98

327

185,583

Open

2200

15

50

2.68

167,890

98

54

197,046

Open

2800

20

50

2.24

21,881

99

253

111,945

Open

2800

Well
#

PI
bbls/day/psi

Water cut,
%

Penetration,
ft

Producing,
zone

Completion
Type

Table-5 Performance Summary of WSO Polymer Gel Application.

Well #
Net Oil bbls
Water Cut % change

11

14

15

20

2.842
67-89

6.014
61-88

2.302
68-95

2.486
68-94

2.119
78-95

SPE 158059

Table-6 Net Oil Production and Gross Income after Polymer Gel Application.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
FIELD PRODUCTION

Sep-10

AVG. DAILY PRODUCTION, BOPD

Oct-10

Nov-10

Dec-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

Mar-11

Apr-11

May-11

Jun-11

98

67

58

53

47

47

40

39

37

35

2,948

2,076

1,741

1,641

1,472

1,305

1,242

1,163

1,135

1,041

369

260

218

205

184

163

155

145

142

130

2,579

1,816

1,523

1,436

1,288

1,142

1,087

1,018

993

911

OIL PRICE - MARKET - $ / BBL

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

GROSS INCOME - $

257,940

181,583

152,260

143,645

128,788

114,180

108,655

101,840

99,260

91,130

PRODUCTION, BBL
ROYALTY, ( %12.5 ) BBL
NET FIELD PRODUCTION, BBL
REVENUE

Table-7 Expenditures and Profit to Investment Ratio of Polymer Gel Application.

EXPENDITURES
CAPITAL EXPENSES (CAPEX)
GEL COST $ / WELL
SURFACE FACILITIES & PUMPING
UNIT - TRANSPORTATION - $
CONSULTANCY - $
CAPEX - TOTAL - $
EXPENSES
INCOME AFTER EXPENSES - $
INCOME TAX - ( 0.20 + 0.15 ) - $
NET AFTER TAX INCOME - $
CUMULATIVE CASH FLOW - $
PROFIT / INVESTMENT RATIO - $ / $

Sep-10

Oct-10

Nov-10

Dec-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

Mar-11

Apr-11

May-11

Jun-11

25,000 125,000

130,000 130,000

7,000
262,000

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

-4,060

181,583

152,260

143,645

128,788

114,180

108,655

101,840

99,260

91,130

63,554

53,291

50,276

45,076

39,963

38,029

35,644

34,741

31,896

-4,060
-4,060
2.77

118,029
113,969

98,969
212,938

93,369
306,307

83,712
390,019

74,217
464,236

70,626
534,862

66,196
601,058

64,519
665,577

59,235
724,812

1,000

0.35

Figure 1: Field Structural Contour Map Top B Formation Plotted with Google Earth.

SPE 158059

12
5

179000.00

21
260

4
178800.00

240

14

220

200

13

19

178600.00

180

160
140

178400.00 15

11

120

18

100
80

16

178200.00

60

10

20

40
20
0

178000.00

# of
fractures

2
37450600.00 37450800.00 37451000.00 37451200.00 37451400.00 37451600.00 37451800.00

Figure 2: Field Fracture Density Distribution Map.

12
5

4179000.00
21

4178800.00

3.00
2.80

14
3

2.60
2.40

13

19

4178600.00

2.20
1

2.00
1.80
1.60

4178400.00

11

15

1.40

18

1.20
1.00
16

4178200.00

0.80
10

0.60

20

0.40
0.20
0.00
4178000.00

bbls/day
2

37450600.00 37450800.00 37451000.00 37451200.00 37451400.00 37451600.00 37451800.00

Figure 3: Field PI Distribution Map.

psi

SPE 158059

Figure 4: Candidate Wells Salinity Change.

Figure 5: Areal Reservoir Model Fracture Permeability Distribution of Field.

10

SPE 158059

Figure 6: Well #11 Cumulative Oil Production History Match.

Figure 7: Well #11 Bottom Hole Pressures History Match during 2005-2011.

SPE 158059

11

Figure 8: WSO Polymer Injection Application in Well #11.

Figure 9: BHP Behavior during Application in Well #11.