SPE 77412

Relative Permeability Modifier and Scale Inhibitor Combination in Fracturing Process at

San Francisco Field in Colombia, South America
R. Castano, J. Villamizar, O. Diaz, Hocol S.A.
M. Avila, S. Gonzalez, E. D. Dalrymple, S. Milson, and D. Everett, Halliburton

Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September –2 October 2002.
This paper was selected for pr esentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by ht e author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Water production in the San Francisco field in Colo mbia is
characterized by a severe carbonate scaling tendency,
particularly in the lower Caballos zone. Following several
fracture stimulation treatments which incorporated RPM
(Relative Permeability Modifier) in San Francisco field, it was
observed that, although the RPM decreased the anticipated
water production, there was an undesirable effect in regard to
scaling problems. Some wells ended up losing a portion of the
increased production which had been gained by using the
RPM fracturing process. This decrease in production was
attributed to carbonate scaling after the wells were back on
production for several months.
A well candidate was chosen (San Francisco 60) and
laboratory flow tests were performed in representative cores to
determine if a detrimental impact would occur in regard to the
ability of the RPM to function properly when the scale
inhibitor was part of a combined treatment. Based on these
results, a combined fracturing treatment which incorporated a
water reduction agent (RPM) in combination with a scale
inhibitor was performed in the SF 60 well. To our knowledge,
this was the worlds first combined application of an RPM and
scale inhibitor in a hydraulic fracture treatment. Further, this
new systematic approach to two very difficult problems
yielded excellent results: Following the treatment, the well
increased production by almost 10 fold while at the same time,
water cut was reduced by 30%. This procedure reduced the
cost of water management and associated scaling problems,
which had been common in this field. This new system has
created many more fracture stimulation opportunities which in
the past had not been considered economically attractive.
The work described in this paper is the result of a true
team effort (operator/Service company) and describes the
focus in solving several production problems (as experienced
in San Francisco field) which resulted in a multi-purpose
treatment. The net result of the method developed is fewer
required stimulation/workover jobs while maintaining the
same or increased hydrocarbon production, and less water
(which also translates into lower lifting costs).
This paper will present the following:
• Data illustrating the type of production problems being
experienced in the San Francisco field
• The results of approaching the water production issues
and scaling tendencies individually
• The laboratory evaluation techniques and data obtained
when combining the individual treatments into a “system”
• The resulting “job design,” treatment, and production
response when the combination stimulation/water
control/scaling treatment was actually put into practice.
Introduction
San Francisco is a mature field located in the Middle
Magdalena Valley basin in Colo mbia. This field mainly
produces oil [approximately 20,000 barrels of oil per day
(BOPD)] from two zones in the Caballos formation: Upper
Caballos (UKB) and Lower Caballos (LKB). Development
wells are between 3,000 to 5,000 ft and completed in 7-in.
cased holes with an average bottomhole static temperature
(BHST) of 120°F.1-3 Permanent workover and stimulation are
required to maintain production because the following damage
mechanisms are associated with the production process in
this field:
• Calcium carbonate scaling (associated with formation
water)
• Organic scaling (paraffin/asphaltenes)
• Water production (particularly in the wells influenced by
the water-injection process in the UKB zone)
The RPM treatment for the test well in this field required
several phases of operation. Background information,
laboratory testing, candidate selection, methodology and
operation, benefit agreements, and treatment evaluation are
described in the following sections.
2 R. CASTANO, J. VILLAMIZAR, O. DIAZ, M. AVILA, S. GONZALEZ , E. D. DALRYMPLE, S. MILSON, D. EVERETT
Background
The Polymer Conformance System (PCS) Enhanced Fracture
Stimulation (EFS) utilizes an in-situ generated modification
RPM agent as described in SPE 59348.4-5 After the PCS and
fracture stimulation has been performed, the well is shut-in for
10 to 18 hours, allowing in -situ chemical reaction. It is
hypothesized that the polymer’s hydrophilic branches (formed
from the cationic, water-soluble copolymer) extend from the
polymer backbone (the linear water-soluble aminopolymer)
into the pore throat region of the formation and act as
“microvalves” or “polymer brushes” that help inhibit water
production. By residing in the formation pores, this polymer
can effectively control the passage of fluids, curtailing water
flow while permitting hydrocarbons to pass freely.
This PCS EFS system has been successfully used in both
zones (UKB/LKB) of the San Francisco formation described
above to increase oil and control water production. However,
the total production from some of the wells declined
unexpectedly because of calcium carbonate scaling. A
treatment to increase oil production, control formation water,
and inhibition of the scaling tendency, was desired. A
combination of the PCS EFS system incorporating a scale
inhibitor arose as a solution to this specific problem.
Laboratory Testing
Compatibility issues were a major concern for using the RPM
in combination with scale inhibitors. The polyacrylate
inhibitor type was selected because of the previous good
results experienced with it in the area. A testing protocol was
designed to confirm compatibility of the RPM and
scale inhibitor.
All tests were performed at 125º F. The aqueous fluid used
for stabilizing the water flow through the cores and the mix
water for the RPM chemicals was 4% KCl. Kerosene was used
as the flow sequence oil phase. Testing was performed with a
150-psi system pressure.
Control test using berea cores to determine the impact of
the RPM treatment on a formation containing layers of
water and oil stringers without reservoir crossflow. The
physical properties of the cores used are listed in Table 1. Two
multi-pressure tap flow cells (Fig. 1), each containing a berea
sandstone core, were used in this test. The water core had a
100% Sw. The oil core was first stabilized to the brine flow,
then stabilized to the oil flow, until an irreducible water state
was achieved.
After the initial permeabilities of both cores were
determined, the test cells were plumbed together in such
manner as to allow the treatment to be bullheaded in the
reverse flow direction into the two cores simultaneously. The
treatment consisted of the following sequence:
1. A 5-cc pad of linear fracturing gel
2. 50 cc of PCS treatment solution
3. A 5-cc pad of linear fracturing gel
4. The crosslinked gel was pumped against the core faces at
the maximum pressure obtained during the linear gel
SPE 77412
portions of the treatment. This pressure was maintained
against the filter cake formed by the crosslinked gel for
one hour.
5. The two core cells were shut in overnight at temperature
to allow the reaction of the PCS RPM chemicals and the
internal breaker of the crosslinked fracturing gel to react.
The regained permeabilities of the two cores to their
respective fluids (oil and water) were determined following
the simulated layered-formation RPM treatment (Fig. 2).
Evaluation of PCS RPM and scale inhibitor combination
treatment. The test described in the “Control” sequence was
repeated with the exception that the scale inhibitor was added
to the linear gel following the PCS RPM treatment solution.
The concentration of the scale inhibitor was 30 gallons per
1,000 gallons solution. The cores were shut in overnight after
the treatment. As before, the regained permeabilities of both
cores to their respective fluids (oil and water) were
determined. (Figs. 3 and 4).
Candidate Selection
As a water-injection project is ongoing in UKB zone, the
process to select the candidates to be fractured in a
conventional manner is difficult. The possibility of contacting
zones with high water saturation exists because of
the following:
• Water zones next to the fracture interval
• Fracture communication with the oil/water contact
• High-permeability channels affected by the water-
injection process
• Uncontrolled fracture growth
• Layers with different properties
Using the PCS EFS, it became feasible to stimulate wells
with damage around the wellbore or low-conductivity zones,
while at the same time controlling water production from
different sources (water injection-project or water drive
mechanism). A scale inhibitor was to be utilized to prevent
scale precipitation caused by water production following the
fracture stimulation treatments.
Methodology and Operation
The application of this technology in the SF 60 well is used in
this paper as an example to describe the typical operational
sequence. The following sections describe previous operations
and fracturing with the PCS RPM EFS and scale-inhibitor
combination.
Previous Operations. Production logging (PLT) runs were
performed to determine the production of each zone, (UKB
and LKB) because both zones produce commingled on the
surface. The LKB zone was already fractured. The fracturing
operation, combining the RPM with the scale inhibitor, was
planned for the UKB zone, which is under a water-flooding
SPE 77412 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIER AND SCALE INHIBITOR COMBINATION IN FFRACTURING PROCESS
AT SAN FRANCISCO FIELD IN COLOMBIA , SOUTH AMERICA
process. According to the log, UKB/LKB zones have an 85%
water cut. After log results and the production decline
observed in the well were reviewed, a clean-up treatment
(with hydrochloric acid and an organic solvent emulsion) was
performed in both zones to remove potential organic
(asphaltene and paraffin) and calcium carbonate scaling. The
acid treatment was cleaned out using nitrogen. A scale-
inhibition treatment was then performed in the LKB zone.
Fracturing with the PCS RPM and Scale-Inhibitor
Combination. After these previous operations, the LKB and a
subzone of the UKB zone (UKBf) were isolated, and the
exposed UKB zones were swabbed to obtain fluids and a pH
level compatible with the RPM trend to be pumped.
Laboratory testing at the rig site indicated compatibility with a
4.3 pH after swabbing 200 bbl of fluid. The fracturing
operation was performed in three main steps: injection test,
mini-fracturing, and main fracturing.
Injection Test. Performed with 4% KCl brine, the injection
test allowed the fluid entry pattern and data to be verified for
fracturing designs. Brine serves as a spacer between previous
acid treatment residuals and high-pH (13) spacers required for
RPM polymerization.
Mini-Fracturing. Mini-fracturing was performed with the
high-pH spacers and the RPM solution, allowing the RPM
treatment to be placed in 50% of the designed fractured length.
Additionally, it allowed data for refining the fracturing design
parameters to be obtained. After the RPM was placed, the well
was closed for 18 hours to allow in situ polymerization. The
data gathered were used to perform calculation/design
adjustments for main fracturing while the well was closed.
Main Fracturing. In this step, a pre-pad (linear gel)
containing the scale inhibitor was pumped ahead of the
designed fracturing stages. The concentration for the scale
inhibitor was calculated to provide one-year inhibition based
on the water-production prognosis for the well. In this step,
the pre-pad containing the scale inhibitor was pumped ahead
of the designed stages for the fracturing job. The fracturing
stages were pumped according to the design with an average
rate of 26.0 bbl/min. Tip screen out (TSO) was reached with a
9.7-lb/gal proppant (sand 12/20) concentration at 3,750 psi
(Fig. 10 and Table 2 ). With the schedule executed, parameters
obtained, and computer simulations, the following fracture
properties were estimated:
• Conductivity range: 4,380-18,144 Md-ft
• Length: 103 ft
• Height: 185 ft
• Width: 0.27 in.
Benefit Agreements
During the past ten years, the oil industry has been
experimenting with new commercial models to align
objectives between service companies and operators.
3
Following this philosophy, the application of the PCS RPM
technology was performed under a commercial model based
on results and benefits provided by the technology: increased
oil production for the operator and increased revenue/profit for
the service company.
The commercial methodology was based on well
production conditions before and after the treatment. The
following parameters defined the benefits to be shared:
historical well production curves (water and oil), extrapolated
well-production decline (to forecast future production at actual
conditions), and real production curves obtained after the
treatment. The incremental oil or water reduction obtained by
comparing forecasted production against real production after
the treatment determined the benefit or additional bonus to be
paid by the operator to the service company.
The above scenario is the positive side of the equation. In a
negative scenario, the well response after the treatment can be
equal to or lower than the previous production conditions. In
this case, both parties will lose: oil production reduction for
the operator and revenue/profit discounts for the service
company. To reduce this risk, two actions were established:
• Strong operator/service company teamwork for selecting
proper candidates, involving multi-disciplinary teams
from both groups (geologist, reservoir, and
production/stimulation engineer).
• Contractual commitment to regain lost production in the
event of bad results after the job.
This agreement was the first step in a learning process for
this type of commercial approach. The next steps focus on
improving and exploring new models, and including new
variables, such as artificial lifting efficiency and well
productivity recovery.
Evaluation of Results
Using the PCS RPM EFS inhibitor combination treatment
described, the production increased in a range of 1.7 to 9.2
times. Production behaviour is shown in Figs. 5 to 9. The
predicted production which would have occurred without this
treatment combination is shown in the Figures for comparative
purposes. The forecasts were based on a production decline
analysis supported by the Reservoir Description” group. .
Inhibitor concentrations are being monitored after the jobs and
currently show levels above the typical Minimum Inhibition
Concentration (MIC) value. There is no evidence of scaling
after 8 months in the San Francisco 60 well. To the authors’
knowledge, this was the first application of a PCS RPM EFS
operation combined with a scale inhibitor.
The scale inhibitor results are still being monitored and
evaluated. Work is continuing in regard to the development of
a modification to the scale inhibitor, which will provide a
readily identifiable “tag” to trace its presence in the produced
fluid.
4 R. CASTANO, J. VILLAMIZAR, O. DIAZ, M. AVILA, S. GONZALEZ , E. D. DALRYMPLE, S. MILSON, D. EVERETT SPE 77412

Conclusions
Production history and PLT logs indicated that the RPM
effectively controlled water and increased oil production when
used with a fracturing operation in the San Francisco Field.
Based on these results, this technology is considered a positive
option in regard to performing fracturing jobs in fields
affected by a water-injection project.
The following benefits were obtained from the
successful treatment:
• The operator increased oil production with an acceptable
water volume.
• The service company increased revenue and profit with
bonus awarded.
• The new-candidate market for fracturing operations was
opened with the use of the EFS(RPM)/Inhibitor
combination.
These benefits resulted from a team effort focused on
solving production problems with a multipurpose treatment.
The RPM was an initial approach involving a new technology
and commercial model. The risk and benefit agreements were
a good model for aligning operator and service objectives
based on results. Future team effort will focus on improving
this alternative and exploring new applications, such as
squeeze treatments.
Proper fracture design is required to ensure adequate
placement of the EFS in the fracture geometry generated.
Simulators, designing programs, mini-fracturing, data
available (strengths, leak-off, etc.), and experience were the
key tools to predict fracture geometry and proper PCS RPM
placement.
To improve candidate selection, standardizing a system
that allows choosing the best candidates and establishing a
learning curve is recommended. This system could reduce the
risk for both companies (operator and service) when
risk/benefit commercial models are used. A better-engineered
methodology is being implemented to define future
fracture candidates.
The final result of this application reflects how the authors
foresee oil business improvement in mature fields:
approaching the best resources from both sides to increase
production and revenues with new ideas, technology,
and opportunities.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the management of Hocol, Ecopetrol, and
Halliburton for their support and permission to publish
this paper.
References
1. Beltrán, R. and Sepúlveda, E.: “Fracturing with Screen-Out
Mode, Optimum Treatment for San Francisco Field, Huila-
Colombia,” paper SPE 27009 presented at the 1994 III
LACPEC, Argentina.
2. Dalrymple, E. D., Rohwer, C., and Crabb, H.: “Use of a Relative
Permeability Modifier with a Fracture Stimulation Treatment,”
paper SPE 49043 presented at the 1998 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, September.
3. Castaño, R. and Beltrán R.: “Optimización de Trabajos de
Fracturamiento Hidráulico en la Formación Caballos del Campo
San Francisco,” paper presented at the 1999 Congreso
Colombiano del Petróleo, Santafé de Bogotá.
4. Brocco, C., et al.: “Relative Permeability Modifier Preflush
Fracture -Stimulation Technique Results in Successful
Completion of Previously Bypassed Intervals,” paper SPE
59348 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE oil-Recovery
Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 3-5 April.
5. Brocco, C., et al.: “Polymer-Based Preflush Allows Fracing
Near Water Intervals,” Oil and Gas J (June 28, 1999) 66-68.

Table 1—Physical Properties of Berea Table 2—SF-60 PCS Enhanced Fracturing Job Pumping
Sandstone Cores Used In Testing Schedule Summary

Core Fluid Length Diameter Porosity Stage Rate THP Volume

No. Saturation (cm) (cm) (%) (bbl/min) Average (lb/gal)
(psi)
1 Water core 14.47 2.51 15
(control) Gel linear + inhibitor 25.0 1,800 76
2 Oil core 13.9 2.51 15 Gel linear 25.7 1,880 24
(control) Pad 25.7 2,029 142.8
3 Water core 14.05 2.51 15 Gel activated + 2.4 lb/gal sand 12/20 26.8 2,249 48.4
(test) Gel activated + 4.0 lb/gal sand 12/20 26.5 2,379 36.3
4 Oil core (test) 14.4 2.51 15 Gel activated + 5.8 lb/gal sand 12/20 27.6 2,561 24.4
Gel activated + 7.8 lb/gal sand 12/20 27.5 2,870 24.3
Gel activated + 9.7 lb/gal sand 12/20 26.3 3,326 33.4
Gel linear 25.9 3,300 25.1
SPE 77412 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIER AND SCALE INHIBITOR COMBINATION IN FFRACTURING PROCESS 5
AT SAN FRANCISCO FIELD IN COLOMBIA, SOUTH AMERICA

Fig. 1—Multi-pressure tap sleeve flow apparatus.

6 R. CASTANO, J. VILLAMIZAR, O. DIAZ, M. AVILA, S. GONZALEZ, E. D. DALRYMPLE, S. MILSON, D. EVERETT SPE 77412

Fig. 2—Permeability vs. pore volume with water core at 125°F.

Fig. 3—Permeability vs. pore volume with inhibitor water core at 125°F.
SPE 77412 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIER AND SCALE INHIBITOR COMBINATION IN FFRACTURING PROCESS 7
AT SAN FRANCISCO FIELD IN COLOMBIA, SOUTH AMERICA

Fig. 4—Permeability vs. pore volume with inhibitor oil core at 125°F.

Fig. 5—Production analysis of Well SF 20 after RPM fracturing treatment.

8 R. CASTANO, J. VILLAMIZAR, O. DIAZ, M. AVILA, S. GONZALEZ, E. D. DALRYMPLE, S. MILSON, D. EVERETT SPE 77412

Fig. 6—Production analysis of Well SF 85 after RPm fracturing treatment.

Fig. 7—Production analysis of Well SF 60 after RPM fracturing treatment.

SPE 77412 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MODIFIER AND SCALE INHIBITOR COMBINATION IN FFRACTURING PROCESS 9
AT SAN FRANCISCO FIELD IN COLOMBIA, SOUTH AMERICA

Fig. 8—Production analysis of Well SF 24 after RPM with scale inhibitor treatment.

Fig. 9—Production analysis of Well SF 45 after RPM with scale inhibitor treatment.
10 R. CASTANO, J. VILLAMIZAR, O. DIAZ, M. AVILA, S. GONZALEZ, E. D. DALRYMPLE, S. MILSON, D. EVERETT SPE 77412

Fig. 10—Real-time pumping schedule for Well SF 60.