SPE 147765

Advanced Chemical Water-Shutoff Treatments in Multilayer Gas

Reservoirs: A Case Study fromPeciko Field, East Kalimantan, Indonesia
Marina Samvelova, Muhammad Haekal, and Tutus Kristanto, SPE,Halliburton;Dadik Hendra Kusuma, and
Antus Mahardhini,SPE, TotalE&P Indonesie

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 20–22 September 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. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The Peciko field is situated offshore of East Kalimantan, Indonesia.The majority of the reservoirs in this field are gas
producers with water.The average production is more than 650 MMscf/D with 11,000 BWPD.The reservoirs are
characterized as multilayered sandstone water-sensitive formations with varying permeability ranging from 0.1 md to 2
darcy.The measured depths (MD) of the perforated producing zones extend from 9,400 to 11,100 ft, with an average reservoir
bottomhole temperature of 240°F (115°C).
Significant water breakthrough was experienced from some reservoirs, which led to dramatically reduced total gas
production per well—up to 90% in recent years (water-gas ratio [WGR] ranging from 100 to 1,000 bbl/MMscf).The goal was
to reduce WGR to help prevent the water-source reservoirs from killing the other producing layers and to stabilize the
flowing conditions.This could be achieved by shutting off the undesired water production.The main challenge of the field is
the number of reservoirs opened per well (>25 perforated reservoirs), with short distances between the perforated
zones.Mechanical isolation was impossible in these cases because it would create restrictions during future
interventions.Previous bullheading methods using water-shutoff chemicals were not always sufficient because theysacrificed
producing reservoirs above.Selective treatment with organically crosslinked sealant gel using an inflatable packer as the
upper isolation deployed by coiled tubing (CT) and a retrievable bridge plug used for the bottom isolation was successful in
shuttingoff the watered-out sands, while keeping the upper reservoirs producing up to date.
This paper discusses the methodology of the job design, with a detailed operation sequence and results obtained from the
field.

Introduction
The subject Well A in the Peciko offshore field is a gas producer, completed as a5.5-in.monobore with a minimum restriction
of 4.56-in.This is a typical example of amultilayer well in the current field.There are more than 70 sandstone perforated zones
openedin this well(Fig.1).The main challenge in a monobore completion is to optimize production from gas reservoirs when
water breakthrough has occurred from one of them (Armon and Riyanto 2008).
Well A was put on production in early 2000.Formation-water production began in August 2005 from this well.Well-
production tests performed throughout 2009–2010 confirmed that the gas rate wasdropping from 19.62 to 8.8 MMscf/D,with
increased water production from 582.4 up to 1,119.44 BWPD (measured on April 12, 2010).This well experienced a
significant water-breakthrough phenomenon, making the gas rate to drop from 6 to 0.61 MMsfc/D (measured on June 1,
2010) (Fig.2).
A production logging test (PLT) was run to identify the water influx in December 2008.The density curve changedslightly
towards water production in front of C163 reservoir.A temperature curve also showed a slight heating effect, indicating fluid
influx across the C163 reservoir.The same effect was observed from previous PLTresultsin September 2008.Reservoir C163
was perforated together with reservoirs C162 and C164.Even though these reservoirs were the main gas contributors to the
total well production (32%) (Fig.3),the decision was made to permanently shut off the perforated interval toincrease
hydrocarbon production and to secure remaining gas resources (up to 50Bscf) from other perforated reservoirs in this well
and thereservoirs thatwill be perforated in the future.
2 SPE 147765

Performing the water-shutoff operation was important for Well A. Without shutting off the water production, this well
could not have been revived after it had died in 2009. The water-shutoff operation would help extend the well life and
maintain forecasted gas production(Fig.4).
The target zone was located at 3320.5 m below rotary table (mBRT), the length of the perforated interval was 9m,
porosity was 13 to 15%, and permeability was approximately 185md, with the reservoir pressure approximately 1,350 psi.

Decision Analysis
Before conventional water shutoff (CWSO)can be performed, analysis based on the decision-analysis tree(Fig. 5), which has
reservoir engineering data as the main input, needs to be completed. First, surface-production test data is essential; if a major
increase of the WGR produced is observed, it’s a sign of a major water breakthrough. Repetition of the production tests
usually confirms the water breakthrough occurred.
After the major water breakthrough is observed, production logging (PL) is needed to understand the water source,
especially in multilayer reservoir systems like the Peciko field. This PL will confirm which reservoir is acting as a water
source. From the PL data results,the position of the water source can be determined, and then it can be decided whether the
conventional water-shutoff method for this water-source reservoir will hinder future access or not. One of the main reasons
why CWSO is performed is to secure the future access of the next well-service operation to the reservoir below the water
source.
When the position of the water-source reservoir is suitable to perform CWSO, the analysis of the existing and futuregas in
place of the water-source reservoir and the reservoir below the water-source reservoir needs to be performed. A lot of
remaining gas in place of the water-source reservoir has to be confirmed with the PL data. If the PL data shows that there is
still a large allocation of gas production in this reservoir, then water is percolating with the gas flowing from the reservoir and
reaching the surface, which means that for better reservoir management, CWSO should not be performed. When the
remaining gas in place of the water-source reservoir is small, and the remaining (existing and future perforations) gas in place
is big enough to justify the CWSO, CWSO can be performed.
The last part of the assessment is the benefit/risk assessment of the operation. All scenarios need to be considered for the
outcome of the CWSO operation. The possible benefits have to be analyzed by forecastingthe gain if the CWSO operation is
successful.
Because the reason to perform a CWSO operation is not the same for each party, this decision-analysis tree should not be
considered unchangeable; each of the parties can adapt different decision analysis before performingCWSO. The important
thing is to use the decision-analysis tree before performing CWSO.

Treatment Options
The chemical and mechanical methods currently available on the market for controlling undesired waterflow all have
advantages and disadvantages. The chemical methods range from cement slurries to water-based polymer systems.
Using a cement squeeze to isolate the perforated interval or an entire wellborewas the earliest method, but the drawback
of usingthis methodis there will be a need to drill out cement left in the wellbore,which can be costly, time consuming, and
possibly damage another open zone with drilling fluid.Also, during milling operations,cement in perforations can be damaged
and the integrity of the sealing zone can be disturbed, allowing water and gas to continue to flow in the wellbore.
One of the remedialpractices in the Peciko offshore field is to run a casing patch to mechanically isolate the perforated
interval.However, in this case,setting the casing patch would create limited access to the lower reservoirs for the future well
intervention by adding restriction in the wellbore and reducing the internal tubing size. This also was not feasible because of
the limited length of the perforated interval, which could be shutoff by casing patch (around 6 m); meanwhile, the target-zone
thickness was 9 m.
In 2004–2005,atechnical study was conducted to find the best fluid system that could replace themechanical option and
cement squeeze to shut off the water producing zones in the Peciko field (Vasquez 2005).This study included laboratory tests
with the cores from the current field.Based on this research work,an organically crosslinked sealant gel with particle gel
system as tail-in was successfully tested and widely applied in the field for reducing water production and permanently
sealing the target zones.This technology is based on apolymer and crosslinker, which are mixed at surface and then injected
into all open perforations. Within the given time and formation temperature,the gelation process starts and forms a
nonpermeable gel.This sealant gel blocks the water flow coming into the wellbore by penetrating into the rock matrix
(typically calculated for 4.5- to 6-ft penetration).This chemical water-shutoff technology, with moderate modifications, was
chosen to seal the C162, C163, and C164 reservoirsin Well A.

Placement Techniques
Previously,zone isolation for chemical water-shutoff operations was difficult to achieve;therefore, it was a challenge to
execute the middle zones with small spaces between the perforated intervals in the Peciko field.The most common placement
technique used in the region is bullheading, with some version of aretrievable bridge plug used as a bottom isolator.However,
this method does not provide isolation of the productive zones situated above.All the applications were limited to treat the
uppermost reservoirs in the wells, or sometimes to sacrifice and to seal the hydrocarbon zones above to shut the water-
producing perforations below to restore production of thewell.
SPE147765 3

Several years ago, experience showed difficulties in getting the most suitable bridge plug for CWSOapplications. A lot of
bridge plugs became stuck in the hole because of difficulties in retrieving the bridge plug after the treatment, which led to
difficulties for fishing operations. In 2009, a study was conducted to minimize the risk of placement-tool failure during
chemical treatments (Kusuma et al. 2010). It was found that before retrieving the bridge plug, it is important to ensure the
fishing neck of the bridge plug is clear ofthe remaining particle gel used as a tail-in; therefore, a modification to the pulling
tool was made to achieve this purpose. The particle gel should not block the releasing process of the placement tool, and the
packer element must be above the anchor. One of the recommended retrievable bridge plugs for CWSO is an inflatable
retrievable bridge plug (IRBP). It has an external fishing neck, which is easier to clean out of the remaining particle gel inside
the wellbore. Also, the releasing mechanism is based on bleeding off the pressure inside the bladder, so there is less
possibility for the particle gel to block the releasing system. If an inflatable bridge plug cannot be retrieved, the bladder can
easily be punched with a punching tool or it can be milled out.
Because there are 13 open reservoirs above the target zone in Well A,a bullheading method to inject the chemicals was
not feasible for the current well configuration.The critical aspect in the process for choosing the right isolation tool
wasthesmall distance to accommodate the packer between the treated zone and the perforations above (7.5 m to C161
reservoir)(Fig.6).An inflatable retrievable packer was deployed and activated by CT as the upper isolation and an inflatable
retrievable bridge plug set by wireline for the bottom isolation was selectedfor the current water-shutoff operation.This
combination of isolation techniques allowed for asuccessful seal of the treating zone while the upper zones were still
producing.

CWSOFormulation
Another challenge for Well Awas modification of the current chemical formulation chosen (organically crosslinked sealant
gel with particle gel as a tail-in) because of the rather small distance of 29 m between the upper and bottom packers,
including the rathole; the volume was only around 2 bbl for the current completion.If premature screenout occurred when the
particle gel hit the perforations, it would take less than a minute to fill the entire wellbore because of the small volume
between the packers, while the rest of the chemical would remain inside the CT. Difficulties can be encountered when
particle gel starts to set with downhole temperature—CTcan get stuck while trying to unset the inflatable packer, particle gel
can set inside the CT, and the releasing system of the packer can be affected (Junesompitsiri et al. 2009). To avoid these
risks, it was decided to inject organically crosslinked gel as a primary sealant agent and to replace the particle gel tail-in stage
with the highly viscous crosslinked gel pill.This would give indications of pressure responses at surface to help prevent
overdisplacement without therisk of the packer getting stuck becausegelcan break after several hours.
Based on successful experiences treating zones in the same geological layer with similar or close parameters, such
aspermeability and temperature, the volume of the treatment was calculated for 6-ft penetration.

Detailed Operation Sequence

The chemical water-shutoff operation in Well A followed this procedure:
1. Tubing is cleared and dummy is run by slickline.
2. Set IRBP as bottom isolation by electricalline.
3. Set inflatable packer as upper isolation by CT.
4. Perform injectivity test through CT.
5. Mix primary water-shutoff chemical.
6. Perform water-shutoff treatment through CT.
7. Displace the chemical to achieve a squeeze pressure.
8. Shut-in the well for 24 hr (waiting for chemicals curing).
9. Performpositive test to ensure proper sealing was achieved.
10. Perform secondinjectivity test to verify if there was any communication with the reservoir.
11. Perform second treatment with reduced volume of water-shutoff mixture.
12. Perform second positive test.
13. Unsetand POOH with inflatable packer.
14. Retrieve IRBP with CT.
15. Perform well production test to verify the results of the water-shutoff operation.
16. Put the well on production.

After the IRBP was set below the bottom perforations, CTwas run into the well to set the upper packer.The depth was
correlated by slowly tagging the bottom bridge plug adjusted-depth counter reading,then picking up CT to the required
depth.After confirmation that the packer had been set, an injectivity test was performed to verify the optimum pumping rate
to safely inject thewater-shutoff chemical without fracturing the formation.All the primary sealant gel was smoothly pumped
into the perforations. An increase in treating pressurewas observed after the crosslinked gel pill hit the perforations,indicating
that all the treatment was already injected in the formation (Fig.7).After all the treatment had been displaced into the
perforations, the well was shut in for 24 hr.A positive test performed after the treatment showed that the formation was still
taking some fluid.Comparing the results with the injectivity test performed beforethe operation, the treating pressure was
4 SPE 147765

twice as high,whilethepumping rate remained the same (1 bbl/min with 1,000 psi vs. 0.9 bbl/min with 2,500 psi), meaning
that the perforations were partially sealed(Figs.8aand 8b).A possible leak could occur as a result of the contrast in
permeability between three reservoirs (C162-C163-C164) of the same perforated interval; the majority of the volume of the
treatment went to the zone with the highest permeability.Extra treatment with a reduced volume of the water-shutoff
chemical was performed after the first treatment to ensure the zone was sealed properly. During the second positive
test,pressure buildup was observed for several minutes; as a result, the zone was shutoff successfully (Fig.9).The inflatable
packer was unset and retrieved with CT without any difficulties. Boththe IRBP and inflatable packer did not leak,and there
was no change of wellhead shut-in pressure (WHSIP) during the pumping operation.

Job Results
Promising results were achieved after the operation.Well-production tests showed good isolation of the water-producing
zone.Initial gas production increased to 2.39 MMscf/D, with 242 BWPD water production.Before the water-shutoff
operation,gas production was 0.61 MMscf/D, with the highest water production noted of 1,149 BWPD.Water production
reduced up to79%(Fig.10). The remaining water production was possibly from the lower zone, which was identified by PLT
beforehandand had not been treated.
Based on the results of this successful water-shutoff operation,it was shownthat middle zones can be selectively treated in
aneffective manner in the Peciko field.This presents great opportunities in the region.Achieving isolation of the middle zones
for shutoff without damaging gas-bearing reservoirs will help control excessive water production and extend the well
life;thus,avoiding premature abandonment.

Conclusions
The following conclusions are a result of this work.
• Improvement of the existing chemical water-shutoff operation of the middle zones was proven in situations where
zonal isolation was difficult to achieve.
• The combination of isolation techniques and modified chemical formulationsprovides more options to seal water-
producing zones in gas wells with numerous open reservoirs.
• The chemical water-shutoff operation reduced water production by 79%, from 1,149 to 242 BWPD, and revived the
well (gas rate back to initial of 2.4 MMscf/D). This will allow the addition of extra perforations to optimize future
production.
• Careful well-candidate evaluation and selecting the proper placement method is critical to the success of chemical
water-shutoff treatments.
• The operation was performed offshore within the critical time frame before the drilling rig arrived to the platform,
including all logistical arrangements of the equipment offshore(Figs. 11 and 12). This could only be achieved by the
well-coordinated and organized work of all parties involved.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Philip Thomas (GSR/PKB/PCK),Well Service Team TOTAL E&P Indonesie and Halliburton for
executing this project and for permission to publish this paper.

References
Armon, A. and Riyanto, L.2008. Tackling Gas Field Decline with Efficient Chemical Water Shut Off: Successful Applicationon Peciko
Field (East Kalimantan Indonesia). Paper IPTC 12131 presented at International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 3–5 December. doi: 10.2523/12131-MS.
Junesompitsiri, C., Berel, A., Curtice, R., Riyanto, L., Thouvenin, E., and Cheneviere, P. 2009. Selective Water Shutoff in Gas Well Turns
a Liability into an Asset: A Successful Case History from East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Paper SPE 121182 presented at SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, 4–5 August. doi: 10.2118/121182-MS.
Kusuma, D.H., Mahardhini, A., and Ndinemenu, F. 2010. Chemical Treatment Placement Experience in Total E&P Indonesie. Retours
d’expérience.
Vasquez, J. 2005. Validation Study of High Temperature H2Zero for Total’s Peciko Field in Indonesia. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
SPE147765 5

Target zone

Fig.1—Well schematic.
6 SPE 147765

Fig.2—Production tests before water-shutoff operation.

Fig. 3—Production loggingtest before water shutoff.

SPE147765 7

Fig. 4—Well forecast.

Fig.5—Decision-tree analysis.
8 SPE 147765

Fig.6—Treated zone schematic.

SPE147765 9

Fig.7—Main-treatment pumping chart.

Fig. 8a—Injectivity test before the first treatment.

10 SPE 147765

Fig.8b—Injectivity test after the first treatment.

Fig.9—Second positive-test result.

SPE147765 11

Fig.10—Production test after chemical water-shutoff operation.

12 SPE 147765

Fig.11—Equipment layout on the barge.

Fig. 12—CT equipment rigup on the platform.