SPE 149658

Joint Stimulation-Water Shut-off Technology Leads to Extra Oil from

Mature Fields
B. Kosztin, E. Ferdiansyah, F. Zadjali, H. Al-Sharji, K. Al-Maamari, S. Al-Salmani,
Petroleum Development Oman LLC

Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 2022 February 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
There are number of challenges encountered in oil production of mature, depleted fields like naturally fractured complex
carbonate reservoirs found in Oman and the Middle East Region. These include production under high water cut ranging
from 90 to 99%, the presence of conductive natural fractures connected to the aquifer in the producing zones, multi-zone
production and reservoir heterogeneities encountered in each zone.
Conventional acid stimulation at such reservoir conditions is rather questionable, showing no economic value and exhibits
very high risk of losing the remaining oil production with unwanted, further increased water production. However, acid
stimulation combined with water control gives good opportunity for recovering extra oil using hydrophobic chains containing
associative polymer.
The polymer adsorption has double roles during and after the treatments acting as an acid diverter and water control agent as
relative permeability modifier. In naturally fractured producing zones, this combined method shows lower risk and better
potential than in those zones where matrix flow exists only.
In summary, this paper will cover the theory behind the above-mentioned method, stimulation challenges, candidate
selection, treatment design and the results of the campaign started since 2006 in one of matured fields in North Oman. The
campaign focused on oil producing wells having more than 97 % water cut. These trials were the last chance for achieving
acceptable oil production before abandonment. The main achievement of the campaign resulted in more than 207%
incremental oil (net) added to the stock tank in parallel with 1.5% average water cut reduction. The technology will be
applied in a bigger scale as part of production optimization.
Introduction
Field A background
Field A is located in the northwest part of Oman. The main structure was discovered in 1969 by well A-1. First oil started in
1970. This complex carbonate reservoir at Shuaiba level is a large, low relief faulted dip closure with local faults. Top
structure is located at a depth of 1435 m tvdss. Maximum relief above the revised free water level (1480 mTVDss) is 45
meters in the Main Area of the field. Porosities range from 14% 35%. Matrix permeability is highly variable ranging from
<1 mD to >1000 mD. Reservoir is highly under saturated (Pb = 5,860 kPa and Pi = 17,160kPa) and the oil has low viscosity
(1.2 cp, 38 API).
Production commenced from Field A in 1970, reaching a peak net-oil rate in 1973 with water cut developing rapidly to 40%.
Thereafter, the field performance started to decline with increasing water-cut and declining reservoir pressure. In 1977 gas lift
was introduced. The performance of vertical wells began to deteriorate in the 1980s with total field water cut reaching 90%
in 1987. Horizontal producers were introduced in 1990 to sustain field performance. From 1978 most new wells have been
completed with ESP lift. From 1998 onwards increased drilling activity has grown oil production, to a peak in Dec-2002 the
highest that the field had achieved since 1973. Oil production decline started around Dec-2002 and continued till 2004 when
infill drilling campaign was initiated. There has been sustained oil production over the last 6 years drilling of additional
horizontal wells leading to increase in gross production and thus, high water cuts.
2 SPE 149658

Field B background
Field B, also located in northwest part of Oman was discovered in 1962 and was brought on stream in 1969. Oil production is
from the Lower Cretaceous Shuaiba formation, while gas is produced from the overlying Natih formation. Porosities range
from 27%-35%. Top structure is located at a depth of 1270 m tvdss. Maximum relief above the revised free water level (1345
mTVDss) is 45 meters. Matrix permeability is highly variable ranging from <1 mD to >200 mD. Reservoir pressure and
bubble point pressures are (Pb = 14,570kPa and Pi = 15600kPa) and the oil has low viscosity (0.6 cp, 40.3 API). Production
commenced from Field B in 1969, reaching a peak net-oil rate in 1997 with water cut developing gradually to 70%.
Thereafter, the field performance started to decline with increasing water-cut and declining reservoir pressure.
Stimulation and Water Control Challenges in the A and B Fields
Shuaiba reservoir heterogeneity presents significant challenges to production optimization as well as to acid stimulation. The
key challenging factors foreseen to implement new stimulation combined WSO method bulleted below:
! Most of the candidate wells were in the final stage before abandonment. The available budget for the stim-WSO
operations was very much limited, so finding compromise was necessary between the technically optimum design
and the economic requirements, costs.
! Conventional mechanical isolation methods (wash cups, mechanical packers) required relative expensive hoist
intervention. In that case if ESP replacement or integrity problem was occurred than Hoist assisted operations could
be performed.
! In some cases the cost sensitivity of the planned treatments required simplified deployment method, like pumping
through the annulus.
! The reservoirs are highly fractured, with heterogeneous producing zones, matrix and fracture alternate, matrix and
fracture are both producing oil. Fig-1.
! Acid (aqueous fluid) preferentially pass into and stimulate the water bearing fractured zone, adversely increasing the
conductivity of the aquifer connacted fractures, faults. These sections required the least stimulation.
! Due to the extremely high permeability contrast (1-1000 mD) the acid diversion is a must, but conventional chemical
diversion alone cannot provide uniform fluid distribution.
! Different, mostly long OH/perforated zones but also, short perforated sections had to be stimulated. These open
sections could produce reservoir fluid with almost the same gross rate.
! Long perforation sections were scattered by blank sections within long gross intervals.
! Limited entry with CT in long OH horizontal sections (lock up).
According to this list above each treatment was designed and engineered on a well-by-well basis. The standardization and
following analogies were proved to be risky at this complex reservoir environment. The candidate wells had ~ 97 % water-
cut above the field average. In most of the cases the treatment was selected as the last chance for achieving acceptable oil
production before abandonment.

Fig-1. Matrix and Fractures Alternating Producing Zones

SPE 149658 3

Candidate Selection
As part of well and reservoir management practice in these fields, the wells are reviewed every year. Most of the candidates,
selected during the review, were high water cut wells which were closed in due to water handling constraint. The high water
production was mostly observed due to fracture dominated flows which were interpreted from available logs. To put these
closed in wells in production, water shut-off treatment should be done to reduce the water production, in combination with
acid stimulation to improve oil production.
The following parameters were carefully studied during candidate selection:
- estimated remaining reserve, current water/oil saturation, available logs (RDL, FMI, CBL, RST, PLT)
- production history, current gross production, water cut, drawdown pressure,
- time of water breakthrough, water cut development, changes,
- presence and intensity of natural fractures, breakouts
- permeability range, matrix permability, reservoir section thickness (net/gross) in the given well.
All together 10 vertical and 23 horizontal wells were selected.
Relative Permeability Modification
The idea of the application of relative permeability modification (RPM) or disproportionate permeability reduction (DPR) for
water control purposes can be originated from that phenomenon where certain watersoluble polymers, inorganic gels show
different behaviour (resistance) against the oil and water flow. These chemical systems are able to reducing the permeability
to water flow to a greater degree than to oil/gas. Because of the acid sensitivity or incompatibility of the natural or synthetic
polymers the application for acid stimulation purposes were delayed till that time, when the associative polymers came into
the focus.
After extensive research Sydansk1 and Seright2 published a paper in 2006 where the RPM treatment related success criteria
and optimization were analyzed for water control, water shut-off (WSO). Although the mentioned systems were differed
from the Associative polymers (AP) containing systems the main conclusions from the papers can be adapted for the
naturally fractured reservoirs. In this theory the extent of polymer solutions leak-off on the fracture face will support the
effective water control. RPM systems have their greatest potential in treating fractures where the flow regime is linear or
bilinear.
If the flow regime is linear than there are more freedom in the chemical selection and the application of RPMs will be less
risky. In many cases the engineers tend to explain the failures of stimulation or WSO jobs as the fault of the chemical system
instead of admitting the wrong candidate selection (problem identification) or the missing surveillance. The substantial oil
production loss, total blocking, creating water blocs are the typical candidate selection or technology deployment problems. It
can happen if the RPM system is applied in relatively homogeneous reservoirs having only matrix type flow and crossflow is
present.
Several theories have been proposed to describe the RPM mechanism. Despite of the various hypotheses (adsorption; gel
syneresis; swelling-dehydration; segregated pathways; wall-effect; gel droplet, etc.) that have been presented in the literature
the key aspects of this mechanism are still not perfectly known.3
Apart from the importance of the candidate selection and surveillance this unclear mechanism can be one the reasons why
these treatments have relative short lifetime. Probably, no single factor determines the success of a combined stimulation-
WSO using AP polymers.
Properties of the AP Polymer
Associative polymers are similar to other water-soluble polymers. These polymer solutions are Non-Newtonian fluids. These
types of polymers have hydrophobic function groups incorporated into the polymer backbone. Within a given molecular
weight the numbers of these function groups will determine the polymer character, adsorption and flow properties, as well as
the resistance against to water and oil flow.
Depending on the given polymer concentration (dilution) the associative intra- or intermolecular interactions of the
hydrophobic groups are changing. At low or zero shear rates they can form structured fluid system. As the shear rate is
increased, the polymer solution shows shear thickening behaviour up to a maximum viscosity. Further increase of the
deformation rate will result shear thinning behaviour again.
One possible explanation for this behaviour is the different form of self-association. As the deformation force increases the
number of looplike chains decreases while the fraction of bridge-like chains rises. This process is accompanied by stretching
of the chains. However, under high shear rate, substantial part of chains belonging to the network tends to be coiled up. This
leads to the redistribution of structural elements. Association and formation of a reversible network is always accompanied
by a tendency for phase separation which might occur even under marginal solvent conditions. This emphasise the
importance of compatibility test between the AP and the different chemical additives used for creating acid, brine or frac
fluid as well as the well-site supervision during polymer mixing.
4 SPE 149658

Polymer Adsorption
The adsorption of the AP on the surface of the reservoir rocks is also unique. The adsorption depends on the numbers of the
available active places, polymer concentration, temperature, pH, etc. The AP adsorbs immediately on the negatively charged
silica or sand surfaces by electrostatic bonds. Further adsorption can occur by the molecular interactions increasing the layer
thickness of the adsorbed polymer. The polymer polarity changes with the pH which affects the adsorption.
To our knowledge the polarity of the reservoir rock surface of the carbonate formations is positively charged, so the
adsorption of a cationic polymer is rather limited. In most of the cases these carbonate rocks contain additional associated
minerals which can be low or very low part comparing to the carbonate bulk phase. Those contaminations might provide
active places for the polymer adsorption. This theory might explain the given results have been collected with the combined
stimulation-WSO treatments during the last 5 years.
Residual Resistance Factor
The first published AP-WSO application dated to 2003. Large number of modified polyacrylamides was tested by Eoff4
According to the published permeability data, the calculated highest residual resistance factors to water (RRFw) were around
4.5 while the lowest were around 2.
The RRF values can be used for differentiating the different RPM products. It can be derived from the following simple,
well-known equation which describes the efficiency of a given chemical system used for chemical profile modification or
water/gas shut-off:

kr,o,before (S wr)
RRF to oil can be expressed as: RRFo = ----------------
kr,o,after (S wr)

where kr,o is relative permeability to the oil phase at the given water saturation (Swr) before/after the treatment. The RRFw to
water can be created with same method. Ideally, RRFo is 1, or near to this value, but also it must be below 2 to avoid
substantial oil production losses. RRFW above 10 means effective water control. Usually, it is very difficult to obtain these
values in a predictable and controllable manner. The values depend on several other parameters, like rock permeability, flow
rate, etc. During the last couple of years the following data were published as RRF or those can be calculated from the given
permeability values. (Table-1):

SPE Paper Rock

Year Rock Type RRF! RRFw
No. Permeability
5
2011 140845 Sandstone Medium 1.05 37.5
6
2010 125955 Sandstone Low Gas 1.4
7
2009 123869 Sandstone High 1.06 1684
8
2009 121789 * Sandstone Medium 0.95 56.7
9
2009 119850 Sandstone Low 1.1-1.8 1.1-3.6
10 Sandstone Very Low Gas 1.5
2008 114557
Limestone Very Low Gas 1.2
11
2008 112458 Carbonate Low 2 7.8
12
2007 106951 Carbonate Low 2 6.1
Sandstone Low 1.5 20
13
2005 89413 102-108-
Sandstone High -
227

Table-1: Residual Resistance Factors Obtained from Laboratory Core Flood Tests
Treatment Design
Acid Type
During the acid type selection the previously collected field experience was used. Good penetration and reaction rate was
provided by the normal and organic acid delayed hydrochloric acid systems. The hydrochloric acid concentration was fixed
around 15 % avoiding acid corrosion in the old wells.
The acid-associative polymer (AP) solution ratio was changed and balanced according to the given well parameters, but the
main guideline was to use around 1:1 ratio if the well was not stimulated before and 1:2+ if the water cut was very near to
100 %.
SPE 149658 5

Placement technique
The applied placement method is crucial parameter for achieving the required fluid distribution during the treatment. If the
acid and AP stages are not properly placed, the chance of achieving poor results is greatly increased, so the control of the
fluid movement in the well bore has high priority. The applied placement methods were:
- Bullhead injection using the maximum pressure differential and injection rate (MAPDIR). Driven by the available
budget one third (12 wells) of the 36 treatments was pumped through the production tubing-production casing
annulus in ESP completion wells. 8 wells were treated through the production tubing.
- Isolation with mechanical packer (RTTS and PPI): If the well required hoist intervention (integrity repair, ESP
replacement) than the mechanical zone isolation could be arranged. (3 wells)
- Coiled Tubing application: This technique was selected for those wells where the openhole or horizontal section was
long and/or the fractured/water producing zones could be identified. 10 wells were treated with CT mostly in gas lift
completions or ESP wells with Y-tool.
Fluid Diversion
- Diversion with the pump rate: As it was mentioned above the MAPDIR method was selected for those cases where
bullhead type injection was used. This method is the simplest one (poor boy method) although it provides acceptable
fluid diversion if the required rate can be achieved. Unfortunately, the necessary high injection rate was not or
hardly achieved during treating high capacity wells.
- Chemical diverter: The rate method was combined with the chemical diversion using the AP polymer as chemical
diverter, taking the advantage of its unique character. The acid-chemical diverter ratio in case of normal matrix acid
stimulation is usually around 3:1, here the ratio was substantially changed to use the polymer mainly as water
control agent.
- Foam diversion: This well-known diversion method was selected as one of the most promising diversion. It was
combined with the other two above. Although the wells were positively responded to the foamed acids, the pressure
limits, the maximum allowable wellhead pressure and the excess service price limited the application.
Results
The first joint stimulation-WSO job was executed in A-1 with an oil gain of 44 m3/d net oil. The success of first stimulation-
WSO pulled the trigger to apply it widely in the Field A later in Field B. As of end of 2011, 33 jobs were executed: 17 in
Field A, and 16 in Field B. Unfortunately, 7 wells in Field B were shut-in almost right after the treatment because of the
station capacity problem. (Table-2)
Year A Field B Field Total Jobs
2007 1 0 1
2008 2 1 3
2009 4 1 5
2010 8 7 15
2011 2 7 9
Total 17 16 33
Table-2. Stimulation Combined Water Shut-off Activity in the Last Five Years
The jobs resulted in >226 m3/d net oil gain in Field A, and >96 m3/d net oil in Field B. Average water cut dropped by 1.4%
and 1.9% respectively.
In other words more than 183 000 m3 (1 Mln barrel) net oil added to the stock tank, and in addition, more than 100 000 m3
(600 K bbl) water was reduced, saving on water handling cost as well. The reduced water production gave additional
advantage allowing more wells to open because of the limited handling capacity of the surface facilities. (Table-3)
Performance Data A Field B Field
# Wells Stimulated 17 16 (9 open)
Average Oil Gain (m3/d) 226 96
Cumulative Oil Gain
105,270 77,730
(m3)
-1.4 -1.9
Water Cut (%) (cum.-19.3%) (cum.-11.5%)
> 100 000 m3 water reduced

Table-3. Gains from Stimulation Combined Water Shut-off Treatments

6 SPE 149658

It is worth to mention, that out of the evaluated 26 jobs; only 7-10 jobs can be considered as ineffective - depending on the
determination of success criteria. These numbers represent 60-70 % efficiency.

Acid Volume Polymer Perf/Openhole Deployment

Well Name Well Shape/Type/Completion Date of Activity Acid Type 3 3
(m ) Volume (m ) length (m) (Hoist/CTU/Bullheading)
A1 H/OH/GL Oct-07 15 % HCl, N 30 30 524 CTU
A2 H/CH/ESP Apr-08 10 % HCl 18 9 217 Hoist BH/PPI
A3 H/CH/ESP Aug-08 15 % HCl, N 30 45 98 BH/Annulus
A4 V/CH/ESP Jul-09 15 % HCl, N 10 35 5 Bullheading
A5 H/OH/ESP Jul-09 15 % HCl 30 40 954 Bullheading
A6 H/OH/ESP Jul-09 15 % HCl, N 28 50 522 CTU
A7 H/CH/ESP Aug-11 MOD 202 40 70 78 BH/Annulus
A8 V/CH/ESP Aug-11 MOD 202 15 40 4 BH/Annulus
A9 H/CH/ESP Jan-09 15 % HCl 25 20 10 BH/Annulus
A10 V/CH/ESP Apr-10 7 % PAD, MOD 202 20 30 15 BH/Annulus
A11 H/OH/GL Feb-10 15 % HCl, N 30 55 577 CTU
A12 H/OH/GL Mar-10 20 % HCl, N 90 50 662 CTU
A13 H/OH/ESP Apr-10 7 % PAD, MOD 202 60 60 246 BH/Annulus
A14 H/OH/ESP Jul-10 15 % HCl, N 30 60 505 BH/Annulus
A15 H/OH/ESP Jul-10 15 % HCl, N 30 60 432 BH/Annulus
A16 V/CH/ESP Jul-10 15 % HCl 5 60 10 BH/Annulus
A17 H/OH/GL Dec-10 15 % HCl, N 30 35 45 BH/Annulus
B1 V/CH/GL May-09 MOD 202 10 10 10 CTU
B2 V/CH/GL Apr-11 15 % HCl 10 60 3 Bullheading
B3 H/CH/ESP Jun-11 MOD 202 65 69 207 Bullheading
B4 V/CH/GL Jun-11 MOD 202 10 20 5 Bullheading
B5 H/CH/ESP Nov-08 MOD 202 60 20 165 Hoist BH/RTTS
B6 V/CH/GL Mar-10 MOD 202 10 10 10 CTU
B7 H/CH/ESP May-10 MOD 202 10 60 140 CTU
B8 H/CH/ESP Aug-10 MOD 202 30 60 134 Hoist BH/RTTS
B9 H/CH/GL Aug-10 MOD 202 80 60 107 CTU
B10 H/CH/GL Aug-10 MOD 202 30 60 86 CTU
B11 H/CH/GL Jul-10 MOD 202 30 60 98 Bullheading
B12 H/CH/GL May-10 MOD 202 30 60 50 CTU
B13 H/CH/ESP Jun-11 MOD 202 30 75 110 BH/Annulus
B14 V/CH/GL Sep-11 MOD 202 10 25 2.5 Bullheading
B15 H/CH/ESP Sep-11 MOD 202 30 75 212 BH/Annulus
B16 V/CH/GL Oct-11 MOD 202 20 45 8 Bullheading

Table-4. Summary of Well Type, Acid Type & Volume, Polymer Volume, Treated Interval Length and Placement
Method
SPE 149658 7

Well Test before Well Test after Highest Test Latest Test
Well Name
Date BSW (% ) Date BSW (% ) Date BSW (% ) Date BSW (% )
A1 3-Oct-07 80.9 27-Oct-07 87.9 29-Jan-08 72.3 3-Feb-11 89.3
A2 14-Dec-07 96.1 22-May-08 94.5 17-Jul-08 94.1 5-Mar-11 96.9
A3 10-Jul-07 99.9 13-Sep-08 95.5 24-Sep-09 95.3 8-Mar-11 98.8
A4 4-Jun-09 97.7 3-Sep-09 95.4 9-Dec-09 94.8 18-Mar-10 95.0
A5 5-Jul-09 96.8 18-Oct-09 93.4 18-Oct-09 93.4 12-Feb-11 97.4
A6 8-Jul-09 95.4 20-May-10 97.0 6-Aug-10 95.8 21-Jan-11 97.4
A7 20-Jun-11 99.6 12-Sep-11 99.5 12-Sep-11 99.5 12-Sep-11 99.5
A8 21-Aug-10 99.0 6-Sep-11 99.0 6-Sep-11 99.0 6-Sep-11 99.0
A9 16-Oct-08 97.3 2-May-09 97.4 11-Jul-09 96.8 15-Nov-09 99.2
A10 1-Feb-10 97.4 1-Jun-10 97.8 1-Jun-10 97.8 2-Apr-11 97.8
A11 2-Jan-10 98.5 19-Mar-10 95.5 8-May-10 94.4 8-Feb-11 96.2
A12 29-Dec-09 82.5 20-Mar-10 89.6 20-Mar-10 89.6 1-Apr-11 89.6
A13 21-Dec-09 96.4 20-Apr-10 97.0 20-Apr-10 97.0 20-Apr-10 97.0
A14 6-May-10 97.3 24-Jul-10 96.4 18-Sep-10 95.7 5-Mar-11 95.4
A15 20-Jun-10 98.6 24-Sep-10 99.7 24-Sep-10 99.7 7-Feb-11 99.9
A16 29-May-10 99.3 7-Sep-10 98.4 7-Sep-10 98.4 7-Sep-10 98.4
A17 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
B1 21-Jan-09 95.7 16-Oct-09 89.1 12-May-10 89.5 3-May-11 90.3
B2 1-May-05 99.0 15-Sep-11 98.0 15-Sep-11 98.0 15-Sep-11 98.0
B3 1-Mar-11 98.6 2-Jul-11 98.9 1-Oct-11 98.6 1-Oct-11 98.6
B4 16-Apr-11 98.7 19-Aug-11 98.3 19-Aug-11 98.3 22-Aug-11 98.4
B5 18-May-08 96.7 17-Nov-08 97.8 13-Dec-09 96.6 2-Mar-11 98.7
B6 23-Jan-10 91.0 28-Apr-10 94.2 5-Jul-10 92.2 2-Mar-11 90.4
B7 22-Apr-10 97.9 17-May-10 95.0 17-May-10 95.0 5-Apr-11 96.1
B8 25-Jul-08 99.1 26-Aug-10 96.6 26-Aug-10 96.6 10-Apr-11 99.5
B9 18-Jun-10 96.7 31-Aug-10 95.6 31-Aug-10 95.6 22-Apr-11 95.9

Table-5. Well Test Data Before/After the Treatment, at the Pick Oil Production and Latest Tests
8 SPE 149658

Table-6. Oil Gains and Sustainability of the Treatments

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Oman Ministry of Oil & Gas and Petroleum Development Oman for review and permission to
publish this work. We wish to acknowledge the contributions of PDO Well and Reservoir Management Team, Well
Engineering Team, and Halliburton CTS Team.
Nomenclature
RPM: Relative Permeability Modification
WSO: Water Shut-Off
AP: Associative polymers
H: Horizontal well
V: Vertical well
OH: Open Hole completion
CH: Cased Hole completion
GL: Gas Lift completion
ESP: Electric Submersible Pump completion
N: Nitrified or foamed acid
CTU: Coil Tubing Unit
BH: Bullhead injection
RTTS: RTTS Packer Isolation
PPI: PPI Packer Isolation
SPE 149658 9

References
1. R. D.Sydansk and R. S. Seright: When and Where Relative Permeability Modification Water-Shutoff treatments Can
Be Successfully Applied, Paper SPE-99371 presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery
held in Tulsa, 22-26 April 2006.
2. R. S. Seright: Optimizing Disproportionate Permeability Reduction, Paper SPE-99443 presented at the 2006 SPE/DOE
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 22-26 April 2006.
3. J. Liang, R. S. Seright: Wall-Effect/Gel-Droplet Model of Disproportionate Permeability Reduction, Paper SPE-74137
presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa 3-5 April.
4. L. Eoff, D. Dalrymple, B. R. Reddy, J. Morgan and Harry Frampton: Development of a Hydrophobically Modified
Water-Soluble Polymer as a Selective Bullhead System for Water-Production Problems, Paper SPE-80206 presented
at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston, Texas USA, 5-7 Feb 2003.
5. L. Eoff: Improvement to Hydrophobically Modified Water-Soluble Polymer Technology to Extend the Range of
Oilfield Application, Paper SPE-140845 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in
the Woodlands, Texas USA, 11-13 April 2011.
6. W. Nunez-Garcia, J. Leal-Jauregui, J.R Solares, Y. Al-Abdulmohsen, M. Al-Mumen and G. Izquierdo: Achieving
Successful Diversion in Acid Stimulation Treatments: Case Study of Excellent Results Achieved Using Associative
Polymer Treatment (APT) in Highly Heterogeneous Carbonate Reservoirs in Saudi Arabia, Paper SPE-125955
presented at the 2010 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette
USA, 10-12 Feb. 2010.
7. E. Barraga, F. Serrano: Cleanup Acid System for Gravel-Pack Completions Without Increasung Water Production,
Paper SPE-123869 presented at the2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans USA,
4-7 Oct. 2009.
8. J. Vasquez, L. Eoff and D. Dalrymple: Laboratory Evaluation of RPM for Profile Modification in Injection Wells,
Paper SPE 121789 presented at the2009 SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroluim Engineering Conference held
in Cartagens, Colombia, 31 May- 3 June 2009.
9. D. Dalrymple and O. Jaripatke: Relative Permeability Modifies in Fracture Stimulation Applications, Paper SPE-
119850 presented at the2009 SPE Middile East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in the Bahrain International
Exhibition Centre, Bahrain, 15-18- March 2009.
10. D. Dalrymple, L. Eoff and D. Everett: Conformance While Fracturing Tight Gas Formations, Paper SPE-114557
presented at the2008 SPE Tight Gas Conference held in San Antonio, USA, 9-11 June 2008.
11. A. Al-Taq, H. Nasr El-Din: Potential Damage Due to Relative Permeability Modifiers: Laboratory Studies and A Case
History, Paper SPE-112458 presented for presentation at the 2008 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette USA, 13-15 Feb. 2008.
12. A. Al-Taq, H. Nasr El-Din, J. Beresky, K. Naimi, L. Sierra, L. Eoff: Simultaneous Acid Diversion and Water Control
in Carbonate Reservoirs: A Case History From Saudi Arabia, Paper SPE-106951 presented at the SPE Europe/EAGE
Annual Conference and Exhibition held in London, 11-14 June 2007.
13. L. Eoff, D. Dalrymple and B.R. Reddy: Development of Associative Polymer Technology for Acid Diversion in
Sandstone and Carbonate Lithology, Paper SPE-89413 presented at the 2004 SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on Oil
Recovery, Tulsa, 17-21 April.