SPE 127827

Combining Stimulation and Water Control in High-Water-Cut Wells

O.J. Jaramillo, SPE, R. Romero, SPE, G. Lucuara, SPE, Petrobras; A. Ortega, SPE, A. Milne, SPE, M. Lastre,
SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2010 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, 10–12 February 2010.

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
A brownfield in Colombia, produces from the Caballos formation, a highly laminated sandstone formation with permeability
of 50 to100 md. The field is under water injection, resulting in calcium carbonate scaling; thus, these wells need to be acidized
routinely although the water cut often exceeds 90%. Initially, straddle packers were used to divert the treatments mechanically
across the laminated sands, which required a workover rig.

To reduce the cost of treating these wells, recent treatments were bullheaded down the tubing casing annulus at the highest
possible matrix rates, resulting in mixed results. Water cut increased with no or an insignificant increase in oil production.
Hence, a diversion technique/fluid was needed that would provide effective zonal coverage similar to that obtained using
straddle packers. The viscous disproportionate permeability modifier (VDPM) fluid was developed for this application. The
initial treatments, performed by pumping alternate stages of acid and a VDPM fluid, increased oil production as much as
300% while reducing the water cut by up to 10%. In these cases, the increase in production is equal to or better than wells
treated selectively with straddle packers.

The use of a VDPM fluid has been shown to be capable of improving zonal coverage, increasing oil production, and
decreasing water cut in formations without natural fractures or fissures. During the treatment, the treating pressure increases or
remains constant while, in core flow tests, the pressure increases sequentially when injecting acid after each stage of diverter.
Despite this, the final effective permeability to oil increases and the effective permeability to water decreases significantly.
The VDPM fluid reduces the effective permeability to water up to 80% in a water-saturated core. In the field, the permeability
and the length of the interval(s) to be treated determine the number, volume, and viscosity of the VDPM fluid stages based on
previous core flow studies.

The use of the VDPM fluid has the potential to increase the economic viability of producing this particular field in Colombia
and other similar fields. The properties of the VDPM fluid are particularly advantageous when repeatedly treating wells in
mature fields on water injection.

Introduction
Typically, formations (reservoirs) that contain oil or gas also have water present. These formations will produce water along
with the oil/gas; however, due to the heterogeneous nature of many formations, water will flow preferentially from certain
intervals of the formations. When low-viscosity treating fluids, such as acid, are injected into the matrix of the formation,
below the fracturing pressure, there is a tendency for the treating fluids to enter preferentially into the intervals with the highest
water saturation. This condition is due to the higher mobility (lower viscosity) of water compared to oil in most reservoirs.
Hence, it is common for the intervals with the highest water cut to be preferentially stimulated if the treatment can not be
diverted away from these intervals (Kennedy et al. 1990).

A number of different treatment approaches have been proposed to effectively divert a treating fluid away from intervals with
high-water saturation. Two of the techniques best documented in the literature are the use of foam (Zerhboub et al. 1994;
Parlar et al. 1995; Logan et al. 1997) and viscoelastic surfactants (Chang et al. 2000; Soekama et al. 2003; Ali et al. 2005). In
both cases, the fluids maintaining a high viscosity in the presence of water and breaking in contact with hydrocarbon to
achieve selective diversion. However, two distinct methods are employed to prevent the fluids being displaced away from the
2 SPE 127827

wellbore and/or diluted by the treating fluid. In the case of stable foam, an excess of foaming surfactant and shear through the
pore throats generates foam in situ. Meanwhile, at low-shear rates, the viscosity of a viscoelastic fluid increases dramatically if
the injection is momentarily stopped, the fluid will develop a sufficiently high viscosity in the pore spaces to prevent it from
being displaced away from the wellbore. Both techniques have been used very successfully when there are intervals with
markedly different water saturations within the reservoir, resulting in a lower water/oil ratio (WOR) after the treatment due to
increased oil production with little change in water production. As the fluids are designed to flow out of the matrix when the
well is put on production, they do not reduce or limit the water production that existed prior to the treatment.

An alternative treatment approach is a two-stage treatment. The first stage is to pump a matrix treatment and flow back the
well. The second stage is to pump a relative permeability modifier (RPM) in an attempt to treat all of the intervals that are in
communication with the wellbore after the matrix treatment. The RPM polymer injected into the formation will absorb onto
the surface of the rock matrix and significantly reduce the relative permeability of the formation to water. The objective is that
the formation produce oil/gas a higher rate than prior to the treatment but with less water due to the reduced effective
permeability of the formation to water. This approach has been used successfully to treat formations with high-water
saturation, often 80 to 90%, and subject to scaling; although, it represents increased cost and time.

In marginal brownfields with water injection, it is necessary to be able to combine effective diversion during a treatment with a
means to reduce the water production after the treatment. As frequently, conventional matrix treatments result in a higher
WOR with an uneconomic increase in oil production due to differences in pressure and fluid viscosity in the water-saturated
and oil-bearing intervals.

Viscous Disproportionate Permeability Modifier

Relative permeability modifiers are most commonly cationic polyacrylamide polymers used to treat predominantly sandstone
resevoirs. These polymers are conventionally mixed in a light brine and pumped into the formation as a low viscosity (< 5 cp)
fluid with the low concentration of monovalent salts in the brine limiting the hydration of the polymer. Once placed in the
formation matrix the polymer adsorbs onto the surface of the pore spaces due to the electrostatic charges on the polymer and
the surface of the pores. In contact with less saline formation-water, the adsorbed polymer hydrates. This effectively increases
the residual water saturation of the formation, which in turn reduces the relative permeability to water without affecting the
relative permeability to oil. For this reason, an RPM can also be decribed as a disproportionate permeability modifier (DPM).

In the case of matrix treatments in formations that produce from a number of different intervals (sands) with distinctly
different WOR, there is a need to a) divert the treating fluid away from the intervals with the highest WOR, and b) limit or
reduce the water production from these intervals after the treatment. To divert a treating fluid away from an interval in which it
is being injected requires that the effective permeability to the treating fluid be reduced so that the fluid is diverted to intervals
that are more permeable. Many diversion techniques available are based on the use of a viscous inert fluid, with or without the
addition of particulates. The treatment consists of pumping alternative stages of the viscous diverter fluid and a Newtonian
treating fluid. The diversion effect—increased resistance to flow—only lasts for the time that the fluid is in the near-wellbore
matrix and depends on the volume and viscosity of the diverter fluid used and its solubility in the presence of the treating fluid.

Hence, the use of a VDPM as a diverter for matrix acid treatments has a number of potential advantages. During a treatment,
the viscosity of the polymer will reduce the effective permeability of an interval as it is being injected into the matrix.
However, unlike an inert viscous fluid, the RPM polymer is adsorbed onto the surface of the pore spaces and decreases the
relatively permeability to water of the near-wellbore matrix. This change reduces the effective permeability of the matrix to
subsequent stages of an aqueous-based treating fluid, including organic and inorganic acids. When the well is flowed back
after the treatment the excess RPM polymer will flow back, leaving the adsorbed polymer in the matrix and decreasing its
effective permeability to water; thus, limiting or reducing water production.

In the case of a VDPM fluid, the viscosified RPM must be capable of adsorbing on the surfaces of the pore spaces and
withstand contact with acid-based fluid while being compatible with the formation fluids. While, it is generally agreed that the
thickness of the polymer adsorbed on the surface of the rock is defined by the molecular weight and concentration of the
polymer and the polymer/surface charges (Grattonia et al. 2004; Mezzomo et al. 2002), a number of other variables may
influence this (Denys et al. 2001; Mennella et al. 1999). Two of the most important factors are inter-related; i.e., the size of
the pore throats, commonly a function of the permeability of the matrix, and the shear rate of the fluid through the pore throats
(Zitha et al. 1995; Zitha and Botermans 1996). Above a critical shear rate value, the thickness of the adsorbed polymer layer
increases as a function of increasing shear rate until a maximum value is reached (Chauveteau et al. 2002). The final thickness
of the adsorbed polymer layer may be up to three times greater than the polymer layer under low-shear conditions. The
maximum adsorption occurs when the polymer has 10-15% of cationicity, due to the competition between adsorption energy
and pore wall accessibility (Denys et al. 2001).While, the viscosity of the polyacrylamide fluid and the residual oil saturation
may influence the degree of adsorption (Mennella et al. 1999; Zaitoun and Chauveteau 1998).
SPE 127827 3

Hence, it is important to ensure that the chemistry used to viscosify an RPM polymer fluid does not interfere with the
adsorption of the polymer (Grattonia et al. 2004) and the resulting differential permeability modification—change in effective
permeability to both oil and water—when injected under into the matrix at low- and high-shear rates. Laboratory testing
showed that the viscosity of a low-viscosity linear RPM polymer solution could be increased using a proprietary viscosity
enhancer package (VEP). Increasing the VEP concentration increases the viscosity of a polymer fluid without crosslinking the
polymer or compromising its performance. This enables the viscosity of the RPM to be adjusted as function of the
permeability and temperature, independent of the RPM polymer concentration (Fig. 1).

VDPM viscosity @ 150ºF

300 200
275
175
250
225 150
200
Viscosity (cp)

125

Temperature (oF)
175
150 100
125
75
100
75 50
50
25
25
0 0
0:00 0:14 0:28 0:43 0:57
Time (min.)
0.2% VEP 0.15% VEP Temp. ºF
Fig. 1—Viscosity as a function of VEP concentration

The resulting fluid was found to be more temperature stable than an equivalent viscosified conventional polymer (guar) fluid
and insensitive to shear (Fig. 2). The RPM polymer concentration in the VDPM fluid the same as used for standalone matrix
treatments to reduce the water production. The VEP also acts to increase the low-shear viscosity, which is advantageous in
maintaining diversion efficiency—resistance to flow—once the fluid is in the pore spaces.

Fig. 2—Effect of shear on VDPM fluid

4 SPE 127827

Although, the objective of the initial laboratory work was to develop a VDPM fluid for specific applications in low
temperature reservoirs, it is possible to obtain viscosities ranging from 30 and 150 cp at 100sec-1 at temperatures up to 200°F.

Coreflow testing was conducted in cores (Table 1), with a porosity varying between 5 and 10% and absolute permeability to
water between 25 and 75 md. Due to the relatively low permeability values, the VEP concentration was lowered so that the
final viscosity of the VDPM fluid was 30 cp at 100sec-1 at 140°F.

TABLE 1—MINERALOGY OF CORE

Whole Rock Mineralogy (wt %) Relative Clay Abundance
Quartz K-Feldspar Siderite Ankerite Calcite Total Clay Smectite Illite & Mica Kaolinite Chlorite
65 12 0 14 Tr 9 1 15 73 11

The first tests were made to determine the difference in the reduction in the effective permeability to water (Kw) using a
conventional low-viscosity (3 cp) solution of an RPM polymer (Fig. 3) and a similar concentration of RPM polymer in a
VDPM fluid (Fig. 4). The injection rate of the fluids (mL/min) was based on the pump rate—barrels per minute (BPM) — for
previous treatments in the field resulting in a shear rate of 200 to 400 sec-1 in the matrix.

Conventional RPM - Reduction in Kw

100 100

90 90
Kw Initial Permeability (md)
80 69 md Pressure drop (psi) 80

Pressure drop (psi)

70 70
Permeability (md)

60 60

50 RPM 50
Injection Kw
40 & Shut in 40
17.3 md
-74%
30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Pore Volumes
Fig. 3—Reduction of Kw with a conventional RPM

VDPM Fluid - Reduction in Kw

100 50

90

80 Kw Initial 40
60.7md
70
Permeability(md)

60 30
Pressure drop (psi)

50
VDPM Kw
40 Diverter 10.6md 20
-82%
30

20 10

10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Porous Volumes

Fig. 4—Reduction of Kw with VDPM fluid

SPE 127827 5

As shown, the RPM polymer in the VDPM fluid is adsorbed onto the surface of the pore spaces despite the fluid viscosity. In
all the tests, the VDPM fluid reduced the effective permeability to water by a greater percentage than a conventional RPM
fluid. This may be an indication of increased polymer absorption and bridging in the matrix as no concentration of polymer
was observed on the face of the core.

A second series of tests were then run to determine the effect on the retained permeability to oil and water when injecting acid
and then displacing it with by the VDPM fluid (Fig. 5). In these tests, despite the acid significantly increasing the matrix
permeability of the core with respect to oil, the final permeability to water was reduced by up to 50%.

VDPM Fluid and RMA Acid - Changing effective permeability

25

20
Permeability (md)

Acid Ko
15 V
6:2 D 18.1 md
RMA P + 40 %
Ko M
10 Kw
13.0 md Kw
5.3 md
12.4 md
-57%
5

0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Pore Volumes
Ko Before (md) Kw Before (md) Ko After (md) Kw After (md)
Fig. 5—Injection of acid and VDPM fluid in a core

The final testing was performed using a core from the Caballos formation with mineralogy similar that of the Caballos
formation (Table 2). The objective of the planned treatments removal of predominately calcium carbonate scale. Hence, tests
were run using both organic and HCl acid to simulate the effect of pumping alternating stages of a VDPM fluid and acid
during the treatment (Fig. 6). The increased pressure drop was attributed to injection of the VDPM fluid after an acid stage
and subsequent displacement by another acid stage. Another objective was to determine the change in the effective
permeability to oil and the reduction in the effective permeability to water after the treatment. Unlike many conventional
polymers, the VDPM fluid was found to maintain its viscosity in the presence of acid while the final reduction in the
permeability to oil and water is similar to what is seen using a conventional RPM fluid.
6 SPE 127827

VDPM - Acid Diversion

25 3000

Acid
K base
23.5 2500
20
mD
Ko
Ko 11.84
12.1 VDPM 2000
md
15 mD Ko -2.14%
Permeability (md)

11.1

Pressure drop (psi)

mD
Kw 1500
9.3 mD Acid
10
Kw
4.3 mD 1000
-54%
5
500

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Pore Volumes

Fig. 6—Alternate stages of acid and VDPM fluid

Field Application
The field is on water injection and the injection water, despite being treated, has a strong scaling tendency with the formation
water. Calcium carbonate scaling is a common problem in the field. Organic deposits, mainly paraffins, are also common and
lead to formation of layered organic/inorganic scale. These deposits lead to the need for routine treatment of the wells to
maintain production. Historically, a blend of formic/acetic acid was used to remove the scale. However, the low-formation
temperature and mineralogy of the formation (Table 2) make the selection of the best treating fluid a trade-off between the
scale dissolution of the treating fluid and the risk of possible reaction precipitates in the formation.

Based on dissolution testing, the most effective fluid system has proved to be a blend of 10% acetic acid and xylene although
this system is not compatible with the elastomers used in the progressive cavity pumps (PCP).

TABLE 2—MINERALOGY OF CABALLOS FORMATION

Depth K- Total
(ft) Quartz Feldspar Calcite Dolomite Siderite Pyrite Amphibole Clay Illite/Mica Kaolinite Chlorite
X395 38 2 Tr 39 7 0 0 14 51 45 4
X459 85 0 4 2 0 1 0 8 14 81 5
X541 89 0 0 1 1 1 0 8 16 79 5
X580 86 1 0 0 0 1 Tr 12 10 84 6
X640 89 0 0 0 Tr Tr 0 11 11 89 0

The high WOR—more than 80%—in many wells makes a treatment that increases water production, with only a marginal
increase in oil production uneconomic. Meanwhile, the presence of multiple producing intervals with widely varying
permeability (Table 3) is another challenge to maximizing production and sweep efficiency. Hence, the use of straddle
packers to ensure selective zonal isolation was common. Although effective, this process is a time consuming and costly
operation.
SPE 127827 7

TABLE 3
X662ft.-X699ft.(37ft.) CAB "A70/65",
PERMEABILITY AND POROSITY
Perm eability Porosity
X780ft.-X810ft.(30ft.) CAB "B1", Interval (m d) (%)
PERFORACION RADIAL @ X830ft. A1 5.3
X825ft.-X835ft.(10ft.) CAB "B2",
A2 9.1 8.2
X853ft.-X879ft.(26ft.) CAB "B20/30",
A3 0.17 6.5
A5 4.3
A6 12.7 8.8
A7 32.6 10.1
TD @ Z085ft. TBG Feb 23/07 B1 14.19 8.3
B2 514 13.5
Z089ft. Float Collar B3 240 13.5
Z134ft. Float Shoe B4 85 10.8
Z134ft. TMD TVD Z827ft.
UNC 93 14.1

Fig. 7—Typical well schematic

For the treatments to be cost effective, the treatments must be bullheaded down the tubing / casing annulus, eliminating the
cost of a workover rig to pull the completion and run the straddle packers. However, for this to be successful it must be
possible to treat all of the intervals without increasing the water oil ratio. A solution to this is the VDPM fluid to divert the
treating fluid across all of the intervals while minimizing any incremental water production.

The treatments pumped at 1 to 2 bbl/min, consist of alternating stages of a dispersion of 7.5% HCl with an organic solvent and
VDPM fluid (Table 4) while monitoring the surface pressure. Experience in the field has shown that the wells fall into two
categories; those producing through the matrix and those in which there are natural high-conductivity channels or fractures.
The treating response and the post-treatment production are very different in the two cases. In the case of matrix producers, an
increase in treating pressure is observed when the VDPM fluid arrives at the formation, and this increase in pressure is often
sustained during the subsequent acid stage(s) (Fig. 8).

TABLE 3—TYPICAL PUMP SCHEDULE

Fluid Cumulative
Volume Volume
Stage Fluid Name (bbl) (bbl)
Diverter VDPM 30.0 30.0
Treatment Acid 20.0 50.0
Diverter VDPM 15.0 65.0
Treatment Acid 15.0 80.0
Diverter VDPM 10.0 90.0
Treatment Acid 17.5 107.5
Diverter VDPM 10.0 117.5
Treatment Acid 17.5 135.0
Flush KCl 2% 72.0 207.0
8 SPE 127827

Fig. 8—Typical surface pressure response

The typical post-job response of a matrix producer treated using dispersed HCl acid and VDPM diverter stages is shown in
Fig. 9. There is a substantial increase in oil production with a negligible change in water production which is reflected in the
lower WOR after the treatment. The definition of a successful treatment is when the oil production increases and WOR
decreases.

Matrix Stimulation with VDPM Diversion

100 100
Oil BOPD Water Cut
90 95
Barrels of oil per day (BOPD)

80 90

70 85
Water Cut (%)

60 80

50 75
Pretreatment
Post
40 treatment 70

30 65

20 60

10 55

0 50
J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J
Production (months)

Fig. 9—Post-treatment response

The overall results of the current campaign for matrix producers (Fig. 10) reflect the same trend with increasing oil production
and a 5 to 10% reduction in water cut. This is in marked contrast to wells treated without an effective diverter, in which the
increased oil production is more than offset by the increased water production. Unfortunately, the erratic results from wells
with high conductivity channels reduced the overall success rate of the campaign. Effective diversion in wells with natural
fissures or previously hydraulically fractured is an area for improvement as the ability of an RPM to decrease water flow is
greatly reduced in a ‘slot’ as opposed to a porous matrix.
SPE 127827 9

Normalized Post-Treatment Production

4.5
4
Normalized Production

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Conventional VDPM
BOPD BWPD

Fig. 10—Normalized production

Conclusions
The use of a VDPM fluid makes it possible to treat wells completed with a PCP pump down the tubing casing annulus. The
overall success rate – increased oil production with a decrease in water cut – has been 66%. Treatments without an effective
chemical diverter always result in an associated increase in water production and water cut.

Being able to perform repeated treatments without a rig on location reduces the overall cost of the treatments by more than
70%, which has a significant impact on the economics of operating the field.

Without an effective chemical diverter the wáter production increases by an average of 10% after a well is treated, increasing
the cost of water management and further negatively impacting the economics of the treatments.

The success of these treatments opens up the possibility of performing selective treatments with the objective of reducing
wáter production in certain parts of the field.

As always candidate selection is a key to the success of these treatments in brown fields. It is important to take into
consideration not only the characteristics of the reservoir but also the production history of individual wells.

More work is required to develop a) an effective chemical diversion system for wells with natural fissures and/or hydraulic
propped fractures b) better candidate selection criteria based on pre-treatment injectivity tests.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Management of Petrobras Colombia for their belief in us, their willingness to field test a novel
treatment, and for granting us permission to publish the results. Perhaps most importantly, we thank the Petrobras-
Schlumberger team working the in the field, without whom none of this would have been possible.

References
Ali, A., Hashim, A.H., Hashim, F., Said, R., Nair, D.S., Chan, K.S., and Samuel, M. 2005.Successful Stimulation of
Sandstones in the Dulang Field, Malaysia, Using Surfactant-Based Diverter: A Novel Solution for Mature Fields. Paper SPE
96309 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 9–12 October.

Chang, F.F., Love, T.G., Affeld, C.J., Blevins III, J.B., Thomas, R.L., and Fu, D.K. 2000.New Material and Technique for
Matrix Stimulation in High-Water-Cut Oil Wells. SPE Drilling & Completion 15 (2): 126–131.

Chauveteau, G., Denys, K., and Zaiton, A. 2002. New Insight on Polymer Adsorption Under High Shear Rates. Paper SPE
75183 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 13–17 April.

Denys, K., Fichen, C., and Zaitoun, A. 2001. Bridging Adsorption of Cationic Polyacrylamides in Porous Media. Paper SPE
64984 presented at the 2001 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 13–16 February.
10 SPE 127827

Grattonia, C.A, Luckhamb, P.F., Jinga, X.D., Normanc, L., and Zimmermana, R.W. 2004.Polymers as relative permeability
modifiers: adsorption and the dynamic formation of thick polyacrylamide layers. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering 45 August; 233–245.

Kennedy, D.K., Kitziger, F.W., and Hall, B.E. 1990.Case Study on the Effectiveness of Nitrogen Foams and Water Zone
Diverting Agents in Multistage Matrix Acid Treatments. Paper SPE 20621 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 23–26 September.

Logan, E.D., Bjornen, K.H., and Sarver, D.R. 1997. Foamed Diversion in the Chase Series of Hugoton Field in the Mid-
Continent. Paper SPE 37432 presented at the SPE Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 9–11
March.

Mennella, A., Chiappa, L., Lockhart, T. P. and Burrafato, G. 1999. Candidate and Chemical Selection Rules for Water Shutoff
Polymer Treatments. Paper SPE presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in The Hague, The
Netherlands, 31 May–1 June.

Mezzomo, R.F., Moczydlower, P., Samartin, A.N., and Araujo, C.H.V. 2002. A New Approach to the Determination of
Polymer Concentration in Reservoir Rock Adsorption Test., Paper SPE 75204 presented at the SPE/DOE Thirteenth
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 13–17 April.

Parlar, M., Parris, M.D., Jasinski, R.J., and Robert, J.A. 1995.An Experimental Study of Foam Flow Through Berea Sandstone
With Applications to Foam Diversion in Matrix Acidizing. Paper SPE 29678 presented at the Western Region Meeting,
Bakersfield, California; 8–10 March.

Soekama, R. Winarmo, M.B., Halim, S., Putra, R.A., Irfan Siddiqui, M., Dharmawan, A., Placio, F., and Tibbles, R.J. 2003. A
Novel System That Diverts Away From Water Zone: Successful Case Histories from the CNOOC Field in Java Sea –
Indonesia. Paper SPE 84512 presented at the Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 5–8 October.

Zaitoun, A. and Chauveteau, G. 1998. Effect of Pore Structure and Residual Oil on Polymer Bridging Adsorption. Paper SPE
39674 presented at the SPE/DOE Improved Oil recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 19–22 April.

Zerhboub, M., Ben-Naceur. K., Touboul, E., and Thomas, R.L. 1994. Matrix Acidizing: A Novel Approach to Foam
Diversion. SPE Production & Facilities (5): 121-126.

Zitha, P., and Botermans, C. 1996. Bridging Adsorption of Flexible Polymers in Low-Permeability Porous Media. Paper SPE
36665 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6–9 October.

Zitha, P., Chauveteau, G., and Zaitoun, A. 1995. Permeability Dependent Propagation of Polyacrylamides under Near-
Wellbore Flow Conditions. Paper SPE 28955 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San
Antonio, Texas, 14–17 February.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bbl × 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
ft × 3.048* E-01 =m
°F (°F-32)/1.8 = °C
in. × 2.54* E+0 = cm
Cp x 1.0*E-03 = Pa.s
gal x 3.785 412E-03 = m3
md x 9.869 233E-04 = μm2
psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
*Conversion factor is exact.