SPE-190713-MS

Management of Scale Control in Produced Water Reinjection - The Near

Wellbore Scale Challenge Overcome

M. M. Jordan, Nalco Champion an Ecolab Company

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference and Exhibition held in Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, 20-21 June 2018.

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
Formation of sulphate and carbonate scale is well understood within the hydrocarbon extraction industry
with injection of incompatible water such as seawater into reservoir with significant concentration of barium,
strontium and calcium. To overcome this challenge chemical inhibition has been utilized for many decades
and in the past 15 years elimination/reduction of the sulphate ion source from injection seawater using
sulphate reduction membranes has been employed.
This paper present laboratory work to qualify a scale inhibitor and field results of its application to prevent
scale formation when an operator had to change from low sulphate seawater (LSSW) mixed with produced
water (PW) for their water injection source to a blend of LSSW/PW and full sulphate seawater (SW). The
increased level of sulphate presented a significant scale risk within the topside process on fluid mixing but
more significantly increased the risk of scale formation within the near wellbore region of the injector wells
which were under matrix injection rather than fracture flow regime. The qualification of a suitable inhibitor
required assessment of the retention of a potentially suitable vinyl sulphonate co polymer scale inhibitors
to ensure it had low adsorption and was able to propagate deep into the formation before being adsorbed
from the supersaturated brine.
Coreflood studies using reservoir core were carried out to assess the scale risk of the LSSW/PW/SW
brine, propagation and release characteristic of the short-listed scale inhibitors. The recommendation that
followed the laboratory studies was to apply a batch treatment of concentrated scale inhibitor to each injector
well to provide a high concentration pad of scale inhibitor that would be transported into the reservoir
when the scaling LSSW/PW/SW fluid was injected. Protection was provided by continuous application of
the same chemical at minimum inhibitor concentration to prevent scale formation within the topside and
the desorption of the batched inhibitor within the near wellbore would prevent scale formation within this
critical region. Thirteen injection wells were treated with a pad of 10% vinyl sulphonate co polymer scale
inhibitor to a radial distance of 3 ft. prior to the start of LSSW/PW/SW injection. Highly scaling brine has
been injected now for 16 months into the thirteen wells at an average rate of 25,000 BWPD per well with
no decline in injector performance observed.
The lessons learned from this study are that changes in scaling potential within a PWRI system can
be controlled by carrying out an assessment of location of scale formation and adoption of more typical
2 SPE-190713-MS

production well scale squeezes treatment technology to protect the critical near wellbore region around
PWRI injection wells.

Introduction to Scale Control with Seawater (SW) Injection and Produced

Water Injection (PWRI).
Produced water Re-injection (PWRI) is a method for maintaining reservoir pressure and sweeping
hydrocarbon towards production wells in which water separated from the produced fluids at the surface
facilities is re injected into the same (or possibly alterative) hydrocarbon bearing formation. The primary
objective of this process is for the disposal of produced water and associated production chemicals in a
manner that causes minimum damage to the environment. In addition to the environmental benefits of
produced water re-injection (PWRI), there are other potential benefits including making cost, space and
weight savings through the optimization of water treatment facilities and produced water re-injection system
throughout the life of a field.
Re-injection of produced water is performed in several locations around the world. BP, for example, was
an early adopter of the technology with re-injection schemes in Prudhoe Bay (Martin et al., 1994) and the
Forties (Simpson et al., 1991 and Paige et al., 1993) field in the early 1990's and the Ula (Hjelmas et al.,
1996) field in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea from the mid-1990's. Other operators have published
on their experiences within the North Sea including Statoil (Heidrun (Shaw 2002) and Brage (Andersen et
al., 2000) fields)) and Repsol (Blane, (McCartney et al., 2010)).
Many factors influence produced water re-injection well performance other than the inorganic scale risks
a summary of these factors is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1—Schematic of factors that influence Produced Water Re-Injection performance (Mackay et al., 2003).
SPE-190713-MS 3

Injection water quality has been studied extensively (Potter et al., 1985, Asghari et al., 1995,
Bedrikovetsky et al., 2001, Bayona 1993, His et al., 1994 and Paige et al., 1995). The impact of solids
suspended in seawater (Bayona 1993) and in re-injected produced water (His et al., 1994) have been
compared. In addition, the effects of fracturing injection wells (Simpson et al., 1991, Mackay et al 2003
and Messer et al., 1978), either as a result of injection above the fracture pressure, or as a result of reservoir
cooling, have emerged to be very important (Mackay et al., 2003). The consensus is that produced waters
contain more solids than seawater (and hence are more prone to lead to a loss of injectivity), but that if
hydraulic or thermal fractures are established, then the damage may be minimal (Mackay et al., 2003).
Early experience of PWRI (Martins et al., 1994, Simpson et al., 1991 and Paige et al., 1993) was focused
on individual wells and did not include the co-mingling of produced water with seawater. With the move
to full-field PWRI and the requirement to maintain voidage (fluid volume removed from the reservoir by
production) replacement, there is an increasing requirement to either co-mingle the fluids prior to injection
or to inject both seawater and produced water into the same reservoir but via separate wells. Such practices
introduce scale formation risks. These can be both calcium carbonate formation arising from the produced
water itself (Equation 1) and sulphate scales arising from the co-mingling of barium, strontium, and calcium
containing produced waters with seawater (Equation 2).
(Equation 1)
(Equation 2)
Clearly, the formation of such scale poses a risk to the topside injection system, the injection well
itself, and finally the near-wellbore of the production well on breakthrough of injected brine combined
with formation water. Managing these risks is critically important to effective field management (in terms
of being able to maintain adequate water injection) and to being able to maintain a zero-water discharge
commitment.
Under favorable operating conditions, the risk of scale damage to produced water re-injection wells
should not be significant. However, it is possible that under certain injection conditions (high barium, high
sulphate and high water rate) rapid build-up of scale could lead to complete loss of injectivity. Avoiding
such a catastrophic scenario is the objective of the risk assessment process. The preliminary step is to study
field case histories as outlined above. This is then followed by the procedure of calculating potential scaling
scenarios using scale prediction codes and fluid flow simulations to evaluate the risk (Bertero et al., 1998,
Sorbier et al., 2000, Mackay 2002, 2007, 2010 and Bedrikovetsky et al, 2006).
Figures 2a and 2b shows the mass predicted to form and supersaturation respectively when a typical
North Sea high barium formation water (220 mg/l barium) mixes with injection quality seawater under
topside temperatures and pressures (60°C and 5 bar). The key features of the profile are the maximum mass
of BaSO4 at 10% seawater and maximum supersaturation at 50% seawater. From the data presented in these
figures it is possible to influence the mass of scale formation within the injected brine by varying the ratio
of formation water to injection water. A target ratio for minimal scale risk (mass and supersaturation) would
be seawater fraction greater than 80%.
4 SPE-190713-MS

Figures 2a and 2b—Prediction of barium sulphate scale formation at a range of seawater

ratios under topside process conditions for high barium formation water, Table 1.

Improved Scale Control with Low Sulphate Seawater (LSSW) Injection

Injection of 100% produced formation water back into the same reservoir will minimize the precipitation
of sulphate scales owing to the mixing of incompatible brines. However, to maintain reservoir pressure
and effective sweep it is often necessary to inject additional fluids to compensate for the voidage created
by hydrocarbon production, especially in the early stages of field development when produced water cuts
are low. Thus, it may be necessary to inject brines that are not compatible with the re-injected formation
waters, either before the start of, or at the same time as, implementing PWRI. In offshore production, these
additional brines will usually be either seawater or waters produced from other formations that may contain
a mix of seawater and formation brines.
For high barium ion concentration (>250ppm Ba) containing produced water the risk of sulphate scale
formation within the topside process when mixing with seawater and the potential damage to the injector
and production wells can be so significant that low sulphate seawater (Hardy et al., 1996, Davis et al., 1996,
Vu et al., 2001, McHlhiney 2003, Jordan et al., 2006, Boak et al., 2005, Collins et al., 2004 and Al-Riyami
et al., 2008) is required. Low sulphate seawater or low sulphate water (LSSW or LSW) is created by using
nanofiltration technology (Hardy et al., 1996, Davis et al., 1996, Vu et al., 2001, McHlhiney 2003) to reduce
seawater sulphate concentration from 2800mg/l to values in the range of 15ppm to 80ppm sulphate, Table 1.

Table 1—Ionic composition of typical North Sea seawater and low sulphate seawater that is produced by the nanofiltration process.

North Sea
Ion LSSW or LSW (mg/l)
Seawater (mg/l)

Na 10890 10000

K 460 360

Ca 428 210

Mg 1368 350

Sr 7 2.2

Ba 0 0.5

Fe 0 0.18

Cl 19766 17021

SO4 2800 50

HCO3 140 0
SPE-190713-MS 5

Inorganic Scale Inhibition of PWRI Fluids

Suitable scale inhibitors for PWRI application will be required for topside control due to fluid mixing,
potential flowline application as injected water travels to subsea water injector wells and reservoir
application (near wellbore scale control). For the flow line application, the desirable properties of the
suitable scale inhibitor would include:

• Performance at low temperature (60 °C to 5 °C), Sorbie and Laing 2004

• Performance over long residence times (from 1 hour for platform well to 48 hours for subsea
injection wells)
• Compatibility with flow line materials

• Compatibility with other production chemicals (e.g. drag reducers, corrosion inhibitors, hydrate
inhibitors)
• Favorable environmental characteristics

• Low levels of adsorption on suspended solids

In addition to controlling scale within the topside and flow line, the scale inhibitor is required to function
within the near wellbore area of the injector well. This control of scale formation is critical in matrix only
flow conditions, but is much less significant in fracture-dominated flow (Mackay et al., 2003). An inhibitor
suitable for such matrix flow requires the additional following properties:

• Poor adsorption properties on reservoir minerals

• Compatibility with reservoir mineralogy

Current technology suggests that low molecular weight poly vinyl sulphonate (PVS) and low molecular
weight vinyl sulphonate copolymers (VS-Co, Figure 3) are the best inhibitors for this purpose.

Figure 3—Structure of a typical low molecular weight vinyl sulphonate scale inhibitor, VS-Co.

Inhibitor Retardation
If there is no fracture present within an injector well, then it may be thought that dosing with scale inhibitor
should be sufficient to prevent near-well damage. However, one of the fundamental properties of scale
inhibitors is that they are surface-active agents (e.g. attaching to growing scale crystals to prevent further
growth), and hence will adhere to the rock minerals also. While this is a necessary property for squeezing
production wells, it happens around injection wells also, albeit to a lesser extent if they have been previously
cooled by seawater injection. Even a relatively poorly adsorbing inhibitor such as PVS and VS-Co will
be retained to some extent even at 100,000ppm (Mackay et al., 2003). Adsorption of inhibitor will result
in the brine mix becoming unprotected, and hence liable to precipitate scale. No matter what the injection
concentration, the very front of the injection stream will be depleted of scale inhibitor and hence damage
may follow.
To prevent this from happening, it is recommended that a squeeze treatment be performed immediately
prior to the start of PWRI if a mix of formation and seawater is to be used. This will place a pad of inhibitor
into the most vulnerable zone around the well, Figure 4, where otherwise the mixed supersaturated brine
6 SPE-190713-MS

depleted in scale inhibitor would cause damage. Provided the subsequently injected water is treated with a
low (> MIC) dose of inhibitor, the zone nearest the well will remain protected.

Figure 4—Effect of injecting a pad of inhibitor at 100,000 ppm to 10 m from well before starting PWRI,
which is dosed with 100 ppm scale inhibitor. The pad protects the first 10 m, and prevents adsorption
of scale inhibitor from the following re-injected brines. Indeed, the pad displaces away from the well,
extending the region of protection, although it is quickly overtaken by the PWRI front (Mackay et al., 2003).

Case Study Scale Control During PWRI/LSSW with Additional SW

An operator within the North Sea has developed a black oil sandstone reservoir using produced water
combined with low sulphate seawater for water injection rather than seawater only to reduce the sulphate
scale risk within the production wells (Table 2) and improve environmental compliance as no oil or
production chemicals will be discharged to the environment. The production wells are also treated via deep
set continual injection valves to manage the resulting scale risk of 80% LSSW and 20% produced water
within the injected brine breaking through. The choice of injection water was driven by the desire to control
the scale risk based on the high Barium ion content of the "produced" water (Table 2) and the substantial
number of high production wells on the platform which would have required a scale squeeze every 6 months
based on predicted MIC values expected with seawater injection and high water production rates expected
from these very large wells.

Table 2—Produced water composition and low sulphate seawater composition

from SRP outlet (LSSW). Input brine (SW) for the SRP plant is also presented

Ion North Sea Seawater (mg/l) Produced Water (mg/l) LSSW Water (mg/l)

Na 10890 21100 10,000

K 460 550 360

Ca 428 630 210

Mg 1368 140 350

Sr 7 130 2.2

Ba 0 225 0.5

Fe 0 0.13 0.18

Cl 19766 34340 17021

SO4 2800 40 50

HCO3 140 200 0

SPE-190713-MS 7

Over time the low sulphate seawater production rates declined below the design volume of the sulphate
reduction plant (SRP). An example of such a trend is presented in Figure 5. The reasons for generation of
lower than expected water rates from SRP plants can be due to many factors including design issues such as
not enough allowance made for known downtime of the plant, biological fouling of SRP element, downtime
for cleaning nanofiltration membranes taking longer than expected and the finite life of membrane elements.

Figure 5—Example of predicted SRP water volumes available for injection vs observed.

The resulting under injection of water into the reservoir due to SRP down time resulted in production well
rates to decline as voidage was not being accounted for by the injection brine volume. To try and improve
production rates another water source was required to be utilized. The discussion was made to supplement
the produced water and LSSW with additional seawater. Table 3 shows the three different scenarios to be
evaluated to assess the scale risk with introduction of seawater into the PWRI fluids.

Table 3—Three possible water injection blends to improve water injection volumes

Water Types Scenario 1 (bbl.) Scenario 2 (bbl.) Scenario 3 (bbl.)

Seawater 50,000 50,000 300,000

LSSW water 240,000 180,000 0

Produced Water 80,000 80,000 80,000

The introduction of seawater would increase the amount of sulphate within the PWRI stream and so the
sulphate scale risk. The implication of insufficient scale control was risk assessed and Table 4 shows the
potential mass of scale that could form per day for the three scenarios under topside conditions, Table 3.
8 SPE-190713-MS

Table 4—PWRI/LSSW/SW Scaling Tendencies and Predicted Mass of Scale Risks.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Scaling Tendency
263.58 353.40 1114.31
(BaSO4)

Predicted Mass
83.4 99.5 80.9
(BaSO4) mg/L

Predicted Mass
4906 4904 4887
(BaSO4) kg/day

Scale Risk Assessment and Planned Mitigation During SW Addition to PWRI

Based on the scale risk estimated in Table 4 the program for additional water volume injection proceeded
based on rates outlined in scenario 1 and 2. A mitigation program was proposed to control the increased
scale risk within the topside water injection pipe work, injection well near wellbore and production wells
and is outlined as follows: -
Water injection system.
1. Continuous injection of scale inhibitor at a minimum rate of Twice the MIC value Chemical injection
was to be achieved by utilising the existing chemical injection pump but should the continuous
injection SI pump fail, significant scaling was predicted to occur within 30 minutes. To eliminate this
risk a control measure was introduced; namely addition of an extra chemical injection pump applying
scale inhibitor also at twice the MIC so that if one pump stopped scale control would still be achieved.
2. A "mini" scale squeeze treatment was to be applied to each injection well and this would take place
prior to the injection of the seawater in the PW/LSSW stream. A 10% solution of a suitable scale
inhibitor in LSSW was to be applied to each injection well as a one-off treatment using temporary
injection pumps.
Production wells.
1. Weekly analysis of all production wells, looking for changes in the scaling ion chemistries of PW,
which would show higher sulphate water had reached the producers
2. Qualify scale squeeze inhibitor and range of MIC values possible based on potential ideal and depleted
brine compositions
3. Scale squeeze treatments of those production wells either deemed to be at risk of receiving sulphate
enriched water or via analysis showing sulphate enriched water is being produced

Laboratory Test Program to Assess Suitable Scale Inhibitor for PWRI Application to Topside/
Injection Wells and Results
The factors driving the selection of the continual injection and water injection squeeze chemicals for
application was high inhibition performance at cool temperatures for sulphate scale and minimum
adsorption on mineral surfaces.
Three scenarios were considered as part of the increased water injection project. The proportional data
and water chemistry for each stream as presented in Tables 2 and 3 with the resulting ion composition for
evaluation presented in Table 5.
SPE-190713-MS 9

Table 5—Brine composition based on ratio of PW, LSSW and SW for scale inhibitor qualification study.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Ions (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)

Na 12456 13028 13034

K 414 425 479

Ca 329 354 470

Mg 448 458 1110

Sr 30 36 33

Ba 48 59 47

Fe 0 0 0

Cl 21042 21963 22827

SO4 433 487 2220

HCO3 20 22 111

For the scale inhibitor performance tests, the two of the produced water blends were used to represent the
range of scaling regime (Scenarios 2 and 3) when mixed with host platform produced water, low sulphate
seawater and additional seawater. The test work undertaken is outlined below:

• Scale inhibitor/brine compatibility tests: - at temperatures up to the reservoir temperature of 90°C

(no brine/chemical incompatibility was observed for the VS-Co polymers)
• Dynamic sulphate/carbonate scale inhibitor performance: - The two scenario brines were tested
at topside fluid mixing conditions of 30°C and 150Psi, pass criteria was set as <1psi rise over 2
times the average blank time.
• Reservoir condition core flooding using VS-Co polymer scale inhibitor to assess chemical
propagation vs a lithium tracer and potential for formation damage, two corefloods were conducted
for a low and high permeability reservoir cores.
The general laboratory procedures used to carry out the inhibitor compatibility, inhibition performance
and coreflood retention/release also formation damage have been previously published (Graham et al.,
2002).
Dynamic Sulphate/Carbonate scale inhibitor.. Inhibitor efficiency tests were conducted using the VS-
Co chemical and the brine composition, conditions as outlined in Table 5. The differential pressure was
monitored across the microbore scaling coil and the pass criteria was < 1 psi pressure rise for 2 times the
"blank" which for scenario 2 brine was 85 min and for scenario 3 was 20 min.
Figure 6 shows the differential pressure plot generated when the VS-Co inhibitor was applied at
concentrations of 10, 7.5, 5 and 2.5ppm to synthetic Scenario 2 brine through a narrow bore coil. Results
show that at concentrations of 10 ppm the differential pressure remains stable. A reduction in concentration
to 7.5 then to 5ppm shows the differential pressure to rise slightly over the test period but not enough to
be considered a fail. A further reduction in concentration to 2.5 ppm shows the differential pressure rises
exponentially indicating that scale control has been lost. The MIC (minimum inhibitor concentration) of the
VS-Co required to prevent scale deposition under the conditions tested for Scenario 2 was 10ppm.
10 SPE-190713-MS

Figure 6—Determination of the MIC for VS-Co, Scenario 2 (PW/LSSW and some SW) brine

Figure 7 shows the differential plot generated when the VS-Co scale inhibitor is applied at concentrations
of 50, 45, 40 and 35ppm to synthetic Scenario 3 brine through a narrow bore coil. Results show that at
concentration of 50 ppm the differential pressure remains stable. A reduction in concentration to 45 ppm
shows the differential pressure starts to rise and continues rising at concentrations of 40 ppm and 35 ppm
suggesting some degree of scale formation at these lower concentrations. The MIC (minimum inhibitor
concentration) of the VS-Co required to prevent scale deposition under the conditions tested for Scenario
3 was 50 ppm.

Figure 7—Determination of the MIC for VS-Co, Scenario 3 (PW/SW and no LSSW) brine.
SPE-190713-MS 11

The increased scaling tendency from scenario 2 to scenario 3 (Table 4) explains the shorter blank time
observed in the test and the higher MIC values recorded in Table 6.

Table 6—Minimum Inhibitor Concentration (MIC) measured via dynamic tube blocking results for short listed chemical

Condition VS-Co MIC [mg/l]

Scenario 1 10

Scenario 2 10

Scenario 3 50

Scale Inhibitor Retention/Release and Formation Damage Study.. The following procedure was
conducted to examine potential formation damage aspects associated with application of VS-Co at a 10%
concentration within injection quality low sulphate seawater in reservoir core material from two different
permeability rocks within the same reservoir. For each of the core floods conducted, no damage was recorded
and therefore a synthetic produced water brine post flush was performed to compare the scale inhibitor
return profiles.
1. Assemble 1.5 inch diameter core plugs in Hassler type cell (length 3 inch), 500 psi back pressure,
1,500 psi overburden (or higher). Solvent clean dried out core.
2. Inject synthetic injection brine (no bicarbonate or sulphate ions present) at 240 ml/hour for 2 hours,
while raising the temperature to 90°C.
3. Inject injection water with Li tracer at 60ml/hr for 1.5 hours, collecting 2ml samples.
4. Measure synthetic injection brine permeability at the following rates 0, 480ml/h. At reservoir
temperature.
5. Inject proposed scale inhibitor squeeze chemical system at 60ml/h, 5 pv of 10% VS-Co in low sulphate
seawater. Collect sample 2.5 ml and measure differential pressure
6. Inject synthetic injection water 240ml/h for 2 hours, 480ml/hr for 30mins.
7. Measure synthetic injection water permeability at the following rates 0, 480ml/hr.
8. Inject synthetic injection water at 60ml/hr, collecting samples until inhibitor residual measurement
reach MIC.
9. Flood core with synthetic injection water at 240ml/hr for 2 hours, 480ml/hr for 30 minutes.
10. Measure synthetic injection brine permeability at the following rates 0, 480ml/hr.
Table 7 summarizes the formation damage results obtained from the two VS-Co scale inhibitor corefloods
which clearly show the chemical caused no formation damage to the core material tested based on <15%
loss of permeability being recorded in both tests. No evidence of fines migration or dissolution was seen
in post-treatment SEM analysis.

Table 7—Summary of formation damage (effective brine permeability)

Effective Brine Permeability Pre-treatment Post-treatment

Low Permeability Core Forward Flow 639 mD 637 mD (99.5% recovery)

High permeability core Forward Flow 3060 mD 2820 mD (92.25% recovery)

Along with the assessment of formation damage evaluation of the lithium tracer and VS-Co scale inhibitor
concentrations were carried out. The two normalised chemical concentration profiles are presented in Figure
8. The profiles (Li, inhibitor = VS-Co) show the inhibitor (VS-Co) effluent concentration lags only very
slightly behind the Li tracer concentration. This would suggest that there is almost no retention of the VS-
12 SPE-190713-MS

Co onto the sandstone core during injection even at reservoir temperature. It is expected that the impact of
extended water injection for many years into the field wells will have reduced the near wellbore temperature
to << 90°C and as a result the retention of the scale inhibitor will in fact will be less than observed in
this flood. The degree of retardation observed for this test is very small suggesting good propagation of
the inhibitor during injection into the well prior to the onset of PWRI with added seawater. Both the high
permeability and low permeability cores tested showed comparable results.

Figure 8—Normalised effluent concentration of Li and VS-Co during main

treatment injection during Stage 5, high permeability reservoir core test.

Scale inhibitor desorption profiles during chemical injection (Stage 5) and back-flow stage (Stage 8)
Figure 9 presents the concentration of VS-Co within the synthetic injection water during the flowback
stage of the coreflood test. The concentration of inhibitor within the coreflood effluent shows an initial
rapid decrease in VS-Co scale inhibitor to 100ppm over the first 30 pore volumes. Chemical concentration
gradually decreased to 1ppm over a further 110 pore volumes. This rapid release of adsorbed chemical
from the rock down to the 50 to 10ppm MIC range show the poor rock/chemical retention expected for this
polymer chemical meaning that it will propagate with the supersaturated brine into the near wellbore to give
the required protection of the injection PW/LSSW/SW brine.
SPE-190713-MS 13

Figure 9—Desorption profile of VS-Co during flowback, high permeability coreflood test water injector conditions.

"Mini″ Scale Squeeze Design Process. The inhibitor return profile was used to devise an adsorption
isotherm following a well document process (Mackay and Jordan 2003) for squeeze design. The isotherm
was then used to help estimate the retention of the suggested inhibitor treatment volumes (and concentration)
within the near wellbore region of the 13 injection wells within the field.
The 3ft radial distance was arrived at based on the classic critical inflow radius for wells being 3ft which
control 99% of the well inflow performance and also resulted in not an excessive chemical volume being
required.
The treatment volume was sized to treat a 3ft radial ring of chemical. The injection wells had perforated
intervals ranging from 48ft to 382ft which with an average porosity of 25% resulted in mini squeeze
treatment volumes of between 100bbls of 10% to 790 bbls of 10% VS-Co being required.
Two questions were raised during the evaluation process; 1) if no VS-Co was added to the injected
water following the "Mini" squeeze application how much water could be injected before the near wellbore
region dropped below MIC and 2) if the near well bore was being continually treated with twice the MIC
scale inhibitor (20ppm) and the same region had been swept of the unadsorbed main treatment so it was
in equilibrium with the 20ppm being injected what amount of injected produced water that could be flow
through the near well bore if the chemical injection pumps stopped on the topside before the near wellbore
region would drop below an MIC value of 10ppm,
In response to both questions an injector well from the field was modelled in SQUEEZE (Mackay and
Jordan 2003). A 165 ft. interval comprising three distinct permeability/porosity layers) was treated with
346 bbls of 10% VS-Co.
For Question 1 the model was simply switched into production mode and the cumulative produced water
volume at which 10ppm VS-Co returned to the near wellbore used as an estimate of the injected water
volume that could be injected before the 10ppm MIC was reached. Figure 10 shows this profile from the
SQUEEZE simulation. For the example, well with a water injection rate of 50,000 BWPD the 10ppm MIC
would be reached in 300,000 bbls or 6 days of injection. After 6 days, there would not be enough scale
inhibitor being released into the flowing brine from the rock within the near wellbore of the lower layer to
stop scale formation in this zone of the well.
14 SPE-190713-MS

Figure 10—Squeeze simulation of injector well following Mini squeeze with no additional scale inhibitor added

For Question 2 the model was allowed to come to equilibrium with 20ppm of injected chemical within
the PW/LSSW/SW brine and 20ppm of adsorbing/desorbing chemical from the near wellbore rock and
the injected water volume estimated to take the concentration from 20ppm to the 10ppm MIC value. The
amount of water injected was calculated at 133,000 bbls or 2.7 days at 50,000 BWPD.
The use of the coreflood data and well model within the SQUEEZE code was able to provide vital
information about the need to apply scale inhibitor into the PWRI brine as soon as the mini squeeze was
applied and also highlighted the risk of failing to apply continual injection scale inhibitor for an extended
prior to time.

Qualification of A Suitable Scale Inhibitor for PWRI Application Production Wells and Results
Following qualification of the scale inhibitor for the injection wells it was critical to carry out an assessment
of a suitable scale inhibitor for the production wells
While the injection of produced water/low sulphate seawater was expected to result in consumption of
the available sulphate by reaction within the reservoir due to sulphate ion consumption (Mackay, Jordan
and Torabi 2003 and McCartney 2007) the increase in sulphate within the PWRI/SW scenario 1 and 2
meant that these ion stripping reactions were more critical to reduce the risk of sulphate scale within the
production wells. The impact of ion reactions within waterflooded reservoirs has been extensively published
(Mackay, Jordan and Torabi 2003 and McCartney 2007, Mackay et al 2005 and Mackay et al., 2005) and is
not covered in this paper other than to say the MIC values at the production wells were assessed for "ideal"
brine mixtures and "reacted" brine mixtures.
The factors driving the selection of the squeeze chemicals for application in the production well are very
different from the injector wells as there is now a critical need for maximizing squeeze lifetime by having
strong chemical rock interaction and a low MIC, phosphonate scale inhibitor were evaluated for the squeeze
application to the production wells.
Testing carried out to qualify the chemical included squeeze chemical/brine compatibility, determination
of MIC under downhole conditions for a range of possible produced brines and a coreflood to assess
formation damage and also retention/release to assess optional squeeze life of a chemical treatment. Results
from this assessment have already been published, Jordan 2017.

Summary of the Effectiveness of Scale Control During PWRI/LSSW with Additional SW – Field
Results
Over a 16-month period seawater was injected into the PW/LSSW fluid mixture as presented in Figure 11.
Over this period the produced water (PW) fraction of the injected brine increased from 27% to 45% as the
SPE-190713-MS 15

produced water rates increased in the maturing field. The injected seawater fraction ranged from 18 to 15
% over this same period while the low sulphate seawater (LSSW) fraction reduced from 55% to 40%. Over
the 16-month period an average water injection rate of 325,000 bbls water per day (BWPD) was achieved.

Figure 11—Proportions of brine (PW, LSSW and SW) within injected water leaving topside process

The field average over the 16-month period is presented in Table 8 along with the % of the three brines
used for the inhibitor performance assessment for scenario 1, 2 and 3. The seawater fraction is the driving
force for the mass and saturation of barium sulphate scale remained within the range of scenario 1 to 2
which had an MIC value for the VS-Co of 10ppm at topside and water injector conditions.

Table 8—Fraction of PW, LSSW and SW for evaluation scenario and

average of the injected brine during the 16 months injection period.

Field
Water Types Scenario 1 (%) Scenario 2 (%) Scenario 3 (%)
Average (%)

Seawater 14 16 79 16

LSSW water 65 58 0 48

Produced Water 21 26 21 36

Water injection system observation during high sulphate brine injection. The operator of the facility
set up two separate chemical injection skids each applying 30ppm (MIC 10ppm determined in laboratory
evaluation) to the produced water to ensure no under treatment of inhibitor to mixed brine due to operational
variations in the PW/LSSW/SW ratio being injected was possible.
Injection wells observation during high sulphate brine injection. Thirteen injector wells were treated
with "Mini" squeeze treatments just prior to higher sulphate brine injection starting. 3ft pad of 10% VS-
16 SPE-190713-MS

Co in low sulphate seawater was applied to each well prior to PW/LSSW/SW injection started. Tubing
head pressure (THP) and water injection rate (bbls/day) data collected prior to, during and after bypass are
presented (Figures 12 to 15) for two of the thirteen water injector wells treated with the "mini" squeeze
treatments. The two wells selected were wells taking the largest volumes of water and hence would be likely
to accumulate the largest mass of scale during bypass and so be more negatively impacted if scale control
was not effective.

Figure 12—Injector well No.3 tubing head pressure prior to, during and post PW/LSSW/SW injection

Figure 13—Injector well No.3 water injection rate (bbls/day) prior to, during and post PW/LSSW/SW injection
SPE-190713-MS 17

Figure 14—Injector well No.4 tubing head pressure prior to, during and post PW/LSSW/SW injection

Figure 15—Injector well No.4 water injection rate (bbls/day) prior to, during and post PW/LSSW/SW injection

In Figures 11 and 13 the tubing head pressure in both wells initially rises over the first 8 months during
injection of the higher scale potential PW/LSSW/SW fluid and then reaches a steady state value. This
response in pressure is to be expected as the voidage in the reservoir is being filled as a result backpressure
from the reservoir increases. If there had been no scale control, then the THP might have increased constantly
during the PW/LSSW/SW injection period. In Figures 12 and 14 the water injection rate data is presented
it is clear that with addition of the SW to the PW/LSSW fluid the injection rate was increased over the first
6-8 months. During the injection of the higher scaling brine there was a slight reduction in the need for
water injection which is observed in both wells as the reservoir pressure increased due to the voidage gap
18 SPE-190713-MS

being reduced. During the injection of the PW/LSSW/SW the reservoir voidage gap was reduced by 43%
relative to pre-addition of seawater to the PW blend.
Production well performance. The subject field of this case study had entered its decline phase of oil
production. The injection of the extra seawater into the PW/LSSW resulted in extra oil production. As a
percentage of the predicted rate expect without addition of extra seawater relative to what was observed
with the addition of seawater to the injected brine extra oil produced was reported as a 20% increase in 2016.
Monitoring program utilized during high sulphate brine injection. There was not one method that
would give a definitive assurance that scale control was totally effective therefore a range of methods were
implemented to ensure that the topside process was under control in terms of sulphate scale formation.
These included;

• Ions for scale predictions of mass and saturation index with respect to sulphate scales and scale
ion deficiency assessment (ideal brine composition vs depleted brine where scaling ions such as
barium, strontium and sulphate could be missing, Mackay et al., 2005 and Mackay and Jordan
2005).
• Suspended solids (water injection fluids and production well brine samples), Jordan et al 2005.

• Residuals (same day sample analysis of chemical concentration within the brine was not critical
with two pumps applying chemical above MIC for topside. Downhole chemical injection scale
inhibitor could also be analyzed in the presence of the squeeze scale inhibitor without the need to
turn off the downhole continual injection chemicals).
• Stress Test (a beam of light from LED's in the stress test unit passes through a sample of produced
water to the detector at the bottom of the sample vial. Scaling ions are added to ‘stress’ the solution
and promote scaling. This is to replicate what would happen should the overall composition of the
water chemistry change such as increased seawater fraction of the injected brine occurs (thus giving
higher SO42- levels), or if there was an increase in produced water fraction (higher Ba2+ levels). The
formation of scale particles increases the turbidity of the solution, thus hindering the passage of
light through the sample. This is registered as a higher voltage in the detector, thus indicating the
formation of scale. By assessing the level of stressing solution required to form scale in the test
it is possible to evaluate in real time what level of protection is offered by the scale inhibitor, and
therefore how susceptible the system is to fluctuations in produced water composition).
In addition to the methods outlined for the topside process, to ensure effective control of scale within
the injection tubing and near wellbore additional monitoring was carried out on the produced well fluids
to assess if injected brine was breaking through, the changing scale risk and the degree of scale control
present. These included;

• Well productivity index trending (is the well production rate declining more than expected based
on gas lift rate and fluid composition)
• Evidence of scale deposits during production logging tool (PLT) interventions

Summary of 480 days of seawater addition to PW/LSSW. The additional water injection possible with
addition of seawater to the PW/LSSW fluids resulted in the following:

• Cumulative water volume injected 156,288,000 bbls.

• Scale potential mass that could have formed without effective scale control 2,070 tonnes.

• Water injection well performance unchanged following the treatment of the thirteen wells with the
VS-Co scale inhibitor by mini squeeze and topside applied continual inhibitor injection.
SPE-190713-MS 19

• Reservoir water injection voidage gap was reduced by 43% and addition hydrocarbon production
observed (20% increase observed in 2016)
• Injection water during seawater addition has yet to reach the water flood supported production wells

Conclusions
What are the key findings of this evaluation and field application to control the increased sulphate scale risk
with introduction of seawater to a PWRI system?

• Introducing seawater into PWRI fluids to increase water injection volumes dose increase the
sulphate scale risk (supersaturation and mass) but this risk can be controlled with effective chemical
programs and detailed fluid composition trending.
• Scale risk for water injector wells with matrix injection vs fracture flow injection is different and
requires more careful control of suspended solids from produced fluids and scale control than
fracture flow regimes.
• Scale inhibitors for PWRI are very different from the best chemical for production well squeeze
treatments in terms of mineral rock interaction with vinyl sulphonate co polymer (VS-Co) chemical
being favored for water injector wells.
• For effective topside scale control, there needs to be suitable chemical application points upstream
of mixing points and with the capacity to cope with significantly increased treatment rates along
with redundancy in chemical injection pump capacity to allow a flexible response to changing
environments and operational requirements.
• The application of "mini" squeeze treatments to injector wells (under matrix flow) has proved
effective at maintaining injection well performance when supplemented by topside scale inhibitor
injection.
• Scaling ions reaction deep within the reservoir away from the injection wells has the potential to
reduce the sulphate scale risk in the production wells, Mackay et al., 2005.
• Scale risk with reservoir heterogeneity is a factor that would need to be reviewed within each
field that seawater introduction was proposed for as it presents another level of complexity when
assessing the scale management risk over the life of the field.
• While chemical volumes required to control the increased scale risk and increased monitoring
costs do represent a significant cost but the extra oil recovered makes this process economically
favorable being relatively quick to implement vs installation of additional pumps and increasing
SRP capacity.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Nalco Champion and Ecolab Company for permission to publish this work.
We also acknowledge the help and co-operation of members of the asset teams for their assistance in carrying
out the evaluations and treatments described in this paper. The assistance of Louise Sutherland, and Michael
Johnston at Nalco Champion Aberdeen RD&E facility is also greatly appreciated for their help with the
experimental work presented in the publication.

References
Martins, J.P., Murray, L.R., Clifford, P.J.G., McLelland, G., Hanna, M.F., and Sharp, J.W.Jr.: "Long-Term Performance
of Injection Wells at Prudhoe Bay: The Observed Effects of Thermal Fracturing and Produced Water Reinjection",
paper SPE28936 presented at the1994 SPE 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA,
Sept. 25-28.
Simpson, A.J., and Paige, R.W., "Advances in Forties Field Water Injection", paper SPE23140 presented at the1991
Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Sept. 3-6.
20 SPE-190713-MS

Paige, R.W., and Sweeney, F.M.: "Produced Water-Re-Injection: Understanding the Problems", paper presented at the1993
Water Management Offshore Conference.
Hjelmas, T.A., Bakke, S., Hilde, T., and Gruner, H.: "Produced water Reinjection: Experiences from Performance
Measurements in the North Sea", paper SPE35874 presented at the1996 International Conference on Health, Safety
& Environment, New Orleans, LA, June 9-12.
Hjelmas, T.A., Bakke, S., Hilde, T., Vik, E.A. and Gruner, H.: "Produced Water Reinjection: Experiences from
Performance Measurements on Ula in the North Sea", paper SPE35874, SPE International Conference on Health,
Safety & Environment, New Orleans, Louisiana, 9-12 June 1996.
Shaw, J.: "Heidrun Produced Water Re-Injection Pilot", paper 2 presented at the NIF 13th Oil Field Chemistry Symposium,
Geilo, Norway, 17-20 March 2002.
Andersen, K.I., Halvorsen, E., Sælensminde, T. and Østbye, N.O.: "Water Management in a Closed Loop – Problems and
Solutions at Brage Field", paper SPE65162, SPE European Petroleum Conference, Paris, France, 24-25 October 2000.
McCartney, R.A., Burgos, A and Sorhaug, E.: "Changing the injection Water on the Blane Field, North Sea: A Novel
Approach to Predicting the Effect on the Produced Water BaSO4 Scaling Risk" SPE130624 presented at the SPE
International Conference on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen UK, 26th-27th May 2010.
Mackay, E.J., Collins, I.R., Jordan, M.M. and Feasey, N.: "PWRI: Scale Formation Risk Assessment and Management"
paper SPE80385 presented at the SPE 5th International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, Scotland, 29-30
January 2003.
Potter, J.M and Dibble, W.E.,Jr.: "Chemical Aspects of Iron Colloid Plugging in Quartz Sands and Implications for
Formation Damage", paper SPE11801 Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1682-1688, September 1985.
Asghari, K., Kharrat, R. and Vossoughi, S.: "Alteration of Permeability by Fine Particle Movement – A Water Injectivity
Problem", paper SPE29006 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio, Texas,
14-17 February 1995.
Bedrikovetsky, P., Marchesin, D., Shecaira, F., Serra, A.L., Marchesin, A., Reszende, E. and Hime, G.: "Well Impairment
During Sea/Produced Water Flooding: Treatment of Laboratory Data", paper SPE69546 presented at the SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25-28 March 2001.
Bayona, H.J.: "A Review of Well Injectivity Performance in Saudi Arabia's Ghawar Field Seawater Injection Program",
paper SPE25531 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 3-6 April 1993.
His, C.D., Dudzik, D.S., Lane, R.H., Buettner, J.W. and Neira, R.D.: "Formation Injectivity Damage Owing to Produced
Water Reinjection", paper SPE27395 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage Control,
Lafayette, Louisiana, 7-10 February 1994.
Paige, R.W., Murray, L.R., Martins, J.P and Marsh, S.M.: "Optimising Water Injection Performance", paper SPE29774
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 11-14 March 1995.
Messer, P.H., Pye, D.S. and Gallus, J.P.: "Injectivity Restoration of a Hot-Brine Geothermal Injection Well", paper
SPE6761 Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1225-1230, September 1978.
Bertero, L., Chierici, G.L., Gottardi, G., Mesini, E., Mormino, G.: "Chemical Equilibrium Models: Their Use in Simulating
the Injection of Incompatible Waters," SPE Reservoir Engineering (Feb. 1998) 288–294.
Sorbie, K.S. and Mackay, E.J.: "Mixing of Injected, Connate and Aquifer Brines in Waterflooding and its Relevance to
Oilfield Scaling", Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering (July 2000) 27 (1-2) 85–106.
Mackay, E.J.: "Modelling of In-Situ Scale Deposition: the Impact of Reservoir and Well Geometries and Kinetic Reaction
Rates", paper SPE74683, presented at the SPE 4th International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, Scotland,
30-31 January 2002
Mackay, E.J.: "Limiting Scale Risk at Production Wells by Management of PWRI Wells", SPE9671 presented at SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, 28th Feb to 2nd March 2007.
Mackay, E.J.: "Comparison of Scale Control Challenges Between Production and PWRI Wells" SPE129181, presented
at SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, 10th –
12th February 2010.
Bedrikovetsky, P., Mackay, E.J., Monteiro, R., Patricio, F and Rosario, F.F.: Injection Impairment due to Sulphate Scaling
during PWRI: An Analysis Model". SPE100512 presented at 8th International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen
31st May – 1st June 2006.
Hardy, J A, and Simm, I, "Low Sulfate Seawater Mitigates Barite Scale", Oil and Gas Journal, December 2, 1996.
Davis, R., Lomax, I. and Plummer, M.: "Membranes Solve North Sea Waterflood Sulfate Problems" Oil and Gas Journal,
59-64, 25 November 1996.
Vu, V.K., Hurtevent, C. and Davis, R.A.: "Eliminating the Need for Scale Inhibition Treatments for Elf Exploration
Angola's Girassol Field" paper SPE60220 presented at the SPE 3rd International Symposium on Oilfield Scale,
Aberdeen, Scotland, 30-31 January 2001.
SPE-190713-MS 21

McElhiney, J.E.: "Deepwater Project Economics Demand Sulfate Removal to Ensure Scale-Free Operation", Offshore
(May 2003).
Jordan, M.M., Collins, I.R. and Mackay, E.J.: "Low Sulfate Seawater Injection for Barium Sulfate Scale Control: A
Life-of-Field Solution to a Complex Challenge", paper SPE98096 to be presented at the SPE Formation Damage
Conference, Lafayette, Louisiana, 15-17 February 2006.
Boak, L.S., Al-Mahrouqi, H., Inches, C., Mackay, E.J., Bezerra, M.C., Sorbie, K.S. and Mota, R.: "What Level of Sulphate
Reduction is Required to Eliminate the Need for Scale Inhibitor Squeezing?" paper SPE95089 presented at the SPE
7th International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, Scotland, 11-12 May 2005.
Collins, I.R., Stalker, R. and Graham, G.M.: "Sulphate Removal for Barium Sulphate Scale Mitigation a Deepwater Subsea
Production System", SPE87465, 6th International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, UK, 26-27 May 2004.
Al-Riyami, M, Mackay E.J., Deliu, G., Jordan M.M and McElhiney, J.: "When Will Low Sulphated Seawater No Longer
Be Required on the Tiffany Field?" SPE112537 presented at SPE International Symposium on Formation Damage
Control, Lafayette Louisiana, 13th – 15th February 2008.
Sorbie, K.S. and Laing, N.: "How Scale Inhibitors Work: Mechanisms of Selected Barium Sulphate Scale Inhibitors
Across a Wide Temperature Range" paper SPE87470 presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale,
Aberdeen, Scotland, 26-27 May 2004.
Graham, G.M., Collins, I.R., Stalker, R and Littlehales, I.J.: "The Importance of Appropriate Laboratory Procedures for the
Determination of Scale Inhibitor Performance", SPE74679, proceedings of the fourth SPE International Symposium
on Oil Field Scale, Aberdeen, UK, January 2002
Mackay, E.J., Jordan, M.M. and Torabi, F.: "Predicting Brine Mixing Deep within the Reservoir, and the Impact on Scale
Control in Marginal and Deepwater Developments" paper SPE85104, SPE Prod. & Facilities (Aug 2003) 18 (3)
210–220
McCartney, R.A., Melvin K., Wright R., and Sorhaug E., Seawater Injection in the Reservoirs with Ion Exchange properties
and high sulphate scaling tendency: Modelling of Reactions and Implication for Scale Management with Specific
application to the Gyda Field" presented at 18th International Oilfield Chemistry Symposium, Geilo Norway 26th-28th
March 2007.
Mackay, E.J., Jordan, M.M., Feasey, N., Shah, D., Kumar, P. and Ali, S.: "Integrated Risk Analysis for Scale Management
in Deepwater Developments" paper SPE87459, SPE Journal of Production Technology (August 2004) 58 (8) 49–51.
Also in SPE Prod. & Facilities (May2005) 20 (2) 138-154.
Mackay, E.J. and Jordan, M.M.: "Impact of Brine Flow and Mixing in the Reservoir on Scale Control Risk Assessment
and Subsurface Treatment Options: Case Histories", Journal of Energy Resources Technology (September 2005) 127
201–213.
Mackay, E.J. and Jordan, M.M.: "SQUEEZE Modelling: Treatment Design and Case Histories" paper SPE82227,
presented at the SPE European Formation Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 13-14 May 2003.
Jordan, M.M. "Management of Scale Control in Produced Water Reinjection" Presented at the Royal Society of Chemistry,
Chemistry in the Oil Industry XV, 6th – 8th November 2017, Manchester, UK
Jordan, M.M., Johnston, C.J. and Robb, M. "Evaluation Methods for Suspended solids and Produced Water as an aid in
Determining Effectiveness of Scale Control both downhole and Topside" SPE92663. Presented at SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry 2nd-4th February 2005, Houston, Texas.