Scale and Deposit Formation in

Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage

(SAGD) Facilities

Reprint R-1014

By W. Hugh Goodman, Martin R. Godfrey, and Thomas M. Miller,

Nalco Comany, Naperville, IL

ABSTRAST
Produced water and brackish well water are the main
boiler feedwater sources for the steam assisted gravity
drainage oil recovery process. Contaminants in these
two water sources differ. Water separated from the
produced oil emulsion (produced water) is high in
silica and in soluble organic compounds. Brackish
well water can be high in hardness ions (calcium and
magnesium). The combination of these waters can be
unstable and can produce a variety of mineral scales.
The primary location of scaling is dependent on the
process scheme employed. For systems with extensive
pretreatment, deposition is most likely in preheaters
and evaporators. For other systems, deposition can
occur in the steam generation equipment. In addition
to mineral scales, carbon deposition can occur in
steam generation equipment. Analytical data on the
water sources is discussed, along with the composition
of deposits from preheaters, evaporators and steam
generation equipment. This can provide some insight
into the processes of formation and strategies for inhibition of those deposits. Strategies for inhibiting scale
formation are discussed.

dictate that the produced water is recycled to make

more steam. Treatment is required to remove contaminants and protect steam generation equipment.
The extent of this pretreatment depends on the water
quality requirements for the chosen steam generation
equipment.
Even with complete reuse of produced water, some
make-up is required to replace steam losses and
incomplete return of down-hole steam as well as to
accommodate variations in steam production and
blowdown rates. Although many facilities are permitted to use higher quality sources surface water or
well water, some sites use water from higher-salinity
aquifers.
The two common options for steam generation are
once through steam generators (OTSGs) and conventional drum boilers. Table 1 compares the typical
feedwater specifications for these different types of
steam generation equipment.
Table 1 Comparison of selected feedwater specifications.

Drum
Parameter
OTSG
Boiler
Hardness
(mg/l as CaCO3)
0.2 0.2
*
Conductivity (S/cm)
2,000 10,000 150
Silica (mg/l as SiO2)
20 50
2
Non-volatile TOC (mg/l C)
200 600
0.2

INTRODUCTION
Steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) facilities
inject steam into geologic formations to facilitate the
production of heavy hydrocarbon. Northern Alberta
(Canada) is one area where this process has been extensively deployed to produce bitumen (the term used
to describe the heavy hydrocarbon from this region).
This process uses pairs of horizontal wells the upper
well is used to inject steam and the lower well is used
to extract a complex emulsion of bitumen in water.
Cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) is a similar process
using only a single well. Periods of production alternate with periods of steam injection. This process
also produces an oil-water emulsion.
Environmental considerations limited make-up
water availability and lack of discharge options

*not detectable, > ~0.02

The limits for OTSGs are based on a survey of user

practices. The limits for drum boilers are taken from
the ASME guidelines for watertube, drum-type boilers
operating at 10011500 psig.1
The generally higher tolerance of OTSGs to feedwater
contamination arises from the lower concentration
factor as compared to conventional boilers and from
ease of mechanical cleaning to remove accumulated
deposits. OTSGs typically produce 75-80% steam

Presented at the International Water Conference in San Antonio, Texas, October 24-28, 2010.

quality, corresponding to a concentration factor of 4-5.

OTSGs are designed with long sections of straight tubing bounded by removable end sections. This allows
insertion of mechanical devices (pigs) that scrape
the deposits off of the tube surface. This process is
often referred to as pigging.

Table 2 Range in analytical data for produced water.

Component
Ca (mg/l)
Mg (mg/l)
K (mg/l)
Na (mg/l)
SiO2 (mg/l)
TOC (mg/l)
NH3 (mg/l)
Cl (mg/l)
pH (s.u.)
M alkalinity
(mg/l as CaCO3)

The OTSG option typically includes warm lime softening (WLS) for partial removal of silica and hardness.
WLS is typically followed by filtration to reduce
suspended solids and ion exchange using weak acid
cation exchange (WAC) resins for additional hardness
removal. In some cases, hot lime softening is used
in place of WLS. Figure 1 shows the WLS process
scheme.
A second option is to use conventional drum boilers.
As compared to OTSGs, these boilers require lower
contaminant concentrations in the boiler feed water.
The WLS WAC approach cannot meet the requirements, specifically for conductivity (total dissolved
solids, TDS) and non-volatile TOC. Wastewater
evaporators are typically used for pretreatment. The
condensate produced from these evaporators typically
meets the water quality requirements for drum boilers.
Figure 2 illustrates this scheme.

Minimum
1
1.6
14
130
11
170
11
48
7.3

Maximum
52
14
240
3000
260
430
64
4800
8.8

140

1400

reduce the solubility of calcium carbonate. Likewise,

decreasing temperature or any concentrating process
would reduce the solubility of silica.
The M alkalinity measurement presented in this
and subsequent tables was measured by titration.2
This method suffers from the possibility of interference by other species, notably organic acids. It
appears likely that for many of the produced water
samples the bicarbonate/carbonate concentration is
lower than the reported alkalinity.

WATER QUALITY
Table 2 illustrates the wide variation in the concentration of selected contaminants in produced water.
Examination of these data suggests that the produced
water from some facilities may be close to saturation
with respect to several species, particularly silica and
calcium carbonate. In fact, some of these samples seem
over-saturated with calcium carbonate. For example,
the concentration of carbonate in equilibrium with
52 mg/l calcium at 100C is ~10 mg/l (M alkalinity
expressed as CaCO3 equivalents).

Table 3 shows similar data for well water. As compared to produced water, well water is typically much
lower in silica and TOC. Calcium concentrations cover
roughly the same range, but trend toward the higher
end of the range.

TREATMENT TARGETS
WLS-OTSG OPTION WLS removes hardness by
precipitation of calcium carbonate, dolomite (calcium
magnesium carbonate), and magnesium hydroxide.
Typically, lime is added to raise pH and promote
precipitation of the carbonate species.

Anything that would reduce the solubility of key species could lead to precipitation or scale formation. For
example increasing pH, increasing temperature, or
any concentrating process (evaporation or boiling) will

Figure 1 Typical Drum Boiler Pretreatment Scheme.

2

magnesium). These systems typically produce effluent meeting the hardness target for OTSG feed water.
The WAC step has no effect on soluble silica.

Table 3 Range in analytical data for well water.

Component
Ca (mg/l)
Mg (mg/l)
K (mg/l)
Na (mg/l)
SiO2 (mg/l)
TOC (mg/l)
NH3 (mg/l)
Cl (mg/l)
M (mg/l as CaCO3)

Minimum
2.0
1.5
2.2
700
8
nd
nm
480
880

Maximum
45
32
250
3700
10
5
nm
5300
1200

EVAPORATOR-DRUM BOILER OPTION Evaporators are capable of routinely meeting the feedwater
quality requirements for a drum-type boiler. These
units produce a condensate essentially free of dissolved solids. A purge stream removes contaminants
from the system. The purge is typically 2-5% of the
incoming flow; these systems operate at concentration ratios (feed flow rate / purge flow rate) of 20-40.
At such high concentration ratios, the contaminants
can become insoluble. Typically, caustic soda (NaOH
solution) is added to raise the pH and increase silica
solubility. This has the undesirable effect of decreasing the solubility of calcium carbonate and of several
metal silicates.

nd = not detected
nm = not measured

Generally the overflow from the WLS is near equilibrium with respect to calcium carbonate. Thus, the
residual soluble calcium carbonate concentration
depends on the carbonate concentration (as well as
on the temperature and ionic strength). For systems
deficient in carbonate, soda ash is added as a source
of carbonate. For any system, increasing the carbonate concentration decreases the soluble calcium
concentration.

To reduce the overall energy usage, the evaporator

condensate can be used to heat the evaporator feed
water. This typically uses a plate-and-frame type
heat exchanger (shown in Figure 2 as the Preheater).
Depending on the composition of the feed water, the
rise in temperature across the preheater increases the
potential for calcium carbonate deposition.

Typically, the total soluble hardness (calcium and

magnesium) is measured rather than the calcium or
magnesium alone. This is not problematic since the
residual soluble magnesium is usually lower than the
calcium (provided that the system pH is in the target
region of 10.0 to 10.2). The target for residual hardness is typically around 10 mg/l as CaCO3.

Some evaporator systems use two evaporators operated in series. The first evaporator operates at a
concentration ratio of 2 it evaporates roughly onehalf of the water. The second evaporator uses the
concentrated brine from the first evaporator as feed
and operates at a concentration ratio of approximately
20. The two evaporators produce roughly the same
amount of condensate, but the recirculating brine in
the second evaporator is much more concentrated.

Silica removal in the WLS is accomplished through

magnesium hydroxide addition to precipitate magnesium silicate. Increasing magnesium dosage decreases
the residual silica concentration. Targets for the residual silica concentration range from 20 to 50 mg/l.

SIMILARITIES While there are many differences

between these two approaches to the recycle of produced water to make steam, both systems contain
areas where deposit formation is likely. For the WLSOTSG process, the most common location for deposits

WLS is not capable of reaching the calcium concentration target for OTSG feed. The WAC step removes
the remaining soluble hardness ions (calcium and

Figure 2 Typical OTSG Pretreatment Scheme

3

is in the OTSG tubes. For the Evaporator-Drum Boiler

option, the most common deposit locations are in
the evaporator and the preheater. Minimizing and
managing these deposits is critical to the success of
both schemes.

Table 4 Range in analytical data for well water.

Component
Ca (mg/l)
Mg (mg/l)
Ba (mg/l
Na (mg/l)
K (mg/l)
SiO2 (mg/l)
TOC (mg/)
NH3 (mg/l)
Cl (mg/l)
pH (s.u.)
M alkalinity
(mg/l as CaCO3)

Both the evaporator and the OTSG benefit from the

increase in silica solubility with increasing temperature.3 This applies only to silica itself; the solubilities of the metal silicates decrease with increasing
temperature.

DEPOSIT ANALYSES
OTSG Table 5 shows analytical results for deposits from several OTSG systems. These data suggest
that several contaminants contribute to the deposit
silica, hardness ions (calcium and magnesium),
carbonate ions, and organic compounds (dissolved
compounds or TOC; suspended hydrocarbon, or both).
Comparing the results from several sites indicates
that, while the relative abundance of these components may vary in the deposit, they are all present for
all of the sites represented. One possible contributing
factor to deposit formation in OTSGs is variation in
the performance of upstream treatment equipment.4

Deoiled Water Well Water

3.1
24
<1.5
32
0.06
2.8
570
3,500
24
24
180
8
220
5.4
56
nm
700
5,300
8.1
8.2
350

880

nm = not measured

The system design anticipated that the fraction of

well water needed for make-up to the system would
be relatively small, around 2-5% of the total flow. In
practice, more well water has been needed to meet
targets for steam production.
The ScaleSoftPitzer (SSP) program from Rice University5 was used to calculate the scaling tendency of
blends of deoiled water and well water. This calculation estimates the saturation ratios (SR) for several
potentially scale-forming species (although it does not
include calculations for silica or magnesium silicate).
The SR is the ratio of the ion product to the equilibrium constant, corrected for ionic strength.

EVAPORATORS Table 5 also includes the analytical results from deposits in two evaporator systems.
Note that the deposit samples were taken from several
different places in the system. System 1 uses two
evaporators in series. E1 and E2 samples were from
the sumps of evaporator 1 (E1) and evaporator 2 (E2)
respectively. System 2 is one stage.

The SSP calculation includes a robust correction for

ionic strength which is needed due to the high salt
concentration in this system. SR = 1 represents the
equilibrium condition; SR < 1 is non-scaling; SR > 1
is potentially scaling. SSP actually reports log10(SR);
values here were converted to SR.

The deposits from the preheater portion of System

1 are mainly calcium carbonate, with some magnesium and silica present. During the time that these
deposits formed, this site added NaOH to the tank
upstream of the preheater to raise the pH to ~9. Additional NaOH was added to the recirculating flow in
the first stage (E1) of the two-stage system.

Figure 3 shows the SR values calculated for calcite

(calcium carbonate) without pH adjustment at 75C
and 90C. This corresponds generally to the temperatures in the evaporator feed tank (where the deoiled
water and the well water are mixed) and after the
preheater, respectively.

The deposits from E1 of the two-stage system are also

primarily calcium carbonate, with lesser amounts of
magnesium and silica. Deposits from E2 are predominately silica. Note that the carbon content of
the deposits from the evaporators is generally lower
than that from the OTSGs.

The figure suggests that the deoiled water itself may

be over saturation in calcium carbonate. However
since some fraction of the TOC may be organic acids
that can titrate as alkalinity, the actual carbonate
concentration may be a bit lower than the analytical
result obtained by titration. Figure 3 illustrates that
the scaling tendency for calcium carbonate increases
dramatically as the fraction of well water increases.
The increased scaling tendency at 90C indicates that
scaling is likely in the preheater system.

DETAILS ON EVAPORATOR SYSTEM 1

FEED/PREHEATER SECTION
Key analytical results for the deoiled produced water
and the brackish well water make-up for Evaporator
System 1 are shown in Table 4.

Table
Analytical
results for
depositsfor
fromdeposits
OTSG and evaporator
systems.
Table5 5:
Analytical
results
from OTSG
and

Si

Fe

Mg

Ca

evaporator systems.
P

% as SIO2 % as Fe2O3 % as MgO % as CaO % as P2O5 % as C

Loss 925 Carbonate

%

% as CO2

OTSG Systems
Site 1 Pigging Sample

70

89

Site 1 Pigging Sample

74

87

Site 1 Scale on Tube

15

49

65

Site 1 Scale on Tube

13

12

45

56

Site 1 Scale on Tube

34

32

36

Site 1 Pigging Sample

14

32

28

30

Site 1 Pigging Sample

11

32

33

32

Site 1 Pigging Sample

12

32

37

34

Site 1 Pigging Sample

12

21

42

47

Site 1 Deposit Sample

34

13

19

13

16

Site 2 Pigging Sample

47

27

<1

7.4

Site 2 Tube Sample

17

57

13

<0.5

22

nm

neg

Site 2 Tube Sample

55

8.8

20

nm

Site 2 Pigging Sample

41

31

<0.5

12

nm

neg

neg

Site 2 Pigging Sample

59

<0.5

10

20

neg

OTSG

63

7.2

18

neg

OTSG

53

10

21

neg

OTSG

25

20

<0.5

23

40

neg

Evaporator Systems
System 1 Feed Pump

49

20

9.5

25

neg

System 1 Preheater

10

40

<0.5

nm

41

33

System 1 Preheater

46

18

<0.5

7.8

29

System 1 Preheater

44

18

<0.5

8.6

31

System 1 E1

18

36

<1

11

36

26

System 1 E1

42

15

10

<0.5

10

27

System 1 E1

20

33

<0.5

11

35

24

System 1 E2

50

<0.5

12

<0.5

5.4

21

neg

System 1 E2

58

<0.5

11

<0.5

3.4

20

System 2

53

0.5

2.4

22

mn

nm

pos

nm = not measured
neg = negative in qualitative carbonate test
pos = positive in qualitative carbonate test

tion indicate the presence of amorphous silicates and

stevensite Ca0.2Mg2.9Si4O10(OH)24H2O.
Figure 5 shows the variation in feedwater hardness
over several months. The large swings could result
from variation in the amount of well water (higher calcium and magnesium concentrations) as well as from
the presence of precipitated material in the samples.

Figure 3 Calcite SR for Deoiled-Well Water Blends at

pH = 8.1.

Figure 4 shows the scaling tendency at pH 8.8. Comparing Figure 4 with Figure 3 illustrates the result
of caustic addition to the feed tank. Increasing the
pH results in an increase in the calcium carbonate
scaling tendency both in the feed tank (~75C) and in
the preheater (~90C).

Figure 5 Baseline Feedwater Hardness.

Scale formation in the pretreatment system led to

the need for frequent cleaning. Scale formed in the
inlet piping of the feedwater pumps (upstream of the
preheater section) as well as in the preheater.
This led to the decision to introduce a calcium carbonate scale inhibitor into the feed tank. The inhibitor
chosen was a copolymer with good efficacy in preventing calcium carbonate scale at high temperatures.
This coincided with the introduction of a silica scale
inhibitor to reduce silica scaling in E2.
Introduction of the scale inhibitor eliminated scaling
in the inlet piping of the feedwater pumps. However,
the preheater still required regular cleaning. This
suggests that the calcium carbonate inhibitor was
capable of overcoming the scaling tendency at 75C,
but not at 90C.
As mentioned previously, the pH adjustment in the
feed tank increases the scaling tendency of calcium
carbonate. This adjustment is targeted to increasing the silica solubility in the evaporator. As there
should be no tendency for silica scale to form in the
preheater (silica solubility increases with increasing temperature), the pH adjustment point could be
moved downstream of the preheater without negative
impact. This was done and eliminated fouling in the
preheater.

Figure 4 Calcite SR for Deoiled-Wall Water Blends at

pH = 8.8.

A deposit sample from the evaporator feed tank

showed 40% CaO, 33% carbonate (as CO2), 10% SiO2,
and 6% MgO. This is a near stoichiometric ratio of
calcium to carbonate (within the precision of the analytical measurement), suggesting that the deposit is
predominately (73%) calcium carbonate. Calcite and
vaterite phases were identified by x-ray diffraction.
Likewise, the molar ratio of magnesium to silica is
stoichiometric within the analytical precision. X-ray
diffraction results from deposits in the preheater sec6

DETAILS ON EVAPORATOR SYSTEM 1

EVAPORATOR 1
The changes in the feed system adding a scale
inhibitor and changing the pH adjustment point
stabilized the feedwater hardness, as shown
in Figure 6. Although variation was reduced, the
amount of hardness entering the evaporator system
increased since all of the hardness was now transported through the feed tank, piping, and preheater.
This increased the scaling tendency in E1.

Figure 7 Transport Feedwater to E1 with Antiscalant.

to form magnesium silicate scale would only lead to

a small reduction in the silica concentration. So the
near 100% transport of silica does not rule out formation of magnesium silicate.
Figure 7 indicates that the calcium carbonate inhibitor was not effective in preventing calcium carbonate
scale in E1. A deposit sample from E1 showed 32%
CaO, 24% carbonate (as CO2), 19% SiO2, and 7%
MgO. This is a near stoichiometric ratio of calcium
to carbonate within the precision of the analytical
measurement, suggesting that the deposit is predominately (56%) calcium carbonate. The molar ratio of
magnesium to silica in the deposit is ~, suggesting
that there may be some slight silica deposition in addition to magnesium silicate. X-ray diffraction detected
no crystalline phases containing silica.

Figure 6 Feedwater Hardness with Antiscalant

Addition.

While deposit formation is the ultimate indication of

scale formation, analysis of the scale requires system
shut-down to obtain deposit samples. It is useful to
assess the system during operation. One option is
to calculate the mass balance (transport) across the
evaporators. This requires knowing the input and output flow rates and concentrations of the target ions.

DETAILS ON EVAPORATOR SYSTEM 1

EVAPORATOR 2

Unfortunately, variations in the operating conditions

(flow rates) make it difficult to estimate these values
accurately. An alternative is to compare the values
for a potentially scale-forming ion to those for an ion
not expected to form scale. For a non-scaling ion,
dividing the outlet concentration by the inlet concentration allows calculation of the concentration ratio
for the system. This is used as a reference point for
potentially scaling ions.

Figure 8 shows the baseline (without antiscalant

treatment) transport across E2. This suggests that
silica, calcium, and magnesium all deposit in the
system. A deposit analysis indicated 50% SiO2, 12%
CaO, and 1% MgO. There was no carbonate detected.

For this system, the most suitable reference analyte

is boron (B). So:
CR = B(brine)/B(feed)
%T(Ca) = [Ca(brine)/Ca(feed)] / CR
Figure 7 shows the transport across E1 after introduction of the calcium carbonate inhibitor and before the
change in NaOH addition point. Silica transport is
100%, within the accuracy of the measurement. The
figure suggests that both calcium and magnesium
are depositing in E1 Note that since the magnesium
concentration is low, loss of ~50% of the magnesium

Figure 8 Baseline Transport Across Evaporator 2.

7

Figure 9 shows the transport across E2 after introduction of the calcium carbonate and silica inhibitors.
As compared to Figure 8, this shows much improved
silica transport, although a bit less than 100%.
Deposit analysis from this period showed 58% SiO2,
11% CaO, 1% MgO, and 3% carbonate (as CO2).

Increasing the transport of calcium through the feed

and preheater sections increases the driving force for
scaling in E1. The calcium carbonate inhibitor did not
completely eliminate scale in E1. The evaluation of
additional inhibitors is planned.
The introduction of a silica inhibitor significantly
reduced scale formation in E2.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks to Dr. Jasbir Gill for helpful discussions and
for reviewing this manuscript.

REFERENCES
1. Consensus on Operating Practices for the Control of Feedwater and Boiler Water Chemistry in
Modern Industrial Boilers, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY (1994).
Figure 9 Transport Evaporator 1 to Evaporator 2.

CONCLUSIONS
A detailed investigation was undertaken into deposit
formation in a two-stage evaporator system treating
produced water and well water. The mixture of produced water and well water is unstable with respect
to the formation of calcium carbonate. This instability is increased by increasing pH and by increasing
temperature, both of which were initially present
in the feedwater system. Introducing a calcium
carbonate inhibitor and moving the pH adjustment
point downstream of the preheater was successful
in eliminating scale formation in the feed tank and
piping and in the preheater.

2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed., pp 2-26 to 2-28,
American Public Health Association, Washington,
DC (2008).
3. The Chemistry of Silica, R, K. Iler, pp 47-49,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY (1979).
4. Godfrey, M. R.; IWC 09-36 (2009).
5. ScaleSoftPitzer from Rice University.

Nalco Company 1601 West Diehl Road Naperville, Illinois 60563-1198

SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES IN PRINCIPAL LOCATIONS AROUND THE WORLD
2011 Nalco Company. Nalco and the logo, are trademarks of Nalco Company.
Printed in U.S.A. 3-11