SPE-173759-MS

Scale Modeling in Reservoirs: A New Simulation Capability and its

Validation with Field Data
Huey J. Chen, and Wei Shi, Chevron Energy Technology Company

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 13–15 April 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The development of oil and gas reservoirs in the deep water environment is playing an increasingly
significant role in supporting the global energy demand. Oil field scale is an important aspect of flow
assurance that determines continuous production from reservoirs, because improper scale management
could result in astronomical losses. Currently most commercial software packages for scale prediction and
risk assessment use stand-alone thermodynamic models that rely on water composition data as input
parameters. As seawater injection has become an integral part of deepwater development, the coupling of
scale modeling with reservoir simulation becomes necessary to not only track scale reactions and
precipitation in the reservoir, but also to assess scaling risks in production wells and surface facilities as
a result of the these reactions. Appropriate treatment strategies can thus be recommended based upon
simulation results. The scale reaction for barium sulfate (BaSO4) has currently been implemented as a
coupled option in our in-house reservoir simulator, CHEARS. Besides conventional reservoir simulation
results, the model also outputs scale related information, such as barium and sulfate scaling ion
concentrations, the amount of barium sulfate precipitation, scaling tendency of barium sulfate, as well as
the time and extent of injection water breakthrough over years.
The scale model in reservoir simulation has been validated using both literature data (Delshad and
Pope, 2003) and field data from one of Chevron’s assets. The recommendations for scale control based
upon the simulation results are in good agreement with field operation. Scale modeling in reservoir is
expected to provide a more precise evaluation of scaling risks under challenging production conditions,
and a more realistic recommendation for scale squeeze treatment. With the continuous advancement in
deepwater development, scale modeling in reservoirs should be an integral part of reservoir management.
Reservoir management strategies will be implemented in the field development with the collaboration
among experts from different disciplines such as reservoir, scale, flow assurance, production, and process
engineers.
Introduction
Inorganic scale is an important aspect of flow assurance that determines continuous production from
reservoirs. Improper scale management could result in loss of wells. Although scale may result from
changes in environmental conditions, such as temperature, pressure, fluid composition, etc., in many other
2 SPE-173759-MS

cases, scaling is caused by chemical incompatibility between injected water and formation water. As
seawater injection has become an integral part of deepwater development, SO4 based scales, such as
BaSO4, for instance, have the potential to form because of the high SO4 concentration in the seawater, and
if the formation water contains substantial amount of barium ion. Scale squeeze treatment is usually the
most effective method to control the barite scale in producton wells, which, once formed, cannot be easily
dissolved by most chemicals, making post-scale remediation ineffective and usually extremely expensive.
In certain extreme cases, however, the scaling ion contents in the multiple waters to be mixed are high
enough to produce a supersaturation level not controllable by inhibitors, regardless of their concentrations,
and consequently a dangerous scenario with rapid formation of large amounts of scale can happen (Kan
and Tomson, 2012). The possibility of encountering such disastrous situation must be understood for
proper controlling strategies (SO4 removal, for instance) to be formulated and planned way beforehand.
One of the most important pieces of information needed for proper design of squeeze treatment is the
minimum scale inhibitor concentration (MIC), which depends on the scaling tendency of the mineral in
question and the amount of the precipitation at a certain condition (Zhang et al., 2014). Various
commercial software packages developed based on advanced thermodynamic theories (Kan, A.T. and
Tomson, M.B. 2010; Kaasa, B. 1998) are available to predict the scaling tendency of common minerals
as a function of temperature, pressure, production profile and brine composition. In waterflood practices,
for instance, these models are widely used to evaluate the scaling risk associated with mixing the injection
and formation waters. It should be noticed, however, that results from these calculations only represent
the scaling risk where the two waters initially meet. Yet, in practice, they are often extended to other
locations such as near wellbore and in the production wells, which could be far away from the initial
meeting point and therefore have very different water chemistry as a result of possible scale precipitation
as the mixture travels through the reservoir. Ignoring possible loss of scaling ion due to scale precipitation
in the reservoir by applying the results of straight mixing to the wellbore and wells is likely to
overestimate the scaling risk at these locations and result in overdesigning the scale squeeze treatment
process. It is therefore necessary to couple scale modeling with reservoir simulation to keep track of
scaling ion transport, scale reactions and precipitation for a more realistic understanding of the scaling risk
at any specific location in the reservoir, production wells or surface facilities as a result of these processes.
Some efforts have been reported in the literature in modeling the in-situ scale deposition in the reservoir
(Delshad, M., 2003). According to Mackay (2002), however, the modeling capability is limited by certain
factors, such as determination of kinetic reaction rates, mixing zone size and the possible impact of
precipitation on permeability. It has been suggested that the impact of scale precipitation on reservoir
permeability (Mackay 2002) is negligible at locations far away from wellbore, and could be substantial
but difficult to determine near producers due to difficulty in extrapolating results from core tests to field
conditions. This study presents our effort in incorporating the scale reaction of barium sulfate (BaSO4)
into our in-house reservoir simulator as a coupled option, and the validation/benchmarking the model with
field data/operation. While the model is still being improved in terms of capabilities for sensitivity
analysis and history match, as well as computational efficiency, it is expected to provide a more precise
evaluation of scaling risks assessment and therefore to provide more realistic recommendation for
treatment requirement including scale squeeze design by taking into consideration scale precipitation in
the reservoir.
Materials and Methods
Scale Reaction
The scale reaction of BaSO4, as illustrated in Equation 1, has been implemented in our in-house
reservoir simulator.
(1)
SPE-173759-MS 3

Saturation Index (SI), as defined in Equation (2), is used to represent the scaling tendency.
(2)

where, aBa and aSO4, ␥Ba and ␥SO4, and CBa and CSO4 are the activities, activity coefficients and
concentrations of Ba and SO4, respectively. Ksp and Ksp, c are the solubility constant and conditional
solubility constant of BaSO4, respectively. When SI is greater than 0, the barium and sulfate ions will form
barium sulfate precipitates. When SI is less than 0, the precipitate, if any, will dissolve back into aqueous
phase. The precipitation and dissolution continue until SI reaches 0, which is an equilibrium condition.
The conditional solubility constant Ksp, c is calculated as a function of temperature, pressure and water
composition using an approach similar to that adopted by ScaleSoftPitzer (SSP), a scale software package
developed by the Brine Chemistry Consortium of Rice University. In SSP, the activity coefficients of ions
are calculated using Pitzer’s ion interaction theory, and the solubility constant Ksp is obtained by
regression of high temperature high pressure data reported by Helgeson and others (Shi et al, 2012).
Although theoretically, an SI value of greater than zero indicates that the solution is supersaturated
with the mineral in question and has a tendency to form precipitates, the actual critical SI that triggers
scaling risk is primarily a function of temperature, to a lesser extent pressure, and other environmental
factors, from a kinetics perspective. According to Kan and Tomson (2012), for instance, at 150°C, an SI
value of greater than 1.5 means instantaneous precipitation, a value between 1.5 and 0.3 suggests likely
delayed nucleation and crystal growth, and one below 0.3 in general means low risk of bulk precipitation.
At lower temperature, however, these critical SI values are much greater due to the reduced nucleation and
precipitation kinetics. For general purpose, 0.6 -0.8 is sometimes used as the barite threshold SI value for
quick assessment of the barite scaling risk.
Implementation of Scale Reaction in Reservoir Simulaor
The scale model option in our in house reservoir simulator, CHEARS is to model the transport of
barium and sulfate ions and the barium sulfate precipitation in the reservoir. The mathematical model, the
numerical solution method, the model specifications, and example simulation results are described below:
Mathematical Model
As stated above, the scale model option in reservoir simulator is to model the transport of barium and
sulfate ions and the barium sulfate precipitation in the reservoir. The barium and sulfate ions exist only
in the water phase. They will precipitate out from the solution when the saturation index SI becomes
positive. In this scale option, the dependency of the conditional solubility constant Ksp, c, is simplified to
be only a function of pressure and injected water concentration in the aqueous phase at constant reservoir
temperature.
When the rate of precipitation or dissolution is fast, the local equilibrium is reached immediately and
Equation (2) is sufficient to model the scale phenomena. However, the reservoir simulator provides an
additional option to allow the rate of precipitation to be modeled. This is useful when the rate of
precipitation is slow relative to the fluid movement. The rate of precipitation is modeled via a chemical
reaction relation:
(3)

The electrical neutrality requires

(4)

In addition to the equilibrium approach which assumes precipitation proceeds until the solubility of
BaSO4, precipitation kinetics can also be accounted for using Equation 5
4 SPE-173759-MS

(5)

To fully describe the above reaction or equilibrium mechanisms, we track at least four components:
barium cation, sulfate ion, barium sulfate solid, and an injected water tracer in reservoir simulation. All
components exist only in the water phase, except barium sulfate solid is considered to be stationary.
Therefore, we only have to include the equations of the three flowing components in the Jacobian. The
resulting Jacobian will have three additional equations which can be numerically solved in two ways: fully
coupled or decoupled.
It should be noted that the exact value of the kinetic reaction constant Kr could be difficult to determine
due to insufficient understanding of the precipitation and deposition mechanisms, as well as the lack of
a definite relationship to quantify the impact of various factors. It could, however, be used as a sensitivity
parameter to adjust in history matching to available field data to identify the correct factor for a given
system.
Numerical Solution Methods
The scale reaction is currently implemented as a coupled option in the reservoir simulator. The material
balance equation of all components including gas, oil, water, and the additional three flowing components
are first formulated. These equations are then solved simultaneously in conjunction with the phase
equilibrium equations and the chemical equilibrium (or reaction) equation described in Equation (2) and
(3). The scale model option can be used for implicit, isothermal, single porosity, black oil models with or
without local grid refinement. The scale model option can be run in parallel mode with the use of a
specific parallel solver. Either chemical equilibrium or reaction kinetics can be activated to model the
precipitation and dissolution of barium sulfate. Since the current simulator assumes constant temperature
throughout the reservoir, the solubility constant is only a function of pressure and injected water
concentration in the aqueous phase.
The advantage of a fully coupled solution method is that it can be extended to model the effect of
chemical species on the fluid flow property. It is known that precipitation can cause a decrease of porosity
up to 10% near well bore. Thus, the coupled solution method is most useful for future extension to model
this effect. Note that the decoupled solution method is computationally more efficient, likely to be twice
as fast as the coupled solution. Furthermore, this decoupled solution method can only be used for cases
where the presence of chemical species does not affect the fluid flow and rock properties such as viscosity,
density, porosity, permeability. This would limit the application of this method to simulate near-well scale
phenomena.
Model Specifications and Validation
In summary, the scale model option in our in house reservoir simulator can be used for implicit,
isothermal, single porosity, black oil models with or without local grid refinement. The scale model option
can be run in parallel mode with the use a specific parallel solver. Either chemical equilibrium or reaction
kinetics can be activated to model the precipitation and dissolution of barium sulfate. The solubility
produc constant is only a function of pressure and injected water fraction in the aqueous phase at cpnstant
reservoir temperature. The permeability and porosity will not be affected by the precipitation of barium
sulfate. The precipitates are stationary. The original example for validation of the scale model option used
the fluid property, the rock property, the grid data and the well configuration from the SPE 80253
(Delshad and Pope). Results were consistent with the dynamics experted in a scale model.
Data Input and Output for Scale Model Option in Reservoir Simulator
The required input parameters for scale option in reservoir simulator include the initial concentrations
of Ba and SO4 in the formation and injection (sea) waters, as well as a look-up table consisted of the
conditional solubility constant of BaSO4 calculated using the method described above at various pressure
SPE-173759-MS 5

and injected sea water fraction at reservoir temperature. The simulation results from the scale option in
reservoir include the conventional outputs of the reservoir simulation (production profiles of different
phases, for instance), and the scale related information over time, including time and fraction of injection
water breakthrough, barium and SO4 scaling ions concentration and barium sulfate precipitation, and the
saturation index (SI) values as a measure of the scaling tendency. These pieces of information, when used
in combination with tools for squeeze treatment designs, such as ScaleSoftPitzer (SSP) and SQUEEZE
(Mackay, E.J. and Jordan, M.M. 2003), can provide essential information required for the scale treatment
such as minimum scale inhibitor concentration (MIC), inhibitor placement and treatment frequency.

Results and Discussion

Thermodynamic Scale Prediction

The compositions of the formation and injection (sea) waters from one of Chevron’s assets are summa-
rized in Table 1. The scaling tendency as indicated by the saturation index (SI) value as a result of straight
mixing of these two waters at the reservoir and wellhead conditions is illustrated in Figure 1. Plotted in
Figure 2 is the amount of BaSO4 that needs to precipitate out of the solution for it to reach thermodynamic
equilibrium. Without consideration of precipitation in the reservoir, the straight mixing results suggest a
significant risk of scale precipitation in almost the entire range of the mixing ratio, if SI⫽0.6-0.8 is used
as the scaling threshold for barite SI value. The highest precipitation amount of about 350 mg/l occurs at
approximately at 10 % of seawater fraction.

Table 1—Compositions of Formation and Injection Waters

Parameter Units Formation Seawater

Na mg/l 25,894 11,020

K mg/l 140 408
Mg mg/l 318 1,322
Ca mg/l 1000 422
Sr mg/l 185 69
Ba mg/l 230 0.02
Fe mg/l 24 0
Zn mg/l 18.90 0.01
Cl mg/l 44,814 19,805
SO4 mg/l 4.83 2,775
F mg/l 1 1
Alkalinity mg/l as HCO3 361.88 145
TDS mg/l 75,460 35,968
Density g/cm3 1.046 1.023
CO2 % mole 1.20 0.03
pH 7.11 8.30
6 SPE-173759-MS

Figure 1—Saturation Index Resulting from Straight Mixing Formation and Sea Waters at Different Seawater Fraction without Consid-
eration of Scale Precipitation in the Reservoir at the Reservoir (3927 psia and 225°F) and Wellhead Conditions (1500 psia and 147°F).

Figure 2—Amount of BaSO4 required to precipitate to reach equilibrium in the mixture of formation and sea waters at different seawater
fraction without consideration of scale precipitation in the reservoir at the reservoir (3927 psia and 225°F) and wellhead conditions
(1500 psia and 147°F).
SPE-173759-MS 7

Scale Modeling in Reservoir Results

Scale model option in the reservoir was conducted using the same field water chemistry at reservoir
temperature for the purpose of assessing the impact of barite precipitation in the reservoir on scaling
tendency in the production wells. The conditional solubility constant is calculated as a function of pressure
and seawater fraction at the reservoir temperature (225°F). The outputs from the simulation include the
conventional reservoir simulation results, such as bottom hole pressure, oil, water, gas productions
profiles for individual producer or the entire field. The oil and water production profiles from the reservoir
model with and without scale option are plotted for the field level in Figure 3. As expected, the
implementation of scale reaction in reservoir simulator has no impact on the production results from
reservoir simulation. The profiles at individual well levels (not shown) are also available.
8 SPE-173759-MS

Figure 3—Oil (a) and Water (b) Production Profiles for Production Well 2 with and without Scale Reaction

Scale Related Simulation Results

The important informations relevant to scale predition are the seawater breakthrough profile and the
scaling tendency profile over years. While some production wells see almost immediate water and injected
SPE-173759-MS 9

sea water breakthrough (Table 2 Production well 6), most wells start to have water breakthrough within
2-5 years after oil production, followed by injection water breakthrough one or two year later (Table 2).
For instance, for Production Well 2, as plotted in Figure 4 and Table 2, water breakthrough happens about
2 year after oil production, but it takes almost two more years for the injected seawater to be produced.
The fraction of seawater in produced water (Figure 5) from each well increases as injection progresses,
till a final level of between 30%-85% by the end of the well life. Figure 6 is the scaling saturation index
profile (SI⫽0.1-0.74) for the production wells over years. According to the results from straight mixing
(Figure 1), all wells have significant scaling risks at these levels of seawater fraction, with SI values
generally ranging above 2.4, which might be uncontrollable even with scale squeeze treatment and would
therefore require other measure such as sulfate removal system to be implemented for scalng risk
mitigation. However, results of scale reaction modeling in reservoir indicate that the scaling risk is
substantially reduced for all production well as indicated by the saturation being less than 0.8 for all
production wells, due to the reduction of ion concentrations in the reservoir (Figure 6).

Table 2—Field Production Data and Squeeze Treatment Operation_ Qualitation Validation
SW
Water breakthrough Squeeze
Cumulative Production Breakthrough after SW treatment
after oil water Fraction Max SI by conducted
Water Oil Well life production breakthrough in PW model At year at field
Production
Well MMSTB MMSTB year year year %

1 4.4 9.5 5 immediate 2 13 0.6 2012 Yes

2 64 30 20 2 2 83 0.5 2015 Yes
3 0.36 11.5 4 2 2 10 0.16 2011 No
4 27.5 40 19 5 1 76 0.1 2014 No
5 54 28 19 2 1 74 0.68 2013 Yes
6 64 17 20 immediate immediate 92 0.74 2009 Yes
7 0 0 - - - - - No

Figure 4 —Produced Water (WPR) and Seawater Breakthrough (INJWPR) Profiles for Production Well 2
10 SPE-173759-MS

Figure 5—Fraction of Seawater Breakthrough Profile for all Production Wells

Figure 6 —Saturation Index Profiles of all Production Wells over Time

Production well 6, which demonstrates an early seawater breakthrough and the highest seawater
fraction of 85%-92%, for instance, has the greatest scaling risks among all wells. The SI value of about
0.74, however, is still significantly lower than that predicted by straight mixing and suggests that scale
SPE-173759-MS 11

squeeze treatment should be sufficient to contain the risk. On the other hand, Production well 4, with a
maximum SI of only 0.1, is highly unlikely to have any scaling issue, whereas the straight mixing results
would predict a highly risky SI of over 2.4 based upon the seawater fraction ranging from 0.1 to 0.65
throughout the majority of the well life. In fact, the loss of scaling ions due to barite precipitation can be
illustrated by comparing the barium and SO4 concentrations against seawater fraction with and without the
scale reaction included in the simulation. Figure 7 (for Production Well 2) shows that almost all barium
has precipitated out at seawater fractions of over 40%, whereas the decrease by only mixing but no
precipitation is much slower; the barium ion concentration is still way over 100 mg/l at 40% seawater
fraction. Ignoring scale precipitation in the reservoir could thus lead to significant overestimation of the
actual scaling risk.

Figure 7—Concentrations of Ba and SO4 ions at different Seawater Fractions for Production Well 2 as a Result of Scale Precipitation
in the Reservoir. The thin Diagonal Lines are the Dthe concentrations from Straight Mixing without Consideration of Precipitation.

Validation of Scale Modeling in Reservoirwith Field Data

When the scale modeling results are compared with the field data (Table 2), qualitative agreement is
identified. Actual scale squeeze treatment was conducted by the field for the four production wells
predicted to have moderate to high risks of scale precipitation (Producers 1, 2, 5 and 6), but not for the
other two (3 and 4) with low risks. The model is also able to output the production profiles of barium and
sulfate scaling ions (Figure 8) and their concentrations. A quantitative agreement on the ion concentrations
between model results and field data, however, is not available at this point. One of the key reasons is that
a constant formation water composition was assumed in the model for all production wells, while the field
data seem to suggest differently. Note the concentrations of Ba and SO4 in produced water samples
collected at different production wells vary substantially even before seawater breakthrough (Table 3).
More field information on the inhomogeneity of formation water composition is therefore needed to
12 SPE-173759-MS

improve the modeling accuracy for a better quantative agreement with the field data on ion concentrations
in the produced water. Attempts will be made to conduct scale model option in reservoir using different
formation water compositions for production wells.

Figure 8 —Production Rates (a) and Cumulative Productions (b) of Ba and SO4 from Production Well 2
SPE-173759-MS 13

Table 3—Ba and SO4 Concentrations (mg/l) in Produced Water Samples Collected at Different Production Wells over Time
Prod1 Prod2 Prod3 Prod4 Prod5 Prod6 Prod7

Year Ba SO4 Ba SO4 Ba SO4 Ba SO4 Ba SO4 Ba SO4 Ba SO4

2007 156.2 527.7 60.4 452.5 18.9 184.9

2008 214.7 58.4 303.7 301.9 19.6 1297.2 17.3 1440.3 33.4 736.9
2009 156.8 166.8 240.3 227.7 0.8 1659.1 2.9 2595.1 21.6 1167.6 0.2 2665.8 11.9 1075.4
2010 183.3 117.4 190.6 331.4 0.1 2075.3 1.1 3159.2 11.9 1397.2 0.0 2806.9 4.2 1596.4
2011 139.3 158.0 56.0 655.9 0.0 2182.4 9.9 3159.8 9.3 1968.7

Conclusions
While scale prediction based on straight mixing could significantly overestimate the scaling risk near the
wellbore, coupling scale reaction with reservoir simulation provides a more realistic scaling s risk
assessment by taking into account the loss of scaling ions due to scale precipitation deep in the reservoir.
In addition to the conventional results (oil/water/gas production profiles) from reservoir simulation, the
scale modeling in reservoir also outputs important scale related information, such as timing and fraction
of injection sea water breakthrough, barium and sulfate scaling ion concentrations and saturation index as
a measure of the scaling risk assessment. Model predictions on scaling risk are in qualitative agreement
with field data/operation as indicated by scale squeeze treatment being conducted for wells predicted to
have moderate to high risks of scale precipitation. Yet, the quantitative agreement on ion concentrations
between model results and field data is not available at this point due to the lack of information regarding
the inhomogeneity in formation water composition. Water samples from different areas of the reservoir
are therefore needed to improve the model accuracy. The modeling results, when combined with the
squeeze design tools, are expected to provide more realistic recommendation on squeeze treatment design
in terms of inhibitor concentration, inhibitor placement and squeeze frequency, etc.
With the continuous advancement in deepwater development, scale modeling in reservoirs should be
an integral part of reservoir simulation and management, especially for fields with seawater injection or
the produced water reinjection, and should be conducted prior to the scale squeeze treatment design. After
the initial implementation of the scale reaction of BaSO4 in our in-house reservoir simulator, we expect
continuing to improve and develop the model to include more physics, calicite scale, and to optimize
computing efficiency and eventually establish it as a fully coupled component of next generation of
reservoir management. The advancement of such development processes, however, relies highly on the
joint contributions from experts in different disciplines such as reservoir, scale, flow assurance, produc-
tion, and process engineering.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions from Dr. Wen Chen and Clair Jensen of the
Chevron ETC Reservoir Simulation Research Group on the frame work on incorporating the scale
reaction in our in house reservoir simulator. The methodology to calculate the solubility constant was
provided by Prof. Mason Tomson and Dr. Amy Kan of the Brine Chemistry Consortium at Rice
University, and our colleague Dr. Jianxin Wang. The coding of scale reaction in reservoir simulator by
Dr. Mark Chien, the original developer of in house reservoir simulator is greatly appreciated. Finally, the
authors would like to thank ETC management for permission to publish the paper.

References
Delshad, M. and Pope, G.A. 2003. Effect of dispersion on transport and precipitation of barium and
sulfate in oil reservoirs. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry. Houston, TX, USA.
Ishkov, O.Y. 2010. Analysis and modeling of in situ geochemical reactions in oil fields based on
14 SPE-173759-MS

produced brine chemistry data. Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University.

Kaasa, B. 1998. Prediction of pH, mineral precipitation and multiphase equilibria during oil recovery.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Kan, A. and Tomson, M. 2010. Scale prediction for oil and gas production. CPS/SPE International Oil
& Gas Conference and Exhibition. Beijing, China.
Kan, A. and Tomson, M. 2012. Scale prediction for oil and gas production. SPE. Journal 17(2):
362–378.
Mackay, E. J. 2002. Modeling of In-Situ Scale Deposition: The Impact of reservoir and well
geometries and kinetic reaction rates. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Scale. Aberdeen,
UK.
Mackay, E. J. and Jordan M.M. 2003. SQUEEZE Modelling: treatment design and case histories. SPE
European Formation Damage Conference. The Hague, The Netherlands.
Shi, W., Lu, H., Zhang, N., Fan, C., Kan, A.T., and Tomson, M.B. 2012. Modeling the thermodynamic
properties of common minerals at high temperature, pressure and salinity with complex ions. SPE
International Conference and Exhibition on Oilfield Scale. Aberdeen, UK.
Zhang, F., Yan, C., Bhandari, N., Kan, A.T., and Tomson, M.B. 2014. Prediction of barite scaling risk
and inhibition for oil and gas production at high temperature. SPE International Oilfield Scale
Conference and Exhibition. Aberdeen, UK.