SPE 68330

The Influence of Corrosion Inhibitor / Scale Inhibitor Interference on the Selection of Chemical
Treatments Under Harsh (HP/HT/HS) Reservoir Conditions
G.M. Graham, SPE, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.; D.M. Frigo, SPE, Shell UK Expro; I.R. McCracken, SPE, BP,
G.C. Graham SPE, Nalco Exxon Energy Chemicals; UK; W.J. Davidson, SPE, Shell UK Expro; S. Kapusta, SPE, Shell
Intl.; P. Shone, Shell UK Expro.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper describes the results and conclusions from an
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield extensive series of performance experiments under the very
Scale held in Aberdeen, UK, 30-31 January 2001.
severe conditions pertaining to the Heron cluster system.
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, as
Due to the number and complexity of production chemicals to be
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to selected in this study, a “hierarchy” was established for the
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE various species based on their relative impact to field
meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for development/operability. Although the effective application of a
commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is Threshold Hydrate Inhibitor was ultimately considered to be the
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 highest priority for the economic development of the field, this
of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. paper concentrates on the demonstrated interferences between a
pre-selected list of candidate corrosion inhibitors (priority #2)
and scale inhibitors (priority #3).
Abstract
The challenges of scale and corrosion control in a number of
Indeed, final product selection was based upon the combination
new HT/HP fields in the North Sea, such as the Heron cluster
of inhibitors that would not interfere with one another, rather
wells in the ETAP (Eastern Trough Area Project) development,
than on the absolute performance of the individual products.
are substantially more severe than those normally encountered.
The extreme reservoir conditions (T > 175 °C, P ~13,500 psi,
Background and Introduction
TDS > 350,000 mg/L), depths (~ 5 km) and the need for long
The Eastern Trough Area Project (ETAP) development
tiebacks (26 km) along the sea bed, give rise to very large
comprises eight fields, located in the central Graben area of the
temperature and pressure changes throughout the production
Central North Sea, some 150 miles east of Aberdeen. These
system. The high temperature and extreme water chemistries
include Marnock, Mungo, Machar and Monan (BP) and Heron,
lead to faster scale nucleation and growth kinetics, and to a very
Egret, Skua (Shell/Esso).1,2 BP operates the fields on behalf of
severe corrosion potential, which is further exacerbated by the
Shell/Esso and other alliance partners, with Heron cluster
high flow velocities (> 25 m/s) and high shear stress (>500 Pa)
(Heron, Egret and Skua) well entry and workovers remaining the
experienced in the flow lines. Engineering foresight during the
responsibility of Shell Well Operations. Production from all
project development stages of this reservoir have successfully
fields is through the central processing facility (CPF) requiring
reduced the potential scale and corrosion challenges, for
long (up to 26 km) tie backs from subsea-completed wells. The
example by:
Heron cluster fields are regarded as HP/HT/HS wells, whereas
• use of de-sulphated wash-water (DSSW) to reduce sulphate
the remaining fields in the development, (other than the HPHT
scaling potential;
Marnock gas field), have less severe downhole conditions.
use of high chrome steel production tubulars to reduce
Table 1 presents typical water chemistries that were expected to
corrosion potential
be produced from Heron, Machar and Mungo wells, at the time
Such "Engineering Solutions" have reduced the risk of the
of the chemical selection programme. These serve to exemplify
scale and corrosion problems to a level that is both manageable
the diversity between the different fields that make up ETAP.
and economic using chemical treatments, albeit at relatively high
Due to the diversity of developments, in particular the large
levels of scale and corrosion inhibitors.
2 G.M. GRAHAM, D.M.FRIGO, I.R. MCCRACKEN, G.C. GRAHAM, W.J. DAVIDSON, S. KAPUSTA, P. SHONE
range of downhole reservoir conditions and produced fluids, a
wide variety of chemical challenges were faced, necessitating the
need for a large suite of different production chemicals. These
included Scale Inhibitors (SI), Corrosion Inhibitors (CI),
Threshold Hydrate Inhibitor (THI), Wax Inhibitor (WI),
Asphaltene Dispersants (AD), etc.. Blends of these different
chemicals would then be required at different locations. With
fluids from all fields being processed through the CPF,
deckspace for the various chemical products was limited:
tankage for only two scale inhibitors (one for carbonate, one for
sulphate scale) and two corrosion inhibitors was planned for the
whole of ETAP. However, the stretch target was to select a
single scale inhibitor and a single corrosion inhibitor for "first-
use", field-wide application.
In an attempt to simplify this complex selection process, the
strategy of assigning a relative priority to each chemical
application was adopted. A priority was assigned to a particular
production chemical based on its direct impact to the economic
development and operability of the ETAP field.
As such, a “hierarchy” was established for the various species,
which aided the selection of products relative to one another.
The priority list was as follows;
1. Threshold Hydrate Inhibitor
2. Corrosion Inhibitor
3. Scale Inhibitor
4. Demulsifier
5. Wax Inhibitor
=6. Biocide, Asphaltene Dispersant, Oxygen Scavenger
Threshold Hydrate Inhibitor. Of paramount importance to the
success of the entire ETAP development was the ability to
control the hydrate formation expected in the Machar and
Mungo flowlines, and also in the Marnock CPF export line.
For the Heron Cluster wells, hydrate formation was not an issue;
with corrosion and scale being the most important chemical
challenges. However, the stretch target in the chemical
management strategy was to select single, "project wide"
products for each of the various chemical challenges. For this
reason, it was imperative that no chemical species selected for
application in any area exhibited a detrimental effect on the
performance efficiency of the THI.
The THI was therefore tested in the presence of all other
shortlisted chemicals to ensure that performance efficiency
was maintained.
Indeed, reflecting their relative importance to the project, the
same philosophy was extended to the other species on the list,
and is exemplified by the ultimate selections of corrosion and
scale inhibitor.
SPE 68330
This paper concentrates on performance compatibility issues
between pre-selected scale and corrosion inhibitors. Such
incompatibility problems are often observed,3,4 However, for the
ETAP development, the severity of both the scale and corrosion
issues coupled with the requirement for field-wide additives that
would be effective over a large range of different conditions,
significantly limited the availability of alternative products.
In the absence of physical incompatibilities, there are two
mechanistic models used to explain observed
performance reductions:
• Competitive Adsorption: SI and CI are both surface active
chemicals with their performance relying upon adsorption onto
metal surfaces (film forming CIs) or adsorption onto crystal
growth sites (SIs). Competitive adsorption of one species would
restrict adsorption of the other species and therefore reduce
its performance
•
SI:CI complexation: Film forming CI products are generally
cationic species whereas SI's are anionic in nature.
Complexation between these different species in solution would
effectively reduce their activity. Note: similar complexation
reactions involving SIs and quaternary ammonium compounds
are used routinely for low level detection of polymeric
scale inhbitors.5
ETAP Scale and Corrosion Challenges
The main locations identified for scale and corrosion control
were produced waters arising from the Heron cluster wells and
the Machar / Mungo flowlines. In addition, very severe scaling
was also predicted at various stages in the CPF due to co-
mingling of high barium, strontium and calcium waters (Heron
cluster) with potentially high sulphate waters (Mungo). Aspects
of these locations of concern are described below:
Heron Cluster; HP/HT/HS Wells. For the Heron cluster wells
the control of inorganic precipitates is a key production-
engineering challenge due to the high salinity of the reservoir
brines and high pressure and temperature associated with fluid
production from these wells.
The severe reservoir and production conditions in the Heron
cluster wells means that scale and corrosion control was
predicted to be substantially more severe than those normally
encountered. The extreme reservoir conditions (T > 175 °C, P
~13,500 psi, TDS > 350,000 mg/L), depths (~ 5 km) and the
need for long tiebacks (26 km) along the sea bed, give rise to
very large temperature and pressure drops throughout the
production system.6-8 The extreme high temperature and salinity
lead to faster scale nucleation and growth kinetics. They also
result in a very severe corrosion potential, which is further
exacerbated by the high flow velocities (> 25 m/s) and resulting
high shear stress (>500 Pa) experienced in the flow lines.
 THE INFLUENCE OF CORROSION INHIBITOR/SCALE INHIBITOR INTERFERENCE ON THE
SPE 68330 SELECTION OF CHEMICAL TREATMENTS
Engineering foresight during the project development stages of
this reservoir have successfully reduced the potential scale and
corrosion challenges, for example by:
Use of de-sulphated wash-water to reduced sulphate scaling
potential
Use of high chrome steel downhole production tubulars to
reduce corrosion potential
These "Engineering Solutions" served to reduce the risk of the
scale and corrosion problems to a level which would be both
manageable and economic using chemical treatments. This said,
relatively large levels of both scale and corrosion inhibitors are
still required.
Machar / Mungo Flow Lines. For the BP operated fields
(Marnock, Mungo, Machar and Monan) the potential scale and
corrosion issues were less severe than those expected in the
Heron Cluster wells due to the less harsh nature of the reservoir
brine and lower temperatures. However, unlike the Heron
cluster wells, seawater injection was planned for pressure
support, leading to a moderately severe barium-sulphate scaling
tendency upon water breakthrough, and hence the need to
squeeze for downhole scale control. In addition, the long tie
backs in which fluids would be expected to experience
temperatures close to those of the sea bed (4°C), thus leading to
an increase in the barium sulphate supersaturation in the
flowlines. As a result, chemical additives would have to be
effective over relatively long residence times and at relatively
low temperatures, both of which challenges being known to
reduce the effectiveness of certain types of scale inhibitors.9
In comparison to the Heron field, much lower corrosion rates
were expected, meaning that fairly typical CI concentrations (~
10 ppm) were required, as compared with hundreds of ppm in
Heron. Two products were shortlisted, CI#1 and CI#2, of which
the former was selected as first choice for field-wide application,
mainly due to its superior effectiveness under the less-severe
corrosion conditions of the BP fields.
In addition, to scale and corrosion, as the temperature drops in
the sea bed flowlines during production, other chemical issues
such as formation of hydrates and wax were also expected.
Indeed, control of hydrates formation was seen as the most
important flow-assurance issue for the BP fields (Mungo,
Machar and Monan), and the successful application of a newly
developed Threshold Hydrate Inhibitor (THI) was key to the
success of the entire ETAP development. For this reason, one of
the selection criteria for all chemical products was compatibility
with the THI.
Central Processing Facility, CPF. All produced brines shall
mix at the CPF, which could lead to very high sulphate-scaling
potentials due to mixing of potentially high-sulphate brine from
Mungo producers (at high sea-water breakthrough) with Heron
3
formation water. This would necessitate additional scale
inhibitor application at the CPF. In Table 1, brine "CPF2"
represents the worst case barium sulphate-scaling regime
expected at the CPF during operational lifetime.
In addition, corrosion control is required at the CPF and in
particular downstream of the export pumps, in order to protect
the ETAP export line.
Chemical Selection
Chemical Selection (i) Scale Inhibitors. As discussed in the
introduction, the stretch target was for a single chemical to be
selected for each of the chemical challenges to aid logistics at the
CPF. For example this would entail the use of a single "dual
action" scale inhibitor which would be able to control:
• Relatively severe carbonate scaling potential and low sulphate
scaling at the Heron production wells,
• Moderate carbonate scale at the Marnock / Mungo producers
• Moderate / severe sulphate scale resulting from mixing of
injected sea water / FW at Mungo producers
• Very severe potential barium sulphate scaling regime at CPF
In addition, although tankage for two corrosion inhibitors was
planned, it was hoped that the CI's selected under the worst case
Heron conditions would also be appropriate under the less severe
conditions expected in the Machar / Mungo flowlines.
Following extensive chemical selection studies, a shortlist of
chemical products was selected for potential application.
Heron SI Selection; Generic Scale Inhibitors. The severe
nature of the scale control issue in Heron cluster wells has been
described previously.6-8 In order to ensure that scale control
would be achieved under the very severe conditions, a detailed
chemical screening study was undertaken. From an initial 21
generic inhibitor chemistries, 2 products representing two
different generic chemical species were selected as being
appropriate for first use application.8 These were as follows:
PVS, Polyvinyl sulphonate, Mol. wt. >16000 g.mol
VS-Co, Sulphonate Acrylate Co-polymer, M. W. 1,500 g.mol
Field wide Commercial SI Selection.
BaSO4: Following examination of "generic" scale inhibitor
products under the very severe Heron downhole conditions, 17
vendor specific commercial scale inhibitors were examined for
"field wide application". Sulphate scale inhibition tests
examined both the worst case CPF2 brine system at 50°C
(separator temperature) and also mixtures of Mungo FW/SW at
sea bed temperature (4°C). Examination of CPF2 conditions
resulted in the pre-selection of 5 products, which included
products based upon the generic chemistries initially selected for
the Heron system in addition to other polymer and phosphonate
based products. Further tests in the Mungo production system at
4 G.M. GRAHAM, D.M.FRIGO, I.R. MCCRACKEN, G.C. GRAHAM, W.J. DAVIDSON, S. KAPUSTA, P. SHONE
4°C ranked the VS-Co and PVS based inhibitors above the
remaining products. In particular, the pre-selected phosphonate
based product was significantly less effective in the Mungo brine
system. This was thought to relate to a combination of reduced
temperature and reduced calcium content, both of which are
known to influence the performance of phosphonate based
inhibitors more significantly than sulphonated polymers.9-11 The
inclusion of the Heron specific products within the top ranking
barium sulphate inhibitors heightened the potential for the
selection of a field wide dual action (sulphate and carbonate)
scale inhibitor.
Carbonate scale control. Following initial screening tests on 11
commercial products, 5 products were selected. As with the
sulphate tests above, the generic chemistries initially selected for
the Heron system were ranked within the top 5 selected products.
These 5 products were then examined extensively under both
Heron carbonate scaling conditions (75:25 FW:SW at T = 180°C
and T = 90°C) and also under the most severe carbonate scaling
regime expected under Machar conditions (100% Machar FW T
= 120°C and T = 90°C). In general the phosphonate products
marginally outperformed the polymeric inhibitors although the
differences in MIC were relatively small. In addition, the MIC's
recorded under Machar carbonate scaling conditions, were all
lower than that required for sulphate scale control in the Mungo
brine system.
From the extensive SI chemical selection process, two
products were identified that were appropriate for field
application across the entire ETAP development for both
carbonate and sulphate inhibition. These were ranked as follows:
SI#1: Polyvinyl sulphonate , PVS
SI#2: Sulphonate acrylate co-polymer, VS-Co.
Chemical Selection (ii) Corrosion Inhibitors.
Heron Cluster Producers. As described above, the severe brine
conditions in addition to high flow rates and high shear stresses
resulted in a very severe corrosion potential in the Heron subsea
manifold and subsea flow lines. In particular, the high nickel
welds were thought to represent the main area for corrosion. In
an analogous manner to the scale inhibitor selection process, 20
commercial products were initially submitted, and 15 products
underwent screening under Heron specific conditions. The three
most effective products then underwent examination in high–
shear jet impingement tests (>900 Pa) with two products CI#1
and CI#2 being ultimately selected for potential application at
initial MIC values of ~ 500 ppm and 300 ppm when tested under
the worst case Heron conditions.
Machar Conditions: The top ranking corrosion inhibitors
selected under the very severe Heron conditions, including CI#1
and CI#2, were also tested under Machar conditions. Results
shown in Table 2 indicate that when tested at 10 ppm both C1#1
SPE 68330
and CI#2 offer acceptable corrosion protection under bubble test
conditions at T = 75°C, pH = 5.4, CO2 = 1 bar).12 In these tests
the pass/fail criteria was set at 2 mpy (0.05 mmpy) for 50:50 and
20:80 mixtures of Machar FW:Machar Crude. Both of these
products were subsequently tested using Rotating Cylinder
Electrodes (RCE)12 at appropriate shear stresses and both
products achieved acceptable corrosion control at 10ppm applied
dose. Other considerations including reduced cost and perceived
environmental impact led to the selection of CI#1 as the first
choice CI even although its performance under certain conditions
(high FW content, Table 2) was lower than that of CI#2.
Note: at high BS+W the expected brine composition in the
Machar / Mungo flow lines would be expected to contain a high
% of SW.
In summary, the detailed chemical performance studies have
allowed selection of a choice of single chemicals for both field
wide scale inhibition and field wide corrosion inhibition. The
indication was that the stretch target of a single SI and a single
CI product for field wide application was possible
Summary of Current Study
In this paper, "chemical : chemical performance compatibilities"
are examined for the various chemical products pre-selected for
use in the ETAP development. Initial results examine the impact
of the other production chemicals on the performance of the pre-
selected 1st choice scale inhibitor (SI#1, PVS) and corrosion
inhibitor (CI#1). However initial performance interferences
between CI#1 and SI#1, coupled with poorer performance of
CI#1 under the most severe Heron conditions, resulted in the
need for a more detailed examination including the second
choice products, (SI#2, (VS-Co) and CI#2). This ultimately led
to the selection of a single combination of SI and CI for first fill
application. Thus, from an initial screening process involving 37
commercial products (17 SI's and 20 CI's), only one combination
was effective for field wide application. Furthermore, even for
this most compatible combination, the field dose rates have to be
carefully controlled within pre-set limits to avoid interferences
between the two classes of product.
Experimental Part A: Scale Inhibitor Performance
Compatibility Studies
Tests were undertaken for performance against barium sulphate
and calcium carbonate scales.
BaSO4 Scale Inhibition. Note: prior to performance testing, the
various chemical combinations were examined for physical
compatibility in the test brines. Tests were conducted under the
"expected" worst case scaling regime at the CPF (ie ; Brine
composition = CPF2, pH = 5.4, T = 50°C (separator
temperature). The static barium sulphate scale inhibition
efficiencies of the SI were then compared with and without the
 THE INFLUENCE OF CORROSION INHIBITOR/SCALE INHIBITOR INTERFERENCE ON THE
SPE 68330 SELECTION OF CHEMICAL TREATMENTS 5

addition of other treatment chemicals when present at their
expected maximum field application concentration. The impact
of the other production chemicals, on the performance of the SI
was then recorded, with a reduction in performance representing
incompatibility.
In order to represent the CPF 2 brine system, two composite
brines (CPF2/1 and CPF2/2 were prepared which when mixed in
the ratio 75:25 gave the CPF2 brine. The brine compositions
used in this study are presented in Table 3. Modifications to the
standard test procedure were incorporated in order to identify
any potential issues due to partitioning of the various chemicals
between the oil and water phase. Tests were conducted under
each of the following experimental conditions:
• Standard aqueous performance tests
• Pre-partitioning with Crude Oil. In these tests the chemical
solutions diluted in brine CPF2/2 were mixed with 20% Machar
crude oil over 16 hours following which the aqueous phase was
separated prior to use in the performance tests.
• Crude oil / Aqueous mixed performance tests. These tests
were conducted in the presence of 20% Filtered Machar
crude oil.
The following chemical additives were examined in the initial
test series. All of the different additives had been pre-selected
for potential application.
(i) Blank (No Inhibitor / No additives)
(ii) SI #1 @ 50 ppm
(iii) SI #1 + THI (THI=Threshold Hydrate Inhibitor,
10,000ppm)
(iv) SI #1 + CI #1 (CI=Corrosion Inhibitor, 200ppm)
(v) SI #1 + WI (WI=Wax Inhibitor, 200ppm)
(vi) SI #1 + DM (DM=Demulsifier, 50ppm)
(vii) SI #1 + OS (OS - Oxygen Scavenger, 20ppm)
(viii) SI #1 + BIOC (BIOC = Biocide, 2,000ppm)
(ix) SI #1 + THI + CI + WI + DM + OS + BIOC (MIX 1)
(x) SI #1 + THI + CI + WI + DM (MIX 2)
Dynamic Carbonate Scale Performance Tests. These tests
examined similar performance compatibilities, using the same
additives described for the barium sulphate tests above, under
worst case carbonate scaling conditions, a 50:50 mixture of
Heron FW/DSSW at 114°C (wellhead temperature). Note:
although the maximum scaling potential arises at downhole
temperature, CI was to be added at the wellhead. The dynamic
carbonate scale inhibition efficiencies were then compared using
previously described techniques.8 The experimental conditions
are summarised as follows:
Pressure: 2,000 psi
Temperature: 114°C (Maximum wellhead temperature),
Coil dimensions: ID => 0.85 mm, L => 1000 mm
Brine mixture 50:50 blend of FW and DSSW
[bicarb] = 500 ppm in mixed brine.
Pass/Fail 1 psi Differential Pressure increase in <30 min
Flow rates: 10 ml/min
pH Adjustment: pH ~ 7.0 at room temperature
In a related manner to that described in the static performance
tests, tests were also conducted in the following manner in order
to account for any partitioning effects:
• Standard aqueous performance tests
• Pre-partitioning with Crude Oil; In these tests the chemical
solutions diluted in brine CPF2/2 were mixed with 20% Machar
crude oil over 16 hours, following which the aqueous phase was
separated prior to use in the performance tests.
Alternative SI/CI combinations. Initial results indicated a
significant performance compatibility issue for SI#1 when tested
in the presence of CI#1 at typical field application
concentrations. Additional tests were therefore initiated in order
to examine:
• Alternative SI / CI combinations, including SI#2 and CI#2
and,
• A range of SI:CI ratios in order to examine potential
"operating windows"
BaSO4; CPF 2 conditions. Additional static BaSO4
performance tests were conducted under CPF2 conditions as
described above. The following mixtures of SI and CI were
examined:
SI#1 @ 10 - 200 ppm : CI#1 @ 10 - 200 ppm
SI#1 @ 10 - 200 ppm : CI#2 @ 10 - 200 ppm
SI#2 @ 10 - 200 ppm : CI#1 @ 10 - 200 ppm
SI#2 @ 10 - 200 ppm : CI#2 @ 10 - 200 ppm
Carbonate Scale - 50:50 Heron FW/DSSW. Additional
carbonate performance tests were then conducted for the worst
case 50:50 Heron FW/DSSW to compare the impact of CI#2 on
the performance of SI#1 and SI#2. Dynamic tests were
conducted in a similar manner to that described above, with the
exception that the concentration of CI#2 was increased to 500
ppm which represents a likely maximum concentration of CI#2
under Heron conditions. In addition, a more realistic worst-case
field pH of 6.7 was used, vs. ~ pH 7.0 used in initial tests.
Experimental Part B: Corrosion Inhibitor Performance
Compatibility Studies
In this study CI performance compatibility studies were
undertaken simultaneously under both Machar flowline
conditions and also under the more severe Heron conditions.
6 G.M. GRAHAM, D.M.FRIGO, I.R. MCCRACKEN, G.C. GRAHAM, W.J. DAVIDSON, S. KAPUSTA, P. SHONE
Machar Conditions. The Machar performance tests examined
corrosion inhibition using previously described "bubble test LPR
probes" and "rotating cylinder electrode, RCE" techniques.12
The majority of the results presented in this paper relate to
bubble test experiments conducted under the following Machar
conditions: T = 75°C, CO2 = 1 bar, pH = 5.4, Machar Brine /
Machar Crude ratios 100:0, 80:20, 50:50 and 20:80. In a similar
manner to that described for the SI studies, the following
mixtures were examined:
(i) Blank (No Inhibitor / No additives)
(ii) CI #1 @ 10 ppm (Dose level under Machar Conditions)
(iii) CI #1 + THI (THI=Threshold Hydrate Inhibitor,
10,000ppm)
(iv) CI #1 + SI #1 (SI=Scale Inhibitor, 50ppm)
(v) CI #1 + WI (WI=Wax Inhibitor, 200ppm)
(vi) CI #1 + DM (DM=Demulsifier, 50ppm)
(ix) CI #1 + THI + SI#1 + WI (MIX 3)
(x) CI #1 + THI + SI#2 + WI + DM (MIX 4)
Note: OS (Oxygen Scavenger) and BIOC (Biocide) were only to
be applied into the Heron wash water line and would therefore
not be expected to be present in the Machar flow lines. OS and
BIOC were included in tests conducted under Heron corrosion
conditions.
Alternative SI/CI Combinations. In a similar manner to that
described for the SI performance studies, initial results indicated
a significant performance incompatibility issue for CI#1 when
tested in the presence of SI#1 at typical field application
concentrations. Additional tests were therefore initiated in order
to examine:
• Alternative SI / CI combinations, including SI#2 and CI#2
and,
• A range of SI:CI ratios in order to examine potential
"operating windows"
Heron Specific Corrosion. For the Heron conditions, a larger
suite of CI performance techniques were used to examine
corrosion rates of the high nickel welds under field conditions.
Tests included high temperature Bubble tests (114°C), RCE and
high pressure flow loop tests. General results from the Heron
specific corrosion inhibitor tests are summarised in the results
section. Under these more severe corrosion conditions, CI#1
was examined at 500 ppm and CI#2 was examined at 300 ppm.
Additionally and in a similar manner to that described for the
Machar conditions, only additives expected to be present in the
Heron flowlines were examined. These included SI, BIOC, WI
and MeOH.
SPE 68330
Experimental Part C: Heron Specific SI Performance
Compatibility Tests
Due to the different composition in the Heron produced brine,
additional performance tests were required in order to ensure that
sulphate scale control was maintained. Under Heron sulphate
scaling conditions, were much higher ratios of CI:SI may be
expected.* In addition and for operational reasons, the impact of
the CI on the performance of the SI at increased sulphate levels
in the wash water was also examined.
*Note: In CPF2 brine above, a small reduction in
performance was recorded for both SI#1 and SI#2 in the
presence of high relative amounts of CI#2. However and as
discussed this was relatively insignificant when compared with
the impact of CI#1.
Heron Specific BaSO4: Static barium sulphate inhibition
performance tests were conducted under the following test
conditions.
75:25 Heron FW: DSSW ([SO4] = 120 ppm), pH=5.4, T=50°C
50:50 Heron FW:RSSW* ([SO4] = 1000 ppm), pH=5.4, T=95°C
75:25 Heron FW:SW ([SO4] = 2960 ppm), pH=5.4, T=95°C
* RSSW = Reduced Sulphate SeaWater
Brine compositions examined in these tests are shown in Table
1. These brine compositions represent normal operational
sulphate scaling conditions (75:25 Heron FW:DSSW). The
other brine systems examine a more severe sulphate-scaling
regime which may occur if operational issues required the use of
partially de-sulphated seawater or normal seawater in the wash
water injection lines. In these tests both SI#1 (PVS) and SI#2
(VS-Co) were examined. Only results relating to SI#2 are
presented in this paper.
Results Part A: Scale Inhibitor Performance
Compatibility Issues
Static BaSO4 Performance Tests, CPF 2 Brine. Figures 1 - 3
present the static barium sulphate inhibition efficiency test
results recorded for the SI#1 (first choice SI, PVS) in the
presence of the other chemical additives. From these results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
• The presence of the CI#1, (first choice CI) had a significant
impact on the performance of the SI#1 (first choice SI, PVS)
when tested under the most severe expected BaSO4 scaling
conditions (CPF 2 brine).
• The wax inhibitor (WI) and the demulsifier (DM) also had an
impact on the performance of SI#1, but this was less significant
than obtained with CI#1. (Note: although not described in this
paper, further optimisation tests with alternative products were
undertaken prior to first field application).
• The impact of the CI was evident in Mix 2, but not in Mix 1,
both of which contained the same concentration of CI# 1
 THE INFLUENCE OF CORROSION INHIBITOR/SCALE INHIBITOR INTERFERENCE ON THE
SPE 68330 SELECTION OF CHEMICAL TREATMENTS
Mix 1 vs. Mix 2: The presence of the biocide and oxygen
scavenger in Mix 1 appeared to counteract the negative impact
of CI#1 on the performance of SI#1. However corrosion
inhibition tests under Heron specific conditions indicated that
almost complete loss of corrosion control was recorded in the
presence of the biocide. In addition, ongoing physical
compatibility tests recorded the formation of a white precipitate
in aqueous solutions of Biocide / CI#1. Thus, when testing in
Mix 1 above, CI#1 had effectively been removed from solution
and was therefore no longer able to impact on the performance
of the SI. Although not examined, it is known that amines
(present in the CIs) can react with aldehydes (the main
component of the biocide) to produce immines which are
capable of polymerisation and precipitation.
The impact of the biocide on the CI was not thought to be a
significant factor since the biocide would only be used in
batched treatments during which time CI injection could be
stopped or adjusted. In addition, dilution of the Biocide / CI
solutions resulted in re-dissolution of the precipitate.
Alternative SI's and CI's and Ratio Effects; CPF2 Brine
Conditions. Figure 4 presents the impact on performance of
both SI#1 and SI#2 when tested in the presence of CI#1 and
CI#2. It is evident from this figure that CI#2 is much more
compatible with both SI's than CI#1. Whereas the addition of
200 ppm CI#1 results in a significant reduction in performance
for both SI's, especially SI#1, only a small effect is recorded
following the addition of CI#2.
Figures 5 and 6 then examine the impact of different
concentration ratios of SI:CI for SI# and SI#2 respectively. This
shows that significant increases in the SI concentration would be
required in the presence of CI#1 to maintain scale control.
Furthermore, the ratio of SI:CI has an important effect in that as
the relative amount of CI present in the mixture increases, the
level of performance reduction also increases. Thus, at low
concentrations of SI#2 (50 ppm), increasing the concentration of
CI#2 from 100 ppm to 200 ppm results in a reduction in
performance. The main indication from this and other related
tests is that operational controls on the ratio of SI:CI would be
required. In addition, it indicates that additional tests would be
required for the Heron brine system, in which the CI
concentration may be expected to be > 200 ppm.
Dynamic Carbonate Performance; 50:50 Heron FW/DSSW.
Table 4 presents the recorded performance against carbonate
scale for the SI#1 (first choice SI, PVS) when tested in the
presence of the various additives outlined above. In a similar
manner to that recorded for the barium sulphate performance
tests, CI#1 had a significant impact on the ability of SI#1 to
control carbonate scale. The remaining additives did not reduce
the performance of SI#1.
7
Alternative SI / CI: The results from additional tests conducted
with SI#1 and SI#2 in the presence of CI#2 are also included in
Table 4. These additional tests indicate that no reductions in
scale inhibition performance would be expected for either SI#1
or SI#2 following addition of CI#1, at concentrations of 200
ppm (as tested above) and also at 500 ppm (overdose level).
Note: the lower MIC's recorded in these additional tests relate to
a lower test pH and therefore lower supersaturation, than that
used in the original set of dynamic performance tests.
In summary, from the results presented above, significant
performance incompatibility issues were evident for SI#1 in the
presence of CI#1. However, no significant performance
incompatibility issues were recorded for either SI#1 or SI#2 in
the presence of CI#2.
Results Part B: Corrosion Inhibitor Performance
Compatibility Issues
Machar Conditions. Table 5 presents the impact of treatment
chemicals, including SI#1, on the performance of CI#1. In an
analogous manner to that described above for the SI performance
compatibility tests, SI#1 has a significant impact on the
performance of CI#1. Table 6 shows that when testing CI#1 at
10ppm, dropping the concentration of SI#1 from 50 ppm to 2.5
ppm still imparted a significant reduction in corrosion control.
In addition, in order to regain corrosion control in the presence
of 25 ppm SI#1, the concentration of CI#1 had to be increased
from 10 ppm to 100 ppm.
It is therefore evident that under Machar test conditions,
severe performance compatibility issues exist between CI#1 and
SI#1 such that the presence of the SI at close to field application
concentrations leads to a ten-fold increase in the level of
corrosion inhibitor required.
Furthermore, additional tests not reported here, demonstrated
that the impact on corrosion control did not relate to the timing
of the SI application. Addition of SI#1 (@50 ppm) into the cell
following 0, 2, 5 , 8 and 24 hours of corrosion protection (@ 10
ppm CI#1) resulted in a gradual increase in corrosion rate from <
2 mpy to 30 mpy over 5 - 10 hours.
Alternative CI and SI: Table 7 presents the impact of SI#2 on
the performance of CI#1 and CI#2 with both chemical species
being tested at concentrations between 10 and 100 ppm.
Comparison of Table 7 with Table 6 indicates that SI#2 reduces
the performance of CI#1 to a lesser extent than it does CI#2.
However, and more importantly, when examining the
performance of CI#2 almost no impact on corrosion performance
was recorded.
Heron Corrosion Control. The major concerns for Corrosion
control related to the nature of the Nickel weld, and the
persistency of the corrosion inhibitor film when exposed to high
shear stresses Initial screening studies indicated that an initial
8 G.M. GRAHAM, D.M.FRIGO, I.R. MCCRACKEN, G.C. GRAHAM, W.J. DAVIDSON, S. KAPUSTA, P. SHONE
dose rate of 500 ppm CI#1 would be required compared with an
initial dose rate of 300ppm for CI#2 would be required.
Although CI#2 had initially been selected as first choice for
Heron specific conditions, CI#1 had initially been selected as
first choice for field wide application. Following the
performance incompatibilities recorded for CI#1 when tested
under Machar conditions in the presence of both SI#1 and SI#2,
and the lower concentration of CI#2 required (c.f. ratio effects)
CI#2 was re-selected as first choice SI for Heron conditions.
Performance Compatibilities. When examining performance
compatibility in the Heron conditions, the major performance
compatibility arose when either CI was tested in the presence of
the biocide. However, and as discussed above, this related to a
physical incompatibility resulting in precipitation of the CI.
When examining the impact of SI (SI#1 and SI#2) at
concentrations up to 200 ppm, no significant reduction in
performance of either CI#1 or CI#2 was recorded. However, if
the SI concentration, is increased further such that the [SI] = [CI]
or [SI] > [CI] reduction in corrosion inhibitor performance
were recorded.
Results Part C: Heron Specific Performance
Compatibility Issues
Heron FW:DSSW, ([SO4] = 120 ppm). Figure 7 presents the
impact of 500 ppm CI#1on the performance of SI#2 (VS-Co) in
mixtures of Heron FW / DSSW. Heron FW:DSSW represents
the likely worst case Heron field barium sulphate scaling regime
under normal operating conditions. Results showed that a
reduction performance occurred but that this could be reversed
by increasing the concentration of SI#2 from 2 ppm to 10 ppm.
Although this initially appears to be a significant increase in [SI]
it must be remembered that the minimum field dose for
carbonate scale under Heron conditions was 25 ppm, which is
still significantly higher than that required for barium sulphate
control. Although not presented in this paper a similar reduction
in the performance of SI#1 was also recorded.
Heron FW:RSSW, ([SO4] = 1,000 ppm. A similar result is
recorded for the more severe scaling 50:50 Heron FW/RSSW as
shown in Figure 8. This shows that with wash water sulphate
concentrations up to 1,000 ppm, a significant reduction in
barium sulphate scale control was recorded at long residence
times in the presence of 500 ppm CI#2. However, effective
barium sulphate scale control was achieved over an 8-hour test
period by increasing the SI concentration from 50ppm to 100
ppm. This indicated that should partial loss of sulphate removal
result in occasional increases in sulphate concentrations, the SI
could be increased within pre-set limits (max. 200 ppm SI)
which would not be expected to impact on the performance of
the CI.
SPE 68330
Heron FW:SW, ([SO4] = 2,960 ppm. For this very severe case,
representing potential injection of normal seawater into the wash
water line, barium sulphate scale control was achieved at 200
ppm SI#2 in the absence of CI#2. However addition of CI#2 at
500 ppm resulted in very poor scale control at both 200 ppm and
300 ppm SI#1. Higher concentrations of SI#1 were not
examined due to potential reductions in performance of the CI
(pre-set limit for SI = 200 ppm). As for the Heron FW:DSSW
brine system above, similar results were obtained for SI#1. The
main impact of these tests was that if operational factors led to
the potential injection of non de-sulphated sea water into the
Heron wash water line then scale and corrosion control could not
be guaranteed.
Summary and Conclusions
Due to the diverse nature of the 8 fields within the ETAP
development, in particular, the large range of reservoir
conditions and produced fluids, a variety of chemical challenges
were faced requiring the need for an armoury of different
production chemicals. Furthermore, chemical storage tank space
on the CPF was limited, allowing only two scale inhibitor and
two corrosion inhibitor tanks for project wide application.
However, the stretch target was to select a single inhibitor of
each type for deployment across the entire development. The
selected chemicals also had to be compatible with the plethora of
other production chemicals required to ensure continuous,
safe operation. .
Chemical Selection. Following extensive selection studies over
the wide range of conditions expected across the field, two scale
inhibitors (SI#1 and SI#2) were selected for field-wide
application. This included application in:
• very harsh (HP/HT/HS) Heron downhole conditions;
• Mungo / Machar conditions at temperatures ranging from
reservoir temperature (Machar T = 120 °C) to sea bed
temperature at around 4 °C;
• a very severe barium-sulphate scaling tendency which may
occur at the CPF.
In a similar manner, two 2 CI's (CI#1 and CI#2) were initially
selected on their performance in the absence of other chemicals.
Performance Compatibility Studies.
SI#1 & CI#1: Significant performance reductions in both scale
and corrosion inhibition were recorded between the first–choices
for scale inhibitor (SI#1) and corrosion inhibitor (CI#1). This
was evident from:
• sulphate scale performance tests (CPF2 conditions);
• carbonate scale performance tests (Heron Conditions);
• corrosion inhibitor performance tests under
Machar conditions.
 THE INFLUENCE OF CORROSION INHIBITOR/SCALE INHIBITOR INTERFERENCE ON THE
SPE 68330 SELECTION OF CHEMICAL TREATMENTS
No significant reduction in performance of the CI was recorded
under Heron test conditions as a result of the significantly higher
ratio of CI:SI present.
CI#2:
• CI#2 had only a marginal impact on the performance of SI#1
and SI#2 against sulphate scale under CPF2 conditions.
• No reduction in carbonate scale control was recorded for
either SI#1 or SI#2 under Heron test conditions following
addition of even an overdose (up to 500 ppm) of CI#2.
SI#2:
• When tested under Marnock test conditions, SI#2 had a less
significant impact on the performance of CI#1 than SI#1when
tested at concentrations up to 100 ppm SI.
• However, no reduction in corrosion performance was recorded
for CI#2 in the presence of SI#2.
Heron Specific Studies, Impact of CI#2 on SI performance
• Under Heron sulphate scaling conditions CI#2 at 500 ppm
reduced the performance of SI#1 and SI#2. However, the net
effect was to require a marginal increase in the MIC for sulphate
scale formation under normal scaling conditions (Heron FW:
DSSW)
• At elevated sulphate concentrations, (50:50 Heron FW:SW)
significant reduction in the performances of SI#1 and SI#2 were
recorded in the presence of 500 ppm CI#2 which would
necessitate significant increases in SI concentration above pre-
determined limits to maintain scale control. In the absence of
CI#2, 200 ppm SI (SI#2 or SI#1) provided effective barium
sulphate scale control in this very severe scaling brine system,
however in the presence of CI#2, very poor performance was
recorded at 300 ppm SI#2.
• At such high proportions of SI:CI a reduction in the
effectiveness of CI#2 would be expected.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Production Chemistry
Department, Shell UK. Exploration and Production, and BP
Production Chemistry for funding this study and permission to
present. In addition, Bill Hedges of BP is acknowledged for his
work on the Machar/Mungo corrosion studies. The staff of the
OSRG at Heriot-Watt University are also thanked for carrying out
the laboratory based scale inhibitor screening tests.
9
References
1. Smith, L.: “ETAP, a Marginal Improvement”, article in Shield -
the International Magazine of the BP group, Ed. C. Bebbington,
London UK, No.1, 1996, p. 24.
2. Young, T. (Edit).: “ETAP: a model for the Future”, article in SPE
Review - Magazine of the London and Aberdeen Sections of the
SPE, McQuillan Young Communications, London U.K., Issue 78,
March 1996, p. 1.
3. Meric, C. and Sanchez, A.: "Compatibility of Corrosion and Scale
Inhibitors in Simulated Petroleum production Sweet Corrosion
System", Rev. Tec. Intevep 5 (2), pp189-195, July 1985.
4. Deepstart Project
5. Graham G. M., Sorbie, K.S., Boak, L.S., Taylor, K. and
Blilie, L.: "Development and application of Accurate
Detection and Assay Techniques for Oilfield Scale
Inhibitors in Produced Water Samples", SPE 28997,
presented at the SPE Int. Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry,
held in San Antonio, TX. 14-17 February, 1995.
6. Jasinski, R., Sablerolle, W. and Amory, M.: “ETAP: Scale
prediction and Control for the Heron Cluster”, SPE 38767,
presented at the 1997 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, held in San Antonio, TX, 5th - 8th October,
1997.
7. Jasinski, R.: “The Modelling and Prediction of Halite Scale”,
Presented at the conference Advances in Solving Oilfield Scaling
Problems, Organised by IBC Ltd, Airport Skean Dhu Hotel, Dyce,
Aberdeen, January 1997.
8. Graham, G.M., Dyer, S.J., Sorbie, K.S, Sablerolle, W. and
Shone . P.: “Scale Inhibitor Selection for Continuous and
Downhole Squeeze Application in HP/HT Conditions”, SPE
49197, prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans,
Louisiana, 27–30 September 1998.
9. Graham, G.M., Jordan M.M. and Sorbie, K.S.: “How Scale
Inhibitors Work and How this Affects Test Methodology",
presented at the conference Solving Oilfield Scaling, organised by
IBC Technical Services Ltd., Aberdeen, 22-23rd Jan. 1997
10. Graham, G.M., Boak, L.S. and Sorbie K.S.: "The Influence of
Formation Calcium on the Effectiveness of Generically Different
Barium Sulphate Oilfield Scale Inhibitors" SPE 37273 accepted
for presentation at the SPE Oilfield Chemistry Sym., held in
Houston, 18-21 Feb. 1997.
11. Boak, L. S., Graham, G.M., and Sorbie, K.S.: “The Influence of
Divalent Cations on the Performance of BaSO4 Scale Inhibitors
Species” SPE 50771, to be presented at the Oilfield Chemistry
Sym. to be held in Houston, 16 - 19 Feb. 1999.
12. BP Production Chemistry.: "Recommended Test Procedures
Manual", BP Sunbury, January 1995.
10 G.M. GRAHAM, D.M.FRIGO, I.R. MCCRACKEN, G.C. GRAHAM, W.J. DAVIDSON, S. KAPUSTA, P. SHONE SPE 68330

Table 1 Comparison of different brine chemistries encountered for

different fields within the ETAP development

Ion H eron FW M achar FW M ungo FW C PF2 SW R SSW * D SSW

Sodium 75000 45000 23942 42712 10890 10890 10500
Calcium 42000 15000 3914 25168 428 428 400
Potassium 11400 600 1064 3522 460 460 380
M agnesium 1930 500 403 2835 1368 1368 1350
Barium 1360 50 120 534 0 0 0
Strontium 1140 400 489 511 0 0 0
Sulphate 0 0 0 946 2960 1000 120
Bicarbonate 500 500 500 295 124 124 124
pH 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
ReservoirT 175C 120C 107C

*RSSW used for static performance tests in Experimental Part 3 only (Heron Specific Tests)

Table 2 Inhibition Efficiency recorded for CI#1 and CI#2 under

Machar (Mungo) corrosion conditions (Mixtures of Machar brine and Machar Crude)
Test conditions: Standard "Bubble" tests, T = 75C, 1 bar CO2

Fluid ratio Baseline Rate CI#1 CI#2

brine : oil (mpy) (mpy) (mpy)
100:0 approx. 120 16 2
80:20 approx. 120 15 2
50:50 approx. 120 2 2
20:80 approx. 120 1 1

Table 3 Brine chemistries used in this study to simulate CPF2 brine in inhibition efficiency tests.
Mixing brines CPF2/1 and CPF2/2 in the ratio 75:25CPF2/1:CPF2/2 gives CPF2.

Barium Sulphate Efficiency Tests

Ion C PF2 C PF2/1 C PF2/2
Sodium 42712 42712 42712
Calcium 25168 33557 0
Potassium 3522 4696 0
M agnesium 2835 3780 0
Barium 534 712 0
Strontium 511 681 0
Sulphate 946 0 3784
Bicarbonate 295 0 0
pH 5.4 5.4 5.4
 THE INFLUENCE OF CORROSION INHIBITOR/SCALE INHIBITOR INTERFERENCE ON THE
SPE 68330 SELECTION OF CHEMICAL TREATMENTS 11

Table 4 Carbonate scale MIC values determined for SI#1 in presence of

additives when tested under Heron Wellhead conditions

Part A: Initial dynamic carbonate performance tests, pH = 7.0

Solution Standard Aqueous conditions Pre-Partitioned with crude oil
SI#1 25 - 50 ppm 25 - 50 ppm
SI#1 + THI 100 ppm 200 ppm
SI#1 + CI#1 25 - 50 ppm 25 - 50 ppm
SI#1 + WI 25 - 50 ppm 25 - 50 ppm
SI#1 + DM 25 - 50 ppm 25 - 50 ppm
SI#1+BIOC 25 - 50 ppm 25 - 50 ppm
SI#1 + OS 25 - 50 ppm 25 - 50 ppm

Part C: Heron specific dynamic carbonate performance tests, pH = 6.7

Solution Standard Aqueous conditions
SI#1 25 - 50 ppm
SI#1 + CI#2 (250 ppm) 25 - 50 ppm
SI#1 + CI#2 (500 ppm) 25 - 50 ppm
SI#2 25 - 50 ppm
SI#2 + CI#2 (250 ppm) 25 - 50 ppm
SI#2 + CI#2 (500 ppm) 25 - 50 ppm

Table 5 Performance Compatibility Issues recorded for CI#1

Machar (Mungo) corrosion conditions (50:50 Mixture of Machar brine and Machar Crude)
Test conditions: Standard "Bubble" tests, T = 75C, 1 bar CO2
CR after 16 hours

Additives Corrosion Rate

(mpy) @ 16 hours
baseline approx. 120
CI (10 ppm) 1
CI + THI 1
CI + WI#1 1
CI + WI#2 1
CI + DM#1 5
CI + DM#2 2
CI + SI#1 30

Table 6 Performance Compatibility Issues recorded for CI#1

ratios of CI#1 : SI#1
Machar (Mungo) corrosion conditions (50:50 Mixture of Machar brine and Machar Crude)
Test conditions: Standard "Bubble" tests, T = 75C, 1 bar CO2
CR after 16 hours

[CI#1], ppm [SI#1], ppm Corrosion Rate

(mpy) @ 16 hours
0 ppm 0 ppm approx. 120
10 ppm 50 ppm 30 - 50
10 ppm 25 ppm 31
10 ppm 10 ppm 30
10 ppm 2.5 ppm 36
50 ppm 25 ppm 9
100 ppm 25 ppm 1
12 G.M. GRAHAM, D.M.FRIGO, I.R. MCCRACKEN, G.C. GRAHAM, W.J. DAVIDSON, S. KAPUSTA, P. SHONE SPE 68330

Table 7 Performance Compatibility Issues recorded for CI#1 and CI#2

Examination of Impact of ratio of CI : SI (SI#2)
Machar (Mungo) corrosion conditions (50:50 Mixture of Machar brine and Macha
Test conditions: Standard "Bubble" tests, T = 75C, 1 bar CO2
CR after 16 hours

Corrosion Rate, (mpy) @ 16 hours

[CI], ppm [SI#2] = 10 ppm [SI#2] = 30 ppm [SI#2] = 50 ppm [SI#2] = 100 ppm
CI#1; 10 ppm 5 15 16 17
CI#1; 30 ppm 3 5 6 9
CI#1; 50 ppm 1 2 1 2
CI#1; 100 ppm 0 1 1 2

CI#2; 10 ppm 2 2 3 2
CI#2; 30 ppm 4 3 3 2
CI#2; 50 ppm 2 1 2 2
CI#2; 100 ppm 1 1 1 1

Figure 1: Static Barium Sulphate Efficiency Results recorded in CPF2 brine system.
o
T = 50 C, pH = 5.4, Standard Aqueous Prodcure

100

Different test batches

90

80

70
BaSO4 Efficiency %

60

Series1
50
Series2

40

30

20

10

0
SI SI + SI + CI SI + SI + Mix 2 Mix 1 SI SI + SI +
THI WI DM ABS BIOC
 THE INFLUENCE OF CORROSION INHIBITOR/SCALE INHIBITOR INTERFERENCE ON THE
SPE 68330 SELECTION OF CHEMICAL TREATMENTS 13

Figure 2: Static Barium Sulphate Efficiency Results recorded in CPF2 brine system.
o
T = 50 C, pH = 5.4. Brines pre-partitioned with Machar Crude

100

Different test batches

90

80

70
BaSO4 efficiciency, %

60

Series1
50
Series2

40

30

20

10

0
SI SI + SI + CI SI + SI + Mix 2 Mix 1 SI SI + SI +
THI WI DM ABS BIOC

Figure 3: Static Barium Sulphate Efficiency Results recorded in CPF2 brine system.
o
T = 50 C, pH = 5.4. Test conducted with 20% Machar Crude

100

Different test batches

90

80

70
BaSO4 Efficiency, %

60

Series1
50
Series2

40

30

20

10

0
SI SI + SI + CI SI + SI + Mix 2 Mix 1 SI SI + SI +
THI WI DM ABS BIOC
14 G.M. GRAHAM, D.M.FRIGO, I.R. MCCRACKEN, G.C. GRAHAM, W.J. DAVIDSON, S. KAPUSTA, P. SHONE SPE 68330

Figure 4: Static Barium Sulphate Efficiency Results recorded in CPF2 brine system.
o
T = 50 C, pH = 5.4. Examination of Alternative SI and CI. Normal "aqueous" procedure.

80

70

60
BaSO4 Efficiency, %

50

2 hours
40
22 hours

30

20

10

0
50 ppm 50ppm 50ppm 100ppm 100ppm 100ppm
SI#1 SI#1+ SI#1+ SI#2 SI#2+ SI#2+
200ppm 200ppm 200ppm 200ppm
CI#1 CI#2 CI#1 CI#2

Figure 5: Static Barium Sulphate Efficiency Results recorded in C PF2 brine system.
o
T = 50 C , pH = 5.4. Examination of ratios SI#1 : C I#1

100

90

80

70
BaSO4 Efficie cie ncy (% )

60

2 h o u rs
50
22 h o u rs

40

30

20

10

0
50 p p m 50pp m 50pp m 50pp m 100p p m 100p p m 100p p m SI
SI#+ 1M+L SI
SI#+ 1M+L SI
SI#+1M+ L
SI# 1 SI# 1+ SI# 1+ SI# 1+ SI# 1 SI# 1+ SI# 1+ 2747
CI#1 2747
CI#1 2747
CI#1
10pp m 100pp m 200pp m 100p p m 200p p m
CI#1 CI#1 CI#1 CI#1 CI#1
 THE INFLUENCE OF CORROSION INHIBITOR/SCALE INHIBITOR INTERFERENCE ON THE
SPE 68330 SELECTION OF CHEMICAL TREATMENTS 15

Figure 6: Static Barium Sulphate Efficiency Results recorded in CPF2 brine system.
o
T = 50 C, pH = 5.4. Examination of ratios SI#2 : CI#1 (+ CI#2)

80

70

60
BaSO4 efficiency, %

50

2 hours
40
22 hours

30

20

10

0
SI2 50ppm 50ppm 50ppm 50ppm 100ppm 100ppm 100ppm 100ppm 100ppm 50ppm 50ppm 50ppm 50ppm
SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2 SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2+ SI#2+
10ppm 50ppm 100ppm 200ppm 10ppm 100ppm 200ppm 200ppm 10ppm 50ppm 100ppm 200ppm
CI#1 CI#1 CI#1 CI#1 CI#1 CI#1 CI#1 CI#2 CI#2 CI#2 CI#2 CI#2

Figure 7: BaSO 4 Inhibition Efficiency ofSI#2 (VS-Co)w ith 500 ppm CI#2
Conditions: 75% D SSW :25% H eron FW ,pH 5.4,50°C

100

90
2hr
22hr
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2ppm SI#2 2ppm SI#2 + 500ppm 10ppm SI#2 10ppm SI#2 + 500ppm
CI#2 CI#2
16 G.M. GRAHAM, D.M.FRIGO, I.R. MCCRACKEN, G.C. GRAHAM, W.J. DAVIDSON, S. KAPUSTA, P. SHONE SPE 68330

Figure 8: BaSO 4 Inhibition Efficiency ofSI#2 (VS-Co)w ith 500 ppm CI#2
Conditions: 50% RSSW ([SO 4]= 1,000 ppm ):50% H eron FW ,pH 5.4,95°C

100

2hr
90
8hr
80 22hr

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
50ppm SI#2 50ppm SI#2 100ppm SI#2 100ppm SI#2 200ppm SI#2 200ppm SI#2
+ 500ppm + 500ppm + 500ppm
CI#2 CI#2 CI#2

Figure 9: BaSO 4 Inhibition Efficiency ofSI#2 (VS-Co)w ith 500 ppm CI#2
Conditions: 50% SW :25% H eron FW ,pH 5.4,95°C
100

90

80

70
2hr
60 8hr
22hr
50

40

30

20

10

0
100ppm SI#2 100ppm SI#2 200ppm SI#2 200ppm SI#2 300ppm SI#2 300ppm SI#2
+ 500ppm + 500ppm + 500ppm
CI#2 CI#2 CI#2