Evaluating the Damage Caused by
Calcium Sulfate Scale Precipitation During
Low- and High-Salinity-Water Injection
M.A. Mahmoud*, SPE, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals
Summary
Scale deposition is a serious oilfield problem, when two incompati-
ble waters interact chemically and precipitate minerals. Typical
examples are seawater with a high concentration of sulfate ions
and formation water with high concentrations of calcium, barium,
and strontium ions. Mixing these waters may cause precipitation
of calcium, barium, and/or strontium sulfate. The removal of the
entire sulfate content from seawater might be a costly process and
requires highly advanced techniques (nanofiltration).
This study was conducted to investigate the damage caused by
deposition of calcium sulfate precipitation and to describe the dam-
age by use of the material-balance method, and then a new tech-
nique is proposed to prevent the damage caused by calcium sulfate
scale. Coreflooding experiments were performed to assess the dam-
age caused by calcium sulfate and a computed-tomography (CT)
scan was used to locate the damage inside the core. Chelating
agents, such as hydroxyl ethylene diamine triacetic acid (HEDTA),
ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA), and hydroxy ethyl im-
ino diacetic acid (HEIDA), were used to prevent scale deposition
in the Berea sandstone cores. The pressure drop across the core
caused by scale precipitation will be predicted analytically.
The results of the experimental data showed reduction of per-
meability by 20% from its initial value after seawater injection,
caused by calcium sulfate precipitation. The results of the new an-
alytical model showed that in approximately 1 month, the injec-
tion will stop or the injection pressure will exceed the fracture
pressure of the formation. High-salinity-water injection caused
severe formation damage, and the injectivity declined faster com-
pared with the low-salinity-water injection. The material-balance
calculations showed a good match between the experimental,
field, and predicted data. The developed model of the pressure
drop caused by calcium sulfate precipitation was used to predict
the pressure drop across the core, and its result was in a good
match with the experimental results. The new method was effec-
tive in preventing and removing sulfate precipitation.
Introduction
Scale deposition can be considered a serious oilfield problem that
harms water-injection systems, primarily when two incompatible
waters (seawater and formation brines) are involved. Two waters
are incompatible if they interact chemically and precipitate miner-
als when mixed. Typical examples are seawater, with a high con-
centration of sulfate ions (at least 4,000 ppm), and formation
waters, with high concentrations of calcium, barium, and stron-
tium ions (could be greater than 30,000 ppm). Mixing these
waters may cause precipitation of calcium sulfate, barium sulfate,
and/or strontium sulfate. Scale formation in surface and subsur-
face oil- and gas-production equipment has been considered to be
a major operational problem. It also has been considered a major
cause of formation damage in both injection and production wells.
Scale may deposit at the top of the well. This tubing should be
*Also Adjunct Faculty Member with Suez University, Egypt.
Copyright V
C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 164634) was accepted for presentation at the North Africa Technical
Conference & Exhibition, Cairo, 15–17 April 2013, and revised for publication. Original
manuscript received for review 30 January 2013. Revised manuscript received for review 16
March 2014. Paper peer approved 4 April 2014.
May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
replaced if the scale is not removed, and the weight of the tubing
with the precipitated scales requires a high operational cost if con-
ventional workover rigs cannot remove this heavyweight tubing
from the well (Bayona 1993). Scale can occur downstream at any
point in the production system at which supersaturation is gener-
ated. Supersaturation can be generated in a single water source by
changing the pressure and temperature conditions or by mixing
two incompatible waters. Changes in temperature, pressure, pH,
and CO2/H2S partial pressure may also contribute to scale
formation and deposition (Mackay et al. 2003; Moghadasi et al.
2003a, b).
Mixing two incompatible waters (one containing an excess of
sulfate ions and the other containing an excess of barium, cal-
cium, or strontium ions) is the only, or at least the most common,
origin of BaSO4 precipitations. After mixing the two waters, the
solubility product of BaSO4 (Ksp) is exceeded and the precipita-
tion of BaSO4 crystals is encountered (Vetter 1975).
There is no effective single-stage treatment that will both
remove and inhibit scale precipitation in oil and gas reservoirs dur-
ing the process of water injection in enhanced-oil-recovery or pres-
sure-maintenance processes. In many cases, scale control must
begin with a program of inhibition because some inorganic scales
are difficult to remove by chemical treatment once they have
formed. These scales, usually containing calcium, barium, or stron-
tium, can be prevented from forming by proper use of scale inhibi-
tors. Fortunately, most scales occurring in producing formations
are calcium sulfate or calcium carbonate. These deposits normally
can be removed chemically. Scale composition frequently changes
during the production history of the well, causing many scales ini-
tially subject to removal treatments to become difficult to be
removed by subsequent chemical treatment. There are many chem-
icals that will prevent scale deposition; however, most will not
remain in the formation long enough to make them economically
feasible as inhibitors. To improve the economics of inhibitor
squeeze treatments, a thorough laboratory investigation was under-
taken to select the best scale inhibitors and determine what parame-
ters would be necessary to improve their effectiveness. This
investigation was followed by a field-development program in
which removal chemicals, scale inhibitors, and treating techniques
were evaluated on a cost-to-performance basis (Bezemer and
Bauer 1969).
Tomson et al. (1990) evaluated different scale inhibitors using
their developed apparatus. They tested scale inhibitors based on
phosphates and copolymers to prevent the precipitation of carbon-
ate and sulfate scales. They found the optimal inhibitor concentra-
tion to be 0.1 to 8 mg/L. Fan et al. (2012) used a modified high-
temperature apparatus on the basis of the dynamic tube-blocking
method and lattice-ion monitoring to study the inhibition effi-
ciency of various inhibitors at high temperature. The modified
high-temperature apparatus affords a reliable and efficient method
for performing mineral-scale-inhibitor screening under high-tem-
perature conditions. After conducting the barite-nucleation and in-
hibition experiments and evaluating nine scale inhibitors, it was
found that barite scale can be predicted early if the lattice ion con-
centration and pressure buildup were measured. Barite scale can
be inhibited at a moderate temperature (70 C), and the process of
inhibition is not effective at high temperatures (175 to 200 C).
Study results of Fan et al. (2012) can be used as guidelines in
selecting inhibitors for oilfield application in high-pressure/high-
141
 0.020
0.016
Solubility, mole/kg
CaSO4·2H2O
0.012
0.008
0.004
CaSO4
0.000
0 50 100 150
Temperature, °C
Fig. 1—Solubility of CaSO42H2O and CaSO4 as a function of
temperature (Nassivera and Essel 1979; Carlberg 1973).
temperature conditions. Kan and Tomson (2012) discussed chal-
lenges of scale prediction at high pressure, high temperature, and
high total dissolved solids. They introduced a comprehensive
study and investigated the various scale types formed in oil and
gas production and the nature of deposition, along with the rela-
tionship between pH and alkalinity and the role of organic acids,
carbonates, and CO2 distribution.
Frigo et al. (2005) designed a scale-inhibitor-squeeze package
through laboratory coreflooding testing. They found that conden-
sate banking will form in front of the squeeze treatment of the
scale inhibitor, the avoidance of which requires production imme-
diately after the treatment. Immediate production after the treat-
ment could be difficult to achieve, especially in deep and offshore
wells.
Thermodynamics of Scale Prediction
Atkinson et al. (1991) examined the database available for sulfate
scale. As an example, for BaSO4, the following was found:
2þ
BaSO4 ðSÞ , Ba ðaqÞ þ SO2
4 ðaqÞ; ............
Ksp ¼ S2 c26 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
where Ksp is the solubility-product constant, S is the solubility in
moles/kg of H2O, and c is the mean-ionic-activity coefficient.
The main reason for sulfate scaling is the mixing of incompati-
ble waters (e.g., seawater and formation water). Empirical predic-
tions for the formation of individual precipitates with simple
correlations to temperature, pressure, or ionic strength have been
presented in literature. However, a systematic prediction to
explain all reactions simultaneously is difficult to find. For exam-
ple, the behaviour of the “common ion effect” cannot be well-pre-
dicted without laboratory tests. The computer model, which is a
1D linear model, assumes that the solid phase does not move with
the fluid flow (Li et al. 1995). Calcium sulfate scale represents a
problem for the salts under consideration because it occurs with
one of three different phases. Calcium sulfate exists in several
crystalline forms. These include gypsum (CaSO42H2O) and
anhydrated calcium sulfate (CaSO4). CaSO42H2O, the most com-
mon scale, occurs at a relatively low temperature. At temperatures
greater than 40 , the stable phase predicted is CaSO4. Fig. 1
shows the solubility of both CaSO42H2O and anhydrite as a func-
tion of temperature. At high temperatures, CaSO42H2O has
higher solubility in water than CaSO4; therefore, it is expected
that the scale type at high temperature would be in the CaSO4
form. However, hemihydrate has been known to form at 100 to
1218C, especially in nonturbulent systems and in high-ionic-
strength brines (Moghadasi et al. 2003a, Carlberg 1973). Calcium
sulfate, which is important in desalination geochemistry and
petroleum engineering, is complicated by the fact that it can crys-
tallize from aqueous solution in three forms: CaSO42H2O, hemi-
hydrated calcium sulfate ðCaSO4 :1=2H2 OÞ, and CaSO4. The
142
1.00×107
1.00×104
Solubility-Product Constant
MgSO4
1.00×101
1.00 E–02
CaSO4
1.00 E–05
SrSO4
1.00 E–08
BaSO4
1.00 E–11
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
200
Temperature, °C
Fig. 2—Sulfate-minerals solubility-product constant (Li et al.
1995).
stability of these compounds depends on temperature and ionic
strength; increasing the temperature above 40 C will decrease the
solubility of these compounds (Liu and Nancollas 1971). Among
the parameters that affect the calcium sulfate solubility are tem-
perature, pressure, fluid concentration, ratio of brine to hydrogen,
fluid dynamics, and type of porous media (Tahmasebi and Kharrat
2007). According to Oddo et al. (1991), calcium sulfate scale for-
mation depends on temperature, but it is typically precipitated
because of a decrease in pressure or an increase in the relative
concentrations of calcium or sulfate. CaSO4 solubility is fairly in-
dependent of pH and, hence, it can readily precipitate in an acid
environment. The case where water injection (seawater or river,
aquifer, or produced water) is used for pressure maintenance and
sweep, the mixing of incompatible brines can lead to the forma-
tion of sulfate scales when the injection water contains sulfate
ions (Mackay and Jordan 2005).
Ca2þ ðor Ba2þ or Sr2þ Þ þ SO2
4
, CaSO4 ðor BaSO4 or SrSO4 Þ:                ð3Þ
ð1Þ Mineral-scaling potential can be predicted by OLI ScaleChem
(OLI 2013). ScaleChem predicts mineral-scaling potential of
more than 70 solids virtually for any oil and gas well or process-
ing facilities. The prediction, based on the determination of the
gas/liquid/oil/solid chemistry of the produced fluids, provides the
operator and engineer with vital chemical data about their wells,
surface facilities, and water-injection and -disposal operations.
This software can be used for brines, gases, and hydrocarbons,
collected as samples and entered into the program. Calculation
types include a generalized scale scenario for well profiles; mix-
ing waters to find safe (nonscaling) ratios; reservoir saturation to
simulate downhole conditions; and facilities with simple mix and
separation abilities to simulate collection and disposal. Output
includes the (thermodynamic) scale tendencies for all solids in the
model, as well as scale amount produced (OLI 2013).
Fig. 2 gives the Ksp of their respective sulfates in the temperature
range from 15.6 to 149 C. The equilibrium constants in both figures
were generated from the Gibbs-free-energy calculations. Because
water samples are analyzed at ambient temperature usually, the sim-
ulation runs were conducted at two temperatures—25 C to reflect
sample analyses and 93.3 C for reservoir conditions.
The process of precipitation and deposition of mineral scale
caused by flow of fluid containing saline solution in porous media
is a major problem during waterflooding because of the mixing of
seawater and formation water (Atkinson et al. 1991). The precipi-
tation of sulfate scale can reduce the formation permeability sig-
nificantly and in turn the mobility of the injected water. Fig. 3
shows the solubility of calcium sulfate in different brine solutions
as a function of temperature. Generally, for different waters, the
sulfate solubility goes down as the temperatures increases (Vetter
and Phillips 1970). The three waters are formation brine (with 6
wt% NaCl), seawater or high-salinity water (2 wt% NaCl), and
diluted seawater or low-salinity seawater (0.5 wt% NaCl). Table 1
May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
 0.7
0.6
Formation Brine (6 wt% NaCl)
wt% Calcium Sulfate
0.5
Seawater (2 wt% NaCl)
0.4
Diluted Seawater (0.5 wt% NaCl)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 Sulfate
0 50 100 150 200
Temperature, °C
Fig. 3—Solubility of calcium sulfate in different waters (Vetter
and Phillips 1970; Carlberg 1973).
shows the composition of different waters in Fig. 3. The low-
salinity water has a lower concentration of sodium chloride; there-
fore, the sulfate solubility will be lower compared with the high-
salinity or formation brine. From Fig. 3, we can conclude that the
low-salinity-water injection will cause high precipitation of cal-
cium sulfate compared with high-salinity-water injection and for-
mation brines. Other salts (e.g., potassium chloride) were found to
be affecting the solubility of calcium sulfate. Increasing the KCl
concentration from 0 to 18 wt% increases the solubility of calcium
sulfate at 100 C (Yang et al. 2009).
Scale-Control Chemicals
Scale inhibitors are chemicals which delay, reduce, or prevent
scale formation when added in small amounts to normally scaling
water. Most modern scale inhibitors used in the oil field function
by one or both of the following mechanisms (Connell 1983): (1)
Nucleation inhibition occurs when the formed scale crystals are
deranged or redissolved by inhibitor molecules; for homogeneous
crystallization, this derangement affects the thermodynamic sta-
bility of the growing nucleons; and (2) crystal-growth inhibition
or retardation. The objective is to hinder the scale-crystal growth.
According to Bezemer and Bauer (1969), the most common
classes of inhibitor chemicals are inorganic phosphates, organic
phosphorous compounds, and organic polymers. Polyphosphono-
carboxylic acid (PPCA) and diethylenetriaminepenta (methylene-
phosphonic acid) (DETPMP) are two common commercial scale
inhibitors used in the oil and gas industry. Normally, PPCA is
regarded as a nucleation inhibitor and DETPMP as a growth in-
hibitor (Chen et al. 2004). Scale inhibitors that are periodically
pumped down production wells and into the producing formation
for short distances around the wellbore have been developed and
are widely used. The inhibitor contacts the formation and is
adsorbed onto the reservoir petrofabric. It is later slowly released
into the produced fluids, thereby inhibiting the formation of sul-
fate scales for some period of time, usually several months.
When the inhibitor concentration levels fall too low to be
effective, the well is again squeezed with chemical and the cycle
is repeated. This technique is known widely as squeeze inhibition
(McElhiney et al. 2001). The formation of mineral scale (carbon-
ate/sulfate/sulfide) within the near-wellbore region, production
tubing, and topside process equipment has presented a challenge
to the oil and gas industry for more than 50 years. Chemical meth-
ods to control scale have been developed, including scale squeeze
treatments and continual chemical injection. A key factor in the
success of such treatments is the understanding of chemical place-
ment and the effectiveness of the treatment chemicals (Jordan
et al. 2006). Squeezing is the most common method for scale con-
trol downhole. Scale inhibitor, diluted in brine, is displaced into
the producing formation where it is retained and then released
slowly back into the aqueous phase during normal well produc-
tion. Squeeze inhibition is effective in a wide variety of situations;
May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
TABLE 1—COMPOSITION OF HIGH- (SEAWATER) AND
LOW- (DILUTED SEAWATER) SALINITY WATER AND
FORMATION BRINE USED IN THIS STUDY*
Connate Low-Salinity High-Salinity
Water Water (Diluted Water
Ions (Formation Brine) Seawater) (Seawater)
Sodium 59,491 4,575 18,300
Calcium 19,040 163 650
Magnesium 2,439 528 2,110
350 1,073 4,290
250
Chloride 132,060 8,050 32,200
Bicarbonate 354 30 120
Total Dissolved 213,734 14,418 57,670
Solids
* This was prepared according to actual Arabian Gulf seawater and typical forma-
tion brines.
however, it has some drawbacks. The squeeze chemical, often a
phosphonate or high-molecular-weight sulphonate, is usually dis-
solved and diluted in water for transport down the wellbore.
Rakhimov et al. (2010) studied the effect of formation permeabil-
ity contrast for a fractured and unfractured reservoir on the
squeeze-treatment performance and found that the fractures caused
greater adsorption of the scale inhibitors, which means most of the
injected scale inhibitors went to the fractures instead of the matrix.
Spriggs and Hover (1972) suggested a stage treatment to provide
distribution of liquid inhibitor over the entire formation to elimi-
nate the permeability-contrast effect on squeeze treatment.
In this study, after the extensive literature review, the objec-
tives are (1) investigate experimentally the damage caused by cal-
cium sulfate scale on Berea sandstone cores at high temperature
by use of coreflooding and X-ray CT scan, (2) predict the damage
caused by calcium sulfate by use of analytical models, and (3)
remove and prevent the calcium sulfate precipitation during high-
or low-salinity-water injection by a new chemical method
(HEDTA, HEIDA, and EDTA chelating agents).
Experimental Studies
Materials. The chelating agents used in this study were EDTA,
HEDTA, and HEIDA. Fig. 4 shows different types of chelating
agents that are being used currently in the oil industry. The origi-
nal concentration of the chemicals was 37 to 40 wt% at pH 11.
The concentration of the chelating agent used in the study was 1
and 5 wt%. Berea sandstone cores that were 1.5  5 in. in size
were used in all experiments. The mineralogy of the Berea sand-
stone cores is given in Table 2.
Experimental Procedures. The experiments were performed
using the coreflooding setup shown in Fig. 5. A backpressure of
1,000 psi was applied in all experiments. The backpressure had to
be kept constant, and it is desired to be 300 to 400 psi less than the
overburden pressure. One Mity-Mite backpressure regulator model
S91-W was installed on the upstream line. An Enerpac hand hy-
draulic pump was used to apply the required overburden pressure
on the core. The pressure drop across the core was sensed with a set
of Foxboro differential-pressure transducers, models IDP10-
A26E21F-M1. There were two gauges installed with a range of 0 to
1,000 psi. The temperature of the core and fluids was achieved by
use of an oven. The coreflood tests were performed at 100 C.
Before running the coreflood test, the core was first saturated with
brine and the pore volume was calculated. In each coreflood experi-
ment, the core was first loaded into a Hassler sleeve core holder at
an overburden pressure of 2,000 psig and temperatures up to
100 C. The core was subjected to a vacuum for an hour. Then, it
was saturated with injection water until the brine permeability
became constant. The brine used in the experiments was formation
brine; see Table 1 (connate-water composition).
143
 COOH COOH

N COOH O N COOH
HOOC N H N

HOOC HOOC

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) Hydroxyethylethylenediaminetriacetic acid (HEDTA)

COOH
O
N COOH H N COOH

COOH COOH

Nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) Ethanoldiglycinic acid (EDG) or

Hydroxyethyliminodiacetic acid (HEIDA)

COOH COOH
N HOOC N COOH
HOOC N N COOH
HOOC COOH COOH

Diethylenetriaminepantaacetic acid (DTPA) L-Glutamic acid, N, N-diacetic acid (GLDA)

Fig. 4— Chelating agents used in oil industry.

Results and Discussion

TABLE 2—MINERAL COMPOSITION FOR BEREA
Injecting seawater with high sulfate content (Table 1) into the sand-
SANDSTONE CORES
stone core that was initially saturated with brine having the compo-
sition listed in Table 1 precipitated calcium sulfate mineral inside
Mineral Concentration (wt%)
the core. Fig. 6 shows the CT-scan-number profile along the core
Quartz 89 axis before and after flooding by seawater. The average CT number
Dolomite 1 of the Berea sandstone core saturated with formation brine (con-
nate-water composition in Table 1) was approximately 1,750
Calcite 1
(Mahmoud et al. 2011a, b). After injecting seawater (high-salinity-
Feldspar 3
water composition in Table 1) into the core, calcium sulfate pre-
Kaolinite 4 cipitated and the CT-number profile indicates some peaks at certain
Illite 1 locations in the core. The CT number in these peaks approaches
Chlorite 1 2,850, which is the calcium sulfate mineral CT number.

8
14 Items:
(1) High-Pressure (HP) Isco Syringe Pump
14
(2, 3, 4) HP transfer cells

7 (5) Reservoir Rock sample

Chelating Agent
Seawater

Crude Oil

(6) Rubber Sleeve

5 (7) Core Holder
6 (8) Differential-Pressure Transducer
2 3 4
(9, 10) Backpressure Regulators
13
(11) Fractional Collector
10 9 (12) Hydraulic Pump
(13) Helium Cylinder
1 (14) Pressure Regulator

11 12

Fig. 5—Flooding system.

144 May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 120
1 2
k = 100 md
100
80
Permeability, md
60
40
20
0 0
0 0.5
Fig. 6—CT-scan results along the axis of the 5-in. Berea sandstone core after flooding the core with seawater at 0.5 cm3/min at
100º C. The core was saturated initially with brine, having a composition listed in Table 1, and flooded by typical seawater, having a
composition also shown in Table 1 (high-salinity water). The peaks indicate the precipitation of calcium sulfates at the indicated
locations along the core. The permeability was measured after removing the sulfate precipitation by EDTA for the different sec-
tions by cutting the core at the indicated section lengths.
The permeability of the sandstone cores before seawater injec-
tion was 80 md, and the permeability after injecting 2 pore vol-
umes of seawater (60 mL) was 63 md. There was approximately
20% loss in permeability because of the sulfate precipitation in
the core. When the HEDTA chelating agent was added to the sea-
water at 5 wt% concentration at pH 11, all the calcium in solution
was chelated and no sulfate precipitation occurred. The core per-
meability was 80 md before the flooding, and it was 86 md after
the flooding by HEDTA solution. The increase in permeability
was caused by some of the cations being chelated from the Berea
sandstone cores, and this dissolution improved the core perme-
ability. The CT-number profile confirmed the efficiency of the
HEDTA solution. The CT number was approximately the same
before and after the HEDTA/seawater injection—approximately
1,750—as shown in Fig. 7. The HEIDA chelating agent was used
also to prevent sulfate precipitation and it works well, but there
was no improvement in the core permeability similar to that with
use of HEDTA because HEIDA is a weak calcium chelant.
The Berea sandstone core used in Fig. 6 was flooded with 20
wt% EDTA at pH 11 to remove the precipitated scale, the core
was initially saturated by seawater (sulfate content is 4,290 ppm).
3,000
2,500
2,000
CT Number
1,500
CT Scan Before Seawaterflooding
1,000
CT Scan After Seawaterflooding +
5wt% HEDTA (pH = 11.5)
500
0 ciency between the injected seawater and formation brine, and
0 1 2 3
Core Length, in.
Fig. 7—CT-scan results along the axis of the 5-in. Berea sand-
stone core after flooding the core with 5 wt% HEDTA/seawater
solution at 0.5 cm3/min at 100º C. The core was saturated initially
with brine, having a composition listed in Table 1. The CT-number
profile was approximately the same before and after flooding the
core, which means no sulfate precipitation occurred. Seawater
with high-salinity composition was used in the HEDTA solution.
May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
3,500
3 4 5 6
k= k=
k = 78 md k = 74 md k = 90 md 65 md 90 md 3,000
2,500
CT Number
2,000
1,500
CT Scan Before Seawaterflooding 1,000
CT Scan After Seawaterflooding 500
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Core Length, in.
The experiment was performed at 100 C and at 1 cm3/min, the
effluent samples were analyzed for sulfate, and the results are pre-
sented in Fig. 8. The EDTA flooding continued until no remaining
sulfates were coming out; then, the samples were analyzed for sul-
fate using ion chromatography. Fig. 8 shows that the EDTA broke
through the core at 0.7 pore volumes; the samples from 0 to 0.7
pore volumes represent the sulfate content in seawater. The
EDTA concentration was measured using ferric chloride titration
method (Mahmoud et al. 2011c). The concentration of EDTA was
zero from 0 to 0.7 pore volumes, which means there was only sea-
water in the effluent samples after 0.7 pore volumes, the EDTA
concentration was 20 wt%, and that only EDTA in the effluent
samples and the sulfate in the effluent from the dissolution of cal-
cium sulfate were in the core. EDTA was able to remove sulfate
as high as 1,200 ppm. EDTA will form a stable complex with cal-
cium because a stability constant of EDTA with calcium is 10.7.
EDTA complexes with the stability constant greater than 10 (e.g.,
calcium and iron) are stable and will not be degraded (Martell and
Smith 1982). After that, the core was cut into six small cores on
the basis of the CT-scan profile in Fig. 6 to measure the perme-
ability for each piece. The permeability of each core section was
measured by use of formation brine having a composition listed in
Table 1 at room temperature. As shown in Fig. 6 after the treat-
ment, Sections 2, 3, and 5 have the lowest permeability values,
which are 78, 74, and 65 md, respectively, compared with the other
sections which have permeabilities of 90 and 100 md. The average
permeability of the six sections was 83.7 md, which is close to the
initial permeability of the core before damage (80 md). This means
that the permeability profile of this core before the damage is close
to that after damage removal. Sections 2, 3, and 5 in the core have
the three peaks of the CT scan represented in Fig. 6. From the per-
meability measurements after damage removal, the pore sizes at
these three locations (Sections 2, 3, and 5) are smaller than at other
sections in the core (relating the core permeability to the pore size).
Smaller pore size will create turbulence, increase the mixing effi-
4 5
increase the tendency of sulfate precipitation.
Aliaga et al. 1992 measured the crystal size of the precipitated
calcium sulfate inside the sandpack by use of a scintillation coun-
ter, and the size ranged from 0.5 to 5 lm. This means that the cal-
cium sulfate scale crystals might precipitate inside the pores and
because of turbulence, they may move with the flow but they will
be restricted by small-sized pore throats. The high CT-number
peaks in Fig. 6 can be attributed to crystals being restricted by the
pore throats at these locations because the sizes of the crystals
145
 5,000 25

EDTA Concentration
4,000 20

Sulfate Concentration, ppm

EDTA Concentration, wt%

3,000 15

2,000 10

Sulfate Concentration

1,000 5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Pore Volume of EDTA Injected, pore volumes

Fig. 8—Sulfate concentration in the coreflood-effluent samples after flooding the core by 20 wt% EDTA at 100º C and 1 cm3/min.

were greater than the pore-throat sizes; therefore, the calcium sul- diameter. The experiment was performed at an injection rate of 2
fate accumulated in the pores before these small pore throats. The cm3/min at room temperature. As shown in Fig. 9, after injecting
pore-throat size can be determined from the permeability using seawater, the pressure drop across the core started to build up until
the following equation (Warren and Pulham 2001): it reached maximum after injecting 1 pore volume of seawater.
The pressure increase was caused by the calcium sulfate precipita-
0:084156 pffiffiffi tion. The pressure drop can be predicted by Darcy’s equation and
Rm ¼ k; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
/ can relate the change in permeability to the change in pore vol-
ume because of the sulfate precipitation.
where k is the permeability, md; / is the porosity, fraction; and The change in core permeability was related to the change in
Rm is the pore-throat size, lm. The core porosity for the six sec- core porosity by use of the following correlation:
tions was fairly constant at approximately 0.2; therefore, the pore
throat in this case only depends on the permeability value. This kfinal
could be another interpretation for the localized three peaks of the ¼ e45:7ð/f /i Þ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
kinitial
CT number along the core.
Mahmoud and Bageri (2013) used the EDTA and HEDTA /f ¼ /i  /sulfate ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6Þ
chelating agents to remove the filter cake from a maximum-reser-
voir-contact horizontal well with different permeability ranges. where kfinal is the permeability after the treatment, md; kinitial is
The stimulation process was successful for the six different cores the core initial permeability, md; /f is the final porosity, fraction;
with different permeabilities they used. This means chelating /i is the initial porosity; and /sulfate is the sulfate-precipitates vol-
agents themselves acted as diverters because of their viscosity ume fraction.
buildup as they chelated cations from the damaging materials or The pressure drop across the core can be estimated as
from the reservoir rock and they can be used in heterogeneous res-
ervoirs with different permeability ranges. Dp ¼ Dpseawater þDpmixture þ Dpcalcium chloride ; . . . . . . . . ð7Þ
The effect of low- and high-salinity water injected was investi-
gated on the calcium sulfate precipitation and the damage on 122:812Qlseawater ½Lcore  LðCaCl2 þmixtureÞ 
Berea sandstone cores by performing two coreflood experiments. Dpseawater ¼ 2
;
kfinal dcore
The first coreflood experiment was performed with a 63-md Berea
sandstone core with 30 cm3 pore volume, 5-in. length, and 1.5-in.                    ð8Þ
122:812Qlmixture ðLmixture Þ
Dpmixture ¼ 2
; . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð9Þ
20 kinitial dcore
Pressure Drop Across the Core, psi

18 50,000 50,000
Seawater
16
ppm CaCl2 ppm CaCl2 122:812QlCaCl2 ðLCaCl2 Þ
Actual Pressure Drop DpCaCl2 ¼ 2
: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð10Þ
14 kinitial dcore
12 Predicted Pressure Drop Using the developed equations, the pressure drop can be esti-
10 mated as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. There was a good match
8 between the actual data and the predicted pressure drop from Eq.
6 7. The viscosities for different brine systems were measured and
4
the results were these: the viscosity of the seawater (high-salinity
water) having the composition listed in Table 1 was 1.19 cp; for
2
the low salinity (diluted seawater), the viscosity was 1.07 cp; for
0 the for the 50,000 ppm calcium chloride solution, the viscosity
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Volume Injected, pore volumes
was 1.17 cp; for the mixture solution between the seawater and
calcium chloride, the viscosity was 1.18 cp; and for the mixture
Fig. 9—Actual and predicted pressure drop across the Berea solution of the low salinity and calcium chloride, the viscosity
sandstone core saturated with 50,000 ppm calcium chloride af- was 1.11 cp. All the viscosity measurements were performed at
ter flooding the core with high-salinity seawater, with the com- 70 F, and the mixture solution between seawater or low salinity
position listed in Table 1. and calcium chloride was achieved by mixing equal amounts of

146 May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 20
TABLE 3—RESERVOIR DATA USED IN THIS STUDY

Pressure Drop Across the Core, psi

18 50,000 50,000
ppm CaCl2 Low-Salinity Water ppm CaCl2
16 Reservoir pressure (psi) 3,200
14 Actual Pressure Drop Injection pressure (psi) 3,700
12 Injection rate (B/D) 25,000
10
Reservoir thickness (ft) 232
Predicted Pressure Drop
Reservoir initial permeability (md) 500
8
Water viscosity at 70 F (cp) 1
6
Water viscosity at 212 F (100 C) (cp) 0.35
4 Reservoir initial porosity (fraction) 0.25
2 Water formation volume factor (B/STB) 1.03
0 Well radius (ft) 0.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Well drainage radius (ft) 2,000
Volume Injected, pore volumes

Fig. 10—Actual and predicted pressure drop across the Berea  

sandstone core saturated with 50,000 ppm calcium chloride af- dw A/dx dSw
¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð11Þ
ter flooding the core with low-salinity seawater, with the com- dt 5:615 dt
position listed in Table 1.
dw
¼ qt dfw ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð12Þ
the two waters. The low-salinity waterflooding also caused dam- dt
age with calcium sulfate precipitation because the sulfate concen-  
A/dx dSw
tration was still approximately 1,000 ppm, but in this case, its qt dfw ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð13Þ
5:615 dt
solubility was lower than with the high-salinity water with a so-
dium chloride concentration of 2 wt%. As shown in Fig. 3, the  
dfw 2p/hr dr
solubility of calcium sulfate declines as the sodium chloride con- qt ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð14Þ
centration declines. In the low-salinity-waterflooding experiment dSw 5:615 dt
(diluted seawater  4), the permeability of the Berea sandstone
p/hr2
core dropped from 63 to 50 md at the same conditions as the pre- qinjection ¼ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ð15Þ
vious experiment. The permeability of the core in the case of 5:615t
high-salinity-water (seawater) injection was reduced from 63 to sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
40 md. The damage was higher in the case of high-salinity-sea- ð5:615Þðqinjection ÞðtÞ
r¼ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð16Þ
water injection because the amount of sulfate was higher com- p/h
pared with the low-salinity seawater (approximately four times).
The high concentration of sulfate will precipitate a larger amount Eqs. 11 through 16 can be used to determine the damage
of calcium sulfate, and this will reduce the flow area, storage vol- length as a function of injection time at which the calcium sulfate
ume, and permeability. Low- and high-salinity-water injection will precipitate and the relation between change in porosity and
will cause calcium sulfate precipitation during the enhanced-oil- injection. The change in permeability is related to the change in
recovery processes, secondary recovery, or pressure maintenance porosity by Eq. 5. Eq. 5 can be used to determine the change in
in the aquifer; therefore, extreme care should be taken to prevent permeability and the Sw (water saturation) term in Eq. 11. The
the precipitation of calcium sulfate inside the reservoir. The pre- term Sw was cancelled by fw (water fraction) because they are the
cipitation of calcium sulfate in the reservoir will reduce the injec- same in this case—we have seawater displacing formation brine
tivity index of the well and in turn, the productivity from the or the chelating agent displacing formation brine. The variables in
adjacent wells will decline. Treatment of the injected water Eq. 5 will be injection rate and radius of injection. Qt is the total
should be carried out to remove sulfate or one can use chelating injection rate and w or dw/dt is the amount of the formation water
agents (e.g., EDTA, HEDTA, HEIDA), as shown in Fig. 4. A che- that was displaced by qt.
lating agent will prevent the precipitation of calcium sulfate by The reservoir data shown in Table 3 were used to determine
removing all the cations from the solution. In this research, we the effect of calcium sulfate precipitation on the reservoir porosity
show that a small concentration (5 wt%) of HEDTA, EDTA, or and injection pressure at the formation face. The radius of damage
HEIDA can prevent the precipitation of calcium sulfate during the will be determined first using Eq. 16, then the porosity reduction
raw-seawater injection. HEDTA and EDTA also will remove the will be determined for this part of the reservoir or the core sample
previously precipitated calcium sulfate, and it will enhance the in which the scale was precipitated. Finally, the permeability of
injectivity of the wells. Using chelating agents will inhibit and the damaged part can be determined by use of Eq. 5.
remove the precipitation of calcium sulfate because of their ability The scenarios that we performed can be summarized as
to chelate all the calcium from the seawater and from the forma- 1. Constant injection pressure and low-salinity-water injection
tion brine. The model described the scale deposition in the whole into the formation (Fig. 11).
core and in our case, because we have abundance of calcium chlo- 2. Constant injection pressure and high-salinity-water injection
ride (50,000 ppm CaCl2 solution), it was assumed in the model (Fig. 11).
the whole amount of the sulfate in seawater or low-salinity water 3. Constant injection rate and low-salinity-water injection
will interact with calcium and precipitate calcium sulfate. (Fig. 12).
4. Constant injection rate and high-salinity-water injection
(Fig. 12).
Modelling of Calcium Sulfate Precipitation During From Figs. 11 and 12 it is observed that the effect of sulfate
Seawater Injection precipitation was investigated at a constant injection rate and
Material-balance calculations will be used to determine the pressure. It is obvious that the high-salinity-seawater injection
amount of precipitated sulfate, as shown in the balance equation damaged the reservoir more than the low-salinity waterflooding.
(Eq. 3). The amount of precipitated sulfate will be converted to From Fig. 11, it is observed that at constant injection pressure, the
weight then to volume or pore space by dividing the weight by the reservoir lost 25% of its initial porosity after 5 days during the
sulfate density. The radius of precipitation from the wellbore will high-salinity-water injection, while it lost the same percent after
be calculated using the Buckley-Leverett approach of linear flood- 10 days in the low-salinity-water injection. In the high-salinity
ing and modifying this approach to be used in radial flooding. water injection, the injection rate dropped from 25,000 B/D to

May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 147

 0.3 30,000

0.25 25,000

Reservoir Porosity, fraction

0.2 20,000

Injection Rate, B/D

Porosity

0.15 Injection rate Low 15,000

Porosity Salinity

0.1 Injection rate 10,000

High
Salinity
0.05 5,000

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Injection Time, days

Fig. 11—Effect of low- and high-salinity-water injection on the reservoir porosity and injection rate at constant injection pressure
at the formation face.

0.3 6,000

0.25 sure 5,000

pres
tion
Injec
Reservoir Porosity, fraction

Injection pressure

Injection Pressure, psi

0.2 Porosity Low 4,000
Salinity
High
Salinity
0.15 3,000
Por
osity

0.1 2,000

0.05 1,000

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Injection Time, days

Fig. 12—Effect of low- and high-salinity-water injection on the reservoir porosity and injection pressure at constant injection rate
at the formation face.

7,000 B/D in 1 month. The injection rate for the actual field data concentration, and with injectivity constant with time, which
for the same reservoir conditions shows the injectivity loss was resulted in no further decline in the reservoir porosity being
from 25,000 to 5,000 B/D in 1 month, which confirms the accu- observed. The injection pressure also remained constant with
racy of the predicted injectivity loss. time.
The same results were obtained when the injection rate was Table 4 shows the effect of adding EDTA to seawater in pre-
fixed. The injection pressure increased in both low- and high-sa- venting the sulfate scale precipitation and its effect on core per-
linity-water injection beacause of the sulfate scale precipitation. meability. The experimental results shown in Table 4 confirm the
The reservoir porosity also dropped in both cases, but the damage effectiveness of the EDTA chelating agent in inhibiting the pre-
effect was higher in the case of high-salinity-water injection. The cipitation of calcium sulfate scale during seawater injection. Two
prediction was extended by investigating the effect of adding coreflood experiments were also conducted using HEDTA at two
HEDTA, HEIDA, and EDTA chelating agents at high pH, at low different concentrations, as shown in Table 5. The 5 wt%

TABLE 5—EFFECT OF ADDING HEDTA ON THE CORE

TABLE 4—EFFECT OF ADDING 1 wt% EDTA ON THE CORE PERMEABILITY
PERMEABILITY
5 wt% 1 wt%
Seawater 1 wt% Seawater HEDTA/ HEDTA/
Injection EDTA/Seawater Injection Seawater Seawater

Initial permeability (md) 34 57 Initial permeability (md) 34 53 61

Final permeability (md) 29 57 Final permeability (md) 29 61 62
Permeability loss (%) 15 0 Permeability loss (%) 15 No loss No loss

148 May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

 l ¼ viscosity
TABLE 6—EFFECT OF ADDING 5 WT% HEIDA ON THE CORE
/final ¼ final porosity
PERMEABILITY
/initial ¼ initial porosity
Seawater 5 wt%
Injection HEIDA/Seawater
Acknowledgements
Initial permeability (md) 34 54 The author would like to acknowledge the support provided by
Final permeability (md) 29 54 King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology through the Sci-
Permeability loss (%) 15 0 ence and Technology Unit at King Fahd University of Petroleum
and Minerals (KFUPM) for funding this work through Project
NSTIP-13-Oil-151-04 as part of the National Science, Technol-
HEDTA was not only able to prevent the scale, but it also
ogy and Innovation Plan. The author also would like to extend his
improved the core permeability by 15%. The 1 wt% HEDTA was
appreciation to the anonymous reviewers who provided many use-
only able to prevent the scale precipitation. Table 6 shows the
ful comments, which greatly improved the paper.
effect of adding the HEIDA chelating agent to seawater. The 5
wt% HEIDA was able to prevent the calcium sulfate precipitation,
but no improvement in the core permeability was observed. References
HEIDA is a weak chelant compared with HEDTA and EDTA;
Aliaga, D.A., Wu, G., Sharma, M.M. et al. 1992. Barium and Calcium Sul-
therefore, it should be used at high concentration (at least 5 wt%).
fate Precipitation and Migration Inside Sandpacks. SPE Form Eval 7
All the coreflood experiments were performed at 100 C using 5-
(1): 79–86. SPE-19765-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/19765-PA.
in. Berea sandstone cores.
Atkinson, G., Raju, K., and Howell, R.D. 1991. The Thermodynamics of
Scale Prediction. Presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Conclusions Oilfield Chemistry, Anaheim, California, USA, 20–22 February. SPE-
On the basis of the experimental and analytical modelling we 21021-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/21021-MS.
have performed, the following are the conclusions that were Bayona, H.J. 1993. A Review of Well Injectivity Performance in Saudi
drawn from this study: Arabia’s Ghawar Field Seawater Injection Program. Presented at the
1. Calcium sulfate scale affects the reservoir porosity and Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 3–6 April. SPE-25531-MS. http://
permeability. dx.doi.org/10.2118/25531-MS.
2. High-salinity-water injection damaged the sandstone cores Bezemer, C. and Bauer, K.A. 1969. Prevention of Carbonate Scale Depo-
more than the low-salinity water because it has greater sulfate sition: A Well-Packing Technique with Controlled Solubility Phos-
concentration. phates. J Pet Technol 21 (4): 505–514. SPE-2176-PA. http://
3. The analytical model’s prediction of the pressure drop across dx.doi.org/10.2118/2176-PA.
the core during low- and high-salinity-water injection was in Carlberg, B.L. 1973. Solubility of Calcium Sulfate in Brine. Presented at
match with the actual experimental data. the SPE Oilfield Chemistry Symposium, Denver, 24–25 May. SPE-
4. The injectivity decline from the model was close to what 4353-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/4353-MS.
occurred in the field for the same reservoir conditions. Chen, T., Neville, A., and Yuan, M. 2004. Effect of PPCA and DETPMP
5. Different concentrations of HEDTA, HEIDA, and EDTA che- Inhibitor Blends on CaCO3 Scale Formation. Presented at the SPE
lating agents were able to prevent the scale precipitation and International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, 26–27 May.
enhance the core permeability. SPE-87442-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87442-MS.
6. HEDTA and EDTA were better than HEIDA in improving the Connell, D. 1983. Prediction and Treatment of Scale in North Sea Fields.
core permeability and preventing scale precipitation. MS thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
7. Chelating agents can be used to stimulate the water injectors at Fan, C., Kan, A., Zhang, P. et al. 2012. Scale Prediction and Inhibition for
high concentrations (e.g., conventional stimulation treatments), Oil and Gas Production at High Temperature/High Pressure. SPE J. 17
but this time no flowback is required, no coiled tubing is (2): 379–392. SPE-130690-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/130690-PA.
needed, and the injection is continuous. All that is needed is to Frigo, D.M., Graham, G.M., Littlehales, I.J. et al. 2005. Design and Labo-
connect the chelating-agent line to the wellhead with the sea- ratory Testing of a Hybrid Scale-Inhibitor Package for an HTHP Gas-
water-injection line and let it go inside the reservoir. The che- Condensate Reservoir. Presented at the SPE International Symposium
lating-agent complex is highly thermally stable and will not on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, 11–12 May. SPE-94865-MS. http://
degrade in the reservoir. dx.doi.org/10.2118/94865-MS.
Jordan, M.M., Johnston, C.J., and Robb, M. 2006. Evaluation Methods for
Suspended Solids and Produced Water as an Aid in Determining Effec-
Nomenclature tiveness of Scale Control Both Downhole and Topside. SPE Prod &
a ¼ water activity Oper 21 (1): 7–18. SPE-92663-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/92663-PA.
C ¼ molal concentration Kan, A. and Tomson, M. 2012. Scale Prediction for Oil and Gas Produc-
d ¼ diameter tion. SPE J. 17 (2): 362–378. SPE-132237-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
dw/dt ¼ water-displacement rate 10.2118/132237-PA.
dx ¼ linear-displacement change Li, Y.-H., Crane, S.D., and Coleman, J.R. 1995. A Novel Approach to Pre-
fw ¼ fractional water flow dict the Co-Precipitation of BaSO4 and SrSO4. Presented at the SPE
h ¼ reservoir thickness Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA,
kfinal ¼ final permeability 2–4 April. SPE-29489-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/29489-MS.
Kinitial ¼ initial permeability Liu, S.-T. and Nancollas, G.H. 1971. The kinetics of dissolution of cal-
Ksp ¼ solubility-product constant cium sulfate dihydrate. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 33 (8): 2311–2316.
L ¼ length http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1902(71)80205-1.
Q ¼ injection rate Mackay, E.J. and Jordan, M.M. 2005. Impact of Brine Flow and Mixing in
r ¼ radial distance of injection the Reservoir on Scale Control Risk Assessment and Subsurface Treat-
Rm ¼ pore-throat size ment Options: Case Histories. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 127 (3):
S ¼ solubility, mol/kg of water 201–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.1944029.
Sw ¼ water saturation Mackay, E.J., Collins, I.R., Jordan, M.M. et al. 2003. PWRI: Scale Forma-
T ¼ temperature tion Risk Assessment and Management. Presented at the International
c ¼ mean-ion-activity coefficient Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, 29–30 January. SPE-80385-
Dp ¼ pressure drop MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/80385-MS.

May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology 149

Mahmoud, M.A. and Bageri, B.S. 2013. A New Diversion Technique to
Remove the Formation Damage from Maximum Reservoir Contact
and Extended Reach Wells in Sandstone Reservoirs. Presented at the
SPE European Formation Damage Conference & Exhibition, Noord-
wijk, The Netherlands, 5–7 June. SPE-165163-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/165163-MS.
Mahmoud, M.A., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., and De Wolf, C. 2011a. Novel Envi-
ronmentally Friendly Fluids to Remove Carbonate Minerals from
Deep Sandstone Formations. Presented at the SPE European Forma-
tion Damage Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 7–10 June.
SPE-143301-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/143301-MS.
Mahmoud, M.A., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., De Wolf, C. et al. 2011b. Sandstone
Acidizing Using A New Class of Chelating Agents. Presented at the
SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands,
Texas, USA, 11–13 April. SPE-139815-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
139815-MS.
Mahmoud, M.A., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., De Wolf, C. et al. 2011c. Evaluation
of a New Environmentally Friendly Chelating Agent for High-Tem-
perature Applications. SPE J. 16 (3): 559–574. SPE-127923-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/127923-PA.
Martell, A.E., and Smith, R.M. 1982. Critical Stability Constants, Vol. 5.
New York: First Supplement, Plenum Press.
McElhiney, J.E., Sydansk, R.D., Lintelmann, K.A. et al. 2001. Determi-
nation of In-Situ Precipitation of Barium Sulphate During Coreflood-
ing. Presented at the International Symposium on Oilfield Scale,
Aberdeen, 30–31 January. SPE-68309-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
68309-MS.
Moghadasi, J., Jamialahmadi, M., Müller-Steinhagen, H. et al. 2003a.
Scale Formation in Iranian Oil Reservoir and Production Equipment
During Water Injection. Presented at the International Symposium on
Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen, 29–30 January. SPE-80406-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/80406-MS.
Moghadasi, J., Jamialahmadi, M., Müller-Steinhagen, H. et al. 2003b.
Scale Formation in Oil Reservoir and Production Equipment during
Water Injection (Kinetics of CaSO4 and CaCO3 Crystal Growth and
Effect on Formation Damage). Presented at the SPE European Forma-
tion Damage Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 13–14 May.
SPE-82233-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/82233-MS.
Nassivera, M. and Essel, A. 1979. Fateh Field Sea Water Injection - Water
Treatment, Corrosion, And Scale Control. Presented at the Middle
East Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 25–28 February.
SPE-7765-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/7765-MS.
Oddo, J.E., Smith, J.P., and Tomson, M.B. 1991. Analysis of and Solu-
tions to the CaCO3 and CaSO4 Scaling Problems Encountered in
Wells Offshore Indonesia. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 6–9 October. SPE-22782-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/22782-MS.
150
OLI. 2013. OLI ScaleChem, http://www.olisystems.com/new-scalechem.
shtml.
Rakhimov, A.Z., Vazquez, O., Sorbie, K.S. et al. 2010. Impact of Fluid Distri-
bution on Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatments. Presented at the SPE
EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain,
14–17 June. SPE-131724-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/131724-MS.
Spriggs, D.M. and Hover, G.W. 1972. Field Performance of a Liquid Scale
Inhibitor Squeeze Program. J Pet Technol 24 (7): 812–816. SPE-3545-
PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/3545-PA.
Tahmasebi, H.A. and Kharrat, R. 2007. Prediction of permeability reduc-
tion rate due to calcium sulfate scale formation in porous media. Pre-
sented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference,
Kingdom of Bahrain 11–14 March. SPE-105105-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/105105-MS.
Tomson, M.B., Matty, J., and Oddo, J.E. 1990. Scale Inhibitor Evaluations
And A Mechanism Of Inhibition Of Sparingly Soluble Salts. Presented
at the Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, 10–13 June. PETSOC-90-
55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/90-55.
Vetter, O.J.G. 1975. How Barium Sulfate Is Formed: An Interpretation. J
Pet Technol 27 (12): 1515–1524. SPE-4217-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/4217-PA.
Vetter, O.J.G. and Phillips, R.C. 1970. Prediction of Deposition of Cal-
cium Sulfate Scale Under Down-Hole Conditions. J Pet Technol 22
(10): 1299–1308. SPE-2620-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/2620-PA.
Warren, E.A. and Pulham, A.J. 2001. Anomalous Porosity and Permeabil-
ity Preservation in Deeply Buried Tertiary and Mesozoic Sandstones
in the Cusiana Field, Llanos Foothills, Colombia. J. Sediment. Res. 71
(1): 2–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1306/081799710002.
Yang, L., Guan, B., Wu, Z. et al. 2009. Solubility and Phase Transitions of
Calcium Sulfate in KCl Solutions between 85 and 100  C. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 48 (16): 7773–7779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie900372j.
Mohamed Ahmed Nasr El-Din Mahmoud is currently working as
an assistant professor at the Department of Petroleum Engi-
neering, KFUPM, in Dhahran, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He is
also adjunct assistant professor at the Department of Petro-
leum Engineering, Suez University, in Egypt. Mahmoud’s areas
of research include carbonate and sandstone acidizing, for-
mation damage, hydraulic and acid fracturing of conven-
tional and unconventional reservoirs, enhanced oil recovery of
sandstone and carbonate reservoirs, drilling fluids, advanced
well logging, multiphase flow in pipes, filter-cake removal and
characterization, sequestration and storage of carbon dioxide,
and rock petrophysics. He holds several patents in the areas of
production enhancement, formation-damage removal, and
enhanced oil recovery. Mahmoud holds BS and MS degrees
from Suez Canal University and a PhD degree from Texas A&M
University, all in petroleum engineering. He has published 50
technical papers and 15 reviewed-journal papers.
May 2014 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology