SPE 60222

Combined Scale Removal and Scale Inhibition Treatments

P.S.Smith, C.C.Clement Jr., BP Amoco; and A.Mendoza Rojas, Ecopetrol - Instituto Colombiano del Petrleo

Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 Second International Symposium on
Oilfield Scale held in Aberdeen, UK, 2627 January 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Steering Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
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 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 commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of 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.

Abstract
Calcium carbonate scale impacts oil production in a large
number of fields worldwide. This scale is generally managed
by acid washing to removal the scale and/or by performing
scale inhibition treatments. The choice between inhibition and
regular stimulation is cost driven, with high cost operations
generally selecting inhibition. However, even in wells where
inhibition is planned, some scale can be deposited either prior
to scale inhibitor deployment, or after the end of the scale
inhibition treatment life. Consequently, stimulation treatments
are required in many wells, in order to remove calcium
carbonate scale.
Combining scale inhibition with scale removal treatments
offers several advantages. Firstly, in many operating areas, it
would reduce the well intervention cost by making the
operation a single intervention, offering significant economic
benefits and a reduction in well intervention risk. Secondly,
pumping a combined treatment not only reduces the risk of
scale re-precipitation during the stimulation treatment, but it
ensures that the zones that are stimulated are also inhibited.
This directly protects value added by the scale removal
treatment.
This paper details the development of combined scale
removal and inhibition treatments, from project initiation to
readiness for field trials. The main challenges that need to be
addressed in order to achieve an effective combined treatment
are discussed. Data from a laboratory study, investigating the
potential for combining scale inhibitors in hydrochloric acid,
organic acid and scale dissolver systems are presented and the
most effective combined systems are identified.

Introduction
Scale precipitation is a common cause of impaired well
productivity, with calcium carbonate being the most common
scale that is formed. Hydrochloric acid is frequently used for
removal of carbonate scale,1-3 as it generally offers both the
best performance and the lowest cost. Such acid treatments can
be very effective in providing short term stimulation benefits
to such wells, but the treatments are often short lived.3 For
high temperature applications, organic acids have been used in
preference to hydrochloric acid, due to corrosion concerns.4-5
The dissolution of calcium carbonate by chelating agents is
also well known6-10. Treatments with chelating agents to
remove calcium carbonate scale have been performed,6 but
dissolution rates are generally lower than with acid and
treatment economics tend to restrict their use.
Calcium carbonate scale deposition can be effectively
inhibited in most fields, with scale inhibitor squeeze treatments
being widely used to prevent scale build-up11-13. In these
squeeze treatments scale inhibitor is retained in the formation
either via adsorption onto the rock surface14-16, or by
precipitation (or phase separation) of the calcium salt of the
inhibitor. Precipitation squeezes offer increased squeeze life17,
but may have an associated risk of formation damage during
treatment,18 especially in damage sensitive formations.
Although scaling potential can be predicted19-21 and
proactively treated, it is still common for scale to form in some
wells, either before an inhibition treatment is pumped or after
the end of the treatment life. This can occur if there is
insufficient early warning of the onset of scale, or if limitations
in well access or equipment availability delay a planned
treatment. Consequently, even when inhibition is the scale
management strategy, the need still arises for scale removal
treatments. Conversely, when acid stimulation is the preferred
scale management tool, there would be a benefit in reducing
treatment frequency if the job life could be extended by simply
adding an effective scale inhibitor to the acid system. Although
the potential benefits of such combined treatments have been
recognised, it has been reported that the post-acid treatment
environment prevents scale inhibitors from performing
effectively.22 The current approach to this problem, therefore,
is to pump sequential scale removal and scale inhibition
treatments.

P.S.SMITH, C.C.CLEMENT JR. AND A.MENDOZA ROJAS

Challenges
Several challenges must be overcome in order to develop an
effective combined scale removal and scale inhibition
treatment. The most notable are :
(a) Cost - the combined treatment must offer an economic
advantage when compared to sequential stimulation and
inhibition treatments.
(b) Corrosion Control - the scale inhibitor must not cause a
significant change in the corrosivity of the stimulation
system. If the stimulation system requires the use of a
corrosion inhibitor then the scale inhibitor must not
prevent its function.
(c) System Compatibility - The scale inhibitor must be totally
compatible with the stimulation system, both live and
spent. The combined treatment must also be compatible
with formation fluids.
(d) Inhibitor Adsorption - The scale inhibitor must effectively
adsorb onto the formation, throughout the potential pH
range of the stimulation system (live to spent).
(e) Process Compatibility - The flowback after a combined
scale removal and inhibition treatment (live or spent) must
have no adverse effect on the process system operation.
Several combined scale removal and inhibition systems could
be considered in order to meet these challenges. Hydrochloric
acid (HCl) may be the most cost effective treatment to remove
calcium carbonate, but corrosion control, system compatibility
and inhibitor adsorption may all be difficult in a combined
treatment. Conversely, scale dissolvers (based on chelating
agents) may offer better corrosion control and scale inhibitor
compatibility when spent, but will be higher cost. Organic
acids could offer a compromise which allows most of the
system requirements to be met.
An experimental programme was initiated to identify the
best options for combined scale removal and inhibition
treatments. This study included inorganic and organic acids,
along with chelating scale dissolvers.
Experimental
Due to the large number of commercially available scale
dissolvers in the market place, a series of screening tests were
performed in order to rank the scale dissolvers that had been
selected for the study. A total of ten scale dissolvers were
provided by seven companies (referenced as D1,D2....D10 in
this study). A 15% acetic acid system and a 7.5% HCl acid
system were also included in the study (referenced as A1 and
A2 in this study, respectively). These acids were used as
performance benchmarks and ensured that a wide range of
scale dissolution options were evaluated.
A second stage of the study investigated the performance
of the best dissolvers and acid systems when combined with
scale inhibitor. More extensive tests, and more rigorous test
conditions were used for this performance evaluation.

SPE 60222

Scale Dissolver Baseline Performance

A series of experiments were performed in order to rank the
scale dissolvers and acid systems selected for the study.
Corrosivity, scale dissolution capacity and compatibility with
the scale inhibitor were assessed. At the end of each test, any
dissolver that failed to meet a prescribed minimum standard
was eliminated from the study.
Corrosion Rate : Initial corrosion testing was performed at
ambient pressure and elevated temperature (175F), using 13Cr
coupons prepared from a section of L-80 completion liner. The
acceptable corrosion rate was set at 0.02 lbs/sq.ft., based on
field requirements, with coupon exposure times of 8, 16 and
24 hours being assessed. All tests were performed in duplicate
and the results averaged. Figure 1 shows results after 24 hours
of exposure. Five of the scale dissolvers exhibited much lower
corrosion rates than the acid systems included in the study, but
three of the dissolver systems failed to meet the acceptable
corrosion rate. The corrosion rate of these dissolvers was an
order of magnitude higher than the acceptable standard. Both
of the acid systems had acceptable corrosion rates.
Dissolution Capacity : Calcium carbonate dissolution was
assessed at ambient pressure and elevated temperature (150F
and 200F) using both the neat scale dissolvers (as supplied)
and 50% v/v solutions of the dissolvers in a 2% w/v KCl brine.
Calcium carbonate chips, graded to 1-2mm, were used for
these tests and the reaction was allowed to go to completion
(24 hour test time). The minimum performance standard was
set as 50% of the dissolution capacity of the reference 15%
acetic acid system (A1). Most of the scale dissolvers tested
exceeded this standard, but two of the dissolvers showed poor
dissolution potential. Results for the neat scale dissolvers at
200F are shown in Figure 2. Three of the scale dissolvers
gave results better than the acetic acid system but poorer than
the 7.5% HCl system and one of the scale dissolvers
outperformed the 7.5% HCl system.
Scale Inhibitor Compatibility : Basic compatibility tests
were performed to ensure that all of the scale dissolver/acid
systems were compatible with the selected formation water,
crude oil and scale inhibitor. An analysis of the formation
water used in this study is shown in Table 1. A top ranked
scale inhibitor from a separate study using the same formation
water chemistry was used in these scale inhibitor compatibility
tests.
Some incompatibilities were found when mixing the scale
inhibitor with each of the five remaining scale dissolvers, and
with both of the acid systems. Generally some precipitation
was observed, although for some blends the quantity of
precipitate was small and only developed after aging for 24
hours. A further series of tests was performed using spent
scale dissolvers and acid systems, so as to identify any adverse
impact of reaction by-products. A major incompatibility was

SPE 60222

COMBINED SCALE REMOVAL AND SCALE INHIBITION TREATMENTS

observed with all of the scale dissolver and acid-inhibitor

blends resulting in abundant precipitation.
Calcium Tolerant Scale Inhibitors : The calcium tolerance
of the selected inhibitor (SI-1) was assessed. Although the
inhibitor was stable in the presence of high calcium at low pH,
precipitation occurred as the pH increased (Figure 3). It was
concluded that the precipitate observed was the calcium salt of
the phosphonate scale inhibitor. This incompatibility with SI-1
required an alternative, more calcium tolerant scale inhibitors
to be identified. Several inhibitors were tested, and those with
the best calcium tolerance were used for further compatibility
tests with the spent dissolvers and acid systems. No single
inhibitor was found that was compatible with all of acid and
dissolver systems. One inhibitor was identified for the scale
dissolvers and the acetic acid system (SI-2) and a separate
inhibitor for the HCl system (SI-3).
Ranking : The screening tests had clearly ranked the scale
dissolver systems, with 50% of the dissolvers tested being
rejected for not meeting a minimum performance standard. Of
the remaining five dissolvers, two ranked highest in both of the
screening tests. The dissolution performance of these two
dissolvers were comparable to that of 7.5% HCl, with the
added benefit of lower corrosivity - the corrosion rates to 13Cr
steel were an order of magnitude lower than the 7.5% HCl.
Combined Scale Removal and Inhibitor Performance
A series of more rigorous tests were performed, both in terms
of incorporating the scale inhibitor into the stimulation system
and in terms of tests conditions. The two highest ranked scale
dissolvers (D1 and D2) and the two acid systems (A1 and A2)
were used for this stage of testing.
Downhole Corrosion : Corrosion rates were measured under
high pressure and high temperature conditions (4000 psi and
270F) with a 16 hour exposure time to a 13Cr coupon. All of
the systems had corrosion rates less than 0.02 lbs/sq.ft. The
corrosion rates of the scale dissolver systems were an order of
magnitude less than the 7.5% HCl acid system.
Corrosion Screening with Scale Inhibitor : Tests at ambient
pressure and elevated temperature (175F) showed no negative
impact on the corrosion rate after 8, 16 or 24 hours of
exposure when 15% v/v scale inhibitor (SI-2 or SI-3, based on
compatibility) was blended with the scale dissolver or acid
systems (Figure 4). The corrosion rate of the acetic acid
system actually reduced substantially when the scale inhibitor
was included.
Impact of Scale Inhibitor on Scale Solubility : The impact
on the scale dissolution capacity of incorporating the scale
inhibitor (SI-2 and SI-3) in the scale dissolver or acid system
was assessed. In the scale dissolver and HCl systems there was
no significant impact, but the scale dissolution performance of

the acetic acid system was reduced by more than 50% (Figure
5). This reduction in performance coincides with the observed
reduction in corrosion rate, and may be due to the buffering of
the acetic system by the scale inhibitor. The combined acetic
acid-inhibitor system did not meet the minimum performance
standard set and was therefore eliminated from subsequent
tests.
Downhole Corrosion Rate with Scale Inhibitor : Corrosion
tests, at high pressure, and high temperature (4000psi and
270F, 16 hour exposure time) were performed with the two
scale dissolver-scale inhibitor systems and the HCl-scale
inhibitor system. Very low corrosion rates were observed with
the scale dissolver systems (<0.001 lbs/sq.ft.), but acceptable
results were only achieved with the HCl system after reducing
the inhibitor concentration (Figure 6). A corrosion rate of less
than 0.02 lbs/sq.ft. was achieved when the scale inhibitor
concentration was less than 7.5% v/v. Although modifications
to the acid formulation have shown than an inhibitor
concentration of 10% can be achieved whilst maintaining
control of corrosion, there does appear to be interference
between the scale inhibitor and the corrosion inhibition
package in the 7.5% HCl system. This interference may
preclude a further increase in scale inhibitor concentration.
Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) : Standard
dynamic tube blocking tests were used to assess the MIC of
the inhibitors used in the combined systems (SI-2 and SI-3) in
order to confirm their performance relative to the originally
selected inhibitor (SI-1). The tests were performed at 265F,
using the formation water shown in Table 1 separated into an
anion and a cation brine. A combined flow rate of 20 ml/min
was used, through a coil with an ID of 0.8 mm and a length of
1m. The MICs for SI-2 and SI-3 were 4-5 ppm and 1-2 ppm
respectively, compared to 3 ppm for SI-1.
Scale Inhibitor Adsorption : Static adsorption tests were
performed with S1-2 and SI-3, using a range of pH to simulate
placement and spending of the stimulation systems (pH 1-5.5).
For these tests, 5 g of disaggregated core was placed in 10 ml
of pH adjusted scale inhibitor solution (5000 ppm), mixed and
aged at 200F for 24 hours. The scale inhibitor concentration
of a filtered sample of the supernatant liquid post-test was
measured and the adsorption per gram of core calculated.
SI-2 was found to increase adsorption as pH increased,
whereas SI-3 showed a decrease in adsorption with increasing
pH (Figure 7).
Coreflood Tests : Two formation damage coreflood tests,
using reservoir core, were performed in order to reduce the
risk of damage during a field trial. These tests were performed
at reservoir conditions. One coreflood test was performed with
a scale dissolver -scale inhibitor system (D1 and SI-2) and one
with the combined 7.5% HCl-scale inhibitor system (A2 and
SI-3).

P.S.SMITH, C.C.CLEMENT JR. AND A.MENDOZA ROJAS

The coreflood test with D1 and SI-2 caused a 35% loss in

permeability to oil (at irreducible water saturation) in a core
with an initial permeability of 64 mD. The cause of damage is
not known. A summary of the coreflood test is shown in Figure
8.
The coreflood test with the combined acid system (A2 and
SI-3) increased the permeability to oil (at irreducible water
saturation) by at least 45%, in a core with a 15 mD initial
permeability. This initial permeability to oil was not stable,
and the actual stimulation benefit may have been higher. A
summary of the coreflood test is shown in Figure 9.
Field Trial Planning
The laboratory study identified two potential combined scale
removal and scale inhibition systems, one based on HCl and
one using a scale dissolver. The combined HCl system is likely
to be more cost effective than the scale dissolver system,
consequently the initial field trials will preferentially use this
system. Well candidates and deployment options are currently
being considered.
Conclusions
1. Combined scale removal and inhibitor systems can be
successfully formulated.
2. Scale inhibitor selection must be tailored to the required
stimulation system.
3. Calcium chelation by scale dissolvers does not preclude
the precipitation of the calcium salt of a wide range of
scale inhibitors.
4. Calcium carbonate scale inhibitors are available with
effective adsorption under highly acidic conditions .
5. This study found a threshold scale inhibitor concentration
above which corrosion control in an HCl acid system was
lost.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank BP Amoco, Ecopetrol, Total
and Triton for their support of this study.
Special thanks go to Joel Boles, Hugh Bourne, Stuart Holt,
Myles Jordan, Martin McCormack, John Martin and Pat Neal
for their assistance in maintaining the momentum of this study.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.
15.

16.

References
1.

2.

3.

4.

Dean, G.D. et al : Large Scale Application of Acid Stimulation

- Tulare Zone, South Belridge Field, Kern County California, ,
paper SPE 38323 presented at the SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Long Beach, California, 25-27 June 1997.
Strong, A.J. et al : Well Stimulation : A Mature Asset Case
Study, paper SPE 38769 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October 1997.
Andersen, K.I.: Maximizing Production From Gravel Packed
Wells at Gullfaks Field by Stimulation and Installation of
Multiphase Booster Pumps, paper SPE 50682 presented at the
SPE European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, Netherlands,
20-22 October 1998.
Van Domelen and M.S., Jennings, Jr., A.R.: Alternate Acid
Blends for HPHT Applications, paper SPE 30419 presented at

17.

18.

19.

20.

SPE 60222

the Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, 5-8 Sept.

1995.
da Motta, E.P. et al : Acidizing Gas Wells in the Merluza Field
Using an Acetic/Formic Acid Mixture and Foam Pigs, paper
SPE 39424 presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 18-19 Feb
1998.
Shaughnessy, C.M. and Kline, W.E.: EDTA Removes
Formation Damage at Prudhoe Bay, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct 1983)
1783-1791.
Rhudy, J.S.: Removal of Mineral scale From Reservoir Core by
Scale Dissolver, paper SPE 25161 presented at SPE
International; Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 2-5 March 1993.
Paul, J.M. and Fieler, E.R: A New Solvent for Oilfield Scales,
paper SPE 24847 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference, Washington, DC, 4-7 October 1992.
Fredd, C.N. and Folger, H.S.: Alternative Stimulation Fluids
and their Impact on Carbonate Acidizing, paper SPE 31074
presented at the SPE International Symposium on Formation
Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 14-15 Feb 1996.
Fredd, C.N. and Folger, H.S.: Chelating Agents as Effective
Matrix Stimulation Fluids for Carbonate Formations, paper
SPE 37212 presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 18-21 February 1997.
Meyers, K.O. and Skillman, H.L.; The Chemistry and Design
of Scale Inhibitor Squeeze Treatments, paper SPE 13550
presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield and
Geothermal Chemistry, Phoenix, Arizona, 9-11 April 1985.
Underdown, D.R. and Newhouse, D.P.: Evaluation of Calcium
Carbonate Scale Inhibitors for Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, paper
SPE 15658 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference,
New Orleans, Louisiana, 5-8 October 1986.
Payne, G.E.: A History of Downhole Scale Inhibition by
Squeeze Treatments on the Murchison Platform, paper SPE
16539 presented at Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen,
Scotland, 8-11 Sept. 1987.
Vetter, O.J.: An Evaluation of Scale Inhibitors, JPT (August
1972) 997-1006.
King, G.E. and Warden, S.L.: Introductory Work in Scale
Inhibitor Squeeze Performance: Core Tests and Field Results,
paper SPE 18485 presented at the SPE International Symposium
on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, February 8-10, 1989.
Przybylinski, J.L.: Adsorption and Desorption Characteristics
of Mineral Scale Inhibitors as Related to the Design of Squeeze
Treatments, paper SPE 18486 presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, TX, February 8-10,
1989.
Carlberg, B.L.: Scale Inhibitor Precipitation Squeeze for NonCarbonate Reservoirs, paper SPE 17008 presented at the SPE
Production Technology Symposium, Lubbock, TX, 16-17 Nov.
1987.
Browning, F.H. and Fogler, H.S.: Precipitation and Dissolution
of Calcium-Phosphonates for the Enhancement of Squeeze
Lifetimes, paper SPE 25164 presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2-5
March 1993.
Oddo, J.E., Tomson, M.B.: Why Scale Forms and How to
Predict It paper SPE 21710 presented at SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK, 7-9 April 1991.
He, S.L. et al.: A New Interactive Software for Scale
Prediction, Control, and Management. paper SPE 38801

COMBINED SCALE REMOVAL AND SCALE INHIBITION TREATMENTS

presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 5-8 Oct. 1997.
21. Jasinski, R. et al.: Calcite Scaling Tendencies for North Sea
HTHP Wells: Prediction, Authentication and Application,
paper SPE 49198 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30
September 1998.
22. Vetter, O.J. et al : Well Stimulation and Scale Inhibitors,
paper SPE 17284 presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil and
Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, 10-11 March, 1988.

30000
20000
10000

D6

D5

D3

A1

D4

0
D7

10800
650
27

40000

D2

Chloride
Bicarbonate
Sulphate

Scale Dissolver .
15% Acetic Acid .
7.5% HCl .

50000

A2

Concentration (mg/L)
5572
173
1347
165
17
86
2

60000

D1

Ion
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Barium
Strontium
Iron

CALCIUM CARBONATE DISSOLUTION

Screening Tests

Dissolved Calcium, mg/L

SPE 60222

Scale Dissolver/Stimulation System Reference

Figure 2 : Calcium Carbonate Solubility in Scale Dissolver and

Acid Systems After 24 Hours at 200F.

COMPATIBILITY OF SI-1 WITH CALCIUM

Calcium Concentration, ppm

50000

TABLE 1 : Formation Water Analysis

CORROSION SCREENING TESTS

Corrosion Rate, lbs/sq.ft.

1.0000
Scale Dissolver .
15% Acetic Acid .
7.5% HCl .

45000
40000
35000
30000

INCOMPATIBLE - PRECIPITATION

25000
20000
15000
COMPATIBLE

10000
5000
0

0.1000

10

pH
0.0100

Figure 3 : Calcium Tolerance Envelope for Scale Inhibitor (SI-1)

0.0010

IMPACT OF SCALE INHBITOR ON CORROSION RATE

Ambient Pressure, 175 deg F

0.018
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002

A2+SI-3

A2

A13+SI-2

A1

D2+SI-2

D2

0.000
D1+ SI-2

Figure 1 : Corrosion Rate With 13Cr Coupon After 24 hours of

Exposure at 175F to Scale Dissolvers and Acid Systems.

8 Hours
16 Hours
24 Hours

D1

Scale Dissolver/Stimulation System Reference

0.020

Corrosion Rate, lbs/sq.ft.

D10

D9

D8

A2

A1

D7

D6

D5

D4

D3

D2

D1

0.0001

Figure 4 : Impact of Scale Inhibitor on the Corrosion Rate of Scale

Dissolvers and Acid Systems

P.S.SMITH, C.C.CLEMENT JR. AND A.MENDOZA ROJAS

SPE 60222

FORMATION DAMAGE COREFLOOD TEST

IMPACT OF SCALE INHIBITOR ON SCALE SOLUBILITY

D1 and SI-2

100

60000

BRINE

50000

OIL

BRINE

OIL

OIL

80

15% v/v Scale Inhibitor

PERMEABILITY, mD

Dissolved calcium, mg/L

Neat Dissolver/Acid System

40000
30000

60
COMBINED TREATMENT
40

20000

20

10000

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

PORE VOLUMES

D2

A2

D1

A1

Scale Dissolver/Stimulation System Reference

Figure 5 : Impact of 15% v/v Scale inhibitor on Calcium Carbonate

Dissolution by Scale Dissolver and Acid Systems

Figure 8 : Formation Damage Coreflood Test With Combined

Scale Dissolver (D1)-Scale Inhibitor (SI-2) Treatment

FORMATION DAMAGE COREFLOOD TEST

Impact Of SI-3 on Downhole Corrosion of 7.5% HCl (A2)

A2 and SI-3

60

0.25

BRINE

OIL

BRINE

OIL

OIL

BRINE

0.2

PERMEABILITY, mD

Corrosion Rate, lbs/sq.ft.

50

0.15

0.1

40

30
COMBINED TREATMENT
20

10

0.05

0 gpt

30 gpt

60 gpt

90 gpt

120 gpt

150 gpt

30

60

90

120

150

180

PORE VOLUMES

Scale Inhibitor Concentration

Figure 6 : Impact of Scale Inhibitor (SI-3) Concentration on

Downhole Corrosion Rate of 7.5% HCl System (A2).

STATIC ADSORPTION VERSUS pH

Inhibitor Adsorption, mg/g

3
2.5

SI-2
2
1.5
1
0.5

SI-3
0
1

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

pH

Figure 7 : Impact of pH on Static Adsorption of Scale Inhibitors

SI-2 and SI-3 on Crushed Core.

Figure 9 : Formation Damage Coreflood Test With Combined

7.5% HCl (A2)-Scale Inhibitor (SI-3) Treatment