Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology, 30:203211, 2009

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0193-2691 print=1532-2351 online
DOI: 10.1080/01932690802498658

Estimation of the Scale Deposits Near Wellbore via

Software in the Presence of Inhibitors
R. Hosny,1 S. E. M. Desouky,1 M. Ramzi,1 Th. Abdel-Moghny,1
F. M. S. El-Dars,2 and A. B. Farag2
1

Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt

Faculty of Science, Helwan University, Helwan, Egypt

In this study, computer software was used in order to estimate the scaling tendency of the commingling of two incompatible waters existed in Egyptian oil reservoirs of Gulf of Suez area. The
chemical analyses of the two incompatible waters (injection and formation waters) have been used
as input data to the computer simulator. The reservoirs characterized by a temperature of
90127
C, and salinity of 100,000230,000 ppm. The scaling results for the commingling of both
injection and formation water at reservoir temperatures and pressures are recorded. The results of
theoretical software and laboratory jar-testing were compared. It was found that mixing of the
injection water and formation water may lead to calcium carbonate and barium sulphate scaling
at 40% formation water in absence of scale inhibitor. Two types of commercial scale inhibitors
(AII and SII) were evaluated using both jar test method and National Association of Corrosion
engineers standard test methods. The results showed the mastery of AII over the commercial
inhibitor SII in preventing of both scales.
Keywords

Scale inhibitor, scale deposition, scale prediction, soft ware simulator

INTRODUCTION
Most of scales found in oileld are formed by either
mixing of two incompatible brines or sudden changes in
produced uid conditions, such as pressure, temperature,
or pH.[1]
The formation of mineral scale as may result in greatly
reduced well performance as rock pores. Tubulars and topside machinery become choked by a build up of insoluble
inorganic precipitate.[2] Scale can develop in the formation
pores near the wellbore, reducing formation porosity and
permeability. It also can coat and damage downhole completion equipment, such as safety valves and gas-lift mandrels.[3] The primary effect of scale growth on tubing is
to lower the production rate by increasing the surface
roughness of the pipe and reducing the owing area. The
scale developed along the tube can be seeing in Figure 1,
in this respect, the highest scaling rate is located at the inlet
of the tube.[4] Thereby, scale can be deposited all along
water paths from injectors through the reservoir to surface
equipment.

Received 23 October 2007; accepted 5 November 2007.

Address correspondence to Th. Abdel-Moghny, Egyptian
Pertoleum Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt. E-mail: Thanaa_h@
yahoo.com

Scale Prediction
The scale prediction software program used to measure the theoretical quantitative calculations of ST result
from mixing of two incompatible waters at one or more
specied temperature, pressure and at any specied ratio
to simulate the reservoir conditions.[5] In order to obtain
reasonable results from such program, however, it is
essential that: 1) the results of the water analyses are
accurate; 2) a suitable computer program is used and
the capabilities and limitations of the program are understood; 3) the user understands the system they are
attempting to model.
Scale prediction simulation technique[6] was used to
calculate queens speciation mineral saturation indices,
mineral solubilitys and the effect of mixing between different uids are illustrated in part one by Hosny et al.[7] The
quantitative calculations of ST are performed using a
specic software designed to theoretically estimate the scale
formation conditions and scale quantities that may result
from mixing two incompatible waters at one or more
specied temperature and pressure and any specied ratio
of mixing to simulate the reservoir conditions. The input
data to the software are the results of two mixing waters.
Reservoir pressure and temperature as well as mixing ratios
are also a must to complete the run.

203

204

R. HOSNY ET AL.

Jar-testing results were compared before and after adding

different concentration of commercial scale inhibitors
AII and SII.
EXPERIMENTAL

FIG. 1. The photographs of the scale formed at different positions

along the tube.

Scale Inhibition
Scale preventative chemicals can be added to prevent the
formation of scale, retard the growth of scale crystals or
keep scale mobile. Scale prevention can be take place by
scale inhibition. The most commonly used approach to
scale control in produced water is to inject chemical scale
inhibitors. Scale inhibitors can reduce the tendency for
crystallization or completely prevent scale formation and
growth by disrupting the thermodynamic stability of growing nuclei, causing dissolution of nucleated scale and=or
interfering with the crystal growth process, resulting in
blockage of the growing.[8] Phosphate esters and phosphonates are the most often chemicals used in this service. To
be effective, though, the chemical must be applied to the
produced water stream at a location upstream of the point
at which the scale will likely begin to form. Furthermore,
the chemical must be injected on a continuous basis so as
to be in solution to prevent scale formation at all times that
the produced water is being injected.[911]
It is commonly observed in laboratory experiments of
both spontaneous precipitation and seeded crystal growth
that the presence of an inhibitor, even in the threshold
range (typically between 0.1 and 10 mg=l) in a supersaturated solution, will delay the nucleation and precipitation of
sparingly soluble minerals and thus prolong the induction
period.[1219] These precipitate include calcium carbonate,
calcium sulfate, strontium sulfate, and barium sulfate.[20]
In this study, scale prediction software was used to evaluate and quantify scaling precipitated from two Egyptian
oil reservoirs existed in Gulf of Suez area at high temperature of 90127
C, high pressure of 3600 psi, and high
salinity of 100,000230,000 ppm and 35,000 ppm for formation and injected water, respectively. The cations and
anions of such waters were determined experimentally
using IC. The output data of software and laboratory

Water Analysis
Cations and anions of formation and injected brine
water were determined experimentally according to ASTM
D4327[21] using Dionex IC model DX 600 equipped with

high capacity columns. Alkaline species (CO
3 , OH , and

HCO3 ) were determined experimentally according to
ASDTM D3875 instrument[22] calculations were done
using Alkalinity calculator ver.2.10 (USGS). The traces
and ultra traces of metals were determined using inductively coupled plasma spectro instrument (ICP).[23] The
total dissolved solids, which are simply the total amount
of matter dissolved in a given volume of water, was determined experimentally according to ASTM D-1888.[24]
Conductivity and resistivity was determined experimentally using digital conductivity meter WTW 330I
according to ASTM D1125.[25] Density and specic gravity
were determined experimentally according to ASTM
D1429,[26] pH was determined experimentally according
to ASTM D1293.[27] Salinity value was calculated upon
chloride content value. The water analysis was represented
in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Complete analysis of formation water and injection water
ITEM
Physical properties
Salinity
Conductivity
Resistevity
pH
T.D.S. mg=L
Cations and anions
Lithium mg=L
Sodium mg=L
Potassium mg=L
Magnesium mg=L
Calcium mg=L
Barium mg=L
Iron mg=L
Fluoride mg=L
Bromide mg=L
Bicarbonate mg=L
Chloride mg=L
Sulfate mg=L

Formation water

Injection water

44012
7.06  102
mohs=cm
0.14164 ohm-m
7.5
48283

11619.3
3.39  102
mohs=cm
0.28653 ohm-m
7.57
12680

0.06
14338
95
569.97
1347
0.458
19.74
1.45
41
169
26674
21.6

0.07
4387
60
88.2
254.5
0.07
6.212
12.73
49.8
219.7
7042
146.57

205

ESTIMATION OF SCALE DEPOSITS

The Scale Prediction Software

The scale prediction software was used to perform the
scaling precipitation and to calculates the queens speciation mineral saturation indices, mineral solubilitys, and
the effect of mixing between different uids (formation
and injected waters).[16,17] This program calculates the scale
tendency (ST) and scale index (SI).
Calculating a Scaling Tendency
The ST is dened as the ratio of the activity product of
an equilibrium equation to the solubility product for the
same equation, the activity products is dene as Q, therefore the Scaling Tendency can be written as the following
equation:
ST Q=KSP ;
where, KSP Solubility products.
When the ratio Q=Ksp is greater than 1.0, then the solid
has tendency to form. When the ratio is less than 1.0, then
there is little tendency to form.
Calculating a Scale Index
The scale prediction results are expressed as saturation
index and the amount of potential precipitation. The SI
is the logarithmic volume of the ST, so that SI,
SI Log10 ST
The positive SI (SI > 0) can be indicating that the
solution (brine) is supersaturated, that is, from the view
of thermodynamic chemistry the scaling ions will have a
tendency to form. On the contrary, the negative SI
(SI < 0) indicates that the solution (brine) is unsaturated
and there is no potential for the scale to form. The Scale
prediction software was run using the complete water
analysis of such reservoir, and the output data were
given in Table 1.

Jar-Test Procedure
The tested incompatible brines were rstly pre-ltered to
remove any suspended materials. Then complete water
analyses were carried out to determine the concentration
of the initial composing and scaling ions. After that the
brines were mixed at different Formation water: injected
water of 20:80, 40:60, 60:40, and 80:20, respectively, and
incubated at the 150
F test temperature for 48 hours.
Then the mixtures were left for 24 hours, and then
ltered through 0.42-micron lter paper to catch any precipitate. The lter papers were dried at 150
F for 2 hours and
then the precipitates were weighted. Then the maximum
scaling ratio was determined based on the weight of the
precipitates.

Laboratory Evaluations
The ability of scale inhibitors to retard the unwanted
deposition of inorganic salts has been evaluated. The efciency orders of these antiscalants upon chelating tendencies of calcium ion have been measured using National
Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) standard test
methods.[28] In this respect two incompatible waters formation and injection waters were mixed at ratio of 40% and
60%, respectively. The commercial scale inhibitors (AII
and SII) were dosed 0100 ppm into brine waters. After
mixing, the solution were placed in oven at 70
C for 24
hours, and allowed for cooling to 25
C. The scaling ion
concentrations were then measured by inductively coupled
plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP) to determine the concentration of calcium ions remaining in solution.
Injection of Scale Inhibitor
A different concentration of the two individual commercial scale inhibitors AII and SII of 25, 50, 75, and 100 ppm
were added to the worst mixing ratio of injection: formation water (40:60 with respect to formation water) at reservoir conditions (pressure of 1000 psi and temperature of
149
F). All test cells and blank were placed in oven and
incubated at 150
F for 48 hours. Then the mixtures were
left for 24 hours, and ltered through 0.42-micron lter
paper to catch any precipitate. The lter papers were then
dried at 150
F for 2 hours and the precipitates were
weighted. Then the efciency of scale inhibitor was determined based on the following calculation:
Inhibition I

Ca  Cb
 100;
Cc  Cb

where:
Ca: calcium ion concentration in the treated sample
after precipitation.
Cb: calcium ion concentration in the blank after
precipitation.
Cc: calcium ion concentration in the blank before
precipitation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results of Water Analysis
The results in Table 1 indicated that the conductivity
of formation water and injection water are 7.06 
102 mohs=cm and 3.39  102 mohs=cm, respectively, on
the contrary it have been found that the resistivity of electrical current ow as a function of an ion dissolved in water
decreases from 0.28653 ohm-m to 0.14164 ohm-m for injection, and formation water, respectively. Moreover, it has
been found that the salinity (ionic strength) of formation
water is higher by 3.787 ( 4) times than that of injection

206

R. HOSNY ET AL.

water. According to all this data and in addition to the

knowledge about the inversely relation between the
dissolved ions and the resistivity, one can predict that
the formation water has an ability to form undissolved ions
than injection water.
In Table 1 also, it has been observed that the rank of
increasing of the concentration of the dissolved cations
and anions of formation water measuring using Dionex
IC, are Li < Ba < Fe < K < Mg < Ca < Na,



< Na, for cations and F < SO
4 < Br < HCO3 < Cl
for anions, respectively, taking into account the nature of
dissolved salts with respect to pure NaCl brine. Thereby,
the probabilities of formation of sparingly soluble salts of
CaCO3 and BaSO4 are dominant. Typically, the same rank
of increasing the concentration of the dissolved cations and
anions of the injection water are realized, except the rank

of SO
4 and Br are reversed.

TABLE 2
Maximum scale mass in mg=l for all possible scales
Type of scale
% Formation
water

BaSO4
(Barite)

CaCO3
(Calcite)

CaSO42H2O
(Gypsum)

Ambient conditions (P 14.73 psi and T 60
F)

100
25.579
18.855
0
80
26.856
19.569
0
60
23.366
19.881
0
40
19.207
19.411
0
20
14.839
17.409
0
0
10.381
11.864
0
Reservoir conditions (P 1000 psi and T 149
F)
100
8.4189
40.916
0
80
18.617
43.046
0
60
18.917
44.621
0
40
16.547
45.165
0
20
13.217
43.611
0
0
9.4457
36.673
0

Prediction of Scales Formed at Different Conditions

Using Scale Software
The effect of mixing injected waters with formation
water at reservoir temperatures and pressures were studied. In this respect the two brines water used in current
study were mixed at both of 60
F and 149
F, which
represents the ambient and reservoir conditions, respectively. This ST of all possible scales have been predicted
using the software, in this respect, the relation between
the percentage of formation water in X axis plotted
individually against all of maximum scale, STs, and
SIs, in Y axis, respectively.
The maximum scale masses in mg=l at ambient conditions (pressure of 14.73 psi and temperature of 60
F), and
at different mixing ratios of 100, 80, 60, 40, 20, and 0 of
formation water are shown in Figure 2, which exhibits

large quantities of barite (BaSO4) and calcite (CaCO3) at

the ratio of 40:60 of formation water. The results in
Table 2 represented the maximum scale masses at reservoir
conditions (pressure of 1000 psi and temperature of 149
F)
and indicated that the maximum scale masses of calcite
(CaCO3) is 45.165 mg=l, and beginning at formation: injection water ratio of 40:60, in the contrary the maximum
scale mass of barium sulfate is 18.917 mg=l recorded at
ratio of formation water: injection water (60:40). Such data
was plotted in Figure 3 hence the mixing ratio should be
designed suitably.

FIG. 2. Maximum scale mass in mg=L for all possible scales for ratios
of mixture at ambient conditions.

FIG. 3. Maximum scale mass in mg=L for all possible scales for ratios
of mixture at reservoir conditions.

207

ESTIMATION OF SCALE DEPOSITS

TABLE 3
Scale tendency for all possible scales
Type of scale
% Formation
water
At ambient conditions
100
80
60
40
20
0
At reservoir conditions
100
80
60
40
20
0

BaSO4
(Barite)

CaCO3
(Calcite)

CaSO4  2H2O
(Gypsum)

FeCO3
(Siderite)

SrSO4
(Celesite)

8.0874
17.3929
26.6169
35.7253
44.6971
53.6329

4.2006
3.8835
3.5743
3.2238
2.765
2.0465

0.0067
0.0136
0.0194
0.0237
0.0257
0.0232

0.1588
0.1457
0.1324
0.1169
0.0961
0.0628

0
0
0
0
0
0

1.5929
3.4251
5.25
7.0771
8.932
10.899

8.2309
7.9043
7.5191
7.0048
6.236
4.8724

0.0047
0.0097
0.0141
0.0176
0.0197
0.0186

0.1324
0.1292
0.1244
0.1165
0.1023
0.0728

0
0
0
0
0
0

Scale Tendency
The results in Table 3 revealed that the ST of barite
values at ambient conditions are 17.3929, 26.6169,
35.7253, 44.6971, and 53.6329, that corresponding to 80,
60, 40, 20, and 0 of formation water, respectively. Meanwhile, the results of ST of calcite are 4.2006, 3.8835,
3.5743, and 3.2238, that corresponding to 100, 80, 60,
and 40 of formation water, respectively. It is clear that a
severe barite and calcite-scaling are enlargement because
there scale tendencies are greater than one (ST > 1.0),
where as a little tendency toward gypsum formation due
to its ST is less than one (ST < 1.0). Our suggestion run
in harmony with Yuan.[29]

The results of ST at reservoir conditions tabulated in

Table 3 revealed that the barite values are 3.4251, 5.25,
7.0771, 8.932, and 10.899, that corresponding to 80, 60,
40, 20, and 0 of formation water, respectively. Where as
the ST of calcite are 8.2309, 7.9043, 7.5191, and 7.0048,
which corresponding to 100, 80, 60, and 40 of formation
water, respectively. Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate the ST
of all possible scales resulting from mixing different ratio
of formation water and injection water. They also indicate
that, calcium carbonate and barium sulfate are superiors to
growth at any mixing ratio between formation water and
injection water.

FIG. 4. Scale tendency for all possible scales for ratios of mixture at

FIG. 5. Scale tendency for all possible scales for ratios of mixture at
reservoir conditions.

ambient conditions.

208

R. HOSNY ET AL.

TABLE 4
Scale index for all possible scales
Type of scale
% Formation Water BaSO4 (Barite) CaCO3 (Calcite) CaSO4  2H2O (Gypsum) FeCO3 (Siderite) SrSO4 (Celesite)
At ambient conditions
100
80
60
40
20
0
At reservoir conditions
100
80
60
40
20
0

0.9078
1.2404
1.4252
1.553
1.6503
1.7294

0.6233
0.5892
0.5532
0.5084
0.4417
0.311

2.1739
1.8665
1.7122
1.6253
1.5901
1.6345

2.2291
0.8365
0.8781
0.9322
1.0173
1.202

0
0
0
0
0
0

0.2022
0.5347
0.7202
0.8499
0.9509
1.0374

0.9154
0.8979
0.8762
0.8454
0.7949
0.6877

2.3279
2.0132
1.8508
1.7545
1.7055
1.7305

0.8781
0.8887
0.9052
0.9337
0.9901
1.1379

0
0
0
0
0
0

The Scale Index

The SI at ambient conditions are shown in Table 4
(Figure 6), such results illustrated that the higher SI values
of barite are 1.2404, 1.4252, 1.553, 1.6503, and 1.7294 that
corresponding to 80, 60, 40, 20, and 0 of formation water,
respectively. Also, it is indicated that the SI of calcite are
0.6233, 0.5892, 0.5532, and 0.5084, that corresponding to
100, 80, 60, and 40, of formation water, respectively. Such
values illustrated that the SI are greater than zero (SI > 0),
then such solid are supersaturated and have a tendency to
form hard scales.

The values of SI at reservoir conditions shown in

Table 4, point to that the SI of barite are 0.7202, 0.8499,
0.9509, and 1.0374, that corresponding to 60, 40, 20, and
0 of formation water, respectively. Where as, the SI of
calcite are 0.9154, 0.8979, 0.8762, and 0.8454 that corresponding to 100, 80, 60, and 40, of formation water, respectively. On the contrary as indicated in Figure 7, SI of the
calcium sulfate (gypsum), and ferric carbonate recorded
negative values (SI < 0), this mean that gypsum and ferric
carbonate are undersaturated, and did not cause scale
precipitation.

FIG. 6. Scale index for all possible scales for ratios of mixture at
ambient conditions.

FIG. 7. Scale index for all possible scales for ratios of mixture at
reservoir conditions.

209

ESTIMATION OF SCALE DEPOSITS

TABLE 5
Maximum scale mass mg=l) in jar test at reservoir
conditions
% Formation
Water
20
40
60
80

TABLE 6
Effect of scale inhibitor on prevention scale deposition at
reservoir conditions

Amount of Scale
Formed (mg=l)
201.4
384.6
105.8
114.2

It is clear that from all these results the superior scales

formed are calcite and barite.
Results of Jar Test
Jar test was conducted to conrm the results of the
simulator, and the results are given in Table 5 and plotted
in Figure 8. It was found that the commingling of injected
water with the formation water lead to scaling problems of
384.6 mg=l (total scale) at 60:40 of formation water to
injection water, respectively. So the results indicated that
when the amount of commingled injection water is
increased than 50%, the minor amount of CaCO3 scale will
formed. Whereas, the predictions of BaSO4 scale depend
on the assumption composition of the injection water.
Moreover, no scaling of CaCO3 and BaSO4 minerals is
predicted below approximately 50% injection water.
The results of maximum scale amount of jar test and the
software at reservoir conditions that represent in Table 5
evident a good conformity between both tools used to calculate and understanding the meticulous thermokinetic
process that causes the scale. Accordingly, the ratios of

FIG. 8. Maximum scale mass in mg=L for ratios of mixture in jar test
at reservoir conditions.

Amount of scale, Wt (mg)

(40:60%)
Inhibitor concentrations
(ppm)

Inhibitor
(AII)

Inhibitor
(SII)

0
25
50
75
100

384.6
103.842
88.458
80.766
99.996

384.6
115.38
107.688
119.226
130.764

80 and 60 of formation water are the most favorable ratios

that can be applied safely in oileld.
Evaluation of Commercial Scale Inhibitors Using
NACE Test
The study was carried out to investigate in more details
the role of the commercial scale inhibitors on the amount
of calcium ion remained in the scalable solution. The
efciency values were measured for scale inhibitors at different inhibitor concentrations using NACE standard test
methods. Therefore, two commercial scale inhibitors (AII
and SII) were evaluated by laboratory testing to determine
their relative effectiveness. The efciencies of these inhibitors are evaluated against precipitation of mineral scales
using natural brine and sea water provided from Gulf of
Suez. The effect of scale inhibitors AII and SII on prevention of scale deposition at reservoir conditions and at

FIG. 9.

Effect of scale inhibitors (AII&SII) on prevention scale

deposition of the 40:60% of formation water.

210

R. HOSNY ET AL.

TABLE 7
Efciencies of scale inhibitors AII and SII on the deposition of calcium carbonate and barium sulfate at
different inhibitors concentrations
CaCO3
Inhibitor concentration, ppm
Scale inhibitor AI
25
50
75
100
Scale inhibitor SI
25
50
75
100

BaSO4

Ca

Cb

Cc

Efciency

Ca

Cb

Cc

Efciency

670.61
673.702
675.25
671.38

614.12
614.12
614.12
614.12

691.5
691.5
691.5
691.5

72.9
77
78.99
73.99

17.93
18.61
18.95
18.1

4.487
4.487
4.487
4.487

22.52
22.52
22.52
22.52

74.55
78.32
80.2
75.5

668.284
669.832
667.512
665.592

614.12
614.12
614.12
614.12

691.5
691.5
691.5
691.5

69.99
71.99
68.99
66.52

17.416
17.76
17.25
16.74

4.487
4.487
4.487
4.487

22.52
22.52
22.52
22.52

71.7
73.6
70.78
67.96

different concentrations are presented in Table 6 (Figure 9).

The results indicated signicant decreases on the amount of
scale precipitated after adding scale inhibitor AII by about
1.1, 1.2, 1.5, and 1.3 times over scale inhibitor SII at the concentration of 25 ppm, 50 ppm, 75 ppm, and 100 ppm, respectively, that is, the mastery of AII over SII as antiscalants.
The prevention of calcium carbonate and barium sulfate
scales with scale inhibitors AII and SII and at 40% of formation water are summarized in Table 7. The data show
that, the inhibitor AII manage, prevent and retard the
growth of crystals of calcium carbonate and barium sulfate
as its concentration increased. It also clears that, above
25 ppm up to 75 ppm inhibitor concentration, the soluble
calcium ions are increased from 72.9% up to 78.99% and
from 74.55% to 80.2% for CaCO3 and BaSO4, respectively.
However, the efciency of scale inhibitor SII at 50 ppm has

FIG. 10.

Efciencies of the inhibitors AII as calcium carbonate and

barium sulfate at different inhibitor concentration.

been enhanced to 71.99% and 73.6% for CaCO3 and

BaSO4, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Computer scaling predictions have been performed on a
number of aqueous systems. The software program was
used in order to estimates the ST of the commingling of
two incompatible waters existed in Egyptian oil reservoirs
of Gulf of Suez area, indicated high scaling tendencies of
BaSO4, and CaCO3 at various water compositions,
temperatures and pressures covering oileld conditions. A
series of laboratory scaling experiments are the way to
conrm the ST of two incompatible waters.

FIG. 11. Efciencies of the inhibitors SII as calcium carbonate and

barium sulfate at different inhibitor concentration.

ESTIMATION OF SCALE DEPOSITS

The maximum scale amounts of jar test and the software

program at reservoir conditions are obtained at 40:60 of
formation water; consequently, one can say that both of
the simulation results and jar test results are in good agreement with each other.
A different concentration of the two commercial scale
inhibitors AII and SII of 25, 50, 75, and 100 ppm were
added to the worst mixing ratio of injection: formation
water (40:60 with respect to formation water) at reservoir
conditions. The results (Figures 10 and 11) indicate the prevention of both barium sulfate and calcium carbonate
increases as the concentration of the inhibitor increases
up to the optimum concentration 75 ppm, as well as the
inhibition efciency were enhanced up to 78.99% and
80.2% for CaCO3 and BaSO4, respectively. The results
showed the mastery of AII over the commercial inhibitor
SII in preventing of both scales.

REFERENCES
[1] Yuan, M., Adrain, C.T., and Sorbie, K.S. (1994) Marine
Petr. Geol., 11(1): 2430.
[2] Graham, G.M., Sorbie, K.S., and Boak, L.S. (1995) SPE
28997. Paper presented at Society of Petroleum Engineers
International Symposium on Oil Field Chemistry, San
Antonio, TX, USA; 1417 February.
[3] Cabtree, M., Eslinger, D., Fletcher, P., Miller, M., Johnson,
A., and King, G. (1999) Oil Field Rev., 3045.
[4] Zhang, Y., Shaw, H., Farquhar, R., and Dawe, R. (2001)
J. Petr. Sci. Eng., 29: 8595.
[5] Tomson, M.B., Fu, G., Watson, M.A., and Kan, A.T. (2003)
SPE 80255. Paper presented at the Society of Petroleum
Engineers International Symposium on Oileld Chemistry,
Houston, TX, USA; 57 February.
[6] Helgeson, H.C., Kirkham, D.H., and Flowers, G.C. (1981)
Am. J. Sci., 281: 1241516.
[7] Hosny, R., Desouky, S.E.M., Ramzi, M., Abdel-Moghny,
Th., El-Dars, F.M.S., and Farag, A.B. (2007) 5th Specialty
Conference on Enviromental Issues in the Petroleum and
Petrochemical Industries, Saudi Arabian Air and Waste
Management Association and Bahrain Socity of Engineers.
Manama, Bahrain, 2225 February.

211

[8] Graham, G.M., Boak, L.S., and Sorbie, K.S. (2003) SPE
Production and Facilities, 18(1): 2844.
[9] Abdel-Moghny, Th., Ramzi, M., Desouky, S.M., and
El-Batanoney, M. (2003) J. Mater. Sci. Res. India, 1(1): 3544.
[10] Abdel-Moghny, Th., Ramzi, M., Desouky, S.M., and
El-Batanoney, M. (2003) Oriental J. Chem., 19(2): 259206.
[11] Abdel-Moghny, Th., Ramzi, M., Desouky, S.M., and
El-Batanoney, M. (2003) Oriental J. Chem., 19(2): 361367.
[12] He, S.L., Odd, J.E., and Tomson, M.B. (1994) Appl.
Geochem., 9: 561.
[13] Naono, H., and Miura, M. (1965) J. Chem. Soc. Jpn., 38: 80.
[14] Naono, H. (1967) J. Chem. Soc. Jpn., 40: 1104.
[15] Sarig, S., and Raphael, M. (1972) J. Cryst. Growth, 16: 203.
[16] Liu, S.T., and Nancollas, G.H. (1975) J. Colloid Interface
Sci., 52: 582.
[17] Rizkalla, E.N. (1983) J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 1, 79: 1857.
[18] Van der Leeden, M.C., Kashchiev, D., van Rosmalen, G.M.
(1992) J. Colloid Interface Sci., 152: 338.
[19] Bromley, L.A., Cottier, D., Davey, R.J., Dobbs, B., Smith,
S., and Heywood, B.R. (1993) Langmuir, 9: 3594.
[20] He, S.L, Kan, A.T., and Mason, B.T. (1996) Langmuir, 12:
19011905.
[21] Annual Book of American Standard Test Method. (1992)
ASTM-D4327-91, vol. 11.01, p. 336.
[22] Annual Book of American Standard Test Method. (1992)
ASTM-D3875-80, vol. 11.02, p. 437.
[23] Atwood, S.E., Wallwey, D.D. (1996) J. Chromatog. A, 739:
265271.
[24] Annual Book of American Standard Test Method. (1992)
ASTM-D1888-78e2, vol. 11.01, p. 243.
[25] Annual Book of American Standard Test Method. (1992)
ASTM-D1125-91, vol. 11.01, p. 202.
[26] Annual Book of American Standard Test Method. (1992)
ASTM-D1429-86, vol. 11.01, p. 301.
[27] Annual Book of American Standard Test Method. (1992)
ASTM-D1293-84, vol. 11.01, p. 45.
[28] National Association of Corrosion Engineers. (1990)
Laboratory screening tests to determine the ability of scale
inhibitors to prevent the precipitation of calcium carbonate
and calcium sulphate from solution (for oil and gas production systems). NACE Standard TM 0 374-90, item no. 53023.
[29] Yuan, M., Smith, J.K., and Williamson, D.A. (2004) SPE
87429. Paper presented at the 6th International Symposium
on Oileld Scale, Aberdeen, U.K., 2627 May.