SPE-184148-MS

Assessment and Compatibility Study of Lower Fares Formation Water and

Alkaline Steam Injection Water Heavy Oil North Kuwait

Imad Al-Maheimad, Kuwait Oil Company; Shabbir Mukadam, Kuwait Institue for Scientific Research; Badar
Al‑Matar, Kuwait Oil Company

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 6-8 December 2016.

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

Abstract
Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) is planning to adopt thermal method for the recovery of heavy oil in its
north Kuwait heavy oil reservoir. However there are growing concern of salts precipitation and scaling
deposits, especially magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) in the targeted reservoirs due to the potential reaction
of alkaline steam water mixture with the reservoir waters which contain significant concentration of
magnesium, barium and other components. A comprehensive compatibility study was carried out using
laboratory test and computer scaling predictions of scaling tendencies of the fluids as follows:

• Alkaline steam boiler feed water (SBFW) with the Lower Fars (LF) formation water

• Heavy oil Produced water (formation + condensed water) from the thermal wells) with the Tayarat
formation water
This paper presents the results of computer scaling study performed using ScaleChem simulation software
and laboratory examination of water compatibility using the Jar test analysis for mixing alkaline steam
boiler water (SBFW) with the Lower Fars formation water (LFW).
The main objectives of this study were as follows:

• To analyze and characterize the SBFW and LFW

• To perform computer scale compatibility study to predict type and masses of scale that could be
generated as a result of mixing pH adjusted steam water with the LF water.
• To predict scaling tendency of individual waters at defined temperature and pressure conditions

• To check compatibility of these waters using laboratory Jar tests

The type of scale and the location in which it is predicted to occur are important factors when considering
the risk of scale formation. Scales such as calcium carbonate (CaCO3) can be removed relatively easily
with the appropriate chemical treatment. Alternatively, scales such as barium sulphate (BaSO4) are much
more resistant to chemical treatments and can require more specialized products. These chemical treatments
present significant health and environmental risks, and considerable additional expense. Results indicated
2 SPE-184148-MS

that both calcium sulphate (CaSO4) and Mg(OH)2 are predicted to form in the boiler and the amounts of solid
phase is computed to exceed 3,000 mg/l, depending on the inlet pH. At lower pH, in the mixing calculation
for the reservoir, BaSO4 is dominant scale. At higher pH, several scales are computed to exist.

Introduction
A common method used nowadays to produce heavy oil is a steam injection; this method is considered as
Enhanced Oil Recovery Method (EOR).
Various studies were made to find out ways to recover the heavy crude oil from the shallow deposit
in Kuwait. The viscosity, temperature behavior of Kuwait heavy oil is such that its viscosity is reduced
by a factor of more than 100 when the temperature is increased by 300 degrees F. This suggests that oil
might be produced successfully with thermal process. Other favorable conditions for such a process are the
shallow depth of accumulation and the relatively high oil saturation. In view of their size and favorable
characteristics, Kuwait’s heavy oilfields are obvious candidates for the application of thermal recovery
methods.
However there are growing concern of salts precipitation and scaling deposits, especially Magnesium
Hydroxide in the targeted reservoirs due to the potential reaction of alkaline steam water mixture with the
reservoir waters which contain significant concentration of Magnesium, Barium and other components.
Comprehensive study was carried out to explore the compatibility between the injected alkaline steam
and the targeted reservoirs formation waters.

Table 1—Analyses of the two waters

Elements Unit Lower Fars water Boiler Feed Water

Sodium mg/l 8757 2087

Calcium mg/l 1404.18 448
Magnesium mg/l 1241.91 229
Potassium mg/l 243.54 103
Strontium mg/l 72.78 12.44
Barium mg/l 21.52 2.83
Iron mg/l 8.82 0.20
Lithium mg/l 0.35 0.11
Silicon mg/l 6.11 10.44
Boron mg/l 1.85 0.45
Bicarbonate mg/l 423.58 399.73
Chloride mg/l 19687 4005
Sulfate mg/l 0.1 740
Density gm/cm3 1.0203 1.003
Conductivity mS/cm 55.09 NA
pH 6.92 7.569
Dissolved Oxygen ppm <0.1
Dissolved sulfide ppm <0.1 <0.1
Total Dissolved Solid mg/l 31868.74 8.0385
SPE-184148-MS 3

Table 2—Lower Fars (LF) gas composition analysis

Producing Well SR - 17
Formation Unit Lower Fars

Gas line pressure psi 20

H2S in gas phase ppm 20
CO2 in the gas phase % 4.5

Experimental Procedure

Water Analysis
Analyses of the two waters used in this study are shown in Table 1. The critical piece of information is the
Lower Fars (LF) gas composition. The analysis was conducted on-site by Gastect dragger tubes. Table 2
shows the LF gas analysis. Since this gas is in contact with the LF formation, it is a part of mixing calculation.

Computer Scale Program

The computer scaling predictions are performed using the OLI ScaleChem scale modeling software. Results
are reported in terms of scale tendency (Ω) where a value of 1.0 is at equilibrium and >1.0 indicated some
supersaturation or a positive potential to form scale. Where this positive (Ω > 1.0) tendency is calculated
then the potential mass of scale is given (solid, mg/l) and that amount if formed would return the water
to equilibrium. However many waters can hold considerable amount of scale in supersaturated conditions,
so scaling is not certain, but does tend to be more likely as the scaling tendency get higher and above 1.0.
Scale simulation software does not account for the kinetic factors which also control scale formation. These
include location specific conditions such as the presence of nucleation sites, turbulent or laminar flow and
rapid pressure changes. These factors makes it possible for a solution to be supersaturated and to have
scaling tendencies greater than 1.0, without the predicted amount of scaling forming actually.

Scaling Simulation Data

The pressure and temperature conditions used in this study are shown in Table 3, based on anticipated
injection system conditions and available reservoir data. Values in the brackets indicate range of temperature
and pressure conditions.

Table 3—Pressure and temperature conditions used to generate scaling predictions

Location Temperature (°F) Pressure (psi)

Surface 450 (77 – 450) 450 (14.5 – 450)

Injection 450 (300 – 550) 450 (350 – 650)
Formation 88 (50 – 125) 250 (200 – 300)

The SBFW water is tested at four pH’s, the base pH or pH computed from the water analysis, and then
pH of 8.5, 9.5 and 10.5. The pH is adjusted by adding sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to the water. The mixing
scenario is shown in Fig. 1.
4 SPE-184148-MS

Figure 1—Calculation diagram for the LFW and SBFW mixing

Static Autoclave Jar Tests

Static Jar test was carried out by mixing injection water with the formation water at various ratios. Each
mixture was kept in a 1000 ml glass bottle, sealed, labeled and kept in oven. These samples were incubated
in oven at a temperature of 35°C, 55°C and 75°C for 72 hours. The water mixture samples were then taken
out from the oven and cooled down at room temperature for one hour. Then to filter out the water, it is
required to use 0.45 micron filter paper, vacuum pump and glassware. The weight of the filtrate when dried,
is the weight of scale in mg/l.

Examination of Filter Membrane

Selected membranes from the jar tests were examined by scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive
spectrometry (SEM/EDS) in order to identify the scale species present.

Results and Discussion

Self-scaling
Both the waters were subjected to self-scaling simulations as a preliminary investigation of their individual
capacity to generate scale at the selected temperature and pressure conditions. Table 4 and Table 5 conatins
the pre-mixing properties of the LF and SBFW waters. The boiler conditions are tested at a fixed pressure
of 450 psi, and a fixed vapor fraction (50%, 60%, and 70%). The pH is fixed at the values of 7.5 (base), 8.5,
9.5, and 10.5 under ambient temperature and pressure. The target pH’s were set assuming that no solids are
forming. If we allow the solids to form, then additional base is needed.
SPE-184148-MS 5

Table 4—Self-scaling tendency and predicted scale for LF water

No Gas phase With gas phase

Laboratory Low T, High T, Low T, High T, Low T, High T, Low T, High T,
Analysis Low P Low P High P High P Low P Low P High P High P

Temperature, °F 77 50 125 50 125 50 125 50 125

Pressure, psi 15 200 300 300 200 200 200 300 300
pH 6.5 6.6 6.4 6.6 6.4 5.3 5.7 5.1 5.5

Scale Tend Scale tendency (1 =saturated)

CaCO3 3.4 2.9 5.1 2.9 5.0 0.07 0.4 0.05 0.3
FeCO3 0.9 0.5 2.3 0.5 2.3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Scale Mass mg/l of LF water

CaCO3 74 62 112 63 111 ND ND ND ND
FeCO3 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Table 5—Self-scaling tendency and predicted scale for SBFW

Base pH (7.5) 8.5 pH 9.5 pH 10.5 pH

Lab 50% 60% 70% 50% 60% 70% 50% 60% 70% 50% 60% 70%

Temp °F 77 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450
Pressure (psi) 15 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 450

Scale Tendency (1 = saturated)

CaCO3 9.3 4 5 6 5 6 7 10 13 18 14 21 26
SrSO4 0.3 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4
CaSO4 0.1 44 52 60 45 52 60 50 55 62 51 56 64
BaSO4 98 45 52 60 46 52 60 48 54 61 50 57 65
Mg(OH)2 - >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000 >1000

Scale Mass (mg/l)

CaSO4 1700 2100 2800 1700 2100 2800 1680 2100 2800 1680 2100 2800
Mg(OH)2 300 400 500 400 500 660 600 700 940 700 800 1130
BaSO4 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 3.8 4.6 6.0

Table 4 shows properties of LF water. The conditions are shown for laboratory and field. The calculations
are made with and without the gas phase. Table 5 shows the properties of steam boiler feed water at
laboratory and boiler conditions. The four boiler conditions are tested at pH, base, 8.5, 9.5 and 10.5.
LFW is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate at reservoir conditions in absence of gas phase.
However in presence of gas phase, formation water is in equilibrium and doesn’t show scaling tendency.
We assume that the gas phase is in contact with the LFW and is therefore a part of mixing calculation.
Concentration of H2S and CO2 in gas phase is shown in Table 2. Increasing pressure increases the partial
pressure of CO2 and increases the solubility and decreases the scaling mass of CaCO3.
Both CaSO4 and Mg(OH)2 are predicted to form in the boiler. As the SBFW pH is increased, total solid
phase is increased and Mg(OH)2 scale becomes significant. Raising the pH from the base condition of 7.5
to 8.5 or 9.5 pH increases total scale mass slightly. Raising the pH to 10.5 however, results in significantly
larger amounts of scale. Though, raising the pH doesn’t affect scale mass of CaSO4, but overall CaSO4
scaling is severe at all pH values in the range. Minor amount of BaSO4 scale is also observed at all pH
6 SPE-184148-MS

values in the range. The total amount of solid phase in the boiler feed is computed to exceed 3,000 mg/l,
depending on the pH.
CaCO3 and SrSO4 are at saturation in the SBFW but the amount of scale will be very low due to the
limited concentration of Ca+2 and Sr+2 ions in the SBFW.

Mixing Conditions
Simulation is carried out by mixing SBFW steam and LF at 90°F and 250 psi. The plots are based on
mixing SBFW steam from 0 to 95%. The 100% SBFW water mixing is not shown because it skews the
scale tendency plot. Thus, the far left of each plot is 100% LF water, and the far right is 95% SBFW steam.
Also, the gas content is highest on the far left of each plot and approaches zero at the far right of the plot
(95% SBFW). The dominant scale mass in all cases is BaSO4 (barite) and FeS (pyrrhotite).

Mixing at Base pH
Fig. 2 shows the scale tendency for SBFW and LF waters at 7.5 pH. Results show that BaSO4 is the dominant
scale risk. This is because the LF water contains 21 mg/l Ba+2 and the SBFW contains 738 mg/l SO4−2. The
scale mass predictions are for BaSO4 and FeS scale at high LF fractions. This is because the SBFW contains
a higher SO4−2 concentration than the LF contains a higher Ba+2 concentrations. The higher FeS on the left
side is because the concentration of H2S in the gas phase decreases as the SBFW fraction increases. The
worst-case scenario, based on the simulation, appears to be 15% SBFW and 85% LF.

Figure 2—Scale tendency for the four solid phases at base pH

Mixing at 8.5 pH
Fig. 3 shows the scale tendency for SBFW and LF waters at 8.5 pH. The CaCO3 and FeS scale mass increases
because of the higher pH, but the net difference from the base pH is small because the gas phase CO2 keeps
the mixture pH slightly acidic. The scale mass for the 8.5 pH is similar to the base pH. The difference is
a higher FeS mass, resulting from the higher pH and therefore the more H2S that dissolves to form HS−
and S−2 ions in the mixture. The worst-case scenario, based on the simulation, appears to be 25% SBFW
and 75% LF.
SPE-184148-MS 7

Figure 3—Scale tendency for the four solid phases at a pH of 8.5

Mixing at 9.5 pH
Fig. 4 shows the scale tendency for SBFW and LF waters at 9.5 pH. The CaCO3 and FeS scale mass increases
relative to the 8.5 pH scenario. The worst-case scenario, based on the simulation, appears to be 50% SBFW
and 50% LF.

Figure 4—Scale tendency for the four solid phases at pH 9.5

Mixing at 10.5 pH
Fig. 5 shows the scale tendency for SBFW and LF waters at 10.5 pH. This scenario displays a marked
difference in the FeS and CaCO3 scale risk, as more H2S and CO2 is converted to HS− and CO3−2. The BaSO4
and SrSO4 scale risks remain the same because they are not affected by pH. The mass of CaCO3 and FeS
scales are significant at this pH. CaCO3 solids exceed 100 mg/l when the SBFW fraction is 50% and higher.
The scale problem increases as SBFW fraction approaches 100%. The worst-case scenario, based on the
simulation, appears to be 75% SBFW and 25% LF.
8 SPE-184148-MS

Figure 5—Scale tendency for the four solid phases at a fixed pH of 10.5

Table 6, 7 and 8 shows scaling masses for FeS, BaSO4 and CaCO3 respectively. The scaling masses, are
given for the solid phases resulting from mixing SBFW at variable pH values with LF water at 90ºF and
250 psi pressure.

Table 6—Iron sulphide scaling mass (mg/L) at various pH of SBFW

Fraction
Base pH (7.5) pH = 8.5 pH=9.5 pH = 10.5
of SBFW

0 3.7821 3.7821 3.7821 3.7821

0.05 3.5074 4.13565 4.17569 5.70015
0.1 3.22724 4.38004 4.44987 6.81332
0.15 2.94441 4.52999 4.62135 7.4108
0.2 2.65929 4.59632 4.7026 7.66535
0.25 2.37209 4.58836 4.70426 7.68479
0.3 2.08302 4.51432 4.63562 7.53877
0.35 1.79233 4.38143 4.50481 7.2736
0.4 1.50034 4.19608 4.31893 6.92087
0.45 1.20748 3.96394 4.08421 6.50263
0.5 0.914304 3.69006 3.80618 5.96486
0.55 0.62158 3.37895 3.48973 5.37151
0.6 0.330367 3.03471 3.13924 4.77713
0.65 0.042196 2.66114 2.75873 4.18165
0.7 0 2.26189 2.35201 3.58498
0.75 0 1.84073 1.92295 2.98715
0.8 0 1.40224 1.47614 2.3885
0.85 0 0.95349 1.01852 1.79042
0.9 0 0.510453 0.565611 1.19869
0.95 0 0.133519 0.176219 0.647282
SPE-184148-MS 9

Table 7—Barium sulphate scaling mass (mg/l) at various pH of SBFW

Table 8—Calcium Carbonate scaling mass (mg/l) at various pH of SBFW

10 SPE-184148-MS

Worst Cases Mixing Scenario

Worst case mixing conditions were selected for each of the four pH scenarios. They are as follows:
1. Base pH – 15% SBFW: 85% LF
2. 8.5 pH – 25% SBFW: 75% LF
3. 9.5 pH – 50% SBFW: 50% LF
4. 10.5 pH – 75% SBFW: 25% LF
These mixtures were tested at the range of reservoir conditions, 50 to 200ºF and at 200 psi. An initial
set of calculations were run at 250, 300 and 400 psi. The higher pressure created a lower scale tendency
because more gas phase CO2 and H2S (both acidic) dissolved into the liquid. The plots show the CaCO3 and
BaSO4 scale tendencies and scale mass over the temperature range.

Base pH - 15% SBFW: 85% LF

Fig. 6 shows scale tendency plot for the mixture of 15% SBFW and 85% LF water.

Figure 6—Scale tendency for the mixture of 15% SBFW: 85% LF at base pH

The scales predicted to form at equilibrium conditions are CaCO3, BaSO4, and FeS. The FeS scale remains
almost stable at higher temperatures because there is no more Fe+2 to precipitate. All scale tendencies
increase with increasing temperature except for BaSO4. Three solids have scale tendencies above 1.0 at least
once over the temperature range, BaSO4, FeS, and CaCO3.

8.5 pH - 25% SBFW: 75% LF

Fig. 7 shows scale tendency plot for the mixture of 25% SBFW and 75% LF water.
SPE-184148-MS 11

Figure 7—Scale tendency for the mixture of 25% SBFW: 75% LF at 8.5 pH

The scale tendency plot for the 8.5 pH scenario is similar to the base case, except that the FeS and CaCO3
scale tendencies have a higher value. The CaCO3 scale mass is up to 200 mg/l as temperature approaches
200°F. The other solids are the same as computed in the base case.

9.5 pH - 50% SBFW: 50% LF

Fig. 8 shows scale tendency plot for the mixture of 50% SBFW and 50% LF water.

Figure 8—Scale tendency for the mixture of 50% SBFW: 50% LF at 9.5 pH
12 SPE-184148-MS

The FeS and CaCO3 scale tendencies are exceeding 10 times saturation which generally means that scale
inhibitor is required. The BaSO4 scale tendency is also higher in this case, because higher SBFW mixing
fraction was selected. CaCO3 mass exceeds 100 mg/l and is a dominat scale when the temperature is greater
than 140ºF.

10.5 pH - 75% SBFW: 25% LF

Fig. 9 shows scale tendency plot for the mixture of 75% SBFW and 25% LF water.

Figure 9—Scale tendency for the mixture of 75% SBFW: 25% LF at 10.5 pH

The FeS and CaCO3 scale tendencies are exceeding 100 times saturation and two additional solids
strontium carbonate (SrCO3) and iron carbonate (FeCO3) are now supersaturated. The expected solid
Mg(OH)2 does not reach 0.1 times saturation over this range, and is therefore not plotted.
Table 9, 10 and 11 shows scaling masses for FeS, BaSO4 and CaCO3 respectively. The scaling masses,
are given for the solid phases resulting for worst case mixing at the range of reservoir conditions, 50 to
200ºF and at 200 psi.
SPE-184148-MS 13

Table 9—Scaling mass (mg/l) for iron sulphide over a range of temperature at 200 psi

Base pH 8.5 pH 9.5 pH 10.5 pH

Temperature
15%SBFW : 25%SBFW : 50%SBFW : 75%SBFW :
°F
85%LF 75%LF 50%LF 25%LF

50 0 0 0 2.69152
60 0 0.040903 1.24297 2.7932
70 0 1.92715 2.30886 2.87453
80 1.24851 3.40194 3.13974 2.93821
90 2.94441 4.58836 3.80618 2.98715
100 4.34936 5.5584 4.34924 3.02403
110 5.52393 6.3584 4.79531 3.05104
120 6.51019 7.02075 5.16287 3.06991
130 7.3393 7.56955 5.46568 3.08198
140 8.03561 8.02364 5.71454 3.08829
150 8.61888 8.39837 5.79829 3.08964
160 9.10575 8.70645 5.75678 3.08664
170 9.51059 8.63338 5.70494 3.07979
180 9.67492 8.54137 5.64308 3.06947
190 9.55529 8.43617 5.57141 3.05597
200 9.42109 8.31787 5.49004 3.03956

Table 10—Scaling mass (mg/l) for barium sulphate over a range of temperature at 200 psi

Base pH 8.5 pH 9.5 pH 10.5 pH

Temperature
15%SBFW : 25%SBFW : 50%SBFW : 75%SBFW :
°F
85%LF 75%LF 50%LF 25%LF

50 30.9707 28.1366 20.4944 12.6709

60 30.7534 28.012 20.4391 12.642
70 30.4993 27.8649 20.3726 12.6068
80 30.2102 27.6964 20.2952 12.5657
90 29.8886 27.5079 20.2076 12.5191
100 29.5377 27.3014 20.1107 12.4673
110 29.1612 27.0791 20.0055 12.4112
120 28.7634 26.8437 19.8934 12.3515
130 28.3491 26.5982 19.7757 12.2891
140 27.9237 26.3456 19.654 12.225
150 27.4927 26.0894 19.5333 12.16
160 27.0623 25.8329 19.4166 12.0952
170 26.6388 25.5983 19.3028 12.0312
180 26.2423 25.3767 19.1938 11.969
190 25.8926 25.172 19.0911 11.9091
200 25.5782 24.9885 18.9963 11.8522
14 SPE-184148-MS

Table 11—Scaling mass (mg/l) for calcium carbonate over a range of temperature at 200 psi

Base pH 8.5 pH 9.5 pH 10.5 pH

Temperature
15%SBFW : 25%SBFW : 50%SBFW : 75%SBFW :
°F
85%LF 75%LF 50%LF 25%LF

50 0 0 0 0
60 0 0 0 94.7796
70 0 0 0 173.754
80 0 0 0 246.171
90 0 0 0 315.795
100 0 0 0 383.843
110 0 0 0 450.435
120 0 0 0 515.248
130 0 0 0 577.816
140 0 0 0 637.67
150 0 0 29.3893 694.407
160 0 0 81.6336 747.717
170 0 47.943 129.331 797.385
180 17.0742 91.8292 172.513 843.292
190 56.2676 131.031 211.291 885.403
200 90.948 165.799 245.847 923.76

Laboratory Scale Predictions using Jar Test

This study examined the scaling tendency of SBFW and LFW at different blending ratios. The samples
were incubated at three different temperatures 35ºC, 55ºC and at 75ºC for 72 hours. Total scale solids
(TSS) was calculated and when scale was observed, scanning electron microscope (SEM), energy dispersive
spectroscopy (EDS) and x-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis were used to confirm the form and composition
of crystal. Table 12 shows the results of the static jar test for the two waters at different mixing ratios.

Table 12—Scale prediction using Jar test method

Bottle No. LFW Fraction SBFW Fraction 35" C 55" C 75" C

Scale Mass (mg/l)

1 1 0 124.82 204 292
2 0.9 0.1 145.43 228 313
3 0.8 0.2 168 250 355
4 0.7 0.3 192 270 362
5 0.6 0.4 208 294 370
6 0.5 0.5 231 309 380
7 0.4 0.6 245 325 418
8 0.3 0.7 275 345 430
9 0.2 0.8 300 365 458
10 0.1 0.9 322 385 470
11 0 1 345 406 480
SPE-184148-MS 15

SEM and EDS Analyses

SEM and EDS analyses performed on the scale product collected from the jar test showed that the major
scale products are composed of CaCO3; with traces of BaSO4. Some of the images from the SEM for the
scale product are presented in Figs. 10 to 13. These are the typical of SEM images obtained for the scale
product from the filtration membrane used in the static Jar test.

Figure 10—SEM - SBFW: LFW (0.5:0.5) @75ºC

Figure 11—SEM - SBFW: LFW (0.9:0.1) @75ºC

16 SPE-184148-MS

Figure 12—SEM - SBFW: LFW (0.5:0.5) @35ºC

Figure 13—SEM - SBFW: LFW (0.6:0.4) @55ºC

SPE-184148-MS 17

Consclusions and Recommendations

The results of the jar test and computer scaling study indicate that injecting the SBFW into the LF water
will result in BaSO4 and CaCO3 scaling. BaSO4 scale is computed to form in all mixing scenarios because
the LF and SBFW waters have relatively high Ba+2 and SO4−2 concentrations, respectively. Mg(OH)2 solids
are not computed to form in the reservoir because the high CO2 reservoir gas (4.5%) keeps the mixture pH
relatively low (between 6.0 to 7.5). If this gas does not exist, then CaCO3 and Mg(OH)2 scale risks will be
significantly higher. FeS is also predicted to form because of the presence of 20 ppm H2S in the reservoir gas.
Both CaSO4 and Mg(OH)2 are predicted to form in the boiler and the amounts of solid phase is computed
to exceed 3,000 mg/l, depending on the inlet pH.
At low pH, in the mixing calculation for the reservoir, BaSO4 is dominant scale. At higher pH, several
scales are computed to exist. No Mg(OH)2 scale was computed to form in the mixing calculations but a
significant amount of it forms in the boiler calculation. Lastly CaSO4 is computed to be a significant scale
risk in the boiler.
A suitable scale inhibitor is required to minimize the potential scaling risk before the commingling of
two waters.

References
1. Stiff, H. A. and L. E. Davis (1952b). Amethod for predicting the tendency of oilfield waters to
deposit calcium sulfate. Pet. Trans. A/ME, 195, 25–28.
2. Shabbir, T. Mukkadam and AbdulHameed Al-Hashem (2012), ASSESSMENT AND
COMPATIBILITY STUDY OF TAYARAT AND HEAVY OIL FORMATION WATER, Final
Report.
3. Shabbir, T. Mukkadam and AbdulHameed Al-Hashem (2012), ASSESSMENT AND
COMPATIBILITY STUDY OF THE ALKALINE STEAM WATER, LOWER FARS, TAYARAT
AND HEAVY OIL FORMATION WATER, Final Report.