ISSN 1925-542X [Print]

ISSN 1925-5438 [Online]

www.cscanada.net
www.cscanada.org

Advances in Petroleum Exploration and Development

Vol. 8, No. 1, 2014, pp. 1-8
DOI:10.3968/5348

Studies on the Scaling of High Pressure and Low Permeability Oil Reservoir
Water Injection Well

LI Zhaomin[a],*; ZHANG Dingyong[a]; Qin Guoshun[a]; GUO Longjiang[a]; LI Wei[a]

permeability reserves in the new proven reserves is more
and more, about more than 70% of the proven reserves
is the low permeability reserves. The lithology is dense
in the low permeable oil fields, high seepage resistance,
pressure conduction ability is poor, usually lack of natural
energy, the oil well natural capacity is poor. When the
exploration of petroleum rely on the natural energy,
the initial formation pressure and the production drop
quickly, a recovery efficiency is very low, and difficult
to recover. In order to improve development benefit,
waterflood development is the main exploitation of low
permeability oilfield[1-4]. Because of low permeability
and the small pore radius, the request of injection water
quality is high, but some water injection development of
low permeability, the quality of injection water exceeds
bid because of suspended solids and oil content, and the
poor compatibility of injected water with formation water.
Injected water contains a lot of Ca2+, Mg2+, SO42-, CO32scale-forming ions, and with the comprehensive effect of
the temperature and pressure change when the water
is injected in formation, injection Wells generate the
scale. At the same time there are corrosive substances in
injected water, so there are different degrees of corrosion
problems. Injection well corrosion and scaling reduced
the water flooding efficiency, cause jams, and bring great
harm to the production. In order to effectively prevent the
injection Wells corrosion and scaling, study on the scaling
of high pressure and low permeability oil reservoir water
injection well is important[5-8].
In recent years, many researchers has made some
important research results on the injection well antiscale.
By the oil field injection well scale analysis, in the process
of waterflooding scale types mainly include carbonate
scale, sulfate scale and iron compounds scale, and so
forth[9-10]. The research results show that: the basic reason
of carbonate scale is the injected water containing a lot
of scale ions lead to precipitation; sulfate scale formation
is mainly due to the two incompatible water mixture,
formation water contain a lot of scale cation, injected

[a]
China University of Petroleum, Qingdao, China.
*Corresponding author.

Received 27 July 2014; accepted 20 September 2014

Published online 25 September 2014

Abstract

Injection wells scaling and scale inhibitor were studied in

this paper, in consideration of the severe scaling problem
of a high pressure injection wells in low permeability
reservoirs. The result shows that the injected water
contains some scale ions, such as carbonate calcium
and magnesium ions. It also demonstrates that the main
component of the scale is calcium carbonate, while
the scale at bottom hole contains more silicon dioxide.
Besides, the scaling of water injection wells mainly
appear in the lower parts of the well and its thickness
along the well increases rapidly. The indoor experiments
of anti-scaling agent indicate that the anti-scaling agent
is of good performance in scale prevention and its best
concentration is 15 mg/L. In addition, it is also found
that the scale inhibiting efficiency of scale inhibitor 2
is higher when the injected water is at low temperature,
while scale inhibitor 1 shows better performance when the
temperature of injected water is over 75 .
Key words: High pressure and low permeability oil
reservoir; Water injection well; Scaling; Scale inhibitor
Li, Z. M., Zhang, D. Y., Qin, G. H., Guo, L. J., & Li, W. (2014).
Studies on the scaling of high pressure and low permeability
o i l r e s e r v o i r w a t e r i n j e c t i o n w e l l . A d v a n c e s i n P e t ro l e u m
Exploration and Development, 8(1), 1-8. Available from: URL:
h t t p : / / w w w. c s c a n a d a . n e t / i n d e x . p h p / a p e d / a r t i c l e / v i e w / 5 3 4 8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/5348

INTRODUCTION
With the rapid development of exploration and
exploitation of petroleum in China, the proportion of low

Copyright Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures

Studies on the Scaling of High Pressure and Low

Permeability Oil Reservoir Water Injection Well

water contain SO 42-, leads into sulfate scale in near

wellbore zone; iron compounds scale mainly include FeS,
FeO, Fe2O3, and so forth. the main source of scale is the
production of wellbore and equipment. In general the
influence factors can be divided into geological factors
and external factors. Geological factors is mainly refers to
the porosity of the formation, rock mineral composition,
and the properties of formation water. External factors
mainly refer to the chemical characteristics of injection
water[11-13].

1. WATER INJECTION WELLS SCALING

ANALYSIS ON SITE
1.1 Water Injection Well Conditions
The scaling in a water injection well of Shengli oil field
is analyzed, some information of the water injection well
is shown in Table 1. The water quality analysis report is
shown in Table 2.

Table 1
Parameters of the Water Injection Well
Total depth
Artificial bottom hole
Nitride tubes (73)
Water injection pressure
Tubing pressure
Casing pressure
Daily average water injection

Name

Parameters
3,317.73 m
3,374 m
348
30 MPa
13 MPa
12 MPa
29.167 m3/d

Table 2
Water Quality Analysis Report
Sample name
Injected water
Test standard
SY/T 5523-2000
Analysis item
(B)/(mgL-1) c (1/zBZ-)/(mmolL-1)
F0
0
20,948.81
590.940
ClBr0
0
NO20
0
NO30
0
Anion
SO420
0
OH0
0
CO320
0
HCO3823.71
13.499
Total
21,772.52
604.439
pH
7.4
(oil)(mg/L)
1.6
(dissolved oxygen)(mg/L)
0.07
Mineralization
35,707.35
(B)/ (mgL-1)

Sampling spot
SY/T5329-94
Analysis item
Li+
Na+
NH4+
K+
Mg2+
Cation
Ca2+
Sr2+
Ba2+
Fe
Total
(SS)(mg/L)
(Sulfide)(mg/L)
(CO2)(mg/L)

Water injection station

HJ/ZY2003-A0-01
(B)/(mgL-1) c (1/zBZ+)/(mmolL-1)
0
0
12,816.53
557.483
0
0
48.58
1.242
95.56
7.861
607.30
30.304
190.95
4.359
159.92
2.329
16.00
0.859
13,934.83
604.439
52.4
0
0.0

Permanent hardness ( CaCO3)/ (mgL-1)

1234.57

Total alkalinity
( CaCO3)/ (mgL-1)

675.63

Temporary hardness ( CaCO3)/ (mgL-1)

675.63

Total hardness
( CaCO3)/ (mgL-1)

1,910.20

Negative hardness
( CaCO3)/ (mgL-1)

1.2 Water Injection Wells Scaling Situation

It is found that there is severe scaling in the water
injection pipe, which is taken out from the well after
two years and a half water injection. Figure 1 shows the
scaling in water injection pipe.
From the wellhead to the 1,000 meters depth, there is
only a very thin layer of reddish-brown scale cinder in
the inner wall of the tube. The pipe wall is smooth after
getting rid of this thin layer of scale cinder and there is no
obvious corrosion. From 1,000 m to 1,700 m, the inner
wall of the tube becomes rough. The massive scale area
and black corrosion area shows discontinuous distribution.

Copyright Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures

Scale layer appears at 1,700 m depth, which is duckegg blue and about 0.2 mm thick. After getting rid of the
scaling layer, it is found that there is a small amount of
bronzing corrosion products below the scale and the inner
wall of the tube is rough.
Over 1,800 m depth, the scale thickness increases
with the increase of the well depth. The scale is a dense
thin layer, which is about 0.7 mm - 0.8 mm thick. It has
duck-egg blue smooth surface and contains a bit of black
impurities. Under-deposit corrosion can be found after
getting rid of the scaling layer.

LI Zhaomin; ZHANG Dingyong; Qin Guoshun; GUO Longjiang; LI Wei (2014).

Advances in Petroleum Exploration and Development, 8 (1), 1-8

Figure 1
The Scaling in Water Injection Pipe at Different Well Depth
16

Scale thickness / mm

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

Well depth /m

Figure 2
The Change of Water Injection Pipe Scale Thickness with the Increase of Well Depth
Over 2,000 m depth, the scale obvious thickening and
about 5 mm - 6 mm thick on average, which is duck-egg
blue and black staggered distribution. Moreover, underdeposit corrosion is more serious.
2,300 m depth, the scale thickness is 8 mm - 9 mm.
2,500 m depth, the scale thickness is 11.17 mm on average.
2,800 m depth, the scale thickness is 11.78 mm on average.
3,000 m depth, the scale thickness is 12.42 mm on average.
3,300 m depth, the scale thickness is 14.58 mm on average.

The scaling trend of water injection well can be get

from the above data, as shown in figure 2.
1.3 Component Analysis of the Scale in Water
Injection Well
Take the scale at 1,800 m, 2,500 m and 3,200 m well
depth as samples for XRD analysis. The spectrum diagram
is respectively shown in figure 3, figure 4, figure 5.
Table 3 shows the result.

Copyright Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures

Studies on the Scaling of High Pressure and Low

Permeability Oil Reservoir Water Injection Well

1800M-jiegou

3.01718

Counts

10000

1.28598

1.32619

1.43130
1.40862

1.51595

1.61503
1.59289

1.89405
1.89791
1.86271
1.85883

2.08286

2.26935

2.47822

2.81804

3.83120

5,000

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Position

Figure 3
The XRD Spectrum Diagram of the Scale at Well Depth of 1,800 m
2500M-jiegou

3.01616

Counts

10000

1.28548

1.32738

1.46180
1.43241
1.40967

1.51604

1.61449
1.59275

1.89952
1.85903

2.08454

2.27116

2.47937

2.81666

3.82703

5,000

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Position

Figure 4
The XRD Spectrum Diagram of the Scale at Well Depth of 2,500 m
Table 3
The Results of Scale Sample Analysis
Sampling location
1,800 m
2,500 m
3,200 m

Composition analysis results

(Mg 0.06 Ca 0.94 )CO3 , mainly in the form of calcite

Ca C
O
Mg
Mg 0.1
0.1 Ca 0.9
0.9CO3
3
Mg 0.06 Ca
Ca 0.94 )CO
)CO3
(( Mg
0.06

0.94

SiO 2

It can be found that the scale in this well is mainly

composed by (Ca,Mg)CO 3 and the scale at 1,800 m
exits mainly in the form of calcite. Besides, the scale

Copyright Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures

Proportion
95%
95%
61.17%
38.83%

at the location near bottom is the mixed phase of

(Ca,Mg)CO 3 and SiO 2. SiO 2 may be the impurities in
formation sandstone.

LI Zhaomin; ZHANG Dingyong; Qin Guoshun; GUO Longjiang; LI Wei (2014).

Advances in Petroleum Exploration and Development, 8 (1), 1-8

3200M-jiegou

3.01379

Counts

10,000

1.28656

1.32865

1.45942
1.42985
1.40983

1.51462

1.61476
1.59423

1.89952
1.85952

2.07970

2.27281

2.47464

2.81618

3.34316

3.82304

5,000

0
10

20

30

40
Position

50

60

70

Figure 5
The XRD Spectrum Diagram of the Scale at Well Depth of 3,200 m

2. EXPERIMENT RESEARCH OF SCALE

INHIBITOER USED IN SCALE PREVENTION

The advantages of precipitation method are simple,

more intuitive, but for some scaling produce sticky wall
situation will affect the accuracy of the test.

By water analysis of injection water, its found that the

main scaling ion is CO 32-, Ca 2+ and Mg 2+. The CaSO 4
scaling dont format for the lack of SO2-. Its certain that
95% percent of scaling is CaCO 3 via the component
analysis of injection well scaling. In addition, the scaling
also contain a small amount MgCO3, no Sulphate scaling.
Considering the serious scaling of injection well, the
analysis of scaling and the scale prevention technology
by far, its effective to add scale inhibitor into injection
wellbore. So, the two kinds of selected scale inhibitors is
evaluated in experimental condition, aiming at providing
guidance of scale prevention in injection wellbore with
high pressure and low permeability

2.2 Experimental

2.1 The Method of Scale Inhibitor Assessment

One basic index in scaling assessment is the efficiency of scale
inhibitor used in scale prevention. The method used to test the
scale inhibitor efficiency in lab is sediment weight method.
Under the same conditions, the scale inhibitor is added
in water samples. The number of precipitation amount
of scaling can be used to measure the efficiency of scale
inhibitor. Generally the better the scale inhibitor is added,
the less amount sediment format.
In precipitation test, changing the experimental
conditions with one kind of water or mixing two
incompatible water, the mixing ratio of precipitation
depends on the largest precipitation of blank samples.
Scale-preventing efficiency is calculated by the
following formula
Scale-preventing efficiency (%) = [(g0-g)/g0] 100%
The formula: g 0 - the amount of blank sample
precipitation, g;
g - the amount of sample precipitation after added
scale inhibitor, g;

1. Hand cranking high pressure metering pump; 2. Pressure gauge; 3.

High pressure line; 4. High pressure apparatus of piston cylinder type; 5.
Needle valve; 6. Thermostat container; 7. High pressure apparatus.

Figure 6
Injection Wells Scaling Simulation Device

The material of injection pipes is custom-made to be

standard coupons. Using the device as shown in Figure
6 simulates the injection wells environment. The highpressure vessel filled with water samples from the
injecting water station. In order to evaluate the efficiency
of scale inhibitor, respectively, add varying amounts and
different types of scale inhibitors to the high pressure
vessel under the same conditions. The treated coupons
were placed in different water samples, then seal the
vessel and boost the pressure to injection wells pump
station value (30 MPa), at a predetermined temperature
soak some time. Due to the scale, the coupon have a mass
difference before and after immersion, that is, the scaling
amount under that condition, and then use the scaling

Copyright Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures

Studies on the Scaling of High Pressure and Low

Permeability Oil Reservoir Water Injection Well

amount in check test to calculate the scale-preventing

efficiency. By simulating scaling in injection well under
different conditions further evaluation about scale
inhibitor efficiency is made.

(a) Test conditions: 30 Mpa, 50 , test the two scale

inhibitor efficiency in different concentration.
Figure 7 shows that in the medium pressure of 30 MPa,
temperature is 50 , the two kinds of scale inhibitors
have good performance, scale-preventing efficiency
increases with the rise of scale inhibitor concentrations
and leveled off at 15 mg/L. The scale inhibitor 1
maximum scale-preventing efficiency is around 70%, the
scale inhibitor 2 is about 80%.

2.3 Results and Discussion

Use injection wellbore scaling simulating device to test
the efficiency of two kind scale inhibitors, Stone Chemical
(scale inhibitor 1) and Easters Chemical (scale inhibitor 2).

Figure 7
The Relationship Between Scale Inhibiting Efficiency and Scale Inhibitor Concentration (50 )
(b) Test conditions: 30 Mpa, 90 , test the two scale
inhibitor efficiency in different concentration.
Figure 8 shows that, in the medium pressure is 30
MPa, temperature 90 , compared with the case when
lower temperature 50 , the scale-preventing efficiency
changes with the concentration is almost same. When the
concentration of scale inhibitor reach 15 mg/L, the scale

inhibitor 1 maximum scale-preventing efficiency peak

at 65% and the scale inhibitor 2 peak at 50%, that is the
difference. Its indicted that the scale inhibitor 1 scale
inhibitor scale-preventing efficiency have little change
in the experimental temperature, The scale inhibitor 2 is
opposite, as the temperature increases, scale-preventing
efficiency is reduced.

Figure 8
The Relationship Between Scale Inhibiting Efficiency and Scale Inhibitor Concentration (90 )

Copyright Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures

LI Zhaomin; ZHANG Dingyong; Qin Guoshun; GUO Longjiang; LI Wei (2014).

Advances in Petroleum Exploration and Development, 8 (1), 1-8

( c ) Te s t c o n d i t i o n s : 3 0 M p a , s c a l e i n h i b i t o r
concentration: 20 mg/L (scale inhibiting efficiency

maximum), research on temperature effect on the scale

inhibiting efficiency.

Figure 9
Temperature Effect on the Biggest Scale Inhibiting Efficiency
As is shown in Figure 9, Temperature has less effect
on the scale inhibitor 1. The biggest scale inhibiting
efficiency of scale inhibitor 2 reduce quickly with the
temperature increases. When temperature is less than
75 , The biggest scale inhibiting efficiency of scale
inhibitor 2 is greater than the biggest scale inhibiting
efficiency of scale inhibitor 1, after more than 75 , high
temperature make the scale inhibiting efficiency of scale
inhibitor 2 decrease, the biggest scale inhibiting efficiency
is lower than scale inhibitor 1. So the scale inhibitor
should choose by temperature of the injection water.
At low temperature, scale inhibitor 2 is better, at high
temperature, scale inhibitor 1 is better.

concentration is 15 mg/L. Besides, scale inhibitor 2 has

high scale inhibiting efficiency at low water temperature,
but its scale inhibiting efficiency degrades with the
increase of temperature and its scale inhibiting efficiency
becomes lower than scale inhibitor 1. Therefore, scale
inhibitor 1 shows better anti-scaling performance at high
temperature.

REFERENCES
[1] Stiff, H. A, & Davis L. E. (1952). A method of predicting
the tendency of oil field to deposit calcium sulfate. Journal
of Petroleum Technology, 4(09), 213-216.
[2] Myles, M. M., Sjursaether, F. A., & Collins, I. R. (1952).
Scale control within the north sea chalk/limestone
reservoirs-the challenge of understanding and optimizing
chemical placement methods and retention mechanism:
Laboratory to field. SPE Production & Facilities, 20(04),
262-273.
[3] Al-Ashhab, J. K., Petrone, D., & Mokhtar, S. (2006,
February). Managing well integrity, safety, and production
decline by scale. SPE International Symposium and
Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, USA.
[4] Graham, A. L., Boak, L. S., Sorbie, K. S., & Neville, A.
(2006). How minimum inhibitor concentration (MIC) and
SUB-MIC concentrations affect buk precipitation and
surface scaling rates. SPE Production & Operations, 21(01),
19-25.
[5] Oddo, J. E., Sloan, K. M., & Tomson, M. B. (1982).
Inhibition of CaCO3 prediction from brine solution: A new
flow system for high temperature and pressure studies.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, 34(10), 2409-2412.

CONCLUSION
(a) The research on the well scaling of high pressure
low permeability reservoir shows that scaling is not
obvious if well depth is no deeper than 1,800 m, however,
the scale thickness increases rapidly from 1,800 m well
depth. Besides, water quality analysis results demonstrate
that the injected water contains large amounts of
carbonate calcium and magnesium ions. The analysis
on scale components indicates that the scale is mainly
composed by calcium carbonate whose content is as much
as 95% and it also contains a small amount of magnesium
carbonate. In addition, the scale will contain more silicon
dioxide at the location near the bottom hole.
(b) scale inhibitor can be used to prevent the serious
scaling in the water injection wells of high pressure
low permeability reservoir. The indoor evaluation of
two kinds of scale inhibitor demonstrates that both of
them show good anti-scaling performance and their best

Copyright Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures

Studies on the Scaling of High Pressure and Low

Permeability Oil Reservoir Water Injection Well

[10] Skill, H. F., Mcdonald, J. P., & Stiff, H. A. (1969, March).

Simplea, ccurate, fast method for calculating calcium sulfate
solubility in oil field brine. Paper presented at API, Lubock, Texas.
[11] Liang, G. C., Zheng Y. P., & Zhang, J. H. (2006). The
scaling mechanism and antiscale measures of lu-liang
oil field production system. Journal-Southwest Petroleum
Institute, 28(6), 69.
[12] Wang, X., Zhang, Y. K., & Zhu, P. S. (1997). A study on
scale form ation and scaling mechanisms in water injection
wells of Yushulin oilfield. Daqing. Oilfield Chemistry, 14(2),
139-142.
[13] Jia, H. Y., & Qu, Z. H. (2000). A study on formation scaling
tendency for water flooding oilfields. Petroleum Exploration
and Evelopment, 28(1), 89-91.

[6] Oddo, J. E., Sloan, K. M., & Tomson, B. M. (1982).

Simplified calculation of CaCO 3 saturation at high
temperature and pressure in brine solution. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 34(07), 1583-1590.
[7] Oddo, J. E., & Tomon, M. B. (1994). Why scale forms
and how to predict it. SPE Production & Facilities, 9(01).
47-54.
[8] Yeboah, Y. D., Samuah, S. K., & saeed, M. R. (1993, April).
Prediction of carbonate and sulfate scales in oilfields. Paper
presented at Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain.
[9] Atkinson, G., Raju, K., & Howl, R. D (1991, February).
The thermodynamics of scale prediction. SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Anaheim, California.

Copyright Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures