SPE-173747-MS

Selection of Calcium Carbonate Scale Critical Values for Deepwater

Production
Ping Zhang, Keith Allan, and Bourne Hugh, BP Exploration Operating Company Limited

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 13–15 April 2015.

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
Calcium carbonate scale threats for deepwater developments have been predicted by calculating the
saturation ratio (SR) and mass of calcium carbonate.
Assessing the threat scale may pose to an operation allows the design and implementation of robust
barriers to reduce the risk. Scale threat assessment is particularly important in the early phase of a project
when options for controlling the threat are being evaluated. It is important to correctly interpretate scale
prediction result and its operational significance in terms of the threat likelihood and severity. Widely
adopted guidelines, based on industry experience built up over many years from operations in US land and
in the North Sea, have been used to aid interpretation. However, the relevance of these guidelines for
deepwater projects has long been challenged.
The relationship between predicted SR and mass of calcium carbonate in deepwater is explored.
Through case studies, it is apparent the current guidance is not stringent enough for deepwater. Additional
guidance for deepwater operations is proposed.
This paper describes the deepwater operational experience that was used to justify a change in the
critical SR and mass values in the scale threat assessment guidelines now adopted to assess the likelihood
of scaling in deepwater fields.
Background
Scale formation is one of the major production issues encountered in oilfield operations. Scales can
deposit in the subsurface, subsea or at process facilities impacting production, restricting access for other
well activity, preventing the correct operation of valves and safety equipment and filling vessels (1–5). A
range of different scales, including metal sulfates, carbonates, sulfides and oxides, silicates and halite are
encountered in oilfield operations (1–5). However, the most common oilfield scales are calcium carbonate
and barium sulfate. Sulfate scale occurs mainly due to mixing of incompatible brines often as a direct
result of the breakthrough of injected seawater. The formation of carbonate scale is usually the result of
a pressure decrease which drives an increase in brine pH, shifting the equilibrium between bicarbonate and
carbonate.
Understanding the scale threat in complex, deepwater, subsea projects and operations is essential to
ensure that the necessary facilities are included in the design and build phase of new projects and that an
2 SPE-173747-MS

appropriate scale management strategy is executed during operations. Deepwater, subsea operations often
experience high salinity, high temperature coupled with high pressure at the reservoir and significant
pressure drop up the tubing. Underestimating the threat can lead to insufficient facilities to effectively
manage the scale being provided to the operations team. Scale formation in a deepwater facility not fully
prepared to manage the threat can lead to significant deferred production impacts in addition to capital
expenditure (CAPEX) to retrofit facilities and/or operational expenditure (OPEX) to remove the scale. On
the other hand, overestimating the scale threats can lead to the design and installation of redundant scale
control facilities burdening the project with unnecessary CAPEX costs and potential OPEX costs in
maintaining the facilities until it is realised that they are not needed. It has been generalised that the further
from the surface facilities that scale forms, the more difficult the scale management can become (6).

Scale Prediction Model Limitations

A number of commercially available models have been widely utilised for scale threat predictions in the
industry. These thermodynamic models assess how changes in system pressure and temperature impact on
both solubility product (Ksp) and activity coefficients (7, 8) to derive a predicted mass of scale that is
likely to form and the extent of oversaturation of that mineral species. There are several key limitations
to these scale prediction software models. Firstly, data underpinning these models are based on laboratory
measurements, often in simple, clean brine systems, free of solids, gas bubbles and other surfaces that may
impact on nucleation and thus may not best represent the field operating environments. Secondly, the data
are based on solubility in the bulk liquid phase and takes no account of deposition at a surface. Finally,
the predictions are thermodynamic in nature and don’t consider scale formation kinetics, i.e., the rate of
scale formation in relation to the time that fluids spend at any one condition. Therefore, thermodynamic
modelling results need be referenced to the expected kinetics of the system (9).

Scale Prediction Guidelines

Whilst an over saturated brine has the potential to scale, operational experience suggests that oversatu-
ration might not necessarily lead to scale deposition. Scale prediction guidelines based on operational
experience have been developed by the industry over many years and are used to aid the interpretation of
the likelihood and severity of a predicted scale threat. The guidelines assign critical predicted saturation
ratios (SRcritical) and critical predicted scale masses (Mcritical) for each mineral scale species from the
‘thermodynamic’ models to suggest when scale is most likely to present a problem for an operation. For
calcium carbonate the generally accepted values are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1—Critical SR and Mass Values

Scale SRcritical Mcritical (mg/L)

Calcium Carbonate ⬎ 212°F (100°C) 1.2 50

Calcium Carbonate ⬍ 212°F (100°C) 2 50

According to the guidelines, the ‘SRcritical’ is the lowest SR at which mineral scale precipitation
becomes operationally significant; similarly for ‘Mcritical’ in relation to the mass. Scales are expected to
form when SR ⱖ SRcritical and the predicted mass M ⱖ Mcritical.
To aid review of the predicted scaling threats, a traffic light system (Table 2) has been developed to
incorporate the guidelines recommended critical values.
SPE-173747-MS 3

Table 2—Calcium Carbonate Scaling Severity Matrix

“No Tendency” refers to the conditions where the modelling has suggested that the brine is predicted
to be under saturated with respect to calcium carbonate and thus the calculated SR value is lower than 1
and the predicted mass of scale is zero. “Low Tendency” represents conditions where the extent of over
saturation and/or the mass of the predicted scale is below the critical values (as shown in Table 1),
indicating that scale may not be operationally significant. However, it should not be interpreted as “No
Tendency”. The SR and mass boundaries for “Low Tendency” condition will always be subject to change
as and when new operational experience is incorporated. It should be noted any over saturated brine has
the potential to form scale deposits. “Tendency” refers to conditions where the modelling has suggested
that the brine is predicted to be over saturated with respect to calcium carbonate and the predicted mass
and SR both exceed the trigger values. Thus, calcium carbonate threat is expected to be operationally
significant.
Thus if both the predicted SRcritical and Mcritical are exceeded then the guidelines suggest that scaling
is likely to be encountered and an appropriate barrier to control the scale threat should be deployed.
Conversely, if one or both of the critical trigger values is not met then operationally significant amounts
of scale deposition are considered unlikely to form.
Whilst these guidelines have proved valuable, it has long been recognised that the operational
experience on which they were based did not include the more severe deepwater environments. The higher
pressures and in some cases higher temperatures and brine salinities encountered in these operations,
coupled to the reservoir basin they produce from were not represented in the guidelines.
However, recent operational experience of scaling in deepwater subsea wells has suggested that the
widely accepted industry guidelines may not be stringent enough for deepwater fields and a revision of
the guidelines quoted in Table 1 needs to be considered.
4 SPE-173747-MS

Scale Threat Predictions

As highlighted earlier, a range of commercially and academically supported software modelling pro-
grammes are available to assess the threat of scale to projects and operations. ScaleChem V4.1.111 (Model
I) was used to calculate the values in the following case studies. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the
correct input data is gathered and used to recreate the fluids in the system from the point at which the
prediction will be performed. Scale prediction input data will include water chemistry and hydrocarbon
liquid and gas compositions analysed under specific, defined conditions, liquid and gas flow rates at the
same defined conditions and the predicted pressure and temperature profiles across the nodes of interest.
Often, it is necessary to assimilate the fluids back to reservoir conditions since samples collected at surface
may have changed significantly between the point of sampling and analysis.
Case Studies
The following case studies have been collated from deepwater subsea operations in different global
locations to investigate the requirement to revise the critical SR and mass guideline values. As highlighted
above these critical trigger values are used to aid interpretation of the predicted SR and mass values
derived from scale prediction studies.
Case 1
Case 1 well forms part of subsea field which produces from a number of different reservoirs back to a
semi-submersible production facility in water depths exceeding 6000 ft. The initial reservoir pressure for
was 14900 psi and the bottomhole temperature was 235°F. During the project phase, scale threat
assessments undertaken using Model I suggested that the threat of downhole scale was low with predicted
SR and mass values below the critical trigger values in Table 1. Scale inhibitor injection was provided at
the trees to protect the subsea line back to the facility but no provision was made for scale inhibitor
injection into the wells. During the early dry production phase, asphaltene deposition had impacted on
production. Solvent washing coupled to deep set asphaltene inhibitor injection were deployed to maintain
production from the field. However, soon after water breakthrough production was observed to decline in
a number of wells. Attempts to arrest the decline and restore the production using solvent washes proved
unsuccessful. During a planned intervention to perform a water shut off operation, a caliper tool run
identified a physical restriction in the well at 9779 ft MD. The normal flowing pressure and temperature
at depth in the well was 9386 psi and 228°F respectively. Samples collected from the top of the restriction
confirmed that the majority of the deposit was calcium carbonate. Subsequently, the well was shut in to
minimise the threat of a complete blockage. Rig availability and scheduling challenges meant that it was
8 months before the intervention was undertaken thus incurring a significant deferral. The well was
stimulated with acid to remove the restriction and a scale inhibitor scale squeeze performed to protect the
well whilst a longer term solution was developed. The response to the remediation treatment undertaken
suggested that the blockage was localised and did not extend significantly deeper in the well. The total
cost of the rig based intervention and the deferral incurred between the initial well shut in and the day it
was returned to production following the scale squeeze was in excess of $63M. Treatment cost of Case
1 well highlights the impact that scale can have on an operation and thus the importance of a correct threat
assessment.
After the incident, well specific fluid compositional data, GOR, fluid density and updated water
chemistry data were gathered to allow a re-assessment of the threat using the model. The updated Model
I threat assessment highlighted that at the depth in the well where scale was found the predicted SR and
mass values for calcium carbonate were 1.21 and 15.1 mg/L, respectively. Whilst the predicted SR value
was at the critical trigger value the predicted mass certainly was not and the threat would be classified as

1
ScaleChem is a copyright of OLI Systems, Inc.
SPE-173747-MS 5

a low tendency under the current guidelines. To support the interpretation of the data and to sense check
the predictions from Model I, a parallel exercise was undertaken using another commercially available
scale prediction model, MultiScale V7.12 (Model II). Model II was set up using the data that had been
used in Model I prediction exercise. The output from Model II produced a predicted SR and mass for
calcium carbonate of 2.46 and 91.4 mg/L, respectively. These results suggested that the predicted threat
of scale to the well was higher than that predicted by Model I, increasing the threat from a low tendency
to a tendency and more closely supporting the observations in Case 1 well. A number of possible
conclusions could be drawn. Model I was either underestimating the extent of the scale threat with the data
set provided, the data set contained errors and/or the SRcritical and Mcritical values adopted in the guidelines
were too high for deepwater applications.
The presence of calcium carbonate scale has been confirmed in other wells in the field when the
predicted SR is greater than 1.2. However, no wells in the same field have shown evidence of scaling
when the predicted SR is less than 1.2.
Case 2
Case 2 well forms part of another subsea development which produces from a number of different fields
tied back to an FPSO operating in water depths exceeding 5000 ft. The reservoir pressure was initially
between 5500 psi and 5600 psi and the bottomhole temperatures was 165°F. During the project phase
scale threat assessments undertaken using Model II suggested that the threat of downhole scale was low
with predicted SR and mass values of 1.45 and 91.7mg/L respectively. Whilst the SR value was below
the critical trigger value (SR ⱖ 2) at the lower temperature values encountered, the predicted mass
significantly exceeded the critical mass value (ⱖ 50mg/L). The anticipated high cost of rig based
intervention coupled to rig availability drove the project to install downhole chemical injection facilities
to protect the wells against the potential threat. During commissioning of the field, one of the wells was
found to have a blocked scale inhibitor injection line and would not be able to deploy scale inhibitor to
control the potential threat. The well in question was put on production in early 2012 and allowed to
produce without scale inhibitor injection during the initial phase of dry and low water cut production. Well
specific fluid compositional data, GOR, fluid density and updated water chemistry data was gathered and
a scale threat assessment undertaken using Model I. Model I predicted that calcium carbonate SR value
was less than 1 and no predicted mass. Forward predictions suggested that the scale threat will not develop
later in field life either. The well has and continues to operate without scale inhibitor injection and water
cuts have increased with no evidence of any scale formation.
Whilst historically Model II predictions indicated a significant calcium carbonate mass, the operational
data were more closely aligned with Model I result which suggested no threat of calcium carbonate. A
number of possible conclusions could be drawn. Model II was either over estimating the extent of the scale
threat, the data set contained errors and/or the SRcritical and Mcritical values adopted guidelines were too
low. However, the observation may also support that Model I correctly assessed the threat in Case 2 and
the previous case but that the critical trigger values adopted in the guidelines were too high. It may also
be concluded that the current industry guidelines cannot be universally applied to the output from different
scale prediction models. Other wells in the same field continue to receive downhole scale inhibitor
injection but it remains questionable whether downhole inhibitor injection is needed. The cost of injecting
the scale inhibitor is small in comparison to the cost and logistical challenges of remediating a well and
so it continues to provide insurance against a possible scaling threat for time being.
Case 3
Case 3 well forms part of a deepwater subsea field operating in water depths in excess of 6000ft. Historical
modelling work undertaken with an earlier version of Model I model during the project phase had not

2
MultiScale is a registered trademark of Expro Petrotech
6 SPE-173747-MS

predicted a calcium carbonate threat that exceeded the trigger values (1.2 SR and 50mg/L mass) in the
well and no provision was made for deep set scale inhibitor injection. Well productivity was found to
decline in 2011 and various attempts were made to stimulate the well including solvent washes to remove
perceived asphaltene deposits. These washes failed to arrest the decline and eventually production stopped
and the well was shut in. An intervention was planned to determine the nature of the restriction and to
remediate it. A caliper tool and a camera were deployed in the well but were unable to pass the restriction
which held up at a depth of 9693 ft MD. The normal operating pressure and temperature at this depth was
7558psi and 237°F. Part of the intervention was designed to investigate a potential integrity issue on the
well, which was confirmed, ultimately leading to a business decision to plug and abandon it. During the
intervention a camera was run in the well and samples were taken for analysis which indicated that the
restriction was predominantly calcium carbonate, see Appendix 1. Whilst no attempt was made to remove
the restriction and bring well back onto production, data was collected for scale modelling purposes. Well
specific fluid compositional data, GOR, fluid density and updated water chemistry data were obtained to
allow a re-assessment of the threat using Model I. The revised threat assessment suggested calcium
carbonate scale was a low tendency and unlikely to lead to operationally significant scaling at this depth
and temperature with SR and mass predicted to be 1.61 and 49.2 mg/L, respectively. The predicted SR
exceeded the current critical trigger value whilst the predicted mass was at the threshold but not above the
critical mass value. During the subsequent intervention to plug and abandon the well, it was necessary to
remove some of the scale restriction to allow the plug to the set. The intervention work suggested that the
scale extended to some significant depth below the hold-up depth (HUD). However, it was not possible
to characterise the total depth of the scale deposit in the well and thus its onset point or determine the SR
and mass at which scale deposition would have occurred. Model II predictions were also undertaken with
the same data which indicted an SR and mass of 3.03 and 139.2 mg/L, respectively. Prediction studies
using both models recognise that Case 3 well would be predicted to have a calcium carbonate SR higher
than 1.2 and a calcium carbonate mass close or over 50mg/L at the HUD.

Discussion
In deepwater operations the cost of under or over predicting the extent of a scale threat can be significant.
In the first case, the impact of calcium carbonate scale on production and the subsequent remediation and
scale inhibitor squeeze treatment for one event on one well was in excess of $60M. In the second case,
the cost of installing deep set scale inhibitor injection facilities into deepwater field is estimated at over
$1.3M. Getting the scale threat assessment right is key to developing an appropriate scale management
strategy in the project phase and effectively executing it during operations. Thus it is essential that the
guidelines used to interpret the threat assessment reflect operational experience.
Since the exactly same data were used in both models and good modelling procedure was adopted, it
is assumed that the difference in prediction results is due to the algorithms contained within each model.
It is perhaps inappropriate to use one set of guidelines for both models. Thus the following discussion is
based around the relevance of the guidelines for interpreting predictions undertaken with ScaleChem
v4.1.11 (Model I) for deepwater subsea applications.
The current guidance suggests that an operationally significant threat of scale is only likely to occur
when both the predicted SR and mass exceed critical trigger values. For calcium carbonate these trigger
values were SR ⱖ 1.2 and mass ⱖ 50mg/L when the temperature exceeds 212°F. Case 1 suggests that the
guidance under-estimates the threat. Calcium carbonate (calcite) was found to be the major component of
scale found at a depth in the well where the measured temperature and pressure values resulted in a
predicted SR of 1.21 and a mass of 15mg/L. The scale restriction was considered to be localised and did
not extend significantly deeper in the well to areas of higher pressure and higher temperature. This
suggests that the combined predicted SR of 1.21 and mass of 15mg/L was sufficient to cause an
SPE-173747-MS 7

operationally significant calcium carbonate threat. On this basis, the guidelines have been revised to aid
interpretation of predicted calcium carbonate scale threats as shown in the Table 3.

Table 3—Revised Calcium Carbonate Scaling Severity Matrix (T > 212°F)

The data presented in Case 2 highlights that the guidelines should not be applied in the same way to
different commercially available scale prediction models. The current guidelines for interpreting the threat
of calcium carbonate deposition at temperatures less than 212°F appear to hold for deepwater subsea
applications when using Model I but not when using Model II. Case 3, like Case 1 supports the
observation that the SRcritical and Mcritical adopted in the old guidelines are too high for deepwater, subsea
application when using Model I. The predicted SR value at the location that scale was found was above
1.2 (1.61) but the predicted mass of calcium carbonate scale was just below the trigger value of 50mg/L
(49.2mg/L). The knowledge that scale deposits extended to some considerable depth below the HUD
suggests that calcium carbonate was forming at predicted SR and mass values below 1.61 and 49.2mg/L.

Conclusions
Calcium carbonate scale restrictions have been found at pressure and temperature locations in two
deepwater wells which had been predicted to be at low threat of scale formation. A review of the threat
interpretation guidelines has been undertaken leading to a revision in the critical mass trigger for calcium
carbonate scale. At operating temperatures greater than 212°F, the critical mass trigger value has been
dropped to 15mg/L from 50mg/L. This modification will allow a more appropriate interpretation of high
temperature calcium carbonate threat, particularly for deepwater operations.

Reference
1. Cowan, J. C.; Weintritt, D. J., Water-formed Scale Deposits. Gulf Pub. Co.: Houston, Texas,
1976.
2. Ostroff, A.G., Introduction to oilfield water technology, Second ed., Houston, Texas, 1979.
3. Kelland, M. A., Production Chemicals for the Oil and Gas Industry, Boca Raton, FL, 2009.
4. Frenier, W.W., Ziauddin, M., Formation, Removal, and Inhibition of Inorganic Scale in the
Oilfield Environment, Richardson, TX, USA, 2008.
5. Becker, J. R., Corrosion and Scale Handbook Paperback, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1999.
6. Graham, G. M., Mackay, E. J., Dyer, S. J., Bourne, H. M. The Challenges for Scale Control in
Deepwater Production Systems: Chemical Inhibition and Placement. CORROSION 2002, 7-11
April, Denver, Colorado.
7. Kan, A.T., Tomson, M.B., Scale prediction for oil and gas production, Soc. Petrol. Eng. J. 17
(2012) 362–378.
8 SPE-173747-MS

8. Kan, A. T., Wu, X., Fu, G., Tomson, M. B. Validation of Scale Prediction Algorithms at Oilfield
Conditions. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 2-4 February, The Woodlands,
Texas.
9. Mavredaki, E., Neville, A. Prediction and Evaluation of Calcium Carbonate Deposition at
Surfaces. SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference and Exhibition, 14-15 May, 2014, Ab-
erdeen.
SPE-173747-MS 9

Appendix 1
Calcium carbonate scale recovered from well in Case 3