SPE 112474

A History of Frac-Pack Scale-Inhibitor Deployment

Aine M. Fitzgerald and Laurence G. Cowie, BP

Copyright 2008, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 SPE International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, Louisiana, U.S.A., 1315 February 2008.
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
In recent years, BP has moved into reservoirs in deep water subsea projects where sea water flooding is required for reserves recovery.
The introduction of sulfate rich seawater into a reservoir producing a formation brine rich in barium ions significantly increases the
potential for barium sulfate scale deposition. This type of scale is not acid soluble, unlike the carbonate based scales traditionally
encountered in many regions. Alkaline based chelants, such as EDTA and DTPA, are only effective at removing small accumulations.
Mechanical removal is generally considered to be the only effective removal option for significant sulfate scale deposits in the tubing
but is not appropriate for removing scale from within the near well bore area or within a frac-pack or screen. Thus the recommended
management strategy is one of prevention rather than remediation.
A combination of the low geomechanical strength of these reservoirs and other rock characteristics has led to the adoption of frac-pack
completions for effective sand control. This type of completion presents a new challenge for placing scale inhibitor and managing the
scale risks in frac-packed wells. BP has significant experience of preventative squeeze treatments in sea water flooded reservoirs in
the UK and elsewhere. However, the majority of this experience lies with cased and perforated completions. Unlike cased and
perforated wells, mechanical removal of sulphate scale from behind a frac-pack screen or within proppant filled perforations is not
physically possible with mechanical methods. The damage to the rock and the gravel or screen completion elements can be
permanent. If the accumulation is significant and chemical dissolution is considered impractical then, ultimately, sidetracking may be
the only option to recover productivity. The cost of restoring production to a scale damaged frac-packed deep water subsea well is
very significant due to the high cost of intervention and limited rig availability. In addition, as most deep water subsea projects have a
relatively low well count the impact of scale formation to a particular well has a greater impact on the overall production loss.
Effective prevention is therefore critical. However, industry experience in squeezing deep water , subsea, frac-packed and multizoned wells is limited with uncertain treatment longevity. At the same time, subsea scale inhibitor squeezes, while shown to be
effective, have a significant treatment cost.
This paper describes a particular aspect of the multi faceted scale management strategy adopted by our deep water subsea projects for
managing wells with frac-packed completions. It describes the inclusion of scale inhibitor within the proppant pack at the completion
stage to provide protection against scale related damage during the early stages of water breakthrough. The paper highlights the
testing necessary to qualify the products selected and describes initial performance data from several of our major deep water fields.
Background
BP operates a number of subsea fields with frac-packed wells in Deepwater. Many of the reservoirs are flooded with treated seawater
for reservoir pressure maintenance and reserves recovery. The potential mixing of seawater rich in sulfate ions with formation water
rich in barium ions increases the potential for barium sulfate scale deposition in the near wellbore area, the tubing and process
facilities1. A number of different options for managing the carbonate and sulfate scales are considered in project stage including the
installation of a sulfate reduction plant (SRP). For some fields, the additional weight and space requirements associated with such a
strategy coupled to the restrictions imposed by the type of facilities adopted (Spars, MODU and TLPs) did not lend itself to this
approach. In addition, BPs successful operational experience with managing scale in the North Sea, Alaska and elsewhere, coupled
to the assessment of the scaling risks undertaken during the field development phase, suggested that the potential for carbonate and
sulfate scales could be more economically managed through scale inhibition.

SPE 112474

Modeling scaling risks

Wherever water production occurs, the potential for some type of scale formation exists. Scale is a solid mineral when deposited. The
location for scale deposits are varied and can have a variety of effects and are well documented. BP operates a strategy of scale
prevention. Scale can form in reservoirs, wellbores, tubulars, flowlines, in valves and chokes, not to mention topsides processing
equipment. It can develop almost immediately, or build up over several months before becoming noticeable. The effect these scales
have on productivity depends on their type, their location and the mass deposited. Scales can restrict and completely choke production
in the tubing, in the flowlines, at the sandface, in the sand screen, in the annular pack or in the packed perforations. Scales can deposit
in fractures and formations that are at a distance from the wellbore.
In order to quantify the nature and extent of the scale water samples were taken from appraisal wells from every field and subjected to
ion analysis. The reported barium concentration in the formation water varied from field to field with values up to 250mgl-1. Scale
predictions identified the following:
A range of different scaling environments would be experienced. Scale Management Strategies were part of the initial design
for every field.
As is typical, many of the wells were predicted to deposit calcium carbonate (CaCO3) scale when the produced fluids drop
below bubble point.
Also typical is that in fields that were sea water flooded, it was predicted that there was a barium sulfate (BaSO4) scale
potential on seawater breakthrough.
Scaling tendency to calcium carbonate scale formation was generally mild to moderate in severity whilst the tendency to
form barium sulfate scales ranged from moderate to severe.
The location where carbonate scale was predicted to form in each field was different but potentially could be observed from
bottom hole through to the topside process. Barium sulfate scale was predicted to occur from the point that seawater
commingled with formation water which operationally is anticipated to be in the near well bore area i.e. in the perforations,
the frac-pack, the annular pack and the screens. Thus, much of the focus of the Scale management strratey was in
technologies to prevent down hole deposition of Barium Sulphate scale.
Treatment options
The recommended Scale Management Strategy for managing these deep water wells has been chosen to be one of prevention rather
than remediation through the application of proactive scale inhibition. A scale inhibition program is in place for all wells prior or just
after water breakthrough. This approach is designed to minimise the impact of unexpected early water breakthrough at the production
wells and give the operations team time to plan future treatments and schedule intervention time accordingly.
BP has extensive experience of squeezing wells in other global locations, including squeezing gravel packed wells. However, it is
recognized that the industry experience of performing deep water subsea squeezes in frac-packed wells at low water cuts is less
extensive. With this in mind, attention was focused on trying to eliminate the need for the early squeeze treatments by including scale
control measures within the completion itself. The adoption of frac-packing for sand control purposes provided an opportunity for
scale inhibitor to be included within the completion design. A number of commercially available technologies were considered as part
of our Scale Management Strategies including:

Liquid scale inhibitor placed through out the frac.

Liquid scale inhibitor placed in the early stages of the fracturing operation.
Scale inhibitor within the proppant itself impregnated proppant
Solid scale inhibitor placed with the proppant-laden fluid.

Initially the preferred option was to deploy a liquid scale inhibitor throughout the frac because of BPs experience of using this
technique successfully for many years in hydraulically fractured wells in Alaska2. This liquid scale inhibitor could be deployed during
the installation of the frac-pack completion in each production well. Experience suggested that the adoption of such an approach
could have treated in excess of one million barrels of produced water, thus offering the potential to eliminate a number of or all of the
intervention based scale squeezes, thus increasing increase well availability and leading to a step change in the industry. In addition,
this approach was considered to offer a number of other operational benefits including:

Ensuring effective placement of scale inhibitor throughout the frac-pack interval and avoidance of possible future issues with
diversion
Avoiding potential causes of formation damage that are sometimes associated with traditional bullhead squeezes particularly
in low water cut wells 10-12
Minimising treatment cost well downtime, especially in early project years while well inventory is lower and production rates
are higher

SPE 112474

Permitting planning and scheduling of bullhead scale squeeze treatments, which require careful planning and time

Historical applications of solid scale inhibitor

Some early deep water frac-packed projects did not have sea water injection, but did carry out initial work in the area of placement of
scale inhibitor with the frac-pack installation. This data was reviewed in the development of the Scale Management Strategies. The
scaling predictions carried out on the early fields on their appraisal water samples indicated a carbonate scaling risk. Several
applications of solid scale inhibitor were carried out in 2001/2002 to protect these high value deep water wells from Calcium
Carbonate scale and these applications gave good data on the operational aspects of deploying solid scale inhibitor products within
frac-packs.
Liquid scale inhibitor deployed throughout the frac-pack fluids
While the solid scale inhibitor packages were easily deployed and showed promise in protecting against carbonate scale, there were
several limitations when they were compared to the liquid scale inhibitor packages that had previously been used successfully by BP
in Alaska2. The primary concern with the solid products on the market was that modeling showed that the volume of water protected
by the solid scale inhibitor packages was small compared with the total volumes of water expected from future deep water projects
where sea water injection was planned and thus any strategy would also need to include traditional bullhead squeezes. The addition of
solid scale inhibitor product would only protect the well in the early stages of water breakthrough and allow for sufficient time to
mobilize the necessary chemicals and equipment to carry out a conventional bull head squeeze.
In an effort to increase the volumes of water to be protected and defer squeezing further or, to even defer squeezing altogether, a
decision was made to progress liquid scale inhibitor packages for application in future frac-packs wells in projects that were to be sea
water flooded.
An extensive work programme was established with our three major frac-pack pumping vendors. The work was initially focused on
one particular field, Field Y. The objectives of the work were to develop a compatible and stable frac gel loaded with scale inhibitor
where the scale inhibitor provided the required performance and where the product was suitable for deployment in fracture treatments
without causing any incremental skin damage or additional complexity issues during frac-pack installation.
The work undertaken was designed to:

Resolve any apparent incompatibility between scale inhibitors and frac gels. Scale inhibitors are normally deployed under
acidic conditions (pH 1-5) to ensure brine compatibility and optimal retention characteristics whereas common frac gels (guar
or derivatized guar crosslinked with borate) require alkaline conditions (pH ~9) for viscosity development.
Demonstrate that the resulting frac fluid displays the desired rheology during deployment and break properties at that end of
the treatment.
Demonstrate that none of the components of the fracturing fluid impact on the retention or release characteristics of the
selected scale inhibitor or on its inhibition properties.

Eventually, a cross-linked guar-based gel system containing 10%v/v scale inhibitor was developed that satisfied all the required
conditions above. It was thoroughly laboratory tested to show that the addition of the scale inhibitor would not significantly affect the
initial viscosity or break times or any other rheological properties of the package of frac-pack fluids chosen for deployment.
To further support field application, a trial was carried out on a frac boat in port to demonstrate that the addition of scale inhibitor to
the chosen frac fluids would not cause any operational issues. The trial proceeded without any adverse operational effects from mixing
the scale inhibitor liquid on the boat. In addition, the rheology and break times of the mixed fluids from the frac boat were tested and it
was again confirmed that the addition of the liquid scale inhibitor did not compromise the performance of the frac-pack fluids. This
confirmed the laboratory testing.
The retention and release characteristics of the formulated scale inhibitor in prevention of scale were also evaluated on Berea
sandstone and found to give acceptable performance. The next step was to carry out a further study with preserved reservoir core from
the target deep water field (Field Y). This was carried out in the UK at an appropriate testing laboratory, following the methodology
described in the Heriot Watt University Institute of Petroleum laboratory manual8. This indicated limited squeeze life potential from
the proposed adsorption type treatment was found to be unexpectedly low in the Field Y core. On further examination, the low
adsorption was because the formation lacked sufficient sites e.g. siderite (FeCO3) or other iron substituted carbonates that are required
for major adsorption13. The result was that the only way to increase adsorption of scale inhibitor was to use an effective overflush.
Attention was then focused on attempting to develop a precipitation type squeeze to achieve this overflush. However, the presence of

SPE 112474

calcium in the completion brine, combined with the high pH needed to develop the required rheology for the frac fluid resulted in
uncontrollable precipitation of a calcium-scale inhibitor complex leading to unacceptable return permeability in the laboratory testing.
With the first completions due to be installed imminently, the application of a precipitation type treatment with acceptable return
permeability could not be recommended to Field Y and this application did not proceed. Due to the lead time for other projects, the
concept of performing a precipitation type liquid scale inhibitor deployed in the frac-pack fluids was subsequently shelved for this and
the other upcoming current deep water fields, but is still an option that is being considered for future projects.
A decision was made to reconsider the initial concept of adding an adsorption only liquid scale inhibitor but to add this only to the
early stages of the frac-pack, which had been done many times previously. This was acknowledged to deliver only short term
protection, but could potentially protect a well at low water cuts and provide sufficient time to plan a more conventional squeeze once
water cut increased and the risk of damaging the well was reduced10-12. Contractual issues hindered deployment of this adsorption
only scale inhibitor frac-pack fluid in the early stages of frac-packs on deep water Field Y and other alternatives were examined (i.e.
solid scale inhibitors).
Solid scale inhibitor products
From the early performance in 2001/2002, it was known that the use of solid scale inhibitor product would only protect the well
during early water breakthrough and for sufficient water production volumes to mobilize the necessary chemicals and equipment to
carry out a conventional bull head squeeze. However, these products could give two advantages over the application of conventional
squeeze packages alone:

These products could at least protect the well in the early stages of water breakthrough and thus eliminate the need to squeeze
a dry or near dry well, which had been shown to be an area of concern in the past 10-12
These products would provide a window of opportunity to mobilize conventional squeeze treatments, which require careful
time and planning and equipment/personnel mobilization lead times.

A survey was carried out of the scale inhibitor products available on the market from three fracturing companies, and included a
review of the early applications in 2001/2002 for calcium carbonate protection. In summary, there were two options available at the
time:

Solid type inhibitors placed with the proppant-laden fluid (Product A)

Solid inhibitor impregnated within the proppant (Product B)

With the solid products, a key point to note is that the addition of either product to conventional proppant can reduce the measured
conductivity of the pack. It was thus recognized that the mass of scale inhibitor that could be deployed within a frac-pack using either
of these technologies was limited, which explains why the volume of water protected is less than would have been expected from a
successful liquid application through out the frac-pack. However, at an appropriate loading, the products offered the potential to
protect wells from scaling during early water breakthrough and thus to potentially eliminate the need for a pre-emptive squeeze or
early type conventional bull head squeeze treatment.
Product A is described by its supplier as a solid calcium-magnesium phosphonate salt that has been coated to provide a delayed
release and thus to prevent interference with cross linked fracturing fluids. It dissolves slowly on contact with water to release a steady
concentration of scale inhibitor. This technology has been widely deployed by BP globally since 2002 with satisfactory performance.
Product B is described by its supplier as a porous proppant impregnated with a scale inhibitor salt. The scale inhibitor impregnated
proppant acts similarly to conventional proppant. On contact with water the scale inhibitor is slowly released from the pore structure
of the porous proppant into the flowing brine phase. This technology was first deployed by BP in Alaska and subsequently in the
North Sea3-7. The technical success of the treatments in Alaska, Norway and elsewhere supported the proposed applications for Deep
water projects.
It has been shown that, unlike the results from the early testing on liquid scale inhibitors; both products have a negligible effect on the
frac-pack fluids performance and placement. This has been shown through multiple field applications and is described in more detail
in this paper. However, their efficacy at scale inhibition is not thoroughly field proven at the present time.

SPE 112474

Evaluating Solid Scale Inhibitor Products for Frac-Pack Deployment

There are several key tests that need to be performed to evaluate the suitability of solid scale inhibitors for frac-pack deployment.
They include:

Measurement of the minimum effective dose (MED) of scale inhibitor required to mitigate scale formation
Measurement of the scale inhibitor release profile under water flood
Assessment of the compatibility between the solid scale inhibitor or impregnated proppant and the chosen fracturing fluids
Determination of any conductivity change due to the inclusion of scale inhibitor within the frac-pack.

Typical MED evaluation: Dynamic tube blocking tests were used to determine the minimum effective dosage (MED) of scale
inhibitor. The procedure, which closely follows the methodology described in the Heriot Watt University Institute of Petroleum
laboratory manual8 examines the effectiveness of a range of inhibitors and dose regimes under various scaling scenarios.
Scale inhibitor release profile: Pack flood tests are designed to evaluate the release characteristics of the solid inhibitor either placed
within the proppant pack or impregnated within a proportion of the proppant. Pack flood tests are performed with the appropriately
sized proppant and frac fluid in a very similar procedure to sand pack tests. The proppant and scale inhibitor impregnated proppant or
solid inhibitor are loaded into a cell and confined under an appropriate pressure and reservoir temperature regime. The pack is flooded
with simulated produced water and the resulting effluent is collected and analysed for residual scale inhibitor concentration. A plot of
the inhibitor release profile is constructed and the volume of water eluted to the MED is recorded. The inhibitor release profile can
then be history matched to create the inhibitor release isotherm and used to subsequently model likely treatment performance using
software tools such as SQUEEZE VI9.
Compatibility testing: A series of compatibility tests must be undertaken to demonstrate that the addition of the solid scale inhibitor
does not impact:

The rheology of the cross linked gel and the performance of any additives included in the fluid to aid its subsequent break
down. This will include the pH of the gel system throughout the various stages of the proposed application.
The performance of conventional scale inhibitor squeeze treatments that may be necessary as the solid inhibitor becomes
exhausted.
The performance of other field specific chemical applications including asphaltene inhibitor, low dose hydrate inhibitor,
corrosion inhibitor and topside chemicals such as defoamer and demulsifier.

Industry standard protocols similar to those detailed in the Heriot Watt University Institute of Petroleum laboratory manual8 were
adopted for the chemical on chemical compatibility tests.
Conductivity testing: The scale inhibitor impregnated proppant, Product B, displays less crush resistance than the equivalent size of
conventional proppant whilst Product A is not designed to resist any crush. Introducing either of these solid inhibitor proppants will
lead to a reduction in strength with a corresponding effect in fracture conductivity. This can be estimated during qualification testing
and will be accounted for in the frac-pack design. This is ultimately what limits the quantity of scale inhibitor that will be added to the
frac-pack.
Conductivity testing is generally carried out by the fracturing company across the range of closure stress values that the proppant pack
will experience during initial completion and anticipated future well operations e.g. due to depletion of reservoir pressure. This will
determine the combined effects of the fluid system and additives on the final conductivity.
A typical experimental protocol to determine the effect of the addition of the solid scale inhibitor product on the conductivity of the
frac-pack is summarised following: the scale inhibitor solid or impregnated proppant is loaded into the test cell at the desired
concentration with conventional proppant of the desired mesh and the test cells placed into a press. Closure stress is applied and
reservoir or another specified temperature established. The pack is flooded with the appropriate field brine and the conductivity
measured regularly over a period of at least 48 hours or until stable values are achieved. The closure stress is then increased stepwise
and the conductivity measured in a series of iterations until a significant loss in conductivity is observed. The test is repeated with a
range of solid scale inhibitor or impregnated proppant loadings generally within the range 2-10%. A test is usually carried out for 30
hours. The data in Table 1 suggests that 2% concentration of Product A would pose no significant loss to conductivity of proppant at
the expected closure pressure of 4,000 psi.

SPE 112474

Modeled Performance: Simple mass balance calculations suggest that the deployment of such a small fraction of solid scale inhibitor
is unlikely to protect the completion for any significant volume of water production. Modeling studies that consider the rate of
dissolution of the solid inhibitor suggest that for a typical frac-pack (~150,000lbs) the adoption of a 2% loading could protect the
production of between 36,500bbls and 90,000bbls of water at 50 and 1000bwpd respectively. This suggests that conventional scale
inhibitor squeeze treatments will need to be deployed soon after water breakthrough has occurred. The intention of application of this
solid scale inhibitor is to protect the well for sufficient to time to mobilize the necessary chemicals and equipment to carry out a
conventional bull head squeeze.
Field performance
The initial applications undertaken in 2002 were deployed in 3 subsea wells with limited access for sampling and limited water
production. Only one of these wells is currently accessible; one was sidetracked in 2004 and the other was divested in 2004.
Product A: The first application was undertaken in subsea well in Field W during 2002 and had no adverse impact on frac-pack
deployment or subsequent well performance. The field was not under sea water injection and no sulphate scales were anticipated.
However, the field was predicted to experience mild calcium carbonate scaling during normal operations. The application provided a
good opportunity to evaluate the various solid inhibitor technologies prior to their deployment in field under seawater injection, where
barium sulphate scale would be expected. The MED determined under worst case conditions in the laboratory was 5 ppm of the
selected scale inhibitor. However, at the time the laboratory did not evaluate whether this product would be effective at concentrations
below 5ppm. This well eventually experienced water breakthrough and has produced approximately 58,000 barrels of water up until
July 2007. No evidence of calcium carbonate scaling has been observed and no losses in productivity due to the formation and
deposition of this scale have been recorded to-date. A water sample collected from the well in August 2006 was analysed using a Hach
TNT total phosphorous procedure. The analysis suggested that the produced water contained ~3mg/l of Product A. Whilst this is less
than the laboratory determined MED for this inhibitor it is recognized that laboratory derived MED values are generally conservative
and operational data suggests that the well is protected. It is significant that the product is still releasing scale inhibitor, four years after
initial installation. The well was re-sampled in October 2007 and we are currently awaiting water analysis.
This solid scale inhibitor was not used again in fractured well completions until early 2006 but has been used in a further 16 well
treatments have been undertaken in Fields Y and Z since then as an alternative to liquid scale inhibitor in the frac-pack.
A 2% loading of Product A (approximately 3000lbs) is typically deployed with 150,000 lbs of conventional proppant per well. A
typical pumping schedule is attached in Table 2.
Until very recently none of these wells had experienced water breakthrough and thus limited data is available for inclusion in the
paper. All of these wells are being monitored regularly and after water breakthrough regular testing for the presence of the scale
inhibitor in the produced water will be undertaken.
Product B: The first application of this product was into another subsea well in Field W. 20/40 scale inhibitor impregnated proppant
was mixed with approximately 250,000lbs of 16/30 Carbolite and pumped at 30 barrel per minute. At the time the Product B was only
available in a 20/40 proppant size and so this was mixed into the 16/30 proppant. The net pressure during placement was 1,200 psi
and the well was reversed out without incident. As highlighted above this field was not under sea water injection and thus no sulphate
scales were anticipated. However, the field was predicted to experience mild calcium carbonate scaling during normal operations.
The deployment provided an opportunity to evaluate this technology prior to application in more challenging fields. The MED
determined under worst case conditions in the laboratory was 5 ppm of the selected scale inhibitor. However, at the time the
laboratory did not evaluate whether this product would be effective at concentrations below 5ppm. Access to this subsea well was
severely limited and only two water samples were taken during 2003 prior to it being sidetracked in 2004. During this time allocation
data suggested that this well produced less than 100,000bbls of formation water.
Analysis of the two collected water samples indicated that residual scale inhibitor concentration was maintained at between 2 and
3ppm for water production rates of between 30bbls water per day and 1,000bbls water per day. Whilst these values are less than the
laboratory determined MED for this inhibitor it is recognized that laboratory derived MED values are generally conservative and
operational data suggests that the well is protected.
The second application of Product B was into a deep water subsea dual zone gas producer on Field X. The field was also not under
seawater injection and thus the only predicted scaling risk was calcium carbonated. Whilst the treatment went ahead without any
operational issues the well was divested shortly after the application and before any water samples were available. Thus only
conclusion that can be drawn from this well experience was that the inclusion of impregnated scale inhibitor did not cause problems
during the frac-pack placement.

SPE 112474

Further deployments of this technology have not been performed since 2002 for various business related reasons despite its good
performance in lab and early field tries in other regions,
Conclusions
The cost and complexity associated with squeezing frac-packed deep water subsea wells has focused development on the application
of scale inhibitors within the completion. As part of the multi faceted Scale Management Strategy, liquid and solid scale inhibitor
systems have now been developed and deployed in over 20 of BPs Deepwater subsea frac-packed wells. All of the applications of
solid scale inhibitor have proceeded without operational issues and the early cases have returned scale inhibitor on water
breakthrough. Current development of solid inhibitors and impregnated proppant limits the mass of scale inhibitor that can be
deployed within a frac-pack, without significantly impacting on pack performance, which then in turn limits the volume of produced
water that can be effectively inhibited against scale before re-treatment is necessary through a conventional scale treatment. Whilst
these solid treatments cannot replace conventional squeeze treatments, they provide protection during early water breakthrough,
provide time to collect water samples and reassess the scaling risks and if necessary mobilize for a conventional squeeze treatment.
This paper shows the operational success of deploying these solid products, along with what aspects are necessary to consider during
frac-pack design. However, the volumes of water protected by solid scale inhibitors show that they will not replace conventional
bullhead scale squeezes. The deployment of significantly larger volumes of compatible, effective liquid scale inhibitor within the frac
fluid remains a future potential opportunity for frac-packed wells.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of BP (America) for permission to publish this paper. This paper reflects the views
of its authors and does not necessarily reflect the wider views of BP. The authors would also like to knowledge the following
individuals for their contributions to the work described in this paper: Hugh Bourne/Joe Clemens/Todd Blanchard/Ahmed
Shoreibah,/Steve Tinker (BP), Rick Gdanski/ Shane Milson/Shannon Richard (Halliburton Energy Services Limited), Tom
Swanson/Jonathan Wylde/Eugene Rogers (Clariant Oil Services Ltd), Balkrishna Gadiyar/ Hal Riordan/ Chris Fredd (Schlumberger
Oilfield Services Ltd), Curtis Sitz/Lilli Cong (Champion Technologies).
Nomenclature
DTPA = Diethylene triamine penta acetic acid
EDTA = Ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid
MED = Minium Effective Dosage
References
1. Oddo, J.E. and Tomson, M.T.: Why Scale Forms in the Oil Field and Methods to Prevent it, SPE Production and Facilities
(Feb 1994) 47-54
2.

Martins, J.P, et al Scale Inhibition of Hydraulic Fractures in Prudhoe Bay Paper SPE 23809 presented at the 1992 SPE
International Symposium on Information Damage Control, Lafayette

3.

Bourne, H. M, Ravenscroft, P et al A Novel Scale Inhibitor Delivery System for Horizontal and Problem Wells paper
presented at the IBC Scale Conference 1995, Aberdeen

4.

Collins I. R, Scale Inhibitor Impregnated Particles Field Applications paper presented at the IBC Scale Conference 1997,
Aberdeen.

5.

Webb, P, Ravenscroft, P, Collins, I. R et al, Economic and Technical Advanatages of a Revolutionary Chemical Delivery
System for Fractured and Gravel Packed Wells Paper, SPE 38548 presented at 1997 Offshore Europe Conference,
Aberdeen.

6.

Webb, P, Ravenscroft, P, Collins, I. R et al, Economic and Technical Features of a Revolutionary Chemical Scale Inhibitor
Delivery Method for Fractured and Gravel Packed Wells: Comparative Analysis of Onshore and Offshore Subsea
Applications Paper, SPE 39451 presented at 1998 International Symposium on Formation Damage, Lafayette, Louisiana.

7.

Norris, M, Bourne, H.M, Heath, S.M, Maintaining Fracture Performance Through Active Scale Control, Paper SPE 68300
presented at the 2001 Third International Symposium on Oilfield Scale, Aberdeen.

8.

Flow Assurance and Scale Team Research Group Experimental Procedures Manual Version 2.0 Institute of Petroleum,
Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh 2006

9.

Flow Assurance and Scale Team Research Group SQUEEZE VI.4 User Manual Institute of Petroleum, Heriot Watt
University, Edinburgh 2006.

SPE 112474

10. Jordan, M.M., Stott, L. and Sorbie, K.S.: Scale Management in a Water Sensitive Oil Reservoir (The Dunbar Field,
UKCS), presented at the 4th International Conference on Advances in Solving Oilfield Scaling, organised by IBC Technical
Services Ltd., Aberdeen, 28-29 January, 1998.
11. Graham, G.M., Hill, P.H., Sorbie, K.S., Carbonne, L. and Stott, L.: The Mechanism of Formation Damage and Recovery
Following Chemical Squeeze Application in Low Permeability Water Sensitive Reservoirs, presented at the 10th NIF
International Oilfield Chemical Symposium, Fagernes, Norway, 28 February - 3 March 1999.
12. Bourne, H.M., Buckley, A.S., Spark, I., Patey, I., Fleming, N., Carbonne, L. and Stott, L.: A Mechanistic Investigation of
the Dunbar Scale Challenge - The Use of Cryogenic SEM to Determine Wettability Alteration, presented at the 1st SPE
Symposium Oilfield Scale: Field Applications and Novel Solutions, Aberdeen, Scotland, Jan. 27-28, 1999
13. Gdanski, R and Funkhouser, Gary P, Mineralogy Driven Scale Inhbitor, prepared for presentation at the 6th SPE European
Formation Damage conference in the Netherlands, May 2005
Table 1: Conductivity at Reservoir Temperature with 10 lb / ft2 20/40 mesh Carbo-Lite Proppant

Closure stress (psi)

4000
6000

Baseline
37,826
32,142

Fracture conductivity (md-ft)

2% product
32,635
16,237

Table 2: Typical Treatment Volumes for a Deep Water Well

Stage Description
Treated proppant in formation

Gel Sweep (Breaker)

Gel Sweep (No Breaker)
Pad
1 PPG
2 PPG
4 PPG
6 PPG
8 PPG
10 PPG
Gravel Pack
Flush
Totals

(lbs)
0
0
0
4063
10501
19678
32237
51063
15800
0
0
133342

6% product
20,992
6,551

Actual scale inhibitor in

formation
(lbs)
0
0
0
81
210
394
6445
1021
316
0
0
2667