Menu
Search
Filters
Close
Menu

How To Acquire A Reliable Scale Inhibitor MEC Number Based On Laboratory Testing Results – A Field Case Analysis

Picture for How To Acquire A Reliable Scale Inhibitor MEC Number Based On Laboratory Testing Results – A Field Case Analysis
Available for download

The formation of mineral scales is one of the most problematic threats to the oil and gas operations which can lead to loss of production, increased lifting costs and assets deterioration.1 Mineral scales can precipitate at any locations within an oil and gas production system and create blockage in perforations, production tubulars, pumps, and surface equipment. The formation of scale deposits can be attributed to the mixing of incompatible waters from different production zones or physical and chemical condition changes associated with produced water transporting from reservoir to wellhead and further to processing facilities.

Product Number: 51322-17623-SG
Author: Dong Shen, Jeffrey Russek, Haiping Lu, Larry Hines, Michael Jordon Oney
Publication Date: 2022
Industries: Corrosion Monitoring and Control , Coatings and Linings , Coatings
$0.00
$20.00
$20.00

Laboratory scale inhibitor performance tests have been widely accepted to screen products and determine the minimum effective concentrations (MEC) of selected products for field treatment. The dynamic tube-blocking test is the most common lab testing method used to obtain an inhibitor MEC number because the testing temperature, oxygen level, pH, and pressure can be well controlled to duplicate the field scaling conditions. A new benchtop testing method, the Kinetic Turbidity Test (KTT), has drawn increased attention for scale inhibitor evaluation and MEC determination under some scaling circumstances due to its ability to monitor the formation and growth of mineral scales continuously throughout the test duration.

In west Texas, a well being evaluated had failed three times within 1.5 years because of the formation of scale on the ESP pump, even though it had an aggressive squeeze treatment with the inhibitor residuals of 20 ppm and above. Both lab dynamic tube-blocking tests and KTT results show that 5 ppm of the selected scale inhibitor would be sufficient to prevent the formation of scales for a general produced water sample. However, under the worst scaling scenario according to historical produced water data, KTT results indicate that more than 30 ppm of scale inhibitor is required to achieve an effective scale treatment, whereas the dynamic tube-blocking test MEC is still well below 20 ppm. This paper is intended to give some insight on the field treatment failure analysis by comparing the difference between the MEC obtained from different testing methods at various scaling conditions. The other possible reasons that may cause treatment failure, such as uneven scale inhibitor distribution at different producing zones and inhibitor residual samples contamination, are also included in this study.

Laboratory scale inhibitor performance tests have been widely accepted to screen products and determine the minimum effective concentrations (MEC) of selected products for field treatment. The dynamic tube-blocking test is the most common lab testing method used to obtain an inhibitor MEC number because the testing temperature, oxygen level, pH, and pressure can be well controlled to duplicate the field scaling conditions. A new benchtop testing method, the Kinetic Turbidity Test (KTT), has drawn increased attention for scale inhibitor evaluation and MEC determination under some scaling circumstances due to its ability to monitor the formation and growth of mineral scales continuously throughout the test duration.

In west Texas, a well being evaluated had failed three times within 1.5 years because of the formation of scale on the ESP pump, even though it had an aggressive squeeze treatment with the inhibitor residuals of 20 ppm and above. Both lab dynamic tube-blocking tests and KTT results show that 5 ppm of the selected scale inhibitor would be sufficient to prevent the formation of scales for a general produced water sample. However, under the worst scaling scenario according to historical produced water data, KTT results indicate that more than 30 ppm of scale inhibitor is required to achieve an effective scale treatment, whereas the dynamic tube-blocking test MEC is still well below 20 ppm. This paper is intended to give some insight on the field treatment failure analysis by comparing the difference between the MEC obtained from different testing methods at various scaling conditions. The other possible reasons that may cause treatment failure, such as uneven scale inhibitor distribution at different producing zones and inhibitor residual samples contamination, are also included in this study.

Product tags
Also Purchased
Picture for Highly Durable Solventborne Silicone Organic Hybrid For Protective Coating Applications
Available for download

Highly Durable Solventborne Silicone Organic Hybrid For Protective Coating Applications

Product Number: 51322-17537-SG
Author: Dr. Erin Vogel, Dr. Gary Wieber,Dr. Adam Tomasik, Dr. Yanxiang Li,
Publication Date: 2022
$20.00

The impact of corrosion on society is enormous. The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) estimated that the global total cost of corrosion is ~$2.5 trillion (USD), approximately 3.4% of global GDP.1 In 2016, NACE released the “International Measures of Prevention, Applications, and Economics of Corrosion Technology” which estimates that implementing corrosion prevention best General Business practices could result in global savings between 13-15 percent of the cost of damage, or a savings between $375-875 billion (USD) annually on a global basis.
Picture for Handling Extreme Environments With Supoxy Platform Technology
Available for download

Handling Extreme Environments With Supoxy Platform Technology

Product Number: 51322-17643-SG
Author: Justin Manuel, Chad Remy
Publication Date: 2022
$20.00

One can find some of the most aggressive and corrosive environments for coatings in the process work and equipment functions for Oil and Gas Upstream facilities. These conditions have typically been handled using traditional coating options such as vinyl esters, epoxies, or baked phenolic linings. While these products are often tailored to environments with elevated temperatures and pressures found within upstream and “downhole” oil and gas production, the inception of new drilling techniques and the discovery of new shale basins has morphed the landscape of corrosive environments in this market.
Picture for Guidance For Thermal Stability Of Common Oilfield Chemicals
Available for download

Guidance For Thermal Stability Of Common Oilfield Chemicals

Product Number: 51322-17745-SG
Author: Tracey Jackson, Johnathon Brooks, Zhengwei Liu, Sunder Ramachandran
Publication Date: 2022
$20.00

As oilfield technologies have advanced, they have made high temperature (HT) reservoirs more accessible. HTs make the application of chemical more difficult because chemical instability at HT restricts what intermediates will work in these environments and the safety and complexity of HT testing further adds to the challenge.
Categories
Industry
Recently viewed
Popular tags
View all

Association for Materials Protection and Performance

© AMPP All Rights Reserved.
Membership Terms of Content Use
Contact Customer Support