SPE 135960

Scale Buildup, its Detection and Removal in High Temperature Gas Wells of
Miano Field
Amjad Hussain Shar, SPE, and Tofeeq Ahmad, SPE, OMV (Pakistan), and Udo B Bregar, SPE, OMV (Austria)

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition held in Tunis, Tunisia, 8–10 June 2010.

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
Scale deposition, either in the formation, well bore or in the production facilities is a challenging problem in the petroleum
industry.
Scale problems are generally associated with the deposition of inorganic minerals, such as calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and sulfates
of calcium, strontium and barium. Downhole mineral scaling is either a product of self-scaling of the formation water (FW),
(carbonate scale associated with changes in pressure and/or pH) or the mixing of incompatible waters (FW and injection water)
with elements of other wellbore fluids or other minerals. The cost of scale buildup can be high, both in terms of deferred
production and necessary remedial treatments.

Depending on the nature of the scale and the fluid composition, the deposition can take place within the reservoir, near the
wellbore perforation tunnels which causes formation damage, or in production facilities subsurface and on surface with severe
operational problems.

The Cased Hole Gamma Ray measurement has been proven quite effective to detect the presence of scale, due to radioactive
content proven by the Scale XEM/EDAC analysis. The Scale solubility analysis has proven more than 95% of the sample, are
soluble in 10%-HCl based acid.

Finally, the two case studies of Miano field have brought a new game changer for operations, to enhance the gas production. It is
based on historical well observation, since no water production had been observed at the surface in one of the case study, so Scale
was not considered to cause the production decline. Therefore the method of Cased Hole Gamma Ray measurement can be in
some cases the only indication of scale build-up if other indicators are missing. Furthermore it’s also an effective method to prove
scale build-up inside perforations if hole is fully accessible.

This paper describes the buildup of scale, its detection and its successful removal with coiled tubing in high temperature gas wells
of Miano Field. Furthermore it will show some lab results, the execution and evaluation the results of a successful operation,
which resulted in a restoration of high productivity.

Introduction
Scale is defined as a mineral deposit that can occur in the tubing, the gravel pack, the perforations or the formation [1]. Scale
deposits are the most common and most troublesome damage problems in the oilfield and can occur in both production and
injection wells. Scale deposits appear in the several forms and are caused by several different phenomena. What is common to all
scale occurrences is that the mineral content of the fluid (usually water) has exceeded the fluid’s saturation point in response to a
change in conditions. The change in conditions may be a mixing of different waters, changes in temperature and pressure, water
evaporation, or water chemistry and pH changes (such as due to CO2 out-gasing).

The nature of scale formation in oilfield tubulars is unique by its environment [2]. Oilfield scale forms in the presence of oil and
2 SPE 135960

gas, waxes and surfactants, metal corrosion, and in turbulent and high velocity flow. Oilfield scale often is composed of more than
one mineral. It is not uncommon for several different compounds to be deposited together or in layers. Wax, oil and iron oxide can
be trapped within the scale formation. Even the density of the scale can vary, depending on the depositional conditions.

Deposition of scale in production tubulars and surface facilities halt the production and can cause costly intervention for its
removal. This possesses the potential economic disadvantage of loss of revenue due to decline in production and extra cost due to
intervention work. The identification and removal of scale at the proper time could save operator million of dollars by regaining
the production at the original state.

To overcome the scale deposition and its related problems it is necessary that proper scale management program should be
followed. This scale management program includes the early identification and detection of scale, designing the most effective
treatment design, and time-lapse monitoring of this scale deposition at various locations in completion jewellery.

Miano Field Description and Problem Statement

Miano gas field is located at about 350 km north of Karachi in the Sindh province of Pakistan (Figure-1). The field is a
stratigraphic trap formed by the westerly (i.e. up dip) pinch out of the Lower Goru B-Sand at a depth of 3400m Sub Sea (Figure-2).
Miano Field was discovered in 1993 and after successful appraisal program developed and tied-in into Kadanwari gas plant. To
date there are seven wells producing from B sand formations, where the pressure of field has remained from 2200 Pisa to 2400
Pisa due to influx of the aquifer. Reservoir temperature is 350 deg F which is a major challenge in Miano field and H2S content &
CO2 content is 25ppm & 10% respectively. The field has currently seven producing wells with three wells already sidetracked,
producing at approx 100 MMscfd of gas.

Accelerated production decline in this area can be resulted from water influx into the gas pay zone, a reduction in gas permeability
and flow reduction with in production tubulars resulting from calcium carbonate scale build up. Accumulation of calcium
carbonate scale deposits on wellbore tubulars and downhole equipment appeared to be a potential problem for the wells of Miano
field after about 07 years of production. Under condition of sufficient salinity, pressure, CO2 and H2S concentration calcium
carbonate scale precipitates on to completion tubulars. The growth of scale deposits significantly lowered the production rate from
X-1 and X-2 wells due to increase in frictional forces caused by un even scale surfaces and a reduction in tubing cross sectional
area. The excessive scale build-up lowered production rate and restricted access to lower wellbore intervals for well intervention,
this potential problem resulted in a decline in productivity to almost half of Miano field raw gas production.

Well: X-1
Well X-1 was completed with 4-1/2” Cr-22 completion in the main reservoir ‘B’ sand in August, 2006 and tested at maximum
measured gas flow rate of 23.04 MMscfd at a FWHP of 1,745 Pisa.

A steeper decline in the flowing well head pressure and rate was observed in December, 2006. The well was tested in annual
pressure survey campaign 2007 and 2008 which displayed a pressure decline behavior different from other wells in the same
compartment as shown in production history plot of Well X-1 (Figure-3). RST was run in January, 2008 in order to evaluate
current formation water saturation through casing and help to identify the current gas water contact, water/gas saturations of the
layers. RST interpretation indicated that water break through from the upper high porous and high permeable zone is not very
likely, however the gamma ray showed high reading across perforation interval. The re-perforation job was planned in April, 2008
to remove the damage / skin. The well was perforated using Wireline 2 7/8” HSD PJ Omega 2906 6SPF HMX gun. After re-
perforation a pressure increment of 600 Pisa was observed at wellhead at the same flow rate but with respect to time it started
declining again.

A slickline attempt was done in January, 2008 with 2.50” gauge cutter to check the wellbore clearance and restriction was
observed at 4m above the perforation interval. Investigative attempts were made with Lead Impression Block (LIB) and sand
bailer which showed that scaling could be the major reason for decline in productivity from Well X-1. Figure-3 shows a
production profile that how scaling resulted in production decline & Figure-4 shows chloride trend of Well X-1 showing that water
production was not a reason for production decline.

Well: X-2
Well X-2 was the second well which exhibited the same problem. X-2 was drilled in Miano D&P lease to target Lower Goru ‘B’
formation in December, 2005. The well was completed as 4-1/2” monobore, perforated with PURE and tested at a sand free gas
flow rate of 23.5 MMscfd at FWHP of 2,744 Pisa.
SPE 135960 3

In April, 2008 a sharp decline in gas rate was observed as shown in Figure-5. An investigative slick line operation was carried out
in mid April, 2008 to check the clearance across the perforation, a restriction was tagged at 3336 mSLM with a 3.50” gauge cutter
and with 2.37” sand bailer at 3388 mSLM, showing perforations free of any fill. Sand and water sample were also collected.

Due to declining trend of gas rate, on October 28th, 2008, wellbore clearance was again checked with 3.50” and 2.20” gauge
cutters. Both the gauge cutters tagged at 3326 mSLM abd 3339 mSLM respectively. The bottom of retrieved 2.20” gauge cutter
was found damaged, indicating a hard restriction. Two LIB runs (3.5” & 3.0”) were also made to obtain an impression of the
restriction. Vertical marks (non-conclusive) on the outer side of LIBs were found. Another futile slick line attempt was made in
December, 2008 with a 3.5” Swage tool which tagged the restriction at 3336 mSLM. Figure-6 shows the chloride trend of well X-2
indicating chloride values in normal range.

Water – A Source to Scale Formation

Water is the primary source of scale formation in oilfield, since scale will only form if there is a presence of water. Most often the
produced water is associated with the presence of scale if any [3]. Water is good solvent for many materials and can carry large
quantities of scaling materials. All natural waters contain dissolved components acquired through contact with mineral phases in
the natural environment. This gives rise to complex fluids, rich in ions, some of which are at the saturation limit for certain mineral
phases. Seawater tends to become rich in ions that are by-products of marine life and water evaporation. Ground water and water
in the near surface environment are often dilute and chemically different from deep subsurface water associated with gas and oil.

The production of water is often a sign of potential scale problems, especially if it coincides with the simultaneous reduction in the
gas or oil production. For particular case of the Miano field there was no water production at the surface still for the decline in
production the scale was considered to be the potential problem. This was due to the fact that possibility of presence of downhole
water could not be ignored.

An example showed in Figure-9 shows the response of different measurements e.g. Density, pressure and temperature inside the
tubing, this shows how the fluid flow behave differently at different depths. This phenomenon is associated with the presence of
multiphase fluids e.g. water and gas in this case. The mixture density tends to decrease where the mixture can not hold water any
more due to increasing depth and loss of energy in the stream. Similar response could be observed in the temperature and pressure
gradient. Temperature gradient tends to drop where water is given up by the gas also pressure tends to reduce in those specific
intervals. This process is repeated at several intervals along the tubing which depends on particular production rates of gas and
water (specifically related to slip velocities of individual phases), reservoir pressure, depth and well trajectory. This leads us to the
concept of the water fall back and water recirculation in the wellbore. This water recirculation and water fallback tends to be in the
wellbore and can be the potential cause of scale formation across the perforation and completion accessories. This water may or
may not be produced at surface due to reasons discussed, but this ensures that the absence of water production at surface does not
guarantee the absence of scale downhole as the water could be present downhole.

Radioactive Scale Detection with Gamma Ray Logging

GR is defined as a common and inexpensive measurement of the natural emission of gamma rays by a formation. Gamma ray logs
are particularly helpful because shales and sandstones typically have different gamma ray signatures that can be correlated readily
between wells.
Other definition of GR is a log of the total natural radioactivity, measured in API units. The measurement can be made in both
open hole and through casing. The depth of investigation is a few inches, so that the log normally measures the flushed zone.
Shales and clays are responsible for most natural radioactivity, so the gamma ray log often is a good indicator of such rocks [4].
However, other rocks are also radioactive, notably some carbonates and feldspar-rich rocks. The log is also used for correlation
between wells, for depth correlation between open and cased hole, and for depth correlation between logging runs. The gamma ray
log was the first nuclear well log and was introduced in the late 1930s [5].
An example in Figure-7 shows a multi-years CH-GR Time Lapse – VS – OH-GR measurement (it is plotted with the same scaling:
0 – 150 API). Figure shows the 1991, 1992 CH-GR vs early 80 OH-GR response and cased hole – GR response (1991, 1992)
versus open hole – GR (early 1980’s) after being displayed at the same range (0-150 API) are not well correlate. There are obvious
good trend matching except at the red marked section in pre calibration. Track-3 and track-4 in post calibration display Cased Hole
vs. Open Hole GR Log response after calibration & normalization have been applied for both logs (1991, 1992 CH GR logs).
Now, the 1991/1992 Cased Hole GR readings generally match with Open Hole GR log outside of the red-marked section.
Interestingly, within a year the 1992 CH-GR grow higher than the 1991s across the perforated section (red marker).
4 SPE 135960

Later in 1994, the Cased Hole TDT measurement was performed and it could not pass through the most bottom perforated section.
Casing Scraper was used to clean the restriction inside the wellbore thus allowed TDT tool to pass through the bottom most
perforated section, and performed complete measurements.
For scale indicator it is required that point to point calibration must be applied for two known section, shale and reservoir
(preferably non-produced ones). This will provide reference to match CH-GR with OH-GR [6]. Figure-8 shows the basic
production logging tool hardware.
In another example as shown in Figure-9 the scale was detected using the combination of CH-GR and Caliper measurement inside
the casing. For this purpose the calipers of production logging tool (PLT) were used which is shown in Figure-10. As shown, the
maximum GR reading was observed as 3000API across the perforation interval. At the same depth the caliper readings were
reduced drastically from 4.276 inches to 3.9 inches showing restriction due to reduced diameter formed by deposition of scale.
Presence of scale can also be confirmed by combination of CH-GR and tension measurement of PLT. As shown in Figure-11,
across the zone of scale deposition (Shown in pink shaded area). The tension of the PLT on wireline was reduced significantly
from normal tension due to restriction formed by scale. Therefore keeping all above evidences in mind the re-vists to gamma ray
log along with RST run in Well X-1 were made in order to find out the possibility of scale deposition in the well as shown in
Figure-12, which was later confirmed by slick line runs.

Laboratory Analysis of Scale Samples

Scale samples from one producing well of Miano flied were collected with Slickline sand bailer (Figure-13) and were analyzed in
laboratory. The microscopic analysis showed that sample contains some components cemented by CaCO3 and amorphous silica
and following tentative scenarios were developed:

1 Calcite precipitates out of solution because of degassing of CO2 due to a pressure drop at the perforations. This is in line
with the observation of a restriction and the fact that it is easily acid soluble. It acts as a cementing material for grains of
formation sand and other particulate matter present in the wellbore.
2 The layer of amorphous silica could be due to progressive evaporation of formation water. At these temperatures, there
must be some silicic acid in solution concentrating up until solubility product is exceeded. Some large sulphate crystals
were also present (barite).
SEM/EDAX, XRD analysis were performed at second sample. Analysis indicated that Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and Stronium
carbonate are the dominant phases. Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) composed of 66.7 % and Strontium carbonate composed of 33.3
%. XRD results were consistent with SEM/EDAX indications. Figure-14 and table- 1 shows the SEM/EDAX analysis carried out on
the scale sample. Figure-15 and table-2 shows the XRD analysis, which confirms that the major elements of scale sample are calcium
and strontium.

Solubility Test
In order to properly design the scale removal treatments acid solubility tests were conducted by the service company and
confirmed that the scales were almost 95% soluble in hydrochloric acid (HCl) under down hole conditions. An estimated 10-20
Barrels of 7.5% HCl would be sufficient to remove the scale deposits from the wells.

Well Treatment
The major challenges associated with operations were:
¾ High temperature sour gas wells
¾ Unavailability of high temperature milling tools
After a proper investigation for the reason of production decline in Miano filed, scale removal jobs were planned through coiled
tubing after a significant decline in gas production rate and well head pressure.

Scale Removal Operation at Well: X-1

X-1 was the first candidate for scale removal job with coiled tubing. The primary objective of the job was to successfully remove
the scale and regain the productivity. Power clean nozzle was used in order to remove scale. Top of scale was tagged and initial
attempt was made with the “nitrified brine/Gel” to penetrate the scale but no success was achieved. Later on 7.5% HCL was
prepared and 10bbls acid was pumped. The well was then shut-in and soaked with acid. After soaking time, top of scale was
tagged at the same depth as initial. Later additional 10 bbls of 7.5% HCL was pumped and penetrated at the same time, same
attempt was made again and further penetration was achieved with the successful clean out operation.
SPE 135960 5

Scale Removal Operation at Well: X-2

After X-1, scale removal operation was conducted on the well X-2 with coiled tubing. Due to the fact that X-2 never experienced
the water production, the scale type expected could have been different than well X-1. The Coiled Tubing job was conducted with
the power clean nozzle, initial attempt was made with the “nitrified brine/Gel” to penetrate the scale but no success was achieved.
Same strategy was followed as of well X-1 and another attempt was made by jetting with the 7.5% HCL acid. The scale was
removed successfully in a safe and economic way and the production was regained.

Conclusion
1. The dramatic reduction in productivity from Miano field and restoration of productivity was a major challenge in such a
high temperature environment. All the objectives were achieved in a safe and efficient manner as result of better planning
and job designing.
2. Comparison of CH-GR and OH-GR proved to be effective in case of radioactive scale deposition identification when no
sufficient evidences were available for scaling problem.
3. It is recommended that future revisits should be made in the wells periodically to observe the increasing trend of scale
deposition.
4. It is recommended that the gamma ray should be acquired all the way from perforation interval to the surface to indicate
the deposition of scale along the completion accessories. More value could be added by using the density, temperature
and pressure measurements to observe flow regime.
5. Scale samples are ideal to acquire which can provide mineralogy identification and solubility analysis can be carried out
to design the treatment jobs.
6. To ensure selection of proper descaling methods, it is essential to conduct detailed scale analysis. Scale samples collected
by slickline were found adequate for this purpose.
7. For the case of Miano field by utilizing the gamma ray measurement and scale analysis of middle Indus region, proper
stimulation treatment was designed and thus there was additional gain of 41 MMSCFD from two wells (Figure-16).

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of OMV for their permission to publish this paper. Many thanks to Dr. Ferdinand
Schoffmann and Mr. Irfan Ramay for discussion and review of this paper. Also thanks to Syed Saadat Hassan, Naveed Arif &
Moien Ahmed Siddiqui for their cooperation to finalize this paper.

Nomenclature
GR Gamma Ray
CH-GR Cased Hole Gamma Ray
OH-GR Open Hole Gamma Rau
XRD X-Ray diffraction
SEM Scanning Electron Microscopy
FWHP Flowing wellhead Pressure
CT Coiled Tubing
S/L Slick Line
PLT Production Logging Tool
ID Internal Dia

References
1. A.I Volvoshin, V.V.Ragulin, N.E. Tyabayeva, Yukos; I.I Diakonov, Schlumberger; E.J. Mackay, Heriot Watt University “Scaling Problems
in Western Siberia” SPE 80407.
2. M.H.V. Quiroga, J.C.N. Calmeto, S.L. Pinto, C.A.S. Assis, PETROBRAS; I. Santos, Schlumberger “Hard Scale Mechanical Removal: A
Solution for Brazilian Offshore Operations”. SPE 89627.
3. Eirik Enerstvedt, Weatherford and Henning Boge, Phillips Petroleum Co. Norway” Scale Removal by Milling and Jetting With Coiled
Tubing”SPE 68366.
4. Jean-Pierre Poyet, Gérard Ségéral and Eric Toskey, “Real-Time Method for the Detection and Characterization of Scale”, SPE 74659.
5. Crabtree, Mike, et.al. “Fighting Scale – Removal & Prevention”, Schlumberger Oilfield Review, 1999. Autumn: p. 30-45.
6. Wihardjo, L.U. et.al., “Finding remaining & By-passed Hydrocarbon through Saturation Moni-toring Behind Casing Measurement”, 2004,
JAPT, Sapporo, Japan.
6 SPE 135960

Figure-1: Miano Field Location Map

Figure-2: Miano Field Lithology Map

SPE 135960 7

Production decline due to Scaling Problem

Figure-3: Well Data Chart of Well X-1

Chloride monitoring Chart

Figure-4: Chloride monitoring chart of Well X-1

8 SPE 135960

Production decline due to Scaling Problem

Figure-5: Well Data Chart of Well X-2

6000

Chloride monitoring Chart

5000

4000
Chloride Value (mg/l)

3000

2000

1000

0
12/1/2008 12/13/2008 12/25/2008 1/6/2009 1/18/2009 1/30/2009 2/11/2009 2/23/2009 3/7/2009 3/19/2009 3/31/2009
Time

Figure-6: Chloride monitoring chart of Well X-2

SPE 135960 9

Figure 7 : 1991, 1992 CH-GR vs. Early-80 OH-GR pre & post calibration and normalization.

PBMS PGMC PFCS

Gamma Ray, Density, Fluid Velocity,
CCL, Pressure, Deviation X-Y Caliper
Temperature

Figure 8: Basic Production Logging tool Hardware

10 SPE 135960

D r o p in
d e n s it y d u e I n c r e a s e in
to le s s d e n s ity d u e to
am ount of p o s s ib le w a te r
w a t e r w it h r e c ir c u la t io n o r
ga s w a t e r f a l lb a c k

T e m p e ra tu re

P r e s su re

Figure 9: Density, temperature and pressure measurements inside the tubing

shows the possible water fall back and recirculation effects.

GR PFC
0 GAPI 3000 3.6 inch 4.6

Internal
Radius of
Casing

Reduced ID

Figure 10: Correlation between Cased Hole GR log VS PLT Caliper.

SPE 135960 11

Figure 11: Correlation between Cased Hole GR log VS PLT tension curves.
12 SPE 135960

Figure 12: Cased Hole GR comparison with OH-GR indicating Scaled zones in Well X-1
SPE 135960 13

Figure-13: Scale Sample recovered from one of Miano well

Figure 14: General view of SEM/EDAX images and elements on scale sample

Elements Detected Wt %

Ca 53.07
Sr 41.26

Ba 5.68
Total 100.01
Table 1: SEM/EDAX Element Compositions of scale sample
14 SPE 135960

Figure 15: Quantitative details XRD analysis of scale sample

Minerals Detected Composition Amount

Class Group Mineral in % By Wight of

Calcite Calcium Carbonate 66.7

Aragonite Strontianite 33.3

Table 2: XRD Mineralogical Compositions of scale sample

SPE 135960 15

Decrease in
Gas Production
due to Scaling
problems.

Increase in Gas
Production
after Scale
removal Jobs.

Figure-16: Miano Field Gas Production before & after Scale removal Jobs