SPE

SPE 23814

Kinetics of BaS04 Crystal Growth and Effect in Formation Damage

R.M.S. Wat, * K.S. Sorbie, * A.C. Todd, * Ping Chen, and Ping Jiang, Heriot-Watt U.
'SPE Members

Copyright 1992, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Inti. Symposium On formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, louisiana, February 26-27, 1992.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Commillas following review of informatioil contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subJact to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented does not necessarily refleci
any position of til? Society of ~etroleum Engineers! its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. PannlSSlOllto copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledg-
ment of where and by whom the paper Is presented. Wrne Ubrarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3838 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

In the North Sea, due to the extensive use of water The formation of mineral scale associated with the
injection for oil displacement and pressure production of hydrocarbon has been a concern in
maintenance, many reservoirs experience the oilfield operation. Depending on the nature of the
problem of scale deposition when injection water scale and the fluid composition, the deposition can
starts to breakthrough. In most cases the scaled-up take place within the reservoir which causes
wells are caused by the formation of sulphate scales formation damage or in the production faci1itie~
of Barium and Strontium. Due to their relative where blockage can cause severe operational
hardness and low solubility, there are limited problems. The two main types of scale which are
processes available for their removal and the commonly found in the oilfield are carbonate and
preventive measure such as the 'squeeze' inhibitor sulphate scales. Whilst the formation of carbonate
treatment has to be taken. It is therefore important to scale is associated with the pressure and pH changes
have a proper understanding of the kinetics of scale of the production fluid, the occurrence of sulphate
formation and its detrimental effect on formation scale is mainly due to the mixing of incompatible
damage under both inhibited and uninhibited brines, ie. formation water and injection water. In the
environment. North Sea, the universal use of sea water injection as
the primary oil recovery mechanism and for pressure
In this paper, we will present results of BaS04 maintenance means that problems with sulphate scale
formation kinetics in both beaker tests and in highly deposition, mainly barium and strontium, are likely
reproducible sandpacks which simulates the flow in to be present at some stage during the production life
porous medium. The effect of scale depOSition on the of the field.
dynamics of formation damage will also be
discussed. In the studies of BaS04 crystal growth Apart from its likely occurrence, the relative hardness
kinetics and formation damage, we have included and low. solubility of the sulphate scale means that
both normal formation/injection brine mixture and the very few remedial treatments are available for its
addition of scale inhibitor chemical. There are removal. Processes like acidization which can
significant differences in the results of static (beaker successfully remove carbonate scale, ego CaC03,
tests) and dynamics (core flood) conditions, and cannot effectively apply in this case. The common
between the normal and inhibited brine mix. practice in the oilfield to overcome the problem of
sulphate scale formation is by the preventive method
References and fi~ures at end of paper of 'Squeeze' treatment in which scale inhibitor
chemical is used to retard the kinetic growth of scale

429
2 Kinetics of BaS04 Crystal Growth and Effect in Fonnation Damage
crystal. Indeed most of the work reported to date
[1,2,3,4] on the kinetic studies of BaS04 crystal
growth are related to the screening of effective
inhibitor chemicals. In this paper we shall present the
results on the kinetic growth of BaS04 scale under
the influence of added sand particles, seeded crystal
and inhibitor chemical. Furthermore, results of in-
situ scaling in highly reproducible sandpacks have
been included to provide information on likely
formation damage and comparison of crystal growth
under static and dynamic flow environment.
EXPERIMENTAL
In the crystal growth kinetic experiments, a
supersaturated solution was first prepared by mixing
equimolar amount of BaCl2 and H2S04 solutions.
By controlling the rate of mixing and temperature
variation, ie. +/- 0.5 0 C, solutions of relative
supersaturation of 5 could be preserved for a few
hours. The growth experiments were then initiated
by the rapid addition of either sand particles, seed
crystals of BaS04, or both. The process of growth
was monitored by measuring the solution
conductivity with time which was then converted to
the rate of change in scaling ion concentrations. The
seed crystals were previously prepared by mixing
O.OIM of BaCl2 and H2S04 solutions over a period
of 24 hours before being ftltered and washed. The
final suspension contained approximately 39 mg of
seed crystals per 1 cm3 of suspension fluid. The
sand particles used were clean, acid washed silica
sand supplied by BDH, of GPR grade which had a
mean particle size of 273 Ilm. The background
conductivity due to the possible surface charge of the
sand particles had been included in the calculations.
The value was obtained by measuring a standard
solution containing 10 g of sand and 100 cm3 of
distilled water after it had been purged of dissolved
carbon dioxide by bubbling through with nitrogen
gas. In the case of inhibited crystal growth
experiments, the procedures were similar except that
10 ppm of inhibitor was added to the original BaCl2
and H2S04 solutions. The inhibitor used was a
commercially available phosphonate type called
Diethlenetriaminepenta (methylene phosphonic acid)
which contained 50% activity.
In the dynamic experiments, the in-situ scaling
process was investigated using reconstituted sea
water and formation brine in the sandpack assembly.
The compositions of the two different brines are
given in table 1. A ratio of 60% of formation water to
40% of sea water was used for the experiments. This
430
SPE 23814
value was based on the scaling tendency model [5]
whose prediction gave the highest degree of
supersaturation with maximum amount of
precipitation of BaS04 scale. Separate inlets were
provided for the different brines and these were
positioned so as to ensure that the mixing only took
place within the specific section of the column. A
schematic diagram of the in-situ scaling experiment is
shown in figure {I}. Two different sandpacks,
using the same batch of BDH silica sand as in the
kinetic studies, were prepared for the inhibited and
uninhibited scaling experiments. The inhibitor used
was the sodium salt of the same phosphonate type
which, unlike in the previous case, contained
approximately 25% activity. The inhibitor chemical
was added to the sea water stream and gave an an
overall concentration of 50 ppm on mixing. The
combined injection rate of the two different brines
was 30 cm3/hr. This represented a residence time of
approximately 55 minutes within the mixing section.
Details of the sandpack assemblies and the injection
sequence are listed in table {2}. The scaling process
was monitored by analysing the effluent
concentration of the scaling cations using Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) and, where
appropriate, the concentration of inhibitor chemical.
At the end of each experiment, the sandpack was
carefully dismantled and the spatial variation of the
scale deposit was analysed using Scanning Electronic
Microscopy (SEM). In order to provide direct
comparison of the scaling mechanism, static jar tests
using the identical sea water and formation brine
mixture, with or without inhibitor, had been carried
out.
RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION
1. Crystal Growth Kinetics
The rate of crystal growth was monitored by
measuring the solution conductivity. This was then
converted to the concentration of the scaling ions
remaining in solution using the following equations
(6] :
Il = Ilo - Kce n (1)
k =:; CIl /1000 (2)
where A. = equivalent conductivity
in ohm- 1m2equiv- 1
1..0 = equivalent conductivity at infinite
dilution in ohm- 1m2equiv-1
C = equivalent concentration in unit of
SPE 23814 R.M.S. Wat, K.S. Sorbie, A.C. Todd, P. Chen, P. Jiang
equivalents per litre,
1O-3/C in m3 equiv- 1
k = conductivity in ohm-1m- 1
Kc = constant obtained from equation (1)
with C and A. taken at 5x 10-4 mol/l
The accuracy of the above equations was confirmed
by constructing a calibration curve using different
supersaturated solutions of H2S04 and BaCh. The
conductivity of the calibrated samples was measured
and compared with the calculated values given by the
above equations and good agreement was obtained as
shown in figure {2}.
For both inhibited and uninhibited growth, the
experimental details are summarised in table 3. In
general, it is possible to prepare solutions with
relative supersaturation of 8 before any premature
precipitation starts due to instability[7]. In all the
experiments discussed here, solutions of relative
supersaturation of 5 were used and these were based
on the barium sulphate solubility taken as 1.009 x
10-5 mollL[8]. In the case where the growth was
initiated by the addition of seed crystals, the changes
in solution conductivity over time are shown in
figure 3. As expected, the rate of crystal growth is
much retarded when inhibitor is present.
Furthermore, results from both experiments exhibit
the initial surge over the first 80 minutes which
characterize the growth reaction from a metastable
supersaturated solution and is generally attributed to
the surface nucleation process[9]. It is then followed
by a more gradual rate of growth which can be
represented by a second order rate equation
[4,7,9,11] in the form of:
dm
rate of crystal growth = -- ' = ks(m - m a )2 (3)
dt
where m = molar concentration
IIIo = equilibrium (solubility) value
ks = crystal growth rate constant, a
function of the number of active
growth sites on the added crystals
In figure 4, the conductivity profiles are converted to
concentration and expressed as the integrated form of
equation (3). From figure 4 the values of ks of
experiment 54 and 57 are found to be 0.0IxlO-2 and
1.26xlO-2 respectively. This indicates that the rate of
growth in an inhibited environment is about two
orders of magnitude slower than when no scale
inhibitor is used. The retardation of growth is
generally attributed to the blocking of active growth
431
3
sites on the crystal surface by the inhibitor molecules
[1].
For those experiments in which the crystal growth
process was initiated by heterogeneous nucleation,
ie. the addition of sand particles (expts. 30 & 53) or
a mixture of sand and seed crystals (expts. 55 & 58),
the rate of growth can no longer be adequately
expressed by the equation (3). The results from
these experiments, however, have been included and
are shown in figures [5] and [6] in which
comparison between the inhibited and uninhibited
growth can be made. In the case where growth was
initiated by sand particles only, there was no
appreciable differences in the rate of growth. On the
other hand, significant rate reduction was observed
in the presence of inhibitor when the growth process
was initiated by both sand and seed crystals. This
further indicates that the inhibition mechanism was
mainly due to the blocking of active sites on the
crystal surface.
2. In-situ Scaling Studies
The pressure drop over the mixing zone of the
sandpack was monitored throughout the experiment.
No appreciable change was observed as shown in
table [2]. This was mainly due to the original high
column permeability and the total scale deposit was
relatively insignificant when compared with the pore
volume of the mixing section.
Apart from monitoring the pressure drop, effluent
samples were collected during the experiments. They
were analysed for the concentration of the two main
scaling cations, ie. barium and strontium, whose
effluent profiles are shown in figures 7 and 8
respectively. In these figures, the effluent profiles of
both the inhibited and uninhibited experiments are
shown. Also included in these figures are the [Ba++]
and [Sy++] concentrations measured during the static
jar tests. In the case of uninhibited scaling,
experiment ES-1, the [Ba++] ion concentration at the
outlet of the sandpack remains constant at
approximately 3.5 ppm throughout the experiment.-
This is consistently lower than that of the similar
beaker test even though the brines used and their
mixing ratio were identical. The increase in scaling
tendency of BaS04 within the sandpack was likely
due to the abundant heterogeneous growth sites
which were available.
For the experiment ES-2 in which 50 ppm of
inhibitor was present, the results show quite a
different trend. In this case the [Ba++] ion
concentration in the sandpack effluent, after it
4 Kinetics of BaS04 Crystal Growth and Effect in Formation Damage
initially drops to a minimum of 14.5 ppm, rises and
remains steady at a much higher level than the beaker
test results. This indicates that the rate of BaS04
precipitation within the sandpack is somewhat slower
than that in static condition when inhibitor chemical
is present. The initial surge of the precipitation rate,
however, as indicated by the drop in [Ba++]
concentration, is due to the non-equilibrium
adsorptjon of the inhibitor chemical. When the sea
water containing scale inhibitor was first injected into
the sandpack, the advancing front of the inhibitor
chemical was retarded due to adsorption. Meanwhile,
both the sea water and formation water, with
depleted inhibitor concentration, propagated down
stream and resulted in extensive scale precipitation.
The rate of precipitation gradually decreased as more
free inhibitor molecules were available after the
adsorption sites had been saturated. The delay of
inhibitor breakthrough due to adsorption and the
corresponding rise in BaS04 precipitation, as
indicated by the drop in [Ba++] concentration, can be
clearly seen in their breakthrough profiles which are
shown in figure 9. Furthermore, apart from the initial
nonequilibrium process, the inhibitor effluent
concentration remains constant at approximately 40
ppm (80% injected value) throughout the experiment.
The loss of material during this steady state is likely
due to a combination of adsorption and bonding
mechanisms of inhibitor molecules with the newly
formed crystal surface.
The differences of SrS04 scale precipitation under
dynamic and static conditions are less pronounced as
shown in figure 8. Indeed the final [Sr++]
concentrations in the sandpack effluent and beaker
test samples agree well with each other for both the
inhibited (expt. ES-2) and uninhibited (expt. ES-l)
cases. The lack of sensitivity of strontium scale
precipitation is mainly due to the fact that the
supersaturation of SrS04 is about one order of
magnitude smaller than that of the BaS04 [5] in the
brine mixtures used for the experiments.
Other important information on the in-situ scaling
mechanism is the morphology of the scale deposit. In
figure 10, the SEM pictures of the uninhibited scale
deposit (ES-l) at three different locations of the
sandpack are shown. They are taken at 2.5 cm, 12.5
cm and 38.5 cm respectively from the point of
mixing. A number of interesting observations can be
seen from these and many other similar SEM
pictures. Firstly and as expected, the amount of scale
deposit is most abundant near the point of mixing
and generally decreases with distance. Secondly,
perhaps more importantly, the scaling mechanism is
very 'localised' with mainly heterogeneous growth
on sand grain surface. There is no strong evidence,
432
SPE 23814
including careful examination of the SEM picture of
the outlet filter and pressure monitoring, to suggest
that homogeneous nucleation and subsequent particle
blockage is the main contribution to the permeability
impairment. The formation damage due to scale
deposit is likely caused by the continuous growth of
scale crystals which have remained stationary at the
active growth sites. Finally, the differences in crystal
morphology can be seen by comparing the pictures in
figure 10. The scale crystal nearest to the point of
mixing (figure lOa) exhibits a very 'healthy' state of
growth whilst for those which are further away
(figures lOb and 1Oc) both the size and growth have
been somehow impaired. This is because near the
point of mixing, the brines have the richest
composition of the scaling ions. The precipitation
process is fast and is continuously supplied with
fresh brines. Further downstream, however, the
composition of the brines has been significantly
modified with the continuous depletion of the scaling
ions. This means that under steady state condition as
during the sandpack experiments, there is a transition
zone of varying supersaturation along the sandpack
column and this gives rise to the different scaling
tendency.
CONCLUSIONS
In the current studies, we have presented results
which are used to quantify the kinetics of BaS04
crystal growth under a controlled environment. The
work also extends to cover the realistic system in
which in-situ scaling takes place under dynamic flow
conditions. Based on the results obtained from these
studies, the following conclusions can be made.
(1) The rate of growth of BaS04 scale, after the
initial surge, can be represented by a second
order rate equation. However, this does not
extend to the case when crystal growth is
initiated by heterogeneous nucleation.
(2) When scale inhibitor is present, the rate of
growth is significantly retarded and the rate
constant, ks, is approximately two orders of
magnitude smaller than the uninhibited case.
The differences in rate will vary according to
the fluid system and the experimental
conditions.
(3) For the in-situ scaling experiments, the
crystal growth process appears to be
localised. The permeability decline is likely
SPE 23814 R.M.S. Wat, K.S. Sorbie, A.C. Todd, P. Chen, P. Jiang
caused by the continuous growth of crystals
and not by particle transport and flow
blockage.
(4) The scale precipitation process in porous
medium is likely to be dominated by
'heterogeneous nucleation with the [Ba++] ion
concentration in the sandpack effluents
~onsistently less than that of similar beaker
tests. However, when the process is inhibited
by the addition of scale inhibitor, the extent
of inhibitor adsorption on the sand surface
will significantly modify. the process. The
effluent [Ba++] concentration in this case is
higher than the beaker test which indicates
less precipitation in-situ.
(5) The scale morphology varies considerably
from the point of mixing. Under steady state,
the scaling process within the porous medium
is contributed by a range of supersaturated
mixtures. The point where the incompatible
brines first come into contact with each other
has the highest supersaturation and with
maximum amount of deposit. This is
followed by a transition zone of rapidly
depleted scaling ions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to thank the member organisations
funding the Heriot-Watt University Oilfield Scale
Research Project which includes B.P., Chevron
U.K. Ltd., Ciba-Geigy Additives, Marathon, Shell
UK Exploration and Production, Statoil, Texaco,
and M.T.D. Ltd/SERC (Grant no. GRIE63322).
REFERENCES
1. Nancollas, G. H., " Oilfield Scale - Physical
Chemical Studies of Its Formation and
Prevention", Chemicals in the Oil Industry
1985, 143-164.
2, Vetter,O.J., "An Evaluation of Scale
Inhibitors", Journal of Petroleum
Technology, p997, August 1972.
3. Boyle,M.J. and Mitchell, R.W., "Scale
Inhibition Problems Associated With North
Sea Oil Production ", SPE 8164, presented
at the Offshore Europe 79 Conference,
Aberdeen, Scotland, 3-7 September.
433
5
4. Liu, S. T. and Nancollas, G. H., " The
crystal Growth and Dissolution of Barium
Sulphate in the Presence of Additives", The
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science,
Vol 52, No.3, 9,1975. 583.
5. Yuan, M.D. and Todd, A.C., "Prediction of
Sulphate Scaling Tendency in Oilfield
Operations", paper SPE18484 presented at
the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
Chemistry, Houston, Texas, 8-10 Feb 1989.
6. Moore, W. J.," Physical Chemistry", Lowe
& Brydone Ltd, London 1968.
7. Nancollas, G. H. "Crystallisation of Barium
Sulphate in Aqueous solution" Trans of
Faraday 59,1963. 737.
8. VanDer Leeden, M. C. and Van Rosmalen,
G. M., " The Influence of Various
Phosphonates on the Growth Rate of Barium
Sulphate Crystals in Suspension", Estudios
Geol, 38, 1982, p279-287.
9. Leung, W, H. and Nancollas, G. H.,"A
kinetic Study of the Seeded Growth of
Barium Sulphate in the Presence of
Additives", J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. Vol 40,
p1871.
10. Liu, S, T. and Nancollas, G. H., " The
crystal Growth and Dissolution of Barium
Sulphate in the Presence of Additives", The
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science,
Vol 52, No.3, 9,1975. 583.
11. Rubin, A. J. , "Aqueous - Environmental
Chemistry of Metals", Ann Arbor Science
Publishing Inc, Michigan 1974.223-224.
 SPE 2381 4

Table 2 Summary of Sand pack Experiments

Sand pack Experiment ES-l ES-2

T->O ~~ }>O It>O
[Column Length (cm)
Table 1: Composition of Formation and Injection Sea Waters 69.5 41.8 69 40
fPore Volume
(ml) 45.47 26.32 48 29
Ions (mglL) Jo'ormatlon water inJection sea I Sand weIght
water (2) 205.50 199.76
Na :lY,40C 1 J,H9l [Dead Volume
..:a 2,8OC 428 (ml) 1.0 1.5
Mg :lot 1,368 I PorosIty 0.37 0.3~
K 37C 46l I Permeability (d) A->B B-> A->B B->
Sr 575 Initial 24.5 ~.nr 8.97 39.58
J:la 25 Final -25.5 29.31 .64 41.52
1~,/{)t [Floods Sequence: 1) tracer, U (1->0) 1) tracer,
~
52,64 (1->0
::iU4 2,96l 2) tracer, U (B->O) 2) tracer, (B->O)
3)FW& (1->0) 3)FW& (1->0)
sw (B->O) SW& Inhibitor (B->O)
4) tracer, U (B->O)
[Flowrate
(ml/hr) 30 60 30
ResIdence T,me
(min.) 52.9 26.5 58
Pore Vol. Injected
26.65 79.95 74

Table 3 Summary of Crystal Growth Kinetics Experiments

Expt. super- Initial 11 Final 11 Seed Sand pH ks(10- 2 )

saturation cone. cone. Crystal (g)
oom oom (ml)

30 5 5.00 4.0

57 5 1.00 4.0 1.26

58 5 1.00 5.00 4.0

53 5 10.00 9.76 5.00 3.73

54 5 10.00 9.57 1.00 3.76 0.01

55 5 10.00 9.48 1.00 5.00 3.75

Ip, I~
manometer
I Pd

-.
25cm 15 cm
FW 18ml/hr.

mpump
I A

~
B ,
, ,,
,,
D 0

~~~~
sw
12mIlhr.
,,
,
,,

B section
sample
collector

inlet & Pb

'"'" --+_'"'01
inlet

Fig. 1-Apparatus layout for In-situ scaling experiments.

434
 SEE 2381 4

80 7

70
6
~

;::;
60 ~

a
y
a 5
~ 50 I/)
::l
Q
&.
...,:; 40 2 4
]y .S
I:

=
"0
I:
~
30 .
-;
3
U
0 measured values
-='"y
20 I:

10
-- calculated
U
~

2 • uninhibited
0
10 ppm inhibitor (Expt.54)
(Expt. 57)
O~~--r-~~r-~~--~-r--~-r--r-,-~~
1+-~--.-~--~~~~--~_r--~~--~~
0.00e+0 1.00e-5 2.00e-5 3.00e-5 4.00e-5 5.ooe-5 6.00e-5 7.00e-5 o 50 100 150 200 250 300
Concentration, mol/l
Fig. 2-Predlcted and measured conductivity of supersaturated solutions of H2 S0 4 and BaCI 2 •
Time (min)
Fig. 3-Conductlvlty profiles of Inhibited and uninhibited crystal growth experiments Initiated
by adding seeded crystals.

40oooT-------------------------------------~ 6.5 ,-----------------------------------------..,

• IO ppm inhibitor (Expt. 54)

o uninhibited (Expt. 57) • IO ppm inhibitor (Expt.53)
6.0 o uninhibited (Expt.30)
30000 s
~
a
5.5
20000
I:
~

..
.~ 5.0

-=y'"
I:
~
U 4.5

150 200 250 300

4.0 +--~__,-~----r-~-_._-~-..._---,.-~-~---l
Time (min) o 50 100 150 200 250 300

Fig. 4-Rate of change of scaling Ion concentrations In Experiments 54 and 57. Time ( min)
Fig. 5-Concentratlon profiles of scaling Ions remain In solution after the addition of sand particles.
 7 150
o Ba (15Oppm on mixing, no 12)

6 • 10 ppm inhibitor (Expt.55) 125 • Ba (15Oppm on mixing, with 50ppm 12)

--Ei
~

'0
o uninhibited (Expt.58) Ba (beaker test, no 12)
Ba (beaker test with 50ppm 12)
5 100
III
.;.
~

6 4
75 •
i
..•..............
c:
.~ Q,
-; ~
.......c:
..c:
.
3

• ••••••
<II 50
=:I
u
e J8ppm
U 2 25 /
---------------------------------------11-----------
·----·-0--0---0--···-0-····-0-·--0-:-·0···-····0·-- , 8.6ppm
1 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0

PV (mixing zone) Injected

Time (min)
Fig. 7-Eflluent concentration prolilea of (Be + + I for inhibited and uninhibited In-sltu scaling exparimente together
Fig. 6-Concentratlon profiles of scaling Ions remain In solution after the addition of seed crystals and sand particles. with the reaulta from the parallel beaker teate.

3ro~--------------------------------------, c: 1.0
Sr (34Oppm on mixing, no 12) .~
~

,
-;
Sr (340ppm on mixing, with 50ppm 12) ...
340 Sr (beaker test, no 12) =..c:
u
0.8 •• ooCJXJr::p:jJ 0
0 0

Sr (beaker test,with 50ppm 12)

e
u ~ cPcP
.... 0.6
..=1:1 ~
• 00
320
IE.. 0
~.~..
____
"» 6 Iii.
•
t j l•••••
___________________________________
. . . . ••• 41.. ________ _ I 300ppm .
"CI
.~
0.4
• 0
0

';

••
0.2
300 ~ II ,'.I"IUIIMh~ III
...Eie m l-
• c:
0.0
O~
280 0 2 3 4 5 6 7

pore volume (mixing zone) injected

2W+-~--.-~~r-~_.--~_r--~_.~--._~__4 Fig. 9-Braakthrough profiles of Inhlbltor and [Be + + I for the Experiment E8-2.
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PV (mixing zone) Injected

Fig. B-Effiuent concentration proliles of (Sr + + I for Inlllblted and unlnhlblteclln.aftu scaling exparirnanta together
with the reaulte !rem the parallel beaker testa.
 SPE 2381 4

A B

Fig. 10-SEM piclures 01 scale cryslal lormed al (a) 2.5 cm, (b) 12.5 cm, and (c) 38.5 cm Irom poinl 01 mixing In
Experiment ES-l.