Chemical Equilibrium Models:

Their Use in Simulating the

Injection of Incompatible Waters
L. Bertero, AGIP SpA
G.L. Chierici,* SPE, AGIP SpA
G. Gottardi, U. of Bologna
E. Mesini, SPE, U. Of Bologna
G. Mormino,** AGIP SpA

Summary. One of the problems encountered in waterflooding projects is scale formation caused by chemical incompatibility
between potential injection waters and reservoir brine. Chemical compatibility evaluation through laboratory experiments on cores at
reservoir conditions is of limited value because only first-contact phenomena are reproduced. A numerical model is presented that
couples a reservoir-fluid-flow/thermal-equilibrium simulator with a chemical-equilibrium computer code. This model, AGIPS, enables
us to calculate the evolution in time of the amount of scale formed at any point in the reservoir and inside the wells when changes
occur in the temperature of the injected water and when the injection water mixes with reservoir brine. Moreover, the model
calculates temperature and pressure profiles in the reservoir, together with their evolution in time, taking into account the
permeability reduction caused by scale formation. Results are presented for the chemical-equilibrium code validation by matching
experimental data on scale formation in mixtures of incompatible waters. An example is also given of the use of AGIPS in simulating
a five-spot waterflood where incompatible water is injected.

Introduction
Water injection to improve oil recovery is a long-standing practice
in the oil industry. Pressure maintenance by water injection in the
early stages of field exploitation or secondary recovery by peripheral
and pattern waterflooding both call for huge amounts of water to
be injected into oil reservoirs.
The selection ofthe injection water is a crucial factor when water-
flood operations are planned. In offshore oil fields, the most obvi-
ous (and the cheapest) source of water is the sea; in onshore fields,
waters from shallow aquifers are normally used for injection. River
water is used only when no other source is available because of
the high content of suspended matter and micro-organisms usually
present. In all cases, the prerequisite for good injection water is
that it must not impair well injectivity and reservoir fluid charac-
teristics. Injection water must be free of suspended particles, or-
ganic matter, oxygen, and acid gases (CO z and HzS) before it is
pumped into the injection wells.
Fine inorganic particles in the injected water may form a cake
at the well bottom I and plug the injection well. Algae and other
living organisms may grow at reservoir level, forming a gelatinous
body that impairs injectivity. Backwashing and acid washing are
the usual well treatments adopted when these troubles occur.
Bacteria introduced into the reservoir in the injection water may
grow and travel through the formation and may metabolize both
formation oil and brine. Although microbial EOR is being consid-
ered as a potential process for improving oil recovery, people in
the industry 'still consider the introduction of bacteria into an oil
reservoir a source of trouble. This is particularly true when sulfate-
reducing bacteria are present in the injection water because they
metabolize the reservoir brine, forming HzS. The continuous or
batch addition of bacteria-killing chemicals is a must in every in-
jection process.
The presence of oxygen and acid gases in the injection water
causes corrosion in both surface and well equipment, jeopardizing
the safe operation of this equipment. Moreover, corrosion scale
transported in the injection water may accumulate at the well bot-
tom and plug it: Degassing the injection water under vacuum or
stripping with hydrocarbon gases is common practice in the oil in-
dustry.
"l\Iow with U. of Bologna.
"Now with Italcad·RSE.
Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers
288
Once the water enters the oil-bearing formation, two more prob-
lems arise: compatibility of the injection water with the reservoir
rock and with the reservoir brine.
Reservoir rocks often contain shales, dispersed in the pores, finely
interlaminated, or interbedded in the pay. The shales are in equi-
librium with the reservoir brine: any change in the ionic strength
(as a first approximation, in the salinity) of the environment in-
duces a rearrangement of the shale particles.
If the salinity of the injection water is higher than that of the reser-
voir brine, the shale structure collapses. Shale lamellae are thus
freed, and while they move about in the injection water they may
plug parts of the formation, usually the most permeable parts. This
may result in a reduction of rock heterogeneity and therefore in
an improvement in oil displacement. When the salinity of the in-
jection water is lower than that of the reservoir brine, the shale
structure swells. This causes a reduction in the permeability of the
(less permeable) shaly layers of the reservoir rock Z•3 and thus an
increase in the heterogeneity of rock permeability. As a conse-
quence, oil recovery is impaired. Moreover, the injected water may
dissolve minerals present in the reservoir rock. As a consequence,
the composition of the injected water is changed, and this may af-
fect its compatibility with the reservoir brine.
A more controversial question is whether injection water should
be totally compatible with reservoir brine (i.e., the formation of
any insoluble matter, or scale, when the injection water mixes with
reservoir brine should be considered unacceptable) or whether a
certain degree of incompatibility can be tolerated. This point will
be discussed in detail later.
Scale Formation Along the Injection-Water Path
in Waterflood Operations
Injection water temperature at the injection wellhead is usually much
lower than reservoir temperature. As it travels down the injection
wellstring, the water cools the surrounding formations, and its tem-
perature and pressure increase. If the water is saturated at surface
conditions with salts whose solubility decreases with increasing tem-
peratures (e.g. anydrite), scale may form along the wellstring.
As the water enters the reservoir, three main phenomena occur:
(l) temperature increases along the water flow path because of heat
exchange with the reservoir rock and fluids, (2) pressure decreases
SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1988
along the flow path, and (3) injection water mixes with reservoir
brine.
Two fronts can be singled out in the reservoir, a thermal front
and a mixing front, which travel at different velocities, with the
thermal front lagging behind the mixing front (Fig. 1). The fronts
are S-shaped because of heat diffusion (for the thermal front) and
because of hydrodynamic diffusion and dispersion as a result of
rock heterogeneity. Consequently, we will be calling them "zones"
rather t/lan "fronts."
Scale precipitation from the injection water may occur behind
the mixing zone as a consequence of temperature and pressure
changes. This is particularly true of waters containing salts whose
solubility decreases with increasing temperature and decreasing
pressure.
Ahead of the mixing zone, only reservoir brine (with oil) is present
in the rock pores. Behind the mixing zone, only injected water in
equilibrium at local temperature and pressure (with residual oil)
exists. In the mixing zone, precipitation of insoluble salts may occur
because of the interaction, at local temperature and pressure, of
chemical species contained in the injection water with chemical spe-
cies presein in the reservoir brine.
As the remaining clear water moves ahead, it mixes again with
reservoir brine at a different pressure, and scale precipitation may
a~ain take place. This cycle is repeated until the remaining clear
water reaches a production well.
In the production well, pressure and temperature decrease along
the flow string up to the surface, and further changes in ther-
modynamic conditions occur in the surface equipment. This may
again result in scale formation. Normally, these scales do the most
damage in the wel\bore when there are major falls in pressure but
hardly any temperature changes. 4
~imulatlon of Incompatible Water Injection by
Chemical-Equilibrium Models
It is standard practice in the oil industry to evaluate injection-water
compatibility with reservoir brine by running waterflooding tests
at reservoir conditions on cores (mostly 2.5-cm [I-in.] plugs) previ-
ously saturated with reservoir brine. These tests can reproduce only
first ·contact mixing phenomena: no thermal effects on injection
water, or multiple-contact phenomena between injection water
(equilibrated at reservoir conditions) and reservoir brine can be re-
produced by core tests. As a consequence, these tests should be
considered only as a screening tool to evaluate different potcntial
injection waters through comparison.
To acquire reliable inform:o}tion on the possible damage that may
be caused by injecting a certain type of water into a given oil field,
to identify points where scale formation is most likely to occur,
and to evaluate possible remedial actions, recourse must be made
to u'nconventional numerical models specially conceived for simulat-
ing the following phenomena in a coupled mode: (1) chemical equi-
librium in the injection water ane! in mixtures of injection water
with reservoir brine, along the temperature and pressure profiles
of a waterflood, and (2) pressure and temperature distributions in
time in the reservoir and in well strings during a waterflood op-
eration.
One of these models, AGIPS, and its application to an actual oil-
field case will be described.
Chemical-Equilibrium Computer Code
The chemical-equilibrium computer code used for evaluating scale
formation in waterflooding operations is derived from the EQ3/EQ6
computer code 5 (in its latest version 6 EQ3NR for the EQ3 speci-
ation program) developed at the Lawrence Ljvermore Laboratory,
U. of California.
It should be pointed out that EQ3/EQ6 computes the system state
at equilibrium: no kinetics of solid formation and precipitation (e.g.,
adhesion to the tubing wall) are taken into account in the computer
program.
Equilibrium chemistry of an aqueous solution depends on many
factors simultaneously, including concentration of all cations and
anions; partial pressures of dissolved gases; temperature; pH; oxi-
dation state of redox couples, specified in terms of electric poten-
tial or electron activity, or equilibrium oxygen fugacity; alkalinity
Reservoir Engineering, February 1988
>-
>- THERMAL
ReserVOir
TRANSITION
Z ZONE bnne only
...J
«
(/J
W
0:
::J
>-
«
~~~
Distance from the well
Fig. l-Relative positions of thermal and mixing fronts at
time t.
balance for carbonates and bicarbonates; ionic strength (which af-
fects chemical activities); activity coefficients; and the solubility
of solid minerals that could form.
EQ3NR is a geochemical aqueous speciation/solubility software
package that computes from analytical input data the distribution
of chemical specjes (i.e., ions, neutral species, and complexes) in
equilibrium in an aqueous solution at given temperature and par-
tial pressure of dissolved gases. Input to EQ3NR consists of data
on total analytic concentrations of dissolved components (ions and
gases) and also includes pH, alkalinity, electrical balance, and phase-
equilibrium (solubility) constraints.
EQ3NR is supported by a primary data file, which contains sets
of thermodynamic data for the water species and for a number of
aqueous species, gases, and minerals at temperatures of 0, 25, 60,
and 100°C [32, 77, 140, and 212°F] and pressure of 0.1 MPa [14.5
psi]; at temperatures of 150, 200, 250, and 300°C [302, 392,482,
and 572°F] and steam/liquid water equilibrium pressure; and at 50
MPa [7250 psi] for temperatures of 0, 25, 60, 100, 150,200,250,
and 300°C [32, 77, 140,212,302,392,482, and 572°F]. The data
include, among other things, thermodynamic equilibrium constants
for each reaction at the inqicated temperatures.
A database preprocessor, EQTL, reads the primary data file,
checks each reaction for mass and charge balance, and fits inter-
polating polynomials to all thermodynamic datil on the tempera-
ture grid. EQ3NR and EQ6 use the coefficients of the interpolating
polynomials generated by EQTL, instead of the gridded data.
The input constraints used by EQ3NR to compute the aqueous
speciation model are specified concentration for master aqueous
species, specified activity for each master species, specified phase
equilibrium with gases, specified phase equilibrium with pure min-
erals, specified alkalinity balance for bicarbonates Or carbonates,
specified master species for applying the charge balance constraint,
and oxidation state at equilibrium of redox couples.
The mathematical expression describing the above input con-
straints is solved by EQ3NR by use of a modified Newton-Raphson
algorithm. The program calculates the concentration of the vari-
ous aqueous species in equilibrium and the saturation indices (SI)
of the related minerals. SI is equal to the log of the activity product
for a reaction divided by the thermodynamic equilibrium constant
of the same reaction.
When SI>O, precipitation ofthe corresponding mineral (or scale)
should occur; EQ3NR does not, however, provide any indication
of the amount of scale that is separated.
The output from EQ3NR is used as input to EQ6 to compute the
amount of minerals separated from the solution. EQ6 is a reaction
path program that predicts the path of a reacting system (i.e., it
calculates the change in concentration of individual aqueous spe-
cies as a reactio[l parameter changes). EQ6 solves the set of non-
linear equations describing mass balance of chemical elements,
electrical balance, true ionic strength, equivalent stoichiometric ionic
strengt/l, and mass-action law for pure minerals (i.e., scale-forming
solids) with a modified Newton-Raphson algorithm.
289

"-
:.....
"-
----~
Fig. 2-Flow channels and elementary rock volumes. One-
eighth of a five spot.
EQ6 attempts to find the set and amount of possible minerals that,
together with the aqueous species, satisfy the constraint equations.
To this purpose, EQ6 uses a selection procedure: a provisional set
of minerals is modified by adding a mineral, deleting a mineral,
or replacing a mineral with another. For each provisional set, EQ6
looks for a solution satisfying all the constraint equations. If this
proves impossible, EQ6 looks for another set of minerals. The proc-
ess continues until a set of minerals is found that satisfies all con-
straints; the solution found is assumed to be unique. The name and
weight of each mineral separated from the solution are then printed.
Reservoir Simulator Code
The reservoir simulator, AGIPS, is a finite-difference numerical
model that calculates pressure and temperature distributions in space
and in time, as well as the amount of scale caused by the change
in temperature and by the incompatibility between injected water
and formation brine.
Input data are reservoir geometry; rock characteristics (porosi-
ty, permeability, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity); initial
oil saturation distribution; initial reservoir temperature and pres-
sure; chemical compositions of reservoir brine and of injection
water; heat capacities of reservoir fluids; temperature of injection
water; and well injection and production rates.
The computer code is structured in four main loops: the outer
loop on time, the mixing loop, the temperature loop, and the chem-
ical loop.
The outer loop on time calculates the pressure distribution on
the basis of temperature and permeability distributions resulting from
the previous timestep. Cumulative injection and production data
are updated.
The mixing loop is used to compute both water saturation and
composition ofthe water present in each model block. To this end,
the concentrations of elements in each block are linearly combined
with those of the water in the upstream block according to the per-
centage of PV displaced in the timestep.
In the temperature loop, an enthalpy balance is used to compute
the new temperature of each block on the basis of the enthalpies
of injected and extracted fluids and on the heat capacity of the rock.
Heat flow from surrounding strata can be taken into account as an
option.
In the chemical loop, the quantity of scale that forms in each block
is computed by calling subroutines EQ3CSUB and EQ6CSUB.
EQ3CSUB has been derived from EQ3NR and is called by the main
program to calculate a balanced starting estimate of the molal con-
centration for the basic aqueous species for each block. EQ6CSUB
has been derived from EQ6 and is called to calculate for each block
the amount of scale formed as a result of temperature changes and
the water injected in the time step mixing with resident water. The
cumulative amount of scale present in each block is updated, and
the related permeability reduction is derived from the experimen-
tal permeability/porosity relationship (see the Appendix).
Calls to EQ3CSUB and EQ6CSUB are skipped for the blocks
ahead of the mixing zone; by definition, these blocks are also ahead
of the thermal zone. Moreover, subroutine EQ6CSUB is not called
for blocks that do not contain supersatu'rated minerals according
to EQ3CSUB.
For each timestep and for all model blocks, AGIPS prints as out-
put the temperature and pressure values, the mass and volume of
scale formed in the timestep and their cumulative values, the pres-
ent porosity and permeability values, and a mixing parameter.
The program contains a warm-restart procedure, which avoids
loss of data and computing time in case of an error or machine mal-
function.
AGIPS is a very complicated program that may take hours of CPU
time on fast computers like the IBM 3083 to simulate a complete
waterflooding process in a reservoir model consisting of a few
hundred blocks. For this reason, its use has been limited to the study
of two-dimensional (2D) cases.

TABLE 1-COMPOSITION OF WATER SYSTEMS 1 AND 2 (mg/L)

System l ' System 2'

Water Injection Reservoir Injection Reservoir
Component Water Brine Water Brine
Na+ 3,935 51,850 12,946 31,731
K+ 125 415 520 1,230
NH4+ 24 180 <0.1 448
Ca++ 585 16,200 544 21,667
Mg++ 175 870 1,423 4,187
Sr+ + 17 790 7 664
Ba + + <0.4 10 <0.4 28
Fe + + <0.1 74 <0.1 22
CI- 5,400 107,750 24,380 97,965
F- 6.5 <0.1 1.5 86
Br- 14.6 512 164 1,309
J- <0.5 0.6 <0.1 <0.1
S04-- 3,060 76 3,231 177
HCO a - 117 165 91 <0.5
H 2 BO a - <0.5 721 <0.5 585
Si0 2 28 27 <0.1 11
pH 7.80 5.35 7.85 5.43

'The reservoir temperature for System 1 was 150°C and 95°C for System 2.

290 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1988

 TABLE 2-COMPOSITION9 OF WATER SYSTEM 3 (mg/L),
RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE 95°C T=95°C
CaSO. + calculatQd
Water Injection Reservoir 1.4
Component Water Brine * QXPQrlmQntal
BaSO. x calculatQd
Na+
K+
Ca + +
750
0
267
91,667
430
21,196 ....J
1.2
p. . .. o GXPQrlmGntal

Mg++ 190 528 C, 1.0 'i:.

Sr+ + 0 1,016 Q)
Ba + +
CI-
0
1,532
474
184,428
(ij
()
CI)
.8 *
S04-- 869 0
HC0 3 - 112 360 .6
pH 8.00 5.85
.4 '",

T= 150°C
-- ~.
....J
Ol 3 , ...... x calculatGd Formation water. 7.
'<t ······.x........ * GxpGrlmGntal
oCI) Fig. 4-System 2-predicted and experimentally determined
<tl x ...... amount of scale formed by mixing.
U 2
'0
.•......

-
<1> ···x.
«i ....
'0.. ····x.
'0 .6e-
<1>
~
........x. ..... .
a.. x calculatGd
.~ ... "
~
....J .5
I
°O~~~2~0~~~40~~-6~0~~~8~0~~~100
I I I

--
0>
..; .4
* QXPQrlmGntal )C •••••• / ....... ••••••••••

Formation water. % .... ...

o
CI) X
<tl ....fi .·.... "-'"
Fig. 3-System 1-predicted and experimentally de~ermined co.31-
amount of scale formed by mixing.
'0
....... /{
-
<1>
«i • 21-
'0.. .x· ~.
·~
An interesting simplification that saves a considerable amount '0
of computer time has been devised when a pseudosteady pressure <1>
~
•1 ....... x.···· ..
distribution is reached and chemical equilibrium is moderately af- a..
fected by pressure variations. In this case, the calculation proce- I
dure is modified as follows. Isopotential and flowlines are calculated
0
20 40 60 80 100
from the pseudo-steady-state pressure distribution, and the reser-
voir is divided into a number of pattern areas. Each pattern area Formation water. %
is divided into flow channels with equal flow resistance (i.e.; with
equal injectivity). Fig. 5-System 3-predicted and experimentally determined
The following assumptions are made: (1) fluid displacement amount of scale formed by mixing.
occurs along flow channels bounded by stream lines; (2) no heat
exchange occurs between adjacent flow channels; and (3) the flow
resistance of a flow channel does not change with time (M= I).
An elementary rock volume, VI' is chosen for each pattern area, thus impairing near-wellbore permeability and causing scale precipi-
and the flow channels are divided into blocks 7 ,8 that all have the tation in the producing string.
same volume, VI" Obviously, the number of blocks varies from A subroutine of the AGIPS program computes the amount of scale
channel to channel (Fig. 2). (if any) resulting from the mixing at the bottom of the production
The fluid displacement and the thermal and scale formation phe- well of waters reaching the well from different flow channels.
nomena occurring along the longest flow channel of each pattern
area (i.e., the one containing the largest number of blocks) are
studied with a one-dimensional (1 D) version of the AGIPS model. Validation of the Chemical-Equilibrium
The results obtained are used to calculate temperature, saturation, Computer Cof;ie
and scale formation in time along all th~ other flow channels, which Experimental mixing tests on incompatible water systems have been
are shorter and therefore contain fewer blocks. performed, and their results have been used to check the validity
By adopting this approach, the 2D waterflooding process can be of the EQ3NR/EQ6 computer code des<;ribed in this paper. Three
simulated with a number of muc\1 si Il1pier (and faster) ID reser- injection-water/reservoir-brine systems have been studied: all re-
voir models. late to actual oil ,fields in north Africa. Their chemical analyses
When the shortest flow channel of each pattern area is complete- are given in Tables 1 and 2. For all three systems, tQe high sulfate
ly displaced by the injection water, this water mixes at the bottom content of the injection water and the high cll1cium and strqntium
of the production well with reservoir brine flowing through the re- (plus barium for System 3) content of the reservojr brine suggest
maining channels. This continues until all flow channels are dis- that sulfat~ precipitation will occur when injection and reservoir
placed by the injection water. MixiQg can result in scale formation, water mix.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1988 291
 TABLE 3-DAT A USED IN AGIPS DEMONSTRATION CASE

Well pattern Regular five spot

Pattern area, m 2 40470
Distance between wells, m 284.5
Injection = production rate, m 3/h· well 2
Pay, m 10
Reservoir Rock
Porosity, % 12.5
Permeability, md 101.3
Water saturation, % 100
Specific heat capacity,MJ/kg' K 2.3
Temperatures
Reservoir, °C 150
Injection water, °C 25
I ,~

1-1 ------~ "-

I "-
I ,
__ L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~-

Fig. 7-Scale precipitated in the reservoir (% PV) at break-

through of injected water in the production well.

1.5
"0 12 E.
~ UJ

"0
<i.
U
"
U
::0
if)

u.
"0
1.0 9 0
0
5. UJ
::;;
'0 =>
..J
-E ~
Cl UJ

'" 0.5
>
~
UJ ..J
..J =>
::;;
<t
u =>
if) u
Fig. 6-Reservoir temperature at breakthrough of injected
water.
00 0
0 1000 1500 2000 2500

Note that all three systems are characterized by the high ionic
strength of the reservoir brine (3.8, 3.1, and 6.1 mol/kg [1.7, 1.4,
and 2.8 mol/Ibm], respectively) and of their mixtures with the in-
jection water.
For each system, several mixtures of the injection and reservoir
water were prepared, each with different proportions. Each mix-
ture was put in a pressure vessel, which was pressurized at I MPa
[145 psi] with inert gas (N 2 ), heated to reservoir temperature, and
periodically shaken.
The vessel was maintained at constant reservoir temperature for
5 days to ensure that chemical equilibrium was reached. During
this time, the mixture was periodically sampled through a capil-
lary transfer line that passed through a cooler and filter and ended
at a control valve. This arrangement enabled a representative sam-
ple to be taken without disturbing the equilibrium in the mixture.
The chemical composition of each sample was determined by
atomic absorption spectrometry and ion chromatography, and the
amount of precipitated scale calculated from the difference between
the initial and final chemical composition of the mixtures.
At the end of the test, the pressure vessel was rapidly cooled and
the precipitate collected, weighed, and analyzed. X-ray diffraction
analysis was used to confirm the composition of the precipitate.
The experimental data are shown with the results predicted by
the chemical-equilibrium computer code EQ3NR/EQ6 in Figs. 3
through 5.
The match between the predicted values and the experimental
data is clearly visible and makes us confident about the validity of
TIME (days)
Fig. 8-Evoh,Jtion in time of the instantaneous and cumula-
tive amounts of scale formed at the bottom of the produc-
tion well.
the chemical-equilibrium computer code developed, despite the very
high ionic strength of the tested systems.
Use of AGIPS Computer Code To Simulate
Incompatible Water Injection-An Example
To show the use of the AGIPS computer code, the case is present-
ed of a water injection process performed in a regular five-spot pat-
tern with a 40 470-m 2 [lO-acre] spacing.
With the aim of emphasizing the influence of thc incompatibility
between injection water and reservoir brine, the hypothetical case
of water injection into an aquifer (Sw= 1) has been simulated. Sys-
tem I (Table I), showing the maximum incompatibility among the
systems considered in this paper, was used for this case. It must
be noted that in this system, scale is formed both by heating of in-
jection water to rcscrvoir temperature (150 0 C [302 0 F)) and by mix-
ing of inje~tion water with reservoir brine.
A homogeneous reservoir rock, whose characteristics, tempera-
ture, fluid, and flow-rate values are presented in Table 3, was used
for the simulation.

292 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1988

 Because of the symmetry of the pattern, the simulation was limited
to one-eighth of the pattern area. The model area was divided into
five flow channels. The longest channel was divided into 35 elemen-
tary rock volumes. As a consequence, the shortest channel con-
tained 17 elementary volumes.
In total, 844 elementary rock volumes (or blocks) were used to
represent the entire pattern area. Because of the large number of
blocks used, a detailed description of the thermal, dynamic, and
chemical phenomena occurring during the waterflood could be ob-
tained.
The temperature distribution at breakthrough of the injected water
in the production wells is shown in Fig. 6. The amount of scale
present in the pores at breakthrough, expressed as a percentage of
the PV, is shown in Fig. 7. It is apparent that the amount of scale
INJECTION HEAO
I ditions are assumed to exist: reaction kinetics, migration of fines
·OOO"GROOVES
formed in the reservoir is very small. The resulting permeability
loss is therefore almost negligible.
The amount of scale formed after breakthrough at the bottom of
each production well as a result of the mixing of water travelling
along different flow channels is shown in Fig. 8. AGIPS does not
provide information on the fraction of scale that adheres to the tubing
wall, which could result in plug formation. We can only deduce
that, most likely, inconveniences will arise.
Conclusions
AGIPS is a very powerful tool for simulating the chemical phenom-
ena occurring in the reservoir and in the wells as a consequence
of both the thermal instability of the injected water and the incom-
patibility between the injection water and the reservoir brine. A
modified version of AGIPS is being developed that will also allow
the simulation of interactions between injected fluids and reservoir
rock.
AGIPS accurately simulates the thermal, dynamic, and chemical
behavior of the fluids involved in a waterflooding process. It must
be pointed out that in the AGIPS computer code, equilibrium con-
in the rock pores, and the adhesion of scale to the tubing wall are
not simulated by AGIPS.
AGIPS is used most profitably in sensitivity runs to compare differ-
ent waters that could be injected and their reaction to the reservoir
environment.

Nomenclature
M = mobility ratio, dimensionless
Sw = water saturation, dimensionless
T = temperature, °C [OF]
VI = elementary rock volume, m 3 [ft3]

·EVEN" GROOVES References

J. Barkman, J.H. and Davidson, D.H.: "Measuring Water Quality and
Predicting Well Impairment," JPT(July 1972) 865-73; Trans., AIME,
253.
2. Mungan, N.: "Permeability Reduction Through Changes in pH and
Salinity," JPT (Dec. 1965) 1449-53; Trans., AIME, 224,
3. Gray, D.H. and Rex, R.W.: "Formation Damage in Sandstone Caused
by Clay Dispersion and Migration," Proc., 14th Conference on Clays
and Clay Minerals, Pergamon Press, London (1966) 32, 18.
4. Khelil, C., Harouaka, A., and Delhoume, A.: "Water Injection in
Algeria-Problems and Solutions," paper SPE 7762 presented at the
1979 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Bahrain, March
25-29.
5. Wolery, T.J.: "Calculation of Chemical Equilibrium Between Aque-
ous Solution and Minerals: The EQ3/EQ6 Software Package," report
Fig. A-1-Apparatus used for determining permeability reduc- UCRL-52658, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, U. of California, Ber-
tion caused by scale precipitation in the pores of the reser- keley, CA (Feb. I, 1979).
voir rock. 6. Wolery, T.J.: "EQ3NR-A Computer Program for Geochemical Aque-
ous Speciation-Solubility Calculations: User's Guide and Documen-
tation," report UCRL-53414, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, U. of
California, Berkeley, CA (April 18, 1983).
100 CORE INITIAL VALUES 7. Higgins, R.V. and Leighton, A.J.: "A Computer Model to Calculate
Two-Phase Flow in Any Irregularly Bounded Porous Medium," JPT
..
:J
80
Porosity.'l. Permeability,md
3.8
(June 1962) 679-83; Trans., AIME, 225 .
;;; 8. Rincon, A.C., Diaz-Munoz, J., and Farouq Ali, S.M.: "Sweep Effi-
> 45.6
.. 60 262.0
ciency in Steamflooding, " J. Cdn. Pel. Tech (July-Sept. 1970),9, No.
3, 175-84 .
:~ 9. Vetter, O.J., Kandarpa, V., and Harouaka, A.: "Prediction of Scale
"0 Problems Due to Injection of Incompatible Waters," JPT (Feb. 1982)
~ 40 273-84; Trans., AIME, 273.
10. Caudle, B.H., Siobod, R.L., and Brownscombe, E.R.: "Further De-
i- velopments in the Laboratory Determination of Relative Permeability,"
...
ii 20 Trans., AIME (1951) 192,145-50 .
E
~
!l. 0 --====-~c - B
Appendix-Determination of Permeability
a 4 6 8 Impairment Caused by Scale Formation
Scale volume, percent of pore volume
in the Pores
To evaluate quantitatively the permeability reduction caused by scale
formation in reservoir rock pores, a piece of equipment was de-
Fig. A-2-Permeability reduction as a function of the amount
of scale precipitated in the pores. signed that enables two water streams to be mixed continuously
solely in the pores of a core sample.

SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1988 293

 The equipment is basically a Penn State 10 relative permeability run is stopped and the results discarded because they would have
unit where the inlet head (Fig. A-I) was specially designed to avoid no meaning.
any contact between the two water streams before they enter the Fig. A-2 shows a set of curves showing permeability reduction
core sample. vs. the Pv of scale formed. In this case, the two incompatible waters
There are two sets of concentric grooves in the inlet head. The were simulated with diluted sodium sulfate and barium chloride so-
even-numbered grooves (Fig. A-I) are fed with the injection water, lutions in a 0.8-M NaCl brine. Sandstone cores were tested; their
whiie the odd-numbered grooves are fed with the reservoir brine. initial porosity and air permeability values are given in Fig. A-2.
A neoprene sheet with microholes (0.2 mm [0.008 in.] in diameter),
densely perforated along the groove positions, is placed between SI Metric Conversion Factors
the inlet head and the core inlet face.
The core sample is mounted in Lucite, ™ 100% saturated with
acre x 4.046 873 E+03 m2
reservoir brine, and weighed. A simple outlet head is provided to
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol m3
Btu/(lbm-FO) x 4.1868* E+OO kJ/(kg'K)
collect the outflow.
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
The inlet head, neoprene sheet, core sample, and outlet head are
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 in 3
pressed together with an air-operated press, and the assembly is OF (OF-32)/1.8 =OC
put in a forced-circulation thermostatically controiled bath.
lbm/bbl x 2.853 010 E+OO = kg/m3
Reservoir brine and injection water are pumped simultaneously
through the core at constant rates (and therefore at constant ratios),
and the differential pressUre between the inlet and outlet faces of ·Conversion factor is exact. SPERE
the core is measured by a pressure transducer and recorded.
At regular intervals, the core sample is withdrawn and weighed Original SPE manuscript received for review March 14, 1986. Paper accepted for publica·
tion April 9, 1987. Revised manuscript received May 18, 1987. Pape~ (SPE 14126) first
to determine the amount of scale present in the pores. No scale cake presented at the 1986 SPE IntI. Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in Beijing, March
shOUld be found on the two faces of the core. If this happens, the 17-20.

294 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1988