Water Quality Considerations

Resulting in the Impaired Injectivity of

Water Injection and Disposal Wells
D. B. Bennion, F.B. Thomas, D. Imer, T. Ma, B. Schulmeister
Hycal Energy Research Laboratories Ltd.

ABSTRACT
Produced water is routinely re-injected into many
producing or disposal formations as a portion of ongoing oil
operations. The inherent success of these operations is
conditional on the ability to successfully inject the required
volume of water in an economic fashion, below the fracture
gradient pressure of the formation under consideration. Many
issues affect the success of a potential injection project,
including well placement, geometry and inherent formation
quality and relative permeability characteristics. In addition
to these factors, poor injection or disposal water quality can
compromise the effective injectivity of even high quality
sandstone or carbonate formations, resulting in economic
failures and the need for costly workovers and recompletions
on a regular basis to facilitate injection operations. This
paper reviews the state of the art in diagnosing and evaluating
injection water quality and determining the effect of various
potential contaminants such as suspended solids, corrosion

products, skim/carryover oil and grease, scales, precipitates,

emulsions, oil wet hydrocarbon agglomerates and numerous
other phenomena which can result in the degradation of
injectivity. Screening criteria are presented which review the
process of analyzing the quality of a given injection or
disposal formation and the associated injection and disposal
water. Suggestions for improving water quality, when
required, are provided.
INTRODUCTION
Water injection has been used worldwide as a means of
pressure maintenance for improving recovery of hydrocarbons,
as well as to dispose of unwanted produced water from oil and
gas wells in an environmentally responsible fashion.
Conditional to the success of this process is the ability to inject
the required volume of water into the porous formation of
interest at a pressure, in most cases, under the fracture

COMMON WATER QUALITY ISSUES

pressure gradient of the reservoir (to maintain good

conformance of the injected water within the target formation).

Water quality issues can be subdivided into a number of

categories for evaluation purposes:
Ionic composition
Chemical contaminants
Suspended solids
Scale and precipitate potential
Oil/grease/hydrocarbon content
Non-condensable gas content
Bacterial content
Each of these will now be discussed in greater detail.

A number of reservoir issues can obviously impact the

ability to inject into the formation of interest, including
inherent permeability, relative permeability effects associated
with initial immobile fluid saturations, stress-induced issues,
etc.1. Mechanical formation damage issues associated with
fines migration may also be problematic2.
In many cases, even if formation character and reservoir
parameters are favorable, injection rates are compromised due
to quality problems with the injected water. The purpose of
this paper to review common water quality problems, describe
how they may impact potential injectivity in a water injection
/disposal well, and then indicate screening and design criteria
for acceptable water quality evaluation purposes.

Ionic Composition
Most oilfield formations contain a variety of fine-grained
materials that may be susceptible to either movement
(migration) or structural alteration (swelling or dispersion) due
to contact with non-equilibrium injection fluids. A family of
these materials, that can be especially reactive due to their
cationic affinity, are commonly referred to as clays and
consist of a wide range of alumino-silicate based compounds.
Common oilfield clays include smectite, mixed layer clay,
illite, chlorite and kaolinite. A detailed discussion of clay
chemistry is contained in the literature3-6.

INJECTION WATER SOURCES

Water that is injected into porous formations for waterflood
or disposal purposes can be sourced from a number of
locations. The source of the water, its temperature and
pressure path during production and injection operations,
compatibility issues between blended waters, and possible
seasonal variations in the water quality are all issues which
may affect the overall quality of the injected water from a
damage/impaired injectivity perspective.

Most oilfield clays are stabilized in place by the attraction

of positively charged cations, such as Na+, K+, H+, Ca++, Mg++,
etc., which are dissolved in solution in the brine that is
contacting the clay surface.

Common sources of injection/disposal water include:

Produced formation water(s)
Surface water sources (lakes, rivers, ocean, etc.)
Shallow groundwater (potable)
Deeper wet formations which act as water sources

Figure 2 provides a schematic illustration of smectite or

mixed layer (smectite/illite) clay, which is one type of reactive
clay commonly present in many sandstone formations targeted
for injection, most notably in shallower, low temperature, more
immature sediments. This particular type of clay is prone to a
phenomenon know as clay swelling.
In a saline
environment, where ample concentrations of monovalent,
divalent or higher valency charged cations are present in the
brine contacting the clays, the positive cations are substituted
into the swelling clay matrix in the gap between the individual

Typical injection water may contain one or more of these

source constituents, blended together in a variety of possible
ratios (blend mixtures) over the life of the water injection
project. Figure 1 provides an illustration of common water
sources used in the oil industry.

valency amines, cationic polymers, etc., to stabilize clays

on a temporary or permanent basis in the near wellbore
area.
Use of high concentrations of caustics (KOH) to pre-treat
the near injection well to stabilize clays7,8.
Wettability altering agents to generate a strong oil-wet
condition in the near wellbore region to increase water
phase relative permeability and isolate reactive clays
from direct water contact (Figure 5).

clay sheets (as this is where, due to the crystalline structure of

the clay, the maximum degree of cation attraction is focused).
If an insufficient concentration of stabilizing cations is present
in the brine in contact with the reactive clay due to the fact
that water is also a polar molecule, it can be substituted into
the clay in lieu of the smaller cations. The larger molecular
size of the water may then cause considerable expansion of the
clay. Depending on the amount and location of the clay, this
can cause significant reductions in in-situ permeability and
subsequently in injectivity. This process is illustrated as Figure
3.

Clay deflocculation represents a disruption of electrostatic

forces that are holding clays in an attracted or flocculated state
in the pore system. Deflocculation may be promoted by abrupt
reductions in cation concentration (in a manner similar to clay
swelling) or by the presence of caustic pH. Figure 6 provides
an illustration of flocculated and deflocculated clay systems.
Many clay minerals, including such clays as kaolinite, which
are not normally considered to be water sensitive clays, may
be susceptible to deflocculation effects. Once clay
deflocculates, it can migrate to pore throat restrictions in the
pore system where bridging, blocking and plugging can occur.
Similar displacement tests to those conducted to evaluate clay
swelling can be conducted to investigate deflocculation
potential, and will be discussed in greater detail later in the
paper.

The cation deficit can be caused by either injection of fresh

or low salinity water, or an abrupt salinity shock to the
formation, which may cause non-equilibrium stripping of
cations from solution in the leading edge of the injected water
and result in a zone of low salinity/fresh water being created
in-situ which may have a damaging effect. This process is
illustrated as Figure 4.
Evaluating dynamic transfer potential between the proposed
injection water and the in-situ matrix can minimize cation
shocking. This procedure is generally conducted by evaluating
the clay concentration, morphology and location via
petrographic analysis of the target injection zone by thin
section, scanning electron microcopsy and x-ray diffraction
analysis on representative samples of core or drill cuttings
from the target formation. If the presence of swelling clays is
noted, more detailed displacement testing analysis is generally
conducted on appropriately restored core material to ascertain
the level of potential chemical sensitivity which exists between
the matrix and the proposed injection water. The protocols for
when such tests are required will be described in the screening
process later in this paper.

Chemical Contaminants
Injection water may contain a variety of chemical
contaminants that may adversely impact performance and
injectivity. In general, most of these chemicals are various
types of de-emulsifiers, surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, scale
inhibitors, etc., which have been used to facilitate the oil-water
separation and treatment process. Many of these chemical
additives have a polar nature, which may create an affinity for
a wettability transition in the near injector region from a
water-wet to oil state. This process is illustrated as Figure 7.
The shift to a more oil-wet condition may not necessarily be
unfavorable for an injection or disposal well, as it may, in
some cases, improve water phase permeability and injectivity
and
reduce
possible
sensitivity
to

Clay swelling problems may be reduced or mitigated by:

Increasing the total concentration of mono and/or
divalent cations in the injection water by chemical
additions or blending with more appropriate saline
makeup water sources3-6.
Additional stabilizing chemical agents such as high

formation under consideration. A common rule of thumb

used for many years is if particles suspended in the injection
fluid are larger than about 33% (1/3) of the median pore throat
diameter, they will logjam together and create stable bridges
which can reduce permeability. Although this is generally true
for situations of turbulent flow, where interstitial velocity is
high enough to maintain the particles in uniform suspension,
under lower injection rates (in laminar flow regimes), smaller
particles have been demonstrated to settle out and have the
ability to form stable bridges which can reduce injectivity.
Studies conducted under laminar flow conditions have
indicated that particles as small of 7% of the median pore
throat aperture have the capability to plug in this situation,
making filtration a daunting prospect, particularly in lower
permeability rock (which has small pore throat apertures).
Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the formation of external and
internal filter cakes. The formation of an internal filter cake
is problematic as, due to its location, it may be 10-100 cm into
the formation, and be very difficult to remove/penetrate with
anything short of an invasive hydraulic or acid fracturing
treatment. The external filter cake, although potentially
damaging, consists of larger particles and forms on the face of
the formation where it is more readily accessible for potential
removal via a variety of possible stimulation treatments (i.e.,
acid). Internal filter cake generation may occur naturally in
injection waters that contain a considerable concentration of
small-suspended fines. In the near wellbore region,
particularly if a perforated injection well is under
consideration (where high localized injection velocity adjacent
to the perforations will be present), turbulent flow conditions
are generally present in the near perforation region. Interstitial
velocity decays rapidly as the injection fluid moves outwards
from the perforations in a pseudo-spherical pattern, and a
transition from turbulent to laminar flow may occur some
distance into the formation. This may result in the settling and
bridging of the smaller particulates and the formation of the
internal filter cake some distance into the formation where
stimulation may be more difficult.

migrating/swelling/deflocculating clay materials. However,

careful evaluation of the chemical interactions must be
undertaken prior to implementation, as certain chemicals may
promote the creation of a film of blocking/trapping
hydrocarbon based material on the face of the injection wells.
This is particularly the case if residual heavy hydrocarbons
remain in the injection water (dispersed asphaltenes for
example), as the presence of chemicals of this type may allow
the coagulation of heavy hydrocarbon complexes, resulting in
the formation of stable, high molecular weight carbon-rich
scums which can rapidly reduce injectivity over time.
Suspended Solids
A major issue in water quality and reduced injectivity is the
presence of suspended solid particulate matter in the injected
fluid. Solids can be generated in the injection water from a
wide range of potential sources, including produced formation
fines and clays, sand, silt, etc. from surface or shallow
groundwater sources, various precipitates and scales, organic
solids and sludges, a wide range of corrosion products from
production/injection tubulars, tanks and treating equipment as
well as live/dead bacteria or bacterial sludge and byproducts.
Plugging of the pore space in the near injection well region,
due to the entrainment of suspended solids, can be rapid and
severe, depending on the size distribution and concentration of
solids which are in the injected fluid, volume of fluid injection
and specific pore size distribution of the injection formation
under consideration. Ideally, injection water should be
pristinely clean and contain little or no suspended solids
(Figure 8). Unfortunately, due to the realities of production/
processing operations, and economic and practical limitations
on water filtration and treating, this is generally not the case
and almost all injection fluids contain some amount of
suspended particulate matter.
Plugging and bridging in the pore system is controlled by
the specific size of the invading particles, flow velocity of the
fluid in which they are contained, the pore size distribution
and, to a certain extent, the wettability of the fines and

Selection of optimum filtration criteria would suggest that

filtration down to 7% of the median pore throat size

pervasive thick coating scums on formation faces and filter

elements, with particles up to 100 times the size expected
being apparent in some systems after passing through
supposedly rigorous mechanical filtration (i.e., 500 micron
diameter agglomerates may be detected downstream from a 5
micron element).

distribution is desirable. This is impractical in most situations,

and, since preferential injection generally occurs into the
larger fraction of the pore size distribution present in the
porous media, a conservative filtration criteria that has worked
fairly well with respect to suspended solid materials is that
filtration to approximately 20% of the median pore throat size
usually provides acceptable long-term injectivity in most
situations. Very good injection water quality (very little
suspended solids) may allow this filtration criteria to be
relaxed further.

A variety of techniques may be used to combat this

problem, including more effective water-oil separation (to
reduce dispersed asphaltene content in the injection water),
chemical dispersants to keep the polar asphaltenes from
flocculating together, electrostatic precipitation and removal
of the particles or ceramic and other filtration media designed
to preferentially adsorb oil-wet particles of this nature.

Filtration criteria are generally established by a series of

high pressure (411 MPa) mercury capillary pressure injection
experiments, conducted on samples of representative injection
zone core material (or cuttings) to ascertain the average pore
throat size distribution and compute the median pore throat
diameter. This work is then often combined with a staged
critical filtration test (to be described in the screening
process), to confirm that the nominal filter size selected is
suitable to maintain long-term injectivity.

Scales and Precipitates

Scales and precipitates can form in injection water sources
from a number of root causes. Blending of incompatible fluids
(i.e., produced water and source water) may result in the
formation of insoluble precipitates. As well, changes in
temperature and pressure of the produced fluid, as it comes to
surface, passes through the treating process and is then
subsequently re-injected, may initiate pH changes which may
begin the formation of scales in production, surface/treating
equipment as well as in injection wells.

Some suspended solid material may not be readily removed

by conventional filtration techniques. Suspended organic
solids, such as asphaltenes, are examples of such a material.
Asphaltenes are highly polar in nature and, when in aqueous
suspension, tend to have an interparticle affinity (i.e.,
individual asphaltene micelles may be attracted to one another
forming larger particulate agglomerates of asphaltene). These
agglomerates tend to be rather plastic in nature, based on
considerable field experience, and do not exhibit a rigid
crystalline structure like most of the particulates that have
been discussed previously. This being the case, normal
filtration media are often ineffective in removing asphaltene
agglomerates as, under pressure filtration, the individual
particles dissociate and can be individually displaced through
the filter media, followed by subsequent agglomeration. The
agglomeration is also time dependant, and long static
residence times in settling tanks or flow/distribution lines can
allow additional agglomeration to occur after filtration,
resulting in larger and larger asphaltic agglomerates forming
as a function of time. This material has the ability to form

Scale and precipitate formation is an extensive topic that

has been discussed in detail in the literature9-11 and is beyond
the scope of this paper. Common scales which may be
problematic in injection operations include various forms of
acid soluble scales (calcite and various iron-based scales which
are often derivatives of corrosion processes), as well as acid
insoluble scales (the most common being gypsum and
anhydrite).
A variety of test protocols exist for evaluating water
compatibility and scale potential, as well as for evaluating the
effectiveness of various types of commercial scale inhibitors.
The test protocol for such experiments are described briefly in
this paper. Recent work by Thomson12 resulted in the

the central portion of the pore system (even if the amount is

relatively small) can cause a very large (often 90% plus)
reduction in the effective permeability to water and cause
catastrophic reductions in injectivity in very short order. If a
pre-existing oil saturation already exists in the injection zone,
the magnitude of the reduction may be reduced, as injectivity
will already be partially compromised at initial conditions by
the natural presence of the pre-existing irreducible
hydrocarbon saturation. Hysteretic relative permeability effects
can result in reductions in injectivity (due to increases in
trapped Sor) even in situations of this type, although the
magnitude of the reduction is usually small in comparison to
the previously discussed case where no liquid hydrocarbon
saturation is initially present in the injection zone.

development of a new model that, in most cases, can

accurately predict scale and precipitate formation as well as
the effect of commonly available scale inhibitors in various
reservoir situations.
Oil and Grease Content
Problems with suspended organic solids, such as
asphaltenes, have already been discussed in the preceding
sections. Often a portion, or all, of the injection water has been
sourced from a well that is producing both oil and water.
Although attempts are made in most cases to remove the vast
majority of the oil from the water stream, in many situations
some residual oil remains entrained in the injection/disposal
water and may be problematic from an injection point of view.
In other cases, plant and treating upsets may occur and result
in the inadvertent injection of a slug of almost pure oil on a
periodic basis into an injection or disposal well.

How much oil can be safely tolerated in the injection fluids

varies, depending on the oil and brine properties, IFT of the
system and the specific pore size distribution and wettability
of the target formation. Based on general experience, oil and
grease contents of less than 5 mg/l can be tolerated by most
injection wells with in-situ permeabilities of greater than 2030 mD (at lower permeabilities, sensitivity to oil content may
increase). A common simple, but generally fairly accurate
evaluation of maximum safe oil/grease content in injection
water can be conducted using a simple test as outlined in
Figure 12. For this experiment, a four liter clean glass
container is filled with raw injection water from the
wellhead, sealed, and allowed to sit at ambient temperature
(20-25EC) for a minimum of 24 hours. If a visible oil rim
nucleates at the top of the container, it is generally an
indication that oil and grease content is too high and that
additional separation and treating is required, or that chemical
dispersants may be of use in allowing the oil saturation to
remain scattered as a long-term stable oil in water nonnucleated emulsion phase.

Figure 11 provides an illustration of the effect of this

problem on injectivity. The severity of the short and long term
injection of a substantial skim oil depends on the degree of
dispersion of the oil phase in the injected water. If the oil
content can be uniformly dispersed as a micro-bubble oil in a
water stable emulsion, coagulation of the individual oil
micelles into droplets large enough to be effectively acted on
by capillary forces is minimized and significant long-term
trapping and injectivity reduction potential may be reduced. If
the oil content can readily form a homogenous macrophase,
trapping problems may be more severe. The severity of the
damage depends to a large extent on the initial saturation
condition of the injection zone. It can be seen from Figure 11,
that, in general, the worst case scenario for damage is when
the injection/disposal zone is completed in a reservoir matrix
which contains no (or very little) initial liquid hydrocarbon
saturation (such as a wet disposal zone or a aquifer underlying
an oil zone). Introduction of free liquid hydrocarbons into a
matrix in this condition will result in irreversible trapping of
an irreducible hydrocarbon saturation in the porous media. If
the porous media retains a water-wet character after the
introduction of the oil, the entrapment of the hydrocarbon in

Non-Condensable Gases
Although gas solubility in water is generally low, some
gases, notably carbon dioxide and H2S and, to a more limited
extent, air/oxygen have finite solubility in aqueous solution.

 Plugging of the formation by corrosion products

generated by bacterial growth on tubing, casing, surface
equipment, etc. (as well as associated costs and
equipment failures associated with corrosion issues).
Generation of toxic H2S gas by metabolic action of SRB
in-situ on elemental sulfate present in
injection/formation waters (greater than 10 ppm of
sulfate).

This solubility is decreased as temperature rises. Solubilization

of gases, particularly air, into injection water in an open
circulation and treating system may result in the subsequent
evolution of this gas as temperature increases upon the reinjection of the water. This may result in the liberation of free,
insoluble gas in the matrix surrounding the injection well, and
the formation of a trapped critical gas saturation which may
also significantly reduce injectivity over time as the saturation
increases in value and areal extent surrounding the injection
well. Similar problems may also be created by poorly located
pump suction lines which result in cavitation or direct suction
of entrained air along with the injected fluid. This process is
illustrated as Figure 13. Reducing or eliminating the presence
of dissolved gases in the injection fluids, particularly oxygen,
is desirable in many situations to reduce not only this problem,
but also to reduce corrosion issues, residual oil oxidation and
the potential for aerobic bacterial growth. This may be
accomplished by closed treating and circulation loops, heat
treating at surface to reduce gas solubility or various types of
chemical oxygen scavengers.

Most bacteria flourish best at temperatures between 4070EC, although some species of anaerobic bacteria can survive
at temperatures in excess of 120EC. Even though reservoir
temperature may be higher than the normal nominal range for
bacterial growth, due to the large volumes of cool injection
water that may be introduced into the near wellbore region and
the relatively high heat capacity of water, a downhole cooling
effect may occur even in high temperature formations and may
lower temperature to conditions which may facilitate active
biological growth.
Bacterial problems are best addressed on a proactive basis,
as once introduced, the problem may be difficult and expensive
to combat. A variety of biocides and treating methods have
been developed to combat bacterial issues. Hydrogenase test
kits13 are a useful real time monitoring technique for
evaluation of bacteria contents in injection fluids and
monitoring downhole conditions (on swabbed or backflowed
fluids from injection wells) to allow for rapid determination if
bacterial problems are present in injection fluids or injection
wells to allow for more timely diagnosis and solution of the
problem.

Bacteria
A wide range of indigenous aerobic and anaerobic bacteria
often tend to be present in many surface and shallow ground
water sources. Bacterial introduction into an injection well can
occur during drilling and completion/stimulation/workover
operations, as well as during long term injection operations.
Anaerobic bacteria, notably sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB),
generally tend to be the most problematic in oilfield situations,
but, in some injection operations, if sufficient dissolved oxygen
is present in the injection fluids, aerobic bacteria activity may
also be an issue13-14.

The Water Quality Screening Process

Evaluation of the quality of a proposed or existing injection
water sources can be conducted using a screening protocol as
set forth in Figures 14 and 15. Figure 14 details the typical
reservoir parameters that are required in order to conduct an
accurate evaluation. Figure 15 summarizes the fluid
parameters to be measured on the proposed or actual injection
water source in order to obtain a proper quality evaluation.

Bacteria are problematic for a number of reasons with

respect to reducing injectivity, these being:
Plugging of pore system due to bacteria (live and dead)
as plugging solid particles.
Plugging of pore system by polysaccharide polymer
secretion from active colonies of growing bacteria in the
formation.

2), 41, 1987.

Table 1 summarizes the lab test protocols that are commonly

used to relate the reservoir and water quality data together for
evaluation purposes.
Following the protocols outlined in the flow charts
presented in Figures 14 and 15 coupled with the tests as
described in Table 1 will, in most situations, allow for a
systematic evaluation of the best possible conditions to
facilitate economic, long-term injection for a water injection
or disposal operation.

3.

Bazin, B, et al, Control of Formation Damage by

Modeling Rock-Fluid Interactions, Paper SPE 27363,
Presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, La, Feb 7-10,
1994.

4.

Leone, J.A., et al, Characterization and Control of

Formation Damage During Waterflooding in a High Clay
Content Reservoir, SPERE, pp 1279, November 1988.

5.

Mungan, N., Permeability Reduction Through Changes

in pH and Salinity, JPT, pp. 1449, Dec, 1965.

6.

Schuerman, R.F., et al, Injection Water Salinity,

Formation Pre-Treatment and Well Operations Fluid
Selection Guidelines, JPT, pp. 836, July, 1990.

7.

Sloat, B.F. and Larsen, D.: "How To Stabilize Clays and

Improve Injectivity", Paper SPE 12917 Presented at the
1984 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper,
WY. May 21-23.

8.

Sloat, B.F.: "Field Test Results With Alkaline Potassium

Solutions to Stabilize Clays Permanently", SPERE (May
1990) 143.

9.

Allaga, D.A., et al, Barium and Calcium Sulphate

Precipitation Inside Sandpacks, SPERE, pp. 79, March
1992.

CONCLUSIONS
The importance of water quality in maintaining long-term
water injectivity in disposal and injection wells has been
discussed in detail in this paper. Various issues, such as ionic
composition of the water, chemical incompatibilities such as
scales and precipitates, emulsions, suspended solids content,
entrained gas, oil and grease carryover and bacterial
introduction and propagation have all been described as
potential injection water quality issues. A detailed protocol has
been developed to guide one through the proper steps and
analyses which must be conducted to ensure acceptable
injection water quality is present to maintain long term,
economic injection. Associated information required to
implement this protocol has been detailed.

10. Kriel, B.G., et al, The Performance of Scale Inhibitors in

the Inhibition of Iron Carbonate Scales, SPE 27390,
Presented at the SPE International Symposium on
Formation Damage, Feb 7-10, 1994, Lafayette LA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express appreciation to the
management of Hycal Energy Research Laboratories for
permission to publish this paper and to Vivian Whiting for her
assistance in the preparation of the manuscript and figures.

11. Mazzolini, E.I., et al, Scale Prediction and Laboratory

Evaluation of BaSO4 Scale Inhibitors For Seawater
Flooding in a High Barium Environment, SPERE, pp.
186, May, 1992.

REFERENCES
1.

2.

12. Tomson, M., et al, ScaleSoftPitzer Version 1.0, Rice

University Brine Chemistry Consortium, 1999.

Bennion, D.B, et al, Injection Water Quality a Key

Factor to Successful Waterflooding, JCPT, June 1998,
Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 53.

13. Horcek, G.L., Field Experience With a SRB Rapid

Detection Test Kit, SPERE, pp. 275, December, 1992.

Khilar, K.C., et al, Colloidal Induced Fines Migration in

Porous Media, Reviews in Chemical Engineering, 4, (1-

14. Lappen, R.E., et al, The Effect of Bacterial

8

Polysaccharide Production on Formation Damage,

SPERE, pp. 167, May, 1992.
Table 1 Description of Various Test Protocols for Water Quality Evaluation
Basic Reservoir Quality

Permeability, porosity, mineralogy via routine core analysis, pressure

transient analysis, drill cuttings analysis and petrographic analysis (thin
section, scanning electron microscopy, x-ray diffraction, image analysis)

Water Composition

Analysis via standard analytical ICP techniques

Total Suspended Solids

Via pressure filtration

Size Distribution of Suspended Solids

Via laser microtrac analysis

Composition of Suspended Solids

Via x-ray diffraction or elemental analysis

Oil and Grease Content

Via ASTM extraction

Scale Analysis

Via turbimetric and numerical (Tomson) methods

Sulfate Reducing Bacteria/Other Bacteria

HYDA analysis, full culture analysis

Dissolved Oxygen Content

Via dissolved O2 meter

Dissolved Gas Content

Via high temperature solubility testing to liberate dissolved gas

Fines Migration Tests

SCAL* conducted on preserved /restored state representative core to

determine critical injection interstitial velocity at which damaging fines
migration may occur

Phase Trapping Tests

SCAL test conducted to determine the effect of the establishment of a

trapped critical gas or oil saturation on water phase injectivity in reservoir
matrix typical of the expected injection interval

Critical Filtration Tests

SCAL test conducted to determine the maximum size of permissible

filtration allowed to retain particles large enough to cause plugging and
permeability reductions in the matrix

Critical Salinity Tests

SCAL test conducted to determine the minimum ionic and cationic

composition and pH required to reduce or eliminate permeability
reductions due to injected fluid clay interactions includes the simple
salinity shock test (abrupt transition from formation to injection water). If
the results of this test are unfavorable, more sophisticated gradual staged
salinity reduction tests and other tests to investigate the effect of the
presence of various cationic stabilizers on system permeability

Bacterial Growth Tests

SCAL test to investigate the plugged effect of bacteria introduced into

porous media

* Special Core Analysis

10

H2O

H2O

Figure 2 - Typical Structure of Swelling Clay

11

Initial Conditions

Hydrated

Expansion
of Pore
Rimming
Clay

Disaggregation
and Migration

Expansion of Pore
Body Clay

Figure 3 - Illustration of Formation Damage Due to Clay Swelling

12

13

14

+
-

High Salinity,
High Divalents
Low pH
Flocculated

+
Low Salinity,
Low Divalents
High pH
Deflocculated

+
+

Figure 6 - Illustration of Mechanism of Clay Deflocculation

15

Water
Flow
Oil Flow

Water Saturation
Wettability Altered

Water Saturation
Unaltered

Figure 7 - Effect of Near Wellbore Wettability Alteration

on Water Phase Permeability

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Obtain Pressurized
Wellhead Sample of
Injection Water

Zero Flash Test at Max Inj Temp

on Pressurized Sample to
Measure Gas-Water Ratio

Oxygen Present or
GWR > 1 m3/m3

Analyze Dissolved
Gas for O2, N2, H2S,
CO2 and C2+

Y
Evaluate Scavengers
and Degassing

Full Ionic
Analysis (Extended)

Y
Critical Gas
Saturation SCAL
Test - Results OK?

Smectite, mixed Layer

or Kaolinite Clay
Present?

Salinity Shock
Test - Critical
Salinity Test, Inhibitor
Evaluation
(SCAL)

N
Evaluate Scaling,
Precipitation and
Corrosion Tendencies

Y
Acceptable Level
of Perm Reduction
(<10-20%)?

Figure 15 - Fluid Analysis Protocol for

Injection Water Quality Evaluation

24

25

26