Evanoff et al.

STIMULATION AND DAMAGE REMOVAL OF CALCIUM CARBONATE

SCALING IN GEOTHERMAL WELLS: A CASE STUDY
Jerry Evanoff, Valerie Yeager (Halliburton Energy Services - 2600 S . 2nd
Duncan, OK
and Paul Spielman (California Energy Co., Inc. - 900 N. Heritage, Building D, Ridgecrest, CA 93555)
Key words: geothermal wells, scaling, calcium carbonate, acid treatment

ABSTRACT
As geothermal activity in the Western United States con-

tinues, most problems associated with well production have

centered around mechanics, drilling, and cementing. However, decreases in production in California Energys
Geothermal Area have required damage removal and/or
actual stimulation as a result of calcium carbonate scaling.
This paper addresses three categories of problem geothermal wells:
wells with calcium carbonate scale in the wellbore
wells that require stimulation of the producing zone or
that have calcium carbonate scale in the formation
wells where treatment may eliminate non-condensable
gas (NCG) surges
This paper contains background characteristics, treatment
design information, and production histories for each of the
three well types. It also examines the success and cost-effectiveness of acid treatments for each well type.

1. INTRODUCTION

As with many geothermal reservoirs, the

reservoir fluids are saturated with calcium carbonate. In addition, supersaturation occurs because of production-induced boiling. As a result, most of the
wells have significant
calcium carbonate scaling potential, which can result in reduced production.
Various methods have been tried to prevent scaling in geothermal wells, including varying pressure, changing the temseeding, and using scale inhibitors.
perature profile or
While scale inhibitors have solved many problems, scale
is still necessary in many wells
1995).
One promising alternative to these methods is acidizing.
Hydrochloric acid
hydrofluoric acid
or both
have been tried by a few companies with limited success
(Lindal, 1989; Vetter, 1987; Featherstone, 1979; Ungemach,
Auberbach, 1983; Asperger, 1986; Harrar, 1982;
DaSie, 1984). The hesitancy to use acidizing is generally
based on the following concerns:
significant corrosion rates with the mineral acids
HF) at the temperatures encountered in geothermal
wells
possible interference with surface processes

As shown in Figure the

Geothermal Area is located
in
County, California in the southwest comer of the
Great Basin adjacent to the southern part of the Sierra Nevada and north of the Mojave Desert provinces (Plouff,
1980). It is operated by California Energy Company, Inc.
(CECI), who initially contracted with the U.S. Navy to explore the geothermal potential of certain Navy-owned land
within the China Lake Naval Weapons Center. The company later acquired additional leases from the U.S. Bureau
of Land Management. In 1981, several wells were drilled
that revealed a fracture-controlled, hot-water geothermal
resource relatively near the surface. This resource had temperatures ranging from 200 to 350C (Brophy, 1984).

Scale formation is one of the primary problems associated

with geothermal well production. Generally, three basic
classes of scale can cause problems:
silica and silicates
sulfates and sulfides
carbonates (Corsi, 1986)

Figure I--location of

Range.

2481

Evanoff et
placement problems resulting from large intervals of
completion
In addition, wellbore characteristics have seldom been
evaluated in relation to success and cost-effectiveness.

that the scale is readily soluble. Confirmation with X-ray

diffraction (Figure 2, Table 1) of a downhole sample from
Well A indicates that the scale is predominantly calcite (calcium carbonate) with a trace of strontium sulfate.
Table 1-Laboratory Analysis Results

2. DETERMINATION OF PROBLEM
Mineral
Almost all geothermal systems contain dissolved carbon
dioxide in a water solution at equilibrium. The amount of
CO, present is proportional to the partial pressure of the
gas in contact with the solution according to Henrys Law
(Corsi, 1986). The low
of the fluids under reservoir conditions caused by the presence of the carbon dioxide in solution keeps scaling from occurring in the reservoir. However, as fluid is produced and carbon dioxide comes out of
solution, the
increases, liquid volume decreases, and
the solubility of various ions in solution changes. Often,
these changes cause the precipitation of calcium carbonate
scale.
With the extreme changes in pressure and temperature that
are usually encountered in geothermal wells, other researchers have documented the loss of 80% of the calcium present
in solution to scales formed in the casing before the fluid
reaches the surface (DaSie, 1984). In many cases, while
significant levels of calcium exist in the reservoir fluids,
the calcium contents at surface never exceed a few hundred
because most of the calcium precipitates as it comes
to the surface, and is deposited on tubulars as scale
(Giannimaras, 1989). This low calcium level is consistent
with laboratory analysis (Reed, 1989) (Benoit, 1989). There
is less calcium in the surface water from the CECI wells
than the amount present in the unflashed reservoir water or
in surface water from wells that have scale inhibitor systems in place.
Although samples from the surface or in flowlines seemed
to indicate the presence of silica materials (Halliburton,
the formation of calcium carbonate scale was eventually determined from downhole samples. These samples
were obtained during mechanical cleanouts and workovers
indicated
to drill out scale blockages. A few drops of
[counts]
30,00025,000

Calcite

20,000 I

15,000

10,000

5,0000.0

Figure 2-X-ray Diffraction Scan of Downhole Scale

Sample from
Well X

2482

Calcite
Celestite

3. GENERAL
DESIGN

Chemical
Name

Percentage of
Sample
40 100%
1%

TREATMENT

To prevent the excessive corrosion rates expected at these

temperatures, large cooling preflushes were injected before
the acidizing job. Based on temperature surveys, the target
temperature of 120C could be achieved with preflush volumes of 151
(40,000 gal) of cold, fresh water with a
friction reducer.
Similar overflush volumes were used to displace the acid.
Nitrogen gas was then used to lift or jet the fluid volumes
and return the wells to production. Additives in the acid
were limited to an iron sequestrant and appropriate amounts
of corrosion inhibitor. Such corrosion inhibitors can effectively withstand
corrosion at the cool-down temperature.
The placement problems resulting from long completion
intervals have been at least partially prevented through the
use of large volumes of acid pumped at high rates. However, the upper part of the completion interval still receives
the bulk of the treatment. Attempts to pump acid through
tubing to the bottom of the well have been unsuccessful
because of insufficient cool-down at the restricted rates.
After treatment, the wells were flowed to a sump until the
gas and
returned to normal. This process was performed
to reduce the interference with surface processes.

4. EXAMPLE 1-REMOVAL OF SCALE

FROM WELL A
Deposits of calcium carbonate scale in the wellbore have
been a serious problem in both producing and injection oil,
gas, and geothermal wells for many years. In at least one
study on geothermal scaling, scale thicknesses ranged from
0.7 to approximately 3 cm and resulted in costly fluid restrictions of 10to 45% (Vetter, 1987).In several
wells,
scale has completely restricted 33.9-cm (13
casing.
Well A, drilled and completed in 1987, was one of the first
wells acidized in 1993. This particular job marked the first
time that acid was used to remove scale from a wellbore in
this field. Scale blockage was indicated in the wellbore

Evanoff et
during a wireline run with a gauge ring. Production before
acidizing was 0.3 megawatts (MW). After the 151
(40,000 gal) 15%
treatment, production increased
400% to 1.5
and as of December 1993, it continued
to maintain this increased output of power.
Figure 3 shows the production history of this well. The success of the treatment can be seen by an increase in wellhead
pressure and production rate.
1200

I
800

Acid
Treatment

600
400
200
0
1

24 47 70 93 116 139 162 185 208 231 254 277 300 323
Time, Days
High-pressure Steam

-WellheadPressure

Figure 3-Production History f o r Well A

One factor that should be noted is the use of mechanical
cleanout in conjunction with acidizing. An acid treatment
usually costs less than a rig cleanout and may also result in
In many cases, howformation scale
ever, the use of both mechanical and chemical removal resulted in better treatments. These results may be caused in
part by large volumes of scale that have limited contact with
the acid or possibly combination scales that have limited
solubility in one layer.

5. EXAMPLE 2-SCALE REMOVAU

STIMULATION OF WELL U
Scales have long been suspected of depositing in fractures
and in the formation some distance from the wellbore. Traditional mechanical methods of scale removal will have no
effect on scale being deposited in the formation area. In
geothermal wells, calcium carbonate scale is often left in
the formation of high-enthalpy, high-drawdown wells as a
result of production flashing before it reaches the wellbore.
Scale in the formation is often indicated by a production
decline in two-phase or steam-entry wells with an increase
in downhole flowing pressure drawdown. This increased
pressure drawdown was evident in Well U.
In addition, geothermal wells may have some carbonate
minerals naturally occurring in the formation. As the reservoir pressure declines, wells having low permeability will
stop producing because of the low-flowing wellhead pres-

sure. When there is no scale in the wellbore and inflow to

the well is single-phase, the only remedy is to reduce hydraulic pressure drawdown by opening flow paths in the
formation.
One method by which either of these objectives can be
achieved is to chemically dissolve the calcite, whether it
exists as scale or as a naturally occurring mineral. Removing either form of calcite could increase the production of a
well. However, because the amount of calcite present and
its effect on production are both unknown, the results of
this type of treatment are usually less predictable. One well
may respond very favorably, while the next has poor response or no response.
Well U was drilled and completed in 1988. It was the first
and acidizing was
well acidized for CECI in 1993
done to remove scale from the formation. Before the well
After treatment, producwas acidized, rates were 2.3
tion increased by 3.4
or 148% to 5.8 MW. While this
treatment only lasted 5 months, it was considered a success. Payout occurred in 5 days of increased production.
Because this problem recurs, the need for additional or
riodic acidizing may need to be considered (although a second acid treatment on this well 6 months later did not result
in an increased output). Figure 4 shows the production history for this well.

1200
Acid Treatment

800
600
400
200
0

24 47 70 93 116 139 162 185 208 231

277

323 346

Time, Days
High-pressure Steam

-WellheadPressure

Figure 4-Production History f o r Well

In general, wells with scaling problems respond favorably
to acidizing. In the absence of scale, a treatment that is designed only for stimulation (removal of naturally occumng
carbonates), the results are generally less encouraging. Of
the five acid treatments performed in 1993 for that purpose, only one resulted in a production improvement and
increased the wellhead pressure sufficiently to allow the
well to produce to the pipeline system.
While the overall results of these five stimulation procedures were disappointing, the payout required only 27 days
from the one well that was successful.

2483

Evanoff et

6. EXAMPLE 3-TREATMENTS TO
REMOVE NCG SURGES IN WELL R

Table 2-Production Increase Survey

Surges in NCG, such as carbon dioxide from producing

geothermal wells, result in difficulties at the power plant.
In some cases, surges are extreme enough that the well must
either be shut-in or produced only a few hours at a time. In
addition to the problems associated with individual wells,
surges can result in NGC spikes great enough to shut down
the power plant and interrupt the supply of power.
NCG spikes limited Well R to 6 hours of production per
day. It and a sister well (Well C) were acidized with the
hope that the surges would be eliminated, or at least moderated by changes in the reservoir hydraulics. The acid treatment successfully reduced the surging enough to produce
both wells full time and Well R gained 3.1 MW of power
(388%).While the cause of the surges and the mechanical
changes that result from the acid treatment are not fully
understood, a well shut-in for this reason should be evaluated for acidizing. Figure 5 shows the production response
of this well.
1800

Acid Treatment

1200

producing at elevated rates

800

Table 3-Success Rates and Payout

600
400
200

0
1

24 47 70 93 116 139 162 185 208 231 254 277 300 323 346

Days
High-pressure Steam

-WellheadPressure

7. SUMMARY OF 1993 TREATMENTS

As of the end of 1993, 30 treatments had been performed
on 27
wells for CECI. All of these treatments were
and 24 of the treatments were considered
done with
successful.
of the acid treatments were considered
successful but produced gains that lasted only an average
of 2 months. Ten of the wells acidized continue to produce
at elevated rates.
The overall gain in production from the acid treatments was
66%. Total increase in production was 53
with an overall payout time of 9 days. Table 2 lists the acid treatments
by well, results, and current status. Figure 6, Page 5 shows
the change in production of all 30 treatments. Table 3 summarizes the economics of the program results.

2484

8. CONCLUSIONS
Acidizing with
in geothermal wells is economical
and can result in significant production increases.
can be used effectively to remove damage from
calcium carbonate scaling, either in the wellbore or the
formation.
Use of HCI to reduce NCG surging can result in a sufficient decrease in the surges to allow longer or continuous operation of that well.
Acid treatments designed to stimulate the formation
have a lower success rate and need to be carefully evaluated and compared to alternative solutions. Even with
the lower success rate, payout times are still brief.

Evanoff et

8.00
7.00

3.00

0.00

Before

Figure

Output After Acidizinq

Increase Summary for 1993 Geothermal

Acidizing is more effective after a mechanical wellbore cleanout to remove a large quantity of the scale.
tact with any remaining scale in addition to contact with
the formation.

REFERENCES
Plouff, D., and Isherwood, W.F.: Aeromagnetic and
Gravity Surveys in the
Range, California, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 85, No. B5, pp
2501, May 10, 1980.
Brophy, Paul: Structural Analysis of Pre-Cenozoic
Rocks,
Geothermal Area, California, Geothermal Resources Council, Transactions, Vol. 8, August
1984,
3. Corsi, Riccardo: Scaling and Corrosion In Geothermal Equipment: Problems and Preventive Measure,
Geothermics, Vol. 15, No.
pp. 839-856, 1986.
4. Osborn, L. and Spielman, P.: Measurement of Velocity Profiles in Production Wells Using Wireline
Spinner Surveys and Rhodamine WT Fluorescent
Tracer;
Geothermal Field, 1995, World Geothermal Conference, Florence Italy, May 18-3 1995.
5. Lindal, Baldur, et. al: The Scaling Properties of the
Power Station, Turkey,
Effluent Water from
and Recommendation for a Pilot Plant in View of

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Treatments

trict Heating Applications, Geothermics, Vol. 18,

2,
217-223, 1989.
Vetter, O.J., et al.: Test and Evaluation Methodology
for Scale Inhibitor Evaluations, paper SPE 16259,
International Symposium on
Chemistry, San
Antonio, TX, Feb. 4-6, 1987, pp. 159-186.
Featherstone, John L.: Stabilization of Highly Saline
Geothermal Brines, paper SPE 8269, SPE Annual
Technical Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, Sept.
26, 1979.
Ungemach, P. and Turon, R.: Geothermal Well Damage in the Paris Basin: A Review of Existing and Suggested
Inhibition Procedures, paper SPE
17165, SPE Formation Damage Control Symposium,
Bakersfield, CA, Feb. 8-9, 1988.
Auberbach, Michael H., et al.: A Calcium Carbonate
Scale Inhibitor for Direct-Contact Binary Geothermal
Service, Journal of Petroleum Technology, August,
1546-1552.
1983,
Asperger, R.G.: Rapid, High-Temperature, Field Test
Method for Evaluation of Geothermal Calcium Carbonate Scale Inhibitors, SPE Production Engineering,
September, 1986, pp. 359-362.
et al.: Field Tests of Organic Additives
Harrar,
for Scale Control at the Salton Sea Geothermal Field,
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, February.
1982,
17-27.

2485

Evanoff et al.
12. DaSie, W.: Chemical Stimulation Treatment of a Well
in the
Geothermal Field, Geothermal Resources Council, Transactions, Vol. 8, August 1984,
269-274.
13. Giannimaras, E. K.: et al., Calcium Carbonate Scale
Formation and Prevention, EEC Contract No.
Proceedings of the Fourth International
Seminar on the Results of EC Geothermal Energy Research and Demonstration, Florence, Italy, April
30, 1989.
14. Reed, Marshall J.: Thermodynamic Calculations of
Calcium Carbonate Scaling in GeothermalWells, Dixie
Valley Geothermal Field, U.S.A.,
Vol.
18, NO.
269-277, 1989.

2486

15. Benoit, Walter R.: Carbonate Scaling Characteristics

in Dixie Valley, Nevada Geothermal Wellbores,
Geothermics, Vol. 18,No.
pp. 41-48, 1989.
16. Halliburton Internal Report, 0046-94, Bakersfield Division Laboratory.
17. Halliburton Internal Report,
S30-F01291,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the management of Halliburton Energy
Services and California Energy Company, Inc., and the
Geothermal Program Office of the US Navy for permission
to publish these results.