Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the European Formation Damage Conference
held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May1 June 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Geothermal wells represent an important source of energy in
many parts of the world, yet they receive little attention in the
mainstream literature. Annual worldwide production of
geothermally-derived electrical power is some 57000 GWh
from 8900MW of installed capacity and Philippines is the
second largest producer with almost 2000MW of capacity.
In general, geothermal wells produce steam, generated by the
contact of water with hot metamorphic rock, and this is used to
drive turbines for electricity generation. Geothermal fields
usually comprise both production, and injection, wells and,
like oil and gas wells, these can suffer from production (or
injection) impairment. The most common forms of impairment
in geothermal wells are mineral scales dissolved in the hot
water and then deposited as a result of thermal disequilibrium
or phase changes. Many mineral species can be present,
depending on rock composition and injection water quality,
but one of the more prevalent is silica (SiO
2
). Normally, such
mineral deposits are removed, periodically, by acidising with
combinations of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids.
This paper describes work performed on geothermal wells in
Philippines in early 2006. Laboratory testing demonstrated
that acid formulations with 3-6% HF, as had been used
historically, were capable of dissolving only a fraction of the
scale deposits, even with a large stoichiometric excess of acid.
Surprisingly, increasing the HF concentration to 9%, in a
specially buffered acid system, resulted in total scale
dissolution, in laboratory tests. Furthermore, the high silica
content of the scale, absence of problematic minerals in the
formation and fractured nature of the reservoir, persuaded us
to eliminate the HCl preflush on these treatments, a novel
concept that had never been tried in Philippines.
The application of this system in the field posed some special
technical and HSE challenges. However, all the treatments
were carried out safely and successfully, without incident, and
with excellent results as briefly described in this paper.
Introduction
Geothermal energy represents a major resource in Philippines,
a country with an expanding population and increasing
urbanization that, unfortunately, has only found relatively
small amounts of hydrocarbons, to date. Thus, electricity
generation from geothermal sources is an attractive alternative
and the country has been exploiting this resource, in this way,
for the past 30 years or so. In 2005, almost 20% of Philippines
annual electricity budget was provided from geothermal
sources.
Because of the mechanisms of steam production, mentioned
above, geothermal wells experience a variety of problems
related to the deposition of mineral scales inside wellbore
tubulars, behind slotted or preperforated production liners or
within the natural fractures that act as conduits for production
or injection water. The composition of such scales can vary
significantly, depending on the specific minerals contained in
the metamorphic rocks and the exact composition, therefore,
of the water that has traversed the rock system. In the case of
injection wells, the scales formed are dependant, to a great
extent, on the source of the injection water which may come
either from surface sources or may consist of mixtures of
produced water and condensed steam that are then re-injected.
In this particular project, all candidate wells were injectors and
all had experienced dramatic decreases in injectivity due to the
build-up of some, as yet unidentified scale. Subsequent X-Ray
Diffraction analysis of scale samples recovered from the wells
showed that the offending mineral was almost exclusively
quartz, present as very hard deposits inside the pre-perforated
production liner
2
. It was suspected that this quartz scale was
also present in the annulus between the uncemented, pre-
perforated pipe and the formation and also in the formation
fractures.
Laboratory Testing
Given the nature and composition of the scale, the acid system
of choice was one based on HF. Past treatments in similar
wells had made use of conventional Mud Acid systems, either
Regular (3% HF) or High Strength (6% HF) as well as
modified high pH HF systems
5
, also at concentrations as high
as 5% HF. Solubility testing on the scale samples using
concentrations ranging from 3 - 6% HF yielded rather
disappointing results (See Table 1) despite the use of a
significant stoichiometric excess of HF or sequential exposure
SPE 108025
Use of Single-Step 9% HF in Geothermal Well Stimulation
Phil Rae, InTuition Energy Assocs., and Atikah bte Ahmad, Lance Portman, and Edgar Paul Acorda, BJ Services
2 SPE 108025
to aliquots of fresh acid. Maximum solubility was only of the
order of 60%. Surprisingly, however, using a high pH acid
system and increasing the HF concentration to 9% resulted in
almost complete dissolution of the scale on an almost
stoichiometric basis
2
. It was, therefore, recommended that
such an acid formulation be used in the upcoming stimulation
campaign. Furthermore, since the scale was predominantly
quartz and contained reasonably low concentrations of
carbonates or HCl-soluble minerals, it was decided to
eliminate the HCl preflush, an approach that had been recently
employed successfully in oil and gas wells in other parts of the
world when using high pH HF systems. Such an approach is
only feasible, of course, due to the low reactivity of such
buffered, high pH HF systems towards carbonate rock
3, 4
.
Treatment Design
Given the nature of the completion, and the mass of scale
deposit estimated to be present, it was decided that the best
approach to remove the scale was to use a combination of
mechanical and chemical methods. Clearly, the scale inside
the completion could be addressed directly by simply drilling
it out and this was, in fact, what was done. The scale outside
the pipe, or plugging the perforations, however, could not be
accessed by such an approach so it was decided to try to
disrupt and disintegrate as much of it as possible by using a
high pressure jet delivered from a rotating jetting nozzle. This
approach, it was felt, would offer a good chance to open up a
large number of perforations and thereby improve the overall
distribution of fluid flow in the well. The jetting was initially
conducted using water alone. The final part of the treatment
involved pumping the 9% HF acid system, via the jetting tool,
while gradually moving the pipe to provide some zonal
coverage. Since the jetting tool was deployed in this case on
jointed pipe rather than coiled tubing, it was only possible to
move the jetting tool to a limited extent. The decision was
taken early on that no connections would be broken due to the
presence of acid in the string and this was particularly
important in these treatments due to the unusually high
strength HF in use.
Results
All three wells treated in this program responded well to the
combined mechanical/chemical treatments and the treatments
were deemed to be successful by the operating company. The
design of the treatments also allowed an objective assessment
to be made of the relative efficacy of each of the techniques
employed ie. Scale Drill-Out (SDO), Rotating Jet with Water,
(RJW) and Rotating Jet with Acid (RJA). Incremental
increases in injectivity were realised with each technique in all
wells but the relative increases varied from well to well.
However, in all wells, the value of each stage of these
treatments was clear. The ultimate injectivities attained were,
respectively, 307%, 407% and 2518% of their initial pre-
workover values and these represented injectivities that were
15%, 43% and 1327% above the targeted values, as defined by
the operating company
6
(See Table 2). No negative effects
were experienced from the use of such a high strength HF
formulation nor from the elimination of the HCl preflush. This
approach reduced cost and simplified logistics considerably by
reducing the haulage of acid to the relatively remote location
and also reducing tankage.
Conclusions
1. Mineral scale deposition is a major problem in geothermal
wells and the nature of such wells results in the formation
of scales with unusual chemical composition.
2. Quartz (silicon dioxide) is one type of scale often
associated with geothermal wells due to contact between
superheated water and hot metamorphic rock, the leaching
of minerals and the subsequent phase changes that occur in,
or around, the wellbore and the production facilities.
3. Silica scale, of the type found in these particular wells,
does not dissolve completely in dilute HF acid
formulations, despite the presence of a significant
stoichiometric excess of HF.
4. Increasing the HF concentration above some critical value
that lies somewhere between 6% and 9% HF results in
almost complete dissolution of the silica scale.
5. It is very likely that numerous treatments performed in the
past using 5% HF were not as successful as they might
have been due to the limited solubility of the scale at the
lower HF concentrations.
6. Using a high pH HF system opens up the possibility of
eliminating the HCl preflush that is traditionally used in
HF acid treatments. This has important implications both
from a cost perspective and also logistically in remote
and/or environmentally-sensitive locations. The reduction
in the quantities of raw HCl required, for use both in the
preflush and as a source of hydrogen ions to generate HF
from fluoride salts, is extremely significant.
7. Three treatments have been successfully carried out using
this approach, and using the unusually high concentration
of 9% HF, in Philippines and all have yielded positive and
encouraging results. More treatments are planned in future.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend their thanks to the staff at
Chevron Geothermal Philippines, and in particular to Dexter
Pazziuagan, Phil Nave and Rhandy Regulacion who were
involved in the original testing and design work and who,
ultimately, were committed to improving results in the field by
applying new ideas.
References
1. Energy Information Agency, Geothermal Energy Worldwide
Report, 2005 (Geneva, 2005).
2. Atikah Ahmad, BJ Services Stimulation Laboratory Report
0541042S, October 2007.
3. Phil Rae, Gino Di Lullo, Atikah Ahmad, BJ Services Employee
Invention Disclosure, June 2004, Novel Acidising Method for
Treating Sandstone Formations.
4. Phil Rae and Gino Di Lullo, Single Step Matrix Acidising with
HF Eliminating Preflushes Simplifies the Process, Improves the
Results, SPE 107296 presented at European Formation Damage
Conference, Scheveningen, Netherlands, June 2007
5. Gino Di Lullo and Phil Rae, A New Acid for True Stimulation of
Sandstone Reservoirs, paper SPE 37015 presented at the 1996
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, Co, 6-9 October
6. Chevron Geothermal, Personal Communication, May 2006.
SPE 108025 3
% SOLUBILITY
NAG-16
#031165B
NAG-67
#051042A
15% HCl (3 hrs) 9% 14%
Acid Soluble Iron Content 2.6% 1.6%
1. 5% HCl Preflush (50)
2. Mainflush 6% HF (3 hrs)
60% 61%
1. 5% HCl Preflush (50)
2. High pH 5% HF (3 hrs)
57% 59%
1. No Preflush
2. High pH 9% HF (3 hrs)
98.7% No Sample
Table 1: Acid solubilities of scale samples retrieved from two geothermal wells in Philippines. Solubility in HCl was low, as was
iron content. In excess HF, at concentrations ranging from 3-6%, solubility was also rather low, even after repeated exposure to
fresh acid. Surprisingly, however, increasing HF concentration to 9% HF resulted in almost complete scale dissolution. Also,
solubility of the scale in the 9% HF system was almost stoichiometric (~340 lbm/1000 gals).
kph kph kph Folds
Well No.
Initial
Injectivity
After Scale
Drill Out
After Rotating
HP Water Jet
After 9% HF
Target
Injectivity
Result vs
Target Value
NAG-67 300 420 560 920 800 1.15
NAG-62 140 460 510 570 400 1.43
NAG-63 85 1900 1820 2140 150 14.27
Table 2: Results based on injectivity index and normalized using pressure transient analysis of well tests (PTS, Multirate
Injection and PFO) are shown for each phase of each treatment and can be compared with the original injectivity. The Target
Injectivity was the value originally anticipated by the operating company before the treatments. The final column shows the ratio
of the actual result (simulated) to the Targeted value.