SPE 109818
Effective Matrix Acidizing in High-Temperature Environments
Ricardo Aboud, Kern Smith, and Leandro Forero, BJ Services, and Leonard Kalfayan, Kalfayan Production Enhancement
Services
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Anaheim, California, U.S.A., 11–14 November 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
World demand for energy is substantial and continues to grow.
By 2020, it is expected that the world will need approximately
40% more energy than today, for a total of 300 million barrels
of oil-equivalent energy every day. Meeting higher energy
demands will require a portfolio of energy-generation options
including but not limited to oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear,
steam, hydro, biomass, solar and wind.
New horizons are being explored. Wells are drilled in greater
water depths. Drilling units are continually upgraded to target
deeper hydrocarbon-bearing zones. Wellbore tubular
metallurgy is continually upgraded. Drilling, completion and
stimulation fluids are being developed for extreme
temperature and pressure environments.
As the preferred technology to enhance "oilfield" energy
production, well stimulation has and will continue to have an
important role in fulfilling the world’s future energy needs.
Well stimulation generally uses fluids to create or enlarge
formation flow channels, thereby overcoming low
permeability, as in “tight” formations, and formation damage,
which can occur in any formation type. A common and very
successful stimulation option, matrix acidizing, utilizes acids
that react to remove mineral phases restricting flow.
Depending on the formation and acid type, flow is increased
by removing pore-plugging material; or by creating new or
enlarged flow paths through the natural pore system of the
rock. However, higher-temperature environments present a
challenge to matrix acidizing effectiveness. High temperatures
can negatively affect stimulation fluid properties and certain
acid reactions. Thus, careful fluid choice and treatment
designs are critical to successful high-temperature matrix
acidizing.
With proper fluid selection, design, and execution, matrix
acidizing can be applied successfully to stimulate high-
temperature oil & gas wells and geothermal wells. These types
of wells have some common features, but they also have
significant differences (e.g., completions, mineralogy,
formation fluids and formation flow) that influence
stimulation designs and fluid choices.
This paper summarizes best practices for designing matrix
acidizing treatments and choosing stimulation fluids for high-
temperature oil & gas wells and geothermal wells. Included
are case histories from Central America. Lessons learned
about differences and commonalities between stimulation
practices in these well types are also discussed.
Introduction
As today’s rate of finding new reserves is lower than in
previous decades, exploration has turned more to deeper
basins. Deeper wells are typically hot (greater than 250º F, for
example). Permeabilities are also often lower and occasionally
are the result of a network of natural fissures. Offshore wells
in the Gulf of Mexico are now reported to reach bottomhole
temperatures of 500º F. Recently discovered gas fields
offshore Brazil have bottomhole temperatures ranging from
350 to 400º F.
Over the past years, great improvements in matrix acidizing
have taken place, parallelling the developments in hydraulic
fracturing. Provided that the forecasted production/injection
results make economic sense, matrix acidizing is still simpler,
often less risky, and more economic to implement than
hydraulic fracturing. Sophisticated laboratory equipment,
expertise, and well testing software can help the engineer
diagnose production or injection damage effects and
mechanisms – making it easier to select proper well candidates
and optimize job design. Treatment placement is better
ensured through the use of chemical or mechanical diversion
methods and technologies, and placement tools (coiled tubing,
straddle packers, etc.). On-site quality control is enabled by
modern sensors, monitors and software, enabling the engineer
to determine the evolution of skin with time, and radius of
formation treated. Modern blending and pumping equipment
have provided the means to mix acid continuously without the
need for pre-blending fluids. This eliminates the need for
mixing tanks on location, and enhancing safety on location 10.
Matrix acidizing treatments are designed to remove or bypass
formation damage by injecting fluids of low pH into the
2 SPE 109818
reservoir below fracturing pressure. In sandstones, the primary
objective is to remove any existing formation damage and
restore the reservoir permeability (in the near-wellbore region)
to its original state or as close as possible. This process results
in matrix flow with a flow capacity approaching the
undamaged well (skin = 0). Similarly, in limestones, the
primary objective of a matrix acidizing treatment is to bypass
formation damage through the formation of channels, called
wormholes. This process results in “true” stimulation (or
stimulation of the formation radially from the wellbore) —
thus the potential for negative skin — and the possibility of a
flow capacity greater than in the undamaged well.
Properly designed and executed acid treatments provide a
method for improving the productivity of oil and gas wells and
injectivity of injection wells. The success of these treatments
depends to a great extent upon proper acid selection and
treatment design.
Today, with the increasing shift to unconventional sources of
hydrocarbon and energy, there is an increasing application of
matrix acidizing for stimulation of wells in very high-
temperature environments. For example, some reservoirs in
the Gulf of Mexico have bottomhole temperatures up to 500º
F, and more recently a new gas field offshore Brazil has
temperatures up to 400º F. In general, this environment
requires greater due diligence because of the unique
complexities associated with use of acids at elevated
temperatures.
Technological and process improvements over the years
haveenabled the oil service industry to provide fit-for-purpose
matrix acidizing solutions for high-temperature environments.
Compared to hydraulic fracturing, matrix acidizing can be a
much simpler, more economical and at times a relatively
lower-risk stimulation technique. Sophistication with
laboratory equipment, well testing software and technical
expertise allows a greater number of practitioners to properly
select well candidates and optimize job design. Improved
quality assurance of job execution can also be realized through
improvements in the reliability of placement tools rated for
high-temperature use (coiled tubing, straddle packers, etc.)
Modern process-controlled acid blending and pumping
equipment has elevated on-site quality control and safety
management. Along with the quality improvements from
modern sensors, monitors and software, skin evolution
(changes) can be assessed in real time and changes in
treatment volumes can be made "on the fly."
This paper discusses matrix acidizing of sandstone reservoirs
in High-Pressure/High-Temperature (HPHT) wells, producing
geothermal wells and Steam/Hot Water Injection (SHWI)
wells. Despite the focus on sandstone matrix acidizing, most
of the challenges here are equally applicable to limestone
formations.
High-Pressure/High-Temperature (HPHT) wells
Wells with pressures and temperatures exceeding 10,000 psi
(69 MPa) and 300° F (149° C), respectively, are generally
termed High-Pressure/High-Temperature (HPHT). Such wells
are becoming more common as the oil industry searches for
newer hydrocarbon production opportunities in deeper
horizons. In addition to greater depths, more wells are now
drilled and completed in increasingly hostile downhole
environments.
The advent of HPHT wells has resulted in a step change in the
metallurgy required for high-pressure completion tubulars and
equipment. It is not possible to simply increase the API tensile
grade of the tubulars, since HPHT wells usually contain some
amount of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2),
corrosive brine, or combinations that can be extremely
corrosive. High-alloy steels are now the standard metallurgy
used in oil & gas production wells drilled into deep, hot
reservoirs. Alloyed steels used in the petroleum industry are
called corrosion-resistant alloys (CRA). The most commonly
used CRAs are the chromium alloys, such as 13Cr and duplex
stainless steels. In extreme environments, highly alloyed
nickel austenitic stainless steels, such as inconel, incoloy, and
hastelloy, are used.
There is increasing concern when the wellbore contains high-
alloy metals, such as stainless and duplex steels, as they are
susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement and chloride stress
cracking. When combined with the possibility of erosion
corrosion caused by high production rates, acidizing HPHT
wells poses further risk.
Geothermal wells
Geothermal energy is today an important energy resource.
Regions where geothermal energy sources occur generally lie
along boundaries of tectonic plates of the earth. Given the
rising cost of conventional hydrocarbon resources, geothermal
energy today is a viable option in some areas. Currently,
geothermal resources provide energy for direct heat and
electric power generation in over 30 countries including
United States, Italy, Iceland, Azores (Portuguese islands),
Turkey, Russia, China, Japan, Indonesia, New Zealand,
Philippines, Mexico, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Costa Rica. For example, in the Philippines, geothermal
production provides 27% of the country's total electrical
generation. In the U.S., electrical energy generated from
geothermal resources is more than twice that from solar and
wind combined. In 1972, the worldwide capacity of
geothermal power plants was about 800 MW. Today it is 8900
MW21.
One major advantage of geothermal energy is that it is a
renewable energy source that does little damage to the
environment. Geothermal power plants emit only about 1 to
3% of the sulfur compounds and < 1 to 4% of carbon dioxide
(C02) emitted by coal- and oil-fired power plants. Certain
binary cycle geothermal power plants have no emissions at all.
Geothermal energy originates from heat contained in the
earth’s crust. When magma (molten rock) come quite close to
the surface where the crust has been thinned, faulted, or
fractured by plate tectonics, heat is transferred to water and
forms steam, hot water or a mixture of both. Once the
temperature of a hydrothermal resource is around 220 °F and
above, it can be used to generate electricity. Most electricity-
SPE 109818
producing geothermal resources have temperatures from 300
to 700 °F, but can up to 1,000°F in some areas.
Geothermal wells are relatively shallow, with well depths
typically ranging from 5,000 to 9,000 ft. Reservoirs are
normally underpressured relative to a full column of fresh
water. And wells are produced at maximum attainable rates
through either open hole, slotted liner or casing strings
(tubing-less) to minimize friction loss. A well life of 20 years
is normally considered adequate for geothermal wells.
However, through acidizing, wells may be able to safely
produce for considerably longer and at higher commercial
rates. Geothermal field performance can also be enhanced
through stimulation of injection wells; given the importance of
injectors, this will be discussed separately in the next section.
The most common workover operation in geothermal wells is
cleaning mineral deposits from inside the well casing. Most
common deposits are calcite, silica and silica-rich sulfide
deposits, and various mixed scales. Drill cuttings removal
(from natural fractures) in new producers and injectors may
also be a need. Geothermal wells generally produce from
naturally fractured andesite formation rock (volcanic quartz)
although certain fields produce through the primary rock
permeability. Therefore, acidizing in geothermal wells is most
closely analogous to sandstone acidizing. However, the fluid
system to be used and the treatment method may greatly differ
depending on the type and magnitude of the rock permeability.
Despite the existence of a great number of geothermal wells in
the world, the number of wells stimulated is relatively low
when compared to their oil and gas counterparts. Among the
different stimulation techniques in oil and gas wells, only
matrix acidizing can be considered useful in geothermal wells,
and relatively speaking, it has been the predominant
stimulation method attempted. This is mainly due to:
• Advances in acid chemistry 1,4
• More detailed investigations of the interactions between
acid systems and rocks (and scales) with different
mineralogies 14, 5
• Inability to achieve formation parting pressure during
fluid injection into geothermal wells (thermal effects)
• Formations are typically naturally fractured
• Limited budget assigned to stimulation (largely
considered unconventional in geothermal fields)
Nevertheless, broad implementation of acid stimulation in
geothermal fields has not been established. However, its
production enhancement potential is considerable. In recent
years, there have been a few papers reporting success with
matrix acidizing of geothermal wells 3, 10. Most geothermal
wells continue to produce without stimulation, other than in
few selected areas.
Steam and Hot Brine Injection Wells
Injection wells are an important part of a geothermal project or
enhanced oil recovery / steam-stimulation project. Maintaining
injection is essential for long-term, economic operation. In the
3
case of geothermal wells, reinjection of geothermal fluids
(non-steam phase) is often necessary to miminize land
subsidence tendencies, recharge the reservoir, and manage
disposal of large produced volumes of brine over the longer
term. It is not uncommon for an individual geothermal
injection well to dispose of heat-depleted brine at rates up to
100,000 bbls per day. Therefore, most of these injection wells
are completed with large-diameter wellbores.
Injectivity decline may occur, especially if fluids are not
handled properly before injection. Even with the best brine-
handling conditions, long-term injectivity loss may still occur.
In geothermal wells, reduced well injectivity is usually
associated with scale deposition inside the surface injection
line, well completion tubulars and perhaps in the formation
(natural fractures). The most common scales are quartz (silica
and silicates), carbonates and sulphates. Loss of injectivity can
also be related to reservoir interference of neighboring
injection wells or mechanical integrity problems in the
completion tubulars.
Suspended solids and corrosion products in injection wells
usually require special surface processing and acidizing
treatments to make large-scale reinjection or water disposal
plans viable.
Challenges in HPHT Well Acidizing
As the search for oil & gas continues in deeper horizons, there
are evolving factors that must be considered with respect to
acid stimulation:
• Complex completions — Completion designs are
continually advanced to meet a number of challenges,
such as higher temperatures, higher bottomhole pressures,
more severe well trajectories, and, of course, well
economics. The use of completion tools to perform
multiple services (such as gravel packing and stimulation
in a single trip) has become common in some offshore
basins. Under this scenario, completion tools must be
designed to present low-torque valves and long endurance
against erosion and corrosion. These completions must
address future well interventions, preferably rigless.
• High-pressure matrix injection limitation — HPHT wells
normally possess a high fracturing gradient, indicative of
low formation matrix permeability. Acid stimulation of
either producer or injectors requires a high injectivity rate
in order for the formation to “accept” acid. Proper acid
chemistry is necessary; viscous acid sytems, for example,
may require a high injection surface pumping pressure. If
not considered in advance, there may be undesirable
consequences, such as inordinately long pumping time
(and greater exposure of tubulars to acid), and higher
safety risk (acid remains longer in surface pumping lines,
under high pressure).
• Treatment placement / diversion limitations — Chemical
diverters are limited in temperature, typically up to about
250° F. High temperatures and deep environments limit
4 SPE 109818
use of placement techniques such as packer systems and
sometimes coiled tubing.
• Special tubular metallurgies and corrosion — Protection
of completion and production equipment is a primary
concern during HPHT acidizing operations. This concern
increases when the wellbore contains high-alloy metals,
such as stainless and duplex steels, that are susceptible to
hydrogen embrittlement and chloride stress cracking. The
higher the temperature, the more difficult it is to protect
metal against corrosion, and the more required inhibitor
loadings increase, resulting in greater likelihood of
formation damage. In addition, protection times are
reduced dramatically, which can limit well stimulation
treatments (for example, fluid volumes caused by pump
time limitations). These problems become increasingly
severe in formations with bottomhole temperatures
greater than 250 oF (l20 oC). However, a combination of
organic acids (acetic and formic) can be used instead of
HCl in HPHT applications to minimize corrosion and
stress cracking problems. Although the base cost of an
organic acid blend is higher than that of HCl, reduction in
inhibition costs can result in a final acid blend that is both
technically and economically acceptable. Alternatively, a
modestly reducing acid concentration, minimizing contact
time, or using cooling preflushes may also be feasible
options. HPHT wells are typically expensive, and well
metallurgies have been continually upgraded in order to
maximize well life. Extensive lab testing is required to
ensure acid corrosion protection before a final acid
formulation is chosen.
• Flowback of acid treatment — When flowing back
producer wells after acid treatment, there is a risk that
unspent or partially spent acid may return to surface. This
requires special HSE procedures and practices to handle
flowback fluid, such as proper return tanks in which the
return fluids can be neutralized and properly discharged.
• Perceived risk — Sometimes the dispersant package
included in corrosion inhibitors can increase the tendency
for acid/oil emulsions to form in areas in which the
formation crude contains high concentrations of paraffin
or asphaltene.
Challenges in Geothermal Well Acidizing
Geothermal wells present special acidizing challenges. Matrix
acidizing treatments must address the following issues:
Corrosion of completion — Corrosion in geothermal
environments, in which all conditions for severe
electrochemical reactions exist, is recognized as a major
problem, except for wells producing dry steam. The effect of
300 to 700 °F temperatures and an aqueous environment
makes corrosion protection a big issue. Metallurgies become
more difficult to inhibit against acid corrosion as temperature
increases. Corrosion can result in a series of undesirable
reaction products, which can cause plugging in the formation
(iron sulfides are among the most notorious). Acidizing
geothermal wells requires large water cooldown pads in order
to reduce temperature, preferably to the 200 ºF range, where
corrosion inhibition can easily last for the duration of the acid
treatment. Corrosion may also be induced by the production
fluid itself (especially hot brine). Therefore, some completions
may require a post-flush containing corrosion inhibitor or even
continuous injection of corrosion inhibitor.
Placement/diversion method limitation — Placing acidizing
fluids in geothermal wells must be done by “bullheading” or
through coiled tubing. Bullheading necessarily requires high
pumping rates, as the acid does spend faster under high
temperatures. In some cases, when acid stimulation is
preceded by a mechanical clean-out with workover rig, the
acid is placed through drill pipe. High treatment rates are
normally required — and are beneficial — for stimulation of
the long intervals and natural fractures typically encountered
in geothermal formations. This differs from typical oil- and/or
gas-bearing sandstone formations, in which acid is injected
into small pore spaces (matrix conditions) and across
relatively short intervals. Injection pressure is not an issue, as
wells often take fluid on vacuum. The injection rate (and acid
volume) is of greater importance. Because oil is not present in
geothermal wells, there are no issues related to wax, paraffin,
asphaltene or emulsions. Therefore, simplified treatments
(reduced additives, larger volumes, fewer steps) are applicable
in geothermal wells. Single-step acid treatments are possible
because conventional preflushes (including acid) and
overflushes are not necessary. Recent experiences with
geothermal well stimulation in Central America have proven
that using special acid systems with complexation chemistry
(in HCl or HF systems), as well as HF systems with low total
acidity, have been very successful. Application has been
through bullheading (even at low rates) down production
tubing.
Treatment diversion has proven to be ineffective in
geothermal wells. Open-hole or slotted liner completions are
common, with the intervals exceeding several hundred meters.
High-temperature foam systems may improve zone coverage,
but not reliably or extensively. Gelling agents for thickening
acid are not effective in geothermal liner completions. High-
rate acid injection has proven to be the only reliable method
for effective acid placement, but this technique is limited to
wells with one production zone. If a well has more than one
zone, selective acid stimulation is required. In such cases,
preliminary well logging (spinner and temperature surveys) is
necessary to evaluate and design the best placement
procedure.
• Flowback of acidizing fluids — As acidized production
wells are returned to production, there are naturally
environmental concerns. Geothermal fields are often near
populated areas, and wells are tested and flowed to the
atmosphere. Noise and odors affecting the local
population are of concern for the geothermal operators
when flowing back wells after stimulation. Over-
displacement of acid (on the order of thousands of cubic
meters) is very effective in minimizing this situation.
Generally, wells are allowed to heat up after acidizing,
but that can take from several days to several weeks
SPE 109818
before well production testing can be conducted. The
combined effects of over-displacement and heat-up time –
in conjunction with improved fluid designs – can
minimize or eliminate flowback odors and population-
related problems. Air compresion equipment may be
needed to pressurize wells that are unable to flow by
themselves after acidizing. Operators must be aware of
this need before intervention. Erosion of production lines
may occur if drill cuttings are produced back during
blowdown of a well after stimulation. Care must be taken
in this regard. A temporary flow line may be required
until solids production has ceased.
• Various/mixed scales — The main damage mechanism in
geothermal wells is scale deposition (commonly in the
wellbore or in liner slots/perforations). Scales are
deposited by different causes, including incompatibility of
invading fluids (completion, acidizing, drilling fluids) and
produced fluids (water with high content of dissolved
minerals, hot brine). Also, natural pressure drops in the
reservoir or wellbore can result in carbonate scale
formation. As fluids cool, saturated levels of dissolved
silica become over-saturated, and silica scale can drop out
regardless of reservoir fluid type (hot water, or dry steam,
or combination of both). In general, these scale deposits
are more common and severe in geothermal operations
than in oilfield operations. Although the scale deposits
encountered are basically similar, the following
parameters result in some important differences:
1) Reservoirs with “exotic” mineralogies
2) High temperatures (up to 700 °F) with relatively low
reservoir pressures
3) High mass flow rates
Some of the most commonly encountered scales are
barium sulfate, heavy metal sulfides from large
temperature drops; pressure-sensitive scales such as
calcium sulfate; calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from CO2
flashing; and silicon oxides (quartz, SiO2) and barium
sulfate (BaSO4) from ion-rich brine that deposits these
compounds upon cooling in the wellbore.
Also, as mentioned before, since the mass flow rate in
geothermal wells is usually very high, massive amounts
of scale deposits can accumulate over short periods of
time. The acceleration of deposition usually increases
once the process starts, and tubular (orifice) decreases as
scale builds within. Also, reservoir pressure declines
with time and cumulative production may exacerbate the
conditions leading to scale formation. As a result, the
flow restriction caused by scaling deposits has a greater
influence than that seen in most oilfields. Some scaling
may be so intensive or so hard that a mill or high-
pressure jetting nozzle may be required.
Injecting a scale inhibitor downhole can mitigate scale
buildup by “coating” the calcite crystals with a long
molecule polar substance as they form, thus preventing
them from adhering to each other and to the tubulars.
5
The inhibitors in use are typically polyacrylate,
polymaleic acid or phosphonates. Their application
typically requires a threshold dosage of about 2 to 10
mg/kg. A chemical metering pump on the surface can be
used to introduce the treatment via a ¼ or ½-in.
corrosion-resistant capillary string to a depth below the
flashing level in the well.
• Invasion of drill cuttings to formation natural fractures —
Geothermal well production intervals are normally below
the water gradient and are usually drilled using air, foam,
mud, water or combinations. In any case, drill cuttings
invasion into the natural fractures may impair the flow
capacity of the natural fractures and limit production
below natural capacity. Additional damage can be created
by the use of damaging additives in the mud system. It is
challenging to dissolve cuttings and remove mud damage.
Proper laboratory acid dissolution tests are required to
establish appropriate acid design.
• Limited Information — Geothermal operation practices
differ from oilfield operations in that most geothermal
operators do not take steps to obtain, store, analyze and
track individual well information and performance trends.
Coring, production tests, injection tests, build-up and
drawdown tests, and other information that could be
important and useful is usually partially or totally
missing. A change in the mind of the geothermal industry
is necessary in this regard. The benefit of acid stimulation
of geothermal wells is apparent even with the minimal
information available. Imagine the potential if the
gathering of such information were standard practice.
There is a considerable upside in production enhancement
potential in geothermal fields if a broader implementation of
acid stimulation takes place. Proper maintenance and
operation of geothermal wells is of vital importance in the
success of a geothermal project. The worldwide geothermal
industry has been growing modestly in the last two decades.
These assets are now aging and in some cases, repairs or
rebuilding are necessary to extend their life and maintain
generation capacity. Geothermal wells are a reliable source of
power and it is best if the wells can be allowed to run
continuously. Considerable experience has been gained in how
best to operate and maintain the geothermal wells.
Variations of Acid Treatment Design
for Geothermal Wells and Oil & Gas Wells
While sandstone acidizing in oil and gas wells has advanced,
and geothermal well acidizing has taken advantage of those
advancements and knowledge, certain methods and rules of
thumb do not apply to (and should not be applied in)
geothermal wells. Consider the following:
• Acid designs based on formation mineralogy — Due to
the volcanic nature of the rock, geothermal mineralogy
differs in complexity and acid reactivities. Sometimes
geothermal formations contain iron minerals (chlorite,
6 SPE 109818
pirite, hemtite, etc.), as well as zeolites and calcite. They
are often present as fracture-filling minerals, rather than
as grains or as pore-filling mineral phases. Therefore,
geothermal well acid designs based on oil and gas
sandstone mineralogy guidelines have usually resulted in
poor or limited stimulation response. Field experiences in
Central America geothermal acidizing candidates have
shown outstanding results using HCl-complexing agent
solutions and high HF concentration/low total acidity
solutions (also containing complexation agent).
• Acid fluid design — With geothermal acidizing, most
treatments can be effectively addressed by using HCl and
HCl:HF acid systems. HCl systems are used alone to
remove calcite scale inside tubulars, or as a preflush for
HCl:HF acid treatments. Rock/acid solubility tests are
recommended to evaluate the use (or not) of HCl preflush,
if actual formation (core) sample is available. HCl:HF
systems are used to enhance injection/production by
removing damage created during the drilling process and
to dissolve silica scale for injections wells. High HF
concentrations (5% to 9% HF) have proven to be effective
in geothermal well stimulation.
• Treatment volumes — Oil and gas sandstone acidizing is
usually performed in wells with known intervals, and
treatment volumes are usually expressed in gallons per
foot based on porosity, permeability and treating radius.
Most geothermal fields are completed in openhole or with
slotted liners to produce from formation faults or through
natural fractures. The effective production/injection
interval is not always accurately known nor easily
determined. Most production/injection improvement in
geothermal wells comes from scale removal, enhanced
flow paths resulting from fracture face rock dissolution,
removal of mineral phase from natural fractures and
fissures, or drill cuttings removal. Determining proper
treatment volumes in geothermal well acidizing should
consider several factors:
1) Objectives: Carbonate scale removal; silica scale
removal; cuttings removal; formation stimulation
2) Placement method: Coiled tubing; bulheading
3) Contact time required: Depends on whether objective
is scale removal (calcite or silica) or reservoir
stimulation
4) Pumping rate: Depends on placement method,
stimulation objective (scale vs. formation treatment),
logistics and facilities
5) Type of well: New well, damaged old well
Depending on these factors, volume requirements can
vary quite a bit. In general, treatment volumes are much
larger in geothermal well acidizing than in oil and gas
sandstone acidizing.
One thing geothermal wells have in their favor is that
complete damage removal is not necessary. Partial removal of
damage may eventually result in complete damage removal
when the treated well produces back. The high-rate, high-
energy backflow from geothermal wells can blow out damage
that was not dissolved by acid. Plugging material that was
softened, broken up or detached from downhole tubulars and
fracture channels can be produced back through a large-
diameter casing completion.
General Geothermal Well Acidizing Procedures
Successful acid treatment prodcedures for Central America
geothermal wells are summarized below. In Central America,
bullheading procedures have been developed. Treatment
designs are based on the objective(s) of the particular acid job.
• New Wells: New wells are stimulated just after drilling
in order to maximize production/injection potential
from the outset. Jobs are conducted with a drilling rig.
For these wells, the volume of HCl acid preflush is
calculated based on core sample solubility tests. Table 1
summarizes the basic procedure.
Treatment Stage Treatment Volume & Rate
1. Preflush and cooling Fresh water: High rate using rig
pumps to cool wellbore below
200 °F.
2. Preflush: 10% HCl – 15% 32,000 gallons @ 10-14 bpm
HCl (with 0.2% vol HV
Acid)
3. Main acid: 4% HCl-5% HF 40,000 gallons @ 10-14 bpm
+ organophosphonic acid
complex (HV-acid)
4. Overflush: Fresh Water 40,000 gallons @ 10-14 bpm
5. Overflush: Fresh water Several hours at low rate
depending on water supply and
availability.
Table 1: Basic acidizing treatment procedure for new
geothermal wells
• Old Geothermal Production Well: Production wells
can decrease output over time as a result of scale
deposition. Where severe scale deposition is present
inside the competion, a mechanical/chemical treatment
is preferred. When available, coiled tubing is a powerful
method for simultaneous mechanical and chemical
removal of scale. Otherwise, mechanical clean-out can
be conducted with a workover rig followed by a
bullheaded acid stimulation. Table 2 summarizes a basic
procedure for a rig bullheading geothermal acidizing
treatment in old production wells.
SPE 109818 7

Treatment Stage Treatment Volume & Rate Treatment Stage Treatment Volume & Rate

1. Preflush and cooling
2. Preflush: 15% HCl (with
0.2% vol HV Acid)
Fresh water: Well used to be
cooled down after mechanical
scale removal. Wellbore below
200 °F.
25,000 gallons and above
depending on the injection test
results after the mechanical clean
out @ 10-14 bpm
1. Preflush and cooling
2. Preflush: 7.5% - 10% HCl
+ organophosphonic
acid complex (HV-acid)
Fresh water: High rate using rig
pumps to cool wellbore below
200 °F.
15,000 gallons or lower
depending on scale and
formation solubility tests. Can be
eliminated in single-step HF
treatments.

3. Main acid: 4.5% HCl-8% 25,000 – 40,000 gallons

3. Main acid: 4% HCl-5% HF
+ organophosphonic acid
complex (HV-acid)
4. Overflush: Fresh Water
15,000 gallons @ 10-14 bpm
(Optional Stage but
recommended to improved
results)
Same volume as main acid stage
or minimum 1 hour @ 10-14 bpm
HF + 4% organophosphonic
acid complex (HV-acid)
4. Overflush: Fresh Water
@ 10-14 bpm first half of the
stage volume.
@ 1 bpm second half of the
stage volume
Same volume as main acid stage
@ 10-14 bpm

5. Overflush: Fresh water Several hours at low rate 5. Overflush: Geothermal Geothermal injection system can
depending on water supply and Injection water be placed back on line.
availability.
Table 3: Basic treatment procedure for old injection wells
Table 2: Basic acidizing treatment procedure for old
geothermal wells Case Histories

• Old Geothermal Injection Wells: Silica scale can be a
problem in geothermal water injection wells. Injection
rate can be dramatically reduced by scale deposition in
the formation fracture network and in the completion.
Injection reduction can also originate in the injection
surface pipe system. Scale formed inside the surface
injection facilities can become broken and dislodged
from the pipelines when contacted by cold water, a
routine occurrence. Contraction — expansion cycling
of the pipe due to hot/cold/hot water flow — causes this
phenomenon. If a filtering system is not installed before
the wellhead, the dislodged silica scale will reach the
well bottom and eventually build to reduce injection
capacity. In cases where severe scale deposition is
present inside the competion, a mechanical/chemical
treatment is preferred. When available, coiled tubing
provides an effective mechanism to simultaneously
perform mechanical and chemical treatment. Otherwise,
mechanical clean-out can be conducted using a
workover rig followed by a bullheaded acid treatment.
Several bullheaded acid jobs have been performed in
Central America geothermal wells to date to improve
water injection in silica-scaled wells. Treatments have
been very successful. For wells with HCl/rock solubility
below 10%, a “single-step” acid treatment procedure
(using an HF acid system) is applied. Table 3 sumarizes
a basic procedure for bullheading geothermal acidizing
treatment in silica-scaled geothermal wells.
HPHT Well Example
An HPHT well located in South America was producing from
a sandstone reservoir consisting of 95% quartz and 4%
kaolinite. The dominant cements in this sandstone are
kaolinite and silica overgrowths. Kaolinite also exists as a
loosely packed pore filling material. Permeability ranges from
70 to 300 mD, with fairly low porosity (8% to 13%).
Formation damage contributors include oil-based drilling fluid
effects and kaolinite and quartz fines migration. Laboratory
core flow tests supported pumping an unconventional 6% HF
equivalent main acid treatment in this well.
The well treatment initially increased production rate from
2,100 to 3,700 BOPD (76% initial incremental oil production).
Three months after treatment, production rate increased
further to over 4,000 BOPD. The treatment steps are shown in
Table 4 below:
Treatment Step Volume
(gal/ft)
1) Crude Oil displacement
2) Formation water displacement
3) Preflush – 15% Acetic Acid 50
4) Main Acid – Acetic:6% HF 100
5) Overflush – 15% Acetic Acid 50
6) Diverter – N2 foam
7) Repeat steps 3-6 (4 more times)
8) Displacement – 3% NH4Cl/Diesel

The acetic/HF main acid mixture also contained a phosphonic

acid complex to stabilize acid reaction products in solution.

Fluid compatibility testing identified the potential for iron

induced acid sludging. Therefore, the tubulars were pickled
8 SPE 109818

with 7.5% HCl to remove rust and debris prior to the HF
treatment. Also, an acetic acid preflush and overflush, as well
as an acetic acid:HF blend were used to ensure compatibility.
Average injection rate during the treatment was approximately
2 BPM with a maximum pressure of 4500 psi. Five stages
were used to treat the interval.
After the acid stimulation jobs, the wells were shut in for
several weeks to allow temperature build-up. Table 7
compares the pre- and post-job wellhead pressures (psi) and
Power Generation Potential (MWe) at operational power
conditions (100 psi).

Geothermal Well Example Generation

MWe WHP (psi)
Potential (MWe)
WELL Increase
Two geothermal production wells in Central America were (%) Pre Post Pre Post
treated to remove damage created during the drilling process.
Both wells were considered to have high calcite deposition
1 322 % 48 131 2.2 7.1
potential. Neither was able to reach and maintain flowing
conditions, and they were thus shut for 8 and 11 years,
respectively. Very limited information on rock mineralogy
was available and only a few drill cuttings were sent to the lab Not Not
2 340 % 113 3.4
to test for acid solubility testing. Table 5 sumarizes the stable stable
average solubility per well and acid system. Acid stimulation
treatments were performed by bullheading acid through the
wellhead to avoid extra rig costs. Table 7: Pre- and Post-Treatment Well Comparison

Geothermal wells were successfully stimulated with new

Test 15% HCl 5% SSA % technology HT acidizing fluids, with cost-effective procedures
WELL Temp AVERAGE AVERAGE SOLUBILITY based on experience in geothermal acidizing. After years of
(˚F) SOLUBILITY SOLUBILITY TOTAL shut in, both wells improved dramatically and could establish
flowing conditions sufficient to be placed online to the
1 194 27.75 % 50 % 77.75 % geothermal power generation plant.

Steam Injection Well Examples

2 194 9.2 % 26.1 % 35.3 %
Table 5: Acid Solubility of Drill Cuttings
Based on the HCl solubility and the previously known calcite
deposition problems, it was decided to use both HCl and HF
acid systems. The HCl acid system formulation included an
organophosphonic acid complex (ion-complexation agent, HV
acid). This system is designed to remove carbonate and iron-
containing scales and inhibit re-precipitation or re-scaling in
one step. The HF formulation involves controlled in-situ
generation of HF based on the organo-phosphonic acid
complex acidity and hydrogen ion release characteristics.
Table 6 sumarizes the treatment designs.
Two geothermal injection wells in the Asia Pacific region
were treated in 2006 to remove large deposits of high-silica-
content scale in slotted liner, liner/formation annulus and in
formation fractures. Given the relative absence of calcite
material present, these jobs were conducted with a single-step,
buffered 9% HF treatment.
The procedure for scale removal involved a three-step
approach to assess the efficacy of different scale removal
techniques:
ƒ 1st Step – Scale drill-out (SDO)
ƒ 2nd Step – High-efficiency jetting nozzle (on drill
pipe) that includes stress cycles with water
ƒ 3rd Step – High-efficiency jetting nozzle (on drill
pipe) that includes stress cycles with 9% Single-Step
HF

The results from these treatments are shown below with the
15% HCl with 0.2% 4% HCl-5% HF +
Fow Rate vol 1.5%
injectivity after each stage. Incremental increases were
WELL realized with each technique; however, the greater benefit was
(bpm) organophosphonic organophosphonic
acid Volume acid Volume seen with the use of the acid treatment.

1 14 26,418 gal 18,493 gal Injectivity Well 1 Well 2

Pre-Job Injectivity (kg/hr) 300 255
After SDO (kg/hr) 472 280
After Jetting w/water (kg/hr) 634 338
2 14 26,418 gal 15,851 gal After Jetting w/9% HF (kg/hr) 924 436

Table 6: Acid Treatment Volumes & Pumping Rate

SPE 109818 9

Conclusions
Very high-temperature oil and gas wells and geothermal wells
can be acidized successfully.
HPHT wells and geothermal wells can be stimulated
successfully utilizing unique HF systems with higher HF
concentrations.
Experience in acidizing geothermal wells in Central America
indicates that understanding mechanisms restricting
production (or injection), and understanding treatment
objective(s) are the keys to success.
5. Morgenthaler, L.N., Zhu, D., Mou, J., Hill A.D. ‘Effect of
Reservoir Mineralogy and Texture on Acid Response in
Heterogeneous Sandstones’, paper SPE 102672 presented at the
2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
San Antonio, TX, 24-27 September.
6. Hashem, M.K., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Hopkins, J.A., ‘An Experience
in Acidizing Sandstone Reservoirs: A Scientific Approach’, paper
SPE 56528 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, TX, 3-6 October.
7. Al Mutairi, S.H., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., ‘Tube Pickling Procedures:
Case Studies’, paper SPE 95004 presented at the 2005 SPE
European Formation Damage Conference held in Scheveningen,
The Netherlands, May 30-June1.

8. Thomas, R.L., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Lynn, J.D., Mehta, S., Muhareb,

Acid stimulation of geothermal wells, in particular, is under- M., Ginest, N., ‘Channel vs. Matrix Sandstone Acidizing of a
utilized. The potential production enhancement benefit is HT/HP Reservoir in Saudi Arabia’, paper SPE 73702 presented at
tremendous but can only be accomplished through broader the 2002 International Symposium on Formation Damage Control
implementation of acidizing in geothermal fields. held in Lafayette, LO, 20-21 February.

9. Al-Dahlan, M.N., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Qahtani, A.A., ‘Evaluation

Acknowledgements of Retarded HF Acid Systems’, paper SPE 65032 presented at the
The authors would like to thank BJ Services for permission to 2001 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in
publish this paper. The authors also wish to thank to LAGEO Houston, TX, 13-16 February.
S.A de CV for permission to publish well information and pre- 10. Mahajan, M., Pasiki, R., Gilmore, T., Riedel, K., Steinback,
and post-stimulation results. Thanks also to the people S.,’Successes Achieved in Acidizing Geothermal Wells in
involved in the field execution of the treatments, and for those Indonesia’, paper SPE 100996 presented at the 2006 SPE Asia
tireless scientists and engineers, from the different disciplines, Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Adelaide,
Australia, 11-13 September.
trying always to reach new frontiers of matrix acidizing, in its
many aspects. 11. Taylor, K.C., Nasr-El-Din H.A., Saleem, J.A., ‘Laboratory
Evaluation of Iron-Control Chemicals for High Temperature Sour-
SI Metric Conversion Factors Gas Wells’, paper SPE 65010 presented at the 2001 SPE
International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Houston,
TX, 13-16 February.
ºAPI 141.5/(131.5 + ºAPI) = g/cm3
bbl 1.589 874 E – 01 = m3 12. Rae, P., Di Lullo, G., ‘Single Step Matrix Acidizing with HF –
cp 1.0* E – 03 = Pa·s Eliminating Preflushes Simplifies the Process, Improves the
ft 3.048* E – 01 = m Results’, paper SPE 107296 presented at the 2007 SPE European
Formation Damage Conference held in Scheveningen, The
ºF (ºF – 32)/1.8 = ºC Netherlands, May 30-June1.
gal 3.785 412 E – 03 = m3
lbm 4.535 924 E – 01 = kg 13. Rae, P., Di Lullo, G., ‘Matrix Acid Stimulation – A Review of the
psi 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa State-Of-The-Art’, paper SPE 82260 presented at the 2003 SPE
European Formation Damage Conference held in The Hague, The
MW 2.390585 E – 05 = cal/sec Netherlands, 13-14 May.

References
1. Di Lullo, G. and Rae, P. ‘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.
14. Thomas, R.L., Nasr-El-Din H.A., Mehta, S., Hilab, V., Lynn, J.D.,
‘The Impact of HCl to HF Ratio on Hydrated Silica Formation
During the Acidizing of a High Temperature Sandstone Gas
Reservoir in Saudi Arabia’, paper SPE 77370 presented at the 2002
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
Antonio, TX, September 19- October 2.

2. Di Lullo, G. and Rae, P. ‘Achieving 100 Percent Success in Acid
Stimulation of Sandstone Reservoirs’, paper 77808 presented at the
2002 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition
held in Melbourne, Austratia, 8-10 October.
3. Rae, P., Bte Ahmad A., Portman, L. and Acorda, P.E. ‘Use of
Single Step 9% HF in Geothermal Well Stimulation’, paper
108025 presented at the 2007 SPE European Formation Damage
Conference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, May 30-
June1.
15. Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Katheeri, M.I.,Taylor, K.C., Al-Grainees,
A.H., ‘Determination and Fate of Formic Acid in High
Temperature Acid Stimulation Fluids’, paper SPE 73749 presented
at the SPE the 2002 International Symposium and Exhibition on
Formation Damage Control held in Lafayette, LO, 20-21 February.
16. Smith, P.S., Clement Jr., C.C., Rojas, A.M., ‘Combined Scale
Removal and Scale Inhibition Treatments’, paper SPE 60222
presented at the 2000 Second International Symposium on Oilfield
Scale held in Aberdeen, UK, 26-27 January.

4. Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Anazi, M., Al-Zahrani, A., Kelkar, S.K.
‘Investigation of a Single-Stage Sandstone Acidizing Fluid for
High Temperature Formations’, paper SPE 107636 presented at the
2007 SPE European Formation Damage Conference held in
Scheveningen, The Netherlands, May 30-June1.
17. Campbell, D.A., Morris, C.W., Verity, R.V., ‘Geothermal Well
Stimulation Experiments and Evaluation’, paper SPE 10316
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, USA, 5-7 October.
10 SPE 109818

18. Budd Jr., C.F., ‘Geothermal Energy for Electrical Generation’,

paper SPE 12885, Journal of Petroleum Technology Magazine,
February 1984 edition, pages 189-195.

19. Bergosh, G. L., Enniss, D.O.,’Mechanisms of Formation Damage

in Matrix Permeability Geothermal Wells’, paper SPE 10135
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, USA, 5-7 October.

20. Snyder, R.E., ‘Geothermal Well Completions: A Critical Review

of Downhole Problems and Specialized Technology Needs’, paper
SPE 8211 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Fall Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Las Vegas, USA, 23-26
September.

21. Energy Information Agency, Geothermal Energy Worldwide

Report, 2005 (Geneva).

22. Kalfayan, L.J., Metcalf, A.S., "Successful Sandstone Acid Design

Case Histories: Exceptions to Conventional Wisdom," paper SPE
63178 presented at 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dall, Texas, USA, October 1-4 2000

23. Vetter, O.J., ‘Scale Prediction in Geothermal Operations – State of

the Art’, paper SPE 6593 presented at 1977 SPE-AIME
International Symposium on Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry
held in California, USA, June 27-28 1977

24. Messer, P. H., Pye, D. S., Gallus, J.P., ‘Injectivity Restoration of a

Hot-Brine Geothermal Injection Well’, paper SPE 6761 presented
at 1977 SPE-AIME 52nd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, USA, October 9-12 1977

25. Van Domelen, M.S., Jennings, J.R., ‘Alternate Acid Blends for
HPHT Applications’, paper SPE 30419 presented at Offshore
Europe Conference held in Aberdeen, Scotland, September 5-8,
1995.

26. Thorhallsson, S., ‘Geothermal well operation and ’, Geothermal

Training Programme, IGC2003 - Short Course, September 2003