Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

A comprehensive review of geothermal cementing from well

integrity perspective
Nachiket Arbad *, Hossein Emadi, Marshall Watson
Bob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Geothermal energy is the thermal energy stored within earth. In other words, geothermal energy is the only
Primary cementing alternative source of energy independent of the climate. This makes geothermal energy a more reliable source of
Well integrity energy which will help the world meet the minimum level of power demand. Although geothermal energy is
Portland cement
independent of the climate, it is highly dependent on the underlying local, global, and hydrological frameworks.
Renewable energy
Geothermal
It is utilized for power (electricity) generation and/or directly used for heating purposes.
Silica While geothermal energy has a lot of potentials and is being utilized for more than a century, it faces several
challenges which need to be addressed to make it more economical. This paper compares Oil and Gas well
construction with Geothermal well construction to highlight the key differences between them. Furthermore,
Geothermal cementing challenges are discussed in detail from a well integrity perspective. The impact of high
temperature (up to 1000 ◦ C), geothermal fluids, and corrosive gases (CO2 and H2S) on geothermal cement are
examined. The research and development carried out to mitigate these cementing challenges are meticulously
reviewed and future research recommendations are presented.
This review paper will not only help the Oil and Gas cementing personnel have an in-depth understanding of
Geothermal cementing but also motivate them to use their expertise to solve the existing geothermal cementing
challenges and accelerate energy transition process.

1. Introduction
Geothermal gradient is the rate of increase in temperature with
respect to depth. The sources for the thermal energy within the earth are
mainly trapped heat from planet formation and the radioactive decay of
elements causing the generation of heat. Although geothermal energy is
independent of the climate, it is highly dependent on the underlying
local, global, and hydrological frameworks (Bronicki, 2016). The pres­
ence of the hot springs, volcanoes, and plate tectonics affect the distri­
bution of geothermal energy across the world. The areas with abundant
volcanic activities are rich sources of geothermal energy (Elders and
Moore, 2016). The geothermal gradient across five different places from
four studies is presented in Fig. 1. It is evident that at Lardorello (Italy)
the temperature reaches 100 ◦ C at approximately 500 ft depth while in
Oberpfalz (Germany) it reaches 100 ◦ C at approximately 11,000 ft
(Erkan et al., 2005; Marbun et al., 2019; Salim and Amani, 2013).
Based on the method of harnessing this energy, geothermal resources
are categorized into three groups mainly – Geothermal Heat Pumps
(GHP), Hydrothermal Resources, and Enhanced Geothermal Resources
(EGS). Their key highlights are listed below in Table 1 (U.S. Department
of Energy, 2019) (Augustine et al., 2019; Doughty et al., 2018; Liu et al.,
2019; Renner, 2006). have discussed these geothermal resources in
detail.
Geothermal energy was utilized directly for heating and cooking
purposes in ancient times. In 1895, Ferdinando Raynaut succeeded in
converting thermal energy into mechanical energy with the help of
geothermal fluid as the source of heat and reciprocating engines as
mechanical machines. Further in 1904, Ginori Conti and A. Faaro suc­
cessfully used the steam produced from the Forte Well to produce
electricity. This was the very first attempt to convert thermal energy to
electric energy. In 1913, the first large-scale geothermal power plant in
the world became operational in Larderello, Italy (Parri et al., 2016).
According to recent research conducted by Think Geoenergy, there
are currently 29 countries utilizing geothermal energy for power gen­
eration and the USA is the largest producer (Year-End 2019) with 3676
MWe installed capacity (Alexander, 2020). The geothermal resource
temperature decides its applications and uses. The produced geofluid
must be at a temperature of 150 ◦ C (or higher) when it reaches the
surface for efficient electricity generation (Capuano, 2016; DiPippo,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: narbad@ttu.edu (N. Arbad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110869
Received 23 February 2022; Received in revised form 8 June 2022; Accepted 12 July 2022
Available online 19 July 2022
0920-4105/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
N. Arbad et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869

Abbreviations H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

HDR Hot Dry Rocks
ACS Advanced Cement Systems LCM Lost Circulation Materials
API American Petroleum Institute NPT Non-Productive Time
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials NSS Nano Silica Solution
BNL Brookhaven National Laboratory RHA Rice Husk Ash
BOWC By Weight of Cement ROP Rate of Penetration
CAC Calcium Aluminate Cement SF Silica Flour
CaP Calcium aluminate phosphate cement SLC Silica Lime cement
CO2 Carbon dioxide SMP Shape Memory Polymer
CS Compressive Strength SSAS Sodium Silicate-Activated Slag cement
EGS Enhanced Geothermal Resources TD Target depth
FLA Fluid Loss Additives TSCR Thermal Shock Resistant Cement
GHP Geothermal Heat Pumps WBM Water-based mud

smaller than 1% (BP, 2020). While geothermal energy has a lot of po­
tentials, it must overcome several technical as well as non-technical
barriers to make it economical.
According to (NORSOK, 2013), well integrity is defined as - “the
application of technical, operational, and organizational solutions to
reduce the risk of uncontrolled release of formation fluids and well fluids
throughout the life cycle of a well”. There must be always a minimum of
two barriers preventing the uncontrolled release of formation/well
fluids. Drilling mud and cement are two important primary barriers
during the construction of wells. Cement acts as a primary barrier
throughout the lifecycle of the well. This paper emphasizes the technical
well integrity challenges faced during the geothermal well construction
and focuses in detail on the geothermal cement. The operational chal­
lenges are discussed briefly while most of the focus is on the following
challenges –

• Lost circulation
Fig. 1. Geothermal Gradient at different locations adapted (Erkan et al., 2005; • Effects of corrosive gases and geofluids on casings and cement
Marbun et al., 2019; Salim and Amani, 2013). • Effects of high temperatures on casings and cement
• Cement design

Table 1
Geothermal energy resources – key highlights.
Geothermal Energy Key Highlights
Resource
Geothermal Heat-Pumps Efficient Heating and cooling systems
(GHP) Source and sink for heating and cooling is the earth’s
relatively constant temperature.
Hydrothermal Resources Naturally occurring heated water resources
Contains both the rock characteristics and ground
water necessary for containing thermal energy
Hot water/springs and steam are carrier of geothermal
energy which is converted to electricity at a power
plant
Enhanced Geothermal Lack either the groundwater or rock characteristics and
Systems (EGS) requires subsurface engineering transformations to
extract thermal energy
Also referred to as Unconventional Geothermal
resources or Manmade Geothermal Reservoirs or Hot
Dry Rocks (HDR)
2016).
(Canbaz et al., 2021) provides a comprehensive review of the current
standings of the renewable energies and describes whether they will
compete with or compliment the Oil and Gas industry. Statistical review
of world energy reports the share of global electricity generation from
renewables increased by 10.4% from 2019 to 2020. It surpassed the
electricity generation from nuclear energy for the first time. While the
electricity produced using geothermal energy increased by 3.7% in
2020, its overall contribution to global electricity production is still
Existing solutions to these problems are critically reviewed and
discussed highlighting the research recommendations.
2. Geothermal well construction
Geothermal well construction process aims at reducing the well
failure risk by safely constructing a long-term conduit between the
geothermal reservoir and the surface (Southon and Knight Merz, 2005).
The high temperatures (>150 ◦ C), abrasive nature of rocks, the corrosive
nature of geofluids, and its location (fractures and fissures) make
geothermal drilling operations complex as well as expensive (Vivas
et al., 2020). Tool failure events are very common in such harsh con­
ditions and the wells do not even reach the planned TD due to such
problems (Liles et al., 1976). According to (DOE, 2006), the compressive
strength of hard rocks is around 250 MPa at high temperatures of 160 ◦ C
to 315 ◦ C (Zhang et al., 2016). carried out several laboratory experi­
ments on granite to verify the effect of high temperatures on the
compressive strength of the rocks. With the increase in temperature from
200 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C, the compressive strength reduced from 205 MPa to
165 MPa. This causes the rocks to be more ductile which affects the
destruction of rocks by drill bits.
Geothermal drilling aims at creating a pathway to reach the
geothermal reservoir and produce the geothermal fluids and/or circu­
late them to extract thermal energy. The basic principle of Oil and Gas
drilling i.e., rotate the drill bit, apply weight on bit and circulate out the
cuttings is applied in geothermal drilling (Finger and Blankenship,
2010). Polycrystalline diamond cutter bits are now preferred over the

2
N. Arbad et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869

roller cone bits as they perform better (Sharma et al., 2021). Although operations in Indonesia (Magzoub et al., 2021). tested the sealing of
the basic drilling principle remains the same, there are several geolog­ near-wellbore fractures using the Shape Memory Polymer (SMP) –
ical and physical differences between the two which are highlighted in application of smarter technology. Aerated drilling could be another
Table 2 (Bronicki, 2016). (Denninger et al., 2015) analysed the opera­ solution to lost circulation problem, but it increases the cost, increases
tional time of 21 geothermal wells drilled in the western USA and 21 Oil NPT activities, and reduces the bit life. It also requires the crew to be
and Gas wells drilled in Wyoming, Colorado, and Louisiana to find out well trained (Hole, 2010).
the time required to drill the best-in-class wells. Based on this study, on The presence of corrosive gases such as H2S and CO2 at such high
average geothermal drilling took 56.4 days longer as compared to Oil temperatures results in the complex chemistry of geothermal fluids
and Gas wells. The driving factors identified for these huge differences in (Haizlip, 2016). (Klapper et al., 2019) has summarized the adverse ef­
time were mainly lost circulation issues, cementing problems, improper fects of corrosion on downhole equipment. Fig. 2. a shows how the wings
rig/equipment selection, low ROP, rig crew time management, and of the ESP centralizer were corroded after two years of exposure to
absence of a drilling program. non-inhibited production fluid in a geothermal well. Fig. 2b and 2. c
In geothermal well construction, maintaining wellbore stability re­ shows how the inside and outside of the production tubing were
quires drilling fluid with high thermal stability and better rheological corroded after six months of geothermal production (Klementich and
properties. Water-based mud (WBM) with special (case-specific) addi­ Jellison, 1989). have specified the design considerations necessary for
tives are commonly used for drilling geothermal wells (Liles et al., the long-term integrity of the production tubing in geothermal wells.
1976). summarized the drilling fluids used at popular geothermal dril­ (Basoeki, Moh. Radja, 1978) have analysed the fracture, casing collapse,
ling sites across the world and listed the problems faced with them and scaling problems caused due to external and internal corrosion in
during drilling operations (Mohamed et al., 2021). presented a detailed geothermal wells drilled at Cerro Prieto (Stevens, 2000). discussed use of
review of the common problems (wellbore cleaning and hydraulics, fluid logging tool capable of detecting internal and external casing corrosion
stability) associated with geothermal WBM fluid rheology and the latest (Yanagisawa et al., 2016). reviewed the material corrosion of
developments in drilling fluid systems. geothermal power plants and risk assessment systems in Japan. Amongst
Lost circulation is the most encountered, time-consuming, and costly the materials tested in corrosion studies conducted by (Mundhenk et al.,
problem faced during geothermal drilling. As the geothermal resources 2012) in the laboratory and in-situ geothermal conditions, higher
are in the fractures and fissures, lost circulation is expected as the target alloyed metals performed better as compared to other metals (Tuttle
depth is reached or whenever the fractures are encountered. The first et al., 2020). described the current techniques available to quantify and
step to combat this issue is to stop drilling and circulate the Lost Cir­ treat the corrosion caused due to geothermal drilling operations
culation Materials (LCM). If the issue is still not resolved, the next step (Gollmyer et al., 2011). discussed the application of Non-Rotating Pro­
would be to do plugback cementing, which depends on the availability tectors to prevent the casing from wear during drilling operations.
of the cementing equipment and materials on location (Shryock, 1984). One of the important functions of geothermal cement is to protect
Drilling cannot be resumed until the lost circulation problem is resolved casing strings against the possible exposure to highly corrosive
and sometimes it takes longer than usual if plugback cementing is geothermal fluids/brines along with providing mechanical support
necessary. Time required to resolve lost circulation issue is counted as (Smith, 1978). reported casing failures in geothermal wells at Wairakei
Non-Productive Time (NPT). In wells analysed by (Visser et al., 2018), (New Zealand) due to thermal stresses and erosion. The casings in these
the NPT due to lost circulation was as high as 197 h (8 days). Lost cir­ wells were not cemented to the surface. Another important difference,
culation accounts for 85% of the total NPT in certain geothermal wells. between geothermal well construction and Oil and Gas well construc­
The cost of the project is highly affected by the time required to mitigate tion, is that all casings in geothermal wells are cemented to the surface.
the lost circulation issue, the method and materials used for mitigation. This minimizes the casing failures caused owing to the expansion of
Lost circulation can also be encountered while cementing operations. casings during the production phase and/or the presence of trapped
The preventive measures are to drill and cement the geothermal wells fluids behind the casing (Saito, 1994). The trapped fluid can be drilling
with fit-for-purpose lightweight density fluids (DOE, 2006). In some mud, spacer, free water from cement slurry, or pre-flush fluid. This
cases, even drilling and cementing with lightweight fluids does not solve trapped fluid expands as the temperature rises during the production
the problem (Budiawan et al., 2014). reviewed 60 successful cement phase and it can produce forces up to 45–50 psi/◦ F which is high enough
jobs where the application of an environmentally friendly cement-spacer to result in casing failures. In many cases, the trapped water reduces the
system helped mitigate the lost circulation problem during cementing flow area and affects production greatly. Fig. 3 shows a casing failure
due to trapped fluids between surface and production casing in well
Table 2
SG-5, Svartsengi SW- Iceland (Edwards, 1982; Thorhallsson, 2003).
Geological and Physical Differences – Oil and Gas Drilling vs Geothermal According to a numerical simulation study performed by (Wu et al.,
Drilling. 2021), the chances of failure are high at the casing-cement interface if
the temperature difference between the formation and casing is large
Oil and Gas Drilling Geothermal Drilling
(Teodoriu, 2013; Teodoriu and Falcone, 2009). identified the following
Rock Formations Porous Sedimentary Hard Igneous and metamorphic five reasons for casing failures in geothermal wells – fatigue induced
Formation rocks
Resource Produced • Oil and Gas • Geothermal Fluids (mainly
while drilling, during running the casing, casing drilling, temperature
• Low flow with high water or steam) variation, and internal pressure.
energy density • High flow with low energy (Southon and Knight Merz, 2005) have investigated casing failure in
density 648 geothermal wells in Southeast Asia – Pacific region. The wells with
Resource Location Pore space Rock Matrix (fractures and
production casing diameter 9–5/8′′ were termed as “Standard Holes”
fissures)
Pore Pressure Hydrostatic Sub-hydrostatic while the wells with production casing diameters 13–3/8′′ or 10 ¾” were
Temperature 1 - 2 ◦ F per 100 ft 5 - 10 ◦ F per 100 ft termed as “Big holes”. All the wells investigated had either a single string
Gradient casing or a tieback and liner as the production casing string profile. The
Casing Design • Elastic • Strain Based results of this investigation are presented in Table 3 and it is evident that
• Smaller production • Large production casing
casing diameter diameter (9 5/8′′ or 7′′ )
the trapped fluid between the casings causes failures more often than the
Primary Load Case Pressure Collapse other reasons (Hole, 2008a). summarized the geothermal casing design
Bit/tools Soft/non-abrasive Very hard/abrasive calculations and considerations. The most practical approach to solve
Well Completion Open Hole, Cased and Open Hole/Slotted liner this challenge is to implement the best practices while cementing
Program Perforated
geothermal wells and filling all the annular spaces with case-specific

3
N. Arbad et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869

Fig. 2. a. Downhole ESP Centralizer after 2-year exposure to geofluid. Outside (2. b.) and Inside (2. c.) of production tubing after 6-month exposure to geofluids
adapted from (Klapper et al., 2019).

Table 3
Casing failure investigation results adapted from (Southon and Knight Merz,
2005).
Production Casing Total # of Total Trapped Parted Lap
String Profile Wells Fluid Casing Leaks

Single String Casing Confirmed Failure Incidents (%)

Big Holes 42 7.1% 2.4% N/A
Standard Holes 577 1.0% 2.6% N/A
Tieback and Liner Confirmed Failure Incidents (%)
Big Holes 18 11.1% 5.6% 5.6%
Standard Holes 11 0% 9.1% 0%

3. Geothermal cementing challenges and solutions

3.1. Operational challenges

The objective of cementing casing strings to the surface is to limit the

Fig. 3. Casing failure due to trapped fluids between surface and production
casing in well SG-5, Svartsengi SW- Iceland adapted from (Edwards, 1982;
Thorhallsson, 2003).
cement slurries. The next section of this paper will highlight the chal­
lenges faced in geothermal cementing operation and the steps taken to
overcome them.
elongation of the strings during the production phase and assist in
thermal fatigue. When a properly cemented casing is subjected to
geothermal temperatures, the casing is prevented from expanding
longitudinally. This introduces tensile stresses in the cement and
compressive stresses in the casing which are directly proportional to the
temperature change. If the temperature difference is greater than 230
◦
C, it can cause plastic deformation. Hence, it is important to have a
cement slurry that provides high resistance and can withstand such
intense stress conditions throughout the life cycle of the well (Southon
and Knight Merz, 2005).
The success of a cementing job not only depends on the design of
cement slurry but also the cementing techniques and practices applied in
the field. It is always better to have an excess of cement than less cement
for geothermal wells. The common practice is to have 30% excess
geothermal cement while cementing cased hole sections and 100%
excess in case of open-hole cementing. If the cement does not reach the
surface, several remedial cementing jobs like backfilling, top job, etc
need to be performed to make sure that the entire string is cemented.
The objective of the remedial cementing job is to avoid having any fluids
in the annulus which might cause the collapse of the casing strings. It is
common industry practice to avoid using centralizers for the two casing
joints. This allows the passage of pipes to cement the annulus if the
cement does not reach the surface (Capuano, 2016). (Rickard et al.,
2012) summarizes the top fill and top squeeze cementing operations that
are performed during remedial cementing operations if the cement does
not reach the surface. Prediction of the geothermal well life is an
extremely difficult and complex phenomenon. The cement slurry needs

4
N. Arbad et al.
to be designed in such a way that performs the necessary functions
throughout the life cycle of the well. Therefore, it is important to know
the life of a well to design the cement slurry that can provide the
necessary strength (Gallus et al., 1979).
3.2. Cement properties and design
The strength of the cement degrades as it is exposed to high
geothermal temperatures for a prolonged time. In the late 1950s,
experimental studies were performed to investigate the strength retro­
gression phenomenon and it was concluded that above the critical
temperature of 104 ◦ C to 160 ◦ C the strength of cement will decrease
with an increase in temperature and age (Carter and Smith, 1958;
Saunders and Walker, 1954). Ever since the problem of strength retro­
gression was identified, several experimental investigations were car­
ried out to find solutions to this problem. An extensive literature review
of geothermal well cementing is done by (Allahvirdizadeh, 2020),
highlighting the results from several research groups. Table A1 sum­
marizes the list of papers providing the evidence of using silica as a
stabilizing agent for the respective temperature conditions. The type and
the amount of silica to be added as a stabilizing agent were also inves­
tigated and different recommendations were made based on the research
performed by several research groups (Hole, 2008b). recommended
addition of 15–20% silica to combat strength retrogression.
The effect of silica particle size, solid volume fraction, and silica
content (>35%) on the phase composition, and microstructure of the
Class G cement blends was studied by (Krakowiak et al., 2018). The
critical factors in cement design jobs were pore size distribution,
porosity, matrix chemical composition, and phase composition (Kalou­
sek and Chaw, 1976). tested several calcium silicate cement slurries and
suggested an optimum concentration for CaO, SiO2, and Al2O3 mixture
(Buntoro et al., 2000). studied the effect of neat magnesium oxide (MgO)
on the compressive and shear strength of API Class G HSR type cement
with 35% SF BWOC. The addition of 3–5% (BOWC) neat MgO provides
acceptable compressive strength and excellent shear strength tested for
temperatures up to 250 ◦ C (Pyatina and Sugama, 2019). developed
Thermal Shock Resistant Cement (TSRC) composites with self-healing
properties. TSRC recovered 86% of its CS after a 5-day healing period
whereas the Portland cement only recovered 36% CS under similar
conditions. This cement composition was registered as FlexCem® by
Trabits group (Trabits et al., 2019). (Rod et al., 2020a) recently devel­
oped 5 self-repairing polymer-cement formulations.
Geothermal cement designs based merely on the strength re­
quirements are outdated and cement must be designed considering in-
situ conditions including effects of cement properties on casings and
formations, stresses on cement sheath throughout the well life span, rate
of cement carbonation, pumpability of cement, and effects of brine
concentrations on cement, etc. (Kruszewski et al., 2018; Weber et al.,
1998). Since all the casings in geothermal wells are cemented to the
surface, bonding of cement with the formation as well as the casing is
critical to maintaining well integrity (Nelson et al., 1981). Experiments
conducted by (Cerasi et al., 2020) showed that the cement-sandstone
bond was stronger than the cement-shale bond. Further, the shear
bond strength is also affected by the presence of mud cake on the for­
mation as well as mud film on the casings. It is recommended to add
expanding agents like MgO to improve the shear bond strength (Buntoro
et al., 2000). The production of superheated geofluids causes thermal
expansion of the casing that leads to stress cracking of the cement or
de-bonding at the interfaces (Berard et al., 2009). Bonding, as well as
re-bonding tests, must be performed on the cement to test for the
self-healing properties of the cement (Fridrik Hilmar, 2017).
Young’s modulus of the cement must be measured to evaluate the
ductility of the geothermal cement. If the geothermal cement is brittle, it
would increase cracks in cement leading to deeper fracture propagation
and cement sheath deformation in extreme geothermal conditions
(Pyatina and Sugama, 2020; Rod et al., 2020b). Along with young’s
5
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869
modulus, other mechanical properties like Poisson’s ratio, shear bond
strength, cohesion, tensile strength, and friction angle must also be
measured because they act as input parameters for finite element studies
and modelling. These properties of cement along with the casing and
formations properties are necessary for accurate modelling of the in-situ
conditions (Paiva et al., 2018; Teodoriu et al., 2010).
3.3. Chemical degradation challenges
As mentioned earlier, Portland cement is used in geothermal
cementing but with a lot of modification based on the wellbore condi­
tions. The traditional oil well cement is too heavy for geothermal
geologic well settings and they are also prone to attacks from CO2 and
H2S (Ahmed et al., 2020). The addition of silica only solves the strength
retrogression problem but does not eliminate the problem of CO2 and
H2S. The effect of curing time and CO2 on cement-rock interactions was
studied by (Conde Silva and Milestone, 2018a, 2018b; Da Silva et al.,
2013). Class G cement with 0%, 20% and 40% SF was cured at 150 ◦ C for
82 days and exposed to CO2 overpressure of 87 psi. The rate of
carbonation at the interfacial transition zone depends on the amount of
silica present and the curing duration. When stabilizing agent silica flour
is added to the cement slurry up to 40% BWOC, it increases the
compressive strength and decreases the permeability due to the forma­
tion of the tobermorite phase at 150 ◦ C and xonotlite above 200 ◦ C.
These phases are low Ca/Si ratio phases. CO2 exposure causes carbon­
ation of the cement resulting in the formation of aragonite and calcite
(Milestone et al., 2012). recommended addition of 15% silica flour as
this would provide enough strength and make the rate of carbo­
nation/corrosion manageable. It was essential to develop a new
cementing system free of calcium that can be used for highly acidic
geothermal applications.
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) along with cost-sharing in­
dustry partners developed two lightweight cements which can resist CO2
and acid attacks at brine temperatures up to 320 ◦ C. The two newly
developed cement recipes were Calcium aluminate phosphate (CaP)
cement and Sodium silicate-activated slag (SSAS) cement (Sugama,
2006). These cements were economical as they were manufactured
using inexpensive cement forming by-products from coal combustion
and steel-manufacturing processes (DOE, 2006). Halliburton later
commercialized this CaP cement and termed it as “ThermalLock
Cement” (Pyatina and Sugama, 2014, 2020) (Gill et al., 2012). A cyclic
heating experiment was conducted on SSAS cement. It was autoclaved at
200 ◦ C and then heated up to 500 ◦ C by air for one day followed by
immersing in water at 25 ◦ C. This cycle was performed five times.
Similar cyclic treatment was performed on Class G cement with and
without Class F fly ash which failed the treatment (Sugama et al., 2012).
(Achang and Radonjic, 2020) recommended addition of 5% BWOC
Olivine microparticles which will be available for carbonation in highly
acidic environments and act as a sacrificial micromaterial.
3.4. Lightweight cement slurries
The widely used base cement for geothermal cementing is API Class
G cement. The pore pressure and fracture pressure gradients are
considered to design appropriate cement slurry weight. The objective is
to have a lightweight cement slurry without affecting the quality of the
cement. This also prevents lost circulation issues. The desired range of
cement densities is 9.1 ppg to 10 ppg (Nelson et al., 1981). In the early
days, the addition of an inert organic material named perlite to Portland
cement with a ratio of 1:1 reduced the density of cement from 16.5 ppg
to 11.5 ppg. The addition of ceramic spheres further reduced the density
of cement to below 10 ppg (Sugama, 2006). developed a cement recipe
with a density as low as 8.42 ppg. The compressive strength of this
cement recipe after curing for 1 day at 200 ◦ C was 986 psi. The higher
compressive strength and lower porosity were developed in foamed
Calcium aluminate cement (CAC) than in the Class G cement of similar
N. Arbad et al.
density. A geothermal cementing job in central California reported the
compressive strength of unfoamed CAC cement to be 4000 psi. The same
CAC cement was foamed with nitrogen to attain a density of 10.5 ppg
and the compressive strength recorded was 1425 psi. This foamed CAC
was used to cement Del Ranch Well 14’s (Berard et al., 2009).
3.5. Field case studies
Selected case studies were reviewed to highlight the challenges faced
in the geothermal fields and the case-specific solutions reported in the
literature.
• (Ostroot and Shryock, 1964) presented the detailed cementing pro­
grams for eight geothermal wells drilled and cemented in the Salton
Sea area. No trouble was reported as the cement slurries were
rigorously tested in the laboratory before using in the field.
• (Weber et al., 1998) developed a corrosion-resistant cement slurry
and presented the results from 12 successful primary cementing jobs
of the same.
• (Guerra, 1998) has summarized the cementing techniques applied
for geothermal cementing in El Salvador and Iceland
• (Ravi et al., 2008) developed an optimized elastic thermal advanced
cement system (ACS) for a geothermal field in Indonesia.
• (Sveinbjornsson and Thorhallsson, 2014) analysed the performance
of 77 geothermal wells in the Hengill area. The time required to drill
the standard holes and big holes was the same, but the big holes
delivered 30–40% more steam than the standard holes.
• (Won et al., 2015) experimentally determined the uniaxial
compressive strength, profitability, thermal conductivity, bleeding
potential (physical properties) of Class G cement for geothermal
application in North Korea.
• (Karanja, 2015) faced challenges like high bottomhole temperatures
of 320 ◦ C and highly permeable zones while cementing geothermal
wells in Olkaria field. Inner string cementing method, the addition of
high strength microspheres to cement slurry and use of foamed
cement were used to overcome these challenges.
• (Childers et al., 2017) developed a polymer composite that is ther­
mally stable and possesses self-healing properties.
• (Khaemba, 2015) analysed 20 geothermal wells drilled at Menengai
field to design the new wells and avoid the challenges faced in
drilling and cementing them. Based on the analysis of the wells,
workover operations were recommended to ensure the long-term
integrity of the wells.
• (Kruszewski et al., 2018) highlights the drilling and completion
challenges faced in a geothermal field in central-eastern Mexico
named Los Humeros. The inadequacy of designing the cement slurry
based on the compressive strength requirements and the importance
of thorough cement stress analysis are highlighted.
4. Discussions
The important factors affecting the integrity of geothermal cement
are the temperatures and the environment it is exposed to throughout
the life cycle of the well. The temperature logs, caliper logs, and li­
thology logs must be run prior to cementing operations. The accurate
slurry volume calculations are obtained using the caliper logs and the
temperature logs. If the logs are not run, then it is general practise to
have 100% excess cement. The geothermal gradient affects the fluid life,
thickening time, and mechanical properties of the cement. The cement
compositions are generally tested for a maximum of two temperatures –
one being the anticipated bottomhole circulating temperature (Arbad
et al., 2020). It is observed that the slurries are tested for zero free water
at this high temperature but show free water at lower temperatures. So,
it is recommended to test the slurry for zero free water for all the tem­
peratures it will be exposed to. This will ensure there is no free water
between the casings and the problem of casing failure is reduced greatly.
6
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869
Testing of cement slurry in the laboratory before application in the
field is very important. It is recommended to use the same water for
laboratory testing which will be used in the field to simulate similar
wellbore conditions and have more realistic results. The calculations of
yield per sack help us determine the number of sacks required in the
actual job (Finger and Blankenship, 2010). There are no set standards for
testing the cement geothermal compositions in the laboratory. Several
researchers follow the API guidelines for performing the experiments
(API 10B: Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements, 2000,
Specification for Cements and Materials for Well Cementing API Speci­
fication 10A, 2010). Few of the research groups have developed their
own screening procedure which includes both laboratory as well as field
testing of the proposed cement compositions. Fig. 4 shows the process
flowchart for screening the candidate cement systems used by (Nelson
et al., 1981). The detrimental effect of temperature and geofluids on
compressive strength is seen only after curing the cement for longer
durations (Nelson et al., 1981). Most of the research groups test the
cement slurries only for a few days. It is recommended to cure the
candidate cement slurries for longer durations of up to one year to better
predict the long-term integrity of the cement and well. The effect of
brine salinity, mud filter cake, and mud contamination on the me­
chanical properties of the geothermal cements needs to be investigated
(Arbad et al., 2021a, 2021b; Arbad and Teodoriu, 2020; Gallus et al.,
1979).
Literature review suggests the addition of up to 40% silica flour
enhances the compressive strength of the cement and prevents strength
deterioration in such harsh environments (Salehi, 2020; Southon and
Knight Merz, 2005; Vivas et al., 2020; Vu et al., 2020). In the presence of
CO2, the amount of silica added to the cement needs to be optimized to
compensate for the carbonation effect of the cement. The size of the
silica also affects the strength development of silica-stabilized Portland
cement in the presence of dense brines. Fig. 5 shows the effect of silica
particle size on 13.5 ppg Class G Perlite-bentonite cement system in the
presence of geothermal brines at 149 ◦ C, 232 ◦ C, and 325 ◦ C (Eilers and
Nelson, 1979). The cementing sands are categorized into three groups
based on their particle size – Silica fume (0.1 μm), silica flour (±15 μm),
and silica sand (175–200 μm). It is recommended to use silica flour for
geothermal cementing applications (Grabowski and Gillott, 1989).
Simulation models should be used to predict the long-term strength
of the cement compositions. All the input parameters like the downhole
temperature and pressure, thermal properties, cement properties, for­
mation, casing details, etc need to be fed into these computer models to
realistically predict the long-term integrity of the cement. Fig. 6 shows
one such stress analysis which predicts the failure of the cement
(Shadravan et al., 2015).
Nanoparticles have solved several drilling challenges in the Oil and
Gas industry (Hussain et al., 2021). It would be interesting to see the
performance of these nanoparticles in geothermal environments. Alter­
native cement compositions to replace the Portland cement are being
developed and tested (Bernal et al., 2015). presented alkali-activated
Fig. 4. Process flowchart for screening the candidate cement systems used by
(Nelson et al., 1981).
N. Arbad et al.
Fig. 5. Effect of Silica particle size on 13 ppg Class G Perlite bentonite cement system in geothermal brine adapted from (Eilers and Nelson, 1979).
Fig. 6. Stress analysis using Cement integrity simulator adapted from (Shadravan et al., 2015).
slag pastes produced from silica fumes and rice husk ash (RHA). The
pastes were cured for 28 days at 27 ± 2 ◦ C and then exposed to tem­
peratures up to 1000 ◦ C. All the tested samples retained compressive
strength greater than 7251 psi after exposure to 600 ◦ C. The samples
could be crumbled with hand after exposure to 1000 ◦ C. Although these
cement compositions provide enough strength when exposed to 600 ◦ C,
the real test lies in surviving the harsh corrosive environments at such
high temperatures.
The manufacturing of Portland cement produces 0.8 lbm of CO2 per
pound of Portland cement. The Silica Lime cement (SLC) developed by
(Brothers et al., 2010) generates a significantly lower carbon footprint of
only 0.25 lbm of CO2 per pound of SLC. There are several other ad­
vantages of using SLC instead of Portland cement, but the SLC has not
been tested in the field yet. To reduce CO2 emissions, several countries
have started collecting CO2 taxes based on CO2 emissions. In the future,
these CO2 taxes might be applicable all over the world. This should be
enough motivation for the concrete industry to invest and look for
alternative cements leaving lower carbon footprints (Biernacki et al.,
2017).
5. Summary
Although Geothermal energy has tremendous potential, there exists
numerous challenges which needs to be addressed to enhance the
contribution of geothermal energy. The findings are summarized below
after thoroughly reviewing the literature -
7
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869
• Numerous studies exist in the literature focusing on the development
of geothermal cement, yet there are not any standards/guidelines to
test the geothermal cement compositions.
• Cement compositions must be designed considering all in-situ con­
ditions and not just based on the strength requirements.
• The long-term integrity of a geothermal well primarily depends on
the quality of the cement job and the slurry design. Portland cement
with the addition of SF is widely used to cement geothermal wells.
Several commercial geothermal cements are also available.
• Alternative cement systems need to be developed which has lower
carbon footprints than the Portland cements.
Author contributions
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript. Conceptualization: NA, HE; Methodology: NA, HE; Formal
Analysis: NA, HE, MW; Writing-Original Draft: NA; Writing-review and
editing: HE, MW; Editing Reviewers Comments: NA, HE, MW.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
N. Arbad et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869

Appendix

Table A.1
Summary of addition of Silica to mitigate strength retrogression problem

Authors Curing Conditions Cement Slurry Recipe Tested Compressive Strength - CS Permeability (md)
(psi)
Temperature Pressure Time

(◦ C) (Psi) (d- day, y-

year)

Ostroot and Walker 143 ◦ C – 1d, 7d Class E 3000 (1d), 2000 (7d) 0.031 md (3 day), 4.580
(1960) md (28 day)
143 ◦
C – 1d, 7d Class E + 20% Silica 5000 (1d), 10,000 (7d) 0.001 md (3 day)
143 ◦
C – 1d, 7d Class E + 30% Silica 7000 (1d), 12,000 (7d) 0.001 md (3 day)
Gallus et al. (1979) 427 ◦
C 6000 1y Class G + 40% Silica flour, 15.64 ppg 3125 (lab) and 3185 (field) Available
427 ◦
C 6000 1y Class G + 40% Silica flour + 3% Bentonite + 856 (lab) and 1130 (field) Available
1 ft3 perlite, 13.9 ppg
427 ◦ C 6000 1y Class G + 80% Silica flour + 3% Bentonite + 2320 (lab) and 685 (field) Available
1ft3 Perlite, 14.44 ppg
Fridrik Hilmar (2017) upto 200 ◦ C – 1d Class G, Nano silica - (CC1, CC2, CC3 with Increased CS as compared to –
different additives) neat slurry
Philippacopolos et al. 200 ◦ C – – Class G + 35% SSA-1, 16 ppg 6470 –
(2006) 200 ◦ C – – Class A + 55% Spherelite, 12 ppg 2710 –
Santra et al. (2009) 204 ◦ C – 35d Magnesium based Sorel cement + New 6000 –
retarder

Authors Curing Conditions Cement Slurry Recipe Tested Compressive Strength Permeability
- CS (psi) (md)
Temperature Pressure Time

(◦ C) (Psi) (d- day, y-

year)

Omosebi et al. 221 ◦ C – 14d High Sulphate resistant class G cement + 35% SF + Hydroxy Ethyl 3625 0.35 md
(2015) Cellulose (HEC) + 0.1% antifoaming agent
221 ◦ C – 14d High Sulphate resistant class H cement + 35% SF + Hydroxy Ethyl 4206 0.35 md
Cellulose (HEC) + 0.1% antifoaming agent
Nelson et al. 204 ◦ C – 1d, 28d Class G + 35% Silica Flour + 54% H2O + Sugar retarder + 1.5% 7600 (1d) and 3625 0.01 md
(1981) Cellulosic FLA, 15.94 ppg (28d)
204 C ◦
– 1d, 28d Class G + 35% Silica Flour + 54% H2O + 1% Sugar retarder + 0.35 gal/ 5990 (1d) and 3495 0.01 md
sk liquid FLA + 0.8% Dispersant, 15.94 ppg (28d)
204 ◦ C – 1d, 28d Class B + 35% Silica Flour + 54% H2O + 1% sugar retarder + 1.5% NS (1d) and 2683 0.01 md
cellulosic FLA, 15.94 ppg (28d)
204 ◦ C – 1d, 28d Class J + 44% H20 + 1.5% cellulosic FLA+ 0.4% Sugar retarder, 15.44 4380 (1d) and 3495 0.01 md
ppg (28d)
204 C ◦
– 1d, 28d Class J + 44% H20 + 0.35 gal/sk liquid FLA+ 0.8% Dispersant + 0.4% 3814 (1d) and 2567 0.01 md
Sugar retarder, 15.44 ppg (28d)
204 ◦ C – 1d, 28d Class G + 35% Silica flour + 2% Bentonite + 8.5%perlite + 1.5% 2059 (1d) and 1566 0.09 md
cellulosic FLA + 1% Sugar retarder + 116% H2O, 13.52 ppg (28d)
204 ◦ C – 1d, 28d Class G + 35% Silica flour +20% Diatomaceous earth+ 1.5% cellulosic 2248 (1d) and 2001 0.1 md
FLA + 1% Sugar retarder + 91% H2O, 14.52 ppg (28d)
204 ◦ C – 1d, 28d Class G + 100% Silica flour + 2% Silica retarder + 1% NaOH + 1.5% 2567 (1d) and 942 0.04 md
cellulosic FLA + 1% Sugar retarder + 136% H2O, 16.02 ppg (28d)

Authors Curing Conditions Cement Slurry Recipe Tested Compressive Strength - CS (psi) Permeability (md)

Temperature Pressure Time

(◦ C) (Psi) (d- day, y-year)

Pyatina and Sugama (2016) 300 ◦

C 1200 1d TSRC 1 2610 (before) and 2610 (after) –
300 ◦
C 1200 1d TSRC 2 2016 (before) and 2364 (after) –
300 ◦
C 1200 1d TSRC 3 1624 (before) and 2132 (after) –
300 ◦
C 1200 1d TSCR 4 1841 (before) and 3075 (after) –
300 ◦
C 1200 1d Class G + 30% Silica 2524 (before) and 2973 (after) –
300 ◦
C 1200 1d CPC + 5.6% Sodium hexametaphosphate 3669 (before) and 3567 (after) –
Wang et al. (2017) 150 ◦
C 9427 1d Class G 3614 –
150 ◦
C 9427 1d Class G + 10% NSS 2442 –
150 ◦
C 9427 1d Class G + 35% SF 7956 –
150 ◦
C 9427 1d Class G + 60% NSS + 21% SF 2501 –
150 ◦
C 9427 1d Class G + 100% NSS + 35% SF 2404 –
Costa et al. (2017) 300 ◦
C – 7d, 28d Special Class A 580 (7d), 696 (28d) –
300 ◦
C – 7d, 28d Special Class A + 30% Silica 2755 (7d), 3190 (28d) –
300 ◦
C – 7d, 28d Special Class A + 35% Silica 3916 (7d), 3900 (28d) –
300 ◦
C – 7d, 28d Special Class A + 40% Silica 3045 (7d), 3916 (28d) –
Vidal et al. (2018) 300 ◦
C – 28d Class G + 35% Silica 3166 –
300 ◦
C – 28d Class G + 40% RHA + Dispersant + FLA 3520 –

(continued on next page)

8
N. Arbad et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869

(continued)

Authors Curing Conditions Cement Slurry Recipe Tested Compressive Strength - CS Permeability
(psi) (md)
Temperature Pressure Time

(◦ C) (Psi) (d- day, y-

year)

Paiva et al. 49 ◦ C 14.6 14d Class G + 40% Micro silica 2630 –

(2018) 49 ◦ C 14.6 14d P3 = Sio 2/Al2O3+ K2O/Al2O3 + H20/K2O + 2520 –
Defoamer
49 ◦ C 14.6 14d P4 = P3 +10.6% Micro silica + Retarder 5600 –
49 ◦ C 14.6 14d P5 = P3+ 5.3% Micro silica + Retarder + Wollastonite 5420 –
Wang et al. 200 ◦ C – 3d Nano SiO2-basalt Fiber composite cement 1450 –
(2020)

Note.
• 1d, 3d, 7d, 28d- Compressive strength after 1, 3, 7, 28 days of curing respectively.
• NS–No Strength, NA – Not Available.
• XXXX (Before), XXXX (After) – Compressive Strength before and after exposure to H2SO4 for 18 days at 90◦ C.
• Additives are added by weight of cement (BWOC).

References & gas under the supply and demand dynamics in the world. In: Soc. Pet. Eng. - SPE
Eur. Featur. 82nd EAGE Conf. Exhib. EURO 2021. https://doi.org/10.2118/205116-
ms.
Achang, M., Radonjic, M., 2020. Olivine-portland cement as a solution to wellbore
Capuano, L.E., 2016. Geothermal Well Drilling, Geothermal Power Generation:
integrity issues in CO2-rich geothermal reservoirs. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour.
Developments and Innovation. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-
Counc. 44, 2–14.
100337-4.00005-X.
Ahmed, S., Patel, H., Salehi, S., Ahmed, R., Teodoriu, C., 2020. Numerical and
Carter, G., Smith, D.K., 1958. Properties of cementing compositions at elevated
experimental evaluation of liner dual barrier system in geothermal wells. In:
temperatures and pressure. Trans. AIME 213, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.2118/892-
PROCEEDINGS, 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, pp. 1–11.
g.
Alexander, R., 2020. Global geothermal power update. Think Geoenergy Res. https
Cerasi, P., Ghaderi, A., Taghipour, A., Todorovic, J., Gawel, K., Coquard, R.,
://www.slideshare.net/thinkgeoenergy/global-geothermal-power-market-
Edvardsen, L., Agofack, N., Bhuiyan, H., 2020. Testing methods to assess improved
overview-april-2020.
well cementing and remediation. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 44, 29–37.
Allahvirdizadeh, P., 2020. A review on geothermal wells: well integrity issues. J. Clean.
Childers, M.I., Nguyen, M.T., Rod, K.A., Koech, P.K., Um, W., Chun, J., Glezakou, V.A.,
Prod. 275, 124009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124009.
Linn, D., Roosendaal, T.J., Wietsma, T.W., Huerta, N.J., Kutchko, B.G., Fernandez, C.
API 10B: Recommended Practice for Testing Well Cements, 2000.
A., 2017. Polymer-cement composites with self-healing ability for geothermal and
Arbad, N., Bello, O., Silias, F.A.R., Teodoriu, C., Amani, M., 2020. A new look at neat
fossil energy applications. Chem. Mater. 29, 4708–4718. https://doi.org/10.1021/
cement slurry properties in the digital age: experimental investigations and data
acs.chemmater.7b00344.
analysis using a python package. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 44, 15–28.
Conde Silva, J., Milestone, N.B., 2018a. Cement/rock interaction in geothermal wells.
Arbad, N., Rincon, F., Teodoriu, C., Amani, M., 2021a. Experimental investigation of
The effect of silica addition to the cement and the impact of CO2 enriched brine.
deterioration in mechanical properties of oil-based mud (OBM) contaminated API
Geothermics 73, 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2018.01.004.
cement slurries & correlations for ultrasonic cement analysis. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 205,
Conde Silva, J., Milestone, N.B., 2018b. The effect of the rock type on the degradation of
108909 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2021.108909.
well cements in CO2 enriched geothermal environments. Geothermics 75, 235–248.
Arbad, N., Rincon, F., Teodoriu, C., Amani, M., 2021b. Mechanical properties of API class
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2018.06.002.
C cement contaminated with oil-based mud OBM at elevated temperatures and early
Costa, B.L. de S., Souza, G.G. de, Freitas, J.C. de O., Araujo, R.G., da, S., Santos, P.H.S.,
curing time. In: Proceedings - SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry.
2017. Silica content influence on cement compressive strength in wells subjected to
https://doi.org/10.2118/204302-MS.
steam injection. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 158, 626–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Arbad, N., Teodoriu, C., 2020. A review of recent research on contamination of oil well
petrol.2017.09.006.
cement with oil-based drilling fluid and the need of new and accurate correlations.
Da Silva, J.R.M.C., Milestone, N.B., Johnston, J.H., 2013. The effect of CO2 exposure and
Chem. Eng. 4, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemengineering4020028.
curing time on the cement-rock interaction in geothermal wells. Trans. - Geotherm.
Augustine, C., Ho, J., Blair, N., 2019. GeoVision Analysis Supporting Task Force Report:
Resour. Counc. 37, 75–82.
Electric Sector Potential to Penetration.
Denninger, K., Eustes, A., Visser, C., Baker, W., Bolton, D., Bell, J., Bell, S., Jacobs, A.,
Basoeki, Moh, Radja, V.T., 1978. Cement degradation and casing corrosion in Cerro
Nagandran, U., Tilley, M., Quick, R., 2015. Optimizing geothermal drilling: oil and
prieto geothermal wells. Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 2, 35–38.
gas technology transfer. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 39, 171–180.
Berard, B., Hernández, R., Nguyen, H., 2009. Foamed calcium aluminate phosphate
DiPippo, R., 2016. Overview of Geothermal Energy Conversion Systems: Reservoir-Wells-
cement enables drilling and cementation of California Geothermal Wells. Trans. -
Piping-Plant-Reinjection, Geothermal Power Generation: Developments and
Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 33, 75–78.
Innovation. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100337-4.00008-5.
Bernal, S.A., Rodríguez, E.D., De Gutiérrez, R.M., Provis, J.L., 2015. Performance at high
DOE, 2006. A history of geothermal energy research and development in the United
temperature of alkali-activated slag pastes produced with silica fume and rice husk
States, 2006 Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 2, 35–38.
ash based activators. Mater. Construcción 65. https://doi.org/10.3989/
Doughty, C., Dobson, P.F., Wall, A., McLing, T., Weiss, C., 2018. GeoVision Analysis:
mc.2015.03114.
Exploration Task Force Report.
Biernacki, J.J., Bullard, J.W., Sant, G., Brown, K., Glasser, F.P., Jones, S., Ley, T.,
Edwards, L.M., 1982. Handbook of Geothermal Energy.
Livingston, R., Nicoleau, L., Olek, J., Sanchez, F., Shahsavari, R., Stutzman, P.E.,
Eilers, L.H., Nelson, E.B., 1979. Effect of silica particle size on degradation of silica
Sobolev, K., Prater, T., 2017. Cements in the 21st century: challenges, perspectives,
stabilized portland cement. In: SPE of AIME International Symposium on Oilfield &
and opportunities. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 100, 2746–2773. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Geothermal Chemistry.
jace.14948.
Elders, W.A., Moore, J.N., 2016. Geology of Geothermal Resources, Geothermal Power
Bp, 2020. Statistical Review of World Energy Globally Consistent Data on World Energy
Generation: Developments and Innovation. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Markets . And Authoritative Publications in the Field of Energy the Statistical Review
B978-0-08-100337-4.00002-4.
World of World Energy and Data on World Energy Markets from Is the Review Has
Erkan, K., Blackwell, D.D., Leidig, M., 2005. Crustal thermal regime at the geysers/clear
Been Providing 66.
lake area, California. Proc. World Geotherm. Congr. 2, 24–29.
Bronicki, L.Y., 2016. Introduction to Geothermal Power Generation, Geothermal Power
Finger, J., Blankenship, D., 2010. Handbook of best practices for geothermal drilling
Generation: Developments and Innovation. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/
(SAND2010-6048 Sandia Rep 84. Figure 2.
B978-0-08-100337-4.00001-2.
Fridrik Hilmar, Z.F., 2017. An Improved Cement Slurry Formulation for Oil and
Brothers, L., Iverson, B., Bour, D., 2010. Nonportland Cement-Based Systems for
Geothermal Wells. University of Stavanger.
Geothermal Well Use.
Gallus, J.P., Watters, L.T., Pyle, D.E., 1979. Performance of oilwell cementing
Budiawan, A., Farahani, H.S., Anugrah, A., Brandl, A., 2014. Innovative Cement Spacer
compositions in geothermal wells. Soc. Pet. Eng. AIME J. 19, 233–241. https://doi.
Improves Well Cementing Integrity - 60 Case, pp. 1–16.
org/10.2118/7591-pa.
Buntoro, A., Yogyakarta, U.P.N.V., S, R.R., 2000. The effect of neat magnesium oxide as
Gill, S.K., Pyatina, T., Sugama, T., 2012. Thermal shock-resistant cement. Trans. -
expanding additive on cement shear bond strength at high temperature up to 250oC.
Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 36 (1), 445–451.
Proc. World Geotherm. Congr. 2325–2333, 2000.
Gollmyer, E., Mitchell, S., Bailey, A., Rickard, B., Pye, S., 2011. Casing protection for
Canbaz, C.H., Aydin, H., Canbaz, E., Akberov, I., Aksahan, F., Hussain, A., Emadi, H.,
geothermal wells. GRC Trans. 35.
Temizel, C., 2021. A comprehensive review and status of renewable resources and oil

9
N. Arbad et al.
Grabowski, E., Gillott, J.E., 1989. Effect of replacement of silica flour with silica fume on
engineering properties of oilwell cements at normal and elevated temepratures and
pressures. Cement Concr. Res. 19, 333–344.
Guerra, E., 1998. Cementing of geothermally wells. Geotherm. Train. Progr. 157–188.
Haizlip, J.R., 2016. Application of geochemistry to resource assessment and geothermal
development projects. Geotherm. Power Gener. Dev. Innov. 77–106. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100337-4.00004-8.
Hole, H., 2010. Drilling fluids for drilling of geothermal wells. World Geotherm. Congr.
2010 1–201026.
Hole, H., 2008a. Geothermal Well Design – Casing and Wellhead. Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Hole, H., 2008b. Geothermal Well Cementing.
Hussain, A., Emadi, H., Botchway, K., 2021. How nanoparticles have ameliorated the
challenges in drilling operations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 197, 107931 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107931.
Kalousek, G.L., Chaw, S.Y., 1976. Research on cements for geothermal and deep oil wells.
Soc. Pet. Eng. AIME J. 16, 307–309. https://doi.org/10.2118/5940-pa.
Karanja, N., 2015. Challenges of cementing Olkaria geothermal field. Trans. - Geotherm.
Resour. Counc. 39, 185–189.
Khaemba, A.W., 2015. Well design and well workover to land deep production casings in
the Menengai field. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 39, 191–196.
Klapper, H.S., Schorling, P., Lause, B., Mok, W., Zonneveld, W.V., Castricum, A.,
Moeller, M., 2019. Addressing Integrity Issues in Downhole Equipment by Corrosion
Inhibition in Sweet Geothermal Brines, pp. 1–8.
Klementich, E.F., Jellison, M.J., 1989. Tubing String design considerations for
geopressured geothermal wells. Growth Dev. Aging 53, 1–10.
Krakowiak, K.J., Thomas, J.J., James, S., Abuhaikal, M., Ulm, F.J., 2018. Development of
silica-enriched cement-based materials with improved aging resistance for
application in high-temperature environments. Cement Concr. Res. 105, 91–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2018.01.004.
Kruszewski, M., Ramirez, M., Wittig, V., Sanchez, M., Bracke, R., 2018. Drilling and well
completion challenges in the Los Humeros geothermal field, Mexico. Trans. -
Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 42, 337–348.
Liles, K.J., Sadler, Y.L., Goode, A.H., 1976. Geothermal well drilling FLuid technology - a
literature survey. Growth. Dev. Aging 53, 1–10.
Liu, X., Hughes, P., McCabe, K., Spitler, J., Southard, L., 2019. GeoVision Analysis
Supporting Task Force Report: Thermal Applications— Geothermal Heat Pumps.
Magzoub, M., Salehi, S., Li, G., Fan, J., Teodoriu, C., 2021. Loss circulation prevention in
geothermal drilling by shape memory polymer. Geothermics 89, 101943. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2020.101943.
Marbun, B.T.H., Ridwan, R.H., Sinaga, S.Z., Pande, B., Purbantanu, B.A., 2019. Casing
failure identification of long-abandoned geothermal wells in Field Dieng, Indonesia.
Geoth. Energy 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40517-019-0146-3.
Milestone, N.B., Bigley, C.H., Durant, A.T., Sharp, M.D.W., 2012. Effects of CO2 on
geothermal cements. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 36 (1), 301–306.
Mohamed, A., Salehi, S., Ahmed, R., 2021. Significance and complications of drilling
fluid rheology in geothermal drilling: a review. Geothermics 93, 102066. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2021.102066.
Mundhenk, N., Huttenloch, P., Kohl, T., Steger, H., Zorn, R., 2012. Laboratory and in-situ
corrosion studies in geothermal environments. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 36
2, 1101–1105.
Nelson, E.B., Eilers, L.H., Spangle, L.B., 1981. Evaluation and development of cement
systems for geothermal wells. In: Proc. - SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib. 1981-Octob.
https://doi.org/10.2118/10217-ms.
NORSOK, 2013. Norsok Standard D-010: Well Integrity in Drilling and Well Operations,
pp. 1–244.
Omosebi, O., Maheshwari, H., Ahmed, R., Shah, S., Osisanya, S., Santra, A., Saasen, A.,
2015. Investigating temperature effect on degradation of well cement in HPHT
carbonic acid environment. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 26, 1344–1362. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jngse.2015.08.018.
Ostroot, G.W., Shryock, S., 1964. Cementing geothermal steam wells. J. Petrol. Technol.
16, 1425–1429. https://doi.org/10.2118/904-pa.
Ostroot, G.W., Walker, W.A., 1960. Improved composition for cementing wells with
extreme temperatures. In: 35th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, pp. 277–284. https://
doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-891127-50-2.50020-x.
Paiva, M.D.M., Silva, E.C.C.M., Melo, D.M.A., Martinelli, A.E., Schneider, J.F., 2018.
A geopolymer cementing system for oil wells subject to steam injection. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 169, 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2018.06.022.
Parri, R., Lazzeri, F., Cataldi, R., 2016. Larderello: 100 Years of Geothermal Power Plant
Evolution in Italy, Geothermal Power Generation: Developments and Innovation.
Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100337-4.00019-X.
Philippacopolos, A.J., Brookhaven, N.L., Gutierrez, P., California, E.C., Capuano, L.,
ThermaSource, I., Berndt, M., Maunsell, A., 2006. Structural integrity of well
cements. Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 30, 277–282.
Pyatina, T., Sugama, T., 2020. Cements with supplementary cementitious materials for
high-temperature geothermal wells. Geothermics 86, 101840. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geothermics.2020.101840.
Pyatina, T., Sugama, T., 2019. Self-healing and Crack-sealing ability of 30-day-long
300◦ C cured thermal shock resistant cement composites. Geotherm. Resour. Counc.
43, 1125–1149.
Pyatina, T., Sugama, T., 2016. Acid resistance of calcium aluminate cement-fly ash F
blends. Adv. Cement Res. 28, 433–457. https://doi.org/10.1680/jadcr.15.00139.
Pyatina, T., Sugama, T., 2014. Set controlling additive for thermal-shock-resistant
cement. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 38, 251–257.
Ravi, K., Fukuzawa, M., Hunter, W.J., Noerdin, A.I., 2008. Advanced cement systems
used to improve geothermal well reliability in java. Proc. - SPE Annu. Tech. Conf.
Exhib. 3, 1648–1658. https://doi.org/10.2118/115638-ms.
10
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869
Renner, J.L., 2006. The Future of Geothermal Energy.
Rickard, W.M., Hernández, J., Bailey, A., 2012. Top Squeeze or Top Fill : Improved
Secondary Cementing for Geothermal Wells, pp. 21–23.
Rod, K.A., Fernandez, C.A., Koech, P.K., Dai, G., Correa, M., Huerta, N., Burton, S.,
Miller, Q.R.S., Resch, C.T., 2020a. Self-repairing polymer-modified cements for high
temperature geothermal and fossil energy applications. Geothermics 85, 101790.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.101790.
Rod, K.A., Fernandez, C.A., Koech, P.K., Dai, G., Correa, M., Huerta, N., Burton, S.,
Miller, Q.R.S., Resch, C.T., 2020b. Self-repairing polymer-modified cements for high
temperature geothermal and fossil energy applications. Geothermics 85, 101790.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2019.101790.
Saito, S., 1994. A new advanced method for top-job casing cementing. Geotherm. Resour.
Counc. 18, 35–38.
Salehi, S., 2020. Review and studies of geothermal wells cement design from. Well
Integr. Perspect. 44, 2020.
Salim, P., Amani, M., 2013. Principal points in cementing geothermal wells. Adv. Pet.
Explor. Dev. 5, 77–91. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.aped.1925543820130501.1145.
Santra, A., Liang, F., Fitzgerald, R., 2009. Sorel cement for HPHT downhole applications.
In: SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry.
Saunders, C.D., Walker, W.A., 1954. Strength of oil well cements and additives under
high temperature well conditions. Soc. Pet. Eng. - Fall Meet. Pet. Branch AIME, FM
1954. https://doi.org/10.2118/390-g.
Shadravan, A., Hughes, B., Ghasemi, M., Alfi, M., 2015. Zonal Isolation in Geothermal
Wells. PROCEEDINGS, Fortieth Work. Geotherm. Reserv. Eng. Stanford Univ.
Fortieth W, pp. 1–10.
Sharma, A., Al Dushaishi, M., Nygaard, R., 2021. Fixed bit rotary drilling failure criteria
effect on drilling vibration. In: 55th U.S. Rock Mech./Geomech. Symp. 2021 5.
Shryock, S.H., 1984. Geothermal well cementing technology. In: 5th Offshore South East
Asia.
Smith, J.H., 1978. Casing failures in geothermal bores at wairakei. Geotherm. Resour.
Counc. 2, 35–38.
Southon, J.N.A., Knight Merz, S., 2005. Geothermal well design, construction and
failures. Proc. World Geotherm. Congr. 24–29.
Specification for Cements and Materials for Well Cementing API Specification 10A, 2010.
Stevens, L., 2000. Monitoring of casing integrity in geothermal wells. High Temp.
2431–2433.
Sugama, T., 2006. Advanced cements for geothermal wells. Brookhaven Sci. Lab.
Contract No. https://doi.org/10.2172/909955.
Sugama, T., Pyatina, T., Gill, S., 2012. Thermal Shock-Resistant Cement.
Sveinbjornsson, B.M., Thorhallsson, S., 2014. Drilling performance, injectivity and
productivity of geothermal wells. Geothermics 50, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geothermics.2013.08.011.
Teodoriu, C., 2013. Why and when does casing fail in geothermal wells. Oil Gas Eur.
Mag. 39, 38–40.
Teodoriu, C., Falcone, G., 2009. Comparing completion design in hydrocarbon and
geothermal wells: the need to evaluate the integrity of casing connections subject to
thermal stresses. Geothermics 38, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2008.11.006.
Teodoriu, C., Ugwu, I., Schubert, J., 2010. Estimation of casing-cement-formation
interaction using a new analytical model. 72nd Eur. Assoc. Geosci. Eng. Conf. Exhib.
2010 A New Spring Geosci. Inc. SPE Eur. 3, 2257–2270. https://doi.org/10.2523/
131335-ms, 2010.
Thorhallsson, S., 2003. Geothermal Well Operation and Maintenance. IGC2003 Short
Course, Geotherm. Train. Program. United Nations Univ. Iceland, Sept, pp. 195–217.
Trabits, George, Trabits, Geoff, Pyatina, T., Sugama, T., 2019. Development of an
improved cement for geothermal wells. Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 43.
Tuttle, J.D., Listi, R., Tate, R., 2020. Geothermal drilling corrosion - reducing costs and
failures with onsite monitoring and treatment. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 44,
756–766.
U.S. Department of Energy, 2019. GEO Vision: Harnessing the Heat beneath Our Feet.
Vidal, A.V., Araujo, R.G.S., Freitas, J.C.O., 2018. Sustainable cement slurry using rice
husk ash for high temperature oil well. J. Clean. Prod. 204, 292–297. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.058.
Visser, C.F., III AWE, Baker, W., Tucker, J., Quick, R., Nagle, T., Bell, J., Bell, S.,
Bolton, D., Nagandran, U., 2018. Geothermal Drilling and Completions: Petroleum
Practices Technology Transfer.
Vivas, C., Salehi, S., Tuttle, J.D., Rickard, B., 2020. Challenges and opportunities of
geothermal drilling for renewable energy generation. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour.
Counc. 44, 904–918.
Vu, M.H., Bois, A.P., Badalamenti, A.M., 2020. Cement mechanical integrity for
geothermal wells. Trans. - Geotherm. Resour. Counc. 44, 129–142.
Wang, C., Chen, X., Wei, X., Wang, R., 2017. Can nanosilica sol prevent oil well cement
from strength retrogression under high temperature? Construct. Build. Mater. 144,
574–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.221.
Wang, S., Wu, L., Jiang, G., Jian, L., Zhang, T., Chen, S., Chen, L., 2020. A high
temperature composite cement for geothermal application. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 195,
107909 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2020.107909.
Weber, E., Emerson, E., Harris, K., Brothers, L., 1998. The application of a new corrosion
resistant cement in geothermal wells. Trans. Geoth. Resour. Counc. 22, 25–30.
Won, J., Lee, D., Na, K., Lee, I.M., Choi, H., 2015. Physical properties of G-class cement
for geothermal well cementing in South Korea. Renew. Energy 80, 123–131. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.01.067.
N. Arbad et al.
Wu, Y., Patel, H., Salehi, S., 2021. Parametric study of mechanical stresses within cement
sheath in geothermal wells. Geothermics 90, 102000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geothermics.2020.102000.
Yanagisawa, N., Masuda, Y., Sakura, K., Osato, K., 2016. The review of the material
corrosion under geothermal condition in Japan. Proc. 41st Work. Geotherm. Reserv.
Eng. 3, 2–6.
11
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 217 (2022) 110869
Zhang, W., Sun, Q., Hao, S., Geng, J., Lv, C., 2016. Experimental study on the variation of
physical and mechanical properties of rock after high temperature treatment. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 98, 1297–1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2016.01.010.