SPE 10217
SPE
Evaluation and Development of Cement Systems for
Geothermal Wells
by Erik B. Nelson,* Louis H. Eilers,* and Lloyd B. Spangle, Dowell Div. of Dow
Chemical U.S.A.
'Member SPE·AIME
This paper was presented at the 56th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in
San Antonio, Texas, October 5-7, 1981. The 'material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words. Write: 6200 N. Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas 75206.
Th is work wa s performed under the au spi ces of the
U.S. Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-AC02-
77ET28324, and coordi nated by Brookhaven National
Laboratory. By acceptance of this article, the
publisher and/or reCipient acknowledges the U.S.
Government's right to retain a nonexclusive
royalty-free license in and to any copyright cover-
ing this paper.
ABSTRACT
Results of a three-year study concerni ng the ce-
menting of geothermal wells are reported. The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) funded research included
some specific tasks: (1) determination of proper-
ties an adequate geothermal well must possess; (2)
thorough evaluation of current high-temperature
oi 1we 11 cement i ng technology ina geothermal con-
text; and (3) recommendation of specific cement
systems suitable for use in a geothermal well.
I NTRODUCTI ON
At the present time, geothermal wells are completed
in much the same manner as co nvent i ona 1 0 i1 wells;
however, the environment with which completion
materials must contend in a geothermal well can be
much rnore severe. For example, the bottom-hole
temperature in a geothermal well can be as high as
370°C and the format i on bri nes downhole are often
saline and corrosive. The lure of
wells n several geothermal fields l has been
directly attributed to degradation of the cement,
implying that the cementing materials currently
used to compl ete geotherma 1 well s may not ha ve been
sufficiently evaluated. This paper describes a
three-year research effort performed at Dowell to
examine currently utilized cementing systems and
to identify the best formulations for the comple-
tion of geothermal wells.
The project was divided into two major phases.
Phase I was concerned with the definition of re-
quirements for geothermal cements, and the develop-
ment of test procedures to s imul ate a geotherma 1
References and illustrations at end of paper.
Society of Petroletm Engineers of A 1M E
environment. Phase II involved laboratory and well
site evaluation of candidate geothermal cement
systems. Also involved in Phase II was a basic re-
search program havi ng to do with the chemi stry of
cements at the el evated temperatures commonly en-
countered in geothermal \tJell s. Results of the
bas i c research have been pr evi ousl y pr esent-
ed 3 ,4,5 and will not be covered here.
PHASE I
To better defi ne the geotherma 1 pr ob 1em and to de-
termine the properties a geothermal well cement
must possess, several operators and engi neers frorll
various companies with geothermal drilling and
completion expertise were interviewed. For reasons
of confidentiality, the operators surveyed will not
be identified here nor will the exact area in which
they are currently doing business be revealed. This
concession was necessary to obtain most of the
information. The information gleaned from these
i ntervi ews wa s ext reme ly va 1uab 1e in that sever a 1
misconceptions concerning geothermal cementing were
cleared up, and a more accurate and representative
testing program could be designed and initiated. A
summary of the most important findings is found in
Table 1.
The survey result s show that temper atur es encoun-
tered during cementing operations rarely surpass
216°C, and typically are in the vicinity of 115°e.
These temperatures are somewhat lower than what one
would intuitively expect considering the bottom-
hole static temperatures encountered in most geo-
thermal wells. The reported reservoir temperatures
ranged from 200° to 375°C. In addition, most of
the drilling/cementing programs of the companies
i ntervi ewed call for sett i n9 of cas i ng above the
geothermal zone before the higher temperatures are
actually encountered.
Desired compressive strengths fall into the 15.8 to
20.7 MPa range, but 6.9 MPa at extended time would
2 EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT SYSTEMS FOR GEOTHERMAL WELLS
be acceptable to most operators. Chemistry of the
reservoir fluids varies widely from essentially
fresh-water levels up to 44,000 mg/L total dis-
solved solids, with both carbonate and sulfate ions
present. Many of the hot, dry steam wells produce
up to two per cent noncondensible gases, 0.3 per
cent of which is hydrogen sulfide.
Virtually all of those surveyed expressed interest
in lighter density cements due to the highly frac-
tured and permeable nature of most geothermal for-
mations. Densities of 1.44 to 1.68 cm 3 are in
current use, but densities in the 1.11 to 1.20
g/cm 3 range are desired. Additional points men-
t i oned but not shown in the table i ndi cated that
downho 1e pressures are rarely above hydrostat i c,
and that thermal shock effects on the cement sheath
are considered to be significant.
Information from the survey was very helpful in the
design of a testing program to effectively evaluate
existing geothermal cementing technology as well as
new and untried systems. The testing program for
possible geothermal cement systems was designed to
be comprehensive and discriminating; as a result,
literally hundreds of compositions were involved.
For each of these compositions, several tests were
required for a complete evaluation. To minimize
the total number of tests and to avoid unnecessary
and redundant evaluations, a screening program was
devised to quickly identify unsuitable systems and
save more complicated and time-consuming tests for
systems whi ch showed promi se. A flow di agr am of
the screening procedure is found in Figure 1.
Testing generally conformed to procedures s pecifi d
by the American Petroleum Institute (API); 5 least to be dimensionally stable (Le., zero per
however, some changes were occas i ona 11y made to
more accurately simulate conditions peculiar to
geothermal wells.
For any cement system to be seriously considered
for suitability in a downhole environment, one must
first be certain that the material can be success-
fully placed in the well. Thus, a thickening time
test was the fi rst step in the screeni ng proces s.
For this program, the tests were run at 150°C and
36.0 MPa pressure. Systems that could not be
pumped for at least three hours under these condi-
tions were immediately dropped from consideration.
Systems that survived the thickening time evalua-
tion were next subjected to compressive strength
tests. Candidate cement slurries were cured at
227° a nd 316°C. The mi nimum acceptable standa rds
for strength development were 3.5 MPa within 24 hr
and 7.0 MPa within seven days of curing.
Cement compositions that exhibited satisfactory
compress i ve strength development were next eva 1ua-
ted as to water permeability. In many cases, perm-
eability is more critical than compressive strength
because a highly permeable cement cannot effec-
tively isolate producing zones, and is more suscep-
tible to corrosion by geothermal brines. Maximum
acceptable permeabilities varied depending upon the
density of the cement system in question. Realis-
tically, a low-density slurry cannot be expected to
be as impermeable as a higher density composition.
Thus, the systems were divided into two groups:
normal density (greater than or equal to 1.8
g/cm 3 ) and low density (less than 1.8 g/cm 3 ).
The maximum allowable permeabilities for the light
and normal weight systems were 0.25 and 0.10 md,
respect ively.
The next test for survivi ng cement systems was a
shear bonding test. This evaluation was designed to
determine how well the cement would bond to sol-
vent-c 1eaned smooth surface pi pe. Two-i nch pi eces
of lathe-surfaced pipe were placed in the center of
standard two-inch cube molds and cement slurry was
pour ed into and around the pi pe. After 28 days of
curing under water at 204°C and 17.5 MPa, the molds
were removed from the curing chamber or autoclave.
The fi rst bond strength measurement determi ned the
force necessary to break the cement/steel bond in
the interior of the pipe. A compressive strength
testing press was used to punch the cement "core ll
out of the pi pe. Next, the cement/steel bond to
the outer surface of the pipe was measured. Bond
strength was calculated by dividing the total force
necessary to break the bond by the surface area of
the cement/steel interface. The minimum acceptable
strength was 0.7 MPa.
Following the bond tests, the surviving cement sys-
tems, which by now had shown considerable promise,
were tested for degree of expansion upon curing. A
limited amount of cement expansion can be very
beneficial in that it facilitates intimate bonding
of the cement to both the pipe and formation. Usu-
ally, 0.2 to 0.4 per cent expansion is considered
optimum. For this screening program, however, the
candidate cement systems were expected at the very
cent expansion). On the other hand, expansion
greater than one per cent was cons i dered exces-
sive.
The final step in the screening program was an ero-
sion test to determine the effects of dynamic steam
and brine contact. Any system that exhibited ten-
dencies of sloughing was considered unstable and
rejected. To accomplish such testing, a geothermal
simulator was designed and constructed. The appa-
ratus was named the Dynamic Brine Exposure Testing
Apparatus (D-BETA). A schematic diagram of the
D-BETA appears in Figure 2.
The D-BETA is a recirculating system in which a
synthetic geothermal brine flows past up to 32 one-
inch diameter cylindrical cement specimens. The
rate of flow is adjustable and the brine may be
heated to 350°C with pressure up to 21.4 MPa. The
composition of the brine, given in Table 2, is
typical of those found in moderately saline geo-
thermal wells at East Mesa, California 7 • After
exposure to the brine for specified periods of
time, ranging from 28 days to 15 months, the cement
cores were removed and exami ned.
Cement systems that survived the screening program
were next sl ated for dynami c testing under actua 1
geothermal conditions at wells located at East Mesa
and Niland, California. The brines to which the
cement were exposed ranged from moderate ly sal i ne
at East Mesa to extremely saline at Niland. Brine
compositions are listed in Table 2.
SPE 10217 E. B. NELSON, L. H. EILERS AND L. B. SPANGLE
The testing apparatus at East Mesa was very similar
to the D-BETA in basic design. The temperature of
the brine was about 150°C, and the brine did not
reci rcul ate but made one pass through the appa-
ratus. At Niland, the test procedure was much
simpler. Due to the extreme salinity of the brine,
scaling was a canmon problem and the well was shut
down periodically to restore circulation. Thus,
the circulating design used at East Mesa was deemed
unsuitable for fear of plugging. The cement sam-
ples were instead placed in a wire basket that was
bolted inside one of the well IS flashers. Exposure
of cement to a flashing brine as corrosive as that
found at Niland was a particularly rigorous test.
PHASE II
Dur i ng Phase I I, hundreds of tests were performed
on over a hundred candidate cement systems. Due to
space limitations, it would be impossible to de-
scribe the performance of each of the systems;
therefore, only the mas t sign i fi ca nt result s that
serve to characterize the behavior of each cement
category are reported here. In general, this inves-
tigation was limited to materials that are current-
ly readily available in the oilfield. With few
exceptions our efforts were concentrated on cemen-
titious materials based upon calcium silicate
hydrates.
The most extensive group of candidates was based
upon s il i ca-stabil i zed port 1and cement 8 , 9. Three
tyses of portland cement, API Classes B, G and
HI , were evaluated in conjunction which various
extenders, dispersants, retarders, etc., to be dis-
cussed later.
Several types of non-portland cements were thor-
oughly tested. API Class J cement is a special
formul at i on for use in high-temper at ure we 11 bore
environments. Due to the absence of fast hydrating
tricalcium silicate, Class J slurries can often be
placed without adding retarders.
Some commercially prepared lightweight cements were
evaluated as potential geothermal binders. These
cements are essentially portland cements that have
been premixed with a low-density siliceous aggre-
gate materi a1. Another. modi fied portl and cement,
known as "sl ag cement was evaluated. Sl ag cement
II ,
is a normal grind combination of portland cement
and special blast furnace slag with normal voJater
requi rements.
Because geothermal wells are at high temperature
and the formations are typically fractured and
weak, the use of retarders and extenders is almost
mandatory. The most commonly used retarders i n-
clude chemicals that fall into two categories:
lignosulfonates and modified sugars. Such chemi-
cals, usually added between 0.1 and 3.0 per cent by
weight of cement, were used extensively in this
progr am.
Extenders comprise a much more diverse group of
materials. Generally, extenders hold additional
water and thus allow substantial reductions in
3
slurry density. Due to some rather complex chem-
ical interactions that occur in cements at elevated
temperatures, one must be careful when choosing an
extender for a geothermal well cement ll . In this
investigation, the following extenders were inves-
tigated: bentonite (gel), perlite, fly ash, diato-
maceous earth, coal, gilsonite and sodium silicate.
In addition to these a special material, hollow
glass microspheres, was investigated as a method
for produci ng geothermal cements of extremely low
dens ity.
The only nonsiliceous cement system that was thor-
oughly investigated in this study was based upon
mixtures of furfuryl alcohol and ground coal. A
50:50 mixture of furfuryl alcohol and partially
polymerized furfuryl alcohol was blended with coal
of a particle size that would pass through a No. 20
sieve. ZnC12 is a catalyst "for the solidifica-
t ion 0 f the s y stem, and the t hie ken i n9 time i s
controlled by varying its concentration.
SCREENING PROGRAM RESULTS
The initial screening program, described earlier,
was the most comprehensive and time-consuming task
in this project. Table 3 lists the systems that.
collectively. indicate the general behavior of each
category of cand i dates. Table 4 is a compil at ion
of screening program results.
API Classes G and B portland cements were tested
extensively under geothermal conditions in the
screening program. In general, Class G systems
performed better than thei r Cl ass B counterparts.
Both portland cements were superior to most non-
portland cements.
All of the normal weight Class G systems (Nos. 1, 2
and 3) performed sat i sfactori ly wi th Systems 2 and
3 performing best. Both exhibited excellent
strength and extremely low permeability. System 3,
containing fly ash, exhibited the highest outside-
bond strength of all systems in the screening
series. Normal weight Class B systems (Nos. 12 and
13) were not as successful. System 12, stabi 1 i zed
with 35 per cent silica sand, exhibited poor long-
tenn strength at 227°C. In addition, outside bond
strength to steel pi pe was unacceptabl e. System
13, with 35 per cent silica flour, performed much
better.
The low-density Class G systems (Nos. 4, 5 6, 7, 8
and 9) showed mixed performance. Those 1.6
g/cm 3 in density were satisfactory. Lighter sys-
t em s we r e una c c e pta b1e, usua 11 y due to 1 ow com pre s-
sive strength. The best low-density Class G system
was No.6, containing gilsonite. Only two low-
density Class 8 systems were evaluated (Nos. 14 and
15). Both were marginally acceptable as to com-
pressive strength; however, they performed well in
subsequent tests.
Candidate systems based upon Class J CelTlent (Nos.
16-20) were not as successful as the portland
group, but two normal density candidates looked
promiSing (Nos. 16 and 17). Two lightweight
systems (Nos. 19 and 20) perforrlled acceptably as to
4 EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT SYSTEMS FOR GEOTHERMAL WELLS
strength and permeabi 1 ity but were dropped when
they exhibited little or no bonding strength to
steel. It is interesting to note that the success-
ful Class J systems closely paralleled the accept-
able portland-based cements. Again, the addition
of fly ash seemed to be beneficial.
High alumina cement formulations, utilizing Ciment
Fondu, were tested (Nos. 21 and 22). A combination
of retarders Rl and R2 was required to obtain an
acceptable thickening time. Systems 21 and 22 were
acceptable as to strength but were sl ightly too
permeable. Because they were borderline in perfor-
mance, these systems were allowed to pass to the
next stage of evaluation.
Of the systems based upon slag cement (Nos. 23-24)
only one failed to meet minimum standards. The
unacceptable system, No. 25, was the lightest in
density. No. 25, containing sodium metasilicate
was dropped due to low strength. System 24, con-
taining fly ash, suffered a severe strength loss
between one and seven days; however, strength never
dropped below minimum. Permeability and bonding
performance was excellent.
The commerci al 1i ghtweight cement systems di d not
survive the initial screening program. All of
these systems were of lO~J density and exhibited
extremely poor strength.
To summarize, the portland cement compositions per-
formed vJell in the initial testing, provided a
stabi 1 i zi ng amount of s il i ca was present. Sil i ca
flour (45 flm particle size quartz) was the most
effective source. Some pozzolanic materials which
norma lly act as sour ces of s il i ca fa il ed at 316°C.
These were certa i n fly ashes, impure di atomaceous
earths and heated shale. Such problems with pozzo-
lans in ~ortland cement have been previously re-
ported 12 , 3,14. Increasing the v.,rater content of
the cement and using extenders reduced strength and
increased permeabi 1 i ty, as expected. The Cl ass J
systems performed much like similar weight portland
systems. The high alumina cements had lower
strength and higher permeability than similar
weight calcium sil icate hydrate systems. Commer-
cial lightweight cements performed acceptably to
about 215°C. At 316°C, strength dropped and
permeabi 1 i ty increased well beyond acceptable
limits. Slag cements performed somewhat better, but
addition of fly ash resulted in deterioration. The
chief disadvantage of slag cements is the associa-
ted release of noxious and corrosive sulfides at
geothermal temperatures.
As the initial screening program neared completion,
surviving cement systems underwent evaluation under
simulated geothermal conditions. As mentioned
earlier, the D-BETA was utilized for this part of
the investigation. Performance of the more illus-
trative systems in terms of compressive strength,
water permeability and erosion is given in Table 5.
Initial composition of the slurries is given in
Table 3.
Two general effects of exposure of cement to a cir-
culating geothermal brine were immediately apparent
in the D-BETA program. Most systems, especi ally
the low-dens ity ones, were subject to acce 1er ated
SPE 10217
deterioration. Also, the carbonate present in the
brine appeared to convert the cementitious calcium
silicate hydrates to calcium carbonate and silica.
The carbonate react i on was most r api d wi th low-
density systems due to their higher permeabil ity
allowing increased brine penetration. The carbon-
ate degradation most commonly manifested itself in
the formation of a scale over the surface of the
cement specimen that could easily be scratched away
by a fi ngernail •
The O-BETA results indicate that portland cement
compositions with a density below about 1.5 g/cm 3
are unsuitable for cementi ng geothermal zones that
contain flowing acidic carbonate brine. Class J
systems also behaved much like the portland sys-
tems. Although these result s appear unpr om; sing
with rega rd to the use of low-dens ity cements for
geothermal wells, it is important to remember that,
inmost situations, only a 1 imited area of the
cement sheath would actually be exposed to flowing
brine. The low-density systems which performed
well in static tests would thus perform adequately
in most of the annular zone.
WELL SITE EVALUATI ONS
Test i ng of cement systems under actual geotherma 1
conditions was performed at two test sites in
Southern California, East Mesa and Niland. At the
East Mesa Test Site, well 8-1 was selected for this
evaluation. Fluid temperature was maintained at
150 a C and 0.66 MPa pressure. The brine analysis is
given in Table 2.
i"lost of the cement systems evaluated at East Mesa
had passed initial screening evaluation and had
been subjected to the D-BETA s imul ator. As men-
tioned earlier, the test apparatus at East Mesa was
very simi 1a r to the D-BETA in design. The br i ne
flow rate, however, was much faster, 6.0 L/mi n.
Cement specimens were exposed for periods of 1, 3,
7 and 17 months, and evaluated in terms of compres-
sive strength, water permeability and size reduc-
tion.
Selected East Mesa results are found in Table 6.
The performance results at East Mesa were very
similar to those measured with the D-BETA; however,
due to the faster fluid movement, the rate of
deterioration or erosion was accelerated. From a
compressive strength and permeability standpOint,
very few systems performed satisfactorily through-
out the entire 17 months. Systems 3, 5 and 12 were
all normal weight systems. Erosion of the cement
specimens was severe for all of the systems. A flow
rate of 6.0 Llmin is probably on the high side when
compared to the average geothermal well situation,
so the deterioration may be somewhat unrealistic.
The cement specimens at Nil and performed different-
ly fran East Mesa and O-BETA counterparts. Results
are gi ven in Table 7. The sampl es were exposed
to two 38-day cycles at 170° to 182°C and 0.8 MPa.
As Table 2 shows, the brine indigenous to Niland is
unusually high in dissolved solids. All but one of
the systems maintained excellent compressive
strength. Permeability could only be measured on a
SPE 10217 E. B. NELSON, L. H. EILERS AND L. B. SPANGLE
few systems because most of the specimens were
cracked. The behavior of these cements illustrates
thei r suscept ibi 1i ty to thermal shock. L; ke East
Mesa, the condit ions exper i enced at Nil and woul d
probably not be seen by most of the cement in a
geothermal well; therefore, the data reported here
must be kept in perspective.
NONPORTLAND SYSTEMS
Although the primary intent of this research was to
eval uate cements based upon commonly encountered
oilfield materials, some rather exotic systems were
also evaluated as possible geothermal cements.
Thi s part i cul ar research was very 1imited in scope
but deserves to be mentioned.
Acid catalyzed furfuryl alcohol/filler blend sys-
tems were selected for evaluation as geothermal
binders. Several fillers, including powdered coal,
graphite, perlite, diatomaceous earth and silica
flour, may be used with furfuryl alcohol 15 ,16,17.
Initial testing showed that the coal system would
develop a compressive strength of approximately 21
MPa within three days of curing at 300°C. Perme-
abil ity of the system was about 0.01 md. The 1m'J
density and low cost of coal also made this system
appear advantageous.
As shown in Table 8, furfuryl alcohol without a
catalyst will not polymerize in less than six hours
at 150°C and 35.9 MPa. Three catalysts were
eva 1uated with var i ed results. Tartar i c ac i d and
malic acid caused a very rapid set accompanied by a
violent exotherm. To alleviate the exothermic
behavior somewhat, a 50:50 mixture of furfuryl
alcohol and a commercial partially polymerized
furfuryl alcohol was evaluated. A 50 per cent
solution of ZnC12 was utilized as the catalyst,
and by varying its concentration from 0.2 to 1.0
per cent, the thickening time of the slurry
fluctuated between about two to six hours.
Two of the furfuryl al coho 1/powdered coal
were evaluated for compressive strength and permea-
bility characteristics. Briefly, this system gives
excellent strength and low permeabil ity at high
temperatures provided the material is in contact
with fluid. When subjected to dry heat, severe
oxidation occurs resulting in loss of integrity.
GLASS BUBBLE CEMENTS
Portland cement slurries with densities in the 0.96
to 1.20 g/cm3 range are possible with the util i-
zation of lightweight glass bubbles or micro-
spheres, having a specific gravity of approximately
0.35. Such slurries have been shown to have ac-
ceptable properties under normal oilfield condi-
tions. 18 Glass bubble cements must be prepared
and ut i 1i zed wi th care. Depend; ng upon the gr ade
of bubbles, the lightweight slurries can retain
their designed properties only when the hydrostatic
head does not exceed 13.8 MPa.
5
Because slurries of such low density are desired in
geothermal applications, an evaluation of their
suitability was conducted. Twenty-one candidate
systems were subjected to compressive strength and
permeability testing following exposure to simu-
1ated geothermal condit ions. Some of the more
illustrative bubble cements are described in Table
9 and testing results are listed in Table 10.
Two grades of commercially available glass bubbles
were used in this evaluation: Grade 1 and Grade 2,
a stronger and more expensive bubble with higher
collapse pressure. The sl urry densities of the
glass bubble systems varied from 1.07 to 1.57
g/cm 3 . Results show that when glass bubble ce-
ments are subjected to geothermal temperatures, at
least 26 per cent silica must be added to prevent
strength retrogression. Otherwise, the glass bub-
bles themselves react with the cement resulting in
disintegration of the bubbles and a highly permea-
ble cement.
As a group, the glass bubble cements performed much
better than similar weight conventional systems.
Under extremely critical conditions, where ultra
lightweight slurries are essential, the glass
bubble systems may be advantageous.
SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED GEOTHERMAL CEMENTS
As thi s research effort approached termi nat ion, a
final review of test results was performed and six
systems were selected for recommendation as viable
geothermal cements. The systems were al so submit-
ted to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) for
testing and verification. They are listed below.
l. Class G + 35% s il ; ca flour + 54% H2O
2. Class 3 + 35% silica flour + 54% H2O
3. Class J + 44% H2O
4. Class G + 35% silica flour + 2°1,0 bentonite +
8.5% perlite + 116% H2O
5. Class G + 35% silica flour + 15% diatomaceous
earth + 91% H2O
6. Class G + 100% s 11 i ca flour + 2°,1 sodium s 11 i-
,0
cate extender + 136% H2O
The first three slurries are of normal density.
The remaining systems are low density. The three
low-density slurries behaved rather erratically in
the circulating brine tests, but performed well in
static tests. Because only a limited amount of
cement would actually be exposed to circulation,
the 1 ightweight systems should give adequate per-
formance. These systems are compatible with common
retarders and fluid-loss additives. Table 11 shows
typical performance of eight systems based upon the
six basic formulations.
6 EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT SYSTEMS FOR GEOTHERMAL WELLS SPE 10217

CONCLUSION

The results of this research effort have shown that Berkeley Laboratory, Univ. of CA, DOE Contract
portland cements of normal density, similar to No. W-7405-ENG-48 (September, 1977).
those al ready in use at Inost geothermal areas ap-
pear to be the best that current available cement- 8. Menzel, C. A.: "Studies of Hi gh Pressure
ing technology can offer. This fact should be Stearn Curing of Tamped Hollow Concrete BlOCk,"
reassuring to operators who have used such formula- Concrete Inst. (1935) l, 5, 64.
tions in existing wells. For those who need
ultra-light density cements, a slurry containing 9. G. L.: liThe Reaction of Cement
91 ass rni crospheres may gi ve adequate performance; at Elevated Temperatures," Proc.
however, such systems are significantly more expen- _ _ _--"- of Cement, London,
sive than conventional cements.

10. API Specifications Oil Well Cements and Cement

CONVERSION FACTORS Additives, API Spec. lOA, Section 2, 3-9.
11. Nelson, E. B.: "Prevention of Strength Retro-
MPa 145 psi gression in High Temperature Well Cements,"
g/cm 3 = 8.35 lb/gal Proc. 27th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short
Course, Lubbock, 11-19, 1980.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 12. Eilers, L. H., and Root, R. L.: paper SPE 5871
presented at the SPE-AIME 46th California
The authors \'Ii sh to thank the U.S. Department of Symp., Long Beach, 1976.
Energy and Dowell Division of Dow Chemical U.S.A.
for permission to publish this paper. 13. Diamond, S., and Thawlow, N.: "A Study of
Expansion Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction as
Conditioned by the Grain Size of the Reactive
REFERENCES Aggregate,1/ Cement Research(l974) i,
591-607. --
1. Kennerly, R. A.: New Zealand J. (1961)
1,453-468.
- - 14. Ludwig, W.: "Influence of the Alkali-Admix-
ture Reaction," ..:....:.;.......:..:..;..:;;. ____ ..:..::...:..~~_ 1974)
2. Radenti, G., and Ghiringelli, L.: Geothermics i. 591-607.
(1972) l, 3, 119-123.
15. Goldstein, 1. S., and Dreher, W. A.: liStable
3. Nelson, E. B., Eilers, L. H., and Kalousek, Furfuryl Alcohol Impregnating Solutions," Ind.
G. L.: "Formation and Behavior of Calcium Chem. (1960) 52 57-58. --
Silicate Hydrates in a Geothermal Environ-
ment, II Cement Concrete Research (1981) 11, 16. Hess, P. H., et al.: "Chemical Method for
371-381-.- - - Formation Plugging," paper SPE 3045 presented
at the 45th SPE-AIME Fall Meeting; Houston
4. Eilers, L. H., and Nelson, E. S.: "Effect of 1970. .
Silica Particle Size on Degradation of Silica
Stabil i zed Portl and Cement, II paper SPE 7875 17. Siegfried, K. J.: "Furan Polymers,"
presented at the SPE-AIME Int. Symp. on Polymer Sci. Tech., John Wiley & Sons,
Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Houston, 432-445 (1967) -.-
1979.
18. Smith, R. C., Powers, C. A., and Dibkins,
5. Eilers, L. H. and Nelson, E. 8.: "High T. A.: "A New Ultra Lightweight Cement with
Temperature Cement Compositions: Pectolite, Super Strength," paper SPE 8256 presented at
Scawtite, Truscottite or Xonotlite; Which Do the 54th Annual SPE-AIME Fall Meeting, Las
You Want?", paper SPE 9286 presented at the Vegas, 1979.
55th Annual SPE-AIME Fall Meeting, Dallas,
1980.

6. American Petroleum Institute Publication RP

lOB.
7. Cosner, S. R., and Apps, J. A.: "A Compila-
tion of Data on Fluids from Geothermal
Resources of the United States," Lawrence
 TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF SALIENT POINTS FROM OPERATOR SURVEY

Temperature:

Reservoir 177° to 371°C

Bottom Hole Circulating 93° to 204°C

Compressive Strength:

Desired •. 15.8 to 20.7 MPa ~l 24 hr

Acceptab 1e 6.9 MPa @ extended time

Fluid Chemistry:

Bri ne 15 to 44,000 mg/L TDS w/

and
Steam 2% noncondensible gases
(includes 0.3% H2S)

S1 ur ry Dens ity:

Current Use 1.44 to 1.68 g/cm 3

Desired . . 1.11 to 1.20 g/cm 3

TABLE 2

ANALYSES OF GEOTHERMAL SRI NES AT EAST MESA AND NILAND TEST rAC! LITIES

Concentration Concent r at i on
(mg/L) (rng/L)
Spec i es East Mesa
----- -----
Ni 1and

Na 8100 47,100
1360 22,700
1050 12,000
Fe 9 240
Mn 62~

Sa 14 140
Sr 320
Zn 160
Li 40
10
Pb 29
Mg 17 Hi:i
Clr 0.5
~JH4+ 41
Cl 15,850 131,70()
CO? 200
,n
TDS (Cal c) 2/,USO ZH,4UO
 TABLE 3
CANDIDA TE GEOTHERMAL CEr~ENT SYST[MS

System ity
No.
1 Kaiser Permanente "Gil Rl 1.0 SAND 35 54 1. 91
2 Rl 1.0 SF 35 54 1. 91
3 R1 1.0 SF 35 FAIN 79 93 1.81
4 R1 1.0 SF 35 PERL 8.5 BENT 2.0 116 1.62
5 R1 1.0 SF 35 COAL 27 63 1. 75
6 R1 1.0 SF 35 GILS 27 63 1. 74
7 Rl 1.0 SF 35 SMS 2.5 122 1.44
8 R1 1.0 SF 35 MSS 2.5 130 1.43
9 R1 1.0 SF 35 DE 20 91 1. 74
10 Rl 1.8 SAND 35 FAIN 79 93 1.81
11 Rl 0.8 SF 100 72 1. 92
12 Ideal "B" Rl 1.2 SAND 35 56 1. 91
13 Rl 1.5 SF 35 56 1.91
14 R1 0.6 SF 35 f)ERL 8.5 BENT 2.0 118 1.62
15 R1 1.0 SF 35 FAIN 79 120 1. 70

16 Unadeep "J" Rl 0.4 44 1.85

17 " R1 0.4 FAIN 79 75 1.80
18 Rl 0.4 PERL 8.5 BENT 2.0 106 1.60
19 Rl 0.4 BENT 4.0 65 1. 70
20 Rl 0.4 BENT 8.0 86 1. 57
21 Ciment Fondu Rl 1.5 R2 1.5 50 1.84
22 Rl 1.5 R2 1.5 FAIN 85 81 1. 78
23 Slag Cement Rl 1.3 SF 35 56 1. 91
24 II
Rl 1.3 SF 35 FAIN 79 93 1.81
25 Rl 1.3 SF 35 SMS 1.5 122 1. 54
26 R1 1.3 SF 35 pp 10 74 1. 79

ADDITIVE CODES

Rl - retarder - proprietary blend of sugar and lignin derivatives

R2 - retarder - proprietary blend of lignin and inorganic salts
SAND - silica sand, 100)J1ll average particle size
SF - silica flour, (10)J1ll average particle size
DE - diatomaceous earth
FAIL - LaDue fly ash
FAIN - Needles fly ash
PERL - expanded perlite
BENT - bentonite (gel)
SMS - sodium metasilicate
MSS - modified sodium silicate
COAL - powdered coal
GILS - gilsonite
 TABLE 4
RESULTS OF INITIAL SCREENING PROGRAM
See Table 3 for System Compositions
Thickening Percent
Time Bond Expansion
System 300°F BHCT Water Permeabiity Strength (MPa) 204°C
No. (hr:min) 227°C, 3 days (md) outside inside Test 1 Test 2
1 3:24 227 23.4 15.9 37.3 30.0 0.016 1.0 10.3 0.12
316 33.5 6.1 38.6
2 +6:00 227 24.8 34.5 49.0 19.0 <0.001 3.1 16.5 0.13 0.14
316 35.5 31.4 47.4
3 +6:00 227 17.4 36.9 41.4 34.5 <0.001 5.9 16.2 0.17 0.12
316 25.0 9.9 20.1
4 +6:00 227 11.1 6.1 9.7 5.4 0.05 1.0 4.8 0.19 0.19
316 7.2 7.4 12.4
5 +5:00 227 17.6 21.6 19.0 3.4 8.8 0.15 0.18
316 9.8 37.4
6 +5:00 227 21.0 16.4 18.1 <0.001 4.5 12.2 0.20 0.22
316 5.2 19.9
7 +6:00 227 1.2
316 1.4
8 0:38 227
316
9 +6:00 227 19.8 14.7 15.9 0.058 0.7 5.9 0.15 0.17
316 13.2 38.6
12 3:19 227 20.7 23.5 4.1 0.035 0.2 2.6 0.07 0.10
316 43.8 30.6 36.6 51.0

13 +6:00 227 36.9 40.4 9.3 <0.001 0.5 0.7 0.16 0.17
316 18.8 45.1
14 +6:00 227 3.4 10.5 15.7 0.07 1.9 7.6 0.17 0.16
316 6.1 4.8
15 4:51 227 23.5 33.0 2.6 <0.001 0.7 2.4 0.24 0.20
326 31.8 28.0 19.3
16 6:00 227 30.3 37.1 29.6 22.3 2.6 11.9 0.21 0.23
316 28.2 31.3 27.8
17 6:00 227 1.7 6.7 6.4 23.1 0.03 1.2 4.7 0.00 0.07
316 19.6 25.5 22.0
18 3:18 227 0.4 3.2 4.0 0.2 2.4 0.20 0.22
316 3.6 5.7 3.4
19 4:03 227 14.5 16.8 13.9 11.4 <0.001 0 0.5 0.27 0.19
316 5.0 6.2 3.0
20 2:02 227 5.5 14.5 15.7 11.4 <0.001 0 0.14 0.10
316 5.9 6.2 4.5
21 4:07 227 6.8 23.1 0.101 4.1 11.0 0.00 0.02
316 13.7
22 +6:00 227 9.4 8.3
316 7.5 7.6

23 +6:00 227 10.5 26.1 16.5 <0.001 2.1 >17.2 0.19 0.22
316 30.0 23.8 27.4 25.9
24 5:00 227 30.3 8.3 16.8 <0.001 13.1 0.15 0.14
316 31.6 24.7 31.7 15.8
25 +6:00 227 23.4 3.1 7.4
316 7.4 7.7 3.1 8.3
26 +5 :00 227 11. 0 19.9 18.1 0.01 3.1 12.1 0.20 0.20
316 18.1 13.6 8.2 19.0
 TABLE 5
RESULTS OF SIMULATED GEOTHERMAL TESTING PROGRAM UTILIZING THE D-BETA
Conditions: 150°C Circulating Brine
System Composition Given in Table 3
Depth of
System com~ressive Strength (MPa) Water Permeability (md) Deterioration
No. 14 days 8 days 3 months 15 months 14 days 28 days 3 months 15 montns (em at 15 months}
1 27.6 36.5 29.2 16.5 0.011 0.032 0.066 0.13 0.16
2 57.9 71.6 34.1 15.5 0.002 0.009 0.012 0.011 0.13
3 33.3 29.2 25.5 15.0 0.004 0.035 0.039 0.024 0.16
4 11.0 7.6 5.9 0.1 0.072 0.098 0.15 Soft 1. 27
5 31.0 0.005
12 14.8 17 .8 17.6 35.9 0.018 0.027 0.078 0.13 0.16
13 44.1 40.7 37.2 34.8 0.008 0.012 0.011 0.016 0.13
14 12.1 10.3 6.8 0.2 0.110 0.103 0.24 Soft 0.95
16 18.6 25.9 23.3 15.5 0.049 0.041 0.085 0.35 0.31
17 24.7 20.3 16.5 8.3 0.006 0.078 0.093 0.19 0.31
20 10.3 14.8 15.2 Broken 0.149 0.042 0.098 Broken

TABLE 6
RESULTS OF FIELD TESTING AT EAST MESA TEST FACILITY
Com~ressive Strength (MPa) Water Permeability (md) Size Reduction (%~
1 mo. 3 mo. 7 mo. 17 mo. 1 mo. 3 mo. 7 mo. 17 mo. 1 mo. 3 mo.
- - -- 7 mo.
- -
I 19.5 3.4 19.2 1.9 0.03 0.002 0.03 0.02 6 12 25
2 10.3 6.2 1.1 0.01 0.001 0.08 6 12
3 15.5 9.7 10.4 7.2 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.08 6 12 19
5 11.9 12.6 11.6 6.9 0.08 0.16 0.06 0.08 6 12 25
10 24.7 6.9 0.8 0.04 0.01 0.08 1.00 6 12 12
11 4.7 16.9 6.3 0.07 0.08 0.40 3 12 27
12 17.2 5.4 9.8 9.9 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0 6 37
13 14.0 8.6 12.4 2.9 0.006 0.02 0.03 6 12 37
15 10.5 5.4 8.1 1.4 0.08 0.45 0.02 0.31 6 19 25
16 18.6 25.9 28.5 7.0 0.18 0.41 0.03 0.35 6 12 37
17 12.6 5.4 12.5 1.7 0.10 0.35 0.001 0.20 12 19 37

TABLE 7
RESULTS OF FIELD TESTING AT NILAND TEST FACILITY
Water Permeability (md)

1 13.5 cracked
2 23.5 cracked
3 13.9 cr acked
5 11.3 cracked
10 24.5 0.018
11 0.060
12 19.1 cracked
13 23.9 cr acked
15 30.3 0.106
16 18.3 cracked
17 10.4 cr acked
 TABLE 8
TEST RESULTS FOR FURFURYL ALCOHOL/COAL SYSTEM

Thickening Time Sl ur ry
150°C BHCT Dens ity
System Composition (hr :mi n) (g/crn 1 )

Neat Furfuryl Alcohol 6:00+ Poured Out

Furfuryl Al cohol +
2.4% Tartaric Acid
Solution (50%) 0: 58 Set

48.8% Furfuryl Al cohol

48.8% Powdered Coal
2.4% Mal ic Acid Solution 0: 31 Set

50.0% Furfuryl Alcohol

50.0% Powdered Coal 6: 10 Set

31.0% Furfuryl Alcohol

31.0% Experimental Resin 4607
37.0% Coal «20 mesh)
1.0% ZnC12 Solution (5OX,) 2: 25 Set

31.25% Furfuryl Al cohol

31. 25% Exper irnenta 1 Res in 4607
37.0% Coal «20 mesh)
0.5 ZnC12 Solution (50%) 4: 15 Set 36.0 29.0 Burned 0.004 0.001 Burned 1.26

31.4% Furfuryl Alcohol

31.4% Experimental Resin 4607
37.0% Coal «20 mesh)
0.2% ZnC12 Solution (50"/') 6: 25 Set 28.6 Burned 0.003 Bur ned 1. 27

TABLE 9
COMPOSITIONS OF ULTRA LIGHTWEIGHT CEMENT SLURRIES CONTAINING GLASS BUBBLES
CLASS G CEMENT

S~stem No. % Silica Flour Gl ass Bubble Grade

GB 1 1.20

GB 2 20 1.20

GB 3 35 1. 26

GB 4 35 1.40

GB 5 35 1.28

GB 6 35 1.36

TABLE 10

RESUL TS OF TEST! NG ULTRA LI GHTWE IGHT GLASS BUBBLE CEMENTS

(SPECIMEN EXPOSED TO FRESH WATER)

3-Month Compress i ve I-Month I~ater 3-Month Water

Strength (MPa) Perrneabi 1i ty (md) Permeabi 1 i ty (md)

System
GB 1.3 0.8 0.2 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.024 0.00 Soft Soft Soft Soft

GB 9.0 2.6 2.6 5.7 5.9 3.8 0.004 0.58 0.56 0.003 0.037 0.80

GB 6.6 11.5 5.8 6.6 Crumbled 6.0 3.8 3.8 0.14 0.003 0.11 0.19 Crumbled 0.002 0.12 0.29

GB 10.2 8.1 3.8 9.7 5.1 5.3 4.5 6.6 0.12 0.031 0.17 0.10 0.68 0.010 0.15 0.049

GB 2.1 6.7 2.4 4.8 Soft 1.2 0.7 5.3 0.52 0.011 0.25 0.19 Soft 0.017 0.19 0.27

GB 4.1 6.6 3.1 5.9 0.5 2.6 2.5 5.2 0.45 0.037 0.24 0.20 Soft 0.004 0.12 0.067
 TABLE 11
PERFORMANCE OF PROPOSED GEOTHERMAL CEMENT SYSTEMS
Compressive Strength 400°F
Thickening 1 day 28 days Permeability
Slurry CompoSition Time (mi n) (MPa) (MPa) (md)
l. Class G + 35% silica flour
+ lignin/sugar retarder + +360 52.4 25.0 0.01
1.5% cellulosic fluid-loss
additive + 54% H2O
2. Class G + 35% silica flour
+ 1% lignin/sugar retarder +360 41.3 24.1 0.01
+ 0.35 gal/sk liquid fluid-
loss additive + 0.8% disper-
ant + 54% H2O
3. Class B + 35% silica flour +
1% lignin/sugar retarder + 150 NS 18.5 0.01
1.5% cellulosic fluid-loss
additive + 56% H2O
4. Class J + 1.5% cellulosic
fluid-loss additive + 0.4% +360 30.2 24.1 0.01
lignin/sugar retarder + 44%
H2O
5. Class J + 0.35 gal/sk liquid
fluid-loss additive + 0.8% +360 26.3 17.7 0.01
dispersant + 0.4% lignin/sugar
retarder + 44% H2O
6. Class G + 35% silica flour +
2% bentonite + 8.5% perlite + +360 14.2 10.8 0.09
1.5% cellulosic fluid-loss addi-
tive + 1.0% lignin/sugar retarder
+ 116% H2O
7. Class G + 35% silica flour + 10%
diatomaceous earth + 1.5% cellu- +360 15.5 13.8 0.10
losic fluid-loss additive + 1.0%
lignin/sugar retarder + 91% H2O
8. Class G + 100% silica flour + 2%
silica extender + 1.0% lignin/sugar +360 17.7 6.5 0.04
retarder + 1.5% cellulosic fluid-
loss additive + 1.0% NaOH + 136%
H2 O
CANDIDATE
SYSTEM

Fig. 1 - Block diagram of screening program

for candidate geothermal cement systems

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS:

BPR Back Pressure Regulator

PI Prenure Indicator
PR Pressure Recorder
PT Pressure Transducer
TF T"mnl"mtur(' Elp.ment
TI 1 empefdlult: 1II01l.:,:IIor
TR Temperature Recorder
TT Temperature Transduct'!'r
..f Flow to CorE's
-1+ Flow from Cores to Reservoir

Fig. 2 - Schematic diagram of dynamic brine

exposure testing apparatus (D-BETA)