A Practical Field Test and Simulation Procedure for Prediction of Scaling in Geothermal Wells Containing Noncondensable Gases
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Wellbore Simulation
2.1. Mathematical Model
2.1.1. Two-Phase Flow Model
2.1.2. Chemical and Phase Equilibrium Models
2.1.3. Scaling Tendency
2.1.4. Identification of the First Gas Bubble
2.2. Model Solution Algorithm
2.3. Chemical Reaction Equations and Phase Change Equilibrium Equations
2.4. Programming
3. Field Test for Prediction of the Depth of the First Gas Bubble or Scaling of a Real Geothermal Well
3.1. The Situation of the Tested Geothermal Well
3.2. Field Test Methods
- (1)
- The depth of scaling:
- (2)
- Static temperature and pressure of the well:
- (3)
- Gas and liquid chemical composition analysis of the geothermal water:
- (4)
- Measuring method of noncondensable gas contents in a unit weight of geothermal water:
- (5)
- Measurement of the total mass flow rate of the geothermal water:
- (6)
- Measurement of the dynamic temperature and pressure at the wellhead:
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Analysis of a Trial Computation
Effects of Noncondensable Gas on the First Gas Bubble Point and Scale
4.2. Field Test Results
- (1)
- The position of scale is right at the wellhead.
- (2)
- The logging truck results were recorded in an Excel spreadsheet that recorded temperature and pressure data points every 10 m. Part of the data is shown in Table 5. The static water surface is at a depth of 72 m. The temperature and pressure of the geothermal water in the bottom of the well (depth of 3570 m) are 142.937 °C and 32.89 MPa, respectively.
- (3)
- The analysis and test center of Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese Academy of Sciences, detected that the main components of noncondensable gas are 90% CO2 and 10% CH4. The liquid composition was tested by the Groundwater Mineral Water and Environment Monitoring Center of the Ministry of Land and Resources, China, and the results are shown in Table 6.
- (4)
- The noncondensable gas content in a unit weight of geothermal water is 0.003668 mol/kgw.
- (5)
- The total mass flow rate of the geothermal water is 90 m3/h.
- (6)
- The temperature is 121 °C and pressure is 3.5 bar at the wellhead.
4.3. Depth Prediciton of the First Gas Bubble by Wellbore Simulation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yanagisawa, N.; Matsunaga, I.; Sato, M.; Okabe, T. Temperature-dependent scale precipitation in the Hijiori Hot Dry Rock system, Japan. Geothermics 2008, 37, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauwels, J.; Salah, S.; Vasile, M.; Laenen, B.; Cappuyns, V. Characterization of scaling material obtained from the geothermal power plant of the Balmatt site. Mol. Geotherm. 2021, 94, 102090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonkul, S.; Baba, A.; Demir, M.M.; Regenspurg, S. Characterization of Sb scaling and fluids in saline geothermal power plants: A case study for Germencik Region (Büyük Menderes Graben, Turkey). Geothermics 2021, 96, 102227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zolfagharroshan, M.; Khamehchi, E. A rigorous approach to scale formation and deposition modelling in geothermal wellbores. Geothermics 2020, 87, 101841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.P.; Shaw, H.; Farquhar, R.; Dawe, R. The kinetics of carbonate scaling—Application for the prediction of downhole carbonate scaling. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2001, 29, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haklıdır, F.S.T.; Balaban, T.Ö. A review of mineral precipitation and effective scale inhibition methods at geothermal power plants in West Anatolia (Turkey). Geothermics 2019, 80, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.; Geng, S.H.; Chao, J.H.; Yang, L.C.; Zhao, Z.; Qin, G.X.; Ren, S.R. Scaling and block risk in geothermal reinjection wellbore: Experiment assessment and model prediction based on scaling deposition kinetics. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2022, 209, 109867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, J.C.; Liu, M.Y.; Sun, X.X. Model analysis and experimental study on scaling and corrosion tendencies of aerated geothermal water. Geothermics 2020, 85, 101766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.X.; Liu, S.L.; Bian, Q.Y.; Yan, B.; Liu, X.F.; Liu, J.X.; Wang, H.Y.; Bu, X.B. Scaling analysis of geothermal well from Ganzi and countermeasures for anti-scale. Adv. New Renew. Energ. 2015, 3, 202–206. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.Y. A review on controls of corrosion and scaling in geothermal fluids. Adv. New Renew. Energy 2015, 3, 38–46. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.L.; Yao, T. Judgement and calculation of trend of corrosion and scaling of geothermal water. Ind. Water Waste Water 2004, 35, 23–25. Available online: https://www.docin.com/p-842500009.html (accessed on 1 October 2022). (In Chinese).
- Haklidir, F.T.; Haklidir, M. Fuzzy control of calcium carbonate and silica scales in geothermal systems. Geothermics 2017, 70, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Topcu, G.; Koç, G.A.; Baba, A.; Demir, M.M. The injection of CO2 to hypersaline geothermal brine: A case study for Tuzla region. Geothermics 2019, 80, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Hu, Y.Z.; Yun, Z.H.; Qu, Z.W. Applying hydro-geochemistry simulating technology to study scaling of the high-temperature geothermal well in Kangding County. Adv. New Renew. Energy 2016, 4, 111–117. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haizlip, J.R.; Guney, A.; Haklıdır, F.S.T.; Garg, S.K. The Impact of High Noncondensible Gas Concentrations on Well Performance Kizildere Geothermal Reservoir, Turkey. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA, USA, 30 January–1 February 2012; SGP-TR-194. Available online: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fusun_Tut_Haklidir/publication/250928326_THE_IMPACT_OF_HIGH_NONCONDENSIBLE_GAS_CONCENTRATIONS_ON_WELL_PERFORMANCE_KIZILDERE_GEOTHERMAL_RESERVOIR_TURKEY/links/00b7d51ee5d013cfe7000000 (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Akin, T.; Güney, A.; Kargi, H.; Haklıdır, T.; Garg, S.K. Modeling of calcite scaling and estimation of gas breakout depth in a geothermal well by using PHREEQC. In Proceedings of the Fortieth workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA, USA, 26–28 January 2015; SGP-TR-204. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Taylan-Akin-3/publication/272483835_MODELING_OF_CALCITE_SCALING_AND_ESTIMATION_OF_GAS_BREAKOUT_DEPTH_IN_A_GEOTHERMAL_WELL_BY_USING_PHREEQC/links/54e59eaf0cf276cec1746f2c/MODELING-OF-CALCITE-SCALING-AND-ESTIMATION-OF-GAS-BREAKOUT-DEPTH-IN-A-GEOTHERMAL-WELL-BY-USING-PHREEQC.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2022).
- Pátzay, G.; Stáhl, G.; Kármán, F.H.; Kálmán, E. Modeling of scale formation and corrosion from geothermal water. Electrochim. Acta 1998, 43, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pátzay, G.; Kármán, F.H.; Póta, G. Preliminary investigations of scaling and corrosion in high enthalpy geothermal wells in Hungary. Geothermics 2003, 32, 627–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, H.J.; Guo, X.F.; Gao, T.; Bu, X.B.; Li, H.S.; Wang, L.B. Scaling spot prediction and analysis of influencing factors for a geothermal well in Boye County, Hebei Province. Petrol. Drilling Tech. 2020, 48, 105–110. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, A.R.; Kabir, C.S. Modeling two-phase fluid and heat flows in geothermal wells. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 2010, 71, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, S.K.; Pritchett, J.W.; Alexander, J.H. A new liquid hold-up correlation for geothermal wells. Geothermics 2004, 33, 795–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, S.S. Research and Development of PROCESS Simulation Containing Electrolyte. Master’s Thesis, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao, China, 2019. Available online: https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/thesis/D01733218 (accessed on 1 October 2022). (In Chinese).
- Minkowycz, W.J.; Cheng, P. Free convection above a circular cylinder embedded in a porous medium. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 1976, 19, 805–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pritchett, J.W. Preliminary study of discharge characteristics of slim holes compared to production wells in liquid-dominated geothermal reservoirs. In Proceedings of the 18th Workshop Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA, USA, 26–28 January 1993; pp. 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pitzer, K.S. Electrolytes from diluted solutions to fuse salts. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1980, 102, 2902–2906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, J.; Wei, L.L.; Li, X.C. Modeling of CO2-CH4-H2S-brine based on cubic EOS and fugacity-activity approach and their comparisons. Energy Procedia 2014, 63, 3598–3607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No. | Equations |
---|---|
1 | |
2 | |
3 | |
4 | |
5 | |
6 | |
7 | |
8 | |
9 | |
10 | |
11 |
Depth (m) | Inner Diameter (mm) |
---|---|
0~462 | 320.4 |
462~3056 | 226.62 |
3056~3570 | 159.42 |
Item | Value |
---|---|
Total depth of the wellbore | 1000 m |
Inner diameter | 200 mm |
Pipe inner surface roughness | 0.015 mm |
Bottom hole temperature | 70 °C |
Bottom hole pressure | 11.2 MPa |
Flow rate | 2.5 kg/s |
Ca2+ content | 4.0 mg/kgw |
HCO3− content | 12.18 mg/kgw |
CO2 content | 50 mg/kgw |
CH4 content | 200 mg/kgw |
ground surface temperature | 25 °C |
Condition | Concentration/(mol/kgw) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
h = 1 000 m T = 343.15 K P = 112.0 bar | H+ | OH− | HCO3− | CO32− | CO2(aq) | CH4(aq) | Ca2+ |
2.84 × 10−6 | 5.90 × 10−8 | 2.02 × 10−4 | 5.47 × 10−9 | 1.13 × 10−3 | 1.25 × 10−2 | 9.93 × 10−5 | |
CaHCO3+ | CaCO30 | Ca(OH)+ | H2O(aq) | H2O(g) | CO2(g) | CH4(g) | |
4.81 × 10−7 | 3.52 × 10−9 | 2.62 × 10−7 | 55.540 76 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
h = 150 m T = 342.47 K P = 18.7 bar | H+ | OH− | HCO3− | CO32− | CO2(aq) | CH4(aq) | Ca2+ |
2.81 × 10−6 | 5.53 × 10−8 | 2.02 × 10−4 | 5.44 × 10−9 | 1.13 × 10−3 | 1.25 × 10−2 | 9.93 × 10−5 | |
CaHCO3+ | CaCO30 | Ca(OH)+ | H2O(aq) | H2O(g) | CO2(g) | CH4(g) | |
4.79 × 10−7 | 3.42 × 10−9 | 2.32 × 10−7 | 55.540 76 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
h = 60 m T = 342.28 K P = 8.8 bar | H+ | OH− | HCO3− | CO32− | CO2(aq) | CH4(aq) | Ca2+ |
8.51 × 10−6 | 1.74 × 10−8 | 6.81 × 10−5 | 6.08 × 10−10 | 1.16 × 10−3 | 7.28 × 10−3 | 2.99 × 10−5 | |
CaHCO3+ | CaCO30 | Ca(OH)+ | H2O(aq) | H2O(g) | CO2(g) | CH4(g) | |
4.86 × 10−8 | 1.15 × 10−10 | 2.27 × 10−8 | 55.540 81 | 1.82 × 10−5 | 4.33 × 10−5 | 5.22 × 10−3 | |
h = 0 m T = 342.16 K P = 2.2 bar | H+ | OH− | HCO3− | CO32− | CO2(aq) | CH4(aq) | Ca2+ |
6.81 × 10−6 | 2.15 × 10−8 | 6.64 × 10−5 | 7.40 × 10−10 | 9.00 × 10−4 | 1.68 × 10−3 | 2.99 × 10−5 | |
CaHCO3+ | CaCO30 | Ca(OH)+ | H2O(aq) | H2O(g) | CO2(g) | CH4(g) | |
4.74 × 10−8 | 1.39 × 10−10 | 2.80 × 10−8 | 55.540 67 | 1.6 × 10−4 | 3.00 × 10−4 | 1.08 × 10−2 |
Depth (m) | Temperature (°C) | Gage Pressure (MPa) |
---|---|---|
72 | 23.377 | 0 |
1000 | 65.356 | 8.988 |
2000 | 102.649 | 18.479 |
3000 | 137.52 | 27.72 |
3570 | 142.937 | 32.89 |
Constituent | K+ | Na+ | Ca2+ | Mg2+ | HCO3− | CO32− | Cl− | SO42− | F− | NO3− |
Concentration (mg/kgw) | 200.6 | 1889 | 79.95 | 12.36 | 579.1 | 100.0 | 2757 | 116.1 | 8.35 | 1.62 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cen, J.; Jiang, F. A Practical Field Test and Simulation Procedure for Prediction of Scaling in Geothermal Wells Containing Noncondensable Gases. Processes 2022, 10, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10102018
Cen J, Jiang F. A Practical Field Test and Simulation Procedure for Prediction of Scaling in Geothermal Wells Containing Noncondensable Gases. Processes. 2022; 10(10):2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10102018
Chicago/Turabian StyleCen, Jiwen, and Fangming Jiang. 2022. "A Practical Field Test and Simulation Procedure for Prediction of Scaling in Geothermal Wells Containing Noncondensable Gases" Processes 10, no. 10: 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10102018