energies

Review
An Overview of Silica Scaling Reduction Technologies in the
Geothermal Market
Rochelle Longval 1, *, Rauan Meirbekova 2, *, Jason Fisher 1 and Audrey Maignot 2

1 Blue Spark Energy, Calgary, AB T1Y5W4, Canada

2 ICETEC, Árleynir 2-8, 112 Reykjavík, Iceland
* Correspondence: [email protected] (R.L.); [email protected] (R.M.)

Abstract: Renewable energy sources play a vital role in the energy mix with geothermal energy
providing an opportunity to harness the natural heat coming from the Earth for sustainable power
production. As innovative drilling technologies come to market, it is easier to extract heat from
various localities across the globe, leading to significant development in the geothermal sector. The
economic viability of this resource can be significantly impacted when energy output declines due
to scale deposition. Scale formation is a major challenge in the exploitation of geothermal wells,
particularly in liquid-dominated geothermal fields. One of the most robust forms of scale build-up
common to higher temperature geothermal wellbores and surface equipment for power production is
silica scaling. Silica is one of the Earth’s most abundant elements that can precipitate from brine due
to various factors. The accumulation of scale deposits significantly impacts the lifespan and efficiency
of surface equipment and geothermal wells by restricting fluid flow, thus reducing efficiency and
performance. To guarantee the peak performance and longevity of geothermal systems, it is essential
to implement a strategic maintenance plan for scaling reduction in geothermal systems. Throughout
this review, relevant case studies highlight scaling reduction methods for silica scale in subsurface
wellbores and surface facilities.

Keywords: scale reduction; silica scale; geothermal; wellbore maintenance; scaling; operations
and maintenance

Citation: Longval, R.; Meirbekova, R.;

Fisher, J.; Maignot, A. An Overview of
Silica Scaling Reduction Technologies 1. Introduction
in the Geothermal Market. Energies Geothermal energy, a sustainable and renewable resource, plays a critical role in
2024, 17, 4825. https://doi.org/ the global energy supply. With innovative drilling technologies coming to market, the
10.3390/en17194825 extraction of heat is more accessible, increasing geothermal development on a global scale.
Academic Editors: Abdul-Ghani Olabi As the geothermal industry continues to grow, operators seeking to increase produc-
and Efstathios E. Michaelides tion generally have two primary strategies: embark on capital-intensive drilling campaigns
to initiate new wells or optimize and extend the productivity of existing wells. The financial
Received: 12 August 2024 outlay and inherent risks associated with drilling new wells often overshadow the benefits,
Revised: 13 September 2024
making it critical for operators to implement a strategic maintenance plan for existing
Accepted: 23 September 2024
wellbores and surface equipment.
Published: 26 September 2024
A fundamental component of this strategy is to address the formation of scaling
attributed to mineral precipitation from the brine during the reinjection and production
process. In geothermal systems, the chemistry of the brine can affect the efficiency of
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
power plants through the deposition of scale. Silica scale build-up is common within
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. high-temperature geothermal wellbores and surface equipment [1]. Various factors result
This article is an open access article in the precipitation of silica, which include changes in temperature and pressure, flow
distributed under the terms and velocity, pH level, the degree of supersaturation, and the presence of ions in solution [2–6].
conditions of the Creative Commons The deposited scale adheres to the casing and completion equipment of wellbores. In
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// surface equipment, it can lead to problems with the facilities, which results in a decrease
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ in the flow rates leading to a decrease in the extracted energy and performance of the
4.0/). geothermal system [1,7]. Consequently, operations require downtime for the recovery or

Energies 2024, 17, 4825. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17194825 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2024, 17, 4825 2 of 29

replacement of damaged parts and to remove and dispose of flow impediments generated
by the scale deposition [7,8].
Throughout this review, the formation of silica and precipitation kinetics are doc-
umented in geothermal brines. The management of silica in subsurface wellbores will
include preventative methods, pressure and temperature management, monitoring and
detection techniques, as well as current treatments used to clean scale build-up in the
subsurface. Conventional chemical and mechanical solutions that have been used to clean
the accumulation of scale build-up are reviewed, along with innovative technologies, such
as electro-hydraulic pulsing. Silica scaling reduction strategies will be highlighted through
case studies to increase the operational efficiency and longevity of geothermal systems.
In geothermal power plants, silica scales can affect surface equipment, such as heat
exchangers, separators, and pipelines, hindering heat transfer, reducing efficiency, and
causing significant operational problems [7,8]. In this review, the treatment of silica scales
in geothermal power plants will be focused on common methods for scale reduction,
along with the importance of continuous monitoring for early detection and the effective
management of scale.
A geothermal system producing below its potential can quickly become uneconomical;
therefore, an effective treatment that reduces silica scaling provides a strong incentive in
terms of cost reduction to operators. The total cost of scale treatment has been estimated at
USD 1.4 billion for the oil and gas industry, indicating the importance of scale reduction
to optimize production [8]. With the removal of silica from geothermal systems comes an
opportunity to recycle waste silica for other essential purposes. From agriculture to the
health and wellness industry, there are economically viable opportunities for the silica scale
collected from the geothermal system.
The efficient utilization and continued growth of high-temperature geothermal re-
sources are tied to improvements in the monitoring and management of silica scaling in
geothermal systems. Research and development have focused on innovative technologies
aimed at improving the reduction, efficiency, and sustainability of silica scaling manage-
ment and monitoring. Key developments are highlighted and include innovative retention
systems, fiber optics, and chemicals (inhibitors and anti-scalants).

2. Formation of Silica Scale Use

Geothermal systems utilize the Earth’s heat for power generation and direct-use
applications. One of the major challenges during high-temperature geothermal production
is the formation of silica scales [9]. Geothermal systems are susceptible to scale deposition
due to various factors, which include changes in pressure and temperature, pH level, flow
velocity, the degree of supersaturation, and the presence of ions in solution [3–6]. Silica
(SiO2 ) is a common constituent of geothermal brines, and its precipitation and deposition
can severely impair the efficiency and longevity of geothermal facilities [1]. This section
provides an overview of the behavior of silica in geothermal brines and the mechanisms of
silica scale formation.

2.1. Silica in Geothermal Brines

Geothermal brines are often rich in dissolved silica due to the dissolution of silicate
minerals in the deep subsurface. The silica concentration in geothermal brine is typically
between 100 and 300 ppm depending on the geological and thermal conditions of the
geothermal reservoir [1]. The solubility of silica in water increases with temperature. As
such, geothermal fluids from high-temperature reservoirs typically have higher dissolved
silica concentrations.
Silica exists in various forms in geothermal fluids, primarily as monomeric silicic
acid [H4 SiO4 or Si(OH)4 ] [10]. As the geothermal fluid ascends to the surface and cools,
the solubility of silica decreases, leading to supersaturation and subsequent precipitation.
This process can result in the formation of silica scales, which deposit on the surfaces of
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30

Energies 2024, 17, 4825 3 of 29

solubility of silica decreases, leading to supersaturation and subsequent precipitation.
This process can result in the formation of silica scales, which deposit on the surfaces of
geothermal equipment, pipelines, wells, and reservoirs. Amorphous silica, a non-crystal-
geothermal equipment, pipelines, wells, and reservoirs. Amorphous silica, a non-crystalline
line form of SiO2, is the dominant type of silica precipitated on the surface [2].
form of SiO2 , is the dominant type of silica precipitated on the surface [2].
2.2.
2.2.Mechanisms
MechanismsofofSilica
SilicaScale
ScaleFormation
Formation
2.2.1.
2.2.1.Silica
SilicaSolubility
Solubility
The
TheSilica
SilicaSaturation
SaturationIndex
Index(SSI)
(SSI)isisaacrucial
crucial parameter understandingand
parameter in understanding andpredicting
predict-
ing silica
silica scale
scale formation
formation in in geothermal
geothermal systems
systems [11].
[11]. It It provides
provides a measure
a measure ofof the
the potential
potential for
for silica
silica precipitation
precipitation basedononthe
based theconcentration
concentrationofofdissolved
dissolvedsilica
silicaand
andits
itssolubility
solubilityunder
un-
der specific
specific conditions.
conditions. TheTheSSISSI is defined
is defined as as follows:
follows:
𝐶CSiO
𝑆𝑖𝑂2
𝑆𝑆𝐼 =
SSI
2
𝐶𝑆𝑖𝑂2
CSiO2𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦
solubility
where CSiO2 is the concentration of dissolved silica in the fluid, and CSiO2 solubility is the
where CSiO2 is the concentration of dissolved silica in the fluid, and CSiO2 solubility is the
solubility of silica at the given temperature and pressure. A general rule is that once SSI
solubility of silica at the given temperature and pressure. A general rule is that once SSI
nears the value of 2, silica polymerization and precipitation occur rapidly at a neutral to
nears the value of 2, silica polymerization and precipitation occur rapidly at a neutral to
alkaline pH of 6.6–8.5 [11].
alkaline pH of 6.6–8.5 [11].
The solubility of silica in water is temperature-dependent, with higher temperatures
The solubility of silica in water is temperature-dependent, with higher temperatures
resulting in increased solubility [2,11]. In the geothermal reservoir prior to utilization, the
resulting in increased solubility [2,11]. In the geothermal reservoir prior to utilization,
silica concentration is typically in equilibrium with quartz, the crystalline form of silica
the silica concentration is typically in equilibrium with quartz, the crystalline form of
[2]. As geothermal fluid cools during its ascent to the surface or through heat exchange
silica [2]. As geothermal fluid cools during its ascent to the surface or through heat exchange
processes,
processes,the thesolubility
solubilityofofsilica
silicadecreases,
decreases,leading
leadingtotothe thesupersaturation
supersaturation(SSI (SSI> >1)1)and
and
potential precipitation of amorphous silica
potential precipitation of amorphous silica [12]. [12].
Silica
Silicasolubility
solubilityatatgeothermal
geothermalreservoir
reservoirtemperatures
temperaturesabove above185
185°C◦ C
is isusually
usually con-
con-
trolled by quartz, while solubility at temperatures < 185 °C can
◦ be controlled
trolled by quartz, while solubility at temperatures <185 C can be controlled by chal- by chalced-
ony [11]. Examining
cedony these two
[11]. Examining thesecurves, it becomes
two curves, clear that
it becomes thethat
clear “window of opportunity”
the “window of oppor-
for
tunity” for operating geothermal plants that are “silica free” lies between theand
operating geothermal plants that are “silica free” lies between the quartz amor-
quartz and
phous curves as shown in Figure 1
amorphous curves as shown in Figure 1 [12].[12].

Solubility
Figure1.1.Solubility
Figure ofof silica
silica ininwater
waterwhere
wherescaling
scalingoccurs
occursabove
abovethe
theamorphous
amorphoussilica
silicasolubility
solubility
curve.
curve. Modified
Modified from
from [12].
[12].

Dissolvedsalts
Dissolved saltsand
andpHpHalso
alsoaffect
affectthe
thesolubility
solubilityofofsilica
silicainingeothermal
geothermal brines
brines [2].
[2].
Basedononthe
Based thegeothermal
geothermalreservoir
reservoirandandgeological
geologicalenvironment,
environment, thethe presence
presence ofof calcium,
calcium,
magnesium,iron,
magnesium, iron,aluminum,
aluminum, and
and manganese
manganese can canreact
reactwith
withSi(OH)
Si(OH) 4 to form metal silicates.
4 to form metal sili-
Aluminum-rich and iron-rich silicates (metal silicates) are the
cates. Aluminum-rich and iron-rich silicates (metal silicates) are the most most common
common andandare
observed in geothermal fields, such as Salton Sea in California and Kyushu in Japan [11].
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 4 of 29

Silica is more soluble in highly acidic (pH < 3) and highly alkaline conditions (pH > 10).
The solubility of amorphous silica increases with increasing temperature, while solubilities
remain relatively constant over the pH range of 5.5–8.5 [11].

2.2.2. Silica Precipitation Kinetics

The kinetics of silica deposition is concerned with the rate at which a supersaturated so-
lution will result in scale deposition [2,11]. Specifically, the rate at which silica polymerizes
and precipitates as colloids or through molecular deposition.
Weres et al. [6] indicate that silica precipitation in geothermal systems consists of the
following steps:
1. The formation of silica polymers of less than nucleus size.
2. The nucleation of an amorphous silica phase in the form of colloidal particles.
3. The growth of supercritical amorphous silica particles by further chemical deposition
of silicic acid on their surfaces.
4. The coagulation or flocculation of colloidal particles to give either a precipitate or a
semisolid material.
5. The cementation of the particles in the deposit by chemical bonding and further
molecular deposition.
6. The growth of a secondary phase between the amorphous silica particles.
Silica polymerization is a process where monomeric silicic acid molecules react to form
oligomers and eventually larger silica polymers. The process results in the formation of
colloids and is often referred to as homogeneous nucleation. This is the dominant process
at high SSI. Heterogenous nucleation, on the other hand, is the deposition of amorphous
silica on pre-existing colloidal amorphous silica and is dominant at low SSI. If colloids are
formed, they may adhere to surfaces following steps 4 to 6. On the other hand, molecular
deposition involves the direct deposition of Si(OH)4 onto surfaces without the formation
of colloids [2].
Various authors [2,11] have identified several factors affecting the kinetics of silica
deposition. The critical factors are as follows:
• The degree of supersaturation (SSI): higher concentrations of dissolved silica increase
the likelihood of polymerization and colloid formation (polymerization is slow if
SSI is <2 and very fast >3).
• pH: silica polymerization is favored at neutral to slightly alkaline pH values and slows
drastically when pH is lower in the acidic values.
• Temperature: a general guideline for silica suggests that it is only possible to cool the
water by approximately 100 ◦ C without the risk of scaling [12].
• Other ions in solution/catalysts: researchers [6,13] report that dissolved NaCl or other
electrolytes in the geothermal fluid may speed up solubility equilibrium and that
fluoride encourages silica polymerization. Silica colloids can be coagulated by cations
in the geothermal fluid, particularly calcium and iron. Corrosion accelerates silica
deposition due to the release of iron ions.

3. Occurrence of Silica in Subsurface Wellbores

3.1. Preventative Methods
3.1.1. pH Modification
A preventative method that is used to slow down the precipitation of silica is through
pH modification. Acid can be injected by setting up a chemical metering pump into
the brine pipeline [12]. By decreasing the pH to below 5 through dosing with acid, the
supersaturated solution can be reinjected without causing significant scaling issues [1]. An
important consideration is that acidifying the brine can increase the corrosion rate of the
casing through the addition of sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid. Modifying the pH level is
not as effective at scale prevention in the reservoir since the brine can react with minerals
in the rock formation that can neutralize the acidity and raise the pH [14].
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 5 of 29

3.1.2. Casing Composition

The integrity of steel casings can be compromised with the development of scale build-
up and corrosion. Through implementing a more resistant casing material, the deposition
of inorganic scale can be significantly reduced. Glass-fiber-reinforced composites may show
improved scaling prevention. The inner surface of the pipes contains the polymer matrix of
epoxy or polyethylene. These well coatings provide a different surface energy than steel
pipes [8]. Implementing a casing material that is naturally more resistant to scaling is a
more permanent approach for scaling avoidance, although it requires a higher upfront
cost. Scale forms a rough surface in the casing with rippled deposits that lean against the
flow. The flow capacity can be significantly reduced, even with the scale being only a few
millimeters thick [12]. Therefore, it is important to have a clean pipe to ensure optimal
fluid flow.

3.1.3. Chemical Inhibitors

Another proactive method to suppress scale formation involves the use of a specific
class of chemicals known as scale inhibitors. Their purpose is to alter the chemistry of
the brine to prevent, delay, or reduce scale formation. Only chemicals that can effectively
be used in small concentrations are typically considered for cost reasons. Careful brine
and scale analysis is critical prior to choosing an appropriate inhibitor and dosage or
further blockages can occur. As geothermal brines can contain dissolved CO2 and H2 S,
the interaction with corrosion inhibitors will need to be considered as part of any scale or
corrosion management strategy [15].
The procedure for testing inhibitors is as follows:
7. Inject each inhibitor at a high dosage at the beginning;
8. Slowly decrease the dose rate while checking the control points;
9. Determine the inhibitor that is most effective at the lowest dosage rate.
Optimum dosage is crucial for a healthy plant operation. More dosage than needed
will not prevent scaling more efficiently; rather, it will lead to the precipitation of by-
products of the inhibitor, such as calcium phosphate [1].
Scale inhibitors have been used to reduce the precipitation of scale in wells by encir-
cling and holding certain cations to prevent them from sticking together to form scale. It has
been challenging to find commercially viable inhibitors for the troublesome precipitation
of silica and heavy-metal sulfides [1]. Dozens of inhibitors were developed in recent years
in parallel with the growth of the geothermal energy sector.
The types of geothermal inhibitors can be classified as follows:
• Phosphonic acid inhibitors;
• Inhibitors manufactured by phosphonic acid salts such as Na and K;
• Polymer inhibitors.
Phosphonic acid inhibitors are usually the most effective due to their high concen-
tration of active agents at low dosage rates. With their acidity being a pH level of less
than 2, they can cause serious corrosion, specifically in high-temperature wells and must
be used with caution [1]. The use of a sodium or potassium-based alkali can neutralize the
pH, but will require a higher dosage rate in comparison to their acidic forms. To maintain
the wellbore integrity, it is recommended that inhibitors are used as a short-term solution.
Polymer inhibitors are typically used in very high-temperature geothermal systems due to
their high stability under such conditions [1].
A chemical metering pump with a capillary tube can be used to continuously inject
the inhibitors in the well at a deep enough depth to effectively mix with the brine but prior
to the onset boiling. Once scale has formed, inhibitors are no longer effective, being that
they are a prevention method rather than a treatment method.
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 6 of 29

3.1.4. CO2 Injection

Experimental results show that the presence of CO2 in reinjection fluids can signif-
icantly inhibit silica scaling. While silica will still form, it slows down the kinetics and
decreases the pH, with less build-up in the wellbore and reservoir. The adoption of the
CO2 injection will rely heavily on the ability to commercialize this method beyond the pilot
stage, as well as find a way to make it economically viable for operators. The opportu-
nity to inject the CO2 from the geothermal brine production leads the way toward a low
carbon economy [13].
According to von Hirtz [11], the Puna geothermal power plant has utilized gas injection
since its start-up for scale and emissions control. This geothermal field is characterized
by low non-condensable gases that allow for 100% gas injection in production wells. A
mixture of brine and condensate forms an injectate with a pH of ~4.5 that is highly effective
in preventing silica scaling.

3.2. Pressure and Temperature Management

Pressure and temperature surveys are important in the evaluation of the formation
pressure and temperature. A frequent location for the significant build-up of metal cations
in iron silicates is just above the slotted liner hanger in the lower part of the production
casing. This is because the flashing of rising hot water causes the concentration of some
components to rise and the pH to change, which makes the insoluble particles precipitate.
Manipulations to pressure and flow rate can adjust the scaling deposition depth up to
50 m within the wellbore by varying the flash point location. Operators may be able to
use wellhead pressure control to ensure scale deposition within the production casing,
where it is possible to ream without damaging the slotted liner [16]. This adjustment
does not prevent scale formation, but it is possible to adjust the zone of deposition for
easier clean-out.
Fluid reinjection is used to increase operational efficiency, prevent reservoir pressure
depletion, recharge the aquifer, and address environmental concerns related to excess
brine disposal [17]. However, drawbacks such as clogging the fluid flow paths have been
observed. Geothermal operators aim to increase the efficiency of energy generation by
lowering the temperature of the reinjected fluid. The resulting temperature differences
when injecting cold water back into the reservoir are up to 80 ◦ C in low-enthalpy reservoirs
and more than 180 ◦ C in high-enthalpy reservoirs [18]. Consequently, various chemical
reactions can occur, leading to flow limitations in the reservoir [17].
As mentioned, a general guideline for silica suggests that it is only possible to cool
the water by approximately 100 ◦ C without the risk of scaling [12]. Therefore, reservoir
water at 220 ◦ C would need to be separated above 120 ◦ C to avoid scaling. As a result, the
higher the reservoir temperature, the higher the water temperature for reinjection to ensure
thermal efficiency [12].

3.3. Monitoring and Detection Techniques

Thermochemical modeling is the primary predictive tool to predict why, where, and
when scaling will occur [19]. The prediction and control of scaling lead to reliable geother-
mal energy supply. Through understanding the chemical composition of the geothermal
fluid, the behavior of materials in the geothermal environment can be anticipated. Effective
scale management requires the online monitoring of scaling tendencies, along with the
detection and identification of scale deposits under flow conditions.
A thermochemical prediction tool is essential for determining the stability of the
geothermal brine and can simulate scale prediction under various pressure and temperature
conditions. A simulator can perform what-if analyses and identify the optimal scenario
where no scaling occurs under specific conditions of temperature, pressure, and water
composition [19]. The precipitation rates for scale with or without the use of inhibitors
can also be calculated. Through obtaining measurements on a regular basis, major ion
 Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7

Energies 2024, 17, 4825 7 of 29

composition [19]. The precipitation rates for scale with or without the use of inhibitor
also be calculated. Through obtaining measurements on a regular basis, major ion con
concentrations trations
can be analyzed to enable
can be analyzed operators
to enable to taketocorrective
operators actions
take corrective in a timely
actions in a timely ma
manner and effectively maintain their geothermal systems (Figure 2).
and effectively maintain their geothermal systems (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Scale
Figure 2. Scale Management Management
Workflow, Workflow,
Modified Modified from [19].
from [19].

Schlumberger’sSchlumberger’s
energy glossaryenergy defines glossary defines flow
flow assurance as theassurance
“design,asstrategies,
the “design, andstrategies
principles
principles ensuring ensuring the uninterrupted
the uninterrupted hydrocarbon flow hydrocarbon
from theflow from to
reservoir thethe
reservoir
point to the p
on sale”. In theon sale”. In the
geothermal geothermal
space it is focusedspaceon it the
is focused on the uninterrupted
uninterrupted flow of geothermal flow of geothe
fluids
fluids to and from thetopower
and from the Silica
plants. powerand plants.
other Silica and other
geothermal geothermal
scales scales play a signifi
play a significant
role the
role in interrupting in interrupting the flowfluids.
flow of geothermal of geothermal fluids. Flow
Flow assurance assurancesystems
in production in production
is sys
is critical in ensuring efficient and cost-effective operations
critical in ensuring efficient and cost-effective operations of geothermal systems. Advanced of geothermal systems
vanced
technologies, such technologies,
as remote such as remote
3D visualization, 4D3D visualization,
seismic, intelligent 4D seismic,
completions,intelligent
and complet
and smart
smart wells, enable operatorswells,
to enable
monitor operators
downhole to monitor
pressuredownhole
and temperaturepressureinand realtemperature
time in
time to detect
to detect scale formation scale the
[19]. Once formation [19]. Onceitthe
data is collected, candata is collected,
be integrated intoitpredictive
can be integrated
predictive
simulators to forecast and simulators to forecastofand
assess the likelihood scaleassess the likelihood
deposition. Coupling of real-time
scale deposition.
data Cou
with simulationreal-time
models can dataassist
within simulation
developing models canapproach
a viable assist in developing a viable approach
to alleviate problems in to
viate problems
the entire system proactively [19]. in the entire system proactively [19].
The detection of The detection
silica build-upof silica
in thebuild-up
wellboreinatthe anwellbore
early stage at an early
is an stage is an
important part important
in ensuring the longevity of the geothermal system.
in ensuring the longevity of the geothermal system. Gathering data frequently from the Gathering data frequently from
wellbores will wellbores
allow the will allow to
operator theobserve
operatoratodecrease
observe aindecrease
the flowinrate the flow
and rate and wellhead
wellhead
pressure. Oncesure. thatOnce
occurs,thatthe
occurs,
amount the amount
of scale of scalethe
inside inside the casing
casing is probably
is probably already already sig
significant. Whencant.
an When
inhibitor an is
inhibitor
in use and is inthe
use and thetubing
capillary capillary tubing isfor
is extracted extracted
inspectionfor inspection
or
to run pressure run
andpressure
temperature and surveys,
temperature check surveys,
for thecheck
presencefor the presence
of scale on the oftubing
scale on the tubing
[20].
Identifying the location of scale deposition within the system is essential before im- befor
Identifying the location of scale deposition within the system is essential
plementing
plementing strategic control strategic
measures.controlFor measures.
the location Forofthe
scalelocation of scale
deposition, deposition,
calipers and calipers
go-devils are commonly used. They are effective tools
go-devils are commonly used. They are effective tools to calibrate the casing and determine to calibrate the casing and d
the thickness ofmine
scale,the thickness of scale,
demonstrating demonstrating
the variations the variations
in the wellbore inner in the wellbore
diameter open to inner diam
flow. Sinker bars can be run to tag the bottom for access purposes in the wellbore. This
information is important to make strategic decisions on the timing of clean-outs. Figure 3
 ature wells without compromising performance.
12. C. Electrical caliper logging tools with two, three, and four arms or multi-fingers are
used globally. Most of the caliper tools and cables have temperature limitations up
to 200 °C. High-temperature versions are available up to 350 °C for a limited time. As
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 8 of 29
a result, the wellbore may require quenching with cold water prior to use.
13. D. Kinley microscopic multi-finger caliper tool can be used in high-temperature en-
vironments up to 315 °C. This circumferential survey from the tool helps to find and
shows the various
measure types tubing,
deformed of go-devil and
rings of caliper tools
corrosion andthat can beisolated
erosion, used in pits,
downhole surveys
lines of pits,
to detect
and silica
scale. scaling [21].

Figure 3. Go-devils(A,B)
3. Go-devils (A,B) and
and caliper
caliper logging
logging toolstools (C,D)
(C,D) usedused in scaling
in scaling surveys
surveys [15] modified
[15] modified from
[21]. [21].
from

10. Downhole
A. Go-devils of different
restrictions candiameters, made ofimpact
have a significant copperon wire, constructed
wellbore access, and
well used
integ-by
Eda Renováveis
rity, re-injection, for the detection
and production of scale
flow rates. inside the
Downhole casing
visual by running
imaging in theeffective
is another well on a
method wireline until itscale
to visualize stopsbuild-up
at the scale obstruction.
within There are no temperature constraints.
the wellbore.
11. After
B. Go-devil
ensuring wellbore access through running copper
on a sinker bar, constructed with a caliper wire, with interchangeable
or go-devil, a downhole
camera can be deployed to provide a video record of the wellbore, ascan
baskets of different diameters. Suspended by wireline and be used
shown in high-
in Figure 4
temperature
[22]. Visual wells are
diagnostics without compromising
combined performance.
with computational analytics to provide real-time
12.
data onC. Electrical caliperatlogging
wellbore issues tools with
temperatures up totwo,
200 three, and
°C. It is four arms
important to or multi-fingers
ensure the fluid isare
clear used globally.
and does Most ofsolids
not contain the caliper tools in
suspended and cables have
solution, temperature
as it can affect the limitations
visibility ofuptheto
200 ◦ C. High-temperature versions are available up to 350 ◦ C for a limited time. As a
wellbore.
result, the wellbore
High-resolution may require
acoustic imagingquenching
technology with cold water
is being prioras
deployed to ause.
cutting-edge
13. D. Kinley microscopic multi-finger caliper tool can be used
technology capable of capturing sub-millimetric measurements to assess scale build-up in high-temperature
environments
and wellbore up to
integrity. 315 ◦ C. This
DarkVision’s circumferential
fluid survey from
agnostic technology can be the tool helps
deployed in to find
well-
boresandup tomeasure deformed
150 °C using tubing, rings
high-density arraysofandcorrosion and erosion,
cloud-based processingisolated pits, lines
to provide high-of
qualitypits, andAscale.
data. digital twin of the well is constructed post-scan and uses a 3D point cloud,
including the intensity
Downhole of thecan
restrictions signal
havereturn and the impact
a significant exact location of the access,
on wellbore surface well
fromintegrity,
which
the return was generated. Through a multifaceted dataset comes an
re-injection, and production flow rates. Downhole visual imaging is another effectiveintegrated perspective
on the surface
method condition
to visualize scaleand textural
build-up reliefthe
within of the casing. The capture of this data is fluid
wellbore.
agnostic
After without
ensuringthe wellbore
need for fluid
accessclarity or a light
through source,
running whichor
a caliper arego-devil,
requiredafor optical
downhole
camera can be deployed to provide a video record of the wellbore, as shown in Figure[23].
based downhole tools. Real-time imaging is currently underway for this technology 4 [22].
Visual diagnostics are combined with computational analytics to provide real-time data on
wellbore issues at temperatures up to 200 ◦ C. It is important to ensure the fluid is clear and
does not contain solids suspended in solution, as it can affect the visibility of the wellbore.
High-resolution acoustic imaging technology is being deployed as a cutting-edge
technology capable of capturing sub-millimetric measurements to assess scale build-up and
wellbore integrity. DarkVision’s fluid agnostic technology can be deployed in wellbores up
to 150 ◦ C using high-density arrays and cloud-based processing to provide high-quality
data. A digital twin of the well is constructed post-scan and uses a 3D point cloud, including
the intensity of the signal return and the exact location of the surface from which the return
was generated. Through a multifaceted dataset comes an integrated perspective on the
surface condition and textural relief of the casing. The capture of this data is fluid agnostic
without the need for fluid clarity or a light source, which are required for optical based
downhole tools. Real-time imaging is currently underway for this technology [23].
R REVIEW 9 of 30
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 9 of 29

Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 30

Figure
Figure 4. EV camera used 4. EV
4. EV camera
to provide
Figure used
downhole
camera to provide
used to provide
visualdownhole
imaging
downhole visual imaging
ofimaging
visual ofscale
scalebuild-up
scale build-up
of build-up andchanges
and and changes
changes inininthe
the
the
tubing
tubing diameter
diameter [22].
[22].
tubing diameter [22].
Once
Once we
we know
know thethe location
location of
of scale
scalebuild-up,
build-up,verification
verificationofofthethescale
scaletype
typeisisessential.
essential.
Silica
Once we know theSilica and
location calcite are
of scale
and calcite white colored
build-up,
are white in appearance
colored verification and
in appearance of difficult
andthe to distinguish
scaletotype
difficult at first
atglance.
is essential.
distinguish first
Silica scales
glance. Silicacan appear
scales can grey
appear or black
grey or due
black to small
due to amounts
small of
amounts iron
of sulfide,
iron a
sulfide,corrosion
a cor-
Silica and calcite are product
whitefrom colored
thefrom
metalincasing.
appearance and todifficult tothedistinguish at first
rosion product the metal A quickAmethod
casing. differentiate
quick method two the
to differentiate is bytwoplacing
is by aplac-
drop
glance. Silica scales can
of appear
HCl on a grey
sample; orif black
bubbles due
form, toit small
indicates amounts
the presence of ofiron sulfide,
calcite
ing a drop of HCl on a sample; if bubbles form, it indicates the presence of calcite [12]. [12]. a cor-
Otherwise,
rosion product from the scale analysis
metal
Otherwise, cananalysis
casing.
scale be aAtedious
quick
can beprocess
method
a tedious involving X-ray
to differentiate
process diffraction
involving the(XRD)
X-ray two to
diffraction isidentify
by(XRD)plac-the
to
crystal
identifysubstance,
the crystalelectron microscopy
substance, electron (SEM) for distributive
microscopy (SEM) for and qualitative
distributive andanalysis,
qualitative and
ing a drop of HCl on wet a sample;
chemistry if bubbles
analytical form,
methods it indicates
shown in Figure 5 the
[12]. presence of calcite [12].
analysis, and wet chemistry analytical methods shown in Figure 5 [12].
Otherwise, scale analysis can be a tedious process involving X-ray diffraction (XRD) to
identify the crystal substance, electron microscopy (SEM) for distributive and qualitative
analysis, and wet chemistry analytical methods shown in Figure 5 [12].

Figure 5. Methods used for geothermal scale analysis, modified from Thorhallsson [12].
Figure 5. Methods used for geothermal scale analysis, modified from Thorhallsson [12].

3.4. Treatment Strategies and Case Studies

3.4.1. Chemical Solutions
In geothermal systems, the conditions and brine chemistry of each geothermal project
can differ significantly. Therefore, selecting a suitable chemical program is essential to
maximize effectiveness while minimizing wellbore damage. It is critical to ensure that the
chemicals are thermally stable to up to 250 °C, or the required wellbore temperature [15].
While biodegradable chemical solutions are hitting the market for treating scale, they have
not yet been effectively adapted for silica deposits. Chemical brine analyses can be used
Figure 5. Methods used for geothermal scale analysis, modified from Thorhallsson [12].
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 10 of 29

3.4. Treatment Strategies and Case Studies

3.4.1. Chemical Solutions
In geothermal systems, the conditions and brine chemistry of each geothermal project
can differ significantly. Therefore, selecting a suitable chemical program is essential to
maximize effectiveness while minimizing wellbore damage. It is critical to ensure that the
chemicals are thermally stable to up to 250 ◦ C, or the required wellbore temperature [15].
While biodegradable chemical solutions are hitting the market for treating scale, they have
not yet been effectively adapted for silica deposits. Chemical brine analyses can be used to
determine the composition of the deposits and the relative proportions of the chemicals
used in the steps of the cleaning process.
Chemicals are commonly used as they can perform many functions from mitigation to
the removal of scale deposits through dissolution. The use of chemicals for inhibitors and
pH modification, as previously discussed, are preventative methods that can be used prior
to scale forming. Once scale deposits have accumulated in the wellbore, acidization through
bull heading or acid flushing can be applied. Chemicals can also be used when porous
media within the formation becomes obstructed. In this case, acidization can stimulate the
formation to enhance the permeability and flow rate of the system.
Injecting chemicals is not always economical to control scaling in a geothermal opera-
tion. Given the low efficiency rate of chemicals, a significant amount needs to be injected
on a frequent basis in order to increase productivity.
Traditional chemical methods for trying to clean scaling in wells uses hydrochloric
acid (HCl), and, while this impacts calcite, silica and silica-based deposits are not soluble
in HCl. Mud acid, which is commonly a blend of HCl combined with HF (hydrofluoric
acid), has been more effective for treating silica as shown in the case study at Wairakei
Field [24]. The addition of HF increases the corrosion within the well, which affects the
wellbore integrity. As a result, acid must be used sparingly, as a short-term solution, as to
not affect the longevity of the geothermal system.
There is the risk of not having the optimal chemical for the wellbore and reservoir con-
ditions. Incompatibilities between the acid and the brine or reservoir rock can result in the
precipitation of additional scale and cause more damage to the system than improvement.
Corrosive chemicals, such as HF, can corrode metal surfaces, resulting in pits and holes in
the wellbore casing, along with the addition of metal scale deposits. It has also been discov-
ered that hydrophobic layers form on some silicates after acid exposure. The constant flow
of acid metal silicate deposits has been ineffective in treating these hydrophobic layers [24].
Certain forms of chemicals can be extremely dangerous to handle and transport. As a
result, there are significant health and safety hazards that must be considered. The spent
acid must be flowed or lifted with proper disposal. Regulatory restrictions have been
discussed for chemical use in the subsurface, with the potential to ban specific chemicals as
a result of the well integrity risks, as well as the impact to humans and the environment.
New developments in the chemical treatment space are occurring using a food-grade base
to provide a safer process [24]. Further experimentation will be required to understand the
effectiveness on various types of scale deposits.
With bull heading, the acid will tend to follow the path of least resistance, resulting in
uneven acid distribution and the lack of ability to treat targeted feed zones. Acid flushing
is another chemical method for wellbore cleaning. A coiled tubing unit is used to propel
acid into targeted feed zones. It is critical to understand the inflow and outflows of feed
zones, as they can dilute or re-direct acid. Understanding the optimal operating conditions
for acidization is important, as there can be a higher risk of fracturing the formation due to
stimulation. Monitoring the production increase is also critical in determining the frequency
of treatment required when building out a maintenance plan (Table 1).
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 11 of 29

Table 1. Advantages and challenges of bull heading and acid flushing for geothermal wellbores.

Chemical Method Advantages Challenges

• Injection of acid from surface • Acid follows path of least resistance, resulting
Bull heading • Lower cost than acid flushing in uneven acid distribution
• Ability to stimulate the reservoir • Lack of ability to target feed zones
• Requires coiled tubing unit
• Ability to target specific feed zones
• Acid follows the path of least resistance and
Acid flushing • More uniform distribution of acid
feed zones can dilute or re-direct acid
• Most effective at stimulating the reservoir
• Higher cost than bull heading

Chemical treatment case studies are from the Wairakei Field in New Zealand, as well
as the Los Azufres and Las Tres Virgenes fields in Mexico, which use acid flushing and bull
heading techniques (Table 2).

Table 2. Chemical treatment case studies in the Wairakei field in New Zealand [24] along with the
Los Azufres and Las Tres Virgenes fields in Mexico [25].

Method and Wellbore

Geothermal Field Scale Type Results
Chemicals Temperature
The HCl was effective in treating calcite, but HF
was required to treat silica. The addition of HF
Acid flushing and increased corrosion, along with additional
Wairakei, bull heading with environmental and safety risks. Caustic soda was
200–260 ◦ C Silica and calcite
New Zealand 10% HCl and added for pH modification of the brine on the
5% HF surface, prior to reinjection, to aid in neutralizing
and reducing the corrosion. The production rate
doubled from this acidization process.
Acid flushing was used to treat a majority of
the wells, with bull heading deemed less
Acid flushing and effective. Of the 17 wells treated, 15 were
Los Azufres and
bull heading with effective. Corrosion inhibitors were also added
Las Tres Virgenes, 260 ◦ C Silica and calcite
10% HCl and to the acid blend. The average percentage of
Mexico
5% HF improvement ranged from 13 to 540%, with an
average of ~176%. Treatment was considered
economic in comparison to drilling new wells.

3.4.2. Mechanical Solutions

Mechanical solutions are a common form of treatment once scale deposits have formed.
Cleaning operations can consist of various mechanical treatments that include brushing,
broaching, reaming, and water jetting. The scale type and severity of build-up will deter-
mine which treatment method(s) are appropriate for wellbore cleaning. It is not possible to
clean slotted liners or the reservoir with mechanical tools, except through the water jetting
process. Table 3 demonstrates the advantages and challenges of the mechanical methods
described above.
Brushing is a wireline deployed technique that uses bristle wires to scrape the sides of
the wellbore to loosen and remove encrusted material. The brushing tool is an abrasive
technique that is most effective on scale types that are easy to remove. Brushing is less
commonly deployed as it would take significantly longer to remove scale build-up in the
wellbore (Table 3).
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 12 of 29

Table 3. Advantages and challenges of brushing, broaching, reaming, and water jetting for geothermal
wellbores.

Mechanical Method Advantages Challenges

• Compact • Unable to treat wellbores that are completely
Brushing • Quick to deploy by wireline/slickline scaled up
• Lower cost compared to using a rig • Most effective for scale types that are easily removed
• High risk of tool getting stuck in hole
• Compact
• Success is dependent on skill level of
• Quick to deploy by wireline/slickline
Broaching wireline operator
• More effective than brushing
• Difficult to treat silica scale
• Lower cost compared to using a rig
• Difficult to treat thick scale build-up
• Unpredictable rig times can lead to high costs
• Most effective mechanical method • Higher carbon footprint and safety risk compared
Reaming • Ability to revive fully scaled-up wellbore to wireline tools
• Effectively treats robust scale • Higher risk of damaging completion equipment
compared to wireline tools
• Compact • Requires frequent treatment for effective results
Water jetting • Better than standard hot water injection • Unable to treat wellbores that are completely
• Remove blockages beyond the casing ID scaled up

Broaching is a wireline intervention with a mechanical toothed tool that is used to

remove material within the wellbore. Broaching is not meant to be the primary method for
scale removal but can complement other treatment techniques to help maintain optimal
production. The success of the operation will depend on the tool technology, the well
conditions, wireline experience, and scale type. The treatment of silica scale can be a
challenge with broaching due to the high compressional strength of the material. It has
been proven to be more effective in treating calcite scales. In geothermal wells, the tool
is run on wireline or slickline into a known blockage and forced through to develop a
hole. The process is then repeated, completing multiple runs with the tool size gradually
increasing to open the diameter of the wellbore [26]. The wireline operation provides a cost-
effective alternative to full wellbore cleanouts using coiled tubing or a drilling rig (Table 3).
Flowing the well is a part of the process to clear out the debris from the wellbore. Specific
requirements include the ability to withstand extreme temperatures and corrosive fluids.
The ability to reliably fish out the tool in case it gets stuck in the hole is also important to
consider. There are improvements being made to the tool design to increase effectiveness
through a focus on hardened teeth and cutting impact angles [26].
Reaming (milling) is a mechanical technique with a rotating bit that can be deployed
with a coiled tubing unit or with a drilling rig. Various bit sizes are used to improve
accessibility and to clean out scale. Cleaning operations using a drill rig are recommended
when the deposition zone is in the production casing. When the scale deposits are within the
slotted liner, there becomes a higher risk of damaging the completion equipment (Figure 10).
There are two methods that have been adopted for reaming that include the following:
14. Reaming with the well quenched;
15. Reaming during well discharge.
Reaming the scale deposits with the well quenched, known as killing the well, requires
continuous cold water to be injected into the well to keep it under control. This is known
as the conventional method for reaming and can take, on average, 10 days to carry out the
operations. It must not be rushed, as the injection of cold water can result in casing damage
that can lead to wellbore integrity issues. The temperature or flow rate of water must be
increased or decreased gradually in order to minimize thermal strain of the casing [21].
Once the well has been controlled, cleaning operation can begin, maintaining the injection
of cold water to the end. A challenge with this method is that, as scale deposits are loosened,
these sediments fall to the bottom of the well, making the well shallower, and can be also
introduced into the reservoir to clog the pore spaces. It is important to continue reaming the
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 13 of 29

sediments at the bottom of the well to break them up further. When the well is flowed after
the operation, these deposits can then be brought to surface [21]. As a result of temperature
changes in the wellbore from quenching, time is required after the operation to recover and
regain the initial conditions of the well.
Reaming the scale deposits during well discharge is a method that is performed
without cooling or quenching the well (killing the well). The well is kept hot and flowing
to a separator pipe on the surface where cuttings can be gathered rather than left to
accumulate at the well bottom. Originally developed in Iceland over a period of 25 years,
this more complex method allows the casing to keep the same properties, and the cement
bond remains intact since the well does not undergo thermal cycling due to changes of
temperature [20]. The total time that the well is out of service is reduced. The increase in
production rates is also recognized immediately without requiring the wellbore to heat
back up after undergoing quenching.
With reaming, in order to prevent casing damage during scale removal, the outer
diameter of the bit needs to be sufficiently smaller than the inner diameter of the casing,
resulting in a thin layer of scale being left on the inner wall of the casing after completion.
The remaining scale has the ability to prevent water from being injected into the formation
through slotted liners and will require other treatment methods to provide reservoir access.
One method that has been used to clean out the wellbore and slotted liners is water jetting,
where a coiled tubing unit is fitted with a low-speed, self-rotating waterjet nozzle system
under high ambient pressure [27].
Case studies in the Dieng geothermal field in Indonesia, Kizildere field in Turkey, and
Ahuachapán field in El Salvador are included in Table 4.

Table 4. Mechanical treatment case studies in the Dieng field in Indonesia [28], Kizildere field in
Turkey [29], and Ahuachapán field in El Salvador [21].

Mechanical Wellbore
Geothermal Field Scale Type Results
Method Temperature
Previous attempts with broaching and
water jetting were unsuccessful in
Broaching, reaming, increasing the production rate.
Dieng, Indonesia 280–330 ◦ C Silica and calcite
and water jetting Reaming was then chosen as the
optimal method for this field in
treating the sulfide and silica scale.
Reaming occurred during well
discharge. After mechanical treatment,
production returned to previous levels
Kizildere, Turkey Reaming 242 ◦ C Silica and calcite in 12–18 months. Acidization
treatment was then used to clean scale
in the reservoir fractures to further
increase production.
Reaming occurred with the well
quenched. Resistance was detected in
the slotted liner of one of the producer
wells. Rotation was applied and
Ahuachapán,
Reaming 228–250 ◦ C Silica and calcite caused damage to slotted liner and
El Salvador
collapse. Numerous fishing operations
occurred, but the liner was unable to
be fully recovered. A sidetrack was
then drilled.

3.4.3. Electro-Hydraulic Pulse Solution

Blue Spark Energy [30] has pioneered an innovative technology, eliminating the
necessity for mechanical, chemical, or explosive-based solutions for wellbore cleaning.
The BLUESPARK® electro-hydraulic pulsing (EHP) technology removes scale build-up in
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 14 of 29

the near wellbore region to ensure optimal wellbore performance in cased or open-hole
completions. EHP tools are run on regular wireline cable with no special power source
required. The technology empowers operators with an economical and safe treatment
method to substantially reduce the industry’s carbon footprint by up to 90% compared to
conventional maintenance methods. There is a low health and safety risk that does not
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW
involve the transportation of hazardous goods or require permits to operate. 14 of 30

At the core of EHP lies a straightforward yet powerful equation: (P = E/t) allows
power to be harnessed efficiently, where P is power, E is energy, and t is time. A relatively
small amount
small amount of of electrical
electricalenergy,
energy,1000J,
1000J,isisstored,
stored,amplified,
amplified,and andthenthenreleased
releasedover overanan
extremely short
extremely short period
periodofoftime.
time.By Bycompressing
compressingthe thetimetimeframe,
frame,a alarge
largeamount
amountofofpower power
be generated
can be generatedand andreleased,
released,creating
creatinga a shockwave
shockwave andandan an electro-hydraulic
electro-hydraulic pulse.
pulse. It is It
is through
through thisthis release
release thatthat
thethe pulse
pulse treats
treats flow flow impediments
impediments within
within a targeted
a targeted section
section of
of the wellbore. Each hydraulic pulse is a high-power shockwave
the wellbore. Each hydraulic pulse is a high-power shockwave travelling at the speed of travelling at the speed
of sound,
sound, which
which radiates
radiates laterally
laterally awayaway from
from thethe tool,
tool, producing
producing a compressional
a compressional force.
force.
When the shockwave
shockwaveinteracts
interactswith
withaamaterial
materialpossessing
possessinga adifferent
differentacoustic
acousticimpedance
impedance
liquid through
than the liquid through which
whichthethewave
waveisispropagating,
propagating,such suchasassteel
steelcasing,
casing,it itreflects
reflects and
and
travels back inwards
inwards towards
towardsthe thetool
toolasasaatensile
tensileforce.
force.TheThestresses
stressesgenerated
generated through
through this
interaction
this are significant
interaction enough
are significant to exceed
enough the tensile
to exceed strength
the tensile of scale
strength ofmaterial, thereby
scale material,
delaminating
thereby the scale,
delaminating thebut arebut
scale, muchare less
much thanlessthe
than yield strength
the yield of steel,
strength protecting
of steel, protect- the
integrity of the casing and cement.
ing the integrity of the casing and cement.
Each BLUESPARK®®tool
Each BLUESPARK toolisiscomprised
comprisedofoffive fiveintegral
integralcomponents
components[30], [30],allallhousing
housing
proprietary technology
technology responsible
responsible for forgenerating
generatingthe thepulse
pulse(Figure
(Figure6). 6).

Figure 6. Electro-hydraulic
Electro-hydraulicpulse
pulsetool
tooland
andfunction
functionofofcritical
criticalcomponents
components[30].
[30].

distinguishingfeature
A distinguishing featureof ofthe
thetool
toolisisits
itsability
abilitytotoreplicate
replicatethese
thesepulses
pulseshundreds
hundreds oror
thousands of times at
thousands at 55 ssecond
increments. The higher
increments. the tensile
The higher strength
the tensile of the scale
strength of thematerial,
scale
the more the
material, cumulative pulses deployed
more cumulative to ensuretoan
pulses deployed efficient
ensure break-upbreak-up
an efficient of the material to be
of the ma-
terial to be flowed to the surface. The pulses can be repeated up to 12,000 times per run,up
flowed to the surface. The pulses can be repeated up to 12,000 times per run, treating
to 120 m.upOnce
treating the maximum
to 120m. pulse count
Once the maximum pulseis reached,
count is the tool isthe
reached, brought
tool is to the surface
brought to theto
refurbish
surface to the electrode
refurbish and promptly
the electrode sent backsent
and promptly downhole for further
back downhole forpulsing. With the
further pulsing.
successful
With treatmenttreatment
the successful of 39 types of of
39scale
typestoofdate,
scalethrough
to date,over 1000over
through operations globally, it
1000 operations
provides
globally, an effective an
it provides solution
effective to treat the most
solution challenging
to treat the mostscale depositsscale
challenging including silicates,
deposits in-
along with
cluding iron-based
silicates, along with corrosion products
iron-based commonly
corrosion products present
commonlyin geothermal wellbores
present in geother-
(Figure 7). The(Figure
mal wellbores EHP will 7). travel
The EHPthrough the scale
will travel in thethe
through slotted
scaleliners
in theand effectively
slotted clean
liners and
the slots to restore flow (Figure 7). There is no depth restriction for tool
effectively clean the slots to restore flow (Figure 7). There is no depth restriction for tool deployment.
A challenge with conventional treatment methods is the ability to ensure wellbore
deployment.
integrity without the significant risk of damaging the wellbore completion equipment.
These subsurface risks are eliminated when using electro-hydraulic pulsing (EHP) tech-
nology, as it provides a sustainable solution that ensures the integrity of the wellbore.
With over 1000 operations to date, the technology is proven [30]. Cement bond logs are
commonly used to demonstrate the wellbore integrity of the cement behind casing after
EHP operations (Figure 8).

Figure 7. Slotted liner and casing cleaned using electro-hydraulic pulsing [30].

A challenge with conventional treatment methods is the ability to ensure wellbore

 With the successful treatment of 39 types of scale to date, through over 1000 operations
globally, it provides an effective solution to treat the most challenging scale deposits in-
cluding silicates, along with iron-based corrosion products commonly present in geother-
mal wellbores (Figure 7). The EHP will travel through the scale in the slotted liners and
Energies 2024, 17, 4825
effectively clean the slots to restore flow (Figure 7). There is no depth restriction for15tool
of 29

deployment.

rgies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW

technology, as it provides a sustainable solution that ensures the integr

With over 1000 operations to date, the technology is proven [30]. Cem
commonly used to demonstrate the wellbore integrity of the cement b
EHP
Figure operations
Figure7.7.
Slotted
Slottedliner
linerand(Figure
andcasing 8).using
casingcleaned
cleaned usingelectro-hydraulic
electro-hydraulicpulsing
pulsing[30].
[30].

A challenge with conventional treatment methods is the ability to ensure wellbore

integrity without the significant risk of damaging the wellbore completion equipment.
These subsurface risks are eliminated when using electro-hydraulic pulsing (EHP)

Figure 8. Cement bond log pre and post electro-hydraulic pulse operation demonstrating integrity of
Figure 8. Cement bond log pre and post electro-hydraulic pulse operation dem
cement behind casing [30].
of cement behind casing [30].
A non-compressible fluid is required in the borehole to conduct the shock wave
created, but it only needs to cover the interval being treated (Table 5). Therefore, the
A treatment
targeted non-compressible fluid
section will need to beis
in required in the
the liquid phase. Theborehole to conduct
EHP tool, similar to t
other wireline tools, has temperature constraints of up to 130 ◦ C. Case studies demonstrate
ated, but it only needs to cover the interval being treated (Table 5). The
the opportunity to deploy the tool for heating systems and power systems, with injector or
treatment section
producer wellbores >130 will needtoto
◦ C needing be in the
be actively liquid
cooled during phase. The
deployment EHP tool, sim
or quenched
line
prior tools, has temperature constraints of up to 130 °C. Case studies d
to treatment.
Case studies that have used the EHP technology have been documented in Table 6.
portunity to deploy the tool for heating systems and power systems, w
These case studies demonstrate the simple and efficient process that increased the flow rate
ducer wellbores
of the wellbore. Through>130 °C needing
maintaining wellboreto be actively
integrity with EHP cooled
technology,during
operatorsdeploy
can extend the lifespan of geothermal wells and the economic viability of projects.
prior to treatment.

Table 5. Advantages and challenges of using the electro-hydraulic pulse techn

wellbores [30].

reatment Method Advantages Challenge

• Eco-friendly, safe, and low carbon footprint
• Rigless, run on wireline to deploy • Able to treat in wellbore
• Most effective method to clean cased, open Celsius and requires wells to
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 16 of 29

Table 5. Advantages and challenges of using the electro-hydraulic pulse technology in geothermal
wellbores [30].

Treatment Method Advantages Challenges

• Eco-friendly, safe, and low carbon footprint
• Rigless, run on wireline to deploy • Able to treat in wellbores up to 130 ◦ C and
• Most effective method to clean cased, open requires wells to be cooled prior to treating
Electro-hydraulic pulse hole, or slotted liners higher-temperature wells.
• Ability to remove hard scale, successfully • Requires non-compressible fluid in
treating 39 scale variations, including silica treatment interval.
• Targeted approach and immediate results

Table 6. Case studies that have deployed EHP technology to remove flow impediments and increase
flow rates [30].

Wellbore Type and

Geothermal Field Scale Type Results
Completion
The wellbore was cooled to 100 ◦ C. A five-meter
Injector well, slotted
Tongonan, Philippines Silica interval was treated for silica scaling and resulted in
liner completion
a 50% increase to the injection rates.
The wellbore was cooled to 120 ◦ C. A 40 m interval
was treated with an operating time of 13 h. The
Hatchōbaru, Injector well, open wellbore cleaning of silica scale resulted in the
Silica
Japan hole completion injection rate to increase by 1200%. The final stable
rate was within 5% of the original rate after
completion 6 years prior.

3.4.4. Optimize Efficiencies through Combining Cleaning Solutions

Strategic considerations should be considered to optimize efficiencies through combin-
ing cleaning solutions. The fluid chemistry, reservoir conditions, drilling regulations, and
economics will all play an important factor for the treatment(s) chosen. Below are examples
of how to combine different methods when building a maintenance program that take into
consideration optimal performance and wellbore longevity.
• Combine mechanical and electro-hydraulic treatment: Mechanically ream scaled-up
well until 2.75-inch electro-hydraulic tool can fit into wellbore to efficiently clean by
pulsing.
• Combine chemical inhibitor and electro-hydraulic treatment: Use inhibitor to de-
crease the amount of scale build-up. When extensive cleaning is required, use electro-
hydraulic pulsing rather than full wellbore acid treatment.
• Combine chemical acidization and electro-hydraulic treatment: Use electro-hydraulic
pulsing to clean the near wellbore impediments and create a pathway for acid flushing
to propagate laterally into the reservoir feed zones.
• Combine mechanical and chemical treatment: Mechanically clean out wellbore casing
ID, followed by acid flushing to propagate laterally into the reservoir feed zones.

4. Occurrence of Silica in Surface Facilities

4.1. Silica Scaling in Surface Equipment
Silica scaling is a common issue in high-temperature geothermal surface facilities,
where silica scaling forms in various parts of the geothermal surface system shown in
Figure 9. The authors of [16] identified key areas for the formation of silica scale within the
surface facilities, which include the following:
• Pipelines: transporting geothermal fluid from wells to surface facilities, through to
downhole re-injection (Figure 10);
• Separators;
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 17 of 29

• Water-collecting tanks;
Energies
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER2024, 17, x•FOR Effluent
REVIEW
disposal pond;
PEER REVIEW 17 of 30 17
• Heat exchangers (Figure 9);
• Turbines: including turbine condensers, nozzles, and blades.

Figure 9. Common locations of scaling deposition within a geothermal system, modified

Figure 9. Common
Commonlocations
locations of scaling deposition within a geothermal system, modified after
Figure 9. Tassew [16].of scaling deposition within a geothermal system, modified after Tassew [16].
Tassew [16].

Figure 10. SilicaFigure

scaling10.inSilica scaling in heat
heat exchangers andexchangers and
pipes at the pipes at the
Hellisheiði Hellisheiði
power station power station (left)
(left) and
Figure 10. Silica Nesjavellir
scaling in (right)
heat [31].
exchangers and pipes at the Hellisheiði power station (left) and
Nesjavellir (right) [31].
Nesjavellir (right) [31].
Silica scale
Silica scale deposition deposition
in surface in surface
facilities facilities
can have candetrimental
several have severaleffects:
detrimental effects:
Silica scale• deposition
Reduce in surface facilities
heat transfer can have
efficiency: in scale several detrimental
deposition effects:
• Reduce heat transfer efficiency: scale deposition turbine nozzlesin turbine
causes lossnozzles
of powercauses lo
• Reduce heat power
transfer output due
efficiency: to
scalerestricted
depositionflow. in Similarly,
turbine scale
nozzles
output due to restricted flow. Similarly, scale depositions in the condenser result depositions
causes lossin
inofathe conde
power output result
due toin a loss of
restricted vacuum
flow. efficiency
Similarly, and
scale power. In
depositions
loss of vacuum efficiency and power. In Organic Rankine Cycle and combined-cycle Organic
in the Rankine
condenser Cycle and c
result in a loss
geothermal bined-cycle
of vacuum
power geothermal
plants,efficiency power
andin
silica scaling plants,
power. silica scaling in
In Organic significantly
heat exchangers heat
Rankine Cycle exchangers
heat significa
and com-
lowers
bined-cycle lowers
geothermal
transfer, resulting heat transfer,
power plants,
in a significant resulting
silica
pressure in a significant
scaling
drop that in pressure
heat exchangers
reduces drop significantly power
power generation.that reduces
eration.
lowers heat transfer, resulting in a significant pressure drop that reduces power gen-
eration. • Flow restriction: scale build-up can narrow the cross-sectional area of pipes, lea
• Flow restriction: to scale
a significant
build-up drop
caninnarrow
pressure
theand reduced fluid
cross-sectional flow.
area of pipes, leading
to a significant drop in pressure and reduced fluid flow.
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 18 of 29

• Flow restriction: scale build-up can narrow the cross-sectional area of pipes, leading
to a significant drop in pressure and reduced fluid flow.
• Equipment damage: The abrasive nature of silica particles can cause wear and tear on
mechanical components.
• Increase operational costs: frequent cleaning and the replacement of scaled compo-
nents, such as filters, incur additional costs and downtime.

4.2. Methods for Monitoring Geothermal Scale

Monitoring geothermal scale is important for several reasons:
• Operational efficiency: scaling can reduce the heat transfer efficiency in heat exchang-
ers and clog pipelines, leading to increased operational costs.
• Maintenance and downtime: regular monitoring helps in planning maintenance
activities and reducing unplanned downtime.
• Safety: accumulated scale can lead to blockages and potential safety hazards in
high-pressure systems.
• Longevity of equipment: continuous monitoring and timely descaling can prolong the
life of expensive equipment.

4.2.1. Visual Inspection

Visual inspection is the simplest form of monitoring, where operators regularly in-
spect equipment for visible signs of scaling. While straightforward, visual inspection is
limited by its subjectivity and inability to detect early-stage scaling within pipelines and
internal components.

4.2.2. Pressure and Flow Measurements

Monitoring pressure drops and flow rates in pipelines can indicate the presence of
scaling. A significant pressure drop or reduced flow rate can suggest that scale build-up is
restricting fluid movement. This indication provides indirect evidence of scaling but does
not offer specific information about the composition or location of the scales.

4.2.3. Chemical Analysis

Regular chemical analysis of the geothermal brine can help predict scaling tendencies.
By monitoring the concentration of scaling precursors, operators can assess the potential
for scale accumulation and implement preventive measures. Chemical analysis requires
sampling and laboratory testing, which can be time-consuming and may not provide
real-time data.

4.2.4. Scaling Plates and Coupons

Scaling plates and coupons are widely used tools for the direct and quantitative
monitoring of geothermal scale.
Scaling plates: flat metal or non-metal plates that are placed in the geothermal fluid
flow path. Scale plate dimensions utilized are 5.4 × 2 cm [32] but are not limited to this
size. Over time, scale deposits on the plates, mimicking the scaling process in the actual
equipment. Operators periodically remove and analyze the plates to assess the scale type
and amount formed. Scaling plates provide valuable information on the rate of scale
accumulation and allow for the testing of various materials to determine their susceptibility
to scaling.
Coupons: small, standardized metal samples inserted into the geothermal fluid stream.
Coupon dimensions utilized are 2 × 1.3 cm [32] but are not limited to this size. They are
usually composed of the same materials that are used in the actual plant equipment. Similar
to scaling plates, coupons accumulate scale over time. They can be removed and analyzed
through techniques such as gravimetric analysis (measuring weight change) and surface
microscopy to evaluate the thickness, composition, and morphology of the scale. Coupons
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 19 of 29

are often used in conjunction with corrosion monitoring to assess the combined effects of
scaling and corrosion on plant materials.

4.3. Treatment Strategies and Case Studies

4.3.1. Preventative Methods
To prevent silica scaling, geochemists use thermodynamic modeling to apply appropri-
ate treatment methods through the adjustment of temperature and/or pH. Most methods
used to prevent and mitigate the formation of silica scales in geothermal surface facilities
have been described by Gallup and von Hirtz [33]. Common methods specific to brine
chemistry and process conditions include the following:
• pH modification;
• Aging or pond retention/evaporation/percolation ponds;
• Brine and condensate mixing;
• Crystallization reactor-clarification technology.

pH Modification
The solubility of silica is dependent on the pH of the geothermal fluid as mentioned
in Section 2. Silica is more soluble in highly acidic (pH < 3) and highly alkaline (pH > 10)
conditions. By modifying the pH of geothermal fluids, it is possible to manipulate the
solubility of silica and prevent its precipitation.
Ph modification, often referred to as pH mod, is one of the most used methods
employed across the world to mitigate silica scaling. The process involves acid being
added to the brine for silica scale control. The focus is on retarding the polymerization and
molecular deposition kinetics of Si(OH)4 . The variety of chemicals used for pH mod are
shown in Table 7 [3,27,28].

Table 7. Common pH mod methods compiled from authors [11,33,34].

Additive Groups pH Mod Additives

• Hydrochloric acid (HCl)
• Sulfuric acid (H2 SO4 )
• Sulfurous acid (H2 SO3 )
Acid additives
• Hydrofluoric acid (HF)
• Organic acids—acetic or formic (may require larger volumes)
• Carbon dioxide
• Sodium hydroxide (NaOH): used to increase the pH
Alkali additives • Ammonia (NH3 ): can also raise the pH, but handling and safety considerations are important.
• Sodium carbonate (Na2 CO3 )
• Buffers can be used to maintain the pH within a specific range, thus controlling the solubility of
Buffer solutions silica. These solutions often consist of a weak acid and its conjugate base or a weak base and its
conjugate acid.

Effective pH modification requires precise monitoring and control systems to ensure

that the pH remains within the desired range. Geothermal surface facilities employ auto-
mated pH monitoring systems equipped with sensors that provide real-time data. These
monitoring systems can be integrated with dosing pumps that adjust the addition of acids
or alkalis to maintain the target pH. The selection of pH mod additives must take into
account the geothermal fluid composition to avoid a chemical reaction and the formation
of scales as byproducts [35].
A case study in Olkaria, a geothermal field in Kenya, uses pH modification. In order to
neutralize the acidic pH of the condensate (pH 2.5) to prevent silica precipitation, sodium
carbonate is added to raise the pH to 6.0. The sodium carbonate treatment method was
first introduced in Olkaria II in 2001 by Sinclair Knight Merz [35]. The suspected major
concern with this method is side reactions from the impurities in the chemical such as
silicates and sulfides.
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 20 of 29

The Salton Sea Geothermal Field in the United States also uses pH modification. The
field is characterized by significantly high salinity and total dissolved solids within the
brine. Following the successful development and the utilization of the crystallization
reactor-clarification technology (CRC), pH mod was carried out due to the high costs
associated with the CRC technology. The process included the addition of HCl to the spent
geothermal fluid to keep silica and associated elements in solution. The brine was then
reinjected into the reservoir [36].

Cooling and Aging of the Produced Water

Once the heat has been harnessed from the geothermal fluid, the spent fluid is sent
to a retention pond to store the fluid prior to reinjection. The spent geothermal fluid is
held at a generally neutral pH, where it is cooled naturally with increasing residence times
(aging) from hours to days. The process allows for the polymerization of silica, which
allows the formation of colloids, which will settle to the bottom of the pond. To improve the
formation of silica colloids, polymers and flocculants can be added to the fluid. Deposits
from aged geothermal fluid are soft and easy to remove. von Hirtz [11] spoke of an example
of these deposits from the Botong Field in the Philippines, where colloidal silica formed a
“gelatinous fluffy precipitate” that did not settle in the ponds and was re-injected.

Brine and Condensate Mixing

Silica scaling from geothermal fluid being supersaturated with amorphous silica can
be controlled through dilution using varying sources. Brine and condensate from the
geothermal powerplant are often used for dilution [33]. They are mixed in a variety of
ratios including 90% condensate and 10% brine to 50% condensate and 50% brine [35]. This
mixing can occur in pipelines, ponds, or other suitable points in the geothermal system.
Experiments in Hellisheiði, Iceland [37], diluted separated water with 35 ◦ C condensate,
successfully lowering silica supersaturation and decreasing silica precipitation. Currently,
condensate dilution is utilized at the Hellisheiði and Nesjavellir geothermal power plants
in Iceland [38].

Crystallizer Reactor-Clarification Technology

Aging and cooling geothermal brine in ponds exposed to oxygen can be corrosive to
piping and injection well tubulars. This is particularly true in geothermal systems that have
significantly high salinity and total dissolved solids, such as the Salton Sea Geothermal
Field in the United States. To combat this, a closed system utilizing crystallization and
clarification has been developed, known as crystallization reactor-clarifier (CRC) technology.
CRC technology focuses on iron-rich amorphous silica. As the brine is flashed to steam in
the crystallizer, silica seed crystals are injected, leading to silica precipitation to form large
amounts of sludge and minimal traces of silica and iron in the geothermal fluid. Polymer
treatment and pH mod using lime are often performed to trigger silica precipitation. The
sludge is removed from the geothermal fluid in clarifier tanks, treated, and then disposed
of in landfills. Additional details on CRC technology are documented in [36,39].

4.3.2. Mechanical Cleaning

The most basic form of silica scale removal in geothermal surface facilities is mechani-
cal cleaning. Mechanical cleaning is often used to clean heat exchangers and piping with
the most common methods as follows:
• Water jetting/blasting (hydroblasting) method: high-pressured water jet through a
special nozzle capable of breaking up scale. This is the most common method used in
geothermal to remove scaling in surface facilities [7].
• Poli-Pig: a shell-shaped plastic foam sponge mass that is pressed in the pipelines.
Various shaped Poli-Pigs can be deployed, armed with steel spikes, to strip scales from
the surface. They are most effective in scale thicknesses of <20 mm [40].
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 21 of 29

• Impact-cutter method: various shaped steel cutter blocks are attached to a flexible
shaft and are rotated to remove geothermal scales from pipelines. Impact cutters are
effective for various thicknesses [40].

5. Utilization of Silica for a Circular Economy

Processes to address silica scaling in geothermal fluids often lead to the precipitation
of silica, such as the aging of brine and the retention systems discussed in Sections 4 and 6,
respectively. Silica scale has long since been seen as just as another waste stream. To reduce
waste and increase the economics of high-temperature geothermal power plants, research and
development has been focused on converting this waste stream into a marketable commodity.
The industrial applications of silica are numerous and include refractory bricks, ce-
ment, health and wellness, pharmaceuticals, and agricultural products. A review of
three key examples from the geothermal industry are below:

5.1. GeoSilica, Iceland

• GeoSilica focuses on the development of health and wellness products from a geother-
mal source [41]. They produce liquid dietary supplements that contain purified silica,
which is believed to have various health benefits that include supporting the immune
system, improving skin health, and promoting joint function [41].
• Source of silica: Hellisheiði geothermal power plant [41].
• Extraction process: GeoSilica uses a proprietary process to extract silica from the
geothermal fluid produced by the power plant [41].

5.2. Geo40, New Zealand

• Geo40 produces colloidal silica, which is a versatile product used in various indus-
tries [41]. Applications of colloidal silica include use in agriculture as a soil conditioner,
construction for concrete enhancement, in high-tech industries for polishing silicon
wafers, and in electronics [42].
• Source of silica: The silica is sourced from geothermal power plants operated by
Contact Energy, particularly the Wairakei and Ohaaki power stations [42].
• Extraction process: Geo40 employs a unique process that involves extracting silica
from the geothermal fluid before it is reinjected back into the geothermal reservoir.
This process not only extracts valuable silica but also helps in reducing scaling issues
in the power plant infrastructure [42].

5.3. Sulasih-Sulanjana, Indonesia

• Indonesian researchers (from Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and PT Geo Dipa
Energi) have developed a novel fertilizer using silica scale waste known as Sulasih-
Sulanjana [43]. The use of silica as a byproduct addresses the waste management issue
in geothermal energy while also offering a sustainable alternative for the agriculture
sector. By converting waste silica into fertilizer, researchers aim to improve soil quality
and crop yields, along with contributing to more sustainable agricultural practices.
The project showcases the potential for integrating geothermal energy and agricultural
development to promote environmental sustainability and resource efficiency.
• Source of silica: Dieng geothermal power plant in Central Java [43].
• Extraction process: uses nano particulate technology to process silica [43].
An additional benefit of silica removal from the geothermal system is that it allows the
geothermal brine to be used as a source of enhanced evaporative cooling. This technique
significantly improves the power output during warmer months from binary power plants
using air cooling for condensing the working fluid [44].

6. Future Trends and Research Directions

Silica is one of the most challenging scale types to treat in geothermal systems. Re-
search to unlock innovative processes to remove scale and advancements to current meth-
 Energies 2024, 17, 4825 22 of 29

ods have been ongoing in order to reduce costs, increase productivity, and improve the
sustainability of silica scale treatment. The following section explores current research and
development trends in silica scale prevention, treatment, and monitoring in geothermal
systems. The focus is on innovative technologies such as combining retention tanks with
scaling reactors, nanobubbles, chemical inhibitors, the True Fluidics Oscillator (TFO) Pul-
sating Waves Method, and fiber optics for monitoring scale formation, as well as paint
and coatings.

6.1. GeoSmart Innovative Retention Systems

Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW The GeoSmart project, through the European Horizon 2020 program, has developed
23 of 30an
innovative retention system to optimally manage geothermal scaling to reduce the negative
effects on the reinjection well and associated systems shown in Figure 11 [45].

Figure
Figure11.
11.Innovative retention
Innovative system
retention [45].
system [45].

Thenew
This retention/retaining
technology will tank method
be tested aimsoftothe
in one lower silicademonstration
project’s saturation in geothermal
sites, the
brine by converting monomeric silica to amorphous silica through
Kizildere Power station in Turkey, operated by Zorlu Enerji in fall 2024. The site’s geo- polymerization. The
system is installed after the heat exchanger to avoid scaling during
thermal energy is not fully exploited as it reinjects the brine above the amorphous silica the diminution of the
temperature to 50 ◦ C. The two major components of the system include the following:
saturation temperature to avoid silica scaling. The GeoSmart project aims to lower the
• The scaling
reinjection temperature
reactorofwhere
the brine from 104
molecular °C to 50on°Csurfaces
deposition to extract more heat from the
is promoted.
• without
fluid creating
The retention too where
tank much scaling
monomeric in thesilica
system. This approachtowill
polymerization formthereby
silica increase
polymers
is promoted.
the plant efficiency and recover 936 GWh of thermal energy (considering a flow rate of
1700 t/h).
TheThe recovered
scaling reactorenergy would
is the first partbeofsufficient
the system to supply
where the the thermal demand forinthe
fluid is maintained the
local district heating. The proposed solution offers additional
induction pipe, allowing additives to have the desired effects on the fluid to optimize theadvantages by reducing
greenhouse
pH (maintaining emissions a pH byof755,000
8.5) and TOE per year
salinity throughin comparison
pH controlwith and thethe district
addition heating,
of silica
which uses gas as a heat source [45].
seeds. This modification will prioritize the heterogenous silica precipitation pathway in the
induction pipe. It is within the scaling reactor that the deposition of silica on the surface of
Case Studies
the tank of SimilarThe
is promoted. Retention
systemTanksaims to That Are the
reduce in Operation
monomeric Today: Hellisheiði and
silica concentration before
Nesjavellir Powerthe
the fluid enters Plants (Iceland)
retention tank. To maximize the deposit on the surfaces, the geometry of
the The
reactor
focus is designed
of the case with a large
study is oncontact area between
two Icelandic the surfaces
geothermal power and the silica
stations particles
located in
with the help of a mechanism that enhances the number of collisions
the Hengill Central Volcano in southwestern Iceland: Nesjavellir and Hellisheiði. The ge- between them.
othermalAfter mostinofthis
waters thearea
silicaare
is collected
250 °C–320 from the fluid,
°C with a lowitsalinity
travels fluid.
to theBothretention
power tank.
plants The
retention
are aging the tank has a horizontal
separated waters with geometry
differentencouraging
techniques prior laminar flow and results
to re-injection to allow intheless
contact with the surface to avoid scaling
monomeric silica in excess of amorphous silica to polymerize.on the inside of the tank. A special coating (two-
partThe
epoxy: fluoropolymer-based
Nesjavellir power stationprotective coatings and
started producing poweramorphous
in 1990 with sol–gel
thematerial)
production was
applied to allow the surface to be kept free of silica. pH control
of 100 MWt for Reykjavík district heating. Today, the thermal energy production has in- is utilized to keep the pH
acidic to increase monomeric silica polymerization out of the
creased to 360 MWt with plans for further increase in production capacity based on ex- reactor. Once the fluid is out
of the retention
tracting even more tank,
heatchemical
from theinhibitors
geothermal are added
water. along with brine/condensate
The power plant has been producing mixing to
further prevent
electricity since 1998,the risk
withoftwo
silica
30deposition
MWe turbines in the reinjection
and, over thelinesyears,andhaswellbores
gained an [45].
addi-
The retention system provides two key economic
tional two turbines, resulting in a total production of 120 MWe. opportunities alongside the treatment
of silica
Before scaling:
2004, the separated waters from the power plants poured into the lava fields
located near Nesjavellir and mixed with the local underground water that was flowing
into Lake Þingvallavatn. As only the condensed steam was reinjected at that time, more
interest was put into reinjecting the wastewater. As a result, there was an increase in drill-
ing new injection wells with experiments conducted to prevent silica scaling. This led to
the construction of a retention tank to age the water before being reinjected shown in Fig-
ure 12 [46].
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 23 of 29

• Recover additional waste heat through the coupling of a geothermal power plant with a
district heating system and/or with a low-temperature Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC).
• Sale of silica scale through brine mining.
This new technology will be tested in one of the project’s demonstration sites, the
Kizildere Power station in Turkey, operated by Zorlu Enerji in fall 2024. The site’s geother-
mal energy is not fully exploited as it reinjects the brine above the amorphous silica
saturation temperature to avoid silica scaling. The GeoSmart project aims to lower the
reinjection temperature of the brine from 104 ◦ C to 50 ◦ C to extract more heat from the
fluid without creating too much scaling in the system. This approach will thereby increase
the plant efficiency and recover 936 GWh of thermal energy (considering a flow rate of
1700 t/h). The recovered energy would be sufficient to supply the thermal demand for
the local district heating. The proposed solution offers additional advantages by reducing
greenhouse emissions by 755,000 TOE per year in comparison with the district heating,
which uses gas as a heat source [45].

Case Studies of Similar Retention Tanks That Are in Operation Today: Hellisheiði and
Nesjavellir Power Plants (Iceland)
The focus of the case study is on two Icelandic geothermal power stations located
in the Hengill Central Volcano in southwestern Iceland: Nesjavellir and Hellisheiði. The
geothermal waters in this area are 250–320 ◦ C with a low salinity fluid. Both power plants
are aging the separated waters with different techniques prior to re-injection to allow the
monomeric silica in excess of amorphous silica to polymerize.
The Nesjavellir power station started producing power in 1990 with the production of
100 MWt for Reykjavík district heating. Today, the thermal energy production has increased
to 360 MWt with plans for further increase in production capacity based on extracting even
more heat from the geothermal water. The power plant has been producing electricity since
1998, with two 30 MWe turbines and, over the years, has gained an additional two turbines,
resulting in a total production of 120 MWe.
Before 2004, the separated waters from the power plants poured into the lava fields
located near Nesjavellir and mixed with the local underground water that was flowing
into Lake Þingvallavatn. As only the condensed steam was reinjected at that time, more
interest was put into reinjecting the wastewater. As a result, there was an increase in
drilling new injection wells with experiments conducted to prevent silica scaling. This led
Energies 2024, 17, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24
to the construction of a retention tank to age the water before being reinjected shown in
Figure 12 [46].

Figure 12. Simplified

Figureschematic flowschematic
12. Simplified diagram offlow
the diagram
separatedofwater in Nesjavellir
the separated waterpower plant [46].
in Nesjavellir power plan

The retentionThe
tankretention
is a 649 m 3 horizontal pipe with a length of 144 m and a diameter
tank is a 649m3 horizontal pipe with a length of 144m and a diam
of 2.39 m. It was
of 2.39m. It was designedL/s
designed to retain 90 of water
to retain 90 for
L/s 2ofh water
with afortemperature
2 h with a of 80 ◦ C. In of 80 °
temperature
2006, the separated water
2006, the was mixed
separated with
water wascondensed
mixed with steam as it leftsteam
condensed the retention
as it left tank to
the retention ta
lower the concentration of the monomeric silica being dissolved in the water [46].
lower the concentration of the monomeric silica being dissolved in the water [46].
The Hellisheiði
Theplant’s electricity
Hellisheiði production
plant’s electricitystarted in 2006
production with the
started installation
in 2006 with theofinstallati
two 45 MWe two turbines. Additional turbines were installed in 2007 and
45 MWe turbines. Additional turbines were installed in 2007 and 2008 for a total of for a tot
2008
303 MWe capacity today. Most of the power plant’s effluent waters are reinjected into the
303 MWe capacity today. Most of the power plant’s effluent waters are reinjected int
ground at 180 L/s in the Gráuhnúkar area, where the water is transported by pipes. In
ground at 180 L/s in the Gráuhnúkar area, where the water is transported by pipes. In
this scenario, the pipes act as retention tanks as they were constructed on purpose with
scenario, the pipes act as retention tanks as they were constructed on purpose with la
diameters than needed to slow down the flow and increase retention time in the
while the waters are transported 3 km away from the power station [36]. At the Hellis
power plant, a combination of pH modification brine/condensate mixing is also us
manage silica scaling. During experiments in 2011 [36], hydrochloric acid was add
lower the pH of the geothermal fluids, preventing silica precipitation. HCl was only
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 24 of 29

larger diameters than needed to slow down the flow and increase retention time in the pipe
while the waters are transported 3 km away from the power station [36]. At the Hellisheiði
power plant, a combination of pH modification brine/condensate mixing is also used to
manage silica scaling. During experiments in 2011 [36], hydrochloric acid was added to
lower the pH of the geothermal fluids, preventing silica precipitation. HCl was only used
during experiments. The ongoing acidification relies on H2 S and CO2 dissolution. This
approach has proven effective in maintaining the efficiency of the power plant and reducing
maintenance costs [37,46]. An analysis of these scale reduction methods was conducted to
show their efficiency with the help of the WATCH program [46,47].
For the Nesjavellir power plant, the data shows that the retention tank reduces the
concentration of monomeric silica, going from 730 ppm to 519 ppm for a flow of 163 L/s
and from 722 ppm to 487 ppm for a flow of 106 L/s (Table 8). Additionally, mixing the
separated water with the condensate, after being aged, lowers the concentration even
further. In Hellisheiði, the concentration reduced from 766 ppm to 720 ppm at 175 L/s
(Table 8). The diminution of concentration is less evident for this power plant. It can be
explained by the fact that the temperature of the water is higher, as well as the pH value.
However, currently, the temperature in that pipe is not higher, it is colder, and, because
of the lower acidity after pH modification, the polymerization process has slowed down.
The reduced polymerization of monomeric silica observed in the separated waters from
Hellisheiði was due to the higher temperature and pH of the water. The water in the pipe
is typically 122 ◦ C but can reach up to 174 ◦ C. While silica polymerization has not been
analyzed above 122 ◦ C, supersaturation with respect to amorphous silica occurs at 145 ◦ C.

Table 8. Concentration (in ppm) of monomeric, polymeric, and total silica separated from the
Nesjavellir and Hellisheiði power stations in Iceland [46].

Nesjavellir Power Plant SiO2 , m (Monomeric Silica) SiO2 , t (Total Silica) SiO2 ,p (Polymeric Silica)
Before retention tank (flow: 106 L/s) • 722 • 726 • 4
After retention tank (flow: 106 L/s) • 487 • 738 • 251
After mixing with condensate (flow: 106 L/s) • 321 • 509 • 188
Before retention tank (flow: 163 L/s) • 730 • 745 • 15
After retention tank (flow: 163 L/s) • 519 • 732 • 212
After mixing with condensate (flow: 163 L/s) • 376 • 517 • 141
Hellisheiði Power Plant SiO2 , m (Monomeric Silica) SiO2 , t (Total Silica) SiO2 , p (Polymeric Silica)
After low-pressure boiler (flow: 175 L/s) • 766 • 811 • 45
Pipe to Gráuhnúkar 1 km (flow: 175 L/s) • 720 • 789 • 69
Pipe to Gráuhnúkar 3 km (flow: 175 L/s) • 731 • 784 • 53

In September 2004 and 2008, the retention tank was opened to examine the internal
surfaces. They were coated with <1 to 3 mm layers of amorphous silica. It is, therefore,
evident that minor deposition of silica occurs inside the retention tank, but generally the
tank can be considered as a successful method to reduce the silica scaling potential of the
separated water from Nesjavellir power plant.

6.2. Nanobubbles
Nanobubbles have been identified since 1994, with many studies focused on under-
standing their behavior in aqueous solutions [48]. Nanobubbles are gas bubbles with
diameters in the nanometer range that have unique properties due to their high surface
area-to-volume ratio and surface charge. These properties allow nanobubbles to interact
with dissolved ions and particles in novel ways, potentially preventing the nucleation and
growth of silica scale. They also exhibit longevity in aqueous solutions and stability at
high temperatures [48].
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 25 of 29

Recent research has focused on understanding how nanobubbles can inhibit silica
scale formation [48]. The theoretical research proposes the application of nanobubbles as
an environmentally friendly and cost-effective alternative to chemical inhibitors for scaling
and corrosion.

6.3. Chemical Inhibitors

For many years, water treatment companies have been searching for an effective
silica inhibitor that helps to prevent scale deposits at a cost-effective dosage. Chemical
inhibitors/anti-scalants have been proved to be effective in reducing the occurrence of
silica scaling [49,50]. Even though proven effective as far back as 1982, research is still
ongoing by various institutions testing proprietary chemicals such as Nalco and University
of Indonesia [51].
• Sinaga and Tobing [51] tested chemical inhibitors consisting of phosphinocarboxylic
acid copolymers.
• Dual active silica inhibitors are being developed by chemical companies: copolymer
of acrylic acid and hydoxypolyethoxy ally ether that show potential to inhibit/retard
the rate of silica polymerization and dispersing polymerized silica [52].
• Alternative solutions, such as chemical anti-scalants, have proven effective in reducing
silica deposition [49,50].

6.4. True Fluidics Oscillator (TFO) Pulsating Waves Method

The True Fluidics Oscillator (TFO) Pulsating Waves Method is an innovative approach
to treating geothermal scale in the wellbore. The TFO method utilizes pulsating waves
generated by a fluidics oscillator to create oscillatory pressure waves that physically disrupt
scales in wells [53]. This technology can use chemicals or fresh water pumped through
the TFO tool to dissolve or remove scale in the wellbore. TFO tools can be operated using
coiled tubing or conventional tubing.
Kushonggo et al. [53] used the TFO method to successfully treat a lost circulation zone
in a geothermal production well in the Dieng Geothermal Field in Indonesia that contained
galena, siderite, calcite, and dolomite scaling. The tests that followed the treatment showed
an increase in power generation from 3.5 MW up to 11 MW.

6.5. Fiber Optics for Monitoring Geothermal Scale

6.5.1. Technology Overview
Fiber optic sensing technology is a powerful tool for monitoring scale formation in real
time. Fiber optic sensors can detect changes in temperature, strain, and other parameters to
provide detailed information about the conditions within geothermal systems.

6.5.2. Applications in Geothermal Systems

Fiber optic sensors have been successfully deployed as permanently installed features
in certain geothermal wells. These sensors provide continuous real-time data to allow
operators to monitor downhole conditions and take corrective actions before the significant
accumulation of scale occurs. However, in relation to silica scale, there has been recent
research and development focused on further developing the following aspects of fiber
optic tools, which includes real-time remote monitoring, heat resistance, high sensitivity,
compactness, easy setup, and cost-effectiveness [54,55]. These developments are being
carried out by exposing the core sensing area of the fiber optic cable to detect the scale-
formation-induced refractive index change. Tests have been carried out in high-temperature
geothermal settings in Sumikawa, Japan, that have a silica-fused fiber optic cable core
connected to a white light source and a visible near infrared spectroscopy detector or a
portable spectroscopy [55]. The results of the tests showed that an exposed silica-fused
fiber optic core can be used at 350 ◦ C.
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 26 of 29

6.6. Paint and Coatings

The geothermal industry has experienced a growth in interest in the use of protective
painting and coatings on heat exchangers and downhole equipment. While most are
focused on corrosion prevention, a few are used to prevent silica scale adherence to enhance
equipment lifespan and improve thermal efficiency.
Fanicchia and Karlsdottir [56] utilized simplified descriptions for paint and coating,
such as the following:
• Paint: single or multi-layer, made of a polymer material;
• Coating: single or multi-layer, made of metals, ceramics, or their combination.
The major types applied to mitigate silica scaling include the following [56]:
• Silicon carbide (SiC), known as a filled polymer;
• Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-blended polyphenylene sulfide (PPS);
• Phenolic-based.
These coatings exhibit robust corrosion protection and have low bond strength with
geothermal scale deposits [57]. For more details, refer to Sugama [58].
The advancements described above represent significant progress in addressing the
challenges posed by silica scaling in geothermal systems. Continued research and de-
velopment will further enhance the sustainability and efficiency of geothermal energy
production, contributing to the global transition to renewable energy sources.

7. Conclusions
Silica scaling reduction technologies were reviewed within the geothermal market to
allow for increased operational efficiency and longevity of geothermal systems. Silica is
present in various forms within geothermal fluids, and as these fluids travel to the surface
and cool, the solubility of silica decreases, leading to supersaturation and precipitation.
The formation process can result in silica scale depositing on the surfaces of geothermal
equipment, pipelines, wells, and reservoirs. Amorphous silica is the dominant type of silica
scale, which is a non-crystalline form of SiO2 and silicates.
Geothermal fluids contain impurities that can accumulate in the reservoir, clogging
the downhole and surface equipment. The ability to predict, control, and mitigate these
operational issues is essential to maintaining a consistent energy supply. The Silica Satura-
tion Index can be used to provide a measure of the potential for silica precipitation based
on the concentration of dissolved silica and its solubility under specific conditions. The
solubility of silica is dependent on the pH of the geothermal fluid, where silica is more
soluble in highly acidic (pH < 3) and highly alkaline (pH > 10) conditions. By modifying
the pH of geothermal fluids, it is possible to manipulate the solubility of silica and prevent
its precipitation. Dissolved salts also affect the solubility of silica in geothermal brines. The
presence of calcium, magnesium, iron, aluminum, and manganese can react with Si(OH)4
to form metal silicates depending on the reservoir conditions.
For scale occurrence in subsurface wellbores, there are various techniques that are
being strategically used to maintain and operate these geothermal systems. Preventative
methods in the subsurface are critical to limit the precipitation of silica. Examples of
preventative methods include pH modification, casing composition, chemical inhibitors,
and CO2 injection. Additionally, pressure and temperature management plays a critical
role in the amount of scale deposited, along with the location of deposits. Thermochemical
monitoring, along with detection techniques, such as caliper, go-devils, and visual imaging
can be effective in understanding the current wellbore conditions. There are various
conventional solutions used to clean scale build-up, including mechanical and chemical
methods, as well as innovative technologies, such as electro-hydraulic pulsing that have
been highlighted in case studies.
Silica scales are a prevalent issue in geothermal power plant facilities, affecting heat ex-
changers, separators, and pipelines. These scales can hinder heat transfer, reduce efficiency,
and cause significant operational problems. The treatment of silica scales involves various
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 27 of 29

methods, with the most common being pH modification, brine/condensate mixing, and
mechanical removal techniques, each aiming to prevent or mitigate the formation of scale
deposits. The innovative retention system has also been documented through GeoSmart’s
demonstration projects in Iceland. Continuous monitoring through using sensors, such as
coupons and analytical techniques, is critical for early detection and effective management
to ensure the longevity and efficiency of geothermal power plants.
Industrial applications of silica provide an economical solution to manage scale waste.
The innovative uses consist of refractory bricks, cement, health and wellness, pharma-
ceuticals, and agricultural products. Incorporating an industrial use for silica scale from
geothermal projects allows operators to work towards a circular economy while building
sustainable products.
Even though current methods allow for the successful mitigation and reduction of
silica scales in geothermal systems, research and development is still ongoing. The fo-
cus of improvement has been on reducing costs, increasing productivity and developing
sustainable solutions for silica scale treatment. Several innovative methods are being devel-
oped and tested. Innovative retention systems consist of dual active chemicals retarding
silica polymerization and dispersing polymerized silica. Nanobubbles are recognized for
their stability at high temperatures and longevity in aqueous solutions. Fiber optics are
being used with exposed core for monitoring scale formation. Coatings are being used for
heat exchangers to provide corrosion protection and low bond strength with geothermal
scale deposits.
To optimize efficiencies, strategic considerations should be considered through com-
bining cleaning solutions. The fluid chemistry, reservoir conditions, drilling regulations,
and economics will all play an important factor for the treatment(s) used. By having a
strategic maintenance plan in place, geothermal projects can guarantee the peak perfor-
mance and longevity of geothermal wells as important sources of renewable energy in
building the future energy system.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.M.; methodology, R.L. and J.F.; formal analysis, R.L. and
J.F.; investigation, R.L. and J.F.; resources, R.L., J.F., A.M. and R.M.; data curation R.L., J.F. and R.M.;
writing—original draft preparation, R.L. and J.F.; writing—review and editing, R.L., J.F., A.M. and
R.M.; visualization, R.L. and J.F.; supervision, R.M. and R.L.; project administration, R.M. and R.L.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research is funded by EU H2020 Project GeoSmart: Technologies for geothermal to
enhance competitiveness in smart and flexible operation under grant agreement number 818576
website: geosmartproject.eu.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the GeoSmart case studies are
included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to Rauan Meirbekova at [email protected].
For correspondence regarding the Blue Spark Energy case studies, inquiries can be directed to
Rochelle Longval at [email protected].
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank ON Power for the permission to use scaling im-
ages in the article. The authors would also like to thank Baldur Brynjarsson, Helen Osk Haraldsdottir,
Gísli Guðmundsson, Tugrul Hazar, Paolo Taddei, Charles Fensky and Mike Perri for their comments
and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Kaypakoğlu, B.; Şişman, M.; Aksoy, N. Preventative Methods for Scaling and Corrosion in Geothermal Fields. In Proceedings of
the New Zealand Workshop 2012, Auckland, New Zealand, 19–21 November 2012.
2. Brown, K. Thermodynamics and kinetics of silica scaling. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Mineral Scaling in
Geothermal Environment 2011, Manila, Philippines, 25–27 May 2011.
3. Chan, S.H. A review on solubility and polymerization of silica. Geothermics 1989, 18, 49–56. [CrossRef]
4. Iler, R. The Chemistry of Silica: Solubility, Polymerization, Colloid and Surface Properties, and Biochemistry; John Wiley and Sons: New
York, NY, USA, 1979; 866p.
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 28 of 29

5. Rothbaum, H.P.; Rohde, A.G. Kinetics of silica polymerization and deposition from dilute solutions between 5 and 180 ◦ C. J.
Colloid Interface Sci. 1979, 71, 533–559. [CrossRef]
6. Weres, O.; Yee, A.; Tsao, L. Kinetics of silica polymerization. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1981, 84, 379–402. [CrossRef]
7. Zarrouk, S.J.; Woodhurst, B.C.; Morris, C. Silica scaling in geothermal heat exchangers and its impact on pressure drop and
performance: Wairakei binary plant, New Zealand. Geothermics 2014, 51, 445–459. [CrossRef]
8. Boersma, A.; Vercauteren, F.; Fischer, H.; Pizzocolo, F. Scaling Assessment, Inhibition and Monitoring of Geothermal Wells. In
Proceedings of the 43rd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, 12–14 February
2018. SGP-TR-213.
9. Gunnarsson, I.; Arnorsson, S. Silica scaling: The main obstacle in efficient use of high-temperature geothermal fluids. In
Proceedings of the International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavík, Iceland, 14–17 September 2003; pp. 30–36.
10. Weres, O.; Apps, J.A. Prediction of Chemical Problems in the Reinjection of Geothermal Brines; Special Paper 189; Geological Society of
America: Boulder, CO, USA, 1982; pp. 407–426.
11. Von Hirtz, P. Silica scale control in geothermal plants—Historical perspective and current technology. In Geothermal Power
Generation; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2016; pp. 443–476.
12. Thorhallsson, S. Common problems faced in geothermal generation and how to deal with them. In Proceedings of the Workshop
for Decision Makers on Geothermal Projects and Management, Naivasha, Kenya, 14–18 November 2005.
13. Iler, R.K. The Chemistry of Silica; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1979.
14. Byrne, D.J.; Patterson, J.W.; Rendel, P.M.; Mountain, B.W. The effect of CO2 as an effective silica scaling inhibitor during in geothermal
reservoirs. In Proceedings of the 45th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, Auckland, New Zealand, 15–17 November 2023.
15. Jarrahian, K.; Mackay, E.; Singleton, M.; Mohammadi, S.; Heath, S.; Pessu, F. Scale Control in Geothermal Wells—What are the
Options for Effective and Economic Scale Management? In Proceedings of the SPE International Oilfield Scale Conference and
Exhibition, Aberdeen, Scotland, 5–6 June 2024. SPE-218737-MS.
16. Tassew, M. Effect of solid deposition on geothermal utilization and methods of control. In Geothermal Training in Iceland; UNU-GTP,
Report 13; United Nations University: GTP Reykjavik, Iceland, 2001; pp. 291–310.
17. Kottsova, A.; Bruhn, D.; Saar, M.; Brehme, M. Clogging Mechanisms in Geothermal Operations: Theoretical Examples and an
Applied Study. In Proceedings of the European Geothermal Congress, Berlin, Germany, 17–21 October 2022.
18. Kamila, Z.; Kaya, E.; Zarrouk, S.J. Reinjection in geothermal fields: An Updated Worldwide Review 2020. Geothermics 2021,
89, 101970. [CrossRef]
19. Matoorian, R.; Malaieri, M. Flow Assurance Management in Geothermal Production Wells. In Proceedings of the SPE Thermal Well
Integrity and Production Symposium, Banff, AB, Canada, 29 November–1 December 2022; OnePetro: Richardson, TX, USA, 2022.
20. Viveiros Pereira, V. Calcium Carbonate Scaling Control in Geothermal Well PV8 in Sao Miguel, Azores, Combining Chemical Inhibition
and Mechanical Reaming; Report 33; Geothermal Training Programme Orkustofnun: Reykjavik, Iceland, 2014.
21. Molina Argueta, G.G. Rehabilitation of Geothermal Wells with Scaling Problems; Report 9; Geothermal Training Programme Orkustof-
nun: Reykjavik, Iceland, 1995.
22. EV; Edmonton, AB, Canada. Personal communication, 2024.
23. Littleford, T.; Battistel, A.; Simpson, G.; Wardynski, K. High resolution solid state acoustic imaging for advanced well integrity
and deformation assessments in conventional and unconventional wells. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dubai, UAE, 21–23 September 2021; OnePetro: Richardson, TX, USA, 2021; p. D031S054R004.
24. McLean, K.; Wilson, D.; Muller, N.; Bluemle, M. Chemical Removal of Formation Scale in Geothermal Production Wells. In
Proceedings of the 43rd New Zealand Geothermal Workshop, Wellington, New Zealand, 23–25 November 2021.
25. Flores-Armenta, M. Evaluation of Acid Treatments in Mexican Geothermal Fields. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal
Congress, Bali, Indonesia, 25–29 April 2010.
26. Wilson, D.R.; Gilliland, J.; Austin, A. Broaching: An Effective Method of Well Intervention for Calcite Scale Removal. In
Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2015, Melbourne, Australia, 19–25 April 2015.
27. Shioya, K. Development of a Method for Removing Geothermal Scale Using a Low-Speed Self-Rotating Waterjet Nozzle System under High
Ambient Pressure; Tohoku University: Sendai, Japan, 2015.
28. Adityatama, D.; Mukti, A.; Purba, D.; Marza, S.; Arrasy, I.; Asokawaty, R.; Kusumawardani, R.; Farhan Muhammad, F. Workover
Challenges Using Hydraulic Workover Unit in Dieng Geothermal Field. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress
2020+1, Reykjavik, Iceland, 24–27 October 2021.
29. Kaya, T.; Parlaktuna, M.; Demirci, N.; Güney, A.; Dedeoğlu, V.; Kaya, R. Effectiveness of the acidizing and mechanical reaming
of geothermal production well in Kızıldere geothermal well in 2009. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress, Bali,
Indonesia, 25–29 April 2010; pp. 25–29.
30. Blue Spark Energy Case Studies Page. Available online: https://bluesparkenergy.com/case-studies (accessed on 15 July 2024).
31. (Orkuveitan, Reykjavík, Iceland). Personal communication, 2024.
32. van den Heuvel, D.B.; Gunnlaugsson, E.; Benning, L.G. Passivation of metal surfaces against corrosion by silica scaling. In
Proceedings of the 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA, USA, 22–24 February 2016.
33. Gallup, D.L.; Von Hirtz, P. Control of Silica-Based Scales in Cooling and Geothermal Systems. In Mineral Scales and Deposits;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 573–582. [CrossRef]
34. Henley, R.W. pH and silica scaling control in geothermal field development. Geothermics 1983, 12, 307–321. [CrossRef]
Energies 2024, 17, 4825 29 of 29

35. Bonyo, E.A. Scaling and Corrosion Mitigation in Olkaria Using Brine and Condensate Mixing Method. In Proceedings of the
World Geothermal Congress 2020+1, Reykjavik, Iceland, 24–27 October 2021.
36. DOE/GO-10098-481 September 1998, Revised August 2000, Chemical Treatments for Geothermal Brines. Available online:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/23691.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
37. Sigfusson, B.; Gunnarsson, I. Scaling prevention experiments in the Hellisheiði power plant, Iceland. In Proceedings of the
Thirty-Sixth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA, USA, 31 January–2 February 2011. SGP-TR-191.
38. Andersen, N.; Arnarson, M.; Sigfússon, B.; Snæbjörnsdóttir, S.O. The GECO project: Lowering the emissions from the Hellisheidi
and Nesjavellir Power Plants via NCG capture, utilization, and storage. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress
2020+1, Reykjavik, Iceland, 24–27 October 2021.
39. Featherstone, J.; Butler, S.; Bonham, E. Comparison of crystallizer Reactor Clarifier and pH Mod Process Technologies Used at the
Salton Sea Geothermal Field. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress, Florence, Italy, 18–31 May 1995; pp. 2391–2396.
40. Ito, J. Cleanings of the silica scale settled in the transportation-pipes of the geo-thermal hot water of the Onuma Geothermal
Power Station. J. Jpn. Geotherm. Energy Assoc. 1978, 15, 1–7.
41. GeoSilica about Us Page. Available online: https://www.geosilica.com/ (accessed on 30 July 2024).
42. Geo40 about Us Page. Available online: https://geo40.com/About/ (accessed on 30 July 2024).
43. ThinkGeoEnergy. Indonesian Researchers Develop Geothermal-Made Fertilizer Using Waste Silica. Available online: https:
//www.thinkgeoenergy.com/indonesian-researchers-develop-geothermal-made-fertilizer-using-waste-silica/ (accessed on
26 July 2024).
44. Bloomquist, R.G. Economic benefits of mineral extraction from geothermal brines. In Proceedings of the Sohn International
Symposium; Advanced Processing of Metals and Materials 2006, Volume 6: New, Improved and Existing Technologies: Aqueous
and Electrochemical Processing, San Diego, CA, USA, 27–31 August 2006.
45. Pardelli, P.T.; Tempesti, C.; Mannelli, A.; Kravos, A.; Sabard, A.; Fanicchia, F.; Paul, S.; Şengun, R.; Sahiller, H.A.; Halaçoğlu, U.;
et al. Design of a scaling reduction system for geothermal applications. In Proceedings of the Applied Energy Symposium (ICAE)
100% RENEWABLE: Strategies, Technologies and Challenges for a Fossil Free Future, Pisa, Italy, 25–30 October 2020.
46. Gunnarsson, I.; Ívarsson, G.; Sigfússon, B.; Thrastarson, E.Ö.; Gíslason, G. Reducing silica deposition potential in waste waters
from Nesjavellir and Hellisheiði Power Plants, Iceland. In Proceedings of the World Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia,
25–29 April 2010.
47. Bjarnason, J.Ö. The Speciation Program WATCH, Version 2.1; Orkustofnun: Reykjavík, Iceland, 1994.
48. Nakagawa, M.; Kioka, A.; Aikawa, A.; Tagomori, K.; Kodama, T.; Anzai, S. Nanobubbles as Corrosion and Scale Inhibitor. In
Proceedings of the 46th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford, CA, USA, 15–17 February 2021. SGP-TR-218.
49. Harrar, J.E.; Locke, F.E.; Otto, C.H., Jr.; Lorensen, L.E.; Monaco, S.B.; Frey, W.P. Field Tests of Organic Additives for Scale Control
at the Salton Sea Geothermal Field. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 1982, 22, 17–27. [CrossRef]
50. Ikeda, R.; Ueda, A. Experimental Field Investigations of Inhibitors for Controlling Silica Scale in Geothermal Brine at the
Sumikawa Geothermal Plant, Akita Prefecture, Japan. Geothermics 2017, 70, 305–313. [CrossRef]
51. Sinaga, B.V.S.; Tobing, S. Exploring the Efficacy of Chemical Antiscalant in Mitigating Silica Scaling: A Pilot Study in Geothermal
Energy Production Sites in Indonesia. Preprints 2024, 2024061896. [CrossRef]
52. Gill, J.S. New Inhibitors for silica and calcium carbonate control in geothermal. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Mineral Scaling, Manila, Philippines, 25–27 May 2011.
53. Kushonggo, L.; Pratama, H.B.; Sutopo, A.S. Technical analysis and feasibility of scale removal in the geothermal wells and surface
production facilities using true fluidics oscillator (TFO)-pulsating waves method technology. In Proceedings of the 10th ITB
International Geothermal Workshop, Online, 26–29 July 2021; Bandung Institute of Technology: Bandung, Indonesia, 2021.
54. Okazaki, T.; Orii, T.; Ueda, A.; Ozawa, A.; Kuramitz, H. Fiber optic sensor for real-time sensing of silica scale formation in
geothermal water. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3387. [CrossRef]
55. Okazaki, T.; Kuramitz, H.; Watanabe, T.; Ueda, A. Scale sensor: Rapid monitoring of scale deposition and inhibition using fiber
optics in a geothermal system and comparison with other monitoring devices. Geothermics 2021, 93, 102069. [CrossRef]
56. Fanicchia, F.; Karlsdottir, S.N. Research and Development on Coatings and Paints for Geothermal Environments: A Review. Adv.
Mater. Technol. 2023, 8, 2202031. [CrossRef]
57. Penot, C.; Martelo, D.; Paul, S. Corrosion and Scaling in Geothermal Heat Exchangers. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 11549. [CrossRef]
58. Sugama, T.; Gawlik, K. Anti-silica fouling coatings in geothermal environments. Mater. Lett. 2002, 57, 666–673. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.