PO174080 DOI: 10.
2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15 Stage: Page: 312
Reverse Cleanout in a Geothermal Well:
Analysis of a Failed Coiled-Tubing
Operation
T. Reinsch, S. Regenspurg, E. Feldbusch, A. Saadat, E. Huenges, K. Erbas, G. Zimmermann, and
J. Henninges, GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences
Summary
During the production of geothermal brine from a production well
in Grob Schönebeck, Germany, an obstruction was observed
when logging the reservoir interval of the well. Several bailer
runs were performed to identify the cause, and it was discovered
that mainly loose precipitates and fragments of coating from the
production tubing were obstructing the well. To remove the fill
from of the well, a reverse-cleanout operation with coiled tubing
was performed. Because of wellbore restrictions, particle size,
and the rheology of the fill, only a small portion of the obstruction
could be removed. This paper describes the coiled-tubing opera-
tion and the application of a simple hydraulic model to explain
possible reasons for failing to effectively clean out the well.
Introduction
To reduce climate-gas emissions, geothermal energy can play an
important role in the future energy supply (Sims et al. 2007). For
a sustainable and economic provision of geothermal energy, how-
ever, the lifetime of a geothermal well must be sufficiently long.
Therefore, remedial operations such as wellbore cleanout must be
properly engineered and considered in the design and construction
phase of wells. Typically, geothermal wells have a larger diameter
than oil and gas wells. Because of low fluid velocities, a wellbore
cleanout that uses coiled-tubing (CT) equipment is only feasible
when applying reverse circulation, during which fluid is injected
into the annulus and returned through the CT. Here, a case study
of a CT operation is presented for the geothermal research site in
Grob Schönebeck, Germany.
The Grob Schönebeck site is located approximately 50 km
north of Berlin, Germany, and serves to investigate, understand,
and optimize all steps related to the sustainable provision of geo-
thermal energy from a deep sedimentary basin (Frick et al. 2011).
At the site, two deep wells were completed as a geothermal dou-
blet system for producing and injecting thermal water.
An abandoned gas-exploration well (E GrSk 3/90), deepened
to a measured depth (MD) of 4309 m in 2001, serves as an injec-
tion well, whereas the production well Gt GrSk 4/05 (A2) was
drilled as a geothermal well down to 4400 m in 2006. The produc-
tion well is deviated by up to 48 with a kickoff point (KOP) at
2780 m. Within the geothermal reservoir, the horizontal distance
between the two wells is approximately 475 m.
In the production well, the reservoir is located at a depth of
4100 to 4400 m in the Lower Permian of the northeast German
basin, with temperature of 145 C and pressure of 436 bar at 4300-
m MD [approximately 4200-m true vertical depth (TVD)]. The
fluid salinity is 260 to 265 g/L (Wolfgramm et al. 2003). Volcanic
rocks are covered by a Rotliegend siliciclastic sequence that
ranges from conglomerates to fine-grained sandstones (Breitkreuz
and Kennedy 1999; Holl et al. 2005; Zimmermann et al. 2011).
The well was cased down to 4389 m and subsequently perforated
to allow for three different stimulation treatments. A massive
water stimulation was performed in the volcanic rocks and two
Copyright V
C 2015 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review 30 April 2014. Revised manuscript received for
review 16 December 2014. Paper (SPE 174080) peer approved 16 December 2014.
312
ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005
Total Pages: 9
gel/proppant stimulations in the sandstone layers (Zimmermann
and Reinicke 2010). The weakest formation, the lower sandstone
unit, has a leakoff pressure of 522 bar (Zimmermann and Reinicke
2010; Zimmermann et al. 2010, 2011). To further increase the
productivity of the well, eight additional intervals were perforated
(Fig. 1), and the formation was treated with 10 m3 of 7.5% hydro-
chloric acid to dissolve remaining marble from the drilling mud
(Zimmermann et al. 2011).
A simplified completion of the production well is displayed
in Fig. 1. The wellbore has a storage volume of approximately
237 m3; it was filled with approximately 210 m3 of formation fluid
before the CT operation in November 2012. The pressure rating
of the weakest component at the wellhead—the feedthrough for
the power cable—was 70 bar at room temperature (Fig. 2).
To produce thermal water, an electrical submersible pump
(ESP) was installed at the tip of the production tubing at a depth
of approximately 1200 m. To allow for logging after installation
of the ESP, the production string was equipped with a Y-tool. A
monitoring tubing (27/8-in. inside diameter) was also installed par-
allel to the ESP, which was mounted at the bypass position of the
Y-tool. By use of this bypass, static- and production-logging cam-
paigns could be performed (Henninges et al. 2012). To account
for the highly saline, and therefore aggressive, geothermal fluid,
the production tubing (steel grade J55) was coated internally with
a special epoxy resin (Tuboscope TK-236). On the outside, the
tubing was partly coated (Tuboscope TK-216) [see, for example,
Spohler (2009)].
Over time, several circulation tests were performed to estab-
lish a continuous operation of the doublet system. During these
tests, different logging runs were performed. The logs revealed a
displacement of the wireline accessible depth (AD) from initially
4358 to 4116 m. Fig. 3 shows the evolution of the AD vs. the pro-
duced-fluid volume and the position of the stimulated reservoir
intervals. To investigate the nature of the wellbore fill, bailer sam-
ples were collected and analyzed. The samples consisted mainly
of native copper (50%), barite, laurionite, and different iron min-
erals, with an average particle size in the range of 0.2 to 2 mm,
similar to that of medium to coarse sand. A few copper particles
with a diameter of up to 1 cm were observed (Regenspurg et al.
2015). Furthermore, coating fragments from the production tub-
ing, consisting of an epoxy resin, were found with a length of up
to 10 cm. Such coating fragments were also observed in the sur-
face installations of the thermal-water loop. A camera inspection
of the production tubing revealed severe damage to the coating
layer along different pipe segments.
To clean the wellbore without pulling the ESP, it was decided
to perform a CT operation and access the well through the moni-
toring bypass. Because of the large wellbore diameter, a regular
cleanout was not possible (forward circulation through the CT).
Fluid velocities in the annulus would have been much lower
than settling velocities. A reverse cleanout was therefore elected.
Fig. 4 shows the calculated settling velocities for spheres with dif-
ferent sizes and densities together with the flow rates necessary to
ensure the ascent of these spheres during reverse circulation
through a 2-in. CT. Larger copper aggregates with a density of
8900 kg/m3 require a very high flow rate to be transported out of
the well. For the calculation, a worst-case scenario has been
November 2015 SPE Production & Operations
 PO174080 DOI: 10.2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15 Stage: Page: 313 Total Pages: 9

MD (GL)
–3900
Production Well path
18 5/8-in.
string Perforation/Open hole
41/2-in. 16-in. 741.2 m Stimulation treatment

ESP –4000
Monitoring
tubing 1200 m Upper Permian
(Hannover formation)

Depth (mTVD)
Upper Permian
13 3/8-in. (Dethlingen formation)
–4100

2381.5 m

KOP 2780 m
–4200 Upper Permian
1.5°/10 m (Havel formation)
Lower Permian
7-in. (Andesites)

3878 m –4300
5-in.
Total Depth 300 400 500 600 700
4400.4 m 4389 m Vertical Section (m)

Fig. 1—Simplified wellbore completion of the geothermal production well Gt GrSk 4/05 (A2).

assumed. From all particle shapes observed in the bailer samples, assumed to be lower because cold water is pumped into the annu-
a sphere was assumed to have the highest settling velocity. Fur- lus. The viscosity of water at lower temperatures is higher, resulting
thermore, the calculation was performed for pure water at 100 C. in a lower settling velocity. Exchanging pure water with formation
The average temperature along the CT during the cleanout is fluid would lead to a further viscosity increase and, therefore, a ve-
locity decrease. For the necessary fluid velocity during the clean-
1 out, we chose a safety factor of two to ensure the ascent of all
particles. For the reverse circulation, the pressure rating of the well-
1 head equipment and the inner diameter of the monitoring bypass
display the largest operational constraints; 70 bar for the inlet of
the power cable limited the possible flow velocity along the CT.
1 Despite the limitations mentioned in the preceding, the clean-
out operation was performed between 26 November 2012 and 6
1 December 2012. Although planned thoroughly, the CT operation
failed to remove all the solids from the well. This paper provides
Power cable a description of that operation. It also shows how a simple hydrau-
lic model can be used to identify the processes responsible for the
failure to clean out the wellbore properly.

4100
2. Gel/proppant fracture

3 3
2
3 3 3 4200 1. Gel/proppant fracture
MD (m)

4 4300
3 3
3 3

Water fracture

4400
5
0 4000 8000 12 000 16 000 20 000
Fluid Volume (m3)
Fig. 2—Wellhead of Well Gt GrSk 4/05 (A2). The numbers indi-
cate the size and pressure ratings of the flanges: 1 5 DN100, Fig. 3—Evolution of the wireline AD vs. the cumulative pro-
PN160; 2 5 183/4 in., 5,000 psi; 3 5 21/16 in., 3,000 psi; 4 5 203/4 duced-fluid volume. The depth interval of each stimulated sec-
in., 3,000 psi; and 5 5 203/4 in., 5,000 psi. tion is indicated.

November 2015 SPE Production & Operations 313

ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005

 PO174080 DOI: 10.2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15 Stage: Page: 314 Total Pages: 9

3 F CT

10 000 kg/m3 z BHA

400 pW

8000 kg/m3
pCT

2X Settling Velocity
Required Flow Rate (L/min)
Settling Velocity (m/s)

2 3
6000 kg/m 300 pA BOP
CT
4000 kg/m3
Q CT
200
3000 kg/m3
1
2000 kg/m3 Pump
100

0 0
R
QCT
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Particle Diameter (m)

Fig. 4—Settling velocity for spheres of different densities and

Disposal
particle diameters in pure water at 100º C [calculated after Bra-
uer and Sucker (1976) and Concha and Almendra (1979)]. The
required fluid-flow rate for reverse cleanout within a 2-in. CT is
displayed also.
w,ρ,σ

Coiled-Tubing (CT) Operation
Preliminary Considerations. A simple nozzle (bullnose) at-
tached to a 2-in. CT was chosen to perform the reverse cleanout.
Detailed information about the CT can be found in Table 1. The
bullnose was equipped with one central 16-mm hole and four 8-
mm holes at an angle of 45 to the axis of the CT. Because the
coating fragments and some of the copper particles found in the
bailer sample were larger than the holes of the bullnose, a high-
pressure jetting-tool operation was planned to crush and mobilize
the larger components during a first run and to clean the perfora-
tions of the production liner.
Groundwater from a near-surface well was used as circulation
fluid for the cleanout. This bicarbonate-rich water was condi-
tioned to a pH of 4 by use of 15% hydrochloric acid (HCl) to pre-
vent iron carbonate precipitation downhole. Furthermore, the fluid
was loaded with potassium chloride (KCl) to obtain a 4% solution
to prevent the formation clay minerals from swelling.
Different data were acquired during the CT operation. A sim-
plified job setup is displayed in Fig. 5. At the reel, the CT pressure
(pCT), flow rate (QCT), and depth (zBHA) of the bottomhole assem-
bly (BHA) were measured. The CT weight (FCT) was measured at
the injector head and the wellhead-pressure ( pW) data were
acquired at the blowout preventer (BOP). Additionally, the pres-
sure in the annulus (pA) between the production string and the
casing was measured. To understand the hydraulic situation
within the CT during the reverse cleanout, the returned-fluid vol-
ume was measured at the fluid disposal. Measurements of electri-
cal conductivity (r), density (q), solid content (w), and the flow
rate of the disposed fluid ðQRCT Þ were performed. While data from
the CT were available in real time throughout the intervention,
data from the fluid disposal were available only at time intervals
exceeding 30 minutes.
Outer Nominal Minimum
Diameter Thickness Thickness
(in.) (in.) (in.)
2.000 0.134 0.128
2.000 0.145 0.138
2.000 0.156 0.148
Table 1—CT specification; thick-walled interval: uphole end; thin-
walled interval: downhole end.
Wellbore
Fig. 5—Schematic of setup for the CT operation. Individual
data, observed at different points within the system, are indi-
cated. Data indicated in bold characters were available in real
time; all other data were available at time intervals longer than
30 minutes. For details, see text. Figure modified from Michel
et al. (2004).
The disposed fluid was a mixture of circulation fluid and for-
mation fluid (brine). For the system circulation fluid/brine, a sim-
ple empirical correlation was established in the laboratory to
correlate fluid density and electrical conductivity for different volu-
metric ratios of fluid and brine (Fig. 6). The data were measured at
ambient conditions and fitted to a third-order polynomial function:
q ¼ 0:000011813  r3  0:0021306
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
 r2 þ 0:65769  r þ 996:01:
Because electrical conductivity was easier to measure during the
operation than density, the fluid density was calculated according
to the relationship in Eq. 1.
Field Operation. The different stages of the intervention can be
summarized as follows:
1. Run in hole (RIH) with rotating high-pressure jetting nozzle.
2. CT weight loss because of contact with fill at 4111 m.
3. Reciprocate three times between that depth and 4170 m.
4. Pull out of hole (POOH) and redress to reverse-circulation
nozzle.
5. RIH with reverse-circulation nozzle and implement for-
ward circulation until 4121 m.
6. Reverse circulation down to 4149 m, CT blocked, block-
age removed by forward circulation.
Segment 7. Reverse circulation down to 4157.5 m.
Length (m)
8. CT blocked, blockage not removable by forward
903.86 circulation.
3828.29 9. POOH, blockage at the nozzle removed at surface.
1920.24 10. RIH and apply forward circulation down to 4165 m.
11. Unstable return-flow rate during reverse circulation at
4100, 4050, 3900, and 3700 m.
12. POOH and redress to rotating high-pressure jetting nozzle.

314 November 2015 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005

 PO174080 DOI: 10.2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15
1160
1120
Density (kg/m³)
1080
1040
1000
0 40 80 120 160 200
Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm)
Fig. 6—Correlation of density and electrical conductivity of the
system circulation fluid/brine for different volumetric ratios.
3 To explain the processes responsible for the failure of the well
13. RIH. Acidizing with 5 m of 10% HCl from 4100 m down
to 4212 m.
14. POOH and redress to reverse-circulation nozzle.
15. RIH and place a saltwater pill within the production tubing
of 8 m3 25% KCl solution.
Initially, the well was filled with approximately 210 m3 of forma-
tion fluid, with a density of approximately 1180 kg/m3 at surface
conditions. During the first CT run, the top of the wellbore fill
was detected at a depth of 4111 m. The jetting tool was recipro-
cated three times between that depth and 4170 m to crush large
particles and mobilize the fill. Afterward, the CT was pulled out
of the hole, the bullnose was mounted to the CT, and the latter
was run back into the hole.
To establish a constant return-flow rate during reverse circula-
tion, a large amount of the formation fluid within the well had to
be replaced. At wellhead pressures of up to 70 bar, only a small
return-flow rate could be established (much smaller than 150 L/
min). To keep the solid content within the CT low, a slow rate of
penetration (ROP) was chosen. At first, a small return of solids
could be achieved with a return-flow rate of approximately 100 to
120 L/min. At the depth of 4149 m, a sudden annular-pressure
increase was observed, indicating a CT blockage (Fig. 7).
Whether the blockage occurred at the BHA or within the CT
cannot be determined. It was, however, removed after switching
to forward circulation. After approximately 10 minutes, the circu-
lation was reversed again, and the CT was run slowly into the
well. At approximately 0300 hours on 1 December, the annular
pressure fell suddenly because of the breakthrough of circulation
fluid along the CT. The annular pressure remained low until the
CT was blocked again at 4157.5 m. An attempt was made to
remove the blockage with forward circulation through the CT;
however, the pressure within the CT rose quickly, indicating a
compaction of the debris. The CT had to be pulled out of the well
and approximately 20 L of debris was removed and sampled from
the BHA. The debris predominantly consisted of copper, barite,
and laurionite, as well as some fragments of coating from the pro-
duction tubing. Furthermore, pieces of a metal seal and some rub-
ber parts were found. A combination of high solid content and
anthropogenic components is assumed to be responsible for this
blockage. While trying to remove the blockage during forward
circulation, pieces of the metal seal were forced against the noz-
zles of the BHA, and the solids were compacted within the BHA.
After cleaning the CT, a subsequent run was performed. To
decrease the portion of sediments per length of liner for the depth
where the CT was blocked, forward circulation was established
November 2015 SPE Production & Operations
ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005
Stage: Page: 315 Total Pages: 9
down to 4165 m. After pulling the CT to 4100 m, reverse circula-
tion started again. However, a stable return flow could not be
achieved. Only a rising annular-fluid table followed by a rapid
pressure buildup within the annulus was observed until circulation
stopped. The annular-pressure increase did not correlate with an
increase of the return-flow rate. Changing again from reverse to
forward circulation led to an instant pressure release and a surge
of fluid being released.
A similar pressure buildup was observed at different depths
above the reservoir interval. The hydraulic behavior at 4050,
3900, and 3700 m was similar. A stable reverse circulation could
not be established. The operation was thus cancelled and the CT
pulled out of the hole. After POOH, small coating fragments were
found within the nozzle. The bullnose was replaced by a high-
pressure jetting tool, and the perforated reservoir section was
stimulated with 5 m3 of HCl down to a depth of 4212 m.
To decrease the wellhead pressure at the end of the operation,
8 m3 of 25% KCl solution was placed within the uppermost 1000
m of the production string.
In total, approximately 70 L of solids could be removed from
240 the well from the depth interval of 4111 to 4157.5 m. Within this
depth interval, the 5-in. liner has an internal volume of approxi-
mately 431 L. Assuming a homogeneous distribution of the solids,
16% of the liner was filled with solid particles.
Hydraulic Model
cleanout, a simple 1D model that includes frictional pressure loss
was used to simulate the hydraulic situation during the coiled-
tubing (CT) operation (Fig. 8a). Besides the density of the fluid
column within the annulus (qA) and within the CT (qCT), the well-
head pressure, the CT pressure, and the bottomhole pressure
(pBH) were considered. The pressure difference between the inside
and the outside of the CT Dp defines the flow rate through the CT.
The frictional pressure loss within the CT and bottomhole assem-
bly (BHA), Dpf ¼ Dp, restricts the maximum flow rate. For over-
balanced operation, this pressure difference can be expressed as
Dp ¼ pW þ ðqA  qCT Þ  g  zBHA : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð2Þ
For underbalanced operation, it is
Dp ¼ pBH  qCT  g  zBHA ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
where g is the gravity acceleration.
Fig. 8b shows the fluid-density distribution along the well for a
wellbore filled with circulation fluid and brine during production
(after Francke et al. 2013). The density model takes into account
pressure, temperature, and the content of different salts. Dissolved
gas was neglected for this calculation. The difference between
both densities is constant along the wellbore.
The frictional pressure loss was determined during forward-
circulation tests. For different flow rates during forward circula-
tion, QCT in L/min, the pressure increase at the inlet to the reel
was measured. To determine the pressure loss, the pressure differ-
ence between flowing and static conditions was calculated as
Dpf (MPa) ¼ DpCT,flowing – DpCT,static. The correlation is shown in
Fig. 9 and can be fitted by a power function:
Dpf ¼ Q1:832
CT  0:000548: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð4Þ
The pressure loss is determined by the frictional pressure loss
along the CT, the flow through the bullnose, and the frictional
pressure loss along the annulus. Because the annulus is rather
large compared with the diameter of the CT, the contribution of
the latter is small. It is known that friction along the CT is differ-
ent for the straight and coiled part of the CT. The pressure/flow-
rate correlation was established while running the CT into the
well. Therefore, one part of the CT was on the reel, and the other
part was straight. At similar flow rates, pressure data were
acquired at different depths from 1500 to 4000 m. The measured
pressure loss for similar flow rates at different depths, however,
315
 PO174080 DOI: 10.2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15 Stage: Page: 316 Total Pages: 9

1200 6
5

Solid Content (%)

1160

Density (kg/m³)
4
1120
3
1080 Density of returned fluid
2
Solid-content of returned fluid
1040 0.4
0.2
400 0
Flow rate 4400

Measured Depth (m)

Flow Rate (L/min)

300 Depth
4200

200 4000

3800
100
3600
0
Pumped volume
200 Returned volume
Volume (m³)

100

20 CT pressure
Wellhead Pressure
Pressure RR
Pressure (MPa)

15

10

0
0

00

00

00
00
00

00
00
00

:0

0:

8:
5:

3:

:
9:
4:

14

19

13
2

2
2
2
2
12

12
12

/1

/1
/1

/1

12
/1
0/

/2
/1

/1

/2
30

0/
0/

2/
/3

12
12

12
12
/3
/3

/
/

12
11

11

11
11

Time

Fig. 7—Hydraulic situation during CT operation. Top: Density of the returned fluid together with the solid content of the returned
fluid. The marks indicate the different measurements. Upper Middle: Flow rate together with the measured depth of the CT. Lower
Middle: Total pumped- and returned-fluid volume. Bottom: Annular, CT, and wellhead pressures. CT blockages are indicated with
arrows.

was not significantly affected by a change of the straight length.
The correlation displayed in Fig. 9 shows a good fit of the entire
data set.
Validation. To validate the hydraulic model, the density of the
returned fluid was calculated on the basis of a 30-minute average
of the return-flow rate, taking into account the measured solid
content (Eqs. 2 and 4). The density difference between the inside
and the outside of the CT, together with wellhead and CT pres-
sure, determines the pressure difference at zBHA available to gen-
erate a return-flow rate. For the calculation, an assumption has to
be made for the density of the fluid column within the annulus
outside the CT. Here, a simple linear mixing law has been
assumed for pumping circulation fluid with an average calculated
density of 1025 kg/m3 and brine with a density of 1180 kg/m3
(Francke et al. 2013).
Results. Fig. 10 shows the fluid density calculated from Eq. 1
with that evaluated from the simulation described in the preced-
ing. According to the simulation, the correlation between calcu-
lated density and measured density is reasonable for the available
data. Not only is the absolute value similar, but the trend of lower

316 November 2015 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005

 PO174080 DOI: 10.2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15 Stage: Page: 317 Total Pages: 9

(a) pCT

pW
(b) Density (kg/m3) Temperature (°C)
900 1000 1100 1200 40 80 120 160

Wellbore
0

CT
pA pCT

1000

Measured Depth (m)

2000
zBHA

3000

4000

Mud
Δp
5000 Brine

pBH

Fig. 8—(a) Hydraulic model for the simulation of the CT operation. Input pressure data and the density of the fluid column are indi-
cated. (b) Comparison of fluid temperatures and densities at different depths for circulation and formation fluid (after Francke
et al. 2013).

density values on 30 November at 1300 hours and 1 December at
1400 hours could also be reproduced. Right after times of forward
circulation, only circulation fluid was filling the CT. Therefore,
the calculated density is lower until the CT filled with brine dur-
ing reverse circulation. Even the large solid load on 2 December
at approximately 0300 hours can be reproduced by the calcula-
tion. For later times, however, the calculated density is much
100
Pressure Increase at CT (MPa)
higher than expected for brine, although the measured solid con-
tent is low, and the CT should be filled with circulation fluid right
after periods of forward circulation.
Discussion
Coiled-Tubing (CT) Operation. Michel et al. (2004) provide a
checklist of actions to be taken to perform a reverse-cleanout
operation safely. Although it attempted to meet the required pre-
requisites, the CT operation failed to remove all solids from the
wellbore. The operation at the Grob Schönebeck site was opti-
mized for a high return-flow rate within the limits authorized by
the pressure rating of the wellhead. The fluid flow from the CT to
the fluid disposal was not choked, resulting in a pressure reading

of zero within the surface fluid system at most times. A pressure

Δpf = QCT 1.8320.000548 drop within the return flow, considered as an important parameter
10 by Michel et al. (2004), could therefore hardly be detected. After
review of the field data, the failure can be explained with a simple
hydraulic assumption. Two main reasons have to be considered to
explain that failure—the type of debris and the pressure rating of
the wellhead.
From bailer samples collected before the CT operation, it was
1
known that the solids filling the wellbore consisted mainly of cop-
per, laurionite, and barite. Furthermore, coating fragments from
the production tubing were found. Because the density of the dif-
ferent mineral components of the solids is high, the established
flow rates during reverse circulation were rather low compared
with the settling velocity of individual minerals (Fig. 4).
The use of a high-pressure jetting tool to break individual coat-
0.1 ing fragments did not prove to be successful. Within the material
10 100 1000 blocking the CT on 1 December, coating fragments significantly
Flow Rate (L/min) larger than the nozzle size of the bottomhole assembly (BHA)
were found. Furthermore, fragments larger than the 8-mm nozzles
Fig. 9—Pressure increase for different flow rates during forward were found within the BHA after several attempts of reverse cir-
circulation. culation and pull out of hole (POOH) on 2 December. Although

November 2015 SPE Production & Operations 317

ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005

 PO174080 DOI: 10.2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15 Stage: Page: 318 Total Pages: 9

1300 using a simple volumetric average to calculate the fluid density

within the wellbore, the different casing diameters were not con-
sidered for calculating the bottomhole pressure. The large-diame-
ter casing below the production string was filled at a much-slower
rate than the casing strings below. The calculated average pres-
1200
sure difference between the inside and outside of the BHA, there-
fore, does change faster at the start of reverse circulation and
Density (kg/m3)

slower at the end, when almost filled completely with circulation

fluid. Another uncertainty is introduced by the circulation fluid
1100 volume injected into the well at different depths during forward
circulation. Therefore, the assumed average density outside the
CT might be underestimated.
The observed breakthrough of the circulation fluid during
Measured reverse circulation occurred after approximately 160 m3 of fluid
1000
Calculated was injected into the annulus between the CT and production
string. With a wellbore volume of approximately 120 m3 below the
production tubing and lifting the fluid column in the annulus
behind the production tubing by approximately 220 m, correspond-
900 ing to a volume of approximately 22 m3 and considering some fluid
loss into the formation, both values are in good agreement.
0
00

/1 00
00

00

0
:0

It has to be noted that the returned fluid-volume measurement

:0

:0
13
7:

/1 1:
7:

6:
19

12
is underestimated (see Fig. 7). At certain times, the fluid-disposal
2

12 /12
2

2
2
/1

/1

2
/1

/1

/1
0

/1

/2
0

tank used to meter the returned volume had to be emptied. During

/3

/2
/3

12

12
/3
11

12
11

11

this time, a measurement was not possible. Therefore, the meas-

Date/Time
Fig. 10—Comparison of measured and calculated density of the
returned fluid.
larger mineral aggregates were found within the bailer samples,
only minerals of a small grain size were observed during the CT
operation. It can therefore be assumed that larger aggregates were
either crushed successfully by the jetting tool or the fluid drag at
the BHA was not sufficient to mobilize those solids.
At the time of the first blockage on 1 December, the well was
filled completely with circulation fluid. Releasing the wellhead
pressure to POOH allowed formation fluid to enter the well until
balanced conditions were established. After run in hole (RIH) on
1 December and filling the CT with circulation fluid, the well-
head pressure increased during the subsequent reverse-circulation
tests and did not correlate with an increased return-flow rate. The
pressure rating of the wellhead, however, limited the allowable
annular pressure, and therefore the return-flow rate, during the
CT operation. Because the density contrast of circulation fluid
and brine was significant (Fig. 8b), the available pressure differ-
ence to establish a high flow rate through the CT was rather low
(Eq. 2). Therefore, the reason for unstable return conditions
might be twofold. First, high-density brine might have entered
the CT, increasing the density and decreasing the return-flow
rate. Density measurements of the returned fluid from the CT,
however, did not show high density values. Because only very
few samples have been collected, the density effect might be
underestimated. Second, solids might have blocked the nozzles
from the outside during reverse circulation. Solids blocking the
nozzles at 4100, 4050, 3900, and 3700 m depth could be
explained by floating coating fragments that either have been
mobilized from the bottom of the well during forward circulation
or transported from the production string by running the CT into
the well. A video inspection of the production tubing after the
CT operation, however, did not show any effect of the CT opera-
tion on the coated tubing.
Hydraulic Model. By use of the pressure increase during for-
ward circulation, the frictional pressure loss has been estimated
for different flow rates (Fig. 9). The pressure loss has been fitted
to a power function with an exponent of 1.832. For a Newtonian
fluid, the frictional pressure loss within a straight pipe is propor-
tional to the square of the fluid velocity (Çengel 2002). For this
work, the circulation fluid is assumed to behave like a Newtonian
fluid because the solid concentration during the operation is rather
low. The obtained correlation is therefore realistic and should be
independent of the flow direction (forward and reverse). When
ured cumulative liquid volume is lower than the actual returned-
liquid volume. Because a lower return-flow rate leads to a higher
calculated density, real density values should be lower. Compar-
ing the cumulative volume from metering the tank with data from
the fluid-disposal contractor, the metered volume is approxi-
mately 25% lower than the disposed volume over the entire
CT operation.
For the first 2 days, calculated and measured density within
the CT were in good agreement. At later times, however, the cal-
culated density is much higher, although reverse circulation was
performed at different depths. An elevated solid load within the
CT can account for the higher density. It is unlikely, however,
that heavy solids are floating at all different depths. A possible ex-
planation would be a partial blockage of the BHA from the out-
side. This would lead to a higher pressure loss and less returned
fluid, resulting in a higher calculated density.
Summary and Conclusions
During the production of thermal fluid from geothermal Well Gt
GrSk 4/05 (A2) in Grob Schönebeck, different minerals precipi-
tated and filled the reservoir interval. Apart from precipitates,
coating fragments from the production string were found within
the wellbore. To remove the solids, a reverse-cleanout operation
with coiled tubing (CT) was performed. The first stage was crush-
ing larger components of the fill with a high-pressure jetting tool.
Afterward, the solids were to be removed with reverse circulation
through the CT.
The field experience indicates that the coating fragments did
not sufficiently break at jetting conditions, although a yard test
should be performed to prove this hypothesis. Results from a sim-
ple 1D hydraulic model suggest that large coating fragments
might be the main reason for failure to remove all solids from the
well. The results further indicate that from the useful actions men-
tioned in Michel et al. (2004), monitoring and modeling should be
given a very high priority. Apart from mechanical (e.g., tension)
and geometric (e.g., length) properties of the CT itself, fluid pa-
rameters have to be properly monitored in real time throughout
the intervention. With a maximum pressure rating of 70 bar at the
wellhead, the opportunity to choke the return flow to create a rea-
sonable pressure reading at the surface was neglected for the sake
of highest-possible fluid-flow rates within the CT. Having fluid
pressures, densities, cutting load, and flow rates available in real
time, a simple hydraulic model can be applied to better evaluate
the conditions downhole. An automated system for evaluating the
hydraulic situation, as available for the mechanical properties of
the CT, can help to optimize the performance of a reverse-clean-
out operation.

318 November 2015 SPE Production & Operations

ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005

 PO174080 DOI: 10.2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15
From the recommendations given in Michel et al. (2004) to-
gether with the conclusions drawn from the reverse-cleanout oper-
ation in Grob Schönebeck, the following parameters should be
measured and modeled to understand and control the hydraulic
situation in real time:
• Flow rate at the fluid disposal QRCT
• Pressure of the return fluid pCT (fluid flow should be choked)
• Density of the return fluid q (or any other parameter related
to fluid density)
• Depth of the BHA zBHA
• Wellhead pressure pW
• Solid content w
• Rate of penetration (to calculate the maximum solid load)
To quantify the frictional pressure loss for the specific experimen-
tal setup at the desired depth, it is further recommended to per-
form forward-circulation tests at different flow rates.
From the results obtained in Grob Schönebeck, it can be con-
cluded that the CT dimensions offered to operate under the condi-
tions found in Well Gt GrSk 4/05 (A2) were not sufficient to
clean out the wellbore. Consequently, a workover rig has to be
mobilized and the production string has to be pulled out of hole to
clean the wellbore.
Nomenclature
F ¼ weight, mL/t2, N
FCT ¼ weight of the CT, mL/t2, N
g ¼ gravity acceleration, L/t2, m/s2
pA ¼ annular pressure, m/(Lt2), Pa
pBH ¼ bottomhole pressure, m/(Lt2), Pa
pCT ¼ pressure at the CT, m/(Lt2), Pa
pW ¼ wellhead pressure, m/(Lt2), Pa
QCT ¼ flow rate at the CT, V/t, L/min
QRCT ¼ flow rate of the disposed fluid, V/t, L/min
w ¼ solid content, unitless
zBHA ¼ depth of the BHA, L, m
Dp ¼ pressure difference inside and outside the coiled tubing
(CT) at the bottomhole assembly (BHA), m/(Lt2), Pa
Dpf ¼ frictional pressure loss through the CT and BHA, m/
(Lt2), Pa
q ¼ density, m/L3, kg/m3
qA ¼ density of fluid in the annulus, m/L3, kg/m3
qCT ¼ density of fluid in the CT, m/L3, kg/m3
r ¼ electrical conductivity, tq2/(mL3), S/m
Acknowledgments
This work has been performed within the framework of the pro-
ject “Sustainable Production and Injection of Thermal Water
From the Deep Sedimentary Reservoir of Grob Schönebeck” and
funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Na-
ture Conservation and Nuclear Safety [BMU, FKZ0325088]. The
authors would like to thank C. Rach, A. Kratz, and T. Becker for
technical support on-site, and M. Poser, J. Schrötter, and C.
Cunow for their preparations before the coiled-tubing operation.
Furthermore, the authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers
for their efforts to significantly improve this paper.
Measure Metric Unit Oilfield Unit
Pressure 1 Pa 1.450 10–4 psi
Length 1m 3.281 ft
Flow Rate 1 L/min 2.642 10–1 US gal/min
Density 1 kg/m3 6.243 10–2 lbm/ft3
Volume 1 m3 3.531 101 ft3
Table 2—Conversion of metric unit to oilfield unit.
November 2015 SPE Production & Operations
ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005
Stage: Page: 319 Total Pages: 9
References
Brauer, H. and Sucker, D. 1976. Umströmung Von Platten, Zylindern Und
Kugeln. Chem. Ing. Tech. 48 (8): 665–671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
cite.330480803.
Breitkreuz, C. and Kennedy, A. 1999. Magmatic Flare-up at the Carbonif-
erous/Permian Boundary in the Ne German Basin Revealed by Shrimp
Zircon Ages. Tectonophysics 302 (34): 307–326. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0040-1951(98)00293-5.
Çengel, Y. 2002. Heat Transfer: A Practical Approach, second edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill Series in Mechanical Engineering, McGraw-Hill.
Concha, F. and Almendra, E.R. 1979. Settling Velocities of Particulate
Systems, 1. Settling Velocities of Individual Spherical Particles. Int.
J. Miner. Process. 5 (4): 349–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-
7516(79)90044-9.
Francke, H., Kraume, M., and Saadat, A. 2013. Thermal–Hydraulic Meas-
urements and Modelling of the Brine Circuit in a Geothermal Well.
Environ Earth Sci 70 (8): 3481–3495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-013-2612-8.
Frick, S., Regenspurg, S., Kranz, S. et al. 2011. Geochemical and Process
Engineering Challenges for Geothermal Power Generation. Chem. Ing.
Tech. 83 (12): 2093–2104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cite.201100131.
Henninges, J., Brandt, W., Erbas, K. et al. 2012. Downhole Monitoring Dur-
ing Hydraulic Experiments at the in-Situ Geothermal Lab Gross Schöne-
beck. Proc., 37th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering,
Stanford, California, USA, 30 January–1 February, SGP-TR-194. http://
www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2012/Henninges.pdf.
Holl, H.-G., Moeck, I., and Schandelmeier, H. 2005. Characterisation of the
Tectono-Sedimentary Evolution of a Geothermal Reservoir – Implica-
tions for Exploitation (Southern Permian Basin, NE Germany). Proc.,
World Geothermal Congress, Antalya, Turkey, 24–29 April. http://
www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2005/0614.pdf.
Michel, C., Stephens, R., Smith, D. et al. 2004. Reverse Circulation with
Coiled Tubing – Results of 1600þ Jobs. Presented at the SPE/ICoTA
Coiled Tubing Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 23–24 March.
SPE-89505-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/89505-MS.
Regenspurg, S., Feldbusch, W., Byrne, J. et al. 2015. Mineral precipitation
during production of geothermal fluid from a Permian Rotliegend reser-
voir. Geothermics 54: 122–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.
2015.01.003.
Sims, R.E.H., Schock, R.N., Adegbululgbe, A. et al. 2007. Energy Supply.
In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, edition. ed.
O.D. B. Metz, P. Bosch, R. Dave, L. Meyer, Vol. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chap. 4, 251–322. Cambrigde,
UK: Cambrige University Press. http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/assessment-
reports/fourth-assessment-report/.files-ar4/Chapter04.pdf
Spohler, G. 2009. Innenbeschichtung Von Rohren Für Die Geothermie.
Proc., Der Geothermiekongress.
Wolfgramm, M., Seibt, A., Hurter, S. et al. 2003. Origin of Geothermal
Fluids of Permo-Carboniferous Rocks In the NE German Basin (NE
Germany). J. Geochem. Explor. 78–79 (May 2003): 127–131. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6742(03)00133-X.
Zimmermann, G. and Reinicke, A. 2010. Hydraulic Stimulation of a Deep
Sandstone Reservoir to Develop an Enhanced Geothermal System:
Laboratory and Field Experiments. Geothermics 39 (1): 70–77. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2009.12.003.
Zimmermann, G., Blöcher, G., Reinicke, A. et al. 2011. Rock Specific
Hydraulic Fracturing and Matrix Acidizing to Enhance a Geothermal
System — Concepts and Field Results. Tectonophysics 503 (1–2):
146–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tecto.2010.09.026.
Zimmermann, G., Moeck, I., and Blöcher, G. 2010. Cyclic Waterfrac
Stimulation to Develop an Enhanced Geothermal System (Egs)—Con-
ceptual Design and Experimental Results. Geothermics 39 (1): 59–69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2009.10.003.
Conversion Factors
See Table 2 for conversion of metric units to oilfield units.
Thomas Reinsch is a research scientist at the GFZ German
Research Centre for Geosciences. He holds diploma degrees
319
 PO174080 DOI: 10.2118/174080-PA Date: 19-November-15
in physics and geology from University of Cologne and a PhD
degree in petroleum engineering from the Clausthal University
of Technology.
Simona Regenspurg is a research scientist at GFZ German
Research Centre for Geosciences. She holds a diploma
degree in hydrogeology from Ludwig Maximilian University,
Munich, and a PhD degree in hydrology from the University of
Bayreuth.
Elvira Feldbusch is a PhD degree student at GFZ German
Research Centre for Geosciences. She holds a diploma
degree in chemistry from the University of Potsdam.
Ali Saadat is research scientist at GFZ German Research
Centre for Geosciences. He holds a diploma degree and a
PhD degree in mechanical engineering from the Technische
Universität Berlin.
Kemal Erbas is a research scientist at GFZ German Research
Centre for Geosciences. He holds a diploma degree and a
320
ID: jaganm Time: 19:24 I Path: S:/PO##/Vol00000/150005/Comp/APPFile/SA-PO##150005
Stage: Page: 320 Total Pages: 9
PhD degree in geophysics from the Technische Universität
Berlin.
Jan Henninges is a research scientist at GFZ German
Research Centre for Geosciences. He holds a diploma
degree in geology from the University of Tübingen and a PhD
degree in applied geophysics from the Technische Universität
Berlin.
Günter Zimmermann is a research scientist at GFZ German
Research Centre for Geosciences and a professor at the Tech-
nische Universität Berlin. He holds a diploma degree in physics
from the University of Bonn and a PhD degree in geophysics
from the Technische Universität Berlin.
Ernst Huenges is head of the International Geothermal
Research Centre at GFZ German Research Centre for Geo-
sciences and professor at the Technische Universität Berlin. He
holds a diploma degree in physics and geology and a PhD
degree in rock physics from the University of Bonn.
November 2015 SPE Production & Operations