SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineer'S

SPE 17626
Selection of Paraffin Control Products and Applications
by D.C. Thomas, Welchem Inc.
SPE Member

Copyright 1988 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering, held in Tianjin, China, November 1-4, 1988.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

Paraffin related problems in the oilfield continue problem, and the application method is also most
to plague efficient production operations. important. In many cases, without careful
Solutions to these problems vary with the cause of evaluation of what the results represent, basic
the problem, its location, severity, and econ.omics. laboratory data may result in an inappropriate
This paper presents the philosophy and methodology treatment recommendation. Some tests are more
for investigating and recommending solutions to suited to specific types of problems, applications,
paraffin related field problems based on laboratory or products. Interpretation of the test results
testing and its relationship to these field coupled with field information provides pieces of
problems. Arriving at a sol uti on to paraffin the puzzle to achieve a more complete and accurate
problems in the oilfield involves a systematic solution to the problem.
approach that evaluates laboratory test results and
matches them to field needs. An important aspect of The interrelated aspect of the approach to solving
this approach includes combining information from the paraffin problem includes:
the field, the correct mix of laboratory tests, and
interpretation of the test results. 1. Field information about the problem.
2. Designing and implementing a laboratory
INTRODUCTION evaluation process.
3. Interpretation of the lab results as they
The term "paraffin problem" in the oilfield includes relate to the field problem.
a wide range of problems. We will focus on those 4. The application methods available.
problems that cause trouble in the production system 5. The desired results.
as they are related to paraffin wax deposition in 6. The economics and effectiveness.
the formation to reduce production, deposition in
production equipment, and the effect of wax on the PARAFFIN DEPOSITION
handling and flow of crude oil. The causes of
these problems can be as varied as the trouble they In order to devise a solution for a paraffin
present. problem, the causes and effects of the problem need
to be understood. Much information describing the
In order to effectively solve these paraffin related paraffin deposition process and mechanisms has been
problems, a step wise and interrelated approach is provided by various researchers .1, 2, 3 '4, 5 The
required. The selection of laboratory tests is important aspects of these mechanisms that pertain
influenced by the problem and its cause, as well as to problem solving can be summarized as follows:
the application method available. In return, the
product and application method selected is 1. Crude oil generally contains · a mixture of
influenced by the results of the lab testing. paraffin waxes. For our purpose, paraffin (or wax)
is loosely defined as a hydrocarbon containing
Interpretation of the laboratbry results in carbon numbers ranging from 18 to greater than 60,
consideration of the needs of the field, the and is for the most part, linear. Generally,
specific limited' types of wax, or carbon number
References and illustrations at end of paper. ranges, are predominant in a ·specific crude· oil.

811
2 SELECTION OF PARAFFIN CONTROL PRODUCTS AND APPLICATIONS
2. Crystal formation takes place when the crude oil
temperature is lowered below the cloud point.
Deposition will take place if a crude oil contacts a
surface which is below the critical cloud point.3,4
3. Paraffin is deposited by several mechanisms,
predominantly molecular diffusion of wax molecules
to a cold surface, and shear dispersion of
previously crystallized wax.l,2
4. The location and severity of the problem will be
influenced by the type and amount of the wax
present, the type of crude oil and its ability to
maintain the wax in solution or as dispersed
particles, and the temperature profile and flow
characteristics of the system.
With these factors in mind one would expect that a
crude oil paraffin problem could be made up of
several individual problems. This arises from the
fact that the crude contains .several types of waxes
of different carbon numbers and crystal structures.
FIELD INFORMATION ARD ANALYSIS
The first step in providing solutions to field
paraffin problems is through evaluation of the field
situation. An analysis of the problem must be
conducted to determine:
1. The problem, where it occurs, and how the
problem is affecting the production system.
2. The system ~perating parameters and
configuration. Include detail for temperature
profile, flow rates, equipment make up,
environmental conditions, operating conditions and
procedures.
3. How the problem is currently handled, how it was
handled in the past and how effective this was, and
the costs involved.
4. The desired method of treatment and application.
The desired results of the treatment.
Analysis of the field information should provide an
assessment of the cause and effect o~ the paraffin
problem. With this determination completed, the
appropriate laboratory evaluation program can be
designed. For example, a problem of reduced flow
through a subsea pipeline from an offshore platform
to onshore facilities could be caused by paraffin
deposition, turbulent flow, emulsion, or related to
viscosity or pour point. When the cause of the
problem is identified, the possible application
methods that can be used in this situation, and
product types that are applicable to the o.ffshore
environment and operations need to be considered.
After the field analysis is made, laboratory testing
can begin. The typical test sequence involves
preliminary tests .such as pour point, carbon number
distribution analysis, cloud point, and deposit
analysis. From th.is data, additional specific
testing is ,conducted.
CLOUD POINT
Identification of the cloud ,point is one step in
describing the problem and designing laboratory
812
SPE 17626
testing. Cloud point can be determined by several
methods. The ASTM D2500-66 method is a visual
method used for clear fluids.6 This method
identifies the cloud point represented by the first
visual wax that crystallizes from solution but
cannot identify other possible important cloud
points below it or possible minor ones above it.
Another method used in our laboratory is the
viscosity temperature profile method.? This method
uses a computer controlled Haake RV-20 concentric
cylinder viscometer to find the inflection point in
the viscosity increase curve at the cloud point.
This technique usually identifies the major cloud
points in a crude. Thus, a given crude oil could
exhibit several cloud points, representing the
crystallization points of the different waxes that
it contains. Most of these individual cloud points
are due to small amounts of wax, and in practice not
detectable, not significant, or are masked (or
consumed) in the major wax cloud point. Crude oils
have been identified that have several major cloud
points, and some crude oils do not show a distinct
inflection in the slope of the viscosity curve. In
these cases, it has been observed that the paraffin
makeup is more broad and the viscosity slope changes
continuously until dramatic changes occur due to wax
saturation and pour point.
With the production system experiencing a varying
temperature profile, hotter downhole to cooler at
the surface, varying types of waxes can deposit at
different locations. This has been demonstrated in
our labora~ory testing of deposits and by others.S
These various waxes may respond to different
chemicals and applications. Thus, multiple cloud
points and the resulting varying types of wax
deposition will have great influence on the testing,
product selection, and application technique.
POUR POINT
Another test that is commonly run is the pour point
test. The pour point of the crude is the result of
wax crystallization and the crystal network that is
formed. This network traps the liquid oil and if
enough wax is present, will solidify the crude. The
ASTM D97-66 method describes this test. 8 However,
for use in the oilfield the test should be modified
to provide more representative results.9 Generally,
the sample used in the test is heated to the
temperature that represents the actual field
production temperature under consideration at the
point where the chemical will be applied. Since
different paraffins may influence the pour point at
different temperatures, the test preheat temperature
will affect the results. This result is generally
referred to as the upper and lower pour point. Some
crude oils will exhibit an upper and lower pour
point while others may have only one pour point.
Heating the crude to its maximum temperature, i.e.
formation temperature, and minimum temperaiure, i.e.
its temperature at the application point, when
conducting the pour point test will reveal
information useful for solving the field problem.
Testing crystal modifier type products on the
modified pour point test provides information that
will help select the most appropriate chemical flow
modifier for a particular crude. This test, along
with viscometer testing can provide results for
product selection for.cases where viscosity and pour
SPE 17626 DON C. THOMAS
point is the problem. However, selection of a
paraffin deposition inhibitor by the pour point test
alone may not provide an adequate result. The
crystal modifier may be affecting the wax components
that cause the high pour point, but not those waxes
that are responsible for the majority of the
deposition.
Laboratory testing on crude oils from the u.s. Gulf
Coast and West Texas, and the southern Caribbean
area indicate that the best pour point depressant is
not always the best deposition inhibitor, and that
some products that give little pour point
depression, provide the best deposition prevention.
For example, one crude oil form the southern
Caribbean area treated with Additive 81 exhibited
only a 5.5°C (10°F) reduction in pour point but a
75% reduction in the cold finger test wax deposit.
When this crude was treated with Additive 82, its
pour point was reduced by 27.7°C (50°F), but showed
no reduction in cold finger wax deposit. The pour
point test however, is a good test to help screen
candidates for additional testing consideration.
COLD FINGER TESTING
Various types of paraffin deposition tests have been
used for a number of years. The general equipment
design makes use of a cooled surface in contact with
the crude oil. The most common equipment used and
the type used in this study is the cold finger test.
This type of test uses a cooled probe inserted into
a temperature controlled vessel of stirred crude
oil. The cold finger test is used to select
paraffin deposition inhibitors and in some cases
paraffin removers.lO
The cold finger test can be conducted under a
varying set of conditions. Information obtained
from the cloud point and pour point tests, and data
concerning the field operations and application
method required is used to help set the test
parameters. In most cases, the crude oil is heated
to the anticipated application temperature. This
temperature ma·y not be above the laboratory
determined cloud point. If the application point
and the problem are below the anticipated maximum
cloud point, the cold finger test is conducted under
those conditions in order to duplicate field
conditions. In these cases, the paraffin creating
the problem may be crystallizing at a lower
temperature than expected or the deposit is caused
by the shear transport mechanism. A different type
of inhibitor may be needed for these conditions as
compared to the same oil treated under higher
temperature conditions where molecular diffusion is
the deposition mechanism.
The cold finger probe temperature is maintained at
the temperature of the equipment surface where
deposition occurs. If this is not known, the next
lowest system temperature is used. For example,
when testing for an inhibitor for downhole tubing
deposition, the wellhead temperature can be used.
In all cases the probe temperature must be
maintained below the cloud point of the crude. If
there is more than one cloud point, consideration of
this is given by examining the field parameters and
by testing at two temperatures to determine the
effect of the different cloud points. If the
temperatures of the production system are not well
813
3
known, test parameters are set based on cloud point.
The oil temperature is set to 5.5°C (10°F) above the
cloud point and the cold finger is set to 5-8°C (10-
150F) below the cloud point. These temperature~ are
selected to obtain a 5-8°C ( 10-15°F) temperature
gradient at the probe and oil int~rface. Too cold
of a probe surface can result in no deposit or
interference from a congealed oil deposit.
Products are screened at various treating rates to
determine their performance. Initial selection is
based on the pour point results and field
experience. Interpretation of the results is · of
major importance and the deposits on the probes are
evaluated for both quantity and quality. The
deposit is analyzed for paraffin content and
paraffin type using gas chromatography. While th~
objective of the inhibitor in the cold finger test
is to obtain the least deposit weight, it is most
unlikely that 100 percent inhibition will be
achieved at economical treating rates. Thus, under
these conditions some of the deposit may remain in
the production system during treatment. Because of
this, the type of paraffin remaining on the probe is
important. It is therefore desirable to obtain a
deposit that is soft and easy to remove as opposed
to a hard deposit. This soft deposit is more likely
to be removed in the production system by shear from
fluid flow and benefit from additional thermal
energy present in the system. In many cases this
deposit contains significant amounts of entrapped
oil, making the deposit almost liquid when removed
from the cold finger probe. This deposit weight may
be greater than the results produced by other
chemicals, but the softness of the paraffin can be
more important in light of actual field operations.
This aspect of the cold finger test should be
accounted for when evaluating cold finger results.
The cold finger test can also be used for the
evaluation of paraffin remover type products or to
determine the ability of a product to remove and
inhibit deposition in the presence of an existing
deposit. For this test, an untreated paraffin
deposit is built on the probes. The oil (or other
treating solution) is then treated with the selected
treating chemical and the probe reinserted into the
fluid. The test is continued and the removal or
prevention of additional deposit is determined.
The usefulness of the cold finger test is determined
by the conditions it is conducted under, the results
required in t~e field, and the interpretation of the
results.
GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY
The gas chromatograph is another valuable tool for
evaluation of paraffin products. The use of the GC
to characterize oil and paraffin deposit composition
can help define the possible type and severity of a
problem. Indications on the GC analysis of higher
carbon number wax in the crude or wax deposit can
point out difficult to treat problems. The analysis
can indicate the variance in paraffin type and
relative amounts that may require treatment, an~ may
indicate that multiple cloud points and pour points
exist. This information coupled with the results of
other tests will provide a better treating chemical
and application selection.
4 SELECTION OF PA~AFFIN
An additional advantage of the GC analysis is
product ~creening and selection based on the "finger
print" of the oil and deposit analysis. While
absolute product selection based only on GC
information may be vulnerable, certain types of
chemistry show performance trends that can be
related back to specific types of paraffin
constituents. This product/performance information
needs to be developed for each specific product, but
general chemistry type references can be made. A represents crudes 1 and 2.
computerized gas chromatograph is in use in our
laboratory and has been especially useful in making
treating recommendations where data from other tests
has been inconclusive.
ADDITIONAL TESTS
There are numerous additional testslO which can be
conducted, again depending upon the requirements of
the field and problem. More important among these
is the hot and cold flask test.ll,l2 This test is
an effective method for selecting an appropriate
paraffin remover type product other than a solvent.
This test, as with others, has a "standard"
procedure and a modified procedure to meet the field
needs. The basic test consists of placing a weighed
quantity of paraffin deposit, shaped into a ball,
into a test jar containing water and chemical.
Duplicate sets are run with one set shaken at
ambient temperature. The other set is heated until
the paraffin melts and is then shaken while cooling.
Both sets are evaluated for the ability of the
chemical to break up the paraffin. If the treatment
will be made downhole where it can be heated by the
formation, additional testing of the best products
selected from the standard test is conducted at the
formation temperature.
SAMPLE
Since various types of paraffin may deposit in
different locations, care should be taken to insure
that the paraffin sample is representative of the
problem. The sample of crude oil supplied for
testing usually comes from surface facilities or the
wellhead. The trouble causing wax may have already
deposited in the system before the sample was taken.
In this case the results of the laboratory testing
may by less accurate. This fact should be
considered in the interpretation of the test
results. In many cases a deposit used in testing
comes from the wellhead or it is retrieved from a
hot oiling, scraping, or other clean out operations.
This deposit may not be representative of the wax
which needs to be treated. This type of problem is
illustrated in Case History #1, where testing on a
wellhead sample provided an ineffective chemical
selection.
LABORATORY TEST CASE fl
The influence of different types of paraffin present
in a crude oil can be illustrated by testing
conducted on four crude oils from the southern
Caribbean area. These crudes are all from relative
close geographical locations but present varying
characteristics. Crude oils 1 and 2 have two major
cloud points, while crude 3 and 4 show only one.
Because of the two cloud points detected, pour
points were tested at two temperatures, the downhole
temperature of 71°C (159.8°F) and the wellhead
CONTROL PRODUCTS AND APPLICATIONS SPE 17626
temperature of 41°C (lll.2°F). The results of this
testing are shown in Table 1. Crudes 1 and 2
exhibit a minimum and maximum pour point but crudes
3 and 4 exhibit only one pour point when tested at
high and low preheat temperatures. This is due to
the fact that two types of waxes are present in
crudes 1 and 2, and one major type in 3 and 4.
The gas chromatograph analysis in Figure 1
It shows two groups of
waxes at 18-22 and 25-29 carbon numbers. Figure 2
represents the GC analysis of crudes 3 and 4 showing
only one grouping of wax around carbon numbers 20
through 28.
The effect on chemical treatment caused by the
different waxes in crudes 1 and 2 is shown in Table
2. The crudes were treated with 100 ppm of Additive
69 at both downhole and wellhead temperatures. The
viscosity of each was measured on a Haake RV-20
viscometer at 22°C (71.6°F). The results show that
two to three times more viscosity reduction was
achieved at the higher treating temperature
indicating more wax is treated at that temperature
by the chemical.
FIELD CASE HISTORIES
CASE #1
A producer in the West Texas area was experiencing a
paraffin deposition problem in the tubing of rod
activated pumping wells. The desired treatment was
paraffin removal using a surfactant/dispersant type
product in a water solution, batch treated int6 the
well. Based on this information, the flask test was
conducted on a sample of paraffin obtained from the
field. Additive 26 was found effective and field
tested. Results after two months showed little
effect, and a retest confirmed the original
recornrne~dation. Subsequent to this, a sample of wax
was retrieved from the rod string of one well and
tested. The GC results in Figure 3 showed a high
carbon number wax in the downhole deposit compared
to the wellhead sample in Figure 4. Testing was
then conducted using products that had previously
showed activity on this type of wax. Although its
laboratory performance on the original wellhead
sample was marginal, testing on the wax sample from
downhole indicated that Additive 70 would be
successful. Field trials using Additive 70 have been
successful.
CASE #2
A producer in Southern Louisiana was experiencing
paraffin deposition in the flowline and the tubing
of a gas lift well. The desired treatment was to
inject a product continuously into the flowline for
inhibition and continue to cut paraffin in the
tubing. Data indicated that the oil has major cloud
points at 67°C (152.6°F) and 37°C (98.6°F), and 18°C
(64.4°F). The temperature at the wellhead had
already fallen below the 67°C (152.6°F) cloud point
while the flowline temperature fell below the 37°C
(98.6°F) cloud point at a point further down the
line. This deposition was thus caused by both
molecular diffusion and shear dispersion. Testing
was conducted on the cold finger, based on the
system parameters, to select the appropriate
inhibitor. The oil was treated at flowline
814
SPE 17626 DON C. THOMAS
temperature and at bottom hole temperature to
compare the effects of cloud point on treating.
The wax deposit from the cold finger and a deposit
from the flowline was analyzed by GC. These analysis
are shown in Figures 5 and 6. From these analysis
it appears that the wax of concern is in the carbon
number range around 39-42. The results of the cold
finger test indicated that different products would
be required depending on the application
temperature. In order to treat both possible
circumstances of application in the flowline and
downhole, a new product was formulated based on cold
finger testing conducted at the 37°C (98.60F) cloud
point. The wax from the cold finger test treated
with Additive 82 was analyzed by GC and is shown in
Figure 7. As seen here, the wax in the 39-42 carbon
number range that was expected to deposit in the
flowline has been eliminated. This product was
field tested in a flowline application and has been
successfully controlling the paraffin deposition for
ten months. The downhole treating application is
pending.
CASE # 3
A produce~ in one Southern Louisiana area was
experiencing paraffin problems in flowlines of rod
pumping wells. The flowlines were hot oiled
approximately every 30 days to control paraffin.
Testing resulted in a recommendation of Additive 82
for use as an inhibitor in the flowlines. Cold
finger testing was inconclusive, and little
inhibition was indica~ed. The test was conducted at
flowline injection temperature, which is below the
major cloud point. Testing at a chemical treating
temperature above the cloud point indicated more
promising results. Initial field injection was
started in the flowline due to field operation and
economic considerations. This injection failed to
control the deposition and injection was moved
downhole to take advantage of above the cloud point
treating temperature. The results were successful
in controlling the problem during the past six
winter months.
In contrast to this application, a producer in the
same Southern Louisiana area also experienced
flowline paraffin deposition problems. To control
the paraffin, the flowlines were hot oiled every
thirty days. Based on the laboratory evaluation the
same product, Additive 82, was recommended for
flow line application. Cold finger tests and the
cloud point indicated that flowline application
would be more successful based on --the field
operating conditions.
Injection of the product into the flowline has
controlled the paraffin during the past five winter
months.
EFFECTIVENESS AND ECONOMICS
The effectiveness of a treatment for paraffin
problems depends on through and complete evaluation
of the causes of the problem and the needs of the
field. When chosen correctly and applied correctly,
paraffin treating products can help control and
manage a paraffin problem in a cost effective way.
However, attention must be given to the fact that
multiple problems may be occurring at the same time
and that the needs of the field may be dictated by
815
5
economics. Because of this, the use of paraffin
control chemicals are not a complete cure all for
paraffin problems.
The usual results in field treatment can be expected
to follow the 80/20 rule. In a given application 80
percent of the wells can be expected to respond to
an appropriate treatment, and 20 percent can fail to
give expected or economical results. For the
remaining 20 percent, their treating cost may be
higher, a different product may be required, or the
treatment supplemented by other techniques. Again,
this 20 percent may also follow the 80/20 rule.
The failure of a certain number of wells to respond
to economical treatment must be considered in light
of the successes. If the successful treatments help
operations and can manage the problem with favorable
economics, the few failures do not constitute a
failure of the entire treating program.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Background field data must be collected and
evaluated to determine the cause and effect of the
paraffin problem.
2. Laboratory testing must be designed with the
problem and field requirements taken into
consideration.
3. Paraffin makeup in a given crude may be complex,
leading to several types of waxes causing
simultaneous problems that appear in the field as a
single problem.
4. Numerous laboratory tests must be conducted to
more accurately describe the problem and arrive at a
successful solution.
5. Important tests in the laboratory include the
pour point and cloud point test, deposit and oil
analysis by GC, cold finger or other deposition
tests, paraffin removal tests. Variations in these
and other tests are necessary to meet the needs of
the field problem.
6. Interpretation of the laboratory tests is
necessary to achieve a reasonable treating solution.
7. Effectiveness and economic considerations should
be taken into consideration. With the variable
types of paraffin causing problems, solutions
generally follow the 80/20 rule of success for each
type of product selected.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The permission of Welchem. Inc. to present this
paper is greatly appreciated. I would also like to
thank H. L. Becker and D. Galvan for their
contribution and assistance to this work.
REFERENCES
1. Bern, P.A., Withers, V.R., and Cairns, J.R.:
"Wax Deposition in Crude Oil Pipelines",
European Offshore Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition (Oct. 1980) EUR 206, 571-575.
2. Burger, E. D. , Perkins, T. K. , and Striegler,
J .H.: "Studies of Wax Deposition in the Trans
6 SELECTION OF PARAFFIN CONTROL PRODUCTS AND APPLICATIONS SPE 17626

Alaska Pipeline", J. Pet. Tech. (June 1981)

1075-1086.

3. Patton, C.C. and Casad, B.M.,Soc. Pet. Engrs.

Jr., March 17, 1970.

4. Ea·ton, P.E. and Weeter, G.Y.: "Paraffin

Deposition in Flow Lines", Paper No. 76-
CSME/CHChe-22 presented at 16th Nat!. Heat
Transfer Conf., St. Louis, Aug. 8-11, 1976.

5. Newberry, M. E. : "Crude Oil Production and

Flowline Pressure Problems", SPE 11561, Paper
presented at the 1983 Production Operations
Symposium, Okla. City, Feb. 28, 1983.

6. Standard Test Methods, ASTM 02500-66 and IP

219/67.

7. Howell, J.N., and Jessen, F.W., "Determination

of the Viscosity-Temperature Relationship for
Crude Oils with the Ultra-Viscoson", J. Pet.
Tech. (Sept. 1956)i 95-97.

8. Standard Test Methods, ASTM D97-67 and IP

15/67.

9. Slater, G. and Davis, A.: "Pipeline

Transportation of High Pour Point New Zealand
Crude Using Pour Point Depressants", SPE 15656,
paper presented at 1986 Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of SPE, New Orleans,
LA, October 5-8, 1986.

10. Addison, G.E.: "Paraffin Control More Cost

Effective", SPE 13391, paper presented at 1984
Eastern Regionc;il Meeting, Charleston,
WestVirginia, October 31-November 2, 1984.

11. Newb·erry, M.E.: "Chemical Treatments for

Paraffin Control in the Oilfield", Proc. Ann.
Southwestern Short Course, 1982, 295h, 322-338.

12. Sutton,G.D.: "Methods of Removing Organic

Deposits from Surfaces", Canadian Patent No.
1067685 (Dec. 11, 1979).

816
 TABLE 1

LABORATORY TEST - CASE 11 - CLOUD & POUR POINT DATA

Lower Point Point (°C) Upper Pour Point (Oc)

Crude Oil Cloud Point (OC) Heated to 44°C Heated to 71°C

Crude 1 57, 43 13 18
Crude 2 56, 50 -15 4
Crude 3 49 13 13
Crude 4 50 7 7

TABLE 2

LABORATORY TEST - CASE 11 - VISCOSITY DATA

VISCOSITY (CP) AT 22°C

HEATED TO 71°C
Crude Oil Untreated Treated @100 ppm Untreated Treated @100 ppm

Crude 1 75 12.3 69 26.6

Crude 2 124.4 9.5 >200 29.9

seE 176 2·6

817
 15 19
14 18
17
13
16
12 15
en 11 en 14

~
z
10
9
~
z<
13
12
< < 11
0 8 0 10
d d 9
7
~ ~ 8
6
~ ~ 7
~ 5 - ~ 6
~ 4 - ~
< 5
3 - 4
3
2 -

:~ fffl
r
2
1 - 1
0 1 R II I I U n I U lr
I 0
5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69
CARBON NUMBER CARBON NUMBER
Fig. 1-GC analysis-lab test Case No.1, Crudes 1 and 2. Fig. 2-GC analysis-lab test Case No. 1, Crudes 3 and 4.

.....
CD
CD

26 17
24 16 -
15 -
22
14 -
20 13 -
en en
~
<
18 iii
~
12 -
11 -
z
<
16 z<
< 10 -
0 14 0 9 -
d ci
>- 12 8 -
m fu
10 7 -
~
~
~ 8 ~
6 -
~
~ 5 -
·en
fO
<
6 < 4 -
rn 4 3 -
2 -
..... 2
1-
IJ
Ill U
1fi
0
'0'
""'
lfl[ _n
0 I
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69
~ CARBON NUMBER CARBON NUMBER
a. c;" ~-GC analysis-Case History No. 1, downhole deposit. Fig. 4-GC analysis-Case History No. 1, wellhead deposit.
 16 26
15- 24
14 ....
22
13-
12- 20
UJ UJ
u; u; _1 8
11 -

z~
~
~
10- 16
< 9-
0 0 14
ci B- ci
12
~ 7- ~
~ 6- ~ 10
;5 5- ;5 8
~ ~
< 4- <
6
3-
4
2-
1 - rrn... LIII:L __dh
2
0 0
5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69
CARBON NUMBER CARBON NUMBER

=
.....
CD
Fig. 5-GC analysis-Case History No. 2, Cold Finger deposit. Fig. 6-GC analysis-Case History No. 2, flowline deposit •

22

20 - I

18

UJ 16 -
i
<
0
14 -

12 -
ci
~
10 -
~ B -
;5
~ 6 -

4 -
2 -
~
m
0 I I I I I I I I I I I I

,.., 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41
CARBON NUMBER
45 49 53 57 61 65 69

.... Fig. 7-GC analysis-Case History No. 2; Additive 82 Cold Finger deposit.

~
"
<l'

-~