Control of Paraffin Deposition
in Production Operations
G.G. McClaflin, SPE, Conoco Inc.
D.L. Whitfill, SPE, Conoco Inc.
Summary
Significant operating costs are incurred from treatments
designed to remove waxy deposits from production tub-
ing or squeeze treatments designed to inhibit wax deposi-
tion. The costs are increased further by formation damage
and loss of production that may result from these
treatments. Our studies show that paraffin deposition can
be prevented or greatly retarded by using chemical sur-
factants called "dispersants." Two specific surfactants
were selected that proved very effective as paraffin disper-
sants. One is oil soluble and the other is water soluble.
These dispersants can be injected continuously into the
well or they can be added in larger quantities in a batch
treatment at specific time intervals. The choice of using
batch or continuous treatment is governed by the type and
number of wells requiring treatment.
Introduction
Paraffin Deposition. The mechanism of paraffin deposi-
tion and the fact that paraffin wax does come out of solu-
tion at the cloud point of the wax when fresent in
paraffin-base crude oil is well documented. 1- It is also
known that the precipitate mayor may not adhere to an
exposed surface and result in a deposit. 2 Deposits can
range from almost pure white paraffin wax to a totally
asphaltic material. Most deposits, however, fall between
these two extremes and comprise a mixture of asphaltic
material, solid hydrocarbon waxes, and various amounts
of retained oil, water, sand, silt, metal oxides, sulfates,
and carbonates.
Problems Caused By Paraffin Deposition. Paraffin
deposits collect in wellbores, production tubing, and
flowlines. Under certain conditions, paraffin deposition
may occur also in the producing formation. The problems
caused by these deposits are related to restricted flow,
which leads to increased flowline pressure, decreased pro-
duction, and mechanical problems. These and other prob-
lems are also well documented in the literature as
described bl Shock et ai., 2 EnDean,7 Newberry,8 and
Sifferman.
Methods To Treat Paraffin Problems. There are many
methods of handling paraffin deposition. These can be
divided into four categories: mechanical, thermal,
chemical, and combinations of these three.
0149·2136184/0111·2204 $00.25
Copyright 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
NOVEMBER 1984
Mechanical. Running a scraper that mechanically cuts
the deposit from the tubing has been used widely. Wirelin-
ing the tubing and "pigging" the flowlines are two ex-
amples.
Thermal. This treatment method normally consists of
minimizing radiation heat losses and the addition of ex-
ternal heat to the system. Insulation of flowlines and main-
taining a higher pressure in the flowlines that minimize
cooling through dissolved gas expansion are two examples
of minimizing radiation heat losses. Procedures such as
steaming the flowlines, installing bottomhole heaters, and
circulation of hot oil or hot water are examples of the ap-
plication of heat in an effort to melt or increase the
solubility of the deposit.
Chemical Control. Chemical control, which this paper
addresses, falls into these two classes: (1) those in which
a solvent is used to dissolve the deposit once it has formed,
and (2) those which inhibit wax crystal growth or inhibit
its adherence to the tubing wall.
1. Solvents. Solvents used for dissolving paraffin
deposits generally have a high aromatic content. A variety
of solvents, including crude oils, are heated when used.
2. Wax Crystal Modifiers. These are polymers that in-
hibit or alter wax crystal growth. They appear to work
best in water-free or low-water-content crude. Unfor-
tunately, they are selective and often require tailoring to
the individual crude oil.
3. Paraffin Dispersants. These are a select group of
surface-active agents that work in the presence of water
by water-wetting the paraffin particles to prevent the par-
tides from uniting and depositing on the tubing wall. They
also water-wet the tubing and flowlines.
Combinations. Many problems require a combination
of these methods to control paraffin deposition and main-
tain production. The selection of which combinations to
use usually is based on previous experience.
The work covered in this paper is limited to chemical
treatment using chemical surfactants that function as paraf-
fin dispersants. The work covers extensive laboratory
studies and 2 years of field testing with two of the prod-
ucts recommended from the laboratory studies.
Laboratory Test Methods
A number of tests are performed in the laboratory to
evaluate paraffin dispersants for use in waxy crude wells.
The three primary tests are: (1) solubility and/or com-
patibility test, (2) paraffin-dispersant' 'hot" flask test, and
(3) API RP 42 visual wettability test. 10,11 All these tests
are described in Appendix A. Earlier extensive laboratory
1965
 COUNTER WEIGHT?
PULLEY
STIRRER
DATA
OONSTANT TEMPERATURE LOGGER
CIRCULATOR
Fig. 1-Paraffin wax deposition test equipment.
studies were performed with a paraffin deposition ap-
paratus to screen wax crystal modifiers and paraffin
dispersants. This apparatus was used in much the same
manner as described by Newberry 8 and other authors.
An equipment schematic is shown in Fig. 1, and the man-
ner in which it was used is described in Appendix A. Poor
precision was obtained for data generated with this equip-
ment, but it was adequate for screening purposes.
The solubility and/or compatibility test is a simple visual
test used to determine the compatibility of all chemicals
and liquids that may contact one another in the well. The
paraffin-dispersant hot flask test is described in Ref. 12.
However, our criteria vary somewhat from theirs. The
API RP 42 visual wettability test is used to ensure that
the chemicals used keep the type of formation in the pro-
ducing interval water-wet.
Field Testing Based On Laboratory Results
We have a number of fields that produce waxy crudes.
In each of these, paraffin deposition is a troublesome and
costly problem. Having many problem wells enabled us
to select a favorable range of well types, production
histories, and treatment records.
The usual method of treatment in these fields was the
use of hot oil and/or hot water in the tubing and flowlines.
For simplicity, we use the term "hot oil" to describe the
treatment for removing deposited paraffin by a heated
liquid.
Field Tests Using Wax Crystal Modifiers. Initial field
testing started in Sept. 1979 at the Grace Mitchell B Well
No.3 (GMB 3) near Maljamar, NM (Appendix B). This
is an openhole completion. At the time this test was
started, GMB3 was producing 200 to 220 BID [32 to 35
m 3 /d] oil and 3 to 4 BID [0.48 to 0.64 m 3 /d] water.
Crude oil produced from this well has a cloud point of
58 to 60°F [14 to 16°C]. Crude from the well passes
through a 2-in. [5-cm] line to the header and separator
located - 500 ft [153 m] from the well. The flowline lies
on the surface. Historically, the well and flowlines had
to be hot-oiled every 2 to 3 weeks to maintain production.
The product initially tested in this well was a commer-
cial product identified as an ethylene-vinyl acetate type
wax crystal modifier. It reportedly had proved effective
in other waxy crude wells in the Maljamar area. It was
added continuously at a concentration of 90 ppm, based
on crude oil production. The test was stopped after 2
months because no benefits were observed. Meanwhile
1966
a wax deposition apparatus was built for use in the
laboratory to screen wax crystal modifiers (see Fig. 1).
Twenty-two crystal modifiers, dissolved in crude from
Well GMB3 were screened in the wax deposition ap-
paratus. The product that appeared best, an esterified
olefin/maleic anhydride type copolymer, was later tested
in that well for 1 month. During that time, no benefits
were observed. We then tested a SO/50 blend of the
esterified olefinlmaleic anhydride copolymer and an oil-
soluble paraffin dispersant in this well. This blend ap-
peared to transfer the paraffin deposition problem from
the well bore to the flowline, since the pump was operating
normally but the flowline plugged more quickly than
before.
These results indicated that dispersing the paraffin with
a paraffin dispersant might be better than trying to modify
the paraffin crystal growth with a wax crystal modifier.
Testing was begun on various potential paraffin disper-
sants using the paraffin-dispersant hot flask test and wax
from Well GMB3 distribution lines and led to the evalua-
tion of a series of nonionic surfactants as paraffin dis-
persants in the laboratory.
Initial Field Test Using an Oil-Soluble Paraffin Dis-
persant. The dispersant screening led to a recommenda-
tion of an oil-soluble product for testing in Well GMB3.
One reason for selecting the oil-soluble product was that
this well produces mainly oil and very little water.
This product, dissolved in an aromatic bottoms material,
was added continuously to the well at 100 ppm, based on
crude oil production, for 8 days. During that time, it ap-
peared to change the wettability of the producing zone
at the wellbore, as indicated by a decrease in oil produc-
tion accompanied by an increase in water production. Ad-
dition of the chemical was stopped and the well produced
for 2 weeks to purge out the residual chemical. The well
was then hot-oiled. Production returned to normal after
this combination of treatments.
This field test showed a need for a laboratory screen-
ing test that would allow us to determine how a particular
paraffin dispersant would affect production should it come
in contact with the producing zone. The API RP 42 wet-
tability test was used for this purpose. This test specifies
sandstone or carbonate particles be used as the "wetted
medium," so Oklahoma No.1 sand was chosen as the
screening "formation." The oil-soluble paraffin dis-
persant tested in Well GMB3 was found to leave the sand
oil-wet, whereas several other nonionic-type paraffin
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 TABLE 1-0IL·SOLUBLE PARAFFIN·DISPERSANT CONTINUOUS TREATMENT-

Well Production Data Hot Oil Frequency (weeks)

Test Well'· Time BOPD BWPD WOR Untreated t Tubing Flowline
-1
- GMB 3* start 208 4 0.02 2 to 3
1 GMB 3 3 months 205 4 0.02 11 4
2 MeA 317§ start 32 170 5.31 4
2 MeA 317§ 18 months 28 155 5.54 2:36 2:36
3 MeA 322§ start 22 40 1.82 4
3 MeA 322§ 18 months 18 34 1.89 24;>50 18;28

• 100 ppm based on oil production .

.. Maljamar field. NM.
t Both tubing and flowline were normally hot·oiled at the same time.
t Open hole completion.
§ Cased·hole completion.

dispersants left the sand water-wet. From that time on,
only those products that left sand (and later, carbonates)
water-wet were considered for use in the field.
Successful Field Tests Using Oil-Soluble Paraffin
Dispersants. Another oil-soluble paraffin dispersant
called Product OS, which left sand water-wet, was se-
lected for field testing. This dispersant was blended with
GMB3 crude and tested in Well GMB3 and two other test
wells in the area, MCA Wells 317 and 322. The wells
werc chosen on the basis of the wide differences in the
producing oil/water ratios (Le., high. medium, low) and
the fact that all three are paraffin problem wells. Injec-
tion of this paraffin dispersant (Product OS) started in
Dec. 1980. The product was added continuously at 100
ppm based on crude oil production.
Our objective with these tests was to prevent or great-
ly retard paraffin wax deposition while at the same time
maintaining at least the same level of oil production as
when the wells were not being treated. The results
presented in Table I show that we were successful at ac-
complishing our objectives. Starting with Well GMB3
(Table I) we see that the hot-oiling frequency was extend-
ed from 2 to 3 weeks to nearly 3 months for the tubing
and to 4 weeks for the flowline. Note also that produc-
tion remained constant for that 3-month period. Testing
of Product OS at MCA Wells 317 and 322 was of much
longer duration. The results ofthe first 18 months' testing
in these wells also are shown in Table I-Wells 317 and
322-where it is seen that the hot-oiling frequency was
extended from 1 month to 9 months or longer for both
the tubing and flowlines of MCA Well 317 and from I
month to 6 to 12 months for MCA Well 322 tubing and
to 5 to 7 months for its flowline. Production decline in
the test wells followed the normal trend for the field.
Additional Laboratory Studies
While field tests were under way, laboratory studies con-
tinued. The laboratory studies were conducted with crude
oil, waxy deposits, and a core sample from the Maljamar
wells in conjunction with several paraffin dispersants,
solvents, and waters. Several minerals were used to
evaluate wettability effects of the dispersants. These in-
cluded Oklahoma No. 1 sand; Maljamar core, mainly
dolomite (CaC0 3 and MgC0 3 ) plus some sand (Si0 2 )
and anhydrite (CaS04); and south Texas core, Austin
chalk (CaC0 1 ).
Laboratory' tests chosen for the study included the
paraffin-dispersant hot flask test, the solubility andlor
compatibility test, and the API RP 42 visual wettability
test. In all. more than 100 different products were
screened and evaluated in the laboratory.
Field Tests With a Water-Soluble
Paraffin Dispersant
The continued laboratory study suggested that Product .
WS, a water-soluble paraffin dispersant that appeared to
be more water-wetting. might be more applicable for field
use. In addition, it was less expensive. Field testing of
this product started at Maljamar MCA Wells 96 and 151
in mid-] 981. With no treatment, both wells required hot-
oiling monthly. These wells are still on test. During the
first 12 months' testing, hot-oiling of these wells was ex-
tended from I month to 6 to 9 months or longer and their
flowlines to a minimum of 5 to 6 months (see Table
2-Wells 96 and lSI). As stated in Appendix B, these
flowlines are not buried. Also of interest from these well
tests is that oil production declined at rates less than the
field projection.

TABLE 2-WATER·SOLUBLE PARAFFIN-DISPERSANT CONTINUOUS TREATMENT-

Well Production Data Hot Oil Frequency (weeks)

Test Well" Time BOPD BWPD WOR Untreated t Tubing Flowline
--
4 MeA 96* start 100 50 0.50 4
4 MeA 96~ 12 months 95 33 0.35
5 MeA 151 * start 40 92 2.30 4
5 MeA 151 ~ 12 months 37 127 3.43

• 100 ppm based on oil production .

•• Maljamar field. NM.
t Both tubing and flowline were normally hot-oiled at the same time.
~ Openhole completion.

NOVEMBER 1984 1967

 TABLE 3-WATER-SOLUBLE PARAFFIN-DISPERSANT BATCH TREATMENT"
Well Production Data
Test Well" Time SOPD SWPD
--6 SP 14* start
-9-
6 SP 14* 16 months 12
7 SP 15* start 58
7 SP 15* 16 months 47
8 SP 16§ start 96
8 SP 16§ 16 months 79
• Two gallons of 200/0 active material every 2 weeks .
•• South Ponca Field, OK.
t Both tubing and flowline were normally hot-oiled at the same lime.
:j: Openhole completion.
§ Cased·hole completion.
Additional Field Tests-Batch Treating
As a result of the success at Maljamar, other field tests
were initiated. One such test involved wells at the South
Ponca field near Ponca City, OK.
Production is from the Mississippi chat whereas the
Maljamar wells produce mainly from dolomite. One other
difference is that the South Ponca field wells produce more
gas than the Maljamar wells. (See Appendix B for a
description of both the New Mexico and Oklahoma wells.)
Three wells were tested at the South Ponca field for
paraffin control using the water-soluble paraffin dispers-
ant, Product WS. Initially, two wells were continuously
treated; but this precluded the customary production of
gas at the wellhead, causing an increase of pressure and
a subsequent decrease in production. The continuous treat-
ment technique then was abandoned to resume normal pro-
duction.
The decision was made to try batch treating the two
wells (SP 14 and SP 16) plus a third well (SP 15), since
flowlines from the three join at a header before going to
an oil-water separator. The batch treating technique used
was the same as that being used for treating with corro-
sion inhibitor at these wells. That technique was simply
to add 2 gal [0.008 m 3 ] of the corrosion inhibitor to
chemical vessels located at the wells and "slug" it down
the annulus with 12 to 15 bbl [1.908 to 2.385 m 3 J pro-
duced salt water once every 2 weeks. Normal compatibili-
ty tests were run to determine that the paraffin dispersant
was compatible with the corrosion inhibitor. Laboratory
tests also showed that the dispersant was not detrimental
to the effectiveness of the corrosion inhibitor being used
at South Ponca field. Furthermore, laboratory tests
showed that the paraffin dispersant exhibited a slight
degree of corrosion inhibition when used alone.
To minimize treating cost, 2 gal [0.008 m 3 ] of 20%
active Product WS and 2 gal [0.008 m 3] of corrosion in-
hibitor were added to the chemical pot simultaneously at
the wellhead and "slugged" down the annulus. Treating
time was left at 2-week intervals. Results of these well
tests are shown in Table 3-Wells 14, 15, and 16. South
Ponca Wells 14 and 16, which normally required hot-
oiling once a month with no paraffin control chemical
treatment, have now gone 16 months without being hot-
oiled with treatment (see Table 3-Wells 14 and 16).
South Ponca Well 15, which produces very little water,
normally required hot-oiling monthly prior to paraffin
control chemical treatment. It has been hot-oiled only
three times since being put on test in Jan. 1982 (see Table
1968
Hot Oil Frequency (weeks)
WOR Untreated t Tubing Flowline
9 1.00 4
11 0.92 2:64 2:64
1 0.02 4
1 0.02 12;28 12;28
43 0.45 4
58 0.45 2:64 2:64
3-Well15). This well totally "paraffined up" and needed
to be hot-oiled 3 months (April 1982) after it was put on
test and 1 day after being treated, for the first time ever,
with an outside lease water (which may be significant).
On that occasion, the well was so full of paraffin that it
was barely possible to pull the well and clean the pump
and tubing. The second and third times the well was hot-
oiled were spaced at 7-month (Nov. 1982) and 4-month
(March 1983) intervals. The shortened hot-oiling cycle
occurred during the coldest weather period for the area.
On these occasions, the well was hot-oiled when some
soft paraffin was noted when the bleeder, located at the
wellhead, was opened to examine the produced fluid. It
is important to note that there was no difference in well
performance or flowline pressure as a result of the hot-
oiling. Hot-oiling was done simply to prevent a possible
repetition of the major paraffin buildup that occurred in
April 1982.
Production at South Ponca field is influenced by many
factors (see Appendix B). Although production was down
somewhat at Wells 15 and 16, it was also down at a
number of wells not being treated and appeared to be
following the field trend.
The use of Product WS in these three wells during 1982
resulted in a production savings of approximately $10,000
over that of hot oiling. This figure does not include·sav-
ings in mechanical wear, production loss from downtime,
or potential formation damage resulting from hot-oiling
or pulling the well. These results, coupled with those from
the New Mexico well tests, have allowed a significant ex-
pansion of the paraffin-control testing program, with wells
now on test in Louisiana, Texas, and Wyoming in addi-
tion to Oklahoma and New Mexico.
Conclusions
1. Two inexpensive paraffin-dispersant packages that
have a broad application range have been developed as
the result of laboratory studies coupled with the exten-
sive field testing.
2. Use of an effective paraffin dispersant has the poten-
tial for significant savings when compared to hot oiling.
3. These paraffin dispersants can be applied effective-
ly by both continuous and batch treating techniques.
4. Based on our laboratory and field experience, the
criteria used for the selection of a paraffin dispersant are
solubility in the carrier solvent of choice; the ability to
disperse the wax readily during the hot flask test, leaving
the water initially slightly discolored; and leaves the for-
mation from the producing interval water-wet as indicated
by the API RP 44 wettability tests.
Acknowledgments
The permission of Conoco Inc. to publish this paper is
greatly appreciated.
We thank the following personnel for their contribu-
tions to this work: Pat DeFoe, Hobbs Production Div.;
David Burks, David Hager, and Keith Meredith of the
Oklahoma City Div.; and C.R. Clark and H.E. Gilliland
of the Production Research Div. Special thanks go to R.E.
Denson, Production Research Div., for conducting most
of the laboratory studies, and Carolyn Doran, Hobbs Pro-
duction Div., for conducting most of the field tests.
References
I. Reistle, C.E. Jr.: "Paraffin and Congealing Oil Problems," Bull.
348, USBM (1932) 5.
2. Shock, D.A., Sudbury, J.D., and Crockett, J.J.: "Studies of the
Mechanism of Paraffin Deposition and Its Control," J. Pet. Tech.
(Sept. 1955) 23.
3. Patton, C.C. and Casad, B.M.: "Paraffin Deposition from Refined
Wax-Solvent Systems," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March 1970) 17.
4. Cole, R.J. and Jessen, F. W.: "Paraffin Deposition," Oil and Gas
J. (Sept. 19, 1960) 87-91.
5. Bern, P.A., Withers, V.R., and Cairns, J.R.: "Wax Deposition
in Crude Oil Pipelines, " paper EUR 206 presented at the 1980 Euro-
pean Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, London, Oct.
21-24.
6. Burger, E.D., Perkins, T.K., and Striegler, J.H.: "Studies of Wax
Deposition in the Trans Alaska Pipeline," J. Pet. Tech. (June 1981)
1075-86.
7. EnDean, H.: "The Paraffin Problem Parts 1-4," Champion News
(April-July 1981).
8. Newberry, M.E.: "Chemical Effects on Crude Oil Pipeline Pressure
Problems," J. Pet. Tech. (May 1984) 779-86.
9. Sifferman, T.R.: "The Flow Properties of Difficult to Handle Waxy
Crudes," paper SPE 7409 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-4.
10. "Recommended Practices for Laboratory Testing of Surface-Active
Agents for Well Stimulation," API RP 42, REVISED 1977.
II. Allen, T.D. and Roberts, A.P.: "Surfactants for Well Treatments,"
Production Operations, Oil and Gas Consultants IntI. Inc., Tulsa
(1978) 2, 115-16.
12. Thomas, D.C. and Newberry, M.E.: "Paraffin Manual," Petrolite
Corp. (Nov. 1978) 20.
APPENDIX A
Laboratory Test No. 1
Solubility and/or Compatibility Test. This is a visual
test where two or more products (surfactants, corrosion
inhibitors, scale inhibitors, etc.) are placed in a screwcap
bottle with crude oils, produced water, etc. It is shaken
or stirred for a period of time at room temperature. The
bottles then are allowed to stand for 24 hours or longer
and the contents visually examined by placing the bottle
in front of a viewing light to be sure all materials are com-
patible. In this test, "soluble" is defined as a clear
homogeneous solution. For example, a cloudy, hazy,
milky solution would be classified as insoluble, as would
any two-phase liquid mixture or a liquid containing any
type of solids.
Laboratory Test No. 2
Paraffin-Dispersant Hot Flask Test. This is a modified
version of the field flask test (hot and cold) described by
NOVEMBER 1984
Thomas and Newberry. 12 The procedure for the test is
as follows.
"Place 5 grams of paraffin deposit in a 500-ml Erlenmeyer flask
filled half full with water. Add chemical to be tested, generally 100
to 500 ppm (100 to 500 mg/kg). Heat the water until the paraffin
melts, then hold the flask under tap water and shake or swirl until
cool. The blank paraffin (always include a blank) will ball up and
stick together while the treated one will have the paraffin broken
up into small pieces which resemble coffee grounds. These will not
stick together and will disperse in water. The compound that gives
the smallest particle size will be the best choice. Be sure to note
the quality of the water-the cleaner the water, the less chance of
oil treating system upsets. The water should be evaluated after swirl-
ing the flask. Choose the cleanest water and smallest particle com-
bination. "
For our purposes, we prefer to produce a slightly dirty
water with small particles, since it has been our experience
that products that give very clean water are likely to leave
sandstone oil-wet when tested by the API RP 42 visual
wettability test.
Laboratory Test No. 3
Extract from API RP 42. Visual Wettability Test. This
method provides a simple and rapid procedure for
qualitatively determining the wetting tendencies of
surface-active agent solutions. If water- or oil-wetting
tendency is great, it can be easily distinguished. In-
termediate degrees of wetting are not easily characterized.
The visual wettability test is composed of three parts: (1)
oil-soluble or dispersible surface-active agents, (2) water-
soluble or water-dispersible surface-active agents, and (3)
acid solutions.
Interpretation of Observations. The basis for interpreta-
tion of the wetting observations is similar to that used for
determination of emulsion type by dilution. Oil-internal,
water-external phase emulsions disperse in water; water-
internal, oil-external phase emulsions disperse in oil. Par-
ticles that are completely water-wet disperse readily in
an aqueous phase but agglomerate or clump in an oil
phase. Particles that are completely oil-wet behave in an
opposite manner. Since wettability exists in different
degrees between the extremes of being either completely
water- or oil-wet, observations of intermediate systems
are difficult to distinguish and describe.
This is a primary test that should be conducted before
injecting a chemical into a well if the chemical has a
chance of coming in contact with the pay zone. If the for-
mation wettability is known, then the chemical treatment
should be designed to maintain this same wettability. For
unknown cases, the chemical should maintain a water-
wet state as a general rule.
Paraffin Deposition Test. The apparatus used in this test
is shown in Fig. I. The apparatus contains test loops at-
tached to an upper section. The test loops, which are
removable, were constructed from stainless steel tubing
and then sandblasted. They can be lowered into beakers
containing crude oil and additives. After the test, the loops
can be raised out of the beakers and weighed. The test
loops are kept cool (40°F [4.44 °CD by circulating coolant
through the loops.
Laboratory Test Procedure. Samples were prepared for
testing by adding the desired amount of paraffin disper-
sant and/or wax crystal modifier to 400-mL [400-cm 3 ]
beakers containing 300 g of crude oil. Six beakers were
1969
prepared, with one beaker containing only crude oil to
be used as a control. The beakers were placed in a
laboratory oven and heated to 120 to 130° F [49 to 54°C].
They were transferred to a 120°F [49°C] water bath. The
upper section containing the stirrer blade assembly and
cold test loops was lowered into the beakers and secured.
Stirring was started and 40°F [4.44 0C] coolant was passed
through the test loops for the desired time-usually 2 to
4 hours. After the desired test duration, the upper
assembly, includmgthe stirrer blades and test loops, was
raised out of the beakers and allowed to drain for approx-
imately 1/2 hour. The coolant in the tube was re~oved ?y
vacuum, and then the insides of the tubes were nnsed WIth
methyl alcohol and dried under vacuum. When dry, the
test loops were weighed, cleaned with cyclohexane, dried
again, and reweighed. The difference in ~eight is the
amount of deposited wax. The test loop havmg the least
deposit compared to the control sample is considered best.
Before starting another test, the loops were reattached to
the coolant system and rinsed with acetone. Having six
similar test loops allowed us to run a blank and five
separate chemical compounds at one time. This allowed
us to evaluate a large number of chemicals in a rather short
period of time. Data from these tests exhibit a high degree
of scatter, but are useful for screening purposes.
APPENDIX B
Description of Test Wells
New Mexico (Maljamar Field). These are approximately
4,000-ft [1219-m] deep waterflood wells. The pay zo~e
is the San Andreas (mainly dolomite). The wells contam
5 1/Z-in. [14-cm] casing and 2~-in. [7-cm] tubing. The bot-
tom hole temperature (BHT) is approximately 99°F
[35°C]. Fluid levels vary from 250 to approximately 850
ft [76 to 260 m] above the bottomhole pump. The fluid
1970
levels are controlled by a time clock. Both open- and cased
hole completions are present. Flowlines from the wells
are not buried.
Oklahoma (South Ponca Field). These are - 3,800-ft
[1158-m] deep waterflood wells with pumps set at ab~ut
3,670 ft [1119 m]. The pay zone is Mississippi chat (mam-
ly CaC0 3 and chert). The wells are cased 7% in. [19 cm]
and produce through 2~-in. [7-cm] tubing. Wells 14 and
15 are perforated completions while Well 16 .is an
openhole completion. Flowlines are fiberglass, buned 30
in. (76 cm) deep. The lines come together at a header
before going to a separator. Production from these wells
is influenced by an adjacent high-water-cut well, Well 17,
which produces approximately 468 BID [74 m 3 /d] water
and only 4 BID [0.636 m 3 Id] oil. There is much com-
munication between Well 17 and the three test Wells.
Historically, when production is down for Well 17, it also
has been down at the other wells. Also, the activities of
offset operators reportedly can affect production at this
field.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
in. X 2.54* E+OO cm
bbl x 1.589873 E-Ol m3
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
gal x 3.785412 E-03 m3
"'Conversion factor is exact
JPT
Original manuscript received in the Society of Petroleum Engineers office Oct. 5, 1983.
Paper accepted for publication Jan. 27, 1984. ReVised manuscript received July 3,
1984. Paper (SPE 12204) first presented at the 1983 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in San Francisco Oct. 5-8.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY