SPE
Society of Petrolet.m Engineers of AI ME
SPE 13126
Long-Term Control of Paraffin Deposition
by G.T. Woo, S.J. Garbis, and T.C. Gray, The Western Co. of North America
SPE Members
Copyright 1984 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME
This paper was presented at the 59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, September 16-19, 1984. The material is sub-ject to
correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Drawer 64706,
Dallas, Texas 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
ABSTRACT
Paraffin-related problems occur in almost all oil producing
areas throughout the world. These problems can be encountered in
any part of the production system from the time the crude leaves the
reservoir until it reaches the refinery. As a result, operators spend a
large amount of time and money to correct paraffin-related
problems.
Traditionally, operators have been forced to remove
paraffin deposits from downhole equipment, tubular goods and
surface equipment using mechanical, thermal or chemical
methods. In many cases, a combination of two or more methods
are employed. The major disadvantage of these methods is that
th~y treat paraffin-related problems after they have occured.
The treatment of wells with dispersants and paraffin
deposition inhibitors genere.lly reduces or slows paraffin build-up.
However, this inhibition is often very short-lived, because the well
production quickly carries the chemicals to the surface. The addition
of a long-term solid paraffin deposition inhibitor with the proppant
during a hydraulic fracturing treatment has proven to extend this
inhibition time. The solid paraffin inhibitor slowly releases the
paraffin inhibitor chemical throughout the early production of a
well.
This paper will describe a laboratory simula-tion of paraffin
deposition used to evaluate two paraffin inhibitors in nine etudes.
The two paraffin inhibitors evaluated were: (1) a blend of crystal
modifiers in a controlled-release matrix form and (2) a
commercially available
ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer solid. One field evaluation
presented compares the long-term effectiveness of both paraffin
inhibitors. In a second field evaluation, the blend of crystal
modifiers was used in two wells to successfully control paraffin
deposition. In both field evaluations, the blend of crystal
modifiers in a
References and illustrations at end of paper.
controlled-release matrix form has successfully prevented
paraffin deposition.
INTRODUCTION
Paraffin problems occur in almost eve·ry oil-producing area.
A study of crudes from 69 dif-ferent oil fields :i.n 19 states showed
1
that paraffin was present in oil from 59 fields in 18 of the states.
A large amount of money has been spent to correct paraffin
problems. The cost of correcting paraffin problems includes
treatments designed to remove paraffin deposition from production
2
tubing and equipment or inhibit paraffin deposition.
Paraffin is a group of straight-chain alkanes that contains
more than 15 carbon atoms and has very little branching. The
paraffin molecule may have more than 80 carbon atoms. The
melting point of the paraffin increases as the size of the molecule
3
increases. Paraffin is deposited in the form of crystalline solids
which may collect-on the interior of the tubing and flowlines,
slowly choking off production. Paraffin deposits have also caused
4
the breaking of pump rods. In some cases, paraffin deposits have
caused plugging of formations during stimulation treatments.
Paraffin has also been blamed for the difficulty in pumping crude
6
oil at cool temperatures.
One method of handling paraffin deposition is to
mechanically remove the paraffin. There are several mechanical
methods for removing deposited paraffin from tubing, flowlines and
1 9
pipelines. • These methods include rod scrapers, wireline
scrapers, flowline scrapers, free-floating pistons, etc. The major
advantage of mechanically removing paraffin is that positive
cleaning is assured. However, some disadvantages are: (1)
application is limited due to time and equipment involved, (2)
treatment may be more expensive than other methods due to
personnel, time and special equipment required and (3) danger of
fishing for tools that may be lost in the hole during the cleaning
operation.
2 LONG-TERM
PARAFFIN DEPOSITION SPE 13126
A second method for removing paraffin involves thermal
1 9
methods. ' The thermal methods used include bottomhole heaters;
circulation of hot oil, water or steam; and the use of heat-liberating
chemicals. Magnesium bars followed by hydrochloric acid produce a
chemical reaction resulting in the release of heat. The heat melts the
paraffin, facilitating its removal. However, in order to prevent further
deposition, th~ temperature of the crude must be maintained above the
melting point of the paraffin. Bottomhole heaters require special
equipment and added power consumption. In addition, hot fluids can be
dangerous and normally involve equipment service costs.
The third method for removing paraffin deposits is chemical in
nature.l,?-S One type of chemical treatment is the use of a solvent. Many
types of paraffin solvents have been used. These solvents include
produced condensate, casing head gasoline, pentane, light gas oil,
xylene, toluene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene, carbon disulfide and terpenes. Chlorinated
hydrocarbons of various types are efficient solvents because they are
relatively inexpensive and have a high specific gravity. High specific
gravity is an important property that allows the solvents to reach and
penetrate downhole paraffin deposits. In addition, chlorinated
hydrocarbons are nonflammable. However, crude treated with
chlorinated hydrocarbons can cause corrosion and poisoning of refinery
catalysts. Aromatic solvents such as benzene, toluene and xylene have
low specific gravities which makes them difficult to place downhole.
Aromatic solvents also generally have low flash points and can present
handling problems. Carbon disulfide, another effective solvent for
paraffin deposits, is relatively inexpensive and has a high specific
gravity. However, carbon disulfide is highly flammable and the fumes
are toxic.
Another method of chemical removal is through the use of
1 9
dispersants and detergents. ' These chemicals will cause the
molecules of a
paraffin deposit to repel each other as well as metal surfaces. A small
concentration of naturally occuring asphaltenes in crude oils may also act
1 ice/salt pack around the funnel. If paraffin deposits build up on the
as a dispersant for paraffin deposits.
7 and wet with methyl ethyl ketone while continuing to filter. After the
A third type of chemical control is the use of crystal modifiers. -
9 covered with plastic wrap and 1rechilled. Then, the filtering process is
Crystal modifiers are usually polymeric materials which prevent
paraffin deposition by disrupting nucleation, cocrystallizing or
modifying the crystal. They may also adsorb onto the paraffin crystal
preventing agglomeration or deposition. However, crystal modifiers are
highly selective and often are only effective on a limited number of
crudes.
This paper will describe a laboratory simulation of paraffin
deposition used to evaluate paraffin inhibitors. The two paraffin
inhibitors evaluated were a blend of crystal modifiers in a controlled-
release pellet and a commercially available ethylene-vinyl acetate
copolymer solid. Long-term weight loss tests were performed on these
two materials to determine how rapidly they release in a crude at 100°
and 150°F. One field evaluation
CONTROL OF
compares the long-term effectiveness of both inhibitors in the same
field. In a second field evaluation, the blend of crystal modifiers was
used in two wells to successfully control paraffin deposition. Samples
of crudes from these wells were monitored periodically for paraffin
content and paraffin deposition.
TEST PROCEDURES
Asphaltene and Paraffin Content Determination
First, any water present in the crude sample is separated using a
separatory funnel or other suitable means. Next, a 40 mL centrifuge
tube is dried, cooled and weighed. The centrifuge tube is placed in a
beaker and the combined weight recorded. Using a Pasteur pipet and
bulb, between 2 and 3 g of the sample are weighed and placed in the
centrifuge tube. Then, 40 mL of 2-methylbutane is added to the
sample. The centrifuge tube is capped and shaken vigorously until all
of the sample is throughly mixed. The tube is put back into the beaker
and then placed in the dark for one hour. The centrifuge tube is then
removed from the dark and centrifuged for 10 minutes. The tube is
removed from the centrifuge and the 2-methylbutane supernatant
poured off into a dried, cooled and preweighed 250 mL widemouth
erlenmeyer flask. The flask is retained for the paraffin content test. The
asphaltenes should remain in the bottom of the centrifuge tube. The
centrifuge tube is then placed on top of a 180°F oven for 30 minutes
and then placed in the oven for an additional 30 minutes. The tube is
removed from the oven and allowed to cool to room temperature. The
tube and its contents are reweighed. Finally, the percent asphaltenes in
the sample is calculated.
In order to determine the paraffin content, the erlenmeyer flask
containing the 2-methylbutane supernatant is connected to a rotary
evaporator. When the solvent is evaporated, 150 mL of methyl ethyl
ketone is added to the sample in the erlenmeyer flask and gently
swirled to mix. The erlenmeyer flask is covered with plastic wrap and
chilled to at least l0°F. A temperature of 10°F is maintained for at least
10 minutes. Then, the cold mixture is filtered using a vacuum pump or
aspirator. The filtering apparatus should be chilled by placing an
filter paper, the vacuum should be disconnected and the filter paper
removed and placed in a petri dish. Then, a clean filter paper is inserted
entire sample has been filtered, the filtrate is poured back into the flask,
repeated a second time. The filtrate should be clear after filtering the
second time. Using a wash bottle of deionized water, the outside of the
funnel and beaker are carefully rinsed or wiped off with a wet paper
towel to remove any salt. Then the funnel and filter papers are placed in
a beaker, covered with a petri dish and heated in an oven. for 45
minutes at 125°F. The glassware and filter papers are cooled and
reweighed along with the paraffin residue.
Finally, the percent paraffin in the sample is calculated.
SPE 13126 G. T. WOO,S. J.
Paraffin Deposition Test
If the crude is sampled from a well previously treated with
paraffin inhibitor, 510 g of the crude is weighed into a one liter
mason jar. A lid is placed on the jar, substituting aluminum foil for
the snap cap and the jar placed into a 150°F waterbath overnight. A
sample from an off-set well not treated with paraffin inhibitor is
used as a control. If the crude is sampled from a well not treated
with paraffin inhibitor, 510 g of the crude is weighed into a one
liter mason jar. The appropriate amount of paraffin inhibitor to be
evaluated is added to the jar and the jar placed in a 150°F waterbath
overnight. A sample with no paraffin inhibitor is used as a control.
Next, the test apparatus is assembled as shown in Figure 1.
The waterbath is turned on and the temperature set at 120°F. The
crude samples are removed from the mason jars in the 150°F
waterbath and poured into consecutively numbered beakers in the
water trough. The gang stirrer is then placed above the trough and
the blades lowered into the beakers. An effort is made to ensure that
the blades are behind the U-tubes. The water trough is then filled
with 120°F water. The water and coolant circulation pumps are
started and the stirrer turned on and set at 100 RPM. The test is
monitored every 30 minutes to check the water and coolant
temperatures and the circulation rates. One hour before the end of
the test, the 250 mL beakers are weighed and labeled.
At the conclusion of the test, the waterbath, water pump,
coolant pump, coolant reservoir and stirrer are turned off. The stirrer
is then removed, making certain that the blades do not touch the U-
tubes. The U-tubes are disconnected, while not allowing them to
touch the sides of the beakers. The U-tubes are removed one at a
time from the crude and allowed to drain at a 45° angle for 20
seconds. The deposited paraffin is removed from the U-tube with a
preweighed lab towel. The lab towel is placed into a preweighed
beaker. The beakers containing the deposited paraffin are then
weighed. Finally, a percent deposition is calculated.
Long-Term Weight Loss Test
First, 100 g crude samples are poured into flint glass jars.
Into each, 0.5 g of solid paraffin inhibitor is added. The samples are
labeled for 1, 2, 4, 8 and 20 week exposures to the tested crude. The
samples are then placed in 100° and 150°F waterbaths. At the end of
the respective test period, the crude and remaining paraffin inhibitor
are poured through a 30 mesh screen. The solid paraffin inhibitor is
then washed with a refined hydrocarbon to remove any excess
crude. Next, the inhibitor is washed with a volatile solvent. Then,
the inhibitor is placed into a beaker and then into a 120°F oven
overnight. After cooling the sample, the inhibitor is placed into a
tared beaker and reweighed. Finally, the percent weight loss of the
paraffin inhibitor is calculated.
GARBIS & T. C. GRAY 3
RESULTS
Paraffin deposition tests were performed with Paraffin
Inhibitor A (ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer) and Paraffin
Inhibitor B (controlled-release blend of crystal modifiers) in nine
different crudes. The test results are listed in Table I. Long-term
weight loss tests using Paraffin Inhibitors A and B were performed
at 100° and 150°F. Long-term weight loss tests using the inert
carrier component in Paraffin Inhibitor B were also performed at
100° and 150°F. The results of these tests may be found in Tables
II and III.
The production history of seven wells containing no
paraffin inhibitor and three wells containing paraffin inhibitor
are listed in Table IV. Table V summarizes the paraffin contents
measured during the production history of three wells treated
with either Paraffin Inhibitor A or
B. Paraffin deposition profiles during the production history of
the three inhibited wells are presented in Table VI. Table VII
summarizes the paraffin deposition profiles obtained for two other
wells in another field treated with Paraffin Inhibitor B. T~e
production history of these two wells treated with Paraffin Inhibitor
B is presented in Table VIII.
DISCUSSION
Laboratory Evaluation
The paraffin deposition test was used to evaluate the
efficiency of the two paraffin inhibitors. In these tests, the inhibitor
was added to the crude before paraffin crystal nucleation
commenced. The coolant flowing through the U-tubes cools the U-
tubes to accelerate paraffin deposition. In this process, an effective
paraffin inhibitor combines with the paraffin crystals to change the
crystal growth pattern. As a result, paraffin agglomeration and
deposition are reduced.
Paraffin Inhibitor A is a commercially available solid
ethylene-vinyl acetate crystal modifier. Paraffin Inhibitor B
is a blend of crystal modifiers incorporated in a
control-release form. Paraffin Inhibitor B is a 50/50 blend of active
ingredients and inert carrier in pellet form. In the paraffin
deposition test, Paraffin Inhibitor B reduced paraffin deposition in
all nine crudes. Paraffin Inhibitor A reduced paraffin deposition in
four out of the nine crudes. If the test results are further examined,
six out of the nine crudes treated with Paraffin Inhibitor B had less
than 50 percent deposition. The reduced amount of paraffin
deposition would mean that a well could be produced longer
without remedial treatments.
Long-term weight loss tests of Paraffin Inhibitor A were
conducted in Dean Sand crude (Field Evaluation I) at 100° and
150°F. Inhibitor A is dissolved completely after 24 hours at 150°F.
At 100°F, Inhibitor A was completely dissolved after three days.
After 20 weeks of exposure at 100°F, 62 percent of the active
ingredients of Paraffin Inhibitor B was still in the pellet. In the
150°F test, 50 percent of the active ingredients of
4 LONG-TERM CONTROL OF PARAFFIN DEPOSITION SPE 13126

Paraffin Inhibitor B remained in the pellet after 20 after the third month up until the time of the hot
weeks. oil treatment. The wells treated with Paraffin
Inhibitor B showed an even paraffin deposition
Long-term weight loss tests were also performed during the production history.
with the inert carrier of Inhibitor B in the Dean In summary, well 8 had 305 days of production
Sand crude at 100° and 150°F. The test results
after 20 weeks of exposure revealed that less than 1 without a paraffin-related problem. Wells 9 and 10
percent of the carrier was dissolved in the 100°F are still producing without a paraffin-related
test and less then 10 percent in the 150°F test. problem after 347 and 315 days, respectively. A
production history up-date will be given during the
Field Evaluation I oral presentation of this paper.

Well Data: Field Evaluation II

Formation Dean Sand Well Data:
Depth ± 8700 ft Dean Spraberry
BHST 138°F Formation
County Dawson Depth ± 6700 ft
State Texas BHST 130°F
County Reagan
Well 8 - treated with 100 gallons of liquid State Texas
paraffin inhibitor plus 750 pounds
of Paraffin Inhibitor A. Well 1 - treated with 150 gallons of liquid
paraffin inhibitor plus 1050 pounds of
Wells 9 and 10 - treated with 100 gallons of liquid
Paraffin Inhibitor B.
paraffin inhibitor plus 1000 and
750 pounds of Paraffin Inhibitor B, Well 2 - treated with 60 gallons of liquid
respectively. paraffin inhibitor plus 7.50 pounds of
Paraffin Inhibitor B.
First, the reference wells were selected and
samples of the crude oil were obtained and analyzed. First, crude samples from surrounding wells
The crudes had paraffin and asphaltene contents were taken and analyzed. The crudes had paraffin
ranging from 6-8% and 0-0.5% by weight, and asphaltene contents ranging from 5-10% and
respectively. As shown in Table IV, the seven wells 0-0.5% by weight, respectively.
treated without a paraffin inhibitor produced for an
average of 130 days without any type of Two wells were stimulated with fluids
paraffin-·related well problem. Three other wells incorporating Paraffin Inhibitor B. The liquid
were stimulated with fluids incorporating a paraffin paraffin inhibitor was added in the pad at a
inhibitor. The paraffin inhibitor was added to the concentration of 5-10 gallons/1000 gallons of
stimulation treatment in two forms. A total of 50 stimulation fluid. Paraffin Inhibitor B was added
gallons of a liquid paraffin inhibitor was added to with the proppant during the fracturing treatment.
the pad fluid and another 50 gallons added Crude samples from the two wells were monitored
throughout the treatment. The liquid form of the after the stimulation treatments. As can be seen
paraffin inhibitor immediately begins to modify the in Table VII, early paraffin deposition test
paraffin crystals to prevent paraffin-related results from wells 1 and 2 indicate effective
problems early in the well's production history. paraffin deposition control. As shown in Table
The solid paraffin inhibitors, A and B, were added VIII, these two wells have had 270 and 224 days of
with the proppant during the fracturing treatment. production without a paraffin-related problem. A
The solid paraffin inhibitors should slowly dissolve production history up-date will be given during the
to maintain a threshold concentration of inhibitor oral presentation of this paper.
in the crude for an extended period of time. The
three wells were monitored after the stimulation CONCLUSIONS
treatments. Crude samples were periodically taken
at the wellhead. These samples were sent to the 1. Based on 9 crudes Paraffin Inhibitor
laboratory for a paraffin content determination and B (a blend of crystal modifiers
tested, in a
paraffin deposition test. controlled-release matrix form) was more
effective than a commercially available
As can be seen in Table V, the paraffin ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer in inhibiting
contents of crudes from wells 9 and 10 were paraffin deposition.
slightly higher than that from well 8. This 2. In laboratory tests, Paraffin Inhibitor B
suggests that more paraffin was being kept in the
sustained a controlled-release of active
crude from wells 9 and 10. Also, there appeared to
ingredients for 20 weeks at 100° and 150°F,
be a significant drop in the paraffin content of
whereas, the ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer
well 8 just before a paraffin-related problem was exhausted in 1 week at both temperatures.
occured, requiring a hot oil treatment. The
paraffin content of a produced crude may be an 3. In the field, Paraffin Inhibitor B has been
indicator of a potential paraffin problem during effective in controlling paraffin-related
the production history of a well. problems for longer periods of time than the
ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer.
The paraffin deposition of the crude samples
was also evaluated. As can be seen in Table VI,
well 8 had a rapid increase in paraffin deposition
 5
SPE 13126 G. T. WOO S. J. GARBIS & T. C. GRAY

4. Additional field data is needed in order to establish the

total protection time possible with Paraffin Inhibitor B.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank the management of The Western

Company of North America for permission to publish
this paper and gratefully acknowledge the help of
coworkers. Special thanks are expressed to Robert
C. Jones and his staff and Larry G. Armstrong for
assistance in data development and to Pamela Balch
for typing this manuscript.

REFERENCES

1. Bucaram, S.M.: "An Improved Paraffin Inhibitor," J.

Pet. Tech. (February, 196 7)
150-156.
2. McClaflin, G.G. and Whitfill, D.L.: "Control o£ Paraffin
Deposition in Production Operations," paper SPE 12204
presented at the 58th Annual Technical Conference. and
Exhibition, San Francisco, October 5-8, 1983.

3. Svetgoff, J.: "Paraffin Problems Can Be Resolved with

Chemicals," Oil and Gas Jou,,rnal (February 27, 1984) 79-
82.
4. Gdanski, R.: "Paraffin Problems in Low Paraffin Content
Crude," Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas, April
25-26, 1984, pp. 449-456.
5. Sutton, G.D. and Roberts, L.D.: "Paraffin Precipitation
During Fracture Stimulation," J. Pet. Tech. (September,
1974) 997-1004.
6. Jorda, R.M.: "Paraffin Deposition and Prevention
in Oil Wells," J. Pet. Tech. (December, 1966)
1605-1612.
7. Newberry, M.E.: "Crude Oil Production and Flowline
Pressure Problems," paper SPE 11561 presented at the
Production Operation Symposium, Oklahoma City, February
27-March 1, 1983.

8. Matlach, W.J. and Newberry, M.E.: "Paraffin Deposition and

Rheological Evaluation of High Wax Content Altamont
Crude Otls," paper SPE 11851 presented at the Rocky
Mountain Regional Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, May 23-
25, 1983.
9. Garbis, S.J., Olsen, H.R., Cushner, M.C. and Woo, G.T.: "A
Novel Technique for Avoiding Paraffin Problems - A Field
Study in the Ackerly Dean Unit, Dawson County, Texas,"
Proceedings of the Thirty-first Annual Southwestern
Petroleum Short Course, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas, April 25-26, 1984, pp. 440-448.

SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

OF (°F- 32)/1.8
lbm X 4.535924 E-01
ft X 3.048* E-01
gal X 3.785412 E-03

* Conversion factor is exact

 Table I

PARAFFIN DEPOSITION TEST

Crude Treated with Crude Treated with

API Gravity Paraf~in Content, Inhibitor A,* Inhibitor B, ~<
Formation @ 60°F wt, % % Deposition % Deposition

Cherokee 34.8 15 100+ 57

Dean Sand 38.0 6 100+ 44
Glorieta 36.6 7 58 24
Harmation 37.6 15 100+ 59
Mississippi 35.2 9 100+ 72
Penrose 33.6 7 91 37
Premier Sand 32.6 5 82 33
Red Fork 43.6 21 78 31
Spraberry 35.8 100+ 35

All tests were conducted with 300 PPH active ingredient(s) of each paraffin inhibitor.

* = [ 1 _ ( Deposit (ref.) - Deposit (treated))] x lOO

%DepositionDeposit (ref.)

Table II

LONG-TERH WEIGHT LOSS TESTS FOR INHIBITORS A AND B

Weight Loss of Active Ingredient(s), %

Exposure To Dean
Sand Crude, weeks Inhibitor A Inhibitor B Inhibitor A Inhibitor B

1 100 10 100 13

2 28 34

4 30 40

8 34 40

20 38 50

Table Ill

LONG-TERM WEIGHT LOSS TESTS FOR INHIBITOR B CARRIER COMPONENT

Weight Loss of Carrier, %

Exposure To Dean
Sand Crude, weeks 100°F 150°F

1 <1 <1

2 <1 <1

4 <1

8 <1 4

16 <1 7

20 <1 6
 Table IV

PRODUCTION HISTORY FOR FIELD EVALUATION

Paraffin Date of First

Date Stimulated Inhibitor ReEorted Paraffin Problem Time Produced, daJ::S

1/30/83 None 4/1/83 60

6/17/82 None 9/13/82 88

5/14/82 None 5/24/82 10

8/12/82 None 10/18/82 67

7/10/82 None 4/S/83 269

4/22/82 None 3/5/83 317

12/28/82 None 4/5/83 98

6/17/83 A 4/17/84 305

7/7/83 B None to-date 347 *

10 8/8/83 B None to-date 315 *

* As of 6/18/84

Table V

PARAFFIN CONTENTS FOR INHIBITED WELT"S IN FIELD EVALUATION I

Average Paraffin Content,

Inhibitor A Inhibitor B
Elapsed Time Since
Stimulation Treatment, months Well 8 Well 9 Well 10

5.6 5. 6

4.4 5.3

5.0 5. 8 4. 8

5.4 8.8

1.6

Hot Oil Treatment 3. 2

10 3. 8

Table VI

PARAFFIN DEPOSITION FOR INHIBITED WELLS IN FIELD EVALUATION I

% DeEosition*

Inhibitor A Inhibitor B
Elapsed Time Since
Stimulation Treatment, months Well 8 Well 9 Well 10

56 60

47 48

17 59 45

51 45 47

50 52

Hot Oil Treatment 40 52

% Deposition 1 _ ( DeEosit (ref.) -. DeEosit (treated))] x lOO

[ Deposlt (ref.)
 Table VII

PARAFFIN DEPOSITION FOR FIELD EVALUATION II

% Deposition* with Inhibitor B

Elapsed Time Since
Stimulation Treatment, months Well 1 Well 2

3 26

7 25

8 54

* % Deposition 1 ( Deposit (ref.) -.Deposit (treated))] x lOO

[ Depos1t (ref.)

Table VIII

PRODUCTION HISTORY FOR FIELD EVALUATION II

Date of First
Well Date Stimulated Paraffin Inhibitor Reported Paraffin Problem Time Produced, days

1 9/22/83 B None to-date 270 *

2 11/7/83 B None to-date 224 *

* As of 6/18/84

~-~
f
V',
,."' ~~
~ ~~
--..c:
"'
COOLANT I II
II
' I~
HEATED WATER RESE RVOIR
I-
c IRCULATOR
I

II

II
1/f I//
1/1/ //
~~~
s:::s::s3"" ~ ~~ ~~ :-..~ ~
II
'\
~ ~ v

b1
r-...
\ \ \ t\ 1\
'\ ~ ~
\ '\ :-.. 1\ \
\ 1\ ~~ 1\ ~ ~ 1\ '\ ~ r-...
r-... II

,
~ ~"' .:~ " ~~ ~~ ~

\ 1\ t- 1\ \

m ~ ~ ~- c:::J c::=J J
"'""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" """ "'"""" """"" ""'"" ~ HEATED WA TER
 CIRCULATOR
Fig. 1-Laboratory apparatus used for paraffin deposition test.