SPE-192765-MS

Enhanced Solvent-Based Remediation of Waxy Deposits

Kamran Akbar Zadeh and Nirmal Tatavalli-Mittadar, Shell International Exploration and Production Inc.; A-Sukaimy
Abd-Rahman, Brunei Shell Petroleum Co; Shekhar Jain and Sunil Ashtekar, Shell International Exploration and
Production Inc.; Stuart McGregor, Brunei Shell Petroleum Co; Sujatha Degaleesan, Shell International Exploration
and Production Inc.

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November 2018.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Restriction or blockage of flow path due to waxy deposits is a global issue in the oil and gas production. This
undesirable flow assurance issue leads to increase in production deferment and OPEX for mitigation and
frequent intervention. It may also result in huge CAPEX for pipeline sections replacement due to untreatable
blockages.
Despite the current prevention and mitigation strategies in place, wax deposition cannot be fully
eliminated. Existing remediation technologies can be broadly classified to mechanical, thermal, and
chemical-based treatments. These also have some limitations such as availability, cost, deferment and
effectiveness. Today, most effective solutions are often a combination of mechanical and chemical which
are expensive in terms of cost and may result in additional deferment time. As such, the development of
more effective remediation strategies is of great importance.
Solvent-based cleaning can be relatively less expensive if it is a viable option. However, experience
suggests that conventional solvents such as xylene are generally not that effective in dissolving and breaking
wide range of waxy deposits with varying compositions.
Enhanced solvent-based remediation is a novel approach with the focus to balance performance, cost, and
safety for field applications. Based on this approach, understanding the field deposit, optimizing solvent's
performance in the lab under representative field conditions, selecting a solvent that balances performance
with cost and safety, scaling up from lab to the field conditions based on the field's limitations, and proper
deployment of the selected solvent in the field play important roles in effective remediation of deposits.
In this work, the enhanced solvent-based remediation approach and the lab procedure for primary
screening of solvents are described. In addition, the procedure for cleaning a flowline that was restricted
by wax deposit in an onshore field in South-East Asia is explained. The results of this successful field
application that led to increase in net oil production and OPEX saving are also discussed.
2 SPE-192765-MS

Introduction
Waxes, also known as paraffins, are high-molecular-weight saturated hydrocarbons. They are a pro-duction
problem for many crude oils and gas condensates because of their tendency to precipitate in the bulk fluids
and/or deposit on pipe walls, when the surface temperature of the well tubing, flow-line, pipeline or vessel
falls below the critical wax deposition temperature (Akbarzadeh et al., 2010). Once deposited, the wax
deposit decreases the open cross-sectional area of the flow path (and usually increases surface roughness),
which in turn increases the flowing pressure drop in the system. It is possible, but not common, for the
deposit to block the flow path altogether.
Restriction or blockage of flow path due to waxy deposits is a global flow assurance issue in the oil and gas
production. This undesirable issue leads to increase in production deferment and OPEX for mitigation and
frequent intervention. It may also result in huge CAPEX for pipeline sections replacement due to untreatable
blockages.
Despite the current prevention and mitigation strategies in place, wax deposition cannot be fully
eliminated. For instance, current paraffin inhibitors are effective in wax deposition inhibition to varying
degrees (Peng et al. 2018), which may result to eventual wax build up especially in mid- and late-life
production. Therefore, effective remediation strategies shall be in place.
There are multiple approaches to remediating waxy deposits: progressive pigging, hot oiling, wire-line
scratching, coiled tubing, and solvent cleaning. Wireline scratching and coiled tubing are costly and have
limited reach, especially in deepwater environment. Hot oiling has limited impact depending on the extent
of the deposit. It could also result in further wax deposition during flow back, due to cooling downstream.
Progressive pigging has risk of the pig getting stuck, since the wax thickness/volume is not known a priori
to select safe pigs.
Solvent cleaning can be relatively less expensive if it is a viable option. However, experience suggests
that typical conventional solvents such as diesel and xylene are not as fast and effective as expected in
dissolving and breaking waxy deposits especially in offshore fields where the temperature is low. Moreover,
even if a solvent is effective in the lab, it may fail in the field if the placement of the solvent in the field
is not properly designed and implemented.
The enhanced solvent-based remediation, as shown in Figure 1, is not just about a solvent and its
performance in the lab. It is also about understanding the field deposit, optimizing solvent's performance
in the lab under representative field conditions, selecting a solvent that balances performance with cost
and HSE (health, safety, and environment), scaling up from lab to the field conditions based on the field's
limitations, and proper deployment of the selected solvent in the field.
SPE-192765-MS 3

Figure 1—Enhanced solvent-based remediation approach

In this manuscript, we share our experience with the trial of an internally developed enhanced solvent
in an onshore field in South-East Asia that has suffered from wax deposition in the past several years. The
results of the lab study for selecting the enhanced solvent and the results of the field application with the
selected solvent are discussed.

Definition of Wax Solvent

Waxy deposits are driven by the temperature differential between the bulk of the fluid and the surface of the
medium that contains the fluid. In the oil fields, wax deposition typically takes place in flowlines, risers,
and pipelines. Waxy deposits are mainly composed of crystalized long chain alkanes and occluded oil. Over
time, the deposited wax hardens due to the aging effect in which the occluded oil diffuses out while wax
molecules continue to diffuse in because of the radial variation in temperature and wax concentration (Singh
et al., 2001).
Wax solvents cannot fully dissolve wax deposits because the solubility of long chain alkanes in
conventional solvents is low especially at low temperatures. In this manuscript, an effective wax solvent
is defined as a solvent that can effectively disintegrate the wax deposit network at temperatures as low as
4°C with little or no agitation.
Disintegration of the deposit is an interplay of different physics. The components of the wax solvent
package contribute to different aspects of the physics at play. Based on our understanding of the deposit
structure and various physics at play, we have developed solvent packages that can effectively disintegrate
wax deposits.

Lab Procedure for Primary Screening of Solvents

Upon receipt of a sample of wax deposit from field, a series of analyses and experiments are performed.
To check the performance of the candidate solvents in remediating the deposit, a so called visual test is
conducted as primary screening technique using the following procedure:
– Place a fixed mass of deposit sample (e.g. 1 gram) in a 30-ml glass vial
4 SPE-192765-MS

– Condition the deposit sample at the desired test or field temperature

– Condition the solvent at the desired test or field temperature
– Add the desired amount of solvent (e.g. 10 cm3) to the deposit in the vial (the amount of
solvent can vary depending on the field conditions)
– Place the vial in a temperature-controlled system (e.g. water bath or fridge)
– Wait for the desired soaking period (4 to 24 hours)
– Observe dissolution and breakage of the deposit sample
– Pour the content of the vial on a filter and take picture
Once a solvent passes this primary screening, it may go through secondary and qualification tests that
are not discussed in this manuscript. Further experiments may also be conducted for moving from lab scale
testing to the field scale applications.

Field under Study

Over the past few years, the onshore production facilities in one of the South-East Asian countries have been
experiencing moderate to severe flow assurance issues due to wax deposition including wells, flowlines,
tank groups, and export pipeline. Due to lack of necessary infrastructure, wax management in this onshore
Asset is centered around remediation strategies rather than prevention strategy using paraffin inhibitors.
Previous remediation exercises using commercial third-party solvents for cleaning flowlines did not
yield satisfactory results. As such, mechanical interventions such as hydro jetting has been used to remove
deposited wax from the flowlines. While hydro jetting is effective, it can only be used for short flowlines and
tank groups. On the other hand, the mechanical intervention is costly and requires 7 to 9 days of deferment.
Figure 2 shows a schematic of buried flowlines configuration in the field. The flowlines are straight
with approximate length of 230 meters and ID of 9.2 cm. One of the flowlines in that onshore facility was
selected for trial of the enhanced solvent-based wax remediation. The candidate flowline was selected based
on temperature surveillance data. Figure 3 shows images of the tree and the 90° elbow that is connected
to the underground flowline.

Figure 2—Schematic of buried flowlines in the field

SPE-192765-MS 5

Figure 3—Well's tree and 90° elbow connected to the flowline

Presence of deposited wax inside the flowline was further confirmed by dropping the spool and visually
inspecting the line. The visual inspections indicated that paraffin buildup appeared to be heavier near the
wellhead and not as heavy near the manifold. Figure 4 shows images of the deposit buildup. Paraffin removal
from this flowline would lead to improved production and a reduction in the flowline pressure.

Figure 4—wax deposit in the flowline

Laboratory Results
Variety of lab tests have been conducted on the deposit samples from the onshore field. Figure 5 shows the
results of selected visual tests with some candidate solvents. These tests were conducted using 1 gram of
deposit in 10 cm3 solvent at 35°C for 24 hours with no agitation. The reason the tests were performed at
35°C was to match the environment temperature in South-East Asia.
6 SPE-192765-MS

Figure 5—Selected visual test results

Based on the visual test results, Solvent A, which is diesel, was not able to break the deposit apart. Solvent
B was not as effective as desired. However, Solvents C, D, and E could break and disperse the deposit well.
As such, Solvents C, D, and E were suggested for a field trial. All these three enhanced solvent packages
were developed by the Production Chemistry team in Deepwater Technology at Shell.
Due to flash point limitations in that country, Solvent C was ruled out. Due to cost of Solvent D and
some HSE aspects, Solvent D was also ruled out. As such, it was decided to progress with Solvent E for
the trial in a flowline. It addition to its great performance, Solvent E had a high flash point and reasonable
pricing that fulfilled the field requirement.

Compatibility Testing
To ensure that metals, elastomeric and thermoplastic materials are appropriate for exposure to the enhanced
solvent E and to minimize the potential for critical failure, a series of material compatibility tests were
performed.
These standard material compatibility tests were performed based on ASTM D 2240 and ASTM D 470.
Changes in key physical properties before and after exposure were evaluated based on a criteria rating.
Table 1 details the overall compatibility ratings for Solvent E against common elastomers and
thermoplastics after an incubation period of 4 weeks at 60°C. For non-metallic materials, the lab grade
compatibility ratings are in A, B, and C level. The acceptance criteria are detailed in Table 2.

Table 1—Compatibility ratings of Solvent E on thermoplastics and elastomers

Material type Overall rating at 60°C Appearance changes

Viton B C Swelling

HNBR C Swelling

NBR C Swelling

Neoprene B Slight swelling

SPE-192765-MS 7

Material type Overall rating at 60°C Appearance changes

EPDM A

HDPE A

Polypropylene C Slight swelling

PVC C Complete disintegration

Celrin A

Teflon A

PEEK A

Nylon-11 A

Table 2—Rating criteria for non-metallic materials

Rating Explanation

Change in any of the measured properties such as weight, thickness, and hardness less than 10%. The material is
A
considered compatible with the chemical at this temperature.

Change in any of the measured properties such as weight, thickness, and hardness greater than 10% but less than
B
20%. The material is considered usable in the test environment but is not recommended.

Change in any of the measured properties such as weight, thickness, and hardness greater than 20%. The
C
material is not compatible with this chemical and is not recommended.

Based on these results, typical oilfield elastomers should not be exposed to Solvent E. For pumping the
solvent into the flowline, it was decided to use Teflon seals. It was also concluded that the solvent package
can be delivered in plastic IBCs that are made of HDPE, which is compatible with the selected solvent
package. All the seals in the IBCs were replaced with compatible material.
Table 3 details the overall compatibility ratings for Solvent E against common metal materials after an
incubation period of 4 weeks at 60°C. For metals, the material compatibility rating is based on NACE
ratings, which are listed in Table 4. Based on the results, no negative impact was expected on the metal
at the field conditions.

Table 3—Compatibility ratings of ACPC00068A on metals

Material type NACE rating at 60°C Appearance changes

CS1018 Moderate Surface slightly tarnished

SS304 Low –

SS316 Low –

Table 4—NACE rating for metals

Rating Explanation

Low Less than 0.025 mm/year

Moderate 0.025 to 0.12 mm/year

High 0.13 to 0.25 mm/year

Severe Greater than 0.25 mm/year

8 SPE-192765-MS

Field Application and Results

A field application procedure was developed based on the various tests including scale up tests conducted in
the lab. Two soaks of 48 hours each with intermediate flushing with fresh solvent were proposed considering
the estimated deposition and the constraints in the field. In order to quantify the amount of deposit removed
from the flowline, it was decided to fill up the flowline with treated water before and after the solvent soak
application.
The following procedure was followed in the field:
1. Displace all the production fluids inside the flowline using lift gas supply from casing blowdown line.
2. Slowly pump the treated water using the solvent injection pump into the flowline and allow the
pressure to equalize so that the line can be filled.
3. When the line is filled, record the approximate volume of treated water used to fill the line
4. Discharge the treated water in the flowline into a receiving container.
5. Drop the spools at the wellhead and the header/manifold for visual inspection and deposit sample
collection.
6. Run borescope to assess the extent of deposition inside the flowline before soaking the flowline with
the solvent.
7. Reconnect the spools and pump the solvent using the solvent injection pump into the flowline.
8. Once the flowline is filled with the solvent, shut the pump down and let the solvent soak the deposit
for 24 hours.
9. After 24 hours of soak, displace the spent solvent in the line with fresh solvent and let the second
batch of solvent be in contact with the remainder of the deposit in the flowline for 24 hours.
10. Displace the solvent in the flowline with lift gas supply from casing blowdown line.
11. Pump treated water into the flowline again until the line is filled. Record the amount of water pumped.
12. Drop the spools again to visually inspect the flowline using borescope.
Figure 6 shows the pictures taken from the entrance of the flowline from the well side before the solvent
soak and after the first and second solvent soaks. These pictures clearly show the positive impact of the
solvent package in removing the wax.

Figure 6—Pictures of the flowline entrance from the well side

Figure 7 shows some images from borescope videos taken from inside the flowline from the well side
before the solvent soak and after the second soak. As shown in these images, the flowline had lots of wax on
the side connected to the well. The solvent removed majority of the deposited wax. Some aged hard deposit
SPE-192765-MS 9

could not be removed with the solvent due to absence of flow/agitation. There is a possibility that this could
be some other type of deposit like in organic scale.

Figure 7—Borescope images taken from inside the flowline from

the well side before the solvent soak and after the second soak

Figure 8 shows some more images from borescope videos taken from underground portion of the flowline
from the side connected to the well. As shown in the images, the severity of the deposit buildup was less in
this area. Yet, the enhanced solvent package could still remove majority of the deposited wax.

Figure 8—Borescope images taken from underground portion of the flowline from the side connected to the well
10 SPE-192765-MS

Figure 9 shows pictures taken from the other side of the flowline that goes to the production gathering.
As it can be seen from these pictures, the severity of wax buildup on this side of the flowline was much less
than the well side. Having said that, the positive impact of the solvent soaks is still noticeable.

Figure 9—Pictures of the S-892 flowline from the production gathering side

Figure 10 shows images from borescope videos taken from inside the flowline from the production
gathering side before the solvent soak and after the second soak. Again, the enhanced solvent package has
done a good job in cleaning the line despite less deposit buildup on this end of the flowline.

Figure 10—Borescope images from inside the flowline from the production gathering side before and after the solvent soak

The solvent soak performance was estimated quantitatively using water volumes needed to fill the pipe
section before and after and evaluated qualitatively through borescope images. The solvent soak dislodged
around 213 liters of wax with an approximate removal efficiency of 70%. The removal efficiency was
calculated based on the estimated volume of the clean flowline, and approximate volumes of treated
water that was used to fill the line before and after the soak. The borescope images further confirmed the
cleanliness of the flowline and the high removal efficiency.
Overall, this field trial of the enhanced solvent for flowline cleaning was considered a success. It resulted
in 130% increase in the net oil production and a noticeable OPEX saving compared to the mechanical hydro
jetting option.
SPE-192765-MS 11

Conclusions
Proper placement and application of solvents play important roles in effective remediation of deposits.
Many fields assume that if lab results with solvents are positive, it should automatically lead to effective
remediation of deposits in the field. The enhanced solvent-based remediation approach shows that this may
not be the case. Proper selection, optimization, scale up, and deployment of the solvents are key to successful
remediation.
The enhanced solvent-based remediation was successfully applied in the onshore field in one of the South-
East Asian countries for cleaning a flowline that was restricted by wax deposit. High efficiency in removing
the deposited wax was confirmed by both borescope visual inspection and increase in the net oil production.
Noticeable OPEX saving was also accomplished compared to the alternative mechanical cleaning.
While this application was for a flowline in an onshore field in South-East Asia, the enhanced solvent-
based remediation strategy can be used globally in any field (both offshore and onshore) to remediate organic
deposits (wax and asphaltene) in tubings, flowlines, or export pipelines. It can also be used for cleaning
pigs that are received in pig receivers as well as cleaning tanks that have organic deposit buildup. This
technology may also be used in downstream business and chemical industries that have organic deposit
buildups in vessels and flowlines.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following people for their contributions:
– Adil Al-Kiyumi, Norliny Talib, Nurafini Hj Md Zaini, Siti Nur'Arifah Haji Suhaimi, Asmali
Bakir, and Asri Zaini from Brunei Shell Petroleum Co
– Piet Moeleker and Vipul Khosla from Shell Global Solutions International for deployment
support
– Julie Tang and Orlando Carreon from Shell International Exploration and Production Inc. for
performing laboratory tests
– Jian Lu and George Broze from Shell International Exploration and Production Inc. for
technical support
– Shell Analytical Chemistry team in Houston for conducting some analytical tests

References
Akbarzadeh, K., Ratulowski, J., Eskin, D., and Davies, T. 2010. The Importance of Wax-Deposition Measurements in the
Simulation and Design of Subsea Pipelines. SPE Projects, Facilities & Construction 5 (2): 49–57. SPE-115131-PA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/115131-PA.
Peng, Y., Golchha, A., Broze, G. 2018. Cold Finger Benchmarking Study for Paraffin Inhibitor Selection. Presented at the
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 30 April to 3 May. OTC-28714-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/28714-MS
Singh, P., Venkatesan, R., Fogler, S., Nagarajan, N.R. 2001. Morphological Evolution of Thick Wax Deposits during
Aging. Fluid Mechanics and Transport Phenomenon. Volume47, Issue1, 6–18.