.. .

SOCIETY OF PE1’ROLEUM OF AIME

ENGINEERS
6200NorthCentralExpressway ‘&!ihSPE 5704
Dallas,Texas75206
THISPAPERIS SUBJZCTTO CORRECTION

Aqueous Systems for Paraffin Removal

By

G. L. Sutton,Halliburton
Services

@Copyright 1976
Amer$e.mt Institute ofMining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Ex@neers, Inc.

Thispeperwaspreparedfor theSocietyof PetroleumEngineersof AIMESymposium on For-

mationDemageControl,to be heldin i%uston,
Tx.,Jan 29-30,19’?6.Permission to copyis re-
strictedto m abstractof not morethan300words. Illustrationsmay notbe copied.The
abstractshouldcontainconspicuousacknowledgment
of whereandby whomthepaperis presented.
Publicationelsewhere
afterpublicationIn theJOURNAL(ZPIH!ROLEUMTECH
NOiOGY or the SOCIETY
OF PEJ!ROLEUM
ENGINEERS
WUIUVALis usuallygranteduponrequestto the Editorof the appropriate
journal,providedagreementto givepropercreditis made.
discussionof thispaperis invited.Threecopiesof any discussionshouldbe sentto the
Societyof Petroleum office. Suchdiscussion
Engineers may be presentedat the abovemeeting
and,withthepaperymaybe considered forpublication
in one of the twoSPE magazines.

ABSTRACT wellbore and surfaceflow lines

often hamper productionof crude
There are a variety of tech- oils. Very few fields in petro-
niques used in the oil field to leum producingareas are completely
periodicallyremove paraffin free of paraffinproblems. These
depositedon downholetubular goods paraffinproblemsmay be so severe
and in surfaceflow lines. Some of that the removal of the deposits
these removalmethods may have must be done as often as once a
certain drawbacks. Hot-oiling,a week in order to maintainproduc-
popularmethod of removingdeposited tion. On the other hand, paraffin
paraffinsmay contributeto forma- depositionmay be only seasonal.
tion damage if used repeatedlyIn That is, during cold weather
low temperature,low pressurewells. paraffinmay only plug surface
This paper describesa water base flow lines. These organicdeposits
chemicalsystemwhich has been can and often do present a constant
found to effectivelyremcveparaffin source of aggravationto many field
from metal surfaces. A simple operators. Unless operators
procedureis ol~tlined in the text initiatesystematicremedialtreat-
for testing aqueousparaffinre- ments to remove these deposits;
moval systems. A variety of crude productiongraduallydecreases,
appll.cationsfor such a chemical revenueis lost, and the possibility
system and some field results are increasesthat expensivemechanical
also described. failureswill result.
INTRODUCTION
—— There are many reasonswhy
paraffindepositsfrom crude oil.
Depositionand accumulation Reistlsz,andmany subsequent
of para~fintype depositsin the investigatorshave describedthe
mechanismof paraffindeposition
Referencesand illustrationsat in great detail. However,quite
end of paper. simply,paraffindepositionoccurs
-.
.56 AQuEOUSSYSTEMS FO PARAFFINREMOVAL
because the crude oil loses its
abilityto hold the paraffinin
solution. That is, at some point
betweenthe formationand a sur-
face tank batteryor holding
facility,the paraffin exceeds its
volubilityin the crude oil. This
is due to temperaturechanges in
the wellbore,loss of light ends,
coolingdue to gas evolution;etc.
Once the volubilityhas been
exceeded,the solid paraffin
clustersprecipitatingfrom the
oil begin to attach themselvesto
metal pipe surfacesand a paraffin
depositbegins to build.
Two of the most common tech-
niques for removing organic de-
posits from downhole equipment are
hot-oiling and scraping. However,
there is some evidence that hot-
oiling may be detrimental to crude
oil production, particularly in
wells having low pressure and a
bottom hole temperature less than
160”F. The possibilityof
damagingproducingformationswith
hot-oiltreatmentshas also been
mentionedby other investigators.a
Damage to the producingformation
may be due to forcingparaffin-
laden fluid into the formation
matrix at a temperature higher
than the formation temperature.
As these fluids cool, the paraffin
will then reprecipitate. Also,
inorganic solids, associated with
most organic depositsz~=, may be
carried into the formation with
the hot-o~l fluid and cause damage
to the formation.
This paper describestech-
niques using water based fluids to
removeparaffin accumulations.
Certainchemicalsare available
that when added to a water carrier
in low concentrationshave the
abilityto remove and disperse
paraffin. Since water comprises
90-c38~of the removal system,this
would be a relativelyinexpensive
paraffinremoval system as compared
with hydrocarbonparaffinsolvents.
In some cases more crude paraffin
can be removedwith the water
based system than is dissolvedin
conventionalsolvents.
SPE-5704
LABORATORY Evaluation OF WATER.
BASED PARAFFIN REMOVAL AGENTS
A simple test was devisedto
comparevariouswater solubleand
water dispersibleparaffinre-
moval agents. This test was de-
signed to visuallycomparethe
ability of certainchemicalsto
remove paraffinand disperseit in
water. The resultsof such a test
are qualitativein that the
amountsof paraffinremoveddep?nd
to a great extent on the nature of
the paraffin,i.e., the consistency
of paraffin. The test was not
designedto duplicatefield condi-
tions under which the chemicals
might be used.
The test procedureconsisted
of weighingten grams of a crude
paraffininto a clean 4 oz. bottle.
The bottle was then placed in
boilingwater until the paraffin
had completelymelted. The bottle
was removedfrom the hot water and
as tha paraffinbegan t~ solidify
the”bottlewas tilted horizontally
and rolled. Thus, the solid
paraffincompletelycoated the
inside of the bottle. The bottles
were left to cool to room
temperature.
One-hundredmillilitersof
tap water containinga variety of
water ,Solubleand water dispersi-
ble chemicalsin varying concen-
trationswere added to the paraffin
coated bottles. The bottleswere
sealed,andclamped into a wrist
act?.onshaker and allowedto shake
for 3 to 24 hours at room tempera-
ture. Visual results were notedj
however, in some cases the bottles
were reweighed to determine the
amount of paraffinremoved.
DISCUSSIONOF TEST RESULTS
As noted above, the paraffin-
coated bottle tests were only
meant as a comparativeevaluation
and most observationswere visual.
However,Table I illustrates
comparativeresultson test solutions
where the bottleswere reweighed
followingthe paraffinremovaltests.
AJJ--JI WY W*
These data were collectedon
paraffinwhich had been scraped from
a well producingfrom the Big Injun
formationnear Parkersburg,W.
Virginia. Paraffinsamplesfrom
other crudes generallyshowed the
same trend. It can be observed
from Table I that most water solu-
ble chemicalsand some water disper-
sible chemicalstested removed
little or no paraffinfrom the
bottlewalls. The water dispersible
chemicalsystem A effectively
removedthe paraffin. Some paraffin
was removed at concentrationsas
low as 2%. This systemnot only
had the abilityto remove paraffin
but also dispersedthe paraffin
into the aqueouscarrier as very
finely dividedpartic~es.
In a test, designedto deter-
mine the maximum amount of paraffin
removed,it was found that an
equivalentof one pound of paraffin
per gallon of solutioncould be
removed and dispersedat room
temperature. This test was con-
ducted using a paraffindeposited
from a Trenton formationcrude oil
and a 10~ solutionof system A.
The paraffin removed in this test
was more than could be dissolved
with conventionalparaffinsolvents
at room temperature.
Results of these tests indica-
ted system A would have excellent
applicationfor removal of down-
hole paraffindepositsand in
surfaceflowlineswhere other re-
moval systemswere either undesir-
able or impractical.
FIELD RESULTSI
A. Trenton Formation
Well No. 1: This well produced
.110BOPD and was hot-oiledon a
monthly basis to remove depostted
paraffin. One week after an initial
treatmentwith 20 barrelsof warm
lease brine and 20 gallonsof
chemicalsystem A the well had
stabilizedat 140 BOPD. The operator
continuedtreatmentsat 20 barrels
of warm lease brine anti10 gallons
of system A every two weeks. The
well had not been hot-oiledfrom
July 1, 1974 to January1, 1975
-. =-.. -..
.—
and the 140 BOPD productionmain-
tained.
Well No. 2: This well produced
147 BuFIrand was also hot-oiledon
a monthly basis. Initialtreatment
consSstedof 20 barrels of warm
Iease brine and 20 gallOnS Of SyStem
A, which was injecteddown the
annulus and flowed back through
the tubing and flow lines. The
well stabilizedat 167 BOPD. The
operatorcontinuedtreatmentsat
20 barrelsof warm lease brine and
10 gallons of systemA every two
weeks. The well had not been hot-
oiled from Juiy 1, 2974 to January
1, 1975. The productionincrease
was maintained.
B. ClintonFormation
Seven old wells producingfrom
the Clinton formationwere selected
for test puwposes. All of these
wells produce a high paraffincon-
tent crude oil. The treatments
consistedof pumping30 barrelsof
water containing20 gallonsof
system A down the annulusand
pumping it up the tubing. C@lec-
tive productionincreasedfrom
2000 barrelsof oil per month to
3100 barrelsof oil per month.
Several of the wells produced so
much paraffin after treatment that
it plugged the water knGck-out
system. Heat had to be appliedto
the system to keep it free of
paraffin immediatelyfollowingthe
treatments.
Twelve treatmentswere per-
formed in the Clinton sands of
NortheasternOhio with a 60$
success ratio. These wells had
been fracturedand the operator
felt that paraffinwas plugging
the fracture. The treatingpro-
cedure was to mix 110 gallonsof
system A in 200 barrelsof water
and displaceinto the :ormatlon.
In some instancesa small amount
of treatingsolutionwas displaced
Into the tubing to aid in cleaning
of tubing and rods. Pump rates
variea from 5-28 BPM and treating
pressureranged between0-3250
psi with the wells on vacuum
within 5 minutes of shut-in. The
wells were shut-infor 5-24 hours

158 AQ.UEOUS
SYSTEMS FOR -.—...-
PARAFFTN
and returned to pump. In instances
where production did not increase,
a large amount of paraffin and BS
returnedto surface. This was true
even in a well which had been
recentlyhot-oiledand was consider-
ed by the operatorto be clean.
c. Kansas
A well in Kansas was treated
with 20 gellons of system A in 20
barrels of water,, The treating
solution was dumped down the annulus
and pumped off over the weekend.
The pump was pulled and the rods
and pump were found to be free of
paraffin. The well was back in
operationwithin one day. Previous
pump pulling jobs required3 to 4
days due to the paraffin accumula-
tions in the tubing and around the
pump.
D. Additional Field Results
A tabulationof eleven addi-
tional field tests is shown in
Table II.
It should be pointed out, that
in most of the treatmentsdescribed
above, a productionincreasewas
noted. However,this should not
be used as a criteriafor success.
Productionincreaseswill occur
only if there is superficial
paraffindamage to the producing
formation. If the well does not
have this paraffindamage, the
successof the treatmentshould be
judged on the amount of paraffin
removed from the tubing and
returnedto the surface.
APPLICATIONFOR WATER-BASED
=i?t’fl CLMANINGAGh~S
In additionto the removalof
paraffin accumulationsin tubing
or flow lines, these water disper-
sible chemicalshave other applica-
tions.
1. Wellbore CleanoutPrior
In some jnstances,no
thought is given LO cleaningthe
tubing or wellboreprior tc stimu-
lation treatmentsusing high pump
●
REMOVATt
- .-.. -.—.- . -.— .QPl?.
-. -–.>,G7nil
“-r
rates such as during fracturing
treatments. If paraffinand/or
scale 1s present in the tubing,
these depositsmay be sloughed
off during treatmentand plug
the producingformation. It is
recommendedthat a water solution
of system A be used to clean the
tubingprior to stimulation. If
scale is present then the chemical
can be dispersedin acid for both
scale and paraffinremoval.
2, Preflushfor Fracturing
In areas havingextremely
cold winter temperatures,the use
of cold treatingfluids (particu-
larly fracturingfluids may cause
paraffinprecipitation1n the
formation.4 Paraffinprecipitation
in the fracturefaces can cause
damage to productionor result in
slow well cleanup. Incorporating.
the water dispersiblesystemA in
the preflush ahead of the frac-
turing treatmentshould help
alleviatethe paraffinprecipita-
tion prcblem. One possible
explanationfor this is that the
minute paraffincrystalswould
dispersein the water and not
adhereto the formationmatrix.
These would then be producedback
with the treatingfluids.
CONCLUSIONS
Laboratorytests indicate
that system A effectivelyremoves
and dispersesparaffindeposits.
Field resultsusing systemA have
substantiatedthe laboratorydata
and indicatethat this system
could be used as an alternativeto
hot-oiling.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I want to thank the management
of HalliMrton Services for per-
mission to present this paper and
those In the Pittsburgh Division
of Halliburton Services who contri-
buted treatment results. Also,
I appreciate the cooperation of
various oil companies who were
willing to field test these paraffin
removalchemicals.
*

SPE-5704 G. D. utton 159

r 3
REFERENCES
X Reistle,C. D., Jr.: “Paraffi~
and Con ealing - Oil Problems,
Bull. 3f8, USBM (1932).
4
a Bilderback,C. A.; McDougall,L.A.:
“CompleteParetfinCofitrol in
PetroleumProduction, J. Pet.
Tech., Vol. 21 (Sept.,1-51.
Fulford,R. S.: “Oil~ellParaffin
PreventionChemicals, SPE
RegionalMeeting,OklahomaCity,
Okla. Mar. 1975 PreprintNo.
SPE-5i130
Sutton,G. D., Roberts,L.D.:
“ParaffinPrecipitatlfin
During
FractureStimulation, J. Pet.
Tech. (Sept.1974) 997-1~

TABLE1 - COMPARATIVE
PARAFFSNREMOVAL
OF BIG INJUNFORMATION
PARAFFIN
= ~OoF
TEMPERATURE
Lbs Paraffin
Chemical Concentration volubility* Removedper Gal-
Systems in Tap Water in Water Time lon of Solution
A 10$% Dispersible 3 hrs. 0.55
A 5$ Dispersible 3 hrs. 0.22
A 2$ Dispersible 3 hrs. 0.07
A 5$ Dispersible 24 hrs. 0.23
A 2$ Dispersible 24 hrs. 0.13
B 10$ Dispersible 3 hrs. 0.21
c lo~ Dispersible 3 hrs. 0.03
D 10% Dispersible 3 hrs. 0.16
E 2$ Soluble 24 hrs. c
E 5% Soluble 24 hrs. o
F 10$ Dispersible 3 hrs. 0
G lo? Soluble 3 hrs. 0
Ker)sene+ 10% Dispersible 3 Ms. 0
Emulsifier
H lo% Soluble 3 hrs. 0
I 10$ Soluble 3 hrs. 0.02
J 10$% Soluble 3 hrs. 0,02

*Refersto the volubilitycf chemicalin water.

 TABLE2 - TABULATION
OF FIELDRESULTSUSINGSYSTEMA
AverageDaily Production
Pertent 30 Days Days
Chemical Treatment Before -After After
Location ConcentrationVolume(bbls) Treatment Treatment Treatment
TrumbullCo., Ohio 2.4 30 90 MCF 133 MCF 100 MCF
TrumbullCo., Ohio 2 ●4 30 87 MCF 133 MCF 103 MCF
TrumbullCo., Ohio 2.4 30 87 MCF 133 MCF 123 MCF
TrumbullCo., Ohio 2.4 30 87 MCF 120 MCF 90 MCF
TrumbullCo., Ohio 2.4 so 40 MCF 63 MCF 53 MCF
Morrow Co., Ohio 2.4 25 6 BO 20 BO 13 BO
Morrow CO., Ohio 2.4 25 6 BO 20 BO 12 BO
Morrow Co., Ohio 2.4 25 9 BO Not Produced 13 BO
Morrow Co., Ohio 2.4 25 8 BO 20 BO 25 Bo
Morrow Co., Ohio 2.4 25 9 BO 7 BO 13 Bo
Morrow Co., Ohio 2.4 25 8 BO T BO 13 BO