Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 14 October 2000.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Crystal Modifier chemicals have been successfully applied in
several areas of the world to control deposition of paraffin
waxes in production strings, pipelines, and refinery storage
facilities. However, the use of these chemicals requires that
they be protected from cold weather to prevent them from
freezing, thus making them impossible to pump. Therefore,
the practices of hot oiling and hot watering remain the main
methods of paraffin wax remediation. Over the past two years
advances in the technology of crystal modifier formulation
have succeeded in producing modifiers that are suitable for
year-round application. This new technology has made it
possible to compare the effectiveness of crystal modifiers
versus hot oiling and hot watering for a large sampling of
production areas. Three large and geographically distant areas
of production, previously on hot oiling and hot watering
programs, were placed on a program of solvent cleanup and
continuous and batch treatment with crystal modifier products.
Case histories for these three fields are presented in this paper.
Additionally some theoretical topics are also covered
including the description of paraffin crystal modification and
its affect on the behavior of crude oil fluids.
Background
The problem of wax build-up in production areas, pipelines,
and refinery storage areas continues to be a major problem for
oil companies, and traditional methods of treatment such as
hot oiling and hot watering are still employed by a majority of
these companies. Although much has been written about the
negative effects of these treatments
1
, the prevalence of these
methods indicate that the advantages of alternate methods
have not yet been adequately or satisfactorily proven.
Hot oiling has a well-deserved reputation for freeing sucker
rods, down-hole pumps and, in some cases, even
reestablishing lost production. Although many papers have
been written citing thermodynamic data refuting the notion
that sufficient heat capable of removing paraffin damage is
supplied deep within the well, the fact remains hot oiling frees
sucker rods, and pumps. It is this fact that continues to draw
oilfield workers to the hot oiler time and time again.
Hot Oiling
It is true that in many oilfield processes heat is essential to the
effectiveness of a treatment; wax is melted by heat, and
emulsion resolution is aided by heat. However, the amount of
heat supplied per unit volume is also important even crucial to
the realization of these effects. When it comes to waxes, the
distance one wax molecule is separated from another
determines the amount of heat required to melt a specific
molecular weight wax. Thus, if wax molecules are diluted
with low molecular weight compatible solvents, the amount of
heat required to disrupt their co-crystallization is diminished.
The cumulative effect of solvency and temperature determine
the combining tendency of waxes or emulsions. Therefore, the
melting point of diluted waxes can be very much lower than
that of the pure wax. Many of the thermodynamic models
report the melting point of waxes retrieved from pulled tubing
strings, but these deposits have lost much of the lower solvent
fractions and, therefore, exhibit much higher melting points.
A large number of hot oiling procedures are conducted
using oil produced from the wells they are used to treat. This
practice is questionable, since the wax deposits they are
intended to remove were produced from these same oils.
Obviously the wax carrying capacity of these oils is low or
deposits would not occur. Solutions of wax and oil can be
thought of as becoming saturated at a given temperature. But
because there are several different molecular weight fractions
of waxes present within a given crude oil, many saturation
points can be observed over a large span of temperature. This
situation results in different molecular weight wax deposits
being found at varying depths within a well. Thus, higher
molecular weight waxes tend to deposit in areas of the well
with elevated temperatures (e.g., the bottom), while lower
molecular weight fractions tend to deposit at lower
temperature regions within the well (e.g., increasingly
SPE 63123
Oilfield Paraffin Treatments: Hot Oil and Hot Water Compared to Crystal Modifiers
JR Becker, Unichem Division of BJ Services Company
2 JR Becker SPE 63123
shallower depths). When wells are hot oiled, the area of the
well receiving the greatest amount of heat is the upper-most
level. As the hot oil contacts the casing and tubing a good
deal of heat is transferred to these surfaces, and the lower
molecular weight waxes are melted and carried downward
within the well. The deeper the hot oil proceeds the lower its
temperature becomes, thereby, reducing its wax carrying
capacity. From the above discussion, it can be seen that
solvency and heat are effective methods of removing wax
when the quantity used is sufficient to solvate or melt the
waxes present.
Hot Watering
Hot water and hot water surfactant combinations were
introduced to provide an alternative to hot oiling. Plain hot
water treatments cannot provide the solvency that hot oiling
can; consequently surfactant packages are frequently added to
aid in the dispersion of wax into the water phase. Again a
degree of separation of wax molecules is achieved by adding
the surfactant, but the extent of the separation is much reduced
from that achieved during hot oiling. Hot water surfactant
combinations produce very large water wet particles of wax
that resemble coffee grounds. These particles often cause
treating battery upsets by collecting at the interface between
the separated water and oil. The resolution of water wet
waxes requires substantially greater amounts of demulsifier
than the two phase water and oil normally handled by heater
treaters. Because of the greater heat capacity of water, the
amount of heat reaching the bottom of the well may be slightly
greater than that obtained in the hot oiling method. However,
the non-existent solvency possessed by water greatly reduces
the wax carrying capacity of water. Although the addition of
surfactants or dispersents to the water helps in wax removal,
the reduced wax particle separation distance acts to oppose
any added temperature benefits.
Solvents
Various aromatic and aliphatic solvents have been used with
varying degrees of success to remediate wax damage in wells.
This procedure is used without the added benefit of heat, and
relies mainly on the superior wax carrying capacity of the
solvent. Solvents that have high wax carrying capacities
achieve separations closer to the molecular level than in either
the hot oiling or hot watering methods. The saturation
phenomenon mentioned above is still operative, and the
solvent at various temperatures accommodates varying
amounts of different molecular weight waxes. Thus the
quantity of solvent required to dissolve a given quantity of
wax is generally several multiples of the wax present.
Frequently, surfactants and/or dispersents are added to these
solvents to aid in the dispersion of the waxes. These solvents
can benefit from increased temperatures, but generally the
only heat assisting them is the resident heat within the well.
Crystal Modifiers
Crystal modifiers are special chemical structures produced
synthetically to interact with forming wax aggregates. They
usually consist of structures that have segments incorporated
in them that interact with the forming wax crystals. These
products act at the molecular level to alter the tendency of wax
molecules to accumulate on each other, thereby reducing the
capability of paraffin wax to network within the oil.
2
This
ability to act at the molecular level makes them truly effective
at concentrations in the parts per million. While hot oil, hot
water, and solvents are required at concentrations that are
multiple quantities of the wax concentration. Since these
products behave similarly to the waxes they inhibit (e.g., they
co-crystallize with the wax), they also exhibit relatively high
melting points. Traditionally, high melting points have made
the use of these products difficult or impossible in areas where
winter temperatures drop below 40
o
F. Until just recently (the
last two years), the physical characteristics of these chemicals
severally limited their use during colder times of the year.
Thus traditional methods of hot oiling and hot watering have
continued as the methods of choice for the field operators.
Combining Methods
Crude oils that contain sufficient paraffin waxes to cause
deposition generally owe this deposition tendency to a narrow
molecular weight range of wax.
2
Since variable molecular
weight waxes exhibit differing saturation at various
temperatures, a narrow deposition temperature is usually
observed.

Crystal modifiers operate on a molecular level by
altering the morphology of forming paraffin wax aggregates.
3
Because of this, it is necessary for them to be added at a
temperature above the saturation temperature of the forming
wax crystals.

These temperatures are most often available
within the well, but in some instances they are not. Thus, the
effectiveness of crystal modifiers could be enhanced by the
provision of additional heat. Since hot oiling can provide heat
to a well, and oils commonly used are from the same
producing formation, addition of a crystal modifier to hot oil
could be a mutually beneficial proposition.
Field Conditions and Crystal Modifiers
Primitive and harsh conditions prevalent in a large percentage
of producing areas of the world frequently preclude measures
required to shelter or heat the modifier chemicals. Thus a more
advantageous method for providing modifier chemicals for use
in these harsh environments requires that the physical
handling characteristics of the modifier be altered. Alteration
of the physical characteristics of crystal modifier blends is not
a simple matter, since the activity of the chemical depends on
its structure. Changing the modifiers basic chemical structure
to enhance its physical properties under cold conditions is not
an option. Furthermore, many of the methods of dilution and
additions of winterizing solvents used in demulsifer,
corrosion, and scale treating formulation have been found to
be ineffectual. Therefore, different techniques must be
employed to produce winterized paraffin crystal modifiers.
The end product of this modification must also be convenient
to pump at temperatures down to 30
o
C, and stable to
ambient temperatures of up to 40
o
C. Formulations must be
SPE 63123 Oilfield Paraffin Treatments: Hot Water and Hot Oil Compared to Crystal Modifiers 3
quick to enter the oil phase, and be of sufficient concentration
to effectively treat the oil.
As mentioned above, the poor handling properties of the
typical paraffin wax crystal modifier chemical makes them
difficult to implement in the field. Given that a large
percentage of producing fields are located in areas with less
than optimal prevailing temperatures for the implementation
of these products, historical winter usage of these products
occurs very rarely. This is ironic since the tendency of waxes
to form in flow lines, and storage tanks is greatest during the
winter months. Although crystal modifiers are useful the year
round, they are needed most during the winter season.
Producing companies prefer to avoid products that cannot be
used throughout the year, and this is one reason they are
reluctant to implement a program that must be altered as
winter approaches. Continuity of treatment and treatment
methods builds confidence in treating programs, and as a
successful program proceeds, the producers comfort level
increases. Therefore, treating programs that are altered,
because products are unsuitable for use during a particular
time of year, often cause the producer anxiety. Thus, the
development of the winterized crystal modifier products
capable of all season use has been an important goal of several
specialty chemical companies for a considerable time.
Winterization of Crystal Modifiers
Specific methods employed to produce acceptable winterized
paraffin crystal modifiers are presently pending patent;
however, a general discussion of the concepts can be
conducted. Given the requirements listed above, a method of
producing suspensions of several existing crystal modifier
chemicals was chosen. These methods consist of using
specific solvated and non-solvated mixtures of various types
of paraffin crystal modifiers including maleic olefin esters,
polymeric acrylate and methacrylate esters, and ethylene vinyl
acetate polymers and co-polymers. The concept chosen
involved a method to produce stable solid suspensions of these
active crystal modifiers within a non-solvent external liquid
matrix. Normally aromatic solvent solutions of these modifier
types form gels through macro-aggregate networking when
subjected to low temperatures. For this reason the external
liquid matrix must have a low pour point, and the internal
solid crystal modifier suspension must be incapable of
forming aggregates with adjacent modifier particles.
Several different formulations are required to produce the
desired physical properties from the differing types of crystal
modifier chemistries. Frequently throughout the development
of these products it was possible to reduce the pour point to
the desired temperature, but difficult to obtain sufficiently
high temperature stability. Consequently, an exhaustive
process of solvent and non-solvent screening was conducted to
provide the most stable suspensions of the different modifiers.
Once the desired properties were obtained the product/s were
tested on specific crude oils to determine their commercial
effectiveness.
Product Comparisons
The laboratory setting is a good first screening ground for
product effectiveness, since most of the variables expected to
be operative in the field can be controlled. The crystal
modifier solutions that might otherwise be solid under field
conditions can be compared to the experimental suspension
versions of the same modifier chemical. This screening was
performed with solution and suspension versions of each of
the various chemicals. Extensive testing on a broad variety of
waxy crude oils was performed to determine if any variability
in effectiveness between the two types could be observed.
ASTM D-97 pour point, cold finger deposition, cloud points,
viscosity measurements, cooling curves, and crystal energy
profiles were run on several waxy crude oils and differences in
performance were noted.
4
All the tests showed equal
effectiveness was exhibited by the solution and the suspension
versions of the modifier.
While laboratory performance is a good screening tool, the
true test of performance can only be determined in actual field
trials. Consequently four field locations were chosen, and
three different winterized products were put on test to evaluate
their winter handling properties and performance. The
locations chosen were Kansas, West Texas, and South Eastern
Texas. Each provided winter temperatures appropriate for
evaluation of the chemicals physical behavior and
effectiveness in treating existing paraffin wax problems.
Field Test 1
The test field, located in the Big Springs area of West Texas,
contains several wells with a history of paraffin wax problems.
Historically, paraffin treatment of this field involved the use of
either hot oil or hot water/surfactant methods to remove the
paraffin wax build up in the tubing and flow lines. These
methods had come under scrutiny by the field operator, who
judged them to be marginally successful, since the frequency
of well shut-in and work-over jobs had increased in recent
years. The operator had expressed an interest in using crystal
modifiers as a means of addressing his paraffin wax problems,
but he was also concerned about the handling properties of
these products. The timing was right to introduce the newly
developed winterized crystal modifier products. A proposed
treatment program emphasizing the merits of the newly
developed products was delivered to the producer for
consideration. After some additional consultation it was
agreed between the treating company and the operator that an
extended field trial (approximately 120 days) would be
required to determine if the crystal modifier program was truly
effective.
Five wells producing from 4-6 barrels of oil and 7-60 barrels
of water per day and exhibiting tubing wax build-up and flow
line problems were chosen to undergo a four-month minimum
trial period to assure a good comparison. The chosen wells
were cleaned using a solvent dispersant blend prior to
beginning the test to assure that a good comparison of wax
4 JR Becker SPE 63123
problem shut-in periods between the two methods could be
conducted. Earlier laboratory testing indicated that several
wells in the test field responded favorably to a specific crystal
modifier chemistry. A product possessing this chemistry was
winterized as described above, and placed on five wells for
evaluation. Two major criteria for the successful application
of this product were:
1.) The modifier product must be capable of being pumped in
the winter months.
2.) The modifier product must reduce wax deposits in the well
and transfer lines.
The assessment of products pumpability during the winter
months would be accomplished by daily observations.
Although some adjustments to the products original
formulation might be required, the products basic chemistry
would not be altered. The average winter (November-
February) temperature for the Big Springs Texas area is
reported to be 10-30
o
F (night) and 20-40
o
F (day). Although
these are average temperatures, much colder temperatures
might be periodically observed. . The effectiveness of the
product as a wax deposit reduction additive would be
determined by changes in production, rod weight, pump motor
amperage, pour point temperature, production rates, and flow-
line pressures. The economic effectiveness of the product was
determined by comparison to the historical hot
water/surfactant treatment costs.
Results
The product remained fluid and pumped continuously
throughout the mild winter of 1999, but periodic formulation
adjustments were required. These adjustments were necessary
since the winter was relatively mild and the initial product
exhibited some separation at higher temperatures (>70
o
F).
Once the products elevated temperature separation problems
were resolved, periodic hand mixing requirements and
frequent observations were reduced.
After the second month on the modifier program, one of the
wells was pulled to examine the sucker rod, tubing, and pump.
The build-up of wax appeared to be minimal, indicating that
the modifier product was performing effectively, and the well
was put back in operation. Some test perimeters are presented
in Table I, and an economic analysis showing that the crystal
modifier program produced a cost saving of nearly nine
thousand dollars ($8,836) for the five test wells over a four-
month period is presented in Table 2 at the end of this paper.
When these figures are averaged over a twelve-month period
and a one-time installation cost included, a nearly twenty
thousand dollar savings ($19,438) is projected. This
information is presented in tables 3, and at the end of this
paper. As field testing of the original five wells continued to
show favorable results, the producer allowed the addition of
ten wells to the crystal modifier treatment program. Assuming
the results obtained on the first five wells can be realized for
the additional ten wells, a projected saving of nearly seventy
seven thousand dollars per year can be expected.
Field Test 2
A large West Texas production area had been experiencing
accumulations of wax in a number of wells as primary
production methods were being replaced by secondary water-
flood recovery. Wax accumulation resulted in frequent well
failures and a significant reduction in production volume. As
had been the practice over the years, hot oiling was employed
to remove the accumulated wax. This method requires the use
of specially constructed tank trucks equipped with high-
pressure pumps and boilers capable of heating stock tank oil to
high temperature and pumping it through the constricted areas.
Over several years these treatments concentrated the high
molecular weight fractions of the accumulated waxes present
in the wells worsening the extent of the damage. As hot oiling
down hole began to receive attention as a negative method of
paraffin wax removal, several specialty chemical companies
began to employ the use of hot water and hot water/surfactant
combinations in place of stock tank oil. This method soon
replaced the hot oiling throughout this production area. Hot
oil trucks were still employed to heat and pump the hot water
and hot water/surfactant combinations down hole to remove
the wax damage. New problems associated with this practice
began to appear as interface pads in dehydration units began to
increase and emulsion resolution was greatly diminished. It
was at this point that this laboratory became involved in
attempting to remedy some of these problems.
Although wax crystal modifiers had been successfully applied
to remedy wax problems for several decades by highly visible
and costly production operations such as those offshore, the
widespread use of these products had rarely been employed in
marginally productive fields. Several factors such as physical
properties, high cost, and availability of these products
prevented their implementation as a means of controlling wax
related problems. A major problem with the use of crystal
modifiers involved their tendency to become solid as the
environmental temperature declined, thereby necessitating
special handling for their delivery to the problem areas.
However, in this particular area well spacing and surface
equipment configurations allowed for the placement of a
special heat traced chemical storage facility. Thus, it was
possible to store the crystal modifier chemical at a central
location and conduct truck treating from this site.
The program began by conducting a thorough well clean-up
utilizing aromatic solvent and aromatic solvent/surfactant
combinations. The solvent was placed in the wells in
sufficient quantity to cover the perforations, allowed to soak
for twelve hours and, where possible, circulated an additional
twelve hours to remove the accumulated wax damage. After
the solvent cleaning of the well was complete and the wax
damage removed, it was placed on a periodic backside
injection of crystal modifier via a truck treatment program.
Since these wells were on a pump-off schedule (e.g., well
SPE 63123 Oilfield Paraffin Treatments: Hot Water and Hot Oil Compared to Crystal Modifiers 5
casing annular fluids are periodically reduced by automated
methods) it was questionable that the crystal modifier would
remain at an effective treatment level within the well. Pour
point monitoring of these wells was conducted to determine
whether a depression of the pour point from the untreated oils
produced was being realized. This testing indicated that
indeed the chemical was reaching the problem areas, and that
significant pour point reduction was being achieved.
Results
Prior to the implementation of this program many of the wells
in this area were on a hot water/surfactant clean-up schedule
averaging once every thirty days. After the implementation of
the crystal modifier program, it is not uncommon to find the
frequencies decreased to once every one hundred and eighty to
three hundred and sixty plus days. Additionally, interface
problems experienced by down stream dehydration treatment
have virtually disappeared. Over the past two years this
treatment program has expanded to the entire field, and the
incidence of well failures has dropped from two or three a
month to zero over a two-year period.
Field Test 3
A major pipeline company operating in South Eastern Texas
had been experiencing wax deposition in the crude oil that
they were transporting, and frequent pigging of the line
produced significant amounts of wax. Although they had been
treating the line with a combination of solvent dispersent and
large quantities of gasoline, they were disappointed with the
results. The quantities of solvent dispersant and gasoline were
extremely high, and storing gasoline presented a hazard they
were reluctant to continue. Discussions were conducted with
the operator of the pipeline, and a trial application of crystal
modifier was approved. Although the price of solvent
dispersant and gasoline are low, the quantities used were
significant (e.g., solvent dispersent usage was over two-
hundred gallons/day and gasoline usage nearly two-thousand
gallons/day). The cost of crystal modifier on a per gallon
basis being substantially higher than the existing treatment
required that a significantly lower dosage be employed to treat
the crude oil. The required dose of crystal modifier was set at
thirty parts per million or thirty gallons/day. This figure was
arrived at based on the economics of transporting the crude
oil, combined with laboratory tests that showed the product to
be effective at this low level.
Results
The crystal modifier used in this application is a winterized
product, since it must be applied to the pipeline throughout the
year. The product has been applied to the pipeline for a period
of over nine months, and the results have been shown to be
superior to those of the previous method of treatment.
Periodic pigging of the line is conducted as a routine
procedure, and since the crystal modifier product has been
applied the incidence of wax accumulation has fallen
significantly. Typical pigging procedures conducted prior to
the use of the crystal modifier invariably collected large
quantities of wax deposits that required disposal as hazardous
waste. Since, the implementation of the crystal modifier it is
rare to find any wax collected by the pigging operation. In the
rare cases wax is collected some event has been experienced
which explains the presence of wax. Such events include the
change of crude feed streams, and a chemical pump failure.
The overall performance of the crystal modifier has been
shown to be vastly superior to the solvent dispersant gasoline
treatments conducted previously.
Field Test 4
A large independent producer in Kansas had recently
purchased a widely dispersed production region, and
discovered that a large number of the wells in these fields
produced significant amounts of paraffin wax. It was
immediately obvious that treatment of the wax problems had
to be undertaken to minimize the loss of production. The
timing of the purchase was such that winter would soon be a
factor in the choice of treatments employed in the area. Thus
bids were sought, and selection criteria would be based on the
most promising method of addressing the existing wax
problems. Many of those involved in the bid process offered
the typical solvent dispersant packages that had been
employed for many years. One company, however, could
provide the more effective crystal modifier chemistry capable
of withstanding the severe temperatures experienced in the
winter. This company was awarded the field and placement of
the modifier took place. The broad expanse of this production
area (over twelve thousand square miles) resulted in a very
difficult period for the service company. The initial product
experienced some difficulty due to pump failure and a new
winterize product was introduced.
Results
Since the placement of the second winterized product the
incidence of failure due to chemical pump failure has been
eliminated. Failure rates, due to paraffin wax buildup had
historically been high during the winter months (e.g., two to
three well failures per month). The program has been
underway for a period of four months, and the failure rate has
dropped to one well during this period.
Conclusions
Much has been said about the negative effects of hot oiling
and hot watering, and much of it is true, but the fact remains
hot oiling will continue to be used as long as it aids in well
workovers. While it is true that solvent treatments and crystal
modifier applications afford a more efficient and safer method
of dealing with paraffin wax problems, these methods might
also benefit from cooperation with hot oil companies. Routine
addition of crystal modifiers to hot oil treatments could
provide a significant new tool in both the hot oilers and
chemical companies kit. A major change in the paradigms of
both the chemical company and hot oiler could serve to better
provide for the oil company customer. After all many hot
water jobs are conducted with surfactants supplied by
6 JR Becker SPE 63123
chemical companies, why should this cooperation be limited
to hot water?
Acknowledgments
The work presented here is the result of a projects undertaken
by three major oil companies, a major pipeline company and
Unichem and is aimed at the resolution of field wax problems
in the Big Spring, Denver City, Hearne areas of Texas, and the
southern Kansas region. The author would like to give thanks
to Dora Galvan for her expert assistance in the development of
these new products. Special thanks are due Jim Campbell
Donald Reid, Jim Roberts, Rod Martin, Jerry Don Sweat, and
Mike Hill of Unichem for the tireless efforts they expended on
the products field application and monitoring.
References
1. Mansure, A.J., Barker, K.M.: Insights Into Good
Hot Oiling Practices, SPE 25484, Production
Operations Symposium, (March 1993) 689-694.
2. Becker, H.L. (J.R.), Kinetic Model of Pour-Point
Phenomena, SPE 22830, 66
th
Annual Technical
Conference and Exihibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers Dallas, TX (October 6-9, 1991).
3. Asinger, F.: Paraffin Chemistry and Technology,
Pergamon Press, (1967).
4. Becker, J.R., Crude Oil Emulsions, Waxes, and
Asphaltenes, PennWell, (1997).
Well 1 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Rod Weights 9838 10014 10003 9975 9828 Pat Vac 9790 9702
Motor Amps 37 36 37 36 37 35 36 35 35 36 36 35 35 35 36
Run Time / Hours 12:45 12:40 Pat Vac 14:37 11:30 11:02 9:10 11:08 11:14 10:45 10:41
Production O / W 55 / 35 51 / 30 47 / 35 41 / 25
Pour Point (degrees F) 22F 20F 3F (-)17F (-)30 F (-)34F (-)35F (-)6F (-)54F (-)17F (-)15F <(-)60F (-)27F (-)30F (-)27F
Flowline Pressure 40 40 40 35 28 Pat Vac 28 25
Ch Startup 12-29-98 12/15/98 12/17/98 12/22/99 01/06/99 01/13/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 02/11/99 02/17/99 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/11/99 03/17/99 03/24/99
Well 2 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Rod Weights 14901 15158 14473 14550 14690 14690 14450 14550
Motor Amps 51 52 51 52 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 52 51
Run Time / Hours 6:09 9:33 8:20 9:15 8:31 8:34 13:29 9:27 9:32
Production O / W 43 / 20 48 / 18 53 / 9 43 / 7 45 / 7
Pour Point (degrees F) 8F 8F >(-)34F >(-)36F >(-)36F >(-)34F (-)44F (-)33F (-)54F <(-)60F (-)38F (-)32F (-)28F <(-)60F
Flowline Pressure 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 30
Ch Startup 12-16-98 ? 12/15/98 12/17/98 12/22/98 01/06/99 01/13/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 02/11/99 02/17/99 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/11/99 03/17/99
Well 3 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Rod Weights 12657 12941 13054 12640 12560 12645 12490
Motor Amps 52 51 52 52 51 51 51 51 50 51 51 51 51 50 50
Run Time / Hours 9:44 9:55 10:06 11:41 9:45 11:25 10:13 10:12 10:00 9:56
Production O / W 30 / 62 36 / 68 32 / 65 29 / 65
Pour Point (degrees F) 18F 22F >(-)36F (-) 34 F >(-)36F (-)46F (-)64F (-)34F <(-)60F (-)36F <(-)60F <(-)60F <(-)60F (-)54F
Flowline Pressure 50 50 50 43 43 45
Ch Startup 12-30-98 12/15/98 12/17/98 12/22/98 01/06/99 01/13/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 02/11/99 02/17/99 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/11/99 03/17/99 03/24/99
Well 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Rod Weights 15505 15514 15538 11940 11980 12000 12050
Motor Amps 41 40 41 41 40 40 38 40 40 39 40 40 39 39 40
Run Time / Hours 18:33 19:09 18:03 20:02 16:33 17:40 18:07 16:35 17:35 19:52
Production O / W 52 / 57 51 / 55 63 / 86 48 / 85
Pour Point (degrees F) 18F 18F (-)8F (-)10 F (-)34F (-)4F 21F 10F 12F (-)11F (-)29F 7F 14F (-)31F
Flowline Pressure 50 50 50 35 35 42
Ch Startup 12-30-98 12/15/98 12/17/98 12/22/98 01/06/99 01/13/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 02/11/99 02/17/99 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/11/99 03/17/99 03/24/99
Well 5 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12
Rod Weights 10606 10625 10811 10860 10860 10861 10090
Motor Amps 58 57 58 58 57 57 60 57 59 59 58 59 59 59 59
Run Time / Hours 6:23 X 7:25 7:05 6:59 6:58 6:45 6:47 6:49 6:44
Production O / W 23 / 62 23 / 63 24 / 72 22 / 63
Pour Point (degrees F) 18F 22F 18F 4F (-) 18 F (-)8F 14F (-)8F 2F <(-)60F (-)58F (-)31F (-)14F <(-)60F 4F
Flowline Pressure 40 40 40 40 X 40 45
Ch Startup 12-31-98 12/15/98 12/17/98 12/22/97 01/06/99 01/13/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 02/11/99 02/17/99 02/24/99 03/03/99 03/11/99 03/17/99 03/24/99
Pre Test Baseline
Pre Test Baseline
Pre Test Baseline
Pre Test Baseline
Pre Test Baseline
Table I: Some measurements used to determine crystal modifier effetiveness
20
20
30
30
60
1
2
3
4
5
132
118
118
117
119
$ 5.43
$ 5.43
$ 5.43
$ 5.43
$ 5.43
Hot Water
Treatment
Frequency
Well
Number
Days on
Modifier
$/day
Modifier
Treatment
Cost to Date
Hot Water
Treatments
Skipped
Hot Water
$/Treatment
Cost to
Hot Water
Savings
$716.76
$640.74
$640.74
$635.31
$646.17
7
6
4
4
2
$543
$543
$543
$543
$543
$3,584
$3,204
$2,136
$2,118
$1,077
$2,867
$2,562
$1,495
$1,482
$430
Table 2: Four-month savings due to the implementation of a crystal modifier program
Chemical cost savings $8,836
Work-over rig and clean-up cost $15,175
Installation cost ( $10,188)
Total cost savings $13,823
Hot Water
Treatment
Frequency
Well
Number
Days on
Modifier
$/day
Modifier
Treatment
Cost to Date
Hot Water
Treatments
Skipped
Hot Water
$/Treatment
Cost to
Hot Water
Savings
1 380 $5.43 $2,063 20 19 $543 $10,317 $8,254
2 366 $5.43 $1,987 20 18 $543 $ 9,774 $7,787
3 366 $5.43 $1,987 30 18 $543 $ 9,774 $7,787
4 365 $5.43 $1,982 30 12 $543 $ 6,516 $4,534
5 367 $5.43 $1,992 60 6 $543 $ 3,258 $1,265
Table 3: Twelve-month savings due to the implementation of a crystal modifier program
Chemical cost savings $29,625
Work-over rig and clean-up cost $45,524
Installation cost ( $10,188)
Total cost savings $64,961