SPE

Society of PetroIeun Engineers

SPE 21038
Asphaltene Deposit Removal: Long-Lasting Treatment With
a Co-Solvent
M.G. Trbovich, WelChem Inc., and G.E. King, * Amoco Production CO.
'SPE Member

Copyright 1991, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry held in Anaheim, California, February 20-22, 1991.
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. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.

Introduction

influences are removed, the asphaltic particles coalesce

into larger groups, called flocs, that separate and, with
a density of 1.2 g/cc, precipitate from the oil. 7 Asphaltene contents may range from 0 to over 60%.8 Resin
volume-to-asphaltene ratio is on the order of 1:1 to 20:1
in oils that are stable to less than 1:1 in oils that are
characterized by rapid precipitation of asphaltenes. 7910
Asphaltene content usually increases with decreasing
API gravityll but instances of asphaltene precipitation in
light oil and even wet gas streams are known, though
the occurrence is rare.

Asphaltene problems are increasing on a wide scale

in the petroleum industry.
The deposition of these
materials has been increasingly not.ed in production
wells of CO 2 floods and in miscible drive floods, after acid
st.imulations in asphaltic crude oil formations, and as
pressures in older fields near the deplet.ion point.
Many reservoirs produce wit.hout evidence of
asphaltenes until the oil stability is disturbed. After the
initial problems wit.h asphaltenes, even those caused by
a single use, catalytic behaving stimulus such as an acid
job, many wells continue to exhibit problems long after
opel'at.ions return to normal.

The treatment of the asphaltene deposition problem

should begin with a discussion of the factors involved in
inducing precipitation.

Destabilization Forces

NumenHis n~medies to remove asphalt.ic deposits

and stabilization met.hods t.o control the deposit.ion have
been tried with varying amounts of success. This paper
presents a review of the mechanisms that contribute to
asphaltel1'e precipitation and laboratory and field results
of a class of solvent./stabilizer chemicals that has shown
very good performance in removing asphaltic deposits,
rest.oring pl'oduction, and in preventing some upsets for
extended per'iods of time.

The occurrence of an asphaltene deposition in a

well may be at any point in the chain of producing
events' where the equilibrium of the stabilizing influences
has been upset. These upsets may include routine production or stimulation operations; even operations that
may have been done before without consequence. The
following is a partial list of destabilizing forces that have
been identified as factors in asphaltene flocculation.
References are cited for some cases and lab and field
data are offered in the other cases. The forces may act
singly but are often identified as working in combination
with others.

Discussion
Asphalt.enes are a complex organic material that
are thought. to be arranged in stacked, multi-ring structures. They contain nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur atoms
in addition to carbon and hydrogen atoms within the
['epeating unit..I~" Asphaltenes have a wide variety of
potential st.ructures and vary from reservoir to reservoir.
The actual structure apparently depends on the source
of t.he oil and the asphalt.ic mat.erial. Asphaltenes are
not truly soluble in most (Tude oils., They exist as 35 t.o
40 micron platelets and are maint.ained in suspension by
mat.erials called maltenes and resins. 6 These smaller,
similar suspending molecules are soluble and act in what
has been described as a "micelle-type" aITangement to
keep t.he asphalt.ic product.s in suspension. Molecular
weight is in the range of 500 to 500,000 and samples may
cont.ain many different structures.
When stabilizing

1.

References and illustrations at end of paper.

393

CO 2 - The destabilization proceeds by lowering pH,

interrupting solution equilibrium by chan~in~ oil
composition and by creating turbulence. l . 2 - 5 It
is one of the most severe, non-stimulation causes
of asphaltene deposition in producing wells. Some
level of increased asphaltic deposition has been
experienced in nearly every CO 2 flood operation.
The most noticeable primary location of asphalt
materials in the CO 2 floods during the early
stages of operations is in well bore and the pumps.
The problem increases with the volume increase
of CO 2 during the maturing of the flood. In many
of these cases, asphaltene deposition was never
seen before the use of CO 2 ,

ASPHALTENE DEPOSIT REMOVAL - LONG LASTING TREATMENT WITH A

COSOLVENT
SPE 21038

2
2.

Rich Gas - Flooding with rich gas destabilizes the

asphaltene complex by lowering the carbon-to-hydrogen ratio.1 6 Stripping gas from the oil has been
shown
to
improve
the
solubility
of
asphaltenes. 17.18 The straight chain hydrocarbons
have less affinity for the asphaltic ring structures
that oils that have a higher carbon-to-hydrogen
ratio. The negative effect of rich gas is at a
maximum near the bubble point,1O,12,18 - 20 and may
decline after the bubble point is reached.1 8 This
behavior near the bubble point in more pronounced with the rich gas than with CO 2.12

3.

pH shift - This may be caused by CO 2, mineral

acid, or naturally occurring or bacterial produced
organic acid. A shift in well operating conditions
may alter the equilibrium under which the crude
exists in the reservoir and liberate more natural
acids, surfactants, or other reactants or products.

4.

Mixing of crude streams - This includes local

instabilities that may not even occur under more
complete mixing.1 8 Most likely causes are a shift
of pH by a natural organic acid in an incoming
crude, and CO 2 outgassing or physical shear or
other disruption caused by cavitation in some
pumps or mixing manifolds or chambers.1 8 Problems of this type can sometimes be prevented by
more complete mixing of the crude streams under
reduced shear.
One source reported that a
deposit of asphaltic material was resolubilized
after mixing procedure was changed. 18 This mixing
problem also covers the asphaltic upsets caused
by hot oiling.

5.

Incompatible organic chemicals - Isopropyl alcohol,

methyl alcohol, acetone, and even some glycol,
alcohol, or surfactant based mutual solvents that
do not have an aromatic component can selectively wet or attract the maltenes and resins and
drop the asphaltenes.

6.

Stimulation - Very severe asphaltic upsets can

follow acidizing and other forms of chemical
treating. 7,16,20 Acidizing involves a violent shift in
local chemical equilibrium, pH, and CO 2 gas liberation. It also sharply elevates concentration of
some ions, such as iron,21 that may have a direct
or symbiotic relationship with formation of
asphaltic sludges, flocs and other deposits. The
predominate form of asphaltic deposit found after
acidizing are iron/asphaltene sludges and emulsions stabilized by asphaltene particles.

7.

Shear - This problem has recently been identified

in rod pumps and ESPS.3,l8.22 The coating is usually thin but tightly bound.
Shear is closely
associated with pressure drop in downhole operation and with mixing in surface equipment.

8.

Pressure drop - This factor is probably caused from

abundance of solubilized light ends (short chain
hydrocarbon gas) in an oil just above the bubble
point. It may also act in concert with shear
(shear and pressure drop may be inseparable as
causes of asphaltene destabilization). Asphaltene
deposits found downstream of pressure drops such
as chokes and liner slots may be flake deposits in
lump or ball form, Figure 1. These lumps are
composed of small, thin flakes with no particular
structural alignment. The bonding between the
flakes is weak: the balls will quickly disperse into
small particles when dropped in xylene.
The
individual particles dissolve more slowly.

temperature reduction may cause an area of

instability, or asphaltene deposition envelope as
described by Leon Taritis, et aUo Strict pressure
fluctuation can also cause precipitation as shown
by Akbar and Saleh.1 9 It should be noted that
these tests show the behavior of specific crude-oil
samples. Other oils will vary in behavior according to aromatic/asphaltene content, maltene and
resin content, and specific asphaltene structure.
Perhaps one of the largest effects on behavior is
the production treatment. In general, if asphaltene precipitation problems occur at one set of
operating conditions, a shift in well head pressure
or other operating condition may change the rate
of deposition.
Turbulence may increase the
amount of asphaltenes precipitated I9 or improved
mixing
of
crude
streams
may
prevent
precipitation.1 8

9.

Streaming potential - Streaming potential through

porous media has been identified as a cause of
asphaltene precipitation and mar. be associated
with pressure drop or charge. I 4 Only limited
operational data is available at this time.

10.

Temperature drop - This factor may have more to

do with indirect destabilization by upsetting the
stabilizing forces than by having a direct effect
on the asphaltenes.1 3 Temperature may affect the
solubility of the maltenes and resins or a temperature drop may create a paraffin precipitation
that traps some asphaltenes as it solidifies. CO 2
also contributes to the oI'ganic precipitation
problem by cooling the wellbore during its expansion. Temperature readings during logging runs
in producing wells with very severe CO 2 breakthrough have been reported as 40F below the
static bottom hole temperature of 95F in one
Texas panhandle location. Other operators have
reported no significant temperature change.

11.

Charged, bare metal surfaces - This condition may

be a combination of the problems of shear and
pressure drop and is one of the least understood
of the destabilizing forces. 3,21.22 It has been noted
in high velocity flow streams near liner slots. and
may associated with outgassing.

Precipitation
When the asphaltic material is destabilized, the
small platelets are freed. The particles must then collide
and aggregate with other asphaltene particles, much in
the same manner as with droplets in emulsion breaking.
The asphaltene floc may then separate from solution by
its higher density, can form extremely tightly bonded,
almost scale like attachment to certain surfaces, may
become part of emulsions, or, if in the reservoir, may
adsorb on clays.12.13.24.25 Asphaltenes may, at times, have
some affinity for a similar sUl'face,4 judging from the
large lumps of asphaltene flakes described earlier. In
this characteristic, they evidence some sort of growth
order, although no crystalline structure is noted in the
lumps.
Oil composition analysis was commonly the first
tool to give an indication of potential asphaltic precipitation. Asphaltene fractions of under 5% of the total
oil were generally viewed as "non-troublesome." With
the advent of the CO 2 floods, large volume mixing in
offshore facilities, and the use of more acids, especially
in areas of formation damage or high dissolved iron
content, the precipitation has increased dramatically.
Now, asphaltene contents of 0.5% or more are recognized as potential problems.18 Composition of traditional
"asphaltic oils" are most generally less than 10% total
asphaltic. 9 However, incidents of 60% of higher asp hal-

The effect of a change in well pressure on

asphaltene behavior may be to shift the tendency
to precipitate the asphaltene.l0.13.14 A pressure and

394

SPE 21038

M. G. TRBOVICH AND G. E. KING

tene content are noted in the literature. 26 These higher

asphaltene values are typical of low gravity, high pour
point crudes. A high asphaltic content does not, however, result in precipitation problems if the resin component is also high.1
Over a period of several years of operation of CO 2
floods and miscible floods, asphaltenes from several parts
of the country have been collected and analyzed for
general solubility. Most of the deposits are mixed with
paraffins, scales, and other foreign material. An analysis
was made of a group of samples from the Bairoil field in
Wyoming (under CO 2 flood). In this set of samples, with
all having the same black, viscous appearance, asphaltic
contents varied from 0 to 92%. The wide variety in
composition was typical for "asphaltene" samples collected over the past ten years.
Asphaltene deposition in the formation has been
known for an extended period of time, but has been
described by relatively few authors. 424 Most in situ
deposition of asphaltenes probably occurs as a result of
the oil mixing with incompatible solvents, acids, and
other hydrocarbon fluids. These additives or fluids may
include drilling, workover, stimulation or packer fluids,
or extraneous liquids from casing or tubing leaks. Once
the deposit is formed in the formation, clean up is often
slow.

Experimental Results
Of the numerous asphaltene samples that were
obtained for study, the solubility in the primary solvent
xylene was amazingly similar.
Approximately 8 to
10 grams of the asphaltic material per hundred cc's of
xylene approached the solubility limit. Very slow rate
of removal as the "solubility limit" is neared leads to
speculation that the limit may be only that quantity of
asphaltene that can be quickly pulled into solution.
Additional material may be softened and go into solution
with time. Once in the solution, the materials remained
stable. Additional material may also be dispersed.
Asphaltene solvents other than xylene have been
tried, both in the literature and in the work for this
study.5.20.27 The performance of these additives is usually
dependent on the specific conditions, reaction is influenced by many factors.
In contrast to direct removal, stabilization of crude
oil by addition of a aromatic solvent (xylene) could stabilize the oil with much less volume input than was
required to completely solubilize a solid deposit. In tests
on an asphaltic oil (8% asphaltenes by analysis) from the
Tensleep formation in Wyoming, as little as 10% xylene
made the oil resistant to dropping asphaltenes when a
precipitation causing chemical such as acetone was
added to the oil.
The addition of xylene to oil is not an alternative
for producing a high content asphaltic oil, but does offer
advantages when treating with an acid or other system
that may lead to precipitation of asphaltenes. In an
early field test of the cosolvent process, a solvent with
20% xylene, used at 10 to 20% total volume as a dispersion in HCl showed significant improvement in stimulation in an controlled application of solvents and mutual
solvent in an asphaltic oil reservoir. 28 In some cases,
however, acidizing was considered unnecessary or even
detrimental, and methods of pure chemical treating were
sought to improve the damage removal and prevention
process.
One of the drawbacks to a straight solvent was the
limitations of solubility and compatibility of a single
solvent system. Although xylene is one of the best solvents for sol ubilizing an asphaltic deposit, it offers little

395

benefit in a (1) water wet system or in a (2) water

external emulsion or sludge that is stabilized by asphaltenes. By combining the xylene with non adsorbing, field
proven, water penetrating solvents, a series of cosolvents
were formulated that could outperform the straight
xylene in asphaltene stabilization tests and some removal
comparisons.
The cosolvent mixtures are not an
improvement on xylene in dissolving capacity; because
they are only partly xylene, actual solubility is less.
These cosolvents offer a broader application to asphaltic
removal problems that may include sludges, emulsions
and some hard deposits. These deposits were found to
be bound with or wetted by water in many field samples.
The information gathered through experimental and
isolated field tests was taken to the field and tests on
chemical removal and stabilization was started. In many
of these tests, blends of solvents, both aromatic and
linear, were tried in an attempt to establish a balance
of solubility and wetting character.

Field Results of Cosolvent Treatment

Thirty-one
randomly
selected
wells
ranging
geographically from Alaska, Alberta, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, Michigan, Kansas, and
Texas were squeezed treated with the surfactant free,
cosolvent aromatic blends to remove both suspected and
proved asphaltene damage. The candidate wells from
these areas were selected based on identification of low
productivity from asphaltene and heavy tar deposition,
combination asphaltene and paraffin accumulation, and
emulsion formation.
Specific combinations of wells
within a field with common problems were selected for
comparison with other chemical and mechanical treatments. The key areas of comparison were: (1) removal
of damage with a small volume of treating fluid, and
(2) maintenance of the productivity increase.
In general, mechanical scraping was one of the
worst techniques, with most operations either failing to
increase production or actually decreasing production.
Single solvent treatments of xylene were successful in
most cases in restoring production, but failed to achieve
long lasting productivity increase.
The best overall
damage removal approach was the use of the cosolvents
that could both dissolve and disperse asphaltene deposits
and actually water wet the surfaces involved in the
reaction.
The products involved in the comparison are
blended materials with the general formulation as shown
in Table 1. Letter designations are used in the treatment descriptions for the sake of brevity.
Application of the materials were as acid-free solvents circulated or squeezed into the formation. The
soak times were on the order of 24-48 hours with longer
times allocated to more severe damage.
Flow back
through normal lift equipment followed the shutin.
Placement of the cosolvents, like placement of xylene,
requires consideration of the density of 6.9 to 7.5 Ib/gal.
These fluids will separate and quickly float through a
column of fresh water or brine. For best application,
they should be circulated to the point of injection and
squeezed into the formation. Wellbore soaks of any light
weight solvent must be in an evacuated wellbore or
underneath a packer or plug.
Treatment volumes vary with need, but are usually
in the range of 5 to 50 gallft of pay for injection or a
wellbore volume across the zone for a soak. Deeper
damage can be treated by displacing the treating volume
with gas or a xylene stabilized, filtered oil in an oil well.
The primary asphaltene solvent of the cosolvent
line is product A, a xylene enriched material with water

ASPHALTENE DEPOSIT REMOVAL - LONG LASTING TREATMENT WITH A

COSOLVENT
SPE 21038

wetting properties made possible by the use of moderate

length carbon chain length alcohols.
Performance
results on tests following the recovery of initial load
fluid are shown in Figure 2 for a dozen wells from
Canada to Nebraska.

Payout
Chemical treating payouts of approximately one
week were common, and all the successes were between
3 and 30 days. The extreme short payout was possible
by the immediate spike production, sustained high levels
of production and minimal mechanical application
expense involved.

Immediate post treatment production was characterized by a spike of peak production, followed by a
slight to moderate decline, then a stabilized rate with a
slow decline lasting several months. Longevity effect of
the treatment under asphaltic conditions lasted up to
35 months with an average improved response of 6 to
8 months. The results from two of these treatments are
reflected in Figures 3 and 4. In this data, the peak production tapers off slowly.

Level of Treatment Success

The treatments using products A, B, and C were
successful in 27 of 31 treatments with success defined
as ability to both payout the job in 30 days or less and
provide longer lasting result.s than other alternatives.

Single component. aromatic and mechanical c1eanouts yielded lower treatment peak production rates, as
well as a shorter duration of increased productivity. A
comparison of these treatment results with those of a
cosolvent. are shown in Figure 5 for wells in a common
field. The mechanical scraping results in this figure
show poor response. The overall success of the scraping
seemed to depend on the location of the asphalt.ic problem.
A deposit. in t.he tubing could be removed by
scraping,19 but scraping of a deposit near the perfs could
introduce the solids into the perfs. The xylene jobs were
t.ried on the higher rat.e wells and probably had less init.ial damage to remove. The after treatment results of
Product A showing over 100% improvement is a typical
response.

The typical initial production increase was one

hundred percent. The amount of sustained production
increases varied with the treatment.
The causes of the four failures were varied. One
of the failures was a well treated with 1 gallft that
responded very slowly and required over 30 days'
cleanup to show an improved rat.e. The delayed response
was thought to be attribut.ed to "below minimal" treatment volumes.
The second failure was the treatment. of an unconsolidated sand with a perf wash tool. The well sanded
up following injection.
Previous treatments in these
unconsolidated sands were squeezed down the backside.
Two failures offered no significant explanation to
explain their lack of response. One exhibited a large
incremental response, but declined to pretreatment
levels.
The fourth well failed to respond and was
t.hought to be a problem in placement.
The well is
heavily naturally fractured.

One of the most graphic illust.rations of the

cosolvent's ability to providing long lasting response is
shown in Figure 6. In this test, a small soak treatment
with xylene raised production briefly but declined rapidly to pret.reatment levels. Treatment with Product B
produced a sharp increase in production accompanied by
an equally sharp decline to pretreatment. levels in less
than two weeks. Subsequent treatment with Product A
produced a stable increase that has lasted several
months.

Conclusions
The aromat.ic-containing cosolvent system offers
advantages t.o the use of stl'aight aromatic solvent in
three areas.

Injection well treatment with other solvents, Figures 7 and 8, shows very good response with pressures
lowered substantially or inject.ion rate improved at constant pressure. Longevity in these jobs was considered
acceptable in comparison to other stimulation systems.
The 31 random cosolvent aromatic treatments of
the various products included 4 injection wells, 2 gas
wells, and 25 producing wells.
Treatments of
products A, B, and C yielded good results throughout
the 31 well program. Xylene did not produce as high
peak a production nor sust.ain the production as those
wells treated with products A, B, and C.

1.

The success of the cosolvents of over 80% in providing production Increases was very high for
chemical t.reating.

2.

In a limited comparison, wells treated with the

cosolvents showed longer damage free performance than wells treated with straight xylene.

3.

The cosolvent blends offer more versatility to well

damage causes than straight solvents.

References
Surface Facility Benefits
Additional benefits from these cosolvent aromatic
treatments were reduction of asphaltene accumulation
and blockage in surface lines, tanks and battery flow
splitters following well treatments. The effects of commingled flow, especially after a chemical st.imulation, has
caused surface accumulations of asphaltenes and asphaltene stabilized emulsions in several of these wells. In
one inst.ance, the battery demulsifier was eliminated, for
a short time (2 weeks) following treatment of the well.
Direct treatment of asphaltene deposits in surface
facilities was also done with the cosolvent.s. Slug and
and some continuous battery treatment wit.h these
cosolvent. aromatic materials eliminated several surface
problems.

396

1.

Danesh, A., Krinis, D., Henderson, G. D.,

Peden, J. M., "Asphaltene Deposition in Miscible
Gas Flooding of Oil Reservoirs," Chem Eng Res
Des, Volume 66 (July 1988), pp. 339-344.

2.

Yen, T. F.:1972, Am.

Reprint 17(4).

3.

Leontaritis, K. J., Mansoori, G. A., "Asphaltene

Flocculation During Oil Production and Processing:
A Thermodynamic Colloidal Model," SPE
16258, 1987, pp. 149-158.

4.

Leontaritis, K. J., "Asphaltene Deposit.ion:

A
Comprehensive Description of Problem Manifestations and Modeling Approaches," SPE 18892,
1989, 599-613.

Chem. Soc. F. 102-114,

SPE 21038

M. G. TRBOVICH AND G. E. KING

5.

Dubey, S. T., Wa)'man, M. H., "Asphaltene

Adsorption and Desorption From Mineral Surfaces,' SPE 18462, 1989, pp. 51-62.

6.

Witherspoon, P. A., Ray, B. R., Grim, R. E.: "A

Study of the Colloidal Characteristic of Petroleum
Using an Ultracentrafuge," J. Phys. Chern, 61,
1957, 1296-1302.

17.

Von Albrecht, C., Diaz, B., Salathiel, W. M., Nierode, D. E., "Stimulation of Asphaltic Deep Wells
and
Shallow
Wells
in
Lake
Maracaibo,
Venezuela," pp. 55-62.

18.

Thaver, R., Nicoll, D. C., Dick, G., "Asphaltene

Deposition in Production Facilities," SPE 18473,
pp. 137-146.

19_

Akbar, S. H., Saleh, A. A., "A Comprehensive

Approach To Solve Asphaltene Deposition Problem in Some Deep Wells," SPE 17965, pp. 377-384.

7.

Newberry, M. E., Barker, K. M., "Formation

Damage Prevention Through the Control of
Paramn and Asphaltene Deposition," SPE 13796,
1985, pp. 53-61.

8.

Bunger, James W., "Chemistry of Asphaltenes Summary of Symposium," Salt Lake City, 1979,
pp. 1028-1031.

20.

Addison, G. E., "Identification and Treating of

Downhole Organic Deposits," SPE 18894, 1989,
pp. 627-632.

9.

Sachanen, A. N., "The Chemical Constituents of

Petroleum," Reinhold Publishing Corp. (1945).

21.

10.

Leontaritis, Kosta J. and Mansoori, G. Ali,

"Asphaltene Deposition: A Survey of Field Experiences and Research A(lproaches,,, Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, Volume 1
(1988), pp. 229-239.

Claassen, E. J., "Iron Sulfide as a Water-Deposited

Scale in Sour Gas Wells," Paper 191, Corrosion
1988, St. Louis, March 21-25, pp. 191-1 - 191-14.

22.

Tuttle, Robert N., "High-Pour-Point and Asphaltic

Crude Oils and Condensates," Journal of Petroleum Technology, 1983, pp. 1192-1196.

23.

Lichaa, Pierre M., "Asphaltene Deposition Problem

in Venezuela Crudes - Usage of Asphaltenes in
Emulsion Stability," Oil Sands, 1977, pp. 609-624.

T. G., Trujillo, D. E., "Organic Deposition

Durmg CO 2 and Rich-Gas Flooding," SPE 18063,
pp. 63-73.

24.

Collins, S. H., Melrose, J. C., "Adsorption of

Asphaltenes and Water on Reservoir Rock Minerals," SPE 11800, 1983, pp. 249-256.

Monger, T. G., Fu, J. C., "The Nature of

CO 2-Induced Organic Deposition," SPE 16713,
1987, pp_ 147-159.

25.

Dean, Kim Renea and McAtee, James L. Jr.,

"Asphaltene and Water Adsorption on Clay,"
Waco, Texas, SPE 13403, pp. 1-20.

26.

Hirschberg, A., DeJong, L. N. J., Schipper, B. A.,

Meijers, J. G.: "Influence of Temperature and
Pressure on Asphaltene Flocculation," Soc. Pet.
Eng. J., (24), (3), 1984, pp. 283-293.

27.

Coppel, C. P., Newberg, P. L., "Field Results of

Solvent Stimulation in a Low Gravity Oil Reservoir," SPE 3687, 1971, pp. 1-12.

28.

Douglass, B. C., King, G. E., "A Comparison of

Solvent/Acid Workovers in Embar Completions Little Buffalo Basin Field," SPE 15167, Rocky
Mtn. Regional, Billings, May 19-21, 1986.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Newberry, M. E., "Crude Oil Production and

Flowline Pressure Problems," SPE 11561, 1983,
151-164.
Mon~er,

Fuhr, B. J., Klein, L. L., Komishke, B. D., Reichert, C., and Ridley, R. K., "Effects of Diluents
and Carbon Dioxide on Asphaltene Flocculation
in Heavy Oil Solutions," Fourth Unitar/UNDP
Conference on Heavy Crude and Tar Sands,
<Paper No. 75) pp. 75-1 - 75-12_

15.

Kawanaka, S., Park, S. J., Mansoori, G. A., "The

Role of Asphaltene Deposition in EOR Gas
Flooding:
A Predictive Technique," SPE/
DOE 17376, pp. 617-627.

16.

Mansoori, G. A., Jiang, T. S., "Asphaltene Deposition and Its Role in EOR Miscible Gas
Flooding," Chicago, pp. 75-86.

397

Table 1
Descriptions of cosolvents used in the well tests

Product

Description

Aromatic and straight chain solvents with

small amount of hydrophylic solvent

Aromatic solvent with small amount of

hydrophylic solvent

Hydrophylic solvent and small amount of

aromatic solvent

,"
.!-e e 1e

16.

---.2

-+- -

~ot \

e 3 e e 4 e .
.~~
+: - Of:-.
0
\
on
I

Figure 1
Lumps of asphaltene particles recovered from
a well. The lumps were composed of very fine
asphaltene particles tied together by a weak
bonding process.

398

SPE 2 1 0 ~

PRODUCTION RESPONSE AFTER LOAD RECOVERY OF

SEVERAL WELLS TO TREATMENT WITH PRODUCT A
FIGURE 2

140

Cl
0..
0
III
~

120

,,,j

....:l
......

....
0
0::
0..

Legend
_

BOPD BEFORE TREAT.

BOPD AFTER TREAT.

80

:z;
0
......

Eo-<
U

60

0::

40

;::J
0
0
0..
~

<

0..

20

LONGEVITY OF PRODUCTION RESPONSE FOLLOWING

TREATMENT WITH PRODUCT A, SUNSHINE BASIN, WYOMING
FIGURE 4

LONGEVITY OF PRODUCTION INCREASE FOLLOWING

TREATMENT WITH PRODUCT A, SUNSHINE BASIN, WYOMING
FIGURE 3

1ll

30

30

25

25

oIII
:z;
o
......

Eo-<

20

0..
0
III

15

Eo-<
U

Z
0
......

Legend

0
0

0..

II ~I ~

15

;::J

;::J
Cl

0::

20

0::

0..
....:l
......
0

10

......
......

12

MONTHS AFTER TREATMENT

18

PRE-TREATMENT BOPD

AFTER TREATMENT BOPD

~II

10

~
o

12

15

18

21

24

MONTHS AFTER TREATMENT

27

30

SPE
CO~1PARISON

OF ASPHALTENE REMOVAL METHODS

PEAK PRODUCTIO)J, NEBRASKA WELLS
FIGURE 5

THREE TREATMENT COMPARISON ON AN ASPHALTIC OIL PRODUCER

WYOMING SAKDSTONE
FIGURE 6

------------~----------------ll

100-,

Po<

0::

I I

r-Il
Ii:

'"

lJ:l

60

300

~rr

E::

u
p

o<=>
p.,

o'"'

Po<

""ITi~I~~LSOAK:

20

SCRAPE

XYLENE

XYLENE

SCRAPE

"A'

"A"

100

7000 ,

200

5000

::g
U

;:0

I
I

4000

if}

I:k:
J"..
Z 3000

t=:

Legend

f8:i
f;3

!88

1000

fa
f@l

fa
f?j

12

15

18

21

MONTHS OF OPERATION

24

200

8:1E
'?J

27

30

~
~

i(J
I

33

a:

600

DAYS

J"..
Z

>.LI

PRESSURE - KPA
INJECTION RATES -M3

300

p::
>.LI
E-<

>.LI

;:0

~ 4000

100 >.LI

iQ
::g

[fJ
[fJ

I0

>.LI

400

Legend

I:k:

;:J

tl
~

PRESSURE - KPA
I2J INJECTION RATES -

500

1.11

6000

::<:

P
u
p::

~
~
o

400

I 500

P::

300 ~
>.LI

2000

300

6000 ,

CIJ

I:k:

...,
:5

QZ

PRODUCT C TREATMENT OF AN INJECTION WELL

MEDICINE HAT, ALBERTA
FIGURE 8
I 400

6000

iii

PROD. "A"
SOAK

CUMULATIVE TIME

PRODUCT C TREATMENT OF AN INJECTION WELL

MEDICINE HAT, ALBERTA
FIGURE 7

a:

i \I

3700 GAL

0 ,

"A"

::<:

po: 200

40

0::

~
~

.00+'

BOPD BEFORE TREAT. a

~ BOPD AFTER TREAT. a

Po<
Z

o
b
u

/ _

Ii.1

.-<
~

500

Legend

80

2 lOS 8

200

>.LI

tl
....>.LI

2000

100 ~

'--1"-_-'-' 0

12

15

18

21

24

27

MOl"THS OF OPERATIOl"

30' 33

36