Impact of nanotechnology on enhanced oil recovery: A mini-review

Subscriber access provided by Nottingham Trent University

Review

Impact of nanotechnology on enhanced oil recovery: A mini-review Marwan Y. Rezk, and Nageh K. Allam Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.9b03693 • Publication Date (Web): 12 Aug 2019 Downloaded from pubs.acs.org on August 12, 2019

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Impact of nanotechnology on enhanced oil recovery: A mini-review Marwan Y. Rezk and Nageh K. Allam* Energy Materials Laboratory, School of Sciences and Engineering, The American University in Cairo, New Cairo 11835, Egypt

Abstract The major challenges facing oil production during/after secondary recovery include oil entrapment by water and high water mobility. Hence, currently, Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is considered a key solution for increasing oil production upon reaching the tertiary production phase. Unfortunately, EOR still has its drawbacks including the degradation of the chemicals (polymers and surfactants) used under reservoir conditions, large required volumes of chemicals, and their high cost. Nanotechnology is an emerging technology that has profoundly changed the course of different applications in various fields. In petroleum engineering, this modification can be attributed to the nanomaterials’ unique properties including high surface-to-volume ratio, wettability control, and interfacial tension reduction. To this end, the use of nanomaterials to enhance oil recovery is a very attractive, yet a challenging task. This mini-review focuses on the recent efforts done to explore the effect of various nanomaterials additives on the EOR process as well as the proposed mechanisms.

Keywords: thermal EOR; chemical EOR; nanoparticles; interfacial tension; wettability; mobility. * Corresponding Author E. mail: [email protected]

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Nomenclature:

EOR: Enhanced Oil Recovery. OIP: oil initial in place Krw = relative permeability to water. μw = displacing fluid (water) viscosity. Kro = relative permeability to oil. μo = displacing fluid (oil) viscosity. Mr = mobility ratio. CSS = cyclic steam stimulation. SAGD = steam flooding and steam gravity drainage IFT = interfacial tension NPs = Nanoparticles CTAB = cetyltrimethylammonium bromide DTAC = dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride SDS = sodium dodecyl sulfate SANS = Small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) SAXS = Small-angle X-ray scattering TGA = thermogravimetric analysis HPAM = Hydrolyzed polyacrylamide PAMAM = hyperbranched polyamidoamide Wt % = weight percent.


Page 2 of 28

Page 3 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


1. Introduction Despite the increasing investments in renewable energy, none of such resources proved to be able to stand alone against the increasing demand of energy.1 Consequently, oil standstill as the main energy resource for the time being. Hence, it is very crucial to produce the utmost oil recovery before abandoning existing wells to newly explored fields. It is widely known that tertiary recovery methods constitute around two-thirds of the oil produced of the total oil initially in place (OIP).2 However, due to the increasing prices of chemicals and the decreasing prices of oil after the recent oil recession, nanotechnology is being utilized enormously on the lab scale to enhance the performance of EOR and make it more cost effective. The use of nanomaterials in thermal and chemical enhanced oil recovery is becoming the cutting-edge technology. The main governing equation for the interaction of fluids in porous media is the mobility ratio (Mr) equation for oil/water system, Eq. 1.3 - 6 The equation controls either fluid’s (displacing or displaced) mobility or the rock’s wettability as shown in Figure 1. The mobility ratio can be favorable when it is less than or equal to one to promote better oil mobility in comparison with water’s mobility, hence better oil displacement.

𝑀𝑟 =

𝑀𝑟𝑤

𝑀𝑟𝑜 =

𝐾𝑟𝑤

𝜇𝑜

(1)

𝐾𝑟𝑜 × 𝜇𝑤

where Krw is the relative permeability to water, μw is the displacing fluid (water) viscosity, Kro is the relative permeability to oil, and μo is the displaced fluid (oil) viscosity.



Figure 1: Mobility ratio as a function of fluid's mobility and rock wettability.

Generally, thermal methods reduce the viscosity/density of the displaced phase (oil) to increase the oil mobility. Thermal methods are mostly utilized in heavy oil reservoirs using different techniques including cyclic steam stimulation (CSS), steam flooding and steam gravity drainage (SAGD). On the other hand, mobility ratio can be reduced chemically either by using polymer flooding7-12, to decrease the water’s mobility, or surfactant flooding13-16, to reduce interfacial tension (IFT), which increases the relative permeability to oil, or a mixture of both polymer and surfactant.17 Unlike bulk materials, nanoparticles (NPs) have high surface-to- volume ratio and dangling bonds, making them more reactive than the bulk counterparts. In addition, most NPs utilized in the EOR field are environmentally friendly and compatible with the formation. For example, silica NPs are composed of silicon dioxide, which is the main component of sandstone 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 28

Page 5 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


that accounts for most oil bearing reservoirs. Furthermore, due to their small size that ranges between 1-100 nm, they can easily propagate in porous media and be circulated under a stable suspension with low or no retention. Moreover, the small size of nanoparticles facilitates their ability to flow in tight pore throats without getting trapped and causing permeability reduction. Owing to their unique properties, nanomaterials have been researched in many aspects to solve current problems in the oil and gas industry18-22. Nanomaterials has been a major interest in thermal and chemical EOR due to their ability to enhance the conventional techniques as additives or as nanofluids flooding23, 24. This review discusses the stability of nanoparticles as one of the most important parameters affecting the success of NPs propagation in porous media. In addition, the review addresses the different uses of NPs in thermal and chemical EOR and the most common types of NPs employed in each mechanism.

2. Stability of nanoparticles 2.1 Evaluation methods The stability of suspension is a very crucial factor that must be well assessed before injecting in the well/core sample. Stability evaluation can be achieved using different methods including sedimentation, spectral absorbance, and zeta potential analyses. The sediment weight/volume of a nanofluid over specific time as well as sedimentation photographs can be good indications of the nanofluid’s stability25. In addition, the variation in concentration and/or the particle size of the supernatant could be an evidence of stability variation. Particle size increase could be also attributed to agglomeration of nanoparticles moving under Brownian motion behavior26. Since sedimentation technique requires long time of observation and great consistency



in time and photography; the observation time could be reduced by centrifugation. The average radius of NPs suspended in a solution could be measured by dynamic light scattering technique. Zeta potential is the measure of suspensions’ stability upon balance between van der Waals attractive and electrostatic repulsive forces. The absolute value of zeta potential is what really matters when evaluating the stability of a suspension. Commonly, suspensions with zeta potential more than 30 measured by zeta potential analyzer are stable suspensions27-29. The zeta potential could be affected by several factors including particle size, suspensions’ concentration, ionic strength, temperature, and pH30. Figure 2 is an example of how one of the aforementioned factors (pH in the figure) could affect the stability of nanoparticles.

Figure 2: The effect of changing pH on the stability of nanoparticles. Modified with permission from Elsevier: K. Pate and P. Safier, Chemical metrology methods for CMP quality: Advances in Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP), 2016, 299-325.

.


Page 6 of 28

Page 7 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Since the pH of the suspension is on the most influential factors, it is commonly related to another factor called isoelectric point. It is defined as the pH at which a molecule carries a net electrical charge of zero which is the least stable31, 32. In enhanced oil recovery, it is quit notable that one of the crucial uses of zeta analyzer is to check the compatibility of the surface charge of nanoparticles with the formation core being tested in core flooding. Finally, the most common method used to evaluate a nanofluid’s stability is spectral absorbance analysis which is quantitative analysis achieved by UV-Vis spectrophotometer33, 34. The method is based on Beer-Lambert Law, which mainly states that the amount of light absorbed by a medium is independent on the light’s intensity. However, it depends on the concentration of the absorbing medium as well as its thickness, see Eq. 2. 𝐼0

(2)

𝐴 = log 𝐼 = A = abc

2.2 Enhancing the stability of NPs In addition to the briefly previously mentioned factors affecting stability, the type of dispersant is also a key player that can entirely alters the stability of nanoparticles35. The widely used technique to enhance stability of nanoparticles is to use polymers or surfactants as dispersants or sometimes coating nanoparticles with polymer36. The effect of polymers/surfactants has been widely discussed in literature through surface modification. In other words, surfactants and polymers are used to induce efficient repulsive forces between nanoparticles to keep them suspended37. There has been reviews that discussed the nanoparticles/surfactant interactions extensively which is not the scope of this review38-41. However, it is important to mention that the stability of most nanoparticles in the presence of surfactants usually depends on the charges of each of them as well the concentration of the nanoparticles suspended. However, upon studying



the colloidal stability of negatively charged Ag NPs in acetyl tri-methyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) and dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride (DTAC) that are positively charged; it was concluded that the NPs colloidal stability can be attributed to the formation of micelle clusters surrounding the NPs. The stabilization mechanism was proved using Small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) and Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) 42. Perhaps the previously discussed explanation is a novel one for Ag NPs and cationic surfactants but a similar mechanism has been previously discussed about ZnO, polymer, and surfactant. The latter mechanism discusses the effects of adding polymer and surfactants in specific order/concentration on the colloidal stability during synthesis of ZnO NPs. On one hand, if the NPs’ suspension supplied with high conc. of surfactant followed by polymers; the surfactant particles are adsorbed on the NPs while micelles are formed in the solution surrounded by polymer. On the other hand, adding polymer followed by surfactant polymer mixture causes the adsorption of polymer chains around the NPs surface. Previously formed micelles surrounded by polymers are attached to one another to cause the compaction of the polymer capsule that is initially adsorbed on the NPs’ surface as shown in Figure 3. 43

Figure 3: Steric stabilization of nanoparticles using a) polymer, b) surfactant, and c) polymer followed by a mixture of surfactant and polymer. Modified from: W. Ahmed and N. Ali, Manufacturing


Page 8 of 28

Page 9 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


Nanostructures,43 One Central Press, UK. 2014, under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

3. Nanofluids EOR The most basic and economic use of NPs in enhancing oil recovery is using NPs suspension as a base fluid on its own without any chemicals or heat; that is commonly referred to as nanoflooding. The nanomaterials used in nanoflooding aid in oil recovery through one or more of the mechanisms discussed in literature. Those mechanisms are wettability alteration, interfacial tension reduction, disjoining pressure, and stabilizing foams and/or emulsions under harsh conditions44

- 47.

Some researchers used zirconia NPs while others used modified graphene

nanosheets to change wettability of solid surface48, 49. Researchers agreed that using nanofluid to alter wettability can be a slow process that is affected by NP’s size, presence and type of cosurfactant, pH, and ionic strength. Other researchers have also proved that hydrophilic silica NPs shifted wettability towards more water wet50. This allowed for the production of thin oil film trapped near the pore walls as well as oil trapped in small pore throats. In addition, the ability of silica NPs to reverse the wettability of carbonate rocks from oil wet to water wet has been tested51. The wettability tested through contact angle measurements proved that using a relatively low concentration of silica NPs reduced the contact angle from 156º (oil wet) to 41º (water wet). The study also involved the effect of ionic strength on wettability alteration using constant concentration of silica NPs and changing salinity between 0 - 0.2 M. The results of such investigation proved that wettability alteration is improved in the presence of salinity. This was attributed to Na+ role which assist in the silica NPs adsorption and release. However, the explained mechanism and its effects fail at higher ionic strength as shown in Figure 4. Similarly, Al-Anssari et al confirmed other researchers’ work52, 53 that silica nanofluids can change oil wet carbonates to strongly water wet. They also added that adding a proper amount of anionic surfactant may



increase the silica NPs suspension’s stability. They believed that the wettability alteration shown at their experiments can make silica NPs a good candidate for CO2 sequestration54.

Figure 4: Effect of increasing salinity at constant Silica NPs concentration on wettability change of carbonate rocks.

In conventional EOR methods, interfacial tension reduction is mainly achieved by the use of surfactant flooding. However, some papers have attempted reducing interfacial tension by using nanoparticles that have two or more distinctive physical properties commonly referred to as Janus particles55, 56. Janus particles are nanoparticles that can be used to substitute for surfactants when that each side of the particles shows a unique surface hydrophilicity. Typically, hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups or two different functional groups are grafted on the two sides of the NPs to achieve less interfacial tension. Glaser et al proved that their synthesized Au/Fe3O4 Janus NPs showed less interfacial tension at hexane-water interface when compared to non-Janus particles57. The different synthesis techniques of Janus particles including self-assembly, masking step, or phase separation as well their unique properties have been discussed in literature58, 59. Generally, 10 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 10 of 28

Page 11 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


the work done in this area of literature proved that functionalized Janus nanoparticles have better surface activity than homogenous normal nanoparticles60. Structural disjoining pressure is considered as one of the driving mechanisms extract oil from the rock’s pore space. It has been proved that upon nanoflooding, nanoparticle structuring increases disjoining pressure in the wedge film of nanoparticles with higher pressure near the tip of the wedge than in the bulk meniscus as shown in Figure 5. The nanofluid-oil interface transport cutting through the oil-solid contact in order to detach the oil drop out of the pore throat61, 62.

Figure 5: Mechanism of disjoining pressure in porous media for oil extraction. Modified from Ref. 61 with permission from the American Chemical Society.

Surfactants on their own undergo phase separation in harsh reservoir conditions (high temperature, high pressure, and high temperature) and thus fail to stabilize foam. On the other hand, nanoparticles exhibit relatively higher thermal stability. An advantage that made NPs get widely studies to stabilize foams. Under a stable emulsion conditions, the oil bank gets emulsified, mobilized and hence increase oil recovery factor. Emrani and Nasr-El-Din enhanced the stability of CO2 foam by the use of SiO2 and Fe2O3 NPs for longer periods of time to reduce formation damage64. On the other hand, Sun et al have used SiO2 NPs improve the foam stability which



Page 12 of 28

helped to better plugging performance in the tested core samples65. Table 1 summarizes different nanoparticles used in oil recovery for different purposes using various mechanisms.

Table 1 Summary of the nanofluids reported in the literature Nanoparticles Type

Test type

MgO

Core flood

TiO2, Al2O3, and Cu

Thermal cubical vessel apparatus

TiO2

Core flood

Fe, Fe3O2, Cu

Viscosity measurement using viscometer

Reservoir tested

Investigation

Findings Zeta potential of colloidal particles controls the connection between virgin formation and the well. Higher zeta potential yields less formation damage caused by fines migration. water-Al2O3 and water-TiO2 nanofluids has enormously enhanced the critical heat flux compared to that of WaterCu which was very close to pure water. The enhancement was attributed to the reduction in contact angle which is affected with roughness of the surface, material of the NPs and their concentration. Enhancing sweep of heavy oil with 11% proved through core flood test. Other tests such viscosity, IFT, and contact angle showed that the main mechanism caused the enhancement of oil recovery is wettability alteration.

reference

Sandstone

Stability of nanofluids and oil recovery

-

Effect of different nanofluids on critical heat flux.

Carbonate

Transport and retention of NPs and sweep efficiency of TiO2 with heavy oil.

-

Effect of microwave radiation on NPs to reduce the viscosity of heavy oil

The investigated nano and microparticles showed an enormous decrease in the heavy oil's viscosity and about 40% vaporization.

69

Sandpack

fines migration and sweep efficiency

MgO NPs enhance the sweep efficiency and avoid fine swelling hence avoid reduction of pore throat size.

70

MgO

Core flood

Fe3O4

IFT measurement

-

Effect of NPs on the asphaltene precipitation

Hydrophilic and hydrophobic silica NPs

Wettability index (WI) measurement

Different wettability Sandstone

Effect of NPs adsorption on wettability

Generally, NPs lessen the asphaltene precipitation’s intensity. However, the reduction is dependent on the type of asphaltene NPs adsorb on the pores' walls and cause porosity reduction but it still alters the wettability of the core samples.


66

67

68

71

72

Page 13 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

ZnO


Core flood

Sandstone

Effect of ZnO NPs on IFT reduction in surfactant (SDS) flooding

NPs reduce IFT between displacing and displaced phase and hence increasing sweep efficiency and overall oil recovery.

4. Nano-assisted thermal EOR The most prevalent use of nanomaterials in thermal EOR is using nanocatalyst. Nickel-, iron-, and cobalt based nanocatalysts are used in nano-assisted thermal EOR by reducing the heavy oil’s viscosity. In addition, they can also be used for in-situ upgrading process commonly referred to as aquathermolysis74. The reason behind using nanoparticles is their unique properties that give them an advantage over bulk material catalysts. Nanocatalysts have high surface to volume ratio which allows for more oil to be exposed to the catalysts and hence more reaction to decrease its density/viscosity as shown in Figure 6. Furthermore, they can be easily separated and after suitable thermal treatment they can be re-used which makes them even cost effective75.

Figure 6: Effect of catalyst size on aquathermolysis performance in oil treatment.

Yi et al have used nickel NPs in CSS with sandstone core samples. They proved that through aquathermolysis, Ni NPs can help to break the carbon-sulfur bonds but the effect reduces 13 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

73


by time. The only disadvantage is the increase of water cut in the production. However, they believed that using the Ni NPs deeper in the reservoir, rather than by the injection point, may yield an overall higher recovery factor76. On the other hand, other researchers have attempted to use trimetallic system NPs (W, Ni, Mo) to reduce the viscosity of Athabasca bitumen. They concluded that the presence of trimetallic systems enhanced the bitumen recovery might be due to catalytic hydocracking of bitumen and thus reducing its viscosity77. Similarly, the effect of bimetallic systems of Ni-Pd nanocatalysts supported on fumed silica were tested with n-C7 asphaltenes. The study showed that having NiO and PdO supported on fumed silica showed better thermal cracking of n-C7 asphaltenes than that with fumed silica on its own78, 79. The presence of NPs might have caused reaction including olefin free radicals80, bridging of aromatics by alkyl chains81, and crosslinking between aromatic clusters82. It was comprehended that such reactions were responsible for forming more refractory compounds. It was also notable that the presence of bimetallic NPs caused the inhibition of n-C7 asphaltenes self-association on the surface of NPs83. Another study that offered new insights on how to reduce water cut in SAGD process was performed using ZnO NPs in sand packs. Using two sets of experiments, it was proved that using ZnO NPs can enhance oil recovery by 35.5% compared to the conventional SAGD process. In addition, it was discovered that the viscosity reduction occurs at low concentration of NPs between 0.2 and 0.5 weight percent. Moreover, the work also proved a considerable water cut reduction while flooding with ZnO NPs. Similarly, the results acquired were attributed to the NPs catalytic chemical reaction breaking down carbon-sulfur bonds84. Similarly, Fe2O3 and WO3 NPs were tested at four different concentration but 0.2 weight percent proved to be the optimum concentration utilized with steam injection. The optimum concentration reduced the viscosity of heavy oil to less than 40%.85


Page 14 of 28

Page 15 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


5. Nano-assisted Chemical EOR The two major branches use in chemical flooding to enhance oil recovery are polymer and surfactant flooding. As discussed earlier in the nanofluids EOR section, different types of NPs can be used to increase displacing phase’s viscosity and reduce the IFT between oil and water. Thus, many reviews have been discussing the recent advances in nano-assisted chemical EOR86-89. This section will discuss the advances both nano-polymer flooding as well as nano-surfactant flooding.

6. Nano-polymer flooding The synergistic effects of using both polymers and NPs are manipulated in order to improve the rheological properties of displacing phase. In other words, increasing the viscosity of the displacing phase avoid water coning/fingering which leads to more residual oil saturation90. The main target for using nanomaterials along with polymers is to improve its properties in thermal, chemical and mechanical stability91. In attempt to improve the previously mentioned properties of polyacrylamide polymer, Zhu et al developed a nanocomposite of hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM) and silica NPs. Both HPAM/SiO2 and pristine HPAM were compared at 85 ºC, various shear rates, and 32,868 mgL-1 salinity. The nanocomposite proved a better thermal, mechanical, and chemical stability than the conventional HPAM and hence yielded higher oil recovery factor in core flooding experiments92. Moreover, the effect of silica NPs on HPAM in the presence on salinity 3 weight percent have been tested. The results showed a difference in viscosity of 8 cp and 35 cp for the blank HPAM and HPAM/SiO2 polymer respectively. Subsequently, the effect of the viscosity increase was pronounced in the reduced fingering and enhanced oil recovery in the HPAM/SiO2 case. It was concluded that the enhancing mobility ratio as well as altering wettability were the main mechanisms causing enhancing recovery factor93. Figure 7 summarizes the effect of SiO2 NPs on HPAM stability and the oil viscosity. 15 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Figure 7: Stability of HPAM versus HPAM/SiO2

Other researchers were more interested to study the effects of silica NPs on the flow behavior on PAM polymer solution in sandstone. Their results showed that the presence of the silica NPs enormously reduced the adsorption of the polymer over a wide range of polymer concentration. In addition, it was also found that the presence of silica NPs diminish shear thinning which was confirmed by numerical model94. The polymer’s stability enhancements were attributed to the ion-dipole interaction occurring between the polymer’s cations and NPs. This interaction causes PAM’s chemisorption on SiO2 NPs by means of hydrogen bonding whereas the SiO2 NPs 16 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 16 of 28

Page 17 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


physically cross linking polymer’s chains95,

96.

Similarly, other nanomaterials have b used to

enhance the stability of polymers used in EOR or the mobility ratio. Nanoclay has been used to enhance the recovery of heavy oil through improving sweep efficiency of HPAM. In a sandstone core sample and salinity of 20,000 ppm, nanoclay/HPAM yielded an increased heavy oil recovery of 5% compared to the conventional HPAM. Beside the viscosity increase, it was found that nanoclay needs to be added beyond the threshold concentration (0.9 weight percent) to yield expected results on polymer flooding97. Correspondingly, the effect of titanium dioxide NPs on the HPAM polymer flooding was evaluated to produce dead oil from sandstone core sample. The study defined the threshold concentration for TiO2 NPs as 2.3 weight percent while the improved oil recovery was attributed to enhanced polymer’s viscosity98. Although most EOR research is based on conventional spherical nanoparticles, a novel core-shell polymer has been assessed for polymer flooding. In the study, nano silica as core and hyperbranched polyamidoamide (PAMAM) as the subshell were used to enhance the overall polymer’s resistance to degradation. Through thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and viscometer, thermal, mechanical, and chemical degradation resistance were evaluated. The TGA results indicated that thermal resistance can be attributed to the presence of huge sulphonic acid group which avoids the coiling of hydrophilic subchain. On the other hand, shear resistance was attributed to nano silica core that supports the polymer with enough roughness to shield the polymer’s chains from shear scission. Finally, the salinity resistance was ascribed to longer side chain of AMPS which offers stronger steric interference to keep polymer’s chains stable around monovalent and divalent ions99. 7. Nano-surfactant flooding Although surfactant is used for interfacial tension reduction between at the interface between the displacing and displaced phase, nanoparticles are used for further reduction100. This additional reduction in interfacial tension was attributed to the presence of NPs at the interface 17 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


between the oil and surfactant/water101. A mixture of surfactants and NPs, depending on the surface charges and the formation type, may cause wettability alteration, IFT reduction, and a decrease in capillary forces102. This combination of effects was confirmed by simulation work to be the ideal case for EOR103. Silica NPs were extensively studied to enhance the oil recovery through surfactant flooding. In a five spot glass micro-model, the effect of silica nanonparticles was assessed with sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) surfactant. The study concluded that using 2.2 weight percent SiO2 NPs delayed the breakthrough and enhanced sweep efficiency. In addition, it was observed that upon adding SiO2 NPs the wettability was shifted from 73º to 11º. Subsequently, using SDS/ SiO2 NPs showed 13% more heavy oil recovery in comparison with SDS alone. The results were represented by photographic images and were ascribed to the increased viscosity of SDS/SiO2 NPs compared to SDS104. Likewise, the effect of surface treated silica NPs using olefin sulphonates and anionic surfactants was evaluated on colloidal stability, IFT, and wettability alteration. Colloidal stability was evaluated using turbiscan classic, a technique that works through multiple scattering of photons in the sample while the difference is detected. IFT and wettability were assessed by Goniometer and contact angel measurements respectively. The results proved that specific type of olefins sulphonates coated silica NPs at 0.05 weight percent showed better stability than other samples. On the other hand, the same sample showed IFT reduction of 48% and shifting wettability towards more water wet105. To understand the mechanism of silica NPs in different types of reservoirs, they were tested with SDS on oil wet core samples. The results showed using 0.2 weight percent (wt %) of SiO2 NPs at SDS concentration more than 0.5 wt % caused contact angle to drop 35º. The wettability alteration was attributed to disjoining pressure ascribed to NPs wedge between the oil and the core sample. To further confirm the effect of NPs on the SDS surfactant, spontaneous imbibition test proved the ability of NPs to shift the wettability


Page 18 of 28

Page 19 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


from oil wet to water wet106. The effect of surfactant/silica NPs on IFT, contact angle, and oil recovery were summarized in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Effect of adding silica NPs on IFT, contact angle, and oil recovery.

In spite the success of silica NPs, other nanomaterials have been tested to evaluate their effect on surfactant flooding. At a microglass model, the effect of TiO2 on SDS flooding for heavy oil recovery was tested. The results showed an incremental oil recovery of almost 5 % due to breakthrough delay107. Correspondingly, the effect of 0.05 wt % of alumina and zinc oxide NPs on SDS surfactant was tested at glass beads model and tensiometer. It was quantitatively proved that Zinc oxide NPs showed less IFT compared to alumina NPs. The IFT results were more pronounced 19 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


by the higher cumulative oil recovery factor achieved by Zinc oxide NPs in comparison with alumina NPs108. The oil recovery results were ascribed to the spontaneous emulsification which might have caused oil mobilization.

8. Future prospects and current challenges In spite of the extremely successful laboratory testing for NPs in the enhanced oil recovery, there are still concerns regarding the transport and fate of such materials in porous media109, 110. In addition, the toxicity of some nanoparticles are still questioned to their impact on humans, pollution and environmental sustainability. Other challenges includes the formation heterogeneity that might affect the overall performance of nanoparticles in porous media. In order to upscale the usage of various nanoparticles in EOR, it would be essential to find cheap and easy techniques to produce such materials in good amounts. Indeed, as the prices of chemicals are increasing and the oil prices are decreasing, it is a good opportunity to use nanoparticles for field trials. Using nanoparticles will offer the same or better effects but with using less chemicals than required in normal cases. There are vast nanostructures that can be used, instead of normal spherical nanoparticles, which may yield better results based on their unique physical and chemical properties.

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial support by the American University in Cairo.


Page 20 of 28

Page 21 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


TOC graphic (graphical abstract):



References 1. Doman, L. EIA projects 48% increase in world energy consumption by 2040 - Today in Energy U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) st https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26212 (accessed June 1 , 2019). 2. Sun, Q.; Li, Z.; Li, S.; Jiang, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, P. Utilization of Surfactant-Stabilized Foam for Enhanced Oil Recovery by Adding Nanoparticles. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 2384– 2394. 3. Baker, R. Reservoir Management for Waterfloods-Part II. J. Canad. Pet. Tech. 1998, 37, 12-17. 4. Siavashi, M.; Doranehgard, M. H. Particle swarm optimization of thermal enhanced oil recovery from oilfields with temperature control. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2017, 123, 658–669. 5. Doranehgard, M. H.; Siavashi, M. The effect of temperature dependent relative permeability on heavy oil recovery during hot water injection process using streamlineBased simulation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 129, 106–116. 6. Siavashi, M.; Tehrani, M. R.; Nakhaee, A. Efficient Particle Swarm Optimization of Well Placement to Enhance Oil Recovery Using a Novel Streamline-Based Objective Function. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 2016, 138, 052903. 7. Unsal, E.; Berge, A. T.; Wever, D. Low salinity polymer flooding: Lower polymer retention and improved injectivity. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017. 8. Khorsandi, S.; Qiao, C.; Johns, R. T. Displacement Efficiency for Low-Salinity Polymer Flooding Including Wettability Alteration. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 2017, 22, 417–430. 9. Shiran, B. S.; Skauge, A. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) by Combined Low Salinity Water/Polymer Flooding. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 1223–1235. 10. Li, M.; Romero-Zerón, L.; Marica, F.; Balcom, B. J. Polymer Flooding Enhanced Oil Recovery Evaluated with Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Relaxation Time Measurements. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 4904–4914. 11. Aitkulov, A.; Luo, H.; Lu, J.; Mohanty, K. K. Alkali–Cosolvent–Polymer Flooding for Viscous Oil Recovery: 2D Evaluation. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 7015–7025. 12. Almansour, A. O.; Alquraishi, A. A.; Alhussinan, S. N.; Alyami, H. Q. Efficiency of enhanced oil recovery using polymer-Augmented low salinity flooding. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2017, 7, 1149–1158. 13. Bai, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shang, X.; Dong, C.; Zhao, X.; Liu, P. Experimental Evaluation of a Surfactant/Compound Organic Alkalis Flooding System for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 5860–5869. 14. Kamal, M. S.; Hussein, I. A.; Sultan, A. S. Review on Surfactant Flooding: Phase Behavior, Retention, IFT, and Field Applications. Energy Fuels 2017, 30, 7701–7720. 15. Khanamiri, H. H.; Nourani, M.; Tichelkamp, T.; Stensen, J. Å.; Øye, G.; Torsæter, O. LowSalinity-Surfactant Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) with a New Surfactant Blend: Effect of Calcium Cations. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 984–991. 16. Cholpraves, C.; Rattanaudom, P.; Suriyapraphadilok, U.; Charoensaeng, A.; Gani, R. The Systematic Screening Methodology for Surfactant Flooding Chemicals in Enhanced Oil Recovery. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 27th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering 2017, 991–996. 17. Gong, H.; Zhang, H.; Xu, L.; Li, K.; Yu, L.; Li, Y.; Dong, M. Further enhanced oil recovery by branched-Preformed particle gel/HPAM/Surfactant mixed solutions after polymer flooding in parallel-Sandpack models. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 39564–39575. 22 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 22 of 28

Page 23 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


18. Rafati, R.; Smith, S. R.; Haddad, A. S.; Novara, R.; Hamidi, H. Effect of nanoparticles on the modifications of drilling fluids properties: A review of recent advances. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 161, 61–76. 19. Belcher, C.; Seth, K.; Hollier, R.; Paternostro, B. Maximizing Production Life with the Use of Nanotechnology to Prevent Fines Migration. Proceedings of International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, China 2010. 20. Baig, M. T.; Rahman, M. K.; Al-Majed, A. Application of Nanotechnology in Oil Well Cementing. SPE Kuwait Oil & Gas Show and Conference 2017. 21. Heathman, J.; Fuller, G.; Taylor, R.; Arumugam, G.; Sullivan, P.; Thapa, S.; Veedu, V. Development of Nanotechnology Pipe Treatment to Improve Acoustic Cement Evaluation. Offshore Technology Conference 2017. 22. Ayatollahi, S.; Zerafat, M. M. Nanotechnology-Assisted EOR Techniques: New Solutions to Old Challenges. SPE International Oilfield Nanotechnology Conference and Exhibition 2012. 23. Peng, B.; Zhang, L.; Luo, J.; Wang, P.; Ding, B.; Zeng, M.; Cheng, Z. A review of nanomaterials for nanofluid enhanced oil recovery. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 32246–32254. 24. Sun, X.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, G.; Gai, Z. Application of Nanoparticles in Enhanced Oil Recovery: A Critical Review of Recent Progress. Energies 2017, 10, 345. 25. Li, X.; Zhu, D.; Wang, X. Evaluation on dispersion behavior of the aqueous copper nanoSuspensions. J. Colloid and Interface Sci. 2007, 310, 456–463. 26. Adil, M.; Zaid, H. M.; Chuan, L. K.; Latiff, N. R. A. Effect of Dispersion Stability on Electrorheology of Water-Based ZnO Nanofluids. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 6169–6177. 27. Bayat, A. E.; Junin, R.; Shamshirband, S.; Chong, W. T. Transport and retention of engineered Al2O3, TiO2 and SiO2 nanoparticles through various sedimentary rocks. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 14264. 28. Ohshima, H.; Makino, K. Colloid Interface Sci. Pharm. Res. Dev.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. 29. Fatehah, M. O.; Aziz, H. A.; Stoll, S. Stability of ZnO Nanoparticles in Solution. Influence of pH, Dissolution, Aggregation and Disaggregation Effects. J. Colloid Sci. Biotechnol. 2014, 3, 75–84. 30. Mikolajczyk, A.; Gajewicz, A.; Rasulev, B.; Schaeublin, N.; Maurer-Gardner, E.; Hussain, S.; Leszczynski, J.; Puzyn, T. Zeta Potential for Metal Oxide Nanoparticles: A Predictive Model Developed by a Nano-Quantitative Structure–Property Relationship Approach. Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 2400–2407. 31. Keller, A. A.; Wang, H.; Zhou, D.; Lenihan, H. S.; Cherr, G.; Cardinale, B. J.; Miller, R.; Ji, Z. Stability and Aggregation of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles in Natural Aqueous Matrices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 1962–1967. 32. Pfeiffer, C.; Rehbock, C.; Huhn, D.; Carrillo-Carrion, C.; Aberasturi, D. J. D.; Merk, V.; Barcikowski, S.; Parak, W. J. Interaction of colloidal nanoparticles with their local environment: the (Ionic) nanoenvironment around nanoparticles is different from bulk and determines the physico-Chemical properties of the nanoparticles. J. R. Soc., Interface 2014, 11, 20130931–20130931. 33. Metin, C. O.; Lake, L. W.; Miranda, C. R.; Nguyen, Q. P. Stability of aqueous silica nanoparticle dispersions. J. Nanopart. Res. 2010, 13, 839–850. 34. Nagarajan, S.; Kuppusamy, K. A. Extracellular synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticle using seaweeds of gulf of Mannar, India. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2013, 11, 39. 23 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


35. Marsalek, R. Particle Size and Zeta Potential of ZnO. APCBEE Procedia 2014, 9, 13–17. 36. Shamsijazeyi, H.; Miller, C. A.; Wong, M. S.; Tour, J. M.; Verduzco, R. Polymer-Coated nanoparticles for enhanced oil recovery. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131, 40576. 37. Kamiya, H.; Iijima, M. Surface modification and characterization for dispersion stability of inorganic nanometer-Scaled particles in liquid media. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 2010, 11, 044304. 38. Cui, M.; Emrick, T.; Russell, T.P. Stabilizing Liquid Drops in Nonequilibrium Shapes by the Interfacial Jamming of Nanoparticles, Science 2013, 342, 460-463. 39. Heinz, H.; Pramanik, C.; Heinz, O.; Ding, Y.; Mishra, R. K.; Marchon, D.; Flatt, R. J.; Estrela-Lopis, I.; Llop, J.; Moya, S.; et al. Nanoparticle decoration with surfactants: Molecular interactions, assembly, and applications. Surf. Sci. Rep. 2017, 72, 1–58. 40. Kumar, S.; Aswal, V. K.; Kohlbrecher, J. Size-Dependent Interaction of Silica Nanoparticles with Different Surfactants in Aqueous Solution. Langmuir 2012, 28, 9288– 9297. 41. Kumar, S.; Aswal, V. K. Tuning of nanoparticle–surfactant interactions in aqueous system. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2010, 23, 035101. 42. Skoglund, S.; Blomberg, E.; Wallinder, I. O.; Grillo, I.; Pedersen, J. S.; Bergström, L. M. A novel explanation for the enhanced colloidal stability of silver nanoparticles in the presence of an oppositely charged surfactant. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 28037– 28043. 43. Fiedot, M.; Rac, O.; Suchorska - Woźniak, P.; Karbownik, I.; Teterycz, H. Polymer – surfactant interactions and their influence on zinc oxide nanoparticles morphology. In Manufacturing Nanostructures; One Central Press, UK, 2014, 108–128. 44. Peng, B.; Zhang, L.; Luo, J.; Wang, P.; Ding, B.; Zeng, M.; Cheng, Z. A review of nanomaterials for nanofluid enhanced oil recovery. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 32246–32254. 45. Yu, W.; Xie, H. A Review on Nanofluids: Preparation, Stability Mechanisms, and Applications. J. Nanomater. 2012, 2012, 1–17. 46. Alomair, O. A.; Matar, K. M.; Alsaeed, Y. H. Experimental Study of Enhanced-Heavy-Oil Recovery in Berea Sandstone Cores by Use of Nanofluids Applications. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 2015, 18, 387–399. 47. Ehtesabi, H.; Ahadian, M. M.; Taghikhani, V.; Ghazanfari, M. H. Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery in Sandstone Cores Using TiO2 Nanofluids. Energy Fuels 2013, 28, 423–430. 48. Karimi, A.; Fakhroueian, Z.; Bahramian, A.; Khiabani, N. P.; Darabad, J. B.; Azin, R.; Arya, S. Wettability Alteration in Carbonates using Zirconium Oxide Nanofluids: EOR Implications. Energy Fuels 2012, 26, 1028–1036. 49. Luo, D.; Wang, F.; Zhu, J.; Cao, F.; Liu, Y.; Li, X.; Willson, R. C.; Yang, Z.; Chu, C.-W.; Ren, Z. Nanofluid of graphene-Based amphiphilic Janus nanosheets for tertiary or enhanced oil recovery: High performance at low concentration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016, 113, 7711–7716. 50. Hendraningrat, L.; Torsæter, O. Effects of the Initial Rock Wettability on Silica-Based Nanofluid-Enhanced Oil Recovery Processes at Reservoir Temperatures. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 6228–6241. 51. Monfared, A. D.; Ghazanfari, M. H.; Jamialahmadi, M.; Helalizadeh, A. The Potential Application of Silica Nanoparticles for Wettability Alteration of Oil–Wet Calcite: A Mechanistic Study. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 3947–3961.


Page 24 of 28

Page 25 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


52. Aghabozorgi, S.; Rostami, B. An Investigation of Polymer Adsorption in Porous Media Using Pore Network Modelling. Transp. Porous Media 2016, 115, 169–187. 53. Al-Anssari, S.; Barifcani, A.; Wang, S.; Maxim, L.; Iglauer, S. Wettability alteration of oilWet carbonate by silica nanofluid. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2016, 461, 435–442. 54. Al-Anssari, S.; Arif, M.; Wang, S.; Barifcani, A.; Lebedev, M.; Iglauer, S. Wettability of nanofluid-Modified oil-Wet calcite at reservoir conditions. Fuel 2018, 211, 405–414. 55. Glaser, N.; Adams, D. J.; Böker, A.; Krausch, G. Janus Particles at Liquid−Liquid Interfaces. Langmuir 2006, 22, 5227–5229. 56. Xiang, W.; Zhao, S.; Song, X.; Fang, S.; Wang, F.; Zhong, C.; Luo, Z. Amphiphilic nanosheet self-Assembly at the water/Oil interface: computer simulations. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 7576–7586. 57. Glaser, N.; Adams, D. J.; Böker, A.; Krausch, G. Janus Particles at Liquid−Liquid Interfaces. Langmuir 2006, 22, 5227–5229. 58. Lattuada, M.; Hatton, T. A. Synthesis, properties and applications of Janus nanoparticles. Nano Today 2011, 6, 286–308. 59. Takahara, Y. K.; Ikeda, S.; Ishino, S.; Tachi, K.; Ikeue, K.; Sakata, T.; Hasegawa, T.; Mori, H.; Matsumura, M.; Ohtani, B. Asymmetrically Modified Silica Particles: A Simple Particulate Surfactant for Stabilization of Oil Droplets in Water. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 6271–6275. 60. Binks, B. P.; Fletcher, P. D. I. Particles Adsorbed at the Oil−Water Interface: A Theoretical Comparison between Spheres of Uniform Wettability and “Janus” Particles. Langmuir 2001, 17, 4708–4710. 61. Zhang, H.; Ramakrishnan, T. S.; Nikolov, A.; Wasan, D. Enhanced Oil Recovery Driven by Nanofilm Structural Disjoining Pressure: Flooding Experiments and Microvisualization. Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 2771–2779. 62. Wasan, D. T.; Nikolov, A. D. Spreading of nanofluids on solids. Nature 2003, 423, 156– 159. 63. Trokhymchuk, A.; Henderson, D.; Nikolov, A.; Wasan, D. T. A Simple Calculation of Structural and Depletion Forces for Fluids/Suspensions Confined in a Film. Langmuir 2001, 17, 4940–4947. 64. Emrani, A. S.; Nasr-El-Din, H. A. Stabilizing CO2 Foam by Use of Nanoparticles. SPE 2017, 22, 494–504. 65. Sun, Q.; Zhang, N.; Li, Z.; Wang, Y. Nanoparticle-Stabilized Foam for Effective Displacement in Porous Media and Enhanced Oil Recovery. Energy Technol. 2016, 4, 1053–1063. 66. Assef, Y.; Pourafshary, P.; Hejazi, H. Controlling Interactions of Colloidal Particles and Porous Media During Low Salinity Water Flooding and Alkaline Flooding By MgO Nanoparticles. SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia 2016. 67. Cieśliński, J. T.; Krygier, K. Augmentation of the Critical Heat Flux in Water-Al2O3, Water-TiO2and Water-Cu Nanofluids. MATEC Web of Conf. 2014, 18, 01012. 68. Ehtesabi, H.; Ahadian, M. M.; Taghikhani, V. Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery Using TiO2 Nanoparticles: Investigation of Deposition during Transport in Core Plug. Energy Fuels 2014, 29, 1–8. 69. Greff, J.; Babadagli, T. Catalytic Effects of Nano-Size Metal Ions in Breaking Asphaltene Molecules during Thermal Recovery of Heavy-Oil. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition 2011. 25 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


70. Huang, T. (T.; Clark, D. E. Enhancing Oil Recovery With Specialized Nanoparticles by Controlling Formation-Fines Migration at Their Sources in Waterflooding Reservoirs. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 2015, 20, 743–746. 71. Kazemzadeh, Y.; Malayeri, M.; Riazi, M.; Parsaei, R. Impact of Fe3O4 Nanoparticles on Asphaltene Precipitation during CO2 Injection. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 22, 227–234. 72. Li, S.; Torsaeter, O. The Impact of Nanoparticles Adsorption and Transport on Wettability Alteration of Intermediate Wet Berea Sandstone. SPE Middle East Unconventional Resources Conference and Exhibition 2015. 73. Rezk, M. Y.; Allam, N. K. Unveiling the Synergistic Effect of ZnO Nanoparticles and Surfactant Colloids for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Colloid and Interface Sci. Commun. 2019, 29, 33–39. 74. Iskandar, F.; Dwinanto, E.; Abdullah, M.; Khairurrijal; Muraza, O. Viscosity Reduction of Heavy Oil Using Nanocatalyst in Aquathermolysis Reaction. KONA Powder Part. J. 2016, 33, 3–16. 75. Junaid, A. S. M.; Rahman, M. M.; Rocha, G.; Wang, W.; Kuznicki, T.; Mccaffrey, W. C.; Kuznicki, S. M. On the Role of Water in Natural-Zeolite-Catalyzed Cracking of Athabasca Oilsands Bitumen. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 3367–3376. 76. Yi, S.; Babadagli, T.; Li, H. A. Use of Nickel Nanoparticles for Promoting Aquathermolysis Reaction During Cyclic Steam Stimulation. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 2018, 23, 145–156. 77. Hashemi, R.; Nassar, N. N.; Almao, P. P. Enhanced Heavy Oil Recovery by in Situ Prepared Ultradispersed Multimetallic Nanoparticles: A Study of Hot Fluid Flooding for Athabasca Bitumen Recovery. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 2194–2201. 78. Montoya, T.; Argel, B. L.; Nassar, N. N.; Franco, C. A.; Cortés, F. B. Kinetics and mechanisms of the catalytic thermal cracking of asphaltenes adsorbed on supported nanoparticles. Pet. Sci. 2016, 13, 561–571 79. Wilson, A. Nanoparticle Catalysts Upgrade Heavy Oil for Continuous-Steam-Injection Recovery. J. Pet. Technol. 2017, 69, 66–67. 80. Gray, M. R.; Mccaffrey, W. C. Role of Chain Reactions and Olefin Formation in Cracking, Hydroconversion, and Coking of Petroleum and Bitumen Fractions. Energy Fuels 2002, 16, 756–766. 81. Alshareef, A. H.; Scherer, A.; Tan, X.; Azyat, K.; Stryker, J. M.; Tykwinski, R. R.; Gray, M. R. Formation of Archipelago Structures during Thermal Cracking Implicates a Chemical Mechanism for the Formation of Petroleum Asphaltenes. Energy Fuels 2011, 25, 2130–2136. 82. Habib, F. K.; Diner, C.; Stryker, J. M.; Semagina, N.; Gray, M. R. Suppression of Addition Reactions during Thermal Cracking Using Hydrogen and Sulfided Iron Catalyst. Energy Fuels 2013, 27, 6637–6645 83. Franco, C. A.; Nassar, N. N.; Montoya, T.; Ruíz, M. A.; Cortés, F. B. Influence of Asphaltene Aggregation on the Adsorption and Catalytic Behavior of Nanoparticles. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 1610–1621. 84. Tajmiri, M.; Ehsani, M. R. The Potential of ZnO Nanoparticles to Reduce Water Consuming in Iranian Heavy Oil Reservoir. J. Water Environ. Nanotechnol. 2016, 1, 84– 90. 85. Afzal, S.; Ehsani, M. R.; Nikookar, M.; Roayaei, E. Effect of Fe2O3 and WO3 nanoparticle on steam injection recovery. Energy Sources, Part A 2018, 40, 251–258. 26 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 26 of 28

Page 27 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


86. Negin, C.; Ali, S.; Xie, Q. Application of nanotechnology for enhancing oil recovery – A review. Petroleum 2016, 2, 324–333. 87. Cheraghian, G.; Hendraningrat, L. A review on applications of nanotechnology in the enhanced oil recovery part A: effects of nanoparticles on interfacial tension. Int. Nano Lett. 2016, 6, 129–138. 88. Cheraghian, G.; Hendraningrat, L. A review on applications of nanotechnology in the enhanced oil recovery part B: effects of nanoparticles on flooding. Int. Nano Lett. 2016, 6, 1–10. 89. Kamal, M. S.; Adewunmi, A. A.; Sultan, A. S.; Al-Hamad, M. F.; Mehmood, U. Recent Advances in Nanoparticles Enhanced Oil Recovery: Rheology, Interfacial Tension, Oil Recovery, and Wettability Alteration. J. Nanomater. 2017, 2017, 1–15. 90. Abidin, A.; Puspasari, T.; Nugroho, W. Polymers for Enhanced Oil Recovery Technology. Procedia Chem. 2012, 4, 11–16. 91. Farzaneh, S. A.; Sohrabi, M. A Review of the Status of Foam Application in Enhanced Oil Recovery. EAGE Annual Conference & Exhibition incorporating SPE Europec. 2013. 92. Zhu, D.; Wei, L.; Wang, B.; Feng, Y. Aqueous Hybrids of Silica Nanoparticles and Hydrophobically Associating Hydrolyzed Polyacrylamide Used for EOR in HighTemperature and High-Salinity Reservoirs. Energies 2014, 7, 3858–3871. 93. Yousefvand, H.; Jafari, A. Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Polymer/Nanosilica. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2015, 11, 565–570. 94. Khalilinezhad, S. S.; Cheraghian, G.; Roayaei, E.; Tabatabaee, H.; Karambeigi, M. S. Improving heavy oil recovery in the polymer flooding process by utilizing hydrophilic silica nanoparticles. Energy Sources, Part A 2017, 1–10. 95. Maghzi, A.; Mohebbi, A.; Kharrat, R.; Ghazanfari, M. H. An Experimental Investigation of Silica Nanoparticles Effect on the Rheological Behavior of Polyacrylamide Solution to Enhance Heavy Oil Recovery. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2013, 31, 500–508. 96. Maurya, N. K.; Mandal, A. Studies on behavior of suspension of silica nanoparticle in aqueous polyacrylamide solution for application in enhanced oil recovery. Pet. Sci. Technol 2016, 34, 429–436. 97. Cheraghian, G.; Khalilinezhad, S. S. Effect of Nanoclay on Heavy Oil Recovery During Polymer Flooding. Pet. Sci. Technol 2015, 33, 999–1007. 98. Cheraghian, G. Effect of nano titanium dioxide on heavy oil recovery during polymer flooding. Pet. Sci. Technol 2016, 34, 633–641. 99. Pu, W.-F.; Liu, R.; Wang, K.-Y.; Li, K.-X.; Yan, Z.-P.; Li, B.; Zhao, L. Water-Soluble Core–Shell Hyperbranched Polymers for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 798–807. 100. Munshi, A. M.; Singh, V. N.; Kumar, M.; Singh, J. P. Effect of nanoparticle size on sessile droplet contact angle. J. Appl. Phys. 2008, 103, 084315. 101. Ravera, F.; Santini, E.; Loglio, G.; Ferrari, M.; Liggieri, L. Effect of Nanoparticles on the Interfacial Properties of Liquid/Liquid and Liquid/Air Surface Layers. J. Phys. Chem. B 2006, 110, 19543–19551. 102. Rosen, M. J.; Wang, H.; Shen, P.; Zhu, Y. Ultralow Interfacial Tension for Enhanced Oil Recovery at Very Low Surfactant Concentrations. Langmuir 2005, 21, 3749–3756. 103. Zhao, J.; Wen, D. Pore-Scale simulation of wettability and interfacial tension effects on flooding process for enhanced oil recovery. RSC Adv. 2017, 7, 41391–41398.



104. Cheraghian, G.; Kiani, S.; Nassar, N. N.; Alexander, S.; Barron, A. R. Silica Nanoparticle Enhancement in the Efficiency of Surfactant Flooding of Heavy Oil in a Glass Micromodel. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 8528–8534. 105. Ahmed, A.; Saaid, I. M.; Pilus, R. M.; Ahmed, A. A.; Tunio, A. H.; Baig, M. K. Development of surface treated nanosilica for wettability alteration and interfacial tension reduction. J. Dispersion Sci. Technol. 2018, 1–7. 106. Al-Anssari, S.; Nwidee, L. N.; Arif, M.; Wang, S.; Barifcani, A.; Lebedev, M.; Iglauer, S. Wettability Alteration of Carbonate Rocks via Nanoparticle-Anionic Surfactant Flooding at Reservoirs Conditions. SPE Symposium: Production Enhancement and Cost Optimization 2017. 107. Cheraghian, G. Effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles on the efficiency of surfactant flooding of heavy oil in a glass micromodel. Pet. Sci. Technol. 2016, 34, 260–267. 108. Zaid, H. M.; Latiff, N. R. A.; Yahya, N. The Effect of Zinc Oxide and Aluminum Oxide Nanoparticles on Interfacial Tension and Viscosity of Nanofluids for Enhanced Oil Recovery. Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 1024, 56–59. 109. Heidmann, I. Metal oxide nanoparticle transport in porous media – an analysis about (Un)Certainties in environmental research. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2013, 429, 012042. 110. Bayat, A. E.; Junin, R.; Samsuri, A.; Piroozian, A.; Hokmabadi, M. Impact of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles on Enhanced Oil Recovery from Limestone Media at Several Temperatures. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 6255–6266.


Page 28 of 28

Impact of nanotechnology on enhanced oil recovery: A mini-review

Recommend Documents