SPE 167632-STU

The Trapping Capacity of Nanofluids on Migrating Fines in Sand

Naomi Amoni Ogolo, Institute of Petroleum Studies, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Student Paper Contest at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September –
2 October 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by merit of placement in a regional student paper contest held in the program year preceding the International Student Paper Contest. 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.

Abstract
Fines Migration in reservoirs during hydrocarbon production has posed a big challenge to the oil and gas industry.
Various methods have been tried but a lasting solution to the problem seems elusive. The application of nanotechnology
to solve fines migration problem in reservoirs is still under investigation. This paper is focused on identifying the type of
nanoparticles and dispersant that can effectively trap migrating fines in sand, thus prevent particle migration through
the pore spaces of sand. Nine types of nanoparticles were experimented with using four kinds of fluid in the absence and
in the presence of crude oil. The amount of fines that 3g/l of each nanofluid can trap before breakthrough of fines
occurred was determined. The pH values of the nanoparticles in aqueous solutions were determined and the zeta
potentials of the nanofluids were inferred.

The obtained laboratory results show that aluminum oxide nanoparticles is the most effective that can trap migrating
fines and prevent them from further migration in sand. The estimated mass of fines captured by aluminium oxide
nanoparticles in about 80cm3 volume of sand in distilled water, brine, ethanol and diesel were about 0.63g, 0.52g, 0.8g
and 0.94g respectively in the presence of crude oil. The results also revealed that the presence of crude oil affects the
performance of the nanoparticles because in the absence of crude, the results were better. The pH of aluminum oxide
nanoparticles in aqueous solutions gave the lowest values ranging from 2.5 to 3.6 and this could partly be responsible
for the good performance of the compound in trapping migrating fines in sand.

Introduction
Migrating formation fines is a very crucial issue to oil and gas producing companies in different parts of the world even
in the Niger Delta. This is because many reservoir formations especially in the offshore are unconsolidated in nature.
Fines migration in reservoirs leads to numerous problems which includes destruction of downhole and surface
equipment, downtime and replacement costs, environmental issues, permeability impairment in formations and even
blowouts can occur in extreme cases. If unattended to, this problem can ultimately result in production shut down even
when reservoirs still contain substantial quantity of recoverable hydrocarbon. These problems no doubt emphasize the
need to adopt a preventive measure that will more effectively address the issue and provide a lasting solution.

Two basic ways of handling sand production from wells are the mechanical method and the chemical method. The
mechanical method has been widely explored and exploited but is not the best option. This is because it does not
specifically address the cause of the problem, it is sometimes capital intensive, it results in loss of production time during
cleaning and sometimes is ineffective. Additionally, as long as fines migrate in reservoirs up to the point where
mechanical gadgets are installed in the formation, the problem of reservoir permeability impairment caused by these
fines is not at all addressed. This stresses the need to re-address the approach to this problem by tackling it from the root
which most likely will provide a better result.
2 SPE 167632-STU

In an effort to control fines migration at wellbore formations, resins, polymers, acids and several inorganic compounds
have been used. These materials are expensive; often times they have been ineffective or have failed; some of them have
created additional problems while some are corrosive and environmentally unfriendly. The use of nanoparticles in
control of fines migration has been found to be possible and is still under investigation. This project therefore aims at
finding the most effective nanoparticles that can trap untreated migrating fines in sands and prevent them from further
migration. It partly studies one of the likely mechanisms through which this task is accomplished. It also investigates
how the presence of oil affects the performance of the nanoparticles.

Fines are tiny grains of sand, silt and clay particles that disintegrate from the rock matrix. Reservoir formations are
made of compacted sand grains, silt, clay and minerals that contain fluids such as formation water, gases and petroleum.
These formations are porous and permeable and can be consolidated or unconsolidated. For unconsolidated formations,
disintegrated grains and very tiny particles (especially clays) called fines become loose and as such are easily carried by
flowing fluids especially at high flow rates from their point of detachment through reservoir pores into production and
surface facilities. Unconsolidated reservoir formations are therefore the source of infinite supply of fines and sands that
are produced during hydrocarbon exploitation.

Several factors can cause unconsolidation in formations. These include lack of compaction, lack of cementing agents in
formations, non-occurrence of re-crystallization and age of the rock. Other external causes of rock unconsolidation also
include introduction of formation weakening fluids into reservoirs and operations that induce formation fatigue. When
the cement bonding agents in a formation is destabilized, it can lead to detachments of particles from the rock’s skeleton
structure. Destabilization of the bonding properties in a formation can be caused by drag forces from high fluid flow
rates, dissolution and erosion of cementing materials in the rock by water and breakthrough of water and/or gases. But
the major likely natural cause of formation unconsolidation is the age of the rock. Miocene age rocks and younger have
mostly been found to be unconsolidated. The most likely reason therefore why the Agbada formation of the Niger Delta
is unconsolidated could be because it belongs to this age.

Background
In an effort to control fines migration, polymers have been experimented with. Ultra thin films of polymers have been
reported to give good results (Sharma et al, 1994). Water based agglomerating agents (Nguyen et al, 2010) and ultra thin
tackifying agents (Nguyen et al, 2005) have also been reported to be successful. Other clay stabilizers that have been
experimented with and found to be good are compounds of aluminium (El-monier et al, 2010) and compounds of
aluminium and zirconium in combination (El-monier et al1, 2011). The effectiveness of these compounds in stabilizing
clays has also been studied (El-monier et al2, 2011). The ability of nickel coated sand to withstand disintegration in the
presence of aqueous steam and high pH solution has been studied and results show that nickel coated sands have high
stability and mechanical strength (Secuta et al, 1988). The success of organosilane in attaching formation particles
together has also been reported especially its visco-elastic properties that bind sand grains together (Kotlar et al, 2005).

Use of Nanoparticles
The use of nanoparticles in control of fines migration is still under investigation. Some research projects already
conducted in this area have indicated positive signs for this possibility. Since some compounds have had a degree of
success in controlling migrating fines, the nano scale of such compounds could possibly enhance the performance of
such compounds. There is also a possibility that other nano scale compounds can accomplish this task given the right
conditions. An investigation was done to find out if the presence of the nano agents negatively affects conductivity
through proppants. The result from the effluent collected showed that the nano-agents captured migrating fines in the
sand pack (Huang et al, 2008). These laboratory experiments demonstrate that some nanoparticles have the ability to
prevent formation fines from migration. A field case study to investigate how nano treated proppants can control fines
migration on an offshore frac pack was carried out in a well in the Gulf of Mexico and results were reported to be very
good (Huang et al, 2010). Another reported nanoparticle laboratory experiment and field application showed that
nanoparticles can control migrating fines in formations (Belcher et al, 2010).

Since some nanoparticles can control migrating fines in sand, it is imperative then to find out which nanoparticles can
most effectively attach fines to sand grains. In a study where three types of nanoparticles namely Silica, Alumina and
Magnesium Oxide were experimented with, magnesium oxide was reported to be the most effective nano agent that can
control fines migration (Habib et al, 2011). This nanoparticle is also speculated to trap fines efficiently in coal beds.
However, a contrary result was obtained in a recently conducted experiment where nine kinds of nanoparticles were used
including magnesium oxide and aluminium oxide. In this experiment, the primary objective was to find out which
nanoparticles can effectively prevent the fines contained in nano soaked sands from migrating and flow rate was used to
SPE 167632-STU 3

determine and identify the most effective nanoparticles. Results obtained identified aluminium oxide, zirconium oxide,
nickel oxide and silane treated silicon oxide as having good performances over magnesium oxide (Ogolo et al, 2012).

Release of clayey fines in porous media has long been known to be triggered by the pH value of the surrounding fluid.
This happens when a fluid of high pH value is introduced into a formation such as through water flooding. Low pH
values keep fines in place but high pH values can dissolve silica cement to create fines (Essam et al, 2007). Since low pH
values have been known to prevent fines detachment, acids (such as hydrochloric acid) have been used to prevent fines
migration but this has been detrimental to formations because it destroys other existing bonds between formation
particles and is environmentally unfriendly.

Experimental Work
There were three primary objectives in this work. The first was to determine the amounts of untreated fines each nano
treated sand pack can trap before a breakthrough of fines occurred. This was an aid to identify the kind of nanoparticles
that has the highest capacity to trap migrating fines in sands. The second was to find out the effect of crude oil on the
performance of the nanoparticles while the third was to partially peer into the trapping mechanism using pH values and
zeta potential.

Materials
The main materials used for this work were four kinds of fluid, sand obtained from the Niger Delta environment, two
kinds of clay minerals to serve as fines and nine kinds of nanoparticles. The nanoparticles used were magnesium oxide,
aluminium oxide, iron oxide, tin oxide, nickel oxide, zinc oxide, zirconium oxide, silane treated silicon oxide and
hydrophobic silicon oxide. A brine salinity of 30,000ppm was used to saturate the sand and used as one of the four
nanoparticles dispersing fluids in the experiments. The other dispersing fluids were distilled water, brine, ethanol and
diesel. The essence of using different dispersing fluids in the experiments was to find out which of them will most
effectively enhance the performance of the nanoparticles in trapping migrating fines in sand. The nanoparticles were
mainly selected based on literature reviews, geologic findings and previous studies of the properties of some of these
compounds and their nanoparticles. Each of the nanoparticles used was dispersed in each of the four fluids at a
concentration of 3g/L and the fines trapping capacity of the nanoparticles were evaluated. The nine kinds of
nanoparticles used, their particle sizes and surface area are presented on Table 1. Nigerian crude oil was also used and
the properties of the crude oil are presented on Table 2. The clayey fines used were Montmorillonite and Kaolinite
purchased from Clay Mineral Society, USA and they were used in the ratio of 2:2.

When low salinity water was required to initiate fines migration, a lower value of 5,000ppm salinity was used. Several
fluids can promote fines migration in reservoirs. Among these fluids, low salinity brine is the most common because it is
introduced into the formation by natural or artificial water flooding and it enhances oil recovery (better than high salinity
brine). Hence a low salinity brine of 5,000PPM (5g/L) was used to conduct experiments in this work. The objective was
to find out which nanoparticles can best mitigate against fines migration caused by low salinity brine, one of the major
trigger factors of fines migration in formations.

Experimental Procedure
Montmorillonite and kaolinite (2.5g each) were added to a low salinity brine of 5g/l. Methyl blue was introduced into the
mixture to color the fines. The sands were soaked in the nanofluids for at least 48hours before being used for the
experiments. In cases where oil was required, oil (of 40% pore space) was injected into the sand packs before the
nanofluids were introduced. The experiments were conducted by injecting the low salinity brine (containing 5g of fines
per liter) into the sand packs at the rate of 1cm3/min using a pump. The low salinity brine containing fines for injection
was continuously stirred to keep the fines uniformly dispersed in solution and prevent settling. The injection process into
the nano treated sands was continuous until the colored fines were produced as effluent (breakthrough) before injection
was stopped. Figure 1 shows the schematics of the flooding process.

Two sets of experiments were conducted in this work. One set was conducted in the absence of crude oil while the other
was done in the presence of crude oil. The essence was to find out the effect of crude oil on the performance of the
nanoparticles. Four reference experiments without using nanoparticles in the four fluids were conducted for each set of
experiment to serve as control cases. The essence was to study the effect of these fluids without nanoparticles on
migrating fines so that the influence of these fluids on the nanoparticles and on the general results can be ascertained. In
fact from comparisons, the individual contributions of the dispersing fluids and nanoparticles on the experimental
parameters can be understood and estimated.
4 SPE 167632-STU

The experiments were conducted under atmospheric pressure. This is because high pressure aids in binding formation
particles together, making them less prone to migration. But when atmospheric pressure (which is 14.7psi) is used,
formation particles become more prone to migration, thus creating the worse scenario for fines to migrate which is an
ideal condition for the experiments. This implies that if the results are good at surface conditions where confining
pressure is very low, then under reservoir conditions where high pressures that bind particles together exist, the results
most likely will be better.

The pH values of all the nanoparticles in aqueous solutions used in this work were determined using a digital pH meter.
Their pH values were determined to find out if pH could be a contributing factor to the positive performance of the
nanoparticles. High pH values in association with an increase or decrease of other parameters can either account for fines
release or trapping in porous media. Note that the pH values of nanoparticles in diesel were not determined because the
pH meter used measures the pH of aqueous solutions only (not non-aqueous solutions).

Results and Discussions

Fines Breakthrough Experiment
The tabulated results from the experiments are presented on Tables 3 to 6 and Figures 2 to 9. The volume of effluent
produced before breakthrough of fines occurred was noted. The amount of fines trapped in each sand pack was
determined by assuming that the injected fluid carried along a uniform distribution of fines into the sand. At
breakthrough, the mass of fines suppose to be carried by the volume of clear (without fines) effluent produced was
determined. Since that amount of fines was not produced but trapped in the sand, it means that is the amount of fines the
nano treated sand can trap before a breakthrough of fines occurred. Note that the volume of low salinity brine containing
fines that is able to flow through the sand and produced as clean effluents (free of fines) is also an indication of the
performance of the nanoparticles in trapping fines. This is because the nano treated sands adsorb the fines from the
flowing low salinity brine thus, allowing a ‘fines free’ brine to flow pass the sand pores.

Observations
The following observations were made during the course of the experiments.
1. Serious permeability problems were encountered with zinc oxide in brine and with magnesium oxide in ethanol.
The permeability problem with the use of magnesium oxide in ethanol occurred at 55ml volume of produced
effluent. This may have been caused by agglomeration of particles that blocked the pores of the sand.
2. With magnesium oxide in brine, plenty of gas bubbles were produced as effluent and permeability problem
started quite early in the flow process. The gas bubbles were continuously produced from the start of the flow to
the end.
3. With the use of aluminium oxide in all the fluids, minimal permeability problem was encountered even when
large quantities of fines were trapped in the sand like in the use of ethanol. The later permeability problem
encountered occurred as a result of pore blockage from relatively large accumulation of fines in sand pores.
4. The effluents produced from the use of aluminium oxide in all the fluids and zirconium oxide in brine were very
clean.
5. Fines did not breakthrough in some of the experiments before the process was terminated. Since a low rate of
1ml/min. was maintained for all the experiments, in a few cases, the sand pores were completely blocked by
trapped fines such that a flow rate of 1ml/min. could no longer force fluid through the sand and so the process
was stopped. Cases where this occurred were aluminium oxide in brine and ethanol, magnesium oxide in
ethanol, zinc oxide in brine and ethanol, all in the absence of crude oil. In the presence of crude, it occurred
with aluminium oxide in ethanol and diesel and magnesium oxide in ethanol.
6. It was also observed that in almost all the cases, the results were better in the absence of crude than in the
presence of crude. This implies that the presence of crude in the system can adversely affect the performance of
the nanoparticles.
7. Ethanol improves permeabilityin sand.

The results obtained from the conducted experiments are tabulated on Tables 3 to 6. It was noted that fines did not break
through in some cases before the experiments were terminated. For example in the case of aluminium oxide and zinc
oxide in brine and ethanol and magnesium oxide in ethanol as presented on Table 3 (with asterisk) in the absence of
crude, the flooding processes were terminated because of lack of permeability. The same is the case with aluminium
oxide in ethanol and diesel and magnesium oxide in ethanol in the presence of crude oil presented on Table 4.

For the case of aluminium oxide, the permeability impairment most likely was caused by accumulation of fines in the
sand pores because aluminium oxide nanoparticles trapped the largest amount of fines in all the experiments. In fact in
SPE 167632-STU 5

course of the experiments, aluminium oxide had the least permeability issues except when a large quantity of fines had
been trapped in the sand. With magnesium oxide however, the cause for permeability problem is most likely to be
attributed to the nature of magnesium oxide or some reactions but certainly not as a result of accumulation of fines in the
sand pores since the quantity of trapped fines was not high like in aluminium oxide. Besides, from previous experiments
conducted (Ogolo et al, 2012), permeability issues were also reported with the use of magnesium oxide but not with
aluminium oxide.

From Fig. 2, four types of nanoparticles that exhibit the capacity to trap fines in the absence of crude oil were aluminium
oxide, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide and silane treated silicon oxide. Nevertheless, the outstanding two were aluminium
oxide and zinc oxide but aluminium oxide was the best. From Figure 3, the nanoparticles that performed well in trapping
fines in the presence of crude oil were aluminium oxide, zinc oxide and magnesium oxide, with aluminium oxide as the
best. It is evident from these results that aluminium oxide has the highest capacity to trap the largest quantity of fines
amongst all the nanoparticles used. Zinc oxide comes next to aluminium oxide but it should be noted that the presence of
crude oil has an adverse effect on the performance of zinc oxide. This means that its performance in hydrocarbon
formations will be poor. Additionally, it was observed that zinc oxide sometimes has a tendency to impair permeability
by clogging pore spaces.

Amongst the four fluids experimented with, ethanol gave the best results. In the absence of crude (Fig. 2), ethanol was
the best while in the presence of crude (Fig. 3), ethanol was still very good but diesel gave the best result with aluminium
oxide nanoparticles. It has been observed that ethanol improves permeability in sand and probably the improved
permeability allowed relatively large quantities of fines to flow through the sand pores and get trapped along the way by
the atomic sizes of aluminium oxide nanoparticles distributed through the sand pores.

The presence of crude oil in sands affects the performance of nanoparticles in trapping migrating fines. This can be seen
from the comparison made between experiments performed in the absence and in the presence of crude oil presented in
Figures 4 to 7. From the use of distilled water as the nanoparticles dispersants (Fig. 4), most of the experiments
performed better in the absence of crude while with the use of brine (Fig. 5), all the experiments performed better in the
absence of crude oil. With ethanol (Fig. 6) and diesel (Fig. 7) as the nanoparticles dispersants, some results performed
well in the absence of crude while others worked better in the presence of crude. Generally, this shows that the presence
of hydrocarbon affects the performance of nanoparticles in accomplishing a particular task in formations.

From Figures 8 and 9, it can be deduced that aluminium oxide nanoparticles trapped the largest quantity of fines. The
fact that accumulation of fines in pore spaces caused permeability problem with the use of aluminium oxide in brine,
ethanol and diesel (in some cases) means that aluminium oxide still had the capacity to trap more fines if not for the
occurrence of blockage in the sand pores.

Fines did not breakthrough in some of the experiments as noted earlier. But because a particular flow rate was to be
maintained, the flow processes were terminated when permeability was completely hindered. It was also noticed that the
cases where the flooding processes were terminated due to permeability problem (not as a result of breakthrough of
fines) were the best results in the use of same fluids as the nanoparticles dispersants except magnesium oxide in ethanol.
But in the case of distilled water, there were no permeability issues even with the best results. The reason for this is not
yet understood.

Worthy of note is the fact that very small amount of nanoparticles could trap relatively large amount of fines.
Approximately (about 0.09g) 0.1g of nanoparticles was distributed in the sand pores because the concentration of
nanoparticles in each fluid was 3g/L while the pore volume was approximately 30cm3. With aluminium oxide
nanoparticles dispersed in ethanol and in brine (in the presence of crude as examples), about 0.1g of nanoparticles
trapped 0.8g and 0.52g of fines respectively. This implies that proportionally, 1g of aluminium oxide nanoparticles can
trap 8.0g and 5.2g of fines in the presence of crude oil respectively. Actual results can be better since pore blockage did
not allow the full capacity of fines trapping to be explored. This emphasizes how effective aluminium oxide
nanoparticles can be in trapping migrating fines in sand.

PH Value of the Nanofluids

The results of the pH values of the nanofluids are presented on Table 7 and Figure 10. It is evident from the determined
pH of nanofluids that aluminium oxide gave the lowest pH values. From experiments conducted, ethanol trapped the
most fines in the absence of crude and was second to diesel in the presence of crude. The pH value of aluminium oxide
in ethanol, brine (of 30g/L salinity) and distilled water were 2.5, 3.5 and 3.6 respectively. Since these results constitute
6 SPE 167632-STU

the best in all the experiment (except aluminium oxide in diesel in the presence of crude oil), the pH value no doubt must
be a significant factor that led to trapping of relatively large amount of fines.

PH Value and Zeta Potential

Zeta potential is the potential difference between the dispersion medium and the stationary layer of fluid attached to the
dispersed particle. Its significance is that its values can be related to the stability of colloidal dispersion which indicates
the degree of repulsion between adjacent and similarly charged particles in a dispersion of molecules and very small
particles (like nanoparticles). A high zeta potential confers stability (meaning the solution or dispersion will resist
aggregation). A low zeta potential means that attraction between the particles is stronger than repulsion and so
flocculation (or aggregation) of the particles will occur. Therefore colloids with high zeta potential are electrically stable
while colloids with low zeta potential tend to coagulate or flocculate (Marsalek, 2012 and Wikipedia).

There is a common relationship between pH values and zeta potential. It has been observed that zeta potential increases
with a decrease in pH values. High pH values give low zeta potentials while low pH values give high zeta potentials.
Figure 11 (taken from BTG: 4g of Al2O3 in 400ml of de-ionized water) illustrates this relationship. It is clear from this
diagram that very low pH values such as 2.5 to 3.6 will give very high zeta potentials, implying that the stable colloidal
particles will repel each other strongly thereby giving no traces of agglomeration.

The implication of the forgoing can explain some observations made during the conducted experiments. From the
experiments, it was observed that magnesium oxide and zinc oxide caused permeability problems by flocculating and
forming larger aggregates of particles especially at the injection points. It was also observed that the permeability
problems in sands started very early and the problem was more severe with magnesium oxide than with zinc oxide.
Nevertheless with aluminium oxide, no permeability issues were encountered even after a considerable amount of fines
had been trapped in the sands. The permeability problem that was later encountered with aluminium oxide was as a
result of pore blockage caused by continuous accumulation of fines in pore spaces.

The pH value of the nanofluids and zeta potentials can be used to explain the permeability problems encountered with
magnesium oxide and zinc oxide in sand. High pH values give rise to low zeta potentials which in turn results in particle
aggregation. The pH value of magnesium oxide in ethanol, brine (of 30g/L salinity) and distilled water were 8.3, 9.7 and
9.8 respectively and these were the highest pH values of all the nanofluids used. These pH values no doubt give very low
zeta potentials thus giving rise to particle aggregation which resulted in severe permeability impairments in the sand. The
pH values of zinc oxide in ethanol, brine (of 30g/L salinity) and distilled water were 6.7, 7.1 and 7.2 respectively.
Although the pH figures were not as high as in magnesium oxide and permeability problem was not as severe as in
magnesium oxide, permeability problem nevertheless occurred due to particle aggregation. On the other hand,
aluminium oxide which had very low pH values, giving rise to high zeta potentials gave no permeability problem even
after trapping many clayey fine particles.

Conclusions
The conclusions that have been drawn from this work are as follows:
 Aluminium oxide, magnesium oxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles have the capacity to trap large quantities of
fines in sands but aluminium oxide gives the best results.
 The presence of crude oil adversely affects the performance of most nanoparticles in trapping large quantities of
fresh (untreated) fines in sand.
 Magnesium oxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles have a tendency to cause permeability problems because they
have low zeta potential.
 The pH values of the nanofluids contribute as part of the fines trapping mechanism.

Recommendations
The recommendations made from the results of the conducted experiments are as follows:
 Aluminium oxide nanoparticles can be used to trap a large quantity of fresh, untreated migrating fines in sand
and the produced effluents are very clean.
 Ethanol and diesel are effective fluids that can aid aluminium oxide trap a relatively large quantity of migrating
fines in sand.
SPE 167632-STU 7

Summary
Generally, three kinds of nanoparticles have been identified experimentally as prospective candidates for effectively
trapping untreated migrating fines in sands. These nanoparticles are aluminium oxide, zinc oxide and magnesium oxide,
however, aluminium oxide nanoparticles gave the best results. It was observed that zinc oxide and magnesium oxide
nanoparticles have the tendency to cause permeability problem by clogging pore spaces in sand. On the contrary,
aluminium oxide gave the least permeability problems until relatively large amount of fines have been trapped in sand
pores. The use of ethanol and diesel as aluminium oxide dispersants in sand contributed in the good results that were
obtained. It was also observed that the presence of crude oil in sand can have an adverse effect in the performance of
most of the nanoparticles in trapping untreated migrating fines introduced into the system. The good results of
aluminium oxide and the agglomerating effects of magnesium and zinc oxides are partly attributed to the pH value of
the nanofluids and their zeta potentials. Conclusively, aluminium oxide nanoparticles dispersed in ethanol and diesel can
be recommended for use in trapping migrating fines in sands.

Acknowledgments
We owe our profound gratitude to Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF) for sponsorship of this research
work.

References
Belcher, C., Seth, K., Hollier, R. and Paterustro, B., (June 2010), “Maximizing Production Life with the Use of
Nanotechnology to Prevent Fines Migration”, SPE 132152, SPE International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, 8
– 10 June 2010, Beijing, China. Pp. 1-6

El-Monier, I. A. and Nasr-El-Din, H. A., (June 2010), “A New Environmentally Friendly Clay Stabilizer”, SPE 136061,
SPE Production and Operations Conference and Exhibition, 8 – 10 June and 2010, Tunis, Tunisia. Pp. 1 – 16

El-Monier1, I. A. and Nasr-El-Din, H. A., (Feb. 2011), “A Study of Several Environmentally Friendly Clay Stabilizers”,
SPE 142755, SPE Projects and Facilities Challenges Conference, 13–16 Feb. 2011, Doha, Qatar. Pp. 1-13

El-Monier2, I. A. and Masr-El-Din, H. A., (June 2011), “A New Al-Based Stabilizer for High pH Applications”, SPE
143260, Brazil Offshore Conference and Exhibition, 14 – 17 June 2011, Macae, Brazil. Pp. 1 – 15

Essam, I., Petrobel and Wally A., (Oct. 2007), “Effect of Water Injection on Sand Production Associated with Oil
Production in Sandstone Reservoirs”, SPE/ADC 108297, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and
Exhibition, 22 – 24 Oct. 2007, Cairo, Egypt. Pp. 5.

Habib, A., Ahmadi, M., Pourafshary, P. and Ayatollali, S. (June 2011), “Reduction of Fines Migration by Nanoparticles
Injection, an Experimental Study”, SPE 144196, SPE European Formation Damage Conference, 7 – 10 June 2011,
Noordwijk, Netherland, Pp. 1 – 16.

Huang T., Crews, J. B. and Willingham J. R., (Dec. 2008), “Nanoparticles for Formation Fines Fixation and Improving
Performance of Surfactant Structure Fluids”, IPTC 12414, International Petroleum Technology Conference, 3 – 5 Dec.
2008, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Pp. 1–10

Huang, T., (Jan. 2011), “Clay Stabilization with Nanoparticle” United States patent Application Publication No.
2011/10000672AL, Houston, Texas. Pp. 1 – 6.

Huang, T., Crews, J. B. and Willingham, J. R., (Sept 2008), “Using Nanoparticles Technology to Control Formation
Fines Migration”, SPE 115384, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 21 – 24 Sept. 2008, Denver,
Colorado, USA. Pp. 1- 9.

Huang, T., Evans, B. A., Crews, J. B. and Belcher, C., (Sept. 2010), “Field Case Study on Formation Fines Control with
Nanoparticles in Offshore Wells”, SPE 135088, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 19 – 22 Sept. 2010,
Florence, Italy. Pp. 1 – 8

Huang, T., Gabrysch, A. D., Crews J. B. and Jeffrey R. M., ( ), “Controlling Coal Fines in Coal Bed Operation”,
Patent Application number: 20100000734, Houston, Texas, USA. Pp. 1 – 5
8 SPE 167632-STU

Kotlar, H. K., Haavind, F., Springer, M., Bekkelund, S. S. and Torsaeter, O., (Oct. 2005), “A New Concept of Chemical
Sand Consolidation: From Idea and Laboratory Qualification to Field Application”, SPE 95723, SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 9-12 Oct. 2005, Dallas, USA. Pp. 1-9.

Marsalek, Roman, (2012), ‘Zeta Potential – Application’, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Scicence, University of
Ostrava 30, Dubana 22, Ostrava, Czech Republic, Second International Conference on Environment and Industrial
Innovation, IPCBEE Vol. 35, IACSIT Press, Singapore. Pp. 15

Nguyen, P. D., Vasques, J. E., Weaver, J. D. and Welton, T. D., (Oct. 2010), “Maintain Well Productivity Through
Inhibiting Scale Formation and controlling Fines Migration”, SPE 132663, SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition, 18 – 20 Dec. 2010, Bristane, Queensland, Australia. Pp. 1 – 16

Nguyen, P. D., Weaver, J. D., Rickman, R. D., Dusterhoft, R. G. and Parker, M. A., (Dec. 2005), “Controlling Formation
Fines at their Sources to Maintain Well Productivity”, SPE 97659, SPE International Improved Oil recovery Conference
in Asia Pacific, 5 – 6 Dec. 2005, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Pp. 1 – 19

Ogolo, N., Olafuyi, O. and Onyekonwu M., (June 2012), ’Effect of Nanoparticles on Migrating Fines in Formations’,
SPE 155213 MS, SPE International Oilfield Nanotechnology Conference and Exhibition, 12-14 June 2012, Noordwijk,
The Netherlands, Pp. 1-10.

Secuta, A., Nguyen, D. M. and Kissel, G. A., (N0v. 1988), “Stability of Nickel Coated Sand as Gravel Pack Material for
Thermal Wells”, SPE Production Engineering. Pp. 536- 542

Sharma, B. G. and Sharma, M. M., (Feb. 1994), “Polymerizable Ultra – Thin Films: A New Technique for Fines
Stabilization”, SPE 27345, SPE International Symposium on formation damage control, 7 – 10 Feb. 1994, Lafayette,
Louisiana. Pp. 63 – 74

Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/zeta_potential
 SPE 167632-STU 9

Table 1: Some Properties of the Nanoparticles used

S\No. Type of Nanoparticle Particle Size (nm) Surface Area (m2/g)
1. Aluminium Oxide 40 ~ 60
2. Magnesium Oxide 20 ~ 50
3. Iron Oxide 20-40 40-60
4. Nickel Oxide 100 6
5. Tin Oxide 50-70 10-30
6. Zinc Oxide 10-30 90
7. Zirconium Oxide 20-30 35
8. Silane Treated Silicon Oxide 10-30 >400
9. Hydrophobic Silicon Oxide 10-20 100-140

Table 2: Properties of the oil

Properties Value
o
Density @ 27 C 0.9114g/cc
Viscosity 53.27735cp
API Gravity 22.44o

Experimental Results
The Volume of Effluent produced before Breakthrough of Fines
Table 3: Volume of Effluent produced in the Absence of Crude Oil
Volume of injected low salinity brine containing
fines (ml) before breakthrough of fines
occurred
S/No. Type of Nanoparticles Distilled Brine Ethanol Diesel
water
1 Reference Experiment (Ref. Exp.) 54 60 38 49

2 Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) 136 184* 240* 140

3 Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 45 84 98* 52

4 Zinc Oxide (ZnO) 67 186* 185* 100

5 Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 44 52 46 57
6 Nickel Oxide (Ni2O3) 50 40 67 31
7 Tin Oxide (SnO) 32 55 60 31
8 Zirconium Oxide (ZrO2) 68 56 35 41
9 Silane Treated Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (S)) 54 74 134 42
10 Hydrophobic Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (H)) X X 47 57
10 SPE Student Paper

Table 4: Volume of Effluent produced in the Presence of Crude Oil

Volume of injected low salinity brine
containing fines (ml) before breakthrough of
fines occurred
S/No. Type of Nanoparticles Distilled Brine Ethanol Diesel
water
1 Reference Experiment (Ref. Exp.) 35 48 39 40
2 Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) 126 104 160* 188*
3 Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 49 62 138* 48
4 Zinc Oxide (ZnO) 60 82 82 70
5 Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 51 42 44 54
6 Nickel Oxide (Ni2O3) 32 32 54 41
7 Tin Oxide (SnO) 48 34 45 34
8 Zirconium Oxide (ZrO2) 36 41 49 43
9 Silane Treated Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (S)) 38 31 48 34
10 Hydrophobic Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (H)) X X 50 38

* These are cases where the flow processes were terminated because the pore spaces were completely blocked either with
trapped fines or agglomeration of some particles, not because breakthrough of fines occurred.
X – Hydrophobic silicon oxide cannot be dispersed in water and so no results were obtained for their use in distilled water
and brine.

Mass of Fines Trapped by the Nanofluids

The quantities of fines trapped in sand packs treated with different nanofluids are presented on Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5: Mass of Fines Trapped by the Nanofluids in the Absence of Crude Oil
Mass of fines (in g) trapped by nanofluids in
sand pores before fines breakthrough occurred
S/No. Type of Nanoparticles Distilled Brine Ethanol Diesel
water

1 Reference Experiment (Ref. Exp.) 0.27 0.3 0.19 0.25

2 Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) 0.68 0.92 1.2 0.7
3 Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.23 0.42 0.49 0.26
4 Zinc Oxide (ZnO) 0.34 0.93 0.93 0.5
5 Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.29
6 Nickel Oxide (Ni2O3) 0.25 0.2 0.34 0.16
7 Tin Oxide (SnO) 0.16 0.28 0.3 0.16
8 Zirconium Oxide (ZrO2) 0.34 0.28 0.18 0.21
9 Silane Treated Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (S)) 0.27 0.37 0.67 0.21
10 Hydrophobic Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (H)) X X 0.24 0.29
SPE Student Paper 11

Table 6: Mass of Fines Trapped by the Nanofluids in the Absence of Crude Oil
Mass of fines (in g) trapped by nanofluids in
sand pores before fines breakthrough occurred
S/No. Type of Nanoparticles Distilled Brine Ethanol Diesel
water
1 Reference Experiment (Ref. Exp.) 0.18 0.24 0.2 0.2
2 Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) 0.63 0.52 0.8 0.94
3 Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 0.25 0.31 0.69 0.24
4 Zinc Oxide (ZnO) 0.3 0.41 0.41 0.35
5 Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 0.26 0.21 0.22 0.27
6 Nickel Oxide (Ni2O3) 0.16 0.16 0.27 0.21
7 Tin Oxide (SnO) 0.24 0.17 0.23 0.17
8 Zirconium Oxide (ZrO2) 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.22
9 Silane Treated Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (S)) 0.19 0.16 0.24 0.17

10 Hydrophobic Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (H)) X X 0.25 0.19

Table 7: PH Values of the nanofluids

S/No. Type of Nanoparticles Distilled Brine Ethanol
water
1 Reference Experiment (Ref. Exp.) 6.4 5.5 5.2
2 Aluminium Oxide (Al2O3) 3.6 3.5 2.5
3 Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 9.8 9.7 8.3
4 Zinc Oxide (ZnO) 7.2 7.1 6.7
5 Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 6.2 6.1 5.9
6 Nickel Oxide (Ni2O3) 8.7 7.8 8.4
7 Tin Oxide (SnO) 5.9 5 4.7
8 Zirconium Oxide (ZrO2) 6.4 5.4 5.4
9 Silane Treated Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (S)) 6.9 5.9 6.6
10 Hydrophobic Silicon Oxide (SiO2 (H) X X 6.1

Figure 1: Schematics of the experimental Process

12 SPE Student Paper

Figure 2: Volume of clear effluent produced before breakthrough of fines in the absence of crude

Fines Breakthrough Time Experiment in the

Presence of Crude oil
200
180
produced before fines
Volume of effluent

160
breakthrough (ml)

140
Distilled water
120
100 Brine
80 Ethanol
60 Diesel
40
20
0
3

)
.

3
O

2
nO
gO

(H
xp

(S
O
O

O
2O
Zn
.E

l2

i2

Zr
S
M

2
Fe

iO

iO
A
ef

S
R

Type of Nanoparticle

Figure 3: Volume of clear effluent produced before breakthrough of fines in the presence of crude

Fine Break Through Time Using Distilled Water

160
before break through of fines
Volume of effluent produced

140
120 In the Absence of
100 Crude oil
(ml)

In the Presence of
80
Crude oil
60
40
20
0
3

)
.

3
3

2
nO
gO

(H
xp

(S
O
O

O
2O
Zn
.E

l2

i2

Zr
S
M

2
Fe

iO

iO
N
A
ef

S
R

Type of Nanoparticles

Figure 4: Fines Breakthrough Time Using Distilled Water

SPE Student Paper 13

Fines Break Through Time Using Brine

200
produced before break
through of fines (ml)
180
Volume of effluent

160
140
120 In the Absence of
100 Crude oil
80
In the Presence of
60
Crude oil
40
20
0
.

)
3
gO
3

2
xp

(H
nO

(S
2O
O

O
Zn
.E

i2
M
l2

Zr
S

2
Fe

iO
iO
A
ef

S
R

Type of Nanoparticles

Figure 5: Fines Breakthrough Time Using Brine

Figure 6: Fines Breakthrough Time Using Ethanol

Fines Breakthrough Time Using Diesel

breakthrough of fines (ml)

200
180
Volume of effluent
produced before

160
140
120
In the absence of
100 crude oil
80
60 In the presence of
40 crude oil
20
0
.

)
3
gO

O
3

2
xp

(H
nO

(S
2O
O

O
Zn
.E

i2
M
l2

Zr
S

2
Fe

N
A

iO

iO
ef

S
R

Type of Nanoparticles

Figure 7: Fines Breakthrough Time Using Diesel

14 SPE Student Paper

Mass of fines trapped by each nanofluid in

the absence of crude
Mass of fines (in g) trapped
by the nanofluid before

1.4
1.2
breakthrough

1 Distilled water
0.8 Brine
0.6 Ethanol
0.4 Disiel
0.2
0

)
.

3
3

2
nO
gO

(H
xp

(S
O
O

O
2O
Zn
.E

l2

i2

Zr
S
M

2
Fe

iO

iO
N
A
ef

S
R

Type of Nanoparticles

Figure 8: Mass of Fines Trapped by each Nanofluid in the Absence of Crude

Mass of fines trapped by each nanofluid in the presence of

crude
Mass of fines (in g) trapped
by the nanofluid in the

1
precence of crude

0.8 Distilled water

0.6 Brine
0.4 Ethanol
0.2 Diesel

0
3

)
.

3
3

2
nO
gO

(H
xp

(S
O
O

O
2O
Zn
.E

l2

i2

Zr
S
M

2
Fe

iO

iO
A
ef

S
R

Type of nanofluid

Figure 9: Mass of Fines Trapped by each Nanofluid in the Presence of Crude

Figure 10: The pH Values of aqueous solutions used in the experiments

SPE Student Paper 15

Figure 11: Illustration of the Relationship between pH values and Zeta Potentials