DC163921 DOI: 10.

2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 1 Total Pages: 15

Effect of Silica Nanoparticles on the

Rheological Properties and Filtration
Performance of Surfactant-Based
and Polymeric Fracturing Fluids
and Their Blends
M. F. Fakoya and S. N. Shah, University of Oklahoma

Summary
The investigation of nanotechnology applications in the oil and gas industry is increasing gradually; therefore, this technology needs
more exploration to unveil promising applications. In this study, an experimental investigation of nanotechnology on the apparent vis-
cosity, viscoelastic properties, and filtration performance of surfactant-based fluids (SBFs) or viscoelastic surfactants (VESs), polymeric
fluids, and SBF/polymeric-fluid blends is presented. The concentration of SBF is 5 vol%, whereas that of polymeric fluids is 33 lbm/
1,000 gal guar. Besides, both fluids contained 4 wt% potassium chloride (KCl). In addition, Blend-A and Blend-B were prepared by
mixing SBF and polymeric fluids in the ratio of 75/25 and 25/75 vol%, respectively. Nanofluids were prepared by adding 20-nm silica
nanoparticles, at concentrations of 0.058, 0.24, and 0.4 wt%, to the clean fluids. Apparent viscosity and viscoelastic data were gathered
with a rheometer within a temperature range of 75 to 175 F, whereas filtration tests were conducted with a wall-mount filter press at
ambient temperature and 100-psi differential pressure.
The results indicate an enhancement in the apparent viscosity and viscoelastic properties of surfactant-based and polymeric nanofluids
up to a nanoparticle concentration of 0.24 and 0.4 wt%, respectively. Blend-A nanofluids show improvement in apparent viscosity and
viscoelastic properties at a nanoparticle concentration of 0.058%. Similarly, Blend-B displayed favorable results up to a nanoparticle con-
centration of 0.24 wt% at temperatures of 125 to 175 F. Promising filtration results were displayed with surfactant-based nanofluids and
Blend-A nanofluids at all nanoparticle concentrations, but the performance at 0.24 and 0.4 wt%, respectively, is slightly better. Polymeric
nanofluids and Blend-B nanofluids revealed very good filtration results at all nanoparticle concentrations, but the performance at 0.24 and
0.058 wt%, respectively, is slightly better with a percentage reduction in API filtrate volume of 70.2 and 69.8%, respectively. A trial run
was made with a commercially available fluid-loss additive [polyanionic cellulose (PAC)] in polymeric fluids at the same nanoparticle
concentrations; the result confirmed that nanosilica facilitates the achievement of a superior filtration property. Comparison of apparent
viscosity, viscoelastic properties, filtration performance, and economic analysis revealed Blend-A nanofluid as the preferred choice.
Further, Blend-A nanofluid (at 0.058 wt%) is selected as the best on the basis of filtration performance. The selected fluid was opti-
mized at lower nanoparticle concentrations (0.02, 0.01, and 0.002 wt%). Interestingly, using Blend-A nanofluid at 0.002 wt%, compared
with the initial recommendation of 0.058 wt%, which costs USD 171.7/bbl, reduces the cost of nanoparticles required for preparing 1
bbl of this fluid to USD 5.8. Therefore, from a filtration-performance standpoint, Blend-A nanofluid is recommended for use at a nano-
particle concentration of 0.002 wt%.
The application of nanotechnology on the apparent viscosity, viscoelastic behavior, and filtration properties of SBF, polymeric flu-
ids, and SBF/polymeric-fluid blends can deliver some benefits, if nanoparticle concentrations are selected carefully. These nanofluids
will be applicable for oilfield operations such as hydraulic fracturing.

Introduction
Several operations in the oil and gas industry require the application of fluids. In hydraulic fracturing, specially designed fluid is
pumped into the pay zone at pressure and rates high enough to create cracks in the formation. Thereafter, the cracks or fractures are
filled with proppants to prevent closure when the fluid pressure is relieved. Over the years, hydraulic fracturing has witnessed the pump-
ing of several polymeric fluids. Usually, these polymeric fluids are treated with additives for viscosity enhancement, but the mainte-
nance of a low-solids content is compromised. Obviously, issues with solids content can only get worse. Because of technological
advancements, the use of crosslinked gels gained more popularity because of their deliverability of better rheological properties and
low leakoff rates, notwithstanding, fracture-conductivity damage results from incomplete removal of filter cake from fracture walls
(Crews et al. 2008; Crews and Gomaa 2012). Fracture cleanup is important, and can be an especially difficult task in low-permeability
reservoirs such as shale gas (Crews and Gomaa 2012). SBFs are solids free, and they display some level of viscous properties up to cer-
tain temperatures. Unlike polymeric fluids and crosslinked gels, SBFs are nonwall-building; apparently, they are associated with
high fluid loss. Traditionally, the petroleum industry has used low-molecular-weight weighting agents (e.g., calcium carbonate), water-
soluble polymers among others, in controlling the fluid loss to the formation during drilling, completion, and stimulation operations.
These fluids contain conventional macro- and microsized particles; thus, they do not effectively seal the openings on formation walls
(Amanullah and Al-Tahini 2009; Amanullah et al. 2011). Clearly, formation-damage problems persist. Adequate efforts should be
geared toward preventing formation damage because the restoration of a damaged reservoir is difficult and costly (Krueger 1986), espe-
cially in low-permeability reservoirs such as shale gas.
Nagarajan (1989) reported that the presence of nonionic polymer molecules in dissimilar solutions containing different structures of
surfactant micelles resulted in small globular micelles at concentrations lower than the critical micelle concentration (CMC) of the

Copyright V
C 2018 Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper (SPE 163921) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition, The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 26–27 March 2013,
and revised for publication. Original manuscript received for review 7 November 2016. Revised manuscript received for review 20 March 2018. Paper peer approved 26 March 2018.

2018 SPE Drilling & Completion 1

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 2 Total Pages: 15

polymer-free systems. The polymer coils or chains wrap around the fully formed surfactant micelles. Odeh (2006) presented the hydro-
phobic interactions between polymer chains and surfactant molecules, and also the attainment of micellization at a concentration lower
than the CMC was confirmed. Berret et al. (2004) conducted dynamic light-scattering experiments with mixed solutions of block
copolymers and oppositely charged surfactants. The results showed values of hydrodynamic radius (RH) that were higher than those of
individual components, an indication that mixed aggregates were formed. The mixed surfactant/polymer complexes were termed
“supermicelles” or “supermicellar aggregates.”
Nanotechnology has provided a means of enhancing the rheological properties of VESs and polymeric fluids (Srinivasan and Shah
2014; Fakoya and Shah 2016, 2017; Chauhan and Ojha 2016; Ozden et al. 2017; Sangaru et al. 2017; Al-Muntasheri et al. 2017). Nano-
technology deals with the design, characterization, production, and application of materials and devices that are based on the nanometer
scale (Evdokimov et al. 2006). Nanoparticles are particles with dimensions on the order of 1 to 100 nm. They possess unique properties
because of their small sizes and greater surface area per unit volume (Singh et al. 2010). The stability or dispersion of nanoparticles in
solutions relies on the functionality (or surface activity) of the nanoparticles. To this end, the surfaces of nanoparticles are usually
treated or functionalized, thereby putting shields around them. These shields hinder particle/particle interaction, and the possibility of
nanoparticles aggregation is reduced.
Nettesheim et al. (2008) prepared different nanofluids by use of positively charged 30-nm silica nanoparticles and cationic surfactant
solutions. At solid-volume fraction (/) > 0.001, the nanofluids were in a single phase with an increased zero-shear-rate viscosity and
storage modulus. Further observation revealed that nanoparticles concentration above 1 vol% caused a phase separation; hence, the nano-
fluids were no longer in single phase (became unstable). Helgeson et al. (2010) reported that nanoparticles addition to wormlike micelles
gives rise to a “double network” that enhances rheological properties. After addition of silica nanoparticles to polymeric fluids, polymer
chains are adsorbed physically onto the surfaces of nanoparticles (Iler 1971). The entanglement that results from polymer-chains interac-
tion, coupled with their adsorption on nanoparticles surfaces, leads to formation of a 3D network structure (Bhattacharya et al. 2010).
Likewise, Berret et al. (2004) reported that supermicellar aggregates were formed when yttrium-based inorganic nanoparticles were
added to aqueous solutions of polyelectrolyte-neutral block copolymers. According to Hurnaus and Plank (2015), nanoparticles can serve
as crosslinkers in fracturing fluids to achieve viscosity buildup. In the work of Vryzas et al. (2015), iron oxide and silica nanoparticles
were dispersed in water-based drilling fluids, and improvements in rheological properties were reported. Similarly, the results of labora-
tory experiments conducted on water-based drilling fluids revealed the ability of nanoparticles to increase viscosity, and also to stabilize
it at high temperatures (Vipulanandan et al. 2017; Mahmoud et al. 2018). Furthermore, few researchers documented the viscosity reduc-
tion in polymer nanocomposites (Roberts et al. 2001; Mackay et al. 2003; Xie et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2006; Jain et al.
2008; Lai and Ni 2008). The introduction of nanoparticles to SBF/polymeric-fluid blends results in interactions that will produce a more
complex 3D network structure. Notwithstanding, the adsorption of surfactant and polymer mixtures on silica displays either synergism or
antagonism; although, this depends on surfactant and polymer type (Somasundaran and Zhang 2006). Sometimes, surfactant and polymer
compete for adsorption sites on the silica surface, an interaction that may lead to an antagonistic effect.
Nanotechnology stands to catalyze the research efforts aimed at mitigating the current problems encountered in fluid-loss control.
Sensoy et al. (2009) conducted laboratory studies with Atoka and Gulf of Mexico (GOM) shales, and reported that particles of nano-
scale size can enter the tiny pore throats of shale and cause a reduction in water invasion. Kang et al. (2016) used silica nanoparticles,
and also confirmed the pore-throat plugging of shale. However, the large sizes of conventional filtration-loss additives hinder such an
application (Cai et al. 2011). Javeri et al. (2011) performed a laboratory experiment with a mud sample containing silicon nanoparticles,
and reported the formation of a low-permeability and -porosity filter cake with significant reduction in thickness. In the work of Wu
et al. (2017), silica nanoparticles were copolymerized with an organic polymer, and the resulting nanoparticle product could block the
nanopores in filter cake. Also, the experimental work of Mahmoud et al. (2017, 2018) showed that nanoparticles can improve the filtra-
tion properties of fluids. Crews and Huang (2010) reported that the use of nanoparticles with surfactants in brine that contains internal
breakers will facilitate the removal of polymer residues from hydraulic fractures during a post-treatment stage. These internal breakers
are trapped in the thread-like micelles (TLMs) that form the pseudofilter cake and in those that leak into the formation (Crews and
Huang 2007).
This study is aimed at investigating the impact of nanotechnology on the apparent viscosity, viscoelastic properties, and filtration
performance of SBFs, polymeric fluids, and SBF/polymeric-fluid blends.

Dynamic Oscillatory Measurements (DOMs)

This is conducted by imposing a sinusoidal stress or strain on a fluid sample, and then measuring the resulting phase and amplitude
(Clark 1989). The stress response is separated into two parts, an in-phase component and an out-of-phase component. The in-phase
component represents a storage or elastic modulus, G0 , and the out-of-phase component signifies a loss or viscous modulus, G00 . G0 pro-
vides information regarding the fluid’s elasticity and network structure, while G00 gives an insight into the viscous properties of the fluid
(Knoll and Prud’homme 1987).

Experimental Setup and Procedures

Materials and Equipment. Fluid samples are prepared with surfactant (the chemical name of this surfactant is Tallowalkylamido-
propyl-dimethylamine oxide), guar, silica nanoparticles (surface-treated with oil) with an average size of 20 nm (size range: 20 to 50
nm), and a commercially available fluid-loss additive (PAC). Also, all samples contained a 4 wt% KCl solution.

Clean Fluids. The base fluids are described next.

Surfactant Solution (No Nanoparticles): 5 vol% surfactant concentration in 4 wt% KCl brine.
Polymeric Solution (No Nanoparticles): 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar concentration in 4 wt% KCl brine.
Blend-A (No Nanoparticles): 75 vol% surfactant solution plus 25 vol% polymeric solution.
Blend-B (No Nanoparticles): 25 vol% surfactant solution plus 75 vol% polymeric solution.

Nanofluids. The 0.058, 0.24, and 0.4 wt% 20-nm silica nanoparticles were added to the clean fluids.

Apparent Viscosity Measurements. The bob-and-cup geometry (with bob and cup radii of 0.49 and 0.54 in, respectively) of the rhe-
ometer was used to acquire viscosity data at five different temperatures, ranging from 75 to 175 F. A 13-cm3 fluid sample was loaded
into the cup, and subjected to different shear rates.

2 2018 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 3 Total Pages: 15

Viscoelastic Measurements. Similarly, oscillatory tests were conducted with the bob-and-cup geometry of the rheometer. The target
strain for each fluid sample was determined at ambient temperature. Thereafter, a frequency sweep test was performed using the deter-
mined target-strain value.

Wall-Mount Filter Press. The valve-stem knob was turned completely clockwise, and a CO2 cartridge was inserted. The test cell was
filled (to approximately 75% of its volume) with fluid sample at ambient temperature. The O-ring was set in its position, and a standard
Whatman No. 50 filter paper (particle retention in liquid of 2.7 mm) was placed on it. The test cell was placed in the regulator assembly.
A graduated cylinder was positioned to receive the filtrate volume, and testing started at 100 psi. Simultaneously, a timer was started to
measure the volume of filtrate collected at different times. Also, filter-cake thickness on the paper was measured with a ruler afterward.

Results and Discussion

Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties. Effect of Nanoparticle Concentration on Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic
Properties of Surfactant-Based (SB) Nanofluids. The apparent viscosity curves in Fig. 1 display the non-Newtonian pseudoplastic
behavior of SB nanofluids. Micelles form in SB fluids after the CMC is exceeded. These micelles entangle themselves after the overlap
concentration is exceeded; hence, viscous properties are enhanced. When nanoparticles are present in surfactant solutions, the endcaps
of the entangled wormlike micelles attach themselves to the surface of the nanoparticles. This attachment creates micelle/particle junc-
tions. According to Helgeson et al. (2010), the viscosity of the nanofluids will increase further because of the formation of a double net-
work. The double network arises from the combination of two mechanisms—micelles entanglement and micelle/nanoparticle junctions.
Contrarily, a decrease in viscosity is obvious at a concentration of 0.4 wt%. This may have resulted from a depletion in free micellar
endcaps at this concentration. This could result in micellar branching (Helgeson et al. 2010) caused by the presence of sliding junctions
(Lequeux 1992). According to Helgeson et al. (2010), micellar branching leads to viscosity reduction. The effect of nanoparticles con-
centration, or /, is stronger at low shear rates.

10,000
5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)

1,000

2,000
100
1,600

1,200

800
0.2 5.2 10.2
10
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 1—Effect of nanoparticle concentration on apparent viscosity of SB nanofluids at 1508F.

It is obvious from Fig. 2 that G0 and G00 increase with nanoparticles concentration up to 0.24 wt%. Possibly, the mechanisms
described for viscosity increment and reduction account for this viscoelastic behavior. In the work of Dai et al. (2014), it was observed
that G0 was lower than G00 at low frequencies, but becomes greater as frequency increases further. The frequency at which they are equal
is called crossover frequency (Dai et al. 2014). This type of G0 and G00 curves with crossover frequency is evident also in the behavior
of the VES studied in this work.
Effect of Temperature on Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties of SB Nanofluids. As shown in Fig. 3, increasing tem-
perature from 75 to 100 F increases the zero-shear-rate viscosity of the nanofluids, whereas a decrease is observed above 100 F. SBFs
have a unique response to temperature, as shown by the experimental results of Mohajeri and Noudeh (2012). They reported a decrease
in CMC initially as temperature increased, and thereafter, it increased with temperature. They argued that increasing temperature
reduces the hydration of polar headgroups, favoring micellization. In contrast, increasing temperature disrupts structured water sur-
rounding the nonpolar tail, disfavoring micellization. In addition, an increase in temperature corresponds to a high thermal energy. This
thermal energy increases the Brownian motion of the nanoparticles, and may have negatively affected the formed micelle/nanoparticle
junctions. At higher shear rates, the effect of temperature becomes insignificant, and viscosity curves approach each other. Fig. 4
depicts the effect of temperature on G0 and G00 of SB nanofluid. Up to 100 F, both moduli increase with temperature, but beyond, they
both decrease. These observations agree with those noticed in apparent viscosity behavior with temperature, and the same mechanisms
probably hold true.
Power-Law Parameters. These are estimated by using points in the shear-thinning region only. The variation of n and Kv with tem-
perature for all the SB nanofluids is shown in Fig. 5. A decreasing and increasing trend of n signifies an increase and decrease in non-
Newtonian behavior, respectively. Likewise, an increasing and decreasing trend of Kv represents an increase and decrease in apparent
viscosity. SB nanofluid at a 0.24 wt% concentration shows the strongest and highest non-Newtonian behavior and apparent viscosity,
respectively, except at 75 F for 0.4 wt%. The explanation given previously may apply for these observations.

2018 SPE Drilling & Completion 3

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 4 Total Pages: 15

1
0.01

0.1
0.001
1 10

G′, G″ (lbf/ft2)
0.01

0.001
G′ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
G ″ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
G′ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
0.0001 G ″ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G′ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G ″ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G′ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G ″ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
0.00001
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Frequency (rev/min)

Fig. 2—Effect of nanoparticle concentration on viscoelastic properties of SB nanofluids at 1508F.

10,000
75°F 100°F 125°F 150°F 175°F
Apparent Viscosity (cp)

1,000

100

10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 3—Apparent viscosity curves of 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl at silica nanoparticle concentration of 0.058 wt%.

0.1

0.01
G′, G″ (lbf/ft2)

0.001

0.0001
G′ (75°F) G″ (75°F)
0.00001 G′ (100°F) G″ (100°F)
G′ (125°F) G″ (125°F)
G′ (175°F) G″ (175°F)
0.000001
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Frequency (rev/min)

Fig. 4—Viscoelastic properties of 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl at silica nanoparticle concentration of 0.058 wt%.

Effect of Nanoparticle Concentration on Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties of Polymeric Nanofluids. The polymeric
fluids exhibit a non-Newtonian pseudoplastic behavior, as shown in Fig. 6. After the critical concentration of monomers ðcm Þ is
exceeded in a polymeric solution, the coils or chains start to entangle. After addition of silica nanoparticles, the polymer chains are
adsorbed physically on the surface of the nanoparticles (Iler 1971). The intercalation that results from polymer-chains interaction,
coupled with their adsorption on nanoparticles surfaces, might have led to formation of a 3D network structure or supermicellar aggre-
gates. This is one possible explanation for the observed increase in apparent viscosity with increasing silica nanoparticle concentration.
Similarly, the shear-thinning power-law region is easily seen. As shear rate increases, the supermicellar structures align and get

4 2018 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 5 Total Pages: 15

stretched in the flow direction, and the number of entanglements reduces. This may have accounted for the decrease in viscosity at high
shear rates. For this polymeric nanofluid, G0 and G00 increase with nanoparticle concentration.

0.45 0.1

Consistency Index, Kv (lbf-secn/ft2)

0.4 0.09

Flow-Behavior Index, n
0.08
0.35
0.07
0.3
0.06
0.25
0.05
0.2
0.04

0.15 0.03

0.1 0.02
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Temperature (°F)
n for 5 vol% SBF (0%) n for 5 vol% SBF (0.058%)
n for 5 vol% SBF (0.24%) n for 5 vol% SBF (0.4%)
Kv for 5 vol% SBF (0%) Kv for 5 vol% SBF (0.058%)
Kv for 5 vol% SBF (0.24%) Kv for 5 vol% SBF (0.4%)

Fig. 5—Power-law parameters vs. temperature for SB nanofluids.

33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)

100 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)

10
1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 6—Effect of nanoparticle concentration on apparent viscosity of polymeric nanofluids at 1758F.

Effect of Temperature on Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties of Polymeric Nanofluids. The polymeric nanofluids ex-
perience a decrease in zero-shear-rate viscosity as temperature increases, as shown in Fig. 7. The guar-based fluid degrades as tempera-
ture increases, and one possible explanation is that the acetal linkages hydrolyzed, resulting in scission of polysaccharide chains. Also,
the increased Brownian motion triggered in the nanoparticles (a result of higher thermal energy) disfavors entanglement. Similarly, G0
and G00 decrease as temperature increases.
Power-Law Parameters. The variation of n and Kv with temperature for all the polymeric nanofluids is shown in Fig. 8. As
expected, n and Kv decrease and increase, respectively, with nanoparticles concentration. Also, the degree of non-Newtonian behavior
and viscosity decreases as temperature increases.
Effect of Nanoparticle Concentration on Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties of Blend-A Nanofluids. The non-Newto-
nian pseudoplastic behavior of the nanofluids is noticeable in Fig. 9. Because the base fluid is a combination of surfactant and polymer,
3D network structures are formed probably from polymer chains wrapping around the surfactant micelles (Nagarajan 1989). Also, these
mixed surfactant/polymer complexes are called supermicelles or supermicellar aggregates (Berret et al. 2004).
The previously described mechanisms that cause a viscosity increase in SB and polymeric nanofluids might have interplayed after
the addition of nanoparticles to Blend-A. This reinforces further the 3D network. However, viscosity decreases at concentrations above
0.058 wt%, except at shear rates above 400 seconds1 for 0.4 wt%. One possible explanation is that the adsorption of the surfactant and
polymer mixture on silica displayed an antagonistic effect above 0.058 wt%; hence, viscosity decreased, resulting from the competition
for adsorption sites on silica surface (Somasundaran and Zhang 2006). Also, there is every possibility that selective adsorption occurred
(Jain et al. 2008). Selective adsorption describes the preferential attachment of high molecular-weight chains to nanoparticles’ surfaces,
while the low molecular-weight chains remain in the polymer matrix. The increase in viscosity, noticed with increasing shear rates for
0.4 wt%, may be attributed to an improvement in the dispersion state of the nanoparticles at these rates (Wang et al. 2006). Similarly, a
decrease in viscoelastic properties is noticed above 0.058 wt%, as shown in Fig. 10.

2018 SPE Drilling & Completion 5

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 6 Total Pages: 15

1,000
75°F 100°F 125°F 150°F 175°F

Apparent Viscosity (cp)

100

10
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 7—Apparent viscosity curves of 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl at silica nanoparticle concentration of 0.24 wt%.

0.8 0.012

Consistency Index, Kv (lbf-secn/ft2)

0.75 0.01
Flow-Behavior Index, n

0.7 0.008

0.65 0.006

0.6 0.004

0.55 0.002

0.5 0
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Temperature (°F)

n for 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar (0%) n for 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar (0.058%)
n for 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar (0.24%) n for 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar (0.4%)
Kv for 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar (0%) Kv for 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar (0.058%)
Kv for 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar (0.24%) Kv for 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar (0.4%)

Fig. 8—Power-law parameters vs. temperature for polymeric nanofluids.

10,000
Blend-A (no nanoparticles)
Blend-A (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-A (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-A (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)

1,000

100

10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 9—Effect of nanoparticle concentration on apparent viscosity of Blend-A nanofluids at 758F.

Effect of Temperature on Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties of Blend-A Nanofluids. The reaction of Blend-A nano-
fluids to temperature resembles that of SB nanofluids, as displayed in Fig. 3, except that the zero-shear-rate viscosity at 150 F is lower
than that at 75 F for these nanofluids. Because Blend-A nanofluid contains 75% surfactant, the similarity in behavior is expected.
Increase in temperature favors micellization up to 100 F. Also, the scission of polysaccharide chains probably occurred concurrently.

6 2018 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 7 Total Pages: 15

Further, the increased Brownian motion of nanoparticles might have caused a diminution of supermicellar aggregates. The effect of
temperature on G0 and G00 of Blend-A nanofluid follows the same trend shown in Fig. 4. The discussed mechanisms for viscosity per-
formance of Blend-A nanofluid with temperature might be responsible for this observation.

1
G′ Blend-A (no nanoparticles)
G″ Blend-A (no nanoparticles)
G′ Blend-A (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G″ Blend-A (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G′ Blend-A (0.4% wt% 20-nm SiO2)
0.1 G″ Blend-A (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

G′, G″ (lbf/ft )
2

0.01

0.001
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Frequency (rev/min)

Fig. 10—Effect of nanoparticle concentration on viscoelastic properties of Blend-A nanofluids at 758F.

Power-Law Parameters. The variation of n and Kv with temperature for the entire Blend-A nanofluids is presented in Fig. 11.
Again, the reduction in degree of non-Newtonian behavior and viscosity above 0.058 wt% concentration is conspicuous.

0.45 0.08

Consistency Index, Kv (lbf-secn/ft2)

0.07
0.4
Flow-Behavior Index, n

0.06
0.35

0.05

0.3
0.04

0.25
0.03

0.2 0.02
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Temperature (°F)

n for Blend-A (0%) n for Blend-A (0.058%)

n for Blend-A (0.24%) n for Blend-A (0.4%)
Kv for Blend-A (0%) Kv for Blend-A (0.058%)
Kv for Blend-A (0.24%) Kv for Blend-A (0.4%)

Fig. 11—Power-law parameters vs. temperature for Blend-A nanofluids.

Effect of Nanoparticle Concentration on Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties of Blend-B Nanofluids. From Fig. 12, it
is obvious that the increase in apparent viscosity is only up to 0.058 wt%. However, the performance at 0.24 wt% is better from 125 to
175 F. The plot at 175 F is displayed in Fig. 13. On the basis of these observations, it suffices to say that the nanoparticles are a good
viscosity enhancer in Blend-B at a 0.058 wt% below 125 F, and also at 0.24 wt% for temperature applications from 125 to 175 F. At
low temperatures, the adsorption of surfactant and polymer mixture on silica probably displayed an antagonistic effect above 0.058
wt%. In addition, there is every possibility that selective adsorption occurred (Jain et al. 2008). At high temperatures, the state of disper-
sion of the nanoparticles may have been affected through changes in particle/particle and polymer/particle interactions (Abbasi et al.
2009). The adsorption of the surfactant and polymer mixture on silica displayed synergistic effects up to 0.24 wt% at high temperatures,
resulting in viscosity increase. The viscoelastic response of Blend-B nanofluids to nanoparticles concentration resembles that of viscos-
ity described previously, except that the superiority of 0.058 wt% is maintained, up to 125 F. Thereafter, better results are seen at 0.24
wt%, up to 175 F.
Effect of Temperature on Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties of Blend-B Nanofluids. This is a replica of viscosity
behavior of polymeric nanofluids displayed in Fig. 7. Because Blend-B nanofluid contains predominantly polymeric fluid (75%), this
similarity in behavior is not surprising. The guar-based fluids studied in this work degraded as temperature increased, as shown earlier,

2018 SPE Drilling & Completion 7

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 8 Total Pages: 15

and this possibly resulted in a scission of polysaccharide chains. Simultaneously, micellization is favored and disfavored at low and
high temperatures, respectively. Also, the increased Brownian motion triggered in the nanoparticles possibly disfavors entanglement.
Similarly, G0 and G00 decrease as temperature increases.

10,000
Blend-B (no nanoparticles)
Blend-B (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-B (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-B (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

Apparent Viscosity (cp)

1,000

100

10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 12—Effect of nanoparticle concentration on apparent viscosity of Blend-B nanofluids at 758F.

100
Apparent Viscosity (cp)

Blend-B (no nanoparticles)

Blend-B (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-B (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-B (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
10
0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 13—Effect of nanoparticle concentration on apparent viscosity of Blend-B nanofluids at 1758F.

Power-Law Parameters. The variation of n and Kv with temperature for all Blend-B nanofluids is shown in Fig. 14. Again, the
reduction in degree of non-Newtonian behavior and viscosity above 0.058 wt% is noticeable, but up to 150 F. In addition, the superior-
ity at 0.24 wt% is visible, but only at 175 F. The observed trend between 100 and 125 F is the result of micellization of the surfactant
part of Blend-B.

Filtration Performance. Filtration Properties of SB Nanofluids. A total flush occurred in the base fluid after 1 minute, as seen in
Fig. 15. The filtration-loss control achieved with SB nanofluids is very good; however, the lowest API filtrate volume of 17.5 cm3 is
realized at 0.24 wt% silica concentration. A complete flush occurred with SBF (no nanoparticles) because it is solids-free. In the work
of Helgeson et al. (2010), it was reported that the addition of nanoparticles to wormlike micelles gave rise to a “double network.” Prob-
ably, a double network was formed in the SB nanofluids and might have resulted in the formation of a continuous and integrated filter
cake. This filter cake, characterized by a low permeability and porosity, reduced fluid loss (Javeri et al. 2011). The particle sizes, being
in the nanometer range, account for these characteristics. The increase in API filtrate volume [volume collected at API standard time of
30 minutes according to API RP 13B-1 (2009)] at 0.4 wt% suggests a distortion in the continuity and integration of the filter cake.
Filtration Properties of Polymeric Nanofluids. Unlike SBF, polymeric fluids develop an internal or primary filter cake that offers
some resistance to flow. Nevertheless, polymeric fluids need fluid-loss additives for filtrate control. Fig. 16 depicts the performance of
these fluids. Similar to SB nanofluids, the lowest API filtrate volume is realized at 0.24 wt% concentration. According to Bhattacharya
et al. (2010), the entanglement that results from polymer-chains interaction, coupled with their adsorption on the surface of nanopar-
ticles, leads to the development of a 3D network structure or supermicellar aggregates. This structure might have aided in the develop-
ment of a reinforced filter cake that obstructed flow. Similarly, the increase in API filtrate volume at 0.4 wt% suggests a distortion in
the continuity and integration of the filter cake.
Although the studied SBF are nonwall-building, their filtration properties (in the presence of nanoparticles) outshine those of poly-
meric nanofluids, even though polymeric fluids form a primary filter cake. One possible explanation is that there is a regular particle-
size variation in SB nanofluids because nanoparticles are the only solids present. Conversely, the presence of nanoparticles and in-situ
polymer solids in polymeric nanofluids probably constituted an irregular particle variation because of dissimilarity in particle size.

8 2018 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 9 Total Pages: 15

0.8 0.018

Consistency Index, Kv (lbf-secn/ft2)

0.016
0.75
0.014

Flow-Behavior Index, n
0.7
0.012
0.65 0.01

0.6 0.008

0.006
0.55
0.004
0.5
0.002

0.45 0
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Temperature (°F)

n for Blend-B (0%) n for Blend-B (0.058%)

n for Blend-B (0.24%) n for Blend-B (0.4%)
Kv for Blend-B (0%) Kv for Blend-B (0.058%)
Kv for Blend-B (0.24%) Kv for Blend-B (0.4%)

Fig. 14—Power-law parameters vs. temperature for Blend-B nanofluids.

180
5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
160 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Cumulative-Filtrate Volume (cm3)

5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

140 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

120
15
100
10
80
5
60
0
0 5 10
40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (minutes)

Fig. 15—Fluid-loss profile of SB nanofluids.

80
Cumulative-Filtrate Volume (cm3)

70

60

50
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
40 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
30 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (minutes)

Fig. 16—Fluid-loss profile of polymeric nanofluids.

2018 SPE Drilling & Completion 9

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 10 Total Pages: 15

Filtration Properties of Blend-A Nanofluids. The presence of 25% polymeric fluid in the mixture prevented a total flush. The low-
est API filtrate volume was achieved at 0.4 wt%, as seen in Fig. 17. In the work of Berret et al. (2004), the formation of complex super-
micellar structures was reported when block copolymers and surfactants were mixed. Also, these authors reported the formation of
supermicellar structures when yttrium-based inorganic nanoparticles were added to aqueous solutions of polyelectrolyte-neutral block
copolymers. There is the possibility that the presence of silica nanoparticles resulted in the development of complex supermicellar
structures in Blend-A nanofluids. Consequently, these structures might have aided the formation of a continuous and integrated filter
cake. This filter cake is characterized by a very low permeability at 0.4 wt%, resulting in no flow across the filter cake for the first
4 minutes.

160

140
Cumulative-Filtrate Volume (cm3) Blend-A (no nanoparticles)
120 Blend-A (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-A (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-A (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
100

80 15
10
60 5
0
40
0 5 10

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (minutes)

Fig. 17—Fluid-loss profile of Blend-A nanofluids.

Filtration Properties of Blend-B Nanofluids. Lower API filtrate volume is recorded when nanoparticles are introduced to Blend-B,
but the best result is at 0.058 wt%, as illustrated in Fig. 18. The development of complex supermicellar structures in the presence of
silica nanoparticles might have contributed to the formation of a low-permeability and integrated filter cake. It has been demonstrated
that Blend-A and Blend-B nanofluids display commendable performances, but it is worth mentioning that Blend-A nanofluids show bet-
ter results. This may be attributed to the percentage of polymeric fluid in the two blends, and as explained earlier, the irregularity in par-
ticle-size variation probably affected the continuity and integration of the developed filter cake.

50

45
Blend-B (no nanoparticles)
Cumulative-Filtrate Volume (cm3)

40 Blend-B (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

Blend-B (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
35 Blend-B (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
15
30
10
25 5
0
20 0 5 10

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (minutes)

Fig. 18—Fluid-loss profile of Blend-B nanofluids.

Filtration Properties of Polymeric Fluids Containing PAC. PAC was added to polymeric fluid at the same nanoparticle concentra-
tions for fairness in comparison. It is obvious from Fig. 19 that the application of nanotechnology leads to a substantial reduction in
fluid loss. The best result attained at 0.4 wt% PAC concentration is inferior to the least performance obtained with silica nanoparticles.
The use of PAC resulted in high fluid loss, probably because the filter cake formed exhibits discontinuity and high permeability because
of large particle sizes; thus, the openings on the filter paper were not blocked effectively throughout the filtration test.

10 2018 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 11 Total Pages: 15

80

Cumulative-Filtrate Volume (cm3)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (minutes)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (no PAC)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% PAC)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.24 wt% PAC)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.4 wt% PAC)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

Fig. 19—Fluid-loss profile of polymeric fluids containing PAC and silica nanoparticles.

Nanofluids Comparison. Comparison of Apparent Viscosity and Viscoelastic Properties. It is obvious from Figs. 20 and 21 that
Blend-A base fluid displayed the highest apparent viscosity, except in Fig. 20 where Blend-B base fluid showed a better result as shear
rate increases.

10,000
5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
Blend-A (no nanoparticles)
Blend-B (no nanoparticles)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)

1,000

100

10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 20—Comparison of apparent viscosity of clean fluids at 758F.

1,000
5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (no nanoparticles)
Blend-A (no nanoparticles)
Blend-B (no nanoparticles)
Apparent Viscosity (cp)

100

10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 21—Comparison of apparent viscosity of clean fluids at 1758F.

2018 SPE Drilling & Completion 11

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 12 Total Pages: 15

Blend-A and SB nanofluids show superiority compared with the other nanofluids, as illustrated in Fig. 22. However, Blend-A
nanofluids gave a higher apparent viscosity at low shear rates. Fig. 23 confirms that Blend-A nanofluids exhibit better
viscoelastic properties.

1,000
5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Apparent Viscosity (cp) Blend-A (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-B (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

100

10
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Wall Shear Rate (sec–1)

Fig. 22—Comparison of apparent viscosity of nanofluids (with 0.058 wt% concentration) at 1758F.

0.1

0.01
G′, G″ (lbf/ft2)

0.001

0.0001 G′ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)

G″ 5 vol% SBF in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G′ 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G″ 33 lbm/1,000 gal guar in 4 wt% KCl (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
0.00001 G′ Blend-A (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G″ Blend-A (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G′ Blend-B (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
G″ Blend-B (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
0.000001
0.1 1 10 100 1,000
Frequency (rev/min)

Fig. 23—Comparison of viscoelastic properties of nanofluids (with 0.058 wt% concentration) at 1758F.

Comparison of Filtration Performance. As previously demonstrated, Blend-A nanofluids and SB nanofluids gave the best perform-
ance compared with the other two nanofluids. Notwithstanding, Blend-A nanofluids show better results compared with SB nanofluids.
Unlike Blend-A (no nanoparticles), a complete flush occurred at 1 minute with SBF (no nanoparticles). In addition, Blend-A nanofluids
gave less API filtrate volume at all nanoparticle concentrations. Also, at 0.4 wt%, the first fluid loss for Blend-A nanofluid was recorded
at 5 minutes.

Economic Analysis. An economic analysis, that was based on the cost of preparing one barrel of nanofluid, is presented in Table 1.
Irrespective of the volume of nanofluid required for an oilfield job, the cost per barrel is the parameter needed to calculate the cost. The
present market price (as of 2017) of surfactant, guar, KCl, and 20-nm silica nanoparticles is USD 1,894.7/bbl, USD 18.9/lbm, USD 0.3/
lbm, and USD 1.8/g [from Nanomaterial Store (2017)], respectively.
Because Blend-A and Blend-B nanofluids are a mixture of SB and polymeric nanofluids in the proportion of 75/25 and 25/75%,
respectively, the cost per barrel of these blends follows in the same proportion also. From Table 1, one can see that polymeric and
Blend-B nanofluids gave the lowest price, but they are not a good choice from a filtration-performance standpoint. The cost per barrel
of Blend-A nanofluid is lower than that of SB nanofluid. In addition, Blend-A nanofluids show superior filtration properties compared
with SB nanofluids, as pointed out earlier.
Obviously, from both performance and economic vantage points, Blend-A nanofluid is a better choice. The amount of KCl and silica
nanoparticle concentrations is the same in all nanofluids, and this is reflected in the closeness of their cost per barrel, as seen in Table 1.
Therefore, Blend-A nanofluid will still be the better choice at the remaining concentrations.

12 2018 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 13 Total Pages: 15

Cost of Nanofluids (USD/bbl)

Materials SB Polymeric Blend-A Blend-B

5 vol% surfactant 94.7

33 lbm/1,000 gal guar 26.2

4 wt% KCl 4.2 4.4

20-nm silica nanoparticles (0.058 wt%) 171.7 167

Total 270.6 197.6 252.4 215.9

Table 1—Economic analysis of nanofluids.

For cost consideration and from a filtration-performance standpoint, it is recommended to use Blend-A nanofluid at 0.058 wt% nano-
particles. Using it at this recommended concentration, compared with 0.4 wt%, which costs USD 1,184.1/bbl, reduces the cost of nano-
particles to USD 171.7/bbl. This huge reduction in the cost of nanoparticles required for preparing 1 bbl of this fluid clearly supports
this recommendation.

Optimization of Blend-A Nanofluid. Having selected Blend-A nanofluid and recommended its usage at 0.058 wt%, additional tests
were conducted with this fluid at lower nanoparticle concentrations (0.02, 0.01, and 0.002 wt%) to probe further into its filtration perform-
ance. Unarguably, the motive behind this optimization process is cost reduction. Fig. 24 shows the results obtained before and after the
optimization process. Interestingly, the percentage reduction in API filtrate volume at 0.02 wt% exceeds that at 0.058 wt%. Nevertheless,
the percentage reduction (88.2%) in API filtrate volume at 0.002 wt% is equally good even compared with the 92.7% reduction in API fil-
trate volume obtained at 0.02 wt%. Using Blend-A nanofluid at 0.02 and 0.002 wt%, compared with the initial recommendation of 0.058
wt%, which costs USD 171.7/bbl, reduces the cost of nanoparticles needed for preparing 1 bbl of this fluid to USD 59.2 and USD 5.8,
respectively. On the basis of this optimization, Blend-A nanofluid is recommended for use at a nanoparticle concentration of 0.002 wt%.

160

140
Cumulative-Filtrate Volume (cm3)

Blend-A (no nanoparticles)

Blend-A (0.002 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
120 Blend-A (0.01 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-A (0.02 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
100 Blend-A (0.058 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
Blend-A (0.24 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
80 15 Blend-A (0.4 wt% 20-nm SiO2)
10
60
5
0
40 0 5 10

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (minutes)

Fig. 24—Fluid-loss profile of Blend-A nanofluid before/after optimization.

Conclusions
• Using 20-nm silica nanoparticles, surfactant-based, polymeric, Blend-A, and Blend-B nanofluids were prepared and evaluated for
their apparent viscosity, viscoelastic properties, and filtration performance.
• The apparent viscosity and viscoelastic properties of the investigated surfactant-based nanofluids improved up to a nanoparticle con-
centration of 0.24 wt%, probably because of the presence of a double network. These nanofluids display promising filtration proper-
ties, with a slightly better result at a nanoparticle concentration of 0.24 wt%.
• Polymeric nanofluids show a progression in apparent viscosity and viscoelastic properties up to a nanoparticle concentration of 0.4
wt%. This might have resulted from the formation of a 3D network structure or supermicellar aggregates. Also, these nanofluids
reveal very good filtration results, with a better performance at a 0.24 wt% nanoparticle concentration.
• Blend-A nanofluids produce a favorable result at a nanoparticle concentration of 0.058 wt%, thanks to the formation of a 3D network.
A very good filtration-loss control is achieved with Blend-A nanofluids up to 0.4 wt%. This may be caused by the continuous and
integrated filter cake.
• Silica nanoparticles are good in Blend-B, up to a nanoparticle concentration of 0.24 wt%, for temperature application from 125 to
175 F. In addition, Blend-B nanofluids show a very good filtration property, with a better performance at 0.058 wt%.
• A trial run was made with a commercially available fluid-loss additive (PAC) in polymeric fluids at the same nanoparticle concentra-
tions; the result confirmed that nanosilica facilitates the achievement of a superior filtration property.
• Optimization reveals that using Blend-A nanofluid at 0.002 wt% reduces the cost of nanoparticles required for preparing 1 bbl of this
fluid to USD 5.8. Therefore, from a filtration-performance standpoint, Blend-A nanofluid is recommended for use at a nanoparticle
concentration of 0.002 wt%.

2018 SPE Drilling & Completion 13

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 14 Total Pages: 15

• During hydraulic fracturing, the fluid properties are affected by factors such as shear and temperature. Also, proppant suspension is
important in the fractures where the shear on the fluid is less compared with when pumped through the tubulars and perforations.
Therefore, the study of fluid rheological properties (such as apparent viscosity and viscoelastic properties) in the presence of shear
and temperature will help in tailoring fluid designs for different reservoirs.

Nomenclature
cm ¼ critical concentration of monomers, lbm mol/gal
G0 ¼ elastic modulus, lbf/ft2
G00 ¼ viscous modulus, lbf/ft2
Kv ¼ viscometer-consistency index, lbf-secn/ft2
n ¼ flow-behavior index, dimensionless
T ¼ temperature, F
/ ¼ solid-volume fraction, dimensionless

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the University of Oklahoma for granting permission to publish this work.

References
Abbasi, S., Carreau, P. J., Derdouri, A. et al. 2009. Rheological Properties and Percolation in Suspensions of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes in Polycar-
bonate. Rheologica Acta 48 (9): 943–959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00397-009-0375-7.
Al-Muntasheri, G. A., Liang, F., and Hull, K. L. 2017. Nanoparticle-Enhanced Hydraulic-Fracturing Fluids: A Review. SPE Prod & Oper 32 (2):
186–195. SPE-185161-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/185161-PA.
Amanullah, Md. and Al-Tahini, A. M. 2009. Nano-Technology—Its Significance in Smart Fluid Development for Oil and Gas Field Application. Pre-
sented at the SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Alkhobar, Saudi Arabia, 9–11 May. SPE-126102-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/126102-MS.
Amanullah, Md., Al-Arfaj, M. K., and Al-Abdullatif, Z. 2011. Preliminary Test Results of Nano-Based Drilling Fluids for Oil and Gas Field Applica-
tions. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 1–3 March. SPE/IADC-139534-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
139534-MS.
API RP 13B-1. 2009. RP for Field Testing Water-Based Drilling Fluids. Washington, DC: API.
Berret, J. F., Yokota, K., and Morvan, M. 2004. Interactions Between Polymers and Nanoparticles: Formation of Supermicellar Hybrid Aggregates. Pre-
sented at the ECIS Conference, Almeria, Spain, September. https://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0411/0411669.pdf.
Bhattacharya, S., Gupta, R. K., and Bhattacharya, S. N. 2010. The Rheology of Polymeric Nanocomposites. In Polymer Nanocomposites Handbook, ed.
R. K. Gupta, E. Kennel, and K-J. Kim, Chap. 8, 151–204. Florida, USA: Taylor and Francis.
Cai, J., Chenevert, M. E., Sharma, M. M. et al. 2011. Decreasing Water Invasion Into Atoka Shale Using Non-modified Silica Nanoparticles. Presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 30 October–2 November. SPE-146979-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/146979-MS.
Chauhan, G. and Ojha, K. 2016. Synthesis of a Bio-Polymer Nanocomposite Fracturing Fluid for HTHP Application. Presented at the Abu Dhabi Interna-
tional Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, 7–10 November. SPE-183124-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/183124-MS.
Chen, P., Zhang, J., and He, J. 2005. Increased Flow Property of Polycarbonate by Adding Hollow Glass Beads. Polymer Engineering & Science 45 (8):
1119–1131. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.20382.
Clark, P. E. 1989. Oilfield Fluid Rheology: The Use of a Controlled Stress-Measuring System to Determine Oilfield Fluid Properties. Presented at the 64th
Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–11 October. SPE-19736-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/19736-MS.
Crews, J. B. and Huang, T. 2007. Internal Breakers for Viscoelastic Surfactant Fracturing Fluids. Presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oil-
field Chemistry, Houston, 28 February–2 March. SPE-106216-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/106216-MS.
Crews, J. B., Huang, T., and Wood, W. R. 2008. The Future of Fracturing-Fluid Technology and Rates of Hydrocarbon Recovery. Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 21–24 September. SPE-115475-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/115475-MS.
Crews, J. B. and Huang, T. 2010. New Remediation Technology Enables Removal of Residual Polymer in Hydraulic Fractures. Presented at the SPE An-
nual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September. SPE-135199-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/135199-MS.
Crews, J. B. and Gomaa, A. M. 2012. Nanoparticle-Associated Surfactant Micellar Fluids: An Alternative to Crosslinked Polymer Systems. Presented at
the SPE International Oilfield Nanotechnology Conference, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 12–14 June. SPE-157055-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
157055-MS.
Dai, C., Yan, Z., You, Q. et al. 2014. Formation of Worm-Like Micelles in Mixed N-Hexadecyl-N-Methylpyrrolidinium Bromide-Based Cationic Sur-
factant and Anionic Surfactant Systems. PLOS ONE 9 (7): e102539. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102539.
Evdokimov, I. N., Eliseev, N. Y., Losev, A. P. et al. 2006. Emerging Petroleum-Oriented Nanotechnologies for Reservoir Engineering. Presented at the
SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, 3–6 October. SPE-102060-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/102060-MS.
Fakoya, M. F. and Shah, S. N. 2016. Relative Viscosity of Hydraulic-Fracturing Fluids Containing Nanoparticles. Presented at the SPE Western Regional
Meeting, Anchorage, 23–26 May. SPE-180458-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/180458-MS.
Fakoya, M. F. and Shah, S. N. 2017. Emergence of Nanotechnology in the Oil and Gas Industry: Emphasis on the Application of Silica Nanoparticles.
Petroleum 3 (4): 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petlm.2017.03.001.
Helgeson, M. E., Hodgdon, T. K., Kaler, E. W. et al. 2010. Formation and Rheology of Viscoelastic Double Networks in Wormlike Micelle–
Nanoparticle Mixtures. Langmuir 26 (11): 8049–8060. https://doi.org/10.1021/la100026d.
Hurnaus, T. and Plank, J. 2015. Crosslinking of Guar and HPG Based Fracturing Fluids Using ZrO2 Nanoparticles. Presented at the SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, The Woodlands, Texas, 13–15 April. SPE-173778-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/173778-MS.
Iler, R. K. 1971. Relation of Particle Size of Colloidal Silica to the Amount of a Cationic Polymer required for Flocculation and Surface Coverage. Jour-
nal of Colloid and Interface Science 37 (2): 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9797(71)90304-3.
Jain, S., Goossens, J. G. P., Peters, G. W. M. et al. 2008. Strong Decrease in Viscosity of Nanoparticle-filled Polymer Melts Through Selective Adsorp-
tion. Soft Matter 4 (9): 1848–1854. https://doi.org/10.1039/b802905a.
Javeri, S. M., Haindade, Z. W., and Jere, C. B. 2011. Mitigation Loss Circulation and Differential Sticking Problems Using Silicon Nanoparticles. Pre-
sented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, Muscat, Oman, 24–26 October. SPE-145840-MS. https://
doi.org/10.2118/145840-MS.

14 2018 SPE Drilling & Completion

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013

 DC163921 DOI: 10.2118/163921-PA Date: 18-May-18 Stage: Page: 15 Total Pages: 15

Kang, Y., She, J., Zhang, H. et al. 2016. Strengthening Shale Wellbore With Silica Nanoparticles Drilling Fluid. Petroleum 2: 189–195. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petlm.2016.03.005.
Knoll, S. K. and Prud’homme, R. K. 1987. Interpretation of Dynamic Oscillatory Measurements for Characterization of Well Completion Fluids. Pre-
sented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, San Antonio, Texas, 4–6 February. SPE-16283-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
16283-MS.
Krueger, R. F. 1986. An Overview of Formation Damage and Well Productivity in Oilfield Operations. J Pet Technol 38 (2): 131–152. SPE-10029-PA.
https://doi.org/10.2118/10029-PA.
Lai, B. and Ni, X. J. 2008. Rheological Behavior and Interaction of Polycarbonate/Barium Sulfate Composites. Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part
B 47 (5): 1028–1038. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222340802219529.
Lequeux, F. 1992. Reptation of Connected Wormlike Micelles. Europhysics Letters 19 (8): 675–681. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/19/8/003.
Mackay, M. E., Dao, T. T, Tuteja, A. et al. 2003. Nanoscale Effects Leading to Non-Einstein-Like Decrease in Viscosity. Nature Materials 2 (11):
762–766. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat999.
Mahmoud, O., Nasr-El-Din, H. A., Vryzas, Z. et al. 2017. Characterization of Filter Cake Generated by Nanoparticle-Based Drilling Fluid for HP/HT
Applications. Presented at the SPE International Conference on Oilfield Chemistry, Montgomery, Texas, 3–5 April. SPE-184572-MS. https://doi.org/
10.2118/184572-MS.
Mahmoud, O., Nasr-El-Din, H. A., Vryzas, Z. et al. 2018. Using Ferric Oxide and Silica Nanoparticles to Develop Modified Calcium Bentonite Drilling
Fluids. SPE Drill & Compl 33 (1): 12–26. SPE-178949-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/178949-PA.
Mohajeri, E. and Noudeh, G. D. 2012. Effect of Temperature on the Critical Micelle Concentration and Micellization Thermodynamic of Nonionic Sur-
factants: Polyoxyethylene Sorbitan Fatty Acid Esters. E-Journal of Chemistry 9 (4): 2268–2274. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/961739.
Nagarajan, R. 1989. Association of Nonionic Polymers With Micelles, Bilayers, and Microemulsions. The Journal of Chemical Physics 90 (3):
1980–1994. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.456041.
Nanomaterial Store. 2017. http://nanomaterialstore.com/nano-oxides.php (accessed 24 October 2017).
Nettesheim, F., Liberatore, M. W., Hodgdon, T. K. et al. 2008. Influence of Nanoparticle Addition on the Properties of Wormlike Micellar Solutions.
Langmuir 24 (15): 7718–7726. https://doi.org/10.1021/la800271m.
Odeh, F. 2006. Polymer-Surfactant Interaction. In Polymer Spectator, a Web-based scientific publication. Department of Chemistry, Clarkson University,
New York (16 February 2006). http://www.scientificspectator.com/documents/polymer%20spectator/Polymer_Surfactant_Interaction.pdf.
Ozden, S., Li, L., Al-Muntasheri, G. A. et al. 2017. Nanomaterials-Enhanced High-Temperature Viscoelastic Surfactant VES Well Treatment Fluids.
Presented at the SPE International Conference on Oilfield Chemistry, Montgomery, Texas, 3–5 April. SPE-184551-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
184551-MS.
Roberts, C., Cosgrove, T., Schmidt, R. G. et al. 2001. Diffusion of Poly(dimethylsiloxane) Mixtures With Silicate Nanoparticles. Macromolecules 34
(3): 538–543. https://doi.org/10.1021/ma001245z.
Sangaru, S. S., Yadav, P., Huang, T. et al. 2017. Temperature-Dependent Influence of Nanoparticles on Rheological Properties of VES Fracturing Fluid.
Presented at the SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, 17–19 October. SPE-186308-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/
186308-MS.
Sensoy, T., Chenevert, M. E., and Sharma, M. M. 2009. Minimizing Water Invasion in Shale Using Nanoparticles. Presented at the SPE Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 4–7 October. SPE-124429-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/124429-MS.
Singh, S. K., Ahmed, R. M., and Growcock, F. 2010. Vital Role of Nanopolymers in Drilling and Stimulations Fluid Applications. Presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September. SPE-130413-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/130413-MS.
Somasundaran, P. and Zhang, L. 2006. Adsorption of Surfactants and Polymers on Silica. In Colloidal Silica: Fundamentals and Applications, Chap. 39,
531–534. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Srinivasan, A. and Shah, S. N. 2014. Surfactant-Based Fluids Containing Copper-Oxide Nanoparticles for Heavy Oil Viscosity Reduction. Presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 27–29 October. SPE-170800-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/170800-MS.
Vipulanandan, C., Mohammed, A., and Samuel, R. G. 2017. Smart Bentonite Drilling Muds Modified With Iron Oxide Nanoparticles and Characterized
Based on the Electrical Resistivity and Rheological Properties With Varying Magnetic Field Strengths and Temperatures. Presented at the Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, 1–4 May. OTC-27626-MS. https://doi.org/10.4043/27626-MS.
Vryzas, Z., Mahmoud, O., Nasr-El-Din, H. A. et al. 2015. Development and Testing of Novel Drilling Fluids Using Fe2O3 and SiO2 Nanoparticles for
Enhanced Drilling Operations. Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 6–9 December. IPTC-18381-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2523/IPTC-18381-MS.
Wang, Z., Xie, G., Wang, X. et al. 2006. Rheology Enhancement of Polycarbonate/Calcium Carbonate Nanocomposites Prepared by Melt-Compounding.
Materials Letters 60 (8): 1035–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2005.10.070.
Wu, Y., Wang, Z., Yan, Z. et al. 2017. Poly(2-acrylamide-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid)-Modified SiO2 Nanoparticles for Water-Based Muds. Indus-
trial & Engineering Chemistry Research 56 (1): 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b03450.
Xie, X. L., Liu, Q. X., Liu, R. K. Y. et al. 2004. Rheological and Mechanical Properties of PVC/CaCO3 Nanocomposites Prepared by In Situ Polymeriza-
tion. Polymer 45 (19): 6665–6673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2004.07.045.

Muili Feyisitan Fakoya is a PhD-degree candidate in the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering at the
University of Oklahoma (OU). Besides research, he has several years of oil and gas industry experience in different areas such as
drilling and completion fluids, drilling, and cased-hole wireline (plug-and-perforate completion technique, production packer
installation, and logging). Fakoya’s research areas of interest include drilling and hydraulic-fracturing fluids, drilling and comple-
tion, and nanotechnology. He has authored several technical papers, and also serves as a peer reviewer. Fakoya holds a
National Diploma in mechanical engineering from the Federal Polytechnic Ilaro in Nigeria, a BS degree in petroleum engineer-
ing from University of Ibadan in Nigeria, and an MS degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Oklahoma. He has
been a member of SPE since 2003.
Subhash Shah is an emeritus professor in the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering at OU. He retired
from OU with 22 years of service after 18 years of prior experience with Halliburton. Since 2016, Shah has been the Shell Total
Chair Professor at Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, India. His research interests include hydraulic fracturing, horizontal/
multilateral-well completions and stimulation, and coiled-tubing technology. Shah has authored or coauthored nearly 300 tech-
nical papers in 30 international journals. He holds a BS degree from the University of Baroda, India, and MS and PhD degrees
from the University of New Mexico, all in chemical engineering. Shah is an SPE Lifetime Member, was an SPE Distinguished Lec-
turer during the 2012–2013 season, and was recipient of the 2009 Mid-Continent Region SPE Completions Optimization and Tech-
nology Award. He is also a fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and a distinguished alumnus of the College of
Engineering, University of New Mexico.

2018 SPE Drilling & Completion 15

ID: jaganm Time: 16:09 I Path: S:/DC##/Vol00000/180013/Comp/APPFile/SA-DC##180013