SPE 140744
Investigating the Use of Nanoparticles in Enhancing Oil Recovery
Mike O. Onyekonwu and Naomi A. Ogolo, Department of Petroleum and Gas Engineering, University of Port
Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria
Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa – Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July–7 August 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract
This paper is aimed at studying the ability of three different
polysilicon nanoparticles (PSNP) to enhance oil recovery.
Changing rock wettability is the target because wettability
is a primary factor that affects recovery efficiency. The
experiments conducted centered on laboratory coreflooding
using two kinds of oil, brine and polysilicon nanofluids on
water wet rocks obtained from the Niger Delta. The three
kinds of PSNP used for this study were lipophobic and
hydrophilic PSNP (LHPN), hydrophobic and lipophilic
PSNP (HLPN) and neutrally wet PSNP (NWPN).
The results obtained indicate that NWPN and HLPN are
good enhanced oil recovery (EOR) agents in water wet
formations. Two mechanisms through which oil recovery is
enhanced using NWPN and HLPN are change of rock
wettability and reduction of interfacial tension by the
improved quality of ethanol, the dispersing agent. Thus
NWPN and HLPN dispersed in ethanol are recommended
for use in EOR for water wet formations. LHPN which make
already water wet rocks strongly water wet yield poor
recovery factors indicating that its use for EOR should be
restricted to oil wet formations.
Introduction
Wettability is major factor that influences ultimate oil
recovery. Generally water wet rocks have better recovery
efficiency than oil wet rocks but several studies have shown
that intermediately wet formations yield more oil than
water wet rocks. It is therefore essentials to deliberately
alter the wettability of a formation to an ideal wetting state
that can aid maximum expulsion of oil from reservoirs.
One important characteristic of polysilicon nanoparticles
(PSNP) is its ability to change the wettability of a rock
surface. The different types of PSNP alter rock wettability
differently. LHPN can turn an oil wet rock water wet or
make an already water wet rock strongly water wet. HLPN
can render a water wet rock oil wet or make an already oil
wet rock strongly oil wet while NWPN can change either an
oil or water wet formation to an intermediate state. NWPN
achieves intermediate wetness either by making the rock
both strongly water wet and strongly oil wet because it
possesses both hydrophilic and hydophobic nanoparticles or
by making the rock neither oil wet nor water wet. The
presence of these nanoagents in reservoir formations can
change the wettability of these rocks to an ideal state that
can improve recovery.
The ability of PSNP to change rock wettability can be
exploited in EOR. Most oil reservoir rocks in the Niger
Delta are water wet, changing this state to an intermediate
state using PSNP can tremendously reduces residual oil
saturations to a low critical value, thus improving recovery
efficiency. A study of how efficient these three types of
PSNP can serve to achieve maximum recovery was
conducted experimentally by coreflooding. The
experimental results show that when the right kind of PSNP
is dispersed in a suitable fluid, it can appreciably enhance
oil recovery.
Introducing PSNP into reservoir formations requires a
carrier fluid or dispersing agent. After a consideration of
several fluids, alcohol was selected to disperse NWPN and
HLPN while water is best for LHPN in the formation.
Amongst all the alcohols, ethanol meets the criteria required
for dispersing NWPN and HLPN. In course of the work, it
was discovered that NWPN and HLPN improved the
characteristics of ethanol from being a very weak surfactant
to a very good surfactant which is an added advantage to
EOR. The presence of NWPN and HLPN in ethanol leads to
a large reduction in interfacial tension between oil and
formation water.
Core Plugs
Eight natural core plugs used for this work are water wet
sandstone rocks obtained from an oil reservoir in the
Niger Delta. These core plugs shown in Figure 5B were
divided into two sets and each set comprises of four
2 SPE 140744
plugs. Each plug in the first set labeled as CN1A, CN2A,
CN3A, and CN4A is experimented with a light crude oil
(labeled ‘oil A’) with API gravity of 410. For each core
plug in the second set labeled as CN1B, CN2B, CN3B
and CN4B, intermediate crude (oil B) of API gravity 280
is used. Plugs CN1A and CN1B serve as control samples
on which no PSNP was applied but brine only. LHPN
dispersed in distilled water was used on plugs CN2A and
CN2B to find out if making an already water wet rock
strongly water wet has any good change of improving oil
recovery. NWPN dispersed in ethanol was used on plugs
CN3A and CN3B while HLPN dispersed in ethanol was
used on plugs CN4A and CN4B. The properties of each
of these core plugs are presented in Table 3.
Brine and Oil
The formation water obtained from the reservoir where
the core sample was recovered from has a salinity of
30,000 ppm. The brine used for this experiment was
prepared in the laboratory with the same salinity as the
formation water. Brine was used to wet and saturate the
core plugs and an initial four pore volumes of brine was
used to flush out oil from the plugs leaving behind some
amount of residual oil saturation. Brine was finally used
again to continue the secondary recovery process after
introduction of nanofluids.
The two kinds of degassed oil used for the experiment are
light oil and intermediate grade oil all obtained from
Niger Delta. The properties of each kind of oil are
presented in Table 2. Each kind of oil was injected into
their respective brine saturated core plugs to flush out
brine from the plugs until oil became the effluent. This
served to ensure that the pore spaces are filled with oil
and brine of known initial saturations.
Polysilicon Nanofluids
Polysilicon nanofluid is prepared by dispersing PSNP in a
fluid. The different PSNP used for this work were
procured from Houston in Texas, USA. All the three
types have high surface area due to their small sizes. The
PSNP are shown in Figure 4 while their nanofluids are
shown in Figures 5A. The properties of each of these
PSNP are presented in Table 2.
NWPN is partially dispersible in water while HLPN
cannot be dispersed in water because it is highly
hydrophobic rather is dispersible in organic solvents.
Some of the particles of NWPN are readily absorbed and
suspended in water while others will keep floating even
after much agitation and duration of time in weeks. This
suggests that NWPN is both hydrophobic and hydrophilic
and that water will not be suitable for dispersing its
particles. Therefore a suitable carrier fluid was searched
for that can disperse NWPN and HLPN in the formation.
After a careful consideration of several fluids, ethanol an
alcohol was selected as the most suitable dispersing agent.
This is because ethanol met most of the criteria required
for dispersing NWPN and HLPN in the formation. These
criteria include solubility in formation water,
immiscibility with crude oil, low volatility, high boiling
point and low toxicity since environmental safety is very
important. The physical properties of ethanol stem
primarily from the presence of its hydroxyl group causing
it to mix with some polar compounds like water and some
non-polar fluids like light aliphatic hydrocarbons (but not
with crude oil).
Experimental Procedure
The coreflood experiments were performed under partial
reservoir conditions. A confining pressure of 2000psi was
used at room temperature. The oil and brine used were
gas free which means that the effect of gas solubility in
the fluids is absent. The contact angles of all the core
plugs were taken before and after treatment with each
nanofluid using brine before coreflooding to determine
the concentration of PSNP to use. A contact angle of 900
was required for NWPN and HLPN while a contact angle
of 100 was required for LHPN. But because the NWPN
used can not give a high contact angle due to the fact that
it is both strongly water wet and strongly oil wet, a
contact angle of 00 was used. A concentration of 2g/L for
LHPN and 3g/L for both NWPN and HLPN were used.
The set up of apparatus used for the coreflooding
operation consists mainly of a constant flow rate pump, a
core holder and its accessories, an accumulator and a
pressure pump. These pieces of equipment were
connected to each other using small tubes. A flow chart
for this operation is shown in Figure 8 while the core
holder producing effluent from a core is shown in Figure
7B. The flow rate for this experiment was maintained at
1cm3/min. and the volumes of all produced effluents
measured in cm3 were noted. The results obtained from
these volumes were used for calculating fluid saturations,
recovery factors and displacement efficiencies.
Coreflood Experiment
Flooding the cores with the three types of polysilicon
nanofluids constitutes the most important part of this
experimental work. The sole aim is to determine the level
of oil recovery that will be attained when each type of
PSNP is used to alter the wettability of the plugs. All the
plugs were flooded with a total of ten pore volumes of
displacing fluids as illustrated in Figure 10. The first four
pore volumes of brine were used for all the plugs to
mimic primary and secondary recovery since this
operation is not done insitu. The first core plug in each
set, that is CN1A and CN1B were flooded with an
additional six pore volumes of brine as shown in figure
7B. The second core plug in each set, that is CN2A and
CN2B were flooded with an additional three pore
volumes of LHP nanofluid and lastly with another three
pore volumes of brine. The third and forth core plugs in
each set of plugs i.e. CN3A and CN3B and CN4A and
CN4B were also flooded with three pore volumes of
NWP and HLP nanofluids respectively to render the water
wet rocks intermediately wet and lastly with three pore
volumes of brine. The produced volume of effluent
SPE 140744
especially oil was recorded during each stage of flooding
operation.
Results and Discussions
The Nanofluids and Oil
Some changes were observed in the color of the LHP and
HLP nanofluids produced as effluent from their respective
core plugs. For the LHP effluent produced from CN2A
and CN2B, the initial cloudy solution of LHP nanofluid
changed to a colorless effluent indicating that almost all
the PSNP have been deposited on the rock surface. The
rock in this case acts like a filter retaining the filtrate and
producing a colorless liquid. This accounts for the low
relative permeability to brine encountered after each
treatment with LHPN.
A color change from a white cloudy solution to a
yellowish green was observed as effluent with HLP
nanofluid on plugs CN4A and CN4B. (The case of CN4A
is shown in Figure 6B). This is an indication of a reaction
that must have taken place between the nanofluid and
rock or between the nanofluid and oil. If this reaction
results from the interaction of the nanofluid and oil which
is likely, it implies that HLP nanofluid somehow modifies
oil properties. However no color change occurred with
NWP nanofluid. The fluid properties of these nanofluids
are presented in Table 2.
Oil B sank to the bottom of the collecting test tubes when
HLP and NWP nanofluids were used for EOR. This can
be seen in Figure 7. This is due to a difference in density
between the nanofluids and the oil. It also means that
HLP and NWP nanofluids are lighter than some grades of
crude and can act as good surfactants in EOR. It takes
several volumes of brine or ordinary water to dilute the
effect of these surfactants and subsequently release the oil
droplets from the effective grip of these surfactants so that
they can assume their normal behavior of buoyancy above
polar solvents.
Rock Properties and Polysilicon Nanofluids
Generally all the core plugs are water wet, they have good
porosity and permeability and are not well consolidated
on close examinations. The rock properties are presented
in Table 3. The core plugs have good interconnected pore
spaces as observed on comparing the absolute porosity
with effective porosity of each core. PSNP were able to
change the wettability of the core plugs from their natural
water wetting states to the desired wetting states. LHPN
and HLPN changed water wet rocks from an average
natural contact angle of about 360 to less than 100 and
around 900 respectively. NWPN changed the wetting
states of the rocks from water wet to neutrally wet by
giving a contact angle of 00 both for brine and oil. This
shows that PSNP treated with silane can render a rock
neutrally wet by making it completely water wet and at
the same time completely oil wet.
3
Treatment with LHP results in a more severe permeability
problem than with the use of NWPN and HLPN. This is
seen from the two cases of relative permeability results
after application of LHPN. This is perhaps due to the fact
that the particle sizes of the LHPN used (between 20 -
60nm) are larger than those of other PSNP used.
Fluid Volumes Obtained from the
Experiment
Different volumes of oil, brine and nanofluids obtained
from this experiment are used to calculate several
parameters. These volumes are denoted with letters of the
alphabets as symbols shown below. All fluid volumes are
in cm3. The results of the fluid volumes are presented in
Table 4.
Volume of brine in each core on complete saturation with
brine by injection = A
Volume of oil injected into the cores until effluent
becomes oil only (after flushing out brine, leaving behind
only Swi) = B
:. Original oil in place (OOIP in the core plugs) = B
Volume of brine obtained as effluent when oil is injected
until saturation = C
Volume of oil flushed out of each core as a result of
injection of the initial four pore volumes of flood water
(brine before the application of nanofluids) = G
Volume of oil remaining in each core (residual oil
saturation) after being injected with the initial four pore
volumes of brine (to mimic secondary oil recovery by
water injection) = D
B-G=D
Volume of oil recovered as a result of PSNP application
(i.e EOR) = F
Therefore total volume of oil recovered = G + F
Volume of residual brine remaining in the core after
flooding with oil = E
A–C=E
Volume of oil remaining in the pore space after EOR = H
B – (G + F) = H
Effective pore volume of each core plug = Y
When HLP and NWP nanofluids are injected into the
plugs, it is noticed that the initial production is only water
followed by some amount of nanofluid. It takes sometime
(while only water and nanofluid is produced) before oil is
produced. But when oil finally appears, a lot of it is
produced before a mixture of oil, brine and nanofluid are
produced together. The initial production of only water
when HLP and NWP nanofluids are each introduced into
a core plug with residual oil saturation (Sor) is an
indication of mobilization of the oil. When dispersed
pockets of oil are left behind a flood front, the work of an
EOR agent is to mobilize these pockets of oil. At this
point, the pockets of oil are no longer connected, they are
disconnected by formation water. But when HLP or NWP
nanofluid is introduced, they tend to gather or connect
these pockets of oil together, mobilizing them to flow.
Probably when this process is going on only water is
produced and when the mobilized oil is finally pushed
4 SPE 140744
ahead of the flood front, only oil is produced for
sometime. Later any dispersed oil that has not been
mobilized is produced along as tiny droplets carried in the
mixture of nanofluid and brine.
From the produced effluent after application of HLP and
NWP nanofluids for oil A, distinct layers are visible. For
the use of HLPN, brine can be seen at the lowest part of
the test tube, nanofluid (yellowish green in color) is seen
above the brine and oil could be seen on top of the
nanofluid in Figure 6B. For the use of NWP nanofluid,
the three layers of fluid can be seen in Figure 6A with
brine at the bottom of the test tube, a cloudy solution
which is the NWPN nanofluid produced and oil on top of
the nanofluid. These different layers suggest that the
nanofluid is lighter or less dense than the brine while the
oil is lighter than the two fluids. But because these
nanofluids are miscible with water, the density of the
mixture (i. e. brine and nanofluid) is between the density
of pure brine and pure nanofluid.
Experimental Fluid Saturations
The fluid saturations obtained from the experiments are
derived as follows:
Initial oil saturation in the core
So = (B/Y) X 100% (1)
Connate water saturation
Swi = (A-C)/Y X 100% (2)
Residual oil saturation before application
of PSNP Sor = (D/Y) X 100% (3)
Critical oil saturation after application
of PSNP Soc = (D-F)/Y X 100% (4)
Movable oil
Som = ((B - D) + F)/Y X 100% (5)
The results of the fluid saturations obtained by
calculations and graph are presented in Table 5 and
Figure 1 respectively. Comparing the residual oil
saturation Sor after primary and secondary recovery with
the critical oil saturation Soc for each of the core plugs
using each type of PSNP for EOR shows that NWPN and
HLPN are very good EOR agents. The reductions from
Sor to Soc (which could be seen from the gap or difference
between the top of each Sor rectangle and the top of its
associated Soc rectangle) for the two cases each of NWPN
and HLPN are the largest. This shows that NWPN and
HLPN are efficient in enhancing oil recovery and
subsequently reducing the residual oil saturation to a
critical value.
LHPN is not a good EOR agent in a water wet rock. This
is shown in Figure 1 from the histograms for LHPN. The
gaps between Sor and Soc of the two cases of LHPN are
very small. Thus the chances of enhancing oil recovery by
making an already water wet rock strongly water wet are
very slim. LHPN when used in an already water wet rock
simply enhances water production (not oil) and this water
flows out very efficiently through the tiny pore spaces
close to the rock surface. This could account for the great
ease with which water comes out from the sides of the
producing end stem for both cases using LHPN while the
centre is blocked by an immobile oil globule as illustrated
in Figure 9. In the two cases using LHPN, the relative
permeability to water is very high while the oil becomes
immobile even though it is occupying the larger pore
spaces less restricted to fluid flow as observed from the
producing end of the end stem.
Recovery Efficiency
The total oil recovery, EOR and displacement efficiencies
are highest with the use of NWPN and HLPN as is seen
from Table 6 and Figures 2 and 3. For oil A, it can be
seen that the contribution of EOR to the total oil recovery
is slightly more than the contribution of primary and
secondary recovery in the cases of NWPN and HLPN (i.e.
CN3A and CN4A). For oil B, though the contribution of
EOR using NWPN and HLPN are lower than the
contributions of primary and secondary recovery, the
results of the EOR are very high. It can also be seen that
LHPN is very low in EOR. Brine is a good EOR agent
than LHPN in water wet rocks but lower than HLPN and
NWPN.
Mechanism of EOR Using PSNP
The mechanism through which NWPN and HLPN
enhance oil recovery when dispersed in ethanol is through
change of rock wettability and reduction of interfacial
tension. The water wet rock samples of about 350 contact
angle were changed to about 900 for HLPN and 00 for
NWPN. The NWPN showed a change from water wetting
state to strongly water wet and strongly oil wet states. The
contact angle of drops of oil place on the surface of the
core plugs treated with NWPN also gives contact angles
of 00. This kind of intermediate wetting state is mixed and
is also somewhat neutral because neither water nor oil
wetting state is given preference.
The potential in ethanol to act as a good surfactant is
enhanced by the presence of NWPN and HLPN. Although
ethanol slightly reduces the interfacial tension of water
and oil but this reduction is not large enough to cause
significant oil dispersion in the fluid. But with the
presence of NWPN or HLPN in ethanol, tiny globules of
oil are formed and are better dispersed in the mixture of
ethanol and crude oil, even sinking to the bottom of the
fluid when left to settle. Therefore a formation flooded
with NWPN or HLPN dispersed in ethanol can carry a
good amount of trapped residual oil as tiny oil globules
along with the flow to producing wells. Thus ethanol’s
capacity to act as a good surfactant is enhanced by the
presence of PSNP in it.
Conclusions
From all the results obtained and analysis done from this
study, the following conclusions have been drawn.
1. NWPN and HLPN dispersed in ethanol in
addition to changing rock wettability to
intermediate wetting states also act as surfactants
in reducing interfacial tension between oil and
water thus improving oil recovery efficiency.
SPE 140744 5

2. PSNP treated with silane (NWPN) and PSNP impairment is a serious problem observed when LHPN is
modified with single layer organic chain (HLPN) used in reservoir formations.
are very good EOR agents in water wet rocks
and as such are highly recommended for use in Acknowledgments
water wet formations. The authors of this paper wish to thank “Petroleum Trust
3. Untreated PSNP (LHPN) is not a good EOR Development Fund” (PTDF) for funding this work.
agent in water wet formations because it hinders
oil production but enhances water production.
4. When PSNP is used for EOR, formation damage
Nomenclature
due to permeability impairment should be Som Movable oil saturation
anticipated especially with LHPN. So Oil saturation
5. The expected displacement efficiency (ED) when Swi Initial water saturation
NWPN and HLPN are used for EOR in a Sor Residual oil saturation
reservoir rock with fluid properties similar to Soc Critical oil saturation
those used here range between 50% to 70% and
50% to 81 % respectively. Subscript
6. A concentration of 3g/L or less (i.e. ≤ 3g/L) is o oil
recommended for use when NWPN or HLPN is w water
used as an EOR agent in water wet formations. wi Initial water
or residual oil
Summary oc critical oil
The coreflooding experiment conducted in this work was om movable oil
used to study the oil recovery enhancing capacity of
PSNP in a water wet formation. Two kinds of crude oil, a References
light crude and an intermediate crude were used on core 1. Kanj, M. Y., Funk, J. J. and Zuhair A. Y.: ‘Nanofluid
plugs drilled out from the same reservoir core sample Coreflood Experiments in the ARAB-D’, SPE
obtained from the Niger Delta. The three kinds of PSNP 126161, Saudi Arabia, 1 – 11, May 2009.
used were untreated PSNP (LHPN), PSNP treated with
single layer organic compound (HLPN) and PSNP treated 2. Dong, H., Hong, Y., Weng, R.:’The effect of
with silane (NWPN). Nanofluids prepared by dispersing Wettability n Oil Recovery of
these nanoparticles in suitable fluids were used to flood Alkaline/Surfactant/Polymer and Polymer Flooding’,
the core plugs after some amount of oil has been produced SPE 102564, Texas, USA, 1 - 8. Sept. 2006.
from each plug using four pore volumes of brine. The
goal is to change the wettability of these core plugs by 3. Binshan, J. and Tailang, F.: Powder Technology:
introducing nanofluids and then observe the efficiency of ‘Experimental study and mathematical Model of
mobilization and displacement of the residual oil Nanoparticle Transport in Porous Media’, Elservier
saturations by these nanofluids. The recovery efficiency, B. V., Beijing, China, 195 - 202. Dec.2008
displacement efficiency and critical oil saturation were
used to access the ability of these PSNP to enhance 4. Binshan, J., Tailang, F. and Mingxua M.: ‘Enhanced
recovery. Oil Recovery by Flooding with Hydrophilic
Nanoparticles’, China Particuology, Vol. 4, No. 1,
The results obtained indicate that NWPN and HLPN Elservier B. V., Beijing, China, 41 - 46. Aug. 2005
dispersed in ethanol are very good agents for enhancing
oil recovery in water wet formations. Ethanol is a very 5. Binshang, J., Daishugao, Zhian, L., Tiango, Z..,
good agent for dispersing PSNP in reservoir formations, Xiantao, S., Xiaofeng, Q.: ‘A Study of
in order to change rock wettability while NWPN and Wettability and Permeability Change Caused by
HLPN both improve the potential in ethanol to act as a Adsorption of Nanometer Structured Polysilicon
good surfactant in oil reservoirs. The effects of these on the Surface of Porous Media’, SPE 77938,
surfactants result in reducing interfacial tension between East China,1 - 12. Oct. 2002
oil and brine. The complimentary effects of PSNP
(Specifically NWPN and HLPN) and ethanol positively 6. Craft, B. C., Hawkings, M. F. and Ronald, E. T.:
contribute to increase the recovery efficiency obtained ‘Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering’
from the use of these nanofluids. Therefore the Second edition, Prentice Hall, Upper saddle
mechanisms of improved recovery are through change of RIiver, New Jersey, 335-337, 1959.
rock wettability and reduction of interfacial tension
between oil, brine and nanofluids. 7. Willhite, G. P.: ‘Waterflooding’ SPE, Richardson,
Texas, 5 - 34. 1986
LHPN is not a good agent for EOR in a water wet rock.
Making the formation strongly water wet improves water
production and hinders oil production. Permeability
6 SPE 140744

8. Tarek, A.: ‘Reservoir Engineering Handbook’,

Second edition, Gulf Professional Publishing,
Houston, Texas, USA. 189 -194 2000.

9. Levorson A. I.: ‘Geology of Petroleum’, CBS

Publishers and Distributors, India, 442 - 451.
1985.

10. Charles, R. S., Tracy, G. W., Farrar, R. L.:

‘Applied Reservoir Engineering’, Vol. 1, Oil and
Gas consultants International, Inc; Tulsa, 2.14 -
2.18, 2.48, 11.21 -11.25, 1992

11. Huang, T. T., Crew, J. B. and Willingham, J. R.:

‘Nanoparticles for Formation Fines Fixation and
Improving Performance of Surfactant Structure
Fluids’, IPTC-12414-MS, Malaysia, 1, Dec.
2008

12. Saggaf, M. M.: ‘A vision for Future Upstream

Technologies’, Number 3, Journal of Petroleum
Technology’, SPE-109323-MS, Saudi Arabia,
54-55, 94 – 98, March 2008

13. Pourfshary, P., Azimipour, S. S., Motamedi, P.,

Samet, M., Taheri, S. A., Bargozin, H. and
Hendi, S. S.: ‘Priority Assessment of Investment
in Development of Nanotechnology in Upstream
Petroleum Industry’, SPE 126101-MS, Saudi
Arabia, 1, May 2009

14. Mokhatab, S., Fresky, M. A. and Islam, M. R.:

‘Application of Nanotechnology in E&P’, JPT
online, 1 – 4, April 2006

15. Dosunmu Adewale: ‘Practicals in Petroleum

Engineering’, Series 2, Pam Unique Publishers,
Port Harcourt, 74 – 89, 1993.
SPE 140744 7

Table 1: Properties of the three types of Polysilicon Nanoparticles.

Type of PN Lipophobic & hydrophilic Neutrally wet PN Hydrophobic &

Properties PN (LHPN) (NWPN) lipophilic PN (HLPN)

% content of SiO2: 99.9% 99% 99.8%

Treated or modified with: Untreated Silane Single layer organic chain

Particle size diameter: 20-60nm 10-30nm 10-20nm

2 2
Surface area: 400-600m /g >400m /g 100-140m2/g
Dispersible in: Polar solvents Weak or non - polar solvents Weak or non - polar
(partially soluble in water) solvents
Wettability: Hydrophilic Neutral Highly hydrophobic
PH vaue: - - 6.5 – 7.5
Bulk density: - - 0.15g/ml
Content of carbon: - - >0.3%
Content of SiO2 on dry basis: - - >90%

Table 2: Results of Fluid Properties

Type of When Density Specific Viscosity @ API Concent Other Descriptions /

Fluid properties are (g/cm3 ) gravity ambient gravity r-ation Observations
determined condition (cp) (0) (g/L)
(before or after
application of
PSNP).
LHP - 0.9964 0.9980 - - 2.0000 The dispersing fluid is
nanofluid water and it is slightly
cloudy
NWP - 0.8320 0.8333 - - 3.0000 The dispersing fluid is
nanofluid ethanol and it is slightly
cloudy
HLP - 0.8351 0.8364 - - 3.0000 The dispersing fluid is
Nanofluid ethanol and it is slightly
cloudy
Before application 1.0153 1.0169 1.2612 - (Salinity) The brine is a clear
of nanofluid 30.0000 colourless solution of
salt and water
Brine After application 0.9944 0.9960 - - - The produced mixture
of LHP nanofluid of LHP nanofluid and
brine is a very clear
colourless solution
After application 0.9700 0.9716 - - - The clour of the
of NWP nanofluid nanofluid produed is
slightly cloudy
After application 0.9472 0.9487 - - - There is a colour
of HLP nanofluid change of the mixture
of brine and nanofluid
from slight cloudy to
yellowish green
especially with oil B
Crude Oil Before application 0.8186 0.8198 4.0642 41.1031 - Very light and slightly
A of nanofluid greenish in colour
Crude Oil Before application 0.8840 0.8854 27.6204 28.3148 - Low shrinkage oil
B of nanofluid (black oil), dark in
colour and lightly thick
8 SPE 140744

Table 3: Results of Rock Properties

Core Air Liquid Liquid Ab. Eff. Contac Contac Bulk Pore Length Radius Cross
sample perm. perm. kw rel. porosit porosit t angle t angle vol. of vol. of of core of core section
No. kair @ (mD) perm. y (%) y (%) of of core core in cm in cm -al
375 using Of using @ wettab wettab (cm3) (cm3) area of Rock
psi brine brine helium ambie ility (0) ility (0) (πr2h) core in composition /
(mD) before Krw @375 nt before after cm2) lithological
before appl. of (mD) psi conditi appl. PSNP descriptions
appl. PSNP after on of
of appl. before PSNP
PSNP of PSNP
PSNP
CN1A 1880 714.46 476.43 29.90 28.69 34 36 64.81 18.60 5.47 1.94 11.85 Sst, gry, vf gr,
lam, wl srtd,
mod cmt
CN2A 2260 1518.61 126.55 30.90 30.88 37 < 10 69.82 21.56 5.85 1.95 11.93 Sst, gry, vf gr,
lam, wl srtd,
mod cmt
CN3A 2430 791.23 158.36 31.90 30.88 36 0 76.91 23.75 6.22 1.97 12.17 Sst, gry, vf-f
gr, lam, burr,
mod srtd,
mod-wl cat
CN4A 2010 513.59 154.15 32.20 31.29 35 88 67.73 21.20 5.81 1.93 11.67 Sst, gry, vf-f
gr, lam, mica
mod srtd, m-
wl cmt
CN1B 1980 514.37 308.53 31.60 29.13 36 38 73.91 21.53 6.07 1.97 12.18 Sst, gry, vf-f
gr, lam, mod
srtd, mod –wl
cmt
CN2B 2430 1085.00 125.08 29.50 28.20 35 < 10 75.22 21.22 6.28 1.95 11.97 Sst, gry, vf gr,
lam, wl srtd,
mod cmt
CN3B 2600 939.24 128.03 31.90 31.78 35 0 61.45 19.53 5.29 1.92 11.62 Sst, gry, f gr,
shly, lam, wl
srtd, mod cmt
CN4B 2180 1476.18 147.62 32.20 31.64 35 93 64.19 20.31 5.53 1.92 11.61 Sst, gry, f gr,
lam, wl srtd,
mod cmt

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN LITHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS

Sst – sandstone Shly – shaley gry - grey
Vf – very fine F – fine Wel – well
Gr – grained Lam – laminated M – medium
Srtd – sorted Burr – burrow Mod – moderately
Mica - micaceous P - poorly Cmt - cemented
SPE 140744 9

Table 4: Results of Fluid Volumes

Core plug A B C D E F G H G+F

No.
CN1A 18.60 11.50 11.50 7.40 7.10 2.20 4.10 5.20 6.30
CN2A 21.56 13.30 13.30 6.30 8.26 0.1 7.00 6.20 7.10
CN3A 23.75 16.00 16.00 10.90 7.75 6.20 5.10 4.70 11.30
CN4A 21.20 15.00 15.00 10.00 6.20 5.50 5.00 4.50 10.50
CN1B 21.53 15.20 15.20 7.40 6.33 0.80 7.80 6.60 8.60
CN2B 21.22 15.60 15.60 9.20 5.62 0.30 6.40 8.90 6.70
CN3B 19.53 13.00 13.00 5.50 6.53 3.80 7.50 1.70 11.30
CN4B 20.31 13.10 13.10 4.70 7.21 3.80 8.40 0.90 12.20

Where
A = volume of brine in each core on saturation with brine.
B = Volume of oil injected into the cores until oil become the effluent.
C = Volume of brine obtained as effluent when oil is injected until saturation.
D = Volume of oil remaining in each core after flushing the oil out with four pore volumes of brine (D = B – G)
E = Volume of residual brine remaining in the core after oil has replaced the pushed out brine. This volume is called initial
water saturation or used interchangeably as connate water saturation (E = A – C)
F = Volume of oil recovered as a result of nanofluid injection (EOR)
G = Volume of oil flushed out of each core as a result of the initial four pore volumes of brine.
H = Volume of oil remaining in the pore space after EOR {H = B – (G+F)}
G+F = Total volume of oil recovered.
Note: All fluid volumes are in cm3.

Table 5: Results of Fluid Saturations

Core plug Initial water Initial oil Sor (%) before Soc (%) Som
No. saturation saturation So application of after EOR
Swi or Swc (%) PSNP for
(%) EOR
CN1A 38.16 61.84 64.35 45.22 54.78
CN2A 38.31 61.69 47.37 46.62 53.38
CN3A 32.62 67.38 68.13 29.38 70.63
CN4A 29.23 70.77 66.67 30.00 70.00
CN1B 29.40 70.60 48.68 43.42 56.58
CN2B 38.31 61.69 47.37 46.62 53.38
CN3B 33.44 66.56 42.31 13.08 86.92
CN4B 35.50 64.50 35.88 6.87 93.13

Where
So = Initial oil saturation in the pore spaces.
Swi = Initial water saturation
Sor = Residual oil saturation remaining in each plug (out of 100% oil in place) after
oil recovery using 4 pore volumes of brine.
Soc = Critical oil saturation after the use of PSNP for EOR.
Som = Total movable oil.
Note: So + Swc = 1
10 SPE 140744

Residual oil saturations (Sor) before the use of EOR agents and
critical oil saturations (Soc) after the use of EOR agents
80
70
Oil saturations in %

60
50
40 Res. oil
30 sat.
20 Crit. oil
10 sat. after
0 EOR
CN1A CN2A CN3A CN4A CN1B CN2B CN3B CN4B
(Brine) (LHPN) (NWPN) (HLPN) (Brine) (LHPN) (NWPN) (HLPN)
Core plugs

Figure 1: Histograms showing the reduction from residual oil saturation (Sor) to critical oil saturation (Soc) for each use of the
PSNP.

Table 6: Results of Recovery Efficiency

Core plug Type of PSNP Concent- Primary & EOR Total oil %
No. used ration secondary efficiency recovery improvement
(g/L) recovery (%) (%) after efficiency or EOR over
before appl. of app. of (%) Sor (%)
PSNP PSNP ED =
(1-Soc/Sor)100
CN1A Brine only 30.00 35.65 19.13 54.78 29.73
CN2A LHPN 2.00 52.63 0.75 53.38 1.59
CN3A NWPN 3.00 31.88 38.75 70.62 56.88
CN4A HLPN 3.00 33.33 36.67 70.00 55.00
CN1B Brine only 30.00 51.31 5.26 56.58 10.81
CN2B LHPN 2.00 41.03 1.92 42.95 3.26
CN3B NWPN 3.00 57.69 29.23 86.92 69.09
CN4B HLPN 3.00 64.12 29.01 93.13 80.85
SPE 140744 11

Results of oil recovery

100
90
80
70 EOR efficiency
60
50
40 Prim. & sec. oil recovery
30 efficiency
20
10
0
CN1A CN2A CN3A CN4A CN1B CN2B CN3B CN4B
(Brine) ( LHPN) ( NW PN) (HLPN) (Brine) ( LHPN) (NW PN) ( HLPN)
Core plugs

Figure 2: Component bar charts showing the primary and secondary recovery and EOR that add up to make the total oil
recovery from each core plug.

Displacement Efficiency or % improvement

90
80
70
60
50 Displacement
40 Efficiency or %
improvement
30
20
10
0
CN1A CN2A CN3A CN4A CN1B CN2B CN3B CN4B
(Brine) (LHPN) (NWPN) (HLPN) (Brine) (LHPN) (NWPN) (HLPN)

Figure 3: Simple bar charts showing the oil displacement efficiencies or percentage improvements from the use of each type
of PSNP for EOR.

Figure 4: The three types of polysilicon nanoparticles used. (From left to right: LHPN, NWPN & HLPN)
12 SPE 140744

A B

Figure 5: A: The prepared and used nanofluids (From left to right: LHP, NWP and HLP nanofuids) B: The eight core plugs
used to conduct the coreflooding experiments.

A B

Figure 6: A. The effluent produced after NWP nanofuid has been applied to CN3A for oil A.
B. The effluent produced after HLP nanofluid has been applied to CN4A for oil A.

A B

Figure 7: A. Oil B sinking to the bottom of collecting test tubes in HLP nanofluid after EOR. B. Flooding operation in
progress, producing effluent from a core plug inside the core holder.
SPE 140744 13

Overburden
Core
Source of gas Gas Pressure pressure Holder
(Nitrogen) pump contai-
ining the
core,
rubber
butt &
two end
Constant flow Flow rate Accumulator Flooding fluid stems
rate pump containing the
flooding fluid

Figure 8: A flow chart of the flooding operation.

Producing end stem

Immobile oil globules occupying the

large spaces unrestricted to flow.

Produced water flowing with ease from the

Interconnected small pores close to the end

Figure 9: A diagram illustrating fluid flow through the producing end stem after application of LHP nanofluid.
14 SPE 140744

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Brine
Oil
Brine

Brine &
Oil & Swc Sor
Brine only

Oil first, brine and oil second,

100% brine Brine first, oil and brine
brine with little or no oil third
second, oil only third

Stage 4 Stage 6
Stage 5

More brine
Brine
Nanofluid

Brine,
Nanofluid, Brine,
nanofluid
brine & Sor nanofluid &
& Soc
reducing reduced Sor

Brine, oil & nanofluid Mostly brine with

Brine first, nanofluid second, produced together little or no oil
oil third, brine, oil and
nanofluid together forth.

Figure 10: An illustration showing all the stages of flooding carried out on each core plug.