Enhanced Oil Recovery

  • Muhammad Shahzad Kamal
  • Abdullah S. SultanEmail author
Reference work entry
Part of the Polymers and Polymeric Composites: A Reference Series book series (POPOC)


Worldwide energy demand has been increased in last few decades, and it is expected that it will increase up to 50% by the end of next decade. Oil and gas were major sources of energy in past, and it is expected that it will remain the primary source of energy in next few decades. Therefore, efforts are being made to upgrade drilling, completion, workover, and production operations to maximize the oil recovery at a lower cost. In last few decades, water-soluble polymers have been extensively used in different gas and oilfield applications. In the present chapter, we discuss the various types of polymeric systems that have been applied in various oilfield applications. These applications are mainly enhanced oil recovery, drilling fluids, and kinetic gas hydrate inhibition. Properties required for each application are also discussed and related to the chemical structure of the polymer.


Polymer Enhanced oil recovery Drilling fluid Kinetic hydrate inhibitors Viscosity 







2-Acrylamido-2-Methylpropane Sulfonic Acid


American Petroleum Institute




Cation exchange capacity




Enhanced Oil Recovery


Hydrophobically modified polyacrylamide




Partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide


High-pressure microdifferential scanning calorimetry


High-temperature high-salinity


Isoelectric point




Kinetic hydrate inhibitors (), and


Permeability of oil


Permeability of water


Molecular dynamic




Polyethylene oxide


Poly(vinyl caprolactam)


Poly (N-methyl,N-vinylacetamide)


Poly(vinyl pyrrolidone)


Structure I


Structure II


Structure III




Structure T


Hydrate plug formation time


Thermodynamic hydrate inhibitors


Induction time








Viscosity of oil


Viscosity of water


  1. 1.
    I. Lakatos, Role of chemical IOR/EOR methods in the 21st century, in 18th World Petroleum Congress, 25–29 September, Johannesburg. 2005. World Petroleum Congress, WPC-18-0883Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.S. Kamal et al., Evaluation of rheological and thermal properties of a new fluorocarbon surfactant-polymer system for EOR applications in high-temperature and high-salinity oil reservoirs. J. Surfactant Deterg. 17(5), 985–993 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Al Adasani, B. Bai, Analysis of EOR projects and updated screening criteria. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 79(1), 10–24 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.J. Manrique et al., EOR: Current Status and Opportunities. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 24–28 April, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA. 2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.S. Kamal, A.S. Sultan, I.A. Hussein, Screening of amphoteric and anionic surfactants for cEOR applications using a novel approach. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 476, 17–23 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Wang et al., Optimized Surfactant IFT and Polymer Viscosity for Surfactant- Polymer Flooding in Heterogeneous Formations. SPE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, 24–28 April, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA 2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Bera et al., Adsorption of surfactants on sand surface in enhanced oil recovery: Isotherms, kinetics and thermodynamic studies. Appl. Surf. Sci. 284, 87–99 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Bera et al., Screening of microemulsion properties for application in enhanced oil recovery. Fuel 121, 198–207 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Samanta et al., Effects of alkali, salts, and surfactant on rheological behavior of partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide solutions. J. Chem. Eng. Data 55(10), 4315–4322 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Samanta et al., Comparative studies on enhanced oil recovery by alkali–surfactant and polymer flooding. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2(2), 67–74 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Wang et al., A novel thermoviscosifying water-soluble polymer: Synthesis and aqueous solution properties. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 116(6), 3516–3524 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Zhu et al., Aqueous hybrids of silica nanoparticles and hydrophobically associating hydrolyzed polyacrylamide used for EOR in high-temperature and high-salinity reservoirs. Energies 7(6), 3858–3871 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.J. Taber, Dynamic and static forces required to remove a discontinuous oil phase from porous media containing both oil and water. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 9(1), 3 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W.R. Foster, A low-tension waterflooding process. J. Pet. Technol. 25(02), 205–210 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.A. Ahmadi et al., Preliminary evaluation of mulberry leaf-derived surfactant on interfacial tension in an oil-aqueous system: EOR application. Fuel 117, 749–755 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Fernandes et al., Biosurfactant, solvents and polymer production by Bacillus subtilis RI4914 and their application for enhanced oil recovery. Fuel 180, 551–557 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M.S. Kamal, A review of gemini surfactants: Potential application in enhanced oil recovery. J. Surfactant Deterg. 19(2), 1–14 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.A. Ahmadi, S.R. Shadizadeh, Implementation of a high-performance surfactant for enhanced oil recovery from carbonate reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 110, 66–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.A. Ahmadi, M. Galedarzadeh, S.R. Shadizadeh, Wettability alteration in carbonate rocks by implementing new derived natural surfactant: Enhanced oil recovery applications. Transp. Porous Media 106(3), 645–667 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Mohammed, T. Babadagli, Wettability alteration: A comprehensive review of materials/methods and testing the selected ones on heavy-oil containing oil-wet systems. Adv. Colloid Interf. Sci. 220, 54–77 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M.A. Ahmadi, S.R. Shadizadeh, Experimental investigation of adsorption of a new nonionic surfactant on carbonate minerals. Fuel 104, 462–467 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M.A. Ahmadi, S. Shadizadeh, Experimental and theoretical study of a new plant derived surfactant adsorption on quartz surface: Kinetic and isotherm methods. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 36(3), 441–452 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M.A. Ahmadi, S.R. Shadizadeh, Induced effect of adding nano silica on adsorption of a natural surfactant onto sandstone rock: Experimental and theoretical study. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 112, 239–247 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    L. Fu et al., Study on organic alkali-surfactant-polymer flooding for enhanced ordinary heavy oil recovery. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 508, 230–239 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M.S. Kamal et al., Review on polymer flooding: Rheology, adsorption, stability, and field applications of various polymer systems. Polym. Rev. 55(3), 491–530 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    A.Z. Abidin, T. Puspasari, W.A. Nugroho, Polymers for enhanced oil recovery technology. Procedia Chem. 4, 11–16 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. Han et al., Laboratory study on polymers for chemical flooding in carbonate reservoirs. SPE EOR Conference at Oil and Gas West Asia, 31 March-2 April, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Muscat, Oman 2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Atesok, P. Somasundaran, L.J. Morgan, Charge effects in the adsorption of polyacrylamides on sodium kaolinite and its flocculation. Powder Technol. 54(2), 77–83 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    M. Celik, S. Ahmad, H. Al-Hashim, Adsorption/desorption of polymers from Saudi Arabian limestone. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 6(3), 213–223 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Muggeridge et al., Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and technological limits. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372(2006), 20120320 (2014)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    H.R. Li et al., Effect of organic alkalis on interfacial tensions of surfactant/polymer solutions against hydrocarbons. Energy Fuel 29(2), 459–466 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    A.A. Olajire, Review of ASP EOR (alkaline surfactant polymer enhanced oil recovery) technology in the petroleum industry: Prospects and challenges. Energy 77, 963–982 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    X.M. Zhang et al., Adaptability of a hydrophobically associating polyacrylamide/mixed-surfactant combination flooding system to the Shengli Chengdao oilfield. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 131(12), 40390 (1–9) (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    F.W. Smith, The behavior of partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide solutions in porous media. J. Pet. Technol. 22(02), 148–156 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M.S. Kamal et al., Rheological study on ATBS-AM copolymer-surfactant system in high-temperature and high-salinity environment. J. Chem. 2013, 801570 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    C. Zhou et al., Synthesis and solution properties of novel comb-shaped acrylamide copolymers. Polym. Bull. 66(3), 407–417 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. Borthakur et al., Partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamide for enhanced oil-recovery. Res. Ind. 40(2), 90–94 (1995)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    R.D. Shupe, Chemical stability of polyacrylamide polymers. J. Pet. Technol. 33(08), 1513–1529 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    H. Lu et al., Retention behaviors of hydrophobically associating polyacrylamide prepared via inverse microemulsion polymerization through porous media. J. Macromol. Sci., Part A: Pure Appl. Chem. 47(6), 602–607 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    R.G. Ryles, Chemical stability limits of water-soluble polymers used in oil recovery processes. SPE Reserv. Eng. 3(01), 23–34 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    A. Moradi-Araghi, D.H. Cleveland, I.J. Westerman, Development and Evaluation of EOR Polymers Suitable for Hostile Environments: II-Copolymers of Acrylamide and Sodium AMPS. 1987Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    R.S. Seright et al., Stability of partially hydrolyzed polyacrylamides at elevated temperatures in the absence of divalent cations. SPE J. 15(02), 341–348 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    H. Nasr-El-Din., B. Hawkins, K. Green, Viscosity behavior of alkaline, surfactant, polyacrylamide solutions used for enhanced oil recovery, in SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 20–22 February, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Anaheim, California 1991)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    M.S. Kamal et al., Rheological properties of thermoviscosifying polymers in high-temperature and high-salinity environments. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 93(7), 1194–1200 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Y. Niu et al., Research on hydrophobically associating water-soluble polymer used for EOR. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 13–16 February, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas 2001)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    M. Buchgraber et al., The displacement of viscous oil by associative polymer solutions. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 4–7 October, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana 2009)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    D. Lijian, W. Biao, Hydrophobically associating terpolymer and its complex with a stabilizer in brine for enhanced oil recovery. SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 14–17 February, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, Texas 1995)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Z. Ye et al., Hydrophobically associating acrylamide-based copolymer for chemically enhanced oil recovery. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 130(4), 2901–2911 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Y. Wang et al., A novel thermoviscosifying water-soluble polymer for enhancing oil recovery from high-temperature and high-salinity oil reservoirs. Adv. Mater. Res. 307, 654–657 (2011)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    P. Maroy, et al., Thermoviscosifying polymers, their synthesis and their uses in particular in the oil industry. EP Patent 0,583,814. 1998Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    J. Sheng, Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and Practice (Gulf Professional Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    X.J. Liu et al., Synthesis and evaluation of a water-soluble acrylamide binary sulfonates copolymer on MMT crystalline interspace and EOR. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 125(2), 1252–1260 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Z. Ye et al., Synthesis and characterization of a water-soluble sulfonates copolymer of acrylamide and N-allylbenzamide as enhanced oil recovery chemical. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 128(3), 2003–2011 (2013)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Y. Xu et al., Synthesis and aqueous solution properties of a novel nonionic, amphiphilic comb-type polyacrylamide. J. Macromol. Sci., Part B 50(9), 1691–1704 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    C.L. McCormick, L.C. Salazar, Water-soluble copolymers. 43. Ampholytic copolymers of sodium 2-(acrylamido)-2-methylpropanesulfonate with [2-(acrylamido)-2-methylpropyl] trimethylammonium chloride. Macromolecules 25(7), 1896–1900 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    C.L. McCormick, J.C. Middleton, D.F. Cummins, Water-soluble copolymers. 37. Synthesis and characterization of responsive hydrophobically modified polyelectrolytes. Macromolecules 25(4), 1201–1206 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    F. Yang et al., Synthesis, characterization, and applied properties of carboxymethyl cellulose and polyacrylamide graft copolymer. Carbohydr. Polym. 78(1), 95–99 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    L. Bai et al., Synthesis and solution properties of comb-like acrylamide copolymers. J. Wuhan Univ. Technol.-Mater. Sci. Ed. 27(6), 1105–1109 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    J.F. Berret et al., Fluorocarbon associative polymers. Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 8(3), 296–306 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    J.F. Argillier et al., Solution and adsorption properties of hydrophobically associating water-soluble polyacrylamides. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 113(3), 247–257 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    W. Zhou et al., Application of hydrophobically associating water-soluble polymer for polymer flooding in China offshore heavy oilfield. International Petroleum Technology Conference, 4–6 December, (Dubai, U.A.E. 2007)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    L. Petit et al., Synthesis of graft polyacrylamide with responsive self-assembling properties in aqueous media. Polymer 48(24), 7098–7112 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    X. Liu et al., Effect of inorganic salts on viscosifying behavior of a thermoassociative water-soluble terpolymer based on 2-acrylamido-methylpropane sulfonic acid. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 125(5), 4041–4048 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    M.J. Zohuriaan, F. Shokrolahi, Thermal studies on natural and modified gums. Polym. Test. 23(5), 575–579 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    D.F. Petri, Xanthan gum: A versatile biopolymer for biomedical and technological applications. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 132(23), 42035 (1–13)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    A. Palaniraj, V. Jayaraman, Production, recovery and applications of xanthan gum by Xanthomonas campestris. J. Food Eng. 106(1), 1–12 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    C. Kim et al., Drag reduction characteristics of polysaccharide xanthan gum. Macromol. Rapid Commun. 19(8), 419–422 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    H.Y. Jang et al., Enhanced oil recovery performance and viscosity characteristics of polysaccharide xanthan gum solution. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 21, 741–745 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    T. Lund, J. Lecourtier, G. Müller, Properties of xanthan solutions after long-term heat treatment at 90??C. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 27(2), 211–225 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    I. Norton et al., Mechanism and dynamics of conformational ordering in xanthan polysaccharide. J. Mol. Biol. 175(3), 371–394 (1984)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    E. Morris et al., Order-disorder transition for a bacterial polysaccharide in solution. A role for polysaccharide conformation in recognition between Xanthomonas pathogen and its plant host. J. Mol. Biol. 110(1), 1–16 (1977)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    S.L. Wellington, Biopolymer solution viscosity stabilization-polymer degradation and antioxidant use. Soc. Pet. Eng. J. 23(06), 901–912 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    M. Rashidi, A.M. Blokhus, A. Skauge, Viscosity study of salt tolerant polymers. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 117(3), 1551–1557 (2010)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    C.T. Hou, N. Barnabe, K. Greaney, Biodegradation of xanthan by salt-tolerant aerobic microorganisms. J. Ind. Microbiol. 1(1), 31–37 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    S. Abbas, J. Donovan, A. Sanders, Applicability of hydroxyethylcellulose polymers for chemical EOR, in 2013 SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Conference, 2–4 July, (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 2013)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    C. Gao, Application of a novel biopolymer to enhance oil recovery. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol., 6(4) 749–753 (2016)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    A.-L. Kjøniksen et al., Modified polysaccharides for use in enhanced oil recovery applications. Eur. Polym. J. 44(4), 959–967 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    C. Gatlin, Petroleum engineering, drilling and well completions (Prentice-hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, 1960). 341 pGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    R. K. Clark, Applications of water-soluble polymers as shale stabilizers in drilling fluids. Advances in Chemistry Series 213, 171–181 (1986)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Z. Vryzas, V.C. Kelessidis, Nano-based drilling fluids: A review. Energies 10(4), 540 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    C. Moore, V. Lafave, Air and gas drilling. J. Pet. Technol. 8(02), 15–16 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    C. Maranuk et al., Unique system for underbalanced drilling using air in the Marcellus Shale, in SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, 21–23 October, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Charleston, WV, USA 2014)Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    S. Saintpere et al., Hole cleaning capabilities of drilling foams compared to conventional fluids, in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1–4 October, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas 2000)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    A. Paknejad, J.J. Schubert, M. Amani, Key parameters in foam drilling operations, in IADC/SPE Managed Pressure Drilling and Underbalanced Operations Conference & Exhibition, 12–13 February, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, San Antonio, Texas 2009)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    J. Davies et al., Environmental effects of the use of oil-based drilling muds in the North Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 15(10), 363–370 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    R. Caenn, H.C. Darley, G.R. Gray, Composition and properties of drilling and completion fluids (Gulf professional publishing, 2011)Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    J. Shafer, et al., Core and log NMR measurements indicate reservoir rock is altered by OBM filtrate, in SPWLA 45th Annual Logging Symposium, 6–9 June, (Society of Petrophysicists and Well-Log Analysts, Noordwijk, Netherlands 2004)Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    R. Minton, B. Secoy, Annular re-injection of drilling wastes. J. Pet. Technol. 45(11), 1081–1085 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    M. Sadeghalvaad, S. Sabbaghi, The effect of the TiO 2/polyacrylamide nanocomposite on water-based drilling fluid properties. Powder Technol. 272, 113–119 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    S. Elkatatny, H. Nasr-El-Din, M. Al-Bagoury, Properties of ilmenite water-based drilling fluids for HPHT applications, in IPTC 2013: International Petroleum Technology Conference, 26–28 March, Beijing, China 2013Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    A. Kamel, A. Hosny, A novel mud formulation for drilling operations in the permafrost, in SPE Western Regional & AAPG Pacific Section Meeting 2013 Joint Technical Conference, 19–25 April, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Monterey, California, USA 2013)Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    F. Huadi et al., Successful KCl free highly inhibitve and cost effective WBM applications, Offshore East Kalimantan, Indonesia, in IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition, 1–3 November, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 2010)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    B. Bui, A. Tutuncu, Creep-recovery test: A critical tool for rheological characterization of drilling fluids, in Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, 12–14 August, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Denver, Colorado, USA 2013)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    R. Caenn, G.V. Chillingar, Drilling fluids: State of the art. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 14(3), 221–230 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    J.P. Simpson, Drilling fluid filtration under stimulated downhole conditions, in SPE Symposium on Formation Damage Control, 30 January–2 February, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana 1974)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    C.I.R. de Oliveira et al., Characterization of bentonite clays from Cubati, Paraíba (northeast of Brazil). Cerâmica 62(363), 272–277 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    G. Xie et al., Investigation of the inhibition mechanism of the number of primary amine groups of alkylamines on the swelling of bentonite. Appl. Clay Sci. 136, 43–50 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    H. Yarranton, Development of Viscosity Model for Petroleum Industry Applications, Doctoral dissertation. University of Calgary, 2013Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    K.S. Hafshejani, A. Moslemizadeh, K. Shahbazi, A novel bio-based deflocculant for bentonite drilling mud. Appl. Clay Sci. 127, 23–34 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    H. Zhong et al., Shale inhibitive properties of polyether diamine in water-based drilling fluid. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 78(2), 510–515 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    H. Zhong et al., Inhibitive properties comparison of different polyetheramines in water-based drilling fluid. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 26, 99–107 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    A. Benchabane, K. Bekkour, Effects of anionic additives on the rheological behavior of aqueous calcium montmorillonite suspensions. Rheol. Acta 45(4), 425–434 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    K.Y. Choo, K. Bai, Effects of bentonite concentration and solution pH on the rheological properties and long-term stabilities of bentonite suspensions. Appl. Clay Sci. 108, 182–190 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    R. Jain et al., Study the effect of synthesized graft copolymer on the inhibitive water based drilling fluid system. Egypt. J. Pet. 26(4), 875–883 (2017)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    V.C. Kelessidis, M. Zografou, V. Chatzistamou, Optimization of drilling fluid rheological and fluid loss properties utilizing PHPA polymer, in SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, 10–13 March, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Manama, Bahrain 2013)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    J.C. Estes, Role of water-soluble polymers in oil well drilling muds, in Water-soluble polymers: Beauty with performance, vol. 213, (ACS Publications, USA 1986), p. 155Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    J.K.M. William et al., Effect of CuO and ZnO nanofluids in xanthan gum on thermal, electrical and high pressure rheology of water-based drilling fluids. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 117, 15–27 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    A.S. Ragab, A. Noah, Reduction of formation damage and fluid loss using nano-sized silica drilling fluids. Pet. Technol. Dev. J. 2, 75–88 (2014)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    C.M. Perfeldt et al., Inhibition of gas hydrate nucleation and growth: Efficacy of an antifreeze protein from the longhorn beetle rhagium mordax. Energy Fuel 28(6), 3666–3672 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    E.D. Sloan, Fundamental principles and applications of natural gas hydrates. Nature 426(6964), 353–363 (2003)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    N. Daraboina, S. Pachitsas, N. von Solms, Experimental validation of kinetic inhibitor strength on natural gas hydrate nucleation. Fuel 139, 554–560 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    V. Mohebbi, R.M. Behbahani, Experimental study on gas hydrate formation from natural gas mixture. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 18, 47–52 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    P. Englezos et al., Kinetics of formation of methane and ethane gas hydrates. Chem. Eng. Sci. 42(11), 2647–2658 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Y.C. Song et al., The status of natural gas hydrate research in China: A review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 31(0), 778–791 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    P. Bishnoi, P. Dholabhai, Experimental study on propane hydrate equilibrium conditions in aqueous electrolyte solutions. Fluid Phase Equilib. 83, 455–462 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    M.S. Kamal et al., Application of various water soluble polymers in gas hydrate inhibition. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 60, 206–225 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    E.G. Hammerschmidt, Formation of gas hydrates in natural gas transmission lines. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 26(8), 851–855 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    M.A. Kelland, History of the development of low dosage hydrate inhibitors. Energy Fuel 20(3), 825–847 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    X. Zhao, Z. Qiu, W. Huang, Characterization of kinetics of hydrate formation in the presence of kinetic hydrate inhibitors during Deepwater drilling. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 22, 270–278 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    M.A. Kelland, J.E. Iversen, Kinetic hydrate inhibition at pressures up to 760 bar in deep water drilling fluids. Energy Fuel 24(5), 3003–3013 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    M. Illbeigi, A. Fazlali, A.H. Mohammadi, Thermodynamic model for the prediction of equilibrium conditions of clathrate hydrates of methane+ water-soluble or-insoluble hydrate former. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 50(15), 9437–9450 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    A. Eslamimanesh et al., Phase equilibrium modeling of structure H clathrate hydrates of methane plus water “insoluble” hydrocarbon promoter using QSPR molecular approach. J. Chem. Eng. Data 56(10), 3775–3793 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    A. Eslamimanesh et al., Application of gas hydrate formation in separation processes: A review of experimental studies. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 46, 62–71 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    J. Chen et al., Insights into the formation mechanism of hydrate plugging in pipelines. Chem. Eng. Sci. 122, 284–290 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    M. Arjmandi et al., Is subcooling the right driving force for testing low-dosage hydrate inhibitors? Chem. Eng. Sci. 60(5), 1313–1321 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    H. Tavasoli et al., Prediction of gas hydrate formation condition in the presence of thermodynamic inhibitors with the Elliott–Suresh–Donohue Equation of State. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 77(1), 93–103 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Z. Long et al., Phase equilibria of ethane hydrate in MgCl2 aqueous solutions. J. Chem. Eng. Data 55(8), 2938–2941 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    A.H. Mohammadi, D. Richon, Gas hydrate phase equilibrium in the presence of ethylene glycol or methanol aqueous solution. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 49(18), 8865–8869 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    M. Sun, A. Firoozabadi, New surfactant for hydrate anti-agglomeration in hydrocarbon flowlines and seabed oil capture. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 402, 312–319 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    M.A. Kelland et al., Studies on some alkylamide surfactant gas hydrate anti-agglomerants. Chem. Eng. Sci. 61(13), 4290–4298 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    E.D. Sloan, A changing hydrate paradigm – From apprehension to avoidance to risk management. Fluid Phase Equilib. 228, 67–74 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Z. Huo et al., Hydrate plug prevention by anti-agglomeration. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56(17), 4979–4991 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    J.W. Lachance, E.D. Sloan, C.A. Koh, Determining gas hydrate kinetic inhibitor effectiveness using emulsions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 64(1), 180–184 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    P. Naeiji, A. Arjomandi, F. Varaminian, Amino acids as kinetic inhibitors for tetrahydrofuran hydrate formation: Experimental study and kinetic modeling. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 21, 64–70 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    H. Zeng et al., Differences in nucleator adsorption may explain distinct inhibition activities of two gas hydrate kinetic inhibitors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 63(15), 4026–4029 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    L. Del Villano, M.A. Kelland, Tetrahydrofuran hydrate crystal growth inhibition by hyperbranched poly (ester amide)s. Chem. Eng. Sci. 64(13), 3197–3200 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    R.W. Hawtin, P.M. Rodger, Polydispersity in oligomeric low dosage gas hydrate inhibitors. J. Mater. Chem. 16(20), 1934–1934 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    T.Y. Makogon, E.D. Sloan, Mechanism of kinetic hydrate inhibitorsGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    H. Zeng, V.K. Walker, J.A. Ripmeester, Approaches to the design of better low-dosage gas hydrate inhibitors. Angew. Chem. – Int. Ed. 46(28), 5402–5404 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Z.R. Chong et al., Review of natural gas hydrates as an energy resource: Prospects and challenges. Appl. Energy 162, 1633–1652 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    H. Sharifi, J. Ripmeester, P. Englezos, Recalcitrance of gas hydrate crystals formed in the presence of kinetic hydrate inhibitors. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 35, 1573 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    M. Tariq et al., Experimental and DFT approach on the determination of natural gas hydrate equilibrium with the use of excess N2 and choline chloride ionic liquid as an inhibitor. Energy Fuel 30(4), 2821–2832 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    M.F. Qureshi et al., Gas hydrate prevention and flow assurance by using mixtures of ionic liquids and Synergent compounds: Combined kinetics and thermodynamic approach. Energy Fuel 30(4), 3541–3548 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    E.F. May et al., Quantitative kinetic inhibitor comparisons and memory effect measurements from hydrate formation probability distributions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 107, 1–12 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    N. Daraboina et al., Natural gas hydrate formation and decomposition in the presence of kinetic inhibitors. 2. Stirred reactor experiments. Energy Fuel 25(10), 4384–4391 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    T. Svartaas, M. Kelland, L. Dybvik, Experiments related to the performance of gas hydrate kinetic inhibitors. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 912(1), 744–752 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    P.C. Chua, M.A. Kelland, Tetra (iso-hexyl) ammonium bromide – the most powerful quaternary ammonium-based tetrahydrofuran crystal growth inhibitor and synergist with polyvinylcaprolactam kinetic gas hydrate inhibitor. Energy Fuel 26(2), 1160–1168 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    P.C. Chua et al., Kinetic hydrate inhibition of poly (N-isopropylmethacrylamide) s with different tacticities. Energy Fuel 26(6), 3577–3585 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    K. McNamee, Evaluation of hydrate nucleation trends and kinetic hydrate inhibitor performance by high-pressure differential scanning calorimetry, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Gas Hydrates (ICGH 2011) (Edinburgh, 2011)Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    N. Daraboina, C. Malmos, N. von Solms, Investigation of kinetic hydrate inhibition using a high pressure micro differential scanning calorimeter. Energy Fuel 27(10), 5779–5786 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    N. Daraboina, C. Malmos, N. Von Solms, Synergistic kinetic inhibition of natural gas hydrate formation. Fuel 108, 749–757 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    J. Peytavy, J. Monfort, C. Gaillard, Investigation of methane hydrate formation in a recirculating flow loop: Modeling of the kinetics and tests of efficiency of chemical additives on hydrate inhibition. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 54(3), 365–374 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    M.R. Talaghat, Effect of various types of equations of state for prediction of simple gas hydrate formation with or without the presence of kinetic inhibitors in a flow mini-loop apparatus. Fluid Phase Equilib. 286(1), 33–42 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    P. Notz, et al., The application of kinetic inhibitors to gas hydrate problems, in Offshore Technology Conference, 1–4 May, Houston, Texas 1995Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    K.-L. Yan et al., Flow characteristics and rheological properties of natural gas hydrate slurry in the presence of anti-agglomerant in a flow loop apparatus. Chem. Eng. Sci. 106, 99–108 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    J.-L. Peytavy, P. Glénat, P. Bourg, Qualification of low dose hydrate inhibitors (LDHIs): Field cases studies demonstrate the good reproducibility of the results obtained from flow loops.. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Gas hydrates, Vancouver, Canada. Vol. 5499. 2008.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    S. Jerbi et al., Characterization of CO 2 hydrate formation and dissociation kinetics in a flow loop. Int. J. Refrig. 33(8), 1625–1631 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    L. Frostman, Anti-agglomerant hydrate inhibitors for prevention of hydrate plugs in deepwater systems, in SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1–4 October, (Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas 2000)Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    M.R. Talaghat, F. Esmaeilzadeh, J. Fathikaljahi, Experimental and theoretical investigation of double gas hydrate formation in the presence or absence of kinetic inhibitors in a flow mini-loop apparatus. Chem. Eng. Technol. 32(5), 805–819 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    H. Ohno et al., Raman studies of methane− ethane hydrate metastability. Chem. Eur. J. 113(9), 1711–1716 (2009)Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    J.-W. Lee, J. Lee, S.-P. Kang, 13 C NMR spectroscopies and formation kinetics of gas hydrates in the presence of monoethylene glycol as an inhibitor. Chem. Eng. Sci. 104, 755–759 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    N. Daraboina et al., Assessing the performance of commercial and biological gas hydrate inhibitors using nuclear magnetic resonance microscopy and a stirred autoclave. Fuel 105, 630–635 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    J. Yang, B. Tohidi, Characterization of inhibition mechanisms of kinetic hydrate inhibitors using ultrasonic test technique. Chem. Eng. Sci. 66(3), 278–283 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    M. Karamoddin, F. Varaminian, Performance of hydrate inhibitors in tetrahydrofuran hydrate formation by using measurement of electrical conductivity. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 20(5), 3815–3820 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    J. Tse et al., The low frequency vibrations in clathrate hydrates. J. Chem. Phys. 107(21), 9271–9274 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    R.E. Westacott, P.M. Rodger, A local harmonic study of clusters of water and methane. J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans. 94(23), 3421–3426 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    H. Tanaka, Y. Tamai, K. Koga, Large thermal expansivity of clathrate hydrates. J. Phys. Chem. B 101(33), 6560–6565 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    B. Kvamme, Molecular dynamics simulations as a tool for the selection of candidates for kinetic hydrate inhibitors, in The Eleventh International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, 17–22 June, Stavanger, Norway 2001Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    L.A. Baez, P. Clancy, Computer simulation of the crystal growth and dissolution of natural gas hydratesa. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 715(1), 177–186 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    B. Kvamme, T. Kuznetsova, K. Aasoldsen, Molecular simulations as a tool for selection of kinetic hydrate inhibitors. Mol. Simul. 31(14–15), 1083–1094 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    B. Kvamme, T. Kuznetsova, K. Aasoldsen, Molecular dynamics simulations for selection of kinetic hydrate inhibitors. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 23(6), 524–536 (2005)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    M.R. Talaghat, Evaluation of various types equations of state on prediction of rate of hydrate formation for binary gas mixtures in the presence or absence of kinetic hydrate inhibitors in a flow mini-loop apparatus. Fluid Phase Equilib. 347, 45–53 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    B.B. KVAMME, G. Huseby, O.K. Forrisdahl, Molecular dynamics simulations of PVP kinetic inhibitor in liquid water and hydrate/liquid water systems. Mol. Phys. 90(6), 979–992 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    E. Sloan, F. Fleyfel, A molecular mechanism for gas hydrate nucleation from ice. AICHE J. 37(9), 1281–1292 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    H. Jiang, K.D. Jordan, C. Taylor, Molecular dynamics simulations of methane hydrate using polarizable force fields. J. Phys. Chem. B 111(23), 6486–6492 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    L.C. Jacobson, W. Hujo, V. Molinero, Amorphous precursors in the nucleation of clathrate hydrates. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132(33), 11806–11811 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    M. Ota, Y. Qi, Numerical simulation of nucleation process of clathrate hydrates. JSME Int. J. Ser. B, Fluids Therm. Eng. 43(4), 719–726 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    J. Vatamanu, P.G. Kusalik, Molecular insights into the heterogeneous crystal growth of si methane hydrate. J. Phys. Chem. B 110(32), 15896–15904 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    C. Moon, P.C. Taylor, P.M. Rodger, Molecular dynamics study of gas hydrate formation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 125(16), 4706–4707 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    B.J. Anderson et al., Properties of inhibitors of methane hydrate formation via molecular dynamics simulations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127(50), 17852–17862 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    C. Moon, R. Hawtin, P.M. Rodger, Nucleation and control of clathrate hydrates: Insights from simulation. Faraday Discuss. 136, 367–382 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    M.T. Storr et al., Kinetic inhibitor of hydrate crystallization. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126(5), 1569–1576 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Z. Zheng, Molecular dynamics simulations on the inhibition of methane hydrates. (2010). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Iowa State University 11911.
  184. 184.
    S.-P. Kang et al., Experimental measurement of the induction time of natural gas hydrate and its prediction with polymeric kinetic inhibitor. Chem. Eng. Sci. 116, 817–823 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    R. O’Reilly et al., Crystal growth inhibition of tetrahydrofuran hydrate with poly (N-vinyl piperidone) and other poly (N-vinyl lactam) homopolymers. Chem. Eng. Sci. 66(24), 6555–6560 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    M.A. Kelland et al., A new class of kinetic hydrate inhibitor. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 912(1), 281–293 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    K.S. Colle, R.H. Oelfke, M.A. Kelland, Method for inhibiting hydrate formation, Google Patents. 1999Google Scholar
  188. 188.
    U. Klomp, Method for inhibiting the pluggins of conduits by gas hydrates, Google Patents. 2003Google Scholar
  189. 189.
    P. Froehling, Development of DSM’s Hybrane® hyperbranched polyesteramides. J. Polym. Sci. A Polym. Chem. 42(13), 3110–3115 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    M.F. Mady et al., The first kinetic hydrate inhibition investigation on fluorinated polymers: Poly (fluoroalkylacrylamide)s. Chem. Eng. Sci. 119, 230–235 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    M.R. Talaghat, Enhancement of the performance of modified starch as a kinetic hydrate inhibitor in the presence of polyoxides for simple gas hydrate formation in a flow mini-loop apparatus. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 18, 7–12 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Integrative Petroleum ResearchKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsDhahranSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Department of Petroleum EngineeringKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsDhahranSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Department of Petroleum Engineering, College of Petroleum Engineering and GeosciencesKing Fahd University of Petroleum and MineralsDhahranSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations