Upstream Oil and Gas Technology 8 (2022) 100069

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Upstream Oil and Gas Technology

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/upstream-oil-and-gas-technology

Advanced trends of shale inhibitors for enhanced properties of water-based

drilling fluid
Tawfik A. Saleh a
a
Interdisciplinary Research Center for Advanced Materials, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Water-based mud (WBM) is an environmentally acceptable drilling fluid. However, it makes shale to be prone to
Water based drilling mud swelling owing to its interaction with active clays. Shale swelling makes drilling to be difficult, so, additives are
Shale inhibitors added to inhibit shale swelling, and improve rheological and filtration properties. The use of conventional ad­
Lubricants
ditives particularly organic and inorganic compounds are not suitable at extreme conditions of drilling. Other
Shale swelling
Rheological properties
materials like nanomaterials have emerged as promising alternatives used under such conditions. This review
aims to highlight in detail the essential types of inhibitors and the evolvement of nanoparticles in enhancing
drilling fluid properties.

1. Introduction 2. Clay minerals

Drilling fluids also referred to as drilling mud, are added to the
wellbore during drilling operations of oil in extreme conditions such as
high pressure and high temperature (HPHT). Efficient and effective
drilling fluids allow even drilling deeper, longer, and more challenging
wells. Drilling fluids are used in drilling oil and natural gas wells and on
exploration drilling rigs, and in much simpler boreholes, such as water
wells. These drilling fluids are important for lifting of drill cuttings from
bottom of wellbore to the surface, controlling pressure, cooling and
lubricating drilling pipes and bits, suspending the cuttings from sedi­
mentation during the shutdown, inhibition of shale swelling, rock sta­
bilization, and stabilization of well bore [1]. The lubrication and cooling
help to prolong the life of the drillbit. Bridging agents are solids added to
a drilling fluid to bridge across the pore throat or fractures of exposed
rock, thus building a filter cake to prevent loss of whole mud or excessive
filtrate. Bridging materials are commonly added in drilling fluids and
lost circulation treatments. For reservoir applications, the bridging
agent should be removable. They include calcium carbonate (acid-­
soluble), suspended salt (water-soluble) or oil-soluble resins. For
lost-circulation treatments, any suitably sized products can be used,
including mica, nutshells, and fibers. These products are more
commonly referred to as lost-circulation material (LCM). The success of
the drilling process depends strongly on the properties and compositions
of drilling fluids used for the operation [2, 3, 4].
The challenges related to wellbore instability are caused by shale
instability which is caused by the presence of clay minerals that have a
great affinity for water. These clay minerals in particular are mon­
tomorillonite, smectite, and kaolinite [5]. Shales also contain mud, silt,
cristobalite, quartz and illite, and each varies in its particle sizes [6, 7].
The nature of shale including its clay constituents, structures and grain
distribution might influence the effectiveness of certain shale inhibitors.
Thus, it is important to have an idea about the nature of shale in order to
select or formulate suitable shale inhibitors. For example, in different
areas, different shale formations can be found as (i) Smectite clay min­
eral or laminated shale formation with smectite-rich layers: these types
of clay have a high percentage of smectite, (ii) Illite clay mineral, or
strongly laminated illite-rich shale formations: this type of clay is
common in most gas shale reservoirs in North America and other areas
in the world, (iii) Chlorite clay mineral, (iv) Vermiculite clay mineral,
(v) Kaolinite clay mineral, and (iii) reactive silt- shale formation with
sandstone lenses [9].
The properties and responses of shale formations to fluids are diffi­
cult to generalize and classify. Each rock is a unique system with a
unique combination of properties. The mineral composition, structure,
grain distribution, consolidation, and other geologic properties of clay-
rich formations can vary significantly. Some rock/fluid interaction
studies display that clay-rich formations behave according to what is
expected while some cases show that some formations can have atypical
responses. For that, the laboratory data can be good information to

E-mail address: tawfik@kfupm.edu.sa.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.upstre.2022.100069
Received 29 January 2021; Received in revised form 26 June 2021; Accepted 4 January 2022
Available online 2 February 2022
2666-2604/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.A. Saleh Upstream Oil and Gas Technology 8 (2022) 100069

anticipate unexpected wellbore instability events and to adjust the

drilling plans.

3. Classification of shale inhibitors

Drilling fluids, widely used in various drilling devices, can be clas­

sified into (i) water-based muds (WBM), which can be dispersed and
non-dispersed, (ii) non-aqueous muds, commonly called oil-based muds
(OBM) and (iii) air or gaseous drilling fluid, in which a wide range of
gases are used. Along with their formatives, these are used along with
appropriate polymer and clay additives for drilling various oil and gas
formations [10].
OBMs show better rheological and shale inhibition properties but
their use has been restricted due to environmental issues. Moreover, it
has lower stability of emulsion at HPHT conditions and affects the well
logging data [6,7]. Consequently, water-based muds (WBM) and
non-aqueous fluids, along with various kinds of shale inhibitors, that are
environmentally friendly, are of more interest [8]. WBMs are used in the
drilling of almost 80% of all wells. It contains about 80% of water phase
and 20% drilling additives [6]. The addition of additives serves the
following purposes: firstly, to prevent shale swelling which is caused by
interaction between reactive clay of the shale and the drilling fluid, and
secondly, to improve rheological properties such as plastic viscosity
(PV), which decides the ease with which the drill bits is rotated; yield
point (YP), that indicates the capability of fluid to lift drill out of well
bore; apparent viscosity (AV), and gel strength (GS), which is the ability
of the drilling fluids to lift cuttings if fluid circulation is stopped for some
time. These purposes are achieved by having suitable fluids formulation.
Shale has various formations, therefore to have efficient drilling addi­
tives formulation, it becomes important to understand the nature of
shale and the possible interactions between shale and these fluids [3, 9].
Shale inhibitors are materials or chemicals added to water-based
drilling fluids to prevent hydration, swelling, and degradation of the
clay minerals (Gholami et al., 2018). Favorably, water-based fluids are
more applicable to shale inhibitors as compared to oil-based owing to
their cost-effectiveness, reservoir analysis, penetration rate, and the
entire safety of the operations. There are conventional inhibitors such as
(i) inorganic salts of potassium chloride (KCl), ammonium chloride
(NH4Cl), calcium chloride (CaCl2), sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium
hydroxide (KOH), tetramethylammonium chloride [(CH3)4NCl], and
calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2], and (ii) organic inhibitors such as poly­
ethylene glycol, polyacrylamide, and partially hydrolyzed poly­
acrylamide, polyamides, xanthan gum. However, KCl can be toxic at
high concentrations, and xanthan gum and other organic additives are Fig. 1. A general classification of inhibitors.
not stable at high temperatures. That is why recent research has been
focused on alternative ways to mitigate these effects using non-
However, large quantities of these salts may pose threat to the chemical
conventional shale inhibitors. Generally, inhibitors can be categories
biological ecosystem. Other restrictions posed by these salts also include
as inorganic, organic, and other inhibitors, Fig. 1.
limited flexibility in fluid formulations and incompatibility with other
drilling fluids additives [9].
3.1. Inorganic inhibitors

These inhibitors include potassium chloride, calcium chloride and
sodium chloride which are used as clay-controlling additives and pro­
vide temporary inhibition. Among these salts, potassium chloride is the
most widely used. These salts are effective provided there is contact
between the WBM containing them and the clay. The effectiveness is lost
once there is no contact between the salt and clay. Loss of contact can
occur due to depletion of salts or displacement of the salt-containing
fluid by freshwater causing the clay to be hydrated, swelled and desta­
bilized drill formation. Silicate additives also fall under this category.
Both the soluble and solid silicates are available and have been used in
drilling fluids for years. Silica, alkaline (K2O or Na2O) and water are the
major components of the silicates. Inorganic salts are inexpensive and
readily available all over the world. They are suitable in different dril­
ling environments, such as high pressure and high-temperature envi­
ronment. They are chemically stable to a wide range of pH conditions.
3.2. Organic inhibitors
Organic inhibitors are classified as a more permanent type of shale
inhibitors and are known as clay stabilizers. Notable examples of these
organic inhibitors are compounds of amine. These organic sources are
developed to prevent or minimize the environmental impact and
performance-related issues associated with inorganic salts. These shale
inhibitors chemically interact with shale by multiple or single cation
exchange mechanism, either by entering into the shale matrix or
reacting on the surface of the shale. Amine-based shale inhibitors are
very effective on shale with high cationic exchange capacity. Numerous
organic amine salts have been used in fields, however, they were not
stable at high temperature and high pH conditions typically encountered
in the field. These salts decompose, produce obnoxious ammonia odor
and become ineffective as shale inhibitors. Based on the chemistry and

2
T.A. Saleh
structure, amine salts are classified into three groups: monomeric,
oligomeric, and polymeric amine compounds.
3.3. Monomeric amine inhibitors
Monomeric amine inhibitors have a simple structure and possess an
active cationic site. The majority of monocationic amine shale inhibitors
have a lower level of shale inhibition than oligomeric and polymeric.
Simple amine salts also have problems with odor, toxicity, and stability.
These led to the development of a large number of exotic and quarter­
nary amine compounds for field applications [9].
3.4. Oligomeric and polymeric amines
Oligomeric and polymeric amines inhibitors have simple structure
but it provides more permanent stabilization than monomeric amine due
to presence of multiple active sites that are adsorbed on the clay at the
same time, and therefore less prone to reversing the adsorption. While
polymeric amines possess multiple cationic active sites, it will be ex­
pected that they will have the best inhibition properties. However, this is
not the case. Owing to its high molecular size, it has lower clay pene­
tration than oligomeric, therefore there are less interactions between its
cationic sites and clay layers. This makes it less effective than oligomeric
amines [9]. Some other organic inhibitors have also been reported such
as cellulosic materials, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylamide, poly­
amide, etc. [7].
Shale inhibitors can be classified based on their environmental
friendliness. Five broad classes of inhibitors emerged under this cate­
gory, mostly organic-based inhibitors, namely: acrylamides, glycols and
glycerols, amines and imines, silicates, and biomolecules. Each of these
compounds has been used under various conditions such as pressure,
temperature, and pH, and they demonstrated enhanced rheological and
filtration properties of WBMs even though they also possessed their pros
and cons under these conditions.
3.5. Nanomaterials as shale inhibitors
Applications of nanotechnology in the oil and gas industry are
rapidly becoming a vital area for research and development [11–16].
The challenges of destabilization of rheological properties at high con­
centrations of salts and deteriorations of polymers at high temperature
and pressure which are associated with the use of salts and polymers as
WBM inhibitors have necessitated the search for alternative methods
[17]. Nanoparticles (NPs)are emerging as the best additives and they
have been proven to improve the rheological and filtration properties of
WBM [3]. The plugging of micron-sized particles by NPs, which leads to
lower permeability and thus reduces filter loss as against fluid without
NPs.
NPs might affect the behavior of fluid due to several reasons such as
particle morphology, surface charge, and attached functional groups.
These factors are more pronounced in NPs and the presence of small
weight fractions in the mixture may dramatically change the micro­
scopic environment and thereby the observed fluid properties. For
example, owing to their small size, they could plug the small pores in
shale and prevent the penetration of fluid into the formations. Thus, they
contribute to the sealing of micro-cracks in the shale and hence filter
cake becomes dense, thinner and impermeable [3]. Their presence in
drilling fluids reduces abrasion action as a result of much lower kinetic
energy impact due to small particle size.
3.6. Recent trends of nanomaterials as shale inhibitors
NPs are used either alone or dispersed in organic compounds to use
their efficiency in enhancing the rheological and filtration properties,
and shale inhibition of drilling fluids. The results of most of these work,
if not all have proved that the addition of NPs has the potential of
3
Upstream Oil and Gas Technology 8 (2022) 100069
improving the rheological and filtration properties, and shale inhibition
of drilling fluids. And there have been paper reviews on the utilities of
NPs as additives in WBM [18–22]. A summary of some of the studies
evaluating applications of NPs in drilling fluid is presented in Table 1.
4. Methods for testing shale swelling
Selection of shale swelling test methods depends on factors such as
qualities, shale characteristics, amount of available shale core sample,
and ultimately shale/ fluid interaction. However, the responses and
behavior of shale to the drilling and fluids are complex and were not well
understood for many years due to complex chemicals and physical
variations present in these formations [8].
4.1. Capillary suction time (CST)
This test is used when comparing different shale inhibitors to the
other. It can be performed via a device that is used to measure the time a
clay slurry can pass through a filter paper. First, a clay dispersion (5 ml)
containing a certain inhibitor is placed inside a cylinder. The cylinder
containing the filter paper with a specific thickness is connected to a
timer and two electrodes at 0.5 and 1 cm positions. The time needed for
the clay slurry to pass through the free water from one end of the
electrode to the other is monitored. A high or fast CST suggests less
available free water hence large amount will remain inside the clay
minerals whereas a low CST shows high free water availability thus less
amount is retained on the clay minerals. A good inhibitor is one with less
CST because it can prevent sticking of the clay slurry which could result
in swelling [45].
4.2. Linear swelling test (LST)
This test is used to ascertain the effectiveness and characteristics of
different inhibitors. It is performed by different shale sample pellets and
the effectiveness of one inhibitor over the other is a function of time. A
superior inhibitor is one that presents a lesser swelling effect of the shale
over a set period. A fine powdered and ground shale sample (5 g) is kept
in a pressure compactor. Around 10 MPa of pressure for 5 min is applied
to compress the shale sample inside the compactor. Then, a cylindrical
disc of the compressed sample alongside the prepared fluid is placed in a
linear swelling meter. Reports have shown that the shale reactivity with
the fluid serves as the deciding factor to select a better inhibitor. The
mineral composition before conducting the test is obtained and there­
after, specified quantities of the fluid additives are added to see which
minimizes the swelling best whilst the linear height for a specified
period is recorded by the swelling meter. A good inhibitor will result in a
minimum linear swelling [46].
4.3. Compatibility test
The test of compatibility of an inhibitor with common drilling fluid
additives should be evaluated. Different formulated drilling fluids can be
selected. Examples of fluid formulations are provided in Table 2.
Adding 0.5 to 5 wt% inhibitor enhanced the rheological and filtra­
tion property of drilling fluids. Therefore, drilling fluids were aged for 4
h at a temperature of around 70 ◦ C with the hot rolling oven of 22 rpm
speed. Then, their filtrations and rheological property (yield point, 10 s,
and 10.0 min gel strength, and average viscosity and plastic viscosity)
are measured. The rheological property and hydraulic of oil-well drilling
fluids were enhanced [48].
4.4. Other tests
There are several other tests including shale particle disintegration
test, dispersion hot rolling test, shale immersion test, bulk hardness test,
water adsorption test, fracture development test, zeta potential test,
T.A. Saleh Upstream Oil and Gas Technology 8 (2022) 100069

Table 1
Summary of work on applications of NPs.
Types of NPs Modified Properties Experimental Conditions Results summary Author

ZnO-Am composites -Yield point Elevated temperature and 0.1–1.0 g ZnO-Am composite was added to conventional fluids. Results [6]
-Apparent viscosity pressure(150- 250◦ F, 500 showed that YP, GS, AV and PV were increased within range of 150◦ F,
- Gel strength psi) and lubricity was also improved. However Shale swelling was slightly
-plastic viscosity lowered from 16 - 9%.
- Lubricity
-Shale swelling
Attapulgite -Plastic ambient 2.0 wt% of attapulgite with particle size of 10–25 nm in diameter was [23]
viscosity added to WBMs. An increase in rheological properties was observed.
- Yield point
Nanocomposite of ZnO, -Yield point HTHP (109–370 o F; Results showed that 2.3 wt% of the nanocomposites (5–50 nm in [24]
montmorilloniteand palygorskite -Plastic 150–18,500 psi) diameter) gave more stable rheological properties under these
viscosity conditions.

Palygorskite -Gel strength HTHP (100 – 392◦ F; 100 – 5.9 g of the particles of size 10–20 nm was used. There was a reduction in [1]
-Plastic viscosity 16,000 psi) rheological properties under the conditions.
- Yield point
SiO2 - Yield point LTLP Addition of 0.5 wt% of silica NPs of 10 nm in diameter to the WBMs [25]
- Plastic increased the plastic viscosity and yield point under.
viscosity

Bismuth ferrite (BiFeO3) NPs -Yield point Temperature (20 ◦ C and 0.5–3.0 w/v% of NPs in a set of two nanofluids i.e. 10 and 20 v/v% were [2]
-Apparent viscosity 70 ◦ C) used. Rheological properties were improved. And API fluid loss was
-Plastic viscosity decreased.
-Gel strength
- API fluid loss
-Carbon nanotube - Yield point Temp.: 104 oF 2.0 wt% of each NPs in WBMs led to an increase rheological properties [26]
-SiO2 -Thermal with silica NPs showing the best result.
- ZnO conductivity
- Plastic
viscosity
TiO2 /polyacrylamide -Rheological LTLP (25 ◦ C, 100 psi) 1–10 and 14 g of NPs concentrations were used in this study. Additives [13]
properties improved rheological properties and decreased filter loss and cake
- Filtration loss thickness.
-polyacrylamide- grafted- -Plastic Temp.: 203 oF Addition of 0.7 wt% of each composite (20–30 nm in diameter) [27]
polyethylene glycol and silica NPs Viscosity improved fluid rheological properties and also stabilized the rheological
composite - Gel strength profile of WBMs at 203 oF.
- polyacrylamide and nanoclay - Yield point
composite
-SiO2 - Yield point - Plastic HTHP Results revealed that addition of 0.5 wt% of ferric oxide improved fluid [28]
-Fe2O3 viscosity rheological properties while silica showed the opposite at similar
concentration. Ferric oxide also improved the stability of rheological
properties of the WBMs.
-Al2O3 -Rheological property Temperature: 27 ◦ C; Pressure: 0.01, 0.05, 0.1 and 1 wt% concentrations of each NPs were added to [29]
-CuO -Filtration loss 100 psi bentonite- water based mud. Rheological and filtration loss properties of the
-TiO2 bentonite-WBM were improved by addition of NPs at concentrations below
-SiO2 0.5 wt%.
Sepiolite - Yield point - Plastic LTLP and HTHP It was observed that addition of 1.4 wt% of sepiolite NPs to the WBMs [30]
viscosity (122–356◦ F; stabilized the rheological profiles under the test conditions.
500–6000 psi)
Cellulose NPs - Plastic Temp.: 20 - 176◦ F 0.5 wt% of cellulose NPs with 228 nm length and 6 nm width in WBMs [31]
Viscosity increased rheological properties at high temperature range from 68 to
- Gel strength 176 oF
- Yield point
ZnTiO3 -Rheological Temperature (20 and 70 0.05–0.30 wv% NPs were incorporated in the fluid formulation. The [3]
property- Filtration ◦
C); pressure (100 psi) rheological and filtration properties were improved.
loss
-Heat stability
SiO2 - Yield point LPLT and HPHT (199◦ F and It was reported that addition of 0.3 wt% of SiO2 with 5.7 nm in diameter [32]
-Plastic 1000 psi) into WBM decreased the overall rheological properties. More so, 0.7 wt
Viscosity % of silica in WBMs showed the lowest mud cake thickness and there was
- Filter cake reduction in filtration loss as concentration was increasing.
thickness
- API fluid loss
- Gel strength
- Yield point -Plastic Temp.: 250 oF Result showed that 1.0 wt% of SiO2 improved the overall rheological [33]
SiO2 viscosity properties of WBMs both at LTLP and HTHP condition.

Carbon nanotube -API fluid LPLT and HPHT (248, Addition of 0.8 wt% of carbon nanotubes to WBMs reduced filtration [34]
Loss 302, 347, 392 oF) loss.
- Shale
Inhibition
-fluid
loss
SiO2 LTLP [35]
(continued on next page)

4
T.A. Saleh Upstream Oil and Gas Technology 8 (2022) 100069

Table 1 (continued )
Types of NPs Modified Properties Experimental Conditions Results summary Author

-Shale inhibition Results revealed that 10 wt% of silica, SiO2 NPs in WBMs reduced filtrate
-API fluid loss invasion and improved the ability of sealing and plugging of micro-pores
and micro-fracks of shale formations.
Nanosilical -Rheological HPHT 0.1 ppb of each NPs was added to KCl mud separately. Rheological
-Graphene nanoplatelet properties properties and shale inhibition were improved compare to KCl mud [7]
-Multi-walled carbon nanotube -Shale inhibition alone. However, GNP gives the best results among the three.
-Aluminum complexes -API fluid loss HTHP and LTLP Presence of spherical latex particles of size range 80–345 nm with [36]
-Latex particles -Shale inhibition aluminum complexes in muds improved plugging abilities and reduced
API filtrate by 44%.
SiO2 -Viscosity LTLP 10 wt% of SiO2 in the mud improved the viscosity under LTLP condition. [37]
Fe2O3 -API fluid loss LTLP and HTHP Addition of ferric oxide increased fluid loss at LTLP conditions. [38]
Nanopolymer emulsion (SDPE) SPDE significantly inhibits water absorption by shale. [39]
-Shale inhibition -
SiO2 - Shale There was reduction in fluid filtrate loss on addition of 30 wt% of silica [40]
Inhibition of particles size of 35 nm in diameter.
- Fluid Loss
-Silical NPs (SiO2 -NPs) -Rheological -HPHT Different concentrations of SiO2 –NPs and GNPs were added to the [41]
-Graphene nanoplatelets(GNPs) properties -LPLT drilling fluids. Shale inhibition, filtration loss and rheological properties
-Fluid loss -pH 9.5 are improved at all combinations concentrations but 0.75 wt% (0.5 wt%
- Shale inhibition SiO2 –NPs and 0.25 wt% of GNPs) yielded the best result for filtration
loss.
Graphene -API fluid LPLT and HT Different concentrations of graphene, 1 – 5 wt%, were added to the [42]
Loss (120 and 351◦ F) muds. 30% reduction API fluid loss was observed.
- Shale
Inhibition
- Coefficient
of friction
Clay NPs -Rheological Temperature (25 and 70 ◦ C) 0.1 and 1.0 wt% of nanoclay each having a particle size of 1, 50 and 500 [10]
properties nm were added to the drilling fluid. The novel system had good
-Fluid loss rheological properties and fluid loss performance.
Fly ash -Filter cake thickness LTLP It was observed that addition of fly ash NPs to mud reduced filtration loss [43]
-API fluid loss and filter cake thickness by almost 30%.
- ZnO -filter cake thickness LPLT and 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 wt% concentratons of CuO and ZnO were used. Results [44]
- CuO - API fluid loss HPHT (T: 158, 194, revealed that filter cake thickness and fluid loss decreased significantly
230◦ F; P: 1450 psi) under the conditions. However, ZnO NPs exhibited better result

inhibiting the efficiency of WBM. NPs have excellent chemical, physical

Table 2
and mechanical properties and are promising for such application
Examples of test fluid formulation that can be used in the evaluation of
[51–53]. The intense adsorption between NPs and shale made the NPs
compatibility [47].
easily to be trapped in the micropores and microfractures, Fig. 2. This
Drilling fluids Formulations
retention of NPs showed an effective physical plugging and therefore the
Base drilling fluid 0.45 L of distilled water, 2.57 g polyanionic cellulose, permeability of the shale would decrease, and the invasion of water into
10.28 g starch- high viscosity, 1.54 g xanthan gum, 0.2 mL the shales would significantly reduce, as observed in the above pressure
ntifoam, 0.5 mL biocide, 1.078 g/mL barite, KOH (upto 9
transmission test and shale sample spontaneous imbibition test. The
pH).
High-performance 0.45 L of distilled water, 2.57 g PAC-LV, 1.14 g partially plugging of pores could minimize swelling of the shale and reduce the
drilling fluid hydrolyzed polyacrylamide, 1.28 g polyanionic cellulose, formation of fractures [4, 54].
10.28 g starch- high viscosity, 1.54 g xanthan gum, 21 g
KCl, 0.2 mL antifoam, 0.5 mL biocide, barite (upto 1.078
6. Conclusions
g/ml), and KOH (upto pH 9).

The nature of shale and the evolvement of nanomaterials in

wettability alteration test, pore pressure transmission test, interlayer
spacing measurement test, and cation exchange capacity test [49].
5. Mechanisms
The mechanisms involved in the swelling of clay can be classified
into three: (i) surface hydration caused by hydrogen bonding of water
mo1ecu1es to oxygen atoms on the surface of the clay’s silicate layers,
(ii) ionic hydration as a result of the formation of hydration shells
around exchangeable cations which compensate for charge deficiencies
due to 1attice substitutions in the clay crystal, and lastly, (iii) osmotic
hydration, which is initiated in certain types of clay after it has under­
gone complete crystalline swelling and then exposed to free water. The
first two mechanisms can be termed crystalline swelling. The under­
standing of the interaction between clays and their electrochemical
environment and the ability of pressure to influence these mechanisms
provided the design criteria for developing a practical method to analyze
the performance of fluids additives [50]. Fortunately, the methods that
are used for testing shale swelling can also be used to test for shale
enhancing the properties of drilling fluids has been reviewed. Various
types of NPs have been utilized to improve the shale inhibition and
rheological and filtration properties of drilling fluids. It was found that
the nature of the shale and the types of nanomaterials played crucial
roles in the effectiveness of these NPs. Therefore, the challenge lies in
gaining more insights into the nature of shale, and its physical and
chemical interactions with the nanoparticles-based drilling fluids. Re­
searchers can develop suitable sizes and concentrations of NPs that will
be very effective. Future work can also focus on the use of combinations
of two or three metals or particles that can be used as nanoparticles-
based WBMs. These should improve the properties of the nano­
materials, as different properties of the involved metals or particles will
be utilized in such drilling fluids. After the use, disposal of drilling fluids
can be a challenge, so, recent technological advances have established
methods for recycling drilling fluids.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

5
T.A. Saleh Upstream Oil and Gas Technology 8 (2022) 100069

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] J. Abdo, M.D. Haneef, Nano-enhanced drilling fluids: pioneering approach to

Fig. 2. Illustration of fluid losses while drilling fluid (a) without NPs and (b)
with nanoparticle.
overcome uncompromising drilling problems, J. Energy Resour. Technol. 134 (1)
(2011), 014501.
[2] S. Perween, N.K. Thakur, M. Beg, S. Sharma, A. Ranjana, Enhancing the properties
of water based drilling fluid using bismuth ferrite nanoparticles, Colloids Surf. A
561 (2019) 165–177.
[3] S. Perween, M. Beg, R. Shankar, S. Sharma, A. Ranjan, Effect of zinc titanate
nanoparticles on rheological and filtration properties of water based drilling fluids,
J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 170 (2018) 844–857.
[4] Z. Vryzas, V.C. Kelessidis, Nano-based drilling fluids: a review, Energies 10 (2017)
540, https://doi.org/10.3390/en10040540.
[5] Lal M. Shale stability: drilling fluid interaction and shale strength, Paper presented
at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean-Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Venezuela, 1999.
[6] A. Aftab, A.R. Ismail, Z.H. Ibupoto, Enhancing the rheological properties and shale
inhibition behavior of water-based mud using nanosilica, multi-walled carbon
nanotube, and graphene nanoplatelet, Egypt. J. Petrol. 26 (2017) 291–299.
[7] A. Aftab, A.R. Ismail, S. Khokhar, Z.H. Ibupoto, Novel zincoxide nanoparticles
deposited acrylamide composite used for enhancing the performance of water-
based drilling fluids at elevated temperature conditions, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 146
(2016) 1142–1157.
[8] R. Bland, G.L. Smith, P. Eagark, E. van Oort, N. Dharma, Low Salinity Polyglycol
Water-Based Drilling Fluids as Alternatives to Oil-Based Muds, SPE/IADC Asia
Pacific Drill. Technol., Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1996, https://doi.org/
10.2118/36400-MS.
[9] G. Sandra, P. Arvind, Shale inhibition: what works?. SPE 164108 International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2013.
[10] G. Cheraghian, Application of nanoparticles of clay to improve drilling fluid, Int. J.
Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2 (13) (2017) 177–186.
[11] N. Nabhani, M. Emami, The potenial impact of nanomaterials in oil drilling
industry, in: NANOCON, Brno, 2012, pp. 23–26.
[12] M.A. Ibrahim, T.A. Saleh, Synthesis of efficient stable dendrimer-modified carbon
for cleaner drilling shale inhibition, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (1) (2021), 104792.
[13] M.A. Ibrahim, T.A. Saleh, Partially aminated acrylic acid grafted activated carbon
as inexpensive shale hydration inhibitor, Carbohydr. Res. 491 (2020), 107960.
[14] T.A. Saleh, M.A. Ibrahim, Advances in functionalized Nanoparticles based drilling
inhibitors for oil production, Energy Rep. 5 (2019) 1293–1304.
[15] T.A. Saleh, Nanomaterials: classification, properties, and environmental toxicities,
Environ. Technol. Innovat. 20 (2020), 101067.
[16] T.A. Saleh, Characterization, determination and elimination technologies for sulfur
from petroleum: toward cleaner fuel and a safe environment, Trends Environ.
Analyt. Chem. 25 (2020) e00080.
[17] K. Sehly, H.L. Chiew, H. Li, A. Song, Y.K. Leong, W. Huang, Stability and ageing
behavior and the formulation of potassium-based drilling muds, Appl. Clay Sci. 104
(2015) 309–317.
[18] A. Aftab, M. Ali, M. Arif, S. Panhwar, N.M.C. Saady, E. A.Al-Khdheeawi,
O. Mahmoud, A. Ismail, A. Keshavarz, S. Iglauer, Influence of tailor-made TiO2/API
bentonite nanocomposite on drilling mud performance: towards enhanced drilling
operations, Appl. Clay Sci. 199 (2020), 105862.
[19] M. Ali, A. Aftab, Z. Arain, A. Al-Yaseri, H. Roshan, A. Saeedi, S. Iglauer,
M. Sarmadivaleh, Influence of organic acid concentration on wettability alteration
of cap-rock: implications for CO2 trapping/storage, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 12
(35) (2020) 39850–39858.
[20] M.M. Nur, T.A. Saleh, 2022. Melamine-modified polyacrylic grafted on activated
carbon and its efficiency for shale inhibition, Upstream Oil and Gas Technology,
100065, doi.org/10.1016/j.upstre.2022.100065.
[21] T.A. Saleh, Experimental and Analytical methods for testing inhibitors and fluids in
water-based drilling environments, TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry (2022),
116543, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2022.116543.
[22] A. Aftab, M. Ali, M. Sahito, U. Mohanty, N. Jha, H. Akhondzadeh, M.R. Azhar,
A. Ismail, A. Keshavarz, S. Iglauer, Environmental friendliness and high
performance of multifunctional tween 80/ZnO-nanoparticles-added water-based
drilling fluid: an experimental approach, ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8 (30) (2020)
11224–11243.
[23] J. Abdo, Nano-attapulgite for improved tribological properties of drilling fluids,
Surf. Interface Anal. 46 (2014) 882–887.
[24] J. Abdo, R. Zaier, E. Hassan, H. Al-Sharji, A. Al-Shabibi, ZnO-clay nanocomposites
for enhance drilling at HTHP conditions, Surf. Interface Anal. 46 (2014) 970–974.
[25] S. Ghanbari, E. Kazemzadeh, M. Soleymani, A. Naderifar, A facile method for
synthesis and dispersion of silica nanoparticles in water-based drilling fluid,
Colloid Polym. Sci. 294 (2016) 381–388.
[26] S.S. Hassani, A. Amrollahi, A. Rashidi, M. Soleymani, S. Rayatdoost, The effect of
nanoparticles on the heat transfer properties of drilling fluids, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 146
(2016) 183–190.
[27] R. Jain, V. Mahto, V.P. Sharma, Evaluation of polyacrylamide-graftedpolyethylene
glycol/silica nanocomposite as potential additive in water based drilling mud for
reactive shale formation, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 26 (2015) 526–537.
[28] O. Mahmoud, H.A. Nasr-El-Din, Z. Vryzas, V.C. Kelessidis, Nanoparticle-based
drilling fluids for minimizing formation damage in HP/HT applications, in: SPE

6
T.A. Saleh
International Conference and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control SPE-
178949-MS, 2016.
[29] A.E. Bayat, P.J. Moghanloo, A. Piroozian, R. Rafati, Experimental investigation of
rheological and filtration properties of water-based drilling fluids in presence of
various nanoparticles, Colloids Surf. A 555 (2018) 256–263.
[30] A.M. Needaa, P. Peyman, A.-.H. Hamoud, A. Jamil, Controlling bentonite-based
drilling mud properties using sepiolite nanoparticles, Pet. Explor. Dev. 43 (2016)
717–723.
[31] M.C. Li, Q. Wu, K. Song, Y. Qing, Y. Wu, Cellulose nanoparticles as modifiers for
rheology and fluid loss in bentonite water-based fluids, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
7 (2015) 5009–5016.
[32] A.H. Salih, T.A. Elshehabi, H.I. Bilgesu, Impact of nanomaterials on the rheological
and filtration properties of water-based drilling fluids, in: SPE Eastern Regional
Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers. SPE-184067-MS, 2016.
[33] S. Taraghikhah, M. Kalhor Mohammadi, K. Tahmasbi Nowtaraki, Multifunctional
nanoadditive in water based drilling fluid for improving shale stability, in:
International PET Technologies Conference 2015. IPTC-18323-MS, 2015.
[34] M.A. Halali, C. Ghotbi, K. Tahmasbi, M.H. Ghazanfari, The role of carbon
nanotubes in improving thermal stability of polymeric fluids: experimental and
modeling, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 55 (2016) 7514–7534.
[35] J. Cai, M.E. Chenevert, M.M. Sharma, J.E. Friedheim, Decreasing water invasion in
to Atoka shale using nonmodified silica nanoparticles, SPE Drill. Compl. 27 (01)
(2012) 103–112. SPE-146979-PA.
[36] J. Liu, Z. Qiu, W. Huang, Novel latex particles and aluminum complexes as
potential shale stabilizers in water-based drilling fluids, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 135 (2015)
433–441.
[37] J.T. Srivatsa, M.B. Ziaja, An experimental investigation on use of nanoparticles as
fluid loss additives in a surfactant - polymer based drilling fluid, in: International
Petroleum Technology Conference, 2012, pp. 2436–2454.
[38] M.M. Barry, Y. Jung, J.-.K. Lee, T.X. Phuoc, M.K. Chyu, Fluid filtration and
rheological properties of nanoparticle additive and intercalated clay hybrid
bentonite drilling fluids, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 127 (2015) 338–346.
[39] J.G. Xu, Z. Qiu, X. Zhao, Y. Zhang, G. Li, W. Huang, Application of nano-polymer
emulsion for inhibiting shale self-imbibition in water-based drilling fluids,
J. Surfactant Deterg. 21 (2018) 155–164.
[40] S. Akhtarmanesh, M.J.A. Shahrabi, A. Atashnezhad, Improvement of wellbore
stability in shale using nanoparticles, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 112 (2013) 290–295.
Upstream Oil and Gas Technology 8 (2022) 100069
[41] J. Aramendiz, A. Imqam, Water-based drilling fluid formulation using silica and
graphene nanoparticles for unconventional shale applications, J. Petrol. Sci. Eng.
179 (2019) 742–749.
[42] N.M. Taha, S. Lee, Nano graphene application improving drilling fluids
performance, in: International PET Technologies Conference 2015, 2015.
[43] V. Mahto, R. Jain, Effect of fly ash on the rheological and filtration properties of
water based drilling fluids, Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2 (2013) 150–156.
[44] J.K.M. William, S. Ponmani, R. Samuel, R. Nagarajan, J.S. Sangwai, 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 (2014) 15–27.
[45] R. de C. Balaban, E.L.F. Vidal, M.R. Borges, Design of experiments to evaluate clay
swelling inhibition by different combinations of organic compounds and inorganic
salts for application in water base drilling fluids, Appl. Clay Sci. 105-106 (2015)
124–130.
[46] S. Zhao, J. Yan, J. Wang, T. Ding, H. Yang, D. Gao, Water-based drilling fluid
technology for extended reach wells in Liuhua Oilfield, South China sea, Petrol. Sci.
Technol. 27 (2009) 1854–1865.
[47] P. Barati, K. Shahbazi, M. Kamari, A. Aghajafari, Shale hydration inhibition
characteristics and mechanism of a new amine-based additive in water-based
drilling fluids, Petroleum 3 (4) (2017) 476–482.
[48] A.P. Institute, Recommended Practice on the Rheology and Hydraulics of Oil-well
Drilling Fluids, API Specifications, 13D, Dallas, 1995.
[49] N. Muhammed, T. Olayiwola, S. Elkatatny, A review on clay chemistry,
characterization and shale inhibitors for water-based drilling fluids, J. Petrol. Sci.
Eng. (2021), 109043.
[50] E.A. Roehl, J.L. Hackett, A laboratory technique for screening shale swelling
inhibitors, in: Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans,
LA, Society of Petroleum of Engineer, 1982.
[51] T.A. Saleh, Trends in the sample preparation and analysis of nanomaterials as
environmental contaminants, Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 28 (2020) e00101.
[52] T.A. Saleh, Carbon nanotube-incorporated alumina as a support for MoNi catalysts
for the efficient hydrodesulfurization of thiophenes, Chem. Eng. J. 404 (2020),
126987.
[53] R. Gholami, H. Elochukwu, N. Fakhari, M. Sarmadivaleh, A review on borehole
instability in active shale formations: interactions, mechanisms and inhibitors,
Earth Sci. Rev. 177 (2018) 2–13.
[54] C. Gao, S.Z. Miska, M. Yu, E.M. Ozbayoglu, N.E. Takach, Effective enhancement of
wellbore stability in shales with new families of nanoparticles, in: Texas, Paper SPE
180330, SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference, 2016, pp. 14–15.