J Surfact Deterg (2018)
DOI 10.1002/jsde.12018
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation of Soy Lecithin as Eco-Friendly Biosurfactant
Clathrate Hydrate Antiagglomerant Additive
Tinku Saikia1 · Vikas Mahto1
Received: 15 July 2017 / Revised: 7 October 2017 / Accepted: 10 November 2017
© 2018 AOCS
Abstract Hydrate plug formation is one of the most chal-
lenging problems in upstream oilfields. The most preferred
option to prevent hydrate plug formation is the use of
antiagglomerants in the oil/gas flowlines and in drilling fluids.
Antiagglomerants do not prevent hydrate formation but restrict
the hydrate crystals from agglomerating. In this study, experi-
ments were conducted on of soy lecithin (biosurfactant) at dif-
ferent concentrations to measure its effectiveness as an
antiagglomerant additive. In all the experiments, tetrahydrofu-
ran (THF) hydrate was used, and to study the antiagglomerant
efficiency of the additive, visual observation was utilized. Soy
lecithin was compared with cetyltrimethylammonium bromide
(CTAB), and the former was found as a good environmentally
friendly antiagglomerant additive. Soy lecithin at 0.1 wt% in
the experimental solution increased the agglomeration time of
hydrate crystals by more than 1440 min and showed agglomer-
ation state III at 1
C. Soy lecithin at 0.01 wt% increased the
agglomeration time of hydrate crystals to 1000 min. The effect
of soy lecithin on the rheological characteristics and filtration
properties of drilling fluid was also studied. Even at the highest
concentration of 1.0 wt% soy lecithin and at a temperature of
1
C, the rheological parameters of the drilling fluid remained
within permissible limits. Soy lecithin was thus found to effec-
tively restrict the agglomeration of hydrate crystals.
Keywords Hydrate crystal  Antiagglomerant 
Rheological properties  Biosurfactant
J Surfact Deterg (2018).
* Vikas Mahto
vikas.ismpe@hotmail.com
1
Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, 826004, India
Published online:
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
Abbreviations
CMC carboxymethyl cellulose
CTAB cetyltrimethylammonium bromide
KCl potassium chloride
PAC polyaninonic cellulose
THF tetrahydrofuran
wt/vol% weight/volume percentage
Introduction
Gas hydrates are crystalline solids in which the host mole-
cules (water) entrap the guest molecules (CH4, CO2, etc.) in
cage-like structures (Saikia & Mahto, 2016a). Gas hydrate
structures are classified as cubic (I), cubic (II), and hexago-
nal (H). In these structures, the size of the guest molecule
varies between 0.4 and 0.55 nm, 0.6 and 0.7 nm, and 0.8
and 0.9 nm, respectively (Sloan, 2003). Natural gas mix-
tures usually form gas hydrates of structure II (Kelland,
Svartas, & Andersen, 2009). A favorable environment for
hydrate formation is found in permafrost and offshore
fields. The gas hydrate stability zone in permafrost extends
from 150 to 1100 m, and offshore below the ocean floor it
extends from 300 to 2000 m (Sloan & Koh, 2007).
Gas hydrate plug formation becomes severe with time as
drilling of unconventional reserves goes deeper and deeper
and the offshore oil/gas pipelines go into greater water
depths. High-pressure and low-temperature conditions lead
to the formation of gas hydrate crystals in the oil/gas pipe-
lines and drilling fluid flowlines. Hydrate formation not
only affects the rheology of the drilling fluid but may also
lead to the blockage of drilling fluid flowlines due to the
agglomeration of hydrate crystals. Two major accidents
reported in the oil/gas industry, which took place in Santa
Barbara, California, and Green Canyon, Gulf of Mexico,

were due to gas hydrate formation and agglomeration in the
drilling fluid (Saikia & Mahto, 2016b).
To prevent hydrate plug formation in the fluid flowlines,
different methods have been suggested, such as lowering
the pressure, removal of water, raising the temperature/
heating, and the use of antifreeze chemicals. These methods
have proven to be very expensive or only partially effec-
tive. The most effective preventive measure out of all the
above-mentioned methods is the use of chemical additives.
The additives used for the prevention of hydrate formation
are known as hydrate inhibitors. Hydrate inhibitors used
are broadly classified as thermodynamic inhibitors and
low-dosage hydrate inhibitors (LDHI). LDHI are again
classified as kinetic inhibitors (KHI) and antiagglomerants
(AA). Thermodynamic inhibitors prevent hydrate formation
by shifting the hydrate dissociation/stability curve toward
higher pressure and lower temperature. Kinetic inhibitors
do not shift the hydrate dissociation/stability curve but
delay the crystal growth and nucleation (induction) of the
hydrates (Kashchiev & Firoozabadi, 2003).
Whereas thermodynamic and kinetic inhibitors prevent
hydrate formation, AA do not prevent hydrate formation
but restrict the hydrate crystals from agglomerating. AA in
the condensate will result in the dispersion of hydrate crys-
tals and formation of hydrate slurry, which is flowable and
do not block the flowline (Kelland, Svartaas, & Dybvik,
1994). This characteristic of AA can be explained by two
mechanisms. Workers at IFP discovered the first mecha-
nism in which polymeric emulsifiers were used. These
emulsifiers form water-in-oil emulsions and prevent
agglomeration of hydrate crystals by confining hydrate for-
mation to water droplets only (Behar, Kessel, Sugier, &
Thomas, 1991). In the second mechanism, discovered by
Shell, surfactants were used to prevent agglomeration.
These surfactants have a hydrate-philic head and a hydro-
phobic tail. The polar head of the surfactant gets attached
to the hydrate crystal surface and slows down hydrate
growth. The hydrophobic tail allows the hydrate crystals to
disperse in the condensate and makes the hydrate slurry
flowable (Klomp, Kruka, & Reijnhart, 1995). In 1990, qua-
ternary ammonium surfactants were found to be effective
AA (Kelland, 2006). Since then, different single-and
double-tail quaternary ammonium surfactants were devel-
oped as AA (Klomp & Rejnhart, 1996; Klomp et al., 1995).
Other classes of surfactants identified as AA are oxazolidi-
nium surfactants, phosphonium with ester/amide linkages,
and betaine and amine oxide surfactants (Leinweber &
Feustel, 2006; Panchalingam, Rudel, & Bodnar, 2005;
Rivers, Tian, & Hackeroot, 2008; Tian & Bailey, 2012).
Later on, the interest in the use of biosurfactants as AA
increased. Biosurfactants show very desirable properties
with respect to the environment, such as higher biodegrad-
ability and lower toxicity, and are safer to use (Fu,
J Surfact Deterg
Houston, & Spratt, 2005; York & Firoozabadi, 2008). Dif-
ferent research articles present different biosurfactants that
can be used as AA. York and Firoozabadi (2008) compared
rhamnolipid biosurfactants with quaternary ammonium
salt surfactants in tetrahydrofuran (THF) hydrates. Li
et al. (2010) evaluated the effectiveness of rhamnolipid and
methanol mixture as AA in cyclopentane hydrates (Li,
Negadi, & Firoozabadi, 2010).
To study the effectiveness of AA, different researchers
use different experimental setups such as high-pressure sap-
phire rocking cell apparatus, wheel loop, high-pressure
autoclave, etc. (Chua & Kelland, 2013; Kelland, Svartaas,
vsthus, Tomita, & Mizuta, 2006). York and Firoozabadi
(2008) used THF hydrates in a multiple screening tube
rocking apparatus for measuring the effectiveness of AA
(York & Firoozabadi, 2008). Abojaladi and Kelland (2016)
found that cyclopentane hydrates along with visual method
could be used for the initial screening of AA (Abojaladi &
Kelland, 2016). THF hydrates form at an equilibrium tem-
perature of 4.4
C and atmospheric pressure. Because of
the high water solubility of THF, hydrate formation takes
place in the solution (Peixinho, Karanjkar, Lee, & Morris,
2010). THF hydrates can be used in place of methane
hydrate because their thermal and mechanical properties
are similar (Lee, Yun, Santamarina, & Ruppel, 2007). In
this work, we study the effectiveness of soy lecithin as AA
and compared it with cetyltrimethylammonium bromide
(CTAB) at 1
C and atmospheric pressure using THF
hydrate and visual inspection. Soy lecithin (C35H66NO7P)
extracted from soybean oil is a surfactant with a hydro-
philic head and a lipophilic tail. Soy lecithin usually con-
tains 65–75% phospholipids (PL), 34% triglycerides, and
traces of pigments, carbohydrates, sterol glycosides, and
sterols (Dickinson, 1993). Soy lecithin PL are of three dif-
ferent types, i.e., phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanol-
amine, and phosphotidylinositol (Szuhaj & List, 1985). PL
are amphipathic, i.e., they have hydrophobic nonpolar fatty
acid tails and hydrophilic polar heads. Because of this
structural property, the soy lecithin molecule gets adsorbed
on surfaces or interfaces. Soy lecithin is considered as a
biosurfactant because of its natural origin and also because
the World Health Organization has confirmed its safety
(WHO, 1974). For many years, soy lecithin has been used
in the food industry as an emulsifier. It is also used along
with synthetic surfactants to reduce the use of the latter
(Rust & Wildes, 2008). Soy lecithin have a hydrophilic–
lipophilic balance (HLB) value of 8 and a sufficiently long
carbon chain (C35). All these properties make soy lecithin a
promising candidate to be tested as a hydrate crystal AA.
Quaternary ammonium surfactants have been used as
hydrate AA additives (Kelland, Grinød, & Dirdal, 2015;
York & Firoozabadi, 2008). Earlier studies had found that
most of the cationic surfactants, in comparison to anionic
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
J Surfact Deterg
Fig. 1 Chemical structure of (a) CTAB and (b) soy lecithin
and nonionic surfactants, are better hydrate AA additives
(Abojaladi & Kelland, 2016). CTAB, (C16H33)N(CH3)3]Br,
is a quaternary ammonium (cationic) surfactant with 16 car-
bon atoms attached to a polar/hydrophilic headgroup and a
hydrophobic tail (Fig. 1). It is easily available as a commer-
cial surfactant. Therefore, the performance of soy lecithin
was compared in this work with that of CTAB. To the best
of our knowledge, this paper presents the first account of
soy lecithin as an AA and its application in drilling fluids.
The drilling fluid is required to perform various impor-
tant functions such as the removal of drill cuttings, mainte-
nance of hydrodynamic pressure in the well, cooling and
lubricating the drill string, etc. To perform all these func-
tions properly, the drilling fluid’s rheology must be main-
tained. The rheological characteristics of a drilling fluid are
its plastic viscosity (PV), apparent viscosity (AV), yield
point (YP), and gel strength. PV is the viscosity of the dril-
ling fluid at infinite shear rate. AV is the viscosity of the
drilling fluid at a particular shear rate and fixed tempera-
ture. The YS at zero shear rate is the yield point of the dril-
ling fluid. The effect of soy lecithin and CTAB on all these
rheological parameters of the drilling fluid was also studied
and compared in this work.
Experimental
Materials
The soy lecithin studied in this work was purchased from
the Central Drug House Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, India. Dril-
ling fluid additives such as xanthan gum, carboxy methyl
cellulose (CMC), polyanionic cellulose (PAC), CTAB, and
potassium chloride (KCl) were purchased from LOBA
Chemie Pvt. Ltd. THF was purchased from Merck Speciali-
ties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India.
Apparatus
To test the effectiveness of AA, an experimental setup fab-
ricated in-house, shown in Fig. 2 was used. In this setup,
the experimental solution was placed in a 500-mL jacketed
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
beaker. This beaker was connected to a cold bath using
well-insulated flexible pipes. The temperature of the experi-
mental solution was controlled by circulating the coolant
from the cold bath to the beaker jacket using a circulation
pump. The experimental solution was kept in a dynamic
state by stirring the solution using a magnetic stirrer at
100 rpm for the reduction of mass and heat transfer resis-
tance. The experimental solution used was a mixture of
THF (75 mL), distilled water (25 mL), and the AA additive
at different concentrations. Real-time temperature of the
experimental solution was recorded with the help of a digi-
tal thermometer. The induction of hydrate crystals and their
agglomeration were recorded using a Logitech C521 web-
cam. The hydrate induction time can be defined as the time
at which the hydrate crystals become visible in the experi-
mental solution after the experimental solution was sub-
jected to hydrate stability pressure and temperature
conditions (Zheng, Huang, Wang, Long, & Kusalik, 2017).
Experimental Procedure
Determination of Agglomeration Time
The experimental solution was prepared by mixing THF,
distilled water, and AA additive (soy lecithin and CTAB)
using a Hamilton beach mixer. The concentration of soy
lecithin and CTAB was varied in the experimental solution
as 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, and 1.0 weight/volume percentage
(wt/vol%). This mixture was then placed in the jacketed
beaker, and the temperature of the experimental solution
was lowered by circulating the coolant in the jacket of the
beaker. The temperature of the experimental solution was
maintained at 1
C. Continuous stirring of the solution was
done with the help of the magnetic stirrer at 100 rpm. The
change in the state of experimental solution with time was
recorded using a Logitech C521 webcam, which was con-
nected to a computer system. The counting of hydrate crys-
tal agglomeration time started when the temperature of the
experimental solution went below 4.4
C, which is the
equilibrium temperature of THF hydrate crystals. The time
taken for the hydrate crystals to agglomerate and to stop
the stirring of the Teflon-coated magnetic bar was recorded.

Fig. 2 Experimental setup for hydrate crystal agglomeration studies
The first appearance of hydrate crystals in the experimental
solution, as could be seen by the naked eye, was recorded
as the induction time of the crystals. The longer it takes for
the hydrate crystals to agglomerate, the greater the effi-
ciency of AA additive.
Study of Hydrate Crystal Agglomeration State
Different research articles present and define the agglomera-
tion state of hydrate crystals in different ways depending
upon the experimental results. York and Firoozabadi (2008)
in their work classify the hydrate crystal agglomeration state
into four categories, i.e., plugging, immediate agglomera-
tion upon vial walls, metastable dispersion, and stable dis-
persion (York & Firoozabadi, 2008). Chua and Kelland
(2013) ranked their AA additives depending upon the
hydrate crystal agglomeration state: Rank (A) represents
finely dispersed hydrates and no increase in run time;
(B) no plugging and run time increase; (C) significant
deposit; (D) plug of hydrates; and (E) hard plug of hydrates
(Chua & Kelland, 2013). Abojaladi and Kelland (2016)
used a visual method to identify the hydrate crystal
agglomeration state and classified the tested AA into
three categories: Category A is the best and represents
J Surfact Deterg
fine dispersion of hydrate crystals (Teflon magnetic bar
still stirring); category B represents high-viscosity, slushy
hydrates (Teflon stirrer bar eventually not moving); and
category C represents hydrate crystals forming hard
lumps (Teflon stirrer bar stops quickly) (Abojaladi & Kel-
land, 2016).
In this work, we have classified the hydrate crystals’
state of agglomeration in visual observation experiments as
follows: state I, plugging; state II, initial agglomeration in
the walls but no plugging; and state III, static dispersion. In
state I, large hydrate crystals were formed in the solution,
which shows that the additive used does not have any effect
on the hydrate crystal growth and that the agglomeration is
so rigid that it stops the magnetic Teflon bars rotation. In
state II, smaller hydrate crystals are formed, which only
agglomerate on the walls of the beaker but remain in dis-
persed form in the rest of the solution. In state III, the
hydrate crystals are smaller, do not show any agglomera-
tion, and remain in dispersed form in the solution.
Rheological Studies
A water-based drilling fluid was used for rheological stud-
ies. In the base drilling fluid, xanthan gum (0.4 wt/vol%)
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
J Surfact Deterg
Fig. 3 (a) Experimental solution free of hydrate crystals. (b) Completely agglomerated hydrate crystals in the experimental solution without any
antiagglomerant additive
was used as viscosifier and PAC (0.4 wt/vol%) and CMC
(0.4 wt/vol%) were used as filtration loss control additives.
KCl (5.0 wt/vol%) was added for shale inhibition. The
effect of different concentrations of soy lecithin and CTAB
on the drilling fluid’s rheology was studied with the help of
an Ofite eight-speed viscometer. Controlled shear rate was
maintained in the viscometer. The OFITE Pulse-Power
electronic speed regulator was used to constantly monitor
and adjust the viscometer motor rpm, which in return main-
tained a constant shear rate under varying shear conditions
of drilling fluid and varying power inputs. The filtration
characteristics of the base drilling fluid and the effect of
soy lecithin and CTAB were also studied using a Fann API
filter press. The different formulas used to calculate the rhe-
ological parameters of drilling fluid were as per the field-
testing standard procedure recommended by API, which
are as follows:
Plastic viscosity ðPVÞ = 600 – 300 ðcPÞ
Apparent viscosity ðAVÞ = 600 =2 ðcPÞ
Yield point ðYPÞ = 300 – plastic viscosity lb=100 ft
Results and Discussion
In this work, soy lecithin’s AA characteristics were studied
and compared with those of the cationic surfactant CTAB.
The experimental solution was a 100-mL solution of THF
and distilled water. The soy lecithin was added at different
concentrations to the experimental solution and the temper-
ature of the solution was maintained at nearly 1
C, so that
only hydrate crystals and no ice crystals formed in the
experimental solution. The state of the THF hydrate crys-
tals was observed visually. The results of visual observa-
tion can be correlated with other methods used for the
study of hydrate crystal formation and agglomeration, such
as by using high-pressure testing equipment (Abojaladi &
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
Kelland, 2016). The main concern in visual observation is
the variability in the obtained results. To solve this, we con-
ducted agglomeration studies of each concentration of addi-
tive five times and took the average value as the final result
(Pakulski, 1997). It was seen that the scattering in the
agglomeration times obtained in different experiments was
15–25% of the average value.
Effect of Soy Lecithin and CTAB on the Agglomeration
of Hydrate Crystals
Determination of Agglomeration Time
The hydrate crystals have a high tendency to agglomerate
and form a hydrate plug. In Fig. 3a, the experimental solu-
tion free of hydrate crystals is shown and in Fi3b a
completely agglomerated experimental solution with no
ð1Þ AA additive. From the experimental results of the agglom-
eration time study shown in Table 1, it is clear that the for-
ð2Þ mation of hydrate plug in the experimental solution (with

no AA additive) took place in a relatively short time period
2
of 40 min. The experimental results of the surfactant
ð3Þ CTAB showed that, to increase the agglomeration time
beyond 1440 min, the concentration of CTAB in the exper-
imental solution must be ≥0.05 wt/vol%. At a lower con-
centration of 0.01 wt/vol% CTAB, the agglomeration time
was 1200 min. The use of soy lecithin in the experimental
solution showed promising results as an AA additive. The
concentration of soy lecithin above 0.10 wt/vol% increased
the hydrate crystal agglomeration time to more than
1440 min. It was seen also that a concentration of 0.01 wt/
vol% soy lecithin increased the agglomeration time from
40 to 1000 min. By increasing the concentration of soy lec-
ithin to 0.05 wt/vol%, the agglomeration time increased to
1200 min. These results are nearly on a par with those
of CTAB.
The performance of the AA can be explained by the
adsorption mechanism of surfactants on the hydrate crystals
 J Surfact Deterg

Table 1 Agglomeration time of hydrate crystals (at 1
C) Hydrate crystals’ dielectric constant is 58 (at 273 K), which
Antiagglomerant Induction Agglomeration Agglomeration is less than that of water, i.e., 88 (Sloan & Koh, 2007).
concentration time (min) time (min) state Because of the lower dielectric constant of the hydrate crys-
(Wt/Vol%) tals, the surfactant’s tail has more affinity toward the hydrate
crystal surface and covers it, as shown in Fig. 4b, i.e., lie-
Lecithin
0.00 10 40 I down configuration. In the presence of the oil phase in the
0.01 9 1000 I experimental solution, the surfactant’s tail extends into the
0.05 9 1200 I oil phase, which provides repulsion between nearby hydrate
0.10 5 >1440 III crystals. This means that the experimental solution without
0.50 4 >1440 III any oil phase requires less AA concentration than the experi-
1.00 4 >1440 III mental solution with oil phase and oil-in-water emulsion.
CTAB Comparing the molecular structure of CTAB and soy leci-
0.01 8 1200 I thin (Fig. 1), it is clear that the carbon chain lengths of
0.05 6 >1440 II CTAB (C16) and soy lecithin (C35) are sufficiently long.
0.10 7 >1440 II Therefore, soy lecithin also has high flexibility similar to
0.50 5 >1440 III CTAB to cover the hydrate crystal surface when the head
1.00 4 >1440 III group gets adsorbed on the hydrate crystal. Hence, soy leci-
thin’s performance is on a par with that of CTAB.
(Sun & Firoozbadi, 2013). The molecules of the surfactant The surfactant chain’s headgroups and tails both adhere to
in water are mostly in the form of micelles, as shown in the surface of hydrate crystals at relatively low concentra-
Fig. 4a. When the hydrate crystals start to form in the solu- tions (Fig. 4b). With the increase in the surfactant concentra-
tion of water and THF, some of these micelles start dissoci- tion in the aqueous phase, the number of surfactant chains
ating and get adsorbed on the surface of the hydrate crystals. adsorbed on the hydrate crystal surface increases and the

Fig. 4 Surface adsorption mechanism of surfactant in THF/water system; (a) surfactant in micelles form in hydrate free aqueous phase; (b) disso-
ciated micelles adsorbed on the hydrate crystal surface in aqueous phase showing lie-down configuration; (c) saturation of first layer adsorbed sur-
factant; (d) adsorption of the second layer of surfactant

J Surfact Deterg (2018)

J Surfact Deterg

Fig. 5 State of hydrate crystals agglomeration after 1440 min

headgroups of these surfactants prefer to interact with the interface will be the key to the development of new and
hydrate crystal surface because of which surfactant chain more effective AA (Somasundaran & Krishnakumar, 1997).
tails start to align themselves parallel to one another. This,
along with the hydrophobic force between surfactant chains,
Study of Hydrate Crystal Agglomeration State
results in the change of configuration or alignment of the
surfactant chains when the concentration increases (Fig. 4c).
As defined earlier, the agglomeration state of hydrate crystals
The surfactant chains in the monolayer with their head-
was classified into three states, i.e. I, II, and III. At different
group attached to the hydrate crystal and tail towards the
concentrations of the surfactant, the agglomeration time dif-
aqueous phase become the adsorption sites for more surfac-
fers and so does the state of agglomeration of hydrate crys-
tant adsorption. This second layer of adsorbed surfactant
tals. In the experimental solution without any AA additive,
chains has their tails interacting with the first layer and head-
large hydrate crystals are formed and agglomerate to form
groups aligned toward the aqueous phase (Fig. 4d). The phe-
the hydrate plug. The agglomeration of the hydrate crystals
nomenon of surfactant adsorption at the solid–liquid
starts at the circumference of the beaker wall in the form of a

Fig. 6 Effect on rheological parameters of drilling fluid with increase Fig. 7 Effect on rheological parameters of drilling fluid with increase
in CTAB concentration at 25
C in CTAB concentration at 10
C

J Surfact Deterg (2018)


Fig. 8 Effect on rheological parameters of drilling fluid with increase
in CTAB concentration at 01
C
rigid ring-like structure and expands toward the center of the
beaker. The agglomeration of hydrate crystals is so rigid that
it stops the movement of the teflon magnetic stirrer bar
within 40 min of hydrate induction in the experimental solu-
tion (Fig. 5). The addition of CTAB to the experimental solu-
tion does show the desirable effect of AA. At lower
concentrations (0.01 wt/vol%), CTAB increases the agglom-
eration time to 1200 min, but after that it forms rigid hydrate
plugs and represents state I of hydrate crystal agglomeration.
Concentrations of CTAB equal to and greater than 0.05 wt/
vol% prevent the formation of a rigid hydrate plug for more
than 1440 min. But 0.05 and 0.10 wt/vol% CTAB showed
hydrate agglomeration at the beaker wall, representing state
II of hydrate crystal agglomeration. A higher concentration
of 0.5 and 1.0 wt/vol% of CTAB represents state III of
hydrate agglomeration, i.e., hydrate crystals remain in the
dispersed condition and form a slurry of hydrate crystals.
Fig. 9 Effect on rheological parameters of drilling fluid with increase
in soy lecithin concentration at 25
C
J Surfact Deterg
Fig. 10 Effect on rheological parameters of drilling fluid with
increase in soy lecithin concentration at 10
C
Soy lecithin showed very good results, on par with
CTAB. It increased the agglomeration time of hydrate crys-
tals and also improved the state of hydrate crystal agglom-
eration. At lower concentrations of 0.01 and 0.05 wt/vol%
of lecithin, the hydrate agglomeration represents state I,
and for concentrations equal to and higher than 0.1 wt/vol
% of lecithin, the hydrate crystals represent state III in the
experimental solution, i.e., hydrate crystals remain in slurry
form for more than 1440 min.
Effect Soy Lecithin and CTAB on Rheology
of Drilling Fluid
The effect of CTAB and soy lecithin on the rheology and
filtration characteristics of the drilling fluid at ambient pres-
sure and temperature was studied and compared. The
Fig. 11 Effect on rheological parameters of drilling fluid with
increase in soy lecithin concentration at 01
C
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
J Surfact Deterg
Table 2 Comparison of the most preferred drilling fluid system with CTAB and lecithin
Drilling fluid system Plastic Apparent
viscosity (cP) viscosity (cP)
System A [Lecithin 14 28.0
(0.10) +
CMC(0.4) + PAC
(0.4) +
XG(0.4) + KCl (5.0)]
System B [CTAB(0.10) + 15 28.5
CMC(0.4) + PAC
(0.4) +
XG(0.4) + KCl (5.0)]
rheological parameters such as PV, AV, YP, and gel
strength were measured. Increasing the concentration of
CTAB in the drilling fluid increases the PV from 10 to
13 cP at 1.0 wt/vol% concentration at 25
C. PV controls
the drilling rate and is directly proportional to the mud
weight (Tang, He, Xiong, & Zheng, 2014). The effect of
the decrease in drilling fluid temperature can also be seen:
The PV value increases. For 0.01 wt/vol% CTAB, the PV
value at 25
C is 10 cP, which increases to 14 cP at 1
C.
The same increasing trend of PV value is seen for all the
other concentrations.
An increase in AV and YP of the drilling fluid was also
seen with increasing concentrations of CTAB to 28.5 and
31 cP from the initial value of 20.5 and 21 cP (at 25
C),
respectively. Similar to the PV value, both AV and YP
show an increase in their values with the decrease in tem-
perature from 25 to 01
C (Fig. 6–8). The YP of the drilling
fluid measures the cuttings carrying capacity from the
drilled hole, but an increase in YP also increases the pump
pressure required for the initial mud flow. The YP/PV ratio
is a measure of shear thinning behavior of the drilling fluid:
the higher the value of the YP/PV ratio, the greater the
shear thinning of the drilling fluid (Caenn, Darley, & Gray,
2012; Mahmoud & Dardir, 2011). The variation in the dril-
ling fluid’s rheology with the addition of different concen-
tration of soy lecithin showed almost similar results. The
increase in the PV, AV, and YP of the drilling fluid can be
seen with increasing concentration of soy lecithin. In
1.0 wt/vol% of soy lecithin, the increase of PV, AV, and
YP from 10 to 12 cP, 20.5 to 25.5 cP, and 21 to 27 lb/
100 ft2 (at 25
C) was seen, respectively. A nominal
increase in the gel strength of the drilling fluid was seen at
higher concentrations of CTAB and soy lecithin with
decreasing temperature. CTAB at 1.0 wt/vol% concentra-
tion in the drilling fluid increased the gel strength of the
base fluid from 4 lb/100 ft2 (10 s) and 8 lb/100 ft2
(10 min) to 5 and 10 lb/100 ft2, respectively at 25
C. Soy
lecithin also increased the gel strength of the drilling fluid
to 5 lb/100 ft2 (10 s) and 9 lb/100 ft2 (10 min) at 25
C.
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
Yield point Gel strength (lb/100 ft2) Filtration
(lb/100 ft2) loss (mL)
10 (s) 10 (min)
29 6 11 10
28 6 11 10
Both surfactants do not have any considerable effect on
the gel strength at lower concentrations. In Figs. 6–11, the
increasing values of different rheological parameters at dif-
ferent temperatures are shown. It is clear that both CTAB
and soy lecithin increase the rheological parameters, but the
increase due to soy lecithin was within permissible limits in
comparison to CTAB. It was also found that the filtration loss
of the developed drilling fluid was about 10 mL in 30 min
and remained (on the average) the same for all concentrations
of CTAB and soy lecithin in the drilling fluid.
The most preferred drilling fluid systems with CTAB and
soy lecithin is presented in Table 2. System A drilling fluid
has 0.10 wt% of soy lecithin in the base drilling fluid and
increases the agglomeration time of hydrate crystals by more
than 1440 min with state III agglomeration. The rheology of
the system A drilling fluid is presented in Table 2 and com-
pared with system B drilling fluid having 0.1 wt% of CTAB
in the base drilling fluid. The rheology of both drilling fluid
systems is equivalent. System B drilling fluid increases the
agglomeration time beyond 1440 min and presents state II
agglomeration. So, system A using soy lecithin as a good
eco-friendly AA additive was found to be a better drilling
fluid system for preventing agglomeration of hydrate crystals.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from this work:
1. Comparing the AA characteristics of CTAB and soy
lecithin, it was found that soy lecithin performs on par
with CTAB.
2. Soy lecithin, even at a concentration of 0.01 wt%,
increases the agglomeration time of hydrate crystals to
1000 min.
3. Soy lecithin at a concentration of 0.1 wt% in the exper-
imental solution increases the hydrate crystal agglom-
eration time beyond 1440 min and gives state III
agglomeration, whereas CTAB at 0.1 wt% gives state
II hydrate crystal agglomeration.

4. The effect of CTAB on the drilling fluid rheological
characteristics represents an increasing trend and mar-
ginally surpasses the limiting value. The effect of soy
lecithin represents the same increasing trend of rheo-
logical characteristics, but the increase is within the
permissible limits in comparison with CTAB.
5. The increasing trend in the rheological properties of
the drilling fluid was due to the increase in concentra-
tion of the AA additive and also to the decrease in
temperature.
6. Soy lecithin, which is a biosurfactant, can be effectively
used as an AA additive to prevent hydrate plug forma-
tions in oil/gas pipelines and drilling fluid flowlines.
Acknowledgment The authors would like to acknowledge
IIT(ISM), Dhanbad, India, for providing financial support and neces-
sary laboratory facilities to carry out this work.
References
Abojaladi, N., & Kelland, M. A. (2016) Can cyclopentane hydrate
formation be used to screen the performance of surfactants ad
LDHI antiagglomerants at atmospheric pressure? Chemical Engi-
neering Science, 152:746–753.
Behar, P., Kessel, D., Sugier, A, & Thomas, A. (1991) Advances in
hydrate control. Proceedings of the 70th Gas Processors Associa-
tion Conference. San Antonio, TX.
Caenn, R., Darley, H. C. H., & Gray, G. R. (2012) Composition and
properties of drilling and completion fluids (6th ed.). Oxford, UK:
Gulf Professional Publishing.
Chua, P. C., & Kelland, M. A. (2013) Study of the gas hydrate
antiagglomerant performance of a series of n-alkyl-tri(n-butyl)
ammonium bromides. Energy and Fuels, 27:1285–1292.
Dickinson, E. (1993) Towards more natural emulsifiers. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 4:330–334.
Fu, B., Houston, C., & Spratt, T. (2005) New generation LDHI with
an improved environmental profile. Proceedings of the Fifth Inter-
national Conference on Gas Hydrates. Trondheim, Norway.
Kashchiev, D., & Firoozabadi, A. (2003) Induction time in crystalliza-
tion of gas hydrates. Journal of Crystal Growth, 250:499–515.
Kelland, M. A. (2006) History of the development of low dosage
hydrate inhibitors. Energy & Fuels, 20:825–847.
Kelland, M. A., Grinød, A., & Dirdal, E. G. (2015) Novel Benchtop
wheel loop for low dosage gas hydrate inhibitor screening: Com-
parison to rocking cells for a series of antiagglomerants. Journal of
Chemical & Engineering Data, 60:252–257.
Kelland, M. A., Svartaas, T. M., & Dybvik, L. (1994) Control of
hydrate formation by surfactants and polymers. SPE 28506. Pro-
ceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans.
Kelland, M. A., Svartaas, T. M., vsthus, J., Tomita, T., &
Mizuta, K. (2006) Studies on some alkylamide surfactant gas
hydrate antiagglomerants. Chemical Engineering Science, 61:
4290–4298.
Kelland, M. A., Svartas, T. M., & Andersen, L. D. (2009) Gas hydrate
antiagglomerant properties of polypropoxylates and some other
demulsifiers. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering,
64:1–10.
Klomp, U. C., Kruka, V. C., & Reijnhart, R. (1995) International Pat-
ent Application WO 95/17579.
J Surfact Deterg
Klomp, U. C., & Rejnhart, R. (1996) International Patent Application
WO 96/34177.
Lee, J. Y., Yun, T. S., Santamarina, J. C., & Ruppel, C. (2007) Obser-
vations related to tetrahydrofuran and methane hydrates for labora-
tory studies of hydrate bearing sediments. Geochemistry,
Geophysics, Geosystems, 8:Q06003.
Leinweber, D., & Feustel, M. (2006) International Patent Application
WO/2006/040013.
Li, X., Negadi, L., & Firoozabadi, A. (2010) Antiagglomeration in
Cyclopentane hydrates from bio- and co-surfactants. Energy &
Fuels, 24:4937–4943.
Mahmoud, S. A., & Dardir, M. M. (2011) Synthesis and evaluation of
a new cationic surfactant for oil-well drilling fluid. Journal of Sur-
factants and Detergents, 14:123–130.
Pakulski, M. (1997) High efficiency non-polymeric gas hydrate inhib-
itors. SPE 37285. International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry.
Houston, Texas.
Panchalingam, V., Rudel, M. G., & Bodnar, S. H. (2005) International
Patent Application WO/2005/042675.
Peixinho, J., Karanjkar, P. U., Lee, J. W., & Morris, J. F. (2010) Rhe-
ology of hydrate forming emulsions. Langmuir, 26:11699–11704.
Rivers, G. T., Tian, J., & Hackeroot, J. A. (2008) International Patent
Application WO/2008/063794.
Rust, D., & Wildes, S. (2008) Surfactants: A market opportunity study
update. United Soybean Board, Omni Tech International, Ltd.,
Midland, MI.
Saikia, T., & Mahto, V. (2016a) Experimental investigations of clath-
rate hydrate inhibition in water based drilling fluid using green
inhibitor. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 147:
647–653.
Saikia, T., & Mahto, V. (2016b) Evaluation of
1-decyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate as clathrate hydrate
crystal inhibitor in drilling fluid. Journal of Natural Gas Science
and Engineering, 36:906–915.
Sloan, E. D. (2003) Fundamental principles and applications of natu-
ral gas hydrates. Nature, 426:353–359.
Sloan, E. D., & Koh, C. A. (2007) Clathrate hydrates of natural
gases, Vol (Vol. XXV). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Somasundaran, P., & Krishnakumar, S. (1997) Adsorption of surfac-
tants and polymers at the solid-liquid interface. Colloids and Sur-
faces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 123-124:
491–513.
Sun, M., & Firoozbadi, A. (2013) New surfactant for hydrate
antiagglomeration in hydrocarbon flowlines and seabed oil capture.
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 402:312–319.
Szuhaj, B. F., & List, G. R. (1985) Lecithins: Sources, manufacture &
uses. Champaign, IL: The American Oil Chemists’ Society.
Tang, M., He, S., Xiong, J., & Zheng, F. (2014) Research and applica-
tion of recyclable nitrogen foam horizontal well Drilling Technol-
ogy in the Daniudi gas Field. Journal of Surfactants and
Detergents, 17:995–1001.
Tian, J., & Bailey, C. R. (2012) International Patent Application
WO/2012/102916.
WHO. (1974) Toxicological evaluation of some food additives includ-
ing anticaking agents, antimicrobials, antioxidants, emulsifiers and
thickening agents. WHO Food Additives Series (FAS),
No. 5, Geneva, Switzerland.
York, J. D., & Firoozabadi, A. (2008) Comparing effectiveness of
Rhamnolipid biosurfactant with a quaternary ammonium salt sur-
factant for hydrate antiagglomerantion. The Journal of Physical
Chemistry. B, 112:845–851.
Zheng, H., Huang, Q., Wang, W., Long, Z., & Kusalik, P. G. (2017)
Induction time of hydrate formation in water-in-oil emulsions.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 56: 8330–8839.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.7b01332
J Surfact Deterg (2018)
J Surfact Deterg

Biographies

Tinku Saikia received the B.Tech degree in Mechanical Engineering

from North Eastern Regional Institute of Science & Technology, Nir-
juli, India, in 2009 and M.Tech in Petroleum Engineering form
Department of Petroleum Technology, Dibrugarh University, Assam,
India in 2012. He received the Ph.D. degree in petroleum Engineer-
ing from Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines),
Dhanbad, India in 2017.

Dr. Vikas Mahto is an Associate Professor in the Department of Petro-

leum Engineering of Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of
Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India. He has completed his Ph.D.
Degree in Petroleum Engineering from the same institute in the year
2004. Six research scholars have awarded Ph.D. degree under his
supervision and currently he is supervising ten research scholars for
their PhD degree. He is the author of more than 100 research papers
published in the different national/international journals & confer-
ences of repute. He is reviewer and member of editorial boards of
many national and international journals.

J Surfact Deterg (2018)