Grand Challenges and Opportunities for Greener Chemical Alternatives in Hydraulic Fracturing: A Perspective from the ACS Green Chemistry Institute Oilfield Chemistry Roundtable

Harry, David N.; Horton, D.; Durham, Danny; Constable, David J. C.; Gaffney, Simon; Moore, Joseph; Todd, Bridget; Martinez, Isamir

doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.0c00933

Cited by 10 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A lack of information can lead to a perception of elevated risk; however, the absence of data and knowledge, or their presence, is not necessarily indicative of true risk levels. For example, the pursuit of more sustainable and “greener” chemicals − may lead companies to protect related research and development investments with confidentiality or trade secret claims. Regardless, real and perceived risks have led to hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure receiving substantial attention recently …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Policy and Data Analysis: Metrics and Trends in Transparency

Hill

Yadav

Khan

2021

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research presents two new policy-level performance indicators for measuring hydraulic fracturing chemical transparency to address the limitations of existing metrics and provide additional perspectives to stakeholders. Existing indicators do not capture the change in proportions of hydraulic fracturing wells with publicly available chemical information or percent of ingredient mass withheld on chemical disclosure forms. Based on the new indicators, state-level policy changes and the FracFocus register have increased hydraulic fracturing chemical transparency over the past decade and continue to drive measurable improvements. The percent of wells with publicly disclosed ingredients increased from ∼0 to 95% (2010–2019), and the average percent of hydraulic fracturing fluid mass withheld on chemical disclosure forms decreased ∼46.8% (2013–2019). The percent ingredient mass withholding was used to compare the two current regulatory chemical disclosure form approaches (system and traditional). In 2019, the average percent of hydraulic fracturing fluid mass withheld on system approach chemical disclosure forms (0.044%) was 66.3% less than the traditional forms (0.132%). This research improves our capabilities to understand, evaluate, and communicate the effect of chemical transparency policy decisions and corporate practices. Recent lessons learnt from the oil and gas industry should be used to study broader chemical transparency policies, information systems, and communication strategies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Policy and Data Analysis: Metrics and Trends in Transparency

Hill

Yadav

Khan

2021

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such efforts have led to improved well performance and lower per well costs, while there remains an opportunity to identify more environmentally friendly replacements. 2,3 Collaborations with academia and third party suppliers have led to further step changes in fluid designs and a reduction in the amount and types of certain chemicals.…”

Section: Well Construction and Lifecyclementioning

confidence: 99%

A Technical Playbook for Chemicals and Additives Used in the Hydraulic Fracturing of Shales

Reynolds

2020

Energy Fuels

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving production of shale gas and tight oil from low-permeability formations has dominated the energy landscape over the past two decades. Successful applications of horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing (HF) techniques, first demonstrated in the Texas Barnett shales in the 1990s, are the impetus for the current shale boom in the Americas. Chemicals are at the heart of the fracturing (or "fracking") process, which includes pumping a water-based fluid and proppant into a shale formation to create fissures that access the buried hydrocarbons. The fracturing fluid composition is critical to the completion design and should reduce wellbore friction while enabling proppant placement into the fractures. However, adding too many chemicals without properly evaluating the fracturing fluid formulation can lead to increased cost, poor fluid performance, or even damage to the reservoir. This review discusses the purpose of each chemical used in HF fluids, the techniques applied by the production chemist to assess fluid performance, and suggested best practices in optimizing formulations to reduce costs, enhance performance, and improve footprint.

show abstract

“…Another criterion for their value is their ability not to block the acidized or fractured wells. These gels need to be removed at the end of the fracturing or acidizing job because viscous gels do not easily flow out of the reservoir. ,, As a result, it is necessary to use viscosity-reducing agents (also known as breakers) in well stimulation jobs in conjunction with polymers or VES gels. ,,− …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Viscosity-Reducing Agents (Breakers) for Viscoelastic Surfactant Gels for Well Stimulation

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stimulation of oil and gas wells is an essential component of hydrocarbon production. One of the ways to perform well stimulation is to use gels. These gels have been used along with breakers to prevent the gels from blocking the pathway for reservoir hydrocarbons to flow into the newly stimulated wells. Viscoelastic surfactant (VES) gels have several advantages over polymer gels because they present a lesser risk of formation damage than polymer gels. However, there is no compilation of breaker classes used for VES gels. Given the importance of breakers and VES gels, the review compiles the types of breakers available for VES gels and describes the viscosity reduction mechanisms induced by the breakers. VES gel breakers can be classified into external and internal breakers. External breakers contact the VES gels in the reservoir, while internal breakers are injected into the reservoir along with the VES. External breakers include reservoir oil, mutual solvent, and microorganisms, such as bacteria. Internal breakers consist of proteins, acids, alcohols, polymers, modified nanoparticles, oxidizing agents, or a combination of these classes. Laboratory studies have shown that internal breakers are more efficient than external breakers. As to how viscosity reduction occurs, the breakers change the wormlike micelles in the gels. Wormlike micelles could be converted to microemulsions or shortened. In some cases, the molecular structure of VES is altered, leading to the destruction of the wormlike micelles. Nevertheless, some of the proposed mechanisms have not been confirmed because their delineation relied only on rheological data. Finally, there are reports on the successful use of both external and internal breakers in the field. To conclude, breakers have been used successfully with VES gels to improve hydrocarbon production. However, internal breakers may significantly improve hydrocarbon production when compared to external breakers.

show abstract

Grand Challenges and Opportunities for Greener Chemical Alternatives in Hydraulic Fracturing: A Perspective from the ACS Green Chemistry Institute Oilfield Chemistry Roundtable

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Policy and Data Analysis: Metrics and Trends in Transparency

Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Policy and Data Analysis: Metrics and Trends in Transparency

A Technical Playbook for Chemicals and Additives Used in the Hydraulic Fracturing of Shales

Viscosity-Reducing Agents (Breakers) for Viscoelastic Surfactant Gels for Well Stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About