Physical-chemical evaluation of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the context of produced water treatment.

Produced water is a significant waste stream that can be treated and reused; however, the removal of production chemicals-such as those added in hydraulic fracturing-must be addressed. One motivation for treating and reusing produced water is that current disposal methods-typically consisting of deep well injection and percolation in infiltration pits-are being limited. Furthermore, oil and gas production often occurs in arid regions where there is demand for new water sources. In this paper, hydraulic fracturing chemical additive data from California are used as a case study where physical-chemical and biodegradation data are summarized and used to screen for appropriate produced water treatment technologies. The data indicate that hydraulic fracturing chemicals are largely treatable; however, data are missing for 24 of the 193 chemical additives identified. More than one-third of organic chemicals have data indicating biodegradability, suggesting biological treatment would be effective. Adsorption-based methods and partitioning of chemicals into oil for subsequent separation is expected to be effective for approximately one-third of chemicals. Volatilization-based treatment methods (e.g. air stripping) will only be effective for approximately 10% of chemicals. Reverse osmosis is a good catch-all with over 70% of organic chemicals expected to be removed efficiently. Other technologies such as electrocoagulation and advanced oxidation are promising but lack demonstration. Chemicals of most concern due to prevalence, toxicity, and lack of data include propargyl alcohol, 2-mercaptoethyl alcohol, tetrakis hydroxymethyl-phosphonium sulfate, thioglycolic acid, 2-bromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, formaldehyde polymers, polymers of acrylic acid, quaternary ammonium compounds, and surfactants (e.g. ethoxylated alcohols). Future studies should examine the fate of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in produced water treatment trains to demonstrate removal and clarify interactions between upstream and downstream processes

Physical-chemical evaluation of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the context of produced water treatment.

Produced water is a significant waste stream that can be treated and reused; however, the removal of production chemicals-such as those added in hydraulic fracturing-must be addressed. One motivation for treating and reusing produced water is that current disposal methods-typically consisting of deep well injection and percolation in infiltration pits-are being limited. Furthermore, oil and gas production often occurs in arid regions where there is demand for new water sources. In this paper, hydraulic fracturing chemical additive data from California are used as a case study where physical-chemical and biodegradation data are summarized and used to screen for appropriate produced water treatment technologies. The data indicate that hydraulic fracturing chemicals are largely treatable; however, data are missing for 24 of the 193 chemical additives identified. More than one-third of organic chemicals have data indicating biodegradability, suggesting biological treatment would be effective. Adsorption-based methods and partitioning of chemicals into oil for subsequent separation is expected to be effective for approximately one-third of chemicals. Volatilization-based treatment methods (e.g. air stripping) will only be effective for approximately 10% of chemicals. Reverse osmosis is a good catch-all with over 70% of organic chemicals expected to be removed efficiently. Other technologies such as electrocoagulation and advanced oxidation are promising but lack demonstration. Chemicals of most concern due to prevalence, toxicity, and lack of data include propargyl alcohol, 2-mercaptoethyl alcohol, tetrakis hydroxymethyl-phosphonium sulfate, thioglycolic acid, 2-bromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, formaldehyde polymers, polymers of acrylic acid, quaternary ammonium compounds, and surfactants (e.g. ethoxylated alcohols). Future studies should examine the fate of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in produced water treatment trains to demonstrate removal and clarify interactions between upstream and downstream processes

Fog water as an alternative and sustainable water resource

As the world’s population and demand for fresh water increases, new water resources are needed. One commonly overlooked aspect of the water cycle is fog, which is an important part of the hydrology of coastal, high-altitude, and forested regions. Fog water harvesting is being investigated as a sustainable alternative water resource for drinking water and reforestation. Fog water harvesting involves using mesh nets to collect water as fog passes through them. The materials of these nets, along with environmental factors such as wind speed, influence the volume of water collected. In this article, a review of current models for fog collection, designs, and applications of fog water harvesting is provided. Aspects of fog water harvesting requiring further research and development are identified. In regions with frequent fog events, fog water harvesting is a sustainable drinking water resource for rural communities with low per capita water usage. However, an analysis of fog water harvesting potential for the coastal areas of northern California (USA) showed that fog yields are too small for use as domestic water in areas with higher household water demands. Fog water shows particular promise for application in reforestation. Fog water irrigation can increase growth rates and survivability of saplings in reforestation efforts in regions with frequent fog events. Using fog collectors, denuded areas once dependent on natural fog drip can be restored, benefiting local hydrology and ecosystem recovery. Improvement in fog collector designs, materials, and models to increase collection efficiency, perhaps by inclusion of ideas from natural systems, will expand the regions where fog harvesting can be applied

Characterization of chemical additives used for hydraulic fracturing in California

Hydraulic fracturing is an oil and gas well stimulation technique in which fluids are pumped into wells under high pressure to fracture geological formations, thereby increasing formation permeability and oil/gas yields. Hydraulic fracturing fluids are complex mixtures typically composed of water, proppant (e.g. fine sand), and chemical additives. Hydraulic fracturing is being practiced pervasively throughout the United States. The application of hydraulic fracturing in California is unique: treatments are typically applied for oil production using gelled fluids

Characterization of chemical additives used for hydraulic fracturing in California

Hydraulic fracturing is an oil and gas well stimulation technique in which fluids are pumped into wells under high pressure to fracture geological formations, thereby increasing formation permeability and oil/gas yields. Hydraulic fracturing fluids are complex mixtures typically composed of water, proppant (e.g. fine sand), and chemical additives. Hydraulic fracturing is being practiced pervasively throughout the United States. The application of hydraulic fracturing in California is unique: treatments are typically applied for oil production using gelled fluids

Comparison of chemical-use between hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and routine oil and gas development

<div><p>The potential hazards and risks associated with well-stimulation in unconventional oil and gas development (hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing, and matrix acidizing) have been investigated and evaluated and federal and state regulations requiring chemical disclosure for well-stimulation have been implemented as part of an overall risk management strategy for unconventional oil and gas development. Similar evaluations for chemicals used in other routine oil and gas development activities, such as maintenance acidizing, gravel packing, and well drilling, have not been previously conducted, in part due to a lack of reliable information concerning on-field chemical-use. In this study, we compare chemical-use between routine activities and the more closely regulated well-stimulation activities using data collected by the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District (SCAQMD), which mandates the reporting of both unconventional and routine on-field chemical-use for parts of Southern California. Analysis of this data shows that there is significant overlap in chemical-use between so-called unconventional activities and routine activities conducted for well maintenance, well-completion, or rework. A comparison within the SCAQMD shows a significant overlap between both types and amounts of chemicals used for well-stimulation treatments included under State mandatory-disclosure regulations and routine treatments that are not included under State regulations. A comparison between SCAQMD chemical-use for routine treatments and state-wide chemical-use for hydraulic fracturing also showed close similarity in chemical-use between activities covered under chemical disclosure requirements (e.g. hydraulic fracturing) and many other oil and gas field activities. The results of this study indicate regulations and risk assessments focused exclusively on chemicals used in well-stimulation activities may underestimate potential hazard or risk from overall oil field chemical-use.</p></div

Concentrations of hydrochloric acid (HCl) used in acidizing.

<p>Sixteen events where water was not reported were excluded because the concentrations could not be calculated.</p

Chemicals used in routine oil and gas development that are classified by the United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS) in Categories 1 and 2 for ecotoxicity^a.

<p>Chemicals used in routine oil and gas development that are classified by the United Nations Globally Harmonized System (GHS) in Categories 1 and 2 for ecotoxicity<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0175344#t004fn001" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p

Data availability for chemicals used in routine oil and gas development.

<p>Data availability for chemicals used in routine oil and gas development.</p

Venn diagram showing number of chemicals used in oil and gas production.

<p>The first number represents chemicals with CASRN and the number in parentheses represents the total number of reported chemicals. Does not include base fluids. Acidizing includes matrix acidizing, acidizing, and maintenance acidizing.</p