Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Fatick Nath
 -- 2340 2023-12-04 23:27:54 |
2 layout
Jessie Wu
Meta information modification 2340 2023-12-05 04:12:50 | |
3 layout
Jessie Wu
+ 1 word(s) 2341 2023-12-05 04:13:46 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Nath, F.; Chowdhury, M.O.S.; Rhaman, M.M. Produced Water Sustainability in Oil and Gas Sector. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52346 (accessed on 03 May 2024).
Nath F, Chowdhury MOS, Rhaman MM. Produced Water Sustainability in Oil and Gas Sector. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52346. Accessed May 03, 2024.
Nath, Fatick, Mohammed Omar Sahed Chowdhury, Md. Masudur Rhaman. "Produced Water Sustainability in Oil and Gas Sector" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52346 (accessed May 03, 2024).
Nath, F., Chowdhury, M.O.S., & Rhaman, M.M. (2023, December 04). Produced Water Sustainability in Oil and Gas Sector. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52346
Nath, Fatick, et al. "Produced Water Sustainability in Oil and Gas Sector." Encyclopedia. Web. 04 December, 2023.
Produced Water Sustainability in Oil and Gas Sector
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/w15234088

Oilfield produced water (PW) is the industry’s principal source of waste byproducts. Oil-producing countries, especially those with limited water resources, face significant difficulty in treating PW for recovery and reuse. Depending on its quality and content, PW can be treated using a variety of technologies. Numerous nations are currently undertaking substantial endeavors to ascertain efficacious and cost-effective treatment methodologies in order to rehabilitate their freshwater supplies. The compositions of pollutants play a major role in the selection of acceptable methods. According to the degree of contamination and the requirement for water quality, several treatment strategies can, therefore, be used. To successfully remove pollutants and/or lessen their detrimental effects on the environment, methods comprising physical, chemical, biological, and membrane treatments have been applied.

produced water organic and inorganic components physicochemical characteristics hybrid treatment

1. Overview of Produced Water in Oil and Gas Industry

The extraction of oil and gas supplies from shale has become feasible due to the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques [1][2]. Hydraulic fracturing is the most popular technique for recovering unconventional gas and tight oil from shale [3]. However, the exploration and production of oil and gas generates a significant amount of solid, liquid, and gas waste, with liquid waste comprising the majority [4]. Water is the main liquid effluent from oil and gas exploration activities [5].
Produced water, which is composed of various organic and inorganic materials, has gained attention due to its impact on the environment [6][7][8]. The water footprint of oil and gas production, particularly in unconventional gas and tight oil recovery, has also been a focus of recent research [9][10]. The management of flowback and produced water (FPW) from shale oil and gas (SOG) exploration is a critical issue for both economic and environmental reasons [1][11]. Different techniques are used to manage extracted water, including disposal, reinjection, and recycling.
Currently, disposal accounts for 46% of produced water in the United States, followed by reinjection at 41% and recycling at 13% (Figure 1). However, with the expected increase in the water-to-oil ratio for crude oil resources by 2025, the market for purifying and utilizing produced water is likely to expand significantly [12][13]. The water-to-oil ratio is expected to increase by 2025, leading to a growing market for purifying and utilizing produced water [14].
Water 15 04088 g001
Figure 1. Produced water scenarios in oil and gas industry (data from [12][13]).
Produced water in the gas industry is a combination of condensed and formation water, as water injection is not used [15]. Compared to oilfields, produced water from gas fields is more acidic and volatile [15]. The onshore oil and gas industry disposes of produced water through the subsurface, while the offshore industry directly dumps it into the aquatic environment, causing harm to marine ecology [15]. The composition of produced water is influenced by geological and geographical factors of the reservoir and the type of hydrocarbon formation [15]. In shale oil and gas production, produced water includes flowback water and formation water [1]. The flowback water rate during well extraction initially increases and then decreases over time. Figure 2 shows the main sources of produced water, such as reservoir formation water, flowback water, and conventional and unconventional oil and gas production.
Water 15 04088 g002
Figure 2. Different sources of produced water.
The volume of produced water from oil or natural gas production varies based on location and extraction method [16][17][18][19]. Produced water contains radioactive elements, salts, metals, and hydrocarbons [16][17][18][19]. The physical and chemical qualities of produced water also vary based on geographic location, geologic formation, and type of hydrocarbon product [20][21]. Reservoir fluid, in addition to oil, gas, and water, contains other components. When reservoir fluids are separated during the oil production process, the pressure drop leads to the formation of carbonate ions and the release of carbon dioxide. If the produced water is discharged into the sea or other bodies of water, it can contain dissolved hydrocarbons, heavy metals, CO2 gas, residual oil, and water-soluble compounds, making it harmful to the environment. Water treatment is necessary to mitigate these effects [22]. Figure 3 illustrates the water sources used in oil and gas exploration.
Water 15 04088 g003
Figure 3. Water injection sources for hydrocarbon formation.
The United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are the world’s three largest producers in terms of crude oil output. The United States has nearly one million wells that produce approximately 3.8 billion cubic meters of produced water annually [23][24][25][26]. Russia’s annual oil equivalent production of 285 million metric tons results in a production of 1.5 billion cubic meters of produced water [26][27].
According to Figure 4a, the volume of produced water generated in 2017 and 2018 by the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, the three largest oil and gas-producing nations, is compared. Additionally, Figure 4b includes data from Brazil and Oman, allowing for a comparison of their 2018 output as well.
Water 15 04088 g004
Figure 4. (a) PW volume for dominant oil- and gas-producing countries (USA, Russia, and Saudi Arabia) for 2017 and 2018; (b) PW volume for USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Brazil in 2018 (data from [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]).
From 2012 to 2017, oil production in the US increased by 50.4% to 3.4 billion barrels per day, a 94% increase from 2007–2017 (Figure 5). Texas was the leading producer, accounting for 37% of hydrocarbon production. The federal offshore enterprise was the second largest hydrocarbon producer. North Dakota produced 11% of crude oil in 2017. Alaska, New Mexico, California, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, and Louisiana were among the top ten oil-producing states in 2017 [25].
Water 15 04088 g005
Figure 5. Top ten oil-producing states in the US. (data from [25]).
According to Figure 6, Texas was the leading producer of natural gas in the United States in 2017, accounting for 23.0% of the total output. Pennsylvania followed in second place with a proportion of approximately 16%. Louisiana and Alaska both contributed 9% each, while Oklahoma and Colorado contributed 7% and 6%, respectively. New Mexico produced more natural gas than Wyoming, Ohio, and West Virginia combined, with a 5% share compared to their combined 4%. According to John Veil’s report in 2020, gas production in the United States experienced a significant increase of 17.7% from 2012 to 2017, reaching a total of 35 billion Mmcf [25].
Water 15 04088 g006
Figure 6. Top ten gas-producing states in the US (data from [25]).
In 2017, 24.4 billion barrels of water were produced from oil and gas production, equivalent to one trillion gallons of water annually. This represents a 15.2% increase from 2012 and a 16.2% increase from 2007 to 2017 as shown in Figure 7. The top ten states in the US in terms of generated water production in 2017 include Texas, which contributed to the highest discharge (41% in 2017), followed by California and Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alaska, and the federal offshore. The volume of produced water has increased by 16.2% in the past decade [25].
Water 15 04088 g007
Figure 7. Top ten states in the US regarding produced water production (data from [25]).
Oil and gas production generates significant wastewater, necessitating effective management without harming the economy or environment. Effective treatment requires a comprehensive understanding of the effluent’s features and properties and the consequences to the ecosystem in each country, as highlighted by [33].
Unconventional gas and tight oil reservoirs have low permeability compared to conventional oil and gas reservoirs (1–1000 mD). Hydrocarbon recovery is more challenging in these formations [34]. Hydraulic fracturing operations use hydraulic fracturing fluid, composed of water and proppant, with chemical additives accounting for less than 20% of the total volume. These additives can include friction-reducing polymers, liner gels, biocides, surfactants, and corrosion inhibitors. The use of hydraulic fracturing fluid is crucial for efficient oil and gas production [35][36][37][38][39][40].
Hydraulic fracturing, a process used in oil and gas production, consumes a significant amount of water, which is problematic in semi-arid basins where water availability is often stressed to meet demand. From 2000 to 2011, total freshwater consumption for shale gas HF activities in Texas ranged from 6.5 × 106 m3 to 18 × 106 m3 and up to 145 × 106 m3 [41]. Between 2005 and 2014, the total hydraulic fracturing water volume for ten of the biggest US formations was around 940 × 106 m3 [42][43]. Nearly half of the hydraulically fractured wells in the United States were in areas of severe or extreme water stress, with 97% of wells in Colorado falling into this category [44][45]. The median yearly water use for horizontal wells increased from 700 m3 per well to more than 15,200 and 19,400 m3 per well.
Figure 8 represents the average water use (m3) for hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells in major shale plays in the US. Huge volumes of water are needed for hydraulic fracturing of horizontal wells. For example, Eagle Ford (18,300 m3), Barnett (18,900 m3), DJ Basin (12,800 m3), Bakken (8400 m3), Marcellus (16,700 m3), and Monterey (530 m3) require high volumes of water [46]. The annual average water usages for the Permian and Williston basins regarding hydraulic fracturing operations account for 24,548 m3 and 21,366 m3, respectively [47].
Water 15 04088 g008
Figure 8. Average water use (m3) for HF (hydraulic fracturing) of horizontal wells in major shale plays in USA (data from [46][47]).

2. Sustainable Produced Water Management

Sustainable oilfield water management is essential for responsible oil and gas exploitation, environmental protection, and water conservation. Every day, millions of barrels of PW are produced all over the world. Apart from providing a risk of water resource contamination, these effluents are directly linked to corrosion and scale in refinery pipelines [6]. The sort of treatment and disposal strategy chosen is determined by the technical feasibility, price, and availability of technology and facilities, as well as current legislation [48]. A typical produced water management workflow is shown in Figure 9.
Water 15 04088 g014
Figure 9. Typical produced water management strategies.

2.1. Treatment Aspects

Primary, secondary, and tertiary treatments can address PW effluent and management limits [49]. The primary operation usually removes free O&G, solids, and particles. Secondary treatment removes oil droplets and particulates. Tertiary treatment removes residual contaminants, improving water quality estimates for disposal or reuse [6]. Technology that reduces PW production, reuse and recycling of effluent, and, if required, disposal in the environment are the main methods for controlling PW onshore and offshore. Recovery, reuse, and recycling can control PW when process reduction fails. Injection, industrial, irrigation, and beneficial usage are choices [50].
Adsorption, membrane filtration, advanced oxidative processes (AOP), and biodegradation have been studied for PW treatment [26]. Physical and chemical therapy can address many instances of PW. Flotation, filtration, electrodialysis, cyclones, sand filters, evaporation, DAP, and adsorption are physical treatments. Chemical treatment methods use precipitation, chemical oxidation, photocatalysis, the Fenton reaction, demulsifiers, ozone, and electrochemical technologies. Active sludge, biological aerated filters (BAF), novel micro-capacitive desalination cell (MCDC), and microalgae-based treatments are biological treatments. Microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis membranes are examples of membrane technology [6][51][52].
Future technologies include electrochemical water purification. They are low-cost, environmentally benign, and do not require chemicals or generate secondary waste, making them better than other treatment systems. They also remove organic pollutants, generate and store energy, and recover vital elements from produced water without damaging the environment [53]. PW treatment efficiency and convenience depend on chemical agents. Bactericides, descalers, and corrosion inhibitors stabilize systems.
Water purification agents, which demulsify, flocculate, and modify water quality, are the most significant chemicals for effective PW treatment. Offshore PW purification can use quaternary ammonium, carboxylate, sulfonate, or poly-phosphate ester demulsifiers. Stabilization corrosion inhibitors used in offshore PW treatment include borate, organic amine, mercaptan, sulfonate, polyphosphate, molybdate, and tungstate [54].

2.2. Regulatory Aspects

To make sure that oil and gas businesses follow ethical environmental standards, regulatory requirements are essential for sustainable management of produced water from oilfields. Federal, state, and municipal governments, as well as other organizations, often establish these policies. Regulatory responsibilities [55] may consist of the following:
  • Comply with the reporting obligations specified by the appropriate environmental agencies and obtain permits prior to discharging, injecting, or storing produced water. These include NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and state-issued licenses, as well as UIC (Underground Injection Control) well permits;
  • Conform with the criteria and standards for water quality that have been established by state and federal regulatory agencies. These standards establish the maximum allowable concentrations of various pollutants in the produced water and the bodies of water it may contaminate;
  • Comply with standards governing the disposal and transportation of hazardous and non-hazardous waste generated during the treatment and handling of produced water. This may include following the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations;
  • Create and implement spill prevention and response plans to avoid inadvertent leaks of produced water or other contaminants. It is crucial to adhere to the regulations outlined in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA);
  • Consistently monitor and provide regulatory authorities with reports on the quantity and quality of produced water, emissions, and discharges; frequently use electronic reporting systems. It is imperative to acquire the appropriate permits for UIC wells and adhere to the prescribed guidelines for injection wells, which may encompass pressure monitoring, mechanical integrity testing, and wellbore integrity assessments;
  • In order to mitigate soil erosion and sediment discharge into water bodies, it is imperative to enforce erosion and sediment control measures mandated by regulatory agencies throughout the construction and operation phases. It is imperative to adhere to regulations pertaining to environmentally friendly completions and emission control, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the implementation of best available control technology (BACT), to mitigate emissions;
  • Ensure adherence to regulations pertaining to concentrated brine disposal and Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) systems, which may encompass standards for permits and disposal;
  • Ensure that activities that have the potential to affect the environment or public health are duly communicated to the public and involve local stakeholders and communities in a manner consistent with regulatory requirements;
  • Adhere to the stipulations placed forth by specific regulatory authorities with regard to the financing of research and development initiatives that seek to enhance technologies for water treatment and management;
  • As required by federal and state agencies, conduct environmental impact assessments to determine the potential environmental effects of oilfield activities, such as produced water management;
  • In order to verify compliance with relevant environmental regulations, regulatory authorities should conduct routine inspections and compliance assessments of the oilfield;
  • Comply with standards governing the closure and remediation of oilfields, including produced water management facilities, to avoid long-term environmental damage.
Depending on where they operate, oil and gas businesses may be governed by different laws and authorities in different areas. Companies must maintain a sustainable and environmentally responsible approach to produced water management in oilfields by collaborating closely with regulatory bodies and ensuring stringent adherence to all applicable obligations. Noncompliance can result in fines, legal action, and damage to a company’s reputation. Typical regulatory aspects are summarized in Figure 10.
Water 15 04088 g015
Figure 10. Regulatory obligations for PW management.

References

  1. Gregory, K.B.; Vidic, R.D.; Dzombak, D.A. Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements 2011, 7, 181–186.
  2. Kerr, R.A. Bursts Onto the Scene. Sci. Mag. 2010, 328, 1624–1626.
  3. Ikonnikova, S.A.; Male, F.; Scanlon, B.R.; Reedy, R.C.; McDaid, G. Projecting the Water Footprint Associated with Shale Resource Production: Eagle Ford Shale Case Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 14453–14461.
  4. Jiménez, S.; Micó, M.M.; Arnaldos, M.; Medina, F.; Contreras, S. State of the art of produced water treatment. Chemosphere 2018, 192, 186–208.
  5. Hedar, Y.; Budiyono. Pollution Impact and Alternative Treatment for Produced Water. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 31, 03004.
  6. Fakhru’l-Razi, A.; Pendashteh, A.; Abdullah, L.; Biak, D.; Madaeni, S.; Abidin, Z. Review of technologies for oil and gas produced water treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 170, 530–551.
  7. Abousnina, R.M.; Nghiem, L.D.; Bundschuh, J. Comparison between oily and coal seam gas produced water with respect to quantity, characteristics and treatment technologies: A review. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015, 54, 1793–1808.
  8. Ottaviano, J.G.; Cai, J.; Murphy, R.S. Assessing the decontamination efficiency of a three-component flocculating system in the treatment of oilfield-produced water. Water Res. 2014, 52, 122–130.
  9. Kondash, A.; Vengosh, A. Water Footprint of Hydraulic Fracturing. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2015, 2, 276–280.
  10. Kondash, A.J.; Lauer, N.E.; Vengosh, A. The intensification of the water footprint of hydraulic fracturing. Sci. Adv. 2018, 5, eaax8764.
  11. Vidic, R.D.; Brantley, S.L.; Vandenbossche, J.M.; Yoxtheimer, D.; Abad, J.D. Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 2013, 340, 1235009.
  12. Mccabe, P.J. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
  13. Dickhout, J.M.; Moreno, J.; Biesheuvel, P.M.; Boels, L.; Lammertink, R.G.H.; de Vos, W.M. Produced water treatment by membranes: A review from a colloidal perspective. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 487, 523–534.
  14. Bagheri, M.; Roshandel, R.; Shayegan, J. Optimal selection of an integrated produced water treatment system in the upstream of oil industry. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 67–81.
  15. Ntongha, O.; and Obire, O. Impact of Oil Field Wastewater from Santa Barbara Oil Rig Location on the Microbial Population of Santa Barbara River in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Acta Sci. Microbiol. 2022, 45–51.
  16. Barbot, E.; Vidic, N.S.; Gregory, K.B.; Vidic, R.D. Spatial and temporal correlation of water quality parameters of produced waters from Devonian-age shale following hydraulic fracturing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 2562–2569.
  17. Murali Mohan, A.; Hartsock, A.; Bibby, K.J.; Hammack, R.W.; Vidic, R.D.; Gregory, K.B. Microbial community changes in hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water from shale gas extraction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 13141–13150.
  18. Soeder, D.J.; Kappel, W.M. Water Resources and Natural Gas Production from the Marcellus Shale; US Department of the Interior: Reston, VA, USA, 2009.
  19. Martin, J.P.; Hill, D.G.; Lombardi, T.E. Fractured shale gas potential in New York. Northeast. Geol. Environ. Sci. 2004, 26, 57–78.
  20. Bakke, T.; Klungsøyr, J.; Sanni, S. Environmental impacts of produced water and drilling waste discharges from the Norwegian offshore petroleum industry. Mar. Environ. Res. 2013, 92, 154–169.
  21. Gazali, A.K.; Alkali, A.N.; Mohammed, Y.; Djauro, Y.; Muhammed, D.D.; Kodomi, M. Environmental Impact of Produced Water and Driiling Waste Discharges from the Niger Delta Petroleum Industry. IOSR J. Eng. 2017, 7, 22–29.
  22. Robinson, D. Oil and gas: Water treatment in oil and gas production—Does it matter? Filtr. Sep. 2010, 47, 14–18.
  23. Baza, J.; Chard, S. Produced water report: Regulations, current practices, and research needs. In Proceedings of the WEFTEC 2019-92nd Annual Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 21–25 September 2019; pp. 2483–2491.
  24. Veil, J. US Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices in 2012; Report Prepared for the Groundwater Protection Council; Groundwater Protection Council: Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 2015; p. 119.
  25. Veil, J. Produced Water Volumes and Management Practices for 2017; Ground Water Protection Council: Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.gwref.net/ (accessed on 14 August 2023).
  26. Costa, T.C.; Hendges, L.T.; Temochko, B.; Mazur, L.P.; Marinho, B.A.; Weschenfelder, S.E.; Florido, P.L.; da Silva, A.; Ulson de Souza, A.A.; Guelli Ulson de Souza, S.M.A. Evaluation of the technical and environmental feasibility of adsorption process to remove water soluble organics from produced water: A review. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2022, 208, 109360.
  27. PJSC Rosneft Oil Company. PJSC Rosneft Oil Company Annual Report; PJSC Rosneft Oil Company: Moscow, Russia, 2018; Available online: https://www.rosneft.com/upload/site2/document_file/a_report_2018_eng.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2023).
  28. ESCWA. ESCWA Water Development Report 6: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus in the Arab Region; ESCWA: Beirut, Lebanon, 2015.
  29. Petroleum Development Oman (PDO). Sustainability Report; Petroleum Development Oman (PDO): Muscat, Oman, 2018; Available online: https://www.pdo.co.om/en/news/publications/Publications%20Doc%20Library/PDO%20SR%202018_EA.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  30. Petrobras. Sustentabilidade; Petrobras: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2017; Available online: https://sustentabilidad.ypf.com/assets/docs/en/YPF-Sustainability-report-2017.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  31. Petrobras. Sustentabilidade; Petrobras: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2018; Available online: https://api.mziq.com/mzfilemanager/v2/d/25fdf098-34f5-4608-b7fa-17d60b2de47d/fd23adf5-6801-fcb1-c0fd-2c699bed5887?origin=1 (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  32. Saudi Aramco. This Is Energy, This Is Aramco. 2019. Available online: https://www.aramco.com/-/media/publications/corporate-reports/saudi-aramco-ara-2019-english.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2023).
  33. Cruz, H.; Law, Y.Y.; Guest, J.S.; Rabaey, K.; Batstone, D.; Laycock, B.; Verstraete, W.; Pikaar, I. Mainstream Ammonium Recovery to Advance Sustainable Urban Wastewater Management. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 11066–11079.
  34. Gerritsen, M.G.; Durlofsky, L.J. Modeling fluid flow in oil reservoirs. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2005, 37, 211–238.
  35. White, C.M.; Mungal, M.G. Mechanics and prediction of turbulent drag reduction with polymer additives. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2008, 40, 235–256.
  36. Barati, R.; Liang, J.T. A review of fracturing fluid systems used for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131, 1–11.
  37. Stringfellow, W.T.; Domen, J.K.; Camarillo, M.K.; Sandelin, W.L.; Borglin, S. Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of compounds used in hydraulic fracturing. J. Hazard. Mater. 2014, 275, 37–54.
  38. Kahrilas, G.A.; Blotevogel, J.; Stewart, P.S.; Borch, T. Biocides in hydraulic fracturing fluids: A critical review of their usage, mobility, degradation, and toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 16–32.
  39. Xu, L.; Fu, Q. Ensuring better well stimulation in unconventional oil and gas formations by optimizing surfactant additives. In Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers Western Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, USA, 21–23 March 2012; pp. 949–955.
  40. Lester, Y.; Ferrer, I.; Thurman, E.M.; Sitterley, K.A.; Korak, J.A.; Aiken, G.; Linden, K.G. Characterization of hydraulic fracturing flowback water in Colorado: Implications for water treatment. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 512–513, 637–644.
  41. Nicot, J.P.; Scanlon, B.R. Water use for shale-gas production in Texas, U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3580–3586.
  42. Raimi, D. Comment on “The intensification of the water footprint of hydraulic fracturing”. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, aav2110.
  43. Scanlon, B.R.; Reedy, R.C.; Nicot, J.P. Comparison of water use for hydraulic fracturing for unconventional oil and gas versus conventional oil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 12386–12393.
  44. Gallegos, T.J.; Varela, B.A.; Haines, S.S.; Engle, M.A. Hydraulic fracturing water use variability in the United States and potential environmental implications. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 5839–5845.
  45. Gallegos, T.; Varela, B. Trends in Hydraulic Fracturing Distributions and Treatment Fluids, Additives, Proppants, and Water Volumes Applied to Wells Drilled in the United States from 1947; USGS: Reston, VA, USA, 2014. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5131/ (accessed on 24 August 2023).
  46. Walker, E.L.; Anderson, A.M.; Read, L.K.; Hogue, T.S. Water Use for Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas in the South Platte River Basin, Colorado. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2017, 53, 839–853.
  47. Lin, Z.; Lin, T.; Lim, S.; Hove, M.; Schuh, W. Impacts of Bakken Shale Oil Development on Regional Water Uses and Supply. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2017, 54, 225–239.
  48. da Motta, A.R.P.; Borges, C.P.; Kiperstok, A.; Esquerre, K.P.; Araujo, P.M.; da Paz Nogueira Branco, L. Treatment of petroleum produced water for oil removal by membrane separation processes: Review. Sanit. Environ. Eng. 2013, 18, 15–26.
  49. Weschenfelder, S.E.; Mello, A.C.C.; Borges, C.P.; Campos, J.C. Oilfield produced water treatment by ceramic membranes: Preliminary process cost estimation. Desalination 2015, 360, 81–86.
  50. Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Al-Kaabi, M.A.; Ashfaq, M.Y.; Da’na, D.A. Produced water characteristics, treatment and reuse: A review. J. Water Process Eng. 2019, 28, 222–239.
  51. Masooleh, M.S.; Bazgir, S.; Tamizifar, M.; Nemati, A. Adsorption of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on Organoclay. J. Appl. Chem. Res. 2010, 4, 19–23.
  52. Chang, H.; Li, T.; Liu, B.; Vidic, R.D.; Elimelech, M.; Crittenden, J.C. Potential and implemented membrane-based technologies for the treatment and reuse of flowback and produced water from shale gas and oil plays: A review. Desalination 2019, 455, 34–57.
  53. Igunnu, E.T.; Chen, G.Z. Produced water treatment technologies. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2012, 9, 157–177.
  54. Liu, Y.; Lu, H.; Li, Y.; Xu, H.; Pan, Z.; Dai, P.; Wang, H.; Yang, Q. A review of treatment technologies for produced water in offshore oil and gas fields. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145485.
  55. Garland, E. Environmental regulatory framework in Europe: An update. In Proceedings of the SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference, Galveston, TX, USA, 7–9 March 2005.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Engineering, Petroleum
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Fatick Nath
,
Mohammed Omar Sahed Chowdhury
,
Md. Masudur Rhaman
View Times: 301
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 05 Dec 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback