Benefits of Quality Hydrocarbon Fracturing Fluid Recycling
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In these times of budget conscious oil and gas companies, finding solutions to save money without compromising output is always on the minds of management. The idea of reusing fracturing fluid flowback has gained popularity over the years. However, care must be taken to properly recycle these fluids to allow for multiple reuses without major destabilization of the fracturing system. Hydraulic fracturing is used for stimulating the production of wells, in particularly gas wells. Fracturing can be performed using either hydrocarbon based fluids or water based fluids. Due to issues such as water blockages and swelling of formation clays, the use of hydrocarbon based fluids for fracturing remains popular despite the cost difference. In general successful fracturing fluids must be gelled (increase in viscosity) and broken (decrease in viscosity). Completion companies use three main chemical components to gel and break a hydrocarbon fracturing fluid: gellant, activator and breaker. Recycling fracturing fluid flowback will involve the removal of these completion chemicals as well as other contaminants. This paper will look at a case study which shows the economic benefits of employing a high quality hydrocarbon fracturing fluid recycling process; and the resulting successful performance on the overall production of using such fluids. Introduction Fracturing of formation to increase the production is a practice that has been done since the 1950's. A fluid is injected into the formation at a rate and pressure great enough fracture the rock. Once the fracture is initiated fluid is continued to be pumped to propagate the fracture. A proppant such as sand, ceramic spheres or similar product is added to the fluid and will be left in the fracture to enable the production to increase due to a relative permeability difference with the formation. Chemicals are added to the fluid to enhance the characteristics of friction, viscosity, leakoff and other variables. These chemicals that increase the viscosity are added to greatly increase the viscosity during the pumping and then decrease after the pumping to aid in the placement of the proppant and then to recover the fracture fluid. The choice of fluids is dependent on economics and formation compatibilities. Fracturing with water, although less expensive, has associated problems of water phase trapping and fracture permeability reductions1,2. In Canada, hydrocarbon based fracture fluids have become the preferred product in deeper, lower permeability gas zones. The basic chemicals added to these fluids are gallant, activator and breaker. These chemicals will work together to increase the viscosity of the base hydrocarbon from 10 cP to well over 400 cP, and then break the density back to 10 cP range. The time to break and the maximum viscosity are based on the loadings of the chemicals, and the temperature of the formation being stimulated (Fig. 1). The cost of hydrocarbon fracture fluid is dependent on the quality, but all follow the cost of crude. During the last few years the process of recycling fracture hydrocarbons has become an economical decision.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».