Recent Developments and Utilization of Produced Water in Bakken Well Stimulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of produced water in hydraulic fracturing operations is a sustainable alternative to freshwater resources and can reduce completion costs while taking pressure off the disposal reservoir. An examination of how Bakken operators have progressed utilization over the past decade is described. Several states have enacted legislation related to the minimization of freshwater use in the oil and gas industry. Although the industry's demand for freshwater is significantly smaller than irrigation and municipal use, alternatives can alleviate future increased use, specifically for hydraulic fracturing. Water source data for hydraulic fracturing is not widely available through public databases or professional oil and gas data services. Operators have only recently begun providing source water data to FracFocus. Information was culminated from industry correspondence, publications, and corporate reporting to estimate recent use of produced water in North Dakota, and new methods to increase use. Presently 40% of operators in North Dakota with active completion programs are incorporating produced water reuse, and 20% are using significant volumes with reuse rates of 5% to 28%. Water scarcity is not as severe in North Dakota compared with more arid regions of the country. North Dakota producers are presently replacing about 5% of freshwater with produced water in completion operations as compared to the Permian Basin in which reuse rates of over 50% have been reported. There seems to be room to grow produced water utilization within the Williston Basin, however the availability and deliverability are significant limitations. A renewed interest by operators has resulted in an evolution of the practice since 2019 with the primary benefits of improved sustainability and financial performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".