User:Abrooski/sandbox
Welcome to David Abreu's sandbox! My literature review covered the controversial topic of fracking. Due to the highly researched and discussed nature of this subject, I have chosen to fill in the knowledge gaps found scattered around Wikipedia's page on hydraulic fracturing. These knowledge gaps are described below in the first sentence after each main title, which also links directly to the section under review, followed by a draft of my addition to Wikipedia.
Fracturing fluids in the United States[edit]
(AUTHOR COMMENT) Found under the topic of conventional linear gels, there are several gels that are red-linked. Additionally, the term "Fluid loss control additive" is used extensively in the fracking industry, so I created a small entry for it.
Carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose[edit]
Carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (CMHEC) is a deflocculant used in water-based drilling fluids and oil well cement slurries. Gels containing crosslinked CMHEC are used extensively as hydraulic fracturing fluids. CMHEC has been employed regularly since the late 1950s, but was only patented in the early 1980s.[1]
The cellulose ethers are low in toxicity when administered by normal medical routes and are not irritating to the skin or delicate membranes of the body. The human digestive system does not absorb cellulose ether if it is swallowed. Studies on the effect of inhalation have not been conducted, but human exposure to dust containing CMHEC in manufacturing operations has not led to any directly linked adverse effects.[2]
Patents[edit]
Registered under US Patent 448633, the filing date for CMHEC was August 30, 1982. Invented by Thomas G. Majewicz, and submitted on behalf of his company, Hercules Inc., CMHEC became a commonly used gel for drilling operations.
The patent describes an improved water-soluble carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose composition which, when crosslinked with a suitable aluminum ion in an aqueous solution, forms a gel that exhibits no significant thinning at temperatures less than about 200 °F. Allowing for a high temperature tolerance in the drilling process, CMHEC entered as one of the industry's regular chemicals used in the drilling process.
Future use[edit]
Studies are underway to investigate the associative behavior of CMHEC with other colloids used in oil well cementing. Among them arewelan and diutan gum, two microbially produced biopolymers that are used in cement slurries.[1]
Methyl hydroxyl ethyl cellulose[edit]
Methyl hydroxyl ethyl cellulose (MHEC) is a water retentive additive that plays an important role in modern building projects. It prevents uncontrolled water loss into porous materials such as brick and concrete. Cellulose ethers are used for their cost effectiveness and compatibility to the environment. Based on research conducted in early 1900s, Germany began to produce MHEC in the 1920s, with the United States following in 1938. Some applications of cellulose ethers include wall renders, plasters, joint compounds for drywall paneling, grout, floor screeds, self-leveling concrete, and water-proofing membranes.[3]
Patents[edit]
Registered under US Patent 448633, the filing date for MHEC was April 10, 1972. Invented by L Davis, R Glomski, and J Grover, and submitted on behalf of their company, Dow Chemical Company, MHEC was first used as a thickener for latex paint.
The patent describes an improved water-soluble hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose ether which has a thermal gel point greater than 100 C. Latex paint exhibited improved enzyme resistance and compatibility with colorants.
Fluid Loss Control Additive[edit]
"Fluid loss control additive" (FLA) is a term widely used in the oil industry which describes a combination of chemicals used to maintain a consistent water-fluid volume inside an oil well cement slurry. Outside of the oil industry, FLA's are referred to as "deflocculants". FLA's ensure slurry performance properties operate within desired tolerances. Properties of a slurry used during drilling are heavily influenced by their water content. Thus, a loss or gain of water can heavily reduce the yield of raw materials obtained in the drilling process.[4]
When cement is pumped across permeable rock surfaces under pressure, cement filtrate or water can be lost inside the vacant cracks. Cement-fluid loss need to be controlled in order to create a stable pipe structure that allows for the flow of materials in the drilling extraction process. FLA's allow an element of control in this category. In particular, when pumping has completed, and the slurry is static but not set, FLAs are used to prevent solids segregation during placement, and to control the rate of fluid leakoff in the static state.
Key fluid characteristics being considered when using an FLA are:
Cementing operations require predictability, and FLA's allow engineers to design fluid chemical combinations that can assure reproducible results in a slurry. Of equivalent importance to the character of the slurry, is its density during displacement, which is directly related to fluid-loss in the system.[6]
Companies such as Halliburton, Schlumberger, and Ameresco all have private, trade-secret FLA formulas they offer to address particular drilling criteria.[7][8]
FLA Materials[edit]
There are many materials that are effective FLA's. There are two categories of materials, based on their solubility characteristics:
- Water insoluble
- Water soluble
Water insoluble FLA's work to allow permeability in the slurry, while water soluble FLA's are commonly used in synthetic polymers and cellulose based chemicals, to alter the characteristics of the water being pumped into wells.
Environmental impact[edit]
(AUTHOR COMMENT) Due to discoveries in my literature review, I feel expanding this section with a subsection entitled "Uncertainty of negative effects" and "Controversial disasters" may be relevant. I do find a clear separation between the two topics, as controversy illustrates fracking mishaps, while uncertainty discusses unknown negative effects of fracking.
Uncertainty of negative effects[edit]
Exposure studies uncovering specific contaminants occurring in the air near oil and gas developments are often limited to a 1 mile radius from drilling sites with known leakages.[9] Furthermore, some scientists believe that fracking actually assists in the mitigation of natural fracture instabilities. Natural instabilities causing seismic activity are speculated to be reduced while filling in the cracks during the injection of slurry associated with drilling.[10]
Studies agree that populations are at greater risk for negative health effects while living within a half-mile of gas wells. These health effects include air and water contamination by commonly found chemicals mixed with water in the hydraulic fracturing drilling process such as methane, formaldehyde, lead and silica. The studies also agree that anything beyond this 1 mile distance is relatively safe and does not exhibit proof of negative effects, which would explain why research is rarely conducted far from the drilling sites.[4]
Large knowledge gaps are found when delving into the subject of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing. One major study, cited over forty times by other journals, highlighted this fact in its conclusion after evaluating several other environmental studies. As written by Lange Torsten et al, “Little is known about the release mechanisms of methane from the rock phase. For a quantification of diffuse, long-term methane emissions, these processes must be understood more thoroughly to obtain stronger conclusions.”[4]
Controversy in fracking[edit]
The Sidoarjo mud flow was the result of an erupting mud volcano in Indonesia. Responsibility for the disaster was credited to the blowout of a natural gas well drilled by PT Lapindo Brantas. One of the major hypotheses for this eruption is the hydraulic fracturing drilling pipe penetrated the over pressured limestone, which formed fractures around the borehole that propagated 1–2 km to the surface and emerged 200 m away from the well.[11]
On August 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released a list of 243 identified cases where the agency found negative effects on private water wells due to oil and gas activities.[12] Causing an uproar in the community, studies were done to confirm the claim. They found that a large majority of the wells had naturally occurring minerals in them including methane, manganese, and iron among others. These minerals were also found in water wells nowhere near oil and gas developments. As a Department of Energy study explained:
“A landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, shows no evidence that chemicals from the natural gas drilling process moved up to contaminate drinking water aquifers at a western Pennsylvania drilling site.”[13]
A recent peer-reviewed study found that the upward migration of fluids during the fracking process is “not physically plausible.”
Further reading[edit]
- Dr. Seuss
References[edit]
- ^ a b Bülichen, D. and Plank, J. (2011). "Mechanistic study on carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose as fluid loss control additive in oil well cement". Journal of Applied Polymer Science. 124: 2340–2347.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Clayton, G.D. (1993). "Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology". Toxicology. 4th ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F: 150.
- ^ J. Plank (2005). "Applications of biopolymers in construction engineering". Biopolymers Online: 29–95.
- ^ a b c Lange Torsten; et al. (2013). "Hydraulic fracturing in unconventional gas reservoirs: risks in the geological system". Environmental Earth Sciences. 8: 3839–3853.
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in:|author=(help) - ^ Schlumberger: Definition of thickening time
- ^ Shlumberger: Oilfield glossary
- ^ Halliburton: FLA varieties for purchase.
- ^ Schlumberger: FLA varieties for purchase.
- ^ Robert B. Jackson, Avner Vengosh, J. William Carey, Richard J. Davies, Thomas H. Darrah, Francis O'Sullivan, and Gabrielle Pétron (2014). "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 10: 1146.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Bazant Zdenek, Salviato Marco, Chau Viet, Viswanathan, H., Zubelewicz Aleksander. (2014). "Why fracking works". Journal of Applied Mechanics. 10: 1010–1010.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Richard J. Davies, Richard E. Swarbrick, Robert J. Evans and Mads Huuse (February 2007). "Birth of a mud volcano: East Java, May 29, 2006". GSA Today. 17 (2): 4. doi:10.1130/GSAT01702A.1. Retrieved 27 June 2013.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: Determination letter statement released August 29, 2014
- ^ CBS News article: Study finds fracking chemicals didn't pollute water.