Literature DB >> 21680012

Chemical and physical characterization of produced waters from conventional and unconventional fossil fuel resources.

Bethany Alley1, Alex Beebe, John Rodgers, James W Castle.   

Abstract

Characterization of produced waters (PWs) is an initial step for determining potential beneficial uses such as irrigation and surface water discharge at some sites. A meta-analysis of characteristics of five PW sources [i.e. shale gas (SGPWs), conventional natural gas (NGPWs), conventional oil (OPWs), coal-bed methane (CBMPWs), tight gas sands (TGSPWs)] was conducted from peer-reviewed literature, government or industry documents, book chapters, internet sources, analytical records from industry, and analyses of PW samples. This meta-analysis assembled a large dataset to extract information of interest such as differences and similarities in constituent and constituent concentrations across these sources of PWs. The PW data analyzed were comprised of 377 coal-bed methane, 165 oilfield, 137 tight gas sand, 4000 natural gas, and 541 shale gas records. Majority of SGPWs, NGPWs, OPWs, and TGSPWs contain chloride concentrations ranging from saline (>30000 mg L(-1)) to hypersaline (>40000 mg L(-1)), while most CBMPWs were fresh (<5000 mg L(-1)). For inorganic constituents, most SGPW and NGPW iron concentrations exceeded the numeric criterion for irrigation and surface water discharge, while OPW and CBMPW iron concentrations were less than the criterion. Approximately one-fourth of the PW samples in this database are fresh and likely need minimal treatment for metal and metalloid constituents prior to use, while some PWs are brackish (5000-30000 mg Cl(-) L(-1)) to saline containing metals and metalloids that may require considerable treatment. Other PWs are hypersaline and produce a considerable waste stream from reverse osmosis; remediation of these waters may not be feasible. After renovation, fresh to saline PWs may be used for irrigation and replenishing surface waters.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21680012     DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.05.043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chemosphere        ISSN: 0045-6535            Impact factor:   7.086


  6 in total

Review 1.  Extensive review of shale gas environmental impacts from scientific literature (2010-2015).

Authors:  Daniele Costa; João Jesus; David Branco; Anthony Danko; António Fiúza
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Characterization of drilling waste from shale gas exploration in Central and Eastern Poland.

Authors:  Marzena Mikos-Szymańska; Piotr Rusek; Krzysztof Borowik; Maciej Rolewicz; Paulina Bogusz; Joanna Gluzińska
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Characterization of Dissolved Organic Matter in Solar Ponds by Elemental Analysis, Infrared Spectroscopy, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Pyrolysis-GC-MS.

Authors:  Keli Yang; Yaoling Zhang; Yaping Dong; Jiaoyu Peng; Wu Li; Haining Liu
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  Environmental public health dimensions of shale and tight gas development.

Authors:  Seth B C Shonkoff; Jake Hays; Madelon L Finkel
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  Frequency Analysis of Failure Scenarios from Shale Gas Development.

Authors:  Noura Abualfaraj; Patrick L Gurian; Mira S Olson
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-04-29       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Release characteristics of Pb and BETX from in situ oil shale transformation on groundwater environment.

Authors:  Han Wang; Wenjing Zhang; Shuwei Qiu; Xiujuan Liang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.