Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37969974›Full record

ReviewACS omega2023

Seawater-Based Fracturing Fluid: A Review.

Ose Budiman, Shabeeb Alajmei

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ACS omega, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ose BudimanDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, 31261 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Shabeeb AlajmeiDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, 31261 Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5816-4214

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hydraulic fracturing uses a large amount of fresh water for its operation; conventional wells can consume up to 200 000 gallons of water, while unconventional wells could consume up to 16 million gallons. However, the world's fresh water supply is rapidly depleting, making this a critical and growing problem. Freshwater shortages during large-scale hydraulic fracturing in regions that lack water, such as the Arabian Peninsula and offshore operations, need to be addressed. One of the ways to address this problem is to substitute fresh water with seawater, which is a sustainable, cheap, and technically sufficient fluid that can be utilized as a fracturing fluid. However, its high salinity caused by the multitude of ions in it could induce several problems, such as scaling and precipitation. This, in turn, could potentially affect the viscosity and rheology of the fluid. There are a variety of additives that can be used to lessen the effects of the various ions found in seawater. This review explains the mechanisms of different additives (e.g., polymers, surfactants, chelating agents, cross-linkers, scale inhibitors, gel stabilizers, and foams), how they interact with seawater, and the related implications in order to address the above challenges and develop a sustainable and compatible seawater-based fracturing fluid. This review also describes several previous technologies and works that have treated seawater in order to produce a fluid that is stable at higher temperatures, that has a considerably reduced scaling propensity, and that has utilized a stable polymer network to efficiently carry proppant downhole. In addition, some of these previous works included field testing to evaluate the performance of the seawater-based fracturing fluid.

Identifiers

PMID37969974
PMCPMC10633887

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.