4.2 Article

Expert Elicitation of Trends in Marcellus Oil and Gas Wastewater Management

期刊

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000811

关键词

Shale gas; Hydraulic fracturing; Oil and gas wastewater; Produced water; Marcellus; Water reuse

资金

  1. Consortium for Energy Policy Research
  2. Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group at Harvard Kennedy School
  3. British Petroleum at Harvard Kennedy School
  4. Electric Power Research Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prerequisite to detailed risk analyses of flowback and produced water management from unconventional resource extraction is the thorough characterization of wastewater management strategies, treatment technologies, prices, and future developments. This expert elicitation compares professional responses on current practices and future trends in wastewater management from Pennsylvania's Marcellus formation across the oil and gas sector, the wastewater treatment sector, and the regulatory sector. Although expert judgments were highly influenced by the respondent's role in unconventional resource development, the results of this expert elicitation suggest that water reuse is not inhibited by high concentrations of total dissolved solids, that waste transport accounts for the majority of the cost associated with off-site wastewater treatment and disposal, and that prices for commercial wastewater treatment are likely to drop over the next five years. Taken together, these results indicate that long-term water reuse is a viable strategy for oil and gas wastewater management among companies with continuous or near continuous drilling operations and that future risk analyses of oil and gas wastewater management should concentrate on reuse activity. The results also suggest that expanding economical water reuse practices to companies that drill fewer sequential or spatially clustered wells may require regulatory or policy intervention. (C) 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据