SPE-199750-MS

Conventional and Eco-Friendly Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Additives: A

Review

Abo Taleb T. Al-Hameedi, Husam H. Alkinani, Shari Dunn-Norman, Hector A. Trevino, and Mustafa A. Al-Alwani,
Missouri University of Science and Technology

Copyright 2020, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 4-6 February
2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to create a starting point for research into using friendly and biodegradable waste
material as supportive items for hydraulic fracturing fluids and additives. Conventional fluids and additives,
although they can be effective, they pose serious threats to work personnel and public health and to the
environment. Conventional fluids and additives can also be very costly. These risks and concerns should
drive the oil and gas industry to pursue alternative options, safer and cheaper options, from conventional
fracturing fluids and additives. Some waste materials provide this opportunity. It is apparent through many
forms of research that waste materials are readily available globally making it easy and cheap to obtain.
A driving force for this research was research previously done on finding alternative additives for drilling
fluids. Researchers have proven that some of the waste materials, such as food waste, grass waste, palm
tree waste, among many others, can and should replace or at least boost conventional drilling fluids and
additives through a series of experiments and tests. Not only are these materials easier and cheaper to
obtain, but they are also efficient and safer for both the environment and people. The same could be said
for alternative hydraulic fracturing fluids and additives if proper research is done. The strides made in
finding alternatives for drilling fluid additives have pushed the revolutionizing of the oil and gas industry,
acting as a catalyst for the research into alternative hydraulic fracturing fluids and additives. In this work,
a more thorough investigation into conventional fracturing fluids and their downfalls regarding price and
health and environmental concerns are illustrated as well as the function of the main fracturing fluids;
water fracs, linear gels, crosslinked gels, oil-based fluids, and foam/poly-emulsions. Throughout this paper,
it becomes apparent that the oil and gas industry should attempt replacing or decreasing conventional
fracturing fluids additives because of the negative influences they have on profit, people's health and safety,
and the environment.

Introduction
Since being introduced by Stanolind Oil in 1949, 2.5 million fracture treatments have been done worldwide.
Fracturing treatments have been credited with adding 9 billion barrels of oil and more than 700 Tscf of gas
2 SPE-199750-MS

to the United States reserves alone (Montgomery & Smith, 2010). Hydraulic fracturing is a very effective
and useful technology for producing unconventional resources. This method greatly increases the economic
lives of wells and increases permeability in rock formations to allow the flow of fluids. Hydraulic fracturing
involves injecting pressurized fluids through the drilled well into the subsurface rock layers to open narrow
cracks or fractures. This increases permeability in the otherwise low permeability rock to allow fluid flow
in the rock. The pressurized fluid being injected is a mixture of water, chemicals, and proppants. Sands
are the most frequently used proppants that are used to prop open the fractures and keep them open. After
performing fracturing operations on a well, deep wells that are completed at depths far away from local
water tables are utilized for the recycling and disposing of the flowback fluids (American Geosciences
Institute, 2017).
Hydraulic fracturing's ultimate purpose is to increase the ability of fluids to flow in unconventional plays.
These types of formations were originally thought by geologists to be impossible to produce because of the
low permeability. Hydraulic fracturing made the recovery of oil and natural gas possible in these formations.
This technology is not only good for stimulating production in newly drilled wells, but also is able to
extend production in fields that have been producing for some time. This extends the life of the older wells,
increasing the amount of yield and in turn increasing profit. This is done using different fluids and materials
that can create fractures or restore older fractures in various formations (Hydraulic Fracturing Overview,
2010). The paths that are created greatly increase the production rate of oil or gas from reservoirs. The most
important part of hydraulic fracturing is the selection of the fracturing job design and the type of hydraulic
fracturing fluid that should be used to stimulate the formation.
In hydraulic fracturing, there are four typical fracture fluid stages; the spearhead, the pad, the proppants,
and the flush fluid or displacing fluid. The spearhead stage may also be called the acid stage. This is the first
stage in the hydraulic fracturing process. The acid stage's purpose is to clear out debris that could possibly
be in the wellbore thus clearing a pathway for the fracturing fluids to flow through the formation. To do
this, a mixture of water and diluted acid (hydrochloric acid) is pumped through the wellbore. The next stage
and the main stage of focus is the pad stage. The purpose of the pad stage is to break the formation and
to start the creation of fractures. To do this, carrying fluid or the primary fracturing fluid is pumped into
the formation without proppants present. The third stage is the proppant stage. Its purpose is to keep the
fractures created in the pad stage open by "propping" the fracs with sands or any proppants. The primary
fracturing fluid is used mixed with proppants on the surface as a slurry. After the slurry mixture at the surface
is created, it is pumped into the formation and will infiltrate the fractures and "prop" them open. The main
fracturing fluid is used as a conduit to transport the proppants into the wellbore and then into the fractures.
Once inside the formation, the proppants will settle until the pressure is reduced and will then prop open
the series of fractures. The fourth and final stage is the flush stage. The fluid used in this stage is either
the flush fluid or displacing fluid. The purpose of the flush stage is to wash out excess proppant inside the
wellbore by pumping freshwater (Hydraulic Fracturing: The Process, 2019). Although all these stages are
very important, the focus of this study will be the pad or primary fracturing fluids. The fluids used in the
pad stage are described below in the next paragraph.
For the pad stage, there are several different fracturing fluids that can be selected, and a very important
aspect of hydraulic fracturing is the selection of hydraulic fracturing fluids. There are five main types
of fracturing fluids and these are water fracs, linear gels, crosslinked gels, oil-based fluids, and foam/
polyemulsions. Water fracs are composed of water, clay control agents and friction reducers. This type of
fluid is low cost and it is easy to be mixed, pumped and then recovered to be reused. One disadvantage
of this type though is its low viscosity. Because of its low viscosity, the fracture width that is produced is
very narrow. Another problem with the low viscosity is the pumping rate must be higher (60-120 bpm).
For this fluid, the filtrate viscosity controls fluid loss. The filtrate viscosity is very close to the viscosity
of water. The composition of linear gels is slightly different than water fracs. This fluid is composed of
water, clay control agents, and gelling agents. Examples of gelling agents used are guar, hydroxypropyl
SPE-199750-MS 3

guar (HPG) or Hydroxyethyl Cellulose (HEC). With gelling agents being vulnerable to bacteria growth,
bactericides or biocides are added as well. Along with the addition of bactericides and biocides, chemical
breakers are also added to mitigate the damage done to proppant packs. An advantage of linear gels is the
low cost and the improved viscosity. Not only do linear gels have the same disadvantages as water fracs,
but since there are breakers added to this fracturing fluid, it cannot be reused. Crosslinked gels and linear
gels are almost identical in composition with the only difference being the addition of crosslinkers. The
crosslinkers purpose is to increase the viscosity of the linear gels. Linear gels have a viscosity measurement
of less than 50 centipoises but with the crosslinkers, the viscosity is measured in the 100's or 1000's of
centipoises. Because of the increase in viscosity, the fracture width is improved which means more proppant
can be used, fluid loss is reduced improving fluid efficiency, the transport of proppants is improved, and
the friction pressure is reduced. To control the fluid loss, a filter cake builds on the face of the fracture
simultaneously as the fracturing fluid losing fluid to the formation. With formations that are water-sensitive,
oil-based fluids are used. The fluid loss for this is generally viscosity controlled. Some disadvantages of this
fracturing fluid include gelling problems. These problems happen when high viscosity crude oils and crude
oils containing naturally occurring surfactants are used. Sometimes refined oils are used in these fluids,
but this comes at a cost. Not only are the prices very high, but the oil must be collected from refineries
before additives are added. Along with gelling problems, oil-based fluids also have problems involving
personnel safety and environmental impacts. Finally, there are foam/poly-emulsions. This is composed of
fluids that are not miscible with water. These fluids include nitrogen, carbon dioxide, propane, and diesel
or condensate. This fluid is very clean, has exceptional control of fluid loss, provides first-rate proppant
transport and breaks easily because of gravity separation. This fluid is formed by emulsifying a hydrocarbon
with water making the hydrocarbon the external phase. To control the viscosity, the hydrocarbon and water
ratio is varied. A disadvantage of this fluid is safety. This fluid requires pumping gas at high pressures and
pumping flammable fluids. Also, this is more expensive and not available in all areas (Montgomery, 2013).
The fracturing fluids mentioned above, although very effective, have many concerns surrounding them.
Not only are there concerns for the health and safety of personnel, but there are health and safety concerns
for civilians living directly around hydraulic fracturing sites and environmental concerns. In addition to
the concerns these fluids pose to both people and the environment, there are also cost issues. Because of
these reasons, there needs to be an effort to search for safer alternatives to these fluids. The focus for these
alternatives is waste materials such as food waste, grass, hay, sawdust along many others. Not only would
these waste materials be safer, but since they are readily available worldwide, unlike the traditional hydraulic
fracturing fluid additives, the cost of hydraulic fracturing jobs would decrease thus increasing the profit
made from production as well as avoiding detrimental effects on personnel safety and environment.

Importance of the Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids and Their Applications

The fracturing fluids play a very significant role in the hydraulic fracturing process. Pumped at high rates
into the well, the fluids can create fractures and bypass near-wellbore damage in production zones. As a
result, the induced fractures create conductive routes to communicate hydrocarbon fluids to the wellbore,
and in turn, the production capabilities of the reservoir are also increased. Although all hydraulic fracturing
fluids are used to achieve the same result, there are many differences between them. These differences
all stem from the composition of the fluids. The composition of the five fluids, water fracs, linear gels,
cross-linked gels, oil-based fluids, and foam/poly-emulsions, are differentiated by the chemical additives
specifically selected so that the properties of the fluids are easily predictable. Because different chemical
additives are used in each fluid, properties such as viscosity, friction, formation-compatibility, and fluid loss
control will also be different for each of the fluids (Fracturing Fluids and Additives, 2016). This variation
in composition between the fluids affects the fluids ability to meet selection criteria, when and where to use
and apply a certain fluid's properties, and the consequences of the fluid selected.
4 SPE-199750-MS

Water Fracturing Fluid

The simplest fracturing fluid, the water frac, has recently begun to see an increase in popularity. This is
because of its low fluid cost and its low fracture stimulation cost. Because of the low costs of the water
frac, there have been cases of resuming exploration in low permeability reservoirs such as the Barnett
shale. The low cost of the water frac is because of its composition. Water fracs are water-based fracturing
fluids with low viscosities. They contain proppant concentrations of up to 0.5 lbm/gal and contain friction
reducers such as polyacrylamide. The guar gel concentrations range from 0.5 lbm/1,000 gal to 20 lbm/1,000
gal. There are other additives contained within water fracs as well such as polymer friction reducers with
surfactants, biocides, and clay stabilizers (Grieser et al., 2003). Although this fracturing fluid is simple
in its composition, it still yields very similar results to other fracturing fluid options. There are a variety
of situations when water fracs, along with the other fracturing fluids, can be used, but there are two very
important factors considered when selecting fracturing fluids: cost and logistics. This is not to say, however,
that these are the only factors considered. Because water fracs differ from other fracturing fluids, there
are certain situations where water fracs would be the best option, that situation being fracturing treatments
required close to oil/water or gas/oil contacts. When performing a fracturing treatment near these contacts,
vertical fracture growth must be restricted and water fracs do precisely that. Water or brine is an inefficient
fracturing fluid in comparison to others and because of this inefficiency, out-of-zone growth is reduced
making this the acceptable fracturing fluid to utilize when fracturing close to fluid contacts (Mathis &
Saucier, 1997). There are some concerns regarding permeability when using water-based fracturing fluids
on formations containing clays. Permeability damage could occur when this fluid is used on clay layered
formations because the water causes the clay within the formation to swell. When the clays swell, they can
cause fractures in the formation to narrow. When the fractures become smaller, the flow of oil or gas into
the well decreases causing a decrease in production and a decrease in profit (Wilk et al., 2015).

Linear Gels Fracturing Fluid

Very similar to water fracs, linear gels are water-based but contain gelling agents. These gelling agents
include guar, HPG, CMHPG, or xanthan. Along with these gelling agents, additives are also contained in
linear gels. Additives typically in linear gels are buffers, biocides, surfactants, breakers, and clay controllers.
Due to the composition of linear gels, they tend to have higher viscosities than water fracs between 10 and
30 cp. Although these viscosity measurements are higher than those of water fracs, they are still low in
comparison with other fracturing fluids such as cross-linked gels. Even so, linear gels produce wider and
longer fractures than water fracs (Fracturing Fluids 101, 2012). For low permeability formations, the fluid
loss control of linear gels is exceptional. This is because, in low permeability formations, the linear gel
forms a thick filter cake on the face of the formation. When the filter cake is formed though, the fracture
conductivity is unfavorably affected, limiting the positive effects the fractures are meant to induce on the
formation. In high permeability formations though, fluid loss is excessive. The gel does not form a filter cake
on the face of the formation causing massive fluid loss into the formation (Conventional Linear Gels, 2008).

Cross-linked Gels Fracturing Fluid

Another water-based fracturing fluid, cross-linked gels, are almost identical in composition to linear gels.
The only difference between them is the addition of crosslinkers. These fluids consist of an aqueous base,
gelling agent, crosslinker, and carbon dioxide. The gelling agents mixed into cross-linked gels usually range
from 10 pounds to 100 pounds per 1,000 gallons of the aqueous base. Crosslinkers make up from 0.01 to
10 pounds per 1,000 gallons of the aqueous base. Finally, carbon dioxide is added to reduce the pH of the
fluid to about 5.5. The addition of carbon dioxide causes the crosslinker to be able to crosslink the gel which
cannot happen when the pH of the fluids is high (Almond, 1984). For close to 20 years the chemistry of
cross-linked gels has, for the most part, remained the same. Only minor adjustments have been made over
this time span, but the base chemistry has not changed. Cross-linked gel fluids are comprised of either metal-
SPE-199750-MS 5

cross-linked polymer solutions or borate-cross-linked guar. While there are some instances of cross-linked
gel fracturing treatments using metal-cross-linked polymer solutions, most of these treatments are done with
borate-cross-linked guar (Fuller, 2016). For borate cross-linked gels, borate ions are used to crosslink the
gel and effectively increased the viscosity of the fluid. The crosslink that occurs from the insertion of the
borate ions in the fluid can be reversed when the pH of the fluid is changed. This reverse of the crosslink aids
in the cleanup of the fluid post fracturing and in turn the permeability and the conductivity are recovered.
Some other advantages of this fluid are decent proppant transport, steady fluid rheology in temperatures up
to 300 degrees Fahrenheit, low fluid loss, and exceptional cleanup (Borate Cross-linked Fluids, 2019).

Oil-Based Fracturing Fluid

There are fracturing fluids being utilized today that are not water-based. One good example of this is an
oil-based fracturing fluid. This fluid is comprised of gelled kerosene, diesel, distillates, and crude oils. In
addition to these, either aluminum salts or organic phosphoric acids are added to raise the viscosity of the
fluid. These fluids, although expensive and difficult to handle, are used when the formation being fractured is
water sensitive. Using water-based fracturing fluids on water-sensitive formations causes formation damage,
thus oil-based fracturing fluids are used to avoid damaging the formation (Types of Hydraulic Fracturing
Fluids, 2013). When choosing whether to select an oil-based fluid to complete a fracturing treatment, factors
assessed are cost, the formation water sensitivity, formation temperature, formation depth, and fracture
length. The cost of oil-based fluids is very high compared to other fracturing fluids and although this fluid
would work for most formations, the cost may deter companies from using it. The other factor affecting
whether this fluid is selected or not is the formation itself. Some formations are water sensitive, meaning if
a water-based fluid were to be used, the formation would be damaged, and production would be hindered.
Oil-based fluids, however, would be an acceptable choice to use on water-sensitive formations as the fluid
would not only avoid damaging the formation, but it would increase the production of the well (Gandossi,
2013). Along with minimizing formation damage, these fluids have high viscosities. With high viscosities,
the fractures created are wider and longer increasing production rates and the amount of production from a
well (Halliburton, 2013). Consequences of using this fluid for fracturing treatments though also need to be
considered when selecting this fluid type. Along with the high cost as mentioned previously, there are also
worries concerning personnel safety and the impact on the environment (Gandossi, 2013).

Foam/Poly-emulsions Fracturing Fluid

Finally, there are foam/poly-emulsion fracturing fluids. These fluids, in short, are dispersions of gasses and
liquids. Two phases makeup this fluid, one being a gas and the other being a liquid. Gasses such as Nitrogen
and Carbon Dioxide makeup the internal phase and the external phase is made up of hydrocarbons or water-
methanol mixtures (Types of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids, 2013). Foam/poly-emulsions are created in a
way that helps the engineers control the viscosity. There are two ways that this fracturing fluid is normally
created, the first being made with 65 to 80% Nitrogen or Carbon Dioxide in water. This mixture also
contains a surfactant-based foaming agent. The other way this fluid is made is with 20 to 30% Nitrogen or
Carbon Dioxide. When adding these gasses at lower concentrations, the fluid becomes an "energized fluid"
meaning the amount of water that is on the formation is reduced and additional energy is provided to help
in load recovery (Montgomery, 2013). Because of the properties of this fluid, it has become very popular.
These properties include small formation damage, better fluid recovery, low filtration, high viscosity, low
flow resistance, and good proppant transport. Unlike water-based fluids, this fluid can stabilize reservoir
rock, like shale, where water would destabilize it. Other major advantages that the other fracturing fluids
above do not possess include its ability to be used in clay containing formations, production of higher
density and coverage of fractures, reduction of formation damage, and because of its composition, it enables
quicker cleaning of the well after fracturing. Like any of the other fracturing fluids though, there are
disadvantages and consequences to using this fluid in fracturing treatments. High surface pressure is caused
6 SPE-199750-MS

by using this fluid due to the low hydrostatic pressure; the cost of this fluid tends to be high, and there
are instances of technological and equipment problems. Another problem with foam/poly-emulsions is
their high compressibility. Highly compressible fluids require a complicated pumping process which could
increase the cost of injection and increase the chance of injury for people working with the fluid. The
unpredictable features of the filtration and rheology of this fluid are also causes for concern when selecting
this fluid (Wilk et al., 2015).

Common Conventional Chemical Additives: Price (Kg/$), Applications and

Addition
Many chemical additives are available to be chosen for hydraulic fracturing operations. Each chemical is
selected for a very specific purpose and is chosen based on the characteristics of the formation as well
as the characteristics of the base fluid. The chemical additives are used to ensure a sufficient amount of
hydrocarbons are produced and to prevent problems such as pipe corrosion, bacteria growth among many
others. Selecting proper chemical additives to add to fracturing fluids is very important when completing
a fracturing job. Due to the extreme importance of selecting the proper additives, extensive knowledge of
both the applications and costs of each fluid is necessary. Table 1 shows listings of additive types, chemical
examples, the purpose of the additive, the required addition to the fracturing fluid, and the cost of the
chemicals (FracFocus, 2019; Petrochemical Company (INEOS Upstream), 2019).

Table 1—Most Common Conventional Chemical Additives (FracFocus, 2019; Petrochemical Company (INEOS Upstream), 2019)

Additive Type Example Chemicals Purpose Addition (% of fluid) Price ($/kg)

Hydrochloric Acid Dissolve minerals and 3.00-6.00

Acid 0.044%
Muriatic Acid initiate cracks in the rock 3.00-6.00

Polyacrylamide Reduces friction between 2.50-3.00

Friction Reducer 0.032%
Mineral oil the fluid and pipe 2.98-3.00

Corrosion Inhibitor Acetaldehyde Prevents pipe corrosion 0.032% 1.00-7.00

Metal oxides
Iron Control Citric acid 0.003% 5.00-8.00
precipitation prevention

Eliminates bacteria in the water

Biocide Glutaraldehyde 0.0006% 1.90-2.30
that produce corrosive byproducts

Guar gum 2.76-4.00

Gelling Agent Thickens water to suspend the sand 0.32%
Hydroxyethyl cellulose 4.00-6.00

Fluid viscosity does not change

Crosslinker Borate Salts 0.02% 0.72-1.00
with temperature increase

Causes delayed breakdown

Breaker Ammonium persulfate 0.013% 0.60-1.00
of gel polymer chains

Removes oxygen from the

Oxygen Scavenger Ammonium bisulfite 0.5%-2.0% 1.00-10.00
water to mitigate pipe corrosion

Sodium Maintains effectiveness 2.00-2.30

pH Adjustment 0.5%-2.0%
Potassium carbonate of other components 1.20-1.30

Silica 1.50-2.00
Proppant Keeps fractures open 1.5%
Quartz sand 1.50-2.00

Scale Inhibitor Ethylene glycol Scale deposit prevention in the pipe 0.015% 1.00-5.00

Surfactant Isopropanol Increases fracture fluid viscosity 0.5%-2.0% 1.00-5.00

SPE-199750-MS 7

Cost of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids

One major component factoring into the selection of hydraulic fracturing fluids is the cost. Over the years
hydraulic fracturing jobs have become more expensive to complete. As of 2008, in the Bakken, 10-stage
fracturing jobs were averaged at $500,000 on a 5,000-foot lateral. This makes the total cost of completion
$1 million to $1.5 million. This is not the case anymore. On the higher end, 30-stage fracturing jobs could
cost as much as $3 million on 10,000-foot laterals, making each stage cost $100,000. Compared to the cost
from 2008, hydraulic fracturing jumped to almost $5 million to $5.5 million of total completion costs. On
average though, the cost per fracturing stage is $70,000. In the North Dakota Bakken specifically, hydraulic
fracturing stages and completion costs are around $95,000. With approximately 40-50 fracturing stages for
unconventional operations, the total cost would be in the region of $3.8 million to $4.75 million (Siegel,
2013).
Hydraulic fracturing requires several different components to perform effectively. Each fluid that is
used in different volumes depending on the formation and as volumes change, so does the cost. Hydraulic
fracturing jobs are very expensive because of the types of fluids used and the amount that is used. The
main fracturing fluids used for fracturing jobs are water-based fluids, cross-linked gels, linear gels, oil-
based fluids, and foam/poly-emulsions. Water alone requires 2 to 6 million gallons per wellhead to complete
hydraulic fracturing processes (Staaf & Masur, 2009). In addition to water costs, proppants and completion
fluids (flowback) also contribute to the total cost of fracturing jobs. Proppants make up roughly 14 percent
of the total cost, with completion fluids making up 12 percent. There are other expenditures required to
complete hydraulic fracturing processes such as frac equipment which contributes to 24 percent of the total
cost (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2016). Figure 1 illustrates the cost and amount of fracturing
fluids used by play.

Figure 1—Cost and Amount of Fracturing Fluid used by Play (Recreated After U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2016)

Health, Safety and Environmental Considerations

Hydraulic fracturing operations are under constant criticism regarding its effects on both the environment
and public health and safety. Many studies have been conducted by multiple organizations and people,
one very relevant organization being the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These studies delve
deep into the consequences of hydraulic fracturing jobs, hydraulic fracturing fluids, and are at the forefront
of the attack on hydraulic fracturing. Specific risks and concerns of fracking include but not limited to
groundwater contamination, methane pollution and its effect on climate change, air pollution, blowouts,
8 SPE-199750-MS

waste disposal, utilization of large volumes of water in areas with insufficient water resources, workplace
safety, and infrastructure degradation (Hoffman, 2019). For these specific purposes, the focus will be aimed
towards how hydraulic fracturing fluids impact both the environment and personal health and safety.
Hydraulic fracturing and the fluids that are used to complete hydraulic fractures are known to cause a
multitude of environmental problems. The problems that fracturing fluids create for the environment are
visible on both surface and sub-surface levels. One major concern is air pollution. A major ingredient in
hydraulic fracturing, crystalline silica, can and will contaminate the air. When crystalline silica is in the form
of sand, it could possibly cause silicosis, an incurable but preventable lung disease. An organization called
The National Institute for Occupational Safety, also known as NIOSH, conducted a study by collecting
air samples from several hydraulic fracturing sites around the United States. The results were concerning.
Every site surpassed the relevant occupational health criteria for contact with respirable crystalline silica. It
was determined that the air was so badly polluted with crystalline silica that, even with normal respiratory
equipment, work personnel would be in danger of inhaling the sand (Hoffman, 2019). Another major
environmental concern, one that also directly affects the public, is water contamination. Every water source
is susceptible to contamination including groundwater and surface water. There are a variety of ways that
water can become contaminated like spills and blowouts causing fracturing chemicals, flowback, or water
that was produced to spill into ground and surface water, waste pit failure, or faulty well construction
providing a variety of substances a way to contaminate the groundwater. This is not only a concern that
requires immediate attention, but there are studies suggesting hydraulic fracturing could pose long-term
threats to the cleanliness of groundwater. One study that was done in the Marcellus Shale supports the
fact that there could be long-term threats to groundwater. This study, using a computer model, determined
that the movement of fracturing chemicals could be accelerated by natural faults and fractures in the
Marcellus Shale region. This conclusion brings about the thought that these chemicals could contaminate the
groundwater in just a matter of years (Dutzik et al., 2012). The EPA also conducted studies on drinking water
contamination. They determined, by using the hydraulic fracturing water cycle, the relationship between
hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. There are five stages in this cycle. These stages are
as follows: Water acquisition, chemical mixing, well injection, produced water handling, and wastewater
disposal and reuse. Because of this paper's premise, the authors will focus on the chemical mixing and well
injection stages. In the chemical mixing stage, spills can occur. There are some cases where the spills reached
and contaminated surface water and even worse, spills have the potential to affect groundwater. Large
volume spills have the potential to contaminate water sources even more so than small spills because, in
larger volume spills, more chemicals are mixed with the water. Well injection during the hydraulic fracturing
water cycle can also contaminate groundwater. Specifically, mechanical integrity failures could allow gases
or liquids to travel to groundwater. There have also been instances in the United States of hydraulic fracturing
occurring within underground water resources. The consequence of this, is hydraulic fracturing fluids
encountering underground drinking water and contaminating it (EPA, 2016a). Both environmental concerns,
and big ones at that, unfortunately do not stop after negatively affecting the environment.
Environmental concerns are not the only concerns when hydraulic fracturing. There are also concerns
regarding public health and safety which are attributed to environmental concerns. When hydraulic
fracturing processes are completed, pollution is produced. This pollution has the potential to affect not only
work personnel and nearby residents but people who live far away as well. Many negative health effects can
be credited to the toxic substances in hydraulic fracturing chemicals and produced water. Truck pollution
and compressor stations are also known to cause health problems. The chemical constituents of hydraulic
fracturing fluids are connected to some very severe conditions such as cancer, endocrine disruption,
neurological problems, and immune system problems (Dutzik et al., 2012). Groundwater contamination
is another imposing health risk for the public. Spills, insufficient mechanical integrity, injecting fracturing
fluids directly into groundwater resources, and poorly planned waste pits are all likely to cause groundwater
or surface water contamination (EPA, 2016a). Many of these water sources are very important to the
SPE-199750-MS 9

general public as these sources are often sources of drinking water. If the water is contaminated, it makes it
undrinkable. Drinking contaminated water could cause a variety of illnesses because of the chemicals such
as the severe conditions listed above. Another source of public and worker health concern is crystalline
silica in the form of sand. A very severe lung disease, silicosis, can be caused by breathing in the sand that
is polluting the air near and around hydraulic fracturing sites (Hoffman, 2019).

Better Uses for Waste Materials

Waste materials are caught in a continuous cycle. These materials, once fully understood and their
availability is known, can be studied to determine their uses in the oil and gas industry. Consumption of
any one material begins the waste material process. After consumption of the material, it is then discarded
beginning the waste generation process. Once the waste is generated, there are two places it could end up: the
landfill or recycling centers. At the recycling centers, the waste material is transformed into new, reusable
material. The new material generated by the recycling centers then restarts the waste cycle. Waste contained
in landfills does not have the same positive effect as waste in recycling centers. On the contrary, landfill
waste poses environmental concerns if the amount of waste increases in number. To negate the generation
of more waste, investigating the exploitation of waste materials for the oil and gas industry can be done.
After a thorough investigation and the applications of waste materials in the oil and gas industry are known,
they can be utilized rather than sent to a landfill.
Extracting oil and gas is a long and complex process. There are several stages in this process and each
stage requires the utilization of chemical additives. For example, drilling fluids exploit chemical additives
to improve wellbore stability and to mitigate any consequences that could arise. Because of the uniqueness
of each chemical additive, they can be used in specific situations. Depending on the situation, a specific
chemical additive may be used to accomplish the goal. Not only are chemical additives used for drilling,
but they can also be used for cement additives, well completion fluids, hydraulic fracturing fluids, and
enhanced oil recovery. Therefore, if waste material is utilized in the oil and gas industry, cost reduction and
the minimization of environmental risks will occur.
Waste materials have great potential to be utilized for many oil and gas applications. One application
for waste materials in oil and gas is to be used as additives for drilling and completion fluids. There
are several authors and researchers that have contributed to the investigation of using waste materials as
drilling additives. The motivations behind using waste material as additives include cost, safety, and the
environment. Food waste materials were tested by most researchers and authors for drilling fluid additives
after some investigation. Examples of food waste used as drilling fluid alternatives include potato peels,
mandarin peels, banana peels, and many, many more. Al-Hameedi et al. (2019a) collected waste material
from mandarin peels. With this waste material, several experiments were carried out related to drilling fluids,
but more specifically, experiments involving filtration and mud rheological properties. The waste materials
were effective, and their results proved to be successful. Plastic viscosity, yield point, and gel strength were
all improved as well as fluid loss and alkalinity being reduced. Al-Hameedi et al. (2019b) used potato peels
as their waste material for drilling fluid additives. The test results showed the potato peels maximized plastic
viscosity, minimized yield point, and minimized gel strength. The fluid loss was also reduced. After these
experiments with the mandarin and potato peels, there is evidence to support that conventional chemical
additives can be replaced or aided by waste material to create cost-effective and eco-friendly drilling and
completion fluids.
There are many setbacks that can occur during drilling operations, but a common setback is lost
circulation. Lost circulation is when mud in the formation flows through natural or induced fractures and is
lost in the formation. This setback is a costly one. Lost circulation materials or LCM's are commonly used
throughout the oil and gas industry to prevent mud loss circulation. There are four categories that LCM's
can be classified according to appearance: fibrous, flaky, granular, or a combination of all three (Alkinani et
10 SPE-199750-MS

al., 2018). The industry, as it shifts towards eco-friendlier approaches, seeks out waste materials to stop lost
circulation. Amanullah et al. (2019) succeeded at this. By using superfine fibrous material made from date
tree fibers, they were able to regulate seepage type losses. The date tree wastes used were locally available
to be used as their raw material. After their experiment, results showed that date tree waste reduced the
filtrate concluding that this material is an excellent alternative or support for conventional LCM's.
Another application of waste material in the petroleum industry is wellbore strengthening. Drilling
operations can be quite expensive and extra expenses can become relevant when drilling problems are
encountered (e.g. mud loss circulation). To combat drilling problems, it is of utmost importance to use
additives that strengthen the wellbore. Waste material, along with conventional chemical additives, has this
ability. When drilling through fractured formations, specialized treatments using fracture seal materials are
necessary. With crushed date palm seeds and shredded waste car tires, fellow researchers conducted a study
in terms of wellbore strengthening (Alawad et al., 2018). Using two fracture seal materials made from the
waste, they tested materials' ability to seal fractured cores on high temperature and pressure conditions. The
experiment was a success and both the date palm seeds and car tires were able to perform effectively in
sealing the fractured core plugs in this extreme condition. Not only are these waste materials cheaper than
common additives, but they are healthier for the environment.
Using waste material for pH reducing and elevating materials is yet another application within the
oil and gas industry. When lab experiments are conducted using drilling fluid additives, testing the
physical properties, filtration properties, and pH is very important. Caustic soda, a common conventional
additive along with some others, is normally added to makeup water. This maximizes pH and provides
an environment of hydration and desperation. In addition, caustic soda also effectively interacts with
conventional chemicals which is then used to prepare drilling fluids. To avoid corrosion issues, a pH in
the range of 9-11 is necessary. While a high pH range is necessary to prevent corrosion, it can also cause
mud clotting and deflocculated problems. Waste material can be used in the same way as common chemical
additives, to reduce or pH. Al-Hameedi et al. (2019b) used potato peel powder as their food waste material.
By applying potato peel powder, the pH was reduced, strengthening its argument that waste material can
replace common chemical additives. Another food waste used, this time by Adebowale Raji (2015), was
banana peel ash. The banana peel ash was used to combat corrosion and increase pH. The results clearly
showed an improvement in pH after banana peel ash was introduced.
There are two ways in which wellbore instability can result from, tensile failure or shear failure. In
drilling operations, how chemicals affect wellbore stability is a very big concern. Mechanical stuck pipe
or sloughing and swelling of the shale can also cause wellbore instability. To develop solutions to these
problems, all risks and failures must be completely understood. There are chemical additives that have been
produced, but there are concerns that come along with them such as cost, safety, and the environment. To
mitigate these concerns, investigations into the utilization of waste materials as additives to control shale
instability must be conducted.
While drilling in shale formations, adding high-performance clay swelling inhibitors to the drilling fluid
is crucial. Aggrey et al. (2019) proved the feasibility of using chromolaena odorata (CO) leaf. According
to their results, CO is a perfect candidate to be used as a surfactant for inhibiting shale hydration. To
determine the inhibitive properties of nonionic surfactants, different measurements were taken such as
surface-active properties, inhibition tests, filtration, rheological, and strength test. The outcomes of the
laboratory experiments using CO proved that is was very steady with water-based drilling fluids and a
substantial shale inhibitor. CO was also able to potentially work through plugging and viscosity acting
effects in the shale system. Aggrey et al. (2019) came to some conclusions. These conclusions include CO
and industrial potassium chloride (KCL) have similarities in inhibition features, CO has the capability to
maximize shale formation strength as temperature increases, CO provides good stability, there are bentonite
particles in a CO aqueous solution, and CO crude extract is very cheap to produce and is an easy replacement
for commercial KCL.
SPE-199750-MS 11

Waste materials have proven themselves as competent replacements for common chemical additives.
Other applications in the oil and gas industry for waste material that could benefit are hydraulic
fracturing fluids, wellbore integrity, corrosion inhibitors, cement additives, and enhanced oil recovery.
These applications could benefit from the introduction of waste material as replacements for conventional
chemicals because waste material is cheaper and eco-friendly. To successfully use waste material for the
recently listed applications, further research and investigation are needed. In applying the practices observed
in drilling fluids, lost circulation, and wellbore strengthening, waste material could be found to be substantial
replacements for common chemical additives thus ushering in a new era in oil and gas. In shifting from
conventional additives to unconventional additives, the petroleum industry could be revolutionized.

Waste Materials’ Availability and Accessibility

Waste material is readily available worldwide. Waste is consistently generated globally and comes in
great variety. Because of the large amount of waste that is generated, it could be mismanaged causing
environmental and public health problems. The availability of waste material is dependent on where its
destination is. Popular destinations for most of the waste worldwide are landfills (Budget Dumpster, 2019).
Landfills act as a storage space for waste material rather than breaking it down or recycling it. The alternative
to landfills for material waste disposal are recycling facilities. These facilities recycle waste materials and
then process them, altering them into new products. This is called reusing.
It is important when investigating the availability of waste materials to discover what countries produce
the most waste. To discover what countries produce the most waste, the global generation of municipal solid
waste worldwide must be investigated. The information gathered from said investigation reveals where the
largest amount and the most readily available waste is located. Unwanted items or trash are referred to as
municipal solid waste (MSW) by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The MSW
that is thrown away consists of a variety of everyday items like bottles, clothing, food, paper, batteries,
appliances, among many others (Environmental Protection Agency, 2019). Wastes originate in a multitude
of settings including but not limited to households, schools, commercial and industrial locations. Figure
2 displays the amount of municipal solid waste generated worldwide in 2017. Countries that generate the
most solid waste are illustrated. According to World Bank (2017), the United States generated 258 million
metric tons of municipal solid waste in 2017.

Figure 2—Generation of Municipal Solid Waste Worldwide in 2017 (Recreated After World Bank, 2017)
12 SPE-199750-MS

Once the identities of the countries that produce the most waste are known, further investigation into
those countries can be conducted. From the selected countries, research is done to discover the top three
types of waste in each country. Figure 3 illustrates the top waste-producing countries and each country's top
three generated waste kinds. Over thirty percent of the globe's total waste is generated by the United States
and most of the waste generated is very briefly used before being discarded (Environmental Protection
Agency, 2015). Paper and paperboards, food wastes, and yard trimmings are among the top three most
generated wastes in the United States. From the year 1990 to 2015, the amount of generated waste increased
by 26% and from 2014 to 2015 the amount of generated waste increased by 1.34%. In 2015, the United
States produced 262.4 million tons of MSW (Environmental Protection Agency, 2019). Figure 4 illustrates
the amount of each specific type of MSW in the United States in 2015. This is only the amount of waste
produced in the United States, which puts into perspective how much waste the entire world combined
could produce.

Figure 3—Composition of Waste Materials in a Good Amount of Countries (Recreated After Pappu et al.,
2007; EPA, 2015; EPA, 2016b; Mian et al., 2016; Alfaia et al., 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2015; Nelles et al., 2016;
Amemiya, 2018; Government Statistical Service, 2019; UN Environment Programme, 2016; Miandad et al., 2016)
SPE-199750-MS 13

Figure 4—The Total MSW Generated in the United States in 2015 (EPA, 2019)

China, a country with a very high population, is one of the leading generators of MSW in the world. Food
waste makes up 55.86% of waste in China, making it one of the main waste materials (Mian et al., 2016).
The second leading waste produced in China is non-combustible wastes. Non-combustible wastes consist of
glass, tin, and aluminum cans. The third leading produced wastes are plastic wastes. India, another densely
populated country, is also a leading producer in solid waste. The waste generated in India is composed
mainly of waste from organic sources such as municipal and urban waste, animal waste, farming waste,
food waste, and several industrial wastes (Pappu et al., 2007). Paper waste and rags directly follow organic
waste in India's most produced waste. The fourth-ranked country in MSW is Brazil. Organic waste, plastic,
and paper materials are the most common types of waste available in Brazil (Alfaia et al., 2017). Mexico
is another leader in MSW production. Once again, the most generated material in Mexico is organic waste
such as food and garden wastes. A close second to organic waste is paper products. Plastics follow directly
after making it the third most-produced waste in Mexico (Rodriguez et al., 2015). Another high producer
of solid waste is Germany (Nelles et al., 2016). Germany's top three wastes produced are construction
wastes, food waste, and waste from production processes, commercial waste, and MSW. Waste materials are
classified into two different categories in Japan. The two categories are municipal waste and industrial waste
(Amemiya, 2018). Industrial waste is, in no contest, the highest produced waste at 89.9% while municipal
waste is just 10.1% of the total waste produced in Japan. Sludge specifically is the most produced waste in
Japan. In second is animal feces followed by concrete debris. The United Kingdom, in 2016, is estimated
to generate 41.1 million tons of industrial and commercial waste (Government Statistical Service, 2019).
The United Kingdom's most abundant waste materials include food waste, construction, demolition, and
excavation to commercial and industrial wastes then to household wastes. After researching Pakistan's waste
management, it was definitive that the three most-produced wastes are food wastes, ash, bricks, and dirt
followed by yard wastes (United Nations Environment Programme, 2016). Saudi Arabia's three top waste
14 SPE-199750-MS

materials are food waste, paper, and metals (Miandad et al., 2016). Fruits and vegetables make up the food
waste produced. Paper waste includes cardboard, newspapers, bags, tissue, and magazines. Organic waste
heads the most produced waste in Qatar. The second most produced waste is plastic waste and finally, the
third most-produced waste is food waste (AlMa'adeed et al., 2012). Other Middle Eastern countries generate
a lot of organic, plastic, and paper waste. Table 2 displays the solid waste generated and the types of waste
materials generated in Arabian Gulf countries.
Waste problems are frequently encountered all over the world and one of the biggest parts is food waste.
Generated daily, food waste is a major concern all around the world. Public health and environmental risks
could become a reality if not handled properly. A good way to ensure public and environmental health is
food waste recycling. This is a fantastic option as it also gives the oil and gas industry an opportunity to
be used the newly recycled food wastes as drilling fluids (Al-Hameedi et al., 2019c). In order to make the
most of the world's produced food waste, it is essential to research which countries produce the most. The
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimated that around the world, there
are 1.3 billion tons of food that is wasted. Fruits, vegetables, seafood, dairy products, meats, and cereals
are among these food wastes (Chainey, 2015). Food waste is a negative influence on the environment, and
this is because of its 8.2% contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. This is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6
illustrates the food losses and waste per capita, revealing the top food waste producers in the world. Two
leading nations in the world in food wastes are Europe and North America.

Table 2—Solid Waste Generation by Material in the Arabian Gulf Countries (AlMa'adeed et al., 2012)

Country Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metals (%)

Qatar 57 11 14 4 9

Bahrain 59.1 12.8 7.4 3.4 2.1

Kuwait 51 19 13 4.5 5

Oman 60 8 12 10 9

UAE (Dubai) 42 6 10 3 3

UAE (Abu Dhabi) 49 6 12 9 6

Figure 5—Green House Emission from Food Loss and Waste (FAO, 2015)
SPE-199750-MS 15

Figure 6—The Regions that Generate the Most Food Waste (Recreated After FAO, 2015)

Other non-poisonous waste includes grass, sawdust, palm tree leaves, date seeds, and hay. Like food
waste, this can be recycled and effectively utilized within the oil and gas industry. Palm trees are a good
place to begin. Palm trees need tropical or desert regions in order to thrive thus, those regions would be great
places to accumulate palm tree leaf waste. Palm trees also produce dates. The Middle East and Northern
Africa countries are big consumers of dates. Around the globe, there are about 130 million palm trees and
the Arab world alone contains over 88 million date trees (Amanullah et al., 2019). Countries such as Iraq,
Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Northern Africa, and California State all are great areas to find palm trees.
Dry leaves from palm trees create a great amount of waste creating problems within the farming industry.
These wastes are often burned or disposed of in landfills which raise environmental concerns (Zafar, 2016).
The potential use of palm trees was investigated by Amanullah et al. (2019). This waste was tested as a lost
circulation material. Palm trees were proven to be a good waste option to use as lost circulation material.
According to Al-Hameedi et al. (2019d), collecting palm tree leaves from regions densely populated by
them can be useful in drilling fluids.
Commonly called biological waste, grass waste is an organic, highly nitrogen concentrated substance.
Grass waste seems to be globally available, being in areas of huge amounts of green agriculture. Green
waste's biggest source is human activity making the United States, China, and the United Kingdom its
biggest producers according to Worldatlas (2019). Instead of disposing green wastes to landfills, which as
stated earlier poses environmental threats, they should be researched and an attempt to utilize them in oil and
gas operations should be considered. Al-Hameedi et al. (2019e) worked on finding a use for green wastes in
oil and gas. The experiment was using grass powder to control seepage losses and improve filtration. Local
grass samples were collected and then ground to create the powder additive. Compared with starch, grass
powder greatly decreased fluid loss. Not only was fluid loss decreased, but the filter cake was improved,
proving that grass powder could have the potential to replace or at least boost the conventional additives.
Wood wastes are also viable options. Sawdust is one type of wood waste. Industrial and factory areas of
the world produce the most wood wastes which are very common globally. Sawdust, a byproduct of sawing
wood, is mainly generated through factories dealing with sawing, milling, or drilling. Although sawdust
can be found worldwide, North America and Europe are the biggest producers (Kiss et al., 2016).
16 SPE-199750-MS

Finally, there is hay waste. Hay waste is classified as a type of brown waste. These wastes are
biodegradable and contain high concentrations of carbon. Livestock farms are good areas for hay waste. Any
area in the world where the farming and agricultural industry is alive is a good place to find hay waste. Hay is
commonly fed to livestock and the remains left behind after consumption are added to already generated hay
waste. Texas is the leading producer of hay waste in the United States due to the large volume of livestock.
California and Kansas are second and third in terms of hay waste production (Worldatlas, 2019).

Conclusion
After this research, it is of vital importance that the oil and gas industry begins research into looking at waste
materials as alternatives for hydraulic fracturing fluids and additives. The effectiveness of conventional
fracturing fluids and additives is not in question, but the threats they pose to public and environmental health
and their cost is reason enough to investigate safer and cheaper replacements. A good replacement would be
waste materials. After a thorough investigation into utilizing waste materials as drilling fluid additives rather
than conventional additives, various waste material types were proven to be viable options to replace drilling
fluid additives. With this research proven successful, the feasibility of replacing conventional hydraulic
fracturing fluids and additives should increase. There is probable cause for this as this work showed how
expensive and dangerous conventional fracturing fluids and chemical additives are to the environment and
public. Utilizing waste materials will add to the strides that the oil and gas industry is making to create safer
and cheaper hydraulic fracturing and other industry-related additives.

References
Additives Used in Fracking, www.ineos.com/globalassets/ineos-group/businesses/ineos-upstream/ineos-shale-brochures/
chemicals-additives-shale-v12.pdf.
Adebowale, A., and Raji, J. "Local Content Supplements as an Alternative to Imported Corrosion Control Additives
for Drilling Mud Treatment (A Case Study of the Use of Burnt Plantain and Banana Peels". Proceedings of the
International Academic Conference for Sub-Sahara African Transformation and Development 2015. Vol. 3.
"Types Of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids." Petroblogger.com, 9 Mar. 2013, www.ingenieriadepetroleo.com/types-hydraulic-
fracturing-fluids/.
Aggrey, W. N., Asiedu, N. Y., Adenutsi, C. D., & Anumah, P. (2019). A novel non-ionic surfactant extract derived from
Chromolaena odarata as shale inhibitor in water based drilling mud. Heliyon, 5(5), e01697. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.heliyon.2019.e01697.
Al-Hameedi, A. T. T., Alkinani, H. H., Dunn-Norman, S., Al-Alwani, M. A., Alshammari, A. F., Alkhamis, M. M., Al-
Bazzaz, W. H. (2019a). Experimental investigation of environmentally friendly drilling fluid additives (mandarin peels
powder) to substitute the conventional chemicals used in water-based drilling fluid. Journal of Petroleum Exploration
and Production Technology, (0123456789). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-019-0725-7.
Al-Hameedi, A.T., Alkinani, H.H., Dunn-Norman, S., Alashwak, N.A., Alshammari, A.F., Alkhamis, M.M., and Albazzaz,
H.W., Missouri University of Science and Technology; Mutar, R.A., Ministry of Communications and Technology;
Alsaba, M.T., Australian College of Kuwait. "Environmental Friendly Drilling Fluid Additives: Can Food Waste
Products be Used as Thinners and Fluid Loss Control Agents for Drilling Fluid?" Society of Petroleum Engineers,
SPE Symposium: Asia Pacific Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Social Responsibility held in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 23-24 April 2019b.
Al-Hameedi, A. T. T., Alkinani, H. H., Dunn-Norman, S., Albazzaz, H. W., & Alkhamis, M. M. (2019c). Insights into
Eco-Friendly and Conventional Drilling Additives: Applications, Cost Analysis, Health, Safety, and Environmental
Considerations. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doi: 10.2118/195398-MS.
Al-Hameedi, A.T., Alkinani, H.H., Dunn-Norman, S., Alshammari, A.F., and Albazzaz, H.W., Mutar, R.A., Al
Abdulmohsen, M.M. (2019d) "Experimental Investigation of Bioenhancer Drilling Fluid Additive: Can Palm Tree
Leaves be Utilized as a Supportive Eco-Friendly Additive in Water-Based Drilling Fluid System?" Journal of
Petroleum Exploration and Production Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13202-019-00766-7.
Al-Hameedi, A.T., Alkinani, H.H., Dunn-Norman, S., Alshammari, A.F., Albazzaz, H.W., and Alkhamis, M.M.,
Mutar, R.A. (2019e) "Insights into the Application of New Eco-Friendly Drilling Fluid Additive to Improve the
Fluid Properties in Water-Based Drilling Fluid Systems". Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106424.
SPE-199750-MS 17

Alkinani, H. H., Al-Hameedi, A. T., Flori, R. E., Dunn-Norman, S., Hilgedick, S. A., & Alsaba, M. T. (2018, April
22). Updated Classification of Lost Circulation Treatments and Materials with an Integrated Analysis and their
Applications. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Doi: 10.2118/190118.
Alfaia, R., and Campos, A. "Municipal solid waste in Brazil: A review". Waste management and research 2017. Vol.
35[12], pp. 1195–1209.
Alawad, M.N.J., Elshreef, K., and Algobany, A. "Innovative Wellbore Strengthening Using Crushed Date Palm Seeds and
Shredded Waste Car Tyres". The 10th ISRM International Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Singapore. November
2018.
Almond, Stephen W (1984). High Temperature Stable Crosslinked Gel Fracturing Fluid.
Amanullah, Md., Arfaj, M., and Alouhali, R., Saudi Aramco. "Novel Plant-Based Particulate and Fibrous LCM Products
for Loss Control While Drilling." International Petroleum Technology Conference, IPTC held in Beijing, China, 26-28
March 2019.
Amemiya, T., "Current State and Trend of Waste and Recycling in Japan." International Journal of Earth & Environmental
Sciences, August 13, 2018.
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. "Facts on Hydraulic Fracturing Exploring Chemicals." Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation, Jan. 2015.
Fuller, M. J. (2016, February 24). An Innovative Approach to Gel Breakers for Hydraulic Fracturing. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/178991-MS
Apaydin, Mehmet, "Economic Profitability Of The Bakken, North Dakota Unconventional Oil Plays Based On A Typical
Well Performance With Current Market Conditions", Master's Thesis, Michigan Technological University, 2014.
https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etds/866.
"Borate Crosslinked Fluids." Halliburton, Halliburton, 2019, www.halliburton.com/en-US/ps/stimulation/fracturing/
fracturing-fluid-systems/borate-crosslinked-fluids.html.
Budget Dumpster (2019). Where Does Trash Go? Retrieved from https://www.budgetdumpster.com/resources/where-
does-trash-go.php. (Accessed 2 April 2019).
Chainey, R. "Which Countries Waste the Most Food?" World Economic Forum, August 13, 2015. Retrieved from https://
www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/08/which-countries-waste-the-most-food/. (Accessed 4 April 2019).
Chemtotal. "Conventional Linear Gels." Conventional Linear Gels, Manufacturer & Supplier of Guar | Thickeners
| Gums | Gelling Agents, 11 Aug. 2008, Monday, www.chemtotal.com/oldsite/home/29-the-cms/22-conventional-
linear-gels.html.
Dutzik, T., Ridlington, E., & Rumpler, J. (2012). The Cost of Fracking: The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling's Environmental
Damage. The Cost of Fracking: The Price Tag of Dirty Drilling's Environmental Damage. Environment Ohio Research
& Policy Center.
Environmental Protection Agency. Guide to the Facts and Figures Report about Materials, Waste and Recycling
for 2015, 2016b, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/
guide-facts-and-figures-report-about-materials. (Accessed 25 March 2019).
FAO-Food waste worsens GHG emissions (2015, October 07). Retrieved from https://climatenewsnetwork.net/foodwaste-
worsens-ghg-emissions-fao/. (Accessed 16 January 2019).
"Fracturing Fluids and Additives." PetroWiki, SPE, 2016, petrowiki.org/Fracturing_fluids_and_additives.
Fracturing Fluid Systems. Halliburton, 2013, Fracturing Fluid Systems, www.halliburton.com/content/dam/ps/public/pe/
contents/Data_Sheets/web/H/H05667.pdf.
Gandossi, Luca. An Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Formation Stimulation Technologies for Shale Gas
Production. 2013, An Overview of Hydraulic Fracturing and Other Formation Stimulation Technologies for Shale
Gas Production,publications. jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC86065/an%20overview%20of%20hydraulic
%20fracturing%20and%20other%20stimulation%20technologies%20(2).pdf.
"Fracturing Fluids 101." Fracturing Fluids 101, Hexion Fracline, 2012, www.hexionfracline.com/fracturing-fluids-101.
Grieser, B., Hobbs, J., Hunter, J., & Ables, J. (2003, January 1). The Rocket Science Behind Water Frac Design. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/80933-MS
Government Statistical Service. UK Statistics on Waste. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2019.
Ret from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/784263/
UK_Statistics_on_Waste_statistical_notice_March_2019_rev_FINAL.pdf. (Accessed 3 April 2019).
Hoffman, Joe. "Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana." Case
Studies, 15 Feb. 2019, serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html.
"Hydraulic Fracturing Basics." American Geosciences Institute, 29 Jan. 2019, www.americangeosciences.org/critical-
issues/hydraulic-fracturing-basics.
18 SPE-199750-MS

"Hydraulic Fracturing: The Process." Hydraulic Fracturing: The Process | FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry,
BC Oil & Gas Commission, 2019, www.fracfocus.ca/en/hydraulic-fracturing-how-it-works-0/hydraulic-fracturing-
process.
"Hydraulic Fracturing: The Process." FracFocus, GWPC & IOGCC, 2019, fracfocus.org/hydraulic-fracturing-how-it-
works/hydraulic-fracturing-process.
"Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids - Composition and Additives." Geology, Geology.com, 2019, geology.com/energy/
hydraulic-fracturing-fluids/.
Kiss, I., Alexa, V., Sarosi, J. "Biomass from Wood Processing Industries as an Economically Viable and Environmentally
Friendly Solution." Analecta, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2016.
Mathis, S.p., and R.J. Saucier. "Water-Fracturing vs. Frac-Packing: Well Performance Comparison and Completion Type
Selection Criteria." SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 1997, doi: 10.2118/38593-ms.
Mian, M., Zeng, X., Nasry, A., Al-Hamadani, S. "Municipal solid waste management in China: a comparative analysis."
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag, 13 May 2016.
Miandad, R., Waqas, M., Ahmad, I., Alafif, Z., Aburiazaiza, A., Barakat, M., Akhtar, T. "Solid Waste Management in
Saudi Arabia: A Review. Journal of Applied Agriculture and Biotechnology, 2016.
Montgomery, Carl. "Fracturing Fluids." Effective and Sustainable Hydraulic Fracturing, 2013, doi: 10.5772/56192.
Montgomery, Carl. "Fracturing Fluid Components." IntechOpen, IntechOpen, 17 May 2013, www.intechopen.com/books/
effective-and-sustainable-hydraulic-fracturing/fracturing-fluid-components.
Montgomery, Carl T., and Michael B. Smith. "Hydraulic Fracturing: History of an Enduring Technology." Journal of
Petroleum Technology, vol. 62, no. 12, 2010, pp. 26–40., doi: 10.2118/1210-0026-jpt.
Alma'adeed, M.A., Madi, N.K., Kahraman, R., Hodzic, A., and Ozerkan, G., Qatar University. "An Overview of Solid
Waste Management and Plastic Recycling in Qatar." Journal of Polymers and the Environment, March 2012.
Nelles, M., Grunes, J., Morscheck, G. "Waste Management in Germany-Development to a Sustainable Circular
Economy?" International Conference on Solid Waste Management, 2016.
Pappu, A., Saxena, M., Asolekar, S. "Solid wastes generation in India and their recycling potential in building materials."
Building and Environment. Volume 42, Issue 6, June 2007, Pages 2311–2320.
Rodriguez, A., Castrejon-Godinez, M.L., Ortiz-Hernandez, M.L., Sanchez-Salinas, E. "Management of Municipal Solid
Waste in Mexico." Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium.
Siegel, Heather. "Bakken 5-Year Drilling & Completion Trends." DTC Energy Group, 10 Oct. 2013,
www.dtcenergygroup.com/bakken-5-year-drilling-completion-trends/.
Staaf, Erika, and David Masur. "Preserving Forests, Protecting Waterways." PennEnvironment, 1 Dec. 2009,
pennenvironment.org/reports/pae/preserving-forests-protecting-waterways.
United Nations Environment Programme (2016). Pakistan – Waste Management. Retrieved from https://www.export.gov/
article?id=Pakistan-Waste-Management. (Accessed 3 April 2019).
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016a. "Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the
Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States." Executive Summary
U.S. Energy Information Administration. "U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics
and Analysis." Trends in U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Upstream Costs - Energy Information Administration, 2016,
www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/drilling/.
"Why Chemicals Are Used." FracFocus, GWPC & IOGCC, 2019, fracfocus.org/chemical-use/why-chemicals-are-used.
Wilk, Klaudia & Kasza, Piotr & Labus, Krzysztof. (2015). Analysis of the applicability of foamed fracturing fluids. Nafta
Gaz. LXXI. 425–433.
World Bank (2017). Generation of municipal solid waste worldwide in 2017, by select country (in million metric
tons) *. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/916749/global-generation-of-municipal-solid-waste-by-
country/. (Accessed 3 April 2019).
Worldatlas (2019). Top 10 Hay Producing US States. Retrieved from https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-10-hay-
producing-us-states.html. (Accessed 8 April 2019).
Zafar, S., 2016. "Biomass Potential of Date Palm Wastes." Agriculture, Biomass Energy, Middle East, Renewable Energy,
Waste Management. Retrieved from https://www.ecomena.org/biomass-date-palm-wastes/.