Smart magnetic markers use in hydraulic fracturing
Jarosław Zawadzki , Jan Bogacki
AbstractOne of the main challenges and unknowns during shale gas exploration is to assess the range and efficiency of hydraulic fracturing. It is also essential to assess the distribution of proppant, which keeps the fracture pathways open. Solving these problems may considerably increase the efficiency of the shale gas extraction. Because of that, the idea of smart magnetic marker, which can be detected when added to fracturing fluid, has been considered for a long time. This study provides overview of the possibilities of magnetic marker application for shale gas extraction. The imaging methods using electromagnetic markers, are considered or developed in two directions. The first possibility is the markers' electromagnetic activity throughout the whole volume of the fracturing fluid. Thus, it can be assumed that the whole fracturing fluid is the marker. Among these type of hydraulic fracturing solutions, ferrofluid could be considered. The second possibility is marker, which is just one of many components of the fracturing fluid. In this case feedstock magnetic materials, ferrites and nanomaterials could be considered. Magnetic properties of magnetite could be too low and ferrofluids' or nanomaterials' price is unacceptably high. Because of that, ferrites, especially ZnMn ferrites seems to be the best material for magnetic marker. Because of the numerous applications in electronics, it is cheap and easily available, although the price is higher, then that of magnetite. The disadvantage of using ferrite, could be too small mechanical strength. It creates an essential need for combining magnetic marker with proppant into magnetic-ceramic composite.
|Journal series||Chemosphere, ISSN 0045-6535|
|Publication size in sheets||0.5|
|Keywords in English||Hydraulic fracturing; Magnetic marker; Magnetic materials; Shale gas; Smart marker|
|Score|| = 35.0, 28-11-2017, ArticleFromJournal|
= 35.0, 28-11-2017, ArticleFromJournal
|Publication indicators||: 2016 = 4.208 (2) - 2016=4.506 (5)|
|Citation count*||4 (2018-02-15)|
* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.